In a spirit of providing a new post every day during the campaign over and above things like the Senate of the Day entries, today I offer the following scattered assortment of bits-and-pieces relating to contentious preference deals.
• The biggest headline-generator has been the Wikileaks Party, whose most contentious choices have involved a New South Wales ticket which places the Greens behind both the quasi-fascist Australia First and, more consequentially, Shooters & Fishers, and a Western Australian ticket which has the Greens behind the Nationals. Responding to an immediate backlash on social media, the decisions were put down to “administrative errors”, which appeared to involve paperwork being lodged by activists with different ideas about strategy from the party executive. Three of the most noteworthy critics of the arrangement have been Julian Assange’s Senate running mate in Victoria, academic and ethicist Leslie Cannold, who resigned complaining that the party’s democratic processes had been bypassed (albeit that this happened too late to affect her inclusion on the ballot paper); Julian Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, who said that if she lived in Western Australian she would vote for Scott Ludlam of the Greens, who has been the strongest parliamentary supporters of her son’s cause; and Julian Assange himself, who apologised for having “over-delegated” such matters to persons evidently less capable than himself. For all that, the preference arrangements have conferred tactical advantage on the party in some cases, such as in Western Australia where it will be fed preferences from Family First, the Katter and Palmer parties, and a lengthy list of smaller concerns.
• Four parties in Victoria remarkably failed to lodge preference tickets, which among other things offered a potent insight into the closeness of the relationship between them. This was further delved into by Andrew Crook at Crikey, who noted the same personages at work behind the Liberal Democratic Party, Stop the Greens, the Smokers Rights Party and the Republican Party. A source quoted by Christian Kerr of The Australian put the non-lodgement of the tickets down to matters having been “thrown into chaos as it became clear Labor would do a deal with the Greens”. This came as bad news to the Sex Party, which had dealt its way into a national arrangement with the parties concerned that also involved One Nation. To those angered to discover that the party had done Pauline Hanson a good turn in her bid for a New South Wales seat, the party weakly responded that “you have to put these lunatic parties somewhere”, while failing to acknowledge that in Hanson’s case “somewhere” was number 10 out of 110, ahead of Labor, the Coalition and the Greens.
• The complex of preference harvesters and opportunists willing to make deals with them has gifted Pauline Hanson with what occasional psephologist Polly Morgan describes as “an incredibly favourable preference flow”. However, Hanson faces the stumbling block that the Coalition have her placed last, so unlike other parties to the arrangement she does not stand to benefit from the surplus after the election of their third Senator, which in the context of the current election could be substantial. Indeed, Hanson’s candidacy may end up doing the left a good turn, as other right-wing candidates with the potential to be elected with help from Coalition preferences could instead get excluded at an earlier stage of the count by virtue of their failure to overtake Hanson. Should Hanson not poll quite so well as that, there are a range of potential scenarios for a seat to go to a micro-party. The most likely contender could be the Liberal Democrats, who have had a lucky break in being drawn as “Group A” on the enormous Senate ballot paper. Experience suggests this will substantially boost the number of votes they get from those confusing them with the Liberal Party, the Coalition ticket being a lot harder to locate (“Group Y” out of a listing the continues all the way out to “Group AR”).
• Labor has made the highly unusual decision to place the Liberals ahead of Andrew Wilkie in Denison. It presumably did so in the expectation that its preferences would not be distributed, the weakness of the Liberals in the electorate meaning the final count will most likely be between Wilkie and the Labor candidate, Jane Austin. However, the weekend’s ReachTEL poll of 563 respondents cast at least some doubt on this, showing the Liberal candidate leading Austin 23.1% to 18.0%. Wilkie’s position nonetheless appears strong enough to ensure his re-election regardless of how preferences are directed.
• Labor has entered a preference arrangement with Katter’s Australian Party in Queensland in which the latter will receive the former’s preferences for the Senate ahead of the Greens, in exchange for which the latter will direct preferences to Labor ahead of the Liberal National Party in Hinkler, Herbert, Flynn, Capricornia, Forde and Petrie. This could well entail the high price of having KAP Senate candidate James Blundell elected ahead of the Greens, a prospect that would be pleasing to an incoming Abbott government. As Steven Scott of the Courier-Mail reports, it has also caused some not unpredictable dissent in the KAP.
When’s the next poll due comrades ?
abbott has so many strings and debts and favours around him he is already strangling – he looks likes he’s strangling
Never ceases to amaze me the blinkered opinion, out of touch of reality, disgusting abuse by ALP supporters on here!
Get a grip, get use to it & face reality that Abbot will be PM after Sept 7th!
Stop the usual leftist tirade on here, it isn’t achieving anything!
Good evening Bludgeroonies.
The fact that the ALP hasn’t been able to even come close to a single costing throughout either of its two terms means the emphasis on Abbott’s costings will fall flat.
If the Treasury is distancing itself from the ALP’s claims about a $10 Billion black hole is right (haven’t read it myself) Rudd is in big trouble (he is anyway of course).
88-62 still I reckon….
Time for some transition to opposition classes for our Laboristii
@Mod Lib/1054
They never distanced themselves in the first place, you believed the media too much crap.
And Coalition can’t do sum’s either.
Player One
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:18 pm | Permalink
Rudd never mentions the PBO or Treasury in the 16 mins of video.
Rudd is a useless dipshit.
—————————————————-
Always good to see you have extended yourself to at least try an make a worthwhile intelligent contribution to the discussion. Keep trying. Because that comment is a dismal failure
Comrades??? Pftt you still in the 1950s wishing for a socialist society?
Laughable
Yoiks! The YoungLib platoon have finished their brainwashing session, and have been dispatched to flood PollBludger.
With ModLib leading the charge. Huzzah!
paaptsef
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
does any one know what “assumptions” were used in the Abbott Hockey figures?
——————————————————
Assumption 1
2 + 2 = whatever number we want
All the examples Bob gives are of unique insights.
Rudd’s “thought bubbles” are rehashes of policies not implemented before, normally for a very good reason.
To compare rehashing Abbott’s Northern Tax Haven with Newton understanding the laws of gravity shows what an imbecile Bob Ellis is.
paaptsef
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
does any one know what “assumptions” were used in the Abbott Hockey figures?
——————————————————–
Assumption 2
We can say anything we like because Rupert will make it all look good by blaming Labor for our lack of ability to add up
Dio, gravity may also have been the cause of Rudd’s revelation ;).
[sprocket_
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:26 pm | PERMALINK
Yoiks! The YoungLib platoon have finished their brainwashing session, and have been dispatched to flood PollBludger.
With ModLib leading the charge. Huzzah!]
At least you have worked out who is in charge! :devil:
Wesley
Loon on the graveyard shift. Clone these guys from Joe Hockeys fatsuckings
‘ello ‘ello . More calliphoridae hove into view.
[Abbott doesn’t need to cost shit…]
I doubt he would even know how to do that
[zoidlord
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:24 pm | PERMALINK
@Mod Lib/1054
They never distanced themselves in the first place, you believed the media too much crap.
And Coalition can’t do sum’s either.]
Well I have seen Rudd’s claims and read the Treasury statement now and Rudd is dead IMO.
Peons up the front, Mod.
@Mod Lib/1068
Imho, incorrect, Rudd statement still stands.
http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/MediaReleases/2013/Costings-Statement
The Departments of Treasury and Finance were asked to prepare costings on policy options, which were provided to the Departments by the Government prior to the election being called. These costings were completed and submitted to the Government prior to the election being called. This is consistent with long-standing practice.
Antony Green on Senate reform:
[The Senate is one of the most powerful parliamentary upper chambers in the world. It should be for the public to determine its balance of power, not for unknown deal makers to engineer an outcome.
My concern is that the farce of the 2013 Senate election may produce the wrong sort of change, where the existing players get together and simply make it impossible for the little parties to grow or get elected by introducing threshold quotas.
The better alternative is to do what NSW did after the 1999 debacle, to abolish between-ticket preferences, but allow voters to express their own preferences for parties above the line on the ballot paper. Preferences are moved back into the hands of voters where they belong, and parties that campaign for votes with how-to-vote material can try to influence preferences, but parties that don’t campaign for votes lose control of their preferences.
As a minimum, the Victorian Legislative Council system should be copied. Voters are only required to give as many preferences below the line as there are vacancies, five in the Victorian case. This is much fairer than the endless lists of preferences required in the Senate.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/green-senate-ballot-system-threatens-more-than-our-eyesight/4921966
Don’t worry Sprocket_, we need some rational, balanced opinion on here for a change. Not the usual dillusional tirades of sad & tired left supporters who believe their own bullshit
@Mod Lib,
Also see:
http://www.alp.org.au/cm5_290813
I love how the LNP supporters want to stop alternative opinions. They don’t seem to enjoy the whole democracy thing. They seem to think that nobody should criticise the LNP because they will be the government..
Frankly they would make Stalin proud.
AA @1032
So in summary, Penny $106B Wrong is saying, “We made shit up and saying you have a $10B hole so the only way to prove us wrong is to show us your costings so we can make some more shit up and lie on TV about how the universe will implode if Messiah Kev’s ego isn’t PM on Sept 8th.”
Wow, and the gullible ALP drones are lapping it up. Just remember drones that the ALP has NO idea about pre-election costings as they have presented theirs 15 minutes before the election and EVERY SINGLE NUMBER ever released by Kevin, Wrong, Swanny, Bowen have been COMPLETELY WRONG.
As Abbott said today (and there should be a ad with the treasury highlighting the ALP’s imbecile action)
““Mr Rudd gets his own numbers wrong … now, he is getting our numbers wrong, too!”
Polifact that .
Simon Baker@1034
Howard 1998 was an upset by polls but not by betting. He was 2-1 on favourite five weeks out and 5-2 on on election day.
Keating 1993 was $3.50 a few days out but never anything like as long as Rudd now.
Of course upsets happen. If upsets never happened then people would notice this and always bet on favourites.
But the general pattern across a range of sports is that upsets against favourites who are at very short odds happen rarely.
Mod, I think like the rest of us amateur communicators here you should read all the relevant a few more times :P.
@Pollytics: Here’s what makes the costings arsehattery inexcusable. The actual documents show when it was costed. Here’s PBO http://t.co/P281qAH5xA
Zoidlord:
“Treasury, Department of Finance and Deregulation and Parliamentary Budget Office figures released this morning have exposed a $10 billion hole in the savings claimed by the Coalition yesterday.”
Rudd tried to imply Treasury had costed the Opposition policies yesterday
Treasury made it perfectly clear that they had done no such thing.
Busted.
@morpheus/1075
So here is a question for you, I assume you will make the assumption that the Coalition Party are also making claims that are not true?
As John Hewston once said “you gotta tell the other side how bad that side is”.
[Wesley Rickard
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:32 pm | PERMALINK
Don’t worry Sprocket_, we need some rational, balanced opinion on here for a change. Not the usual dillusional tirades of sad & tired left supporters who believe their own bullshit]
am gravely wounded by your pithy rebuttal
ML
See 1078
Campaign is going great, hey!
Huzzah!
@Mod Lib/1079
Wrong.
https://twitter.com/Pollytics/status/373054953213812736/photo/1
Huzzah, CC!
morpheus pray tell do you know what the Abbott Hockey assumptions are?
Kinkajou- hilarious really, pathetic !
You have proven my point exactly!
Come back to me when your got something intelligent to say!
[guytaur
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:36 pm | PERMALINK
ML
See 1078]
Yes, I have.
And?
ML
Shows you are wrong.
Penny Wong has been quite a disappointing minister when all is said and done. She could not get the original ETS up and running when so much was in her favour, and she is no Tanner when it comes to the finance portfolio.
All she seems to have left now is to whine about the oppositions costings. Get over it Penny, is what oppositions do, give the country something from the Govt’s perspective for a change. Consumer confidence up, run with that over the weekend. Worth a try, maybe it would work who knows, but better than the constant whingeing that’s for sure.
Mod Lib! Thank Heavens. Please tell the world what the Abbott Hockey assumptions are
Fair Dinkum fellas.
The right wing-nut brigade is silent all night, and come 10.30 you all come flooding on?
Bad polling coming up?
@taylormade/1090
Joe Hockey all that it complains about is Labor’s costings.
So what else is new?
@sprocket_/1092
Liberal Meeting.
“At no stage prior to the Caretaker period has either Department costed Opposition policies.
Different costing assumptions, such as the start date of a policy, take up assumptions, indexation and the coverage that applies, will inevitably generate different financial outcomes.
The financial implications of a policy may also differ depending on whether the costing is presented on an underlying cash balance or fiscal balance basis.
The Treasury and Finance costings presented in the advice to Government reported today were presented on an underlying cash balance basis.
Dr Martin Parkinson PSM
Secretary
The Treasury
Mr David Tune PSM
Secretary
Department of Finance and Deregulation”
OOPS!
oh so sorry Sprocket_ really?
[guytaur
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:38 pm | PERMALINK
ML
Shows you are wrong.]
A grainy image of a document stating something starts on July 1st 2014 proves some point you think you are making does it?
Are you guys so seriously in this alternate universe or are you so depressed by the impending terms of Coalition rule that you are starting to have hallucinations?
KB
Yes, very good.
The success rate for a favourite in a field of 24 cannot be compared with the success rate for a favourite with 2 in a contest.
Even still, to be more precise, where there are two in a contest, the success rate of $1.05 favourites should be projected.
The last team to start at $1.05 was the Storm v Parra.
What was the result?
The Storm won by 60 😯
*night
sprocket
Robopolling out in force tonight
We’ve seen the PPL figures and they are a sham.
A lie to deceive the people into believing that the PPL will make money.
What a crock of S**T.
The assumptions made don’t hold up to any genuine review as any review should not look at one policy in isolation from the rest of the budget and this is where the PPL costs fail.
In isolation they look good, but soon to crap when looked at as part of the entire budget.