The latest bi-monthly Victorian Newspoll shows the state Labor government losing some of the support it attracted in the wake of the February bushfires, while still retaining a commanding lead. The two-party figure May-June is 56-44, down from an unsustainable 60-40 in January-February (evidently there was no poll in the interim). John Brumby’s approval rating is down four points to 48 per cent while his disapproval is up six to 37 per cent, but Ted Baillieu is also down four to 33 per cent and up three to 42 per cent. Brumby retains a lead over Baillieu of 54 per cent to 21 per cent as preferred premier.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Newspoll: 56-44 to Labor in Victoria
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
146 Comments
Well the little red book we all just received from the Liberal party telling us what is wrong with Victoria obviously went down like a lead balloon.
I find it remarkable that the Victorian Government is just so strong and, it would seem, positively endorsed (though not necessarily popular) given the rather sorry state of the Liberal Party. Such circumstances typically lead to hubris and poor governance – neither seems to be evident in the current Victorian Government.
Victoria has undoubtedly benefited from strong and successful Coalition and ALP Governments over the last 15 years. It’s a true pity that the Victorian Liberal Party are a shadow of their former selves. Victorians deserve to have a real choice.
Well interestingly Labor is polling than in 2006, but The Green vote has risen significantly and making the 2pp look good.
Not only is the coalition hopeless, but it seems voters approve of the Labor government too, with a net positive +11% satisfaction rating for Brumby, with a Preferred Premier rating of 54%.
*Labor is polling worse.
But we know that most of the Green vote will flow back to Labor in preferences.
And interestingly, Oz, it would appear that the majority of the Green vote comes from disaffected Libs rather than Labor.
(But should be noted that, when, comparing 2006 and now, the figures are well within the MOE so probably any perceived fall pretty meaningless).
Personally, despite my extreme personal ties with Vic ALP, I’m surprised we’re travelling so well, given the personal popularity of Bracks in 2006 and the length of time we’ve been in government.
What evidence do you have for this?
The 2pp vote is calculated by converting non-Labor/coalition primary votes in to preferences based on the previous election.
The pathetic thing is that the Federal Coalition are polling better than their state counterparts who have been out of power for a decade.
These imbeciles should change leaders or throw in the towel. Are the content with another 4 years of opposition or something?
Patrick,
They have already thrown in the towel. As for changing Leaders, this was what they did just before the last two elections. It did not work out well for them.
Well it couldn’t get any worse!
Patrick,
Totally gratuitous advice it might be. However, they need a clean out and to develop alternative policies that connect with the electorate.
I looked at the newspoll figures since the last election. There’s a bit of movement each way, but the trend seems to be that, if there’s a 3% shift (for example) from the majors on primaries to the Greens, it tends to be from Liberal rather than Labor.
There is a similar pattern in the Federal figures as well.
That said, when we’re dealing with such small shifts, it is all speculation, which is why I haven’t pointed it out before (although I’ve been keeping an eye on it).
Patrick
it took the State Libs 10 years to ‘achieve’ these figures.
Give the Feds time, they’ll catch up.
Given the speed they’re imploding, I expect it will come quicker than it has in Victoria.
Sigh zoomster, I see we’re still thinking in gross swings rather than net swings.
If the Liberals drop 3%, Labor doesn’t swing, and the Greens pick up 3%, do you really think 3% moved from the Liberals to the Greens?
NO!
It’s likely that 2.5% of Liberals went to Labor, 0.5% went to the Greens, and 2.% of Labor voters went to the Greens.
GG,
The NSW Libs don’t have any policies. Neither did Rudd. I don’t think “lack of policy” is an issue.
Media exposure plays a role, I believe. I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen Ballieu or any of his shadow cabinet in the press or on TV. It’s like they don’t even exist. If no one sees them or knows about them then no one can vote for them.
GG,
The NSW Libs don’t have any policies. Neither did Rudd. I don’t think “lack of policy” is an issue.
Media exposure plays a role, I believe. I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen Ballieu or any of his shadow cabinet in the press or on TV. It’s like they don’t even exist. If no one sees them or knows about them then no one can vote for them.
zoomster,
The figures for the Nats look a bit light. Peter Ryan is a good operator and they picked up two seats at the last election (one from Labor and one from an Independant). I don’t perceive there to be any negatives that would manifest as a drop in their vote. Maybe some of their vote is incorporated in to the Libs figures (which would be disastrous for the Libs).
For Labor’s figures to be holding up this well is very encouraging. A number of tough decisons with regard to Bay dredging and Water have been made early in the term. The response to the Bushfires has been universally lauded. Of course, there are likely to be finger pointing emerge from the Royal Commission. The alleged corruption at Brimbank has been a distraction, but will be sorted once pre-selections are finalised.
Public Transport has been a difficult area with extraordinary growth in useage causing overcrowding and system failures. The Government has invested heavily in the system in recent years and I expect significant improvements in the next year.
The Opposition have said they intend to run an anti corruption campaign up to the next election. So no policies can be expected from them.
Of course our Greens hacks are salivating at the potential pick up of seats. I don’t think their vote will hold up under electoral scrutiny. So it will be more lemon sucking defeat for them.
Winning elections is always difficult, but I think Labor is travelling well at the minute.
Biggest load of crap of the week.
15
as I said, bob, speculation – just as yours is.
16
Having policies – which give you valid grounds to attack the other side on – gives you credibility, which leads to media exposure.
What do you think generates media exposure? Are Ballieu et al invisible because of some vast media conspiracy? Or are they invisible because they’ve got nothing to say?
What? Ending global warming by signing Kyoto? An education “revolution”? Get a grip, mate.
MHS in SA is calling a leadership spill
Possum you’re the best authority on here for polling. Can you please tell zoomster this is correct:
bob – we can’t numerically tell how the composition changed.
But it’s a fair bet that the 3% ex-Lib voters didnt move across to the Greens as a single, stand alone chunk.
All we can tell is the net result – but the composition is pretty much anyone’s guess.
21 – Pat you failed to mention an extensive IR policy, so don’t come the raw prawn. Fed Labor had well publicised policies going into the last election and you know it.
Exactly. The 2.5% and 0.5% was just an example based upon 2006 pref flows, but the point i’m making which you’ve backed up is that if the Libs go down 3% and Greens up 3% and Labor 0%, there’s no way the Labor vote didn’t change, regardless of a 0% net swing.
Can’t see an obvious way forward for the Vic Libs. They face a centrist, fairly competent government that has renewed itself at the top. They will never convince the electorate that they can run the schools and hospitals better than Labor.
The corruption in Brimbank looks like the only bus leaving the station, so expect to hear plenty about it, but I think it’s too low level to change many votes.
I think their best possible outcome is to pick up several seats in the regions via anger over the pipeline, plus a couple in Melbourne just through the government’s longevity. At this stage it’s hard to imagine a scenario that has them winning or even coming close.
On transport (which this ALP supporter thinks has been handled very poorly) I think that rising unemployment and underemployment has noticeably reduced the peak hour crush, and lowered the heat that they were facing on that issue. But hardly the ideal way to fix congestion!
I also think that the comment above that the opposition need to get into the media more is wrong – when they do it is simply to whinge and nag, and I think that reduces their popularity rather than increasing it. For politicians it’s not true that no publicity is bad publicity – just ask Malcolm!
I think that the best way forward for the libs might be to accept that deficit is OK in a recession, find some big ticket infrastructure projects that are both needed and popular and get behind them. Somewhat of a high risk approach (I think it brought the WA libs undone earlier in the decade because they might have picked the wrong project) but at least they would be offering an alternative.
geez, bob, get a grip.
I said it was speculation, I said that the figures were too small to tell us anything, I said they were pretty meaningless and you carry on as if I transgressed holy writ or something.
I’ve had over a decade of analysing booth results across an electorate, looking at where they’ve changed and why, looking at State v. Federal results, looking at local issues which might have impacted on the vote, etc etc.
Previous to the last Federal election, it was clear in this electorate that votes often went from Liberal to the Greens.
In fact, in one election where there was over a 7% swing to Labor on 2PP, it was clear that most (if not all) of it was a crossover from Liberals to Green (who also picked up 7%), picked up by Labor as a 2PP.
Similarly, this pattern was reflected in many little booths. At one, an 18% swing to Labor from Libs was in fact a 16% swing to the Greens coming to Labor as a second preference.
Anecdotally, I know a lot of former Libs who will never put Labor first but vote Green (not necessarily preferencing Labor).
I KNOW treating votes as chunks isn’t valid but it does tell you something.
The argument is about what that something is.
The Victorian government are doing very badly on water and transport. The Greens are doing better in the polls now than they were before the 2006 election and so I would expect them to do better. The highest poll before the 2006 election was 13% and they have polled 15% at points since the election so I would expect them to get at least 12% (barring then messing up badly (unlikely)).
Ah how quickly we forget. GETTING RID OF WORKCHOICES was the only policy Rudd needed. The rest was tinsel on the tree.
Tom the first…
Water will mainly impact on rural/regional electorates, and mostly in ones Labor doesn’t hold anyway. The only electorate which may suffer as a result of the NS pipeline is Seymour.
Any votes the Greens pick up on water are thus likely to be in seats that don’t matter electorally anyway.
I’m quite happy for you to have a vote of, gee, 15%, with 5% coming from safe Liberal seats.
Tom,
On this poll Labor are doing so badly they will likely be returned with an increased majority.
No one above has noted that the rise in the Green vote and fall in the ALPs from the last election of approx 5% would see the ALP lose Melbourne, Richmond and Brunswick – Northcote would be close, and the Greens may be able to snatch either Prahran or Albert Park.
The ALP are travelling much better than they ought to be considering the mess they have made of transport (the bushfires saved Lynne Kosky’s political life as all the attention was quite rightly turned elsewhere), water – the north south pipeline will go down as one of the colossal white elephants of Australian history, and now planning with decisions being taken little consultation. On health (hospital waiting lists excepted) and education they have kept things very much under control since 1999.
The ALP are milking the pork barrel effect of having the federal and state election almost on top of each other in 2010. I had a love letter from Mike Symon yesterday telling me all about the Springvale Road underpass – not necessary according to the ALP before the 2006 election!
The ALP are helped by:
1. A well developed spin machine – ministers named are never mentioned in the press except when its good news, otherwise it is the “Transport Ministers spokesman” etc.
2. An invisible Ted Baillieu (Ted Who?)
3. A culture – rarely questioned in the media except for Ken Davidson in the financial section of The Age – of not accepting responsibility and shifting blame – i.e. to the train company, etc.
I suspect all the state Labor governments are being bouyed up (to varying degrees) by the phenominal popularity of Kevin Rudd, and also by the multiple photo ops state members are getting from federal spending on infrastructure and particularly on schools, which are very important to most communities. In my local paper the state and federal Labor local members always appear togther with Gillard or Albanese when things are being opened or launched.
Blackburn,
I think you might be onto something. Invisible Ted is definately an issue.
Having lived overseas for some time and by paying regular attention to international media I’ve noticed that Victoria has a very compliant, docile media. They almost seem averse to putting the state government under any degree of scrutiny – but whine when things such as transport or health aren’t being run competently.
Blackburn
If we’re to take this poll on face value, then Labor’s vote has only dropped 1% on primaries and has risen 2% 2PP, so I don’t see where your 5% is coming from.
As pointed out endlessly, a 5% swing in a particular seat is not a small shift. Moreover, the Greens’ 4% rise (on this poll) from the State election is most likely based on bigger swings in rural/regional electorates, most of which are Coalition safe seats.
Dream on, but this poll says nothing about seats such as Melbourne – and neither does the rest of the newspoll series.
35
Why would most of the increase in the Green vote come in rural and regional areas and not areas where the Greens do well now? Melbourne comprises 70-75% of Victoria`s population so if this swing is in the Rural areas then it would be an average increase of 13-16% in the Green vote in rural and regional Victoria. This is just not going to happen. Most of the increase in Green vote will be in the Melbourne area. The Green vote is likely to increase in the inner suburbs and increase the threat to the ALP.
How on earth do you come to this conclusion…?
The Greens will probably increase most in the inner city. Melbourne will probably fall. If Cleary runs (and preferences the Greens) then Brunswick will fall and might anyway if he doesn`t. Richmond is a chance at falling. If the swing is big then Northcote will fall as might Prahran.
Prahran? Richmond? Northcote? You’re starting to sound like Bob!
The Greens are in with a decent shot at Melbourne. Brunswick could conceivably be a long shot if Cleary does better than I expect he will. Richmond, Northcote and Prahran haven’t a hope in hell of falling at this election.
Well, that’s one theory. Another theory is that the Greens’ vote has peaked in the inner city, and that the increase in the Green vote seen in polls is the result of other regions catching up. One theory is as good as the other without credible local polling.
I agree on Melbourne, Brunswick and possibly Richmond falling to the Greens at the next state election. But Northcote is probably another election away. And Prahran is a redistribution away. Of course all of these change with a high profile independent standing. Has anyone noticed the number of left independents starting to make a move to stand. This was the problem for Kennett, indepedents in rural areas which ended up being a death by a thousand cuts. Only three won, but the votes garnered by others as well as having a plethora of voices harping about how bad they were was enough to dent the Liberal vote enough.
Adam, The one thing that will start hurting the Greens may be the newer developments in Southbank, docklands etc, this may boost the Liberal vote enough to starve the Greens of coming second. having said that, this election this might be a bonus for the Greens. Remember the Liberal vote has to be large enough for the Greens to win. It might be that the balance is right for the Greens to get over the Libs and ride preferences. Democgraphic change in Northcote will be very interesting to watch as a lot of people from the inner city move out there to get away from high rents.
I think Richmond might also be in the hunt if the Liberal vote (through gentrification) doesn’t push the Greens to third. There is a large Green mood in the inner city.
If the Libs actually start campaigning on Brumby arrogance which they are starting to do with ads… I think Labor may have to fight on two fronts, and with a few more fronts opening up via independents.
And Labor is quite capable of doing so. When people start to realise that the Liberals will be doing all they can to help the Greens win seats, and ask what the Liberals have been promised in return (and these questions *will* be raised, probably on a large billboard somewhere near you
), then the top will fly off the sauce bottle.
I agree that Northcote is probably a 2014 prospect (I did say “if the swing is big”). The next redistribution will probably move safe Liberal booths like Toorak and Toorak Central from Prahran to Malvern so as to accommodate St Kilda booths moved from massively over quota Albert Park and these are good areas for the Greens and this will hurt the Green vote in Albert Park.
The Liberals preference the Greens because they want Labor to have the fewest seats possible. If the Liberals did preference Labor in these four seats and the Labor majority was the same as the number of seats the Liberal preferences saved from falling to the Greens then Liberals would be very annoyed with themselves. The Liberals preferenced Labor in all seats in the the Legislative Council in 2006 and such decisions could give Labor a majority in the Legislative Council and the Liberals don`t want that.
Hi Adam, anyone with a half brain wont fall for that one again. Also people who fell for that last time are pretty annoyed that they did. i know a few of them.
Tom, when is the next distribution due? If this happens Prahran will definitely be a Green gain. toorak is the biggest problem for the Greens in Prahran. Take Toorak out and the Lib vote falls by a fair margin. Add the st Kilda booths from Albert Park and it is a tailor made Green seat. We’ll wait and see for the distribution. I thought it was happening after the state election not before.
Tom Adam is baiting you. He’s a smart man and knows this.
Have you gentlemen never heard of not counting your chickens before they’re hatched? Greens over-hype their prospects before every election, and thus make quite good results seem not-as-good-as-expected. You should have watched Rudd the other night, “Oh we’ll take a hit in the polls,” he said, thus making the next day’s polls seem all the better. Tom, on the other hand, would’ve said “I’ll get an 80% popularity rating in tomorrow’s poll, no worries”, thus making 65% look like a disappointment.
These figures make sense to me. People remember the last time the Liberals were in power and they don’t want them back. The Liberals need to reduce the association the public has in its mind with their destructive impulses and move back to the state-building Hamer mode. That would take time and effort. People look at Labor’s achievements as well as its faults, and they see progress over the last ten years. They look at the Liberal alternative, but there really isn’t one. There is nothing wrong with a bit of negativity, but it has to be outweighed by something positive.
It is highly likely that Labor will win in 2014, meaning that Victoria will have enjoyed 25 years of Labor Government and suffered only seven years of Liberal/National government in the 32 years that will have lapsed since John Cain’s 1982 victory. On the current figures, Labor would win so many seats in 2010 that the Liberals will have no hope in 2014 either, but I do not expect the current figures to last until the election day.
None of the poemes – political memes – used against the Labor state government have taken hold, and there have been quite a few – “Labor has no policies”, “Labor has done nothing”, “Labor is controlled by the unions”, “Labor has squandered the rivers of gold of the GST”, “the sky will fall in”, “the sky has fallen in”. This is because people see the evidence of competent, though far from perfect, government in their day-to-day lives.
Victoria is the jewel in the Labor crown.
Psephos,
The Greens are counting their chickens before they are eggs.
Damian and Tom touch on redistribution, and both make valid points. The Greens will continue to increase polling strength in areas adjacent to their inner-city stronghold, but redistributions are likely to occur before support in these precincts reach critical mass.
I must disagree with Psephos, though – as when the wheels eventually fall off for Labor, electorates already predisposed to Green influence will hardly be soft targets for ALP posturing on unholy political alliances. The Libs will launch counter-claims with similar accusations, and it will be the majors who end up footing the bill.
Correction!
I meant to say, “It is highly likely that Labor will win in 2010…”
Adele Carles has a lot to answer for
Ever since that victory, the Greens have this sudden urge that they will rule Australia – all because of a by-election where the ALP Candidates had some enemies while being the local Mayor. Well folks here is the rub – Fremantle has changed into a Hippie Commune and Adele played to that demographic – other seats aren’t like that.
46
The Liberals come first on primaries in Prahran and Labor comes second to win on Green preferences. The Gap between Labor and Green is 16.59%. Taking out the major Liberal booths would mean that Labor would come first on preferences and the Greens would have to try and overtake the Liberals. If the Greens get a swing of over 8.3%, from Labor, in Prahran (more if there is a swing to Labor from the Liberals) then they win.
52
The demographics are favouring the Greens in inner Melbourne and Sydney too. The Greens have been increasing their vote around Australia in the past decade.
Based on the poll, I predict that the Greens will win every single seat in the Victorian Parliament at the next election!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow this ‘prediction’ thing is really easy! I might join the Green Party.
I think the greens need a reality check.
The worse thing that could happen to any Victorian Government is Melbourne running out of water. Compared to that nothing else matters. The state government has done two important things to make sure that doesn’t happen. Going on about pipelines and desalination plants just wastes media space, it basically paints those doing it as fools. Oh and by the way, dams are good but the only work if it rains.
And which party is it that wastes media space, the liberals and the greens.
As for the rural areas, the government has spent a fortune putting open channels into pipelines do you really think people haven’t noticed.
Brumby is popular with swinging voters because he builds stuff, not because Kevin is popular in Canberra.
As for people moving from Liberal to Green, I can assure you it happens, I just wish the greens would think things through. I’m not trying to vote for tree huggers, I’m looking for a party that realizes the carbon economy is in trouble, that we have to build plant for alternative energy, this includes dams ( it will rain one day), windfarms, solar plants, pipelines to move water around, smaller cars, railroads, pulp plants that run on plantation timber, etc and so on.
I’m not looking for a party that wants to close the economy down, there is no fun in that.
My view is the Liberals are in denial and the greens don’t see the political opportunities that are opening up.
Psephos and growler, I’m a realist. I’m just pointing out that based on the last votes and demographic shifts the most interesting battles are Labor vs Greens. Labor took the Greens surge in Freo for granted, I suspect they’ll be hoping Brumby arrogance will do the same to Labor in these electorates.
There is no counting chickens. I am just deducing from demograpic trends and voting trends in these seats that the Greens will be a very good chance to win.
Just like both of you were harping on about Labor winning Fremantle, which they didn’t.
The reality is in inner city Melbourne there is a shift. Not many couldn’t deny that, we’re simply postulating the different scenarios possible. Simply from a psephological stand, inner city melbourne seats are increasingly turning more Green. It’s not just an opinon, it is something that elections are showing.
Ten eyars ago who would have predicted the seat of Melbourne would turn marginal? Let alone Brunswick or Richmond.
it’s great for democracy.
Frank, what party doesn’t seek to affect change through the targeted consolidation of electoral power? And why should this truth not be so for the Greens?
I don’t think that anyone here honestly expects to witness a Greens-led coalition in their lifetime, but let us not be dismissive of recent, tangible gains the party has made in urban centers across the country. Despite appearances, the Australian public has never been completely comfortable the notion of a strict two-party system. Sure, Labor might be seen as the best worst-option, but we should think more deeply about the current disaffection/bored-acceptance plaguing our political system.
“Brumby arrogance” What tosh. Brumby is far too modest in my opinion. This from the people who brought us Jeff Kennett!
fredn, easiest way to conserve water is to jack up the price. unpopular but makes people aware of waste. We are the largest water users in the world.
secondly the pipeline is not the answer, For the pipeline to work there sort of needs to be water in the basin. There isn’t enough. Labor has lost Seymour because of it, there is no way Labor will win that seat at the next election.
Psephos, Liberal’s didn’t believe Kennett was arrogant. I hate to tell you, and I have worked with the man. He is arrogant.
The Desal plant is a waist of energy. The same technology could clean the sewerage (less energy because there is more salt in seawater that nasty stuff in sewerage) from the Eastern treatment plant and pump it into the dams. When the coal power plants in the Latrobe Valley are replaced with renewables or gas then most of the water that they use (the equivalent of about 25% of Melbourne`s water use) could be piped to Melbourne. Piping water from the dry side of the Great Dividing Range to the wet side is crazy.
The Greens do not want to wind down the economy. They want to fix the economy so it is more environmentally and socially sustainable.
58
The Brumby government is arrogant and it can no longer hide behind Bracks the popular to not be seen as such.
That one quote proves once and for all that the Greens are Liberals in Greens Clothing.
Chris Curtis @ 49:
Are we going to be subjected to some proselytizing on Joan Kirner’s brilliant education policies next?
63
No I and the Greens think that the Brumby government is arrogant and right wing and the Liberals think that he is arrogant and left wing.
@63 FC “That one quote proves once and for all that the Greens are Liberals in Greens Clothing.”
Are you having a laugh? “death duty, legalise heroin, same sex marriage”, etc etc
That’s what the Greens are, maybe just a little bit different from the Libs?
Honestly, you Labor types have a “unique” view of the world!
To be honest, I don’t half mind Brumby. He’s much better than that auwful Rudd and is probably more right wing than Ballieu.
If we go back to 2006, it was the liberals promising to build a desal plant. The ALP ridiculed the idea and .. hey presto .. a few months later … a desal plant!
It would appear from here that the ALP would be hard pressed to lose the next election but … it could be that one too many! but then 2014 might be that too! Since 1999, they have been a cool, responsible and pragmatic government. Bracksie was a nice guy – would make a good game show host – in fact it was a bit like ‘Victoria, the game show’. It would be interseting to see if Brumby had gone and Bracksie stayed – he might have actually had to make a few hard decisions!
There is still 18 months to go, maybe the libs will get some visibility in that time! Ted really is wishy washy … seems to stand for nothing … as someome above said … it is actually the nationals that make the opposition running.
Another hope for the libs is when the 1999 generation in the Ballarats, Macedon, Seymour, etc retire. They won’t be able to win government without a few of those V Lineland seats – Ballarat East and West, Macedon, Seymour, Ripon, South Barwon, Bellarine, Bendio East. etc
Julian,
That’s a bit over the top. I only predict they’ll double their Lower House numbers after the next Victorian State election.
Patrick Fogarty (68),
Not from me. Nor can I think of any logical reason that my post on the achievements of the Bracks and Brumby governments means that I would speak in favour of Joan Kirner’s education policies. Beware of the assumptions you make.
You have given me the opportunity to quote myself:
“If by Joan Kirner’s ‘education plan’, you mean the VCE, you are right. It was a disaster, but the Kennett Government did not fix it. In fact, between 1995 and 1996, the Kennett Government reduced the number of points needed to get an A (and other grades) in year 12 English assessment tasks, thus lowering the standard, something that even I an opponent of the Liberals, did not think they would ever do.”
(http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/give_nsw_to_kennett/)
The current numbers in the Legislative Assembly of Victoria are
Labor 55
Liberal 23
National 9
Independent 1
Those number doubled are
Labor 110 (not enough seats in the house)
Liberal 46 (unlikely)
National 18 (even more unlikely)
Independents 2 (possibly possible).
Check out 58 and see if you can guess who I’m talking about.
I think I’ll join Julian…
IF Labor goes backwards by 10%, for no reason that is immediately obvious (but who needs reasons….?)
IF the Libs decide not to contest any seats because they’ve run out of money and anyway, Ballieu thinks it’s too much effort….
IF, a few months out of from the election, Brumby resigns and takes half the Ministry with him…
The Greens will romp it in in Melbourne, Brunswick and Richmond and might even pick up a couple more seats as well.
The price is being increased, has to be to pay for all the work being done to secure supply.
Adam and Frank, I assume from the comments you are making you are least slightly aware of demograpics in Melbourne, but I think your wrong on 2 counts.
For a start I don’t think that the new Docklands area is actual going to remain as strong for the Liberals as it has been, as it has become very generic in lifestyle, very much appelling to the latte set that most commonly vote Green.
Second Frank, if you had ever been to Fitzroy or South Carlton, you would know that those areas are the most “hippie” in Melbourne by far, so a Fremantle could certainly happen there.
But what is likely to happen is that the Greens life there vote by roughly 25% state wide (which is a low figure based on the current polls) then the seats where they are within 5-7% will fall ON current figures. But to the honest I don’t see the Greens polling more than 11% at the election, and on that number only Melbourne would fall.
76
Two zeros are zero. The Greens may, quite conceivably, do better than that.
OK, I’m gonna take Frank’s bait too. I’d say the reason Labor lost Fremantle was by ignoring it and taking it for granted, as it was a safe Labor seat. The by-election result wasn’t just due to it being a hippie commune or a latte strip (I didn’t know hippies drink latte, but there ya go), but by local issues being ignored by the only party that could usually win the seat. Therefore I’ll tip Phil Cleary to win Brunswick (from the vote in the northern parts of the seat) before any seats to be won by the Greens – it’s the same kind of vibe, and plus he’s got form in Wills years ago. Labor are forewarned about the Greens in inner Melbourne (they weren’t in Freo, that came out of the blue), so they’ll be watching those seats just as close as they watch other suburban seats with a similar margin to the Liberals. They’re about as likely to lose Richmond to the Greens as they are Burwood to the Liberals, for example.
(Also, WA protip: watch out for Fran Logan in Cockburn. Arrogant disregard for “only a hippy commune” is gonna put that seat in danger from the Greens one day if Labor don’t figure it out. You’ll find Vic Labor aren’t making the same mistake.
)
westernwarrior
whilst always conceding that you might be right, firstly, swings are never uniform. It is quite possible for Greens to poll at 15% state wide and not improve their vote (much) in seats such as Brunswick. (I contend that at least PART of the improvement is a jump in the Green vote in regional/rural areas).
Secondly, the smaller the margin becomes in a seat, the harder it is to close the gap. A number of reasons: the low hanging fruit is gone, and you are increasingly left trying to win over ‘rusted on’ voters; more resources are thrown at the seat, so that the less well resourced party is at an increasing disadvantage; voters take their vote more seriously; the incumbent spends the years leading up to the election (hopefully) working harder.
Indeed, seats which were once marginal and seen as easy wins can just as easily go the other direction, given this kind of treatment.
Chris Curtis # 74:
My apologies, Chris. I was obviously being a bit presumptuous – I assumed that you supported that government’s policies given your very harsh treatment of Kennett and the necessary steps he took to clean up the mess left by the previous government.
The more seats the Greens win, in my humble opinion, the better. It really messes with Labor!
Patrick Fogarty @ 84 wrote:
If the assumption (on another thread) is that greens’ chances will improve as the middle-class moves to inner urban seats, what’s the chance that MCU will support death duties? Besides Buckley’s that is? Only hard left idealogues support death duties, and most of them vote ALP.
O please Green supporters please stop overrating yourselves, in seats like Prahran and other suburban seats there has been a long history of third parties scoring over 10%, if a seat was solely based on the old city of St Kilda then the Greens would come very close to winning but no seat will be based on those boundaries for that would be well below the allowed quotor.
I see Melbourne has being a possible Green gain but at some point the Liberal Party vote will recover some support within the Inner city, the Greens are still at the political cross roads with the ETS being passed and while on paper many people may want more once they see job loses and power bills raising I predict people will come to support the approach taken and both major parties know this and that is why we see the Governments follow the policies they are.
Brumby deserves full credit for the Desalination project for whilst the Greens are doing their normal opposition to a project for that’s all they really know, the Gvernment is getting on with the job.
I find it bemusing that the Greens refuse to believe they pick up support from the left of the Liberal Party and seem to think their sole support base is from the ALP this shows the Greens only want to be seen as left wing.
I am not too surprised by these poll numbers, since the tragic events of Black Saturday Brumby as not put a foot wrong, at present I suspect the Liberals will be doing well to gain six seats with maybe Melbourne falling to the Greens but as someone pointed out the raising Liberal vote in Docklands will assist the ALP.
As Tom the first and best @65 suggests, the best, cleanest, least environmentally intrusive and longest-lasting water-saving measure (despite its initial costs & the Yuck factor) is water-recycling. SE QLD, though not currently recycling recycled water into drinking water, not only has the infrastructure in place should the need to use it arise, it provides water to power stations and industry, thereby conserving its drinking water supplies.
Anyone who’s downstream of another town (especially on major inland rivers, including the Murray); anyone who’s been to UK, western Europe (at least in the last 30 years), Singapore, California (more recently) has drunk, bathed in and otherwise used recycled water. I can’t for the life of me understand why those who live on Earth’s driest Continent don’t recognise that they have almost certainly drunk/ used recycled water and demand that all possible water be recycled.
Desal is a back-up system for those water dearths that can come from periods (like the recent one in SEQ, and current one in Melbourne) in which rain fails for many years; but it’s an expensive and limited-life supplier, so back-up is all it really is.
Harking back to a posting from yesterday..
Is there a redistribution due before the next state election. The last one was prior to 2002.
Does anybody out there know?
The next redistribution is to be done after the next poll but there agin there are several seats now well over quotor, I believe the retribution is done after every second election or eight years.
I would Imagine there would be one new seat in the South East, the North West and several changes to the Inner city with Albert Park strinking or maybe even being abolished.
“with maybe Melbourne falling to the Greens but as someone pointed out the raising Liberal vote in Docklands will assist the ALP.”
Not neccesarily, the Libs will need to pick up quite a vote to harm the Greens. If the Libs pick up 2-3% from Labor, The Greens benefit. surely you can’t discount Brunswick if Phil Cleary runs?
Mexicanbeemer, why would Albert Park be abolished?
I also think the Liberal’s don’t need to do much but create a perception (or illusion – for Psephos and other Laborites) that Brumby and co is arrogant. There is a sense of people feeling a bit annoyed. One thing to watch out for though is the weather in November.
If it’s a hot one, the transport chaos will give Labor weeks of negative press, luckily this usually happens in February and by November people will forget.
Another point is remember not many people picked the Liberal to lose with Kennett at the helm. it came from unexpected quarters, never take the electorate for granted I think was the lesson. Labor has to fight hard, there is the whiff of nepotism and it’s only a tiny amount you need after ten years to get people to give the other lot a go.
I picked the demise of Kennett at least as early as May 1999.
The main problems the Liberals have unlike the ALP in the lead up to the 99 election is without fail no day would pass without an ALP frontbencher (Thwaites, Bracks, Brumby, Hulls, Batchlor) appearing on the nightly news, how often do the current Liberal frontbench appear.
My reason for Albert Park being abolised is nothing more than nazel gazing but if the VEC wanted to create seat around St Kilda and Prahran then they may take the opportunity to abolish a seat of course they may just take a few booths our of Albert Park and add them to Prahran in effect dragging Prahran towards the beach.
Albert Park will not be abolished (might be renamed Port Melbourne or South Melbourne) but will shrink and give voters to Prahran. The boundaries will move around St Kilda but by how much depends on whether or not Punt Rd changes as the boundary of Prahran district. Prahran will probably loose part or all of Toorak and this will reduce the Liberals chances of winning it.
Cleary is unlikely to win Brunswick because of the demographic changes and party resources of the Greens in that seat but he would be making it much easier for the Greens to win by sending preferences to them.
I saw somewhere that Cleary had suggested that if he and the Greens swapped preferences, him or the Greens would almost definatly win. Probably him because he is well known.
I’ll see if I can track down where I saw it
If as Mexican Beemer says in #89 that there will not be a redistribution in this term, then 2010 will be the third election on the same boundaries. Logic dictates that there will be a huge disparity in enrolments by now (are current Victorian state seat enrolment available anywhere – I have searched the VEC website to no avail). You only need to look at federal enrolment in Victoria to see that there are huge disparities.
If federal enrolments are a guide then the smaller seats – and hence most likely to be abolished – are in the north or west of the state (unless some such as Ripon start to move into toward Melbourne) – or the middle ring eastern and south eastern suburbs seats (covered federally by Chisholm, Deakin, Hotham and Bruce) – this would suggest that either Burwood, Forest Hill, Oakleigh or Clayton would be up for the chop. Federally, it would be safe to suggest that one of the above seats would go at the next federal redistribution as these are the smallest seats and a new seat created on the northern or western edge of Melbourne.
Dave it has had wide coverage. Labor would be worried as Cleary + Greens are a fairly diabolical combination if they can keep preferences tight.
blackburseph,
Cleary is a has been. The Greens are a never was.
Contain your drooling please.
Cleary is not going to win Brunswick party because of the same demographic change that is undercutting the Labor vote. Cleary would do better in Wills because the working class voters who vote for him are still around in larger numbers and so he would have a chance of getting ahead of the Greens and winning on Green and Liberal preferences. Cleary running in Brunswick would just send preferences to the Greens.
GG
If the Greens are a “never was”, then why is the ALP so scared of them? Flying Garrett down to spread lies about a party you aren’t worried about is pointless.
Therefore it is obvious that the ALP believe the Greens are a threat.
I can’t believe no one has quoted or linked the article in the age on al p campaign strategy against the greens – very relevant and only two days old. It says the al p is divided on whether to go dirty or talk policy and ideas. Some say the demographic they fight over is too politically aware to be turned off the greens by lies and inuendo about a supposed (though non exist) Liberal/green deal and that it could put people off the all machine. Others say the proof is in the pudding of the albert park bi-election, even though there is no control to compaire it to.
Surely you mean Pascoe Vale? That’s the state seat…
Dave,
The one thing Greens and their supporters despise is the sunshine being directed at their shady little secrets. It’s amazing that their whole campaign disappears in a cloud of smoke as soon as the first grape shot of reality is directed at them.
Patrick (74),
Thank you. We live in world in which if X believes A, it is assumed he also believes B and must therefore be a Y. We don’t all fit in that world. I did not support Joan Kirner’s education policies, but I regard the following Liberal Government’s education policies as far worse and the current Labor Government’s education policies as far better than those of the Liberals and better than those of the Kirner era.
I think that the steps the previous Liberal Government took to deal with the undoubted financial difficulties of the state at the time were excessive, while others of their policies had nothing to do with the financial situation but were ideologically motivated and also damaging.
While Labor can be criticised for problems in transport and health for example, people also see the benefits: they walk into a brand new $45 million school (Dandenong) and see the work that has been done. They see their children in smaller classes. They drive on the Deer park by-pass. I take my dog for a walk past the new CFA station, the new school and the new police station in my town. Others do similar in their towns and suburbs. The achievement is real and it is outweighing the problems.
Prahran’s existing bountary is St Kilda Road not Punt Road for Punt Road is the federal boundary between Higgins and Melbourne Ports.
Cleary actually lost Wills before the AEC added areas around Fawkner and Thomastown these areas are rock solid ALP and are not Phil’s strong areas.
Can Phill win Brunswick, I think not if it contained all of Coburg then I would give him a change and while Phil is well liked amoungst older residents of Coburg and Brunswick I suspect many people under 35 will struggle to know who he is.
I like the look of Jane Garrett as the ALP candidate and if I lived in Brunswick I would mostly like give one of them the 1 and the other the 2.
before should be because
Growler, the pugnacious reaction you exhibit toward Green gains in the inner-city is tangible evidence of what Heysen mentions in #100; The ALP does not know how to deal with such a threat as posed by the Greens (who, by the way, love sunshine, thank-you-very-much!).
101
Compared to Brunswick Cleary would do well in Wills. I suspect that one of the reasons that the seat he suggested he might contest is Brunswick is because he probably lives there. If Cleary ran in Pascoe Vale then he would be open to criticism that he was running in a seat because it is better for him demographically but having better connection to another.
Chris at 103
Victoria is in the strong financial position it is today because of the actions of the Kennett Government and the very prudent approach taken by the Bracks and Brumby governments. Jeff was arrogant and in retrospect politically hamfisted but hey, the place was a basket case – 1991 Sydney joke: What’s the capital of Victoria – About 27 cents). There was probably too much public service slashing but the system was unsustainable as nothing had been done – there was a huge backlog of reform and managerial improvement to be made – Nick Greiner had started in NSW and Wayne Goss in QLD- but there was also a lot of cultural investment in that time – Federation Square, Melbourne Museum (though a previous project had been canned), Jeffs Shed, National Gallery. I am not disputing that there should be investment in public infrastructure but in could be said that the current government was making up for not only Kennett but Kirner and Cain as well.
Your examples aren’t great – you have a new school in your area as the old one burnt down! and the Deer Park bypass was 80% funded by the feds – despite the huff and puff from Peter Batchelor (one of the greater oxygen thieves ever to grace ministerial benches anywhere).
Anyway, what is the matter with a a bit of ideology every now and then – only a problem when you don’t agree!
I think that one of the reasons that Greens did not have a big improvement in Victoria between the 2002 and 2006 elections is that they had no parliamentary representation to show what a good party they are and officially represent them in the media between election campaigns. This has been fixed with the new PR system (A good reform by the Bracks government except for a few things like abolition of the power to block supply).
Tom the first
noone outside of the Greens party knows anything about their reps in the Upper House, other than they vote with the Libs (I’m not talking fact, but perception).
I’m a politicial tragic and I can’t even NAME them, let alone tell you which issues they voted on/promoted.
Enlighten me: what are the positive contributions they’ve made, which will persuade people to vote for them in the future?
Zoomster
I disagree with your assertion that “no-one outside the Greens party knows anything about their reps in the Upper House”. Greg Barber, Colleen Hartland and Sue Pennicuik have doggedly perused legislative action in line with core principles of the Greens party, including: Peace and Non-Violence, Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Ecological Sustainability.
Just recently, a private member’s bill authored by the Greens for a 10c deposit for drink bottles, cans and cartons passed the upper house with a substantial majority. It was designed specifically to encourage responsible recycling practices within the community, and was passed at a time when over 94% of Victorians support a container deposit system. Whilst hailed as progress towards more sustainable environmental practices, the legislation was indefinitely paralyzed in the Lower House by a Government reliant on legal technicalities to achieve their ill-supported ends.
Also, as recently as a fortnight-ago, the Greens introduced a bill for an act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 [Residential Tenancies Amendment (Housing Standards) Bill]. Barber stated: “The purpose of the Residential Tenancies Amendment (Housing Standards) Bill 2009 is to empower the minister to set minimum housing standards for rental properties and rooming houses through regulations; and resolve disputes between tenants and landlords arising from these minimum standards not being complied with.”
And who would argue with the emergence of climate change as a major political issue in this country? And who were the main proponents of such policy initiative and debate? Yep – you guessed it…
I would contend that in spite of this tangible legislative progress, the main asset the Greens carry into future elections will be the concept of a sustainable future itself. This vague but undeniably potent policy area has captured the public’s attention in spite of the blatant hand-wringing of both major parties, and this, together with real community focus and involvement -not just the soundbyte employed to this end by other parties – places the Greens in a favorable electoral position for the future.
Wow. Sorry for dragging on, everybody – sometimes I just get carried away…
Alex Campbell
you know this (and I assume you’re a Greens member) but the general public doesn’t and I didn’t (despite the fact that the issues you refer to are ones I’ve been involved with in the past).
I was arguing against Tom’s assertion that the Greens having members in the Upper House has raised their profile in a way which will lead to swings electorally.
It hasn’t (if anything, it’s been portrayed negatively).
Thanks, anyway – now I know what their names are!!
There were the ads by the ALP about the Greens voting in divisions with the Liberals when the figure for the ALP was 76%. The Greens do need to counter ALP propaganda better.
I received a letter about a forthnight ago from Sue Pennicuik after not hearing anything from her is nearly three years, I hear from my lower house MP every three to six months and the ALP ones don’t seem to deliver mail my way would that because they have nothing to say or is that a result of a low membership base or don’t members help out with mail outs.
Zoomster, Tom
Certainly, the Greens could be more assertive in their approach to media and public relations. But I think that as community attitudes towards the party change, perceptions regarding the organization as a fringe entity will fade, forcing the majors to accept (grudgingly) the presence of the Greens as a viable force in Australian politics.
This will likely not be achieved in the short term, but as the media begins gearing up for the state and federal polls next year, more and more column inches and air-time will be devoted to the looming battle between Labor and Greens in inner-city Melbourne. It is in this way that the public will be exposed to the nuts, bolts and personalities of the Greens’ platform – as well as the actions of a besieged ALP, under threat where there were no such threats before.
Okay… The ‘threat’ bit was a bit melodramatic.
They were a fringe entity from the 80s until 2001. From that point on their vote demonstrates they have taken up the vacuum the Democrats left, and are now the third force in Australian politics.
As much as people like Frank and GG can’t bear to admit
Bob
I completely agree.
My comments re the organization being seen as a fringe entity apply more in a policy sense.
Looking forward to commentary by Frank and GG regarding the electoral fortunes of the Greens’ next year!
mexican beamer.
The most likely reason you have only heard from Sue once is that she has 2 paid office staff to deal with sending stuff out to 11 Lower House Electorates. Your LH Memeber can get 4 paid staff and deal with one electorate.
blackburnpseph (109),
I’ve heard the joke about Victoria, though I don’t think any NSWelsher should be making any jokes at our expense now when what their state needs is not a Jeff Kennett but a Steve Bracks.
I saw the Kennett Government from inside the education system, and there were no redeeming qualities in it, none at all. It cut secondary staffing, not just below what it inherited but way below what the Thompson Liberal Government had supplied way back in 1981. The 1981 secondary PTR was 10.9:1; the 1992 one was 10.8:1 (a figure inflated by the addition of integration teachers and student welfare co-ordinators to school staffs and not an increase in classroom teachers); the 1999 one was 12.6:1. It basically dismantled the system by imposing marketisation on schools. This has been as dismal failure (see the work of Stephen Lamb and Richard Teese), which the current Labor Government has finally started to reverse.
There was no real “reform” or “managerial improvement” in education. It was just spin to disguise the cuts to staffing, the imposition of highly bureaucratic, inefficient and ineffective accountability requirements and the shift in power from the profession and school communities to conformist, supposedly entrepreneurial principals on short-term contracts with bonuses for obedience.
The old school did burn down, but it does not take away from the solid construction of the new one or the new police station (the old one did not burn down) or the new CFA station (the old one did not burn down) or the combined ambulance/police/CFA station in Diamond Creek or the Austin Hospital or the new science labs at Hampton Park Secondary College. I agree that the Bracks and Brumby Governments have been making up for infrastructure neglect going back decades, but it is still to their credit and it is till an electoral plus.
Your point on ideology is half-right. The changes made by the last Liberal Government were of no practical benefit but came from a particularly nasty ideology rather than a nice one. The current Labor Government is not big on ideology though you can say that all political beliefs are ideological to some extent. Perhaps I could put it this way: there are those who seek their solutions in theories, and there are those who seek them in what works. To that extent the previous government was ideological in a way that the current one is not.
The public view is supportive of Labor. While it is too much to say that Labor is the natural party of government, I believe that as long as it remains a moderate, centre-left party and governs competently, it will be almost impossible for the Liberals to beat it. While every year that passes means that the memory of the previous Liberal era fades in relevance, the current Liberal Party has shown no evidence of doing the work that is required to make it electable again. It’s not just that Victoria has a sound government, but also that, even if it did not, the Victorian Liberals have not established themselves as an alternative, though they are nowhere near as lost as the NSW Liberals are.
Thanks Dave!!
In light of that why don’t MP’s write colums in the local papers but in all fairness I was actually praising Sue for writing letter for an earlier comment was that they were completley invisiable.
120
It is just silly that an MLA gets 4 staff but an MLC who has an electorate 11 times larger gets only two.
Will Baillieu last until the next election? (I realise that this is not as messy and interesting as the SA leadership discussion on the SA thread but I am just doing my bit for Victorian politics).
Tom, its because the Greens dont have party status that they only get two
Do you happen to know what party status is in the Victorian Parliament?
126
A minimum of 11 seats across both houses.
(The Vic Nats nearly lost their third party status at the 2002 state election, holding just 7 seats in the Legislative Assembly and 4 in the Legislative Council.)
But there is a requirement for 2 MLCs (it was 4 MLCs but changed around the time of the last election and the Nats gained 2 MLAs and lost 2 MLCs at that election).
Is there a requirement for a minimum number of MLAs?
Tom, learn how to google.
129
I have actually searched the website of the Victorian Parliament as well as some Victorian acts of Parliament. Nothing found.
Well, I typed in ‘party+status+Victoria’ and this was from the first article listed:
‘Victoria provides another interesting example of parliamentary party status, where the
requirement is for 11 members of the parliament (both Houses).’
which would mean at least one MLA.
Can’t be bothered doing any more than this, suggest you try.
I would presume this means that the total of 11 can be made up from numbers in both houses (e.g. 5 MLAs and 6 MLCs; or 0 MLAs and 11 MLCs)
OK, I don’t have the time to download it, but the information is contained in the Parliamentary Salaries and Superannuation Act 1968 (Victoria).
You can access this by going to http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au, clicking on the ‘Legislation and Bills’ cookie thing on the upper left. That will take you to a site where you can access the relevant Act.
(for future reference, I googled as above, the article quoted referred to the relevant Act as the source of its info, so I went to the parliament website. I found the Act fairly easily but don’t want to go to the trouble of downloading it…)
Itep
haven’t read the Act, but would assume the reference to ‘both Houses’ would mean just that – or the article would read ‘either’ House.
No because the word ‘either’ would make it appear that they have to have 11 members in one of the two houses, rather than 11 members across both houses.
OK, the Act itself (under ‘Definitions’) refers to 11 members of Parliament, so it doesn’t matter which House they sit in.
To refine searches for interested parties even more, the relevant website is: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au
11 is way too high. Five should qualify as a party as it does in the Commonwealth Parliament.
Gee, you could have at least said ‘thanks’.
Last time I do your googling for you!
Thank-you.
Sorry for not putting that in my previous post.
….and you didn’t even use the ‘if you didn’t see the thank you in the previous post it’s because you didn’t look properly’ line!!
Any time. But seriously, learn how to google.
140
The problem was not lack of googling but that I had missed that particular definition when reading said act previously.
11 does seem too high. 5/6 would be appropriate.
I suspect if The Nationals ever fall below 11 members they will rejig th numbers.
Why is it that in some states (WA and Vic) the size of the Nats seems to run the size of party status?
Would speculate (as I don’t know) that their votes were needed to get the relevant Acts through the Upper House.
Labor could pass any bill it liked in Victoria between 2002 and 2006. After 2006 the Greens could have voted with the Government to pass a bill (provided it was a good one). Reforming the definition of a third party helped the Nationals (thus not annoying them) but it would have been good to cut the number from eleven to five (like federally and in WA).
There is also talk of Les Twentyman running in Footscray. I would think that he is likely to get Green and Liberal preferences again. Would he get the preferences of the Catherine Cumming if she ran again? I suspect that the had the ALP not got the 2.5% less primary vote it did and won one preferences then the result might have been ALP versus Catherine Cumming. How did the preferences flow last time?