Z
Zaf
Guest
Removed by user
Last edited by a moderator:
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
cokeonspecialtwodollars
Fartes of Portingale
*perpetuating
cokeonspecialtwodollars
Fartes of Portingale
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
Terrible
Flow-Rider
Burner
Nothing stopping you from buying precious metals.
nzhumpy
Googlemeister who likes bikes and scandal
You mean a Nickolai, right?
Flow-Rider
Burner
Of coarse, can they make them in Bronze ?
cokeonspecialtwodollars
Fartes of Portingale
Go home internet, yore drunk.
Where's the block? We've just pull out our latest data on growth and value variances for each Vic cooridor. Well done to Geelong, now the most expensive of the growth corridors. Just had the busiest month in 18months. Rebates and promos across the board will start to vanish next quarter. Developers held back alot of stock throughout the last 6 months to have titles now much closer.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Castlemaine
If you ever sub divide it, let us know.
Sky news has an election night replay tonight if you want to crank your PTSD up to 11
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
The application is currently with council. If approved, I’ll have two 600m blocks with a view and less than a km to town and the train station. Hopefully on the market soonish...
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Oh wow... I have no words...Sky news has an election night replay tonight if you want to crank your PTSD up to 11
Nice, got services organised? We've just expanded our build region up to Bendigo. So in range! Did you get engineering documents made to help sell with the section32s? It'll open the volume builders to bringing you clients.
Last edited:
Take that discussion elsewhere. PM for example.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Not sure he’d be interested...
Clive Palmer damaged Labor more than One Nation
Assessing the UAP’s impact
Bob McMullan
2 September 2019
https://www.policyforum.net/clive-palmer-damaged-labor-more-than-one-nation/
With the release of preference flow data from the 2019 election now public, Australia’s major parties must consider how to appeal to minor party voters in crucial seats, Bob McMullan writes.
The Australian Electoral Commission just released some very interesting figures which suggest Clive Palmer may have done the Labor Party more damage than Pauline Hanson in determining the outcome of the 2019 federal election.
The AEC has just released figures for the two-party preferred preference flows at the last election.
In 59 seats contested by both Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (UAP), the UAP recorded a lower preference flow to the ALP than One Nation in 43 of them.
For the UAP in particular, there was a very wide range of preference distribution outcomes according to the AEC figures.
The lowest percentage was 20.1 per cent in Berowra, however, the real outlier was Chris Bowen’s seat of McMahon where the figures suggest he received 61.1 per cent of UAP preferences on a TPP basis. There may be some local explanation for this, because of all the seats analysed only three recorded more than 50 per cent preference flow to the ALP. All three are safe Labor seats, Watson and Gorton are the other two.
However, rather than focusing on the outliers, the significant data is about those around the median proportion. The overwhelming majority of results were in the range from 29 per cent to 40 per cent. The unweighted average was approximately 34.5 and the median number was approximately 33.8.
Of course, a full understanding of the Palmer effect would require knowledge of the primary voting history of UAP voters, and the factors which influenced them on this occasion.
However, the preference data does give an insight into the impact of Clive Palmer’s $50 million in advertising and the consequences for the Labor Party of this unprecedented spending.
It is not possible with confidence to attribute results in particular seats to the differences in preference distribution, however, it is clear that if the UAP preferences had flowed to Labor as strongly as those of One Nation, the result in a seat like Lyons would have been much closer.
The UAP is not the only minor party to consider. The figures show the strong flow of Green preferences to Labor. However, there are strong variations here as well.
In my home seat of Canberra, Labor recorded the highest TPP preference flow from the Greens at 93.2 per cent. In the rural NSW seat of Parkes, the flow was only 63.3 per cent.
As these results are two-party preferred, the differentials cannot be explained by the number or nature of the other parties involved in a particular electorate.
Taken together, these figures raise some interesting questions for the major parties.
If preference flows to Labor had been around the maximum from the Greens and the UAP the results in close seats such as Bass and Chisholm could have been different.
Therefore, the parties may need to ask themselves: Should we make more of an effort to focus on preference flows from minor parties? Should the ALP be conscious of the potential importance of One Nation preferences, or should it focus on maximising Green preferences? The reverse applies to the coalition parties.
They can do this without compromising principles. It should be possible for the Labor Party to criticise Pauline Hanson’s bigotry without tarring all her voters with the same brush. Similarly, the Liberals and Nationals should be able to criticise the Green’s without suggesting that everyone who votes Green is about to invade farmers’ properties.
It is, of course, always dangerous to focus on strategies or tactics which refer exclusively to what might have affected the outcome of the last election. It is as foolish as generals focusing on how to win the last war rather than the next one.
Clive Palmer and the UAP probably fall into the ‘last war’ category. However, the Greens and One Nation are likely to be around for a while.
Therefore, the generic questions matter, even if the specifics of particular minor parties may not.
These figures as presented by the AEC raise some questions, and it will be interesting to see if any future tactics or strategies suggest either side of politics has found an answer to those questions.
Assessing the UAP’s impact
Bob McMullan
2 September 2019
https://www.policyforum.net/clive-palmer-damaged-labor-more-than-one-nation/
With the release of preference flow data from the 2019 election now public, Australia’s major parties must consider how to appeal to minor party voters in crucial seats, Bob McMullan writes.
The Australian Electoral Commission just released some very interesting figures which suggest Clive Palmer may have done the Labor Party more damage than Pauline Hanson in determining the outcome of the 2019 federal election.
The AEC has just released figures for the two-party preferred preference flows at the last election.
In 59 seats contested by both Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (UAP), the UAP recorded a lower preference flow to the ALP than One Nation in 43 of them.
For the UAP in particular, there was a very wide range of preference distribution outcomes according to the AEC figures.
The lowest percentage was 20.1 per cent in Berowra, however, the real outlier was Chris Bowen’s seat of McMahon where the figures suggest he received 61.1 per cent of UAP preferences on a TPP basis. There may be some local explanation for this, because of all the seats analysed only three recorded more than 50 per cent preference flow to the ALP. All three are safe Labor seats, Watson and Gorton are the other two.
However, rather than focusing on the outliers, the significant data is about those around the median proportion. The overwhelming majority of results were in the range from 29 per cent to 40 per cent. The unweighted average was approximately 34.5 and the median number was approximately 33.8.
Of course, a full understanding of the Palmer effect would require knowledge of the primary voting history of UAP voters, and the factors which influenced them on this occasion.
However, the preference data does give an insight into the impact of Clive Palmer’s $50 million in advertising and the consequences for the Labor Party of this unprecedented spending.
It is not possible with confidence to attribute results in particular seats to the differences in preference distribution, however, it is clear that if the UAP preferences had flowed to Labor as strongly as those of One Nation, the result in a seat like Lyons would have been much closer.
The UAP is not the only minor party to consider. The figures show the strong flow of Green preferences to Labor. However, there are strong variations here as well.
In my home seat of Canberra, Labor recorded the highest TPP preference flow from the Greens at 93.2 per cent. In the rural NSW seat of Parkes, the flow was only 63.3 per cent.
As these results are two-party preferred, the differentials cannot be explained by the number or nature of the other parties involved in a particular electorate.
Taken together, these figures raise some interesting questions for the major parties.
If preference flows to Labor had been around the maximum from the Greens and the UAP the results in close seats such as Bass and Chisholm could have been different.
Therefore, the parties may need to ask themselves: Should we make more of an effort to focus on preference flows from minor parties? Should the ALP be conscious of the potential importance of One Nation preferences, or should it focus on maximising Green preferences? The reverse applies to the coalition parties.
They can do this without compromising principles. It should be possible for the Labor Party to criticise Pauline Hanson’s bigotry without tarring all her voters with the same brush. Similarly, the Liberals and Nationals should be able to criticise the Green’s without suggesting that everyone who votes Green is about to invade farmers’ properties.
It is, of course, always dangerous to focus on strategies or tactics which refer exclusively to what might have affected the outcome of the last election. It is as foolish as generals focusing on how to win the last war rather than the next one.
Clive Palmer and the UAP probably fall into the ‘last war’ category. However, the Greens and One Nation are likely to be around for a while.
Therefore, the generic questions matter, even if the specifics of particular minor parties may not.
These figures as presented by the AEC raise some questions, and it will be interesting to see if any future tactics or strategies suggest either side of politics has found an answer to those questions.