GhostWhoVotes informs us a state Nielsen poll in The Age has Labor with a two-party lead of 52-48, and that the Greens primary vote is steady on 16 per cent. More to follow.
UPDATE: We now also have Newspoll which puts Labor’s lead at 51-49, from primary votes of 37 per cent for Labor, 39 per cent Liberal and 5 per cent for the Nationals. The poll also shows a striking five point drop for the Greens to 14 per cent, which is coming off an all-time high and is not replicated in Nielsen. The two pollsters also give divergent impressions of John Brumby’s popularity: whereas Nielsen has his personal rating at plus 13 (approval 53 per cent, disapproval 40 per cent), Newspoll has it at minus six (42 per cent, 48 per cent). Newspoll also has Ted Baillieu at minus six (40 per cent, 46 per cent), while Nielsen has it at evens (45 per cent). Brumby has a slightly wider lead as preferred premier from Nielsen (53-37) than Newspoll (50-36). As was the case before the federal election, the Coalition’s supporters appear to be firmer in their intentions than Labor’s.
UPDATE 2: Full tables from the Nielsen poll here, courtesy of GhostWhoVotes.
Fiona Richardson is a true Labor champion promoting Labor values, policies and achievements.
“In a statement emailed to The Sunday Age, Ms Richardson said: ”My campaign is focusing on traditional Labor values, local achievements and our plan for the future. There is no difference between our campaign in Northcote other than the recognition that every electorate is different and that Labor needs to respond appropriately to that difference.”
But an adviser to the state campaign said Ms Richardson’s tactic was to take on the Greens rather than adopt their agenda. ”She believes the Greens are irresponsible and says so loudly and often, to the dismay of the invertebrates and leftists in Victorian Labor.”
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/backbencher-strikes-out-on-her-own-20101113-17rxe.html
Rocket, the Greens rejected the sort of ‘zero-net” immigration policies that One Nation and the Australian Dems had more than a decade ago –
As far as “targets” go, Brown was actually advocating a major population inquiry back in March last year to establish such things. His main points seem to have been that 1) We need a population policy to establish better our ongoing infrastructure needs. 2) We have to accept that it is inevitable that population will grow. 3) we need integrated policies that look at the external impact of our programs, our own ability to meet infrastructure demands, and to ensure fulfilment of our humanitarian role as one of the world’s richest countries while at the same time not producing a situation where there is “flight of wealth and training” from poorer ones.
But ultimately, the suggestion is that “targets” are things that need to depend on a better examination of the consequences than we have available at present.
see http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/greencast/population-policy-and-australias-future-growth
Brown’s Population Policy inquiry proposal came up in the Senate on May 13th 2010 – page 2847 of http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds130510.pdf
Labor , in response, said Tony Bourke was being appointed, so it wasn’t necessary and would just duplicate his role. The Libs said they thought an inquiry was a good idea, but not Bob Brown’s one. Fielding said that Greens were suggesting it because they were communists and wanted to introduce China’s “one baby” policy to Australia. Xenophon supported the inquiry. Needless to say, the vote was lost, with the Greens and Xenophon in favour, and the rest against.
Whoops! For “Bourke” read “Burke” , of course.
Rod,
I thought this was a Victorian election thread.
Which seat is Bob Brown running for.
More Greens propaganda to muddy the waters, eh.
[More Greens propaganda to muddy the waters, eh.]
GG. You’ll have to take it up with mexicanbeemer. He started it, and Rocket, zoomster, madcyril, Pegasus and I have all somehow been waylaid into his pernicious trap! 😉
Rod,
It’s well known that you Greens soldiers are easily lead and are just obeying HQ directions.
Unlike GG and myself, who are freelancers.
Sorry, GG. I’ve been anti-conscription since the days when the Libs wanted to send me to Vietnam. These days I’m happy to give the Greens a bit of a hand on some occasions , but at others I prefer to shoot at Libs from the Labor barricades.
Shocking lack of loyalty I know. I’d be hopeless in a civil war. Greens / Labor spats often remind me of Aboriginal politics, in which it is very common for two opposing families to be fighting furiously against each other about something that they are really in almost complete agreement about, and in the process losing the real battle with a major developer or state government that simply gets on with the job of dismembering them while they are otherwise engaged (often in part by doing its best to stir up the internal shenanigans along the way!)
rod,
So cute. Everyone on PB knows you’re a Green’s stooly.
That’s the problem trying to dissect Greens’ policies from their websites – they are often filled with “parenthood” statements, with no attempt at costing or prioritising.
With regard to public transport in Victoria for instance, I think the Greens’ proposal for a new tram route from Carlton to Kew along Johnston Street across the Yarra and up Studley Park Rd. would be a very expensive proposition (in areas with extensive public transport infrastructure already) for very little real gain.
There are clearly many projects in Melbourne’s outer suburbs much more deserving of public money, but the grab-bag of “parenthood” statements includes something for everyone in every electorate so they can look at their “back yard” and say “Gee I’d like that (IMBY)” without considering overall cost implications.
I realise detailed costing is difficult for oppositions, let alone thrid parties, but if you look at the cost of recently-built infrastructure such as the tramilne extension from Blackburn Rd to Vermont South it is possible to do some sort of extrapolation.
Abbott makes an appearance in the Vic campaign
[
FEDERAL Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has declared the Victorian election winnable as he mustered coalition troops two weeks out from the state poll.
Speaking at the coalition’s official campaign launch in Melbourne today, Mr Abbott said Victorians had an opportunity to “end the drift” that had occurred in the state since the Kennett government was ousted 11 years ago.
“You can win this election,” he declared to rapturous applause from the party faithful.
Mr Abbott said the “tectonic plates” were shifting towards a majority coalition government in Victoria and Labor should not be allowed another term to break its election promises, like federal Labor had done.
]
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/abbott-musters-coalition-troops/story-fn5kmqy2-1225953329825
Your trouble, GG, is that you just don’t understand that anyone can hold simultaneously positive views about both the Greens and Labor (something which to me seems perfectly sustainable and which happens to be a position which fits my own personal political views about many things). The reality is that you spend far, far more time attacking the Greens here, often with a level of fervour that borders on the religious, than you do the conservatives. I happen to think that is a dumb approach.
Getting back to the matter of the Victorian election, any news on those upper house preference deals? Didn’t they have to be lodged by 12 noon today?
ALP are supposedly gonna preference the Country Alliance to prevent the Greens winning a couple of rural upper house seats in the LC.
Will not make the Greenies wanna play ball with John B me thinks.
Rod,
Your problem is you have no principles worth sticking to. I presume thats why you waffle interminably about so much trivia. Holding mutually exclusive views at the same time is something you seem to want to raise to your own version of religious idolatory. “Blessed are the indecisive”.
At the end of the day, voting is a guess about the consequences of making a choice.
I cannot take seriously your blather that there are not serious differences between Greens ideology and Labor Policies, track record and achievement.
[Will not make the Greenies wanna play ball with John B me thinks.]
If it is true, Glen, though I suspect Labor would actually find the Country Alliance far harder to work with if it resulted in one of their members getting elected!
Rod,
Compared to the obstructionist Greens?
You have got to be kidding!
[Your problem is you have no principles worth sticking to.]
Political parties aren’t “principles”, GG. I have a lot of time for “principles” which both Labor and The Greens espouse. They actually hold quite a lot of them in common. It is actually my desire to continue to adhere to these “principles” which leaves me sitting on the fence when it comes to the two “badge names” that are associated with them.
Clearly Richardson the Labor MP in Northcote,whose”spokeman “slurred”invertebrates and Labor leftists” doesn’t want their votes in Northcote….and of course she is the partner of the disasterous Newnham…the man who gave us Sen. Fielding.!!..and caused Rudd endless Senate problems when there could have been a very good Green senator there
Northcote will be one to watch
on election night too…..as will be Footscray in the west where years of neglect of a safe seat is coming home to roost.
Bronwyn Pike is now regarded as dead in the water in Melb. ..after her stupid refusal to allow a humanist/ethics course to be offered as an alternative to the religious brainwashing now on offer in state schools. She will also have a candidate from humanist groups opposing her and giving his prefs. to the Greens
Bye Bye Bronwyn..
The Country Alliance is really the Gun Lobby is disguise…shame Labor Shame !!
Deblonay that is quite true they are the equiv of the Shooters Party in NSW.
Actually my first comment was in reaction to the growth of the Victorian population and the conext of urban development, both of which are State issues and in the course of that I mentioned the Federal issue of immigration and what at that time was my understanding of the Greens immigration policy.
The Greens are actually the Gun Lobby in disguise. Shame Greens shame
Actually this might be a road some might not want to go down for I am sure if we checked then all Parties have preferenced parties that are lets say rather unhinged.
mb,
You’d never eat sausages if you knew how they were made.
GG I think the prospect of 4 Green victories in the LA are starting to take their toll.
Glen
I agree. The Greens and their acolytes are becoming a little over excited. But, if wishes were fishes, we’d all cast nets in the sea.
Too much red cordial methinks.
Glen – At this stage I can only for certain give the Greens two and maybe a third. The Greens have a long history of talking themselves up. only to fall short on election night.
In 2002 I recall the Greens claiming that they had four seats in the bag, yet the actualy election result was a massive ALP landslide.
The real question is how will the Liberal voters in the inner city fill out the ballot paper, I sduspect that apart from Melbourne the Greens will need most if not all Liberal voters to preference them in order to win.
deblonay @ 170
[She will also have a candidate from humanist groups opposing her and giving his prefs. to the Greens]
Who will be lucky if he gets his deposit back, and whose primary votes (such as they are) will mainly come from Greens supporters anyway.
There is another angle to this election, how are the Liberals travelling in seats like Bayswater, Ferntree Gully and Kilsyth. whilst i would image the Libs will hold them but if the 2010 federal election result is repeated then those three might fall to the ALP.
174
I am sure that the Greens are the most anti-gun party in Parliament. I read somewhere that Brown introduced a bill into the Tasmanian Parliament in the mid-80s to introduce reforms not seen until 1991 (When the ALP was in power because of the Greens and licensing was introduced for rifles and shotguns) and the 1996 reforms.
Tom,
Their moustaches don’t fool anybody.
Mexi Labor’s vote will sink a long way giving the Greens a great chance at 3 maybe 4 seats.
When faced with two bad options many people will protest for the third option the Greens.
Thankfully I have an Indie in my seat 😀 so that my protest vote isnt for the Sex Party for my primary lol!
Glen – I would have thought Ted was your sort of Liberal? what does this indie have going for him/her that has drawn your attention to them?
More Greens dodgy economics. Promise anything, it’s all free.
According to the Greens, “New train stations are estimated to cost $5 million each, whereas the latest state government costings put them at around $50 million”.
According to Baillieu’s policy statement, “The new stations would be built on the Frankston line at Southland, in Melbourne’s outer southeast ($13 million) and Grovedale on the regional Geelong line ($25 million)”.
Maybe the Greens new station will be a tent haha
Ted is my kind of centrist Liberal but the Victorian Libs have been such a joke over the past 11 years that they should have this pathetic and incompetent govt by the short and curlies and yet the best they can hope for is a hung parliament I mean for Myki alone Labor should lose but the Libs have been a hopeless Opposition Ted included.
She’s a mental health campaigner and I think it hardly gets enough attention or support. So she’s my protest vote and for a good cause too.
179
On the figures from the Commonwealth Election the Green margins in Melbourne and Richmond are so big that it looks like the way the Liberals could divert most ALP resources would be to run split tickets there.
In Brunswick the Commonwealth result showed the ALP retaining the seat narrowly but there are 3 factors working against the ALP this month. Firstly, The Greens tend to poll higher at state elections, secondly, the Greens are in with a real chance in this seat unlike Wills (the Commonwealth seat covering areas including almost all of Brunswick) and will be campaigning more heavily as a result, and thirdly Cleary running and preferencing the Greens and the Greens reciprocating greatly decreases the ALP`s chances. The Liberals will preference Cleary ahead of the Greens so who wins is likely to be determined by who comes 4th.
Northcote is retained narrowly by the ALP on Commonwealth election results but the Greens tend to do better in state elections than Commonwealth elections.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/11/federal-results-indicate-little-change-for-victorian-election.html
I am sure if I were Premier I could write wish lists for each of the following, which if costed would each consume most of Victoria’s budget –
Transport
Health
Housing
Education
Science & Technology
Environment
But it would be irresponsible to say that I was going to do them all
The Greens have NOT lodged a split ticket in Southern Metropolitan Region. Perhaps it was from fear of the wrath of Democracy@Work.
All of this extrapolating from the federal election results is all a bit silly except as the broadest guide. The opinion polls show that the results will be quite different so leave it at that.
Normally I would agree with you regarding ignoring the Federal result except for the long running close relationship bertween the PM and Premier Brumby.
There was no Brumby backlash, we saw State issues creep into the federal election in both NSW and Queensland.
Antony,
Do you have a link to the Preference deals as yet?
191
Where are you getting the Group Voting Tickets info? the VEC Website does not have it!
My view is that the Greens will pick up two seats. melbourne and either one of Brunswick or Richmond. Northcote will be close, but I doubt that the Greens will win it.
The real battle isn’t in the inner city, though, its in the regions and suburb. In reality it doesn’t matter (as far as the critical matter of retaining government goes, though it matters intensely to each of the parties concerned, of course) who wins the inner city.
It is what happens in places like Gembrook, South Barwon, Ripon, Burwood, Mitcham, Forest Hills, Frankston, Prahran, Mordialloc, Mt Waverley, coupled with some other regional seats that on occasion demonstrate big swings like Ballarat East, Ballarat West and Seymour (though the Libs ‘selection blues” there make this one very unlikely) that are where the real “battleground” is.
A coalition victory really does look unlikely, but if it happens it won’t have anything really to do with the inner city. It will have a lot to do with the suburban and regional seats I’ve mentioned.
Mexican
The Brumby government is old and starting to creak but it is not decomposing before our eyes like the governments in NSW and Qld. Hence no backlash at a federal level.
[Perhaps it was from fear of the wrath of Democracy@Work.]
ROFL, Antony!
[The Greens have NOT lodged a split ticket in Southern Metropolitan Region. Perhaps it was from fear of the wrath of Democracy@Work.]
See, stalking can pay off.
Rod
You are quite right that the election will be decided in suburban and regional seats rather than the inner city – what is different this time is that the ALP are in serious trouble in 4 seats that 2 elections ago they could rely on totally. The coalition will never get back in until they win back a good few of those regional / outer commuter belt seats.