Tomorrow sees voters in Peter Costello’s old seat of Higgins (and Brendan Nelson’s seat of Bradfield) go to the polls. Labor is not running in either by-election. That seemed like an arguably justifiable decision at the time nominations closed, but it’s looking, in the eyes of some observers, like less of a smart roll of the dice in the wake of the Liberal #spill madness, and what might be charitably described as a very scrappy start to Tony Abbott’s leadership. It’s interesting to ponder the remarks attributed to Anthony Albanese, who apparently was telling MPs to pencil in the last scheduled Liberal party room meeting of the parliamentary year as the day the leadership would change hands. Whether or not that’s so, or it’s a claim made or inflated with the benefit of hindsight, Labor would have been anticipating the likelihood of the ETS defeat this week, but probably a Hockey leadership rather than the ascension of the Mad Monk to such ethereal realms.
Reports of the amount of money the Libs have been spending suggest that they must be seriously worried about Higgins. It’s difficult to say from this distance, but a number of observers suggest that The Greens’ Clive Hamilton has not run much of a grass roots campaign. That could be scuttlebutt, and I’d be very interested in any views from those closer to the action. But the prospect of the Liberals losing Higgins to The Greens is quite an extraordinary one, and the converse to the ‘Labor should have run’ argument is that it would be an even greater reverse for the opposition than the seat falling to the ALP (though, as Hugo Kelly and Rebekka Power argue, it could be a case of Labor strategists being too clever by half in handing The Greens an inner city Melbourne base).
If Hamilton runs Kelly O’Dwyer close, it will highlight the absurdity of the argument that the Liberals, in rejecting the ETS and elevating Abbott, were playing to their ‘base’. If Higgins isn’t a blue ribbon Lib seat, it’s hard to think of one. As Antony Green observed, while the margin has sometimes been deceptively narrow, the consistency of the Liberal hold on the areas that make up the core of the electorate is what counts.
The other fascination about these by-election contests is that they represent the first test of the new Liberal leader in seats held by one of his two predecessors this term (both of whom now hold sinecures courtesy of Kevin Rudd and the Labor government), and of course, the former electorate of the Great Pretender to the Liberal crown. A loss in either one would be a devastating blow. I wonder how the results will be called, and if there’ll be a bit of bar raising by the commentariat, but serious reverses on the primary vote in either or both seats should speak for themselves. Again, the case for Labor not running candidates in by-elections in Liberal seats is that the focus will be all on the opposition, as opposed to the usual media predictathon when governments lose traction at by-elections.
It should be interesting to watch both unfold. Please feel free to add any reports and links to this thread throughout the day!
Update: The Liberals have retained both seats, it would appear with increased margins on the 2PP. Looking at Higgins, the key is the fact that the Greens’ primary vote is less than Labor’s at the 2007 general election. [Update: That previous comment was made with a number of booths still outstanding. But see also this analysis from Rebekka Power.] It’s evident that there are a fair few ALP voters who won’t vote Green, something I noted on a number of occasions. No doubt these results will be spun as a great victory for Abbott, but the missing element in the equation is the absence of a Labor candidate.
Having said that, I still think The Greens made a big mistake by nationalising the contest, and running a candidate like Clive Hamilton. Kelly O’Dwyer’s ‘Mayor of Higgins’ campaign capitalised on his outsider status well, it would seem. I suggested previously that The Greens might have done better to run a well known local – parochialism always plays well in by-elections, particularly against blow-ins, as the Liberal research no doubt showed. As I intimated in the post, there may have been an element of expectations management going on, with the Libs talking down their chances in advance of the vote.
But I think it’s fair to say that The Greens won’t, and shouldn’t be, happy with the outcome.
But the Libs shouldn’t be all that happy either, as they know full well they ran defensive strategies avoiding the big issues of national politics. These seats should be a total shoo-in for anyone with the Libs’ label on the ballot paper.
The final verdict – the whole thing is probably a bit of a side show.
Hamilton has campaigned well. Apart from last week when there was no oxygen for anything ‘cept the spill, he’s garnered as much local media as you can for a by-election. I don’t know how the “Clive is a wowser thing” got started – but for those who push that line – they might be interested to know he’s preferencing the Sex Party 3rd
Word from folks who know is Higgins is ripe for a redistribution come 2013 – it has too few voters, and Melbourne too many. That means a ALP/ Green voting wedge will get added to it within a few years. Its totally up from grabs in the mid term.
Who gets a head start on that race? I agree with Kelly and Power – it was a silly retreat by Labor – but I guess nothing less should be expected from the strategic maestros who brought us Fielding. That last bit was mine. But its true – there’s some seriously over-rated dimwits hogging the chairs at Vic ALP HQ.
By the way, it wont be long before most inner city contests will be ALP v Green.
On Higgins: Just before nominations closed, I walked into Kelly O’Dwyer’s (Lib) newly rented and repainted Glenferrie Rd office, and asked the staff there for an email outlining O’Dwyer’s stances as an individual, rather than the party’s. They agreed to send it… but still nothing, weeks later.
Perhaps O’Dwyer knew about the putsch, perhaps not, and didn’t want to put out any national policy that would change overnight, but she’s been pushing the “local issues” line, including the sorts of things people running for Mayor normally rabbit on about.
I can’t imagine a low-flyer parish-pumper with no intention to play on the national stage would be put up by the Libs for Higgins… so there must be policies in her head.
btw, here’s my own form guide and voting intentions.
It’s also worth watching the Dems, who have been polling 10% or better for some elections.
My guess from living here is that the Lib voters here are of the progressive variety… Abbott isn’t popular. I have no idea how it’ll play out.
All I can say is…lucky we live in a democracy…
“SECRET police files on people protesting against Victoria’s $3.5 billion desalination project are being made available to the private consortium building the plant.”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/secret-files-on-protesters-given-to-desal-consortium-20091204-kb29.html
Peter Campbell has suggested O’Dwyer will be forced to preferences, but will win 54/46.
I’m a little surprised by O’Dwyer’s Mayor of Higgins campaign strategy. More than most places, I would have thought that Higgins was one place that a lot of the electorate would appreciate that federal MP’s aren’t responsible for getting pedestrian crossings and toilet blocks installed.
As an outsider, I would have thought Higgins had a chunk of trendy, young, “alternative” voters around Prahran, and by no means are all residents wealthy.
But it’s difficult to see the firmly-attached Lib voters (they are never “rusted on”! d’you think they drive old Holdens for Heavens sake???) moving away. The older ones have seen plenty of leadership changes over the decades.
The Libs will lose whatever “personal following” $weetie had. This may be approx. 0.3%, falling to 0.1% when it finally dawned on the nation that the Petender was really just pretending. Always.
Protest votes by Libs likely to go to Dems or independents then 2nd or 3rd prefs back to Libs I reckon. Can’t see too many unhappy Lib voters going directly to a [1] Green
vote.
What of Labor voters disenchanted by the absence of their preferred Party? Many of them may abhor the Greens. After all, Greens and Labor have been bitter rivals in inner-Melbourne electorates for years now.
Parts of Higgins are about 4km? 6km? 8km? from the CBD. Trains, trams etc. abound. Shopping strips. Boutiques, fashion, snazzy bars. Mansions and tired 1930s flats. Many renters, not all well-heeled home owners. 4WD = “Toorak Tractors”. Probably more socially diverse than many other Melbourne electorates, though the journalists will write in cliches of high incomes. (Pockets of that too, old money.)
cheerio
I can’t imagine that the ALP would have run in either electorate had the last fortnight’s events been foreseen. As we saw in Cunningham, it was the flow of preferences that gave Organ the seat. Having both majors competing where there are external issues which encourage people to see their vote as a protest is about the most likely scenario for a Greens victory in a by-election. The voters get a chance to scare the majors, but normal programming resumes at the next general election.
With Federal Labor refusing to negotiate with the Greens over the CPRS bills and a pervading atmosphere of hostility, the ALP will not take the chance of the Greens winning anything anywhere. What we can be certain of is that every player in our federal political five ring circus will attempt to mould a narrative following today’s results that validates their position, demonises every one else and brings little to our debates on climate change, governance and prospects.
I live in the neighbouring electorate of Chisholm so don’t see any of the advertising material, but I have to say O’Dwyer’s campaign has been a strange one. She’s been all but invisible in Melbourne media. The only time I’ve heard or seen anything from her was an appearance on the John Faine show which was abysmal. It was as if she’d been on a political boot camp but hadn’t done very well. It was excruciating. And I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard “We invited Kelly O’Dwyer to come onto the programme but she was unable to…” John Faine (again), Walid Ali, Peter Mares…
Of course she’ll win, but gosh… If that’s the best the Liberals can do then you have to wonder about their future.
NM, she’s a former Costello staffer and anything but a political neophyte.
I strongly suspect she’s hiding because she doesn’t want to answer questions on national policy questions. In the circumstances, I can’t say I blame her, much and all as I’d like to see her answer questions on things like the CPRS.
“I don’t know how the “Clive is a wowser thing” got started – but for those who push that line – they might be interested to know he’s preferencing the Sex Party 3rd
”
Fiona Pattern, standing for The Australia Sex Party, is a local in Higgins and quite well known as founder of The Eros Foundation. She may pick up a decent part of the protest vote given she is also well up the card at 2. Methinks she may have played the part in branding Clive “a wowser” that he did not achieve all by himself.
While Clive preferenced her at 3rd she did not return the favour by preferencing him at 6 just ahead of Kelly at 7. Which suggests Ms Patten regards Ms O’Dwer as just marginally more a wowser than Hamilton.
http://www.sexparty.org.au/images/stories/general/fiona-higgins-vote-card_Page_2.jpg
Lefty@3 “it wont be long before most inner city contests will be ALP v Green.”…
You reckon the tories really have the nous to learn from the Fremantle result, and pro-actively use the greens as a stalking mule, loudly not standing in seats with a sizeable green (&= crucially labor preferencing in 3 cornered contests) vote , as the only way to dislodge labor?
Danny – no, they wont. But the Libs will start coming third regularly. Already some inner metro seats are best calculated ALP/Green on 2PP.
Were I in Bradfield I’d feel apprehensive voting Green when their candidate has been such an enthusiastic proponent of censorship in the past. Does anyone know if Hamilton’s changed his tune on internet filtering? Or is the party changing to accommodate him?
And I think the contest is going to be much more interesting in Bradfield, where the “Christian” “Democratic” party is trolling the democratic process by nominating nine candidates, inflating the field to 22. Will they be punished by the burghers of Bradfield for this irritation, or will a massive donkey vote ensue, pushing their top-placed candidate into serious contention? Has old Rev Fred gone completely bonkers, or is there some sort of devious master plan here?
Joe2, putting Greens above Libs is returning the favour. Putting all the other minors first just aims to make the count look more messy and indecisive, but they don’t actually matter.
For the two main contenders, their order of preferences can act as a symbol of what they support, but they don’t matter for the result unless all of the polling was so deficient that no-one noticed a late surge to the Sex Party that puts them above the Greens in the count.
And for the minors, how far down they put the two main contenders can act as a symbol of what they value, but all that matters for the result is which one is above the other.
Can’t understand why people are agonising over voting for Hamilton in Higgins over the Internet filtering issue. A sense of proportion is in order when the opportunity presents itself to push the need for effective action on climate change up the political agenda.
Doug@15 thinks putting Hamilton (in Higgins) down the preferences because of the urgent need for climate action is counterproductive. There are other candidates scoring highly on climate action by green groups not seeking election.
And on O’Dwyer’s coyness on federal issues, highlights of O’Dwyer’s (Lib) how-to-vote leaflet included:
* CCTV cameras in Chapel St Prahran (State)
* No extensions to clearway times on major roads (State)
* Urban zoning issues (State)
Seriously if O’Dwyer was fair dinkum about her priorities on these issues, she should have gone for State, or indeed Mayor of Stonnington.
joe2, aside from the Internet filtering thing, Affluenza has the distinct sense of neo-wowserism about it.
joe2 since when has Fiona Patten been “a local”? She’s a Canberra/Sydney girl – featured in the Sydney Weekend glossy only 18 months ago along with Robbie Swan, pictured in her Sydney flat – unless I”m much mistaken. I’ve never heard of any connection between Fiona Patten and Melbourne!
I live in the Higgins electorate. I guess most people would expect Kelly O’Dwyer to win and the Greens to take most of the preferences for the 2pp results. Most of the how-to-vote pamphlets from the independents, however, have Fiona Patten ahead of the Democrats and the Greens. There is also the Chapel Street crowd who might give their first preference to the ASP (and any small-l liberals who have actually read the party policies and are not put off by the name). I think there is a chance that the ASP might sneak past the Greens once the preferences are distributed. It could stir up general interest in politics beyond the usual crowd of political tragics if the ASP did have a strong vote. Using an acronym of their party name might make their message more acceptable to the public. But well see soon enough how it went.
The ballot paper order in terms of picking up donkey votes places the ASP at number two on the ticket and the Liberal candidate is place higher than the Green
Beyond that the above scenario would require the Green to poll a very low primary vote. If Hamilton polls more than 25% of the vote then there is no chance that the preference flow sketched out above would make any difference. If the Green vote is that low I would expect the Liberal candidate to be able to win on primary vote, 50% or above and preferences would not be counted.
It would be interesting to see to what extent the absence of an ALP candidate boosts the Greens’ primary vote and where the ALP voters would turn to if they don’t have a candidate to back. It might not all go to the Greens and it certainly won’t go to the Liberals. I think it was a bad strategy for the ALP not to field a candidate even if they didn’t have a chance to win, because the next time they vote they might look a little closer at the alternatives.
RobV@21
Actually, in Higgins (and possibly Bradfield), not running is a very smart move from the perspective of data analysis without preferences being determined by an ALP ticket. Where ALP voters, or any disaffected Liberal voters go, simply by looking at primary votes, will be an excellent indicator of which issues can sway Higgins voters.
The Abbott factor as a voting influencer, but not necessarily a changer, is pretty obvious if you asked what flies-on-the-wall in the local coffeeshops heard over the last few days.
Alexis said:
Substitute Higgins and you;d be right. Susie Gemmell in Bradfield has said nothing on censorship.
It was funny being up on the booths today. At one that I was at a woman handing out flyers for someone drom the “Climate Skeptics Party” — “Sam Koutoulianis” volunteered that she was from the ACT Greens.
When I asked her the obvious question her defence was “But he’s my brother-in-law”.
I was surprisingly polite in my response, but good grief.
The other booth workers included someone from the “climate change coalition”, the DLP, One Nation, the Liberals, the “No Carbon Tax” party and several Christian Democrats.
The Liberals had bussed in people from Terrigal. One of them reminded me of nobody so much as that woman character on Fawlty Towers with the dodgy hearing aid who loses her 20 pounds in a vase. She wasn’t able to creack a smile until some fellow Liberals — who it semed knew each other from “Shore” turned up.
One more elderly Liberal decided she’s like to sit under the tree but it was next to the sandwich board with Ms Gemmell’s image on it. Catching my eye, she asked: You don’t mind if I sit here do you?
Of course not I responded wryly. I think it helps Susie if people think that respectable members of the community are associated with her campaign.
She promptly moved to a less comfortable spot. It’s not merely with abuse that one can get the better of people it seems.
FB @ 23,
What a wonderful day you’re having. Do you think, from the feeling on the booths, the Libs will go down?
I haven’t visited all the booths but on a fairly narrow sample, I’d bet against it. There’s a very solid Liberal core and they are going to get preferences from all the anti-mitigation nutbars.
There was a fair degree of goodwill from all but the hard core, but if Susie did as well as the ALP did last time on primaries + 10% I’d call that a stunning setback for Abbott. Just forcing a preference count would be a thrill.
I’ll be scrutineering for at least some of tonight so I should get some sense of it.
Thanks Fran @ 23, my error.
Thanks AdamTucker@18, my error.
It’s a shame that the Sex Party snares endorsement from small-l liberals, because her party is not about sexual liberation at all. The Eros Foundation’s message has always been that sex is about sex toys and commerce – Patten represents the porn industry, and her reference to earlier having “represented sex workers” is a nonsense – the Workers In Sex Employment association kicked her out because she was representing industry interests, not theirs. Add to that Patten’s dangerous policy that “sex work should be regarded as any occupation”. I for one would not like my Centrelink payments cut off because I wouldn’t take a sex job.
“He contents himself with this sort of public frottage against the outer thighs of sexy, intelligent men like Abbott.”
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/01/11331/#comment-842010
Given your comment on another thread, AdamTucker, I wonder whether you consider Tony Abbott a more suitable representative of The Australian Xex Party.
Robert@17 I saw a copy of the book just sitting outside a supermarket on a bench and had plans to grab it on the way out after a big buy up. Sadly it had disappeared and I never got to read it. I guess you figure I did not miss anything.
Cheers Anna@14 I was trying to say, in a clumsy way, that given the importance of the issue of net censorship, that Hamilton is loudly associated with, to folks in A.S.P it really is surprising that O’Dwer was deemed even more “a wowser”.
Abbott said today that there will be a swing to the Greens in Bradfield but that nobody should read anything much into that.
Hey Abbott: if the pollsters suggested a swing to the Libs, should anybody read much into that? Oh, bu that would be an different question entirely, I suppose.
I imagine, Joe2, that it’s Abbott who’s considered more if a wowser. That would probably be a fair assessment.
Yes it would be a different question. A small swing to the Greens in the absence of the ALP really doesn’t mean much on its own. Swings can mean many things, and the size is always relevant, but yes, it’s a different question if the swing is towards the incumbent party than if it’s simply a swing from one opposing party to another.
For the Sex Party & the Green Party, Isabella Rossellini’s Green Porno
Looks like the Libs are in in Higgins. Now we can examine the entrails.
Yep it looks that way Patricia WA.
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2009/byelections/higgins_result.htm
joe2 – in answer to your question, no, but I do think the oleagenous Bob Ellis and the dry, rasp-voiced Fiona Patten would be terrific foils for each other.
Disaster in Higgins. I blame the voters. Now I remember why I never go south of the river. Never.
wbb: West Toorak should be safe: there’s been a 24.4% swing against the liberals there.
Lefty @ 2, you are predicting the end of the Liberal Party/Coalition by when?!!?
Update: The Liberals have retained both seats, it would appear with increased margins on the 2PP. Looking at Higgins, the key is the fact that the Greens’ primary vote is less than Labor’s at the 2007 general election. It’s evident that there are a fair few ALP voters who won’t vote Green, something I noted on a number of occasions. No doubt these results will be spun as a great victory for Abbott, but the missing element in the equation is the absence of a Labor candidate.
Having said that, I still think The Greens made a big mistake by nationalising the contest, and running a candidate like Clive Hamilton. Kelly O’Dwyer’s ‘Mayor of Higgins’ campaign capitalised on his outsider status well, it would seem. I suggested previously that The Greens might have done better to run a well known local – parochialism always plays well in by-elections, particularly against blow-ins, as the Liberal research no doubt showed. As I intimated in the post, there may have been an element of expectations management going on, with the Libs talking down their chances in advance of the vote.
But I think it’s fair to say that The Greens won’t, and shouldn’t be, happy with the outcome.
But the Libs shouldn’t be all that happy either, as they know full well they ran defensive strategies avoiding the big issues of national politics. These seats should be a total shoo-in for anyone with the Libs’ label on the ballot paper.
The final verdict – the whole thing is probably a bit of a side show.
Best way I can spin it using the crunching done at pollbludger etc, is that Turnbull Liberals voted Green; conservative ALP voters went to the Libs. So if ALP had run – then there would have be a net swing against Liberal and a swing to Greens. So maybe even Higgins (at glacial pace) is heading in the ALP v Green direction of a normal inner seat.
And anyway – 35% of voters have seen fit to give the Greens their vote. Whether they are pissed off Liberals – or homeless ALP voters – 35% is a good vote for a new party that until recently were seen as fringers. Every third voter is now ahead of the Australian parliament on the question of the environment.
In Bradfield, the sole SEX party candidate has 3.4% of the vote so far, whereas all 9 CDP candidates have 3.5% between them. That’s an average of 0.39%. In Bradfield. I must ask my St Ives grandma how she voted.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
No evidence of a swing away from the Libs, despite loss of a high profile candidate & leadership turmoil.
Yet people here spin the yarn that the Libs shouldn’t be happy and that this somehow is a virtual victory for the ALP despite the fact that they didn’t run.
What a bunch of deluded lefties you people are. I’m laughing at what other BS you can dream up from these results.
Mark said “But the prospect of the Liberals losing Higgins to The Greens is quite an extraordinary one”
and always was an absurd one. Why do people buy into the wildly improbable, headline-grabbing speculation of the mainstream press?
Vision of ShakingHead
However one spins it the increased vote for the Libs is a worry. It means Abbott is cutting through (as I warned.)
“The final verdict – the whole thing is probably a bit of a side show.”
Maybe… every media outlet has spent the last week talking about the liberal party’s new position on the ETS. For the last three days every paper has been full of articles about the Monk. It’s pretty obvious that the voters decided that it wasn’t an issue for them.
Ignoring this won’t help. Typical electoral wisdom says that these kind of elections should be read as a barometer on the issues of the day. That’s why the ALP didn’t run. No point in scoring a bad result for no return. Why run and get a headline that says “ALP down 4% since last election, blah etc.”
This result does matter. Pretending that an increased Green vote without an ALP candidate is some kind of victory won’t help.
Good one Joe2 @ 45, but the clown has more balls.
Adrian@48 that is soooo funny, I just can’t stop laughing. You have such a great sense of humour…really you do!!!!!!!!
On a less sarcastic note – I see that you cannot rebut the point in a substantive manner.
On 3RRR they currently have Stephen Mayne, Nick Economou (Politics Lecturer @ Monash) and Phil Cleary. You might want to listen in, sounds like it’s going to be an interesting 2 hour show tonight (till 2:00 AM).
Nick Economou is of the view that it’s a good result for the Libs. Predictably, Phil Clearly takes the same view as those on this forum.
“Talk about cognitive dissonance. ”
No cognitive dissonance here. Maybe there was a bit a creative speculation in the media but, I mean what’s to be surprised, disappointing or elated about? Your lot won in 2 of your safest seats in the country. If you think this constitutes a “vote of confidence” in the Abbott Liberals I’d say you’re the one wearing the rose tinted shades.
Patrickb: Just because I pointed out the delusion of some on this forum does not mean that I made any claim that it was a great victory for the libs. And I find it interesting that you refer to the libs as “your lot” – FWIW I voted ALP in the last federal election, hoping Kevin Rudd would make housing & health more affordable. How stupid I was.
Mark,
Unless I’m reading it wrong, the ALP 2007 primary was 31.08%…which is um, less than the Greens primary 34% today.
The flows haven’t been posted, but the 2PP Green vote today 42.43% & the ALP 2007 2PP of 42.96% – are nearly identical.
Interesting to see the flows when posted – but the outcome at this stage, almost the same. There was a Green 83%/17% flow split ALP/Lib in 07, so wouldn’t surprise at all if ALP was a wee bit larger, with a different mix of indies making up the diffs.
Mark – you can’t have it both ways.
Most lefties (including journos) were saying a swing away from the Libs would have been because of the anti-ETS stance and leadership change.
Under those circumstances holding the line, let alone an increased majority, should be seen as being positive.
I wonder if the Greens will actually analyse what these votes mean for them and make some policy adjustments or just stick to their “holier than thou” stances.
It was a good day for conservatives, a very good day.
Razor, it probably has as much relevance to the next federal election as that by-election in Victoria (forget which seat…) early in Rudd’s term where Labor went backwards.
@52 – Jo – posted the update when there was still one booth to come in. What I said then was accurate on the basis of the votes counted up to that point.
I am aware of the relevance, or lack there of, but the result is 180 degrees from the pre-ballot commentary – and yet it is not subseqently seen in that light.
The least I ask for is consistency.
@46 -
It means nothing of the sort, Paul.
Abbott became leader a few days ago. I really wish that people here would get across the fact that most Australians don’t follow all this stuff very closely. A lot of people who really don’t give much of a stuff about politics won’t even know that yet. In the absence of any real dissatisfaction with the government, the change of leadership will take some time to wash through. Hence Labor has been trying to get in early with defining Abbott.
The ETS stuff is really of little interest to most people at this time of year. There is a general sentiment in favour of “doing something about climate change”, which Labor has been running on. These things will only sharpen up as we approach an election. Before then, and particularly in Christmas forget about stuff mode, it’s moot.
These are safe Liberal seats, where if my experience with by-elections is any guide, the apathy among voters is high.
What it means is that The Greens aren’t about to supplant Labor as a major party, and all the recent shenanigans are of little interest to most people, who’ve probably been in Christmas holiday mode for the last week or so.
In other words, it probably means nothing.
Except that The Greens are a very long way from being where they might want to be.
@56 – fair point, Razor.
It’s true that a lot of the pre-ballot commentary has been bullshit, assuming that electors in these seats share the obsessive focus on politics a tiny minority of observers have.
The story of this thing is that it’s a status quo result, that everyone will have forgotten by Xmas.
End of story.
Razor. I think some complaints against the ABC and the SMH would be pretty valid in this case. The Daily Telegraph and the Australian were pretty spot on it would seem.
Here’s a tip. Australian politics to continue to be no contest, despite Abbott’s pretensions to emulating the Keating anti-GST campaign. The only thing Kevin Rudd has to worry about is the NSW and Qld Labor governments having the smell of death about them, not the opposition. They won’t trouble Rudd at all, in an election which is probably about 9 months away. Contrary to the need we all have to comment on all this stuff all the time, most of the time, nothing much actually happens in Ozpolitics. There’s spills and thrills for the junkies, but the electorate have long ago made up their minds to give Rudd another run for a second term.
Massive swing to the Greens on 2007!
But srsly – good result. 42 to Greens on 2PP just goes to show we don’t necessarily need the ALP to run a funcctional two party system.
Out of the fringe, into the mainstream….
Yes, you’d have to think on tonight’s results the ALP would have taken one of the blur ribbon heartland seats.
Thats how bad the LNP is travelling.
Shame they didn’t have the gumption. Anyone who thinks they didnt have the resources is kidding themselves!
Lefty E – that’s my reading of it. Labor would have taken Higgins if they’d run. But the fact that the Libs didn’t lose it, I think, puts a question mark over your view that The Greens are an effective player in what is still a system which really does favour just two parties. Let’s be clear, as well, that this result was in the absence of one of the major parties, and that The Greens explicitly campaigned on an issue they should have owned.
But it wasn’t the only, and perhaps not even the major issue at stake.
I really think Hamilton was probably a dud choice.
In a by-election!
I imagine it’ll be biz as usual in Higgins in the 2010 general election – Lib/Labor on the 2PP.
More interesting will be the electorates of Melbourne, Sydney, etc. But I kinda think The Greens probably had a better chance in those seats under a Tory government.
But we’ll see!
Because the ALP did not field candidates, the jury is out on Abbott v Rudd; ALP V Libs.
I don’t care how many local issues the Libs tried to put forward. The news this week was the ETS getting voted down by:
the Libs
the Greens
The polls show the public want an ETS and the Greens can’t deliver on that. An ALP candidate could holler “They voted down our ETS!” Both the Libs and the Greens can only say they voted against it. Nil all draw.
“More interesting will be the electorates of Melbourne, Sydney, etc. But I kinda think The Greens probably had a better chance in those seats under a Tory government.”
Lindsay Tanner is also such a good local member and national performer that it is hard to see him tossed out by progressive voters. I am inclined to think that real breakthroughs in the lower house are still a way off for the Greens as long as Labor preselects the right, leftish, candidates for inner city seats.
I wonder what the story would have been in Higgins if the conservatives had chosen John Roskam? It’s hard enough keeping him on the leash as just a prospective Liberal candidate without pondering what chaos he would create if he was set on a real rabbit. Tony Abbott would love him.
Alexis @ 42, the Sex Party will have taken no joy from that 3.5 per cent – they know it was ALP voters who are also climate change skeptics. They will only be able to gauge success when there’s an ALP candidate contesting. The extra few per cent over the unknowns was due to Patten’s higher profile, and that alone.
Perhaps in comparison with all the other days since Howard lost his seat …
But let’s look at the result in Higgins. The Libs couldn’t convince ANY ALP voters to support them. These ALP supporters would rather vote for a party that opposed the ETS on the grounds that Rudd’s ETS didn’t go far enough.
Liberal voters turned up to the booths, scanned the lists, clipped the clothes peg to their nose and voted for the Libs. Their alternative was a greenie non-entity.
Just imagine what might have happened if the ALP had a candidate of any stature. The Libs would have lost Higgins!
You can never know how the ALP would have fared unless it ran a candidate – although it may be interesting to do an opinion poll in Higgins for a “what if” situation.
The by-election results remind me of how stable voting patterns often are.
Take a look at the latest Morgan phone poll taken after the advent of Abbott (sorry coudln’t resist the grattuitous religous reference).
It’s howing the libs ahead on primaries. Yes. Ahead.
This is going to be a bumpy ride.
I think this is one of those situations where the players will be wrong footed by their own predudices. The right, especially the staff at the Oz, will be so thrilled to have a real conservative that they’ll build a ridiculously optimistic picture of his electoral prospects. The left will likewise overestimate his minority status.
I think this. He’ll do well for while and Rudd will wisely hold off on the election and when it does finally come the result will be much the same as last time. Leaving us pretty much nowhere on climate change.
I have a slightly different reading: the Greens walked into a blue-ribbon Liberal seat, and basically pulled the same 2PP vote the ALP would normally get (though admittedly less than the ALP would gave got yesterday in a by-election). That’s political maturity.
Hilarious to see Abbott’s spin that the results “endorses his rejection of the ETS” – er, Tones, you were running against a party that rejected it becuase it wasnt strong enough, and they got a 25% swing.
Anyway, I do hope this puts the bed the ALP “strategic non-running” bullshit.
Just watched Abbott. He wants to debate Rudd on the ETS legislation. I bet he does! I’m sure the brains trust has given him 3 or 4 “gotcha” questions for Rudd on that.
If I was Rudd, I couldn’t wait for the opportunity. The first thing I would ask Abbotr is does he personally believe in man madee global warming or not. Abbott says the jury is still out (his current refrain), I would remind him the jury is in, and if he does not even know that what is the point of him having any kind of opinion on ETS or climate change policy.
Except I would want a more broad range of subjects including women’s issues and workplace relations. Every time Abbott would make himself a small target and move away from his previous positions, Rudd could just come out with all of Abbott’s quotes on the matter. Spend most of the time reading Abbott’s quotes back to him.
Abbott is supposed to be a conviction politician. Nail him on them.
Scrutineering last night at St Ives High School polling station (in Bradfield for those who don’t know), some of the preference flows were simply weird.
Amongst the more curious things …
People who voted 1 for Leishmann — the Sex Party candidate — and then to the DLP a Christian Democrat (there were nine of them) and then Susie Gemmell of the Greens. As a variant, several I noticed on the tables threw in Koutoulianos, from the Climate Skeptics party. Simply bizarre.
Susie got quite a few effective preferences from an independent called Kelly, whose single policy was apparently opposition to blue ribbon seats, and whom the Liberal scrutineers described as running on nothing more than “I hate the Liberal party”.
The polling officals were very miffed with the CDP for running 9 candidates –”Fred’s got a lot to answer for” muttered one before adding “I didn’t say that”. It was stupid though because much of the time we spent trying to distinguish formal votes was taekn up with ensuring that there were 22 different numbers on the ballot in sequence, and, as sometimes happened working out where numbers were repeated. The CDP lost a few votes because some of their supporters didn’t make it past 3, repeating 1 or 2 or 3. The cleverest informal got to 12. One of them had a writing style that seems to consist of bizarre squiggles which in poor light were comprehensible only in context — “this is a six here, and this is meant to be a 1 so this must be 16 not 14″.
Such is democracy in action.
I think Rudd would be mad to debate Abbott. Nobody understands the CPRS. Its so complicated Abbott would run rings around him. If Rudd’s got any sense he’d ignore this call for a debate.
“Take a look at the latest Morgan phone poll taken after the advent of Abbott……”
rbeswick beware of polls that contain most strange movements, as William Bowe points out…
“The poll is a Roy Morgan mid-week phone poll, which have a rather erratic record, and the sample was a very modest 597 respondents.”
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/12/04/morgan-phone-poll-53-47/
In the aftermath of the bloodbath within the Libs, they are jumping at anything resembling good news. Hence the media gushing on Tony Abbott (refreshing, real alternative, speaks his mind, down to earth etc etc). Do not forget he was Howard’s head kicker and did that with gusto in his ministerial role in IR. He is also weak on policy. You can call Rudd as boring and whatever you want, but this will be his strength and will test Tony A to no end.
Look at Malcolm when he won the leadership – cock-a-hoop and all that. 12 months of being an opposition leader wore him out. Tony is also not going to be helped by his “pal” Barnaby who is now on the front bench.
But I think it will be interesting and once again, the Libs will do what they are best at – make themselves the issue. As Paul Kelly made this profound observation today on Insiders “it is fascinating Barry”
Katz @ 69
This conflicts with Possum Comitatus’ analysis on twitter last night (http://twitter.com/Pollytics/status/6364702700) as well as that of William Bowe at the Poll Bludger. It seems like there were some Liberals who voted Green but they were roughly offset by Labor voters who voted Liberal. William Bowe also noted that this trend is evident in Bradfield as well.
There is a lesson for the Greens here in parachuting hand-picked candidates into seats. Notably, Bob Brown himself was strongly in favour of Clive running as – as far as I can work out – a sort of ‘civil disobedience’ action.
It will be interesting to see whether Andrew Bartlett – despite being a local – will come across as a bit of a ‘celebrity candidate’ to the seat of Brisbane and whether Labor will attempt to capitalise on that based on Clive’s performance.
Abbott would be a good opposition leader. He can take the fight up to the government. The Government is supposed to have the comprehensive package and its the opposition leader’s job to try to punch holes through it. He might miss with a few punches and he might cop a few hits in return, but its the bloke who is still standing at the end who wins. Rudd is at record approval ratings. The best that an opposition leader could do is to try to chip away at the Government and stay in the fight. There is an element of luck in politics and it can sometimes come down to being in the right place at the right time. An opposition leader who is competent and consistent, and who has had a few wins, and who is personable would be there to win the title prize if a major scandal should envelop the Government.
Baring a major scandal, you would expect the opposition to plan for a two election process for winning back government. I don’t know whether Tony will be Prime Minister at the end of it though. They might leave the heavy work for Abbott and then install someone like Hawke to win over the ladies (my apologies for the language, but it seems that Abbott in the pugnacious role of opposition leader will probably put women off doubly). But if there is a major scandal or crisis Abbott might win government. We don’t know how he would handle that responsibility. But my opinions are sometimes wide of the mark…
Turnbull wasn’t up to the job. He tried to throw everything into a wild king hit, ala Grech, and then took sides with the government on the ETS against many people in his own party.
Katz@69: “But let’s look at the result in Higgins. The Libs couldn’t convince ANY ALP voters to support them. These ALP supporters would rather vote for a party that opposed the ETS on the grounds that Rudd’s ETS didn’t go far enough.”
Rubbish, complete and utter rubbish. If you bothered to look at the breakdown of the results, that’s simply not true. In Hughesdale, for example, where in 2007 Labor got 61.30% 2pp, there was a swing last night to the Libs of 14.9%. Saying the Libs couldn’t convince any ALP supporters to vote for them is patently untrue. The Greens, however, were able to convince some of the Labor voters and quite a few Liberal voters to support them, for example in Toorak.
And LeftyE: “the Greens walked into a blue-ribbon Liberal seat, and basically pulled the same 2PP vote the ALP would normally get ”
Yes, but it’s pertinent to note that they did *not* pull the same 2pp that the ALP PLUS the Greens would normally get, and in the booths Labor normally wins there was a swing to the Libs.
RobV @80,
you are saying under Abbott the libs could take government in two elections. That would have the ALP in government for about 9 years. I can’t think the libs would be looking at that. I think they are far more ambitious than that.
True Rebekka: in 2007 the ALP got 31.1% primary, the Greens 10.8% – a potential ‘primary’ vote pool of 41.9%. Pulling 35% of that is actually a pretty good result, given the clear differences between the ALP and Greens. But 7% is a significant leakage nonetheless.
But on 2PP (which of course, is by definition only about two parties) – it ended up quite similar. 57-43 to Costello in 07; 57.5 – 42.5 to O’Dwyer in 09.
LeftyE, yep, and it’s very interesting to look at what votes went where, which Hugo and I will be doing for New Matilda tomorrow.
Absolutely Rebekka,
1)ALP voters didn’t turn up. I suppose they’ll find out all about compulsory voting in the mail in the coming weeks. I’d bet most forgot as they headed off to work out of electorate in the very early morning.
2) A percentage of ALP voters will pref. the Libs ahead of the Greens irrespective of the current leaders or current issues. In Vaucluse, NSW State election which should have been a little bit of guide, as I pointed out in an early Higgins thread, where the Green outpolled Labor, the ALP flows were more 65/35.
3) 18-20% usual Green prefs not going to the Libs, opposite. Hello, there is percentage of Green voters who pref the Liberal every time, which is far more unusual one would think than a larger percentage of ALP voters preffing them.
4) A percentage are swinging voters anyway and no biggie for them to switch back to the Libs.
5) The Govt need to climb down & frigging explain their ETS.
I’ve always taken the Brisbane Central state by-election as a bit of a touchstone for this sort of contest where The Greens square off with just one major party. Turnout was just over 2 thirds of the roll, and a lot of Lib voters stayed home rather than support The Greens. It doesn’t surprise me that there are Labor voters who act similarly.
http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/BrisbaneCentral2007/results/district7.html
As discussed on Peter Mares’ show (sorry, forget the identity of the speaker, an academic) we will have to wait for the prepoll vote breakdown to see whether the Liberal disarray had any effect …
Would Abbott be vulnerable on a wide ranging debate against Abbott?
Abbott: “A coalition government would devolve the running of the nation’s public hospitals to the private sector, community groups and charities, opposition frontbencher Tony Abbott says.”
Gee, I wonder?
Yeah, ok, there were individual booth slides and roundabouts in Higgins.
The point is, the net advance for the Libs in Higgins (TPP) against a greenie non-entity was approx 0.5%.
Down market Higginsites appear to have drifted towards the Libs, whereas your silvertails (or at least Toorak flat-dwellers, or both) deserted the Libs.
This has to be worrying for Liberal strategists who are concerned to chart the trends in support for important issues like GW.
Jo, can you give me an idea of the format, content & forum of the explanation you believe they should give? Seriously interested to see people flesh out this idea of an “explanation”. Normally the Gov would wait until there was legislation before working on the education?
Personally, I find the basic concept of an ETS ridiculously easy to grasp, though the government’s willingness to pander to the polluters has introduced some complexity.
That said, one might well wonder why most people have to understand the fine detail of an ETS. It’s doubtful that most people understand the minutiae of the G&ST, or the systems underpinning money supply, current account, TWI, the implications of differences between contract and spot prices of major commodities, the calculation of unemployment and participation rates and so forth. The government spends almost no time explaining these things but the Liberals aren’t bothered about that.
Most people who drive cars don’t understand electronic fuel injection. While most of us use USB’s few could accurately describe the processes of data transfer and handshaking. How many people buying on the web understand the various encryption standards or other protocols that facilitate security or could even name them?
How many people could explain the evaluation processes for approving the drugs they take on the advice of doctors, or for putting items on the PBS list? Very few one suspects.
So why should the test for approval of a system to control emissions be that most people understand it? Most people are not going to understand any conceivable system. Most people don’t understand far simpler things bearing uponh the lives of the populace, and anyone who is really keen to find out and has the wit to do so can easily acquaint him or herself.
You are right, Fran Barlow. However the idea has taken firm hold of the political imagination that one of the reasons the ETS failed was that the government hadn’t “explained” it to the voters. If this complaint is to be addressed, I am wondering what people would find to be an acceptable form of explanation.
Do they want to see a fridge type magnet approach; or Wong doing the rounds of breakfast TV and radio with a well-rehearsed 30 sec potted “explanation”; or are people looking for the full monty – millions of dollars spent on full page ads – that nobody will read- but which can then be used as evidence to counter the supposed explanation deficit.
Many claim that the voter simply wants to be reassured that the government is “doing something” about CC. I am not sure how this melds with the idea that people are also looking for a technical guide to what that something is.
Seriously perhaps this is just all too hard – lets just move straight to mitigation of effects. Way more expensive – but at least the government won’t have to explain how a dyke works.
The premise is wrong. The Opposition’s basic attack is populist in character.
Man-made climate change is something that interests elites and eggheads. It is against common sense, because the climate has always changed. It’s about higher taxes and dark conspiracies amongst rent-seekers and the average Joe who will pay more to keep his beer cool, and about protecting Australia from foreign competition in general and Chinese in particular. This is why Malcolm Turnbull supported an ETS and why its popular at Copenhagen and with UN bureaucrats.
Saying that Rudd and Wong have failed to explain the ETS is simply another instantiation of thei right-wing populist rhetoric whichy seeks to put the oppositon shoulder to shoulder with common sense against ivory tower elites who think they can control the climate.
It helps that they can redux Keating on the GST.
The whole thing is a furphy. If the opposition were consistent they’d argue for direct democracy, but of course, their elite backers would hate that. Imagine Gunns having to explain their policy to the public to get a pulp mill approved, or the owners of Hazelwood explainging why they should be allowed to keep poisoning the public and receiving a subsidy.
There should be a simpler ETS — one with no exceptions for any business above $1 million pa turnover and a simple cap. Start with the 25 tonnes each of us emits and reduce it along a smooth trajectory to reach 25% below 1990 by 2020. Require everyone who fails to have the permits they need to pay a penalty of 150% of the rolling average for the year in which the shortfall occurred. Simple.
The government needs to explain the ETS.
Hmmmm? I would like Abbott to explain why he blocked it. “Great big tax” doesn’t cut it. That isn’t an explanation. I want Abbott to explain to me his government philosophy and how he would implement policies. He has said he wants to privatize our public hospital system. Lets talk about that too. Lets talk about lots of stuff Abbott wants.
Brendon @ 82,
I’m sure that the Libs would be more ambitious than wanting to wait until after the next election to have a realistic shot for Government. But the last few weeks have done a lot of damage – after all the instability while Turnbull was pushing to be leader – and I don’t think there would be too many people who seriously think that the Libs can win the next election that is due in less than a year (at least at the moment – we never know what’s around the corner). If they can narrow the margin of seats in the next election with Abbott facing off against Rudd that would be a good result. For them to then have a chance at the election after that they would have to stick with Abbott even after he technically losses an election. At this stage the best case scenario for the Libs is a two term Rudd Government (not three terms as you think I meant). But this is just uninformed pondering…
Jo, you’re actually mistaken about voters not turning up. Higgins gets a large number of pre-poll and postal votes – in 2007, 8,889 and 6,550 respectively. And the pre-polls were apparently. The numbers per booth look around the same this time. To look at just the first couple figures – Alamein 877 votes in 2007, 909 yesterday. Armadale – 1770 in 07, 1707 yesterday. Some booths that usually go Labor – like Carnegie North – had more voters yesterday than in 07. Once they’ve counted the pre-polls and postals, the turn out almost certainly won’t be partiucularly low, although it’s looking relatively low overall at the moment because of the large number of votes that are not counted on polling day.
Sorry, “And the pre-polls were apparently. ” should have read “And the pre-polls were apparently busy”. Typing fail.
RobV @95,
Oh, OK. You mean Abbott loses this upcoming one, leads for a good portion of the next term then hands over the reign to a more electable liberal. Maybe that might happen. Personally, I think the hard right are in it to win it this time around. They would have preferred Hockey, but will swing behind Abbott. They want this election. Abbott is a conviction politician, so they say. Well, Abbott has sold out over the ETS issue. This is pure opportunism. You only have top look at what he has said since Howard put forward his ETS. At least Minchin believes all the bs from the denialists. Hockey kept his moral compass, and long term he is by far the better candidate. But once someone like Abbott gets power, I doubt he will be a team man about it. He won’t hand over to Hockey easily.
The best tactic against Abbott for Labour is time. Let him expose himself. Rudd has already said lets see Abbott’s climate change policy first before we talk about debates. Surely Abbott must come up with more than “Watch this space…” to the question of what exactly is his policy on climate change.
So far all I can make out from Abbott is:
He believes in climate change.
He doesn’t believe it has been proved it is human made.
In that case Abbott can’t have a carbon emmission policy. It would be a great big tax for nothing since carbon is not the cause. Since he doesn’t believe global warming is man made (CO2), I don’t know what policy he would have. Build more air conditioners?
Srsly though, when Abbott’s thought bubbles on climate change are turned into policy, his hastily concocted raft will sink like a stone.
Tony Abbott believes climate change is made by God. He propably thinks we’re approachging the Last Days.
Rebekka, the figures show a low turnout 71% even with the postal and pre-polls taken into account.
(A few postals to come in only roughly 2900 counted compared to 6500 last time.)
Some booths numbers were similar to 07 but most across electorate were under including most of the big Labor or marginal booths like Carnegie Nth, Orrong, Prahran, Prahran East, South Yarra, Glen Iris Sth etc.
It’s hard to say definitively if low turnout was the reason for a swing one way or people voting differently alto, the Labor booths swung more than low turnout would suggest, viz the opposite swing via low turnout in the others – and that’s why I put 5 different factors not just the low turnout.
I also made the wild assumption that more Labor voters may have left the electorate early in the morning due to having retail/service industry positions and having to work Saturdays unlike professionals who may take the kids to sport etc. but either in area or they’d be driving around the electorate during the day.
Don’t tell anyone, but I think most people know the penalty for not voting is minor.
If you happened to be up at Noosa or travelling in France, on polling day, it does not take much to let the AEC know.
They are busting for you to come up with a valid excuse to maybe cover up for the real reason. Like you couldn’t be buggered because Labor didn’t want to play ball.
This has been a big morale win for the right. Some of my more childish Coalition supporter friends keep saying “yuo know how many turned out to vote for the ALP on the weekend? Zero. Ze-ro!”
Idiots.
The latest Newspoll has ALP/Libs at 56/44. I suggest that Mark is completely right in saying people have already decided who they’ll vote for in the next election.
Yeah, and following on from the by-elections – maybe Bob Brown should debate Tony Abbott on climate change?
PS I love how the ABC and the rest of the MSM has spun this essentially no change Newspoll result as a comeabck: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/07/2763438.htm
That’s because change is a bigger story than no change, I guess.
I thought I’d got over the days where watching the news (as when Ratty was on it every night) made me feel sick and angry. But they’re starting again. The stupidity of some people in this country. I still have this dreadful fear that Abott might sneak in at the next election, even thoughI realise the by-election results mean zilch.
No, the story of this thing, as tssk observes, is that it’s a morale-boosting victory for the right. Which helps stabilize Abbott and embolden the global warming deniers. All the way to Xmas. That is the legacy of Labor’s failure to stand candidates.
I dunno, David and tssk, there is a loose cannon out and about determined to destroy the Christmas cheer.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbotts-climate-change-stand-bullshit-turnbull-20091207-kdic.html
Should it be Anthony “Bullshit” Abbott or Nick “Bullshit” Minchin?
Jo, have you got a link to those postal numbers? I can’t find them anywhere, and from the AEC website it looks like postals haven’t been included in the 71% turnout.
Yesterday at 9pm, Poll Bludger said “Sunday (9pm). Turnout on ordinary votes was 88.8% of the 2007 election in Higgins and 95.9% in Bradfield, compared with 89.3% at the Mayo by-election, 93.2% in Lyne and 89.4% in Gippsland. So it was actually quite high in Bradfield and only slightly below par in Higgins. Part of the reason in Higgins might be that it’s not a growth area. We could equally get a high number of pre-polls and postals bringing the number closer to average. I suspect we’ve seen half the pre-polls counted so far (the rest should come in quite quickly) and a third of the postals (which should dribble in over the next week).”
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/12/05/higgins-and-bradfield-by-elections-live/
I’m old enough to remember the first polls taken after John Howard rolled Andrew Peacock for the Liberal leadership, reported under the banner headline “Howard to crush Hawke”. We can also compare Abbott’s initial Newpoll result with Mark Latham’s.
Referring back to the Higgins and Bradfield by-elections, it’s not rocket science that (a) a sizeable fraction of Labor’s base would either stay home or vote for the Liberals rather than move across to the Greens and (b) most Liberal voters would not jump the ideological and policy gulf between the Liberals and the Greens, even in a by-election. It should also not be too controversial to say that results of a by-electio in which no Labor candidates were running are of limited usefulness in trying to detect shifts in support between the major parties.
I’m coming to an opinion – without the benefit of much evidentiary support of course
– that many of the people who are less engaged with politics on a daily basis are in fact more likely to take their vote seriously, and it is conversely that small persentage of political tragics who are more likely to engage in more game-like aspects like tactical voting.
I voted in the Higgins by-election.
At the last election, I voted for the ALP – I thought it was time for a change after 11 years of Lib rule. It’s never good to have a government in power for too long. This time I voted Liberal. There is no way I’d ever vote for an extremist party like the Greens.
I think the ALP blundered in not running a candidate – they would poll much better than the Greens. It’s a mainstream electorate, conservative leaning – but the ALP is a fairly conservative party these days. A lot of my social group would vote ALP but avoid the Greens.
Just had a look at the figures for Bradfield
It seems that if the CDP had run just one candidate and someohow kept the top position on the ticket (admittedly less likely if you have only one chance rather than 9) they’d have got their deposit back. As it was, none got close.
Susie Gemmell got 36.14% of the vote. If you subtract 27.16% (from the last ALP vote, assuming 100% of ALP voters vote Green instead) then the Greens polled nearly 9%. I thought that ALP + 10% would have been excellent before the poll (and said so here to Paul Burns) so I’d rate this result as pretty good. If 8% is a benchmark for the Greens they’ve improved slightly, especially since this is such a conservative seat — and not a few in this seat regard the Greens as socialists.
Interestingly, the One Nation candidate got just 429 1st preferences, slightly less than the LDP with 516. This shows that there isn’t a lot of dissent within the broad conservative camp either in the direction of more populist xenophobia or more open market economic doctrine. Interestingly, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Coalition (a vacuous kind of motherhood environmental group) both bested them. The Climate Skeptics party got 1158 — and they ran mainly on “no carbon tax” … but not as many as …
Simon Kelly (1333), who ran on a no-safe-seat platform against the Liberals got more than the LDP and One Nation combined. The third party here was the Australian Sex party, which went close to recovering its deposit.
In Higgins the result was similar for the Greens as their vote was the last ALP + 9.35%.
The third party was the DLP, who campaigning against “socialist reconstruction” under the stimulus did as well in Higgins as the ASP did in Bradfield. Then came the ASP who did nearly as well, followed by the Democrats who could only muster about 70% as many votes as the ASP. The LDP did roughly 50% better than One Nation who got only 181 votes.
If your standard for adjudging Abbott’s success is whether the spill was an unmitigated disaster, then you’d have to say Abbott can claim a success. OTOH, these aren’t figures that suggest he will shake up Canberra in 2010, and suggest that at best, he has put a floor under the slide in the Coalition position, at least for now. Mind you, 56-44 2PP would be a catastrophe in a Federal election, and that is still very much in play.
With Turnbull’s comments today, that has to be a distinct possibility.
Fran, I’m interested how you arrive at this: “In Higgins the result was similar for the Greens as their vote was the last ALP + 9.35%”
In 2007, 31.08 the ALP’s first preference vote was 31.08, and 2pp was 42.96.
On Saturday, the Greens’ first preference vote was 33.19, and 2pp was 40.43.
Neither number = the previous ALP + 9.35%
[sigh] Andrew @ 116, the Greens are not an extreme party. The fact that you can write that with (apparently) a straight face says a lot more about you than you realise, and makes your claim that you voted for the ALP at the last Federal election dubious, to say the least.
Trying to wear two hats simultaneously as a Greens member and a political scientist, I think at some point we need to recognise that there is no precedent in Australian political history for a minor party to evolve into a major party and dislodge the long-standing configuration of Labor versus some anti-Labor party or Coalition, and that unfortunately there are precedents for big little parties to stumble and fall fatally when the vaulting ambition to become a big party o’erleapt itself and fell down upon ‘tother.
To have achieved a general level of support (in ordinary circumstances) in the 10-12 per cent range is no mean achievement, either by the standards of other minor parties in Australia or by the standards of Green parties internationally, and I think it is time we had a realistic discussion about how, strategically, we make use of and build on what we have already achieved, and what a genuinely sustainable development of Green politics in Australia over the next decade or so might look like and might require.
Simple maths Rebekka … I was trying to add first preferences — an imprecise method I’ll grant you
40.43–31.08 = …??? 9.35%
Fran, the two numbers you’ve just cited are the Greens’ 2pp on Saturday and the Labor’s first preferences in 2007.
It makes no sense to compare one with the other – either you compare 2pp, or you compare first preferences. Apples and apples.
David,
Yes the Greens are an extremist party – although I guess if you’re well to the left of politics you wouldn’t see it that way. To me (and I’d be fairly representative of the ‘average’ Higgins voter) – the Greens are an outlier left wing party in the same way that One Nation is an outlier right wing party. There are elements of Green policy that I agree with – but in aggregate, they are not a mainstream party. They are a useful ‘protest’ vote but could never be trusted with running the country.
I was offering my perspective as a Higgins voter – someone ‘on the ground’ so to speak. I voted ALP last time and Libs this time – whether you believe that or not makes no difference to me!
Andrew #123, I believe you. Whilst I disagree with your perception of the Greens I don’t dispute that it is one which is held by a significant number of bona fide Labor voters, which is one reason for my comment #114.
I certainly don’t see the Greens as an extremist party — and certainly not a liberal analog to One Nation who are an extremist party in wanting an end to migration from “non-Christian” countries, last time I looked.
That’s not the same as saying the Greens are “mainstream”. That describes a party that in most matters of policy is, officially, close to the consensus. Many of the Greens ideas would qualify on this score — I doubt most would object to their liberal humanist ethos, but there can be little doubt that on the refugee question and on drug laws for example, the consensus favours punitive policy. Most people probably prefer an exclusionary view of marriage — precluding gays from having access to it. I suspect that on matters of defence and foreign policy, the Greens would be very much at the liberal end of the spectrum as well.
So not “mainstream” but not extremist, IMO.
In fact, Andrew, the Libs are more of an extremist party than the Greens have ever been. Howard dragged them to the radical right (he was never a genuine conservative), and now with their current leader (ably assisted by the puppetmeister Minchin) they seem determined to stay there.
I believe Andrew, too. In fact its always been my experience of most ALP voters. It is changing – but the majority perception of the Greens is still that they are, well, a bunch of greenies.
How you move that misperception towards the truth, I’ve no idea. People do not read party websites, they do not read Hansard, they do not read newspapers, they do not watch political TV programmes. To do it quickly takes a lot of money and a lot of people. Look at the succesful massive union campaign on Workchoices. That’s what these things take. The Greens don’t have that kind of money.
The Greens role is to drag the debate, and hence the ALP to the left. They have to fight tooth and nail for upper house votes. Every 1% at every election counts big time. They were so close to having the BOP this year. We almost could have had a decent ETS. (Now, if the 13% holds up at a DD.)
Fran…. you’re last ‘word’ was the important one. ‘IMO’
That’s the key. I was trying to give you a perspective of why the Higgins result came out the way it did. I’m a fairly typical Higgins voter – from the leafy family suburb of Malvern. IMO – the Greens are an extremist party. That would be a typical opinion in Malvern (but not everyone’s – how boring would that be!).
With the Libs problems and shift to the right under Abbott – it is actually possible that Higgins could one day be an ALP seat. But it is never going to be a Greens seat.
A Galaxy poll in The Hun, during the weekend, found just 15 per cent of voters consider him (Tony Abbott) an “extremist”. I agree with them.
David,
That’s fine – you are more than welcome to consider the Liberals extremist (the bewdy about Oz is that you wont get locked up for having those views of one of the ruling parties!). But to paraphrase, well… you…. that says more about you than you realise! Obviously if your politics is well to the left then you won’t see the Greens as extremist but you might see a mainstream centre-right party as extremist. I’m sure the wing-bats who voted for One Nation probably see the ALP as extremist!
That’s interesting Andrew. Would you have voted ALP if they’d run a candidate?
As a Green memebr may I say how sad I was when Hamilton was nominated by the clique who have taken control of the Vic Greens; it was a stupid move in a byelection to bring in an outsider and just as suily to make the vote a plebisciote on climate change. Bye bye Clive dont come again.
All very well Andrew — as I said above, in Bradfield, your core Liberal voters see the greens as some sort of “socialists” or hair shirt advbocates — which for them makes the Greens extremist.
Perhaps this is what set DI(NR) off. Your view really is the Conservative Liberal position, which, along with your previous support to Howard, doubtless drove his response.
Do most people however, see the Greens as extremist? I suspect not. If you got people to say what they thought of most of the Greens’ actual policies, while many would have fatal reservations about the practicability of at least some of them, I doubt most would think them extremist.
It’s a mistake to map voting patterns onto this. I read some years ago that in Australia, IIRC, about 60% of people vote the same way in every federal and state election four and five times in sequence. They dio this regardless of what they think of the policies of other parties to the right and left of their preferred party, because they think of themselves as part of a tribe. It’s like Ford v Holden or some years ago, Catholics v Protestants. One of the bizarre things I saw up at St Ives the other night was the number of Liberals who voted 1 for Fletcher and 2 for the Greens. This made no sense at all, if one wanted to tell Fletcher you’d like the liberals to take green policies seriously because he was always going to finish on top of the primaries. Their tribal loyalty was so strong that they set aside their preference to support the tribal candidate.
That’s fair enough, but if even Liberals are sympathetic, it doesn’t suggest most think Greens are extremist.
David @ 126
“the Libs are more of an extremist party than the Greens have ever been.”
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That actually made me laugh. What a nice start to the week.
Rove McManus’s slot is free.
“Most people probably prefer an exclusionary view of marriage — precluding gays from having access to it.”
Actually 60% of Australians support marriage equality: http://www.theage.com.au/national/rise-in-support-for-gay-marriage-20090616-ce8k.html
Very encouraging Rebekka. Perhaps it is this poll here:
galaxy poll
I’m more than happy to stand corrected on this, especially since it tends to strengthen my claim that The Greens are not extremist.
Personally, rather than having gay marriage, I’d favour the state simply rebranding all marriage-like relationships as civil unions with all the rights and burdens hitherto conferred by marriage, and leaving the business of “marriage” to churches. Of course, that would require inter alia constitutional changes, so it’s probably not practicable.
“Do most people however, see the Greens as extremist? I suspect not.”
Quick, to the Australian Election Study results for 2007! (somewhere in here: http://assda-nesstar.anu.edu.au/webview/index.jsp)
Section B10 – Where would you place each of the parties on an 0-10 left-right scale
Zero is left as you can go, 10 is right as you can go.
Green 0 score: 10.4%
Liberal 10 score: 17.2%
Green 0-2 score: 34.7%
Liberal 8-10 score: 49.1%
Green 5 score: 24%
Liberal 5 score: 15.4%
Labor 5 score: 23.7%
On every measure, I think, the popular perception of the Federal Liberal Party is that they are more extreme than the Greens and a greater proportion of people believe the Greens to be right in the centre (or neither left nor right) than any other party.
d
“That actually made me laugh. What a nice start to the week.”
The truth of it must have unconsciously set you free to laugh, Razor.
Oh, and if you’re wondering about voters’ self-identification left-right:
Question B9
0 score: 2.0%
10 score: 5.5%
0-2 score: 8.1%
8-10 score: 16.4%
5 score: 39.1%
So it’s not that Australia (or the sample) was a set of self-identified lefties who reckon the liberals are right-wing extremists. We’re a population that skews right-wing and identify the Federal Liberal party as extremely right-wing.
d
“One of the bizarre things I saw up at St Ives the other night was the number of Liberals who voted 1 for Fletcher and 2 for the Greens.”
Working polling booths as a Green candidate, the most common comment I get from voters is on their way out, with a grin or a wink or a thumbs up: “I gave you my number 2, hope you get in!”
d
Fine,
Yes – I would probably have voted for a sensible ALP candidate if one existed – the ALP is clearly more fit to govern than the Libs at the moment. I voted for the ALP last time and they haven’t yet had a chance to show what they can do. I would probably vote for the ALP again at the next general election if they field a candidate.
It was really a terrible choice in Higgins. The Liberal candidate looks like a 32 yr old version of Bronwyn Bishop – she dresses and looks like a 50 yr old! I’d never vote Green for reasons above. I actually put Fiona Patten 2nd on the ticket for a laugh (the sex party) – I then randomly mixed up the independents and had Greens 9th and One Nation 10th.
Thanks Andrew. I also think the Greens had a problem with their specific candidate. I heard Hamilton say on Sunday that he wouldn’t be standing for election again. They would have been much better off standing a local who was committed to the area. Sounds like you wouldn’t have voted Green anyway, but perhaps others would have.
Passing over your claim that the Greens are extremist, Andrew, and that this is a sufficient reason for you not to support them, I’d be curious as to what policies of the greens you’d regard as being too extremist to support.
Sorry fine, no I wouldn’t have voted Green even they ran my sister as a candidate (a card carrying Green member)! Apart from the fact that I consider the Greens an extreme left party – I also don’t like minority parties in general. I think we end up with bad policy outcomes in Australia when the major political parties end up pandering to minority views in order to get legislation through the Senate. I think it’s a problem with our political system when minority views from politicians such as Xenophon, Hanson, Nile and Brown carry disproportionate weight because the ALP or Libs have to cut a deal to get piece of mainstream legislation enacted. Yes I know this was a house of reps by-election, but the principle remains the same.
Fran, I agree – it’s very encouraging.
Yes Andrew, just look at the ETS. Wrecked by the mainstream pandering to the Minchinites.
Fran,
There are a number of Green policies that I think are extreme (e.g. tax, peace and security, employment and industrial relations, health), silly (e.g nuclear, economics) or just plain impractical (e.g. Aboriginal, housing).
Virtually all green policies are linked back in some way to the burning issues that the Greens seem to stand for;
1. Climate change
2. Aboriginal rights
3. Womens rights.
4. Gay and Lesbian rights
Now while I have no objection to any of those issues being addressed – (and indeed, they are all noble issues that should be addressed by any government) they should not be the centre-piece of a government’s policy settings. The Greens extreme policy views elevate these issues ahead of the mainstream issues.
wbb,
I agree. ALthough don’t forget the Greens also opposed the ETS.
@52
Sorry Shaky I just thought because you were taking such obvious pleasure in the embarrassment of the deluded lefties given the Libs astounding victory it was not unreasonable to assume that you had in fact a great deal of affinity with the likes of Wilson and Cori. The prospect of a victory at the next federal poll must have you drooling with anticipatory pleasure.
“The Daily Telegraph and the Australian were pretty spot on it would seem.”
Stopped clocks.
I think the Greens are radical because there is a cult-like element in the fringes of the movement that are decidedly anti-liberal and authoritarian. Most Greens supporters are not radicals and take a reasonable view of things. I wouldn’t want to see the Greens with too much power because that would find the small number radicals pushing for positions of power and they would be ruthless. From my experience, that is what Deep radicals are planning for if they ever had the chance. I admit that you see the same kind of thing with the religious right in the Liberals and with some of the right factions in the ALP. But I wouldn’t want a bunch of people with the ideological imperative of reducing population as their solution for environmental degradation being given control of the states’ security apparatus and personnel.
I think the small-l liberal approach is the best for debating ideas on their merits and for putting together the best policies for any particular issue that you want to address. A liberal approach does not always get things done quickly the way some powerful people may want them to be done. It is usually a slow process but if you include enough people, it can have a real positive effect over time. Of course there are spoilers and usually power-political types try to polarise issues so that they become unworkable and personalised. I think it works and that it is the best approach for finding workable long term policies for difficult problems – including climate change.
RobV your post falls down on its own logic.
First of all you describe an element of the greens as dangerous but say that they’re a fring element. You also admit that there are similarly wacky elements in the major parties.
Your logic falls apart when you for some weird reason assume that the fringe elements of the Greens would gain power, whereas the fringe elements of the majors never have or will. To which I say Exhibit A: the current liberal party.
To suggest that fringe elements in the greens are more of a danger and could get their hands on power when we have a federal opposition that refuses to believe the overwhelming science on climate change is just laughable. And don’t get me started on all the not particularly well hidden religious nuts in both major parties, which have been exercising influence over key policies for years (hello, gay rights?).
As a greens member I can also say with confidence that while we certainly have our share of interesting characters they have never and I doubt ever will exercise any real influence being roundly defeated by consensus in the party because they are as you correctly say, a fringe element. Moreover most of the deep green elements – tiny as they are – in society with really extreme views on population aren’t green members because we’ve sold out, didn’t ya know; or they are extreme racists who find the Greens human rights’ policies intolerable. Regrettably some of them in the public domain do try and co-opt green interests in seriously examining population issues as a stalking horse.
But returning to my original point, I think you really need to back up assertions about greens being more wacky and ‘dangerous’ with power than a bunch of self-proclaimed climate denialists currently running the opposition for that to have any traction.
Myriad74 @ 151,
The ones that I am worried about aren’t the dread-locked feral types. They are the well educated and very presentable ones with large networks of influence. You won’t usually see them and you might not even realise that they were part of a deep green network. It’s something they wouldn’t advertise to outsiders in any case. A cell-like model for that kind of group of extremist would be taken form Lenin and his followers.
If there was an environmental panic and food supplies and/or water supplies and/or energy supplies were suddenly at a critical level you might find that many people would go out and hoard whatever they could get their hands on. Distribution networks might start to collapse and general anarchy might set in. It would have to be pretty bad to get to that stage. In times of crisis radical networks come into their own. Until then you won’t notice them much, except if they were active setting up utterly counter-productive and dysfunctional policies that would wear down the mass production / distribution / consumption systems for food, water and energy. The radical green types that I am worried about won’t be seen anywhere near a green protest and they wear suits to work. They have had plenty of time to obtain respectable work titles.
Finally, that is something that I can not prove and that does not worry me in the least. I think that a small-l liberal approach is a better way to deal with environmental problems and that we can have sustainable energy systems that can satisfy our societies needs. I think the Smart Grid with energy storage and renewable sources of energy can replace greenhouse gas polluting sources of energy.
RobV. ‘Cult-like element”. What? Witches?
I’m sorry Rob V, but speaking as a past state office bearer, several year national delegate and all round cheerful party hack for the greens, what you’ve written is pure unsubstantiated twaddle. On the bright side it’s an amusing read- but careful you’re stereotypes are hanging out for all to see.
But thank goodness you’re here to point out to me to pay closer attention to all the party members who don’t have dreadlocks! That narrows it down to 99.8% of – oh shit, maybe you’re right!! =:o
On the other hand if you’d actually like to indulge your interest in ‘cells’ operating with deep influence and networks within political organisations, may I point you to verifiable, documented ones such as in God Under Howard and Jeff Sharlet’s work on The Family. You might also want to note their passionate adherence to apocalypse and armageddon theory where it’s perfectly ok for all the ‘unbelievers’ particulary ones of colour to die.
And seriously, when you write about the breakdown of the society & what might happen, I think you’ll find that most life boat theorists and practitioners are of a more hard-line extreme right / libertarian view.
On the other hand the Greens do advocate one ‘radical’ and verified way of reducing population – women’s equality, something that all the major powers that be have spectacularly failed to deliver. But we’re a shocking bunch of radicals like that.
Paul Burns @ 153,
I have no problem with Wicca as long as they do no harm.
There are a number of radically different paradigms that you adopt when reading about Deep Ecology. A cynical authoritarian from either the far left or the far right would have a certain take on these Dark Green principles.
In the Australian Election Survey 18% of 2007 Labor voters said they would never vote for the Greens.That pretty much explains the result in both seats.
Geoff #156, thanks for the empirical political science. It’s the sort of thing we need more of in discussions like this.
Geoff, have you got a link to that research by any chance?
Rebekka, it’s here under Politics / Election and Campaign Studies / Australia Electoral Study 2007. But you’ll need a username to look at the variables in that detail. (It’s B.16 through B.18).
Thanks Liam, I’ve registered
Note also that in that variable B.16 the Greens had the highest number of people of any Party who reported they’d “never” vote for them (32.7% against 19.6% ALP, 23.8% Liberal, 27.2% Nat, 31% another Party incl. One Nation), and in B.18 rank highest for “Strongly Dislike”.
That I had not expected, even as a partisan of years of Labor-Green battles in the Sydney Inner West.
67.3% would consider it!
Cool resource.
Oh yeah no question Izquierdista. The AES is the heavyweight settler of almost any current political stoush if you use it right.
Hey Rebekka, sorry been caught up in other stuff. You must have seen the figures at the aec site by now. The postals nearly 5900 of 8700 counted as of today, turnout now at 75%. Should have factored in the 3/4 lib postal from last time when looking at the 2PP the other night, but 2am posts…
Have you already put something up, pls. let us know.
Superb Liam. Candy Shop. I registered under the loony/tragic ‘personal user’ option.
Fran/wbb – sorry I didn’t mean explain the workings of the ETS – I’m meant KISSing the voters, only saw the Tele front page this morning..(haven’t managed anything else today) and there was a full colour pic of the planet with pledge from Kevvie:
“Families will pay little or nothing for Labor’s emissions trading scheme, PM Kevin Rudd has pledged, saying low-income families will be fully compensated.
A big sloppy kiss and bear-hug.
Well, the Liberals held both seats, no great surprise there, but by a slightly bigger margin that I thought they would get.
I handed out the Vote Climate candidate scorecard at the Presbyterian Church, Wattletree Road. Many voters took it. One Liberal HTVer person seemed a bit miffed at the Vote Climate presence – he kept calling me “a green” and “you lot” – despite my blue T shirt.
I politely explained about the Climate Network and Action Groups and why they rated the Liberal candidate Kelly O’Dwyer so low on climate change.
I think just handing out the Vote Climate cards had a big impact. Bean counters in all political parties tend to analyse trends down to the booth level. The Liberal vote was down between 2% and 3% at booths were Vote Climate leaflets were handed out.
I think it was a pity there wasn’t more of a swing against the Liberals – but this indicates to me that a way to get a climate message through to many voters is when they will be personally impacted – hobby farms burnt in bushfires, gardens dying due to water restrictions, holiday house values plummeting as sea levels rise, rates rising etc.
They don’t seem tuned into or interested in the nonsense in Canberra.