Today’s blog post is inspired by a strange opinion piece in the Nine papers yesterday by former federal Liberal Attorney-General George Brandis.
Brandis’ piece (in addition to incorrectly stating that the last increase in the size of parliament was in 1987) makes two main claims about political advantages for Labor and the Greens in the expansion of parliament:
- “Because most population growth is in city electorates,” an expansion of the House of Representatives “would be a significant advantage to Labor”, and;
- that “the Greens would be the big winners from an increase in the size of the Senate.”
Neither of these claims is remotely true. Any increase in the urban share of seats in parliament will happen whether or not the parliament is increased, and the Greens are uniquely placed to not benefit from an expansion in parliament – at least until each state elects at least nine senators.
First, let’s tackle the claim for the House of Representatives. It is true that, over time, we have seen an increasing proportion of seats in urban areas and thus a smaller share in rural areas. As long as there has not been a substantial number of seats in total, this has required rural seats to take in larger areas.
But an expansion of parliament wouldn’t just give new seats to those fast-growing areas – they would go everywhere.
If the Parliament was expanded to about 200 seats (which would involve each state electing 16 senators), then New South Wales would gain 16 extra seats on top of their existing 46. Three existing seats would get turned into four. This applies all over the state. For example, the seats of Richmond, Page and Cowper would be redrawn to be four seats. The vast western seats of Farrer, Riverina and Parkes could also be redrawn to create one extra seat. Yes, nine of the new seats would be added in the Sydney region currently covered by 26 seats, but the relative proportions would be the same.
I see no reason why this should provide any partisan benefit. If anything, it may harm the existing government since they would hold many notional seats without incumbent MPs to defend them (although the large scale of their 2025 victory might reduce this problem).
As for the Senate, it is even easier to disprove.
Andrew Conway has provided a helpful website which allows users to recount Senate results dating back to 2013, using real Senate ballot data. For our purposes today, it’s most useful as a way to re-run election results with a change in the number of senators elected.
I have performed this analysis back to 2016 – the first election using the current Senate electoral system. For 2016, I have used the special count which elected six senators per state – a legislated requirement at double dissolutions to provide information to the Senate as to who should receive a longer Senate term.
I have then compared those 6-senator results to the outcomes if seven, eight or nine senators were elected. Bear in mind that a nine-senator election would be an enormous increase to the size of parliament, and Brandis is mostly addressing seven- or eight-senator expansions.
I have then calculated the changes at a national level at each election. Territory senators are not included – that’s a separate conversation.
In his op-ed, Brandis said that
Reducing the quota by increasing the size of the Senate would virtually guarantee the Greens one seat in each state at every half-Senate election, give them a realistic chance – after preferences – of a second seat in their stronger states and make it probable they would win three per state at a double dissolution.
(He also mentions that the Greens would have eleven seats without the defection of Lidia Thorpe but doesn’t mention the defection of Dorinda Cox – it’s not a well-researched article.)
Benefits of a larger parliament are shared around, but the Greens are actually in a uniquely poor position in this regard.
The majority of new seats go to the major parties, with One Nation also doing relatively well.
The Greens comfortably win all of their Senate seats now, but are a long way away from winning a second seat in any state. An expanded parliament would have increased their numbers in 2016, but at the last three elections the Greens wouldn’t have gained a single seat. They would only start winning extra seats if the parliament expanded to nine senators per state – but at that point, they would be winning 1-2 out of 18 new senators. Their gains are dwarfed by Labor and the Coalition, and even by One Nation.
The main beneficiaries are either the major parties, who win enough votes to win multiple seats, or parties that fall short of winning a single seat under the status quo. This is primarily One Nation, but also Legalise Cannabis would have won one of eight seats in Queensland in 2022.
How would these changes shift the overall balance of the Senate? They wouldn’t do much. Usually the left-right split of these seats is close to even.
The benefits of an expanded parliament may be predominantly on the side of one party or another in a particular election, but over time they won’t have a particular bias one way or the other. But a more diverse and representative parliament that is closer to the people would benefit us all.
So how does an expanded Parliament benefit voters in real terms?
It will nearly always come down to who has the power in the Senate or who has the most influence over decisions on Bills. This occurs more often than not thee days due to the arrival of more disparate Independents. It is possible that we could end up with even more of a spread of Indies with an increase in Senate numbers.
Is that a good thing for Democracy or will it lead to Policy paralysis?
More Senators means more outlay of taxpayer cash on not only the Senators, but staff, facilities and all the other requirements that go with the position not limited to travel & perks. Voter tend to dislike this.
I do see a larger constituency requires more representation, however I do not feel certain the Senate is doing well currently at ‘representation’, seems more like personal agendas and political gains in a pit of mediocrity.
I will be arguing for an increase of the senate to 18. This will bring Tasmania in line with the rest of the country for average electors per division.
To represent better, maybe independent state bodies are part of staff for ministers and Senators.
So a Victorian Judge would advise all Vitoiran Senators on those types of matters.
The major parties who have 5 or more in parliament pay for half their staff and the rest taxpayer.
Personally, I think expanding the senate to 16 per state with a corresponding house increase is probably too big an ask. Perhaps the answer is some sort of automatic trigger that there be an increase in numbers when there has been x% increase in electors since the previous increase in the parliament or a time – every 25 years or so.
On another note, Albo seemed to rule out any more referenda whilst he is PM so that would put 4 year and fixed terms to bed for the foreseeable future.
@ Redistributed
Fixed terms do not require a referendum so Albo can technically legislate 3 year fixed terms. Also i feel the time to expand parliament is when the population reaches 30 million which means it has doubled since 1984 expansion when parliament was expanded. At the 1949 expansion the populaiton was 8 millon. In 1901 there was 3.8 million Australians so doubling of population is a good factor to consider.
It is a good time to expand the Parliament.
I would be happy with 16 Senators per State, and you’d have to increase the Territory representation as well.
Presumably you could increase the higher population ACT Senate seats to 4 and leave the NT unchanged at 2.
Is there any provision that says the ACT and NT have to have the same number of Senators? I kinda doubt it.
That would be a Senate of 102, which you could then design a House of Reps with around 200-205 as you wish.
So just over 300 pollies representing what will soon be just over 30 million Australians.
Seems about right to me.
Increasing the number of Senators would decrease the percentage required to elect them. In practical terms it would mean that those minor parties that struggle to gain a single Senate seat because they don’t receive preferences but come close to a quota would be more likely to be elected.
In order to not offend too many people let’s take a look at a hypothetical political organisation – Builders, Labourers and Others Keen on Excluding Sheilas (or BLOKES for short). Their platform is based around removing women from traditional blue-collar industries.
They ran at the 2028 election and received 9.53% of the primary vote in Queensland, short of the 14.28% required for a Senate quota. They received only an additional 1.52% percent from other party preferences as candidates were excluded before they dropped off. There was no clear pattern on the distribution of their votes.
In 2029 a proposal to increase the number of Senators to 16 per State (with 2 for the NT and 5 for the ACT) was passed. The quota required at a half-Senate election was now 11.11%. At the 2031 election BLOKES went slightly backward in Queensland on primaries to 8.94%, but picked up preferences from the splintered remains of One Nation, the United Australia Party and multiple youth organisations funded by Clive Palmer – the Palmer Hanson One Notion Environmental Youth. A few minor candidates outside PHONEY agreed to direct preferences to PHONEY and put all major parties last. Minor candidates were excluded early and PHONEY was excluded with 2.16% of the primary vote and an additional 3.66% picked up from preferences.
Almost all of the PHONEY primary vote went to BLOKES as did 1.90% from excluded candidates, taking BLOKES to 12.98% and their first Senate win. BLOKES also added an additional seat in WA and NSW and came close in Tasmania.
Meanwhile both Victoria and SA elected their first official Communist Senators.
What did I just read
@Real Talk I was bored. But the main point was the net result would be to add Senators from minor (or fringe, depending on your view) because the hurdle required to be elected is reduced.
George Brandis is not very smart.
An increase to 14 senators per state (quota of 12.5% at half-senate elections and 6.67% at double dissolutions) and a resultant House of 173-175 MPs is long overdue given population increase. 16 or 18 senators per state is too big of an ask … and the quota of election becomes a bit small.
Compare pro rata the 1984 change
Workout how many extra seats needed to
Maintain such ratios
Great article Ben.
It’s unfortunate that the major newspapers publish this kind of guff “opinion” which is only there as a partisan attack and misleads the public on the actual facts.
Doing a rough ‘back of a fag packet’ calculation, non ALP LNP Grns don’t gain that much. The gains largely go to the ALP and the Libs. The Greens find it easier as they get that full quota with 14 or 16 rather than just sitting below ON probably find it easier and Cannabis might get one but it doesn’t upset the apple cart though a DD could be very interesting ……
I think the House will need to expand at some point 30M population does seem like a good point of time. But I am less desiring to expand the Senate at all. It is already a bit unruly IMO and the potential addition of even more minor parties with make the situation worse. I accept the Constitutional role of the Senate but I tend to think the larger it gets the less useful it becomes for adequate government. It also risks turning it into a venue for people to perform. You lose the comity when it turns into a circus. Attracting the wrong kind of candidate parties using it as a venue to stir the pot do things they could never get away with in the House.
You don’t need to do those calculations, Redistributed, I literally did the calculations in this blog post. Using real voting data.
George Brandis claims that more HoR seats would benefit Labor. As Ben pointed out, new seats would have to be carved out of existing seats regardless of location. This includes carved out of large, rural, safe Coalition seats.
At current standing, Labor would be disadvantaged if parliament were to expand tomorrow. It’s because Labor holds four out of the five Tasmanian seats and all ACT and NT seats. An expanded parliament probably won’t increase the number of seats in TAS nor NT and probably won’t in ACT.
An expanded HoR would likely see more independents and Greens MPs. Independents and Greens who have a geographically concentrated vote to win or are favoured by certain demographics would be more likely to win with an expanded parliament. Based on federal election results, the southern half of Goldstein and the southern half of Bradfield favour independents whilst Melbourne north of the Yarra favours the Greens.
I still remain sceptical whether more seats would mean better representation. Countries like the UK and Germany have hundreds of MPs, meaning each MP individually is powerless. Our smaller parliament means each MP’s vote is more valuable, particularly with small majority or minority governments, improving their ability to advocate on behalf of their constituents.
If we wanted better representation, we’d be better off to double the number of staffers per politician, so each MP can properly scrutinise each bill and vote for it on its merits, rather than mindlessly going along with what their party, donors, media or lobbyists tell them. It would also allow them to be more responsive and offer more supports to their constituents
@Votante – that is the way it may go in the House if it expands, and I am okay with that. If a candidate wins a 2CP vote in a fairly drawn seat, so be it, Green or otherwise. While it may not explicitly, at least at first, radically affect the partisan makeup of the House, it would likely affect most of the parties’ posturing, especially that of the Liberals. Why? Because it most certainly will create more urban-oriented seats. As you pointed out, seats that would not necessarily play to a strict 2PP contest. More Independents and minor parties will run. It could significantly affect how the Liberals present their policy offering, as, assuming Labor is in the majority at the time, the Liberals would want to target many of those seats. As such, many of them would be at least neutral to progressive on social and climate issues. Consequently, it would likely make a few marginal Liberal seats safer, but they would presumably already hold those seats. Labor would likely be under pressure in several seats, but from the left through 2CP or even three-cornered contests between Labor, Greens, and Liberals. The losers would probably be the Nats in an expanded parliament, not so much that their seat count would decrease, but rather that their relative numbers would be diluted. ON might actually pick up a seat somewhere, depending on the final alignment of preferences in a two-party or three-corner race, as they have been competitive in a couple 2-3 races over the years.
An expansion of parliament will inevitably make Richmond unwinnable to the centre right. Currently it’s probably just within reach because the parts of Ballina are strongly conservative. Any expansion would remove Ballina making it a lab v grn contest. However the new seat would be won by the nats.
Blast2095
I would much rather have elected representatives than extra staffers. As we all know, the whole staffing system can be open to nepotism and opportunism – you are basically just putting more money into the parties pockets. It seems that you are not that aware of how the parliamentary parties work in this country – we have much higher levels of party discipline than the UK for example. The ALP pledge makes sure that there are no rebellions as occurs at Westminster. Australian MPs are much better looked after than those at Westminster – new MPs there sometimes do not even get to share an office and have to work out of corridors – it depends on the caprice of the party whips. MPs here also have more staff. Our MPs are also much paid than those in the UK – there still seems to be the assumption at Westminster that MPs have a private income – a hangover from the days when MPs were not paid.
an elected representative is much more effective then a staffer. a staffer cannot advocate for you area in parlaiment. the more mps there are the smaller the area they have to cover and the greater representation you get. i reckon increasing it to 14 is enough we dont need 4 extra senators per state and 16 mps a gradual increase every 25-30 years is better
The claim that an expanded parliament leading to more Labor HoR MPs is a half-truth. Most seats are in metro areas and Labor holds most seats. Apart from Goldstein, the Liberals don’t hold any seats that are entirely within 25km of a capital city CBD. An expanded parliament would also mean more Coalition HoR MPs even if recent federal results are replicated.
@Craig, regardless of parliament size, winning over urban and suburban voters would be a good start for the Coalition.
One Nation just had their best federal election since 1998. I don’t think they’d win a HoR seat in an expanded parliament but it depends on the carve out of seats. If Lockyer Valley plus Scenic Rim and/or Darling Downs were somehow put into the same electorate, they might see a chance and pour resources there.
@ John
I think you are right i expect Richmond to be even more left leaning while the new Coastal seat to be won by the Nats. I think there will also be a new National held seat in Central QLD. I wonder if there will be a new seat for the Nats in Inland NSW.
I think Whitlam will be split with Southern Highlands split from Illawara.
I would like to see a regional seat from Goulburn to Gundagai along the Hume highway that can take Crookwell, Oberon, Yass as well.
Votante/Nimalan, if Parliament is expanded it will mean the Liberals will have better chances of winning some inner suburban seats. The current Bradfield and Berowra are likely to be split into 3, with the Liberals having the best shot to win the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai council centred seat. A new seat could also be carved out of Macquarie and Mitchell centred on the Hawkesbury and rural Hills shire that would be safer than the current Mitchell.
There will also be a revival of a district similar to the old North Sydney, with Bennelong contracting outwards towards Parramatta.
@ Yoh An
I think if parliament expands all parties will benefit as there are less hybrid seats which have completely different demographics and voting patterns. A possible scenario
1. I think Higgins will be resurrected but this time may not include middle class Carnegie/Murrumbeena so more of a LIB V GRN seat.
2. I think North Sydney can be resurrected
3. Warringah will be more of a Northern Beaches and Mosman seat only without any densley populated North Sydney Council-better for Libs
4. Wentworth will shrink and become better for Libs and unwinnable for Labor bar a major realignment
5. Fowler will loose Chipping Norton maybe to Hughes and become safer for Labor. It may also loose Abbotsbury to a new Bird Walton seat
5. Werriwa will gain Liverpool CBD and Warrick Farm from Fowler and loose areas west of Cowpasture Road to Bird Walton
6. McMahon will likely loose semi-rural parts to Bird Walton. However, i am not sure if they seat will become more winnable for Libs as it may also loose areas east of the Cumberland Highway and north of the Great Western Highway.
7. The new Bird Walton seat will be Liberal leaning and only won by Labor at strong elections such as 2007/2025 not close such as 2010/2022.
8. Hughes will become safer for Libs if it no longer crosses the Georges River unless it takes parts of the Illawarea
I am more concerned about geographic seat size than seat population, as in this day and age, with the internet, social media, outreach, etc., getting the word out in a tight urban area is much easier than in years past. However, in rural areas, even with modern technology, it is challenging to provide constituent service, let alone facilitate voting. MPs don’t need more resources in Canberra, but some may use more electorate offices.
In an expanded parliament, the Coalition would likely win more urban seats, but that would likely mark the end of anti-net-zero, nativist, and 1950s economic rhetoric. ON’s performance in an expanded parliament will largely depend on how much the Liberals bleed off voters from the right as they try to capitalize on those additional urban seat targets. That might happen anyway as the party adjusts its message for 2028 and beyond.
Ballina has a significant Greens vote. That area could be redistributed to Page, depending on whether Page is under quota and/or if they create an additional seat in the northeast.
The UK is a mess. There is considerable speculation that the Reform and Conservative parties will have to merge. The only reason Labor was able to secure 411 seats out of 650 was that the right side of the British electorate was split three ways to Sunday. What will keep Australia essentially a two-party state is preferences. There is a possibility, however small, that in 20 years, Labor could face a split on the right as Millennials and Gen Z push a hard progressive agenda; we shall see.
The Lockyer Valley and Scenic Rim is already a federal electorate, the delightfully distorted and deranged Wright (slogan: “So Wright Its Wrong”).
One Nation got 16.25% in 2025, down from their high water mark of 20.9% in 2016. There was a 9% swing against the LNP, but only a 2% swing to One Nation on primaries.
Nimalan with 16 extra seats in nsw your basically turning 3 seats into 4 with 46 becoming 62. however thats not a full 4 it would be 3. and thos 2 would be in the most under quota areas. probably nw regional nsw and eastern shore of sydney it would be 2 shourt of a full 3 into 4 seats. so youd get seat like (Page, Richmond and Cowper), (Parkes, Farrer, Riverina) etc you probably get goulburn in with the southern highlands and yass very similar to the old Hume. i dont think 16 senators is the way to go i think a smaller increase to 14 is better.
while labor would benefit from holding more notional seats due to there current seat count this is due to an aberation of an election that wont be repeated (unless the liberals fail miserably again) however i dont think that will happen again as the factors leading to labors unusually high seat count were the result of basically frankenstein monster of cirumstances occuring all at once.
i highly doubt the increase would be ready by the next election. even so id expect the libs to force labor to either a slim minority or majority. 2031 maybe at which point the libs would be the benficiaries most likely.
i doubt reform and the tories will merge. reform is not only a threat to the tories but to labour in some places. reforms goal is to replace the tories. at very least reform and the tories just need not contest each others sitting members.
Having more seats would reduce the ‘odd-looking’ seats made up of randomly joined together pieces. I’m looking at Kingsford-Smith and Hughes as two examples.
A expanded HoR will likely create safe or winnable metropolitan Liberal seats. In various marginal Liberal seats like Berowra, Mitchell and Lindsay, there are pockets where there are safe Liberal booths.
@John, I agree that a new seat between Richmond and Page would be difficult for the Coalition to pick up. It would likely include Ballina and Lismore LGAs including Nimbin and nearby villages.
@Real Talk, I meant Scenic Rim and Lockyer Valley and maybe Darling Downs together without the Gold Coast and Logan parts. It would be a contestable seat but LNP would likely win with Labor and Greens preferences.
@votante In 2022, according to Ben’s election guides for Wright and Groom, One Nation did better in Logan than they did in Groom. In 2025 One Nation didn’t even break 10% in Groom. Even if you took only the very best booths from Wright, Groom and Maranoa, One Nation wouldn’t be competitive. They’d make the 2CP in all likelihood but lose 65-35 at least.
@votante they wouldnt have any trouble with the seat because it wouldnt be in between page and richmond richmond would lose national voting ballina to page and possibly parts of byron bay page would lose coffs harbor to cowper but might gain kyogle from new england. richmond is the seat that would be lost to the coalition. atm richmond is probably at the extreme range of the coalition in terms of their chances. especially the nats. however it would probably be lost to the greens as well. labor would be the beneficiary of the left voting byron bay and the probly just centre right tweed.
qld would get around 10 seats? so that again is 3 seats into 4 but thats post redistribution cause of the imbalnace
if you created a seat in the centre of hunter new england and calare youd probably find onp being very close to winning a seat
also if you created a seat between toowoomba ipswich and warwick youd probably find onp within a chance. those are there 2 biggiest voting areas
Rubbish.
ONP primary votes in area booths according to Ben’s 2025 previews (using 2022 results):
Warwick – 13.7%
Lockyer Valley – 19.4%
Somerset – 10.0%
Rural Ipswich – 14.5%
South of Toowoomba – 14.2%
ONP got 15.4% in the state seat of Lockyer in 2024. They got 12% in Maranoa and less than 10% in Groom and Blair in the last election.
The notion that expanding the house will suddenly result in a district fertile for One Nation is fanciful nonsense.
thats a good ebough result to get started. if all their voters are concentrated in the one seat they then just dump a heap of resources in to that one seat instead of across 3 seats. the nats proved with the right candidate and enough resources you can almost win a safe seat. they even made the 2cp in hunter. if labor loses 4 points instead of gaining 4 points onp could of taken that seat
If dumping a heap of resources was a viable election strategy, Dutton would be prime minister today.
One Nation cannot win a seat unless they receive LNP preferences. That’s it.
Its all very well finishing above Labor in random rural booths but unless and until the LNP finishes behind One Nation at any stage of an election count, Pauline’s minions won’t be sitting on the green upholstery in pthe House.
it also helps not to have a half decent campaign not a half assed one. all the tallyroom commenters were saying the nats had no chance in bendigo that they wouldnt even get their deposit back. i myselfeven though i thouht theyd pt on a good show they wouldnt get as close as they did but they came with a whisker of taking they the seat from an 11.2% margin. only 2 things saved them of which they needed both to hold it. 1. the fact the seat takes in hgih left voting castlemaine and macedon and the fact the libs failures blunted the campaign
Most seats created as a result of an expansion of Parliament will be in metropolitan areas, due to larger population and faster population growth in metropolitan areas as opposed to regional and rural areas. Labor won 70 out of 88 metropolitan seats in the 2025 federal election, including 41 seats with margins greater than 10%. Considering Labor’s dominance in metropolitan areas as a result of its landslide 2025 election victory, if the Parliament is expanded now, most seats created as a result of an expansion of Parliament will be notionally held by Labor, thus notionally giving Labor a greater share of seats in the House. The issue of Labor holding many notional seats without incumbent MPs to defend them could be mitigated by the fact that the scale of its landslide 2025 election victory means many of these seats will be held on comfortable margins and thus fairly easy to sandbag at the next election. This was what George Brandis based his claim that an expansion of the House of Representatives “would be a significant advantage to Labor” on.
However, in making this claim he ignores the fact that these notional Labor seats without sitting Labor MPs present great opportunities for Greens and independents to run successful or at least competitive campaigns. Independents and Greens who have a geographically concentrated vote will be more likely to win a House of Representatives seat in an expanded parliament. He also ignores the fact that creating new seats will also affect existing seats, which could make existing seats less safe for Labor and safer for the Coalition. For example, an expansion of Parliament will make Berowra safer for the Liberal Party by removing strong Labor voting areas of Epping and North Epping from Berowra, and it will also make Hughes less safe for Labor by removing the strong Labor voting areas in the City of Campbelltown.
Coincidentally, North Sydney, Bradfield and Berowra on their 2022 boundaries are all within the permitted deviation from a 54-seat actual and projected quota for NSW that will apply if the Parliament expands now to 14 Senators per state. Under a 54-seat quota for NSW, a new seat covering areas similar or even identical to 2022 North Sydney will be created, however the name “North Sydney” will not come back due to the AEC naming guidelines not allowing geographic names for new seats. Warringah needs to expand north from its 2022 boundary to take in some territory from Mackellar, meaning Warringah will shed the North Sydney Council and become a Mosman plus Northern Beaches seat. Using a 53-seat quota for NSW, which may apply if Parliament is expanded in the next term of Parliament, all the above still applies.
Overall, the claim that an expansion of the House of Representatives “would be a significant advantage to Labor” is a very simplistic and misleading claim.
@Real Talk, John. One Nation hardly won any of the ordinary or prepoll booths in 2025. Winning a small rural booth where a few hundred voted isn’t enough. I agree with Real Talk that if electorates were much smaller, One Nation could come second in the 2CP but would be far off from winning. It’s because Labor and Greens preferences would mainly flow to LNP. One Nation is welcome to try but I doubt they’ll succeed.
Just an aside, Pauline Hanson came close to winning Lockyer at the 2015 QLD election but that was helped by her personal vote and profile and the anti-LNP swing statewide. It’s highly unlikely we’ll ever see her running for a HoR seat again like she did in 1996/1998.
Agree Joseph, in the leadup to the 2008 WA state election which saw a major redraw of boundaries there were many notional Labor seats without incumbent MPs to defend them. Due to the swing against Labor, these seats were gained by the Liberal Party.
While Labor would benefit notionally from an increase now its because they are at a high watermark from may, Labor will lose seats in 2028 in my opion at least 10 maybe even as much as 20. And this is with sitting members. Defending a notional seat without a sitting member while your in govt is hard because people are looking for a reason to bring out the baseball bats. When you without a sitting members personal vote a seat can be very vunerable. The libs campaign was a disaster and they gave people p e no reason to vote for them. You add in trump meidscare and the usual vote buying and that’s recipe for lnp wipeout remember not even the Canadian conservatives who didn’t screw up couldn’t win. The libs will Pakenham short of a similar flounders. Labor is in a backwards slide and Dan the master of the media is gone. Jacinta Allen is very unpopular and she may also have to defend her own safe seat. Her and albo were chased out of Ballarat bush summit. The nats if they don’t have to defend Shepparton or Mildura from an Ind can dump a huge amount of resources in seats like Bendigo east which would have been won on federal figures. And in ripon which they are targeting. They may give bass a crack too though i doubt theyll outpoll the libs nat resources helps the libs in the 2pp. The only other seat thats marginal is morwell but with out a Lib candidate they should easily win that.
Still a seat in the right area of qld and no incumbent onp could conceivably outpoll the lnp. They would only have to get Pauline Hanson out doing the rounds to get a decent vote. Remember the lnp has to defend and contest 30 seats while onp contests these as well they don’t have any chance of winning but if they concentrated the vote they could possibly get one up. Remember when it was hard to think of the greens getting a lower house mp until it happened. The greens used to be a fri Ge party until they kept winning g senate spots consistently. He’ll legalise cannabis managed 14% of the vote in Ipswich west’s by election.
“They would only have to get Pauline Hanson out doing the rounds to get a decent vote.”
Pauline Hanson has been in public life for almost 30 years — about the same stretch as Bob Menzies. But let’s be honest: Hanson is no Menzies. She will leave no lasting legacy, no defining institutions, no reshaping of Australian politics, beyond the short term amplification of distrust, disunity and hatred. When Hanson goes, so will One Nation.
Her appeal hasn’t grown in three decades; it’s shrunk. The only people she convinces are the people who were already with her. Rolling her out again doesn’t win new votes — it just reminds everyone else why they never supported her in the first place.
Hanson isn’t an electoral cheat code in a mobile phone game.
Real talk remind me how many one nation senators were elected last election
Yes, on staggering primary votes of around 6% in NSW and WA, and a swing against them in Queensland! Their new senators are doing such a good job that one has already been replaced by a blow-in from a different state.
which means they obviously got the preferences since their are no preference deals now its up to th voters who chose to preference them
remmeber 6% is 42% of a quota. thats like saying they got 42% in a lower house seat but still somehow dont deserve the seat?
they managed close to 20% on the 3cp in leichardt. and made the 2cp in hunter against labor managing a better result then the nats in groom its hard to measure the 3cp with an ind in the mix forcing them to 4th. scored 7.5% in kennedy and if katter were to retire theres no telling where his vote will go. (bviously most would go to robbie if he ran) but without a Katter? they made the 2cp in maranoa again 20% 3cp in blair. a 16.25% primary in wright with a 27% 3cp with 20% + in lockyer valey. outpolled the greens in springfield booths with their weakest parts being in the gold coast. remember they did hold a few lower house seats in Qld state parliament too. underestimate them to your own peril. 10 years people laughed at the idea trump would be president let alone make the nomination. and he swept the floor with his fellow republicans and won the unwinnable election.