Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Politics

Economy is behind the drift of voters to minor parties

Published

on

Economic pessimism is behind the drift of voters to minor parties and independents

Viet Nguyen, The University of Melbourne; Ferdi Botha, The University of Melbourne, and Kyle Peyton, The University of Melbourne

Growing economic pessimism appears to have pushed many voters away from Australia’s two major parties, Labor and the Coalition. Support for minor parties and independents has doubled since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008.

In the latest federal election, minor parties and independents are on track to gain a record share of the vote, at 33.4%. Although Labor won just 34.6% and the Coalition 32% of first preferences, Labor secured a majority after preference flows, reflecting a broader shift away from the major parties.

Commentary in both Australian media and in the United States framed the result as a reaction against US President Donald Trump’s return to politics. That echoed analysis of Canada’s surprise centre-left Liberal party win a week earlier.

But a more straightforward explanation lies in Australian voters’ dissatisfaction with economic conditions.

In a new study, we used three decades of data from the leading monthly consumer sentiment survey, the Consumer Attitudes, Sentiments and Expectations in Australia (CASiE) Survey, to study how shifts in economic expectations align with changes in voting behaviour.

Support for minor parties and independents has been rising

In the 2007 federal election, minor parties and independents won just 15% of first‑preference votes and two seats in the House of Representatives. By 2022 their primary vote had doubled to 31.7%, delivering a record 16 seats.

In the latest federal election, their first‑preference share rose further to 33.4% (as of May 14). But because of preference flows, they secured fewer lower house seats than in 2022. The underlying shift away from the major parties therefore continues, even though it is not reflected in seat numbers.

This realignment has unfolded alongside a sustained slide in political trust. Surveys such as the Australian Election Study show satisfaction with democracy is at its lowest level on record.

The decline is often linked to perceptions of poor economic management, leadership instability, and unresponsive government. Voters repeatedly cite housing affordability, cost‑of‑living pressures and difficulty accessing health care as unmet concerns.

Minor party support differs across demographic groups

The shift away from the political mainstream is broadly distributed across demographic groups, indicating widespread economic disaffection rather than isolated grievances.

Younger Australians, facing acute economic challenges, have increasingly supported the Greens. Older voters have turned to One Nation and Teals amid broader dissatisfaction with economic management.

Support for minor parties and independents has climbed among both men and women, though the pattern differs. Women lean more toward the Greens; men more toward other minors and independents.

Economic pessimism matters at the ballot box

Rising economic pessimism, along with other social and cultural factors, has been a driving force behind the collapse in support for the political mainstream.

Since 2010, the average share of Australians saying their finances have improved over the past 12 months fell from 27% to 20%. The share reporting deterioration increased from 34% to 37%. That means a net shift of 10 percentage points toward pessimism.

Looking ahead, more Australians expect their household finances and the national economy to worsen over the next year than to improve.

The charts below show support for minor parties has climbed across the board since the mid‑2010s. It is consistently highest among voters who expect their household finances and the national economy to get worse.

Voters who feel worse off have consistently been more inclined to back minor parties or independents. The gap between pessimists and optimists has widened under both Coalition and Labor administrations.

The divergence is most pronounced for expectations about national economic conditions. This suggests political disaffection is increasingly linked to pessimism about Australia’s economic outlook.

Growing economic pessimism is consistent with a broader picture of weaker economic growth, lower living standards, a fall in productivity and slower wage growth over the past decade.

For example, economic growth (gross domestic product or GDP after inflation) slowed from an average of 3.5% between 1995 and 2009 to 2.4% between 2010 and 2024. Growth in GDP per person, a more direct measure of living standards, slowed even more, from an average of 2.1% to just 0.9%.

Since both actual and perceived economic conditions influence voting choices, collapsing support for mainstream political parties is perhaps no surprise.

Voters are increasingly drifting towards the minor parties.
Ymgerman/Shutterstock

Implications for the future

Because of the complex flow of voting preferences, a smaller vote share going to major parties does not always translate into fewer seats in parliament. However, vote shares and seat counts tend to be highly correlated over time.

Sustained declines in primary vote shares going to the major parties will eventually translate into reduced legislative power.

The trends in Australia’s voting patterns are consistent with voters’ growing dissatisfaction with the performance of successive governments.

While the rise of non-mainstream parties may signal political renewal, it also carries risks. In the absence of credible responses to persistent social and economic challenges, political resentment is likely to deepen.

Decades of policy responses have failed to address the scale or structural nature of the country’s economic problems. This has contributed to mounting pressures.

Without meaningful reform, Australia risks following the trajectory seen in parts of Europe and the US, where the weakening of mainstream parties has created space for more radical and anti-democratic political movements.

Viet Nguyen, Principal Research Fellow, Macroeconomics Research Program, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne; Ferdi Botha, Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, and Kyle Peyton, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sussan Ley sacks Jacinta Price after she refuses to declare leadership loyalty

Published

on

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has sacked Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from the shadow ministry, citing the senator’s failure to endorse her leadership as well as her refusal to apologise over her comment about Indian immigrants.

The battle with Price came to a head late on Wednesday, after Price declined to express conference in Ley’s leadership when pressed by reporters in Perth. Price said that was “a matter for our party room”.

Ley told a press conference in Hobart: “Today, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price critically failed to provide confidence in my leadership of the Liberal Party. Confidence in the Leader is a requirement for serving in the shadow ministry”.

Ley also said despite being given “the time and space to apologise” for her remarks about Indian immigration, Price “did not offer an apology today – and many Australians, not just of Indian heritage, have been calling for that apology – for remarks that were deeply hurtful”.

Last week Price said the Labor Party encouraged Indian immigrants because they voted for it. She has subiquently walked back her position but steadfastly refused calls from within and outside the Liberal Party to apologise for them.

Ley said: “My team and I have been out listening to Australians of Indian heritage and we have heard their response and the pain and hurt that these remarks provided for them.”

After Ley told her she was out of the shadow ministry, Price said in a statement, “this has been a disappointing episode for the Liberal Party. I will learn from it. I’m sure others will too. No individual is bigger than a party. And I’m sure events of the past week will ultimately make our party stronger.”

Price has been shadow minister for defence industry. She defected from the Nationals to the Liberals after the election, hoping to become deputy opposition leader on a ticket with Angus Taylor. In the event, she did not contest the deputy position after Taylor lost to Ley.

Price’s relegation to the backbench leaves her free to speak out, not just on immigration issues but on many other issues as well, including the party debate on its commitment to net zero greenhouse emissions.

Ley hopes her action against Price will shore up her authority in the party, but it remains to be seen whether it could instead be destabilising for her.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Coalition declares it would revoke Australia’s Palestinian statehood recognition if it wins office

Published

on

Coalition declares it would revoke Australia’s Palestinian statehood recognition if it wins office

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The bipartisanship about the path to a long-term settlement in the Middle East has finally been irrevocably broken.

The shadow cabinet, meeting Tuesday morning, did not just confirm the Coalition’s disagreement with the government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. It also decided that recognition would be revoked by a Coalition government.

In a statement after the shadow cabinet, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and the shadow foreign minister, Michaelia Cash, said: “A Coalition government would only recognise a Palestine state at the conclusion of a proper peace process”.

On Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Australia would recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly next month. The government is not putting preconditions on recognition, but is relying on assurances the Palestinian Authority has given.

In its statement, the opposition said Albanese had specified recognition was “predicated on there being no role for Hamas; the demilitarisation of Palestine; an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist; free and fair elections in Palestine; and, reform of [Palestinian] governance, financial transparency and the education system, including international oversight to guard against the incitement of violence and hatred”.

But, the Coalition said, “unfortunately the Albanese government has made it clear that they will still recognise a Palestinian state, regardless of whether or not their own conditions are met.”

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that in government, the Coalition had listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. “Our Labor successors have regrettably rewarded them through this action.

“I know this is not their intention, but it is the result. The caravan of appeasement is not one we should join”, Morrison said on his website.

While the split in bipartisanship has come to a head this week, it has been in the making for a considerable time.

The Coalition has been steadfastly rusted onto Israel (despite having some members, including Ley, who in the past had expressed support for the Palestinians).

In recent years, Labor has become increasingly divided between those wanting to stick to its traditional alignment with Israel and a growing number of pro-Palestinian supporters, who eventually succeeded in getting recognition of a Palestinian state into the party’s platform.

In the recent election, the Liberals pitched to and attracted many Jewish voters, while Labor was concerned with keeping the support of its Muslim constituency, located especially in western Sydney.

The government’s criticism of Israel’s approach to the war has intensified as the conflict has dragged on with no sign of resolution.

Once the current conflict reached its present impasse, with ever-more graphic footage of the suffering in Gaza, and countries such as France, Britain and Canada signalling Palestinian recognition, it was almost inevitable the Albanese government would follow, and the Coalition would oppose that decision.

The government argues something has to be done. It chooses to believe assurances given by the Palestinian Authority. It speaks as though the intractable players in this Middle East conflict can be influenced, even though the ongoing conflict makes this a heroic assumption.

Albanese undertook a round of Tuesday interviews to defend the government’s decision. Often reluctant to spell out the content of private conversations with overseas counterparts, the prime minister is being expansive about his conversation last Thursday  with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“It was a conversation which reflected the conversation that I had with him in 2024. And I expressed to him my concern that he was putting the same argument that he did in 2024, that military action against Hamas would produce an outcome. That hasn’t produced an outcome. What it’s produced is a lot of innocent lives, tens of thousands of innocent lives being lost.

“I expressed my concern about the blocking of aid that occurred  as a conscious decision by the Israeli government  earlier this year,” Albanese said.

“He again reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well, which is to be in denial about the consequences that are occurring for innocent people.”The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Anthony Albanese marches cautiously towards Palestinian recognition

Published

on

Grattan on Friday: Anthony Albanese marches cautiously towards Palestinian recognition

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been putting it succinctly, declaring it’s a question of when, not if, Australia recognises Palestine as a state.

It’s a line Foreign Minister Penny Wong used more than a year ago. This week Wong was sounding impatient. “The reason for urgency behind recognition is this. There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the world does not act,” she said.

For the government, recognition is as much about domestic politics as foreign policy. Australia has no influence on what’s happening in the Middle East (other than donating aid). But the Australian public is increasingly horrified by the images of the humanitarian crisis.

It’s a reminder of the power of the visual. More than half a century ago, the pictures coming out of Vietnam helped turn the US public against that war.

Right now, however, Australia remains in limbo on its journey towards recognition. The destination might seem clear but the exact arrival date is less so.

Observers are expecting it by the time of the United Nations General Assembly in late September. Anthony Albanese will be there, delivering an address during leaders’ week. The announcement could be made in the run up, or in that week.

France, the United Kingdom and Canada have all flagged recognition, the latter two with varying conditions attached.

Asked in late July about whether Australia would announce recognition at the UN, Albanese said Australia would make a decision “at an appropriate time”.

“We won’t do any decision as a gesture. We will do it as a way forward if the circumstances are met,” he said. He spelled out a couple of these. “How do you exclude Hamas from any involvement there? How do you ensure that a Palestinian state operates in an appropriate way which does not threaten the existence of Israel?”

In any likely scenario, there will be no positive answers to those questions in the foreseeable future. Nor does there seem, so far, much chance the Netanyahu government in Israel will take much notice of more countries recognising Palestine. The only country, if any, it appears likely to be influenced by is the United States, and President Donald Trump’s future actions are unpredictable.

But, leaving aside the prime minister’s longstanding personal pro-Palestinian views, Albanese has to be seen to be doing something. Pressure has been long mounting in the Labor base and among the party membership for recognition. The Sydney Harbour Bridge march last weekend, attracting at least some 90,000 people (march organisers estimated many more), reemphasised to Albanese that he needs to be in tune with his base on this issue.

An instructive lesson comes from the situation in which NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns finds himself. Minns and the NSW police opposed the march going over the bridge on the grounds it would be too disruptive – they were overridden by a court decision. But ten of Minns’ caucus members marched, including environment minister Penny Sharpe.

In the federal caucus, Ed Husic, now on the backbench, is out in front on Palestine recognition. But whatever impatience there may be in caucus generally about the government’s perceived slowness, it is so far being contained. Still, Albanese won’t want to lag behind his colleagues on what is an electorally sensitive issue for Labor in some seats.

As the government prepares its timing, Albanese has embarked on a diplomatic round. It was not unexpected that he spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron this week. More surprising was his phone call with the Palestine Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas, who is widely regarded as a discredited figure.

According to the official readout from the Prime Minister’s Office, Albanese “reiterated Australia’s call for the immediate entry of aid to meet needs of people of Gaza, a permanent ceasefire, and the release of all hostages”.

Albanese “also reinforced Australia’s commitment to a two state solution because a just and lasting peace depends upon it”. Abbas thanked the PM “for Australia’s economic and humanitarian support. The leaders discussed deepening cooperation across a range of areas, and agreed to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.”

If Albanese made the point directly to Abbas that the Palestinian Authority needed to reform itself to have a role in a future Palestinian state, it was not recorded in the readout. But Albanese did tell a news conference on Thursday, “We as well want to see commitments from the Palestinian Authority, commitments of their governance reforms, of reforms in education, reforms across a whole range of issues”.

Before that conversation, Albanese had sought a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As of Thursday, the call had not yet come.

Israeli authorities can be quick to respond to what they see as anti-Israel events in Australia. There was a social media post from the Israeli foreign minister after the bridge march, urging Australians to “wake up”.

On Thursday, Albanese was asked whether he would talk with Trump before he made the decision about Palestinian recognition. “We’re a sovereign government and Australia makes decisions on behalf of the Australian government,” he said.

Incidentally, while there has been speculation that Albanese will catch up with Trump when he is in the US in September, there don’t seem any locked-in plans.

It’s hard to get the president’s time in Washington when so many leaders are knocking on the White House door in September. And there is no guarantee the president will be in New York during the leaders’ week at the UN, or have an opportunity for a meeting if he is. When the prime minister will catch up with the president continues to be a work in progress.

The opposition, which has remained steadfastly signed up to Israel, strongly opposes Palestinian recognition, saying this would be a win for Hamas. But at least some Liberals are readjusting their rhetoric to take more account of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

If, or when, Labor recognises a Palestinian state, the opposition would condemn the decision. But what would it say about whether a Coalition government would reverse the decision? That might be one for the convenient line, “we’d look at that when we were in office”.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trending Now