As you’re all no doubt aware, the Prime Minister has just held a press conference announcing the election will be held on November 24. Didn’t hear the whole thing, but after all the justified outrage about the government’s changes to electoral laws, I am surprised to learn that the legal formalities will be conducted on a timetable that will leave the rolls open until October 22.
UPDATE: Those who have had time to think about this point out that the writs will be issued on Wednesday, so the deadline for new enrolments is 8pm that evening. The October 22 date invoked by the Prime Minister is the closing date for amendment to existing enrolments.
UPDATE 2: An AEC press release announces: “If you’re not on the electoral roll and you’re entitled to enrol, you must fill in an enrolment form immediately and return it to an AEC office by 8pm, Wednesday 17 October. If you’re already on the roll but still need to update your address details, to ensure your vote you must complete an enrolment form and return it to an AEC office by 8pm Tuesday 23 October”.
No Edward, that doesn’t cut it. A lawyer is not a “union boss.” A staffer is not a “union boss.” A party official is not a “union boss.” The Liberal statement that “70% of the Labor Party front bench are/were union bosses†is simply untrue.
Edward @ 630
I had the honor to be a minor union boss in the 1980s. At the time, I was working, day in, day out, in the particular industry. At the coal face, so to speak. Your comments and lack of understanding of basic principles offend me, my wives, my former colleagues, their children. May I suggest raw sliced garlic on good bread or, failing that, Dr De Witt’s Liver Pills. You will feel better after a good purge.
Adam
You are being disengenuous about party backgrounds.
Your 43% includes those of the ALP front bench who were party officials (Swan, Smith) , staffers (Macklin and others). There are those also and the ALP are guiltier than the coaltion on this front (though the latter are not blameless) of the ‘family ties’- Crean,McClelland,Fitzgibbon, as well as those of the recent past Beazley, Hoare (not on the front bench). Children,siblings, spouses of other politicians have every right to run for office but the ALP in the last 10 – 15 years have taken it a bit far!
However,it mustbe said that the ALP are going into this election with a much broader gene pool than the recent past.
ALP 70% Union Bosses………..Libs 100% utter ba-stards”.
Apparently (didn’t see it) The Federal Govt has donated $500,000 to Telethon – I believe the Feds have donated to the Appeal.
Edward, the closest thing this country has to a hereditary peer is none other than your own Alexander Downer (or Dolly the Sheep, as Keating called him).
He’s third generation inbred parliamentary material.
Reckon you’d better check the pH in your own gene pool before saying Labor’s needs a bit of chlorination.
Derek,
Given your background, you would not qualify under the principles of Labcest.
EStJ
ESJ obviously has never been, nor ever fears being forced to become, an employee.
Current working Australia’s experience with unions would likely be exactly as described above – it’s the person who has more empathy for the many than most. (The building industry is a little more robust)
Hence the polls.
Sure I want to see JHW pay for the workchoices mess, but if pride is the only thing stopping the Liberal party from changing their tune to provide an electable alternative, well, then they’re going to pay.
They will be forced to change their tune eventually – what will ESJ’s position be then? (Freezing cold? Lacking cred?)
If Newspoll is 56/44 then that ruins the pattern – two 56s in a row!
I can’t see how Labor can pick up 10 seats in Qld if 4 marginals return 51/49. I wonder what they call marginal?
Blackburnpseph Says:
“You are being disengenuous about party backgrounds.”
I am not discussing party backgrounds. I am discussing the Liberal claim that “70% of the Labor Party front bench are former union bosses,” which I have proved to be untrue. Unless you can challenge me on that question, butt out.
Blackburnpseph, it still doesn’t change the fact that party officials and ‘hereditary peers’ are not union bosses. You can’t include them in the 70% union bosses figure. An industrial lawyer that represents union clients is also not a ‘union boss’.
We’re arguing semantics here though… Adam’s point seems to be the Liberal Party are being deliberately misleading by quoting a 70% figure for ‘union bosses’ on the ALP front bench. Edward appears to be making an argument that it doesn’t matter whether they are or are not union bosses, they are still unrepresentative.
Two completely different strains of argument with both people not really answering each others points.
648
Edward StJohn Says:
October 14th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Bottom Line: 87% hack factor
….
ESJ, we can see you are a coalition hack-in-the-making and your hack-envy is showing. Why don’t you take up golf or tennis or boating instead. These pursuits would be much more rewarding than moaning about the supposed failings of your supposed opponents.
Canberra Boy at 632:
Absolutely, BUT… all of Griffin’s union officialdom was pre-amalgamation. So we are all right…
The libs have actually killed off the union bogie with IR reform, not just work choices but removal of secondary boycotts, etc.
The union bogie worked well when we had ‘strikes’ – remember them. No trains for weeks, queuing for petrol, blackouts,no beer at Xmas. It just doesn’t happen any more.
Frankly, the major union assault on the public consciousness these days is the horror of Sharan Burrow’s hair! The libs have pulled the rug out from under themselves.
Evan at 640. The original ESJ died some time back (’94?). Our Edward has confessed he is not that ghost.
Speaking of which…
“Edward StJohn Says:
51/49 2PP in Qld for Galaxy is still good news for the ALP.
It represents a 8% 2PP swing. JWH needs to get it under 6% in QLD to have any chance of survival.”
Thank you Edward! I’ve been trying to catch up with this thread, got to the the Galaxy stuff, and waited for someone to state the obvious. Wonderful that it was your good self!
The highest ever TPP Labor vote in Queensland is 50.7%. If 51/49 is uniform the ALP will pick up seven seats in QLD. I think they’ll be happy with that.
Unless the dreaded Narrowing kicks in.
I now intend transmitting this finding to the media and we’ll see if any of these lazy hacks will run it now that I’ve done their homework for them.
The 51/49 result is not state-wide. It’s restricted to 4 marginals, Bonner, Moreton, Longman and Herbert. What we can abstract from it, I don’t know. However, it certainly doesn’t look like an 8% swing, more like a 5% swing.
Blackburnpseph is absolutely correct. Nepotism is a disease afflicting both parties only Labor more so.
BO – no more pyschoanalysis? “Hack-envy”. Fortunately for me as ominod alluded to on a personal level it is irrelevant who wins the election and probably (for reasons I wont go into) a Labor win would be preferable.
I support reform in our system of politics not the current deceittful system. Surely you can see much of this is formulaic on Labor’s part? Very little substance. But I have stated this view before so I wont repeat myself.
Hey, Hey! Back from Tasting Australia and follow on. ALP ribbons in my hair. Recommend the WA truffles! Travelled on the new tram line, inaugral journey, for fun and memories.
What election?
There have been a couple of comments which ask when the election will be ‘declared’ and whether Hyacinth will have her wish of one more Christmas at Kirribilli…
Postal votes can be received up to 13 days after election day, so results are not formally ‘declared’ by the relevant Returning Officer for a House of Representatives seat before then. Counting of Senate votes takes much longer given the larger ballot papers and more complicated preference distributions.
However, the ultimate result of most national elections in recent history has usually been apparent on election night. In these circumstances, the losing Prime Minister advises the Governor-General within a few days of the election result that he/she is resigning and that the Governor-General should commission the Opposition Leader to form a government. The date on which this occurs may be partly dictated by the readiness of the Opposition to form a government. In 1972 the election was held on 2 December and Gough Whitlam famously had himself and Lance Barnard sworn in as a two-person Government on 5 December in order to implement a range of reforms immediately. When Labor won the 5 March 1983 election, the Hawke Government was sworn in on 11 March, after it became clear who was going to be in the Caucus and a Ministry was elected. The last change of government was on 11 March 1996, nine days after the election on 2 March.
The incoming Prime Minister usually allows the vanquished one a period of grace to move out of official residences. It looks extremely unlikely that Hyacinth will be at Kirribilli this Christmas.
Out of curiousity, I’ve just checked the occupations of Liberal and Labor leaders since WW2. I hope I haven’t missed any – I went from memory. But here’s how they line up…
LIBS: Menzies (lawyer), Holt (lawyer), Gorton (farmer/air force pilot), McMahon (lawyer), Fraser (farmer), Snedden (lawyer), Howard (lawyer), Peacock (lawyer), Hewson (economist/political staffer), Downer (diplomat), Howard again (lawyer).
LABOR: Curtin (union official/journalist), Chifley (train driver/union official), Evatt (lawyer), Calwell (public service clerk), Whitlam (lawyer), Hayden (policeman), Hawke (union official), Keating (public service clerk/union staffer), Beazley (university lecturer), Latham (political staffer), Beazley again (university lecturer), Rudd (diplomat/public servant).
What does it prove? Buggerall, except that the number of occupations politicians are drawn from these days is very limited.
Nine of the 21 leaders have been lawyers, only four worked for unions. You could also argue the case for Bob Hawke being a lawyer (as well as union leader), as he was an industrial advocate.
So for the vast majority of the time since World War 2, Australia has been led by lawyers. The defence rests, Your Honour.
And if you want to add the really short-term PMs…well, John McEwen was another farmer.
And hats off to Frank Forde…he was only PM for a week, but he’d worked as a teacher, railway clerk and electrical engineer before entering parliament. We need more like him…
The Labor 2PV in those four seats in 2004 was 45.9%, so a 51% 2PV represents a swing of 5.1%, which if uniform across Qld would mean only 2 Labor gains (Bonner and Moreton).
[The 51/49 result is not state-wide. It’s restricted to 4 marginals, Bonner, Moreton, Longman and Herbert. What we can abstract from it, I don’t know. However, it certainly doesn’t look like an 8% swing, more like a 5% swing.]
But how does that fit with the Newspoll suggesting 56 / 44?
Maybe this election will be won or lost in Victoria and NSW. If there are 6% swings in those two states, but only 4% or 5% in all other states and territories Labor still gets around 80 seats.
I know this is another off-topic question, but I hope some of the experts can answer this one. Is the AEC genuinely neutral? After looking at all the election sites with seat-by-seat descriptions, I was struck by teh anomaly between NT (3 seats) and ACT (2 seats). How does such a distribution get made? Who sets the rules? It looks like a cynical exercise to deny Labor a likely extra seat (3rd in ACT). Any coments? Am I missing something?
Parliament sets the rules, not the AEC.
socrates, the number of seats is determined by population. The ACT did have 3 seats for a short period of time, however the population dipped below the required amount and one seat was then removed. Nothing sinister at all. I believe the 3rd ACT seat was a Liberal seat in any case.
671
Antonio
You forgot Simon Crean.
ESJ = Troll masquerading as a real Tory. All that is asked of you is to back up your broad sweeping generalizations with some facts.
Oxford Dictionary definition of facts: “information used as evidence or as part of a report”.
ie explain how people who have provided a service for a union (ie a legal firm) are union hacks or union bosses, or even union lawyers…
Adam’s question is valid, and you have not answered it. Get serious.
I’d find that to be underwhelming, but if we look at the pendulum, those are the only two Queensland seats in the first sixteen. Herbert is #24, while Longman is #28. It’s feasible the ALP could get bigger gains elsewhere (especially with the figures NSW and Victoria have been giving). It’s also feasible that there are bigger swings in other Queensland seats.
Regarding Nick Xenophon in the SA senate contest.
Does any body know if he has a registered party? If not, will people be forced to vote below the line in order to place a vote for Nick Xenophon, a la Pauline Hanson in QLD in 2004?
If Xenophon does not find himself above the line, this could seriously harm his chances, due to a likely increase in informal votes, and people finding the process to arduous.
I’m not from SA, but am interested in the contest. If any one out there knows or could comment, it would be welcome.
I have 8% because I have taken the statewide 2PP vote from last time which was 42.9% Adam has taken the 2PP for the 4 seats which were polled.
Between 6-8% there are a considerable number of seats in QLD, provided Labor keeps above 6% swing 2PP in QLD it wins or alternatively must get higher than 5% in Vic or NSW to win.
In the Newspoll for July –Sept Labor had a 9% 2PP swing so arguably its vote may have declined 1 point or it may not be statistically significant. Either way they still have at least a 2% buffer before JWH is even in the hunt.
in grey the libs have lost the battle of the polls
in a major regional town no liberal posters were to be seen , all the best polls had a labor poster on it
is this an example of the lib’s not having enough members to do the job and is it a reflection across the nation, if so the liberals are in trouble
noticed chris pyne,s election poster has nothing on it to suggest he is representing the liberal party, it just say’s chris pyne sturt
Sky News now reporting the proposed debate next Sunday moderated by Speers is a goer. In the Great Hall with a panel of journos asking questions for 90 minutes.
No word on whether the worm has been turned.
Socrates,there are two seats in the NT. The probleam has been that the quota has been fluctuating very closely in the area where the second seat has / has not been required 1.48 – 1.52. It was politically convenient for both sides to legislate for the second seat as it went 1/1.
Territory seat numbers are based on voters rather than population.Adam is that correct?
JustAlarmed
I think I have stated my position on unions and the ALP a number of times. Broadly my views are the same as 653 BBpseph.
I dont see the point of repeating them or arguing statistics. For Example KR has stated both Bill Shorten and Greg Combet will be on his front bench – does that increase or decrease percentages, I dont care. The general point is clear – if you dont agree then so be it.
[Is the AEC genuinely neutral? After looking at all the election sites with seat-by-seat descriptions, I was struck by teh anomaly between NT (3 seats) and ACT (2 seats). How does such a distribution get made?]
There are only two seats in NT, Solomon and Lingiari, and two in A.C.T., Canberra and Fraser.
Before the 2001 election there was only one seat in N.T. There are about 100,000 enrolled voters in the N.T., that’s a bit too much for one seat.
674
socrates
Where did you get 3 seats from? The NT has 2 Reps seats, and 2 Senate seats.
“671
Antonio
You forgot Simon Crean.”
Not a hard thing to do!
It’s offical, Canberra did do a donation. Mind you it was trounced by the State govt donation 🙂
[But donations of $1.1 million from the State Government, $500,000 from the Federal Government and $1 million from Australian Capital Equity, the owners of the Seven Network as the first in a new series of business equity partnerships, helped push the total well above the target.]
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22586211-2761,00.html
Matt Price
October 14, 2007 12:00am
DURING this excruciatingly protracted election year, John Howard has done to national politics – and his once formidable brand – what the boffins who added cherry flavouring to Coca-Cola in the mid-1980s did for the famous soft drink: it was an expensive, infamous marketing disaster.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22581056-5000117,00.html
Many excited messages on my phone machine. They cannot wait!
[Many excited messages on my phone machine. They cannot wait!]
Who’s “they”?
What are they waiting for Crikey?
another 3 years of a Howard government i’m sure.
Socrates, the NT has only two House Of Reps electorates, as does the ACT. The ACT had three electorates between 1996 and 1998. The basis on which entitlement to representation is calculated and redistributions of boundaries conducted is outlined on the AEC website here.
Edward the fact is that your side of politics has been telling a big fat lie, which the media have been too lazy or gullible to ping you on. Since you can’t refute my proof that it’s a lie you dodge and obfuscate as you always do, but it’s all just bluster and isn’t fooling anyone.
3 economic tests or measures which cannot be justified on equity grounds:
1. 30% private health insurance rebate
2. 50% discount in capital gains tax
3. tax free super
all of these measures favour wealth and higher income earners. Anyone think Labor would abolish any of these 3?
Edward, I don’t know, but I’d certainly abolish the 30% private health insurance rebate. People are being sold a big con on that one.
Evan @ #656 says
Evan,
I believe there is an even better example of hereditary peerage on the
conservative side of the political fence. Fortunately this one was defeated in 2004!
Take a look at the family tree:
Maternal Great-Grandfather – Arthur Budd – MLA for Byron (1927-1944)
Maternal Grandfather – Sir Harry Budd – NSW MLC (1934 – 1978)
Paternal Grandfather – Hubert Lawrence Anthony – MP Richmond (1937-1957)
Father – John Douglas Anthony – MP Richmond (1957-1984)
Son – Lawrence James Anthony – MP Richmond (1996 – 2004)
668
Edward StJohn Says:
October 14th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Blackburnpseph is absolutely correct. Nepotism is a disease afflicting both parties only Labor more so.
…
The main trouble with the parties is that no-one will join them any more. The active membership is tiny in almost every case. This is a problem for democracy. At least the ALP can recruit new candidates from the ranks of unionists. But where does the Liberal party turn to for new blood? Consider the appalling weakness of the Liberal parliamentiary parties in the various states: they are just dismal by any measure.
I don’t think nepotism is the main reason: the public just don’t “join-in” these days as they once did: sporting, social, industrial and political associations are in decline everywhere. This is a very big problem for our political culture.
From this standpoint, the parliaments of the land have a lot to thank unions for: they have recruited, trained, supported, tutored and drilled countless new candidates for the mostly thankless demands of political competition. It does not make any sense to me to vilify people for wanting to be active in this way. No-one is saying unions are perfect, but union bashing is just senseless sloganeering: it is not a serious way to win office.