Exit polls point to comfortable Labor win and Howard probably losing Bennelong.  However I don’t completely trust these things, people sometimes lie to them. ;)

Picture in NSW, Tas, Vic at this stage a little less favourable for Labor than I expected with swings very erratic from seat to seat and many seats where the swing is not quite enough.

Libs (surprisingly) holding Bass at the moment - and with that being based on small booths the question will be will the pulp mill create a swing in Launceston.

Queensland is likely to be critical.

Labor now winning 3-5 in NSW, 2 in VIC, Braddon and now ahead in Bass.  With three expected easy wins in SA the Coalition will need to do very well in WA and/or cut the damage in Qld to retain government.

Bass will most likely go to postals.

Very strong position for Labor now - I would not quite call it yet but the Coalition must have everything go its way in WA to get close and even then that probably won’t be enough.

Bass looks over, it is very difficult to make up nearly 1% on postals.

“Your servant here, he has been told
To say it clear, to say it cold
It’s over, it aint going any further” 

(And Howard is just about gone in Bennelong, but not calling that one just yet.)

Looks like it will end up in the low-mid 80s.  From a prediction viewpoint if that is where it is, I’ll take it.

Interesting that there was a swing to Liberals in Franklin, while Dick Adams (as I expected) romped it in.

There is a very clear anti-mill vote effecting the outcomes of Bass and lyons. Swings away from both major parties and to greens and independents. The same in Denison. The people have once again spoken on the mill. Adams, Kerr and Campbell in a national swing to labor lose votes to greens and independents. Liberals are having a shocker.

Tasmanian Senate looks like a solid 3 Labor 2 Liberal 1 Green at this stage.

Labor’s result should be within half a dozen seats of the 87 I predicted but we won’t know the actual total for weeks as there are always some very close seats.

Influence of pulp mill in Bass about what I expected; actually Green vote a bit lower than I thought.

NSW Senate currently 3-3 although Greens not too far out of it yet.

Xenephon doing very well in SA Senate.  Looks like Coalition losing two senate seats although SA still close.  Tas beyond any reasonable doubt, but notice that the Liberals came reasonably close to saving their third senate seat here.

Greens look like gaining only three Senate seats at present (Tas, SA, WA) - yet again they appear to be falling short of Senate expectations (even mine!)

As I expected it looks like Dick Adams has a heavy share of the preferences of anti pulp mill candidates in Lyons.  He is getting 15.4 points in preferences compared with 8.3 for Geoff Page.  We don’t know the breakdown of those but nearly all of them are either Ben Quin’s or the Greens’.  Still remains to be seen who has finished third in that seat.

WELL !  THERE GO’S THE NEIGHBORHOOD !

                D.D.

DING FRIKKIN DONG - the witch is dead!! Not just Coonan apparently but Howard!! Bennelong supposedly to go down to postal votes, but at this point there’s about 72 000 votes counted in Bennelong. Maxine McKew is in front of Howard by 600 votes. Likely to be ahead by about 800 by the time the remaining 25 000 are counted. Although postals are likely to break toward the incumbent Howard, it still probably won’t put him past 50% and McKew can count on the majority of preferences from roughly 5 000 votes going to the Green candidate.

Thankyou Bennelong voters!! from all Australia!! Not only have you sacked Howard, you’ve stuck an investigative journalist in Parliament.  A far better way of keeping the bastards honest than the Democrats and almost as good as the Greens. Speaking of which - did you catch Bob Brown’s celebration speech on the declaration that Rudd had won?

Immediately stated that the vote is a mandate against the pulp mill and that ALP under Kevin Rudd have a responsibility to make sure it never happens to the Tamar or Tassie’s forests. Not even day 1 & it’s already go time. SIIIIIICK!!!!

Howard’s seat is definitely lost if the late update on the AEC site is correct; it is now out to almost 52:48.

Sturt is now line-ball and may yet fall, while Labor is ahead now in Swan.

By the way I am *not* calling ACT Senate for Humphries just yet.  He is only just over a quota and if he should fall behind a quota then all the ATL preferences are against him and the Greens can still get up.  However if he is .02 or so of a quota short he should still get it on below-the-lines.

(15)
      When Brown convinces Rudd that the “Pulp Mill” will not go ahead is when i will “perhaps” and very grudgingly change my position towards Rudd, however it is my contention that Australia ! within 24 months are going to look back upon this day and say “JUST WHAT THE F—-K HAVE WE DONE” .
   
      I believe we have lost some very astute people in this ,three of which quickly come to mind,Costello!  because i don,t believe he will eventually survive an onslaught by Turnbull! Mal Brough ! without doubt an excellent man with a vision and determination, and our own very hard working Michael Ferguson ! who was “tied down” firmly to a party line.
     
      This election was lost on (1) the governments underestimation of the Grey vote (2)
the hopes and the want’s of the ( ME GENERATION ) 35,S AND UNDER WHO AS YET HAVE YET TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING IS NOT HANDED TO THEM ON A PLATE AND HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED A LABOUR LED PARTY !
   
    I would dearly love to be wrong for the sake of my grandchildren ! but i’m not !
   
    The Libs most certainly shot themselves in the foot with “complacency” in the belief that their economic record would get them across the line ” as well it should have” the largest loss by far ! being the ! 11 years hard work done by Costello , he must feel very shattered this day,
           
              Don Davey.

Hopefully Australians now have a chance to emerge from the Howard Government greed-is-good road rage society.

The problem with Howard was, that he just didn’t get it. He didn’t get it on Iraq, he didn’t get it on climate change, he didn’t get it that Sol Trujillo does not need twenty two million dollars a year while the kid in the takeaway loses his or her overtime pay.

He knew that Peter Costello had differing views on Australia’s future, and although working closely with him did not like him, and maybe because of that, was reluctant to hand the leadership to him.

We all know now that Costello was probably too shrewd to grasp the opportunity when Downer offered him the chance during the campaign.

On friday I felt sad, because like a frog in boiling water Howard had led Australians into a greedier, meaner, materialistic money grabbing, dog eat dog society,and that need not have happened.

Rave on decency, and social justice. Today I love being an Australian again.

In regards to the Pulp mill issue..
It is going to be very, very interesting with Turbull as opposition environment minister. Privately he has disliked the project and has shown a greater interest than Garret.

Watch Turnbull turn the heat up and boil some Oils. The pressure is on Garret if he is granted the Environmental portfolio and Turnbull will ask the questions that he previously could not to gain political mileage.

The problem is how do we now stop Labor backing the pulp mill? Dick Adams will already be pulling strings in Canberra to push it through. He’d do business with satan to get his red-neck mates what they want. I suspect the only thing that will stop the mill now is large scale, long term civil disobedience. What a shame a state election in Tassie is so far away.

Anyhow, the political game all over the developed world will soon change when those who now want to see global warming stopped realize that for that to happen it’s going to require lowering their (material) standard of living and force them to stop buying so many new toys.

Wil we be the first species to choose our own extinction? I suspect so.

Did Chris Pyne lose? Please please please tell me he did. Well another poll another, another clear message about the pulp mill. Wont bang on about it. Sue Neales has spelt it out better than I can. Congrats Karen C, Ben Q, Tom Millen, and Helen Hutchinson. Now Kevin Rudd said last night that he will govern for all Australians?
Well will he? On the pulp mill, can he and Garret make the shift from reading the script that has been written for them by the logging industry and unions and actually and deliver a decision for the majority of citizens? Or will they condemn us to continue to play out that the civil war between the people and the govt/logging industry?
There would be an outcry from a small section of the Tasmanian community, for many of those who would actually say they are for the pulp mill do not do so with the same passion and conviction as folk who dont want the mill - indeed many pro-mill folk will just let it go and get on with their lives without much care or concern.
It will only be the axis camp of industry, union and government that complain.
Yesterday was only one day in the democratic cycle. Lets hope that the Rudd government now has the balls to make a democratic decision on the pulp mill and return peace to Tasmania.

With so many seats delivered to Labor via Greens preferences (including resoundingly, Bass) it is very clear that the Greens are now entitled to have some issues examined more closely, including the pulp mill. In Lyons, the combined anti-mill vote is over 20%; Dick Adams’ primary vote is down almost 2% (against the national trend), and don’t forget that many people voted with more priority on other issues (Work Choices, Health etc) and were more hell-bent on getting rid of the poisonous dwarf than anything else). I have noted in all the babblespeak issuing from the mouths of Labor candidates on the mill issue, in their refusal to be wedged (a la Latham), they have always come out with a party-line mantra - “We approve a pulp mill provided that it is environmentally sustainable…..etc, etc, blah, blah, blah”. This clearly leaves a window open for them to come out and say, after the dust settles, that since this mill has serious issues associated with it, that they will re-examine the approval of it. If they do not do this, we are looking down the barrel of a long, hot summer of civil disobedience, should Gunns start building (Still have reservations that they actually WILL, however)

This will be a return to a union dominated society which is going to have some very far reaching effects!  as just as they have in the past, their short sightedness HAS not allowed them to understand that “BIG BUSINESS” is the control room of the economy and that governments job is to only “CURB” THEIR EXCESSES !
                d.d.

re: Dismord #20

Given the expected numbers there are 5 Green Senators where Rudd has a large shortfall and Rudd has a majority of 20 (read excess) in the lower house. He needs the Greens more than Dick Adams.

While I doubt the Greens would stand against the Labor on clear mandates like Workchoices (where the greens support reform every bit as much as Labor) it is hard to see the strong level of cooperation Rudd needs for his agenda if the Pulp Mill is not resolved.

A double-dissolution seems quite possible as a way for Rudd to cement the mandate to change workchoices in the face of an obstructuve Senate, but even then he is still unlikely to have a majority in the Senate in his own right. With the reduced quota for a DD, the Greens would quite probably get 6-8 Senators, so an improved negotiating voice.

Irrespective of Dick Adams, the easiest solution for Rudd is to kill the pulp mill through quietly making it clear that investors will have to pay the carbon costs of native forest clearfelling and linking it to addressing climate change.

Sorry Rick. Late last night it was declared that Chris Pyne had retained his seat.

The State politicians here in Tas should be aware now of the precarious situation they face.
Dr Herr, political scientist, (and I am sure, TT’s Dr Kev), acknowledge the influence of the Pulp mill issue in loss of votes from the two major parties and the large swing to the Greens.

Add this to the mix. In 2010 we will have our State election. We will have had 2 years, (maybe 3), of school leavers enrolled to vote and a voters block, (15,000 signatures to date- how big will that be in 2 years??).
The anger and resentment to this mill is large and it is still only a concept. What will the political atmosphere be like if construction has begun?
The Greens can only go onward and upward.

Re #21, Christopher Pyne is holding on at the moment, but only just.  In official counting he leads by less than 100 votes and the ABC has modelled that, factoring in postals results from last time, he will win with a 50.4:49.6 margin.  But should postals fail to follow that trend he could still lose.

Re #22 Dick Adams’ primary vote is actually down by only 0.92% as of current counting, and this is in an electorate where he has the competition of a high profile independent that he did not have to deal with last time.  The Liberal primary vote is down by over ten points.  What I think is going on there is that both Labor and Liberal have lost primary votes to Ben Quin over the mill, but Labor’s losses over the mill have been cancelled out by gains over the repudiation of the Latham forests policy.

Dick Adams has secured a 2PP swing to him of 5.4% which is the largest swing to Labor in the state (indeed in Franklin the swing was to the Liberals).  Obviously, so far as that specific seat is concerned, either he has done something right this election or the party he represents has stopped doing something wrong from last time.  Probably both.

With Costello refusing to lead the Liberals, Turnbull’s scope to hoe into Garrett over the mill will be reduced if he has to be Opposition Leader rather than or as well as Garrett’s counterpart. I agree with Tony Saddington in #19 that this would otherwise be an opportunity for Turnbull to get tough on the project - at least from the standpoint of a very strict insistence on adherence to the conditions. 

Whether Turnbull will be Opposition Leader remains to be seen.  With Costello refusing and Brough voted out of his seat, I’m not sure who it would really be apart from Turnbull or Nelson.  They wouldn’t go back to Downer, surely ... it would all be just far too funny.

Oh, and as for the stuff about Andrew Wilkie being in a fight with Catryna Bilyk for the final Senate seat, Richard Herr’s comments (as reported) are cautious to the point of sensationalism.

To get elected Wilkie needs to catch the third Liberal candidate and assuming all votes follow the ticket he is currently about 16,000 behind that.  Even if the postal voting goes all his way and improves his position by, say, six thousand, he is not going to pick up ten thousand votes out of cross-ticket leakage.  It aint happening.  As mentioned above I am not writing them off in the ACT but in Tassie the gap is too large.

Costello has just stood down from the leadership race , and who could blame him after been vilified by so many for so long after a stirling 11 years.
   
    We have lost one of ,if not the best politician of our times, and i for one feel gutted as to the treatment of fellow Australians to the extraordinary achievements of this man.
                  Don Davey

Whooops, I forgot, the Coalition could instead elect Abbott as leader.  I will break any facade of neutrality at this point and say that that would be quite insufferable for almost everyone (I liked the Secular Party ads suggesting that Abbott has no heart and no brain) but the elimination of any risk of a Coalition government for the next ten years would be almost worth the suffering.  :)

MEDIA RELEASE   25 November 2007

TASMANIA VOTES AGAINST THE PULP MILL AGAIN

Strong Green swing and punishment of incumbents contributes to change of government

Reaction against Gunns’ proposed pulp mill has caused a strong swing to the Greens and the punishment of pro-pulp-mill incumbents, according to the Wilderness Society.

“Tasmanians have voted against the pulp mill by rewarding the Greens and punishing Government incumbents,” said Wilderness Society Campaigner Geoff Law. “A swing to the Greens of nearly 7% in Bass has tipped out the pro-pulp-mill member, Michael Ferguson.”

“Labor would not have won Bass and Braddon without preferences from the Greens, who took votes away from both major parties because of the pulp mill,” Mr Law said. “The backlash against the pulp mill has therefore contributed to the change in Government.”

Mr Law said that the strong vote against the pulp mill in the Federal Election has continued the trends in opinion polls and local-government elections against the pulp mill. Earlier this month, an EMRS poll found that 54% of Tasmanians opposed the mill versus 37% in favour. In Local Government elections in October, 76% of electors in Hobart voted against the mill, while those in Launceston dumped the pro-pulp-mill mayor.

Results relevant to the pulp mill in the Federal Election include:

A 6.6% swing to the Greens in Bass, resulting in a 14.7% vote for Green candidate Tom Millen;
A 5% swing to the Greens across Tasmania in the Senate;
The comfortable re-election of Senator Bob Brown;
Significant swings to the Greens in other Tasmanian House of representatives seats, including nearly 4% in Denison;
An anti-pulp-mill vote of over 20% in Lyons, where both the Greens and anti-mill independent Ben Quin polled strongly with about 10% each.

“In a presidential-style federal election dominated by the Liberal and Labor leaders, the pulp mill was a vote-changing issue in Tasmania that has contributed to the change in Government,” Mr Law said.

“The pulp mill also contributed to Mr Howard’s probable

Kevin Bonham said: “As I expected it looks like Dick Adams has a heavy share of the preferences of anti pulp mill candidates in Lyons.  He is getting 15.4 points in preferences..”

What a wonderful electoral system for those opposing the pulp mill.  Your vote will automatically default to a dyed in the wool pro-pulpmill big-business crony.

What happened to the votes of those who refused to direct their preferences to Lib-Lab-Family-First on the rigged ticket?  Any media prepared to report on those?

re 29
Interesting comment from Dr Kev, one wonders to what extent the toxic personalities exuded by a number of the Howard sychophancy contributed to his governments demise. Personally I used to laugh at Abbotts idiotic antics, but Abetz appearance had me looking for the remote for fear I would find something more solid and smash the tv.

Re # 29: Kevin is totally realistic here - Realist would just love the Libs to chose a totally unelectable leader (realistically either Downer or Abbot would do equally well), just as they have in Tasmania.

I suspect that the Libs and Nationals are finished, consigned to history, unless there is a major Labor stuff-up in the next couple of years. There just isn’t the membership base for them to hope to get back into the game. I suspect we will see a Lib-National amalgamation and maybe a new conservative party. I agree with Don that it is a shame that Costello is bowing up, but I suspect that even Turnbull will be unlikely to bring a unified new advance. But it is nice to see Costello pull a post-election move that keeps his dignity intact.

Meanwhile, on this site, it remains to being only about the pulp mill. Oh yawn! Without dredging through the figures too comprehensively, I see that the Senate Greens vote is currently 48,000 out of a total of 270,000 or so - so that is about one fifth of Tasmanians are strong Greens supporters. More simply, about 80% of Tasmanians voted for parties that support the pulp mill. I would have liked to have seen Wilkie in the senate, but doesn’t this tell you that the majority don’t want the mill stopped?

Brenda, anyone who wanted to could have voted for anti-pulp-mill candidates.  But let’s look at the facts here: the proportion of people voting for candidates who opposed the pulp mill was approximately as follows:  Denison 19.1%, Bass 16.8, Braddon 7.9, Lyons 20.4, Franklin 14.4, Senate 18.45% (I may have missed a few microparties through being unaware of their stance on the mill).

Comparing these results to previous elections we can only say that:

* If the majority are opposed to the pulp mill, they are more concerned about other issues, and hence support pro-mill candidates on balance.
* The pulp mill issue caused only a small minority (<10%) of existing major party voters to change their vote to an anti-pulp-mill candidate.

In the case of Braddon, Geoff Law’s argument that the pulp mill caused the loss of the seat for the Coalition is extremely unconvincing.  At the present time the margin of victory in Braddon looks likely to be about 1.6 points, whereas the swing to the Greens was 2.6 points.  The Green vote in Braddon splits about three to one to Labor on preferences traditionally.  Assuming that the mill caused 2.6% to switch from Liberal to Green, and that these then directed their preferences in the typical manner of Braddon Greens voters (74:26), Labor would have only gained at a rate of .48 votes for each vote won by the Greens.  That would only give Labor 1.25 points, which is less than Labor won the seat by.

Even if that figure exceeded Labor’s margin, how do we know that a Liberal supporter who defects to the Greens over the mill issue will give their preferences to Labor (especially as Labor also support the mill) as readily as a typical Greens supporter? 

In my view the far more likely cause of the recovery of Braddon is the revocation of the failed Latham forestry policy which caused the seat to be unexpectedly lost in the first place.  I have not yet checked the booth-by-booth figures to be sure, but I will be surprised if this is not what actually happened.

I reserve judgement on Bass as I have suspected for a while that if Bass was close the pulp mill could be the crucial nail in Ferguson’s coffin and this may well be what has occurred.  However I need to look carefully at booth by booth swings to nut out the exact pattern.

#32: I think there is something in that which you say.  ;)

re #32: Wow, hadn’t thought of that one - even better than Abbot and Downer combined, but sadly not to be, because Abetz is in the senate.  Abetz as leader would have kept Labor in government for much longer than Dr Kev’s ten years!

Dr Kev. Surely Turnbull is the only realist talent for Liberal leadership. The alternatives just are not going to cut it with the public.

Personality or image is for the party what an exciting cover is for a very mundane book.
Downer, Nelson or Abbott, it just wont happen.
Despite my personal feelings about Turnbulls cop out with the Pulp mill, I believe that he is the best chance for the Libs.
How long before the Republican issue is again tabled?

Regarding Pyne he is now home as he is almost 1000 in front; that gap will not be closed.

Regarding the pulp mill, a mill-related swing in a state election would not necessarily do any harm as the seat where it is strongest (Bass) is ultra-marginal for the Greens at state level at present so even an extra 7% probably wouldn’t win them two seats.

For any chance of a Lib come back , and believe me it’s going to be necessary ! they have no option than to install Turnbull now that Costello has gone.

  He has the image that appeals to the masses and the fact that he is already a millionaire begs the question ! so why bother ? unless he’s on a power kick ! or genuinely wishes for a better country , i think the smart money should be on the latter option besides there is no viable option seeing as Mal Brough has also been lost, who would have been my first choice !
                d.d.

Dear friends,

What an extraordinary night - and now, a new beginning for Australia.

Last night, as we were in the tally room, we saw a clear march of voters back towards the progressive issues that we’ve all been fighting so hard to put back on the agenda - with our campaigns on climate change, a fairer economy, indigenous rights, and the war in Iraq all having a major impact on this election. And GetUp members have been right there at the centre of it all - emerging as part of a powerful people-centred movement for change.

Last election we did not exist. Now we are 230,000 strong, having built the foundations of an unprecedented grassroots movement for the 2008-10 parliamentary cycle. In the words of one commentator, GetUp has “evolved from political experiment to a voice Australian politicians cannot afford to ignore.”*

Allow us to express our profound gratitude to those of you who have worked so hard with us in this election year to inject accountability, honesty, and progressive policies into this pivotal election. Together we’ve run the most ambitious and effective non-partisan grassroots electoral program in Australian history:

- In Bennelong alone, over 800 GetUp volunteers campaigned on the ground over the last eight months, with every single polling booth staffed by GetUp volunteers handing out party comparison scorecards on Election Day. Your presence was unmissable and instrumental.

- Yesterday, thousands of you flooded polling booths nationwide with a sea of orange to distribute GetUp materials - ensuring that the issues you care about were front and centre in the minds of over half a million voters. (If you volunteered at a polling booth, tell your day’s story here.)

- Our campaign to restore balance to the Senate is looking to have succeeded, with the Coalition set to lose one Senator in Tasmania and one in South Australia - enough to end one party control of the Senate (Victoria and the ACT are still too close to call).

There’s a lot more that we could say about the implications of last night’s election results and your work over the past six months, but enough from us. Join the discussion on our election blog.

Finally, we all know our job didn’t end on Election Day. In fact, our task of keeping politicians from all sides accountable to you is just beginning. We, like you, will take the next few days to catch our breath, but later this week we’ll be in touch with our new GetTogether program, the next steps with Promise Watch and our exciting plans for this grassroots movement - to ensure the new Government builds the progressive Australia we all have in mind.

Today, we begin the journey to reshape our future.

The GetUp team

PS - GetUp’s Refresh Conference, a national meeting of Australia’s progressive movement to evaluate the election, share skills, and plan next steps, will take place Dec 7-8 (Fri-Sat) in Sydney - and you’re invited! It’s fillling up quickly, so RSVP now - and apply for one of our travel scholarships available for those from outside Sydney.

*Larissa Dubecki, The Age, 29 Oct 2007

Dr Bonham, please consider carefully the 988 votes gained by Independent Sven Wiener in Bass.
Minimal advertising, only one leaflet through our mail box, but enough voters saw him as a way to stop the mill without having to vote Green. Those votes would have been crucial in getting Ferguson re-elected, as I suspect they’d have been overwhelmingly from the Liberals.

The fact is that people voted AGAINST the pulp mill at this election. The figures dont lie. Not just anyone could have voted against the pulp mill. Its not quite as simple as that. Couple this poll result with all others on the pulp mill and there is only one conclusion any honest observer could reach. The majority of Tasmanians dont want the Gunns pulp mill in the Tamar Valley. The question now is, how will this be played out between those people and dishonorable state and federal governments?

Richard Herr has his facts wrong about the counting process in his Senate analysis as broadcast this morning.  He is claiming the Green vote will pick up significantly because below-the-line votes have not been counted.  This is nonsense.  The Senate votes counted *include* above the line and below the line votes but they are not yet *sorted* into above and below the line.  They are recorded as “unapportioned” during this process. Later they are separated into above and below the line without changing the party’s totals (beyond the loss of any votes found to be informal in that process). 

The only things that can improve Wilkie’s position are postals and leakage and given that (a) he is over 16,000 votes behind and (b) he is also susceptible to losing votes through leakage, the gap is way too large for him to have a chance.

This kind of howler being broadcast on ZR is embarrassing.  I called the AEC to check the facts last time after similar false claims were being made.

I personally believe that Australia DID NOT want to throw out the Govt ! inasmuch as they were trying to putting the frightener’s on them ! and saying ,  clean up your F——-g act ! and didn,t opine that there would be such a huge backlash.

    If i were Rudd and as a matter of prime importance i would be trying somehow to find away to make certain that Mal Brough could see out his work with the indigenous situation.
   
    Putting that into the hands of Jenny Macklin will be ahuge mistake !
                      d.d.

“Meanwhile, on this site, it remains to being only about the pulp mill. Oh yawn! “Posted by Tomas on 25/11/07 at 07:56 PM
I would have no objection if your assertion was true, which it isn’t.
The pulp mill and the reasons for opposing it subsume concerns that extend far beyond state and national boundaries.
If you imagine opposition to such developments is purely provincial no wonder you’re yawning Thomas. I suggest you widen YOUR perspective. Carbon emmissions for instance don’t remain within state boundaries.

“Tasmanians voted for parties that support the pulp mill.”
I would have liked to have seen Wilkie in the senate, but doesn’t this tell you that the majority don’t want the mill stopped?”
No, it tells us that the majority of voters don’t even have the mill on their radar. I wonder if you’ve noticed that a high % of Australians often vote out of selfish considerations under the influence of a national media that ranks 50th on the international ratings for freedom of the press? (Figures given somewhere else on this site - sorry I’ve lost the link)....& don’t get me started on the State Govt’s obscene funding of that bloody bus that propagansized for and on behalf of Gunns as taxpayers expense.

Posted by Tomas on 25/11/07 at 07:56 PM

With my new-found respect for your political analysis, Kevin, could you please tell me to what extent you think Labor is beholden to the Greens, given that 21 out of 23 seats have been delivered via Greens preferences? Do you have any feeling that the pulp mill assessment issue might be re-visited?

Well, Don, it looks like a matter of replacing the smirk with the supercilious grin.  Turnbull ‘has the image that appeals to the masses’?  You’d have to be kidding.  The man is a merchant banker (and that’s so, whether or not one uses rhyming slang).

Changing a few faces at the top parliamentary level is going to have no effect on the underlying policies by which the Liberal Party is driven.  The republic is one interesting issue where things might change, but it’s hardly central. 

What is more important is the opportunity the defeat has given for the emerging, vigorous, extremist christian right to consolidate its position within the party.  Bass and Lindsay might have been setbacks, but look for a big thrust at organisational level ahead of the next round of state elections so as to place the ‘thugs for theocracy’ in winnable seats.

Kevin Bonham said: “Brenda, anyone who wanted to could have voted for anti-pulp-mill candidates.  But let’s look at the facts here: the proportion of people voting for candidates who opposed the pulp mill was ...”

So you are saying that members of the public who refused to provide a number beside Lib-Lab and Family First, that their vote was COUNTED??

The Examiner today (26th) quotes bookies as saying that Brendan Nelson is the favourite.

Why on earth would any Lib endorse that idea?

Christ! the Libs may be forever lost! the pundits are tipping garden gnome , Nelson ! for the leadership, surely they are not serious ! in which case Labor are in for a long, long, honeymoon!
                   
                    d.d.

I find it hard to believe that of the 50-60% of people in Tasmania who clearly oppose the pulp mill, fewer than a third of them actually voted Green.  And in the case of Cassidy and Quinn a combined vote of 20%. 

Are people confused about the preferential system and think that their vote is “wasted” if they give the Greens their first preference?  Are the Greens so much on the nose that they just can’t bring themselves to vote for them? 

Personally, in spite of the Greens claiming that this election is a reflection of the strength of anti-pulpmill position, I’m really disappointed that the Green vote isn’t higher as it surely doesn’t truly reflect the number of people who oppose the mill.

It’s wishfull thinking to assume that people are going to interpret these numbers as evidence of a massive pulpmill backlash.  It just isn’t demonstrated by the figures.

I’ve no doubt that the majority of people in Bass don’t want the Tamar mill. However, ‘party loyalty’ is more emotionally complex than it sounds. Disloyalty to the perceived sympathetic nature of the sitting member; plus ‘my family has always voted ‘LibLab’, and I’d be a traitor to the tradition to change,’  are powerful and probably atavistic motives- quite apart from those who find reading or remembering all this stuff difficult and vote mechanically the way they always have.
So to say a swing of 6 or 7% is minor is underestimating the sometimes difficult decision to change voting habits. If you want big changes look to when when jobs seem under direct threat (Latham’s forestry) or when corruption is all too evident (Blair replacing John Major.) By contrast, the mill’s pollution, increasingly large subsidies, governmental allies, danger to health,  future cost to the community in local jobs, effect on global climate change, appetite for trees and land are ‘in the distance,’  ‘don’t worry about that’ stuff,  which Gunns’ PR and adverts, knowing their public, reinforce.

Re #41, I think Sven Wiener did pretty well to get that vote with relatively little publicity - it is similar to the vote Les Rochester, who has a far higher profile, got in the state election.  But at present Ferguson is more than that behind (almost 1200 at the moment).  Also if Wiener’s vote really did come mainly from the Liberal Party (I don’t know if this is true) then it will most likely return there in preferences.

Re #44, the public had been bombarded with opinion polls for months showing that the Coalition would be whipped.  Anyone paying the slightest attention would have known the Coalition was not secure (to say the least) and would have realised that defeat of the government was possible.  Maybe there were a few seats where people thought there was no real chance their seat would change hands, but apart from that, I think the majority were not protest-voting at all but wanted the Coalition gone.

Re #48, if you don’t distribute your preferences your vote does not get counted.  But if you put all the anti-mill candidates first and then preference all the pro pulp-mill candidates after them, then you have voted against the mill to the maximum extent possible.  Being able to stop after a few candidates (Albert Langer style) would not in any way stop a pro-mill candidate from getting elected once all the anti-mill ones had failed.  The preference of the voter voting that way would simply exhaust from the system and the remainder of the voters could decide which pro-mill candidate would be elected.  By not choosing, you would be supporting whoever the rest of the voters wanted.

Re #46, in most of the seats that Labor will gain and that it needs preferences (not in all cases necessarily Green preferences) to win, it is well ahead on primaries anyway.  There are only ten where Labor currently leads on 2PP but either trails on primaries or is <1% ahead on primaries.  Those are the ones where the preferences really “matter”.  Even in those, there seems to be a bedrock 60% or so of Green voters who will always preference the Labor Party more or less whatever its environmental stance, so the number of seats that will really be won as a result of the impact of Labor’s environmental policies on Green voters’ preferences is probably just a handful.  I have seen work that shows that the Greens’ decision on preference allocation in a given seat will only affect the preferences of 5-10% of Green voters. 

So I doubt that Rudd will feel his margin could suddenly evaporate at the next election should he fail to take a green line on the pulp mill.  (Furthermore, he got those preferences with his current policy as it is, so I’m not sure why he should feel pressured to then change it.) If anything might cause him to reconsider his line, it could be placating the Greens in the Senate.  Ironically, sharing the balance of power with Xenephon and Fielding (if that happens) may make it more difficult for the Greens to hold Labor to ransom, since if they force Labor too far in a pro-green direction, Fielding at least will vote against it.

Nelly, some people are indeed still in the dark ages about preferential voting, but I think the more likely explanation (as hinted in Mike Adams’ #52) is that most of those who were anti-mill just did not think it was a big enough issue to change their vote to the Greens (or an independent) on.  I mentioned in my article “The shrinking pulp mill backlash” (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/the-shrinking-pulp-mill-backlash/) that Newspoll was showing relatively few voters willing to change their vote over the issue (and many of those perhaps swapping between the major parties, odd as that may sound).

(51)
    Nelly in my opinion ,had the greens openly stated that their preferences would not go to labor there would have been huge increase in their vote ! 

    I personally know of many who are traditional Liberal voters who would have voted green without doubt.
    I also, through many letters including one this place, asked them the question , to which they refused to answer.
              d.d.

J.b
      All i am putting forward are my musings,with which on the whole, you usually disagree without giving me an alternative of your own ,now some people just want to argue for the sake of it , and others debate !  usually ! with an alternative to the original statement !.
     
      I have no particular leaning towards anyone however ,allow me to explain my statement, apart from “Julie Bishop” to whom i believe would be a good candidate, i don,t see anyone else but ” Turnbull ” who is likely to appeal to the masses because he will appeal to them for the same reason as did “Rudd” ! a modicum of charm , and the gift of the gab !of course that doesn’t make it right, just a fact of life !
   
    There is an added factor !  if i were a millionaire a few times over ,i would be enjoying it and traipsing around the world ! as i believe would most ! so just what makes a man want to take on a job of rebuilding a party which may stay in the wilderness for some years, Have you stopped to consider that ? because i have ! it’s not the money ! he has more than enough ! so! giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he REALLY does want to do some good for the country ! and given that scenario , what constructive alternative would you like to put forward ?

                d.d.
p.s. there,s no room for religion in politics or any where else as far as i’m concerned !

Re #55 “..........so just what makes a man want to take on a job etc, etc…...........”
Ego, Don ego. Turnbull believes he is the Annointed One - the only person with the cred to lead this great nation.

Re #55 again - He is probably the best option out of what is left of the Liberal party - I agree with you on that one. I had three wishes for this election - For an increase in the Green vote; for the poisoned dwarf to lose his seat, and for a change of government. I might have got all three!

Re the debate about the ‘anti-mill’ vote -A number of people indicated to me that they would not be voting Greens because they couldn’t win, therefore it would make no difference.  The notion of getting rid of Howard was of more importance to them. Trying to explain the rules of preferences swayed some, but not all. Many people struggle to understand it, and it’s clear from a small poll at work that many people take very little notice of politics (although I believe a higher percentage in Australia than the UK & the US), and with considerable ignorance of many (what I’d consider) significant events they had absolutely no idea who they were going to vote for.  Then on polling day the number of people who took one of EACH how-to-vote-card that was offered was quite astonishing -although I admit still a small percentage of total voters, a nonetheless sufficient number to swing a marginal seat one way or the other, I would think.

Finally, I think a great many people felt the pulp mill issue was not relevant to the election, despite the Greens’ attempt to make it so.

I’d be interested to hear Kevin’s opinion on the relation of the Greens vote from Federal to State elections - given that the State vote is historically higher, is it possible to expect a corresponding increase on state voting intentions for the Greens?

Re the possible new Liberal leader, I’d prefer Turnbull as I believe he’s the most able -however as was noted by a number of news commentaries the first new leader of an opposition never wins an election -a rather un-enviable position. So perhaps it might be better for someone like Brendan Nelson or Tony Abbot to preside over the trainwreck for a bit. Or re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, or drive the bus that’s already fallen over the cliff, to take Kudelka’s amusing cartoon in today’s Mercury, whichever you prefer.

Mind you, no matter who leads, it won’t sway my vote one iota towards the Liberals, but as pointed out elsewhere, it’s better for the country to have a capable opposition than a rabble of rowdy rebels, as Pontius Pilate might have put it (insert your own Pythonesque lisp).

(18)
    I need take issue with two of your statements Neville ,
        (1) 
          Costello did indeed have his own and a very different vision for Australia including becoming a republic! which in my mind is well overdue ! and well understood his parties failings ,but could not act upon them until he had the job, also to create mayhem by attempting a spill at such a crucial time
would have been non constructive and to have shown a party in disarray most especially when he was seen by many as the source of most of their policy.
        (2)
          Many have criticized him and called him weak for not having done that to which i have alluded to in the above,  but the FACT was that at NO time did he ever had the numbers to successfully topple Howard.
                  d.d.

Contrary to many of the above threads i do not personally believe Downer to be ineligible for the job (earlier indiscretions aside) he has acquitted himself in his present portfolio admirably and is very well versed and well regarded by his contemporaries overseas, however i have seen the “Yobbo”  attitudes at play such as : SPEAKS WIV AFUKIN PLUM INIS MOUF DUNEE ?
              such is the orstraylun way innit ?

              d.d.
sorry, valley watcher i can,t accept that ! just does not make sense, he is young ! rich! and can go, and do, anything he wan,ts.  No goddamn way ! let us revisit this in 24 months time when interest rates are out of control.
               
              d.d.
(59)
  Toby ! I personally, unlike my brother am a swinging voter, always have been, so consequently i have always pondered as to statements such as yours and his “no matter who leads ,it won,t sway my vote one iota towards the liberals “
 
  Just what is it ! that makes some “one party voters” regardless of what that particular party does ?  it’s always fascinated me !
 
  Also ,it has to be noted that Turnbull ! as of this time is the only one who is advocating ” to stop navel gazing and a swift return to the job at hand in order to stop this mob losing what has been gained over the past 11 years, and i believe he is right,however it will be hard without Costello.
              d.d.

Toby: firstly 2010 is a long time away and a lot should have changed one way or the other regarding the mill by then. 

If it is still a festering sore at that time I’d expect a substantial swing (say 5-6%) to the Greens in Bass on the basis of that issue alone, and probably small swings elsewhere (see comment below re Lyons).  I would not expect the swings to be as high as seen in the Federal election simply because the Green vote is at a higher base in state polls making it harder to pick up new supporters - getting people who have never voted Green before to do so is harder than getting people who have done so at state level to also do so at federal.

Regarding Lyons it is hard to comment as the swing to the Greens was interfered with by Ben Quin’s candidacy.  We still don’t know how many votes that went to Quin would have otherwise gone to the Greens. If he outlasts them in the count then we may never know!  (If anyone has any scrutineers’ figures on Quin’s preferences on a 3PP basis I’d be interested to see them.)

And concerning Geoff Law’s claim that the pulp mill caused the loss of Braddon, go here:

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionTcpByPollingPlace-13745-193.htm

and check out where the biggest swings against Mark Baker were to be found.  Generally, as I expected, the timber country that gave Baker his surprise win in the first place going back to where they came from once the Latham forests policy disaster was reversed.

Any suggestions about what may happen if the next Tas election results in a hung parliament?

That’s Bob Brown right?