This post will progressively follow the count for the Western Australian Legislative Council.
Wednesday 1pm. In response to a reader’s inquiry I have written a more detailed assessment of South West, which runs as follows. South West is on the cusp of a three-all and four-right two-left result. On the right, the Liberals have won two seats and the remaining one or two is a contest between Nationals candidate Colin Holt, Dan Sullivan of Family First and third Liberal Barry House. Labor and the Greens add up to three quotas, but only just. The Greens candidate runs the risk of being stranded after Labor’s exclusion with Liberal, the Nationals and Family First left in the count, none of whose preferences would go to the Greens when they were excluded. The result would be 3 Liberal, 2 Labor and one to either Family First or the Nationals. This my “four-right two-left” scenario. The next count is a close race between the Nationals and Family First for exclusion, with Family First currently having their nose just in front. Family First’s exclusion would unlock preferences from various right-wing candidates that would overwhelmingly go to the Nationals, giving them the last seat ahead of the Liberals. So while the current figures point to 2 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Greens, 1 FF, we could also get 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 FF; 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Nationals; 2 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Nationals, 1 Greens. Having said all that, I don’t know where the remaining votes are coming from.
Monday 11pm. Counts starting to reach useable levels of around 50 per cent of enrolment, except in Mining and Pastoral. South West is on the cusp of a three-all and four-right two-left result. On the right, the Liberals have won two seats and the remaining one or two is a contest between Nationals candidate Colin Holt, Dan Sullivan of Family First and third Liberal Barry House. In Agricultural the Nationals vote is waning slightly as the count progresses and while their candidate is still on target to win the final seat, it might equally go to Family First or Labor’s number two. The first five seats are likely to go two Nationals, two Liberal and one Labor. North Metro a clear-cut 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Greens. East Metro still looking good for the third Liberal, and lineball between Labor and the Greens for the final seat. South Metro looking like 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Greens. Both the latter very good results for Liberal and very poor for Labor.
Sunday 8pm. I have no doubt that the upper house count has many surprises in store, but the following describes the situation as best as I am able to see it. About a quarter of the votes are counted but we don’t know where they’re from, so I have considered scenarios based on unscientific extrapolations from lower house votes. The result is likely to be another triumph for the Nationals, who will certainly hold the balance of power and can fantasise about as many as six seats. In the four seats that make up the grotesquely over-represented Agricultural region, the party has 41.1 per cent of the vote, less than 2 per cent shy of three quotas without taking preferences into account. However, there remains a very wide range of possible results, the only certainty being a right majority: 14 to 17 seats for the left against 19 to 22 for the right. Between one and five of the “left” seats will be held by the Greens: on the basis of my own limited information, I think Giz Watson in North Metropolitan their one certain winner. I can see 16 seats for the Liberals, no more and no less; three to six for the Nationals; zero to one each for Family First and the CDP. I arrived at these conclusions before looking at Andrew Bartlett, who seems to disagree with me only in that he doesn’t rate Family First in South West. This might be because I’m pumping up the Family First vote a little due to the personal vote of their candidate Dan Sullivan, former deputy Liberal leader and member for the local lower house seat of Leschenault.
AGRICULTURAL. Labor has done badly enough here that it is in danger of winning only one seat. The Nationals have clearly won two seats and maybe even three, with the Liberals on two and possibly one for the CDP.
EAST METROPOLITAN. Labor’s primary vote collapse is such that the Liberals stand poised to take their third seat, something they will not often achieve in this region. However, Labor might still win a third seat at the expense of the Greens.
MINING AND PASTORAL Labor and Liberal will each win two and the Nationals one. The last could either go to the Greens, Labor and even the second Nationals.
NORTH METROPOLITAN. Likely to be the anticipated result of three Liberal, two Labor and one Greens.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN. Labor are in danger of not winning the third seat to which they are accustomed here, and if they do win it will be at the expense of the Greens. Preferences should push the Liberals to a third quota.
SOUTH WEST. Three seats for the Liberals and two for Labor, with Family First starting favourite for the final seat in a race with the Greens and the Nationals.
What an horrendous result for the State if the Nats get up to 5 seats in the Council. The gossly out of keeping rural rump created by the Greens and Jim McGinty at the ludicrously titled ‘one vote – one value’ legislation is biting both labor and liberals on the b*m. The Council needs to have its power diminshed if if this distortion is to be continued. If they are to be kept at all, they should go the way of the Lords in the UK where they can only delay but not deny legislation, especially finance bills. Just look at our recent Senate debacle – as bad for labor as they were for liberals.
No 1
A hostile senate is probably not a bad thing in the first term of a nascent government anyway.
Go the full way of the House of Lords and only appoint members from the landed gentry? Put Barry Hickey in as an Archbishop, Lords Spiritual. Wayne Martin as a Law Lord. Richard Court as a Hereditary Lord. That would make for some fun.
I think the Lords is a waste now that it can’t deny legislation. It was certainly much better than that rabble in the ‘other place’, as they put it. Can’t say the same for our lot in WA unfortunately.
No 3
Frankly, the entire situation in the UK is a clear argument for a codified constitution. The idea that the House of Commons can prevent the House of Lords from denying legislation is outrageous. Then again, the idea that the House of Lords was once hereditary is also outrageous. But that aside, it cannot be a true house of review if its ability to deny legislation has been emasculated by parliament.
The fact remains that in an upper house such as ours in Australia federally and in WA, a greater proportion of voters are represented by a party they actually voted 1 for than in the lower house.
It is a reasonable argument to say that it is much more “democratic”.
But as schnitzel said, the weighting of some of the regions in WA is farcical, and – for the Greens – totally destructive with only themselves to blame.
There won’t be a Greens balance of power again in the WA UH until it is modified to be truly representative. They could go from two members to five, and yet be far less influential.
Oops.
I think a hereditary upper house is far better than an elected one. We only really vote for parties in our upper house, allowing parties to hand-pick favourites and absolutely incompetent candidates. Sure, not all hereditary Lords are going to be great, but with the Law Lords and Lords Spiritual in there its certainly got some brains, albiet unrepresentative.
I believe the ability of the Lords to deny legislation has been tested in the courts – it seems that it can only delay. I don’t know whether this was correct given the lack of a codified constitution in the UK and the fact that the Monarch can basically dismiss the Commons and appoint Lords.
No 6
I tend to agree to an extent, but in a modern society with reasonably high education standards for all, it is absurd to maintain a hereditary upper house.
The House of Lords cannot deny supply bills, only delay them – according to my reading. But it still can deny legislation, albeit in limited circumstances as prescribed by statute.
Overall though, the UK parliamentary system is absurd. The House of Commons should not have the power to inhibit the upper house. The good thing about the Australian system is that it adopts the equality of power of both houses as exists in the US.
Can anyone explain why the Greens insisted on the new WA upper house reforms – as Andrew Bartlett rightly points out it contains two very serious flaws which are now hugely apparent:
1. entrenched rural malapportionment – giving the Nats waaaaay more power than they deserve given numbers.
2. six member seats – 5 and 7 is much, much better, and a mix is no problem (or go the Vic way and have 5 in every seat).
Who would have through the 1v1v would hurt the Lab and Greens (its architect)
and deliver everything the National want (balance of power) when it was the Nationals the Lab and Greens wants to get rid of
You could argue that it is as unfair as the previous bias, because Labor still has more seats dispite only 35% of the votes
I can’t for the life of me understand why FFP preferenced their arch enemy the Greens above the ALP in every region and likely delivered them 2 Seats (East and South Met) and perhaps the BoP.
Ray @ 10
Must be due to the good looks and dazzling personality of the Greens preference negotiators 🙂
Luke @10
Surely it must First be due to the Families of the Greens preference negotiators. 😉 Family First are a party of secular principle arn”t they?
No Disasterboy, I have it on good authority that good looks and dazzling personalities won the day;-)
Now I get it, looks like Family First are hell bent on making more Families from good looks and dazzling personalities! And I thought they might be a little up-tight. Its a good effect. Shame it did not work on the National Party, too. Maybe Banana Splits Grylls is a bit blind.
I hope the Greens are pleased with themselves handing WA over to the Nats. *Mutters darkly*
I see people were talking about the powers of the House of Lords in the UK. Thye are restricted by law in the Parliament Act, which was passed in 1911 and amended in 1949. The relevant provisions are these:
You can find the whole Act online here:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1069329
The history can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts
The Wikipedia article refers to recent court cases in which the validity of the amending Act of 1949 was challenged, and I think the court decisions leave no doubt that the restrictions on the power of the House of Lords are effective.
Re Adam @ 15
No
Adam ,
cough cough, “don’t mention The Greens”
la de da de da, gloat, gloat
Adam,
The ALP handed the Senate to Family First!
But not intentionally. The Greens perpetuated the gerrymandering of the WA LegCo with full knowledge of what they were doing.
Adam
Oh. so the Labor Party never understood the process or risks when it preferenced Family First. An unwitting mistake.
You’re not fooling anyone who has any idea. It was a “clever” calculated risk that failed. Like this early election.
In the Leg. Assembly Labor got what it wanted from the Greens and now wants to complain about dealing with the Nats there? The LC is equivalent to what the Labor Party created with the Nats. Remember that the history of the electoral system in WA is largely that of ALP expediency. When the ALP had massive unionised rural/mining worker support they were quite happy to have the mal-apportionment.
When the ALP is really committed to democracy and fair representation they can approach the Greens with a plan for proportional representation or a process of public consultation and participation in creating a new popular electoral system. Maybe even implement their commitment to a proper Constitution for WA. Two terms not long enough? The Greens don’t exist just to provide the electoral system that the ALP thinks will work best at the upcoming election. There are real issues for remote and rural voters and obviously they don’t think the ALP is delivering for them.
Adam, stop blaming the Greens for Labor’s mistakes. Sure, the Greens are in Parliament to help, but if the ALP is blind and deaf! Essentially Labor didn’t get the vote you expected and you are looking for scapegoats. Maybe blame the cynical early election and copying Colin Barnett’s failed “I’m a tough decisive leader” that failed him last time and getting Alan Carpenter to shoot himself in the foot with it this time.
Oh, I forgot: and nah! Suffer in your jocks. 🙂
When Liberal and Labor expediently tried to push the Greens out of the Tasmanian parliament there, voters gave the Greens the votes they needed to stay in. The malapportionment in WA has been and is wrong, but don’t be surprised that the correction creates a rural backlash and breathes new life into the National Party. It was actually predictable. With imagination and consideration it could have been avoided by The ALP and The Greens.
Adam
Further to disasterboy @ 21:
The Greens did not:
engage in uninspiring government that flourished only because of a foibles of the Liberal opposition
cynically try to cash in on opposition turmoil for electoral advantage, alienating the electorate by doing so
run a bizarrely mis-targeted campaign
11-13:
Yes, good looks and dazzling personalities of the Greens preference negotiators plus the sage and benevolent wisdom of the wider Greens preference strategy team.
Or so I’ve heard.
Preference negotiators are boring – soporific even – company.
Or it could just be that I suffer from dyscalculia and so I sit there all confused.
But definitely not awestruck by their beauty.
Pfffffft
Whaddya you know about it parisite?
WAEC is showing only 2 Libs in the Upper House, 2 ALP, Greens (Lllewellyn) and FF (Sullivan). Is this not right?
SWR, forgive me for being unclear: the assessments which I previously had highlighted in bold (I’ve amended the post to make it clearer) were part of my early assessment on Sunday, which has been superseded by:
To clarify: Observe the projection below from the ABC computer.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/wa/2008/guide/legislativecouncil.htm?region=swes
See Count 13: Labor preferences boost the Greens to 21,603, which puts them over the quota of 21,583 and gives them the seat. But they could fall back from here if either the Labor or Greens lose ground. That would leave them short of a quota with Liberal, the Nationals and Family First remaining in the count, and none of their preferences would go to the Greens when they were excluded. The result would be 3 Liberal, 2 Labor and one to either Family First or the Nationals. This my “four-right two-left” scenario.
See Count 14: Family First 8570, Nationals 8262. If the Nationals get ahead, Family First will get eliminated and their preferences distributed – remembering that we’re not talking about 8570 Family First votes here, but the votes of Family First and all those they received preferences from up to this point in the count (CDP, One Nation, New Country and more). Only the independent Guglielmana has put the Liberals ahead of the Nationals, so these votes would flow overwhelmingly to the Nationals and give them the last seat.
So while the current figures point to 2 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Greens, 1 FF, we could also get:
3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 FF
3 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Nationals
2 Liberal, 2 Labor, 1 Nationals, 1 Greens
Having said all that, I don’t know where the remaining votes are coming from – ask someone from the political parties and they might have an idea that the vote is likely to go one way rather than the other.
Barry house (third Liberal) has pretty much conceded. I have to file a report (front page for us here in Margaret River) by start of business tomorrow morning, so I hope it becomes clearer as our predictions (assisted by Poll Bludger) were spot-on last week and it would be nice to maintain that accuracy.
Hi SW Reporter
The Liberal might be able to exceed the Family First candidate from Below The Line Votes on the final distribution.
I think there may be nearly as much as half a quota on Below The Line votes.
SW Reporter
Many of those will be diminished by being used up on electing other candidates, by the time there’s a contest for the 3rd Liberal.
I suppose it depends on people’s motivations for doing a below the line vote. Maybe many of them wanted to preference the Liberals ahead of Nationals, Labor, Greens or Family First. I expect a number of the Green BTLs will be preferencing Liberals and maybe ahead of Family First.
Barry House is right to pretty much concede, but till the button is pressed we don’t really know. Maybe he has access to some of the BTL flows and knows he’s not got a chance. Might be worth asking him that.
To elaborate the point (this would not happen) all the Greens BTL votes almost equal the difference in quota on the final FF vs Lib distribution. If all the BTL votes did preference Liberals ahead of FF he could be elected.
But hey, I like the fun of a little political diversity. Even just for the show. 🙂