New Caledonians will vote again on independence. Will the answer this time be ‘Oui’?

Mathurin Derel/AP

Tess Newton Cain, Griffith University

On October 4, the people of New Caledonia will go to the polls. For the second time in the past two years, they will be asked if they wish to remain a part of France or become an independent country.

In the first vote in November 2018, 57% voted in favour of maintaining the status quo — remaining a French territory. This was a much narrower margin than had been anticipated, with some pre-referendum polls suggesting up to 75% would support staying with France.

These referendums take place under the Noumea Accord, an agreement signed by France in 1998 allowing New Caledonians three referendums on independence. If there is another “Non” vote this year, a third referendum will be held, most likely in 2022.

Why independence might be likely

Even in the short time since the last referendum, a number of relevant things have changed. Most significantly, local elections were held last year, which deepened the polarisation in the territory between those favouring independence and those opposed.

In the “Non” camp, an alliance of six political groupings has come together under the umbrella of the “loyalists”. On the “Oui” side, advocates are working harder to get young people politically involved.

---

Read more:
New Caledonia votes to stay with France this time, but independence supporters take heart

---

There is some sense the independence “struggle” is an issue for the older generation of indigenous Kanaks and not embraced fully by those who were born after the violence of the 1980s when Kanaks revolted against French rule. This is what led to the Noumea Accord being signed.

Casting ballots in the 2018 referendum.
Mathurin Derel/AP

There will be 6,000 new voters eligible to take part in this year’s referendum who weren’t old enough to vote in 2018.

In France, a new prime minister, Jean Castex, has also recently been appointed, as well as a new overseas minister. Neither has engaged significantly with New Caledonia, nor do they have much experience with self-determination issues.

There are some in New Caledonia who simply feel the issue isn’t high on France’s list of priorities at the moment.

However, just days out from the vote, some on the right of French politics have spoken out strongly against New Caledonia becoming independent. National Rally leader Marine Le Pen warned a vote for independence would lead to uncertainty and danger.

And Castex has said in recent days he will meet with New Caledonia’s political leaders after the referendum.

French President Emmanuel Macron visited New Caledonia just days before the 2018 vote.
Theo Rouby/AP

A key aspect of the debate around independence is what the economic future would hold. Magalie Tingal, a member in the Northern Provincial Congress, was recently at pains to point out that France currently provides only 10% of the territory’s budget.

However, French rule has certainly led to a higher level of development than in the neighbouring countries of Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands — at least in and around the capital, Noumea.

One of the major concerns of the pro-independence movement is the lack of equitable development in New Caledonia. The lack of services in predominantly Kanak areas is a source of significant discontent.

---

Read more:
Rebel music: the protest songs of New Caledonia’s independence referendum

---

Will COVID-19 cause voters to stay home?

The COVID-19 pandemic will also likely affect the level of scrutiny on the forthcoming vote.

In 2018, there were numerous delegations of international observers in New Caledonia for the vote, but that presence will be significantly reduced this time around. The same goes for the amount of international reporting we can expect, with only French journalists likely to be present.

Election observers, as well as officials coming from France to administer the vote, have been required to undergo 14 days of quarantine on arrival.

Perhaps more significantly, there is the question of whether COVID-19 will significantly reduce voter turnout, despite the fact New Caledonia has had no cases of community transmission.

In 2018, turnout was exceptionally high, at more than 80%, which no doubt caused the vote to be closer than expected.

Would a new nation drift toward China?

Officials in Australia and New Zealand have not taken a position on the referendum. However, in security and strategy circles, there is no doubt concern that an independent New Caledonia (also known as Kanaky by the Kanak people) may become a target for Chinese influence.

In a recent webinar hosted by Griffith University, those in favour of independence said it would give the Kanak people more choices when it came to foreign policy.

China is already New Caledonia’s number one trading partner and it is reasonable to expect this would be one of several relationships an independent Kanaky/New Caledonia would focus on as it built an international presence as a new country.

As Patricia Goa, a member of New Caledonia’s Congress said in the webinar, independence would offer a choice.

What’s wrong with having cooperation with China and others?

The unfinished business of decolonisation

New Caledonia’s trajectory towards possible independence is also part of a wider discussion taking place in the Pacific on decolonisation and sovereignty.

Just last year, we saw the people of Bougainville vote for independence from Papua New Guinea by an overwhelming majority.

People lining up to vote in Bougainville’s referendum last year.
Post Courier/AP

There are ongoing calls for the people of French Polynesia to be given an opportunity to vote on independence from France.

And in West Papua, the struggle for self-determination has gained renewed attention, with Vanuatu’s prime minister calling out Indonesia for “human rights abuses” at the UN General Assembly.

All of these movements are significant not only for the people who live in these territories, but for the stability of the region more generally. With increased geo-strategic focus on this part of the world, these are important shifts to watch and understand, whether from near or far.

---

Read more:
Bougainville has voted to become a new country, but the journey to independence is not yet over

---

Tess Newton Cain, Adjunct Associate Professor, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

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

Why people vote for politicians they know are liars

‘I can’t believe I’m still here, either.’
Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock

Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Bristol

Britain recently elected a prime minister who unlawfully shut down parliament to escape democratic scrutiny and who tells blatant falsehoods whenever it suits him. Boris Johnson casually denies the presence of media in front of TV cameras and he denies core elements of his Brexit deal, such as the need for customs checks between Britain and Northern Ireland.

In 2016, US voters faced a choice between a presidential candidate whose campaign statements were accurate 75% of the time and another whose claims were false 70% of the time, according to one factchecking outlet. Americans chose Donald Trump, who has made more than 13,000 false or misleading claims since assuming office.

Trump’s approval ratings have remained largely stable for two years and 77% of Republicans consider him to be honest. Johnson was elected by a landslide and more than half the British public was unconcerned by his shutting down parliament.

How is this possible? How can lying demagogues find traction in societies with proud histories of democracy and empiricism?

Are people insensitive to falsehoods? Do they not know whether things are true or false? Do people no longer care about truth?

The answers are nuanced and rest on the distinction between our conventional understanding of honesty and the notion of “authenticity”. The main element of honesty is factual accuracy whereas the main element of authenticity is an alignment between the public and private persona of a politician.

Research by my team has shown that American voters — including Trump supporters — are responsive to corrections of Trump’s falsehoods. That is, when people learn that a specific claim is false, they reduce their belief in that claim. However, in our results, there was no association between updating of beliefs and feelings towards Trump among his supporters. That is, support remained stable no matter how much people realised that Trump’s statements were inaccurate.

Voters may therefore understand perfectly well that a politician is lying, and they may discount falsehoods when they are pointed out. But the same voters seemingly tolerate being lied to without holding it against their favoured candidate. This disconnect between perceived accuracy and support for a politician has now been shown repeatedly by our team and also by other researchers using a different methodology.

But it does not follow that people have given up on truth and honesty in politics altogether.

Research led by Oliver Hahl of Carnegie Mellon University has identified the specific circumstances in which people accept politicians who lie. It is only when people feel disenfranchised and excluded from a political system that they accept lies from a politician who claims to be a champion of the “people” against the “establishment” or “elite”. Under those specific circumstances, flagrant violations of behaviour that is championed by this elite – such as honesty or fairness — can become a signal that a politician is an authentic champion of the “people” against the “establishment”.

For populist politicians, such as Trump and Johnson, who explicitly pit a mythical people against an equally mythical elite, blatant disregard for facts only underscores their authenticity in the eyes of supporters.

No amount of factchecking will reduce the appeal of Trump, Johnson, Duterte, Bolsonaro or any other populist demagogue around the world.

To defang demagogues, and to make lying unacceptable again, requires that voters regain trust in the political system. The research by Hahl and his colleagues also showed that when people consider a political system to be legitimate and fair, they reject politicians who tell untruths and they resent being lied to. So the key to moving on involves pursuing politics that reduce the appeal of populist demagogues and that create incentives for politicians to be more honest.

There is no quick and easy recipe for this process. But it is clear that we need to have a political conversation about income inequality. In 2015, two dozen hedge fund managers made more money than all the kindergarten teachers in the US combined, and billionaires now pay a lower tax rate than the rest of us. It is unsurprising that inequality has been identified as one of the variables that has compromised the legitimacy of democracy in the eyes of so many people.

Johnson refused to look at the snapshot of a little boy with pneumonia who was forced to sleep on a hospital floor. Once that has become unacceptable, and once sick children find a bed in hospital, Johnson’s falsehoods will also no longer find traction.

Another way is possible

It is encouraging to note that in other countries with different political structures and policies, voters do not tolerate politicians’ lies. Research by my team conducted in Australia has shown that Australian voters reduce their endorsement of politicians if they are revealed to be dishonest.

Using a methodology that exactly paralleled our study with American voters, we found that, unlike in the US, corrections of Australian politicians’ falsehoods made participants much less inclined to support those candidates. This effect occurred irrespective of partisanship, meaning voters were intolerant of lies even if they came from their own side of politics.

In Australia, voting is mandatory and preferential. Everyone must vote or risk being fined, and voters rank their preferences among all parties. These measures help contain political polarisation, underscoring how the design of a political system can determine a country’s welfare.

---

Read more:
What would the British parliament look like under proportional representation?

---

Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol

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

Trump could win again despite losing popular vote, as Biden retakes lead in Democratic polls

Despite poor polling and an impeachment inquiry, Donald Trump has a reasonable chance of being elected again.
AAP/EPA/Mark Lyons

Adrian Beaumont, University of Melbourne

A year away from the November 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump has a 41.4% approval, 54.6% disapproval rating with all polls in the FiveThirtyEight aggregate. His net approval is -13.2%, down 0.8% since my October 10 article.

---

Read more:
Trump’s ratings slightly down after Ukraine scandal as Warren surges to tie Biden in Democratic polls

---

With polls of registered or likely voters, Trump’s approval is 42.4% and his disapproval 54.6%, for a net approval of -12.2%, down 0.7% since October 10.

In the FiveThirtyEight tracker, 47.5% support actually removing Trump from office by impeachment and 45.7% are opposed (47.4-44.7 support four weeks ago).

On October 31, the Democrat-controlled House officially voted to begin an impeachment inquiry by 232-196. As I said previously, while the house will very probably impeach Trump, the Senate is very unlikely to reach the two-thirds majority required to remove him.

In national general election polling against the three leading Democrats, Trump trails Joe Biden by 10.2% in the RealClearPolitics average (7.4% on October 10). He trails Elizabeth Warren by 7.3% (4.5% previously) and Bernie Sanders by 7.9% (5.2%).

How the Electoral College could save Trump again

To win the presidency, a candidate needs at least 270 Electoral College votes. The 538 total Electoral Votes (EVs) are apportioned winner-takes-all by state with two minor exceptions. Each state’s EVs is the sum of its house seats (population-based) and senators (always two).

While Trump’s national ratings and general election match-ups are poor, a poll of the six closest 2016 Trump states gives him a real chance. In this Siena College poll for The New York Times of the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina, Trump trails Biden by two points overall, is tied with Sanders and leads Warren by two.

In 2016, Trump won these six states collectively by two points. Despite losing the national popular vote by 2.1%, Trump exceeded the magic 270 Electoral Votes when he won Wisconsin by 0.8%, so the difference between the national vote and the “tipping-point” state was 2.9%.

---

Read more:
US 2016 election final results: how Trump won

---

Trump’s 2016 win was a result of strong backing from non-college educated whites, who make up a large share of the population in the mid-west. This poll suggests Trump’s support is holding up with non-college whites. The Democratic vote could be more inefficiently distributed than in 2016.

I do not believe there will be an eight-point difference between the national vote and battleground states, which this poll suggests when compared with current national polls. The Siena poll was taken October 13-25, a better time for Trump nationally. It may also be Republican-leaning.

US economy still good

In the September quarter, US GDP grew at a 1.9% annualised pace. The US reports its quarterly GDP rates as if that quarter’s GDP was the rate for the whole year. To convert to Australian-style GDP rates, divide by four, which means US GDP grew almost 0.5% in the September quarter. This growth rate is moderate. In the June quarter, GDP was up 2.0% annualised.

In the October US jobs report, 128,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate was 3.6% (up 0.1% since September, but still very low historically). The participation rate increased 0.1% to 63.3% and the employment population ratio was steady at 61.0% – matching September’s highest since December 2008.

In the year to October, hourly wages grew 3.0%, while inflation increased 1.7% in the year to September, so real wages increased 1.3%.

These two economic reports are good news for Trump. If the economy was all-important, Trump would be a clear favourite for re-election. But Trump’s general behaviour has angered many who might otherwise have voted for him based on economic factors.

Trump will need the economy to stay strong until November 2020 to have a realistic chance. It is likely a weak economy is the only thing that would shake Trump’s support with non-college whites.

Biden retakes lead in Democratic polls

Three weeks after the October 15 Democratic debate, Biden leads with 29.7% in the RealClearPolitics average of national Democratic polls, followed by Warren at 20.8%, Sanders at 17.8% and Pete Buttigieg at 6.7%. Nobody else has more than 4%. In the past four weeks, Warren has lost votes to Sanders and Buttigieg, owing perhaps to her difficulties with the Medicare for All policy.

We are now three months away from the first Democratic contest: the February 3 Iowa caucus. In Iowa, Warren has 22.3%, Buttigieg has surged to 17.0%, Biden has 15.7% and Sanders 15.3%. In New Hampshire (February 11), the one poll conducted since the October debate gives Sanders 21%, Warren 18%, Biden 15% and Buttigieg 10%.

Two recent polls in Nevada (February 22) give Biden an eight or ten point lead over Warren. Biden still has a large lead in South Carolina (February 29).

---

Read more:
US Democratic presidential primaries: Biden leading, followed by Sanders, Warren, Harris; and will Trump be beaten?

---

The next Democratic debate will be held November 20 with qualifying criteria increased from October; nine candidates have qualified so far. The qualifying criteria will be increased again for the December 19 debate; five candidates have qualified for that debate.

UK general election: December 12

After failing to win parliamentary approval for his Brexit deal in time for the October 31 exit date, Prime Minister Boris Johnson won House of Commons backing for a December 12 election on October 29. The European Union had extended the Brexit deadline to January 31 at parliament’s request.

I wrote for The Poll Bludger on October 29 that Labour’s chances of winning will improve if they can make the election a referendum on Boris Johnson’s deal, which has plenty to attack from a left-wing perspective. Leave was helped by being undefined at the 2016 Brexit referendum, now it is defined.

Canada and other elections

I live-blogged the October 21 Canadian election for The Poll Bludger, in which the centre-left Liberals won a second term, but lost their majority. I also covered the Argentine and Polish elections for The Poll Bludger: a centre-left presidential candidate won in Argentina, and the Law and Justice party retained its lower house majority in Poland.

On my personal website, I wrote about the Greens’ surge at the October 20 Swiss election, where a unique system of executive government is used. Also covered: the left-wing Bolivian president was re-elected for a fourth successive term, the far-right dominated Hungarian local elections despite a setback in Budapest, and the far-right surged in German and Italian October 27 state elections.

Australian Newspoll: 51-49 to Coalition

In the latest Australian Newspoll, conducted October 17-20 from a sample of 1,634, the Coalition led by 51-49, unchanged since late September. Primary votes were also unchanged, with the Coalition on 42%, Labor 33%, Greens 13% and One Nation 6%.

Scott Morrison’s net approval was +2, down two points. Anthony Albanese’s net approval was -7, down six points. Morrison led Albanese by 47-32 (50-31 previously). Figures from The Poll Bludger.

This Newspoll was the fourth consecutive Newspoll with the Coalition ahead by 51-49. Newspoll’s lack of volatility probably contributed to the poll failure at the May federal election, but this does not appear to have changed.

Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

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

Jacqui Lambie mixes battler politics with populism to make her swing vote count

Jacqui Lambie has signalled she will play hardball on a number of key issues to get what she wants in exchange for her vote.
AAP/Lukas Coch

Mark Kenny, Australian National University

In the hit biopic Rocket Man, the ambitious young Reginald Dwight is counselled to hide his working-class roots if he wants to make it in “showbiz”:

You gotta kill the person you were born to be in order to become the person you want to be.

Arriving in Canberra in 2013, Jacqui Lambie carried just that kind of baggage – the burden of tough starts, frequent setbacks, of being a fish out of water.
The former soldier is now back in the Senate for a second stint.

Her parliamentary reprise was not just something of a surprise, it lent the May 18 federal election a sense of restorative justice after her admittedly gaffe-prone first term was cut short in 2017 by a Section 44 citizenship hitch.

---

Read more:
Lambie’s vote key if government wants to have medevac repealed

---

She’d arrived in 2013 as a total unknown under Clive Palmer’s eponymous PUP.
Impulsive, frequently angry and clearly ill-prepared, Lambie soon cut ties with the irascible mining magnate, leaving him muttering about her ingratitude and a breach of promise.

Yet in 2019, when the eccentric millionaire ploughed upwards of A$60 million into a gaudy, winless nationwide campaign, Lambie triumphed on a shoestring, boosted by Tasmanians to fill the last available Senate spot.

But there was no Elton John-style artifice involved. Forming the Jacqui Lambie Network, she would defiantly trumpet her own name and working-class roots, parading herself as the real deal, pure battler, core-Apple Isle.

It was an exercise characterised by a brutal frankness about her past. Disarmingly so.

“I was a bloody wrecking ball,” she recently told Nine Newspapers, about why she was so controversial and had flamed out in her first period in Canberra.

I just had no idea what idea what I was doing. I’d come from ten years, basically between the bed, the couch and a couple of years in the psych ward.

Now she’s back. Better, stronger and wiser for the journey.

Already, the proudly rough-edged advocate for the battler state has had a significant impact while signalling to Prime Minister Scott Morrison that her vote for future government bills will carry a price.

How much? A fortnight ago, it was A$230 million to be forgiven for the state’s social housing debt.

The concession followed Lambie’s swift post-election support for the Morrison government’s signature A$158 billion election pledge of income tax cuts for low, middle and high-income earners.

The housing debt waiver was a solid victory for the frail Tasmanian economy. It was reminiscent of the fiercely parochial Brian Harradine – a conservative Catholic independent who used his pivotal vote through the Howard years to get special deals for the smallest state.

---

Read more:
View from The Hill: Jacqui Lambie plays the Harradine game

---

But Lambie’s response in the moment of victory betrayed her continuing lack of political polish.

Rather than hammer home the full weight of her achievement, she remarked that she should have asked for more, driven a harder bargain. Is this a harbinger of her approach in future fights? Probably.

What is clear is that the government’s concession, and the intent in her response, together underscore the importance of Lambie’s so-called swing vote.

With 35 senators and Cory Bernardi more or less in the bag also, Team Morrison needs a further three to reach the required majority of 39 votes in the Senate – assuming Labor and the Greens are offside.

That is, three out of the five crossbench votes comprising either the two Pauline Hanson votes plus Lambie, or the two Centre Alliance votes plus Lambie. A number of crucial bills loom.

Eager to scrape together a third-term agenda from the parched policy landscape of its unexpected victory, the Coalition is reheating ideas proposed and defeated in previous terms.

Two of them are the Ensuring Integrity Bill, which seeks to impose harsh new restrictions on unions and give the government unprecedented executive power to deregister them, and the expansion of drug testing for welfare recipients.

Lambie’s support is likely to be pivotal – depending on what the other two micro-parties do.

Another issue is the proposal to expand the cashless welfare card to reduce the incidence of welfare being spent on non-necessities.

All are controversial.

On drug testing for Newstart and Youth Allowance recipients, Lambie is playing hardball.

After initially signalling some sympathy for the plan – having seen her own son descend into ice addiction – she has since made it clear she will not support the measure unless, first, politicians agree to random drug and alcohol testing, and second, there are adequate rehabilitation facilities on the ground.

Ministers have raised no objections to being drug-tested, but rolling out enough beds for an estimated half-a-million Australians with drug-dependency issues (many of whom would not be on welfare it must be noted) is no small thing, especially as Lambie has said she wants the beds in place before she supports the testing.

Lambie’s abrasive style is such that predicting her attitude to legislation is not straightforward. This is because it is a mixture of working-class battler politics (not unlike traditional Labor values), tinged with a resentful outsider populism that tends to be more right-leaning.

Overlaid on that is Lambie’s adoption of Harradine’s successful Tasmania-first model.

Her emergence as a swing vote in the Senate puts her in a direct contest with Pauline Hanson, who already owns the populist right.

Either woman can potentially hold the whip hand on government legislation depending on the issue, but Lambie has more room to move.

For the government, that means treading carefully, keeping the lines of communication open, copping the odd spray, and hoping for no dramatic changes of opinion. This is never easy with Hanson, and even less predictable with Lambie.

Politics is often derided as show business for ugly people. Lambie seems intent on making it real business for real people – but with a touch of show business for good measure.

Mark Kenny, Senior Fellow, Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University

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

How a candidate’s looks may be swinging your vote (without you even realising it)

Compiling images from real American politicians with the help of the Victoria Police Criminal Identification Unit, the authors built six “ideal” candidates to test how attractiveness shifts votes.
Rodrigo Praino, Daniel Stockemer/Social Science Quarterly, Author provided

Rodrigo Praino, Flinders University

If someone asks you why you chose the election candidate you voted for, you will likely have a good answer. Maybe you agree with the candidate’s policy stances. Maybe you support his/her party. Maybe you are tired of the corruption, bad policies, or inaction of the people in power. These are all perfectly acceptable answers. One reason you probably will not mention is that you voted for this person because he or she is good-looking. Certainly not. This is not an acceptable answer.

Yet you probably did.

In a study just published by myself and Daniel Stockemer with the help of Victoria Police in Melbourne, we used data on elections to the US Congress to create the faces of six fictional candidates who were “ideal-looking” in terms of physical appearance. We then used statistical modelling and real election results to simulate what would have happened if the loser of some key races looked like one of our “ideal candidates”, but was otherwise identical to the real losing candidate.

In two-thirds of cases, the loser becomes a winner if he/she simply becomes better-looking. To put it simply, we find that if an election is competitive, candidate attractiveness can actually determine the result.

Research shows that candidate appearance travels across cultures, ignoring even racial and ethnic differences. It appears that there is a fairly standard idea around the world of what is an attractive candidate, and voters everywhere prefer good-looking politicians. Research has shown that beautiful politicians are advantaged in Australia, Germany, Finland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

But the story doesn’t end there. Scholars are still trying to understand all possible ramifications of the relationship between physical attractiveness and electoral success. But we know that ideology, institutions and voter behaviour all play a role in this fascinating relationship.

When it comes to ideology, recent research shows that conservative politicians benefit more from physical attractiveness. In other words, right-wing politicians are better-looking than left-wing politicians and, therefore, benefit more from the “beauty premium” at the ballot box.

In terms of institutions, a study published by Daniel Stockemer and myself last year shows that the electoral system plays a role in whether or not candidate attractiveness matters in elections.

In brief, candidate attractiveness matters in majoritarian electoral systems – that is, systems where voters cast their vote for a specific candidate. The impact of candidate attractiveness fades in list-based proportional systems, where voters are asked to cast a ballot for a political party.

We find no evidence that attractive candidates are placed higher in party lists, which means that political parties and their structures appear to be immune to the appeal of candidate attractiveness. The conclusion is that institutions play an important role in determining whether or not candidate attractiveness affects voters’ decision-making.

Finally, when it comes to voter behaviour, the “beauty premium” doesn’t manifest itself only as extra votes gained at the ballot box. In a study published last May, we found that attractive politicians get a “break” when they are involved in scandals. In particular, voters forgive attractive politicians involved in sex scandals, while politicians involved in financial scandals such as bribery or misappropriation of funds have a harder time at the ballot box after the scandal becomes public. Either way, this shows that voters not only generally vote for the most attractive candidate, but also are more willing to forgive those who look better.

So how about Donald Trump? This question pops up a lot, especially from people arguing that Trump is not the most physically attractive candidate to run for office. If we think hard enough, we can all think of numerous unattractive politicians who have been very successful at the ballot box all over the world. The key to understanding how this works is to focus on information.

---

Read more:
President Trump will change the United States and the world, but just how remains to be seen

---

A few years ago, we ran an experiment using thousands of Canadian students at the University of Ottawa as research subjects. We found that if voters have adequate information about the candidates running for office, they tend to cast their ballot based on this information.

If, on the other hand, voters possess little or no information, then the better-looking candidate wins the election. We concluded that, in high-information elections, candidate attractiveness plays a smaller role than in low-information elections. This answers the Donald Trump question, in the sense that American presidential elections are high-information contests and, therefore, voters know more things about the candidates than their physical appearance, and thus vote accordingly.

The problem is that research also shows that voters all over the world have become less and less informed about politics. For instance, Australians seem to be incapable of answering basic questions about Australian politics; American university graduates in the 2000s knew less about politics than high school graduates in the 1950s; and European citizens do worse than chance in answering true-or-false questions about the European Union.

---

Read more:
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it: Australia should stay away from electronic voting

---

In other words, we should expect that candidate attractiveness will determine more and more electoral outcomes in the near future. Of course, the major issue with people voting for good-looking candidates is that physical appearance is completely devoid of any policy content. Voters have no guarantee whatsoever that they will end up with policies that they agree with and support if they vote for someone just because that person is attractive.

After years engaged in this line of research, I have never met someone who confessed to having voted for someone else because he/she was good-looking. At the same time, I am also convinced that people do exactly that, even if unconsciously.

The only solution to this problem is to educate voters about politics, institutions and current issues.

Rodrigo Praino, Senior Lecturer, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University

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

Grattan Institute Orange Book 2018. State governments matter, vote wisely

The beauty of our federation is that each state can learn from each other.
Shutterstock

John Daley, Grattan Institute

This week we’re exploring the state of nine different policy areas across Australia’s states, as detailed in Grattan Institute’s State Orange Book 2018. Read the other articles in the series here.

---

Election season is looming.

Voters in Victoria go to the polls within weeks; in New South Wales within months.

State policy has rarely been more important. But what should the priorities be, not only for the governments in Australia’s two biggest states, but also for the other states whose elections are further away?

In this series for The Conversation, based on our State Orange Book 2018, the Grattan Institute outlines where state and territory governments should focus to improve Australia.

There are problems a plenty

The problems aren’t hard to find. Per capita income has been flat for five years as the mining boom subsided. Home ownership is falling fast among the young and the poor. Those on low incomes are spending more on housing, and homelessness is rising, particularly in NSW.

Our schools are not keeping up with the best in the world. In most states, people are waiting longer for medical treatments. Electricity prices have increased significantly over the past few years while the climate policy wars rage on.

A new State Scorecard compiled by Grattan Institute compares states and territories on the most important outcomes for each policy area. In many cases, some states are much better than others because their governments have implemented important reforms – often without much fanfare.

Victoria’s hospitals cost less per patient and contribute more to better health than elsewhere. Queensland’s school students learn more in Years 3 to 5, and they are performing much better than they used to. Many Western Australian school outcomes are also much better.

The Australian Capital Territory has started to replace inefficient stamp duties with a much more efficient broad-based property tax. NSW has used the good times to improve its budget position. NSW, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT have all increased the transparency of political decision-making and tightened controls over money in politics.

But each state can learn from the others

Every state and territory can learn from others and do better.

State governments – particularly NSW and Victoria – face population pressures. They need to resist political pressure to wind back planning reforms that have helped to increase housing supply, and instead go further to ensure enough housing is built, particularly in established suburbs, to accommodate rapidly growing populations.

---

Read more:
Australia’s dangerous fantasy: diverting population growth to the regions

---

NSW and Victoria should commission work to enable the introduction of time-of-day road and public transport pricing to manage congestion in Sydney and Melbourne.

All states should stop announcing transport projects before they have been analysed rigorously. They should also evaluate completed projects properly.

There’s much states can do

Although the Commonwealth controls many economic levers, there are many others that are primarily state government responsibilities.

Land-use planning policies don’t only affect housing affordability. They are also amongst the biggest policy levers for state governments to boost economic growth.

Geography matters a lot to economic growth. An advanced economy like Australia is dominated by services industries, which often benefit from co-location and tend to concentrate in major cities.

How much businesses can co-locate is affected by planning rules that guide the availability of land both for businesses and the homes of the people who work in them.

---

Read more:
RBA research shows that zoning restrictions are driving up housing prices

---

Fewer restrictions on land use and subdivision will increase economic growth by enabling more people to access more jobs, while allowing firms to optimise their location.

There are other economic levers. All states should follow the lead of the ACT and replace stamp duties with broad-based property taxes.

States should reform electricity markets to encourage reliability and reduce emissions – whether or not the Commonwealth cooperates.

And much states should not do

States should stop promising to restrict competition in order to increase the sale price of assets like ports.

And they should accept that no amount of regional spending is likely to do much to accelerate regional growth beyond what is going to happen anyway.

The State Orange Book 2018 shows that the states and territories could deliver services better.

Each can be guided by the best

Other states should follow Victoria’s lead and reduce the cost of each procedure in public hospitals, and the variations between them.

And they should develop more community-based prevention programs to reduce the disparity between regional and urban health outcomes.

States should lift progress for all school students by identifying and spreading good teaching practices at the same time as strengthening the evidence base on what works best in the classroom.

They should also invest more in early learning for the most disadvantaged students.

And make their decisions more open

Institutional reforms are needed.

States need more visibility of their long-term budget positions.

While institutional accountability is improving in many states, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory need to limit election spending and make political donations and lobbying more transparent.

Because they matter

State government doesn’t always get as much attention as our federal politics. Often the important things sound a bit boring: the management of hospitals and schools; the rigorous assessment of proposed transport projects; and the minutiae of planning schemes.

But when these things are done well, they make a big difference to people’s lives.

So when people cast their votes in the Victorian and NSW elections, there is a lot at stake.

We hope this series will help voters to understand the key issues, and perhaps help leaders in every state understand the difference they can make.

John Daley, Chief Executive Officer, Grattan Institute

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

Solicitor-General’s advice on Dutton’s eligibility to come before Friday Liberal vote

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will invite a leadership “spill” motion at midday Friday, once a majority of Liberals formally ask for a party meeting.

He will not contest the subsequent ballot if – as anticipated – the spill is carried, Turnbull announced to a lunchtime Thursday news conference.

Before the meeting, the Solicitor-General on Friday will provide an opinion on the constitutional eligibility to sit in parliament of challenger Peter Dutton.

Early Thursday afternoon, the final signatures for the party meeting request were being gathered.

The delay and the early provision of the Solicitor-General’s advice give Treasurer Scott Morrison extra opportunity to build support for his own bid for the leadership as an alternative to Dutton.

After a morning of chaos and multiple ministerial resignations, including that of Senate leader Mathias Cormann, Turnbull told his news conference that if he is ousted he will quit parliament – increasing the prospect of an early election.

He said he had “made it very clear that I believe former prime ministers are best out of the parliament”.

The government has a one seat of majority and his seat of Wentworth, although it has a strong margin, would be vulnerable in a byelection because Turnbull is personally very popular there. A byelection would not be needed if there were an early election.

Turnbull said that assuming the spill was carried, the new prime minister would “have to obviously satisfy the Governor-General that they can command a majority on the floor of the House of Representatives.

“In the case of Mr Dutton, I think he’ll have to establish that he is eligible to sit in the Parliament.”

Turnbull delivered a swingeing attack on those who have undermined him.

“A minority in the party room, supported by others outside the parliament, have sought to bully, intimidate others into making this change of leadership that they’re seeking.

“It’s been described by many people, including those who feel they cannot resist it as a form of madness,” he said.

“It is remarkable we’re at this point, where only a month ago we were [in the public polling] just little bit behind Labor and in our own polls a little bit ahead – but in any view thoroughly competitive.”

Turnbull has been under consistent assault not only from Tony Abbott and other Liberal critics over a range of issues, especially energy policy and immigration, but also from commentators in the Newscorp media, especially on Sky, and from shock jocks on 2GB.

Turnbull said that what was happening was “a very deliberate effort to pull the Liberal party further to the right.”

Stressing how vital it was to resolve the issue of Dutton’s eligibility, he said: “This is a very, very significant point. As we all know, section 44 has been a companion of this 45th parliament.

“I cannot underline too much how important it is that anyone who seeks to be prime minister of Australia is eligible to be a member of parliament – because a minister, let alone a prime minister, who is not eligible to sit in the House is not capable of validly being a minister or exercising any of the powers of a minister.”

Legal experts suggest Dutton could be ineligible under the constitution’s section 44 provision on pecuniary interests. This says a person is incapable of sitting if they have “any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth”.

Dutton through a family trust has an interest in child care centres that receive Commonwealth funding. The key question is whether this involves an agreement with the public service.

Dutton’s legal advice is that he has no constitutional problem, and on Thursday he issued updated legal advice.

The government shut down the House of Representatives but does not command the numbers in the Senate so had to endure question time with senior ministers who had resigned on the backbench.

3:15pm

UPDATE: JULIE BISHOP JOINS THE RACE

Liberal deputy and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will throw her hat into the leadership ring.

Bishop, from Western Australia, has been deputy Liberal leader since 2007 under multiple leaders. She is a moderate, rates well in the opinion polls, and has a high profile internationally as well as locally. She is in much demand from backbenchers to visit their seats and is a good fund raiser.

But she will go into the ballot with the disadvantage of having made many enemies in a long political history.

<!– Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. –>

Her entry into the field complicates the situation and makes the outcome even less certain.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Government defers company tax cut vote for want of numbers

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The government has been forced to put off a vote on its tax cut for big business after failing to secure support from the final two crossbenchers it needs to pass the legislation.

The deferral until the budget session in May is a bitter disappointment for the government, which had been hopeful of landing the legislation this week.

It needs nine of the 11 non-Green crossbenchers to pass legislation. It had seven on side but still needed Victorian senator Derryn Hinch and South Australian independent senator Tim Storer.

Hinch has most recently been talking to the government about trade-offs in the areas of help for pensioners, affordable housing, assistance for the older unemployed, and more action to combat paedophilia.

One source said Storer’s inexperience – he only arrived in the Senate last week – was a complication in finalising negotiations.

Storer said lower company tax should be part of broader tax reform. “This bill is a narrowly cast proposition of change to the overall tax and transfer system”, he said.

“I have held numerous meetings and received input from stakeholders including members of the public, South Australian businesses and business-groups, leading economists, national welfare groups, national business councils and their members” and “I am processing my consideration of this bill.”

The legislation is for the second tranche of the tax cuts, which is directed for big business. It would cost the budget A$35.6 billion, apply to companies with turnovers of more than $50 million annually, and bring the rate for them down from 30% to 25% by 2026-27.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann told the Senate late on Tuesday that the legislation would not be debated further this week.

“It is a matter of public record that, as a result of the work that has gone so far, we have been able to secure the publicly stated support of 37 senators in this chamber for our business tax cuts legislation,” he said.

“Everybody knows we need 39. So, given that proposition and given that’s the situation we are in, the government has made a decision we will need to do some more work.”

He said the government thought it could get the numbers and so was “committed to keep working, to keep engaging”.

Cormann said the government intended to bring the legislation back to the Senate in the next sitting week – which is budget week.

Speaking to a function organised by the Business Council of Australia (BCA) at Parliament House, Malcolm Turnbull said the government was still two votes short and encouraged the businesspeople to keep talking to the crossbench.

He said the government wasn’t fighting for higher dividends or higher remuneration for executives but to give companies every incentive to invest and grow, creating more jobs and higher-paid jobs.

Earlier on Tuesday, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten pledged a Labor government would repeal the legislation if it passed. He said the opposition would decide its position on the tax cuts already passed for businesses with annual turnovers up to $50 million “in the context of the information we receive in the budget”.

The case for the tax cuts received a setback on Tuesday with the reporting of a secret BCA survey finding that fewer than one in five of leading chief executives had said they would use the proposed cut to directly increase wages or employ more staff. The Australian Financial Review reported that “more than 80% said they would either use the proceeds to boost returns to shareholders or invest in the company”.

The BCA played down the survey, saying it had never been finished.

Last week, the BCA released a letter signed by ten business leaders, saying: “If the Senate passes this important legislation we, as some of the nation’s largest employers, commit to invest more in Australia which will lead to employing more Australians and therefore stronger wage growth as the tax cut takes effect”.

The Australia Institute, lobbying against the legislation, wrote to senators with a brief about reaction to the Trump cuts.

“Critically, the evidence shows it is not workers and employees who are benefiting most from the tax cuts. In fact, the tax cuts will exacerbate inequality with benefits flowing overwhelmingly to wealthier Americans via, for example, share buy-backs,” the institute’s executive director, Ben Oquist, wrote.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Shorten pledges republic vote in first term

Bill Shorten will seek to elevate the issue of a republic by pledging.
a policy for quick action.
Julian Smith/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

A Shorten government would ask voters in its first term whether they supported Australia becoming a republic.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, addressing the Australian Republic Movement’s dinner on Saturday, will seek to elevate the issue by pledging
that “by the end of our first term, we will put a simple, straightforward question to the people of Australia: Do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?

“If the yes vote prevails – and I’m optimistic it will – then we can consider how that head of state is chosen.”

He will say that in a Labor government a minister would be given direct responsibility for advancing the debate.

The Shorten policy for quick action on a republic contrasts with Malcolm Turnbull’s position, which is that the public will not want the issue back on the agenda until after the Queen’s reign ends.

Labor’s two-stage process – with the first stage a general plebiscite question about wanting a republic, followed by a referendum which would incorporate a model – is designed to maximise the chances of support.

But the issue of the model and the requirements of a referendum – which needs an overall majority and a majority of states to pass – would still remain the difficult hurdle.

The 1999 unsuccessful referendum proposed the president of the republic be chosen by parliament, but it is likely that these days people would want a directly elected president – a model that raises more issues.

Shorten will say in his speech: “We cannot risk being caught in a referendum like the last one, where Australians were given one vote to settle two questions. When a lot of people voted ‘no’ because of the model, not because of the republic.

“The first, clear question we ask the people should be whether we want an Australian head of state. And the debate should be about why. About our sense of Australia, our history and above all, our future.”

In London recently Malcolm Turnbull declared himself an “Elizabethan”. In contrast, Shorten will say: “I have tremendous regard for the Queen and her service. But I am not an Elizabethan. I’m a Victorian. I’m an Australian.”

He will say he is confident that if Australia became a republic, “Queen Elizabeth would farewell us with the same affection and good grace she has shown every time a Commonwealth nation has made the decision to cut its ties with the monarchy.

“We can vote for a republic and still respect Queen Elizabeth.”

Shorten will acknowledge that the republic issue “isn’t front of mind of everyone, but I don’t buy the argument that we can’t have this debate until every other problem in the nation has been solved.

“In these fractious times, governments age quickly and lead short lives.

“It’s no good hoping for a popular groundswell – we must set a direction and bring people with us, and we have to do it early.”

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/axx2w-6d8662?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Coalition two-party vote slips in post-budget Newspoll

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The Coalition has slipped further behind in Newspoll, trailing Labor 47-53% in two-party terms, despite a pragmatic budget that moved the government onto ALP ground in a bid to win back voters.

Labor slightly widened the gap compared with three weeks ago when it led 52-48%. This makes a dozen Newspolls in a row that have seen the government behind the opposition.

The post-budget Fairfax-Ipsos poll also has Labor ahead 53-47%.

The previous Ipsos poll was in late March, when the ALP led 55-45%.

Both polls show majority support for the budget’s tax increases – the new bank tax and the proposed hike in the Medicare levy. The bank tax was backed by 68% in each poll; the Medicare levy rise was supported by 54% in Newspoll and 61% in Ipsos.

In the Ipsos poll, one in two people said they would be worse off from the budget; only one in five believed they would be better off. In Newspoll 45% thought they would be worse off and 19% said they would be better off. In both polls, Coalition voters were more likely than Labor voters to think they would be better off.

In Ipsos people were evenly split on whether they were satisfied with the budget – 44% were and 43% were not, a net plus one. This is better than the response to last year’s budget (minus seven) but not as good as the reception for the 2015 Hockey budget (plus 17).

Ipsos found 42% thought the budget fair, compared with 39% who did not, a net plus three. Last year’s budget rated a net minus six on fairness. Coalition voters were more likely than Labor voters to rate the budget as fair – 63% to 25%.

Newspoll asked whether it was fairer than previous budgets delivered by this government: 39% thought it was, while 36% did not.

Labor’s primary vote in Newspoll, published in The Australian, is up a point to 36%; the Coalition is static on 36%. The Greens rose a point to 10% and One Nation fell a point to 9%. The poll was taken from Thursday to Sunday.

When budgets do not normally bring a bounce for a government – ministers will argue it will take time for positives to show up in the polls – the result will be a disappointment for Malcolm Turnbull, although his personal ratings have improved.

In Newspoll, his net satisfaction went from minus 25 points to minus 20 points in three weeks, while satisfaction with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten declined from minus 20 to minus 22. Turnbull has also widened his lead as better prime minister from nine to 13 points – he is now ahead 44-31%.

In the Ipsos poll, taken Wednesday to Saturday, Labor’s primary vote is 35%, and the Coalition’s is 37%. The Greens are on 13%. Turnbull’s net approval is plus one, up nine points since March; Bill Shorten’s net approval is minus five, up 13 points since March. Turnbull leads Shorten as preferred prime minister 47-35%

The Ipsos poll found the government’s promised A$18.6 billion boost to spending on schools was supported overwhelmingly – by 86%. Some 58% backed increasing national debt to build infrastructure, but 37% opposed.

Treasurer Scott Morrison on Sunday continued his tough language on the big banks, which are furious about the new tax imposed on them.

When it was put to him that he could not stop them hitting customers with it he said: “In the same way that banks have put up interest rates even when there hasn’t been a move in the Reserve Bank cash rate. I mean, banks will find any way they can to charge their customers more.”

He reiterated that the government would pressure the banks through the regulator not to pass on the tax to customers. “But the best thing you can do is if you are unhappy with how a bank is seeking to fleece you – that’s what they would be doing if they pass this on – go to another bank.”

The tax was just six basis points, he said on the ABC. “Reserve Bank cash rates move by 25 basis points at a time and to suggest that this is the end of financial civilisation as we know it is one of the biggest overreaches in a whinge about a tax I’ve ever seen.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.