Comments on: What happens to the Liberal Party if it loses? (Part 2)

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:54:11 +0000

Andrew, you may or may not be right about party identification rather than policy preference, being socialised. But those figures don’t demonstrate it because they don’t rule out the possibility of policy preferences being what is socialised and party identification merely following from those preferences. You need an instrument to let you work out how good a proxy that is.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:25:50 +0000

Thanks Andrew.

By: Leopold

Leopold — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:32:35 +0000

I may be reaching, but it strikes me that the high number of Liberal identifiers in older and low in younger Australians may have something to do with the current PM. And that his replacement with a Costello or a Turnbull might lead to some re-alignment.

Possibly over-interpreting and giving too much weight to ‘leadership’ effects. Just a thought.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:17:12 +0000

DD, Sacha

On party socialisation: in the 2004 AES, about 30% of the sample did not know how their parents voted. Taking out those who did not know, of people with Liberal ID 55% had a father with Liberal ID. If we count fathers who were National (and predecessor party) supporters, 62% of the Coalition vote is inherited.

The effect is stronger on the Labor side: 75% of people with Labor ID had fathers who also had Labor ID.

What these statistics show is that Liberal voters (26%) are more likely to come from Labor families than Labor voters are from Liberal families (14%).

This is possibly some upward social mobility, but also Labor’s weakening grip on the working class. In the 2004 AES, the two major parties were almost even in their share of votes from self-described working class people: Lib 41.6%, Lab 42.3%.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:03:19 +0000

Sacha - The other generational party ID figures:

WW2 and before: ALP 34, Green 2 (clearly a change there, since the Greens did not exist when they were young)

Boomers: ALP 36, Green 4.5

Gen X: ALP 29, Green 7

Gen Y: ALP 22, Green 13.5

On the vote in 2004

WW2: ALP 35, Green 4

Boomers: ALP 39, Green 8

Gen X: ALP 34, Green 10

Gen Y: ALP 32, Green 17

By: Sacha

Sacha — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:00:54 +0000

I recall reading in my undergrad studies that there are studies showing party loyalty socialisation with family a huge influence (not surprisingly).

Hence across each of the major parties you have a wide range of policy positions - the policy positions aren’t neatly divided between the parties - eg you don’t have a free market party and a non-free market party, a socially liberal and a socially non-liberal party, although the “concentrations” of each tendency differ in different parties.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:25:03 +0000

DD - I’m not sure of this; I think there is significant socialisation into party loyalties that has only a vague connection to changing policies. There is evidence that policy views are driven by party loyalties, rather than the other way around.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 04:52:09 +0000

I don’t think there is ever any long-term demographic trend away or towards any party simply because such trends are towards policies rather than parties. Parties, in the longterm, shape their policies to fit such trends.

The interesting questions are where demographic trends are sending policy. I’m not keen on having the median voter being an old fogy.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:20:21 +0000

Sacha - I have them at home, I will post them tonight.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:56:45 +0000

Andrew, do you have the generational ALP and Green identification figures to compare with the coalition figures?