The Victorian election is living up to its billing as the latest battlefield in new paradigm politics, with the Liberals finding themselves shunted from the front pages by a stoush between Labor and the Greens. At issue are the professional activities of the Greens candidate for Melbourne, Brian Walters, SC, who has been targeted over his legal work for accused war criminal Konrad Kalejs and a company associated with coal mining. After a furious response from the legal fraternity and the liberal end of the Melbourne media (The Age playing a tellingly distinct role in the controversy from the Sunday Herald Sun), most have concluded Labor’s attack has badly misfired, with Andrew Crook of Crikey going so far as to argue it has doomed Melbourne MP Bronwyn Pike to certain defeat. The correctness of this view depends largely on the resolution of the campaign’s other Greens-centric controversy: the split in the Liberal Party over whether to continue placing the Greens ahead of Labor on how-to-vote cards.
The behaviour of major party preferences has been little studied, as in the normal course of events they are not distributed. Of much greater interest has been minor party and independent preferences and their bearing on major party outcomes. The only substantial interruption to this picture in recent times came with the emergence of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, who Labor and eventually the Coalition parties both saw fit to put last. Hanson herself topped the primary vote when she contested the new seat of Blair at the 1998 federal election, but was thwarted when about three-quarters of Labor preferences went to Liberal candidate Cameron Thompson. When state Labor advised voters to simplify matters with a “just vote one” strategy in 2001, made possible by Queensland’s optional preferential voting system, the rate of exhausted Labor votes shot from a third to three-quarters. These episodes confirmed what scrutineers had long known about major party voters’ observance of how-to-vote cards.
Even more helpfully, a ballot paper study conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission after the 2006 election (thanks to Peter Brent of Mumble for alerting me to this) encompassed all four of the electorates under consideration, and found the rate of obedience among Liberal voters ranging from 30 per cent in Richmond to 45 per cent in Brunswick. With those Liberal voters who didn’t follow the card favouring the Greens over Labor about 60-40, the total rate of preferences to the Greens was consistently around 75 per cent, or slightly below the 80 per cent recorded in Melbourne and Batman at the federal election. As a rough guide, it can be inferred that a change in the Liberals’ how-to-vote policy would cut their preference flow to the Greens from the high 70s to around 40 per cent.
The likely impact of this is best considered in light of recent voting patterns. The table below shows how the state electorates voted both at the 2006 state election and the recent federal election (results from the latter being derived from booth results with slight adjustments made to account for declaration votes). While the latter figures have the advantage of being more current, they are unavoidably contaminated by specifically federal factors.
|
GRN 2PP
|
|||||
| ALP | GRN | LIB | LIB PREF | NO PREF | |
|
2006 STATE
|
|||||
| Melbourne | 45% | 27% | 22% | 48% | 40% |
| Richmond | 46% | 25% | 20% | 46% | 39% |
| Brunswick | 48% | 30% | 17% | 45% | 40% |
| Northcote | 53% | 27% | 15% | 42% | 37% |
|
2010 FEDERAL
|
|||||
| Melbourne | 36% | 37% | 22% | 57% | 49% |
| Richmond | 39% | 37% | 20% | 55% | 48% |
| Brunswick | 46% | 31% | 19% | 48% | 41% |
| Northcote | 46% | 33% | 17% | 49% | 42% |
On the basis of the 2006 state election, the order of dominoes would look to be Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick and Northcote, with some distance separating the last two. The federal election results tell a slightly different story, with the Greens in a substantially stronger position in Melbourne and Richmond than in Brunswick and Northcote – remembering that the former two constitute most of federal Melbourne, where Labor suffered the loss of Lindsay Tanner’s personal vote. By the same token, it should be remembered that Labor is losing incumbent Carlo Carli in Brunswick, where the contest could be further complicated if former federal independent Phil Cleary runs as an independent. The last two columns in the table project the Greens’ two-party vote in scenarios where they do and don’t receive Liberal preferences, and herein lies the rub. With Liberal preferences, they look to have Melbourne and Richmond in the bag, as well as being highly competitive in Northcote and Brunswick. Without them, they could yet emerge entirely empty-handed.
Personally, I would be very surprised if a party in a system as adversarial as our own saw fit to grant such a huge free kick to their real enemy. But at the very least, it will be interesting to see if the Liberals can do better this time in Greens preference negotiations which have traditionally been entirely fruitless for them.
UPDATE: Sam Bauers in comments makes the good point that the VEC study shows how Liberal voters behave when the how-to-vote card reflects their expectations: a change in policy might increase the rate of rebellion.
Just how wacky and deceitful is Greg Barber? Living in Green Fairy land…
This interesting exchange between Greg Barber and the Andrew Bolt published on the net dated Friday, July 02, 2010 at 07:01am
[http://www.countryalliance.org/news.htm ]
I have to agree with Bolt, Greg Barber (Vic Greens leader) lives in Fairly land and has no idea of reality.
Well obviously the Greens are a problem if Andrew Bolt says so.
If the Laborites are so scared of the Greens they have resorted to using Bolt to support their party, they really are a lost cause.
In the last days, we’ve had VECCI, the IPA and Bolt trotted out by Laborites to bash the greens on here. I assume you all take their pro-business, anti-union, anti-Labor views to heart as well. Will will see you out campaigning to bring back WorkChoices? Or are the views of the far-right legitimate when attaching the Greens and illegitimate when attacking the ALP?
The questions: When they entered Parliament, how many of the MPs named in the ABC story DID live in their electorates? How many of those named subsequently fell outside their electorates because of boundary changes?
I’m doing a follow-up on this. From personal knowledge, one high-profile MP named has always lived in in the same house – which he built – since he was elected. He hasn’t moved – the boundary did!
[North south pipeline, draining Lake Mokoan, removing cattle from the High Plains, supporting wind farms in areas where the local object, various projects involving the compulsory acquisition of land, dredging the Bay, desal plant, new National parks (incuding marine) etc etc.
All hard decisions which genuinely upset people.
What is interesting is that – in so many of these cases, where the action taken was to ensure good environmental outcomes – the Greens were MIA.]
Several of the examples you mention here are actually good indicators of just why the existence of a positive, one almost might by say symbiotic, relationship between labor and the Greens is so important in Victoria, zoomster.
Draining Lake Mokoan, removing cattle from the High Plains,…. new National parks (incuding marine) and support for wind farms are all matters on which The Greens , and their supporters, made the running for years, with a substantial impact on public opinion about such matters. The Greens, of course, have never had the power to actually implement such things in their own right, but without their protracted advocacy Labor would never have been in a position to (or perhaps have even wanted to) actually adopt such measures as their own.
It is certainly to Labor’s credit that they have taken action on such matters, but it isn’t true The Greens were “missing in action” on the environmental matters you mention here. In fact it is highly unlikely that any of these things would have been pursued without the work of The Greens and their supporters.
The other measures you mention, the desal plant, the north – south pipeline, dredging the bay, are not environmental protection matters (and it can certainly be argued that all three are likely to have substantial negative environmental consequences.) . I’ve already pointed out that in my own view a case can be made for the desal plant , and I actually think much the same about the dredging, though the north-south pipeline is harder to make a case for on balance. No, the Greens don’t support either (quite understandably , given their constituency and origins) and yes Labor have done hard yards with them, and deserve some credit for doing so.
But it is this interplay between the positive pressures from the Greens in some important policy areas with the strengths of Labor on the other that actually lead to people like me sitting “on the cusp” (despite the blather from GG and Ron assuming quite incorrectly that I’m some sort of “Q ship”).
Don’t under-estimate its importance. There is a lot to be said for the balancing effect of each party on the other in Victoria.
This is a dsiaster for the Libs. All those regional hospitals to miss out on upgrades plus Victoria would have to repay monies already paid. Creating uncertainty in the Community is not a good way to run an election campaign.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/opposition-threatens-to-scrap-health-deal-20101103-17e43.html?autostart=1
D@W 100
Ok, most of Monty is in Eastern as is most, if not all of Eltham. Eltham North is a seperate suburb. I agree about the stupid boundary lines. Anyway, it was the zone 1 ticket Barber was talking about, and both train station are in the electorate of Eltham(just)
As for 101, your only way to attack the Greens is to go to an opposing parties website? Of course there wont be anything positive there.
zoomster
I agree with you post 100%, I’m particularly upset that we haven’t heard a peep out of them defending wind farms. If that was how lobor was attacking the Greens you wouldn’t hear a peep out of me. Instead they go after a candidate for doing his job.
For once again doing exactly what I asked him not to, D@W has been banned for the remainder of the campaign.
Rod Hagen
I live in some of the communities affected by the actions I describe. I was an active advocate within the party for removal of cattle from the High Plains.
I have never (despite extensive reading of local media) seen any association between the Greens and these initiatives, either formally, through their party or informally, through letters to the editor etc identifying themselves as Greens supporters.
I accept that some of these measures were supported by Greens members, but they were remarkably reticent about making that connection.
This is part of the reason why I get angry about the Greens: I’ve had to fight these battles locally, by myself, and had no support from Greens members.
Yet they have the utter cheek to turn around and take the credit for it.
I didn’t hear a greens voice in support of draining Lake Mokoan. I looked for the Greens congratulating the government on the latest national park specially – nothing.
As for windfarms…Rod, they don’t even have a policy. You will find far more evidence to suggest the Greens are against windfarms than to suggest they support them.
93
You accuse me of being entirely ideological about inheritance tax but say it is bad without saying much about why.
There would be some people who move their place of residence overseas (I presume this is what you mean by “financial consequences”) to avoid inheritance tax but that would likely be a small number and the tax office already targets people who falsely claim residence overseas.
Inheritance tax is an open way of taxing the rich. It is taxing the income received from a deceased estate. I do not see why income from inheritance should be totally tax exempt while tax from working and investment is heavily taxes. It is just not fair.
Dave
you is quite selectiv , there was 39 suburbs in that quote of Greens MLC Barber’s northern seat , and you pick 2 that is in part of both regions with zone 1 , but zone 1 is useless in part of that Region anyway for him to get to !
Anyways you got 37 left of suburbs quoted by me that Greens MLC does not even visit in his elecltorate on his words , making him a hypocrit using Tom (Greens) OWN arguement slamming Labor MP’s not living in there seats !!
I mean it was a non issue in first place ex ABC News anti Labor beat up, then Greens pick up this non issue beat up here to attack Labor , and so i show Green MLC is hypocritol when youse reely wanted to argue this beatup unvote changing point – but it was such when BC aired it & Greens should hav treated it as such , but no
William Bowe
Posted Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
“For once again doing exactly what I asked him not to, D@W has been banned for the remainder of the campaign.”
Given you’ve let go thru to keeper most offensive remarks of troothy , and bob 123456 against females and re racism , and then later given them reprieves , noone of which D at W has done
vs his sin of bold but non re racism & offense words , perhaps th Appeals judge of you may reconsider
111
I provide no defence if Barber actually said that. The majority of Northern Metro is in zone two. If he said that then he should apologise.
Tom
I was only quoting an eg as a rebut that all Reps can get caught on this ‘non issue”
My main over ride point was/is that ABC ran a anti Labor beat up story of MP’s not living in there electorates (an issue for election thats not top ranking) , it could hav even incl Greens Brandt had he lived elsewhere outsidfde of his Seat (and he may in future ! for many personel or family reasons And i feel its all reely a non issue as most MP’s incl Liberals ones do a hard job representin there actual electorotes anyway (whereever they reside)
TOM THE FIRST AND BEST # 62.
“”Most people would benefit because most people are not super-rich. “We will significantly raise taxes on people richer than you and spent it on services like health, education public transport etc” is likely to be rather popular.””
Speak for yourself. The Brumby-and this is coming from a left-wing voter-government is meant to be funding health, education and public transport to the extent of under-funding hospitals, buggering up the public transport system, spending billions of our dollars on Myki, propping up the Grand Prix, and building more and more sports arenas to collect the footy-mad, Herald Sun Andrew Bolt supporters, and spending another few squillions of our dollars on self-promotion.
Sorry, but I think your suggestion would be very unpopular.
[Given you’ve let go thru to keeper most offensive remarks of troothy ]
… who was banned …
[and bob 123456 against females and re racism]
… who was also banned …
[and then later given them reprieves ]
… just like D@W will be after the election campaign …
[vs his sin of bold]
… which is not the reason he’s been banned …
[perhaps th Appeals judge of you may reconsider]
No.
thanks for giving a reply
i see th error of my defense , banning thru dis obeying instructs was prob cause to which his recant on that is in order , tho his move
115
These sort of taxes should be levied at a Commonwealth level to reduce the ability of the rich to avoid it (this is being discussed on a state thread because is was brought up by the ALP in one of their “Greens have unpopular policies” propaganda attacks). A government more inclined to tax the rich is more likely to avoid some of the spending mistakes of the current lot.
[I was an active advocate within the party for removal of cattle from the High Plains.
I have never …seen any association between the Greens and these initiatives, either formally, through their party or informally, through letters to the editor etc identifying themselves as Greens supporters.]
The Greens certainly made formal submissions to the 2003 bushfire inquiry opposing Cattle grazing in the High Country, zoomster – see, for example, http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/Bushfires/96-Org-Greens-Kunert,Carol.pdf
The Greens Northern Metro ticket:
1. Greg Barber, MLC
2. Alex Bhathal
3. Fraser Brindley
4. Samantha Ratnam
5. Alister Air
Terrific announcement by the Brumby Labor Government.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/john-brumby-promises-500m-for-child-protection-social-welfare/story-e6frf7kx-1225947667911
Tom,
Zone 1 Greg Barber
“Green Party MP Greg Barber said the trips must be good value and it isn’t clear they all reach that level. ‘Any of the information that I need, all it takes is a Zone 1 travel pass,’ he said.
http://www.vexnews.com/news/9343/snubbery-victorian-greens-party-mp-greg-barber-ignores-most-of-his-electorate/
Rod, what I’m talking about is action on the ground – getting out there in the community and advocating for the issue.
The only time the Greens do this is when they’re opposing windfarms.
They advocate for these actions from inner city Melbourne and leave ALP people like myself to actually try and defend them in our communities.
It would be nice if, just once, a Greens MP or Senator had put their hand up to support initiatives like the ones I referred to. (As I said, no media releases on latest national parks, saying how terrific it is….why not?)
Instead, what happens is that the ALP has to do the hard yards and the Greens get the credit for it.
Zoomster
“The only time the Greens do this is when they’re opposing windfarms.”
That’s pure unadulterated garbage, and I’m pretty sure you know it.
“Instead, what happens is that the ALP has to do the hard yards and the Greens get the credit for it.”
More unadulterated garbage…
Astrobleme
always nice to see a well structured argument from you, backed by evidence.
I can find several media releases from the Greens opposing windfarms (including one from Bob Brown saying that he will continue to oppose windfarms in Tasmania). I’ve only seen one in support.
Meanwhile, the Victorian government has to deal with community reaction with no support.
Just show me one – one – media release, media statement, letter to the editor, whatever, from a Greens MP (you’ve got three in the Upper House here) – supporting a proposed windfarm in Victoria and asking the local community to get behind it.
You won’t be able to, because it doesn’t exist, and that proves my second point for me.
@Ron 89
A Zone 1 Metcard periodical ticket (eg: monthly or yearly) is valid in Zone 2 on weekends.
[A Zone 1 Metcard periodical ticket (eg: monthly or yearly) is valid in Zone 2 on weekends.]
THe Barber “Zone 1” story makes no sense at all to me. Victorian parliamentarians, to the best of my knowledge, all have a free public transport pass. He wouldn’t even need a “Zone 1” ticket to travel by PT anywhere at all in his electorate!
Greens missing with environmnet in victoria
“North south pipeline,
draining Lake Mokoan,
removing cattle from the High Plains,
supporting wind farms in areas where the local object, various projects involving the compulsory acquisition of land,
dredging the Bay,
desal plant,
new National parks (incuding marine)
opposing wind farms
I can find several media releases from the Greens opposing windfarms
All hard decisions which genuinely upset people.
What is interesting is that – in so many of these cases, where the action taken was to ensure good environmental outcomes – the Greens were MIA. ”
Case has been made here that Greens steel limelite with talk w/o much Action , whereas Vic Labor Govt protcts th Vic Environment
When one looks at Fed , same story of Enviro protecton from Hawkie , Keating , rudd to Gillard (under Garrett with whaling & marine parks)
from what i can gather, the likely cause of events at the election are as follows:
inner melbourne: swings against both major parties to the greens, constituting in between 2 and 4 seats to the greens (melbourne, richmond most likely, brunswick with retiring member a possiblility and northcote on polling figures could be close, dont count out prahran as well)
in alp v lib battle in inner melbourne likely small swing on 2pp to ALP
outer suburbs: in stronger labor areas in outer north of melbourne and west of melbourne likely to remain on 2pp around the status quo or no change, whilst in the north-east, outer east and south-east there could be slight swing to libs which could yield seats like mitcham, mt waverley and forest hill, gembrook and frankston at best for libs. I.E in eastern areas slight swing to Libs
Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat and other regional areas: looms to be slight swings to libs but on current margins no change of seats, possibly south barwon and seymour any else would be unlikey.
rural areas: only ripon in firing line, likely lib gain but some of the biggest swings to coalition to occur out of melbourne where it is perceived the same arrogance of the Kennett government is occuring under the bracks/brumby alp governments.
Ingram to retain Gippsland West
overall at best the libs are looking at 5-8 seat swing and greens to gain 2-4 seats
in total this would constitute a 7-12 seat swing against Labor but keep them with a decent majority.
* rural areas i meant biggest swings to libs in seats held by the libs/nats in rural areas, which mean nothing
The other question is about the libs preferencing the greens. short answer is that as they are unlikely to win the election they should not preference the greens, however the fact they are putting candidates in electorates like melbourne where they have no chance of winning or coming in the top 2 is a disgrace.
if they put those resources from alp/green contests into other marginal seats, they could well win another seat or 2 that they may not have had a chance in and it would make labor put more resources into areas they would have not considered, making it more vulnerable against the greens in the inner city electorates
122
Do you have less biased source for that?
(You cannot deny he opposes the Greens)
Stop living in Dreamland folks. *Of course* the Libs will preference the Greens. So long as they continue to see the ALP as their major opponent (which, incidentally, they are) they will continue to do so.
The Greens will give them one eight of diddlysquat in return – and still they will preference the Greens. Im frankly surprised that this silly and rather feverish salvation fantasy of Brumby’s is being taken seriously by anyone with a lick of sense.
Fat chance!
128
The Greens oppose
The North South Pipeline
Dredging the Bay
The Desal
All because they are ban anti-environment decisions.
The Greens have been quite involved in the campaigns against the Dredging and the Desal and helped vote down a regulation that would have allowed water through the North South Pipeline (the Government found another way to allow the water through).
131
It would be seen as generally bad form for a major party not to contest a seat in a General Election.
The local Liberals (there are some especially in East Melbourne and Docklands) would not be happy if they did not stand and may not decide to help in other places.
The Liberals want to maximise their vote for the Legislative Council to try and get a second MLC in Northern Metro.
The Liberals still get funding for their votes because they get over 4%.
The Liberals are tying up more ALP resources on fighting the Greens than they are using themselves to run dead and preference the Greens. To do the most ALP resource diverting the Liberals would need to run a split ticket in Melbourne and Richmond and preference the Greens in Northcote, Brunswick and Footscray.
Also in Australia we have preferential voting so a party not coming in the top 2 is no reason not to run.
[Im frankly surprised that this silly and rather feverish salvation fantasy of Brumby’s is being taken seriously by anyone with a lick of sense.]
With John Howard advocating it, I hardly see how it can be called that.
aaronkirk
what is absolute clear however rite now , is Vic Labor would be returned with a majority , if Greens wer not trying to win those 4 inner safe Labor seats !
However am intersted in why you said
“The other question is about the libs preferencing the greens. short answer is that as they are unlikely to win the election they should not preference the greens, however the fact they are putting candidates in electorates like melbourne where they have no chance of winning or coming in the top 2 is a disgrace.”
I think what Premier John Brumby has done is highlite th hypocrasy of both Liberals and Greens in these 4 seats , to alert voters and place this matter under public scrutiny as it should be Pity MSN did not do a more extensive job
(seeing on th ground in those seats Greens trash Labor to voters , and Liberalswho regard Greens as dangerous extremists is helping th Greens to defeat Labor in them)
William Bowe
Posted Friday, November 5, 2010 at 12:15 am | Permalink
‘ Im frankly surprised that this silly and rather feverish salvation fantasy of Brumby’s is being taken seriously by anyone with a lick of sense. ‘
“With John Howard advocating it, I hardly see how it can be called that.”
and ALSO publicly last week , Vic Liberal Senator Helen Kroger advocating same as well
The sheer panic which seems to emanate from some Labor sources in Victoria re the rise of the Greens… must surely indicate a crisis of confidence,even if you ignore the sheer malice of people like Newnham,and the tone of some on this blog too.
The Greens rise and rise is due to much that is wrong with the ALP in government both state and federal…why for instance would anyone vote Labor any more in NSW or QLand.?
The sometimes silly remarks of Gillard(her classic remark about her lack of interest in International affairs,and her wish instead to see some child reading,was just too inane for words)
Likewise Rudd in his terminal state as PM… being unable to speak in simple English,so his statements read like a parody of himself! We now know from the statements of Caucus members that they were cowed and silent !!…but why ?
Even this week the Govt has allowed Joe Hockey to seize the day re the Banks,and he will score on this ,not Gillard,when the House resumes.
On topics like Euthenasia we know from the polls that a big majority want to see it inacted into law…but the religious ayatollahs,like the awful Cardinal Pell,stand in the way and the politicians of the two major parties stand in fear of the religious lobbies
So for many the Greens seem like a welcome change,and will continue to hollow-out the Labor vote…and may even threaten some Liberal marginals in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs,if they can get ahead of Labor
…and all the venom and spite expressed by some here won’t effect that process
I expect to see a further rise in the Green vote in Vic.here as polling day approaches
Tom @ 134
What sparked a reference to desal etc was the claim that Labor only took popular and easy decisions.
Thanks for helping to point out that they didn’t.
The further point developed from there was that, on important environmental issues such as the creation of National Parks, windfarms, the removal of cattle from the High Plains, etc, there was little or no support of the government in taking these intiatives from the Greens, but they then get the credit for not only supporting these initiatives but for apparently instigating them!
The city – centricity of the present Green Upper House members and their support base is proven by this – they weren’t active on these issues because they don’t live in the areas concerned and they’re really not interested in what happens there (unless they can do some political point scoring, as in the case of the N-S pipeline).
It’s the old problem: the Greens can promise what they like, because they don’t have to be accountable.
Most of their voters have no idea what they stand for in reality (I don’t object to the major thrust of Greens’ policies, btw, but I sure bet there’d be some surprises in there for the ex Libs I know who vote Green) and just assume (as so many posters here have) that the Greens have been active in promoting some of these issues.
As I said, it would appear that a lot of the Green vote comes from people who have a feeling of vague guilt about the environment and their contribution to its degradation but can’t do much in practicality about it (at least I can go out and plant trees). So they vote Green to make themselves feel better, with little or no understanding of how the Greens operate in reality.
As I’ve also said, that will change with time, as the Greens come under more scrutiny.
Honestly, the scrutiny they’ve had (a couple of questions about a candidate’s professional behaviour) is nothing compared to that undergone by a major party candidate in even a safe seat. Yet they don’t even seem to be able to deal with that.
[Honestly, the scrutiny they’ve had (a couple of questions about a candidate’s professional behaviour) is nothing compared to that undergone by a major party candidate in even a safe seat. Yet they don’t even seem to be able to deal with that.]
I’d say there response has been pretty successful, it’s Labor not the Green member that is feeling the heat. But then the attack was pretty stupid.
Tom,
You may like to walk around with your head up your arse, however it is a direct quote from a Herald Sun article. Next you’ll be saying the Murdoch press is full of lies.
“Green Party MP Greg Barber said the trips must be good value and it isn’t clear they all reach that level”.
“Any of the information that I need, all it takes is a Zone 1 travel pass,” he said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victorian-mps-spend-25-millions-on-junkets-abroad/story-e6frf7jo-1225867951445
Well, if that is all the story says that created Landeryou’s paroxisms at Vex News, and all of the follow on nonsense here you can see why why people get cynical about beat ups.
THis is a story about over use of travel privileges, not about someone saying they don’t need to visit all of their electorate. It is about members who spend a lot of their time “researching” in France and New York, not doing the hard yards in outer Broadmeadows.
The single line of Barber quoted at the end of the article is a throw away comment contrasting Barber’s own approach to the seemingly excessive love of travel amongst other parliamentarians. In fact it certainly sounds as if Barber has a lot more time to spend in his own electorate than some other members, who are more likely to be found wandering along the Kokoda Trail at taxpayers expense, or taking in the highlights of London!
In short, Landeryou’s argument about its meaning is absurd, as is anyone who has attempted to use it here.
Rod,
I know you’re thick so I’ll write this slowly, Barber’s “throw away line” betrays his indifference to over 50% of his electorate that lives outside zone 1 transport areas. He probably thinks Hurstbridge is full of red necks and ratbags that get all their news and information from the Diamond Creek Leader.
Ted Baillieu has promised to employ 100 specialist maths and science teachers for primary schools.
(Baillieu pledges science teacher boost, Richard Willingham and Thomas Hunter, The Age, November 5, 2010)
Why you need a major in maths or science to teach either subject at primary school is beyond me, but that’s not the main point. The main point is that he is ignoring the much greater staffing shortfall in secondary schools that his party created when last in government and which Labor has only partly repaired, while adding even more teachers to primary schools, where Labor has already reversed all the cuts his party made.
The primary pupil teacher ratio has been:
1974 (the year I began teaching) – 22.6:1
1981 (last full year of the last Liberal government that cared about education) – 18.1:1
1992 (last year of the previous Labor government) – 15.8:1
1999 (last year of the last Liberal government) – 17.2:1
2009 (last year of the current Labor government for which I have figures) – 15.7:1.
The secondary pupil teacher ratio has been:
1974 (the year I began teaching) – 14.1:1
1981 (last full year of the last Liberal government that cared about education) – 10.9:1
1992 (last year of the previous Labor government) – 10.8:1
1999 (last year of the last Liberal government) – 12.6:1
2009 (last year of the current Labor government for which I have figures) – 11.9:1.
[You may like to walk around with your head up your arse]
What is it with rightwing, religious, extremist and their anal and bodily function remarks?
My letter to the editor in response:
[ know you’re thick so I’ll write this slowly, Barber’s “throw away line” betrays his indifference to over 50% of his electorate that lives outside zone 1 transport areas. He probably thinks Hurstbridge is full of red necks and ratbags that get all their news and information from the Diamond Creek Leader.]
Barber’s comment doesn’t say anything at all about indifference to anyone, GG. It simply says that he doesn’t spend taxpayers money doing “research” for his electorate in Paris , London, New York and New Guinea.
As I’ve already pointed out , Barber doesn’t actually have to use even a Zone 1 ticket. He, like all other State parliamentarians, has a free travel pass for use on public transport in Victoria.
Just by the way, GG, the Hurstbridge booth at the 2010 Federal election returned:
Mitchell (Lab) 43.62%
Meacher (Green) 20.84%
Caine (Lib) 32.32%
Real little hornets nest of lefties out here, you know. You have to head to Yarrambat for the red necks.
[I know you’re thick so I’ll write this slowly, Barber’s “throw away line” betrays his indifference to over 50% of his electorate that lives outside zone 1 transport areas]
GG
I know you’re thick so i’ll write this slowly. Your taking a line out of context to justify your own prejudice and opinion is pathetic. You hate the Greens, we all get that, but to step into grubby journalism and politics 101 is pretty poor.