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.
Mod, you’re not getting it. Treasury costed some speculations put to them by Labor. Those speculations were suspiciously close to Coalition policy.
In fact, there are persons elsewhere arguing that the issue is that Treasury are covering their asses because they’re not allowed to be used by the government that way.
Zoid
Facts and standard practice are no longer respected.
What we are seeing, particularly since Rabbott became LOTO is ‘he who yells and squeals the loudest must be right’.
liyana @1074
“I love how the LNP supporters want to stop alternative opinions.”
Yes, because the coalition are the only ones wanting to impose media regulation, internet filters and change the legal onus of proof. FFS, grow a brain.
The left and their associated moronic drones don’t want a free press because they can’t control them and impose their ludicrous ideas on anyone who doesn’t obey. The internet is a vast sea of information so if the only thing the drones have is harping about media bias then they are more stupid than their psychotic leaders. Screaming about Murdoch just tells the voters that the ALP doesn’t think anyone but they are able to think for themselves. Careful with the paranoid delusions drones, be very very careful.
@CC/1095
Read it in full:
“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.”
Oh dear. You do wonder whether these reactionary fools read things for themselves, or whether they just quote whatever nonsense Bolt is spruiking for the day.
Really Sprocket_ feeling challenged? That’s a shame!
As usual, another leftist resorting to abuse!
@morpheus/1103
Right, how is having a duopoly helping Australians? Has it worked well for Coles/Woolworths? Telstra/Optus?
[Simon Baker
Interesting that tonight no-one has provided any evidence that LNP costings are correct.]
Following from 1101, i.e. that Treasury are trying to get by on a technicality that what they costed for the government prior to the caretaker period were not opposition policies.
Rear Sprocket @1092 Some of us actually do shit like work and stuff.
ML
[8 May 2013
Phil Bowen PSM FCPA Parliamentary Budget Officer
Media release
PBO DECLINES TO CONFIRM COSTING ATTRIBUTED TO COALITION POLICY
The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr Phil Bowen, today said that the costing attributed to the Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme as reported in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) this morning was not from any costing prepared by the PBO for the Coalition.
“The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has prepared a number of costings in this policy area for different parliamentarians. The source of the figures attributed to the Coalition has not been revealed by the AFR.
“The PBO will only confirm costings that have been publicly released by the political party or parliamentarian for whom the costing was prepared,” Mr Bowen emphasised.]
[A grainy image of a document stating something starts on July 1st 2014 proves some point you think you are making does it?]
Not that.
Look closer.
With Abbott it is one deception after another.
Tax increases to small business are being touted as savings. $4 billion of increased tax to small business.
Sean as a small business owner you must be concerned??
[DisplayName
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:40 pm | PERMALINK
Mod, you’re not getting it. Treasury costed some speculations put to them by Labor. Those speculations were suspiciously close to Coalition policy.]
Treasury went out of its way, just 9 days out from an election, to correct Rudd’s claims that Treasury had costed the Coalition’s policies.
If you think that is no big deal, when the entire Rudd campaign is based on Abbott’s costings, then rock on! :devil:
@CC/1110
I suppose like, spreading labor lies and crap too?
victoria:
As I said earlier, the real question is why anyone would take anything budget-related at face value from the party of Hogwarts.
@Mod Lib/1114
Your wrong again, Looking at the picture link, the treasury statement says everything was in line with long standard policy, of outside care-taker mode and before election was called.
You are lying.
I think everyone is getting worked up over nothing. Labor had some policies costed, fair enough. They were their view of Coalition policies but not Coalition policies, limited value. They used these costings to allege a $10 billion black hole, pure politics.
DN
[Dio, gravity may also have been the cause of Rudd’s revelation 😉 .]
Agree. I think he was imagining the thud of crashing to the ground.
LOL!
[Paul Keating
Abbott is a dropped meringue. You feel a little sorry but you’d never pick it up. Kick it to the side and move on. #auspol #ausvotes]
[ The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr Phil Bowen, today said that the costing attributed to the Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme as reported in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) this morning was not from any costing prepared by the PBO for the Coalition. ]
here we go again. Coalition costings debacle 2010 revisited.
victoria
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
Simon Baker
Interesting that tonight no-one has provided any evidence that LNP costings are correct.
———————————————————
they can’t because they are not correct.
the best way to “kill” this debate is to show that the costings Abbott/Hockey are throwing around are correct.
Can’t do that, so attack those who say they aren’t correct. economic minnows the lot of them
paaptsef
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:47 pm | Permalink
The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr Phil Bowen, today said that the costing attributed to the Coalition’s paid parental leave scheme as reported in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) this morning was not from any costing prepared by the PBO for the Coalition.
——————————————————–
so who were they prepared for?
Hmmm all that money the LNP are supposed to have for advertising,
“@lyndalcurtis: One hour of TV tonight. 6 election ads. 4 ALP. 2 Coalition. #puttingonaDVD”
AA,
What tax increases to small business?
davidwh@1118
Sure, david. I can agree with that. However it’s impossible to have a discussion with people who will only admit the interpretation that suits them.
Whether or not it’s a big deal (as Mod claims – something I wasn’t even discussing) depends on how everyone else sees it, which surely entails some discussion of the different ways in which it might be seen.
[confessions
….
Not that.
Look closer.]
Haha 🙂 the old ALP, we are smarter than all of you, if only you could keep up routine, eh?
You forget I have heard this before:
Mod Lib The ALP is dumb paying State royalties, the states will just jack up the Royalties
PB wisertariat: Oh you are so dumb Mod Lib, I am an expert on mining and that is just plain wrong”
Outcome: Each state jacked up its royalties, exactly as I said
Mod Lib: Why does the Carbon tax have to be $23? why not $5 or $40?
PB wisertariat: Oh you are so dumb Mod Lib, I am an expert on the environment and it just has to be $23
Outcome: the ALP backflips and plans to link it to Europe and drop the price to $5
Mod Lib: The ALP needs to dump Gillard
PB wisertariat: Oh you are so dumb Mod Lib, the ALP will never dump Gillard, she is going to thrash Abbott
Outcome: the ALP dumps Gillard because the ALP would have been wiped out under her rule
Haha 🙂 the old PB wiser than everyone else routine 🙂 Thankfully you guys have to put up with how the rest of us vote, you don’t get to decide everything for the rest of the country, even though it is apparently not as bright as you!
[Treasury went out of its way, just 9 days out from an election, to correct Rudd’s claims that Treasury had costed the Coalition’s policies.]
Treasury corrected media reporting that what the govt had done was somehow illegal.
AA
The only PPL I know of that the PBO has done is for the Greens
[zoidlord
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:46 pm | PERMALINK
@Mod Lib/1114
Your wrong again, Looking at the picture link, the treasury statement says everything was in line with long standard policy, of outside care-taker mode and before election was called.
You are lying.]
Show me when I have lied then.
[the old ALP, we are smarter than all of you, if only you could keep up routine, eh?]
On this issue you are wrong.
And stop trying to shift goalposts now you’ve been caught out by those of us who have bothered to delve beyond the shallow reporting in the media.
davidwh
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
I think everyone is getting worked up over nothing. Labor had some policies costed, fair enough. They were their view of Coalition policies but not Coalition policies, limited value. They used these costings to allege a $10 billion black hole, pure politics.
——————————————————-
We can only base any discussion on Liberal costings on what Labor are providing, because Abbott sure as hell is too gutless to put themup for all to see.
Abbott claims 200 policies costed…what policies? Where?
Why won’t he make them public? What is he hiding?
go for champers to lp hq st john.
there’ll always be polls to monitor economy. your quaint side has no fixes.
i dunno AussieAchmed
Funny – the ALP that hasn’t delivered policy costings in the two elections before the last day of the campaign is all het-up about when the Libs release their costings.
Funny – The ALP, with the full weight of the Treasury and Finance never release any of the modelling assumptions for the last six budgets but now want the Libs the lay all their modelling assumptions.
ha ha ha ha
ML
You can go the long way and google if you want to get there independently. Or else you can follow this link that takes you to the media release I posted
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Budget_Office/media
Thats from Parliament House itself so read and accept.
Glad to see you’re enjoying yourself CC ;).
@victoria
Paul Keating has always been a scumbag, did you expect anything less?
This is the man who called Australia “the arse end of the world”!!
I wouldn’t go throwing his name up as someone to idolize!
[confessions
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:52 pm | PERMALINK
the old ALP, we are smarter than all of you, if only you could keep up routine, eh?
On this issue you are wrong.
And stop trying to shift goalposts now you’ve been caught out by those of us who have bothered to delve beyond the shallow reporting in the media.]
I have been caught out, have I?
It seems some of you are familiar with projection.
Best of luck trying to convince people that the Treasury intervention helps Rudd! LOL 🙂
guytaur
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:51 pm | Permalink
AA
The only PPL I know of that the PBO has done is for the Greens
——————————————————-Hockey release some numbers scribbled on the back of an envelope yesterday
DN @1137 Making hay while the sun shines.
Wesley Dickard
The scumbag shoe fits Abbott and his cronies very well
“When an individual parliamentarian or a political party chooses to publicly release a PBO costing that has been prepared on a confidential basis for them, it is inappropriate to claim that the PBO has costed the policy of any other parliamentarian or political party.”
What do you guys think this means?
victoria:
Classic Keating!
ML
See 1136 you are wrong
Mod, the reason why you almost never get a reasonable discussion here with anyone is because you’re not interested in one. You’re only interested in scoring points and framing arguments in a way that has you winning them.
For example, nobody has said it’s helpful to Rudd.
To try and simplify for those who follow Hockeynomics and don’t really understand numbers
Parliamentary Budget Office costings for the forward estimates (2015-16/2016-17) as per Hockey
GROSS COST of the leave scheme——————-$9.8B
Removing existing Labor scheme——————-$3.7B
Removing existing commonwealth/state schemes—–$1.2B
Other adjustments to government spending/revenue-$1.6B
NET COST of the leave scheme———————$3.3B
PLUS
Income from 1.5% company tax levy—————-$4.4B
IMPACT ON BUDGET BOTTOM LINE——————–+$1.1B
**Tax cut 1.5% to all companies—-Minus $5.5+billion
Real budget bottom line —– MINUS $4.4Billion+
**This is a conservative figure. I can’t imagine that 3000 companies pay 80% of the company tax collected.
It would be a lesser percentage.
1124 guytaur it depends on what hour of TV you watch. I watched the footy show tonight and sat through about 3 or 4 LNP ads and zero Labor ads.
[I have been caught out, have I?]
Yep.
[What do you guys think this means?]
That original media reportage was wrong.
So where’s Ruddy moving the Airforce.
Lae?