Election 2010, who do you think will win and why??

[bob dylan]

I had a lazy $50 on the coalition to win the election at $3.40 last week, now I dont know much about politics but I reckon they were better than a 27% chance of winning. With the result still unknown I have just this morning  backed the ALP at $3.30 for $50

So if Labour win I win $65
and if the Libs win I win $70

SO like most people I dont give a stuff.

 

[Rusty]

depending on what happens there may be another election or there may be a double dissolution.

double dissolution will be crazy as the senate will be filled with a s**tload of minor parties and an even bigger amount of greens as its a lot more representative of the actual votes people are casting.

We cant have a double dissolution now, for that to happen a government would have to be formed, found able to withstand the vote of confidence on the floor and then voted down twice on the same bill.

What will happen now is when then negotiations have finished, not after at latest the 21st of Oct the Governor-General will invite Gillard to Government house, where she will ask, "Prime Minister are you in a position to form a government" Gillard will then either answer yes or no, if she answers Yes, she will be asked to test her support before the house. She will then have to front the house for a vote of confidence which she must win, or else the Governor-General will have to call Abbott and ask him to attempt to form a government of his own. If Gillard does not have the numbers she should answer no, and invite the GG to summon Abbott, but this is not required, in recent times in both SA and TAS the Premier has answered Yes without support and tested their support simply to force the independents to vote against them publicly, hoping to take advantage of a public opinion they have gauged to show they were the legitimate government. I would suggest Gillard might do the same, simply because at the point where she could not form government her political life is as good as over anyway.

The only way we can have another election is if both leaders were to front the parliament and fail to defeat a vote of no confidence, which would require the independents to tactically take the decision that another election is in the nations best interests.

If another election is held it is worth noting that it would be a lower house election only. The new senate has been elected and that can not be changed short of an incredibly unlikely double dissolution.

A huge factor would be the realignment of preferences at another election, since now the liberals have a huge trump card to deal when talking to the greens, ie. melbourne. If they pull preferences the Greens lose their seat, and for that matter any chance of winning Greyndler or Batman, or Melbourne Ports or any of the other inner city electorates. Surely this is worth something on the table, perhaps an exchange of preferences in seats like Robinson, or Lindsay, or Greenway or Corangamite, seats that the coaltion would like to win to take power.

 

[ManlyBacker]

Thanks for all this info Rusty. Constitutional law isn't one of my strong points!

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Very interesting....still!!

 

[Canteen Worker]

Rusty - an exchange of preferences in seats between the Greens and Libs, while mutually beneficial would destroy the credibility of both parties. The Nationals and the Greens are 'enemies' and their social policies alone would make this very unlikely. Stranger things have happened.

Who know what will happen. Funny that three politicians hated and loathed by the Nationals are now being courted by the Coalition, knowing that many of their conservative constituents would prefer an Abbott government.

 

[Rusty]

Rusty - an exchange of preferences in seats between the Greens and Libs, while mutually beneficial would destroy the credibility of both parties. The Nationals and the Greens are 'enemies' and their social policies alone would make this very unlikely. Stranger things have happened.

Who know what will happen. Funny that three politicians hated and loathed by the Nationals are now being courted by the Coalition, knowing that many of their conservative constituents would prefer an Abbott government.

Its not just the possibility of Greens preferences flowing to the Libs that is in question however. In Lidsay the greens preferenced no-one. They printed double sided cards that one one side showed you how to vote Greens-Labor and on the other Greens-Lib.

And as to the Libs, they preferenced the greens before Labor at the last election almost everywhere, which is all the greens wanted and needed from the Libs to win in Melbourne and all they will need now to pick up 2 - 3 other seats.

This is not a senate deal I am talking about, rather a lower house seat by seat deal, and most likely it will take the form of the greens not giving their preferences to anyone, or perhaps allowing individual branches to choose whoever they like best locally.

Also stranger things have happend, remember that Labor preferenced Family First at some point down the line in the last election.

 

[Duff]

Ok Rusty, you seem to be the one with the background.

For all this talk of negotiation, does it not just come down to the fact that those who voted in the Green candidate, did so in support of a Left Wing governance & those who voted for the ex-National independants did so as conservatives? Don't these guys have a duty of care to the people who voted them in? Would any of Katters supporters want him to side with the ALP? Would any Green voter think Tony Abbott has their concerns at heart?

Surely there's a wing allegiance that these people have a duty to follow?

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Correct Duff.....the three electorates these people come from were originally safe National seats. So I would guess there would be a LOT of angst should any of them side with Labor, and they could well suffer at the next ballot as a result if they do.

The Greens guy will go with Labor (and has already said so).

Wilkie is unkown factor, if he goes with Labor (as I expect him to do) then Julia Foolia needs just one of the others to jump and she's in again.

 

[CussCuss]

Yes but they are ex nationals, not nationals. IIRC, the reason they split is that their electorate wasnt being taken care of by the libs/nats. So being that their duty is to their electorate, if they can get better support for their electorate (e.g. NBN, infrastructure funding) by siding with lib or lab then thats is going to be the best deal for their voters.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Agree CC, BUT just as strongly as the Labor values run high in places like Newcastle, conservative values run equally high in places like Armidale and Tamworth.....I am sure that those electorates (Lyne, New England and Kennedy) want the best deal they can get but I really do wonder how'll they'll take if if those guys go for Labor.....if they do I guess we'll know come election 2013 (if not before)

 

[Canteen Worker]

I came from New England and it is not a 70% National area. It is conservative territory and the seat would never be marginal but there is strong support for Labor in the area. Armidale was a state Labor seat in the Wran years, partly due to rail, the XPT and also due to the University so it is not just that way. The hatred between Barnaby Joyce and Tony Windsor goes a long way back - though how that will come into play, one wonders.

Lyne and Kennedy (especially) are very different areas.

 

[The Gronk]

There have been national party candidates in those seats each time the independents have been elected.  The people didn't vote for them then, so I don't see a strong loyalty there. 

They voted to have an independent so that one day they might get a hung parliament and be able to hold a heap of power for their electorate. 

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

BUT Gronk, the guys who are there WERE the Nationals before they jumped ship, meaning that when they jumped ship it was a very conservative area. They are very popular and good on them for that and because of this the people have chosen to support them and support them well..... but you know what, if the three of them stood down at the next election I bet each of the three seats would return to the Nationals.

And CW I know what you are saying (and remember I am sort of from that area as well) but regardless I feel there would be a backlash from their electorates if they went with Labor....would it be eough to unseat them next time......who knows?

 

[Rusty]

There are a lot of factors that these three must weigh up.

1) National Interest, in terms of stability of government, government agenda etc.

2) Local Interest, in terms of the wishes of the people in their seats and the best interests of those same people.

3) Personal issues, in terms of grudges and their ability to work with either side.

My guess is that the second will be the most important for one reason alone, it is the only one of the three that will help determine if these three get elected again next time.

Looking at the votes in the lower house in the seats in question is a poor measure of which way the electorate leans, in term of labor-lib preference. Despite the fact that the newspapers clearly think it is paramount. This is why these seats have been removed from the two-party-preferred tally this week by the AEC.

In the seats in question because of the popularity of the candidates the locals see them as the only non-nationals prospect of winning so naturally left leaning voters would in some cases clearly support the independent rather then the Nat, also the right side of politics have bled of huge numbers of voters to these candidates since they are seen as at least as good as if not better then a Nat anyway.

A better measure is to look at the senate tallys for the seats in question, here we see in these areas a clear majority want a coalition government, certainly beyond 50% but not the 75% or so percent you would see by adding up right leaning candidates votes in the lower house.

The candidates have two options then.

1) Support the Libs, this carries little risk of affecting their election chances and would likely help as the Libs step away from running aggressive campaigns in these seats next time. However without a NBN and other policies the candidates want it may not deliver a lot to the electorates in question.

2) Support Labor, in this case this carries a huge risk as the three will be blamed for all the short comings of the government. The three would have to see a lot of local demands met and a whole lot of pork directed to their electorates to make this worth while. To be viable the three would have to be able to point directly to things the deal has brought to their electorates to stem the loss of votes to the coalition at the next election, especially given the aggressive campaign the Nats would run.

My guess is that they will support the Libs, especially Katter and Oakshot, the former because his seat is very right leaning and the latter because he is the least secure of the three. Windsor is very popular and almost too popular for it too matter but he also seems the most level headed of the three and would drive a hard bargain with labor if he were to support them.

As for Wilke, his support is interesting as he has already stated that he plans to offer nothing for certain beyond a vote to secure supply and to not support any frivolous no-confidence motions. Which is not very valuable to a government who need every vote to get policy passed.

 

[The Gronk]

BUT Gronk, the guys who are there WERE the Nationals before they jumped ship, meaning that when they jumped ship it was a very conservative area. They are very popular and good on them for that and because of this the people have chosen to support them and support them well..... but you know what, if the three of them stood down at the next election I bet each of the three seats would return to the Nationals.

And CW I know what you are saying (and remember I am sort of from that area as well) but regardless I feel there would be a backlash from their electorates if they went with Labor....would it be eough to unseat them next time......who knows?

Its all hypothetical to say who the electorate would vote for if the candidates weren't there, fact is when faced with the choice between independent or national, they have repeatedly gone with the independent.  Yes they are all ex-nats, but the 'ex' must be for a reason.

The evidence from the state parliaments is the rural independents have maintained their support even when going with labor in a hung parliament, mainly because they have delivered for their electorates. 

If they go with the ALP this time it will be the same thing - people in the remote areas want the NBN, better health etc and even if for historical reasons they don't like labor, they will like getting the services, same as what has happened in state parliaments. 

There is the opposite example too up in QLD where there is an independent in the normally labor Gladstone area.  She sided with the Nats in the 90s, throwing out the ALP government.  She is still holding her seat however because she delivered for the electorate. 

 

[tulley]

Hi everyone, I live in the seat of LYNE and expect that Oakeshot is the only one really thinking about the next election because of his age. The other two may not even be thinking of recontesting the next election. Oakeshot seemed to be voting with the Government on most of the big issues during the last term, but his position has been validated because of Australias very strong economic situation.

 

[Canteen Worker]

The ABC tonight reported that Treasury has released an 11Billiion hole in the Coalition election promises. (If true that explains why Mr Rabbit would not allow his costings to be done, using the poor excuse of a Treasury leak.) That will throw the cat amongst the pigeons!!!

 

[Rusty]

The ABC tonight reported that Treasury has released an 11Billiion hole in the Coalition election promises. (If true that explains why Mr Rabbit would not allow his costings to be done, using the poor excuse of a Treasury leak.) That will throw the cat amongst the pigeons!!!

This may be the nail in the coffin. May be the excuse these independents need. Wait for Abbott to say that it is a dodgy labor trick however.

 

[ManlyBacker]

Treasury has found a $7 billion hole in the federal coalition's costings of its promises and proposals that it claims will save $11.5 billion over the next four years.

The Australian today reports that Treasury has said the benefits could be as low as $500.

The costings were released last night by the three rural independents who hold the power to decide the future government, saying that the release was in the public interest and they would be discussing the figures with ministers and opposition frontbenchers today.

Good to see the economy masters know how to add and subtract properly 🙂

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Can you beleive we are STILL talking about this subject two weeks after the election.

I first voted in 1972 (or maybe 73)....I have never seen anything like this....it really is a mess and whomever takes power I think won't be there anyway for 3 years.....methinks we'll be back to the polls within a year.