Australian Politics (8 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

I also don't get it.

Rudd's just getting good at last, as far as I'm concerned, why would this then lead to a popularity drop like this? It's not as though the Coalition have listed their game, or the ALP having done something awful and contentious. The media's hostile, but no more so than they've been for the past few months.

Just weird.

It's within 3% of what's expect so it could well just be a rogue poll. That or it's not just one incident but a cumulative thing which have made people realise that Labor's not perfect and shift a lot of people back to their natural affiliations. Keep in mind that the $900 would be all but forgotten about by this point, too.

 

[withoutaface]

That's odd. It doesn't add up (compared to last election's result and 2PP). The only way that is valid is if ALL the minor party gains since preference the Coalition to offset the Greens increase and Nationals' fall. Which seems very unlikely, yet Newspoll reckons otherwise.

Even assuming a surge in Family First, would they even preference the Coalition like that? Unless it's some LDP surge I'm not accounting for or something (unlikely).

Why do you talk about the LDP as if they have an effect upon anything?

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Why do you talk about the LDP as if they have an effect upon anything?

Because they might now. With the financial crash, Internet censorship, and a slowly growing base, quite it's not unreasonable to wonder if the Libertarian party has increased from, say, 0.5% to 2.5% or something since 2007. And they'd mostly preference Liberal, so that potential 2% increase in LDP would explain the unusually high Coalition 2PP showing this Newspoll.

But it's probably just the MoE like you said. It's not your other explanation - people turning away from Labour - because Rudd's favourability rose and unfavourability fell in that same poll.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Federal Senate Possibilities 2011, no DD
This is all assuming Labour preferences the Greens and doesn't fuck around with idiots like Fielding this time. Considering the goings on with him blocking most of their bills - far more than the Greens, I think that's a safe assumption.

Northern Territory (No Nats)
Labour 1
Liberal 1
Greens 0

ACT(No Nats)
ACT if Labour and/or Greens do slightly better than last time:
Labour 1
Liberal 0
Greens 1

ACT if Greens or Labour perform the same or worse than last time:
Labour 1
Liberal 1
Greens 0

Most probable scenario: The Liberals are barely holding on as it as with 34.2% last election when quota is 33.3%. Meanwhile Greens got 21.5% last election and that was before they formed government in the recent ACT state election, so expect further Greens gains.
Labour 1
Greens 1

Tasmania (No Nats)
Tasmania if Greens do well and Labour doesn't:
Labour 2
Liberal 2
Greens 2

Tasmania if Greens do well but so does Labour:
Labour 3
Liberal 2
Greens 1

Most probable scenario: The Greens need 28.5% for 2 seats. They had 18.2% last time and by now will be well above 20%. 28.5% is a big ask, but if Labour falters, they may well be high enough to take Labour's preferences and win another seat, instead of vice versa.
Labour 3
Liberal 2
Greens 1


SA (No Nats
Fairly cut and dry: it's almost impossible for the Greens not to win a seat here on their own support, Xenophon support, and Labour prefs. The lack of Xenophon running here (he may run somebody, but they will fail because they're not him and he's not a party) means Labour will get an extra seat compared to last time.
Labour 3
Liberal 2
Greens 1

WA (Nats seperate)
Fairly cut and dry: it's almost impossible for the Greens not to win a seat here on their own support and Labour prefs. Labour is weak here, guarenteeing the Greens a seat instead of and extra one of their own.
Labour 3
Liberal 2
Greens 1

QLD (Nats joint ticket with Libs)
QLD if Labour is behind the Coalition (probably because of a strong Greens)
Labour 2
Greens 1
Coalition 3

QLD if Labour is roughly equal with the Coalition:
Labour 3
Greens 0
Coalition 3

QLD if Labour is squarely ahead of the Coalition:
Labour 3
Greens 0 or 1 depending on how much the Coalition loses by
Coalition 2 or 3 as above

Most probable scenario: Status quo seems likely - weak Coalition and weak Labour, but still slightly too strong for the Greens to gain a seat.
Labour 3
Greens 0
Coalition 3

NSW (Nats joint ticket with Libs)
NSW if Labour is behind the Coalition (probably because of a strong Greens):
Labour 2
Greens 1
Coalition 3

NSW if Labour is roughly equal with the Coalition:
Labour 3
Greens 0
Coalition 3

NSW if Labour is squarely ahead of the Coalition:
Labour 3
Greens 1
Coalition 2

Likely scenario: Hard to tell. State Labour might hurt Federal Labour here, while they've certainly boosted the Greens. A Green seat is very likely but not guarenteed.
Labour 2
Greens 1
Coalition 3

Vic (Nats joint ticket with Libs)
Vic if Labour is behind the Coalition (probably because of a strong Greens)
Labour 2
Greens 1
Coalition 3

Vic if Labour is roughly equal with the Coalition and Family First pref Liberals:
Labour 2
Greens 1 if Family First pref Liberal
Coalition 3 if Family First pref Liberal

Vic if Labour is roughly equal with the Coalition and Family First pref Labour:
Labour 3
Greens 0 if Family First pref Labour
Coalition 3 if Family First pref Labour

Vic if Labour is squarely ahead of the Coalition and FF pref Liberals:
Labour 3
Greens 1
Coalition 2

Vic if Labour is squarely ahead of the Coalition and FF pref Labour:
Labour 3
Greens 1
Coalition 2

Likely scenario: Hard to tell. Pretty much every scenario contradicts all the others. At a guess I'd say:
Labour 3
Greens 1
Coalition 2

Australia-Wide Total
2011 probable Senate seats:
Coalition 15
Labour 18
Greens 5

2007 Senate seats:
Coalition 18
Labour 18
Greens 3
Xenophon 1

2011 Total:
Coalition 33
Labour 36
Greens 8
Xenophon 1

Today's Senate:
Coalition 37
Labour 32
Greens 5
Xenophon 1
Fielding 1

Seats needed for total control of Senate:
76/2 + 1 = 39

Phew, Labour wouldn't have total dominance of the Senate. Let's suppose Labour performs exceptionally in every state... even then Labour could get at most 38 seats. Seems we're safe from Labour torpedoing legislation through at least till 2014, if ever.

 

[blue_chameleon]

From Costello's last press conference:

Journalist: It's the supreme act of self-sacrifice that you died so that Malcolm Turnbull might live.

Costello (to laughter): And that casts me exactly as who? C'mon, say it!

 

[Rafy]

Ruddbank has been rejected by the senate.

Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009
Negatived at third reading Senate divided: Ayes 29; Noes 37

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Ruddbank has been rejected by the senate.

Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill 2009
Negatived at third reading Senate divided: Ayes 29; Noes 37

So Rudd losts votes in his own party?

 

[Rafy]

Coalition and Greens voted against.

Appears there were a few absent. They would have been paired. Quite normal.

 

[Lentern]

I withdraw my slamming of the panic button. I believe Costello will be finished when a different liberal prime minister is sworn in and not a day sooner. Pre-selections can be overturned and the coalition party have a history of trying to parachute leaders in from outside of parliament: Sir Joh and Dr Hewson. Departing parliament similarly does not mean the end of the line for political careers, our federal treasurer some might remember struck out in 1996. (But Nelson is finished, he has nowhere near the partyroom standing and personal political appeal neccessary to pull off such feats)

Finally anyone who thinks this will guarantee Turnbull safe passage to a 2010 election is demented, I give him six weeks till Hockey becomes the
lernative leader of the oppositons. Unless he can really start scoring threatening Rudd quickly he is a dead man walking.

Where do you get your senate mail from Shodan? I don't really get psephology so mine is very much just what Malcolm Marckeras and Adam Carr post with a bit of tweaking to allow for my own views (eg whether opposing stimulus will hurt or help coalition) but my expectation was that Greens had no chance of two in Tasmania unless Brown is up for re-election, NSW looks certain with Lee Rhiannon running, Victoria I think Greens are unlucky not have allready with family first preferences and an "anybody but Howard" mentality hurting them in 04 and 07 and ACT would take something extraordinary for Greens to win a seat.

 

[Rafy]

Coalition attempts to filibuster the CPRS will fail.

Labor's plan to thwart delay to climate bill

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

ACT would take something extraordinary for Greens to win a seat.

The ACT prediction doesn't require any special knowledge to understand. Threshold is 33.3%. Liberal got 34% last time, Greens 21%. If the Libs slip in any way, the Greens will win their seat off Labour preferences (Labour not having enough votes itself to win a second seat, at 40% I believe, only 7% towards the next quota).

The only point of contention is whether or not Liberal will fall further - which is essentially a referendum on the Greens performance in ACT coalition government. Or it would be if the Greens hadn't also made significant electoral gains since the last election.

I don't think it's possible for the Libs to retain the ACT senate seat now.

 

[blue_chameleon]

I withdraw my slamming of the panic button. I believe Costello will be finished when a different liberal prime minister is sworn in and not a day sooner. Pre-selections can be overturned and the coalition party have a history of trying to parachute leaders in from outside of parliament: Sir Joh and Dr Hewson. Departing parliament similarly does not mean the end of the line for political careers, our federal treasurer some might remember struck out in 1996. (But Nelson is finished, he has nowhere near the partyroom standing and personal political appeal neccessary to pull off such feats)

Hey, what would you be willing to bet on Costello making a return and having a stab at the leadership of the party?

Obviously, never say never. I get it. But lets be realistic here. Considering he couldn't even stand up to Howard on the alleged leadership deal that was made, Pete hardly strikes me as the kind of fellow that would blow in with the breeze after a nice holiday in the wilderness and take the reigns of the party.

However, he has left on a positive note individually, and we can't rule this stuff out completely because only he can make that decision. But honestly. Common sense. It's not going to happen. Let's not simply throw ideas around here for the sake of throwing them around.

 

[Lentern]

Hey, what would you be willing to bet on Costello making a return and having a stab at the leadership of the party?

Obviously, never say never. I get it. But lets be realistic here. Considering he couldn't even stand up to Howard on the alleged leadership deal that was made, Pete hardly strikes me as the kind of fellow that would blow in with the breeze after a nice holiday in the wilderness and take the reigns of the party.

However, he has left on a positive note individually, and we can't rule this stuff out completely because only he can make that decision. But honestly. Common sense. It's not going to happen. Let's not simply throw ideas around here for the sake of throwing them around.

Well I allready have 20 riding on Costello to be the next pm so yeah.

Re the Howard deal I put it to you forcing the issue would not have been practical. What should he have done? When Keating challenged Hawke in 1991 the government was in serious trouble, it appeared as though Hewson was headed for a landslide. The party room might consider tossing out a dead man walking but not a popular prime minister and the only times the Howard government really looked in trouble were mid 2001(no party would chuck out a pm after just five years) and in 2007.

It might be fair to ask why didn't he challenge Howard then but what good would come of it? It was clear the game was up he would have knived a liberal party legend only to then lose the election for the party six months later.

There was no good time while Costello was in government to challenge Howard. If such a deal was made as Costello and McLachland claim it would not have been a little naive but not unreasonable for Costello to back down in1996 and finally post government leadership. Where is the appeal in being a failed opposition leader really? I think Dr Nelson is evidence of just howdamaging being in the position at the wrong time can be, to a lesser extent Beazley as well.

People say Costello had opportunities but really he had opportunities to become a Billy Snedden or a William Mcmahon, not a Malcolm Fraser or Robert Menzies.

I don't think anyone would contest Costello has prime ministerial aspirations. There is a line in his book that goes something like this "Beazley was unlucky, he'd have been much more likely to become prime minister if he became leader in 2006 instead of 1996." To me that says he subscribes to my theory about electoral cycles and if its possible he will certainly move into position when the next boat comes round.

If Costello does bow out at the next election I think Rudd will win atleast four terms of government.

 

[blue_chameleon]

*snip*

That's all fair enough, I wont argue on semantics. I guess I just cant see how he would gain positive support when he bows out and then returns to say "hi guys, yeah i was just joking. I want the leadership". I can't see Rudd losing enough public support and/or the Libs failing so bad with who they have that the party lunges at the opportunity to support him for the leadership, even if they might not have much. Same applies to the Australian public as well.

One example of negative public support to someone reneging on their decision to retire is John Farnham, announcing a tour after his "Last Time" tour. I predict a similar reaction, even if I do wish he would return and take the leadership and subsequently the PM'ship.

We can only wait and see. Is anyone else on the same page as you, Lentern? Journalist/Commentators?

 

[Lentern]

The ACT prediction doesn't require any special knowledge to understand. Threshold is 33.3%. Liberal got 34% last time, Greens 21%. If the Libs slip in any way, the Greens will win their seat off Labour preferences (Labour not having enough votes itself to win a second seat, at 40% I believe, only 7% towards the next quota).

The only point of contention is whether or not Liberal will fall further - which is essentially a referendum on the Greens performance in ACT coalition government. Or it would be if the Greens hadn't also made significant electoral gains since the last election.

I don't think it's possible for the Libs to retain the ACT senate seat now.

Turnbull is a more progressive and skilled leader then Howard plus the decline of the dems means less preferential flow through for the Greens. According to Antony Greens site and again I don't really get psephology libs got the ACT senate seat before preferences. Presumably most other preferences being ALP and Dems will flow through to the greens but the greens would need just about all of them and they won't get all of them they'd be lucky to get 80%.

 

[Lentern]

That's all fair enough, I wont argue on semantics. I guess I just cant see how he would gain positive support when he bows out and then returns to say "hi guys, yeah i was just joking. I want the leadership". I can't see Rudd losing enough public support and/or the Libs failing so bad with who they have that the party lunges at the opportunity to support him for the leadership, even if they might not have much. Same applies to the Australian public as well.

One example of negative public support to someone reneging on their decision to retire is John Farnham, announcing a tour after his "Last Time" tour. I predict a similar reaction, even if I do wish he would return and take the leadership and subsequently the PM'ship.

We can only wait and see. Is anyone else on the same page as you, Lentern? Journalist/Commentators?

Well for starters he does it more tactfully then saying "hey guys i've changed my mind." It would go something like this:

He gets Tony Abbott to round up a bunch of lackeys and start publicly begging him to stay on for another term to which Costello declines initially. When its really coming to the crunch Costello says something like "Look Kerry I've made my decision, the coalition have an excellent candidate in Higgans now and he has my full support etc etc."

The new candidate is met in a dark alley by Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin who promise the kid senate pre-selection in five years time if he declines the nomination under the condition that Costello stands. Reluctantly Costello insists that he never sought this but he had decided to retire because he felt it was in the parties interests and that they wanted to look forward to a new generation and get some exciting young blood in Higgans but if they really wanted him to stay on he could think of no better job then serving as the member for Higgans.

As for backing, many of them(Henderson, William Bowe, Switzer, Kerr) have expressed similar views about Costello's aspirations before his announcement the other day but the only one who keeps the dream alive still is Peter Brent. Brent is fairly unknown so i'll introduce you, he runs the blogging/random jottings web site mumble, is a member of the Australian Democratic Audit, writes occasionally (about once every six weeks i find) for the Australian, writes often for inside story and has a long running rivalry with possum.

This article here kind of demonstrates that Brent and I are pretty much in lockstep on most things political.

 

[spiny norman]

He gets Tony Abbott to round up a bunch of lackeys and start publicly begging him to stay on for another term to which Costello declines initially. When its really coming to the crunch Costello says something like "Look Kerry I've made my decision, the coalition have an excellent candidate in Higgans now and he has my full support etc etc."

The new candidate is met in a dark alley by Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin who promise the kid senate pre-selection in five years time if he declines the nomination under the condition that Costello stands. Reluctantly Costello insists that he never sought this but he had decided to retire because he felt it was in the parties interests and that they wanted to look forward to a new generation and get some exciting young blood in Higgans but if they really wanted him to stay on he could think of no better job then serving as the member for Higgans.

lol

 

[blue_chameleon]

Lentern, I would kill a nun for your wicked sense of imagination.

PM me your secret herbs.

 

[Iron]

Lol sure, Costello chose to not recontest the seat in an even more elaborate ploy to achieve leadership of the party he has never wanted to lead. Makes so much sense...

 

[Sicherhetsdient]

Lol sure, Costello chose to not recontest the seat in an even more elaborate ploy to achieve leadership of the party he has never wanted to lead. Makes so much sense...

You are SO wrong Iron. Lentern is correct. This has to be the greatest tactic ever in the history of Australian politics and the great Lentern said it here first.


toughen up buddy.

lol