Dog bites man: also, high income earners vote LNP

To read political commentary recently, in Australia and elsewhere, one would imagine that working-class voters have deserted Labor and other left parties en masse, and that these parties now depend on the votes of wealthy inhabitants of the inner city.

The Oz (not linked) has just down a breakdown of recent newspolls, which shows this to be pretty much the exact opposite of the the truth. Of course, being the Oz, this is given the negative spin that “Labor fails to win back the middle” (remember that in Ozspeak, and most political commentary, “middle” means “top”[1]. It’s also important to note that most of the discussion compares Labor to the sum of the Liberal and National Parties. This count the Greens, who are effectively part of a fractious left coalition, as well as centrist and right wing minor parties.

The key finding

The greatest margin in favour of the Coalition was among those with household incomes of between $100,000 and $150,000, with a split of 50 per cent to 28 per cent.

There was a similar picture among higher-income earners targeted by Labor’s class war on the wealthy — those earning household income of more than $150,000 — with the government holding a 21-point lead, 50 per cent to 29 per cent.

Under normal circumstances, this would be the ultimate “dog bites man” story. But, given the absurd state of political commentary, particularly from the Murdoch Press, it will come as a shock to many.

An unsurprising implication, given that high income earners tend to live close to the central business district is that the Liberal party holds most seats in these areas (archetypal examples are Kooyong and Higgins in Melbourne and Wentworth and Bennelong in Sydney, but the pattern extends to through the Eastern suburbs in both cities and the North Shore in Sydney). The exceptions are a handful of seats in formerly working class areas very close to the CBD, where a combination of gentrifying young professionals and the remainder of the old working class population vote for either Labor or the Greens (Albanese’s seat of Grayndler for example).

Again, for anyone who paid attention to the outcome of the election rather than the spin put out by (for example), Blue Labor, there would be no surprises here.

5 thoughts on “Dog bites man: also, high income earners vote LNP

  1. I battled through a big feature piece by Paul Kelly in The Australian a few days ago which claimed Morrisons election win was on something called ‘morals’. It was difficult to follow and I couldnt see any coherent meta thesis there. There appeared to be no consistent logical thread, just isolated pockets of thought with a few facts thrown in. I decided to go through it at length with a marking pen, making a picture of the argument as best I could on a separate piece of paper but decided to walk away soon after beginning . The task would take too long and the chance of success seemed low ,Kelly is determined and clever – he needs to be. The best summary might be that logic is not on his side but he wants a certain outcome, so the best that can be done is only to leave willing readers with a series of impressions and suggestions. This takes skill and dedication for which I admire him – it also takes money (thanks Rupert, last I heard he loses $2M/mth on The Oz) .Greg Sheridan is another worthy of admiration. Greg has a gift for humor too, he is a dangerous man.

  2. Blue Labour is right in that Labour/ALP cannot currently win without it’s traditional working class culturally conservative supporters. It’s wrong to think there is a way to get them back (aside from temporarily in the case of a wholesale attack on their livelihoods like Work.Choices or a bad recession).

  3. JQ any hint as to who first linked zombies to economics?

    “In the introduction to this collection of mostly journalistic writings, Krugman contends that he didn’t change. Rather, politics did. Republicans lost respect for facts and data, turning politically neutral technocrats into involuntary foes. “In 21st-century America,” Krugman writes, “accepting what the evidence says about an economic question will be seen as a partisan act.” He began to feel this viscerally before the period covered in this volume: George W. Bush anticipated the revolt against experts when he sold his tax-cut proposal dishonestly during the 2000 election campaign. But since then Krugman’s frustration has only grown deeper.”

    “Commentators in this post-evidence, post-truth environment find themselves “arguing with zombies,” to cite Krugman’s book title. They confront “ideas that should have been killed by contrary evidence, but instead keep shambling along, eating people’s brains.” Commentators in this post-evidence, post-truth environment find themselves “arguing with zombies,” to cite Krugman’s book title. They confront “ideas that should have been killed by contrary evidence, but instead keep shambling along, eating people’s brains.”

  4. Ever since the formation of the Labor Party, it has lost elections when it loses chunks of working class support. It happened most obviously when Labor split in the 1910s, the 1930s, and the 1950s. Given Labor has just lost an election, the patterns that this Newspoll analysis has found aren’t unusual historically speaking. The challenge the Party has always faced is to craft a platform and message that unites a disparate group of voters. They thought they had one in 2019, but they were relying too much on Newspoll results to tell them how well they were traveling.

  5. JQ “with a split of 50 per cent to 28 per cent.” And Tim D. “but they were relying too much on Newspoll results to tell them how well they were traveling.”

    Maybe they were looking at the infection rate ( polls – SIS model ) instead of (SISa) sponaneous infection rate. This number – <22% – is what keeps me from catastrophising. Small changes in the network transmission / neighbors / removal / immunity may make the landscape flip.

    (A monicker for this could be callled, due political bull crap, fake news & social media network effects of micro targeting "the Spin-taneous Rate" ].

    Also applies to bushfires and measles. And ideas.

    …"And when the network is subcritical (trans. rate ≤ 22%), no infection can catch on and spread, no matter how frequently it happens.

    "This is like trying to start a fire in a wet field. You might get a few dry leaves to catch, but the flame will quickly die out because the rest of the landscape isn't flammable enough (subcritical). Whereas in a very dry field (supercritical), it may only take one spark to start a raging wildfire.

    "We can see similar things taking place in the landscape for ideas and inventions. Often the world isn't ready for an idea, in which case it may be invented again and again without catching on. At the other extreme, the world may be fully primed for an invention (lots of latent demand), and so as soon as it's born, it's adopted by everyone. In-between are ideas that are invented in multiple places and spread locally, but not enough so that any individual version of the idea takes over the whole network all at once. In this latter category we find e.g. agriculture and writing, which were independently invented ~10 and ~3 times respectively."…

    …"When each node has more neighbors, there are more chances for an infection to spread — and thus the network is more likely to go critical.

    "This can have surprising implications, however, as we'll see below."…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s