As John Brumby and Ted Baillieu prepare for tonight’s leaders debate (unlikely to have much impact, being buried on a Friday evening three weeks out from polling day), here are some notable happenings from the first week of the campaign:
• Paul Austin of The Age has received a “detailed strategy document” from the ALP in which campaign spending is allocated to electorates according to need, although its veracity is disupted by party state secretary Nick Reece. The document identifies 13 seats as “in danger”, including four held by ministers: Melbourne (Bronwyn Pike), Bendigo East (Jacinta Allan), Mount Waverley (Maxime Morand) and Ripon (Joe Helper). Also on the list are Prahran, Forest Hill, Gembrook, Mordialloc, South Barwon, Seymour, Eltham, Frankston and Bentleigh. Another six are at the apparently lower but still high threat level of “critical”: Richmond, Brunswick, Burwood, Mitcham, Ballarat West and Macedon. Of lesser but still real concern are Monbulk, Narre Warren South, Narre Warren North, Bellarine, Ballarat East and Yan Yean. More broadly, Labor is said to fear a backlash among “white males aged between 30 and 50” who are aggreived over “law and order and so-called ‘nanny state’ issues”.
• Stephen McMahon of the Herald-Sun reports Liberal candidates were “summoned to a special meeting last night” on the back of squabbles and resignations which have “threatened to derail Ted Baillieu’s campaign”. McMahon points to a dangerous number of Liberal MPs briefing against Baillieu, and beats the drum of internal “dismay” over a “deal” with the Greens on preferences (which in fact amounts to the party simply doing what it’s always done).
• The Liberals are currently without a candidate in the winnable country seat of Seymour after the withdrawal of Mike Laker on Saturday. Though ostensibly for “personal reasons”, this obviously related to a talk radio caller’s claim that Laker had told him of government plans to house 50 Somali families in the electorate and provide them with free cars. The Weekly Times likes the chances of independent Jan Beer, running on behalf of the Plug the Pipe campaign against the controversial north-south pipeline.
• The Liberal candidate for Richmond, Tom McFeely, is back in the party fold after announcing on Wednesday he would quit and run as an independent. The owner of Collingwood gay pub the Peel Hotel, McFeely had been affonted by a rebuke he received from a Liberal apparatchik for conducting media appearances without party clearance.
• The mayor of Mildura, one Glenn Milne, has announced he will take a leave of absence from council to run for the seat of Mildura as an independent. Mildura was held by independent Russell Savage for three terms from 1996, but he was defeated in 2006 by Nationals candidate Peter Crisp.
• Antony Green has calculated margins in key seats based on results from the federal election – not normally an exercise psephologists have much time for, but more than useful on this occasion in demonstrating Victoria’s electoral stability since the last state election.
UPDATE: Essential Research has published state poll results based on its last six weeks of surveying, and its the first published poll to support Labor concerns raised in Paul Austin’s article: the two parties are tied on two-party preferred, with the Coalition on a clear primary vote lead of 44 per cent to 38 per cent. As usual, Essential shows the Greens more modestly placed than other pollsters on 12 per cent.
Rebecca 247
[the Greens going split-ticket across the state in retaliation (nothing to lose in that situation!)]
It has been shown in the past that the Greens HTV cards have very little effect on their voters’ preferences.
[and a heck of a lot of more centrist Greens preferencing the Liberals.]
As is their right – if they want a Coalition government they deserve to get one.
People seem to be missing my point.
The day after this “theoretical” Brumby says this in the “people’s forum” what do you think the headline of the “Herald-Sun” (highest circulation newspaper in Australia) will be? Will it be about some minor debating point that Baillieu has won? No – I’d say it would be
BRUMBY DECLARES WAR ON GREENS
And this would take all the wind out of the sails of the Coalition campaign. They would be struggling to get any attention on anything other than their Greens preference dilemma for the last two and a half weeks before polling day.
And the Herald-Sun would love it! Their editorial would back him up 100%.
After all, their organisation has already declared war on the Greens.
There is very little interest in the coming election among most of the public. This would be the “big moment” to get people interested, and it would reinforce the perception of Brumby as decisive and Baillieu as dithering.
Rod Hagen
Faris SC demolished Greens Walter’s lame cab rank defense on 2 grounds , one that Walters had a choice to not defend Big Coal , and two that Walters was hypocriticol seeking public office condemning big Coal , but advocating for Big Coal
it was Walters seeking public office on a anti Big coal platform that makes diff , and turns what he as a NON Polly had th choice to refuse in first place under cab rank (telling cline his anti coal views first or pplain just saying I’m busy) , to outrite hypocacy advocating for big coals but seeknig office on a anti big coal agenda
that you continue to defend such an outrage shows blinkerd Greens partisienship As to Faris himself , I’ve merely judged his opinion on a case by case basis , whereeas you prejudise him totally
Marg
that Vic Greens refuse to submit there polisy costings to Treasury , that is universel recognised finance competant and is universalel recognized as independent shows Greens cn not be beleived on any polisy as being deliverable nor credible
That Vic Greens MLC Barber says he’s got a simply a Uni Degree and claims he can cost his OWN Greens polisys , and can do so independently and can do so with his non Treasery expertise is childish at best , but displays econamic amaturism , no understand of independant gocernanse and indicates Greens got someting to hide , and do not warrant any voters vote
(Abbott used that excuse , and public later found there costings had a 11 billon short fall)
GG
see you parry parrotts off quite easy , and only in 2nd gear as well , well done
Travis
read your quite detailed coments on trains , and indeed on trams where you listing problams , but then you said you not sure of some causes Perhps you could address that area , with figures of possible solutions
(given Kennett snake bite of privatising , and contracts left in reel practical effect makes buy back nad Debta hurdle too high on econamic grounds , let alone legal issues)
BTW note also miki is in teething stage , and here is a 38 bill programme in train
Tim Colebatch in The Age laying more groundwork for Baillieu’s Green preferences.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/liberal-rights-greens-obsession-deprives-baillieu-of-oxygen-20101108-17kg0.html
Mail is Liberals are terrified of Brumby doing what I theorised at the people’s forum. They are scrambling for appropriate response including phrases such as “in selected seats”, “failed Labor Ministers”, “outstanding local Liberal candidates who may well win” etc.
For all the complaints about Melbourne’s public transport, use of the system has boomed since 1999. Indeed, this is part of the problem – demand for public transport has grown so much that it’s far outstripped predictions, which meant that the forward planning wasn’t there to cope with it.
So it’s fair to assume that, on the whole, people are actually satisfied with the system – otherwise they’d go back to whatever they were using beforehand (and a lot of the problems wouldn’t exist!)
Not saying it couldn’t be improved but.
As for all this whinging about freeways: get over it. They are environmentally friendly.
(I agree public transport is even more e.f. But – in the foreseeable future, which is what govts have to plan for – people are still going to drive cars.)
If you want to cut emissions, then providing commuters with a short, quick trip to where they’re going, rather than having them sitting in traffic jams for most of the time, is a good thing.
[demand for public transport has grown so much that it’s far outstripped predictions, which meant that the forward planning wasn’t there to cope with it….So it’s fair to assume that, on the whole, people are actually satisfied with the system ]
Melbourne’s public transport is fair to middling zoomster – maybe a C+ would be appropriate. There are certainly far worse systems in the world , but there are better ones too, and it is an area where Melbourne , earlier in its existence, was close to a world leader. These days it is hard pressed to even equal Sydney’s.
Most of the “boom” in usage came about because of two things – rising fuel prices and major increases in CBD parking costs. Many people were effectively forced onto the system as a result of these factors (and yes, I agree, neither of these changes were the “fault” of the Labor government).
In other words the “boom” in usage is not generated by satisfaction, but primarily by economic “push” factors. One of the reasons, I suspect, why dissatisfaction about the system is often expressed is that many of those who now use the system do so because they have to, not because they want to – often a recipe for a bit of a grumble!
You can think of the pressures pushing people back onto public transport as a “problem” or as an “opportunity”. The more the state government sees it as an “opportunity, the better, I reckon. Keeping people on PT, and encouraging even more to use it, reduces many pressures in other areas (open space / parking/ pollution / greenhouse emissions/ etc etc).
It is one of those things by which great cities of the world are judged. A lot could be said for policies that aimed at making us a world leader in this area once again, instead of an “also ran”. To its credit Labor did some of the work necessary to keep the system on its feet after years of cutbacks, but its now time to truly “move forward” in this area again, don’t you reckon?
Zoomster (126 at 6.47pm on 7/11),
What I say is factual. The figures I quote come from the Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit, various issues of Summary Statistics for Victorian Schools, Parliamentary Public Accounts and Estimates Committee reports, The Secondary Teacher, state budget documents, ABS releases and the like. If I give a quotation, I give a source.
The evidence for contract employment before the Liberal government of 1992-99 is in VSTA Special Notices, 22/2/1977, 8/3/1977, VSTA News, 16/6/1980, 30/6/1980 and many more. Evidence of Labor’s promise to end LTEs is in VSTA News, 12/10/1981, and the breaking of the spirit of that promise is in VSTA News, 3/5/1982 and 24/5/1982.
When I say “Liberal propaganda” I am referring to claims made by the likes of John Morrissey, who said:
Here is another example:
That he is a Liberal supporter can be shown by the following references:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/victorias_eight_somnolent_years/
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/weaknesses-exposed-in-the-leaders-debate/story-fn558imw-1225897197141
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/technically_we_are_finished/
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/how_will_labor_staff_the_trade_workshops_in_our_schools/
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/if-not-price-gouging-perhaps-creative-accounting/story-fn558imw-1225845505944
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/state_overburdened_by_politicians_bureaucrats/
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/were_blessed_with_an_influx_of_union_party_hacks
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/computers_dont_add_up_to_education_policy/
The following table gives figures on staffing and enrolments:
Year P.Studen P.Tchr PTR S.Stude S.Tchr PTR TotStud TotTch PTR
1989 294,768 18,272 16.1 228,921 21,142 10.8 527,700 40,700 13.0
1990 299,276 18,420 16.2 227,300 21,530 10.6 526,576 39,950 13.2
1992 303,878 19,178 15.8 239,589 21,372 10.8 534,466 40,550 13.3
(Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit, Volume Two, p 49)
Staffing for secondary schools had three main components – a base factor, an enrolment factor and a special needs factor. In 1992, there were 4,205 base teachers, 13,921 enrolment teachers and 2,138 special needs teachers, making a total of 20,264 teachers (FTUV Briefing Notes, 7/2/1994). The table above says there were 21,372 teachers, so you may think that the missing 1,108 were sitting around in schools not taking classes, but this is not so.
First of all, first-year out teachers counted as 0.9 in the entitlement factor, but as 1.0 in the number employed. So, if there were 1,000 first-year-out teachers, they would constitute only 900 of the 20,264 counted in the entitlement, but 1,000 of the 21,372 actually employed, reducing the gap by 100.
Secondly, there was a tolerance factor. If a school had 60 teachers, but was entitled to only 59.9 under the formula, it did not have to decapitate one. That tolerance factor used to be 0.9, but it was reduced. I have not been able to find what it was in 1992 or even if it still existed. But some of the 1,108 discrepancy could be teachers used in schools that were slightly above their entitlements.
Thirdly, there were instrumental music teachers, not counted in the three main staffing components but counted in the number employed.
Fourthly, there were relieving teachers, not part of any school’s entitlement but counted in the number employed.
Then there is the fact that the calculation of pupil-teacher ratios includes teachers on leave of less than four weeks; i.e., teachers not in schools at all but still counted in the number employed. Of course, some of these may have their replacement counted in the other figures, but some may not.
Al of the above do not account for the entire 1,108 discrepancy, but they do reduce it. The main factor is something else.
If you have a look at the table above, you will notice something strange. The 1990 figures for both teachers and students add up, and the 1992 figures for teachers add up, while the figures for students are out by only one. However, the 1989 table does not add up. Adding the primary and secondary students together gives a total of 523,689 students, but the table says there are 527,700. Where are the missing 4,011 students? Adding the primary and secondary teachers together gives a total of 39,414 teachers, but the table says there are 40,700. Where are the missing 1,286 teachers?
The missing students and teachers are in special schools in 1989. From 1990, they were allocated to primary or secondary sectors. The allocation is a notional one third primary and two thirds secondary ((Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit, Volume Two, p 65). That suggest about 800 of the missing 1,286 teachers were in special schools in 1989 and were subsequently allocated to the secondary total of employed teachers in 1990 but not in actual secondary schools. More and more students who would once have gone to special schools have been integrated into mainstream schools, so the estimate of 800 may have been lower by 1992.
The above calculations show that the teachers removed from schools were real teachers. There were people on leave beyond four weeks who took redundancy packages, but they were never counted in the PTRs in the first place.
I do not dispute your account of your own school. From1993, there were teachers in excess in schools who may not have been given regular classes because the government had cut the school entitlement. They were called DRTs. In other words, the existence of these DRTs was a consequence of the government’s cuts to teacher numbers, not a cause of it. Before 1992, there may have been some in excess, though not called DRTs, but I would like some evidence that there were a “lot” of them as I was uanaware of them at the time, and I did have friends in several schools and kept in touch with events.
The Liberal government’s cuts were to the staffing formula. In secondary schools, the changes to the base, entitlement and special needs factors cut 3,648 teaching positions from secondary schools. (FTUV Briefing Notes, 7/2/1994).
I think this is long enough.
259
There were predictions of a major rise in patronage and these were included in the assumptions of the 1999 privatisation contracts. The Scrapping of almost all the Hitachi trains caused there to be a lack of trains and this is a large part of the problem.
Freeways and other road expansion projects do not reduce pollution, they increase it because they increase the available traffic space, traffic speed and traffic distance and all three of these increase pollution. A congested road means that there is less traffic than there would be if there was more road space to cater for that traffic and thus more pollution. Conjested cities use less fuel that unconjested ones.
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/pollution.shtml
Have a look at the visionary plan and costing that the fabulous Greens have been working on.
We are so lucky that we have people with vision, solutions and guts to challenge the dinosaurs running our country into the ground.
http://peopleplan.greens.org.au/
I think that should be the Greens platform Tom…we want to congest the roads so that it pushes more people onto public transport. Please make it so….can’t wait to see the carnage
[
I think that should be the Greens platform Tom…we want to congest the roads so that it pushes more people onto public transport. Please make it so….can’t wait to see the carnage
]
I thought that was the Greens platform. What new roads do the Greens plan to build?
This election is boring me s***less.
It needs something dramatic – any suggestions?
Pollster, if you come here looking for an answer to your question concerning Group voting, the cut off is 24 hours before close of nominations – see http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/stand/stand-howto-state.html#9
All members of the group have to already be nominated when the group submission is made.
Nominations for the election opened on Wednesday, 3 November and close for political parties at noon on Thursday, 11 November and at noon on Friday, 12 November for independent candidates.
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/stand/stand-howto-state.html has other relevant info.
SNIP: Impersonation deleted – The Management.
Tom @ 262
Look, I’m all for public transport, but sites like the one you link to make my blood boil.
Basically, it sets up something as a myth and then scrambles around to find ways of justifying that, whether it happens to be true or not.
To take the ‘myth’ you link to – the article refers to many studies supporting its contention but fails to name one. It grasps quite minor statements in the scheme of things and then uses these as absolute proof of its assertions.
So, for example, there is a link to a VicRoads statement about the effects of a by pass (not a freeway) on traffic numbers which is taken to show that VR themselves admit that freeways increase traffic numbers.
When you actually look at what VR is saying, it is that use of the freeway will grow over time due to natural growth in traffic (that is, growing population = more car users = more car users on this bypass) and traffic being diverted from other roads.
The last bit actually supports what I was saying (and actually disproves the contention it’s meant to be supporting) – i.e. that freeways take traffic from other roads.
I assume that, if I trawled a bit more, I would come across the amazing revelation that the reason traffic comes off other roads onto the freeway is that the freeway trip is quicker.
Honestly, this is like arguing that freeways increase traffic flows by 1000% because the day before the freeway opened noone used it, and the day after it saw 1000 cars.
And to compare our freeway system with places like Los Angeles and conclude that therefore freeways increase traffic and emissions is simply silly.
As for your statement about predicted increase in public transport usage – yes, there was, and it failed to eventuate in the early stages.
However, the growth since 2006 or so has been phenomenal – an 89% increase in V/Line patronage in the last five years and – for Melbourne – 9% in 2009 alone.
This far outstrips any of the predictions made for the growth of the system under the Kennett years and thus also far outstrips the abilities of even the most optimistic bureacrat (or Minister, or CEO) to have planned for it.
If anything, the failure of the intial predictions meant that everyone was caught flat footed when public transport usage did take off.
And, Rod – the rise of costs in CBD parking were intended to push people onto public transport, as the public statements at the time made clear.
Part of our problem is that most of our rail network was built in the heyday of rail, with much of the system in place before the 1890s. When you look at the history of rail development (‘The Land Boomers’ is a very good read) they were built at a time when Parliament was something you went into because you wanted to capitilise on your investment and could afford to join what was then a very exclusive club.
Thus our rail network tends to go places where parliamentarians in the late 1800s owned lots of undeveloped land, rather than places where it was actually needed. (I lived at the end of such a railway for some years, and had a first class rail system which appeared to have been built just for my shack).
We’ve spent the last hundred years trying to work out how to make this very dysfunctional system somehow make sense.
The whole issue of moving people around the state should not degenerate into a ‘roads v. public transport’ argument. We need both. We can have both. They should be seen as complementary, not somehow in opposition, and planned together.
269
You seem to think that roads do not influence how people travel. Freeways and other road expansion projects enable sprawl by making longer commuting distances achievable in a shorter time. The possible shapes where people buy/build their houses, start businesses etc. If the roads do not get built then the population growth is distributed differently and more sustainably.
I am talking about all road expansions not just Freeways. The Geelong Bypass is a Freeway. It is a 4 lane dual carriageway, with no intersections just interchange ramps, a ban on farm machinery and animals, a 100 km/h speed limit and no tolls. It even has “PRINCES FWY” as part of its name in the Melway. In no sense is it not a Freeway.
Zoomster is completely correct. the Rail network was developed in the 1880s with on eye on property prices.
A good example is the Sandringham line that was altered to run though land owned by the then Railway Minister and local MP Sir Thomas Bent.
If you look at the Frankston Train line, that line was laid dopwn when the outer suburbs of Melbourne was Malvern and that remained bascially unchanged until the 1940/50s then we saw the great post war immigration program.
In some ways the likes of Bent and Giles did a great job, but it is surprising and I would be interested to know why there was no lines built out into certain parts of Melbourne back in the hay day of Rail line construction.
Whilst I understand where the likes of Tom are coming from but the reality is most people want to get from point A to B ASAP.
It is not possible to put Train lines every where
I should point out that the current Transport Plan is actually building new rail lines as part of the Regional Rail project and also the Footscray to Caulfield rail project.
Some elected Greens representatives seem to be doing their best to uphold Helen Kroger’s view of their party!
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/greens-councillor-arrested-on-drugs-charges-20101109-17lny.html
Rocket,
Interesting point.
It sort of makes you wonder how these guys could fund the Greens campaign out of their own pocket.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/the-money-men-20101108-17klw.html
[
Have a look at the visionary plan and costing that the fabulous Greens have been working on.
]
Have a look at the many fantastic Transport projects, planned and completed by the Brumby Labor government. No half baked policies costed by Greg “I am the Greens think-tank for policy costings” Barber here
http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/web23/home.nsf/headingpagesdisplay/projectscompleted+projects
Rocket 251.
Dem@work had already covered some of this in his comments before he was band from commenting. What he had to say was correct. I have done analysis of the Southern Metro Region compring the 2006 vote with the 2010 Senate vote. A Green split ticket would definatly hand a third Legislative Council seat to the Liberal Party. , ALP one, Green one.
A split ticket would be a case of being “even handed” as the Liberal Party only need to nullify any Green surplus vote and retain a higher then the ALP quota suprlus. A spit tick might look like they are being even handed but they are just addking wiegth equally to each of the bowls . Green voters would not have their vote distributed according to their preferences but dictated to by the party machine in fulfillment of some preference made behind closed doors. ‘The LNP need to only pick up 2 to 3 percentage points or stay ahead of the ALP in a close fight for the fifth seat.
The Liberal Party stand to gain possible all up 3 or 4 upper house seats by doing a deal with the Greens. This would also hand them potential control of both houses of parliament should the Liberal Party secure a majority in the lower house.
The registered group voting tickets close on Sunday 12:00 noon. Lower house tv registration closes on November 15 and close on November 22.
We will know if there is a deal between the Greens and the LNP on sunday at the latest. If the Greens preference the LNP before the ALP or they issue a split ticket hen we know they have cut a deal. Its as simple as that.
[Dem@work had already covered some of this in his comments before he was band from commenting.]
He is a veritable font of wisdom, that D@W, and his new blog is a major contribution to public discourse. What ever was William thinking when he banned him.
[I have done analysis of the Southern Metro Region compring the 2006 vote with the 2010 Senate vote.]
You have? Golly. Who would have thought this would prove such a popular pastime.
[And, Rod – the rise of costs in CBD parking were intended to push people onto public transport, as the public statements at the time made clear.
Part of our problem is that most of our rail network was built in the heyday of rail, with much of the system in place before the 1890s. When you look at the history of rail development (’The Land Boomers’ is a very good read) they were built at a time when Parliament was something you went into because you wanted to capitilise on your investment and could afford to join what was then a very exclusive club.
Thus our rail network tends to go places where parliamentarians in the late 1800s owned lots of undeveloped land, rather than places where it was actually needed. (I lived at the end of such a railway for some years, and had a first class rail system which appeared to have been built just for my shack).
We’ve spent the last hundred years trying to work out how to make this very dysfunctional system somehow make sense.]
Mmm. Seems to me, zoomster, that despite the problems caused by the Land Boomers (and yes, I liked Michael Cannon’s book too) , just about every one of our surviving railways goes somewhere useful. The problem is we haven’t been doing anything like enough to ensure that new ones have been built to cope with the massive population increase from 1 million people in 1900 at the end of the period Cannon wrote about, to the 4 million people we have today!
Rod
but an awful lot of time and money was wasted for many years trying to keep the useless ones operative.
We would have had a much better system now if the rationalisation had happened in the 1890s rather than waiting a century to sort it out.
279
The useless lines were mostly out in the rural areas (there were a lot of those). Pro-rural malaportionment was a major factor because all these rural politicians wanted rail lines in their electorates. Melbourne would be better if there were lines to East Doncaster, Rowville, the Airport and a few minor extensions.
Pollster 276
If the Greens cut a deal with the Liberals, John Brumby and Labor will love it! It will be ammunition in their war against the Greens. And I’m sure any deal the Greens make with the Liberals will go down very well with their own supporters.
But I believe the Liberals (in the realpolitik world) should definitely get something from the Greens, and if the Greens end up handing government to the Liberals that is fine by me. They will deserve it.
Tom 280
[The useless lines were mostly out in the rural areas ]
To be fair though – a lot of this planning was done before the automobile was thought of. Thus it was thought in the late 1800s that there would need to be trains to everywhere. I think this is one of the reasons why quite wide gaps were left for many of our rural roads (say compared to those little hedge-lined lanes in England).
Yes, there does need to be a few more rail corridors – better use of money than a “Carlton-Kew Tram” down Johnston St (on the Greens plan). The tram network has had a few useful extensions in the last 20 years but the train network has lagged very far behind city growth.
[It has been shown in the past that the Greens HTV cards have very little effect on their voters’ preferences.]
Yes in the lower house but not in te upper house. A Green split ticket is a vote for the Liberal Party.
Rocket Rocket@281: Victorian Labor can’t keep having it both ways. If they’re going to go all-out in trying to destroy the Greens, they can’t rationally turn around and expect Green preferences in an election and Green support in parliament.
The Greens don’t need to do a deal with the Liberals to screw over Labor – all they’ve got to do is *not* do a deal with Labor. They set the stage for taking that course of action in future by their handling of the Labor preference deal at the federal election. Moreover, Labor can’t realistically expect Greens voters to be outraged at them refusing to do a deal with Labor when Labor’s openly trying to destroy the Greens.
Labor already lost a couple of seats at the federal election because they didn’t get enough Greens preferences to get them over the line – and that’s with a formal preference deal, and without a massive attempt to piss off Greens voters. If Labor went down your suggested line, not only would they wind up losing seats in the upper house (as D@W notes), but they’ll be losing seats in the lower house that they can’t afford to. Even a 60 per cent flow of Greens preferences to Labor leaves a bunch more Labor MPs out of a job.
It’s hardly rocket science – Labor can’t keep doing nothing for Greens-leaning voters, and openly declaring war on their party, and then turning around and trying to instill fear of a Baillieu government. It’s also surprisingly ignorant of history – think Greens voters won’t turn against a Labor government that treats them like crap? Ask Wayne Goss.
[We would have had a much better system now if the rationalisation had happened in the 1890s rather than waiting a century to sort it out.]
Yes, that is certainly partly so, zoomster, but quite a few of those “useless” lines would actually come in handy now! The tragedy is that it is now 20 years since that century after 1890 ended, and with a few belated, and often delayed, exceptions such as the restoration of the South Morang line, bugger all has been really been done in that time to meet the changed needs of Melbourne.
Let’s face it. Labor has been in power here for all but seven of the last 28 years. Sure, Kennett took things backwards, but you’ve got to ask yourself whether we are where we should be on the public transport front after a period of nearly 30 years in which Labor have been the dominant party here, excuses derived from the events of the 1890’s notwithstanding!
[In Southern Metro the Greens are expected to secure upto 19% of the vote and pick up preferences along the way at the point of exclusion the Hreens will be on 0.45 quota, the LNP 0.80 quota and the ALP 0.75 quota. A Greens split ticket would deliver the LNP the final fifth seat.]
The ALP can not win a fifth seat if the Greens register a split ticket, The federal election shows that only all 3% of voters voted below the line and they do not all travel in the same direction. Below the line vote will not make a difference.
There was a meeting tonight with a number of Senior Liberal Party members and they are opposed to a Liberal Green preference deal even if it means the Liberal Party has an outside chance of picking up an upper house seat. They do not want to risk the possibility of a hung parliament in Victoria with the Greens holding the balance of power. There is talk that they will hand out their own how to vote cards in defiance if need be.
286
The Greens will not be running a split ticket.
8.19% of Greens Senate Voters in Victoria voted BTL (the major parties have higher rates of BTL). There rate was even higher in many of the electorates that make up Southern Metro. Victoria only requires 5 preferences rather than the 90% the Commonwealth requires for a valid vote. In the event of a split Green ATL the Green BTL rate would go up significantly. BTLs cannot in reality decide which candidate from within a party gets up but in a close race could decide who from another party gets up. I believe that the BTLs from the ALP put Milne in the Senate in 2004 ahead of FF.
http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateUseOfGvtByGroup-15508-VIC.htm
http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-15508-230.htm
http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-15508-215.htm
http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-15508-214.htm
http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-15508-221.htm
Rebel Liberal HTVs are not going to be used by the majority of Liberals. There is also the fact that Victoria requires registration of HTVs.
Rebecca
Posted Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 10:49 pm | Permalink
a typical Greens suporters view
“Labor can’t keep doing nothing for Greens-leaning voters,”
Labor Govts deliver econamicly sensible core left reforms accross all areas of life so Greens voters get wonderful polisy outcomes from Labor.Govts
eg we got 4.6 % unemploy , rest of advanced econs got 10% plus (USA 18% approx)
eg we got 6% Debt , rest of econs got 70% to 150% of GDP , all mostly close to broke
eg we got medicare , hospitals , education , R E big invest now , no w/c , etc etc
” and openly declaring war on their party,”
false , Bob Browns crass popularism sharking Labor polisys and his lying constant critisisms of almost every Labor polisy is a war Bob Brown/Greens himself declared (and not Labor) , and he has been waging tht by stealth since Rudds 2007 electon
(latest is his lie implying Julia’s preabble is due to th Greens , when it was already Labor polisy)
BTW if you think aint gonna start fightin back at Greens trying to steel Labor seats by lies and stealth you’re naeve , so far th full Labor blow torch has not been used
“and (Labor) then turning around and trying to instill fear of a Baillieu government.”
you’re saying IF Labor did NOT instill a fear a Balleau Liberal Govt to Green voters they wuld vote for Liberals Bailleau , meaning you think Greens Party is to th rite of Labor
New thread.