Queensland election live: day two

Evolving coverage of the long and winding aftermath of Queensland election night.

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

600 comments on “Queensland election live: day two”

  1. cross post from the other place…

    Looked to me on Antony’s lap around the board at the end of the ABC broadcast last night that he was being perhaps unduly pessimistic for Labor. 45 or 46 look possible, but a lot would have to go wrong. 47/48 seems far more likely.

    Labor went in with a notional 47 seats. They’ve lost Bundaberg and Burdekin (and Bundaberg may come back into play, but probably not enough)

    They’ve probably lost Mirani to PHON but would be hoping stronger postals and pre-polls (which aren’t in the count yet) will get their nose back in front. Rockhampton is very probably a loss.

    So that’s back to 43 seats.

    There aren’t really any more ALP seats in doubt. Thuringowa might get more interesting, but probably not and Cook and Macallister are holds.

    To counter that the ALP has won Aspley, Cairns and Redlands. If we want to be really really pessimistic you could leave Aspley as a doubtful because there are no postals in, but 1100 votes is a lot to pull back.

    So that’s 46/45 in the absolute worst case scenario.

    So of the doubtfuls Bonney has the ALP ahead, but let’s be pessimistic and assume the postals get the LNP just home.

    Gaven is going to be a win unless the Green prefs are strangely favourable for the LNP. With 1600 postals already counted there probably aren’t enough left for the LNP to claw back the difference. That’s realistically no. 47.

    Pumicestone has the Libs ahead on the notional 2pp. Probably stay that way.

    Maiwa is tight. ALP needs to get a net 146 votes over the Green from the Independent’s prefs, postals, absents and declarations. No idea how the Indy prefs are going, but probably all over the shop. At worst it will go Green. That’s 48.

    So to only get to 45 the ALP would have to pretty much have absolutely everything break against them. 46 would be shockingly bad luck. If the normal sort of late count stuff happens they’ll get 47 or 48, and with a slice of good fortune 49 (Bonney) and 50 (Mirani).

    It will take a week to get to the final result but Libs getting all excitable about slagging AP for doing deals to govern in minority are backing a long shot.

  2. Do AP and Rob Katter get along? If the ALP is close enough they don’t need to do deals, they just need Katter and Strelow to support them on confidence motions.

    It seems pretty clear that Nicholls is not forming a government so the alternative is another election?

  3. On another note, why must the ABC make it so difficult to actually find the election results page on their website. I swear, I have to click through it least three different pages before I can get to it. They used to display the vote/seat count graphs at the top of every page during an election, with an easy to find link to the detailed results.

  4. mimhoff:

    Do AP and Rob Katter get along? If the ALP is close enough they don’t need to do deals, they just need Katter and Strelow to support them on confidence motions.

    KAP supported Labor a reasonable amount during the last parliament, and last night Rob Katter indicated his desire to continue working constructively with Labor. If the seat count was much closer, I could see them being a lot harder to sway to Labor’s side, but as things stand, I imagine KAP would see Labor as the safer choice to be able to get what they want.

  5. But presumably relying on KAP to get legislation through means no chance of land clearing controls or of prosecuting any even vaguely contentious progressive reform for this term leaving AP and the ALP stuck in the same limbo of the last term…

  6. Boerwar, you seem to be claiming that the Greens are causing Labor to lose seats to the LNP. I don’t see how this is supposed to work. Yes, some of the voters who vote 1 Green are preferencing the LNP before the ALP, but surely these people would not be ALP voters if the Greens weren’t there? These are votes the Greens are taking off the LNP (which could be particularly important somewhere like Maiwar).

    Otherwise you have to imagine a scenario where someone would vote ALP, but due to the presence of a Green candidate they vote Green and then go against the the Green how-to-vote card to put the LNP next. This doesn’t make sense at all.

  7. The ABC now has the LNP down to 34 seats, and they’re leading in only 3 of the in-doubts. Regardless of whether Labor gets a majority or not, this has been a terrible result for Nicholls and the LNP, especially given One Nation’s under-performance. To have a chance of governing, they would need to convince anywhere from 7-10 disparate crossbenchers to support them – I’m not seeing it happening, not with the modern LNP’s “just do what we want” style of negotiating.

  8. Jackol:

    But presumably relying on KAP to get legislation through means no chance of land clearing controls or of prosecuting any even vaguely contentious progressive reform for this term leaving AP and the ALP stuck in the same limbo of the last term…

    Oh, definitely. I hope it doesn’t come to that – KAP already had too much power in the last parliament – but it is certainly a possibility if Labor falls short of a majority.

  9. If it ends up with Labor on less than 47, then what happens in a vote of confidence or supply? AP has stated that she will not deal nor accept support from any minority party. So, do those parties support the LNP by voting against the ALP, or will they abstain?

  10. Anna Palaszczuk endorsed Margaret Strelow in Rockhampton but was overruled by the local membership. I think there’s a high chance that she will support Palaszczuk in a minority government, so that would make up towards 47.

  11. Someone on last thread was saying OneNation should be called NoneNation due to potential failure to win a seat.

    More suitable would be IndigNation. But a mate prefers to refer to them as UriNation

  12. All the talk of having to deal with KAP seems rather unlikely. In the event that Labor falls short, they’d have the Green in Maiwar (assuming that they wouldn’t win it themselves if they fell short) and Strelow in Rockhampton if they failed to get to 77. Bolton in Noosa seems like someone they could deal with. So for KAP to come into the picture, they’d either have to get less than 74 (unlikely) or have one of the above three super-keen on favouring the LNP (also unlikely).

  13. Stuart Johnson:

    Boerwar, you seem to be claiming that the Greens are causing Labor to lose seats to the LNP. I don’t see how this is supposed to work. Yes, some of the voters who vote 1 Green are preferencing the LNP before the ALP, but surely these people would not be ALP voters if the Greens weren’t there? These are votes the Greens are taking off the LNP (which could be particularly important somewhere like Maiwar).

    Otherwise you have to imagine a scenario where someone would vote ALP, but due to the presence of a Green candidate they vote Green and then go against the the Green how-to-vote card to put the LNP next. This doesn’t make sense at all.

    I agree. Any preference flow is also always going to be affected by donkey voters and people quite literally just numbers boxes at random.

    I’d also argue that parties like One Nation and KAP actually demonstrate just how unique the Greens are among minor parties in just how heavily and consistently their preferences will go to Labor, election after election after election.

    Boerwar can be an incredibly insightful and knowledgeable contributor on many other topics, but he unfortunately becomes pretty boring and repetitive whenever the Greens come up.

  14. KAP are rural socialists and haters of Big Business. To that extent there is a natural fit between Labor and KAP.

    KAP also likes clearing the bush, etc, etc, etc and is socially reactionary.

    To that extent there is a natural misfit between KAP and Labor.

  15. While it is perfectly clear that PHON has just destroyed the LNP by taking votes from them and then not returning 100% of the former votes back to the LNP by way of 100% preference returns, Greens Party enthusiasts continue to assert that this can not possibly be happening with the Greens Party.

    The PHON show no embarrassment about helping Labor. None at all. They just want to stick it to the LNP.

    I know that many Greens Party supporters are embarrassed that they are helping the Coalition. They should have the decency and the integrity to admit this to themselves and to potential Greens Party voters.

    If the Greens knock 100 votes off Labor and send 80 preferences back to Labor then the missing 20 preferences are a net loss of 40 votes to Labor. As we can see in the Queensland elections, this matters. The LNP would have had no compunction at all about using taxpayers money to subsidize Adani and to build a new coal-fired power station in North Queensland. Had they got up by a single seat by a few votes, this would have been directly due to the spoiler activities of the Greens Party.

    They are, literally, playing with coal fire. If the late votes don’t stack up, this may still happen.

    I can understand what motivates the Greens Party. I support Greens Party environment policies more than I support any other environment policies.

    I reckon that Labor has the least worst alternative.

    But, there is absolutely no use my lying to myself that the Greens Party are going to get these environment policies up in toto any time in the next quarter of a century. Their state and national polling is flat lining between 10% and 15%. They can skive a seat off Labor here and there. They can play at the margins with their BOP. But that is about it.

    But, on all the available evidence, the Greens Party will not be forming government. Ever.

    And it certainly will not be forming government before the Reef dies.

  16. You cannot assume that all of those voting for Greens would be voting for the ALP. Maybe some 60 to 80% would, and would always preference ALP over others but some of them would have been LNP voters or informal voters wouldn’t have voted that way for the lack of the Greens.

  17. You have not addressed the point I made in an earlier comment. You are making up a scenario which does not makes sense. In your example 100 Labor voters decide to vote Green, and then 20 of them decide to preference the Liberals above Labor. This is not a plausible scenario.

    It may be that 20% of Greens votes go the Liberals in preferences, but your assumption that 100% of them were originally with the ALP is completely unfounded, instead this 20% were Liberal voters.

    A fair assumption is that when a voter decides to vote Green, they go on to preference Labor and Liberal in the same order they would have done if there was not a Green candidate, though possibly some may follow a how to vote card instead, and Greens HTVs never recommend preferences to the Liberals above Labor.

  18. BW:

    If the Greens knock 100 votes off Labor and send 80 preferences back to Labor then the missing 20 preferences are a net loss of 40 votes to Labor.

    As always, you are assuming that those 20 votes would have gone to straight to Labor if the Greens hadn’t been running, rather than being from wet Libs who would otherwise have voted for the Coalition.

    As seats like Maiwar (and Ballina in NSW) demonstrate, the Green do steal votes from the Liberal and Nationals too. It makes sense that some of these people who (bafflingly, IMO) vote 1 Green, 2 Coalition have defecting from the Coalition, not from Labor.

    There’s also the fact that a certain portion of voters just arn’t politically engaged at all, and don’t put a great deal of thought into which parties they are voting for or preferencing. Or just protest voters who don’t want to vote for a major party at all. In the absence of the Greens running, their votes and preferences could go just about anywhere, and certainly would be unlikely to be nearly as favourable to Labor were they to vote for another minor party or independent.

    Obviously, I can’t prove this is any way, anymore than you can prove that this 20% would otherwise vote 1 Labor. But I think it’s a reasonable assumption, IMO.

  19. I will also note that, as things stand, Adani almost certainly will go ahead under a Labor majority government. No, it won’t be funded by taxpayers, but Labor is otherwise all for it.

    With Queensland’s unicameral house, pretty much the only way it won’t happen is if the Greens hold the BOP and get Labor to back down on it in order to secure confidence and supply.

  20. Without Greens advocacy and support for strong environmental policies every likelihood the ALP policies on the environment would not be as good and many ALP members acknowledge that. that’s the advantage of a preferential system. Duopoly party systems make the big parties lazy.

  21. It is good to see that the Greens Party supporters are embarrassed enough to try to deny the obvious. Not all PHON votes came from the LNP but MOST did and the 50% preference split in many seats completely destroyed the value of those LNP votes.
    As for where the Greens get their votes from, by and large, they are a mirror image of the PHON only on the left.
    I get this.
    So do the Greens Party supporters.
    What is the test, the proof in the pudding, the evidence of this bit of bleeding obvious psephing?
    The Greens Party generally targets Labor held seats. To win those seats they HAVE to get more votes from Labor than from the LNP.
    So the Greens get it, alright. They are not stupid! It is just that they cannot face up to the consequences of their actions, which in this case, may well be the Galilee being opened up and a new coal-fired power station in Queensland.
    But, they deny this to themselves. And why not? It is not exactly a palatable truth.

  22. ‘Doug says:
    Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 11:58 am

    Without Greens advocacy and support for strong environmental policies every likelihood the ALP policies on the environment would not be as good and many ALP members acknowledge that. that’s the advantage of a preferential system. Duopoly party systems make the big parties lazy.’

    Your moral suasion justification has now failed for a quarter of a century. This is not a hypothetical. It is based on the evidence.

    So, you are going to have to find some other ‘justification’ for assisting the LNP in the Queensland election.

  23. @Asha – don’t be so sure.

    No Australian money will finance the mine itself, and the Chinese government will only finance it if all the jobs go to China.

    Australia doesn’t put serious tariffs on our mineral wealth. The only thing we get out of foreign companies taking our resoruces is the small number of jobs that come from it.

    Without even that meager benefit, why would any party support it?

  24. On the ABC’s results page, the “Seats Predicted” column is blank. It looks like they’re doing their usual trick of waiting until all seats have been declared before filling in their “predictions”. At least they’re never wrong.

  25. ‘Asha Leu says:
    Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 11:56 am

    I will also note that, as things stand, Adani almost certainly will go ahead under a Labor majority government. No, it won’t be funded by taxpayers, but Labor is otherwise all for it. ‘

    My point is not a policy point. I am against the Adani mine, however funded. End of story.

    My point is that when the Greens Party locked up the environmentalists vote, the Greens Party demotivated the Liberals and Labor from losing political bark on the environment. Labor is more likely to do so. The Liberals will not do so at all. So, we are looking at the least worst option.

    Further, by setting up a competing political party, the Greens Party is bleeding political support from the ONLY party that might form a government and do stuff for the environment.

  26. The order in which candidates are excluded matters as well. That’s another way that splitting the vote can hurt your side.

    You could contrive a scenario where LNP would beat Labor on 2-party preferred, but Katter and One Nation take away enough from their primary vote so that they get excluded early.

    With more three- and four-corner contests coming up there are bound to be interesting counts come up. Choosing your HTV list carefully and getting voters to stick to it will be important – in the past they didn’t matter as the majors expected to be in the final 2 candidates. But now they need contingency plans for if they come third.

  27. Chinese governments have been seeking to reduce their import prices of stuff like iron ore by increasing global supply, building up global transport (Vale Class Iron Ore carriers being a prime example) and by funding the opening of new mines. Another strategic reason is to diversify supply sources so that it can play off one country against another and so that it has greater supply certainty should one country become embroiled in civil war or the like.

    These investments are seen as in the long term national economic and strategic interest. Not all of the Chinese investments in this strategy are required to have short term financial returns.
    It is, therefore, entirely consistent with Chinese strategic behaviour over the past several decades for Xi to send a lazy billion to build a railway line to the Galilee Basin.

    What might look silly to us might make perfect long terms sense to the Chinese.

  28. Ante Meridian @ #79 Sunday, November 26th, 2017 – 12:03 pm

    On the ABC’s results page, the “Seats Predicted” column is blank. It looks like they’re doing their usual trick of waiting until all seats have been declared before filling in their “predictions”. At least they’re never wrong.

    Refresh your page. I think they’ve just filled it in. ALP predicted to get 48 seats. Of course, only making predictions this late in the count does make it easier!

  29. BW:

    Actually, it’s pretty clear from a looking at the swings in many seats that One Nation did poach a reasonable amount of votes from Labor. Probably not as much as Labor got back from preferenced, but it definitely happened, particularly in strong Labor seats like Ipswich. I think what really fucked the LNP is One Nation directing preferences against the incumbents – which the LNP suffered most from, since One Nation’s best seats tended to have LNP incumbants.

    And are you seriously trying to suggest that every person who votes for the Greens was once a Labor supporter? No wet Libs who are too tribal or union-phobic to abide Labor but don’t like the Coalition’s abandonment of environmental issues? No protest voters wanting to stick it to majors? No unengaged voters who can barely remember which party is which or just number boxes at random?

    It sure is swell to be accused of being a liar, by the way. Obviously, I couldn’t possible actually believe what I’m arguing here. I’m just trying to trick those poor, easily-fooled Greens voters.

  30. So ALP have 43

    Favoured in Cook, McCallister, Gaven and Thuringa

    Solid chance of 47

    Plus Greens or ALP in Maiwar and laborish independant in Rocky.

    Noticed Strelow’s No 1 priority is the weir. Could make a loose labor independant/green alliance tricky.

  31. Doh!

    Anyway, unless something goes spectacularly wrong in Cook and/or MacAlister, Labor’s home. There’s still a possibility they won’t have a majority, but they’re back in govermenment for sure.

  32. From Greg Brown in the Oz

    ‘Nationals MP George Christensen has blamed Malcolm Turnbull for the Liberal National Party’s poor result in regional Queensland and the rise of One Nation.

    Mr Christensen, a maverick MP who has threatened to cross the floor to help establish an inquiry into the banks, said he was “sorry” the LNP had let down Queenslanders who deserted them.

    He put “a lot” of the blame on the leadership and policy direction of the Turnbull government.

    “To Queenslanders who voted One Nation, I’m sorry we in the LNP let you down,” Mr Christensen tweeted this morning.

    “We need to listen more, work harder, stand up more for conservative values and regional Queensland do better to win your trust and vote.

    “A lot of that rests with the Turnbull government, its leadership and policy direction.”’

  33. If the results turn out as ABC computer predicts, that is great for Labor (+4 seats from last election, +7 seats from a week ago and more and lefter crossbench options if required), and terrible for the LNP (-3 from last election, -2 from a week ago). For the LNP to lose seats, despite the ON fizzle and the increase in size of parliament is pathetic.

    I can see why they tried the ON Coalition in WA. They were going to lose, so might as well try something crazy. But why do it in Qld, when it had been shown to backfire in WA?

  34. AL
    ‘And are you seriously trying to suggest that every person who votes for the Greens was once a Labor supporter? ‘
    Of course not. But by far and away the majority of Greens votes come from Labor.
    I am not sure why Greens Party supporters are pretending that this is not happening.
    The cognitive dissonance involved in targetting Labor seats (mostly) with most Greens political resources must be uncomfortable?

  35. Not a party supporter, but I think the combined Left vote has brought up more seats to Labor in SE Qld, like the situation in Maiwar and unseated LNP from seats like Noosa, and to take an example of the right, like I said earlier the lack of an alternative right-leaning candidate in Gaven has favoured the ALP.

    Also, at times, pre-selection issues are the things that draw votes away, like in Rockhampton.

  36. The irony of the Coalition’s decision to preference the Greens last is that it is starting to get to the point where the Greens are probably better off putting resources into winning the Coalition seats they poll highly in than the Labor ones, since preferences are so much more favourable when Labor is in third rather than the Libs or Nats. Apart from Maiwar, we’ve seen also seen this with Prahran in Victoria and Ballina in NSW.

    Federally, I reckon the Liberal seats of Higgins and Ryan (which encompasses a great deal of Maiwar) would be good bets for the Greens to try for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *