The patterns of the vote estimates for the Greens since the 2004 election are rather interesting, showing a considerable upswing late in 2007 that carried through the election into 2008 to settle own at what looks like a new base level.
If we use the Newspoll quarterly aggregations to track the Greens vote since the 04 election (we unfortunately can’t go back any further since that is as far back as the records go with Newspoll), the pattern stands out:
The Greens vote had been sitting up around the 6-7 point mark until Rudd became leader, where a large chunk of Labor voters that had been parking their vote with the Greens raced back to their old voting home. That points to a danger for the Greens – the historical soft nature of their support.
Yet, in the 2 months leading up to the last election, a lot of those voters appeared to come back to the Greens in a pretty significant upswing, where by election day, they ended up outperforming their lead-in poll estimates.
What’s interesting here is the way that swing continued on into the Rudd administration and has since stabilised around the 10 point mark.
If we break these vote estimates down further – by State, age and gender/geography – a few things pop up:
Firstly, while Qld has been the relatively historical poor State performer for the Greens, since the 2007 election Qld has actually provided the Greens with the largest state swing towards them of 3.4%. NSW on the other hand – the historically middling Green performing State – has been the only cohort where a swing away from the Greens has occurred over the last 18 odd months. Although, the vote in NSW has retreated by a miniscule 0.2%, so saying that the vote has stood still would be a more accurate assessment.
While the Greens vote has improved across all demographics except NSW since the last election, the big move has been among the 18-34’s, where that age group has moved towards the Greens by 6 points.
The problem here for the Greens is that this is the same cohort that proved so fickle in early 2007 and moved away from them and back to Labor at a greater rate than any other demographic – again, a 6 point move away from the Greens when they bottomed out with this demographic in October 2007.
So we have the Greens new stabilised vote level running at it’s highest ever at 10 points – although it’s held up by a demographic that has proved enormously volatile over the previous two and a half years or so, and where that demographic tends to move between Labor and the Greens.
So the big question here is whether this new Greens vote level is a sustainable base leading into the next election, or should we expect some of these demographics to run back to Labor?
The alternative – that the Greens get another upswing leading into the next election – is always possible, but the question that would need to be answered is just where those additional votes would come from?
57 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Unfortunately the chimera that is ‘a possible third party’ flickers before the eyes of voters when considering their intention – then the reality of the Greens comes crashing down in a tumble whenever they are provided any real scrutiny. So the only ones who vote for the Greens are those who can artfully suspend their disbelief for long enough to cast ar ballot.
Bob is wonderful. I’d vote for Bob. Unfortunately there are a whole bunch of screaming nutters standing behind him. (And I’m hardly a right of centre critic – in fact I have to look to my right to glimpse Marx).
James, James, James! I always read these comments about the Greens (’the reality of the Greens’ – scary, scary) and almost without exception there is no explanation of what policies are unrealistic, unworkable, or whatever.
I like to think I’m an intelligent and thoughtful citizen of our fair democracy (hey, I’ve been reading Possum for AGES!), and I would not consider voting for anyone apart from the Greens these days. I have read all their policies, and they’re not the same as the chimaera paraded around by the MSM.
I want to vote for a party that sets the bar high, even if political pragmatism will actually necessitate a more moderate policy. The ALP and the Libs make a virtue these days of setting the bar low enough not to trip anybody up (if you’ll excuse the metaphor), with the result that what is achieved is simply business as usual (environment pillaged, rich comfortably rewarded, indig people used as scapegoats, etc. etc.).
I’m glad you like St Bob, but could you be a bit more specific about your problems with the Greens. The name, perhaps?
It’s also possible that, rather than being “Labor votes parked with the Greens”, those votes that moved from Greens to Labor at election time and back again were really “Greens votes who really wanted to get rid of Howard”. If that’s the case, then the Greens would benefit from an advertising campaign pointing out some of the basics of preferential voting.
Maybe there was hope in 2007 that Rudd would do something about climate change. Now that we’ve seen that this government is all symbol no substance, the greenies are disillusioned again. I’ll worry about what the Greens will do in power AFTER they’ve achieved it.
Caf
anecdotally (I know, I know) my branch lost several members because of Beasley, nice chappie though he was.
Some of them definitely came back to Labor (though not, alas, to the branch) to the extent of handing out HTVs.
These people didn’t originally go to the Greens because of their policies as such, but because they wanted to protest vote against Labor.
There is at least some evidence (polls and anecdotal) to suggest that there is a movement from Liberals to Greens – so in Victoria, the old Hamerite, ’social justice and economic responsibility’ types will never vote Labor but will vote Green (and I know more than one city executive type who votes Liberal lower and Green Senate).
If we’re talking their children – educated at private schools, generally well off young professionals – such a movement is even more likely. (Traditionally, the stuff of revolutions has not been the common person but the well educated professionals, who can put aside considerations of economic survival in favour of radical visions).
The biggest threat to the Greens might thus be a resurgent Liberal party, returning to its mid ’70s persona, rather than a lefter ALP.
Friendless, fine, but the polls suggest a majority of Green voters (70%?) support the government’s approach to climate change.
I would suggest the ones who don’t weren’t Labor supporters to begin with.
Bugger the federal election, I’m hanging out to see how the Greens (and other minors) go at the NSW election given the 34-34-32 ratings of Fatty O’Barrel. In my mind this seems like THE chance for non-ALP/LNP candidates.
I have never voted for a major party in the Senate for my entire voting life. Once Meg Lees gave us the GST my Australian Democrat vote migrated to the Greens in the Senate. I am swayed from time to time by Gough Whitlam’s argument that it is only the major parties who can govern. This occasionally tempts my Senate vote back to a major party. Then the majors do something idiotic like preference swap with Family First, the Australian Shooters Party or each other and I return to my default position and stand patiently in the polling booth numbering my senate ballot from 1 to 123.
As Andrew Denton said once on ‘The Money of the Gun’ “It’s not important who you put first, it’s important who you put last.”
Hey Pos,
How would this wash out in across the electorates and if any ALP (Tanner?) seats would be in trouble?
And are there any recent data on Senate voting itentions? (and/or way of taking Newspoll primary and converting to Senate?)
And anyone also know whether people are more likely to vote Green at a State v Federal election?
Michael,
I personally don’t think the Green vote is high enough or dense enough in individual seats to yet threaten inner city Labor members, as long as Liberals stand candidates.
Tanner and Plibersek are probably the two most likely to be in danger, but Tanner will pick up a few points of ex-Coalition primary voters via incumbency next election making him pretty much unbeatable.
Plibersek is probably more at risk of adverse (adverse to Labor) demographic change happening in her seat over the next decade or so (even though she’s safer on paper than Tanner) – but we don’t know what the final boundaries of her seat will be. The NSW redistribution could cause all sorts of boundaries to shift in that State and make her life anywhere between far more difficult to far more easy.
The Greens would have to start pushing 15-17 percent nationally to generate large enough votes in individual seats in the inner city to be close to a chance of winning them. On top of that, they also have to receive generous preference flows from Coalition voters if the Liberal runs third – and that isn’t really assured.
With the Senate, specific Senate polls are useless – the best estimate for the Senate vote historically is the State based primary vote estimate… and even that’s not real crash hot!
zoomster, can you provide a reference to such polling? My impression was the govt’s approach to climate change was universally derided among Green voters.
I think that it is structural change, a new base level of Greens support.
What I think will be interesting is the extent to which they can hang on to it, esp if climate change does not remain as high in the public consciousness as it now is.
The thing with environmentalism is that the issue that gets the most attention changes pretty frequently. In the 80’s everyone talked about nuclear disarmament, acid rain and smog. In the 90’s everyone talked about biodiversity and the ozone layer. This has been the decade of climate change no doubt, and the amount of public concern on this issue is what has driven Greens support higher esp in the last couple of years. But when climate change is overtaken by whatever issue is next (and there will be a next, it’s how human beings work) will the Greens maintain that support? Will they consolidate their existing level and look to keep pushing forward, or will they slip back down since the next issue is unlikley to have the level of public concern that climate change does?
Alot depends on what that issue is next, but I think that the level of concern on climate change is very, very high for an environmental issue. Any Green belief that this is normal is, I think, misplaced.
Adherent
seems to vacillate wildly from poll to poll, perhaps due to small Green samples. I’ve seen support for the Govt policy at 49% amongst Greens (the breakdown showing this to be the majority block), down in the 20s and up in the 70s. (I think the 70 ish was an Essential).
Of course, it could also depend on the way the question was asked!
(And I qualify everything I say with I’m often wrong, especially when it comes to numbers!!)
There has been various polling on the ETS, which has shown hugely varying opinions on the position on the ETS. Polls earlier this year had about 1/3 of voters saying the ALP scheme was too weak.
At the moment there is a lot of support for the ETS, including amongst Greens voters, but I think that is very weak, and the Greens won’t have much trouble justifying our opposition when the election comes along.
Possum: Greens primary vote by gender/ geography; female, non-capital city Jan-March 08, to Jan-March 09 seem almost parallel, esp after Ap-jun 08. There are also similarities in Greens primary by age: (not as marked) for 35-49 yo & 50+ jan-Mar 08 to Ap-June 09. (Sorry, stats are far in my past) Would these similarities reflect sample size?
Interestingly, anecdotal evidence that Greens were becoming “urban” and “girl” (”girl” as in gender/age; “girl” as in a derogatory term for a wussy male) – as I noted on your “Why don’t you vote green” post – is somewhat supported by the gender/geography. graph.
I didn’t expect that the over 50s would contribute just under half of the green vote – especially as, on blogs, GenBlue seems to be the target of the nastiest Green remarks based on an assumption that we’re all Tory troglodytes. Most GenBlues (OH & I are two) are likely to have become active about the time of the Lake Peddar, Save Cooloola, Green Bans campaigns (and “Aboriginal” referendum & AntiVietnam War campaigns) and stayed on; with added ones activated by the Daintree & Franklin campaigns.
Thanks for an interesting post & graphs, Possum.
if the greens released a rational policy as if they were ready to take office, ban all extreme views from policy, if you want to ban cars fine but dont make it policy they might win some seats. If they reintroduced a government bank they would romp in.
my senate vote was greens , then democrats(support their ban on gst on books, my bad), then labour(i voted in family first) and now back to greens. not due to policy as much as I dont trust the others. As the greens have not stood for much they haven’t let me down. As the other parties continue their relentless drive for the middle the greens may be the only option left for a lefty.
Heathdon:
as asked by Yaz earlier, and by someone pretty much every time the Greens are mentioned in blog comments – can you list what you find ‘irrational’ and ‘extreme’ about the Greens’ policies? I hear this often, but when pressed no-one seems to be able to tell me. I have no problem with people simply disagreeing with a policy, but to simply dismiss the entire suite as ‘kooky’ or ‘irrational’ is far too offhand to be convincing.
Michael Dunn:
Greens’ State lower house vote is consistently higher than Federal vote in all states, and the Senate vote is consistently higher than the Fed lower house vote.
Adding to Shug’s last point, if we subtract the Senate 1st pref vote from the Reps vote using the 07 election results, and break it down by state, the Senate vote was higher than the Reps vote for every State except SA.
National +1.2
NSW +0.2
Vic +2.6
Qld +1.7
WA +0.4
SA -0.4
Where Mr X would have taken a large amount…
Perhaps there could be an interesting alliance here. National Party stands for raping the planet. the Greens stand for saving it. Certainly it would be confusing, but boring? At least they would, in their own ways, be thinking about it. Whereas I’m yet to be convinced that the Labor Party thinks about the planet at all.
PS Me @ 15. Just realised I read those graphs incorrectly. Apologies everyone. I need a refresher course.
Venise, why would the Greens want to make an alliance with a party that can’t even beat the margin of error? Give them SOME credit….
Heathdon, try looking at Greens policy before shooting your mouth off. Banning all cars? Come off it.
I’m totally happy for people to criti
Whooops, got cut off in midstream!
As I was saying, totally happy for people to critique policy in any way, but try to critique policy that actually exists instead of strawman silliness.
FWIW, I think this is solid structural change – another step change, which is the way the Greens vote seems to behave. Hopefully we can go up another step even before the next election. Has a lot to do, I think, with progressive voters getting disenchanted with a nominally progressive government that is not actually providing progressive leadership.
On the CPRS polls, there hasn’t actually been one that asks a relevant question of Greens voters. Consequently, anyone trying to read the tea leaves of these polls is guaranteed to get confused. Regardless, the party’s decision on how to vote on the bill is based on a rigorous analysis of the legislation and what its impact would be, not on how popular it will be.
Tim, yes there has:
This is one example I found, there are more, I can’t be bothered looking!! (and give me credit for quoting one that goes against my previous statements…)
Essential asks this question reasonably often and always give a cross tabs analysis, reporting how the various party-voters responded.
The various Essentials are the polls I THINK I’ve been referring to, but as I said earlier, they do tend to vary quite widely, possibly due to small sample size (15% of 1000 isn’t much of a sample).
I like the Greens in general but the problem I have with them are details of their taxation policy. Their web page waffles on in generalities but is a tad short of specifics.
I seem to remember they were very keen on re-introducing death duties a few years ago. This would scare off some greenies with parents who own their own home.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/rp/2008-09/09rp08.pdf
Australian parliamentary library report titled “The Rise of the Australian Greens”.
Some interesting points, one of which is this.
Greens vote in ‘07 Federal election [H of R] geographically.
Inner Metro ………… 10.8%
Outer metro ………… 6.5%
Provincial ……………. 7.6%
Rural …………………. 6.4%
See pages 24 and 25.
Possum any idea how the ALP, Libs, Nats would compare to the above?
I suspect none of them have as widespread an appeal as that.
10
A drop in Liberal party votes would make the Greens hold on a TCP position in Melbourne safer but hurt them in the battle against the ALP. A swing to Tanner from the Coalition is possible but I think that there will be a swing from the ALP to the Greens both because of Government highlighting how much the ALP has moved to the right and because the “to defeat Howard you have to vote 1 Labor” brigade will not have Howard to defeat. Remember that if people had voted the same way in Melbourne that they voted in the Senate then Tanner would probably be out of the HoR. Where there is compulsory preferencing, the Libs direct preferences to the Greens where it counts because they don`t want to give the ALP a majority in a close election and want to divert ALP campaign resources.
27
The Nats have virtually no support in the cities and a lower vote (but more seats) but the majors have a larger supporter base.
Tim, or others in the comments string, why is NSW Greens vote ‘lagging’ or holding steady, compared to the voting trend for the Greens in other states, do you think? I have my own views but am interested to hear other opinion.
For instance is it about
- statistical barriers compared to smaller population states?
- Or is it a perceived social justice (red socialist) theme compared to nature, ecology theme more prominent in other states?
- indeed is this a bogus dichotomy?
- quality of candidates, representatives?
- earlier stage of formation in NSW therefore different stage of some regular cycle?
- or something completely different again?
caf:
It’s also possible that, rather than being “Labor votes parked with the Greens”, those votes that moved from Greens to Labor at election time and back again were really “Greens votes who really wanted to get rid of Howard”. If that’s the case, then the Greens would benefit from an advertising campaign pointing out some of the basics of preferential voting.
I’m sure that there were some like that. I’m one, and I know others. While I usually vote Green over the ALP, my political position is somewhat between the two.
It’s not a case of misunderstanding preferential voting, however. It was clear that Rudd was going to win the election, but my main concern was that without a super-strong mandate, Kev would be Kev, and get all cautious and wet and account-like. The man was clearly going to need every bit of encouragement we could muster to be bold. Now there’s nothing I could personally do to win the ALP 100 seats, but in my own small way I could inch up the ALP primary.
At the next election, ironically, that will probably pull my vote back to the Greens. Labor are coasting to a victory on current numbers, and it’s perfectly reasonable that they will win many extra seats, and a wake up call on the value of Greens preferences is probably in order.
Yeah: accountant-like, if that wasn’t clear
Re SA.
I think the Greens have suffered in the past from the presence of the Democrats here, it was their stronghold for a while, but despite still having a Legislative Councillor I think they may be headed for oblivion.
In direct opposition to the Greens are Family First who in one election here directed most of their TV and radio advertising against the Greens.
FF also seem to have stolen away in the night recently although I half expect them to re-emerge come state and federal election times.
With the shenanigans of the Libs, forged e-mails [in this state I mean, not just with Malcolm] and leadership hassles, and the [apparent] virtual demise of the other two minor parties the Greens appear to be undergoing a real growth in support here.
They have, according to the polls, increased their support by about 4%.
It seems possible that they could pick up one, or even two, Legislative Councillors at the next state election and, depending partly on what Mr X will do, an extra senator at the next federal election.
Tom McLoughlin @ 30
The NSW result, interestingly, stands in stark contrast to the state polling which sees us running around 13-15%. That proves that state voting intentions don’t automatically translate to federal ones.
The loss of a Senator in 2007 may well have dented our ability to develop a presence in the local media (which is all that counts in NSW, especially Sydney) on federal issues, whereas our state MPs are very good at getting media on state issues despite the media’s general hostility. Hopefully the preselection of Lee Rhiannon for the top Senate spot can break this pattern—her media track record is fantastic.
The question of whether a more straight “social justice” image is the barrier is refuted by the state polling… more likely that we have provided a general focus to the left of the ALP for voters to consider.
This raises the question of the Liberal-Green swingers, referred to earlier in the thread. Analysis of the Australian Election Survey clearly shows these are a small minority of the Greens’ current and potential voter base. So even on a very pragmatic basis, playing footsies with conservatism is a dead-end for the Greens (unless we want to become an openly Democrats-like party, and then would lose much of our current “left of the ALP” base).
The other fascinating thing about Possum’s stats is that they undermine the popular idea that the TV ad blitz by the major parties in the last two weeks of an election campaign kills the Greens vote by a couple of percent (unless all the polling was grossly underestimating Greens support in the weeks and months before the election).
The bigger question (parked v structural) is more complex. I think there has been an overall shift to the left in the electorate in recent years (an uneven one, not across all population groups, and not on all policy issues) and the Greens are the direct beneficiaries because we have related to this kind of discontent and the desire for an alternative to the two-party neoliberal consensus. But events like the global economic crisis could destabilise official politics—including testing the Greens’ ability to pose an alternative around those kinds of issues.
I think the positive thing in what has happened to date is that party *has* flexibly responded to real-world events (think refugees, the US wars on Afghanistan & Iraq, climate change, and the radical end of the IR debate). Interesting times ahead…
The Green vote in the HoR was basically the same in 2004 and 2007 (give or take 0.6%).
It will probably be similar in 2010.
One other thing on the CPRS: I think the varied poll figures reflect the fact that so few people understand the damn thing. That is part of the reason “cap & trade” was chosen as the mainstream response to climate change—the appearance of “doing something” but such complexity that the ordinary punter will have to take your word you *are* doing something.
Indeed, the official Greens position (shared until recently by almost all of the environment movement) has been to support cap & trade in principle, even though there is little logic or factual evidence to back arguments it can achieve—in the real world—what it claims to. That support has reflected the general lack of critical analysis of mainstream economic “solutions” to the problem, and in turn increased the confusion of ordinary voters who may have looked to the Greens and the environment movement for guidance on this wilfully obscure issue.
Hi Poss -
You say (#10 above) “Tanner will pick up a few points of ex-Coalition primary voters via incumbency next election making him pretty much unbeatable.” Could you possibly explain what that means? He’s been an incumbent for years, so there’s nothing changed there. Or do you think he’ll attract votes from the Liberals because he’s now a minister?
Wow when did Possum start getting so many comments?
El oh el.
You answered your own question.
Being Minister of Finance during a financial crisis (and even before) has given Tanner an enormous profile. One that he’s used very well.
fredex at 27
from AEC:
Metro:
Libs 39.8
Labor 46
Nats 0.09
Greens 8.5
Non Metro
Lib 31
ALP 39.6
Nats 13
Greens 6.7
Oz, good to see considered criticism from you, just what I would expect. I’m not sure why you find the idea that ex Libs vote Green offensive – surely you want everyone to vote for you, no matter what their previous party?
The Greens were about 8,200 votes behind Tanner (on a TCP basis) at the 2007 election. Tanner needs about 200 votes to win without going to preferences.
What is the more likely?
Charles,
I reckon he’ll pick up a few points from ex-Coalition voters because he’s now in government, and as Oz said, he’s the finance Minister in a government that has performed well through the GFC. Tanner, among all of Labor’s front bench, has IMHO the greatest cross-over appeal for the inner-city Liberal vote.
Also, Labor has been eating away at a particular kind of inner city Liberal vote for a few elections now (think Ryan, North Sydney). Tanners demographics have changed to more resemble those seats over the last few years so I expect to see it play out in Melbourne as well.
Ta Zoomster – you just saved me from doing exactly the same thing!
I’m sure a fair amount of former Liberal voters currently vote Green.
What I found laughable was your suggestion that it’s the biggest growth area.
Funnily enough, I’d say he has the greatest cross-over appeal for The Greens vote as well.
He’s some kind of uber-vote sucking machine.
Well Oz, we should expect to see him get comfortably returned on a primary of 75 then
No, Oz, not quite what I said.
And really, it’s just common sense. One of Labor’s biggest demographics at the last election were the 18-30s. One of the Greens’ biggest demographics was the 18-30s. So what’s happened to all the private school kiddies – a growing demographic, thanks to Howard – whose parents vote Liberal?
Usually children, especially in the younger demographic of voters, vote the way they’ve been raised.
I don’t know (and neither do you) how many scions of Liberal voting families voted Green at the last election. It isn’t ridiculous to suggest that those who did would be more likely to vote for a centrist Liberal party than a lefter ALP, because (given the old school tie routine) it is more likely they voted Green from environmental rather than social or economic reasons.
I’d like it if, once in a while, you actually argued with me rather than just telling me something’s ridiculous. I’m genuinely interested in discussion, am prepared to admit I’m wrong, and am getting a bit tired of putting ideas out there just to have you curl your lip at them. If I’m wrong, explain why – or otherwise I’ll assume you like to appear all mysterious and all knowing when really you have no ideas at all.
People who’s parents voted Liberal are not “Liberal voters”.
When you start making sense, I’ll engage properly. But you’re using very hokey arguments that have been refuted by both public and private polling. The Greens vote is not growing primarily due to disaffected Liberals.
The Australian Election Survey data (which is the best data we have on who votes for who and who they used to vote for) clearly shows that somewhere over three-quarters of Greens voters who previously voted for other parties come from the ALP side. Intuitively that makes sense because the Greens is a left-wing party (even if some inside the party sometimes want to project a different image). There is other stuff about voters’ political views on various issues, which the AES looks at, that confirms this picture.
Of course there will always be former Liberal voters who jump ship to the Greens, usually for one of two major reasons: (1) they have shifted sharply to the left because of other circumstances or (2) there is an issue or combination of issues that the Greens are strong on (I think even Michael Duffy called for a vote for us once!).
I am really happy that former Liberal voters vote for us, but that doesn’t mean that the party should base its strategy on acquiring more. In politics you need to prioritise, and former Labor voters are where it’s at. And, outside the federal sphere the ALP has spent a long time disillusioning its support base while in power—a phenomenon most concentrated here in NSW. The openings for a left-wing alternative are real and growing.
Chasing ALP voters also makes more sense politically. The members of the Greens (the ones who have built the party) largely hold views to the left of what the ALP offers and want to win people to vote for those kinds of policies. Before the neoliberal era, when official politics got reduced to the question of who better manages the market economy, quaint ideas like political principle meant more to parties.
I have loved Possum’s site since early in the the last federal campaign (when he kept my hopes up as all the pundits claimed the poll figures couldn’t last). But one of the dangers of all this hard-headed psephological analysis is that it misses the fact that voters hold political and ideological views, and that for complex reasons that aren’t entirely demographic those ideas can change (sometimes quite rapidly). The data we get can be very helpful to work out some of these shifts, but sometimes you need political judgements to be made that can’t just be read off the figures.
I just say this, really, to put some of the above debate in perspective.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All