The following should be old news for the type of person who visits this site, but I will reiterate it for the record. The post-budget Newspoll has produced a surprise 2 per cent two-party shift in Labor’s favour, despite strong support for the budget itself, while another post-budget poll from Galaxy has Labor leading 57-43. There is slightly better news for the Coalition from a Galaxy poll of 800 voters in the Prime Minister’s electorate of Bennelong, which puts Labor’s lead at a not-insurmountable 52-48. Other developments of the past week:
• Gerard McManus of the Herald Sun gives some background to ALP state secretary Mark Arbib’s bid for Senate preselection in New South Wales:
Arbib reportedly wants to take over from Victorian senator Stephen Conroy as Labor’s Senate deputy leader – a contest that will cause serious internal ructions. However, under the original plan Arbib was to have taken the place of Michael Forshaw, a senator since 1994, who had himself taken the spot of another Labor head office chief, Graham Richardson. Senator Forshaw is not up for re-election and therefore his resignation would have created a casual vacancy for Arbib to step in. The problem was Senator Forshaw refused to go, demanding a promise in writing that he would be “looked after” in a similar way to the way Senator Amanda Vanstone was recently taken care of when she quit the Senate. But when the NSW powerbrokers declined to oblige, Forshaw decided to stay put, forcing the party to tip another woman, Senator Ursula Stevens (sic – should be Stephens – PB), down to the precarious third spot on the Senate ticket at the coming election. Senator Stevens is a former party president and possibly the only Labor senator who did not come straight from a union or an MP’s office into parliament.
• Don Farrell, the powerful state secretary of the Right faction Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, has announced he will run for Labor Senate preselection in South Australia. It would appear that he is set to take the faction’s reserved position from incumbent Linda Kirk, who fell from favour after backing Kevin Rudd’s leadership bid in December and defying the conservative union’s opposition to the RU486 abortion pill. Farrell had earlier denied having designs on the seat, leading to a consensus that Kirk would be replaced by Adelaide lawyer Tim Stanley. According to Greg Kelton of The Advertiser, “Mr Farrell last ran for Parliament 20 years ago in the seat of Adelaide but was defeated after a particularly vicious campaign with racist overtones”. This refers to a 1988 by-election held upon the resignation of Chris Hurford, at which Labor lost a seat it had held since 1943; perhaps this site’s South Australian readers can provide further detail on the nature of the campaign.
• John Watson, a Tasmanian Liberal Senator since 1977, was dumped from the party ticket in Saturday’s preselection vote. The ticket will be headed by incumbent Richard Colbeck, followed by two political staffers, David Bushby and Don Morris.
• Colourful Melbourne libertarian Prodos Marinakis, whose endorsement as Liberal candidate for the state seat of Richmond was overturned by the party on the grounds that he was too interesting, has withdrawn his nomination for the Melbourne preselection citing “personal reasons”.
in all honesty having to fight with my employer for wages and conditions isnt as scary as getting a compulsory bill in the post forservices rendered on my behalf for an EBA.
these polls are ok, the ALP has been in front for over a year, rudd is only worth about two to four points.
HOwever if the polls dont bounce once everyone cashes there cheque in july, then there is cause for concern.
this says that hope may be misplaced 😀
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/
Linda Kirk lost her spot because she is a flaming idiot! She fired Don Farrell’s wife from a job she had in her office and was eveidently very rude to her. Now it may be just me, but if I was in her position I dont think I would be acting that way towards the wife of a man who controls the right faction in SA
Bad grammar displayed by most on this this blog leads me to believe that education should be first and foremost as an election issue. C’mon y’all lift yr game.
Or at least edit yr posts, B4, like um posting.
If your main concern on this blog is people’s grammar, maybe go somewhere else. You don’t have to read it.
I don’t agree with the SDA leadership’s views on various issues, but that is a different matter to whether they are an effective union. Given the limitations of the industry they are operating in, they are very effective. This line of attack just shows that hostility to the SDA is political rather than industrial. As for spending their members’ funds on political campaigns, all unions do that, and I don’t hear people here criticising left unions spending money in support of left causes, some of them quite bizarre like supporting the Venezuelan dictator Chavez.
The Advertiser today says Julia Gillard’s support is unlikely to save Linda Kirk from the chop. Labor’s Senate nominations in SA closed yesterday. The top two spots are guaranteed for Penny Wong and Don Farrell, with third position likely to go to 30-year-old journalist Cath Perry, who has the support of the Amalgamated Metal Workers’ Union.
But Adam, we all know the Left unions are a bunch of whackos anyway… surely it doesn’t need to be reiterated. Hence why I go hard on the SDA.
The decision by the coalition to change the ‘brand’ of workchoices is the first time for as long as I can remember that Howard has done something that is straight up and down stupid.
By publically announcing that they are changing the brand because of the Union’s scare campaign they are telling people who are concerned about IR that they are stupid because they fell for the Union’s campaign, but the Libs are also saying that people who are concerned about the laws are so stupid that they will be fooled by a change in title.
Yes a government can fool all of the people some of the time, but you don’t want to bloody well have a press conference to announce that you’re doing it.
To those complaining about Swan, as others have pointed out here before, economic management is the one single big trump card for the Govt. Yet this seems to have been significantly neutralised – certainly the Govt is complaining about the ‘economy runs itself’ perception.
Even if public speaking isn’t his strongest suit, Swan can’t be doing that bad a job.
And heaven help us if Lord Dolly, the Mad Monk, the School Ma’am and the Waterboy are supposed to represent the epitome of parliamentary talent.
The appeals by those of the 30 odd ALP members who were expelled by Labors Head office will be heard at Sussex Street on Tuesday night 22 May 2007 at 6pm. It has caused a little of a flurry of activity of letter writing to the Herald, Newcastle’s daily paper (Fairfax Media), with writers complaining most of the appellants are elderly and not in the best of health and will have difficulty in attending (its a 3 hour train trip to Newcastle rail terminus).
BUT in its usual NSWLabor- caring and sharing mode- the Newcastle Herald reported on 17 May 2007:
ALP assistant general secretary Karl Bitar said last night that the party “wants to see natural justice”.
“We don’t want to be brutal,” Mr Bitar said.
“If members are facing difficulty in attending the hearing then they can send someone on their behalf or make a written submission.”
YEAH RIGHT -sending a friend or a written letter would be real helpful considering the Herald also says:-
Most[the expelled members] added that they were still not certain of the reasons for their expulsion.
You see the NSW Labor machine doesn’t intend to be brutal – it just is.
“…Lord Dolly, the Mad Monk, the School Ma’am and the Waterboy”
Don’t forget The Madam.
Speaker, I fear you are right that Kerry Nettle is not looking a good chance for re-election, although a lot is riding on preferences.
But you’re wrong on the wider Greens chances. It’s highly unlikely that the Greens won’t pick up a Senator in WA, which would balance out the loss of NSW. And, with the Libs on the nose in a big way in Canberra, you can’t rule out an upset in the ACT splitting 1 ALP 1 GRN.
Victoria is a decent chance, if preferences go well.
If the Greens campaign well, there is a real chance of 5 Senators, party status and the balance of power (assuming either the VIC spot comes at the expense of a 3rd conservative or if Kerry Tucker wins the ACT spot over Gary Humphries).
Hilarious: John Howard furious about the perceived pro-union bias of BASTARD BOYS, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey getting themseves upset about an episode of MCLEOD’S DAUGHTERS. Thank goodness they still have their media cheersquad in the form of Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones etc.
Wolfowitz finally resigns, Blair will be gone in a month’s time – one by one, the architects of the Iraq War fall. Not a good omen for John Howard!
Can someone explain what ‘party status’ denotes in the Senate? What privileges does it bring?
Charlie:
Party Status in the enate brings with it a increased staffing component (its actually at the discretion of the Minister for Administrative Affairs, but so far its never been refused) of between 10-14 staff for the “Leader” of the party with 5 Senators. They also appoint a Whip who is paid extra (Greens currently get to appoint a Whip who is involved in the Whips meetings, but they don’t get anything extra for that). The Leader also get a bunch of extra resources. (try http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/20041215_kelly_party_status.pdf for a discussion on this).
Mr Speaker:
I’m not worried about the Greens falling below 4%, but was wondering if anybody had any insider knowledge on why these quite marked disparities appear. I note that Morgan has the Greens now on 8%. Maybe the true percentage is around 7.5% – about what I’d expect at this time, especially given Rudd’s softening on IR, education etc. Some ALP lefties may now decide to vote 1 Green and preference the ALP, but then there are a bunch of swinging voters (Lib voters in the last 2 elections) who now think its safe to go with Rudd and maintian their relative economic prosperity (or in fact hang on to what the’ve got while getting more of the policy mix they’d actually like!).
Of course HoR’s polls are not what will necessarily be shown in the Senate, but there has been a narrowing of the gap between HoR’s and Senate polling for the Greens. An interesting note here is that the Green vote tends to ‘track’ between HoR’s and Senate (there has tended to be a relatively consistent gap between these votes across a range of electorates – certainly between 1993 – 2001) while the Democrats could see themselves getting a solid and consistent Senate vote with their HoR’s vote going all over the place. The worry for Greens is that the gap between the HoR’s and Senate vote is narrowing…
I cant bet money on myself or the party but a no money bet i will take with you YLU
CEOs leeches? I read somewhere that one such person is earning something like $50?a minute. Gee thats contributing to an equal society!
# Sacha Says:
May 17th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Would anti-capitalist be a good label?
Sacha i cant be labeled
Pseph Says:
May 18th, 2007 at 9:18 am
But Adam, we all know the Left unions are a bunch of whackos anyway…
In what way?
Interesting ALP right person i met recently claimed he could fit in nicely as a member of the Libs. Is this normal of the right or is this guy a wacko?
The Australian is pushing that Fielding could / would be the big winner after the the Senate changes next year whoever wins government
Adam supports Right wing unions due to his factional alliances and beliefs. I support left wing unions as 1. I belong to one 2. We are active in many areas and actions 3. We underpin the YR@W ( if the AMWU was similar to the SDA then the marginal seat campaign would have been much weaker ) 4. The AMWU in general has more in common with Greens policies than the ALP.
I dont know what its like in other states but the SDA seem to turn up to the YR@W day of actions only occasionally,But i will admit when they do turn up its in good numbers
Re: The Greens winning a senate seat in the ACT.
The quota is 33% and given the current polls, the real question is how low can the Liberal vote go. My guess is that the rusted on Liberal vote is at least 25% and any primary vote above that makes a 1:1 split highly likely.
At every election since the seats were created in 1975, there has been a story that the split would be something other than Liberals would lose their seat ( who remembers John Gorton trying to get back into the Senate?). However, a quick look at Adam’s site shows that in the 12 elections since then the vote has gone to the second count on only 2 occassions. In one Rick Farley (democrat) had 20% when the delightful Margaret Reid passed the quota. In 1983 the 2nd seat was between the Liberal and the 2nd ALP candidate ( Labor’s primary vote was 54%).
The result this will be 1:1 but if the ALP can get a 55% primary there is a slight possibilty of Labor getting both seats. The Greens would need a primary vote in the low 20s to be in contention and I have not seen any evidence that this is likely.
If the Coalition loose less than 2 Senate seats then there will be a double dissolution, meaning that Fielding could well loose his seat.
A double dissolution would also mean at least 6 Green Senators (probably 7).
If Fielding is the only way thay Labor can get bills through the Senate without the coalition then there will probably be a double dissolution anyway.
Evan: Re: MCLEODS’ DAUGHTERS and BAST*RD BOYS
At least they’ve left Big Brother and Play School alone for a few days!!!
So are we all pleased that the National Tally Room has been saved?
Tom.. A double dissolution would almost certainly see FFP senators from SA, Qld and possibly Vic get up. They poll almost a DD quota without preferences. Certainly they will all poll above half a DD quota and very much in court.
I am not sure that either major party would be keen on a double dissolution. With 12 senators in each state, a DD makes the dilution of seats and power far less predictable for either party. A 1/2 senate and reps election within 2 years is, I believe, more likely.
If Labor win the House but not the Senate a double dissolution would be odds on. Don’t forget Labor would not have to win the Senate with a double dissolution. All they need is more members than the combined opposition in both the House and Senate. After such an election there would be a joint sitting of parliament. You would expect the Liberals would be in disarray at the time of the dissolution and governments are rarely thrown out after one term let alone just 18 or so months.
Yes, I agree, Gary Bruce. If Labor does end up winning I think we can expect to see a DD even by the end of 2008. Much will depend on how the Coalition Opposition behave. Past experience of a Labor government with a hostile Senate (eg Whitlam, Scullin) does not bode well. The Libs will still be in shock at the defeat and will in their hearts feel that the new Rudd government does not have real legitimacy, that the election was a “protest vote gone wrong”. They will feel if they can force a DD, that they will win it, and that the natural order will be restored. However, you would imagine that any Rudd government would be re-elected.
This second loss would devastate the Liberal Party. They would be out of office everywhere (though they could possibly pick up WA in 2009) and this has the obvious effect of draining the party of talent. No one likes a loser after all. This is where the ALP has an advantage. When Labor is out of office, people can play politics in the union movement, whereas for the Right, they will drift back to the law, the boardroom and the farm. Moreover, any party suffers after being dominated by one person for so long (eg post-Thatcher Tories, post-Menzies Libs, post-Mitterand Socialists etc). This year’s election is perhaps more important for the Liberals than they realise.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves. They are still the government at the moment, and that carries its own advantages.
If the objective was to repeal the IR laws a DD would do the trick. Labor would not hold a majority, but combined with the Greens and FF they would. Then they just have to wait to the next election to try and claw back support and more senators.
It just depends how anxious they are to repeal these laws.
Unless the Labor vote holds to the excessive levels currently seen in the polls, Tasmania is probably the only state where the ALP can reasonably expect to claw back a seat from the coalition with Brown getting his seat at the expense of the Libs.
This will leave the Senate in the hands of Fielding et al, which should mean that the ALP will get the IR laws repealed, thus diluting the case for a DD.
If the Coalition lose only one Senate seat then they can still block anything they like (unless the floor is crossed) because they would have half the Senate.
You are correct Tom, such a vote would resolve in the negative. It looks as though the ALP will have the choice of exchanging preferences with FFP above the Greens or head back to the polls with a DD in order to repeal Work choices.
The big question of course is would the Lib and Nat senators want to fight a dd or would they forgo their ir laws? I believe if Labor wins the next election it will be on the strength of the community’s opposition to the IR laws. Woe be tide if they then have to fight a DD on those same laws. With a weakened party the result would be very unpleasant. Discretion maybe the better part of valour for these senators.
oakeshott country, Senate terms are fixed to exactly six years. There is no way there can be a half Senate election until July 2010, and if one were held then, the new Senators wouldn’t take up their seats until July 2011. If a Prime Minister Rudd should call an early election, it would mean separate House and Senate elections.
The only way to get an early Senate election is through a double dissolution. There will be one, unless the Liberals win or crash and burn.
In a double dissolution election the quota is cut in half to 7.7%.
So let’s look into what would happen…
So in a DD the Greens would win a Senate Seat in every state, and two seats in Tasmania, ie 7 seats total. The Greens would be happy with this.
Far from Family First being wiped out, as someone above mentioned, they’d probably win 3 or 4 seats.. SA, QLD, Vic are definites + maybe Tasmania.
Family First got 4% in the Victorian election, so an extra 3% of Coalition, DLP etc preferences would see them over the line.
Steve Fielding would have some friends to sit with in the parliament cafeteria.
The CDP (Fred Nile) would enter the Senate in NSW plus perhaps another CDP in WA.
Pauline would also take a seat in Queensland very easily. She got 4% and ONP 3% last election.
So an interesting senate all round!
Eh, the democrats are polling the same as the greens in SA and about equal to FF in QLD. It looks like it could be a real hodge-podge of parties after the election (esp if they can break the coalition hold on the thing) – good for labor as it would mean plenty of options.
Bill Weller wrote “Interesting ALP right person i met recently claimed he could fit in nicely as a member of the Libs. Is this normal of the right or is this guy a wacko?”
Bill, the world isn’t black and white. There are all kinds of subtleties.
I think that you might also find that many people in the ALP right are very pro-union and thus would probably not join the Liberal Party.
I thought about the Dems..
They are going to get 2%.. not enough.
Family First always get a higher vote than the polls indicate, the Dems always lower.
Why ? Booth Workers and Advertising. Family First have both, the Dems have neither.
What would a loss mean for the ALP in terms of likely policies or direction by 2010 – 14 years since Labor last held power and 17 years since Australia elected a Labor government.
IR wouldn’t be the only issue that the ALP would crave a DD over.
They would almost certainly call an election on the back of the recent changes to the electoral laws. Repealing all the government changes since 2004.
From the tone of recent press releases this is an absolute certainty. A DD looks a sure thing if the opposition win the election this year. I’ll tip March 2009.
Mr Speaker,
Don’t count on FF getting DLP preferences.
And isnt it that the futher right you go the more racist and homophobic you are?