John Brumby and Ted Baillieu went head-to-head on Friday for a low-rating and soon-to-be-forgotten leaders debate. Milanda Rout of The Australia wrote approvingly that Ted Baillieu “took a risk and showed he had some political backbone”, by “throwing insults and delivering the best and funniest lines of the debate”. John Ferguson of the Herald Sun thought Baillieu’s dithering over preferences meant he “won the theatre, but lost the politics”. Shaun Carney of The Age believed Brumby suffered from lack of experience – this was his first leaders debate, as there wasn’t one when he ran against Jeff Kennett in 1996 – while James Campbell of the Sunday Herald Sun faulted Brumby for “staring statesmanlike into the distance and talking about the future”. If you’d prefer to make up your own mind, you can watch it on iView.
Elsewhere:
• Tim Colebatch of The Age makes the unarguable assertion that Ted Baillieu’s efforts to get his message out have been “drowned out by factional opponents beating their drum to insist that the Liberals should not direct preferences to the Greens”. He also casts an eye over the Liberals’ recent record in Tasmania, the only case study where the Liberals have pursued the strategy of privileging Labor over the Greens advocated by John Howard and Helen Kroger:
Tasmania went to the polls in March. The Liberals topped the vote, but both sides ended up with 10 seats and the Greens with five. Liberal leader Will Hodgman had first rights but, under pressure from right-wing powerbroker Senator Eric Abetz, refused to negotiate with the Greens. Labor leader David Bartlett went ahead and did so. So Labor and the Greens now have a coalition government, and it’s working well. The federal election saw the Liberal vote in Tasmania slump to 39 per cent after preferences — the party’s lowest vote in any state since World War II. Opinion polls show a collapse in Liberal support at state level. And The Mercury reports that Hodgman has now taken on Abetz for control of the party, declaring: “We cannot give away the middle ground. I will fight to make sure that doesn’t happen, even if it costs me my job.”
• Former federal Wills independent Phil Cleary has confirmed he will run in the seat of Brunswick. This further complicates the contest between Labor candidate Jane Garrett and Cyndi Dawes of the Greens, with Cleary making no secret of his intention to direct preferences to the latter. The seat is being vacated by the retirement of Labor member Carlo Carli.
• David Rood of The Age tells of “secret party research” from the ALP telling a familiar tale of ongoing inner-city drift to the Greens. The report found the most potent campaign remedy would be pamphlets trumpeting the fact that the Greens had voted with the Liberals 69 per cent of the time in parliament, as distinct from an existing strategy of “promoting the party’s stance on climate change and other progressive issues like social housing”.
298-9
I believe they have got amendments up just that generally does not support them. If one less than half the chamber never or almost never supports your amendments then it is rather hard to get them up.
The idea of George Bush writing a book reminds me of the joke about another political dumbell, VP.Dan Quayle.
It was said of him that he had written a book,and would have written a second if somebody had not stolen his crayons
To Speak of Pebbles
Posted Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 10:41 am | Permalink
‘I’d give labor two, GG and Frank.’
“They’re not here. And I have gotten on THEIR wrong sides too.”
You now reply
“While I probably shouldn’t have said the “gotten on their wrong side” comment, as it makes unnecessary IMPLICATIONS. “
That was my point , “unnecessary implications” Glad you finally “got it” , tho rest of your coments santamonious so perhaps you didn’t
Except you is quite correct my specific name was not mentioned , but unnecessary implications were made on bloggers GG and Frank by you irrespective
On Gay Marriage , I simply exposed your strawman arguement to which you were unable to intelectualy even reply , and presume still smarting you NOW post
“I’m sorry, Princess. I didn’t realise there was a rule about not agreeing with your bullshit.” Clearly you’re still over sensitive to your own failure to be able to intellectualy reply to my rebut of your strawman nonsense , or you cann’t handle criticism of th issue , toughen up
Rocket Rocket
Posted Thursday, November 11, 2010 at 3:46 pm | Permalin
“I know some people believe the Greens are as pure as the driven snow, but the reality is they are just another political party.
1. By thinking of them as actually just another political party the first conclusion I came to was that what mattered most to them was winning seats in the lower house – this was more important than preventing a Coalition government. Thus it seemed to me that the powerbrokers in the Liberals would also come to this conclusion. and as Glen has noted above, realise that they should not just give the Greens something they were SO desperate for because they could obviously get something in return (unlike the Adam Bandt “one-way” bargain)
2. Thus some sort of Liberal-Green deal would be locked in, whether it was just open tickets on HTV cards in lower house seats (pretty poor value obviously) or more likely “split” tickets in some of the “Above the Line” prefs for upper house seats.
3. So for Labor, being in government, the main game is to prevent a Coalition government. These Green-Coalition deals are going to happen no matter what Labor does, and so I felt that Labor has got little to lose by “pissing off” the Greens as someone so beautifully put it, and saying that they would put the Greens last in every Lower House seat. As you have pointed out. this would have ZERO effect in those seats (I don’t think the Greens can win Prahran). This would be directed not at the Greens but at swinging (Labor-Liberal) voters in the outer suburbs and inner rural seats. ”
Rocket , Good post , tho not sure of putting them last
Labor does need to make a stand against both Liberals and Greens and go all out for a “majority” Vic Labor Govt , and th best way is to expose th extremism of both them 2 Partys to Voters
and your factual comment below is not yet understood by many Labor PBers who still think Greens is not a reel political enemy of Labor , tho Labor candidates know it !
“what mattered most to them 9Greens) was winning seats in the lower house – this was more important than PREVENTING a Coalition government.”
Rebecca 292
[I honestly don’t understand the Labor logic that the Greens should be desperately hoping for the return of a Labor government]
No, I don’t blame the Greens – I believe the Greens are desperately hoping to get their own MPs elected, especially to the lower house. Many Greens would in fact prefer the Coalition to win as it would suit their long-term strategy.
[And the Liberals didn’t start the talk about insisting on getting something from the Greens in return for lower house preferences – Labor did, with their ill-advised attempt to wedge Baillieu. The upshot of that was never going to be Liberals preferencing Labor in inner Melbourne, but rather the Greens not preferencing Labor elsewhere. How they didn’t see the bloody obvious there escapes me.]
After the federal election (where the federal Liberal Party overruled the Victorian Liberals on the preferencing in the seat of Melbourne) many in the Liberal and National Parties were privately furious that they had got nothing in return, and it spilled into the public arena –
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defeated-mp-jason-wood-slams-preference-deal-losses/story-fn59niix-1225909098432
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-preference-deals-lashed/story-fn59niix-1225912663765
It is a case of “Asymmetric Reward” in Game Theory – the Liberals got a small reward (of Labor minority government instability) from Adam Bandt’s election, but they soon realised that the Greens had valued their reward much more – thus they decided the Greens would be willing to trade something of value in return for seats in the Victorian Lower House.
[Firstly, the Green-Coalition deals were never “going to happen no matter what Labor does”. They’ve never happened before in Victoria. This election, if it happens, it’ll be a first – and it’ll be entirely because of Labor’s botched attitude towards them.]
I think you’ll find that after the disquiet in the Coalition following the Federal Election these deals were going to happen no matter what Labor did, and the Greens have co-operated with Liberals before – they supported a Liberal minority Government in Tasmania from 1996-1998.
For the Greens the bargain is a sort of a “zero-sum game” in game theory – they may be exchanging preferences to get Greens members in exchange for Liberal members. But of course for the Liberals there is “asymmetry” – it is not a zero-sum game for them – any Greens elected do not affect the Coalition’s chance of government (it may even improve it in a Liberal Minority govt supported by Greens), while obviously any Liberal elected because of Greens support may well put the coalition in government.
And that is the best “game theory” evidence supporting my propostion that the Greens are more interested in winning lower house seats than preventing a Coalition government. I’m not saying it’s wrong to do so – the Greens are a separate party and of course they act in self-interest. I just wish Greens supporters would not deny what is clearly the case.
[If Labor loses government on the back of a failure to retain Green preferences, they’ll only have themselves to blame. If you crap on your ideological allies so often that they cease to be your allies, you can’t rationally turn around and be upset that they’re not cheering you on to victory.]
No, of course the Greens are not cheering Labor to victory – they are a separate political party. Let me imagine a situation where the Coalition win 45 seats and the Greens win 4. Predicted Greens leaders’ speech
“Tonight was a historic night for Victoria – two party politics as we have known it is dead. This is huge triumph for the Greens. For the first time we have had members elected to the Lower House, joining our members in the Upper House, with plans to reshape politics in Victoria. I have rung Mr.Baillieu tonight to congratulate him on becoming Premier, and I have indicated that we are willing to work with him in both houses of Parliament to advance policies that will benefit Victoria.”
As I have said, if the Coalition win 42 seats I would be happy, whether the Greens have won zero or ten lower house seats. The Greens hierarchy, and most Greens supporters I feel, would be happier to win lower house seats with a Coalition government than they would be to have no lower house seats in a non-Coaltion government. That’s fine – the Greens are a separate party with different policies and a different long-term agenda.
Baillieu unable to say what he would cut to pay for the Coalition’s election promises
[
THE Coalition’s lavish election promises are under scrutiny after Ted Baillieu was unable to outline what will be cut to pay for them.
And Opposition Treasury spokesman Kim Wells has been MIA in the election campaign, hardly being seen anywhere on the hustings outside of his safe electorate of Scoresby.
The two major parties have promised more than $10 billion in new spending between them in the lead-up to the election.
But the Coalition is unwilling to clarify how it will pay for its most recent promise to add 800 beds to the hospital system at a cost of $800 million in an attempt to ease waiting lists and emergency department delays.
Despite repeated questioning, Mr Baillieu would only say the money will come out of “forward estimates” and is fully costed, but he was unable to point to where exactly the billions of dollars in other spending would come from.
]
And has anyone seen Kim Wells? If you have, please call Liberal HQ
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/coalition-election-promise-costings-draw-heavy-fire/story-fn5kmqy2-1225952332779
The lengths the major party’s go to is hilarious.
What were they thinking?
Who said politics was boring?
[GREENS Leader Bob Brown has been ambushed by Labor staff disguised as protesters who branded the minor party sellouts for refusing to rule out a preference deal with the Coalition.
Disguised as protesters, including one person dressed in koala suit, the small group held posters saying a vote for the Greens would be a vote for the Liberals and yelled ”shame” at Mr Brown as he entered the Windsor Hotel for a function.
One sign appeared to be made from Labor Party campaign placards. The ALP confirmed the protesters were from its Environment Action Network.]
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/brown-ambushed-by-labor-koala-20101111-17peo.html
Twitter is a brilliant source for instant Victorian Election gratification.
http://twitter.com/search?q=%23vicvotes
marg,
What electorate is Brown running in?
A vote for Brown is a wasted vote.
GG,
Ask your koala friend!
marg,
I’d rather ask an old wombat like you.
Avoiding, the tough questions as usuual.
In an article in which Peter Hartcher focuses on the lack of clarity about what does Labor stand for:
[“We have shown we’re not the Democrats,” says Brown. “We have broken into the House of Representatives. We have the highest share of the vote for any minor party since World War II. We aren’t there to keep the bastards honest” (the famous slogan of the now-defunct Democrats). “We’re there to replace the bastards.”
That’s clarity.]
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/green-gain-from-labor-pain-20101105-17hdh.html
Mumble on the Victorian election
[
Only two weeks to go. As you know, I expect the opinion poll drift towards the Coalition to continue and for election day to see a decent two party preferred swing.
I will be surprised if Labor get more than 51 percent and not be surprised if they get less than 50.
But the Coalition needs 51 or 52 to win. Probably. As James Massola wrote this week, it may come down to the bush.
]
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/victoria_election_bits_n_pieces/
Bob Brown-“The Most Trusted Politician In Australia”
http://www.globalgreens.org/
This might answer your question.
marg,
……..according to inhouse Greens publications.
No GG,
According to The Reader’s Digest Most Trusted People poll for 2010
http://www.readersdigest.com.au/australias-most-trusted-people-2010
For a self apointed Greens expert, who can’t not mention The Greens whenever you hit the kekboard,
You don’t know f.a.
Readers Digest! The Wiggles come in at no 17 in that list. Karl Stefanovic at no 60 is more trusted than Bob Brown who comes in at 74! Thats some reccomendation 😆
Bob Brown, less trusted than the Queen
[
Bob Brown-”The Most Trusted Politician In Australia”
]
I thought the Greens don’t do leader worship?
Ernie Dingos on assault charges.
95-100 I wouldn’t trust with monopoly money.
It’s just a top of mind celebrity list.
[[Bob Brown-”The Most Trusted Politician In Australia” ]]
[I thought the Greens don’t do leader worship?]
We let others do it.
The scary thing is Alen Jones immediatly behind Bob Brown-”The Most Trusted Politician In Australia”
marg,
I try and keep useless info out of my brain. Your compliment indicates I am succeeding with the Greens.
Nevertheless Bob Brown rates higher than Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Greg Combet, Peter Garrett and Wayne Swan 🙂
GG,
I’m sure the Greens thank you for your contribution
Pegasus,
The others are working politicians getting on with the job.
Brown is a celebrity. He’d go to an opening of a door.
marg,
Obviously, the weak minded and insane are easily lead.
Which are you?
Keeping it all in the family seems to be the way the Greens do business.
http://www.vexnews.com/news/11494/greens-nepotism-jobs-for-the-greens-family-in-nsw/
now your the “weak minded and insane” expert …
such tallent
A lot of politics is Game Theory, particularly preference deals. I have heard that the day those “Above The Line” preference forms get handed in at the AEC / VEC is a sight to behold, with various groups coming with multiple versions depending on what others do.
I started this game theory approach to the whole topic a few weeks ago – you just need to take out the emotion and think things through from each side’s perspective like you are playing a big board (or on-line!) game. Thus I came up with what I thought the Greens and Liberals would do, and I think it will turn out to be fairly accurate. I then put myself in the “Labor player” role and seem to have upset many people!
Game Theory is what got John Nash the Nobel Prize (for economics, there is no Nobel for Mathematics!) – it is used in many international dealings, both political and commercial. You just have to be able to separate your own emotions (you may need to take others’ emotions into account) from the process.
I conclude that the strategies being used by the Greens and by the Liberals are valid responses to the situations they find themselves in, with reagrd to what they are seeking to gain, and what they are willing to sacrifice.
And I suppose publicity stunts by Greens supporters in the past, dressed as various wildlife, also achieved their aim of getting publicity.
RR,
It’s amazing how stating the bleeding obvious and churning your pre determined ideas through some allegedly rational process drives you to a conclusion you had reached prior to the exercise.
marg
Posted Friday, November 12, 2010 at 10:38 am | Permalink
“Bob Brown-”The Most Trusted Politician In Australia”
Pegasus
Posted Friday, November 12, 2010 at 10:47 am | Permalink
“According to The Reader’s Digest Most Trusted People poll for 2010”
madcyril
Posted Friday, November 12, 2010 at 10:58 am | Permalink
“Readers Digest! The Wiggles come in at no 17 in that list. Karl Stefanovic at no 60 is more trusted than Bob Brown who comes in at 74! Thats some reccomendation ”
Madcril , indeed
Perhaps there is actual Web sites dedicated to just giving Greens “talking Points” no matter how far credability is stretched Anyway it is hardly a Vic Election key issue
Nielsen poll out tomorrow according to The Age website. Hopefully we get the inside word tonight
No wonder Bob Brown is always so surly and bad tempered.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/seeing-meat-calms-you-down-study-says/article1793519/
Just caught some plague locusts at work in the City of Maroondah.
Apparently the hot winds have blown them down from the north-west of the state overnight!
http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/plague-locusts/reported-map
Abbott has had a rush of blood to the head on Brisbane media ,and says we might one day elect judges like the USA,
Within minutes all hell broke loose and of course it would be unconstitutional and the legal people are outraged,so he has all the dogs barking.
Now he is retreating and says that the news media have “taken him out of context”…just about the most cowardly statement any politician can make when confronted with their own folly !!
But it must be one of Tony’s “silly days” like when he devised Family Leave policy on the run ….
[No wonder Bob Brown is always so surly and bad tempered.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/seeing-meat-calms-you-down-study-says/article1793519/ ]
Thanks GG – I’ve stored that one away for use when flame wars break out in future.
I’m hoping Phil Cleary polls poor in Brunswick rather than his sabotage hurting Labor
Sabotage is normal for Cleary , his groups wrecking actions destroyed any chanse of a united pro Republicon position at Howards summit
Ron,
Further to our previous discussion, here’s an article giving some more reasons to show the ineffectiveness of teacher bonus schemes:
Denise Ryan, Doubt cast on teacher bonus, The Age, November 8, 2010.
William,
As an alternative to sin binning, why not put up pictures of red blood dripping piece of steak to calm everyone down.
Anyone watching Stateline? The stoush between Lenders and Wells was unedifying to say the least. Josephine C lost control over the interview.
Looking for that Reader’s Digest “Most trusted Ausrtralians” – (poll of reader’s digest subscribers who responded)
I found the 2005 list before I realised the 2010 list was linked to above.
Feeling a bit insignificant, or maybe I just mix with untrustworthy people – I think I’ve talked to 3/100 on the 2005 list!
Highlights of the 2005 list –
4. Princess Mary of Denmark (surely she’s renounced her “Australian-ness”
8. Ernie Dingo
9. The Wiggles
14. Rolf Harris
16. QE2 (not the ship) – neither are Australian come to think of it!
19. Mel Gibson (trusted by whom???)
72. Janette Howard, well ahead of
82, Alan Jones (not the formula one driver)
84. John Howard (not the actor)
85. Rupert Murdoch
86. Bob Hawke
87. Jeff Kennett
88. Bob Brown
followed in quick succession by
89. Alexander Downer
90. Malcolm Turnbull
91. Kim Beazley
92. Tony Abbott,
93. Peter Costello
94. Barnaby Joyce
95. Schapelle Corby
96. Paul Keating
97. Amanda Vanstone
98. Sol Trujillo
99. Shane Warne
100. Mark Latham
Now to look at the 2010 list and see who else other than Alan Jones and Bob Brown have gone up the Reader’s Digest subscribers’ ratings.
Good grief.
If the offerings from Lenders, and the Liberal bloke who wants to be Victorian treasurer whose name escapes me on “Stateline” tonight are anything to go by all I can say is “Lord help us” (and I’m an atheist)!
That has to be the worst performance by two contenders for high public office that I have ever seen.
Look, I know The Greens economic credentials aren’t exactly world shattering but they can’t be any worse than those two! Hey they made one of my least favourite journalists, Josephine Cafagna, look half competent!
I scored Josephine 5 out of 10, The Liberal guy who I have never heard of before a 4 out of 10, and Lenders , well let’s be generous and say, maybe, 3?
The DLP have nominated candidates in 36 lower House Seats, as well as the 8 Upper House seats.
It will be ironic is they are responsible for reelecting the ALP, by saving Kirsty Marshall from defeat in Forrest Hill.
She had a margin of less than 1% at last election.
Even 2% in preferences from the DLP could be decisive in reelecting her to Parliment.
DLP preferences are likely to flow to her because of her strong pro life voting record.
The DLP are unlikely to preference any members of Emilys List, and may play a role in the defeat of up to 9 ALP members who voted anti life. Including Justin Madden.
2010 Reader’s Digest List – Don’t know about Bob Brown yet, but I’ve gone backwards – talked to one maybe two on this list!
Highlights
13. Princess Mary – down from 4
16. Ernie Dingo – also down, as are
17. The Wiggles (“new” Wiggles?), and the slowly sinking
18. QE2
54. Jennifer Hawkins, down from 41
73. Therese Rein, just ahead of
74. Bob Brown, who has overtaken
75. Alan Jones
77. Greg Norman (did they poll former wives?)
80. George Pell
86. John Howard
From what you say, ockerguy, it sounds as if the DLPs religious prejudices are likely to cost labor far more than it saves them.
What a pity the DLP seem to have managed to climb out of the swamp after being rendered effectively dead a few decades back!
Rod,
“Good grief” sums it up alright. It came across as two politicians fighting in a children’s sandpit.
ockerguy,
I bet the candidates are sweating on the order in which they will be listed on the ballot paper.
ockerguy 343
Will the DLP preference against Ted Baillieu? Are they even standing in his seat?
Rod and Pegasus,
You guys are like the old hecklers in the muppets. Predictable whingers blurting out the usual smears.
Addendum to above post: In Forest Hill (my electorate)
I am looking forward to pre-polling for the Greens Party next week to gauge the mood.