There is many a psephologist who will tell you that polls of Senate voting intention are not to be taken seriously. However, a partial exception might be made for a poll of 542 Adelaide respondents, conducted by the Adelaide University politics department and published on the ABC site, in that it gives a unique gauge of support for Nick Xenophon’s Senate bid. The results are remarkable: support for Xenophon is at 24.2 per cent, even higher than his precedent-shattering 20.5 per cent at last February’s state election. While this would probably have been a little lower if the survey had also covered country areas, the poll provides evidence that Xenophon has his own seat in the bag, probably with enough of a surplus to deliver a seat to the Greens on preferences. The distant prospect of a seat for Xenophon’s running mate Roger Bryson has most likely been scotched by Labor’s decision to directly preference the Greens, although it’s still possible to construct scenarios in which the Greens’ seat goes to Bryson instead. The ABC report seems to suggest that Xenophon supporters will be forced to go below the line, which is not the case. Lower house voting intention is also covered, pointing to a swing to Labor of about 8 per cent.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
X marks the spot
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
169 Comments
First place goes to the resident insomniac
How much of a fraction of the population of SA is in Adelaide?
Lets suppose X gets close to 20%. What happens to Labor primaries at this point?
Last I heard it was going to go 3 2 1 lab lib X
If a green popped would that be at the expense of one of the labor seats?
I wonder how much Xenophon and the Greens have benefited from NSD’s decision not to seek re-election. Any takers?
According to his site, Nick is casting a split ticket.
http://www.xen.net.au/html/preferences.html
Does this mean that exactly half his preferences will go to FFirst-Liberals, and the other half to Greens-Labor? Or will there be two separate Xenophon tickets on the ballot sheet?
Why is X so popular in crow eater land?
Madcow—-About 80% of SA pop lives in and around Adelaide.
Talking to my dear old mum last night, in her mid eighties and would still prefer if that Menzies fellow was in charge of the country or maybe that nice young Fraser boy (you get the drift of our conversations from that). Anyhow, somehow Mr. X has come up on her very narrow radar screen and he’s got the thumbs up. Evidently very popular across the board, young and old and as mum emphasised, “he’s a Baptist Minister too dear”. As I see it, he has it all and must be an absolute Monty to win his place. Can’t get better inside oil than mum.
BTW, Solomon (NT) will change hands. The incumbant is a buffoon who is unable to do anything more for us Federally than ensure we have video cameras put up to stop crime. I thought the Council elections were held mid year. From all the yak around town——– He’s gawn !!!!!
Good luck you mob, only 14 sleeps to go.
You know, there’s a small chance now of an upset in which 3 SA seats go non-major.
That could mean something unprecedented in Australian history – a STATE with the balance of power in the Senate.
Now that would be something to behold!
SA could write its own cheques. Think what that would mean for the Murray-Darling basin, the defence contract wars and things like the car industry subsidies.
I say GO FOR IT SA! (And I’m a Victorian)
What bothers me is that its not unlikely that X will hold the balance of power in the senate and that he may be a bit conservative. I’m thinking particularly of gay issues. Tell me if I’m wrong here.
Dear MC. I think if you have a look at his antics in State politics over the past few years I am sure you’ll find he’s not conservative at all. If anything, you could say he’s been a bit “out” there occassionally.
So he’s *not* a Baptist minister?
I didn’t say that. I think he is currently a non practicing guy. Also dug this up 4 u as well
…Those people who are labelling Nick Xenophon as a moral or religious crusader obviously do not know much about him. He is nothing of the sort. He is enormously popular in this state, as he has taken on issues and stuck to his guns. He has made quite an impact in SA, and it will be interesting to see how he goes in the federal arena. It is interesting to note that Nick Minchin has already spoken up and urged people not to vote for him, which is an indication that the coalition take him seriously.
IMHO Nick X is partly a produict of the weird gambling policy situation in SA. Because both of the major parties have a ‘free vote’ on gambling policy, no-one seems to take responsibility for it – they both want the money, but no-one articulates policy per se. So Nick has filled a vacuum, and because of his very engaging and media friendly approach, managed to convince lots of the punters that he is the only one who wants to take responsibility for an issue that is undoubtedly an embarrassment to the parties. He’s very good at stunts and he works pretty hard.
Now there’s a good reference
AND ……
“Apparently he spends an inordinate amount of his own time answering queries and fighting battles for members of the electorate, who are unable to get satisfaction anywhere else – personally I have not heard anyone say anything nasty about him, apart from those on the Labor and Liberal benches, who dislike him heartily. And when he walks through the city, people surround him to shake his hand and pat him on the back. When he was dangerously ill a couple of years ago, with pericarditis, many people were extraordinarily upset, and waited anxiously for any news.
Hope that helps. I’m no spruiker for him, it’s just that mum knew lots about him. Go figure.
The stunt with the cow bothered me though. She wasn’t looking too impressed.
BTW ….Omen Trifecta for Lib’s in the first at Flemington today
GOING SPENDING
with
FABRIC OF DREAMS (read LIES)
with
SAYAPRAYERFORME
LOL
Spiros Xenophon is popular because he got into State politics on a “No Pokies” ticket. Various prominent South Australian business people and celebs publicly and loudly supported his bid, because the pokies were (and still are) very unpopular in that state. While in the Legislative Council he was respected for his independence from major party politics. That’s pretty much all there is to it.
Flogging a dead horse are we?
Not me, but Honest John is !!!
Hes extremely popular but many of the 79% (+-) that don’t vote for him ask what has he actually done for SA? Its all well and good to jump on populist items but actually fix things? doesn’t seem to happen. It would be great though if both Sarah and him got in and FF didn’t. He would be better than a cult worshiper (ff) anytime but his views on IR are more conservative than the ALP so its an interesting time seeing some YR@W members are promoting him. That is the other interesting thing. the YR@W is going to continue well into this term no matter who wins government as they know they workers will still be shafted
Where do Xenophon’s come from? Has anyone done an analysis of whether more of his votes come from Liberal or Labor? Or do we just halve it and take 12% away from each side?
X’s vote comes largely from the libs and FF. Labour is down only about 1%, libs are savaged down to 27%.
See the link in Williams blog
Xenophon is a shameless self-promoter, more interested in getting his own face on the telly than anything else. He gets away with it because he is very, very clever and because the media in SA is so bored with politics they can’t wait for his next stunt. They are always amusing and thought-provoking, although at the end of the day usually achieve nothing except to raise his own profile further (which is arguably the very idea).
A case in point regarding this self-promotion was on last week’s Stateline, when he was listing his achievements in his time in parliament. He mentioned the legislation to cap the number of poker machines (fair enough, that was his baby), but he also mentioned the total smoking ban in clubs and pubs that took effect last week. It was actually Health Minister Lea Stevens who did that – it was her baby and something she had been spruiking since her time as Shadow Minister – and it was outrageous of him to claim credit for it. Other than that, he didn’t really offer anything else, which was tantamount to admitting that he’d achieved very little in the 9 years he’d been in the parliament.
This is probably because most of his work has been done in the public arena on current affairs shows and in media interviews, either raising or commenting on issues of individuals who have been disadvantaged or discriminated against. In fact, he does very little of the legwork himself in individual constituent cases – he either leaves it to his staff or to the media themselves. All he does is get himself SEEN talking about the issues.
Also, he still operates his private law practice (how can he possibly have the time unless he is only a part-time politician?) and, contrary to his public pronouncements when he was challenged on this, actually does very little pro-bono work.
All in all, I’ve been very disappointed by his time in the SA Parliament – he could have used that time, his influence and the benefit of his legal experience to introduce some far-reaching and important legislation. Instead he has just been a show pony.
Added to that is the disappointment people feel that he has decided to put his own ambition before the interests of SA by jumping ship within 18 months of his new term, especially since his overwhelming endorsement at the last election also resulted in the accidental election of the disastrous Ann Bressington and the yet-to-be-seen John Darley, former Valuer-General. This election, I wonder whether that will be in the back of people’s minds as well: do we risk accidentally voting in this other person we’ve never heard of before (who may well become another Ann Bressington) or should be play it safe and vote Labor or Liberal, and rely on others to ensure that Xenophon gets over the line?
I think there is no doubt, however, that the Senate election in SA will be very interesting indeed.
Shit. I was expecting him to hit around 13%, but this is astonishing.
It also adds credibility to the 2-2-1-1 idea – Xenophon’s preferences will go to the minor parties before the big ones.
If FF do well, they could even pinch a seat. If the Libs do appallingly in the Senate, and FF get above them, then they will absorb all the preferences. If this is enough to get above the Greens…
Will be an interesting night!
Max lets not hope so for australias sake i dont want to speak in tounges an d fall on the floor from gods touch LOL
With all due respect Bill, the idea that no legislation can pass without bipartisan or Greens support doesn’t exactly fill me with a lot of faith either. The Greens haven’t exactly got a good track record in negotiating legislation through the Senate. Then again, one supposes they haven’t really been needed yet, so the next three years will be the big test.
Thanks for the insight Chinster.
His ego will be his weakness.
My understanding is that as Mr X is not a party, he cannot go above the line. As 95% of SA voters vote above the line, this would be a huge problem for him. Am I incorrect? Sorry if this has already been answered but I could not find it above
He can go above the line if registered as a party. Brian Harradine did the same in Tasmania, IIRC.
Bill Weller, you have shown yourself to be a bigot and extremely offensive. I’d like you to stop the tirades. I can’t imagine why religious vilification is tolerated on this site whilst racism and sexism is (rightly) abhorred.
William, your view?
My understandng is that he did not register as a party.
I like Nick, and voted for him in the State election, as did everyone I know, but this is the bit which bothers me at this time. It is causing me to consider the Greens, in fact I have been leaf letting for them. I heard on ABC last night that the Greens have a very strong chance in SA. A Green win and a Nick win would be great for SA, and the Greens would temper any missteps by Nick on this issue, I think. Do you?
Does anyone have more information on this issue, media stuff?
Excerpt, Nick’s Website:
‘What about WorkChoices – is it delivering a fair deal to Australian workers?
The WorkChoices legislation went too far. There definitely needs to be some revisiting of it – you need to consult with small businesses that are nervous. There’s scope to have a good look at it away from the heat of the federal election campaign and scope to improve it. A big issue for me in Canberra would be industrial health and safety. In terms of the guarantee of minimum conditions, if someone doesn’t want a certain shift or expanded shifts there should be some safeguards’.
Nick Xenophon is NOT running as a party he DOES have a running mate.
He is above the line as ‘Group S’.
My guess is he will have enough supporters on polling day to tell people as such, with at least 150,000 people supporting him, I’m sure he can get a few hundred together to man the booths.
Diogenes 29
‘My understanding is that as Mr X is not a party, he cannot go above the line. As 95% of SA voters vote above the line, this would be a huge problem for him. Am I incorrect? ‘
Further excerpt, Nick’s Website:
‘Download How to Vote card here!
Nick has drawn box ‘S’ in the draw for the Senate ballot paper. Box ‘S’ is the last box above the line on the right hand of the ballot paper.
The draw takes place with a blind-folded Australian Electoral Commission official drawing numbered balls out of a wire barrel which has been rotated.
Nick said:
“Ironically the process is a bit like bingo – once cheeky journalist offered me $20 if I called out ‘BINGO!’ when my number came up, but I’m not that hard up for cash (not yet anyway!)
I’m happy with the outcome – having the final box – ‘S’ – above the line makes it easier for supporters to find me.
To vote for me, all they have to do it put a 1 in box ‘S’ above the line.”
#29 Diogenes nah. Xenophon has an above the line “Group” ticket organized with AEC already (Group S). It’s a split ticket, 1 going from Greens–>Labor, the other going Family First –> Liberal.
http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/elections/2007/gvt/SA_2007_gvt.pdf
Hahahaha – just in case there was any doubt
http://www.xen.net.au/html/documents/HowToVote4NickXenophon.pdf
He certainly knows what he is doing.
alas! a vote for mr x or a vote for the greens are votes away from the libs.
Generic Oracle. Green bashing and communist name calling is tolerated on here so my being against religious extremism is not a loner. REMEMBER i was a member of this extreme church so i know what their intension’s are. And think on this in both the state and this election my corflutes have been removed and replaced with FF ones now i could think that was just a coincidence but……
Xenephon is a lawyer. His running mate, Roger Bryson, is a Baptist minister and manager of the Adelaide Central Market – a strange combination. Both are mates of the Reverend Tim Costello, brother of the federal treasurer.
No hellas about that, chris.
In the land of ancient Greece, called Hellas, the people waged power struggles for control of the many valuable islands. The combatants faced each other over land and across the seas. In these battles with sail and sword, the combatants venture forth to discover new islands to fight over. To aid them in their battles, the combatants often seek the favor of the Gods.
General Oracle, keep your whinging to a minimum please. it’s not a pretty look.
FF are a religious extremist party and 100% of the population know it.
The 98% who wouldn’t vote for them in a fit know it.
And the 2% who do vote for them know it.
Putting aside the personal wrangling, momentarily, boys please, would anyone care to consider my question at 33?
If the choice is between a lib controlled senate and one where no one has a majority… I would certainly pick the 2nd
Is it looking like the libs will lose their senate majority?
from what I ‘ve seen of polls for SA & Tas senate the libs appear to only have 2 in each state
any inside knowledge about ACT?
Thanks, mick. No knowledge ACT myself. Might be worth scouring the site, this and last month, as there are threads regarding the Senate.
But what of Nick’s Workchoice statement?
As Phil Robins points out in post 40, it is Xenophon’s running mate who is the baptist minister, NOT Xenophon himself. There seems to be some confusion regarding this in some of the earlier posts on this thread.
Xenophon has shown himself to be middle-of-the-road liberal, so I would be surprised if he wasn’t in favour of gay rights. Although the Bressington woman who was elected with him in 2006 is quite feral.
I’m afraid I have not been following this SA’n upper house candidate.
What are X’s views on social issues, including gay issues, mad cow?
Michael at 47, suggest you have a look at Nick’s website. You could email him from there, if you wish.
mad cow at 2. Interested in the answer, too. I have taken the liberty of sending your question to the ALP, SA. Will let you know in due course, should I get a response.
‘This question was asked by a poster to the political website, Pollbludger. Wonder if you could help with the answer, please.
‘Lets suppose (Nick X)X gets close to 20%. What happens to Labor primaries at this point?
Last I heard it was going to go 3 2 1 lab lib X
If a green popped would that be at the expense of one of the labor seats’?
I think its quite clear that as the Xenophon vote exceeds what is required for a quota, the green’s candidate has her chances increased. This is pretty much what the Adelaide Uni poll is saying.
I might also add that this would almost certainly come at Labor’s expense, as the liberals will easily get 2 quotas.
Antony Green’s Senate Calculator is great for that kind of thing:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/Elections/View/SenateCalculator.aspx?e=1&ca=sa
About 85%
If you look at the 2006 state election results, Xenephon’s vote came at the expect of Liberals and Democrats. Labor actually achieved a 3% swing to it in the legislative council.
Yes I think it would. I still think Lab 3 Lib 2 + Xenephon is the most likely result. Xenephon will basically take the seat the Greens would’ve won, which itself would’ve been at the expense of the Democrats.
For those who have missed it, here is a petition to encourage the ABC to invite Keating and Hewson onto the episode of Lateline that will air before voting day:
http://www.petitiononline.com/lateline/petition.html
# 52 Matt Says: November 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I used the calculator with roughly the information we had so far and ended up with 2 ALP, 2 libs, 1 green, and xenophon.
I have just a bit of fiddling with the calculator again, and once again I am staggered as to how easily FF could get a seat should factors fall their way.
FF got 4% last election. Let’s suggest they get 5 next election. Discounting the minor-minor parties (which would, in majority, send their few votes FF’s way anyway) then they have a half chance.
I don’t think the lib vote will collapse to 28%, which is what the poll linked about suggests. But it might collapse to 32, with supporters parking their vote with Xenophon due to the ‘take back the senate’ type feeling.
Plugging that into the calculator, with X on 18%, and the final three candidates is
FF
Greens
Labor
Obviously, Labor gets knocked out here and the Greens take the seat on their preferences. But a few percentage points here or there, and an unforeseen early green knockout could very well see a 2-2-1-1 senate – including Family First.
It’s a very,very long shot, but the recipe is there. People quickly forget that they picked up nearly 4% in SA last election. Who knows? It’s something else to ponder over
Just got back from a Labor campaign event at Thorndon Park here in Adelaide. Thanks ShowsOn for the tip!
Was quite fun – Rudd and Gillard were there, together with Tony Zappia (Makin), Mia Handshin (Sturt) and Karen Lock (Barker). John Faulkner was there too!
Just your standard meet and greet with doorstop I guess, but it was great to see everyone up close in person. I had a chat to Mia and Tony afterwards and they both seem like great candidates.
Max, I didn’t get that at all. I think you are underestimating both the ALP and the Greens primary.
Pi – I was definately under-estimating it for the sake of speculation. My thinking it Labor will get around 37-38% of the primary, I marked it down a bit to 35 (my theory being if Xenophon gets 18% of the vote – and this is underestimating the poll mentioned in this thread, then the votes have to come somewhere. I took the libs from 47 to 32 for example.)
I put the greens on 7%, slightly up from 6.6 last election. Do you think that will jump much? Again, the X factor will probably stifle the gains they might have made otherwise.
Re the ACT senate election. Lib senator Gary Humphries requires about 32% of the vote for a quota. The ‘Get Up’ group are campaigning strongly to encourage voters to consider voting for Kerrie Tucker (Green). The Greens and Dems are exchanging preferences. There is also a chance that the second ALP candidate could get up. Canberra is a strong Labor town, and as many citizens here have to work for the Coalition government, they are very keen to get rid of it. Nevertheless it will require a big swing to unseat Humphries. Also, more people here vote below the line as there are only 14 or so candidates. This could make it even more interesting.
ShowsOn,
Signed up on the link you provided at Tim’s……#64
Thanks.
Do you think that the mooted public service cuts could affect the chance of the second ACT senate seat going to a non Liberal candidate?
Just recieved confirmation…always interesting to know how people create their screen names.
Greg S
May shift some votes to the Greens candidate – the anticipated cuts aren’t large and the ACT is operating at full stretch with about 2.5% unemployment. Goverment departments are finding it difficult to recruit appropriate staff.
Re Max 27
Max – That is a bit of a ‘winner takes all view’ of Aus politics isn’t it?. For me the senate is the key to this election. When either of the major parties has control of both houses all the decisions are made behind closed doors and rammed through without debate – Labor would do it just like the LNP does. This means large sections of the voting public are completely disenfranchised. That is, everyone more liberal/left than all the world’s christian/democrat parties.
The ‘healthy alternative’ is for minor groups to have the balance because that means contentious issues are debated openly, referred to senate committees etc. That’s why I like the polls as in SA.
Who wants one of the Tweedledum/Tweedledee parties with very similar right wing policies, who are also increasingly captives of the churches, in total control?
Nick Xenophon’s entry into the SA Senate Race has dinted the Greens chances more than anyone else. Greens voters like Nick X’s campaigning style.
I did some research after the SA State Election on Lower to Upper “Desertion Rates”.
See below:
http://www.upperhouse.info/ArchiveView.aspx?EntryHeadId=35
Party Disloyalty
FF 15.31%
Labor 19.08%
Liberal 23.55%
Greens 34.05%
Democrats 39.10%
From Nick X’s q&a page:
“We should never have gone to Iraq in the first place. The government needs to acknowledge that it was a mistake. The big dilemma is if you are to leave now do you leave things worse than they are. There’s a role for reconstruction for Australia but it can’t be open-ended commitment. It’s a question of trying to extricate ourselves in a way that minimizes bloodshed to the local community. My view is that we should be spending money on aid and building up the political infrastructure. At the same time we need to be starving the terrorists of oxygen.”
“The WorkChoices legislation went too far. There definitely needs to be some revisiting of it – you need to consult with small businesses that are nervous. There’s scope to have a good look at it away from the heat of the federal election campaign and scope to improve it. A big issue for me in Canberra would be industrial health and safety. In terms of the guarantee of minimum conditions, if someone doesn’t want a certain shift or expanded shifts there should be some safeguards.”
I’d say based on those leanings, he’d probably pick up a bit more left than right. But all that said, conservatives will vote for him because they respect him and trust him not to sell out.
The Greens will be reasonable in the Senate, you can be sure of that.
In recent years, they’ve occasionally governed in coalition with centre-left governments around the world. New Zealand had a Labour/Greens coalition government in their Parliament (they have a proportional house of reps, no Senate) from 2000-2002 – and the sky certainly didn’t fall in over there – in fact, Labour absolutely destroyed National in the 2002 elections (while the Greens increased their share of the vote from 5% to 7%).
Richardson has put me last on his HTV ( AOG member?, attender?) Brokenshire will have me last on his HTV.( AOG member ? attender?) Now am i that much of a threat of winning that i need to be last or is it my union connections? Maybe being involved myself in this sort of church is the threat.
doogs @ 66
I agree – My sentiments exactly
jaundiced view @ 64
First and foremost, let me state that I absolutely loathe the idea of any party with a majority in the senate. I agree that minor parties are necessary, and even in the state election last year ticked the democrats box. This year I will be ticking Xenophons box (unless I have 20 minutes to spare and feel like numbering 70 odd boxes below the line…)
Back ten years ago I would have been comfortable with, for example, the Dems having the sole balance of power. At least they were relatively centre most of the time, and tried to be sensible. Not so much the Greens, who openly admit to being very left wing. I didn’t say that I disliked the idea of the Greens being in the senate, I said I didn’t like the idea that no legislation could get through without their (or bipartisan) approval. Which will almost certainly happen if they end up with 6 or 7 seats.
You then have the case where labor has to either negotiate with a grumpy batch of libs senators, or a left slanted greens.
I am hoping that the situation arises where major parties can negotiate with different parties to get what they need. Still isn’t perfect, but its a compromise between a house which is effectively useless and one which refuses to do anything.
Like I said to Bill, the coming three years will be a big test for the Greens. I hope I am proved wrong, and that they turn out to be good legislators now that they are actually involved in decision making for the country, rather then standing to the side and waving their fists. Time will tell.
(after reading your comment again, I think this entire post was necessary and all I needed to say was the first paragraph. But ah well !)
I think you’re suffering from delusions of grandeur Bill.
No offence, but even the hard leftys here think you’re a bit of a nut.
*entire post was unnecessary , sorry
Robert @ 67,
The Greens have never actually been in Coalition with Labour in NZ.
From 1999 – 2002 there was a Labour-Alliance coalition minority government (total of 59 out of 120 seats) which was supported on confidence issues by the Greens (who had 7 seats).
However by the time of the 2002 election, Labour and Greens were at loggerheads on lifting the ban on GE food experiments. The scrap between Labor and Greens boosted the Green’s level of support but decreased that of Labour (who’s support went from around 50% in the polls to 40%). Fortunately for Labour, the opposition National party was in a state of disarray (dropping from 30% to 20% support in the polls). After the 2002 Election Labour went into coalition with the Progressive party (the remnants of the Alliance) and were supported on confidence and supply issues by the centre-right United Future party. The Greens were left effectively on the cross-benches.
Relations between Labour and the Greens improved by the time of the 2005 election. Unfortunately the 2005 election proved to be a very tight one. Labour, Progressive and Greens together were short of getting over the 61 seat threshold for a majority, so Labour had to rely on the support of two centre-right parties NZ First and United Future to form a government. Unfortunately neither NZ First or United Future wanted to support a coalition with the Greens in it. So in the end the Labour and Progressive were supported on confidence issues by NZ First and United Future (whose leaders were each given ministerial positions outside Cabinet!). The Greens were obviously very disappointed with how things turned out.
However last year one of Labour’s MPs quit and became an Independent. Therefore the Green’s support on confidence and supply issues became important. The Green’s leader did not get a ministerial position, but Labour did promise to support the Greens on getting certain social and environmental legislation through.
Fortunately, alone among the minor parties, the Green’s support has not plummeted since the 2005 election. At the moment the Greens are the only minor party that are consistently polling more than the 5% threshold needed to get back in to Parliament while NZ First and United Future are languishing well below 5%.
The Speaker Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Now am i that much of a threat of winning that i need to be last
I think you’re suffering from delusions of grandeur Bill.
No offence, but even the hard leftys here think you’re a bit of a nut.
Havent met a hard lefty on here, I have no chance of winning the seat and if you read that post again you would see that. There are different ways of winning in elections and i will be around to push the communities agenda with whoever wins the seat. I have never seen any lefty have a go at me only right wing ALPers.
BTW i class being put last by the libs and ff a huge win it shows i am far removed from religious parties and their right wing candidates
Family First is extremely offensive to most rational people. We are a secular democracy and it is extraordinarily disturbing that fundamentalist religious groups are seeking to take direct control over social and other policies at a national level.
It is not religious vilification to point out Family First’s fundamentalist background.
Back to the topic of dicussion, I gather from a recent interview that Mr X isn’t actually opposed to WorkChoices per se, which is something anyone from a Greens/ALP background thinking of voting for him should bear in mind.
I WIN. I will wear the put bill last campaign as a badge of honor
Max @ 69
I agree that at their best (a while ago now!) the Dems were ok at keeping issues alive and stopping excess. The desired result in the senate is that there are ‘balance holders’-of good conscience for those things the LNP & the ALP are both committed to destroying: eg forests, social equality, public education.
I know there was a motley experience with a couple of balance-holding green airheads from WA in the 90’s- Dee & Ree or whatever, whose names escape me, but they were better than nothing. Also, I believe the greens will be much better this time. Under Bob they seem to have expanded responsibly into policy.
Therefore the Getup senate campaign should be supported, I reckon
The other win for me so far is my current partner has encouraged me and helped me to run in an election that has nationwide coverage, that i have done things i thought would only have been a dream. This from someone who was put down and abused in a previous marriage seems a huge win.
National coverage?
Yes Max i have been interviewed by a radio station program that will be aired nationally on tuesday 730 pm
Some people cant get their head around the fact that we are the third force in Australia
Go you Green thing!
Well, If you really do “believe” in the greens and truly want them to be a force in this country, then you should do everything you can to help.
One thing would be to stop posting such sh!t on here.
Bill: Did you admiration for Fidel Castro come up in your radio interview ?
Family First is the only party which fits the bill (not you BW) of religous bigotry.
This from Danny, the Family First senate candidate in Victoria.
“Mr Nalliah strongly supports the Coalition’s re-election, saying Mr Howard and his likely successor Peter Costello are genuine men who can be trusted to uphold religious and moral values and have a good economic record.
He is suspicious about the ALP, especially because half of Labor MPs elected last time did not take an oath on the Bible when sworn into office. ”
Bigotry in the extreme, to judge people on their beliefs as Danny does, his views on Muslims are also known, no tolerance of them.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22726452-662,00.html
Full article is worth the read.
I would hope that their vote stays below 2%, we have had enough of Howard divisiveness without a new group trying to trade on it.
Would have to say I agree with Bill’s comment about there being no hard lefties on this site.
good on ya Bill..keep up the good work.
2 lab
2 lib
1 green
1 x
will do me fine from S.A.
The third force in Australian politics is the National Party.
Remi #86,
You, to put it kindly, are delusional. First, Keating correctly described the National Party as a collection of “cowards and hillbillies” – i.e, the Liberals’ natural constituency, but in the countryside rather than the city. Second, the Nats and the Libs have been locked in Coalition for the last 50-odd years.
The Nats are no more a genuine “third force” than the Communists were in the 1940s, or the Citizens’ Electoral Council today.
Based on his support recently at the South Australian Election, you would have to say that Xenophon will easily win a Senate seat, probably with a substantial surplus.
I hate the fact people including some ALP supporters brand the greens as being “radical” or “not sensible” or “hard” left. The fact remains the country has been in the grip of most “radical” neo conservative shite since colonisation. Why should people be scared of the Greens holding the balance of power when they held it before 2004?
Arbie Jay – agree entirely. Family First really have no place in our parliament.
Arbie Jay, it’s a bit of a stretch to call Danny Nalliah “the Family First senate candidate in Victoria”. He was second on the ticket in 2004.
Chris #89,
They didn’t. The Democrats held it prior to then.
Michael #90,
True. FF makes the Republican Party look progressive.
Matthew #87,
Your argument seems to be, that because the Nationals are supported by people you don’t like, and they are in the coalition (which you obviously don’t like) they aren’t the third force in Australian politics.
So rather than having 12 HOR members and four senators, cabinet ministerial positions etc, your ‘opinion’ of the party determines it’s force level.
Well, hey I can use that system too.
The Greens are a bunch of drug taking hippies.
I don’t like drug taking hippies, or the Greens.
Therefore, I am arbitrarily making them the.. (picks number at random) seventh force in Australian politics.
Touche !
I just did the math, if you assume the country areas are going to be a bit more conservative and move the total down by 1.5% for Labor Green and spread that 1.5% to parties like Libs, Nats and FF, then then the Green Labor vote falls short before preferences get to the second Mr X.
Chris… possibly because the Greens didn’t hold the balance of power before 2004. I’m still yet to be convinced that the Greens deserve the balance of power… but they’re the best of a bad lot. Family First are a joke.
Remi,
I think they should ‘up the dose’ of codeine for you when you get you flu tabs. The Nationals are not a ‘defined’ third force of Oz politics but the shrinking vapor of what use to be a a country party who would stand up to the UAP/Liberals & stand by its convictions but instead are now just the country rump of a conservative NAG!!
RE ACT senate
basically the quota is 1/3 to win one seat (33.33)
unless the liberals poll very close like 33% according to the calc they will lose their seat to either labor or the greens
Does any one have some knowledge of ACT? has the Canberra Times done an
opinion poll?
Mick, not that I’m aware of. Although there was a Galaxy one saying the Liberal vote was at 24% or so I think. I didn’t believe that poll and think the Liberal Party will easily retain their ACT senate seat.
To me, it’s far more likely the Liberal Party will lose Government than the Senate.
Other research that may interest people is that only 40% of Australians know there is a Senate.
31 Generic Oracle. He is talking about the Looney fringe, they are fair game. When they start being tolerant, you will have a case.
Remi #93,
Yet again, you’ve gotten it wrong.
#1. My primary reason for objecting to your flattering description of the Nats is that THEY AREN’T INDEPENDANT OF THE LIBS!!! They march in lockstep. A true third force is affiliated with neither major party. Why do you think that the 2PP polls have “Coalition” as the L/NP descriptor? Because the two are as inseparable as Siamese twins.
#2. No, I don’t have a high opinion of the Nats. Keating actually got it right when he described them. My opinion is irrelevant to my analysis, however, as their status is that of the rural appendage of the Liberal Party.
Also, stop awarding yourself points, you prat!
86 Remi. It is not a force and never has been, it’s a right wing extension of the Liberal Party.
70 The Speaker. Speak for yourself, it only seems to be you.
Quinlivan @ 97
I live in Canberra and the only poll that has been done was by Morgan a few weeks ago I think. It determined that Humpries (our current Lib senator) was sitting on 24%, Lundy (Lab) was on 47% and Kerrie Tucker (Greens) was on 17%. The other % I don’t know.
I highly doubt the Liberal vote will be this low, somewhere around 30-31% I think, but this will not be enough for them. Kerrie Tucker (and well respected and liked person among Canberrans for her service in the local government) polled 16% of the vote in 2004 and will recieve more this election. Lundy will poll over 45% this time around I think. The Other/Dems will pref mostly Labor and Greens ahead of the Liberals. When preferences are distributed from the minors and only Lib/Lab/Greens are left I reckon about the 15% of the vote from Labor (minues their 33.3% quota) will go straight to the Greens, who will already have about 20% of the vote leaving Humpries stuck an about 31-2%.
William re
“Arbie Jay, it’s a bit of a stretch to call Danny Nalliah “the Family First senate candidate in Victoria”. He was second on the ticket in 2004.”
Sorry, William should have made that clearer, however the same Herald article does say
“Mr Nalliah, who fell foul of Victoria’s religious vilification laws over comments about Islam but won his case on appeal, is actively campaigning in the election through churches in 50 cities across the nation. ”
I haven’t seen anything to say he isn’t still associated wth Family First.
lose the election pls @ 99 – Frightening in one sense, but this time there is more public debate about the senate vote as a distinct activity. Not just GetUP but there is the sense of an increasing awareness – granted only among the 60% of the population who know it exists at present, but the more talk there is the more chance of waking the sleeping giant. It will only take a relatively small number to focus their senate voting to change the outcome a lot and keep the chamber hung, given the subtleties of the preference flows talked about in these threads.
Let’s keep the talk bubbling along out there.
I’m not going to delete anything here, but I sympathise with Generic Oracle’s comment at 31. I doubt the people bandying around terms like “cult” and “looney fringe” would be similarly robust if they were discussing Muslims rather than Christians.
I notice 7% of Labor’s vote in the ACT is BTL.
After reduction due to transferrence.. that will be.. 33 / 45 * 7 = 5.13% (Correct my maths if wrong).
Does anyone here have any stats on how much of the ALP BTL vote leaks to the Libs ?
A 1+ % leak could save Humphries if he falls slightly short of 33%.
re 104 thank you… I hoped for this
If correct the libs have so far lost 3 seats in the senate counting only
SA . TAS & ACT
william, why do you sympathise with GO’s ridiculous whinge @ 31?
he moaned that having a go at religious extremism was as bad as sexism and racism.
but we are talking about politics and political parties here. Family First are a religious extremist party and they deserve to be scrutinised as such.
just as One Nation was scrutinised and critised for its blatant racism.
and just as a blatant sexist party would be scrutinised and critised if there was one.
This is not a go at Christians. this is a go at an extremist christian Political Party.
If there was an extremist muslim party running at this election i can just imagine the civility coming from the FF’ers
I agree with HarryH,
The extremist looney fringe Greens deserve criticism and scrutiny.
HarryH, Bill’s line about those who “speak in tounges and fall on the floor from gods touch” was so a go at Christians (a certain stand of them at least). It served no constructive political purpose and I would prefer it if he didn’t say such things here.
Um Remi they already get lots.
Remi,
please do not call me an extremist looney…….you might hurt my delicate feelings……….and i might just complain to the moderator.
william, it is your blog but i hope you don’t fall for this “delicate sensibilities bs” that seems to get used in numerous threads as soon as a “colourful” description gets used.
Please God save us from extremist religious parties in this great country of ours.
A re-interviewee on Geraldine’s program this morning, said that his ‘undecided’ vote had firmed definitely for the coalition.
Could have knocked me over with how vote card. As if that wasn’t obvious from his first interview of a couple or so weeks ago.
Some of this ‘undecided’ vote must be taken with a dose of salts.
He said some most unflattering things about Kev, but worse, said if the Greens and the Dems get hold of the Senate, God help us! God may think otherwise is in order for the House.
Galaxy poll tomorrow, William. Wentworth. Narrowing, but not telling for whom. Just heard on ABC. Daily Telegraph, think said.
God?
HarryH, Are you Harry Heidelberg ?
@ 117
what the hell is that supposed to mean?
It is unlikely that Xenophon will poll as well on election day as he has in the opinion poll. While he will have a box above the line marked ‘S’ he will have no party name nor the word Xenophon above the line. His name will be below the line only making it harder for voters to find his group. I doubt that he has the wherewithal to staff all the booths and get a HTV in everyone’s hands to show voters where he is on the ballot paper. That will cost his group votes. The other parties of course all have their party name above the line. In the opinoin poll he would have presumably been offered as an option for voters to choose on an equal footing with the other major Senate groups.
Speaker, at No. 65, if a third of Greens lower house voters shift to Xenophon in the Senate, that will be a loss of say 2.5% of potential Senate vote. If approximately a fifth of major party lower house voters drift to Xenophon in the Senate that is a loss of say 7-8% of vote for each major party. That is huge in a Senate race and some of that could easily flow to The greens from Xenothon preferences if his group falls short of a second quota.
Perhaps Xenophon’s candidacy dents the chances of both major parties winning a third seat more than it dents the chances of the Greens winning one seat.
I’ll take that as a No.
Harry Heidelberg is a Margo Kingston sycophant.
Similar names, similar nutty opinions. Who can blame me for drawing a connection ?
Sorry William, I disagree with you here. I have lots of religious friends. But some groups are far less tolerant of others, and this is one of those groups.
They are also extremely intolerant of The Greens.
scaper…that G thing again, I may have meant X.
Remi,
not everyone here on this blog has to be connected to politics ya know.
i, like many here…or maybe just a few lol…..am just a normal bloke from the burbs who is interested in this election, and the removal of John Winston Howard.
#
107
William Bowe Says:
November 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’m not going to delete anything here, but I sympathise with Generic Oracle’s comment at 31. I doubt the people bandying around terms like “cult” and “looney fringe” would be similarly robust if they were discussing Muslims rather than Christians.
What i dont understand is that when the Greens are called extreme etc everyone seems to ok it but if FF is attacked in a similar way people cry foul.
they cant have it both ways
mathew cole 92
Yeah I was wrong about the greens having balance of power pre 2004. Thanx for correcting me. My point was in the scheme of things the greens are less wacko than the current batch of neo cons running the liberal party.
lose the election please 95
“I’m still yet to be convinced that the Greens deserve the balance of power…”
If the senate is supposed to be place that draft legislastion is reviewed and debated. i would a party advocating such things as the environment and social justice. The greens have more defined policies in these areas than both major party. i agree ff is joke.
What if someone hates all religions equally?
Why do people assume that people who despise Christian fundamentalism don’t also despise Islamic fascism?
i meant want a party
What people need to realize is that the AOG and most FF members believe in their doctrine of positive Christianity. Which is that god will fix up all problems if they seriously believe. That means all political issues can be fixed by god and him only. This is the danger in things like climate change, work choices etc. This coupled with their intolerance of Gays, defactos etc is why i get angry with them. One nation dies and FF appears. They have a right as all parties to field candidates in elections but people need to see their hidden agenda which is to make Australia into a AOG type Christian country. Have you ever wondered why the need to keep changing their church name?
Bill, hang up your worry beads.
The Greens can hardly be accused of extremism greater than Pauline Hanson, the Exclusive Bretheren, most Liberal voters, the Lyons Forum, George W Bush, the Government of Australia…………..
When it comes to loony tendencies, I know who I would prefer to wrap in straightjackets.
Geoff at 119 Says:
‘It is unlikely that Xenophon will poll as well on election day as he has in the opinion poll. While he will have a box above the line marked ‘S’ he will have no party name nor the word Xenophon above the line. His name will be below the line only making it harder for voters to find his group. I doubt that he has the wherewithal to staff all the booths and get a HTV in everyone’s hands to show voters where he is on the ballot paper’.
Geoff, gotta disagree. Nick was swamped with volunteers last time round, and I can just see the booth volunteers wearing Nick type placards, sitting on toy car seats, tethered to cows or goats, whatever..
As for the ‘S’, it doesn’t necessarily stand for Silly, voters are not as dumb as we look.
After all, who do we trust to get it right? As some are wont to say.
Well, some of the time. But this time, for sure.
yeah expect x to plead poor with volunteers right up till polling day, saying he is worried about volunteers. Already heard him doing it on 891. come polling day he will have two people for every decent sized booth at most times.
Showson & Bill @ 127 & 129 – Wholehearted concurrence here. All religion is by definition the celebration of medieval ignorance. You only have to read their books (Bible, Koran) to see where their extremism comes from. The ‘moderates’ simply ignore the many calls in these key books to exterminate non-believers. Modern-day ‘moderate’ religions of all persuasions are the cocoons from which extremists emerge. Why we tolerate in our politicians any religion based on sheer unreason is beyond me. We certainly wouldn’t tolerate it in our doctors if they practiced medieval remedies based on unreason. It’s time for more open ridicule of all religion – it’s all based on stubborn primitive belief in the supernatural in the face of overwhelming evidence.
And it’s not just the FFP – look at the Clarke faction of the NSW Libs if you want to be frightened, and the still strong DLP elements in the NSW ALP. Loonies everywhere!
No, Arbie, Bill and Chris, you have missed the point.
Danny Nahliah does not make comments on this blog. Bill this is a political site, the Greens are fair game as are any party here. You consistently cross the line by insulting the beliefs of Australians here and belittling them. This is just bigotry. Like all bigotry, it is founded in Xenophobia. Bill, you think your tiny experience with Christians gives you license to spread this bigotry.
Family First did not switch your bloody signs and you know it. You are sounding loonier by the day and this stunt just underscores it. You know damn well that if you had registered signs in your seat of Kingston, the council would be onto Family First like a ton of bricks.
It is also a lie to say that Danny is the Victorian senate candidate, it is Gary Plumridge and Nahliah is not even running.
Why don’t you go and use your time campaigning.. or are you simply confident enough to call it quits now??
Bill. I used to respect you six months ago. You set me on my journey of finding out about Family First and what you told me was largely inaccurate at best and blatant lies at worst. The party is neither loony with private members bills, nor has the voting pattern been “extreme”. Indeed, out of 197 votes in 2007, Family First voted yes in 110 cases, certainly not schmoozing the coalition. By contrast, the Greens voted no in 193 cases. Hardly what you might call “easy to work with”.
Oh, and in Victoria, just ask Bracksy what he thinks about the Greens. Jumping into bed with the LIBS just to obstruct policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are a typical candidate for the Greens, then these “bully boy” tactics and vilification of the beliefs of others might be right up your alley.
don’t give us this garbage about FF’s voting record so far GO.
FF are still in the stages of conning the public first. Enacting their beliefs comes later.
thats if FF survive long enough. i doubt they will. the public know exactly what they are about.
Using DLP Bracksy as an example???….oh how cute.
your cries of vilification are laughable.
Family First did not switch your bloody signs and you know it. You are sounding loonier by the day and this stunt just underscores it. You know damn well that if you had registered signs in your seat of Kingston, the council would be onto Family First like a ton of bricks.
You have no idea.
Bill this is a political site, the Greens are fair game as are any party here. You consistently cross the line by insulting the beliefs of others.
FF is fair game too. Green principles are my beliefs. so whats the difference. The attack me i attack them. They say they are a family party with family beliefs then 2 get found out looking at porn on the net. Normally i would say thats their business but if they are going to be holly than thou then they deserve a drubbing occasionally. As for personalities i find Brokenshire a good bloke it his parties ideas i cant handle
Bill, you think your tiny experience with Christians gives you license to spread this bigotry.
I have had allot of experience with Christians and a few years with AOG too. there is a difference
Why don’t you go and use your time campaigning.. or are you simply confident enough to call it quits now??
HAHA i work 11 hours a day, i get home and start campaigning etc. I decided to have a day off and just letterbox. I have been doing this since the state election.
We make migrants sit a citizen test before giving them a piece of paper which actually does very little, but the woefully ignorant get to choose who has power over nearly every aspect of our lives,even life itself. Sigh
Bill Weller,
Agree re AOG and Christians.AOG only regard their brand as “Christian”. Need to distinguish between the fundamentalists and moderates. Politicians like John Ashcroft , US, used their power to impliment their fundamentalist agenda. We should be alert and alarmed because they have been working below the radar…have watched them at close quarters since the 70’s….. and the likes of Bush believe in ‘the rapture’ . (Why bother with climate change when you believe you will be handpicked while the rest of us heathens perish here on earth.)
Our secular way of life needs defending.
Can anyone from South Australia, or otherwise well informed about it, say whether or not the following vote count is in the realms of possibility, even if as less rather than more likely? I put it in to see how the preference flow would work.
Group A: One Nation 1.01
Group B: Group B Independents 1.02
Group C: Christian Democratic Party 1.03
Group D: Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party 1.04
Group E: Australian Shooters Party 1.05
Group F: The Greens 7.4
Group G: National Party 1.06
Group H: D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 1.04
Group I: Liberal Party 26
Group J: What Women Want 1.08
Group K: Australian Labor Party 28
Group L: Climate Change Coalition 1
Group M: Citizens Electoral Council 1.09
Group N: Senator On-Line 1.1
Group O: Socialist Alliance 0.1
Group P: Australian Democrats 2.3
Group Q: Family First Party 4.68
Group R: Liberty and Democracy Party 1
Group S: Group S (Xenophon) 19
Ungrouped Candidates (no ticket submitted) 0
Antony Green’s calculator gives this unexpected result, with National Party and other minor ‘right wing’ party’s votes generally flowing to Family First instead of the Liberals…
1 FARRELL Don Australian Labor Party
2 BERNARDI Cory Liberal Party
3 XENOPHON Nick Independent
4 WONG Penny Australian Labor Party
5 HANSON-YOUNG Sarah Australian Greens
6 BATES Tony Family First Party
Family First outpolled the Greens 5.0% to 4.3% at the 2006 SA election. If they repeat the dose in the Federal Election and Xenophon’s support is around 20%, they’ll get the 6th seat. It really comes down to how many potential Green votes vs FF votes Xenophon will nick.
HarryH – “FF are still in the stages of conning the public first. Enacting their beliefs comes later.”
Mate, I am not a fan of FF, not at all, but seriously that is a ridiculous statement… paranoid even.
Fargo,
The minor party vote in SA in 2004 was ~16.5%. You have it on
combined micro: 12.5%
Grn/Dem/FF: 14.4%
Nick X: 19%
Given what the Speaker said earlier about Nick X taking votes from Greens and Democrats, and I’d say generally, people who want a minor party but don’t really care who, you’d need to drop the first two figures by (guessing, which is all any of us can do in this case) 7-10 and 3-6% respectively.
Something like ALP 35% and Liberal 31% would be about right if NickX polls 19%. You can tell me what result that gives.
I have to agree with those who are critical of Family First.
Imagine if a new party were formed, called the “Family Friendly Party”, supposedly for all Australian Families. A bit of investigation releaved that the party was controlled by muslims from a particular mosque.
Family First & other conservative Christian groups would be all over them, demanding that their management & agenda be exposed for pushing muslim beliefs under the guise of family values. They’d run advertising campaigns warning of the dangers of the party & that they’re not really representing all families – only Muslim families.
So, I think its reasonable for Family First to be scrutinised particularly when they won’t publically admit that their core management is in Pentecostal Church, & that they are effectively the Pentecostal Christian Party.
BTW Given that they’re clearly a Christian based party, I find it amazing the way that they dishonestly attacked The Greens at the last election. Its fair enough to criticise the Greensr policies, but to clearly misrepresent them was a disgrace.
I hope I don’t offend by walking into this blogosphere.
I have been reading with interest for the past weeks and see how a person can observe from a distance for a time before itching to comment – several times I have typed in some great words of wisdom only to edit it down to nothing – it is so easy to step back into the ether and hide. However I feel that I have met a lot of people and learnt heaps about how this election is going through this blog. I guess I may be in the wrong veggie patch because I seem to fit somewhere between left of centre on some things and a lot further around the other side of the world on others.
I am in Boothby and 100metres from Kingston border so it is great hearing of peoples opinions and expectations. I think I have decided to vote for the liberal member in Boothby because he seems to be better at this public position – although I don’t know how he will go in opposition. In Kingston I think Brokensire would be the best person by far after listening to the ABC radio forum held in Kingston last week. Amanda Rishworth will most likely get elected.
In the senate it will be interesting to see if X,Y or Z get elected – it is going to be very interesting to watch the counting.
It’s good to see that, in the event that the balance of power in the Senate should be shared by Family First and the Greens, there’ll be such reasoned and understanding debate between the different viewpoints.
The Adelaide Sunday Mail has taken the axe to Nick Xenophon today. The Page 7 lead is headed “Mr X running dry on Murray”. Page 41 is occupied by a a large editorial under the bold heading “Why Mr X does not deserve your vote”. Rupert obviously does not want the Coalition to lose control of the Senate.
The whole paper is an anti-Labor hate sheet. Page 1 covers old ground – how Julia Gillard’s ex-lover ripped off the AWU. Lots of innuendo here and inside. Page 5 leads with “Doubt over Rudd as PM”. Glenn Milne leads Page 42 with “Rudd is engaged in a giant ruse”. Then on Page 43 it’s Piers Ackerman on Rudd’s using “phony crises … to scare votes from punters”, accompanied by an old photo of Russ with Mark Latham.
photo of Rudd with Latham
Xenophon will still be elected, but because his name does not appear above the line – just Group S – and because of the Sunday Mail’s attacks on him, he may not have enough surplus to help his running mate get close. In the end this may help the Greens or the third ALP candidate.
Frago61,
I don’t think the DLP will get 1 per cent in SA. It’s more than 30 year since it last contested an election there, and even then SA was a weak state for it. It can poll only 2 per cent in Victoria, where it has had a continnuous presence since a minority of members continued its existence after the majority voted to close down in 1978 and where it now has an MLC who when both Labor parties vote together can defeat Opposition motions in the Legislative Council. I’d guess less then 0.5 per cent for it in SA.
Sorry, I meant Fargo 61.
Phil,
I agree, and I am still shocked at the Mail’s attack. It’s one thing to write a few negative stories on a candidate, another to spend an editorial having a crack at at a major (or even minor) party, but a completely different kettle of fish to spend an entire page taking, to use your words, an axe to an independent candidate. At least half of it was downright personal.
Had it of said ‘we are disappointed in his decision, but he has made it now, there is no going back so good luck to him’ it would have been a different story, but that was disgraceful. What they are saying is that two years after endorsing him, they now think he should exit politics altogether?
You’re right, wall to wall sleaze today – and I’m a liberal voter.
Unbelievable.
A link for those who don’t live here
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22736861-5006336,00.html
I consider myself far left and give my support to around 95% of what Bill has to say.
When discussing Mr X I think all you non-SAers must bear in mind how well known and popular he is here. His corflutes are very plentiful. He appeals to many because he is popularist. He is a weird mix of FF and the Greens, taking chunks from both of their agendas.
There seems to be some confusion about Mr X’s split ticket, they go:
Gr, FF, ALP, LIB
And
FF, Gr, LIB, ALP
So once FF get alliminated the entirety of his surplus go to the Greens.
molotov,
your last sentence is the reason behind Rupert’s paper’s attemted hatchet job on X in todays SA paper.
Dear Chris Curtis and Russ, thanks for your replies.
Reducing the minor parties votes along the lines suggested (see below) gives
1 FARRELL Don Australian Labor Party
2 BERNARDI Cory Liberal Party
3 XENOPHON Nick Independent
4 WONG Penny Australian Labor Party
5 BIRMINGHAM Simon Liberal Party
6 HANSON-YOUNG Sarah Australian Greens
with the first five being elected straight up (full quotas) and the Greens beating Family First (’last standing but not seated’) into sixth place.
Preferences ultimately flowing to Greens from SA, WWW, CCC, DEM, LDP, Grp B, SOL, ALP.
Preferences ultimately flowing to Family First from AFLP, ON, ASP, NP, CDP, LIB, CEC, DLP.
Preferences from Mr X (group s) evenly split.
The minor party votes I put in can be regarded as ‘random values’ so a relatively
large increase or decrease in any of their share of the vote, relative to each others, and the resultant change to the ultimate preference flows occurring could I suppose just as easily change the result (Family First instead of Greens) as a change to the primary results of those two parties themselves.
All of which probably leads to the ‘brilliant’ conclusion that whatever the result it will be extremely close for sixth, and possibly fifth spot (if the Liberal vote is lower than expected).
For me the benefit was really just to follow the various preference flows and thereby gain a better understanding of how the senate voting system works, courtesy of Mr Green’s calculator.
Cheers.
Group A: One Nation .45
Group B: Group B Independents .35
Group C: Christian Democratic Party .36
Group D: Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party .44
Group E: Australian Shooters Party .37
Group F: The Greens 5
Group G: National Party 1
Group H: D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party .43
Group I: Liberal Party 30.5
Group J: What Women Want .48
Group K: Australian Labor Party 34.5
Group L: Climate Change Coalition .42
Group M: Citizens Electoral Council .5
Group N: Senator On-Line .39
Group O: Socialist Alliance .1
Group P: Australian Democrats 1.9
Group Q: Family First Party 3.4
Group R: Liberty and Democracy Party .41
Group S: Group S (Xenophon) 19
Fargo61,
I concur. The ABC Senate Calculator votes for SA do not equal 100 per cent, probably because groups which stood last time are not standing this time. I used these missing votes to fill up the groups, other than Group S, that did not stand in 2004 and then added a few more to the Liberals and the ALP in order to reach a total of 100 per cent. My purpose was to see what the different preference arrangements this time would do. The result was ALP 2, Liberals 3, Greens 1, with the Greens beating Family First for the last spot.
I next put in a swing to the ALP along the lines of the Newspoll state figures. Newspoll shows a 9.6 per cent drop in the Liberal vote and a 16.5 per cent increase in the ALP vote. I settled on about a 10 per cent swing, putting the ALP on 46 per cent and the Liberals on 38 per cent. The result was ALP 3, Liberal 3, with the Liberals winning the last seat from the Greens on FF preferences.
I next took account of the candidature of Nick Xenophon, using the figures from the SA state election as a rough guide. I gave him 18 per cent and cut the ALP by 8 per cent and the Liberals by 10 per cent. This is a comparatively low figure for Mr Xenophon. The result was ALP 2, Liberal 2, Mr Xenophon 1, Greens 1.
I had to push the ALP vote up to 42 per cent and push other parties down for it to get a result of ALP 3, Liberal 2 and Mr Xenophon 1. The ALP is basically on its own in SA. It either polls very close to three quotas in its own right or it is stuck with two seats. Newspoll gives it 53 per cent, so it’s possible.
Fascinating!
I disagree that polls of Senate voting intention are not to be taken seriously, A well constructed/executed Senate poll is probably much more accurate then a nation wide two party preferred lower house poll. The results of the Senate should be known some time next week if Senate polling intentions are published.
The ACT is looking very much like being a Coalition exclusion zone and yes SA will be interesting to watch as once Tasmania was.
The Greens are still in a doubtful position in Victoria and the future will be determined by the extent that the Liberal party fall below the 42% threshold. if they receive 34% then the greens will be elected at the expense of a coalition no 3.
The AEC afiled to deliver on their promiose of providing a csv file of registered above the preferences.
If yiouy take time to look at the published pdf files you will noticce the inconsitenancy and porr data quaility mnagement.
Missing still is statistics on the number of pre-polling votes issued and the number of postal votes that have been returned. (Hopefully they will be available next week)
You can look at the postal votes issued data at http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2007/data_extracts/downloads/pva_stats_for_at071109.csv
Max @ 34: Mr X has a Senate group ticket. He might not have running mates but he most certainly has a ticket.
Analysis of the below the line votes shops that most voters remain within the group of their first choice an whilst they may diverge in final preference allocation in general they tend to follow more and less the same direction as the party ticket. Which is why it is reasonable to assume that a below the line vote is in effect party ticket. Those who vote number 1 for a lead candidate tend to get locked into the party flow.
Those that vote one for the no 2 (Lib or ALP candidates) have their votes devalued as a result of the paper based surplus formula.
So whilst the btl vote may register 5% you can expect that a much lower value then 5% actually changed the flow of preferences to the extent that it could bring about an upset outcome form analysis of the above the line tickets.
In Victoria 2006 there was only one electorate that provided an change in the result as a result of below-the-line preferences that diverged from the party votes. And even then the result change was due to poor counting and votes that went missing between count A and count B and the adoption of optional preferential voting.
I am of the view that if the results from count A and Count B is different then there should be automatically a count C to confirm that mistakes were not made in Count B. or as a minimum a distributed random sample of the count should be verified.
Here is another unexpected ‘result’, (to me anyway) this time for my home state of QLD. I am posting it here in the absence of anywhere obviously more appropriate.
Candidate Party
1 MACDONALD Ian Douglas Liberal Party
2 HOGG John Joseph Australian Labor Party
3 BOYCE Sue Liberal Party
4 MOORE Claire Australian Labor Party
5 WATERS Larissa Australian Greens
6 BUCHANAN Jeff Family First Party
It comes from the following assumptions, the most ’sensitive’ of which are that One Nation polls below Pauline Hanson, so that One Nation preferences flow to Family First, who then pick up ALP and Green (and various other) preferences to beat Ron Boswell (National Party) into sixth place. One Nation did poll below Mrs Hanson last time, so this seems reasonable.
If Pauline Hanson polls below One nation, then her preferences go to One Nation and Family First get eliminated with Ron Boswell ultimately elected in sixth place, ahead of One Nation, on ALP and Green (and various other) preferences.
I have also assumed an overall swing of about 4% away from Coalition to ALP.
Party Total Votes %Votes Quotas
Liberal/National Coalition 922559 39.24% 2.75
Australian Labor Party 838156 35.65% 2.50
The Greens 126957 5.40% 0.38
Pauline’s United Australia 106738 4.54% 0.32
Family First 79231 3.37% 0.24
One Nation 73823 3.14% 0.22
Australian Democrats 51723 2.20% 0.15
The Fishing Party 30093 1.28% 0.09
Senator On-Line 12695 0.54% 0.04
Carers Alliance 12695 0.54% 0.04
Climate Change Coalition 12460 0.53% 0.04
Liberty and Democracy Party 12225 0.52% 0.04
What Women Want 11990 0.51% 0.04
Group K Independents 11520 0.49% 0.03
Australian Shooters Party 11285 0.48% 0.03
Group N Independents 11049 0.47% 0.03
Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party 10814 0.46% 0.03
Non-Custodial Parents Party 4466 0.19% 0.01
Citizens Electoral Council 3526 0.15% 0.01
Group W Independents 2586 0.11% 0.01
Socialist Alliance 2351 0.10% 0.01
Group X Independents 2115 0.09% 0.01
Fargo61:
My thoughts on your numbers.
Pauline’s vote will rise and One Nation’s drop. ONP had a senator up for re-election in 2004, and are on the far right of the ballot this time.
Pauline: 5.5%, ONP: 1.5%.
The fishing vote will be split between Lifestyle and plain Fishing. So both below 1%. Fishing will be higher due to left positioning and simpler name.
Greens probably higher. Maximum 1%.
I’d never even heard of Family First until half way through the 2004 campaign. They’ve had three years to build their profile.
So Family First 1% higher.
Your votes for some independent groups are quite generous.. Group W,K,N.. 0.3% maximum.
Senator Online 0.1%.
What Women Want have the prime left position. Might get 1%.
Group X is James Baker, the National who contested pre-selection against Boswell. He’s had full page ads in country papers. I’m unsure what he’ll get but he won’t come last.
Mr Speaker,
I decided that I had best comply with your ruling (your logic seems pretty good to me) so I re-ran the figures (in Antony Green’s calculator) more along the lines that you suggested, and I also very slightly increased the Coalition vote. The end result is the same as previously! Family First beat Ron Boswell (National Party) into sixth place.
It could be a very late night and a nerve wracking wait of a week or two, for some Senate candidates.
1 MACDONALD Ian Douglas Liberal Party
2 HOGG John Joseph Australian Labor Party
3 BOYCE Sue Liberal Party
4 MOORE Claire Australian Labor Party
5 WATERS Larissa Australian Greens
6 BUCHANAN Jeff Family First Party
Party Total Votes % Votes Quotas
Family First 356,115 15.15% 1.0602
Liberal/National Coalition 315,612 13.42% 0.9396
Party Total Votes % Votes Quotas
Liberal/National Coalition 941,133 40.03% 2.8021
Australian Labor Party 820,288 34.89% 2.4423
The Greens 147,176 6.26% 0.4381
Pauline’s United Australia 126,487 5.38% 0.3765
Family First 100,625 4.28% 0.2995
Australian Democrats 50,548 2.15% 0.1505
One Nation 34,560 1.47% 0.1028
The Fishing Party 23,040 0.98% 0.0685
What Women Want 23,040 0.98% 0.0685
Group X Independents 11,520 0.49% 0.0342
Climate Change Coalition 9,404 0.40% 0.0279
D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 9,169 0.39% 0.0272
Carers Alliance 7,993 0.34% 0.0237
Australian Fishing &Lifestyle Party 6,818 0.29% 0.0202
Australian Shooters Party 6,818 0.29% 0.0202
Liberty and Democracy Party 5,172 0.22% 0.0153
Group W Independents 4,937 0.21% 0.0146
Christian Democratic Party 4,702 0.20% 0.0139
Group N Independents 4,701 0.20% 0.0139
Non-Custodial Parents Party 4,466 0.19% 0.0132
Citizens Electoral Council 3,526 0.15% 0.0104
Group K Independents 2,586 0.11% 0.0076
Socialist Alliance 2,351 0.10% 0.0069
Much better Fargo.
umm maybe a couple of points off the coalition vote into the labor column ?
————
The key exclusion in the Queensland race is the Family First/Pauline one.
The Greens -need- Family First to beat Pauline, otherwise her preferences go to Labor and push the Labor party ahead of the Greens and we end up with a 3-3 result.
If FF beat Pauline they receive her preferences, which keeps the Greens ahead of Labor, and we end up with a 2-2-1-1.
This also relies on the Coalition vote falling below 43%, which seems probable at this time.
Looking at all this senate voting and prefs this part of the night and following days seems more exciting than the reps
All the bleating about Pauline is simply that. In a boring campaign, something is needed to get voters to have a cursory look at the new Audi..
Pauline is a spent force, that will nevertheless carry some weight for as long as she chooses to remain in politics until her rusted on supporters meet their maker. She was the face of One Nation, though even on 8% (entirely unrealistic) she fails to secure a seat.
Much ridiculous press was made of FFPs “preferences with Pauline” in QLD, when they preferenced her 47 out of 65 candidates and the Coalition 7th position down!
Now, Andrew Bartlett (DEMS) rattled the cage on this non-story and railed about her anti-muslim anti-immigration and racist policies. What he failed to be truthful about is that his same party in NSW preferenced Pauline ahead of Family First!!! This is despite Family First:
1. Voting AGAINST the government on the terrible legislation to process refugees offshore (and Andrew was in the same room at the time!!!)
2. Having policies to increase foreign aid
3. Being PRO-IMMIGRATION and regardless of race nor religion!!
Where are the supposed principles?
In addition, both the Dems and Greens have made Climate Change central to this election. If they were truly being principled on this core issue, can they explain why they BOTH preferenced the ALP when they endorsed the pulp mill decision AND the Climate institute gave Family First a higher rating on their response to Climate change than either the ALP or the Libs???
I just can’t believe this story got legs. It is really absurd.
http://pbpredict.googlepages.com/home
Being PRO-IMMIGRATION and regardless of race nor religion!!
Yeh and good people to convert
Unlike objective and restrained Greens, eh Bill?
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Are you on medication for the delusions at the moment?