‘Unprecedented’ is, I think, a word thrown around far too often. But not this time. At no time in British electoral history have the two main parties done so abysmally in local elections, as they did on Thursday. The BBC puts their joint projected national vote share at 35%. Not each. Joint. It was a brilliant election result for the other major parties.
This year, being one more than a multiple of four, saw county council elections across the country, and six mayoral races. These seats were last up for election in the 2021 post-COVID-vaccine bounce, so the Conservatives went into the election with 19 councils, Labour 1. 3 were under no overall control. Every council changed hands. Reform won 10, including the Labour held Doncaster metropolitan borough, and the Liberal Democrats, 3. Conservatives on the other 6 councils they held lost their majorities.
The mayoralty results were somewhat less damning for the main two parties, but the winners were still Reform. Labour held two mayoralties and gained a third from an independent with just 25% of the vote. Conservatives reclaimed the Cambridgeshire mayor by virtue of a relatively popular former MP. Reform won the two inaugural mayoral races in Greater Lincolnshire and Hull and East Yorkshire.
The biggest losers were of course the Tories. As if losing 676 councillors and every council they held wasn’t bad enough, they fell back to fourth in projected national vote share with just 15% of the notional vote. Just think of the losses if the nine councils whose elections were postponed to allow for restructuring (more devolution and new mayoralties), of which the Conservatives hold six, were up for election. Badenoch, who naturally blames Starmer for not having fixed the mess her party left them with already, has spoken out following the results to remind people that nine months isn’t long enough to turn a party around. Tell that to Mark Carney! They cannot beat Reform at Reform’s own game, so they had better turn around and face the right direction – towards the centre. While the Conservatives feel like a knock off Reform, they will not be taken seriously, and while they retain the ineffectual Badenoch as their leader, they will not be able to shrug off the spectre of the shambles of their last government. Perhaps they will keep her on for another half a year yet to appear united, but they need new credible centre-right faces to separate themselves both Farage and from their government.
It was also a significant blow to Labour. Reform took resounding control of the one council Labour held, and they lost 186 of 285 council seats. They took a distant second in the projected national vote share with 20%, ten percentage points behind Reform. Starmer may be getting the unpopular things out of the way. But he had better hurry up with it. Several unforced errors, including restricting disability benefits, are costing them votes. Along with their continued arming of Israel, they are haemorrhaging votes on the left which they need to consolidate if they are to have a chance at the next general election, as far away as it is. They also need to improve their messaging. They have resolved the strikes crippling the NHS, reduced waiting list numbers six months in a row, raised the national minimum wage, implemented new protections for employees and tenants, set up Great British Energy to bolster renewable energy in the UK among other environmental protections, began the process of also renationalising the railways, and much more! But no one knows of remembers any of it.
It was a significant loss for elective democracy and our electoral system too. Voters are not voting like we have first-past-the-post. In the West of England mayoral race, the Lib Dems got 14%, the Conservatives, 17%, the Greens, 20%, Reform, 22%, and Labour, 25%. The Conservatives under Johnson got rid of ranked-choice voting for mayors, thinking it would help them. How wrong they were!
The Greens doubled their number of seats up for election with 45 gains and are likely to join coalition administrations in Devon and Hertfordshire. Though they had hoped they might manage to take the mayoralty of the West of England, their showing was strong. They reached 11% in the projected vote share.
But the big winners of the day were Lib Dems and Reform. The Lib Dems saw minority administrations turn into majorities in Oxfordshire and Cambridge and took one more council from the Conservatives. Their 163 gains from a start of just 207, coupled with the Conservative losses see them take second in the number of council majorities in the country, with 40 to the Conservatives’ 33. Cheers erupted in their HQ when it was announced they had beaten the Tories by two percentage points in PNS.
And Reform made it big. 677 seats gained. 10 councils. 2 mayors. In the Runcorn by-election, they also restored their parliamentary strength to 5 after the suspension of Rupert Lowe, with a margin over Labour, who were defending the seat, of six votes. It was a significant Reform-Labour swing. (The previous Labour MP did resign because he was sentenced to prison time for punching a constituent though.) Farage says his party is the real opposition. Many Reform voters seemed to think he might now be PM. Given how much time his party of five MPs is unfairly and biasedly afforded by the BBC compared to the Greens or the Lib Dems, I’m not surprised.
So here’s some much-needed context: Labour have 6132 seats and 107 councils, the Conservatives, 4358 and 33, the Lib Dems 3179 and 40, the Greens 895 and 1, and Reform 805 and 10. National-scale local governmental change takes time. You wouldn’t have thought that from the coverage.
And now they have to govern. It’s easy to say you’ll make people’s lives better, especially by playing to the prejudices of low-information voters by invoking the amorphous spectre of immigration. It’s much harder to actually do it. Especially by targeting immigrants and forgetting to do anything useful. Many candidates, merely there on paper to help with vote share, including former GB News presenter Darren Grimes' mum and brother, now find themselves unwitting councillors. Do they know it’s effectively voluntary work? One councillor has already been suspended for saying that she’s only part of Reform in opposition to Labour and the Tories, until Lowe starts a ‘better’ party for her to join.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns, the former Conservative MP, and Greater Lincolnshire mayor-elect (who somehow managed to campaign on Reform’s standard anti-elites antiestablishmentarianism), said she wants to ‘house’ asylum seekers in tents. She also announced that she’d fire all employees over which she has control who worked on ‘DEI’ – diversity, equality, and inclusion. (Note her use of the American initialism and far-right dog-whistle which we would do well to not import.) Lincolnshire council soon replied that there are none anyway, of course. Farage, not content to leave Jenkyns to her vacuous outrage, announced that Reform-led councils would ban the flying of all flags from council-led buildings barring the Union flag and English flag. That’s what the voters really want to see! He’s already walked back on the proposal to allow county flags too. He might as well come out and say what he really means, which is no more pride flags or Ukrainian flags. The gold-medallist boxer and Hull and East Yorkshire mayor-elect Luke Campbell now has to settle into his new and rather less exciting job, which notably excludes national immigration policy. Who’d have thought? I look forward to seeing how he does.
Could Starmer's policy be gifting Reform the reins of some local government to see them mess it up? I highly doubt it. It would be a reckless strategy. But, purposeful or not, it might just work.

What a week on the election front! On Monday, the Liberals managed that which seemed unimaginable just a couple of months ago – a return to government. At the beginning of the year, just as Trudeau resigned, his party, the Liberals (LPC) was polling 25 percentage points behind their main rivals, the Conservatives (CPC), on just 20% of the vote. Such a showing could have seen them fall behind the regional Quebec sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) in terms of seats won and would have produced the strongest majority government in forty years. But in the end, it wasn’t to be for the CPC. The stars, of which Trump was the brightest, aligned for the LPC and they will return to minority government, this time only three seats from a majority, to enjoy their fourth parliament in a row in power.
Trump’s tariffs, which gravely threaten the Canadian economy if handled poorly, and his aggressive imperialist expansionist rhetoric were front and centre in the eyes of Canadian voters. It catalysed a large anti-American patriotic sentiment, especially among centre and left voters, and proved sufficient for the LPC in many ridings. Online, large anti-CPC strategic voting campaigns pushed hard for a LPC majority, seeing it as both the best way to tackle Trump and his threats of annexation, and the only viable alternative to a CPC win. This was most pronounced in Quebec, where BQ lost twelve seats to the LPC and just one to the CPC. In the end, the CPC and LPC traded almost the same number of seats, so it was LPC gains from BQ and the NDP which saw them to victory. The Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, were too tainted by Trumpy undertones for many, as in their hardline stances on immigration, their desire to defund the public Canadian broadcaster, and Poilievre’s anti-choice votes in parliamentary abortion bills, an issue considered firmly settled north of the border. Despite the highest Conservative vote share since 1988, when the major right-wing party was the Progressive Conservatives, the widespread support Carney brought by bringing the Liberals to the centre (if not further right economically) while still maintaining progressive social views proved insurmountable. No Canadian election has seen two parties surpass forty percent of the vote since 1930.
So, it was a less-than-ideal election for the remaining parties. The New Democratic Party (NDP), a left-wing party and the third largest national party, also suffered from LPC-swing, collapsing to only 7 seats, too few to regain official party status and the monetary and parliamentary benefits that come with. It was a poor night too for their leader, Jagmeet Singh, who, with only 18% of the vote, lost his own riding in distant third.
So too did young Green party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault. Fifth in his Quebec riding, only three percentage points separated him and the Conservative candidate in second, the incumbent Liberal returned with an absolute majority of votes. Both he and Singh have resigned.
But neither was the most dramatic upset of the night. And no, I don’t mean Maxime Bernier, leader of the hard right populist People’s Party losing for the fifth time in six years since he defected from the Conservatives. Pierre Poilievre lost his seat. Surely a politician of national standing like he, with seven straight election wins, doesn’t have to campaign in his own riding, right? It seems not so. Bruce Fanjoy, the Liberal Candidate, a stay-at-home dad and former businessman, should be a case-study in campaigning for the LPC HQ for years to come. With a 12.3-point swing against him, Fanjoy usurped the one-time favourite for Prime Minister with a refreshing no-nonsense campaign, and weeks of dedicated door knocking. His campaign video was simple – it gave examples of bills Poilievre had voted against in parliament, and claimed Poilievre took Carleton, his seat, for granted. And it seemed, Carleton agreed. Despite a pro-electoral reform group managing to see the ballot reach a metre long, with 91 candidates running, Fanjoy took home just of 50% of the vote.
But Poilievre’s not done yet. Unlike the other two leaders he’s to be parachuted back into parliament in the coming months, by way of a by-election in the ultra-safe seat of Battle River-Crowfoot in Alberta. Damien Kurek, who clearly cares terribly about the enormous mandate he has from the members of his riding, who returned him to parliament with 80% of the vote, has announced he will resign to allow Poilievre to take the seat. One would think, that after losing an election over the course of three months and losing a seat in an election where your party’s vote share surged, Poilievre might disappear into obscurity. But no! Those parliamentary expenses are too great an asset to pass up! Someone’s got to be Leader of the Opposition. Just look at Badenoch. It can’t be fun.
Many commentators have blamed vote splitting for the LPC’s failure to gain a majority, but I conjecture, not so. Despite their pretty unambiguous positions on the political spectrum from left to right, they each have cross-over appeal. The NDP and LPC appeal to the economic centre and further left which maintain progressive social views. The LPC and CPC appeal to the economic centre-right, especially with the LPC headed by Carney, who was approached by the CPC under the Harper government to be economy minister. The NDP and CPC appeal to blue-collar workers, with their mutual anti-status quo, anti-elite vibe, even if only the former would conform to such a vibe with their tax policy. So, it’s not as simple as vote splitting, though that is not to say it didn’t happen. In previously NDP-held seats, a simplistic, strategic vote for the LPC is the wrong idea, but it does seem that some NDP seats may have been handed to the Conservatives on this basis. Of course, it may merely have been disgruntled NDP voters not turning up or voting for the LPC for other reasons. We may never know, as hard as the NDP will try to find out.
Of course, Carney now has his work cut out. That was the easy bit. Saying you’ll handle Trump is much easier than pulling it off. Economic issues plagued the end of the Trudeau administration, which Carney must now bring under control. And Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith, clearly devastated by the CPC loss is now budding for a referendum on Albertan independence. (Alberta is covered completely by treaties 6, 7, and 8, between Canada and First Nations, whose chiefs have called her rhetoric reckless; the idea of Albertan independence is a waste of time.) Getting elected was the easy part.

Election results (compared to notional results due to boundary changes): LPC: 43.7%, 169 (+15) seats; CPC: 41.3%, 143 (+16) seats; BQ: 6.3% 23 (-13) seats; NDP: 6.3%, 7 (-17) seats; Green: 1.2% 1 (-1) seat.

On Easter Monday, in the early morning, having given his final Easter address the day before, the pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, died at the age of eighty-eight at his home in the Domus Sanctae Marthae after some months of illness and a stroke. As both Bergoglio and Franciscus (or Francis to anglophone readers), Jorge was a reformer. The first pope from the Southern Hemisphere, the first pope from the Americas, the first Jesuit pope, the first pope from outside Europe since 741 (Syrian pope Gregory III), and the first pope to give himself a name not taken by another pope since 914 (pope Lando), he broke new ground with just his election.
Born in Buenos Aires on the 17th December 1936, Bergoglio worked as a janitor and a bouncer, and at a food-hygiene lab in his adolescence. There, he worked under Esther Ballestrino, a political activist, and once helped her smuggle communist books from her house after she feared it would be searched. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he worked to engage with those who lived in slums in the city and greatly increased the church's presence there. As Ordinary for the Eastern Catholics in Argentina he also served their community, and he did so diligently, according to the Major Archbishop of Kyiv, as he did his many appointments. "[He] took care of our Church in Argentina,” said Shevchuk.
Appointed to the College of Cardinals by John Paul II, Bergoglio continued in his humble way, living in a modest apartment, commuting by bus, and cooking for himself. At the 2005 conclave, it is said it came down to just he and Ratzinger, so come 2013 and a new conclave, at seventy-six, old for a pope but younger than Ratzinger had been, it shouldn’t have been the surprise it was when he was elected.
Following his election, he lived for a while in the room he was randomly assigned at the beginning of conclave in the Domus Sanctae Martae, a building usually used to host guests to the Vatican. He declined to take up residence at the Apostolic Palace for the remainder of his papacy – “I must live my life with others,” he reasoned. Faithful to his Jesuit vows of poverty, he refused much of the luxury that he could have enjoyed throughout his papacy, and worried not about aesthetics and traditions associated with the papacy, in stark and welcome contrast to his predecessor, instead choosing to focus on works and piety.
As pope he was revolutionary in many ways. In his openness to women in the church (he appointed Raffaella Petrini as President of the Governorate of the Vatican City State, the Vatican’s head of government, a position of significant executive power), the LGBT community ("If a person is gay and seeks God and has goodwill, who am I to judge?"), inter-religious dialogue, and married priests, especially older priests and in areas where priests are in short supply, he looked like an empathetic leader in a modern world. As archbishop he taught “not [to] be rigid in administration of the Eucharist,” and as pope, in ‘Amoris Laetitia’, he advocated a more nuanced approach towards divorced and remarried Catholics. He also found progressive allies in his criticism of capitalism and the death penalty, which the Catholic church now opposes in all cases, and his advocation for climate justice, refugees, the poor, mercy, and love (the latter two being regularly invoked as the better focus when members of the Catholic church were lost or “obsessed” with issues of contraception, abortion, and sexuality), and for his views on atheism ("The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience"). And more recently, he was praised for his rebukes of Donald Trump for his treatment of immigrants (while visiting the US-Mexico border, "A person who thinks only about building walls … and not building bridges, is not Christian.") and of JD Vance for his attempted theological justification of his and the President’s treatment of immigrants ("Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups.”).
His death was met with an outpouring of grief around the world from Catholics and non-Catholics, with condolences and praise given even by senior Protestant, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist leaders. Over forty countries declared a period of national mourning, including countries with tiny Christian populations, like Jordan, India, and Bangladesh.
His funeral, held on the 26th April, was pared down so as to be more in line with the ceremony afforded to bishops and he was buried outside the Vatican in Rome in the Basilica Santa Maria Maggiore. His tomb bears only the inscription ‘Franciscus’.

"He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal," is a common saying among Vatican commentators both for its gravitas and its use as an excuse. The 1939, 1963, and 2005 conclaves that elected Pius XII, Paul VI, and Benedict XVI would have many beg to differ. So who is publicly in the running to succeed Francis?
First, the election. Cardinals, some 250 in number, will convene on the Vatican this Wednesday to, guided by the Holy Spirit, elect the new pope. In order to avoid outside influence, the conclave, first instituted in the 13th century, involves the cardinals being physically locked into the Sistine Chapel (with a key; cum clave) while they deliberate. No cardinal is permitted to communicate with anyone outside the conclave, punishable by automatic and therefore immediate excommunication. Nowadays, to ensure the secrecy of the election, the building is filled and surrounded with all sorts of devices designed to interfere with radio signals and recording devices and swept for bugs. Four ballots are held each day, apart from on the first day when only one is held, a sort of free vote, where cardinals vote for their first choice rather than their compromise. A two-thirds supermajority of cardinal-electors, of which there are 133, is required. Only cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to vote.
According to oddschecker.com, here are the sixth to tenth most likely next popes, ordered by increasing likelihood, with the top five to follow:

10. Fridolin Cardinal Ambongo Besungu, 66, DR Congo, created cardinal by Francis.
Besungu is an outspoken advocate for social justice around the world, and has expressed strong support for policy tackling climate change. However, he led negotiations with other African cardinals to opt out of Francis’ proposal to bless same-sex partnerships, citing cultural opposition in Africa, and strongly supports priestly celibacy. He falls neatly into neither the conservative nor liberal faction among the cardinals, which could put him in a difficult position if he sees himself as the next pope.

9. Jean-Marc Cardinal Aveline, 66, France, created cardinal by Francis.
Aveline is alleged to be Francis’ favourite to succeed him and is well regarded by the left wing of the College. He supports interreligious dialogue and is known for his advocacy of the poor in his ministry in Marseille. Reticent to express his leanings on any particularly contentious issues, he has largely followed the guiding of Francis, proactively but without strong vocal support. Conservative critics say he’s far too modernist, and at 66, the college may not be willing to elect a cardinal like him for what could be a generational papacy.

8. Mario Cardinal Grech, 68, Malta, created cardinal by Francis.
Under Benedict XVI, Grech was known for his conservative views, including opposition to the legalisation of divorce in Malta. Now, he has become quite the liberal candidate, going so far as to express openness to appointing women to the Diaconate. He has criticised language he says is ‘hurtful to homosexuals’ and strongly opposed the anti-immigrant stances of some Mediterranean countries and his home country of Malta.

7. Robert Cardinal Sarah, 79, Guinea, created cardinal by Benedict XVI.
Sarah is a staunchly orthodox conservative. He opposes every notable progressive change in the Catholic church, including any reassessment of the use of contraception, female deacons, communion for divorcees, and blessing same-sex couples, which he has described as ‘heresy’. Some say he has great sway in the conclave. Perhaps he could become pope if the conclave was held on X.

6. Peter Cardinal Erdo, 72, Hungary, created cardinal by John Paul II.
Erdo speaks like a moderate, but don’t be fooled. He is a conservative through and through. He has opposed many aspects of Francis’ pontificate and has spoken out against accepting migrants. His political close alignment with the authoritarian Fidesz party of Hungary, and their leader, Viktor Orban, to the point of being included in a meeting usually restricted for cabinet at the start of the most recent parliament, should hurt his papal prospects, but his strictly hierarchical view of the church could appeal to many cardinals who would like to a more (perhaps superficially) united church.

5. Pierbattista Cardinal Pizzaballa, 60, Jerusalem, created cardinal by Francis.
Pizzaballa’s views on most prominent ecclesiastical issues are not public, so we cannot know the direction he would take the church. However, elevated to the College recently, he unsurprisingly has some of the same persuasions on the poor and marginalised as the late pope. He is probably best known for his statements on the current Israel-Gaza conflict, as Patriarch of Jerusalem, and his most notable offer to exchange himself for Israeli children when Hamas took hostages at the beginning of the war. Having been based in Israel for the last thirty years, he would be a strong candidate to promote religious dialogue, as he has done as patriarch, but unlike all other recent Patriarchs of Jerusalem, he is Italian, and so scores points there. Unless he is far more forthcoming in the privacy of the conclave, his unclear positions and relative youth could dissuade his peers. And even that, such a turnaround might suggest he wants to be pope, which would severely hurt his chances.

4. Peter Cardinal Turkson, 76, Ghana, created cardinal by John Paul II.
Turkson is a strong and highly experienced moderate candidate. Having been raised to the college twenty-one years ago and further promoted since, he has overseen many Vatican departments effectively. While traditional in general in his views on marriage and homosexuality, his views on the latter have soften under the most recent papacy, and he has been vocal in his calls for decriminalising homosexuality in Africa and elsewhere. He has expressed openness to allowing non-celibate priests as a means of tackling priestly shortages, especially in areas where Catholicism is growing, like in the continent from which he hails. He would be the first African pope since the 5th century pope Gelasius I. With relatively known views and at 76, he could be a top contender, for those electors who might value a stable short and predictable papacy.

3. Matteo Cardinal Zuppi, 69, Italy, created cardinal by Francis.
Zuppi is by far the most modernist contender for the papacy. A great supporter of Francis social message and advocate for the marginalised, he is the only cardinal listed here to unambiguously support Francis’ Fiducia Supplicans, which allowed priests to bless same-sex couples (in fact he had already permitted it done in his diocese a year-and-a-half before), only he and Turkson have clearly considered dropping the celibacy requirement for priests, only he and Parolin have unambiguously supported communion for divorcees, and only he and Tagle have suggested they would be open to reassessing Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, which outlines the church’s current restrictive teachings on contraception, and which is now almost 60 years old. He would be a great proponent of modernising the church and interacting with a rapidly changing world and is described as “a true son of the spirit of Vatican II,” the most recent ecumenical council. He himself describes his approach as “rejecting hate.” However, his fairly extreme views (relatively), and his fluency only of Italian could make finding a supermajority in his favour rather difficult.

2. Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, 67, Philippines, created cardinal by Benedict XVI.
Tagle would be similarly progressive, if perhaps not quite to the extent of his Italian peer above. Known for his playful demeanour and as the “Asian Francis,” he was once seen as Francis’ favourite to succeed him, though he seems to have fallen out of such favour. He has criticised “harsh” stances on gay people and single mothers and is certainly the continuity candidate. He would be the first Asian pope since Gregory III in the 8th century and would be the first such pope not from Syria, Turkey, or Palestine.

1. Pietro Cardinal Parolin, 70, Italy, created cardinal by Francis.
Parolin is a highly respected diplomat to Catholics and non-Catholics around the world alike and the current long-standing Vatican Secretary of State. Like above, he would be a continuity candidate but is stand out for the sense that he would continue with Francis’ reforms in a more subtle manner. Especially for those who share Francis’ views but worry about an increasingly divided church, Parolin could be the way to go. He was pivotal in restoring direct communication between the Vatican and China at the start of the century, and helped orchestrate a secret deal with Beijing on the ordination of bishops which remains secret and controversial as such. Despite this, he has largely avoided significant public criticism, especially any such sustained disquiet, and has called for patience on the issue. He would pursue a more global church, like many on the ecclesiastical left, and would be deft at it too, a skilled negotiator, though his detractors see a lack of parish experience resulting from all his international business as a drawback. Before John Paul II, every pope stretching back to the Dutch Adrian VI in 1522 had been Italian. Parolin could well be the man to bring the papacy home. And in the context of a divided church, the College could be eager to put up a united front with a quick conclave over and done with by Friday. If that’s their goal, then Parolin could well be their man. (I hope so, so I have time to write up an article about it – they would spend all of Saturday praying, so if there’s no result by Friday, then we will have one no earlier than Sunday.)

The next most important question of course will be which name the new pontiff picks. I think a new name would be quite unlikely, the new candidate wanting to leave some of the sense of Francis’ radicalism in the past (even if they share the views). And for that reason, I think a Francis II, as wonderful a tribute as that might be, is rather unlikely. A more progressive candidate, like Zuppi, Tagle, or Parolin, could well be John XXIV or even Leo XIV instead, taking a more traditional name, while still honouring a pope more on their side of the aisle. On the other hand, those more in the middle, like Turkson, might be brave enough to consider John Paul, and a conservatives could well be Benedict XVII or Pius XIII. Of course, predicting the next pope is not an easy business. The cardinals align each other on myriad axes, no doubt including how well they know them, and Italian-ness. A new candidate could emerge in the confines of the Sistine Chapel and we wouldn't know it till it's all over. We’ll be waiting on that white smoke!

On Saturday, Australia went to the polls, and like in Canada, the centre-left incumbents won it! Except in Australia, it was an emphatic win for the Albanese administration. With 77 seats, a majority of just 3, as of the 2022 elections, the administration formed a majority government by the skin of its teeth. Not this time.
Because Australia uses alternative vote, where candidates are ranked and votes for candidates who fail to receive enough first votes are then transferred to the voter’s second placed candidate and so on, vote counting takes time. As of Sunday morning, 127 of 150 seats had been called. As of Sunday evening, as I write this, that number remains unchanged. They have many more days of vote counting ahead so they’d better have Sunday off!
Despite this, the Labor party has already been returned to government with at least 83 seats (and it looks like they’ll beat 90), and Albanese will become only the third Labor prime minister to be re-elected to a second term.
What’s this? Labor have won at the expense of a smaller left-wing party? The right-wing party’s leader has lost his seat? It turns out the Trump effect is far more specific than just helping incumbents!
Though none of the Green seats have yet been called, despite getting the same first choice vote share as three years ago, the Greens are unlikely to return to the next parliament with 4 seats. In fact, all 4 are in danger. Throughout the previous parliament, Green senators have been scuppering bills passed by the House of Representatives that they see as not having gone far enough. This has been touted as a potential reason for their potential losses, voters in their constituencies seeing their Senate antics as blocking the good in the search for perfect. It could all come down to who comes in third in each constituency. If Labor are third, most of their votes will flow to the Greens rather than the Coalition party (the right-wing group). If the Coalition is third, most of their votes will flow to Labor rather than the Greens. Though they will retain many senate seats, half of which are up for election by state-wide single transferable vote, for their House of Representatives performance they have a nervous wait ahead of them.
On the other end of the political spectrum, the Coalition also underperformed. Made up of the Liberal party, the National party, the Liberal National party, and the County Liberal party, the Coalition is the right-wing bloc of Australian politics. Formed to avoid inter-right-wing conflict in federal elections, so that they can focus on the important enemy – the left – the parties mostly remain distinct at state level. Despite this, the Coalition spent most of the campaign attacking the Greens and the ‘teal’ (pro-climate action progressive inner city) independents and the idea of a Labor-led coalition government. (They knew that in being held accountable by such minor coalition partners, a Labor minority would be truly progressive.) Its not like the Liberals and Nationals are one party in all but name; they do not particularly like the other and disagree on significant policy platforms, including the Liberal’s flagship nuclear policy, and the National’s vehement anti-climate-policy stance. Indeed, a minority Coalition government is practically an impossibility. No Green or teal would work with them, and even if they did, the Nationals wouldn’t let it happen. It would be National support or Green support for the Liberals and they knew it. They needed a strong performance if they were going to retake the reins of government. They didn’t get close.
Peter Dutton, the Liberal and Coalition leader, was just too Trumpy. His inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric and pro-Trump history proved too much for Australian voters, especially with the sempiternal threat of Trumpian tariffs. Once counts are complete, Ali France will officially become the first Australian to unseat an opposition leader. She may have had a head start (Dutton retained his seat of Dickson with a majority of only 1.7% in 2022), but a swing of 8.2 percent is embarrassing for the Liberal leader, who has resigned. Cue the brutal race to succeed him.
The far-right parties fared similarly poorly. One Nation, a party for far-right climate denying xenophobes, will return to the house with the same zero seats they left with. Trumpet of Patriots, a party for far-right Make Australia Great Again Trump-lovers, got zero seats and just under 2% of the vote. Quite the return of the billionaire party chairman’s investment of (possibly) up to $60 million, and their much-maligned incessant text campaign.
Albanese will face challenges like those Carney faces on the other side of the pacific. With a mandate as he has been given, he had better pull it off.

Provisional election results: Labor: 34.8%, 92 (+15) seats; Coalition: 32.0%, 42 (-16) seats; Green: 11.9% 2 (-2) seats; Katter’s Australia Party: 0.36%, 1 (-) seat; Centre Alliance: 0.25%, 1 (-) seat; SSW: 0.2%, 1 seat; Independents: 7.56%, 12 (+2) seats.