The Australian Electoral Commission has finalised the last of its two-party preferred Labor-versus Coalition counts, and it confirms Labor has won a narrow victory on the national total of 6,216,439 (50.12 per cent) to 6,185,949 (49.88 per cent), a margin of 30,490. If distinctions to the second decimal place are what matters to you, Labor did about 0.05 per cent worse than last time due to the arbitrary fact of the Nationals finishing ahead of Wilson Tuckey in O’Connor, meaning the AEC finalised a two-party result on a Nationals-versus-Labor basis where the 2007 Liberal-versus-Labor result was more favourable to them. So while I think it reasonable to cite the published figure as the definitive national result, a slight discount should be factored in when considering the matter of the swing, which should properly be rounded to 2.5 per cent rather than 2.6 per cent.
Whatever the specifics, the result leaves quite a few people looking foolish:
Barnaby Joyce: “We’d won the two-party preferred vote by the time the independents made their decision.” (Lateline, 7/9).
Andrew Bolt: “Labor won fewer votes, fewer seats of its own and less of the two-party preferred vote.” (Herald Sun, 8/9).
Alan Jones: “Is it a healthy democracy when a party wins the majority of the two party preferred, wins the majority of the primary vote and wins more seats in the Parliament than the other party but the other party forms government?” (2GB, 8/9).
Sarah Martin: “Yesterday, Julia Gillard’s Labor Party won government despite losing the primary vote and the two-party-preferred vote, or securing a majority of seats.” (The Advertiser, 7/9).
Kerry Chikarovski: “The Coalition won the primary vote, they won the two-party preferred …” (The Drum, 7/9).
Lateline: “Labor loses two-party preferred vote” (report headline, 30/8).
Kenneth Wiltshire: “It is probable that the Coalition will win more third-party preferences.” (NB: This of course is absurd – Labor got 65 per cent of third party preferences, much as they always do – but I think we know what he’s trying to say.) (The Australian 6/9).
Lisa Wilkinson (to Wayne Swan): “Now, you won fewer primary votes, fewer two-party preferred votes and fewer seats.”
(Swan explains to her that she’s wrong.)
Wilkinson: “But in the end you got 49.9 per cent of the vote and the Opposition got 50.1.”
Swan: “No, I don’t think that’s … Lisa, that is not a final count.”
Wilkinson: “Well, that’s what the AEC is saying and that’s what Australia said at the polls.” (The Today Show, Nine Network, 9/9).
No doubt there were others.
Our troubles here began on August 30, when the AEC removed three electorates from the national total on the basis that the Labor-versus-Liberal counts there had been discontinued after election night, as it became apparent the Greens (in the case of Batman and Grayndler) or Andrew Wilkie (in the case of Denison) rather than the Liberals would face Labor at the final count. As three of the weakest seats in the land for the Liberals, these were by extension among the strongest seats for Labor in two-party terms. The resulting adjustment in Labor’s two-party vote from 50.4 per cent 50.0 per cent led to a great many uncomprehending reports of a “surge” to the Coalition, which had an added edge due to Julia Gillard’s post-election claim that Labor had, apparently, won the two-party vote. Those who wanted a clear and accurate exposition of the news had to ignore, say, The Australian, and look to an evidently more reliable source of information in Bob Brown, who explained the absence of eight electorates from the published result and correctly concluded: “If you look at the whole of Australia and you treat every seat equally, when you do that Labor’s ahead and is likely to keep that lead right the way through to the finishing pole.”
Antony Green defends journalists on the basis that they were within their rights to take an official AEC figure at face value, but I’m not so kind. Even if awareness of the missing electorates was too much to ask, those quoted above should at least have been aware that the count was incomplete. As it stands, we have a result that leaves those of us who had done the sums with exactly what we were expecting, and a lot of dopey pundits and dishonest politicians with egg on their faces.
UPDATE: Morgan has published results from a phone poll of 541 respondents conducted on Wednesday and Thursday evening which has Labor leading 52-48 on two-party preferred from primary votes of 35.5 per cent for Labor, 42.5 per cent for the Coalition and 15 per cent for the Greens. The margin of error on the poll is about 4.2 per cent.
UPDATE 2: As Peter Brent points out, the 52-48 result comes from the less reliable two-party measure based on respondent-allocated preferences – going on previous elections, which the most recent election has again vindicated as the superior method, Labor’s lead is only 50.5-49.5.
More waste reported by morrison on ABC News.
[The Federal Opposition is worried that dozens of asylum seekers have received a total of $5.4 million in compensation for injuries they suffered while in detention.
New figures show more than 50 immigration detainees received $100,000 each in compensation over the past two years.
The figures were provided by the Government as part of the Senate Estimates process.
The Opposition’s Scott Morrison says with a record number of people in detention, the costs are likely to increase.
“The payout of on average $100,000 in compensation claims to over 50 people who have been in detention is just another example of the escalating costs that are occurring in our detention network,” he said.
“Compensation gets paid from time to time – the issue here though is with a record detention population, with boats continuing to arrive, then these sorts of payouts and costs are only going to become greater and more regular in the future.”]
How do you do a public based cost benefit analysis of a public infra structure of a School a rail line a NBN or a new Hospital You’d either need to sample those you aint to be born till 50 years time , or altern fire number crunchers & use commonsense its a goer a need a public benefit because that which publicly is not there is a vacuum and is publicly needed , which is exact why th Sydney Harbor Bridge was built
[But it seems to be that “we wuz robbed” is precisely how Mr. Abbott is reacting.]
Well, it was actually the voters who were robbed.
The ALP went into the election with most of their big policy agendas & costings out in the public arena.
The Rabbott however conived his way out of stating what his plans were for the future & deceived the public, not only on their big black hole in costings but also where the majority of cuts would be made to pay for election pork barrelling.
One can only assume that they were planning massive cuts in sensitive areas because they still will not answer where those cuts would be.
Listen, Briefly is of the Labor right faction or an irrational supporter of it. He has been at one with the smearing of Rudd long before he left office.
His incessant personal attacks on Rudd bespeak a spiteful man, consumed with having to raise Gillard and the justification of the betrayal by smearing Rudd in every possible way.
Anybody who doesn’t yet comprehend the spite and malice which drives that small cabal within the Labor Right must have been hiding under a rock. The likes of Feeney, Arbib, Bitar, Howes and so on are a disgrace to the Labor Party.
One thing Briefly must really hate is how readily Rudd is accepted on the international stage and especially on the personal level. It must really hurt him that the man he must hates is most loved by the most important people going around.
Briefly, your bile is getting a bit stale. You make this site a worthless place, except for the stuff William provides.
[More waste reported by morrison on ABC News.]
Grrrrrrrrrrrrr…………………
The Coalition seem to get the running in all the media forums.
[I await a bold one line fourteen point detailed Coalition policy announcement from Finns on his area of expertise – marine pinnipeds.]
BW, point 1:
* Be kind to the singing dolphins
more to come 👿
Oh dear, this too much for me;
STOP THE PAIN
Morrison, a stench intruding on the breath of humanity
Feeney
[Come on, everyone! JUST GET OVER IT! Kevin Rudd is no longer PM. Julia is our PM.]
We are over it. But that doesn’t mean we are going to cop the incessant Rudd bashing.
Rudd looks healthier & happier in his new role & I believe he will excell. Some though will not be happy regardless of whatever he endeavours to do.
[How do you do a public based cost benefit analysis of a public infra structure of a School a rail line a NBN or a new Hospital You’d either need to sample those you aint to be born till 50 years time , or altern fire number crunchers & use commonsense its a goer a need a public benefit because that which publicly is not there is a vacuum and is publicly needed , which is exact why th Sydney Harbor Bridge was built]
Ron I agree with your sentiment, but in fact I think the case for the NBN is even better than that. We do benefit cost analysis for these other sorts of projects all the time. In each case you have to estimate future demand, what it will cost to meet, and see which option gives the best result. Often doing something like the coalition “narrow-band” solution only saves the government money, but costs the community much more in user costs and opportunity costs (lost opportunities).
To put it practically, just as the Sydney Harbour Bridge opened up north Sydney to new development, so will the NBN open up new opportunities. In my work (engineering) electronic design files are huge – many MB, often into the GB range. There is no reason a design team in our Adelaide office can’t work on a project in NW WA (and sometimes does) but at present it is cumbersome, and involves many costly fights west checking details and sometimes just collecting data. With NBN the ability of distant areas of the country, including some regional ones, to compete for work in growth areas like WA will be greatly increased. This could also have great benefits in spreading the employment load around, rather than concentrating it in Perth or Broome.
[He’s certainly putting himself about at the moment, isn’t he!]
Lizzie , I see only big problems ahead for Turnbull and Abbott if MT keeps putting himself out there as he is at the moment.
The journos are talking about Kev and Julia but I saw 2 professional people during the last few weeks after Kev got over his operation. As FM he will get the same limelight that Downer but being FM is different to being a homebound Minister with too much to say on other portfolios.
I’m waiting to see if Malcolm will stand on principle and cross the floor with CC or whether he will abide by Shadow Cabinet rules. Interesting times ahead.
MT looks like he is making the same mistakes that he did when he was OL – arrogance.
Briefly , Thomas Pain and j/v
should get there own Thread , so they can annoy themselves
All 3 is consumed by bitterness , only diff is its from opposite ends of there own prejudice
I’m happy there is a Labor govt , that Kev is FA , and his wonderful achievments as PM will be honored in future just like Hawkie who also went under a bus
Can someone remind me of a large, imaginative infrastructure project that the Coal has supported in the last 10-15 years, please, which benefitted the whole nation? (The GST doesn’t count because it was a GBNT)
Socrates, great points.
Not to mention the reduction in carbon footprint – without the need to travel in both short/long distances, and without the additional costs of keeping a fleet of cars for some of their employees (both in gov and bus), the savings (and efficiencies) will be immense.
Good point, George. How do we cost that in (rhetorical, of course).
Dee 1759
Yes, I agree with you, Dee. The Rudd bashers won’t be happy until Kevin drops dead!
Rudd contributed enormously to our nation in his time as PM. His critics here condemn themselves by their negativity in pursuing this non-issue.
It appears communication, and his superior arrogant attitude to his ministers, contributed greatly to his demise. More is the pity as he is basically a decent, compassionate bloke.
I must confess, though, I am a long term Julia admirer, and hope the MSM and Australians give her a reasonable go. However, I won’t hold my breath waiting.
[I’m happy there is a Labor govt , that Kev is FA , and his wonderful achievments as PM will be honored in future just like Hawkie who also went under a bus]
Amigo, i am feeling less pain now 😀
Feeney
[I must confess, though, I am a long term Julia admirer, and hope the MSM and Australians give her a reasonable go. However, I won’t hold my breath waiting.]
And there would only be a few that would disagree with that. I like the girl & admire her immensely. It will be a great pity if she is not given a go as she is dedicated to giving Australia & it’s citizens a vibrant future that moves with the times.
The Rabbott has offered more of the same status quo. Do nothing, save money & everyone for themselves.
What Abbott/Turnbull imply with a cost benefit analysis is they seek Gov to do on an NBN is reely an ROI , that a PRIVATE investor would do to build a factory vs importing goods , which is in part funds imployed vs profit return
in no wears in that is concern by a Private Investor for oz employ , oz growth , NBN public learning and applic’s to mediciol means of consults , new tech , education direct & indirect benefits , develop regions in cohesion , in equity , in national productivity etc etc ‘s because those issues is a big part of public polisy basis of a decison which is a Govt’s role
Some public areas i mentioned can be exact quantified , some generally and some public intersts benefits not $ quantifiable
VS profit motive in market econamy of an investor , and it is here that Abbott/Tunbull misunderstand a Govts public role vs private enterpise decison making whose criteia’s is diff
What if we had Proportional Representation on August 21st?
There are many forms of PR: quotas, state by state,
allowing preferences etc.
Let us suppose that we just a simple national version for the 150
member House of Reps based on 1st preference votes only.
The quota to get any representation could be just the total
number of formal votes divided by 150 seats =
82,683 formal first preference votes.
The CDP makes it over the line, One Nation and
the Country Liberals do not make it.
Say we just ignore the votes that were wasted on the small
parties that did not make this quota. Thus 11,903,018
votes are not wasted and 499,365 votes are wasted.
Now let us divide up the 150 seats amongst the parties
that made it over the quota according to what
proportion of the 11,903,018 votes they got.
The seats in the new parliament [vs current] would be:
ALP 59 seats [actually now 72]
Greens 18 seats [1 seat]
Liberal 48 seats [44]
LNP(Qld) 14 seats [21]
Nationals(all states) 6 seats [7]
Family First 4 seats [0]
CDP 1 seat [0]
So we would also probably have an ALP-Green Coalition
government led by PM Gillard, but it would be
Greener, less Indy-ish and hold a slightly
more substantial majority.
[Can someone remind me of a large, imaginative infrastructure project that the Coal has supported in the last 10-15 years, please, which benefitted the whole nation? (The GST doesn’t count because it was a GBNT)]
The John Howard Memorial Nauru Detention Centre ? 😆
George, Lizzie
Yes there will be other benefits too – less un-needed travel and GHG emissions as you say. But I think the social benefits could be large. At present people talk of a “two speed economy” with an overdemand for workers and high inflation and house prices in Perth, while other cities languish. The NBN promises for any digitally transmittable service to reduce the pressures on Perth, and increase the opportunities for other places. I doubt those latter issues have been factored into any BCR calculation, because it is too hard to estimate the future value of such opportunities, but they are quite real.
[“The one thing that the NSW Labor Party is about – the NSW Right – is ensuring that we win elections,” Senator Arbib said.]
Good luck with that one at state level in 2011 then.
Dee
I think we all have to focus on doing all we can, here and elsewhere, to support the government, as the MSM will not give Julia and the government the exposure of the good things happening, only the negative.
Abbott spooks me out, but appeals to many Aussies because of his ‘blokey” demeanour and rabbiting on with his prejudices, including unfortunately the rascist undertones in all his mutterings. Send him over to Sarah Palin, and leave us in peace.
[Can someone remind me of a large, imaginative infrastructure project that the Coal has supported in the last 10-15 years, please, which benefitted the whole nation? (The GST doesn’t count because it was a GBNT)]
Tough, challenge question!
Lets try:
Adelaide Darwin Rail Link – nope, sold for less than it cost to build
AusLink – it took transport funding back to pre-cutback levels
Privatising Telstra – oops, no benefit again (or anything actually built)
Privatising airports – nothing actually built again either
Privatising ports – nothing actually built again either
Hmmm, a pattern seems to be emerging…
Dr Good. Thank you for doing that. I was in the middle of doing that calculation. You saved me some time. I had already done the calculation of what if we had PR in the House, except the normal state rules applied (each state gets the amount of seats proportional to their population and a minimum of 5) assuming the current state numbers and assuming that there is no minimum threshold, I got:
NT – 2 seats
ALP 1
CLP 1
ACT – 2 seats
ALP 1
LIB 1
TAS – 5 seats
ALP 2
LIB 2
GRN 1
SA – 11 seats
ALP 5
LIB 5
GRN 1
WA – 15 seats
LIB 7
ALP 5
GRN 2
WAN 1
QLD – 30 seats
LNP 15
ALP 10
GRN 3
FFP 1
IND 1
VIC – 37 seats
ALP 16
LIB 14
NAT 1 (COA 15)
GRN 5
FFP 1
NSW – 48 seats
LIB 18
NAT 4 (COA 22)
ALP 18
GRN 5
IND 2
LDP 1
TOTAL:
LIB 47
LNP 15
NAT 5
CLP 1 (COA 68)
ALP 58
GRN 17
FFP 2
LDP 1
WAN 1
IND 3
Which would mean a combined ALP-Green vote of 75. Most likely it would result in at least one indy supporting Gillard. Observe that Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor would all have been elected under this system, as would have Crook.
(Of course it is, while educated, only a speculation of how it would turn out and in such an event the last place races may fall down to preferencing anomolies etc. but it’s a good gauge of a system that is most likely to occur if there is a move for PR in the House – as this method requires no constitutional amendment.)
[The John Howard Memorial Nauru Detention Centre ]
On the topic of Nauru. When is the ALP going to whack Scott Morrison & the Rabbott over this issue?
Moylan & Broadbent said the Rabbott will need their support to get this policy up and running & both have sworn to oppose it & block.
It was Moylan who said it will never happen so why are the Coalition able to get away with this myth?
[ Can someone remind me of a large, imaginative infrastructure project that the Coal has supported in the last 10-15 years, please, which benefitted the whole nation? (The GST doesn’t count because it was a GBNT)
The John Howard Memorial Nauru Detention Centre ? ]
Add to that the John Howard/Halliburton/ZiggySwitkowski/Hugh Morgan/Uranium Waste Dump/Adelaide-Darwin railway
[Can someone remind me of a large, imaginative infrastructure project that the Coal has supported in the last 10-15 years, please, which benefitted the whole nation? (The GST doesn’t count because it was a GBNT)]
And can there be a bigger example of the petty, small-minded, short-sightedness of the Liberals than the fact that it was a Labor NSW premier (Joe Cahill) who started work on the Sydney Opera House, and it was Liberal NSW premier (Bob Askin) who then tried his level best to put hurdles in its construction ?
[Send him over to Sarah Palin, and leave us in peace.]
When is the next NASA rocket launch?
Scrates & BH
Exactly! Labor mustn’t spend, and Coal won’t.
[The NBN promises for any digitally transmittable service to reduce the pressures on Perth, and increase the opportunities for other places. I doubt those latter issues have been factored into any BCR calculation, because it is too hard to estimate the future value of such opportunities, but they are quite real.]
From memory, it has been at least 20(?) years since we heard the digital new world-working from home theme. Things never work out as projected, do they.
In practice, it has been very slow to take up (bosses like you to be *there* all the time and we now have the new revolution where people must work at home even when they’re “off duty”, because they are available through technology. Thank god I’m now retired.
So will broadband make it easier, or will the pressures increase until you can’t even go to the toilet without your boss knowing. Think about it…
Socrates
Should have said – I still agree with your point about large digital transmissions making life easier.
WE should encourage the 24/7 to run the entire time of QT after all at the moment all they do is repeat repeat, this would help them fill in air time and we could see more
of the opposition behaviour.
Afternoon Bludgers
Abbott is supposed to be meeting with Oakshott to clarify parliamentary reforms and speakership role tomorrow. Has anyone heard any differently. I know the Libs still want Jenkins.
Dee
the indies are not interested in Nauru either. It will not get enough support.
lizzie
I understand. My general point wasn’t about working from home with the NBN – thought that may increase too – but that working from your office, you could more easily work on projects far away. Journos do that now, but transmitting a few photos and text articles to your editor isn’t in the same league as sending a set of 200 drawings to a site office, each several MB in size.
TSOP
Interesting that it is so similar state-by-state vs national PR.
I also noticed that if the 82 Independent Candidates across the Nation
ran as a combined Independent “Party” then they would
deserve 4 seats out of 150 under PR.
If they got together under the arrangement that they would
take their deserved number of seats according to their
individual number of first-preference votes then the top
four who would go into Parliament would be:
Windsor, Oakeshott, Katter and Wilkie in that order.
(Louise Burge who ran in Farrer and got 9,350 votes
would have been the leader of those who missed out).
If the Indies had been able to do this under a PR
system then those four seats would have been
at the expense of the ALP and Libs.
That would have put the Indies into
a balance of power position.
Sound familiar?
So under PR the Parliament might have looked almost
exactly the same as it does now EXCEPT that
16 or 17 ALP members would have been replaced
by Greens.
Hopefully when parliement sits it will be the gov, that sets the agenda. The media
will be focused on the ind. they will be watching for anything negative, but there want be after all they have all pledged their faith to the gov i think this is something that the media forget. Some one should remind them that the nats. have not signed nothing with the libs. well not that i am aware of.
canm some one explain is it positive or negative for us to have and ind. as speaker
Pure Poison has a good answer to a piece Tom Switzer wrote on The Drum.
Switzer has left a comment – he must also be feeling a little precious. Not before time I’d say.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/09/17/tom-switzer-climate-change-concern-troll/
[I’m waiting to see if Malcolm will stand on principle and cross the floor with CC or whether he will abide by Shadow Cabinet rules. Interesting times ahead.]
Turnbull has already said he will support the party policy. He will not cross the floor on any issue.
my say
I think Labor would rather indie be speaker. Personally, on some level Jenkins should stay in role because he handles QT very well and his experience will be invaluable during this shaky period of time.
An earlier poster linked to an article in the Age (I read it in today’s Sunday Telegraph) by Abbott, the first two paragraphs of which I quote:
[With more seats and more primary votes than Labor, the Liberal and National parties won the election but couldn’t quite form a government. Even so, ”we wuz robbed” would be precisely the wrong reaction. The public are more interested in good government than they are in which party is in power. More than ever, voters want the opposition to hold the government to account rather than complain that the system is unfair.
As long as the Gillard government limps on, the waste will continue, the debt will pile up, the new taxes will keep coming and so will the boats. To the government, all that counts is staying in office, so these failures won’t matter. They will matter to Australians, though, because we will have to pay for them.]
Surely that first sentence is a lie or at least a gross distortion of the truth. The heading of this post suggests that the second part is untrue “Final 2PP: 50.12-49.88 to Labor” (although perhaps Abbott is correct on “primary” votes – I don’t know those numbers) whilst the first, in my thinking, was that Labor won 72 seats in its own right, the Liberals with the help of various parties with National or Queensland in their names won 72.
The guy from WA has consistently said that he is a cross-bencher but the opposition insist on counting him as one of them, giving them 73 seats. Surely this is just disingenuous but typical of a man who has already stated that he wants to be a wrecker and not a builder. He has no intention of joining in the cross-party discussions on carbon, for example.
His second paragraph is so full of hyperbole as to be laughable, if we didn’t know he was actually serious.
Come hell or high water I think he will stop at nothing in order to gain power. One particular poster in earlier comments has criticised Kevin Rudd for his style of government. Abbott would make Rudd look like a saint by comparison. He is probably offering the indies bags of lollies and a ride in his car as I type this!
Tom Hawkins
If Turnbull decides to play dirty, Labor should just throw the Godwin Gretch episode in his face. Remind him of his poor judgment and ambition to bring down a govt.
Socrates
Understood. It was marvellous when we could shunt a whole magazine off, instead of having to cart disks around, but of course engineering drawings etc are quite a different kettle of fish.
I think I was making the Sunday-afternoon style point that nothing ever turns out the way that’s foretold.
I would like to see the govt (fed & state) set more of an example with video conferences. If they do, we don’t hear much – we tend to see people at airports still.
STOP THE PLANES (with apologies to the Finns).
Dee 1780
Yes, we should not inflict Abbott on Palin and the US. The NASA rocket launch seems much more civilised!
my say
Posted Sunday, September 19, 2010 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
“canm some one explain is it positive or negative for us to have and ind. as speaker”
If Oakeshot as Speaker does in practice gets paired with a Lib so that neither votes do count , then principal is that neither Labor or Liberal is disadvantaged
However I’m thinking of any particular issue that needed a HoR division to determone on that Oakeshott did in fact agree with th Liberals , then Liberals may not be very happy
[the indies are not interested in Nauru either. It will not get enough support.]
It is a policy that will never be implemented, then why don’t the ALP go on the attack?
It is effectively a policy of hot air.
[Turnbull has already said he will support the party policy. He will not cross the floor on any issue.]
TomH – that makes a mockery of the Lib mantra that, unlike the Labor Party, they are free to cross the floor.
Dee
We will have to wait and see what Labor’s strategy will be when Parliament sits. To date, Labor are behaving with much constraint, whilst the Libs are ranting and raving at every turn. The Greens and Indies will not be swayed by the bullyboy tactics of the Libs. Confidence in the govt is required by them, not the Libs. I don’t see how the Libs behaviour is endearing the Indies and greens to go with them.