Comments on: Idle speculation about the federal election

By: William Bowe

William Bowe — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:27:53 +0000

This thread's getting a little on the long side, so I've closed it and opened a new one here.

By: Mr Q

Mr Q — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:15:31 +0000

Psephophile, is it possible that Milne is considering Boothby (5.4%) and Sturt (6.8%) as potentially marginal, given recent polling in other SA electorates?

By: Sacha

Sacha — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:29:51 +0000

Yes Darryl, and the impact of the Senate voting the way it did in 1987 was to help the Democrats help the balance of power after the 1990 election. If it hadn’t voted the way it did, the balance of power would have been shared between the Democrats, Jo Vallentine and Brian Harradine (from memory).

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:37:20 +0000

Just as Howard is glad he wasn’t elected for Drummoyne, and Whitlam that he wasn’t elected for Sutherland.

By: The Speaker

The Speaker — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:07:55 +0000

I just noticed Julia Gillard was third ALP candidate for the Senate in 1996.

She’s probably glad she missed out in retrospect.

By: Darryl Rosin

Darryl Rosin — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:33:41 +0000

“Tom and Ben Raue make a good point about how the Greens could win senate seats in the mainland states in a DD. A point they have omitted is that they are likely on current patterns to be long term senators…”

You might be overlooking section 13 of the Constitution which gives the Senate itself the power to decide which Senators are long-term and which are short-term. I believe in practice they largely follow the order of election, but I recall in 1987 there was some argy-bargy where the Government and the Democrats argued on the basis of primary votes that certain Democrats should be long-term at the expense of Nats who were actually elected first.

13. As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of six years, from the beginning of their term of service; and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service.

By: Psephophile

Psephophile — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:59:12 +0000

Given this thread ostensibly began as ‘idle speculation about the Federal election’ I thought I might bring it back to that for a moment. It was suggested on the 7:30 report that Howard might try for an August election, largely to get it out of the way before the APEC summit. It’s been suggested that rubbing shoulders with Bush will be more of an electoral liability this time round and Howard doesn’t want to risk being seen too closely with Bush. Interesting thought. I think it’s overstated the importance of the American alliance to an Australian election and given Bush a little too much credit for the way he can influence an Australian election, but what are everyone elses thoughts?

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:42:22 +0000

1. Milne is an idiot and if you read his columns you will go blind.
2. Yes I forgot Liechtenstein, which now cannot be classed as a democracy since the people have surrendered their rights to the Ruling Prince. Vatican City isn’t a democracy but then it isn’t a country either – it’s a sovereign state only to provide a diplomatic personality for the Catholic Church. It has no “people.” Andorra and Monaco are both democracies.
3. I am in Perth at the moment and the chattering classes here are chattering about the Peel by-election and what a disaster it is for the state Liberals. The question is, what implications, if any, does it have for the federal election, now probably eight months away? We have all got used to saying â€œthere is no flow-on from state to federal politicsâ€ (because if there was, Kim Beazley would now be PM). But just how hopeless and demoralised can the state Liberal branches get before this starts to flow through into their federal campaigning? Can Howard really carry the election all by himself with no help at all from his very badly broken party machine?

By: blackburnpseph

blackburnpseph — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:48:42 +0000

Tom and Ben Raue make a good point about how the Greens could win senate seats in the mainland states in a DD. A point they have omitted is that they are likely on current patterns to be long term senators (and in Tasmania possibly 2 long term senators) which would mean that the Greens would have significant numbers in the Senate at the DD+1 election as no sitting senators would be up re-election.

Another aspect of a DD would be that Family First may be able to get few (short term senators) up in Vic, SA, and may be other states.

By: Psephophile

Psephophile — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:33:08 +0000

Serious error in Milne’s article in the Oz, today. He talks about the 5 marginal seats in SA and how Labor needs 16 seats to win Gov’t. As such, he goes on about how critical SA will be to Labor’s chances of Gov’t (agreed) and makes the logical conclusion that if Labor can take all of SA’s 5 marginal seats it will need just 11 seats to win Gov’t. He has all but forgotten that Labor already hold 2 of those 5 marginal seats and, assuming they take the 3 Liberal-held marginal seats, will need an additional 13 seats outside of SA, not 11. Bad mistake on his part, I think. Thoughts?