This time yesterday, Liberal member Fran Bailey held on to a 32-vote lead in McEwen which, though rapidly diminishing, was calculated by Antony Green to be 77 per cent likely to hold after the few remaining votes were counted. Those votes are now in: the last few absent votes broke 100-93 in favour of Labor’s Rob Mitchell, postals went 37-21 his way, pre-polls favoured him to the tune of 33-23, and further rechecking of booth votes cost Bailey 14 and Mitchell eight. All of which leaves Mitchell seven votes ahead. This is apparently the final result, pending the final recount, which could certainly turn up enough anomalies to overturn a lead as small as this. Adam Carr further argues that with a margin of fewer than 20 votes, “the Liberal Party’s lawyers will be able to scrape up some pretext or another for a court challenge”. He also states: “Unfortunately for Labor, most of the precedents are that the incumbent government loses the subsequent by-election (Nunawading, Mundingburra, Greensborough).”
Mundingburra of course was the Queensland by-election in February 1996 that cost the Goss government the one-seat majority it retained after the 1995 election. The other two are from Carr’s home patch of Victoria. There are probably about five people in the country who can tell you about the 1985 by-election for the state upper house province of Nunawading, and I am not of their number. UPDATE: Scratch that – the result cost the Cain government its short-lived control of the upper house, so probably quite a few people know about it, including me from now on. What’s more, it followed an initial tied result and a win for Labor decided by a draw from a hat. The Greensborough by-election refers not to the one Sherryl Garbutt won in 1989, but rather to the one Poll Bludger commenter Chris Curtis ran in as DLP candidate in 1977, which produced a massive swing to the then Labor opposition. ANOTHER UPDATE: A correction in comments from Brian McKinlay (of McKinlay case fame), who says Carr was in fact referring to yet another by-election for Greensborough which took place in 1973, which saw a Liberal win overturned by the court before being re-confirmed by the electorate. One might respond that the 1996 Lindsay by-election demonstrates that voters do not take kindly to initiators of legal challenges, but perhaps the 5.0 per cent Liberal swing on that occasion had more to do with Labor’s generally poor performance at re-matches than is generally realised.
Anyway, let’s assume now for the sake of argument that this result stands. We now have a new modern standard for close federal electorate results to beat Liberal candidate Ian Viner’s 12-vote win in Stirling in 1974. The historians among you are invited to relate other famous close shaves in comments. We also have Labor on 84 seats and the Coalition on 64, with two independents. This is pleasing from a personal perspective as it’s exactly what I predicted early in the campaign for New Matilda, although I did underestimate Queensland’s contribution to the Labor total. Unfortunately, the day before the election I upped the ante to 87 in a prediction for Crikey, which looked very good on election night but became progressively less good as counting proceeded.
This prediction was highlighted today in The Australian, which has promoted me from confuser of fact with opinion and baser of opinion on ignorance and prejudice to the slightly more elevated title of “pundit”. I suspected at first that The Australian compiled this list as a subtle dig at an online commentariat that had leaned a little too heavily to Labor in its predictions, but that doesn’t explain the inclusion of Malcolm Mackerras. In any case, Brad Norington bails me out in the accompanying article by trying on the line that Labor owes its win to “fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates”. Those of you marvelling over the seven-vote margin in McEwen are invited to consider an election in which the Coalition held on to power after retaining each of Bass, Bennelong, Braddon, Corangamite, Deakin, Flynn, Hasluck, Robertson and Solomon by one solitary vote. On this basis, I hereby declare that my prediction of 87 seats was only out by 595 votes out of 12,350,549. It would in fact be far more accurate to say it was 0.2 per cent out, which isn’t so bad either I suppose.
UPDATE: Adam Carr on historical close results:
In terms of numbers of votes, the closest result in a House of Representatives contest was 1 vote (13,569 to 13,568), when Edwin Kirby (Nationalist) defeated Charles McGrath (ALP) in Ballarat (Vic) in 1919. The result was declared void in 1920. In 1903 Robert Blackwood (FT) defeated John Chanter (Prot) in Riverina (NSW) by 5 votes (4,341 to 4,336). This result was also declared void. The closest result allowed to stand was 7 votes (13,162 to 13,155), when John Lynch (ALP), defeated Hon Alfred Conroy (Lib) in Werriwa (NSW) in 1914. In terms of percentages of the vote, the closest result was Kirby’s voided win in Ballarat in 1919: he polled 50.002% of the vote. The closest result allowed to stand was that in the Griffith (Qld) by-election of 1939, when William Conelan (ALP) defeated Peter McCowan (UAP), after preferences, with 50.007% of the vote. The closest winning margin in recent times has been 50.011%, polled by Ian Viner (Liberal) in Stirling (WA) in 1974 and by Christine Gallus (Liberal) in Hawker (SA) in 1990.
Mitchell has 50.003%, so his percentage is lower than both Conelan’s in 1939, Viner’s in 1974 and Gallus’s in 1990.
664 Comments
Well done William,so has Labor got the mandate it claims if 12,000 votes decide the result,what is the TPP if the results remain as expected?
Nunawading 1985 was if memory serves me for I was only 9 but happened after either a tie result or Peter Batchelor printed fake how-to-vote cards from the Anti Nuke party preferences the ALP.
From Graham Hudson’s chapter in Mark Considine and Brian Costar’s (eds) Trials in Power: “Control of the Legislative Council was denied to the government as the Nunawading by-election was lost amid allegations of an ALP inspired how-to-vote card scandal”. So it was in fact a greatly momentous event, contrary to the impression initially given in my post.
If the Liberals did get the result overturned, is it a given that Bailey would be the candidate at the by-election?
Seven Votes!
I almost feel sorry for Fran Bailey.
spare a thought for my buddy Richard Di Natale who is in a similar positon in that the waiting goes on and on.
And that was without a dirty campaign.
a Pox on evangelical christian political parties – you know who you are.
William
Regarding the Nunawading by-election in 1985. I knew the Returning Officer and was in contact with him at the time the drama was unfolding. In the end it was a dead heat and a draw was done from a ballot box (not sure what it was they actually drew out) to settle the issue. The Labor party came up trumps.
That wafer thin win gave Labor the smallest possible majority in the upper house, I think the first time they had ever had one, and enabled the Cain Labor government to get its Work Care legislation through the parliament.
A short time later, the Court of Disputed Returns (or whatever it is known as in the State of Victoria) overturned the result and the re-run was very comfortably won by the Liberals.
I think you will find that Nunawading was a tied vote and a lucky dip took place. Labor was awarded the seat and was given control of the Upper House for a short time. During that time Labor passed it’s Work Cover Legislation. Irregularities, involving Batchelor, did occur and subsequently the election for that seat had to be conducted again. The Libs won it back and Labor lost the slimm majority in the Upper House. That was the first time, I believe, that Labor had control of the Upper House in Victoria.
Darn, snap.
Darn @ 6, I think the returning officer in the original Nunawading election was a woman, not a man.
“KEVIN Rudd and Labor owe their election victory a fortnight ago to just 0.1 per cent of the national vote after fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates dumped the Coalition.”
That would have to be the dickhead comment of the election.
12,000 people dump the coaliton labors vote goes up by 0.1% and Howard is reelcted with an increased majority of one, ie 88 seats.
Conversley distribute the votes evenly across the electorates as others have pointed out and labor wins all 150 seats with a 2PP of 52.8% in every seat.
But Hayden also lost the 1908 election by only 3,000 votes on the same reasoning, we probably would still have got Hawkie in 87 and Keating in 93 and Howard in 96 and Kevin in 07.
However as Adam and others pointed out the funding given to members hugely favoured them with safe labor seats recording big swings of around 8% plus and it was a terrific victory to achieve a 24 seat gain given this and the government $600 million dollar advertising campaign.
If Rudd winds back the members rorts it will even out te gorunds for members and challengers next time.
Given the disparity of swings across seats it was a lottery to pick the final result which could have been between 83 to 92 seats.
But congratulations William on your pick of 84.
For non Victorians Nunawading was basically present day Deakin
I must corect you about the Greensborough by-election.
You are quite wrong !! It was not the by-election of 1977 that led to a disputed return ,but the election of 1973.
In 1967,the newly created seat of Greensborough in Melbourne’s north-east,was won by a Liberal, Monty Vale,who lost it in 1970 to Labor’s Bob Fell.
Fell and Vale both contested the seat again in 1973,and Fell lost to Vale by just 5 votes,after a series of recounts.
Vale became member ,but Fell immediately challenged over the matter of some disputed ballot papers.
This challenge was heard by a Victorian Judge acting as a “Court of Disputed Returns “who found in Fell’s favour and order a fresh election,which ironically Fell lost by a margin of nearly a thousand votes
. This happened during the time of the Hamer Liberal Government, so there was no anti-government swing involved.but the Liberals may have profited because of an interest rate rise which they blamed on Whitlam,then in power in Canberra.
.The new election was not called a by-election but a “re-election” by the VEC. I know because I was on Fell’s campaign committee at that time ..
In 1976 Vale won again against an outstanding Labor candidate named McKinlay(ME!!),but died a year later.and in the by-election the new Labor candidate Pauline Toner won the seat,and later in the 1980′ies when Cain came to power. she became the first Labor woman to hold cabinet rank in Victoria,there was another by-election in 1989 when Toner died in office,and the seat was won by Garbutt.who held cabinet rabk under Bracks,
With 3 by-elections between 1973-1989 Greensborough must hold some sort of record, The seat later was later chaged and made into the seats of Eltham and Bundoora. Of it’s four members ,two died in office…a 50% death rate,…so perhaps I did well to lose in 1976!
Shackles says
Regarding seats won. Of the last 8 close seats the Coalition had the advantage of the donkey vote in all except Solomon and Flynn. The donkey vote is “worth” an average of about .5% and reversing the position on the ballot paper means a 1% turnaround – changing result in all seats except McEwen. Labor winning 5 more seats and losing 2. Just as well this didn’t affect the overall result. Lets hope there is some will by Labor and the Senate to fix some of the problems which affect the fairness of election process.
William, I was going to say that I was actually refering to the Vale-Fell by-election of 1973, but I see that Brian has already said that. I was of course wrong to say that the incumbent government lost that by-election, since the Libs were in office. Perhaps it would be more accurate just to say that Labor usually loses these by-elections, whether we’re in government or not.
Gary, the (alleged) irregularities in Nunwading took place during the by-election, not the original election. The original election was voided because the returning officer acted incorrectly in drawing a name out of a hat. The Act requires (or did then, anyway) that in the event of a tie the returning officer must cast a vote, which she didn’t do.
Pedant (9) You have a good memory. I was wondering if anyone would bring that up. The official Returning Officer was indeed a woman. She was the wife of my friend and colleague to whom I referred. He was the one really running the show and it became something of an embarrassment to both of them when the spotlight of the whole country went onto that seat. He said to me after it was all over that he would never do that sort of thing again. And he never did.
I tipped 84 on earlier threads here and at Possum’s site
However, I did tip Ryan as the seat with the largest swing
Yes, I’ve amended my statement of Lindsay to suggest that there might be an unequivocal anti-Labor bias in what I have called “re-matches”. A big Poll Bludger welcome to Brian McKinlay, who gained constitutional immortality in 1975 courtesy of the High Court’s momentous ruling in the “McKinlay case”.
William, could you dredge up and re-post the list of everybody’s predictions which someone posted here a few weeks before the election?
William,
That statement by Hudson is doubtless a direct quote, but it’s wrong as it conflates two separate issues.
The result in Nunawading at the general election was a tie. The provision at the time was that the returning officer was obliged to break the deadlock by casting a vote (iirc, the returning officer was not permitted to vote in the ordinary poll). The woman with that responsibility didn’t want to express a preference which might then be construed as a bias that might have allowed a perception that her conduct of the election was tainted; so she drew the winner’s name (Labor candidate Bob Ives, who later had at least one term in another Legislative Council constituency) from a hat.
Inevitably, this result was over-turned by the Court of Disputed Returns – not because the “raffle” was invalid, but due to the various irregularities (they always exist, but since margins are typically greater than 1 or 7 or 12, then Courts of Disputed Returns only order a fresh election if it is satisfied that the number of irregularities exceed the winning margin).
At the resulting by-election, with control of the Upper House at stake, both major parties threw everything at it. In fact the Liberal candidate won decisively – certainly in excess of 1,000 votes. The occasion was marred by the controversy over the htv scandal. I’d wager that there are fewer than 20 people could describe the details of what has passed into folklore as the Nunawading by-election scandal. There’s just a vague smell, which the mere mention of that phrase arouses.
Essentially, it was this. The Nuclear Disarmament Party, then the popular more leftish alternative to Labor ran a candidate (tragics will remember Peter Garrett as an NDP contender for the Senate in 1984, narrowly missing a quota). NDP htvs for the Nunawading by-election indicated a 1 in the box of their candidate, but no allocated preferences. Labor sources concerned about the impact of this – likely informal votes from people who might otherwise be expected to preference Labor – produced a htv purporting to be from the NDP with a full preference allocation, Labor of course at “2″. This is the so-called bogus htv card, which was widely distributed on polling day; but as the result was a decisive Liberal victory, the “bogus htv card was irrelevant to the outcome. If Labor had won, there would certainly have been a challenge, and either the result would have been reversed or a third election would have been scheduled. There is some dispute over who was responsible, but the person mentioned earlier in the thread certainly copped the rap for it.
Does anyone know the URL of the PollBludger seat predictions that were taken in October. From memory 84 seats was close to the median estimate. Perhaps at the next election we should track the Pollbludger consensus estimate as the best indicator.
My slow typing again renders my detailed comment almost entirely irrelevant. Apologies!
Adam @ 14, I don’t think you are correct in your recollection of the reasoning underlying the court’s ruling in Nunawading – my memory is that the Judge, John Erskine Starke, upheld the validity of the manner in which the returning officer had arrived at her casting vote, and indeed said words to the effect that it was a very Australian way to proceed. The main problem on which the challenge turned was the mishandling of certain absent votes by or on the instructions of the then Chief Electoral Officer for Victoria.
The list of commenters’ predictions that was being compiled by BLUEBOTTLE (who is banned and shall forever remain so) can be viewed here.
Peter Fuller (21) Nothing to apologise for mate. That was all very good information. Keep up the good work.
OK, so I did tip 84-64-2. Does this mean I get a gold star? Honors in psephology? Or just bragging rights? (Don’t worry, I’ve already taken up on the bragging rights with my mates.)
Pedant, I defer to your uber-pedantry.
William, thanks.
William
Just as a matter of interest, how can you be certain Bluebottle is not still contributing under another nom de plume?
#27
Because he had him “whacked”
After viewing the commentators prediction its no wonder Tabitha has been silent
Based on Brad Noriington’s reasoning Tabitha was only out by about 67,000 votes in her prediction!
Jen @ 5,
Don’t feel sorry for Frannie!
Her seat has 104,509 enrolled voters. Indi, to the north, -the Mirabella ‘queendom’ – has only 90,871 enrolled. By rights, about 5,000 votes from the northern part of McEwen should be in the land of good Queen Sophie.
I’d wager that, on the balance of probabilities, the votes at that end would be likely to be more Lib than Lab. Hence it is only the absence of a recent redistribution that has kept Frannie competitive.
Of the 10 seats in ‘Provincial Victoria’, as it is referred to by local government, McEwen is the furthest above the average of 93,424 enrolled voters. Smallest is Murray – Stone’s seat – with 88,890 enrolled.
William –
would you provide a list of all the people you have banned?
And the reasons?
just for fun…
Another close election result in Australia was in 1968 when Des Corcoran won the seat of Millicent in South Australia by 1 vote. The Court of Disputed returns ordered a re run and Corcoran won the bye election comfortably.
Corcoran went on to become Premier of South Australia post Don Dunstan.
Based on Poll Bludger predictions compiled in October the median estimate of ALP seats won was a shade over 86 – pretty good effort from a month out.
… which just goes to prove the overall balance and insight of the bloggers here.
Thanks Old Tom.
having been a candidate in Indi and had the (dubious) pleasure of debating Mrs Mirrabella, both in persona and on local radio your analysis makes me feel even better.
Work to Rule, that’s one way of looking at it. The other is to say that half of all the Pollbludgers seriously overestimated Labor’s majority.
The most celebrated ‘close’ election is, of course, the 1961 federal election in which Sir James Killen only just won the seat of Moreton for the Liberals due to a handful of Communist Party preferences. With the narrow victory in Moreton, the decidedly anti-communist Menzies government was returned – by that one seat.
Does anyone know the actual margin in Morton in 1961?
1961 must have been the year of close contests. It was also the year of the famous “Tied Test” against the West Indies in Brisbane.
How the hell do you remember numbers and disputes going back to the sixties.?
What do you do in between elections?
Why aren’t you candidates???
The consequences of Killens win were of course that Australia went to war in Vietnam– Killen won by 130 votes– the subsequent costs for Australias young men were enormous.
Jen, in between elections we pine away for the next election while analysing the previous one to bits.
And William-
will you provide The List of The Banned, seeing as you were willing to publicly disbar them at the time?
There are some where i’m not sure whether they passed on, or you killed them off.
Jen 40
Its easy to remember the events of the 60’s when you are as old as me lol
gus-
there are some events I also well remember. But a disputed return at a poll is not one of them.
Adam, no doubt some blogger here were rather optimistic. Some were pessimitic (hiya LTEP) – overall they cancelled each other out to create a pretty good estimate.
From my website (sorry about the lost tabbing):
MORETON, Qld 57,022 enrolled, 54,269 (95.2%) voted
====================================================================
Suburban Brisbane: Moorooka, Mt Gravatt, Salisbury, Sherwood
——————————————————————–
1958 two-party majority: Liberal over ALP 10.3 e
——————————————————————–
Christian Hagen QLP 3,882 07.4 (-02.7)
Max Julius CPA 676 01.3 (-01.5)
Jim Killen * Lib 22,667 43.3 (-07.6)
John O’Donnell ALP 25,123 48.0 (+11.8)
——————————————————————–
1,921 (03.5) informal 52,348
——————————————————————–
2nd count: distribution of Julius’s 676 votes
——————————————————————–
Hagen 193 (28.6) 4,075 07.8
Killen * 93 (13.8) 22,760 43.5
O’Donnell 390 (57.7) 25,513 48.7
——————————————————————–
> 676 52,348
——————————————————————–
3rd count: distribution of Hagen’s 4,075 votes
——————————————————————–
KILLEN * 3,479 (85.4) 26,239 50.1
O’Donnell 596 (14.6) 26,109 49.9
——————————————————————–
> 4,075 52,348 00.1 10.2 to ALP
——————————————————————–
Denis James Killen (born 1925): Elected 1955, 1958, 1961
——————————————————————–
There are several myths about this famous contest. The first is that
Menzies sent a message saying “Killen, you’re magnificent” (he
didn’t). The second is that Killen, a fierce anti-Communist,
received Communist preferences (he did not: he did benefit from the
small drift of Julius’s preferences, but this was cancelled out by
the bigger drift of QLP preferences to the ALP). The third is that
the ALP would have won the election if it had won Moreton (it would
not have: the state of the parties would then have been 61-all.
There would probably have been a minority Menzies government
followed by a fresh election).
——————————————————————–
jen 46
There are other things about the 60’s I remember well but I have to say the vast majority of that decade is hidden in a substance induced haze
congratulations to william & others who predicted closely the seat result
BUT a word of caution re my hobby horse…Pollsters
The predictions were essentially based on FLAWED polls showing Labor at 2PP
of 54 -46 or 55-45 that had been stable for 9 months including part campaign
Had the polls been showing 52-48 Newspoll & Galaxy
or the current 52.86-47.14
would predictors have predicted the same seat margin ?
PS/ William thanks for the info on todays McEwen vote count breakup
it was extraordinary luck !!!!!!
1/ as the net 16 postals and net 10 pre polls that Mitchell got today was
TOTALLY CONTRARY TO the todate 2PP vote of under 48% he’d been getting
2/ because he then got a the net 8 votes on a recount (the winning margin)
No, Work to Rule, they didn’t cancel each other out. Only a quarter of Pollbludgers underestimated Labor’s margin. Another quarter got it about right. And half overestimated it, some by wide margins. I will deal with this in my forthcoming commentary. Stay tuned.
gus 49
I was a little too young in the sixties to be hazy. Made up for it in the 70’s.
my first political recollections are the night Kennedy as shot ( i remember the diagram of the bullet in his brain), then the drowning of Holt, then pretty much not a lot till the Whitlam sacking.
Although i still remember the jingle of “Henry and Clyde” : no idea what year that election was though.
Thanks for your kind welcome William…some years ago at another website,where there was discussion over McKinlay’s Case..I was described as”the Late” Brian MCkinlay…happily rumours of my death were found to be untrue !!..and I was happy to point that out !
Jen, against my better judgement, I offer the ones I can remember off the top of my head:
Rupert. Continually reposted the same stupid endless joke about Kevin Rudd long after I told him to stop.
Cerdic Conan. Did precisely what I told him not to do, like a giggling schoolboy idiot.
Snoopy. Called me – dear sweet little old me – a “c*nt”. A shame, because I quite liked his “So Says Snoopy” sign-off. That’s what the left needs: a bit more pizzazz.
K Jin. Banned for general purposes of quality control.
rcandelori. A handy hint for anyone wishing to be banned forever from this website: threaten another commenter with legal action.
STROP/OLLIE. Called me “pathetic” for not having deleted a comment I hadn’t yet seen (not that I deleted it when I did). In the argument that followed, said “go f*ck yourself loser” and accused me of being Glen. Will be reprieved if he ever apologises.
I can also think of a few others, but those are the most instructive. Probably best not to mention the ones who threatened me.
Adam – I’ll look foward to that.
With a week to go, if I had been given the chance, I probably would have increased my own prediction (of 85 seats*) as I thought the campaign had gone well for the ALP.
The break towards the coalition in the last week still surprises me as it seem to be against the run of play. Will you commentary have a go at explaining that one too?
*under Albert F
Why isn’t the freeloader at Kirribilli packing?
http://www.theage.com.au/
William , the good news is they represent such a small proportion of ALL blogers demonstrating the rest of us are good guys/gals
Do you reckon Rob Mitchell should buy a tatts ticket ?
As of this morning there were 6,900 pre polls counted & 7,400 postals counted
His share of the 2PP vote on these was 47.89% pre polls and 44.02% on postals
BUT today he gets 58.92% of the last pre polls and 63.79% of the last postals
(33-23 and 37-21)
Thanks william -
and i’m so glad not to be among them.
What about Generic Person- I’m pretty sure you threatened him fairly recently.
or maybe that was K Jin.(racism etc?)
Also, how do you syop them reblogging under another name? Or does that explain Glen/ Stephen Kaye / Tabitha/Isabella etc?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-goes-green-at-last/2007/12/08/1196813083739.html
Congrats Billbowe on getting the numbers right – truly the psephseer par excellence.
With your threats, did you get one from some nutjob about enabling the legitimacy of a Rudd communist government by using j.e.wish mind control techniques of boosting win expectations through reporting polls?
I had one from that turnip who named you as a co-conspirator, just wondering if you had the pleasure yourself?
That was truly the class act of complaints over the last few months.
Alcohol, meds and Crosby-Textor just dont mix well with some people
red wombat
an (a)hole in one.
Hahahaha:
Alcohol, meds and Crosby-Textor just dont mix well with some people
Oh Possum, made my day with that line!
I hope JHo can swing a club better than he can bowl a cricket ball.
I’m sorry to say I haven’t had the pleasure, Possum. I’m surprised I was pinged as a co-conspirator – the j.e.wish mind control techniques were very much your end of the operation. I don’t think I ever actually said I thought Labor was going to win (on this site at least) until the campaign began.
Jen, I vaguely remember telling Generic Person off about something, but I don’t think he’s been in any real danger. Isabella plays rough, but I’ve never been tempted to ban him/her. Glen has never needed more than a very occasional warning. Tabitha is a certain other commenter’s little joke, thankfully applied in small doses, which I have found perversely amusing. Much as I dislike Steven Kaye, his behaviour stays just this side of ban-worthy. He is in moderation though.
William
Without naming any names, how did you find out Tabitha was another commenter’s little joke? Did the person just come out and tell you?
” Pundit” William Bowe says the ‘OZ’
Reading the ‘OZ’ Chris Mitchell the real message is the ‘oz’ objects to its journalistic standards being questioned (whilst happy to criticise anyone else in the community
The newspapers have had a monopoly on the written word & seem shocked this monopoly is breached however small
Shanahan’s comments below is almost pompous shock that he is being criticised:
” Shanahan says. “Whereas websites are starting to realise, particularly in relation to me, after Chris’s editorial, that there’s a person at the end of this and a logical journalistic decision that’s been taken.”
Darn, the intelligence was ascertained through j.e.wish mind control techniques.
Dont be surpised BillBowe, apparently the Illuminati net (of which we are both members) is cast wide…. You, me, Michelle Gratten and The Australian were apparently the key protaganists.
Fitting that foursome together in some unified conspiracy theory requires some seriously psychedelic Leggo.
Oy gevalt.
William bloged:
In any case, Brad Norington bails me out in the accompanying article by trying on the line that Labor owes its win to “fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates”.
My simple response to Brad Norington 12,000 figure is
Brad , Rudd won Howard lost
Brad, the ALP won by 698,000 votes
Brad, have the courage to say what you want to say instead of hinting at it
can you use your reputed mind control techniques on Shanahan’s analylsis of Newspolls Polls or are your silky skills only successful on us mindless blogers?
(excluding Steven Kaye , Glen & Taby
“The donkey vote is “worth” an average of about .5% and reversing the position on the ballot paper means a 1% turnaround – changing result in all seats except McEwen. Labor winning 5 more seats and losing 2. Just as well this didn’t affect the overall result. Lets hope there is some will by Labor and the Senate to fix some of the problems which affect the fairness of election process.”
circular ballot papers. candidates and boxes evenly distributed in a single ring for the house of reps and the white ballot paper in a similar fashion with a ring separating the above the line squares from the below the line squares. Each party is arranged radially so you basically have the ballot looking like a bicycle wheel with spokes for each party’s candidates and you can vote inside or outside the line, instead of above/below. donkey vote is now history, as are any arguments about ballot position because you have no idea what orientation the ballots will be received in. i’m going to go ahead and copyright this idea too… i’ll need the money in case caroline overington and malcolm turnbull come after me..
in fact i’ve just been inspired to (crudely) mock up what they’d look like. click my name to visit my blog and have a look if my description sounds crap.
gam #72 – An interesting mock up. How about an endless ‘Moebius strip’ ballot paper? Tassie’s ‘Robson rotation’ is a proven solution that is much cheaper, and is now used by the ACT. None of these solutions facilitate how-to-vote material.
“None of these solutions facilitate how-to-vote material.”
i’m sure voters will cry themselves to sleep knowing that.
also my solution is cheaper than rotations because you print every ballot the same way instead of n different printing runs for n candidates. a circular ballot would be much smaller than the four feet of white paper we had up here in qld this election.
“Reading the ‘OZ’ Chris Mitchell the real message is the ‘oz’ objects to its journalistic standards being questioned (whilst happy to criticise anyone else in the community”
The Oz doesn’t like being held to a standard? Or having its standards questioned? I would have thought for many years their standards have been perfect for a neo-con target audience.
Any paper or journalist who believes they shouldn’t be criticised should change their name to pravda and find some totalitarian country to live in [Now that the dream of a Howard one has fallen through].
The world has changed now and so it will be interesting to see how the press change.
Wow. I’ve been following the McEwen situation as closely as one can between work through refreshing the AEC site and here of course. After the gradual shift in the last 48 hours or so it looked to me that Fran Bailey would be returned albeit only just. Clearly there had been some big swings against her in various parts of the electorate.
I had long since given up any expectation of a return on my modest wager on this seat but have enjoyed the commentary on the whys and wherefores of the McEwen vote and learned heaps. Expect more yet from this tale. Seven votes. Closest ever reps seat so far. Wow.
Um, why exactly does there HAVE to be a by-election in McEwan just because the Liberals are not happy? What would their lawyers manage to find? If they’re unhappy with every loss, will their lawyers get involved in every electorate and find some petty excuse to begin a by-election everywhere else? I just don’t see why this is “inevitable”.
Gam #72,74 – I liked the mockups. The debate might be about how to neutrally orient other words on the ballot papers. And aren’t they also initialled and numbered? I am sure those issues could be resolved. Good idea.
The higher proportion of provisionals being ruled out in McEwen than previously had me wondering that the changes to the electoral enrolment dates and eligibility requirements might have been a factor there.
I would also be intrigued to know how those ineligible provisional ‘votes’ were breaking. They might be a good indicator for the bye-election outcome, if that happens of course. My guess is that they should more than account for any votes that the Libs might have lost from their error with the font they chose on their HTV card.
On a different matter, many people that I know now cross their sevens as a matter of course to be clear when writing numbers on all kinds of forms. Interesting synergy between a close of counting seven vote outcome and the issue of the ambiguity between the 1 and the 7 on the ballot paper. Is there a numerologist among us contibutors?
Does anyone have an idea what the current potential new enrollments might be in McEwen? 500? 3000? he he
Possum says:
Dont be surpised BillBowe, apparently the Illuminati net (of which we are both members) is cast wide…. You, me, Michelle Gratten and The Australian were apparently the key protaganists.
Fitting that foursome together in some unified conspiracy theory requires some seriously psychedelic Leggo.
Possum, you forgot to mention the CIA and the Rockefellers!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/behave-yourself-and-youll-win-howard/2
007/12/08/1196813083754.html
Oh this is priceless, Howard advising Libs on how to win the next election, “earth to John, here is the bad news, you just lost the election, now f… off”
Apologies for the way the link above pasted, however here is the guts of the article in the Age:
FORMER prime minister John Howard emerged from enforced retirement yesterday promising that the Liberals could win the next election.
“Keep your counsel and maintain hope,” Mr Howard urged the NSW Liberal Party’s state council meeting.
He predicted that the Rudd Government would suffer a traditional swing against it at the next poll, when a swing of just 2 per cent would return the Coalition to power.
“Unless you’re stupid, unless you implode, unless you misbehave … there is every reason to believe the Liberals can return,” Mr Howard said.
He said the buoyant state of the Australian economy meant Mr Rudd had “won lotto”.
On the subject of election predictions, I have two things to say:
1. I was wrong (and never happier to have been
) – I’ll take my ribbings.
2. How Rudd handles Telstra will determine whether he’s a one-time wonder. So many people hate Telstra that if Rudd caves to them, he’ll lose vast numbers of votes. Barring a complete stuff-up of the Telstra issue, I can’t see Rudd losing 2010 – in fact, he’ll probably sweep up a double-handful of Coalition marginals.
Just a thought – has anyone compiled the state-by-state swing numbers yet?
Mathew Cole they can be found on this page
(http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-13745-NSW.htm)
NSW: 5.98%
VIC: 5.21%
Qld: 7.84%
WA: 2.10%
SA: 6.74%
TA: 2.02%
ACT: 1.82%
NT: 3.15%
Also interesting is to look at the swing by seat type
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTppByStateBySeatStatus-13745.htm
In Coalition-held seats the swings in safe, fairly safe and marginal seats respectively was 6.12%, 6.14% and 5.38%.
In Labor-held seats the swings were 7.16%, 4.91% and 4.97% respectively.
The only seat-type to produce a swing to the Coalition was WA, Labor-held marginals with a .6% swing to the Liberal Party.
The largest swings were in safe Coalition seats in SA (8.82%).
Sorry, the largest swings were actually in ‘fairly safe’ Coalition seats in Qld (8.88%).
I should also correct myself as ‘fairly safe’ Labor seats in Tasmania also produced a 3.10% swing to the Coalition.
Interesting item concerning broadband, much cheaper alternative and then we can get rid of Telstra and its arrogant CEO, who seems to think that monopolies last forever!
BBC website:
While politicians and network providers work out how they can afford to provide the UK with a network capable of delivering super-fast broadband speeds, one company is already doing it – via the sewers.
H20 networks has been in negotiations with water firms for the last five years and began rolling out its fibre-via-sewers network – known as Focus (Fibre Optical Cable Underground Sewer) in 2003.
Universities in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Bournemouth are enjoying high-speed fibre connections with speeds of up to 20Gbps (gigabits per second), while council offices around the UK are also benefiting from super-fast broadband.
Next month it plans to move to a new phase of its roll-out which could see it provide fibre networks to businesses and consumers around the UK.
Speaking of the delightful Sophie Mirabella, here she is with Anthony Albanese, from one of the last Howard question times.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxoor0DyUE
I posted the clip as a comment over at Andrew Landeryou’s blog and he put it on the front page. Not sure if I should be pleased, or have a shower.
Here is another youtube clip of the Master, PJK on the all tip and no iceberg dessicated coconut:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XQdVJL2CO9o
Ah, the 2007 election. The present that keeps on giving.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22891852-5006009,00.html
Greensborough, what a classic, good to see the Mad Monk being recognised for his people skills at last.
See on a related link this quote:
“Mr Howard, who last week wrote more than 100 “thank you” cards, will spend his first Christmas with his family in Wollstonecraft in 11 years.
Removalists have already started unloading the former Prime Minister’s belongings into his old home.”
Pleased that you have finally got that truck of your started Kiribilli Removals!
Dinkum @ 73 – the Moebius strip ballot paper was proposed in jest by the late Professor A L Burns at a hearing of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 1983, but didn’t find favour. Burns was, however, an early proponent of what became the group ticket voting system for the Senate, an idea which seems to have been first expounded by C L Dodgson, alias Lewis Carroll.
Now I know where Cerdic Conan and Snoopy went to when we chased them off Matt’s threads!
So states scaper… LOL!
It will be interesting to see what the Libs reasons are for demanding a further recount.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113580.htm
Now that the dust has, well almost, settled. has anyone compiled a new pendulum for the 2010 election?
A by-election would be a cake walk.
Rudd in his honeymoon period vs Mr 14% Nelson.
A party flush with funds vs a party that is close to broke.
The winner vs a sore loser.
And one more thing, do you reckon that there were at least a half a dozen prudes who were upset at the “where the bloody hell are you?” and did vote for Fran?
Shanahan describes a debate under way about the credibility of blogs as a realignment related to standards. “For a very long time, too long, we have accepted discussions on blog sites as fact,”
Most of the posters on this site and others back up their discussion with links to articles either from newspapers, including the Australian, or sites such as the RBA, ABS, economic journals or such.
And if a dodgy post is made this is quickly pointed out by other bloggers who will highlight the non-factual post, again with links. The accuracy of blogs as a source was highlighted in an article earlier in the year which said that unsubstantiated statements were quickly challenged as the mix of people included economists,lawyers, former politicians, public servants, business owners and many other well qualified people.
Shanhan is getting confused between those offering an opinion, as he does, and those offering a discussion based on facts.
But I would have to say that Shanahan was right in the preferred PM bit that he always pushed because as I mentioned earlier the nation wide swing against the Coalition was 5.6% whereas with Howard it was only 5.53%, vindicating to some small extent that Howard was more popular than the party.
Arbie Jay,
Basically agree with you about the facts vs opinions debate – it’s not as if all (or even most?) MSM articles are based on seriously researched fact. I actually think that’s part of their hostility to blogs – for all the rubbish written on this site by me and others, we are exposing errors of fact and bizarre interpretations by the MSM which, say 10 years ago, would have gone completely uncommented upon.
To which I say, more accountability, even for journalists, can only be good!
Thanks Dyno
Would agree that Shanahans main beef is people questioning his opinion, he trys to muddy the waters by some obscure reference to bloggers posts about the Superdome after hurricane Katrina.
If Shanahan wants to take people to task over comments he should be going his beloved PM who talked of “Chaos and Madnees” should labor win. Though there does appear to be a fair bit of chaos and madness in the lib and nats following their defeat.
re Adam@48. The myth of Communist preferences to Killen well killed off. There are always a “leakage” of preferences despite what parties do with HTV cards.
In this election I analysed about 300 votes at a booth (a mixed very average SA booth) as they were counted on just this issue.
Of 109 ALP 1 votes – 35 followed ALP HTV card exactly or nearly exactly (given rush of observation), 24 gave a direct 2nd to Greens (who were low down on ALP HTV) and 50 had other versions of preferences.
Of 92 Lib 1 votes – 39 followed Lib HTV exactly or nearly exactly, 12 gave a direct preference to Greens and 41 had other versions of preferences.
Of 33 Greens 1 votes – 10 followed Greens HTV and 23 had other versions of preferences (often 1 Greens 2 ALP).
Other version include a fair % of Libs giving 2nd preference to ALP and vice versa ie people who don’t much like smaller parties or vote for names that they recognise.
On these figures, overall at this booth 6.5% voted 1 Greens, about 10% voted 1 ALP 2 Greens and 5% voted 1 Lib 2 Greens.
This means about 36% of people followed HTV cards exactly or close to. Its the people who decide (or should decide) where there preferences go. Good reason to provide more options in Senate voting. People are afraid to vote below line for well founded fear of mistakes. But surely the experience of Family First in Victoria in 2004 (and check Christian Democratic Party in WA getting close this time) and the DLP in Victorian upper house is enough to wonder about how well the result reflects peoples’ views.
THE MSM simply cannot accept what is happening now. MSM no longer has the mortgage over the facts, opinions, dissemination and the distribution anymore.
Their value, power and influence are being slowly but surely eroded. Since when the MSM let facts get in the way of their interpretation and analysis. How often they dress up their opinion as fact.
Furthermore, what is fact anyway. It’s all relative as Albert would say. They are all opinion.
Plus a by-election without Bailey would possibly be a 3-corner contest (although the Nats would only play a small role given the level of support they got at state level in the same area).
pedant #93 – Thanks for the background giving true credit. Fascinating, especially the Lewis Carroll bit.
Common misspellings on this blog: McEwan (for McEwen), bye-election (for by-election), Michelle Gratten (for Grattan).
I have to thank you again William for your excellent content. I found your site after reading comment in the SMH and what an eye opener it has been for an oldie.
I learnt to laugh at The Oz instead of screaming about the columns by Shanahan and Milne. How they must dislike us obtaining better and more lucid comment from blog sites such as yours, Possum and LP. Your sites kept me sane and, as a consequence, my poor husband. I have forgotten how to put a small sum your way via Paypal or whatever. Can you enlighten me please. And also another thanks to your interesting commenters who appear to have a better interpretation of what is actually happening than a lot of our one dimensional MSM journos.
I was the DLP candidate in both the 1973 and the 1977 Greensborough ?by-elections?. The DLP did not contest the 1976 election as it wanted the Liberals to lose seats because they had broken their promise from the 1973 election to reform the Legislative Council. The DLP could not bring itself to recommend second preferences to the ALP as a way of guaranteeing Liberal loses. I advised DLP people to vote for Brian McKinlay in Greensborough. Not enough did, obviously.
I was not included on Bluebottle?s list, but I was not far off with my predictions: House – Labor 82, Coalition 66, independents 2; Senate ? Labor 34, Coalition 37, Greens 3, FF 1, Nick Xenophon 1. I was wrong on individual seats, thinking Labor would win McMillan and LaTrobe, but not McEwen.
260107 (Idle speculation about the federal election)
?The only prediction I make is one I have been making for years: the Democrats are finished. No ifs, no buts ? they will lose all their Senate seats ? and it will be their own fault.?
280207 (Idle speculation: late February edition)
?I?ve just looked through Labor?s National Curriculum Policy. Kevin Rudd will retain the initiative all year. He is absolutely determined. He will hit hard and fast and without warning from every direction under the sun. He will keep the government on the run, and he will win. If I?m right, I?ll claim bragging rights. If I?m wrong, I hope you will all forget I said this ? I will.?
120307 (Idle speculation: mid- March edition)
?It would be foolish to say that Kevinism is unstoppable, but I still think Labor will win and win clearly. I?ll leave the numbers till later. This is not 2001, or 2004, or even 1969. This is 1972, but with the advantage of no Whitlam government at the end of it.?
030607 (Idle speculation: annihilation edition)
?I predict Labor to gain 22 seats. I should add that, as a person with little interest in football, I have entered only one football tipping competition in my life. I won.
?I think there is a chance that the coalition will gain only two Senate seats in one state, which would leave it with the ability to block Labor legislation on its own but take away its ability to carry any bills, amendments or motions without the support of Family First.?
(Note that this was predicted before Nick Xenophon announced his candidacy, which has resulted in the Coalition?s being reduced to only two seats in two states.)
If the opinion polls had had the Coalition in front all year by the amount Labor was, noone would have had any doubt about a Coalition win.
The Australian?s silly article about how close the election was is nonsense. Think back to the Victorian state election in 1999. A difference of just a few votes in Geelong, I think it was, would have meant another four years of suffering for the state, but Steve Bracks went on to be re-elected in a landslide in 2002.
I think a result of 84 is close to a prediction of 82. The lessons are, on the one hand, not to carried away by the initial enthusiasm of the crowds and, on the other, not to discount all the evidence staring you in the face in opinion polls.
With the Senate, I was right about 37 Coalition seats, right about the Democrats losing, right about Family First not gaining another seat, right about the ACT, NT, Queensland, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. I was wrong about the Greens. I should have paid more attention to WA. With SA, my prediction was made before the candidacy of Mr Xenophon.
I still expect Kevin Rudd to win the next election with a swing to Labor.
AJ @ 99
The logic in the last par way off beam. The comparison of fact A alongside fact B in no proof.
Have you bothered to look at Higgins? I’ll say no more.
I was the DLP candidate in both the 1973 and the 1977 Greensborough ?by-elections?. The DLP did not contest the 1976 election as it wanted the Liberals to lose seats because they had broken their promise from the 1973 election to reform the Legislative Council. The DLP could not bring itself to recommend second preferences to the ALP as a way of guaranteeing Liberal loses. I advised DLP people to vote for Brian McKinlay in Greensborough. Not enough did, obviously.
I was not included on Bluebottle?s list, but I was not far off with my predictions: House – Labor 82, Coalition 66, independents 2; Senate ? Labor 34, Coalition 37, Greens 3, FF 1, Nick Xenophon 1. I was wrong on individual seats, thinking Labor would win McMillan and LaTrobe, but not McEwen.
260107 (Idle speculation about the federal election)
?The only prediction I make is one I have been making for years: the Democrats are finished. No ifs, no buts ? they will lose all their Senate seats ? and it will be their own fault.?
280207 (Idle speculation: late February edition)
?I?ve just looked through Labor?s National Curriculum Policy. Kevin Rudd will retain the initiative all year. He is absolutely determined. He will hit hard and fast and without warning from every direction under the sun. He will keep the government on the run, and he will win. If I?m right, I?ll claim bragging rights. If I?m wrong, I hope you will all forget I said this ? I will.?
120307 (Idle speculation: mid- March edition)
?It would be foolish to say that Kevinism is unstoppable, but I still think Labor will win and win clearly. I?ll leave the numbers till later. This is not 2001, or 2004, or even 1969. This is 1972, but with the advantage of no Whitlam government at the end of it.?
030607 (Idle speculation: annihilation edition)
?I predict Labor to gain 22 seats. I should add that, as a person with little interest in football, I have entered only one football tipping competition in my life. I won.
?I think there is a chance that the coalition will gain only two Senate seats in one state, which would leave it with the ability to block Labor legislation on its own but take away its ability to carry any bills, amendments or motions without the support of Family First.?
(Note that this was predicted before Nick Xenophon announced his candidacy, which has resulted in the Coalition?s being reduced to only two seats in two states.)
If the opinion polls had had the Coalition in front all year by the amount Labor was, noone would have had any doubt about a Coalition win.
The Australian?s silly article about how close the election was is nonsense. Think back to the Victorian state election in 1999. A difference of just a few votes in Geelong, I think it was, would have meant another four years of suffering for the state, but Steve Bracks went on to be re-elected in a landslide in 2002.
I think a result of 84 is close to a prediction of 82. The lessons are, on the one hand, not to carried away by the initial enthusiasm of the crowds and, on the other, not to discount all the evidence staring you in the face in opinion polls.
With the Senate, I was right about 37 Coalition seats, right about the Democrats losing, right about Family First not gaining another seat, right about the ACT, NT, Queensland, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. I was wrong about the Greens. I should have paid more attention to WA. With SA, my prediction was made before the candidacy of Mr Xenophon.
I still expect Kevin Rudd to win the next election with a swing to Labor.
The question marks were quotation marks when I posted them.
Is religious faith based on facts? I rest my case.
…except for the ones that were apostrophes.
43 Ferny Grover “Jen, in between elections we pine away for the next election while analysing the previous one to bits.”
So that means we’re all against 4 year terms, and for shorter terms.
92
Basil Fawlty
Yep, it’s been harrowing Basil, you know how it is with evictions: they mess about, stall, feign illness, try locking themselves in, and just go into complete denial.
It really is quite sad, but the Rodents Snr have been getting calls from their doctor, one Horatio Hornet, advising medications and doing some patient listening. According to Dr Hornet, Mr Rodent is in the early stages of dementia (and has been for at the least the last 12 months), and seems to think he’s still the leader of something called the “Coalition”, and wants to give Dr Hornet lots of strange advice. Even worse, it seems that Mr Rodent Snr has been calling up world leaders and keeps pretending to be the Prime Minister of Australia!
Anyway, we’ve started now, and we’ll have the old dears safely removed before Xmas, where they can wait for Santa to bring them lots of retirement reading about Don Bradman and a swag of recipe books for Mrs Rodent. That should see them out, eh?
Christopher Pearson is running the same line that the LIberals require only a tiny swing. We can see the majority of the Liberals will persaude themselves that the election result was an aberration, due to Howard not retiring. Thus they will drift helplessly until 2010
Posts @ mid 70s
Regarding circular ballot papers, I understand that it was proposed by Calwell – I think following 1961.
Interestingly, in the current Vic senate ballot, the Socialist Equity Party (Former Socialist Labour League – Pommy-based group claiming to be the ‘4th International’) registered 3 tickets – i.e. 1/3 of prefs to each of ALP, Lib & Green.
At one point it was in theory possible that their prefs could re-elect the third Lib over ALP or Green. Such precient leadership for the workers!
Earlier posts – previous thread – observed that Calwell would have wanted two Penny Wongs. An observation that no-one has made that I had expected. While his original comment contained a reference to a then Federal ALP M.P. (White) today the ALP Federal MP is Wong – not sure if we still have a White in either state or federal parliaments. (The former Vic. Health Minister, David White, having left Parliament some time ago.)
Good morning al. Apparently Kevin Rudd is just a nicer Mussolini and we can all expect our civil liberties to be smashed under Kevin’s jackboot:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/lost-in-ideals-brace-for-ruddslide-on-liberty/2007/12/08/1196813079449.html
With all the talk of the Oz’s attitude to scrutiny, it seemed appropriate to repost this link to an article by Prof Tiffen from Uni of Syd on the Murdoch press’ political bias and what it now means under a Labor government.
http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/comment_results.chtml?filename_num=183199
The final para is worth quoting here:
“Two conclusions should not be lost sight of. Labor won this election without any help, and in the face of some hindrance, from News Limited, and so the government owes the company precisely zero. Second, the Murdoch press has exposed itself as being out of touch with public opinion, and with a more limited capacity to influence it than they might have imagined. Its senior ranks are so dominated by conservative ideologues that this colours all their views of politics. This long ago started to damage their professional credibility, but of more interest to their boss may be the fact that now it is also increasingly threatening their commercial performance.”
It’s pretty foolish to start predicting what’s likely to happen in the next election, but at this stage some of the more vulnerable Labor seats appear to be Bass, Braddon, Corangamite, McEwen, Deakin, Robertson, Solomon, Flynn and Kingston. But when you consider redistributions, incumbency, economic unknowns, the Liberal fragmentation and the rise and rise of Kevin Rudd, who would bet on anything?
On Antony’s ABC election site the spot for the picture spot for the leader of the coalition is still occupied by el roedor.
Kirribilli Removals, your job is not yet done.
Congratulations Wiliam on picking the margin within 0.2%! I would hardly criticise, as I also picked Labor 87 seats, though I suspect my prediction was more guesswork than your own calculations.
Curious that the Australian didn’t mention their own election eve prediction of “too close to call”. If that meant 76/74 or thereabouts then they were quite a way out themselves. Perhaps they are just jealous of the “pundits” who happened to be more accurate than the “expert political commentators”.
Re FG’s 118 and The Finnigans back at 103 – MSM especially at News Ltd is not only out of touch and less intelligent relative to this and similar blogs; they are also mostly deadly dull by comparison; don’t you think?
I must say that Maxine has always been the object of my manly lusts. Watching her over the last 2 decades on the 7:30 Report and Lateline she was always the thinking bloke’s sex symbol. Now with her win in Bennelong we can add ‘heroic’ to the list of descriptors.
With the PM now disposed of and the media attention next time going to be more muted, I wonder how Maxine will go in Bennelong. It’s going to take a lot of effort from the new member to lock in her support and move the margin into ’safe’ territory. In spite of her obvious talent and intellect, I wonder if her energies in this first term should be entirely devoted to protecting her seat rather than distracted by parliamentary sec duties. Any thoughts?
Another vulnerable seat, but the demographics are moving McKew’s way and she’ll be the incumbent, not the prime minister. A huge advantage.
Neophyte, gotta agree. They are dull compared to this forum. It has amused me this year to see the MSM (headed by News Ltd) mount a campaign for freedom of the press in the face of what they have argued is increasing government secrecy. Freedom of the press is vital in any democracy – but our current press is anything but free. Its editorial content and position is almost entirely controlled by Mr Murdoch (Fairfax excluded) – and he therefore controls the flow and the bias of MSM information around the globe. In this country it has been nearly impossible to establish a truly independent news journal. In Qld we either have to read Murdoch or nothing. No other points of view are available in the local daily press. That is NOT freedom. The internet, and blogs such as this, now present us all with a chance to read, and contribute to, truly independent analysis and thought. The internet, therefore, is fast becoming far more essential to democracy than the privately owned and inherently ideological main stream press.
Anyone who watches the ABC Insiders this morning will notice the orchestra has started to play already. Those in the “bad chairs”, eg: Milne and Farr, have started to blow the trumpet to pin Rudd as the Rodent was pinned by his own deception, namely “I will keep the interest rate at record low”.
The symphony they are playing has the theme that:
1. Rudd has promised to bring down the grocery prices.
2. Rudd has promised to bring down the petrol prices
3. Rudd has promised NOT to let interest rate rise.
Just wait for the violins, cellos, harps, drums etc to join in the next few months and years for the crescendo.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,22891462-5001031,00.html
Agreed FG and Neophyte -
I would click on The Age website and after about 2 minutes would turn to PB for a much more informative and interesting (not to mention amusing) rundown of the real state of play. Being Not a pseph at all, but v. interested in politics some of the more infomed bloggers were a bit too numbers oriented for my poor addled brain, however I was surprised at what i had picked up when talking to people who relied on MSM.
And I’m still here post election – how long will we go on I wonder??
I can’t even be bothered with Crikey anymore.
I’ve noticed that too Finnigans. Rudd promised to do all that a government can do to ‘put downward pressure’ on inflation, interest rates, etc. and not to single-handedly reduce prices. They well know that in a free market economy it is impossible to make such promises. Still, the Murdoch Press need to create a straw man to push over and this is how they’ll do it. As mentioned above, our supposedly ‘free press’ will do all it can to follow the Masters orders and see Rudd defeated.
Adam at 406 (previous thread) said: “If the result is within 20 votes after the recount, the Liberal Party’s lawyers will be able to scrape up some pretext or another for a court challenge. There is always some little irregularity in a campaign and in the count that can be used. Did an ALP booth worker go into a booth wearing a Kevin07 cap? Did someone step inside the 6m line? Were these absent votes properly witnessed? Is that really Mr Nguyen’s signature? Has this envelope been tampered with? That’s not how you spell Woori Yallock. Is that a 1 or a 7? (Always a popular one, that).”
Presumably the Liberal Party will also seek proper legal advice before attempting to file such an election petition, and its attention will be drawn to section 365 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which reads in part as follows:
“Immaterial errors not to vitiate election. No election shall be avoided on account of any delay in the declaration of nominations, the provision of certified lists of voters to candidates, the polling, or the return of the writ, or on account of the absence or error of or omission by any officer which did not affect the result of the election…”
The AEC automatically recounts all the ballots in close seats before making the formal declaration of the poll. Following the declaration by the AEC, election results can only be voided by the Court of Disputed Returns on the grounds of specific illegal practices under the Act that can be shown to have affected the result of the election (see section 362).
Most of the irregularities listed by Adam (is that a 1 or a 7?) are issues that would (should) have been resolved in the polling booth in front of political party scrutineers, well before the declaration of the poll.
More seriously, if there is any suggestion of tampering with declaration votes, or fraudulent signatures, which might amount to an illegal practice under the Act, then it is for the petitioner to provide the Court with solid evidence. Filing a petition in the absence of such evidence, as a “fishing expedition”, is generally not appreciated by the Court, and costs would probably be awarded against the petitioner.
Grace, I concur with your jurisprudence.
Ferny Grover @125
Hi there,
It is indeed restrictive for Queensland to have one newspaper, but hey, their agenda worked for a long time though.
I believe the blogs are constantly evolving into a forum and is influencing future policy direction and public opinion.
I know for fact that we have been monitored by the political parties and Rudd appreciates the support that he has received.
Imagine if we organised and formed a lobbying bloc?
That would keep the bastards honest!
scaper…
The Coalition is certainly entitled to seek legal opinion re the result in McEwen, but I would hope my colleagues have sufficient independence and ethics to avoid fishing expeditions. There has, as of yesterday, been two counts in McEwen, and the AEC has stated its confidence that any further recounts would produce the same result. As you say, Grace, it would therefore require hard evidence of gross error or fraudulent activity to warrant any petition to the Court. At this stage I would say that McEwen is lost to the Coalition.
The News Ltd MSM is partly so dull in its attempts to influence because it is so predictable IMHO; but its predictability is much of its raison d’etre (pardon my French) so really it cannot win with a public that can get its evidence from elsewhere; can we hope these are its last days ?
If you need a laugh, go to:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/missed_it_by_that_much/#commentsmore
Hi Scaper. I’m sure Kevin has appreciated the support he has received from these blogs. There is certainly an air of hope and renewal about the place. As I’ve said previously though, those of us with a strong ’social democrat’ inclination (who tend to be the majority on these blogs) are much more likely to criticise our party when it steps out of line or pursues policies that run contrary to civil rights. Even those of us who are rusted on Labor will have no hesitation in publicly rebuking the ALP when we feel it is justified. Our support is far more qualified than that given by conservatives to their party.
William,
do you know whether any/many of the MSM journos blog here under other guises?
Ferny Grover,
Well said my fellow Blogocrat.
This is even funnier:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/all_noise_little_action/
It’s certainly reasonable for the Lib to request a recount in McEwen – but it does sound like the outcome will be then same.
The question is whether they take it one step further and try to dig up some reason to have another election called. With enough lawyers and money they could probably find something. It would depend on whether they think they can win.
In the shadow of Rudd’s Honeymoon period as PM and with their scare campaing now being redundent I think the Libs could be deeply embarrassed if they pushed for another election.
Hence, I think the Libs will make a few noises – make it sound like they were ripped off and then concede.
I think we’d be very silly to challenge the result in McEwen. The electorate would resent having to go back to the polling booths and the Liberals would rightly earn a sore loser tag. William, Mundingburra should not offer the Liberals any comfort whatsoever – North Queenslanders were fed up with Keating and chose to take out their frustrations on poor old Wayne Goss, who was one of this country’s finest (conservative) premiers! Lindsay is precedent the Victorian division of the Liberal Party wil take notice of if they have any common sense.
Talking of close ones, surely Lyne in 1993 is still the mother of all close shaves, at least federally – the Nats pre-vailed over the Liberals by 2 votes. As a South Aussie, I also note Millicent, which future premier Des Corocoran lost by 1 vote in 1968 I think
WTR, contrary to some public perceptions, most lawyers don’t go around finding ways to twist the law. The legal advice being given to the coalition re McEwen would be, as stated above, that without hard evidence of gross error or fraud then there is no point pursuing a petition. They may meticulously look for such evidence (as is their right) but they cannot manufacture it or proceed with only flimsy evidence. This would not be in the best interests of their client and would be considered quite unprofessional. As Grace said above, such a course would likely result in a costs order against the coalition. If the court considerd the exercise was an abuse of process then costs could also be awarded against the lawyers (see the White Industries case).
Re 130 and 132, thanks Ferny Grover, just my two-bob’s worth…
Election predictions, Yes I overestimated the seat gains for the ALP but I did over the course of the year write that I couldn’t see the 57-43 result happening for it would have meant several very safe Liberal seats would fall.
I also made the point that things would tighten and while I expected 54-46 compared to 52-48 I was only 9 seats out.
I correctly predicted Turnbull would score a swing to him in Wentworth, I also predicted big swings in seats like Casey 5% Aston 8% Macarthur 10%? etc, I also correctly predicted the behaviour of seats like Dunkley, Goldstein and Higgins
Interestingly some of the seats I missed just staged with the Liberals seats like Lt Trobe, Dickson, Bowman, Herbert, Stuart
My prediction was right that the ALP would lose Cowan yes I was wrong regarding Swan.
I was right also on seats like Leichhardt and Forde and wasn’t far off in Kagoorlie.
I was very wrong with seats like Ryan and McPherson and while I knew the swing in Queensland was on I didn’t see Kelly losing in Dawson.
Chris Curtis, what are you doing trawling clown town? Surely their caravans will have to move on shortly, no matter how quickly they try to duck back out for one last encore to a non-existant crowd?
FG says:
“contrary to some public perceptions, most lawyers don’t go around finding ways to twist the law.”
Fair point. Maybe I’m still getting over the inbuild expectation the Libs will try to bend the system to support them.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and a news story started with “The immigration minister said today that….”
I automatically prepared myself for twisted piece of wedge politics – hand ready at the off switch. Instead I got Chris Evans talking in a simple and reasonable manner on what would happen to the Indonesians fishermen at Christmas Island.
I think I need time to adapt
The Sunday Age is to the left what The Australian is to the right. Both are absurd and not worth buying. The only newspaper I buy now is the weekday Age, mainly for the crossword and (in season) the football. I get all my news and opinion online. I don’t know why people bother buying the Australian press at all any more.
Someone asked earlier for a post-McEwen pendulum. Here it is:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007/pendulum2007.txt
The Coalition will need a gain of 12 seats for a majority in 2010, which will require a swing of 2.3%. This is of course contingent on redistributions, and also on whether Katter and Windsor run again. Page now becomes the “index seat.”
Here are some nice maps also:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007/mapindex2007.shtml
Pancho,
Good question. I think the caravan will stay stuck until the next election. I am sure there are Liberals with more insight than those I have referred to, but given the reaction of state Liberal Parties to their losses, I wouldn’t count on it. They may keep on fighting the 2007 election, just as Paul Keating is still fighting the 1996 one.
Adam, that is a great map of Sydney. The battle lines are reestablished, it would seem.
Thay are nice maps, Adam, except for WA. I love maps as much as I love trains, which makes my 1944 map of the Victorian railway network just superb.
150 Chris Curtis I think I’ve got that map somewhere. It’s a beauty.
In fact it’s probably available on the net somewhere now.
Does anyone ever read Mike Smithson’s articles in The Sunday Mail in Adelaide.
This morning he was keeping up a theme that Hamilton-Smith will win in 2010 because Rudd won in 2007.
Chris B,
Now I’ll have to go searching the net. Maybe I will find out why the line to Edenhope was never built.
Is there any chance Jane Lomax-Smith will become premier of SA before the next election? I believe this would give the first ever Australian election contested by two leaders with hyphenated names. (No, Forgan-Smith and Bjelke-Petersen were never leaders at the same time.)
‘Forgan Smith’ was really just Smith, the tagging on of Forgan was an affectation to indicate he was above the plebs. Usually in the ALP hyphens are unpopular. Chris Hurford and Duncan Kerr shed them along the way.
CC says:
“They may keep on fighting the 2007 election, just as Paul Keating is still fighting the 1996 one.”
Keating might mellow a little now that Howard is out of the way. Keating’s narrative is that Howard and Costello inherited all the benefits of the economic reforms that he and Hawke achieved. It’s a fair point, but nearly all of the reforms he mentions occurred before he was prime minister. His major platform as PM was opposing economic reform.
If Howard keeps fighting the 2007 election I hope he gets a script writer so he can be as funny Keating.
118
Rodney Tiffen’s article is spot on. Thanks Ferney Grover for the link!
Work to rule @ 21, William Bowe @ 24:
Without double checking, and accepting the BLUEBOTTLE numbers as written (I take 100+ to be 100 etc), I get the following:
ALP
SEATS VOTES PRODUCT
0 1 0
67 1 67
70 2 140
72 3 216
73 2 146
74 3 222
75 1 75
77 1 77
78 3 234
80 14 1120
81 3 243
82 7 574
83 9 747
84 3 252
85 14 1190
86 5 430
87 6 522
88 8 704
89 7 623
90 6 540
91 10 910
92 5 460
93 3 279
94 1 94
95 1 95
96 2 192
97 2 194
98 1 98
99 2 198
100 3 300
101 1 101
102 2 204
103 2 206
104 2 208
105 2 210
106 1 106
108 1 108
110 1 110
111 1 111
146 1 146
SUM PRODUCT 12452
SUM VOTES 143
WEIGHTED MEAN 87.07692308
We might as well say that re-elections ordered by the Court of Disputed Returns trend the same way as the general election: eg Mundingburra, Lindsay…
Peter J,
Yep I think I got a similar mean of 87. The median estimate – which is less effected by extreme predictions – was 86.
I think a median estimate that is within two seats of the actual outcome is a good example of wisdom of crowds. Or alternatively there was a bit of group think going on that caused most people to tip a seat outcome in the 80’s and it just happened to be right.
You really need to run an experiment like these several times before you can make any firm conclusions
re post 129
matters disputed @ the count could be raised in a court of disputed returns case
with 100,000 votes it is quite possible to find questionable decisions for this number of votes or more.
HOWEVER
the decision to take things further is one for the Liberal party and is fraught
with dangers. What happens if they manage to force a byelection & lose it!!!
r/f Lindsay 1996
Chris B,
The date may have been 1942. I haven’t found it on the net, but there is a 1999 map that shows most of the closed lines from earlier years at:
http://www.victorianrailways.net/vr%20map/vrmap.pdf
re maps
the situation for the national party is dire. assuming they win Calare
they hold 10 seats. and only 4 of those seats are secure.
they only have Mps in 3 states.
SO LONG !!!!!
Mick,
10 out of 150 is a long way down from the 22 out of 125 they used to have.
But still in some sense, undemocratically high for a party that gets 5% of the vote.
Adam, tq. i asked for it.
Another Liberal scrap:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113688.htm
There is definitely a concerted move on by MSM stooges to paint Labor as promising lower groceries and petrol prices as seen on Insiders, here is today’s effort by that disgraceful bloated toad Piers Ackerman, jeez don’t they think we can see straight through them:
“Grocery prices haven’t dropped, petrol prices were higher than they have been for months, housing is just as inaccessible or unaffordable as it has always been and there as many Aussie troops in Iraq as there were three weeks ago.”
That man is a disgrace to his trade, I would not dignify with the term profession.
Mick Quinlivan 164, Chris Curtis 165 – a world without the Nats – what would happen?
Former PM says ““Unless you’re stupid, unless you implode, unless you misbehave …”
Three extremely big “unlesses” given the rabble he’s left behind him.
neophyte,
I guess we could ask the Tasmanians.
Not sure whether these are good or bad prospects.
Former PM says ““Unless you’re stupid, unless you implode, unless you misbehave …”
One could argue Howard being guilty of all three over the course of the last 12 months…
For starters (amongst many others):
Stupid: couldn’t believe the polls so didn’t believe the polls (or left it to Shanahan to interpret). Proud CC denialists.
Implode: What exactly do you call the Howard/Costello on again/off again team/no team. I’ll stay but I’ll go. Elect Howard – I’ll be PM for a while etc etc
Misbehave: Where to start – all the dirt culminating in Lindsaygate.
And Howard is giving advice!
HOOHOO, I know Mike Smithson quite well, way before he went overseas and came back self styled as a political journo rather than the run of the mill hack that he was before, believe me i’d take most of what he writes with a very large serve of salt lol, he’s a sensationalist and would never let facts get in the way of a good story,I class him at the same level as TT— a program I avoid like the plague.
well this was to be expected.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22894724-5005962,00.html
I just went onto Toad’s blog and gave ‘em a broadside, 16 inch guns blazing, betcha that won’t get through that disgraceful little reptile’s moderation. They are pathetic, now they are saying Labor only won by a few thousand votes. they do not even understand how the Westminster system works, miserable bunch of losers.
I recall the Nunawading by-election very well. It was around that time that I managed to talk Evan walker who inturn talked to John Cain and the ALP adopted a upper-house reform policy . Which is not in place.
Nunawading was a not a case of their being a small margin win it was a draw out of a hat win. That was the main reason the courts ruled a reconest election.
Problem with the count as clsoe as that in McEwen is there is disputation over what should be included and what should be excluded. A person who was removed from the roll and previously had voted in the electorate has agood case to have their vpte included. They could have not recioved some notice or in pervious elctions in whcih they did not vote they could have been overseas or unable to vote. The actions of the Commission in removing their name and thus denying them the right to vote is of real concen.
Issues with postal ballots not being signed and the like all raise questions subject to review and consideration.
the fact that the AEC appeared to now know how many ballot papers it had issued and that the information publihsed showed more ballot papers being recevied back then issued in some elctorates is of concern.
In Victoria a Nameless Victorian Electoral Commissioner failed to asertain or check the number of ballot papers issued against teh recorded number of ballot papers returned and accounted for. Votes between count A and Count B went nmissing and the total nuymber of ballot papers did not tally with the polling place returns or the corrsseponding lower house votes. information and details of the election counts was and has been denied.
We should not be allowed to criticize or express concern at the fact that the number of ballot papers recorded as being issued is less then the number received back.
If ballot papers go missing or are added into the count well bad luck we should only know what the commissioners publish as a being the results be it seven votes or 150 difference. if the result changes between count well the last count holds. Even if the first count clearly had errors.
Sorry I am of the view that the system Must be open and Transparent, that details of the count MUST be published and made public and that Commissioners are accountable for their mistakes and attempts of cover-up. Elections go to the heart of our democracy and if the system is not open or transparent then public confidence in the outcome and process is undermined.
I expect the Commissioners to know how many votes they have issued and to accurately and in a timely fashion make that information public. i also expect that the data files recording preferences used to determine the result should also be published and open to independent public review.
The Greens remain quite on all accounts. Got news for you it will bite you in the bum at some stage and you will yell….
Regarding Howard’s speech to the Liberals, I still missed the bit where he conceded defeat in Bennelong. Can anyone point it out to me? After all, Howard is a man of principle, who sticks to traditions like admitting defeat to the victor. Surely Honourble John would do the right thing? ROTFL
I suppose Howard still thinks he could win it back in 2010. He is so humble
155
Adam Says: what an interesting statistic.. What BS… Sorry there are far more important issues then useless trivia like that… How many have the name of a profession or trade how many begin with the letter C… gosh Costello and Abbott isn’t that funny ‘they never will be a team … oh and Putin’s election is undemocratic… even though the level of his support is unequivocally not in dispute.
180
Socrates
I am still waiting for the Greens to concede the Victorian Senate Election. I guess Howard can wait if the Green can
hey Adam you can publish a Electorial trivial pursuit game set of questions. How many elections where there in Australia where two candidates had the same name? I am sure it would be a hig-demand seller.
Adam trivia (cont) You could break it up into six categiories such as Names, Margins parties professions. etc… roll the dice and see who wins.
I am sure it would be a big hit at the ALP fundraisers.
MelbCity, do you have something against the Greens?
WHOOPS! this isnt going to help Sir Horatio’s tenure any, hmmm looks like not all of the libs are enamoured with their new leader’s past performance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113688.htm
178 -
Don’t worry if it doesn’t get though, there are enough critical voices against him in the comments, which is refreshing. Unlike in Bolta’s article. It’s like cockroaches swarming to a rotting carcass. As soon as Bolt puts a negative spin on Labor’s win, all the conservatives come out and applaud him in comments. As if reading his dribble on the great global warming hoax isn’t painful enough!
Melb city
I don’t understand why you keep on about the Greens conceding the Victorian Senate election. It is just not necessary or appropriate or usual for any party which fails to win a Senate spot to “concede”. How many parties ran in the Senate? How many have “conceded”? It just sounds like you are anti-Green and wanting to score a point. All you are doing is kicking own goals.
Can I also suggest you type your posts in a Word type program, run a spell check and then cut and paste. Most of what you have to say is a useful contibution, but it is sometimes hard to translate.
If the courts decide there should be a rerun election. Will they restrict the re-run to existing candidates or even suggest there be a two horse race? To determine the winner? or will we see a gathering of plane spotters and every dog and his sunder green cow run.
Maybe the two candidates could play the Adam Carr Electoral Trivial Pursuit game and the winner takes the seat.
I am all for multi-member electorates non of this 50% + 1 takes all BS
Well, here’s a change of tune!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-refuses-to-overrule-act-on-gay-partnership-bill/2007/12/06/1196812922344.html
It seems to me that most of the media still don’t believe that Labor won the election. Most the press being put out is still focused on the Coalition rather than Labor. I would agree that Labor has not had enough time to do anything but they do have policies to look at and discusss.
I expect people will criticize me for this comment because they love giving it to the Coalition but Labor is in, time to look to our future with them at the helm.
190
Rudd said he would not make it easier, he didn’t say he would make it harder. I guess this is the loophole he was looking for.
Excellent election tipping by the commenters on this blog. Don’t forget our tips were made weeks before the election. In the last week of the campaign, ACN poll had 57/43, then Galaxy and Newspoll 52/48.
I’m sure we would have nailed it had we been able to lodge in our tips on the eve of the election.
But what about the Sunday Telegraph? What a pack of losers! On the sunday before the election the screaming front page column by Glen Milne implied that Rudd would win by only a handful of seats. Certainly not the 20 seats more than the coalition.
Milne, Farr, Akerman, honestly (Big Brother) it is time to go…
Centre @ 193
I can’t say too much because my predication was wrong but there was not much in a Coalition win and massive landslide of a 40 seat Labor majority. It is hard to say who got it right and wrong unless they gave the % swing as well. In any case I got both wrong.
191 -
No, I think that is reasonable. There is a lot of media focus on the Coalition at the moment with their leadership issues and questins of whether they’ll be truly competitive come 2010, and also because it wasn’t the emphatic win for Labor that the polls predicated.
@ 170 Basil Fawlty Says:
I dunno. Whoors are professionals.
Fireworks at Howard and Sons exploded with lots of damage.
Kirribilli Removals, that’s a bit of a rough way of evicting them.
When the shoehorn didn’t work I guess explosives were KR’s next option
A bit of smoke and Howard would pick up his mirror and bolt.
What a zero of a hero…..never again please….
I mucked up by predicting 100+ seats for Labor. At the time the polls were 55-45, and had been there for several months. Unfortunately for my prediction, it narrowed in the final week. If not for that final narrowing, I think 100+ seats would have been fairly close.
As to why the narrowing, I’ve said before that I think it was the people who are not at all interested in politics, and are counted as uncommitted or refused on most polls, deciding to stick with the devil they knew. Fortunately for Labor, there were enough people who had decided to vote Labor already to make up for these late deciders. This won’t be a problem next time, as Rudd will be the incumbent, so unless he messes up big time, or the economy goes belly-up, Labor should win convincingly to crushingly.
The MSM “commentators” have been given oxygen for the past 10 years because of their “insider” knowledge. Now we have a change of Govt. the oxygen supply has been cut off.
The Bolts and Acker Toads will continue. It is the Milnes and Shananhahahahans of this world that will find things difficult.
All politicians need the media and the off the record background briefing will always continue.
It is a different breed of journo that will get these briefings, the others will fade into obscurity.
Work to rule @161:
I think I get the median at 87. Happy to double check this with you, my data is as above, I think it can be worked out from that.
I get a 10% Trimmed Mean of 87.12.
And I get a Geometric Mean for the non-ALP vote of 61.29, which converts* to an ALP GM of 88.71
*this is because there is a vote for an effective ALP seat count of 0, which makes calculating the GM impossible from the ALP seat count.
These sorta all say the same thing, which was reflected everywhere I think – the generalized wisdom of the crowds over-estimated the ALP seat count.
Minchin and others who predicted the postals going the way of the Libs seemed to have known something – I wonder how they knew it – but in the end, whilst it happened, it was not enough to get them over.
I think there is a similar dataset on Possum’s site – I might, for the fun of it (I seem to be quite a sad person) do the same thing with that data…
In a long and colourful life I’ve heard blokes whinge about just about everything. But I can’t recall ever hearing one express dissatifaction with a ‘working girl’ So I’m guessing they’d be mighty unpleased about being lumped in with pollies.
Work to rule @161:
Oops, I concur. Median at 86. I calculated an ‘interesting’ median, being the sumproduct of the seats and the votes. The median in that list is 87.
The previous Gov tended to leak stories to Shanahan and Milne and a few others. Who will the Rudd gov trusts with strategic leaks? Michelle G at Fairfax? Who else?
journos, not pollies
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113687.htm
This story will ring bells for all bloggers who have first-hand experience of the Howard government’s shameful neglect of universities, its disdain for academics and its constant attempts to silence critics. As the GG’s Higher Ed supplement said last Wed, 19 of the 20 cabinet ministers in the Rudd govt have degrees in humanities and social sciences, and most benefitted from Whitlam’s education reforms and received a free tertiary education. Let’s hope…
Postals always go the Libs way; that absolutely isn’t a surprise. I just thought Labor’s 2PP would be higher than it actually was.
Ferny Grover @ 205
I would suggest that Fairfax would not want any of their newspapers to be tagged as being the new GG. Look for another News Corp journo to take on the role.
Isn’t it time to move on from calling the Oz the Govt Gazette? As another blogger suggested, maybe we can now call them the OO – Opposition Organ.
at 179 MelbCity says: “Problem with the count as clsoe as that in McEwen is there is disputation over what should be included and what should be excluded. A person who was removed from the roll and previously had voted in the electorate has agood case to have their vpte included. They could have not recioved some notice or in pervious elctions in whcih they did not vote they could have been overseas or unable to vote. The actions of the Commission in removing their name and thus denying them the right to vote is of real concen.”
Why? I don’t follow that MelbCity. Voters have a legal obligation to keep their enrolment current…
But in any case, the Court of Disputed Returns can’t inquire into the correctness of the roll (because the roll is a snapshot), as per section 361 of the Electoral Act:
“Inquiries by Court. (1) The Court shall inquire whether or not the petition is duly signed, and so far as Rolls and voting are concerned may inquire into the identity of persons, and whether their votes were improperly admitted or rejected, assuming the Roll to be correct, but the Court shall not inquire into the correctness of any Roll.”
The only News Ltd journo I would trust is Mega George
FG: Maybe, but also Mike Steketee
If there is a by election in McEwen would Horatio Hornet really want it? Does he need a test of his leadership so soon?
I would not be surprised if dear old Fran gets left out to dry. If Fran wins by a small margin so what? If she gets thumped bye bye Horatio Hornet.
Is he willing?
That man is a disgrace to his trade, I would not dignify with the term profession
One of his nicknames is Pepsi, “like(s) Coke but not the real thing.”
208
Lord D Says:
That is not always true. it depends on who puts ion the work. The greens did no work on postals. The AEC published a running start following our requests on postals. It was clear and I had commented on this fact before that the Liberals were going to pick up on the postals. This is one if not the reason why the Liberals secured a third senate spot and the Greens missed out.
Ferny Grover Says:
“The previous Gov tended to leak stories to Shanahan and Milne and a few others. Who will the Rudd gov trusts with strategic leaks? Michelle G at Fairfax? Who else?”
Rudd seems to be adopting a “data rational” approach. Define the problem, define the metrics, use an evidence based policy to improve the metrics. Paul Kelly strikes me as a journo who likes to write from that angle.
apres (207),
Never hope – it leads to disappointment. Steve Bracks was a teacher. John Brumby was a teacher and a teachers’ union official. But Victorian teachers are still paid $31,000 less relative to average earnings than in 1975, there are still almost 2,000 teachers missing from our secondary schools, staffing is worse than it was under Dick Hamer, teaching loads are higher than throughout the 1980s, and one in five teachers is on a short-term contract. Past occupations and qualifications are no guide to what those in power will actually do.
Grace,
Usually slavishly agree with you but on this one I beg to differ.
You wrote,
Keeping your enrolment current and being struck off the rolls because you weren’t home when the man from the AEC called to check are two completely different things.
Working overseas ain’t a crime, either. Your enrolment should stay where it was (usually Mum and Dad’s place).
I can understand that there have to be limits. You can’t stay enrolled in an electorate you lived in twenty years before. when you were a kid. But I think it should be up to the voter to inform the AEC of a change of address, not for the AEC to be looking for excuses to cross people off (people – being itinerants, overseas appointees and renters – who usually vote Labor).
Talking of byelections, Are Costello, Andrews, Ruddock and Downer going to go in the new year? If so, would it be better from a Liberal point of view to have the by-elections all at once or spread out? All at once would be short and quick (and possibly painful but brief) but would spread resources thinnly. Where as if they are spread out, it would allow each seat to be a focus of the party and allow Nelson to try and build a profile. It also could be his undoing if the first one doesn’t go too well.
Again, MelbCity, do you have something against the Greens, because you seem critical of them in every post (even those on other sites, such as OC)?
in reply to pettigrew. (above)
A voter who has enrolled and always voted in their electorate has every right to assume that there enrollment is maintained. for the Electoral Authority to summarily remove their name and things deny them the right to vote is an issue that the courts will consider seriously. If the AEC had erred in the process of executing their duties and as a result of that error denied a voter the right to exercise and cast their voter then the Court will most likely rule in favour of the voter not the AEC. It is up to the liberal party to demonstrate that the AEC had erred in its administration and conduct of the election. The Liberal party (And any other candidate for that matter) is entitled to obtain a list of names of people who had submitted a postal vote, absentee, provisional or pre poll ballot that was rejected from the count. They will simple work through that list and in the process demonstrate that the decisions of the AEC returning officer was flawed. The Court may rule that these votes be added into the count. The Court may also consider that by doing so could run the risk of jeopardising the secrecy of the ballot 9Unless there is a significant number of such ballots) and as such they can not admit the votes but will call a fresh election.
I sat though most of the arguments that were fort out in the Nunawading court case. It was most fascinating.
Another aspect that the Liberal party should also consider is doing a comparison with the Upper-house Senate vote for the McEwen electorate.
One thing that has been bugging me after reading this site over the last couple of weeks is the number of times the donkey vote has come up. Sometimes it’s been claimed that the donkey vote is worth 1% or even more.
In my 20 years of scrutineering at local, state and federal elections I’ve seen very little evidence of the donkey vote. You could say that I’m a donkey vote skeptic since I’ve certainly seen campaigns where the first person on the ballot has walked away with just a couple of dozen votes.
I had a look at some of the results this time around, and it sure seems that some candidates who drew first on the ballot have done pretty badly. Poor old Kundan Misra in North Sydney, for example, polled just 245 votes, or 0.29%, despite being first on the ballot paper – surely all 245 can’t be donkeys.
In Macquarie, Kirk Fletcher didn’t do much better, with only 354 votes, or 0.41%, despite also being first on the ballot paper.
Even Danielle Ecuyer in Wentworth, also first on the ballot, nonetheless only won 771 votes, or 0.89%, despite a huge amount of media attention as the ex-girlfriend of George Newhouse.
Then I decided to be a bit more rigorous and do some actual numbers. I had a look at the chronically underperforming Citizen’s Electoral Council (CEC) to see if I could detect any donkey trends there. I looked at all electorates where a CEC candidate ran in both 2004 and 2007.
(If you don’t want to read the numbers feel free to skip to the second last paragraph.)
Of these, 11 CEC candidates were positioned #1 on the ballot paper in 2004 but at a lower position in 2007. 5 CEC candidates were positioned #1 on the ballot paper in 2007 but lower down in 2004. 3 CEC candidates were positioned #1 on the ballot paper in both 2004 and 2007.
Of those CEC candidates who had the #1 position in 2004 but not in 2007, every one dropped. (Avg -545, Min -230, Max -902 / Seats: Aston, Bass, Scullin, Fremantle, New England, Oxley, Page, Stirling, Moncrieff, Kooyong, Holt)
Of those CEC candidates who had the #1 position in 2007 but not in 2004 four of the five totals increased. (The exception was Hunter, where the CEC vote dropped -1292 from an extremely high 2590 in 2004 – I’m not sure what weirdness was going on there). (Excluding Hunter – Avg +364, Min +301, Max +409 / Seats: Fairfax, Jagajaga, Maribyrnong, Melbourne)
Of those CEC candidates who had the #1 position in both 2004 and 2007 the vote barely moved, with an average variation from 2004 of only -31 votes. (Min -226, Max +146 / Seats: Calare, Fadden, Hasluck)
So, despite my initial assumptions, there may indeed be a donkey vote out there after all, although clearly its appearance is inconsistent. If, however, we use the CEC figures as a base, the average donkey vote at the last two federal elections appears to have been around 0.3-0.5%, or in the order of 300-450 votes per electorate.
If we accept these assumptions, and remove the donkey factor from totals, this might have swung the outcome in Swan, Bowman, Dickson, Herbert (to ALP wins); Solomon and Robertson (to Lib wins); and Flynn (to Nat win).
Hmmm…
Quote: “the average donkey vote at the last two federal elections appears to have been around 0.3-0.5%, or in the order of 300-450 votes per electorate.”
Having had another look at my numbers, my natural skepticism seems to have kicked in again in the conclusion. Maybe up those percentages a little to 0.4%-0.6%, and votes to 450+
B. S. Fairman
I’d say go all at once, that way there is less of chance of an “wet” independant getting a profile, splitting the conservative vote and giving the ALP a shot.
Candidate selection on both sides will be interesting. For a laugh I’d like to see Kennett have a go in Menzies – not going to happen but it would fun.
Many of you would know that it is one of those strange quirks of history that average rainfall is higher under Labor governments than Conservative. Someone has suggested that God must vote Labor – but I wonder if the converse is true. Back in the old days when God was grumpy with a nation he would smite them with pestilence, locusts, famine and boils. The data may suggest that in these modern times when God is displeased with a nation he smites them with a Coalition government, and an accompanying drought! It appears the good people of Oz have once more found divine favour. Amen!
to remove the donkey vote effect , put as the first candidate “mickey mouse”
knowing us aussies & just to ’stick it’ to pollies we’d probably vote mickey
in in the 150 electorates…problem would be who would be speaker
Rob H – excellent work. A bit of extra work and you could turn your Sunday arvo exercise into a Masters.
Chris (218), my point was more about the effects of education than about the past occupations or employment of cabinet ministers. I’m not going to give up hope (yet) that universities will be valued by the Rudd Labor Govt if they train people to be critical and creative and, yes, dissident.
Ferny
“average rainfall is higher under Labor governments than Conservative”
I’m of the view that the aboriginal community have a spiritual connection to the land and that in times of the conservative governments this spiritual connection is lost as the the conservatives have no soul, being only interested in balance sheets. Labor of course look at the total picture,soul and balance sheets, and go some way to restoring spirituality to the community and the land.
My post mortem on polls, prophets, predictions, possums and prize prats is now available:
http://psephoblog.wordpress.com/
120
ViggoP
Look, if we have to blast the rodent out of his burrow, then, well, if it’s not too inhumane (sic), we’ll just have to resort to it.
As for erasing the image of said rodent on every blog and website, poster, letterhead and wherever, well that will just take time I’m afraid, and there’s only 24 hours in the day.
But rest assured, our work will not cease until the rodent is but a dim and awful memory in the collective conscious of our citizens.
OK, now, where’s the ratsak….
Interesting Rob H.
On the basis of your figures the ‘donkey vote” is the only reason that Bailey is even close enough to be talking about a recount in McEwen, and the reason that the Libs may retain Bowman.
(PS Ron, I reckon the “Mickey Mouse” approach would clearly favour whoever ended up second on the paper. Geeze, when I think about it, in quite a few electorates Mickey would probably be the logical choice for the thinking voter , in fact!
)
Cheers
Rod
Sorry I meant to say Western Metropolitan Not Western Victoria
The donkey voter is more of a player in OPV elections like NSW and QLD elections. If you are the major party candidate in those elections it can help a little bit. Basically if you are donkey voter you are not going to be the type who cares if your vote is valid.
It also used to be said that the more candidates the greater the donkey vote. I am not sure about that as it tends to the Informal vote that goes up.
PS. The CEC result in the Hunter in 2004 must be close to a record (3.2% and low on the ballot). Anyone know if that is the record?
The CEC has 1.6 in Hunter, with the donkey vote. You’re looking at the CCC, not the CEC.
If the ALP had lost Mcewen by 7 votes would they have challenge the result?
I think the answer would be no. There were string arguments that a challenge should be made on the Victorian Western Metropolitan result. the conduct of the election count clearly was flawed and there were dramatic inconsistencies in the data and results provided by the Nameless Commissioner. Votes went missing between count A and count B none of the tallies added up. the total number of votes counted varied with every breath there were more questions and answers, topped of by the nameless persons refusal to provide details of the count and subject them to independent analysis and review.
In the end the ALP realised that it was not worth the trouble as the best outcome would be a recount (It was unlikely that the court would subject the province to fresh elections) at the end of teh day to mount a successful challenge you have to demonstrate beyond doubt that the results of the election would change. Which is very very hard to do particlarly without access to the detailed results of both counts. The best you could hope for was a recount. In Western Metro there should have been a recount given the extent of errors made by the Commission in the count and the descrepancy in the reported number of total votes).
In the end if you are the overall winner of the election and you are seen to be challenging the result … is it worth it.. It is not as though the balance of power rested in the one seat as was the case in Nanuwading.
Details of the count should be made available. Our elections MUST be open and transparent.
The Libs in The ACT will not be a force for a long time to come
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113709.htm
and now Mulcahy has said the Stefaniak should stand down and that he (Mucahy) was stood down only because Stefaniak was afraid that he would be challenged by Mulcahy and didn’t have the numbers.
BTW, are we the only lot in Australia who doesn’t have to put up with a Country / National party?
Like in Russia, no doubt. Bring it on.
Adam: According to your site, wikipedia, the AEC and the ABC, the CEC got 3.2% of the vote in 2004 in Hunter. Any got any ideas? Climate Change denial maybe?
Ah you were talking about 2004, sorry. No idea. Maybe the candidate had a lot of friends. I doubt LaRouche is thought any less a whacko in Cessnock than anywhere else.
When will the FINAL result for the election be known? It’s been more than two weeks since the election – in New Zealand elections all the postals and other non-ordinary votes have to be counted within 13 days after the election date.
Anyway, notwithstanding the nail-biting result in McEwen, it looks like my prediction for the number of seats each party will win in the House was very close to what the actual result will be. Sometimes it pays to be slightly pessimistic!
My prediction was 83 seats for Labor (including my last minute pick of Bennelong), 65 for the Coalition and 2 independents. With Labor’s 7 vote majority in McEwen looking like it could be easily challenged by the Libs it could well be 83 seats for Labor in the end.
I wasn’t too far off with the TPP: I predicted 53% for Labor (which now has 52.86%) and 47% for the Coalition (47.14%). As for the primary support I was slightly optimistic for Labor at 45% (now 43.38%) but was more accurate with the Coalition at 42% (41.78%).
However when it came to the details of which seats Labor would win (or lose) I greatly underestimated how many seats would be won in Queensland and the fact that Labor would actually lose two seats in Western Australia.
Basically I correctly predicted all the seats in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Northern Territory that Labor would win off the Coalition.
In Queensland I was right about Labor gaining Blair, Bonner, Moreton and Petrie but wrong about Bowman and Herbert being Labor gains (although both those seats came very close). However (embarrassingly for me) Dawson, Flynn, Forde, Leichhardt and Longman were off my radar as being seats that Labor would actually win – some of them by double-digit swings.
In Western Australia I was correct that Labor would win Hasluck but hadn’t counted on the Liberals winning Cowan and Swan.
Finally in Victoria I was right about Corangamite and Deakin as being Labor gains, but was a bit optimistic about La Trobe (which again was one where Labor was ahead on election night but lost after postals). However Labor winning McEwen was a surprise for me (although that seat is now Labor’s most marginal at the moment).
I think the key to a successful challenge in a Court of Disputed returns lies in Article 355 (b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918…
Chris re your teacher stats, we have Labor ‘wall to wall’ for at least a week or two. Unless and until there is a massive lurch to the left, this is as good as it gets for education.
How are the Govts to be motivated to actually improve the profession and education, and how will they avoid or negate the inevitable allegations that they are behaving financially recklessly and are in the unions pockets?
My personal guess is the stupid behaviour of the Teachers Union in WA indicates either there is no way, and this is as good as it gets; or it is a very badly run very foolish union.
Don’t give up on Bowman yet, Kiwipundit.
If the Libs want to play hardball on McEwen then I’m sure Labor will in Bowman. If either seat ends up in the CDR and a re-election then in the current climate Labor will almost certainly win both.
Cheers
Rod
Don’t assume there will be a challenge in McEwen. As in Geelong at the Victorian election in 1999, there might be no point if it just brings on a by-election you could lose.
Antony, can I just say thanks for being THE DATAMAN for my entire life when it comes to elections. Since I was a teenager, Antony Green has always been”that guy” on election night.
No doubt this means nothing to you.
But its kinda funny for me to grow up and realise you an actual person
Anyway, thanks
Good point Rod. I notice that Antony Green still has Bowman and McEwen as too close to call.
Anyway who cares what Labor’s majority will be – the important thing is that Labor is now power, Howard’s political career is over, and that the New Zealand and Australian governments are now on the same wave-length when it comes to global warming and the war in Iraq.
and also
Section
364A Provision for Court to have regard to certain rejected
ballot-papers
In making its decision on a petition, the Court may:
(a) have regard to postal ballot-papers rejected at the preliminary
scrutiny because of paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 if the Court is
satisfied that the votes marked on the ballot-papers were
recorded prior to the close of the poll; and
(b) have regard to any declaration vote ballot-papers (including
postal ballot-papers) rejected at the preliminary scrutiny if
the Court is of the opinion that the ballot-papers should not
have been rejected.
Hey guys, GetUp has just started a petition campaign to get signatures for Al Gore to take to the Climate Convention in Bali asking for new targets to be bought forward to 2010.
Those of you that are already members will have an email inviting you to add to the partition – it looks like they have had about 5000 people in the last 4 minutes sign up.
Suggest anyone interested have a sqiz:
http://beta.getup.org.au/campaigns/campaign.php?alias=ClimateActionNow&id=8
Jasmine,
If I knew how to motivate the government on education, I would have succeeded by now. It cannot avoid the allegations, which are lies and have been shown to be lies again and again – as my letter to The Australian showed on Friday. It took me 16 attempts this year to get that one refutation published, and The Australian will continue its campaign against teachers despite that publication. As for WA, it seems that the government there has made an almighty mess of education and the union has just tagged along for the ride.
I predicted Labor would poll between 6,440,000 and 6,441,000
its presently 6,440,029
oh , I made the prediction this morning BEFORE looking at the Internet
The point is Rudd won
enjoy the moment
(think how ALL Liberals are feeling right now)
Antony Green at #246 is spot on.
There will be no by-election.
There he is on the TV news – Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister Rudd – playing host to the New Zealand PM, holding essential trans Tasman talks and conducting the nessesary affairs of state. Where are these international talks being conducted? On Kev’s verandah! Makes you proud to be a Queenslander.
For what it’s worth, this was the final word from the late Mr Justice John Starke in the Nunawading Court of Disputed Returns Case (convened in Court Room 6 of the Victorian Supreme Court) ..
“My final conclusion therefore is that there have been errors and omissions by electoral officers which have not been shown not to affect the result and accordingly the election is absolutely void.”
Ron, there’s almost certainly about another 100,000+ primary votes to count. In addition, 2PP needs to be completed for Kennedy and New England, the seats won by independents. This requires a 2nd scrutiny of votes in those seats to see which of Labor or Coalition was preferred in those 2 seats.
Re Donkey voting.
Donkey voting has declined over the years. In part due to education in part changes to the system (Above-the-Line etc) I recall the days when ballot papers where published in order of Surname (as opposed to the random draw used today) In those actions that were close (Within seven votes) then clearly a donkey vote would give them an advantage as would having a name starting with “A” thus ensuring you had the top spot.
donkey votes do exist. Analysis of the below the line preference data (Which some nameless Commissioners do not want published for fear of exposure of their mistakes in the count) does show up a donkey vote/. Whether this is unintentional or not is hard to determine. A party will also consider the allocation of its preferences based on the ease of filling in the ballot paper. There also is what is referred to as the inverse donkey vote – You fill in the ballot papers with the candidate of your choice and then start at the top or bottom and number every other square . The reverse donkey vote where you number from the bottom up… If I had a choice I would prefer to be at the top of the ballot paper and most certainly ahead of my main competitor. Every vote counts.
Rob Mitchell was interviewed on ABC NEWS! Nice bloke! He wasn’t claiming victory at all, just said Labor had done very well to take the supposedly safe seat of a well established sitting member right down to the wire.
The Liberals are claiming some votes for Mrs Bailey were unfairly classed as informal.
In the Nunawading case, the judge refused to open sealed envelopes to check if votes had improperly been categorised as informal. The Labor barrister Michael Black QC (now Chief Justice of the Federal Court) argued the Libs were not entitled to go on a fishing expedition in search of potential swing votes, and the judge agreed.
For those who don’t believe me @ 242 and 248, just click on:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/747?cp=all#comments
then scroll to comment #2.
My memory must be fading as the TPP prediction I gave was 54-46 not 53-47 (the latter being a prediction I made earlier in November) and primary support of 46% not 45% for Labor. However at least I remembered which seats I predicted then!
Flash it was a dingy court room with little room to move. I was the youngest observer present and I felt intimidated at first. Looking back I am amazed that Victoria’s court room were left wanting and in such poor condition. It was like stepping back in time to the turn of the 19thy century. nowadays the conditions are much more conducive and civilised even if the debates are not. thanks for reminding my of the name of the Judge My memories are vivid. It was my first Supreme court hearing I observed. I met Jude starkey in the Parliament later on a formidable man of stature wig and all.
Interesting, Flash. Should give the Libs pause for thought on their strategy wrt “challenges”.
Taking this sort of “double negative” as the precedent, Nelson et al could end up with at least half a doz less seats after re-elections if they get “challenge happy!”. Then there are all those by-elections that look like they are coming their way anyway as a result of the “changing of the guard”.
How many seats do you have to have to maintain party status?
Cheers
Rod
Yes Melb City, that is a fair description of the court room. Sat through it all myself – just upstairs from the old press room.
There was a strong sense that it all was a game as each side put forward their argument ” A draw out of the hat was not the way to determine who should hold the balance of power”. Bob Ives I think along with every one else that a fresh election was on the cards. Lets not forget the dirty tactics of the now defunct Nuclear Disarmament people and the Mountain Cattle men (Most who lived in Nunawading) The NDP were not about the environment they were the same people as behind the Greens today. and as a result of their efforts and politics, think they set back the environment movement 10 years of more.
Kennet in the leadup to the by-election at first indicated support for reform of teh upper-house but when he realised the tide was in his favour soon backdown form that idea. We had teh chance to refoprm the Upprhouse back then when Bob Ives held the balance BUT the likes of Jean McLean and George Crawford sabataged any hope of reform insisting at the time that any reform MUST include prtovsions to prevent the blocking of supply. We did not have the numbers to change that provision of the consitution BUT we did have the numbers to change the electoral system.
Melb City 179, the rolls are conclusive: you couldn’t petition simply because you find some voters were left off the rolls or others wrongly included through excessive zeal or administrative errors, unless possibly if you showed a course of malpractice.
Flash 261, the scrutineers will have been taking notes already about arguably informal or wrongly included ballots. Doubtless the recount will throw more up. They may of course balance each other out.
Melb City, can I just point out that Labor has just come to power on the back of Greens preferences.
Throughout my life I’ve been involved with both to some extent. If truth be known I like one party’s stance on some issues and the other on others.
If Labor is going to form a long and stable government in Australia, and get its stuff through the Senate, then it has to learn to live with the Greens. My impression is that most Labor Party people already recognise this.
I think you need to move on and come to grips with the fact that the Greens are NOT the enemy in today’s political climate!
Cheers
Rod
I think Labor might have grounds for a challenge in Bowman and perhaps Herbert too.
Adam,
Nice article, I agree with the susgestion that I fell forthe polls for several months I refused to believe the ALP would score a 10% but with some 50 polls showing a landslide I started to look for seats that may change, look 96 seats was based on a uniform swing although my final prediction was 93.
Generally I agreed with most of what you wrote, and as I wrote many times making predictions was navel gazing at best.
I wonder what Hedley is up to?
Could there be a breaking story soon?
Are the cracks opening and the vile being exposed?
I await with interest…..
I don’t mind saying that I predicted 84
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/last-chance-for-the-election-competition/#comment-5764
My tip of biggest swing was not that close to the top of the board, but still better than some
I agree with Antony Green too. There won’t be a by-election in McEwen. If there was, it’s likely that Labor would win (despite the stats) as the voters would decide to get with the strength – Big Kevvie!
Chris Curtis.
when you mention reform to the LC are you are referring to the scrapping of the property franchise where only persons who owned property could vote. A lander-owners chamber if I recall… proportional representation was not on the agenda back then. I recall the campaign to change the upper-house franchise back then. Maybe it was because I lived in Eltham and the Democrats had just surfaced. We placed both the democrats and ALP signs out front of our house at the time. Whilst I liked Lynn Alison, always enjoyed my conversatison with her, I do not lament the demise of the democrats. They were just a feeder to the Greens and failed to keep the bastards honest watching their in house split was appauling.
The Libs (or should one say, more correctly, their ‘leader’) already have a looming disaster given the liklihood of several by-elections because of retiring members (and I use the word advisedly) such as Lord D, Costello, etc. Why would they want another for a member who has barely managed to hang on before and has no merit anyway? They could lose three or four seats before the parliament sits. That would be fun. I can’t see why Nelson would want another by-election just to save Fran bloody Bailey.
Alex given Frans age and the cost involved in mounting a challenge I doubt if they will BUT then you never can tell. When is the declaration of the poll and return of thr writ? They have 40 days following in which to submit a challenge and section 355 (b) of the Act will decide the outcome
Libs look like they are having a minor implosion in the ACT with Stefaniak’ leadership support being questioned on the ABC news tonight. Oh joy of joys – the last 2 weeks and the next decade are going to be great!
MelbCity,
what is your beef with the greens? As a former Labo(u)r voter who feels they lost their way sometime around Tampa, I love the fact that there is a left wing party with clear allegiances to LabOr that gets a message from voters by getting second preferences but still the vote, with the No 1 going to Greens. How else do we let you know that we do not support a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, or that we want renewable energy options invested in heavily. or that we want the “Pacific Solution” dismantled, or that we want Indigenous people supported as opposed to invaded etc.
And guess what – it works.
we get rid of Howard, we all get Kevin,
and eveyone gets the message.
Ode to 64.
Tabitha dear tabitha
Such a dreadful shame
Diligently still working
On writing her name
Where is she now
When we are all out to play
Oh Why Oh Why
Does she stay away?
Is she thinking up Sets
Of Rhyming Couplets
From her Golden Book Readers
Or dreaming of Leaders
Felled in their vain glory
Now mere poignant story
In tales moral and foretell
End of days for the Tory
Oh Terrible State
Of the Deaf to their Fate
As Nemesis contrived
To slay Hubris and Pride
We wish you all well
Tabitha, Glen, ESJ
You were always fun
In your inimitable ways
Brave to the Finish
Fought on undiminished
We admired your courage
And hope you will stay.
273 MB
Expat got it spot on. From Posum’s site:
Expat Follower Says:
November 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm
84 Labor, 64 Coalition, 2 independents. 2PP close to 53%. Bennelong to go, Wentworth not.
Where is Expat Follower? It is now safe to come back home.
Agree with earlier commenters that the Liberal Party is unlikely to support a McEwen by-election, when Liberal resignations will be causing three or four more over the next six months.
The re-count is Bailey’s only chance.
Well I said all that except I said a 2PP of 53.5%…
But fair enough, there were plenty who tipped 84/64/2 earlier or better than I.
But I’m allowed a little joy aren’t I?
Have I missed something here is Lord Downer resigning? or is this just a pipe dream? If he is this is the second sweetest victory of them all.
Jen (279),
I have been asking that exact same question of MelbCity for a while with no response.
MC, you can’t come out with outrageous statements like the Democrats “were just a feeder to the Greens” without the evidence or reason to back it up. It’s obvious you have some personal contempt for the Greens but never have articulated why.
I just read (and read….and read….) Adam Carr’s post mortem of the election. Having some small involvemet in the Haneef matter I’m interested to read Dr Carr’s summation that in spite of all the bungling and obvious abuse of process, the Hannef matter was a plus for the Coalition. I wonder if Dr Nelson or backbencher Andrews agree with this assessment?
Melb City,
Dick Hamer promised electoral reform of the Legislative Council in 1973 in return for DLP preferences. It was in his policy speech. The property franchise had long gone. The reform was to be PR. Negotiations on the details was reported regularly to the DLP Central Executive after the election. It eventually became clear that he had no intention of carrying ut his promise. It was all reported in the press at the time.
Melb city [284] where are you getting that?
Not sure if anyone has drawn attention to the Coogee result in the 1973 NSW election. Michael Cleary, League, Union and Athletics legend, lost by 8 votes for the ALP, but he won in the Court of Disputed Returns and ended up winning the by-election by 54 votes.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/resources/nswelectionsanalysis/1973/Coogee.htm
Ferny Grover… I believe his point was made in relation to the majority of voters. The majority of voters might not necessarily look at all the factors surrounding the Haneef matter but may instead just say “He’s guilty… I know it” and support the Coalition’s tough stance on terrorists.
Some commentators place far too much confidence in the depth of political analysis that takes place among the general populace when I think most people have only a very shallow understanding.
In my view, the Haneef matter was originally a strong positive for the Coalition as it showed them getting tough on terrorism… however by the end I do think a lot of people genuinely felt that he was hard done by (although not the majority). I think by the end it was a neutral issue and something unlikely to change many votes, particularly as Rudd supported the government’s actions early on.
Hi LTEP. Yes I understood Adam Carr’s reasoning perfectly. However, Mr Andrew’s current residency on the backbench seems to indicate the Liberal party did not see it as a positive. I’m waiting with interest to see if the Attorney-General follows through on an investigation of the matter.
290,Wasn’t Kevin Andrews in charge of that portfolio at time,if he was then you can understand the stuff up.
LTEP 290
As posted before, on the subject of Haneef, it was intended always to be both a wedge and to reintroduce the Fear Factor, terrorists etc.
Unfortunately for the tired old players, it no longer inspired the necessary, and Haneef came to be seen as a victim of foul play. Quite likely by the majority.
In years gone by, it may have worked as a divisive factor, but there is only so long one can hope to mobilise that.
As I have said before, even if an actual terror strike had eventuated, it would have resulted in backlash against the Government. (of that day)
The Greens are a con. There run in the lower house is a joke, The fact that their rep in the City Council supported moves to discuss in secret behind closed doors in illegal council meetings issues and matters that should be discussed and determind in open council. (Risstrom would never have sanctions such determinations) Their pre-selction of the brother inlaw and dumping of Risstrom. The list goes on. You say they are a left party.. Well I recall the likes of the pledge (Apart from Don) I came to see them for what they were politcial prostutes (I am sorry to denegrate prostitutes to their level) . I had known Jean McLean for many years… in the end she was just a shame along with Joan and George. Don’t Tell Andrew but I liked Kim Carr but somehere he lost control. The ALP left was a team to reckon with. I do not see the Greens as being the “Environment” group they claim to be. Their agenda is much much more… its not about democratic values or reform (If it was they would have also supported challenges and changes to the electoral system). Opportunists is all I can say. There mistake was challenging for the lower house and cutting deals with the libs? Many are the same people associated with the NDP…
I help Risstrom get elected to the Melbourne City Council, I rejected the Cole left plot and put out my own ticket placing Risstrom striaght behind the ALP and I am pleased to say my preferences help him get elected. (Even Cr Brennan agreed with my decison after the fact) But his predessor has not impressed me nor did those Di Natalie and the rest. Simple We were sold out by playboy Maoist capitalist McClown but Risstrom proved to have been a good choice. He should have been elected in 2004 and tried again 2007.
Downer’s value in the private sector is extremely high (7 figures pa) at the moment but only for a year or so. After a few leaders start to change and the dynamics of world change as well, then his value goes down rapidly. That is why he is going to resign sometime in the new year.
Costello also can chase the big bucks and he is not worth as much as Downer either.
Andrews is likely to go because he was treated badly by Nelson and might see better value outside the game. Ruddock is old enough that sitting on the backbench is not going to seem like a lot of fun. Plus his seat is so safe that it would allow an up-and-comer in (if they have any).
Jen,
I would agree with you that ALP & Greens should work together. I am aware at local gov’t level of progressive ALP Councilors having actively worked with Green Councilors in order to achieve changes to policy and more environmentally friendly Council operational systems. Unfortunately in at least one case green support has now swung behind others with policies that directly contradict Green policy – e.g. desalination – as part of an ‘ABL’ (Anyone But Labor) policy on the part of the Greens. It is unfortunate that opportunism has overtaken principle so quickly. Hopefully it will be rectified, as I agree that the hope of the future is in Labor & Greens being able to work closely together.
Well MelbCity, finally!
RE Downer – I know someone at Santos who said he was in the office last Monday. I believe that John Ellis-Flint from Santos has some links with the Liberal Party, so perhaps Downer could be earmarked for assisting with some of their negotations for their new overseas ventures?
How does the Prime Minister’s 18 month rule on jobs for the boys affect these “retirements”? (Maybe they just want to spend more time with their families) I don’t suppose it is official just yet.
Melb city writes: Maybe it was because I lived in Eltham and the Democrats had just surfaced. We placed both the democrats and ALP signs out front of our house at the time.
That would be the 1977 election, Melb city, back in the days when the Libs won two seats for every one of Labor’s in Victoria!
Most of us thought of Chipp and the Dems as basically a Lib spinoff back then, of course, so I guess your combined signs would have attracted a fair bit of attention! Was Eltham still in Race Mathew’s old seat of Casey, (won by Falconer for the Libs in 75) then?
Kev’s new rules only apply to his side. And it is not like they are laws either…. Just rules.
Work to rule @ 228: “A bit of extra work and you could turn your Sunday arvo exercise into a Masters.”
LOL, thanks.
Believe me, something like that did occur as I was typing. If only I could make some money out of my undergraduate politics degree and I’d even be tempted!
Adam @ 241: “I doubt LaRouche is thought any less a whacko in Cessnock than anywhere else.”
There’s definitely been a CEC cluster there since 2001 when the CEC also got 1,137 – well above their average. It drops back to a more normal 362 votes in 1998 and no CEC candidate at all in 1996.
It would be a strange mining company that didn’t have links with the Liberal Party! The Liberal Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the mining industry.
Re Haneef: It might well be that the Liberal leadership thinks Andrews botched the case so badly that he damaged its utility as an electoral wedge. But I still don’t think it did the Libs any harm among the floating voters.
Sorry Melb city, your gripe with the Greens is obviously some personal issue only you understand. Unless you can articulate your problem a lot more clearly, just let it go and stop pushing your barrow on this site.
Labor and the Greens have to, and will, learn to get on for the benefit of both parties.
Triffid – interesting speculation about Downer fishing for a job at Santos. It would be of a piece with that company’s chronic underperformance if they did decide to hire him.
285
Sean Look at their preferences and question their tickets. then look at their past Reps in the Senate. voctoria was their intellectal strength and the SA girl was a pin up youth model (No longer youngand no longer in the senate) Apart from Lyn Allison (I recall her time as a Councillor) the rest have not much democratic values. Never did like their split ticket con.
Who would want Downer working for them,the person is a complete wanker,Keating should have buried him when the clown led the Libs.
Does anyone know if Christian Zahra was approached/expressed interest in running in either McMillan or Gippsland?
Hopefully he runs in Gippsland if/when McGauran quits.
B. S. Fairman at 295. With respect.
‘Andrews is likely to go because he was treated badly by Nelson and might see better value outside the game’.
I think he is being treated extremely well, considering.. and with the judicial review of Haneef, he may as well stay in the covers. Worth nothing, except to the US Religious Right, if that.
As for Downer, what value is he really, also soiled, by AWB.
In a rapidly changing foreign affairs environment?
306 -
Natasha Stott-Despoja (”the SA girl”) “was a pin up youth model” for the Democrats?
You recall Lyn Allison (”their intellectual strength”) in her time as a Councillor, but am I right in recalling that you had a failed bid to make it into the council in ‘99?
Not sure but did Downer takeover his old mans seat,never done a hard days work in his life.
There was mention earlier of Howard’s little speech to the NSW libs suggesting they could win next time if they didn’t implode, but no-one seems to have mentioned the rest of that story, which went in quite the opposite direction and is much more fun to read:
“Brendan Nelson will not last 18 months,” one Liberal MP told The Sunday Age. “When he rang to offer me some paltry position on his front bench, I told him to shove it up his arse.”
Others dissatisfied with the new front bench asked why experienced political operators who missed out during the Howard years, such as Victorians Petro Georgiou, Mitch Fifield and Sophie Mirabella, had been left out of the shadow ministry.
“The reason is that he’s hostage to the right wing of the NSW division, those lunatics who will keep us out of power for a decade if we don’t stop them,” one said.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/behave-yourself-and-youll-win-howard-to-libs/2007/12/08/1196813083754.html
Yes, Dogs, not exactly hard. Downer. Not clear about a succession take over, but Wiki reference, a tad unreliable may I suggest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Downer
Try his Parliamentary site/bio for more accurate.
Rod (300),
Eltham was in Diamond Valley. Melb City’s signs helped the Democrats. They polled c17 per cent in the 1977 Greensborough by-election – if my memory serves me right – and went on to greatness…and then they died.
Dolly Downer will earn huge money working for an International foreign affairs think tank
I have to support Melb City on the Democrats, that ’split ticket con’ always turned me off — They failed my “smelly sock test”, not making it clear where they stood, fence-sitting isn’t a valid political policy platform to me — but then I’m old enough to remember their launch, as disaffected pissed off Liberals, faking a small-L liberal centrist image. They never really forgot their Liberal roots, as far as I could see.
But, I do have more hope with the Greens as our third-party, they behaved themselves during the campaign under Bob Brown’s leadership. So far, anyway.
Interesting how that Senate third-party has evolved. If you start with the DLP, splitting from the ALP, and “keeping the bastards honest” (ie non-Communist) through the Menzies years, only to die out into federal political oblivion.
Then almost immediately the Democrats arise from the ashes of a Liberal split to “keep the bastards honest”, to die out the same way.
May we be Third Time Lucky with our Third-Party!
Melb city, get over it!
Pissant game playing by a bunch of amateur wannabes (Labor, Lib, Green, Brown, Blue , Purple, Puce with polkadots, etc etc) in Melbourne City Council in days gone by has next to nothing to do with mainstream Australian politics. (well, I wish it hadn’t anyway!
)
Brennan was my local chemist before he headed there, and a nice enough bloke, but this wasn’t national level politics. More like the sort of stoush you might have behind the wheat silo at West Wyalong!
Judging ANY political entity on the basis of the goings on in the MCC at the time you mention is about as sensible as judging a bottle of wine by the taste of the foil (sorry, these days it is a screw cap!) or a cup of coffee by the shape of the saucer!
Simply put, Labor today depends on Green preferences for election. If it can’t sort out a positive working relationship with the Greens, then son of Johnny H. will back in Kirribili before you can say “Jack Lang”!
Crikey,just read Downer was the shortest serving leader of the lib’s on record,as I said Keating should have buried him and Howard would never had been Prime Minister as the ALP would have been in power for 3 more years and the lib’s would have burnt Howard themselves
Agree with Dogs. Downer is an incompetent. And a big sooky child.
He badly stuffed up Timor – Howard had to step in and fix that, he stuffed up on Iraq, he stuffed up on AWB (I’m being charitable), to the extent he was involved in the free trade agreement, he stuffed it – the Yanks are still laughing, he stuffed up on getting our people out of Lebanon last year – again had to be rescued by Howard. By any measure he is the most useless FM in our history.
The only value he may have is as a conduit to the powerful/influential, assuming they still remember his name, I suspect most don’t want to anymore, but even so his usefulness has a short use-by date.
Ron,Downer has the nous of a fish tank.
Charlie 308
Christian Zahra did a mighty job in McMillan 1998-2004, and I have been wondering what he is doing with his talents. For some info on this topic go to:
http://www.govrel.com.au/news.asp?page=detail&pageid=3245
and
http://news.envirocentre.com.au/lawn/section.php?issue=2006-04-12&key=85§ion=VIC
Zahra began his political career very early and is still young (34) with a young family. Maybe 2010?
#
320
Dogs Says:
December 9th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Ron,Downer has the nous of a fish tank.
Ron says:
I agree , but the US think tanks are not paying for his ‘nous’
they are paying for their reputation in having an “Australian Foreign minister”
pro US
Still on Downer.
He is sullied. How much is his old knowledge worth?
Apart from being in the know about the labrynthine structures of the diplomacy circuit?
I would not entertain him as a good bet, given the new Government and his old associations.
And again, AWB?
Ron ,ex FM,are the Yanks really that stupid,Downer is a spent force,should take his Super and go frolick in the Adelaide Hills.
300
Rod. yes it did cause a stir. Mathews was a good member for Casey and a Greta help to me personally. 77 sounds about right maybe earlier 75 ….. I think there was a candidate by the name of Ross… Eltham/Templestowe was the Victorian birth place of the Democrats there was an anti Ring Road movement and I scrutinised my first election in 73 at the age of 16. Handed out TV in 72 and 75 Joined the ALP in 77 executive member in 78/79 moved to the City around 81 over 30 years with the ALP. It easy to dismiss issues as being personal but in reality it is the Greens how have failed to deliver on principle, ideas and policy. hypocrites and charlatans I am afraid. You can write it off as being personal if you want and it makes you more comfortable in your beliefs. I suggest you look harder and think twice before giving your money to a guy in a Koala suit.
the Republican party yanks are that stupid and will pay Dolly big bucks
(its his past ‘title’ they are buying
not his “brains” (I use the word ‘brains’ geberously
To me the Democrats were only slightly less odious than the DLP, with their split tickets, their support for the GST and lets not forget their support for the first wave of Howard’s IR laws. How anyone can complain about the the Dem alternative, the Greens is beyond me. They are a genuine left wing party, not a splinter party from the right and they are much more reliable than the Democrats ever were.
I really hope that Rudd and his front bench play it smart with Nelson. What we do not want is a replay of the humiliation of Sneddon and Downer. Yes it was so entertaining listening to Whitlam and Keating smashing those two incompetents, but in the end it did not work to the Party’s advantage. Lets try to keep the unfortunate looking Man in the top job for as long as possible.
Downers next job will be with a huge multi-national…….he will be heard saying “do you want fries with that?”
Rod, Greens voters need to direct their preferences somewhere. When the choice is between Labor and Liberal that decision is tough. A large proportion of Greens voters don’t follow how to vote cards so really Labor doesn’t need to deal with the Greens at all.
It would be much smarter for Labor to angle for the votes of some of the conservaitve minor parties as this is what really hurts them.
LETS HAVE A POLL ON HOW MANY MONTHS NELSON WILL LAST
my prediction 20 months
Generous, Ron Brown.
Hornet’s Nest. The Big Buzz.
I think the Libs will let him fry for about 12 months, to take all the flack over this and other issues, IR etc, which he will mangle, then move in, like the White Pointers they are.
We are being a bit harsh on people tonight I think.
* Downer did not inherit his father’s seat. Sir Alec retired in 1964 and died in 1981, and his seat, Angas, was abolished in 1977. Downer Jr did do some work as a diplomat before winning Mayo (in roughly the same area) in 1984. Obviously being a Downer didn’t hurt his chances, but his career is mostly his own work.
* Natasha Stott Despoja is a very smart and talented politician, and it’s a pity she wasted her time in an ungrateful and spiteful sect like the Democrats. She came to the leadership too young, and now she is retiring just as she has reached political mauturity. I hope she will come back one day, either as a Green or (even better) as Labor.
On the other hand
* Lyn Allison has always been a total non-entity as far as I can tell.
* Christian Zahra also started too young. He sealed his own fate by voting for L*th*m in 2003. He made a lot of enemies in the ALP, and if he is interested in a comeback he will have a lot of fences to mend first.
Ron,the Republicans have run out of dosh.
I reckon Xmas break nothing doing then parliament starts, collapse of hairdo and random hissy fits, followed by distancing by Lib ‘colleagues’ with Petit Mal taking over by June 2008. 6 months.
312
Jenny
Thanks for that delicious little morsel Jenny. It seems that the hyenas will be growling over the entrails for quite a while if that little exchange is anything to go by. It makes you wonder why Howard would think that anything he has to say is worth more than derision, but I guess that old dementia just kicks right in and the last few months never happened!
It’s going to be the opposite to the election: a date with destiny, versus the slow gnawing disembowlment of one Horatio Hornet and his accolytes.
But bring it on, nevertheless, I say!
Adam,did the seat of Angas cover the seat of Mayo?
LEP
A large proportion of Greens voters don’t follow how to vote cards so really Labor doesn’t need to deal with the Greens at all.
Ron says: do not agree
the Greens are vital to labors past & future electoral success
Angas was mostly a Riverland seat, while Mayo has usually been a Hills seat. There is probably some overlap.
You just have to look at the primary votes to see the value of the Greens. In lots of seats Labor ended up winning, they were well behind on the primary vote. On Green preferences, Labor were able to win seats. Labor is dependent on the Greens whether people like it or not!
Sure, Adam.
Not being particularly harsh on Downer. Yet it is an hierarchical seat. And I know plenty of people who live there. All leanings. Lovers and Haters.
Who, do you know, occupied the seat in the interregnum. Be it Angus or Mayo?
Fair enough Ron Brown… the next step is to explain how and why.
You don’t agree that a large proportion of Greens voters would still preference Labor over Liberal if the HTV cards didn’t direct them to?
How exactly are the Greens vital to Labor’s past electoral success? Also, is it possible that a close relationship with the Greens could damage Labor electorally? (Think ‘04 and the forestry policy)
I say all this as a former Greens voter.
who else are going to prefernce Labor? The DLP, the CEC, Family First? Gimme a break,these parties are sewn up by the Tories. The Greens are the only genuine force that Labor can preference and be preferenced in return.
Adam,Thank you,obviously more people have moved into the hills area extending the electoral area.
Melb city,
The 1977 Democrats candidate for Greensborough was David Ross.
Gary,
The DLP preferenced Labor candidates in Northern Metropolitan, South-East Metropolitan and one other region in 2006, Labor Senate candidates in Tasmania, Victoria and NSW in 2007 ahead of the Liberals and McMillan in 2007.
Chris I know and look what happened, the DLP came back from the dead! No thank you!
Ron Brown
It is imperative that Labor respects the Greens.
The object is to get all parties at the table to reach consensus.
Do you think otherwise???
LEP do the maths which is what the Labor numbers man ACTUALLY DO
Labor got primary 44.04%
Greens got primary 7.64%
Greens HTV card GUARANTEES 75% of 7.64% ie. 5.73%
(before getting slippages from FF , Democrats etc)
ANYONE who wants to argue against chasing Greens HTV preference is a political numbers novice
Gary, you need to distinguish between how much power a party has over how its voters preference. As long as Labor is seen as the more preferable second choice to the vast majority of Greens voters they need to do no deals with the Greens to be elected. Speaking as a former Greens voter, I’d never preference the Liberals over Labor no matter what their HTV card told them to do.
Are you arguing the Coalition is dependant on the conservative minor parties for any seats they don’t win on first preferences? No… because the votes will naturally break according to the way a majority of those voters are inclined to preference.
All this talk is really just the Greens trying to bolster an impression that they have more power than they do. The Greens are largely dependant on Labor preferences to get elected in the Senate (except in Tasmania). If Labor chose to direct Senate preference the Greens last in the Senate then they’d have little to no chance of getting senators elected. Therefore it’s in the Greens best interests to try and deal with Labor the best they can.
You are right Ron Brown, just look at the primaries.
Every time I see a cane toad on my front lawn it reminds me of Piers Ackerman and gives me the cold shivers, but there is a certain satisfaction in quickly killing the pests. Cane toads are ugly, creepy and have a surprisingly similar appearance to Ackerman, they can also actually run quite fast for a toad – wonder if Pier’s chubby toad legs can run very fast.
Really, news ltd papers are just cutting their own throats if they go on a spoilt brat vendetta against Rudd – Or if it is murdoch that wants them to ruin Rudd’s name so he will lose at the next election?
The tide has turned against the Liberal party and its ideology – now that the ‘fear of change’ leash has been broken and the loyalty to Howard factOR is gone – many will continue to switch to Labor. News ltd will be just costing themselves readership if they make a policy of sniping at Rudd and leave themseves vulnerable to a new movement ‘Labor voters don’t buy Murdoch papers’. Would be interesting to see Ruperts reaction to losing a hundred or so thousand readers after a year or two.
Ron Brown… I think studies have suggest 80% of Greens voters do not follow HTV cards. Therefore, I’d argue the Greens have little control over how their voters direct their preferences. In fact, I’d imagine if the Greens directed their members to vote Liberal it’d cause them a lot of grief. If they issued a split HTV card Labor would still get the lion’s share of the 2nd preference votes.
Toads of course don’t actually run but hop – cane toads hop quite quickly.
Gary,
The ALP is quite pleased that the DLP came back from the dead because the ALP and the DLP combined can defeat the Opposition in the Victorian Legislative Council. I’m not saying that the ALP would not prefer the DLP seat to be an ALP seat, but the ALP certainly prefers the DLP MLC to an extra Greens MLC.
When Labor tried to get clever and cute with their preferences most recently what has been the result? A return from the dead for the Groupers and Michael Fielding getting elected in the Senate. Sorry I’d rather have the Greens thank you very much.
If state Labor prefer the DLPi n the the Council than that says a great deal about the current stae of the party in Victoria. Personally, I do not want a right wing party in the chamber when a perfectly good left wing alternative is in the offing.
Just played on 891.
‘It ain’t easy being green”
Environmental discussion ensues.
Gary,
The DLP is not now and has never been a right-wing party, but a centre-left party. In any case, that’s not the point. The point is that it is in the interest of a centre-left party like the ALP to have a choice of other parties to get its legislation through. It does not want to be dependent on the Greens, or any single other party for that matter.
By the way, I posted this previously, earlier thread.
I understand that Mayo had the highest Green vote of all SA Electorates.
Melb City
Regarding your preference for Multi-member electorates, given that Victoria has 37 H o R seats, this would give 6 multi-member divisions with 6 members (quota ~ 18%) and one with 7 members (quota ~15%). In effect a ‘mini senate election’ equivalent in each division. If the 7 member division was based on the inner metro area it would probably give the Greens 1 lower house seat, based on the lower quota.
Wannon, Mallee, Corangamite, Ballarat, Bendigo, Corio & part of Murray would be about right in terms of numbers for a Western Victoria Division.
Gippsland, Indi, part Murray, McEwen, McMillan, LaTrobe, Flinders as an Eastern Victorian Division.
Western Division
Lalor, Calwell, Gorton, Maribyrnong, Gellibrand, Wills.
Central Division
Scullin, Jagajaga, Batman, Melbourne, Melb. Ports, Kooyong, Higgins.
Southern Division
Goldstein, Hotham, Isaacs, Dunkley, Holt, Bruce.
Eastern Division
Bruce, Chisholm, Aston, Deakin, Menzies, Casey.
I think the major difference would probably be 1 or 2 greens, at the expense of probably one Nat/Lib and 1 ALP.
The real difference would be that, in each Division, there would be both ‘left’ and ‘right’ MPs, so all constituents would have someone to advocate for them from their ’side of the fence’. Also, all seats would be ‘gov’t seats, so the ‘pork’ would be spread much more evenly.
Oh really Chris, that’s why your preferences kept the Tories in power for 20 years. Dont try to re-write history mate. There has never been anything left wing about the DLP. Yeah Vince Gair, what a lefty. Ha, ha, ha!!!!!!!!!
LEP & Chris
Politics is about numbers , first 2nd 3rd etc
Labor numbers men are guaranteed 75% preferences under the Greens HTV
They are going to risk a proven guarantee for your & others opinion of what might happen
LTEP @ 341 – I don’t think it matters whether the Greens’ preferences are more or less rusted on to Labor. The ALP has more to lose by flirting with the right-wing fringe of the Christian lobby.
Labor in Vic did its credibility a lot of damage with the sneaky deal to preference Fantasy First in 2004. They knew it was dodgy too, because they didn’t even have the intestinal fortitude to tell the electors. I checked the HTV being given out at my polling booth, and there was absolutely no mention of where the prefs were being directed.
Many Labor voters I know were ropeable when they found out that they’d inadvertently put Fielding in by voting above the line in the Senate. Some of us were warned, because there was a storm of tip-offs by email. But when I voted below the line (through gritted teeth) I put Labor much lower than I normally would, and I’m sure lots of others would have done the same.
On the forests issue in 2004, I don’t think you can blame the Greens entirely for that debacle. I’d be more inclined to look to skilful media management by Gunns and its mates in the Tasmanian government, and a complete absence of any serious scrutiny of Howard’s policy by the MSM.
Oh, nearly forgot Bob Santamaria what a noted left winger. Archbishop Mannix too!!
Donkey votes – Rob H @223 is about right. In this election LDP and CEC would have had very few actual supporters so comparing their vote when on top of ballot is a near estimate of donkey vote. In SA all LDP candidates except 1 were from NSW and they had no profile at all. Take some examples where LDP and CEC were in middle of list. So LDP votes in SA of 171 in Hindmarsh, 154 in Boothby, and in Vic of 170 in Corangamite and CEC vote of 142 in Chisholm are typical of the rock bottom vote. Many of these votes will be fairly random – give a mug a go type votes. Then compare with Corio and Deakin where LDP were top – 794 and 583. Most of these votes will be typical donkey votes – this will be revealed when they are distributed – they will end up with the major party first below them rather than follow party wish to direct to Coalition. Anyone who has scutineered votes will know this is somewhere near the mark. So the net benefit of being above main opponent in ballot list might be say 200 to 600 on figures looked at. (It used to be a lot worse before party names were on ballot papers – 2-3% was common).
The donkey vote tends to be lower in seats with low informals but not precisely because donkey vote is a form of protest vote similar to a blank vote rather than lack of understanding of voting system which causes a lot of informals in seats with high numbers of overseas born voters for example.
There are various small numbers of votes which also are just random or bottom up donkey votes but relatively these are much less significant.
When looking at the effect on final count outcome the effect of donkey votes is doubled ie McEwen say net donkey vote for Bailey is 400 votes. If ALP had benefit of donkey vote instead of Bailey, ALP would win by 807. So the first risk for Libs in a McEwen by-election is change in draw.
And all of the other 7 close seats apart from McEwen were mostly decided by donkey vote as all 7 winners in these seats had the better draw. Unusual for this to be the case but worth looking at better randomisation.
When Alec Downer retired from Angas in 1964, he was succeeded by Geoffrey Giles, an upper-class twit of conspicuous uselessness. When Angas was abolished in 1977 most of it went into Wakefield, and Giles then knocked off Bert Kelly to win Wakefield. In 1983 he was himself knocked off by Neil Andrew, who went on to become Speaker under Howard. Mayo was created in 1984 as an Adelaide Hills seat, though it has at times extended eastwards into the Riverland. Now it extends south to Kangaroo Island.
Yes Mayo had the highest Green vote in SA, 10.8%, with the help of the donkey vote.
Chris Curtis Says:
December 9th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
The DLP is not now and has never been a right-wing party, but a centre-left party
RON says:
FACT: from 1955 (when the DLP split from Labor) to 1972 when it lost all Senators
the DLP NEVER preferenced Labor in any seat in the 1958 , 1961 , 1963 , 1966
1969 or 1972 Federal Elections
the DLP ALWAYS preferenced the LCP in every seat in all 6 Federal elections
Chris , do you agree this is correct ???
Jenny, 363.
Light years from the Fielding seat, in voting terms.
Anger extreme in Labor friend circles, SA, at the stupidity, ALP.
Hoped that Kev no Dope would ensure no repeat of such patent idiocy.
Of course Labor will accept any arrangement that secures Greens HTV that demonstrate placing Labor above Liberal (although all Greens HTV still suggest the voter make up their own minds).
That doesn’t mean they need to do anything in particular to secure the votes. It doesn’t give the party any real power. They can choose to print their HTV cards in whatever way they like and it will make little difference. The fact is the Greens are equally dependant on Labor for Senate votes so its in their best interests to attempt a deal with Labor. This deal will most likely involve House of Reps HTV cards.
Are you suggesting that the vast majority of Greens voters would preference Liberal over Labor just because the HTV card told them to? I find that very hard to believe. Furthermore, if the Greens want to push their agenda, the best bet is to do it with a Labor Government.
Do you really think the Greens members would be very happy if the party assisted the Liberal Party to win government? I think it’d be the death of them if that happened.
Kina,
For the last thirty years or so, the only newspaper I’ve been reading in any depth is the Canberra Times. There aren’t too many wingnuts amongst their current political commentators (David Barnett is an exception). It’s only through Crikey and these blogs (following the URLs) that I’ve come to find out just how weird the political commentariat is in the MSM. Objectively speaking, they’re a fascinating lot with their prejudices and general lack of decency. I guess they’re all doing their masters’ bidding but, I wonder, how much effect do they have on people? Yes, I know, half the population has below average intelligence (this is something that must be fixed).
Too cold for the denizens of the sugar fields down here, so far.
Before you all try and predict when Nelson will be challenged how about waiting till we see his performance in Question Time and during next year. Perhaps then you will be able to make a more measured judgment about his prospects rather than this partisan bull butter you rabbit on about.
As far as i know about McEwen there were alot of votes for Fran Bailey deemed invalid for some reason or another and that’s why the Liberals want a recount of those disputed ballots in an attempt to whittle down the margin so that perhaps another vote can be held.
Ron Brown
I ask you again……do you think any different on the subject of consensus in this time and age???
It would be polite to give a response you know.
Oh gawd….edicate???
Thank you, Adam.
Donkeys will do, though.
There are quite enough asses in Mayo.
The DLP preferenced Labor in Forrest, WA, in 1969, to punish Gordon Freeth for not opposing the Soviet Union loudly enough. He was defeated by Labor’s Frank Kirwan, a Methodist minister, on DLP preferences.
Crikey @ 368 – Labor didn’t preference FF this time, so at least I cd safely vote above the line.
Re the DLP, my favourite moment is when Vince Gair accepted the post of ambassador to Ireland from Gough in 1973 or 1974. When his DLP colleagues queried his decision, he said ‘You can all go and get stuffed. I’ve been supporting you bastards for years.’
A lot of kids vote Green because they distrust the two main parties and because “well they’re for the environment and that arent they.” Without guidance from a HTVC these voters could well give a second preference to the Liberals. We should not take for granted that all Greens voters will naturally prefence Labor second.
“Before you all try and predict when Nelson will be challenged how about waiting till we see his performance in Question Time and during next year. Perhaps then you will be able to make a more measured judgment about his prospects.”
For once I agree with Glen. Labor people are obviously in triumphalist mode this week, but Nelson is no fool (despite sometimes sounding like one), and he may prove a successful opposition leader. That said, history is against him and his chances in 2010 seem slender, but who knows what might happen next year?
gary, look at past elections where HTV cards did not direct a preference either way. What was the share of the vote in those elections? For instance, as far as I’m aware in ‘04 the Greens did not issue HTV’s directing voters to preference Labor in every seat. Still, Labor secured 80.79% of Greens preferences.
Also, I ask again… do you think the membership of the Greens would be happy if their party helped to elect a Coalition government? Certainly they could get away with issuing split HTV’s, but not HTV’s directing preferences to the Liberal Party.
With split HTV’s I’d say Labor would easily get 75% of the Greens preferences.
Yes but in this election, the Greens preferenced Labor in key marginals, marginals that Labor won.
Of course history and a ’split’ Party are against Nelson but who knows what will happen nobody knew how well Rudd would go as Opposition leader and he defied history and is now our PM. At least with this small margin, 2010 will be an interesting election considering how many marginals both sides have.
I think we’re still unsure about Rudd’s capacity to answer questions in QT just as we are unsure about what the performance of Nelson in Parliament will be like, we just don’t know.
The thing about Nelson is this bloke is chuffed to bits being our leader, he knows others want it, this IMHO makes him someone with the drive an energy to perhaps be a successful opposition leader. Nelson let’s face it has alot of inbuilt accountability on his performance so he’ll do everything he can to do a decent job.
Anybody know who the Speaker in the HoR will be?
Glen I’m here to tell you he will be Billy Sneddon Mrk II. I just hope Labor go easy on him!
Gary you don’t seem to be understanding… the key question is whether Labor would’ve won those marginals if the Greens hadn’t directed their members to preference Labor on their HTV cards. Maybe not the particularly close marginals but certainly enough to form government in my opinion.
Glen, QT is completely irrelevant. How can Nelson do a good job of asking questions which the Government won’t answer? The speaker will be Mr Jenkins Jr.
Sneddon didn’t do a bad job gary IMHO.
But Adam. We can but try.
Triumphal agreed, but I for one would not be so bold as to to allow myself much more than a moment.
History is definitely against Nelson, more importantly, his own are against him. As much as they are against each other.
In such a deadly atmosphere, I find it impossible to imagine Nelson surviving, as I say, for anything much more than 12 months.
Hi Glen!
Nice to see you. Soldier on.
Regards
CW
Lose the Election Please. We should try to do deals with the Greens where it is in Labor’s advantage to do so. Until something better comes along, Im happy with the current relationship. I dont agree with you that there is sufficient discipline in greens voters to suggest that Labor can take their preferences for granted.
No you’re quite right Glen. He didnt lose the 74 election, “he just didnt win enough seats to form a government.”
Scaper i delayed answering you because your question is difficult
1/ UNLIKE LEP & others the smart Labor numbers men know an uncontrolled preference deal with the Greens or anyone else gives unpredictable results
The greens are the 3rd biggest party & political nous dictates a HTV card guaranteeing Labor 75% of the Greens vote (3rd biggest partys vote)
Its smart politics for Labor in the Reps and smart politics for the Greens in the Senate – win/win
2/ Policy wise the partys like each other in OVERALL terms
whereas policy wise the Democrats were less reliable and
the FF are the liberals new DLP but better hidden (but Labor is awake to them
3/ In detail of policy there will be disagreements:
Fiscal: greens more expansionary , Labor more prudent & correctly so re rates
Dams: opposing views (driven by Labor wishing to win Bass & Braddon)
Climate: I see great problems between the Greens supporting the unquestioned Science that emissions must be cut by maybe 70% by 2050 & mandatory
emission targets for all Countries now
VS Labor being a “government” having to find middle ground with India & China
who did not cause the CO2 & want some initial discount to allow them growth VS the USA a big cause of current CO2 but does not wish to cede economic advantages to its 2 biggest economic threats
Gary any deals you make with the Greens will be exploited by Nelson, you do realise this.
Any deals you make with the Greens will have their finger prints on it and probably make your legislation worse, thus more opportunity to attack Labor.
The ALP is lucky it has the Greens though as we were lucky having the DLP, just remember it doesn’t mean it will last forever.
LTEP @ 382 – re Question Time, it depends on whether Rudd gets through some of the changes that have been canvassed, including a ban on Dorothy Dixers. Of course, ministers can still stonewall, and good intentions in opposition often disappear down the back of the couch in government, but if there are changes in the procedures it might be rather a more lively parliament than the last one, which was marred by constant droning on and on and on by ministers giving content-free answers to DDs.
Glen you werent serious about Sneddon were you?
If you believe Labor will do away with Dorothy Dixers you’ll believe anything. You think Labor members are going to ask probing and possibly embarassing questions of their own Ministers?
The best I can see happening is imposing a time limit on questions and answers, although this hasn’t really worked wonders in the Senate.
1. The Liberals want a recount for one reason only you goose, because they lost and the result was close, and they have nothing to lose. You are trying to make a virtue out of necessity and you know it.You are so full of bull butter yourself you could inseminate a herd.
2. Totally off topic, but does anybody else get totally p’d off by the way the press, and increasingly the population in general, describe every legislative change, no matter how regressive or repressive, as a “reform”. There is a big difference between a reform and an ideologically driven agenda like Workchoices.
3. The brotherhood in adversity that this site demonstrated prior to the election is rapidly disintigrating as sectional interests start to manifest themselves after the dispatching of the common enemy. Let’s not forget why we were united in the first place. The king of the rodents is gone but the rats still infest the nest.
Well Gary “while we didn’t win, we didn’t lose either” in 1974.
The Coalition did win 3 seats and had a swing to them of almost 3%, not too shabby id say and after all Labor only won 5 more seats than the Tories.
In 1987, Snedden suffered a fatal heart attack, while having sex with his son’s ex-girlfriend. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,4057,20462374-2,00.html)
What a way to go for Sned, just the thing to forget about a Liberal election loss lol!
LEP & Chris
You misunderstand the LONG TERM effect on political numbers of an uncontrolled
Greens HTV which IN THE LONG TERM would hurt Labor in the Reps and inevitably hurt the Greens in the Senate
Either that , or you have some gripe with the Greens
I think it is agreed that the greens are becoming the party of the left, this is different to being the environment party ( all parties will start banging on about the environment). Are left leaning voters going to vote Liberal?
Even if the Liberals breakout of the small right wing box that Labor has pushed them into, would a left wing voter vote liberal?
The balance of power in the senate is the only lever the Greens have over Labor.
Not a great fan of the Green myself, but they are certainly better than what Labor once had, the Chippocrats.
Thanks for filling in the blanks. I knew it was a Ross. he was a good candidate BUT let me publicly apologies now, As I am sure a few Green supporters of today will in years to come, for hanging out the Democrats sign. Had I known that I know now I would not have argued with my family over the right to display both the ALP and Democrats sign. We lived on the main road and the sign was very prominent. Io do not see the Greens as being a Left party. They could have been much better off being a lobby group for change and conservation. Like the Nuclear Disarmament party you really need to look closer at hwhois behind the party and look closer at the Family connection. I agree the City of Melbourne is a borough of corruption and NIMBYism. Melbourne needs to be expanded. Its boundaries should include the City of Yarra, Prahran and Port Phillip. (Reflecting the old Melbourne province boundaries and the state Seats of Melbourne Richmond , Prahran and Albert Park. Melbourne needs higher density developments of good design and more open space.
Richard Wynne should initiate a serious review of the cities boundaries and we should scrap the idea of a directly elected Lord Mayor. Had Clem Newton Brown ran on a reform platform he would have done better then he did. As it was he stood for nothing except Clem. Sorry Clem). Melbourne City is a joke. The State Government has initiated a piece meal review of the Cities boundaries and in the process has opened a pandora’s box. Its time to make some serious decisions Richard. Other left ministers have been non eventful. meanwhile the greens only contribution is to hold meetings behind closed doors and to seek Council funding of their “executive overseas travel” to South Africa. How many Trees dies for that excursion. Why did you not use the Internet for your envirofest executive meeting. the Greens are not green they only use it like a Koala suite to extract money from gullible voters. How much public funding has the Greens entitled to for this election?
Charles see my post 376.
Ron I’m not going to bother arguing any further when it seems you’re not listening to my main thread of argument. We’ll agree to disagree. I have no gripes with the Greens and preferenced them above Labor in the Senate (below the line).
That doesn’t mean I need to agree Labor needs to deal with the Greens on a policy level in order to get elected. They just need to be seen as more preferable than the Liberal Party to the vast majority of Greens voters. Not hard. How many elections have Labor not secured a good majority of Greens preferences? How many elections have the Greens not directed preferences to either party?
How much did the Greens vote increase during this election? (by 0.58% compared to a 5.74% increase in the ALP primary vote) How much did the proportion of Greens preferences flowing to Labor increase during this election?
In that way, what really was the difference in this election to ‘04? Was it the increase in the Labor primary vote or the increase in the proportion of Greens preferences flowing to Labor? I’d say it’s probably more the former, although in some tight seats the latter would come into play.
It was SNEDDEN, not Sneddon. I think Nelson has a lot more substance than Snedden did. But just like Snedden, Nelson will have a Malcolm breathing down his neck, ready to knife him at the first slip-up.
I believe Harry Jenkins will be Speaker.
Glen said “Labor won only 5 more seats overall than the Liberals led by Snedden”
Well Beasley won 51% of the 2PP vote in 1998 to Howard’s 49%
Liberals squirm at accepting defeat
which makes us labor people even happier !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nelson’s TV clip saying ” I’ve never voted Liberal in my life”
certainly shows substance
Nelson is a political dead man
LEP re question time, I’m not confident that they’ll change it, but there is more that you can do than setting time limits – in particular, you can limit the number of questions government members are allowed to ask, or guarantee the opposition a certain number.
Whether they’ll do anything about it or not, reforming the process is specifically mentioned in Labor’s platform:
“Parliamentary question time should be an opportunity for calling the government to account. Labor believes that all ministers should be in attendance and that there should be procedures to ensure that questions are adequately answered.”
The attendance requirement sounds like Rudd to me!
Ron Brown
Let me fantasise here.
Imagine if someone who has worked on a project, contacted the powers that be and has secured tacit support.
The Greens were a tough egg to crack.
Dodd made the point that it has to be done in such a way that progress will be hard to achieve.
When I passed on a policy on excise to O’Mahony, it was forwarded on.
I will be revisiting this when I lock horns.
In all, I would not be concerned for the alliance.
403
Ron Brown – you obviously don’t know the context to when he said that. People in that crowd all Laborites most likely were trashing him saying he was a Liberal stooge for attacking Keating’s woeful health policies, and that’s when he said that line.
Oh, by the way…..I forgot to mention the ACTU…..silly me!
LEP yes we agree to disagree but not by as much as you think
On a one election basis , you are right….but on a long term basis the 2 Party’s
via a HTV are locking in long term stability of their vote
AND long term solidity of their political power for both partys
Policy wise Labor will do SOME trade offs but policy wise they are more similar
than labor is to the liberals or the greens are to the liberals
Adam. Sneddon, Snedden, it’s past 12 Oclock and whats the diff he was a loser. Had Billy been a more memorable personality I would have spelt his name more accurately.
Adequately answered could mean anything, what ‘procedures’ are there to ensure adequate answers? The only thing I can think of is an independent speaker, and that’s not going to happen. Calling the Government to account could mean providing Labor members with the opportunity to highlight the great policies of the Government. All Ministers can’t always be in attendance (for instance they may be off on official business) so that leaves a lot of wriggle room on that one. The whole policy statement is worded loosely enough to allow Labor to very broadly say they’ve met it.
I admit question time is a fundamentally excrutiating part of the sitting day, and in my opinion, one of the least useful parts of the day as far as acountability is concerned. Let’s hope Labor do reform question time and parliamentary procedure… but I won’t be holding my breath on that.
Gary, I also hold Jennies view, Labor can do themselves a lot of damage by referencing the religious right. The Greens and Labor are not married, but like it or not they are forced to sleep in the same bed.
405
scaper
In all, I would not be concerned for the alliance.
Scaper I agree , but my concern is climate change needs the USA but the USA is governed by IMMEDIATE economic concerns for them rather than the Planet
and Rudd is to walk into this pit
Yep , Jenny & gary ,
Labor is lucky to have the Greens and vice versa
Together they will build long term political power via HTV preferencing each others
75% of respective primary votes
Yeah, well, Downer, Howard et al.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22895466-7583,00.html
ALEXANDER Downer has confirmed in startling fashion what voters instinctively knew on November 24; that after almost 12 years John Howard had run out of both energy and ideas. And what’s more, his senior ministers knew it.
But what will outrage those who believed the government might have survived under a Peter Costello prime ministership is that Howard also knew that he was running on empty, but decided to stay on anyway, wilfully consigning the Coalition to what could be a decade in the political wilderness.
And the reason Howard chose this road to the abyss? In a verdict that will frame the 2007 defeat as the ultimate act of indulgence on Howard’s part, Downer says it was because those Costello supporters agitating for change in late 2006 were “f…ing rude” to the former prime minister.
Etc
Glen had won tonight’s most remarkable statement with:
Glen: Labor only won 5 more seats than Snedden’s liberals
but Glen did not rest on hs laurels:
Glen : Nelson ’somehow; did not mean it when he said on TV
” I have never voted Liberal in my life”
even though Nelson was also a member of the ALP from 1988 to 1992
Ron Brown
I understand your concerns about the US, but from all the research, the northern hemisphere will cop the most brunt of the effect.
Sorry, my take on the impending situation.
As a nation, we have an integral role to play…..investment in the future???
Thanks mainly to the non responses by the ALP to the indigenous invasion and the Haneef affair I had to be very persuasive among my circle of friends and relatives to stop them jettisoning a second preference to the ALP. At least
seven or eight persons I know well were so angry at the ALP they were threatening to put Greens #1 then everybody else with Libs 2nd last and ALP last.
Now that may not be seen as a rational anti-Howard vote but that was the response.
As far as I know I managed to successfully put the case that the ALP should be preferenced before the Libs et al but it was hard work and line ball in some cases.
If ever the ALP preference FF again then there are many persons I know who will not vote for them and will prefer them way down the list.
yes Scaper agree
Rudd I am sure would have also preferred to put most of the $31 billion into ‘future investment of water , climate , renewables , infrastucture , skills etc
but as soon as Howard irresponsibly promised the $34 billion tax cutsa , rudd was FORCED to match Howard …otherwise Rudd would have lost the election
Fred both issues were ‘wedge’ issues created by Howard to win middle Australia votes which Rudd had already won
Rudd’s THEN responses to the 2 issues KEPT these votes
Fred its frustrating but that was the only way to beat a politician like Howard
who only believed in ANY policy designed to win liberal votes or cost Labor votes
Ron, if you allow myself to be casual…..yes that is a tough one.
I’m working on a partnership with government and corporate Australia.
And I won’t rule out foreign investment if there are vacancies at the table.
It’s a matter of carrots….
CW
Did Howard think he would have been a coward if he had handed over? Not if he had handed over with a decent speech. His attitude that he would screw the party if they forced him out speaks volumes about the man (whoops! sorry, rodent) that he was. This bastard is only to be spoken of in the past tense from now on: he is a past blot on the landscape.
Ron
I won’t talk in riddles, this is the basis, but it has bloomed into more substance.
I’ve got to go to bed now…think about it.
“THE GREAT SOUTHERN CROSS PROJECT”
My vision is to run major infrastructure along side of the two railway lines, the Ghan and the Indian Pacific.
The next phase is to encourage settlement by gifting land and low interest set up loans to rehabilitate the inland regions to cater for the rising population. It is imperative that we establish industries, ie. agriculture and tree plantations to cater for the future to ensure our environment and sustainability.
There will be need to also establish a goods and services industry to cater for this population. I envision an inland city near the crossing of these railroads to service and distribute freight to the population. Once this is established then a branching out to reclaim more arable land for agriculture to provide for future population growth.
Super fast broadband will also have to be accessed by all Australia to encourage business to decentralise to these areas. This would be of great benefit financially to business due to the low costs to operate etc.
A full energy network would be beneficial to ensure that non-peak load can be distributed to peak load areas to maximize the resource. We need to research and develop new power technology to meet demand and the financial burden should be borne in partnership with industry and government.
A hydraulic network is paramount as the importance of water is the backbone of my vision. We have to harvest and redistribute to areas affected by lack of water to maximize the production of food and also the natural eco-systems’ survival. Northern Australia will provide such with winter storage areas established to maximize the effect of the monsoonal season.
I have had this vision for eight years and the importance of at least debating this issue is becoming more prevalent as every year passes. We need a goal, a strategy and a national vision as we have a duty of care to the future Australian generations.
My vision is a twenty-fifty year project. For this to be achieved the cooperation is required at all levels of government regardless of their ideology.
TONY MACK
Scaper, no problem…we need foreign investment now anyway because Howard has wasted much of our mining boom tax income by bribing voters with both middle class welfare and worse still non means tested upper class welfare
ViggoP , agree …Howard’s decision also says alot about how he felt about Costello
If he went down , he would destroy Costello with him
which is why when howard conceded he took full responsibility for the campaign loss
CODE FOR I do not take full responsibility for work choices etc. thereby lumbering Costello with work choices etc if Costello remained…forcing Costello to then quit
ViggoP
Howarded, past tense? did not care, about anything but himself.
Exactly the type of person who would bring everyone down, without him if possible.
As he was doing to the Australian people.
His brazen attitude continues, Kirribilli.
Judith Brett, a read.
http://www.google.com/search?q=judith+brett&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGFB_enAU214AU217
Google Judith Brett for more.
Doesn’t look like there is going to be much of a change in the way in which the GG and other News Ltd op-ed writers will be dealing with Rudd Labor in future.
{SOMEONE asked me recently, in a voice that suggested a certain smug confidence that it represented truth and justice, whether The Australian would continue to publish conservative columnists and contributors in the new political e