‘Totally different': Where the Voice failed and Labor succeeded in the election campaign
RedBridge Group Director Kos Samaras discusses the 'totally different' emotional responses to the Voice referendum failure and the return of an Albanese Labor government.
'The referendum is one thing, voting for the next government of Australia is a totally different matter and people have a totally different emotional response to it,' Mr Samaras said.
Mr Samaras sat down with Sky News host Peta Credlin to go over how polling was off the mark during the federal election campaigns.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese may have a clear vision for Australia, but it's not clear to the rest of us
In Victoria last week, the prime minister was able to talk about one of his favourite topics: infrastructure. The North East Link Project would 'allow commuters to skip 18 sets of traffic lights and take 15,000 trucks off local roads.' Cutting through abstract economic debates, he declared, 'This is what productivity benefits look like, right here and now.' In Western Australia, he visited an Urgent Care Clinic: 'we promised 50, but delivered 87'. This is politics as Albanese often practises it: concrete, both literally and figuratively. It is concerned, above all, with tangible and demonstrable benefits. On both visits, he was asked about the defection of Senator Dorinda Cox from the Greens to Labor. Twice, with only slightly different wording, he explained that Cox had decided the Greens were 'not capable of achieving the change that she wants to see… if you're serious about social change in Australia, the Labor Party is where you should be.' Last week, the overwrought political debate continued around the government's proposed superannuation tax changes. Those changes are minor. The original impulse behind Australia's modern superannuation system was the opposite. One of that system's originators, former union leader Bill Kelty, three years ago described to journalist Jennifer Hewett how it all began, early in the Hawke government. 'Paul [Keating] said we gotta make up our mind what we are, and what we want to do with super.' They rejected various pathways – most notably, 'we don't want to be tinkerers or reformers'. Instead, they decided: 'We want to start a new system… We will be revolutionaries. We will change the system. But we will not tear down the existing system. We will build a new system.' Interestingly, Kelty's phrasing is almost directly the opposite of a phrase Albanese has come to like, and which he deployed two days before the election. Kelty said he and Keating decided to be revolutionaries, not reformers. Albanese said: 'I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist'. Loading Which fits with Labor's proposed tax hike on the earnings of superannuation balances over $3 million. Remember we are talking about a rarefied set of Australians: in 2023, the Australian Financial Review, one of the loudest critics of the change, reported that earnings from such a balance would get you 'two luxury holidays a year, home renovations every five to 10 years and comprehensive health insurance'. This is definitely not revolution. So why all the fuss? Treasurer Jim Chalmers answered that last week. He did so, probably smartly, in fairly indirect language, as though trying to walk a line: clear enough to reach journalists listening, not so sharp as to draw more attention to the issue. In essence, he said three things. First, because the rich want to hang onto what they have. Second, because a couple of newspapers are obsessed – most people don't care.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Albanese may have a clear vision for Australia, but it's not clear to the rest of us
In Victoria last week, the prime minister was able to talk about one of his favourite topics: infrastructure. The North East Link Project would 'allow commuters to skip 18 sets of traffic lights and take 15,000 trucks off local roads.' Cutting through abstract economic debates, he declared, 'This is what productivity benefits look like, right here and now.' In Western Australia, he visited an Urgent Care Clinic: 'we promised 50, but delivered 87'. This is politics as Albanese often practises it: concrete, both literally and figuratively. It is concerned, above all, with tangible and demonstrable benefits. On both visits, he was asked about the defection of Senator Dorinda Cox from the Greens to Labor. Twice, with only slightly different wording, he explained that Cox had decided the Greens were 'not capable of achieving the change that she wants to see… if you're serious about social change in Australia, the Labor Party is where you should be.' Last week, the overwrought political debate continued around the government's proposed superannuation tax changes. Those changes are minor. The original impulse behind Australia's modern superannuation system was the opposite. One of that system's originators, former union leader Bill Kelty, three years ago described to journalist Jennifer Hewett how it all began, early in the Hawke government. 'Paul [Keating] said we gotta make up our mind what we are, and what we want to do with super.' They rejected various pathways – most notably, 'we don't want to be tinkerers or reformers'. Instead, they decided: 'We want to start a new system… We will be revolutionaries. We will change the system. But we will not tear down the existing system. We will build a new system.' Interestingly, Kelty's phrasing is almost directly the opposite of a phrase Albanese has come to like, and which he deployed two days before the election. Kelty said he and Keating decided to be revolutionaries, not reformers. Albanese said: 'I don't pretend to be a revolutionary. I'm a reformist'. Loading Which fits with Labor's proposed tax hike on the earnings of superannuation balances over $3 million. Remember we are talking about a rarefied set of Australians: in 2023, the Australian Financial Review, one of the loudest critics of the change, reported that earnings from such a balance would get you 'two luxury holidays a year, home renovations every five to 10 years and comprehensive health insurance'. This is definitely not revolution. So why all the fuss? Treasurer Jim Chalmers answered that last week. He did so, probably smartly, in fairly indirect language, as though trying to walk a line: clear enough to reach journalists listening, not so sharp as to draw more attention to the issue. In essence, he said three things. First, because the rich want to hang onto what they have. Second, because a couple of newspapers are obsessed – most people don't care.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘There are no rules on the high seas': Australia to play a key role on ocean protections
Australian mining billionaire Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest will seek to partner with at least three countries to help fund marine protection zones, in a world-first plan to bolster poorer nations' capacity to fight unsustainable fishing practices. Forrest will attend the United Nations Oceans Conference in France on Monday, where he is expected to hold talks with world leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron. 'It's absolutely clear that the world fishing industries are in a race to the bottom, a race to make oceans extinct of life, and that is because it's a rule-less order [on the high seas],' Forrest said. Environment Minister Murray Watt said Australia would play a leading role at the talks, and announced on Sunday that the Albanese government would introduce legislation enabling Australia to ratify the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty. Twenty-eight countries have ratified the treaty, which needs 60 member states to come into force. The UN-led treaty seeks to protect vast swaths of ocean in international waters – covering nearly half the planet – from overfishing. Loading 'All Australians understand the importance of the ocean. It's at the heart of our national identity, and it connects us with our region and the rest of the world,' Watt said. 'Australia is a world leader in ocean protection, working domestically and with our Pacific and Indian Ocean neighbours to protect this precious and incredibly important shared resource.' Just over half Australia's oceans are in marine-protected areas, although only 22 per cent are 'no-take' zones that prevent trawling and other commercial fishing.
