I don’t believe we’ll be getting any sort of a federal opinion poll this week, with Newspoll presumably holding off through South Australian election week to return before the resumption of parliament next week, and Essential Research having an off-week in their fortnightly schedule. You can find a post updating progress in late counting in South Australia here; other than that, for the sake of a new general post, I relate the following:
• Ben Raue at The Tally Room has a very illuminating map showing the pattern of swings within Batman, showing a largely status quo result north of the Bell Street curtain, but a quite substantial swing to Labor in the presumed Greens stronghold area in the south. I’ll have more on the Batman by-election in today’s Crikey, if you’re a subscriber.
• Lost in the excitement, the weekend’s other by-election has entirely escaped mention on this site. It was held in the blue-ribbon Western Australian state seat of Cottesloe, to replace Colin Barnett. This produced the predicted walkover for Liberal candidate David Honey, an 59-year-old Alcoa executive and former state party president. Honey finished the night on 59.8% of the primary vote, and 70.2% on two-party preferred over the Greens. At the time of Barnett’s resignation in January, it was generally assumed the party could not let pass an opportunity to add a woman to a parliamentary ranks, but Honey nonetheless won a preselection vote by twenty to eight ahead of BHP Billiton lawyer Emma Roberts. The Liberals elected only two women out of thirteen to the lower house in 2017, along with one out of eight to the upper. At the 2013 election, the party’s lower house contingent included only four women out of thirty-one in the lower house, along with five out of seventen in the upper house, two of whom suffered preselection defeats going into last year’s election.
• A reallocation of Senators’ three-year and six-year terms has been conducted after the Section 44 disqualifications, affecting every state except Victoria. This involved allocating six-year terms to the first six elected candidates in the recounts conducted to fill the vacancies, and three-year terms going to those elected to positions seven through twelve, who will be facing re-election (almost certainly) at the next federal election.
There are two pieces of good news for the Liberals, who gain a long-term seat in New South Wales at the expense of the Nationals, and in Tasmania go from two long-term and two short-term seats to three and one. Fiona Nash’s long-term vacancy in New South Wales goes to Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, whose short-term vacancy has been filled by splashy newcomer Jim Molan. The vacancies in Tasmania, Stephen Perry of the Liberals and Jacqui Lambie of Jacqui Lambie, were both long-term, and have both gone to lower order Liberals, Bushby and Duniam. The one short-term Liberal position goes to Richard Colbeck, returning to parliament after his (provisional) defeat in 2016.
In Western Australia, the Greens order shuffles after Scott Ludlam’s departure with Rachel Siewert taking his long term, and Jordon Steele-John filling Siewert’s short-term vacancy. The loss of Skye Kakoschke-Moore in South Australia has cost the Nick Xenophon Team a seat because the successor to her short term, Tim Storer, has become estranged from the party since the election. It’s a similar story for One Nation in Queensland, where Malcolm Roberts’ short-term vacancy has been filled by the party’s number three candidate, Fraser Anning, who has eventually resolved to sit as an independent after a dispute with Pauline Hanson.
What ratsak said!
BK – the Libs don’t believe in big government projects. They are, after all, the party of small government. So they feel they almost have a duty to stuff them up – seriously. Absolutely nobody in this govt bought into the NBN, for instance. They have built it with gritted teeth.
Asha Leu says:
Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 8:10 pm
Steve777:
The best way to improve environmental and climate outcomes in Australia is to keep the Coalition out of Government. The Coalition parties are the enemies of the environment and enemies of climate action.
In practical terms, that means getting Labor into Government. There is no alternative in the foreseeable future. That means Labor voters have to preference Greens above the Coalition, especially in the Senate, or in a lower house seat that is in play. And Green voters have to preference Labor. Maybe some Labor and Green voters will have to hold their nose while they do so, but that’s how it is.
Steve777, this line of argument is ok as far as it goes. But it does not acknowledge that the Fakes spend every living, waking day trying to disable the Labor vote. Their Senators are often elected with Labor prefs. Even so, they want to have their cake and eat it when it comes to pref-swapping. The political certainty is that if they did not direct prefs to Labor they would forego up to 65% of their primary vote. They are a detour for votes, not a destination.
They have shown more than once they will use their Senate B-o-P in alliance with LNP to derail Labor. I think they have shown they are tactically and strategically opposed to Labor most of the time and that they are, for most purposes, Tory foot-servants. Labor should give them as little as possible and they should demand policy concessions in return for pref support.
Very little response from the usual PB greens as well ?
Confessions says:
Re CPRS, by happenstance I was sent by work to various “Carbon Conferences” back in the day. Got to listen to Vote 1 Combet and all sorts of finance and power generation company types, even Chainsaw Macfarlane. Was horrified by the various allowances etc UNTIL discovering the cap on emissions. The reducing cap.
The Greens were OMG as to the initial price as in Europe it had taken a plunge to about under ? $10 a ton and the Greens were pushing for a set price of I think $30-35 a ton. However the cap and its lowering meant that within not so many years companies would be forced to fight for a rapidly diminishing pool of allowable emissions. All of which meant industry had to cut emissions or pay shedloads.
Also a surprise was to hear the power generators being on board. They were fine with it and would invest accordingly just as long as they had “certainty”. This was not long before Effing Abbott became LOTO. After which “certainty” went out the window and investment choices that needed to be and were about to be made were put on ice. All of which we are paying for now . I have a special hatred of Minchin and Robb for what they did Grrrrrrrrrrrr.
Catprog @ #2483 Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 – 7:47 pm
Option 1 : Stop the Libs changing Labor’s legislation that the greens voted for or
Option 2 : Let the Libs wreck the joint.
The only stink is the green stink
It’s not fucking rocket surgery Greens.
Basically, all promotions in the Roman Catholic Church are in the gift of the Pope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_of_Catholic_bishops#Pastoral_bishops_in_the_Latin_Church
This includes appointments to Cardinal.
The Cardinals vote for the next Pope.
There is no limit to the number of Cardinals.
If Popes want to stack the deck they simply appoint more like-minded Cardinals.
Pell is useful to Frances for various reasons having to do with internal Vatican politics. Which is why Frances has Pell’s back.
Poroti,
Despite the recent rush to renewables, we are still looking at a capital investment strike in the Australian electricity industry.
Give it some certainty and there will be an almighty flood of investment.
Perhaps the current uptick in action is a result of Labor pulling ahead in the polls?
Poroti
Like the impotent, the Greens wanted to be pure on CPRS.
Looks like they want to play same game on marine parks.
and if something goes pearshaped they will throw their hands in the air and cry “Who? Us? No, Labor did it.”
ratsak
In between the rocket lettuce and surgery it brings to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Iv3IRF3oA
My take on Peter Whish-Wilsons comments about why the Greens may side with he Liberals to support their plan for the management of the marine environment. The pertinent quotes from the Guardian article, referenced below, with my commentary:
Absolutely agree, time to consider your opinion and consult experts is reasonable, and in fact, I would say, essential. As I said the the real estate agent when he was selling my mother’s house, and being asking me if I was happy with what he was suggesting “I think your strategy is good, you have given me sensible reasons why this is a proven strategy, and you are the expert on this, not me.”
OK, Labor is not assured victory at the next Federal election, although the opinion polls are favourable to this outcome. So, are the Greens so pessimistic about their own and Labor’s chances in the senate at the next Federal election that they feel that it will not be possible to ever enact good legislation for marine environment protection?
OK, so at best, the parliamentary library is equivocal about the impact of the disallowance motion by Labor. The Pollbludgertariat is pretty smart, so I will not bore you by explaining what equivocal means. I will just say, that US Pressie Truman once asked, “Can someone find me a one-handed economist”
But also, why does Whish-Wilson think that by the Greens not supporting Labor’s disallowance motion, might mean no protections at all for the next decade?
Does Whish-Wilson know that the Greens will campaign heavily against Labor at the next Federal election, and so Labor really will be out of control of Federal Government (at least as far as the senate goes) for the next decade. This is the assumption I find really odd.
Why cannot the Greens vote with Labor on the disallowance motion now, and then, if Turnbull wins the next Federal election, which will be held within a year or so, at that time say, OK, this is the best we will get, we will support the Liberal party on this policy now?
Perhaps this is the reason:
Right. So when Peter Whish-Wilson says that the Greens may need to side with the Liberals because this is the best offer they may get in a decade, he is 1) assuming that Labor will not win the next Federal election, and that 2) if Labor do win, Labor and the Greens will not have a senate majority for at least a decade.
So, the idea of “This is the best thing we can get for a decade from Whish-Wilson” involves two steps:
1) Once the disallowance motion is rejected, the Liberal plan will mean that if in the next decade, any government of any flavour, tries to implement stronger protections, they will have a “Poison Pill”. That is, said brave government will have to provide a shitload of money to compensate any fishing companies who find that they are no longer allowed to send their super-trawler to fishing grounds protected by new legislation.
2) Whish-Wilson assumes that the Greens and Labor will not have a majority in the senate for at least a decade, and this is why he is saying “take this offer from he LNP – not is the best we will get in a decade!
Sorry for the long post, but Peter Whish-Wilson made something snap in me today.
For me
* Why cannot the Greens vote for the disallowance motion, saying that they will visit it again if the coalition are elected at the next election?
* I have many times voted 1 Green, 2 Labor, to put some pressure on Labor to move to the left. I will never do this again.
* Have encouraged others to vote Green (as long as they put Labor second of course, or at least ahead of the Liberals). I will never do this again.
All this pontificating has worn me out.
Time for bed.
Good night, all.
LU not logged in
That was for me at the time the WOW, these yuuge companies were on board the need for climate change action. Very different to the impression you got from reading The Australian or the SMH etc. As the investments were for 30-40 year time periods they wanted certainty. Abbott, the cats paw for scumbags various, blew the certainty out of the water. Investments that were due to be made over a decade ago never happened. As the horizons they look at are decades long it is not a surprise that many are still a bit gun shy.
The best way to advance progressive policy goals is to put the Greens ahead of Labor, and Labor ahead of the LNP.
If there’s an even more progressive micro-party that you like, put them first.
It makes zero sense to put Labor ahead of the Greens if you want the policy debate to move in a more progressive direction.
The best way to advance progressive policy goals is to put the Greens ahead of Labor, and Labor ahead of the LNP.
If there’s an even more progressive micro-party that you like, put them first.
It makes zero sense to put Labor ahead of the Greens if you want the policy debate to move in a more progressive direction.
The coalition have been put off balance by a Labor party which, although it has not actually thrown caution to the winds, has at least started to advocate for policy rather than simply modulate their public statements with reference to opinion polls and focus groups. Labor is trying to build support for its policies rather than just seeking out policies that will impress the voters as they sit at present. What’s more, Labor has been rewarded by improvement in its polling.
Perhaps the Greens have been similarly put off balance. They can no longer throw off how Labor and Coalition are both just craven chasers of focus group opinion. When you think about it, that has largely been the Greens’ schtick in recent years.
Their response has been to make one cack-handed move after another trying to get the electorate to “Look over here, we are the real policy innovators. Don’t take any notice of the pesky Labor party.”
Steve777 @ #2877 Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 – 7:15 pm
If you vote 1 Labor, that is a purely symbolic gesture as only minor party preferences are ever counted and I can’t see Greens getting ahead of Labor in any seats other than, unfortunately, Melbourne, and maybe not even there.
Confessions @ #2895 Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 – 7:37 pm
What is the mechanism for disallowing legislation?
Douglas and Milko says:
Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:32 pm
Very well-stated, D&M. Nailed it.
“The best way to advance progressive policy goals is to put the Greens ahead of Labor, and Labor ahead of the LNP.”
Naff of Nicolas. You are an idiot.
Nicholas says:
Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:39 pm
The best way to advance progressive policy goals is…
…to vote for the Party that exists to serve working people, and to place its various reactionary and cynical opponents last.
Nick,
You’ve exceeded yourself this time.
That is by far the most vacuous drivel I’ve seen you post.
Asha Leu @ #2937 Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 – 8:24 pm
Try a costume hire place, I am sure they would be able to do better. 😀
Stalin playing for NSW
https://imgur.com/a/A4IzA
Nicholas (AnonBlock)
Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 – 9:39 pm
Comment #2966
….
It makes zero sense to put Labor ahead of the Greens if you want the policy debate to move in a more progressive direction.
Quote
Your first logical error; assuming the Greens are a progressive party.
I’ve had no truck with those dismissing Nicholas and Rex as trolls but their efforts tonight re Whish Wilson’s comments are pure Menzies House.
Interestingly I have never read so many comments (Guardian, Twitter, here) from avowed Green voters who are horrified by this Green stunt – they have had enough.
Di Natale is teetering, the lack of diversity in his parliamentarians biting him on the bum. Unless wiser minds contribute they are toast.
We don’t hear from you often enough, Kate!
I maintain Rex is the green troll from Menzies house.
I agree, I’m probably in the same column as Douglas and Milko regarding this. What a crazy move on their part, can’t they see that siding with the Liberals is going to alienate the vast majority of their constituency?
Truffles ? Worked as a bankster , it shows, Wish-Wilson and his effort today ? Guess the inner bankster has shown today.
.
After graduation, he worked for Merrill Lynch in New York and Melbourne, serving as Vice-President from 1994 to 1998. He then worked in international sales for Deutsche Bank from 1998 to 2004,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Whish-Wilson
shiftaling @ #2980 Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 – 10:33 pm
Thing is now they are doing it on such a blatant fundamental environmental issue.
Who in the greens gave a fuck when they sold pensioners down the river ?
Who in the greens gave a stuff when the greens wanted ‘perfection’ or nothing on CPRS.
So now are any greens prepared to tell the black wiggle – their votes are gone – irrevocably because he & his party have lost the plot?
Maybe some, but not enough I suspect.
“can’t they see that siding with the Liberals is going to alienate the vast majority of their constituency?”
Really dont know where they are at. but yeah, have seen a lot online and actually had a few discussions with normally green leaning people at work today that indicate the Greens have lost a few votes over this. People who would normally preference the Greens highly are now, basically, not going to do so.
People will be looking harder at independents. Not to say that i wont preference the Greens higher than the Lib / Nats.
I have contributed to these sites previously that, in the Federal electorate we reside in, we read in the local Murdoch Leader press that Turnbull has been in the electorate, photographed pressing the flesh with a business proprietor
Fair enough
But, what comes out from sources is that arrangements for Turnbull’s visit include an attendance at a function, with entry to that function limited to Liberal Party Members who then have to confirm their identity at the door to gain entrance – and some are suitably annoyed to decry the process particularly when they are long term, elderly Liberal Party Members and donors
The business is the business of a Liberal Party member and donor – sworn to prior secrecy in regards the visit
So there you go
The significance of this?
The former federal MP Oakshott
And his advising that the self funded retirees Turnbull used as props in Oakshott’s prior seat were known to Oakshott and were wealthy business people and Libetal Party Members
This revelation by Oakshott should, by itself, sink Turnbull without trace
Meanwhile in Victoria the Liberal Party leader, the member for Stamoulis, the property baron and developer who controls Bulleen and anoints the local member and who has been a beneficiary of Guy’s rezonings along with other donors, the Murdoch media and the Costello 9 Network are up in arms against Electoral Office staff being paid by the ALP for some days a week and the State for the remainder days and organising on the ground campaigning – and the Ombudsman findings which have led the ALP to refund the State, under protest
These peoples have obviously spent time organising volunteers to make contact with electors – and probably making contact with electors themselves
So the result of what they have done is to present the Labor agenda to voters – seeking support
But they are now labelled as they are labelled – by an individual who hacks people’s private telephones no less
All they have done is to take a message to voters
And what makes them any different to Electoral Office staff arranging the distribution of material from the Electoral Office then sending off a cheque to Australia Post, because funding allows them to do so
On a frequent basis we receive glossy material by post from the Electoral Office of the sitting member – and that material promotes the Member
So why is the Electoral Office able to attend these functions designed to electioneer on behalf of the sitting Member – and no doubt it happens on both sides of politics
Do the Electoral Office staff letter box?
As with everything, once you scratch the surface the questions arise – noting that employing Family in Electoral Offices is now banned as I understand but was once rife (noting you are only going to have employed in your Office people you trust explicitly, obviously)
No doubt the funding of political parties needs to be regulated and in a manner in which does not give undue advantage courtesy of cash reserves from donors
If it is good enough for the football competitions to have salary caps to even those competitions why not the electoral process?
And that funding should be public – not private
The tweets replying to Murphy’s tweet about the Whish-Wilson comments are telling. No Greens shills out there defending this position.
The party faithful, presumably still reeling from a Bhathal-Di Natale stinker of a campaign and resulting electoral thumping in Batman perhaps feel this latest stuff up is just a bridge too far for them.
I won’t be surprised if the Black Wiggle fronts the media tomorrow to hose it all down.
I said that the Greens should vote against the Coalition’s grossly inadequate marine park plan for the same reason that they correctly voted against Labor’s CPRS: the standard of policy has to be raised to a level that makes a significant positive impact. When a major political party makes a woeful proposal and offers a “take it or leave it” ultimatum to smaller parties and independents, telling the major party to shove it and taking a strong policy to the people is the smart play.
I think the Greens will do that after they have consulted with environmental organizations.
My view of the Greens is that they are more progressive than Labor on industrial relations, fiscal policy, environmental policy, and social policy. All the big items. The Greens don’t really represent my priorities because they are neoliberals on bicycles. But they are better than Labor and that is reflected in my vote. In a preferential system, it is moronic to claim that putting the Greens ahead of Labor and Labor ahead of the LNP helps the LNP. People who claim that don’t understand preferential voting.
Observer
Ta – Well done, good post.
Rick Wilson’s latest. He has amazingly descriptive writing skills.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/only-ryan-and-mcconnell-can-pen-in-tyrannosaurus-trump?source=twitter&via=mobile
Nicholas @ #2988 Thursday, March 22nd, 2018 – 6:50 pm
If the Greens are consistent they should never vote in support of any legislation as no legislation is perfect and there are always compromises to be made! 🙂
I also used to always vote 1 Labor 2 Green, not anymore. It may not matter and may be simply symbolic but over the last few years I got so sick of Greens that they will at most be just above Liberals on my ballot paper.
Nicholas says:
Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 10:50 pm
My view of the Greens is that they are more progressive than Labor on industrial relations, fiscal policy, environmental policy, and social policy. All the big items.
Yah yah….’cept as we know, these positions are just decoys. They are, along with all the rest, simply Faked Up. They are for decorative purposes only.
How do we know this? Because whenever there is a substantive choice to make between Labor and the Blue Tories, the Fakes align themselves with the Blues. They have done that again on the Coral Sea Marine Parks. They have declared they are willing to vote on an environmental matter with the Real Adani Party; to vote against Labor and then try to blame Labor for their treachery.
They have shown they cannot be taken seriously.
Well said !
Keep digging Nicholas.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/noam-chomsky-republican-party-dangerous-organization-human-history/
An utterly weak piece of utter garbage from pascoe.
unicorn – look over there – no matter what Labor will ever do will be good enough.
What toe rags we have in the sewers of the so called media –
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/dutton-and-dividends-dud-political-efforts-all-round-20180321-p4z5gx.html
An interesting approach to measuring the degree of gerrymandering.
https://www.sciencealert.com/mathematics-tools-gerrymander-voting-district-map
I wonder how Australian electorates might stack up? You’d need data but I expect you’d generate some interest.
Noam Chomsky on the Republican Party
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/noam-chomsky-republican-party-dangerous-organization-human-history/
LP: Finally, as you look ahead, what do you consider to be the biggest threats to human beings in the future? What should we be most concerned about?
NC: Climate change and nuclear war. These are really existential threats. And what’s happening now is just astonishing. If media were functioning seriously, every day the lead headline would be this amazing fact—that in the entire world, every country is trying or committed to doing at least something. One country—one!—the most powerful country in history—is committed to trying to destroy the climate. Not just pulling out of the efforts of others, but maximizing the use of the most destructive means.
There’s been nothing like this in history. It’s kind of an outrageous statement, but it happens to be true, that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history. Nobody, not even the Nazis, was dedicated to destroying the possibility of organized human life. It’s just missing from the media. In fact, if you read, say, the sensible business press, the Financial Times, BusinessWeek, any of them, when they talk about fossil fuel production, the articles are all just about the prospect for profit. Is the U.S. is moving to number one and what are the gains? Not that it’s going to wipe out organized human life. Maybe that’s a footnote somewhere. It’s pretty astonishing.
1. That’s a statement, not a question.
2. No, I don’t remember anyone saying that.
3. The point of Cambridge Analytica is that they make the social-media propaganda look like grassroots stuff, so it wouldn’t have been credited to a campaign anyways.
Centrelink online accounts are currently unavailable
We apologise for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience.
For further information, please refer to customer services changes.
YouTube goes further, bans Guns, etc youtube videos:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/youtube-to-crack-down-harder-on-videos-about-building-buying-firearms/
No gov can get IT projects right:
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/more-setbacks-for-qlds-100m-payroll-overhaul-487174
ANZ Glitch:
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/anz-bank-glitch-limits-transactions-to-200-487557
1 in 3 left without phone connections:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/one-in-three-left-without-phone-internet-when-connecting-to-nbn-20180315-p4z4gf.html
End of the week shooting:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/21/us/stephon-clark-police-shooting.html