The Financial Review has a poll from Freshwater Strategy, which made its debut for the paper three weeks ago with a New South Wales poll, that credits Labor with a lead of 56-44, from primary votes of Labor 37%, Coalition 34%, Greens 14% and others 15%. Daniel Andrews is on 39% approval and 48% disapproval, Matthew Guy is at 32% aod 48%, and Andrews leads 40% to 28% as preferred premier. We are also told that Jacinta Allan’s rating is neutral, Tim Pallas is at minus 12, the Labor brand is at plus 10 and the Liberals are on minus six. “Close to 60 per cent of Victorians” including 39% of Labor voters, believe they were locked down too long.The highest ranked issue by far was cost of living, followed by “health and social care” and “managing the Victorian economy”. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1000.
Also:
• The Poll Bludger state election guide now comprehensively covers the Legislative Council, including an overview and the usual thorough guides to each of the eight regions. The upper house contest happens to be in the news today following Adem Somyurek’s announcement that he will seek re-election in South-Eastern Metropolitan as the candidate of the Democratic Labour Party. Somyurek’s, whose DLP colleagues include Bernie Finn in Western Metropolitan, tells the Herald-Sun he will represent the “sensible centre of Victorian politics”.
• “Prominent Melbourne art collector” Andrew King says he will pay the $350 nomination fees of the first 50 people who come forward to run against Daniel Andrews in Mulgrave. King’s theory is that this will divert voters from Andrews “by reducing his first preference vote, diverting votes away from him, and increasing the likelihood of informal votes”. On what remains of Twitter, Antony Green relates that the total number of candidates could exceed 600, compared with an already over-stuffed 507 in 2018, boosted by Family First’s determination to run candidates in all 88 seats.
• In a Twitter thread, Kos Samaras of Redbridge Group argued that the anti-lockdown parties, including Angry Victorians and the Freedom Party together with the United Australia Party, complicated Liberal ambitions in seats like Melton as they like were competing for the same demographic turf of asset-owning white voters with trade qualifications and incomes of over $100,000 a year. Labor’s voters in such areas tended to be newer arrivals with lower incomes and mortgages, many of them migrants.
DLP have put in 32 lower house candidates to the VEC, with 10 of them in Western Metro. Sadly for Trent, he appears to have a fairly normal ballot in Prahran, with only the 5 parties contesting statewide plus an independent who polled 130 votes in 2018. One of the few districts with LESS people on the ballot than last time, as the Aussie Battler Party was deregistered, Sustainable Australia are only standing in upper house, and the Reason Party and the DLP appear not to be standing a candidate there. Though the DLP’s previous candidate is now running for the UAP in the upper house. The only addition to the ballot is Family First.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2022/11/08/freshwater-strategy-56-44-to-labor-in-victoria/comment-page-3/#comment-4006770
The Greens seem to have seen all the noise about the Liberals potentially preferencing them and have sensibly got on the front foot to minimise suggestion of a deal before the Liberals make an announcement. It makes much harder for the ALP to credibly suggest a Green-Coalition preference deal (a regular ALP tactic) and the Greens won`t have to try and play catch up from the back foot. This is sensible and necessary political communication; many voters do not have as much political knowledge as we do.
The Nationals and Angry Victorians just submitted their candidates to the VEC, along with more independents. Victoria at the federal election had an average lower house ballot paper of 8.43 candidates. The state election currently has an average lower house ballot paper of 7.76 candidates. The difference? 39 seats federally, 88 state.
Will Liberals preference Greens over Labor in any seats. Would nearly guarantee Albert Part and make Footscray extremely close while basically guaranteeing Richmond and Northcote fall. And Preston and Pascoe Vale would be in play. Also Prahan would be safe. That could be six losses for the ALP, I’d go with four losses. Minority Labor firming.
Jeremy says:
Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 6:41 pm
………Minority Labor firming.
——————–
Yeah from where to there?
As an aside I can get $15 Labor minority but I’ll keep walking past and make a logical winning book.
Surely the leader of the Angry Victorians should be looking angry?
EDIT (click on the “?” in the square box)
citizen says:
Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 7:22 pm
Surely the leader of the Angry Victorians should be looking angry?
EDIT (click on the “?” in the square box)
____________
They didn’t recruit Angry Anderson?
Jeremy
For those results to happen, the Greens would have to finish ahead of the Liberals on primaries in each of those seats – otherwise the Liberal preferences don’t get distributed.
So, no to Albert Park, where the Greens have half the vote of the Liberals, so it would be a Labor/Liberal contest.
Possibly the Greens could end up ahead of the Liberals in Footscray, but Labor wins that one on primaries, so how the other votes are shuffled doesn’t matter.
Northcote is a Labor/Green contest, so maybe.
Prahran is already Green, so it’s a not a loss for Labor.
Pascoe Vale maybe, if the Greens overtake the Libs, which is possible.
Richmond maybe.
So three maybes.
zoomster says:
Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:32 pm
Jeremy
For those results to happen, the Greens would have to finish ahead of the Liberals on primaries in each of those seats – otherwise the Liberal preferences don’t get distributed….
So three maybes.
——————
Illuminating post zoomster.
Hope it falls that way no worse.
So the Libs are caught out using their Electoral Office staff in promotion videos
Red shirts?
Mind you it saves them from paying actors
Has anyone noticed that the Liberal signage is principally on construction fences around vacant sites?
So not front yards of occupied residences
Noting they are offering to pay people to have signs in their front yards
I can not imagine ALP winning Footscray on primaries this time. In fact very few seats will be won on primaries considering the length of the ballot papers. The redistribution was extremely helpful to the Greens in this seat, taking all their best parts of the federal seat of Fraser, in which they polled 35% in some booths. Also the Greens ran a terrible candidate last time, which has been rectified this time. In addition, the Vic Socialists, who weren’t on the ballot paper last time, polled 10% in some areas of this seat federally and will be there this time. Darren Chester was the only candidate federally in Victoria to win on primaries, and his seat only had 6 candidates. Mind you he did that with a combined 18.16% vote for PHON, UAP, and LDP. Don’t know if that says more about Darren or Gippsland.
So the latest The Age headline is that Ministers Diaries should be made public to see who they are meeting with – and why
But why stop at Ministers?
What about the Opposition leadership?
Another headline to discredit government
Simply, having occupied senior positions across my working life (and a secondment to the Public Service) you meet with a raft of people in the normal course
And you are introduced to others
So your circle increases – to the stage where you say more people know you than you know (which is an embarrassment because you do not know names but they know you)
People seek to meet you – some of those meetings leading to engagement and others not
Simply, you are always meeting with someone
The old summary was “the first question you ask is with whom am I doing business and if you have questions regarding that the answer is no”
Solicitors of course must represent
So not all vocations are the same
But to put that Ministers of the Crown should make their Diaries public (also in regard social settings?) so people can know who they are meeting – and then to add why they are meeting has sinister implications
Anyone can make an appointment to see a Minister of the Crown
They are public servants after all
As are Opposition members
So do you vet those requesting to meet with you – and then refuse to meet?
You meet
And if the conclusion is that “it has been good to meet you” and nothing else transpires then that is the case
By extension, are all those seeking a meeting doing so for sinister intent?
The very real question is the integrity of media
Which seems not addressed by those promoting this nonsense
And I wonder if the likes of Tegue and others put their “meetings” with their mistresses in their diaries
So, so much noise around this election signifying nothing.
The “teal” independent campaign isn’t 10% of what it was federally. The various cooker independents are an unelectable fringe. The swing against the ALP in heartland seats is not significant enough to matter (see also the Federal election where the much talked about anti Labor backlash was a damp squib).
Any government on a landslide win of the magnitude of 2018 should go backwards, let alone one that dealt with the covid pandemic. Losing a few marginals is par for the course and no shock.
Justin
‘I can not imagine ALP winning Footscray on primaries this time…’
Maybe not, but even if Labor lost 10% of the primary vote in Footscray, there’d still be light years between their primary and the next candidate, and that couldn’t be made up just by swapping a few preferences around.
Footscray is in play. Greens had a rappist rapping about rape last time. Labor had Katie Hall who voters flocked to because she wasn’t Marsha. Those votes will be lost this time because she is invisible and plays faction games just like Marsha. We will have a reverse sophomore affect. Redistribution was a godsend to Greens. Greens getting a huge swing towards it statewide. An excellent Green candidate. Victorian socialist performing well will help Greens in preferences. And if Liberals preference Greens, should be enough to get over the line. I’d expect Labor to poll in very low 40’s. Hard to tell with Greens. Depends on how well AJP and socialists perform. You can still get 10.0 for Greens @ sportsbet. Jump on it once it’s confirmed Liberals preferencing them. And jump on minority Labor also.
Dr John. You can get 17.0 for minority Labor??? Have you heard of arbitrage??? Sorry Dr John but you are throwing money away if you don’t take the 17.0 and then back Labor majority elsewhere for at least 1.20. Arbitrage Dr John, gambler’s best friend.
Arky says:
Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 12:34 am
So, so much noise around this election
—
I’m finding the opposite. Apart from the media, you’d almost struggle to know an election is imminent.
Hence I think the evening of 26 Nov will be over quickly and largely uneventful.
Jeremy
‘Greens getting a huge swing towards it statewide…’
3%. Good for a minor party, but takes their vote from 10% to 14%.
A 4% swing in Footscray is a nothing burger.
We’ll be nice, though. We’ll assume 10% gain to the Greens in Footscray, and we’ll also assume – without much reason – that ALL of that comes off Labor.
So that would put the Greens on 26%, and Labor on 47%.
We can’t reasonably assume that – if Footscray has gained strong Green areas – that there’s going to be an increase in the Liberal vote. It should work the other way, with the Libs going further backwards.
But we’ll give the Libs their 18%.
So we’ll assume we get down to Labor 47%, Greens 26, Liberals 18.
Which means Labor 47, Greens 44.
Sorry, but there’s no way Labor wouldn’t pick up 3% on preference flows. (Last election, Labor ended up with 78%; if you assume that every single Green vote went to Labor on preferences, this means that Labor picked up 4% from the various Others).
On the other hand, it’s hard to see where the Greens would find 7% in preferences once the Libs are excluded.
Assume a drop in the Liberal vote, and the gap gets even greater.
somethinglikethat, this ain’t a Federal election, of course you remember May’s Federal election and the huge amount of money and noise regarding election. This is a state election and in no way as important or interesting as Federal election. Council elections are less important than state elections somethinglikethat. What did Frydenburg spend in Kooyong? Now what is Pseutto spending in Hawthorn?
Zoomster. A swing of 40%(from 10 to 14) of 20 is already 8%, not the 4% you state!!! So let’s be nice and give Greens a primary of 35 to 40%(after all the other factors i have mentioned) before AJP and Socialist preferences.
How is Benambra looking? Jaqui Hawkings(?) giving it a “red hot go”?
And another point regarding Footscray. Even if Liberals recommend preferences to Labor, Liberal voters aren’t as obedient as Labor voters. They not sheep and as a general rule think for themselves more than Labor luvvies. That’s why l believe Greens would still get a large slice of Liberals preferences. Gonna be a fascinating election.
And one more point, sorry moderator. The Victorian socialists are putting huge resources into Footscray. Is this to “harvest” votes and then direct to Greens??? Get on the 10.0 on offer from bookies.
If the Liberals had directed preferences to the Greens at the last federal election, it would have changed the result in precisely zero seats. In all cases where the Greens finished in the top two, they either won without Liberal preferences or were so far behind it didn’t matter.
And before anyone mentions Wills, yes the result would probably have changed if 100 percent of Liberal voters had given their preferences to the Greens, but that can never happen. There’s always some leakage against the party recommendation.
Jeremy you keep on spruiking gambling.
Next step ‘bet with PB mates’?
Enjoy.
EightEs, this blog about the Victorian state election. Maybe you should post on the main thread if you’re a little confused. Would Greens have won Richmond if Liberal had run and directed preferences to Greens. What about Northcote. They both state electorates Eight Es, not Federal. Keep on topic Eight Es.
I’m starting to suspect that Jeremy works for Sportsbet.
Dr John, better you not gamble if you don’t know what “arbitrage” is. And yes l really enjoy a punt on elections. I stay away from GG’s and sport. Partial to some Omaha on the poker tables. Love blackjack(especially when the count is good) . Used to enjoy betting on interest rate movements but they(inpinging on my personal freedoms) made that illegal. Trent, nope I’m a lifter, not a leaner. We discussed this previously l believe. Lifters don’t prey on the weak.
“Would Greens have won Richmond if Liberal had run and directed preferences to Greens.”
Probably not, since the absence of a Liberal candidate most likely meant that Liberal supporters’ votes just went directly to whoever they would have preferenced higher anyway; or if they voted for an alternative minor their Labor v Greens preference also probably would have been the same as if they had a Liberal to vote for.
Could be the next Jason Richardson.
I know the real Richo and his previous job was selling Bolle sunglasses.
On the topic of Footscray, the Labor MP probably requires an 11-12% swing against on their primary vote to get into the territory of being able to be beaten by the Greens off Liberal preferences.
That’s 11-12% off their redistributon-adjusted result too, not the 2018 result, so the boundary changes will not factor into that because they’ve already been accounted for.
It’s not impossible but it’s also not likely.
Similarly with Albert Park, I do expect maybe a -8% Labor swing and at least a +8% Greens swing, which if the Liberals finished third would be enough for Liberals preferencing Greens to flip the seat; but as others have said, the hurdle is that the Greens also actually have to pass the Liberals in the first place. Currently there’s about 15% between them. Given the Liberal vote collapsed so much last time, the swing against probably won’t be as pronounced this time, and the IND preferences may help them stay ahead of the Greens too. So it’s certainly not a given that it will even be an ALP v GRN race.
Jeremysays:
Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 9:40 am
Dr John, better you not gamble if you don’t know what “arbitrage” is..
————————————
I feel I must reply as you have brought this putdown up again!
I have actually been a bookmaker in another life and come from a worldly family of quite famous gamblers.
I arbitrage on elections and sport regularly.
I have already arbitraged on the Victorian election and in an area you have obviously overlooked or not aware of.
In relation to your Labor minority push it won’t happen so why waste $ on it?
Signed Labor but not a stooge
Jeremy says:
Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 7:46 am
Labor had Katie Hall who voters flocked to because she wasn’t Marsha. Those votes will be lost this time because she is invisible and plays faction games just like Marsha.
—
OK champ, now you’re just a joke.
As someone who actually lives in Footscray, Katie Hall is anything but invisible. She’s hardly perfect, but she has a long family history with Footscray and is as active a local member as I can recall. And i’ve lived in four different states.
Jeremy, this is just the latest example of you having zero local knowledge, yet making these broad statements. You’re a clueless moron, and that’s about as polite as i’ll be.
Trent says:
Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 9:37 am
I’m starting to suspect that Jeremy works for Centrelink payments.
—
Fixed that for you.
@ Citizen:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/09/meet-daniel-victorian-liberal-deputy-leader-david-southwick-uses-party-staffer-in-ads
—
Wow! Using two of your own staff in your campaign ad is desperate.
That just adds to the list:
– They have to pay “volunteers” to hand out HTV cards
– They have to offer to pay people to host corflues on their property
– They have to use their own staff in their campaign ads, posing as regular voters
– Their corflutes are predominantly hosted on vacant shopfronts and fences around vacant lots
They really have nobody actually willing to voluntarily help them, or publicly show support for them without some form of remuneration.
On Nicole Werner’s Facebook Page:
Nicole Ta-Ei Werner is in Box Hill, Victoria.
2d ·
VOTING FOR CHANGE
How amazing to receive moving emails like this
To the people of Box Hill – I’m here to represent and fight for you. The energy and honesty will never change!
The post was also loved by Louise Staley MP & Cynthia Watson – cookers the lot of them…
Certain poster needs to finish their incessant (some might add; repetitive unimaginative il-informed boring and mildly irritating) posts with “Gamble responsibly”.
Freedom Party have just submitted another couple dozen lower house candidates to the VEC. The confirmed lower house nominations now stands at 711, for an average ballot size of 8.07 candidates.
What was widely known by many that,only the rwnj, Lib Pentecostals praying for a miracle to fill their own personal money bags and the msm have not been able to articulate due to reasons best known to their proprietors and handlers is out there.Maybe now they’ll all take a break and work out what parts they have played in dumbing down democracy.I very much doubt it though.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/10/as-the-herald-sun-sticks-to-news-corps-election-playbook-does-it-think-its-readers-are-idiots
It doesn’t matter what happens in Benambra.
If Jacquie wins it, she’ll be able to achieve just as much as Bill Tilley, which is two fifths of bugger all.
It would make it harder for the Libs to win back government in the long term, but that’s about it.
Zoomster, Coalition using resources to keep Benambra. means those resources aren’t being used elsewhere. Pretty simple really. Anyway l reckon Benambra lost to Jacquie which might(highly unlikely l concur) keep Coalition from forming majority government thus it might just matter what happens in Benambra. Gotta look at the big picture Zoomster and what might happen in four years when Jacquie might just side with ALP to keep Coalition out of power. Therefore it does matter what happens in Benambra.
Jeremy
Yeah, I actually said most of that.
Does Newscorp think its readers are idiots?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/10/as-the-herald-sun-sticks-to-news-corps-election-playbook-does-it-think-its-readers-are-idiots?utm_term=636c4d1225120b734a5835745257f74c&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayAUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTAU_email
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/young-voters-are-key-this-election-that-s-bad-for-andrews-and-guy-20221110-p5bx15.html?btis
Will there be any more opinion polls before the final pre-election day polls are released?
AJ Rimmer @ #195 Thursday, November 10th, 2022 – 5:31 pm
Yes,I’m sure the MSM isn’t done with us yet 🙁
We need more polls.
The minimum number of candidates per seat is now 6, 11 of them having 6 candidates. The other 77 have more than that. To put it into perspective, 47 of the 88 seats in 2018 had 3-5 candidates.
With the deadline closed for party nominations (independents tomorrow) here’s the total lower house candidates numbers per party
ALP, GRN, AJP, FFV 88
LIB 83
FPV 58 (including every seat in SE Metro and 10 of 11 in Northern Victoria and Eastern Victoria)
DLP 32 (10 of the 11 Western Metro seats)
VS 22 (every seat in Northern Metro and Western Metro)
NAT 11
LDP 11 (spread out across the state)
ND 10 (8 in Western Metro)
DHJP 10 (6 in Western Victoria)
Reason 8 (all in Northern Metro)
SFF 6 (Melton, Narre Warren North, Ripon, Morwell, Yan Yean, and Gippsland East)
PHON 5 (Bendigo East, Macedon, Morwell, Narracan, and Pakenham)
HAP 3 (Point Cook, Werribee, and Melton)
LCV 3 (Bayswater, Bendigo West, and Pakenham)
AVP 3 (Bellarine, Lara, and Lowan)
TMP 2 (Point Cook and Werribee)
Companions and Pets 1 (Nepean)
UAP, SAP, RDSDA 0 (upper house only)
this jerimy never seems to poast on any other threads must work for sports bet triying to get poasters to bet on labor thinking it might be a greens victory i think most liberal voters would put labor second over greens i think the liberals play factional games to if mathew guy was any good whiy arnt the liberals telling us whiy guy would make a good premier its all lets get rid ofDan the liberals dont seem to like guy
We learn from an opinion piece in The Age that the $3.4 Million was to educate staff in Health settings to a response to violence directed at them
So who exactly has a problem with that and particularly given what we periodically read in media about attacks on those employed in that Sector?
No doubt frustrated people are reporting in those settings, as are people impacted by drugs
And they can be violent toward staff going about their jobs
So why the linking of the Premier to the appropriation of this $3.4 Million?
In the normal course you would think that such an investment would be applauded by the community
So, is it the case that the funds being provided to the Union/s which cover that sector is the issue for someone (guess who)?
And who referred the matter?
Is this simply trying to say there is something sinister because a Union or Unions are involved?
We know full well what the Tories and the media barons think of Unions (Unions consisting of people, which seems forgotten)
So what if Andrews, as the Premier of the State, signed off (or even directed) that $3.4 Million was being provided to a Union or Unions to combat violence in Health settings?
Surely that is a worthy investment