Queensland Election

I find it hard to get enthusiastic following state election campaigns – too many photo ops and soundbites masquerading as policies wear me down.  However, I am always interested in the results of elections, both in terms of overall results as the seat by seat contests.  The final makeup of the Parliament after every election obviously has significant consequences for on future policy directions. 

As usual, the ABC’s Antony Green has an election website up with all the details about each electorate and the swings required.

Mark from Larvatus Prodeo has joined Possum and the Poll Bludger to establish a blog at Crikey specifically for the Qld election.  I probably won’t write that much on the state election, so I’d recommend keeping an eye on that site if you’re an enthusiast for elections.

Graham Young has conducted a fair bit of research through Online Opinion tracking political opinion and plenty of experience in political matters in Queensland, so some of his posts on election matters would also be worth reading.

I’ll be interested to see how the smaller parties perform. The Greens will be trying to hold on their seat of Indooroopilly which they gained when the sitting member, Ronan Lee, changed allegiances.  They will also be hoping for some sizable votes in a few electorates.  I think they are at fairly long odds of winning any new seats  – it will be hard enough hanging on to Indooroopilly – because it is so hard for smaller parties to get media attention or traction at election time, and they will also be dramatically outspent by the big parties.  However, winning a seat or two can’t be totally ruled out.

In the last state election in 2006, Family First polled reasonably well in a few seats – in my view mostly due to the lack of any other choices for conservative leaning minor parties.  However, the party polled very poorly at the subsequent federal election and has been almost invisible in Queensland since then, so it’s hard to see them having much of an impact.

Some independents with local followings will poll well.  I tip all four sitting independents to retain their seats, but the last remaining One Nation MP will lose her seat, after her electorate was impacted significantly by a major boundary change.  Former sitting National MP Stuart Copeland, now contesting as an independent, has a good chance of winning what is effectively a LNP primary contest against sitting MP Ray Hopper. Ronan Lee is the underdog to retain his seat as a Green, but he still has a chance. 

Feel free to leave your predictions here about how many seats each party will win.  I predictLabor will lose some seats the LNP will hold all the seats they hold now (including those where the redistribution has made them nominally Labor), apart from Condamine where Stuart Copeland is running as an independent.  My estimate is that Labor will win 50 seats and the LNP 33, plus 5 Independents and 1 Green.

Like & share:


  1. Dolphins:

    To my knowledge, the USA owes trillions of dollars to China.

    Last week I heard a US politician complaining about his government not being able to break into the Chinese market.

    Is the Chinese government Communist? (Is the Pope a Catholic?)

    Who do you think is in control in such a situation?

  2. LORIKEET – “Think about what the aborigines did. They set up camp in a good area, and after they had hunted and gathered anything worth knowing about, they burnt the area so it could regenerate. Then they moved on i.e. they created firebreaks as they went. They had already EATEN anything that might die.”

    Look at NSW population?I live in an area that lies between the mountains and the sea – with a large population that is slowly building on much available land. It is ludicrous to think, that in this area, we could ‘burn the area so it could regenerate’?Where do you suggest the houses go while this takes place, not to mention the people. Unlike aboriginals we love to ‘own’ property – huge difference. As others have said, there were unique contributions in Vic. I’ve been taking notice since the tragedies in Vic, and have noticed the rubbish and dead trees along the road – that’s councils’ responsibility – the same applies when areas are flooded! Creek beds with overgrowth or rubbish/garbage stop the natural flow, so water banks up, or developers being allowed to build on flood plains, only filled in with coal wash – no protection or absorption or run off = floods! Older people can’t check guttering for leaves etc, nor can older people check weed growth etc. Need planning and a wide intelligent view of a myriad of aggravations – it’s not simplistic as you imply.

    I don’t believe that the Greens are against back burning or other intelligent precautions, but the gung-ho approach to appease the ignorant is not the answer, nor will it prevent tragedies! We need to look where and HOW houses are being built. People love the bush – that’s why they choose to live there! If you look where homes in Aust.are built(majority) they’re either along the coast (which is still densely covered in bushland) or close to the bush – they’re both potentially dangerous but beautiful. Intelligent planning is the answer! I can drive from my home(sea side) to the mountain ranges in 30-50 mins

  3. Naomi:

    Yes, I agree with most of that. One of my neighbours said in the southern states the government is very stringent about not allowing people to cut down trees on their property.

    As soon as she came to Queensland, she had large gum trees on her property cut down very quickly. I think the rules have been relaxed here since the devastating storms of November 2008 (probably due to insurance companies complaining).

    I think the government should have to pay for all of the damage caused to homes during bushfires and storms if they won’t allow the people to protect themselves and their property.

    BTW I was talking about burning regular firebreaks, just as aboriginal people are being paid to do in NT to avoid the damage caused by “wild fires”.

    We also need firebreaks between the bush and our schools and homes.

  4. Bob: I have just been reading through all the posts on this line. I totally agree with you. In situations such as the recent Victorian bushfires people inevitably search for a scapegoat. It is just so convenient to blame “the greenies”. Other than the 3 Upper House MP’s in Victoria and a smattering of green councillers, I don’t think people have any idea who they are referring to when they use the term greenies. It’s like the faceless “they”. “They” should do something about fuel recuction. Who should? Who is the “they”? Presumably the answer is the government. Okay, well, do three Upper House MP’s who don’t even hold the balance of power really have that much influence? I think not.
    Granted, forestry management is a natural area for Greens to be concenred with – along with social justice, the economy, transpport, energy, water, etc…..Get my point. So many people believe the Greens to be a single issue party and so when forestry management issues come clearly to the forefront of the public consciousness the so called “greenies” cop the blame for all that has gone wrong.
    Besides it is foolhardy in the extreme to think that greens are opposed to any burning off. Fire is a natural part of the ecosystem and many plants need fire in order to regenerate. Greens know this and also know that low inensity burns, ie prescribed burn offs, are far better than a once in a generation fire that burns with such intensity that the damage caused is catastrophic. Good on you Bob for bringing some much needed sense into this debate.

  5. The Grey Ghost:

    That’s a good question: “Who are they?”

    I think it is fairly clear that those with Green agendas are riding on the backs of possibly every world government leader or politician. That seems like a very great amount of influence to me.

    In the Senate, The Greens seem to vote exclusively with Labor. Some Greens are members of the Labor party, and I suspect, funded by them in elections.

    If people with Green agendas influence people to build houses among the trees and don’t allow them to cut them down – and then the people die in bushfires – whose fault do you really think it is?

    I think The Greens and their various derivative groups are very dangerous people from many perspectives.

Comments are closed.