Federal Election Tracker: Quick P.S.
I know I wrote yesterday that I was packing up my ‘election night’ tracking desk, having already called the outcome. However curiosity as to how the remaining ‘hot seats’ were tracking got the better of me this evening. So I pulled the election desk out of the cupboard and did some quick analysis on the latest tally numbers to see how close we are to knowing where those remaining few seats are going to fall. Here’s the post-script to my final update for those still following…
I’m calling both Melbourne Ports and Hindmarsh for the ALP. (I’m late to the party on Melbourne Ports – others called it a few days ago, but due to one in three votes being cast as declaration votes rather than on polling day, and the strong swing to the LNP in postal votes, I held off calling it until now.)
To my mind, there are now only four seats where I believe the outcome is uncertain – Capricornia, Cowan, Flynn and Herbert. Based on my projections, both Capricornia and Flynn will most likely go to the LNP – but the margin is still close enough not to be able to call these as any more than ‘likely’.
That leaves Herbert and Cowan. According to my calculations, it’s more probable that they will go to the LNP than to Labor – BUT the projected margin is so tight, it could still go either way. Of the two really tight seats – both won by the LNP in 2013 – Herbert is the seat Labor are most likely to steal.
Taking these latest numbers into account, my Balance of Power meter now shows:
- 74 certain seats for the LNP with two seats highly likely to go their way, and a further two seats that are too close to call for either the LNP or Labor;
- 67 certain seats for the ALP with the 2 extra seats noted above as outside chances; and
- 5 seats to Minor Parties/Independents (Katter, Greens, NXT, McGowan and Wilkie).
In the end – as I said in my update yesterday – regardless of how the remaining four ‘hot seats’ fall out, the LNP will be able to form government – and most likely a majority one, albeit with the tightest of tight margins and a hostile Senate.
Here’s my latest Balance of Power Meter:
(If you’re interested in seeing earlier updates and a description of the difference between Decider and safe seats, see my earlier post. )
Is this setting the tone for the next three years?
I guess it makes sense that the aftermath of the second longest election campaign in Australian history would be a fortnight-long election tally – which is likely how long it will be before the final outcome for our House of Representatives is pronounced by the AEC. But you have to wonder whether this is just the way things are going to be for the next three years – glacially slow, but without the ‘steady’.
Buckle in for an interesting three years folks.
6 comments
Login here Register here-
Angry Old Man -
kerri -
Angry Old Man -
johnlward010 -
denisc -
townsvilleblog
Return to home pageThanks for the update, and for all your good work during this trying election. I’m buckled in!
Kate M Crikey is reporting that Herbert had some lost ballots? 177 to be precise.
Thanks, kerri, that is indeed interesting. We shall see what we shall see. Best to stay buckled in, though.
My complaint to the AEC about misleading re $1 Billion to the Great Barrier reef repair. Money that they don’t have. But tricked a lot of Queenslanders?
I denounce the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull. He has disgracefully and corruptly misused $5.6 billion to fund phony election campaign promises.
He and his Cabinet Ministers set out to deceive voters.
The Law, under Section 49(2) (a) of The Crimes and Misconduct Act 2001, calls this crime Misfeasance.
Directing misapplication of monies is an offence of fraud. There is evidence of misleading and deceptive behavior by Ministers of the Crown, including the Prime Minister, under Section 49 (2) (a) of the Crimes and Misconduct Act 2001.
Attempting a fraud is a crime.
The fraud begins with the unlawful changes made to The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) Act 2012. The CEFC Act imposes mandatory limits on the responsible Minister’s mandate.
Section 65: The responsible Ministers must not give a direction under subsection 64(1):
(a) that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly requiring the Board to, or not to, make a particular investment; or
(b) that is inconsistent with this Act (including the object of this Act).
In February 2015, Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Matthais Cormann began the intervention into the CEFC’s Investment Mandate.
Before this election campaign Prime Minister Turnbull suggested, in writing, and also orally, and or implied, that he had, or would shortly have the authority to relocate $1billion from the CEFC’s fund to support his new Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF).
During the election campaign the PM claimed a further $1billion would come from the CEFC to be dedicated to protecting the Barrier Reef. In SA, a $100 million to stay the closure of the Whyalla Steelworks was promised.
The Prime Minister seemingly made policy on the stump.The “Better Cities Program” was to use $1billion out of the CEFC fund and a further $150million was earmarked for the expansion of UTAS Launceston Campus.
The big carrot for Tasmania was $1.5 billion for a second Bass Strait power cable. Total to date from CEFC’s funds – $5.6 billion.
The Executive does not yet have the authority of the Parliament to change the CEFC Investment Mandate. Authority comes from the Parliament.
Attempting to deceive voters, is a crime under Section 49(2) (a) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001.
We will never transform the language and style of political discourse in Australia, making it more accessible and respectful of the citizenry of our country, unless we take a firm hand by calling these wrongdoers to account.
I point here to the bleeding obvious If he already had the power, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would actually have dispersed the funds he is “dollar whistling” now.
The Prime Minister of Australia was betting that the electors and or the media, would not question where this largesse was coming from, but hoping they only heard the bribe dollar numbers.
The blunt truth is he doesn’t have this largesse until he wins control of the Senate, and can rewrite the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) Act 2012, and change its Investment Mandate so he can make good his gamble. Or, true to the LNP promise to Gina Rhinhardt and Rupert Murdoch, the Government will shut the Clean Energy Finance Corporation down at the insistence of the coal mining bighitters.
Following is a brief background of how this was not made clear to the voters in the heat of an election battle.
On the Monday 2nd of May 2016, four days before both houses were dissolved, Senate members were involved in interrogating Budget Estimate Committees.
Ministers Hunt and Cormann meanwhile were somewhere else in the building, writing directions to the Board of the CEFC that changed how the Corporation should NOT fund any new land-based wind farms and solar panels on roofs as other commercial entities should be capable of doing that work.
Ministers Hunt and Cormann also rewrote the Investment Mandate and Section 64 of the Act to allow for “any other directions” given by responsible Ministers under subsection 64(1) of the Act.
Attempting to insert these unauthorised changes to the Act is an admission that they knew that Joe Hockey’s intervention was unlawful and (a stuff up), and against the Corporations Act?
In the letter of explanation, to the Board of the CEFC, both Senator Cormann and the Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt also declared, after serious ‘consideration’, that ‘anything they had decided was within the spirit of the Act’. They found themselves not guilty of breaching any of the mandatory requirements of section 65 of the CEFC Act.
In other words, the Ministers have “altered” an Act of Parliament, by illegally usurping the authority and power of the Senate. In fact, at the time they delivered their “directions” the Senate that should have given the authority to spend the money, simply, did not exist.
Implicit in subsequent announcements and public promises was that the Executive was legitimately able to declare it would pump $1billion into the Great Barrier Reef thereby falsely raising expectations in the Queensland electorate, and having voters believe it was part of the “pork barrel”. The same could be said for all the other promises funded by the CEFC. There could be a challenge in the Court of Disputed Returns that the electors were misled and not fully informed when they cast their votes
One is entitled to conclude that before the issue of the Writs, Ministers of the Cabinet had plotted how they would fund a $multibillion “pork barrel” election fund, from the CEFC”s coffers.
These gentlemen were twice warned by the CEFC Board that amendments would not pass the rigorous analysis of the Judges of the High Court of Australia.
The responsible Ministers’ interpretation of S 65 of the CEFC Act 2012, will be tested, according to the intent of the Parliament that made it; and that intention shall be determined by examination of the language, used in the statute as a whole.
This current amendment is the third shot they have had at sabotaging the intent of the law since the Executive last failed to abolish the Act.
Prime Minister Turnbull’s election pledges are described by the mainstream media as a “ pea and thimble” trick. The shifting of committed money from CEFC funds into the Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF) benefits further the fossil fuel industries, already delivered over-generous $20 billion government subsidies. International corporate miners gain while the flow of dollars to the climate change- decreasing industries dries up.
@johnlward010
Okay if I also lodge a complaint using the above info?
Herbert – Labor still leads by 302 votes, but the Labor candidate is not confident. She began with a lead of 900 and it has been wgittled down to 302.