The previous federal election thread was getting long and unwieldy, so I’ve closed it and set up shop here. Perhaps you might like to discuss today’s front page splash in The Australian, "Labor in strongest electoral position since 2001", based on a 56-44 Newspoll result.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Idle speculation: February edition
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
324 Comments
Keep calm, Labor voters. Mad Mark was well ahead in February 2004, and that ended in tears as we recall. If we are still ahead in April, after Howard has done his worst over the first two months of sittings and after the National Conference, then we can start getting excited.
I think Adam is right to urge caution, but there are a number of reasons for ALP voters to be optimistic. In essence, the issues that count are starting to run Labor’s way, something that hasn’t been able to be said since the early 90s. IR is the biggie, of course, the one issue that cuts right into the lives of those swinging voters who wouldn’t otherwise give a fig about politics (and if not them, then it plays into worries they might have about their children). I suspect one of the reasons that WorkChoices is so often downplayed by the commentariat is that such journalists don’t really know anyone on the minimum wage, and so have trouble getting their heads around it.
However, IR isn’t the only issue running against the government – global warming, Iraq, interest rates and even David Hicks are all becoming negatives for Howard’s team. I’d be wary of writing off the wily old fox just yet, but when the tide turns in politics, it can turn with surprising speed.
Funny, we’re speculating so far in advance. We could go further in speculating, surely? In the US they’re already speculating about the US election.
Maybe we could start an “idle speculation about the 2016 election”?
Oh, and I just read the old thread, and wanted to comment on how they determine which senators are long-term and which are short-term at a double dissolution. The method should really involve two separate counts, one with a 1/7 quota and one with a 1/13 quota. Since Senate counts are computerised, it would be quite easy.
Agreed, Adam. Long way to go. Alexander the Great was in a similar vote position and 20 points in front as preferred PM at this stage of his leadership.
Mr Q, Glen Milne referred to the seats of Adelaide and Hindmarsh in his column but not Boothby or Sturt, so I presume they are the ones he was referring to, but you do raise a good point. Boothby and Sturt are within striking distance … but there would still have to be a fairly generous swing for Labor to capture them.
Agreed with comments all round about needing cool heads about the latest opinion polls. We’ve been down this road a few times before. But still, Howard should be sweating. This is not the dream run to a 5th win he was hoping for.
If I were John Howard, I would be praying like crazy for rain, or raindancing (whatever takes his and Janettes fancy) as the longer the drought goes on, the more focussed the electorate will be on climate change .. and despite the recent conversion that has happened , climate change is an issue where the PM looks like being left high and dry (pardon the pun).
Not that the ALP’s credentials are much better (especially at the NSW and QLD state government issue) but it is an issue that does make the PM look like yesterday’s man. He might have been OK if he had the conversion a year ago .. or the Libs might be OK if there was a different leader (but too late in the cycle for that).
It could be the issue that resonates with the liberal Liberals who aren’t much concern with IR.
John Winston Howard may be the first climate change political refugee!!
Ben,
The problem with your suggestion re determining which senators are long-term and which short-term after a double dissolution is that the two different counts could produce different results; you could do the fist count and end up with 12 senators and then do the second count for the six long-termers and find that one of the six had not even been elected as one of the 12. You would need to change the rules for counting to prevent that happening, and I have no idea how they could be worded to prevent it. If you counted for the six long-termers first, you could still find one of them missing out completely when you re-counted for the whole 12.
Adam,
I’m with you in not getting excited about the possibility of a Labor victory. But the colation and its newspaper cheer squad are definitely worried. Thus, we have from today’s Australian editorial a claim that Kevin Rudd is backing away form the pledge to rip up the IR laws when he isn’t. He is, however, setting the agenda, but he has to keep doing that for possibly the rest of the year. I am starting to feel cautiously optimistic, but I remind myself that John Howard is a crafty operator, that the Murdoch press wants a Liberal government and that the Australian people have moved away from their past values. That is the significance of the eight Catholics in the federal Cabinet and the fact that more Catholics voted for the coalition in the last federal election than the ALP: they have psychologically joined the middle class and been conned into acting against their objective working class interests. Kevin Rudd’s task is to recapture this muddle class.
It’s extremely unlikely that the scenario you describe, Chris, would take place. In fact, I’m not sure it’s even theoretically possible. But maybe you could put some contingency in place in the extremely unlikely case.
Of course it is too early to get excited and crack the Western Australian reds in celebration, but Howards water con and Julie Bishops Education con were interesting indicators of play, as we the rodent returning last night to ‘ability to manage the economy’.
I think part of the challenge for Rudd is keeping all of Howard’s incompetences and failures a key filter for economic ability. This guy can’t spot a con from the Amercians before a war, watched AWB pay money to Saddam and has given us rising interest rates when he promised the marginals so clearly last election that he wouldn’t.
Would you trust this guy with a corner shop? Surely not!
Ben,
My scenario is certainly theoretically possible because the different quotas would change the order of exclusions and thus preference-counting, which can be significant in STV elections. Even if it is extremely unlikely, it still has to be covered in the rules. Otherwise, you could have an election with two different results. The first decision you have to make is one of principle: which is the ‘fairer’ or ‘more desirable’ result – the one in which the 12 senators are chosen first and the six long-termers selected from them, or the one in which the six long-termers are chosen first and the next six added though use of the lower quota. The first would be more representative, but the second would be closer to the normal result in a half-Senate election. Someone with more expertise than I could run the possibilities through a computer to see the effects of different approaches and different rules for dealing with the situation.
Hugo, regarding the votes that may flow to the ALP on the IR issue:
I agree that many people are worried about the effect of WorkChoices on themselves and their families. Labor have indeed been successful in convincing voters that the package will be detrimental to the conditions of many, many individual workers. But the Coalition have also been successful in getting the electorate to accept their counterargument, that WorkChoices is good, indeed necessary, for the national economy. Come election time, many voters will be torn between the two messages, both of which they accept. I believe that for a great many, the concerns they have for their own immediate conditions, which would otherwise cause them to vote to return to a pre-WorkChoices world with the ALP, will be trumped by the belief that in doing so they may be jeopardising Australia’s longer-term economic performance, which would eventually be to their own detriment. I believe people becomes surprisingly long-sighted when forced to choose in voting booths and a great many opt for solutions they believe have the best long-term outcomes, even when they’re scared of short-term ones.
Of course, I believe whole-heartedly that WorkChoices is NOT necessary, or indeed even desirable, for the Australian economy.* But the ALP has yet to successfully challenge the popular belief that it is. I hope Rudd realises how crucial it is to winning any substantial swing off the issue that he neutralises that belief to a point where voters are at least in two minds about WorkChoices’ economic benefits. His attempts in the last week to highlight research showing collective bargaining to be the most efficient form of wage negotiation for business are a good start. Arguing against WorkChoices on economic grounds will be tough for Julia and Wayne, but I believe it’s absolutely essential if Labor’s to win.
*[This is the place for discussion of political strategy and not policies, so I'll refrain from lengthy explanation of why I believe this, suffice to make two points: that record productivity growth occurred in Australia in the 1990s and continues to occur in the United States now under conditions much more favourable to unions than those afforded by WorkChoices; and the notion underpinning WorkChoices that we can ever get into the same ballpark to compete for investment with emerging markets on wages in either low or high-skilled sectors is one of total and utter economic illiteracy.]
When I say making economic arguments will be tough for Julia and Wayne I mean no disrespect to that pairing’s rhetorical talents. There’s just a tinge of sadness on my part that Lindsay Tanner and Craig Emerson, such highly capable economic thinkers, aren’t the team charged with making those arguments. Can only hoping those latter two are passing lengthy notes up from the lonely end of the Shadow Frontbench.
South Australia may be a key state, but it’s highly unlikely to provide more than three extra seats for Labor. Sturt and Boothby should be on the knife edge if current polls are to be believed but will probably return to traditional Liberal form by election time. Kingston is promising for Labor but at 56-44 in two-party terms in the Advertiser poll is no better than the current Newspoll across Australia. Kingston may be a bit more aspirational than Wakefield, where Labor is polling really well, and Amanda Rishworth is by no means Labor’s strongest candidate in South Australia. Should she and Nick Champion win in Kingston and Wakefield respectively, they will join Adelaide MHR Kate Ellis as federal members from the powerful right-wing shop assistants’ union.
I don’t care how bloody right-wing they are so long as they win their seats. On basic Labor issues the SDA people are perfectly sound, and they are admirably hawkish on security issues (although if the Australian was correct all of them except Danby signed the bring-poor-David-home letter).
amanda rishworth will be a great candidate for kingston
if amanda rishworth is not strongest candidate that made mark butler a dud
That’s right adam who cares if their from sda (right) or amwu (hard left). I know a lot sda people they are good people. I think it’s time as Labor people to get over the left and right bullshit because the main aim now is to see the end of Howard
Adam,
You are right again, though I don’t think Phil Robins was being critical in describing the SDA as right-wing. There would surely be only a small fringe left in the ALP that would want to go back to the dictatorial ‘purist’ impotence of the Victorian Left of 1955 onwards. In any case, the SDA represents hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers who are at risk from the Howard Government’s IR laws. Better to have the SDA as a force for good in the Labor Party than joining Tony Abbott’s supposed ex-DLPers in the Liberals.
Adam,
I’m curious about what you think are ‘basic Labor issues’ and about your view on the treatment of David Hicks. I’m not interested in some partisan point-scoring exercise, it’s just I don’t deal with people who defend the SDA and the treatment of Hicks. (for what it’s worth, I was an active member of the SDA for five years, back in the day) I’d appreciate reading anything you’d care to write that might help me better understand your point of view.
d
That three members from the SDA stable look set to win house seats in South Australia merely points to the dominance of the right-wing faction in the state’s Labor Party. Amanda Rishworth may well be a better campaigner than her Labor predecessor in Kingston, David Cox, but she’s unlikely to match him as a (shadow) minister. That’s becoming a problem for SA Labor. Kevin Rudd has only one South Australian in his shadow ministry and the talent pool won’t be a whole lot deeper next time.
My definition of “basic Labor issues” is: workplace relations (ie, incomes), health, education, social security, child care, and aged care – improving the living standards of the lowest-earning 25% of the population and improving the life prospects of their children. On all of those issues, during my time in Canberra, I saw no difference between the SDA MPs and other Labor members – in fact they are better then some supposedly more “left” MPs.
On Hicks: Hicks is unrepentant Islamofascist and anti-Semite who chose of his own free will to go and train as a terrorist with al-Qaida so that he could commit acts like 9/11 and Bali. The fact that he didn’t get the chance to do so is irrelevant. As far as I am concerned he can rot in Guantanamo. However, I have to concede that even vermin like Hicks are entitled to their day in court, and the Bush Administration has stuffed this up as it has stuffed up everything else. My view now is that Hicks should be brought back to Australia. If he can’t be charged with an offence under Australian law, he should be placed under an extremely restrictive control order (ie, basically house arrest), until he confesses what he did, tells ASIO everything he knows, and promises not to have anything further to do with Islamofascists domestic or foreign.
And three cheers for Ray, Danby and Bishop, the three ALP members who refused to sign the “poor-David” letter, which even most of the evil groupers of the SDA signed.
Adam, you all ready believe Hicks is guilty. If it was left up to you a trial would be unnecessay wouldn’t it and whether he receives a fair trial or not would be irrelevant? What ever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? If Hicks is guilty he deserves everything he gets.
Adam -
You seem particularly sure that David Hicks is in fact guilty of all you state. How do you know this? Because Howard says so? Because Bush says so? Not the most reliable of sources, I’m sure you’ll admit. You may well be right about Hicks, but in a free society (which we are supposedly defending in this sometime bogus war on terror), he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Hicks has now been held without charge in the worst possible prison for over 5 years, which is why the issue is starting to get a little political traction – even people who up till now have held a similar view to yours are starting to see that to treat any human being like this diminishes the free society that we are apparently so proud of.
My belief in Hicks’ guilt is based on prima facie evidence: he was apprehended under arms in Afghanistan. What was he doing there? Duck shooting? Anyway, he has said himself that he was training with al-Qaeda. He has never denied any of the allegations made in the first indictment, and in his letters to his father (full of anti-Semite bile), as broadcast on SBS, he confirms this.
I have said he entitled to a trial. I have also said that I am favour of transferring him to Australian custody (not “bringing him home” on the basis that he was a cute 9yo – is this the most insulting publicity campaign ever or what?). Since he can’t be prosecuted retrospectively, he must be dealt with as a security threat unless and until he renounces his Islamofascist views.
I suspect we are getting off-topic.
Caught Question Time yesterday and Matt Price’s commentary on the action in today’s Australian was hilariously spot on.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21184499-12854,00.html
Wonder how many days’ coverage Labor will try to get out of the climate change issue. Hearing some attack on the economy from them would be encouraging.
It is not off topic as Hicks should be a key election issue (but almost certainly wont be).
Adam where did Hicks say he was a member of al-Qaeda. That he was involved with the Taliban to some extent seems clear but the step from involved with the Taliban which would cover everyone in Afghanistan pre-invasion to being an active member of al-Qadea is one I’m not aware has been made.
As to the first indictment to appear before a kangaroo court so far from fair (well except fo course it was fair enough for Bush and Howard) that the US Supreme court quashed it. So no real reason for Hicks to make any response to such a disgraceful arrangement – so clearly in breach of basic human rights and civilised standards.
That said I clearly remember Hick’s lawyers not only denying the allegations in the so called indictment, but openly laughing at many of them as impossible, absurd and bizarre. From memory one involved Hicks taking covert action against an embassy or something that had been closed for two years prior to the offence.
He can be prosecuted retrospectively, just the Commonwealth would have to pass retrospective criminal legislation first, the Commonwealth having admitted many times that Mr Hicks has not broken any Australian Laws.
I think after 5 years of torture his threat to be a burden on Medicare for many years to come is likely to be much greater than any other threats he poses, but I’m pretty sure Commonwealth authorities have pretty damn extensive powers to monitor and prevent any theat.
Adam he was training with the Taliban, not Al Quada. He was under arms fighting against the invasion. Also, anti-semitism isn’t against the law, and if it was, anti-islam should be as well. Or are you allowed double standards?
Double standards? You mean those that would expect a fair trial and even given one will jump up and down like stuck pigs complaining about the process and safeguards – but are happy to cheer and clap from the sidelines as another Australian is tortured and put before a kangaroo court?
Oh I think we can draw a pretty safe conclusion on double standards without moving to religious comparisons.
not sure what your refering to jasmine
Enviroyouth, I hope your not condoning anti-Semitism and implying support for the Taliban during the war in Afghanistan … your casual remark seems… well, just that … far too casual …
Sorry enviroyouth I was merely referring to the double standard held by anyone who approves of Hick’s treatment and is ever hoping for a fair trial themselves. It is a double standard.
As for far too casual again those who have been far too casual with human rights and the errorison of them in Hicks’ case then getting all uppity about casual grammar after reading absurd conclusions into it … I don’t know how can they expect human rights to be extended to them.
The Taliban and all who supported them were wrong in much the way the previous Iraq regime and all who supported it were wrong.
Adam – you say Hicks is “entitled to a trial” but then you also think that if there’s no law under which he can be charged he should be under a very restrictive control order.
People like you scare the absolute hell out of me. Your kind have the potential to do vastly more damage to western democracy than any idiot with a gun or a bomb. No amount of bombing will ever bring down our system unless people like you change the fundamental principles by which we live, such as presumption of innocence, the abolition of torture, and so on.
If there’s no law under which he can be charged, he ain’t guilty of any crime. It’s as simple as that. Unless you honestly think that people should be punished for what they think, then you have to learn to tolerate those who you disagree with, even violently.
Labor should have the guts to make Guantanamo an election issue. With Bush’s popularity crashing there is no longer any harm in a bit of Latham-esque “most dangerous and incompetent President” style talk (and I haven’t noticed too many people apologising after he was crucified for that one, but he was right, wasn’t he?).
If I went off and trained with a foreign terrorist organisation and got caught I would expect to dealt with in a way that prevented me from doing any further harm to anyone. I agree that the Bush Administration has not dealt with the issue of captured al-Qaeda/Taliban fighters very well, but given the way the US was attacked on 9/11 I don’t really blame them for putting security first and keeping these people in preventive detention. As I said, I am in favour of Hicks being given a trial. My preference is that he be tried here, but it doesn’t seem that he can be prosecuted here unless we pass retrospective legislation (to which I am opposed), the choices are that he face a trial of some sort in the US or that he be transfered to Australian custody and put under a control order. I favour the latter course.
Oh come on the distinction between al-Qaeda and the Taliban has already been pointed out to you, it is a proper and necessary distinction and it is quite dishonest to fail to draw it. For as evil and disgusting as it was the Taliban was the government of an independent nation (prior to its conquest) and Mr Hicks was disobeying neither Australian law (according to our PM and AG) nor Afghan law. So no crime in either his native country nor in the country he was physically located.
If going off and training with a foreign terrorist organisation was not a crime it is a bit difficult to understand your proposition.
You are opposed to retrospective Australian legislation but are quite happy for an Australian to be tried before a farce of a court based on foreign retrospective legislation; and very unreliable evidence obtained by torture.
In essence both the US reaction and support for it is based on what I can only conclude is a mind numbing fear.
I am 100% against anti-semitism. I was just saying that there is no law against it, while there is a law that lets the police raid houses just because the occupants are muslim. The ALP supported that law, which is the same as being anti-islamic. If the police did this against jews it would be anti-semitism but because its muslims Adam and and the ALP seem to think its ok.
Again, I am against the Taliban, I was just pointing out that they aren’t (or weren’t) al-Quiada. Which is what Adam implied.
Haven’t you people ever heard of national security? In times of emergency it is frequently necessary to detain people who are reasonably held to be potential security risks without charging them with an offence. During World War II Australia interned large numbers of Germans and Japanese. Most of them were not guilty of anything, but in wartime this was not a risk which any responsible government could afford.
In the case of Hicks, he is by his own admission an adherent of violent jihadist Islamism, the ideology responsible for 9/11, Bali I and II, London and Madrid. He was captured bearing arms in a war zone after training in terrorist skills (whether technically with al-Qaeda or the Taliban is irrelevant – in the context of Hicks there is no difference).
Hicks chose to become a combatant in a war against western society generally and Australia in particular. Until he repudiates that choice, he must expect to be treated accordingly. The issue is not whether Hicks broke Australian law as it stood at that time. The issue is whether a responsible government can release a trained and committed jihadist into Australian society. I say it cannot. If Hicks is returned to Australia, it must be to a preventive regime of some sort.
Yes Hippyboy, we in the ALP did support those laws, and I was very proud to be working for an MP who argued strongly that we should do so. We did that to protect you against the kind of people who blew up trains in London and Madrid. You should be grateful.
Well, I’m not. We are not at war, so there can be no pow’s. There is no proof that Hick’s is a jihadist, we have the US’s word on that. He was bearing arms on the side of the Taliban against the illigal and immoral invaders (us in case you’ve forgotten). That war is over. Since your so concernded about violent jihadist’s, why isn’t the ALP and the rest of the coalition of mostly unwilling going after Bin Ladin?
What can one say to someone who spells Hicks with an apostrophe?
What can one say to someone who continues to defend the indefensible in the face of all human experience, common decency and logic? To someone wh purports to be the repository of all political knowledge yet descends into sophistry; someonewho pretends superiority yet doesn’t have the common sense of a jackass if he honestly believes the tripe and propaganda he is biliously regurgitating?
Give me an inappropriate apostrophy any day, you pompous git.
That’s your only response? If your helping the fed ALP, no wonder they are losing.
Thanks Fulvio
You’re proud to have been part of the implementation of the new anti-terrorism laws… that just says it all really.
When will you conservative (I don’t care which party you work for) idiots wake up and realise that however soft and cuddly the present group of politicians may be, if you put in place the apparatus of a police state then all it takes is a slight change in leadership for you to HAVE a police state. Democracy is not some magical thing that will automatically protect itself from this eventuality.
Hitler was elected. Mussolini was elected. Hell, even Lenin was elected at one stage. It can happen.
Personally, I think if you are more afraid of a bomb on a train than of an all-powerful government having the ability to lock you up, keep you under surveillance, or imprison you in a hellhole in Cuba, Australia or anywhere else without open and fair due process, then you are both foolish and a coward. You won’t get a better opportunity to risk your life for the sake of real freedom (i.e. accept the risk of terrorism but keep your liberties), but you can’t even understand what it means.
Oh look! An election coming up!
Anyway on that topic, it will be interesting to see how climate change plays out as an election issue, given Howard’s gaffe on it in Parliament (and an almost equally poor effort on Lateline the other night)
If you can judge it on momentum day by day, Rudd is slightly in front of Howard at the moment. As we all know he is well ahead in the polls. Big deal. Labor was in front early in 2001 and 2004 and still lost.
However….
Something just feels a bit different this time. 2001 had the once in a lifetime electroal benefit of 9/11 and Tampa (however questionable it is in retrospect, hearing stories (though eventually proven to be a lie) can shock any person at that moment.). 2004 had the benefit of low interest rates, an unelectable in retrospect, opposition leader (if elected, Latham would have had to quit three months in, so it’s probably better that he didn’t get elected), a good economy and a still winnable war. Three years later, the mood feels a tiny bit different. Yes the economy is still good (for the moment) but three interest rate hikes, rising house prices and a war that is turning into a modern Vietnam may be having an impact.
With Rudd, there’s just something that feels competitive about the guy. If he can outline good stuff on all of these things, plus at least make some changes to the IR Laws, he will win. And in a landslide. If he does half these things (he hasn’t done none on them yet), Howard will win, but only slightly. You feel like it is like the 1999 Victorian State Election again.
Even my father, whom has voted for Howard for over a decade and is someone who has gained greatly in his job (manager) and his life from his policies, says he is losing trust in him. As I said, this time it just feels a bit different.
Whoever said it earlier, you are right.
Labor should maybe start fighting them on the economy.
Trouble is, how?
What feels different this year for me is just how uncomfortable the coalition seem to be. I remember in 2001 when they were behind in the polls they still did the day to day politics really well, they acted like the polls didn’t matter at all.
But this year the list of gaffes, unpopular policies and bad commentaries is just getting longer and longer.
and C-Woo my parents are the same, they have never voted for anyone but the coalition in the past but now they are planning to vote for Rudd, and they are very clear that they are voting for Rudd, not Labor
Hi All,
Just been crunching some figures and thought I’d share.
I noticed that only 2 seats in QLD were listed as ‘marginal’ (ie. less than 5%) in a recent article and it got me thinking. South-East QLD seats suffered huge anti-Latham swings in 2004 so I decided to check the margins on these seats prior to the 04 election (presuming that people who voted Labor in 2001 would come back to to the fold with a more conservative QLD based (non-Latham) contender). This is what I found :
Moreton 1.2%
Blair 1.1%
Herbert 1.4%
Longman 1.5%
Petrie 3.5%
Bowman 2.8%
Bar Morton and all those seats have current margins well above 5% but it’s quite concievable that at least 5 of them will return to the ALP based on the pre-2004 margins. With the inevitable return of the new seat Bonner (on a 0.6% margin) that would be a fairly easy 6 seat gain in QLD (the “correction” pundits have been predicting).
In addition you’ve got Macquarie, Wentworth and Lindsay in NSW; Kingston, Wakefield and Makin in SA; Hasluck and Stirling in WA; Braddon and Bass in TAS; and Soloman in NT ALL under a 3% margin. (to put that in perspective a 3% swing from the last election would have Labor on 50.3% TPP and the Coalition on 49.7% .. difficult to see it being that close)
Add the above up and you get 17 seats .. enough for an ALP majority .. and that’s on relatively minor swing.
They are starting on the economy – skills – there was debate in parliament this morning.
The skills shortage is an economic disaster that not only occured on the watch of this incompetent Government it was deliberate policy to cripple education and training. Some messages like this should play to both sides as it is both economic mismanagement and social neglect.
As for Hicks the rabid scarred – lets throw away human rights – aren’t noticing that they are drawing conclusions and effectively drawing a conclusion of guilt in an almost complete absence of any evidence, let alone reliable evidence and lets be honest after the torture and abuse anything Hicks says is unreliable – almost as unreliable as anything the US Military says about its torture record.
Hicks benefits from fact that global public opinion is more hostile to the US than in 2002, this people are more sympthetic to opponents of the US. S11 has been displaced in part by the death and suffering and Iraq which people tend to blame on the US.
Some people used to excuse Soviet wrongdoings; Berlin wall, invasion of Hengary, Czechoslovakia, martial law in Poland on grounds that Soviet opinion was traumatised by the great wrong of the German invasion of 1941. Not an acceptable line of argument ditto for US post S11.
Much US policy has focused on seeking revenge/retributation for S11, but the killers are dead and they can’t get the actual planners, so much thrashing about and a focus on anyone they can grab connected by the most tenuous links to S11. It is clear that the torture and abuse of prisoners has become an end in itself, Solzhenitsyn described the evolution of the Gulag in similar terms.
Both learned and devestating Geoff R – brilliant. Hopefully your grammar stands up to the likely brutal attack.
Good point Alex, and it’s encouraging for Labor voters to remember that when we’re staring down the margins in some of those suburban Brisbane electorates now (Bowman 8.9, Petrie 7.9 etc). Unfortunately, though, Latham’s performance isn’t the only factor that has changed the margins in those Queensland electorates since 2001. There’s also been a redistribution that on the whole was mildly friendly to the Coalition in QLD, offset by mild friendliness to Labor in the simultaneous NSW redistribution. For example, Hinkler (around Bundaberg) was once a frequent target for Labor, but on the current expanded boundaries that take in much more of the hinterland, it’s solid Nat-territority. In Brisbane itself, Dickson has likewise been redistributed beyond Labor’s reach.
C-Woo, Labor must start arguing on the economy early and often!
Potential impact on the economy is the Liberals’ trump card to Labor’s current advantage in several policy areas: especially the potential vote-winners of WorkChoices and Climate Change. Labor must show that rolling-back WorkChoices won’t hurt the economy (since WC is based on a mistaken economic premise of which global labour market Australia is competing in). I believe they will not win a substantial swing of votes on this issue otherwise, as i argued more extensively above.
Likewise they must show that what Howard is calling Labor’s “knee-jerk greenie” response to climate change won’t result in huge energy bill increases (since Labor’s energy efficiency policy delivers substantial savings that will fund green energy investments) or cost jobs (since coal phase-out will be slowed by clean coal technologies, and since the jobs of the future will be in renewable energy industries).
Beyond protecting their own policies from attack on economic grounds, Labor must also show that Howard has run out of ideas to unleash any new wave of economic growth. Framing investment in education as an economic issue is a masterstroke by Rudd, since Howard’s record in cutting education funding is outstandingly poor. But Rudd also has the economic issue of the decade to play out: reforming federal-state relations. On this, he has already won the endorsement of big business, who have been researching and highlighting the detrimental effects to the economy of the inefficiencies in our federal system for years. Howard has sat inactive on this issue for years, and his only rhetorical defence is to blame the states for obstructionism, yet each time he does this Rudd’s answer is deliciously predictable and effective: “Blame Game!”
When Rudd fully unveils policy in this area and starts campaigning on it, voters will see that Labor is not only the party that will protect their jobs and safeguard the environment, but also the only party with a plan to keep the economy growing. When that happens, maybe even Hinkler and Dickson will be within reach, after all!
My arguments are always long-winded and i apologise. Here’s the crux: people want to vote Labor this year for lots of reasons. What stops them is fear of what Labor’s policies, which they otherise like, will do to the economy. Rudd must convince voters that he’s got the goods on economic issues as well. If he can do that, i predict the swing will be in the vicinity of 10%.
Is it blog spelling that “you are” is now abbreviated to “your” not “you’re”, as is correct? I can’t believe that so many seemingly intelligent people continue to get basic things like wrong.
Oops! And then I forgot to put the ‘that’ in the last sentence. Well shoot me! It always happens to the sanctimonious doesn’t it?
I agree Dave .. Dickson’s too far out, and the split of Bonner/Bowman is such that Bowman will be a difficult one to reclaim. (Bonner should never have been lost in the first place though). Still, Petrie’s boundries haven’t changed and I think it’s fair game .. which still gives Labor the 6 QLD seats. Eden-Monaro, Dobell and *please god* Bennelong are all ripe for the picking too in NSW .. especially if, as your saying above, Labor errode the government’s reputation on the economy. Deakin and McMillan in VIC are a bit more of a stretch on 5% each .. but if the swings on …
If it comes down to a very close election, the government’s legislation to take some voters off the rolls and make it harder for others to get on may well be the difference.
lol … wot ru say’n soozie … dat wee iz all bad spellerz?
Can anyone enlighten me as to when I we might expect the next AC Nielsen poll? They usually run monthly and by my calculation we’re due for one
We spend to be talking just as much about grammar and spelling as we are about psephology. Can people just chill out and recognise that it’s an online forum, and we’re not expecting people’s writings to be subedited before being published.
I’m with you Ben. Its bloody annoying to be frank. Let’s just stick to the topic at hand.
The topic at hand being ‘idle speculation’; lets speculate on who will follow Amanda to an undeserved overpaid job rather than face up to what might be an election loss?
I don’t know .. I kind of feel sorry for Amanda Vanstone. I’m not forgetting the multitude of sins she committed, but really, she was given the portfolios no one else wanted so that she’d take all the heat and become the focus of so many people’s hatred. She did all that loyally and is now being tossed so that the goverment can supposedly move forward smelling clean on issues like immigration.
Re Alex’s list: Macquarie is now a notional Labor seat so can’t be on the list. On the other hand Parramatta is now a notional Liberal seat so it should be on the list. I agree with you that the Qld seats are probably more vulnerable than they look on paper, especially with the Ruddster at the helm (though we should remember that Hayden didn’t get much of a swing in Qld in 1980). But this is partly offset by the increased risk of losing Cowan and Swan, and not winning Hasluck and Stirling, with the departure of Beazley. Also we should remember that although Iemma will be re-elected by default in March, he will still be an unpopular premier in October, and unpopular state Labor governments always drag down the federal Labor vote. I can’t see any easy gains for federal Labor in NSW except Parramatta. I don’t think either Wentworth or Bennelong is winnable. Dobell, Lindsay, Eden-Monaro, Paterson – maybe.
Just looking at the comments and in particular the idea that the SDA is some great Union. Both my sons belonged to it and their employers laughed at them saying how weak it was and they would see this. Sure enough employees needing assistance received little help from this union. We in Kingston had community actions against radio rentals for their mis treatment of employees I never saw one SDA union official or member turn up at any of these actions. Come to think of it they rarely turn up to anything thats community based. As an AMWU delegate and Green candidate for Kingston I am proud of the work that the YR@W campaign has achieved in this area. This organization is non political and has brought community activists together in an effort to stop the attack on working families and the community at large. Just one point on the ALP candidate,she i believe does not live in the electorate (if she does its only recent) and doesn’t seem to get her hands dirty with union actions (SDA??) It is a pity that the ALP would consider a right winger as a good choice for this seat when it desperately needs someone from the left.
Next Newspoll is important for the Coalition Government.
It will show whether the good economy/low unemployment pitch is still working with the public.
If their numbers go up, it has obviously worked and this is something Labor will have to work hard on (and may not catch up to).
If they don’t, the government is in real trouble. It’ll prove that something is happening in the electroate for people to shrug and say so what.
I think it could be crucial in an election year.
Actually, has anyone asked around on what is the general public mood in the Howard vs. Rudd battle.
Howard vs. Rudd battle? There will be no battle mr.Woo. Howard is doomed, and may the devil take his disgusting political carcass. The ensuing weeks will painfully reveal the disintergration of his administration, with his fellow rats deserting him in droves, and his fellow travellers pleading innocence of knowledge of his malevolence.
Watch this space.
Adam .. I included Macquarie as a Labor gain because essentially it is a current Liberal seat. I also think that they will retain Parramatta despite the seat boundry (and subsequent margin) change.
As for there being a risk of not winning Hasluck and Stirling: both seats were Labor held (by 1.8% margins) before Marky Mark’s disaster in 04 .. and I think the Peel by-election (a WA state seat enclosed by Beazley’s federal seat of Brand), which was the first by-election result, state or federal, where the opporsition actually had a swing “against” it takes some sting out of the argument that there’d be a backlash against Labor for dumping Kimbo.
I suppose we’ll have to wait for targeted seat polling to get a truer picture in these 20 odd battleground’s.
Holy crap .. Anna Nicole Smith is dead.
Thought I’d better issue a caveat for the above entry .. knowing how some are sticklers for detail. I meat to say: which was the first by-election result, “for quite a while” where the opporsition actually had a swing “against†it. A small but important point.
Oh, and for the record .. I “DO” think there’s a link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change
I don’t have seat specific polling but I cannot imagine Hasluck not falling to labor. Hasluck was carpet bombed with ‘no interest rate rise’ lies from Howard and some booths behaved in a way that seems only consistent with the lies working.
Before any general Western Australian swing I would factor in these booths returning to more usual behaviour, and I would also factor in the brick works. That the former labor member is running again (it is pretty certain) makes the campaign quite even on recognition & personal votes basis.
Prior to the selection of the candidate I would have tipped Stirling to stay with the current member, but the other guy has a chance. To put Cowan and Swan in the mix means either you don’t see the last election as particularly poor for labor.
Everyone has forgot that he Nationals are going to win Flynn and Calare. This means that Labor’s task is just a little greater. Similarly If the parliament were hung Windsor and Katter would support the coalition in confidence and supply. Therefore the ALP needs 21 seats to win government.
Apart from the failures of those vilified (isn’t it great that vilification laws don’t apply!) Shoppies: Isn’t it great that the Australian unionist has had courageous, selfless, self-sacrificing and successful union leaderships!!! Those who refuse the offers of Big Business (any bells ringing? You may have forgotten, but they know who they are). Those who won’t suck up to political labor (what happened to your “Fair Trade” heroes, eh?) Who sold their members out in countless industries? Why do unionist “leaderships” continue to fail to confront political labor over manufacturing decimation? Absolutely pathetic! What are the achievements of the labor community defence initiative, WREDO (Western Melbourne Regional Development)? Why? Just whose side are the local labor councillors and their union comrades on? Greg Combet may be a tryer, but if he was a football coach, he’d try a new plan of action, or he’d resign and give some else a go. Don’t get me wrong, it is not just unions and their leaderships I deplore-poor civic virtue and leadership applies everywhere, in the churches, in voluntary associations, in business. But targetting the shop girls’ outfit, while the careerist “men” who “lead” our benighted, industrial bread-winners appear to be only using their members for personal gain, is a bit juvenile now, isn’t is?
We’re all in this Australia together, so let’s try to share open minds on the nation’s needs and what acceptable means are.
The Nationals will probably win Flynn, but that only compensates them for the abolition of Gwydir. The Nats will not win Calare if Andren stands there, as I think he will. Also I think Windsor would support a Labor government if Labor has more seats and more votes than the Coalition. Katter is totally unpredictable, but if Andren and Windsor supported Labor, he might do so also. So, as Malcolm Mackerras says, Labor COULD form a government with a gain of only 13 seats.
Forgive me if some of you have already expressed an opinion here on this but, come on, put your cards on the table now. Who do you think will win the next Federal election. I believe Labor will. I sense a change in community thinking and the coalition is not as slick as it once was.
Well Gary I will go to the grave convinced Beazley would have won if retained. Rudd seems to have got an extra bounce and unless he self destructs should have a better win than Beazley would have.
My view rests on a couple of factors but primarily a view that voters are feeling that the good times look like they might be over and with reminders from increasing interest rates aren’t sure they are leaving the boom as well off as they might have hoped. Workchoices helps focus the insecurity and rightly or wrongly helps voters put the blame at the feet of the Government. A general gloss of incompetence thru Iraq, AWB more than a decade of global warming denial etc I think helps as a focal prism rather than as actual decisive factors.
If I’m wrong in my assessment of the mood, and I’m happy to admit it is merely speculation, then the only basis I have for any confidence is the polling which has seemed pretty stable (perhaps unusually stable) and trending in the right direction. I’m not convinced we are seeing purely honeymoon madness… but time will tell.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21197166-29277,00.html
I’m became convinced of a Labor victory when Rupert Murdoch came out in support of Kevin Rudd .. he did that with Tony Blair in the late 90’s (even flying Blair out to a North QLD resort for talks) and Blair stormed through his first election some months later.
I don’t think people should write off Bennelong and Wentworth falling to Labor. It might seem like wishful thinking, but with the recent distribution, you can’t discount the possibility. Bennelong now sits on 4% (or thereabouts) and Wentworth on 2.3%. Sure, they are held by, some might say, popular members … but if a swing is on, they tend not to discriminate in favour of higher profile members. In fact, sometimes swings punish them even more if they are actual ministers in an unpopular gov’t rather than mere backbenchers. Again, maybe just wishful thinking.
Alex,
The next AC Nielsen poll will be on Monday. Since there has not been one since Rudd took over, will be interesting to see if it agrees with Newspoll.
Psephophile should recall Bill McMahon’s situation in Lowe. In 1972, 1974 and 1980 he was widely predicted to be facing defeat. His margins at those elections were 4.9%, 3.0% and 6.3%. Each time he hung on, despite the predictions of Mungo McCallum (who wrote a column called “Swing Lowe, sweet chariot”). High-profile sitting members DO have a personal vote, and can also get a sympathy vote if their constits think they are being hounded in the press. This will probably be the case for Howard in Bennelong. It’s hard to see Turnbull generating much sympathy, but he certainly has a high profile, and also has a lot of money to spend. His “progressive” veneer from the republic days will also help him with his new voters.
jasmine_Anadyr you’ve summed it up far better than I could have done. I agree with your assessment 1oo percent. Some people tend to forget that when Beazley left the leadership Labor was still ahead in the polls. Something must have been working against the government. Work Choices is not popular. I believe the NSW election will show how unpopular it is.
Cheers for that BenC. I remember heading up to the last election Morgan always veered a bit left, AC Nielsen a bit right with Newspoll taking the middle ground .. so it would be good to see things from their perspective.
With regards to Wentworth, Turnbull isn’t that popular a figure in his own electorate. His margin was cut from 7.9% to 5.6% at the last election. True, his higher profile may help him .. though it may also throw his pugnacious style into the spotlight to his own detriment. If the popular ex-Liberal Peter King decides to run again as an independant, and Turnbull becomes ostracised with an unpopular government the game could be anybodys. The redistribution will pull in more Labor votes, but if it did become a three horse contest Labor would need some King preferences.
Bennelong was cut from 7.8 to 4.3 (a 3.5% swing) .. the Greens polled particularly strongly on the back of Andrew Wilkie but it still shows alot of vunerability for Howard. Especially when you consider that this swing was served up with a national swing “against” Labor of around 3.5%. (and of course the redistribution made it that little bit tighter again)
I also think that Labor are going to get this one and I think that Jasmine expressed why quite well.
Howard told the party room that no government has lost an election without a loss of faith in it by the public and that there is currently no loss of faith apparent in the community.
I think Howard’s right that there is not a general loss of faith, but Jasmine has described it well with ‘A general gloss of incompetence thru Iraq, AWB more than a decade of global warming denial etc’
I get the feeling that we are going to know the result before the election by the liberals behaviour, if Liberal members lose faith in the ability of Howard to win a election and start publically distancing themselves from Howard on issues like climate change and Hicks, then Labor’s got it in the bag
Turnbull can’t have been that unpopular in Wentworth, or the good folks of Double Bay would have voted for Peter King. In that election Turnbull was the wealthy interloper tipping out a reasonably well-liked (if rather dim) sitting member, and he still won. At this election he will be the sitting member and a Cabinet minister. The Liberal faithful will rally round. He will spend a lot of money and his considerable stock of charm on his new voters. Unless the Libs get absolutely massacred in Sydney, I think he will hang on. Labor would be very ill-advised to go celebrity scalp-hunting. It seldom comes off, and diverts money from winnable seats. Labor’s priorities in Sydney should be Parramatta, Lindsay and Hughes.
I’m not sure Labor has much to gain in Sydney – we should hold Parramatta, and possibly gain Lindsay, but I suspect the election will be won and lost elsewhere. Labor can win 2 in Tasmania, 4-5 in SA, a couple in WA, possibly 4 in NSW (Eden-Monaro & Macquarie) and 1 in NT. Victoria will probably stay as is, meaning we will have to win 4-6 seats in Queensland. I agree with Adam (once we’re not talking Hicks!) that the ALP needs to not get excited about celebrity seats like wentworth or Bennelong.
While I think the big issues (climate change, Iraq, IR, interest rates etc) will probably be running Labor’s way by the end of the year (they are certainly heading that way at the moment), I worry this will be more like 1969 than 1972 or 1983. Interestingly though, the bookies have Labor closer than at any time in the last 10 years.
Adam, there are plenty of examples where incumbents hang on each and every time with the barest of majorities. Bob Charles in La Trope and Chris Gallus in Hindmarsh (both since retired) come to mind. And I definately don’t think Wentworth is ripe for the picking by Labor. All I’m saying is that Labor would be foolhardy not to give it a go. You can’t ignore margins of 2.3% just because it’s held by a “high profile” member in a supposedly “blue ribbon” seat. Suppose Rudd wins with a swing of 5% (not at all unlikely) and Turnbull loses only half that, at 2.5%, then his popularity would pare back the swing against him but still be enough to tip him out. I actually think he’s well liked in Wentworth, having lived there myself. I agree that Bennelong is far more unlikely but demographics keep changes as do the redistributions. Bennelong is creeping further and further to the west, introducing more Labor voting areas.
If anything, Labor should be serious about fielding strong candidates in Bennelong and Wentworth because I also think it’s not bad politics to keep Howard and Turnbull on their feet campaigning in their own electorates during the campaign thus distracting them from more general election campaigning. Imagine Rudd criss-crossing the country selling his policies but Howard having to return to Bennelong constantly to retain his electorate. Even if it’s not to win, there could be some mischievous but clever politics in this.
Actually .. Labor had a good candidate in Wentworth at the last election, which, as it turned out, was unfortunate because David Patch polled more on primaries than King did. If it were the other way round we’d have an independant in Wentworth today as King would have romped home on Labor preferences.
Is Andrew Wilkie running again in Bennelong?
I agree with you Hugo regarding the seats the ALP need to win, however as Parramatta is notionally Liberal, if the ALP wins Parramatta, Macquarie, Lindsay, and Eden-Monaro thats an overall gain of 3. I agree with others that Bennelong and Wentworth will be tough but worth a solid campaign.
The ALP should also seriously look at Dobell and Paterson, seats that swung too far in 2004 and must swing back. The redistribution helped the ALP in both seats. They are also sensitive to a scare campaign over nuclear power, both electorates are in the “prime areas” outlined in the by Ziggy.
Adam, why do you think Hughes is a good target?
Money will not be a issue at this election for labor so i think labor can put money into seats like Wentworth and Robertson
It will be interesting to see how the greens go nationally especially in the senate. We have the chance of doubling our senate numbers and could push the coalition in a seat like Mayo. Whoever wins government would need to analyze each seat for minor party percentages to see what is important in those areas. And pigs fly
Hmmm .. not sure David Patch was the best candidate in 2004. If he was so great he should have realised Labor weren’t going to win in Wentworth at that election and deliberately run dead to allow King the chance to deprive Turnbull an entrance into Parliament.
The redistribution has improved Hughes for Labor somewhat and Danna Vale is a dill – but she may well still be popular locally. I agree that Paterson, Eden-Monaro and Dobell are winnable. I think Page is too if Causley is retiring.
Labor to win 4 or 5 in SA? I don’t think so. Three would be very good going.
In WA Labor will do well to hold Swan and Cowan and maybe pick up Hasluck – Stirling will be harder and Canning is out of reach (I was there last week and that’s what I was told).
Good point Psephophile .. Patch had his head in the clouds
Not sure if Wilkie is running again in Bennelong .. I “think” Labor’s 04 candidate, Nicole Campbell, won a local council seat in Ryde?
Actually, the preselections for these seats would have been wrapped up by now .. if anyone knows of a site listing the seats in play for this years election .. along with current margins and candidates, I’d love to have a look. (something akin to this : http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/fed2004.htm .. supplied by our gracious host?)
Alex, as i understand it, the NSW Branch is not preselecting until after the State election.
On Labor running in Wentworth at the last election, I’d actually guess coming into this election they’re better off – had an Independent won (albeit a former sitting Lib), they’d be harder to shift out of the seat than an actual Liberal member. I’d guess Labor have a much better chance of winning the seat under the current circumstances. If King had won the seat last time, swinging voters with a tendency to go Liberal would have no problem voting for a Liberal independent as it doesn’t mean voting for the actual Libs.
On WA – my gut feeling is that Labor will pick up both Coalition marginals, and have little trouble holding their own. The wildcard was the impact of the Burke scandal, and I think the Peel by-election showed that will be very small. I don’t think incumbency will help in Stirling, because we’re talking a low-profile first term member in Michael Keenan.
Canning’s an interesting one. I actually think if Labor got a swing nationally of 5% or more, they could go close to winning the seat, despite it being a 9.6% margin. Labor had a complete balls up with pre-selection there in 2004 after the original candidate died, and it is a seat that should be marginal, not safe either way. I’d expect a correction in the vote in Canning. I don’t get the impression Don Randall is all that popular either, but I could be wrong on that.
I think it’s far from obvious that Victorian Liberal seats are out of reach, although the pendulum encourages that interpretation. Someone earlier in the thread said that the Queensland results in 2004 were exaggeratedly bad for Labor. That is true in spades for Victoria. Since 1980, there have been only two Federal elections in which Labor’s Victorian 2PP vote has been under 50%. In 1990, the aftermath of the Cain Government’s crash and burn delivered a 2PP Labor vote of under 48%; 2004 the comparable figure was approximately 48.3%** Even in 2001, the vote was still 52%.
I would argue that as well as a post-Latham return to “normality”, the factors that appear to be shifting votes elsewhere will mean that this will be a better year for Labor than 2001.
Seats under the 6% margin would normally be out of reach; however, if the currently-observed swing is maintained, it isn’t out of the question that seats like Deakin, Corangamite and LaTrobe, even McEwen are contestable. Labor’s poor showing in Gippsland at the Victorian elections makes McMillan and Gippsland less likely, imo.
** My quick look around the likely sites didn’t produce any precise estimates for 2PP by State, so apart from Mumble’s graphs, I’ve just made some approximate estimates based on primary votes and assumptions about the distribution of non major Party prefs. I certainly stand open to correction on the numbers quoted.
I think the alluring 2.5% Liberal 2-party majority in Wentworth should be treated with caution, for two reasons.
* In 2004 over 40% of King’s voters preferenced Patch. Most of the anger at Turnbull rolling King has now dissipated, and a lot of those voters will go back to Turnbull, particularly since they will know that Labor could win the seat and this could deliver government to Labor – neither was the case in 2004. Wealthy voters who cast a protest vote against King being dumped last time will know that more is at stake this time.
* The Liberal margin has been reduced by the addition of territory from the seat of Sydney. Plibersek has a high profile in Sydney and without her name on the ballot some of these voters will be lured by Turnbull’s high profile and go over to the Libs. Turnbull is well-placed to win votes in these areas, which are not working-class but rather “soft progressive.” His republican credentials, smooth talking and “green” veneer will give him some entree with these voters. Historically, areas which are moved from Labor to Liberal seats, and vice versa, tend to drift towards the new sitting member. (That’s also why I think Labor will easily hold Parramatta and will have to work hard to win Macquarie, despite the new boundaries.)
Peter, thanks for reminding me about the federal seat of Gippsland, which is an outstanding example of the point I made about Wentworth. The 2003 redistribution put half the LaTrobe Valley into Gippsland, making it very marginal on paper. Labor put a lot of effort into Gippsland, only to see McGauran (hardly a stellar candidate) romp home. With a sitting Nats member, there was a large drift away from Labor in the areas moved from McMillan to Gippsland. The ALP effort should have been put into saving McMillan (although Latham’s forest policy probably made that task hopeless).
Mr Q, good point. That’s not something I had considerd.
Adam, I’m not entirely convinced the King factor had such an impact in reducing Turnbull’s margin of victory and inflating the Labor 2PP result. The King preference flow was 61:39 Liberal:Labor. For sake of argument, i’m going to assume King didn’t run in 2004 and allocate his preference flows to the primary votes of the respective Liberal and Labor candidates. That would see Turnbull (Liberal) take 52.8% of the PV compared with Patch (Labor) taking 33.4%. If that were the case, then both Liberal and Labor would be up on the PV from the 2001 election, Libs + 0.7% and Labor + 3.9%. So on primary vote figures, I’m not sure that King’s candidacy disrupted things all that much. The ihigher ncrease in Labor’s share of the vote can probably be put down to a collapse of the Democrats vote (-5.2%). The 2PP against the Liberals, meanwhile, was 2.4%. Very much in line with other swings in metro Sydney Liberal seats. North Sydney (- 3.2%), Warringah (-2.2%), Bradfield (-2.7%) and of course, Bennelong (-3.4%).
One other thing, I’m not sure Turnbull’s republican past and green credentials will allure him to his new voters in the inner parts of Sydney now found in his electorate. The republican debate doesn’t exactly rouse people up in these parts in quite the same way that the Iraq War or Gay Marriage Ban does. These voters are not going to vote for Howard just because they think Turnbull has a progressive veneer. And as for Turnbull’s green credentials, people will vote against Howard on his 10 year refusal to accept climate change, Turnbull will have a tough time papering over Howard’s neglect.
* King’s preferences went 8,749 (57.18) to Turnbull and 6,551 (42.82) to Patch.
* I’m not suggesting Darlinghurst will vote en bloc for Turnbull. But there will be some slippage.
The Morgan poll released today shows that 44% of voters think the ALP will in the next election and 43% think the Coalition will win. This is the first time since 2004 that a majority thinks the ALP will win. Since the last Morgan poll, the ALP’s primary vote has risen 5.5% to 47% and the Coalition’s has declined 2% to 42.5%. Labor’s 2PP vote is 57.5 %.
A pity no-one believes Morgan polls
YOure all living on a planet called wishful thinking.
Thje prime Minister On December 1 2008 will be John Howard both on the maths. and thats rudds is a smarmy smug little man whos wheels will fall off before the election.
Rudd was born a p[athetic loser and thats how hell stay
Actually he was born into the Queensland Country Party
If you can analyse the Morgan Poll (whether it is biased or not, it is still down in the record books).
Labor are up because of a few factors.
1) Honeymoon.
2) Rudd seems a more rational Opp. Leader than Beazley, Crean and Latham (ie. supporting nationalised teaching is a good move, if only for basic subjects.)
3) The Parlaiment debates and discussions and being done on climate change. What is happening is that Howard and the Liberals look out of their depth on this subject. Whether they can lead on the economy (if they win the next election, they will be sitting on a massive surplus, and they will need to spend sensibly as not alianate middle-class voters., and on education, on which they need to admit that they are as interested on private schooling than on reinvigorating the public system (ie: shutting Julie Bishop up. Her views seem more out of paranoia than fact or good policy.
4) The mortage-belt factor. Now i live in a mortage belt electroate (Makin) and i feel in seats like this with interest-rates biting (people, stop trying to buy $300,000 houses when you know you can’t afford it), and these people are dumb if they vote for Howard again because these people will slide into a deeper dept hole) and IR, which the law of dismissal for no reason is what people are worried about here) you think there may be a swing towards Labor in seats like this.
Queenslander has added nothing to this discussion except a “liberal” amount of bile. Go to Bolt’s blog Queenslander, you’ll fit in well there and leave this blog for serious poll watchers, please.
It is unlikely that Victoria will be adding any additional seat to the A.L.P tally this election year. This is because the A.L.P already has a majority of seats from Victoria. Victoria has been consistently voting against John Howard since 1996, where he failed to win a majority of the 2pp.
You suggest that New South Wales & South Australia might be the big Labor gains this year. I’m not sure about Tasmania. Queensland might have the Rudd factor if he’s still popular, whilst Western Australia will probably remain a Liberal state.
Tip. Liberals by 2-3 seats, though at this point it could be a hung parliament. (Judging by all the factors, the Liberals will not hold on to their senate majority)
I think its appropriate that the recent abuse against Rudd comes from ‘Queenslander’. Any one know any good Queensland jokes?
C-Woo, in which two states will the Coalition + Family First fail to win three seats (which requires 42.8% of the vote after preferences)?
Does anything other than the ALP or Lib exist? Theres little difference in the two. Watch Rudd shaft the workers over IR. After every federal election what really changes? A few minor things but overall life goes on getting tougher to make ends meet. The Libs are richy rich and the ALP want to be and with their union boss mates sell the worker out. So its goodnight from me and good night from him
Explain some more please.
Oh someone mentioned FF. gee thats radical acknowledging a minor party
With Family First, there is every chance they can be a lasting election force with the coalition election vote. There is also a chance they could be like One Nation in 1996.
In 2004, people voted for Family First because of the insecurity they felt after 9/11 and the emergence of Hillsong (also many could have been brought in by the Exclusive Brethren supported ads). Kind of like why Bush beat Kerry in 2004.
Three years later, with Iraq and George W. Bush both looking shocking in the majority’s eye, the terrorism threat down a bit (the anti-terrorism ads on TV now look a bit desperate, but also a good method to wedge Rudd) and the Exclusive Brethern donation and support scheme being found out, they might be a one term wonder.
Adam, where are you getting your figures from? I have Turnbull-Patch at 61-39 from the AEC.
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionTcpFlow-12246-152.htm
As much as I’d like to believe that Rudd will win the election, I have a feeling that he’ll get close….but no cigar.
The Howard government is clearly on the nose (and has been for a while) but that urban myth of the ALP being destroyers of all things economic is a hard one to shake, particularly with the effective scare campaigns run by Loughnane.
Most people are rusted on one way or another, but the dreaded swinging voters are generally disconnected from the political debate and thus pay attention only to the silly campaign TV ads and evening phone calls from a John Howard recording.
Rudd can win with the help of a flawless campaign, a sneaky interest rate rise, maybe an IR scandal or even an Aussie digger death in Iraq…….but if things remain benign as they currently are, Howard will likely scrape through one more time.
And the sky won’t fall in either.
C-Woo: You said above that the Coalition will lose its majority in the Senate at this year’s election. The Senate has 76 members, so a majority is 39. The Coalition has 19 long-term Senators elected in 2004 and not up for election this year. Thus, to lose their majority this year, the Coalition will have to win 19 seats or less (19 plus 19 being 38). They will win their two territory seats as always, so they must win 17 or fewer seats in the states. Six states times three Senators is 18, so they must fail to win three seats out of six in ONE state. But since Steve Fielding, who usually supports them, is also a long-term Senator, in fact they will have to fail to win three seats in TWO states to lose their effective majority. Three quotas is 42.85% of the vote, so you must be arguing that the Coalition parties PLUS Family First will fall below that vote (after recieving preferences) in two states. So my question is, in which two states do you think this will happen?
Psephophile: I am looking at the same page at the AEC website and it quite clearly shows King’s preferences going 57.18% to Turnbull and 42.82% to Patch (11th count, centre of the page at the bottom). I can’t see where you get 61-39 from.
In any case, I don’t accept your assumption that if King had not run in 2004, all the people who voted 1 King, 2 Patch would have voted for Patch. A lot of Liberals were very angry at King being rolled (so angry they were willing to be expelled from the Liberal Party for supporting King), and they voted King/Patch as a protest. My contention is that many, perhaps most, of them will go back to Turnbull now that the seat and the Liberal government are at risk.
As i said New South Wales and South Australia will be the two ones that the Coalition and Family First lose. With people going through interest rates dramas in Sydney, it could go downhill there and in Adelaide, there is a real feeling of unhappiness at the moment due to interest rates and the water drama.
In 2004 in NSW the combined Coalition + FF + CDP + One Nation Senate vote was 49% – with minor preferences the total was probably 50%. So there would need to be a swing of more than 7% for the Coalition vote to fall below 42.8%. In SA the Coalition + FF + ON vote was 52.8% – probably 53.5% after all preferences. So the swing there would need to be more than 10.5%. I don’t think there are going to be swings of this order, and I don’t know of anyone who does. I hope you are right, but I don’t think so.
The problem we have with the Senate is that with the disappearance of the Democrats there is no longer a centre party that can win votes from the Liberals and elect Senators who will hold the balance of power. The Greens are a left party who are mainly taking votes from Labor (and the Democrats), not from the Coalition. Thus, even if the Greens win a Senator in every state, that will not hurt the Coalition at all. For the Coalition to lose its majority at this election, Labor and the Greens must win 4 seats out of 6 in two states, which requires 57% of the vote after preferences. Because the Greens are much further to the left than the Democrats were, the electorate must move much further to the left to elect a non-Coalition-controlled Senate than was the case before the demise of the Democrats.
Update on the Victorian Electoral Commission’s response to the Freedom of information request seeking copies of the below the line preference data files and summary reports and addition information.
The Victorian Electoral Commission has responded to the FOI request in part but has failed to provided copies of the information requested. Missing are:
1. Copies of the below the line data preference data files as requested – No response given. Copies of below the line preference data was provided free of charge during the 1999, 2002 an 2004 Melbourne City Council Elections. this information is readily available and would be no more then 1mb for electorate and would take approx. 2 mins to copy. this information should be published in the Victorian Electoral Commissioners web site. Without access to the below the line data files it is impossible to effectively scrutinise of verify the results of the election. The below the line preference data is a public document and precedence has been set in a ruling of the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal requiring that this information be made available.
2. Copies of all summary count sheets. (Although this information has been obtained via a third party – copies published on my web site http://melbcity.topcities.com)
3. Copies of polling centres return results (Similar to the polling place return data provided for the legislative assembly – lower house) The Victorian electoral commission has claimed that the cost of providing this information would be in excess of $600.00 which is very dubious and highly questionable. The information is stored in electronic format and the cost of copying that information would be less then $2.00. Polling place data for the Legislative Council is normally available and published on election night and updated through the count. in the 2006 State Election the Victorian Electoral Commission failed to make this information available instead only provided an electorate wide summary. This oversight was due primarily to the advice and request provided by various media interests. Access to the polling place summary data is fundamental in proving a check and balance as to the number of ballot papers issued and returned. There were a number of substantial errors recorded during the conduct of the count of the Victorian State Election that had this information been readily available could have and should have been avoided. This information is still outstanding.
Te Victorian Electoral Commission has provided limited information on the certification of software used to conduct the Victorian State Election count. Copies of certification certificates have been provided (but not yet received) for the electronic ‘Kiosk’ voting centres and the algorithm used in the calculation of the proportional representation results. Missing is the detailed supporting certification document and reports and certification of the actual software related to the data-entry, front end, data and reporting software that utilises the algorithm used. Either the software used by the Victorian Electoral Commission has not Ben fully certified of the Victorian Electoral Commission has withheld access to this information.
In summary the Victorian Electoral Commission again is seeking to avoid open and public disclose of the detailed results of the 2006 Victorian State Election. A number of serious errors in the counting of the election have occurred and questions related to the discrepancy in the number of total votes record between the preliminary count and the recount in Western Metropolitan region have north been fully explained or verifiable based on the public documentation provided. There is a discrepancy of over 350 ballot papers between the two count. Without access to the polling place data as requested and the below the line preference data files it is impossible to verify the results. I am informed that copies of the below the line data files were not made available to scrutineers.
It is fundamental that our elections are open and transparent and subject to public review and analysis. With the utilisation of electronic computer based technology all relevant information and data files must be readily available to scutineers and the public.
One can only ask
“WHY IS THE VICTORIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION RELUCTANT TO MAKE THIS INFORMATION AVAILABLE THAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO GO TO SUCH EXTENTS TO AVOID DISCLOSURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY”.
The actions of the Chief Electoral Commissioner continues to bring Victorian State Election into disrepute.
good thread – seems a bit NSW-centric though.
Don’t discount a gain of two or three seats to Rudd. Hasluck – where former member Sharon Jackson will be hungry to reclaim what many believe to be a Labor heartland seat. Stirling – ex SAS war hero lining up against a former Liberal Staffer. Kalgoorlie is a possibility as locals tell me there is a fair bit of dissatifaction with Liberal Barry Haase, (not sure who the Labor candidate is??) Danger for Labor might be Cowan with popular local MP Graham Edwards retiring
Have a look at Newspoll state breakdowns, they show the Beazley factor in WA may have been overstated by many Beazley backers in previous challenges. Interesting year!
Adam says no-one believes Morgan polls. Maybe so, but there’s no good reason for this attitude. OK, Morgan can get it wrong, but so can all the others. Last federal election, Morgan was just about spot on with the primary vote but went a bit haywire with its preferences. Newspoll wasn’t exactly on the money either. When Bracks beat Kennett, I think that Morgan alone picked the upset. Morgan and Bob Ellis.
Adam,
I figured out where we are getting our different figures from. You are looking the full distribution of preferences whereas I am looking at two party preferred for those voters that voted No. 1 for King. In other words the total preference distribution for all voters who backed a candidate other than Turnbull or Patch (such as GRN, DEM or King) is 57:43. But the total preference distribution for all voters to voted No. 1 for King (i.e. not GRN, DEM) was 61:39
We’ll agree to disagree about how King voters would have voted had he not run.
I will take your last point that soft Liberal supporters who protested by a preference vote to Labor in 04 will move to support Turnbull if they think he’s under threat. That said, in 2004 the (false) hype / fear was that Labor might sneak in and grab the seat. This prompted enough soft Liberals to back Turnbull then out of fear of a Labor Gov’t.
Tim, what is the news on the ground about Cowan in WA? Is it really under threat? Could Labor do even worse this time round?
Bob Brown talking about banning coal exports is a disaster for Labor.
Rudd won Question Time on Monday on the back of the Climate Change issue, but lost the three subsequent days because he lacked a clear response to the predictable Coalition attack that Labor’s “knee-jerk greenie reaction” to Climate Change would cost jobs and damage the economy. The Coalition are already having success painting Labor into the corner of the extremists on the environment. If Labor gets stuck there, they’ll be vulnerable to association with whatever lunatic plans Bob Brown pulls out.
a few points with reference to above:
Opinion polls – Morgan, why do they bother? But if anybody seriously believes that a 56or 57% 2pp for the ALP through to the election is off with the pixies – 56-57% is up with 1966 or 1943 – the wheels would seriously have to fall off not only the govt but the economy for that to happen. Not to say that Ruddy mightn’t be eating his Christmas turkey at the Lodge or Kirribilli House.
Interest rates – they have gone up by 0.75% from a very low base. They are still about 2.5% lower than they were in 1995. The issue biting in western Sydney is that they are combined with negative equity – house prices have fallen a lot and some people have mortgages bigger than the selling price for their house. Even issues such as housing affordability don’t bite with those that are already in the market – the I’m alright Jack factor.
Marginal seats – Don’t forget that some Lib MP’s are masters at marginal seat campaigning. This is an area where the Libs have been very good at preselecting ‘horses for courses’for a long time. Redistributions and demographic change upset this balance to some extent.
Senate Voting – The Liberal primary vote will need to be around 35% for them to lose the 3rd seat in most states, and to not outpoll FF for example. The FF primary vote is likely to rise this year but they won’t be able to preference harvest the same way they did in 2004.
Victoria – The ALP will find it hard to pick any seats in Vic as they start at 5%. In McMillan, the LIBS are probably OK as the ALP is on the nose in Gippsland. In Deakin – Phil Barresi works very hard – and though marginal Labor have only won once in 1983. Corangamite is a real possibility as the Geelong end is growing fast, and Stewart Macarthur is too old and should give it away. McEwan is a possibility as the Craigieburn Labor end is growing very fast but Fran Bailey is a good campaigner. Also except for 1990, Victoria just hasn’t swing much at all in the last 20+ years and there is no great reason to do son now. The next redistribution shoudl be interesting in Vic as the state is line ball to lose a seat but if not, Labor should do nicely as the enrolments in the outer west and north seats have piled up and going down in the SE suburbs.
Please excuse my anit Rudd bile.
On another note it appears the thread has overlooked the potential gain for the Libs in NSW of Banks, i know it has a high levels of NESB’s but the margin suggests it should be in play
Further to that Melham, other then often haning around Bankstown sports club doesnt do much.
I know its unfashionable to suggest the libs may gain seays at the next election, but i feel that it should be discussedto allow a fully rounded forum.
PS Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, and Gerard Henderson are excellent journalists
Dave B, I agree that “Bob Brown talking about banning coal exports is a disaster..” but not for Labor, for the Greens. Rudd will distance himself from this and that can only be a plus for Labor.
Your statement that – “The Coalition are already having success painting Labor into the corner of the extremists on the environment.” may or may not be true. Do you have data proving this? I haven’t seen any evidience of this.
I think there is very little to be gained by measuring performances in the parliament and translating that to how people perceive each side. Believe me ,you, me and those very interested in politics who watch parliament are in the smallest of minorities.
On the point of poll reliability, the final polls for the Victorian election were:
Newspoll – ALP 45, L/NP 37 (LP 32, NP 5), Greens 9, Others 9
Morgan – ALP 42.5, L/NP 40.5 (LP 36, NP 4.5), Greens 12.5, Others 4.5
ACNielsen – ALP 42, L/NP 41, Greens 11, Others 6.
The result was ALP 43.0, L/NP 39.6 (LP 34.4, NP 5.2), Greens 10.0, Others 7.4.
Adam,
I’ll ask: why are polls becoming less reliable/? It wouldn’t be because Tim Flannery is determined to lose the election for Labor, would it?
I agree that Brown’s position is actually a plus for Labor – Rudd can now take a “sensible centre” position. I think climate change has been 100% plus for Labor so far. Tunbull looks like a pompous jackass and Howard clearly doesn’t believe what he’s saying. If he actually tries to do anything the Nats will rebel. (That’s a purely political comment: on the issue itself Brown might well be right – if he is, too bad for all of us, because no Australian government is going to shut down the coal industry.)
Queenslander Says: “PS Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, and Gerard Henderson are excellent journalists”. Actually I agree with you regarding Gerard Henderson. I don’t know much about Tim Balir but I read Andrew Bolt and I direct your attention to his site and a thread headed “Rudd Rules”. Andrew, to my surprise, has a very positive view of Rudd and his chances at the next election.
Gary, regarding your last sentence, never truer words were spoken!
And it’s because of that very fact that i fear Labor will have trouble differentiating their climate change position from the positions of BOTH the Coalition and the Greens. That’s just too much detail for most voters to take an interest in. If Rudd could just paint “Coalition: sceptics, us: believers”, a neat black and white position, they’d be on a reasonable winner with the apathetic voters. But now Brown has complicated the “believers” position, by voicing a “believers” position that is beyond what most voters would support. Rudd must now explain that Labor are believers, but not believers to that extent… and like most sensible, middle positions, that message is far less likely to be understood in middle, disinterested voter-land. The issue’s therefore fuzzied, and Labor’s advantage will suffer.
As for proof, i freely admit there’s none, that being why i hide behind the thread heading “speculation” when announcing my theories as fact!
” The Coalition are already having success painting Labor into the corner of the extremists on the environment.†I find it insulting that people who care for the environment are classed as extremists. The world is so profit driven by the capitalist system that we EXTREME starvation EXTREME weather EXTREME environmental disintegration. I find the support of this system EXTREME when we have the means to feed the world and to protect the environment yet the GREED of big business and their government cronies prevents this. The Australian electorate will be blinded once again to ALP – Lib rhetoric on how they will help everyone. After the election nothing good will change as history shows and we will spiral downwards to the point of no return. The Greens will go down in history as the party that we should have listened too
sorry Gary, that would be, regarding your last sentence in the comment that was your last when i began typing my response, now two comments ago…
Bill, to say a position is extreme is not to say it’s necessarily wrong. But looking at the current positions on climate change and the policy suggestions to tackle it, shutting down a $25bn industry within three years is undoubtedly at one extreme.
Dave and the end of industry due to unstoppable climate change just to squeeze more profits in the next 15 years is to me extremely sick. this is the sad thing about only 2 major parties they are both financed by big business so we will never see governments working for the people
An issue that I do not recall mentioned by the blogship is that the last Newspoll (which I believe won’t be carried through) showed the ALP standing on it’s own feet having drawn support from the coalition but also reduced the Green vote from 9 to 5. If Ruddy can continue a big rise in primary vote with the greens preference providing only the icing for the cake, he will have enhanced political authority both within and outside the party. Greens preferences will still be important but a lot less important when the ALP primary vote gets into the mid 40’s.
An ALP primary vote of 44-45% may lead to a 3 – 3 senate split in every state except Tas.
It would be hard to see anything other than a 3-3 left right split in every state.
THe only reason a 4-2 happened in Queensland is because the NAtionals and THe Liberals ran as seperate partiesthus maximisaing the votes of each, and both of them recieved preferences from Pauline HAnson, who polled around 200K votes.
We can all be guilty of false extrapolation. In the year before the 2001 and 2004 elections, Labor was in front and went on to lose. It may or may not be the same this time round, but you can be sure that John Howard is a crafty politician who will exploit every situation to his advantage and will, where there isn’t one, create it.
This week’s effort on education is an illustration. He has attacked “new age†curriculum in his launch of Kevin Donnelly’s Dumbing Down, re-inforcing Julie Bishop’s various speeches on the subject. This is part of a strategy to tie low education standards to Labor and to tie Labor to the demons of the last 40 years, the teacher unions. Labor is claimed to be soft in dealing with teacher unions when in fact the teacher unions are soft in dealing with state Labor governments.
As the federal Liberals come closer to losing power, they become more obsessed with grabbing it, usually with attacks on the state Labor governments as the enemies of all that is decent. No fact will stand in the way. John Howard doesn’t even let his own party’s role in bringing “new age†curriculum to Victoria constrain him.
It was the previous state Liberal government which introduced outcomes-based education, dumped history and geography in favour of the mess of SOSE, brought in “beginningâ€, “consolidating†and “established†on reports, cut thousands of teachers out of our schools so that the teaching of basic skills was so much harder and introduced performance bonuses for those who complied with the latest fads.
It is the current Victorian Labor government which has insisted on content and skills via the Victorian Essential learning Standards, dumped SOSE and restored history and geography as traditional disciplines in the humanities, introduced a reporting system that explicitly tells parents the grade level their children are achieving even if it is behind the one they are in, employed 5,193 extra teachers so that prep to grade 2 can be capped at 21 pupils to improve literacy and numeracy teaching and dumped the corrupt performance bonus system.
But none of this will be allowed to get in the way of the incessant attacks on teachers, their unions and state Labor governments, attacks which will be lapped up and repeated by the usual suspects. The latest fad is the feral government’s attempt to reduce teachers to wage slaves by giving conformist principals the power to pay bonuses to the most sycophantic teachers and to fire those members of the profession who think for themselves. This is supposed to play well with the aspirationals but will do nothing for education of their children. Will they see through it?
Greens at 5 %? last poll i saw it was at 13
Bill,
The Australian report of Newspoll this week refers to the Greens vote at 5%.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21177316-601,00.html
It’s well down in the body of the article, Greens falling from 7-5, Nationals from 5-3.
I doubt that the figure’s plausible either, but it isn’t a figment of blackburnpseph’s imagination that Newspoll found that level of support.
There was no problem with SOSE, but that doesn’t mean that history should have been dumped.
Latest opinion.
In May the emission report and the budget will happen. If Rudd is still in front by then and Howard doesn’t pick up any more percent, Howard is going to find it hard to win (barring a freakish 9/11-Tampa event). If by July it gets worse for him, you’d expect him either to either resign or call an election and hope that the good economy-low unemployment line helps him.
With the climate change debate, it is clear he is losing, he looks clearly out of his depth, especially by Rudd telling Bob Brown off as well. That will endear Rudd more to Middle Australia than Howard, because people are used to it from Howard.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with Morgan polls at all. Morgan is still trying to come back from 2001 where he stupidly called the election for Beazley 1 week out and the Bulletin subsequently ran their front page headlined “Our Next PM?” with a headshot of Beaz. Oops. 1 week is a long time in politics.
The biggest difference is that most Morgan polls (not all) are done face to face, and different methodologies often produce different results. Anyway, margin of error on all polls is usually around +/- 3%.
I do recall the Chaser claiming that Morgan predicted that the ALP would win the Afghanistan election
Its good to see that both the ALP and Libs are trying to capture the middle ground on climate change, one the majority of voters will be happy with. Brown and the Greens just try to show the way for a better environment. vote s or not
Bob Brown’s comments today on shutting down coal mining (whilst probably right in a purist environmental sense) show that the Greens are political fringe dwellers, and will stay there.
Ruddy, by coming out straight away and rejecting the notion is showing that Labor can be proud and realist, and is not looking over his shoulders at the Greens and preference flows – they are not going to send them to the Nats of FF are they? Labor have them in the bag no matter what happens.
The essentail difference between Ruddy and the other Labor leaders since 1996 is that Ruddy is confident and to some extent leading the agenda. He is not a huffing and puffing windbag like Kimbo, whinging and whining like Simon (and who spent more time looking over his shoulder protecting his back than he deserved), or reading childrens books and looking for fairies at the bottom of the garden with Bob Brown as Mark Latham did – I do so wish that I had charged up to Anna Burke when I had the chance during the 2004 campaign and told her that Mark L. was the first major party leader since Dr Evatt who was unfit to lead the country, I would have liked to see her reaction but I was late for something else (btw Anna Burke is a very good marginal seat MP) – so through his confidence Ruddy is drawing back to the ALP voters who may defected to the Greens as thet can see the possibility of a Labor government. Despite what Grahem Richardson or Mark Latham may say, a primary vote is better than a preference any day of the week.
Bob Brown should remember the old truism that ‘politics is the art of the possible’. He had a great win with the Franklin in 1982, but on balance not a lot since…(I have now curled into a ball waiting for the wrath to descend). I feel that Ruddy and P. Garrett will deliver a lot more on environmental outcomes that BB can in a month of Sundays.
It may now be BB who has been outflanked with the ALP as the winner and credit taker.
The try hard buisness suckers the ALP will never tackle the environment and they cant even look after their supposed core voters leaving the workers no better off. If the ALP was even slightly different to the libs we wouldnt been in another election year looking at another Howard win. Rudd (ill use my religion coz it works for Howard and co) is a total bore and will not win the election leaving the ALP needing a new leader again.
If the ALP scraps its no new uranium mines policy then the Green vote is likely to go up possibly making Green HoR victories more likely.
If the ALP changed its IR or Nuclear power then the Green Vote would massivly increase possibly making it the main party of the left.
and pigs might fly
Totally. From today, Bob Brown has ensured that no coal miners or any industrial person will go anywhere near The Greens. I was planning to preference them second at the election, but they have lost my vote.
Actually in a sense Tom is right. The Greens are already the “main party of the left”, because Labor is a party of the centre, although it is has a left wing. The “left” consists of about 10% of the electorate, and the Greens are now their prefered party.
Nat,
The problem with SOSE was that it downgraded both history and geography, the former becoming Time, continuity and change, and the latter Place and space. This gave approval to schools to throw everything into themes, to reduce the role of history and geography in their timetables and to ignore the need for teachers to have relevant subject qualifications.
But the point I was making was essentially political: John Howard’s attack on “new age†curriculum is in essence an attack on the policies implemented by his own party and already overturned by the Labor Party (in Victoria, at least: NSW never went mad in education, and states like WA still are). Public responses already link the “new age†curriculum with the Labor Party rather than the Victorian Liberals who actually did the deed. I have sent letters to the editors of The Age and the Herald Sun, but they have not been published – yet(?).
What other politician can attack the policies of his own party and have it regarded as not only an attack on the Opposition but also a well justified attack on it?
As we keep seeing the experts are predicting dramatic events due to climate change. The comments to the Greens solutions on here is very ALP/big business and this attitude will push us over the no going back point. Even with this extremely life threating event the two major parties are vying over votes with little thought of the destruction of life and the environment. What we have in our political world is two parties who are tied to big business, another that believes that global warming is gods will and that only they will be saved, a party that is so small now that they will soon be in the grave with One Nation and then we have the greens, warning people for decades to look at the environment, protect it because once its gone thats it. We only have one window of opportunity to get this right but i fear with peoples political stubbornness that window will disappear.
Grim toll in doomsday forecast
February 11, 2007 12:00am
Article from: The Sunday Tasmani
HEATWAVES that kill thousands, gigantic bushfires and regular 100-year storms are part of a frightening new climate change forecast for Australia.
A leaked CSIRO report into the impact of global warming predicts a century of climatic horrors for the nation.
The doomsday scenario will form the basis of the Australian chapter in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the Federal Government’s key stocktake on global warming due for release in April.
The United Nations’ IPCC reports into climate change represent the world’s most up-to-date assessment of how rising global temperatures will change our planet.
The CSIRO report found that extreme fire days will be more common across Australia.
The report predicts Tasmania and Victoria’s east coast will be battered with massive 100-year storms, adding to beach erosion and the destruction of coastal properties.
Eucalypt forests will start to disappear, along with the delicate habitat necessary to sustain Australia’s native animals.
Human lives in bigger cities will come under increasing threat, with the annual death toll from heatwaves expected to reach 1300.
And refugees from Pacific Islands submerged by water will flock into the country.
Without solid rain, Australia’s crops will be affected, despite the higher temperatures helping increase the yield.
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has forecast a rise in average global temperatures of between 1.1 per cent and 6.4 per cent by 2100.
The CSIRO report looked at the impact of a range of temperatures, from a small decline to a rise of more than 5 per cent.
It examined the impact of rising temperatures in five key areas: ecosystems; crops, forestry and livestock; water resources; public health; and human life.
A senior CSIRO scientist said: “For the higher levels of warming, it’s pretty serious for Australia.”
The CSIRO paper – based also on input from universities and private groups – is the Federal Government’s most authoritative report into the local impact of climate change.
The report’s findings were yesterday backed by predictions of worse droughts, bushfires, floods and less marine life for Tasmania.
At a Global Warming and Politics seminar in Hobart yesterday, scientific experts and politicians agreed the clock is ticking.
“Climate change is real, its effects are happening now in many forms,” visiting expert Stuart Rosewarne, senior lecturer in economics at Sydney University, said yesterday.
Dr Rosewarne said many effects were already having an impact on Tasmania and yesterday’s seminar heard the more populated areas and major agricultural and farming regions would be hardest hit.
“The drought that is being experienced in Tasmania at the moment is very much shaped by global warming,” he said.
“The impact will vary across Tasmania significantly with agricultural areas to be hit the hardest.
“With declined rainfall and increased temperatures, some of the forests will be badly affected.
“Some of the plantations that are being developed at the moment are not growing as fast as anticipated which is directly related to climate change and rainfall patterns.”
Dr Rosewarne said rainfall was expected to decrease 10 per cent in summer but in some areas it could fall a further 20 to 30 per cent.
“There has been a fairly significant decline in rainfall patterns in some areas of Tasmania in the past five years,” he said. “Predictions indicate this will only get worse
Would i want to keep working in an industry that will eventually cause my life to be ruined or would i look with the governments help to a new clean industry with a real long lasting future.
C-WOO said Totally. From today, Bob Brown has ensured that no coal miners or any industrial person will go anywhere near The Greens. I was planning to preference them second at the election, but they have lost my vote.
Im am industrial worker and i will not only vote green i am a candidate and member with a strong union background. I can predict with confidence that if the ALP win this election my life wont get any better and with their attitude to climate change and the wishy washy IR policy it will get a lot worse
Greg Combet, John Brumby and Maxine McKew have been mentioned as possible ALP candidates. Denials and disclaimers.
Brumby wont shift to fed, unless given an ultra safe seat. He doesn’t need too, he already has a good job.
John Brumby has already had a go in Canberra as MP for Bendigo from 1983 to 1990.
The common gossip is that Harry Jenkins will bail out of Scullin at the last minute and the left will install Combet. The sticking point apparently is that Combet doesn’t want to go. I haven’t heard it suggested that Brumby still had federal ambitions, but who knows? The right have used up all their vacant seats in Victoria, so where would he stand? Perhaps he could knock off dozy old Stewie McArthur in Corangamite. The left certainly won’t give back Bendigo, despite Gibbons being a complete dill.
The latest ACNielsen poll gives Labor a 58-42 2PP lead, which makes Morgan seem a tad conservative.
Let’s see how Rudd is doing mid year. If still at similar levels, expect Howard to cut and run.
AC Nielsen confirms Newspoll as we expected. I agree with Chris, Howard may go if these numbers stay as they are. Especially if the polling numbers in Bennelong are the same as the national trend.
Howard will stay regardless of polls. He may be many things but I don’t think he is a coward. He will go down with the ship like Fraser. Neither Costello nor Abbott nor Turnbull would do any better anyway. If the electorate has decided to toss out the Libs, a desperation leadership change shortly before the election is not going to change their minds. Precedents: Cain/Kirner, Dowding/Lawrence, Lewis/Willis, Ahern/Cooper and (in NZ) Palmer/Moore.
Nielsen polls always overstate the Labor vote. I don’t know why, but they always have done. And as I said at the top of this thread, polls in February for an October election don’t mean very much. We have a long parliamentary year, a Labor national conference with a nasty uranium debate, and a Costello giveaway budget between us and the election.
Peter Brent at Mumble had an oft-quoted theroy that Horward would retire .. sparking a whole host of overbearing eulogies from the media that would secure his “undefeated” place in the political pantheon. It certainly seemed plausible late last year .. and perhaps he was contemplating it .. but then Rudd entered the scene and started getting very good polling results. Under such circumstances retirement would look like “cutting and running” .. so he would have been forced to stay regardless of his intensions. Now, of course, the election’s getting too close, and that “experienced and stable” matra (so much personified by Howard) is about all they have left.
I agree with Adam .. Howard won’t go.
I always thought it was Morgan on the left, Nielsen on the right and Newspoll down the middle
If Howard does stay, expect a very mean and tricky next few months…..should be fun.
I’m not accusing any polls of political bias – I think there is a methodological problem with Nielsen, but whatever the reason it always overstates the Labor vote. Morgan polls say whatever Gary Morgan decides they should (enough said). I only pay attention to Newspoll.
Newspoll is no more accurate than the others.
Morgan uses cluster sampling and face to face methodology, vastly different to the others. I don’t believe Morgan has any vested interest in a Labor bias, he’s the same guy who yells at Big Issue vendors and buskers for ruining the streetscape.
Best thing to do is average the 3 as ozpolitics does;
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/
Those jumping on the “bag Bob brown” wagon should read the press release that set it all off. (http://www.bobbrown.org.au/600_media_sub.php?deptItemID=2222). It starts:
“Australia should develop a plan, in the next three years, to reduce and phase out coal exports, Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.”
The ABC reported (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1844757.htm) this as “The Greens said yesterday a plan to phase out the exporting of coal should be drawn up within the next three years.”
However, News Limited (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21202562-421,00.html) managed to turn this into: “Greens leader Bob Brown today called for Australia, one of the world’s largest coal producers, to stop exporting coal within three years to help reduce global greenhouse emissions.”
As for ‘industrial people’ not going anywhere near the Greens, I would have thought that the manufacturing industries would profit from a boost to (labour intensive) renewable energy industries as opposed to the (capital intensive) mining industry. I think voters will be thinking about climate change at the next election, maybe not as their first thought (that always seems to be the hip pocket, or occasionally the nationalist achilles heel…) but as an issue that government’s of either ilk will need to do something substantial about. The smart move on Rudd’s part was to let Garrett say what he wants on coal and climate change (lots of media) and then simply reply that its not going to happen if it means an end to coal exports – he wins all ways round withoug actually having to do anything.
People also might like to consider that a good number of coal miners also know the direction their industry is going (down) and so want something better than platitudes and more enormous gouges in the earth. Retraining, new jobs, new industries – that might be a smarter policy for a phased transition, don’t you think?
I’ve always favoured AC Nielsen over Newspoll. Harking back to October 9 2004, the day of the Federal Election, the SMH, relying on AC Nielsen polling figures confidently stated that “Howard back for a 4th term” (or something like that.) Compare this with the Australian’s Newspoll relied headline “Latham within striking distance”. Enough said.
Adam says:
“And as I said at the top of this thread, polls in February for an October election don’t mean very much. We have a long parliamentary year, a Labor national conference with a nasty uranium debate, and a Costello giveaway budget between us and the election. ”
If the economy is still strong (but still two paced in at least two areas) Costello can’t do a giveaway budget and go to the polls late in the year, it would cause interest rates to rise again this year like it did last year, and Howard would go to a poll with last times interest rate lie killing him.
So unless the economy is dead and the March quarter inflation figure back in bounds (comfortably) if there is a traditional inflationary budget Howard has to run to the quickest election he can find … honeymoon or not.
And I think the uranium compromise is easy.
Leave granting mining leases to the States as they chose. Allow exports from the mining states to all NNPT countries (but not others) and a blanket nationwide ban on importing back nuclear waste or nuclear power generation. A couple of billion (or more) half for clean coal r&d, half for renewables r&d and a united face.
If such a good compromise seems so obvious and easy to me … trust the powers that be to be working on a much much better one as I type.
Since when have the major parties ever got anything right?
as jasmine said .. announce an invest in clean-coal as a “short-term” solution (which placates votes in areas like Capricornia) until our renewable targets start getting met (which they should do sooner rather than later given the big push on investment in that area). It just slides off the tongue sooo easily.
And leave nuclear out of the picture altogether .. it’s dangerous, expensive and a backward step considering renwable energy is the future. If Howard keeps trying to push it (did you know Rumsfeld has moved into the Nuclear power generation game?) he’ll be easy to castrate closer to the election with a few well produced fear inducing Chernobyl style ad’s .. possible headline? “With nuclea, the stakes are high .. do you want one in your backyard?”
Stewart: If this is a beat-up Bob Brown et al haven’t tried to debunk it at all ?
MUA, just because nothing has appeared in the media from the Greens doesn’t mean the Greens haven’t tried to set things straight.
Less then 0.01% of Vic Green releases have ever seen the light of day. I’m willing to bet its the same everywhere
Ahhhh .. the gods do smile :
“LABOR has poached a key Treasury policy adviser to bolster its economic credentials as another poll showed Kevin Rudd opening up a commanding lead over the Coalition.
Amanda Sayegh, widely regarded as one of Treasury’s best operators, is understood to have told colleagues in the budget policy division last Friday that she will be moving to shadow treasurer Wayne Swan’s office.
The appointment will be a significant boost for Mr Swan as Prime Minister John Howard prepares to hammer Labor over a lack of experience ahead of this year’s election.”
Bert dear, you sound a little jaded, over more than 100 years of our Labor party we have been getting things right and making Australia one of the best countries in the world.
Even the Libs who get most things wrong don’t get everything wrong … for example Howard did some gun restriction banning stuff early on … and in fact really early on when Howard still had had some residual soul he sacked some Minsters for unacceptable conduct. Of course over time he has corrected these tendencies but there was a little good even in the Libs.
When my wife ran in the last South Australian election there was a health issue that brought the local branch of the Greens to protest peacefully. As the candidate my wife thought she would be interviewed- surprise surprise everyone else was except her. The issue is still ongoing & posing a threat to human health
bill weller
“And leave nuclear out of the picture altogether .. it’s dangerous, expensive and a backward step considering renwable energy is the future.”
Guess which one of the following sources of electricity generation has had the least number of deaths per unit of energy generated including workers and consumers (at least during 1970-1992): nuclear, hydro-electric, natural gas, coal? You might be surprised.
No doubt it’s nuclear – not very surprising really. It’s like asking which form of weapon has caused the fewest deaths since 1970 – atomic bombs or hand grenades. Of course atomic bombs have caused fewer, because none have been used since 1945. That doesn’t alter the fact that atomic bombs kill a lot more people than hand grenades WHEN THEY ARE USED. Likewise, nuclear power plants don’t kill anyone UNTIL THEY GO WRONG, and then they can kill large numbers of people, as nearly happened at Three Mile Island and did happen at Chernobyl.
MONDAY POLITICAL UPDATE
There is no ways about it. After today, Howard is struggling. Yes Rudd is high up in the polls, as Labor was in front early in 1998, 2001 and 2004 and still were defeated. Something this time though feels abnormal. Labor has come out better than I though with their approach. I feel if the polls don’t improve (or get worse) for the Liberals by early June, I think it should seriously be time to replace Howard with a cleanskin like Costello or Nelson or Bishop so,
1) They can come out looking fresher than they would with Howard, who is slowly but surely become a liability, and either one of them can bang home the economy and unemployment positives (which are nothing not to be proud of) and try and get a victory that way.
2) Just put someone in their so Howard won’t have to go through a Fraser ‘83-esq thing. One one hand this could work. On the other hand it could tear the party apart for years (Liberals 80’s, Labor 96-till recently).
The figures for deaths from nuclear-generated electricity compared to other forms include deaths from accidents. How many people do you think died as a result of the Chernobyl accident?
What is the risk of an accident at a nuclear power plant?
This http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ web-page may help.
The russians did everything they could to cock up at chernobyl, i think its a cheap attack to use it as an example.
Im willing to bet theyll be tax cuts in this budget, and yes theyll be inflationary, but that wont show in the official figures for six months.
People are getting used to tax cuts coming every year, so if they dont get them this year a lot of people will be upset they didnt get their gift, and look to punish the government
To get enough nuclear power plants up and running which would power Australia’s needs(min 25) it would take up to 15 years. Think of the energy needed to make them and the amount of years before its workable and guess what? ITS TOO LATE! this is the sad thing. While the major parties use global warming as a political football the game is into added time. Oh by the way if the world heats up to the point that the Tundra melts guess what lies under that? METHANE! and with that and new increase in global warming which it turn will destroy more areas. But hey we might get a tax cut if either ALP or Libs win or extra centrelink payments. Pity we wont be around to use them! When the Greens policies come out on Environment, IR, Social Justice , the unemployed, Social issues etc compare them with the ALP. The Greens are where the ALP should be.
bill weller Says: “The Greens are where the ALP should be.” Bill, you maybe right but the trouble is if the ALP were to be where the Greens are in the policty sense they would also be where the Greens are in a political sense ie a very long way from the government benches and you can do bugger all from that position.
Adam-
I am a little confused by your comments regarding the AC Nielsen. If I recall rightly, the final ACN polls in 1998, 2001 and 2004 overstated the Coalition primary AND two-party-preferred, although it has in fact been the closest of the three major polling outfits at all 3 elections. Could you justify your statement?
I disagree with those who say a change of Coalition leaders would be unproductive. Costello would almost certainly get a honeymoon of his own, and has far more credibility on the environmental issues that are taking centrestage right now, as well as as being separate from the Bush/Iraq negative. Further, he is far more effective on the attack than Howard.
The point about nuclear is not that it is a magic bullet, but that it is an option to properly consider along with all the rest. Ideally we’d have fusion reactors but we don’t.
“But hey we might get a tax cut if either ALP or Libs win or extra centrelink payments. Pity we wont be around to use them! ”
This is silly – we’ll be around, but life may be much more challenging for many people.
Is Howard starting to lose it? His attack on Obama and the US Democrats was extraordinary, especialy considering that the Dems now control Congress – like it or not, Howard has to deal with them. This coming after his slip on climate change last week might suggest that time is cataching up with him (as it does to all of us in the end). There was always a risk for Howard in staying on too long. A leader can turn from “wise and experienced” to “old and out of touch” very quickly. History tells me not to write off the old dog just yet, but he’s certainly not exhibiting the political touch that we’ve seen from him over the years.
Sacha – ‘Ideally we’d have fusion reactors but we don’t’
This kind of cuts across your whole ’should be considered with the rest’ conservative talking point. Either you’ve concluded or you are still considering only someone as dishonest as the PM would try to be both.
It is a stupid idea that doesn’t even stack up economically – you don’t have to go to the not unreasonable fear factor to kill the idea as stupid.
Every does realise the Nuclear power debate is all about making the left fight amongst itself
In Victoria, I think there is a good chance that the ALP will not only not pick up any seats, they will actually lose at least one. I think that the seat of Holt is in grave danger to the ALP because of demographical change, the fast growth of the aspirational class in that area who vote Liberal.
I dont understand your comment, Jasmine.
I wrote and submitted a comment but it disappeared. Summarising I wrote that fusion reactors have few wastes and there is a lot of available fuel, and so theyre a good energy source to potentially use. The thing is to not at first reject any particular energy sources but to look at all the costs and benefits of each energy source and then make decisions.
I am not saying that nuclear power should or not should be used, I am saying that it should not be reflexively rejected, especially if that rejection is based on fear.
People who are seriously interested in energy and environmental matters are thinking of potentially using all sorts of energy sources (eg see the Sep 2006 issue of Scientific American).
I dont do “conservative talking points”.
how about a return to whale oil?
How about some thoughtful comments?
“The Greens are where the ALP should be.â€
If the ALP were like the Greens I would join the Liberals. I can’t stand those self-righteous hippies and their 50s policies.
The best thing about the Greens is they keep the Left Faction weak.
Isnt Kath and KIm set in Holt, i think these people are the type the guru is referring too.
Yes people like this, once they become ‘effluent’ usually do start to vote blue
My sources tell me Ken Aldred is running for Liberal preselection in Holt. I have no idea if he has the numbers or not, but if he does run, there is no way in the world the Liberals will win this seat (and untold damage could be done elsewhere).
In think long term this seat could enter the blue column but I don’t think I’ll move against the tide, especially if Labor win anywhere close to what the polls are now suggesting.
I think Labor took its beating in Holt last time. Is Aldred a NCCer? He doesn’t like Israel or free trade. I did phone poll work for Labor in 1990 in Deakin which he won that year and I don’t recall any complaints about Aldred by voters, still that was a bad year for Labor. On Holt if only Jill Hennessey was the MP rather than the unknown incumbent.
The margin for Holt at the last Election was under 2%. The population change between then and now is greater than that. With all the growth of new suburbs if the same result as last time applied Labour would probably lose.
John Howard will come bak. Don’t belive the polls at the moment. it is Rudd’s honeymoon. The election will be a lot closer. I predict that Holt will fall to the Liberals. I don’t think the voters care that much about who the candidates are.
If the candidate is average they dont care
however if the candidate is poor it can cost upto 5%, site example, Brisbane 2004 (Tall)
Guru,
There is no chance that Labor will do worse in Victoria this year compared to 2004. This is especially true of the outer eastern and south-eastern suburbs, where the Liberals made extravagant and highly succesful play of tolls on the Scoresby Freeway.
Howard is much more damaged goods now, thanks to interest rates and housing affordability, Iraq, AWB, Hicks and especially Work Choices. Even more significant Rudd is distinctly more electable than Latham.
The only State where it is possible that Labor will do less well than in 2004 is WA, and even there it is likely that Labor’s fortunes will improve.
I know that I’m a little late to the debate, but I’d just like to point out that the policy Bob Brown was referring to was NOT phasing out all coal exports within 3 years, but WRITING A PLAN to do so before the 2010 federal election. And opposition to nuclear energy within the party is largely created by the economics of renewable subsidies and the enormous amount of money and wasted time that needs to be poured into nuclear energy to even make it a little bit viable. Germany is phasing out all nuclear energy by 2020 and is moving to a renewable future. We should be too.
And in regards to the 2007 election, I believe that Labor will win (and I’m looking forward to holding the champagne bottle when they do, I may be a Green but I’m really on the same side) and that the crossbench – ie Family First and the Greens – will hold the BoP in the Senate. An interesting proposition given that this requires a massive drop in the coalition vote, i could see this happening in NSW, QLD and SA, with an outside chance of a 3-2-1 ALP-LIB-Grn split in Tassie and possibly a Green in the ACT. Both very slim chances though.
Next Poll Results
From a totally netural position, I think Rudd’s popularity will go right up and Howard’s down to 1997 levels. If anyone watched Parliment today, Howard is digging himself into a hole. Being angry at a politician and party is fine. It’s natural. Accusing them of being onside with terrorists is unforgivable, if you are John Howard, Kevin Rudd or a person on the street. Even though history shows against it, my prediction is Howard won’t come back and I am personally waiting for his term as Prime Minister to be over so Australia (a country I love) can begin to move into the future.
The senate should look like this after july 2008
39 libs 32 labor 5 greens 1 famliy first
nsw 3 lib 3 labor
vic 3 lib 3l abor
qld 3lib 3 labor
wa 3 libs 2 labors 1 greens (new)
sa 3 libs 2 labor 1 greens (new)
tas 3 libs 2 labor 1 greens
nt 1libs 1 labor
act 1libs 1 labor
Its off the topic but do a search for the AMWU on google. Very interesting
The ALP should win Kingston not because of the candidate but due to the non party tied YR@W campaign. I don’t know if that is happening in other marginal seats but the way YR@W is run here its very open to non ALP anti Howard parties. My vote is crucial ( 6% at last poll) and will go along way to match the Family First Vote ( also at 6 %) which has a huge following here i am sad to say. With the help of the AMWU my vote should go up quite well. It was interesting to see the attitude of the ALP candidate now MP for Mawson in last South Australian election. The arrogance to not even meet with my wife (Green Candidate) and yet her vote (5%) helped him to win after his sneaky deal with family first fell through. Interesting enough the MP and his MP girlfriend are not liked here as they don’t seem to do much.
The Greens are quite likely to get a Senator up in Victoria this time.
James,
I dont mean to nit pick, but the nationals are going to win a seat in Queensland And NSW, they may even be thrown a bone in Victoria.
I know thats what you meant, but i just thought id say anyway
Like James I too think it will be difficult to wrest control of the Senate from the Coalition.
However, if you believe the Morgan poll of last November (before Rudd’s assension) regarding Senate voting intentions, it paints a grim picture for them.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4103/
This yields a chamber more like
ALP 30 Coalition 35 and the rest between Grn and FFP.
A backlash from Howards abuse of the Senate is a windfall for the crossbenches.
Truth is people vote differently in the senate, and people will probably not vote for the coalition because people dont like one group controlling both houses.
people may be apathetic generally but they understand the difference. i think the coalition will be down and minor parties up.
the final makeup will come down to preference flows.
like it always does
I’ve heard people talking up Green chances in the ACT (Senate) As well as the ALP taking both seats. The ALP bit is highly likely I think, with the Greens at about a 30% chance
greens will win senate seat in SA
Bill Weller, pardon my ignorance, but what is YR@W? And what do you mean “My vote is crucial”? Are you a candidate?
James, If the ALP wins 3 seats in Queensland no-one will be more surprised than the Qld ALP.
Well if the Coalition control the Senate and the ALP take government, there’s nothing more certain than a double dissolution as soon as the criteria can be met. We’ll be back talking about an upcoming election as soon as this one’s complete.
sorry Adam. YR@W is Your Rights @ Work and yes i am the green candidate
Hey Queenslander
The next Senate election in Victoria will see the Libs and Nats put up a combined Senate Ticket. The Nats have position number 4 and have no chance of winning that seat.
The candidate has already been endorsed and comes from Western Victoria and is no friend of the member for Gippsland
Howard is looking seriously rattled lately – he clearly believes that Rudd has a chance. It’s still a tall order – the maths as much as anything else are against Labor – but I feel more confident every time Howard opens his mouth.
Bill,
Will the Greens take a seat off the ALP or Libs??
re Ray: Never believe a Senate poll – they’re always all over the place. The killer for me is the supposed 18% vote for the Greens in Queensland – if that happened I would probably have a heart attack (and so would the Queensland Greens!!).
Adam had a quite good analysis of the likely composition in the Senate way back in this thread, with the only other possibility being the loss of the short-term Senator in ACT. This almost happened in 1998, when the Lib vote fell to 31.5% (below the quota) and had to be elected on preferences. In 2001 their vote went back up to 34.3, and last election (on the back of the Howard swing) to 37.87, with a Green vote of 16.36.
The problem is, as Adam has previously commented, that with the continued demise of the Democrats there is no party able to pull right-of-centre votes across to the left. The Dems should always have redirected themselves to being to the left of the Libs, not to the left of the ALP…
Personally I think the Greens have a good chance in Vic, SA, WA, with Tas being a return. NSW will be hard to re-elect Kerry Nettle, so an outside chance, and Qld being further off still. I don’t rate NT because there’s no hope, and the ACT has seena rising Lib vote, so its extremely unlikely.
As to the ALP in the Senate, well, I wouldn’t have rated their chances too well, but NSW, Vic & SA would have to be their best chance for getting a 3rd. NSW & Vic also remain the best possibilities for 3 ALP, 1 Grn – but in reality I think we’re stuck with a conservative Senate until 2010.
Mr.Q is probably right about a DD if the ALP gets a good win and takes Govt, but the conservatives hold the Senate.
According to Morgan with ALP 37% and Lib 35% it could be 2-2-1-1 with Greens and Family First taking a seat each. Greens will have to edge above the ALP residue over 2 quotas and FFP will have to edge above the Lib residue.
More likely it will be a 3-3 split again.
Stewart/Adam,
I would assert that FFP represent a centrist option, at least in terms of socio-economic leanings. I refer to my Oz-politics contribution that shows them slightly left of centre in the economic and social dimensions but clearly to the right in terms of traditional family values.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?p=333
Ray you have asserted this before, and I remember you don’t like to use God in your arguments, but other than God said to kill homosexuals a few hundred pages away from the place where God says women should be treated exactly the same way as slaves [I'm putting this there for you I know you don't like the Bible], you still haven’t explained how ‘a centrist’ option can arbitarily discriminate against human beings on the basis of sexual preference.
You haven’t been able to explain this because the only explanation other than ‘God said’ is homophobia, and as misplaced as I’d believe ‘God said’ it would be both a more courageous place to argue and a more intellectual place to argue from.
Which of the extreme Howard legislation has FFP actually stopped in the Senate? Not opposed I don’t care about the vote when it doesn’t count, when has the Senator actually stopped something that is unfair and regressive for Australia?
With a 58% TPP support polling for Labor now, Labor has to lose a whole heap of votes before FFP can be at all relevant in anyway in the upcoming election. And it is an extreme religious party no more central than extreme right wing religious nuts in the USA.
Centrebet now has ALP on $1.80, the Coalition on $1.90. ALP never had favouratism under Latham, and has not happened since 2001. Howard will need another Tampa.
Jasmine: Fielding stopped the Asylum seeker bill from memory.
Fielding is basically a conservative who makes occasional gestures to the “centre” on family-related economic issues or conscience issues. I have no doubt that if the Coalition were to lose one Senate seat this year, and Fielding were to hold the balance of power, on crucial votes he would support a re-elected Howard government if that was the election outcome. (Although, if there is a swing big enough to cost the Coalition a Senate seat, they will probably lose the election.) My actual Senate prediction, as I have said before, is that there will no change in the left-right balance – merely a change of numbers within the left, with the 4 Democrat seats going to either the ALP or the Greens. The really interesting question about the Senate is how it will deal with a Rudd government after 2008.
For those of you with an interest in redistributions, the federal parliamentary library has just released a paper going through the argument over last year’s redistribution in NSW. It’s worth a read.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2006-07/07rb08.pdf
I’ve heard this opinion that Kerry Nettle will be difficult to re-elect before, it really all depends on preference flows. What are the thoughts out there about it? There was a roughly 3% swing to the Greens on primaries in 04 in NSW (from memory…) so presumably if that vote at least holds up and preferences are favourable she’s in with a very good chance (given she was elected off something like 4 or 5 %). What d’you reckon?
Also, the next state election here could be a barometer for Green support perhaps? It’s traditionally higher in the state elections than feds, but it should be interesting to see. Special circumstances though.
And I’d like to think that the ALP-FFP deal won’t be repeated, not only because I generally oppose FF policies but also because the ALP is mostly ideologically closer to the Greens, and it makes more sense to deal with them – that is, us. Hopefully we’ll see a Vic senator this time.
I am surprised by the news that the Nats got the fourth spot on the joint ticket, by convention they usually get second, at least when they are run jointly here and in NSW anyway. However these things are usually up to whoever is actually running the division at the time the deals are made.
Its time the NAts stood up for themselves, but with something worthwhile to say, unlike Barnaby Joyce
In Victoria the Nats get a winable position on the Lib/Nat ticket only every second election, which is fair really given the relative strengths of the parties here. Indeed most Victorian Liberals are of the view that this arrangement is too generous to the Nats.
Do we have anyone here from Tas? If so .. can they enlighten as to the general feeling in Bass and Braddon?
Fielding is rarely in a position to “stop” anything, he doesn’t hold the BoP, but he has hoisted his flag up the Labor pole on numerous occasions. So I’m sure that if he does hold BoP in the next parliament he will work very well with a Rudd government.
I know Rudd was pretty shitty with FFP in 2004, but this was not that there was an intrinsic values gap, but primarily because of the mistreatment of the ALP with HoR preferences. That will not happen again.
Fielding was given a standing ovation by the Labor side of the house at his maiden speech. Costello walked out.
OK credit where credits due if he stopped more refugee bashing perhaps he has flicked through the new testament at some point and this is good for us all.
What was Costello doing in the Senate? It is Senator Fielding isn’t it?
It has been a long day I’m confused.
I think maiden speechs are in front of both houses.
Also, I think it was Joyce who blocked the asylum seeker bill, not fielding.
Maiden speeches are not held in both houses.
And Julian McGauran’s shift from the Nats to the Libs in Victoria was very largely due to concerns that the agreement on the Nats getting number two on the Senate ticket every second election would cease to exist.
Yep, you guessed it, Julian’s up the election after next.
The Border Protection Bill didn’t get to the Senate vote.
Howard didn’t take it there because he actually found some Liberal Senators who had a heart?
Fielding had already declared that he would not support the bill.
By the way Fielding has been lobbying to get David Hicks back and tried before a proper internation court.
Coota Bulldog provided the link which tells us the average number of electors in House of Reps seats for each state and territory in 2004:
NSW 86,582
Vic 89,454
Qld 88,414
WA 83,248
SA 95,629
Tas 68,561
ACT 112,770
NT 56,465
Av 87,323
We Croweaters have a grievance. Not only are we at the wrong end of the River Murray but, with the ACT, we are robbed of our voting rights.
This is because the apportionment among the states is done on the bassis of population not electors because of the wording of the Constitution, so states with non-voting people have more powerful voters.
Shane Easson on Bennelong
copied from Mumble
HOWARD and BENNELONG
The release of the Federal Commissioners proposed boundaries for New
South Wales has again put the spotlight on Bennelong. I think that much of
the commentary on Bennelong including the new margin is just plain wrong.
To help clarify things I want to address four questions. These are:
1. What is the effect on Bennelong’s margin of the proposed boundaries?
2. Is State Election voting patterns a useful guide to predicting Federal
results?
3. Did Andrew Wilkie (who got 16.4% as a Green in 2004) distort the true
2PP vote in Bennelong?
4. Are there any special factors in play in Bennelong?
5. Is Bennelong really a marginal seat?
John Howard is correct when he says that the impact of the Commissioners’
proposals in Bennelong has only slightly affected the margin in his seat. The
addition of around 7 500 electors from Beecroft and Melrose Park takes his
margin down by just 0.2% to 54.13%.( On 2004 figures the new votes added
to Bennelong break down to 2PP Lib 3360 (51.7) to ALP 3138).
Now that that’s out of the way, let’s deal with the suggestion that John
Watkins, the NSW Deputy Premier whose seat of Ryde is entirely within
Bennelong would beat Howard. That partly concerns the proposition that
State voting patterns can be a pointer to Federal results. No they aren’t. A
good recent example can be seen in the 2004 Queensland State and Federal
results. At the State poll the ALP romped in with 63 out of 89 seats. Later that
year the ALP only got six out of 28 Queensland Federal seats. The
contrasting performance is explained by the fact that whereas State Labor got
57.5% 2PP, federally its Queensland vote was only 42.9% 2PP. Had Federal
Labor in QLD polled the same as in the State then 17 extra seats in QLD
would have been won.
I’ve just pulled down a straw man. It’s more complicated than that. For an
associated question is can an MP in a metropolitan seat build up a strong
personal vote? The evidence in favour has been historically weak as one
might expect in a Westminster System. But in the last 10 years the evidence
in support has become so strong that the proposition can no longer be denied.
I’ll cite a few examples from NSW, one of which is John Watkins. In 1999, as
a result of a State redistribution his former electorate of Gladesville was
abolished and Watkins was forced to contest the new seat of Ryde, (which
was entirely within Bennelong). Watkins, needing a swing of 4.2% simply to
remain in Parliament scored a swing of 10.8%, well above the State average
of 7%. Yet he barely won Eastwood polling place (50.8% 2PP). At the next
election, in 2003, the swing to NSW Labor was a tiny 0.2% but Watkins got a
further swing of 8.9 % in his seat( taking his overall margin to 65.5%).
Eastwood polling place itself recorded a 2PP of 66.1% and provided the best
swing (15.3%) in the seat. Another example, at the Federal level is Dana
Vale, MP for Hughes. She has gained a swing at every election since 1996,
totalling 16.6% more than 10% above the swing in NSW to the Coalition.
Why MP’s can now build a following I have no doubt is related to the higher
level of resources available to MP’s via allowances and public funding. Two
Labor Federal MP’s who lost their seats at the last Federal elections (from
redistributions) have told me that they got good swings in the parts of the new
Division containing their old electorate but not in the new. But some do better
than others.
But there is no evidence in NSW to support the idea that a State MP can
transfer a personal vote to a higher sphere. Most speculation on the point is
wrong way round. The more relevant question is “what’s Howard’s personal
vote worth�
Next we come to the Wilkie factor. It’s a pretty widespread view that the 2PP
in Bennelong last time was distorted by the high profile former Australian
Intelligence Officer, Andrew Wilkie who ran, as a Green candidate, an
impressive campaign in Bennelong against the Iraq war. He ended up with
16.4% of the primary vote, more than double the State average for the
Greens. Moreover, many suggested that the 3.4% swing against Howard,
despite a small swing of 0.2% in NSW could only be explained by Wilkie’s
campaign.
I think Wilkie had almost no impact on the 2PP in Bennelong. For one thing
the swings against the Liberals were similar in the adjoining seats of Bradfield
(-2.7%) and North Sydney (-3.2%). Also in those same seats the Green vote
was much higher than the State average (Bradfield, 11.5%; North Sydney,
12.3%). Given his profile and the second string on Iraq you’d expect Wilkie to
do better than his fellow Greens. But his 4.5% extra primary votes on Iraq
were, in the context of 2004, always going to go back to Labor.
The special factor in play in Bennelong is that in recent years there has been
a significant shift in the ethnic mix. This decade Bennelong has seen a rapid
influx of new, mostly Asian migrants with the suburb of Eastwood transformed
into a vibrant Korean community.
According to the 2001 Census, ( see
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2004-05/05RP01.htm#table25 ), and
based on boundaries in 2003, whereas the Australian average of those born
in non-English speaking countries is 13.3%, in Bennelong this proportion was
28.9%. Only 16 Divisions out of 150 had a higher proportion and all were and
are Labor held. Expect Bennelong to be in the top 10% in the 2006 census.
Chatswood, (split between the Divisions of Bradfield and North Sydney), is
another suburb on the North Shore where there has been a concentration of
new migrants in recent years. In Chatswood these migrants are mostly
Chinese and Japanese. It’s not the case that the resulting new electors are
ALP voters—at the last Federal election they broke slightly in favour of the
Libs, but they have replaced generally, WASPs, who tended to break two to
one against the ALP.
I mentioned before that at the 2004 election, despite a swing against the ALP
of 0.2% in NSW, Bennelong, Bradfield and North Sydney swung towards the
ALP by 3.4%; 2.7% and 3.2% respectively. In 2001 there was a swing of 3.2%
to the Libs in NSW. In Bennelong the swing was 2.5% weighed down by the
fact that in Eastwood, the largest polling place in the seat, and the swing to
the Libs was only 0.9%.
Those figures together with John Watkins’s performance in Eastwood give
credence to the view that the growing Asian in Bennelong is more susceptible
of voting Labor than those they have replaced. My view is that Howard with
the status of the Prime Ministership has muted the trend against the Liberals
caused by the change in the ethnic mix of Bennelong.
My last question was “Is Bennelong really a marginal seat?†After all, it’s
been held by the same Party since its creation in 1949, over 23 elections and
only two members. My answer is that during John Howard’s time, Bennelong
was never a marginal until very recent years. To explain why, I need to go
through the history of the seat since Howard became the member.
On 18th May, 1974 following the retirement of Sir John Cramer, John Howard
became the second Member for Bennelong since its creation in 1949.
Although Howard obtained a majority on primaries, his 2PP (two party
preferred vote) was 54.5% which on paper would make his seat marginal. (A
marginal is usually defined in Australia as a Division with a 2PP of 6% or
less). However, Howard knew as would any other experienced judge of these
things that his seat was only a ‘paper marginal’. It was in fact a safe Liberal
seat. For in 1974 Labor’s 2PP in NSW was 54.9% a result that has since not
been bettered. (Keating in 1993 came closest when Labor got 54.4% 2PP in
NSW ).
In 1974 Bennelong was a seat centred on Lane Cove Council and which
included significant sections of Willoughby and North Sydney Councils, all of
Hunters Hill Council and part of Ryde Council. The suburb of Ryde itself was
locked up in Lowe, held by former Prime Minister Bill McMahon. (From 1955-
77 Lowe straddled both sides of the Parramatta River and incorporated Ryde
and Strathfield. Incidentally, for those who dismiss the importance of
redistributions, the 1955 Commissioners decision to allow Lowe to jump the
Parramatta River eventually cost Labor the 1961 election when both Lowe
and Bennelong were held by margins of less than 1% thereby allowing
Menzies to scrap back by a two seat majority. But for the slash of the
Commissioners’ pen Arthur Calwell might have died a happy man!)
Thirty and one half years later Howard was elected for the 13th consecutive
time as MP for Bennelong. This time his vote was 54.3% 2PP, nearly the
same as in 1974 but with the difference that the ALP 2PP for NSW of 48.1%
was 6.8% below that which it got in 1974. Against this, the cumulative effect of
the 1984, 1991 and 1999 redistributions was a weakening of Bennelong of
4.5%, (now 4.7% with the 2006 proposed boundaries). Boundary changes
weren’t enough by themselves to make Bennelong marginal. The extra came
with the changing ethnic mix in the seat. Combining the results of the last two
elections we see a swing to the Liberals in NSW of 3.4% and a swing against
in Bennelong of -0.9%.
Directly across the River Lowe became a Labor seat with an earlier begun
change in its ethnic mix. Might the electoral impact of such changes have
stopped in Bennelong? I don’t know, but doubt it. What’s clear though is that
Bennelong has only since 2004 become a truly marginal seat, only likely to be
held if the Government is re-elected. Factoring in the continuing impact of the
change in the ethnic mix within its current boundaries my best guess is that a
swing of say 3% to Labor in NSW and not 4.2% as the pendulum suggests
would be enough for Labor to win Bennelong in 2007. Of the 10 elections from
1980, half won by Labor, the other half by the Coalition, the ALP has an
average 2PP in NSW of 51.0% which is 2.9% greater than what it got in NSW
in 2004. That is, should Labor in NSW achieve its historical average NSW
vote then Howard is in serious trouble in a seat which is trending to Labor.
Shane Easson
5th July, 2006
Just thought I’d mention somthing that struck me last night. Labor’s current position has been compared on numerous occasions to early 2001 .. when thy were ahead in the polls (and the betting) by a similar margin. The “lesson from history” then being that Howard ended up losing that early battle but ultimately winning the war.
Have people forgotton what happened a scant 8 weeks before that Novemer election? 2 planes? New York?
That was an event (just cast your mind back) that shook the world .. and would obviously have swung a great many people to the incumbent government.
meant to add the obvious rhetorical … what chances does Howard have of getting something else on the scale of 9/11?
Alex makes a good point about 11/9 (day before month in this country, Alex), but let’s not forget that Howard set the template for his re-elections that year, namely spending like there was no tomorrow on every interest group he needed to get re-elected. The budget is well in surplus, so we can fully expect it to happen again.
The question is, will it work for Howard this time?
Of course it will happen again. This is the advantage of encumbancy that enables the PM to call the election at his whim. He can pork barrel to his hearts content just prior to the election, and because of economic lags, this fiscal irresponsibility will not be detected until after the election.
When the resulting interest pressures emerge after the election the breaks will go on and the non-core promise arguement will be rolled out.
Three strikes and your out Johnny. People have wised up to this tactic.
11/9 just doesn’t have the same ring to it does it
Next Newspoll survey should be conducted over the next 3 days .. will be interesting to see how Howard’s National Security vote goes.
I actually think that early 2007 has more parallels with early 2004 than early 2001 (although there clearly are many differences between Rudd and Latham which I’m not denying), and it’s also worth noting that Howard has gone into every election year since he has been Prime Minister as the underdog.
For all the talk about Howard spending up big, he has a major problem – the Reserve Bank. If the surplus shrinks too much (as Costello has done at past pre-election budgets), especially if it is splurged on tax cuts, then the govt risks an interest rate rise.
The RBA’s statement on monetary policy this week, although cutting the chance of a rate hike, also kept expected inflation forecasts at the top end of the bank’s comfort range.
The last think Howard would need, campaigning on economic grounds, is for the RBA to lift rates a quarter of a percentage point, and then point the finger at the government for its loose fiscal policy stance.
In the past three weeks, Howard has already committed $10 billion to the Murray-Darling and $1.5 billion to aged care. The surplus has already been trimmed by around $1.3 billion with those two. A substantial tax cut would set the government back anywhere between $2 billion and $5 billion a year.
The money cupboard is already starting to look bare….
Well, the $10 billion for the Murray-Darling is spread over 10 years and finance minister Minchin reckons this is small bikkies.
What did other bloggers make of the IR debate on the 7.30 Report last night? I thought that Gillard won comfortably – she a very polished media performer, and came over as knowledgeable and on top of her brief, while never losing that pleasant public persona she has. Hockey, on the other hand, came over as a nice bloke who is a bit of of his depth. He certainly wasn’t able to put many holes into Gillard’s arguments.
IR is a sleeper issue for the government, one that can (indeed, probably will) affect people who don’t otherwise have any interest in politics (which surely is the very definition of a swinging voter).
I didn’t think Hockey was a very good choice for IR, he always comes across as a waffler and a blusterer. Andrews may have been a bit crazed but he usually knew what he was talking about. Hockey is no match for Gillard, who is very sharp. If Howard wanted to “humanise” the government’s image on IR after Andrews made them look cold and fanatical, Bishop would have been a better choice, with Hockey in education.
Has everyone read the words of wisdom from Greg Sheridan at the Australian?
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/gregsheridan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/labor_leader_sounds_crean_ish_on_iraq_war/
Does anyone know Greg Sheridan’s background? Anyone that can come to the conclusion that Howard came out looking and sounding like roses over Iraq must have an axe to grind. His arguments are spurious to say the least. He must have an axe to grind surely. He seems to think the 2004 election was won on Howard’s Iraq policy. Hardly. What about the interest rate scare? He quotes the poll conducted by channel nine which had a response of 130,000. Look at the spin he puts on this unrealiable poll. “By the end of the week Howard had produced results that in their way are quite devastating for Rudd. According to the Nine network, 130,000 viewers responded yes to the question “Should Howard have criticised Obama?â€, while only 20,000 said no. Does this really ring true? Not to me.
Just base interest what is the take or guess as to Lindsay Tanner’s position in Melbourne. I assume that the Greens will try and take the seat but judging on the state election performance I doubt they will be able to.
In terms of the poll data I am betting it will be October/November certainly not before July 1. Howard needs to be sure he can hold on to the senate as long as he can should there be a backlash against them and they only pickup 2 seats per state. If he goes before Jul1 then the newly elected senators take office on July 1 if he holds back then the senators take office on July 1 the following year.
The other issue I would like feedback on is When will we move to fixed four year terms. I know it has been tried before and the Liberal party opportunistically opposed such a move but maybe they will think again. Your thoughts
Hi BenC i think the Greens will take the Dems senate spot
I think the TPP will be under 1% difference in Melbourne unless Garrett or someone else spreads lies again.
As for fixed terms, I don’t think the Libs will go for it but the ALP probably will.
Hugo Girard is a very good performer when it comes to issues of social justice and industrial affairs . I have had the pleasure of working with Julia over many years on a branch executive and also in her role as Chief of Staff working for John Brumby. To add to that your legal expertise and partnership with Slater and Gordon most certainly make her a formidable opponent and highly skilled member of the Federal Opposition. She would have made an excellent choice for Prime-minister.
Labor is fortunate to have a wealth of talent with Gillard and Rudd heading up Labors team. Kevin Rudd was most impressive as Foreign Affairs spokesperson and I am sure he would make a equally impressive Prime-minister. The sooner Australia goes to the polls the better.
I dont if Peter Costello will ever hold the keys to the lodge. He will at best be3come the leader of the opposition following the next Federal Elections only to be replaced soon after by Malcolm Turnbull.
What is exciting about the next election is not only will we see a Labor Federal Government but a pro-republican parliament with the leaders of the main political parties all committed to an Australian republic and hopefully a new Australian Flag.
Hugo
Gillard is a very good performer when it comes to issues of social justice and industrial affairs .
I have had the pleasure of working with Julia over many years on a branch executive and also in her role as Chief of Staff working for John Brumby. To add to that her legal expertise and partnership with Slater and Gordon most certainly make her a formidable opponent and highly skilled member of the Federal Opposition.
She would have made an excellent choice for Prime-minister.
Labor is fortunate to have a wealth of talent with Gillard and Rudd heading up Labors team.
Kevin Rudd was most impressive as Foreign Affairs spokesperson and I am sure he would make a equally impressive Prime-minister.
The sooner Australia goes to the polls the better.
I don’t think Peter Costello will ever hold the keys to the lodge. He will at best become the leader of the opposition following the next Federal Elections only to be replaced soon after by Malcolm Turnbull.
What is exciting about the next election is not only will we see a Labor Federal Government but a pro-republican parliament with the leaders of the main political parties all committed to an Australian republic and hopefully a new Australian Flag.
The problem is not the four-year term itself or even the fixed term itself. It is the attitude people take to the Senate. I have no objection to eight-year terms for the upper houses elected by PR – it would have been a lot of use on Victoria in the Kennett era. – but some people do. Given that tradition is the most democratic system of all because it gives votes to the dead, eight years is not very long. There is something to be said for evening out wild swings in public opinion. So I would support a four-year tem for the House of Representatives that gave an eight-year term to the Senate.
However, if you fix the terms, you need to deal with disagreements between the two houses. The ALP has still not got over 1975 and finds it hard to look at the Senate dispassionately. The Senate undoubtedly has the power to block Supply, and given that it is the more democratically representative house, I see no problem with that, not that I approved of its exercise of that power in 1975. If you have fixed terms and the Senate blocks Supply, there has to be a resolution of the issue. The government cannot continue, so the people must resolve the dispute.
I have argued for some time that the current double dissolution procedures should be replaced by a referendum to be held at the following normal election. However, this will not work with Supply. You cannot defer the issue for two or three years. My suggestion is completely logical and totally impractical: you hold an immediate referendum, and then the house which loses faces an election and the house that wins stays in place, with the term of office for both being only the remainder of the fixed four-year term. This is not going to happen, is it? But then I never thought we would get PR for the Victorian Legislative Council.
Look at the advance of fixed terms in state politics. We’ve now got it in three states (NSW, SA, Victoria, as well as the ACT), and in two of those cases it was introduced by a Labor government. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the agenda of a future Labor government included fixed terms. Of course, terms can’t be completely fixed without a referendum to abolish DDs, but you could have semi-fixed terms, where all half-senate and house elections occur according to a timetable which can only be altered by DD.
And then there’s what I see is the ideal-but-not-practical solution. You just get rid of Double Dissolutions. Don’t replace them with anything else. If you can’t agree on a bill it doesn’t pass. If that bill is Supply, then the government doesn’t have money. At first glance this would appear to be a recipe for disaster, yet it is exactly what has happened in America (between the President and Congress, rather than between the two houses, but the principle is the same) for (I assume) over 200 years.
Both houses have legitimate roles in representing the people. Thus if they are unable to come to an agreement, they should be required to negotiate to find a solution which overall represents the people. One house shouldn’t be able to go back to the voters because it didn’t like the result. Especially when the other house can’t. The Senate can’t call a DD if a bill is rejected by the House.
MPs and Senators are elected to serve a term. Just because different parties control different houses is not a good reason to go back to the voters. If the country is so evenly divided that the Senate is controlled by one party and the House by another, then it’s probably a good thing that both sides are represented in decision-making.
And MelbCity: there is no prospect of Howard calling a Half-Senate election prior to 1 July 2007, as it is not permitted. If he wishes to call a joint House and Half-Senate election, he must call it after 1 July 2007. It isn’t a question of what date the new Senators will take office. They will take office on 1 July 2008.
And regarding the Greens in the lower house. I don’t believe it will be possible to do so in the 2007 federal election. My experience in Melbourne in 2006 was that we were actually winning in Melbourne early that last week. The whole split-ticket deal cut a few %s of our statewide vote and probably made the difference in Melbourne. And I believe there is a decent chance (note: “decent”, not “we’re gonna win it and 46 other seats”) in Balmain in NSW. But I actually think it’s harder against a Labor opposition. While the statewide or nationwide picture may be different, Labor in opposition is able to more effectively present itself as progressive than when it is in government. This is particularly true for Left MPs in inner-city seats, who, when in opposition, can present themselves as having a sort of independence which goes out the window when they enter Cabinet.
Our best prospects in the federal HoR (this is about winning seats for the first time, not retaining them) will be after one or two terms of a Labor government, when people like Albanese, Plibersek and Tanner have been in Cabinet for a few years.
Hi Bill,
Sorry, what I meant to ask was that if the Greens win a seat in SA in 2007, which of Labor and the Libs will miss out on their 3rd seat? It would probably be Labor that misses out wouldn’t it?
For MelbCity. There can’t be poll before July 1. The parliamentary library recently did a paper on when the next election. Effectively, anywhere between August 4 and January 19 2008. That’s why there has been some media speculation of Howard going for the early date, say Aug 4 or 11, but most money is Oct 13 or 20.
Howard hosts the APEC leaders meeting in Sydney Sept 8 and 9. Parliament is then due to sit for the next fortnight. He could very well use the first week of the sitting to belt Labor over his great relationship with Bush, Putin et al, and then run a five week campaign and go to the polls Oct 20.
Anyway, for the parliamentary library paper, go to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn14.pdf
One possible wedge that Howard could use, although it is a dangerous, is a one about fear about Muslim immigration.
Howard will portray Rudd as soft on Muslim immigration and promote a fear campign “that under labour, the country will be swmped with Muslims”
Would work well in outer suburban marginals and with white blue collar traditional Labour supporters.
Inner city Elites will hate it, but do they decide elections?
More evidence of Petre Garret’s SELL OUT today he is supporting Guantanamoesque gulags on Australian territory.
one of the unfortunate thnigs in life mally .. can’t do a whole lot from opposition
A racist immigration policy has been popualr in Australia for all except the70’s and 80’s although it probably was then and just noone would talk about it..
the ninemsn poll today is whether muslim immigration should be limited.
M predition is it will come in overwhelmingly yes
Yeh right Alex. Whatever your on i’d seriously consider halfing the dose.
In an earlier post I was sceptical about a suggestion that Labor could win three Senate seats in Queensland, something Labor has never done at a half-Senate election. On looking at the figures, however, I now agree that this is a real possibility.
With the Democrat vote collapsing, Andrew Bartlett’s seat will go to either Labor, the Greens or the Coalition. In 2004 the Coalition picked up the other Democrat seat, giving them 4 seats to 2.
Queensland is the Greens’ weakest state (with a leader like Drew Hutton, I’m not surprised). Senate Green votes in 2004 were: Tas 13.3%, Vic 8.7%, WA 8.0%, NSW 7.3%, SA 6.5%, Qld 5.3%. Unless this vote increases substantially, the Greens will find it very hard to win a Senate seat, even with Labor’s surplus as preferences.
To win four seats the Coalition needs 57.1%. In 2004 the Coalition + One Nation + Hanson vote was 53.7%, enough for them to sneak in on preferences.
To win three seats Labor needs 42.9% after preferences. In 2004 Labor got 31.6%, while the Greens got 5.3%, a total of 36.9% – still 6% short.
If there is a 5% swing to Labor, the Coalition vote will be 48.7% and the Labor+Green vote will be 41.9%, just short of three quotas. Labor would probably then win three seats.
In fact there is a real possibility that Labor could win three seats everywhere except Tasmania, although I would think the Greens are favourites for the 6th seat in WA. Kerry Nettle seems eminently beatable in NSW, and the Greens could well fall short in Vic and SA as they did in 2004. But none of these gains would be at the expense of the Coalition.
Why write off Tasmania, Adam?
The Libs could be kept to two Senate seats there.
In 1998 & 2001, the Lib HoR vote was 42.7% and 42.3% respectively. That’s less than three Senate quotas. How they attained three Senate seats in 2001 is anybody’s guess (Dem & ONP ATL votes perhaps? Or maybe the Labor HoR was inflated by the “personal vote”.)
But an ALP 3 Grn 1 Lib 2 split in Tasmania is entirely possible in 2007.
Mally wrote “More evidence of Petre Garret’s SELL OUT today he is supporting Guantanamoesque gulags on Australian territory.”
Actually, he’s supporting a communications facility. It will not have a permanent on-site staff and it will also be used by the Australian military.
However, after a week of “we’ll be in Iraq until Kate Ellis is 67″ and “Rudd said he’ll abandon Iraq immediately”, i can certainly understand there’s a need for hyperbole just to compete for attention.
Hard to say BenC there is a wave of anti Liberal Feeling here in SA join that with the fear of another Howard control of the senate and it could go either way
Yes, Mally has some form with hyperbole, though you have to admire his chutzpah. The Greens are done no favours by such talk – while it might be a nice view from the high moral ground, they are an awfully long way from where the action is, and the Greens will continue to deal themselves out of deal making. THis is a shame in a way, as I’m not unsympathetic to them in a policy-sense, it’s just that I left university some years ago.
Hi Hugo you said “This is a shame in a way, as I’m not unsympathetic to them in a policy-sense, it’s just that I left university some years ago” If you are sympathetic to Green policies who do you support then?
Enough about the Greens already
I support a party who might have some chance of putting their policies into practice. I might like some of what the Greens stand for, but then politics is more than about feeling good about one’s own ideological purity. It’s about actually achieving some good for the nation, something that’s hard to do sitting on the cross-benches of the Senate and attracting around 5% of the popular vote.
However, I think Adam is right, let’s get back to the main game, which is surely defeating this horrible reactionary rabble currently in power (or at least discussion thereof).
The defeat of Howards Heroes would be good but it worries me what sort of government the Labor party will form. Its a right wing party. I am expecting the workers to be rewarded for putting them in Government but alas I doubt it
I suspect that your cynicism is well founded, Bill. I’m a great believer that Labor governments are never as good as you expect them to be, but Liberal governments are always much, much worse than you feared.
wonderful wiki entry drawn up by someone seriously commited to politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_legislative_election,_2007
(thanks mally .. halved the dose .. feeling much better)
Poor Hugo, it bothers you that the main game is the survival of the planet as we know it, so you’re still peddling lies about the Greens vote. Let me remind you Queensland state election 5.2% the lowest area of support, Tasmania state election 10.2%, Victoria state election 8%, NSW 7.7%, 2004 federal elections 7.2%. Not struggling to get 5% as you repeatedly state.
Some might like to change the subject, or just adopt the Greens policies, that is where the action is, that’s why the whole world is talking about Global Warming and how to stop it.
We will see how much of the Green policies have had a major impact on Debernam and Iyemma tonite on the ABC.
As Mally says, yes, some of us might like to change the subject, and to lead into it, he cites these figures for Green support: ‘Tasmania state election 10.2%, Victoria state election 8%’ which is uncannily amazing ! because between exactly 8 and 10.2 % of Indigenous adults in Australia are University graduates, 21,000 roughly as the Census 2006 will show, with about 1,500 graduating each year, many in Green fields, so to speak, such as Parks and Wildlife and Natural Resources Management and Environmental Management. Yes, up to a hundred Indigenous people have graduated from these fields of study around the country, with others graduated as vets, environmental economists, agronomists, etc. Yes, they are probably all potential Green supporters if you want to seek them out and make them feel welcome amongst the Green fraternity/sorority. A Green/Black coalition is des[erately needed – it surely has to happen – and maybe not so out of the question if you put your mind to it. Now, back to the important topic of replacing this crap government. G’day Bill. Joe
hi joe
Hi Joe, I couldn’t agree more, the Indigenous people of Australia have a lot of knowledge about our country and how to better manage things. The current thinking is heading up a dead end street, where as the Aboriginal societies couped for thousands of years in harmony with each other, the environment and their neighbours. In fact I will go so far as to say the only hope for the planet is to draw upon the knowledge of the worlds First Peoples and redirect our leaders away from the “moving forward”, “bottom line”, “at the end of the day”, war mongering neocons, that we are stuck with today.
The Greens offer an alternative to the wheeling and dealing, sellout, LIB/LAB gangsters and welcome all people from any part of our beautiful globe to join us. So brother hope to see you and look forward to working together on getting this country back to a more healthy condition.
best regards mally
Could I remind people this thread is meant as a forum for discussing the election, not as a soapbox for expounding party platforms?
how can you discuss an election without party policies?
Adam the Greens are part of this election, A BIG PART. With our policies on IR and the environment, not forgetting social issues becoming center stage issues. Its not only important to gain a good vote but hopefully the ALP will implement what the Greens stand for. Thats the difference between us and all other parties. We are not only political but activist getting our hands dirty in community problems fighting in the trenches so to speak. Its great attending a community meeting and listening to the MPs and opposites sprouting party lines on issues and nothing seems to change. The Greens get involved as they are normally part of that community and things move. It sometimes is hindered by the government but community outrage wins in the end. How do i know this? It Happened for my branch while i was running for a State seat. People power beats politics everytime its just people don’t know it until an issue is on their doorstep
Great story in the Adelaide Advertiser about Garrett’s sell outs!
Actually, didn’t the Vic Greens get 10% in 06? And I’m sure that the Tassie State election returned more than 10%, somewhere in the order of 15%?
Andrew Wilkie is running second on the Tassie Greens Senate ticket. And Bob Brown will be no 1. Any thoughts? I reckon the personal votes will pull together a quota for the party, but only Bob will be elected.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the election – largely in a psephological sense. Of course that involves discussing party policies etc, but it DOESN’T mean just spouting party slogans, as Bill and Mally are doing. Apart from being disruptive, this is pointless, because everyone here already has firm political views and are not going to be persuaded by cheap sloganising and political abuse.
The Garrett “sell outs” will have no effect on the election. The average voter will be totally unaware of this attack by the the Liberals and for those aware of it it will only reinforce the views they already hold one way or another. This story will be wrapped around tomorrow’s scraps, placed in the bin and forgotten in no time. The Libs will have to do more than this to turn the Garrett supporters off.
I second Adam’s motion and move that it be put!!!
I completely agree with Adam on this point. This is a psephological blog. Whatever people’s own personal political views it’s not intended to be somewhere to argue political slogans, etc. There’s plenty of other blogs for that.
And anyway, who on this website doesn’t have a pretty solid idea of their politics, and indeed who they’re gonna vote for?
I look at the times of Whitlam and Dunstan and look now at Rudd wheres the alternative in 2007?
Adam Black and Ben like the Parties you support you fear vocal enthusiastic minor party supporters. When people on here promote major party policies, peope and slogans nothing is said.
Adam, when you get your own blog you can tell people what to post, until then you’ll have to put up with other peoples posts, instead of trying to censor ideas you don’t agree with. regards mally.
But everything aside isnt it great that the majority on here have a extreme passion to see Howard gone. That has to be good
Peter Garrett was on the fringe and now he’s in the big game. As a team player he has to lose a little in order to achieve a lot. Naturally his Liberal opponents see him as a threat and, as usual, go for the man and not the message.
* “Extreme passion” in politics is nearly always bad. I refer you to the history of the 20th century.
* If the majority here are passionately anti-Howard, that just shows how unrepresentative we of the online chattering classes are of Australians as a whole, who still (by a narrow majority just now) prefer Howard to Rudd as PM. The intelligentsia always assume they represent the people, but this is seldom true.
Bill, Ben is a long time member of the Greens, not a major party.
Hi Bert which Ben?
Me, I’m a member and former candidate with the NSW Greens.
Just had to pass on this clever little bulletin from Crikey.com ……
Over 1.5 billion gallons of fuel are used each year by US truckers leaving their engines to idle overnight so they can keep the heating or air conditioning on.
Green Futures (Sep/Oct 2003)
Midnight Oil: the policy documents
Quoting Midnight Oil lyrics on the US alliance is like shooting fish in a bucket. There’s so much more ground to cover:
Veteran’s affairs
You’re watching people fighting you’re watching
People losing on Armistice Day
You’re watching people fighting
You’re watching people losing on Armistice Day
Border security
I’m back on the borderline
Yes I’m back on the borderline
Budgetary equity
You say times are tough
We’ve got the best of both worlds here
Things are rough
We’ve got the best of both worlds here
Times are tough
We’ve got the best of both worlds here
WorkChoices
The bosses they can sense your mood
All in place to a hand that rules
They all want to deal you out
and
We’re all looking for a shorter day
We’re all looking for an easy way
Even when the debts are dead and gone
Leadership aspiration
I’m an innocent victim, I’m just like you
We end up in home units with a brick wall view
I can’t believe the perfect families on my colour TV
If I don’t make it to the top it’ll never bother me
Resources policy
Heavy machinery loud in the outback
Dreamtime developers they make all the sound
Where will we be when they leave us a quarry?
Defence support
Put down that weapon or we’ll all be gone
I must know something to know it’s so wrong
Retirement Income
And if the blue sky mining company won’t come to my rescue
If the sugar refining company won’t save me
Who’s gonna save me?
Land Transport
Nothing could be longer than a corrugated road
No one ever follows where the road trains go
And nowhere in the country do the dust storms blow so hard
So hard
Family
The raising of children, the rearing of young
Used to be simple but look what it’s become
The choice of career, the proper vocation
Out of your hands, all for the needs of the nation
Housing
The time has come
To say fair’s fair
To pay the rent
To pay our share
Omnibus positioning statement
Terracotta homes – backyard BBQ and eucalyptus smell
It’s fine on the clothes line, it’s fast food and slow life and red roof
My silence – comic interruptions
Surely there’s some relief from atomic art and the fragile state of world
Events with clowns who love the kings and power and the mutant media babes
Working on dreams and fashions and toilet paper flowers
Don’t talk to me in this backyard – it’s clandestine, it’s nuclear
Smell of space and now forever I wanna go straight down the exit eight mile
Attraction u-turn is up and the time clock sings let’s go.
Guru. Wouldn’t be that bad a plan, except that the terrorism ads that are now on TV, people are laughing at them.
I am not on this blog to convert authors to my way of thinking or to make this a political background. My posts are generally are reactions to some people that put minor parties as non important waste of time groups. History shows the opposite,take for instance One Nation and how Howard, while bashing them outwardly was in fact working in ways to engulf them. Policies aside it showed the importance of Pauline Hanson and the way major parties gain that vote. With the rise of the Greens on the left and the Labor Party moving more to the center right the ALP needs to gain votes. The only way it will gain Government is to capture the Green vote with issues such as the Environment, War, IR and Social Justice. It was politically smart to wheel out Garrett to make the ALP look green without being too radical and is in fact a sell out. There no other way to describe it and shows the ALP using Howard’s way to gain the small party vote. As for the comment that Garrett is loosing a little of his ideals to gain allot does not work in environmental terms. The environment can not afford and neither can we a party going down the conservative road on this life supporting issue. One mistake, one pause to many and it will be too late to repair the damage History is full of such issues and as the years roll on they will increase considerably
Actually history is full of issues which people at the time loudly asserted were matters of life and death but which with the perspective of time can be seen not to have been as scary as they looked at the time. Once it was the arms race. Then it was the “population bomb”. Then it was the “limits to growth”. I’m not disputing that these were and are real issues. I’m saying that they were not as apocalyptic as they seemed to some people at the time. Now it’s climate change, and no doubt the same will prove to be the case. The intelligentsia is always prone to hysteria and overstatement.
I was brought up in a ALP/Union household, taught the importance of anti-racism, the environment, the evils of war, Animal liberation and social justice. I was arrested with my father exposing the misuse of authority by the police on Aboriginals in SA. It was like a “religion” passed down from generation to generation ( a good “religion” but still a “religion”) This meant to change your colors would be of great concern and disappointment. My sister has followed the ALP path both becoming a member and working for ALP candidates in here electorate. For here to do this she has had to soften her beliefs to fit in ( Garrett? ) and support candidates which have more in common with the Libs than any ALP of old. My parents while saying they are proud of me running for both State and Federal Parliament do support my sister profusely as she is towing the “religions” line even though its moved away from their core beliefs. Another point is the promotion that the Greens have a Doctors wives following. This may be true but in Kingston the Opposite is true . I am surprised at how many unionist and ALP wives not only vote Green but are or will become members. The mood of the people is changing once again as it was during the Hawke era, The environment is center stage
Adam those issues are still here they have been watered down to suit capitalism promotion of itself. Countries are arming themselves to blackmail western countries to give them aid. The population timebomb is still ticking which increases global warming due to consumerism.
I did not deny that they were real issues which are still with us. I said that people in the 70s who said (for example0 that the “population bomb” would destroy the world (read Paul Ehrlich) were wrong.
And incidentally, WHY were Ehrlich and co wrong about population? Because capitalism creates prosperity and prosperity leads to falling birthrates, something Ehrlich didn’t allow for in his predictions.
Because capitalism creates prosperity and prosperity leads to falling birthrates, something Ehrlich didn’t allow for in his predictions. Capitalism leads to consumerism which leads to poverty. Why is it that people that can least afford to try to keep up with consumer products. Drive down roads in my area and the amount rubbish been thrown out by residence because of poor quality is enormous. Capitalism dictates that we must buy buy buy and for those of us who make up 95% of the population its buy throw away tvs mobile phones furniture etc. Children are the major target of capitalistic predators and their generation will be totally materialistic making the bosses rub their hand with glee. The worker is “better of ” than his parents or grand parents but is due to credit cards and loans. It is well known that the more people in poverty the more children they have trying to make the family survive. A poll of working areas and rich areas would prove that right. The third world is increasing at alarming rates yet being the poorest areas of the world and being totally exploited by capitalism and the Governments who embrace it ( all governments are capitalist in some form). The environment and its protection covers all issues from IR to economics. To not take global warming and its affects seriously as the number 1 issue would be disastrous.
I’m an active member of the Greens, and I’ll admit that I’ve sometimes strayed into pushing Green policy positions on this site (and taking swipes at other parties) but I’d agree with Adam.
It’s inevitable that we will sometimes get on our individual soapboxes, but I think we should try to avoid it, and remind people when they do. There are plenty of sites to discuss political issues. There are very few sites to discuss Australian psephology and it would disappointing if this one got taken over with other matters – I’m already finding it hard to locate the psephological discussions amongst the rest.
That said, I wouldn’t mind taking you up on your comments about population elsewhere Adam if you can suggest a suitable venue.
Stephen L and Adam, without wanting to spam gratuitously, may I suggest this new bulletin board as a possible venue;
http://aussiepolitics.proboards51.com/index.cgi
I suspect this year’s election will end up being a rather polarised affair and I think we can expect the two major parties to achieve solid 40+ primary votes. The Greens will do well (though not as well as opinion polls might suggest), the Dems will go the way of the DLP (which I guess means they’ll make a comeback in about 2030) and Indepedents will hold the balance of power backing a minority Rudd government. This government will be up against a hostile Senate and we’ll be back to the polls in late 2008/ early 2009.
How’s that for psephological musing?
Bill Weller, what do you think has been the best real-life economic system (as opposed to the best theoretical economic system) ?
Hugo, I think that’s a very nice scenario. Assuming we have the same three independents (Andren, Windsor and Katter), and assuming they agree to support Labor (a VERY dubious assumption in Katter’s case), Labor needs to win 13 seats and lose none. This is still a big ask, but not impossible. As to a DD in 2008, that depends on whether Rudd is a whitlamite “crash through or crash” PM or not. I suspect he won’t be. He might follow the Bracks-Beattie-Rann scenario – sneak into office, spend your first term smiling a lot, win a second election in a landslide. The difficulty with that scenario for Rudd is that the unions will demand the repeal of Work Choices ASAP, and with a hostile Senate that will be difficult.
Adam, Rudd’s task in winning the 2007 election is much easier if the mortgage-belt seats swing to Labor, which might be happening (think about the recent polls in the Adelaide seats which might, of course, just reflect the current labor surge).
If there is a mortgage-belt surge to labor, the ALP *might* pick up Longman, Dickson, Petrie, Bonner, Bowman (long shot), Moreton and Oxley in Qld, and Kingston, Makin and Wakefield in SA, which altogether are 10 seats of the 16 odd seats they need to win.
As Antony Green points out, it was the mortgage belt seats that saved the 1998 election for Howard.
I don’t think that Katter would ever support an ALP govt.
Adam mentions that Ruddy might ‘win narrowly, smile a lot and then win hamdsomely the second time around’ scenario similar to Beattie, Rann, Bracks etc. State governments, particularly (but not always of the ALP persuasion) have been doing this for decades. When federal governments change, they usually do it with a bang and slowly slide backwards (1931, 49, 75, 83, 96). The only new government to have a small majority in recent times has been Whitlam in 1972 who peaked in some states (Qld, SA, WA) in 1969 and by 1972 the tide in these states was running out -and more than balanced by NSW and VIC to give a majority of 9. If he does win narrowly – at this stage there doesn’t seem to be the ‘big mo’ (courtesy of the West Wing) – his majorities may stay narrow. At the federal level there is a much broader range of constituencies (not just geographic) and economic issues are usually paramount – and to some extent out of the govts control. By 2010 there may be also be some state ALP governments that voters want to punish. It has been mentioned that this may be Kevin’s 1969 – if that is the case, this will be the Liberals ‘one election too many’ – and Kevin will win handsomely in 2010.
There are a few other issues to be considered – is there really a mood for change out there? – bloggers on this site do not count, the PM is starting to look stale, but the rest of the govt has been largely rejuvenated since 1996 (Costello, Downer, Ruddock excepted) – contrast this to the last labor government when by 1995 / 96 the ministry was down to the second XI – and is the mortgage belt that upset? – except for those in Sydney who went in too far, and possibly should not have been given loans to begin with (refer RBA warnings over the years). 2007 may be the one election too many.
Thanks for coming, everybody – I’m closing this thread down. New one here.