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”.
futher = further
Lots of people could fit as easily in the ALP as they would in the Libs. The vast majority of legislation is passed with the consent of both parties (simply because its smart, common sense stuff).
FF’ers could fit into both parties relatively easy. So could a lot of Democrats.
And regards the left-right spectrum, its good for a nice look, but stereotyping the right as a pack of bigots is just prejudice in action.
Hmm Bill the left-right spectrum isn’t that useful in a modern world. For one, it really needs at least two axis. Have a look at politicalcompass.org if you haven’t already, you’ll see what I mean.
I am member of the Liberal Party but I can thank of plenty of ALP politicians whom I am to the left of, at least on “social issues”. Indeed, I am way to the left of the SDA on things like gay rights.
But I also am pretty neo-liberal when it comes to economic issues. So I sit happily in the Liberal Party. But I guess I’d fit well into Labor too, maybe even the Democrats if they hadn’t gone so far left in the last few years. I definetely would not fit in with Family First (too religious), The Greens (too socialist/anarchist for the lack of a letter term) or One Nation (racist, agarian socialist, you name it).
I guess the point I’m trying to make is, there is plenty of overlap in the middle.
Alexander McLeay,
Good to see your still active in politics, you must be at least 240 now.
Thanks, I had forgotten that but I still think a dd is a risky proposition for a party that has only just got back into power.
It is extremely difficult to envisage a DD happening before the second half of 2008.
1. A DD before July 2008 would see the bottom half of the Senators with their terms back-dated to 1 July 2007 (Section 13 of the Constitution). This is likely to be pretty unattractive for a government.
2. The Bills most probably will have to be very complex. Look how long it took Andrews to get Work Choices going. Bills intended as DD triggers cannot be amended subsequently (except by accepting Senate amendments – Section 57). So extra care is needed before rolling them up to the Senate. It would be amazing if the Bills were ready by March 2008.
3. Three months have to elapse after the Senate’s rejection or failure to pass. With not a lot of imagination, the Opposition in the Senate could string out the failure to pass to, say, four months. That takes us to the end July. Then add an election period.
It is not hard to get to September 2008 before a Joint Sitting seems practicable.
Bill Weller,
its amusing you saying right wingers are predjudiced when the comment displays your own predjudices against right wingers.
its my view, and im a member of the right, is that all predjudice is bad, but people are entitled to their own opinion regardless of whether they are haters or not.
“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.”
Wouldn’t bite the hand that feeds them would they? Most of them are facists and would have been right at home in the NSDAP especially in its early days and quite comfortable later. What they are after is a sinecure and the current ALP/Union structure provides just that for these company men.
There no doubt that some on the right of the ALP could fit into the Liberal Party, but thats more to do with the fact that this Country’s politics is mostly centrist compared to European and North American.
Not to be taken seriously,
Do you want to justify your statement that “most” of those on the right in the ALP are “facists” or do you want to confirm the rightness of your choice of screen name?
Andrew i said
May 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
And isnt it that the further right you go the more racist and homophobic you are?
You said
its amusing you saying right wingers are prejudiced when the comment displays your own prejudices against right wingers.
Is it not a fact that the far right are racist? I did not say you or any other ALP right faction is racist. I am just pointing out that the further right a party is / goes the more it tends to be that. Thats not to say the left hasnt been racist either and with my background i would have suffered under both Hitler and Stalin
But people i work with that always vote ALP also have very conservative rightist views to the point of scariness. I can see how a leader in Hitler could with a small amount of manipulation build support. Look how Howard, Bush and co demonised not only a religion but a race as well ( very similar to Hitler and the Jews ) After sept 11 people i knew had a huge hatred for Iraqis , Arabs and Muslims in general ( and any other that had their appearance ) but this has mellowed to the point where now they see the USA as the problem being war hungry, imperialist and greed. The Right left pendulum has moved as far right as possible and over the next decade will start to swing back. I believe that the Libs will be the first to move left out of the major parties to be a viable alternative especially at state level.
Poll in the West Australian today showing Govt in front 51-49 two-party preferred – just up from 50-50 in March.
Small sample (409), but other questions canvassed included IR policy with big shift away from support for Rudd’s IR position back towards the government. However, 40 p/c apparently still don’t think the government’s “fairness” package is fair either.
Rudd/Howard tied on 44 as preferred leader.
At 51-49, both Hasluck and Stirling would go back to ALP, and Swan/Cowan would be retained with improved margins. For all the talk about WA, it must be remembered that Coalition is defending 55.4-44.6 2PP in the West. Henry and Keenan hold their seats by two per cent or less.
Also, interesting Morgan phonepoll this week. Preferred PM, Rudd increased lead on Howard. Not surprisingly, Costello towelled Swan and Downer thumped McClelland. But Abbott was neck-and-neck with Roxon as preferred health, and Julia wholloped Joe as preferred IR.
Poll in the West Australian today showing Govt in front 51-49 two-party preferred – just up from 50-50 in March.
If this keeps moving in Howards favor and with the time zones the election might not be decided to late in the evening. I still think Howard will win the election but by a very small margin
The good news is the Greens are holding their vote despite the massive move to Ruddism. It is obvious that the so called soft left is not that soft after all and when the two parties move closer in the polls the Green vote will rise
From another blog
So rather than saying that Work Choices is the downfall of Howard, the
more meaningful response is that Work Choices Lite IS any future Rudd
Labor government and what we have in play is an argument over “my Work
Choices” versus “your Work Choices”.
I also note
that the Greens are holding up in the polls which suggest to me that
the divide isn’t as sharp as you’d think because a two way split would
sandwich the Greens support base much more.
from the same blogger and blog
is that Howard has made the same
mistake that Hawk made in 1984 and offered a long, in this case 5
month long, election campaign which put the ALP under intense scrutiny
back then.
Already that game is afoot and what happened in 84 was that after a
time the big boys had nothing new to offer which gave the NDP a
political opening — a great free kick — the likes of which has not
been offered again.
Rudd’s problem is that the more Choices Lite is workshopped the closer
it will become to the patented version and the less option he will
have of differentiating the ALP from the Coalition.Thats’ the dynamic
in play isn’t it? Here we will go to a poll where the differences
between the two major parties are probably going to be less than for
very many years.
dave riley
Makes for a very interesting few months
Black Jack, great analysis of DD dates. What do people think is the chance of a 2008 DD if Rudd squeaks in but gets a Coalition senate? How hypothetical is this conversation getting??? 🙂 That’s what makes blogs great!
I think fair to high (say 75%) because if the Libs lose government they will crack, giving Labor a window to capitalise.
Perhaps we can set up a type of “countdown to midnight clock” where we move it closer or further away depending on how likely a DD is…
dembo Says:
Perhaps we can set up a type of “countdown to midnight clock†where we move it closer or further away depending on how likely a DD is…
Sounds a great idea
“And isnt it that the futher right you go the more racist and homophobic you are?”
“And isnt it that the futher right you go the more racist and homophobic you are?”
This all depends on what one means by “right”. If you equate the “left-right” idea with relative amounts of govt regulation of economic behaviour, there is no reason why people who are more “right” would be more racist and homophobic. Indeed, as is obvious in the blogsphere, there are many people who describe themselves as “economically and socially liberal” or classical liberals or libertarians who also self-describe themselves as part of “the right”.
This question is moreso indicative of a fairly unsubtle worldview, and I certainly don’t want to have people with black and white views of the world in the federal parliament.
There’s a suggestion that independent Peter McDonald will challenge
Tony Abbott in Warringah. I think that’s a contest worth watching. I
don’t think Labor could beat Abbott but an independent like McDonald
just might.
One nation and FF both showed signs of right wing racism and homophobia respectively yet One Nation is anti Globalisation and FF showed that it could consider the family and not support work choices. The rise of Hansonism years ago showed that many Australians are racist and to counter her popularity Howard had to take on some of her views. So i believe their is a basis of Right wing racism Left wing multiculturalism with many grey areas underneath as you have suggested Sasha
Black Jack:
I don’t read the constitution that way.
From http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par2cha1.htm
I read that as, “the senate decides the rules on which senators are two termers and which are one termers”, ie no official rules layed down, it is decided by vote.
I remember Antony Green writing a detailed account of the deal arrived at between the Dems and Labor after the last DD in 1987 on senate terms.. hmm can’t find it..
The coalition and labor could vote together and just say the first six elected in each state get six year terms, since it would wipe out all the minor parties, however since that would lead to labor domination (by 19 to 17?) I can’t see the coalition supporting this move. They want to be able to have senate inquiries to embarass the government.
The army of minor parties would support any move that meant they get two term senators.
The fair democratic method of determining two term senators after a DD would be giving two terms to any senator who would have been elected under a normal half senate election using the same vote percentages and GVTs.
Self interest, the numbers, and what they can get away with, will (of course), be the chief determinates of what actually happens.
From the same section (13) of the constitution.
For the purpose of this section the term of service of a senator shall be taken to begin on the first day of July following the day of his election, except in the cases of the first election and of the election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken to begin on the first day of July preceding the day of his election.
The short term senators begin their term on the preceding July 1. Their term are therefore always less than 3 years and as in May 1974 can be closer to 2. Given the reluctance to have a separate 1/2 senate election (none since 1970 and only 3 in total) this may effectively shorten the term of the house after a DD. Another reason they occur rarely.
Rubbish bill. People who like left-wing (or right-wing) economics can like or dislike multiculturalism. Some conservative people who like free markets like more socially homogeneous societies (eg less multiculturalism) while some are perfectly happy with people being free to move country.
In any event, the Liberal Democratic Party supports socially liberal and economically liberal policies. They would certainly describe themselves as right-wing.
The fact that some political parties have particular policies doesn’t prove a point. As someone suggested, why not look at a 2-axis view: eg one axis being more or less socially liberal and the other axis being more or less economically liberal. In fact, why only have 2? Why not have 3, or 4, or many more? Projecting things onto a unidimensional scale can have the same effect as putting blinkers on one-self.
Regarding Greens prospects:
-I would be extremely surprised if the Greens falls to 3 senators (ie. Kerry loses and no new senators are elected).
-I would be confident we will have Bob re-elected along with another, I would say WA best chance, followed by Vic then NSW, with QLD & SA equal behind that.
-So I’m confident of 2 senators, and wouldn’t be surprised if we got 3, and not shocked if we got 4. Truth be told there is no state where we can’t win, it’s just that I can’t imagine us being lucky enough and successful enough to win in all.
I reckon that if the Greens stay still or go backwards (or even only gain one) then the Coalition will keep Senate control. I reckon if we win a 4-2 split in any states the Greens will win one in those states, and that will need to happen for the ALP to win control. Of course, it’s possible a stronger Greens performance will come at the expense of the ALP (indeed, makes more sense than the opposite) and thus not assist in taking away Coalition control.
Regardless of how we do, I would expect the chances of a DD being 50-50 if the Coalition keeps Senate control but loses the House, with the election probably before mid-09. In that case, I would expect to see a bounce in the Greens vote, not enough to win 2 senate seats in any mainland state, but enough to win 1 per state plus 2 in Tassie.
And I wouldn’t rule out us winning in the ACT. I believe the Dems almost won in 1998, and I would expect the Liberals to do worse this time. Even if they improve in the states, a left-wing place like Canberra may well stay with them so far behind as they are now.
Re: Western Australian Poll Results.
Just shows how badly Howard is doing in the rest of the country.
Ben: “I reckon if we win a 4-2 split in any states”
Yep, and people say the Green’s are just a Labor cheersquad…
A DD requires a ‘trigger’of bills being rejected. When does the trigger start? If a bill is rejected by the senate in Feb 2008 – it will be rejected by the óld’ senate – does that count? or does the trigger clock start ticking only when a bill is rejected by the ‘new’ senate – post July 1 2008. An understanding of this will go a long way towards determining when a DD can be held.
If we look at previous DDs – the closest to a previous election was 1951 – 9 months into the new senate term , 1974 was just marginally less close. 1975 does not count as because the previous election was a DD, there was a ‘new’senate immediately. 1983 and 1987 were years into the term so plenty of time to build up the triggers.
You can start to see the triggers for a DD already if Ruddy wins – changes to Workchoices would be one, and changes to the Future Fund would be another. Though the trigger may be a formality, by the 1987 election the Australia Card was dead despite being the trigger, the reasons for the DD are high stakes politics. For the libs not to reject changes to Workchoices would be odd (and to some extent hypocritical) despite Rudd having a ‘mandate’. Labor would be on more dangerous political ground playing with changes to the Future Fund – the Libs can take the high ground on that one. I cannot see the libs playing into ALP hands by rejecting changes to electoral laws – the stakes would be too high.
BTW, what was the trigger in 1983? can anybody remember? I still think going early was a piece of monumental stupidity on Malcolm Fraser’s part. It says a lot about the man’s poltical judgment.
Peter McDonald has previously run against Abbott as an Independent – 2001 or 2004 Election? He didn’t do too well, as I recall.
And, that part of Sydney seems to have swung back to the Liberals, based on recent State Election results, local outrage over the Labor State Government’s decision not to widen the Spit Bridge etc.
Western Australia: if the ALP retains its existing seats, and wins back Stirling and Hasluck – that’d be a good result for them.
Agreed, a 51 – 49 split the Gov’t’s way in WA is actually good news for Labor, it means a 4.5% swing to them. On those results, that’s Stirling and Hasluck in the bag.
On another note, what do ppl think of Labor’s chances in Vic? I know conventional wisdom has it that Labor are at their high water mark, not least because they require at least a 5% swing to snare just one seat. But consider this, a 6% will see them bag 4 seats (Corangamite, McMillan, Deakin & La Trobe) with another 0.5% on top of that granting them rights to McEwen. With the strength of Labor in the opinion polls these days, a 6.5% swing to Labor can’t be discounted outright. So, can Labor take up to 5 seats in Vic in this election?
The Greens have been more critical of the ALP than any mainstream party. But when you look at federal politics at the moment it’s pretty obvious that our policies are served by Labor defeating the Coalition, whether you’re looking at IR or Climate Change or a dozen other things. But we’re clearly not a “cheer squad”.
Peter McDonald scored a worthy 44.3% of the two candidate preferred count against Abbott in 2001.
But he’s now been out of state parliament for eight years. So one might assume his profile has accordingly diminished.
But he’s mayor of Manly, so he’ll still have quite a high profile locally.
Pseph ask about Victoira.
About a month ago I saw a poll which scored a 10% to the ALP, this would do serious damage to the Liberal Party.
Considering the feedback I’m getting from people whom live in blue blooded Liberal areas, I think a big swing is on.
I’m not 100% sure but I think it might have been a newspoll
Am I right that in 2004, the big swing against Labor in Victoria was largely a result of a protest vote against tolls on the Scoresby Freeway – at least in South East Melbourne seats?
According to Ten News, another poll is coming out tomorrow – in the Fairfax newspapers?
I don’t think many of the centre-right voters that supported the Democrats would want such an overtly left-wing party as the Greens with the balance of power.
I agree with Peter. There will be no 4-2 left splits as the Greens can’t shift rightwing votes the way the dems could.
To Evan,
Yep, but there was also a sizable swing to the Liberal Party in the Northern and Western suburbs, and rural Victoria, with Bendigo nearly falling to the Liberals.
If only Tasmania had another Brian Harradine to take a seat from the Liberals and shift the Senate against Work(FILL THE GAP).
Try Jacquie Petrusma of Family First. She is probably the closest thing to Briane Harridine that you can get.
# Ray Says:
May 20th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Try Jacquie Petrusma of Family First. She is probably the closest thing to Briane Harridine that you can get.
We don’t need religious extremists in parliament, the mental homes are full of ex AOG members
Bill said:
then Bill said:
tsk tsk double standards Bill. I dub thee a religious demoniser.
BMW you are right there were big swings to the Libs last time in a lot of Victorian seats. There was a very strong disparity between inner suburban seats and outer suburban – areas with trams compared to beyond the trams if you like. I can understand a mood for change – and to some extent I think a change to Peter Costello may have satisfied that mood. But getting back to what we have … My gut feeling is that there may be big swings in seats that the ALP already have .. Lalor for instance, Julia Gillard has a majority of 8.8%, 10 – 11% on top of that is quite possible, even likely, 9 – 10% in Holt the same. Also the libs have not lost a Vic seat with a sitting member since 1993 – is that the reason they keep endorsing Stewart Macarthur?
Getting back to the lib marginals – Deakin is the most marginal at 5% but Phil Barresi works very hard and has a high profile, demographically the seat may be moving to the libs as well, as the teachers (including retired) in etc. (of whom there seem to be lots around here drop off) and are replaced by people who can afford 500k++ houses in Blackburn and now even Mitcham. Mike Symon the ALP candidate does not seem impressive, I have been ticked off for calling him a hack before, but Bill Shorten he aint. I can see it being close but Phil holding on, unless the big swing is on. Corangamite I see as a real possibility for Labor – I must check with Adam’s guide to see who the candidate is – Stewart Macarthur is an old codger who has hung about too long but the Geelong water supply may turn into an issue as Bracks and Thwaites have boxed themsleves into a corner by not providing additional supply and this could be used against labor. If workchoices had been so effective in the Victorian election campaign, Labor would not have lost Morwell and Narracan, both state seats where that sort of issue should resonate. Again,like Deakin, unless the very big swing is on.
La Trobe is probably more likely than Deakin or McMillan. Jason Wood was seen as a good fit for the seat in 2004 and gained a reasonable swing, but it is a classic mortgage belt seat so workchoices may resonate in that sort of seat. Is there a local out there who can give us all an idea?
I would have thought that the ALP would fancy their chances in McEwen rather than some of these other seats – is a more northern / western rather than eastern seat and is growing very fast at the ALP end – Fran Bailey is no youngster either so if she wins, will this be her last term. She did however get a big swing last time.
Lastly, since the 1980’s the Vic Libs have done well at selecting good marginal seat MPs so it is possible that the ALP could get a 6% even 7% swing – giving them a statewide 2pp of 55 – 57% and not win a single seat – especially if they pile up the votes in the seats they have already – and you can bet that the bean counters are not going to pump much into even the most marginal ALP seat.
here’s the thing, if there was a 10% swing to the ALP in Victoira, and the likes of Barrasi (Deakin), Billson (Dunkley), Wood (La Trobe) and Bailey (McEwan) have only small swings against for they are popular then I wonder what may happen in a seat like Kooyong where the local MP is invisable to most except those whom read the Age.
If good marginal seat MP’s are holding up, then where is the 10% seat coming from.
AOG/FF are extremists just as fanatics of any religion are. I did not state Christians are extremists only AOG/FF but Bush and co demonised the whole Muslim religion. Sorry Speaker but you haven’t got me there
blackburnpseph…
As Black Jack said earlier, a DD can be triggered when the senate fails to pass a bill (there only need be 1 bill, and it does not have to be rejected), then fails to pass it again after a period of 3 months.
The constitution does not in this respect recognise an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ senate, so a bill could fail to pass before July and then again after July and the conditions will be met. I think there could be ample time for a bill to fail to pass twice before July… not much drafting would be needed to simply revoke (probably not the correct technical term) ‘WorkWhatever’ legislation and simply reinstate the preceding legislation, even with a few clauses to allow for interim measures.
Then again as others have said, this kind of talk is putting the cart well and truly before the horse.
Cheers.