WA’s strange conservative yoof
The West Australian’s WestPoll is not taken very seriously by either side of politics. It’s got a tiny sample and the raw data is never released — and if a report from a friend of mine who was polled is anything to go by, that’s because the questions are hopelessly skewed. Although the poll is taken regularly, the paper occasionally skips publication if the results don’t fit its agenda.
When the West joins forces with HBF to conduct a proper survey of 18- to 30-year-olds, the so-called “iGeneration” — apparently because they know how to use the internet — it’s a bit harder to twist or ignore the results. But they try! Oh, how they try.
Yesterday the angle was a “surprising conservatism” among WA’s youngsters. Today we have the wonderful headline, “The kids are all Right.” You’d be forgiven for thinking this was an army of Coalition supporters, but look at the figures:
-
71% support gay marriage.
-
79% support euthanasia.
-
83% support abortion rights.
-
67% do not identify with a mainstream religion, and only 1 in 10 go to church on a weekly basis.
-
The majority are opposed to animal testing.
-
30% do not think marriage is “relevant.”
-
Only 37% would fight “if the Government made the decision to go to war,” while 68% would fight for a cause they supported and 72% would fight if Australia was directly threatened.
-
90% would marry outside their race or religion.
-
55% think Australia’s migration intake is about right, while roughly equal numbers want it increased or decreased.
-
40% intend to vote for Labor, the Greens or the Democrats, while 32% intend to vote for the Liberals, Nationals or One Nation.
Looking at voting intention alone refutes the ludicrous claim that WA youth is “all Right”! And as for the overwhelming endorsement of progressive values, the West Australian can call this “conservatism” if it wants. I don’t care — inaccurate labels won’t change reality.
There are a couple of results that the West relies on to bolster its claims. First, that support for an Australian republic sits at 53%, with 34% opposition. This is hardly surprising. Polls have shown a decline in republicanism as the issue has dropped off the agenda, and young people are less likely to have been engaged in the debate in the first place. Those aged 18-22 could not vote in the referendum. I expect these figures would change if the issue became topical again.
The main evidence of “conservatism” is, apparently, the fact that those surveyed
rat[ed] a financial plan and saving and investing for the future well above fashion, popularity and being attractive to the opposite sex.
There are a couple of points to make here. First, it is hardly surprising that people choose “financial planning” ahead of “fashion” in terms of importance, but it doesn’t tell us anything about how they actually live their lives. You can guarantee more young people read Cleo and Ralph than Business Review Weekly or The Economist.
But more importantly, it doesn’t tell us anything about these young people’s politics. The feminist Left has been very vocal in its criticism of “fashion” and “being attractive to the opposite sex” as creating severe body image problems, for example. And what is support for job security, superannuation and a decent welfare system if not financial planning and saving and investing for the future?
So far, the West Australian has put together some incredibly shallow and misleading “analysis” of the iGeneration survey results. I’m hoping former blogger Gareth Parker will come up with something better when his piece is published tomorrow.
Update: Apparently the unpublished poll mentioned in my first paragraph was the result of an oversight and the lack of a clear policy; the new editor is firmly committed to a monthly WestPoll publication schedule. Gareth’s piece will probably run on Friday.
Hurrah, there is still hope for us yet.
As usual the West hasn’t got a clue.
There was not a majority vote for a republic in any single state at the 6th November 1999 referendum and certainly no majority overall. This is the poll that matters, Robert, not the bi-weekly News Limited survey aimed at well-known republican demographics.
There is two main reasons why the referendum failed.
1. The republicans spent more time bitching about what kind of republic they wanted. The infighting here was the big killer.
2. Just because people think something is a good idea doesn’t mean they are prepared to vote for it. Look back at the history of voting in Australia, both at referendums and general elections. People always vote for the devil they know unless heavily provoked into doing otherwise.
In the years leading up to the referendum I campaigned fairly strongly for the system of government we already have. I believe there is a valid arguement that Australia should have an Australian performing the role that the Queen plays however I wouldn’t vote for it unless convinced that it would provide us with a substantial benefit.
A republic won’t make Australia any more prosperous, give people a job, remove poverty or make the system of government any fairer. Let’s face it, only people with money, who are highly qualified, who live a fairly aristocratic lifestyle, are in very good health and have served the nation in a judicial or military role will ever get appointed to the high office, just as the current position of Governor General does.
Labor’s, and Malcolm Turnbull’s idea of a “minimalist change” was bull too and probably the first thing that voters saw through on their way to the polling booths. Their republic required no less than 76 changes to the constitution to make the proposal legal. A better way of appearing to be minimalist is to divide the Queen’s powers between the Governor General and the Chief Justice of the High Court, as these two positions already hold a great deal of constitutional power, and also refer to the new ‘head of state’ as the Governor General instead of adopting the designation of ‘president’.
When republicans are fairdinkum about what they want to achieve instead of bitching about how to get there, along with the snide personal vitriol that usually comes from such arguments then we may eventually see Australia with an Australian at the helm. As per the impression I gave before though, the current system of government in this country works very well and the dismissal of a Prime Minister in 1975 and the resignation of a Governor General in 2002 taking place without undue issues, apart from the problems leading upto these events prove this point.
I think, for the time-being, there are better things to spend $170,000,000 on.
Thanks for hijacking a thread, Watchdog. I am well aware of the reasons for the referendum’s loss, and the challenges facing the republican movement, but I’m not going to debate it here or now. I’m sure there will be ample opportunity in future.
Of course the 53% support for the republic gives ample room for a good wedge campaign to peel off either the Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian republicans and maintain the status quo. It is for precisely this reason the ALP supports plebicites: “We want to change the constitution, but we’re not really sure how (or even why) so let’s just hold a vote anyway”.
The media often seems to find itself confused when attempting to present data on youth opinions, but the figures themselves are, mostly, reassuring. When a blow is dealt to progressive thinking it’s always heartening to think that some day during my life-time, it will be this generation calling the shots.
The thing that annoys me most is the West article on the i generation poll describes surprisingly low levels of support amongst young people, and that young people are conservative on the republic. If for one am glad these journos did not do their degree in interpreting statistics. Ok, low…would genrally mean less than 50%. But no, the i-generation poll reveals 53% support for a republic, only 34% support for the monarchy and 17% undecided (btw, my personal thanks is extended to Prince Harry who is doing a damn good job of swaying the 17% undecded vote over to the republican cause). 53% is pretty good – especially when one considers the republican debate has been off the agenda a few years, and fair portion of those in the 18-30 bracket interviewed would have been too young to vote in the 1999 referendum and would not have been as exposed to the issues and debate at the time.
In light of this, the republican cause is looking pretty healthy. It helps of course, that the Royals continue to misbehave – Prince Harry not realising wearing a swastika would be offensive to Jews and Britons who fought in WW2, Prince Hary not realising it’s not ok, when asked about his Zimbabwean girlfriend to quip back, “She’s not black or anything you know.” MRs Windsor still refusing to pay tax…Prince Charles realising that he hasnt visited the colonies for quite some time, so maybe he should visit Australia for the first time in 11years…all I can say is keep up the good work of converting monarchists to republicans, Windsors, you are true battlers for the cause.
I
Being a royal isn’t a prerequesite for playing up, remember a president by the name of Bill Clinton? He did a fair bit of mucking up as far as I remember.
Thanks for pointing that out Watchdog. We won’t put Clinton forward for King (or President) of Australia.
However, it does appear that you have trouble with sticking to the point.
Nice point Watchdog…fortunately though, with democratically elected Head of States like Bill Clinton, we can choose not to re-elect them if we wish and in the American system they can only serve a amaximum of two terms as President. I understand most republican models in Australia have also proposed mechanisms to cap the number of terms a president can serve. Also, I note the American system has a method of impeaching a President. Shame we cant do the same with members of the Royals – there is simply no accountability – we are stuck with them, no matter how badly they misbehave unless they die, resign voluntarily or become ex-communicated from the Church of England. Democracy has some accountability. ROyalty just has the luck of the gene pool…
Gareth rang me and asked if it was ok if I was described as a “leftie ratbag”.
I said yes.
I also made sure that my ‘Cooking With Gas’ co-founder got some cred, and was not described as a leftie rat bag.
There’s something about a bikini car wash in it, by the way.
Yeah, and I still wanna know what a yoof is.
Jeeves: yeah, I gave him your number. I told him I was sure you wouldn’t mind being called a lefty ratbag.