The Australian Electoral Commission finally lifted the lid on the completed federal election count yesterday, the detail we’ve all been waiting for being the final national two-party preferred result: 53.49-46.51 to the Coalition. That makes it the Coalition’s seventh best result since 1949, after 1966, 1975, 1977, 1955, 1958 and 1996, and better than any achieved since 1943 by Labor, whose modern high-water mark was Bob Hawke’s 53.23-46.77 victory in 1983. Labor nonetheless managed slender wins in the two-party vote race in Victoria (50.2%) and Tasmania (51.2%), with Western Australia remaining its worst state (41.72%).
No less interesting is the data on minor parties’ preference splits between Labor and the Coalition, confirming a significant increase in the share of preferences received by Labor compared with 2010. Labor’s share of Greens preferences was 83.03%, which compares with 80.78% in 2004, 79.69% in 2007 and 78.84% in 2010. My best guess here is that the Greens tended to lose votes from those driven by anti-major party sentiment, perhaps because of the closeness of their association with the government, leaving behind a more ideological voter base with a particular hostility to Tony Abbott.
Labor received 46.33% of Palmer United Party preferences, nearly identical to the overall “others” result of 46.69%. The latter was also the best for Labor since such figures were first published in 2004, recovering from a low of 41.74% in 2010. One consequence of this was that pollsters’ preference models based on 2010 election results overstated the Coalition on two-party preferred. Had preferences been as they were in 2010, the Coalition would have scored an extra 1% and a few more seats.
@Sean/2100
Who’s in Gov in Victoria? Liberals are.
Player One@2096
Calling me mendacious of course.
And re your gender, I don’t really care.
@Bushfire Bill 2089
[Coorey today stated that even if there had been no fixed price component (or “tax”) involved, and only an ETS used to combat carbon emissions, the media (of which he is, apparently, not a member) would have gone along with Abbott in calling it a “Carbon Tax” anyway.
He stated specifically that the same words, in the same interview, (paraphrased) “No Carbon Tax, but there will be carbon pricing”, would have been wrought into a broken promise on “The Carbon Tax”.]
Somewhat off-topic, but I’ve been arguing this for ages, mainly in relation to the incredibly naive “if only the Greens had supported Rudd’s Carbon Scheme, he’d still be PM today and all would be fine and dandy for Labor” argument.
Abbott was trotting out the “Great Big New Tax” line as soon as he was elected opposition leader – I distinctly remember him using it in one of his first press conferences after rolling Turnbull, and quite possibly in the lead-up to the ballot as well.
Gillard’s “lie” and the nature of the carbon scheme negotiated with the Indis and the Greens gave the Liberals and the Murdoch Press some valuable extra ammunition, no doubt about that, but the “Carbon Tax gunna destroy teh economy!!!” scare campaign would have happened regardless of the type of carbon pricing scheme that was legislated.
The “problem” with the carbon tax wasn’t anything to the with the actual details of the legislation, it was that it was action (any action) against climate change (which isn’t real, you see), and especially that it was action against climate change devised by the INCOMPETENT Labor government, the Extreme Greens and them traitorous independents who dared put the needs of their own electorate above the party they were members of many years ago.
As opposed to the Coalition’s own climate change policy, of course, which was far better for both the climate and the economy despite the fact that we knew virtually nothing about it, it just was better, its in the Liberals’ DNA, remember?
An utterly disgraceful performance from our sorry media.
zoidlord,
Labor are trying to hand control of parliament over to Geoff Shaw.
They want Geoff Shaw to selected a speaker of his choosing.. it’s the reason they keep attacking the current speaker who Geoff Shaw doesn’t like. Why are Labor getting into bed with Geoff Shaw like they did Slippery Pete? Don’t they ever learn that sleeping with dogs gives you fleas?
[Quote:
“I am among the mildest and most respectful of posters on PB.”
– Bemused ]
Even one of my anamorphic lenses couldn’t make Bemused a better projectionist.
[Fark me! ]
No, thanks …
[ Calling me mendacious of course. ]
Oh, you mean you think this this is true …
[ I am among the mildest and most respectful of posters on PB. ]
… after just being caught out calling BushFire Bill “Bullshit Bill”.
And just remind me … how many times have you been banned from PB for exactly this kind of abuse?
[ And re your gender, I don’t really care. ]
Then why do you bring it up whenever you feel threatened?
@Sean/2104
What drugs you on?
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/frankston-mp-geoff-shaw-lashes-out-at-magistrate-20131126-2y7zd.html
“‘‘I’m not endorsing Labor’s behaviour. I am totally against their disgraceful behaviour but I also have no confidence in the Speaker,” Mr Shaw said.”
“”This is a free country, I can choose to vote when I feel like it…I have no confidence in the Speaker I haven’t backed away from that.””
Ominous…
[More than 100 properties in Sydney’s west and inner west will be purchased to make room for the first stages of the O’Farrell government’s motorway.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/motorway-extension-demolishes-young-familys-dreams-20131130-2yif7.html#ixzz2mHEDmzPH ]
It’s “Tony Abbott’s motorway”, too, remember.
When they start labelling projects under the name of the head of the government promoting them, things are getting sticky.
Psyclaw
[I have long thought, and said here a couple of times that one of JG’s greatest misjudgements was to come into the House after being elected Leader and callout to Abbott “Game on!”.]
Not even in the top 10. It’s a mistake to say “Game On!” and not be prepared of course and most especially, not to be aware of the constraints, the political topography, the salience of the history and so forth — but it was these other errors/failings that were the problem. Had she been a person of significantly greater acumen, saying em>Game On! would not have been a serious error, though personally, I prefer to see public policy as something other than an empty game or contest, and would want to lambast the other side for seeing matters this way.
Although Abbott didn’t take it up, when one pairs this remark with “Real Julia” the confluence is poor. In the grand schem of things though, this was well back in the field of sub-optimal events, IMO.
Just read any of the statistics in this article.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/spears-and-sharpened-objects-removed-from-manus-island-asylum-centre
When Rudd first introduced the PNG solution I pointed out that one of the consequences would be that the detention centres would tend to morph into proper jails because that is what you need for Lifers: they have nothing to lose.
And lo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9jBIYP7nk
Love this video sent to me , twitter is a wonderful place
I suspect that they’ve chose this moment to break the education promise they never intended to keep because they expect the resulting noise to be drowned out by the coming fight over the carbon price.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9jBIYP7nk
Love this video sent to me , twitter is a wonderful place ]
Classic! Better than the Three Stooges!
The funny thing is the LNP actually seem to believe that the carbon price (repeal thereof) is a major vote winner for them and vote loser for the ALP if they try to block it.
Every poll on this issue has shown that the public is not strongly convinced, and that in fact most favour retention of some form of carbon price.
The polling, of course, is confused by the terminology of whether a “carbon tax” should be repealed, but given the numbers who favour repeal of the “carbon tax” but retention of an ETS (ie ALP policy) plus the number who just want to keep the current arrangements … it’s usually a tidy majority.
I don’t understand how the LNP can have bought so thoroughly into their own sloganeering – they’ve been the ones with the savvy political analysts and strategies, or so we’ve been told, for the last 3 or 4 years.
So for the first time in the history of the FIRB, the Treasurer asked them to re-evaluate the merits of a proposed takeover to take into account ‘wider ramifications’, I.e. It’s popularity and political fallout. Imagine if Labor had done it.
Sovereign risk anyone?
Player One@2107
Well I have never felt threatened by you.
The only reference to your gender I made was to use the pronoun ‘she’. Very well, if you prefer, I shall henceforth use ‘it’.
And ‘Bullshit Bill’ is a term I have long used in recognition of his endless flow of bullshit.
Player ONe 2114
This follower does so many good Utube takes
It is interesting, Jackol, given that the ALP has offered them a loophole — bringing forward the floating price so that the Libs could say ‘we abolished the carbon tax” because “it was the highest carbon tax in the world”.
OK, this would still be a breach of faith because as BB points out, they never made the distinction between the fixed and loating price, but that would certainly be a lesser breach of faith (and one likely to be less unpopular) than what they are now doing over Gonski.
Disclaimer (and to settle this matter once and for all):
I don’t care what names Bemused calls me.
How he chooses to express himself is up to him.
Steve77
[Sovereign risk anyone?]
Country risk, technically. Sovereign risk concerns the capacity/willingness of states to meet financial or contractual obligations.
The term is grossly and repeatedly misused. The Libs started this IIRC, and the ALP gleefully jumped aboard.
FB – yes. I had thought that the repeal of the carbon price altogether was etched in stone as far as the Coalition were concerned, but now with this blatant Gonski lie and backflip perhaps they’ve set the stage for all manner of doing whatever is easiest, and keeping the carbon price is undoubtedly a lot easier and safer than anything else they come up with.
Bushfire Bill@2120
And Bill, I don’t care how you refer to me. 😀
This could be the start of a wonderful friendship. 😛
Jackol @ 2122. I’m pretty sure it’s etched in stone, along with (trying to) stop the boats and Abbott’s PPL.
They will ditch the me too and the we won’t go there stuff (such as IR), given half a chance.
I’d bet my life on no SSM under Abbott, too.
No NBN, No SSM, No PPL, No Schools, No Aus Post, No Centerlink under a goverment I lead.
[ And ‘Bullshit Bill’ is a term I have long used in recognition of his endless flow of bullshit. ]
You just can’t help yourself, can you? You can’t even seem to see your own double standard in asking others to “grow up” and stop using abusive names, while you seem to think you should be free to continue to do so.
I know Bushfire Bill is not particularly bothered by you, and most of the rest of PB seems to just find you mildly obnoxious and a bit of a twit – but I will continue to call out your abuse whenever I see it – which is far, far too often.
DisplayName –
But but but … Abbott said it would be “reconsidered” by the LNP party room when the issue “came up again”.
(Which has to be some sort of record for the most blatant non-policy ever announced pre-election).
One of the things I learnt in a sales course I once endured was how important words are.
People don’t like to ‘buy’ things, but they like to ‘own’ them.
Similarly in politics and government.
Citizens don’t like to ‘pay tax’, but they like the better schools, hospitals etc.
It is vitally important for a government to keep the focus on the benefits to taxpayers and off the costs.
Oppositions try to do the reverse.
When Abbott was ranting about the ‘Carbon Tax’, the government needed to sell the benefits of the efficiency of an ETS MINIMISING costs to the taxpayer while Abbotts uncosted Direct Action was going to be expensive and taxpayers would be hit to pay for it.
Ross Gittins pointed to Govt income of about $10B with a fully functioning ETS and a cost of at least $10B to the taxpayer to fund Direct Action.
That is a $20B turnaround that Abbott has to fund and guess how? From the Taxpayer with a GBNT.
[The Vic ALP are trying to let Geoff Shaw select the Speaker of the House. They should be ashamed of themselves.]
The Victorian Coalition are relying on him to stay in Government. They are accepting a “tainted vote” to stay in power.
No amount of spin can change that.
I am surprised we don’t have more liberals concerned about the sanctity of the speakers office and the disgrace of a speaker who has clearly lost the confidence of the house and should resign or test that confidence (without exclusions improperly.
The excluded members should be getting legal advice on whether or not the exclusions are lawful and the governor should be getting advice on whether legislation can be given assent or not. It is a tainted parliament.
Player One@2128
Do try to keep up.
Bill and I have an understanding in place.
[and most of the rest of PB seems to just find you mildly obnoxious and a bit of a twit ]
Aye. His heart is in the right place, but otherwise (as my grandmother would say) a gob-on-a-stick.
Mari
[Love this video sent to me ]
Out and out porkys!
(Worthy of Shorn).
@Carey/2131
It’s a pitty there is now silence from Sean.
[It’s a pitty there is now silence from Sean.]
Yep. That’s his MO: Bring up some spin/lie/straw man, call everyone an idiot who disagrees and then, when it’s obvious he can’t win the argument, disappear and repeat the same bullshit at a later time. He’ll keep doing it until people take the bait and accept his premise as the basis of the argument, then he wins.
Abbott government leads to worldwide shortage
http://www.guffsturdpolish.com/
Shanahan and Tisme reported to have bought up big
Ludlam presser
Making a lot of sense regarding spying
ST @2104
Shaw is still a paid up member of The Liberal party
“@PaulBongiorno: Australian citizens will be shocked to find they have less protections than Americans from govt agencies spying on them.”
“@hughriminton: PM @TonyAbbottMHR to hold a news conference at 1.30pm eastern. @channeltennews”
Where is the ABC fact check on Gonski? Liberal biased cowards.
Libertarian Unionist@2134
:kiss:
[“@hughriminton: PM @TonyAbbottMHR to hold a news conference at 1.30pm eastern. @channeltennews”]
My bet is it will basically be: “Electricity. Bill. Must. Axe. The. Tax.” and so forth, followed by two questions (which he will evade if they are anything short of sycophantic) and then a quick escape.
Tism #2074
‘Sean Tisme
Posted Monday, December 2, 2013 at 11:37 am | PERMALINK
I have long thought, and said here a couple of times that one of JG’s greatest misjudgements was to come into the House after being elected Leader and callout to Abbott “Game on!”.
Yes… everytime Gillard wanted a “fight” she got one and Abbott took care of her handily.
She was out classed… out gunned… and out smarted at every turn.”
You have cherry picked my comment Tism and reached a false conclusion.
What about the bit that “Abbott prefers a fight to a f***!” All I am saying is that she was wrong to adopt a fight style with a pug, especially a brawler who has no ethics and no sense of what things are sacrosanct and should never be trashed, like parliamentary conventions.
Abbott the politician is the equivalent of a fighter who will keep punching even though the opponent is down and out. It was injudicious for JG to join him by adopting a fighting stance.
Having said this I can not think of one occasion or issue where Abbott got the better of her.
As to your delusion that Abbott “outsmarted” her, this contains an assumption about Abbot being competent, which is contradicted by his judgements and performance every day.
The only area of conduct in which Abbott’s skills clearly outclassed JG’s was in lying.
[“@hughriminton: PM @TonyAbbottMHR to hold a news conference at 1.30pm eastern. @channeltennews”]
Bullshit coming up.
So, re the Guardian’s latest revelations about the shocking over-reach of our domestic spy agencies –
1. Liberal supporters – will you call your ‘small government’ party to account for its rather Soviet approach to mass surveillance? As I recall the LNP position is that we don’t need a bill of rights because we have such excellent legal protection from the common law.
2. ALP supporters – will you call your party to account for its pathetic, hypocritical lock step support of the ‘five eyes’ US-led program of democratic governments spying on their own citizens?
3. Everyone – can we expect our fearless media to actually take up this issue and pressure all of our political representatives about it, or will we have a continuation of the gentlemen’s agreement between politicians, spies and press not to talk about such things?
The immense value of the Guardian as a new voice in our media should be pretty obvious to all.
@gabriellechan: Ludlam: Review Five Eyes agreement and Oz intelligence agencies in wake of info regarding ordinary Aussies http://t.co/ju25KaWpdN @guardian
@Jackol 2115
[I don’t understand how the LNP can have bought so thoroughly into their own sloganeering – they’ve been the ones with the savvy political analysts and strategies, or so we’ve been told, for the last 3 or 4 years.]
It seems to be a running trend with the modern LNP that an election win means that the swinging voters who changed sides have suddenly transformed into wealthy, Ayn Rand-worshipping, blindly partisan true-believers, rather than being influenced by the usual concerns of the average voter and being taken in by the Coalition’s deft spin and scare campaigns, and thus will wildly support sudden shifts to the far-right by the new government.
(Warning – massive generalizations to follow)
Take, for example, the QLD Government’s truly bizarre tattoo registry. Now, one would assume that – having successfully snatched up the bogan vote through the standard measures – there would be some recognition from the LNP braintrust that said voters often have a lot of tattoos. But, no, that’s not a concern at all, because the LNP won an enormous majority in Queensland, and therefore most Queensland voters are now middle-aged, wealthy business-types, who would never have such things as tattoos, surely not.