How Donald Trump swung Australia's election — like he did in Canada
The incumbent Labor Party under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has won the federal elections in Australia.
While votes from Saturday's (May 3) election are still being counted, early results from the Australian Electoral Commission indicate that the Labor Party was winning 56% of the vote, with the conservative Coalition, comprising the Liberal Party and the National Party, with 44% .
Data from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation indicated that Labor would win 86 seats, 10 more than the 76 it needs to form a majority government, while Coalition, under Peter Dutton, would win 40 overall.
However, only three months ago, things seemed to be headed in a very different direction. Albanese faced the prospect of being the first Australian PM since 1931 to be ousted after only a single three-year term.
This story sounds familiar because it is. Earlier this week, the incumbent Liberal Party in Canada retained power in an election which at the beginning of the year seemed to be in the Conservative's bag. Behind this stunning turnarounds is one man — US President Donald Trump.
The Canadian story
The Liberals in Canada were staring at imminent defeat at the start of this year.
PM Justin Trudeau was being panned by his constituents and allies alike for failing to address the soaring housing crisis and inflationary pressures. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party, under Pierre Poilievre, had made massive gains over the last couple of years.
At their peak, the Conservatives enjoyed a 20-plus-point lead over the Liberals, as per the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Poll Tracker.
Trudeau resigned on January 6. Trump became the US President on January 20. And everything changed.
This was because Trump repeatedly went after Canada, one of Washington's closest allies. Not only was Canada one of the first countries to be slapped with the President's pet tariffs, but Trump also repeatedly called Canada the United States' '51st state'.
Poilievre, who had long modelled himself as Trump lite, suddenly found himself sinking as 'Canadians literally wanted Trump punched in the face', and the 'existential threat' that the US President posed became the primary issue in the election.
On the other hand, Trudeau's successor, the hailed but politically inexperienced Mark Carney, made attacking Trump his main plank, and galvanised support among the populace for his party.
In the election on April 28, the incumbent Liberals in Canada won 169 seats, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. The Conservatives won 144. Poilievre lost from Carlton, the riding he had been representing since 2004.
Parallels in Australia
On February 1, polls gave the Coalition a voteshare in the 50.4% to 53.6% range, while the Labor Party trailed with 46.4% to 49.5% of the vote, according to data published by The Guardian. The two sides' graphs converged around March 28, after which the Labor pulled away.
Now Trump's tariffs have had a more limited impact on this reversal in Australia, compared to Canada, with the island country's biggest electoral issues still being problems with the country's universal healthcare system, the high cost of living, and affordable housing.
That said, the sky-high tariffs on China, which imports a third of Australian goods, could hurt Australia. Experts say that for Australia, a largely export-oriented economy, the 145% tariff on its major export market would snowball into reduced demand for its iron ore and copper reserves, a concern amidst a push for renewable energy worldwide.
That said, Dutton too courted Trumpism (something that earned him the moniker 'Temu Trump' from critics), and like the US President, criticised woke politics, Australia's immigration policy, and attacked the national broadcaster.
Most notably, he threatened to slash 41,000 public service jobs — a move he backtracked on only a few days ago — particularly in the education sector. Latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that the Consumer Price Index had risen by 2.4% in March 2025 over the last year, with the largest increase being 5.2% in education.
Australian treasurer and Labor MP, Jim Chalmers, on Saturday called this policy stance the 'dumbest move ever', and considered it the reason Dutton lost his Dickson seat, which he had held for over 20 years.
Australian political commentator and academic, Marija Taflaga, told CNN that Australia is seeing 'a diluted version' of the Canada trend, to the incumbent's advantage.
'Trump has essentially created a rally around the flag effect. In liberal democracies like Australia and Canada, (he's) flipped the incumbent from being in a disadvantaged position… into an advantageous position,' she said. 'Better the devil you know.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Israel-Iran conflict: Trump open to regime change in Tehran after his administration said that wasn't the goal
Following the US military strikes on three key nuclear sites in Iran, President Donald Trump on Sunday called into question the future of Iran's ruling theocracy. While Washington maintains that it is not seeking regime change in the Islamic Republic, Trump's more ambiguous remarks have fuelled speculation. On Sunday, the US military launched strikes on three key sites in Iran, raising urgent questions about the status of Tehran's nuclear programme and how its weakened military might respond. The strikes marked a significant escalation, coming after over a week of Israeli attacks aimed at systematically dismantling Iran's air defences, offensive missile systems, and nuclear infrastructure. The US and Israeli officials said American stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) bunker-buster bomb - capable of reaching Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities - offered the best chance of neutralising fortified sites. Trump announced the strikes, and Iran's state-run IRNA confirmed that the targets included Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz nuclear sites. The Pentagon claimed the strikes had 'devastated' Iran's nuclear programme, aligning the US with Israel's ongoing military campaign. Meanwhile, Iran's foreign minister declared that the country reserves the right to retaliate, as tensions mount and the international community urges restraint to prevent a wider regional conflict. According to the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists, Israeli strikes across Iran have killed at least 950 people and wounded 3,450 others. Of the dead, the group identified 380 civilians and 253 members of the security forces.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Fordoward Thinking
Iran may still negotiate with US, taking a long view, while skirmishing with Israel. Even if its nuclear infra is damaged, its knowhow isn't. But if the conflict spreads, welfare of 9mn Indians in the region will be New Delhi's first concern For two decades every United States administration said it might someday bomb Iran's enrichment plants. On Saturday night that 'someday' arrived. B-2 stealth bombers dropped 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs while submarines and aircraft launched Tomahawks at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, the three most consequential nodes in Iran's IAEA monitored nuclear network. Trump declared that 'Fordow is gone', and that Tehran must 'agree to end this war'. The flourish was vintage Trump – muscular and headline grabbing. But behind the applause lines lies a strategic gamble whose downsides may echo far beyond Qom. Trump crossed a threshold earlier presidents tiptoed around, turning an Israel-Iran slugfest into a US-Iran confrontation. He insists the raid was a 'one-off', intended to cripple enrichment. Although neither US nor Israel has produced evidence that Iran was on the brink of building a bomb, the Pentagon's quick look report claims the strikes set the programme back by years at minimal cost. Physics, however, counsels humility. Centrifuges are hardware while enrichment expertise is software lodged in scientists' heads. Bombs can destroy cylinders but not knowledge. Hardliners in Tehran will now argue that only a nuclear weapon can deter the next bunker buster. Did the raid delay a bomb or make it inevitable? Iran accused US of a grave violation of the UN Charter, NPT and international law and vowed that it will not go unanswered. The easiest escalation is to menace the Strait of Hormuz through which about a fifth of global oil passes every day. Next may come missile salvos on Gulf energy infra or on US installations, and then the possible activation of proxies from Lebanon to Yemen. With Iran's parliament reportedly approving the closure of the strait, Brent could easily move past $100 a barrel. Oxford Economics projects $130 if flows are disrupted, a level that would push world inflation back toward 6%. Traders are already paying a war premium in afterhours quotes. Jerusalem meanwhile is jubilant. Netanyahu called the strike a bold decision. Strategically Israel has shifted part of the fight and the risk to Washington. If Iran retaliates, Americans rather than Israelis will calibrate the counterpunch. That is deterrence by entanglement in the short run. Over time it hands Iran a larger menu of US targets and risks dragging America into a war it does not want. Russia immediately cited the bombing as proof of US recklessness while Beijing called it a serious violation of international norms. Any condemning move at the Security Council will face a US veto. However, in the General Assembly the Global South is expected to side with Iran in significant numbers. For India the strike lands like a thunderclap at a cricket match. New Delhi has tried to balance a growing partnership with Washington, deep defence ties with Israel and consequential arrangements with Tehran, from the Chabahar port to International North-South Transit Corridor and once-robust crude imports. That balancing act has lately been criticised by the main opposition party. ● The immediate anxiety is economic. The Gulf supplies 54% of India's oil, generates about 40% of its remittances and accounts for more than $170bn in two-way trade. India imports more than 80% of its crude; every ten dollar rise in Brent adds about one billion dollars a month to the import bill and pressures the rupee. Consumer inflation just slipped below 5%; a Hormuz scare could undo that gain and complicate RBI's plan to cut rates. GOI is already moving to secure supplies, eyeing the strategic petroleum reserve and talking to several producers to ensure continuity. ● A second priority is the safety of nearly nine million Indians working in the region. Evacuation from Iran and Israel is underway. Operation Sankalp ships in the region can be helpful, if required. Diplomatically India has open channels with Washington, Tehran and Jerusalem, but leverage is thin while missiles fly. Still New Delhi may be able to offer discreet messages that help each side edge away from the brink, just like back-channel efforts by Qatar and Muscat. Meanwhile others such as Saudi Arabia and UAE are actively counselling restraint. The key actors need face-saving options. That also means Washington spelling out what de-escalation looks like. Would it accept enrichment capped below weapons grade? Does it envisage returning to the JCPOA framework with phased sanctions relief? Absent clarity Tehran will read 'time for peace' as code for surrender. In US, supporters have praised decisive action; critics have warned that the President had bypassed Congress and demanded a War Powers vote. Trump's boast that the mission was historic and limited is politically smart yet strategically ambiguous. If Iran swallows the blow and returns to talks the White House can claim victory. If Tehran retaliates Washington can strike again and say it had no choice. Either way the attack chips away at the nonproliferation regime and bets that humiliation will not ignite a wider war. The US entry into another West Asian conflict recalls 1991 and 2003, but this round involves nuclear facilities, peer power pushback and an energy hungry Global South. Fordow's tunnels may indeed be rubble, yet geopolitics rarely collapses neatly. US strikes may be tactically brilliant. Strategically they kick a radioactive can down a much steeper road. That road needs to be kept from becoming a cratered battlefield. The test is whether diplomacy can move faster than the bunker busters. The writer is former permanent representative of India to UN and served as an international civil servant at IAEA Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
News18
30 minutes ago
- News18
Pakistan Politicians Urging Govt To Reconsider Trump's Nobel Peace Prize Nomination: Report
Pakistani leaders are urging their government to reconsider the decision to nominate Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, calling it contradictory to his record on conflicts.
