lol, go San Antonio in the finals!!
ALP Doomed but how many seats will they get?
- Thread starter Peter 14.7
- Start date
lol, go San Antonio in the finals!!
partially disagree.
For the house of reps I will vote liberal.
For the senate I will vote Liberal Democratic Party. A great organisation to counter-act the greens (about the only policies they are in agreement on is gay relationships and euthanasia).
Google Anthony Greens analysis of the senate break up.
If you really want change be careful of voting for libs in the senate. The voting system for the senate is vey different to the voting system for the house of reps.
A vote for the libs in the senate might not make much difference, a vote for a conservative micro party could have a very big influence.
I'm voting for a change that,s why I joined Clive Palmer party a few days ago,and that was after Mr Palmer said both parties would not know how to run pre school tuck shop sort of said it all,..With the looming election it feels to me like a long drawn out death. 99.9% predict NLP win. Tatts Bet has then win paying $1.08 for $1 down. ALP is $7.50
Even the ALP pollies are packing up shops
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ng-as-election-loss-looms-20130606-2nrfd.html
And on the question of seats it seems the safe money is on 20 to 30 seats in the lower house. Worth noting that ALP and NLP has 72 each at the moment.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/exlabor-pollster-tips-epic-disaster-20130605-2nqlb.html
So what do you think? 40 seats ALP? 30 Seats or less than 20 seats?
And back to those odds. I am not betting man so if I am reading it right, it seems to me an easy way to 8% over 100 days investment, tax free.? Worth a punt?
Your thoughts Peter 14.7
The numbers total wipe out for Labor "total",Liberals would also have to be carefull,very carefull because both don't understand what free economies mean in the real world,the days of backdoor union deals top heavy government departments are gone if Mr Palmers Party walks in the door..
Last edited:
It's a very difficult question to answer with any accuracy or detailed oomph behind it, as there are so many variables to take into consideration.
1. Looking at it one way, in 2010 they gained 24 seats from first preferences alone - that is, more than 50% of the formal votes received in the electorate went straight to the Labor candidate. The other 48 seats gained by Labor required preferences from other candidates - mainly the Greens.
In comparison, the Coalition gained 39 seats from first preferences.
You can expect that 24 figure to go down for Labor and the 39 seats for the Coalition to go up considerably.
First preference however (sometimes called primary vote) is a pretty skewed way of looking at the final results and doesn't show the full picture.
Some people reckon that's the only way it should be, but that would have only delivered 64 seats (one independent - Tony Windsor in New England received more than 50% of the primary vote) in the 150 seat parliament. The other 86 seats all had to go to preferences.
2. Looking at it from the current pendulum, Labor has the following now ;
Type of Seat..........Definition.............Number
Marginal................0.0% to 6.0%........25
Fairly Safe.............6.0% to 10.0%.......16
Safe.....................10% to 15%...........20
Very Safe..............15% to 20%...........02
Ultra Safe..............above 20%............09
In theory, with the current 8% 2PP margin (two party preferred), if everything was smoothed out exactly evenly across the country in every electorate, Labor are scheduled to lose all of their marginal seats and the lowermost 10 of their fairly safe seats. That would be a loss of 35 seats.
Of course, real life isn't like that, and there will be some local Labor members who remain popular with their electorates and survive on lower margins, and there will be some in the upper echelons - I've heard even some sitting on margins up to 14% being shaky - who are packing up right about now.
You'd have to delve into each individual seat and then know the on the ground issues in each locality to venture an educated opinion.
In WA 3 months ago during our state election, we saw a swing of about 6% towards the coalition, but individual Labor members - like Albany on just 0.2% actually increased his margin, whilst once safe Labor seats like Belmont (6.7% margin and swung 7.6%) and Perth (7.7% margin and swung 10.3%) were lost.
There is no "average" pattern, in either state or federal seats.
My best guess is they will lose 38 seats, and hence be reduced from 72 seats down to just 34.
My other prediction is that the seat of Melbourne will return to Labor with the coalition preferences supporting the Labor candidate, so the Greens will be completely wiped out of the House of Reps, and the independents will be reduced to just 2, being Bob Katter in Kennedy and Wilkie in Denison.
So, the current lower house of Parliament looks like this before the Sept 2013 election ;
Labor.....................71
Liberals..................44
LNP of Qld..............20
Greens...................01
Nationals...............06
Country Libs...........01
WA Nats................01
Independents.........06
I reckon it'll look like this after the election ;
Labor....................34
Liberals.................76
LNP of Qld.............29
Nationals...............07
Country Libs...........01
WA Nats................01
Independents.........02
With such a big majority, I'm not sure all of the coalition members will be able to be squeezed onto the Govt side benches, there could well be some "overflow" onto the other side.....not sure whether it is possible or has happened in the past ??
Agree but it seems this time, the swing is going to Lib/Nat.
I think when we are were "comfortable" in the Liberal Howard years we liked to exercise our "social conscience" and vote green/democrat/independent but it is harder to be a "social voter" in the upper house when times are tough.
Also it is harder to hold your rusted on supporter when you are a ideals party like the Democrats and Greens but you have to actually govern.
Like when the Democrats had to deal with the GST, they did a great deal but was crucified by their supporters for actually doing something. The Greens may suffer the same fate. Very easy to promise electric cars and public transport in every village when you don't have the power to make it happen, much harder to deliver when you have....
Regards Peter 14.7
Having read here the DLP policies I may well do the same. Will a VIC vote make difference?
Regards Peter
i think it's simply appalling that the government formed to run this country, as voted by the sheeple, can't even run themselves.
voters get the govt they deserve.
and i will be re-registering for this vote.
voters get the govt they deserve.
and i will be re-registering for this vote.
A lot of folk are unhappy with the ALP, but don't like the libs (Abbott! Yes, I know in our system voters don't elect the 'president', but most vote for their like/dislike of the PM).
Left voters may replace their ALP vote with another party, namely greens. Preferences will flow back to the ALP.
I can see the possibility of one in the lower house for the greens, perhaps a couple more in the senate. Maybe a couple of senators from the whacky new parties.
Fun times ahead!
Kudos Dazz.
I agree whole heartedly with your post.
There will be a massive backlash against the Liberal leaning independents who did not side with Liberals, and the Greens will be annihilated from the House of Reps.
I think it will be 35 seats. Don't ask me why, I just like the number 35.
I agree whole heartedly with your post.
There will be a massive backlash against the Liberal leaning independents who did not side with Liberals, and the Greens will be annihilated from the House of Reps.
I think it will be 35 seats. Don't ask me why, I just like the number 35.
No-one has to squash up - it has always been and will still be one bum per seat. In the scenario you paint there would just be Coalition MPs covering 3/4 of the chamber and the opposition "half" would be reduced to an opposition "quarter". Same as the current Qld parliament. Looks a little lopsided of course... because it is.
Such massive majorities are no good for anyone in my view - they encourage complacency on behalf of any government and serve to make the Parliament almost irrelevant. Of course, the blame for this situation can only sit with the current government - it's just embarrassing overall.
By the way, Antony Green's election calculator shows 38 seats left for Labor from the latest Newspoll - which seems to be a prediction as good as any other.
Mind you, it also retains four independents in the mix because it ignores swing issues in particular seats. I also think preferences will run in some funny directions in a few seats with this sort of swing in place. We shall see - I've heard from more than one candidate that they don't see anywhere near an 8% swing in their electorate but perhaps they always say that?
Hi Lizzie,
What we just saw in the WA state election was a universal shuffle to the right.
- Greens suffered a 4.0% drop in primary votes.
- Labor suffered a 2.5% drop in primary votes.
- Independents suffered a 1.0% drop in primary votes. (Big for them).
- Liberals received a 7.5% increase in primary votes.
Now, you'd be forgiven if you thought that Labor only suffered a 2.5% drop.
What actually happened was that 4% of the people who voted Greens last time simply shuffled to the right and voted Labor.....and 6.5% of the people who voted Labor last time simply shuffled to the right and voted Liberal. It looks like all of those who voted for the Indys last time also voted for the Libs.
I reckon you might see a similar pattern in Sept during the Federal election.
The pattern of voting behaviour is quite clear. When the Libs are in charge and the economy is going great, people have a dalliance to the fluffy socialist left. They get in and destroy the economy, people get hurt and eventually return to the Libs to restore some semblance of economic order.....and so the wheel turns.
voted for them last election. But haven't heard boo from them (even though they have one in the senate). This includes ABC 'live radio' of the senate, not just the main stream media (for which minor political parties can face a tough time getting air time unless they something 'newsworthy' ie out rageious)
Nope this time its the LDP.
Even donated some money to their party (its tax deductable, and given the size of their budget, it could well help, at least financially)
I dont know. Thier Senator John Madigan did oppose the now dead increase in $ per vote with this pearler:
Democratic Labor Party senator John Madigan said politicians were "the dregs of the Earth" who cut money for single mothers and universities and complained about debt, but then gave themselves more money out of the public purse.
"They're laughing in their party rooms and it shows the contempt they have for ordinary people struggling with their everyday expenses and bills," he told the Herald Sun.
"This place is rotten to the core. I'd like to see it implode. There's no empathy, no compassion. They are so disconnected from the people. It's just sickening, this place.
"They wonder why people hate their bloody guts and we have a high informal vote. I've run over better rabbits than these people."
Love the rabbits bit.
And they didn't get the extra cash once the media cotton (tailed) on! BOOM BOOM
regards Peter
PS to all those under 30 the "boom boom" is Basil Brush. Google him!
http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/s...wages-is-killing-simplot-producer-says/?cs=12
IF Simplot can avoid paying penalty rates to its staff and reduce input costs on power and water, the company may have a chance of saving its Bathurst manufacturing plant
“Unless they can change their ways and the dollar moves, they are in big trouble. The base hourly rate under the Food Preservers Union is $26 an hour and you double that at the weekend.
“Over in New Zealand the hourly rate is just under $13 and they don’t pay penalty rates.
“It’s pretty simple. It’s why McCain’s couldn’t compete here and went over there.”
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/06/12/12/18/small-businesses-want-action-acci
another good article
Too many armchair economists dictating policy.
Its so frustrating.
Why don't people see that everything is interconnected.
Maggie Thatcher said it so many years ago, it you want an environment that allows for socially financial progressive programs, then you need a taxation base that is sustainable and can grow over time
For that taxation base to grow over time, then you need profits to grow over time.
Instead what do we see, the yah yah yah, about the right to a 'decent wage'.
Yes that's true but a decent wage is dictated by the ability of business to pay.
So what are we seeing, an increase in part time and contract workers.
The big players know how to play the PR game. They won't come out and say it.
But read between the lines.
You have to look for the links, because in the age of PR correctness you wont get a straight honest answer.
IF Simplot can avoid paying penalty rates to its staff and reduce input costs on power and water, the company may have a chance of saving its Bathurst manufacturing plant
“Unless they can change their ways and the dollar moves, they are in big trouble. The base hourly rate under the Food Preservers Union is $26 an hour and you double that at the weekend.
“Over in New Zealand the hourly rate is just under $13 and they don’t pay penalty rates.
“It’s pretty simple. It’s why McCain’s couldn’t compete here and went over there.”
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/06/12/12/18/small-businesses-want-action-acci
another good article
Too many armchair economists dictating policy.
Its so frustrating.
Why don't people see that everything is interconnected.
Maggie Thatcher said it so many years ago, it you want an environment that allows for socially financial progressive programs, then you need a taxation base that is sustainable and can grow over time
For that taxation base to grow over time, then you need profits to grow over time.
Instead what do we see, the yah yah yah, about the right to a 'decent wage'.
Yes that's true but a decent wage is dictated by the ability of business to pay.
So what are we seeing, an increase in part time and contract workers.
The big players know how to play the PR game. They won't come out and say it.
But read between the lines.
You have to look for the links, because in the age of PR correctness you wont get a straight honest answer.
EXACTLY!
And id the wage was lower, you know what, everything would be lower. HOuses would cost less because we could only afford X.
That how is works in France You look a house prices and go OMG SOOOOO CHEAP ( we are excluding key paris ok) BUt a fully trained professional Waiter is on 15EU a hr. And childcare is free and schooling free so Mum can work and not have to give up all of it in childcare. You have more workers paying tax and less welfare to stay at home. I could go on but it is obvious if you pay everyone $100 an hr then every thing rises with inflation. Coffee costs $20 a cup.
Thats ok if we live in a bubble but in today world , overseas countries will under cut us, and so they should.
I dont blamer workers wanting more when a bad gov. gouges them with carbon tax, and costs everywhere else. May be it is time to move to NZ?
Peter
And id the wage was lower, you know what, everything would be lower. HOuses would cost less because we could only afford X.
That how is works in France You look a house prices and go OMG SOOOOO CHEAP ( we are excluding key paris ok) BUt a fully trained professional Waiter is on 15EU a hr. And childcare is free and schooling free so Mum can work and not have to give up all of it in childcare. You have more workers paying tax and less welfare to stay at home. I could go on but it is obvious if you pay everyone $100 an hr then every thing rises with inflation. Coffee costs $20 a cup.
Thats ok if we live in a bubble but in today world , overseas countries will under cut us, and so they should.
I dont blamer workers wanting more when a bad gov. gouges them with carbon tax, and costs everywhere else. May be it is time to move to NZ?
Peter
