Labor’s leadership selection process has concluded with a narrow win for Bill Shorten, whose decisive victory in the caucus vote was enough to outweigh rank-and-file support for Anthony Albanese. As foreshadowed in news reportage over the past two days, Shorten’s caucus support was in the fifties, at 55 votes against 31 for Albanese. The rank-and-file ballot attracted 18,230 votes for Albanese against 12,196 for Shorten. With each accounting for 50% of the total, the final score reads thus:
Caucus Branches Total Bill Shorten 63.95% 40.08% 52.02% Anthony Albanese 36.05% 59.92% 47.98%
[Because they are voting for a colleague to do a job]
Actually I think they just voted on factional lines.
And given the members votes now have real weight, it’s not just pretty words :P.
[That’s true but I’m asking why Caucus is so different from party members.]
Because a major concern for caucus members is figuring out how to win elections so they can retain their jobs. Party members don’t have to think about that, so they are often more idealistic rather than pragmatic.
Mick 77 re GG post 52
________________
Mick’s post re th GG is so paranoid as to be laughable
What does he think she will do. do what Kerr did and make Shorten PM ??
Even Abbott was for once sensible and gracious about the GG whose excellent job has won all hearts…except Mick’s
Hawke lost 18? seats at his first term election.
Howard Lost the TPP and almost Govt at his first term election.
Gillard won the TPP but had a majority in a hung parliament.
Abbott… lets wait and see.
A lot of speculation about whether it’s possible for Labor to win the next election.
As it happens I’ve been preparing an election projection model in my spare time (which in an earlier form I used to quite accurately predict the last election.
The methodology is rather involved, but you can think of it as Bludgertrack, extrapolated to the next election base on previous election trends (going back to 1946) with uncertainty based on from (a) the time before the election (again, based on historical data) and (b) the uncertainty inherent in polling.
Without taking into account post-election polling I get a probability of an ALP win as 22.7%.
However, including post-election polling this rises to 24.5%. These figures are within the ballpark of betting odds currently offered, so they don’t seem too far off.
Most of the method is objective extrapolation of past data – the main issue is how to account for a new government’s “honeymoon”. I’ve only got data from the Howard and Rudd governments to use here – both had an immediate 5% bounce rising to about 7-8% a few months after the election. My method conservatively assumes that the additional bounce for a new government will typically be much smaller – just 1.5% – so the ALP’s chances may be underestimated here somewhat. (I’ve also taken the liberty of adjusting Labor’s chances down slightly in Griffith and up even more slightly in Dobell, but this doesn’t have a meaningful effect on the vote.)
Additional stuff:
Best estimate of ALP’s current TPP vote is 47.1%
Best estimate of ALP’s 2016 vote is 49.5%
[Actually I think they just voted on factional lines.]
That is mathematically impossible because the Right doesn’t have 60% of MPs in the caucus, it has about 55%.
It also doesn’t explain why Kevin Rudd voted for Anthony Albanese.
lizzie:
That speech Shorten gave to Per Capita a little while ago was very good, and indicative of his communication skills.
The caucus vote essentially serves as an entry point for “expert advice” into the process.
Lizzie
That is quite a nice article and raises a number of positive which will potentially make Shorten a good leader.
I know he was very active when responsible for Disability Services.
[Actually I think they just voted on factional lines]
Who cares what you think, it was a secret ballot.
Abbott accused of taking taxpayers for a ride
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24442211
[It also doesn’t explain why Kevin Rudd voted for Anthony Albanese.]
Didn’t Swan vote for Albo as well?
[Who cares what you think, it was a secret ballot.]
It wasn’t all that secret given so many of them told us who they voted for.
Dendrite
Has your glass ball taken the next GFC into account?
I suppose we’ll see News ltd go to town on Shorten, presumably starting tomorrow.
Diog
I’ve sort of discussed this before – caucus has the benefit of observing both men in different contexts to those available to the ordinary branch member.
That that matters is also illustrated by the (apparent) difference in votes the men received at state level – Victorian members, who have had more chance of seeing Shorten in action, supported him more strongly.
Albo had a far higher profile than Shorten over the last few years. Members will feel that they know him better.
I’ve worked for a very charismatic person in the past. Everyone told me how lucky I was to work with someone who was so charming….but working with her was a very different story (interestingly, another friend had much the same experience with Stott Despoja!)
[It wasn’t all that secret given so many of them told us who they voted for.]
WTF? How does that stop an election being a secret ballot!
Caucus will decide Deputy Leader and front bench tomorrow.
If the membership in general would like Labor to move a little more to the “left”, this open ballot would, I think, give them the idea that their ideas are now welcome. Be interesting to see what happens in the National Conference, however.
SO
[ It wasn’t all that secret given so many of them told us who they voted for.
WTF? How does that stop an election being a secret ballot!]
It doesn’t stop it being a secret ballot but it does allow you to see whether people voted along factional lines.
zoomster:
With portfolios allocated Friday, Shorten said in his speech.
Congratulations Bill Shorten on winning the leadership, and to boh candidates for a hard but fair contest. More of the same please.
This process was transparent and democratic, two big steps forward. This may be one of Rudd’s best long term reforms.
Now the focus should be 100% on exposing the nations number one expenses cheat.
Diogenes –
I don’t know, but I don’t think that it would have changed the dynamic very much.
If your colleagues are moving to replace you it doesn’t matter whether the petition has enough signatures or not. Either it’s real discontent, in which case your position is untenable and you have to bring the challenge on, or it’s a minor fringe group in which case you can ignore it. What the threshold is on the petition is mostly irrelevant.
This obsession with fractions.
People naturally like like-minded people.
[It doesn’t stop it being a secret ballot but it does allow you to see whether people voted along factional lines.]
This makes no sense! You’ve caught Mod Lib disease.
The Evil Twins…The Koch Brothers
who have spent millions to ramp up the Tea Party and lead the attack on Obama_
_______A Vermont Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders gives the full story about the two men who funded a host of right-wing groups in the USA and their unceasing attacks on any form of govt. health program…and their hatred for both Obamacare…and Obama !http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/10/10-0
SO
You are unusually obtuse today.
I said the vote went along factional lines. I was told I didn’t know that because the vote was secret.
I pointed out that it being “secret” doesn’t mean you couldn’t see whether it went along factional lines.
[
lizzie
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
If the membership in general would like Labor to move a little more to the “left”, this open ballot would, I think, give them the idea that their ideas are now welcome. Be interesting to see what happens in the National Conference, however.
]
Perhaps that is the next thing to reform, taking the National Conference back to what it was, instead of the staged manage event it has become.
Kinkajou @105
That’s not possible without (a) some indication of how “the next GFC” would affect polling (b) knowledge of when it would happen.
Alternatively, if you’re alluding to the fact that unexpected things can happen, making future predictions hard, then … yes, they do happen. That’s why you won’t find any 100% certain predictions in my post 😉
Jackol
My guess is Gillard would have stayed leader if it was 75%. Obviously I can’t prove it.
ru
I for one believe Shorten is the best long term prospect for Labor.
The Guardian is more balanced (and earlier) than the shrill shills from #NewsCorpse tomorrow
[Quite apart from the merits of Shorten’s own talents, the right faction wanted to shore up its own hegemony, to get past the deeply unproductive splits of the Rudd/Gillard period and back to the productive and highly rewarding business of being the significant organising force in the ALP – the enforcers, the disciplinarians, the pragmatists who win elections.
The leadership ballot was an important test case for getting the right back together, back on track, with a common purpose. And the right was proven correct in one sense about democratisation. It certainly did see the left flex its muscle – Albanese almost got there on the strength of the vote from the membership. The membership mightn’t identify itself as “left” in a strict factional sense, but it certainly leans progressive.
In any case, the party moves on. Parliament will be back in a few weeks.]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/13/labor-leadership-party-pick-bill?CMP=twt_gu
Could we at least not snipe Mod Lib from unrelated dialogue?
Since WW1,only the Scullin Govt has been defeated after a single term
Some leaders have come close to first term defeat as did Howard in 98/and Gillard in 2010…
[
Diogenes
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
Jackol
My guess is Gillard would have stayed leader if it was 75%. Obviously I can’t prove it.
]
Why should that stop you? The Rudd supporters have been going around boasting how well the undermined Gillard with only speculation as their foundation.
[I for one believe Shorten is the best long term prospect for Labor]
So do I, that’s why I voted for him, put the envelope with the vote inside the envelope with the credentials and popped it in the post box.
[That’s not possible without (a) some indication of how “the next GFC” would affect polling (b) knowledge of when it would happen.]
my point
bit early see you in 2015
ru
Well done. 🙂
This case just gets weirder and weirder.
[BRITISH detectives investigating the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal have reportedly arrested a man and raided his home.
Britain’s Sunday Mirror, which last week featured claims from a lawyer who insisted a man he met at a party had seen the missing child on an island in the Mediterranean, now says an arrest has been made.]
Oh, and while I have liked what I have seen of the balloting process for ALP leader there is one potential problem.
A month-long ballot is perfectly fine – healthy, even – in opposition.
If the ALP do find itself in the unfortunate position of needing to replace a leader while in Government again – Dog forbid – having the party sit around for a month with an interim PM is really truly not going to fly.
I image if we see the economic slow or a new GFC and there are some American analysis that believe the worst for the banking sector is still to come as revenue isn’t high enough and there s too much reliance on Mortgages.
The American Tea Party faction are pushing America to the brink, this could get ugly.
I think the democratic process to elect the Leader was well managed.
For a process that was being run for the first time it has gone well and completed in a relatively short time frame.
Is some fine tuning needed? – probably and I would expect there to be discussion and debate about what could be improved.
I would like to know how often the process will be run. After every election? If the 60% of caucus vote to replace the Leader will there be another election involving members? Is the weighting of 50% membership/caucus right? Is the 60% of caucus to replace the Leader right? Should it be more or less?
Plenty of questions and a process that can now be reviewed and improved.
In the meantime the Liberals will vote for whoever Murdoch tells them, at this time its a former Murdoch employee.
141
The interim leader was because Rudd resigned. A sitting PM would stay in office.
TtFaB – it doesn’t matter whether the soon-to-be-ex-PM stays on in that event or not – they would be an interim PM failing to lead the party of government for a month.
Talk about a government in chaos/crisis.
It would be unacceptable and pilloried by everyone.
[I said the vote went along factional lines. I was told I didn’t know that because the vote was secret.]
It is just MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! A bunch of people from the Left must’ve voted for Shorten because he got 63.9% of the caucus vote. Add to that that it seems a few people from the Right including Kevin Rudd voted for Albanese. That is NOT a pure factional vote!
[I pointed out that it being “secret” doesn’t mean you couldn’t see whether it went along factional lines.]
It is mathematically impossible for it to be a straight factional vote. If there was a straight factional vote in caucus, Albanese would now be Labor leader.
They can’t do anything about debt
_________________
The US debt has doubled in just 7 years and now is 11 times greater than the annual GDP….
An economist looks at this deepening crisis
The biggest drain is the military and the US Empire…all this must be cut to the bone…but who would have the courage
to confront the generals and the CIA et.al
a daunting task
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/10/10/america-debt-the-tip-and-the-bulk-of-the-iceberg.html
Deblonay, Greiner went close first time, then flogged next time
Jackol:
Yes, that would be a problem. Even if the PM lost their seat, but Labor still retained govt, the same problem applies.
The problem wi the Dems model was the low threshold for the leadership spill rather than the 100% membership vote per se.
(There were also structural issues that manifested in leadership matters.)