BHP pulls out of Olympic Dam expansion

[Dazz]

Roight....

Did some more research.....this Senate is a tough beast to get your head around.

After the 2010 election, this is the current state of play ;

Party.............Continuing..........Elected..........Total

Coalition.............16...................18.................34
Labor.................16...................15.................31
Greens.................3....................6...................9
Others.................1....................1...................2

Totals.................36...................40.................76


So, the "continuing" column will this time be up for re-election, plus the four senators from the ACT and NT combined (2 Libs and 2 Labs).


Not exactly sure, but you need half plus 1, so I imagine 39 to control the Senate.

With 18 in the bag already, the coalition need a further 21 out of the 40 up for election.

They'll definitely get 1 each from the ACT and the NT, so they'll need a further 19 out of the 36 up for re-election if they are to control the Senate without reference to one of the other parties.....(forget the Greens) so look to one of the Indys.

19 out of 6 states is a tough ask by any stretch. That's 3 from every one and 4 from one....maybe Qld ??

Dunno, looks too tough for me.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Yeah, I dont know why but I am told a DD makes it easier for major parties to get up more member, i.e. Libs and Labor. I am guessing it may be because the the same persons cannot vote twice but the quote would be lower if we all vote. Howard got it 2004 or 5 and went too hard so your never know.

Peter

 

[dan c]

19 out of 6 states is a tough ask by any stretch. That's 3 from every one and 4 from one....maybe Qld ??

Dunno, looks too tough for me.

Yeah, I agree. It will be close, but I can't see 19.

The independent up for election is Mr Xenophon from SA, who seems to draw support from both sides, and polls very strongly. So the coalition will require 3 out of 5 available SA senate spots, which in itself maybe a tough ask.

And then there's Tasmania....

Xenophon will probably vote for the removal of the carbon and mining taxes, and he could almost be counted as a 'friendly' to a Coalition government. (He was once a member of the young Liberals) But he is such an opportunist, his vote won't come cheap.

 

[Aaron_C]

As much as I hope Dazz is right - I don't want to jinx the Coalition at this election and turn it into another 1993 'unloseable' election.

 

[dan c]

Roight....

Did some more research.....this Senate is a tough beast to get your head around.

After the 2010 election, this is the current state of play ;

Party.............Continuing..........Elected..........Total

Coalition.............16...................18.................34
Labor.................16...................15.................31
Greens.................3....................6...................9
Others.................1....................1...................2

Totals.................36...................40.................76


So, the "continuing" column will this time be up for re-election, plus the four senators from the ACT and NT combined (2 Libs and 2 Labs).


Not exactly sure, but you need half plus 1, so I imagine 39 to control the Senate.

With 18 in the bag already, the coalition need a further 21 out of the 40 up for election.

They'll definitely get 1 each from the ACT and the NT, so they'll need a further 19 out of the 36 up for re-election if they are to control the Senate without reference to one of the other parties.....(forget the Greens) so look to one of the Indys.

19 out of 6 states is a tough ask by any stretch. That's 3 from every one and 4 from one....maybe Qld ??

Dunno, looks too tough for me.

Looking at your numbers, I think Lib/Nat actually need 23 out of 40, not 21.

The 18 in your "Elected" column includes 2 from the Territories, who are up for re-election. So that number should reduce to 16. This is the number of coalition senators not up for re-election in 2013.

So, to get to 39, Lib/Nat will need 23 out of 40 in total, or 21 out of 36 from the states, assuming the territories vote 2 Lib, 2 Lab.

 

[Dazz]

Yes - you are right dan c....my mistake.

I certainly don't have my head around this Senate malarkey as yet.....but it's coming.

Wow, I thought 19 out of the six states was a tough ask....21 is nigh on impossible I would have thought....

That would mean the coalition would need to get 4 out of 6 in 3 of the states and 3 out of 6 in the other 3.....surely not.


Looking at the 2010 election, the 6 states returned the following Senators....

State.........Liberal......Labor.....Nats.....Greens.....Others

NSW.............2............2...........1...........1.............0
Vic...............1............2...........1...........1.............1
Qld...............3............2...........0...........1.............0
WA...............3............2...........0...........1.............0
SA................3............2...........0...........1.............0
Tas...............2............3...........0...........1.............0

Totals..........14...........13..........2...........6.............1


Looking at those results, there may be a hint of a possibility that both Qld and WA might be able to deliver 4 Lib senators back to Parliament by snaffling one of the Labor positions.

Perhaps bump Vic up to 2 (as the DLP Senator John Madigan won't be up for election).....could you possibly hope for 3 from Vics.....probably not ??

Of course, with Nick up for re-election, there is a good chance SA will only return 2 Libs instead of 3.

Looking at the above, I reckon the very best the Libs could hope for would be something that looked like this ;

2013 predicted result for the Senate from the 6 states....


State.........Liberal......Labor.....Nats.....Greens.....Others

NSW.............2............2...........1...........1.............0
Vic...............3............1...........1...........1.............0
Qld...............4............1...........0...........1.............0
WA...............4............1...........0...........1.............0
SA................2............2...........0...........1.............1
Tas...............2............3...........0...........1.............0

Totals..........17...........10..........2...........6.............1


Looking at that, the very best the coalition could hope for would be 19 new Senate positions out of the 6 states, which combined with the 2 fairly secure Senate seats (1 each from both ACT and NT) combined with the corrected (thanks dan c) 16 coalition Senators not up for re-election, the very most they could reasonably expect to get would be ;

19 + 2 + 16 = 37

If that was the case, they would need both John Madigan and Nick Xenophon to reach 39 and overcome the combined voting bloc of Labor and the Greens.


Dunno, it's such an unpredictable beast this Senate thing, especially with respect to the Greens and how minor parties are treated favourably with their "quotas".


Whatever the outcome, it'll be fascinating to watch how it all plays out.....but for sure all eyes will be glued to the Senate result. The House of Reps contest looks positively boring in comparison.

 

[Ed Barton]

Yeah, I dont know why but I am told a DD makes it easier for major parties to get up more member, i.e. Libs and Labor.

Peter

A double dissolution makes it easier for minor parties and independents to get senate seats, not harder.

At a full senate (DD) election only 7.69% of the states voters need to vote for a candidate to get a seat. A half senate (normal) election requires 14.28% of the states voters to vote for the candidate to get a seat.

I am guessing it may be because the the same persons cannot vote twice but the quote would be lower if we all vote. Howard got it 2004 or 5 and went too hard so your never know.

????

We all do vote for a senator at every election regardless of whether it's a full or half senate election.

 

[Ed Barton]

That would mean the coalition would need to get 4 out of 6 in 3 of the states and 3 out of 6 in the other 3.....surely not.

Put another way the coalition would need to get 57% of primary vote in 3 states. - a tough ask, but not impossible

And 43% of the primary vote in the other 3.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Yeah, I dont know why but I am told a DD makes it easier for major parties to get up more member, i.e. Libs and Labor. I am guessing it may be because the the same persons cannot vote twice but the quote would be lower if we all vote. Howard got it 2004 or 5 and went too hard so your never know.

Peter

The quota in a double dissolution election, where each state elects 12 Senators, is 7.7%. For a half Senate election the quota is 14.3%. So the logic is, it is easier for minor parties to perform better in a double dissolution, because the quota is lower.