South Australia produced the same result at each Senate election from the first six-seat election in 1990 until 2001: three Liberal, two Labor and one Democrats. This reflects what has been a weak period for Labor, whose vote fell below 40 per cent in 1990 and has not since recovered, and the Democrats’ historic strength in the state, which has on occasion brought them close to winning House of Representatives seats. The most shattering of the Democrats’ disappointments in 2004 was their failure to stay afloat in South Australia, their vote plunging from 12.6 per cent to 2.3 per cent. South Australia is also the foundation state of Family First, whose founder Andrew Evans put the party on the map with a surprise state upper house win in 2002. The party’s Senate vote in 2004 was 3.9 per cent, their highest in Australia, but they did not benefit from a Labor preference deal as they had in Victoria, where Steve Fielding was elected from 1.8 per cent.
Of the three Liberals elected in 2001, only number three candidate Grant Chapman is running for re-election. Number one candidate Robert Hill resigned in March 2006 to become ambassador to the United Nations, and his position was filled by Cory Bernardi (left), investment fund manager and former state party president. This marked a victory for the Right over the moderate faction, in which Hill had been a senior figure. Its favoured candidate was Simon Birmingham (centre), former Winemakers Federation executive and narrowly unsuccessful candidate for Hindmarsh at the 2004 election (for which Bernardi had again been a preselection rival). The imbalance was redressed when Birmingham won preselection for the number two Senate position to succeed the Right’s Jeannie Ferris, who had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Ferris died on April 2, and Birmingham assumed her vacancy ahead of schedule. Grant Chapman (right) is seeking to extend a parliamentary career that goes back to 1975, in which time he has conspicuously failed to make himself a household name. His preselection win over the number four candidate, moderate Maria Kourtesis, was widely criticised due to its failure to redress gender and factional imbalance.
Labor’s ticket is headed by debut entrant Don Farrell (left), powerful state secretary of the Right faction Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. Farrell took his faction’s reserved position from Linda Kirk, the number two candidate from 2001, who fell from favour after backing Kevin Rudd’s leadership bid and defying the conservative union’s opposition to the RU486 abortion pill (though some put the rift down to the dismissal of Farrell’s wife from Kirk’s office). Unfortunately for Labor, Kirk declined to take the offered consolation prize of the Boothby. In second position is the rising star of the Left (centre), Penny Wong, who has been harmlessly demoted from her number one position at the 2001 election due to factional arrangements. Journalist Cath Perry (right) won third position with the backing of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union.
The race for a minor party seat was blown wide open on October 11 when state upper house “No Pokies” MP Nick Xenophon (left) announced he would be entering the race. Xenophon achieved one of the most sensational results in Australia’s recent electoral history when he polled 20.5 per cent in his re-election bid at the state election last March, enough to score a wholly unexpected second seat for his running mate Ann Bressington. With Natasha Stott Despoja declining to seek another term, the Democrats have nominated peace activist Ruth Russell (centre), best known for spending three weeks in Iraq as a “human shield” during the 2003 invasion. The Greens candidate is 26-year-old Sarah Hanson-Young (right), a former University of Adelaide student association president who has more recently worked for Amnesty International. Hanson-Young has been spruiked by Bob Brown as “an option for people who perhaps are disappointed to see Natasha go”.
A mid-campaign poll conducted by Adelaide University for ABC Adelaide suggests Xenophon will carry over his support into this election, enough to deliver a big surplus to the Greens as preferences. There is a very very high chance that this will put Hanson-Young ahead of one of the major parties’ third candidates, and then on to a quota with their preferences. That would produce a result of two seats each to Labor and Liberal, plus one to Xenophon and one to the Greens. If the Greens fall short their preferences will go to Labor via Xenophon, whereas Xenophon’s preferences will split evenly between Labor and Liberal. There doesn’t seem to be any prospect of a micro party upset, as too much of the micro-party vote will go to the Greens.
Preference tickets when reduced to their essence run as follows:
ONE NATION: Shooters; Family First; LDP; Lifestyle; Nationals; DLP; CEC; Liberal; CDP; Xenophon; Labor; Greens; Democrats; SA; WWW; CCC
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Nationals; One Nation; Lifestyle; Family First; Shooters; DLP; Xenophon; Liberal; Labor; CCC; CEC; WWW; LDP; SA; Democrats; Greens
FISHING AND LIFESTYLE: Family First; Shooters; LDP; One Nation; Nationals; Liberal; Labor; CCC; CDP; DLP; WWW; CEC; SA; Xenophon; Democrats; Greens
SHOOTERS: Lifestyle; One Nation; CDP; Family First; Nationals; DLP; Liberal; CCC; CEC; WWW; Labor; LDP; Xenophon; Democrats; Greens
GREENS: CCC; WWW; Democrats; Xenophon; SA; Labor; LDP; Lifestyle; DLP; Nationals; CEC; Shooters; CDP; One Nation; Family First; Liberal
NATIONALS: Family First; Liberal; Xenophon; CDP; DLP; Shooters; Lifestyle; CCC; Greens; WWW; Democrats; Labor; LDP; CEC; SA; One Nation
DLP: Labor; Liberal; CDP; Family First; Nationals; Xenophon; Shooters; Lifestyle; LDP; One Nation; Democrats; CCC; WWW; Greens; CEC; SA
LIBERAL: Family First; Nationals; CDP; Lifestyle; Shooters; Xenophon; Democrats; LDP; DLP; WWW; CCC; Greens; SA; Labor; CEC; One Nation
WHAT WOMEN WANT: Greens; Democrats; SA; Labor; CCC; DLP; CDP; Lifestyle; Shooters; Liberal; Family First; LDP; Xenophon; One Nation; Nationals; CEC
LABOR: Greens; Democrats; Xenophon; Family First; DLP; Shooters; CCC; WWW; Lifestyle; LDP; SA; Nationals; Liberal; CDP; CEC; One Nation
CLIMATE CHANGE COALITION: Greens; Democrats; WWW; SA; Xenophon 1; Labor; DLP; Lifestyle; Liberal; Nationals; One Nation; LDP; Family First; Shooters; Xenophon 2; CDP; CEC
CITIZENS ELECTORAL COUNCIL: Liberal; Nationals; Democrats; CDP; One Nation; Lifestyle; Shooters; Xenophon; Family First; WWW; DLP; SA; Labor; CCC; LDP; Greens
SOCIALIST ALLIANCE: Greens; WWW; Labor; Democrats; CCC; Xenophon; Liberal; Nationals; LDP; DLP; Lifestyle; Shooters; Family First; CDP; CEC; One Nation
DEMOCRATS: CCC; WWW; Greens; half (Xenophon; Liberal; Nationals; Labor), half (Labor; Xenophon Nationals; Liberal); Family First; SA; One Nation; LDP; DLP; Lifestyle; CDP; Shooters; CEC
FAMILY FIRST: Nationals; One Nation; Lifestyle; Shooters; DLP; CDP; CEC; CCC; Xenophon; Liberal; Labor; LDP; WWW; SA; Democrats; Greens
LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY PARTY: One Nation; Lifestyle; Shooters; WWW; CEC; CCC; DLP; Liberal; Nationals; Greens; Democrats; CDP; Family First; Xenophon; Labor; SA
NICK XENOPHON: half (Greens; Democrats; Family First), half (Family First; Greens; Democrats); WWW; CCC; Nationals; DLP; CDP; Lifestyle; half (Labor; Liberal), half (Labor; Liberal); SA; Shooters; LDP; CEC; One Nation.
73 Comments
Sound like a good result 2:2:2.
More of it I say.
Hey am I the first to post? Where are the crow eaters?
Leafletting for Xenophon or something.
I hope Penny Wong gets a good job in ministry, a good performer
I would love for the non-majors to get 3 seats in SA. The incentive for the SA senators to work as a bloc would be very strong indeed, and that would give SA the balance of power in the senate, probably the first time a state has held the balance in the modern age.
Ruth Russell would’ve been a kick-ass senator (there’s not enough activists in parliament these days) but sadly the shocking preference deal for the dems means SA is their least likely state after Tasmania.
Ruth Russell is just an outrageous candidate. The Dems had some other lad… one with a German-sounding name, who would have been much better (not to mention having some youth appeal).
Anyone who has heard S H-Y speak would cringe. A radical student activist with a terrible voice (worse than Nettle), and not a looker (not close). A replacement for ‘Tash? Hardly.
Oh dear, why do so many people think it’s necessary to raise female politicians’ looks.
Prediction: ALP: 3, Lib: 2 and either Xenephon or Greens. I’ll go out on a limb and predict Greens.
This will have to be the most interesting senate race…
Go xenephon… should be good shaking it up a little.
The point remains that because Xenophon’s preferences split 50-50 between FF and The Greens, and that FF outpolled The Greens in the upper house in the 2006 state election (5.0 - 4.3% primary), there’s surely a bigger chance of FF getting in on the back of X’s preferences. The Greens were pretty much assured a seat until Xenophon’s entry, now they will have to score a big primary vote to do it.
LETP: Xenophon’s seat is assured. Any non-SA people predicting the outcome not including Xenophon getting a seat will not be taken seriously by anyone in SA.
I’m not in SA, but I’m going to stick my neck out and say Xenophon will get 20% of the SA senate vote. I’m always wrong about these things, but hey, it’s three days to go and I’m bored.
Prediction: Xenophon will shoe in but won’t have much surplus because a lot of voters won’t be able to find him on the ballot paper. Yes, it’s box S above the line but his name is not alonside it.
After hearing Sarah Hanson-Young at a University of Adelaide education forum last week (chaired by Natasha Stott Despoja) alongside the other Senate candidates, Sarah is no Natasha. Ruth R, Nick X and Kate E ran rings around her.
As with the Queensland analysis this is very light on the prospects of of a seat being claimed by Family First. Not even a photo, despite the fact that Family First outpolled the Greens and Democrats on primaries in the State election and was the last candidate standing in the 2004 Federal election.
William I thought you would do better than this. I hope this does not indicate bias in what otherwise is an excellent pseph blog.
My analysis predicts that Xenephon will take at least half a quota off each of the majors and a reasonable number of votes off the Greens. Half of this will be returned to Family First in preferences.
Because Labor is polling so strongly in SA, they may well manage to reach their third quota. However if the gap closes, I believe a 2-2-1-1 split, with X and FFP more likely than X and GRN.
In fact I would rate FFP chances up to 50% and Greens max 30%.
She doesn’t have to be.
I believe somebody posited the scenario of 2 (ALP)-1-1-1-1 (with Family First being the extra 1) a while back - how feasible is it?
Therapy @ 7 - Wouldn’t the ALP surplus get the Greens over the line over Family First? I doubt the ALP are going to poll below two quotas in SA.
KT @ 12
ALP will not poll below two quotas, but the X factor will most likely ensure that they poll less than three. If they are close enough to three preferences will most likely deliver the third seat. In any case there is little likelihood that the greens will overtake them. The Greens only chance is to feed off the tranferable vote once ALP is elected, but I doubt that this will be sufficient.
It is possible that a very high X vote may reduce the Libs to less than two quotas, but if they stay there after preferences are distributed, it is likely that Roger Bryson (X2) will take the final seat.
This has become very, very fascinating, and pretty much impossible to predict.
I have a feeling that the final result will end up 2-2-1-1 - and that FF has an excellent chance of snaring that 6th seats.
First, consider the 2004 federal result. For the purposes of simplicity, I’m leaving out the minor-minor parties, and rounding the results.
Liberal - 47
Labor - 35
FF - 4
Greens - 7
Dems - 2.4
It’s safe to say that the Liberal vote is going to be slashed badly. But it is also interesting to have a look at the state results from last year:
Liberal - 46 (down 16 from 2002)
Labor - 37 (up 4)
Dems - 2 (down 6)
Greens - 4.3
FF - 5 (up 1)
Xen - 21
So where does that leave us? Well, nobody can predict what Xenophon will get. Not accurately anyway. At a minimum you would think 10%, maximum could be in the 20’s again. It’s unlikely he will grab two seats, but it’s possible.
What is interesting about the 2006 state result is that despite the Xenophon factor, FF stayed steady at 5%. It is fair to assume that their reputation hasn’t been tainted in the past 18 months, therefore likely to remain steady, if not go up a bit more.
The state and federal Libs cannot, of course, be compared - the state party being absolutely useless. What it DOES show is that in 2006, only 26% voted for the Liberal Party. Which in turn shows there is a very small population of people who will simply blindly vote Liberal at any turn. Given the competence at the federal level, you would assume that the 2007 result will be much better, but there’s a chance it could collapse to the low 30’s, which is when we reach a fun ballgame.
I think Labor will stay at about the same primary vote. They might gain a few people, then have a few defect to Xenophon and, to a lesser extent, the Greens. Assume Labor hits 36.
I think the Liberal vote is going to get hit very hard, thanks to a variation of factors and they will fall down to low 30’s, say 32-35 range. FF might go up a point, as they have run a half decent campaign here (the ad is effective if not full of shit) and this is their home state - maybe give them a couple of points. Xenophon will get around 15.
The Democrats are finished, they still have no idea what they are doing. Their second, SECOND candidate for the Senate is a young chap who could have inspired people with new ideas and thoughts, instead they chose a 60 year old human rights worker who just by looking at we know will be there for a term before retiring. They genuinely have no idea, the replacement should have been somebody like Despoja, they’ve left it too late not to reinvent themselves.
So, I think it will be
Labor - 36 (+1)
Liberal - 33 (-14)
Greens - 7 (+.4)
FF - 6 (+2)
Xenophon - 15 (+15)
Dems - 1.5 (-1)
(I left the rest of the minor parties as they were, giving the Climate Change group half a point, but really none of them have done anything drastic to make me believe they will get a high primary)
If this result eventuates, then we have 2-2-1-1 - including the Greens. FF end up having .85 of a quota before the Labor Party gets knocked out and give everything to the Greens.
That post took much longer than expected. Anybody want to haggle over the maths?
Like what Michael said.. Ruth Russel.. what were the Democrats thinking.
She has the warmth of a reptile.
They should have tried to “hold the line” in SA but blew it from the start with their candidate selection.
Max Baumann would have been a much better candidate. He always keeps his cool and writes polite replies, even to some of my worst sniping.
Such as:
http://www.upperhouse.info/Extras/DemCountdown.aspx
Ray, you can’t rate FF at 50% and the Greens at 30%
The Greens will get MORE preferences from minor parties, and their best chance is that they get a swagload of votes from the ALP third quota - which will probably be higher than that of the Liberals. The best chance FF has is that they get a high primary, and that the Liberal’s third quota falls just short of what they get.
I give it 65-35 in favour of the Greens.
Having said that, I would be interested to hear your analysis of the primaries before going any further?
hahaha
Mr Speaker @ 15 - great minds…?
looking like chapman is gone and good riddance, not keen on time wasters everyone i know is backing x in the senate because he gets off his bum and works for the people and the state
It is a mistake to read too much into the state results.
We have one of the more pathetic branches of the Liberal Party at the state level here - which seems to me to reinforce Labor as the “only” choice and under-state the level of Greens support at a federal level. My perception is that people here don’t tend to consider the Greens much in a non-federal context.
As such I think you can expect the Greens level of support to mirror the national trend, rather than the state election trend. They should absorb plenty of disaffected Democrat voters too.
However, no-one seems that clear on the Xenophon preferences situation. William’s analysis continues to suggest that Xenophon is a good thing for the Greens, but my understanding was also that he has split his preferences 50:50, with practical considerations (Greens are on the “A” preferences or something) meaning a slight bias towards the Greens in reality. Is this correct?
God help us if we get a Family First senator, Xenophon will be embarrassing enough…
Patrick, rest assured I am not looking that much into the state result. I only mentioned it to show that FF’s support held up (ie supporters didn’t necessarily swing to Xenophon) and that there isn’t a massive block of ‘vote Liberal every time’ supporters in SA.
Essentially with Xenophon’s preferences, if we discount the Dems,
- half his votes will go to the Greens,
- the other half goes to FF.
Once one gets knocked out, the votes will go to the other party. If they last long enough, one of them will get the entirety of Xenophons left over quota. If BOTH get knocked out, then the battle is between the major parties anyway and Labor will probably clinch it on Green preferences.
I imagine William simply thinks that FF won’t feature long enough to be any sort of credible threat. That depends on one fact and one alone: whether their primary is above the Liberal third quote percentage when push comes to shove. If no, that’s the ball game, if yes then we keep playing.
Max #16,
What Women Want, LDP, Socialist Alliance and CCC are the only minors putting green ahead of FF. ALL the others are preferencing FF ahead of Green. Xenophon’s prefs don’t matter, as they split 50/50.
I see another case of FF getting in with 3-4% of the vote here, and I don’t like it. I fell obligated to agree with Ray @11 - FF will get over the line before the Greens do.
Anyone want some free money ?
http://www.portlandbet.com
Minor Party Senate Seats: South Australia
One or More $1.15
15% return on investment in one week - it doesn’t get better than that.
The fight between FF and The Greens is very interesting, and it’s great to read the opinions here so far. I think we can/should all agree that Xenophon entering has hurt The Greens. FF are very strong in SA and most of their votes come from Fundies who are unlikely to shift away to X, whereas many soft-left voters may go for X instead of the Greens because of their drugs policy, bad candidate, etc. So I think FF’s primary will be a solid 5%, whereas the Greens could get anywhere from 4-7% depending on how many people choose X over them.
Antony Green’s calculator is a lot of fun. I think inputting realistic figures makes a 3Lab-2Lib-1X result most likely. The collapse of the Dem’s vote will be another nail in the coffin of the Greens’ chances.
22
The Speaker
The trap there is “minor party”. X doesn’t have a party, he’s an independent. So I’m going to have to read the terms and conditions very closely before putting a bet on!
Just read the fine print. All kosher. Putting my bet on now! Sorry for spamming!
Yep, for any lazy but interested people:
“For the purposes of this market, “Minor Party” refers to all candidates not listed as Liberal-National or Australian Labor Party candidates. “
I think ALP surplus + Green preferencing pointless micros > Libs surplus + other pointless micros. I don’t think the FF and Greens primary will be significantly different. I still think the 6th SA Senate seat is likely going to be either Greens or a third ALP seat.
Mathew Cole at #21
*cough*hack*cough* Democrats. Not going to be dumb enough to preference FF again.
The Democrats have long been silly with their preference deals -I remember one of my relatives going into a polling booth in 1998 intending to vote for the Democrats and then seeing how high they were preferencing One Nation in comparison to the Greens. The relative in question changed his vote to the Greens and hasn’t looked back since
Linda Kirk was probably unwise not to have gone for the consolation prize of Boothby -she’d probably be in there with a better chance than the current Labor candidate.
Xenephon should be an interesting dimension as an Independent Senator -was looking at his homepage and he seems not to be as right-wing as I had initially imagined. In fact some of his ideas seemed more inclined to the centre-left than the right. Then again, I don’t live in SA and will happily admit that I’m not as familiar with him as perhaps others on this forum are
William
I concur with Ray and Therapy here. I thought your last omission of Jeff Buchanan in the QLD race was a mistake. This South Australian “commentary” has made me think that this close to an election, William, maybe even your colours (or bias against a party) might even be showing.
You have political tragics here, some who spend hours ploughing Antony’s Senate calculators. All these people, including yourself, know that even plugging in some available figures from last election and recent polling, FFP candidates win in Qld and often win in SA.
I agree with Ray as well regarding primaries. FFP outpolled BOTH Greens and Dems and not even so much as a photo!!!
People all talk “surprise” when FFP gets in and yet there has not been a single election since 2002 at ANY level that hasn’t seen improvements in every state they run. 2004 FFP was “blacked out” by the media, it has happened again in 2007. Antony’s last media item for Steve Fielding is more than a week old and the Courier Mail in QLD has now run 4 senate articles with not so much as a mention of Jeff Buchanan, who looks like taking a FIFTH spot, forget sixth.
Now Tony Bates stands a better chance than Sarah Hanson Young and no available data shows us otherwise. Xenophon increases FFPs chances here and may not even get in himself.. 20% is pure fantasy here.
How about some balance.. At LEAST a photo mate!!!
Maybe it’s the numbers I’m running, or my own bias showing through, but I’m finding it a lot easier to elect SH-Y, or both Hanson-Young and Bates, than Bates without SH-Y on Antony’s calculator. It may be that I’m not giving the right-wing groupuscules enough credit, or the Greens too much—but it boils down to the fact that FF don’t just need to beat the Greens on primary votes, they need to beat the Greens and the Dems *added together*, and hope that Nick X’s surplus isn’t too big (if it is, it’s likely FF preferences will get distributed before his do). It’s a possibility, but 3 ALP-2 LIB-Nick X is the usual outcome.
Yep, FF are headed for 1 possibly 2 senate seats this election (maybe more) and yet nobody is talking about it.
without Labor’s preferences,and with Climate Change and Water issues resonating, FF are dead in the water this election.
the only ones who don’t see that are FF supporters.
William acknowledges this and doesn’t need carping at his integrity by the same old posters.
FF’s Senate primary vote will fall in every state.
2-2-X-G. Done deal, imho.
Although I think the likely outcome is 3-2-1(X), FF are in with more of a chance than the Greens. Their primary vote has been in free fall decline all year with all pollsters. Although Bob Brown has been given plenty of air time through this campaign and may have recovered some ground for them.
Sportingbet were offering 4:1 on a FF candidate being elected to the Senate. If you add Tony Bates’ chances with the FF chances in Qld and Vic, this represents a bargain !
May I ask what major party votes people are using for their analyses ?
The Liberals beat Labor by 12% in 2004.
Some of you seem to be indicating that Labor will beat the Liberals on primary vote ? I find this very doubtful, even factoring in the Nick-X-Factor.
Do you think the swing against the government will be 7% or more ?
Ray and Generic Oracle, I did re-do the Queensland entry to correct the omission of Family First, who I think are a real chance there (see here). If someone can paint a realistic scenario where FF wins a seat in SA - I admit that I have not been spending the past few weeks punching out Senate scenarios - please lay it out for me.
38: Lab
34: Lib
5.5: FF
5: Greens
1.4: Dem
14: X
+dregs
Gives 2-2-X-FF
The Speaker: I would expect if Labor wins the Lower House TTP that they will poll higher in the Senate also. 2004 was disastrous for Labor in SA in both houses. The 2006 state election was 36.6 Labor - 26 Lib in the upper house. I know state doesn’t translate to federal directly, but it’s a good guide to “willingness” to vote for particular parties.
William, are these numbers realistic ?
Liberal Party 34.45%
Australian Labor Party 32.25%
Group S (Xenophon) 14.98%
The Greens 5.99%
Family First Party 4.34%
Australian Democrats 2.39%
One Nation 1.14%
D.L.P. - Democratic Labor Party 0.60%
Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party 0.60%
Liberty and Democracy Party 0.50%
Climate Change Coalition 0.50%
What Women Want 0.50%
Australian Shooters Party 0.50%
National Party 0.40%
Christian Democratic Party 0.35%
Citizens Electoral Council 0.20%
Socialist Alliance 0.13%
Senator On-Line 0.10%
Group B Independents 0.10%
I’ve certainly seen worse, Mr Speaker. I might make a change to the Senate guide to talk up Family First slightly more, if I get time (which I probably won’t).
Mr Speaker: those are interesting numbers which highlight FF’s chances if the Libs outpoll Labor. If people want to go to Rudd for a change of Government but keep the Libs in for “checks and balances”, that could be quite likely.
Those numbers still indicate a 2PP win for Labor on prefs.
It’s very hard to tell how much vote Nick-X will suck from each party. A bit of a lottery really.
Have a look at my “desertion rates” from 2006:
http://www.upperhouse.info/ArchiveView.aspx?EntryHeadId=35
How are those results above achievable or even semi-realistic?
you are predicting FF to rise from 3.98 to 4.48
and greens to fall from 6.60 to 5.59.
all this with a swing against the Conservative parties and the rise of Green issues. FF have done nothing to think that their vote will increase.
you are also predicting a higher Coalition Senate vote than Labor in a seat that has clearly swung against the Coalition. With the Coalitions “percieved/actual” abuse of the Senate there is no way the Coalition will outvote Labor in the Senate in SA.
5.99 that should read
Mr Speaker: yes I have been assuming ALP will do better than Libs in the Senate.
A 6% swing brings them to equilibrium. Polls have been showing a swing to Labor in SA of up to 12%. Add to that the Save our Senate campaign by Getup, and the perceived abuse of the Senate processes by the coalition.
If the swing is this high then ALP will certainly get 3 seats and lock out the other minors. But just on the red side of the equilibrium there are a whole range of possibilities that favour FFP. (See my quilt).
Ironically, the push by Getup to a progressive Senate favours the election of FFP over a Green. The higher the Labor vote, the more it starves the Greens.
I would think that Liberals jumping ship would be inclined to vote FF in the Senate, as its not going away from Labor, but its still.. not Liberal. I’d tip them at 6-7% in SA.
It’ll be remarkable if they do get someone in though. Another “unexpected’!
Michael , just because people are Liberals doesn’t mean they approve of religious fundamentalists.
i would assume that the defecting Libs would be more of the “wet” variety, not the drys.
Ff vote will stagnate or drop.
Green vote in the Senate will no doubt increase fairly dramatically because of Climate Change and Water.
I predict in Vic,NSW and WA they will almost get a quota on primaries alone.
In SA and QLD they will still quite comfortably get a seat.
2001 and 2004 were the right circumstances for a FF vote.They have reached their peak and Fielding was a one off Labor mistake.
2007 is the right circumstances for a significant Green vote.
HarryH
I don’t think your commentary would garner a lot of support around here. I’ve seen not one shred of evidence that the FFP primary has declined since last time and no Greens polling is showing much higher than the last national 7%. A lot of polling (unreliable as it is) shows Greens flatlining at 5-6%.
Most people here are tending to ignore the impact of micros as well. Antony’s lists aren’t comprehensive on these and if you look at preference flows, about 2:1 flow right of centre, which FFP is at the top of. Therefore a smaller primary than Greens will deliver the seat.
I’m predicting 3 Labor, 2 Coaltion, 1 Xenophon. His “Nobody’s puppet” advert is hilarious -does anyone know if it is available for viewing online?
HarryH:
In the state election the results were Greens 4.28, FF 4.98. My numbers are quite favourable to the Greens.
I’ve also assumed the Democrats numbers will hold up from 2004 which seems unlikely. More reasonable would be their 1.8% state election result.
But don’t get me wrong - I think the Greens are in a better position to win a seat than FF, by 60-40, but an FF win is a reasonable possibility.
all due respect but i don’t think it is credible to compare state vote to federal vote.
William just on Cath Perry in SA Amalgamated Metal Workers Union they are part of right not left like other state
HarryH, you’re right that the circumstances are right for a growth in the Green vote, and I’m sure it will increase overall. I think there are factors mitigating that growth in SA:
- As someone else said above, their candidate isn’t very good and doesn’t come across well in community forums, radio, etc.
- The Xenophon factor: will take some primary votes away, and will get the bulk of disgruntled Dems voters because he is heir to the “keeping them honest” mantle.
- FF have run a decent, anonymous, scare campaign pointing out some of the less popular Greens policies (drugs, estate taxes, etc.)
Likewise, I don’t see FF’s vote falling because:
- The bulk of their voters are rusted-on fundamentalists who vote where their church tells them.
- They are the main conservative alternative for people who don’t want to vote Liberal.
- They have a strong base in SA (they were founded here, like the Democrats)
- They have a good candidate.
Look, Family First got a seat (Fielding) because he got Labor and Liberal prefs.
With only 1 sides prefs they won’t be winning a seat. Their primary vote is too small.
We’re talking about the Senate. They have preferences flowing from Liberal, Xenophon (50-50), Nationals, DLP, Shooters, Fishing, CEC, CDP ahead of the Greens. It really is going to be a close call between Green - 3rd Labor - FF.
Thanks James, I’ve removed the factional reference altogether - explaining that would be a bit too confusing.
This will be interesting. Most likely 2-G-X-2, but 3-X-2 and 2-X-F-2 are possibilities.
Most likely opening seems to be two each for the majors and one for Mr X. This probably turns into a race between Greens (with Dem & ALP #3) and FF (with Lib #3). One would expect this one to go to the Green, if only because the high Labor surplus.
It would be hard for Labor to take a third seat in this case, because they’d have to beat Greens + Dems + half of Xenophon’s surplus.
If Xenophon’s surplus is higher than one of these two contenders at this stage, then two X-men are elected! Unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
The other possible opening: the majors take 2 each, Xenophon is just short of a quota. Then there a few options:
If FF takes Libs surplus and Labor surplus is in front of Greens, then Greens flow to Mr X, pushing him up to 1½ quotas. Then it’s a race between FF and Labor for the last seat, with Xenophons big vote flowing on with reduced value. FF gets the vote originally from Xenophon, and Labor gets those that came from Greens.
If FF takes Libs surplus and Labor is then the lowest, then their votes flow to the Greens. Whichever of Green & FF is the lowest misses out and elects Mr X, the other picks up the last seat, so the result is the same as the most likely scenario above.
My church’s website did a poll on the who we’d vote for in the Senate. The result would be 1 Labor, 1 Lib, 1 FF and 3 X-men (pity there’s only two of them). However we aren’t very representative of the whole state
I think FF has a much better chance in Qld where One Nation and Pauline flow to them early in the piece.
Strrange that no-one has mentioned that Anne Bressington (can’t vouch for spelling), who got into the SA legislative Council on Xenophon’s coat-tails, tipped a bucket on him today when parliament met to anoint his successor, John Darley. Money seems to be at the core of it - who owes what, where and when as electoral expenses. Don’t suppose it will do Mr X any good but he does seem to be teflon-coated and his critic is not exactly flavour of the month.
In 2004, the ALP polled 36.7 per cent for the House and 35.5 per cent for the Senate (figures from Adam Carr’s site), meaning a loss of only 1.2 per cent for the Senate. The LNP polled 47.8 per cent for the House and 47.2 per cent for the Senate, meaning a loss of only .6 per cent for the Senate.
Newspoll gives the ALP 48 per cent in SA and the LNP 43 per cent, an 11.3 per cent increase in the ALP vote and a 4.8 per cent decrease in the LNP vote. The 2PP is 53-47, representing a swing to the ALP of 7.4 per cent. (The previous Newspoll was even more favourable to the ALP.)
Transposing the 2004 loses from the House to the Senate means that the ALP could expect a 46.8 per cent Senate vote and the LNP a 42.4 per cent Senate vote. That would mean ALP 3 and Liberal 3.
Nick Xenophon complicates matters, but I think it unlikely that he would take enough votes from the ALP to make it miss out on a third Senate seat or enough votes from the Liberals to make them miss out on a second Senate seat.
Therapy — FF supporters are indeed churchies. However, their voters are quite different! Their voters are poor conservative people, they poll highest in irreligious areas — take a look at some results.
Chris: take half a quota of each of the majors from the figures you quote and I have FFP contesting ALP for the sixth seat.
Good people,
All this talk about FF in SA must be coming from rusted-on fundies. The *only* reason they got Fielding in Vic was with Labor preferences. Their preference deal is nowhere near as good this time, in almost every state. Their vote in SA has flatlined at around 5% since 2004, including the 2006 State election. The fundies are voting for them, but their attempt to steal mainstream votes with their spin about families is not biting. Like the Paradise Church, they have a secular front end to what is a more extreme version of Christianity, and most people are on to it. What little polling that goes down far enough to count FF in SA has them below 5% this time. Whereas the Greens have been boosted by the increased relevance of Climate Change to the Aussie public, especially after Mr. Gore’s Incomvenient Truth. As was mentioned above, people see the Greens much like the Dems as a Senate party, even though they are running lower house candidates in every seat in the country, and are in many of our Councils.
I still think the most likely is 3 Lab, 2 Lib and Mr. X. I don’t rate FF here at all, though I read there is a chance in QLD or WA. The Greens have their best preference deal ever this time around, with a growing sense of acceptance in the electorate as the new Dems in the Senate. People got a shock when they found out they gave Howard both houses, and a few people got a lesson in Westminster. I feel they wont want either Major to have the Senate, and liked the way the Dems setup the balance of power and the House of Review. All these factors tell me the Greens should do well in the Senate, but not so much in the lower house, as people will vote Labor to get rid of Howard.
Bring on 2010, with wall-to-wall Labor and no-one else to blame. The third choice then could really come to the fore.
Therapy you are living in cuckoo land.
First Family First has had a shocker of a campaign, probably worse than the Democrats.
Candidates exposing themselves, then preferencing one nation when some of your voters (fundamentalist christians) are non-white.
I know a few people who voted Family First, who since hearing of the preference deal won’t be trying those waters again.
I think the only state where FF have a chance is in Queensland, and that isbecause the right wing parties stick close together on preferences.
In SA, there is not much chance of a family first win. It will be 2-2-1-1.
Meanwhile can someone ask Lyn Allison to stop whining. She keeps saying that she is polling 5% god know’s where she gets that figure from even the morgan senate poll which overestimates minor party votes say she’s on 1.5%.
D (#50)
Nick X’s two ads available on his homepage http://www.nickx.net.au and youtube/nickx4senate
Earthrise… This is meant to be a pseph site where people put aside there political persuasions and crunch the numbers based on all intelligence that comes to hand.
I suggest you take your 5% for FFP and stick it into Antony’s Senate calculator together with likely percantages for the other parties and conclude your own chances.
My analysis shows that with FFP on 5% they contesting with ALP for the final seat, assuming a 7-8% major party swing to ALP from 2004 and X taking half a quota from both.
Ray (66)
Come on mate,
I can read; two-thirds of commentary here is spent flaming the other side. And if your idea of scientific examination is pumping imaginary numbers through a Senate calculator, you must be a fundie. How about addressing some of the logical points I made about the increased relevance of climate change and people’s desire to rebalance the Senate? Or that many people are onto FF’s fundamentalist, theocratic program? In SA, the FF lower-house campaign is almost non-existent, their ads weak and wandering, and their preferences in torpor.
Faith is not going to cut it next Saturday
Earthrise @ 67
5% was your number, not something I concocted in my imagination.
Despite the off thread ravings of others, in particular on other threads on this site, I’ll stay true to my understanding of William’s intent for this site and not engage with you on specific policy (not that I don’t have strong views).
Suffice to say that I consider myself left of centre on socio-economic policy. Despite this, I don’t see that a Senate with a Labor+Green majority is anymore “balanced” than a Liberal+National majority.
It would just replace a coalition of the right with a coalition of the left.
Xenephon and FFP would have a role to play in bringing true “balance”.
Ray (68)
Appreciate the Bludger cultural lesson; I am a long time reader, first time poster. I’ll keep this in mind for future postings.
I have to disagree with your assessment of the Labor+Greens ‘coalition’. What we will find is that the true coalition is the Grand one of Liberal+Labor. Yes they squabble over which one of them gets the parking space at Kirribilli, but otherwise they are in almost total agreement in keeping the status quo. The almost total lack of difference this election (me-too) should be enough to convince doubting Thomas’s, but just wait until the next Parliament sits. Other than Workchoices, Iraq and Climate Change, the Majors will combine to lock out the Greens and others from most decisions.
My problem with FF is their hidden agenda. I would welcome a party serious about standing up for families, we need it. And I would also welcome a party that openly advocated for true Christian values; not pro-war, dictating-morality ‘Christianity’, but peace and looking after the poor christianity. It is the secular front end on fundamentalist values, practiced successfully by the Paradise Church, that leads me not to trust them.
As you can see, I’m a slow learner
Earthrise @ 69
I’m disappointed that with the closure of Ozpolitics commentary there has been a migration of political sledgers to Pollbludger that turns me off reading most threads.
I try not to promote it by engaging with it.
You are right that Labor ain’t Labor at the moment, but I believe that this is more a political move in an endeavour not to be wedged by Howard, than a genuine policy shift. One has to meet the electorate where they are and then try and lead them to where the party ideology dictates. Hopefully Rudd can do this in a controlled manner.
Your assessment of Family First certainly characterised the founder of the party, but it has moved on since then to be something much larger than him and beyond the Church, and takes a much broader view of “moral” values, very similar to the Christian values espoused by Rudd. Given time and political success, I believe it will mature to a centrist party as defined by its constituents that makes it worthy of the “balance” of power.
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/2006/04/22/australian-politics-test-10000th-result/
Ray,
Why should I take half a quota from each of the ALP and the Coalition? Newspoll shows nothing on the radar for Nick Xenophon in SA today. I have no doubt that Newspoll is dead wrong, but I do not have a basis for allocating a vote to him in any particular proportion from the majors, except the SA election, and I don’t thnk that is to be copied in the federal poll.
Politically, I am quite relaxed about the balance of power’s ending up shared by the Greens, FF and Mr X. I am equally relaxed about the Coalition’s retaining a blocking vote in the Senate because that leads to a double dissolution - which would gurantee a strong Greens presence and probably produce a couple of FF senators.
Because I spent years listening to ignorant rubbish about the DLP, I tend to dismiss the same sort of criticism of FF, given Steve Fielding’s voting record, and that is not to say I support his voting record, just that there is nothing extreme about it.
Before Xenophon came along, a likely scenario was 3-3 with the greens stick in the middle. Now there’s a chance for two non-majors, with the Greens likely winners. As per my earlier analysis there’s a scenario in which Family First snatch the seat without getting a high primary vote.
If after the first four seats are taken, the tally stands at:
ALP 0.75, Gr 0.6, Xen 0.95, FF 0.4, Lib 0.3
then FF takes the last seat. No necessity of a high primary vote, just a bit of planet-alignment.
Newspoll won’t show anything for Xenephon because it would not have even asked the question. So the only data I can use is that for the State election. There he took over 8% each from the majors out of 20% and the rest primarily from the Greens and Democrats and very little from FFP. See the Speakers breakdown @ 43.
The polls that have been published for Xenephon have not shown any less support for him. The only thing going against him is his No Pokies brand cannot appear above the line. So his vote may back off a bit, but I suspect not much. And I have no reason to believe it will be extracted in a different proportion to the State election, as he is representing exactly the same constituency.
As you mentioned the DLP, I was dissapointed to see that they would place FFP behind the major parties (contrary to negotiated agreements!). They will probably take votes from FFP, so I would have expected them to be returned should they be eliminated first.