Comments on: Going south

By: David Walsh

David Walsh — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:23:34 +0000

When Labor was eliminated from the Vic senate count, about 80% of below-the-line votes transferred to the Greens.

Now that figure could be a little bit inflated as a reaction to the lodged ticket. But nonetheless, like the two posters above, I see little evidence for MUA’s claim.

By: jh

jh — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:08:53 +0000

MUA, if by Greens you actually mean Country Alliance (Shooter’s and Logger’s Party) and DLP (basically now a single issue anti-abortion party) then yes, I understand what you mean. The ALP have yet again screwed their constituents and screwed the Greens.

By: greenie

greenie — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 05:30:00 +0000

MUA, where are you pulling your “Half the ALP members prefer FF” from? There is no evidence of that at all. There have been massive complaints from the member base about preferencing FF over the greens in the last federal election.

The ALP wins many, many, seats on green preferences and you repaid 250,000 green voters in the federal senate by redirecting your surplus to a fringe loonatic christian party which then proceeded to vote against your party and help Howard numerous times. You’d best not talk of betrayal so boldly. You betrayed the greens, and you betrayed your own members with that little knife in the back. Don’t expect anybody to play nice from now on. You owe tons of seats to the greens and you do nothing on climate change other than token actions. So this action now is only a betrayal by the greens if you have the memory of a goldfish.

By: MUA

MUA — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 05:17:30 +0000

Half the ALP members prefer FF over the Greens. Esp the shoppies/SDA.

I thought we would have gotten something out of supporting the Greens, but instead we get this betrayal.

By: petrouschka

petrouschka — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:51:20 +0000

MUA — but if ALP pref FF again, then it would be a disaster from their voters perspective, given evidence of that. ALP voters have not forgiven their party for letting Steve the Peeve in balance of upper house.

By: MUA

MUA — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:02:20 +0000

The Greens were threatening to run split tickets in those seats if the ALP preferenced Family First. The ALP has been screwed. They should have taken the Family First prefs because the Greens were going to do it anyway.

By: Gary Bruce

Gary Bruce — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:58:39 +0000

The problem with your theory, blackburnpseph, is that it relies on too many “ifs”. Now “if” you can supply solid stats in those seats you mention backing your theory, not a poll of 250 people, then maybe you could be justified in thinking it could be close. Personally, I’m yet to be convinced, although some swing will take place.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:51:40 +0000

Just to contribute a little to the above debate on balance of power… the WA economy has been booming for years, even with 5 Greens holding the balance in the upper house since 2001 and 2 keeping it since 2005. Very little evidence of governmental paralysis.

By: blackburnpseph

blackburnpseph — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:50:26 +0000

If the South Barwon poll is taken to a 2pp, that would indicate an 8 – 9% swing to the libs. Obviously there some degree of discontent there. If this sort of swing was carried into other Geelong seats, it would put both Geelong (8.1%)and Bellarine (8.3%) in play as well. These were labor wins in 99 and 02, but are a long way up the pendulum. Could we be in for a more interesting Saturday night than we had previoulsy imagined?

By: Howard C

Howard C — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:08:31 +0000

Melbcity is clutching at straws if he thinks the Greens are a chance to win Hawthorn or Kew. Even with the (minimal – remember they polled 1.9% at the last Federal Election) effect of Family First, I would expect the Liberals to poll 53-55% primary in Hawthorn and Kew on Saturday.