GetUp!, a self-styled “new independent political movement to build a progressive Australia”, has commissioned the right-wing shills* at Galaxy Research to conduct a poll of Senate voting intentions. Conducted the weekend before last from a sample of 1100 “adults 16+”, the poll has Labor on 38 per cent compared with its 2004 Senate result of 35 per cent, the Coalition down from 45 per cent to 34 per cent, the Greens up from 8 per cent to 13 per cent, and “other parties and candidates” up from 12 per cent to 13 per cent. Individual results from New South Wales and Victoria are provided in the accompanying press release, bearing in mind that the sample sizes are below 300.
This is the first Senate poll in living memory that was not conducted by Roy Morgan, whose efforts have proved hugely unreliable. My favourite explanation for this is that those responding to Morgan’s inquiry have just been asked how they will vote in the lower house, and are thus prone to name a different party for the second question purely in order to shake things up a bit. This has led Morgan to grotesquely overstate the vote for the Australian Democrats, who are evidently regarded as a party one might support if one was feeling adventurous, which tends not to be the case come polling day. The Galaxy poll does not appear to have this problem: it looks like Senate intention was the only question asked, and Democrats support is roughly where you would expect it to be (1 per cent). That makes the high vote for the Greens particularly interesting.
Even so, I suggest that asking a respondent about Senate voting intention places them in a slightly unnatural position. A very large proportion of the population – probably a majority – views the voting process purely in terms of deciding which party to favour. That decision having been made, they then proceed to follow the party’s how-to-vote card for the lower house and number its above-the-line box for the upper. By contrast, respondents to a survey such as this are specifically directed to consider the distinction between the house of government and house of review, producing a bias towards the minor parties. Greens supporters encouraged by the thought of a 13 per cent Senate vote would accordingly do well to restrain their enthusiasm. The precipitous plunge in the Coalition vote is perhaps of greater interest.
* Irony alert.
134 Comments
uh oh
Here’s the link to the full poll info:
http://www.getup.org.au/files/media/senatepressrelease.pdf
You’re a Democrat aren’t you Dembo ?
What’s the feeling inside the party ?
Ozpolitics raises some questions on this poll.
I expect 5% of others to be right-wing splinter groups like Family First, Christian Dems, etc. Adding Greens + Labor gives centre-left 51%; adding 5% to Coalition gives centre-right 39%. That’s a HUGE lead to the centre-left.
The fact that this is left-wing commission polled and that Labor’s vote has only improved a measly 3 percent on last time round shows that there is much cause for concern in Krudd’s camp. And “others” include Family First, One Nation, DLP, CDP and other conservative groups, which must make up the majority of the 14% described. Therefore, the centre-left and the right and pretty-much neck and neck on this poll.
Anyone who thinks that Labor can take any comfort out of this poll is out of their mind.
It doesn’t matter. The coalition only needs to harvest preferences to 43% to win 3 seats in every state.
Using your calculations, the centre-left needs 57% ie an extra 6% to gain 4 seats while the centre-right needs 43% ie an extra 4% to get 3, and maintain control of the senate.
If the remaining 8% ‘Others’ splits half left/right, then the right wins.
And most of Shooters, Fishing, ONP, Pauline etc will head to the right so I think your 5% is rather small.
For ALP/Greens senate control, they need to win 4 seats from six, in three of the six states. A hurculean task and the Greens have never shown any sign of winning a seat from the right.
And anyone who thinks that a “Senate poll” means anything at all is in need of a politics lesson. We’re not about to have a half-Senate election. We’re about to have an election at which people will be choosing a government. 90% of them will follow their party’s how-to-vote for both houses. The Greens will get nothing like 13%.
I would not be surprised if the Greens got close to or over 10% in the senate in all states except for Queensland. The Federal Greens are more popular than state Greens and even they (State Greens) did well in the recent NSW and VIC elections. People are connecting with their policies and, especially with the Coalition majority, people will be looking to kick out an absolute majority in the Senate, which could well lead to a high minor party vote.
At the 2004 election, Family First got 1.76%, One Nation 1.73%, Christian Dems 1.18%, Citizens Electoral Council 0.21% and Against further immigration 0.1%. That’s just under 5% for these 5 right-wing parties. If you add DLP and Fishing Party, you get another 0.9%. Adding Libs for Forests gives yet another 0.9%. Therefore, right-wing conservative minor party vote was about 6% in the Senate in 2004. Here are the National Senate results for 2004:
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-12246-NAT.htm
Margin of error in the poll is plus or minus 6% due to the small sample sizes, around 250 people per state.
I agree that the Greens would not get 13%, I thought they would do a lot better than they did in the NSW election where both labor and liberal were on the nose and this should have seen their vote increase.
The Getup commissioned poll was more to bring the senate into prominence and publicise Getups campaign for an independent or balanced senate regardless of who wins the next election.
Having said that I feel Humphries is vulnerable in the ACT due to his religous right views. Howards and Debnams ties with the religous right ie Exclusive Brethren, Hillsong AOG etc worked against them in the NSW election. Hockey and Howard talk of the unions representing 15-20% of the workforce and thus them being unrepresentitive, yet regular church goers represent less than 4% of the population and have an enormous influence on government policy.
What is the last date that a half-Senate election could be held ?
The latest possible date for a half-Senate election is the last Saturday of May next year, which is the 24th. However, there’s no question of it not being held in conjunction with the House of Reps election, which can happen no later than January 19.
Greens ceiling–I think–is around 10%. I’d say FF’s would be around 7%.
“regular church goers” would not vote FF en masse. There are plenty of churchgoers who are not socially conservative. And FF doesn’t get its vote simply from “regular church goers”,
I can’t imagine the Greens significantly improving from 2004. They’re getting far less publicity this time around, probably because now that the government doesn’t need them in the Senate they and the other minor parties have no real political role. I don’t think I’ve seen Kerry Nettle or Bob Brown in the press more than once or twice all year.
Just wait for the probable double dissolution next year and watch the Greens get more seats and probably more votes and attention.
Lord D: Most of ‘Unendorsed’ is Pauline, add another percent..
There won’t need to be a double dissolution next year because Howard will still be PM and the Coalition will still have a majority in the Senate.
The polls have been showing that support for the minor parties has been declining over the last year as voters are polarising in the election heat. As alleged by Getup, this trend may well be countered in the Senate as people may respond to the need for balance in the house of review. This reaction would surely have largest impact on the Coalition, and the minor party most likely to benefit from that leakage would be Family First, ahead of the Democrats or Greens.
I am certain that, despite the protestations of the Labor left, deals will be done with Family First, as this represents the only way that sufficient conservative votes can be enticed away from the Coalition.
Labor supporters who think otherwise, need to logically analyse the numbers with their head, rather than idealise with their heart.
The only other option is to face a hostile Senate. This can be resolved through the pain of a Double Disolution, but that would guarantee at least another 2-3 FFP members in the Senate.
Nostradamus = wishful thinker
What is the point of polling 16+ i.e 16 – 18 year olds when they can’t vote anyway? It would be interesting to see the questions when the polling has been commissioned by a group with a vested interest in a particular outcome. Would GetUp have released the poll if 50%+ favoured the coalition?
GetUp! are a waste of space.
A wank pressure group with a pretentious website whose real influence on Australian politics is less than zero.
I have never been able to work out if the senate is a house of review or a house of revue. (Thanks to Jack Lang for this one)
Isabella,
It keeps the long-hairs off the street. Are you still at Hillsong singing “I love Jesus (As much as I love money) and I’m an Independent Woman (dependent on her man”.
I have little empirical data to back this up, but I get the impression that most people don’t understand what the Senate is.
I think on election day, the vast overwhelming rump of the electorate just follows the How-To-Votes of their chosen party, and tick above the line, not bothering to ask anyone where their preferences go.
The number of people I know who whinge that they “accidentally” voted for Family First by ticking the box for Labor at the last election is a case in point.
Therefore, I think a poll on voting intention in the Senate is pretty well useless, even without the “6% for error”.
However, it is good to see public discussion about the Senate. I would like people to actually take the time to at least find out where their preferences are going, before ticking above the line. But to do that they first need to learn how preferences work.
We all know how unreliable the real Nostradamus’s predictions were LOL
Didn’t the real Nostradamus predict that both Ian and Greg Chappell got out to Andy Roberts for a duck? Or am I getting my 1970s shows confused?
I’m not sure that much can be read into this poll – it’s far too small and, as other posters have pointed out, most people don’t know what the Senate is anyway. I would imagine that the post-election Senate will reflect the voting in the House. If Labor wins big, then the Coalition’s Senate control is at risk, but anything less than that and the worst the Lib/Nats will do is retain a blocking majority (ie 38 out of 76). Assuming a Labor win, we can expect to be going back to the polls (in the first DD since 1987) in late 2008.
Isabella, GetUp! has many more members in NSW than the Liberal Party, and is growing exponentially. Why is it that people of your particular political stripe are so effortlessly offensive? Pretentious, indeed.
Alan H you have made a very good point about GetUp! but I have to say people of all political stripes can be capable of effortless offence and pretence.
As a democrat, I would have felt better if the poll was showing 2-4% for the party, but 1% is sad (even though the “noise” for the poll is 6%).
GetUp! is an interesting beast. It’s basically an non-political version of the entire Democrat platform! I am a paying supporter of both and can discern very little difference in the two.
I wonder how GetUp! can remain non-political. At some point people are going to say “well, who should we vote for then?”
It would be interesting to see GetUp! rate politicians on issues (I think this is the next step). Since the vast number of GetUp! supporters are probably Laborites, how will they react when their anointed pollies are rated poorer than their Green, Democrat and some Liberal peers?
I think targetting the senate is a great idea for GetUp!. If it could educate people into voting differently in the senate that would really be of service to Australian democracy.
GetUp cannot be regarded as a non political organisation – non partisan perhaps – but you can’t have a political campaign without taking a position on an issue. A non poltical political campaign is an oxymoron.
Alan H,
at least right wingers offensiveness is a sin of ommision,
I’m surprised the left have to try to be nasty, i thought after spewing bile all day it’d come more naturally
What’s all this about a 6% Margin of Error? There were 1100 sampled in the national sample; that’s a 3% MOE. In NSW and Vic, you do have a 6% MOE. Unfortunately for you, Dembo, when the proportion estimates are either very low or very high, the MOE is much less than midrange; the MOE is proportional to
sqrt(p*(1-p)); so if p is near 0.5, the MOE is maximised. The Dem vote is estimated at 0.01 in proportional terms, so that’s an MOE of less than 1% for the Dems at 95% confidence.
Getup! only commissioned the poll, as in paid for it. Who paid for it has no relation on the results of the poll.
I think the whole GetUp “Put the Coalition Last in the Senate” is a waste of money.
How do people go about putting the coalition last in the Senate ? The only way people can ensure the Coalition is put last is by voting BTL. I guess they could say ‘by voting ALP/GRN ATL’, but their tickets don’t actually put the coalition last eg ONP. A confusing message.
How many people are going to number those 50 or so boxes no matter how hard you campaign ? Since 9x% vote ATL, even if their campaign was a stunning success it would be 9x minus one % ATL.
Those 1% new BTL voters would all be GetUp-ish people who vote Labor/Green anyway so there’d be a nil effect since these parties put the coalition close to last anyway.
In Summary:
- Very few people will respond to this campaign
- The voters attracted to the campaign vote left anyway so there’d be no effect on the net result
If I was in Liberal HQ I would be quite pleased GetUp wasn’t targetting the HOR – phew!
get-up is just a more sophisticated network (thanks to the internet) of concerned citizens.
Because of Howards polarising influence it is only natural to have such organisations
As a matter of Interest Canadas 1993 whitewash had a similair grassroots org that was tagged as being Socialist-alliance but was really just a citizens movement and ended up thru pamphleteering/leafletting and other skullduggerry to enable to government (Conservative) to lose 153 of its 155 seats
Are it’s members those people who sign up for email updates?
That’s not much, because they don’t do much. Certainly incomparable to those who join and are financially or otherwise involved in a mainstream political party.
I wonder what the reaction would be like to a conservative organisation of the sort.
Andrew, surely you jest – being offensive comes much more readily to Right Wingers (witness Alan Jones, Stan Zemanek, Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Christopher Pearson etc). We on the Left are nice people who actually care about other people and the planet, rather than just our share portfolios. ‘Self-interest’ is an inherently selfish position, ’sharing the wealth’ is the view of generous-minded people.
Hugo, you seem unaware that in traditional conservatism (not this mangled new-age version of it) there is a commitment to the maintenance of a ’social order’ and the ‘common good’.
You should not be so quick to insult ‘Right Wingers’ (the capitalisation to make it further pejorative, yes?) when you (the left) really look towards the same end but by different means.
These children masquerading as adults are much more populist than they are on the ‘right’; do not forget this.
GetUp should be able to draw people’s attention to how the Govt has abused its Senate majority; this may well result in a slump in the Coalition Senate vote. Whether that vote ends up with Labor, Greens or other conservative fringe parties, it could well cost the Coalition Senate seats.
I agree that the Greens vote is likely to be overstated, but even still I would say that a 13% vote would be no lower than 10% in reality, and a 10% vote could be enough to win 6 senate seats. Considering concerns in recent months about the Greens losing votes to Rudd, it’s reassuring.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Liberal supporters have become more conscious about splitting their votes and thus not voting Liberal in the Senate, with the exposure given to the Senate through the Coalition senate majority since 2004.
And while it’s possible to get from 35% to 43% on preferences, it’s certainly not a lock, and they need to be reduced to 2 senators in only two states. That would be very likely on 35%.
And someone said that the federal Greens are more popular than the state Greens, but my experience is that this isn’t the truth. We generally do better on lower tiers of government.
Ben, Ben, Ben – how many times does it have to be explained to innumerate Greens that 10% will NOT be enough to win a Senate seat? There are six seats to be won in each state, so if the vote is Labor 43%, Coalition 43%, Greens 10%, others 4%, Labor and the Coalition will win three seats each – end of count.
The use of Galaxy by GetUp is interesting. GetUp clearly has an agenda and to claim that it is non partisan is quite a stretch, as is its concern about Senate ‘balance’. The Senate is highly dysfunctional when it comes to actually getting on with the business of governing. Morgan has traditionally unreliable on Senate polls and I suspect Galaxy is this same. The polls in recent times have shown declining minor party votes, the demise of the Democrats has seen the minors on the political edges and therefore less attractive or middle of the road.
Speaker pointed out that even on these figures the likelihood of the Coalition losing Senate control is unlikely; I think it more in the balance. 43% is the target for 3 seats in a state, and note that the valid comparison is the 2001 election when the retiring Senators except for the territories were elected. They are 18 LNP, 4 Dems, 2 Greens and 12 ALP. As Greens replace Democrats the overall balance of the Senate does not really change, unless say the Liberals lose a seat in Tasmania to Labor, or in another state. For the Coalition if the Galaxy figures for Victoria are correct, they are actually quite good for the Coalition (given the months of gloomy polls) and bad for Labor.
It is unlikely the Greens will win 13% nationally, the only reason Kerry Nettle got up in NSW in 2001 was One Nation preferences which seems bizarre now. Gary Humphries in the ACT is the most unextreme person you are likely to meet and this is the umpteenth time we in the ACT have been subject to this ‘get rid of the liberal’ campaign. They have not worked to date and it would be unlikely to work this time too.
Talk of a double dissolution election is interesting too. More Greens (the inevitable consequence) will make the Senate worse not better. The Democrats are sometimes potty, but not irrational. My tip if the Coalition win and does lose its Senate majority, or Labor wins there might be more cooperation between the major parties as the Greens fundamentalism becomes more apparent.
..surely in Labor wins there will need to be a double dissolution within twelve months???
The ALP and Coalition vote may be 43%+ each.
Last time the Coalition won enough first preference votes for 3 seats in each state but this was a high end vote for them and the opposite happened with Labor.
There will be some seats won on preferences and some minor party seats.
“how many times does it have to be explained to innumerate Greens that 10% will NOT be enough to win a Senate seat?”
Ok adam – you’re saying no Green senators will be elected without a primary vote greater than 10%. Care to put money on that?
I’m not a betting person. I have said many times that I think Brown will poll close to a quota and be re-elected. I don’t think the Greens will get near 10% in any other state, and don’t expect them to win any other Senate seats, except possibly in WA if Labor polls well below three quotas there, as seems possible.
Sorry to offend Michael – I’m afraid irony doesn’t come through so well in cold hard type. I actually quite like reading posts from Right Wingers (some of my best friends and all that), but only when they are well argued (and of course, many of my fellow Lefties fail this same test). Too many contributors to these sites feel the need to resort to petty personal attacks with no insight into anything (you reading this Isabella?).
So keep posting your wrong-headed analyses – sorry, irony alert here again – I enjoy reading them.
Its highly unlikely that 10% nationally would translate to six Green senators, but equally unlikely that it would translate to one. The ALP vote will be quite varied across the country – if they’re on 43% in the Senate nationally this will vary between mid 30s in WA and mid 40s in their better states. If the ALP preferences the Greens ahead of the relevant competition this, combined with a 10% Green vote, would mean several seats for the Greens – basically in the states where the ALP vote fell a distance from the average in either direction. (Complicated by the fact that 10% nationally would mean a varied Green vote as well)
I certainly don’t think we can be confident of getting 10% nationally, and who knows what the ALP will do preference-wise. However, possessing a physics degree as I do I think its a bit rich for Adam to allege innumeracy for believing that IF those two conditions are met we could expect to win 2-4 seats at this election.
13% Green vote is a tad bit high. They aren’t polling anywhere near as much in the House of reps polls and Green Senate and House of Reps votes have been generally the same.
There will not be a double dissolution or a seperate half senate election
as such would mean L-np would lose their senate majority
I would be suprised unless there was a very low L-np vote in the senate
for the non-labor force to lose their senate majority
Phil Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Getup! only commissioned the poll, as in paid for it. Who paid for it has no relation on the results of the poll.
Yeah right: and Im female. That is a very naive perception Phil.
Gusface
You can’t be serious by drawing comparisons b/w this election and Canada’s in 1993. The circumstances are so different it’s not funny. It must be wishful thinking….
I think this ‘national emergency’ is going to be a lot more than a four or five day wonder.
I think there is a lot more twists and turns in this thing too come. For example what are the chances that the police force intervenes and arrests a few “black paedophiles” in aboriginal communities.
It will be a bonus if a few aboriginal groups protest about ‘arrests’. Brough and the Rodent will be claiming everyone is equal before the law. Is Labor really going to sit quiet whilst the Federal police ’storm’ these communities?
Its highly cynical and very wag the dog but I think will be nicely effective. I see a gold tooth glistening in the sunlight!
Liberal supporters like Edward have become so cynical that they now assume that everything Howard does is done solely for political advantage. That is unfair on Howard. On this issue I think he is acting on principle, although obviously he hopes he will get some political credit for it, which he probably will. But since Labor is not opposing anything he is doing, it’s not going to be a headline-grabber for very long, and I can’t see it changing many votes.
Stephen L (at 6.25 p.m.) is the first post I’ve seen on the topic to address the probability that a national vote of whatever per cent for any Party, will probably mean significant variations between States.
My speculative guess is that these figures from Galaxy will provide nothing better than a talking point about the ultimate outcome, and that they will prove to be only a vaguely approximate estimate.
Clearly Adam (and others) are correct in saying that Coalition 43%, Labor 43% in any State provides an unequivocal outcome. However, even in a polarised election, that’s an unusually high figure for the majors in the Senate.
I just had a look at Adam’s figures for the Senate through three elections 2004, 1998, 1993. Of the 6 States in those three elections, only one – of eighteen – instances (Victoria 1993) produced a result where the two majors jointly exceeded 86% (when both had in excess of 43%).
Now plenty has changed in that time, the rise of the Greens, the demise of the Democrats and the increasing influence of the “christian” vote. It’s not out of the question that this time Senate votes will be concentrated in the two majors; but it doesn’t seem likely.
I’d also suggest that there’s likely to be reluctance among some voters to give either major a blank cheque, precisely because there will be some hostility to the way in which the Government has used its Senate numbers. Surely part of the adverse reaction to work choices is precisely about this issue of Senate control?
Posters have mentioned that large numbers of voters simply follow the Party recommendation for a “1″ atl vote. However, there are significant numbers of voters who very deliberately split their Reps/Senate vote, whether out of careful calculation or sheer cussedness, as evidenced by varaiation in primaries for any individual electorate or booth, where these are published.
Oh Adam very naive. I am certain Howard is very concerned for the kiddies.
Gimme a break they are no doubt polling the impact as we speak. I reckon by Friday next week there will be arrests. Mark my words!
Howard is high on heavy handed action, especially when it comes to people of another race. Just like he sent the troops out to the Tampa, so too he is sending troops into the Aboriginal communities. I’m sure he is doing it this time out of a sense of paternalistic compassion, with his other eye on the focus polls, hoping that there is something in it for him also.
Ryan O’Neil is often quoted from Love Story, “Love is not having to say sorryâ€. Bollocks! Likewise, Howard would assert that saying sorry would only be symbolic, and that actions speak louder than words.
Well symbols are important, especially when elaborated through action. The only symbol that exists at present that accompany sending in law enforcement, is that of recent aboriginal deaths in custody, and a member of the constabulary being let off scott free after admitting to causing the death. Hardly a symbol of love on which to base a compassionate response.
I fear Howard’s lack of words betray him.
It is always good to see paedophiles being brough to account.
From News Ltd today
“A SENIOR member of the Anglican church has appeared briefly in the Brisbane Magistrates Court charged with nine sex offences.”
I believe Hollingsworth was in charge of Brisbane at the time.
And from the ABC
“Prime Minister John Howard has announced a $25 million boost to the Government’s school chaplaincy program.”
Howard forgives and forgets and rewards.
Our suburb (WA) hada half hour power failure right in the middle of the 7.30 report.
The lights went out just as Kerry irritably pulled young Mal up from his incessant obfuscatory waffle and told him to answer the damn question.
Did anyone see the whole show, and can you shed any light (no pun intended) on the outcome? I had the feeling Kerry had him rattled and the facade was likely to crack. Did anything like the truth come out?
“That is unfair on Howard. On this issue I think he is acting on principle”
If it was solely a matter of humanitarianism then issues that are not obviously necessary, are controversial, and which the government has been trying unsuccessfully to negotiate – such as the land tenure issue and housing under “market rates” and “normal tenancy arrangements” – wouldn’t have been linked in, at least not immediately.
As far as the tactics of it go, I agree that the public response seems bound to be limited. Tampa comparisons are surely overblown; much as one might like it to be the case, Indigenous issues do not have the same fundamental place in the role of the Federal government.
It seems to me to be like the Uranium issue, one that could at best be a very minor winner for the government in the public, but which has the potential to cause significant disruption internally to the ALP.
Edward I think it would be a mistake to assume that everyone else is as cynical, petty, unpleasant and devoid of principle as you. I certainly don’t assume that about Howard.
Martin, but clearly those issues ARE linked. Indigenous people are trapped by a collectivist system of land tenure which keeps them poor and dependent on the state, and those who wish to live in the real world of the market economy, where land is a tradeable commodity, obviously need legislative help to do so. Howard is quite right to tackle all these issues as a package.
“but clearly those issues ARE linked. Indigenous people are trapped by a collectivist system of land tenure which keeps them poor and dependent on the state,”
I don’t believe that it has been demonstrated that the poverty of remote communities will be overcome by such policy changes, and I certainly don’t believe that it has been demonstrated that such changes would have any impact on the immediate stabilisation of law-and-order in the remote communities, which is what this is meant to be about.
But this isn’t supposed to be a forum for policy discussion so I’ll just beg to disagree.
On the more relevant point, bets aside, do you firmly believe that the ALP and Libs will go 43/43 in the Senate at least in every state except Tas and WA? I think we all accept the mathmatics of it by now; it is the forecasts that are questionable.
I wan’t making a policy point, I was making a political point: Howard is tackling all these issues together because *he* believes they are all linked, not necessarily through the kind of grubby electoral calculus which Edward assumes is the only reason any politician does anything.
On the Senate, obviously I am not making an exact predictions of voting percentages. But yes, I think the Senate will split 3/3 in NSW, Vic, Qld and SA. It will probably go 3 coalition, 2 Labor, 1 Green in Tas, but if there is a big swing Labor could win 3. WA will probably also go 3/2/1 unless Labor’s position improves. I suppose it is possible that SA could go 4/2 Labor if there is a big swing but I don’t think it’s very likely.
Well I work intensively with Indigenous people every day and care for an Indigenous partner who is a victim of dreadful abuse and neglect. But the Howard government has cut funding to so many relevant areas that it is not at all funny. Anyone who has tried to work in this sector in recent years cannot but help being cynical at best, extremely angry at worst. We may be heading dangerously close to some kind of civil insurrection in parts of the bush.
Indigenous people have been used to being treated as lepers by this government. But now being used as Howard’s 2007 version of Tampa could do damage that will take generations to undo. Personally I think that it will backfire on Howard. No coincidence though that he’s disenfranchised many of these people with the changed electoral enrolment rules.
Fancy sending in the troops when people are crying out for a house to live in and basic services!
The symbols are pretty obvious. Remove the elected representative body ATSIC. Don’t say sorry. Rewrite history so that the past massacres didn’t happen. Leave the same useless bureaucracy in place under different names then send in troops. With a less passive people that would be an incitement to civil war.
We are all very lucky that our Indigenous brothers and sisters are not a warlike people.
Howard’s past behaviour towards Indigenous Australians does not inspire any confidence that he is acting on principle. And politics after all is about perceptions as much as anything.
Well said Edward. Paternalistic discipline, typified by the first stabilisation phase of this operation, is void of principle unless it is accompanied by a genuine desire to meet the basic needs of the Aboriginal communities. The law and order problem indeed needs addressing, but unless the underlying drivers of poverty and sheer hopelessness are addressed, all we will end up with is a permanent police state.
The true test of Howard’s intention would be seen well beyond the election, when the hard yards of restoring hope, jobs and self respect to these communities are undertaken. This is not sexy vote winning politics, and as such I doubt that Howard will be incentivised to stay the course.
There you go again playing the man and not the ball Adam! I refuse to be distracted by your poison darts!
Call me names when there arent arrests by next Friday! I think that’s fair!
I stick by my first post on the Indigenous issue as a potential ‘rabbit’ for Howard being very over rated. My “perception” is that Brough at least is fair dinkum about this issue and dosent have his electoral calculator out at all. It may score Brough some profile for his marginal seat, but it is a polarising issue so who knows if or how it would/will effect his position.
JWH is JHW, who knows what election mileage his minders are hoping to get out it , not much I would think. What is clear is that it is a polarising issue as evidenced in the divided sentiment on the ‘national crisis in the NT’ issue in this blogspace and out in the community where I live (QLD).
I say go for it- not much has worked for 2 decades under both Labor and Coalition Government’s (as Rudd conceded)- if nothing else it gives Indigenous Issues a day in the sun– lets hope it last longer than that.
If South Australia elects 2 Libs (and no other right wing) this time around then the Greens could well get a seat there as the Greens may be able to stay ahead of any ALP surplus over a third seat.
IMO, Howard NEVER acts out of the goodness of his heart. The indigenous business may do some good, but the real reason is to get back in the political game. There are 4 things that could go wrong for Howard later in the year:
1. Interest rates could rise.
2. There could be more focus on climate change.
3. Criminal charges against Qld Libs
4. Bush coming to APEC will be a negative.
The indigenous affairs will have been forgotten by October/November, when the election is expected. So, why did Howard go after this now, instead of late Sept? Because he wants to call an election for August, before any of the 4 above start going wrong. If the next inflation figures say that interest rate rises in August are very likely, or if the next polls say the govt is making up ground, expect an August election, as the RBA will not raise rates in an election campaign.
So, what do people think of the “What Women Want” party?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/power-dressing-women-launch-new-party/2007/06/28/1182624034537.html
http://www.whatwomenwant.org.au/home/modules/content/?id=3
A lot of leftists are screaming about a “new Stolen Generation” – just like “Life on Mars” you feel like you’ve woken up in 1974 – and that’s a big part of the Left’s problem – they either act like it’s still 1974 or think we can go back to it.
On a Green vote of 10%, the ALP would need to be poll 38% or less for the Green to be elected (on the basis that would see the 3rd ALP candidate eleiminated first). As the ALP are travelling much better than that this year, the chances are much better for 3 – 3 splits except possibly in Tasmania where a 3ALP – 2LIB + 1 BB is plausible. The chances of the coaltion not getting 3 in the other states are fairly low (unless there was a major landslide). So as WA is the ALP weakest link, getting a Green up there will be easier than elsewhere.
So Adam’s line on 10% is definitely quite plausible.
Stewart J:
I love it when people get involved in politics so I say “go for it!” – single issue parties are annoying but how can you fault people’s passion to get involved?
Stewart J:
I posted my opinion of “What Women Want” (WWW) on my site, but for people who are too lazy to click on my name:
Since WWW hold no opinions different to the Greens, anyone who supports their policies should just vote for the Greens. I also predicted a 0.7% share of the vote.
Ok – this isn’t exactly the right thread but I’m so excited I’m about to burst…
tomorrow they release the draft boundaries for the WA state redistribution!!!
Ok, that said let me just comment on a couple issues that have been raised above:
1. Above the line voting – at the last poll I voted in the staff manning the polling place actively discouraged people from voting below the line by giving instructions when handing out the ballots emphasising above the line votes and indicating that it wasn’t necessary to vote below the line. My complaint to the local returning officer went unanswered.
2. I doubt there is more than a handful of votes in the latest indigenous focus and most of those would be opposed. I also suspect that the Prime Minister and his advisors were aware of this before they did it.
3. Senate voting intentions would, if anything, be even softer this far out than HoR intentions – and I agree that for the most part many people wouldn’t/couldn’t differentiate.
4. Quick query around here – it drives me nuts when parliamentarians use MP instead of MHR. I have also seen it applied in place of MLA or MLC. Why? Does anyone else feel the same way as I do? We have our own perfectly good acronyms without borrowing from overseas!!!
Mr Speaker,
On the GetUp item, on your website you mention the unlikelyhood of a Green victory in the ACT. Would you agree that this would change if the number of Senators from the Teritories was increased to 3 or 4?
Imagine if the NT became a state with a full 12 Senators.
VPL:
Most people wouldn’t be able to tell you what the acronyms stand for.
To complicate matters further, in Tasmania and South Australia they have a “House of Assembly” rather than “Legislative Assembly”, which means it’s MHA in some states and MLA in others.
Peter Stephens, it’s not only “Leftists” who are concerned about history repeating itself (and let’s not forget, the stolen generations were also taken with the best of intentions) – actual aborigines in these townships are worried about this too, hence the reports of families leaving places like Mutujuli with their children.
The Right seems to think that it has claimed the moral high ground on this issue, and that any criticism of what the government is doing is somehow racist and uncaring, that we Lefties have our heads so far up our backsides that we don’t recognise good acts when we see them (Miranda Devine, that fine example of nepotism in journalism, made this argument in the SMH today).
Well, sorry, that’s just bunkem. This is not an “emergency” as such – these problems have been around for decades. So what’s the rush to get “something done” before the election? This is why people are being a bit cynical about it. Writers on Crikey and elsewhere have analysed the blatant cynicism that prevades this issue among the government.
Then we come to the issue of what they hope to achieve with this. What happens if parents (or children) refuse to be examined? And what happens after these examinations? Any health professional will tell that a one-off medical test without any sort of follow-up is next to useless.
Then there are the suggestions that the whole thing, via the effective abolition of the permit system, is cover to get rid of aboriginal title, and so let mining companies have greater rein over large tracts of NT.
Of course, we all want something done about the problems that aborigines in remote areas (and elsewhere) face, and at first I was prepared to give Howard the benefit of the doubt, but the more I hear about it, the more dubious it looks.
As for riding on this issue to an election, are you serious Lord D? Since when did doing anything for aborigines lead to votes? Labor is still miles ahead in every poll published and it’s hard to imagine the government making up that sort of ground in six weeks.
Besides, I’m going to London for two weeks in early August, so an election then would be highly inconvenient!
My understanding is that the Federal parliament adpoted ‘MP’ over ‘MHR’ soon after Federation.
I think members should use the proper title MHR, MLC, MLA.
Tom:
For three senators the quota would be %25, for four the quota is %20.
The Greens would then have a good chance at winning a senate seat in the ACT (but not NT), however there’s also an equally good chance it would be Labor and not the Greens who would benefit from the change.
Keep in mind, to get half the seats in a 4 seat senate, the Libs would only need 40% of the vote, so they could still hold on.
Even if the NT became a state they wouldn’t get 12 senators. Only “Original States” are constitutionally entitled to 12 senators. Any new states get senators based on legislation.
When the last NT statehood referendum was held JWH stated that the NT wouldn’t get a full complement of senators.
To be honest, the NT doesn’t deserve any more senators and neither do the ACT. Their populations are tiny.
Gosh, I never realised that there so many idealists on this site (especially Adam!)
Surely Howard’s indigenous move is simply: a) Rudd has been setting the agenda, b) the govt looks finished, c) Howard is desperate to seize control of the national discussion, and d) the sex abuse report and Noel Pearson happen to pop up and Howard sees an opening to take charge.
Any suggestion that Howard is motivated by genuine concern is bizarre beyond belief, for 2 main reasons:
1. Because in 11 years he has never demonstrated an awareness of Aboriginal disadvantage, let alone a desire to do anything about it, and
2. Because how can anyone really believe that in an election year Howard (or any other leader for that matter) would ever make a move this big that wasn’t electorally motivated. It’s simply implausible.
I agree with others that it won’t be a big vote winner like Tampa. But I don’t think Howard cares – he just wanted to be in control again and the issue was fairly irrelevant.
APARTHEID LITE? A policy of laws that only apply to some ‘classes’ of people.
From The Australian: “THE federal Government hopes to have legislation for its radical welfare blueprint for remote indigenous communities ready within three weeks. Under the plan, police and soldiers are being stationed in remote parts of the Northern Territory TO ASSESS the extent of child sexual abuse and restore law and order.
It also involves banning alcohol and making medical checks on children MANDATORY. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/pr … 14,00.html
Now We have Apartheid Paternalism and demoting of Aboriginals to less than human status: The news is that Howard intends to legislate mandatory ‘health’ checks for all children in the communities.
This is sickening – this is government sponsored abuse of children and of parents.
Intimate probing of children regardless of evidence or not is against all tenants of law and human rights. It serves to abuse the abused, humiliate and dehumanise one segement of the population. It serves to traumatise children and families and communities, it serves to re-traumatise children who have been abused. Pediatricians have already stated that this approach would cause more harm than any good. Even in the setting of middle-class Australian hospital with doctors from the same culture this type of examination is traumatising for children – how much more so for Aboriginal children with bunches of strangers forcing them into mandatory examination against thier own will and the will of parents. The community had every right to be scared.
How would this go down in suburan Sydney or Brisbane?
This law is a bad an abuse as child sexual abuse, it is an abuse on each individual and on the whole community.
The Government is obviously desperate to find a victim and a suspect for its election campaign as if that will prove something extra for them.
It is now time for all governments State and International to stand up to Howard’s right-wing extremism for the sake of wining election votes from the simplistic and the rednecks.
I can see it now “I’m from the AFP and I am here to help”.
The correct designation for a Member of the House of Representatives is “MP”
See “House of Representatives Practice” http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/PRACTICE/chapter5.htm#mpm
“Members of the House of Representatives are designated MP and not MHR. This was the decision of the Federal Cabinet in 1901—a decision which has since been reaffirmed in 1951 and in 1965.”
and
“A new Member is entitled to use the title MP once this status is officially confirmed by the declaration of the poll.”
As I scrolled down, I also caught sight of this crucial fact:
The Chair has also ruled that:
* a Member may distribute books to other Members in the Chamber;
* a Member may not distribute apples to other Members in the Chamber;
Howard trying to help out Aborigines out of conviction? Never laughed so much in my entire life! Since coming to power Howard has systematically cut funding to aboriginal programs and aid, and now after 11 years it’s an ‘emergency’. It’s comedy hour at the Liberal Party HQ!!! He’s well and truly jumped the shark.
Darryl:
Apples are a threat to Democracy and our way of life!
btw Are you running for Griffith again this year ?
Well I think it is more “wag the dog”
Are we going to see Jeanette handing out “healthy” meals too!?
Mr Speaker:
No, I am not contesting Griffith this year. A pity, as I had a pretty good feeling about my chances this time… :^) This time that honour goes to the redoubtable Willy Bach.
But I am on the Greens’ senate ticket, so any Queenslanders ’round here who felt gypped they didn’t get a chance to vote for me in 2004, here’s your chance.
d
Darryl:
Rumour has it Kevin Rudd was relieved when he heard you weren’t contesting again. Close call for him.
btw I’m in Griffith.. and Greenslopes at state level too!
One of the major issues with the Indigeneous emergency is that the situation has been allowed so bad without adequate scrutiny. And to use, Kina’s term, there has been ‘apartheid lite’ but not in the way suggested. These abuses have largely occurred in communities that are closed to outsiders, as a non – aboriginal australian, I can’t go there without a permit, but neither can public servants or more importantly the press. These abuses have been allowed to go on unscrutinised and the perpetrators have known that their actions are to some extent protected by this enforced isolation. The second ‘ protection’ is that these places are extremely isolated. If indigeneuous communities were not so remote, and were not ‘closed’ more Australians would be able to see how bad things are, and change may be more likely to occur. Again, to use the ‘apartheid’ metaphor, indigenous Australia had it’s own ‘bantustan’ government called ATSIC, and in all those years what did it achieve? I was once told by an Aboriginal person that it stood for ‘Aborigines talking s..t in Canberra’.
The truth of the matter is that the NT government has failed, either through a lack of will, or lack of resources from being too small a jurisdiction. What would be happening if the NT had gained statehood? What would be happening? On Clare Martin’s record to date – absolutely nothing! Not a lot has been achieved in 11 years, or the 13 years before that, or the 8 years before that! The issue has been raised to the top of the national agenda – if it fails, things won’t be any worse,and if there is any improvement, that in itself will be an achievement. It may surprise some out there, but occasionally talk doesn’t achieve anything and action does!
On re reading Line 2 – allowed to get so bad.
Peter Brent on Mumble today has an article about what he considers the parlous state of the electoral role. One point he makes is that the role has increased by 1.6% since the 2004 election but the population has increased by 3.2%. Normally, I have a lot of respect for Mumble’s opinions, but in this case he grossly oversimplified an issue to suit his argument. Yes, they may be issues because of the new rules, but, a discrepancy will exist for at least three reasons:
1. The birth rate is increasing reasonably quickly, so there will be a larger cohort below voting age.
2. Most importantly, national population growth now is faster than it has been for many years, some due to P. Costello’s baby bonus but most to immigration. A large number of whom would be recent arrivals and unable to vote.
3. Birth rates were falling in the late 80’s and it is a diminishing cohort who are now joining the role
So, it is no surprise that the population is growing faster than the role.
Blackburnspeph:- yep blame the NT Government… for 11 years the Howard Government has done nothing and suddenly six months before an election it suddenly decides to act!!! Fair dinkum.. in 1996 the Howard Government using Beazleys’ Black Hole the Howard Government cut millions out of counselling services for drug and alcohol programs, health and education services and other social programs and why because it was some gimmicky economic bulldust called Beazleys’ black hole and because they simply are a racist government… oh but it is Clare Martins’ fault.. yep it may be a good thing now but where are counsellors, the teachers, health professionals and infrastructure in what this government is doing.. Blackburnspeph get your facts right pal…
Thanks Daryl – I didn’t know that.
I recall as a youngster seeing MHR used routinely and had wondered about the rise of the MP…
(It still irks me, even it if is correct usage).
Oh, and I’m still ok to hate it when used for State parliamentarians, right?
Rudd’s bipartisanship means the NT plan won’t be an election issue, unless something really goes wrong or Labor says something really stupid.
C- Woo.. With people like Swan, Conroy, Albanese and Smith that is distinct possibilty..
God shoot me for this momentary lapse into apologetics for JHW..must be the medication Im being ordered to take right now by my trusty GP. Nonetheless let me put this out there. — If people are objecting to JHW policy on the NT and/or questioning his motives. – What is the alternative ? Its all to easy to pick faults in this policy- but can any of us come up with a viable alternative ? I doubt it; its a very difficult issue with a long history and failure on the part of Labor and Coalition Governments (State and Federal).
The ‘were here to help’ approach that produced the attempted ‘white out’ of Indigenous communities and , when that failed, neatly tucked away in rural Australia out of sight didnt work did it. The ‘alternative’- ATSIC driven prounouncements of ’self determination’ and “Indigenous Sovereignty” hasnt been a big hit either.
Dump on this policy if you want, thats easy. Coming up with a viable alternative that avoids the imposition of the will of the state on a sector of the Australian community is a hell of alot harder, yes ? JHW will NEVER get my vote; in the election context its poor polarising to advantage either side and other debates will take over in the coming weeks. I look forward to it.
On the Senate issue, my view is that WA is probably the only place where the Greens are going to have a shot at winning another Senate seat, primarily because the swing to Labor in WA is expected to be the weakest (for a number of reasons) and I agree with the perception that most punters will not bother about or understand the DD potential . Id be surprised if the other 3 ex Democrat seats didnt go to Labor in 2007.
“The truth of the matter is that the NT government has failed, either through a lack of will, or lack of resources from being too small a jurisdiction. What would be happening if the NT had gained statehood? What would be happening? On Clare Martin’s record to date – absolutely nothing!”
blackburnpseph
Mostly due to lack of resources. Aborigines make up about a third of the NT’s population, and the government’s budget is tiny. Also, the problems many, though by no means all, aboriginal communities face are so serious and deeply entrenched it will never be turned around easily, quickly, or cheaply.
With respect to your assertion about Clare Martin’s record, that is ignorant nonsense. Clare Martin approached the Prime Minister last year specifically to try to get him interested in dealing with this exact issue. He turned her down flat. Didn’t want to know about it. Wouldn’t even admit there was a serious problem. And the PM has been approached by several parties over the years about these problems. His usual repsonse is to downplay the seriousness of the problems, and further cut federal budgets to the relevant departments and programs. Now it is suddenly a national emergency, the NT and the states are useless and uncaring, and only he in his best Father-of-the-Nation mode can solve it. Hmm.
Howard is an appallingly self-serving hypocrite on this issue, and that should be exposed.
Spot on.. and after the election, more of the same cutbacks to minority groups and the poor and handouts for the wealthy..
Will say one thing about the NT government though they are also into riding roughshod over aboriginal land and mining development as a recent example in NT illustrated.. But unlike Howard they do see the terrible problems and have been willing to do something about them.. Howard political opportunism using Hansonist policies to win votes…
It should be noted that the NT receives substantial funding to deal with issues of disadvantage, small population etc. It has not, repeat not delivered anywhere near the extent of that extra funding to the indigenous communities in terms of services. A detailed study on Wadeye has demonstrated this conclusively and is the subject of litigation on behalf of the community.
The issue is not that things have been tried and failed but that governments at both commonwealth and territory level have never seriously put in resources over sustained periods of time along with genuine engagement with the indigenous communities.
For account of health projects that have yielded results over time see the ANTAR report released on their website last Friday.
The government has gone charging in to this exercise with what appears to be the same degree of policy development and planning that characterised the Murray Darling initiative. We all know what the Secretary of the Treasury had to say about that process.
Mark, pal, if you actually had read my piece, I said that ‘not a lot had been achieved in the last 11 years’, so I am not being an apologist for the Howard government, but neither had a lot been achieved in the 20 years prior to that. There is no doubt that there was shameful neglect of Indigeneous NT issues under the CLP, but recent events have shown a degree of policy paralysis in the current NT government. And Just Me, maybe the hard fact should be faced that the NT is too poorly resourced, and too small a jurisdiction to have administrative control over an extremely complex, and hopefully not intractable problem.
Maybe the Army are their to map out (using latest tech-GPS ,Statelliite etc)
locations for Nuclear waste dumps and Mines
Lot cheaper than sending in Prospectors and added bonus of Smoke screen about aboriginal health abuse etc
Of course JWH wouldnt use the least powerful group in Aust to further his dream of Nuclearization
Howard is the master of the wedge. If he detects any criticism from the ALP left wing, he’ll exploit it. I can imagine the headlines now, “LABOR IS SOFT ON CHILD ABUSERS!”.
Today’s SMH: Pat Farmer could face a preselection challenge for the Western Sydney seat of Macarthur from Charlie Lynn(member of the Legislative Assembly in the N.S.W Parliament). It is claimed Lynn already has the numbers to dump Farmer.
So, another preselection headache for Howard
And the Cook preselection ballot still hasn’t happened yet.
What about Parramatta?
If Pat Farmer lost pre-selection for Macarthur there might be a bit of a backlash. He’s personally pretty popular from all reports.
As far as the NT intervention goes, I don’t think there are many votes in it as such, but the political advantages of it for Howard are:
1. It rebuts the perception that the government is out of ideas and energy.
2. It takes oxygen away from Rudd.
This is not to say that I think this is being done for purely political reasons, but anyone who thinks political consequences were not a major part of the consideration is kidding themselves.
I think Brough is genuine in his motivation to help, JWH I’m not as sure about. After all he has shown precious little interest in the issue of aboriginal disadvantage for 11 years.
“And Just Me, maybe the hard fact should be faced that the NT is too poorly resourced, and too small a jurisdiction to have administrative control over an extremely complex, and hopefully not intractable problem.”
That is precisely what Clare Martin was trying to tell Howard. You might notice how cooperative she has been with the latest ‘plan’, because she knows just how hard a problem it is to fix, and how under-resourced the NT is to do it. There is no denial on her part, the hard fact has already been faced, and some time ago. It is Howard who has been indenial, until it was politically convenient to do otherwise.
Ok – I know its off topic but I thought some might be interested…
Those following the WA redistribution – you don’t have to wait for boundarieswa to publish the info (due by midday) – you can get it direct from the Government Gazette right now at the State Law Publisher – see
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/gazette/gazette.nsf/gazlist/0FA43778AB52A9B9C82573070008DC58/$file/gg134.pdf
oh well – they’re up at boundarieswa now anyway…
“Rumour has it Kevin Rudd was relieved when he heard you weren’t contesting again.”
No doubt concerned that the PR genius behind “Put a Green in Greenslopes” would be turned to the federal sphere
“a Member may not distribute apples to other Members in the Chamber”
Refreshments (other than water) in general may not be brought into the chamber. Eating is most undignified and unparliamentary.
On this occasion Harry Quick was the victim of the ruling; read all about it here: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr010604.pdf from page 29652.
The apple in question was a Pink Lady.
Redistributions are always on-topic at pollbludger.
“Refreshments (other than water) in general may not be brought into the chamber. Eating is most undignified and unparliamentary.”
I read in the Australia that Michael Danby was ejected for eating a cough lollie, seems a bit over the top if you ask me
Whats happening with the Cook pre-selection saga, anyone know ?
Ive met both Pat Farmer and Charlie Lynne, and truly they are both very good, better than scott mcdonald and ferravanti wells.
But lynne just got elected to the NSWLC for another six year term just the other day.
however you couldnt keep him away from the southern highlands camden area at the last state election, so you never know
Hawker is a weak Speaker, bullied by ministers and harried by the Two Witches (Bronwyn and Sophie) and their endless point of order. He compensates for his weakness by picking on defenceless Labor members like Quick and his apple and Danby and his cough lolly.
If the Libs preselect Lynn it will really confirm they are well on the way to a Qld-like implosion in NSW once Howard goes. For a start they’ll probably lose the seat. That this story has even got legs suggests the problems already run very deep. Farmer is an exceptional member whose hero battler status transcends party lines. The seat would would be marginal now if not for him.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nsw-libs-settle-preselection-battle/2007/06/29/1182624136362.html
“how many times does it have to be explained to innumerate Greens that 10% will NOT be enough to win a Senate seat?â€
Steve Fielding?
*rolls eyes* I did NOT say that no-one can EVER win a Senate seat with less than 10% of the vote. Duh! Lots of people have done that, including Fielding. What I DID say was was that I don’t think the Greens can do so in 2007, because the major parties will split the Senate vote 3/3 in most states. Fielding won mainly because Labor’s primary vote was much lower than Labor expected, so the preference deal with FF backfired. If Labor gets 43% of the vote in Victoria this time, Labor will have three quotas and no preferences will be needed.
“The preselection for Cook will be held on July 14 after being postponed from last Saturday due to a Supreme Court challenge by one of the left-backed candidates, David Coleman. The decision resulted in 15 disqualified preselectors being reinstated, denting Mr Towke’s chances “. Thank you James J for the referral link (above); much appreciated.
As much as a disaster Charlie Lynn would be for Macarthur, his preselection would probably have moved the seat back into the marginal seat columns. It’s a smart move by the NSW Liberal Party, and makes me wonder about how out of touch the Right and the local Liberals are. Pat Farmer first ran for Macarthur when it was notionally Labor in 2001, and has pushed it out of range for the ALP, mainly due to his popularity. I would expect if he got rolled for preselection the Liberals would lose his personal vote and face a backlash for kicking him out, enough to allow a good Labor candidate to win.
It is now hypthetical of course as Pat Farmer has been reselected, but could Pat Farmer made a decent run at being an independent?
Agree with Ben above on the stupidity of the NSW Liberal right, to use an old fashioned expression – someone should bang their heads together until they see sense!!
The most viewed story in the SMH today is the record number of repossessions and mortgagee sales in the west and south-west of Sydney. If the election is going to be all about the economy, then I suspect that this is the aspect of the economy which will have the greatest influence
What happened to Morgan this week?
I couldn’t see Pat Farmer running as an independent. He’s popular, but he’s never struck me as someone with much political savvy. I’ve also been hearing more and more people talking about him not being a particularly active or responsive local member, and in the crunch he probably wouldn’t have enough support to win in a 3-way race.
Adam, the problem with your argument is that you’re assuming that the Coalition will poll 43% in each state. Even if we recognise a certain degree of inaccuracy of Senate polls, there is still a big gap between 35% and 43%. If the Coalition polled, say, 40%, it would be enough in some states (because the vote would not be uniform) but in others it would not.
A 10% vote would be a very good result for the Greens and would be enough to at least increase the Greens representation in the Senate. Maybe I should have been more careful in my words in my last email. 10% may not be enough to guarantee six seats, but it would put us in a good position to win six spots and could be achieved from that position.
Well, I have explained about ten times why I don’t agree with that view, so I won’t bore everyone by doing so again.
I do agree that, on present polling, the Coalition would struggle to get three quotas in every state except WA. But I think their vote will improve by election day. They will also get preferences from various minor right-wing parties. But even if the Coalition falls short of three quotas, are they going to direct their surplus to the Greens? I doubt it. The beneficiary could be Family First, or even the Democrats if they can scrape up a reasonable primary vote.
Phil: Morgan seem to have returned to their normal 2 week polling cycle. Should be one next Friday.
No, the Morgan poll is now out
Get ready for Pauline. The media has neglected her popularity with voters. Her Immigration policy is the reason why she will win a senate seat.
Why have Mr. Rudd and Mr. Howard neglected to tell voters where they stand on Immigration