Media tart par excellence Peter Brent writes to ask my opinion on independent Calare MP Peter Andren’s chances in his ambitious tilt for a Senate seat, the answer to which is that I haven’t really formulated one. He also suggests I open a thread on the topic, and I can certainly do that. My first instinct was that Andren didn’t stand a chance. The only independent ever to win a Senate seat in the era of six-seat half-Senate elections (the first of which was in 1990) has been Brian Harradine, who notably did so in the nation’s smallest state as opposed to its largest.
Then I remembered that I would never have credited Nick Xenophon with an ability to pull 21 per cent of the statewide vote for the South Australian upper house, which the “No Pokies” MP managed to achieve at last year’s election. Does Andren have an even remotely comparable profile across the premier state, particularly in Sydney? Personally, I wouldn’t have thought so. Does he need one? Not necessarily. There is no doubt he has enough vote-pulling power to be worth doing business with when the time comes for preference negotiations; he will certainly get the Coalition’s preferences ahead of the Greens, and very likely Labor’s also. Let’s say he gets 5 per cent of the vote. If either major party polls less than 38.3 per cent (Labor got 36.4 per cent last time, though this would be augmented slightly by preferences), he will defeat their third candidate and pick up their surplus as preferences. That would probably put him ahead of the Greens, who polled 7.3 per cent last time. Greens preferences would then decide the outcome.
UPDATE: Whoops – thanks to Chris Curtis for pointing out that two quotas is 28.6 per cent, not 33.3 per cent. So if Andren gets 5 per cent, the lowest major party vote will have to be 33.6 per cent, not 38.3 per cent. Which places a slightly different complexion on things.
There is no doubt that the Greens will put Andren ahead of the Coalition, and little doubt they will put him ahead of Labor – he won brownie points (greenie points?) by opposing to the Iraq war and the government’s stance on asylum seekers in 2001, and was second on the Greens how to vote card in Calare in 2004. Suddenly his tilt doesn’t look so quixotic after all. The decisive factor is likely to be whether his vote can exceed the worst performing major party’s surplus over 33.3 per cent.
121 Comments
The comparison with Nick Xenophon is a worthy one, but even he had a relatively slick campaign behind him (the Muppet ads, the regular media appearances and the odd stunt to boot – kid goats, anyone?). While Andren is a hard worker and campaigner, I find it difficult to see him being as big a media tart as Xenophon is.
That said, it does set up a Fundies-type situation where parties, major and minor, will park their preferences with Andren in an attempt to starve their opponents, and end up assisting him over the line. But it will depend on how he campaigns in Metropolitan Sydney – he’ll garner support outside the Basin relatively easily.
Very interesting.
I think with the rise in Labor’s primary vote most states will split 3-3 (ALP-Lib/Nat). I can’t see any Democrat holding their seat and Nettle stands less chance of winning the 6th NSW spot than Andren does.
The exception is Bob Brown in Tas who will easily retain his seat.
William,
The quota for a Senate seat is 14.3 per cent, not 16.7 per cent, making two quotas 28.6 per cent, not 33.3 per cent. You need to recalculate.
If Steven Fielding can win on 1.8% of the vote anything is possible.
The great issue becomes if the ALP’s primary vote is above 43% (or near enough) then there is a lack of seat on the left side of the ledger to be won and he would be relying on the Liberal and Nat primary vote to fall back a fair bit.
ALP primary was only 35% in NSW senate but the current poll figures are suggesting there may be a major swing to them at the moment.
I don’t think the comparison is very good – Xenophon as an MLC already had state-wide profile. Beyond the small bunch of pseudo-psephos and enthusiasts here – does Andren really have much of a profile outside his local area? Without a balance-of-power issue it can be difficult for many lower-house independents to get much recognition.
My suggestion = Buckleys.
The real irony would be if we end up with a hung Parliament and Andren staying in Calare could have had the balance of power. But I digress.
I’d guess his best chance would be to garner the votes of the politically active (who would know who he is) that want a change, but don’t want to vote Labor in both houses. I’d assume he’s going to get an above the line box of course, as without that he’d stand no chance at all. The question is whether there’s enough of them. I’d probably vote for him if I were in NSW
The sitaution is a bit remisniscne t
This Sydneysider is also sceptical about Andren’s statewide profile.
Though if I am underestimating him, who would his support come at the expense of? As a leftish independent, it might be the Greens who suffer the most damage. (Which in turn, would make Andren more likely to creep ahead of the Greens and receive their preferences.)
On Xenophon, does he harbour any federal ambitions? With the demise of Democrats, SA looks like being most predictable state in Senate contests (3 ALP 3 Lib) for the foreseeable future. It seems to me that only Xenophon could shake that up. Of course, presently he’s just one year into an 8-year LC term, so there’d be no rush to make the transition.
OOPs, Sorry.
The situation is similair to the time when Hendy Cowan ran for the Senate with the Nationals in WA. He was a high profile Nationals leader who had a big following in the bush but barely polled two percent in the Senate ballot. While he was well regarded and popular, that does not translate into votes in the Senate where the punters have many competing interests.
Fielding got elected off a low base because the Dems and the ALP did not anticipate him getting prefs from such a broad base and thus passing them. I don’t think FF will surpirsie anyone in this ballot and neither will Andren.
Also, why would the ALP direct prefs to Andren ahead of the Greens?
Your calculations of the Senate quota are also wrong.
If Peter Andren, in his senate bid was able to garner 50% of the vote in the old Calare, he would be up to 1% of the statewide vote already. If he had the support of Tony Windsor on his HTV cards, this would give another 1% statewide. If he builds up like this, he may in with a chance. Also if the ALP directed their preferences to him over the Greens, it would show that the ALP is ‘not in bed’with the Greens. And surely,Peter Andren would be preferable over Kerry Nettle.
NSW has a greater capacity to deliver a surprise result than Vic did.
If you look at how the count unfolded in 2004 it is easy to see how a micro party/group can harvest a seat.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendNSW.htm
You can see liberals for forrests and CDP were in the count until the end with primary votes of 0.6% and 2.6% respectively.
If one had factored in a 5% swing to Labor, according to my modeling the final seat would have been delivered to liberals for forrests. Yes, from 0.57% primary!!
Not knowing how popular Peter Andren is outside of his rural seat, it is hard to assert what his primary vote would be state wide. But if he remains ahead of the pack of a plethora of micro parties, and if he has reasonable negotiation skills when it comes to preference trades, then anything is possible.
Don’t rule him out.
I think that either Andren or Nettle will win a seat,.
Who ever is still in when the other go out (I think that Andren miy well preference the Greens.)
As shown above any party/group that can get more than 2% is in with a real chance.
I think the more important question is, if Andren or any other minor (CDP/FFP) gets up, will it be at the expense of Libs or ALP. If it is at the expense of the Libs, then he may well hold the BoP with Steve Fielding.
Labor will need to limit Libs to two seats, to have a chance of wresting control of the Senate from the coalition. I think they can do this in Tas, so one other state needs to deliver such a result as well.
Xenophon had a massive profile as an “ordinary” bloke who champions the kind of minor things that the major parties forget about. I don’t think he’s comparable to a rural independent.
If Labor’s primary vote is up and/or the Coalition’s holds strong, there won’t be many (if any) minors or independents elected.
Sad to say, Andren has as good a chance as Nettle in the Senate because he will garner votes from the Coalition ahead of Nettle. The ALP (at current polling) will be at or just under a 3rd seat, so will have little or nothing to give to Nettle (who the ALP will prefer over an Independent who delivers nothing state-wide). Just being on Windsor’s HTV guarantee’s absolutely nothing as Windsor voters are voting for him not “Independent” – they’ll mostly track back to their home parties. Andren wont poll 50% in the old Calare unless he spends his whole time campaigning there and that equally guarantee’s him nothing.
IMHO Andren will run a low-level state-wide campaign, concentrated across the west of the state, but with some high-profile media activity in Sydney. I would have thought his expenses would run to $100k at most given that he wont get 4% and funding – so will have to rely on his own money and donations. This alone will limit his campaign options.
However, Andren will be able to garner votes from a wide range of minor parties. His real trouble, however, will be staying ahead of the Libs & Greens. If the Greens are first out Andren will be elected (and a third ALP if the ALP hasn’t quite made the third quota). If Libs go out then Andren will be elected. And obviously if he goes out, his preferences will determine whether Lib or Green is elected. But I think he will have trouble staying in the race. The CDP have a close relationship with the Libs, and the Libs will badly want to get the seat – I expect they will try for (and get) CDP #2’s – perhaps in exchange for all their #2’s. The Libs will also quite likely get most of the fish’n'-shoot’n'-hunt’n’ fraternity vote (coz Andren’s not really on their side).
Still, most people still don’t realise the effort (and thought) Druery put into getting L4F into the position he did, especially in convincing other parties where to put him (ie; ahead of which parties) to maximise his chances.
Andren’s real hope is that he just gets ahead of the Greens and there are no ALP votes to distribute, so either Green or Lib preferences get him over the line. And that’s still a big ask. Just as it is for Nettle to get ahead of him…
And of course the real unknown factor is how low will the Coalition Senate vote fall? If it doesn’t then this is all rather academic.
Whoops – thanks for pointing that out Chris. I’ve added a note clarifying the situation.
I think he’s going to do well. He is widely known, and generally extremely highly regarded across a broad range of city and country electorates, in the same way Ted Mack was.
Don’t forget that he can command a huge swathe of rural TV and radio, and is known across a wide range of country areas. He will get support from every independent running in NSW, so if they all poll something around 4% … and then you’ve got the old Calare, and the new one, and Windsor’s seat … so it goes. All the country folk who are disillusioned with the Nats but wouldn’t vote Labor in a pink fit will put a vote his way.
I don’t profess any special knowledge about NSW, except to begin with the assumption that it was easier for Brian Harradine in Tasmania. This was not just because of the nature of Tasmania, but also because BH had a significant state-wide support base (remnant DLP, Church and supportive right-wing unionists).
However, Andren is potentially a very attractive candidate; he is likely to have appeal to those who’ve given up on the Democrats, and many others who support the “anyone but the majors’ party”, particularly if they have reservations about the Greens. There was a very favourable profile of him on Compass some months back. While I know very few electors would have watched, I’d expect DVDs of this to be aired quite a bit as the campaign proceeds.
As well as the Fielding precedent there is the example from the Victorian Legislative Council poll of the DLP candidate who was elected with 2.57% of the primary vote by the expedient of staying in the count (others in the thread have alluded to a NSW Legislative Council success based on a similar strategy).
Of course, ultimately it all depends on how the majors fare, specifically if they are both close to (or over) the 42.86% mark.
My guess is Andren won’t win, but I don’t think it’s out of the question.
Also, why would the ALP direct prefs to Andren ahead of the Greens?
Why should the ALP direct prefs to the Greens instead of Andren? I really am at a complete loss as to why they would do this. Andren, if given a bit of a boost over a small third-quota surplus, might take a conservative seat, and would be a better left-ish independent Senator than Kerry Nettle. There are good Greens parliamentarians, but KN ain’t one of them.
The comparison with Xenophon is invalid.
For every Xenophon, there are a hundred Peter Lewises (a sitting SA lower house member who tried to cross to the upper in the same SA election).. there was also Ralph? somebody who was already in the SA upper house and failed to get re-elected.
I can’t see Peter Andren getting a goat named Zorba, wearing boxing gloves or driving a toy car around.
Remember, SA is one giant electoral district, so showing Xenophon on TV there is of interest to everyone in the state. Federally, noone outside NSW could give a rats which means he has no chance of getting on national broadcasts.
- He has no infrastructure for HTV handing out outside his electorate
- NSW is the biggest state and thus the most expensive for advertising etc and an incredible number of polling places
- For every 1 minute of TV coverage Andren gets, Pauline will get 100.
- Andren will say nothing interesting or exciting and never has. There is no reason for the media to cover him.
- His primary vote will be 1-2% at best.
- Andren will not win a seat.
Everyone is forgetting that Andren is an old style country based journalist. He knows every newsroom west of the great divide. He feeds the chooks very well with 3 aggregated commercial TV networks, Aunty and a bevvy of local radio networks who feel aggrieved by recent media laws give Andren more coverage than any other “irrelivant independent.”
Then all the local papers take great delight in re-printing his press releases ver batim.
He garnered a lot of support during the redistribution process, and don’t under-estimate the anger of our country cousin’s who have seen another rural seat get abolished, and their perception of being under-represented being exacerbated.
There in lies his campaign – giving the country some real representation.
If he can secure 50% of the vote of old Calare, then he should be able to get about 20% from the new areas of Calare, plus the implicit support of Tony Windsor in the Northern Tablelands – he could be looking at 10 to 20% in Parkes and New England respectively.
There is a real chance of him getting a state wide vote of 3 to 5 percent on primaries alone.
Galaxy Federal Queensland poll:
http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/Galaxy/galaxypoll110607.pdf
Who will Hanson preference, I wonder. Not the Greens, obviously.
Is Hanson above the line? No-one will preference her, so she can’t win, but (if above the line) she has to send her preferences somewhere.
My understanding is that one of the major reasons why independents have such a difficult task in the senate is their inability to put “troops on the ground” in electorates across the state. Clearly Andren has considered this and Tony Windsor will obviously be onside. Perhaps he has worked a deal with the state independents who number 7 or 8, many of whom are strategically placed around the state. I also suspect that Andren has a high recognition factor amongst people who are looking to vote strategically in the election. and then of course there are preference deals.
As with all senate contests, the challenge is to keep your quota ahead of competitors until you can start reaping the results of preference deals already done. If Andren has a strategy for getting workers on the ground then I think he has a good chance.
I suspect TheSpeaker is referring to Ralph Clarke, the former Labor deputy leader in SA. He resigned from the ALP and very nearly held his LOWER house seat as an independent. He would have pulled it off but for a new area which was added to his seat.
according to mumble, the qld poll means alp will ‘only’ win 11 more qld seats
heh.
anyone notice how the major party vote totals to 89.. thats very high.
I still think people are over-estimating Andren’s vote. Given that parties such as FFP/CDP struggle to get to 4% with state-wide networks, relatively high profile MP’s, and good fundraising prospects then I find it hard to imagine that Peter Andren will find it any easier.
Note that in the NSW state election Independents did not fare as well as people expected, and generally only prospered where there was significant ill-feeling towards parties or candidates (Piper in Lake Macquarie), or they were long established (Oakeshot in Port Macquarie). I don’t think Andren will get a high Senate primary in Calare, or a big flow-on from Windsor’s HTV. To get a reasonable statewide vote he is going to have to poll 10% in the 14 rural electorates – because there are still 35 urban/regional seats.
He will face competition for any national media, and have to rely on local media – that might work in few areas, but then he is also up against the Lib/Nat media work, which will be working hard to sideline all but themselves. If it does look like the ALP is heading for 3 quotas and the Coalition is under then they will go after him to maintain their own hold on the Senate.
The one real measurable chance is if the Libs are particularly low (34-35%), but then then opens up the possibilities of a CDP win, so I’m still not convinced. Of course if the ALP were at 34-35% he would again have a reasonable chance (not because of preference flows, but because that means voters who voted ALP in HoR’s will have parked their votes somewhere else, so why not with Andren).
While I consider Andren a reasonable chance to get to 2% I still don’t see him getting to a quota.
re Peter Brent
Hanson has already said to put the Greens last:
http://www.paulinehanson.com.au/media-16.04.07.php
On Pauline putting the Greens last.
It is so reassuring that there are still some certainties in politics.
I suspect TheSpeaker was thinking of both former ALP Deputy Leader Ralph Clarke (Phil’s facts are nearly there: he resigned from the ALP after losing his preselection, not over some great issue of conscience) and Terry Cameron – former State Secretary of the ALP elected as an ALP Legislative Councillor, resigned from the ALP to vote for the sale of ETSA, formed a new Party called SA First that ran candidates in just about every seat at the 2002 election (none got any votes worth mentioning), ran for reelection himself in 2006 and went down without a whimper.
Andren’s constituency is the much-talked-about “doctors’ wives”, the sort of people who voted for Ted Mack in North Sydney and who are warming to Maxine McKew in Bennelong. These people used to be moderate liberals, whom John Howard has abandoned. They were the sort of people who voted for the Republic in 1999 – not enough to change the head of state, but more than enough to get a Senator elected. The sort of people who voted Democrat: the Democrat vote would rise when a change of government was apparent, but now that the Democrats have vacated the field, where else will their vote go but to Andren? If Andren joined the Australian Democrats now he’d be doing them a bigger favour than they could ever do for him.
Andren’s other constituency is in rural areas, always underpolled, the sort of people disenchanted by the Nationals but resistant to Labor. These people returned Andren four times and similar people return Tony Windsor in New England. National MP Kay Hull and Liberal MP Alby Schultz court such people (and frustrate a potent source of opposition within their electorates) by their robust intermittent attacks on their own parties. Marise Payne, third on the Coalition ticket, would claim to represent these people but she doesn’t. The Liberal label will sink her.
You underestimate this constituency, and overestimate that of the Greens.
(an aside: when phone calls to rural areas were comparatively more expensive than they are now, it was understandable that polling organisations would not poll rural electorates. Now that there are only four STD zones nationally and the price of calling RARA has dropped in real terms, and given that many rural/regional seats are very much in play at this election, then to poll only subrban voters is to do readers a disservice).
For Nettle to beat Andren, she’d need the foil of a seemingly invincible conservative government or a rallying point like Franklin Dam/Tampa. Neither are present at this stage, and Nettle has hardly been high-profile. Peter Garrett has proven skilful at bringing Green votes into the Labor fold, leaving non-Labor Green votes (i.e. “doctors’ wives”) politically homeless and attractive to Andren. Nettle would have to move to the centre to counteract this but she is still the same barking Trot and hence will be repellent to swinging voters.
Andren to take fifth Senate spot for NSW, third Labor (Ursula Stephens?) to take the sixth, and bye bye Marise.
Once again I’m not convinced by the Galaxy Poll. In 2004 Labor received a TPP vote of 43% to the coalition 57% (from the AEC figures not the incorrect figures supplied by Galaxy). Now, according to this poll, Labor has 52% and the coalition 48%. A 9% turn around and they say this is bad for Labor? Also take a look at the preferred PM figures. Rudd has a job satisfaction rating of 72%, Howard 49%. Preferred PM – Rudd 55%, Howard 40% (gee they really hate Rudd up there). Who would do the best for Queensland – Rudd 60%, Howard 31%. If ever a vote was soft it is the one for the coalition in this poll.
Phil Robins:
Ralph Clarke ran for the SA Upperhouse in 2006 under the “INDEPENDENT RALPH CLARKE BUY BACK ETSA” banner. He got 0.12% of the vote.
I have no idea what ETSA is, why it was sold, or why we should buy it back.
I think pundits judging Andren’s chances should look not only at the successes but also the failures, of which there are many more.
Speaker,
A third-party candidate needs to either take a sizeable chunk of the vote away from a major party (as the DLP did with the ALP), or take enough away from both major parties as to amass a fair vote (as Xenophon, Harradine and the Democrats did).
As stated above, Andren can (and is likely to) do the latter. Clarke, and many of the other examples in your arsenal, failed to do either.
Wasn’t ETSA the electricity distributor/producer?
Andren will fail to do either too. In a year’s time, I’ll have added Andren to my ‘arsenal’ of failed upper house candidates.
He might appeal to a broad cross-section of the community as you say, however they won’t vote for him. No one cares enough to learn what he’s about, and he lacks money for the advertising campaign to educate them.
Andren will end up as road-kill in the election stampede.
I do not think Tony Windsor will even do well in the Old Calare, when he was on the HoR paper, he is one of 5 to 6 names, so he is easily recognisable, now that he is on one of 20 names in the senate paper, people who are not in tune with politics might not even find or recognised him.
He also will not be able to spend so much time/money on 1 electorate, he will need to devote more time to other part of the country.
Further since people normally vote on HoR first, the might now pick Labor/National on the HoR and continue to vote them on the Senate, I would be surprise if he does get more than 3% of the statewide vote
There is a difference between a dormant political constituency, which can be awakened, and one that never existed, which can’t. Andren gets plenty of free publicity, just like Hanson or NSD-era Democrats. Macka’s Sunday morning show on ABC radio is little more than a regular, extended ad for the Mack/Katter/Windsor/Andren style of politics, as are many other programs on that network.
Andren has a massive head start, on par with any of the minor parties, none of which appeal to both the city and country as above.
The correlation between ad spend and votes is strong only for those who sell ad space/time, not for those who buy it, and certainly not for those subjected to the ads.
The idea that people vote for the same party in the Senate as they do in the House is on a longterm downward trend, one that accelerates with the uncertainty surrounding a change of government. 3% is more than Fleming got in Victoria.
To compare the profile of Andren and Hanson is surely laughable.
No doubt Hanson could easily recruit thousands of people all over the state to hand out HTVs in a split second based on her name alone. Can you really imagine Andren doing the same thing?
None of the above leads me to change my view that NSW (like every state except Tas and possibly WA) will elect 3 Labor and 3 Coalition Senators. In NSW Labor will certainly get three quotas, and the Coalition will get 2-point-something and take the last place on preferences. The Green primary vote will drop and they will get no surplus from Labor, hence Nettle must lose. If Andren gets 3% I’ll be very surprised.
Andren is a nice guy of moderate centrist views who was a good fit for a marginal rural seat. Labor people happily voted for him to stop the Nats winning the seat, and vice versa. As a Senate candidate, why would anyone vote for him? What does he stand for? There is no constituency for earnest moderation – ask the Democrats. The “doctors wives” someone mentioned will vote solidly for Rudd.
Ralph Clarke’s belated and quixotic upper house candidature was designed to help Nick Xenophon. In the end, Xenophon swept all before him without the need for any piffling help along the way.
“Nettle would have to move to the centre to counteract this but she is still the same barking Trot and hence will be repellent to swinging voters.”
Never were truer words spoken – the Greens, like the NDP before them, have been infested by the loathesome and outdated far left of Trots and Marxists.
Speaker, Pauline Hanson will not campaign. She is in it to cream public funding, believing she was dudded of $500k in the One Nation deregistration fiasco. She left her campaign return blank last time – suggesting she spent a risible amount last time. She scraped over 4% last time.
She will poll well less than in 2004 for two reasons. First, more than ever, this time she is more an old celeb and even less a public/policy figure. Second, the electorate is polarising (a la ‘93 the last time the perception was both of an election up for grabs, and discernible ideological differences). Hanson will suffer more than other independents because the polarisation will be sharper in Qld – witness the latest Galaxy poll; also due to Rudd’s popularity.
Hanson’s preferences will flow back to the Coalition – she has always been a conservative, and most of the votes she garners these days are old regional votes.
Graeme:
She has started a new party called Pauline Hansen’s United Australia. How do I know this ? – I saw it on TV while I was in Adelaide.
Andren could only dream of that sort of coverage.
Since the money will go to her new party, she won’t be able to receive the money personally without some tricky accounting. If she was in it for the money she would have stayed independent.
She will get more votes than last time, and here is why:
- With her new party she’ll be easier to find on the ballot paper (Group K last time)
- One Nation got 3% – many of them probably meant to vote for Pauline. Many of these votes will go to her this time.
- She announced her candidacy the day before the nominations closed in 2004. This time she has a year in advance.
- I’ve seen people reading her book on the bus (I’m in QLD)
- She actually features in a commercial for ginger where she goes around with a microphone interviewing people in a shopping centre.
But:
- Andren is more likely to win a senate seat than her because he will receive preferences.
- If she puts the Libs before the Nats on her GVT she could kill off Ron Boswell.
Apparently the latest Westpoll, published in The West Australian last Saturday, shows the Coalition leading Labor by 56.3 per cent to 43.7 per cent in WA. Very bad news for Labor.
Is it all turning to shite for Rudd?
I wonder if Adam is “feeling excited” yet? He has been conspicuous on his silence on this point despite his partisan rantings.
Are you opinions your own Adam or what you are pledged to spout as a party member? After it is a breach of party rules to disagree with the ALP line isnt it?
Me thinks most people would take 4 federal elections over 20 state elections anyday. After all 1 federal is worth about 100 tassie elections and 20 NSW elections.
It’ll certainly be interesting if Boswell realises his life is on the line and does a deal with Pauline or not…he’ll also need the Fishing Party again, and Family First, who might go to the Libs or even ALP since Rudd is a Qlder and Barnaby says the Nats shouldn’t touch FF.
Western Australia looks like a real problem for Rudd.
Perhaps he should bite the bullet, and do a Tony Blair – ie. dump the ACTU and Gillard, announce he’s retaining AWAs, but without the harsher elements of Work Choices. Gillard’s “Fair Work Australia” smells like another Medicare Gold debacle.
Go Kev, take that great leap into the unknown, and the News Ltd papers will suddenly be your champion!
He could win the election if he does!
Did I dream it up , or is the ALP in the process of attempting to negotiate a preferences deal with The Greens in NSW – ALP support for Nettle ahead of the rest in return for Green preferences in the 23 marginal seats in NSW – its $1.00 each way for the ALP- If the ALP pulls a third Senate seat in NSW based on a substantial primary vote increase of around 5%^, its been done before in not too distant Federal Elections, whahoo for the ALP. If not, and the ALP can make a ‘deal’ with the NSW Greens [remember the Greens on the Central Coast in NSW refused to direct preferences to the ALP at the last State Election and are not happy with the ALP apparently flirting with the idea of "playing footsies" with Family First in SA and/or VIC], IF the ALP can pull off a deal with The Greens in NSW, Nettle’s chances of re-election are much better than watching ALP preferences run to The [Dead in the Water] Democrats in NSW again. In this scenario, Nettle may hold on, without this scenario, she is doomed.
Edward, you seem to be going on the attack over ONE dubious poll. I’ll tell you how confident I am next week when other polls have had a chance to shed some light on the trends. I wonder Edward, have you studied the galaxy poll closely? Do yourself a favour and take a close look at the latest contribution and see what the Libs are getting hot and sweaty over. It’s just a pity the heading and rhetoric doesn’t reflect what the poll actually indicates.
http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/Galaxy/galaxypoll110607.pdf
Personally, I’ll take the protection of a state Labor government over this federal government any day of the week. If Labor gets elected federally that’s a bonus.
Are you sure ? If so, that’s really dumb.
Some maths:
FF + Libs = Unemployed * Boswell
Gary its the trend my friend not the actual figures. Clearly on the Galaxy figures Rudd would win 9 seats in Qld. However I think there is still air in the deflating balloon to come out.
Watch the recriminations in the ALP if Newspoll supports the trend though…
Its still not too late for him to ditch the ACTU – maybe 4-6 weeks left to do it before he gets accused of being a flip flopper if he does though.
Here are the questions in the Westpoll:
http://www.marketresearch.com.au/our_services__westpoll__current_month_questions.23.html#q1
Has anyone got some better numbers ?
mumbles:
It doesn’t matter whether the Dems get Labor preferences before the Greens in NSW. They’ll get eliminated early.
I have memories of the NSW Greens and Labor signing something last week ?
As a matter of interest Edward are you predicting the trend to continue downward? My prediction is that both Newspoll and ACNeilsen will show a slight fall but nothing like Galaxy. If that proves to be the case Galaxy will have some questions to answer. Already Morgan has at least put a question mark over the downward trend. How on earth does one poll give a party a primary vote of 44% while another poll taken on the same weekend gives that party 51%. Clearly, one is way off. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.
Could be Gary, Whatever happens in October/November it will good if Rudd is put under some pressure and earns it rather than just having it fall into his lap.
I agree with you on that Edward.
Mr Speaker, Barnaby said words to that effect at the last election. Not impressed with the burning lesbians at stake controversy.
Speaker, Hanson is past her peak. She was white hot in 1998 and is now only in it if she gets more back from public funding than she puts in. Again, you overestimate the power of commercial media and would suggest you listen to the ABC more often to see why Andren has it all over Hanson. United Australia – hmm, worked so well for John Siddons.
She will have lost a lot of her support base for three reasons: first, because she has modified her views a bit (or at least been less gratuitously offensive) which her base will interpret as “selling out”. Second, her base is made up of geriatrics who are not able to spend ten hours standing outside a polling booth. Third, One Nation won’t lie down and will create a spat that will shun support.
Her preferences could be important for he conservatives in tight contests, such as Dawson (Q). Boswell will have to get preferences from Hanson, One Nation, a coalition of militant Christians/gun owners/conspiracy freaks, FF and that mate of Barnaby’s who lost preselection. If those three lock him out or direct preferences to the Libs, whose vote will go to Rudd, Boswell is finished.
Sorry Andrew E I don’t believe there is a dormant political constituency awaiting Andren’s clarion call. I also do think that there is a relevance to ad-spend, just as there is a need for HTV’s. I’m sure that having someone handing out HTV’s can affect your vote by anything up 3% of total vote (yes, I’ve tried to do empirical studies, but the best you can get is a guestimate) – which would, in the instances I was examining a doubling of the vote. Evidence for ad-spend making a difference? The $250k spent by the Shooters Party at the last state election – they had almost no media coverage but performed much better than expected. They ad advertising across the state (not tv though) and access to registered shooters across the state – which they would have had to pay to contact. The money can make a difference in letting people know you exist. And I agree with others that te so-called ‘doctor’s wives’ syndrome may or may not turn consider Andren – but they are much more likely to turn out for Rudd.
And Adam is quite right – at present the polling is showing that both ALP and Libs are sitting at or just under 3 quota’s apiece. There is every likelihood that this wont change so significantly – and there’ll still be 20% of the vote washing about for minors and indi’s to gather up – the trick is getting to NOT flow to either of the majors, and thats going to be the hard part.
Stewart J,
I’m relying on my memory, but in 1970 we handed out HTVs at Midhurst for the first time. The DLP vote went from a single digit to 25 or 30 per cent. HTVs make a difference. Okay, a small sample – maybe I should work for Galaxy.
burning lesbians at the stake, it that some kind of fred nile friday night fantasy movie?
Stewart, there are only seven quotas to be had, and only six of them elect Senators, so if Labor and Coalition get three quotas each, there is only 14.3%, not 20%, left for the minors, and preference flows won’t matter. I have tried to explain this piece of simple arithmetic about ten times here and people keep making the same errors. It won’t matter if Andren or Nettle poll 10 or even 12% (which they won’t), they CANNOT be elected if the major parties have six quotas between them.
In a double dissolution the quota is 7.69%.
The Coalition will probably retain the abillity to block bills in the Senate (they only have to win 19 out of 40 this year to do so) so a DD is likely next year if Labor wins.
The Greens could get that in each of the states and aproaching enough for 2 (including preferences) in Tasmania.
Except that DD elections tend to be polarising and the minors are likely to be squeezed out – as per the DLP in 1974. This was not so true at the last DD in 1987, when the Dems won 7 seats, but that was a pretty phony DD. If we have a DD on IR in 2008, it won’t be phony, it will be very bitter and very polarising and I doubt the Greens will do nearly as well as you suggest.
Adam fumed: Stewart, there are only seven quotas to be had, and only six of them elect Senators, I have tried to explain this piece of simple arithmetic about ten times here and people keep making the same errors.
The formula for the quota for V votes for N seats is actually Q = 1+ V/(N+1). To many, it does seem illogical that the quota for 6 seats is one-seventh of the vote. But, think of this analogy: The quota for a single-member seat is one half of the vote plus 1, not all of it. Plug in 1 for N and see what happens. Another way of looking at it is to see that when 6 Senators each have a quota, then by definition, there is less than 1 quota left unaccounted for, so no further Senators can be elected.
The counting system for a single member constituency is actually the same as for the multi-member Senate. You can actually test this on the myriad of proportional distribution programs that float about these days. Well, at least mine doesn;t fall over if I tell it to calculate for the election of 1 member.
Yes everyone please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_quota
However I don’t think the major parties will get 43+ to 43+ the way some of you do.
eg I think the Greens are 50-50 in WA.
I see Bryan has just closed down the comments section of his blog due to the amount of time he has had to spend to moderate partisan comments. By “partisan” I think he meant nasty and abusive. I hope this site can mainain a civilised level of debate.
Chris, if Bryan had meant abusive I think he would’ve said so. More likely he was unhappy with zealotry IMHO. Unfortunately, not only has he blocked comments, we can’t even read commetns that were posted prior so it’s hard to say what if anything pushed him over the edge. All a bit unseemingly sudden IMHO again.
As for Andren, his reputation may see him through but it’s a tough ask and I don’t envy him.
Amber, I think you owe Bryan a bit more grace than that. He paid for the bandwidth all those comments of yours have chewed up over the years. Whatever reason he wants to close comments for is his own business. Probably he just couldn’t be stuffed with it any more, which is entirely his right.
William, what, it’s graceless to give him credit that he would call a spade a spade? Or to opine that he was unhappy about zealotry? You also give me too much credit, I was there only a year or so.
Yes, Bryan paid for bandwidth and I did my bit to try to add value to his site by trying to be objective or at least semi-rational. But IMHO he and all hosts have a responsibility to their guests of not just suddenly disappearing into the night. “I’m thinking of closing all comments completely next week” would not have gone astray. There were some worthy contributions by various posters and those contributions deserved more respect than they have now received.
No disrespect intended to the host of The Poll Bludger in only my second post here, banging on about someone else’s site. I did try in my first post to stay on topic but I couldn’t let William’s post go unanswered. Also, while responsibilities of guests to hosts are fairly well known, responsibilities of hosts to guests are rarely discussed so here was an opportunity to raise it. Don’t wish to hijack the thread, though.
Difficult decision by Andren. He must’ve seen the writing on the wall. I guess he thought Senate was his out. If he’s out, he’s out and gets on with another life; if he gets in, he’s set for some time.
I must admit, I am saddened by Bryan’s decision. I posted on that site for over 2 years and really enjoyed the lively and very amusing discussions I got into with other people. I find myself in agreement with Amber here (this is very rare
, that sudden decision which occurred without any notice and completely unexpectedly was very harsh, bordering on impolite. It also completely ignored the intelligent and worthy contributions of many posters which I found a pleasure to read. Yes, it is Bryan’s site and it is his property – but it is also my right to state my opinion.
My two cents.
hmm, William is the host, after looking around a bit more. Sorry for talking to two different people and for not realising you are the host, William. I agree Bryan has the right to close comments if he wishes. I stand by what I said.
Amber,
Bryan more than once asked posters to cut the abuse. He then introduced log-ins as a step to reducing it. He then introduced the red and yellow card system. I rarely posted there in the end because I couldn’t be bothered wading through the abuse. I am still a little disappointed that the comments on the site have gone, but that is Bryan’s right. What I fear is an influx here of those who think personal nastiness and hyperbole are the way to conduct political discussion.
It’s a sad loss, whatever the reason. There were a few interesting posters, some with specialist knowledge of polling and stats, others with inside local info, and it was always hot out of the blocks with the latest polls. Let’s hope that Bryan’s own interpretations continue.
This one has less tranparent partisanship from posters and very prudently avoids the personal, mostly. I suspect Bryan despaired of some of this.
Back to topic. I’d love to see Andren survive for the sake of parliamentary integrity. But it seems a big ask in the big sea of the Senate. Would probably need lots of volunteers at booths around the state, and a bit of luck with the preference fall.
Andren should ditch his bid for the senate and try to hold Calare.
What’s the point in running for the senate anyway when you already have a federal seat ? With lower house BOP, he has a chance of deciding who wins government, an incredibly powerful position.
Maybe he would prefers the senates review role ?
Bryan in my view persevered for far longer than he had to. I would have cut out comments long ago.
He repeatedly attempted to get people to obey his rules and they repeatedly did not. He was well entitled to shut it down.
“Except that DD elections tend to be polarising and the minors are likely to be squeezed out – as per the DLP in 1974. This was not so true at the last DD in 1987, when the Dems won 7 seats, but that was a pretty phony DD.”
Nor at the previous one in 1983. Which means that minors have done well in exactly half of the four DDs in the last 50 years, so your first statement is a bit stronger than what is really supported by history.
It’s a pretty big call to say that the Greens wouldn’t be able to get >7% in most states at a DD, even if it was a bitterly divisive one (which at this stage is something of an assumption. Would an ALP government risk going to a DD if it was likely to be genuinely divisive?)
On the Andren matter I would have to agree that it seems a pretty long shot. As Adam suggests, he would have to drag enough primaries off the coalition to get them well below 3 quotas ie down to something like 38% at most (or the Greens do the same to the ALP but Andren outpolls the Greens, which seems to me less likely).
However without changing that assessment I do wonder if there will be any increase in split voting, particularly from swinging coalition voters, resulting from the ’surprise’ result last time.
The results of a DD were covered in another Pollbludger thread but I’ll summarise what I said at the time:
- The quota would be 7.7% (100/13)
- Any party who can get more than 4% will probably win a seat.
- The Greens would get a seat in every state, and two in tassie
- Family First would win 2-4 senate seats (Sa, Qld, Vic maybe Tas)
- The CDP would win 1 or 2 (Nsw, maybe WA)
- Pauline Hansen would become a senator (Pauline + One Nation was 7% in 2004)
A new point:
- Andren still wouldn’t win a senate seat. 1-2% isn’t enough.
Speaker, I don’t agree. At a DD, 5 quotas is 38.5% and 6 quotas is 46.2%. In every state, both Labor and the Coalition will get 5 quotas, and in most states one side or the other will get 6 quotas. In a polarised DD, it is quite possible that both sides will get 6 quotas in some states. There will thus only be at most one spot left in each state for minor parties. The Greens would probably get three or four, Fielding might get back. I’d be very surprised if the CDP or Hanson got up.
Speaker- Do the Greens need the Senate ticket of one of the major parties to have a shot of getting up -(thats if they dont get 3 a peice on primary votes) ? ie Are they going to nee ALP help, I would think so. Happy to be corrected given my limited maths and L plate status. Cheers.
Whoops, previous comment/question relates specifically to Nettle in NSW.
The Speaker – do you really think there would be three cross-benchers in Queensland (Hanson, Greens and FFP)? It’s hard for me to see minor party and independent candidates getting 23% of the vote, even distributed after preferences.
What are the chances of any DD including a Senate increase?
(probably to 14 Senators per state)
What exactly *is* the procedure for an enlargement of parliament? Is it as simple as legislating for more seats?
Also, what is the seating capacity of the House of Representatives? You’d think they would have designed it with a substantial potential increase in mind, but there doesn’t appear to be a great deal of room left.
On television you can sometimes see there are quite a few unused seats to the ALP`s left (just to the the Speaker`s left of opposite the Speaker).
I gess the extra space to be for around 50 extra (200 total) with coresponding spare capacity in the Senate.
The procedure for increasing the size of the Commonwealth Parliament is legislation.
Thanks Tom. I found the House of Reps seating guide. You’re quite correct in that there is indeed space for 200 MHRs, although it would be quite cosy if the Parliament was that size and you had MPs from diferring parties stuck sitting next to each other.
The Senate only has 90 seats, although they are seemingly quite spread out so I guess there’s space available for a refit if necessary. It’s curious that they didn’t design it with 100 Senators in mind, seeing as how the Senate is required to be as close to half the size of the House as possible.
Charlie, the new parliament house was designed to allow substanital expansin for both Houses. I think it was to have a 200-year lfespan, but that seems a bit short to me. the constitution requires that theSenate be half the size of he House. A referendum held to remove this nexus in order t dilute the power of the Senate in a DD was defeated in 1967, the DLP being the only party to campaign against it, though individual Lberal senators like ian Wood and Reg Wright also did.
So I presume there must be space available to expand the House and Senate chambers (ie the rooms themselves) then.
Incidentally I just checked on Adam Carr’s archive the typical size of electorates in 1983. Although the range was massive (from about 65,000 up to just over 100,000) across the five mainland states (remembering that Tasmania is a special case) the typical electorate was around 80,000.
In 2004 the range was 75,000 to just under 101,000. Only two electorates across the mainland states have less than 80,000 electors and the typical electorate is around 90,000.
It appears to be time for another enlargement, on that basis. Perhaps to 180 MHRs and 90 Senators (14 per state, 3 per territory).
Further, with 180 electoral divisions the average size across the country would be about 73,000 (based on enrolment at the 2004 election). That works out to at least:
NSW: 59
Vic: 45
Qld: 34
WA: 17
SA: 14
Tas: 5
ACT: 3
NT: 1
I have left two of the 180 seats unallocated, because NSW, Victoria, SA and NT are all entitled to approximately one extra seat. NT would certainly get one of those and presumedly the other would go to the state, of those three, whose population growth rate is currently fastest. My guess is that this would be Victoria?
Sorry, the above should read ‘are all entitled to approximately HALF an extra seat’.
If those states have the population for over half a seat then they would get a whole seat. So if they all had just over half then they would all get an extra seat
14 senators per state would mean 84 state senators and the seat allocation is based on the number of senators from states so it would be 168 divided by 21 millionish.
Thanks for the clarification Tom.
Whilst waiting for the QT replay for the HoR I started to jot down some potential names for new electorates. Here’s what I’ve come up with. Incidentally, note that I’ve ignored the custom that only deceased people have divisions named after them in the case of Prime Ministers.
NSW: (William) McMahon, (Gough) Whitlam, (Paul) Keating, (Donald) Bradman, (Fred) Hollows, (Charles) Perkins, (Doc) Evatt, (Henry) Lawson, (Neville) Wran, (Garfield) Barwick, (Roden) Cutler.
Victoria: (Malcolm) Fraser, (Bob) Hawke, (Henry) Bolte, (Margaret) Guilfoyle, (Weary) Dunlop, (John) Monash, (Tom) Roberts, (Sydney) Nolan, (John) Latham.
South Australia: (Douglas) Nicholls, (Howard) Florey, (Douglas) Mawson, (Don) Dunstan, (Thomas) Playford.
ACT: Ngunnawal (after traditional owners of Canberra), (Manning) Clark.
The two states I’m struggling with are…
WA: (Charles) Court, (Kim E. and Kim C.) Beazley, Nyoongar (after traditional owners of Perth)
Qld: (Eddie) Mabo, (Bill) Hayden, (Jim) Killen.
I’ll help you with Queensland:
Qld: Gair (Vince), Bjelke-Petersen (Joh & Flo), Kenny (Mary), Rudd (Steele not Kevin)
umm and the chick who wrote Mary Poppins.
If you were going to enlarge parliament, adding 4 senate seats per state would be the way to go.
So instead of 6 senators per state per half senate, you’d have 8.
8 * 2 * 6 states = 96 State Senators
+ 2 NT + 2 ACT = 100 Senators
The constitution says the HOR must be roughly 2 * Senate
so HOR now has 200 members.
Nice round numbers.
SA has state seats named after Florey and Playford. Nicholls does not register in SA (he was a Victorian). Bradman spent most of his life in SA even though he came from NSW.
I left out Bjelke-Petersen (and Theodore for that matter) on the basis that someone who was so blatantly corrupt should not be honoured by having an electorate division named after them. I thought Ted Theodore was a line ball choice, but Joh should certainly not be honoured.
Gair was one I thought of – would be a rather controversial choice, though.
Do you mean Elizabeth Kenny? That’s a good get. So is P.L. Travers (I had no idea the author of Mary Poppins was an Australian).
Steele Rudd is a difficult one, as it could preclude naming an electorate after a likely Prime Minister. For that same reason I should have noted above that I imagined abolishing the ACT division of Fraser and creating a new division of Fraser named after Malcolm. Prime Ministers should get precedence. Although I agree he would be a deserving candidate, perhaps it should wait until a Qld electorate could be named after both Rudds.
If 4 senators were added to each state then there would be 96 state senators and so there would be around 192 state MHRs plus probably 5 terratorial MHRs (territorial representatives do not get counted in the twice the Senate calculation).
The Speaker, an expansion to 200 MHRs would bring the average enrolment per electorate to about 66,000 – pretty much exactly the same as the 1984 average.
I don’t know that I agree that the states should expand by four Senators whilst the territories remain the same, though.
Sorry to be away from this thread for a couple of days (jeez suddenly so many posts…) but in answer to Adam waaaay back re 20% for minors & indi’s to gather up. I am aware of the quota’s etc, but was thinking that, given the long term trend of the major party vote to fall (ie; both ALP & Lib combined) there has been an increasing number of loose votes. These have at various times been gathered up by PHON, AD’s, Greens, DLP etc. Notwithstanding the various impacts each of these parties may themselves have on either Lib or ALP vote, there has been up to 25% of the vote available.
My point was that with Lib/ALP at or just under 3 quota’s, there could be up to 20% washing about (both at 2.9 quota’s would give you 17% or thereabouts). This election is just as likely as any other to see a tightening of this for a variety of reasons people have already canvassed here – my point was simply that if both majors are on 2.9 or 2.8 then its going to be really hard for a minor party to pull together all the non-major party vote – for starters, the left-right divide is pretty well established now, which undermines peoples desire to win with any deal possible (this doesn’t apply to the ALP or Libs however, but to the minor parties themselves). Problematically, for all the epithets tossed at each other, they can just as easily work with each other – as Chris C pointed out a while back, the Greens in Victoria might not vote with the ALP very often at all, but they end up sitting next to the DLP quite a bit…
True, however it reduces the power of Tasmania in the HOR.
Maybe the ACT deserves another couple of Senators (NT doesnt), however the libs won’t like that because there is a good chance of 3 ALP- 1 Lib or 2 ALP 1 Lib 1 Green.
It wouldn’t surprise me if given a couple of terms of ALP federal government, the above occurs. Especially if the senate proves obstructive.
Two more Qld names: (Judith) Wright and Oodgeroo (Noonuccal). I had some success with the Wright suggestion a few months ago and had the new division been anywhere else in the State, it would have stuck…
I agree with Adam that the Speaker’s forecast seems to be overly rosy for the minor parties, especially the statement: “Any party who can get more than 4% will probably win a seat.”
Since the parties that just fail to win a seat are quite likely to be minors with over 4%, this seriously overcounts.
However I think Adam goes the other way and overcounts for the majors in saying that they will get at least 11 quotas between them in most states and 12 in some.
“In a polarised DD, it is quite possible that both sides will get 6 quotas in some states.”
This relies on Adam’s assumption that the major’s share of the vote is likely to be larger in a DD election, and again, I take issue with Adam’s comments about polarising DDs.
There have been exactly 6 DD elections for comparison.
1914 was no more polarised than any other election, but in any case the different Senate voting system makes comparison harder.
1951 was a bit more polarised than average, but considerably less than the 1954 ‘normal’ election, so there is no real evidence of the ‘tendency’ here.
1974 and especially 1975 were certainly more polarised than usual, and the minor parties did badly.
1983 and 1987 were not especially polarised and the minor parties did well.
It is quite easy to argue that 1974 and 1975 were the unusual cases with special circumstances in this list, so I see no real justification for the statement “DD elections tend to be polarising and the minors are likely to be squeezed out”.
And at the risk of repeating myself this ignores the political situation. Firstly A DD would almost certainly be called by a Rudd government seeking to wrest control of the Senate from the conservatives. It would almost certainly not be forced on the government.
I suggest that such an election would only be called if there was a good chance of success and a low chance of failure for the government, in other words if the political situation was fairly smooth.
In a polarised environment the ALP’s chance of failure would be unacceptably high to call a DD. I think it is far more likely in such a situation arose for the government to grit its teeth and hold out to the next half-Senate election.
Secondly, it is likely that there will be more appeal in voting Greens for leftist ALP voters when the ALP is in government than when it has been in opposition for 11 years.
An expansion of the number of seats would presumably help stop the westward movement of Sydney seats such as Bennelong and Wentworth?
Martin B: Nice research. Yes maybe I am a little overenthusiastic with my minor party predictions but I think a few would get up in a DD.
Charlie: Yes sorry, I meant Elizabeth Kenny. I prefer real achievers like her to Sportspeople/Actors.
(Ironically for me, Hollywood made a movie about Elizabeth Kenny)
At the next redistribution, when QLD gets a seat off VIC, I might stick in a couple of recommendations.
Btw is Kevin Rudd related to Steele Rudd ?
The Greens say they didnt direct preferences to the ALP in 20 of the 150 HOR seats at the last Federal Election; they also reckon where this occured ALP 2PP from Green primary voters fell away by 6.7%. Can anyone tell me what those 20 seats were ?
Why ? I am trying to assess the potential impact of the (reported) ALP-Green preference ‘deal’ in NSW on the ALPs chances of (a) protecting/perhaps increasing the margin in ALP ‘ify’ seats like Banks, Lowe, and Richmond where the Green primary vote was 4.7%, 9.2% and 12.4% respectively (b) giving the ALP some chance of retaining Parramatta where the Green primary vote was 5.3%, and (c) the degree to which an increase in Green primary voters 2PP preferences would assist the ALP to gain Coalition marginal seats in NSW such as Dobell (5.2%), Lindsay (3.4%), Macquarie (10.8%), and Wentworth (11.5%) and the less likely potential ALP gains of Eden Monaro (7.4%) and Greenway3.6%), and the very doubtful potential gains in Page (10.8%) and Bennalong (16.3).
That is, 4 ALP marginal seats and 8 Coalition marginal seats where an increase in Green Preferences could, on paper, help the ALP tilt in NSW where most educated pundits say the ALP ‘must’ improve to win the next Federal Election. I shy away from edicts like ‘must win seat’ or ‘must win State’ , but NSW is where my attention is focussed at the moment.
Which 20 seats did the Greens not direct preferences in at the 2004 Federal Election? Were any in NSW ? Would a 6.7% increase in 2PP preferences (if we take the Greens ‘research’ at face value) make much difference to the outcome in NSW ? I would have thought the Greens in Victoria were more likely to resist directing preferences to the ALP.
‘Steele Rudd’ was a pseudonym, so probably not. As for sportspeople and actors – there’s only one in my list, and Sir Donald Bradman is a rather unique sportsman.
16 senators per state!! If this continues there won’t be too many Tasmanians left who haven’t got their bums on the red leather. In a double dissolution the Tasmanian quota would be about 19,300.
If the Australian people were actually consulted about such a move, I thing another anti-nexus referendum might get up. After all, the last failed mainly because the DLP lied through its teeth and said the referendum would lead to more politicians rather than less.
What are you going to do about the seat of Cook which the AEC says is named after James rather than Joe?
STROP:
Alot of research has already been done into the directability of Greens Preferences.
The general view is that Greens voters ignore their HTV cards and their deals have little power.
From mumble:
http://www.mumble.com.au/published/afr_aug2806.htm
Antony Green:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/minorprefs.htm
I remember a poll before the last Victorian election asked voters whether they’d follow their party’s HTV. Of the Greens only 12%? said they’d follow the HTV. Other parties all got 50%+
John Cherry from the Democrats did some good work into this question as well but I don’t have a link to hand.
I wasn’t aware of that, Oakeshott. I just presumed it was named after Joseph. It’s made more problematic by the fact that Joseph Cook was from New South Wales.
There are only two deceased PMs without seats named after them: Bill McMahon and Joe Cook, who has the misfortune to share a surname with Captain Cook. Perhaps there could be a seat of Joseph Cook – it’s no more unweildy than Kingsford Smith. Berowra could easily be renamed McMahon. The other obvious candidates for seat-name-immortalisation are John Latham, Ted Theodore, Jack Lang, Doc Evatt and Bill Snedden.
Quiz question: to my recollection only two people have had seats named after them while they were still alive. Who were they?
I’ll go for Boothby and Rankin.
But I also note that Watson was named in1934
Thanks Mr Speaker- I will have to do alot more reading now >laughin. Strop.
“‘Steele Rudd’ was a pseudonym, so probably not.”
But both from R&R Qld so you never know
I think you’ve asked this one before, Adam. From memory, the answer was Watson and Tangney.
Both Charlie and Adam have left out Frank Tudor. Is Tudor the forgotten man of Australian politics? He’s been eligible for a seat name for 85 years.
As I think Phil was aluding to, the present guidelines stipulate that “The names of Commonwealth Divisions should not duplicate existing State Districts.” Although there does remain a number of exceptions. In the case of SA, it would count against Florey, Playford and Mawson.
I forgot both Frank Tudor and George Turner (the only one of the first Federal Ministry not to have a seat named after him). As a Victorian, I should be ashamed.
Labor proposed that Paterson, be called Evatt when it reappeared in 1993. The quote was that the seat should be named after a famous jurist, politician and madman rather than a Rum Rebel. I note on the AEC site that the current incarnation is named after Banjo rather than the Colonel.
Andren will be in the senate… if I could bet on it I would lol! He will get plenty of preferences and . Would be one of the best things to ever happen to this country if he could get in. Only thing better would be for him to get in and be part of the balance of power in the senate. He is a people’s champion that is no doubt. But if it wasnt for the Governments intervention in the AEC’s redistribution then he would of been running again for his seat. I find it just so convenient that in the whole redistribution of NSW, where 1 sydney seat could of been abolished with little real consequence that the seat of Calare was cut in half by the AEC and the new seat made ridicuously big. I hope that it bites them hard in the a** and he gets in.