I’m going to progressively add a region-by-region post mortem to this thread as I go, so be sure to hit “refresh” every now and then if you’re hovering around the site and you think that might of use to you (UPDATE: Scratch that – I’ll do it tomorrow). I’ll start by answering a question that will be on the lips of many: how did the polls (and by implication the poll aggregators – see the sidebar) get it so wrong? The answer to this is simple: by allocating preferences as they flowed at the 2012 election. In fact, the pollsters did well at predicting the primary vote. As noted two posts back, all three late-reporting pollsters essentially had the LNP on 42% and Labor on 37%. The present vote totals are 40.8% and 38.1%, and they will probably edge closer in the direction of the poll results during late counting. This tends to argue against the notion that there was a violent late surge to Labor – and also the notion that there is likely to be a particularly big move back to the LNP on late counting.
The real key to the surprise is that Labor’s share of minor party and independent preferences went from 27% to 45%, the LNP’s went from 22% to 15%, and the exhaustion rate fell from 51% to 39%. This is based on slightly incomplete data, but it should be probably be near enough. Applying those preference flows to the current primary vote totals, it’s Labor and not the LNP that comes out 52-48 ahead, contrary to what all three of the aforementioned polls said. If the pollsters had been operating on accurate assumptions concerning preferences, they would have come out at 51-49 to Labor. Which gives them a lot to think about going forward, particularly with another optional preferential election on the way in New South Wales in a little under two months.
Anyhow, stay tuned.
UPDATE: Or I could leave it for tomorrow. Yes, I think that’s the go actually. Here’s a table that should set you a long way towards working out what I’ll end up saying. Seats are rated in doubt if Labor is ahead by less than 1.8% or the LNP is ahead by less than 1.2%, according to a crude 0.3% estimate of how much late counting generally favours the conservatives. The six in question are Mansfield (Labor leads by 0.1%), Mount Ommaney (LNP by 0.9%) and Redlands (LNP by 0.9%), in Southern Brisbane; Ferny Grove (Labor by 1.6%), in Northern Brisbane; and Whitsunday (LNP by 0.2%) and Maryborough (a special case, in that it will come down to who finishes second out of Labor and independent Chris Foley) on the Central Coast. Since Maryborough is in doubt between Labor and an independent, the ceiling for the LNP is 43, which includes the long shot of Ferny Grove.
| LNP | ALP | GRN | LNP | ALP | OTH | DOUBT | |
| Inner Brisbane | 41.6% | 40.1% | 15.7% | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| -8.2% | +7.2% | +1.5% | -7 | +7 | 0 | ||
| Northern Brisbane | 41.3% | 44.3% | 8.9% | 3 | 8 | 0 | 1 |
| -11.4% | +14.0% | +0.6% | -9 | +8 | 0 | ||
| Southern Brisbane | 38.7% | 47.1% | 8.7% | 2 | 10 | 0 | 3 |
| -11.1% | +13.7% | +1.2% | -11 | +8 | 0 | ||
| Ipswich | 29.0% | 54.3% | 7.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| -9.4% | +20.4% | +1.3% | -2 | +2 | 0 | ||
| Gold Coast | 48.1% | 30.2% | 7.8% | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| -10.2% | +6.6% | +1.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Sunshine Coast | 45.2% | 24.2% | 12.7% | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| -12.4% | +7.8% | +0.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Central Coast | 35.2% | 38.2% | 4.5% | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2 |
| -6.8% | +13.1% | +0.3% | -5 | +4 | -1 | ||
| Northern Coast | 36.8% | 40.6% | 6.1% | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| -3.4% | +13.1% | +0.4% | -6 | +6 | 0 | ||
| Urban Hinterland | 45.0% | 30.5% | 6.1% | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| -5.6% | +11.3% | +0.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Interior | 46.6% | 23.5% | 4.0% | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| -5.5% | +8.5% | +0.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| TOTAL | 40.8% | 38.1% | 8.4% | 38 | 42 | 3 | 6 |
| -8.9% | +11.5% | +0.9% | -40 | +35 | -1 | ||
lefty e @137, there weren’t many highlights – it was the most shambolic election night I’ve seen from the ABC, with all sorts of technical stuffups – the first hour especially was just embarrassing.
True Blue
The problem with the 2014/2015 federal budget was that it was never going to even start to reduce the budget deficit as it was a poorly designed budget which was clearly more political than economic.
Australia can easily return top surplus but be prepared for a recession and lost of government unless you are willing to be completely straight with the voters, this is something this government just has never got its head around.
Its sales job has been poor but this is due in part to to the product being crap.
Oh now I see KAP directed their preferences to Hanson. Nothing to see there then. Apologies.
[“Out of government, households, business and farms the one best to be in debt and the one most likely to be able to service debt is government. “]
Explain in this fantasy Labor world how debt ever gets paid if you NEVER EVER post a budget surplus?
Come on. Lets here it.
Labor always rely on a Lib Government to bring the budget back to surplus and pay down their debt. That’s their debt strategy… wait for the other guys to pay it off because you guys are useless with other peoples money.
I want to see Anna 2.0’s plan of paying down the debt.. uno the real plan.. not the spend the asset profits twice voodoo economics plan. The truth is they don’t have one.. up to the next LNP Government to sort out even a bigger mess.
[That was truly foolish and any mug could see how it was going to end.]
Doug Cameron was right at the 2012 party conference. He said we should be talking about jobs, and investment, and improving skills for all Australians instead of talking about surpluses.
ShowsOn @143: Indeed, too busy adhering to neoliberal orthodoxy, with all its warts attached.
Ta Tom. The Stafford uncertain identity vote was only about 0.8%. It modestly favoured LNP vs the general count, on Green’s TPP estimate — in aggregate worth about 25 extra LNP votes. More noise than signal.
[ShowsOn @143: Indeed, too busy adhering to neoliberal orthodoxy, with all its warts attached.]
I have no idea why Swan was wasted so much time talking about surpluses because it seemed to imply that the debt was unmanageable.
It helped make the Opposition’s argument for the Opposition.
One of the highlights of the evening for me was on Sky when that pompous poonce Kroger called the election for the LNP after looking at the 3% count in Whitsunday: “Don’t show us that seat again”. 24 hours later there are less than 100 votes in it.
I was also shocked when Richardson said “we” when speaking about the Labor Party. I guess a sense of self-delusion is common in the NSW Right.
Not sure why this was a total surprise. About a year ago Bleijie proposed banning canvassing at polling stations. I told the journos at the time it was a retrograde move for the ritual of polling day; but that the motivation was the fact the govt faced 4 opposition parties and regional indies. A bunker mentality afraid of rival HTVs (revealed in 3 election day lawsuits). But what we all missed was that even with limited preference deals, the 50-50 polls were not going to exhaust on OPV.
True Blue
The debt does get paid back, every time a bond holder receives payment or more importantly their initial investment back.
With debt, its not the amount that is necessarily important but rather how it
-relates to the assets and equity
&
-future revenue (education results in higher tax returns)
God, I really really want to see some of this Sky News coverage now.
TBA @ 146
[ God help Queensland… ]
She did,…last night. 🙂
Having watched countless elections with Kroger and Richo on the panel and I don’t recall seeing Kroger react with that sort of aggression to a Liberal Party thumping.
He might at times be dismissive but generally he will be measured but not last night. Both PvO and Richo were goading him a little for they could see that he was angry.
imacca
[She did,…last night.]
😀
I must admit, reading TrueBlueAussies meltdown is hilarious.
mb
[I don’t recall seeing Kroger react with that sort of aggression to a Liberal Party thumping.]
He can see the dominoes falling.
Right now I’m reading all the right wing meltdowns and feeling like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48H34ukFe8g
Much like Rabbott, really
What utter nonsense. It’s precisely these type of “Chicken Little” proclamations that have become one of the underlying reasons that the public have repudiated the Abbott “Government” in the first place.
For starters, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Government debt, as long as it is used as productive investment. This is basic Keynesian Economic theory. Our debt, as it is, is miniscule anyway, and to compare it to Greece just makes you look like a cretin.
If your are that worried about returning the budget to surplus, there are many ways to achieve it. Dont sell state assets for starters. Using the taxation system (ie correctly tax the Corporates, rich etc) is another way to pay down debt.
TBA, a good start would be a complete overhaul of our taxation and transfer system. Serious consideration of a Financial Transaction Tax and whether it’s right in the Australian context would be a worthwhile exercise in my view. I’m disinclined to support the sale of assets and the outsourcing or privatization of government services. Rarely does it end up being a good deal for the tax payer and acts more like a perverse financial double jeopardy. Investment in growth enabling infrastructure like Labor’s NBN is vital to the health of both state and national economies. Proper ubiquitous Fibre to the Premise is the key as ubiquity means equality of access and opportunity. Turnbull’s NBN is a waste of billions of dollars building a multi-tech network that limits access and stifles innovation.
TBA: No. We want to put you on a train to Germany.
CTar1
There is something different about this political cycle than what we saw in the late 1990s early to mid 2000s when the Liberals lost state election after state election including several record landslides.
Back then people like Kroger appears more rational and measured but this cycle they seem really spooked.
Alan
Australia doesn’t need new taxes, maybe we can extend the GST to a few areas however we can improve the budget by ensuring that the current tax system contains minimal loopholes and we can better target public spending.
mb
Baird will likely survive.
Moderate enough that I doubt Tones counts him as friendly.
mexicanbeemer,
I’m fine with a financial transactions tax – look up the idea of a “Tobin tax”. For that matter, given the immense benefits the big banks draw from their implicit guarantee from the Government (among other things, cheaper financing), I’m happy to see a Government try to recapture some of that value.
CTar1
I can see the Liberals winning in NSW although asset sales look like being a central plank of the NSW campaign and ow do they hide Tony from his home state for a month.
Matt
they can recoup that guarantee from ensuring company tax and other taxes are being paid.
I don’t support a transaction tax on bank accounts particularly as we know there are so many tax loopholes and opportunities to claim work expenses back from tax.
James Ashby helped Pauline Hanson yesterday. Still right wing as hell, but no friend of the LNP these days it seems. Article not online (maybe later) but there is a hard copy story by Rose Brennan in the CM.
Photo from yesterday
https://twitter.com/RoseBrennan12/status/561665820820926465
Story image
https://twitter.com/jaredowens/status/561629113299906560
mb
[although asset sales look like being a central plank of the NSW campaign]
Yep. Maybe Labour will copy the QLD example and go hard on this.
Peter Wellington supporting Labor. The KAP don’t seem particularly enamoured about the previous government either.
Isn’t there a saying about “Revenge being a dish best eaten cold”?
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/02/01/00/52/labor-on-cusp-of-return-to-power-in-qld
GG
It’s very handy for Palaszczuk that Wellington says that there is no ‘deal’ involved – He just doesn’t want asset disposal.
Can someone please explain this, on the ABC election website for one of the ‘in doubt’ seats, Maryborough.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/guide/mary/
The LNP candidate has:
“First Preference” = 7597 votes
but
“Count After Preferences” = 6,925
How can Anne Maddern lose first preference votes due to a preference count?
What am I not understanding about the term, “First Preference Count” please?
Any help appreciated.
Puff, a bunch of out-of-division pre-poll results have been added to the primary vote total, but not the two-party preferred count (which is redundant in any case – perhaps they’re not going to continue updating it).
Thanks William.
It looks weird on the page. They should update it.
Not all the booths have reported 2pp, so that the vote counts are different between 2pp ans 1st pref. i presume the ABC is using a booth based algorith to keep this one in doubt but I must admit it looks odd
182
There are obviously votes that have been counted for first preferences not yet fully counted for 2PP. There are 29 counted for first preferences but only 27 counted for 2PP, with the 2PP count for Anne Maddern now at 9,264.
mexicanbeemer @177:
An FTT doesn’t have to be levied on individual accounts to be effective. Just levying it on money used, for instance, for speculative churning of the stock market would raise the odd billion here and there….and calm down the frothing speculators too, by imposing a modest cost upon the otherwise costless business of betting with company stocks.
I hope they count tomorrow and get it all wrapped up – I want to collect my winnings 🙂
Lovely result, very happy – hoping Labor get 45 so they can govern in their own right but we’ll see. I hope they remember to thank the Green voters who preferenced them in more traditional numbers – they wouldn’t be in government without
Do we know how many declaration votes were issued due to people not having ID? I’m guessing they will need to be counted later??
188
There were 199 related to a lack of ID in the Stafford by-election. Therefore there should be about 18,000, 199×89 plus a margin for higher general election turnout, if there is a similar rate. If there is a higher rate in some areas, there will be more. If there were more polling booths in this election that just sent voters away, without declaration voting, than in Stafford, then there will be fewer.
If Labor get 43 or 44 they could govern with Wellington in the same way SA Labor did with Bob Such. Like Such, Wellington is a reasonable independent and not a spoiler.
Since nobody can see any way the LNP can get to 43, I think Labor is certain to form government. The only question is whether it is minority or majority. Palaszczuk strikes me as the sort of person who could make either work.
I love the “Labor will see us go the way of Greece” trolling. One of Greece’s big problems is (and I’m happy to be corrected here) their complete inability to collect tax.
The current Government has targeted the ATO for job cuts. This will make it harder for the ATO to actually do it’s job of collecting taxes. Worse, many of those made redundant may well be going to the big accounting firms, where their knowledge will help big corporates reduce their tax bills.
Sounds a little like a certain Mediterranean nation, doesn’t it?
William thanks again for all your excellent work, including the clear explanation of the change in preference flows. It explained a lot about why Labor won. When you put it in terms of a 52/48 2pp to Labor after preferences, there is nothing surprising about the Labor victory.
Here’s a theory worth discussing.
The polls included “other” figures where people may have assumed they could vote for KAP as they contested most (all?) seats last election, but when the same people hit the booths they found there was no KAP candidate in most electorates. This part of the polled vote went to various parties including Labor, raising them by a point or two, and pushing them past what the polling predicted.
It would be easy to check this by looking at the swing to labor in seats where KAP did run, and seeing if there is a weakened swing to labor there.
Sam
It was my expectation that most people now understand they have to decide between the big two.
Greens voters know that they are actually voting for the ALP – but still they hope.
There was a good article on budget surpluses and the like where the author requested the readers to, as the headline says:
[Repeat after me: the Australian economy is not like a household budget]
But too many corporate shills have shouted rubbish for so long in so many ways that I’m afraid the author has a hopeless task trying to educate the public, including the pundits.
For example Casssidy on Insiders this morning was trying to ‘balance the household budget’.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/09/repeat-after-me-the-australian-economy-is-not-like-a-household-budget
Looks like ALP lead evaporating in late counting.
Could be 43 each in the end.
CTar1
That doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with what I wrote.
The “other” figure was much higher in polling, and disappeared on Election Day.
Sam
The biggest swings TO labor were in areas where Katter had done OK last time. The Katter people when forced to choose chose ALP.
Has counting stopped for the day in Qld? Surprised given the comparatively small number of votes in the electorates that matter that we haven’t even got full prefs counts on the existing booth votes.
Booth numbers counted seem at odds between ECQ & ABC, too. I guess there is a rational explanation, but what is it?
Any booth workers / party scrutineers out there have a handle on the number of declaration votes & when they are likely to be counted.
Just by the way, how do they decide on counting votes from voters who lacked ID and had to make a declaration vote? Is it just a matter of seeing if someone of the same name voted elsewhere?
Cog
See my 190. With Wellington supporting a Labor government, 43 is enough. A long as Labor stick to restoring the Fitzgerald reforms, he will ensure supply is passed.