Thursday morning
I’ve now taken Gaven, Cook and Burdekin off my watch list, the first two credited to Labor, the latter to the LNP (see below for further detail on Burdekin). That gets Labor to 45, which then becomes 46 if Margaret Strelow is right to have conceded defeat in Rockhampton, which she presumably is (more on that below also). To get to 47, Labor would need one out of the following: to retain Macalister, which will happen if independent Hetty Johnston can’t close a 3% gap against the LNP on preferences (which I would rate somewhat likely); Townsville, which is going down to the wire with Labor very slightly behind; and to be the beneficiary of Scott Emerson’s defeat in Maiwar, which seems somewhat more likely to go to the Greens. The ABC computer is predicting 48 for Labor, but I’m not sure why, because it only projects them with leads in 47.
The latest iteration of my results table looks as follows, with explanatory notes to follow:
Rockhampton
The big news of the day was independent Margaret Strelow’s concession that she is not going to win, contrary to most back-of-envelope projections to this point. The kicker is apparently a very tight 60% flow of preferences from the LNP to the One Nation, which will cause the latter to overtake Strelow at the second last exclusion, by a fairly comfortable margin of around 400 votes on my reckoning. One Nation would need about 55% of Strelow, LNP and Greens preferences to overtake Labor, and evidently Strelow’s are favouring Labor enough that this is not going to happen. It seems a full preference count will be conducted today.
Macalister
The count here seems unusually advanced, so there will presumably not be much change to the current results – which is good for independent Hetty Johnston, who has been getting smashed on postals. The key to the situation is the LNP’s 26.66% to 23.33% lead over Johnston, which she needs to close to poach the seat from Labor. The sources of the preferences will be the Greens on 6.54% and three minnows on 6.82% between them. Out of a three-way split of preferences, Johnston’s share will need to be about 25% higher than the LNP’s. Buried deep in a typically eyeroll-inducing report from the Courier-Mail is the news that Labor is very confident that this won’t happen.
Townsville
Not much progress in the count yesterday, with 90 postal votes breaking about evenly, and Labor clawing back about 30 on rechecking of booth votes. I still have the LNP a few dozen votes ahead, but there are perhaps 2000 absent votes that are yet to be counted, which might turn up something for Labor – though they were in fact slightly favourable to the LNP in relative terms in 2015. The same goes for maybe 700 outstanding out-of-district pre-poll votes. Also to come are around 600 declared institution, polling day declaration and uncertain identity votes, whose idiosyncrasies cancelled each other out last time.
Maiwar
All that was added yesterday were 130 postals, which increased the Greens’ primary vote lead from 37 to 43. Still to come: about 1500 absent votes, which are historically strong for the Greens; about 400 out-of-district pre-polls; a trickle of postals and 200 or so odds and sods. With scrutineer talk of a strong flow of Greens preferences out of the 737 votes for independent Anita Diamond, Labor will need to do extremely well on the outstanding count to get their nose in front.
Burdekin
My projection that the LNP would pull away here is looking pretty good after 652 postals were added to the count yesterday, breaking 430-222 to the LNP if preferences behaved as before. I’m projecting a 637 vote LNP win, and while this is probably inflated by an overestimate of the number of outstanding postals, I’m no longer regarding it as in doubt.
Hinchinbrook
Not really anything to follow here, as we won’t know the real situation until the preference distribution. However, it looks very much to me like One Nation’s narrow lead over Katter’s will be eliminated by Labor preferences, and that Katter’s will then ride home over LNP member Andrew Cripps on One Nation preferences. That’s unless Labor gets a strong flow of preferences from independent Peter Raffles and the Greens (3.04%), in which case Labor will close a 21.02% to 18.83% deficit against Katter’s, causing the latter to be eliminated in fourth place. In this case, there would need to be a Labor preference share around 30% higher than that to the KAP – plausible in the Greens’ case, but there doesn’t seem any reason to think preferences from Raffles, who wants statehood for north Queensland, will not go strongly to Katter. As top candidate on the ballot paper, some of Raffles’ vote would be of the donkey variety, and that vote won’t harm Katter’s.
Tuesday evening
The ECQ have unhelpfully pulled the notional two-party counts from their site. That makes it particularly difficult to track Burdekin, where Labor today picked up a bonus I hadn’t been factoring in: a strong pre-poll booth at Collinsville, which would have narrowed Labor’s two-party deficit from 366 to about 150. However, I’m still projecting the LNP to gain a couple of hundred votes on remaining postals.
Labor had a much better day today in Townsville, getting 35.3% of the primary vote from a batch of 635 postals, compared with 28.5% from the earlier batch of 885. The LNP’s 37.7% vote in the first batch fell to 33.2% in the second. Based on earlier reported preference flows, I’ve got Labor paring their deficit back from 78 to 31, and the projected losing margin down from 312 to 154 – and with perhaps 3000 voters yet to come, there’s a fairly substantial margin for error on that.
In Maiwar, the Greens are now 37 votes ahead of Labor on the primary vote, pending the unknown quantity of the preferences of independent Anita Diamond, who is on 734 votes. Kevin Bonham hears scrutineer talk that the Greens are getting a strong flow of preferences from those votes, to the extent that they should boost them by about 200. The two main outstanding categories of vote are absent votes, both of the pre-poll and polling day variety. If these favour the Greens like they did in 2015, I’m projecting the margin to increase by 135 votes. That does not factor in what will presumably be a few hundred outstanding postals, which have so far been fractionally more favourable for Labor.
Monday evening
A better day for Labor today, with three indicative two-party counts in seats where the ECQ had picked the wrong top two all bringing good news. In short:
Cook. A Labor-versus-One Nation throw records One Nation receiving 64% of preferences, when they need more like three quarters. The only remaining question is whether it will indeed be One Nation facing Labor in the final count, the other possibility being Katter’s Australian Party, who might get a better flow of preferences. However, there are likely to be only about 2500 votes left to be added to the count – in which case KAP would need to outpoll One Nation by nearly 10% of the outstanding vote, when they are closely matched at present.
Maiwar. Labor will clearly defeat the LNP’s Scott Emerson if it make it to the final count ahead of the Greens (I’m not actually clear in this case why the ECQ wasn’t conducted an LNP-Labor count all along). Presumably Labor preferences would go even more strongly to the Greens, to the outstanding question is who gets over the hump. The Greens currently have a lead of 19 votes, subject to the slight impact independent candidate Anita Diamond’s preferences will have.
Burdekin. Previously identified as a technical LNP gain, meaning a retain in a seat the redistribution had made notionally Labor. With a Labor-LNP throw now conducted, it has emerged that Labor has enjoyed a strong flow of One Nation preferences, and trails by only 34 votes. The seat is prompted me to add it to the summary chart below, where it constitutes a potential Labor to gain to compensate for the fact that I’ve now called Pumicestone for the LNP along with a detailed projection. The latter suggests today’s development is a false alarm for the LNP, who have a huge advantage on postals that is yet to flow through to the published two-party count.
Not featured in today’s two-party throws: LNP versus KAP in Hinchinbrook; Strelow versus Labor in Rockhampton; Johnston versus Labor in Macalister. Next to nothing happened today in Gaven and Townsville.
Sunday evening
Today’s counting has yielded two notable developments, both of them unfavourable to Labor. The LNP has roared back into the race in Townsville, performing very strongly at the city’s pre-poll centre and in the first half of postal votes. Postals have swung to the LNP by 8.9%, pre-polls by 6.8%, with the latter doubling in number since 2015. Some activity of the Defence Force that I’m not aware of may have had a bearing here.
Labor’s lead in Aspley has also withered from 2.2% to 0.6%, with postals swinging to the LNP here as well. However, that seems to most of the postals accounted for – most of the outstanding votes now are absents, which are likely to favour Labor.
I now have detailed projections for the three seats I am reading as straightforward Labor-versus-LNP contests, which are Gaven, Pumicestone and Townsville. These suggest Labor is in real trouble in Townsville and has little chance in Pumicestone, but will most likely win Gaven.
Not much has happened in the count today in Gaven, so what it says below is much the same as yesterday. In Pumicestone, Labor had a raw vote lead of 309 last night, but I was calculating this would become a 53-vote deficit when primary votes in the count were added on two-part. I then projected a 228 winning margin for the LNP on the final count, with the LNP to gain 341 on postals and 217 on absents. Once again though, postals have been bad for Labor, swinging against them 4.5%, such that I am now projecting the LNP to win by 535.
Including Gaven and Aspley, I can see a clear 44 seats for Labor; losses in Cook or Macalister I would still rate as unlikely, but they simply cannot be ruled out given the lack of hard information about preferences. That leaves them still needing an extra seat to reach the magic 47, for which their best chances are squeezing out the Greens in Maiwar or hanging on in Townsville.
Saturday evening
As I see it, in the race for 47 seats, Labor is on 43 and the LNP is on 38; there are at least two for Katter’s Australian Party, one for One Nation and one independent; and then there are eight seats that I’m treating as up in the air in one way or another. First up, there are eight seats that I’m treating as having changed hands. No doubt I’ll be proved wrong about some of them, but I figure you’ve got to start somewhere.
Aspley. Labor has held a stubborn lead of a bit over 2%, which doesn’t look like being overturned.
Redlands. Surprisingly, Labor’s only entirely clear gain from the LNP, off a swing of 6.3%.
Noosa. Independent Sandra Bolton seems to have surprised everybody by topping the primary vote in Noosa. Bolton appears to be exquisitely inoffensive, so there is no chance of the LNP chasing her down on preferences.
Nicklin. With the retirement of independent Peter Wellington, Nicklin returned home to the LNP.
Bundaberg. Gained by the LNP from Labor on a 1.2% swing, putting them 0.7% ahead, which will surely increase on late counting.
Mirani. This looks very much like a case of LNP dropping out and deciding it for One Nation over Labor on preferences. It may be within the realms of possibility that One Nation would tank so badly on late counting they finished third, in which case they might push the LNP ahead of Labor. But I’m putting that in the long shot column for now. For one thing, I’d think veteran Labor MP Jim Pearce would do okay on preferences.
Burdekin. In a seat held by the LNP, but made notionally Labor by the redistribution, this is a near three-way tie on the primary vote. If Labor drops out, the LNP wins. If One Nation drops out, I guess Labor has a chance (its preferences were directed to them). If the LNP drops out, One Nation wins. But the LNP does in fact have a slight lead, which will presumably increase on late counting. So for now I’m calling it an LNP gain from Labor.
Maiwar. Lost by the LNP, but not known whether to Labor or the Greens.
Then there are a further seven seats that I really don’t care to call, for one reason or another. I will be adding summaries of the situation in these electorates as I complete them. To start with though, here’s what I see as a summary of the situation:
UPDATE: For now, I have completed my analysis/projection of Gaven – the others I plan to do will have to wait until later today. The table below shows actual results in the first four columns, and my best attempt at projections in the last two columns. This requires estimates both of the number of outstanding votes, which involves at least as much art as science, and the two-party split. In the case of postals, for which about half the anticipated total have been counted, I have projected the results from the counted votes on to the uncounted. This is bad for Labor, as postal votes were weak for them to begin with, and appear to be recording no swing.
For other types of vote, it is assumed they will observe the same idiosyncrasies as in 2015. On this basis, Labor is projected to do well enough on absent votes to hold back the tide on postals, which largely reflects a strong Greens vote on absents in 2015.
For the other seats I’m listing as doubtful, just the briefest of rundowns for now:
Maiwar. The Greens have a raw 0.7% lead ahead of Labor in the race to finish second and, presumably, win the seat from the LNP on the preferences of the other. No absents or postals have been counted; the former should be good for the Greens, the latter bad, and there should be roughly equal numbers of each. So the Greens would seem favoured, but it’s certainly not done and dusted.
Pumicestone. Labor has a raw lead of 309 votes (0.9%) on the two-party count, but there won’t be much of it left when votes that have presently been counted only on the primary are added to two-party preferred. Postals should as usual favour the LNP, but Labor’s big hope is that the LNP tanked on postals in 2015. None of either have been counted yet.
Cook. With Labor on 39.3%, and a crush of others just shy of 20% (One Nation 18.9%, LNP 17.9%, Katter’s 17.6%), one of the latter will need a strong flow of preferences from the other two to make it home. I would expect that a Katter candidate in the final count would be most threatening to Labor, followed by One Nation, followed by the LNP.
Macalister. Labor faces a threat here from independent Hetty Johnston, but it’s a long shot — she trails the LNP 26.4% to 24.2% on the primary, which she needs to chase down with either preferences or an unusually strong late count performance for an independent.
Rockhampton. With Labor’s vote on only 31.8%, independent Margaret Strelow would seem assured of taking this if she finishes second. However, the LNP looks like bowing out before One Nation, who it had second on its how-to-vote card. So it would seem possible that Strelow will actually run third, in which case I imagine her preferences would decide the result for Labor. For all I know though, there may be a One Nation surprise lurking in wait here. Labor could wear a defeat at the hands of Strelow, a Palaszczuk-backed Labor preselection candidate who could potentially be lured back to the party, or perhaps made Speaker.
Thuringowa. The order here clearly runs Labor, LNP and One Nation about even on second, and Katter’s fourth, with the latter’s preferences presumably set to secure second place for One Nation. The question then arises as to whether LNP preferences go cleanly enough to One Nation to finish the job for them. UPDATE: They don’t – what I had thought was an ABC estimate is actually a real preference count that makes clear One Nation can’t win. So the only conceivable threat to Labor is the LNP, and that’s a long shot.
Hinchinbrook. The LNP incumbent here is on 30%, and then there’s a crush of One Nation, Katter’s and Labor around 20%. Provided Katter’s can stay in the count when the field is reduced to three, they would seem set to take the seat. Otherwise, the final count looks like being LNP versus One Nation, with Labor preferences saving the day for the LNP.
I’ve heard full preference throws for Maiwar at least won’t be done until next Tuesday, so I wouldn’t actually expect definite information on really close cases for a while. And they’ll almost certainly have to do a recount for those cases unless the preference throws blow out every possible turning point.
It looks like Prepoll absents have been counted, but not on the day. Those will generally favour Greens / Labor based on past history , though there are exceptions.
“The LNP were foolish to recommend that their voters put Labor ahead of the Greens in South Brisbane. They could have recommended Greens ahead of Labor on the basis that “Labor are the main foe, deeply unfit to govern etc” and “at least the Greens are honest and authentic, unlike Labor”. Then when the Greens win the seat, there’s a lower chance of Labor forming a majority on their own, which opens up a “Labor are too weak to govern, dependent on the Greens, chaotic coalition” line of attack that the LNP could use.”
Nicholas you just can’t accept that the Greens not only defeated to Labor in South Brisbane on two party preferred but on primary vote as well. This was despite the Greens orchestrated fly in fly out volunteer campaign from Sydney and Melbourne.
I love the Greens they condemn the Liberals, but then do their sales pitch to the Liberals “it’s really in your best interests to preference our party because”……….
Greens helping Labor is a joke. They love nothing better then forcing Labor to sand bag safe Labor seats when they could spending those resources on marginal electorates. Threw everything at trying to knock off a Labor deputy premier and a future Labor leader.
Elaugaufein @ #449 Wednesday, November 29th, 2017 – 7:06 am
2001 and 2004 were the height of Beattiemania; hardly a good analogy for the present day. If Timmy resigns, there will be some mealy mouthed promises that they didn’t really intend to give PHON any sniff of power and enough of his lost 4% will return to the LNP to win on first preferences.
I agree with It’s Time, Clayfield won under Beattie is not really a good measuring stick. It was during a time where Labor had won 7 out of the 9 seats at the Gold Coast including (Broadwater, Mudgeeraba, Burleigh). It was a time when those voters were called the “Beattie Liberals” where urban Liberals would vote Labor because they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a rural Nats as leader.
Full preference throws (eg, for Maiwar) presumably won’t take place before the cut-off time for receiving postal votes – which is 5pm on Tuesday December 5th. Given that the effective contest in Maiwar is about which candidate finishes second, it may be that we won’t really know anything officially (from ECQ) until after 5pm Tuesday, but one would expect scrutineers will have a pretty good idea about the state of play before then, so maybe some news will trickle out. The joys of late counting!
“Given that the effective contest in Maiwar is about which candidate finishes second”
As it is in Rockhampton!
This election has certainly delivered on the late-count action front.
Jackie Trad only won because the LNP recommended that its voters put her ahead of the Greens candidate. I’m saying that the LNP would have had a plausible argument to make to their voters to put the Greens ahead of Labor, and had they done that, the LNP would now be able to at least get some rhetorical mileage from the government losing its majority. As it stands, Labor is likely to form a majority government because of the LNP’s decision to ask its voters to put Labor ahead of the Greens in South Brisbane. It is an own goal by the LNP.
Any shred of dignity that the LNP had after the One Nation Deal would have been lost if they preferenced The Greens over Labor in South Brisbane. They did the next best thing and ran dead.
Hypothetically, they could have ran completely dead and not even handed out the HTVs, which may have split the prefs much more evenly and made the final result much closer (probably still slight edge to Trad). They had several volunteers at all the polling booths, plenty of election material and the candidate was doing the rounds on election day. I wouldn’t say they were running a super strong campaign compared to the Greens and ALP, but it certainly wasn’t ‘running dead’ from what I saw. Just not a very strong LNP area.
“Jackie Trad only won because the LNP recommended that its voters put her ahead of the Greens candidate. I’m saying that the LNP would have had a plausible argument to make to their voters to put the Greens ahead of Labor, and had they done that, the LNP would now be able to at least get some rhetorical mileage from the government losing its majority. As it stands, Labor is likely to form a majority government because of the LNP’s decision to ask its voters to put Labor ahead of the Greens in South Brisbane. It is an own goal by the LNP.”
If the LNP really feel that strongly against Greens policy then on principle they would put the Greens last.
Its the same thing with Labor, they could have put One Nation ahead of the LNP and really decimated the LNP in the regions. But they decided to put One Nation last on principle and saved a dozen LNP seats by doing that.
On one hand minor parties particularly the Greens say the major parties stand for nothing and are tweedle dee and tweedle dum. But then when they take a stance and preference against parties that are further against there platform and philosophy you describe it as a “own goal” for strategically not prefernceing in a way that hurts their major party opponent the most.
Doing preference deals in a way and preferencing parties who are least against your platform all that does is increases cynicism and scepticism in the public about politics. It also alienates your members in the process and leaves them feeling disenfranchised and disillusioned.
Rockhampton figger-it-out-fer-yerself guide
Count at CoB last night:
LNP 5130
ALP 9228
Strelow 6846
PHONP 6141
Grn 1573
Registered HTVs:
Green: none registered
LNP: us 1st, ON 2nd, Strelow 3rd, …
Strelow: myself 1st, then fill in all squares as you choose
PHONP: us 1st, LNP 2nd, Strelow 3rd, …
ALP: us 1st, Grn 2nd, Strelow 3rd, …
So obvious order of elimination is:
Greens out, most prefs to ALP or Strelow
LNP out, most prefs to ON, putting ON ahead by up to a couple of thou over ALP, and Strelow last
Strelow out, and if her voters are still Labor at heart ALP wins but if her prefs split equally ON wins (!)
There would have to be yuuge changes in the primaries from late votes for anything else to happen. Or mass disregard of the LNP HTV by those who generally follow like sheep.
In the absence of any scrutineering information (which I ask again if we have?) I’m not prepared to assume that LNP voters will have preferenced PHON en masse, even with HTV recommendations.
I’m not saying that they won’t have, just not going to assume it. AFAIK, voters follow HTVs much less than many people think.
What’s with the ABC computer today? It’s currently showing WhitSunday as in doubt despite an LNP 1.3% margin. It’s now giving Rockhampton to the Independent and Maiwar to ALP (whist simultaneously giving it to The Greens) Bizarre!
@Jack – It’s hard to see ONP getting a “couple of thou” in front of Labor. They are 3000 behind now and that is before Greens (1500) are distributed .. and there are only 5100 LNP to distribute (some of which may leak)
Mrod, Antony has told me he’s leaving the computer on its default settings till more absent votes are loaded. So I think we don’t take too much notice of its predictions till then. And Martin, LNP voters do tend to follow HTVs like good little sheeple, rather more than others. Tend as in at least 66% of them. As a general rule. Possibly they’re different in Rocky, but I’ve seen no evidence of that. (In fact the couple of times I’ve been in Rocky I haven’t knowingly met a Tory!) But yes, some feedback from scrutineers would be nice. When the parties get such info, I think they tend to keep it to themselves.
Strelow 700 ahead now, possibly 800 ahead at end of count. Greens preferences will probably add say 200 or so more to Strelow than ONP (well known local mayor, no HTV handed out, could be more). Say Strelow 1000 ahead of ONP.
Some LNP preferences go to ALP, maybe 10%. Say 5000 left between ONP and Strelow. Needs a 60/40 split to ONP to close the gap. My experience in recent elections in SA is c 55% Liberals directly follow HTV. Some others get the same result between candidates left in with a different path.
No guarantee that 60% of LNP will preference ONP ahead of a well-known and obviously relatively popular local mayor. Without actual data it clearly could go either way.
JA
I wonder if the following of HTV are from postal votes where they fill up the vote from the propaganda given by the parties fishing for postal vote.
Next Tuesday evening (or Wednesday morning – depending on ECQ) should be interesting, as the full preference counts in Maiwar and (especially) Rockhampton conclude. It will be a re-run x 2 of the Prahran 2014 State Election count in Victoria!!
Raaraa, from my observations outside polling stations, the following of LNP HTVs is largely from genteel-looking people who avoid all the nasssty Labor, Green and ON people and take only the LNP sheet and walk in the gate with a look of “now I know what to do” on their faces. Naice obedient conformist sheeple.
The Australian Electoral Study found that only 34% of people reported that they followed a HTV card at the 2016 election (down from 43% in 2013): http://politicsir.cass.anu.edu.au/news/2016-australian-election-study (Report p19)
The VEC study done in 2006 found that in inner city Melbourne at least Liberal voters were no more inclined to follow the HTV than ALP voters: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/howtovote-cards-awaken-the-rebel-in-innercity-voter-20101115-17uga.html
But this is all a bit by the by as we wait…
Political night watchman:
I think you’ve misunderstood Nicholas’ point. He’s simply saying that the LNP preferencing Trad over the Greens may well have delivered Labor the majority Nicholls so desperately doesn’t want them to have. I don’t think anyone – no matter your views – could really dispute that.
from the melbourne and victorian experience of Liberals initially putting their enemy ALP last always (effectively preferencing Green), and changing to putting their ideological enemy Greens last (effectively preferencing ALP), history shows Liberal voters do follow HTV cards rather strongly. as opposed to Green voters who tend to go strongly ALP next regardless of what Green HTV cards say.
I also feel that from a LNP strategy point of view, having Greens win Sth Brisbane would make ALP weaker and therefore help LNP, but ideologically the greens are more objectionable to them, so they should preference the party in order of policy similarity not electoral strategy. and that ideological could win the LNP some votes off people who were considering voting ONP/KAP but swing back to LNP becasue of their strong anti-green rhetoric/stance.
The argument of greens weakening ALP by making them spend resources in former safe seats is valid only if you view politics as a 2 sided left vs right contest. unfortunately that mentality has forced the ALP to move further right on many issues, not leaving any policy gap between them and LNP. This has meant that people who’s votes are decided by issues such as Asylum seeker policy, the environment (Adani at the start of the campaign), SSM (remember ALP supporting Howards changes and Gillard/Wong opposing changes when they were actually in government) and many other issues, have to move away from the ALP. On these issues the divide is Greens (and some other independents and minor parties) vs ALP/LNP. If I want ALP to listen to my views, then they have to not take my vote for granted and work for it just as hard as they are working to win the votes of marginal LNP voters.
The LNP strategy of putting the Greens last was invented by Ted Baillieu at the 2010 election in Victoria. When the coalition unexpectedly won, it was hailed as a masterstroke and was imitated by the Liberal parties in other jurisdictions.
The trouble was, the years 2010 to 2014 became a living nightmare for the coalition in Victoria at the mercy of a single rogue MP, with no crossbench to give them any wiggle-room. Baillieu himself didn’t even last the full term as premier. Then, in 2014, the put-the-Greens-last strategy helpfully delivered Labor a majority government instead of what would probably have been a hung parliament.
The Liberals are now looking for excuses to abandon this so-called “masterstroke” without looking like complete hypocrites.
The LNP just LOVE having Jackie Trade I’m parliament and particularly as deputy Labor leader because they can point to her and claim Labor is CONTROLLED BY THE EXTREME LEFT. Worth far more in ongoing political terms than having a Green in South Brisbane.
Mind you I don’t really think Jackie is extreme left and I don’t think it’s a political liability if she is but let’s leave the LNP to their delusions.
Looking at the results in Melbourne, in 2010, with the Liberal HTV recommending for Greens, Lib preferences broke 80/20 to Greens.
In 2013, with the Liberal HTV recommending for ALP, Lib preferences broke 66/34 to ALP.
That suggests
20% of Lib voters prefer ALP and will vote so regardless of HTV
34% of Lib voters prefer Green and will vote so regardless of HTV
46% of Lib voters followed the HTV
Obviously that’s a *very* crude analysis, but it gives numbers that are entirely consistent with those other studies.
I’m not sure if anyone will buy the argument that Trad is extreme left when her main opponent is not the LNP but a Greens.
“I think you’ve misunderstood Nicholas’ point. He’s simply saying that the LNP preferencing Trad over the Greens may well have delivered Labor the majority Nicholls so desperately doesn’t want them to have. I don’t think anyone – no matter your views – could really dispute that.”
The LNP are already preferncing One Nation in the regions if they were to preference the Greens in Brisbane they would really stand for nothing. People on here suggesting the LNP could have made their job easier preferncing the Greens would have it thrown at them by Labor that it was LNP prefernces that delivered them a Greens win. Some might find this hard to believe but credibility and being consistent does matter in politics.
The other thing is Tim Nicholls banging on about Annastasia Palaszczuk not getting a majority and waiting for every vote counted is just an excuse to try and shore up his leadership. He does two things 1) He buys time and puts off a leadership ballot 2) He trys to make the case that he stopped a Labor majority and should get another term as opposition leader.
I really think people are overstating the case that Anastasia being forced into minority government is this massive blow. She did well last time in minority government , and the “no deals” mantra was more toward not sharing power with One Nation.
I agree that people make too much of minority government. Unless there has been a bad experience of it recently, most punters dont care and just accept it. pre-election the major parties talk it up as a big deal because they want to minimise the ppl who vote minor (green) thinking it will lead to government anyway (which it will).
I think Nicholls is trying to frame his legacy/chance of staying on as leader, but I think he’s left it going to long and is starting to look like a sore loser who can’t admit when he’s lost.
Raaraa @ #476 Wednesday, November 29th, 2017 – 12:49 pm
She’s the leader of the Left faction in the Parliament
ajm
IMO it would only be ALP members who are fully aware of that. As far as the LNP is concerned, the entire ALP is left.
There is a little bit of concern generating out of the seat I am involved with. The seat of Keppel.
The ABC News now has it listed in the ‘Key Seats’ column.
I’ve spoken to one of the ALP booth managers who has told me that the head scrutineer has said that we should be fine but it is getting interesting.
Not much between ON and LNP. ON has a slender lead for 2nd place.
Raaraa
Then why does the LNP keep going on about it.
I’m not basing my comments on hypothetical behaviour, but rather on actual past behaviour by the LNP.
and she’s not exactly advocating for public ownership of the means of production is she?
Aspley has moved out of the ‘in doubt’ column on the ABC site to become an ALP gain.
Yep, Martin B (1.19pm) I know those numbers – and I still expect that in a provincial Queensland city (which is nothing like Melbourne!) where the LNP recommends 2nd prefs to ON, most will do what they’re told/advised. And a few who think for themselves will prefer Strelow, but she’ll still be left 3rd out of the last 3. Time will tell.
https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/breaking-strelow-out-in-rocky-election-bombshell/3277991/
Strellow says she only made it to third after the LNP distribution https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/breaking-strelow-out-in-rocky-election-bombshell/3277991/
That would mean One Nation needs 60% of Strellow’s flow to knock over Labor. Quite a hard ask
Well, I said “Time will tell”. Didn’t expect it would only take 7 minutes!! Thanks Poss. And that pushes Labor ever closer to the magic 47.
Mate, the best predictions are always the efficient ones
So nice to see you around Possum
Haven’t seen you on the train for years, Poss. Did you move?
Pretty much nails down 47 doesn’t it?
Cheers Ratsack.
Yeah Jack, I’m out on small acreage at Warner now, in Peter Dutton territory
given up the geetar and now playin banjo?
Only when we lose 😛
I might let a room from you for a few months Poss, so I can legitimately enrol in Dutton’s electorate!! Swannie hardly needs my vote.
Macalister is still a bit questionable
Could end up the highest population small acreage in the country.
And btw, thanks Cam also. Confirmation only took 3 minutes!!!
ALP snuck ahead in Burdekin by 98 votes on ABC.