Double dissolution (maybe) minus 14 weeks

Senate preselection wreaks more discord among the NSW Liberals; Tim Wilson snatches victory in Goldstein; Stan Grant fields approaches from the Liberals; preselection challenges aplenty to sitting Liberals in WA; and Bronwyn Bishop reportedly in strife in Mackellar.

As the likelihood of a July 2 election firms, the preselection treadmill gathers pace. All the action this week is on the conservative side of the fence:

• New discord has emerged in the fractious New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party over its preselection for the Senate, after a party vote on Saturday delivered top position to Hollie Hughes, Moree-based autism support advocate and the state party’s country vice-president. This reduced the remaining incumbent, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, to number two, in defiance of the wishes of the Prime Minister, who had recently signalled his support by promoting her to the ministry. With number three reserved for Nationals Senator Fiona Nash, the result also meant neither of the Liberals’ winnable positions was available to Jim Molan, a former senior army officer who was heavily involved in the government’s efforts against unauthorised boat arrivals. Hughes has since forestalled a looming state executive intervention by agreeing to be relegated to number two. At issue was the presence on the preselection panel of two lobbyists and moderate factional operatives, Michael Photios and Nick Campbell, two years after Photios had been forced off the state executive by a Tony Abbott-sponsored rule forbidding the involvement of lobbyists. Opponents of the moderates cited in a report by David Crowe of The Australian claim that without the involvement of Photios and Campbell, Fierravanti-Wells and Molan might have taken the top two spots, with number three going to Andrew Bragg, policy director at the Financial Services Council. Tony Abbott described the outcome of the vote as “another exercise of stitching up”, which had been “tainted” by the involvement of Photios. If a double dissolution elections is called, the entire process will need to be revisited in a way that also accounts for Marise Payne, John Williams and Arthur Sinodinos, who were elected in 2013.

• Outgoing Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has been preselected to succeed Andrew Robb as Liberal candidate for the Melbourne seat of Goldstein. The Australian reports Wilson prevailed in the local party ballot over Denis Dragovic, a “lecturer, former hostage negotiator and columnist”, by the paper-thin margin of 142 votes to 140. Eliminated in the first round were Georgina Downer, with 66 votes, and Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive John Osborn, on 18 votes. The vote came shortly after a pamphlet was distributed to preselectors describing Wilson as “a danger to our families, schools and the local community”, owing to his “unrelenting campaign for gay rights issues”.

• The Daily Telegraph reports Bronwyn Bishop faces defeat in the Mackellar preselection at the hands of Jason Falinski, owner of aged care business Carewell Health. Falinski was Malcolm Turnbull’s Wentworth campaign manager in 2004, and has worked for John Hewson and Barry O’Farrell. While Falinski is strongly associated with the moderates faction, the Telegraph reports he “will get the support of much of the Right because of an anyone-but-Bronwyn attitude caused by her switching sides on Tony Abbott”.

• A further three challenges have emerged against federal Liberals in Western Australia, in addition to the widely reported contest between Tangney MP Dennis Jensen and the state party’s former director, Ben Morton. Liberal sources invoked by Andrew Burrell of The Australian suggest Nola Marino is under pressure from Ben Small, although all I can discern of Small is that he lives in Bunbury. Elsewhere, Swan MP Steve Irons faces Carl Pallier, state manager of Suncorp Insurance, and Durack MP Melissa Price is opposed by David Archibald, a geologist.

• Seven Liberal Party members have nominated for preselection in the new southern Perth seat of Burt. Andrew Burrell of The Australian suggests the front-runner is Matthew O’Sullivan, “who runs Andrew Forrest’s GenerationOne philanthropic movement aimed at ending indigenous disparity”. However, Gosnells councillor Liz Storer is reported to be “backed by conservative forces”. Also in the field are Marisa Hislop, a small business owner; Daniel Nikolic, a company director; Lance Scott, the party’s divisional president; and a low-profile figure named Lesley Boyd.

• Sarah Martin of The Australian reports the Liberal Party has approached indigenous journalist Stan Grant about running for preselection against Labor’s Julie Owens in her highly marginal seat of Parramatta. The Liberals will be choosing their candidate for the seat through a trial plebiscite of local party members of more than two years’ standing, amid an ongoing brawl within the party over the power of head office in the party’s preselections.

• Melissa Grant of AAP reports on a second contestant for the Liberal National Party preselection to succeed Ian MacFarlane in the Queensland seat of Groom, joining the widely touted state member for Toowoomba South, John McVeigh. The candidate is Toowoomba general practitioner David van Gend, who describes himself on his Twitter bio as a “combatant on matters of life and death: euthanasia, cloning, abortion, gay ‘marriage’, faith and freedom” – his perspective on such matters being conservative.

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.

1,390 comments on “Double dissolution (maybe) minus 14 weeks”

Comments Page 24 of 28
1 … 23 24 25 … 28

  3. That political quiz that most people are doing is definately skewed towards the greens as i’m a labor member and yet scored 97% greens that’s really crazy as those questions are deffinately green bending

  5. matt31

    I like Sanders policies. However Clinton is still leading on pledged delegates and polls show that Sanders will not get the overwhelming numbers in upcoming States to win the delegate race.

    Therefore Clinton will have the most pledged delegates and the Super delegates will continue to support her.

    Thats the reality.

    However Sanders will stay in the race until the last poll is done because each extra delegate is an indication of a shift to the left in the base of the Democrats. Something Clinton will not ignore.

    With Clinton having turnout problems she will cater to Sanders voters with policies for the simple reason by doing so after she gets the nomination she gets Sanders campaigning for her and using his skills for turnout for her.

    So to my mind its a win win. A insider knowledge to get things done but with the policies imposed by the voters.

    This is what is happening with the Democrats there is a lot of BS propaganda at the moment but when the primary season campaigning stops you will see a united Democrats party behind Clinton working real hard to get her elected.

    Her compromise is bringing on board some of the Sanders policies which will address the issues the like of Colton raises because it will not be so called dream land economics but real economic outcomes.

    I don’t know which economics Colton thinks is dreamland after the Whitlam experience with taxpayer no fees university and universal health care and the rest.

    It was not dreamland in Australia it was practical and only the oil shock brought that economic meme undone. The creation of the myth that the LNP are better economic managers.

    Most often cited is the Khemlani affair but of course that was a rogue minister not following guidelines which seems to be the LNP DNA at the moment.

    Thats the reality we are faced with and to me its good. A continuation of the Obama administration with a slight drift to the left which might see some real teeth given to regulating the financial industry and a rise in the minimum wage. 🙂

  11. Colton

    You cheeky – and rude – fella.
    I have been following Krugman, Stiglitz, Mosler, Galbraith and all the others for years, decades in fact, and don’t get my info from google.
    I didn’t bother to read your stuff cos you obviously don’t know the history of this particular kerfuffle that started when Friedman wrote his piece and who is a Clinton Democrat – there can be more than one in case you didn’t know.
    If you had bothered to read the original link you would see that Gerald Friedman is specifically identified as a Clinton supporter.
    So don’t project your lack of understanding on to me.

    Why don’t you read the stuff these people are writing about the attack by the CEA economists – conspicuously not including Stiglitz – on Friedman’s paper.

    Here is an article by a middle of the roader giving some of the background.

    http://theweek.com/articles/606698/why-are-bigshot-liberal-economists-hippiepunching-bernie-sanders

    The fracas is political, its not economic.
    Keep an open mind, just cos Krugman wrote it doesn’t make it right.

  12. MTBW

    He may prefer Turnbull to lose, just so he can say ‘told you so, I coulda won it.’

    He retained his anger against Julia and the independents until he won the 2013 election, because he felt he was robbed. He couldn’t see that it was his own fault.

    I can’t see his anger against Turnbull and his desire for vengeance dying down very quickly.

  13. ct

    That depends on how much a hold voters interests outweigh financial backers interest.

    If its the former which it should be if the Democrats want to last long term as a party then some real teeth legislation regulating the financial sector will come.

    It won’t be as much as in Australia and it won’t be as much as many want. However there will be a return to the regulation pre Reagan over time and the foundation stones will be laid by Clinton. That is what I think is going to happen.

    I predict a return to the 90’s regulation which was not good but did not allow the conditions that allowed the GFC.

  14. guytaur – from your link.

    [The former Labor minister Craig Emerson said it was strange the prime minister had left the timing of the next election in the hands of four senators “who hate his guts”.

    “That’s a master stroke, apparently,” Emerson said.]

    So many opportunities for mocking 😀

  15. gt

    [and the foundation stones will be laid by Clinton]

    It’d be nice if she, at least, put back what her husband removed.

  16. John Reidy
    [Posted Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 2:35 pm
    Shea@1113 re foreign ownership, I am reading some more of Thomas Piketty which has a lot of very interesting information on ownership over a long period of time. He doesn’t discuss Australia very much ..]

    Ta for that which followed the above – you obviously have Picketty’s book – is it worth buying? I’ve toyed with the idea of getting it but haven’t made up my mind.

  17. ct

    Yes. However it will be the very minimum by the time the GOP lets it through Congress.

    I don’t think the Democrats will get a super majority in the Senate even if they do control both Houses again. So the options to get things through will be limited in the same way that Obama care went from the wish of Universal Health Care to what Obama got through. Predetermined before he won Office.

    I expect a continuation of that style of thinking from the Democrats under Clinton.

  18. The thing the Democrats should spend their political capital on is the Supreme and Lower Courts. This way they can undermine the efforts of the GOP over gerrymanders and vote suppression.

    I think that will be more important to getting progressive legislation through in the long term than any one piece of legislation the Democrats can put in place.

  20. guytaur@1168. I agree totally about the US supreme court being the most important gain for an elected Democrat. There are at least 3 members who will need replacing during the next president’s term (particularly if it is an 8 yr. term). Appointing reasonably progressive/liberal candidates will set the court for a long time to come; decades probably.
    This would be a good thing for the future sanity of the US.

  21. 1168

    The Democrats could pass legislation to make gerrymandering and voter suppression very hard. Require less partisan boundary drawing and ban criminal conviction voting bans and voter ID laws.

  22. TFAB

    I agree however after they have got the court nominations through.

    Otherwise it could easily be reversed with GOP legislation in the future.

  24. Bluey Bulletin Day 7 of 103

    Bluey reckons that when Bludgers start arguing about Krugman it is a slow day in the field.

    Bluey notes that Turnbull is turning von Moltke on his head.

    Von Moltke reckoned that:

    1. No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy’s main strength” (or “no plan survives contact with the enemy”)
    2. “Strategy is a system of expedients”
    Bluey notes that Turnbull has generated a shambles without even getting near the enemy’s main strength, and that there is absolutely no system to Turnbull’s melange of expedients.

    Bluey notes that Ms Stone has called it a day after a less than stellar career. After various junior Cabinet postings she was ditched by Abbott and her career was not resurrected by Turnbull. Her very public stand as a local member trying to protect her electorate from the IPA Dries in relation to the SPC cannery most likely did not help her cause. Bluey reckons that she would probably be re-elected should she run, but quel point? This sets up a nice little Three Cornered because Stone pinched the seat from the Nats.

    There was a bit of dispirited discussion by the Liberals today of the 30 Minute City. Apparently the Government is not going to be an ATM, it wants an ROI on its investment, but there will not be toll roads. Google the Oracle at Delphi for further details.

    Bluey notes with approval that Abbott will now be launching a Grand Tour of Electoral Destruction on behalf of the Labor Party. Bluey reckons that the Liberals are going to have to shoot Abbott to stop him.

    Bluey reckons that Boerwar, who can beaver away in cul de sacs with the best of them, was spot on when he nominated Rudd and Abbott as Australia’s two rotten apples.

    Bluey wants to know why the Liberal Party keeps throwing up Mummy’s Boys: Abbott/Credlin and now Mal/Mrs Mal.

    Not much doing today.

    Verdict Day 7. Evens

    Cumulative score: Labor 5 Liberals 2

  26. BK,

    Thanks very much for the link to the SMH article about modern monetary theory. I know Bill Mitchell personally and there’s a lot of truth in what he’s saying. I’d reccommend this to everyone – including some of the Labor right wing.

  27. guytaur

    [The thing the Democrats should spend their political capital on is the Supreme and Lower Courts. This way they can undermine the efforts of the GOP over gerrymanders and vote suppression.]

    If there was ever any doubt of the perverse extent of gerrymandering, just check out the congressional district boundaries in Texas. The boundaries were drawn up by the Texas-dominated state legislature. To the surprisement of nobody, the boundaries are designed to quarantine the Dems into the smallest number of districts possible. Texas 33rd and 35th in particular are absolute triumphs of gerrymandering.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Texas

  28. Airlines

    [I’m at a loss as to how gerrymandering has support in the US, it seems to be such a perversion of democracy.]

    It is exactly that: a perversion. But in many states, politicians see the right to craft district boundaries as one of the spoils of victory. Both sides (GOP and Dem) do it. But in the wake of the most recent census, the GOP were in a prevailing position to do it, since they controlled the majority of state legislatures.

  29. confessions@888

    Dragging out the ol’ memory excuse is probably about the best he can do in the circumstances.


    Probably. Although he’s bound to be tripped up at some point, as the articles dave quoted have shown. He has remarkable detailed memory for dates going back to the 80s, but can’t remember things that happened only years previously.

    I agree that it is not going to work for him.

  31. You can pretty much guarantee Abbott will be gunning for a Turnbull loss.

    There’s a lot at stake – if he wins he’ll have the authority to remake the LNP.

    Many of the LNP uglies would rather see Shorten in power than have that happen.

  32. Matt31,

    [The cold hard reality is, that if Hillary’s real deligate lead vanishes, which is still very possible, the super deligates will not ignore the numbers of popularly elected deligates and go for Clinton, because they know very well what the result of that would be. The result of that would be a huge write in Sanders campaign and a Republican victory regardless of candidate, a result which would be thoroughly deserved if it actually did happen. There is already a lot of anger about the process as it is, particularly after the Arizona debacle.]

    I read an interesting article about the Sanders campaign’s attempts to win the nomination through super-delegates. The Sanders super-delegates seemed to be twisting themselves in logical knots trying to justify that they on the one hand think that super-delegates shouldn’t exist, and on the other saying super-delegates should follow the vote in their state, but they are allowed to vote for Sanders despite being from a state that voted for Clinton by a large margin.

    Never mind the fact that Sanders wins in states with a tiny amount of voters (after claiming Clinton’s victory in the external territories was unfair because of the proportion of voters to delegates he’s happy to accept 9 delegates for 400 votes)…

    Not only that but the whole debate over super-delegates misses the point of how stupid nomination by delegates is. Why not introduce a direct election model (perhaps weighting it to states), then you can use that to justify wider changes to the voting system to eliminate the ridiculous systems that allows people winning by small margins to get all votes from a single state. Or having elections on Tuesday… or a whole manner of other issues with the electoral and political system.

  33. Harrumph. Post eating software. 🙁

    Q&A on Monday has Wyatt the Toy Boy i see. 🙂

    Wonder if he will get questions on:

    ABCC
    Uncle A SeeNoDonors
    SSM
    Mr Abbott’s Antics
    Mal, Chris, and just what did happen about Mr Slipper and Mr Ashby??

    Will Tony Jones run interference??

    🙂

  36. [Never mind the fact that Sanders wins in states with a tiny amount of voters (after claiming Clinton’s victory in the external territories was unfair because of the proportion of voters to delegates he’s happy to accept 9 delegates for 400 votes)…]

    BUT he’s happy to accept 9 delegates for a little over 400 votes in Alaska, that should read…

  37. Steve777

    [Re Kakuru @1177: the boubdaries for Texas’ 2nd Congressional District are ‘interesting’:]

    Yes, some of those gerrymandered districts actually look like salamanders – or various other kinds of animals.

  39. Re Don @1184: there seems to be a problem in linking maos for individual districts. However, have a look at Kakuru’s link at 1177. You can click to enlarge individual districts.

    It seems absolutely bizarre that anyone could think this type of gerrymandering is reasonable. There’s not even a fig-leaf, for example having fewer voters in rural electorates to make it easier for the rep to do their job. It amounts to parties choosing their voters, not the other way round.

  40. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/kim-beazley-back-with-a-word-of-warning-on-donald-trump/news-story/f31e38ae00e096d2eb8bf78f8e2d7d55

    [The former Labor leader, who handed over to Joe Hockey in January after six years in the US, predicts this year’s likely presidential contest between Mr Trump and Hillary Clinton will be the “most harshly fought” in years. He was speaking in Perth after being appointed to senior roles at the University of Western Australia and the Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank that promotes Australian links to the US and the Indo-Pacific region.

    The move signals he will rejoin the public debate by speaking at lectures, appearing at events and becoming a commentator on Australian politics and foreign policy, and US affairs.

    Mr Beazley told The Weekend Australian that policymakers in Canberra must prepare for a possible Trump presidency.

    “It’s not our business who the Americans elect, in the same way it’s not their business who we elect,” he said. “Your view has to be, if you think the American ­alliance is ­important, that you ­adjust to whoever holds the job.

    “But I’ve got to tell you, if it is Trump holding the job, we’re in for a lot of hard thinking.”]

  43. [John Setka
    ‏@CFMEUJohnSetka
    Our mmbrs risk their life every day building cities only 2 go home & listen 2 government shit canning them! #auspol ]

  44. 1155
    guytaur

    Clinton’s opponent is not Sanders. The intra-Democrat left/right narrative is essentially irrelevant to the outcome of the Presidential poll. Her real opponent is the next Republican nominee. So her campaign consists of narrowing the scope for the Republican attacks that will surely be made against her.

    Clinton can defeat the Republican. Maybe Sanders can. Maybe he cannot. Considering the Republicans are completely crazy and Clinton’s not, this has to be a good thing. The Primary Campaigns are about picking winners – something the Democrats have remembered even if the Republicans have forgotten.

    If Clinton wins strongly and the Democrats perform well in the Congressional contests too, then the traditional Democrat program will have some chance of being enacted.

    If the Republicans are able to hold on in the Congress – clearly, this is their best hope – they will be very pleased. From the little I’ve bothered reading, in general the Republican delegation want nothing to do with Trump or any other likely contender. The smartest and best qualified possible Republicans long ago decided not to run against Clinton. Instead they will be trying to hang on to their own positions and rebuild their Party’s credit with voters.

    The Republican party is faced with a dilemma of its own making. It has been captured by those whom it has attracted, deceived and exploited for the last 35 years. They will all have to get used to the fact that they’re history’s losers and figure out how to get over themselves if they want to regain political relevance.

  46. I will say one thing and one thing only about Bernie Sanders, and that is that he is no White Man Barack Obama.

    My sense of the affection that supporters of Sanders are exhibiting towards him leads me to think that’s what they are yearning for. A Barack Obama Redux. Hillary is too vanillery so they are going for the ‘Back to the Future’ zany white-haired guy.

    Ah, Americans, always self-referencing against the movies.

    And Trump? He’s Godzilla. Able to swat the enemy away as he protects the nation he loves and not particularly caring who he tramples underfoot. All Cerebral Cortex, no Frontal Lobe. 🙂

  48. [Katharine Murphy
    34 mins ·
    Given my Easter lunch with friends went over and around the Trump phenomenon before concluding that he actually might win the White House given, thus far, he’s done everything various pundits said he absolutely could not do – one last piece from the US for Easter Sunday.

    “Most pundits believe that Trump has a ceiling of support around his current levels of roughly 25 percent. But if other insurgents like Cruz and Carson have their own support nearing a combined 25 percent, why can’t Trump potentially garner a solid share of their backing if they falter? Moreover, if Trump does stay at 25 percent well into the primary season, he may well secure a strong plurality of support, with a bunch of other candidates getting 5 to 15 percent, letting him stockpile a number of delegates. And he might be able to win a slew of in states where the minimum threshold for delegates is 20 percent.”
    http://www.theatlantic.com/…/maybe-this-time-really…/401900/ ]

    I cannot believe Trump’s campaign has lasted as long as it has. This is scary stuff. Essentially if he is the Republican candidate he has a realistic chance at the White House.

  49. The US presidential discussion is getting a bit overwhelming on here. There is another thread specifically for it…

  50. [There’s a lot at stake – if he wins he’ll have the authority to remake the LNP.]

    I just don’t get this assumption. What evidence is there that Mal the Magnificent has any desire to remake the LNP?

    He’s never had a principle that wasn’t worth betraying.

Comments Page 24 of 28
1 … 23 24 25 … 28

Leave a Reply

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