Polling points to a rapidly fragmenting electorate, with One Nation attracting unprecedented support and the major parties facing growing voter dissatisfaction. Ignoring the trend is no longer an option.
Commentary from both left and right has sought to dismiss the implications of the Red Bridge/Accent MRP opinion survey published by the AFR 23-24 May under the heading ‘Is this our political future?‘ The myopic yet visceral rejection of the threat posed by the resurgence of One Nation over the last six months is foolhardy.
MRP is the short hand label for Multilevel Regression with Post-stratification.
Poll after poll has identified that one in four voters are seriously considering voting for One Nation, and that the LNP has fallen behind One Nation and is coming in third. For Labor, however complacency is not warranted, even if the projected two-party preferred vote has remained solid.
The Red Bridge/Accent survey conducted in the first half of May 2026 finds that if an election was held now, 62 of the 150 House of Representatives seats would change hands. A range of predictions as to the number of seats that would swing between parties is proffered. Median predictions are that Labor would have 76 seats, One Nation 53, and the Coalition 12, and there would be 9 others.
In this scenario the Coalition are at risk of losing 37 seats to One Nation, and Labor 16. It is proposed that at the moment the Coalition is at risk of not holding any seats in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia or Tasmania.
It is important to point out such a prognosis is not static, that preferences will have a decisive impact and that small shifts in the primary vote will significantly change a number of seats, however such a proposition does not disrupt the pattern that has been identified.
The results presented are described by Redbridge “as a problematic snapshot of current opinion”.
So is the fragmented electorate thesis that underpins the Red Bridge/Access research accurate? Or does Red Bridge mistake electoral volatility for fragmentation? This is where judgement becomes important.
MRP methodology is standard internationally and is recognised as an effective compensation for traditional polling deficiencies, particularly at the outer suburban and regional level. The MRP methodology aggregates demographic characteristics with consensus data; more accurately identifying attitudinal shifts away from traditional voting habits. It helps explain why Labor’s primary vote can fall dramatically but its 2PP votes remains sufficient to retain government.
The MRP survey acts as an early warning system rather than as a crystal ball, but it serves as a useful diagnostic tool.
Traditional polling lumps all Australians across the country together as a broad stratum. Sample weighting relies on judgements to counter low response rates. MPR gives insights into differences in attitudes based on age, gender, education, religion, class. This information can be set against census results. The sample sizes of 6,000 votes are arguably more accurate than the small state-by-state samples. Like all polling, judgement is required in the modelling assumptions and the interpretation of results. MPR is strongest in identifying structural patterns of voting attitudes of distinct economic, geographic and cultural blocks.
The failed by-products of neo-liberalism are now reflected in our politics.
Traditional conservatives will argue that the Red Bridge fragmentation thesis over-emphasises inequality and social class in explaining voter disillusionment and establishment hostility.
Smart conservatives like Andrew Hastie have declared that “No-one’s going to reward us for a final last stand for neo-liberal politics.” “And there is no medal for blindly defending outdated neo-liberal economic frameworks.”
What is clear is that economic insecurity, falling living standards, unequal distribution of asset wealth, the housing crisis, precarious employment, and the decline in manufacturing jobs, have driven political grievance in the outer suburbs and regional areas.
This reinforces a lack of confidence and trust in government, non-government organisations and legacy media.
The impact of 16 interest rate rises since the end of the pandemic cannot be overlooked when examining the political malaise facing the country.
The fragmented electorate thesis is persuasive, but is it reversible? That depends on the political system’s responses that recognise that old electoral coalitions are breaking down rapidly.
The Coalition’s response by legitimising right wing populism, by trying to outflank One Nation on the right in terms of policies, and favouring them in preference deals, will prove an inadequate strategy to stave off the existential threat.
The Coalition’s collapse is structural, not temporary. Their voting coalition has fractured and will require a root-and-branch reassessment.
For Labor, a retreat to incrementalism in government will also not be sufficient. What is required is the rebuilding of a democratic economy capable of restoring confidence in government’s ability to provide security, opportunity and dignity. Perhaps the current Budget is a lesson that has been grasped.
The threat to both liberal democracy and social democracy is real, and will not go away by ignoring it. The political system needs to acknowledge the widespread belief that the economy does not work for many people, and that our institutions, both government and civil society, are not responding to real grievances and injustices.
Kim Carr is a former Labor Senator and Minister, and is currently Vice-Chancellor’s Professorial Fellow, Monash University