Noteworthy developments of the past however-long-it’s-been:
• For the second time in as many months, Newspoll has defied conventional wisdom that Kevin Rudd’s political difficulties were set to take the shine off his opinion poll dominance. Despite bad press over the Sunrise/Anzac Day affair, today’s poll has Labor’s two-party lead widening to 59-41 from 57-43 a fortnight ago, with Rudd’s lead over John Howard as preferred prime minister up from 48-38 to 48-36.
• The NSW ALP’s decision to delay opening preselection nominations in Charlton, Fowler, Blaxland and Chifley is reckoned by Michelle Grattan to spell trouble for their respective members, Kelly Hoare, Julia Irwin, Michael Hatton and Roger Price. The decision was reportedly made so that turf wars over these seats would not interrupt this month’s national conference. Andrew Landeryou talks of a deal in which Charlton will go to the Left (Greg Combet, if he wants it, which it seems he might), with the others used to accommodate aspirants from the Right, possibly including Warren Mundine and Mark Arbib. Grattan, Landeryou and Adam Carr all concur that Price, an early Rudd leadership backer, is unlikely to be toppled. Carr writes in comments: “I can only guess that he is intending to retire, and the preselection is being held over so the right has time to find a candidate”.
• Bruce Baird, factional moderate, Peter Costello backer and one-time NSW government minister, has announced his decision to retire after nine years as member for Cook. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Baird’s decision was partly motivated by “the possibility he would have been challenged for preselection”, after branch stacking by the Right reportedly swelled numbers at the Miranda branch from 200 to 600. However, the widely rated front-runner for preselection is Scott Morrison, former Tourism Australia boss and state party director, with whom Baird appears to have been on good terms. Morrison has also been mentioned as a possible successor to Alan Cadman in Mitchell. Potential rivals to Morrison reportedly include PBL Media executive David Coleman, Optus executive Paul Fletcher, “consultant” Peter Tynan and barrister Mark Speakman. The Liberals hold Cook with a margin of 13.8 per cent.
• The Queensland Liberal Party has preselected Sue Boyce to replace outgoing Senator Santo Santoro, in what The Australian described as a “comfortable” win over former state party leader Bob Quinn after the “third round of voting”. Boyce has also been promoted from number four to number two on the ticket for the imminent half-Senate election, over the head of number three candidate Mark Powell. This would appear to be a double victory for state party leader Bruce Flegg over the Santoro faction, which switched its backing from Powell to Quinn in its determination to thwart Boyce. Powell will most likely have to compete with the Nationals for a third Coalition seat.
• Laura Anderson of The Advertiser reports that South Australian Senator Linda Kirk has rejected Kevin Rudd’s offer of preselection support for the lower house seat of Boothby, offered as a consolation prize after she lost Right faction support for Senate re-nomination. The Right is reportedly backing Adelaide lawyer Tim Stanley to take the factionally reserved second position at the expense of Kirk, who “broke ranks” with the faction in supporting Rudd’s leadership bid in December. The top position will remain with rising star of the Left, Penny Wong.
• Comments thread barfly Adam Carr has turned his hand to the federal election guide caper, in typically fine style. All the electorate links above lead to the relevant entries in his guide, which I will continue to do until my own effort is up and running (which won’t be for a while).
333 Comments
Oh lovely. So Linda Kirk is being punished by the factional bosses for breaking ranks and voting for a leader who actually had a chance of winning the next election and who is now sailing ahead comfortably in the polls. Don’t you just love those Labor factional bosses? This truly highlights everything that is wrong with the Labor Party. And why would she contest Boothby -a seat that is probably unwinnable despite its margin? (yes, I know there was a protracted discussion about this in the last thread).
Thanks for the updates William -much appreciated and very interesting
These Newspoll seem to confirm that people have made up their minds already about this year’s election, and Rudd will have to blow up both the AFL and NRL grand finals to lose from here. It may surprise my fellow blogsters to realise that the average punter doesn’t pay too much attention to the everyday political stuff like we do.
There seems little doubt in my mind that WorkChoices is the primary cause of the government’s difficulties. Labor went ahead in the polls in March 2006 (when the Act came into force) and they haven’t really been headed since. This lead has been consolidated by the rise of a credible leader. WorkChoices and AWAs are electoral poison for the government, but a combination of hubris and having no genuine understanding of the budgetary pressures that the average family goes through (despite their rhetoric, the Liberal Party is still largely made up of people with a private school, upper-middle class background) means that they just don’t get it. It’s no surprise that the ALP is miles ahead in every state except WA, where the mining boom and desperate mining companies make AWAs seem not so bad.
Hugo, you are an ideological warrior! “Political poison”, maybe, but spare us the class rhetoric please. I think Labor’s ascendancy in the opinion polls since about March 2006 (the tenth anniversary of the Coalition government) probably has more to do with the public being sick of JWH together with a growing realisation that it might be time to let the other mob have a turn at the crease. The Australian Labor Party and its federal parliamentary leader must continue to nurture that perception in the community.
David Charles April 17th, 2007 at 12:03 pm. There maybe an element of that David but how do you explain these unheard of figures. Howard didn’t have these figures going against a very unpopular Paul Keating. As much as Howard maybe unpopular he is no Paul Keating in the unpopularity stakes surely.
Just as a general question off topic – where are Howard’s head kickers?
Hugo and David, it’s likely that both factors are at work and are reinforcing each other.
There was some surprise expressed at the end of the last thread that federal Labor appears to be doing so well in South Australia. Looked at in the long-term, this is not surprising. SA was a strong Labor state from the 1940s onwards, mainly because of Playford-era industrialisation and a high urban/rural ratio (ie Adelaide dominates the state). Labor’s strength was concealed in the 1950s by the Playford malapportionment, but once Labor broke through in 1965 it dominated state politics for 25 years. To the blue-collar base was added the liberal middle-class vote brought in by Dunstan. All this came unstuck in the disasters that befell the Bannon government. These, coupled with the decline in SA’s manufacturing base, produced a 10-year anti-Labor reaction. It now appears, thanks to Rann and Rudd, that the reaction has ended and SA has returned to its pre-1992 level of Labor support. If this is correct, the shift will hard for the Libs to turn around in six months, and they can say goodbye to Kingston, Wakefield and Makin, quite likely to Boothby (which is on much better boundaries for Labor these days) and maybe also to Sturt. Linda Kirk might be well advised to take Boothby while it’s on offer.
Is anybody out there aware of any polling done – by either side – on whether an alternative liberal leader would arrest the libs decline? Is it a John Howard thing or a whole of government thing? By my reckoning there are about 6 weeks left – until the end of may – for someone to give JWH the tap on the shoulder and the quiet word! At least then there would be 6 months max to salvage something from the possible train wreck – and give the the new Lib leader their own honeymoon period.
the answer is clear
Howard needs to get arrogant and smug, plan fake events on special days to maximise tv exposure, attempt to intimidate and interefere with the media and associate with known undesirables.
if he does these things he is sure to get a bounce in the polls, what works for one, must surely work for the other
Desperation leadership changes don’t work – just ask Carmen Lawrence and Joan Kirner
.
Howard just seem old and tired, he should have retired when he became longest serving prime minister
Quite simply, we need new ideas at the top and Howard carries too much political baggage now. I think someone like Costello or Abbott would be a much better chance at beating Rudd, but it is too late to change now.
I think Rudd was a very good choice for labor leader, he does not have the political baggage that someone like Beasley carries, therefore Rudd is much more able to carry the fight to an old and tired Howard. That is why Howard is
Workchoices has definitely taken effect, policy wise it is a very good policy for Australia, anything that make us more efficient will make us better in the future. However, whenever you put someone’s job at risk, or threaten someone’s pay, whether it is just a perception (and at 4% unemployment, it is really just a perception) people are not going to be happy with you.
Linda Kirk should definately take up the opportunity in Boothby. I think Boothby might well be one of those seats “wow” seats that the Libs didn’t expect to lose and then spend the next decade figuring out what went wrong (the Libs’ equivalent of a Makin or Lindsay!). The Libs definately need to keep their eyes on their supposedly safe turf, especially given the much forgotten 2004 swing that went to Labor in many inner-city areas and, in more than a few instances, unfavourable redistrubutions that have hurt the Libs in some seats.
When was the last time South Australia voted a majority 2PP for Labor Federally, 1987 or 1990?
Andrew Says: April 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pm – and ditch the IR laws.
According to the AEC website, the last time the ALP received a majority of the 2PP vote in SA was in the 1987 election, receiving 50.24%.
In terms of the SA vote, I don’t think the popularity of Mike Rann here should be underestimated in terms of transferring votes to the federal arena. Mike Rann and his government remain extremely popular. In many ways, I think Kevin Rudd has probably learnt a lot from Mike Rann, who in my opinion is probably the most professional politician in the country. The “Rann gets results” campaign in SA at the last state election was nothing less than a spectacular electoral juggernaut.
From memory, in 1987 labor won the SA seats of Grey, Port Adelaide, Hawker, Hindmarsh, Kingston, Bonython, Makin, Adelaide.
The Libs won Mayo, Sturt, Boothby, Wakefield and Barker.
Between 1987 and 1990, the Libs won the Adelaide by-election (1988?) campaigning against timed local calls.
The 1990 result in terms of seats won was the same as 1987 except that Christine Gallus (Libs) just won Hawker. (Hawker and Hindmarsh was melded together before the 1993 election and she won Hindmarsh in 1993).
Longest serving PM dovif? How short are people’s memories…
Hugo – ok, I’m from WA but I see Workchoices as ideologically important but practically irrelevant. Again – I’m from WA where individual contractual style arrangements have been in place for some time. I have yet to meet a single person who feels they have been negatively effected by either individual contracts or Workchoices and I know plenty who feel much better off. I also know of many people who would freak at the suggestion that their contracts could be disbanded.
Of course, in case I haven’t mentioned it, I’m from WA!
Aha, I didn’t see that page on the AEC website. I didn’t realise neither WA or SA had given Labor more than 50% of the vote since 1987. I thought Labor broke the threshold in WA in ‘98 but I am mistaken. Anyway, it looks increasingly likely that the drought will break in SA at least.
I am also in WA and the great polling for the Govt in the marginals is about 50:50% (roughly a 5% swing to labor from the last election).
Unlike my Statesman (or if you believe in ‘if at first you don’t secede try try again’ my fellow countryman) VPL i have heard and seen a great deal of negative WPA AWA press.
Also if my memory serves me well Gallop killed the Court Agreements and the mining industry thrived – so I would expect a certain amount of resilience from the mining sector knowing the little difference.
Mining is a great example and employees know all about mining companies and their good attitude to workers – I’ve stated often and long my reasons for full time employed people not to like AWA’s etc but the mining industry is a great example. They will know the field is tilted against them and that first sign of a slow down the miners will crush them (pun intended). You talk to anyone in the industry VPL they seen ‘restructure’ after ‘restructure’ they are very cynical and know how the big boys operate.
I don’t care if WA gets a 2pp majority for Labor a 4% ish swing will get back Stirling and Hasluck and be two cherries for Rudd at the end of the night win or lose.
True, and there’s little chance Labor will be able to take any other seat … Kalgoorlie, methinks, is out of reach. So Labor doesn’t even need a majority of the 2PP.
Yes, all Labor needs from WA is the small swing required to pick up Hasluck and Stirling and not to lose Cowan and Swan. There will need to be a swing to retain Cowan because Edwards was worth at least 2-3% in personal vote. Do our WA friends not think Labor has a chance in Canning? I would rank Don Randall with Kelly Hoare as “most useless federal MP.”
Nah, Julia Irwin and Alan Cadman are the most useless by a country mile…
Don’t forget that Latham was worth between -2 and -3% of the vote in Cowan as well. So Edwards positive vote was probably offset by Latham’s negative.
At this stage, it would most probably look like a desperation move, but whoever took over from JWH would not be taking over the stench that Joan Kirner and Carmen Lawrence took on. Total desperation is anything less than 6 months out i.e Mike Moore in NZ (1990).
Anyone feel like being the Liberal candidate in Holt?
http://www.vic.liberal.org.au/default.cfm?action=content&id=76
Right-wing cranks more than welcome
The NSW Libs have now opened nominations for Parramatta, which seems very late in the day for a seat they nominally hold and need to win.
Hello all i will be taking my leave from here as of now to start my campaign. I will pop in from time to time. Thanks William for a great site.
Bill, I hope you enjoy the campaign. Campaigning in the real world will probably be much more productive than writing many comments on pollbludger.
PS, I know nothing about the campaigns of any of your opponents, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some of your comments here reappear in the campaign for Kingston.
On the recent Newspoll state-by-state polls, they showed a 2PP swing to Labor in WA of 6.4% (not trivial by any means, just less than the rest of the country). With that, holding Cowan and Swan wouldn’t be even questioned, and winning Hasluck and Stirling would be a certainty.
Adam, my gut feel is that should Labor get this sort of swing in WA, then Canning would be indeed in play – it’s just not a seat that should have a 9.6% margin; at every election there’s seats that go way over and under the national swing, and I’m almost certain Canning will swing more to Labor than any other WA seat, and could be a viable win if the statewide swing is anything over 5%. To be honest, I’d actually rate Labor’s chances in Canning above those in Kalgoorlie, but probably poor in either.
Bill: No one at the Greens tapped you on the shoulder and ordered you to stop posting I hope ?
See you around and good luck in the election.
The trend just keeps continuing. Whilst Rudd has had dinner with Burke, a fake ANZAC dawn service etc, the people are probably thinking how does this issues compare to Iraq, Climate Change and the biggy of them all, Workchoices. And the last issue was never mentioned at the last election and thats what people have not forgotten. The public know that politicians lie (hell its a prerequisite for the job) but what they don’t like it is not being told about something and having it bought in. As I said, consider the two camps – dinner with Burke/false dawn service versus IR laws – that is it in a nutshell, one is clearly minor compared to the other. Rudds flaws are minor compared to the Coalitions and I think it is now clear that no-one is listening to them any more and frankly don’t care.
You can bet the budget will be full of electoral bribes, in the form of tax cuts, family payment increases. extra goodies for the over 55s(Howard’s constituency) etc. Will it work this time for Howard, Costello etc ?
Labor would be well advised to support all this in the Senate, no silly stunts like last year.
Kevin Rudd: on Kerry Anne’s show tomorrow, before he jets off to the U.S.
Channel 7’s loss is Channel 9’s gain?
Why is he so popular? I get the impression a lot of people are desperate to throw out this government, and Kevin is the sort of nice guy who won’t frighten the horses. But, I’d be amazed if the ALP is getting nearly 60% of the 2PP vote in November.
On WA: As discussed in a previous thread, I think Canning is perfectly doable, given the mess at the 2004 election in that seat. Kalgoorlie should now be beyond reach – with the new enrollment provisions taking indigenous people off the roll (or stopping them getting back on) this would damage the ALP vote. That said, I think the ALP will do well in the areas where the local population is growing – in the Kimberley particularly – so Haase should keep on campaigning! I think Labor will hold Cowan – it always struck me as the kind of seat that should be Labor, but aspired to be Liberal…now’s the time for it to swing back to the ALP.
On a slightly different note – NSW – I was wondering what people thought of Danna Vale’s chances in Hughes were (esp with bruce Baird stepping down in neighbouring Cook), given that the ALP retained both Menai, Miranda & Heathcote in the state election – will the Rudd factor cause Danna to see her 11% buffer prove insuffucient?
And in the same way, what do people think about Macarthur? Again, an 11% margin, but is there room for movement?
I love it that whenever I post about WorkChoices being the primary reason that the ALP is so far ahead in the polls, some of our (no doubt Coalition-leaning) blogsters just write it off as left-wing sloganeering. My point (and I clearly need to re-iterate it) is that WorkChoices is poison for the government and that the Libs just don’t get it, one assumes because the average Liberal does not have to survive on the minimum wage, nor do they know many (any) people who do. This includes a good many contributors to this site. Of course there are many other issues at play, but WorkChoices was the “tipping point” issue.
Let’s also not forget that the last PM to lose his seat (Stanley Bruce in 1929) did so in the last Federal election to be fought over industrial relations.
I know I’ve brought it up before, but I continue to find the Queensland Coalition joint Senate ticket proposal quite puzzling.
Despite the Nationals previously rejecting the deal, Howard is still pushing for it to happen. Even though this would mean abandoing the strategy that saw the Coalition win a Senate majority.
Let’s review what happened in Queensland in 2004.
The Liberal Party polled about 2.6 quotas.
The National Party polled about 0.5 quotas.
With this huge surplus divided between two candidates, both Trood (Lib#3) and Joyce (Nat#1) were able to survive deep into the count. Eventually each formed a full quota with the preferences of other parties.
Now let’s suppose the Coalition ran a joint ticket. Adding the above figures together produces 3.1 primary vote quotas. That means three candidates are elected instantly but only a small surplus remains for the theoretical fourth candidate. With such a modest vote, that fourth candidate is likely to be eliminated as the count progresses.
And whilst I think the 2004 result was a fluke that is most unlikely to replicate itself in 2007, it is nonetheless odd that the Coalition should discard even the possibility of a repeat result.
More surprising still is that it is the Nats who are balking at the deal. As the above figures show, they were outpolled by the Libs (on primaries) even after the election of two Liberal candidates. The Queensland Nationals will look terribly foolish if Ron Boswell loses his seat as a result of their obstinacy.
P.S. (Just to make a long post even longer.) What would the implications of a joint ticket at the next half-Senate election be? The Coalition would have four sitting Senators to fit on a ticket with three winnable spots.
Sutherland is liberal territory now, they lost miranda by four hundred votes and had a four % swing in menai. Dana Vale isnt going anywhere.
Similarly even though pat farmer has all campbelltown he now has most of wollondilly shire, so he should be safe.
can anyone find polls saying that when the polls were taken whether the alp vote were people saying they were certain to vote labor, compared to likely, i couldnt find it.
this information would assist in gauging how soft this 59% is.
What would be really interesting is a poll asking whether people would be more or less likely to vote for the Coalition if Howard goes. I’m sure the 59-41 numbers are an exaggeration, but it’s been nearly four months of bad polls for the Coalition. It’s odd that nobody is seriously talking about a challenge to Howard.
Re: Qld joint coalition ticket
The PM’s refusal to countenance Boswell at number two on the ticket, while welcoming a “joint” ticket, is Howard having two-bob each way.
He knows Boswell, standing at the top of a Nats ticket, is in deep trouble. He’s no Barnaby, and the feeling among the coalition in Qld is that Bossie may not get over the line.
By backing a joint ticket, the PM shows he is still a coalitionist. But by wanting Boswell at three, which is going to be a tough race for the coalition, he can also lose a Nat senator while guaranteeing himself two Libs.
The Nats biggest chance of long-term survival is either for Costello to become PM soon after the election (if the coalition wins), or for the govt to lose, and see Costello become Opposition Leader. John Winston Howard might be keeping the coalition in office, but he’s popularity in the bush is bleeding the Nats to death.
Hugo – I’m 100 percent behind you on IR being a poisonous issue for the coalition. Hockey is not as confident in interviews now. To those people who are still sceptics answer this one question. If it isn’t IR then why are the polls so woeful for the coalition? What is it causing this massive shift in thinking while we still have very good economic times? The numbers in ALL of the polls are consistent. We can argue about the actual numbers being exaggerated but one thing is clear – a big swing is taking place. Why?
Boswell’s future depends on whether Pauline, FF, One Nation and Fishing put the Libs or Nats higher.
“The trend just keeps continuing. Whilst Rudd has had dinner with Burke, a fake ANZAC dawn service etc, the people are probably thinking how does this issues compare to Iraq, Climate Change and the biggy of them all, Workchoices.”
Indeed. If in a months time Rudd has another minor, ultimately irrelevant ‘character’ slip that the Govt and right-wing punditariat get all worked up about it might be time to consider the possibility that its a deliberate tactic
I think the polls are a reflection of two things:
- Workchoices
- Election Cycle/Old Tired Government
Things its *not* a reflection of:
- Iraq
- Climate Change
Howard’s not dead yet. Anything could happen. A disaster, terrorist attack etc
If I was Howard I’d water-down Workchoices. It might save him yet.
It makes him look responsive to the public – “Im listening to the voters”.
Sutherland Shire is firmly Liberal territory. Danna Vale, despite her dopiness, will be returned. Am I correct in saying that she is the only MP to have 4 consecutive swings to her in the past 4 elections?
dana vale had a swing to her last time
she is also a very nice lady,
and much better in dealing with people than robert tickner the previous member.
sutherland is very closed minded, the liberals won cook and hughes for the next twenty years because of howard and the cronulla riots.
i lived in menai a couple of years back, and there is definately a sutherland culture.
on workchoices, i think protecting sunday and public holiday penalties will be enough to turn the tide on workchoices
The Speaker – to counteract the “Im listening to the voters†idea would be “could you trust/believe Howard to not go further with IR after the election” and we know the evidence that would be used there. I’m not convinced a change of heart now would save him.
As for a terrorist attack, you may be right but I wonder how many people would blame him for getting us involved in this war on terror. I’m not sure what type of disaster you mean but a natural disaster wouldn’t necessarily help him. I can’t see why it would.
“Im listening to the voters†– I wonder how many people are now listening to Howard. There is another problem for him.
Have you caught up with the latest poll on wall to wall Labor governments? I’m not so sure this is the winner the coalition were expecting.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21576616-601,00.html
Nice, she might be, but her comments about Muslim birth rates left a sour taste in many peoples’ mouths. Danna, this is.
Psephophile, that is the type of things that will get her reelected for the next 20 years in the Shire.
and that’s a good thing?
Comments bagging islamic lebanese are electoral gold in the shire.
it is a wasp haven that feels under threat from the bankstown hurstville lakemba people
I did agree with you that Sutherland Shire is solid Liberal territory. There were reasons why I believe that to be the case. I’m just explaining why I called her a dope
I agree that Labor is not likely to win Hughes or Macarthur, although Hughes now has a chunk of Liverpool in it where Labor polls 70%. Sheik Hilali is of course the best friend the Liberals in Sydney have got.
The Coalition is certain to win three Senate spots in Qld so if Boswell can get No 3 on a joint ticket he should take it. I agree he is at some risk of losing to the third Liberal if he doesn’t. I’m amazed he wants to stand again at all. He’s 66 and looks very unwell up close.
While most expect the numbers to even up as the election approaches, it could be useful to consider other possible eventualities, even if they go against the grain of experience. For example, could the polls now be painting the first scenes of a collapse in the Liberal vote? It may not be entirely unthinkable, especially if more and more people come to believe the ALP will win.
Network externalities like this could bite the Liberals hard. A bandwagon of Rudd and his Roosters could just be arriving in town. In its current serial form, their story may prove captivating. Dickens’ novels were published in that way: punters packed the docks of New York to get their hands on the latest episode.
To stop the bandwagon, something big and arresting must be rolled out. Here is the Liberals’ problem. No single conventional idea is likely to do it, not even off-loading JWH, still less fiddling with Work Choices. A suitably impressive financial inducement might help, although having the Federal Treasury go on strike could be less than a good look.
The Government has to find some unconventional, mold-breaking innovation that could be propagandised relentlessly with public funds. Try, for example, removing income tax for the majority, and raising the GST astronomically. Very risky. Sure.
But the Liberals are not going to go anywhere with continued tactics-centred strategies. Some clearly think that Rudd will not survive a election campaign. They could be mistaken about him. Again.
More to the point, where will the Liberals find the money for a long campaign? Who would like to be a Liberal Party fund-raiser these days?
With the addition of Liverpool Hughes’ margin is only 8-odd percent, inflated by a big swing to the Liberals in 2001. If Labor wins the election I’d say they’re even money to win Hughes. Outer suburban seats are capable of big swings.
Hughes and Macarthur are chances for Labor if they can lock in the blue-collar IR vote. We’ve all seen popular and seemingly entrenched local members swept away by electoral tidal waves in the past. Both these areas have a lot of traditional Labor heartland that stuck solidly at state level again in March but went to Howard over 9-11/Tampa and interest rates in the last two federal polls. If this vote goes back to Labor it will go en masse and both seats could change hands despite the 2004 margin.
I wouldn’t put it past Vale or Farmer to start distancing themselves from Workchoices closer to polling day. Then we’ll know they’re in trouble.
I stood next to Ron Boswell in the tallyroom on Queensland Election night and eavesdropped on his mobile phone conversation.
He looks like a slob from down the pub.. complete with liverspots. I’m not a doctor but he’s a prime candidate for a heart attack.
Still, I’m informed by a number of people he’s a good person. He does have a personal following of sorts here in Queensland, however nothing like Barnaby.
A split ticket in Qld at the last election could just as easily left the Coalition with two seats as four. Shave a few % of the votes of both partners and this could well be the case if a split ticket is run in 2007. Their best chance of picking up 3 seats is on a joint ticket, and even at number 3 Boswell’s chances of reelection will be higher than getting there under his own steam.
A split ticket will play into Labor’s hand since they need to limit the Coalition vote to 2 in at least 2 states to wrest control of the Senate from them. There safest play to keep control of the Senate will be a combined ticket. If they get too greedy they could lose there once in generation opportunity.
Better to settle for Silver than to go for Gold and end up with Bronze. 2004 was a bumper year for Qld Federal coalition, that the polls say will not be repeated in 2007. So Gold (4 seats) is out of the question.
It couldn’t have left them with only two positions. If they had fallen slightly short, and either the third Liberal or Barnaby Joyce were knocked out, their preferences would have elected the other, as preferences don’t leak in the Senate.
It’s possible if they dropped below 3 quotas, but it would require another party to harvest all the right wing minor preferences.
In 2004 the combined Lib + Nat + FF + ON + Hanson Senate vote in Qld was 55.9% or 3.91 quotas. Even in my rosiest fantasies of the Coalition being ground into the dust I can’t see it falling below 42%, which is what would be needed for Labor and/or the Greens to win four seats. In NSW that figure was 49.0, in Vic 50.5, in SA 52.9, in WA 55.3 and in Tas 46.6. In other words Tas is MUCH the best prospect of Labor taking a seat from the Coalition, while Qld is the LEAST likely. Labor has to take two seats from the Coalition to deadlock the Senate and three to get a Labor-Greens majority.
Rudds new stance on IR is great for every unionist who took to the streets for the YR@W campaign. We have been sold out! This has not gone down well with my work mates.
Actually I’m wrong – the best prospect for Labor or the Greens taking a seat from the Coalition is in the ACT, where the combined Lib + CDP vote was only about 40%, though they got some prefs from the Dems and Meg Lees’s group. A 7 to 8% swing would leave the Libs below quota.
Shouldn’t that be one seat to deadlock the Senate, Adam? Two to give the ALP, Greens, Democrats (if they’re lucky) and Family First control?
Off topic, but since we’ve had a few questions about the upcoming WA state redistribution, I note the WA Electoral Commission has released what appears to be a preliminary document on the new distribution.
http://boundarieswa.com/upload/Where%20will%20you%20be%20in%202009_v4.pdf
There must be some huge changes they’re expecting in the region boundaries for North Metropolitan not to be getting at least three more MLAs since all 14 existing electorates in the area would be already at least 30% over the new quota.
Edit: that’s been around for a while, so it might be all wrong by now
Has anyone heard any news about NSW Liberal Senate preselections?
Charlie, Adam mustn’t be considering FF as part of the opposition. If you consider the Senate as a Coalition/Family First bloc and a Labor/Greens bloc, then the numbers are 40-36, so one seat loss will leave it 39-37, two 38-38, and three will give Labor and Greens a majority. So if one or two seats are lost Family First will be in the driver’s seat, which is probably cold comfort to a lot of left-wing voters, let alone Labor and the Greens.
Adam,
Your right if you consider that the conservative minors contribute to a coalition win. But the tables could just a easily be turned to deliver the seat to a conservative minor instead. FF, ON, or even Hansen weren’t that far short in 2004.
Fact:
If the ALP had preferenced Family First ahead of the Greens in Queensland, Family First would have won Barnaby Joyces seat.
Ben – I’m certainly not going to be happy with FF control of the Senate.
If the Democrats wanted to be Macchiavellian, they’d direct prefs to the Coalition ahead of the ALP. The best chance they have of surviving is a DD in 2008, so if they have any sense at all they’ll want the Coalition to hold on to control against a Rudd government.
I’ve heard the Democrats called many things, but not Macchiavellian. Their survival strategy at present seems to be move to the left – Ruth Russell, their candidate in SA, is waaaay left. And Sanda Kranck has suggested recruiting Hicks as a candidate. A good thing Don Chipp didn’t live to see that.
Yeh Adam, I saw Ruth Russell.. ugh what were they thinking. “Iraq Human Shield” might play well with socialist alliance types, but in the suburbs where the former-democrat liberal voters lurk, thats as popular as R&B at an ACDC concert.
Unless there is a huge swing on, Libs+FFP will likely exceed 3 quotas in all states. Therefore the only hope of denying the coalition senate control is for ALP to prefernce exchange with FFP.
FFP will only exchange with ALP if they are placed above Greens on the ALP ticket. They can work with the ALP, but have little in common with the Greens. They would not want an ALP government controlled by a Greens BoP.
This will not deny them of a third seat as it did in Vic in 2004, because I expect they will be close to, or above 3 quotas in all states. If this tactic pays off for them the sixth seat may go to FFP or the ALP 4th candidate, either way denying the coalition a third seat.
Except that a fair chunk of Labor voters won’t follow the ticket. In Victoria at any rate there would be an organised campaign to get them to vote below the line and preference the Greens, and I would guess that maybe 20% would do so. Even rotten right-winger me would probably do so.
If 20% go below the line *shrug* who cares ?
To quote Graham Richardson : “Whatever it takes”
The ALPs job is to get ALP members elected, not Greens.
All the better for Labor if they do vote BTL. It still denies the coalition.
I’ve just done some calcs. With a swing of 4% which should be enough to deliver government to the ALP, most states would split 3-3. Victoria and Tassie are the ones that would deliver a seat to the cross benches, FFP and Green respectively.
I noticed in the linked-to-information pamphlett on the WA redistribution that each upper house region will return 6 members instead of the current 5 or 7. What do people knowledgeably about WA politics think this will mean for the results? Is it very likely that there will be 3/3 type splits in each district?
Given the way the Labor party handles Senate preferences, I think it’s a safer bet for most Labor supporters to vote Green in the Senate!
It would (yet another) quirk of the system that the most progressive state in australia, with the highest green vote outside of tasmania, would elect a Family First member again. I wonder how effectively the greens can run a campaign of ” a vote for labor in the senate is a vote for family first” in order to negate any preference deal done between the parties.
I am surprised how many erstwhile green supporters voted labor in the last vic state election because of the effecive scare campaign they run about green-lib preferencing deals. It is also important to rememeber that many people dont understand that preferencing is ultimatiely up to themselves, and talk of ‘deals’ usually gets interpreted as future ‘voting coalitions’.
It might be time the Greens campaign got dirty if a labor/ffp deal becomes the case
And Sanda Kranck has suggested recruiting Hicks as a candidate.
No she didn’t.
Refering back in this thread a way (its what happens when you don’t go near a computer for a day…) Miranda is still held by Collier for the ALP, so I would suggest that with the addition of the ALP areas of Liverpool (its why I mentioned Menai) there is a chance with a big swing for Vale to go close to losing. The same arguments about Sutherland Shire and Lebanese people etc can also be made about other areas of western Sydney, so I’m not convinced this will be such a big issue – especially as the ALP has not essentially deviated from a restrictive immigration policy. Rudds IR message is termperate and will play well to soothe Howard-whipped fears of “unions running the country”.
re Sasha’s Q on WA: the results on the 6 member electorates will depend very much on each electorate – the 3 city electorates are just as likely to return 3 ALP:3 Lib (North Metro), 4:2 (East Metro) 3:2:1 (South Metro), with country electorates more likely to return 3:2 (Mining & Pastoral), 2:4 (Agricultural) 1:4:1 (South West). Now this is guess work, and very much depends on the boundaries, but this would throw up a 16 ALP:15Lib/Nat:2 Green Council. It could just as easily, though, show a 17:16 house if the Greens don’t build there vote back to 2001 levels. Worse still, they could just as easily run into a falling ALP vote (no preference flows) and a rising Coalition vote (taking 3 quotas) and still get nothing. I have to say that on my original modelling of the 6×6 model on the 2001 results it would have produced a 13 ALP: 13 Lib: 2 Nat: 4 PHON: 4 Green. With PHON gone you might expect a 15:15:2:0:4 result, but I know that the modelling on 2001 used only the atl votes, and was subject to variation dependent on btl votes – to the extent that seats might change hands. So that why I’d be suggesting that some seats (like North Metro) could become more evenly split.
Leastways, thats how I saw it – maybe people with more up to date modelling/thoughts would care to venture a comment?
Surely this is all pointless speculation before the boundaries are announced?
Do our WA correspendents know who the WA Greens Senate candidates are?
“She [Kanck] today told ABC radio she would not oppose a bid by Hicks to run for parliament as a Democrats candidate. I would be happy for that to be considered by the party’s candidate assessment committee,” Ms Kanck said. I think people, if they make a mistake in their lives, should have the right to redeem themselves.”
Andrew, perception is everything.
Whenever someone brings in legislations that reduce the safety net, people start to “fear†what would happen, if they loses their job. It is a natural occurrence. Even through all indicators over the last year showed employment is up, wages is up and full time employment is up.
Alternately, everyone is happy when minimum wage goes up, does minimum wage help poor people?
a. if you look around people working in Myers/Big W/Target/Coles today compared with 20 years ago, you sees a lot more young staff on part time jobs and junior wage. The people on minimum wage has now became part time staff or had lost their job to cheaper employees
b. the manufacturing industry was where a lot of the minimum wage jobs were located, the opening of trade market and minimum wage (higher cost) has destroyed these jobs in Australia
c. A person coming into Australia knowing very little English, are they likely to get a minimum wage job? I would suggest quite a few of those people are on the dole and are working with employer who would not pay them minimum wage.
IR law might be electorate poison, but it does not means it is not good law that will benefit Australia. A wage floor won’t help the poor, increasing demand for job will.
Sorry to get off subject .. but do you think it’s possible that the ALP already has plans to do a deal with some state business chambers to get their support if they lift that definition of “a small business” from 15 up to, say 50. It would still fall short of the 100 under Howards legislation but it offers a more realistic ideal. It also would give comfort to those fledgling businesses that want to grow?
A possibility? T’would be a big coup for Rudd
The democrats are incompetent fools. 90% o people who voted for them wanted a centrist party, who can limited the excesses of the Labor and Liberal government, but they did not want to be that and wants to be the greens, they moved themselves out of existence.
It would not be Macchiavellian for the Domocrats to preference Liberals in the Senate and force a DD, it would be suicidal. The Democrats are in such a mess they would not even get a DD quota. FFP however would go close to a DD quota without preferences in both SA and Qld. They represent much more of a centrist option on socio-ecomonic policy.
10000 people is a good sample size for a focus poll.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2006/04/22/australian-politics-test-10000th-result/
re WA speculation: the modelling is not pointless when it comes to writing up the legislation…although the boundaries are not know in their specifics there is a reasonable clarity about the possible outcome for the Council given previous results, demographics, population size etc – yes there are always changes, but I spent a reasonable time looking at potentials within the WA electoral system to see likely outcomes (obviously with a fair margin of error, not taking into account new parties, and not knowing future voting etc) – what I modelled at least gave an indication of likely wins/losses. The speculation around the Vic redistribution posited the likely areas for Green wins and was largely correct in terms of the vote – preference deals can always through a spanner in the works though!!
What was perhaps more interesting is that the 6×6 model is a gamble on the part of the Greens (WA) – if the vote stays up then they should return 1-4 MP’s. If however it does not it could see them locked out of the Council. A safer way would have been to have a whole-of-state elected Council which would have all but guaranteed the Greens 2-3 seats at every election, but probably not more than that. The other option on the table was a 5×7 model (5 seats of 7 seats) which again may have provided the Greens with 3-4 seats. perhaps a better solution, but the internal desire to replicate the HoR-Senate model (and a commitment to rural constituents – remembering that 3 of the 5 GWA MP’s at the time represented rural constituencies) wouldn’t allow moving the system any closer to 1v1v.
On the Dems and a DD – I agree with Ray (not that I necessarily consider the FFP as a centrist option) that a DD would be disastrous for the Dems – a result not unlike what happened to the DLP.
Adam, Sandra knows very well that he wouldn’t pass the assessment process, so why would she worry if he were put forward for consideration? It’s a hypothetical, he’s not a member and won’t be any time soon. It’s as much a beat up as the Sunrise thing – there’s about as much truth in both of them (i.e. not much beyond the odd word that signifies absolutely no action whatsoever).
FWIW, there is a large movement within the party to move back to the centre. I, for one, am heartened by Rudd Labor’s move to the economic centre. Voters should be able to say “Hey, I want this (economic centrism, or maybe even soft-right policies) without _that_ (being a right-wing death beast)” and that’s good. I just wish it hadn’t been accompanied by what is perceivable (NOTE: I didn’t say actual) as a rightwards move on social issues.
The seventies are a fascinating time in Australian politics..
when the DLP were wiped out of the senate during a DD, the quota was 9.1%. ( 100/(10 + 1) )
They received 6+% in Victoria from memory. (Psephos text file is missing)
I’d love to know how the other parties preferenced, because it’s pretty tough to lose from 2/3 of a quota, especially considering the senate voting relied on HTVs, making preference leakage much higher..
Yes I know, I must get my reformatting of Psephos finished, but I have been distracted by my award-winning Election Guide. I am off to Europe on Sunday, so it will have to wait until I get back.
1974 Senate Vic (10 Senators, quota 9.1%):
ALP 5.135 quotas
Lib/CP 4.729 quotas
DLP 0.764 quotas
Others 0.372 quotas
Labor directed its surplus to the Libs to ensure the defeat of the DLP, getting Alan Missen up as the 5th coalition candidate, although 35% of the surplus actually went to McManus. Sorry Chris, but given the DLP’s behaviour at that time, that was the correct decision.
My recollection is that the demise of the Democrats began with Meg Lees’s deal with Howard passing the GST through the Senate, hardly evidence of a lurch to the left. She was trying to be a good centrist.
lets all wish adam well on his trip, Adam is very hopeful of getting a letter opener and coffee maker job in a certain mp’s office on his return. he may even be promoted to head mail sorter if labor wins.
there’s no place for that sort of snark in anyone’s world Isabella
It just goes to show just how idiotic much of the political world is that some hack feels the need to cyber-stalk Adam using an alias.
If you had any guts at all Isabella, you’d use your own name, as Adam does. I hope all of your fellow Liberals are wasting precious election year days pursuing vendettas instead of trying to dig yourselves out of the grave.
Oh shut up Isabella.
I’d say that if we picked the first thing that started the downfall of the Democrats, it was Cheryl Kernot defecting, but truth be told there was a serious of points which made it worse, at any of which point they could have turned it around. Kernot’s defection, Lees’ GST deal, the white-anting over Stott Despoja’s leadership.
Sounds like Isabellla is becoming more optimistic about that labor win. In any case, i would rather make the coffee for a labor MP than write policy detail or speeches for the unethical and Human Rights abusing current mob. Something tells me that Isabella is just a lonely guy that got picked on at Uni and wants revenge on the world. I’ll have mine black with 2 sugars thanks adam and enjoy your trip.
The Majority of voters (50.9%) in the the `98 election preferenced Labor ahead of the Liberals so the GST should have been rejected in Parliament on one vote one value grounds.
Is the GST a bad thing (in retrospect) ? I certainly don’t want to go back to the old system with 22% tax here and there. I don’t even notice it.
I almost feel as if many people don’t like the GST based on remembered dislike – they don’t re-evaluate their initial opinion of years ago.
The Dems problem is that their voters are very close to Labor voters in their views. With Labor in opposition they can’t pick up a protest vote from Labor-ish voters, particularly as the Greens have picked up the left vote the Dems used to get.
Edward O says: “Adam, Sandra knows very well that he wouldn’t pass the assessment process, so why would she worry if he were put forward for consideration? It’s a hypothetical, he’s not a member and won’t be any time soon. It’s as much a beat up as the Sunrise thing – there’s about as much truth in both of them (i.e. not much beyond the odd word that signifies absolutely no action whatsoever).”
What she should have said was: “David Hicks has expressed anti-Semitic views and support for terrorism, and went to Afghanistan to train with terrorists. While the Democrats supported the campaign to have Hicks given a fair trial and brought back to Australia, that does not mean we have any sympathy with his extremist views. Until he renounces those views he will have no place in a mainstream political party such as the Democrats.”
A totally new question. What are peoples’ thoughts on the chances of Labor taking Dickson and Bowman?
Bowman: pretty good on current polling, especially given the inflated swing from 2004. Ditto Blair, Bonner, Longman and Petrie (and maybe Forde).
Dickson: probably not. On the new boundaries it seems alot more naturally conservative, and more rural, so may be harder to budge.
I agree with you Marcus. As much as I’d prefer to see Dutton booted out over Laming, I think Dickson is fairly safe and Bowman quite precarious.
GST
Scare campaign is just that, lack of facts that scared the living daylights out of people, a tax that is in 100 other country could not have been that bad. Labor only got such a high vote in 1999 because it was willing to put a chance at office in front of the well beings of Australian. noone complains about the GST today.
Sounds like something else labor is compaining about at the moment
Time to take on that (fast becoming tired) argument that the campaign against WorkChoices is the same as that run against the GST. There are some fundamental differences here. The GST was flagged at the previous election and its introduction was preceded by 18 months of modelling, analysis and debate. WorkChoices was only brought in once the Coalition relaised that they had control of the Senate, and largely at the behest of the vested interests who bankroll the Liberal Party. There was no debate and little justification. Furthermore, The GST had clear upsides for just about everyone – tax cuts, welfare increases and so on. WorkChoices doesn’t really give any concrete benefits (leaving side the astract arguments about it being “good for the economy”), which is why it has been such a difficult sell politically.
If you want an analogy, the run-in to the march to the Iraq war would be a beter fit – and I’m sure I don’t need to remind you how that’s worked out.
Anyway the Coalition can’t complain about scare campaigns after the truly appalling one they ran against the Native Title Act – the most shameful pack of lies in recent political history
I really have to take issue with the commenter who said:
“Yeh Adam, I saw Ruth Russell.. ugh what were they thinking. “Iraq Human Shield†might play well with socialist alliance types, but in the suburbs where the former-democrat liberal voters lurk, thats as popular as R&B at an ACDC concert.”
How the hell can Ruth Russell be criticised for being a human shield? She was 100% right that the Iraq war was going to be a disaster and disproporitantely bad for civilians. No matter which way you look at that war – left or right – it is a disaster for Australia. Economically – we have lost billions in wheat contracts, cost of wear-and-tear on military equipment, global security and also law suits when in 15 years the courts decide we were culpable for some of the cost of rebuilding.
And Russell was so determined to stop Australia making such a terrible mistake SHE PUT HER OWN LIFE ON THE LINE. That’s fcsking amazing!!! No sitting in her ivory tower sipping champagne and reading Quandrant like people at the Institute of Public Affairs. She put up so you should shut up.
Ruth Russell’s courage is completely in the spirit of the Anzacs and I think it would be fabulous if she was in parliament. She would put the rest of those lilly-livid arm-chair warriors in parliament to shame.
Hugo: from memory the coalition introduced similar IR laws to workchoices but they were blocked by the senate on numerous occassions ?
There was alot of talk at the time Howard would use a Double Dissolution to get them through.
Yes, Speaker, that’s true, but rather beside the point, which was to say that the average voter had a pretty fair idea of what the GST would hold for them long before it was introduced. This cannot be said of WorkChoices. Voters would have been under the impression that a re-elected (in 2004) Howard government would basically be the same government that they had before that. Instead, Howard has used the unexpected Senate control to push through a raft of rather radical legislation compared to what they had passed in the previous eight years. Moreover, the drafting of the WorkChoices was much more rushed and much more secretive than what happened with the GST.
The vibe out there in Voterland seems to be that Howard has “gone too far”, and I suspect that this is the reason that Labor has been so far ahead in the polls for so long. It seems that the electorate has alreday made up their minds, and, barring the unforeseen, there’s probably very little that the government can do about it.
Hugo: How effective do you think it would be with the electorate if Howard watered workchoices down ?
That Isabella is a fraud by the way.
An attempt to discredit me and those of us that might have views that are slightly to the right of the majority here.
William, please delete this gibbering imposter’s account.
A really poor way to try and frame and belittle one of the few people here that isn’t somewhere to the left of the ALP Federal Parliamentary Party.
Dr Carr is a nasty piece of work but I can promise you that previous Isabella is pathetic, illiterate imitation.
Speaker, I would actually be quite surprised if Howard tried to water down WorkChoices – much of the Act contains many articles of faith on the Right. However, Howard has shown in the past that he can be pragmatic when he needs to be. His problem now is that it might be too late – he’d basically have to throw most of it in the bin, and Rudd has probably stolen a march on that front anyway. I suspect that whatever Howard does now won’t be enough.
To make any difference, Howard would need to massively water down the unfair dismissal exemptions (say, to employers of less than 20 workers, as per the long standing Liberal policy) and reinstate some of the powers of the IRC to set the minimum wage and to arbitrate disputes. I can’t really see that happening.
THe other problem the Coalition has is that because they didn’t flag WorkChoices before the last election, I’m not sure many would believe that he wouldn’t reintroduce all the nasties after (an increasingly unlikely) re-election.
On another matter, I’m highly intrigued about the real/fake Isabella debate. Even the so-called “real” Isabella seems to think that anyone to the left of her is a raving communist, so I for one can’t really tell the difference.
To clarify the above comment from Isabella, who I shall henceforth refer to as Isabella I: the earlier comment from Isabella appears to have come from a different person using the same name, who I shall henceforth refer to as Isabella II.
I do not intend to delete Isabella II’s comment as per Isabella I’s request, but I do ask this of him or her: if you are going to parody Isabella I, please be a little less subtle. Apart from a few capitalisation and apostrophe issues, the comment was utterly indistinguishable from the sort of thing Isabella I would normally say.
While I have you, Isabella I: I notice you were never able to identify any examples of “leftist abuse” that Adam Carr levelled at Coalition MPs at Wikipedia, as per your allegation here. As Adam pointed out subsequently, you should have had no trouble locating such incidents here, had they really occurred. If you were worth anything at all, you would acknowledge your error.
My take:
Neither should seen as be top tier targets for the ALP. But both would fall in a landslide of 1983 or 1996 proportions.
I don’t think Bowman is as vulerable as the other seats Marcus lists.
In answer to Adam’s question of some days ago re Greens (WA) Senate candidates: Scott Ludlam has been preselected #1. I don’t know about the rest of the ticket. Scott works in Senator Siewerts office as a researcher, having previously worked in Robin Chapple’s office when Chapple was a state MLC. He is also well know around Fremantle as a spokesperson for FANG (an anti-nuke group). More can be found at:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~greenswa/gi/20070327GI.pdf
As to The Speaker’s comment re Ruth Russell: I didn’t think he was necessarily being disparaging about Russell, more that those people who previously voted Democrat with a Liberal bent were not necessarily going to switch back. Not many would doubt her courage, although some may question her judgement. If The Speaker’s comment is correct re her political views (’waaay left’) this will probably alienate some of those who might otherwise have supported her, without much to come from anywhere else (unless they’ve its now only a competition between the Greens and the Democrats for the same small patch of space on the left of the ALP).
Hugo
A. Coalition did flag workplace reform at the last election, they just did not give the details
B. does all government need to call an election everytime it makes a decision, and if I remember labor fully supported going into Iraq at that time, and choose to change it mind only when public opinion changed.
Dovif – a little disingenguous to claim that the Coalition “did flag workplace reform, but did not give details” – I think it’s safe to say that most people had no idea that WorkChoices was coming. In contrast the GST was front and centre of the 1998 campaign.
Labor did not “fully support” the Iraq misadventure at any time, though it’s true that it took them a few weeks to get theit story straight. I can clearly remember Simon Crean telling troops that the ALP “didn’t think they should be going”.
At any rate, you’ve missed my point of the political similarities between the two issues, namely that the government made little attempt to sell either issue to the electorate, unlike the GST.
howardhater, I can understand that if you are a Green voter you would find a deal between ALP and FFP in the Senate hard to stomach. It would mean the only support the Greens would get is from the Democrats and BTL Labor voters, which would make it difficult for the them to achieve a quota in most states.
But as a Labor supporter, it is clear to me that this is the ONLY way the ALP can hope to form a Senate that they can work with.
As The Speaker points out, if only this approach had been adopted in more states in 2004. The Coalition would not have control of the Senate and Work Choices would have remained Howard’s wet dream. Family First did not support WC as it is clearly anti family policy. Where are the Family Impact statements that Howard promised he would run over all legislation??
The average Australian voter (correctly) eschews extremism on either side of the political spectrum be it workplace relations legislation skewed to the interests of the employer or self serving complaints about the funding of private education (both are examples only). Well you might say that is a trite comment (and it is) but perhaps (and I say this respectfully) it is one to be kept in mind by some of the ideological warriors who regularly share their opinion(s) with the rest of us on this excellent website. Kevin Rudd, to date, is demonstrating that he knows this about the average Australian voter (evidence his recent policy announcement on workplace relations laws). I believe he will continue to do well provided he stays on that course (a significant proviso, I accept).
Stewart J : I think you’ll find it was Adam who described Ruth Russell as waaaay left. However I agree with him 100% (as I usually do).
Ruth Russell is electorally unappealing and by pre-selecting her the Democrats have reduced their already microscopic chances in the state that’s their best hope. They should have chosen Max Baumann.
Mr Speaker: I stand corrected. And if Sandra Kanck has indeed argued for the preselection of David Hicks I can only think the Democrats have now decided to go for the far-left vote (even we Greens don’t go that far!). I believe Mamdouh Habib was linked with one of the various trotskyist/ socialist factions, but maybe the Dem’s will look towards him in NSW given this? He did poll almost 4% (3.85%) in Auburn in the recent state election here…
Actually I don’t think they will. As electorally unappealing as Ruth Russell may or may not be, I do think there is an attempt in recruiting her to capture whatever vote exists amongst the soft-left of the Libs (the so-called ‘Doctor’s wives’) as much as the left of the ALP. I think its a dubious strategy and could come unstuck – certainly she will be a polarising candidate (although that at least generates media…) and may leave the Democrats open to suggestions that they are not being serious about government/parliament/politics but are engaged in stunting (Mr Xenophon again).
I am curious whether anyone has an opinion as to the effect zero irrigation allocation might have on the election?
Well snow .. it certainly puts the drought firmly into peoples minds .. and while I don’t think any real blame can be attributed to the government for not taking earlier water infrastructure steps they still happen to be in “the wrong place at the wrong time”. Whether or not they deserve it they’ll more than likely be punished at the election.
Their only possible recourse would be to take a leaf out of Beattie’s book and say “yes .. we know there’s a problem .. but we’re the only ones who can fix it” A harder sell for Howard because he isn’t up against a crap opposition like Beattie was.
I have said it before on this site and I will say it again.. it should definitely be John Winston Howard praying for rain because the longer the drought continues the more the focus will turn to global warming and the Howard governments non – resposne to the issue.
Even if the drought has nothing to do with global warming the two will be inextricably linked in voters minds.
Hugo at 12.05 am raised the question of nasties.
It could be useful to construct a list of so-called nasties that could be pushed through before July 2008, in the event of the Government being returned. For the purposes of discussion, it may be convenient to restrict the list to measures that would affect the majority. Here is a start:
1.Abolish sick-leave, and allow employees to buy appropriate insurance instead;
2.As a further boost to productivity, make two weeks the new norm for paid annual leave;
3.On the grounds of equity, shift the burden of funding employees’ compulsory super from the employer to the employee, where it naturally belongs;
4.Shift Medicare to a social security mechanism, covering only the lowest paid and welfare beneficiaries. Our private health insurance industry, with its renowned world-class efficiency, would be open to everyone else.
All these reflect very long-standing Liberal ideas.
Could they be sold to the electorate? Possibly, provided that compensation were offered, and over-compensation in the case of sensitive groups – like those Lucky Duckies, as the Wall Street Journal once so accurately described them, whose incomes are too low to attract net tax.
Just like the GST.
Blackjack: Interesting idea!
- A dole cutoff period eg one year
- A social security payback scheme that works similar to the current HECS arrangement ie once you get a job you begin paying back the money the government gave you in social security.
I am curious if anyone has any comment to make on an article written by Clinton Porteous published in today’s “The Courier Mail” regarding the results of a union commissioned poll with 1052 respondents in four Queensland marginal electorates. The results show that Labor is leading the Coalition by 62% to 38%. In the electorate of Moreton the union poll relied on 241 respondents and the results show that Labor is leading the Coalition by 67% to 33%.
Speaking from a purely personal perspective – does anyone have an opinion on Greenway?
And do we think the lovely Julie Owens can keep Parramatta and does anyone have any goss on the other ‘man in the hat’ Roger Price in Chifley retiring?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21589109-3102,00.html
My comment is: ROFL
I’d think Greenway is safe for the Liberals on the new boundaries. Much more rural and conservative than other outer Sydney seats.
Given current polling I would expect Labor to have no trouble retaining Parramatta.
Have any other queenslanders noticed that the ALP is going hard for bowman already
advertising on the side of buses, and
there were also ‘for sale: your rights at work signs in the front of every yard in a couple of suburbs’
Does anyone have any extra info
Does anyone in the hunter feel thats somethings changing there.
is there an anti labor sentiment growing (though not necessarily a pro liberal one)
it was just something playing on my mind after the state election there
Re Hunter:
I suppose there’s the possibility the coal miners could revolt over Labor’s “green” policies, as with Tassie’s timber workers in 2004. But I’d imagine the CFMEU would be backing Labor to the hilt this time because of the IR issue.
Longer term, with the (probable) decline of industry in the Hunter, demographic change may favour the conservative parties, or possibly the Greens.
I think Howard could go the whole way and reintroduce the much and unnecessarily maligned Master and Servant Act. Paul Keating used to say this was the Liberal aim back in the early 90s. A copy of the act for those interested: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Masters_and_Servants_Act_%281902%29_N.S.W.
Labor and the Hunter. Certainly my reading of the Newcastle Herald was that the editors (Fairfax) were pushing for change prior to the NSW election, particularly as Sussex St and Iemma had made a number of blunders and there was the sniff of scandal. In the end the seats apparently at most risk were easily retained. Port Stephens was lost by ~100votes but it had become more marginal for Labor due to the loss of much of Mayfield and the pre-selection was difficult. I was surprised by Lake Macquarie being lost by ~100 votes. However, Jeff Hunter was one of the biggest logs in the caucus and I feel his indolence over the last 15 odd years was a factor. I doubt if any of this is relevant to the federal election – I can’t imagine Howard being the pin-up boy of Novocastrians.
So much material so little time
Perhaps he could reintroduce the Combination Act
http://www.marxists.org/history/england/combination-laws/combination-laws-1800.htm
That’d fix ‘em.
I rate Labor a chance in Kalgoorlie (6.3%) if former Kalgoorlie Mayor Paul Robson wins pre-selection. It’s a very transient voters’ roll so previous results should be discounted.
Here’s an extract from the front page of tomorrow’s Kalgoorlie Miner (April 21):
By Georgia Loney
THE fight for the Federal seat of Kalgoorlie is set to begin in earnest after the ALP State executive announces on Monday night who will run against Liberal MHR Barry Haase.
The Labor pre-selection is set to be a close tussle between former Kalgoorlie-Boulder Mayor Paul Robson and Newman woman Sharon Thiel, who has the support of the powerful Left faction.
Kalgoorlie ALP branch member Jane Truscott is also a candidate.
Political analyst Peter van Onselen said factional deals within the ALP meant a candidate could lose out despite substantial local support.
“Often these things can be done deals, even before the State executive meet,” Mr van Onselen said.
But political sources have said Monday’s vote will be “genuinely close”.
While Mr Robson has sought to separate himself from factional alignment, he is known to have the support of the Centre and Right.
Ms Thiel is an electorate officer with Left-aligned Fisheries Minister Jon Ford.
The Left has increased its influence in the wake of revelations at the Corruption and Crime Commission which resulted in the sacking of three State ministers from the Centre and Right factions.
Mr van Onselen said the votes from ALP branch members could ultimately decide whether Mr Robson wins his bid to be endorsed.
“The Left has more members in the State executive, so it could still be the votes from party members which are the deal breaker,” Mr van Onselen said.
“But it will depend on how strongly disciplined each faction is within the State executive.”
ALP State secretary Bill Johnston said the selection of a candidate was a two-step process.
“First there is a postal ballot for all the ALP branch members in the electorate to cast their vote,” Mr Johnston said.
“This is followed by delegates from the State executive who will vote on Monday night.”
But votes of the 200-strong ALP State executive hold stronger sway than the votes of ordinary rank-and-file members, Mr Johnston said.
“The votes are weighted, with 15 per cent given to local members and 85 per cent to the State executive,” Mr Johnston said.
Kalgoorlie ALP branch president Garry Campbell said the branch’s 70 members had cast their votes late last month.
In these times of uncertainty and sedition, I think John Howard would be very justified in bringing back the Unlawful Oaths Act of 1797.
The last time this was used the number of unionists in the Hunter Valley increased significantly.
I rather like the Act Against Jesuits and Seminarists (1585).
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/ENGref/er85.html
Under this enlightened piece of legislation we could have Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews burned at the stake.
I am told that tomorrow’s Morgan poll will be: ALP 59.5% (down 0.5%), Coalition 40.5% (up 0.5%). Anyone believe Morgan polls?
Noone believes Morgan polls… but they’re very close to Newspoll and AC Neilsen at the moment.
No, but at least he’s not out of sync with the Newspoll and AC Nielsen polls. Who commissions Morgan polls anyway? He doesn’t seem to be contracted to any newspaper…
his real business is consumer polls – brands of dogfood etc. the political polls are just to keep his name in people’s minds.
so does he know the favourite brand of dogfood of Labor voters, what about Liberal voters?
Trust ye not in polls
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/28/1096137228666.html
On Kalgoorlie, I’d actually think the Liberal stronghold areas (around Merredin in particular in the eastern wheatbelt, Esperance and Kalgoorlie itself) would actually be fairly non-transient, while the traditional Labor strongholds in the north (Karratha, Port Hedland and the assorted mining towns) are much more so, while the indigenous vote – quite large in this electorate – would be probably the most unpredictable of the lot.
Labor putting up a Kalgoorlie based candidate would certainly help, because it’s in the south of the seat where name recognition may help; certainly more so than in the vast northern areas.
Adam,
Enjoy your time in Berlin. I’d be interested in your thoughts on Germany’s second grand coalition, particularly on whether it is the SPD or the CPD/CSU which is winning the policy debate. Strangely, in Australia, the Liberals are losing the policy debate on IR big time, but Labor seems reluctant to push home its advantage, with Kevin Rudd proclaiming support for secret ballots of unionists before industrial action by employees but apparently not of shareholders before industrial action by employers. It still did him no good with The Australian, which has run a series of “the sky will fall in†and “I love my AWA†articles.
Interesting quote from Adams smh link.
“More pleasing for Greens senator Bob Brown, the party polled 26 per cent in Tasmania which would almost certainly give it two Senate spots from the Apple Isle.”
The result:
The Greens barely managed a single quota with preferences, pipping Family Firsts Jackie Petrusma by a mere 350 votes. Saved by BTLs.
The SPD isn’t travelling very well at present. This coalition is very different to the first one (1966-69), which Willy Brandt dominated over a weak Chancellor, the ex-Nazi Kiesinger. This time the SPD is coming out of a long period of government which ended in defeat, and no new leader has emerged in succession to Schroeder. Merkel has novelty value as the first woman and first eastern chancellor, and she has done pretty well so far. She will probably call an election some time soon and win it. The SPD can though go and sort itself out in opposition.
I suggest you stop reading the Murdoch press till after the election. They are going to be increasingly feral as the year drags on.
mr P , you will find merridin is in O’Connor, as is basically most of the wheatbelt.
the mining boom is the big one. Kalgoorlie wages are friggen huge, and AWAs. Its a liberal home now.
Tho more and more people working in the Pilbara etc are fly in-fly out who vote for Howard. Being fly in fly out, they would be enrolled in different electorates.
All in all a swing to the ALP but Kalgoorlie still firmly in the hold of Hasse.
Will Rudd’s meeting with Murdoch this week temper the anti-Labor diatribe in News Ltd publications?
now thats an interesting question.
I suppose all we can do is wait and see.
Certainly JWH may be sweating on it
Merredin is in Kalgoorlie.
I agree that the economics of the mining industry make Kalgoorlie a difficult seat for Labor when the core of the Labor campaign will be abolishing AWAs. Also the government’s changes to the Electoral Act will disfranchise many transient and indigenous voters, as was their intent. Kalgoorlie is 16% indigenous and they most almost unanimously Labor, so this will be a big factor.
The main loss of vote by the SPD was to the Left Party which got around 10% of the vote more than double the 4 or so % that the PDS (which combined with a new left wing party to form the Left Party in 2005) got the previous time.
The SPD and CDU/CSU maywell loose vote to the opposition next time.
The strange thing about the last German election was that the left actually won quite easily – the SDP, PDS and Greens polled 51% of the vote and won 327 seats out of 614. But because of the apparent veto on allowing the PDS to be part of a national coalition government, or even to support a minority SPD-Green government, Schroeder prefered to resign and allow Merkel to form a grand coalition with the SPD as junior partners. Tom may be right, but the general view is that Merkel is doing well and will win the next election in her own right.
French presidential election tomorrow – any predictions?
Socialist woman to win. Forget her name.
Adam: Maybe the PDS are the German version of the Greens ? I think its a similar situation to the Greens in Tasmania, or the Greens in New Zealand.
Hmm, Adam you vetoed me discussing the Quebec elections some time ago citing that that was not the this blog, but I’ll overlook that to say that I think Sarkozy will come first with about 27% of the vote, followed quite a bit behind by Royal at 22%. Bayrou in late teens and Le Pen in early/mid teens.
French election – I’d put my money on Sarkozy, given that he’s likely to be able to take a few votes away from the increasingly extremist Le Pen.
Despite being ‘divisive’ (according to today’s Age) it looks like he’s got away with his ‘racaille’ comments. It’s possible that French voters, like some Australians, might respond to a bit of dog-whistling.
the french election is actually looking close, and volatile. Sarkozy will lead first round…
Actually Ray the Tas Greens beat FF by a fair bit more than 350 votes. They were 350 over quota at the time of election, but there were a pile of votes to be distributed and while the ticket votes were going to FF quite a few of these were btls which mostly came to Milne.
However, if the point is to show that Senate polls are meaningless, then I agree, doubly so in small states with equivalently small sample sizes.
I don’t think I have the power to veto anyone here (more’s the pity).
It’s puzzling that Sego has proved such a dud when everyone said how brilliant and charismatic she was before she ran. But who can figure a country where last time 15% of the voters supported four different communists, thus shutting the main opposition candidate out of the second round? The French live on a planet of their own.
Not so much veto, but mild reprimand that we chat about anything other than Australian politics.
“does anyone have an opinion on Greenway?”
A rather under-rated Colonial architect – no… as far as the electorate is concerned it is not, after the redistribution, the same one increasingly useless ALP members represented before the ALP preselected the unelectable Muslim (albeit a cradle one).
On the new boundaries it should be safe Liberal but it includes much of Riverstone which the ALP’s John Aqulina won handily when on the 2004 booth figures and demographic changes he was gone.
The preselected ALP candidate baled out after the redistribution so I understand which might mean something. Then on the other hand Markus still occupies the seat behind the PM at Question Time which is normally reserved for those in danger. Does anyone know if Markus has been preselected for Greenway already?
I think there is one main reason that Segolene Royal has faded from the initial expectations of last year. The fact that she was perceived as brilliant/charismatic probably ensured that that expectations for her campaign were much higher than perhaps would have been the case if she hadn’t developed such a reputation. I’ve found it true in many elections that when you are the frontrunner, people in both the media and the public sphere tend to develop unrealistic expectations about what your performance and policies during the actual election campaign should be. When you don’t meet those expectations, people rapidly become disillusioned with you and call you out on it and it works against you.
Additionally if you your your campaign make a few stumbles and blunders and gaffes along the way -which I think has been true in Sego’s case -you get even more exposure because of your status as a frontrunner/leading candidate.
When you start off as the underdog like Sarkozy did, you are running on much lower expectations and therefore you will not be subjet to the same kind of scrutiny. It’s therefore much easier to be the last man (or woman) standing while your opponent’s campaign unravels. And you will reap the dividends
On the subject of the German elections, the SDP did much better than expected in both 2002 and 2006 partly because Schroder managed to minimize the potential backlash against the party through his campaigning skills. With Schroder gone and the lack of any real viable SDP successor -I think they have changed leaders at least once since his departure and that was only less than two years ago- I would expect the SDP’s vote to fall
Sarkozy to lead by 5% in the first round, Royal to win by 3% in the second.
That’s a big call, Howard-hater
On Greenway, on its new boundaries it is a Hawkesbury seat and quite safe for the Libs. Its loss last time can be blamed on these wonderful rank-and-file preselections people here keep going on about. Russ Gorman and Frank Mossfield must have been two of the most useless members ever sent to Canberra. Mossfield was over 60 when he was first elected: it was a retirement gig for him after his long and undistinguished career in the union movement. While he dozed on the backbench, the demographics of the seat changed and the Libs got organised and found a good candidate in Markus, although I gather she is also a pretty useless MP. Picking a Muslim candidate was a brave thing to do, but it was the coup de grace for Labor in Greenway. They should have run Husic in Watson and Tony Burke, a good Catholic, in Greenway. But rank-and-file preselections make it very difficult to put talented candidates in the right seats, or sometimes in any seat at all. That’s why we have John Murphy in Lowe instead of Michael Costello, who would be an asset to the frontbench but who couldn’t assemble the numbers in 1998. Labor’s problems in NSW are made worse by “affirmative action,” better known as the “ex-wives clause,” which has put a phalanx of totally talentless women in safe seats from which they now can’t be evicted without the kind of histrionics we are now getting from La Hoare in Charlton.
Indeed. Husic would have been a great MP had he been given the chance. Unfortunately, his home turf in Greenway (where he grew up) just didn’t provide the right demographics for him to get up. The Markus campaign was the most disgraceful of the entire election. Why don’t they preselect Husic in Chifley if Price calls it quits?
“Hoare in Charlton”
Is this a definition of “apposite”?
“Why don’t they preselect Husic in Chifley if Price calls it quits?”
Yerrr great idea. Have you seen the AAFI figures in booths like Shalvey?
Chifley has a much safer buffer for Labor than Greenway did. Besides, any swing against Husic would be offset by a pro-Rudd swing.
Psephophile Says: “Hope springs eternal”.
Maaaate the CDP gets a big vote in Chifley too – there is a latent hatred for anything other than a known known in the downtrodden masses of the central area of the electorate. As for the booths brought in from Lindsay well forget ‘em not worth the ALP handing out HTV especially if a Muslim is the candidate. The east end of the electorate has always been swinging.
As for Husic being a good candidate – basically his experience was a non-job as meeja liason with the local electricity supply company. And for mine he was poison not because of his efnic background but because of his deep links with the ALP’s Liverpool City mafia/ustashi.
Kevin has been anointed by our most benevolent overlord…
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21598066-2,00.html
I wondered what that all blue thunder and lightning emanating from Kirribilli was all about.
It really is sad times when the particular religion of a candidate is being so dispassionately assumed as electoral suicide for a party. Think about it. We seem to sub-consciously accept that this is the field that we are playing on. This, i think can be blamed on the media, but also on the very attitude we are ‘realistically’ taking to who ‘lost’ Greenway. Imagine the horror and uproar in the media if someone dared to blame the fact that a Jew, Christian or Buddhist lost the seat for a party because of their particular religion. When its a Muslim, however, it seems like this is just taken as fair grounds for their loss, as if it were like a background of rape or murder. I know we are all discussing this issue in ‘rational’ terms and ascribing the prejudice to the voters of Greenway or Chifley but there must be something said for how these attitudes become normalised. The preselectors in Greenway did the ‘right’ thing in principle, and while it may have been electoral poison for apparantly islamophobic Western Sydney, at least they didnt let relgious prejudice taint their view.
RE: French Election. Adam, i can only go off opinions of (probably like-minded ) friends in Paris, but i think Sarkozy may have gone too far in courting the right, and thus has scared off many of the centrists who are voting for Bayrou in the first round. Sarkozy, on all accounts, is quite polarising. This is second hand knowledge from beret-wearing, baguette carrying, stripey-shirted, bicyle-wearing, pinko commie parisians, so it might be slightly tainted.
Umm, the CDP got 3.7% in Chifley in 2004. AAFI didn’t stand in 2004, but in 2001 they got 1.9%. Not very impressive figures. Chifley would elect Ivan Milat if he was the endorsed Labor candidate.
Adam
1) Ivan Milat is not Muslim.
2) The figures I was looking at were the recent state figures for the booths now in Chifley.
HH
The loss in Greenway had a fair bit to do with fact that the Liberals outspent the Libor Party by at least 3:1 and that Markus attended every possible function in the electorate in the 12 months prior.
For heavens sake she was even at our hard to find Scout Hall when our kid got a top scouting award presented. It was a function at the far end of the electorate put on for scouts and parents but somehow she got wind and turned up on a rainy winter midweek evening to share the tepid tea and bikkies.
“preselectors in Greenway did the ‘right’ thing” Sure. It was that or taken get taken out the back for a chat.
Notwithstanding my comments above, I think the NSW ALP have lifted their game recently. Of the six new MHRs in 2004, Burke, Garrett and Bowen are already on the frontbench and deservedly so, while Owens and Elliot are pretty good. If they can bring themselves to axe Irwin, Hatton and Hoare this time they will have a decent team, even if we have to accept Doug Cameron as part of the package. There will then be only three or four genuine logs left.
Murdoch has changed sides. Labor win.
Funny how it’s Murdoch’s decision, and not ours.
It will be interesting to see if (when?) Murdoch’s apparent endorsement of Rudd is reflected in News Ltd’s coverage of him. They have been particularly feral in recent weeks (particularly the Oz).
Murdoch has been particularly adept at backing winners in the past, and it could be that he is sniffing the poiltical wind by backing Rudd. The omens keep building for Howard. How he must wish he’d taken the retirement option last year. A loss later this year will totally change the way history portrays him.
Re: France – my guess is that Sarkozy gets high twenties, Royal low twenties (maybe a five point gap). I’d imagine this gap will be considerably smaller in the second round, but Sarkozy will probably win. However, Adam is right to point out that the French live in a world all of their own, so I certainly wouldn’t be putting any money on it.
Howardhater, when Jews, Christians and Buddhists start murdering large numbers of Australian tourists, and when those religions produce leaders of such venomous and provocative stupidity as Sheik Hilali, and when those religions are represented by cretins like Hicks and Habib and Jihad Jack, and when Jewish, Christian and Buddhist youth stage riots on Australian beaches over their sacred right to rape women and bash up lifeguards, I imagine the voters will react against Jews, Christians and Buddhists just as they now react against Muslims. I agree it was very unfair on poor old Ed Husic, and it is probably unfair on the majority of Australian Muslims (certainly so in regard to Melbourne Muslims, who are mostly Turks and Albanians and detest the Sydney Arabs with a passion). But until the Muslim community gets its house in order, sacks Hilali and everyone like him, stops accepting violent sociopaths like Hicks and Jack Thomas as converts, and renounces terrorism and anti-semitism, that is what is going to keep on happening.
Adam, I entirely agree with your sentiments on Hilali and other misogynistic and homophobic elements within the Australian Muslim Community, but as you say it is unfair to generalise across the broader community. I am as opposed to fundamentalists as im sure you are, but the point is they are Fundamentalists and they hold the same apocalyptic, narrow views that go hand in hand with the Christian and Jewish (not sure i can think of any budhist) varieties. However, i find it interesting that many people, including both Jewish and Gay friends of mine, are more than happy to pigeon-hole Muslims into the neat little box that the Herald Sun has drawn for them. Islam is a faith- as is christianity, judaism and liberal democracy. I have met atheists who justify anti-women and anti-gay violence but on different terms to Muslims, Jews or Christians.
As for your claims to ’sacred rights’, mate you are falling for the line that has been used by countless men of all religions before- that is the one that it is god and not patriarchy that puts women in their place. Comments like yours, although with a ‘turkish and albanian’ exemption, only have the effect of legitimising misogynism and patriarchy as a part of Islam.
Just as a small anectode for comparison with the ‘Muslims attack Aussie lifeguards’ comment, it has happened 3 times in the last 2 years that ive been walking down the street in inner-melbourne and witnessed either abuse or rubbish thrown out of cars at women wearing veils. Make of it what you will, but i’d say the guys in the car are from that peace-loving, tolerent, woman-loving Australia that you must be thinking of Adam.
While we’re on the topic of monolithic generalisations i’d also like to ask the Christian community to get its house in order and stop accepting people like timothy mcveigh from Oklahoma (and tony abbot too) I’d also like the Jewish community to get its house in order and ask them to expel whoever is buying cluster bombs from the US from their community too. And we can get the rationalist-scientific lot to get ‘its house in order’ be expelling whomever invented the damn bombs.
blacklight, Merredin is in Kalgoorlie – it’s probably more akin in nature to O’Connor, and would be an odd place to be represented by a Labor MP (it’s Nats heartland at State level), but there you are. Basically there’s a wedge of Kalgoorlie that pushes into O’Connor along Great Eastern Highway to surround Merredin.
And as you say, the mining boom is a big thing, but your point about fly-in-fly-out workers should be thought out. Basically it shows that a lot of the people making the big money from the boom aren’t in the electorate, which means the money is leaving the area, not being spent locally. Whichever way it goes, I’d be shocked if the Pilbara towns don’t strongly favour Labor; they’ve never voted any other way at state level. Similar to the Coalition having a strong hold on Merredin and Esperance.
Adam – that’s a pretty disappointing rant for someone clearly otherwise intelligent – it sounds like something off the Alan Jones show, with any number of base innuedos. To address but a few of your assertions –
“rape and bash lifeguards”: rape is nt by any measure an Islamic problem (nobody talks about the ethnic/ religious background of the Cobby murderers, for example), and I’ve heard no end of rumours that the reason the Cronulla lifeguard was bashed was because they slagged off Muslim women (that doesn’t make it right of course, but it also suggests they weren’t “innocent” victims.
And your claim that Jews, Christians and Buddhists are innocent of any wrong doings (exampled respectively by Lebanon, killing abortion doctors, and Sri Lanka) is laughable. Of course, my examples are those of extremists, but that is also the case with your Islamic examples.
Get a grip, mate.
# Michael Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Murdoch has changed sides. Labor win.
Funny how it’s Murdoch’s decision, and not ours.
Democracy at its best. One person who cannot vote, decides then influences the Australian Public.
Greens announce lead senate candidate
A young solicitor and environmentalist is the Queensland Greens lead senate candidate.
Environmental lawyer Larissa Waters, 30, said she hoped she had a realistic chance at the next election, despite the Greens never having won a senate seat from Queensland before.
“In the last state election, one in 12 people voted green,” Ms Waters said.
“I would like to think we have an opportunity to represent those people.
“I will be trying my hardest and campaigning very hard.”
Headed by Ms Waters, the Greens’s senate ticket will have two more names added to it in the coming months.
Ms Wilson will be going up against former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, who unsuccessfully ran as an independent Senate candidate at the 2004 poll.
http://www.skynews.com.au/story.asp?id=165356
Murdoch backs Rudd
The world’s most powerful media magnate Rupert Murdoch thinks Kevin Rudd
would make a good Prime Minister.
The billion dollar business man endorsed the Labor Leader as Australia’s
next PM in New York during Mr Rudd’s three day tour of the United
States, where he’s been spruiking his foreign policy credentials.
The pair also enjoyed dinner together in the ‘Big Apple’ after an hour
long private meeting.
The 76 year old newspaper tycoon is no stranger to publically supporting
world leaders – in the past he’s backed British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher and at the end of her reign switched his support to Tony Blair.
Hi Everyone – Thought you might be interested in some of the results from recent online polls by The Age. N.B. The Age is considered by some people to be a bit pro-Labor.
IR alternative? : Is Kevin Rudd’s IR plan better than John
Howard’s workplace reforms?
Yes – 80%
No – 20%
Total Votes: 2631 Poll date: 17/04/07
Workplace boom? : Are new workplace laws responsible for the
jobs boom?
Yes – 17%
No – 83%
Total Votes: 981 Poll date: 12/04/07
Back Afghan deployment? : Do you support the deployment of more
Australian troops to Afghanistan?
Yes – 39%
No – 61%
Total Votes: 1801 Poll date: 10/04/07
Greenhouse gas : Should Australia set a target to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes – 93%
No – 7%
Total Votes: 1256 Poll date: 03/04/07
David Hicks : Do you believe the timing of David Hicks’ proposed
release, due to occur after the Federal election, is a coincidence?
Yes – 19%
No – 81%
Total Votes: 4263 Poll date: 02/04/07
Climate change cop out? : Is Australia’s climate change policy a
cop out?
Yes – 89%
No – 11%
Total Votes: 3497 Poll date: 28/03/07
Hicks off Howard? : Is Hicks’ guilty plea a good outcome for the
Howard government?
Yes – 33%
No – 67%
Total Votes: 6572 Poll date: 27/03/07
Labor’s Telstra turn : Do you support Labor’s decision to
abandon public ownership of Telstra?
Yes – 67%
No – 33%
Total Votes: 444 Poll date: 21/03/07
Clean coal : Is “clean coal” a realistic energy alternative?
Yes – 32%
No – 68%
Total Votes: 572 Poll date: 12/03/07
Junk food ads : Is it time to ban junk food ads to children?
Yes – 81%
No – 19%
Total Votes: 256 Poll date: 08/03/07
Access card : Do you support the introduction of the proposed
access card?
Yes – 28%
No – 72%
Total Votes: 2375 Poll date: 28/02/07
Bill,
On line poll results are completely invalid as the sample is not random.
Can you explain why the other types of polls are so accurate?
Howardhater says : “I’d also like the Jewish community to get its house in order and ask them to expel whoever is buying cluster bombs from the US from their community too.” …. What the??? What planet are you on!?!
Bill, buy yourself a first year stats textbook.
Adam, when you get back from Berlin, review your above comment. I think you may wish to moderate some of those words. There were plentiful gang rapes in Australia before Muslims moved here in large numbers, and people of all religions commit them.
Just that re Keating election win polls were wrong.
There will be an ACNeilsen poll tomorrow and a Galaxy poll apparently, according to Barrie Cassidy on “Insiders”. Should be interesting.
Polls definitely have considerable margins of error. Enough to be the difference between a narrow win one way and a landslide the other. But even the widest error to Howard’s favour in the latest polls still leaves Labor on the cusp of a landslide win.
Any predictions for the AC Nielsen poll? … I say 58 – 42. I have zero reason to suspect they’re the figures but that’s my hunch.
When was the last Galaxy poll?
Chris and Leopold
You are quite right about the lack of validity of online polls but it is interesting to contrast the reaction to talk back station calls the monitoring of which by Rehame is often cited by Politicians and pundits as reasons for doing something or other. I would have thought that talk back callers are both self selecting and subject to moderation by the producers and the host.
Q. “When was the last Galaxy poll?”
A. When the force was with us.
Two News hacks on Insiders today trying to rationalise the Dirty Digger’s anointing of Kevvie is a hoot and why they won’t be influenced in any way is a hoot.
Fair and balanced no doubt?
Not to be taken seriously – please explain. I watched that show and have no idea what you are on about.
The Age is considered by some people to be a bit pro-Labor.
Understatement of the year.
Psephophile, Im sorry but i coudlnt have made that comment more saracastic. I was simply trying to show Adam that people of all religions (and atheists) commit acts of violence. The israeli defence force use cluster bombs. Im assuming the people that are responsible for their purhcase and use might be Jewish. Sorry for not making my comments more literal but Adam’s gross generalisation called for another to prove that such generalisations as a such are wrong
I’m not sure how
Journo: “Mr Murdoch do you think Kevin Rudd will make a good Prime Minister?”
Murdoch: “Yeah, sure” (or something to that effect)
Qualifies as an endorsement for the job. It seems the media have just been looking for something to hang their hat on with this… What an incredible echo chamber that makes this an endorsement.
And Bill, the reason the Newspoll/galaxy/Acnielson polls are more reliable than the online newspaper poll is that a particular newspaper usually has a particular readership with particular underlying assumptions about how the world works. The Age is generally the paper of the educated, left-leaning, while the Herald Sun is generally not. Therefore the statistical sample on papers website usually does not get answered by the people who do not read that paper. On exactly the same issue the Herald Sun and Age will split 80/20 and 20/80 respectively because of this. Even if both were combined it would not include people who do not read papers so it still wouldnt be as good as the Newspoll etc.
The relationship between Murdoch and his editors is a little more complicated than people here seem to think. Just because he has said that Rudd would be a good PM doesn’t mean that he is endorsing him, and certainly doesn’t mean all the News titles will now support Labor. Piers Ackerman may be a grub, but he’s not a lackey. The Tele will go on reflecting his views. The Australian will go on giving Rudd a hard time, because they think that’s their job as journalists.
Gary Bruce Says: I’m a bit dense
Read the transcript when it posted.
Adam Says: He’s not the messiah. He’s just a newspaper magnate.
The history of News hacks being “attuned” to their master’s voice is well documented elsewhere
Idle speculation indeed…
I have been amusing myself by ‘modelling’ some voting figures for the upcoming 2007 Qld Senate election, compared to the 2004 Qld Senate election.
‘Group’ 2004 Quota Swing 2007 Quota
ALP 31.5% 2.2118 5.71% 37.21% 2.6118
LIB 38.2% 2.6351 -5.71% 32.49% 2.2351
NAT 6.6% 0.4625 -1.43% 5.17% 0.3625
Hanson 4.5% 0.3178 -1.43% 3.07% 0.2178
One-Nat 3.1% 0.2195 -1.43% 1.67% 0.1195
Dem 2.2% 0.1542 -1.43% 0.77% 0.0542
Greens 5.4% 0.3779 1.43% 6.83% 0.4779
Fam-Fst 3.4% 0.2358 4.29% 7.69% 0.5358
I have assumed an overall anti-coalition swing equal to half a quota and split 4/5 against Lib and 1/5 against Nat. I expect the ALP to pick up roughly what the Libs lose. I have also predicted a swing against One Nation, Pauline Hanson and the Democrats with the main recipient of those votes being Family First, who should also collect most of their preference flows to emerge as the new (non-coalition) ‘centre-right’ party.
After allowing for preference flows based on (1) 2004; (2) 2001; or (3) an educated guess, where reasonably compatable figures were not available, I get the ALP and the Libs winning the first 4 spots between them, with the last four groups in contention for the last two quotas being Family First .8104; NPA .7676; ALP .7634 and Greens .6048.
From there the ALP would have a nose in front to win the fifth quota with Family First by a nose’s hair from the Nationals to win the sixth spot. Of course only a very minor change of votes / preferences would see the final order change.
My comments: The Nationals would be mad to accept fourth spot on a joint ticket which would give them no chance given anticipated poll results, whereas they are in with a real chance by running on their own. If John Howard is a fair dinkum coaltionist he would offer the Nationals a higher place on a joint ticket, because a joint quota of 2.61 could give them a better chance of securing 3 spots, whereas, as unlikely as it seemed previously, the coalition appears in this scenario to be no better than 50 / 50 of retaining 3 Senate spots in Qld.
Acknowlegement- 2004 voting figures and preference flow information collected from both the the AEC and Psephos websites.
All comments, criticisms and rebuttals welcome.
Howardhater writes : The Age is generally the paper of the educated, left-leaning, while the Herald Sun is generally not.
I understand what you mean but its not true for most people read the Herald Sun regardless of where they live.
The Australian Newspaper hasn’t always been that kind to the Howard Government but considering the crap the ALP have dished up over the past 10 years I can see why they have been hard on the ALP.
I don’t have a problem with the media giving it to the ALP, at least they aren’t going overboard like they did with Lathem whom you would that thought was a rock star or a demigod.
Sorry Howardhater, the sarcasm went over my head :S … Am a bit slow …
Fargo61: Nice work. Have you got the Dems preferencing the Greens ahead of FF ?
“most people read the Herald Sun regardless of where they live.”
The few times I have seen the Herald Sun not wrapped around the garbage, the person staring at the pages was moving their lips.
Funny when I lived in Melbairn my moggy flatly refused to eat her food when the The Age was under the bowl but with the Hun it was no problemo. Definitely a non-U cat.
Fargo61:
Its all opinion, but I dont like your swings.. I think:
ALP +3
LIB -3
NAT -0.6
Hanson +1.5
ONP -1
DEM -1
GRN +1.5
FF +2.5
It probably doesnt add to 100%..
Ack, did it again.
The last sentence, i.e. – “The Liberal offer to the Queensland Nationals was third spot, not fourth.” – is of course me. (The rest Fargo61.)
Given the Qld Libs already have a guaranteed two spots going it alone, this is as generous an offer as one could reasonably expect.
whats the chance of Hanson winning a seat?
Somewhere around zero I’d expect – she should’ve stuck to Dancing With The Stars.
Not to be taken seriously – I’m not saying you’re dense. I just wasn’t sure what you were referring to. I now realise who the Dirty Digger is and understand where you’re coming from.
With the swings suggested by The Speaker the likely outcome would be 2-2-1 or 3-2-0(Lib-ALP-GRN) with the other seat taken by FFP or Hansen depending on how each go with harvesting the other conservative minors.
I suspect the Major party swing to be greater, giving 2-2-1-1 or 2-3-1-0
(Lib-ALP-FFP-GRN)
Why does Hanson run? Federal funding. She’s got enough fans to make a whopping amount of cash just by trying to be elected. Coupled with the income from her book, she’d be living a pretty comfortable and easy life at the moment.
But she appeals to a fringe in both major camps, and her ticket then streamlines the voters to the right, so she matters.
It’s self-interest, it’s misleading voters, and it’s dirty.
Mr Speaker, I should hope it doesn’t add to 100% — I don’t want the Queensland Senate election to have a total votes-per-party of 200% of the number of votes! (Does that sentence make sense? It’s meant to point out it should add to 0%. Anyways…)
Will the DLP make any great showing in Victoria this year? I haven’t heard anything about them since they got themselves into our little Legislative Council down here, but apparently they did better in raw votes at the last Senate election than Family First.
Bill,
Those who complete on line polls are those with computers, immediately skewing the results away from the views of the poorest people, for example. They also consist of those who are stirred up enough to volunteer an opinion, skewing the results in all sorts of ways.
On line polls are like internet forums. If you read any of The Australian blogs on WorkChoices for Employers, you would think that 90 per cent of the population was going to vote Labor. Obviously, this is not the case, as many of the middle classes have been conned to think that their interests lie with the capitalist class rather than with other members of the working class.
The major polling companies interview a random sample of a certain size, in order to have a good cross-section of voters (young and old, male and female, Victorians and others). I believe about 1,000 responses are needed to make the poll reasonably reliable. Opinion polling began, I think, as a way for market research companies to prove how good they were: if they could predict election results, then they must be good at telling manufacturers what people liked about their soap.
To put it another way: respondents to on line polls choose themselves, while Newspoll et al choose the respondents. There is no point in taking any notice of on line poll results.
Alexander McLeay,
The DLP will not make a great showing in the Senate election in Victoria. The DLP receives hardly any coverage of its role in the Legislative Council, so the party’s profile has not been lifted by the result of the last state election. This continues the long tradition of denying the DLP coverage. Even when it had federal senators, it was restricted in its coverage by the press.
Voting figures for the Legislative Council released a few weeks ago show that the DLP had voted with the ALP more often than the Greens had.
The DLP did outpoll Family First in the 2004 Senate election, but it all depends on preferences, and I agree with Adam: Labor will get 3 senate seats this year.
Alex: Thank you for addressing me using my correct “Mr Speaker” title.
I predict the DLP vote will jump.. to 3 %. Family First will beat them and get similar/better than their state election vote of 4+%.. maybe even 5.
If I was the DLP I’d run senate candidates in every state to use as a negotiation tool for getting preferences in Victoria and attempt a harvest.
If they could get enough preferences to get their hands on FF’s juicy 4%, they’d be on 7 and enter “player” territory. Some coalition preferences and who knows..
All speculation of course.
Chris, you make it sound like there’s a conspiracy against the DLP! I had assumed the lack of coverage of the DLP was because the DLP is not trying to be covered: Take a look at their website. It gives almost no indication that they’ve got a member now, and seems like tuning into static.
(correct to above)
To beat FF DLP would have reached 4+ on preferences and thus be on 8+
Alexander,
There’s no conspiracy. There’s just an attitude of mind about who deserves to be covered and who does not.
Mr Speaker,
I am glad to see that you have not adopted the PC attitude of the previous Speaker of the Victorian legislative Assembly.
I can’t see the DLP getting 3 per cent, though I am sure that Family First will do better than in 2004. The FF HTV-hander-outerer I spoke with at the last state election said (from memory) that some 500 of the 800 members of his church had volunteered to help with the election, so I think FF will have a growing workforce.
There is no DLP in other states, so it would be hard to field a Senate team of any value at all outside of Victoria. Where the DLP members and voters went is an untold and largely unknown story, apart of course from those who produced four of the current nine Labor leaders in the country, a former governor-general and an Italian senator.
Galaxy Poll – Labor 58 – 42 TPP. Labor 49 to Coalition 37 primary vote.
ACNielsen – Labor 58 – 42 TPP. Labor 50 to Coalition 37 primary vote
Initial french poll results are in Sarkozy on 30%, Royal on 25%. My prediction is so far right but does anybody really care?
I care, but then I’m an election geek.
I might head to the BBC and see if I can find some results..
Thanks Gary for your early report of the Galaxy Poll. They are excellent figures for Mr. Rudd, yet the Government’s economic credibility relative to that of the Australian Labor Party remains intact. JWH will continue to fight on now that the polling shows a late switch to his deputy would be counter productive.
Chris: A question I’ve been meaning to ask.
If the Victorian DLP won the court case, so that they were officially recognised as being the ‘real’ ALP, why didn’t they keep the name ?
Mr Speaker,
The court case was after the 1955 election. Originally the Victorian DLP was known as the ALP (Anti-Communist). It was the NSW party that adopted the name Democratic Labor Party, which I believe it did in order to be more forward-looking rather than be seen as simply a breakaway from the ALP. Victoria fell into line with NSW. In Queensland, it was originally the Queensland Labor Party but it too eventually adopted the DLP name.
I guess in the beginning if both sections of the ALP had called themselves ALP, the confusion would have been huge. The DLP group was also referred to as the Barry-Coleman Labor Party and the other one as the Cain Labor Party. Perhaps the fact that the premier John Cain snr went with the feds meant in the public mind that his group was the ALP. There was no registration of parties n those days, so no real legal avenue to sort out the correct names.
I think Adam is a trifle confused about who ’staged’ the Cronulla riot.
Quick q: which religion is represented by the following statements
“Abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people”
“Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. … In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.”
Supplementary: Is Hilali really the only idiotic religious leader in Australia?
If Adam is saying that *realistically* we should expect to see prejudice expressed for the near future, that is one thing. If he is saying that such prejudice is a justifiable or rational response, then that is a little disappointing.
“There were plentiful gang rapes in Australia before Muslims moved here in large numbers, and people of all religions commit them.”
Nor are appalling views like “women who dress provocatively are responsible for rape” confined to the Muslim community.
In NSW, the name Anti-Communist Labor Party was the name of the last major manifestation of the Lang Labor Party. The DLP certainly did not want to be seen as Langist.
Speaking of which, I watched “Curtin” on ABC last night. This was ripe grounds for any political pedant but the simplification of the characters of the Langist ministers (Beasley and Ward) was particularly poor.
Dear ‘Not to be taken seriously’ who was the preselected candidate who bailed from Greenway after the redistribution? And, FYI apparently Ms Markus has announced that she is going nowhere. Some time ago Crikey reported that she may be going to Mitchell to replace Cadman. But since then her actions (ie turning up to the opening of an envelope) in Greenway would indicate she’s staying put.
Check out the pie graph at the top of this page:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-leads-but-pm-gains/2007/04/22/1177180483878.html
Spot the error.
Have just caught up by reading the whole thread at once, so forgive me if I’m backtracking.
1. I have a slightly different take on why the Dems collapsed. I think their initial success was largely due to their ability to represent 2 constituencies – the disaffected centre and disaffected left. But this was always tenuous, and they only really got away with it because they were never forced to choose between the 2 in terms of strategy, language, messaging, etc. The rise of the Greens exposed this strategic weakness, and then the leadership was forced to pick sides (and they didn’t agree anyway.) This was exacerbated by a structural weakness at the grassroots – ie, they never really existed in the community in the way that other parties do, only in Parliament and the media.
2. I am perplexed that the media are not more interested in the likelihood of a Rudd govt facing a hostile Senate. It’s a fascinating scenario. Maybe it’s too speculative or complex, but surely as election day gets closer it will get a run. And how might it affect the actual election outcome? Ie, might voters decide that if Rudd’s going to be PM we should give him the Senate too? Or will they be comforted by the sharing of power?
David Charles – “yet the Government’s economic credibility relative to that of the Australian Labor Party remains intact.” That maybe true David but one explanation could be that people are aware of what the Liberals have done but Rudd, having not been in power is an unknown quantity. It has to be said though that this economic debate has been around for a long time but is not deterring people from supporting Labor, as can be seen in the polls (all four) and in the states.
I really don’t believe there are many people unaware of the relative merits now. Given that, I find the notion that all the government has to do is remind people of how good they are in the economic area and everything will be sweet to be very simplistic and unrealistic.
Andrew Burke: Good analysis.
I’ve never thought the GST compromise is what triggered the Dems collapse, however I do think it’s a factor. The GST compromise happened in 98/99. Their vote was only slightly down for the next three years and they continued to win seats in FED/SA/NSW/ACT. Since the in-fighting in 2002, they haven’t won anything.
yeah Hopeful Westie, I wondered about that too.
Preselections have not been done for much of NSW at all. Indeed, today in Crikey there is a story about jostling in Greenway.
Re: the dems implosion. I think it’s certainly the case that they were both a centrist party and a leftish party, but there big faux pas was finally deciding to adopt a more leftish stance just when the Greens snuck in and stole that space. Had they continued to market themselves as a party that would act as a ‘check and balance’ against the excess of Government to “keep the bastards honest”, they would have maintained their core support. But they appear to have forfeited that mantra and established policies and candidates which blurred the distinction between them and the Greens. The centrist Dems split their votes between the Libs and Labor whilst the leftish Dems backed the Greens.
I still think there is room for a “centrist” party, free of ideological baggage, to spring up and adopt the role that the Dems used to take. I think this is especially the case given Howard’s control (and misuse) of the Senate and the increasing possibility of a Rudd gov’t facing a Hostile Senate. A force that acts both as an arbiter and a circuitbreker is needed in this context.
It’s probably too late for the Dems but the “Son-of-Dems” could yet emerge.
Who’s jostling who in Greenway and why?
It’s one of those completely untrustworthy ‘tips and rumours’ that feature in Crikey. It says there are five nominations (hard to believe – five people putting their toes in the water more like) and that AWU official Steve Bali is the frontrunner. I suspect the piece was lodged by someone who fancies themself as a contender – it has some unrepeatable scuttlebutt and fails to mention that this AWU official also happens to be a councillor.
Gary Bruce, your analysis of the opinion polling on economic credibility may be sound. The reason I highlighted that aspect of the polling was that it gives JWH something to work with in the next 6 months, and whether that aspect is ultimately good, bad or indifferent to the election outcome for him later in the year, he now needs something given the opinion polling on the (consistently good) primary vote for the Australian Labor Party, which we have seen of late from Newspoll, ACNielsen, Morgan and Galaxy.
Don’t read too much into the preferred economy handling answer in the Galaxy poll.
If a prime minister with unemployment at 30 year lows, with overall wages on the climb, in an area that is traditionally the Coalition’s, can’t get more than 50 per cent – let alone the usual two-thirds – then he is in trouble. The fact 34 p/c of punters thought Rudd could do it better suggests the Ruddernaut is continuing strongly.
Agreed with Coota … how much better do the Australian public think it can get?
Actually, there are three definintes for Greenway – all said they’re going at Friday’s FEC. There are another two who should come out of the woodwork in the next couple of days. Stephen Bali as at Friday had neither confirmed nor denied that he’s standing. However, I have it on good authority that he doesn’t live in the electorate – although he does live close. Only one of the five is a woman.
I don’t think it really matters if they don’t live in the electorate, does it? Surely serving on Blacktown City Council should be enough.
Does the ALP dislike the DLP as much as they dislike the Greens
All of the people i know who voted for the Dems stopped supporting them after the GST debacle
The Australian
Labor’s unfair dismissal plan was Howard’s in 1997
* Patricia Karvelas
* April 21, 2007
JOHN Howard devised the same unfair dismissal policy Kevin Rudd wants to
take to the next election in his first term of Government.
Although Mr Howard advocated for a workplace with 15 workers and under to
be exempted from unfair dismissal laws for the first year of
employment, this
week he lambasted Mr Rudd for the same policy, describing the 15-employee
definition as “absurdly low”.
The Weekend Australian can reveal that Mr Howard called for the same
model in 1997, well before he had control of the Senate and the ability to
deliver more radical reform.
Labor has seized on the revelation to argue that Work Choices is
extremist,
saying Mr Howard clearly believed 10 years ago that the one-year amnesty
on unfair dismissal was a fair compromise.
Labor also denied stealing the Prime Minister’s previous policy,
arguing it was
nothing more than a coincidence.
In 1997, the Howard government made a commitment to cut red tape for
small business by 50 per cent. Mr Howard’s response to the
recommendations of a deregulation taskforce included allowing workplaces
with fewer than 15 employees one-year unfair dismissal exemptions.
On March 24, 1997 in a statement he said: “I announce today that
businesses with 15 or fewer employees will be exempt from the federal
unfair
dismissal provisions for new employees until they have been continuously
employed for a period of 12 months … This will give small business every
encouragement to hire new staff confidently, particularly younger, less
experienced employees. Safeguards will remain.”
Labor’s small business spokesman Craig Emerson said this confirmed that
Mr Howard had abandoned all pretence of fairness when he won control of
the Senate. “In 1997, he said it was fair to give people 12 months in
a job and
then apply an unfair dismissal system,” Dr Emerson said. “He was kidding
the Australian people then. Now that he’s got control of the Senate he
reckons it’s fair to take away all protection for 3.6 million working
Australians.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21594154-601,00.html
Hi Bill,
Members of my extended family did not speak to each other for 16 years after the great schism. Hatred is a weasle word for the relationship that existed between the DLP and ALP, particularly as it had religious overtones. Arthur Calwell’s autobiography, “Be Just and Fear Not” sums it up pretty well. The Catholic Church’s mean spirited rejection of him for staying loyal to the ALP was not an isolated case.
Of course these people who call themselves the DLP now are just show ponies, more to be pitied and ignored than hated. Christ knows why they still exist when State Communism is dead and the rest of Australian society has moved on. BTW it is a very Victorian thing, it has not existed in NSW (and as far as I know anywhere else) since it lost its first and only seat in parliament in 1976 (that in itself was an amusing story).
for the record, the Democrats GST debacle stopped me voting my preferences to them, and then when they killed off Natasha’s career that was it. 4eva.
Interested in what other Bludger-ites think of James Bakers chances of picking up a Queensland senate seat, article below.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21602725-2702,00.html
I think it’s unlikely, but there’s always the chance of a harvest nowadays if you get 1-2%.. enough to become a player.
Baker looks like he’s on the right-end of the Nationals. Presuming he gets publicity, he’ll appeal to regional Queensland, and might have a chance. IF he gets publicity.
Bill,
Members of the ALP disliked the DLP much much more than they dislike the Greens. They saw the DLP as the force which, rather than Doctor Evatt, split the Labor Party and kept it out of office for a generation. Some ALP members still think of the Greens as natural allies of the Labor Party, while others see them as rivals. Certainly, the Victorian Greens had voted against Labor on every vote as of the last release of Legislatve Council voting that I have seen.
oakeshott country Says:
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
BTW it is a very Victorian thing, it has not existed in NSW (and as far as I know anywhere else) since it lost its first and only seat in parliament in 1976 (that in itself was an amusing story).
tell us the story please oakeshott
Monday, 23 April 2007
Australia Rising
In a major address to the Queensland Media Club today, the Prime Minister set out the Government’s key objectives to ensure Australia rises to the challenges of the next decade and beyond.
The Prime Minister said:
“Consistent with the last 11 years, the Government’s core objective, in the Budget, will be to keep the economy strong and the nation secure so that Australians can plan for the future with great confidence.
…Despite the challenges we face, there’s no reason why Australia should not be even more prosperous by the year 2020. But it means becoming even more competitive through economic reform. It means keeping the size of government and our tax burden down on workers and risk takers. It means keeping downward pressure on inflation and interest rates through budget discipline and a flexible workplace system. It means creating the conditions for growth so business will continue to invest and create jobs. It means ensuring that our schools, our tech colleges and our universities are institutions of excellence. And it means investing in our people so they have the skills required in the 21st Century.
…there is a battle of ideas going on here at home over Australia’s future. One side – we in the Coalition – aims to build on what’s been achieved over the last decade, to build on policies that have helped sustain the longest economic expansion in our modern history, created two million new jobs, slashed unemployment to a 32 year low, cut welfare dependency and given more Australians a direct stake in the economy.
The other side wants to tear down this achievement. It wants to go back to government by a few mates for a few mates – where favoured groups get a special say in our workplaces, in education policy, in environment policy and in welfare policy. Where the national interest gets squeezed out in favour of noisy sectional interests and where the quiet voices of those who work hard, pay their taxes, take risks and contribute to their communities get drowned out.
…Eleven years ago, we inherited a country where that great social achievement, of having the largest middle class in the world seemed to have slipped from our reach. And while we still have a way to go, Australia is on the road back. Today, with effectively full employment and the strongest economy in decades, Australia is again in the top tier of the world’s economies. My commitment to the people of Australia is to work as hard as possible to keep us at the top, to ensure greater social mobility for as many of our fellow citizens as possible in the 21st Century, to build towards a new era of growth, prosperity and opportunity – a rising Australia, an Australia within reach.”
Hey Bill, maybe you could just post links and maybe a couple of sentences of quotes when you find articles? It’s a bit annoying to trawl through lots of news stories to actually find original blog posts.
With James Baker, so now we have very well-credentialed independents running for the Senate in both NSW and Queensland, both of whom candidates who can take votes away from the Coalition. I reckon if Howard is to lose a majority in the Senate, it’s this way.
Not that I expect Baker to be particularly progressive, but it’s still an improvement.
The basic story. The Queen opened the opera house in October 1973. To capitalise on the euphoria Robin Askin called a snap election for 17/11/73. Traditionally nominations closed on a Friday but the schedule was so rushed that for this election nominations closed at midday on the Thursday.
The Member for Gordon (the safest of Liberal seats) and Minister for Health, Harry Jago, was quietly minding his own business on the Thursday when a colleague asked him who his opponents were. He replied that he would not know until the next day. His colleague explained that he had missed the deadline for nomination.
The electors of Gordon had a choice between the ALP and the DLP. The DLP’s Kevin Harrold won but was defeated in 1976 when he had to face a Liberal. Surprisingly, for a senior minister, Jago was not given a seat in the Legislative Council – which at that time was elected by an electoral college of the Assembly and remnant Council after the new house had met. A position of Legislative Councillor was thus in the gift of the party leader, but Askin is supposed to have said, “not even the Legislative Council deserves someone that stupid”.
This has had long term consequences: 1) In the ALP at least and I presume in other major parties, nominations are now done through the central office.
2) When Robert Dean, the shadow treasurer in Victoria in 2002, was unsuccessful in nominating because he was not enrolled, various of the commentariat suggested that he had ‘done a Jago’.
Stephen L (April 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pm)
I beg to differ the Greens were 3168 votes short of quota (ie. 0.93) on the initial count in the last election. Read all about it here
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendTAS.htm
If all votes had been ticket votes Family First would have a Tas Senator.
BTL leakage was sufficient to elect Christine Milne. Because of the fewer parties contending Tasmanians have a greater propensity to vote BTL (19% in fact).
Bill:
Good to see you back.
How’s the campaign going ?
“Labor’s unfair dismissal plan was Howard’s in 1997″ is a really fascinating observation on Labor today I think. I notice on Bartlett’s webblog he notes a similar thing about how radical Labor’s proposals really are for that party:
“On the other hand, having repeatedly voted in the Senate to defeat measures such as a secret ballot and legalising unfair dismissal a number of times over many years, I know I would have been publicly ripped to shreds by any number of unions if I had supported either of these things, so it does grate a little bit to see them meekly accepting what are very significant shifts.”
Unions supporting Big Business (circa 1997)? What next cats getting along with dogs???
What’s the argument in support of unions not having secret ballots ?
There’s no way we should be having anything but secret ballots for anything.
Mr Speaker,
The argument against unions’ being required to conduct secret ballots before industrial action are very simple. Note that secret ballots for union elections have been required since the Chifley Government’s clean ballot legislation, if not earlier.
First, gooses and ganders: neither party has suggested requiring a secret ballot of shareholders before a company’s management takes industrial action by locking out or standing down workers, yet company managers are not even elected by shareholders, but appointed by higher managers all the way up to the CEO who is appointed by the Board of Directors, itself elected on an archaic yes/no electoral system that should have joined parliamentary first past the post block voting in the garbage bin sometime in the nineteenth century.
Secondly, unionists elect union officials, executives, councils and the like and delegate certain decisions to them. This is called representative democracy. It is how the whole nation decides on legislation: we elect a parliament; we do not have a referendum on every bill put forward.
Thirdly, industrial action is now defined to include following the rules required in your employment; i.e., if you stop doing something that is not in fact even required of you but which you have been doing on a voluntary basis, this can be called industrial action. So a secret ballot would be required before workers stopped doing things that legally they are not even required to do.
Fourthly, the delay in responding to an industrial situation caused by the secret ballot requirement would undermine the unions’ campaign on behalf of working people.
Kevin Rudd has been winning the IR argument hands down. Even this cave-in to the Masters and Servants Act attitude of the business world and The Australian has not diminished their hilarious campaign against Labor, so I can see no political reason for him to have acted as he has. I expect he will win at the national conference. He would have taken a few soundings beforehand to make sure of this, so nothing can be done. It may help the Greens, of course, who ought to preference Labor in every seat because a Labor win means a double dissolution and a double dissolution means a lower quota and a lower quota means more Greens senators and more Greens senators means the Greens with the balance of power.
sorry Ben they look smaller on email
http://bloggers.laborfirst.com.au/bloggers/blog.asp?blogId=8154
The above has an answer to this question.
“What’s the argument in support of unions not having secret ballots ?”
# The Speaker Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Bill:
Good to see you back.
How’s the campaign going?
Good thank you. I cant keep away.
Sometime in the 90s an acquitance, representing the Legalise Marijuana or something or another party, changed his name to “Marijuana Legalise” via deed poll for obvious reasons re ballot card. He never got his seat (obviously), but have any candidates considered a similar change to Workplacearrangements No, or Liberal Vote?
Anyway, Legalise, as he became known, had some old portable Apple Mac thingy in the tally room whilst all other pundits had the latest laptops etc, in the early days of the internet etc (Must have been a while ago! I think they were dial up Pentium Ones). Legalise had nothing except for the (at the time even) old Mac. Still, at the end of the night all pundits were after him for the number crunch in every seat, booth by booth. He did a great job. Either poll analysis is an inexact art, or one mastered by the technoginally gifted or paranoid schizophenic, or either/both. Possibly both.
Anyway, my thoughts. . . and I’ve often (even usually) been right. Rudd is the next Prime Minister. Landslide.
Told ya so Anna, now I can prove it.
PS thanx heaps for the site, always a good read and suitably bookmarked.
Oh, and good luck Bill in Kingston. I only voted Dems in last state election coz i actually knew the candidate. Good thing he never touched me to help for his deposit. Unlike the ALP types I know (no names mentioned) who got up anyway. Even if they needed it (not likely), their credit’s worth shite with me. Liberals. . . don’t even ask!
Ray – true but irrelevant (you must be a programmer)
You claimed “The Greens barely managed a single quota with preferences, pipping Family Firsts Jackie Petrusma by a mere 350 votes. Saved by BTLs.”
I did not dispute the part about saved by BTLs – its totally true. I did dispute the part about “a mere 350 votes” because it is false. After Murphy was distributed Milne had 45707 votes, putting her 325 over quota. Petrusma was on 26102. There were 18602 with the 3rd Labor candidate.
Since many of the votes with the Labor candidate were BTLs, and these flowed solidly to Milne ahead of Petrusma if a full distribution had come out Milne would have won by several thousand votes, rather than the 350 you stated.
As I said, all this is a bit of a side issue. What I see as your key point – that Senate polls are rubbish and in 2004 drastically overestimated the Green vote and are probably doing so again – is quite correct. The idea that we are on 28% in the Tasmanian Senate is beyond fantasy.
The ALP has preselected Sharon Thiel for Kalgoorlie. The preselection of Thiel, who hails from Newman in the Pilbara, defied a widely held belief that only a candidate based in Kalgoorlie itself could win this massive seat. Well known former Kalgoorlie mayor, pharmacist and small business owner Paul Robson had been thought by more than a few people to be a shoe in.
The preselection of Thiel, with her experience of the working conditions endured by mining workers suggests that the ALP is intending to fight for votes in this area consistent with their nationwide policy to restore fairness to terms of employment. This is a very transient workforce and would now include very few of those workers who might have been spooked by Latham’s policy fiasco in Tasmania in the last few days before the 2004 election. Someone who could mix with the current workforce might be able to influence policy enough to bring a few of these votes back to Labor.
Kalgoorlie is a seat that Federal Labor has treated fairly shabbily since Graeme Campbell turned feral on Paul Keating. As if to punish everyone again, Latham’s Labor made zero attempts to help the local candidate in 2004. If Rudd and his advisors are smarter than that then they should be having a good look at this seat and including it in their itineraries.
The types that the ALP needs to win over in this seat would find commonalities with similar groups in other semi-marginal seats around Australia.
A real concern here is the apparently greater than ever active disenfranchisement of Aboriginal people, now compounded by the new re-enrolment and enrolment requirements. Based on expressed voter sentiment one might suspect that this lost vote would be conservatively 75% Labor. It is very difficult to gauge what the swing would be if these people all actually got a vote. I’d guess at about 6% of the overall vote which would mean at least a 4.5% swing to the ALP which would make Kalgoorlie very marginal. Sadly many of this group of Australians will be denied their voice thanks to the government’s new electoral rules.
Really, Kalgoorlie is one of the provincial / rural seats that the Howard government has badly neglected. It is ripe for the picking for Labor in 2007 if they go about it seriously.
If the ALP don’t win Kalgoolie they wont win Government for its the sort of seat that should be won on IR and if that issue doesn’t deliver this seat then it doesn’t go well for the ALP in other Industrial based seats.
I don’t think Australia’s Business community has a Master and Servant attitude from what I understand the Government came up with these laws without much time given to talking to Business.
This in part explains the Business communities apathy towards Howard wanting them to commit to campaigning for these Laws.
I have ad slogan for the ALP
HOWARD’S LAW the Law is an ass so give him a kick in the ass
Toobee said: Either poll analysis is an inexact art, or one mastered by the technoginally gifted or paranoid schizophenic, or either/both. Possibly both.
Who on this site is willing to confess to either or both of these things?
Greetings from Berlin, comrades, no doubt you have missed me. Well we were all wrong about the French election, non? Both Sarko and Sego did better than expected. It looks like Sarko will win, mais deux semaines sont un tres long temp dans les politiques, as they say. One good outcome is that the PCF can finally be pronounced completement foutred.
On Kalgoorlie, I disagree with bmwofoz. Labor probably won´t it and doesn´t need to win it. As I think I noted before, the seat is 16% indigenous and a lot of them will be disfranchised by the new electoral law, as was its intent. Also I can´t see the very well paid mining workers giving up their lucrative AWAs – they are new aristocracy of labour and they like being so. If WA Labor can win Stirling, Hasluck and Canning they will have done their duty.
Guten nacht
What the ALP should do is run both Sharon Thiel and Paul Robson as candidates in Kalgoorlie, thereby garnering a personal vote in both the Pilbara and Kalgoorlie areas of a gargantuan electorate. But that’s a bit of lateral thinking which is beyond them, sadly.
Hi Phil,
That was an old Country Party trick – but as far as I know it rarely contributed. I can’t think of any instances of the Nationals doing it. The risk of leakage is great.
That really is a brilliant idea, Phil. Do AEC rules prevent a party from endorsing two candidates in the same Division?
The Decoy Effect theory is described here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100973.html
The CLP in the Northern Territory sometimes runs two candidates in the one seat, usually one white and one Aboriginal. This takes advantage of the fact that candidate photos appear on NT ballot papers due to high levels of illiteracy in remote communities. In the Sturt by-election last year they ran two Aboriginal candidates from different communities/linguistic groups, though a fat lot of good it did them.
Adam: Wie lang bist du dort?
Ich hoffe, dab du nicht die Bundeswahl vermibt.
Auf Wiedersehen fur jetzt.
Adam said
Greetings from Berlin, comrades,
What a glorious greeting Adam
An odd choice for Kalgoorlie I’d say. Personal vote is fairly irrelevant in the Pilbara – there are only two regions with notable populations, Karratha (and the surrounding Shire of Roebourne – about 20,000) and Port Hedland (about 18,000). Both are fairly transient areas at the best of times apart from the indigenous sector of the community. A personal vote in Newman is almost useless – there just aren’t enough voters there to make a difference.
In reality, the ALP doesn’t need Kalgoorlie – or if it does, then they’ve done badly in the election in other states. It is at 6.4% after all, and the reality is that WA resources would be better spent ensuring Labor holds Cowan and Swan, and wins Hasluck and Stirling. They’re the four relevant seats in WA and any spare effort would be better off spent seeing what can be done with Canning, which should be marginal even though its not.
I’d guess the problem both parties have with Kalgoorlie is that it’s so damn big and diverse it’s really hard to produce a campaign that works for it. What works in Karratha likely won’t work in Esperance or in the Aboriginal townships.
Come to think of it, why not choose four of five candidates, each the favourite son or daughter of a major population centre. What you’d lose on the swings you’d more than pick up on the roundabouts.
Ich bin in Europa für sechs Wochen. Ich bin zurück im Juni, rechtzeig zu der Kevinische blitzkreig.
Jawohl!
I think Adam said:
I am in Europe for six weeks. I am back in June, just before Kevin’s blitzkreig.
My response:
SpaB haben. Du bist punktlich, eine Wiederholung von 1998 zu sehen.
oh please no more german I can’t access babelfish from work!
Ich habe sauerkraut in meinem lederhosen.
Ich bien ein berliner
remember, don’t mention the war…
The Budget coming up:
Will it have an impact or is there a swing so badly against Howard that it’s unlikely to work?
POLL PREDICTION
I am predicting Labor to benefit from it more than the Liberals. From a non-biased equal viewpoint, if the Liberals don’t improve by Mid-June, what should the Liberals do?
Start lining up consultancies for next year?
I mention the war as often as I like. Today I saw the Room With the Meat Hooks, so I´m in fairly militant mood on this subject. The Germans will have to go on hearing about the war for a long time yet. I think in any case it´s a myth that they are offended by foreigners mentioning it. They are as obsessed by it as anyone else. You can´t move in Berlin without stumbling on yet another denkmal to the victims of fascismus and militarismus or the site of some atrocity or other. They´ve also made something of an industry out of it.
When are we due for another poll? It´s nice not reading Australian newspapers for a while but I´m a bit out of the flow of events.
A side observation on how much impact the various state and territory opposition leaders are (not) having. Last night I ran an ALP quiz night (in Victoria) and one of the questions was to name any five of the state and territory opposition leaders other than Ted Baillieu. In a more-than-usually politically aware audience, nobody got more than two.
If it looks like the Liberals aren’t improving by June, I expect:
- more pressure on the QLD Nats to run a joint ticket
- complete withdrawal of resources from Victoria to focus on marginals in other states
- Howard moving from Sydney to somewhere around Tweed’s Head and not leaving QLD until November.
- the Liberals calling for the deportation of all ethnic-types for some trumped up reasons
If things were dire, would Howard push the red button and move the election to January?
Hi Guys
Can I say that Rudd’s performance on TV at this weekends
State Conference was less the impressive. The Crowd
was hardly ecstatic.
And what is with the abuse against Howard? All that will do is
highlight it is the same old Labor, with the same old
antagonism?
I think the libs will get a boost from the budget with a public
performance as shallow as the one Rudd delivered C-Woo
I don’t think so, it would appear desperate at best and undemocratic at worst. It will become an issue during the campaign.
That said, Rob Kerin didn’t call an election in SA till Feb 2002, some 4 years and 4 months after the last election in SA (with election cycles being 4 years – supposedly).
Adam,
I’m with you. I read the speech and thought it too long, very repetitive and lacking in oomph. More significantly, my elderly mother expressed an opinion on it that was unflatterring to Kevin Rudd. (I can say “elderly†– she will never read this.) In essence she said, “I am disappointed in Mr Rudd. I don’t like Mr Howard, but I expected better of Mr Rudd. I don’t like personal attacks. They are all the same.†Note the use of “Mrâ€, even in referring to a politician she does not like at all. She represents millions of Australians of all ages who can’t stand the personal attacks that almost all politicians go on with. I think Kevin Rudd should lift his game and get back to focusing on his approach, his philosophy, his policies, not those of the Liberals. We can allow the “black and white TV†joke, but the more the language of the Howard haters dominates the airwaves, the more likely John Howard will be snatch victory from he jaws of defeat. Phillip Adams can still lose the election for Labor. As someone wrote somewhere, “I’m old and I vote.â€
HOT TIP from SA: Nicole Cornes, wife of ex-footballer Graham and Sunday back-pages columnist in Adelaide, set to stand as ALP candidate for Boothby.
Expect an Adelaide Sunday Mail front page announcement tomorrow.
Strange Graham has always been tied ( so i have heard) to the Libs If this happens it shows its a easy jump from one major party to another.
I thought the “My name is Kevin Rudd. I’m from Queensland. I’m here to help” was corny and lame. It made me want to throw up. ugh.
It was even worse than Latham’s “putting the rungs back in the ladder”.
Have the ALP hired an american speech writer where the audiences eat that sort of stuff up ?
Bill, if you listen to Graham during his sports show on the rare occassions that politics gets mentioned he seems to have a liberal/socialist view rather than a conservative one.
Now that Nicole has been announced as the ALP candidate, makes Boothby another one to watch on election night. Possible for 4 seats to fall in SA.
Richardson has released his latest glossy community newsletter for Kingston with the headings ‘ Our local Tech College,’ ‘Making local roads safer,’ Creating more local jobs’, Building a safer community,’ ‘improving health services’ and ‘Strong Direction. Mainstream values’ There is a Senate report by Grant Chapman about climate change, a group of bar graphs on Government debt, Real wages growth, working days lost to industrial action, unemployment, Interest rates and waterfront crane rates. These graphs compare Lib gov 2006 to the ALP gov 1996. There is a very small section which points to 241,300 jobs created since workchoices . The best part is the tear of ” Have your say” asking 1. personal details 2. choosing four important initiatives out of ten listed and 3. what party if any do i/ we support. Interesting out of 8 photos in this large newsletter only one very small picture has Howard in it pointing to the beginning of distancing from Howard. Richardson from what i am hearing on the ground by community activists is that hes the first MP that has got his hands dirty helping the community and wish he would run as an independent
What i dislike about landslide victories by either party is that weak candidates win without doing anything and good MPs loose their seats when they don’t deserve to
The extreems of most landslides, are a problem with single member electorates, that are only fixed by proportional representation.
With STV and Robson Rotation, cadidates with popular suport are at an advantage over those without because they will get a personal vote.
POLL ON TUESDAY
It could either way.
If I can name one problem Howard has had since Rudd got in, it’s momentum. He has not had momentum of more than two or three days at a time. If Howard and co. continue the way they are till the election, they may claw Rudd back a bit, but they will get defeated. That is the feeling out there. He (and fellow conservatives) are just going too over the top at the moment to be in a winning position.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21641506-29277,00.html
National Executive will now select candidates in remaining ALP pre-selections.
According to the article Colonel Michael Kelly has been nominated for Eden-Monaro. Warren Mundine will go into Fowler. Combet will go into Charlton. I guess that leaves Blaxland for Mark Arbib.
so now its the KLP
AKP, perhaps. Australian Kevinist Party.
Michael Kelly looks like an impressive candidate. Yet another contender for a ministerial position: http://www.apcml.org/ppl_michael_kelly.php
The prospective list of stand-out recruits now includes Mark Dreyfus, Melissa Parke, Maxine McKew, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten, Michael Kelly, Ross Daniels, Gary Gray and Peter Tinley. I wonder – if this group had followed the 1998 intake (Rudd, Gillard, Emerson, Roxon, Plibersek) by entering parliament in 2001 would Simon Crean have won the 2004 election?
Congratulations to Adam, who knows more about the workings of the Labor party than he admits.
Mark Arbib is headed for the Senate. His candidacy will knock Ursula Stephens down to #3 on the ticket if the SMH is on the money.
Perhaps Blaxland is slated for “legal academic George Williams“.
Further to that, an ABC article from a couple of days ago suggests a different route for Arbib. Directly replacing Michael Forshaw; which means he would go straight into the Senate and wouldn’t face the electorate in 2004.
The same article and another in today’s Tele name Blaxland, rather than Fowler, as the seat for Mundine. (Much of a muchness I suppose.)
Also, it seems the SMH’s Mark Davis is a lurker here. (Or perhaps at Oz Politics?)
correction to previous post:
Arbib wouldn’t have to face the electorate in 2007. (Not 2004, that being the year Forshaw was last re-elected.)
* OMFG I am famous. No doubt that prediction will turn out to be wrong and I will be discredited for ever.
* Everything I have said recently about ALP internal affairs is based on guesswork – well-informed guesswork to be sure. I have been in Germany for a week and haven´t spoken to anyone about preselections for several weeks. I thought it was obvious all along that the Nat Exec would take over the NSW preselections and ged rid of the Three Logs
* Simon Crean would not have won an election if his candidates had included the Australian Olympic team, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Academie Francaise, the College of Cardinals, the Elders of Zion, the AFL Hall of Fame and the last ten Miss Universes (have I missed anyone?).
More on NSW:
Oh! how I wish Linda Kirk had taken the offer of Boothby. The party’s nominee is now none other than Nicole Cornes, whose claim to fame is being the wife of Graham Cornes of football fame.
She is obviously a conviction politician NOT.
She is not a member of the Labor party.
She has to date voted Liberal!
She is about as articulate as Pauline Hansen.
She is drop dead gorgeous.
She is blonde by every sense of the word.
What an insult to the people of Boothby, and what a missed opportunity for the ALP. Surely there was somebody from within the party ranks that could have taken the game up to Southcott and argued the Labor cause with conviction.
Politics is not about glamour stakes. Howard would not even have made it to parliament if that were the case.
“What ever it takes”! Give me a break, and execute a pre-selection process that has some integrity. This sort of shallow posturing can only work to the detriment of the party, and not just in Boothby.
Nicole Cornes – she’s got a lot of work to do.
Impression thus far: lacks any confidence to express opinions, diction and articulation of a teenager, absolute confusion as to her future party’s policies. Pales in comparison with new female candidates in other seats, who demonstrate the ability to express themselves and the fortitude to withstand criticism.
There have been two high profile female Labor candidates in the immediate past in Boothby – their ‘looks’ and celebrity couldn’t save them from the steamroller.
Mrs Cornes will be roasted over the forthcoming several months until the election – it will be interesting to see if she can stand the heat.
I agree, Ray.
I understand that the central party needs to have a say in pre-selections. The good of the party is served by getting people like Maxine McKew into the Party.
However, I will not support them having complete control. I am a *prospective* grass roots ALP member, but the events of the past 24 hours give me no reason to want to join up. The ALP has done well to get McKew, Parke, Gray, Tinley, Kelly, Dreyfus and Daniels from outside the usual Labor recruiting grounds. Cornes, however, looks like a serious misstep.
I would like to see the executives of each state branch get 25% of the votes in any preselection. They can give those votes to the national executive if they wish. 25% would give them a strong say in each ballot, but strongly supported local contenders would still be able to win the day with 67% of the local vote. That to me is a fair balance of the party hierarchy’s input and the membership’s input.
Charlie, it’s always a tough one. But don’t give up on the entire party. In a number of the seats under consideration it’s extremely unclear as to whether the rank and file would ever be able to produce decent local candidates. The sitting members who look set to step down have had around a decade to prove themselves in the Parliament and in arenas beyond their own seats – they also have their pensions. They’ve generally been good local members, but a party fighting for government has to make some tough decisions, based on what they know about the local area and the available talent. There are some really, really good people shut out of safe seats all together and this decision only affects 21 of the 49 seats in NSW (not all the 21 are winnable) (rank and file preselections have occurred in the remaining 28).
In my experience, rank and file members are usually OK with such decisions if the candidate is likeable and looks set to win the seat for them – they can even want it, if the only candidates are poorly functioning councillors. Remember, in there is no harsher critic of a poorly functioning MP than the local branches – in Fowler it is said that the local member required head office support for every single election she has faced, even though she supposedly dominates the numbers there.
I was listening to Nicole on the radio this morning.
I conclude that she will do fine, so long as she doesn’t open her mouth!
If she takes the seat it will just prove the adage that sex sells.
It would add to Rudd’s harem, but will not contribute one ounce to the quality of parliamentary debate.
No, I wasn’t being approached by pundits to do their number crunching!
I was, however, the first person to call Nick Xenophon’s victory – it was the 1997 SA State Election. Didn’t call that till the next morning, but I did beat Antony Green to the punch on that one.
It’s true about the old Mac’n'all, but it was just for HEMP purposes.
ALP preselection for some NSW federal seats have been referred to the nat exec. The word is that wentworth is one of them and that george newhouse (mayor of waverley) can have it if he wants it.
newspoll
alp 57 coal 43
again seems to be oscillating 57 – 60
The one after the budget will be of more interest
or not