|
| |
Slightly
convoluted calculations
This section is rather numbery, so is moved off the
home page.
The reason for Labor's pessimism about the Coalition
losing control of the Senate might be ....
Since 1984, when each state first had twelve senators,
the Coalition has always done pretty well in the Senate and Labor not so great.
This would contribute to Labor pessimism about their chances of ending Coalition
control in the Senate in 2007. They reckon the Coalition, even if they lose in a
flogging, will get three up in each state.
But they're looking at a period of not particularly
high Labor support. None of those elections could be described as a landslide
win for Labor.
HoR two party preferred is a good shorthand indicator
of total left-right votes that you can roughly apply to both houses. Since 1984
the Coalition has never received, in the lower house, less than 48.5 percent
2pp. (Ignoring the 48.2 in 1984, when each state elected seven senators.)
We don't know what the 2007 result will be (there's
even a miniscule chance the government will win the election) but a conservative
anticipation puts it on a par with, say, the 1983 on of 53.2
to 46.8 percent.
There is no precedent for such a result in the current
Senate-size. With such left-right split the Coalition would stand a good chance
of only returning two senators in several states.
That is, it's not unreasonable to expect that, in a 53
to 47 or 54 to 46
result, this would happen in NSW, Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia. Then
the Coalition would have just 35 out of 76. If we give Family First another
seat, from SA, then it still leaves Labor plus Greens with a majority.
But if Labor succeeds in engineering one more Family
First (rather than Green) senator, they'll need to deal with two parties instead
of one.
Imagine trying to get the Greens and Family First and
Labor to agree on anything.
Party strategists must be congenital "it'll be
close!" types. Probably the safest thing to be, but it doesn't always lead
to sound decisions.
| |
|