NOTE: With less than a week to go until polling day, I have changed the time stamp on this post to return it to the top of the page.
Wednesday, July 18
John Ferguson of The Australian reports the ReachTEL poll mentioned in the previous entry produced the following results on the primary vote, with minor candidate preferences said to be evenly divided between Labor and the Greens:
Cathy Oke (Greens): 38.1%
Jennifer Kanis (Labor): 36.5%
Fiona Patten (Australian Sex Party): 6.1%
Stephen Mayne (Independent): 4.3%
Ashley Fenn (Family First): 3.8%
Others: 11.2%
The sample on the poll was 400, resulting in a margin of error approaching 5%. However, we are also told that 25% of those who voted Liberal in 2010 were backing Stephen Mayne and 17% were backing Family First, which raises a difficulty: given the Liberals polled 28% at the election, it should lead us to expect at least 7% for Mayne and 5% for Family First. (UPDATE: Nick Adams from ReachTEL responds in comments. In fairness to them, recollections of past voting behaviour are notoriously unreliable.) The poll also reported that 70% would be influenced one way or the other by the performance of the federal government, and that 50% expressed opposition to the Baillieu government’s East West Road Tunnel project against 28.3% who supported it.
Tuesday, July 17
George Hasanakos at Poliquant offers a very handy analysis of the by-election, including a table laying out the various candidates’ preference recommendations, present or former party affiliations, and, where applicable, shares of the lower and upper house vote at the 2010 election. The post further evaluates past by-elections where the Liberals did not field a candidate, federally and across all mainland states, going back as far as 2005. It finds that on average the Labor primary vote fell slightly while the Greens went up 7.4%, with other candidates taking up the 20.9% balance. Projecting that on to the 2010 results for Melbourne points to a lineball result: assuming minor candidates’ preferences will flow 70-30 in favour of the preferred party on their how-to-vote card, results range from 52-48 in favour of the Greens to 53-47 in favour of Labor, depending on how votes spread among minor candidates of the left and right.
However, this strikes me as being at the high end for Labor, as it assumes the Greens’ yield from a Liberal absence to be unrelated to its base level of support in the relevant electorate. In fact, experience indicates the Greens tend to stay becalmed in by-elections held in Labor’s low-income heartland, whereas they mount strong challenges in seats behind the proverbial latte curtain. This is borne out if the results from the 11 relevant by-elections are charted to show the relationship between the Greens vote at the previous election (the x-axis) and the swing to them at the by-election (the y-axis).
This shows a statistically significant relationship (though statisticians would no doubt quibble that there are too few observations) in which every percentage point of existing support for the Greens is worth about half a point of swing to them at a Liberal-free by-election. On that basis, a “par for the course” primary vote result for the Greens would be in the mid-forties (as it was in the by-election for Fremantle which I keep going on about, which is represented as the top right data point on the scatterplot), rather than the 38% calculated by Poliquant. Like Poliquant, I should stress that this is intended to illustrate what result might be considered “par for the course”, rather than an actual prediction.
For that, we are better served by opinion polls. On that note, Andrew Crook of Crikey reports ReachTel conducted an automated phone poll of the electorate last night, to be published in an undisclosed newspaper over the next few days – remembering that ReachTel’s last by-election poll, for South Brisbane, had a small sample and overstated the Labor vote. Josh Gordon of The Age further reports that a poll conducted, for some reason, by the Liberal Party in late May suggested a very close race: the Greens had 40% of the primary vote compared with 39% for Labor, with 21% for others or undecided. It is interesting to note that whereas supposed Labor polling suggested Julia Gillard was an encumbrance for them, supposed Liberal polling found her to be very popular in the electorate. Daniel Andrews on the other hand was said to be recognised as Labor leader by only two-thirds of respondents.
Sunday, July 15
The by-election campaign having been sucked into the vortex of national politics, Canberra press gallery journalists have been having their overheated way with its federal implications. Geoff Kitney of the Australian Financial Review writes: “The idea that the toxic unpopularity of the Gillard government has seeped so deeply into the Labor brand that it could lead to the loss of an iconic state seat to the Greens will add urgency to debate about Gillard’s leadership and about the challenge Labor faces from the Greens.” Similar themes were pursued by Michelle Grattan in The Age under a piece headlined, “A byelection defeat will cause shock waves in Canberra”.
Certainly the loss of a seat which has been in Labor hands since 1908 (outside of an interruption during the 1955 split) would be a significant electoral milestone. However, as the Greens came within 2.0% in both 2002 and 2006 before being poleaxed by Liberal preferences in 2010, the suggestion that a win this time should in and of itself cause “shock waves” is pure hyperbole. As I noted at the start of proceedings, this by-election has a lot in common with that in Fremantle in May 2009, in that it confronts a state ALP still recovering from an unexpected election defeat with a struggle to retain a once-safe seat where the rise of the Greens has changed the game. The results at the preceding general elections were very similar in both cases: in Fremantle, 38.7% for Labor, 30.2% for Liberal and 27.6% for the Greens; in Melbourne, 35.7%, 28.0% and 31.9%. Then as now, the decisive factor was how homeless Liberal voters would divide between Greens and Labor. In the case of Fremantle, the split was sufficiently in the Greens’ favour to deliver them a 4.0% win after preferences – with nary a word from anyone about implications for a federal Labor government which enjoyed towering opinion poll leads at the time.
Weeks before elements of the ALP launched their rhetorical offensive against the Greens at federal level, a small-sample Morgan poll of Melbourne voters found the Greens headed for a very similar result to the one they enjoyed in Fremantle, which has been consistently reflected in the betting markets. It therefore seems a bit rich for Michelle Grattan to crash the party at this late stage with claims a Greens win would amount to “an existential moment for the deeply depressed federal Labor Party” – something which is being served up on a weekly basis by the polls in any case.
Thursday, July 12
The offensive launched by elements of the ALP against the Greens has cross-pollinated with the by-election, with Daniel Andrews joining the assault. This raises questions about how many votes Labor stands to gain from Liberal supporters and lose on the soft left. The Australian has reported Labor internal polling is “understood” to have Labor’s primary vote in the low 30s and the Greens “well ahead on the primary vote”. Labor has publicly accused four candidates of being “stooges” of the Greens: Berhan Ahmed, African refugee, former Victorian of the Year and a former Greens candidate at both state and federal elections; climate activist Adrian Whitehead; public housing advocate Kate Borland; and Stephen Mayne. However, Ahmed has in fact lodged a how-to-vote card recommending Labor be put ahead of the Greens. The deadline for registering how-to-vote cards is tomorrow. Sportingbet has the Greens at $1.25 and Labor at $2.50.
Thursday, July 5
Stephen Mayne has lodged a complaint over a “smear sheet” which targets his activities as a Manningham Councillor (which can be viewed on Mayne’s website). Speaking on Jon Faine’s ABC Radio program yesterday, Mayne said the material was being circulated in Docklands and East Melbourne “anonymously and in breach of electoral laws”, and pointed to its accusation of a “grubby deal” between himself and the Greens as evidence it came from Labor. Labor state secretary Noah Carroll rang Faine’s show and condemned the dissemination of material without authorisation notices, but appeared to intimate that Mayne might have been responsible for it himself. The full audio from Faine’s program can be heard here.
Wednesday, July 4
Review of the by-election campaign from Adam Brereton in New Matilda.
Wednesday, June 27
Chris Hingston of the Melbourne Times Weekly reports Stephen Mayne has announced he will direct preferences to the Greens ahead of Labor, not unexpectedly given the centrality of the poker machines issue to his campaign. Labor has been distributing how-to-vote material which puts Stephen Mayne at number 12 and the Greens at number 15, with Family First (number seven) well ahead of both.
Friday, June 22
Nominations closed yesterday, with a huge field of 16 candidates emerging which, unsurprisingly, does not include a Liberal. The candidates in ballot paper order are independent Berhan Ahmed; Michael Murphy of the DLP; independents Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka, David Nolte and John Perkins; Jennifer Kanis (Labor); independents David Collyer and Patrick O’Connor; Michael Murphy of the DLP; independents Joseph Toscano, Stephen Mayne, Kate Borland and Adrian Whitehead; Fiona Patten of the Australian Sex Party; Cathy Oke (Greens) and Maria Bengtsson of “Australian Christians”, who are news to me.
Tuesday, June 12
Roy Morgan has published results of a phone poll of 365 respondents (for a margin of error of about 5%) conducted from Thursday to Sunday which gives the Greens a fairly solid 54-46 lead on two-party preferred, from primary votes of 48.5% for the Greens, 37.5% for Labor and 7% for Stephen Mayne. Somewhat ballsily, respondents were offered the option of “Independents or Others including Gary Morgan and Kevin Chamberlain”, the former being the principal of the firm conducting the poll, who was a candidate for the last lord mayoral election and evidently plans to nominate for the by-election. This option received the support of 7% of respondents. Meanwhile, NineMSN reports that Family First’s state director, Ashley Fenn, will be a starter.ber
Wednesday, June 6
Crikey founder, shareholder activist, anti-pokies campaigner and serial candidate Stephen Mayne announced earlier this week he will run as an independent.
Tuesday, May 29
The election timetable has been published. The closure of nominations, followed by the ballot paper draw, will be at noon on June 22.
Sunday, May 27
July 21 has been set as the date for the by-election. I’ve promoted this to the top of the page and added a link to the sidebar in the hope of reactivating the comments thread.
Wednesday, May 16
The Greens have preselected Cathy Oke, and her council colleague Jennifer Kanis has been confirmed as Labor’s candidate. Kanis was elected to the City of Melbourne council in 2008. NineMSN says Oke “was elected to the City of Melbourne council in 2008 and is senior project manager at education organisation Kids Teaching Kids”. She was chosen ahead of Rose Iser, a former Moonee Valley councillor and staffer to Adam Bandt, and Sonny Neale, said to be involved with “environmental and arts businesses”.
Tuesday, May 8
A diverting by-election looms in the Victorian state seat of Melbourne, former minister Bronwyn Pike evidently having made the not unusual decision that opposition is not for her. This electorate is of course a dead zone for the Liberals, such that the parliamentary balance of 45 pro-government and 43 anti-government members is certain to go undisturbed. However, it offers a golden opportunity for the Victorian Greens to achieve what they have never quite been able to manage: victory in a state lower house seat.
Bounded to the south by the Yarra River, the electorate of Melbourne extends north through the city centre to the suburbs immediately to the north and north-west. The more easterly part of what is generally considered the inner-city constitutes the equally Greens-friendly seat of Richmond, and the two together constitute most of federal Melbourne. The map below shows two-party Labor-versus-Greens polling booth results from the 2010 election, with the font size varying according to the number of votes cast. As you can see, only in one booth did the Greens score a two-party majority, that being the Carlton booth nearest to the University of Melbourne campus.
Electorally speaking, three tendencies can be observed within the electorate. About 60% of the voters are in the inner northern suburbs (together with the booths in the CBD itself, which are presumably used by many voters who don’t live there), where Labor and the Greens were each worth about a third of the vote and the Liberals roughly a quarter. In Docklands and East Melbourne, high-powered city centre types drive the Liberal vote well into the 40s, although these booths only count for 12% of the total vote. The remaining quarter of the voters are in Flemington and Kensington which, being on the far side of the CityLink motorway, mark the beginning of Labor’s western suburbs heartland – albeit that the gentrification of Kensington has complicated this picture in recent years. Flemington however remains high in public housing and low in median income, and the area collectively shares a voting pattern of weakness for the Liberals (barely 20%) and strength for the Labor (over 40%, and approaching 50% in Flemington).
Emphasising the point that the Greens are a very recent phenomenon in Victorian state politics, the party did not bother to field a candidate in Melbourne as recently as 1999, when Labor was worth 59.3% of the primary vote. In the wake of a breakthrough result at the 2001 federal election, the Greens well and truly had their act together by the 2002 state election, when the strength of their performance in the inner-city was the only complication in a picture of electoral triumph for Labor across the state. In Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick as well as Melbourne, the Greens gouged double-digit shares of the primary vote from both major parties, overtaking the Liberals and landing short of victory by respective margins of 3.1%, 7.9%, 9.3% and, in the case of Melbourne, 1.9%.
This inevitably engendered high hopes for the party at the next two elections, but they were met both times with disappointment. A late-campaign publicity blitz by Labor in 2006 was credited with keeping Bronwyn Pike’s slender margin intact, and Labor also held its ground in Richmond. Then in 2010 came a disturbing development for the Greens, with the Liberals jettisoning their practice of directing them preferences ahead of last-placed Labor. This resulted in a comfortable 6.2% win for Pike, despite the primary vote gap between Labor and the Greens shrinking from 17.2% to 3.8%.
With the Greens achieving near equality with Labor on the primary vote, the behaviour of Liberal voters is now the decisive factor in all circumstances. The maths behind the 2010 result are demonstrated by ballot paper studies conducted in the electorate by the Victorian Election Commission after the last two elections, which both found about 40% of Liberal voters adhering to the how-to-vote card (those who went their own way split about 60-40 in the Greens’ favour in 2006, and 55-45 in 2010). As a result, the Greens’ 78% share of Liberal and other preferences in 2006 shrunk disastrously to 44% in 2010.
What remains unknown is how those voters would behave if the absence of a Liberal candidate denied them the cue of their favoured party’s how-to-vote card. Notwithstanding state party director Damien Mantach’s assertion to The Age that the party was “considering its options”, it seems intuitively unlikely that a party that wasn’t game to take on the Niddrie by-election in March (margin 6.9%) would chance its hand in Melbourne. That being so, the best pointer which exists is Western Australia’s Fremantle by-election of 2009, which also involved a senior minister in a defeated government pulling the plug in a seat where the Greens had been emerging over time into a serious threat to Labor. On the primary vote, Fremantle produced a similar result at the 2008 state election to the one in Melbourne in 2010: 38.7% for Labor, 30.2% for Liberal and 27.6% for the Greens, compared with 35.7%, 28.0% and 31.9%. The one important difference was the slightly weaker position of the Greens, which caused them to fall short of a Liberal Party which might otherwise have delivered them the seat through their preferences.
It’s presumably an ominous sign for Labor in Melbourne that the Greens were able to prevail at the Fremantle by-election in the absence of a Liberal candidate, and by a reasonably solid margin of 4.0%. There may have been factors peculiar to the election which will not apply in Melbourne, such as Greens’ choice of a candidate with considerable appeal to Liberal voters (however much they may have come to rue that choice since). Nonetheless, the precedent strongly suggests that many voters deprived of a Liberal candidate will instead take whatever opportunity to kick Labor happens to be available.
Andrew Crook of Crikey reported yesterday that Jennifer Kanis, a Melbourne councillor and Holding Redlich lawyer, was considered the front-runner for Labor preselection. Moonee Valley councillor Rose Iser was mentioned as a possible candidate for the Greens (UPDATE: Bird of Paradox points out in comments she ceased to be a councillor in 2010, and is now a staffer for Adam Bandt), though it evidently remains to be established if the candidate from 2010, barrister and former Liberty Victoria president Brian Walters, is interested in another run. Walters defeated Iser in a preselection vote before the 2010 election.
Pike is not at all popular among her Labor Party colleagues for this decision. As reported in The Age, her predecessor in the seat, Neil Cole, described it as “very disappointing”, and “She has never been a great Labor Party person and she is leaving at the most inopportune time and handing the seat over to the Greens.” The Age also reported that several senior Labor figures “expressed disgust at Ms Pike’s resignation.”
I think the Libs will use Williams logic to decide whether to stand or not. They know that the by-election will not affect their majority on the floor and so their sole objective will be to inflict pain and suffering on the ALP.
If they stand and preference the Greens the Greens will probably win but they lose the moral high ground, important with their right wing, of the last election of putting the Greens last. If they stand and preference the ALP the ALP will probably win and they waste their campaign money. In both these options the Libs lose something and gain little.
Their best option it seems will be to not stand a candidate and rely on their voters ability to vote tacticaly (nudge nudge wink wink) to deliver the seat to the Greens. Maximum pain to the ALP with minimum cost.
An interesting point not mentioned here is the potential influence of Adam Bandt, who holds the Federal seat of Melbourne which covers the state seat, and to lesser extent that of Richard di Natale, the Victorian Greens Senator. Bandt is a popular and highly visible local member who has used the resources available to Federal MPs to campaign hard in his electorate. This gives the greens an extra arrow in the quiver in their campaign for the state seat which they don’t normally have. Today’s Federal Budget will include significant money and other moves for reform of dental care, an issue the Greens have been running hard on and where their work is very strongly supported by voters.
Not sure if the Greens campaign got off to the best start this morning with Greens Leader Greg Barber acting like an arrogant dickhead on the Jon Faine program. He made Mark Latham look calm and reasonable.
Both Greens and ALP have the advantage in a by-election of being able to pour human resources into the campaign. This might the Greens more of a leg up as they might be more stretched normally.
Your graph indicates a gradual and inevitable cross over, but is 2012 the year in which GRN primary votes over takes ALP.
This by-election really comes down to a question of who do LIB voters hate more, greenies or unionists?
blackburnpseph, I didn’t hear the program but am not surprised. He wasn’t too bad as Mayor and before on council, but even in party meetings I was at he was always like that.
I wish he had never been selected. There is a good chance the Greens could have taken Melbourne at least in 2010 if it wasn’t for Greg’s attitude. At least I think he was a major factor.
7
Hopefully the Greens will preselect someone other than Greg Barber for Northern Metro for the next election. I think that the Greens would got further over 11% statewide in the 2010 state election without his arrogant media presence (especially on Stateline the day before the election). I also think that a different candidate in Melbourne would have helped.
I hope the Greens win Melbourne. It would provide them with another MP to share portfolios with and, if re-elected (not a given due to the Liberal preference factor), provide another MP with experience after the next election. Hopefully Adam Bandt MP`s representative skills will help convince enough voters to switch at the election.
Rose Iser isn’t a Moonee Valley councillor any more – she resigned in late 2010 to work for Adam Bandt. Apparently you can’t be a councillor if you’re working for an MP in Victoria.
http://stage.moonee-valley-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/new-councillor-for-moonee-valley/
That was bought in because of the Brimbank Council fiasco Bird.
A lot of ALP staffers were very annoyed at that. Councillors too.
[Not sure if the Greens campaign got off to the best start this morning with Greens Leader Greg Barber acting like an arrogant dickhead on the Jon Faine program. He made Mark Latham look calm and reasonable.]
You can hear this, together with Faine’s interview with Jennifer Kanis, here:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/hectic-half-hour-8-5-12.mp3
William,
Thank you for providing the link to Faine’s interview.
I have heard Barber many times speak in person and being interviewed on radio and tv. At times he has come across as arrogant and I personally do not warm to him.
I listened to Faine’s interview and was pleasantly surprised. Barber seems to have heeded advice and conducted himself in a calm and reasonable manner.
I suggest that others listen to the interview for themselves and take blackburnpseph’s evaluation of Barber’s performance with a grain of salt.
I’m not sure why Faine described Barber as only the putative leader of the Greens, but he did cause Barber to have to look it up in the dictionary.
Pegasus, from memory text messages from callers were not complimentary of Barber.
From listeners I meant.
Thanks William,
Am I right in saying that Barber is the upper house member for the seat of Melbourne yet doesn’t know how many members there are.
Generally unimpressive and even though he did improve as the interview progressed.
mexicanbeemer,
Kanis’ performance during the interview was generally unimpressive imo. She needs to improve if she is going to cut through in the electorate.
oops hit send by mistake…
If she is selected as the Labor candidate, she needs to improve if she is going to cut through in the electorate.
Pegasus true, Kanis wasn’t much better than Barber. if I had to give points Barber was slightly better, as I wrote he got better as the interview progressed.
triton,
Text messages from whom? – Liberal, Labor, Greens supporters/voters?
mb
[yet doesn’t know how many members there are.]
Not surprised by this.
Even at my local branch level, there is uncertainty about number of local members when I recently asked.
16
Barber is the Greens MLC (1 of 5 MLC in total) for Northern Metropolitan. One of the Legislative assembly seats that make up Northern Metro is Melbourne.
The Greens organise their branches on Local Government Areas not electorates and so the number of party members in a seat is not a heavily used number although it is there for preselection votes.
triton,
Also, were text messages complimentary of Kanis?
Thanks and that is an interesting way of doing it, I image that using fixed LGA would make it easier to manage than having to potentially re-organise after every redistribution
In response to a question from Faine, Kanis said wtte that all parties should field a candidate so that all voters have a choice. Totally agree.
Interesting times when a Labor would-be candidate is encouraging the Liberals to stand in opposition to her own party.
Pegasus, we don’t know who the texters voted for, but Faine normally reads out a representative sample. In the past his listeners have been reasonably objective in their assessments. For example, they even praised Abbott recently when he spent an interview talking about policy. Listeners thought it was a welcome change. I didn’t think Barber was too bad, but there a few poor moments. He sounded a little blasé at times.
Text messages were scathing of Kanis, with several commenting on all her “um”s. She was pretty inarticulate.
Pegasus
[Interesting times when a Labor would-be candidate is encouraging the Liberals to stand in opposition to her own party.]
Not necessarily when an analysis of the numbers seems to indicate that Labor has a better chance of winning if a Liberal candidate stands.
triton,
That’s right. Labor has a better chance of defeating the Greens if the Libs run. If this wasn’t the case there would be no encouragement for a Lib to stand.
As I said, interesting times.
triton @ 26
Thank you for that.
[He sounded a little blasé at times.]
I took it more as an ocker, strine, laid back sort of persona that he tends to project.
If Labor strategists have crunched numbers in Melbourne district and believed that the Greens had no hope of winning against Labor, and if the Greens announced that they would not run a candidate, Labor would be encouraging the Greens, not Libs, to stand.
Interesting times.
Sorry, Pegasus, I misunderstood your 28.
Barber’s text messages are in the last 40 seconds of the recording that William linked to (assuming it’s as long as the one at http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/melbourne_mornings/index.html ). One said he was sarcastic and one said he should try living in the outer suburbs if he’s complaining about transport.
The ALP are encouraging the Liberal for 3 reasons. Firstly, to run because they think that the Liberals would preference them and thus deliver them victory, secondly because they think that the Liberals will not stand and thus they are moving towards portraying them as a cowardly government in trouble and thirdly because the Liberals would likely loose primary vote and thus be shown as loosing support.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/05/melbourne-by-election.html
The Greens are doing the numbers in Northern Metro, Barber has had his two terms and the members have had enough of Barber.
The change in Melbourne in the upcoming redistribution will effect the boundaries for the next state election (unless an early election is too early). Melbourne is 8.1% over quota and will likely loose voter, especially with its population grown due to all those new flats in the CBD and Docklands. How this is done may effect whether the MP elected on 21/7 is reelected.
My post above contains the following link.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/05/prospects-for-the-victorian-state-redistribution.html
Re Big Ted and his worried back-bench
_________
There’s a curious anti-Bailleau story in the Weekend Oz quoting unnamed Libs who are most disaffected and unhappy with the Premier.who they say is remote and disengaged
Curious in that this article appeared a day after a similar piece in thge Herald-Sun on the same lines
In the Murdoch media making an attack in Bailleau who has had a very bad run of mistakes and unpopular measures since his Budget
Also the media is ramping the story about the MP For Frankston and his misuse of a Govt car
It seems that’s is the least of his worries…faced wih a Tax Office audit..a collapsed investment scheme and a broken marriage in recent months and some very angry investors who want to know where their money has gone..he is in real trouble
A matter which caught the Premier off balance on Friday at his Press Conf
Is Ted on the slide and will the Franston affair ultimately cause an early election..??.if so it might be bye-bye Ted
William,
You have Jennifer Kanis working with Cathy at Kids… She is a lawyer specialising in employment, industrial relations and anti-discrimination law.
Yes indeed, Kevin. Corrected.
I know its still early days, but I would have thought there would have been more rumours of candidates/parties.
It almost seems as if everyone wants it to be just ALP vs Green.
My post for ThinkBrigade may shed some light on the two Melbourne City councillors Melbourne’s Eco-city: Working for a Sustainable Future
I think that the deadline for nominations occurs 10 days after the writ for the by-election is issued, so this would be at noon on June 7th. We should know who’s running for certain after then.
42
The deadline for candidates endorsed by a registered political party is 24 hour before the close of nominations.
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/stand/stand-howto-state.html
Ah, okay. Thanks for that.
So the deadline would be June 6 for parties and June 7 for independents?
[I know its still early days, but I would have thought there would have been more rumours of candidates/parties.
It almost seems as if everyone wants it to be just ALP vs Green.]
Interesting to see this comment here, I just dropped by, I live just outside the electorate
Stephen Mayne on 774 this evening declined to confirm (or otherwise) his disinterest in this contest
Whoa, it turns out that I was right out here.
Apparently, according to the VEC, the close for Party candidates is 21 June, and Independent candidates is 22 June.
But it turns out from the silence from the Liberals that this will be a Labor v. Greens contest as of yet.
Stephen Mayne will run in the Melbourne by-election.
He is unlikely to do a preference deal with the ALP but may do one with the Greens.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-04/stephen-mayne-to-run-in-melbourne-by-election/4051592
Courtesy of Schnappi on the main thread:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-04/stephen-mayne-to-run-in-melbourne-by-election/4051592
————————————
Preference deals will be crucial to the outcome.
[Mr Mayne says he is unlikely to entertain any preference deal with Labor, but is open to a deal with the Greens.]
[“I’m still shaking my head at the HSU (Health Services Union) scandal and all the sleazy culture of the Labor Party and can’t believe what the Labor Party did to Andrew Wilkie over poker machine reforms,” he said.]
Maybe someone should tell Stephen it is a state seat and there is a Liberal M.P. who he should be saving his head shaking for….
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/geoff-shaw-under-fire-over-another-private-business/story-fn6bfkm6-1226381433791
49
It looks like the Liberals are not running in Melbourne and so head shaking about that is not very relevant.
It does make a potential Frankston by-election more likely though.