The Australian Electoral Commission is dampening expectations about the progress of the count:
The initial sorting and collation of postal and other declaration votes already received by the AEC will finalise on Monday. The AEC will also check every declaration vote against the electoral roll and other requirements in order to include them to the count. Once this examination process is complete, the counting of declaration votes recently included in the count will begin. This is expected to be on Tuesday. Postal and other declaration votes will continue to be received, sorted and included in the count up until the deadline for receipt on 15 July.
What this amounts to is the AEC taking extra special care to ensure there are no repeats of the Senate fiasco from Western Australia in 2013. Many will grumble about the slow progress, but you can’t have it both ways. So no counting yesterday or today, which I’m personally relieved by as it’s giving me a chance to wrap my head around a complex situation. Here’s how I described it in response to a commenter’s query on the previous thread:
Barring some freaky late count development in a seat currently off my radar, I have the Coalition home in 70 seats, Labor home in 65, others home in five, and ten up in the air (though I haven’t yet absorbed Kevin Bonham’s notion that the Liberals could theoretically win Melbourne Ports, as may the Greens, although a Labor win seems most likely). So they would need to break 8-2 to Labor for them to win more seats than the Coalition (UPDATE: I beg your pardon — make that Coalition 69 and Labor 66, and Labor needing a break of 7-3). Out of the ten, I would, in descending order of degree, rather be in the Coalition’s position in Dunkley, Chisholm, Gilmore and Capricornia, and Labor’s in Herbert, Cowan and Hindmarsh. There are three seats I don’t even care to speculate about:
Flynn, because the LNP would make it home if they did as well on pre-polls and postals as last time, but that was apparently because they did well from fly-in fly-out workers, of which the electorate now has fewer with the end of the mining boom. It’s also possible that Labor has run a stronger postals campaign this time after abandoning the seat as a lost cause in 2013.
Forde, because there looks like being so very little in it.
Grey, because we don’t know enough about the preference flow yet, but the early indications are encouraging for the Liberals.
I’ll have a more detailed paywalled account of the situation in Crikey later today.
Hi all,
I’ve been busy today & am still back at page 17 catching up 🙂
I see Turbull is probably going to be rolled sooner rather than later.
I posited, like some others, that on the first sitting day the Libs will roll him, probably after he has cobbled together support from the xbenchers to form govt. Then, Turnbull will quit the Liberals & support a minority Labor govt as an independent & the xbenchers will swing in behind this because of the bastardry of the LNP.
How’s that that for a scenario?
C@tmomma
So is the SSM vote binding if they are in Government?
puff, the magic dragon. @ #1045 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:56 pm
I suspect Briggs is receiving neither visitors nor flowers.
Diog – correct. And C@t – being the government wont change that.
wish the ABC would stop acting as Hanson’s publicists
Rephrase:
Bilbo has 65 seats for Labor.
ABC also includes Flynn, but gets to 67 for Labor.
ABC is not including any other of Bilbo’s ‘undecided’ seats for Labor.
What gives?
bk @ #1011 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:41 pm
Yeah, I went and verbally roughed him up every 20 minutes or so… whenever there was a good queue of voters to hear what I had to say.
A couple of the Libs tried to intervene so I gave them the rounds of the kitchen too.
IMO, the first national poll after the election will see Shorten overtake and pass Turnbull as PM and will see superior net sats for Shorten.
The poll, which will presumably list Liberal alternatives, will see Shorten handily ahead of all potential Liberal leaders.
Shorten will run on a united team, with a vision for the future, with a fully-costed suite of policies and with the proven capacity to avoid the utter chaos that has enveloped the Liberals and the Nationals.
BK
Give Briggs a voucher for a certain Honkers establishment. Just for old times.
Z: Ok, fair enough.
Pauline Hanson wants a Royal Commission into the Banks as a condition of her support.
Now she may not have any HOR seats but her swing votes in the Senate could be crucial.
I’d like to know what she thinks about Gambling Reform too. I’m sure that, during her stint in chokey she would have come across women with gambling addiction which forced them into crime to support that addiction.
Which also throws up the thought that she probably knows who was behind the Liberal ‘Get Pauline’ campaign. And if he wants to come back to the Liberal leadership then the redhead might feel like starting some fireworks. : )
I wonder whether it would be worth a complaint to the ABC?
Hanson is getting a hugely disproportionate amount of air time.
meher baba @ #1024 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:45 pm
meher baba @ #1024 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:45 pm
You want me to try harder? 😮
I just find some of your opinions weird and ignorant. Particularly on economics where you seem to be stuck in the past, and unions where your hatred is visceral.
Otherwise, I often agree and you do have some thoughtful insights on some subjects.
Why is the AEC NXT 2PP vote “bullshit”?
Q&A: innovative, agile and exciting.
wakefield @ #1104 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 9:23 pm
Correct. However, if they were the government then the weights would be on all MPs to be bound by Bill’s promise to the electorate I assume. Which may lead to abstentions but no crossing the floor. However, I know some of the staunch Catholics and they are now prepared to vote for SSM. Otherwise they could have left with Bullock, in the full knowledge that they must vote for it by 2019 at the latest.
First Q.
Should Turnbull resign?
Maybe. But Labour have dodged a bullet by NOT just scraping over the line IMO and I think the wiser heads in the party would know that. They have the Liberals exactly where they want them now – no mandate, no worthwhile policies, weak leader, divided party, difficult senate, universal condemnation from the media – and all set up to be slaughtered at the next election whenever it is held. Why would they want to risk all of that for a narrow one or two seat win at this stage?
zoomster @ #1031 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:51 pm
Because Victoria likes to have her name on many posts, useful or otherwise.
Sadly, she is not alone.
fess
It extrapolates prefs from a very small booth. Best to wait until tomorrow.
Kelly There are no logical alternative candidates.
Aye, there’s the rub.
I accept that Baba may not be a concern troll, but if that is the case he should desist from stoking the fires of leadership in ALP.
Thanks Dio.
I don’t believe the GG is obliged to take advice on granting royal assent. It’s not spelled out that way in the constitution – the executive may make a case to withhold assent (and I vaguely recall this has been done at times when the government have realized they screwed something up in a bill and want a do-over).
But as a general concept legislation is a function of parliament, not the executive, and the GG would not interfere with the functioning of parliament without a bloody good reason beyond the executive being unhappy.
Player One
#876 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:14 pm
There is little hope for stable progressive government in Australia until the RWNJs in general, and Abbott in particular, are expunged from politics.
That’s my view. They did take a hit this election, so the tide may have turned on them.
Howard was an evil bastard.
Two things I cannot forgive Howard for are Iraq and gutting public dentistry.
Josh not looking very happy.
confessions @ #1114 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 9:36 pm
It has been explained on here numerous times what is really happening, go and get a clue.
There are, unsurprisingly, very few precedents in the Westminster system about legislation passed through parliament against the wishes of the government. I can present to you:
“In December 1877 the premier of New Zealand (Sir G. Grey) advised the governor to refuse the royal assent to a bill, intitled ‘The land act’, which had been agreed to by both houses of the local parliament. This advice was given, because the bill had been introduced by the late government, though afterwards forwarded by the new ministry, but it had been amended, during its progress through parliament, in a manner objectionable to ministers. The governor demurred to the course proposed. He considered the ministers would have been entitled to oppose, to the extent of their ability, the passing of the bill; but he saw no reason why he should take the unusual course of vetoing the measure. Vexed at this refusal, the premier at first declined to attach his name to the formal certificate, recommending the governor to assent to it. Ultimately, however, he agreed to do so, and the bill was assented to. The secretary of state for the colonies, in a despatch dated February 15, 1878, approved of the action taken by the governor upon this occasion, in declining, under the circumstances he had explained, to refuse his assent to this bill.”
Alpheus Todd, Parliamentary government in the British colonies, 1880, p664
Watching Q&A: gawd Paul Kelly bloviates on and on stating the bleeding obvious
Erica on Lateline, blaming Get Up! again. Calling them grubs for besmirching Andrew Nikolic’s character. The ‘Mediscare’ campaign because so many are Welfare Dependent in Tasmania. Also the ‘Innovation and Science’ agenda of the Coalition. This from the Anti Science Conservative Christian. I know who the grub is here.
Lol, blaming a Labor front party, the Recreational Fishers run by Kevin Harkin, for taking votes away from the Coalition.
Disingenuously stating that Welfare Dependent people in Tasmania rely on Medicare so it will never be privatised. But that’s not the point. The point is that the Coalition wanted to make everyone else but the Welfare Dependent pay for it over and above the Medicare Levy.
Confessions read Kevin Bonham’s blog post on Grey. That will help you understand.
R
bingo. I just mentioned, in conversation, ‘bloviate’ and ‘Kelly’ in the same sentence.
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/2016-federal-postcount-grey-and-other.html
victoria @ #997 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:33 pm
When as PM has demonstrated any authority and not just being beholden to others.
“But as a general concept legislation is a function of parliament, not the executive, and the GG would not interfere with the functioning of parliament without a bloody good reason beyond the executive being unhappy.”
That’s my position as well. Separation of powers is hard enough as it is in the Westminster system, without giving the Executive an extra-parliamentary veto over legislation.
Does William in fact give a full list of seats he is awarding to the ALP in the paywalled article?
In the 10 seats Antony Green has as undecided, the LNP got the donkey vote in all but Herbert and Hindmarsh (also Flynn in >10 area). In these sort of seats the average donkey vote is 0.5-1% so 350 to 700 votes on the count so far in each seat. And if the donkey was reversed then the shift in votes is doubled. I suppose the good news is that for postal votes at least the donkey vote is presumably much lower.
Martin B
Yes.
Is Malcolm on Q&A tonight in his leather jacket? Can’t watch it – the ‘2’ button is missing from my remote.
wakefield @ #1137 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:01 pm
Interesting, thank you
Any danger of sharing the list, just the list?
The problem with legislation without Government approval is that it would need to be stitched up carefully to cover every relevant matter. If Regulations were required that makes it much harder as the Government presumably has much more control over them. The only thing that would force their hand might be a threat of no confidence. Would be very interesting – does anyone have some examples of when it has happened? I suppose private members bills could be examples which is what SSM/ME would be.
albert twoman @ #1127 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 9:51 pm
Mr Twoman,
Could you please not be so rude to confessions? She has been a regular contributor to Pollbludger for a very long time and is much liked and respected.
You, on the other hand, are a recent blow-in who has tended to dominate in this post-election period. That doesn’t give you the right to be so high-handed.
And, yes, I know you have a ‘right’ to say what you want. Doesn’t mean you have to.
Fyi, confessions has a job and so she often asks for a precis wrt what has been going on.
2007:R*dd wins a convincing victory
2010: R*dd deposed by G*ll*rd, latter goes to an early election, loses majority
2010-2013: hung Parliament.
2013: Abbott wins a convincing victory
2015: Abbott deposed by Turnbull
2016: Turnbull goes to early election, loses majority
Next step?
History repeats, first as tragedy, next as farce.
Sohar,
You are missing out on the shadenfreude.
News Flash! SHY supports and respects One Nation….
LOL. SH-Y desperate for Labor love. Bowen telling the Greens to stick it.
martin b @ #1136 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:00 pm
Nope. It’s more of, ‘on the one hand, but on the other hand’ type of analysis. He lays out reasons why the ALP ‘might’ win certain seats but says, basically, wait for the postals and absent votes to be counted.
Chris Bowen on a Greens alliance “It takes two to tango, we’re not on dance floor”! Good, it just aint going to happen.
c@tmomma @ #1143 Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:07 pm
Fair enough. I was too harsh, I apologise.