Chisholm covers a band of suburbs in Melbourne’s electorally sensitive east, from Box Hill and Mont Albert in the north through Burwood and Mount Waverley in the centre to Chadstone, Oakleigh and Clayton in the south. Labor is strongest in the far south, with most of the remainder being naturally marginal and the Mont Albert area leaning Liberal. Reflecting the area’s static population, the redistribution that will take effect at the next election has added around 18,000 voters at Blackburn South, Burwood East and Forest Hill in the east (previously in Deakin), balanced only by the transfer of about 8000 voters around Glen Waverley to Bruce and 1500 in Mont Albert North to Kooyong. Antony Green calculates the changes have shaved 0.3% from the Labor margin, which is now at 5.8%.
Chisholm was created with the enlargement of parliament in 1949, but was then based on Camberwell and Glen Iris further to the west. It no longer contains any of its original territory, which now bolsters the Liberals in Higgins and Kooyong. Its progressive drift to the east accordingly made a Labor-leaning seat of what had traditionally been a safe one for the Liberals, its members being Wilfrid Kent Hughes until 1970, Tony Staley until 1980 and Graham Harris until 1983. The Liberal grip was loosened by successive swings in 1977, 1980 and 1983, the Labor candidate on each occasion being Helen Mayer, who succeeded on the third attempt. Early Howard government Health Minister Michael Wooldridge recovered the seat for the Liberals in 1987, and held it precariously until he jumped ship to the more secure Casey in 1998. The current Labor member, Anna Burke, prevailed at the 1998 election with a 2.1% margin that was little changed in 2001 and 2004. She finally achieved a secure margin with a 4.7% swing in 2007, before the seat went slightly against the statewide trend with a 1.3% swing to the Liberals in 2010.
Anna Burke had been an industrial officer with the Finance Sector Union before entering parliament, and is aligned with the Right sub-faction associated with the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. She has had two spells as Deputy Speaker since Labor came to power in 2007, the interruption coming after the 2010 election when the government partially bolstered its fragile parliamentary position by having Liberal member Peter Slipper take her place. Burke returned to the role after the government appeared to go one better in having Slipper replace Harry Jenkins as Speaker in November 2011, and her national profile received a considerable boost when allegations of sexual harassment and misuse of taxi dockets compelled Slipper to stand aside in April 2012, leaving her the semi-permanent occupant of the chair.
The Liberals have again preselected their candidate from 2010, Vietnamese-born John Nguyen, a partner at Ernst & Young who was five years old when his family fled their native country in 1979. VexNews reports that Nguyen won the preselection ballot ahead of Nicholas Tragas, Telstra executive and Boroondara councillor, and that the two were respectively backed by “the sometimes united Kroger/Costello group” and its traditional rivals associated with Premier Ted Baillieu.
Why not abolish marriage and replace with property contracts?
I am actually serious. People can still have commitment ceremonies in churches with the dogs or in a cave – whatever turns them on but Marriage as a concept is a waste of time.
With DNA testing these days it is not even needed to determine paternity – which after all was its actual purpose ie to sort of allow guys some sort of certainty over who their kids are. (they are wrong 10% of the time).
[Steve Lewis @lewiss50
We have gone to the printers]
I got excited when I thought he said “We have gone to prison…”
Galaxy Poll – 15-17 June 2012, 995 Voters
Two Party Preferred: ALP 44 (0) L/NP 56 (0)
Primary Votes: ALP 31 (+1) L/NP 49 (0) GRN 12 (-1)
Ghost who votes
Galaxy TPP no change, Labor up 1 PV Greens down 1
44/56
Thanks Ghost.
Steady as she goes.
gwv
If you can let us know about the greek polls I would be grateful…
Whose galaxy
kerneels@ 2038,
Thanks.
A bit of comic relief for those that missed it earlier:
Tony Abbott Is On Work Experience
Galaxy bit behind 🙂
[Whose galaxy]
George Jetson’s?
[Galaxy Poll – 15-17 June 2012, 995 Voters
Two Party Preferred: ALP 44 (0) L/NP 56 (0)
Primary Votes: ALP 31 (+1) L/NP 49 (0) GRN 12 (-1)]
BRILLIANT! THE LABOR PRIMARY VOTE HAS GONE UP BY ONE! GILLARD HAS GOT A BOUNCE, HER LEADERSHIP IS PERSUADING THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT LABOR!
Maquire bob wtte said 1 poi t up each time each polllister:-) 🙂 🙂
Looks like he is correct,
The usual ones though made fun of his remark
[A bit of comic relief for those that missed it earlier]
Even the horses know abbolt is a fake
At post 2083 I said [You legislate for a civil union with the same powers and rights as marriage but for those of the same sex.]
At post 2090 Shows On said [Oh dear, this is pure oxymoron. A civil union isn’t a marriage. Marriage means marriage under the marriage act.]
Ian quoted me:
[Gillard is clearly wrong, and worse, has no basis at all for her opinion. One is left to conclude that her opinion merely reflects the demands of the RW power brokers backing her and the ACL.]
then continued as follows:
[That, without a shadow of any doubt, would be the most vile, narrow minded, bigoted comment that this blog has ever posted.]
I’m going to pass lightly over the high dudgeon and simply question the word “bigoted”.
I assert that same sex couples ought to be treated exactly the same way by the state as opposite sex couples seeking the right to marry. I base this on a well attested and accepted principle in all civilised states, and one which Gillard herself professes to support — equality before the law. Gillard wants to deny “marriage-like” status to same sex couples — a clear exception to this principle but declines to offer a substantive reason. Instead, she merely states it’s her own deeply held belief. This she asserts despite knowing that the denial of recognition by the state of the right of same sex couples to marry is regarded by most same sex couples and most in the community at large as entailing at best a derogation of same sex relationships. In the view of Jensen for the Anglicans, who like Gillard, opposes it, sanction by the state of same sex marriage “validates homsexuality” in the eyes of children.
Yet you cast me as the bigot and Gillard, who asserts no basis for giving offence as merely holding an opinion.
That’s simply untenable.
I’m not a believer in metaphysics. All phenomena have a provenance in some set of causes, even if identifying them masy be difficult. Gillard’s disinclination to explain her position invites speculation, and if she won’t speak up for herself, then she invites others to work it out for themselves.
In the absence of a more plausible explanation. She’s not, if we are to believe her, religious. Accordingly, I stand by my inference.
[I believe it is real, victoria. They both seem to think it’s terribly witty and funny. A pun on the awfulness and absurdity of modern day politics. Pity they never seem to see their role in the awfulness.]
Yes Fiz. yes, Victoria. Hard as it is to believe, it really is real! In the Hun!
In a breath-taking piece of Right Wing projection he says of Lord justice Leveson:
[Pompous ass. Of course, he does. The man is in charge of an attack against a free, rambunctious media, giving every appearance of sympathy to those who want less scrutiny, specially from conservative newspapers.
I said pompous. Now let me add “hypocrite” and even “censorious buffoon”. No sooner is he told something that he doesn’t like to hear – this time about free speech – than he screams for the cops]
Wingeing Leveson can’t be trusted with a media inquiry
[BRILLIANT! THE LABOR PRIMARY VOTE HAS GONE UP BY ONE! GILLARD HAS GOT A BOUNCE, HER LEADERSHIP IS PERSUADING THE COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT LABOR!]
I would never get away with that!
LOL 🙂
I find Galaxy’s polls on Queensland federally more revealing. All this shows is what we already know: flat
New thread.
GhostWhoVotes (@GhostWhoVotes)
#Newspoll Preferred PM: Gillard 42 (+2) Abbott 38 (+1) #auspol
The trend continues………
So the 4 recent polls (Coalition TPP):
Galaxy 56
Neilsen 57
Essential 56
Newspoll 54
Solid.
Apologies ignore 2171 it’s last weeks numbers from newspoll
And so the march backwards continues.
[The New South Wales Education Department has been condemned for abolishing a unit dedicated to providing drug prevention programs and advice.
Greg Prior, the deputy director-general of schools, has confirmed the drug education unit has been disbanded, along with six positions.]
Why are Liberals just such awful human beings?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-16/anger-as-nsw-drug-education-unit-abolished/4074448
[At post 2083 I said [You legislate for a civil union with the same powers and rights as marriage but for those of the same sex.]
At post 2090 Shows On said [Oh dear, this is pure oxymoron. A civil union isn’t a marriage. Marriage means marriage under the marriage act.]]
Both of these posts were nonsense.
I’m pretty sure that in the early part of the last decade the Marriage Act was amended to define marriage as a union between a man and a women.
I also thought that actual Civil Unions or Civil Partnership Bills had been proposed in one or more of our State Parliaments and the ACT to allow same sex couples to formalise their relationships.
Same sex unions can be legislated by parliament with the same powers and rights of marriage without actually calling it marriage.
I suggest nobody to take Shows On seriously if you want to enhance your knowledge.
BB, totally agree on your gay marriage comment some pages back. I was at a baptism today in a Greek Orthodox church for wonderful child of two dear friends who are women
No one was campaigning for or against gay marriage.
No-one there as far as I can tell gave a flying f..k or any other sexual act of any kind about what chromosomes or genitals anyone brought to the room. Just love.
Fran Barlow@2166
[ Gillard is clearly wrong, and worse, has no basis at all for her opinion. One is left to conclude that her opinion merely reflects the demands of the RW power brokers backing her and the ACL. ]
World English Dictionary
bigot (ˈbɪɡət)
— n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
[C16: from Old French: name applied contemptuously to the Normans by the French, of obscure origin]
Bigot seems like the right word to me…..if only a little polite.
Re Gay marriage
___________
I can understand…but not agree with…. the religious communities who see some biblical. reasons et al …, against gay marriage…but… as our PM is a professed atheist I can’t see on what grounds her objections are based
7 doesn’t get this “New Niceness” thing.
[Seven promo broke the rules
The Australian Communication and Media Authority has ruled the Seven Network breached part of the broadcast code with its new promos for the charmingly titled coming drama Good Christian Bitches. Some promos featured a blonde woman, dressed in skin-tight hotpants with a live python and the words ”Good Christian Bitches”, were shown during last November’s The X-Factor finale, before 8.30pm. Complaints came – one from the Christian group Family Voice Australia – and the authority has ruled the station breached part of the code which stipulates promos should not contain ”coarse language other than of a very mild nature”.]
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/seven-promo-broke-the-rules-20120617-20ibe.html#ixzz1y3zzdQUP
They should have put her in a chaff bag. Or called the bitch “Ju-Liar.”
Even Family Voice Australia couldn’t bring themselves to complain about that.
Ian quoted me:
[Fran Barlow@2166: Gillard is clearly wrong, and worse, has no basis at all for her opinion. One is left to conclude that her opinion merely reflects the demands of the RW power brokers backing her and the ACL.]
Then cited a definition of “bigot”:
[bigot (ˈbɪɡət) son who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race]
This is clearly inadequate. A person who is intolerant of ideas that are frivolous or worse, plainly untenable is not a bigot. The above definition would put actual bigots on the question of “religion, politics, or race” on the same ethical grounds as those insistently rejecting bigotry. It’s key to the definition that the insistent belief is ‘bigotry’ only if it is baseless or immune to reason.
Hence, Merriam Webster has it as follows:
[bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance]
If one examines “obstinate”:
[perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion]
{My emphasis in each of the above}
and intolerant:
[unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights]
Now to begin with, I’ve no problem at all with Gillard declaring as she does, nor do I assert that her claims as a citizen should be prejudiced in any way as a consequence, so I’m not intolerant of her. Nor am I obstinate in my view. I have advanced a reasoned basis for my position and unless an until a contrary reason is proffered I see no reason to depart from it. Actually the definition above fits Gillard rather better as she is “obstinate” in her refusal to grant equal treatement before the law to same sex couples (a group) and “unwilling to share {…} social rights” with this group. She is determined that they should be discriminated against on the basis of, apparently, an unexplained “deep personal belief”.
That sounds a far better fit for the term “bigot”. Your view may simply derive in the desire to protect Gillard’s standing, which might be a reason for you to have your view, if you troubled to set it out.
Now personally, I am not persuaded that Gillard is a bigot. I strongly suspect that if someone more liberal in outlook than her were PM and she were a mere backbencher, that she’d have a different view. I strongly supect that she is in the control of bigots and/or number crunchers in Queensland who, looking ruefully at the party’s position up there and the large number of fundamentalist christians in that part of the world regard gay marriage as not a fight that is worth having.
Gillard can’t say that of course, nor (if she were a bigot) could she simply say that she thinks heterosexual couples should be privileged over same sex couples in their right to marry, because that would open up a liberal wedge.
Her (and the ALPs more generally) past history shows a pattern of pandering to bigotry — most recently over asylum seekers, with her notorious comments about queue jumpers and welfare claimants). She has form.
So I’m going with her position simply being unprincipled defensive politics. Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s not worth calling her out on the matter, nor that those who do are bigots.