Queensland Galaxy says game on for ON balance of power

Furthermore, Katters Australian Party now holds one seat won by Labor in 1998 (Mt Isa) and would presumably either retain it or else cede it to One Nation.  What now remains of KAP support is very locally concentrated and competes with One Nation support, so all else being equal One Nation might be a shade higher compared to 1998 everywhere else.  This then brings into play seats in the areas where Labor only narrowly defeated One Nation in 1998 (in that case there were two of those).

All up if we ignore voting system changes, redistributions and preference flow changes since 1998, Labor's position based on the current poll would be about 7-8 seats weaker, with the LNP picking up most of those and some going to One Nation or KAP.  

Compulsory preferencing

One change there has been since 1998 is the return of compulsory preferential voting.  This was brought in by Labor in the far off days of, um, last April, when it must have seemed like a good idea to try to boost the party's share of Green preferences.  The stunning tactical move left the LNP opposition red-faced and was the beginning of the end for Lawrence Springborg as its leader, but now the joke is possibly on Labor.  

In a classic-seat 2PP sense, the impact of the change has probably always been overrated.  Minor party voters who exhaust their votes are probably unrepresentative and their preferences should flow more weakly than those of those who do preference.  Even if that isn't so, then yes, One Nation's primary is high, but their preferences split weakly and are difficult to direct, while Green preferences flow strongly to Labor.  In 1998 the Coalition had a 23-point edge on One Nation preferences with optional preferential voting (47.3 to 23.7 with 29% exhausting); it's unlikely it will be that much at the next election even with compulsory preferencing.  

Where the change could really bite Labor is in non-classic seats where the LNP is excluded.  The Coalition parties contentiously preferenced One Nation ahead of Labor in 1998 and the blowback from that probably cost them office. These days nobody much will bat an eyelid if the LNP does it again.  In 1998 One Nation enjoyed a 30-point preference advantage on Liberal preferences (52.2-22.6 with 25.2% exhausting) and a 42-point advantage on National preferences (60.8-19.1 with 20.1% exhausting).   Possibly excepting inner-city Liberals (whose seats won't come down to Labor vs One Nation anyway), Coalition voters are strong card-followers.  We might conceivably see 45% (72.5-27.5) or even 50% (75-25) advantages to One Nation in such seats.

On the other hand, Labor has the advantage of sophomore effect going into the next election, especially if the election is held early on the old boundaries rather than following the expansion to 93 seats.  This advantage, arising from new Labor MPs acquiring personal votes in place of those held by LNP MPs who they defeated, is likely to be worth about a couple of seats.

All up though, for Labor to win more than about 40 seats off the primary votes shown in this poll would be a tall order.  The hope for the government would be that this poll is unrepresentative because of the week it was taken in, or that if it is accurate then they can gain a few points by election time and obtain another 1998-style result.  With an unpopular Coalition government in Canberra, I don't think that chance should be written off.

There has been some speculation about One Nation being on for 20 seats off its polled 23%.  I think they could win a few more than the 11 won in 1998 off such a figure, but 20 seats off 23% seems far-fetched.  In 1998 there were not many seats where One Nation narrowly missed out on the final two-party contest.  One Nation will still do poorly on Labor and Green preferences in seats where they are fighting the Coalition, and I don't see One Nation challenging the LNP seat tally until they can at least match the LNP's primary vote.

One Nation are the good guys now?

Something that puzzles me is the rationale being trotted out by some Coalition forces around the nation to justify preference deals with One Nation.  The argument is that dealing with this party is OK because they are not as "bad" (primarily meaning racist, or less excitably, xenophobic) as they used to be.  

Firstly I'm not convinced there is any actual truth in the factual claim being made.  There's no evidence I've seen that One Nation have abandoned concerns about levels of immigration from Asia, or that they have walked back their former position on native title.  Rather, it's just that they don't need to talk about those things to get votes anymore.  It's much easier to raise concerns about Muslim immigration without sounding like a racist or irrational xenophobe, because of the perceived connection to the risk of terrorism.  So have One Nation really become more mainstream, or just more careful how they present themselves?  Or has the mainstream just become more them?

Leaving that aside, the line just seems strategically odd.  If you're a really disenchanted Coalition voter who is toying with voting with One Nation, and you hear your own party saying that One Nation are actually not that bad, that's got to sound like an open invitation to vote for them.  

More Queensland polls will be watched for with interest.