Victorian upper house tickets: Libs put Greens last

224 comments on “Victorian upper house tickets: Libs put Greens last”

1. [
   Are we likely to see any public individual seat based polling in the course of this election campaign?
   ]

   What is the track record like for individual seat polling in recent State Elections, such as SA?

2. [Rod – I think we will definitely see polling on Melbourne and maybe those other inner city seats.]

   Certainly be interesting to see not just Melbourne, but seats like Gippsland East & Mildura , for the battles with the Indies, together with seats like South Barwon, Mt Waverley and Gembrook between the majors, and maybe even Prahran for the the Lib / Green situation.

3. Firstly, the Libs are going to hand out as many HTVs at as many booths as they can.

   That’s the whole idea of the restructure of the Upper House – it provides an incentive for all parties to contest all seats.

   Everyone in politics learnt at their mother’s knee (or, as my mother always adds, ‘some other low joint’) that getting people to vote for you in the Lower House increases your chances of them voting for you in the Upper House.

   So, unless the Libs are really suicidal, they will hand out just as cheerfully in Brunswick and Melbourne etc as they were always going to.

   I found Walters’ comments interesting for a couple of reasons:

   1. What poll? Where? By whom? Seriously, if this is a poll paid for by the Greens, what DO they think they’re doing?

   Even the big boys only poll a few seats an election. Firstly, for the poll to be meaningful, you’re talking big money. Secondly, they’re not really reliable even then (as we keep saying, they’re a snapshot in time at best; poll next week and you might get a very different result). I can’t count the number of times ‘internal polling’ has told the ALP they’re going backwards in a seat which, on the day, they’ve won with a big swing towards them.

   Thirdly, unless you have lots of lovely dosh to throw around, there are better uses for your money. (As one of the movers and shakers federally said on the phone when I was with him, “Tell ’em not to waste money on any more polling, but use it to change votes on the ground.”)

   2. Sorry, but if I were Walters I wouldn’t be calling it on those numbers.

   I once was running for preselection. I rang one faction, who guaranteed me 44% of the vote. Easy peasy, I thought, only need to get 7 votes and I’m in. But no one else was interested in backing me, so that 7% was an impossibility.

   Walters is in the same position. If he’s on, say, 46% of the primary, that means 54% are voting for the major parties (because the polling, we must assume, couldn’t canvas the whole range of candidates, because we didn’t know them until last Friday).

   Let’s assume the Libs are going to poll about 26% (which is generous).

   Firstly, we know that the major party voters tend to follow HTVs more faithfully than the Green voters follow theirs. We’d assume that about 80% of Lib voters will follow the HTV.

   That only puts Brian in a neck and neck position, if that.

   As for the raggle taggle bag of independents and others, they are more likely to bleed the Green (that is, peed off with both the majors) vote and return to the Greens as preferences than to significantly impact on the majors.

   Melbourne may go, but without Lib preferences, it’s line ball at best.

4. zoomster,

   Walters was interviewed on Jon Faine’s program and he stated that the figures came from an “independent” source and included other seats. He said the Greens had not paid for the information. Said he wasn’t permitted to divulge his source.

5. 204

   Why would an ‘independent’ source poll seats in a Vic election and only divulge the info (apparently) to the Greens?

   If we don’t know who it was, or how and when the info was gathered, then it’s meaningless.

6. 203

   The idea or PR in the Legislative Council is to get more parties in and have them represented more closely to their vote level and thus have a chamber not controlled by the Government or the Opposition most of the time.

   The incentive to run in all seats is a by-product.

7. It seems William believes it’s only a flesh wound for the Greens. (Behind the Crikey pay wall atm).

8. Tom

   I assume you were in talks with the Labor party when the policy that led to these changes in the UH were formulated?

   I was.

9. 208

   It may have been on of the reasons the ALP adopted it but it is ridiculous to say it is the “whole idea”.

10. Tom

    oh no, hyperbole police!!

11. [I once was running for preselection. I rang one faction, who guaranteed me 44% of the vote. Easy peasy, I thought, only need to get 7 votes and I’m in. But no one else was interested in backing me, so that 7% was an impossibility.

    Walters is in the same position. If he’s on, say, 46% of the primary, that means 54% are voting for the major parties (because the polling, we must assume, couldn’t canvas the whole range of candidates, because we didn’t know them until last Friday).

    Let’s assume the Libs are going to poll about 26% (which is generous).

    Firstly, we know that the major party voters tend to follow HTVs more faithfully than the Green voters follow theirs. We’d assume that about 80% of Lib voters will follow the HTV.]

    William did some calculations a few posts back , zoomster, looking at typical levels of Liberal adherence to prefs based on a VEC study of the 2006 election, and the Federal vote in the state seat of Melbourne. He summarised some of the material again in his post that start of this thread. On this basis he suggested that a 37% primary green vote in the state seat of Melbourne (as they obtained in the federal poll) , given Liberal preference leakage, could lead to the Greens hitting 49% 2PP for the state seat.

    Antony Green doesn’t seem to agree, (and I haven’t seen William’s Crikey “pay wall protected” piece that GG mentions), but if Walters is being honest about the private polling figures, then Melbourne, and perhaps at least one other inner city seat, is far from decided yet.

    My suspicion is that this may actually have been factored into the Liberal decision making process. They may well have polling that suggests the Greens may get up in Melbourne and just possibly Brunswick or Richmond too anyway, in which case the advantages of being able to portray themselves as “anti-Green” in regional areas could well far outweigh any advantage in preferencing the Greens in the inner city (which at the absolute best for the Libs would simply have led to a bit of nuisance for Labor in having to deal with minority government situation anyway) .

    I don’t think for a moment that this Liberal decision was based on “principle” , as some have claimed. I think it was based on a hard nosed read of the actual polling implications in their own self interest. Fuelling the fires of Labor / Green conflict (with potential impact on Greens prefs in other close lab / Lib contested seats) would, as I said earlier, have given them added reason to do as they have done.

12. Rod

    firstly, I don’t think the Greens will poll primaries in the 40s. As I said, difficult to tell when we don’t have a source for Walters’ figures, but I would assume that any polling done in the time frame would not have gone beyond ‘who will you vote for out of Greens, Labor and Liberal?”

    Thus I would further assume that high forties is the actual Green 2PP, with their primary vote eaten into by the various smaller parties.

    49% seems about right!

13. The respondents to this HS poll seem to back Baillieu’s call.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ted-baillieu-launches-election-campaign-promising-funding-at-60m-a-minute/story-e6frf7jo-1225953487036

14. [firstly, I don’t think the Greens will poll primaries in the 40s. As I said, difficult to tell when we don’t have a source for Walters’ figures, but I would assume that any polling done in the time frame would not have gone beyond ‘who will you vote for out of Greens, Labor and Liberal?”]

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the polling was actually the Libs own, zoomster.

    49%, based on the Fed figures, if further preferences still leak because of Labor haters amongst the libs, is getting mighty close for comfort!

15. 214

    The Greens also do tend to poll higher in state elections than Commonwealth elections.

16. Even the Greens apparatchiks are the ground for a zero result.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/victorian-election-2010/greens-negotiator-admits-vic-seat-hopes-optimistic/story-fn6wlyrv-1225953883478

17. Well, actually: nobody has any idea how Lib voters preferences flow when the party says ALP over Greens, as its never happened before.

    So that 80% figure may be right – or completely wrong. It’ll be interesting to watch.

    Its difficult to see the Libs angle here: in fact, its so counter-productive for them, my best guess is developers have made substantial donations to their compaign conditional on doing it.

    I see Antony reckons Greens are a shoo-in for BOP in the VIC upper house. That’ll do me fine; though I’d reckon two of Melbourne, Brunswick and Richmond will still go Green.

18. I guess the focus largely shifts to independents in safe Labor seats, then. There’s a few of them too, who could win from a narrow third place, Wilkie style.

    Catherine Cumming in Footscray, now the only person who can take that seat off Labor.

    Phil Cleary in Brunswick, who can take it out if he gets ahead of either the Greens or Libs.

    Serge Thomann in Albert Park, who must be a pretty big deal if he can get this sort of gig together. I mean, look at this lineup:

    [ The bill includes Dale Ryder, Brett Goldsmith, The Dili All Stars, Glenn Shorrock, Kate Ceberano, Mick Harvey, Normie Rowe, Paul Gray of Wa Wa Nee, Pseudo Echo, Renee Geyer, Ross Wilson, Scott Carne from Kids In The Kitchen, Wilbur Wilde as well as the Freud boys band Attack of the Mannequins. ]

    $50 is a fair bit for a gig, but not heaps considering the amount of big(ish) names. Looks like he’s got himself the Rockwiz vote, then. I’ve got no idea who he is, but I wonder how much he’ll get.

    As for the Greens, I would still tip them for Melbourne, and most likely Richmond. What preferences they don’t get from the Libs they will from Jolly; plus, the kind of people who would vote for the Libs knowing that their candidate runs a gay bar are probably pretty independent-minded, ie: less likely to follow the HTV. I’d say Cleary’s presence plus lack of Liberal preferences kills them in Brunswick. Prahran would be the next most likely (on Labor preferences if they come second), ahead of Northcote.

19. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/15/3067009.htm

20. Bird of paradox
    Posted Monday, November 15, 2010 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    “I guess the focus largely shifts to independents in safe Labor seats, then”

    whose focus , and why

21. 218

    Cleary and Cumming can only win if they come third or better at the 4CP stage. Cummings has run in Footscray at the 2 previous state elections getting 10% then 14% then out-polled the Greens as well as being on the Council in most of the electorate. Cleary has not run since 1996 and that was at Commonwealth level and it has been commented on this blog that he did better in the Pascoe Vale part of Wills (I tried to check this but the results on the AEC website for the 1996 election do not extend to polling booth results that I could find and nor do Psephos`s).

    The Greens primary was 12% in Footscray and 29% in Brunswick so I give them a chance in Brunswick unless Cleary successfully exploits the Liberals preferencing him then the ALP and then the Greens. In Footscray it`s between the ALP and Cumming.

22. Just looking at BLAIR in 1998 on Psephos’ archive

    Initial Primaries –

    Hanson – 36.0%, Labor 25.3%, Liberal 21.7%, Nat 10.2%

    Later (last three) – Hanson 38.9%, Liberal 31.8%, Labor 29.3% – Hanson got 2.9/17 = 17% other parties

    Finally – Hanson 46.6%, Liberal 53.3% – so about 27% of Labor “prefs” to Hanson in the end, but of course this includes the leakage from the 4% Labor accumulated in the eliminations.

23. lefty e
    Posted Monday, November 15, 2010 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    1/ “Well, actually: nobody has any idea how Lib voters preferences flow when the party says ALP over Greens, as its never happened before. ”

    William has done some calcs since amended , mine is higher diff xpecting much less Liberal card slippage & as Libs interst is in max upper house I assume Libs will be in force around booths So I dont see Labor losing any inner city Seats and this means Balleau cannt win th 12 seats he needs If Williams amend is correct then min 2 is a problam for Labor

    2/ “Its difficult to see the Libs angle here”
    same reason Labor didn’t pref One Nation over Libs , clear choise and brand , and helps Libs with swing voters in country & outer metrop Left E

24. New thread.

Comments are closed.