Victorian election open thread

With ten days to go, Denis Napthine and Daniel Andrews face a purposefully low-profile “people’s forum” which, barring mishaps, is unlikely to make much difference.

As I type, the one debate-like event of the Victorian election campaign, a “people’s forum” being held in Frankston, is starting. It can be viewed on the Herald-Sun site. So now would seem an opportune time to correct the issue that there’s no obvious current thread for the Victorian campaign.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

90 comments on “Victorian election open thread”

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2
  1. I disagree with the notion that the anti-environmentalism of the liberals has anything to with the Greens, I think it is due to the Liberals being influenced by the “Greenhouse Mafia” as described by former Liberal Guy Pearse. It’s just due to all the fossil fuel money pouring into the party as well as some being stupid enough to fall for the anti-science propaganda coming from various right wing think tanks.

  2. sj – someone on one of these blogs said it perfectly recently. Something like “I can’t wait for the day that the deniers deny denying”.

    I can actually see it happening. (Except for Bolt!)

  3. Similarly there was better mainstream consensus on immigration years ago ‘before the Greens’; similarly the subsequent polarization and development of culture warrior attitudes in the Liberal Party is not attributable to the organization of the Greens as a political outfit. It’s a completely false post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

    And you may not like the Greens stance on tge CPRS but it’s nonsense to say they were unreliable or duplicitous: they outlined their position very clearly a long way in advance, and did exactly what they said they were going to. And after the 2010 election they negptiated a stronger piece of legislation as they said they would.

    This stoush should be on the main thread; please try and keep CPRS Greens baiting off state threads.

  4. [I disagree with the notion that the anti-environmentalism of the liberals has anything to with the Greens]

    Think about it another way. Back in the 60s and 70s – The Libs were the party of capital, the ALP the party of workers – and by and large the above is still true. Labour and Capital both had a natural home in their respective political parties and the concerns of labour were largely ignored and pushed aside by the Libs as the political home was elsewhere, and vise versa was true for capital. Environmental concerns were more evenly spread across the two parties, Garfield Barwick was one of the founders of the ACF for example.

    During the 80s, the environmental movement had started to develop a political home in the Democrats (to some extent) and the nascent Greens. They were also used by Graham Richardson as a political tool to develop preference flows for the ALP. The 1990 election was probably the serious turning point for the Libs as the environmental movement had nailed its colours too clearly to one mast without considering that they had been used to some extent for short term gain by Graham Richardson for his own machiavelllian purposes and the environmental movement seemed to believe that either the Labor government would last forever or no long term damage would be done to the relationship with the Libs.

    Along come the Greens and the environmental movement and them were natural bedfellows. The capital/ labour relationship became a triangle with the Greens becoming the political wing of the environmental movement. The environmental movement had pissed the Libs off and now they were detaching themsleves from the ALP.

    So from having a situation where the environmental movement could reasonably and directly influence the parties of 90% of Australian voters in the 60s, they had reduced that influence to 50% in the early 90s to about 12% now. And there chance to influence the ALP is more about the power plays of the Greens rather than the influence of the environmental movement and getting good environmental outcomes.

  5. 55

    There is no serious Green party in the USA yet it is right versus left issue there like around the developed world. It is the short term interests of capital that are fighting environmentalism.

  6. Blackburn that is flat out ridiculous to blame the Greens for the ‘politicising’ of environmental issues. The push for radical action on climate change has come from both the grassroots and the experts and the Greens are merely aligning themselves with this reality.

    It’s the pushback from vested interested that has muddled the science, bought the Liberal party and done amazing working in turn environmental issues into an ‘environment vs jobs’ zero sum game that frankly doesn’t exist. You can see how this exact same process has happened in the US and UK, even without a strong Green party…

  7. Martin B.

    I think there is a relevance here. What bargains would the Greens drive if they have the BoP in the LegAss? Especially if the ALP are behind – unlikely but possible?

  8. Sure, you can make a stoush that’s been had a thousand times relevant. Greens won’t have BoP in the LA although I’m bullish about them getting in. BoP in the LC seems a lock; I look forward to Greenmail on light rail projects on narrow streets. CPRS seems clearly irrelevant. I, too, don’t like the leadership.

    Was there anything else?

  9. Oh, yes, preferences.

    My forecast is that Green surpluses will be distributed in N and S Metro, in both cases to Sex party candidates who won’t be elected but may be last standing against ALP in N and Lib in S. They will be 5th up in W Metro and, possibly, W Vic. In N Vic they may distributed in a contest between Lib and micro for 5th seat and in SE Metro they may be distributed in not much of a contest. In all other regions Greens will be last remaining and so not have preferences distributed.

    I know it doesn’t affect the moral hazard, but as a pragmatic question I suspect the impact of Greens preference decisions is low.

    N Vic 5 and W Vic 5 look like the biggest raffles.

  10. Barber is a dropkick and anyone who votes to turf him out will be doing the Greens a favour lest they come back with someone who doesn’t turn voters off quite so actively.

    The CPRS debate is tiresome. Labor’s scheme was not that far from Clive Palmer’s, except Palmer was truthful enough to say that it wasn’t going to do a damn thing until some theoretical time in the future: it was designed for the sole reason of wedging Turnbull, it backfired in multiple ways, and instead of making a few amendments that wouldn’t have been that controversial but would have made it less of a joke and gotten the Greens to pass it, Labor threw a five-year-long-and-counting tantrum instead. Rudd committed political suicide because he’d rather wail at the Greens than realise he’d cocked up and come up with a (relatively obvious) Plan B.

    Equally, with the religious right parties. You might hate the Greens, but they vote with you the vast majority of the time. Steve Fielding may as well have been an independent Liberal. Labor doesn’t learn this lesson, and every time they risk a repeat performance of managing to deliberately hand the balance of power to people who oppose their agenda. They’re going to find the same this time if they manage to shift seats from the Greens to Country Alliance, the DLP or the bloke from Port Fairy with some of the most right-wing preferencing I’ve ever seen.

    I fervently hope the Victorian Greens lose – as long as the seats don’t go to the right – but the attitude of the commenters here is one reason why I’ll never be a Labor person. Y’all are absolutely determined to cut off your noses to spite your faces.

  11. 63

    Barber is not going to loose. He will get a quota and a surplus because he is the lead Green candidate in Northern Metro, where the Greens poll over a quota.

  12. bug1

    I would be interested to see your numbers for the calculator.

    Also guys, please keep this thread to the Victoria state issues. Everything else can go on the main bludger thread.

  13. 64

    I know he’s not going to lose, but I would like a party that a) I can vote for, and b) doesn’t consistently shoot itself in the foot, and that’s never going to happen while Barber is in parliament.

    It’s a shame that the most in-danger Green is always Hartland, because she’s by far the least useless of the three, and might be a decent MP if she had a caucus worth a damn.

  14. 67

    Pennicuik has less of a media presence but is the Whip and thus does a lot of behind the scenes work in Parliament. Hartland is very good value.

  15. I’d still like to see Pennicuik go. I see her as being part of the problem with the direction of the Victorian Greens caucus towards yuppieism, she’s got no media presence, and I see her as being implicated in the whole Kathleen Maltzahn fiasco (not least because she was happy to hold a campaign event with her and took no responsibility for the response to the protesters), and for which I still think the Victorian Greens as a whole deserve a damn good kicking.

    I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say Hartland is “good value” but from talking to her I think her heart is in the right place, and I think if she had Hartland had Mehreen Faruqi and David Shoebridge as caucus colleagues instead of Barber and Pennicuik she’d probably be in the former’s league.

  16. Though I need to say, much as I’m beating on the Greens for their poor candidate choices, they’re not the only ones doing it at this election.

    If someone could lock Greg Barber and Philip Dalidakis in a room…

  17. Tom @68

    I think among the 3, Hartland’s the most closest to the people.

    I had the pleasure to meet her at a gardening open day 2 weeks ago and we talked about mostly things outside of politics.

    Then again I’ve only met her out of the bunch.

  18. #Galaxy Poll VIC State 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 48 (0) ALP 52 (0) #vicvotes #auspol

    Yes,this is the problem with flooding the airwaves with govrnment propaganda for 6 months.

    Everyone’s switched off months ago, and its goodnight Dennis.

  19. The CPRS was a pile of crap, it took us backwards, and I rejoiced when it went down, and havent had a second thiught since.

    Without that failure, we never would have had the Gillard led (admittedly GRN inspired but still), and far superior CO2 price policy.

    I dont know why the ALP bangs on about it,esp the Gillardistas. She got it right did the PM. And it worked too, while it was there.


    He said he had organised for a legal expert, whom he declined to name, to compose Crestani’s motion calling on the council to change its advertising materials on the grounds they were discriminatory towards heterosexual people.

    The offending sign, which had been put up in the council building, read: “You don’t have to tell us if you’re gay, lesbian, bi, trans or intersex. But you can.”

    He believed the council should “strike out the reference to this ever-lengthening acronym LGBTI and substitute instead a reference to people of all sexual orientations.

    “The moment you do it that way, there is no discrimination. You must not single out one group and show favour to that group, and thereby by implication show disfavour to another. You must say you are open to all orientations.”

    I wish he would just crawl back to under the rock from where he came from. I don’t know why he chose to involve himself in the matters of some Victorian local council.

    The sign he saw was probably from the diversity department which can be found in many councils, which reach out to the elderly and LGBTI requiring help.

  21. On face value an incumbent only behind 48/52 would be in with a sniff. But the galaxy polling is also saying no change – when Napthine desperately needs a change.

    So, no there proof that Napthine is gone, but no evidence to suggest he has improved in the last two weeks.

  22. Raaraa, i should stop posting, every time i do so i realise its way more complex than that. For Local Jobs to win they have to knock out FF as well as PUP knocking out S&F.

    For reference these are some numbers im playing with now.

    I got the following by translating federal electorates to Western Victoria region using fractions based on population where they only partially cover, i figure that is a reasonable estimate, recent result being more important than federal/state bias for minor parties.

    Group B: Family First 1.64%
    Group E: Australian Country Alliance 0.2%
    Group F: Rise Up Australia Party 0.83%
    Group G: Sex Party 1.96%
    Group H: Australian Christians 0.51
    Group K: Animal Justice Party 0.73
    Group M: Shooters and Fishers Party Victoria 1.21
    Group P: Democratic Labour Party (DLP) 0.79

    Group C: Australian Cyclists Party 0.1 (guess)
    Group D: Voice for the West 0.2 (guess)
    Group I: People Power Victoria/No Smart Meters 0.1 (guess)
    Group L: Liberal Democrats 0.2 (guess)

    Group A: Palmer United Party 1.42 (very uncertain)
    Group Q: Vote 1 Local Jobs 1.45 (he ran for lower house in Wannon in 2010, result would translate to about 1.1%, Jobs are a major issue in this region)

    Varying the numbers a bit can result in PUP, GRN, Local Jobs, Shooters and Fishers or DLP winning last seat.

    (and yes i realise 2 decimal places is a bit ridiculous)

  23. Also, and i will differ to more knowledgeable psephs, if the primary vote of the LNP is 40 and and ALP + Green vote is 52 it strike me the 48/52 split is optimistic.

  24. Work To Rule@78

    Also, and i will differ to more knowledgeable psephs, if the primary vote of the LNP is 40 and and ALP + Green vote is 52 it strike me the 48/52 split is optimistic.

    I get 47.3 for the Coalition as the average 2010-election outcome for that set of primaries, so 48 does appear a bit generous but doesn’t require much by way of rounding to explain it.

  25. Kevin Bonham@81

    Work To Rule@78

    Also, and i will differ to more knowledgeable psephs, if the primary vote of the LNP is 40 and and ALP + Green vote is 52 it strike me the 48/52 split is optimistic.

    I get 47.3 for the Coalition as the average 2010-election outcome for that set of primaries, so 48 does appear a bit generous but doesn’t require much by way of rounding to explain it.

    Cheers Kevin, so the nutter brigade heavily prefs the conservatives. Makes sense.

    Still they have to fill out the preferences correctly – i’d round down. 🙂

  26. 80

    Some Green voters preference the Coalition ahead of the ALP and thus the Coalition get a Couple of percent from the Green primary as 2PP.

  27. Three 52-48’s in a row! It’s like Napthine is stuck in peak hour traffic on Citylink. Or was Citylink that amazing freeway link we saw simulations of that would have cars zooming through the city even at peak hour? Or maybe that was the East-West Link? I don’t know, they always look so fantastic when the spruikers make thier little video animations for us.

  28. WARNING: Optional preferential voting below-the-line in the Legislative Council can have unintended consequences.

    To maximise your vote your should number a preference for all candidates and preference through both Labor and the Liberal Party in order of your choice

    In 2010 25,000 DLP, FF supports preferenced Christian Candidates and stopped. In doing so they indirectly elected Green’s Collen Hartland. Had they preferenced through the Labor Party before exhausting the Greens would not have been elected in Western Metro,

  29. Segmentaion: There is someting seriously wring with teh system of counting the uoper-house vote. If I vote for a minor party below-the-line and then preferences either Labor or teh Liberal Party chances are my second preference choice will not be counted. It will skip and jump the candidate of my choice.

    My vote should redistributed as though the candidate that is excluded from the count has never stood.

    The Count should be rest and restarted following every exclusion. With votes redistributed according to a voters order of preference with the vote allocated to the first available non-excluded candidate at full value.

    With the use of computer aided vote counting there is no excuse for not implementing a reiterative count.

    Failing to reform the way we count the vote we might as well adopt a Party List System

  30. under teh current rules of counting teh upper-house vote in victoria a vote for a major party can increase in value disproportionally. We need to adopt a Weighted Transfer value where there is one transaction per candidate and the vote is transferred proportional to it original value. One vote one value.

    CONTRARY to popular belief the system used in counting the vote is is NOT PROPORTIONAL

    In 2007 ALP’s David Feeney came close to losing his Senate seat as a result of the distortion in the calculation of the Surplus Transfer value.

    FIX IT.

  31. The Droop Quota (x/(y+1)is the other distortion in the counting of the vote.

    The election should be pure proportional (x/y)

    With computer aided counting their is no longer any justification that warrants the continuance of the Droop Quota.

    The City of Melbourne 2013 Election saw the Greens with just 145 support elect two candidates and Team Doyle with 38% elected three. The Droop quota devalued Team Doyle and increased the Greens Representation. Had the system been pure proportional (x.y) Kevin Chamberlin, community based candidate would have been elected as opposed to tne Greens Rohan Leppart)

    The System does not reflect the voters intentions

    It needs fixing.

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *