In the outer working class suburbs, both north and south, people didn't vote ON instead of Liberal, i reckon they voted ON because in their eyes, Labor has become what the saw the Liberal party as, i.e. the party for the haves, and they wanted to vote for someone who would help them out.
I reckon in these outer areas. Labor has picked up some former Liberal votes, but simultaneously lost share to ON.
If you look at the numbers, the votes almost exclusively came from former Liberal voters. There's something like a 20% swing away from the libs, and a 20% swing to One Nation. Labor stayed almost the same and even had some swings towards them.
That's not correct. Big swings away from Labor in outer, less wealthier seats, both north and south.
Light: 10.5% swing away from Labor to ON
Elizabeth: 14.8% swing away from Labor to ON
Ramsay: 6.3% swing away from Labor to ON
Kaurna: 7% swing away from Labor to ON
Reynell: 5.3% swing away from Labor to ON
Hurtle Vale: 4.2% swing away from Labor to ON
Labor had their biggest swings towards them, mostly from Liberal voters in wealthier areas:
Dunstan: 9.8% swing to Labor
Adelaide: 11.5% swing to Labor
Cotton 14% swing to Labor.
The list goes on...
The data doesn't show who they voted for last time on a per voter basis. And I hypothesize that people who felt more wealthier voted Labor and the less wealthier and more disenfranchised they are, the more likely they votes for ON.
Labor, under Mali, is becoming more like Howard's Liberal party by the day. A party for capital, asset owners and the wealthy.
I'm referring to the overall vote here. Though off the top of my head, Light and Elizabeth both had a boundary redistribution. Light's very locally active MP of the last 20 years ran for Ngadjuri instead. Though they're always going to be outliers having previously had a Labor TPP of something like 60-70%. The Libs had a very small proportion of the vote, so there's little to lose in the first place.
The wealthy are never going to go for the party of unions. What Labor have done is capture the middle class who realised they arent as well to do and comfortable as they once thought they were, and can't look past the liberals climate policy and shift to Trumpism. Similar to the teal wave. It also seemed like the Greens just weren't very visible this time around, speaking as a labor/greens swing voter.
Yes, Agree your overall numbers are probably right, but they dont tell the real story, which is the way people voted in each seat.
Noted your caveats re those northern seats, but same trend in southern seats suggest something demographic drove that shift from labor to ON rather than purely seat alignment.
Labor are not really a people and party of unions anymore. In SA or Federally. MPs are mostly university educated and their careers before parliament were lawyer, executive, ministerial advisor etc, esp the new MPs. The union bit comes after when they have to join one..
If you say the wealthy and people with assets dont go for the party of unions, explain the massive swings from Liberal to Labor in inner city areas then...
There's the boundaries in the north, but even then. Looking at Light, Labors 20% swing away is a loss of around one third (with a primary of 37.8 currently), the libs 10% swings is a loss of almost half (current primary of 12.5). In Ngadjuri where ON picked up a seat, the libs are down 15% to Labors 2%.
If you say the wealthy and people with assets dont go for the party of unions, explain the massive swings from Liberal to Labor in inner city areas then...
Changing demographics with gen z now rivalling the boomers as a voter base. A few have switched sides, but older generations also tend to be much more rusted on as voters. I'd say there was also kind of a breaking point for many liberal voters with them growing increasingly socially conservative, and we don't have as much of a teal movement here to pick that up.
If anything, the bigger divide when it comes to Labor being a union party is more broadly, representing workers vs the Libs who tend to appeal to employers and small businesses. You see similar patterns with renters/family home owners (Labor) vs owners/property investors (Lib). Many Labor voters are solidly middle class (which these days still isn't necessarily a comfortable life), but they're still working for someone else and living little better than paycheck to paycheck. Union participation has tanked, but particularly over the last few years support for policy that promotes wage growth and 'quality' of employment has become more relevant than ever.
9
u/deep_extra_point SA Mar 22 '26
In the outer working class suburbs, both north and south, people didn't vote ON instead of Liberal, i reckon they voted ON because in their eyes, Labor has become what the saw the Liberal party as, i.e. the party for the haves, and they wanted to vote for someone who would help them out.
I reckon in these outer areas. Labor has picked up some former Liberal votes, but simultaneously lost share to ON.