GhostWhoVotes reports tomorrow’s Age will feature a Nielsen poll showing state Labor with a handsome 53-47 two-party lead, with both parties’ primary votes believed to be in the high thirties. More to follow.
UPDATE: The primary votes are 38 per cent for both Labor and the Coalition and 16 per cent for the Greens. John Brumby’s approval rating is 51 per cent, down a point on the last Nielsen state poll in January, and his disapproval is up four to 41 per cent. Ted Baillieu is up on both approval (three points to 43 per cent) and disapproval (one point to 46 per cent). Brumby holds a 52-37 lead as preferred premier.
GG
You obviously aren’t very well informed about the view of Laborites in SA about Rann. The unions are running full-page ads saying you can’t trust Rann and Foley. They have had three demonstrations in the last week against him.
Diogs,
There is a difference between policy and political differences and personal detestation as you try desperately to imply.
Your problem is your deep and disturbing hatred of authority figures leads you to use extreme language and build inappropriate strawman arguments.
You’re very easy to bat away, comrade.
GG
I see you still are trying to polish the Labor turds by kissing then lovingly.
GG, surely there must be some sort of “smiley” for gffaw, gffaw, gffaw!
“strawman arguments”? Please! My chooks would be in heaven if they had half as much each year as you use to built your scarecrows every day!
Diogs,
Are tired old cliches all you got?
All that reading and your level of dialogue is pathetic. I suppose you should stick to your little panel beating business.
GG
Ooh we are grumpy today aren’t we.
Hasn’t the Gillard replacement for the Rudd bukkake doll arrived yet?
Diogs,
Which dwarf are you? Sleazy?
GG
If you’re Grumpy, I must be Bashful. 😳
Diogs,
see 307.
GG
I was one of th “Tellers” ,
William’ss hand moved a fraction , that was good enuf for me it was a yea
#
291
Rod Hagen
Posted Monday, November 1, 2010 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
‘Which is why it DIDN’T. (go to silly anti semitism which was a SEPARATE allegation)’
“Glad to hear it Ron. Let’s hope no-one is mad enough to try to take it any further!”
you left out my quote of bromwyn Pike saying specif that Walter was not anti sematic
So after I quoted Bromwyn , only then did you backed away from labelling bromwyn Pike as a anti semetism alleger , NOT that anyone would hav drawn th reason why you did withdraw you claim seeing you left out in quoting my post her qutoe I quoted
(BTW you ran this false line against Bromwyn , w/o even ackowleging that 6 hrs earlier in my #254 even i said such a claim wuld be wRONg , and 5 hrs later Bromwyn destroys your flimso case anyways)
so now having dispensing with those red herrings , we back to actual issue that John Lenders ALP Vic Treasuer and Bromwyn Pike ALP Vic Ediuc Minster both (correctley) publicly sayin that Greens candidate Walters was a hypocrit for his Coal Co advocacy and posible hurting workers rites on one hand , BUT wanting to b elected on a reverse platform You do wear Green coloured blinkkers
I think its time you performed the last “rites” on this one, Ron. All this stunt is doing is harming Labor’s chances in inner city Melbourne seats.
zoomster
@292 Posted Monday, November 1, 2010 at 8:49 pm | Permalink
“Rod
why are you ignoring what I have said about the change in circumstances after the 2006 election? (re need for a Desal Plant)
I can only assume because it doesn’t suit your agenda………..”
IN REPLY
Rod Hagen
# 296 Posted Monday, November 1, 2010 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
“Zoomster, I’m NOT sure what you are trying to say but it seems to me as if we are in furious agreement.”
so you do not know what Zoom is saying , but you do get it he has destroyed your nuansed negative Desal building arguments that Labor decided on
hence you say “we are in furious agreement.” youu reely mean you wanted to get th hell out of th Debate you were losing to Zoom
(I could say i done you in with my pro Desal arguements but Zoom deserves all th credit being far more articulate and was on ground at time in any event just rember those figures of 150 trillion litres of water deliverable annualy from Desal Plant , a reserve for human consumption if no rain big droughts no water around & so noone to drink by kids)
Rod , now you reply to my detailed post on green candidate Walter’s hypocracy where I quoting ALP Vic ministers Lenders and Pike publicly saying Waltersis a hypocrit ,and with evidense undeniable , and you reply ‘ last rites ‘ ?
well yes , last rites on case has been delivered by Lenders and Pike they were rite to deliver last rites alrite
The Victorian Bar Council and noted Counsels like Robert Richter and Burnside have joined in the condemnation of the Labor campaign in Melbourne and the smear against the Green candidate.
Foolish and costly one might think ,especially in an electorate like Melbourne,and probably another nail in Pike’s coffin…but I guess it’s the Newnham’s modus operandi
Only smear campiagn has been conducted by Greens here against Labor’s Vic ministers Lenders & Pike , and by th lying Bob brown trying to blame Labor for what News Ltd printed was th truth of Greens candidate Walters actual hypocracy being exposed
In response to Q’s of News factual article Labor’s Vic ministers Lenders & Pike said Greens Walters is a hypocrit , and Walters is
(if your Rod Hagens understudy , you’re a poor replacment)
Speaking as a Melbourne-based Green: more Newnham slurs please! I’d say Melbourne is wrapped up for us now.
Bring him and his clown show to the other 3 ALP-GRN marginals!! PLEASE 😉
Srsly tho: suspect other major impact of Newnham will be more than the usual minority of GRN voters preferencing Liberal. Nice one, you idiots.
[One of the real dangers for Labor federally with the Pike/Newnham affair is that Julia Gillard may be drawn into it when she returns to Australia. Gillard is a lawyer, knows exactly what the real story is here, and would have very great difficulty indeed running with the “spin” that some in Victorian Labor seem to be wanting.]
Even during the very sensitive stages of government formation after the general election, some people in the Victorian ALP appeared to be intent on sabotaging the Gillard government.
It appears that they care nothing about whether Australia has a stable & progressive Federal government … Their only concern is their personal fiefdoms in Victoria.
From The Age of September 3, 2010:
[JULIA Gillard’s warm embrace of the Greens in Tuesday’s historic Canberra pact has rattled and angered Labor powerbrokers in the Prime Minister’s home state as they prepare a hostile defence of marginal inner-Melbourne seats.
On Tuesday Ms Gillard struck a deal promising, among other things, parliamentary reform and greater access to ministers and the public service in return for a Greens’ support for supply bills and confidence motions.
But the media images of a smiling Prime Minister and Greens leader Bob Brown consummating a political marriage upset Labor powerbrokers intent on beating up on Green candidates ahead of the November state election.
… Yesterday senior Labor insiders said Ms Gillard’s public warmth towards the Greens had ”massively complicated the message”.
”People were shocked by the whole appearance of it (the signing of a pact). For people who fight the Greens it was just very demoralising.
”It may not have been the PM’s intention but it looked and smelt like the Greens had been given the keys to The Lodge,” the source said.
Another central figure in state Labor politics said the Labor-Greens pact gave the impression that voting Green was acceptable for Labor supporters.]
Only clown is Walters representin Coal Co and possible against a workers rites , and then santomoniously trying to get elected on a reverse platform
and where does Deonay and Left E get there sleeze from , uncoribortated MSN say so ‘s you lot is totally hypocrital , but then only following in walters hypocritcl steps
but issue was Green Walters clear hypocracy in th first place , that is still undenyable
(now we go Vik quotin Rod Hagen , well i demolished Rod’s argument later as flimsy)
“Last night Mr Brumby’s head of communications, George Svigos, restated that the government had no involvement in either the Sunday newspaper story or the dirt file on Mr Walters’s role in the Kalejs case.”
So story is a News Ltd and Age Story (and NOT a Labot campiagn as falsely claimed by Greens here
It is News Ltd and Age Newspapers factuals of of Greens candidate Walters advocating a Coal Co and possible against a workers rites , and then seeking public office to get elected on a reverse platform
When asked to coment on this factual info
Vic Labors Treasurer John Lenders publicly says (corectly) that Walters is a hypocrit
and Vic Labor’s Educ Minister also public says Walters is a hypocrit
(BTW as for sleezy and irelevant refs to Newham , he does not work for Labor and has not for 12 mths , in fact he has his own consultansy called CPI WITH a ex Liberal office guy called Rick Starr)
so we got 2 Senior Labor ministers calling out Greens Walters on th truth as a hypocrit , and Greens in public and here running in circles tryin to blame th Labor Party when it was th Newspaper’s own story being printed and for th truth that they exposed of Walters hypocracy
Oh, so Labor’s come out and refuted the articles, have they, Ron?
As I said, it’s not an anti Green campaign when people simply respond to questions asked by the media.
It is not an anti Green campaign when the responses demonstrate ignorance about the issue at hand (I would argue that if it was, the respondees would have known what they were talking about. They obviously didn’t).
What we have here is the media trying to confect a Green-Labor stoush for their own purposes (selling newspapers, making the election sound vaguely interesting, bolstering the Lib vote).
Congratulations, suckers, for letting the media manipulate you in this way.
I really didn’t think they were that good.
Andrew Crook has a piece on the Pike / Newnham affair at http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/01/going-rogue-greens-smear-nails-coffin-on-labors-inner-city-mps/
I have been busy with work lately and hadn’t seen replies to previous comments on the Labor smear of the Greens. Between Zoomster and others, it is a rather amusing contrast in views. Zoomster tries to portray it as the misdirected remarks of a few individuals and not representative of the Labor party:
[Guys, you are all being manipulated by the media. This is not an attack on the Greens by Labor as a whole (at most, a couple of individual memebers made ill considered responses to media inquiries) but an attack on the Greens and Labor by the media.]
Then others proceed to virtually repeat the allegation 🙂
Two comments:
1. First, sorry Zoomster, but the media beatup line won’t wash. I checked the quotes before I made my comment. Walters was clearly villified in a very false and misleading way by 3 senior Victorian Labor figures. The only way that doesn’t stick to Victorian Labor is if you say that the secretary, Treasurer and a senior cabinet minister are not representative of the government. In that case the Brumby government is an undisciplined mob.
2. Second, the allegation is a smear. Anyone familiar with the “cab-rank” system of the bar association knows that Walters was professionally obliged to take the cases he took. As Dio rightly pointed out, this same smear was truied on Rick Sarre in the SA State election. To criticise one use of it and not the other is pure hyporcacy.
The fact that Labor campaigners can behave like this and then wonder why they lose votes to the Greens, shows just how self-deluded they are. The right wing bover boys in Labor’s machine are as much into hate politics as Karl Rove or Andrew Robb. They are so obsessed with winning the contest themselves, they can’t see what damage they do to the party.
Despite these comments, I happen ot think that, on balance, Victorian Labor under Brumby has been a competent government that deserves re-election. But then I thought that about both the Rudd and Rann governments too, and they still managed to nearly destroy themselves in small minded election campaigns as well.
Socrates- just to clarify one thing, using the way Rick Sarre was smeared during the federal election as an example is incorrect- there are very big differences between the two, for one Rick willingly offered his services to his former friend and colleague, he then gave a character reference in court to describe how much he had changed since the individual had been in prison (and i understand was facing further charges relating to an earlier incident) its all on the public record.
Simply the two cases are not similar and should not be used to push your agenda, unless ofcourse Brian Walters offered his services, as opposed to being the next cab off the rank.
Socrates,
You clearly do not believe that Greens candidates should have their credentials tested. Walters is the one who needs to account for the apparent variation between what he nobly espouses and what he actually does for a living.
Zoomster has demonstrated this story came from the press and not Labor. But, I’m sure your anti Labor invective can’t be halted with simple facts.
GG, the story pretty clearly came from Newnham, whose wife is the Labor member for Northcote.
Clearly , too , if you read Crook’s contribution, there are many in the Labor party who believe the attack was foolish and counterproductive.
[One Pike loyalist detached from the maelstrom viewed Newnham’s approach with amusement: “Ultimately tactics like this reinforce the perception that inner-city voters already have about ALP.”
They said the split is emblematic of the divide over tactics within the Labor Party over how to best confront the Greens: ”We’ve already lost Melbourne but it’s fair to say that there’s very definitely two schools of thought … there’s the kill, smash and destroy group that believe that we need to smash the Greens and then there’s the group that feel we need to win by actually campaigning better and proving we have better policies and not staying in the mud. This is a complete f-cking disaster.”]
Yes, we know that you are member of the “kill, smash and destroy group”. It truly doesn’t work in this sort of situation.
Soc
Not doubting the accuracy of the quotes. Just pointing out they were in response to an approach by the paper, so if anyone began the ‘war’ it was the Herald Sun.
As for the ‘undisciplined mob’ – you’d be surprised how true that is. I can always get a laugh at party functions by talking about the ‘co ordinated campaign from King Street’ or ‘the efficient parry machine’.
The media likes to portray the ALP (particularly the right wing of it) as incredibly disciplined and frighteningly effective. Like many media memes, this is a phantom of their own concotion.
You won’t be able to find any comment anywhere of mine that smears Walters for doing his job. I understand the constraints he is under – partly because, in my political life, I have often had to face the same kind of dilemna. (For example, I was approached by a constituent who wanted me to write a letter on her behalf, defending her son who had ‘gone underground’ rather than pay child support. I disapproved fundamentally with his behaviour, but respected her right to have her voice heard, and wrote the letter).
The whole point is ‘the Labor campaign’ is not behaving like this. This is Herald Sun campaign (which The Age took up because it didn’t want to be left out of it) and they should be given the credit for it.
A couple of local members responding to media questions and another individual supposedly (we don’t have any proof, not even names of those approached) making a few pitches in private conversations (which we all do) does not equal an attack on the Greens by Labor.
Show me leaflets dropped in letter boxes, media releases, prepared on air interviews or press conferences, TV ads, radio ads, etc etc with Labor attacking the Greens and I’ll agree that that’s a concerted attack by one party on another.
This isn’t one; it’s a media beat up.
That you want to believe it just shows how well the media have pitched this to their audience.
SNIP: Personal abuse deleted – The Management.
Written by barrister, Stephen Warne (Australian professional liability blog), here is a clear article outlining the cab-rank principle and includes the relevant extract from the Victorian Bar Inc’s Rules of Conduct:
http://lawyerslawyer.net/2010/11/01/the-cab-rank-principle/
Pegasus,
That gets the lawyer off the hook. What about the politician?
GG,
Has Walters been elected to political office?
Pegasus,
He apparently aspires to political office. You Greens will do anything to avoid legitimate scrutiny.
zoomster 326
If that is all true then perhaps this is just an unfortunate stuff up. However that is semantics that will be lost on the voters. People have to think before they speak to the media. Everyone connected with Labor should realise how much media hostility there is by now, in the aftermath of the Federal election campaign. Whether centrally controlled or not, when senior party figures speak to the media, they need to be careful.
This whole episode makes Victorian Labor look grubby, which is not a good look in an election campaign, especially so soon on the heels of the Rudd axing. Promote policy achievements, like the growth in jobs and the Victorian economy relative to interstate rivals, not personally attacks on their opponents all the time, and Labor will do better.
GG
Overall I woudl still regard myself as pro-Labor (I still think the Greens economic and anti-nuclear policy is wrong), which puts me in a category with only about 1/3 of the voting population. If I don’t like these comments on Walters, then you might conclude that they are probably costing Victorian Labor votes. If that can’t motivate some change in behaviour, then there is no saving Victorian Labor.
Abbott backs the wrong horse! – http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/11/02/3054874.htm
deblonay (269 at 5.03pm on Monday, 1/11),
The ALP decision to preference the DLP ahead of the Greens is often complained about on this site by people who think the ALP has some moral duty to preference the Greens. It was a perfectly sensible decision, which has reduced the dependence of the Labor government on the Greens in the Upper House. In return, the DLP preferenced ALP candidates in a number of seats.
You can correct me if the following does not apply to you, but there are people who classify political parties into the legitimate ones like the ALP and the Greens and, grudgingly, the Liberals, and the totally beyond the pale ones like Family First and the DLP. This is a silly classification because all parties I have mentioned work within the Australia’s democratic political tradition. However, the aforementioned classifiers just can’t see it like that: the DLP and FF are to be demonised, with no regard to the actual policies or voting records, so that the facts that Steve Fielding voted against so-called WorkChoices and for its repeal, that the DLP senators voted with the ALP almost as much as they voted with the Coalition (Between 1965 and 1967, the DLP voted with the Coalition 48.95 per cent of the time, with Labor 35.79 per cent of the time and against both groups 12.10 per cent of the time. In the remaining votes, the DLP senators split or were absent. (Malcolm Mackerras, The Australian Senate1965-1967: Who Held Control, APSA, 1968)) and that in the early months of the Legislative Council the Greens voted with the Opposition and against Labor more than the DLP did are just disregarded.
Of course, the ALP will do the preference deal that suits it. It is no different from any other party in this regard. Its aim is to form government. It will seek the preferences to enable it to do this and will allocate in its own preferences in return. Once it is as confident as it can be of winning government, it will do the preference deals it needs to do in order to get the most workable Upper House it can, whether the Senate or the Legislative Council. In the case of Steve Fielding, it expected his preferences would help it elect a third senator. Unfortunately for it, its vote fell too far and its preferences helped elect Steve Fielding. In the case of Victoria, it deliberately and consciously preferenced selected DLP candidates in return for DLP preferences to some of its candidates. Consequently, it helped elect Peter Kavanagh, a DLP member in the long-term Labor tradition and, unexpectedly for some, a supporter of gay rights. If the Victorian ALP had one more DLP MLC and one less Greens MLC, it would be pleased – for the simple reason that this would give it more options in the Legislative Council. It is not even a matter of the two Labor parties being closer to each other than the ALP and the Greens are as the ALP would not want to depend on DLP support in the Legislative Council either.
There is nothing exceptional about any of this. There is nothing unethical about it either. The idea that it is unethical comes from the false classification of mainstream democratic parties as legitimate or illegitimate according to the prejudices of the classifier. If individual voters do not like the ALP’s preference deals, they can vote below the line: for the Legislative Council, that requires only the ability to count up to 5, not hard I would think.
Any objective assessment of the original DLP’s policy and voting record in the Senate would show it to be a moderate social democratic party. The DLP opposed capital punishment, supported unions, supported the industrial relations system, supported a guaranteed annual income, supported environmental protection, supported Aboriginal land rights, opposed the White Australia Policy (the first party in our parliament to do so), campaigned tirelessly in my state for prison reform, argued for the introduction of proportional representation, supported the advance of economic democracy and advanced many other social democratic causes. The DLP was only right-wing to the extent that it was anti-communist and pro-American, in the same way that elements of the Labor Party in NSW were after the Split and most of the Labor Party is today. I post to defend the many decent men and women I knew in the Democratic Labor Party, including those former officers of the DLP who are today committed supporters of the Australian Labor Party because they have always been in their hearts true Labor people. I have been over this many times. Rather than do so yet again, I simply refer readers to my previous posts on the subject:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/05/21/morgan-50-5-49-5-to-labor/comment-page-29/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/03/reuters-poll-trend-558-442/comment-page-29/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/12/07/newspoll-56-44-12/comment-page-3/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/10/morgan-58-42-4/
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/12/18/morgan-59-41-7/comment-page-12/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/12/07/newspoll-56-44-12/comment-page-5/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/10/morgan-58-42-4/comment-page-7/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/10/morgan-58-42-4/comment-page-3/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/03/reuters-poll-trend-558-442/comment-page-31/#comments
Last point: the Greens are not Labor’s friends. They are its rivals.
Zoom and Socrates
zoomster
Posted Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 7:27 am | Permalink
“Oh, so Labor’s come out and refuted the articles, have they, Ron?”
YES , Bromwyn Pike unambigously defended Walters against anti sematic slur , and USING anti semitism is a STANDARD trick of th Age to push that Agenda on almost any issue , why i dont know
NO , re hypocracy issue on Coal Co advocacy
“As I said, it’s not an anti Green campaign when people simply respond to questions ASKED BY the media.”
agree Zoom , and I’ve made that point repeat here that this was a News Ltd and Age story , and that John Lenders Teasurer & Bromwyn Pike Educ Minister ANSWERED Q’s asked
Suggestion made here is that it was “a Labor campiagn” has been refuted by Govt’s George Svigos Furthermore Newham has not said he spread stuff and is not even working for Labor & even if he did private you cann’t blame Labor Govt for that
It is a beat up by Greens here to blame this as a Labor campiagn
Soctates
th facts do not leave you much to complain of then Age beats up headline on anti sematism (nothing to do with Labor , and Pike defended Walters anyway) , a News Ltd factual article on Walters re Coal that clearly is not ‘a Labor campaign’ inspired , and Labor Ministes answers a Q
all you’ve got against Labor is you did not like Lenders & Pikes ANSWER to Journo’s Q’s
that they both think Walters is a hypocrit standin for office in reverse principals of what he’s done I agree with them
Its Labor ministers genuine answers of truth Walters is a hypocrit (and natural politcs) that hav been turned into smear aginst Labor , by inuendo by Greens publicly playing th victum !
As to cab rank , you reely is not going to tell me Barristers do not find a way out of representing a client they do NOT want to in reel life Cab rank is a set of principals that inevitably get broken Walters had a choice
Further as said yesterday on cab rank , Dr Diog may do abortions in private practise as a Doc tho he opposes it privately But Doc Diog should not seek public office on a key platform of opposing Abortions , thats hypocrital
(BTW as said yesterday , this News ltd story was NEVER for Labor’s benefit in first place , what Lenders & Pike said was truth of Walters hypocracy & there’s politcs , but perhaps in politcal terms better to say nothing and let true Story of Walters hypocracy stand & BS smear of Walters anti sematism get (ritely) savaged
[Overall I woudl still regard myself as pro-Labor (I still think the Greens economic and anti-nuclear policy is wrong), which puts me in a category with only about 1/3 of the voting population. If I don’t like these comments on Walters, then you might conclude that they are probably costing Victorian Labor votes. If that can’t motivate some change in behaviour, then there is no saving Victorian Labor.]
To be fair to Labor, Soc, for every zealot like GG or Ron who believes in the smash, crash and abuse approach to “convincing” people there is a Zoomster who knows that thought and persuasion without the need for ad hominem junk is the way to go. Such people are the true hope of the Labor Party if it is to maintain its relevance.
Rod,
One can only laugh in the face of hypocrites like you who spend day in and out playing the concern troll. Perhaps you should write to your imaginary journal the Diamond Creek Leader.
[Greensborough Growler
Posted Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
Rod,
One can only laugh in the face of hypocrites like you who spend day in and out playing the concern troll. Perhaps you should write to your imaginary journal the Diamond Creek Leader.]
It really is hard to work out; is GG a rusted on Labor supporter or a really switched on Liberal supporter trying to give the impression that the Labor party is full of crazies.
Cut it out, you two.
fredn,
I see you’re still smarting from being exposed as a fraud. Poor baby.
You’ve already proven your moral flexibility. You remind me of the Groucho Marx line, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others”.
325
Walters is a long time campaigner for Civil Liberties and those include the right to legal representation for everyone. Not providing legal services on a matter of opinion would not be all the consistent with that.
It may have been started by the Herald Sun and a former ALP state secretary but 3 senior Cabinet ministers including the Premier gave it at least partial backing.
Tom,
Bullshit.
Another of my many unpublished letters to the editor:
Chris,
I know your prediliction is Education. However, the Libs reduced police by a thousand despite promises to increase them by 800. They closed hospitals and sacked nurses. And don’t forget Baillieu’s Company benefited from the sale of about 300 schools.
The Party that has rebuilt the public infrastructure of this State has been Labor.
” Chris Curtis
Posted Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
” deblonay (269 at 5.03pm on Monday, 1/11),
The ALP decision to preference the DLP ahead of the Greens is often complained about on this site by people who think the ALP has some moral duty to preference the Greens. It was a perfectly sensible decision, which has reduced the dependence of the Labor government on the Greens in the Upper House. In return, the DLP preferenced ALP candidates in a number of seats.
You can correct me if the following does not apply to you, but there are people who classify political parties into the legitimate ones like the ALP and the Greens and, grudgingly, the Liberals, and the totally beyond the pale ones like Family First and the DLP. This is a silly classification because all parties I have mentioned work within the Australia’s democratic political tradition. However, the aforementioned classifiers just can’t see it like that: the DLP and FF are to be demonised, with no regard to the actual policies or voting records, so that the facts that Steve Fielding voted against so-called WorkChoices and for its repeal, that the DLP senators voted with the ALP almost as much as they voted with the Coalition (Between 1965 and 1967, the DLP voted with the Coalition 48.95 per cent of the time, with Labor 35.79 per cent of the time and against both groups 12.10 per cent of the time. In the remaining votes, the DLP senators split or were absent. (Malcolm Mackerras, The Australian Senate1965-1967: Who Held Control, APSA, 1968)) and that in the early months of the Legislative Council the Greens voted with the Opposition and against Labor more than the DLP did are just disregarded.
Of course, the ALP will do the preference deal that suits it. It is no different from any other party in this regard. Its aim is to form government. It will seek the preferences to enable it to do this and will allocate in its own preferences in return. Once it is as confident as it can be of winning government, it will do the preference deals it needs to do in order to get the most workable Upper House it can, whether the Senate or the Legislative Council. In the case of Steve Fielding, it expected his preferences would help it elect a third senator. Unfortunately for it, its vote fell too far and its preferences helped elect Steve Fielding. In the case of Victoria, it deliberately and consciously preferenced selected DLP candidates in return for DLP preferences to some of its candidates. Consequently, it helped elect Peter Kavanagh, a DLP member in the long-term Labor tradition and, unexpectedly for some, a supporter of gay rights. If the Victorian ALP had one more DLP MLC and one less Greens MLC, it would be pleased – for the simple reason that this would give it more options in the Legislative Council. It is not even a matter of the two Labor parties being closer to each other than the ALP and the Greens are as the ALP would not want to depend on DLP support in the Legislative Council either.
There is nothing exceptional about any of this. There is nothing unethical about it either. The idea that it is unethical comes from the false classification of mainstream democratic parties as legitimate or illegitimate according to the prejudices of the classifier. If individual voters do not like the ALP’s preference deals, they can vote below the line: for the Legislative Council, that requires only the ability to count up to 5, not hard I would think.
Any objective assessment of the original DLP’s policy and voting record in the Senate would show it to be a moderate social democratic party. The DLP opposed capital punishment, supported unions, supported the industrial relations system, supported a guaranteed annual income, supported environmental protection, supported Aboriginal land rights, opposed the White Australia Policy (the first party in our parliament to do so), campaigned tirelessly in my state for prison reform, argued for the introduction of proportional representation, supported the advance of economic democracy and advanced many other social democratic causes. The DLP was only right-wing to the extent that it was anti-communist and pro-American, in the same way that elements of the Labor Party in NSW were after the Split and most of the Labor Party is today. I post to defend the many decent men and women I knew in the Democratic Labor Party, including those former officers of the DLP who are today committed supporters of the Australian Labor Party because they have always been in their hearts true Labor people. I have been over this many times. Rather than do so yet again, I simply refer readers to my previous posts on the subject:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/05/21/morgan-50-5-49-5-to-labor/comment-page-29/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/03/reuters-poll-trend-558-442/comment-page-29/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/12/07/newspoll-56-44-12/comment-page-3/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/10/morgan-58-42-4/
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/12/18/morgan-59-41-7/comment-page-12/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/12/07/newspoll-56-44-12/comment-page-5/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/10/morgan-58-42-4/comment-page-7/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/10/morgan-58-42-4/comment-page-3/#comments
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/07/03/reuters-poll-trend-558-442/comment-page-31/#comments
Last point: the Greens are NOT Labor’s friends. They are its rivals.”
a fine overall post Chris
yes Green’s focus publicly and at grass roots is to attack Labor , pinch its suporters by lies and BS popularism , and rarely attack Liberals or there seats They IS a enemy
Greensborough,
I don’t have exact figures on how many nurses, police and the like that the Liberals got rid of, but I do have recent figures on how many extra the Labor government has employed – more than 10,500 extra nurses, more than extra 3,150 doctors, more than extra 1,400 police officers. Public infrastructure has also been rebuilt, as you say. I know that more than $3 billion has gone in capital expenditure on education. I also know that all this has been done while cutting state taxes as a percentage of GSP and leaving Victorians better of in their private incomes as well. I have given the calculations before, but I will repeat them here for ease of reference.
In 1998-99, Victoria’s total tax revenue was $8.794 billion. In 2007-08, it was $13.213 billion. That looks like a large increase, but it is not when you take account of inflation, economic growth and population growth. In any case, the largest part of state revenue does not come from tax, but from Commonwealth grants.
In 1998-99, the Gross State Product was $151.213 billion. Government cash receipts (taxes, charges, grants, etc) represented 13.3 per cent of this total. Victoria’s population was 4,712.200, meaning income per head after state revenue was $27,822.
The ABS did not have the 2008-09 GSP when I last checked. In 2007-08, the GSP was $259.415 billion. Government cash receipts represented 14.2 per cent of this total. Victoria’s population was 5,297,600, meaning income per head after state revenue was $42,015. That is an increase of 51 per cent. The CPI rose by 31.3 per cent in the nine years from December 1998 to December 2007, so the real increase in income per head after state revenue was 15 per cent.
Ted Baillieu has already promised more police, and he is running ads saying that government advertising revenue should have been spent on more police, nurses and teachers, so I expect he will end up promising more nurses and more teachers as well. The secondary system is still about 2,000 teachers short, not only of what it had before his party cut but also of what Lindsay Thompson’s 1981 ratio would provide. I hope Labor is not caught flatfooted when Mr Baillieu make his promises.
Ron,
Thank you. I prefer “rivals” to “enemy” because I think the political temperature in Australia should be lowered, not increased to the level of the US.
The Greens are just another party – no more or less moral than any other, though they do manage to sound like they have the moral high ground. I think of Bob Brown’s nonsense on preferences before the federal election, when he said he did not believe in deals but he is party had to do one because of the Senate ATL, when in fact the Senate ATL allows a party to submit a split ticket. Worse than this, in McEwen, the Greens candidate spoke against the preference deal his party had done with Labor in this very seat. If parties do deals, the least we can expect is that they stick to them.
Chris
“I prefer “rivals” to “enemy” (re Greens threats to Labor) because I think the political temperature in Australia should be lowered, not increased to the level of the US.”
Chris , having seen in safe Labor seats th terrible propaganda used by Greens to pinch Labor suporters by popuplarism & untruths , and then seeing PB where Labor suports think Greens is “friends” ! , I tend to try to highlite to them to see that they aint friends of th ALP at all
well those greens PBers may seem more rspectable than me , prob is too , but i’m talking about ‘left’ convictions and politcal motives Greens more a wolf in sheeps clothin
re your pref comment , yes agree a deel is a deel and Bob brown should hav public honored that , but that would run counter to what i said Greens do at coal face in th streets to actual voters !
I did like way you presented pref done in Seante by Partys as I’ve never understood fielding Q if one looks at a Partys interest to get its man/lady up , and th cascading effect of prefs that does occur , resulting when last 3 were left from Senate Count that Labor was 3rd then
[William Bowe
Posted Tuesday, November 2, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
Cut it out, you two.]
Sorry William; my first rebuke.