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.

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.

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.

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/

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

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”.

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

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.

Nick X’s two ads available on his homepage http://www.nickx.net.au and youtube/nickx4senate

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%.