Opinion
As each day passes, the prospect of such an inconclusive - and potentially disastrous - outcome increases.
Yes, a hung parliament and another recalcitrant Senate.
Let's look first at the House of Representatives where governments are made.
As Antony Green has pointed out, the redistribution has reduced the Coalition's numbers from 90 to a notional 88 seats. Two seats it now holds - Dobell and Paterson - are now notionally in the Labor column.
Labor's numbers then have increased from 55 to a notional 57.
Video: Is Malcolm Turnbull coming up short in the election campaign? (ABC News)
Taking into account the crossbenchers - and assuming their overall numbers stay the same - that means the Coalition will lose its majority if it loses 13 seats.
How likely is that?
The national polls suggest it's a distinct possibility. More to the point, though, evidence emerged this week that the mood in the marginals might reflect that national trend.
Sid Maher reported in The Australian that a ReachTEL poll commissioned by the NSW Teachers Federation showed Labor in front in Dobell (which is already notionally Labor) but also ahead in Page and Lindsay, and all square in Macquarie.
It's the latter figure that will set off alarm bells. Macquarie is out on 4.5 per cent. There are other NSW seats inside that figure; Banks (2.6 per cent), Reid (3.4 per cent), and Gilmore (3.8 per cent). So is Eden-Monaro (2.9 per cent) and that seat was polled showing it on the usual knife edge at 51 per cent Coalition.
Hardheads on both sides concede a similar pattern is emerging in Queensland with seats like Petrie, Capricornia, Bonner, Brisbane and Forde very much in the mix this time around.
Assuming Malcolm Turnbull and the power of incumbency doesn't turn around the mood in those states - and adding Solomon (1.4 per cent) in the Northern Territory - you get to nine or 10 Labor gains.
On those numbers the Government would lose its majority if it lost a total of three or four seats in the rest of the four states - Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.
That might be the high water mark for Labor; it might not be. There are so many imponderables between now and July 2. It is, though, a scenario as realistic as any other.
Now let's look at the Senate; and keep in mind, all the recent changes to Senate voting rules and the rush to a double dissolution election were at least in part designed to improve the Coalition's influence in that chamber.
The new rules will make it harder for some: Bob Day, Ricky Muir, Zhenya (Dio) Wang, John Madigan and David Leyonhjelm will struggle. But under a double dissolution, Senate candidates need a quota of just 7.7 per cent as opposed to 14.37 per cent in a half Senate.
For some, that will more than make up the ground lost because of the new rules. In Queensland, Glenn Lazarus, for example, has a real chance of gaining the constituency that his previous boss Clive Palmer once held - those disaffected with the major parties. He can surely get to 7.7 per cent after preferences. Jacqui Lambie will easily achieve that in Tasmania. She could conceivably win two quotas.
And in South Australia, Nick Xenophon could win three seats, and maybe another somewhere else.
And further, Antony Green says the Government itself is disadvantaged by having a double dissolution as opposed to a half Senate election.
In a half Senate, if either of the major parties gets 40 per cent of the vote, they usually go on and win a third seat in each state.
In a double dissolution - with all seats up for grabs - the equivalent result is six seats in each state.
But Green says in a DD, if a major party gets 40 per cent of the vote, it will win five seats but struggle to get the sixth.
Now the situation is complicated because this outcome has to be applied against one-off and peculiar results at the last election.
But Green concludes the Government faces the prospect of dropping a seat. Labor on the other hand, because of a quirk in the mathematics at the last half Senate election, stands to gain seats.
The Greens would most likely go from 10 to nine.
All of this means that, despite calling a double dissolution election, the Government won't be a whole lot better off in the Senate.
It might find the Xenophon team marginally easier to deal with than the incumbents, but that's about it.
So a couple of observations off the back of that plausible scenario.
Firstly, the Government won't necessarily have the numbers in a joint sitting; and that would be embarrassing.
But far more importantly, it could plunge the country back into another period of uncertainty, if not chaos.
That is because a win is not a win for Malcolm Turnbull. He needs a solid victory. Turnbull needs a mandate, not just to put Labor away, but to see off the right wing of his own party.
A narrow victory - and particularly one that relies on crossbenchers to govern - will leave him vulnerable to attacks from the right. Conservative supporters of Tony Abbott will argue that Turnbull squandered the comfortable majority that he inherited. Carving out his own political persona in those circumstances will be extremely difficult.
Likewise, Bill Shorten would be no better placed leading a minority government than Julia Gillard was. A leader - particularly a new one - struggles in such circumstances to demand authority and legitimacy.
Steve Bracks overcame the handicap in Victoria, and went on to prosper, but he was the exception to the rule.
It's a long campaign ahead and we might see one party or the other open up on the ascendancy. But don't count on it.
Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC TV program Insiders.
Updated
As each day passes the prospect of
another hung parliament and recalcitrant Senate appears more likely. It
could plunge the country back into another period of uncertainty, if not
chaos, writes Barrie Cassidy.
What if the 2016
federal election achieves nothing? What if the results come in and the
country is back where it all began eight years ago, with political
gridlock and leadership instability at its core?As each day passes, the prospect of such an inconclusive - and potentially disastrous - outcome increases.
Yes, a hung parliament and another recalcitrant Senate.
Let's look first at the House of Representatives where governments are made.
As Antony Green has pointed out, the redistribution has reduced the Coalition's numbers from 90 to a notional 88 seats. Two seats it now holds - Dobell and Paterson - are now notionally in the Labor column.
Labor's numbers then have increased from 55 to a notional 57.
Video: Is Malcolm Turnbull coming up short in the election campaign? (ABC News)
Taking into account the crossbenchers - and assuming their overall numbers stay the same - that means the Coalition will lose its majority if it loses 13 seats.
How likely is that?
The national polls suggest it's a distinct possibility. More to the point, though, evidence emerged this week that the mood in the marginals might reflect that national trend.
Sid Maher reported in The Australian that a ReachTEL poll commissioned by the NSW Teachers Federation showed Labor in front in Dobell (which is already notionally Labor) but also ahead in Page and Lindsay, and all square in Macquarie.
It's the latter figure that will set off alarm bells. Macquarie is out on 4.5 per cent. There are other NSW seats inside that figure; Banks (2.6 per cent), Reid (3.4 per cent), and Gilmore (3.8 per cent). So is Eden-Monaro (2.9 per cent) and that seat was polled showing it on the usual knife edge at 51 per cent Coalition.
Hardheads on both sides concede a similar pattern is emerging in Queensland with seats like Petrie, Capricornia, Bonner, Brisbane and Forde very much in the mix this time around.
Assuming Malcolm Turnbull and the power of incumbency doesn't turn around the mood in those states - and adding Solomon (1.4 per cent) in the Northern Territory - you get to nine or 10 Labor gains.
On those numbers the Government would lose its majority if it lost a total of three or four seats in the rest of the four states - Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.
That might be the high water mark for Labor; it might not be. There are so many imponderables between now and July 2. It is, though, a scenario as realistic as any other.
Now let's look at the Senate; and keep in mind, all the recent changes to Senate voting rules and the rush to a double dissolution election were at least in part designed to improve the Coalition's influence in that chamber.
The new rules will make it harder for some: Bob Day, Ricky Muir, Zhenya (Dio) Wang, John Madigan and David Leyonhjelm will struggle. But under a double dissolution, Senate candidates need a quota of just 7.7 per cent as opposed to 14.37 per cent in a half Senate.
For some, that will more than make up the ground lost because of the new rules. In Queensland, Glenn Lazarus, for example, has a real chance of gaining the constituency that his previous boss Clive Palmer once held - those disaffected with the major parties. He can surely get to 7.7 per cent after preferences. Jacqui Lambie will easily achieve that in Tasmania. She could conceivably win two quotas.
A win is not a win for Malcolm Turnbull. He needs a solid victory. Turnbull needs a mandate, not just to put Labor away, but to see off the right wing of his own party.
And in South Australia, Nick Xenophon could win three seats, and maybe another somewhere else.
And further, Antony Green says the Government itself is disadvantaged by having a double dissolution as opposed to a half Senate election.
In a half Senate, if either of the major parties gets 40 per cent of the vote, they usually go on and win a third seat in each state.
In a double dissolution - with all seats up for grabs - the equivalent result is six seats in each state.
But Green says in a DD, if a major party gets 40 per cent of the vote, it will win five seats but struggle to get the sixth.
Now the situation is complicated because this outcome has to be applied against one-off and peculiar results at the last election.
But Green concludes the Government faces the prospect of dropping a seat. Labor on the other hand, because of a quirk in the mathematics at the last half Senate election, stands to gain seats.
The Greens would most likely go from 10 to nine.
All of this means that, despite calling a double dissolution election, the Government won't be a whole lot better off in the Senate.
It might find the Xenophon team marginally easier to deal with than the incumbents, but that's about it.
So a couple of observations off the back of that plausible scenario.
Firstly, the Government won't necessarily have the numbers in a joint sitting; and that would be embarrassing.
But far more importantly, it could plunge the country back into another period of uncertainty, if not chaos.
That is because a win is not a win for Malcolm Turnbull. He needs a solid victory. Turnbull needs a mandate, not just to put Labor away, but to see off the right wing of his own party.
A narrow victory - and particularly one that relies on crossbenchers to govern - will leave him vulnerable to attacks from the right. Conservative supporters of Tony Abbott will argue that Turnbull squandered the comfortable majority that he inherited. Carving out his own political persona in those circumstances will be extremely difficult.
Likewise, Bill Shorten would be no better placed leading a minority government than Julia Gillard was. A leader - particularly a new one - struggles in such circumstances to demand authority and legitimacy.
Steve Bracks overcame the handicap in Victoria, and went on to prosper, but he was the exception to the rule.
It's a long campaign ahead and we might see one party or the other open up on the ascendancy. But don't count on it.
Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC TV program Insiders.
No comments:
Post a Comment