2) Is Antony reasonable in claiming the Family First "chance depends on a surplus from the Liberal quotas?
3) The chances of Family First displacing the Greens for a fourth 'conservative' seat are mainly to do with the % who vote 'conservative' rather than a direct flow of preferences from the Democrats to Family First rather than to the Greens.
4) The general appeal in part of the Democrats is that they pull votes from the 'conservative' electors as well as from those who don't want to vote Labor No 1.
5) On Antony's rationale if the Democrats do contribute to the pull down of the 'conservative' vote, then implicitly Family First will be adversely affected as they are a 'conservative' competitor.
6) If the excess in the Labor quota is to go to the Greens, and Labor increases more than the pro rata increase from an increase in the number of electors as unweighted by any increase in the informal vote, then the excess quota going to the Greens should put the Greens above the Family First quota score plus the Liberal excess.
7) The issue for the Democrats has been whether any increase in the Labor excess going to the Greens will be significantly adverse to the Democrat quota score.
8) If the pull from the 'conservative' vote doesn't reach its former flow to the Democrats, but goes to the FF and/or (but less likely) One Nation, and the flow to the Democrats from those who may not have wished to put Labor 1st declines, with this going to the Greens and/or Labor itself,then the Greens preferences to the Democrats may be adequate to get the Democrats elected on the fulfillment of two prior conditions
- a) Family First combined quota scores (inc. from the Liberals) is less than the Democrats;and,
- b) the Greens quota score (inc. Labor excess) doesn't match the Democrats quota score after the elimination of all the rest except for the Greens and the Family First.
9) The scenario above is a win for the 'progressives' because their votes will elect someone 'progressive' and the 'conservative' vote is wasted as insufficient.
10) The fear factor is that the 'conservative' vote will get up, because of the 'fear' scenario that the combined Labor excess and the Greens own quota score (inc. those first to be eliminated) either will be less than the Democrats quota but insufficient to give the Democrats the edge over Family First (inc. the Liberals excess), or will be just enough or more than enough to eliminate the Democrats themselves but insufficient to then trounce Family First, because (FF) will gain the Democrats quota score.
11) The proper question in light of the previous election results and taking into account the Antony Green analysis, is whether such an outcome, if it were to occur, might well have been properly avoided by the Democrats by a different preference deal (without any impact on the likelihood of the Democrats attracting 'conservative' votes as well as the votes of those who may not wish to put Labor 1st), or whether the appearance of such an outcome may be more to do with the substantive grounds on which electors choose to vote in the light, both of the preference deals previously advertised by particular parties (which admittedly is perhaps likely to be low compared to other more prominent grounds to do with 'image' or 'message' of a party), and the 'general trend' towards a 'conservative' vote (inc. the FF, but less likely to inc.the Democrats) rather than towards a 'progressive' vote for change (inc.the Democrats).
12) Unless there is some substantial reason to suppose that the generalvoting trend is irrelevant to the determination of a such a question in the instant case, and which is yet to be articulated, it may be as well to conclude that the outcomes being feared, are not unreasonable, but are still not of sufficient merit to be maintained in public without first estimating the general impact on the credibility of the 'progressive' 'image' and 'message' to the electorate by agitating the issue in any condemnatory way leading up to the decision-making days closer to the vote.
13) That a fear is not an unreasonable suspicion, may not be sufficient consideration to lose nerve and shift the focus from a range of'progressive' alternatives to the vicissitudes of a bickering antagonism between two parties that have otherwise agreed to a preference deal. The doing down of one, even if justified to the other, may only serve ultimately to be a form of self-fulfilling prophecy in as far as it may assist to formulate a 'conservative' trend prior to the election in reaction to an obvious incapacity in the 'progressive' parties to be seen to be able to continue with some 'image' or working together on a coherent and substantively similar 'message'.
14) What should not be overlooked is the message from the Indigenous contributors to the debate, like Tom Trevorrow, who have no party axe to sharpen, that respect is missing in the public operation of 'conservative' politics. If 'progressive' parties cannot maintain at least the 'image' of respect, apart from the necessity for the 'message' of respect, how can either the Greens or the Democrats in the 'progressive' group be seen to be asking people to do what they do rather than be seen asking people notto do what they do, but do what they say? And if so, how can the electors easily see either or both as 'progressive' except on what they say they are?
15) The advice is that appealing to people to vote against lies, requires that the hubbub of hypocrisy and the blame games of bickering, be avoided for the greater good, and for the greater good even at the expense of tactical advantage based on the reasonable suspicion that the general voting trend is looming 'conservative' and therefore 'progressives' should be all hanging together to avoid hanging separately.
16) If there are difficulties in accepting the bona fides of another' progressive', the need to avoid public hypocrisy and the appearance of direct misrepresentation to the electorate may be paramount, and indeed essential, for honesty in policy presentation. It's what parties do that equals what they say, and what they say they do.
17) However, being rash and hastily making a clean-breasted sweep of the insufferability of the 'other' in the 'progressive' camp, is a recipe to make clear to the more discerning of the wavering pro-government voter, that a protest vote may be less effective than conceived, and therefore not be any practical way to object to some part of government policy, because its implementation would be more likely to have quite a critical outcome, not for the government, but for the settlement of an acrimonious dispute among the 'progressive' parties. For those who wish to vote down the government in the Senate as a safeguard, helping 'progressives' resolve any issue may be a very much lesser attraction, if not plainly antipathetic to their rationale in voting away from government.
18) In such circumstances, and more so were there to be a general trend to 'conservative' voting, the protest vote may simply go to FF and/or One Nation and exacerbate the problem being publicly agitated rather than lessen the overall vote for the government, and irrespective of the claim that in any case a vote for one 'progressive' party is not a vote against the government because its preferences may well see that a 'conservative'is elected.
By Patrick Byrt 9 October 04
Patrick T. Byrt e-mail: Patrick_Byrt@fcl.fl.asn.au
Family FIRST? Family LAST Party!
One of the great certainties of this election is that "Family First Party" debunked as the 'Family Last Party' when you take into account the party has won the preferences and conditional approval of caretaker Prime Minister John HoWARd.
THE HILLSONG'S ARE ALIVE WITH THE SOUND OF ' NEO-LIBERALISM'
Only a bent mind would envisage the possibility or think of the concept that a '2nd Neo-Liberal 'front' promoted by the right and posing as a Church would enter politics under the flag of "Family First Party".
Costello, Howard's Disciple
JOHN HOWARD AND PETER Costello lost their vision for Australia from the time they were elected and embarked on a vision for the neo-Liberals.
Heaven Must Be Missing An Angel?
Well praise the Lord the light is Hell bent here on Peter Costello, treasurer of the Howard Government who now has his own "flock" of onward Christian Soldiers.
Related:
Australia Must Change Nation: Community
Federal Opposition Leader Mark Latham is entitled to raise comments about what Prime Minister John Howard the "rodent type" made in relation to Asian migrants 14 years ago because the Coalition has been campaigned on his past.
HOWARD NO REMORSE!
Australian caretaker Prime Minister John Howard 'a rodent type' does not need to apologise for the illegal and degrading war in Iraq despite a new report that has found Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the US-led invasion.
IRAQ: `Things are definitely not improving'
It's been a frequent refrain of US officials that Washington is winning its counter-insurgency war in Iraq. "It's very important for the people of the world really to know that we are winning, we are making progress in Iraq. We are defeating terrorists." In this case, however, it was US-installed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi who made the claim.
Allies 'planned' Iraq war despite denials
The United States, Australia and Britain started to plan the invasion of Iraq months before the conflict, according to a report Wednesday quoting a leaked Pentagon document.
Hill primed for war!
Australian Caretaker Defence Minister Robert Hill has announced a multi-million dollar upgrade of the Pearce Air Force base in Western Australia. Hill says $87 million would be spent on a major upgrade of the base, which is Australia's main flying training facility.
Annan tells world leaders to respect law
United Nations (UN) secretary-general Kofi Annan has made an impassioned plea to bring about the rule of law across the globe today. Mr Annan told world leaders to respect international law at home and abroad.
CO-OFFENDERS DO NOT REBUFF UN ON 'ILLEGAL WAR'
The 'coalition of the killing's' complicities - the US, Britain and Australia - have insisted that their countries' military action in Iraq was legal after they have committed war crimes against humanity.
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan says the United States decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was "illegal". Australia was a key supporter of the war on Iraq and sent troops to join the United States-led invasion last year.
Opp calls for Cooperation: Rudd
Imron Cotan says 10 ambassadors and High Commissioners from South East Asian nations were told comments by Prime Minister John Howard about pre-emptive strikes were part of an internal debate and the idea was still being developed?
Defence people need to vote for the Greens
Caretaker Prime Minister John Howard will today unveil a plan to step up the fight against terrorism in the region, using specialist teams of Australian Federal Police (AFP) that could be sent to work in neighbouring countries.
Australia will not Save Your Soul
The Federal Government will not Save Australian Soul's? Even if you're an innocent bystander caught up in it. Despite a group claiming to have kidnapped two Australian security guards? The alleged group, which allegedly calls itself the Horror Brigades of the Islamic Secret Army, allegedly has given the Prime Minister John Howard 24 hours to end Australia's involvement in Iraq.
Trust John Howard like you can trust George Bush...
Once again Prime Minister John Howard unleashed his "politics of fear" to win his election campaign trying to scare ratepayers.
Apologise to children abused in care: report
A Senate report on children placed in institutional care has called for the Federal Government to apologise to those who were harmed by their experience.
Gillard stirs Liberal leadership pot
The federal Labor Party claims Peter Costello has relaunched his leadership bid, after the Treasurer gave a wide-ranging interview outlining his support for an Australian republic.
Australian Govt human rights record 'worsening'
Community groups have given the Federal Government five out of ten for its record on human rights this year. Mr Purcell said the Government was also marked down because of the policy of holding children in immigration detention centres.
Australian Federal Government complicity in war crimes
Complaint to Australian law officers about Australian Federal Government complicity in war crimes.
Don't rock the Boat Howard!
PRIME Minister John Howard today denied the children overboard affair had swayed the 2001 election? Mr Howard has spent the week defending himself against claims he had been informed that nobody in Defence believed children had been thrown overboard by asylum seekers.
Australia an unfair nation, say young and all!
Young people and older people think Australia is undemocratic and unfair. Young people cite their teachers as having the greatest influence on their political thinking, according to a provocative new national survey funded by the Government. Older people cite "injustice" amongst other things as a "bent legal system" favouring hi profiled superstars, corporations and politicians.
HOWARD'S LIE DETECTOR TEST
But most voters have already decided that former ministerial adviser Mike Scrafton has contradicted Mr Howard's recollection of conversations just days before the 2001 election and says he has been vindicated by a lie detector test.
Not happy, John
Valder's alarm whistle effort 'let love be thy weapon' indeed Prime Minister John Howard is also the subject of a stinging attack in a Sunday feature this week, from the man who first engineered his ascent to the Liberal leadership in the mid-1980s former party president John Valder.
Howard 'unfit to lead'
The Federal Opposition says John Howard is not fit to be Prime Minister after new revelations about the children overboard affair.
Howard's war crimes, Turnbull, at least he's honest
HIGH-profile Liberal candidate Malcolm Turnbull has told voters the Iraq invasion was "an unadulterated error".
Alexanda Downer guilty of war crimes!
The agreement for going to war on Iraq carried with it and incentive and that was free trade with the US. The Howard Government knew about it and went along with it with the US under the guise of Iraq's WMDs. In criminal law this is commonly know as collusion to commit a crime.
John Howard's war crimes blameworthy
General Peter Gration is the spokesman for a group of 43 ex-military leaders, diplomats and departmental heads who have criticised the Government, saying involvement in Iraq has put Australia at greater risk of a terrorist attack.
Auditor Generals damning defence report
The Defence Department computer system upgrade has cost Australia tens of millions of dollars in a gigantic bungle, according to the Federal Opposition. The Commonwealth auditor-general has issued a damning report into the project.
Court reserves decision on 'no war' protest appeal
Two men have asked the Court of Criminal Appeal to accept that they painted "NO WAR" on the Sydney Opera House, to defend people in Iraq and Australia from war.
PM's Fox Defence? Less the evidence?
The Fox went out on a chilly night. He prayed for the moon to give him light. For he had many a mile to go that night....
Australians to be sacrificed: Howard
Howard vowed hostages wouldn't sway policy? The Federal Government say they would not negotiate with terrorists if an Australian were taken hostage in Iraq.
PM Howard Morally Bankrupt
Prime Minister John Howard insists the war in Iraq was justified despite his British counterpart Tony Blair's concession that weapons of mass destruction might never be found.
Howard 'should be tried for war crimes'
Former Liberal Party federal president John Valder says Prime Minister John Howard should be tried and punished for war crimes over Australia's involvement in the Iraq conflict.
Troop deployment not a deepening of effort: Hill
Deploying an extra 30 troops to Iraq was not a deepening of Australia's involvement because they were being sent to protect those already there, Defence Minister Robert Hill said yesterday.
War on terrorism' could take a generation: Downer?
Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has launched the Government's terrorism white paper, saying the "war" could take a generation.
JUDGEMENT: HOWARD'S WAR CRIMES
Howard Vs Regina in Canberra the Capital Territory of Australia- Friday January 30 2004.
'FACTOPHOBIA' HOWARD, BLAIR AND BUSH
Well think about this! Australia's intelligence agencies look set to receive a substantial funding boost in this year's Federal Budget, with the Prime Minister saying it is an obvious step to take.
Howard, where's your head at?
Australians living on the edge! Seems each time the bombs go off overseas Australians are living on the edge.
Should John Howard be locked up indefinitely?
Australian convicted mock terrorist John Howard is seriously considering appealing the precise time limit on detaining terrorist suspects.
Daily Terror rolled-over for Howard's war games
The DAILY TERROR is suspected of being the source of the news this morning that Willie Brigitte is a terrorist and that Sydney faces a bomb attack.
