The September 6 by-elections for Mayo and Lyne initially loomed as fizzers, with Labor showing no inclination post-Gippsland to test the waters in unwinnable seats. They have instead respectively emerged as mildly and enormously interesting, thanks to the entry of non-major party players. In Mayo, housing tycoon Bob Day will bring a cashed-up campaign to bear against the Liberals as the candidate of Family First, having failed to win Liberal preselection for Mayo after unsuccessfully contesting Makin last year. Day would nonetheless have to be considered a long shot against Liberal candidate Jamie Briggs, but it’s a very different story in Lyne where independent state MP Rob Oakeshott has been rated the “clear favourite” by Antony Green. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports that Nationals polling puts his approval rating in the electorate at over 70 per cent, and says the party is concerned Labor will “direct resources to Mr Oakeshott’s campaign”.
Lyne covers a 100 kilometre stretch of coastline up to 400 kilometres north of Sydney, the main population centres being Port Macquarie (home to 33 per cent of the electorate’s population) and Taree (14 per cent). Smaller centres include Old Bar, Lake Cathie and Harrington on the coast, and Wauchope and Wingham further inland. The National/Country Party has held the seat since its creation in 1949. The electorate covers the entirety of Oakeshott’s state seat of Port Macquarie, which provides Lyne with 55 per cent of its voters. Oakeshott won Port Macquarie as the Nationals candidate at a 1996 by-election ahead of independent John Barrett, who had come within 233 votes of defeating Mark Vaile as Liberal candidate for Lyne in 1993. He was promoted to the front bench after the 1999 election, taking the sport and recreation, fisheries and ports portfolios. In March 2002 he quit the party, claiming its local branches were controlled by property developers and questioning whether the party was still relevant to an electorate transformed by tourism and demographic change. The Nationals campaigned aggressively against him during the 2003 campaign, in particular over his support for drug law reform, but he was overwhelmingly re-elected with 69.7 per cent of the primary vote. This fell slightly to 67.1 per cent at the March 2007 election, his two-candidate preferred margin down from 32.8 per cent to a still formidable 28.2 per cent.
The Nationals candidate is Rob Drew, who was mayor of Port Macquarie until the council was sacked by the state government in February. The Macleay Argus reports he won a preselection vote ahead of Taree solicitor Quentin Schneider by 48 votes to 15. State party leader Andrew Stoner was reportedly urged by “senior colleagues” to throw his hat into the ring, but perhaps sensibly decided to stay put. The prospect of an Oakeshott candidacy was a cloud on the horizon from the time of Vaile’s departure, with Oakeshott earlier threatening to run against Vaile at the 2004 election. There has also been intermittent speculation over the years that he might be enlisted by the Liberals, although this might never have been more than wishful thinking by the party. Most recently, powerbrokers including Senator Bill Heffernan approached him to contest the by-election as the Liberal candidate, hoping that his success might push the Coalition further along the road to a merger. The party has instead opted to sit out the contest, aware that its presence would only increase the already high likelihood of an Oakeshott victory.
The other thing to be noted is that win, lose or draw, Oakeshott’s candidacy will initiate a state by-election for Port Macquarie – though that is a subject for another post. While it would be open to Oakeshott to re-contest Port Macquarie, owing to what Imre Salusinszky calls “a quirk in NSW electoral law”, Oakeshott has declared that such a move would be “unfair to the community”.
Way to go Bert,
Don’t worry about the Green Haters here, they are rusted on party hacks, with snout in the trough.
The Greens bring a breath of fresh air and solutions to challenges we face.
The Greens are shaking the foundations of the 2PP Club and have shown its just a “house of cards”
The voters love The Greens (despite the lies and hate spread be MSM) and that’s what counts.
The Judge.
You say : the voters love the greens”.
I think the msm give them quite a good go.
What idiot would for vote for a party that promotes “Global Governance” as one of its priniciples and population control as one of its aims.
Whether or not you believe in man-made global warming is up to you, but to even consider introducing the measures that the greens promote would change this country for ever.
It’s good to see the DLP step up to take the ALP vote in both these bi-elections.
So lets everyone in the labor movement get behind these blokes and give them the support they need, or we may end up having “Global Governance” Population Control” and an enconomy laiden with a tax that could destroy any hope of our childrens future.
Ziggy
Yeah I know judge.
I’m always wondering why people support parties/candidates because thier family does, or stuff like that. Does anyone actually look at the policies, or lack of, and wonder if the party deserves to be worshipped?
I doubt it, and thats why the 2 party system(if anyone thinks the Nat/CLP/NLP are a seperate entity, they’ve been taking drugs for waaay to long) will fall apart sooner or later.
The 2 party system won’t fall apart. I see no evidence to support that in any case and the parties certainly will do their best to stop that happening.
Bert, I think people might take some guide from their families especially if they aren’t up to date on all the issues.
Forget about trying to learn about LIB/LAB they cant be pinned down.
Where does LAB stand on uranium, privatisation, public education,
public transport, war in Iraq, alternative energy, etc, the list goes on.
The 2PP Club deliberately try to confuse the electorate, and allow themselves to be pushed around by the lobby group offering the biggest bribes.
Follow the money here:-
http://www.democracy4sale.org/
Fortunately the message is getting through, although slowly.
If you look at the demographic of voters The Greens have great support in the younger age group.
Tasmania where The Greens have been established longest the voters have stayed with The Green into the middle age groups.
The Liberals are actually a dieing Party—biggest support in over 55
If any one wants to learn about The Greens and their policies its easy
http://greens.org.au/
I wasn’t talking about taking a guide from their family. I’m talking about those people who’s only reason for voting the way they do is because thats who their parents/so vote for.
THE JUDGE:
I have them all here….. Unbelievable how anyone can vote for them.
What about this one:
1. Global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and enviromental sustainability.
……3. The system of global governance must be reinvigorated…. Wow.
(They used to call that treason when I was a kid)
what about population:
1. Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable population ?
I know now why they refer to them as the “extreme Green” party machine.
They sound like something out of a hitler youth training manual.
(only aimed at young women)
Ziggy
ZIGGY
It’s one thing to quote, quite another to get it so wrong as to sound moronic. (And before anyone tells me off for name calling, notice Ziggy just called my friends hitler youth)
Global Governance is talking about the UN system. Is there anyone that actually thinks that works? Also the EU is Global Governance. Well, Regional Governence. They seem to be going quite well.
Population Control. This does not mean one child policy or anything like that. All it means is dont have kids for the sake of it. If you cant afford/are too young(I’m talking 14-18 as too young)/dont have the time for kids/more kids, then dont have them.
Seems sensible. If you cant afford to feed yourself, why are you having a kid?
Bert:
They are straight of the greens website.
They are the greens policys.
and yes the policys do read like something out of a hitler youth manual.
Happy.
Besides I have never elected anyone at the UN. Have you?
So why should we be accepting policy touted by an unelected body anyway.
Of course I haven’t elected anyone to the UN. People are elected to the EU. The global governance system, eg: World Bank, IMF, UN and so on need reinvigoration.
Bert:
Okay so you do support population control and unelected Global Governance.
What about this one then.
10. The education system to provide age-appropriate information about the diversity of sexuality.
Or this one.
Legislate to remove LGBTI (lesbian, Gay, bisexual,transgender or Intersex (whatever that is) people in federal legistlation.
(That why they have a minister for Intersex)
20 Fund services to promote and protect LGBTI youth (Notice to promote)
Does anyone every read policies.
Surely no one can vote for this mob.
What about you Bert ?
ziggy
Bert:
You say: “Population Control. This does not mean one child policy or anything like that. All it means is dont have kids for the sake of it”
Doesn’t really sound like a “control” then does it? I mean, as you put it, that would be in status quo rather than a policy proposal. Perhaps you mean that the “policy” is a misnomer?
If so, it surely reads badly sounding more like something the Nazi’s did quite effectively.
Having said that, some of the “principles” detailed at http://greens.org.au/node/792 sound rather more reminiscent of the old USSR!
Could folk please stop breaking Godwin’s Law?
ziggy,
Global Governance is not global government
and The Greens dont have a policy on “population control” as Burt pointed out.
The link soylent gives to The Greens policy on Population is straight forward.
The old USSR encouraged big famalies, even giving women medals for having over 10 kids.
The Greens policy is nothing like the old USSR.
[b]Bird of paradox:[/b] Godwin’s Law indeed!
I’d have thought I was pretty well on point, irrespective of any rules of the blogosphere. But a not bad as an attempted shot (but better not mention the war) 🙂
[b]judge:[/b] Did I mention radical feminism as well as the old USSR?
“inequitable distribution of wealth and power”
also ….
[i]”global and domestic social justice and equity;”
“global social justice”
“globally, to improve social and economic equity”
“increasing our contribution to programs that empower women and increase their access to a wide range of safe family planning options”
“increasing our overseas aid budget… directed to the poorest, which often include women, with a focus on … sexual and reproductive health services.[/i]
Well that would be killing the kill them if you don’t want them policy I guess.
[i]”increase the power of girls and women to determine their own reproductive lives”[/i]
Well there’s that unwanted baby theme again.
Soylent, you want < and > rather than [ and ] for your tags.
Thanks William. I’m a novice at this, and note there seems to be variations from site to site on HTML syntax, with some of it being stripped clean away (ignored).
JUDGE
Judge says:
“Global Governance is not global government”
Hmmmm thats a good one.
Judge says:
“and The Greens dont have a policy on “population control”
Doesnt your policy state this:
1. Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable population ?
As they say, sounds like , looks like
1984
Can we please wind down this discussion on the Nazism or otherwise of the Greens, or perhaps direct it to the latest federal polling thread? It’s been quite a while since anyone’s actually mentioned the Lyne by-election.
Soylent:
It certainly is a family unfriendly party eh ?
Hope my kids never get involved with a party like this. Just goes to show, most people actually think the greens are harmless or in someway an alternative.
To much about social engineering and not enough about the environment.
I think Ziggy might be right it is not unlike the hitler youth documents.
We live and learn
What do you think Soylent.
1984
1984: I don’t know about family unfriendly. Doesn’t this man sound like he’s from a good working family:
Green candidate “Lynton Vonow’s Christian upbringing has given him a strong social and environmental conscience. He is an ethical and responsible man of integrity and common sense”
The cognitive dissonance incumbent with such a position should keep him on his toes if nothing else!
He also professes to want to “make the world safe for our children ….and create ‘green collar’ jobs …. in solar, wind and tidal power”.
Nothing I could see from him about the War or Adolf.
And his party is in favour of “adoption, fostering, artificial insemination” for men & women, and (I think) intersex as well. That would be promoting families wouldn’t it 1984?
Go the windmills. Oi! Oi! Oi!
Back on topic now please.
“Lyne by-election preview”
I’d have thought some discussion regarding the policies of Mayo candidates was at least as important as the geography of the electorate detailed in your opening article.
If you want to give Green candidates (or indeed preferred others) a break, that would doubtless be your prerogative.
With respect, should I stand corrected with pursed lips?
Sorry, I failed to notice that you were discussing the Greens candidate.
Soylent:
The Candidates in this one to watch are
1. Robert Oakeshott(Ind) 2. Rob Drew and the dark horse Michael O’Donohue for the DLP.
Its a National Seat, Robert Oakeshott is an independant in the state and will now look to be favourite. The DLP Michael O’Donohue is an outsider and will gain a fair share of he ALP vote, (There’s no FF) so should pick up their vote and no CDP (so Should pick up their Vote). The DLP policies certainly will attract voters in this electorate.
The ALP are Centralists – The DLP De Centralist.
The ALP are Globalists – The DLP prefers a more mixed economy.
The ALP have deserted the bush – The DLP Vote is increasing in the Bush
(and even scored up to 2.8 in areas without any advertising at all in the 2007 senate result). Then last of all Susie Russell who would be hard to draw any preferences from this lot.
I would predict that most of the major players will preference the DLP including the fishing party (Which DLP policies cover anyway) and the independents.
If Robert Oakeshott gains 50 % then his in.
Rob Drew would be the beneficairy of preferences. (Also a good Chance)
Susie Russell will gain no preferences .
Michael O’Donohue will gain the bulk of preferences and provided he can get over Sussie Russell (this would depend on where the ALP votes goes) then he is also a chance.
Hows that sound Soylent.
Ziggy
Ziggy
Sounds good to me. You may be over optomistic in regard to the DLP vote, but it is possible for them to go well if they do well in preference deals with other candidates.
Most of the other parties are now realising how dangerous and divisive the Greens are, and are putting them last.
Remember Peter Kavanagh DLP won a Upper House seat in Victoria with less than 3% of the vote after receiving a good preference flow. But you have to remember he gained the last of 5 seats, and it is different when there is only one seat on offer.
Still if the DLP get a good preference flow and finish in the top 3, it would be an outstanding result for them.
Maybe voters will start looking at DLP policies and vote accordinly, and forget the old unfounded biases and hatred that prevented them voting for them in the past.
Michael O’Donohue is unknown in the electorate. His party is unknown in the electorate. He has no publicity in the electorate. He is uncontactable and has not responded to an invitation to the one candidate forum that is being held. Any ALP voters who are old enough to remember the DLP WILL NOT vote for Michael O’Donoghue (what a bizarre suggestion).
The thought of the DLP suddenly re-appearing after 35 years in a Lyne By-election has the political cognizetti scratching their head in amazement. The ALP vote will go overwhelmingly to Oakeshott, a smaller proportion to Suzie Russell.
If Michael O’Donohue gets more than 5% of the primary I will walk down Horton St naked.
midnorthcoast:
Well you better start getting fit, and dont forget to post it on the web.
The 2007 Senate for lyne had
DLP 1.56% (with no advertising whatsoever)
CDP 2.66% Should pick these up
Family First: .72% (should pick up these)
Total 4.94% before he starts.
The DLP has a very strong stance against the Carbon Emission Trading Scheme as well. That should pull votes from across the board. Both from the ALP and Coalition.
I still say that the order is as i prevously stated.
1. Oakeshott (ind Nat)
2. Rob Drew (Nat)
As there is no ALP and looking at the demographics I can’t see Sussie Russell getting too many preferences…. Can You ?
3. Considering that DLP won one and almost 2 Seats( 2006 in Victoria) with ALP preferences I cant understand why you would think that the DLP would not draw ALP votes. The DLP membership particularly the younger ones still predominately come out of the ALP. They are both Labor parties with the differences I listed above. The DLP polls well in regional centres as well so the setting is ideal.
Admitingly he wont have the funding of the cashed up greens, but the demographics of this electorate certainly favour him.
As I said:
That leaves the Dark horse Michael O’Donoghue.
Perhaps you need to look again
Ziggy
The differnce in Victoria was a huge advertising campaign, plus a large group of the ALP pointing out that it is a different DLP.
Also the simple fact is the DLP went AWOL in NSW but stayed around in Vic.
Michael O’Donoghue does not live within 100 kms of the electorate. If he gets any publicity at all, this will be the one fact that will stand out. If the DLP have 5% support in Lyne surely they could have picked a local as candidate.
BERT & MIDNTHCOAST
Bert…. The DLP is in a rebuilding stage and where and when they stand is up to each state branch and the federal executive.
It has stood candidates in every Federal election since the split. (maybe not nsw or SA where they are contesting these bi elections).
Yes the party is a different party today then the one you may remember, but that shouldn’t stop the new members from having a go when and if they wish.
Isn’t that a political partys role, to stand for parliament ? They last held a state seat in NSW I believe in 1978 and did achieve a good result in their first go at the senate in 30 years last year.
midnorthcoast:
What has he got you worried? He’s a contract teacher and has moved around and has a rural background. The party still attracts younger members from the ALP and I dont see any reason why they wont support the DLP do you ? Or are you still along the lines of 30 years ago ?
Dont forget to post the picture.
Ziggy
Ziggy, I would certainly like to know more about him because I have heard nothing here except for a low whistle from elderly ALP members when they hear that the DLP has suddenly reappeared after abandoning NSW in 1974. For all I know he may be another Frank Reid, an 80+ pensioner living in Sydney who was the AAFI candidate at the last state election. When he was eventually tracked down he denied any knowledge of his candidature and claimed his signature had been forged on the nomination. Obviously the “New DLP” haven’t been able to attract younger members of the ALP in the electorate or one of them would have stood.
Honestly, I am very interested in what these people who call themselves the DLP stand for. The old DLP could be interpreted in a number of ways: 1. a product of the cold war 2. A staging post for middle class catholics on their migration to conservative politics 3. A conservative front whose sole aim was the denial of government to Labor. Certainly the old DLP never had a chance at government and its policies played little part in its electoral appeal. None of these interpretations are now vaild – so why do these people call themselves the DLP? What ever their policies wouldn’t another name now be appropriate?
You obviously have intimate knowledge of Michael O’Donoghue (are you he?), so you may be able to tell us if he is a a willing candidate and will be gracing the electorate with a visit during the campaign. This forum seems to be the DLPs main publicity for the by-election. I don’t think you will gain many votes here.
I am a realist and see a 4/5% vote for the DLP as being good for a party in the process of rebuilding, and with some support from preferences being right up there in the last 3/4 but with no hope of winning.
This by-election for the DLP is not about winning .
It is about getting an increase in their primry vote, to about 4/5%’;
an increased awareness in the party profile by the public of NSW.,
which will lead to an increase in the party profile in the leadup to the next Senate Elecion.
It is all about putting the DLP in a position to enable them to have a real chance at the next Senate election.
To a position of real influence in the State, where they will be taken seriously, and their preferences can play a part in deciding the composition of the Senate.
This will have a major difference to the party, the part they play in australian politics, and the influence and respect given by all other parties, the media, and the Australian public.
Dear DLP sock puppet, you’re lucky the site crashed last night, because I was in the middle of typing something rather intemperate.
The DLP might get 1% of the vote. Their scary religious policies are already covered by the CDP, who are much more established in NSW, and anyone clueless enough to mix them up with the ALP would probably forget to vote altogether. When it comes to electing the NSW senate in 2011, nobody is going to care about a federal by-election three years previously where your party got 1% of the vote from 2% of the population. Remember, most of NSW is not in Lyne.
There is a good articule in the Sunday Age about how Peter Kavanagh DLP is performing in the Victorian Upper House, and the effect for the good he is having on the Parilment.
I recommend it to all who are interested in the future of the DLP.
Support for the DLP is growing and membershi is increasing
“At a time when the major parties are struggling to get people to attend branch meetings, some DLP branches in the seat of Hotham and in Ballarat and Geelong are attracting new members. And they are young.
Mark Farrell, secretary of the Hotham branch, is an example of the new face of the DLP. He feels “pumped” about the DLP, he says. The 32-year-old’s parents were involved in the party, but he became active because of the DLP’s views on protecting Australian business from cheap imports and boosting small businesses. In a year, the branch has collected 28 members, with an average age of 26. The gender split for this branch is similar to the DLP generally – about two-thirds are men.
The interesting thing about the new branch members is that many of them are young conservatives who have become politically active. They are, says Farrell, young working-class people, often tradesmen, and a big factor in their loss of faith in mainstream parties is economic, such as being locked out of the housing market.They see something in the DLP’s nationalist, protectionist economic policies, their support of tariffs and their belief that young (heterosexual) families need more help to buy a house. Perhaps the DLP, long thought to be a near-corpse of a party, has some life in it yet.”
midnorthcoast:
If your so interested why don’t you contact him.
Its not like he’s not uncontactable. For someone I listed as a Dark Horse you certainly seem interested. Why are you one of the other candidates ?
I dont Michael personally but had no trouble in contacting him, and wishing him luck. I’m a supporter of the DLP but not in Lyne. Politics is an interest and its good to see this young man have a go. Dont your agree. The Old DLP and the current DLP may be the same party but I’m not expecting Gough Whitlam to jump up and stand for the ALP, so why are you comparing them to our party members of the 1970’s. I think you should update your knowledge a bit as others are doing on the modern DLP of today.
Goana: Yes I agree but hopeing Michael can poll more than 5% so Midnorthcoast: quote
“If Michael O’Donohue gets more than 5% of the primary I will walk down Horton St naked.”
Ziggy
RE DLP article in the Sunday Age, it is called ,
“New order in the house, (by)
Melissa Fyfe
August 24, 2008
Page 1 of 6 |”
Enjoy the read
Ziggy Would love to see Midnortcoast “walk down Horton Street Naked””
The mind boggles
[their belief that young (heterosexual) families need more help to buy a house.]
Meanwhile, young homosexual families (yes, they do exist) should take a long walk? What a charming policy.
This is all very interesting.
In the mean time, in the real world, there is little local interest in the election. Drew’s advertising concentrates on his time as Mayor which I feel is a poor decision as he was in fact relieved of office for financial ineptitude and it reminds many voters of the Glasshouse fiasco. Charges that Oakeshott is a Labor puppet have also proved ineffective – Oakeshott rejoins that he is a conservative who flirted with the Liberals. The quiteness of the campaign is difficult to interprut but is possibly a sign that the Nationals have not yet laid a glove on Oakeshott
Bird of paradox:
We’ll its good to see one green voter out there.
Ziggy
Ziggy:
From the Green’s home page as it currently stands:
“The Greens will be reintroducing a Democrats bill to ban junk food advertising to the Senate,” Senator Brown said.
I did not know the advertisers were targeting senators – you’d think they’d be happy enough with the food provided.
But seriously, do you think the paradoxical bird is a Green voter because of the Greens policy for “access, regardless of sexuality and gender identity, to adoption, fostering, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation procedures”?
What’s the DLP got to say about IVF access for a minority group, and do they believe there is a place for intersex as a gender?
Ziggy
Peter Kavanagh DLP Upper House Vic. is showing by his actions that he is really a very reasonable man, and has even been able to work well with Greens on some issues they agree on
Quote from Melissa Fyfe “New order in the house, Age Aug,24″”
“But despite the Greens not supporting Kavanagh on his social beliefs, they get along very well. Indeed, many MPs willingly admit that, far from being obstructive or irrelevant, Kavanagh has made the upper house a better place, particularly in the areas of scrutiny of government, transparency and checks on the state’s gaming industry.”
Goanna at 133.
“This will have a major difference to the party, the part they play in australian politics, and the influence and respect given by all other parties, the media, and the Australian public.”
Increased awareness does not mean respect or anything else.
The more Greens there are, the less respect they get.
One Nation won seats in Qld. They didn’t get respect or anything.
Hardly supports your claim.
And at 135.
The Greens are growing all the time, but because its nothing new, it doesn’t get reported. 28 members in a year? Thats nothing. My local branch got 40. And thats below average for the state.
Bert
The point is that this increase in numbers comes to a Party thas was thought to be in the terminal stage.
The new members breate new life and fresh ideas to the party, and the fact that they are average age of 26, and “young working-class people, often tradesmen,” must be of some concern for the ALP”.
I think we can safely say a new dawn has come to the DLP, where the party goes with this new dawn is going to be a question that all who have an active interest in politics in this country will await the answer to in coming years
GOANA:
Well said… and good news. I dont get to here a lot up here.
I know we’re still opening new branches up here in Queensland as well, but 26 is a good age to have them so keen on politics.
The NSW group seem quite young as well. When speaking to them they all seem very polite well mannered and very dedicated. A Credit to the party.
We are recruiting them in their 30’s and 40s but some of the outer regional areas are starting to show interest in the younger age groups.
It may come as a bit of a culture shock to some of our older members next federal election. But I think they are enjoying telling tales. I had an older member bring in old campaign posters and etc dateing back to the 60s. Some even even back to the old QLP days.
Keep up the good work.
I’ll try to put in the link for you
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/new-order-in-the-house-20080823-40y3.html?page=6Hotham
Ziggy
Looks like Ziggy and Goanna have created a whole DLP movement in their minds.
I’m thinking that the DLP might not rate IVF access for a homosexuals, intersex as a gender top priority.
Or did you miss the question raised Ziggy?
Greeensborough Growler:
“a whole DLP movement in their minds”
One swallow doth not a Spring make (or two)
GREENSBOROUGH:
I’m and ALP Voter and I’ll be voteing for them
They are the ALP with all the negatives removed.
Might start to wake up some of our branchs where members get no say and personalities and Union members take priority over us.
Besides someone has to put a stop to this globalisation rush.
Do we own anything anymore? Or are we still selling everything the brings in income.
Yep I’ll be talking to him and some of my mates as well.
GZG: I think the greens might be the right people to ask on that one.
I think they’re the only ones that know what a intersex person is. (not in my oxford)
But there’s not doubt whoever they are they’ll vote green anyway.
1984
1984,
Seeing there isn’t a Labor candidate, you have to vote for someone and so do your mates.
The biggest negative you will remove is the responsibility of implementing their policies. Only real Political Parties get to do that.