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.
And then you complain nobody wants to answer your questions.
ML
Your crowing no costings. This is exactly what Labor has been saying for weeks now.
Voters are not that much to be taken as mugs. Then add in natural suspicion of politicians and costing fiasco is going to lose the LNP the election,
Don’t worry Labor supporters, the Libs problems begin in earnest from the time they win the election.
Not that anything ANY of us say in here makes any difference lol
[DisplayName
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:56 pm | PERMALINK
Mod, the reason why you almost never get a reasonable discussion here with anyone is because you’re not interested in one. ]
The reason I never get a reasonable discussion here with anyone, although this is quite a generalisation and not correct, is not because I am not interested in one. It is because so many of you so blatantly cannot see the bleedingly obvious through your ALP-tinted glasses.
Rudd tried to imply Treasury just costed Coalition policies
Treasury made a statement making it clear it did no such thing
PBO made it clear it would never cost a party’s policies without working with that Party
PBO made it clear it would be “inappropriate to claim that the PBO has costed the policy of any other parliamentarian or political party”
This is not hard to follow, it is not rocket science!
If you want to pretend you have proven something, or that it supports the ALP in some way, then fine. That is your right.
I am going to laugh at that, which is my right.
Gary
Ah thanks for that. Still interesting that the so cashed up LNP leaving spots free for Labor to dominate.
Lets talk about the Liberal demi-god Howard instead
Those 30-year bans on Howard’s time as treasurer will soon be up. We look forward to reading the cabinet papers. In the meantime, all we have to work on are the figures in the Reserve Bank Bulletin.
They show that John Howard is the only treasurer in Australia’s history who’s been able to engineer – simultaneously – double-digit inflation (December 1981 to June 1983), double-digit levels of unemployment (April to October 1983) and double-digit interest rates (November 1980 to October 1983).
In the June quarter of 1983, inflation was 11.1%, the unemployment rate was 10.2% and the official cash rate averaged 12.08%.
The election in March 1983 meant that Labor presided over this economic misery, even though they obviously had not created these outcomes.
C’mon Ruddy – you know it makes strategic sense – move the RAAF to Lae in 2030.
I also enjoy how LNP defenders resort to personal insults and childish name calling.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/western-sydney-rout-to-seal-alp-election-loss-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226707012645
Is this why you guys are losing it tonight?
@Victoria- very mature reply!
Feel sorry for you if you feel you have to abuse me personally!
Spelling my surname with a “D”!
How old are you ? 2????
Pathetic!
Howard’s record only starts in 1996… duh
Another shockjock decides that the partner of a Labor leader is fair game for offensive questions:
[Mr Laws was left looking the almost octogenarian he is.
Laws: A lot of people say – why isn’t she Therese Rudd?
Rein: Really?
Laws: Yeah.
Rein: Well, why isn’t Kevin, Kevin Rein?
Laws: (Laughs). No, I can’t accept that. We’re talking about tradition. Why do you choose not to be Therese Rudd?
Rein: Kevin and I got married at the end – on the week that I finished doing my thesis, so I just completed my honours degree – my qualifications are in my name and I’m an independent person.
Laws: But it’s kind of a traditional thing. I don’t want to make a meal of it, but it’s sort of a traditional thing, isn’t it? In English speaking countries that you take your husband’s name.
Rein: Well, Kevin and I had a conversation about it – and it was about a minute long. It went- so will I change my name to yours? Therese Rudd – it doesn’t feel like me and will you change your name to mine? No. Will we hyphenate? No. So we will keep our own names.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/john-laws-questions-therese-rein-on-not-being-a-rudd-20130829-2st9q.html#ixzz2dMYCFi2H ]
With has-beens like John Laws and Alan Jones the kind of people today’s Liberal party acolytes look up to it’s little wonder the standard of political debate in Australia is as poor as it is.
One thing about the LNP supporters here. They don’t try to convince those whom they regard as ‘leftards’ and ‘drones’ of the validity of their cause – why free markets, individual enterprise, low safety net, risk taking, social conservatism and, since Howard, handouts to those wcho don’t need them is the way ahead for this country. They point to issues of competence – as if we didn’t know and as if their lot were any better. Or, boringly, repeat LNP talking points of the day. Some just seem to be here to gloat. I’m just wondering what their purpose is? To convert lefties to the true path? I can’t imagine they have made many converts. To demoralise lefties? We live through 12 years of Howard. Abbott will be the least person ever to become Prime Minister of Australia. Even the LNP posters here mostly trust tolerate him because they’re stuck with him. They want a Thatcherite not a DLP man. There is probably a good chance he won’t see out his first term.
“@SimonBanksHB: Which newspaper will put LNP’s failure to meet deadline for independent costing of election policies as tomorrow’s lead? #yourrighttoknow”
“@SimonBanksHB: LNP want the costing story to die @AusMaverick It won’t”
confessions
Rein was all class with Laws
I was waiting for the ever unreliable clump half a dozen seats together and poll them as one… poll
[confessions
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:57 pm | PERMALINK
I have been caught out, have I?
Yep.
What do you guys think this means?
That original media reportage was wrong.]
You are funny confessions 🙂
Compact Crank
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 10:53 pm | Permalink
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.
—————————————————
and haven’t Abbott and those like yourself bleated about it.
No-one here has defended or said what Labor did/didn’t do in releasing their costs was right.
But its gutless and childish to hide behind that as an excuse for the Liberals not releasing theirs.
School yard stuff…”miss miss he did it first…”
Easy to see its not the Liberals who are the grown ups in our Parliament
Liyana- you are a hypocrite with that statement
[Predictably, social media lit up in response to the interview. Not since his infamous interview flirt with 7.30’s Leigh Sales, with Wild Turkey and Coke in hand, had so many people talked about the 2SM host.]
Perhaps Laws is where Abbott gets his errr skills in dealing with women from?
You can just imagine Abbott on his first overseas trip as PM, at some world leaders forum, jabbing Putin in the ribs pointing and guffawing at Angela Merkel: “PHWOOAARRRR! The German chick’s got a fair dinkum pair!”
From being the envy of the world, Australia is about to become an international embarrassment.
guytaur
If I wanted to be on twitter I would have signed up. Why do you think that anyone is interested in one-liners from random twitter friends of yours that you incessantly quote? Seriously?
Mod
Other than the first line which is your own interpretation of what Rudd said, all you’ve done is repeat what everyone knows Treasury said.
The one pretending they have *proven* something is you.
guytaur:
She certainly was.
Or perhaps we could look at the DNA history of the Liberal Party
Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister in November 1975, the Government sector had net financial assets – that is, there was negative net government debt equal to 2.7% of GDP.
The Fraser Government, with John Howard as Treasurer for the bulk of that time, ended its time in office with net government debt equal to 7.5% of GDP in 1983-84.
Mr Abbott recently said “prudent fiscal management is in the Coalition’s DNA”. The facts suggest otherwise.
[LNP have not lodged a single policy for costing before @PBO_AU’s stated deadline of 5.30pm today]
Yep, I just went and checked the PBO site.
Not a single one.
Mick
I share comments I think worth sharing. This whether a “friend” or stranger. It means I do not have to pretend I thought of it.
[J341983
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 11:05 pm | PERMALINK
I was waiting for the ever unreliable clump half a dozen seats together and poll them as one… poll]
Ahem:
“On a two-party-preferred basis, using preference flows at the 2010 election, there has been a nine-percentage-point swing away from Labor to 43 per cent across the electorates of Greenway, Lindsay, Banks, Reid and Parramatta, all of which are held on margins of less than 5 per cent.”
If you think this is unreliable because they have clumped 5 seats together thats fine, however, a 9% swing is not an insignificant swing.
If there is a 9% swing across the board in a week the ALP will have 35 seats. The 9% might be wrong……you better hope it is!!! but it is a consistent message with every other datapoint we have had for the last 3 years, and in particular the last 3 weeks.
There is a massive swing against the ALP and we are about to have Prime Minister Tony Abbott
All of us, including me, just have to get used to that.
Rudd and Wong said they calculated a $10B hole based on Treasury advice. They never claimed they had Coalition policy costed. The problem was that the news reported that they had Coalition policies costed, which Treasury corrected.
Wesley Rickard
For someone who keeps commenting about insults right, left and centre by other posters, I haven’t read a non-insulting response from you since you came online.
You sound like an unpleasant little **** – not Tony Abbott are you?
Funny how all these trolls are suddenly appearing. Ever heard of the word “hubris”?
[The one pretending they have *proven* something is you.]
Watching Lateline?
The story was basically exactly along the lines that I was posting, just at the time all of your were trying to tell me I was wrong! LOL 🙂
AA @1169 – leadership by example builds respect.
ALP . . . meh!
ML
Lateline was wrong.
There is a grey area here, which is how close Labor speculation has to be to Coalition policy before it’s considered Coalition policy. If it’s close enough, then whether or not Treasury denies it on a technicality, they really have costed Coalition policy.
Mod
Ok, now I know you’re a loony. I didn’t say your interpretation was wrong.
[Ms Rein took aim at press coverage that focused on the detail of Kevin Rudd’s dominance of Wednesday’s leader’s debate. It was reported he spoke for nearly seven more minutes than Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.
“It was a trivialisation and it’s any time anyone starts to get into talking about policy – and policy matters because it changes people’s lives,” she said.]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/john-laws-questions-therese-rein-on-not-being-a-rudd-20130829-2st9q.html#ixzz2dMbWIO4v
Mod, you’re obviously too busy arguing with me to figure out what I’m trying to say.
[DisplayName
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 11:11 pm | PERMALINK
Rudd and Wong said they calculated a $10B hole based on Treasury advice. They never claimed they had Coalition policy costed.]
Is that right?
This is Bowen and Wong’s statement:
“Federal Labor asked Treasury and Finance for specific costings…….
What those costings show is that Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey have a $10 billion hole in their numbers.”
So it looks Abbott and Hockey et al were lying about their costings being submitted to PBO.
What a bunch of fools they are, no credibility whatsoever.
If you’ve seen anything I’ve written – I think we’re going to take a massive step backwards, but I have been of the view that Abbott would win, nothing has changed that. You mistake my skepticism with baseless optimism – ‘clump’ polls do have a habit of being significantly off the mark. This is my seventh Federal election if paying attention … I’m not blind.
Compact Crank
Posted Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
AA @1169 – leadership by example builds respect.
ALP . . . meh!
—————————————————
Abbott and the Liberals have shown what little respect they have for the people.
Hiding behind the “they did it, they did it”so we will too…nah nah nah”….childish mantra
Mod, if Labor have a policy similar to Coalition policy, they can have their own policies + variations costed without explicitly costing Coalition policies.
…based on the coalitions policies as detailed at the time…
[The one pretending they have *proven* something is you.]
Yeah anyone convinced about Liberal costings is clearly in the same category as ST, and would believe today was Monday if Abbott said so.
The PPL scheme will MAKE the government money … you know it makes sense, if your brain is switched firmly to ‘off’ or ‘moron’ modes.
[The story was basically exactly along the lines that I was posting]
The media reports about the issue were wrong. A total balls up by the press gallery, who unsurprisingly haven’t the humility to correct their mistake.
Technically, they have not asked Treasury to cost coalition policies.
From a place of pure politics – Wong, Bowen and Rudd need to make their on every morning show and anything that will have them lol
[“Federal Labor asked Treasury and Finance for specific costings…….]
Prior to the caretaker period, which is the govt’s entitlement.
am i correct in recalling that 90% of the Liberals three hundred billion worth of “wasted or given away” tax cuts were given to the wealthiest 10% of the population? And from that 80% given to the wealthiest 1% ?
*presence known*