Galaxy: 51-49 to Labor in Victoria

This morning’s Herald-Sun featured a Galaxy poll of 800 respondents surveying state voting intention in Victoria, which paints a different picture to the 55-45 Labor lead indicated by the Newspoll survey of late August. Galaxy has Labor’s two-party lead at just 51-49, although this seems too narrow given the primary votes: 38 per cent for Labor, 39 per cent for the Coalition and 14 per cent for the Greens, which would normally give Labor a lead of at least 52-48 (UPDATE: Whoops – Carlton Crew in comments notes I have overlooked the 4 per cent for the Nationals, which brings the Coalition up to 43 per cent and makes the two-party figure entirely credible). John Brumby records a satisfaction rating of 48 per cent against 46 per cent dissatisfied, with Ted Baillieu recording 41 per cent and 44 per cent.

Couple of other things:

David Rood of The Age reports Bronwyn Halfpenny, Trades Hall official and daughter of union legend John Halfpenny, is likely to win Labor preselection for ultra-safe (margin 31.1 per cent) Thomastown, whose incumbent Peter Batchelor announced yesterday he would not contest the election. In the somewhat less safe seat of Bendigo West (margin 10.6 per cent), where another minister in Bob Cameron also announced his intention to retire yesterday, the nod is expected to go to Cameron’s electorate officer Maree Edwards. VexNews reports that the cross-factional stability agreement ensures the outgoing Left faction incumbents will be replaced by members of their own faction. Edwards is said to benefit from the support of Bendigo East MP Jacinta Allan, but may face resistance from federal Bendigo MP Steve Gibbons, who favours his campaign director Bill Murray.

Hannah Donnellan of the Heidelberg Leader reports “sports science consultant” and personal trainer Carl Ziebell has been endorsed as Liberal candidate for Ivanhoe. There were earlier suggestions the endorsement might go to Jenny Mulholland, a high-profile Banyule councillor and former mayor who ran as an independent in 2006. Ivanhoe was vacated by the resignation of sitting Labor member Craig Langdon in late August, which appeared to be a botched attempt to embarrass the government by initiating a by-election which will not in fact transpire. Langdon had been defeated for preselection last year by Anthony Carbines, Banyule councillor and chief-of-staff to Education Minister Bronwyn Pike.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

114 comments on “Galaxy: 51-49 to Labor in Victoria”

Comments Page 2 of 3
1 2 3
  1. Odd number of seats is good, having all regions the same size is better. It’s hard to fault the Vic upper house… it lacks the two bugs the WA version has.

  2. Ockerguy, the only chance the DLP have is identical to Family First. That is the name sounds good. If Victorians commonly knew what the DLP stood for, they would be history. Victorians know what the Greens stand for.

    The DLP are a bunch of nobodies. Keep quiet, and they might be lucky enough not to be exposed as the skewed bunch of control freaks that they are. I bet they would not dare promote their true motivations in the campaign.

    The Victorian government have been crap since Bracks left. I really liked Bracks – at first I though he was dopey, but I listened to a couple of interviews with him, and found him extremely bright and forthright. These two qualities disappeared when Brumby took over. He is the hush hush man.

    Cheers for the Greens for providing viable options that are palatable.

  3. On the “odd” numbers – can anyone see a day when the Federal Senate will go back to them. It would mean 14 Senators per state, and thus at least 88 Senators total. I realise this is incumbent on the House numbers being raised to about 176, but considering the House was expanded to 148 members in 1984 when our population was about 15.5 million and it is now about 22.5 million, maybe it is time to change.

  4. Radguy, though I note the Greens always call themselves “The Greens” like they are really just an environmental movement, while Labor people try and always say “The Greens Political Party” to try and keep people aware of the difference.

  5. Rocket this is not confined to The Greens. The ALP call themselves Labor, it is getting more and more obvious that they only represent a small portion of the working class. Not even all Victorian unions support them.

    So if your going to call one party out, call them all out. The liberals are conservative. Family First only put their idea of families first.

    At least the Greens represent a majority of environment group views.

    And no, I am not a Green.

  6. Dave – I agree – in fact I think in the Federal Campaign the ALP branded themselves “Better schools and hospitals” or something when JG launched the campaign. Both Labor and Liberal seem to shy away from their own names on any backdrops or podiums – I suppose they feel that any “party branding” can only be a turn-off to wavering voters, but it always ends up looking a bit silly, like Basil Fawlty saying “Don’t mention the war”!

  7. Radguy- it is the Greens who are not honest about their policies.
    At the recent Federal elections when supplying their policies to the EEC website the listed their euthanasia as “policy not finalised”.
    Yet as soon as the election was over we had Bob Brown calling on Parliment to legalise euthanasia throughtout Australia.
    Is that being completely honest about Green policies??

  8. ockerguy.

    The euthanasia policy was being re-written at the time, but not the part about legalising it. It was a bit about what constituted consent or something like that.

    So the policy was not final on ALL details. But it was final on the legalisation part.

  9. Why wasnt it ready? The party knew for months the election was coming. I dont buy that excuse. They also said other controversial policies like abortion, and others were “under review?”.
    The Greens were not honest about their policies before the election and duped many good people into voting for a party that is unethical.

  10. There is many things i detest about the Greens, but the main thing i detest is their dishonesty.
    And i feel most for the gulliable people who are taken in by their propongada.

  11. ockerguy: Perhaps you are the only voter in Australia who didn’t know that the Greens were pro-voluntary euthanasia and pro-choice.

    They’ve always been both of those. There’s never been a damn bit of question about it.

  12. [We also propose a substantial increase in the allocation of funding for palliative care facilities for the terminally ill, and the active promotion of public policy in opposition to the legalisation of euthanasia.

    We also recommend enforcement of the criminal law with respect to procured abortions and euthanasia through the prosecution of medical professionals who violate human life.]

    Yep, right down the bottom. Not only do pro-lifers hound pro-choicers, they want them in jail.

    It is pro-lifers who violate our space by insisting their pov remains the law.

    [Legislative measures that will uphold and protect the inalienable and fundamental rights of every person – to life, to the essential liberties of conscience, to equal treatment under the law, to the ownership of property and to a livelihood that enhances the dignity and security of each person.]

    This line is up the top. What a contradiction. An essential liberty of conscience is for a woman to decide to preserve her dignity and security by being allowed a choice to terminate a pregnancy. Not to mention preventing people dignity in their final moments.

    I bet the DLP hope for readers to not read any further down the policy page.

    Reasonable women don’t take this decision lightly. DLP wish to impose their will which is usually based on their homophobic and religious views.

    Well, let’s just rerun the inquisition, that’s what I see this party standing for.

    I have no problems with people being religious, but to impose beliefs on others who don’t share this pov is something that I would like to see prosecuted by law.

    I would say that this policy page is highly manipulative by its structure.

  13. ocker.

    As I understand it there was a region in one of the states who wanted the terminology made clear. Therefore it had to be made clearer and was no done so in time.

    Thats how the Greens work. God or a almighty president and committee dont write the policies, the members do. Maybe if other minor parties try this they would have more success as their members would understand the details inthe policies.

    Oh, yeah, the DLP blindy follow what some guys a couple thousand years ago think Jesus meant, if he existed.

    Things tend to change in two thousand years, maybe its time to do the same?

  14. Dave and Radguy, it is you guys who always bring religion into the debate in the mistaken belif that DLP policies are based on religious beliefs.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    DLP policies on abortion and euthanasia are based on the principle that every human being has the right to life, from conception to natural death, and noone has a right to take that life from them, either by abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or any other means, except in self defence.
    That is a clear principle that guides all DLP policy.

  15. Ockerguy,
    Ok, so I shouldn’t respond. When you lot of hypocrites go and protest in churches where they priest are missbehaving, when you protest against 1 million deaths in unjust wars, when you support women who have been bashed by their husbands, etc etc when you start doing any of these things, then come back with your shallow morality slightly improved.

  16. Barking,
    I have no idea what or who you are suggesting, or who you are meaning.????
    When you start making such stupid juvinile comments to “you lot”? and make such meaningless broad statements against ? who knows??, it is obvious you do need some professional help for your delusional behaviour and misguided morality. I do hope for your sake you get that help soon.

  17. Actually Barking I have been very active, both personally and professionally, in protesting about abusive priests, and abusive husbands, involved with rural refugees, have protested about wars, and injustices of many kinds.
    I am a social justice worker.
    The unborn are an example of those who suffer injustice in our community that i fight for.
    I fight against injustice for all, from conception to natural death, no exceptions.
    So it would be wise for you to desist from making wild claims about anyones actions, motives, motives, or beliefs, unless backed up by evidence.

  18. I t is a fairly reasonable conclusion that DLP policy has religious over tones when believing a faotus is is a human is pretty much a religious belief. Most people of non-religious backgrounds dont hold this belief.

    ANd as long as you cling to the DLP brand, which was created in opposition to the supposed abandonment of the ALP of catholicism, then you cant really blame us for believing that is what you are. Catholic. Your policies align almost 100% with the catholic church. Yes you as an individual may be different, but you provide no evidence that your party is not.

  19. Dave the fact that a feotous is a human being is not just a religious belief. It is a scientific fact based on evidence from all over the world.
    The DLP was not “created in opposition to the supposed abandonment of the ALP of catholicism”, as any historian will attest to.
    The DLP is the origional Labor Party, which had it roots from under a tree in Queensland late in the 19th Century.
    The Suprem Court of Australia held this to be the truth when they ruled that the DLP was the real Labor Party, after the 1955 split.
    Members of the DLP come from all religious beliefs, and some with no religious beliefs.
    It is tiring that people like you still try to introduce thet red herring into any debate on the DLP.
    Its time to move on from past events.

  20. Tom it was actually the Supreme Court of Victoria.This is from the DLP website.
    (In the legal battles over succession, after the Split, the Victorian Supreme Court held that those who became the Democratic Labor Party were the legitimate Labor Party and not the renegade ALP that expelled them.)

  21. Tom sections of the DLP disbanded. Some other members did not recognise that the disbandament was legal according to the party constitution and continued on with the Party right until this day.
    I believe they based their objections on the fact that many of the members who voted to disband were actually also members of other political parties.
    I dont know the truth or otherwise of their claim.
    I do know the current DLP see themselves as a continuation of the DLP from 1955, and the keeepers of the flame, of the light on the hill, and the real Labor Party.
    I accept the DLP as the real Labor Party in the tradition of John Curtin, and Ben Chifley.

  22. The Melbourne Greens are in negotiation with the Liberal Party over preferences deals.

    The Greens need Liberal Party support in order to be in the race to win key Inner City Seats. RIchmond Melbourne and Northcote which are in the Greens spotlight.

    The Liberal Party is also under pressure by its constituent members to not preference the Greens. The Liberal party is unlikely to support the Greens unless they are in a position to assist the Liberal Party in its campaign to win support in key seats.

    Analysts have stated that there is a real concern that the Greens could deliver the Liberal Party not only government but also control of the upper house here both the ALP and the Liberal party are likely to lose seats. Unlike the loer house the Above-the-line voting system in the upper house allows the Greens to direct preferences.

  23. The Victorian Upper House not that perfect. It also used the fla senate voting system which distorts the proportionality of the count. In the NSW Senate vote the LNP Ticket vote was inflated by over 14,000 votes as a result of the method used in calculating the Surplus Transfer Value.

    Originally the proposal of reform for the Victorian Upper house is to have 5 regional electorates (3 urban and two rural) Each electorate to return either 7 or 9 members.

    The nine member option would have required an increase in the size of the Legislative Council by one. A five regions option was much better then the eight region option. There were two rural seats that where divided into West and East along the Hume corridor.

    This option was not considered by the Victorian Electoral Commission as it was given instruction to not consider it.

    The odd number of seats is primarily there to ensure that a majority of votes can deliver a majority of seats. The main feature of the Victorian Upper-house is that each regions elects the same number of representatives and the same percentage quota.

  24. Dave, i respect Chris Curtis’s opinion. After all he was there when the DLP voted on disbanding.
    Regardless of the legality or not of the disbanding, the fact is that some people continued on with the DLP from that time until the present, with the same policies and ideals. I have supported them since 1955 and will continue to support them.
    I am thrilled with the win by John Madigan in the Senate, which will give the DLP national publicity for the next 6 years, and assist in the reemergence of the Party.
    John’s election will also boost the DLP vote in Victoria at this state election.
    John Madigan is based near Ballarat in Peter Kavanagh electorate, and will give a boost to Kavanagh campain at this election

  25. In 2006 Western Metro the total number of votes recorded in count B was 500 votes less then count B. The outcome of the election had changed and the ALP lost by less then 150 votes in the second count. The total number of votes should not have changed between count A and Count B. This can only happen if either votes went missing or they double counted votes in Count A. The total number of votes did not tally with the corresponding lower house seats.

    The Victorian Electoral committee requested the VEC to provide copies of the recorded preference data file for both counts. In an extraordinary claim the chief Electoral Commission was unable to provide the Parliamentary committee with a copy of the primary count data file. The COMmissioner claimed that the data had been deleted and no backup co0pies were made. Request for copies of the data file durring the conduct of the count was also refused. In not providing access to the data file it was impossible to impossible to independently analyse what went wrong in the count. No ALP Scrutineer including senior members of Parliament could explain where the results changed between count A and Count B. Why the data files were deleted and why backups were not made is an issue that still has not been fully explained.

    Access to copies of the preference data files was also denied by the AEC to scrutineers. the AEC tried to solicit $30 FOI fees. (An abuse of process). The AEC has still refused to provide copies of count A data files but this information has not been deleted and we are told that backups files do exorcist. This issue will be a subject of review by the JSCEM amidst concern that computerised counting systems are not open or transparent.

  26. 77

    The Greens are in with a good chance in Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick and Northcote if they get Liberal preferences.

    The current line from the anti-Green forces who a speaking seem to be that the Nats are against preferencing the Greens.

    A lot of the Liberal voters would be livid if they thought that their preferences had given the ALP a majority as could well happen if the election is close and the Liberals direct preferences to the ALP.

    The Liberals say they want something in exchange but more than being not the ALP the Greens are unlikely to give as it would hurt they electorally and the Liberals would almost certainly be silly to give the ALP extra seats.

    Which annalists have said this?

    How could the Greens simultaneously give control of the Legislative Council to the Liberals and take seats off them because the Greens are not going to be Liberal puppets or rubber stamps in the Legislative Council?

    Which seats could the Liberals loose in the Legislative Council? If there is a swing against the Liberals in the Legislative Council in Eastern Metro (possible but not looking likely) or they get a less advantageous preference flow (only FF and the DLP put the Liberals ahead of the Greens so that is not likely) the Liberals could loose a seat but stand good chances of gaining a seats in each of Southern & Western Metro.

    If the Liberals preference the ALP ahead of the Greens like last time in the Legislative Council (when it did not actually cost the Greens any seats) then the Greens could increase their vote substantially but loose their seat in Western Metro and gain no others.

    The Greens would have a serious voter backlash (read drop in vote) if they preferenced the Libs ahead of the ALP and there would be a massive increase in the BTL proportion of the Green vote too.

  27. [I am thrilled with the win by John Madigan in the Senate, which will give the DLP national publicity for the next 6 years, ]

    He wont be there for six years. The next election will be a double dissolution. Analysis of the 2010 vote shows that, assuming all is the same except that 12 members are to be elected, Family First will be elected in place of the DLP. The ALP elects 5, Greens 2 LNP 4, FF 1.

  28. 82

    It is unlikely that there will be a DD at the next Comonwealth Election because the Senate is more stable than the HoR. Almost any bill that can pass the HoR can pass the Senate after 1/7/2011. The ALP won`t get a majority at a DD and may well not get a majority in a joint sitting so it is big risk for not much gain.

    The DLP will get some publicity from having a Senator but less than Fielding has got because he has had the ability to block anything the Coalition vote against since 1/7/2008 and for the 3 previous years could pass almost anything Joyce tried to block.

  29. Dave,

    I’ll leave it to ockerguy to defend the current DLP, but your statement that the DLP “was created in opposition to the supposed abandonment of the ALP of [C]atholicism” is nonsense.

    The DLP was formed because of communism, not religion. You could read the following for a bit of understanding:
    The Split, by Robert Murray;
    Demons and Democrats, by Gavan Duffy;
    The Great Labor Schism, by Brian Costar, Peter Love and Paul Strangio;
    The Democratic Labor Party, by Paul Reynolds;
    The Tumult and the Shouting, by Frank McManus;
    The Pope’s Battalions, by Ross Fitzgerald.

  30. Nearly the end of week Two of this slightly bizarre election,
    Cocky ALP again kicking own goals, Ted suggesting that $1m for a train station competition is more important than a $20,000 trial of fire warnings, but came strong with the $1m for the Young farmers organisation to be pulled from the dustbin of 1960’s victoria.
    The Greens on the other hand are talking about Public transport, Health ,,education , euthanasia, etc. Big issues, and then anti pokies, no more tunnels.
    Interested to see if Rup puts out a newspoll next week. 6 weeks out.

  31. ockerguy,

    It was not “sections” of the DLP that disbanded in 1978. It was the party as a whole. It had ceased to exist in other states before this date, partly because Bob Santamaria did not want it to continue, but he never had the power in Victoria that he had elsewhere, so the Victorian party had fought on after the 1974 defeat.

    The argument that the motion to disband the party was unconstitutional was not made at the time. I did not hear it until some 30 years later. Suffice to say that we conducted a consultation process with the party’s members, they chose delegates to the conference, and those delegates voted to disband. At the time, we had 10 paid staff. Essentially, we kid not want to become a micro-party run from someone’s kitchen table.

    The claim that members of other parties voted at the conference is also one not made at the time and one I did not hear until some 30 years later. I have checked with Tom Rigg, the party president at the time and the chair of the conference, and he had never heard of it either. From a strictly technical point of view, the DLP had no members in 1978 because we had not issued membership tickets for that year, given where we thought we were going.

    Political parties were not registered in 1978, so there is no legal avenue to test either claim. Some members of the original DLP are annoyed, to put it mildly, that others took the party name because the current DLP is but a pale shadow of the original DLP. Others view them more sympathetically.

    I am ambivalent about the issue. It is certainly in the interest of the ALP to have the DLP in the Legislative Council rather than have total dependence on the Greens, and I respect Peter Kavanagh as a reasonable man on most things. However, some of the attitudes expressed by the current DLP are anathema to the original DLP. To save typing, I will quote two letters to the editor I sent, which were not published:

    As a former official of the genuine Democratic Labor Party, which disbanded in 1978, I am appalled that the current campaigners under its name have placed One Nation ahead of mainstream democratic parties on their Senate how-to-vote ticket.

    The original DLP was a compassionate party committed to social justice. It was the first of our parliamentary parties to oppose the White Australia Policy. It advocated land rights for Aborigines, had a Torres Strait Islander candidate for Parliament four decades ago and welcomed refugees into its organisation.

    That the current users of its name can trash its commendable human rights record by an association with One Nation is a disgraceful slur on the men and women who fought for justice under the DLP banner from 1955 to 1978. I urge anyone contemplating a vote for the new DLP to reject its preference deal and vote below the line.

    Yours sincerely.

    Chris Curtis
    (Vice President, Victorian Branch, Democratic Labor Party, 1976-78)

    Emailed to
    As Where’s my DLP, dude?

    I add that the current DLP also put the truly appalling Citizens Electoral Counil early on its preference lists also.


    Peter Kavangah’s opposition to land rights for Aborigines (“No land rights for ‘nomadic’ people: MP”, 16/9) would break the hearts of those active in the original Democratic Labor Party, especially that of the late Ben Nona, the DLP candidate for Cook in the 1972 Queensland election, a Torres Strait Islander and a representative on the National Aboriginal Conference.

    Land rights were a key DLP policy. Frank Dowling, the DLP leader, went to the 1973 state election calling not only for land rights for Aborigines, not only for negotiation on royalties, but also for the protection of their scared sites (“Plan for a Better Victoria”).

    Land ownership is not fundamentally about a paper title. It is about who has used, controlled and benefited from the land and who is thus entitled to continue to do so, to which the answer in Australia for at least 40,000 years was the Aborigines. The original DLP understood this. It is sad that the new DLP does not.

    Yours sincerely,

    Chris Curtis
    (Vice President, Victorian Democratic Labor Party, 1976-78)

    Emailed to
    As No titles office – so what?

    My ambivalence about the current DLP does not extend to the original DLP, which I continue to defend against those who slur it and misrepresent the past:

    Rather than take note of Graham Willett’s downplaying of the evil of communism (“McCarthyism, anyone?”, 6/7), younger readers should never forget that communism brought death to tens of millions of people, and it was obvious from 1917 that it would do so.

    All three progressive causes mentioned – Aboriginal land rights, equal pay and an end to the White Australia Policy – were, far from the preserve of the Communist Party, also policies advocated by the Democratic Labor Party. Indeed, the DLP was the first of our democratic parties to call for the end of White Australia, and there was never any danger that, had it come to power, it would have imprisoned, tortured and murdered those who disagreed with it as communist totalitarian regimes did in the Soviet Union and China and still do today in North Korea.

    The impetus for Gough Whitlam’s reform of the ALP came from those who sacrificed their parliamentary careers to found the DLP. We can only regret how much longer we would have had progressive Labor governments, such as those of Steve Bracks and Kevin Rudd, if it had not been for the Split. Those governments were genuinely reformist in the best Labor tradition.

    Yours sincerely,

    Chris Curtis
    (Vice President, Victorian Branch, Democratic Labor Party, 1976-78)

    Emailed to
    As Don’t mention the tens of millions dead

    I don’t mind that the current DLP sees itself as a continuation of Labor beliefs from the 1940s. I would be happier if it also embraced past DLP beliefs in human rights from the 1970s.

  32. ockerguy,

    I appreciate your respect for my opinion.

    I’m not sure that the presence of John Madigan in the Senate will boost the current DLP’s publicity. The Age today had a puff piece about how the Greens are meeting people for meals in their campaign. I met people over food in past campaigns but never once got the fact mentioned in The Age. In the Greensborough by-election, The Age managed to not even mention the fact that the DLP had a candidate standing until it was contacted by John Siddons (of the Australia Party and then the Democrats) on behalf of the third patties, whereupon it published a last-minute and somewhat unattractive picture of me. On one occasion, The Age misquoted me. When I complained, it refused to publish a correction saying that I thought I was more important than I really was.

    One could be forgiven for thinking that the journalists at The Age are deliberately campaigning for the Greens. The current DLP will receive hardly any coverage and most of what it does receive will be misrepresent it as such coverage did the original DLP 40 years ago. You can go back to Peter Kavanagh’s election in 2006 to remind yourself of how the current DLP will be referred to. You only have to read the vitriol that Oz1Pol Tragic spits out on Poll Bludger threads to know what is in store for you and your party.

  33. Chris Curtis

    Thank you for your informed comments. It certainly confirms my view that the “new” DLP is not the same entity legally or otherwise, and their high preferencing of groups such as the CEC and One Nation gives it away really.

    My many relatives (and non-labor spouse’s) cover “all bases” including the “old” DLP. With regard to the Greens Political Party – it is still going to be interesting to see how Ted Baillieu defends putting several Greens into the Lower House. If he turns a fairly conservative Brumby Labor Government into a Labor-Green Coalition Government all of our relatives on my “right” are going to be mighty upset, and most of those on my “left” as well!!

    Queensland had “Red Ted” (Theodore) : Victoria, meet your new “Green Ted”.

  34. Chris

    I have no problem with the original DLP.

    If I am wrong about the split, it is because of what I was taught at uni, that it was primarily a split because of comunism and the abandonment of Catholic values.

    Its just a pity that when the DLP started up properly in the past 5yrs or so, that it isn’t actually the DLP, only what seems to me to be a group of dissidents and pretenders.

  35. Rocket Rocket,

    From a tactical point of view, it makes sense for the Libs to help the Greens into the Legislative Assembly because that may force Labor to depend on the Greens for government, which would push Labor to the left and make it easier for the Liberals to win next time around.


    I’m not surprised that university teaching about the DLP is wrong. All I can say is that reading some of the books I listed would be illuminating. I’d start with Robert Murray’s.

  36. 91

    Having the Greens in the Legislative Assembly also dramatically increases the likelihood of a hung parliament.

  37. Chris and Tom

    I understand these arguments, but the same could have been said for Labor in Queensland in 1998 – preferencing One Nation (to the right of Libs and Nats) would have

    – dramatically increased the likelihood of a hung parliament
    – created a Lib/Nat/ON Coalition Govt more to the right than Borbidge’s Govt

    But Labor I think chose to avoid long-term damage (not least among their own supporters) by not doing so (and yes, Optional Pref voting made their decision easier) but the Libs and Nats tied themselves in knots over whether to preference ON, and it did not help their cause.

  38. 93

    The Greens are not as unacceptable to the Liberals as One Nation were to the ALP. The Greens have been around for years building up support instead being a 1 year wonder that came after a boil over by a disendorsed candidate in 1 Commonwealth seat in Queensland at the previous Commonwealth election. The Greens have significantly more support than the Nationals in Victoria.

  39. From today’s Sunday Herald Sun, p34:

    MORE than one in five Opposition voters believe John Brumby would make a better Victorian premier than their leader, Ted Baillieu.

    A statewide poll of voters ahead of next month’s state election has found Coalition and Labor voters are poles apart when it comes to faith in their leaders.

    Asked who they thought would make a better premier, 85 per cent of Labor supporters said Mr Brumby and 6 per cent backed Mr Baillieu.

    But only 69 per cent of Liberal and National Party voters put their faith in Mr Baillieu and a staggering 22 per cent backed Mr Brumby.

    Nine per cent of all voters from both political camps were undecided.

    The findings from the Galaxy Poll of 800 Victorians, conducted for the Sunday Herald Sun, is consistent with internal Labor polling showing a large share of Liberal voters do not support Mr Baillieu to be premier.

    The Galaxy Poll also put the ALP ahead of the Coalition 51-49 on two party preferred terms.

    With 39 days until the election, Labor is expected to focus on the fact it has a younger cabinet than Mr Baillieu’s team.

  40. Tom 94

    Yes I agree the Greens have been around for a while, but ON did poll 22.7% statewide in that 1998 Queensland election, more than either the Nats(15.2%) or the Libs(16.1%), and the HIGHEST VOTE by any “third” party in an Australian election in the 20th Century.

    Melissa Fyfe wrote a good article in “The Age” today, basically saying that even if the Libs don’t preference the Greens, they will wait till the last moment to say so, so that LAbor will use up money and resources on these otherwise safe seats,

  41. Re Age article
    Love the comment about a Greens member resigning because they are doing a deal with the Libs. The ALP media advisors blogging away again? It would be pathetic if it wasn’t so tragic.

  42. I am determined to get these comments to stretch to at least 3 pages!

    In the “realpolitik” world, if you ran the Liberal Party machine, what would you demand from the Greens Party in return for inner-city prefs (and consequent lower house seats)?

    It would have to be something they could actually deliver without p*ssing off their own base. The Liberals do hold the whip hand here – they can make or break the Greens Party in the lower house, and if the Greens Party renege on any deal they can “tit for tat” them by disposing of Adam Bandt at the next federal election.

    Maybe what they will demand is “split” tickets by the Greens Party in the Upper House. Actually does anyone know whether this is possible? – in the Federal Senate I know it is, in fact you can split your “above the line” prefs two ways, or three ways, or a 1/3:2/3 split.

  43. The ATLs in the LC are not just advice but an actual direction of preferences so the Greens would get a major backlash from the majority of their voters who vote ATL and don`t want their preferences going to the Libs (and people would find out about it). The Green BTL rate would also go up significantly (only 5 preferences are needed for the LCV). The Liberals could always issue a split ticket in the inner city and LC. A spilt ticket for the Libs would be quite psephologically interesting.

  44. Surely there should be a Vic Newspoll due,
    If their form is showing, I say they have one that is bad for the coalition, good for the Grens with a ttp of about 52-53 to Brumby,
    6 weeks to go , I presume they will put one out about now?
    Any info out there anyone?

Comments Page 2 of 3
1 2 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *