Comments on: Highlights of week three-ish

By: jeza

jeza — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:18:38 +0000

The Greens had a deal with ALP to preference them in ALP held marginals of 4% or less. The Greens have not broken this deal in any way.

By: petrouschka

petrouschka — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:59:12 +0000

dont blame the greens – “There is generally oonly an open ticket if the local ALP is bad or local LIB/Nat is good” — not true. no need for smearing a party just coz u dont like it.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 06:04:11 +0000

Alex C
A lot of the areas that put forward an open ticket are in the East and Rural areas. Greens in those areas don’t like what their ALP member/candidate is saying/doing.
There is generally oonly an open ticket if the local ALP is bad or local LIB/Nat is good. So don’t blame the Greens if the ALP machine is producing hopeless candidates.

By: ansteybranchopolous

ansteybranchopolous — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:37:42 +0000

The DLP has a representative at present – Bracks

By: Alex C

Alex C — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:58:59 +0000

Petrouschka, the problem is that:
* where split or open tickets (where there is the option of putting the Libs ahead of Labor) may assist the Liberals, the Greens have registered them, and,
* where putting the Greens ahead of Labor may cause problems for the ALP, the Libs have done so.
Now, either this is a confluence of highly pragmatic preferencing from both parties – not surprising for the Libs but certainly a change from the ‘principled’ preferencing nomally exercised by the Greens – or there is some sort of a deal being done to the detriment of the ALP – and given that Labor has published a preference schedule that puts the Greens ahead of the Libs, the Nats and Fundy First (basically, with a few exceptions, a principled preferencing exercise), it seems to be nothing but an exercise of total hypocrisy on the part of the Greens.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:33:54 +0000

Tasmania has it the correct way round.

The more Democratic system in the lower house and the less democratic one in the upper house.

PR is the only system for lower houses because it represents the views of the voters more accuratly so the executive government is more legitimate.

By: petrouschka

petrouschka — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:33:01 +0000

how many times do people need to be told that greens did not pref lib b4 labor. this discussion is tiredsome now but 1) no pref (and no proof) 2) the did open tickets so its left to the voter. thats the term open=up to the voter – no sugesstuions from the party, how it should be, otherwise people like steve fielding get elected!

By: Chris Curtis

Chris Curtis — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:58:08 +0000

It is more than 50 years since the DLP has won a seat in the Victorian Parliament (Frank Scully, Richmond, 1955), so it would be extraordinary for it to do so when its level of support is so much less than it was in the 50s, 60s and early 70s (almost 20 per cent in the 1970 Senate election). If it does so, I hope it costs the Liberals a seat rather than the ALP. I say this because of the earlier history of promised electoral reform of the Legislative Council.

In 1973, the Liberals promised to bring in a democratic Legislative Council in return for DLP preferences. It was even in Dick Hamer’s policy speech. Once the Liberals won the election, negotiations continued on the details, but in the end the Liberals reneged – as perhaps they always intended to.

The DLP voted itself out of existence in 1978, but those who could not accept the decision continued with the DLP name and are now contesting this election – in far fewer numbers than the original DLP, which contested almost every state and federal seat at every election in Victoria from 1955 to 1975 and again in 1977. It withdrew from a number of seats in 1976 with the aim of punishing the Liberals for their broken promise on electoral reform.

I doubt if the ALP would have advocated PR for the Legislative Council if the DLP had not lost votes in the 1970s.

When the first Bracks Government introduced legislation to reform the Legislative Council, the Liberals could have redeemed their broken promise from 1973 and had some influence on the details of the system, but they did not do so. Thus, when Labor had a majority in both houses, the Liberals had already dealt themselves out of any influence. At least Sir Rupert Hamer redeemed himself and supported the reform he had promised 30 years ago.

For a political party with an ongoing upper house majority for the first time in its existence to adopt a system that will probably deprive it of that majority is a pretty gutsy thing.

By: Melb city

Melb city — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:19:23 +0000

Tom. If we had a single-house parliament then yes PR is the way to go. But if you have two houses then the mandate must be different and if I had to choose which one I would opt for the upper-house being multi-member constituents. I think Tasmania has it the wrong way around and the Senate and now Victoria the right option. I think the Greens in the long term have done more harm then good in its campaign this election having preferences the Liberal Party ahead of Labor. They have created serious divisions that will rebound. It was telling to see the HTV card for Hawthorn. Sadly this campaign will now boil over into the Federal Campaign which will set back the environment movement another 3 years. I will never forget Fraser Brindley’s attempt to withhold information on Melbourne City Councils expenditure, Free booze, catering and the like by having reports referred to illegal behind closed door meetings. So much for their published policies of open and transparent government. Under David Risstrom the Greens earned some respect. The same can not be said for others. Hopefully the Greens will be under the microscope much more from now. I am informed that the Greens on Saturday will be hiding the “feral” supporters who have been re-rostered to not hand out in Melbourne, Carlton, Richmond or Fitzroy for fear of alienating the Liberal voters.

By: Christian

Christian — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:30:51 +0000

I know this isn’t a strictly Victorian State Election related question – But how much do these public phone polls cost to make. For example, a typical Newspoll or something like that with 1000 respondents called – How much would that cost? I am just curious…