Via Ken at Surfdom, here’s Labor’s response to the “state of emergency”:
Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says a Labor Government would create a bi-partisan ‘war cabinet’ to deal with the national emergency in indigenous communities.
When the Labor primary vote dips in the next poll, Kevin from Queensland who’s here to help by trying to outfox Howard from the right, it’ll be those who give a stuff about land rights and real solutions not confected militarist rhetoric, who’ll be deserting you. Why was Beazley dumped again? Anyone?
Where’s the courage, Kevin? Was Paul Keating right? Been summoning some emergency focus groups this weekend, have we? Or channelling Lloyd George or something?
The Rudd Labor Party deserves to lose this election.
If it hadn’t been for WorkChoices, buddy, you couldn’t even count on a preference from me now. Wedge, meet target. Same dynamic as Tampa – the left deserts Labor, and swinging voters return to “strong leadership”. But, honestly, it took Beazley longer to cave, and he did it with more embarrassment. Mr Howard is a very clever politician. But Mr Rudd stands for nothing. Perhaps technocratic process? Or his own ego. Who knows?
What would Rudd’s hero Dietrich Bonhoeffer have done? Someone who knew about war, and principles? Even unto death?
I await Rudd’s publication of a Kennedy-esque Profiles in Courage tome, a la Gordon Brown. It seems de rigeur now for Labo(u)r leaders who totally lack any.
As an ALP Member, I’m also very upset about how Rudd rolled ovver to Ratty, but I fully understand why. It’s the simpole fact that if Rudd showed ANY type of hesitation in not supporting it, the Libs and the MSM wouild’ve painted him and the ALP as a Haven for “Kiddie Fiddlers” So he was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t act – perfect Wedge politics from the KIng of Wedges.
I Wish Rudd had the Balls of Alan Carpenter to tell it as it is and say that Howard’s Plan is an Election Stunt.
But I think the real reason is that Qld Politicans have this big Moral Hang up and Sex and Aboriginals – no doubt formed by Decades of Joh.
Bugger that, Frank. That’s the Beazley excuse. What about some actual leadership? The guy’s got popularity to burn, and a ready audience prepared to listen to him. He’s in a very good position to put a principled view. No, it’s just pathetic.
Sorry? Andrew Bartlett?
I think what we’re seeing here is the real Rudd.
I agree, but in the modern US style of Electioneering and Media in this Country, it would’ve been Electoral Death if Rudd made such a stand – The Govt Gazette in particular and the Howard Barmy Army would be running TV ads depicting Rudd as failing to “protect the little buggerised Indigines”
That, I’m afraid is the real world.
And the Government Gazette onslaught has damaged Rudd how so far, Frank? I’m not buying it.
Failure of courage, failure of leadership.
And I’m afraid, revealing his true colours as a small little conservative man, a bureaucrat and a fixer, not a leader.
I meant to say God-Fearing Pollies
No doubt pandering to those “Soft Labor” and Swinging Voters – aka the God-Fearing Folk
Well, I hope there’s enough of them around. He’s lost my vote.
Ahh, but this is different – it’s “KIDDIES BEING MOLESTED”, which touches the moral outrage of Joe Battler in Voter land a lot more than WorkChoices. Why do you think nearly all those letters to the editor are praising Ratty for “Doing Something for those “poor abused kiddies”
And did you noticed how pilloried Jon Stanhope was when he dared use the R Word to Ratty ??
As I said before, this is modern politics- it’s all about the raw emotional value – Measured and Careful solutions are bad.
Super Ratty has prevailed.
All that may be true, Frank, but I’d rather have Jon Stanhope as Prime Minister than Kevin Rudd if that’s the case.
So would I, or Alan Carpenter, two “No Bullshit” type ALP leaders, but alas the Right have control on who gets elected leader.
Mind you Rudd was clever about the extra AFP officers, as it exposes how under resourced they are etc and the more recent pressure on the troops in Iraq, as it may in a roundabout may force Ratty to withdraw trrops from Iraq and re-deploy them to the NT.
Hate to intrude on this gruesome ideological love fest. But you guys need a reality check.
The bi-partisan consensus on military intervention in NT Aboriginal communities is no failure of leadership by Rudd. Or wedge by Howard.
This is a democracy. The majority have long wanted a tough love authoritarian govt policy towards unruly minorities.
This is because it would be good for the minorities to have proper authority. And the majority would be spared the clean up costs of social pathology.
Had Rudd opposed Howard he would have lost a pile of votes from the culturallly nationalist but fiscally statist working class. The Battlers, if you like.
So Rudd is doing what democratic leaders do: obey the wishes of the majority.
Perhaps Howard is leading from example? LOL !
Hawke regrets child poverty comment
June 16, 2007 – 6:55AM
Twenty years after pledging no Australian child would live in poverty, former prime minister Bob Hawke says his comment is one of his biggest regrets.
…….”We set ourselves this first goal: by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty,” Mr Hawke said on June 23, 1987 at an election campaign launch
…….Mr Hawke said his government gave more money to low-income families, but instead of spending it on their kids, some “p…ed it up against the wall”.
And how many people like you, climbing up on their high moral horses, will it take for Howard to win the election by default?
On this one I have to disagree Kim. Rudd has to stand firm…if he moves to the Left on this issue he’ll be seen as too soft. Labor will be murdered. I think he bona-fidely hopes the Aboriginal communities will receive some assistance…& i’m sure he’ll be on the ground checking out & promoting the more successful communities & chatting to the First People Community Leaders…gettin’ advice…& will bring up firmly & articulately any stuff ups by the Fed Govt. And there is bound to be some considering their incompetence on social issues & the media/blog scrutiny. I imagine there are more than a few sweaty armpits in the Cabinet room these days.
The Govt. are probably thinking they might sneak over the line w/ this ’smoke & mirrors’ act, but imho, they’ve moved too early…& should’ve immediately extended the prohibition & policing of ’sexual abuse of children’ aspect to all welfare recipients, going by the feedback i’m getting from swing voters.
Plenty of entanglements & news to come yet. Interesting dvlpts. overseas might also damage Howard & Co.
As for Andrew Bartlett, he’s got my vote for the Senate…but I’m all the way w/ Labor for the Reps.
Oh ye, of little faith…;)
Agreed. If Howard truly is playing ‘wedge’ politics the last thing to do is play into the game.
Rudds a details man… he’d be aware of the political risks as much as the reality of the problems.
NO need for Rudd to polarise things further. Give him a few days , let him see the detail of the plans and talk to those on whom it will impact.
A vote for the ‘greens’ or anything but ALP is a vote for Howard.
You are reading too much of the ‘Australian’ and believing it. Rudd is differentiating the ALP’s stance on the problem, by having a bipartisan approach, however his (or someone’s) choice of “war cabinet” is so American. Perhaps the average person has come to accept this language.
Ahh Kim, you’re doing Howards work for him! This is the attitude that may well see Howard ride triumphantly to a fifth term. This is why Howards tactics continue to work and why he keeps using them.
I wonder how you’ll feel the morning after the election if you wake up to discover that Howard is PM – still? I’m sure Green issues will get a really good run then!
Sometimes in real life you have to make a choice between which alternative you like least. Otherwise its cutting off your nose to spite your face.
BTW – Rudd has handled this about as well as it is possible for an opposition leader to. And where is Bob Brown anyway?????
Kim, I think you are as duped as Rudd on this issue, because you’ve fallen for the bait that Howard wants you to take. I.e. to leak Rudd’s ‘base’ away.
I agree with Tyro and Pre Dawn. If you are looking for a ditch to die in, politically speaking, then John Howard will be more than happy to provide that ditch. This issue is unlikely to be a major vote turner in the long run anyway for the same reasons that have allowed this disgraceful situation to develop in the first place. General voter apathy towards indigenous health issues and problems.
Yes, Kim, I think pragmatism is called for on this issue, however it might stir up unpleasant memories of Beazley’s rollover on Tampa. The public disgust at the attacks on children in the Northern Territory is so acute and the issue so “live” that the debate is currently being pitched at the symbolic level.
Any attack that Rudd might make now on Howard for trying to make a wedge out of this will be construed as putting process above outcomes, even if the outcomes that Howard is proposing are nothing more than quick fixes. So Rudd needs to pledge broad support now and argue over the details later. The issue is then neutralised and we are less in danger over getting into a debate about an issue that no-one wants politicised.
As to withdrawing your vote for Labor over this, well that would only prove that the wedge has worked. This is not an issue to die in the ditch over.
You can still vote Greens, preferencing Labor. If enough of us do this, perhaps they’ll get the message that the ‘attack from the right’ strategy is losing them support.
Andrew Bartlett is the only choice for the Queensland Senate IMO. Great man
Kim, because we have a preferential system you can put the Greens first and Labor second and you can send a message without helping JWH, but the sentiments expressed in your post remind me very much of American Naderites circa mid-2000.
We all know how well that worked out…
Do we know the Greens’ view of all this yet?
Kim’s reaction is a proof why Howard’s strategy may be working….although not as much as Tampa.
As I have stated in my blog and in a response of the ‘Tampa 2007′ in this blog the beauty of Tampa for the Coalition was that it was able to lower the ALP’s primary vote because it caused angst in two key ALP’s constituencies. The ‘educated left’ for better words (you know, the ones that right wing commentators variously refer as ‘caffelatte set’) because Beazley was seen as being a ‘me too’ leader that was following Howard’s draconian policy (which was not entirely true) and by the ‘battlers’ who already were wary about Labor’s attachment to multiculturalism and were lead to believe by Howard that Labor would allow any asylum seeker to queue jump into Australia (also not true).
The mistake by Beazley was that he unresevedly supported Howard on the Tampa in Parliament (he said that Labor would not object to the Government’s actions at this time or something) when he realised how draconian the whole thing was it was too late. The left ALP voters got pissed off because he kowtowed to Howard. The battlers were pissed off because they thought that the ALP wanted to alllow any evil queue jumper in, and of course the change of direction from Beazley made him look undecisive (flip flop).
This policy has also the potential to dissafect the left (as Kim’s reaction has shown). However Rudd is playing it softly. I also think that the Howard’s policy stinks. But I also agree with others tat if Rudd stood out in Parliament condemning the policy he would have been a Tampa version II. The whole attention would have been on why he did not want to protect the children from pedophiles.
The problem with these policies is that the emotion takes over, and the detail gets left behind. Remember that with Tampa the whole story was about these people wanting to cheat to get in Australia. The detail about why they wanted to come, the tragic individual stories, and (afterwards) that most of them got granted refugee status anyway got washed away in the blaring of shock jocks and so called ‘current affairs’ programs.
The fact Kim is that you probably are very well informed and read widely and get into the detail. But would the average voter get into the details of whether Federal control of 40 community town areas for 5 years make any difference at all to housing standards, or the justice of Aboriginal parents living in remote communities having 50% of their welfare benefits withheld to ensure that their children are fed.
The average punter has either no time or no inclination of getting into this. Having Rudd (or heavens above Mackin..isn’t she the shadow Aboriginal minister?) getting into the detail about the injustice would be washed away by emotive picture of kids and the government say ‘Rudd want these kids to be continued to be abused”.
I left the ALP partly because of Tampa. However we must recognise that the ALP is a party that needs to get votes from a wide variety of people. People that we may not want to touch with a ten foot pole. The Greens can be happy with the feeling that they will never form government and can ‘afford to be pure’ as Gough once said.
I know this isn’t news to most on the website, and hope this post isn’t out of place or character with this thread.
below is what I posted to Crikey last Friday (unpublished)…
The blog-thread Friday and today covers several key points:
This is “classic” Howard.
Labor (led by their media advisors, or Rudd himself) fear they are “wedged” if they respond with anything but full unconditional support. Both the Government and media personnel looking for a great sensationalist, anti-Labor headline will leap on Labor if they raise any reasoned discussion disputing on either the message or the action plan.
The minor parties have more room to breathe reason into this as they (think they) have less to lose. In fact I think in the long term Labor has more to lose (i.e. the election) by unquestioningly supporting this. But there’s the moral and ethical wasteland media-led polity. It’s good to see some other state and territory leaders questioning the motives.
The Government will greatly improve the next polls, and the media and Government will leap all over this as a sign that “Action Man” Howard is the only one capable of tackling the “big issues” challenging Australia.
Voting (or polling) against Rudd and Labor is exactly what the timing and delivery of this “National Emergency” was all about. As per the discussion on ABC’s “The Insiders” if this was a genuine emergency a 24-hour delay to bring others into the process was not an issue. It was all about switching the media attention to the Government’s agenda on the last sitting day and dominating the Winter Break.
I know that some letter writing campaigns has already started to Rudd’s office against his support of Labor taking a more reasoned approach that kow-towing to Howard.
Yeah well,I have to pour cold water on a lot of you about this but,wether some of you realize it or not a lot of Australians would rather the Aborigines were sent out to the desert a very big fence put around them given some spears and forgotten about.
I think you may find though you might not like it much that the above is true,and I think it applys in all states to a greater or lesser degree I know in WA where I am if the Aborigines vanished off the face of the earth tomorrow no one would give a stuff.
I,m sorry if you find this not to your liking but in the main its the truth
Three points, Kim.
It wasn’t his political stances, I assure you.
Personality politics and frontbench jockeying were far more important than the symbolics during the leadership battles. The FPLP don’t think of leadership tussles as battles for the #1 spot, they think of them as contests to decide entire frontbenches. And that’s not to mention the issue of his health.
Quite wrong. In the hard-left seat of Sydney, for instance, the Labor primary vote grew. The “Left”, if one exists outside stereotype and hyperbole, was as welded tight to the ALP in 2001 as it could possibly have been, Tampa and Operation Relex ensured the polarisation; it was Labor’s middle-aged conservatives who voted Liberal—the ones who would never vote 1G2ALP in a fit. In any case, if I recall correctly, the Coalition’s jump in support came on immediately after the World Trade Centre attacks, well before Tampa.
It’s a compulsory preferential ballot, you *have* to preference. Unless you live in a safe Greens/Independent electorate your lower house ballot will eventually be counted in the 2PP.
One point, Alex:
Ahhh, the Greens vote. The ultimate in exculpatory symbolic gestures. C’mon everybody, hop in—the water’s tepid.
If you vote Green statistics indicate that only about 0.75 percent of your vote comes back to the ALP. You are therefore increasing Howard’s chances of getting back in, but if your happy to have that on your conscience then so be it.
I guess here in Victoria this hasn’t intruded on our conscience too much and I look forward to catching up with some colleagues who do a lot of work on indigenous policy issues soon. But doesn’t this strike you as a most illiberal action? I can’t wait for research fellows at the IPA and CIS to start attacking this as they would if they stuck to their free market principles.
The truth is dealing with entrenched social ills (or in old language classic class discrimination) is a chicken and egg scenario. The key question is is there a case to intervene in this manner to comabt social ills, and if so is the intervention going to lead to a repressive law and order response, or a real whole of government issue to address aboriginal health needs and economic development? If its the latter then I think most progressives, despite misgivings about the authoritarian methodology, can support it. If its the former, then this could be a tragedy in the making.
I’m sticking with Rudd and Labor – cause I vote on more than one issue.
I’m sorry, Chris, what? You do understand how to count a lower house ballot, don’t you, distributing the preferences *at full value* as each exhausted candidate is excluded? Assuming that neither Labor nor the Coalition candidate win an outright majority of first preferences, then 1 Green 2 ALP = 1 ALP.
The point as I argued badly was that the votes of the kind of Left that looks for symbolism and leadership are not required for a change of government. They’re spoken for.
I *think* Chris means that only 75% of second preferences end up being distributed – because 25% are cast in electorates where first prefs alone give someone the majority.
It’s another smart move from Howard…. and will probably help close the gap with Labor, but whether it’s going to be enough I don’t know.
‘Solving’ the Aborginal problem is obviously highly complex… and these simple measures are not a full solution. But the genius of Howard is that it is almost impossible to disagree with what he’s proposing without sounding stupid or uncaring. More policing, health checks, banning alcohol and porn… how can anyone rationally disagree with that?
The simple message is spot on – everything else we’ve tried hasn’t worked to date… and to do nothing whilst kids are being abused is not an option. Let’s get tougher on law and order (always resonates well with the mainstream) and fix the short term problems whilst we think about what to do for the long term.
How could Rudd do anything other than support Howard on this? If that means that you’ll vote Green at the next election – then fantastic, mission accomplished!
Yes, Chris, the vote retains a value of 1. By all means, vote Green and preference Labor – it does truly send a message to those campaigning, poll-driven people who are making calls like this.
I share Kim’s disappointment that Rudd didn’t choose to use his great popularity to put a bit of nuance and intelligence into the debate. I agree that it shows that he is not a great leader.
However, for the same reason as Latham would not have been as bad, had he won, as everyone is saying with “hindsight”, this is not everything. Parties lead government here to a greater extent than they do in the US. We aren’t voting for a President (yet). I have not yet lost faith that the entire Labor FPLP has decided to give up and enact Howard’s plan should they win.
As many have said here – it is a democracy, and we do have to take 50% 1 of the population with us. So Rudd does have to balance that thought. But that doesn’t mean sitting back saying “Oh, the polls”. It means that we also have a duty to bring people with us, by persuading them. It doesn’t mean that we can’t also voice our views as part of that democracy.
Perhaps, FDB, but it’d still be wrong to say:
If you vote 1 Green 2 ALP, or in any formal way in which your Labor preference is higher than the Coalition’s, you are in no electoral way increasing the chances of a Liberal majority in the Lower House.
I’m all for cynical Labourist shilling, being a mindless managerialist technocratic drone myself, but it does need to be factually correct.
Yeah, FdG, I should have said “I *think* one of the misapprehensions Chris seems to Laboring under is….”
Put it this way, Howard is on a hiding to nothing with Rudd’s reaction to the emergency policy.
If Rudd does the pragmatic Right-wing me-too and supports Howard then the other shoe drops for conservative nationalist cultural policy. HOward nudges the politico-cultural system as a whole a bit more to starboard. Larva-Prodders are even more marginalised.
If Rudd does the “principled” Left-liberal thing and opposes Howard then border line ALP voters with conservative nationalist sympathies tip into the LN/P column. Rudd risks losing the election.
So either way Howard wins: on ideological policy or on electoral politics. Check. No wonder the Cultural Left is tearing its hair out!
Actually Fiasco, I’ve never voted Labor, and was just suggesting a strategy for Kim.
In terms of ideology, I see little or no difference between the two major parties.
Kim
I have a very ‘materialist’ (that is Socialist, not multiculti) left-wing mate who is torn by the issues you raise. Because if Rudd wins this election with his current antagonism towards working class people and trade unions, Rudd will say “Stuff them, I won the election without them, they can choke on their hairy butt-cracks.” Though I imagine his Cristian puritanism might inhibit his language.
Firstly, while it’s disappointing to see Rudd collapse into line with Ratty on the issue, there might not have been much of a choice. As has been said before, he’d be damned for being a right-winger by following and damned for giving succour to abusers by not – and, given that he has one eye on the polls at all times, he’s considered it better to piss off the few occupying the moral Everest rather than the many who’d rather castrate paedophiles. However, what he needs to do now is to try and steer the response back from the extreme edge that Ratty has taken, while still being hard on the central issue of abuse. Maybe running a line of “OK, I’ll pledge support for medical checks on ALL children, regardless of race, in every disadvantaged area – Willmot, Broadmeadows, Inala, Elizabeth, Chigwell…” will show the policy for the racist stunt that it is.
Secondly, I’ll give the reasons why I’ll still be supporting Labor going into this election:
* It’s easy for anyone to stick to an ideological line when they have no chance of putting it into practice,
* I’m sick of The Greens claiming to be above political brawling, only to kick it off in order to cannibalise Labor, and
* The real enemy doesn’t sit on the Opposition benches, so why the hell attack it?
I’ll be voting the same way I did last time:
1 – ALP
2 – Your Voice (yes, Richard Frankland is running again, apparently)
3 – Greens, then everyone else (bottom being Santas, Libs and Fundies in that order.)
Oh my wording was alittle clumsy to be sure but only about 70-80% of people who vote Green put Labor higher in their preferences then the Liberals.
So the idea that every vote lost by Labor to the Greens comes back at full value is not correct.
I hear this all the time and its just not correct. Ask the kid with no meal breaks in their first ever job that there is no difference. Tell that to the people on housing waiting lists in Victoria, who now have hope because new housing stock is being built. Tell that to the people of Morwell whose town was devestated by the Liberals privatisation of the SECV.
Say you disagree with both the idelogical underpinnings of the ALP and the Liberals, but to say there is no difference, well thats just ignorant.
Perhaps many people here don’t know about electoral returns. Your first preference is of high importance because you are not only directing your vote to that candidate, but they then have the chance (if >4% or so) to obtain electoral funding and have possibly a better campaign next time. IMO, Labor don’t deserve another cent of taxpayers money towards their campaign. Neither the Liberals or Nats for that matter. But that is the choice you make when you tick a box No. 1.
So for those who think a vote 1G 2ALP is the same as 1ALP, then explain why we should be funding stupid ALP ads, like that of Rudd seen recently.
Kim wrote:
I think this part of your analysis is flawed, Kim.
In order for swinging voters to desert Labor they’d have to care about the issue Howard is running hard on.
As I said in another thread, this is quite different from Tampa and its effect on voting intentions is likely to be negligible.
What made Tampa so potent was the threat of the ‘other’.
That element simply does not exist with this issue. People are likely to forget about this in a few days as it has no tangible or even perceived effects on swinging voter’s lives.
Too early for writing Rudd off Kim, as I’ve said.
You’re still wrong, Chris. What part of “Votes carry at the value of 1″ don’t you understand? A 1G2Lib/Nat vote is a vote lost to the Coalition, not the Greens.
Austin, the Greens are in no danger of losing their AEC funding allocation. As you can see, they got more in 2004 than the Nationals—but surely a better reason to vote Green would be that you agree with their policies and would prefer a Greens candidate to be elected above the candidates of the other Parties? That’s a far more justifiable point of view than that of someone who’s trying to game the system.
In Australia, under compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing, it simply isn’t an effective method of exercising power to argue for 1G2ALP. Those votes just *aren’t* votes Labor needs to worry about.
It’s been a long time since we’ve had a decent Internecine Left Battle. Thanks Kim, and thanks everyone. You’re warming my black heart.
The trouble with policy by focus group is voters can’t tell you they like polices you have never talked about.
Rudd should have said had the balls call this an election year stunt. They should have dug up every last report on the issue (god knows there are a million of them) and asked the government what they did in response to each and every one of them.
Rudd should have said up front, the only way to fix this issue long term is through education and bringing up a generation of aboriginal kids with the confidence and expectations to get more out of life from than their parents have. Link parent welfare payments to school attendance and genuine funding for quality education with smart things like lunch and breakfast served at school.
All this would have been alot easier if they actually had these policies in place before Howard’s stunt.
Who cares about the headlines in the GG or Daily Telegraph? I know its hard to believe but voters see through them. We have watched week after week of bad headlines for Labor result in good poll numbers. In my opinion getting bashed by the media for policies that people agree with or at least respect only helps you.
ABoriginal kids die at three times the rate of non aboriginal kids.
Full report at the end of the page.
I’ll add my voice of disagreement with Kim.
Another example that hasn’t been raised is the Tasmanian timber workers. I’m sure they got a better deal by white anting Latham and helping Howard to be re-elected.
I think that expressing the disappointment that comes from Kim, et. al. only helps to encourage the view that the no-conservative parties are divided. That’s not to say I disagree with the views, just that there is a time and place to express them and that time is not now.
At the end of the day, this is how I see it. There are ONLY two options: Howard or Rudd. Nothing else. Who will do better? The one who’s support base includes Pauline Hansen, or the one who’s support base includes the “Latte Set” (sorry for the stereotyping). I’ll pick Rudd, and leave any criticism until he’s in power and really able to make a difference.
I would suggest others to hold his feet to the fire AFTER he’s PM and not before.
Fozzy:
I doubt it, considering they effectively voted for WorkChoices. Paul Norton, your expertise is required here, I believe.
That’s ridiculous. The leadup to an election is probably the most effective time to express political points of view.
Well, except for all the other parties and candidates.
Forgive me if I find that completely defeatist. Howard’s a ‘genius’ so the best Labor can do is react to his agenda as best it can. Why not just run up the white flag now and admit Labor can’t win until Howard dies?
How would it be ’stupid or uncaring’ to condemn Howard’s absurd ’send in the troops’ response as totally inconsistent with the express recommendations of the report that triggered it? Why would it be so politically impracticable for Rudd to point out that the very first recommendation in the report proposed a joint approach with the NT Government and extensive consultation with Aboriginal communities? A recommendation that Howard has explicitly rejected in favour of his ‘my way or the highway’ tough talk.
If Rudd can’t get an alternative strategy across without sounding like an apologist for pedophilia then he doesn’t deserve to hold high office. These arguments that ‘Oh we can’t disagree with Howard on social policy he’s such a clever wedger’ are nothing but craven cowardice. They suggest that Labor learnt nothing whatsoever from the Hanson experience and is still convinced that half its suport base is all in favour of a bit of racism. Well if that’s so I’m with Kim on election day.
To win the election Rudd needs more than an electorate that sullenly dislikes Howard’s mob. He needs people out in the community enthusiastically explaining how Australia will be a much better place under a Labor Government. I’ve yet to hear such an argument.
Interesting discussion. I was also disappointed in Rudd’s reaction – it was a relief to see people like Stanhope and even Peter Beattie raise a few objections to Howard’s reaction.
Anyway, Howard’s way will undoubtedly run into problems pretty quickly. And I notice that the article about this does not make it into the list of most-viewed SMH articles – indicating to me that most people are not interested or feel despairing about the issue.
How can anyone not agree with the broader sentiment behind this intervention, to address problems and child abuse in Aboriginal communities. The devil of this plan wil be in the detail. That is where this intervention will begin to get flaky. Rudd has played this right, agree with the broader sentiment and wait and see on the detail.
What Ken Lovell suggests is the classic nothing to lose greens response being applied to one the major parties who need to in fact catch the middle ground, not disaffected greens voters. Political naivety mixed with a dash of death or glory. Some people cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that the electorate has shifted to the right in the past eleven years and to shift it back compromises will have to be made.
What you say is valid Ken, but it assumes that we have a media that will fairly and impartially communicate Rudd’s message. This is simply not the case, and this fact cannot be ignored or wished away. The Howard cheer squad, including large sections of the ABC would take great pride in attempting to destroy him on this issue, and it doesn’t matter how well he presents his ideas, most of the media would go completely loony.
Kim:
I doubt that thousands of Christian Conservative Lib supporters are deserting the Coalition because he has (so far) been against banning abortion, or legislating for the teaching of Intelligent Design. Abbott still seems just as rusted on to Howard as ever. I guess those RWDB types seem to better understand that politics, and the path to power, sometimes involves compromise.
When I noted Rudd’s reply in parliament I thought: “nervous times, the ALP will lose a few percent, but at least he’s dealt himself into the tent, where he can start chipping away at the nuttier excesses of the Emergency Plan, and show how Prime Ministerial he is in the process.” If he had launched a condemnation of the plan I would have thought: “maybe we’ll be a chance in 2010″.
I disagree with the facile criticism of Rudd being a Howard mini-me. Given their very different life and spiritual experiences I think Rudd’s approach to any social welfare issues would not start from the “malingerer, pick yourself up, burden on society” basis that infuses so much of Howard’s philosophy.
You mightn’t like Rudd’s instinctive reaction to a grenade that has been hurled through his window, but at the end of the day would you rather have him or Howard guiding indigenous policy?
Only the impotent are truly pure, but maybe you’ve become comfortable with that. (Sorry for the strong language, but I’m frustrated with the predictable reactions, from all sides of the debate, that this most obvious of wedge issues has engendered).
So far, I suspect the only group whose vote might change out of Howard’s latest wedge is the cultural left, whose views Kim reflected.
The bottom line is that for the mass of the electorate, Aboriginal affairs is not an issue that would change their vote. But it might if Rudd appeased the educated people and pointed to Howard’s duplicity.
By backing the broad thrust of Howard’s ‘plan’, Rudd takes the wedge out of the issue and defuses any risk of being seen to be soft on paedophiles. I can assure you that Murdoch’s mercenary hacks would have had that story in the transmit basket ready to go.
If the major priority is helping the innocent children, which everyone agrees on, Rudd is doing the right thing, particularly since he can fix the details when he takes over government within 3-4 months.
In the meantime, ahead of the formal campaign, he can put together a nice line of attack on all the issues that suddenly became ‘emergencies’ for Howard in an election year – Aboriginal hardship, climate change, education, access to broadband etc; etc;
These questions can be put to voters: “If these issues are all so critical, as we believe they are, why has it taken Howard 11 years to address them? And what does it say about the substance of his plans when they emerged overnight without any community consultation?”
Rudd might also ask: “Which would you prefer: a government that seeks quick-fix, band-aid solutions to problems and judges those fixes purely for short-term political advantage? Or a government that has a long-term vision for Australia and works back from there to create lasting, sustainable AND practical policies that align with that vision?”
The latter.
Labor published its policy on ‘New Directions: An equal start in life for indigenous children’ just last month. If it’s a ‘lasting, sustainable and practical policy’ why isn’t it being expounded in response to Howard’s military solution?
All these comments advocating realpolitik and you have to make compromises and so on are more of the same stuff that got Labor where it is today … standing for nothing except the very thing it rightly accuses Howard of, namely expediency in pursuit of office.
Err… I think the point was missed.
“The funding rate for the 2004 election was 194.397 cents per eligible vote.”
So in the 2007 election, depending on where you cast your first preferences, about $2 of public money flows to that candidate (provided they are over 4%). Pauline got $200,000 last time! I think it is important for people to know that their money is distributed in this way.
Under this system about $35mil went to the Major parties, neither of which I would give a cent. And I don’t.
Yes, your order of preference is important to the final result, but your first preference determines the future of Australian politics under these funding arrangements.
I’m not suggesting that The Greens will miss out on this funding, I’m just saying that when you put a 1 next to a major party unnecessarily, you need to know that you are throwing away your small contribution to the diversity of Australian politics.
Ken Lovell, you were voting green before this as you have stated so many times on so many other forums. This issue has reinforced your view rather than changed it, hasn’t it.
Your welcome to all your romantic notions and “standing for things” and such like, but excuse the rest of us if we choose to deal with the practicalities and compromises involved in voting in a two party system.
Nice to see the Victorian ALP Central Executive (circa 1966) is alive and well, Kim.
If you can;t see that you;re doing exactly what Howard wants you to do on this issue, well, you’re not half as intelligent as I always thought you were.
And as for your gratuitious reference to Boenhoffer, I would have thought you might have known that in joining the German Resistance, he was compromising his belief in non-violence in order to win a greater battle. Pertinent, wouldn’t you say?
I’m not sure the comparison shows what you think it shows, Luke. The Victorian Steering Committee-controlled Executive in the era before Whitlam/Cairns’ Federal intervention was a failure not because they were ‘principled’ or uncompromising, but because they were just not very good at the job of picking candidates and winning elections. The British Labour Party was very competitive in the Wilson era with broadly similar policies.
The Victorian ALP also lost lots of elections because the Victorian electoral system didn’t work on the principle of one person-one vote, and privileged the National Party’s seats, but that bit of the Bolte ascendancy gets glossed over.
The Coalition does *not* care about the votes of people who will never vote for them, nor about their behaviour, nor about their arguments. Is that so hard to understand?
Anyway, the sellout/standup dichotomy is as old, old, old. The Party that wins the election coming up will win it not because they had transcendent big-picture vision á la KenL or because they were willing to compromise their beliefs for structural gain á la Kapunda: they’ll win it because they won fifty percent of the seats plus one in the House of Reps. Do it as 150 separate by-elections, whatever.
Spare us. Or, perhaps, have the RTA make an ad about it.
[ahem] I mean the Country Party, of course.
Disagree, Fiasco. State Aid and such issues cost the ALP dearly becasue of the VCE.
Again, fundamentally disagree. The usual suspects berating the Howard government comes across wonderfully positively for JWH out in Normal Punter Land.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I’d love to think that swinging voters out there know who their local candidates are, what their stances are and how well or otherwise they represent their local constituencies….but I’m afraid they don’t. Our national elections are now quasi-presidential contests fought at a national level on leadership and Party policy.
Not sure how you think FdG is disagreeing with you on that last point, Luke. His point had nothing to do with local candidates.
Luke, I think you’re drawn overly to the concept of a society of masses and an homogeneous electorate. Both are fictions.
In such a model, the National Party’s rural pork would have no purpose, nor would any local member giving a speech to the Kickatinalong West Public School’s Third Term Fête. Minor Parties and local Independents would not have the slightest significance—yet, they exist and thrive.
There’s no place in the Presidential model for people like Andrew Bartlett, Brian Harradine, Pauline Hanson, Peter Andren, Clover Moore, Steve Fielding or Barney Whatsisname from Queensland.
Does it border the Strocchiverse?
—SIGNAL (CLASSIFIED PG)—
FROM: ADM DAGAMA
TO: LPHQ
POSITION: ZUGZWANG
—TEXT AS FOLLOWS—
COMMENT AUTOMODERATED
MACKERRAS REPORTS DOOM AND DISASTER
WE ALSO AWAIT THE RETURNS FROM EDEN-MONARO,
L’ETAT, C’EST MOI
—ENDS—
I’m still yet to make up my mind whether I’ll vote 1 Labor or the Greens in the Lower House this year. I live in a Labor seat and it won’t make too much difference, but I am conscious of the desire to register my distaste at the Great Rudd Moving Right Show.
I think the question is – at what point do “lesser of two evils” arguments become unsustainable.
I didn’t vote Labor 1 in the Tampa election.
I’m also not sure that I find all the pragmatic rhetoric on this thread all that reassuring.
I agree, Mark, and I think some of the claims of “pragmatism” have missed the point about what pragmatism actually entails.
Pragmatism is agreeing to compromises when there aren’t enough people who agree with your whole aim to get it done. That is, working with the system and the opportunities you have, rather than those you wish you had.
There are a few people on this thread – no, not all – who seem to be advocating “pragmatism” without actually understanding the system they’re trying to be “pragmatic” in.
Pragmatism has absolutely nothing at all to do with deliberately choosing not to criticise, or seek to change, on the grounds that you’re fairly sure you won’t win. Debate, fight, then compromise when and if you have to.
Voting Green, and preferencing the Coalition, because you don’t think Rudd is progressive enough is completely and utterly stupid. Voting Green and preferencing Labor because you want them to know that you don’t agree with them entirely is a perfectly valid decision.
I for one will still be voting Labor. But that won’t stop me from saying that I wished Rudd’s response was otherwise.
In this you are wrong. Before around 1950/51 there was a real problem in Victoria with seats in the country being weighted above those in the metropolitan regions. It was largely the work of Thomas Holloway who reformed the electoral system for the lower house and in the process largely split the conservatives allowing Labor to win in 1952.
Labor was then split in 1955 and a combination of Bolte’s Liberals routing the Country Party in regional seats and DLP preferences in the City he won office. Labor did not win in Victoria until 1982.
You can’t blame the electoral system on Bolte – his predessors largely fixed up the most galring problem
I’ll be doing the same, but perfectly understand why Mark & Kim feel the way they do, but as I said earlier If Rudd had gone in too far the orther way, he would’ve been painted by Ratty & his Ra Ra Squad as a “Friend of teh EVIL kiddy fiddlers”, or to paraphrase The Who in Tommy – an “Uncle Ernie”, who’s “Fiddlin’ About” with the lives of these “Poor Little Indigines”.
MInd you, Rudd has questioned the role of the AFP doing the work of State Police.
Totally agree with all that, Anna.
I think this thread, and the comments thereof strike at what I think is a weakness in the Australian political system.
Overall the way Australia votes its governments have a lots going for it. However it tends to favour two big blocks which cannot fully represent the aspirations of some voters.
The example with Kim and others here who are on the left, have only the ALP as the only realistic alternative to the current conservative regime.
There is dissonance (and there will be more in the future) in relation to the ALP and its constituencies. This is particularly hard for the ALP because these have very different views.
We saw that when Latham went green in Tasmania and disaffected the timber workers. We saw it during the Tampa and to a lesser extent now with this Aborigines policy with the more ‘left voter’.
We can vote Green, but under the Federal system it would require a political earthquake for that Party to have enough support to win government.
Unlike in political systems where a more proportional representation is used and small parties can be invited to govern in coalitions, in the the Australian Federal sphere they can only criticise on the sidelines. (coalitions can be unstable, but that’s another story).
So we lefties have to go for the ALP as a ‘near enough’ party. Not as good as we would hope but much better than the alternative.
That’s true, Guido, and the lack of direct democracy in the selection of parliamentary representatives compounds it. The US primary system allows for a lot more citizen involvement from a range of ideological perspectives. Of course, there are other reasons why the US electoral system is pretty flawed.
Kevin Rudd should take note of his WA Counterpart.
The Premier said a much broader approach than that proposed by the Federal Government was needed.
“Action does need to be taken, but underlying all this are very serious issues, about the economy in these communities, what do people actually do there, what jobs have they got, what strength have they got in their communities,” he said.
But, sadly these wise words will be ignored by all and sundry.
Good on Carpenter!
I note that, with the Exception of ASndrew Bartlett, that this shift to a right wing parternalistic nature of dealing with Indiginious issues is being Driven by Qld Politicians, with Brough being the main instigator.
Is this dure to the inhertent nature of anti-indiginous feeling in the deep north fostered by the Joh era, and would it have anything to do with the libs trying to regain the Redneck Qld Vote ??
Howard might be a cynical manipulator with many irons in the fire with this latest initiative but one thing I haven’t seen mentioned is the view to (his) posterity angle. These measures won’t help in the long run because the underlying causes are not being addressed w/r/t Aboriginal communities. But many significant community, political and other representatives will and are supporting it, with ineffectual provisos, including respected Aboriginal leaders with a history of not getting on with Howard, such as Mick Dodson, plus some state ALP leaders, the leader of the ALP and enough important other representatives of a range of NGOs, etc., thus gifting Howard a precious measure of credibility and absolution for past neglect, hostility and indifference to Indigenous Australians.
Never underestimate the power of self-delusion. Howard surely does believe and has convinced himself that he is doing this primarily because of his commendable, leadership-like pity and in response to the tormented passion of Noel Pearson and others. Just as he has already spun. It is a believable narrative for many. And enough people will believe it, thus giving enormous kudos to him in the short term at least, possibly longer. His eye is on the prize and it ain’t that far off. And he does hate the thought that his legacy will be so bad. After all, the state of Indigenous Australia in a well-known international disgrace.
The sad thing is the silent, almost cowering reaction from many who know better.
I sympathise with Kim’s argument, but am undecided myself as to which way my vote is going to go.
I don’t think that Rudd is playing this well. I think that Ken Lovell is making some great points, why is Labor not referring to the huge amount of work that has actually been done on this issue in the past. The argument that “a new direction is needed” is complete drivel if that direction is the wrong one.
Kevin Rudd’s attempts at putting together a “bi-partisan war cabinet” or whatever the hell he’s calling it seem to be an attempt to reign in the policy process. He maintained in his Sunday interview that Labor was still assesing the 11 components Liberal proposal. I notice that Rudd was suggesting that in order for this to work Howard will need to fund on the order of 500 new Federal Police. I suspect that if Howard doesn’t attempt to act in a bipartisan way on this, and moderate some of the elements of his proposal, then Labor will start to slam it. I thing that Rudd is picking away at this proposal in order to create enough wiggle room to see this proposal rejected on the grounds that it’s not practically feasible.
So far though, Rudd hasn’t distanced himself from all this fast enough for my liking. I wanted to see Rudd already distancing himself from this already. I was hoping to get online this morning and see some firm denunciations, and I haven’t seen anything of the sort. I’m dissapointed, and I think Kim has voiced most of my concerns on that front very well.
Broadcaster Derryn Hinch says:
I don’t care what John Howard’s motives are. I don’t care if he is being a cunning, opportunistic rat in a tight election year. If this is seen as an inland version of the Tampa. If some state and territorial rights are trammelled or trampled on. If some hand-wringing do-gooders think it is racist.
This is Australia’s shame. You can justifiably say to the Howard Government ‘What took you so long?’
But, for the first time in decades, something strong, something tangible, something feasible IS being done.”
This Hinch opinion differs from my own point of view, which I stated the other day:
“Concern about the Howard Government’s motives should certainly “switch betweenâ€? the elements and the system or aggregate, as strategic thinker Stuart Wells would say.”
I challenge whether you can simply “not care” about what John Howard’s motives are, as Derryn Hinch suggests should be the attitude.
Not when you consider that:
1. John Howard announced his plan an hour before question time on the last day that federal parliament sits for six weeks. Furthermore, Mal Brough and John Howard waited until the day of the announcement to consult Northern Territory leader Clare Martin, prompting The Australian’s Matt Price to joke that: “Those regional phone and broadband networks must be even more unreliable than we’re told.”;
2. As reported by The Australian newspaper:
“Western Australian premier Mr Carpenter said the Western Australian experience demonstrated that a six-month alcohol ban would not address abuse.
“If Mr Howard is serious on the alcohol ban why is it only for six months? What’s that going to achieve?” Mr Carpenter said on the Nine Network today.
“Most of the big Aboriginal communities in Western Australia are dry communities, but these issues are still happening in those places so there are other things that you have to be looking at.”"
Given an alcohol ban is already proving not be a tipping point of change, despite the headlines being given to the alcohol ban, it is not some far-leftist claim to assert that when it comes to the reporting of issues like this one, “the accuracy of a story counts, but it is secondary to impact, and it is unravelling standards.”
That quote actually comes from departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the same man our committed conservatives such as Mr. Howard and Ed from The Australian are quick to “cherry pick” quotes from whenever it suits their anti-union campaign.
If Mr. Howard’s decision-making is not being informed by all the important facts, then it is not at all unreasonable to point people’s attention to the Howard Government’s decision to set a time frame for a ban on alcohol that matches the amount of time the current Government’s term runs for, which leads us to the next federal election.
I don’t doubt at all that “the timing of the announcement”, which evades community consultation as much as possible, is certainly designed for “election year impact” – to achieve what is known in Public Relations as “impact objectives” – informational, attitudinal, behavioural, or a combination of the three; and
3. If any of our increasingly “ultra-cautious” Mainstream Media pundits wish to live in denial of the possibility that the Aboriginal issue is being used by the Howard Government as part of election-year campaigning, and if the lack of community consultation or setting of long-term objectives isn’t enough to concern you, I point you to Page 27 of The Bulletin this week:
“The Government Member’s Secretariat is entirely tax-payer funded, but its role is entirely directed towards the re-election of the Coalition. So if Labor is receiving extensive and sophisticated assistance funded by the unions, the Coalition is receiving extensive and sophisticated assistance funded by you, the taxpayer. The Coalition and Labor use the same techniques.”
All those points now raised, my concerns are not the only reason I quote from Derryn Hinch.
As a strong, long-time campaigner for the protection of child rights and welfare, Mr. Hinch’s comments should be interpreted as nothing other than “apolitical” rather than lending political support to John Howard.
Lavartus Prodeo says in its “election year statement” that “we look to the defeat of the Howard government”.
I just hope the proprietors of this web site don’t allow that vision to translate into “tunnel vision” on the issue of protecting Aboriginal children.
Let us not forget this issue deserves to have a “non-political dimension” as well as one that considers political implications, given that the Australian citizens who are having their rights and welfare threatened by child abuse are not even old enough to vote!
For this reason, it would be “entirely inappropriate” for Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd not to lend “broad” bi-partisan support to John Howard.
In fact, the challenge for Mr. Rudd is to push for “third way thinking”, not for political reason, but to address the apolitical dimension that needs to be recognised and respected by all Australians who can vote for change.
To quote from an essay about the concept of “Purple America”, written by Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in Psychology, UWMC
“A Third Way must be something other than a compromise. It cannot involve a simple “splitting of the difference” between Red and Blue positions, for many of the intractable social debates of our day admit of no compromise since both sides are defending what they sincerely believe to be incontrovertible moral absolutes, philosophical first principles. (The fact that both sides are defending values that are woven into the fabric of our founding documents — like life and liberty — does not seem to help all that much.) A Third Way must transcend, not strike an average. The latter is only compromise. The former is speaking with a fresh voice, seeking a synergic solution”.
…From Justin
Now there’s an interesting turn of phrase, Mick, which has crystallised my feelings on this post thread. For my part I’m as sceptical of firm but meaningless symbolic denunciations on this as I am on any other issue.
Sorry, but the rush to condemn Labor for inadequate condemnation and their lack of solidarity with the cause of the just is reminiscent of the Timmitude* on the neverending FGM threads—with their sectarian paranoia mirrored here by everyone who sees John Howard’s plan as a massive conspiracy to Wedge Labor Again.
*thanks again to boxhead for the term
FdG – Er, happy to oblige I guess.
I don’t think that a denunciation would be meaningless though. I think I agree more with the point of view that Rudd *could* have already rejected Howard’s proposal as being slapped-together and needlessly authoritarian. I think that he has political capital and this is when and why you use it.
The opposition has to question whether this is a good policy. Howard’s announcement has huge political an social ramifications and as such it is Labor’s responisibility to debate whether Howard’s plan is actually a good one or not. Just going into politcal damage control is not enough.
I feel very sorry for the aboriginal communities that are going to suffer at the hands of Howard if he actually puts his full plan into action. I’m sure everyone agrees that child sexual abuse needs to be eradicated, but Howard is taking the WRONG approach. I mean, just for a start, how the hell is undermining land rights going to stop sexual abuse? And what about the white people who have also been abusing aboriginal children? Anyway, I’m not going to go into all the issues – it is pretty obvious to anyone who actually thinks about it that Howard’s plan is a disaster just waiting to happen, including his old pal Malcolm Fraser.
But I am not angry or disappointed with Rudd. Forget talk about pragmatics vs. principle, the FACT is that Howard is the PM and the coalition are the government. They ultimately call the shots. Not Rudd or Labor. All that any principled person can do at this stage is help get rid of this government. I have a strong suspicion that despite what Rudd says this side of the election, he would ultimately take a different path if he were PM. I do not doubt that he would approach the issue with much greater foresight, planning, and sensitivity.
So, wait until Rudd is PM, then hold him to account. Right now, he has to play the politics game in order to cross that all-important line later this year. After all, you can condemn him for what he says or does not say, but it is ultimately ACTION that matters. And right now, Howard and his ministers are the ONLY ones who have the power to take action.
Take a big deep breath. It is only a few more months (maybe even less, given recent early election speculation) until Rudd is PM, and then see what actually happens with this issue. If all goes well, a whole new approach to this issue will surface, and hopefully something that will actually HELP the situation.
Not until we get rid of Howard do we stand any chance of getting rid of these God-awful political games.
SC, my point wasn’t so much about rates of disease or infant mortality (although they are important issues themselves). It was more about the issue of paedophilia in the camps, and how its being used as a reason to throw self-determination out the window. The point was that if Howard was serious about cracking down on such activity, then maybe he should apply the measures regardless of race – and then wait for his beloved Battlersâ„¢ to cry “not to our kids, you won’t” when the first white child gets tested.
(Maybe I should just shut up and leave the policy analysis to those who think they what they’re talking about.)
What Mark and Anna said, basically. I might have been a bit tired and emotional, but I do think you have to pause and ask where you draw lines.
New Galaxy Poll just out! Coalition Senate vote down 11 points to 34. Labor up 3 to 38 and the Greens now up to 13 points.
Coalition would lose control of the Senate.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21968847-5003402,00.html
re: Guido
Proportional representation, in practice, is an oxymoron. It leaves the party who came a distant third or fourth, be they the Greens or the Christian Democrats, with more influence than the party who came a close second, be they Labor or Liberal. Or else, like Germany, you end up with a coalition of the centre-left and centre-right with no opposition to speak of.
Essentially what you guys are really looking for is a way to subvert the democratic process and base government policy on the view of the minority.
Kim, it was actually the right time to raise the subject. Congrats and a clear conscience should allow for a good, refreshing sleep.
I also grieve at the lack of choice and am fed up with the ALP ‘right’, but also feel must bear with things for a bit. Carpenter did a good job tonite, anyway. Is this “delegation”?
If you vote Green you will still have to preference. Does a voter then go then to an ALP redolent of creatures like Paul Lennon, or the horrid alternative with its now- iron grip on power and institutions?
My feeling is break the twelve year stranglehold of Howard and his ilk first and if Rudd doesn’t smarten up, then chuck him out shortly, too.
Further to FDG’s clarification of why the above statement is incorrect:
Individual voters choose where their preference goes, e.g 1 Greens 2 Labor goes to Labor at full value, while 1 Greens 2 Liberal goes to Liberal also at full value.
For 2pp, the only thing that determines the outcome is the relative position the voter puts Labor vs Liberal. The one above gets the preference (e.g. 5 Lab 6 Lib goes to Labor) as all the voters choices above exhaust in the count and are redistributed (unless another candidate outpolls either the Liberal or Labor candidate).
I think the 70-80% figure Chris refers to is the national trend of how many people voted Green and then to Labor (80.79% in 2004). In strong Labor seats such as Melbourne or Grayndler, this figure could be 85% . In strong Liberal seats such as Kooyong and Chisholm this figure could drop to around 75%. This difference is explained by the fact that significant numbers of conservative voters will vote 1 Green, but then direct their preference to the Liberals. Some of these would never vote (or preference) Labor.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I notice Howard has dislayed some displeasure at being accused of playing politics on this, so the good news is that not everyone is being duped by his wedge tactics.
I agree with Kim, Rudd is playing politics too. So is everyone else who says “don’t fall for it, don’t take the bait”. This is a matter of human rights and fair treatment of indigenous Australians. There is a law and order issue, but this is a symptom of the problem with a “crackdown” being yet another ill informed attempt at “cure”.
What about prevention?. What about buidling resilience in these communities? What about allowing people to develop their own meaning and path in life? The Howard governments relentless anti-reconciliation, anti-land rights and anti-multiculturalism stances are all implicated here. Why no discussion of prevention or causes? — because they either don’t understand this approach, or they don’t want to?
Rudd needs to stand up and state what is wrong with Howard’s position on this. Otherwise the cat will get the cream again. He is already licking his lips.
Has anyone considered that Carpenter is doing Rudd’s job for him by pointing out the obvious – that Howard is politicising an issue that most people think should be beyond politics?
Rudd may merely following the Ratty model of appearing to sail above it all, while surreptiously encouraging allies within the party to throw the stink bomb.
As we’ve been reminded constantly, due to an endless cycle of repeats: “You don’t win friends with salad”. The same goes for “Greens” unfortunately. They’ll be getting my first friendless preference though, but Rudd couldn’t have changed that if he tried.
I think the one thing I’ve really gotten from this thread, apart from a lot of interesting questions, is that little bit of info from Austin about the allocation of funds relating to primary votes. Glad to be enlightened about that.
“Voting Green and preferencing Labor because you want them to know that you don’t agree with them entirely is a perfectly valid decision.”
It just is not true that a second preference vote for Labor has the same effect as a primary vote. The more the Labor primary vote in an electorate is weakened by this strategy, then the more reliant they are on preferences to win the seat. Most but not all Green preferences will go to Labor. If the seat is decided by Green preferences, then they might just get the Liberal candidate over the line. If there is a Family First candidate as well as Labor, Liberal and Greens, then the Liberal candidate might get elected on the back of FF preferences, with Green preferences not being distributed at all.
Anybody who first and foremost wants to see Howard gone but is thinking of weakening the Labor primary vote by voting Green to let them know that you don’t agreee with them is playing with fire.
If you want to see the end of John Howard, then vote 1 Labor. If you want to steer the way Kevin Rudd does things as Prime Minister, then work on him and his party after they get elected.
Spiros,
In the House of Representatives ballot the preferences are distributed at full value. That’s the long and the short of it.
You’re arguing for voting decisions to be made on the basis of how other people might vote. It’s an attempt to game the system.
That’s true of the Greens vote as a group, but each voter only decides preferences on one ballot paper. The system works when people vote for the people they want to vote for, and if they don’t, they’ll only disappoint themselves.
The very simple question that is implicit in a preferential ballot is this: In Order Of Preference, Who Would You Like To Be Elected?
Frank Calabrese on 25 June 2007 at 5:26 pm
Is this dure to the inhertent nature of anti-indiginous feeling in the deep north fostered by the Joh era, and would it have anything to do with the libs trying to regain the Redneck Qld Vote ??
Yes, Noel Pearson, your classic redneck vote-seeking, race-baiting Qld politician. A proud citizen of the Larva-Prodderverse.
In the actual universe, that some of us explain and predicts, the shift to right-wing paternalistic solutions for chronic cultural problems is not some Qld peculiarity. It is a bi-partisan move right accross Australia, to address a variety of problems associated with unruly minorities. Whether they be multiculting ethnics, distressed inidigines, unauthoriesed refugees, or whatever.
The majority tax-payers are sick of the insanity and inanity of cultural leftism which leaves social disaster in its trail. They are footing the bill, and they want practical outcomes not arty-farty, touchy-feely happy-clappy nonsense. So the voters are pleased to see authority step in and clamp down on autonomies.
Its called accountability.
Trackback
http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=684
“The very simple question that is implicit in a preferential ballot is this: In Order Of Preference, Who Would You Like To Be Elected?”
“Anybody who first and foremost wants to see Howard gone but is thinking of weakening the Labor primary vote by voting Green to let them know that you don’t agree with them is playing with fire. ”
I’ve voted Greens for years, but my preference vote has always gone to Carmen Lawrence because it’s a safe Labor seat – so no “playing with fire” there. If a Green were elected and held the balance of power I have no doubt they would support the ALP to be the government, but perhaps extract a price in environmental and social justice decisions that I would probably approve of. Here in WA we’ve had the Greens holding the balance of power in the upper house – no problem for anyone on the left.
Fiasco, the mechanics of preferential voting are that preferences are distributed starting with the candidate who gets the least primary votes, until another candidate has a majority of the votes. If in a four way contest Family First is last, then the distribution of their preferences could get a Liberal candidate over the line. Your Labor preference after having voted Green 1 would not be counted.
Even without Family First Green preferences could get the Liberal candidate over the line. Suppose there are 100 primary votes distributed as Labor 35, Liberal 45 Green 20. All the Liberals need is 6 of the 20 Green preferences to win the seat.
Don’t kid yourself. Depending on your seat, by voting Green, you could be harming Labor a great deal, even if you give labor your second preference. This is especially true where there are multiple candidates and it’s not clear whose preferences will be distributed first but it’s trye generally. Primary votes are extremely important.
Of course if you want to vote Greens because you genuinely are a supporter of the Greens, that’s different. But any Labor supporter who thinks that they can somehow drag their party to the left by voting for the Greens has rocks in their head. Your gesture will be at best empty and worst will contribute to the re-election of John Howard.
Spiros, I’m a Labor shill. I thought I’d made that clear above. I don’t endorse a Greens vote because I don’t endorse the politics of the Greens Party. I just don’t think you quite understand the reason that preferences *exist*.
Yes, that’s true. A vote that goes 1FF2Lib = 1Lib after the distribution of preferences, just as 1G2ALP = 1ALP. When a candidate is distributed 50% 1 of the vote, that means they’ve just won the outright majority of votes in an electorate. If Labor loses an election in such a situation it’s nobody’s fault but their own, for getting so few votes. Work harder, comrades, in winning back the Tory Greens!
The fallacy you’re pushing is that a Greens vote entails moral responsibility for the preferences of other Greens voters. A vote or preference for a Party in no way entails endorsement of every vote for that Party, only for the candidate/ticket—nobody is responsible for the votes that go to the Coalition but the people who have voted for or preferenced the Coalition.
Yes, while the Greens are assumed to support hypothetical Labor minorities in either House, I agree with that statement entirely.
For the house of representatives, a two-candidate preferred count is done for each electorate so the vote would be counted.
I teach politics to university students and have been a returning officer in numerous organisations, so I know a bit about how voting systems work.
As several commentators have already explained, if I vote 1 Green 2 Labor (as I always do) and the Green candidate is eliminated before the Labor candidate, my vote is then transferred at full value to the Labor candidate. This is not affected in any way by the fact that another Green voter might vote 1 Green 2 Liberal.
To say the same thing another way: let us imagine an electorate in which the intending Green primary vote is 10,000, of whom 7500 intend to preference Labor and 2500 intend to preference Liberal. Then let us imagine that the Green candidate falls under a 4WD before the ballot papers are printed, so that the only candidates on polling day are Labor and Liberal. Of the 10,000 intending Green voters, we can assume that 7500 will now cast a primary vote for Labor and 2500 for Liberal. The net effect on the election result will be the same as if the Green candidate had lived until polling day and her 10,000 votes had been allocated as preferences 7500 to 2500 between Labor and Liberal. In other words, a 1 Green 2 Labor vote is the same, in 2PP terms, as a Labor primary vote.
Paul, your analysis only holds for a 3 way contest. In a four way contest, if the preferences of the fourth party (say Family First) go strongly to the Liberals, and the Liberals primary vote preferences from FF give them a majority of the vote, then that’s it, counting stops, the election is over and the Liberal candidate is declared the winner. The green preferences are not distributed to Labor.
The order of preference distribution matters a huge amount. Quite often in elections (usually state) you might get a contest between Liberal, Labor and an independent (say a popular local mayor). On the how to votes, the independent and Liberal give each other their 2nd preference, while Labor gives its 2nd preference to the independent.
If Labor was second on the primaries, then the the independent’s preferences would elect the Liberal. So Labor tries to run last so that its preferences will go to the indepndent who will then win.
During the vote counting, Labor scrutineers will do all they can to make as many of their votes are disqualified to help make this happen.
It is not the case that everybody’s preferences are distributed for the purposes of calculatin a 2PP vote — certainly for the purpose of finding a winner in the electorate.
Spiros, you are confused.
If one party gets 50% + 1 of the vote then they’re the winner. The end.
If one candidate gets 50% + 1 of the vote it is entirely impossible for further counting to find a new winner. You don’t get two candidates each getting more than half the vote unless you have seriously miscounted something.
Spiros,
Interesting that you firstly try to say that it works for a three- but not a four-way contest and then illustrate with a three-way.
At every election, both State and Federal, an exhaustive preference count is done for every seat – even once one of the candidates hits 50% plus 1. It does not affect the result – you are right – but it does allow a “message” to be sent. Over the years I have done much analysis on this and the message does go up the chain within the parties – particularly for seats with a 2PP margin of less than 5%.
It is why, for example, the Libs were comfortable disowning One Nation – votes flowed in great number out of Labor to One Nation and some went Liberal after that. Any deal with One Nation may well have adversely affected that flow by highlighting it.
“Running dead”, the tactic you illustrate, is well known and is not a problem with the preferential system, but merely a fact of life within it – and a strong improvement over any first past the post (FPP) system. Under FPP the person with the most votes wins, so a vote for a candidate (say a Green) that does not win is truly a waste.
IMHO, short of large multi-member constituencies (which I oppose) full preferential voting gives the best return on voters’ preferences that there is.
Anna, I am right and your link confirms that I am right. If no candidate gets an absolute majority of primary votes then second preferences are distributed, starting with the candidate with the fewest primary votes. If this results in a candidate getting an abolute majority of the vote (adding their primary vote and preferences received) then the election is over. If no candidate has an abolute majority after this preference distribution then the preferences of the candidate with the 2nd lowest number of primary votes are distributed, and so on until some one has an absolute majority. (If in the second and subsequent rounds or preference distributions a second preference goes to an already eliminated candidate, then its the third preference that counts)
At the risk of labouring the point, suppose a bunch of Labor voters decide that Kabor is too right wing for their taste and vote Green 1 Labor 2, turning what would have been an absolute Labor majority on primaries into a preference count. If their is a fourth party that runs last and they preference the Liberals strongly, then the Liberals could well win, even if Labor leads on primaries.
The more candidates there are, the more complex the analysis, but these things do happen. In 1998, Pauline Hanson got more primaries than anyone else in her electorate but still lost badly because of the preference distributions.
To repeat, dragging Labor into a preference fight by voting Green 1 is a dangerous tactic for Labor supporters to adopt.
Spiros, to use your example, if the Family First preferences are enough to give the Libs more than half of the vote (50% + 1), then that means that Labor and Greens combined don’t have more than half of the vote. It would be impossible. It doesn’t matter what order it happens in.
Anna, OK, suppose that FF gives the Libs just a shade under an absolute majority, then they will need only a handful of Green preferences to win, which would surely happen.
Turning from hypotheticals to reality, Labor’s strategy of relying on sacrificing its primary vote and relying on green preferences, which began at the 1990 election, has been lamented since by labor hard heads as making its task much, much harder. First preferences are gold and second preferences are fool’s gold. Look at every election state and federal in recent and not so recent history and you will see that if a party gets a big primary vote, that is, 45% , then it will invariably win the election in a big way. This is why Labor’s recent poll numbers, showing them with a big primary vote, have been so significant. It is also why there is such a big contrast with the polls of 2004, where’s Labor’s prospective 2PP vote was built on the tissue paper foundations of preferences.
So, for the final time, if people vote Green thinking that this is a risk free exercise in shifting the centre of political gravity to the left while still fulfilling the objective of turfing John Howard and Co, they are wrong.
You’re still treating “Green preferences� as if they are something in and of themselves, as opposed to the expressed preference of a particular voter.
If a majority prefer Labor over Liberal, and vote that way, Labor will win that seat.
Leaking to the left poses many dangers to Labor, and as you say, many Labor campaigners are aware of that fact. But what you’re trying to say will happen is not one of those dangers. The danger you describe is nothing more than more people putting the Libs ahead of Labor. That has nothing to do with what Kim is proposing to do in the post.
If you are that interested, I suggest you see if you can get a job scrutineering for Labor next election. It really helps you understand the process to see it done, as opposed to trying to visualise it.
Spiros, put it this way:
We have four people on our ballot: Liberal, Labor, Green and Family First.
We have 100 people voting; the winner needs 51 votes.
Liberal gets 48 votes.
Labor gets 40 votes.
Green gets 8 votes– 6 pref to Labor, 2 to Lib.
Family First gets 4 votes, 1 pref to Labor, 3 to Lib.
The Family First votes get discarded first, and yes, this is enough to get the Liberals across the line, so technically, the Green preferences don’t “count” (although they are still actually counted in calculating the final 2-party result). However, even if the Green voters preferencing Labor had put Labor as their first preference, the results would not be enough to push Labor over the line. Even if ALL the Greens voters had voted 1 for Labor instead, it would not have been enough– the Family First preferences would still determine the outcome.
Now let’s consider a scenario where the Greens preferences are enough to win Labor the seat:
Liberal gets 40 votes
Labor gets 40 votes
Green gets 15 votes– 11 pref Labor, 4 pref Lib
Family First gets 5 votes– 2 pref Labor, 3 pref Lib.
In this case, there are not enough voters voting for Family First to push the Libs across the line– even if they all preferenced the Liberals. Same could be said of Labor if they all preferenced Labor.
The fact is, that if the Green vote is high enough that their preferences can change the outcome of the election (ie, turn a Liberal lead into a Labor lead), then those preferences WILL be counted– if they are NOT counted, because the preferences of Family First (or whoever runs last) are enough to push the frontrunner across the 50% 1 line, then they would not be significant enough to alter the outcome– and this holds true even if they had voted 1 for a major party.
Spiros, there is simply no way, mathematically, that the scenario you describe could occur.
Maybe it would help you to look at the results from the last federal election. Here is a list of the seats that were decided on preferences:
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseSeatsDecidedOnPrefs-12246-NAT.htm
Click on any of these seats, and you will see a list of options that includes “Full Distribution of Preferences”– this shows the way that ALL the votes are distributed, even after the leading candidate has their 50% 1. For instance, you can look at Bennelong:
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseDivisionDop-12246-105.htm
The result of the election was determined after the third count– at that stage, John Howard had over 50% of the vote. However, the preferences continued to be distributed in a way that clearly shows that even if all the people who preferenced Green above Labor and Labor above Liberal– even if all these people had put Labor first, Labor would still have ended up with only 45.7% of the vote.
Go and look for yourself through all the voting records– you won’t find one example in which Labor COULD have won, but didn’t because the Greens preferences didn’t get counted– it’s a mathematical impossibility.
I’m glad that’s finally settled!
I’d much prefer a voting system that gives results like the Dutch election of 2006. You have a better opportunity for matching your political philosophy with a party.
You’ve got to like a system that can elect a couple representatives of Party for the Animals.
Back in Oz when Rudd assumed ALP leadership I decided I’d have to vote Green in the Reps and preference Labor to let him know that there is a constituency to the left of where he is. I think there is a lot of crap written about the notion that you must have 40% primary vote to win. It’s the 2PP that is the bottom line. I’d like to see the Greens up around 15-20% to make the rightists in the ALP nervous.
Fiaso da Gama way up the thread, the Tampa was 24 August, more than two weeks before S11. The Tampa came the week after Ian Macfarlane gave out 5 different stories about what he’d done with his electoral funds. Up till then there had been some lift but they were still off the pace.
But I think you are right. Tampa gave them a boost but The World Trade Centre nailed it in terms of becoming competitive.
Spiros,
a point which I don’t think has been clarified yet:
I think your confusion stems from the different preferential systems in the Senate and in the Reps.
In the Senate, the order of distribution of preferences is vital, as the lowest polling candidates are knocked out and their votes ditributed (at a discount rate) according to preferences. Then candidates are elected once they reach quota – and the total quotas do not add up to 100%. That’s how you can get someone like Steven Fielding elected with 2% of primaries, over the Greens’ candidate polling 9%.
However, in the Reps, all preferences are distributed until you are left with only 2 candidates and a 2PP result out of 100%. The order of distribution is thus irrelevant.
So, just repeating, if you vote 1Grn 2ALP, there is no way in the world your vote will assist a Lib getting elected.
Brian, you’re right, my memory of the time period seems to be defective.
Compulsory re-education and re-readings of Dark Victory for me.
(Really very good, BTW.)
Spiros says:
“At the risk of labouring the point, suppose a bunch of Labor voters decide that Kabor is too right wing for their taste and vote Green 1 Labor 2, turning what would have been an absolute Labor majority on primaries into a preference count. If their is a fourth party that runs last and they preference the Liberals strongly, then the Liberals could well win, even if Labor leads on primaries.”
You’re wrong, mate. Let Lib = % voting Liberal, FF/Lib = % voting Family First and preferencing Liberal, and so on. For libs to get in, we must have Libs FF/Libs Green/Libs greater than 50%. If this is the case, then ALP FF/ALP Green/ALP _must_ be less than 50%, so ALP can’t get in, no matter what order preferences are distributed.
Conversely, if the votes of Kim and her friends push ALP Green/ALP FF/ALP above 50%, ALP will get in, no matter what order preferences are distributed in. So Kim’s vote has exactly the same value whether she votes ALP or Green/ALP.
The flaw in your argument is that preferences have to be distributed until one party exceeds 50%. Since the total number of votes is 100%, only one party can do this, whether or not all its preferences need to be counted for it to do so.
Arrh! Yr stupid system doesn’t print plus signs! That was supposed to be “… Libs PLUS FF/Libs PLUS Green/Libs greater than 50%” and similarly in 2 other places.
I just heard Krudd and Garrett being interviewed on PM and read the dailies.
Annabell Crabb sez,
I’m with you now Kim. I was going to hold my nose and vote Labor, but stuff’em. According to Acko’s argument above, it’ll still be consistent with kicking Howard out.