The previous thread was getting on the long side, so here’s a new one. Conversation starter: a Roy Morgan poll commissioned by Crikey shows the Prime Minister trailing Labor in his seat of Bennelong by 41 per cent to 40 per cent on the primary vote, and 55-45 on two-party preferred. The sample was 394, which is pretty good for an electorate-level poll. The fortnightly Newspoll will be published in The Australian tomorrow.
UPDATE: 54-46 to Labor in Newspoll; down from 56-44 last time, but Kevin Rudd has a headline-grabbing lead as preferred PM. Elsewhere, England’s finest blogger, Harry Hutton, has made his debut entry on Australian psephological matters.
232 Comments
Bennelong has never been Liberal heartland, and over the years has migrated slowly west, and so taking in more ALP-inclined areas. The corresponding State seat (Gladeville/ Ryde) has usually been an ALP marginal. Demograhics are also at play here, as there has been a huge influx of many Asian migrants over the last couple of decades. I actually grew up in Ryde (with Johnny as the local member), and it’s a very different area that the one I went to school in.
I suspect that Howard will retain it this year (much as I’d love to see him be the first PM since Bruce in 1929 to lose his seat), but if the Libs do lose the election, he almost certainly will lose this seat. Once Labor does win it (probably aafter Howard) they will probably hold it more often than not (ie it will switch from a Lib marginal to an ALP marginal).
Bob Katter’s father was once a member of the ALP; so maybe young Bob would support a fellow Queenslander. After all, the maverick Liberal Peter Lewis gave Mike Rann his chance in SA.
Sacha,
the ALP already holds Oxley, i think you mean Blair, even though it is mainly quasi ruaral it has a big chunk of ipswich in it. Ipswich is a pretty happy place for the Labor Party.
Phil,
Crazy Bob may be crazy, but hes not that crazy, Kennedy likes conservatives
If Labor picks up only 13 seats and requires the support of all three independents, it’s not inconceivable that they could offer Katter the Speakership. Katter seems so confident in his own electoral buffer in Kennedy that he might be silly enough to accept it, regardless of how poorly that would probably be viewed by his constituents. Neither Andren nor Windsor seem likely to accept it, both for ideological and electoral reasons, and Labor might see it as an affordable way to neutralise Katter’s vote.
And it’d make Question Time more entertaining!
I don’t care which independent, any would be better than a party hack. It makes me sick to see question time, it’s such a farce.
The first time the conservatives won Kennedy was in 1925 when the sitting Labor member died after the close of nominations. Without Katter Labor could win Kennedy in a good year, they did in 1990 with Rob Hulls, and their 1966 loss of the seat was self-inflicted. Like Kalgoorlie it might have stayed in the Labor fold a lot longer. On Bennelong, if Labor get anything like the 54-55% some polls are suggesting Bennelong will be one of the less surprising gains. I agree that social change is pushing it towards Labor, following the path of Lowe which the Liberals will probably never win again.
Any word on who the ALP will run?
It’s true the Katters were once Labor, but Bob Senior went over to the QLP-DLP in 1957 and later joined the Country Party. Bob Junior retains some Old Labor views such as high tariffs etc, but is very conservative on most social issues. He doesn’t hate the Nats as much as Windsor does. But he MIGHT support a Labor govt if the other two inds did so, as part of a deal such as the 3 inds in Vic did with Bracks. His price might be too high for Rudd tho. He would be quite impossible as Speaker. Windsor or Andren as Speaker might be possible.
On the bush seats generally, one of Labor’s problems is that we have to win more urban seats than Whitlam or Hawke did, to compensate for the fact that we no longer win many bush seats. If you go back to 1972, Labor under Whitlam held Darling, Hume, Riverina, Eden-Monaro, Macquarie, Wide Bay, Capricornia, Dawson, Leichhardt, Grey and Kalgoorlie, of which we now hold only Capricornia and (on paper) Macquarie. (Curiously Whitlam never won Herbert).
In 1983 Hawke won Eden-Monaro, Calare, Macquarie, Ballarat, Bendigo, McMillan, Capricornia, Herbert, Leichhardt, Grey, Kalgoorlie and Northern Territory. In 1987 he won Hinkler and in 1990 Richmond, Page and Kennedy. In 1993 Keating won Paterson.
In 2007, of all these seats, we hold only Richmond, Ballarat, Bendigo, Capricornia and Lingiari and on paper Macquarie. Only Eden-Monaro, Paterson and Herbert are realistic possible wins. Almost certainly we will never again win Grey, Kalgoorlie, Kennedy, Dawson, Hinkler, Wide Bay, Hume or Riverina, and I doubt we can win Leichhardt, Flynn, Page, McEwen or McMillan.
Kalgoorlie was considered a chance a few weeks before the 2004 election; suburban Melbourne is spilling into McEwen; McMillan seems sour at the moment but the demographics are possibly less daunting than in the other seats mentioned.
The pattern seems to be that once we lose these seats it is very hard to get them back. We can’t even win the state seat of Kalgoorlie now. I agree that McEwen and McMillan are winnable, but I doubt we can win them this time.
Offsetting this is that we now hold some urban seats which Whitlam never won – Lowe, Bruce, Hotham, Chisholm, Griffith.
We can take the US House of Representatives as an analogous situation. The Democrats have lost a large chunk of the Roosevelt majority coalition – the white South, which has gone over almost totally to the Republicans. To win their current majority in the House, the Democrats had to win large majorities of seats in the North-East, the Upper Midwest and the West Coast, areas which in Roosevelt’s time were strongholds of liberal Republicanism.
Can anyone give us a list of all the seats australia wide that should go to the ALP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_general_election%2C_2007
I see Larry Anthony is Running for preselection in Page.
That is excellent news for the Nationals, he win that and the election, then hell be deputy leader and ensure their survival for at least another 15-20 years.
He probably should have run for Richmond again, but its too important for the NAtionals to have their star in a coin toss seat
All country Queensland was Labor until the shearers deunionised in the 50’s.
the country provided red ted theodore and ryan.
then Nicklin broke the pattern and with his successor bjelke-petersen used the boundaries Labor had put in place to keep Labor out for 40 years.
THe boundaries Nicklin inherited were not so much gerrymandered but malapportioned so as to prefer the country ( an instance that still occurs today, Seeneys seat has about 10000 less electors than Beatties).
gerrymandering is a better description for the boundaries that Goss instituted in the early 90’s in Brisbane
Queensland – if Seeney’s seat has fewer voters than Beattie’s it’s due to relative enrolment decline – from memory, only seats with an area larger than 100,000 square kilometres are weighted and they are: Cook, Mt Isa, Charters Towers, Gregory and Warrego. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next redistribution, only four seats end up being weighted or else these five will expand eastwards.
Goss legislated for the weightage following the E.A.R.C. report – without any earc report he probably would have instituted no weightage. And it’s not a gerrymander.
Any information on Makin (It’s history, winners and upcoming election trends.)
The way i see it the ALP can only win with Green preferences in the more moderately safe Lib seats and they cannot afford to loose any themselves. Are there any seats in the other states that might have the greens run second ? I’m in SA
I do not think John Howard will lose Benelong unless there is a very big swing to Labor in NSW. I consider that any other liberal candidate would find this seat very difficult to win. In a byelection Labor would probably win the seat. This
means that should John Howard lose the next federal election he would
be forced in the interests of the liberal party to remain in parliament.
If Larry Anthony wins preselection for Page, which I think he will, it will greatly reduce the Nationals chances of holding that seat.
Voters in Page are unlikely to accept an outsider being forced on them – especially one who was previously rejected by another electorate.
In the past the Nationals have managed to lose safe seats by preselecting candidates from outside the electorate, e.g., Groom 1988 & Fairfax 1990.
C-Woo, check out this page: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/elections/electoral_divisions/historical/mcmillan_ryan.htm
Makin is a mortgage belt seat in the outer north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide. It is named after a Labor luminary, Norman Makin, a member of the House or Reps from 1919-46 and 1954-63, a minister in the Curtin government and ambassador to Washington. The seat was creaqted in 1984 and its first member was Peter Duncan, a minister in the Dunstan state government and then in the Hawke federal government. Duncan was pushed out in Labor’s horror election of 1996 and the seat has been held since by Trish Draper, morals crusader and protege of Liberal right-wing faction heavy Nick Minchin.
Labor mounted several ineffectual campaigns against Draper but lifted its game in 2004 with Salisbury mayor Tony Zappia, who cut her margin from 3.8 percent to 0.9 percent. Many thought Draper was dead meat after it was revealed she had travelled overseas with her boyfriend at public expense, but Labor did not go in hard on this issue and remarkably she received preferences from Family First which is very strong in this area.
Draper is retiring and Zappia is again the Labor candidate. His Liberal opponent is Housing Industry Association chief Bob Day, responsbile for building many of the homes in Makin.
The Advertiser polls in several Adelaide maginals have shown big swing to Labor, but it has not yet polled Makin, Wakefield or Adelaide.
I agree with Bruce, there is a good chance of Page falling to Labor like Richmond did last time or being won by the Liberals. A Labor victory is more likely. Labor is certain to pick up Parramatta (notionally Liberal on the new boundaries), Page, maybe Eden-Monaro, Lindsay, Dobell Bennelong and Wentworth. They will lose Macquarie, which is notionally Labor on the new boundaries to Andren.
I can’t say much about Makin, but in the Adelaide papers and in the air, there feels like a bit of a swing against Howard. Granted it is only February (and Rudd is going through a honeymoon period), but it feels different.
How would you know if this isn’t just a honeymoon for Rudd (meaning when would you know, if it happened?)
I can’t see the ALP winning Wentworth. Bennelong, yes, but Wentworth’s margin is surely the result of the Turnbull-King war.
What’s the general opinion on why the Nats lost Richmond? I have to say that I had Page pencilled in as a gain but I’m quite worried by the advent of Anthony.
Also – does anyone know if the Courier-Mail (or perhaps anyone else?) have done any seat-specific polling around Brisbane? The margins are mostly artificially inflated I think and Rudd will definitely help… but nevertheless some of the seats talked up as ALP targets (Dickson and Bowman in particular) seem to be a bit too much to ask.
Would also be interested in any perspectives on the North Queensland seats that might be within reach – Herbert, Hinkler and Flynn.
In Queensland there are probably a dozen seats that the ALP could count itself a chance, these include the little mentioned seats of forde and leichardt.
THe courier mail hasnt released any polling if it has it, but the courier mail is a biased paper, it had a loely puff piece on how great rudd and swan are on the weekend just gone.
The Nationals lost Richmond because the Green vote was too strong, off the top of my head it won booths, and the preferences delivered the seat to labor. Anthony won on primaries, however if he isnt running for it, which we know hes not the ALP is going to hold onto it.
If a seat like Forde, with a 13% buffer, is considered to be in any sort of trouble then Howard should start writing his memoirs now because he’d be dead in the water.
A lot of seats are over and under quota. There should have been a redistribution last year but it was delayed when Beattie called an early election.
On Queensland seats, my sense is that Labor hasn’t surged as much here as in other states. Only Bonner is a cert. Some Labor people I’ve talked to think Moreton is a tossup. Dickson and Petrie had big problems last time – poor campaigns and poor candidates. Also FF style mortgage belt seats. The strong economy in Qld is going to provide a cushion for Howard, I think. I’ve got a feeling any significant Labor gains might be more likely to come outside Brisbane than in Brisbane, but I haven’t really looked at the seats yet.
Some state based polling would be extremely helpful. I’m very surprised no one’s done it – there’s an obvious big news angle on whether Rudd has lifted Labor’s vote in his own state.
I thought we had established before that Andren is running in Calare, not Macquarie. I agree that whichever one he runs in, he will win it.
Kay Elson isnt running in forde, and she is actually a candidate who has a personal vote, the family name got a better than above average swing to it at state level in woodford, which is like the third safest labor seat in Queensland. A woman named wendy creighton is, a former candidate for rankin.
at the last election every sitting member recontesting there old seat got a swing to them in queensland, i dont know what to make of that but its an interesting fact.
nb sciacca ran for bonner not his old seat of bowman
What about Oakeshott in Lyne? Is he still interested?
Charlie, there was a 2.5% swing to the ALP in Wentworth last election and it’s impossible to know what the swing would have been if King hadn’t run.
Disregarding this 2.5% swing to the ALP, the redistributed margin would be about 5%. This of course doesn’t take into account that in the strong ALP parts of Sydney transferred to Wentworth, there was hardly any Liberal campaign (and there was an ALP campaign). No doubt that will be different this election!
Re Wentworth I do not expect Mr Turnbull to lose for much the same
reasons as John Howard will not lose. Malcolm Turnbull will campaign
very strongly and given his advantage of being the sitting member
and his financial resources a loss would be very unlikely
This speculation about individual seats is endless fun but of little use. If Labor gets the swing they will win and with many surprises. In 1998 Labor failed to win not because of factors in individual seats but because the marginals were disproportionately suburban mortgage belt. On rural Qld; the main problem is the decline of the provincial unionised blue-collar working class and its replacement by a non-unionised retail and hospitality workforce, Leichardt is a classic example of this. Cairns has more in common with suburban Brisbane than the bush, but Labor can win these seats. The seat that has become more working-class is Capricornia due to coal mining and this has moved firmly into the Labor column. However coalfields in Flynn hence importance of the coal issuse.
Queenslander, where’s the Gerrymander in Bris? Name a couple of seats.
d
There’s a redistribution now due in Tasmania.
Will they start it now knowing that the election is coming?
Do they still have to do one if all the seats are within the projections, as I think they might be?
They’d certainly have to suspend it once the election is called. If the seats are within projections, they would still have to ensure that all the seats are within plus minus 3.5% of the average in 3.5 yrs.
Charlie : pre 2004 election margins were as follows :
Moreton 1.2%
Blair 1.1%
Herbert 1.4%
Longman 1.5%
Petrie 3.5%
Bowman 2.8%
The Bonner/Bowman one is a bit difficult to predict. Bonner (my electorate) will definately see a return to Labor. Bowman, now taking in alot of new mortagee’s in Thornlands and Redland Bay will probably show similar patterns to other “mortgage belt” seats. The “fringe” seems to get further and further out with each election
If a redistribution is due, then the AEC will start it. There’s provision in the Act for elections being held during redistributions. If there’s no change to the number of divisions (as will be the case for Tas) the election will be held on the old boundaries.
The projected populations make no difference to the decision about whether or not to hold a Redistribution. They don’t get looked at until the Redistribution Committee is formed and the process has begun.
d
Redistributions are not taken within a year of the expiration of parliament.
“They’d certainly have to suspend it once the election is called. ”
Actually Sascha, the redistribution continues through the election. IF there is a change to the number of divisions for a state, they do a ‘mini-redistribution’ where they take the two contiguous divisions with the highest (or lowest) aggregate enrolment and create three (or one) divisions, using a hypenated name for the new one (eg from the divisons of ‘Smith’ and ‘Jones’ we’d get a new one called ‘Smith-Jones’)
Then later it’s re-redistributed into ‘proper’ boundaries.
d
“Redistributions are not taken within a year of the expiration of parliament.”
Good catch David. The Tas redistribution will commence within 30 days of the first sitting of the new House of Reps.
thanks d and d
Thank you gentlemen.
I’d assume that post-redistribution that Calare would be a likely Nats or Liberal seat if Andren wasn’t running, so if, as people are saying Andren can win either Calare or Macquarie, that gives him a lot of power to decide which party he’d rather see win – Labor in Macquarie or the Nats in Calare.
off the top of head
Ashgrove, where ashgrove and the gap (the blue bits) are cut in half and shared with mtcootha then it somehow reaches all the way to newmarket and alderley (extremely labor), it is a stretch to claim community of interest.
Ferny grove should use brisbane forest park as its northern boundary but it reaches well into the samford valley.
sandgate takes carseldine and bracken ridge and shoves them in with deagon and sandgate, this one makes a little more sense but the boundary is very fortuitous for the ALP.
Clayfield makes a bizarre hook shape so that nundah and pinkenba can be grouped with hamilton and ascot turning it safe to marginal for the liberals.
Moggill is drawn so safe for the liberals , it could ditch chapel hill or pullenvale and still be won easily by the liberals, the liberals would never ever loose indooroopilly if it included chapel hill and crows nest would be extremely competitive if pullenvale was in it.
That was just off the top of my head. I get a little rusty south of the river, but hopefull i have painted a picture that supports my statement.
the boundaires are drawn so favourably for the ALP that the coalition cannot win Government unless they get 55% 2PP.
I know this is a federal thread but i think its interesting
Alex – do you really think that the ALP might continue to go backwards in those seats? There’s no chance of that, surely. Seeing those numbers I can’t help but ponder the ‘what-ifs’ of 2004.
I’m quite hopeful about Herbert and Blair and won’t quite rule out Flynn and Hinkler. In most of Australia Labor does well in provincial cities. They hold all three Newcastle seats, both Wollongong seats, Ballarat, Bendigo, Corio, Oxley and Capricornia. They should also be able to win Bass and Solomon.
Queenslander, I disagree. I don’t see any sign of gerrymandering in Qld boundaries. Are you must be mixing things up as The Gap hasn’t been shared between Mt Cootha and Ashgrove since the 1989 election?
Changing the seat of Clayfield so that Toombul was included probably wouldn’t change things much.
The state seat of Sandgate has comprised roughly the same suburbs for decades.
Moggill is a safe seat for the liberals (in that the Libs always win it) because most people in that area vote liberal and have done so for a long time. It would be difficult to draw a seat in that area that the Liberals wouldn’t usually win.
sacha,
the ashgrove mt cootha boudary is waterworks rd which goes straight thru the middle of the gap. i worked on both ashgrove and mt cootha campaigns at the last election and couldnt believe the baltant absurdity of the border.
apologies for those annoyed at how far weve gone off topic,
also what i meant by moggill was gerrymandered, i meant that the boundaries were drawn so that is super safe and and leading the bordering electorates being that much harder for the libs to hold onto.
Actually the thing about clayfield is it is really ritzy then drops away really fast to labor areas, but that sort of thing happens a bit in brisbane
i suppose its time to fess up and admit what most people already picked, but i am a paid up member of the liberal party.
but on this issue it is so blatant that even with my personal bias taken into account i think its a bit too far
Ashgrove does have a rather unusual shape elongated shape that stretches from inner to beyond the outer suburbs..
I’ve always thought the Brisbane City Council might be Gerrymandered. The Liberals should have won based on votes – see the Lord Mayor.
Geoff R, I don’t disagree with you often, but this is one of those times. In 1998 Labor lost (in part) because they got completely shafted by the luck of the draw. There were a stack of really close seats in which the Liberals overwhelmingly had the donkey vote (were higher on the ballot, not necessarily top).
I did an analysis and found that as near as I could reckon 9 seats were decided by the donkey vote in that election – a lot more than most because there were so many close seats, and the Libs won 8 of them.
Had the situation been reversed Beazley would now be in his third term and Howard would be regarded as an electoral disaster.
If things had split evenly (4 or 5 donkey votes going Labor’s way) the Libs would still have won the election, but it would have been so close that one or two members crossing the floor could bring down the government
According to the pdf of the map of Ashgrove here: http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/profiles/Ashgrove/mapsDistrictsProfile.html, most (if not all of The Gap) is part of the electorate of Ashgrove.
The reasons the electorate of Ashgrove looks unusual is that it’s partly containing The Gap and sparsely populated areas beyond to the City of Brisbane boundary. The Gap doesn’t have enough voters for a single electorate, and, hemmed in by the seat to the south (Mt Cootha), the seat goes eastwards along Waterworks Rd (the major transport corridor to The Gap) towards the City.
If one wanted to move the areas around Ashgrove to the south of Waterworks Rd into the seat of Ashgrove, they would have to add extra voters to Mt Cootha, and the domino effect of shuffling voters from seat to seat would happen – this is fine, but it would cause a shuffling of voters between seats.
My guess is that the areas including Pullenvale and Brookfield have probably *always* combined with Kenmore in a state electorate as this satisfies the electorate-creating requirements (eg community of interest, geographical boundaries) more than the alternatives, which would be to combine Karana Downs, Pullenvale and Brookfield with Ipswich North or possibly the Jindalee area. My guess is that this is the reason the seat covering Kenmore has been as it has for so long.
Any seat (like Clayfield) needs to have enough electors to meet the quota – if the Nundah area is removed from Clayfield, other areas would have to be added to it.
Well so far all the evidence we’ve had to go on for Andren standing in Calare is Malcolm Mackerras’s anonymous sources.
But perhaps further proof comes from Greg Roberts in today’s Oz who states that “[Dick] Estens is the frontrunner to win Nationals preselection for the western NSW seat of Parkes, held by former minister John Cobb, who is retiring.”
Now at first I thought this was just the usual sad lack of journalistic fact-checking, given the that Cobb has already announced his intention to contest Calare. But if Cobb is running against heavyweight independent Peter Andren, it might indeed spell effective retirement.
The new ‘Calare’ takes in most of the Far West and North-West now, doesn’t it? I’m sure Andren is popular but it must be alot of effort for an independent to canvass such a large area of new territory. i wonder has he given any thought to running in the new Parkes (which is basically the old Gwydir)?
I tend to disbelieve any Roy Morgan polls: there is no way John Howard will lose the seat of Bennelong, even if Kevin Rudd wins the election.
However, after Howard has left politics, I give the ALP a good chance of gaining the seat in a subsequent election.
Speaking as a Labor supporter, I see too many parallels with 2001 and 2004: I wouldn’t be writing off Howard just yet, and winning 16 seats will be no easy task for Kevin.
Evan I agree with what you say about Howard’s seat.
There are differences to 2001 and 2004 however. Iraq has turned badly on the government as has the Hicks case. IR is unpopular and Rudd is no Latham. The “its time” factor is having some effect and Howard is beginning to be seen as being past his best. In other words the circumstances and issues are favouring Labor. These are important, significant differences that cannot be overlooked.
I agree with your last sentence but the signs are very positive.
There are several local factors in Bennelong to also consider. In 2004, Andrew Wilkie was in the mix as a strong Green candidate, and the Not Happy John campaign probably had a reasonable effect. The ALP candidate was Nicole Campbell, a local councillor who ran a strong grass-roots campaign that went largely unnoticed by the national media. There has been the recent redistribution, the changing demographics in Bennelong, the imminence of Howard’s retirement, Howard’s history of having a lawyer’s slick interpretation of truth and fairness, and the number of current issues that Howard is not handling well. The captain could well go down with the ship.
Disclosures: I live and vote in the Bennelong electorate. I am not a member of or affiliated with any political party.
Sacha,
I am extremely familiar with the boundaries for ashgrove, i agree that there are towns in brisbane forest park that drag the boundary west, towns for example like peewee bend.
BUt thats not what i was arguing, i was saying that the conservative areas (Gap, Ashgrove) have been grouped with non conservative areas (Newmarket, Alderley, parts of ennogera). When the ecq made the new seat Ferny Grove in 2001 on logic, geography, and community of interest it should have included the suburbs of ferny grove and going south west from there to include newmarket and alderley. that boundary would make sense. However thats not what happened. the boundary goes north defying a geographic boundary and a political bounadry (BCC).
THe only explanation for this is that is ferny grove had taken its natural border there would be an extremely safe labor seat and it would make ashgrove and the seat around samford marginal liberal seats.
The only explantion for the defiance of logic in these boundaries is to create electoral benefits to labor
Apologies to those who have had enough of me going on about state boundaires inside a federal thread.
Sacha, i dont think we are going to agree anytime soon, perhaps we should just let it go
Queenslander, what “conservative” areas should be included with The Gap and Ashgrove in a seat instead of the existing “non-conservative areas”? Are there enough “conservative” voters in the area to allow you to construct an entire state seat? If there are, how would you justify constructing such a seat given all the requirements (such as community of interest) needing to be satisfied when constructing a seat?
The fact that conservative voting areas are combined with non-conservative voting areas doesn’t indicate that the boundaries are drawn to benefit labor.
I’d suggest that if there were more state seats, Ashgrove would probably shrink west allowing it to be more readible won by the Liberals due to a lower quota; ie, there are too few conservative voters in a sea of Labor voters in that part of Brisbane for the Liberals to more readily win the seat.
Charlie .. no, I don’t think the ALP vote will go back at all. I included those margins to illustrate the truely massive effect a “crazy man from western Sydney” had on our admittedly conservative (even in the cities) electorates. I think it’s more accurate to look at those seats with their pre-Latham margins when deciding who might win (and based on that QLD looks set for a reasonably easy 4-6 seat gain).
Look through the history of many of the other marginals too and you’ll find they were held by Labor prior to Latham’s 04 election bid. Sans Latham and with public mood turning to areas of traditional ALP strength .. many should be no contest.
“doing the numbers” I’d predict 4-6 seats in QLD, 3-6 seats in NSW, 1-4 seats in VIC, 2-3 seats in SA, 2 in TAS, Solomon from NT and 1-2 in WA. Meaning a “conservative” net gain of 14 seats and a possible net gain of 24. It’ll probably fall in the middle .. 18 or 19 seats.
This is, of course, assuming that no errant planes fly into buildings 8 weeks before the election.
Which are the 1-4 seats in Vic?
And yes, state QLD boundaries have even less business here then the slogan slanging match between Greens and anti-Greens. Although people who made such a noise about that have been remarkably quite. Do I detect a hint of hypocrosy?
Bert I was indeed about to comment that debate about Qld state politics doesn’t really belong here, but it’s not as disruptive as party slogans – it least it is a psephological discussion.
On Andren: if he runs in Calare and wins it, he deprives the Nationals of that seat and allows Labor to win Macquarie. He thus helps Labor. If he runs in Macquarie and wins it, he deprives Labor of that seat and allows the Nats to win Calare. He thus helps Howard. Andren has always been pro-Labor, which was why Labor ran dead in Calare in 1996 when Simmons retired, allowing Andren to win and shut out the Nats who would have won it otherwise. He would certainly support a minority Labor government if we have a hung parliament. It was thus seem logical that he would help Labor by running in Calare rather than helping Howard by running in Macquarie.
Well, you would hope so, but he’s been very cross that Kerry Bartlett has been going to functions in Lithgow and someone I know offered to help him out in the mountains and he said yes … this is when we need someone from the new Calare to tell us how he’s behaving out there so we can decide if he’s just hedging his bets and playing with our heads or if he’s serious about moving to the east.
While those of us who grew up with Gallipoli and Breaker Morant would have no doubt that 70 unarmed Australian soldiers in a training role could take 1500 or so british troops any day of the week, Blair’s stunning backflip comes to cloud this weeks political Howard wedge.
On the same day the Govenor of the Reserve Bank announces the next move in interest rates is likely to be up and not down.
Surely a national security threat like Howard can’t win against the polling with another interest rate rise?
Adam, what I meant about party slogans not being as bad is because at least they were federal. I guess which one is less disruptive is what this thread is. FEDERAL psephological discussion or federal PSEPHOLOGICAL discussion.
The 1-4 seats in Victoria is possible, I agree. McMillan (5.0) is a huge chance. I’d also be looking at Deakin (5.0), Corangamite (5.4), La Trobe (5.9) and McEwen (6.2). You can throw in Gippsland (7.8) as a long-shot, since more than 5% of that margin is from the 2004 election and could easily be very soft Nationals support.
I’m a little more optimistic on NSW, Alex. Treating Macquarie as an ALP seat, there’s Parramatta, Lindsay and Eden-Monaro that are within 3.3%. All will fall unless something fundamental changes in the next seven to eight months. Wentworth is only 2.6% as well, but I have my doubts there as mentioned above.
On the other hand, I think that Bennelong is very vulnerable. If it goes on election night it’s going to cost me a fortune, after I shout everyone in the pub. Then there’s a swathe of semi-marginal/semi-safe seats along the North Coast and slightly inland – Dobell, Page, Paterson, Cowper and Robertson. For some reason Northern NSW is the rogue province in the Coalition’s rural empire. Richmond has fallen, New England belongs to an independent, Andren will probably win in Calare and even Vaile might be in trouble if Oakeshott runs against him. The ALP should be targeting the region very heavily.
There’s also a small handful of seats that
I honestly think that only Wentworth is likely to buck a general swing towards the ALP. Whether the swing is enough in each of the seats is obviously a different matter. We shall see.
The other state in which I think you’ve been a little conservative is South Australia. Why only two or three seats here? At this stage, I’d put Kingston, Wakefield and Makin squarely in the ‘gain’ column. Further, I think that Boothby is attainable if the swing is on. Toppling Pyne in Sturt would be almost as good as seeing Howard and Turnbull go, but I think he’ll survive. Nevertheless, there’s four seats in SA that the ALP can win, and three of them are the types of seat that will only survive if the Government itself survives.
Other than that, I’m broadly in agreement. I will have to look longingly at Kalgoorlie – the chances of it falling in the middle of this particular resource boom are slim.
Please ignore the ‘There’s also a small handful of seats that’ – I meant to delete that.
Ill take the blame for the state boundary thing.
there will be no agreement in the forseeable future
I haven’t spoken to anyone in the Victorian ALP who thinks we can pick up seats here this year. We already hold 19 of 37 – if other states did as well we would be in government now. We have a swag of marginal seats to defend (Isaacs with a new candidate, Holt, Bruce, Bendigo, Ballarat, Chisholm and Melbourne Ports) and that’s where our resources should go. We know from long experience that Deakin and LaTrobe just don’t swing – they have changed a lot from the Whitlam-Hawke era, and are strongholds of the McMansions class these days. The same is true of Dunkley which you don’t mention. Corangamite gets talked up every election, but this is very fanciful. It’s true it contains a slab of Geelong suburb and the Surf Coast towns, but it’s still basically a Western District seat. McMillan is a coal-and-forestry seat – Peter Garrett will not go down very well there. McEwen may be a possibility as the northern suburbs spead into it. Nothing is impossible, but in calculating which 16 seats Labor is going to win to knock off Howard, I wouldn’t count on any contribution from Victoria.
Yeah I agree with Adam here, Victoria will not the decide the election. If its a real landslide seats like McMillan or Deakin may fall, but in that case Labor won’t need to win them anyway.
I live near McEwen, and the ALP don’t have a hope(though I wish they did).
From capaigning there I’ve found that Fran Bailey is seen as a great local member, even when people take into account the stuff she does federally that people don’t like.
From what I can understand, Fran gets praise for anything positive while Howard gets blamed for anything Fran does wrong. And these people dont like the Liberals.
Macquarie would be a gain following the redistribution, and yes they’ll hold they now “nominal” Liberal Parramatta. Jackie Kelly should have some personal vote .. but probably not enough to save her in Lindsay. Eden-Monaro and Dobell would shift to the ALP with a half-decent national swing. Bennelong also has a good chance of falling as all the “Howard Haters” (as Downer calls them) will be out in force there. Page has been held by Ian Causley since 96 though his margin was shaved considerably in the 2001 election. Paterson actually suffered a bigger “Latham backlash” though ..
Bert .. the 4 Vic seats are Deakin, McMillan, McEwan and LaTrobe .. all on tight margins going into the last election. McMillan was actually held by Labor going into 04 (that was the “conservative “1″) and LaTrobe was Labor all through the 80’s . with Hawke losing it in his very slim ‘90 election.
The government has had a terrible few weeks. Howard should be happy the election is a probably 9 months away. If it were held today I doubt he would win.
Events are driving the Coalition. The Coalition needs to drive events. What they need to do is put the focus on the strength of the economy (and the risk of Labor squandering it), hammer the hell out of the state governments (NSW in particular – but after the Iemma’s probable win) and attack the opposition every chance they get if they want to chip into Labor’s lead.
Howard should be counting his blessings that events pass over the horizon after the media and the public have had enough dwelling on them. Remember the global warming disaster from last week? It has basically drifted off the front pages for now, Iraq however, has taken its place. My guess is that providing nothing drastic, the issue will fade of the front pages fairly soon.
Ahhh .. I just read the posts above mine .. I shall bow to local knowledge
Still think McMillan has to be a chance though .. alot of money will be thrown at “Clean Coal” investments to shore up north QLD seats .. and they “did” vote Christian Zahra (as a then 25/28 yr old) in at 2 elections in 98 and 01 .. and the current member can’t have built too much of a profile in only 3 years.
Broadbent held McMillan before, from 1996 to 1998. He also held the former Division of Corinella (which included Wonthaggi) from 1990 to 1993. So it wouldn’t be correct to say that he doesn’t have a profile. Further to that, he’s been one of the four backbench opponents of Government policy on asylum seekers.
It concerns me that an ALP staffer like Adam dismisses the chances of winning any seats purely on the basis that they already hold a majority in Victoria. Frankly, whether the ALP holds 6, 12, 19 or 35 seats in Victoria is completely irrelevant to whether they can win seats like McMillan.
The following seats I know very well McEwan and Dunkley, I cannot see either changing for the sitting MPs are very good campaigners.
I was thinking if the ALP wanted to scare the living daylights out of the Liberals, they should get Kylie to run in Kooyong for my reading of that Bluest of blue seats is Petro isn’t popular and neither is Howard.
While I see the Liberals holding Deakin, I wouldn’t call it McMansion territory, neither is Dunkley about of its vote comes from Frankston which is a somewhat old suburb
Seats I have the ALP winning as of end of February
Corrangamitte, Paramatta, Edan Marnro, Makin, Wakefield, Kingston, Hasluck, Stirling, Canning, Solomon, Macquarie
About half of Dunkley comes from Frankston
* I am an EX-ALP staffer, thanks.
* When Zahra won McMillan in 98 it had different boundaries, taking in all the LaTrobe Valley. Now it only has Moe. It also has Pakenham, a fast growing and solidly Liberal suburb, and a swathe of South Gippsland dairying country.
* As I said above, McMillan is a resources seat – dairying, coal and timber. Latham lost the timber industry workers with his forests policy last time, and they will be hard to get back, even assuming we have a more pro-logging policy this time (this will also affect our chances in Bass, Braddon and Eden-Monaro).
* If we are painted as anti-coal, that will further erode our vote (and this will also affect us in Capricornia, Flynn, Hunter and Paterson). While Garrett’s high profile will get us lots of votes in Kooyong and Higgins where we don’t need ‘em, it won’t do us any good in the regional marginals (which is why I gather we are worried about Bendigo).
With reference to Adam’s earlier post saying that the ALP now held Chisholm, Hotham and Bruce and did not during the Whitlam years.
Does it really count when seats have migrated across suburbia – in the 70s Chisholm was based on Camberwell and Surrey Hills now it takes in Box Hill, Clayton and Mount Waverley. Bruce has also migrated south east and now takes in most of what was then Holt.
How much of the now Bennelong did John Howard represent in 1974?
On Victorian seats that may be lost – the Vic libs are very good at selecting good grass roots candidates – the only seat that I would have on the block is Corangamite – both because of an MP that has stayed around too long and Geelong and Bellarine Peninsula growth.
bmwofoz, why Canning? While I’ll be the first to say the margin in the seat is unnaturally large for that electorate, it is still 9.8%.
I’d say it would change if there’s a rough national swing around 5% or more, as I really don’t believe the margin’s a real reflection of what the seat should be, but I can’t see it changing ahead of a lot of closer seats.
And Charlie – on Kalgoorlie, if the swing is on, it’s probably more accessible to Labor than it might seem on first glance. It might be where the resources boom is physically happening, but it’s not necessarily where the rewards are being reaped from the boom – with more people involved in fly-in-fly-out, they tend not to live in the Kalgoorlie electorate as much as they might have 20 years ago. Still, it would be a real long shot for Labor still.
Adam your previous post is as usual well thought out and argued but I think it is too early to say that the ALP will be able to be successfully painted as ‘anti-coal’ and my opinion is that the ball will not role far that way.
The recent decision to disallow upfront tax deductions in respect of non- forestry Managed Investment Schemes, even with a 12 month or greater deferral of implenentation, should assist the ALP in many regional and marginal seats, including the two held by the Liberal Party in Tasmania.
I live in Dunkley, and only part of the electorate is Frankston, and only part of Frankston is the older area. Just near me is the appropriately named Yarralumla Drive, with half acre blocks and large attractive homes on well-tree gardens. It has distinguished itself by having more than 90 per cent of its residents sign a petition to stop disabled people from Kew Cottages living in the street. Other parts of the electorate are also quite well off. The sad truth is that as relative income rises so does voting Liberal. The state seat of Frankston is held by a very good local Labor member, Alistair Harkness. The other state seat, Hastings, was also held until last year by another very good Labor member, Rosy Buchanan, but she lost it to a very hard-working Liberal, Noel Burgess. I am sure that there will be a swing back to Labor in Dunkley, but it would be a miracle if it were big enough to return the seat to the Labor fold.
Of course it counts – a seat is a seat, wherever it is. Some of the regional seats we have lost have changed their boundaries too – Grey for one.
In 1974 Bennelong ran from Balls Head to Kissing Point. The only parts of the 1974 Bennelong which are still in the seat are Gladesville, Ryde, North Ryde and Macquarie Park.
I’d say Labor’s best chance in Victoria is Corangamite. I take Adam’s point that people have been saying it will fall for years, but some day they will be right (after which the Libs will probably never get it back).
Above that I would say Labor will probably either win all of McEwen, McMillan, Lat Trobe and Deakin, if the current polls are anything like right, or none of them (more likely). Demographic change will also make McEwen a Labor seat one day, but the margin is large enough that it is unlikely to be this time.
Frankston is one of the most class-polarised areas in Melbourne. In 2001 the Frankston Forest booth turned in a Labor 2PV of 65%, while Mt Eliza Central – about 15 minutes drive away – turned in a Labor 2PV of about 20%. Frankston Forest (the old A V Jennings Pines Estate) is where people in Mt Eliza Central hire their cleaning ladies from.
The interest rate rise coming, four since the last election.
I’m feeling that we are heading towards a 1975, 1983 or 1996 election at the moment.
For once, the economy is not the most important issue. I think Howard’s stuffed.
William, I hope you are archiving all this. After the election you should hand out awards for the Most Wildly Inaccurate Predictions.
I share the respect for Fran Bailey’s marginal seat skills, but I wonder if these will be diminished by her being in the Ministry since 2004. She certainly hasn’t shone in Tourism, and her extra responsibilities may have distracted her from her local task.
McMillan will be very difficult, because State Labor did poorly in November, losing Narracan and Morwell on much bigger swings than were experienced elsewhere. This was variously attributed to the decline in the Latrobe Valley blue collar workforce, and a State specific issue related to water.
Deakin is a definite chance for Labor. Phil Barresi is (I think) chair of the backenchers committee on Work Choices, a lively issue in electorates like it. I also fancy Corangamite, because of the way the demographics are shifting. LaTrobe is also a prospect. Bob Charles was a terrific marginal seat campaigner, who held back the tide in 1993 and 1998. The new MP in 2004 is yet to demonstrate Charles’ capacity to defy a big swing.
This all presupposes a significant state-wide swing (5% or more). Labor’s 2PP for Victoria in 2004 fell below 50% for only the second time since 1980. Latham and the bite of the interest rates scare were probably the main factors; however an effective “no tolls” campaign in the Ringwood – Dandenong – Frankston corridor led to exaggerated margins, in seats like Aston, Dunkley, Deakin and LaTrobe, and created the putative risk for Holt.
I used to live in McEwen. One problem is Labor keeps changing its candidate. It had excellent candidates in both 1998 and 2001, but neither one got more than one go at it. I did not live there in 2004 and cannot comment on the Labor candidate for that year. There is something to be said for early endorsement and giving candidates more than one election to take a seat.
My reading of Labor’s chances in Victoria is that it will be tough to grab any seat, even if a swing is on. McMillan represents the best chance but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Corangamite and McEwen are also maybe’s but again, I wouldn’t bet on it.
I agree that Labor should focus on shoring up their marginals. Whilst Labor took a heavy swing in Victoria at the 2004 election, they were “lucky” in that it didn’t translate into seat losses. McMillan was already a nominal Liberal seat thanks to a distribution. Many of the rest came close to falling but stopped short. Bendigo, Ballarat, Chisolm, Isaacs and Melbourne Ports come to mind.
A good result for Labor in Victoria would be a net increase of anywhere between 0 – 1 seat.
The fact that the Labor vote diminished sharply in Melbourne Ports ,in which I live,was due to the fact that many people saw the Labor MHR,Danby as more interested in taking up the concerns of Israel and the well organised Jewish Lobby in the seat.
He is a one-track politician,and not without cause ,is he sometimes known locally as the Member for tel Aviv !
There was substantial l,eakage of Green votes too,due again to Danby
Chris Curtis,
why is it a sad truth that as people get wealthier they choose to vote liberal. Why is it not simply the truth, and a result of the success of the keating revolution
Hrmm… The idea that Labor should be playing defence in Victoria appears not to be backed by Liberal Party optimism. Check out the party website. Preselection for Chisholm has been held open despite the original call for it to be closed last month. Their original Ballarat candidate pulled the pin a few weeks ago. And the Holt preselection has reportedly only attracted two utter deadbeats. They don’t exactly seem to be going out of their way to install quality candidates.
Nor do I think much of the idea that Victoria has already done its bit for the ALP because the state already provides the party with a majority of its seats. (Applied to Tasmania, that means not going after Bass & Braddon.) Given how poorly Labor does in a big state like Queensland, the party has to produce more than just bare majorities elsewhere.
Queenslander,
It is a “sad†truth that as people get wealthier they are more likely to vote Liberal because the Liberal Party is a party that damages the public good. I lived through the 1992-99 Victorian Liberal government, without doubt the worst government of my lifetime, though very good at media manipulation. The Labor Party will always be more concerned with working people and the poor. The middle classes should remember where they came from.
While I don’t share Adam’s cynicism about the ALP’s chances in Victoria, and think it would be foolish to waste money on defence, I think (as a sort-of local) people are misguided to see Corangamite as a potential gain.
By all rights, Corangamite should be a truly marginal seat by now – Stewart McArthur is dead wood who has been around forever, and has had a rapidly decreasing margin for years in what was a once-safe seat. Labor didn’t help itself by running a no-name hack in basically every election in the 1990s, and looks insistent on running Peter McMullin, the ethically-challenged former Geelong mayor, in 2007 – something which will absolutely ensure McArthur gets another three years.
Getting back to the Senate,
One pick up that has not been mentioned is the ALP getting both seats in the senate there. They went close before, 2001 I think, and work choices could be a big issue there with its strong public service base and Howards threatened attack on their conditions through work choices as well as Howard constantly overturning ACT legislation passed by the elected government there.
Chris,
another point not discussed is that as people get better educated they are more likely to vote left. also middle class educated types who live near the city are more inclined to vote left, while those in the suburban diaspora are more inclined to vote right, at least at the moment.
also statiscally the party that holds the poorest seats by income is the National party, followed by the liberals second.
whereas in middle income educated seats the ALP held a clear majority (of the fifty most middle income seats Labor holds something like 30)
The Australian did a report on a range of things such as these on the last parliament.
Brian,
Rubbish. I’m not unfamiliar with Melbourne Ports and have to say that if it wasn’t for Danby, Labor would be in an even more precarious position in Melbourne Ports. The fact is that there is a large Jewish community in and around the Caulfield area and Danby is attuned to their concerns on security and education issues. That’s just plain ol’ good representation. Given Latham’s inexperience (and immaturity) on security issues and his woeful hit list of private schools (which, if it weren’t for Danby would have targetted the Jewish schools in the electorate), many Jewish voters would have swung in behind Howard.
Assume the Senate reference above is to the ACT. The first condition to be met for Liberal Party to lose this seat is that its proportion of the vote must drop below a quota 33.33% and have everyone else preference tightly against the Liberals.
This prospect has remained tantalisingly out of reach – and if the unlikely did happen and the Liberal vote in the Senate collapsed the beneficiary is just as likely to be the Greens as the ALP.
The Greens candidate will be Kerrie Tucker who has a strong community profile and pulled around 17% of the vote last time, if memory serves me correctly
The Liberal Senator, Gary Humphries has on a couple of issues taken a stand supportive of local interests against Federal Government intervention in Territory afairs – positioning himself for a run as someone who is standing up for the local community.
Yet more evidence that events are starting to run away from the government. If readers remember last week, Howard flicked the switch to Iraq to try and paint Rudd and the ALP as weak of national security. Then loyal ally Blair goes and announces that Britain is leaving, and Howard is left high and dry. The veiled hint from the RBA that another interest rate hike is on the way wouldn’t have helped either. Meanwhile Rudd is serenely continuing on his way – he looked very assured on Lateline last night.
I’m wary of the old bugger Howard, though. He’s got truckloads of cash and next to no morals, so I wouldn’t discount any sort of tactic for him to ensure his leagcy as a “Great Liberal” (as opposed to the guy who stayed on too long and condemned the Libs to a decade in opposition).
Re Rod B and the ACT Senate – even with Kerrie Tucker as the Greens candidate I don’t see the 2nd Senate seat being lost by Garry Humphries. He’s made some astute decisions on local (ACT) issues, and with Stanhope on the nose politically at present, the ALP may struggle to increase their vote. Since 1998 the ALP Senate vote has stayed at around 42%.
The Libs dipped to just under quota in 1998 (31.15%), when Rick Farley ran for the Democrats, but the Lib vote has increased steadily from there, to the point where they would need at least a 4% swing against them (to reduce the vote from 37% to 33%) to just open the door. Then there may be preferences from FFP/CDP and other minor parties (from the right) that could easily get them over quota. So, for the Libs to lose ACT they would have to have bad preference flows and a catastrophic loss of votes (-5-8%) for the seat to be lost. Not impossible, just rather unlikely…
The most important thing that will happen in this “quasi” election campaign is the budget and budget reply in May.
That still looms as one of the biggest challenges .. though perhaps with the free ride Murdoch (and oddly Fairfax as well) is giving Rudd at the moment any negatives might be contained.
The thrust of the budget reply seems simple on the surface .. give away alot while not seeming too (to stay fiscally conservative), announce “nation building” projects to hightlight the lack of forward planning by Howard over the last decade and concentrate and fedral/state reform (such as he did back in December to wide acclaim) as a way of both part paying for the above, and giving people a better chance of good water, health and education services.
On Melbourne Ports: As some people here know, I worked for Danby until December, so my comments can be seen as either well-informed or partisan, take your pick. I’ve also lived there for 21 years.
* By per-capita income Ports is one of the three wealthiest seats held by the ALP (I think Canberra and Sydney are top of the list). The demographics are working steadily against Labor as high-income people colonise Southbank and Port Melbourne. Walk through Beacon Cove and see why Labor’s vote in Port Melb has dropped. It’s a surprise Labor still holds the seat at all.
* There are two reasons Labor still holds Ports: one is Danby’s ability to break even with the Libs in Caulfield, a suburb which at state level votes solidly Liberal. Even when they ran a Jewish candidate against him in 2004, he held most of his Jewish base. If the Labor candidate was called Smith, there would be a 5% swing to the Libs in Caulfield.
* The other reason is the solid Labor base in St Kilda-Elwood, which has got better for Labor as Port Melb-South Melb-Albert Park has got worse. This area (where I live) votes solidly Labor or Green, and cares about issues like environment, refugees and gay rights. On these issues, Danby is as “left” as any other Labor member. This seldom gets reported. Nor does his work on electoral issues, child care etc etc.
* I don’t know what is meant by “Green slippage.” In 2001 the Greens and Democrats in Ports got 20.2% between them, while in 2004 they got 15.4%. In 2001 Danby got 80.4% of Green preferences, in 2004 he got 86.8%. So the “left” vote is actually declining, while Danby get an increasing share of their preferences.
* It’s true that left-inclined voters don’t like Danby’s views on some issues. Unfortunately, since the Libs now always run Jewish candidates against him (this year, Cr Adam Held), he has to spend a lot of his time in Caulfield defending his record on Israel, Jewish schools and national security.
* Danby’s position on Israel, by the way, is relatively moderate. I wouldn’t have worked for him otherwise. He supports a Palestinian state, which he gets plenty of stick for from the right wing of the Jewish community.
* The political reality is that Labor will lose Ports if Danby’s base in Caulfield defects. The “straddle” between what they like in Caulfield and what they like in St Kilda is difficult, but Danby does it better than anyone else currently on offer. Unless “left” voters want a Liberal MP, they will have to go on supporting him. The left tried to challenge his preselection last year and got (from memory) 20% of the vote.
Chris I really respect your views and I am very interested in the running long and running more than once in a seat. I’ve worked on a couple of successful campaigns in marginals and the candidate has won both times but it is very expensive very hard hard work; but with reward. I can see how losing would be very difficult.
Particularly on the Labor side can we do more to sustain and support candidates, particularly candidates who lose once or twice? I wonder how many candidates that run a reallly good really hard campaign in a marginal actually want to do it a second time after losing.
It also runs against the ‘it is the swing’ mantra so many party people sprout … if I had a dollar for every time a party person said the candidate didn’t really count I’d have to be a liberal (all the wealth).
Finally I’ve heard many party people talk about how unimportant it is where a candidate lives. But at my booth at the last election I had 30 – 40 locals who actually bothered to talk to me say they supported Labor but weren’t going to vote for this guy they hadn’t heard of… part of me wonders if, particularly labor tries the local candidate often enough to really form a view whether or not it can be critical. On they other hand they are in a way spoiled by near weekly contact with the local State Member which kind of raises expectations any federal member is going to struggle to meet.
Incidentally, anyone got any thoughts as to who or what is at numbers 1 & 2 in the mock ballot paper in the masthead of this blog?
Doug Stewart
Re the senate in the ACT.
If the Lib vote dropped to 31% in 98 I think conditions could be right for it to happen again.
The ACT is a public service town and a good scare campaign on work choices being introduced in to the public service would work well.
People in the ACT were rated as seeing themselves as being more socially aware than other Australians, higher incomes and more secure jobs maybe?, but this should also mean more votes such as Hicks, the environment, Iraq and AWB.
Humphries is another pretend rebel like Joyce and Fielding, only standing up to the government when they know their vote won’t affect the outcome.
I would rate the second seat as an outside chance but not a long shot.
Doug Stewart
Re Senate seat.
Actually ALP little chance of picking up the second seat, post should have been more directed to the chances of the libs losing the seats, most likely to the greens as you pointed out, especially with the drought and climate change becoming a bigger issue.
More fantasy predictions. The Greens have as much chance of winning a Senate seat in the ACT as I have of being elected Pope. Don’t be misled by all those trees – Canberra people are as fond of driving cars, eating meat and wearing clothes made of artificial fibres as anyone else. The problem the Greens have is that the more their chances are hyped up, the greater scrutiny their policies attract, and the less chance they have of actually winning.
Adam
Veering into polemic, aren’t we? The issue isn’t about the Greens winning the seat (or the ALP for that matter) – its about the Libs losing it, which as I have said previously is highly unlikely, short of an electoral revolt in the ACT.
Those votes leaving the Libs would need to go to the ALP or Greens (most likely they would go to the ALP) and not the CDP/FFP etc who would in all likelihood deliver them back to the Libs if they did. Further, for the Greens to win, they would need to have a higher vote than the ALP – which if all those CDP/FFP/ex-Lib votes are taken into account they possibly wouldn’t. In the scenario where the Libs drop to 28% (5% below quota and presumably not enough to be elected with the CDP/FFP vote), then unless the Greens are sitting on 18% or better the seat could just as easily go to the ALP.
It wont be scrutiny of policy that brings Greens undone (which in many cases is welcome as it highlights the very real differences between Greens and the ALP/Libs on a host of issues – and the real similarities on a lot of others) – it will be the simple dynamics of preferential voting.
That said, I would agree that an outcome of 2 non-Lib Senators being returned in the ACT is an unlikely event…
As of now I am predicting a Coalition win (Labor 67-68, Coalition 80, Others 2-3), with possibly John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull losing their seats. Labor will pick up Green, remidants of the Australian Democrats and small ‘l’ liberal votes, which will translate into big swings in the inner city. However everywhere else will not shift as much.
Depends on how things go in the next few months, Labor could win a narrow majority. In that event Howard and Turnbull will be goners.
Certain Labor gains: Bennelong, Wentworth, Moreton, Parramatta (Liberal on the new boundaries), Wakefield, Bonner, Kingston.
Probable Labor gains: Solomon, Sitrling, Blair, Herbert, Braddon, Makin, Page,
Probable Labor loses: Macquarie, Labor on the new boundaries, but to an independent Andren (I am assuming he is running there instead of Calare or Parkes).
Coalition seats which have safe for a long time which will turn much more marginal and will be able to be won by Labor in a good election.
Higgins, Goldstein, North Sydney, Kooyong, WARRINGAH, Ryan, Boothby, Sturt, Cowper,
Adam, your desending into Green bashing yet again.
Bob Brown, along with at least a quarter of the party are meat eaters.
So, 75% of Greens members are vegetarians? Oh dear, what an admission – imagine what Andrew Bolt will make of that: “How representative of the Australian people can such a party be? Will they shut down the beef industry as well as the coal industry? Will they ban the BBQ (toxic smoke emissions AND killing harmless sausages)? It will be compulsory tofu for all.” You see how careful you have to be, Bert?
Tristan, why are you giving Labor Stirling but not Hasluck? Why Braddon but not Bass?
If Labor wins Stirling, they’ll win Hasluck. Stirling would definitely be the harder of the two seats for Labor to win.
Unless someone puts a stake through Brian Burke, Labor won’t be winning anything in WA.
Adam do you know the meaning of AT LEAST? You don’t seem too. Anyway, your the one making outragous comment with no back up of any sort.
To Adam:
Braddon will probably be more winnable for Labor than Bass, however outside say Queensland the swing might only be around 2% to Labor (A Queenslander as Labor leader could send the swing to Labor there as high as 6-7%). They could win no extra seats in Tasmania.
Stirling is more an inner metropolitan seat than Hasluck is. Hence I am more confident of Labor winning it than Hasluck which is mortgage belt.
Although I should have added Hasluck and Stirling into the probable Labor gains list.
Adam,
Maybe you should come up with something better than silly lines about vegetarianism. Have you heard about any statistics on the resources that goes into producing meat? Have you missed the boat (pardon the pun) on overfishing that even the Japanese public is getting?
Oh and have you bothered reading Green policy? From what you write, I doubt it.
Makin’s maybe a shoo-in for Labor. The new Liberal member’s main policy is building houses, building houses and building houses.
Did i mentioned he liked building houses.
Speaking as a vegetarian who likes his greens but does not vote Green, I realise that I will now be subject to fines and/or damages for boycotting butchers’ shops under today’s proposals from the insufferably arrogant Liberals who intend to ban boycotts. I suppose the “Live animal export Australia’s shame†sticker on my car will also get me into trouble. The law is directed at PETA for their criticisms of Australia’s sheep industry, but could be applied to anyone. I quote Frank Knoppfelmacher: “When casting your second preference you hold the pencil in the right hand while holding your nose with the left.â€
Queenslander,
The low-income seats which elect coalition candidates tend to be rural ones, which reflects their social conservatism. John Brumby worked hard before the 1999 Victorian election to win rural support for Labor and must be largely credited with the Labor victory that year. As I keep saying, it is the Minnestoa Democratic Farmer Labor Party. The ALP just has to get smarter in rural areas.
I think the natural economic interest of probably 80 per cent of the population lies with the Labor side. It is remarkable that the Liberals, with their demonising of unions, have been able to get the votes they do.
Educated people do tend to the left. I don’t know why this is. The claim that it is the result of their higher intelligence is, of course, arrogant.
The most fascinating feature of the current electoral landscape is the 10-15 -20 per cent of people who vote for the coalition at the federal level and Labor at the state level. If Labor can work out what makes them tick, as longs as it’s not a conscious desire to offset power at the two levels, it will win.
Jasmine,
I won every election I stood in in the DLP. I won every election I stood in in the VSTA/AEU. I won every election I stood in in a school until 2004. I lost every parliamentary election I contested, but it didn’t stop me going back for more. I’d even seek Labor pre-selection, but I’m not in a faction, so there is no point. Candidates who work hard and lose are naturally disappointed, but some are eager to have another go.
When Victorian schools were forced to become “self-managingâ€, they had to take on huge transaction costs as every one of them had to re-invent the wheel – you should see the number of square wheels we have now, often called “continuous propulsion devicesâ€. If a political party endorses a candidate early, there is more time for the campaign. When the candidate contests the following election, there is less need to rebuild the campaign from scratch. Additionally, the candidate will have a local profile, which should help. (Okay, I still didn’t win Diamond Valley on my third attempt!) I cannot quantify the difference this would make, but in a close contest, it is worth having.
Adam, if there’s anything that can be learned from the Peel by-election, it’s that Brian the Bastard Burke isn’t going to be an issue – if Labor can get a swing toward them in a by election caused directly by all these shenanigans, I reckon you can dismiss the issue.
Plus, the Libs are up to their necks in the whole mess as well – Noel Crichton-EvilBastard-Brown’s up to his neck in it, while the state Liberal deputy, Troy Buswell has also been mentioned in dispatches. I doubt the Coalition really wants to bring it up that much. Although the Greens might.
http://origin.abc.net.au/news/items/200611/1796091.htm?wa
Chris
The 15-20% who change their votes at federal and state levels change because they have not had a decent alternative. Latham was too risky and Beazely was more a popular vote seeker than an issues person.
Rudd does offer a serious alternative and may prompt 7-10%of them to change which could offer some suprising results.
Unfortunately on a state level Debnam does not come across as a serious alternative but 3-5% may still change their vote here.
Adam,
A very insightful analysis into Melbourne Ports. One which I was a kinda getting at in my previous post, but obviosuly don’t have the personal experience you do. But one question though … we’ve disagreed on the issue of whether Labor can take Wentworth. Surely Wentworth’s demographics on the new redistribution are similar to those of Melbourne Ports. If Danby can pull it off in MP, why not Labor in Wentworth?
On the relationship between class and voting behaviour:
* Class is still the overwhelming determinant of voting behaviour. The poorer a person is, the more likely they are to vote Labor, and the wealthier they are, the more likely they are to vote Liberal. That’s why Gellibrand is a Labor seat and Kooyong is a Liberal seat.
* Two myths have been repeated above: That the National Party holds all the poorest seats, and that highly educated people are more likely to vote Labor.
* It’s true that many rural seats have low per capita incomes, because most farmers have low cash incomes. But they are not “poor,” since they own their properties and can borrow against them, and do not rely on their cash incomes to feed their families. (Plus they get a vast array of open and disguised government handouts.) Farmers vote for the Nationals (or Liberals) because it’s in their class interest to do so. The genuinely poor seats (relatively speaking) are still the working-class urban seats.
* A more useful social indicator than income is occupational status. If you rank the seats by “% of tradespeople and labourers”, top of the list is Fowler, which is the genuinely poorest seat in Australia. If you rank them by “% of people in professional occupations”, the 10 lowest-ranked seats are held by Labor (Chifley, Fowler, Holt, Brand, Rankin, Throsby, Gorton, Port Adelaide, Scullin, Calwell). This seems to be the best statistical predictor of who holds a seat (although there are some striking anomalies, like Melbourne Ports, which has the 4th highest proportion of professionals of any seat, exceeded only by Kooyong, Bradfield and North Sydney).
* It’s true that there is a conspicuous minority of wealthy and highly educated people who are Labor or leftist, but they are very unrepresentative. Most of the seats with the highest concentrations of people with university degrees are safe Liberal – in order: North Sydney, Bradfield, Kooyong, Higgins, Wentworth, Curtin, Ryan, Melbourne Ports, Melbourne, Sydney, Fraser, Warringah, Goldstein, Berowra, Bennelong… There are concentrations of the “left intelligentsia” in a few inner-city Labor seats but mostly the educated classes live in wealthy areas and vote Liberal.
*”% of persons born in a non-English-speaking country” is also a good predictor. 28 of the 30 highest seats on this scale are held by Labor, although it doesn’t work so well at the other hand, because some Labor regional seats are very Anglo (Lyons, Capricornia, Hunter). The Liberal seat with the highest ranking, by the way, is … Bennelong.
Pseph, I have asked that same question, and apparently the answers are:
* There are more Jews in Melbourne Ports than in Wentworth
* Sydney Jews are more conservative than Melbourne Jews (partly because they are richer, partly for historical reasons to do with country of origin) – also 8,000 recent ex-Soviet Jews, mostly poor and elderly, have settled in East St Kilda since 1990, and they vote overwhelmingly Labor
* Labor has never run a Jewish candidate in Wentworth – George Newhouse is apparently considering a run this year.
Ranked demographic data on federal electorates, by the way, is available here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/2004-05/05RP01.htm#table36. I recommend it
Chris, I assume you mean the old DV shire?
Bert,
I mean the federal seat of Diamond Valley, which I contested in 1974, 1975 and 1977. The seat was shared by Neil Brown and David McKenzie. It no longer exists, its area now being basically in Deakin, Jaga Jaga and McEwen.
Adam,
what about that tradespeople that out earn professionals, there are lots these days, since most of them are small business types as well as tradesmen, are there any statistics that indicate the voting trend of these people, since they straddle both core constituencies
I don’t know if Labor would need to run a Jewish candidate to win Wentworth – what percentage of the electorate are Jewish?
Adam,
Have you ever thought about writing a book about this stuff?
Adam you missed the main reason why Labor holds Melbourne Ports and not Wentworth – incumbency. Melbourne Ports used to be a safe Labor seat and a combination of demographic change and redistributions slowly shifted it towards the Libs.
Wentworth used to be safe Liberal and the redistribution shifted it towards the ALP. Even if the two had identical demographics these days the history means that Labor holds the one seat and the Libs the other and in each case will be hard to displace.
Labor running a Jewish candidate in Wentworth might help them a little, but nowhere near as much as having an already existing Jewish MP.
PS I think I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Labor won’t win Wentworth unless it is a landslide (in NSW at least). In real terms it should be sitting at a swing of 7-8%. The Liberal 2pp vote there was depressed last time by King’s candidate and other factors.
The only reason for the ALP to throw money at Wentworth is to keep Turnbull focused on the seat and away from boosting their vote elsewhere.
Bennelong is a different story.
Chris,
There’s a (rare)* error in your 11.11 p.m. post. None of the former Diamond Valley is in current Deakin. You’re probably thinking of Menzies which is the south of the river segment of the one-time Diamond Valley seat, plus a bit from Casey.
Ironically Diamond Valley was created out of the pre-1967 Deakin, which at the time extended from Greensborough to Healesville.
* rare error from you, one of the more reflective and saner posters.
Peter,
Thank you for that correction. I just relied on what I thought was the case, like when as a child I thought we had something called the Iron Ear Hospital.
IR is often dismissed as a potent election issue by the commentariat, with the idea that it will only affect a minority (booming economy and all that). However, there are interesting demographic factors at play here.
Approximately 40% of union members voted Liberal in 2004 (interest rate scares do work well), which is around 800,000 people. Howard’s WorkChoices is effectively saying to these people that they must choose between their union and the government. We can probably take a stab and say that a good many of these people live in the so-called mortgage belts, and so in marginal seats. If just half of them switched back to Labor, the government is gone. IR is usually underplayed as an issue, but it’s worth pointing out that the ALP has been ahead in nearly all published polls since …. well, well, well, March 2006, the month WorkChoices was finally enacted.
IR is an important sleeper issue, as it has the potential to affect people who don’t otherwise care about politics.
Hugo,
The reason IR is a sleeper issue is because its not affecting people yet. Even when the ALP pulls out the sob stories of 2c at spotlight, once all the facts are out its never as bad as it first seems. Further businesses arent relying on workchoices yet because the laws havent been tested and therefore businesses are unsure of how they work in prectice.
Workchoices arent as extreme as people claim, jobsback was far more right(in the political sense).
and whats wrong with allowing employers and employees to go around unions.
i worked in a union workplace for many years, they kept may wages down and the union appeared to have a very cosy relationship with upper management.
Once i was allowed to deal for myself at my new workplace my pay and conditions were far better than that the union provided.
Once the argument is had, and the liberals actually getting around to explaining what workchoices really are and that the unions, as per usual, arent concerned for the wellbeing of workers, but the wellbeing of the union, then i think your regular folk in the street will understand.
Queenslander, you have missed the point of my argument. I wasn’t discussing the rights and wrongs of WorkChoices, rather that Howard had laid down a stark choice to the 800,000 unionsists who voted for him at the last election. If half those people change their vote (and surely you see the contradiction of people opting to join a trade union, and then voting for a party who are promising to legislate unions out of all usefulness), the government is in trouble.
I think you are making another common mistake about these IR laws. It’s not that people are getting shafted every day of the week (though there’ve been no shortage of examples), it’s that public opposition to these laws (which has run a pretty constant 60% against for a year or more now) is based on people’s concern for the future, and in particular their kids. People have an instinctive distrust of what is a pretty blatant shift in bargaining power to employers.
Whether this concern will lead to a change of government remains to be seen, but it’s possible to see WorkChoices as the start of Howard’s break with his (so-called) ‘battlers’.
Adam,
I might also add the reason Labor never had a chance in Wentworth previously is that they always fielded candidates from the Left. The mere mention of the word “left” can sink a candidates chances in a seat like Wentworth. Whether they are truly left-wing or not is immaterial, perceptions are everything. If they have some good sense, they’ll field a candidate from the Right. But the nature of the branches in the area guarantee that won’t happen unless there is some intervention from Sussex St.
Stephen L is quite right about the value of incumbency in both Melbourne Ports and Wentworth. If either seat were vacant the other party would have a real chance of winning it, depending of course on the overall swing. As it is I don’t expect either seat to change hands this year.
Adam, is the George Newhouse whom you mention as a possible candidate for Wentworth the same George Newhouse who was Vivian Solon’s lawyer?
Tristan, Cowper (my electorate) is a very, very long way from ever being a Labor seat, despite being one of the seats with the lowest per capita incomes (and yes, a Nat seat) in the country. Outsiders often hypothesize that if Labor can win seats like Page and Richmond, Cowper should be next. But Page is in play because it’s historically had an industrial and blue-collar base. Cowper has none, it’s almost entirely farms, tourism and services here. Page also has somewhat of a burgeoning Green base in student-rich Lismore. Richmond’s in play because it has a couple of established lefty ‘alternative lifestyle’ centres (Byron, Alstonville etc) which continue to attract progressive-minded sea-changers, and also because of increasing ethnic diversity in the north of the seat. Cowper has a much more mainstream mindset, and its inward migration seems to be much more white and white-bread preferring too. People come here from the cities either for retirement or to build a McMansion at Macauley’s Headland or Emerald Beach. Cowper is the spitting image of Lyne, and if demographic change is taking it anywhere, i’m afraid it’s more towards Moncrieff than Richmond.
Agreed. Incumbency cannot be underestimated. Turnbull’s high profile will make it additionally difficult for Labor to unseat him in Wentworth. But still …it’s worth a shot.
Tristan,
What about Kingston (0.1%), Lindsay (2.8%) or Eden-Monaro (3.3%)??
Surely they would be in play if Bennelong and Wentworth are?
Actually, most of the time I think the benefits of incumbancy are overstated, but I think that there are a minority of seats where it is quite important, and boht Wentworth and Melbourne Ports fit into this.
To Ben C,
Remember swings are never uniform in elections. I see Kingston is a likely Labor gain. However Lindsay and Eden-Monaro are more just probable Labor gains in my eyes. I am predicting Labor will get big swings in Inner City Liberal and some Labor seats (I see Labor having little problems holding on to Melbourne Ports) and not so much of a swing elsewhere. Hence Labor will pick up Bennelong and Wentworth.
To Stephen L,
The swing to Labor in Wentworth at the last federal election was around 2 1/2%. Sydney and Grayldner near by swung by about 1 1/2% to Labor at that election as well.
Means the estimate of a Liberal margin of less than 3% in Wentworth sounds about right. A 5% notional Liberal margin in Wentworth would be about the maximum. In a highly mobile electorate like Wentworth Malcolm Turnbulls personal vote would not be big (2% at most).
The latest Morgan poll shows a 1 per cent primary vote improvement for both Labor (48 per cent) and Liberal (38 per cent). Two-party preferred, Labor leads 57 per cent to 43 per cent.
I think the ALP has peaked to early. Watch for Howards comeback
bill weller February 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm, you maybe right but Peter Tucker is well woth reading on this.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5494
I think from the moment Glenn Stevens announced the interest rate thing the other day, you thought “Howard’s doomed”. Voters will call him on the fact that he promised to keep interest rates and that they have gone up foru times since the last election.
At the same time, considering election history, it is sad the economy has to nearly go belly-up for a change of government. This time it feels weird, even though we’ve got a good economy, perhaps a non-conservative, moderate social agenda has to happen. I hope so. Sedition laws frighten me and the current media stuff lets a lot of good stuff slip away.
I’m not sure whether this is historical fact however someone told me that if any two of the following three are higher than they were at the last election the government gets turfed:-
1) Interest Rates
2) Unemployment
3) Inflation
And at this point both Interest Rates (which will remain above 2004 levels) and Inflation (it might drop below 2.3% but who knows) are above the levels recorded in October 2004.
I have not heard of the 2 out of 3 rule but in the 1976 Presidential election Carter talked about the “misery factor” i.e. an Inflation rate + employment rate > 10%. This was very effective against Ford. Unfortunately it came back to bite him in 1980 when Reagan argued that the misery factor not only still existed but was worse. Of course “Stagflation” is a term that has not had much currency in the last 25 years.
This upcoming Federal election coming up seems like no other in Australian history.
You’ve got a conservative incumbent whom has been Prime Minister for 11 years, ran (or inherited from Keating, depending on your views), been tough on a lot of things and held up by an electroate which is tied to their mortages, is not conservative in behavior but has shown conservative tendancies (racism etc.)
Then you have a new leader, who has come up after a decade of admittedly average leaders in Beazley (too old school), Crean (why, oh why, was he elected opposition leader) and Latham (the best of the lot, but too unpredictable and over buffed.) This new guy comes up more looking and sounding like the incumbent, but comes across as more of a Hawke.
The economy and unemployment is in high numbers, which normally is a case for incumbent victory, a landslide possibly. However, this time interest rates have gone up after the focus on the incumbent’s last winning election campaign promise to keep them low, the leader looks indecisive on a war which is looking like the new Vietnam, and the ministries generally look tired.
Don’t get me wrong, the opposition leader could be having a really long and high in numbers honeymoon and could crash like Latham. However, this could be the sign of something else (which I feel this is.)
This election will be the most important in years. It will either show if Australia wants to step into the future, or stay behind and risk being a worldwide joke.
It should be exciting.
C-Woo
How do you figure that the Howard government ‘is not conservative in behavior’?
The “2 out of 3 rule” is a pet theory of Rod Sawford, the ALP Member for Port Adelaide, who claims it has held true for more than 30 years. I don’t know if that’s correct.
Voters I meant.
It is good to see so many people interested in politics. Where i work only the other union delegate is. There everyone wingers about the government but have little interest in how to change it. The only thing that will motivate them is the hip pocket. watch for Howard’s money giving in the next few months. PS i love reading all the comments stats ect.
Sawford’s “2 out of 3 rule†was debunked on Mumble some time ago.
The reason for Green bashing is that members of the 2 major parties are scared. What if there was 3 parties capable of winning the election if not 4? History dictates that when a minor party grows its up to the major parties to engulf them and make them insignificant. Re- One nation, DLP, LM, Democrats and even Family First. Here in Kingston it is, all of a sudden the in thing for State and Fed MPs to be seen at AOG churches ( Howard spoke at The Edge Curch in 2005). Now the ALP wants to gain Green votes by wheeling out Garrett every chance they get not understanding that people who are environmental inclined see the hypocrisies of his views compared to his past. In Kingston i am meeting more and more ALP members who have wives who vote Green or they take me aside and say that the Greens are where the ALP should be. A few lower house wins or having the Senates balance of power by the Greens will bring so much support and that frightens the major parties. Unlike One nation the Greens can gain support in big numbers in both ALP and Lib areas.
The Howard Government is certainly not conservative when it comes to federal-state relations. Howard has ditched the federal compact on industrial relations, is taking over states rights on our major river systems and will leave this country with government centralized in Canberra as never envisaged by the founding fathers.
It reeks of Stalinist State Capitalism ( communism)
Bill
I agree with you that the major parties act in concert to destroy a minor party that looms as a threat.
Howard is the master of manipulation when it comes to the minor parties, he destroyed One Nation by adopting their policies and making them irrelant and destroyed the democrats through his deal on the GST with them. Meg had stars in her eyes when dealing with Howard and did not look to the effects such a deal would have, of course the Dems were finished when one of Howards journalist exposed the Kernot Evans deal.
Howard has tried similar tactics with the greens, eg misrepresenting their drugs policies and their policy on clean coal. Howver,despite Howard having the Murdoch press pushing Howards propaganda on the greens Bob Brown has managed to increase support for the greens.
The ALP managed to put the greens offside through their deal with Family First in Victoria rather than give the greens the senate seat. They ended up giving FF a profile and importance far above their support.
If the ALP wants to get control of the Senate they need the greens.
I mentioned before that I think they have a chance of picking up the lib senate seat in the ACT. The lib vote has dropped as low as 33.7% before and I don’t see it as unreasonable for it to drop below 30% .
If the ALP worked with the greens there would be a chance that the seat could go green.
If the Greens grow in the Senate and start to gain lower house seats could we see in the future a coalition between us and the ALP.? Im not saying either party would even think of such things but as the right of politics seems to have such a strong hold these last few decades ( keatings policies were right wing ) it might happen that the left will need to regroup and rethink its future.
If the Green senators up for re-election can win coupled with possible gains SA, Vic, ACT, that would make it 7, possibly more. This would come at the expense of the Democrats ( ACT excluded) but what is needed is the Greens to gain FF, Lib or Nat senate seats. Does anyone know what senate seats could fall to the Greens if they gain good ALP preferences?
In theory of course the Greens could win a Senate seat in every state – their two incumbents in Tas and NSW plus the Democrat seats in Vic, Qld, SA and WA. They can’t (in my opinion) win the ACT seat and they can’t (IMO) take any seats from the Coalition. The Coalition would in fact be quite happy to see these seats go to the Greens rather than to Labor, since the rise of the Greens makes Labor’s job of defeating the Coalition more difficult.
In fact however I don’t think the Greens can win a seat in Qld, their weakest state, and I’d be surprised if they won in Vic or SA either – the Qld seat will (IMO) go either to the Libs or Labor, and the Vic and SA seats to Labor. Also Nettle is at serious risk of being beaten by Labor in NSW. The only seats I’d fairly confidently give to the Greens would be Tas and WA.
There seems to be an assumption that the Greens have simply taken over the Democrats’ niche as an all-purpose protest party that can usually win Senate seats by attracting disgruntled voters from both sides. That’s not true. The Greens are (or at least are seen as) a party of the far left, and they take their votes almost entirely from Labor. The old Democrat vote has splintered three ways, between Greens, Labor and Liberal. The return of a significant bloc of Democrat voters to the Libs is why the Libs won the last Senate seat in Qld in 2004, and it will make it harder for Labor to win Senate seats (and indeed House seats too) in 2007.
It also follows from this that the better Rudd does, the further the Green vote will fall as ex-Labor voters return to the faith, and that if Rudd does very well the Greens might not win any Senate seats at all. That’s the price you pay for being a protest party of the left. Recall the fate of One Nation, a protest party of the right, whose vote evaporated in 2001 when disgruntled Coalition voters rallied to Howard.
The Greens… downloaded their SA Newsletter yesterday.
I loved all the references to Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky and Friedrich Engels (referred to as ‘comrade’).
It’s like the Community Party of Australia is still going strong, just under a different name!
The Greens… downloaded their SA Newsletter yesterday.
I loved all the references to Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky and Friedrich Engels (referred to as ‘comrade’).
It’s like the Communist Party of Australia is still going strong, just under a different name!
The the Left-swing-vote (Labor/Green) is more likely to be voting Labor when Labor are in opposition or early in the life of a Labor government the longer Labor is in charge the more of the Left-swing-vote is generaly going to go to the Greens because of some of the centre-right tendancies in some of Labor`s policy.
If Labor get in this time then in the next election or two (possibly excluding a double dissolution next year) expect the Green vote to go up a bit and some of the traditional Labor seats to be Left-marginals (Labor vs Greens).
can we have a link to the Greens SA newsletter please?
http://www.sa.greens.org.au/newsletter.php
Michael I think you are being a little unfair. In the newsletter SA Greens Convenor Kevin Phelan says that Marx was an EARLY influence on his thinking, which is true of many people who are not now marxists, including me. He describes Engels as “Marx’s comrade,” which is perfectly true, not as HIS comrade. He praises Thoreau as well as Chomsky. I agree that Phelan is a good example of how many of the Old Left have found a new home in the Greens, but that doesn’t make the Greens communists. (But it does reinforce my point above that they are a party of the left, not the centre as the Democrats were.)
I’m not saying they are communists; merely that they’re influenced by such trains of thought.
The greens have a real community grassroots membership unlike the Democrats
Has anybody else seen the Galaxy poll in today’s Courier Mail? Of 800 voters surveyed in QLD, the primary vote for the ALP is on 47% primary vote, up 15 points from a similar poll in November, equating to a 2PP of 55%. The article says that this could see as many as 10 seats swing to the ALP.
Rudd has a satisfaction rating of 84%, and is preferred prime minister with 50% to Howard 40%. 10% of voters were more likely to vote ALP with Rudd as opposition leader.
Link below
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21277865-5007200,00.html
If this poll can be relied on, and Galaxy was quite close to predicting the 2004 election result, the coaltion could be in trouble in QLD.
Satisfaction of 84%.
How the hell would they have calculated that.
Ben makes the common error of confusing the *accuracy* of a poll with its *predictive value.* I’m quite prepared to believe that poll is an accurate measure of what Qld voters are saying NOW. As a means of predicting how they will vote in October, it is virtually worthless. Did Galaxy accurately predict the outcome of the October 2004 election in February 2004, when Latham was at the peak of his popularity? No.
The recent opinion poll by galaxy shows Labor doing better in Queensland than elsewhere, even if the rest of the country swung by just say 2% to Labor. Queensland will swing by 6%. Labor would pick up Bonner, Moreton and Blair and make Herbert very close. A 10% swing would net Labor an extra 10 seats there and make seats like Leichhardt, Dawson and Ryan too close to call.
Is it me or is there real change in the air?
You people just don’t listen, do you?
Bill
There is change in the air and it is a determination to change that has Howard so flustered and worried.
My brother was worried that the recent polls were like polls in 2001 and 2004 and that it would all evaporate when Howard sprung some sort divisive stunt or policy.
However this time is different in that people see Rudd as a true viable leader and are set on a change.
Blogs and letter writers around Australia are firmly in support of a change and I don’t see that evaporating so easily.
Blogs and letter writers around Australia have always been anti-Howard, because they are all written by the anti-Howard intelligentsia. If you spend your whole time listening to people like yourself, you always hear your own opinions reflected back at you. Let me repeat: polls in February mean nothing. If Rudd is still this far ahead after the Budget, then you can get excited.
Adam,
I understand and agree with what you say about the predictive value of such polls at this stage.
Whilst I don’t expect the ALP to win 10 seats from the coalition in Qld (16 in total and way above historical benchmarks as others have pointed out), it is indicative (IMHO) of a reasonable swing in Qld to the ALP, which is consistent with what I am hearing.
I have heard several conservative (socially) people, usual coalition voters (not usual swinging voters) praisng Rudd and indicating a strong intention to vote ALP.
Of course none of those votes are in the bag, but I think it is indicative of a swing in Qld, that will be well above the national average, whatever that may be.
Also, there has been a fair bit of discussion earlier in this string about ‘Mortgae Belt’ seats.
The folowing statistics represent a time series of Loan repayments as a percentage of family income – (September Quarter)
2002/2003 26.1%
2003/2004 28.6%
2004/2005 32.0%
2005/2006 32.1%
2006/2007 33.8%
I think that this may indicate that the mortgae belt seats are more vulnerable than has been supposed thus far.
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/mesi/mesi54.htm
Also, I know they have large margins, but Leichardt has a very popular and long standing member retiring (Warren Entsch) and the redistribution in Blair has not only cut the margin, but also reduced the value of incumbancy (as the sitting Liberal is not the representative of the ‘new’ parts of the seat). I think both seats should be regarded at least as outside possibilities for the ALP rather than unwinnables, and both would, I think, be far more of a chance than say Herbert, which has the long standing and hard working Peter Lindsay as its representative.
I’ve said it before. The mortage belt nationwide is a bigger risk for Howard than anyone is thinking. I live in Makin and I feel at the moment there is a huge swing towards Labor. However I do worry that Rudd is trying too hard to be really conservative.
C_Woo said However I do worry that Rudd is trying too hard to be really conservative. Trying to be conservative at all is a problem. Why have 2 conservative parties?
Adam is right, the ALP cannot start claiming victory now, sure Voters appear to like Rudd, but liking and voting for are two different things.
I’ll also add all politics is local so before the ALP gets excited I suggest you put your energy into campaigning and only when the booths close and Kerry turns to Anthony and ask what results are in, can anyone start thinking of knocking Howard off.
Howard still had a Budget and the various State ALP Governments continue to be waste of space giving people reason to question what could a Federal ALP Government do that the State ones can’t.
What benefits will a ALP government bring? What is their stance on IR this week? Will they rid us of the hideous work for the dole scheme? How strong are they on the environment? Are they going to join the USA on a possible strike on Iran? Why are we replacing a conservative religious PM with a ……… …….conservative religious PM. For the ALP to win there needs to be a true alternative and strong policies, as the months go by the electorate will slowly go back to Howard as better the devil you know. The longer Howard waits to call the election the better his chances. He has time on his side to rip apart Labors wishy washy policies and build his case.
Labor will undoubtedly be heavily outspent in Makin. Labor’s candidate for the second time in a row is Salisbury mayor Tony Zappia, who runs a successful health and fitness business. His Liberal opponent (replacing Trish Draper) is 54-year-old Bob Day, the owner of Homestead Homes which built a lot of the houses in Makin. Day is seriously rich. Channel 7 political writer Mike Smithson reports in the Sunday Mail that Day’s “expensive election campaign is under way with all the bells and whistles including a goody pack for constituents and a high profile office, complete with neon sign.
“Day is bankrolling it through local campaign fundraisers and via his own pocket.
“With the state Liberal campaign coffers squeezed tight, the power-brokers in Canberra must be wishing there were plenty more Bob Days on their books.”
In the seat of Kingston Richardson gives away a goody pack every year at the local community fair. Even though its full of items with his head on it ( Pads, balloons calenders etc) it actually works especially in the “poorer” areas of Kingston. Its sad when swinging voters can be bought by a bag of junk while their rights, environment and little monetary status is eroded away. What makes it more hideous is the choice of ALP candidate. Of all the members you would think the ALP has here why choose an outsider from a union that is so pro bosses that employers claim they own it. This is utter contempt by the ALP to throw Kingston candidates that don’t seem to fit the electorate
Adam said- You people just don’t listen, do you? What i am saying is the change is from Howard voters i work with and meet. people who where pro war, anti hicks and anti Muslim are now saying “Howard’s made us more of a target” I wont vote for him again. IR has yet to scare anyone i work with because we haven’t been pushed by it yet
Adam, it’s not that polls don’t have predictive power this far out, it’s that polls never have a quantifiable predictive capacity. Determinations about what polls mean are always qualitative judgement calls, whether its six months out or the day before an election. There is an excellent article from the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (you’ll need to go to a university library to get it) where he argues that the tendency for the media to take polls at face value is science without a scientist.
Bill, Rishworth is from the same poltical training ground as Kate Ellis and you’re criticisms are the same as were made against Ellis before 2004. But Rishworth win the same way that Ellis did, by running a local campaign with a ferocity that would make Genghis Khan blush
Local campaign ? does she live in Kingston?
“He (Rudd) either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what the Government is already doing or probably doesn’t want to know and so he has gone out and copied our policies and tried to announce them on the (Nine Network) Sunday program this morning,” Mr Macfarlane said. Is this the best Macfarlane can do? Heaven help us.
Re “goodies packs.” Isn’t there a law against “treating,” or bribing voters? There certainly is in the UK, introduced to stop candidates taking voters to the pub and then to the polling place.
Maxine McKew is running against John Howard in Bennelong. Hello Doctor’s Wives vote.
Another WA Cabinet minister has resigned – goodbye Cowan and Swan?
I don’t think that’s a given. For a start, whilst all the media attention is on the Government it’s actually a bipartisan scandal – a shadow minister was sacked a couple of days ago as well. Coupled with the result of the Peel by-election, I just don’t think the hype about a Carpenter backlash is warranted.
I have to agree with Adam. The scandal that is rocking WA Labor is far more serious now than it was back in November. McRae is just the start. Another two will probably be named this week and, in all likelihood, go. The public will be rightfully furious and given there won’t be a State Election till 2009, the Federal poll later this year is the first opportunity they will have to whack Labor. Cowan was already going to be tough to hold onto, now it will be even tougher. Right now, I think whatever gains Labor makes in the east, they will have to take into account the losses they must offset in the West.
As Howard waits Labor falls apart
Only in WA, bill, and there’s not much Rudd can do about it. YOUR gripe with Rudd is that he’s not left-wing enough, and that is frankly crap. If Labor moves to the left to suck up to left–greeny voters, it vacates the middle ground to Howard. Australian elections can only be won from the centre.
Maxine McKew has confirmed she will run in Bennelong
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1856448.htm
Will be interesting to see Howard’s response.
McKew to run against Howard. Brilliant. I don’t think she will win, she’s not meant to. But she will keep the pressure on Howard to campaign in Bennelong while Rudd flys about the country. This is a distraction that may prove costly. Can anyone imagine the sight of Howard doorknocking?
Where’s my seat? I’ve been on TV too.
I agree this is clever, but it unfortunately means that if McKew is a real talent, she will be wasted, because she will at best be the member for a very marginal seat, and more likely (IMHO) not elected at all. This is the same mistake Labor made with Kernot. If she was worth recruiting, she should have been given a safe seat. Plus it means she can’t used to get rid of either Irwin or Hatton, two totally useless backbenchers sitting in safe Sydney seats.
bill weller February 25th, 2007 at 10:13 pm – hardly Bill. A bit of wishful thinking or unnecessary worrying?
To all those who believe the WA problems will effect the Federal election result, remember the old saying -a week is a long time in politics, eight months is an eternity. Besides I just don’t buy this notion that people don’t distinguish between state and federal elections. If the federal government is on the knows in eight months WA will follow the trend.
OOps I meant “nose”.
There is a long history of unpopular state governments dragging down their party’s federal vote – SA 1966, 1969, 1975; NSW and Qld 1987; 1987; Vic 1990. It seems to be a law of Australian politics that Federal Labor gets no credit for popular Labor governments, but gets blamed for unpopular ones.
As an ALP member, I think it’s terrific. Celebrity candidates need to be used to win marginals, and McKew does not come with the baggage Kernot had.
Hatton and Irwin need to be leveraged out, but best to do that via a good old-fashioned rank and file local challenge. The state election should shake a few branches, what with members who have lost their state seats deciding it’s time to realise their Federal ambitions and all.
Just what we need – more failed state MPs installed in safe federal seats. Irwin for one will need to be blasted out, and a star candidate is one good way of doing it.
But I agree running McKew in Bennelong has its merits. I’m just surprised that she agreed to give up the prospect of a safe seat for the dicey prospect of winning a marginal one.
I have to disagree with regards to celebrity candidates, they are nearly always a waste of time, they draw few votes, and upset the branch members whose job it is to help them out.
the only good celebrity candidate in recent times is ian mcfarlane, and his celebrity status is questionalbe
I doubt that McKew was ever a viable option for Fowler. All the Libs would have had to do is repeat the ‘doesn’t like the smell of Labor voters’ line from the Diaries over and over. Wouldn’t be enough for her to lose the seat, granted, but not exactly desirable all the same.
Adam says there’s a long history of unpopular state governments dragging down their party’s federal vote, citing SA in 1966, 1969 and 1975. In 1966, the Walsh Labor Government was certainly past its honeymoon period but the main reason for federal Labor’s electoral thrashing was its at that time unpopular opposition to the Vietnam war. In 1975, Don Dunstan hung on to office only by bucketing the Whitlam federal government. In both these cases, federal Labor was less popular than its state counterpart.
In 1969 it is certainly true that there was a backlash against the state government. Steele Hall had benefited from the Playford gerrymander in 1968, winning office even through Dunstan’s Labor Party had polled 52 per cent of the primary vote to the Liberals’ 43.8 per cent. The voters punished the Liberals in the federal election the following year when Labor won eight of SA’s 12 federal seats. It was the last time Labor won Sturt.
Whilst not as pessimistic about her chances in Bennelong, I share Adam’s concerns about this outcome.
My guess is that McKew would have been given Fowler had she wanted it. But instead she shied away from the drama it might have caused. But Fowler is a safe Labor seat for a reason. A few local ratbags and the diary entry of a disgraced politician wasn’t going to make her un-’viable’. The branches would wear McKew, just like they wore Garrett in Kingsford-Smith. Heck, just like they’ve worn Irwin for the past three elections.
Back to Bennelong, I’m getting sick of reading that the boundary changes has made this a marginal seat. Yes, the redistribution has strengthened Labor’s position; but only slightly. Our esteemed host here did the maths, and calculated a 0.3% shift to Labor. The Parliamentary Library came up with a similarly modest 0.2%. The fact is that even on the old boundaries, it was the Coalition’s 14th most marginal seat in 2004, with a Lib tpp vote of just 54.3%.
In WA there was an electorate given a chance to whack Labor straight away when Marlborough resigned – and it gave Labor a swing to it, not away.
There are any number of Coalition people involved as well (led by the infamous Hyphen himself, Noel Crichton-Browne, who might not be a member of the party any more, but is still pretty much associated with them in the public eye). Crichton-Browne’s dragged Troy Buswell into the whole thing, and he’s the deputy Liberal leader.
All in all, the Coalition aren’t going to want to make a song and dance about this, because it will just result in “a pox on both your houses,” and a strengthening of the protest vote, and thus to minor parties from both sides. The last thing they’d want to do would be to leak votes themselves to the Greens, particularly in the Senate.
Phil: I was wrong about 1975 – it was federal Labor that nearly dragged Dunstan down, not vice versa. But I am right about 1966: true Labor did badly everywhere except WA, but notably worse in SA than elsewhere because of Walsh’s unpopularity. They lost Adelaide and Grey (both good Labor seats at that time) and nearly lost Bonython and Hindmarsh (almost unthinkable at that time).
I am reminded: whatever happened to Andrew Jones?
Can no-one believe that she “chose” Bennelong? That she may have been offered a safer seat but turned it down because she relished the chance to take up the fight to the person that has (by their own deliberate actions) come to personify the government as a whole?
I would like to put across that i dont have a problem with the ALP candidate in Kingston just the union she belonged too and i hope she will be good to work with on issues that the left AND the Greens hold dear. It came as a shock when the ALP member i was expecting to be the candidate [changed her mind]??. If Rishworth can oust Richardson all the better. The areas of Hackam West and Huntfield Hights will feel the IR, Social issues and rises in the cost of living first and like a nuclear bomb radiate outwards taking in Morphettvale Reynella etc. Successive State and Federal governments have let these areas go to pot. People are suffering greatly, just go for a walk down the bike track that runs through theses areas and u get the feeling you are in the Bronx. These people need to be uplifted and helped not have either another Lib government or an ALP one that forgets its roots. Those roots are not multinationals , banks or “upper class” snobs that think wanting to go to university is a privilege.
It would appear to me that the ALP have done some long term strategic planning. They are bring out policies a regular basis This has been enhanced with the MCKew announcment as candidate for Bennalong .
The problem for the Liberals is that they don’t know where or when the next announcement will come.
I’ve just looked through Labor’s National Curriculum Policy. Kevin Rudd will retain the initiative all year. He is absolutely determined. He will hit hard and fast and without warning from every direction under the sun. He will keep the government on the run, and he will win. If I’m right, I’ll claim bragging rights. If I’m wrong, I hope you will all forget I said this – I will.
Rudd’s admission today that he met with Brian Burke three times in 2005 will hurt his chances, especially in the west where the prospects of holding Cowan and Swan are under threat and the prospects of reclaiming Stirling and Hasluck are slim-to-none.
The honeymoon is over.
I think it’s a bit early to say that. The situation in WA is very messy and the mess is splashing both sides. I agree that Rudd has taken a hit this week, but it may all be forgotten by October.
Sorry, Adam, for my delayed response. I think that both federal and state factors were responsible for Labor’s bad performance in SA in 1966. In Sturt, Labor had one of its best candidates ever, former Norwood footballer and future psychiatrist Keith Le Page, yet polled just one third of the 2PP vote – its worst performance in the seat.
As for Andrew Jones, he was a meteor who quickly fell to earth, never to be heard of again. A mate of mine saw him in the pub the other day.
The whole Brian Burke thing.
Could go either way.
Graham Edwards wasn’t that specific.
It’s up to the next polls to see the result and what the public think of this.
I would say the Burke thing is only the start. Its like the tortoise and the hare Rudd running on full steam, Howard taking it slowly methodically reeling him back in. Like is said before the ALP has peaked to early and unless Rudd and co can keep the pressure up 100 percent then i can see a small Lib win.
Things like this below does not help the ALP cause or am i being too leftist in wondering what millionaires are doing in a workers party. After a poor start by Howard i think he would be saying now GAME ON!
>From Crikey: Peter Garrett: healthy, wealthy, unwise?
Christian Kerr writes:
Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett went on ABC Radio in
Adelaide yesterday to talk about Ron Walker, Robert de Crespigny and
that nuclear power plant – only to suffer some nasty fallout of his own.
“A caller says: ‘Fair’s fair, we’ve talked about these other
millionaires, and we should mention that Peter Garrett is a millionaire
as well’,” host Matt Abraham said.
Garrett got a little coy about that description – so Abraham and his
colleague David Bevan went nuclear on the Oil’s former front man:
BEVAN: Are you a millionaire?
GARRETT: Well, anybody who owns a house in Sydney or around Sydney
probably qualifies for that but I’d say I’m a person of moderate means.
ABRAHAM: But hasn’t being a rock star made you a millionaire?
GARRETT: Well, to the extent that I’ve been able to buy a house and
live in a comfortable way, yeah, there’s no question about it that I
had a successful career as a musician but I’m a man of moderate means.
ABRAHAM: Where do you live when you’re in Canberra?
GARRETT: (laughs)
ABRAHAM: Are you in a shed like Brendan Nelson?
GARRETT: Oh, I stay with a mate.
BEVAN: Okay, but is it correct, putting aside your house, because we
don’t want to get these things wrong and it’s been thrown around a
lot, Malcolm Turnbull’s described as a multi-millionaire and people
ring up I suppose from the conservative side and say “well, hang on,
what about Peter Garrett?” Peter Garrett, putting aside your house
which is a moderate house, can we call you a millionaire?
GARRETT: Well, gentlemen, if you want to you certainly can. I think
a person of moderate means, not to the extent of Mr Turnbull’s
wealth, but frankly I don’t think that’s the key issue…
ABRAHAM: But, we don’t want to call you a millionaire if you’re not.
GARRETT: Well, feel free to call me what you will.
ABRAHAM: No, well…
BEVAN: Well, we’re just trying to be cooperative.
ABRAHAM: If you are a millionaire, putting aside the value of your
house, then you’re a millionaire because as I said Malcolm Turnbull
and others targeted Kevin Rudd and yourself as being millionaires
effectively because he was. I just… if you’re not, you’re not, and
that’s fine and that’s the end of it and if you are, you are.
GARRETT: Yep, and I’m quite happy to say I am.
ABRAHAM: Okay, well, Peter Garrett we appreciate you coming on the
program.
**********************
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1858712.htm
Fourth WA minister falls to commission inquiry
Reporter: Hamish Fitzsimmons
KERRY O’BRIEN: And now, to the latest political drama from the West, and
the fall of yet another State Government minister. This afternoon John
Bowler became the fourth minister sacked or demoted from the Carpenter
government in the past year – the third connected to the Brian Burke
scandal – as the Corruption and Crime Commission juggernaut continues to
pound the Government. On Sunday, Environment Minister Tony McRae
resigned over his links with former Labor minister turned lobbyist
Julian Grill, a business partner of Mr Burke’s. Premier Alan Carpenter
was forced to act today after the CCC played tapes of Mr Bowler
discussing sensitive Cabinet information that it secretly recorded at
the home of Mr Grill. By late afternoon, Mr Bowler was dismissed by his
Premier…
John Bowler had been caught on tape talking about a proposed railway
line through an Aboriginal heritage area in the Pilbara. Mr Grill and
his business partner Brian Burke were representing the mining company,
Fortescue Metals, which was proposing the line. Cabinet initially
rejected the railway plan but here Mr Bowler reveals the Aboriginal
Affairs Minister, Sheila McHale, had opted to reverse the decision.
JOHN BOWLER (TAPE): Now, Woodstock Abydos, apparently Carps said he’s
happy in the way it’s going, that although they said, you know, the
decision of the, of that committee, ACMC, Sheila, Sheila understands
that they have to say that and that she will now overturn it.
JULIAN GRILL (TAPE): All right, so if I can just take a note on this, er -
JOHN BOWLER (TAPE): So it’s expected that, um, Sheila will overturn the
ACMC decision.
JULIAN GRILL (TAPE): So Carpenter just told you that, um, Sheila should
overturn the decision?
JOHN BOWLER (TAPE): I think Sheila says that she will…she will, she will.
I think in all the discussion about Burke’s impact on ALP’s vote in the West ignores what happened in the Peel byelection just a few weeks ago.
Remember, Labor got a swing to it in that byelection, after the sitting member was sacked for his connections to Burke. It may look strange on the East Coast, but it appears so far that WA voters have a different approach to Burke/Grill and his links to both sides of the political fence.
The story on Ian Campbell’s meeting with Burke just illustrates that the ALP and Liberal Party have links to the former premier of WA.
Ian Campbell’s resignation from the cabinet is disastrous for Rudd. It now sets a precedent that Rudd must distinguish himself from. Whether or not Rudd’s dinner / breakfast / coffee / with Burke was innocent or not, it’s going to start ticking over in people’s minds that if a Govt minister had to quit over a 20 minute meeting with this odious character, then what does this say for Rudd and his rendezvous with Burke?
Anyway, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the Howard knew full well Campbell met with Burke and went ahead savaging Rudd anyway He knew Campbell would find his position untennable, especially after Costello’s remarks that “ANYONE who meets with Burke is morally and politically compromised”, and so Campbell had no choice but to submit his resignation. This ramped up the pressure on Rudd and damages him further. Poor Campbell was the sacrifical lamb in Howard’s bloodthirsty pursuit of Rudd.
And as i have been saying Howard will claw his way back. Looks like 3 more years of a Right wing Lib govt.
shit was flinged, it splattered back, they are all covered in it.
Federally, in the long rung, the Burke thing will probabbly mean didly squat. WA is not the rest of Australia. We are VERY insular…
Any from both Howard and Rudd its war already.
This will be facinating
Yes, Bill Weller, I think you see the current Labor Party through eyes turned back at several decades ago.
Pollies are pollies are pollies. That Garrett has made millions through Midnight Oil and any other means does not indicate his political and philosophical leanings.
He has always wanted to make a difference – through Oil’s lyrics, his public comments etc and now he has got himself into federal politics. He still has enough of his earlier ideals to believe he can make a difference. His personal dosh is of no consequence. What is of consequence is that he is becoming more pragmatist than ideologue. And that happens to all of us as we grow up and weigh our beliefs against reality.
There is no way anyone could call me poor, however neither could anyone call me a right wing conservative. Them’s the breaks.
The preselection for the seat of Brand will be decided tomorrow night.
The ALP has a stark choice between myself and Gary Gray.
I was an organizer of the Walk Against Warming last November that saw 5000+ concerned Western Australians march through the streets of Perth demanding action to prevent global overheating. Gary Gray is a greenhouse sceptic.
I have been a lifelong campaigner against the uranium industry and have written a review on the effects of “depleted” uranium – the bulk of mined uranium, on current and future generations. My work is a contribution to the global effort to ban uranium in armour-piercing shells that become mutagenic dust.
Gary Gray supports mining of uranium in WA, contrary to Party policy.
I have proposed democratization of the Party by inviting all members of affiliated unions to accept one year free membership of the Party, after which they can choose to opt in as full voting individuals. This would break the power of certain factional leaders and produce a democratic Party.
Hi Veronica can you explain what you mean when you said “I think you see the current Labor Party through eyes turned back at several decades ago.” As for Peter Garrett I love his music and his ideals from those long lost years, but now we have a Government and opposition that are right wing with religious overtones and big business supportive at the expense of the worker, community and THEIR environment. I work in a factory, I live in a working area bordering on a massive unemployment suburb which tears at the heart. Kids with little clothes and if they have it’s so old that op shops would not sell them. Single mothers in abundance each with horror stories of abuse, drugs and prostitution. I have seen women getting out of a clients car and buy food with the little cash they have aren’t. These residence cannot afford luxury’s let alone buy things that will help with global warming and the lack of water in our State. It is about time the soon to be elected government brought change to even out the wealth and give these ‘battlers’ some worth. I would love to see unions get involved in social issues and community actions to give back something that the community gave in support of YR@W. My point is how would people of higher means relate to this? How would Richardson and Rishworth (Kingston) even know how the above feels let alone Howard, Rudd , Garrett and co? I can hear people saying “yeah I knew how it felt, I was in that same boat years ago”. The thing is the people of this community haven’t, won’t, can’t get out, and mostly not from lack of trying or from no fault of their own, but rather through social determinants & being forgotten (or more likely- down trodden).
Hi Geoff Although I am not in your electorate or in your party I think you are on the right track with your environmental beliefs. I don’t know what faction you belong too but Gray seems to be of the rightist variety. Good luck Geoff
Bill Weller
Greens for Kingston
AMWU
I am closing comments on this thread, and have moved two just posted to the new thread here.