Could happen as I think the people underestimate the effect of a change in federal government. Gippsland shows its not to early in the cycle to see a protest vote.

However, its unlikely all cards will fall the CLPs way (as they fell Labor’s way in Vic in 1999). I think some of the more marginal seats may present ’suprise’ ALP holds, thinking of Port Darwin, Drysdale & Brennan.

But the NT is fickle, as is any voting at such a micro-level. Those punting 50 or 100k on this result are out on a limb.

Btw..no mention anywhere of Nhulunbuy…could this be the CLPs most unlikely chance? Its an open seat and a mostly non-indigenous population.

In fact, my attempts to postal vote have been ignored for the last two territory elections. In both cases I printed off an on-line application form and sent it by registered mail to the N.T. electoral office on the day the elections were called. I am a confirmed registered voter in Casuarina.

I sent another registered letter to my Darwin address on the same day and that item arrived on Tuesday of last week. So, there should have been plenty of time to send voting papers to me and for my return letter to be duly registered before today.

This is just not good enough as I would have enjoyed feasting on the CLP carcass. Does anyone else feel a bellyache at the mention of the N.T. electoral office?

WRT to your question re broadening policy and being perceived to lose integrity to win HoR’s seats – yes, that is a real issue. It ultimately comes down to whether the party sees itself as a potential party of government (thus needing to win seats), or conceptualises itself as something quite different – a protest party, the ‘wing’ of a broader movement (with parliament as a side issue), a balance to major parties (aka the Democrats) and so on. For some parties this is straight forward, but as I think I’ve mentioned before, for the Greens its an ongoing internal debate. The various debates around forestry have lead to some sharp conflicts with external NGO’s (ie; the Wilderness Society) over particular parliamentary activities not being “pure” enough – and this has been reflected in a number of internal policy struggles too.

Ultimately if the Greens keeps balancing the these ‘forces’ within itself it has the potential to win HoR’s seats and not be ghetto-ised into the Senate, but the nature of parties is that the forces at play are working to have their viewpoint ascendant – thus one ’side’ of the argument wins. Personally, I think this would be a damaging and ultimately fatal outcome for the Greens. This would be especially true if Labor did move to the left, but I’m not entirely convinced that are able to do so anymore, although this wont stop them making it appear to be the possible or the case – I do note that Henderson has released the letter to PM Rudd asking him to repeal legislation regarding the dump.

I would give Lambert about an even chance.

#167

thanks for your reply , just a few final points from your post as electon tomorrow gives closure to prefs decsion

“I think it worth considering that the Greens already does have to balance policy credibility across a range of policy areas and details”
This belief would hav been in mind when making th prefs decison , a belief Greens voters already themselves hav reluctanse following a prefs vote card to pref Labor for many policy reasons And therefore consequentley greens voters will ‘understand’ non preferencing , because they ar already to reluctant to pref I’ve noticed this perseption with most Greens ‘tragics’ I feel this perseption is flawed and I think most non tragic greens voters also think there is no Twiddle dee /dum choice Th proof is a 70% plus pref despite a no preferencing card

Excecutive memebers ar more likely to ‘dumb down’ there own voters knowledge (they reely don’t understand) vs maybe there may be merit in our voters perseption , or maybe voters do NOT agree with all our policys , or maybe a core Labor policy is more important than our opposing one , but just maybe maybe voters do see a very distinctive ‘left’ vs right’ Partys diference that executive perhaps ar too pure (or proud) to acknowledge or risk politcal costs to acknowledge , if so then th non prefs decision would cause wonderment at minimum to non tragic greens members

I think from talking to green suports its reason after ‘but’ , and perhaps some core Labor policys That suggested wondarment is reflected inmy views as well
Which is why I’ve persued th dump (where Labor publicly opposes) it will be perceived non prefs a\occured when there WAS agreement 9and that Labor , not Greens pushed it hard publicly So am unconvinced either non tragic Greens members or Labor executive would understand doing so on this Electon , will future influence Labor more so

Also , I am suggesting politcal use of prefs is more understandable to Labor when it was ‘policy worth’ a fight on , and also to non tragic Greens members (seeing my earlier coment on they may see major Partys divide signicantley greater than its executive does

It could in adition also be that th nature restrictons on realistic policy formulaton & implement as a Government ar too discounted by tragics & executive causing an unrealatic gulf of expectatons , thereby causing a tweedle process

“You could argue that the point of distinction provides the reason to preference them, but you could equally argue that the point of distinction is not enough..”
Believe non tragic Greens voters HAPPILY think th first phrase , and tragic greens voters (and Greens exec) th second phrase & seems aparent on this site , some but not you actualy with some biterness Converseley you being seemingly more policy orientated , probaly in my ‘frustrated’ policy camp

“just as equally have gone in with a view to swapping seats for seats (ie; HoR’s for Senate”
I have no problem with this approach , in politcs one need members , danger always is to know ones limitations Go for House seats & broaden policy & lose integritys or remain thinner in numbers but Senat influensial with policy integrity
risk of former is if Labor tries to protect itself and move more ‘left’ , one could (not will) risk th wholle cake Your thoughts

“The NT election I would suggest provides an opportunity to tie the uranium mining and dumping issues together, given ability of Federal Govt to make decisions regardless of NT Govt wishes (note the Intervention).”
I’ve looked at this proposition objectively , and was not persuaded at all of th
“to tie the uranium mining and dumping issues together” Think reverse actualy , think highlighted policy wise ‘a mixed mesage’ and thats WHY I thought it had to be a strategy based decsion

Agree decision won’t signif affect this election result