The Western Australian Electoral Commission has completed its weekend preference distributions from seats in doubt, providing Labor with a small degree of consolation through wins in Albany (a heroic effort by sitting member Peter Watson, who picked up a 2.6 per cent swing to retain his notionally Liberal seat) and Kwinana (believed last week to have fallen to independent Carol Adams). That puts the final result at Labor 28, Liberal 24, and Nationals four, with three independents: Liz Constable (Churchlands), Janet Woollard (Alfred Cove) and John Bowler (Kalgoorlie). All are committed to support the new government in one way or another, with Constable promised a position in cabinet and Bowler agreeing to act in concert with the Nationals.
Before I launch into FIGJAM mode, it behoves me to own up to my various errors over the past six weeks. As is always the case when I ambitiously attempt to pick the result of every seat, I made quite a few wrong calls: I did not pick the Liberal wins in Jandakot, Southern River, Mount Lawley, Wanneroo and Morley, and I wrongly believed Labor would lose Albany, Collie-Preston and North West. In a nutshell, I underestimated the anti-Labor swing in Perth and overestimated it elsewhere. I was embarrassingly dismissive of what proved to be a spot-on Westpoll survey from Morley a week before the election, describing the ultimately victorious Ian Britza as the “stop-gap Liberal candidate”. The Nationals’ haul of five or even six upper house seats also came out of left field, defying my prediction that Christian parties would hold the balance of power. And of course, I hesitatingly predicted Labor would win the election with a one-seat majority: a pretty good call with regard to seat relativities, but wrong with respect to the direction of the result.
With that out the way, here are some highlights of my observations over the past six weeks.
Eleven seats and 5 per cent is certainly a big hurdle, but I don’t think it’s undoable. Labor should rue the missed opportunity of calling the election last week.
For all that, the Liberals have more going for them than interstate observers might assume. WA has hardly been a happy hunting ground for Labor in recent years: Geoff Gallop’s unspectacular re-election in 2005 was the only time the party’s primary vote has topped 40 per cent since 1989, a period covering seven federal and four state elections. Published polling during the Buswell period was not as bad for the Liberals as might have been expected, mostly putting Labor’s two-party lead at around 53-47. Buswell’s departure has also lanced a number of boils, reconciling vocal dissidents including former front-benchers Rob Johnson and Graham Jacobs. Underdogs they might remain, but discerning punters should find those odds from Centrebet more than a little tempting.
Of course, the polling leak and accompanying talk of internal panic might just be a ruse to boost Labor’s winning margin rather than avert defeat. On the other hand, the shift to the Liberals recorded in last weekend’s polls was entirely consistent with the anti-Troy Buswell effect that was well understood to be at work in the preceding surveys. We have evidence now that is not merely anecdotal that the perception of arrogance is starting to bite. And those generous odds from Centrebet are still there for the taking.
I’ll eat my hat if the Nationals back a Labor government.
Such conclusions required no great insight, based as they were (excluding the last one) on the state’s voting record, the well-understood workings of the political cycle and polling which showed Labor’s mid-year lead was built entirely on the unpopularity of Troy Buswell. These considerations nonetheless failed to penetrate the judgement of the ace political guns at The West Australian, who repeatedly insisted that Labor was home and hosed.
The Labor hierarchy knew better of course, and on two occasions presented the media with accurate internal polling which was interpreted disdainfully by the paper’s too-clever-by-half commentators. When the first such announcement was made in the second week of the campaign, The West’s report gave equal prominence to the views of optimistic “Labor insiders”, while Robert Taylor argued in his comment piece that Labor was cynically creating a misleading impression by providing selective data.
The second announcement came early in the final week when Labor’s scare campaigns over uranium mining and GM crops were reaching a hysterical pitch, collectively sending a message that was surely impossible to miss. However, Taylor responded with a piece which should sound eerily familiar to those old enough to remember last year’s federal election campaign:
While the nightly tracking poll on Monday recorded an alarming drop to 45 per cent for the ALP from a high of 52 per cent on a two-party preferred basis last Thursday — the same night the last Westpoll gave Labor a 54 per cent vote — other key indicators remained strong for the Government. Foremost among them were the 55 per cent of people who believed the Liberal Party was not ready to govern. It’s hard to see those people walking into the booth on Saturday and voting for a party they don’t believe can be in government. There’s no doubt that Labor heavies are worried by the sudden drop in support. But there’s also no doubt they believe the election is still there to be won and that the raw primary vote figure can recover just as quickly as it dropped. Even on the figures released yesterday, Labor only has to improve between 2 and 3 per cent by polling day and it wins. That’s because after the one vote, one value redistribution, on paper at least, Labor enjoys a 17-seat majority … But the poll produced by Labor yesterday wasn’t too much different from the way things were running in the last week of the 2005 election campaign when Geoff Gallop came from behind just a week out to record a comfortable victory. And it showed that the new train line to Ellenbrook and the blatant scare campaign on uranium were working, though it also confirmed that when the Liberals finally got on message at the weekend and hit the electorate with advertisements about Labor’s failed promises, people started to listen. But again, only 24 per cent of those polled said they could remember something that appealed to them about a Barnett message while 38 per cent said they could remember and liked something the Premier had said.
Note the writer’s determination to overlook the headline figure staring him in the face; his focus on whichever minor indicators happened to fit with his preconceptions; and most of all, his mystical faith in a “narrowing” that would swing the result the way of his prediction. Taylor’s conviction that Labor would enjoy a late 2 to 3 per cent swing was built largely on the fact that that’s what happened in 2005, which apparently had nothing at all to do with Colin Barnett’s last-minute costings debacle.
As notable as the actual content of the article was its placement on page seven. The next day, when Labor predictably declined to assemble the state’s media for a second successive poll leak announcement, the paper splashed a non-story across the front page of its first edition headlined: “Speculation ALP back on track as new polling figures withheld”. It soon became clear that Labor’s polling showed nothing of the kind. Meanwhile, Carpenter continued to signal his party’s very real desperation by repeating the same phrase 14 times in a single doorstop interview.
Such failings wouldn’t be worth remarking upon if all they amounted to was a wrong guess about an election result (there but for the grace of God go I). The problem was that the paper felt the certainty of Labor victory justified it in applying the blow-torch to the government day after day while all but ignoring the Liberals. One example was the feeding frenzy which followed Alan Carpenter’s refusal to confirm Michelle Roberts’ position in cabinet after the election. This prompted an overheated front-page lead headlined “I dare Premier to dump me: Roberts” (as former Liberal leader Matt Birney noted: “She never said any such thing”) plus a follow-up the next day, as well as inspiring the extraordinary lapse of editorial judgement shown to the right. By contrast, Colin Barnett’s refusal a week earlier to confirm Shadow Treasurer Troy Buswell’s tenure didn’t rate a single mention. It fell to other media to pressure Barnett into making what The West would have loudly trumpeted as a “backflip” if the shoe had been on the other foot.
Don’t take my word for it though: Matt Birney offered many pertinent observations about the paper’s story selection while appearing on 6PR’s election night panel, having earlier accused it of “aiding and abetting” his own side of politics throughout the campaign. For my part, I’ve pocketed a tidy sum from a bet laid on the Liberals at the peak of the market. I reckon I deserve it.
UPDATE (16/9/08): Eric Ripper elected new Labor leader following the withdrawal of the popular favourite Alannah MacTiernan. Remarkably, the deputy position has gone to newly elected Kwinana MP Roger Cook, who until a few days ago looked like he had lost the seat to an independent.
216 Comments
The West Australian has certainly not been objective in its coverage, which is unfortunate.
the west australian has become the most ridiculed and reviled paper in australia since they appointed the infantile armstrong as editor. Pity stokes couldnt get on the board earlier on to replace armstrong and his cronies with real journos. im sure the press council will receive a raft of complaints re the election coverage. Unfortunately journalistic standards and code of ethics are in such short supply at the west that armstrong and his board wear upheld complaints about them as a badge of honour. being a toothless tiger the press council tutt tutts at the west and the west gives them the finger. a pity fot the people of wa given that is our only daily. In this election i would suggest that the wests attack on us were worth between 2-3% of the swing. Saying that, we also failed to develop a campaign or strategy to counter their message.
I doubt that you can attribute 2-3% of the swing to the biased reporting of The West. It’s time for Labor to stop blaming everyone else, acknowledge that they were corrupt and incompetent, get rid of the deadwood and get on with the job of being a strong opposition.
I respectfully disagreee – West runs Story attacking Labor, Early Edition at 10pm makes radio previews ie What The Papers Say, and 6PR’s Nightline’s “Preview”. Story then makes Breakfast radio bulletins, then gets followed up during Morning show etc, finally it’s on the 6pm News.
No 4
Voters are not that stupid Frank.
The Daily Telegraph, the most widely circulated Newspaper in NSW, runs daily stories on the scandalous nature of the Labor Party, yet the ALP still performed strongly in many areas at the Local Government elections.
William, can we have a new thread on US politics? The other one is now buried deep beneath the tide of Liberal victory.
But Sydney has The Terror and the SMH, we only have The West and the Sunday Times, which is murdoch – talk about dumb and dumber in the media stakes.
THAT is the difference, and only 2 talkback stations 6PR (owned by Fairfax, and ABC 720.
No 7
The SMH has been unrelenting in its criticism of NSW Labor Frank.
Stop making excuses.
If Matt Birney, a former Leader of the LIberal Opposition is openly criticising The West for it’s appaling Bias against Labor, you KNOW something is wrong with the WA Media, as well as Kerry Stokes, a MEMBER of the LIberal Party 500 Club, who is anything but a socialist.
I did not deny there was a problem with the WA media, I’m just saying that you can’t legitimately say that 2-3% of the anti-government swing was a result of media bias because it detracts attention from the rampant corruption and incompetence that characterised Carpenters last two years.
William, Sorry to hear you sold out your independence.. Did they offer you a lot of money??
Do you know if the Western Australian Electoral Commission will be publishing the preference datafiles?
Analysis of the 2007 Queensland senate election indicated that the system elected the wrong candidates.
There are two issues in the way the Senate vote is counted.
1. The calculation of the surplus transfer value and
2. The method of distribution of preferences allocated to unsuccessful excluded candidates.
Western Australia addressed the issue of the calculation of the surplus Transfer value which is now based on the value of the vote as opposed to the number of ballot papers as per the Senate rules .
BUT the second issue has not been addressed.
Analysis of the Queensland result based on the principle that votes from excluded candidates should be treated in the same fashion and redistributed according to the voters allocated preferences as though the candidate(s)did not stand. The only way this principle can be filled is with a reiterative count.
The short of it is that the Greens were denied a seat when they should have rightly been elected in Queensland (Proportionally speaking).
If you do a count of the Queensland senate vote and only included the last standing seven candidates, the Greens would have been elected.
Now I am not happy about that fact but the system did not reflect the voter’s intention and in spite of my political leaning and bias, the fact remains that the system should be fair and accurate. A person should not be elected because of the deficiency in the way the vote is counted.
It is surprising that the Media has not yet picked-upon the issue and concerns about the Queensland result.Its all documents and before the Australian Parliament and waiting further analysis from Anthony Green.
I am not sure if this issue has any effect in WA upper-house results. (You need the datafiles to analysis that outcome). BUT I am sure it will have an effect in the NSW and Victorian Local Government elections.
If you mean this sort of thing (scroll down a bit), then yeah, it’s there. Just copy ‘n’ paste into your spreadsheet / text editor of choice.
I think he might be hoping for something a little more involved than that …
Generic Person: You can’t deny that the blatant pro Liberal bias of THE WEST AUSTRALIAN had something to do with the election result, especially in Perth.
How anyone can call that rag a credible newspaper is beyond me!
Oh well, they’ve got what they wanted!
I’ll happily forget about WA for the next 3 years.
Let that fat oaf Barnett and the Nationals ruin the WA economy!
Those who reckon they missed out on the benefits of the boom reckon they’ll do any better out of the Liberals? LMAO
Watch for spending on welfare and social programs to be cut so Barnett can continue to bribe the National Party.
As for the now Labor opposition: I fear the Burke faction will completely take over the party, and install one of their hacks as leader!
Dear Generic Person,
You seem to enjoy throwing about the accusation that the Carpenter Government was corrupt.
Can you please provide us with evidence to support your repeated claims?
This is a very serious accusation, and you seem so sure of it that you must have some kind of first hand evidence… what is it?
#15 Andos……I support your call for evidence, however in true Tory style I’m sure GP cant and wont provide any. Its their MO to throw baseless accusations and then go quiet.
As I noted in an earlier post, I’m looking forward to the future findings of the CCC which are sure to contain some juicy’s about current sitting Govt (Lib) MP’s. Watch this space.
Generic Person: Your point about the Terror in NSW is not a rebuttal of Rumpolecats/Franks’s point about the West being a 2%-3% advantage to the Libs.
For all we know, the Terror could be worth 5% or more, but the NSW Libs are so god-awful, that they still can’t get a leg up.
Are you disputing that an obviously biased media (which you accept) has an effect? Or just the magnitude of the effect?
What percentage do you attribute the Libs gaining from the appalling coverage of the West?
At least Morley had some polling showing the libs had a sniff.. Jandakot, the polling was out by almost 10% showing like a 8% margin to labor, yet on the day Francis romped it in.
Bird of paradox: Yes William is right… The WAEC hopefully will publish the raw preference data file. One record per ballot paper. I would not expect the WA upper-house vote to be close. The only way you can scutinize a computer based count is if you have access to the data file. You would be surprised at the number of data-records that warrant further review. It is very easy to make a data-entry error (As w learnt in the Victorian State Election fiasco). The Commissions have not really implemented sufficient checks in the system having taken many short cuts. The WA is the the first state to implement a vote value based calculation of the Surplus Transfer value. Victoria Labor could have readily lost the third seat by a quirk and distortion in the system. (The Greens would have received an additional 7,000 bonus votes disproportional to the voters intentions had One Nation preferenced the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP – with major party ticket votes increasing in value at the expense of minor parties votes).In Queensland’s example the Greens should have won a senate spot but again the system denied them representation not the voters. The Parliament is currently reviewing the system in place (the JSCEM has requested a report from the Australian Electoral Commission) – Bob Brown and his team are also beginning to show interest in making sure the count is correct. Antony Green,having been tied up with the WA result has not yet analysed further the QLD Senate results removing the bias and distortion in the way the AEC counts the vote.In the past everyone assumed that the “odds” of it effecting the results was minimal. And yes it does not change that readily BUT it does. In local government elections it most certainly will effect the outcome. Main stream media had not cottoned on to the facts yet.
No 15
Brian Burke. Case closed.
Given the remarkable closeness of the result and the bias of The West, a less biased newspaper might have meant a different result.
NCB. Case closed.
I WANT MY MONEY.
Damn Sportingbet. Maybe they’re holding out for an independent switching miracle?
Max, I think you’ll get your money when the new govt is actually sworn in.
The obvious bias shown by The West was shameful. There is no doubt they had an effect oon the result. However I really don’t think you can quantify it. I will say this though, Labor missed out by 2 seats and a realtively few votes in a couple of other seats of remaining in government. It wouldn’t take much by The West to have helped swing that election.
Now that it is over, I look forward to seeing the high expectations being dashed of those who see the Liberals as being the great white hope and saviour of the state. Rabble meet government.
Cuppa.. maybe a system that is not based on geography as a means of representation would better reflect the voters intentions. (Problem with a single member electorate system) Do we really need a two house system in State Parliaments? The National Party’s decision to have a claytons coalition and support a minority government is a very expensive decision to make. Changing governments a bit like moving house or office, it is not cheap. Maybe they should have offered support for to retain the existing government. I often wonder how we would go if the best of each party was given a portfolio to manage and government was by the Parliament as a whole.
The more I look at the other states outside of NSW,Victoria and Queensland the more I question the value and justification for State Governments full stop. How can you really justify Tasmania being a State. Talk about overrepresention. Tasmania has less constituents then many mainland Municipalities have.
A prominent Victorian Politician, when asked would they be supporting reform of the Victorian Legislative Council or abolition, surprised me some what when they said they would abolish the State Government altogether if they could – Of course they won’t. but he was right we are way to over governed in Australia. With better communication and a more mobile society we really do not need the levels of government we have. They are outdated and inefficent and ineffective.
Re the swing.
If we look at our first weeks polling and compare it with the final 2 weeks we can clearly see the impact the west had on the outcome. Dont get me wrong in elections there is always a loser, but its generally considered good manners to allow the people to formulate their own opinions based on relatively impartial reporting. Due to the wests extremely dominant role in WA media the punters were fed a diet of vitriolic anti labor venom for 4 weeks. Concurrently no scrutiny was applied to the libs. This reflected the outcome in which people bashed labor but could not endorse the libs because there was precious little to endorse given the media treatment they received. The rule in journalism is simple if you going to apply the blowtorch, apply it consistently. This just did not happen here. Congrats to the Libs, i genuinely wish them well because while we back our sides, the ideological and economic divide between both majors is much smaller than we make out. It just would have been a whole lot better for WA electors if the west had presented a more balanced coverage of both parties. Maybe we wouldnt have had the spectacle of Carpenter and Barnett having to court the independents and nats if people could have really weighed up the options.
DemocracyATwork @ 27: As many here know, Qld prospers with only one chamber.
Hi DemocracyAtWork
Not being very familiar at all with WA politics, I may be wrong here. I always considered the Nats backing the Libs for the final result in a tight race a foregone conclusion. Recalling the federal election where the Nats campaigned very hard against Rudd and Labor. (Acknowledging the differing dynamics between state and federal).
As for doing away with the states, I can’t come at that! Put it this way. You live in State x. You’re unhappy with the government. You have the choice to move to another state with more a agreeable political situation. Without states, you don’t have that option.
Rumpole: To make a point for GP and others, if Buswell was still leader, the ALP would have won convincingly, regardless of anything the West printed.
The West’s low partisan reporting may have been the difference in the tight election we had, but how do you divorce that from Carps’ crappy timing and crappier campaign?
LOL, it’s funny how you’re all trying to find someone else to blame for the defeat. The fact is that Carps should have one it thanks to the disarray of the Liberals right up until the day the election was called.
The West didn’t just start its venomous attacks at the start of the campaign.
Excuses excuses, boys and girls.
won not one in No 32
So, GP, The West played no part at all? Is that you’re argument?
your, not you’re.
Of course all of this is academic anyway to me. I won’t be thinking about WA politics until the next WA state election, just like I gave it no thought whatsoever during the last term of government.
No 34
Given our interest in psephological analysis, we need hard data before we can draw reasonable conclusions. Whatever effect, if any, the West had on the WA election is not quantifiable.
It is simply nothing but an excuse to blame the defeat of Corpse on them. That doesn’t excuse the outrageous bias of the paper, however.
I agree with getting rid of a lot of local government, but I think the states should stay, but they need to be given less power.
In NSW we are quite happy to get rid of the state government, the average swing away from Labor (Labor vs everyone else) was about 8% which is significant
The West helped the Liberal, but you also have to ask why.
Have Carpenter been arrogant against the media?
Have they have fights with the month piece?
Have Carpenter taken all the pro-carpenter jurnos out of the Media, and put them in the ALP.
We can blame everything on the West, but 34% of voters voted for Carpenter, there must be something wrong in the first place
No 38
Dovif, blaming the media distracts attention from the terrible campaign he ran, his poor political judgement as well as the litany of ministers sacked thanks to being in bed with Brian Burke.
So Labor got 34% and gained 28 seats? Is that correct? Hell, they couldn’t do any worse than that next time you would think and probably better.
I also note Carpenter, in the polls, was preferred leader over Barnett by a reasonable margin, so I’m not sure that Barnett is all that popular.
If you look at the US elections, the media attacking a candidate can be counterproductive, depending on how it’s handled. The attacks on Palin are definitely helping the Repugs. Perhaps the WA Labor Party just needed a Palin replacement as leader!
The interesting thing was that while Barnett wasn’t popular… he wasn’t unpopular either. And that was all that was needed to get over the line. While someone with Buzwell’s baggage would have lost the election, basically anyone else could have won it.
No 40
As William has noted, history shows that governments elected on a knife’s edge elsewhere in the country have been re-elected in landslides.
btw Carpenter only has himself to blame for alot of things – parachuting his mates into safe seats, being arrogant and dismissive of the Journos, which led to them running a vendetta against him… he made alot of mistakes, but if he had taken McGintys advice and gone a couple of months earlier he would have romped it in heh.
To be precise, Labor won 35.8% primary, the Libs 38.5 and the Nats 4.85, thus the combined Lib/Nat vote was 43.3%. A primary that low indicates that voters don’t want the party to be re-elected. I doubt that the West had that much to do with Labor’s shocking performance. The only thing that saved it from being a rout was the Greens 11.9%, and an approx 52-48 to Libs 2PP.
The question is how many seats did the ALP win off the back of Green preferences and how many seats did they win comfortably. Then we can guess as to how well or worse they will do next time. I cannot see a swing against Cautious in 2012, after all their hasnt been a 1 term Tory Government since the 1930s.
Can I assume there will be no more wailing and gnashing of teeth from ALPers about the Greens preferences in Kwinana now that Roger Cook has fallen over the line?
I think it is obvious that Carpenter did all the right things to lose this election and if he had done nothing besides just calling the election they probably would have snuck back in. In fact it might be a study in what not to do.
The thing to observe now is the relationship between the Nats and Liberals.
Grylls had not option considering all his MLAs bar him were against supporting Happy Carps. He was the only one in the LA to want to back the ALP. Colin Barnett offered a reasonable and not outragious deal like desperate Carps made in order to save his bacon, who basically offered everything but the kitchen sink. Cautious Colin knew this and didnt make an over the top deal because he knew the Nat MLAs couldnt stomach keeping a ALP Government in power.
No 48
I don’t expect the relationship to be explosive. So long as Grylls gets his 700 million, he’ll be a happy chappy.
No 49
Yes, given the extreme generosity of Corpse’s offer, one can only reasonably assume that fiscal responsibility was thrown out the window.
No 43 – As someone else noted, not always.
Wishful thinking Gary.
Can I reiterate my call for a new thread on US politics. Pretty please William?
So, GP, do you think Rudd will win the next Federal election because only once has a government been thrown out after one term?
No 55
On current polling, he will win comfortably.
Good on ya GP, at least you show consistency.
That, by the way, was meant as a compliment, not a criticism.
How many Govts. have had there bums kicked for going to the polls early? WA and NT this year. Slick Nick in NSW – 1991.
Seems voters don’t really like early elections?
ruawake – that is a fair comment and a warning to others.
No 57
Why, thankyou. But as a Liberal supporter, there is always a hope.
Certainly, if either Turnbull or Costello assume the leadership, things may change.
I personally think emissions trading will be troublesome for Rudd.
No 59
Only Menzies was the true master of snap elections.
Des Corcoran in SA in 1979 was another famous example, although his conspicuous failure to be Don Dunstan was another big factor.
I must say I agree with GP about the role of the media. The media everywhere is anti-Labor, violently so in some places, and it has never stopped competent Labor governments getting re-elected. The West may have been particularly egregious this time, and obviously that didn’t help Labor, but I don’t believe it was the major factor. From my distant perch, I think the major factors were (a) WA is a conservative state (b) unpopular early election (c) Brian Burke and other scandals.
Gough springing a DD on Snedden in 1974 was pretty good too.
And as a Labor supporter there is always hope in WA. If Barnett proves to be a good leader and people like what they see he could improve his position at the next election but the fact is if he doesn’t Labor is very much within striking distance. So, like you, I live in hope and who knows what will happen.
Was the 1961 Federal election a snap election?
63 Adam- You’re probably right.
No it was on time. Menzies went early in 1951 (DD), 1955, 1963.
To be honest I’m not so sure the result in WA would have been any better for Labor if they had gone in February. It may have possibly been worse.
No 63
I agree Adam. Participants here might discount the value of Burke, but practically half the ministry was sacked thanks to his insidious tentacles.
Oh Dear, Gearlton has 1500 ballot papers missing.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24348081-5005361,00.html
And the same thing will happen to Barnett unless he takes a tough line with Burke (who has friends on both sides of the aisle) and also NCB.
Another factor was the sudden resurrection of Barnett, who was the Libs’ most presentable leader. Although he was a retread and had lost before, he was a lot better than the three previous duds, and his return came at the crucial moment when the voters were making up their minds. This could be compared with the resurrection of Howard, also a previous failure, but who was seen as an improvement on Downer and thus an acceptable alternative to Keating.
And as illustrated by this article.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=97813
Anyone who has much to do with the Liberal party would know NCB has almost nothing to do with it these days. though some of his followers are still kicking around.
I love the way in post #71 Frank does “1500 ballot papers missing.” and then the article says 1000 papers missing
John Mcgrath’s sole claim to the ministry is that he is in one of the safest seats. Why he is in there is beyond me, he is a lazy MP who is definitely not a “big picture” guy… basically he is there as one of the “Northern Alliance” stooges who votes down the line and doesn’t ruffle too many feathers.
Actually Mea Culpa, you are correct, I got confused with the 1500 primary votes that the Liberal Candidate is ahead by.
Yes, Barnett must take a strong stance and avoid any association with Burke, if he wants to be re-elected. Now is the time.
averagejoe,
it is easily explained, Frank know the Liberals won the sea by 1,400 vote, so if he can cast enough doubt on the Liberals winning the seat, in his dreams his beloved ALP might still be in Government
The ALP regularly does this in their internal ballot
The people who counts the vote regularly losses the votes of the other side
Oh, and Frank, I think it’s about time you accepted the ALP lost.
I Have, it’s just that it’s not going to help Barnett governing if his paperthin majority gets shrunk ever so slowly
Crazy Col is only in there ten minutes and he’s cost the tax-payers more with an expanded Ministry! I spose that provides NCB and Burkie a bigger menu to choose from.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/15/2364846.htm
OTOH – it is a habit of ministers in losing governments to retire early from Parliament afterwards – happens time and again. Who will be the first of Carpenter’s crew to leave? Alannah might find the party invitations dry up too quickly. If a couple of former ministers in (now) marginal seat leave the numbers may firm up nicely.
BTW…thats over half his caucus that will now be Ministers.
Governments very rarely win seats from oppositions. Labor did win Burwood and Benalla when Kennett and McNamara quit, but I doubt Barnett is as fantastically popular as Bracks was in 1999.
I’m assuming some of the Ministry will be from the Upper House, people like Simon O’Brien, Robin McSweeney & Donna Faragher will be ministers.
Can someone find some of those many statements by Grylls in which he said he would never, ever accept portfolios in a coalition government?
The excuses begin!
Next it will be Labors fault for leaving the economy in such bad shape. LOL
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=97725
“I’m assuming some of the Ministry will be from the Upper House, people like Simon O’Brien, Robin McSweeney & Donna Faragher will be ministers.”
Fair call….I meant LA Caucus.
No 87
What excuses Mr Orange? Get a grip and stop disingenuously beating up articles.
Labor should definitely stick around. They’ve got 28, the Libs/Nats have 28 and Inds 3. At this stage all 3 Inds are supporting Barnett, but this could change if they get offended, The worst thing Labor can do is give the Libs any possible by-elections. This happened in reverse in Vic after the 1999 election, when Labor held 42, Lib/Nats 43 and 3 Inds who all supported Labor. After Jeff and the Nats leader resigned, Labor won both seats and needed only one Ind to hold govt (and Susan Davies was Labor before she won Gippsland West as an Ind). Labor still holds Jeff’s old seat of Burwood, though Benalla has gone crushingly back to Nats.
The next election will have many soft Labor and Liberal seats Adam, so if Cautious does a good job he could well convince voters to back him and pick up some more soft ALP seats or alternatively if he doesnt do a good job there are several soft Lib seats that could bring down his government. The public are giving him a go and if he does well i wouldnt be surprised if he did win seats in 2012 or earlier.
Btw, Nelson is performing excellently in QT.
#89 GP ……..Excuses for not delivering on election promises! Delays, delays!
Most newly elected governments take a few weeks/months to try that spin. Surely this would have to be a record!
Worth watching GP?
I almost feel like putting in tapes of the good old days with Costello making Swan and Rudd look foolish. QT used to be fun to watch, now its a boring as bat well you know what i mean!
SNIP: Name-calling deleted – The Management.
GP, I meant at by-elections. If Labor ex-ministers quit sometime soon, I’d be surprised if the Libs could win those by-elections.
Of course anything could happen at the next election, which I believe will be in late 2012.
No 94
It’s not as funny as the Costello days, but it’s not bad.
Lord D,
It might not be up to the ALP to hold on to their members (LA members, of course). Some may actually resist the groupthink and retire of their own accord. There are several in seats in which their personal vote could have been a major factor in them holding their seats.
They may actually just not want to occupy their seats for four more years.
Well Adam, it would depend on the margins. Most of the ALP ministers hold seats by massive majorities but if they were marginal id say Cautious had a shot in them.
Granted if McGinty left, i would be telling the Liberal Party in WA not to contest i. Hell if Rudd can do it in Mayo and look how close the Greens came. Many a Liberal would vote for the Watermellons just to get rid of the ALP in Freo, after all it only would have take 500 Liberals to vote Green and Jim wouldnt have a job.
Generic Person
Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 at 2:27 am | Permalink
“No 4
Voters are not that stupid Frank.”
You obviously didn’t listen to any of the pre-election ‘vox pop.’ interviews.
I agree the Ferals would be well placed to win a by-election in Fremantle.
What’s the news on who will be ALP leader?
There are one or two there – Kobelke in Balcatta may be an example.
Probably Ripper or Alannah.
McGowan is just a young Turk wannabe.
The ALP just want stability now. But Cautious would be glad to face Ripper who probably has the numbers.
May I present Exhibit A
http://www.westtv.com.au/?vxSiteId=43c6a3c7-abf1-4c32-b98d-c27f8fa83360&vxChannel=News&vxClipId=1416_WAU1389&vxBitrate=300
Glen,
If the ALP are smart they will elect a Brendan leader – a reasonably safe pair of hands that can be dumped before the next election once it seems convenient.
Frank,
So you believe voters are only stupid when they disagree with you? Why vote at all then? Frank becomes the only elector?
Don’t be silly, I was Il.lustrating Rolly’s response with an ACTUAL example -and believe me, there are some stupid voters out there, like as I’ve mentioned MANY times, the gentleman at the Booth I was on whose entire vote was based on whichever Party was promising to bring the V8 Supercars onto the City Streets (It was your beloved Liberals btw).
As The Chaser say :”This Person Votes”
Frank,
Providing the “stupid” (your words) voters split in roughly the same proportions then they do not affect the overall vote. Problem is, as Bob Hawke pointed out, they do not. He as much as said so when he claimed that the high informal vote after the introduction of the new Senate voting papers adversely affected the ALP more than the Libs. The clear implication was that the ALP voters were more likely to misunderstand that there were two differing procedures to vote – i.e. they were more likely to be, in your words “stupid”.
In any case, I do not think that an inability to recognise a photo of Eric Ripper should necessarily qualify you as being “stupid”.
No 104
What a laugh. LOL
No 108
Correct. Apathetic, nonchalant or simply ignorant of politics is the better description.
I really think we’re getting hung up on the word “stupid”. I don’t believe they are stupid in the main. However, the majority IMHO lack knowledge of the political system and don’t care to learn. That doesn’t mean they are stupid. It means they are uninformed and apathetic.
Hence the election of Barnett. LOL
It’s hard to call them stupid, when none of them have been taught anything about politics in school in any depth, let alone been given the chance to develop an interest in it.
By your views then one could say, hence the election of Rudd.
I agree, “In any case, I do not think that an inability to recognise a photo of Eric Ripper should necessarily qualify you as being “stupid”.” – i think most people could easily confuse a photo of Eric with a lump of flesh with glasses.
Some people say it’s fortunate most people are apathetic about politics. If everyone was like us poli-fanatics, the country would be impossible to run.
Are you referring to me Glen? Did you actually read either post?
My first post contained “I don’t believe they are stupid in the main.”
My second comment was followed by a ” LOL”. Doesn’t that show I was joking when I made that comment?
Sheesh!!
SNIP: Poor quality comment deleted – The Management
Dont take it so seriously Gary, jj would have sufficed rather than LOL, IMHO.
Hmmm. Now, thanks to Labor winning in Kwinana, Barnett has to figure out who’s the Speaker, without making his majority disappear. Does this mean Labor have 29 seats, or am I missing something?
Cook victory in Kwinana leaves Speaker problem
I like your photo Glen, you look like someone I’ve seen before.
No Liberal will be as successful as Pig Iron Bob in my life time.
Funny thing if we had stuck to some of Menzies core beliefs perhaps we wouldnt be so on the nose federally as we are today ah well.
There is something not right with that article Bird. Even if the numbers were even on the floor, the speaker would have the deciding vote.
No 121
Come on Glen, you’re not seriously advocating that we reinstate the walls of protection and monopoly on Australia that existed under Bob?
Wow, that is pretty low rent ‘journalism’ even for Adshead…
Howard made Pig Iron look like a worm farming, tree hugging, socialist pinko.
121. Glen – I think you are right on that. From what I’ve been told Menzies wasn’t a bad PM at all. He would be considered “wet” by today’s standards I’m told.
That was primarily a conseqence of the Country Party and Black Jack McEwen.
Of course i dont, i am a free trader. Which i one of many reasons i back McCain.
No 127
The only true Republican is Ron Paul. What an inspiration that man is. Truly.
122 Gary: I’m not sure if the numbers are right. Correct me if wrong, but I think it’s ALP 28 / Lib 24 / Nat 4 / Ind 3. With all three indep’s supporting Barnett, that’s 31/28. If they choose one of their own as speaker (Bowler, Woollard, a Liberal, whoever), it goes to 30/28. Hell, even if the result in Geraldton gets annulled, it’s 29/28 – tough but doable.
I’d say that Barnett may pick an ALP member like Quigly as Speaker.
And if the CCC make an adverse finding against Bowler, it will be deadlocked at 28/28
No 131
Nothing to suggest that Bowler’s seat could not be won by the Libs.
Bird, your numbers are correct. Having read the article again I think what it is saying is where Barnett can rely on the Nats to vote with him the independents may decide not to. Their only obligation is to provide supply. So in that case he may have trouble getting his legislation through.
If I were Labor I would decline the speakership. Keep the pressure on the government.
Why does Bowler feel so aggrieved with Labor, Frank, to vote with the Nats?
Because he got expelled from the Party of his leaking of Cabinet Documents to Grill and the fact the ALP Expelled his Best Friend, former Leader Ian Taylor for launching his election Campaign.
If Bowler were to be forced out would Labor have a good show of winning the seat?
Well considering the fact that Bowler had a VERY large personal following in the region, I’d imagine that Labor might have a chance if they pre-selected someone with a high profile in the Electorate.
I’m still not convinced that Bowler would continue to allign himself with the conservatives. He has Labor running through his blood, my fiance knew him and his sons, and he is too pro Labor. He voted with Labor nearly on everything since he has been an idependent for 2 years. I think he just wants to make a point to the Labor Party at the moment.
If push comes to shove and he is in a position to form a Labor Government, he would do it. All what needs to happen is a by-election in one of the new marginal Liberal seats. Unlikely I know.
My memory suggests that when ever a party wins a minority election and there is a by-election, they normally wins the by election (or do better than a previous vote)
People likes to give the newly elected government at least a fair go
dovif, surely that depends when the byelection takes place, how far into the term. If the government has been doing a good job yes but if not …..
If there is another election say in three months, will there then be a combined lower and upper house election. Some Upper house newly-elected members wont take their seats until May 2009 (goodbye retiring Shelley Archer), and if there is an election in the meantime…?
Nope, because the Upper House has Fixed Terms, then there would only be an election of the Lower House.
Steven, come what may the Legislative Council that has now been elected will serve for four years starting in late May 2009. Any election called before May 2012 will have to be for the Legislative Assembly only.
SNIP: Off topic – The Management.
SNIP: Off topic – The Management.
Hello to my fellow pollbludgers! God, I’m in a jolly mood today! I nominate Brendan Grylls for Australian of the Year- MARK MY WORDS.
Looks like Carpenter will remain in parliament. If the Libs disintegrate, which is possiblt let’s face it, hwe could make a comeback.
Somehow I doubt it, too much baggage re time as Premier, but then again If Barnett can be recycled as leader….
My pick is Allanah McTeirnan, She’s a Woman with Balls and can easily go head to head against Barnett who when under pressure, will blow a Gasket.
I am looking forward to Barnett making fun of Allanah. Barnett will increase his majority in 2012 or maybe with a by-election. I doubt he would take the unhealthy risk of calling an early election given its a hung parliament.
Frank,
I would like to see Allanah as leader. The cartoons in The West would be priceless – but I would still not buy the thing.
Hmm…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/15/2365183.htm
Even though Eric and Alannah are both from the Centre faction, it’s good to see the Right already anointing Ben Wyatt and angling to get a seat-warmer in position.
Anyone would think the new government’s position is far from tenuous. Eric’s a decent man and was actually a very good Treasurer, but hardly Opposition Leader material.
Fingers crossed common sense prevails and Alannah gets up.
Have the documents of the agreements offered to the Nat’s showed up anywhere yet? I saw them being handed out on the 7:30 report. Would be good to look at the original documents.
Thanks
Talkon,
I would be fairly positive that Colin would like either one as opposition leader – although Alannah would probably be his pick as well.
I felt sorry for Carpenter, he seemed like a decent bloke to me!
I fear the new Labor leader will be a puppet of Burke.
No 154
Colin is even more of a decent bloke.
Preference Distributions appear to be being put up on the WAEC site.
Wonder if there will be any surprises.
A walk through today’s West:
“Ripper favourite to lead Labor in Opposition”, although MacTiernan is apparently favoured by the Left as well as her own Centre faction. Ripper is backed by Joe Bullock and the SDA/Old Right. The Left will demand it provide the deputy if it backs MacTiernan; otherwise MacTiernan might be Ripper’s deputy. Mark McGowan and John Hyde also mentioned as possible deputies. Michelle Roberts not interested (Midland by-election anyone?).
Dan Sullivan of Family First has conceded defeat in South West. The West says the last seat there is a contest between Liberal MP Barry House, Colin Holt from the Nationals and just maybe Greens MP Paul Llewellyn, but I believe they are mistaken: Holt looks to me like he’ll win fifth spot and House the sixth, the Greens being the only conceivable threat to the latter. Outgoing Labor MP Kim Chance says he expects Liberal 15, Labor 11, Greens 5, Family First 1 and Nationals 4, which I’m having trouble making sense of: presumably he expects Anthony Fels to win in Agricultural and Paul Llewellyn to beat Barry House in South West – despite the article saying the latter is “expected to lose his seat”. The Fels call is interesting, because The West’s article that says all this is mostly about the Nats number three Mia Davies, who he would need to beat. It also seems to me that if anyone could beat the third Nat it would be not Fels but the CDP, because the Liberal ticket runs Trenorden-CDP-other Nats-Family First. Maybe I’m missing something.
Barnett hoping John Quigley will accept the Speakership. Others named are Liz Constable, Grant Woodhams and Rob Johnson. Janet Woollard says she will lobby for a cabinet post (good luck with that) or the Speakership.
Cabinet to be announced tomorrow. Nationals likely to get three ministries, including Grylls in regional development. The Liberals’ offer to the Nationals included a plan for a new law requiring a referendum if regional representation in the upper house was to be reduced: I would love to know how this would go down with Constable and Woollard, who can and should knock it on the head in the lower house.
The WAEC will exclude those missing 1100 ballot papers from Geraldton from the count. Defeated Labor member Shane Hill wants Labor to challenge the result: he won’t have any luck if the law makes it a condition that any anomaly be potentially decisive, as the Liberals lead by 1500. Greens Agricultural candidate Dee Margetts has “lodged a complaint after claiming some Upper House ballot papers had turned up in Northam unlabelled and not in sealed bags”.
Question to Anthony Green; Can you elaborate on the issues and problems you had with interpreting the data from the WAEC? Having looked at the WAEC site I can agree that the quality of information and format of result data has very little to desire.Anther reason why there should be one independent electoral authority through out Australia, eliminate duplication and implement standards in reporting and administration. There is no justification for State Electoral Commissions,allof who should contract out the conduct of elections and enrollment to the central authority. State Commissions should only have a review/management oversight, policy development role and not direct service provision.
Disaster boy: WAEC still has not published any preference detailed data for the upper-house. Do we know the timeline for completion of count upper-house votes.
Whilst WA has adopted a more accurate Weighted value of the vote calculation of the surplus transfer value it still maintains the distortion in the way in which ballot papers allocated to candidates that are excluded during the cont are redistributed.Analysis of the Queensland Senate results has shown that this can seriously effect the outcome of the election. If you count the vote in the Queensland 2007 Senate election as though only seven candidates left standing then the Greens should have been elected to the sixth spot. The system seriously distorts the proportionality and results of the election and is in need of review.
William. Here is a link for a better plug-in for Recent Comments. I recommend that you install it. Rob Marsh has produced a number of excellent plug-ins all worthy of consideration of use.
Surely Eric Ripper will be only warming the seat for someone else? I fear it’ll be a very unstable Labor opposition, and Barnett will have an extended honeymoon.
if ripper is elected leader, it will mean the party has learned absolutely nothing from the election loss. Ripper is probably the least popular politician (with the possible exception of mcginty) in the ALP. He is not regarded as particularly bright, inspiring or electable!!! Allanah Mcteirnan is by far and away our most hardworking, intelligent and insightful minister. Unfortunately my collegues appear to be favouring a Ripper, Ellery leadership ticket along factional lines. This has everything to do with the factional overlords cementing their powerbases and nothing to do with what is best for the party, the rank and file and the state. Allanah was the only minister able to break through and stay on message in her portfolio, and even the west had to grudgingly congratulate her. It appears that the ALP has failed to notice that the libs hold on power is one by election or one disgruntled nats mp away from crumbling. The ALP leader needs to be able to take it up to the libs and be able to break through and stay on message in the media. Ripper has never been able to do this and is perceived by the public as being the architect of high taxes with not enough social dividend. One assurance though if the parliamentary caucus installs ripper and ellery this morning, they had better be ready for the repercussions from the rank and file who have just about had enough of decisions that just make no sense!
And another question: how will Ripper handle Burke? That was Carpenter’s fatal mistake.
rippers in
so is Roger Cook by the sounds of it.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=98046
did anyone notice the look of disdain on Grylls face during the press conference with Barnett yesterday? Its obvious that those two are great mates. NOT!
Thats def not a marriage made in heaven……i reckon the divorce papers will be filed within 12 months. I think I might take up reading The Worst again
Its done.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/16/2366048.htm
Nig Mistake having Eric as Leader, especially if the Economy goes South the Fibs can blame Eric for all it’s woes etc. Re Grylls, notice the West are setting Grylls up as the big bad bogey man if Colin can’t get his way ?
That should be Big
Frank I’m inclined to agree with you, but shocked at you, how dare you question the nameless faceless powers that be!!!!!! (just kidding)…
Interesting McGowan challenged for the Deputy spot.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5018824/new-wa-opposition-leader-ripper/
ms adams is calling for a recount
Robin Chapple elected for the Greens in M&P
Typical
But will the recount go her way though ? Sounds like a face saving move on her part for opening her gob before she knew what the final outcome was.
hmmm the alp’s new dynamic duo fatman and the boy blunder. Oh dear oh dear.
I know
and doesn’t Roger Cook look a lot like Neale Fong as well ? Mind you Barnett & Hames aren’t the paragons of beauty either 
Big Barney will rip Ripper apart for the next 4 years! Woohoo!
(sorry,posted this on another thread as didnt know this one was updated. my bad)
Ok, if Ripper is ALP leader in W.A. i vote Green. Still, if he’s leader now, he’ll be hopefully be gone by the next election. Argghh, unless there is a by-election post CCC findings???? This is not good. McTeirnan would have been the better choice as at least she gets things done.
Cameras hate her, but at least shes not Ripper.
I do like seeing the liberal banner close to the ironic Honest John tag.
I think this leadership team does two things really really badly.
And lets be honest it has been worked out by the same team that ran the very successful pre-selection and campaign process and just goes to show how accountable they are for their decisions. Fantastic job they are doing for labor NOT!
Ripper was a fantastic treasurer and sniffwell can’t hope to do 15% as well, but he is way to close to Team Carpenter in every sense but most critically in the public perception to be a real break from the past and lets be honest the best outcome for Labor is that the public hated the Premier and those closest to him but don’t hate Labor generally. Ripper for his fantastic talent isn’t far enough away from Alan for us to be sure he leaves that disaster behind.
Then in the short to middle term, in any early election because Colin and team disaster behind him (we know they are team disaster they showed us so clearly for all but their last 5 weeks in opposition) Labor’s key strength was the depth of the team with cabinet experience.
But how can they put Carpenter’s hand picked newbie boy (yet another failure to find any distance from Carp’s Collapse) admitting no-one in all of caucus had more to offer than a candidate that was 300 votes the right side of losing a safe seat.
Rather than a positive strong opposition who have a chance of upsetting the Government in an forced early election (now don’t get me wrong the political tactics used to get to this point would have to be extremely carefully crafted you wouldn’t want Colin to get a sympathy backlash at a forced early election) it smells a lot like them lining up for two terms in opposition. Very disappointing.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=98022
The week is getting better by the minute!
Won’t be long before its bye bye Paul as well!
Articulate that Mr Nurry!
I wouldn’t get too excited about Kerry Stokes. His critique of The West was that it doesn’t look enough like the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph, and it takes too long to get to Broome.
Watch this space William.
Big changes afoot before the year is out I’m tipping …. most other player’s wardrobes have been cleaned out and rearranged recently so why not this one?
He (Stokes) didn’t like the editorial direction either from memory.
Oh Dear, Just saw on Ch 9’s 20 to 1 “Great Aussie Scandals the Member for Vasse and his exploits in nasal gymnastics involving chars and bras voted in at No 4.
Carpenter didn’t want Roger on the “dream team.” It was a concession to the Left. Same goes for Bill Johnston…an SDA trojan horse.
Now my avatar works….
Dinsdale, please don’t pretend that the Premier didn’t do a deal and didn’t present the whole team that was pushed through State Exec almost without complaint as his own new labor team. Are you suggesting Carpenter should have got even a freer hand?
If he was there as a result of a “deal”, he wasn’t “hand picked”.
Ripper is just warming the seat for Ben Wyatt
Unfortunately Allanah wasn’t chosen as leader because she failed to give an undertaking that she would not pursue her party reform agenda. Allanah wanted to move decision making power away from the hands of 4 union secretaries and have a more robust and open decision making process. The situation we find ourselves in ie. losing the unlosable election can be traced back to decisions ranging from pre selection of candidates to who makes up admin commitee. All these factional deals place factional domination above whats best for the party. The decision yesterday reinforces exactly how this works as the right and miscellaneous workers left faction horse traded to achieve what was in their interests. Dave Kelly and Joe Bullock made the decision and the elected parliamentarians towed the line. What we end up with is the worst possible outcome for the party and the state, but the best outcome in reinforcing kelly’s and Bulocks dominant factional power base. This election loss should really be a wake up call to all the labor faithfull that we need to seriously fix up the power imbalance that has occured. At state conference 3 years ago Dave Kelly forced through a motion that gave unions ie. the union secretaries over 60% of the vote on the floor. The message that decision sent was very clear. The WA Labor Party was the plaything of the states trade union movement in a way that was totally disproportionate to the role that unions played in the general community. This imbalance and narrow frame of power is the undoing of state labor.
Yesterdays decision along factional lines proves beyond a doubt just how out of touch this process has made us!!!
Well William and Dinsdale perhaps you can explain exactly who did the deal and exactly what is was and why it excludes the characterisation of ‘hand-picked’ for which I humbly apologise.
Labor did run an appalling campaign, but those of you talking about an “unloseable election” are letting your rhetoric get the better of you. The political cycle, WA’s demographics and the CCC tsunami are all of much greater use in explaining the result than anything that’s coming out of the heavily politicised internal party blame game.
William, a question for you and others:
Why was the swing against WA Labor bigger in Perth than in regional areas?
Carpenter lost the election in the metro area, while in comparison, Labor held its marginals in the regions – indeed won Albany, notionally Liberal.
Does the stench of Brian Burke emanate more in Perth(because I’d argue that hurt Labor a lot, with the CCC Inquiry report to be released in future)?
With all due respect William, if carpenter had gone when advised which was 6 weeks earlier the result would not have been in doubt. Older heads in the party were fully aware of the factors impacting against a third labor term and the only option was to go when the libs gave us the gift of Buswell. That we didn,t, and that senior figures who advised we should were ignored was the mistake we made. There was a loud and clear concensus to go while buswell was there. There was advice given to the party that Buswell was going to step down. The perception in admin and in premier and cabinet was that the polling was an endorsement of Labor. Trust me there were plenty of us that were trying to stress that those polls were a rejection of Buswell not an endorsement of us. In all campaigns the simple formula is poll first, develop a media campaign then set an election date. In this election we set an election date, first, then did our polling and then tried to formulate a media campaign. The results were evident. We all know that WA is now the most conservative state in Australia. We all know how hard it is to win three terms. Knowing this we completely disregarded conventional wisdom and did everything arse about. My coments still stand the factional deals in the party have become so rancorous that we have lost diluted or discarded our best and brightest heads. I reiterate had Carpenter gone when the older heads told him to go against Buswell we would not be in this position.
Yes, you can certainly add “he should have gone earlier” to my list of factors. However, that’s independent of much of the rest of what I’m hearing. Evan asks an interesting question for which I don’t have a ready answer. Here’s one theory: the Nationals provided an outlet for disaffected Labor voters who then returned their preferences to Labor, whereas city voters just went straight for the Liberals.
Rumpoleccat has beaten me to much, and the political cycle and demographics were issues that anyone awake was aware of for more than 12 months before the election. The whole feeling that ‘this is as good as it gets and we aren’t happy with how good it is’ of course applies to State Govt’s as well as Federal ones.
I see no evidence for the CCC tsunami theory, and even if that is just because I’m not aware of it still comes straight back to Alan and the people that made Alan premier and put the Burke people into cabinet.
I need to do some work on the swings …
Can anyone advise whether the PRIMARY vote figures for the Legislative Assembly at the WAEC site are FINAL figures or not?
I’m puzzled by something on the WAEC website.
If I look at the distribution of preference in Albany, for example (http://www.waec.wa.gov.au/elections/state_elections/election_results/2008_State_General_Election/District_of_Albany/District_results.php), I see that in each distribution of preferences a small number of votes are “exhausted”, and are not distributed to any of the remaining candidates. On each distribution the number of total valid votes is reduced by the number of exhausted votes.
It was my impression that the voter is required to list full preferences for all candidates, and that a voter who regarded, say, the CEC and the CDP with equal derision, found himself unable to express a preference between them and left those boxes blank would be treated as voting informally, and his vote would be disregarded, even though he had in fact indicated clear first, second, third etc preferences for other candidates.
However the fact that votes can be “exhausted” in this way suggests that I am wrong. In the Albany count, there are clearly people who voted either 1-Moseley, or 1-Pyle 2-Moseley, or 1- Mosely 2-Pyle, but expressed no further preference, and their votes were treated as valid until both Moseley and Pyle had been eliminated. If so, then there could have been any number of people who expressed no preference below Watson, and whose votes were nevertheless effective.
So what’s the story? Do I, or do I not, have to exhaustively express preferences for every candidate in order to register an effective vote?
FreoBloke (I’m another FreoBloke, BTW), I’m not sure of the exact wording of the rule, but a vote can be admitted even if the same number is used on the ballot paper more than once. This is one of a number of rules designed to allow votes made in good faith that would otherwise be informal into the count, but it is also open to “abuse” by those wishing to have their vote exhaust without going to either major party. There was a famous episode at the federal level in the 1990s which made it a criminal offence to openly advocate using the vote in this way, which led to activist Albert Langer being sentenced to prison in 1996 – which you can read about here.
FreoBloke @ 198
My understanding is (at a WA election at least) it is a valid vote if you number all squares, but you don’t need to have an increasing sequence. That is, voting (for 5 candidates) “1, 2, 3, 3, 3″ would be valid where as “1, 2, blank, blank, blank” would not be. When distributing preferences, the “1, 2, 3, 3, 3″ vote exhausts during the 3rd round.
I understand it’s a side effect of the rules, rather than a set rule per se.
Thanks., William
Have you any idea of the rationale for the rule requiring exhaustive expression of preferences? Most voters have a clear preferences as between some of the candidates, but wil have no real preference as between a slew of off-the-wall minor parties. I honestly fail to see what purpose is served by requiring them to express one; it will either have no influence on the outcome of the election, or it will increase the strength of the donkey factor, but I do not see any positives at all.
I have said this before, but Brian Burke is now Barnett’s problem.
Barnett will be dependant on John Bowler, who is tainted by connection to Burke. It is probable that Burke will be giving Bowler advice on how to make the most of his situation
That makes a mockery of all the Libs twittering during the election campaign about Burke’s influence.
Which is oh so true, I reckon Ripper in Parliament when ever the Libs mention Burke, should point this little fact out
the irony is that Carpenter tried to neuter Burke, but events overtook him.
It may now be the case that Burke has more influence than ever, on both sides of the house. Crichton-Brown will also be standing on the platform waiting for the gravy train to depart.
we may see the bizarre double act of Burke and NCB riding the train in the same direction, with Barnett tied to the tracks.
Methinks the First Homebuyers who voted for the LIbs will be rightly outraged as they made no commitment to extend the scheme, while Labor promised an additonal $70 Million.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24360071-5013244,00.html
Sour grapes, Frank?
Just stating the facts as reported
You will find a lot of people who did vote for the Libs, are those who take advantage of this scheme 
{Yes, you can certainly add “he should have gone earlier” to my list of factors. However, that’s independent of much of the rest of what I’m hearing. Evan asks an interesting question for which I don’t have a ready answer. Here’s one theory: the Nationals provided an outlet for disaffected Labor voters who then returned their preferences to Labor, whereas city voters just went straight for the Liberals.}
William,
In all honesty, I think the biggest ’strategic’ mistake that the Carpenter Government made in this election was to try and pinch a major part of the Greens vote and/or preferences via the late election campaign decision to ban Uranium Mining and deter GM crops. They knew they were in trouble and they knew they would be punished at the ballot box. But they had no idea how severe it was going to prove to be and hence they thought the protest vote would predominantly go the Greens whereby Labor thought they could still get the vote by improving the preference flow percentage from the perceived strong stand taken in what will always be more of a hard-line Greens anti-U and GM policy. The scare tactics were bound to fail eventually because we are dealing with a much more educated electorate in this day and age and the old vote-winning conspiracy theories just aren’t working the way they used to. Labor and Carpenter were hence left looking second rate,
arrogant and uneducated courtesy of The West, amongst others. Just served to show that the Labor think tank had run bone-dry and that they had nothing more positive to stand on in the end.
When is Barnett naming his Cabinet?
[And if the CCC make an adverse finding against Bowler, it will be deadlocked at 28/28 ] said Frank Calabrese @ 131
It seems to me that there would be a very high likelihood of an adverse finding being made against Bowler by the CCC.
However how does this change the numbers in parliament? An adverse finding does not represent a criminal conviction. Is there something to preclude people with an adverse CCC finding being MPs?
rumpoleccat, I thought cats had 9 lives, not 9 faces…. Cook’s “talented and decent” one day, “boy blunder” 5 days later (because someone associated with a large union supported him for the position).
Sounds like somebody’s sub-faction didn’t have the numbers in caucus and rumpole needs to SUCK IT UP BABY. That’s politics darling. Meooowwwwww.
“Posted Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 7:56 pm | Permalink
hmmm the alp’s new dynamic duo fatman and the boy blunder. Oh dear oh dear.
451. rumpoleccat
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
its a shame really for the people of kwinana because roger cook is actually a really talented and decent guy. He’s been a champion of indigenous causes and has got a well developed sense of justice, not to mention that a guy of his talent would be guaranteed a ministry. Lets hope for the sake of the people of kwinana he falls over the line.”
[[And if the CCC make an adverse finding against Bowler, it will be deadlocked at 28/28 ] said Frank Calabrese @ 131
It seems to me that there would be a very high likelihood of an adverse finding being made against Bowler by the CCC.
However how does this change the numbers in parliament? An adverse finding does not represent a criminal conviction. Is there something to preclude people with an adverse CCC finding being MPs?]
And if the findings force Bowler tyo resign from Parliament, it will affect the numbers
… because the Liberals will win the ensuing by-election.
Are you sure about that ? I reckon Bowler only won it because of his high personal vote, and because it now includes a large part of Eyre, there would be a high ALP/Indiginous Vote.
Re Required:
Rumpole stands chastised. Rog is a very decent bloke, ive known him for over 23 years!!. However the deal done by the missos and sda totally sucks. If anything it could set up rog as a fall guy if things dont go according to plan. I believe Roger has made a blunder by accepting the deal. It would have been far wiser to cement his reputation in the electorate and develop a profile rather than agree to this arrangement. He’s a big boy and its his decision. However you cant tell me that in the current caucus we couldnt find an existing member that could undertake the deputy position. Its really an insult to the rest of caucus and a total slap in the face to Allanah who should have been given an opportunity to lead. As for Rumpys faction not having the numbers, Im afraid my faction endorsed the deal!!! Roger has the potential to be a future leader in his own right in time. He didnt need to play this game, it does him or the party no good indeed.
New thread.