The verdict from the McEwen recount is in: Labor candidate Rob Mitchell’s six vote win has been overturned, and Liberal member Fran Bailey declared re-elected by just 12 votes. This gives the result level pegging with the Liberals’ 1974 win in Stirling as the closest federal electorate result of modern times. Labor is still considering a legal challenge, but it’s an open question as to whether a re-match would really be in their interests. It seems very likely that we can now settle on a final result of 83 seats for Labor and 65 for the Coalition plus two independents. Two other recount demands await adjudication:
• The Greens will reportedy call for a recount for the Victorian Senate, a contentious move given that nearly 3.3 million ballots would need to be rechecked. Antony Green’s projection shows both the Coalition and Labor winning third seats upon the exclusion of eighth placed Family First, the Liberals doing so with a surplus of 21709 votes (0.68 per cent) and Labor with 6088 (0.19 per cent). At this point Greens candidate Richard di Natale is left stranded on 13.4 per cent, 0.9 per cent or 27804 votes short of a quota. This of course assumes that all votes are cast above the line, when there are in fact 65101 (2.05 per cent) below-the-line votes for which we presently have only first preference results. These are unlikely to make much difference, as most are votes for parties whose preference tickets favoured the Greens ahead of Labor. Much of the leakage would come from Liberals going below the line to ensure the Greens did not get their vote. Against this can be weighed Labor voters who gave their first preference to a Labor candidate before switching to the Greens, but past experience suggests this is unlikely to account for more than 10 per cent out of 14123. If the assumption of all votes behaving as ticket votes were to hold, the Greens would need for Labor to finish around 2000 votes below the quota after Family First’s exclusion, which is roughly 8000 less than they presently appear to have. The distribution of the Liberal surplus would then be enough to give di Natale the narrowest of victories. In support of their recount appeal, Greens spokesman Jim Buckell provided The Age with an interesting list of claimed irregularities: “309 Greens Senate votes from one booth were not recorded at all; in Isaacs 150 votes were missed; in Dunkley 173 Greens votes were recorded as 17; and in Gellibrand, some Greens votes were attributed to another minor party”. However, it seems most unlikely that the required average of around 215 votes per electorate would be found to have wrongly favoured Labor over the Greens.
• Labor candidate Jason Young’s request for a recount in Bowman following his 64-vote defeat has been knocked back by the divisional returning officer. Young is continuing to pursue his recount request further up the Australian Electoral Commission hierarchy, but one suspects he is unlikely to find any joy.
On a completely unrelated note, here is a chart I knocked together showing each state’s deviation from the national Labor two-party preferred vote going back to 1949.
The first thing to note is the hyperactivity of Tasmania, which can in large part be put down to its small population of five seats. Nonetheless, the results tell a story of a natural Labor state which turned around temporarily following the Whitlam government’s tariff cuts and Labor’s opposition to the Franklin dam at the 1983 election. The largest state by contrast has stayed within a narrow 5 per cent band on the Labor side of the ledger, dipping below the line only in 1987 and 1998. Victoria’s long-lost standing as the jewel in the Liberal crown looks very much like a symptom of the 1954 Labor split and the party’s subsequent paralysis at state level, and its Labor vote has only once fallen below the national result since 1980. The exception was the 1990 election which also proved aberrant for reliably conservative Queensland, state government factors providing the explanation in each case. It can also be seen that the Coalition’s relative strength in Western Australia at the 2007 election was matched only by 1961, there is nothing new about its conservative leaning.
On another completely unrelated note, I have just had to pay a fee to renew the pollbludger.com domain. This wasn’t hugely expensive ($50 to be precise), but it nonetheless offers a good excuse to pass the hat around among those of you who enjoy giving me money.
489 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 » Show All
I am not sure whether anyone has mentioned this before, but there is an interesting result in Melbourne, which has surprisingly been one of the few seats yet to be declared. The latest AEC figures confirm that the preference distribution is between ALP and Greens, and although it looks like a comfortable ALP win, it will be a lot closer than anyone had imagined. Indeed, it will fall into the Marginal list next time around, with an ALP vote of less than 55%
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-228.htm
The only job for the Rodent is on the defence benches at the War Crimes Tribunal, the pay is none but food and board are provided.
Adrian at 231 very interesting, some interesting personal stories behind some of those personal votes for Lindsay. Sydney is similar. Herbert looks like a personal victory for the Liberals, fact that Labor did so well on the Senate in Dawson suggests Nats will struggle to regain it.
#242
Iemma won’t last till 2011. He’s sleepwalking, and ALP NSW will need somebody with more fire in their belly.
“Mr Loughnane warned televised political debates were in danger of becoming irrelevant as they descended towards entertainment rather than serious policy discussion.”
Entertainment? What entertainment? Did the Worm do a burlesque act? All I saw was two aging politicians reciting bullet points.
So if televised political debates are neither entertainment nor serious policy discussion, what are they and why are we watching?
BB-
Agreed. Bring on tne Inquiries. It cannot be possible that the perpetrators of the last 11 years of injustice, inhumanity and plain old fashioned crooked dealings are allowed to retire with massive superannuation, pensions and all the perks with no accountability for what they have done.
As I have said before on another thread, there must be some pissed off public servants out there who can’t wait to get a chance for some payback.
Wonder if anything of political interest will emerge from this AWB side offering:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22948918-601,00.html
The next decision in the Haneef case is due on Friday.
Former terror suspect Mohamed Haneef will learn on Friday whether he has won his latest legal battle to return to work in Australia.
In August, a Federal Court Judge overturned then Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews’ decision to cancel the Indian doctor’s 457 work visa on character grounds because of his association with alleged UK terror suspects Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed.
However, lawyers for the Immigration Minister appealed the decision before the full bench of the Federal Court in Brisbane in November and the three-member panel of judges reserved their decision.
A Federal court spokesman said Chief Justice Michael Black would hand down his decision at 2.30pm (AEDT) at the Commonwealth Law Courts Building on Friday.
Dr Haneef was arrested at the Brisbane International Airport in July, shortly after the failed UK terror plot and was held in custody for 12 days before being charged with supporting terrorism.
The charges were dropped less than two weeks later after Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions announced there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/haneef-visa-decision-due-friday/2007/12/19/1197740326481.html
Official: Work Choices dead – Nelson
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22949022-601,00.html
215
TW
Oh that Brian Loughnane is a quick learner, NOT! (Or as I like to call him: Mr Brain Lockdown).
Whinging that the unions “done ‘em wrong” is the lamest excuse for not getting the message I’ve ever seen.
At least Horatio Hornet has the sense to come out and publicly flush the little TurdChoices down the gurgler.
One less sh!t sandwich he has to eat in the future I suppose, but I’m not worried, as there’s plenty more where that little beauty came from!
Work Choice is dead ?!? uhm, I doubt that.
“GST is dead” sounds familiar? That was Howard’s core promise in 1996 election.
Well, well!
I knew I could write a firey post, but this is ridiculous! I wasn’t aware Brenda Nelson read Pollbludger.
1. WorkChoices is “dead” according to the doughty Opposition Leader. All they want is an inquiry into Unfair Dismissal.
2. ASIC is recommending AWB prosecutions against Lindberg and Flugge.
Both just announced in the ABC 5pm radio news. Only
* Super Hornets
* Inflation
* Snake Oil ion generators that make rain from a clear sky
to go.
(That unnerving sound you can hear is Nick Minchin bemoaning the death of WorkChoices. But in Opposition no-one can hear you scream).
And the introduction of a GST was Howard’s core promise in the 1998 election. He was reelected.
Rain (at 220) Arguably the Commonwealth already has power to administer hospitals. See “The Constitution” Section 51: “The Parliament shall …have power to make laws … with respect to: (Section xxiiiA, inserted 1946) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment. pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services …”
Diogenese @ 232 Rain and midnothcoast- “They argue that there is a Medicare item number for many of these procedures and they cannot be restricted because of this. Of course, we are never going to be able to operate on them because of more urgent cases so I think keeping them on the waiting list is just giving them false hope. Evidently, the decision is off with the lawyers now for a ruling.”
.
An MBS Item number means little, its mostly for stats and to set level of reimbursement. Public hospitals aren’t reimbursed, but private ones are. All procedures performed in private hospitals are entitled to reimbursement of 75% of the Medicare fee. This is usually recovered by the health insurance fund (or by the patient if they have self-insured)
.
A couple of those procedures might be done by a GP or specialist on a same-day basis in private rooms or day-surgery (eg uncomplicated varicose veins). I can’t see anything that prevents the treating doctor from bulk-billing the procedure, or negotiating a price with the patient and enabling them to get partial reimbursement from Medicare if they aren’t privately insured.
.
Like you say, most would end up waiting forever on the lists, and if there’s true clinical need/urgency then they will be treated as a public patient.
.
The Libs got a minority of the vote in the 1998 GST election.
The AEC is said to declare the seat of McEwen tomorrow with a 12 vote win for Fran.
This will give the ALP 83 seats 10 less than I predicted.
With that I wish William and everyone a Merry Christmas and a Wonderful New Year, I’m sure the ALP supports will, message to both sizes is simple
Democracy is a great thing, with that the pencil is blunt.
Tom @ 267
You are conveniently forgetting that Hanson sucked the primary vote away from the Coalition (Han 8.4% of primaries) and it went back to them in TPP
I’ve heard the evidence:-
http://open.newmatilda.com/crosswire/?p=144
Arest the Rodent and his henchmen immediatly.
The War Crimes Tribunal will start now.
I noticed today that Simon Crean is the only Rudd Cabinet minister who was in both the Hawke and Keating Cabinets. Crean has never spent a day on the backbench since he was elected.
I investigated whether serving under three Labor Prime Ministers was a record, only to discover that there were two men who served under four Labor PMs, and another two who served under three as well as being PM themselves. Who can name them?
A large church
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22949633-29277,00.html
Adam is one of them Malcom Fraser (just a guess)
Given the great gaps between labor ministries (there were no veterans of Chifley’s cabinet left in parliament in 1972) the PMs involved have to be Scullin, Curtin, Forde and Chifley.
Chifley and Forde are certainly 2 of the 4. I thought the other two were Stabber Jack Beasley whose acquiescence to come back to the bright side was required for labor to perform well in 1940 and Makin. Further research shows that the fourth was in fact Ted Holloway, who was famous for Howarding Lord Bruce in 1929. Makin was Scullin’s speaker
Um, no. Fraser didn’t serve under any Labor PMs that I can recall.
Very good. Midnorthcoast gets the elephant stamp.
Memo to self: Stop fooling yourself you can stay away from Pollbludger. Gee, I reckon Ted’s really though that through, JoM. Clearly has had a long, deep and meaningful with Brian Loughnane. Clearly on the same page. More like a large brothel, IMO.
Although none of Chifley’s ministers were still in Parliament, Whitlam was determined that someone from the Chifley ministry would get something from his government. But alas most of the survivors were too old. So he made ex-Senator John Armstrong High Commissioner in London.
We know Malcolm has become pretty left-wing these days but I don’t think he has joined us yet
265 CC Says: Arguably the Commonwealth already has power to administer hospitals. See “The Constitution” Section 51: “The Parliament shall …have power to make laws … with respect to: (Section xxiiiA, inserted 1946) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment. pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services …”
.
The 1946 amendment in health was mainly for the PBS,
the wording is for hospital *benefits* — ie funding $$$ — NOT *services*.
.
Only medical and dental *services* could be administered by feds.
.
Hospitals descended from church charitable institutions. State govts bought many of them as *capital assets*, the buildings, land etc, in response to things like the 1918 flu pandemic, smallpox, polio epidemics etc. State govts originally had rights to raise their own income taxes, but during the Depression years it became more difficult to raise revenue, and they sought Commonwealth $$$$ help in *funding* provision of many services, including “charitable hospital services for the poor”. Of which there were a lot in those days — as the presence and role of the previous church “poor-houses” faded into history.
.
Hence widows,orphans, soup-kitchens for the unemployed and homeless, and basic medical care for the sick during all those epidemics we now think were only in medieval times. After WW2, with all the diggers coming home from the war, all the women having babies to create the baby-boomer generation etc, this CW $$$ assistance became formalised in the 1946 amendment.
.
The *spirit* of the wording was towards welfare for the poor and deserving (war veterans, widows, orphans etc). The PBS was a special case, in response to polio epidemics and medical advances in drugs and particularly vaccines etc. Australia could not manufacture its own vaccines or antibiotics etc (wonder drugs of the times). Recognising that Australia would have to import these life-saving drugs, and most would not be able to afford commercial prices, the PBS was born.
.
The hospital benefits paid to the States were just annual Grants. Many people had insurance or paid their bills individually, but the CW “hospital benefits” were to help recompense the state govts for treating the poor and uninsured, and ‘deserving’ types like war veterans, all those widows and orphans.
.
That all began to change with Medicare and the first of the 5-year C’wlth & S/T agreements on “hospital benefits” established in the late 80s under Hawke. These first 5-year hospital funding agreements were called “The Medicare Agreements”, but thats another thread.
.
B.B. Lovely that ASIC are opening the batting on AWB. Let the fun begin.
Of course, Chifley and Forde were Pms.
A pedantic point to pick with you Adam. Many threads ago you said that Forde was not Deputy Pm, as this was a post created in the 60s. While I accept this i contend that Forde was known as the Deputy PM at least within the caucus. My source:
Patrck Weller (ed.) Caucus minutes 1901-1949 Vol 3 1932-1949
pg 331 and others.
Minutes of party meeting held on 22/3/44
“In the absence of the PM who was engaged on other important matters, the deputy PM, Mr Forde took the chair”
Interesting – Thanks Rain.
Well, Forde was Deputy Leader of the ALP and so no doubt was considered and refered to as the Deputy PM. His status was recognised when he was commissioned as PM following Curtin’s death. But the fact is that there was no official post of that name until 1968.
I think it was much more complex Rain. Chifley had a 5 year agreement with the states from 1945-1950. This was to finance the states with an amount equivalent to the patient contributions the hospitals received from lodge, private and intermediate patients. This was on the proviso that all public beds were to be free. The result was a collapse of the lodge and health insurance schemes. The commonwealth’s contribution to state hospitals went from 6d/day/bed to 8s/day/bed.
Menzies and Page abolished this at the earliest moment. Page’s alternate scheme was to subsidise the lodges and insurers, in all states except Qld this was associated with a strict means test for public patients with the doctors acting as Honories to their charity cases. Page also introduced a free pensioner health scheme – this resulted in 23 years of sometimes heated discussion between the AMA (still known as the British Medical association until 1960) and the government. Malcolm Fraser’s destruction of Medibank included the re-introduction of something very similar to Page’s scheme
Some things in Australian politics never change. The fact conservatives have never been able to get health policy right because they have always been prisoners of the doctors’ union and the private health insurers, two of the most stubborn, selfish and reactionary lobbies in Australia. This goes right back to Menzies’ resignation from the Lyons Cabinet in 1939. It explains Fraser’s breaking of his “retain Medibank” promise in 1976 and it explains Peter Shack’s frank admission that the Libs had no health policy at all in the 1990 election. Now that the doctors’ union has its own guy in charge of the Liberal Party we will no doubt see the sad saga continue.
“The fact conservatives” should read “The conservatives”.
#210. To para-phrase Hoges, that is not a rat, this is a rat:
http://home.people.net.au/~sspp/rat.jpg
Another sorry still yet to be said properly or even admitted to..
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/15/content_7256309.htm
Japanese girl skims over the “Iris Chang: The Rape of Nanking” Japanese edition in a bookshop in Tokyo Dec. 15, 2007. The book written by Chinese-American writer Iris Chang were originally published in English. It explored one of the darkest episodes of history in 1937 when Japanese troops occupied Nanjing, the then capital of China in Jiangsu Province. An estimated 300,000 Chinese or more were killed while one-third of the houses in the city were burned and more than 20,000 women raped. (Xinhua Photo)
While everybody is bagging (with plenty of justification) Brian Loughnane’s speech on why the Coalition lost the election, he did make a couple of interesting points…
Firstly, he said the Libs didn’t have time to get tax cuts advertising out, because of the “secrecy” of (presumably) Howard and Costello. This is extraordinary. It was their main campaign promise. I can remember waiting eagerlyto see how they were selling their tax cuts, but not a single ad appeared. Not only does this show how relations between the organisational and parliamentary wings must have been non-existent, but it also displays Loughnane’s incompetence, and the incompetence of his team. Labor were able to put out ads every night, often based on things the coalition had just announced. Why couldn’t the coalition do it?
Secondly, Loughnane said Lib polling was showing “parents” in outer suburban and regional areas had turned against the coalition. This is very interesting – I’m not sure that I’ve even seen “parents” listed as a demographic category that’s influential in elections. It does show that Labor was in touch with the mood, where parents were both squeezed on living and housing costs, and worried about their children’s futures (probably mostly because of WorkChoices, but also, I suspect, because of a shortage of skills training and affordable uni places,
and high school fees). Certainly, school fees were important when it came to campaign promises from both sides, even though school education is a state issue.
I suspect my own age group (started voting under Whitlam, benefiting from free tertiary education, now have kids at senior high school, uni or just joined the workforce) were quite a force at the ballot box.
I imagine the Libs organisation wing will get even more inompetent and out of touch as the party runs out of money, and has no state governments to use as training grounds for apparatchiks.
SCANDAL IN McEWEN
According to the ‘Age ‘there are 600 disputed votes (400 by Libs & 200 by ALP)
which are the subject of DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of the Electoral Act
between divisional returning officer Robert Berglund
VS Victoria’s electoral officer Daryl Wight
Wight made the overiding adjudication over Berglund’s earlier decisions
The result is decided by 2 returning officers with different opinions about the eligibility of these disputed ballot papers
Ultimately Wight decided the seat for the Libs AGAINST Berglund’s interpretation
which may account for the “recount” result vs 2 earlier recounts favoring Labor
Hey guys,
Bolt has a thread up having a go at Tim Dunlop.
His flock will move in and have a real go.
I’ve left myself open to abuse….this going to be fun!!!
Addition to 2nd last line:
Ultimately Wight MAY HAVE “decided the seat for the Libs AGAINST Berglund’s interpretation
“For the first time in our history, a third external force has intervened in our political process with resources greater than either of the major political parties.
“I believe this is an extremely unhealthy development.”
geez and i thought another voice meant that we live in a democracy…….
but of course what he is really saying is that it is an unhealthy development for his side………
What percentage of Australians are a member of a political party?
nicko -
who said that about the 3rd party?
Intersting that the Liberals health policy is controlled by the doctor’s UNION
but the Libs advertise against Labor for being controlled by the Unions
maybe some Unions are OK
While a united conservative party would probably be the best thing for our side of politics, it would be sad if this was the end of the Liberal Party considering how successful it has been in Australian politics since 1944 but then again whenever we tories suffer a massive defeat the strongest conservative party struggles to survive we did in 1983 but couldn’t in 1929 and 1943.
Nevertheless i don’t think this will take unless it is done now and is done well. Expect the calls for a merger to grow particularly over the break considering this is when such a deal could be forged.
If i had to choose a name it would be either the United Conservative Party of Australia or the United Australia Party (1931-1945) preferably i’d like to go back to the name of the UAP they were successful for a decade mainly thanks to Joe Lyons but it’s a good name i like it.
Oh and Adam is Labor is so much better at running the health system why is our health system a mess considering every state and territory is Labor???
So says Glen
Have a merry christmas and i shall probably poke my head up in 2008 sometime…
Glen your new years resolution should be to leave the ‘dark side’ Liberals
and join the good guys & gals
Not much wrong with the Liberal Party that adoption of genuine liberal policies wouldn’t fix.
The problem with uniting conservative parties is that it would just make them more conservative. the need to capture the mddle grounds from Labor, rather than capture what lies to the right of them.
Can I thank you, Glen, for standing up for what you believe in, fighting for it here in the lion’s den, and not resorting to personal abuse, when a good deal was heaped on you.
Though I’m pretty impressed with the opening weeks of the new Labor Government, this blog will get very dull if there’s just three more years of Rudd worship.
Happy New Year to you.
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 » Show All