Highlights of day one

Reports this morning of a looming preference switch by the Victorian Liberals in favour of the Greens, and a line-ball internal poll in the new Perth seat of Burt.

UPDATE: Essential Research has the Labor lead down from 52-48 to 51-49, with the Coalition up two on the primary vote to 42%, Labor steady on 38% and the Greens steady on 10%. One of many questions on the budget records 20% approval overall and 29% disapproval, with 35% for neither and 15% for don’t know. All the others, together with questions on detention centres, can be seen on the full release. We also have a poll today in The Guardian for Lonergan, conducted Friday to Sunday from a sample of 1841, which reaches 50-50 on two-party preferred from primary votes of Coalition 42%, Labor 35% and Greens 12%.

In response to Radio National Drive host Patricia Karvelas’s desire to refer to yesterday as day one of the election campaign, a listener helpfully offered that the actual day of the announcement, Sunday, might be deemed “day zero”. That works for me, so there’s your headline. However you care to number it, here are some highlights:

• Andrew Probyn of The West Australian reports a Liberal Party internal poll derived from “15-minute interviews with 600 people on April 30 and May 1” recorded a dead heat on two-party preferred in the new electorate of Burt in southern Perth. The report also cites optimism from Liberal insiders about Cowan and Hasluck, where “the advantage of incumbency and strong local campaigns” are expected to make the difference.

• In other internal polling news, Mark Riley of Seven News reported on Thursday that Liberal polling conducted on April 29 showed the party trailing 53.1-46.9 in Eden-Monaro, but leading 50.3-49.7 in Reid, 50.9-49.1 in Banks, 50.2-49.8 in Gilmore, 51.6-48.5 in Bennelong, 51.2-48.8 in Lindsay and 58.8-41.2 in Hughes, with Barnaby Joyce holding a 53.1-46.9 lead over Tony Windsor in New England. The report copped a more than usually vehement response from Liberal pollster Mark Textor, who denied any such polling had been conducted by his own firm, Crosby Textor. Riley said in his report that the polling was “delivered to New South Wales Liberal executives by campaign guru Lynton Crosby yesterday and leaked to Seven News”, to which Textor retorted that Crosby was out of the country. Riley responded that he had “at no stage said it was your polling”, and insisted it had been distributed to prominent members of the party. In his report the following evening, Riley said “Liberal-National director Tony Nutt said it wasn’t commissioned by the party and rejected the numbers”.

• Ellen Whinnett of the Herald Sun reports the Liberals are “on the brink” of a deal in which they will direct preferences to the Greens in Batman and Wills, while the Greens run open tickets in marginal seats in the Melbourne suburbs. The former half of the bargain returns to the Liberals’ usual practice before 2013, but for the Greens to fail to direct preferences in marginal seats is a little more unusual. However, the impact of the former will be far the greater. When the Liberals flipped their preference recommendation in 2013, the Greens’ share of their preferences in the Melbourne electorate slumped from 80.0% to 33.7%. This would have gouged about 10% of Adam Bandt’s two-party vote against Labor, but the improvment of his position on the primary vote was sufficient to exactly cancel it out. In Batman and Wills, the Greens’ share of Liberal preferences in 2013 was 32.6% and 28.7% respectively. If that changed to 80% with no alteration to the primary vote, David Feeney’s 10.6% winning margin over Greens candidate Alex Bhathal, who opposes him again this time, would reduce to zero, while Labor would hold on to a 3.5% margin in Wills. By contrast, the Greens running an open ticket appears to reduce Labor’s share of their preferences by only 3%. The Greens vote in Labor’s Victorian targets of Deakin, La Trobe and Corangamite was in each case a fraction above 10%, so the difference is likely to be 0.3% to 0.4%.

• Crikey founder and shareholder activist Stephen Mayne has announced he is running against Kevin Andrews as “a pro-Turnbull, liberal-minded independent” in the eastern Melbourne seat of Menzies. Andrews is currently embroiled in a branch-stacking scandal that has resulted in the resignation of his electorate officer, Ananija Ananievski, involving elderly Macedonian immigrants who were reportedly unaware of their party membership. In an article in Crikey yesterday (paywalled), Mayne wrote that Georgina Downer, a lawyer, former diplomat and daughter of former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, was “hoping Kevin Andrews is removed and she can be slotted in as a last-minute replacement before nominations close on June 1”. Downer was an unsuccessful candidate for the recent preselection to succeed Andrew Robb in the seat of Goldstein, which was won by former Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson.

• Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, who was disendorsed as the party’s candidate for his Perth seat of Tangney in favour of former party state director Ben Morton, announced yesterday he would run in the seat as an independent. He declined to resign from the Liberal Party in doing so, but state director Andrew Cox said yesterday that he had cancelled his membership in announcing his intention to run against an endorsed candidate of the party. Jensen foreshadowed yesterday’s actions in a speech to parliament last week, in which he called Morton “the Liberal branch stackers’ and powerbrokers’ candidate”, criticised the government’s record on tax reform, called for a royal commission into the banks, and spruiked himself as “a candidate who has deep Liberal values, but who will fight for constituents first and foremost; a free thinker who will be their voice in parliament without fear or favour”. Andrew Probyn of The West Australian noted a fortnight ago that running at the election would mean Jensen continued to draw a salary up until the day before the election, which would earn him around $35,000.

• The state council of the Liberal Party in Western Australia determined the order of the double dissolution Senate ticket on the weekend, and delivered a defeat to former Defence Minister David Johnston by relegating him to the highly loseable sixth position on the ticket. The order of the ticket will run Mathias Cormann, Michaelia Cash, Dean Smith, Linda Reynolds, Chris Back, David Johnston. All are incumbents, reflecting the party’s consistent success in winning three seats at half-Senate elections, and the difficulty it faces accommodating all of them at a double dissolution election that is more likely to net them only five. Many in the party had hoped that Johnston, who was dumped as Defence Minister in December 2014, would lighten the burden by retiring, but he failed to oblige. Johnston was more gracious in the face of disappointment than some, conceding he was “in the twilight of my career”, and telling the ABC: “The Liberal Party has been very, very good to me and I’ve had 14 years in Parliament which has been a fabulous adventure.” The state council’s decision reportedly ran ran contrary to the recommendation of its four-person selection committee, which proposed that Johnston take fourth place and Back take sixth. Joe Spagnolo of the Sunday Times reports one of the members of the selection committee, party state president Norman Moore, stormed out of a state executive meeting last week and threatened to resign as it became apparent the recommendation would not be supported, before apologising for what he conceded was a “dummy spit”.

• Mark Coultan of The Australian (paywalled, I’m guessing) reports that the Liberal member for Barton, Nick Varvaris, has finally decided after much prevarication that he will seek re-election in the seat he won from Labor in 2013. Varvaris has been poleaxed by the latest redistribution, which has turned his 0.3% margin into a notional Labor margin of 5.2% by adding territory around Marrickville. Mark Coultan also reports the Liberals are still yet to endorse candidates in the competitive seats of Paterson and Kingsford Smith, but are likely to do so this weekend.

• Jared Owens of The Australian has a useful article (probably paywalled) on the state of the parties’ double dissolution Senate tickets. While many remain to be finalised, Coalition tickets are now set in Victoria (incumbents Mitch Fifield, Scott Ryan, James Paterson and Bridget McKenzie, followed by newcomer Jane Hume, who recently suffered a surprise defeat to Paterson in her bid to fill Michael Ronaldson’s vacancy), Queensland (Ian Macdonald, George Brandis, Matt Canavan, James McGrath, Barry O’Sullivan and Joanna Lindgren, all of whom are incumbents) and South Australia (Simon Birmingham, Cory Bernardi, Anne Ruston, David Fawcett and Sean Edwards, all incumbents). Labor’s ticket in Queensland will be headed by two newcomers in former state MP Murray Watt and former party state secretary Anthony Chisholm, who are repectively of the Left and the Right. Behind them are incumbents Claire Moore and Chris Ketter, with another newcomer in Jane Casey in fifth place.

Stay tuned for the regular Tuesday poll release early this afternoon from Essential Research, which will probably be followed by a bit of a lull after the weekend storm. A full update of BludgerTrack, incorporating the latest state breakdowns, should follow a few hours after.

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.

797 comments on “Highlights of day one”

Comments Page 3 of 16
1 2 3 4 … 16

  1. For eg

    Van Badham
    42m42 minutes ago
    Van Badham ‏@vanbadham
    @kristin8X You’re right. I contacted the candidates directly, asked and they refused to pledge to preference against the Liberals.

  2. BW

    We have established beyond doubt that you cannot do math. To retain government the LNP needs to retain a majority. How many seats are Green or Labor does nothing to change that simple math. The so called hung parliament happens when the LNP do not have a majority in their own right and have to have others support them.

    Their record on this has not been good so they know what the media calls a hung parliament means they are out of government.

  3. The Conservatives have decided that the Greens are the new Communists. After all, they’re godless, refusing to worship at the altar of Aspiration.

  4. Shorten kills off “Greens-Labor coalition” (from ABC live blog)

    Leader Bill Shorten says Labor will not have “any part” of a partnership with the Greens, after MP Adam Bandt said on Q&A last night that his party would be open to it.

    Mr Bandt’s suggestion came amid denials from his party’s leader Richard Di Natale that a preference deal had been struck with the Liberals in a bid to win a number of Labor seats.

  5. Boerwar

    Spot on. The Greens are entitled to aid and abet the re election of the fiberals. But they should stop pretending to be any use is progressing this nation.

  6. Victoria

    Spurious from Van Badham. The allegation is a deal has been made. Labor has referenced against the Greens so have no high standing here.

    No proof of a deal which is all the Greens are denying.

  7. Guytaur

    Can you get it through your thick head thst if the Greens take those marginal seats off Labor, the fibs regain power

  10. citizen

    The problem for Shorten saying that is that voters don’t believe him.

    When it comes to crunch time to be PM or go back to election and by so doing probably lose not be PM what do you honestly think Shorten will choose.

    My money is on self interest. Not just of Shorten but of Labor. You can get a lot done in 3 years and each time makes it harder for scare campaigns to work

  11. Trog Sorrenson
    Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 9:12 am

    Labor and the Greens have 55 days or whatever to dismantle Coalition policy and counter any arguments. Much safer to stick with the truth, than try and mislead the electorate.
    The truth is that there is a greater similarity in policy between Labor and the Greens than between the Coalition and the Greens.
    What is the point in trying to deny that?

    Ah, but you forget, Labor and Liberal are the same.

  12. Victoria

    Can you get through your thick head that what the Libs to the Murdoch press can have no bearing to reality.

  14. The msm are doing everything they can to not give Labor any attention at all.

    I’m not to worried about that at present. The more the punters see of “Jobs & Growth” and the likes of Kelly O’Bigmouth and Innes “I’ll talk on their behalf even though I’m not a member of the government” Willox from the Australian Industry Group, the less they’re going to like them.

    The more they hear that giving $2 million businesses tax breaks, so they can purchase $6,000 toasters, that their non-penalty rates staff can use to make meals that Duncan Storrar can’t afford, for customers who pay for them with their new tax cuts, the less impressed they will be.

    Little stories from Malcolm Turnbull about how he bought Lucy an expensive Cartier watch – probably costing close to what the Mr Storrers of this world earn in 6 months, or more, maybe a year – won’t cut it.

    Every time they see a Coalition politician boasting that their aim is to keep housing prices up (except when they want to keep them down) they will groan.

    If the Coalition’s only plan for “Jobs & Growth” is to collect less tax from companies earning millions, but paying peanuts, then I reckon the more we see of them spruiking just that, the better.

    http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/qa-recap-audience-member-delivers-an-early-campaign-reminder-to-all-politicians-20160510-goqb4v.html#ixzz48CdVRK3A
    Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

  16. ‘The msm are doing everything they can to not give Labor any attention at all.’

    Just emailed AM to request an assurance that they will give equal time to both major parties as required to do under the ABC charter, unlike their normal practice (4:1).

    Today they had motor mouth on, so it is reasonable to expect a Labor rep tomorrow.

  18. The Greens are a political Party and they have a primary duty to their members and candidates to strongly target any and all seats they think are winnable.
    If the result of the election is a ‘hung’ parliament then that same duty requires them to negotiate with one or other main party to see if there is some common ground that allows them to have a say in forming the next Government.
    If they feel that just on main party is worth negotiating with then so be it.
    PBers need not get upset about this fact of life.

  21. Victoria

    Also remember the math. Green or Labor seat is not an LNP seat. Marginal Labor or not. If its not an LNP seat or someone who will vote confidence in an LNP government its not a gain for the LNP.

    So I dispute your claim of Greens gaining seats as being pro LNP. Thats just not true.

  22. Nobody is entitled to an uncontested seat, and this includes the illustrious Tanya Plibersek and the egregrious Anthony Albanese. I have no sympathy for politicians who whinge about the indignity of having to compete for their hitherto ultra-safe seats.

    Neither are the Greens entitled to Labor preferences simply because they want them. That hasn’t stopped Bandt running off half-cocked about Labor preferencing the Liberals ahead of the Greens when no such decision had been made. I think pussyfooting around the issue by saying “there is no deal” because its still being negotiated or “we’re not preferencing the Liberals” because they want to run open tickets is really the kind of political doublespeak they accuse Labor of all the time.

    Labor won’t preference the Liberals ahead of the Greens in any seat, I can assure you that now. If it was ever a possibility it isn’t one now, and I’m sure Bandt and Di Natale were secretly hoping they would so as to bash Labor over it. However, I think its quite likely we’ll see Labor run open tickets in inner city battle ground seats, and there’s really no room for them to complain about it – considering Labor didn’t come to this position through a deal and its exactly what the Greens plan to do. If the Greens still plan to complain, it just brings greater focus to the Greens hypocrisy on the issue.

  24. Guytaut

    If you do the math, the Greens are targetting Labor held seats. Why dont they go and put all their money into fighting Liberal seats?

  26. Labor has referenced against the Greens so have no high standing here.

    Have they? There was Danby’s harebrained idea which was shot down by Labor HQ and then there was a “rumour” which has since had nothing corroborating it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was passed to Crikey by the Greens in the first place.

  28. victoria

    The Greens are doing their best to win seats by targeting voters likely to vote for them.

    This has been mostly in Labor areas because of demographics. Labor want to change this it can have policies to address the issues of the voters in those seats.

    Albo claims he is doing this and the Greens won’t win. He could be right. You only worry if the Greens may actually win the seat. IF they do this means Labor failed to address the concerns of the voters in that seat whatever those concerns are.

    Thats politics.

    Note Greens have taken a National seat in NSW. Greens are targeting Higgins with a gay candidate and then Labor did the same after the Greens did. So Labor can’t talk of the Greens targeting Labor at expense of Libs. That seat proves Labor is doing it too.
    Again politics.

  29. BB
    Yep. What struck me particularly about Q&A was the degree to which Willox and O’Dwyer felt free to do Coalition Ugly.
    They really are out of touch.

  33. Guytaur

    Of course it is politics. The Greens want power, and dont care if it means another term of a liberal govt, if it means taking a few seats off Labot. That is the point. The Greens should own it and not pretend otherwise. Being disingenuous Shits me to mo end

  36. The Monkeypods are worried.

    Lin Hatfield Dodds, who contested the Senate for the Greens in the ACT at the 2010 election, has been named the new deputy secretary of social policy within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C).

    She was most recently the head of social sector group UnitingCare Australia, and is a former president of the Australian Council of Social Services.

    The appointment was one of hundreds made in the final days of the Turnbull government before the election was called and went largely unnoticed until it was raised by the conservative commentator Andrew Bolt.

    Ms Hatfield Dodd’s appointment is now causing concern among some of Mr Turnbull’s critics within the Liberal Party, particularly among elements who fear the prime minister will try to move the party into adopting changed positions on issues like climate change, gay marriage and government spending.

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/minister-brushes-aside-criticism-over-appointment-of-former-greens-candidate-lin-hatfield-dodds-20160509-goqatp.html

  41. On preferences. The Greens will do as the Greens will do and I think that an open ticket is the most they will do. fair nuf, they are pollies and they want to improve their seat situation and power base. IF the seat count is close i’m sure the ALP or Libs would “do a deal” with the Greens to form a govt, regardless of whatever is said now. But I reckon an actual hung parliament or HoR with the Greens as BoP is an unlikely outcome.

    However, all that said, given the Lib vs ALP stance on climate change it seems to me that they are undermining their very core value by NOT preferencing the ALP above the Libs. I say that on the basis that the election of a Labor Govt and the tossing out of the Libs will actually do more for the environment (and AS issues by the way) than having one more Greens MP’s in the HoR.

    I’ll pretty much always preference the Greens above the Libs (unless it Siewert..she really annoys me) as after the ALP their policies are the ones i next most agree with, but they are a long way from getting my primary vote at the moment.

  44. Imacca

    If I was in Higgins I would vote Green as primary to increase chance of LNP loss. I think its Greens not Labor that has a chance of winning that seat.

    In my seat I am voting Labor in a marginal for same reason.

  47. I have come to the conclusion that many posters here just do not understand politics and are simply party faithful looking for emotional solace.

    So the Greens raised the idea of a coalition. Well blow me down. I am not sure it is a wise strategy but it is still a strategy. Many of you here (generally those who DO understand politics) make the point that the Greens cannot win so there is no point voting for them. I suspect that the Bandt comments are designed to counter that perception. After all if they are in a coalition then they DO have power and influence. So Bandt is looking to shore up his votes by increasing his prominence and the sense he is a real player. wheter it will work to his advantage i cannot be sure, but at least people should be able to grasp that it is an intended statement.

    The many fools here falling for Kroger’s party tricks would not worry me except that I suspect there are many in the ALP heirarchy who actually also fall for Kroger’s line.

    So I repeat here as I have a dozen times before. The Greens and Labor are separate parties. Increasingly their ideologies are diverging. That is reality. For those of you whinging I suggest you
    1. DO complete the ABC vote compass. Then look at how you match up.

    2. Then also refine it by weightings which allows you to decide just how important each issue is to you. For example if you are really passionate about SSM and care little about the republic you can weight your answers.

    3. Look at how you match up with the vote compass and look at the particular issues that lead you to that position.

    4. Decide exactly where you fit in the schme of things – ie are you a person who thinks like the LNP but still has emotional loyalty to Labor. This would place you one hunded miles away from the Greens and therefore your anti green rhetoric is justified. If you are half way between LNP and Labor then the same more or lessapplies.

    5. If you are matched more closely to the Greens than Labor then you have some soul searching. You can choose to stay with Labor on the grounds that it is more relevant and has more practical ability to change policies. This is a perfectly reasonable position (It is mine) BUT what you do not have a right to do is to disparage others who make a different descision, or to dismiss the very real differences between the two parties.

    As I think I have said before here, all parties overlap to some extent and there will be some policies of each party we each support. The ABC compass is a convenient way to check positions, and this year’s seems much improved on the last one.

  49. I think it’s smarter for both Greens and Labor to maintain some distance from each other. Do the Greens think their entire base is Labor leaning?

  50. I have letterboxed for the Greens, Independents and Labor and sit firmly in the left top corner of the VotingCompass.
    There can only really be two sides to this scrum/tug-of-war so we need to decide which side we will support. To attack those on your side because they wear a different jersey is damaging….it is like Queensland attacking NSW in the Wallabies in the run up to playing the Allblacks.
    Time to concentrate on the big picture… disunity is death.

Comments Page 3 of 16
1 2 3 4 … 16

Leave a Reply

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