Lindsay – Australia 2016

The sample size of first-term Federal Governments really isn’t that large at all though – I don’t think there’s any predictive power there. It’ll be impossible until the day it happens (which may not be this time, but it will happen).

@Kme since the solidification of the two-party system, I count 3 times a first term government has been defeated – all before 1931. They are, 1913, 1914 and 1931.

I also count that there have been 13 first-term governments. They are 1910-1913 (ALP), 1913-1914 (CL), 1914-1915 (ALP), 1915-1917 (NAT), 1929-1931 (ALP), 1931-1934 (UAP), 1941-1943 (ALP), 1949-1951 (LIB), 1972-1974 (ALP), 1975-1977 (LIB), 1983-1984 (ALP), 1996-1998 (LIB), 2007-2010 (ALP).

So mathematically, a first-term government has been defeated 23% of the time. IMV that’s a pretty rare occurrence. However, what is interesting is that there are no modern examples of a first-term defeat.

Don’t get me wrong, Labor may very well come close on Saturday, all I am saying is that of the history and data we have, their odds are not good.

Wreathy – it would seem to me that counting Gillard would make sense, given the parallels between 2010 and 2016. A first-term government changes PM because of bad polling numbers, and after the switch comes out running neck-and-neck with the opposition, despite the opposition leader being particularly unliked.

Sure, the switch was much more well-received by the electorate, but Turnbull’s likeability ratings have nosedived since then.

I’m still anticipating this election going much like 2010, just in reverse. Hung parliament, forcing Labor and the Coalition to enter talks with crossbenchers – because they WILL enter talks with crossbenchers, no matter what they say now. They won’t be the party that forces Australia back to the polls, they’ll be annihilated.

Yes, we’ve never had a one-term government, but we also have never, before 2009, had a one-term PM who was ousted by their own party. We’ve since had it happen three times, across both sides of politics. This is uncharted waters.

@Glen you do bring up a good point. It has often been said in recent times, that Australian politics is at its most volatile in decades. You are of course right, that does reduce the importance of historical comparisons.

Nevertheless, I must disagree with your conclusions – I think this election will be more like 1998 than 2010.

I find that to be highly unlikely, Wreathy. Among other things Howard was a true leader (I’m no fan of his politics in most cases – one exception is gun laws – but he was a real leader), whereas Turnbull doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, and people see that.

John Howard stood against the politics of Pauline Hanson. Turnbull’s equivalent, Bernardi and Christensen, are embraced.

I might have been able to agree with you, if Abbott wasn’t still running. Howard didn’t have to deal with a previous PM from his own party, in parliament, reminding people of the Liberals’ most hated leader.

None of that means Liberals will lose their majority. It just means that comparisons with 1998 are inappropriate. They’re just not equivalent.

Agree with Glen.

Howard in 1998 took a controversial policy (the GST) to the people. A modified form of which was arguably rejected by electors just 5 years prior. And, unlike winning parties in 1972 and 1983 this policy was taken to the people by a governing party. We don’t see anything of equivalent strength from the governing party.

I think the main similarity with 1998 is the rise of minor parties due to a then faltering government (albeit one that went on to become Australia’s second longest). 1993 was a polarising election (unpopular opposition policy + scare campaign). Ditto for 1996 with the ‘its time factor’ and a decisive result.

@Glen that is just YOUR perception. I am sure that when Menzies was around, people said ‘oh we can’t have him, he isn’t a TRUE conservative’ – every time period has these people.

Your other points are all valid however, but are unlikely to affect the result in any way. When Turnbull is returned on Saturday with a slim majority (like in 1998 btw) then we can talk about comparisons.

Wreathy – I’m not talking about perception. I’m talking about how they handle things.

Leaders take a position, and then get people to go with them. Howard did that.

Turnbull has altered his positions to maintain his “leadership”. He was vocally against the Plebiscite, but won’t stand up to the Nationals or the far right within his backbench regarding it. He was vocally for an emissions trading scheme, and now won’t even touch it. And that’s not just MY view, that’s a view held by a large portion of the country, as demonstrated by his favourability numbers.

This isn’t about “true conservative” or things like that. He’s undoubtedly centre-right, as Australian politics go (the “centre” of Australian politics has shifted to the right – Shorten is centre-right by global “centre” standards). He would admit to being centre-right, Cory Bernardi would say he’s centre-right, Anthony Albanese would say he’s centre-right, Fred Nile would say he’s centre-right, and Richard Di Natale would say he’s centre-right. Nobody doubts where he personally stands.

This isn’t about his ideology, it’s about how he deals with dissent, what he does when his position differs from that of the majority of his party, etc. Mind you, he’s not a complete political coward, either. He has made clear that the plebiscite is being done for the sake of those in the Coalition that want it, that it’s not his choice. Similar for a number of other points. He’s not a populist. He’s simply unwilling to stand up and fight for what he believes, if it puts his position at risk. He isn’t leading, he’s administrating. Same thing Gillard did.

Indeed, I’d assert that the symmetry with 2010 is striking. Rudd and Howard, for all that I much preferred Rudd in many ways, had similar attitudes towards being PM. Gillard and Turnbull are much alike in the same respect.

Believe what you want. We will know on Saturday what the people’s verdict is…

Wreathy, no-one questioned Menzies’ conservatism because the entirety of politics was dominated by conservatism. Only after Menzies did that change.

@Dissenter you’ve fallen into an empiricist’s bane, an anachronism – judging past peoples with present perspectives. You totally misunderstand me. If you actually examine Menzies’ and the history of the Liberal Party, you will find that Menzies himself was a moderate, apart of the sensible and Liberal Victorian branch.

What I am trying to say is that from our current day perspective, Menzies looks like an arch-conservative. But contemporarily, Menzies was often viewed as not quite conservative ENOUGH by some. By Menzies’ standards and those of his times, the entire period was not dominated by conservatism at all. Only now with retrospect does it seem like that.

Point is, history changes our perspective and what people think and EVERYTHING is therefore, relative.

@Wreathy, I never said Menzies was an arch-conservative, and it would make no sense to do so. Conservatism wasn’t really an ideology at that point in history, as the majority of people and, by extension, politicians adhered to it as a philosophy. The ideological battle was between liberalism and socialism. I say the era was dominated by conservatism precisely because that is how it appears to us.

Those who didn’t think he was ‘conservative’ enough were those who thought he didn’t fight against socialism hard enough, which is really something else entirely.

I am just wondering what time to slit my wrists on Saturday Night?

jasper .. you won’t have to .. the sky will fall in if the tories win

So Wreathy, do you still feel that this election should be compared with 1998 rather than 2010?

@Glen yes. I remain confident that the Coalition can limp to a majority and win more of the 2PP than the ALP did in 2010.

Err.. but in 1998 the incumbent a) didn’t get a majority of the 2PP and b) did far better in seat terms than “limping to a majority”. So on both those scores it looks more like 2010?

Wreathy – I’m not asking about whether Coalition will manage a majority. I’m referring to the circumstances themselves. Can you honestly say that the campaigns, the underlying circumstances, and the status two days after the election are more like 1998 than 2010?

@Glen I don’t really care about the campaign only the election result itself. While it is true that the result in 1998 did not drag on for days after, a majority is a majority which did not happen in 2010. Ofc, if the Coalition fails to reach one I will obviously need to reconsider my assessment.

@Kme the Coalition did better in 1998 but then again, it did pick up 3 seats from formerly-Liberal independents. This time, the Coalition lost another seat (Mayo) in addition to Indi and Kennedy. I agree though on the 2PP count it is obviously more like 2010.

There are similarities to both elections IMV.

Anger is coming out today from the Liberal party towards former Liberal Jackie Kelly backing independent Marcus Cornish. They claim the campaign was fighting two front’s the right who were bitter about dumping Tony Abbott, and Labor who targeting the Liberals on Medicare.

Interesting Labor made their Lindsay candidate Emma Hussar a focal point at their campaign launch, even though commentators insisted Labor was not a chance in Lindsey. Obviously they were wrong.

Wreathy of Sydney: Of course in 2010 the incumbent lost Denison to an independent… it’s downright spooky!