Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
15,569
10,048
Camberwell
Despite what we have seen from the LNP in the past I still find it completely bemusing that they could come up with an argument that the current energy issues are the Labor Government’s fault after being in power less than a month.
However they seem to be having a good shot at it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

MD Jazz

Nuance is hard to find
Feb 3, 2017
10,469
9,487
Despite what we have seen from the LNP in the past I still find it completely bemusing that they could come up with an argument that the current energy issues are the Labor Government’s fault after being in power less than a month.
However they seem to be having a good shot at it
Yeh it's a joke. The economic management by labour will be next.

Reality is neither party really has much control over financial performance. I'll guarantee the LNP will be bagging labour over economic management. Events far beyond the control of our goverment dictate much of what we experience in regards to economic outcomes.
 

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
7,809
1,780
Despite what we have seen from the LNP in the past I still find it completely bemusing that they could come up with an argument that the current energy issues are the Labor Government’s fault after being in power less than a month.
However they seem to be having a good shot at it

Angus Taylor would have to be one of the biggest traitors to the Australian public I have seen. One of the worst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,886
13,671
Melbourne
Now that the counting is pretty much finished I thought I should update the figures and graphs I put up earlier.

There is little change in the numbers, but this now accounts for postal votes and all the votes which come in from absentee voting and the like which can take time to get counted.

So, let's start with the primary vote (note this is for the House of Reps, so preferential voting and single member electorates, not for the Senate which is still being counted and is proportional representation with multi-member electorates)

The main message here is the reduction in the primary vote of the major parties and the increase in the vote of independents, bearing in mind the figures for independents include any independent not just those who were prominent in the campaign.

We see the following Primary Votes:
ALP: 32.6%
LNP: 35.7:
Green: 12.3%
One Nation: 5.0%
UAP: 4.1%
Independent: 5.29%

On a graph over time it looks like this (excluding independents, hard to track over time);

Primary votes 1949-2022.jpg

You can also see that the primary vote of the 2 major parties added together has dramatically fallen over time:

Major party primary votes 1949-2022.jpg

This is now more reflected in the seats won with the large number of reps elected who are not from the major parties, but it still does not reflect the vote. As the major party share of the primary vote falls you would expect some change but it remains difficult for minor parties or independents to win seats in single member electorates in the lower house (would be even worse if we had first past the post voting, in my seat we would still have Tim Wilson as the LNP member for Goldstein with 40% of the primary vote).

16 of the 151 seats in the lower house are held by members who are not from the major parties, that is 10% of the seats, in other words, with 68.3% of the primary vote the major parties won 90% of seats. Not great but if this falls more then we should see more members who are not from the major parties. The proportions will be quite different in the Senate with Proportional Representation.

You can see the seats won more easily in a graph:

Seats won 1949-2022.jpg

Big increase in the "other" category reflecting that the major parties' share of the primary vote has reduced to the point where they are losing seats.

The 2 party preferred is a bit less illuminating with 10% of seats going to others, it means that some of the 2 candidate preferred counts (in any seat where the final preference count does not include a major party) doesn't actually fit. But still useful when considering if the ALP should really have won the election, it looks like this:



Major party 2 Party Preferred 1949-2022.jpg

So, yes, the ALP is the deserved holder of government.

The bigger question is whether the trend away from the major parties will continue. Only time will tell but the recent history is of independents retaining their support and this result, with a big increase in members elected from neither major party, is a big change. We haven't seen a lower house with so many members outside the major parties since before WWI.

Interesting times.

DS

PS: the finalised Senate counts are starting to come in now, very complicated and some will have over 100 preference allocations. I might try and have a bash at that one day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
7,809
1,780
Now that the counting is pretty much finished I thought I should update the figures and graphs I put up earlier.

There is little change in the numbers, but this now accounts for postal votes and all the votes which come in from absentee voting and the like which can take time to get counted.

So, let's start with the primary vote (note this is for the House of Reps, so preferential voting and single member electorates, not for the Senate which is still being counted and is proportional representation with multi-member electorates)

The main message here is the reduction in the primary vote of the major parties and the increase in the vote of independents, bearing in mind the figures for independents include any independent not just those who were prominent in the campaign.

We see the following Primary Votes:
ALP: 32.6%
LNP: 35.7:
Green: 12.3%
One Nation: 5.0%
UAP: 4.1%
Independent: 5.29%

On a graph over time it looks like this (excluding independents, hard to track over time);

View attachment 15728

You can also see that the primary vote of the 2 major parties added together has dramatically fallen over time:

View attachment 15729

This is now more reflected in the seats won with the large number of reps elected who are not from the major parties, but it still does not reflect the vote. As the major party share of the primary vote falls you would expect some change but it remains difficult for minor parties or independents to win seats in single member electorates in the lower house (would be even worse if we had first past the post voting, in my seat we would still have Tim Wilson as the LNP member for Goldstein with 40% of the primary vote).

16 of the 151 seats in the lower house are held by members who are not from the major parties, that is 10% of the seats, in other words, with 68.3% of the primary vote the major parties won 90% of seats. Not great but if this falls more then we should see more members who are not from the major parties. The proportions will be quite different in the Senate with Proportional Representation.

You can see the seats won more easily in a graph:

View attachment 15730

Big increase in the "other" category reflecting that the major parties' share of the primary vote has reduced to the point where they are losing seats.

The 2 party preferred is a bit less illuminating with 10% of seats going to others, it means that some of the 2 candidate preferred counts (in any seat where the final preference count does not include a major party) doesn't actually fit. But still useful when considering if the ALP should really have won the election, it looks like this:



View attachment 15731

So, yes, the ALP is the deserved holder of government.

The bigger question is whether the trend away from the major parties will continue. Only time will tell but the recent history is of independents retaining their support and this result, with a big increase in members elected from neither major party, is a big change. We haven't seen a lower house with so many members outside the major parties since before WWI.

Interesting times.

DS

PS: the finalised Senate counts are starting to come in now, very complicated and some will have over 100 preference allocations. I might try and have a bash at that one day.
Lot of work has gone into that. Very interested in the senate information that you have.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,886
13,671
Melbourne
Lot of work has gone into that. Very interested in the senate information that you have.

AEC still counting preferences. Most people are bamboozled by counting proportional rep but the full breakdown is on the AEC website when they finish. But be warned, the preference count is often a very big file, the Queensland count is 120 pages and WA, NSW and Vic are not yet finalised.

The other complication is that a lot of the groups, for example the Jackie Lambie Network, have a very small primary vote as they only stand in one state. Voters do vote differently in the Senate so there are a large proportion of votes going to candidates not from the ALP, LNP, Greens.

At the moment the first preferences are:
LNP: 34.98%
ALP: 30.09%
Greens: 12.66%

Everyone else is under 5%. But, as you can see, the major party first preference vote is lower than for the House of Reps, it is only 65.07%.

DS
 
Last edited:

year of the tiger

Tiger Legend
Mar 26, 2008
8,789
4,943
Tasmania
Thanks DS - really neat summary.

So even though the major parties want us to believe the current system of preference voting favours minor parties and they actually tried to stop the preference deals, in fact, the system is still heavily in favour of the major parties.

I have read some previous really interesting analysis that showed when the vote for minor parties gets above 30%, which has happened only twice previous in our history, one of the major parties implodes and splits into a new party. The last time this happened was in the late 40’s or early 50’s where I think it was the liberal democrats split and the Menzies liberals were formed.

I always though this split would happen with labor and their party would split with a greens labor v traditional worker/ union labor, but what I didn’t see coming is maybe it will be the Liberals that implode into a far ‘trumpian’ right and the moderate liberals. It will be fascinating to see if the Libs can hold it together - maybe the teals will grow over time and take that moderate liberal position.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,886
13,671
Melbourne
Thanks DS - really neat summary.

So even though the major parties want us to believe the current system of preference voting favours minor parties and they actually tried to stop the preference deals, in fact, the system is still heavily in favour of the major parties.

I have read some previous really interesting analysis that showed when the vote for minor parties gets above 30%, which has happened only twice previous in our history, one of the major parties implodes and splits into a new party. The last time this happened was in the late 40’s or early 50’s where I think it was the liberal democrats split and the Menzies liberals were formed.

I always though this split would happen with labor and their party would split with a greens labor v traditional worker/ union labor, but what I didn’t see coming is maybe it will be the Liberals that implode into a far ‘trumpian’ right and the moderate liberals. It will be fascinating to see if the Libs can hold it together - maybe the teals will grow over time and take that moderate liberal position.

Interesting points.

Can't quite recall which name Menzies' party had in the late 30s/early 40s, might have been the United Australia Party. I think they are the last government to lose power on the floor of the House of Reps. Menzies lost a no confidence motion and the ALP took power without an election, would have been Curtin coming in as PM. Then Menzies formed the Liberal Party in 1944 and won the 1949 election.

Wonder if we will see a split? Who knows, if the LNP vote goes down far enough, or even if the vote for the Liberal Party goes down far enough, there could be a split. It is difficult to isolate the vote for the Liberal party as the Libs and Nats are 1 party in Queensland and the NT. I would reckon it is around 30% (the 8% for the Queensland CLP would be maybe 5% to the Libs and 3% to the Nats bearing in mind this is a percentage of the total national vote). The Nats are less likely to split as they haven't since they were formed as the Country Party in the 1920s.

Preferential voting is better for minor parties in single member electorates as people can vote for a minor party or independent and then allocate preferences. Still benefits the majors too as they can get preferences which get a lot of candidates over the line, most seats would go to preferences, especially now when the major party primary vote is so low. But, it has now got to the point where the independents and the minor parties are getting enough primary vote to have a chance. The independents are interesting, their vote is concentrated enough in their electorates that they are similar to the Nationals who get few votes nationally but concentrate the vote to win seats.

The upper house is very different. Yes, it does favour the minor parties but, again, there is benefit to the majors too. It is true that very small parties get seats on low primary votes (but only if they get a lot of preferences), but the major parties will often get the last seat up for election with a very small proportion of the third quota on primary votes - works both ways really (your preferences really do count).

The other factor is whether we are likely to see coalition governments involving the ALP. The Libs have always governed in coalition with the Country/National party but will the ALP eventually need to go into a coalition with the Greens to get in to government? Watch this space!

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
42,328
15,321
LNP doesn't exist as a party. It's an uneasy coalition of the Liberal Party, National Party and the Liberal National party. Watching Dutton on Insiders this morning, I'm pretty sure he won't be leading that coalition at the next election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
8,624
3,137
Essex Heights
Any insight whether ON and UAP are fighting for the same voters? Looks like in aggregate they are not far short of the Greens. But they hardly come across as an organised party, more a movement. And like the Greens if their 10% vote is spread uniformly they don't have a chance of winning a seat in the House. The greens finally cracked through because in Qld they through lack of candidates they became teals by default. Teri Butler being the ALPs second biggest loser of the night. KK being the biggest. As the Teals agenda will be delvered pretty much within a year by the govt without needing their vote I wonder what us next? Do they tackle inner north and west in Melb? and try to grab the balance of power? Will Holmes a Court form a truce with Albanese? Or will the red green alliance be enough to keep them toothless?
 

22nd Man

Tiger Legend
Aug 29, 2011
8,624
3,137
Essex Heights
Dutton may not be leader next election but will hardly matter who is. Hasn't been a one term govt since 1932. But a month after Kev O7 who would have said he wouldn't lead labour nto the 2010 one? Or that Aboott after his landslide would be gone before the 2016. Nelson, Crean, Beazley et al ....opposition leaders are even less likely to survive a three year term than PMs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

shad

Tiger Superstar
Apr 6, 2010
2,303
1,359
Castlemaine
LNP doesn't exist as a party. It's an uneasy coalition of the Liberal Party, National Party and the Liberal National party. Watching Dutton on Insiders this morning, I'm pretty sure he won't be leading that coalition at the next election.
If he attempts anything more than a 'one liner' he is unintelligible at the moment. His performance was embarrassing this morning.
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
15,569
10,048
Camberwell
The thing about proportional voting in the senate is that it is only that at a state level. The fact that each state has the same number of senators means that from a national perspective it is not proportional.
I am not saying the system is wrong, the senate is meant to be the states’ house , but it could lead to skewed numbers when a party is very strong in a major state or two but not elsewhere
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

spook

Tiger Legend
Jun 18, 2007
19,200
19,416
Melbourne
The thing about proportional voting in the senate is that it is only that at a state level. The fact that each state has the same number of senators means that from a national perspective it is not proportional.
I am not saying the system is wrong, the senate is meant to be the states’ house , but it could lead to skewed numbers when a party is very strong in a major state or two but not elsewhere
"Unrepresentative swill" - PJK.

Now we'll have those *smile* babies in the Greens demanding their Most Holy Pure Way or The Highway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
15,569
10,048
Camberwell
"Unrepresentative swill" - PJK.

Now we'll have those *smile* babies in the Greens demanding their Most Holy Pure Way or The Highway.
Whatever we think of The Greens in the end their representation in the senate is not far from their support in the community, a bit higher but not enormously
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
25,840
12,737
Whatever we think of The Greens in the end their representation in the senate is not far from their support in the community, a bit higher but not enormously

the Greens got many more votes than the Nats, but have far fewer seats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user