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.
Tim Nicholls, realising that his political career will be over in a matter of days, is resorting to begging.
If Anna P gets to 46 seats and the LNP gets to 41, please let me run a government requiring all the votes of The Greens, Katter, and two independents, one of whom is a former Labor MP and close ally of Anna.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-28/nicholls-to-palaszczuk:-let-me-be-premier-if-you-wont/9200912
I can’t believe he still hasn’t conceded.
Nicholls is deluding himself if he actually believes he could form a functional Coalition that includes Katter, One Nation, the Greens, and a former Labor party member. Even if he somehow succeeded in herding all those cats together, the ensuing government would surely implode within a year.
The question now is whether the incoming Labor government will be a majority or minority government. The LNP have lost this one.
It’s extremely unlikely the LNP could form government, but just going on William’s “best case” LNP scenario it’s still possible ie, 42 LNP plus 3 KAP, 1 PHON and 1 of the independents.
With Aspley and Gaven getting Labor to 46, they only need one more to get to 47. Worst case, if they miss all the rest and the Greens win Maiwar, they could govern as a minority government with support from Greens and independents on supply.
Either way, it is hard to see how Nichols can possibly become Premier, so I agree with others he should concede.
Wow, I think the governor would rather let Anna Palaszczuk with one or two other crossbenchers form government than Nicholls with all the crossbenchers.
Raaraa
On the Labor worst-case scenario, that would be five out of eight cross-benchers going with LNP.
Some interesting data analysis of the results
http://rpubs.com/simonjackman/qld2017
I think that Rockhampton and Macalister are the only seats remaining in significant doubt, and that they are both more likely to be retained by Labor.
Maiwar is possible for Labor, but requires an improvement on the primary vote, which is possible, but seems rather unlikely. Absents are mostly left, and in both Indooroopilly and Mount Coot-tha they were strong for the Greens.
Burdekin seems to have tightened again since I started writing this message. I will need to take a closer look at it.
It is interesting that federal government figures are pushing hard the line that Labor only won on One Nation preferences. That is pure applesauce.
T. Nicholls:
”If Anastacia Palaszczuk can’t get to 47 seats, she must stand aside and allow me to form my LNP-One Nation-Katter-Green-Independent coalition.”
Not an exact quote, but that is what he’s saying.
JBL – what basis your view on Rockhampton & MacAlister. Others don’t seem to agree?
The irony of it all, is that Palaszczuk should get to 47 because of the LNP’s decision to put The Greens last in South Brisbane. Now Nicholls is hoping to make A.P look stupid, if she doesn’t make it to majority, when it’s his party which will have delivered her majority.
Still no Absent votes counted in Maiwar … in 2015 there were 2200 in Indooroopilly & 2800 in Mt Cootha .. so still a lot of votes out there.
On the subject of Rockhampton, I’ve been curious. Even though Margaret Strelow is an Independent candidate, she was originally Labor, and seemed to have been backed by the Premier for preselection of the seat, so I’m guessing she would be positively disposed to Labor.
So I’m wondering if there’d be any chance that if Strelow is elected as the Member for Rockhampton, would she be re-admitted back into the Labor parliamentary party to give Palaszczuk’s government a majority if needed? Or would she be banned from doing so for going against the preselected candidate?
I’m just curious because it happened before in Queensland politics, when the Member for Mackay Ed Casey quit in 1972 to become an Independent, and re-joined Labor in 1977.
All in all, even if ALP purely on ONP preferences, what’s the point of campaigning at this stage? The crossbenchers are not going to be convinced based on that bar one.
The LNP line re. Labor winning thanks to One Nation preferences looks even more absurd when you consider that I can see five seats where Labor/LNP have switched final positions (partially) thanks to One Nation prefs:
Burdekin
Pumicestone
Townsville
Mansfield
Aspley
3/5 of those it was switching from Lab to LNP! And even in Aspley and Mansfield, the number of Green voters was about the same as One Nation, so the One Nation preference effect was not nearly as significant – it was primarily the Greens prefs that delivered those two to Labor in spite of a patchy flow of ON prefs.
Wakefield, I am afraid that it is mostly based on my own guesstimate of preferences. I can run through my logic, but it is still a guesstimate. I do not have scrutineering data.
Another interesting note on Macalister is that the ECQ has resumed counting it as ALP vs Lib. It may be based on actual info.
@ Andrew – I believe the right wingers are saying that Labor had to be at 50% in each seat from primary votes and Greens, Katter and Independent preferences to win legitimately. If the ON preferences were needed to get them to 50%+1, then they “only won it based on ON preferences”
Note: not agreeing with their idiocy.
Also frankly that argument is pathetic from the right wingers.
Labor was not complicit if One Nation voters chose to vote 1 ONP and put Labor over the LNP, that is simply the decision of One Nation voters and did not happen with any prior agreement by either party, as Labor recommended to put One Nation last in all cases and would not accept an agreement on a preference deal in any case, as far as I know.
Meanwhile the LNP campaign recommended that for those that intended to vote 1 LNP that they put One Nation above Labor in around 50 of the 61 seats that they contested, well, that does imply a little more complicity on their part than it was for Labor.
For what it’s worth (which is probably not much!!), I expect Labor will end up with 48 seats and a reasonably comfortable majority Government for the next term ie, provide a speaker and still command a majority on the floor of the Parliament. That projection is based on William’s “worst case” Labor scenario of 43 seats, plus Cook, Gaven, Rockhampton, Macalister and Maiwar. The basis for that view is the fact that most postal votes have now been counted, and in the really close seats the outstanding Absent votes will get Labor over the line. I believe Cook and Gaven are almost locked away as Labor wins now, Macalister still looks pretty certain (but how preferences will actually flow is unknown territory) and the alternative winner in Rockhampton (Labor independent) and Maiwar (Green) will support a Labor government on no-confidence and supply, so the chances that Tim Nicholls will form Government are virtually nil.
ALP now 4 votes in front in Townsville on the ABC, but still no 2PP on ECQ
Not only did the LNP give the ALP South Brisbane, they also gave them Thuringowa. So without these two preferencing decisions it would be a very different situation now.
However I believe these were part of a deal with the ALP and in return the ALP didnt run dead in safe LNP seats such as Lockyer, Callide, Gympie etc and actually handed out their LNP-preferencing HTV cards.
No 2pp for any seats on the ECQ site at the moment. They have total formal first preference votes by party with the ALP ahead by over 51,000.
sprocket_ @ #420 Tuesday, November 28th, 2017 – 5:26 pm
Sprocket,
The ‘Notional 2PP’ all disappeared off the ECQ website about 1 hour ago. I guess that they are transitioning to a full 2PP distribution.
Must be checking the piles, ALP just picked up 1 more in Townsville to lead by 5.
I have expressed this on Twitter but ECQ could easily and should provide the preference breakups at least for the notional distributions they have done
For example, no reason why the notional allocation of the independent’s votes in Maiwar aren’t published and updated as more votes are counted
Only 160 votes in Burdekin. Anyone with some idea of how the remaining votes might play out?
Oh I will chortle if Labor’s 47th is Townsville by a handful of votes.
Head’s exploding is always entertaining.
Kirsdarke: I doubt it. Labor rarely forgives its defectors. Although it was before my time, I get the vibe Casey was a bit unique, in that he was ousted as part of a factional dispute and yet not only was readmitted but went on to lead the party a few years later so clearly had some lingering factional support. Martyn Evans (the former federal MP, previously a state independent after losing preselection when he tried to enter politics as the then-local mayor) is the only example I can think of of any Labor defector being readmitted in my lifetime.
It’s also probably not in Strelow’s own personal interest: she’d have far more sway and attention as an independent, and unlike someone like Rob Pyne if she gets up she’ll have proved she actually has the popularity to get elected in her own right. Better deal than being some nobody backbencher.
I don’t think Tim has any idea how the system works. Sounding more and more like a spoiled little boy every day “wahhh – gimme the job cos I want it!”. But hey, sounding like a spoiled little boy doesn’t seem to be a bar to becoming President of the USA.
Yeah, I reckon Labor will be much keener to deal with almost anyone else if it comes down to needing another vote. The last thing they’d want to do is be seen to reward someone who took a seat off them. If every preselection loser with a bit of a following decided to stand against the party thinking they’ll be welcomed back if they succeed it would be very very damaging. Especially so with numbers so tight.
Robbie K, Bolton and the potential Green will be far more welcome in the Premier’s office. Strelow will be the stop before One Nation. Letting her strut around claiming all sorts of wins in not in Labor’s interest at all.
Any noise on why the locals passed over Strelow? Maybe they suspected she wasn’t really good with the whole solidarity thing.
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
I assume that you are a dopey coalition fifth columnist troll rather than a devious Greens Party political operator.
But sometimes it is hard to tell the difference.
I see, I suppose that’s logical for party discipline and such.
I was about to cite the situation at the South Australian election in 1985 when Stan Evans, the loser of the Liberal preselection for Davenport ran as an Independent and won over Dean Brown, then was accepted into the Liberal party room in the same year, but apparently that happened before rules were changed so that wouldn’t happen again.
Oh well, at the very least, even if Labor only gets 46 seats, it’s hard to see any decisive majority opposition that could pass a no confidence motion and put the LNP in power. So I guess that’s how it is for this election.
ratsak
Labor is spoiled for choice in Queensland.
And they have been very badly burned by the Greens in the past.
We all know that if they try to cut a deal with the Greens on any particular bit of legislation the Greens may:
(a) after lengthy and detailed and painful negotiations pull the nasty surprize pin at the last and most damaging moment for Labor
(b) claim that it was all Labor’s fault
Or if there is a compromise agreement the Greens will:
(a) boast about their tremendous victory over the old parties and Liberal Labor same same.
AND
(b) assert that the deal did not nearly go far enough to meet Greens Party purity.
These wounds are deep.
Fortunately, Labor is spoiled for choice in Queensland and will be able to do rational and reliable political negotiations without the trials and tribulations of having to soil Greens Party purity thresholds, getting stiffed by the Greens Party at the last moment, or of having their bragging rights stolen by a Greens Party that has only 1/46the of their MPs AND getting slagged for STILL not being as holy as the Greens Party.
BW,
That’s all assuming Labor doesn’t get to 47. The last few seats will come down to a handful of votes but they’re still on track for 47 and 48 isn’t impossible, but would be really lucky.
But yes if they do fall one short KAP have proven reliable (and suffer not a jot from putting Labor in power) and Labor will happily help Bolton establish herself for the long term in Noosa. The Green (if it comes to that AND Labor only gets 46) will be free to vote for or against bills on their own merits. For example the Land Clearing laws will be put up. No need to offer the Greens anything on that.
It’s a long long stretch to think Stelow will have any leverage. The ALP will be desperate to have Rocky thinking they’re better off with a proper Labor member.
The last Palaszczuk was reluctant to do a deal with the KAP and it’s not hard to see why. There are things that Labor and KAP can see eye to eye, but they’re too close to the ONP for my comfort on a number of their policies. That being said, even if Labor chose to refuse to deal with the Greens, there’s the two potential independents left (one of whom is a Labor member).
The informal rate of 4.20% is nearly double the 2.11% of 2015, but lower than the 2013 WA rate of 5.99%, the 2013 Federal rate of 5.91%, the 2014 VIC rate of 5.22%, and the 2014 TAS rate 4.80%. Bundamba is electorate with the highest informal rate of 8.21%. Cooper has the lowest with 2.20%.
Stats from http://rpubs.com/simonjackman/qld2017 and https://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/34525/SGE15-Statistical-Return-v4-Interactive-SingleLow-Res.pdf
Thanks Moksha for pointing out the ones from Simon Jackson.
I assume that education (lack there of) and the number of candidates in each seat are the main drivers, but if anyone who has the skills (unfortunately not myself) also has the time and inclination to analyse that properly with some regression analysis (say) that would be great.
In 2015 the statewide turnout rate was 89.99%. So far only 76.21% of enrolment has been counted, probably 1% more by now, with ‘absents’ to account for about 5% based on 2015. Either the participation rate has plummeted, or there are a lot of postals yet to come, or there has been some other big change on voting type pattern.
For Nichols to be premier even if Labor slips back to 46 and Palaszczuk decided to play along for some reason he’d have to be spotted something like 2 ALP members because he’d never get confidence on the floor in the first place otherwise.
The change of voting from optional preferential to full preferential would be the main explanation for the increased informal from 2015. In Bundamba possibly some Labor voters weren’t prepared to support Jo-ann Miller’s dog in the manger behaviour but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for anyone else. She has suffered an 11.5% reduction in primary votes – a notable effort for a sitting Labor member in SEQ.
Noticed that Collinsville prepoll has not reported in Burdekin as yet.
It had 359 voters in 2015 who went very strongly for the ALP. This time, prepolls are up 50% in total votes across the rest of Burdekin… so if that’s any indication then the ALP could draw back another 150+ votes in that prepoll alone. IF these are outstanding votes and not some quirk of the system, it would erase most or all of the current LNP lead of 162.
Probably still favouring LNP with more postals etc to come, but could be quite close.
News from Maiwar courtesy of Kevin Bonham:
Berkman leads King by 37 votes after today’s postals broke fairly evenly between the two. I have had word from an experienced scrutineer that (i) Berkman gains on the Diamond preferences by what sounds like at least .25 votes/preference (which should amount to a gain of at least 200) (ii) Berkman is smashing the 2CP vs Emerson, with the flow from Labor considerably stronger than the flow to them. Although it is a tight contest, with absents still to come it seems that Berkman holds all the cards and should win unless there have been significant counting errors. Emerson’s vote has probably been trashed by the combined forces of the redistribution, Adani and inner-city anti-One-Nation sentiment http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au
Bilbo’s projection is that outstanding postals will put Townsville beyond reach.
It also seems to be clearer that Greens will win Maiwar.
If so, then ALP is 46 with Green 1 Bolton 1 KAP 3, and Rockhampton undecided, based on the throw of LNP preferences to PHON v Strelow*.
Even if ALP get up in Rockhampton, they’ll need Green, Bolton, KAP or the Speaker to pass stuff, yes?
* Do we actually have a reliable estimate here?
(Obviously there is no path to Nicholls as Premier, or probably even to remain in parliament.)
No, I think they’ll keep Nicholl’s in parliament for now. They have very little choice. He’s on 48.3% Primary, in a 3 party contest, with his personal vote and as Opposition Leader. A by-election could easily see them lose the seat to Labor.
All of Boerwar’s theories about the Greens in a nutshell (to save time just refer to this whenever you see him mention the Greens): The Greens are not Labor and therefore not in lockstep with Labor on everything and that makes them inherently awful, nothing good can be attributed to them and everything bad is their fault from time’s beginning until it’s cold, dark end.
(The best thing about this summary is that you can use it for multiple Bludgers, therefore saving yourself even more time. )
Elaugaufein @ #445 Wednesday, November 29th, 2017 – 1:30 am
Rubbish. Clayfield will be blue ribbon Liberal regardless of who runs. The only contest would be in Lib preselection.
Thank you Elau. That’s very civic minded of you. The other wonderful time saving device is to Just Scroll Past the offerings of the Soldiers of ALPaeda (by which I mean devotees of the Sacred Order of Greensphobic Nutters rather than the many reasonable and entertaining ALP sympathising posters here). Quasi religious devotional chant and sloganeering can be kind of exotic and interesting the first time you hear it – but after several hundred repetitions, descends into tedium.
It’s Time
That’s his primary vote as of right now, from the ECQ. He just took a 4.1% hit on his primary. It’s almost certain that his 2PP margin (which is <3%) is less than his personal vote. A seat with <5% margin is not a Blue Ribbon seat. Also Labor held the seat from 2001-2006 which makes it even less a Blue Ribbon seat. I suspect you have Clayfield confused with another electorate.
It will be an interesting day if ECQ starts posting some figures for Absent votes today, none of which (to my knowledge) have been counted yet. It’s also fair to assume that work is being done on the 2CP count in the close seats, given that those numbers were taken down last night. I suspect by tonight we will have a clearer idea of the overall picture.