The Poll Bludger

The Liberal how-to-vote cards for the lower house are now available for viewing on the party website. As in the upper house, the Greens and other parties of the left are last – except in the vital inner-city seats of Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick, where supporters are advised: "Place number 1 in the box for the Liberal Candidate. Then number all of the remaining boxes from 2 to 5 in the order of your choice". While this is a little better for the Greens than a straighforward recommendation that they be put last, it will still reduce their flow of preferences compared with 2002, which probably ends the threat to the Labor sitting members – of whom the most senior and most endangered was Health Minister Bronwyn Pike in Melbourne.

UPDATE: The Speaker at Upperhouse.info is progressively posting his invaluable upper house election calculcators; first cab off the rank is Northern Metropolitan.

To give some idea of the setback the hapless Victorian Greens have suffered from the Coalition preference tickets, it’s worth taking a look at Antony Green’s assessment of how the 2002 result would have looked under the new system. Operating under the assumption that the Coalition would preference Labor last, Antony reckoned the Greens would have won seats in Eastern Metropolitan, Eastern Victoria, Northern Metropolitan, Southern Metropolitan and Western Metropolitan, as part of an overall result of Labor 20, Coalition 15 (including one Nationals seat) and the Greens five. However, two of those Greens wins (Western Metropolitan and Western Victoria) would have relied on Liberal preferences; without them the seats would have gone to Labor, giving them a clear majority with 22 seats. While the Labor vote will no doubt be lower this time, the Liberals’ preference decision has turned the slim outside chance of a Labor majority into a genuine possibility. The Poll Bludger will leave it to others to consider whether this was sound tactics; it will perhaps make more sense if it subsequently emerges that Labor has agreed to give the Liberals preferences in country seats at the expense of the Nationals. On a region by region basis, the Greens’ prospects now look as follows:

Eastern Metropolitan: The 2002 figures suggest that Labor, Liberal and the Greens would have been very evenly placed after the first four seats were decided, with Liberal on 0.66 of a quota, the Greens on 0.63 and Labor on 0.60. With the Liberals preferencing the Greens ahead of Labor, the Greens would only have needed to stay ahead of one or the other (after distribution of preferences from "others" – 0.11 of a quota, though that would presumably be higher in the context of a multi-member election). But without the prospect of Liberal preferences, the Greens would have had to rely on Labor being eliminated first. Fortunately for the Greens, Labor’s vote is likely to be lower this time, and they will also be boosted by preferences from People Power and the Democrats. However, there is the corresponding likelihood of a higher Liberal vote, which will be further boosted by preferences from the DLP and Family First. If that adds up to 50 per cent (the Liberal primary vote was 44.3 per cent in 2002), the Liberals will win a third seat at the expense of the Greens – although that would have been true regardless of what the Liberals had done with their preferences.

Northern Metropolitan: Here at least the Greens look very likely to win a seat, having scored a full quota off their own bat on the 2002 results. The only conceivable result that might thwart them is if the Liberal vote (23.0 per cent in 2002) surges sufficiently to give them 33.3 per cent and a second quota after the addition of Family First preferences. This would involve draining enough votes from Labor to pull them below a third quota (from 57.4 per cent in 2002 to below 50 per cent after the addition of DLP preferences) and from the Greens to pull them below a first (from 16.8 per cent to less than 16.7 per cent after Democrats and People Power preferences). Labor could then get the Liberal surplus and win the final seat at the Greens’ expense. However, it’s more likely that the Greens will either get a quota on their own, or come close enough that the surplus over Labor’s third quota will win them the seat.

South Eastern Metropolitan: The Liberal preference ticket has scuttled the Greens’ chances here, making an outcome of three Labor and two Liberal all but certain. Had the Liberals put Labor last, their surplus over the second quota could potentially have made the Greens competitive, provided the Labor vote (54.2 per cent in 2002) was more than a fraction below 50 per cent after the addition of Family First, Christian Party and DLP preferences. As it stands, the Liberals will surely get the 33.3 per cent needed for two seats, and their surplus will equally surely secure the last seat for Labor.

Southern Metropolitan: The Greens could well manage a 16.7 per cent quota here without the surplus of either major party – they polled 15.4 per cent in this region in 2002, and will receive preferences from People Power and the Democrats. However, a three Liberal and two Labor outcome is equally possible – the parties’ respective vote in 2002 was 44.2 per cent and 37.9 per cent, so a straight 4.5 per cent shift from one to the other would give Labor a narrow two quotas, and the Liberals the 50 per cent needed for a third seat with Family First and DLP preferences. The significance of the Liberal preference decision is that an outcome of 3-1-1 (as distinct from 2-2-1) is now less likely, because the Liberal surplus over the third quota will boost Labor rather than the Greens.

Western Metropolitan: If the Liberals had the Greens ahead of Labor on preferences, the 2002 figures (Labor 3.73 quotas, Liberal 1.54, Greens 0.58) would have given the Liberals one seat with enough of a surplus to deliver another to the Greens. But with Labor getting Liberal preferences, Labor would have won a fourth seat instead. This time though, the Labor vote is likely to be lower and the Greens are a good chance of winning a seat with Labor’s surplus over the third quota. But that could be endangered if the Liberal vote rises from 25.6 per cent to over 30 per cent, giving them a shot at a second seat at the Greens’ expense. It’s also worth noting the possibility of a wild card outcome: People Power and the Democrats are trading preferences, as are Family First and the DLP; People Power and the DLP have each other second; all are ahead of the main contenders on the Liberal and Labor tickets, except that Family First is second last on the Labor ticket. One possible scenario involves People Power or the Democrats harvesting enough preferences to get ahead of the fourth Labor candidate and then the first Greens candidate, picking up the preferences of each and snowballing to victory.

Western Victoria: Again, a replay of 2002 with Liberal preferences going to the Greens ahead of Labor would have given the Greens a seat they would not have won otherwise. The results were Labor 2.84 quotas, a combined 2.54 for the Liberals and Nationals, and 0.50 for the Greens. Democrats preferences would have put the Greens ahead of the Coalition, and Coalition preferences would then have given the Greens a quota. It’s still possible to construct a scenario where the Labor vote falls enough that their surplus over the second quota is lower than the Greens vote, without falling so far that the surplus can’t get the Greens ahead of the third Coalition candidate. But a lot of things would have to go right for that to happen.

Eastern Victoria: In 2002, the Greens would have won a seat on Labor preferences: the results being 2.84 quotas for the Liberals, 2.46 for Labor and 0.60 for the Greens. However, this time it seems certain that votes will shift from Labor to Liberal, so that the Labor surplus will be inadequate to the task and the Coalition will win a third seat.

Northern Victoria: Regardless of the preferences here, it is hard to envision a result other than Coalition three, Labor two.

From Antony Green in comments comes the shock news that the Liberals have actually come good on their threat to put the Greens behind Labor on their upper house preference tickets in all eight regions. As Antony puts it, "it is a Liberal ticket that would rather see a Labor majority in the Council than the Greens win the balance of power". The tickets do not yet seem to be up on the VEC site as far as I can see, but I gather that will be rectified shortly. For those who have been wondering why I haven’t been making quicker progress on my upper house region summaries, I have abandoned the idea of doing them one by one as blog posts and will post a separate page covering all eight regions, hopefully by tomorrow. In the meantime, Antony’s guide to the upper house regions is now available on the ABC site.

UPDATE: The tickets can be viewed on the ABC site, or at the VEC site by clicking on the party names in the candidate lists.

The Australian has broken the Victorian opinion poll drought with a Newspoll survey of 1000 respondents, which shows Labor maintaining a handy lead. No primary vote figures are quoted in the online version (anyone with a hard copy to hand is invited to fill the blanks in comments), but Labor’s two-party lead of 55-45 compares with 54-46 in the last poll two weeks ago, while still representing a 3 per cent swing on the 2002 election. Ted Baillieu is recording much better approval ratings than his predecessor, but Bracks’s rating is up 3 per cent as well.

In other news, yesterday saw the closure of nominations and the draw of ballot paper positions; the Poll Bludger election guide has been updated accordingly.

UPDATE: Primary vote figures are Labor 44 per cent, Liberal 36 per cent, Nationals 4 per cent and Greens 8 per cent. Hat tips to Josh and Peter Brent in comments.

Another round of Campaign Updates for the Victorian election guide:

South Barwon (Labor 5.0%): On Sunday, Ted Baillieu promised a Liberal government would spend $80 million duplicating Princes Highway from Waurn Ponds west to Winchelsea in the neighbouring electorate of Polwarth. Road issues are a major sore point in South Barwon; the recently announced route of the Geelong ring road is expected to feed 30,000 vehicles a day into a single set of traffic lights at Waurn Ponds, while Princes Highway itself has been the site of a number of fatal accidents. Tuesday’s Geelong Advertiser said there were "reports that Labor strategists had all but given up hope of holding the seat".

Lara (Labor 22.4%): More evidence of a Labor slump in the Geelong region comes from a poll of 311 voters in Lara, published in Saturday’s Geelong Advertiser. As with the paper’s Bellarine poll the previous weekend (and indeed that for South Barwon a fortnight before), results were given to within one decimal place, allowing us to determine the raw figures: Labor 122 (50 per cent after distribution of the undecided), Liberal 87 (36 per cent), Greens 25 (10 per cent), Family First 5 (2 per cent) and others 7 (3 per cent). In 2002, Labor polled 66.1 per cent to the Liberals’ 25.2 per cent. Once again, too many of the Advertiser’s respondents (67) were listed as undecided because the paper neglected to twist their arm.

Oakleigh (Labor 15.2%) and Frankston (Labor 5.8%): The big ticket items in the Liberals’ $1.7 billion health policy announced yesterday included a $60 million expansion of the Clayton campus of the Monash Medical Centre (actually in Clayton, although that’s unlikely to be the electoral target market; despite the current margin, nearby Oakleigh was in Liberal hands until 1999), and a matching of Labor’s promised $45 million investment in Frankston Hospital.

Doncaster (Liberal 0.8%) The Liberals have promised to spend $35 million extending the number 48 tram route a further four kilometres from Balwyn North to Doncaster – sound policy no doubt, but of benefit only to the already Liberal-held electorates of Doncaster and Box Hill.

Bendigo East (Labor 13.0%) and Bendigo West (Labor 16.0%): Following AAPT’s announcement on Monday that it will close its Bendigo call centre next year with the loss of 380 jobs, Labor has promised to "find another company" to replace it.

Eltham (Labor 4.8%): The Diamond Valley Leader reports that Liberal candidate Craig Ondarchie claims he has had his car vandalised and a threatening note placed on his windshield.

Today’s Herald-Sun reports that Labor and the Greens are on the brink of closing a deal in which Labor will get Greens preferences in sensitive lower house seats, and the Greens will get Labor preferences in the upper house. In reality, the former part of the bargain is of little consequence: it is well established that the Greens lack the power to influence the preference decisions of more than a handful of their supporters. Furthermore, Rick Wallace of The Australian notes that "how-to-vote cards for the upper house have to be submitted several days before those for the lower house", making it possible for minor parties to "strike a deal to get what they want from Labor and Liberal in the upper house, then rat on them when it comes to the lower house". That possibility aside, the deal seems like sound tactics on Labor’s part. Upper house seats decided on Labor preferences are now certain to go to the Greens rather than Family First, preventing a repeat of Steve Fielding’s Senate win in 2004. The cost to Labor is that Family First will surely not be putting them ahead of the Liberals like they did in 2004: Labor’s brains trust presumably had reason to think this was not going to happen in any case. It was earlier reported that Labor was considering a separate preference swap with Family First in eastern suburbs marginals, which could potentially have decided very close outcomes in Labor’s favour at no meaningful cost. However, this idea is said to have been scuttled due to "rank-and-file unrest".

The other ball in play is the possibility of a Labor-Liberal deal at the expense of the Greens and the Nationals. Unlike minor party supporters, Labor and Liberal voters by and large follow the how-to-vote card, so the significance of their preference allocations is not limited to the upper house. This respectively gives them power to swing the result in Liberal-versus-Nationals and Labor-versus-Greens contests, leading to talk that Labor might put the Nationals last in exchange for Liberal preferences in lower house seats vulnerable to the Greens. On the one hand, such a deal would put the Nationals’ seven lower house seats at risk, particularly Rodney and Shepparton; on the other, it would terminate the Greens threat to Labor in Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick. This prospect has generated much excitement in the media, with Paul Austin of The Age reporting that "senior Nationals (have) privately vowed to destroy any chance the Liberals had of victory" if it goes ahead. Specifically, they have threatened to direct preferences to Labor in former Liberal leader Denis Napthine’s seat of South-West Coast, won by less than 1 per cent in 2002. However, Ted Baillieu says he has "made it very clear" that "we are giving our preferences to the National Party and they are giving their preferences to us".

UPDATE: Some comments worth relating from Brian Costar of the Swinburne University of Technology in this week’s issue of the Weekly Times, concerning the possibility of a Labor-Liberal preference deal: "I don’t believe it will happen for one minute. Last time, (prior to the 2002 election) in the pre-poll period, Labor gave its preferences to the Liberals … but when it got serious they just gave their preferences to the Nats". Costar is quoted as saying the source of the story was likely to have been a "strategic leak" from the Labor camp, "designed to send a message to the Greens ‘not to get too smart’ as well as to spread discord between the Nationals and Liberals".