« profile & posts archive

This author has written 1117 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

8 responses to “What will it take…”

  1. Peterc

    As per the analysis on the Poll Bludger, It is interestting that the Fishing Party’s micro preference deals in NSW, including from Patrice Newell’s so called Climate Change Coalition – could well see them elected ahead of the Greens. I don’t know how the Climate Change Coalition can justify putting Pauline Hanson ahead of Labor as climate friendly. Labor’s policies on climate change are on the table. Does Pauline Handson even have any? And she is pounding on the “anti-Muslim” drum.

    It looks like the Coalition will retain control of the Senate unless there is a very strong Labor/Greens/Democrat vote there.

    The Coalition only needs to win 20 seats to retain control, with Family First backup. [link]

    Labor/Greens/Democrat combined need to win 23 seats to wrest control/balance of power, which will be very difficult to achieve. If you want this to happen, spread the word about how to vote in the Senate.

  2. Vee

    I’d just encourage all LP contributors and lurkers to vote below the line in the Senate in every State.

  3. tim

    The Climate Change Coalition have good ideas and good candidates in NSW, at least, in patrice newell and Dr Karl, but they have made a terrible hash of their preferencing and may help keep the Senate in conservative control. PUt Family First or Libs ahead of Greens and Dems in several states. And do beware of “Conservatives for Climate Change and Environment” who are simply being used to channel votes to the Libs and FamFirst.

    By the way, good news in that only the LDP have prefenced the Libs over the Greens in the ACT. Things are looking very positive indeed for Kerrie Tucker and Gary Humphries should be getting worried.

  4. Sam Clifford

    A few more of the botched ALP-FF deals and the major parties will realise that preference deals don’t always work in their favour. Bob Brown’s has said he’ll campaign in the next parliament to try and get above the line preferencing introduced. The ALP will probably be all for it since they won’t have to deal with those on the Left or the Right of them.

  5. Andrew E

    Party-determined preference deals only work if people follow them. Does any Green voter really vote 1 Green, 2 Liberal if that’s what’s printed on the how-to-vote?

    Imagine a situation where the Huntin’ Shootin’ and Fishin’ Party voted in a way that the Greens preferred they didn’t. The perfect rejoinder to the gnashing and wailing is for the HSF rep to say: hey, I’m only here because of green preferences.

    You shouldn’t have to fill in every single square below the line. A minimum limit, say 10 squares or 10% of candidates, should be sufficient.

  6. Andrew Bartlett

    I’ve only studied Queensland closely thus far, for obvious reasons.

    In Qld, Climate Change Coalition have put Democrats and Greens first, which increases the chances of preventing a clean sweep for the major parties in Queensland – (although then to Hanson before the majors, which is not ideal (see below).

    The Carers Party have also put Hanson after the Greens in Qld.

    What Women Want have also gone to Greens and Democrats before the majors (bit peeved they seem to have put Greens ahead of Dems around the country I’d have to say, given the record of the Democrats, but it happens)

    Less surprising is the array of shooters, fishers, ‘christians’, One Nation who have put Hanson high up their lists.

    It is unlikely to matter (although a few contests from the past in various states shows one can never be certain), but I have to admit I am perplexed at the Greens in Qld putting the pro-nuclear, pro-gun, pro-privatisation LDP ahead of the Democrats – (apart from the obvious reason of a preference deal, but I know that couldn’t be the case because I’ve read repeated exhortations on this website and others that the Greens don’t do such things. 🙂

    I’m also a trifle preplexed that the LDP would direct their preferences to Pauline Hanson ahead of every other serious contender – whatever the flaws of the rest of us from an LDP persepective, its hard to see how a promoter of bigotry amd prejudice (and ultra-protectionism for that matter) fits in with their ethos. This one is more likely to matter, as Hanson is getting preferences first or second from a raft of small right-wing groups – if she gets a decent primary vote to start with, she becomes a chance.

    From a qucik look at South Australia, Nick Xenophon’s decision to split his preferences between Greens and Family First – and put the Democrats after the Greens on both sides of that split – makes it very hard for the Democrats there, and gives Family First an unexpected boost (well I wasn’t expecting it anyway, as Mr X put FF down the end of his tickets in the state election)

  7. josh lyman

    there’s something in the water up there AB, it looks like you’ve got Pauline’s preferences before any of the other contenders.

  8. Sam Clifford

    Andrew Bartlett, I’m a bit perplexed aobut that as well. I don’t like the LDP’s flat tax policy; I wouldn’t trust the libertarian right as far as I could throw them. Further evidence that above the line preferencing is needed urgently if ever I saw it. Preference deals are an unnecessary evil.