Presumably any left bias in Morgan is down to not being able to get the rural weighting correct, or perhaps the sort of people who have time at home to complete all those questions (but the latter cuts both ways surely, as the method must over-include OAPs and under-include young people).

As for Tanner being Finance spokesperson instead of shadow Treasurer: Finance deals with government spending where as the Treasurer deals with the Economy as a whole. Given that the Governments attacks on the ALPs ability to handle the economy centre around government spending, it is perhaps not such a bad idea to have a solid spokesperson on the subject.

My figures are not a prediction, more a possible scenario to illustrate both the impossibility of the ALP’s gaining control of the Senate and the extreme unlikelihood of the Greens’ gaining the balance of power.

J-D,

I still haven’t forgotten what Lindsay Tanner did to friends of mine who worked for the FCU.

Adam,

It is no surprise to me that a member of the Left has Thatcherite economics. “Socialist Leftovers” – I like that, not that I would not use the term of those in the SL whom I know. Nor did I know about the DLP’s preferences in Forrest in 1969. But I am not surprised that the DLP would preference an ETU candidate, given the DLP’s advanced environmental policy for the times and the ETU’s current support for the Greens to the extent of making donations to them (without being disaffiliated from the ALP – perhaps Kevin Rudd’s brother should join the ETU and then rejoin the ALP!).

Given some rather than ill-informed comments about Steve Bracks (reported more than once by Paul Austin of The Age), undoubtedly someone will eventually make the following point, so I am going to go first into the hornet’s nest: Kevin Rudd, Australia’s first DLP prime minister.

96
Adam Says:
August 10th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
If Tanner hadn’t been so silly as to join the Socialist Leftovers, he would be shadow Treasurer and might one day be a leadership candidate. It’s puzzling because his views on most economic matters are Thatcherite.

Seems a little less puzzling to me when I consider his pre-Parliamentary career. Who else was he going to align himself with in a campaign against the former controllers of the Victorian FCU?

Also, the fact that a policy can be tagged as populist does not mean it is not the correct one. I for one also beleive that some politicians work hard, but unfortunately most of them work harder at getting re-elected through blatant electioneering rather than through a record of achievements. That is not what we pay them for. The record of our legislature is this country is a shame because of it.
Tom

In the others to go from third to first is a bit hard. The primary percentages of Green / ALP in each seat is Grayndler (21.1 / 51.2), Sydney (21.6 / 44.7) and Melbourne (19/51.8).

I don’t think there is anything in the redistributions to overwhelmingly change these proportions.

I think the challenge in an election where the ALP is expected to do well is too great for the greens, they will get lost in the swing to the ALP. The best chance is a time when the ALP is going backwards.

To be fair, in 2001 Andren took a strong stand against Howard’s refugee hysteria and won.
That was definitely principled and not populist.
Viewed from afar here in Newcastle I think he is the fair dinkum independent whose main motivation is his integrity, not populism.

My sincere condolences to Peter Andren, a politician of real integrity. Like all others, I hope he pulls through OK.