Tuesday 11th of February 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

vote early before the heat of the day, vote often before sunset.....

There is a marked immaturity in the reporting of opinion polls and other political developments in Australia at the moment. I see problems in two main categories.

First is the seemingly endless pursuit of uniquely Australian explanations for what are obviously global trends.

The second is the tendency to ignore the historical reality that polls three months out from an election can be important signposts, but do not justify attempts to forecast likely election outcomes with any specificity.

 

Australian electoral prospects    By Bob McMullan

 

With regard to the first category, writers of both right and left have tended to impose their own policy preferences as explanations of the decline in support for the ALP at the federal level. Sky News and other Murdoch outlets have suggested the change is part of a global move to the right in the electorate. This is not totally without foundation, inflation and unplanned immigration tend to play into the political interests of right wing parties. However, it ignores the large change in UK towards the Centre-Left and in France to the NFP, the French left-wing alliance at the expense of the Centre parties.

Writers on the Left tend to preach that if only the government took a stronger stand on their particular issue of choice (climate change/ immigration /foreign and defence policy/ taxation for example) the party would be doing better.

However, the reality is, as reflected in research by the Financial Times, every incumbent government lost support in the developed world in 2024. This trend was also evident in African elections where the ANC and the ruling parties in Botswana and Namibia lost considerable ground and also in India where the ruling BJP was returned with a significantly reduced majority.

Not all the ruling parties lost, but they all suffered a swing against them.

So, why is it surprising that there has been a drift in support for the Labor government in 2024?

It is possible to argue that the remarkable thing is that the government is still with in striking distance of retaining office.

Perhaps it would be more useful to look for uniquely Australian explanations for that! I suspect it has more to do with the weakness of the Opposition than the strength of the government.

In the second category, we see reports such as “hung parliament likely” based on the most recent polling from particular outlets.

A hung parliament is definitely one of a number of possible outcomes but to use any poll at this relatively early stage as a predictor of a “likely” outcome is naïve to say the least.

There are ample precedents in recent Australian political history to suggest any of the possible outcomes may eventuate by the time the campaign is finished.

Many people may not recall the 1987 election, but I remember the decision to call the election despite polling saying the ALP was trailing, in the confident belief that we could make up the ground in the campaign. I distinctly remember similar initiatives at a state government level.

At the federal level, historical Newspoll data shows that in 1993, 2001, 2004,2013,2019 and even 2022 the government of the day improved their position relative to the polls over the last three months leading up to the election.

The situation in 2025 is more complex. The recent falls in support for the major parties, and the loss of “safe” seats to Independents and Greens has made prediction more challenging.

I can see the possibility of coalition seats going to the Teals and Teal seats reverting to the coalition. It is also easy to see the Labor Party challenging Independent and Green seats and vice versa. As with every election there is also the probability of seats changing hands between Labor and the coalition, possibly in both directions.

This makes prediction difficult.

One thing that can be said with certainty is that the best polling in the world cannot make definitive predictions three months out.

It is all still to play for.

https://johnmenadue.com/australian-electoral-prospects/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

weak and vexatious....

 

Call to Arms: MWM sued for defamation in Federal Court

    by Michael West

 

We are being sued for defamation in the Federal Court of Australia. This legal action poses an existential threat to MWM and, therefore, a threat to the livelihoods of the journalists and producers, which many of you have supported over the years.

UPDATE: we have been overwhelmed by the response, as our funding goal was met within 24 hours. A huge thank you to those that have contributed. The campaign is now closed, but you can still contribute to our journalism here.

The claim is weak and vexatious, but we have been forced to defend it because the claimant and his lawyers from MV Law have refused to respond to any of our offers to address their concerns. Instead, they served us personally at home with the claim.

We will publish the legal correspondence, including the claim, in this story in order to be fully transparent in raising money and for readers to make an informed decision as to whether it is worth supporting our defence.

In short, the man making the claim is Geoff Wade who is a researcher in the Parliamentary Library in Canberra. Wade has been a prolific political campaigner on social media, warning about the threat from China and groups and individuals in Australia allegedly aligned with the Chinese Communist Party who are seemingly acting in the interests of a foreign government.

He has threatened us before, along with others including John Menadue of Pearls and Irritations, independent journalist Marcus Reubenstein, and UTS professor James Laurenceson.

Following this claim against five publishers (two of them on Twitter), Geoff Wade was countersued for defamation by Marcus Reubenstein, who added the Commonwealth as a defendant (Department of Parliamentary Services) for vicarious liability as Wade had been tweeting as part of his political campaign during work hours at Parliament House, which is against the DPS Code of Conduct. 

The settlement in that matter is confidential, but it emerged in Senate Estimates that the government insurer, Comcover, picked up costs. Costs were therefore borne by the public.

We received a Concerns Notice in this latest matter from Geoff Wade and his solicitors from MV Law: Courtney Noble and Alisa Taylor:

As soon as possible, after receiving this notice, we did what we always do, addressed the concerns of the complainant. 

After making two phone calls to Wade’s solicitors MV Law to discuss the concerns of Geoff Wade (they did not return our calls), we promptly responded by email to their Concerns Notice, making an offer to correct any errors in the story (we say there are none) and inviting him to respond:....

Neither Wade nor his solicitors responded. We were later served at home by a process server and required to attend Court.

The Judge, Justice Owens, strongly recommended that we seek legal representation (for the company) and has ordered that we file a defence On February 20. The orders a laid out here:...

So it is that we are already racking up costs while trying to do the journalism, make payroll and deal with lawyers to defend the matter, a matter we had done everything to avoid against a claim which we will contend is full of falsehoods.

We have sought on five occasions (two phone calls and 3 emails) to address the concerns of Geoff Wade and his lawyers, even taking down the central story complained of – something we have never done. This is our initial response to MV Law:...

Having been forced to defend the Wade claim, there is no choice, we are launching a crowdfunding campaign to pay for the legal costs, and also another pitch to the public to support the journalism during this difficult time 

We will publish our defence in due course when it has been completed and attend mediation as instructed by the Judge.

We receive an average of four legal threats a year, mostly defamation. The company has not made one payout or settlement in almost ten years. We deal with complaints promptly and address the grievances of those who complain.

Here is Geoff Wade’s statement of claim:....

We will also publish our defence when that is filed and keep readers and supporters up to speed with events as they occur. Geoff Wade’s claim includes a claim for significant harm as he asserts that he was unable to secure academic posts at places like Princeton University due to our coverage.

We say we have not defamed him, and the story is in the public interest given Wade’s public activities on social media, with more than 60,000 posts on social media, which included doxing of people he suspected were linked to the Chinese Communist Party.

The problem with litigation is not only that it is costly but also that there is high risk of a negative outcome due to legal technical things. So, even if we are convinced that we have published the truth, and have no choice but to defend ourselves via the court process, there is a risk of adverse judgement and costs.

If you can afford to support independent journalism, please contribute here. Conservatively, we are seeking $40,000 in the Chuffed crowdfunding exercise. We opted for Chuffed because it is an Australian company and has no record of freezing fundraisings as Gofundme did in the case of David McBride.

It will be our ten year anniversary in July and it is only with the support of subscribers that we have managed to get this far. Thank you.

 

https://michaelwest.com.au/mwm-sued-in-federal-court-defamation-case/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.