A million Australians vote Green in the Senate
November 27, 2007 by Tim Hollo
With the Senate numbers still to be finalised - and maybe a while off - we do have one milestone we can confirm: achieving the million votes mark in the Senate.
Latest projections (with a significant number of votes still to be counted) have 1,080,000 Australians having cast their first preference Senate vote for the Greens. That’s up from 917,000 in 2004 and a very solid 1.5% swing towards us. Giving us 9.2% of the vote at this stage, it is the highest national vote for a minor party since the Democrats polled 10.8% in 1996. At a polarised election with a big swing to Labor, that’s quite an achievement.
In the House, the stand-out result has got to be Adam Bandt, in Melbourne, who on current counting has overtaken the Liberals to make the Greens the second player in that seat and being a real challenge to Labor next election. Across the country, we can be very pleased with an increased vote that has delivered a swag of seats - 21 on some estimates - to Labor that they most likely would not have won without our preferences. Importantly, that includes Bass, Braddon and Bennelong.
The big question still to be resolved, of course, is how our million votes will translate to actual Senate numbers. It’s still too early to say for sure, but we’re confident of returning with five, up from our current four, and we’re not out of the race in three more. We could well have seven Senators in the new Senate and we’ll hold or share the balance of power.
Perhaps the greatest achievement was to break through the quota on primary votes in Tasmania - Bob’s 17.7% is well above the 14.2% needed to elect a Senator. This is the first time the Greens have achieved quota on primaries and I believe only the second time any minor party has done so, after the Democrats in South Australia. It is also the highest ever vote for a minor party in any State - the Democrats achieved 16.4% in SA in 1990.
In the ACT, the numbers are even higher. Kerrie Tucker at this stage has polled 22%, by far the highest ever vote for a minor party in any jurisdiction in Australia. It makes Canberra the Greenest city in Australia and undoubtedly one of the Greenest in the world. Whether it achieves the result of getting Kerrie elected is still too early to call, as the Liberals’ Senator Humphries is currently sitting just a fraction over quota. But with a large pile of pre-poll and absent votes still to be counted (which tend to favour us as you can read here), it was rather premature of Humphries to call the result on Saturday night in his favour.
Scott Ludlam and the WA Greens have done a tremendous job in the campaign, and we’re extremely confident that Senator Ludlam will be joining Bob, Christine and Rachel in Canberra from July. In South Australia, Sarah Hanson-Young is looking very likely indeed to be elected, well ahead of the third Liberal and Labor candidates, after Nick Xenophon knocked down the votes of both major parties.
Richard Di Natale in Victoria is in for a long wait. On current counting he is just trailing behind the third Liberal candidate, with 0.95 of a quota. We’re waiting for a lot of pre-poll and absent votes to come in which should favour Richard even more than the usual trend, given that election weekend also held the Queenscliff Music Festival, the Earthcore Festival and the Great Victorian Bike Ride! Richard is not out of the running at all and we have great hopes that he’ll make it.
In Queensland, it is just possible that Larissa Waters could make it over the line, beating the third Labor candidate. A lot is resting on where Pauline’s preferences go, unfortunately. That’s not likely to favour Larissa. But look out next time because she ran an excellent campaign! It would be remiss, of course, this being a pollie-blog, not to mention the sad loss of Andrew Bartlett, along with his Senate Democrat colleagues, as a great voice for progressive politics in the Senate.
In NSW, sadly, we’re saying goodbye to Senator Kerry Nettle. The way the votes fell this time gave both the Coalition and Labor pretty much spot on 3 quotas, leaving no room for any minor party candidates. It looks like the same result will play out in Queensland and, possibly Victoria, if Richard doesn’t make up the difference to beat the third Liberal.
So, how does it all balance out?
Well, with Bob and Nick Xenophon taking out two Liberal Senators, the Coalition will lose their absolute majority in July, unless somehow the third Liberal in South Australia manages to beat Sarah Hanson-Young, in which case they would maintain a blocking majority of 38 out of 76. NSW, WA and QLD don’t change the balance, as Kerry will be replaced by Labor, Scott beats the third Labor candidate and Larissa is competing with the third Labor.
If the result plays out as it is currently heading, the Rudd Government will have to negotiate either with the Opposition or with the Greens plus Nick Xenophon plus Family First’s Steve Fielding to get their legislation through. That will be complicated, but it can work. If Sarah loses to the third Liberal, I personally can only imagine a double dissolution scenario playing out at some stage in the next term. But let’s not go there ;-)
If Richard or Kerrie win, as we hope either will, they will bump off another Liberal Senator, meaning that the ALP and Greens will only be one short of a majority, needing only the vote of either Xenophon or Fielding (or perhaps the Nationals or an individual like Barnaby Joyce?) to pass legislation.
Should both Richard and Kerrie manage to pull off wins, we will hold the balance of power on our own, being able to negotiate directly with Labor.
Much hangs on the final result and it’s still far too early to call. We wait, we watch, and we count votes…
**UPDATE**
Latest relevant news worth passing on is that the pre-polls in the ACT are going firmly our way, with the Libs only polling at around 29%. It that holds, Humphries is set to go below quota and pass the seat to Kerrie Tucker. Still got psotals, which tend to favour the Libs, and absentees, which tend to favour us, to be counted, though…
**UPDATE**
We’ve had movement on the race for the Senate in Victoria, but unfortunately not in our direction. The new figures show a make-up of new Victorian Senators as;
1 COLLINS Jacinta - Australian Labor Party
2 FIFIELD Mitch - Liberal Party
3 MARSHALL Gavin - Australian Labor Party
4 KROGER Helen - Liberal Party
5 RYAN Scott - Liberal Party
6 FEENEY David - Australian Labor Party
That leaves Richard in competition for the sixth spot with the ALP’s David Feeney, whereas previously the Libs’ Ryan Scott was on the bottom. The final numbers now come down to:
Australian Labor Party - Total Votes 402,168 (14.66%) 1.0259 Quota
Australian Greens - Total Votes 356,067 (12.98%) 0.9083 Quota
We’ll be keeping a very close eye on this, as more figures come in from the AEC.
**UPDATE**
The order has switched back again - the Libs are in sixth place again.
Fingers crossed for a Greens balance of power.
Something interesting to note is that having 12 Senators from each state means 6 are up at any election, almost guaranteeing a 3-3 split between the left and right with the major parties picking up the lion’s share of the available seats. Having 14 Senators, and thus 7 seats per half-election, would help the minor parties considerably as the quota drops to a more achievable 12.5% and a 3-3 split will result in the seventh spot almost certainly going to a minor party.
Too many variables! Well, here’s hoping./
Having 14 Senators, and thus 7 seats per half-election, would help the minor parties considerably…
The vagaries of “democracy” are all too weird…
Peter, electoral systems work better when there’s an odd number of seats as there’s never a tied vote; legislation is either approved by a majority or rejected by a majority. An even number of seats in a PR system means the split between two camps (left-right, progressive-conservative, protectionist-free trade) is accentuated. With such few seats being up for election, the even number of split seats results in one major group taking away exactly half and the other major group taking exactly half.
…and, of course, in the aforementioned double dissolution, the quota drops to a very handy 7.7%. Which is why it is only ever a last resort for the major parties.
This would have really helped out Pauline a few years ago :)
Indeed, wantok, at a double dissolution, we’d be pretty much guaranteed to pick up 7 Senators - 1 in every State, with 2 in Tassie.
Sam, I like the idea of odd numbers, personally, but I suspect the likelihood of the Rudd Government doing something to improve minor parties’ chances is slim indeed… With the possible exception of a double dissolution if he needed it.
Could they adjust the “half senate” elections to alternate between electing 5 and electing 7 senators per state, without needing a referendum to do it? Its not ideal for the minor parties, but it certainly gives them a better chance than they have now.
A 5 senator election in NSW would have markedly increased Nettle’s chance.
The only prior that I have is the previous trend of absentee votes and postal votes and what not. It seems that in most states we went up 0.2 - 0.3% after these votes were counted, but not in the territories. Having the major parties so close to 3 quotas is what will hurt the most. Seems the senate message didn’t get through to the 5% of people who could have made the difference.
Zoltar, you and I both know that it wouldn’t! A 7 Senator election on the other hand, would have. There is no justification for moving from the stable 6 and 6 cycle we have to the off-kilter 5 and 7 cycle even if it was done in such a way that half the states elected 5 while the other half elected 7. It’s a completely silly idea!
Bring on the 90 member Senate!
The alternative would be to moderate your *lower* priority messages enough to pick up about 0.1 of a quota more than you have now. That is something that is in your control which means you haven’t got to wait for Rudd to solve it for you as described above. The other subtley is making sure the major’s preference you over each other which isn’t too hard.
On the surface a senate seat nominally suggests 16.6% of the vote. If you can get nearly get a seat with 8% of the primary vote then its hard to argue there isn’t already a massive built in skew in favour of a minor party with enough electoral appeal to grab say 2/3 of a quota on primaries, (hence the obvious, pragmatic and highly rational response of slightly moderating the line as suggested above). The obvious biggest winner in senate politics is the minor party with about 2/3 of a quota on primary.
In QLD the ALP and libs got near enough to 40% of the primary each. The Greens got 7.5% of the primary. If you divide the primaries of the majors in 3 then they have about 13.3% per seat which is way more than 7.5%, so you can hardly cry foul.
The truth is where the greens really pick up quota is getting the unused quota of the major party that gets a 3rd seat first. The *beautiful* irony is that in Qld the Greens got the biggest boost by picking up unused liberal quota!
Look here and see:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/senate/qld.htm
Go right to the bottom.
Bottom line is you can game the system exactly as it stands if you think strategically and act with discipline.
Double dissolution could be bad for Rudd with his favorite demons Howard and Costello gone.
With the senior libs free to agree in the last two days that WC was wrong and Kyoto must be signed the differences are disappearing fast. A DD would likely mean a reduced lower house majority for Rudd, a fearful thought indeed.
Turnbull is one guy who is untainted by Howards misdeeds. Read Unleashed on ABC to see some thoughts on how it might have been different with Turnbull in charge.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2101088.htm
About 2/3rd of the way down Ellis speculates on a Turnbull election. Not saying he’s right but its thought provoking.
Isn’t it the case that only the above-the-line votes are counted on Saturday night (the 70% or so that we see quite quickly), with the rest being not just pre-poll, postal and absentee votes but also all the below-the-line votes?
If that assumption is right, and given that there’s still nearly 30% yet to be counted, if the Libs were to get a couple of percent lower on below-the-line votes, that would win it for Kerrie Tucker in the ACT. Anyone know of differences in past results between above-the-line and below-the-line?
I’m very pleased to be living in a suburb (Aranda, ACT) which voted 38.8% Greens for the Senate. Thought I’d take a look at some other polling places nearby and see if I could top it. Here are some other beauties from the ACT:
Ainslie 35.0%
Ainslie North 38.9%
City 34.0%
Dickson 31.4%
Downer 33.4%
Lyneham 39.11%
O’Connor 40.4%
Turner 42.0%
Watson 35.5%
and to top them all…
Wreck Bay 45.2% (there were only 73 votes total at the booth, though!)
Any other impressive Greens votes from individual booths?
New Scientist has a great article on an objective study of voting behaviour. Simplifying massively, it essentially says that the largest influence on a typical voter is the voting behaviour of those in closest geographic proximity to them.
This fits what you have observed with the booths. It has a strong implication for electoral strategy, which is:
Work outwards from your core of support, rather than spending resources where you are weakest.
Your core of support will reinforce and amplify your messages giving you a great return on effort, whereas your messages will rapidly attenuate and vanish where your opponents have strength leaving you with very little return on effort.
By harnessing the natural dynamic that amplifies the strength of your messages you will have best success in winning new support from the previously uncommitted.
So a study of your strongest booths should tell you where to put your people on the ground, where to doornock, what malls to visit, and where to letterdrop and which way to proceed as you cover the territory.
I’m hoping that we will get a sixth seat. Knowing that my party will able to negotiate with Nick Xenophon instead of Nick plus the FFP will make me sleep much easier. Nick Xenophon appears to be left of centre.
Also if we had 90 Senators it would add 30 seats to the House of Reps. I reckon overall a country our size would be fine to have 180 MPs in the House of Reps. There is 308 in Canada, and they are about 50% bigger, and there’s 435 in the US and 646 in the UK (much larger proportionally than Australia’s lower house).
What is the timetable for reporting absentee votes and pre-poll? There seem to be none counted for the senate.
Ben, I feel that expanding the number of politicians in the house of reps is counterproductive. Rather than enhancing democracy, it in many way weakens the voice of your local member. The opportunity for your local member to ask a question in question time, would be roughly halved for the number of MPs in Canada, reduced to a third for the number of MPs in the US, and quartered for the number of MPs in the UK.
Furthermore as the number of politicians increases the political beauracracy becomes so unwieldy that additional layers of filtering need to be introduced. With 150 MPs all the politicians can gain the ear of a cabinet minister (at worst), or the pm. With 600 MPs and about a dozen cabinet ministers, each would be acting as a gatekeeper for about 50 MPs as to what request/idea/etc makes it to the prime minister. That’s too many to adequately handle, so an additional layer of gatekeeping would develop.
I realise that 180 MPs isn’t 600, but I see more downside to an increase than I see positive.
Hi gang, Adam Bandt here, Greens candidate for Melbourne.
First, we’ve got an unofficial discussion of the Vic Senate and Melbourne HR counts going on here:
http://www.adambandt.com
[ if that link doesn't work, try http://web.mac.com/apb72 ]
Secondly, someone added THIS as a comment:
Does anyone have any idea how much Christine Milne was down at this stage last election? I know there are differences etc., but it’d be an interesting comparison.
If you have any responses, please feel free to add them to our discussion.
Cheers,
Adam
Am I the only one who feels a bit disappointed that there was not a much larger swing to the Greens? Maybe I was naive but I was sure that with the clear sanity of Greens policies in comparison to the complete inaction and short-sightedness of both of the major parties that we could expect a much better swing then +0.38% in the HOR and +1.34% in the senate, as the AEC currently have it.
Adam, congratulations on a fantastic result! I really hope Richard Di Natale gets up and can make Family First irrelevant in the Senate (not that Fielding ever turns up).
Sam, you do realise that under a 7 member Senate, the Liberals would have got 4 senators in most states in 2004, right? That this would have not only given them a clear majority over their last term, but for most of the past 11 years and probably the next three as well? The extra 6 senators would probably split 3 Liberals, 3 Greens, some gain!
I’m all for thinking about Senate reform, but you seem to be basing it on one election result, which isn’t necessarily a good guide to better outcomes.
Arlen
I’m also disappointed, especially given the free kick of extensive media coverage of climate concerns in the 12 months in the election lead up and the latest dramatic IPCC announcement mere days before (right in the period that swinging voters decide). Sadly all we have to show for that tremendous free publicity is one more Green senator than in 2004 when climate change wasn’t on the general public radar at all.
A significant number people all philosophical leanings are desperately looking for a climate change champion but can’t bring themselves to vote for the Greens. Which begs the question why.
The answer seems to be that the Greens missed a lot of climate change votes because the Greens agenda is overlaid with a philosophical leaning which is frightening to many people. That frightening philosophy is quite independant of climate change (indeed it pre-dates it). I think that the Greens need to recognise that concern for the climate is not synonymous with a left leaning viewpoint.
Perhaps the Greens have achieved all the climate change votes they are going to get within the left leaning part of Australian society and to increase the vote from here the Greens need to court votes from a wider range of perspectives, that is to broaden their appeal.
The question for the Greens seems to be whether they are prepared to be politically pragmatic and see the required action on climate as a goal that is worth relaxing some of their more extreme views on tangential issues.
Some would call this selling out Green values (I’m not exactly sure why Super and Inheritance tax are green values though).
I submit instead that perhaps failing to be pragmatic about wider electoral appeal is selling out the climate in order to cling to some unrelated left leaning agenda.
Rob
The problem with 14 senators is the requirement to increase the number of Representatives in the lower house to maintain the constitutional requirement of a size ratio of 1:2 as per section 24 of the Australian Constitution.
24. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of senators.
Do you want to do this? I’m all in favour of allowing smaller parties access to greater representation but as well as 12 new senators in the chamber we would have 24 new reps in the other place. 36 new parliamentarians.
I do not really have an opinion as to whether increasing the numbers of parliamentarians generally is a good idea although I do like the idea of giving minor parties more access to desirable.
Rob, you’re very insistent on this point, aren’t you ;-)
I have to say, I and most Greens will fundamentally disagree with you that we should ditch a pile of issues that are very important. To be a successful, broad-based political party, we have to have a broad policy base. For an example of what happens to single-issue parties, I simply point you to the Climate Change Coalition. Great name, solid policies on a key issue. 0.7% of the vote.
Sure, we should concentrate efforts on overcoming misconceptions about our policies, and I think we are doing so. See, for example, the way we’ve overcome misconceptions about our drugs policy. It barely surfaced during this campaign.
The point is that we need to be tested on the national stage in a major balance of power arena, and that will now happen. Once we demonstrate our capabilities, I have no doubt that our vote will follow the Tasmanian trend, where we’ve been in balance of power twice, and head upwards of 15% nationally, and high enough in a few areas to wstart winning lower house seats.
Would an opposition want a double dissolution if Labor looked likely to win government again. Under section 57 of the constitution a joint seating of both chambers would be allowed if legislation has been rejected twice before a DD at 3 month intervals and once after. A joint seating would almost certainly pass the legislation unless the government majority in the house was paper thin.
It is interesting how some people are still determined to have a one dimensional “left-right” divide in politics. People outside the party would not understand why many Greens members don’t pay any attention to those who class Green politics as left. And when confronted with the argument of “show me one area where the greens a to the right”, just confirms that the point has been missed.
The shared policy of almost all Green Party members is a respect for all things living, including other people, inside the ecological system in which we find ourselves. One can be a free trade person with these qualities by saying that we need to put a price on those things which count. Then there are those which are strong protectionists who think that by strong regulation is the way to ensure sustainability. Our policies contain a compromise of both which we believe would generate the best possible outcomes and the highest respect for people and the earth. There is a similar thread to our “social” policies. There are often policies shared with the Liberal party and other with Labor.
The Green party is only classed as “left” because that is how things used to be.
Not that I’m saying that one has to support this. I have done a lot of talking to people and thinking about this. Granted the Greens are progressive, that is, we want to learn from the past and make a better future, but that doesn’t automatically put all stances in the “far left” basket.
Without this fundamental point of broad respect, one cannot solve the wide ranging problems our economy and society faces. It is almost inevitable that one environmental destruction would be replaced with another, e.g. coal to nukes or dams to desal or more trees with less biodiversity, and what not.
Peter, I agree that it is our Constitution keeping us back on this one but it may be time for another rise in the number of seats. In 1984, with 148 electorates there were about 60,000 voters per electorate. In 2007 with 150 electorates there are about 70,000 voters per electorate. To bring the roughly 10.5 million voters back to the 1984 level of representation would require us going to about 175 electorates, close enough to 180 to justify the expanded Senate. The number of voters per electorate is currently at the same level it was in 1983, the election before the House and Senate were expanded (1984’s double dissolution).
Thanks Tim, its really good to hear your perspective on the issue.
I didn’t say ditch a pile of issues, I am suggesting moderate your stance on them. So the criticism is off the mark.
The more things you differentiate on the smaller your vote will be. Its a matter of understanding the cost of an extreme view to your chance to win on a bigger issue. To help explain with an example:
Its very unlikely you will lose your constituency over moderating on super tax. It is quite certain however that failing to moderate your view on super tax will cost you votes.
Its hard to make it plainer than that.
Using the CCC result to validate your strategy isn’t very insightful. CCC had no historical brand, limited resources and no party machine. Greens have a significant historical brand, better resources and a party machine. They had to bootstrap and campaign you only needed to campaign. You had incumbency of senators to provide a voice, they did not.
Lets go back to the first ever Greens Federal senate vote for a better look (even that would be a wrong comparison because the Greens had prior media airplay). That CCC got 10% of your vote without your history is seriously impressive, especially given that you were competing for votes. If you weren’t there then their vote would have been higher and then you could start to make a genuine comparison about their relative performance to your first foray.
You certainly should not look to CCC for strategy because your situation (resources, history, brand presence) is different to theirs. Strategy is all about recognising what is unique in your situation.
I’m not advocating the CCC strategy for the Greens, they failed to offer policies and in stark contrast to them I am saying reassure the public by offering more moderate policies on non-core issues. Pick the fights you can win basically. Fighting on too many fronts is well understood to be poor strategy in any contest, especially if you lack the resources of your competitor.
Austin
These are admirable sentiments. The difficulty is not everyone is an enlightened as you clearly are.
Surprisingly everyone will feel their particular political disposition is virtuous. So recounting the particular virtues of our own disposition doesn’t really get us anywhere in winning votes from those who don’t see it our way.
Descriptors are only devices that facilitate thinking about things so there isn’t much point taking exception to them. Today I read an article from an apparently thoughtful intelligent young female journalist who was clearly very happy with the Rudd win (hardly someone sympathetic to untrustworthy right wing interests) and she went on to describe the Greens as the “extreme left”.
Its not just some people who think this way.
The majority of commentators who invoke the descriptors left and right when discussing politics and most would appear to describe the greens as left of labour. This unavoidably becomes part of how the green brand is perceived.
So faced with such a world I don’t think we will make progress by denying either the existence or the validity of the descriptors left and right.
Instead we need to formulate a strategy that takes this phenomenon into account. Thats what I am trying to advance.
Rob, I am entirely with you that we need to find a strategy that will deal with our perception as ‘extreme left’. I just believe that we aren’t, our policies aren’t, and that our strategy should involve communicating that, rather than changing our policies or trying to discard or hide some of them.
Of course we need to focus on some areas, and we do. But there are two extra factors at play here.
Firstly, there will always be people terribly disappointed by our choice to deprioritise their specific areas of passion, and they may vote away from us for that reason. Note that fact that in this campaign, we have been criticised for not prioritising indigenous affairs and for not giving enough attention to peak oil. In a grassroots group like the Greens, this is a big issue.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly (in terms of public perception), simply not promoting certain of our policies will not work, because those who think they can make hay out of promoting them will do so anyway. Better to be on the front foot explaining why they are good policies.
Sam
There is research that suggests that 150 is the upper limit of the optimum size for a community. With 150 people you can know a little about all of them and have some interaction. Beyond this the community fractures and misunderstandings grow. Apparently it has to do with our evolutionary past and roughly speaking we are inherently optimised in this way. When groups got larger in the past the tribe would split into two.
This suggests that increasing parliament beyond 150 may increases the incidence of fracturing and misunderstanding, and we have enough of that already. We wouldn’t want it any more dysfunctional that it already is :).
Perhaps what needs changing is the relationship of voters to their elected members so that a level exists whereby a representative actually has some familiarity with all their direct constituents who exist at the level immediately below them in the heirarchy. Of course it implies rejigging the whole three tiers of government, an impossible dream perhaps.
Thanks Tim
When I look at your statement below it doesn’t look like there is much room for compromise:
“I just believe that we aren’t, our policies aren’t, and that our strategy should involve communicating that, rather than changing our policies or trying to discard or hide some of them.”
Doesn’t effective politics include perhaps above all things the capacity for the art of compromise, especially for an aspiring balance of power party. Its important to make progress (especially if you are of the progressive camp) rather than be mired in deadlocks.
What is so appealing to you about Inheritance tax exactly that makes it part of the unalterable core of your policy?
(I’m not expecting any inheritance so I’m pushing any barrow here)
Instead of another republic referendum why not a Constitutional Convention to write a new constitution?
Plenty of countries have had many constitutions - a lot of the text doesn’t match what we actually do and we can insert human rights clauses like Germany that cannot be amended or removed.
Do you really think inheritance tax changed a single vote? Do you think anyone knows about that policy?
I don’t think it is such a vital policy myself. I think it’s a good policy, but not vital. But I don’t necessarily think it’s a policy that we need to change in order to win more votes.
Using balance of power effectively is a separate issue, Rob, from policy development. Of course balance of power will involve compromise, but compromise must come from a pre-determined position of strength for us to be able to make compromises that give effect to at least part of our agenda. Otherwise you get a pre-emptive buckle which does noone any good.
That really isn’t a valid argument. The vast majority don’t understand Quantum Field Theory, but that doesn’t mean that it makes bad predictions or is not a better way of understanding reality than Newtonian mechanics. And very very intelligent people don’t understand QFT, even professional physicists. So to say that an intelligent journalist didn’t advocate our philosophy doesn’t mean that it isn’t our philosophy.
Granted one of our biggest problem is to educate the public and the media what “Green” means to the Green Party and the reasons and history behind the philosophy. However, with many minds fixated on who will be PM and not who represents the people when making legislation, this will be a slow and arduous task.
Austin, your last point there is, to me, the fundamental reason why we didn’t poll better and will struggle for a long time to poll much better. Most people aren’t interested in politics at all and only think about it on the most superficial level possible - who will form the next government. At this election, that was even more the case than before, since there was a real chance that the government would change.
That shuts us out of the equation for the great majority of voters.
Tim
I fear an articulate defence of a dear policy is unlikely to be effective at dealing with a simplistic slogan from an opportunistic politician who says nothing more than:
“Anyone who believes in X is a dangerous left wing radical”.
The simplistic fear inducing slogan is the approach that Paul Keating used to ward off John Hewson and such a tactic will against the Greens just as well.
If your aim is to communicate your way out then I fear its going to hard, unrewarding work.
Thats why I suggest giving the opportunistic slogan makers fewer targets.
Have you considered the astonishing arrogance of claiming to know more than the better resourced majors about practically *everything*. King Julian of Madagascar comes to mind.
You’ll make greater inroads by ignoring any rhetoric about the limitations of the intelligence of the majors and arming yourself with an objective and respectful appraisal of their capabilities.
Admitting that on many issues you probably don’t have a better grasp than the majors isn’t a failure, its being realistic. With such honesty surely its easier to moderate your views on certain issues.
Holding firm against the majority in the absence of certainty of the superiority of your view is far from a desirable trait. It is this very trait that dealt Howard his recent fate, surely you don’t want to emulate his “I know best” approach.
A little humility about the realistic limitations of personal insight would be very welcome in an elected representative.
Tim your own blogsite (see the end of Green values) shows clearly that the Greens stance on Inheritance tax did indeed change a vote.
Commenters on blogsites represent a tiny sample, so it would be clutching at straws to claim this would the only such lost vote. Readers on blogsites vastly outnumber commenters.
If someone is prepared to blog on a point then you can also be sure they are prepared to talk to people who don’t read blogsites. How many would they influence.
Its so easy to kill a block of fragile potential votes this way. If as you say its not such an important issue to you then why bear the demonstrated risk it imposes to you? This really is my central point.
I only showed one policy example, it is very unlikely there aren’t others.
Many, many things will limit your vote and I agree with Austin that the factor he outlines limited the vote, but its not the only thing and it would be dangerous to be complacent and stop your post election analysis there and avoid the need for deeper introspection.
The obvious mission is to become objectively aware the things that limited your vote and address the things that it is in your power to address. My purpose is to advocate *one* of those things you have the power to address. My suggestion is by no means a comprehensive list of all things you might consider for the next 3 years.
Raising another vote limiter does not imply no other vote limiters exist.
Austin I am not sure what argument you are referring to by saying “it isn’t a valid argument”.
Such a shame about Kerry Nettle. I hope she runs again in 2010/11.
My fingers are crossed for all those Green candidates still waiting on the final count. May the balance of power be with you. :)
I don’t think many people give a rats about the numbers in the senate. Otherwise the Democrats wouldn’t have be so badly decimated. There seems to be a better understanding of the lower house, but not an awful lot better.
It is interesting to note that had those people who voted in the Melbourne electorate, voted similarly in the lower house than in the upper house then we would be in with a very good chance of getting that seat.
If we can get representation in both houses, then there is some leverage with the media as we will be seen are more relevant. Few seats would be necessary and there could even be a balance of power in the lower house in a tight election where we have people elected there.
I don’t hold much hope of educating the masses about our federal parliamentary system and how it is different from a federal executive and what role the federal court plays. The only solution I can see would be to have separate elections for the executive as then people really could separate in their minds the executive and the legislative parts of our democracy.
Well I just heard that the polling booth I manned increased the Green vote by 1.57% - it seems such a small thing - when you look at numbers like that, this was a rural polling booth - but well…..just wait till next time, I will make sure we increase it some more - I just have to change those Forestry workers minds ;-p with more reason and logic!!
love and light
Susan Macauley
Austin
I made no suggestion about what the journalist advocated regarding Green policy, I merely reported her characterisation, for all I know she was a fan. The only point I was making was that people do indeed make this characterisation.
It seems entirely valid to understand how you are perceived when attempting win the hearts and minds of voters. So I reject politely your suggestion I had no valid point and at the same time apologise for not being clearer about what my point was.
Since you raised it, Quantum mechanics does not include a description of gravity and in addition it isn’t helpful in predicting behaviour of macroscale objects where Einstein’s relativity is helpful.
Both theories make successful predictions within their respective domains. The lack of overlap of the domains means you are quite right, you can’t reasonably call one superior to the other.
You can however say that Einsten’s relativity is demonstrated to be superior to Newtonian mechanics given their domains are common and relativity makes better and more sophisticated predictions in that common domain with Newtonian mechanics.
It is at the intersection of the domains of QM and relativity where much of the the hot debate of physics occurs. At this intersection pretty much everyone agrees no one has any reliable answer making a sensible comparison of superiority unavailable.
“The Elegant Universe” (book is much better than DVD) by Brian Greene provides a useful treatment of the issues.
I must agree whole-heartedly with Tim that the answer is not in moderating Greens’ policies purely to attract new voters. If the Greens’ have developed policies that they believe will have the best outcomes for our country, and our planet, then I can see no justification for changing them.
Arlen
The justification for moderation arises from the possibility we might be wrong about the solutions as expressed in the policy, particularly those things that are lower priority and thus benefit from less research and receive less scrutiny and are subject to less review.
Its all very well to develop a policy to the best of your ability, but believing the policy to be perfect and beyond the requirement for adjustment purely on the basis of the overtly stated intentions of the authors is Orwellian. This is truly frightening stuff.
History is littered with unspeakable atrocities that are derived from the execution of ideas which were held at the time with unshakable certainty.
Previously belief in the infallibility of the pope has caused terrible harm with the result few believe in such infallibility these days and I am amazed to find it here.
Isn’t there within the Greens on some level at least a little bit of concern about the arrogance involved in such certainty about being right to the extent that there is no room whatsoever to budge as implied by your comment.
Being Green does not magically make us immune to error. If we differ from others and they have skill and ability then not even allowing for the possibility of moderating to a common ground with them is to my mind astonishing.
After reading your note I am feeling a growing sense of concern at what the Greens might do, armed with such conviction.
Rob
[...] on November 26th, 2007 By any objective measure, the vote in most of Australia was heavily influenced by Green preferences and should be seen as a call to the Rudd Government to consider a more environmentally friendly way [...]
Austin, I think you’ll have to console yourselves to the fact that the mainstream media will ignore minor parties unless they control the balance of power.
The Nationals had a bunch of seats in the house of reps, and they didn’t get much media coverage either. Apart from Vaille how many Nationals can you name?
Arlen, its possible to retain your principles but to change your policies. For most issues there are many ways to skin the cat.
Responding to an earlier-put viewpoint that Turnbull is untainted by Howard’s policies - what planet have you been living on, and is it nice there?
On the record - As predicted by John Howard, Turnbull gave the pulp mill a soft pass with most of his anger being directed at the extra workload. As sanctioned and possibly advised by A-G cRuddock, Turnbull posted a lengthy argument that using anything other than lip-flapping diplomacy to stop Japanese whaling would be counter-productive. As blatantly opposite to reality, Turnbull has made numerous lengthy speeches on the public record about how Australia has been a leading positive influence on the global response to climate change.
The self-interested error of these positions will become increasingly evident within the medium term, if not the short term. Howard’s promise on interest rates helped sink him. How will dioxins, dead humpbacks, and the world’s most polluting - in relative terms - energy industry go down on Turnbull’s record?
I like the notion put by one commenter on Possum Comitatus’s blog - that the next Liberal prime minister of Australia probably isn’t in the Parliament yet.
I think the Greens have to learn from the other minor parties. There needs to be more campaigning on local issues in more electorates. I personally feel the Greens wasted too much time selling Labor’s position on Work Choices and not enough time playing the NIMBY game. I also found it sad that the Greens didn’t cash in on area’s where they were the only party with a national policy of any merit, eg cycling infrastructure. Basically I’m trying to say the Green HOR candidates need to campaign as if they actually want to win the local seat, and then hopefully the Senate candidates will get a boost. In my electorate (Kingston) Family First out-poled Greens, largely due to local familiarity with the FF candidate, but probably also as the Greens didn’t make enough noise about policy areas that would have resonated with locals; water, urban growth and land-care.
Democracy involves robust debate and questioning of leaders and their policies.
Consistent with democratic principles I have raised here the possibility of reviewing policies and considering moderating what are determined to be the least important of them and met solid resistance and firm statements that the policies are right as they are and would not benefit from such review.
A healthy democracy would actively encourage and pursue such enquiry not stifle it. A healthy democracy would never blindly settle at the assumption that some small leadership group knows best.
It seems “all is not well in Denmark”.
this is part of a comment I made on Public Polity re Sam’s 7 senators idea.
Interesting idea, although I don’t think it would necessarily agree, although discussion of parliamentary reform is alway a good thing. An increase in the number of Senators (odd to even OR even to odd) will decease the quotes, thus making it easier for minor parties to be elected, it also will tend to lead to more people being elected on primary votes rather than preferences, that I view as a good thing with the current state of GVTs.
The issue I have with an odd number of seats is that it makes it easier for one party to win more than 50% of the seats. 45% of the vote could lead to 4/7 going to one party, if this happens at one election in 2 or 3 states one of the majors will control the senate. Wining 4/6 is rare, QLD 2004 was the exception, although the Libs and Nats did run separate tickets in that case.
When to looking at issues of parliamentary reform we need to look at the big picture. Today in most states we have the major parties with 40-45% each Greens with 5-10% and the rest of the vote going to other smaller parties. In 10 years this may not be the case. We should not make reforms based on the current trends.
You say that only 9.2% of the Senate is non major party people and that this is lower than the non major party vote, this is true, but the non major party vote includes the parties from the left and right, while the major minor party are the Greens who are on the left: Family First and One Nation voters will preferences the Lib/Nat before the Greens.
Despite being on the left of politics and wishing that the Greens won more Senate seats, I’m trying to be impartial in my comments here.
Russ @ 23. you make an important point. While 7 seats per election will increase the likelihood of senators from the larger minor parties (currently the Greens, but in 10 years time may some other party, may be Family First) but also the likelihood of one party winning 4/7 seat. This would require only 50% of the vote after preferences. This could lead to more Green (or FF or …) senators but less likely that they would be in the balance of power.
Agree Arlen - but we need to lok at the faces we as a party are putting forward. The reality is that we have not significantly increased ur vote - why - we have yet to show a younger face to the electorate in terms of our leadership. Our policies are sound but it is the people who are selling them that have reached their use by date. We have a horrible habit of recycling canidates, especially here in Victoria. We need to be more pragmatic.
I also agree with Tim. The line between principle and pragmatism is one that all Green parties face. I think that there is probably short term gain in taking a pragmatic line, but also long term danger. Too much pragmatism damages our brand as the one principled party. I’ve heard plenty of grudging respect from people on the right that at least you know what the greens stand for and that they stick to their principles. That sentiment is even more important for our supporters.
On being of the left. I think of course we are. But we’re not extremists, it just looks that way because all the other parties have moved so far to the right.
I think this was always going to be a difficult election for us with a lot of progressive voters going home to the alp. I think a lot will come back to us if and when they’re disappointed by the rudd government. I think we’ve done brilliantly all things considered. A great platform for next time :)
Peter, 54, what’s wrong with running the same candidate? I would say a revolving door means the electorate have to acquaint themselves with a new face at each election rather than having one candidate build their profile from one election to the next. I hope Adam Bandt hangs around to tackle Lindsay Tanner at the next federal election and that if Larissa Waters isn’t elected this time, she stands a good chance in 2010.
Here’s hoping the pre-polls and absentees in VIC help Richard Di Natale! From the ABC site, it looks like Family First (and various others that pass their preferences to them first) are giving the Libs a big last-ditch push there, once they’re eliminated at the end.
So let’s hope that the hippies, the tranceheads and cyclists come to the aid of the party :) I think it looks distinctly possible, but who knows…
And ACT is very exciting too!
If this plays out, it will be very satisfying to rub Christian Kerr’s face in it ;) [In today's Crikey:
]
Unfortunately my maths-fu just isn’t up to coming up with a vaguely-believable calculation of what the potential percentage increases imply in terms of final figures. Damn. At least I can understand that if the Libs were getting 34.09% when the ABC published their ACT Senate page but are only getting 29% out of the pre-polls, that could certainly bring them below quota. Is that enough, then - will Greens votes & preferences push them high enough?
I did wonder about the wisdom of the joint ALP, Green, and Democrat tv commercial. I suspect it lost the greens more votes than it gained. Additionally it reinforced the notion that the greens, democrats, and labor are all the same, leftist parties. Such branding may be regretted long term.
I am just hoping that this blog is the start of something new in politics. Good on you Tim and love rewards to all those who maintain this site over the next few years.
It is such a good idea.
I am definitely not opposed to Greens’ policy being changed, or even scrapped altogether, if it is decided that there is a better alternative. Indeed, all of us must constantly review our positions on pretty much all aspects of life. What I am opposed to is changing policies for the sole purpose of attracting votes.
Most people here would agree that the climate of Australian politics has moved to the right, but this does not mean that in order to gain support we must move our policies in that direction as well. What it does mean is that whenever the opportunity arises to advocate for our policies we must be as effective as possible.
On this note I want to tentatively ask the people writing here what they feel about the future of Greens’ leadership? I hold Bob Brown in the highest esteem but at points throughout the campaign I found myself feeling frustrated that he was unable to put forward as compelling an argument for voting Green as he could have.
I know that it is easy to make these judgements from the sidelines but I was just wondering how others see it.
Arlen, its too early to be looking at the leadership of the Greens, and who should be their spokesperson on each issue. How about you wait until the full election result is known.
The Greens result was pretty good considering the “make sure Howard doesn’t get back in” circumstances.
I’d also like to extend my thanks to the runners of this blog. Its excellent. A nice variation of contributors too.
Arlen - the Australian Greens do not have a leader. The media are determined to refer to Bob as the ‘leader’, regardless of what is said to them.
Zoltar - thank you! Most of your praise needs to be directed at Tim Hollo, who is the brains behind the majority of GreensBlog.
[...] some really interesting discussion going on over at GreensBlog about the Greens’ chances in the senate, which are stronger than you might think. At Larvatus [...]
Having more people in the House would actually be good for democracy.
A party winning government will currently have about 100 MPs and Senators altogether. Of those, about 20-30 are usually completely new and won’t get and rarely expect any position of authority. Another 25 can be given Cabinet ministerial positions (Treasury, Defence, etc), and another 20 non-Cabinet ministerial positions. That means that leaving aside the newbies, 45 of 70-80 MPs and Senators can hope for some kind of important position of power and influence. So if you keep your head down and don’t make trouble, after a couple of terms you’re assured of some power.
This encourages MPs and Senators to do as they’re told and keep “party discipline”.
Whereas if it’s 45 positions for 200-300 MPs and Senators/Lords, as in the UK, Germany, etc, you get a lot more members willing to speak up, represent their electorate and follow their conscience and ideas.
There’s a phrase you may be unfamiliar with, “crossing the floor”. That’s when an MP or Senator “crosses the floor” to the Opposition to vote against the Government, or vice versa. You’d be unfamiliar with it here because it almost never happens. “Party discipline”, again. Whereas it happens constantly in the UK and Germany. That’s because with just 45 positions for 200-300 people, there are heaps of MPs who have no hope of ever having any position of importance, so they just say what they reckon without worrying about it. That doesn’t happen with 45/80.
An earlier poster referred to factional chaos and tumult. I would call it rather “democracy.” After all, if you want no chaos and tumult, we can just abolish elections and all but one political party - that’s a very well-ordered country indeed. Democracy is supposed to be about constant chaos and tumult.
I think it was Rosseau who said that a tyranny is like a merchant sailing ship, you always know who’s in charge and where you’re going, but you may end up on the rocks and drown; but democracy’s like a raft, you’re always wet and miserable, you never know where you’re going, nobody’s really in charge, but you never sink.
We need more MPs and Senators. About 500 in all would be right. Enough to give them the balls to speak up from time to time. Party discipline is bad for democracy. Rudd choosing and dismissing all his own ministers without speaking to caucus? What is he, an 18th century monarch? A US President?
Re: having no “leader” - that’s a Marxist type thing that leaves the Greens open to attack - better to bow to the inevitable on that then leave an open sore which is only hurting the Greens in the long run with people that are really turned off by old style socialism and Marxism.
Hang on Tim Norton, since 2005 the Greens have a Party Room and rules for the Party Room, including the appointment of the Leader. On 29 November 2005 Bob Brown was elected unopposed as Leader of the Greens, and Rachel Siewert was elected Whip.
http://www.bobbrown.org.au/600_media_sub.php?deptItemID=1831
Having no leader is more of an anarchist thing thing a marxist thing. To use the ship analogy the Liberal crew did not throw their captain overboard even as he was steering the ship towards the rocks In that respect the leadership of the Liberal parliamentary party was too strong.
Thanks, folks, for the lovely comments and vote of confidence in the blog, and for the lively debate.
Rob, I’m concerned that you are troubled by this peception of arrogance when you don’t seem to see the differentiation between two key points we are trying to make.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a single member of the Greens who would think that our policies are perfect and beyond improvement. Of course they can be improved. In addition, I think the vast majority of us would agree with you that, in a balance of power situation, there must be room for compromise in order to achieve the closest to our ideal position as possible.
The point where we part company is on the issue of changing our policy in order to attract more votes. That runs counter to our philosophy and our reputation and is not something that I think many of us would countenance.
I hope that makes sense, and I hope we can move on to another topic of discussion, unless that really needs some more clarification.
Leadership?
I’m not entirely sure that I agree with Tim N. It’s an issue of ongoing dispute within the party…
Kyle Aaron makes the point that about 500 representatives would be healthier for democracy. I think a more important change would be multi member electorates in the lower house whereby nearly everyone can be represented in an electorate instead of the “winner takes all” method which favours the major parties over the minor ones.
Peter, you’ll never get MMEs up at the federal level. You’re better off with the Additional Member System where we keep the single member electorates and allocate extra MPs (based on a “party vote” ballot) to restore the proportionality. AMS is great because it’s the party vote which decides what share of the seats each party get and the electorate vote determines who fills those seats.
I think it just came down to this- no matter how disappointed they were with Labor’s slide to the right, after eleven and a half years under Howard most progressive voters’ first priority was getting Howard out. I know that a Greens vote would have achieved that too but a lot of people (particularly those dissenchanted with mainstream politics) still do not understand how the preference system works (many still think voting 2 Greens in the House of Reps counts for something).
In their minds at least, the stakes were too high. It wasn’t just with potential Greens voters either- a large segment of the minor party vote left or right got sucked back to the majors this time round.
In light of that for the Greens to hold their vote where it was, let alone increase it slightly, was a major achievement, and the 7% they got at this election can be counted as those who are solidly in the fold.
However next time round, assuming the Libs are still in disarray, the Greens will be able to do much much better providing that they market themselves as well as they did this time and put policy at the front of the campaign.
By then we’ll be seeing a Senator for every state and two for Tassie, and real chances in the House of Reps.
I do agree that there may need to be a little policy spring cleaning here and there, but the drugs policy just needs to be explained better- particularly mentioning where similar policies have been implemented elsewhere- Spain and Portugal have decriminalised all drugs for some years now, yet the NSW Greens barely made mention of foreign antecedents when they were being hit by the News Ltd media at the last state election.
You know it’s going to come back and back again so don’t hide from it- embrace it! Something along the lines of “We don’t want your kids to take drugs, but if they do and they get caught we don’t want them locked up with hardened criminals, and we know neither do you,”
Tim @ 68
The words “changing our policy to attract more votes” emotively misrepresents what I am suggesting. Thank you though for neatly providing an example of the tactic of the use of the simple slogan to undo a considered argument. That same tactic used by others will totally undo your planned eloquent defence of things like an Inheritance tax.
An honest examination will show I have clearly differentiated at each step between core values and extraneous policies. Your slogan fails to reflect this.
I have strongly asserted from the outset that your core policies *must* remain intact.
The issue at hand is that the existence extraneous poorly researched policies harms your ability to achieve the number of seats needed to ensure you are in a position to influence outcomes in the key issues. Is that so incomprehensible?
This is what I mean by selling out the climate by clinging obscure things like inheritance tax.
Just so we are clear I have no issue with your policies on gay marriage, Iraq and drugs. In order to even begin to take issue with them I would need to become an expert on these issues and I am not.
By that standard I seriously doubt that the Greens have the resources to be appropriately expert on all the extraneous issues for which they have divergent policies.
Which Green research paper has modelled the effect of inheritance tax? If you think it will catch the likes of Jamie Packer you are dreaming. The wealthy have persistent structures like trusts to house assets which neatly avoids inheritance, you simply alter the trustee when the time comes.
All you will catch is the people whose primary asset is the equity in the home they bought 20+ years ago. By taxing this kind of inheritance you leave the heirs short of the funds needed to get into difficult home market themselves.
I am guessing this will be a gut punch for your constituents and their children when they think about it. Maybe the light bulbs are flickering now.
But no we wouldn’t want to reconsider a policy (that is electorally ugly and might hurt a few people) because it has been arbitrarily annointed as Green policy which stands as irrefutable proof the planet is doomed without it and thus beyond contemplation to reconsider it. Indeed it would heretical to attempt to justify reconsidering it on the basis it might cost a few votes.
It is practically a definition of arrogance to take a divergent and immovable stand on something that you aren’t expert in.
Is the need of Greens need to be divergent so overpowering that they must express it in areas outside the limits of their expertise and outside the capacity to resource the research to properly justify a divergent view
I submit that climate is too important to allow you to take resources off it to go and properly research something like inheritance tax. If you won’t study the issue then how do you justify your divergent view?
The notion that the electoral appeal of a policy should have no bearing on its formulation is ridiculous. A political party exists to get people elected in order to get action on vital issues. Winning votes is central to the process.
The more things you need to explain to the electorate in winning votes the poorer the job you will do on the key issues and the more diluted your resources.
Has no one actually properly studied strategy? Its about the efficient and effective deployment of limited resources for maximum progress towards a key outcome.
Rob
Rob, 2 final points and then I am going to use my executive prerogative to close this particular topic, I’m afraid, because it’s just going in circles.
I think it is extraordinary of you to claim that our position is arrogant and unresearched when you have no information on the process at all. Do you know how the policy was arrived at? If not, then you cannot support your claim.
Finally, you have clearly stated time and again that you believe we should change our policies in order to gain votes. It is as simple as that, and we are not going to do so. If our policies are demonstrated to be wrong, we will change them. If they are not wrong, but unpopular, then it is our duty to work to make them electorally acceptable.
Tim we are only going in circles because you choose not to see the difference between what is implied by:
a) changing policy to get votes
and
b) considering moderating extraneous policies (that have benefited least from comprehensive research) that harms your ability to achieve the number of seats needed to ensure you are in a position to influence outcomes in the key issues.
As a slogan, a) implies all policies can be sold for votes, its a cheap shot. b) implies something very different.
On the basis of all our discussions I have concluded that not all your policies are well researched. I might be wrong.
The discussion has been stimulating, I sincerely hope you can make a difference here.
I am pretty sure my best move is finding a different avenue than this to make a continuing contribution (however small) to getting more comprehensive action on climate change.
I am really sorry I couldn’t present something more helpful. Rest easy I won’t be tormenting you directly any more. Maybe I can find a way to help the libs make climate change their own, if its ever going to happen its now.
Cheers and good luck. I sincerely mean that because if either of us gets our way, the planet is the winner.
Out.
Rob
Rob, I’d think from the comments on this thread that Tim’s position is pretty clear and unproblematic - it doesn’t just reduce to the slogan you’ve gotten all het up about. It’s just this:
Sure, there are more and less central policies for the Greens. They’re all well-thought-out but are all open to change.
A policy may be changed if it can be shown that it’s injuring the Greens’ chances, but only if it can also be successfully argued that it’s bad policy.
That’s it. With the treasured example of Inheritance Tax, it could be that enough Greens bods could be convinced that it won’t help, and will in fact be bad news for Greens constituents. And if so, maybe it can be changed. But it would be the decision that it’s bad (or perhaps unnecessary) policy that would be the deciding factor.
I would guess that your insinuation that certain policies haven’t been well-enough researched (this thesis being based upon your disagreement with those policies, of course) might be causing a little offense (welcome to teh intarwebz!). But I don’t think your general point has gone unheard.
A pragmatic but principled approach might be to identify policy areas of contention that could result in better election outcomes, and then examine them from two directions: a) could this policy be toned down, adjusted, dropped, etc? or if “No, we don’t want to change this”, then b) are we doing something wrong in our promotion of this policy? What can we do to convince more people that this is good policy?
I’m sure something like this happens anyway, but still. Obviously step b) is all about framing, better communication, that kind of stuff.
Re: Leadership
Apologies - quite right Tim H - it is an ongoing issue within the party.
Just stumbled onto this blog, great work.
Anyone have any updates on Senate votes in Vic and ACT? ABC and AEC still sit at around 70-75% counted for both.
In response to comments here warning that 7 senators per state will increase the chance of a party gaining a majority in the Senate, I see this as highly unlikely. A party would need to get 50% of votes after preferences for this to happen and the chances of that happening before a minor party reaches 12.5% would be remote. And even if that did occur in one or two states it would be offset by an increased number of minor party candidates from other states.
Based on my crunching of current results, if we elected 7 senators per state and 3 per territory (48 total) then this half election would see 20 Labor, 20 Coalition, 7 Green + Xenephon (All states except SA go 3/3/1 whereas in SA Xenephon pinches one from Labor. ACT is 1/1/1 but NT is 2 Lab, 1 Coalition). As you can see much higher proportion of minor parties (8 of 48 cf 4 of 40) and it would take a significant swing to either of the major parties to counteract that.
Simon - Poll Bludger has a fantastic thread focussed entirely on the Victorian Senate count.
There has been lots of counting for the Senate today, with all states up over 80%. Still looks like Greens elected in Tas, SA & WA only. If anything Vic is worse (now Libs get their number 3 up first, so Richard ends up on about .9 rather then the previous .95), and Liberals are still about 1% above a quota in the ACT.
The ABC’s Anthony Green’s Senate projections have been updated with latest counts, now all states 85-90% counted.
Overall results are still the same and look confirmed as The Greens candidates have slipped further behind in Vic and ACT.
Next 3 years will be difficult for Labor having to get Greens + FF + Xenephon to support legislation.
Reading Rob Mailler’s comments is giving me breathing difficulties . . .
Has the counting finished - is there any updates? Are we now sure of how many seats we ended up with
love and light
susan xxxx
itakerefuge, Nettle has lost her seat, Ludlam and Hanson-Young have won and the Victorian Greens are calling for a recount. Here’s hoping Di Natale can leapfrog either the ALP or Liberals and ride to victory on their preferences.