tip off

Call of the board: part one

Short and sharp reflections on some of the more interesting electorate results, starting with New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory.

What follows is a brief overview of the results in electorates I felt worth commenting on for one reason or another, together with projections of state vote shares based on ordinary votes results (which are not quite fully accounted for in the count, but close enough to it) and the extent to which postals, pre-polls and absent votes shifted the totals in 2010. New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory are covered herein, with the others to follow.

New South Wales

		%	Swing	Projection
Coalition	47.3	+2.6	47.2
Labor		34.9	-2.8	34.5
Greens		7.7	-2.2	8.1
Palmer United	4.3
Others		5.8

Two-party preferred

Coalition	54.2	+3.2	54.3
Labor		45.8	-3.2	45.7

Banks. The 3.3% swing which ousted Daryl Melham was almost exactly equal to the state total, which followed an 8.9% swing in 2010. An increase in the number of candidates from four to nine restricted the Liberal primary vote gain to 1.7% and contributed to a halving of the Greens vote, down from 9.6% to 4.7%.

Barton. The seat vacated by former Attorney-General Robert McClelland is going down to the wire, the 6.9% margin exactly matched by the swing on ordinary votes. This was the second biggest swing against Labor in Sydney after Macquarie. Barton was another seat that witnessed a dramatic proliferation of candidates, from three to eight, with the five minor party and independent newcomers collectively drawing 11.3%. The Liberals nonetheless increased their primary vote slightly, the balance coming off Labor and the Greens.

Blaxland. Reports on the eve of the election suggested Labor had grave fears for Jason Clare’s hold on Paul Keating’s old seat, despite its 12.2% margin. This proved entirely unfounded, with Labor up 5.4% on the primary vote and holding steady on two-party preferred.

Charlton. For some reason, the seat vacated by Greg Combet gave the Palmer United Party what was comfortably its highest vote in New South Wales at 11.3% (UPDATE: Frickeg in comments reminds me the belated disendorsement of the Liberal candidate probably had something to do with it). The party’s second best showing in the state was 7.8% in neighbouring Hunter. That aside, Combet’s departure did not cause any disturbance to Labor, the two-party swing being slightly below the state average.

Dobell. Craig Thomson managed 4.0%, which was at least better than Peter Slipper and contributed to a double-digit drop in the Labor primary vote, their worst such result in the state. Also contributing was former test cricketer Nathan Bracken, running as an independent with the backing of John Singleton, who managed 8.3%. The Liberal primary vote was up slightly, and its 5.9% swing on two-party preferred adequate to account for the 5.5% margin.

Eden-Monaro. Mike Kelly appeared to be well placed early in the count, but the larger and later reporting booths, including those in Queanbeyan, tended to swing more heavily. Kelly is presently sitting on a swing of 4.8%, enough to account for his 4.4% margin barring late count peculiarities and maintain Eden-Monaro’s cherished bellwether record. This was higher than the state average, part of a pattern in which swings in the state’s regions were actually slightly higher than in Sydney, contrary to all expectations.

Fowler. After all the hype about Labor’s looming collapse in western Sydney, a seat in that very area produced the most anomalous swing of the election in Labor’s favour. The 9.0% swing to Chris Hayes was 12.2% above the statewide par for Labor, and was fuelled by an 11.2% drop in the Liberal primary vote and swings approaching 20% in Cabramatta, the very area the Liberals had hoped to target by picking a Vietnamese candidate in Andrew Nguyen. However, look at the seat’s behaviour over longer range suggests this to have been a correction after an anomalous result in 2010, when Liberal candidate Thomas Dang slashed the Labor margin by 13.8% and picked up swings ranging from 16.5% to 23.1% in the Cambramatta booths.

Gilmore. The south coast seat was one of three in New South Wales to swing to Labor, presumably on account of the retirement of long-serving Liberal member Joanna Gash. Her successor, Ann Sudmalis, has emerged with 2.6% remaining of a 5.3% margin.

Grayndler. The Greens vote fell only modestly, by 1.2% to 22.8%, but it looks enough to have cost them a second place they attained for the first time in 2010. With primary votes generally fairly static, the change in Liberal preferencing policy would presumably have inflicted a hefty two-party swing if they had made the final count.

Hunter. Joel Fitzgibbon was down 10.1% on the primary vote, and while this was partly on account of the Palmer United Party’s second best performance in the state, he also suffered Labor’s biggest two-party swing in the state at 8.9%.

Kingsford Smith. One of a number of pieces of saved furniture for Labor in Sydney, Kingsford Smith turned in a largely status quo result in Peter Garrett’s absence, outgoing Senator Matt Thistlethwaite easily defending a 5.2% margin against a swing of 1.9%.

Lindsay. The swing that unseated David Bradbury was slightly on the high side for Sydney at 3.5%, more than accounting for a margin of 1.1% without meeting the more fevered expectations of a western Sydney disaster.

Macarthur. Liberal sophomore Russell Matheson picked up the second biggest two-party Coalition swing in New South Wales, up 6.8% on the primary vote and 8.4% on two-party preferred.

Page. The expectation that Labor would perform better in regional New South Wales than in Sydney was most strikingly defied in Page, where Janelle Saffin unexpectedly fell victim to a 7.2% swing.

Parramatta. Julie Owens’ seat produced a fairly typical result for Sydney in swinging 3.4% to the Liberals, which hasn’t been enough to account for the 4.4% margin. (UPDATE: I speak too soon. In keeping with a general trend of late counting away from Labor, postal votes are flowing heavily to the Liberals and putting Owens at very serious risk.)

Robertson. As expected, the seat Deborah O’Neill did well to retain in 2010 with a margin of 1.0% was an early election night casualty for Labor, the swing of 4.0% being perfectly typical for non-metropolitan New South Wales.

Throsby. Gary “Angry” Anderson managed 10.5% as candidate of the Nationals, nearly doubling the party’s vote from 2010 despite the number of candidates being up from five to 11. The Greens conversely were well down, by 6.5% to 5.3%.

Werriwa. Frequently written off during the campaign, Laurie Ferguson is set to retain about 2.2% of his 6.8% margin from 2010.

Queensland

		%	Swing	Projection
Coalition	45.3	-1.9	45.5
Labor		30.1	-3.9	29.7
Greens		6.1	-4.7	6.2
Palmer United	11.3
Others		7.2

Two-party preferred

Coalition	56.0	+1.1	56.3
Labor		44.0	-1.1	43.7

Blair. One Labor MP with good cause to feel glad about Kevin Rudd’s return was Shayne Neumann, who picked up a 1.4% two-party swing and held firm on the primary vote in the face of 12.8% vote for the Palmer United Party. Here as elsewhere in Queensland, the Greens crashed in the absence of the Kevin Rudd protest vote in 2010, dropping 6.9% to 4.2%.

Brisbane. While Labor had much to be relieved about in Queensland, its high hopes for recovering Brisbane were not realised, with Liberal National Party member Teresa Gamabaro up 1.8% on the primary vote, Labor steady. A 6.9% drop in the Greens vote to 14.3%, coming off Andrew Bartlett’s high-profile campaign in 2010, produced a significantly weaker flow of preferences to Labor.

Capricornia. The central Queensland seat vacated by Kirsten Livermore is going down to the wire after a heavy 8.9% drop in the Labor primary vote. This was mostly down to the competition from the Palmer and Katter parties, the former outscoring the latter 7.9% to 5.3%. With the Liberal National Party vote little changed, Labor suffered a 4.4% swing on ordinary votes off a margin of 4.6%.

Fairfax. Clive Palmer seems to be fighting to hold on to a 1411 against a strong trend in late counting towards Liberal National Party candidate Ted O’Brien. However, O’Brien’s current vote count looks to have been inflated by a discrepancy you can read about here. As things stand, the key to Palmer’s potential victory is his clear success in outpolling Labor 27.3% to 18.1% on ordinary votes, with LNP candidate Ted O’Brien’s 41.0% below the safety zone with Labor and Greens preferences flowing strongly against him.

Fisher. With Palmer United Party candidate Bill Schoch apparently primed to overtake Labor on preferences, despite trailing them 21.0% to 18.3% on the primary vote, Mal Brough’s 43.8% share of the vote was an uncomfortably long distance from the 50% mark. Nonetheless, Brough appears to be gaining about a quarter of the overall preferences on offer, enough to get him over the line with a few per cent to spare.

Griffith. Kevin Rudd suffered Labor’s equal biggest swing in Queensland of 5.2%, with Bill Glasson’s 5.9% lift on the primary vote the second highest achieved by an LNP candidate.

Kennedy. Bob Katter emerged a big loser of election night with a 17.1% slump in his primary vote, reducing him to 29.5%. Liberal National Party candidate Noeline Ikin was the beneficiary of a 14.0% spike that put her well in front on the primary vote count with 40.6%, but preferences are flowing solidly enough to Katter to leave him with a margin slightly below 3%.

Leichhardt. There was strong movement to Labor in Aboriginal communities, doubtless reflecting the background of Labor candidate Billy Gordon. This briefly created the illusion of a potential Labor victory as the first booth-matched results came through on election night, but that was negated by a strong performance by LNP member Warren Entsch in Cairns and the electorate’s rural areas.

Lilley. The 1.6% swing against Wayne Swan was well in line with the statewide norm, and if anything a little above it. Given the pre-election publicity though, Swan’s success in retaining almost all of his 2010 primary vote was among the results that lifted Labor’s spirits on an otherwise grim evening.

Petrie. Kevin Rudd’s election night boast of having defended all of Labor’s Queensland seats to the contrary, it appears that Yvette d’Ath has been unseated by a swing of 3.0% on the ordinary votes, compared with her pre-election margin of 2.5%.

Northern Territory

		%	Swing	Projection
Coalition	41.2	+0.8	41.6
Labor		38.3	-0.2	37.7
Greens		7.7	-5.0	7.9
Palmer United	4.6
Others		8.2

Two-party preferred

Coalition	49.7	+0.9	50.1
Labor		50.3	-0.9	49.9

Lingiari. As usual, swings in the extra-Darwin Northern Territory electorate were all over the shop, the general picture being of a slight swing to Labor in remote communities blunting the swing against Labor to 2.7%, short of Warren Snowdon’s 3.7% margin. This followed a 2010 result which delivered huge swings to the Country Liberal Party in remote communities but partly balanced them out with strong swings to Labor in the major centre, specifically Alice Springs.

Solomon. Natasha Griggs, who unseated Labor’s Damien Hale in 2010, notably failed to enjoy a sophomore surge, Solomon delivering a rare 0.7% swing to Labor to reduce the CLP margin to 0.9%.

1311
  • 51
    lefty e
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    There’s nothing wrong with waiting if it revitalizes the party grass roots, gives the leader legitimacy, and demonstrates to the public that Labor’s regicidal factional culture is on the wane.

    The fact that Conroy sees this as a negative only demonstrates that he is part of the problem and should probably be marched as part if the renewal.

    I see no reason why the former deputy shouldn’t continue as interim leader in these arrangement: there’s your spokesy

    I mean look at popular culture: ‘Shorten already planning move against his own leadership” on Chaser.

    It’s funny : but the ALP has become a joke. Party reform is the cure. Conroy is the problem. Don’t listen to him.

  • 52
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Are the caucus and membership votes separate items?
    Do caucus elect someone then membership confirm?
    Be embarrassing if they don’t
    Or do they run both elections concurrently with 50% allocated to members and caucus?

  • 53
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    confessions

    The good thing is it is making Abbott hold off on forming his ministry. Also not seen Abbott sworn in yet so maybe its extending caretaker period.

    If so we all have a lot to thank the good people of Indi for.

  • 54
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    …I will also point out that the rule changes were made by a caucus which no longer exists. That means they’re not binding on the new caucus (the pledge you sign as a candidate commits you to supporting decisions made by a caucus of which you were a part).

  • 55
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Why isn’t the Labor party out there making noises about Monkey’s invisibility?

    What happened to all the emergencies?
    No press conferences?
    What about the crisis the country was facing?

    Is this really what the ALP has been reduced to?
    A bunch of numpties without two political bones to rub together to start a fire under Monkey?

    I’m really beginning to wonder how long the Labor party has left.

  • 56
    confessions
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    Well said zoomster. In my view it’s worth getting the process right from the start than patchworking something together just to resolve some surface issues.

  • 57
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    zoom

    yes that would impress the membership and the Australian people- a bit of the old tricksy shit that worked so well in the last 3 years

  • 58
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Rosey

    No rush

    May as well do something properly

    Nothing from monkey needs no response

  • 59
    triton
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    confessions

    The Age says there’s “little beyond an outside chance” that Sophie will hang on now.

    I’d like to hear what Antony Green says. Before the extra votes were found he was pretty confident that Sophie would overhaul the lead with postal votes. It would be completely unfair to Antony, but I am looking forward to saying that he got it wrong.

  • 60
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Kinkajou

    Yes, the membership would be impressed if they were genuinely consulted about proposed rule changes. Rule changes imposed from above without consultation are scarcely empowering.

  • 61
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    So instead of putting the heat on Monkey from day one following their humiliating defeat what does the ALP do?
    They talk about leadership and Rudd.

    One term Tony?
    You really think the ALP can pull that off?

  • 62
    DisplayName
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    I’m starting to think that the ALP has developed some inbred style of politics that is for some reason, somehow effective within the bubble that is the ALP and their politicians – having learned all the wrong lessons from it – take and apply it externally only to prove ineffective.

  • 63
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    zoomster

    I agree there is no must about following the rule changes brought in by PMKR

    I think it says volumes about the motives of members of caucus that they want to pursue them and put the leadership ballot to the membership.

    A very healthy sign that commends the members of caucus to me.

    However yes of course as Psephos keeps reminding people it only becomes reality when National Conference makes it so

  • 64
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    but the ALP has become a joke

    Lefty

    thats a bit of a change in a week for you or am I imagining?

  • 65
    triton
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    zoomster, there must be rules that are perpetual until a caucus changes them. Otherwise after every election they would have to re-state every rule from scratch.

  • 66
    confessions
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    triton:

    Yes, I too would prefer to hear Green’s views on this before getting too excited.

  • 67
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    One term Tony?
    You really think the ALP can pull that off

    probably not but hafta wait and see.
    A weeks a long time politix sometimes…but its almost like people have come to expect the quick miracle.
    unfortunately at the moment the quick miracles are all pointing in away direction ( except Sophie pleeeease God)

  • 68
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    You’re probably right Kinkajou.
    It’s worked pretty well for them so far?

    The ALP, born not to rule?

  • 69
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    there is a fundamental disconnect between

    “humiliated” and ” putting the heat on”

  • 70
    lizzie
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    Well, this is what I woke up to, and this is how I feel. Never mind if it was Conroy or Joe Blow who said it. I said after the election that Labor must start attacking Abbott strongly from the first day. And what do we get? Leadershit and a vacuum, in which mavericks like Marles and Champion are giving the media bullets to fire.

    He said the Coalition are "getting away with murder" while Labor's leadership remains in a vacuum.

    "We've got no leader, no frontbench, no shadow spokespersons who are able to lead the debate for us, and this will descend into complete and utter farce," he said.

  • 71
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    triton

    Yes, that’s the party constitution – and the changes made aren’t valid under it (becaude caucus took over the role of National Conference in passing them).

    And, of course, as with every organisation where the ‘board’ changes, past decisions are assumed to remain in place unless they’re overturned.

    In this case, however, the rule changes aren’t binding, because in passing them caucus assumed powers it doesn’t have.

  • 72
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    ..and let’s not fool ourselves. The rule changes were not about empowering the membership, reforming the party, or making things more democratic – they were about keeping Rudd in power when he knew caucus really didn’t support him.

  • 73
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    The ALP, born not to rule?

    There is an element of Oppositional Defiance Disorder that does tend towards opposition.

    there is also a fabulous ALP history of building for the people which should be cherished and protected.
    Unfortunately many in the party act like an opposition in government. the last 4 years have all been about opposition to Abbott frinstance rather than Labors own record

  • 74
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Kinkajou

    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    The payment was supposed to be $1,000, but the Coalition says it is cutting it to $500 because the cost of the products has come down and it wants to target low income earners

    whaaa?? it wants low income earners to pay more…that kind of targetting
    ———————————–

    Its Hockeynomics.

    You have a budget in “emergency” so you cut revenue by reducing company taxes and axing other revenue streams. Its based around the less revenue the better the chance the budget will move into surplus.

  • 75
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    ‘I mean look at popular culture: ‘Shorten already planning move against his own leadership” on Chaser.’

    It’ll never end.

    Plibersek or Dreyfus is the only way to clean the slate.

    Once Monkey fires up in parliament he’ll have Shorten for afternoon tea every single question time.

  • 76
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    zoomster

    Is there anything in the rules at present that prevents putting the leadership to a vote of the members?

    If not caucus is not assuming powers it does not have.

  • 77
    triton
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    zoomster, the change might not be binding, but in practice they will have to explicitly undo that rule with a motion and a vote if they don’t want to follow it. With Rudd having trumpeted the change and got wide coverage for it, they won’t get away with allowing it to slip away by itself under a technicality.

  • 78
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    they were about keeping Rudd in power when he knew caucus really didn’t support him.

    they would have kept him from the last coup had they been in place and might do the same in the future should he have another vision of leadership…mind you that would then involve a public campaign to members to get the 65% very unedifying

  • 79
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    “We’ve got no leader, no frontbench, no shadow spokespersons who are able to lead the debate for us, and this will descend into complete and utter farce,”

    Seriously, can anyone here argue persuasively that Conroy doesn’t have a point?

  • 80
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    It’s pathetic.
    The ALP have had three years to prepare for opposition and they’re going to muck it up.
    FFS

  • 81
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    zoomster

    I agree with you about KR’s motives in staying PM.

    However he has misread his popularity. Not just with the electorate, but, I think with Labor members.

    Polls continually showed self identifying Labor voters preferred Julia Gillard as PM. That would be more so for Labor members.

  • 82
    DisplayName
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Kinkajou, exactly, the shenanigans of the past 4 years aren’t prevented. Though they may become less frequent it will be worse when they do occur.

  • 83
    zoomster
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    guytaur

    nothing prevents it, but nothing authorises it, either – and I’m not sure the systems exist to put it in place.

    For example, under whose authority would such a ballot take place? What is the nomination process? Who votes first, caucus or the membership? (in preselections, the membership votes first, then HO only if there’s a dispute).

    Amd yes, caucus is assuming powers it doesn’t have, because the present rules around how a leader is selected are very clear and have not been repealed/changed by National Conference. Rudd was going to call a special NC to have them ratified retrospectively after the election. He wouldn’t have suggested doing that if the new rules were enforceable without that.

  • 84
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    @80

    Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if some filler from the Liberal party uses that line.

    Doin’ what Libs do best; kicking sand in the faces of the weaklings in the ALP…..twas ever thus

  • 85
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    “We’ve got no leader, no frontbench, no shadow spokespersons who are able to lead the debate for us, and this will descend into complete and utter farce

    Neither have they, its 5 days after the election, have a lie down for a minute.
    Go write us a divertimento instead of a dirge!

  • 86
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    I meant killer not filler

  • 87
    DisplayName
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Rosemour would rather work himself into a frenzy.

    *hug*

    :P

  • 88
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    ‘Neither have they, its 5 days after the election, have a lie down for a minute.
    Go write us a divertimento instead of a dirge!’

    Yes but they’re not talking about it.

    I’ll write a bagatelle perhaps, seems more appropriate for the ALP at the moment

  • 89
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    My hit record

    ” All filler no killer”

  • 90
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    THE LABOR REQUIEM

  • 91
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    rosemour would rather see some evidence that the ALP have learnt something from the last 6 years.
    rosemour would rather seein the ALP in a frenzy of political goal kicking…..

  • 92
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    by Agnes DAY

  • 93
    Roxanna
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Morning all. I have always thought Conroy was more like Steve Fielding than Joyce.

    Sorry I wasn’t around to respond to the comments about Bob Brown’s suggested Senate voting. I posted it and then retired.

    And lastly, I do hope I haven’t driven My Say away by trying to point out aspects of Internet security. It certainly wasn’t my intention.

  • 94
    guytaur
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    zoomster

    Well in that case I think that caucus has no choice. They have to vote for whom they would have as leader. Who would do the usual choice of shadow positions.

    Call a special national conference as soon as practible to deal with the mess left by the NSW Right and Party Reform.

    In which case I suggest putting the Faulkner report as the blueprint to be debated. If you going to have the spectacle make it worthwhile

  • 95
    Rosemour or Less
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    LABOR: A REQUIEM

    I like it.

  • 96
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    and Kylie ELEISON

  • 97
    mimhoff
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    confessions

    Ursula Stephens?

    She was third on the ticket and lost her seat–she’s gone in July.

  • 98
    bemused
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Windhover@48

    It is to be hoped that Albo doesn’t run for LOTO and that Labor can quickly unite behind Shorten.

    ANYONE BUT SHORTEN
    Well almost anyone. There are a few other dopes like Feeney who are also bad news.

    Shorten, Conroy, Feeney and a few others were at the centre of events in 2010, and earlier, that led to the destruction of 2 Labor PMs.

    They should be laughed out of the party rather than receive any rewards.

  • 99
    Fran Barlow
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Jackol

    I don’t accept the complaint often raised against OPV that it opens the door to a constructively FPtP system — orat least that to the extent that it does, that this is a bad thing.

    There are good reasons in single member constituencies not to have FPtP. Preferential voting radically reduces the reward given to the benefificaries of “spoiler” candidates and allows for greater policy nuance, since unaddressed concerns within a particular constituency of one candidate can be made the subject of debate without serious harm to the fortunes of someone most people support.

    OTOH, compulsory preferential can have the opposite effect — compelling people to vote effectively for the victory of someone diametrically opposed to the policy of their first or other preferences. This allows nuance to be disregarded and for both the major parties to coalesce around a single policy that most people oppose. Here in Australia, both parties achieved solidarity over “stopping the boats”, opposition to a more equitable tax-transfer system, live exports, occupying Afghanistan, drug policy, the US alliance, coal seam gas, media policy and until the very last minute, gay marriage.

    That’s not a good outcome.

  • 100
    Kinkajou
    Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    I like it.

    get on it!

    ( and give us a break)

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...