Trends in Australian political opinion: results from the Australian election study, 1987-2010

Political opinion polls are an inescapable part of everyday life. Government or opposition policies rarely see the light of day without some poll evidence to gauge the public’s response to them. Party leaders are constantly evaluated against their poll ratings, not least by their colleagues, and consistently low ratings can often spell a leader’s demise. And not least, Prime Ministers call elections when they consider the polls to be most favourable to them. Interpreting political opinion polls is sometimes difficult. On particular issues or with regard to particular personalities, opinions may change significantly in a short period of time as a result of an event or a changed circumstance. Small changes in question wordings or in sample design may cause what appear to be significant changes in public opinion when such changes are, in fact, an artefact of the survey’s methodology. The most reliable way in which to monitor trends in public opinion is to examine responses over an extended period of time, using questions asked in the same way and included in surveys that use the same methodology. This monograph presents trends in Australian public opinion on politics over an extended period of time. In most cases, our trends run from 1987 until 2010; in some cases, the same questions have been asked in surveys conducted in 1967, 1969 and 1979, allowing us to extend the time series back another two decades. The 1987 to 2010 trends are based on the Australian Election Study (AES) surveys, comprehensive post-election surveys of political opinion that have asked the same questions and used the same methodology. The 1967, 1969 and 1979 surveys are also comprehensive academic surveys of political opinion; all three surveys were conducted by Don Aitkin, who pioneered the use of the mass public opinion survey in the academic study of politics in Australia. The AES provides the most sophisticated and exhaustive set of data ever collected in Australia on the dynamics of political behaviour. Each of the AES surveys contains questions relating to the role of media and media exposure; general political interest and knowledge; perceptions of the election campaign; party identification and prior voting history; parents’ and partner partisanship; vote in the election and the explanations given for it; party images; perceptions of the major party leaders and the content of their public images; election issues; social policy issues; and a range of socio-demographic measures including education, occupation, religious behaviour, family circumstances, and income

Political leaders in Westminister Systems

There is little doubt that political leaders have become more politically important over the past half century, although the extent which their electoral influence may have increased remains a matter of debate. This fundamental change in the role of political leaders has been especially pronounced in parliamentary systems based on the Westminster model. In parliamentary systems, the promotion of leader images during national election campaigns is now as prominentperhaps even more prominentthan party symbols, leading some to argue that the Westminster system is converging with its presidential counterpart (Mughan, 2000). In parallel with this change, governments and sometimes even oppositions are routinely labeled after the leader by the media and by the public, rather than after the party they lead (McAllister, 1996). The defining moment in this change is often traced to Margaret Thatchers accession to office in Britain as the first conviction politician of the postwar years. However, it is often forgotten that Pierre Trudeaus election as Canadian prime minister in 1968 led to the Trudeaumania phenomenon which is perhaps the earliest manifestation of a prime ministers popularity surpassing that of his or her party. Since the 1990s, it has become more commonplace for governments or parties to be named after their leader. In Germany, the popularity of Helmut Kohl and more recently Gerhard Schroder has at various times easily eclipsed the parties they lead, as has the popularity of Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Tony Blair in Britain. The changing role of prime ministers has not only occurred in terms of their public profile within the electorate. In the context of their capacity to influence policy, postwar prime ministers in Westminster systems have accumulated considerably greater power and authority when compared to their prewar counterparts (King, 1994; Rhodes, 1995). In many Westminster systems, it is often argued that cabinet government based on collective responsibility has been undermined, in part by the increased complexity of modern decision-making, but also by a conscious effort to centralize prime ministerial authority. Moreover, in majoritarian systems such as that of Australia and Britain, the prime minister now exercises unprecedented power in shaping ministerial careers, a crucial tool in ensuring compliance and centralizing authority. The prima facie evidence suggests, then, that prime ministers and opposition leaders have replaced many of the roles historically played by political parties in ensuring the efficient operation of the parliamentary system. This chapter examines the evidence to support this observation in Australia, Britain and Canada, focusing especially on the presidentialization hypothesis. However, a major task of the chapter is also to outline some of the factors which have led to a greater focus on prime ministers, and in this, these are divided between exogenous factors, such as the changing role of television, and institutional changes, such as the increasing complexity of public policy. Australia, Britain and Canada are particularly appropriate case studies. Although all three operate political systems which have a common origin in the Westminster model, they vary considerably in how that model has evolved to cope with their differing circumstances. Both Australia and Canada adopted federal systems, although there the similarity ends. In Australia, the power of the majority party is tempered by the influence of the upper house, the Senate. Originally conceived of as the states housea house of review in which the states aims would balance those of the partiesin recent years the control of the Senate by the opposition parties has effectively meant that the government must either drop or radically alter its more controversial legislation if it wishes to see it implemented (Sharman, 1999). In neither Britain nor Canada is their such an institutional impediment to majority rule. In Britain the governing party can count on implementing its legislative program. The House of Lords represents no major impediment to the government putting its policies into law, and in the rare occasions when its lower house majority has been so small as to place its legislative program in jeopardy, an election has been called.2 In Canada the federal government is effectively independent of the provinces in the areas in which it has jurisdiction; when negotiation takes place, it is generally in the areas of provincial jurisdiction when the provinces are seeking federal financial support. In both Australia and Canada, then, prime ministerial authority must take account of federalism in realizing their policy goals, and in the former, this means the constraint placed on such authority by the upper house

Integrated education, intergroup relations, and political identities in Northern Ireland

Published as Hayes, BC., McAllister, I. & Dowds, L. (2007). 'Integrated education, intergroup relations, and political identities in Northern Ireland.' Social Problems 54(4) pp. 454-482.© 2007 by Society for the Study of Social Problems, Inc. Copying and permissions notice: Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® on Caliber, http://caliber.ucpress.net/ or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com.Non peer reviewedPublisher PD

Public Support for Democracy: Results from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Project

While democracy looks set to become the global political norm, most studies have analysed the phenomenon from either a micro (voter) or a macro (institutional) perspective. The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems aims to combine these two perspective

The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relationship Between Job and Personal Resources and Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is one of the most researched topics in the field of industrial and organizational psychology, mainly because it has been shown to be linked to many positive individual and organizational outcomes. Although past research has consistently shown that job and personal resources are related to employee engagement, little attention has been paid to understand the underlying mechanisms of such relationships. The present study hypothesized that psychological empowerment would be a mediator between job and personal resources (i.e. supervisor support, opportunities for growth, and core self-evaluations) and employee engagement. Using survey response data from 165 employees throughout several industries, results showed that psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between core self-evaluations and employee engagement. Furthermore, the psychological empowerment dimension of meaning mediated the relationship between all of these resources and employee engagement. These results suggest that meaning is an important mechanism leading employees with these resources to become engaged in their work. These results suggest that organizations should place employees in roles that align with their personal set of beliefs and values, and further research should be conducted on potential positive work outcomes of meaning

Public opinion in Australia towards defence, security and terrorism

This paper traces the public\u27s changing views of the main issues relating to defence and security over an extended period. Authored by Professor Ian McAllister, it identifies three key views of the public on defence and security. ASPI contributors include Carl Ungerer, Rod Lyon and Andrew Davies. The paper builds on previous ASPI publications Attitude Matters: Public opinion in Australia towards defence and security and Representative Views: Mass and elite opinion on Australian security also authored by Ian McAllister. Find these articles down below

Economic voting and party positions: when and how wealth matters for the vote

Does the ownership of economic assets matter for how people vote? Drawing on new research, Timothy Hellwig and Ian McAllister find the answer is yes. They argue that by changing their policy positions, parties can shape the influence of asset ownership on voter decisions, if there is sufficient party polarisation

Leader or party? Quantifying and exploring behavioral personalization 1996-2019

It has become almost a truism that parliamentary elections have become more personalized. However, evidence for this proposition among voters is relatively mixed and we lack a quantification of leader inspired voting. Using data from Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) project and consistent measures of leader and party popularity across 86 parliamentary elections in 31 polities between 1996 and 2019, we break new ground in the study of behavioral personalization in several respects. First, we provide a consistent and longitudinal test of leader inclined voting, separate from party evaluations, in the form of a vote-leader/party favorite alignment index. Our results show 6% of voters align their vote with their favorite leader solely, and one in five voters align their vote primarily with their favorite leader. While significant, more voters align their vote with their favorite party. Second, we find that leader motivated voting is most prevalent among non-partisans, older voters, and in elections where ideological polarization is low. Third, we demonstrate that voters solely motivated by leaders are most likely to switch their votes between elections. Our results have implications for our understanding of leaders' impact on elections

The role of women in post-conflict societies remains an unfinished project.

Some feminist authors have argued that peace settlements have the potential to perpetuate gender inequality by privileging communal unity over the rights of women. Bernadette C. Hayes and Ian McAllister assess this perspective in the case of Northern Ireland. They find that while the 1998 Good Friday Agreement contained provisions for gender equality, it was primarily framed around national identity. This may explain why significantly fewer women in Northern Ireland are supportive of devolution than men

The Northern Ireland agreement: an explication of a political milestone

'Am Karfreitag, den 10. April 1998 wurde das Nordirlandabkommen von allen politischen Parteien Nordirlands unterzeichnet. Sowohl von den politischen Kommentatoren und politischen Beobachtern wurde das Hauptziel des Abkommens, das Unvereinbare zu vereinbaren, als eine bedeutende Errungenschaft angesehen, nämlich die beiden religiösen Gemeinschaften in Nordirland, die Protestanten und Katholiken, die Unionisten und Nationalisten, die Loyalisten und die Republikaner in einem gerechten und dauerhaften Abkommen, das die unterschiedlichen Traditionen respektiert, zusammenzubringen. In welchem Ausmaß wurde dieses Ziel erreicht? Um eine Antwort auf diese Frage zu finden und ein Verständnis davon zu vermitteln, wie das Abkommen versucht, einen akzeptablen politischen Kompromiß für beide religiösen Gruppen zu finden, richtet sich dieser Artikel auf die folgenden drei Streitfragen: Zunächst werden Hintergrundinformationen im Sinne von aktuellen sozialen und politischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden religiösen Traditionen präsentiert. Es folgt ein kurzer historischer Überblick über die Intensität und das Ausmaß des Konfliktes, wie auch sein Einfluß auf die laufenden demokratischen Entscheidungen in dieser Provinz. Schließlich werden die eigentlichen Bedingungen des Abkommens, seine öffentliche Akzeptierbarkeit unter den beiden religiösen Gruppen ebenso wie die Chancen für einen friedlichen und andauernden Ausgleich in Nordirland geprüft.' (Autorenreferat)'On Good Friday, the 10th April 1998, the Northern Ireland Agreement was formally endorsed by all the major political parties in Northern Ireland. Considered a landmark achievement by both political analysts and commentators alike, the primary purpose of the agreement was to reconcile the irreconcilable; to bring together the two religious communities of Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist, Loyalist and Republican, in an equitable and lasting accommodation that would respect their differing traditions and heritage. To what extent was this objective met? To answer this question and to provide an understanding of how the agreement sought to find a political compromise acceptable to both religious communities, this article addresses the agreement in terms of the following three issues. First, some background information in terms of the current social and political relations between the two religious traditions in Northern Ireland is presented. This is followed by a brief historical overview of the scale and intensity of the conflict as well as its impact for current democratic governance within the province. Finally, the actual terms of the agreement, its public acceptability among the two religious communities, as well as its chances of achieving a peaceful and lasting settlement within Northern Ireland are examined.' (author's abstract)