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.
Election web site for Greens candidate, Cathy Oke: http://www.cathyoke.com/
Crikey founder Stephen Mayne will be running as an Independent in the by-election.
According to the comments made on the announcement on his website, he will most likely preference the Greens over Labor.
And the 4th announced candidate seems to be Michael Murphy of the Democratic Labor Party.
From Vic parliament yesterday. What on earth is Labor trying to achieve with these points of order? Either I’ve seriously misread the public’s attitude to Black Caviar or these members need to get their political antennae thoroughly checked.
[Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) — My question is to the Minister for Racing. Can the Minister advise the house how Victorians can share in the excitement of the world’s best racehorse, Black Caviar, when she races at Royal Ascot later this month?
Mr Nardella — On a point of order, Speaker, I ask you to consider how a question about a horse racing at Ascot in the United Kingdom is relevant to Victorian government business. I ask you to consider this point of order and rule whether this question should be answered.
…
Ms Thomson — On a further point of order, Speaker, the question related to Black Caviar, which last time I checked was owned privately. Therefore it was not about the racing industry in general but about a privately owned horse. I would suggest that on that —
…
Mr Howard — On a point of order, Speaker, I have listened to the minister’s answer over a period of time and I am struggling to understand how it relates to government business. I would have thought that the cuts to TAFE racing courses at the University of Ballarat would have been far more relevant to government business.]
53
Whose main effect will be to reduce the ALP`s public funding by cutting its primary but still giving pretty much all those votes back as preferences.
DLP candidates cause confusion, having scrutineered in a few inner Melb elections their votes goes everywhere,. good news for the Greens,. combined with Mayne, they will be getting excited,. Watch for late arrivals from dubious front parties and dodgy deals between the ALP and anyone they can ring in.
Its interesting that in New Zealand they don’t allow preferences, infact much of the dodgy conduct we see as ‘preference’ deals would result in Jail. About time we got rid of the disgraceful situation where party apparachiks decide election results,. It would also clean out rubbish like the DLP, Christians, SEX, Country Alliance, etc, all unprincipaled chancers, or purley a front for either the ALP or the Fibs/nats.
Another 2 candidates have been added according to the ABC.
David Nolte, another Independent; and Ashley Fenn of Family First.
All I can gather from David Nolte is that he seems to be a local Pharmacy owner in North Carlton.
Of these candidates, I would imagine that the DLP and FFP candidates will preference each other before slightly favoring Labor over the Greens in preferences.
If the Sex Party runs a candidate, I think they might preference the Greens over Labor.
Interesting test of appeals here. Labor is appealing to Melb vote as generic leftists opposed to Lib policies ie. TAFE cuts & ignoring Greens. Greens are appealing to them as Melburnians no doubt aware of the strong Green identity of Melburnians.
Comments working again!
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2012/4791/
Morgan polling is suggesting that Greens will get up on the back of Stephen Mayne’s preferences.
Seems a fait accompli for Oke. Given the current performance of Ted B and a so far lackluster ALP another seat in addition to Melbourne might make for a very interesting state election.
without the Liberals to help Labor over the line the Greens should win this quite easily imo
Antony Green will be cycling around Europe so it seems we will actually have to monitor the VEC!
The DLP must be happy about getting top spot. It increases their chances of retaining their deposit and getting electoral funding.
In state elections you can only get money from spending on certain things like HTV’s, and that is only if you have a receipt.
No large profit like federal. It makes me wonder why many parties run.
If it were me I would run federal, try get the 4%, funding and recognition and then once you are cashed up, go state if you want to.
Antony Green has kindly made a liar of me,
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/05/melbourne-by-election.html
and
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/vic/2012/melbourne/
but he gets sixteen rather than 14 candidates?
I’m happy to predict a Green victory on this occasion. Cathy Oke seems a likable candidate
mexicanbeemer,
16 candidates! Oke has the 15th position. Will be interesting to see how high the informal vote will be.
Stephen Mayne is getting some coverage on ABC News and Current Affairs at the moment, on cooperate governance issues, without acknowledgement of candidacy. Should a candidate be getting that?
That’s ridiculous. The Greens do not do Grubby Dealz. It is against their religion.
Stephen Mayne will do pretty much anything for public exposure. Noah Carroll shot it down. Actually, William, when I have time I do keep dropping in.
Morning All
I was going to post this the other day but couldn’t find the thread
The Melbourne Times Weekly is reporting early HTV cards – highlights, or lowlights depending how you look at it are
Labor putting the Democrats at 2, Sex Party at 3, Family First at 7 (insert angry face here!!!), Mayne at 12 and the Greens at 15th
Greens have Labor at 9 and Family First last (where they belong)
Will be interesting to see if they change when they are formally registered
A comment.
Sympathy comment.
To elaborate on the 1955 events. The ALP split. The MLA for Melbourne was one of the defectors to the Anti-Communist Labor Party. The ALP regained the seat at the resulting election when the Cain Government was defeated. The only seat that the A-CLP defectors retained at that election was Richmond. They lost it in 1958 to the ALP.
Welcome back to the by-election thread – looks like it will be getting plenty of coverage nationally
Sportingbet have Cathy Oke as $1.30 favourite, Greens looking like good things to win – Jennifer Kanis is at $3
Strange approach by Daniel Andrews to say people should vote Labor to send a message to the Liberals – does that mean Liberal voters, who don’t have a candidate, should vote Green to send a message of support for the Liberals???
The fallout from the poll, locally and nationally, might be more interesting than the poll itself.
BRING IT ON 🙂
The Sunday Age (15 July) was working very hard against the Greens.
Most blatant was Peter Munro’s piece “Melbourne turning Green? It’s not so black and white”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/melbourne-turning-green-its-not-so-black-and-white-20120714-2230a.html#ixzz20jevnkfO
We will have to wait until Saturday to find out whether or not enough people who voted Liberal or Labor last time put the Greens above Labor this time, but we do know that it is close.
So what is happening in the streets according to Munro?
1 – Catherine Blaikie who voted Green last time is switching her vote to Labor because the Greens did not ‘compromise’ on boat people.
2 – Paul Strangio (political analyst) says that “They are more likely to be taking in broader issues such as asylum seekers and some believe the Greens were too intransigent and unwilling to compromise to get a solution.”
3 – Allan Robertson says “I did vote for the Greens last time, but I don’t think I will do it again. The Greens’ expectations are unrealistic, on boat people they should have compromised. They live in a dream world.”
4 – Gary Morgan (pollster) says ”It’s probably clever for the Labor Party to attack the Greens before the election, I think it will attract Liberal voters who have nowhere else to go,”
Then, right at the bottom of the article which many readers may not get to, we have
5 – Ian Bird hopes the Greens will win but suspects Labor ”might sneak home”, partly because of attacks on the Greens as ”spoilers”.
6 – And the last paragraph is David Squires who plans to vote green with “no real reason behind it”.
The polling shows that it is Labor voters who are most dissatisfied with Labor over the failure to find a solution about boat people, so overall this issue may win the Greens votes, and then there are the Malcolm Fraser type of Liberals who would support the Greens views. Strange that Munro could not find any of these voters.
Of course a state election should be about state issues. But given Labor’s track record from 11 years in government it is not surprising that Munro ignores these issues in his attempt to turn readers off the Greens.
Note that the other articles on the election, including the editorial, are also all biases against the Greens. Lots of reminders that Labor have said that the Greens are “loony” and “extremists” etc. (So which Green’s policies are extreme?).
No longer is The Age a paper that will tell you what is happening. But they are doing a great job in trying to get you to think and vote they way they want you to think and vote.
If Labor wanted to bring back the death penalty with lethal injection, and the coalition wanted it as well, but with hanging, and the coalition refused to support Labor, would the Greens be called absolutists for continuing to oppose the death penalty.
And would be get editorials about the Green’s intransigence and unwillingness to compromise on this issue?
I find it shocking just how much the MSM and almost all commentators are criticising the Greens on the asylum issue.
And the words absolutist, intransigence and unwillingness to compromise all came from the editorial in the Sunday Age about the Melbourne by-election.
[If Labor wanted to bring back the death penalty with lethal injection, and the coalition wanted it as well, but with hanging, and the coalition refused to support Labor, would the Greens be called absolutists for continuing to oppose the death penalty.]
That is a ridiculous analogy. The party offering the safest way (i.e. avoiding boating tragedies) of dealing with AS is the Labor party. The greens and LNP have policies that will either never be implemented (greens) or lack sufficient discouragement to actually stop the drownings at sea (LNP).
Sorry Tom, the analogy is apt because:
1 – Both issues have a fundamental moral difference where compromise is not possible.
2 – Both issues have a pretend concern pushed by the right. With the death penalty the pretend concern is preventing terrible crimes, and with asylum seekers the pretend issue is saving lives at sea.
Both Liberal and Labor’s solutions are aimed at stopping the boats. Solutions which would save lives but lead to more asylum seekers arriving are ignored.
And note that we already have a major discouragement for the boat people – they all know that they have a chance of drowning. So any discouragement provided once they reach Australia has to be much worse than a say 5% chance of death. And this discouragement is done to people who have not done anything illegal.
Despite the attempt of the Sunday Age to make this an issue which stops people voting Green, I hope that the voters of Melbourne prove that we are much more compassionate than Abbott and Gillard.
If values are a part of this by-election then values are a reason to vote Green.
not surprisingly last night on one of the commercial news bulletins we got…Julia Gillard spoke of ‘what she says’ are her ‘achievements’.
The girlie reading the news could barely disguise the smirk on her face.
This ain’t gonna improve.
[Sorry Tom, the analogy is apt because: …]
You continue the illogical arguments. Take a course in clear thinking. I don’t have time to help you.
I’m happy to have my logic challenged by Tom or anyone else.
Another example of the illogical rhetoric is the final quote for the Sunday Age’s editorial:
[quote]If, as predicted, the Greens take Melbourne on Saturday, Oke – as that one Green at a time – will have to deliver. Even with a little power comes great responsibility.[/quote]
I’m sure that if Oke wins she will deliver by adding a new voice to the lower house.
But does The Age seriously expect her, on her own, to deliver policy outcomes whilst the 42 ALP members of the lower house don’t have to do anything other talk?
If becomes an argument about “values” Greg Barber better get his lines worked out next time he is asked, was shocking on Insiders yesterday
Good to see the Greens have costed policies – costings released today.
MWH @ 77 and others
The article in The Age probably shows the low level of Age journalism rather than any significant comment about the by election. It spends a lot of time talking about the views of one Catherine Blaikie (who is intending to vote Labor) who moved to Southbank 5 years ago.
Well they have wasted their time as Southbank is not even in the Melbourne electorate. On July 21 Catherine Blaikie will be voting for no one.
Just watched The Insiders.
I thought that Greg Barber did a pretty good job. I agree that he didn’t do as well answering the question on values, but Andrews came across as just spin without substance.
Preference flows will be important to the outcome.
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/current/StateBy2012HTVCMelbourneDistrict.html
Looking at the other 14 candidates, 6 are preferencing Oke (A) over Kanis, 6 have Kanis before Oke (B) and 2 (C) are not directing preferences.
Group A:
Perkins, Secular Party
Collyer, Democrats
Toscano, Anarchist
Mayne, Ind
Borland, Public housing
Whitehead, Climate Change
Group B:
Ahmed, Ind
Fenn, FF
Nolte, Small business & families
Murphy, DLP
Patten, Sex Party
Bengtsson, Australian Christians
Group C:
Schorel-hlavka, Ind, civil rights and political liberties
O’Connor, Socialist Equity Party
The donkey vote, top and bottom, favour Kanis.
Greens pref flow: Labor’s pref flow:
Ahmed Collyer
Borland Patten
Whitehead Ahmed
Mayne Nolte
Toscano Perkins
Collyer Fenn
Perkins Schorel-hlavka
Kanis (# 9) O’Connor
Nolte Murphy
Patten Toscano
O,Connor Mayne
Murphy Borland
Schorel-hlavka Borland
Bengtsson Oke (#15)
Fenn Bengtsson
Somewhat optimistically, i thought my table would work..
Labor’s pref flow:
Collyer
Patten
Ahmed
Nolte
Perkins
Fenn
Schorel-hlavka
O’Connor
Murphy
Toscano
Mayne
Borland
Borland
Oke (#15)
Bengtsson
M W-H
…[just spin without substance.]
Agree.
Barber seemed rather subdued though imo.
Climate Change scorecard for the Melbourne by-election:
http://www.stateelection.net.au/
An analysis for all 16 candidates is provided in the candidate analysis section:
http://www.stateelection.net.au/candidate-analysis/
[From our analysis we have concluded that the best candidate is Adrian Whitehead, with Cathy Oke from the Greens as the recommended second preference.]
Labor is rated very poorly.
Looks like Adrian Whitehead is associated with the organisation which voted him no 1 on climate.
[The Vote Climate campaign is part of a group of campaigns run or initiated by Adrian Whitehead, in an effort to build an effective response to climate change.]
I would love to know why Fiona Pattern (Sex Party) preferences Labor over Green.
I would have thought that on most core issues to the Sex Party that the Greens, both state and federal, would be the clear choice.
Without some policy justification it is looking like the Sex Party are just pushing votes to Labor because Labor did a preference deal with them. Which is totally silly because the 1 Labor votes will not have any of their preferences counted.
@Pegasus – I agree that Barber was rather flat. And it was a pity that he hadn’t prepared answers on the asylum issue.
Here is an assessment of a status quo margin accounting for the absence of a Liberal candidate.
http://poliquant.com/melbourne-state-by-election-assessing-the-par-score/
Interesting that the ALP 1st Preference goes to David Collyer, for the Democrats the policy of which on asylum seekers says:
[We, like the majority of Australians, support the High Court decision on the Malaysia Solution.
The Australian Democrats continue working to improve the quality of life for refugees and asylum seekers.
In particular, we urge you to have compassion for refugees regardless of how they arrive in Australia.]
Being Democrats they have an each-way bet of course — nothing like giving the b*stards a loophole. (that was the slogan right?):
[Asylum seekers vote must be the art of the possible …
]
Classic yes, but no. When push comes to shove, as always, the Democrats surrender to rightwing opinion (while pretending they are privately troubled by it). Like the ALP, their principles mean nothing, which is why they are getting the ALP 1st preference.
And in Melbourne some voters are asking “Democrats?”
Oh yes, the older ones will say, they were around before Facebook and the smart phones.
MW-H
[Without some policy justification it is looking like the Sex Party are just pushing votes to Labor because Labor did a preference deal with them. Which is totally silly because the 1 Labor votes will not have any of their preferences counted. ]
That’s probably true, but the reason may well be aimed at wider concessions from the ALP in their specialty area — censorship, sex workers, secularism and so forth. It’s naive in the extrem though because if there’s one thing the ALp right would hate more than to be associated with us, it’s to be associated with permissive attitudes towards sexuality. The ALp has also made clear tyhat it is foing ahead with funding school chaplains. Here’s another area that ought to be problematic for the ALp right and the Sex Party:
[The party advocates a complete decriminalisation of all illegal drugs. Rather than treat drug use as a legal matter, it should be seen as a health issue. There is more danger to the public in keeping drugs illegal than in the drugs themselves, Patten argued.]
Yes, they should be preferencing us but it is amusing all the same.
Todays Mayne report:
http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2012/07/10-1516-5259.html
[It was disappointing Victorian Greens leader Greg Barber didn’t hammer the pokies message when he was asked by Barrie Cassidy on Insiders yesterday to explain his party’s values and key differences with the ALP.
The pokies is one of the biggest differences.
The Greens wouldn’t mind if pokies disappeared altogether, whereas Labor’s cynical approach sees it captured by the enormous gambling industry lobby and raising campaign funds by directly operating more than 1000 machines in Sydney and Canberra.]
Mayne has pokies as a big issue.
For me the biggest failure of the Greens is that they don’t hammer home the facts which show that they are different from Liberal and the ALP (Alternative Labor Party).
Whether it is pokies, public transport, education, hospitals, roads, cycling, drugs, etc it is easy to track Labor’s record on each after their 11 years in government and show how Greens policy is very different.
Interesting article on internal Liberal polling (disclaimer: I am sceptical of internal polls, but still!)
[THE race for the inner-city seat of Melbourne is closer than anticipated, with internal polling revealing Labor is likely to mop up votes from Liberal supporters in Saturday’s byelection.
Internal Liberal Party polling is believed to show Labor and the Greens – pushing to win its first seat in the lower house of the Victorian Parliament – are neck and neck on two-party preferred terms. It also finds the so-called ”Gillard effect” – where Labor’s federal problems are blamed for infecting the party at a state level – is only a small influence on voters.]
[A senior Liberal source said the polling, albeit now weeks out of date, suggested Prime Minister Julia Gillard was not as negative in the seat as previously suggested. Ms Gillard’s ”favourability rating” – a measure of positive perceptions minus negative perceptions – was 31 per cent, suggesting she may actually be helping Labor in the seat.]
Which is what you’d expect, given that federally Labor is polling well in Victoria.
The idea that somehow Gillard was costing Labor votes at a State level but not affecting them discernibly at a Federal one never made much sense.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/polling-shows-byelection-race-close-20120716-226j5.html#ixzz20pQiLO6I
peg
[and raising campaign funds by directly operating more than 1000 machines in Sydney and Canberra.]
Which is not a consideration for the Victorian branch of the ALP, which gets none of that money.