When the tpp is so close, has it any significance as a decider ?
ELECTION NIGHT: The OFFICIAL RESULTS THREAD
- Thread starter stmookeyj
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Nope, but it doesn't help when a leader has publicly announced that this should be the determining factor for the independents in deciding who to support.
It shouldn't even be calculated. For 'traditional' seats perhaps, but if it's not an ALP / Coalition 1-2, it makes the assumption that people are choosing preferences as if it will be.
Take Melbourne for instance. If someone hates the Greens they might have preferenced Labor ahead of Libs, but if they had expected it be an ALP-Lib contest they might have preferenced the two the other way around. You can't just assign those seats into the national 2PP as re-done as ALP / Lib contests and use the numbers as some sort of endorsement of either major party. Primary votes are the only votes you can take beyond a single seat and not have it rendered questionable at the very best.
SJ
Premium Platinum
If you live in Melbourne and hate the Greens and prefer Labor, but also prefer the Liberal to Labor, why wouldn't you go:
1. Liberal
2. Labor
3. Green
But in terms of Denison and other contests which have changed the two most preferred candidates in this election, I agree, I can't quite get my head around how that would work.
The Coalition is currently 0.08% / 10,000 votes ahead of the Two-party preferred vote and trending upwards.
This lead will probably be swamped by the inclusion of the 8 non-traditional divisions and the Get Up vote down the track, however I now think it is going to be a lot closer than I previously presumed.
This lead will probably be swamped by the inclusion of the 8 non-traditional divisions and the Get Up vote down the track, however I now think it is going to be a lot closer than I previously presumed.
Hollow Knight
Imperfect vessel
- May 3, 2005
- 96,426
- 106,525
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Unfortunately for the Coalition, the very bad day they have had politically today may ring their death knell, regardless of where the TPP finishes.
Yep, sportsbet have moved the alp into strong favouritism. Can't be on the back of Wilkie's decision, as that would have been expected. With Katter certain to oppose the ALP, and Oakeshott more likely to favour the ALP, I can only think that the whisper must be that Windsor is not happy with Abbott and the Coalition, or will side with Oakeshott in the name of stable govt.
It is not much of a whisper when his cousin is Bruce Hawker (king ALP strategist) and he and Oakeshott have been meeting with Hawker, Treasury, getting Treasury costings, meeting with Garnaut and Stern, and taking shots at the Nats / Libs in the press (some deservedly - e.g. Heffernan; some completely misleading deliberate Hawker generated leaks - e.g. Albie Shultz's phone call to Windsor, Shultz apparently being a good mate of his and the call being completely innocuous).
It would be a much bigger surprise if Windsor and Oakeshott backed the Coalition at this stage. The only big spanner in the works is the hatred for the Greens that probably runs deep in rural areas - this could turn things the other way depending on how things go in the next few days.
BTW, the two-party preferred thing is just for interest sake - I don't think it will influence anything unless there is some sort of sudden much more decisive moves in it (then it could play a small role).
perhaps the punters caught wind of this rumour?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ority-government/story-fn59nqgy-1225913305103
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ority-government/story-fn59nqgy-1225913305103
I just read that. It basically confirms everything that has been speculated on elsewhere.
It seems, barring a massive reversal, the ALP have won the election and will form a minority Government.
The whole black-hole blanket media coverage had Hawker's name all over it (despite it still meaning the Coalition's four year surpluses were still greater than the ALP's).
Oakeshott has now praised virtually all the biggest decisions Rudd came up with / wanted to implement - the ETS, the NBN, the mining tax. And it seems Windsor has been behind the most damaging media coverage against the Coalition over the past week.
Wow. Game over.
It seems, barring a massive reversal, the ALP have won the election and will form a minority Government.
The whole black-hole blanket media coverage had Hawker's name all over it (despite it still meaning the Coalition's four year surpluses were still greater than the ALP's).
Oakeshott has now praised virtually all the biggest decisions Rudd came up with / wanted to implement - the ETS, the NBN, the mining tax. And it seems Windsor has been behind the most damaging media coverage against the Coalition over the past week.
Wow. Game over.
I think Abbott lost it with his attitude on election night / the day after.
He is not your enthusiastic 'negosiator'
"moving forward" the game looks very interesting.
You'd think the coalition will take qld and nsw at state level which will help both sides federally.
We will have a hung federal parliament and lib coalition holding wa qld and nsw at state level
ALP coalition holding VIC SA TAS NT ACT and minority federal.
On the whole the lib coalition will be in a slightly stronger position
ALP will have to be grateful Gillard has deep reserves because they will need it - in spades.
On a side note there was hardy a mention of foreign affairs in the election and I reckon therell be very little (apart form foreign minister Rudd hardly being in australia at all)
He is not your enthusiastic 'negosiator'
"moving forward" the game looks very interesting.
You'd think the coalition will take qld and nsw at state level which will help both sides federally.
We will have a hung federal parliament and lib coalition holding wa qld and nsw at state level
ALP coalition holding VIC SA TAS NT ACT and minority federal.
On the whole the lib coalition will be in a slightly stronger position
ALP will have to be grateful Gillard has deep reserves because they will need it - in spades.
On a side note there was hardy a mention of foreign affairs in the election and I reckon therell be very little (apart form foreign minister Rudd hardly being in australia at all)
My gut feeling is that Abbott isn't as cut to not win PM this election as Gillard would of been.
Would he love to be PM? Sure. But I think he has a bit of time on his side.
Hell, if he does get replaced it would be for Turnbull anyway so win-win.
Would he love to be PM? Sure. But I think he has a bit of time on his side.
Hell, if he does get replaced it would be for Turnbull anyway so win-win.
- Aug 16, 2006
- 5,094
- 6,695
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Its a bit rich to suggest media reporting on the costing hole had Hawkers name all over it. Of course it would be massive news - we are talking about a 10.6 bn dollar lie here. That is a serious issue of transparency and ethics that would very likely have a real influence on the indies decision. In this context it is worthy of blanket coverage.
I don't think its 'game over', but i would be pretty surprised if Oakeshott and Windsor now went with the Coalition. Besides the costings bungle, their position on the majority of key election issues seem, surprisingly, closer to the ALP than the Coalition....
Gillard would have been shattered if she doesn't win. There would be no way to recover her career from a loss like that, and her Prime Ministership would be reduced to an asterisk on a one term government. Actually she would possibly be the shortest serving PM who wasn't essentially a caretaker a la Forde, McEwen etc. She would make Whitlam look like Menzies in terms of longevity.
I disagree. If mal "mr. goldman sachs" turnbull replaces abbott as opposition leader, labour would be given a boost in the polls. The further away from any policy discussion turnbull is, the better it will be for Australia.
SJ
Premium Platinum
Which Turnbull policies do you disagree with?
SJ
Premium Platinum
Or maybe being an "ex-Goldman Sachs guy" with his views he actually realises how important action is and how it is the most sensible policy.
There is nothing sensible about Australia acting unilaterally on climate change.
Oh come on. Treasury themselves get their forecasts wrong often by more than that amount in each budget compared to the last one they did - and remember its a four year figure and that is the high end one you are quoting. Plus add in Treasury's utter incompetence over the Mining tax and forecasting that. And the grand daddy of them all - a giant $40 billion NBN that has never been truly costed by Treasury or had a cost-benefit analysis despite it being the biggest single Government project in Australia's history!!!!!!!!!!!!! (How is that for transparency and ethics????????????) And it has huge budgetary black-holes in the billions of dollars as discovered by the Parliament Library.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/357187/parliamentary_library_finds_nbn_equity_shortfall/
Anyway, the point is the Coalition of course were never going to be as accurate as the ALP with their costings, SINCE TREASURY DID THE ALP's COSTINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE - THEY ARE HARDLY GOING TO DISAGREE WITH THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!! And even despite all that, the Coalition still had bigger surpluses over four years than the ALP. And that is somehow a major mistake given all of the money the ALP wasted in its three years in Government?????????????
But that also brings me to Windsor and Hawker. Apparently Windsor turned down the Coalition's offer of a meeting immediately after the Treasury briefing because he claimed it was too late at night. There was also meant to be an agreement between Oakeshott and the Coalition that the Coalition would release the Treasury analysis to the media the next morning.
So what happened? HAWKER!
Windsor went on Lateline that night to deride the Coalition!!! And the Treasury analysis + the Labor / Hawker spin was released just in time to make the next days papers.
So make of all that what you will.
For what its worth (not a lot other than for interests sake) to update the Two-party preferred result - the Coalition have a 2,900 vote lead (0.02%) that has been trending down for a while with the latest counting.
87.10% of the Two-party preferred vote has been counted with at least another 4.56 percentage points of that vote to go (including the 8 non-traditional divisions I presume), and perhaps as much as 8 percentage points still to be counted (I guess it depends on how many provisional or other miscellaneous votes still need to be counted).
My guess at this stage is that it will end up something along the lines of ALP 50.20 vs. the Coalition 49.80.
87.10% of the Two-party preferred vote has been counted with at least another 4.56 percentage points of that vote to go (including the 8 non-traditional divisions I presume), and perhaps as much as 8 percentage points still to be counted (I guess it depends on how many provisional or other miscellaneous votes still need to be counted).
My guess at this stage is that it will end up something along the lines of ALP 50.20 vs. the Coalition 49.80.
lol. I was looking for a thread on Maxine McKew, but this post fits even better.
Contrast 2010 to 2013..........
Kevin Rudd trashed as Maxine McKew mauls her maker. October 16th 2013.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...mauls-her-maker/story-fn59niix-1226740602333#
