Is the media misreading migration as a major issue for voters?

At the weekend, there was a compulsion about the Ev Hiking for Australia ”. Everyone acknowledges that the Nazis who speak and cheer in the Melbourne Rally are bad. But other than that? It is warmly discussed whether there are many good people with mainstream concerns about migration.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanian and political leaders cope with this cohort moment Patricia Karves of ABC said, ız There are always good people to show their views on certain issues ”and the opposition leader Sussan Ley Parliament said that the weekend rallies at the weekend rallies were joined by goodwill people, but caught hate and racism by violent Neo-Nazis”.

The feeling that these rallies were a more excessive expression of the general will of the Australian people was strengthened by the interpretation. For example, Nick Cater discussed Australia that it is part of a necessary conversation about it Multiculturalism as a whole: “Instead of pushing the causes of walking, he should ask questions about why ordinary people with political class, families and intense lives feel forced to walk”.

But is migration really a central concern for voters? In the May surveys this year, the nation rejected the coalition and voted for using Peter Dutton Budget response last May To promise a harsh tilted line to the migration for four years to offer more than 100,000 houses. Finally, he confused the waters in this policy, but as he wouldn’t, he insisted that the coalition would not tolerate a situation in which young Australians could not find rental accommodation or had no chance of having a chance to have because of migration ”.

He made me think that media and politicians describe how often described a subject as a touchstone for the vast majority of voters, just the biggest test of this idea – a choice – to prove otherwise.

2025

The descriptive problems had to be: Donald Trump, Antisemitism and Gaza. In the United States, the return of a Trump administration of a conservative and authoritarian Trump of Australia had to strengthen the difficult right of Australia. And a coalition, a warrior, a racial feeder Peter Dutton – It was to take the Labor Party to a close conclusion or possibly a narrow victory during a negative campaign during a negative campaign during a negative campaign on an indigenous voice.

In addition, the horror in Gaza had to squeeze the Albanian government in both ways. From the right, accusations came from the government that the inadequate support for Israel fueled anti -Semitism. From the left, he was afraid of a significant lack of action that pushed Israel’s relentless massacre in Gaza.

What happened instead: The worker won so easily-he was removed from the seat as easy-Dutton, and the greens, which were scattered to a large extent, lost three quarters of the sub-house representations, including the leading man Bandt.

2022

The descriptive problems had to be: The government’s responses to Covid and the risks of choosing independents. Anti-Lockdown and Anti-VAX emotion dominated public life in the previous two years. News Corp was extremely forced in the integrity of sea blue independent independents.

What happened instead: Emek, Teals and then Prime Minister Scott Morrison’ın absolutely easily won with the help of the brutal vibrations. Clive Palmer’s United Australian Party, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and other far-right populist parties forced to criticize vaccine and locking policies, despite all these Palmer’s spending of $ 123 millionMost of any party in 2022.

Double shot: Victoria is all the above, but it was a million times. The media ran more and more sad And then the conspiratorial campaign against the Andrews from the leading “dictator öyle. He won more comfortable than before the worker.

2019

The descriptive problem had to be: After years of snaping at the “Rudd-Gillard-Rudd” chaos under the worker, the liberals stabbed two sitting prime minister in about three years and produced their inner chaos. The coalition was tolerant, out of contact and was not completely suitable for the government. Meanwhile, Labour’s great policy agenda had to show that they were adults who could bring back Canberra to act effectively.

What happened instead: Scott Morrison produced 2019’s “miracle” win. The media underestimated how little Bill Shorten was for voters and how many risks Labour take with its large, expensive platform.

2016

The descriptive problem had to be: Everyone thought that Malcolm Turnbull was super cool and that Bill Shortten was a total idiots and that Rudd-Gillard-Rudd was very close in the rearview mirror For anything other than a comfortable liberal victory.

What happened instead: The liberals barely scraped after a long and low -energy campaign.

1993

The descriptive problem had to be: 1993 Is the origin of the formulation of the formulation of öz Losing the unaffeded ”? In the early 1990s, Australia He endured a serious stagnation, The workers’ government, which has been in power since 1983, seemed to be insular and fragile when Treasurer Paul Keating rounded Prime Minister Bob Hawke in late 1991. Surveys constantly liberal party Ahead of the exit to 1993.

What happened instead: “The sweetest victory of all“As Robert Manne wrote after the election:“ Australian political history says there are two conditions that turn voters against a government: a serious division or sudden economic decline. During the Keating government, both conditions were largely fulfilled. Nevertheless, the liberal party sat on labor. “

Many commentators recorded similarity to 1993 in 2019: A “uninvible dur selection, which was lost on a new, detailed policy platform, a new official, gave the chance to remove the target from him.