Antony Green punches Canberra's Numbers

dungfungus said :

Diggety said :

To be fair, Andrew Leigh has been one of the saner members of the ALP, as well as being one of their best operators in that he hasn’t presided over wholescale policy failures/ deacles and that he generally stays away from parrotting the AbbottAbbottAbbott line.

Yeah Leigh is quite smart to choose policy/debate affiliation, and brings a nice academic perspective to politics.

At least I thought so until I watched The Drum last night… The whole panel laughed at him at one stage when he suggested political pundetry should be banned unless there is a certain criteria is met. Not conducive to a free society.

My case rests.

I didn’t say that I agree with Leigh.

I said he’s been a reasonbly effective local member and that we could have had worse. Much worse…

It wouldn’t matter how good or how bad he is because it will always be a Labor seat. Give me some examples of how “effective” he has been.
We may as well have a cardboard cutout of him sitting in Parliament and this would give him more time to write books, be a community organiser and social media supremo.

Jim Jones said :

Roundhead89 said :

I’ve been urging people in Canberra (elec) to vote Liberal so we can have lower house representation in the new government or else we will be frozen out and spend the next nine or twelve years on the sidelines while the rest of the country is on the field playing the game. I just can’t understand the rusted-on Labor mentality in this town, especially when right next door is the bellwether seat which is constantly being porkbarrelled and showered with money.

As far as I’m concerned, if we don’t get with it and go with the rest of the country we deserve all the beating up and public service cuts a vengeful government might inflict.

Canberra deserves to be savaged because we don’t vote for the right party.

Good one!

We may not deserve it but its what we will get. I’ve been saying for years that we need to become a marginal seat. It may not be fair but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Roundhead89 said :

I’ve been urging people in Canberra (elec) to vote Liberal so we can have lower house representation in the new government or else we will be frozen out and spend the next nine or twelve years on the sidelines while the rest of the country is on the field playing the game. I just can’t understand the rusted-on Labor mentality in this town, especially when right next door is the bellwether seat which is constantly being porkbarrelled and showered with money.

As far as I’m concerned, if we don’t get with it and go with the rest of the country we deserve all the beating up and public service cuts a vengeful government might inflict.

Canberra deserves to be savaged because we don’t vote for the right party.

Good one!

I’ve been urging people in Canberra (elec) to vote Liberal so we can have lower house representation in the new government or else we will be frozen out and spend the next nine or twelve years on the sidelines while the rest of the country is on the field playing the game. I just can’t understand the rusted-on Labor mentality in this town, especially when right next door is the bellwether seat which is constantly being porkbarrelled and showered with money.

As far as I’m concerned, if we don’t get with it and go with the rest of the country we deserve all the beating up and public service cuts a vengeful government might inflict.

Diggety said :

To be fair, Andrew Leigh has been one of the saner members of the ALP, as well as being one of their best operators in that he hasn’t presided over wholescale policy failures/ deacles and that he generally stays away from parrotting the AbbottAbbottAbbott line.

Yeah Leigh is quite smart to choose policy/debate affiliation, and brings a nice academic perspective to politics.

At least I thought so until I watched The Drum last night… The whole panel laughed at him at one stage when he suggested political pundetry should be banned unless there is a certain criteria is met. Not conducive to a free society.

My case rests.

dungfungus said :

To be fair, Andrew Leigh has been one of the saner members of the ALP, as well as being one of their best operators in that he hasn’t presided over wholescale policy failures/ deacles and that he generally stays away from parrotting the AbbottAbbottAbbott line.

I would count Canberra lucky to have Leigh as an elected representative when you consider a lot of the others. In fact Leigh could be setting himself up for a Ministry if not more (treasurer anyone?) in about 10-12 years.

Having said that, Canberrans should vote for Humphries in the senate just to keep Seselja out. We can do without a self serving, self important backstabbing egotist whose only agenda appears to be the promotion of himself.

Leigh is overweighted with academic experience which is wonderful in the confines of the ANU sheltered workshop but useless in the real world. He likes to promote himself as well (much more than Zed ever did). It concerns me that you see him as a potential Treasurer but then again unless he crosses the floor after 14th September to join the coalition he will never get that chance.
And in giving advice to us all about voting for Humphries to spite Zed, who are you going to vote for? Oh, yes, Kate Lundy.

hahahahahahaha

To be fair, Andrew Leigh has been one of the saner members of the ALP, as well as being one of their best operators in that he hasn’t presided over wholescale policy failures/ deacles and that he generally stays away from parrotting the AbbottAbbottAbbott line.

I would count Canberra lucky to have Leigh as an elected representative when you consider a lot of the others. In fact Leigh could be setting himself up for a Ministry if not more (treasurer anyone?) in about 10-12 years.

Having said that, Canberrans should vote for Humphries in the senate just to keep Seselja out. We can do without a self serving, self important backstabbing egotist whose only agenda appears to be the promotion of himself.

+1

incredulousandridiculous said :

Diggety said :

breda said :

Diggety, stirrer.

Tasmania, The Mendicant State, has six times as many senators as we do and a much higher percentage of people relying on government benefits as their primary source of income. The population difference is trivial in the national context.

Ya reckon that might skew the voting just a bit?

At least 40% of the ACT are on government benefits (public servants + welfare).

Hence the high Left wing party vote – Canberran’s are not net wealth creators, we rely on other peoples’ productivity to survive.

Agreed. Gus’ Cafe and Zara are about as free market-esque as Canberra gets. Mind you, every good system needs at least some ‘central planning’. However, when I ponder over places like the Department of Climate Change and hear individual, separate stories from friends and acquaintances about the inefficiencies going on there, even Marx would turn in his grave. Add to that also the red tape-loving behemoth that is the Department of Health (who needs more nurses and doctors when we can have bureaucrats?) and the lack of serving military personnel relative to our bloated DoD numbers, and you have a pretty sorry situation. Sadly, many of our public servants (but CERTAINLY not all) are well-educated and could serve the country in far better ways than their political masters allow.

There is absolutely no way in hell that corporate entities like Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG would tolerate the time-wasting engaged in by fully 30% of public servants.

So instead of whinge, https://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au/app/forms/fix_red_tape
maybe you can do something about it. Put forward your ideas on how to cut red tape.

To be fair, Andrew Leigh has been one of the saner members of the ALP, as well as being one of their best operators in that he hasn’t presided over wholescale policy failures/ deacles and that he generally stays away from parrotting the AbbottAbbottAbbott line.

Yeah Leigh is quite smart to choose policy/debate affiliation, and brings a nice academic perspective to politics.

At least I thought so until I watched The Drum last night… The whole panel laughed at him at one stage when he suggested political pundetry should be banned unless there is a certain criteria is met. Not conducive to a free society.

To be fair, Andrew Leigh has been one of the saner members of the ALP, as well as being one of their best operators in that he hasn’t presided over wholescale policy failures/ deacles and that he generally stays away from parrotting the AbbottAbbottAbbott line.

I would count Canberra lucky to have Leigh as an elected representative when you consider a lot of the others. In fact Leigh could be setting himself up for a Ministry if not more (treasurer anyone?) in about 10-12 years.

Having said that, Canberrans should vote for Humphries in the senate just to keep Seselja out. We can do without a self serving, self important backstabbing egotist whose only agenda appears to be the promotion of himself.

Leigh is overweighted with academic experience which is wonderful in the confines of the ANU sheltered workshop but useless in the real world. He likes to promote himself as well (much more than Zed ever did). It concerns me that you see him as a potential Treasurer but then again unless he crosses the floor after 14th September to join the coalition he will never get that chance.
And in giving advice to us all about voting for Humphries to spite Zed, who are you going to vote for? Oh, yes, Kate Lundy.

chewy14 said :

Diggety said :

At least 40% of the ACT are on government benefits (public servants + welfare).

Hence the high Left wing party vote – Canberran’s are not net wealth creators, we rely on other peoples’ productivity to survive.

Are you seriously trying to compare public servants to welfare recipients? Really?

A comparison, yes. That’s not to say the same however.

chewy14 said :

Public servants can be wealth creators, or do you consider that all the services provided by government can have no positive effect on our economy and productivity?

I don’t strictly disagree that PS’s cannot be wealth creators, I would comfortably say that as a whole – particularly the status quo – the public service is a net liability.

Add in the following circumstances making things worse:
– APS is overpaid, and this does not translate to a proportionate increase in disposable income for members (cost of living increases with mass salary scales)
– There are too many unecessary APS services. A lot can be administered by individuals or states
– APS is ‘top heavy’. What would be valuable wealth creators are instead absorbing productivity
– APS is underworked (more employees than work)

I don’t understand exactly who in Australian society this benefits.

Diggety said :

breda said :

Diggety, stirrer.

Tasmania, The Mendicant State, has six times as many senators as we do and a much higher percentage of people relying on government benefits as their primary source of income. The population difference is trivial in the national context.

Ya reckon that might skew the voting just a bit?

At least 40% of the ACT are on government benefits (public servants + welfare).

Hence the high Left wing party vote – Canberran’s are not net wealth creators, we rely on other peoples’ productivity to survive.

Are you seriously trying to compare public servants to welfare recipients? Really?

Public servants can be wealth creators, or do you consider that all the services provided by government can have no positive effect on our economy and productivity?

Diggety said :

breda said :

Diggety, stirrer.

Tasmania, The Mendicant State, has six times as many senators as we do and a much higher percentage of people relying on government benefits as their primary source of income. The population difference is trivial in the national context.

Ya reckon that might skew the voting just a bit?

At least 40% of the ACT are on government benefits (public servants + welfare).

Hence the high Left wing party vote – Canberran’s are not net wealth creators, we rely on other peoples’ productivity to survive.

Agreed. Gus’ Cafe and Zara are about as free market-esque as Canberra gets. Mind you, every good system needs at least some ‘central planning’. However, when I ponder over places like the Department of Climate Change and hear individual, separate stories from friends and acquaintances about the inefficiencies going on there, even Marx would turn in his grave. Add to that also the red tape-loving behemoth that is the Department of Health (who needs more nurses and doctors when we can have bureaucrats?) and the lack of serving military personnel relative to our bloated DoD numbers, and you have a pretty sorry situation. Sadly, many of our public servants (but CERTAINLY not all) are well-educated and could serve the country in far better ways than their political masters allow.

There is absolutely no way in hell that corporate entities like Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG would tolerate the time-wasting engaged in by fully 30% of public servants.

breda said :

Diggety, stirrer.

Tasmania, The Mendicant State, has six times as many senators as we do and a much higher percentage of people relying on government benefits as their primary source of income.

Yeah, but why worry about the vampire attached to your neck when there’s a leech on your thigh to worry about?

Pork Hunt said :

That’s it. I’m convinced Mr G and HenryBG are the one and the same. The misogyny is there from both, just need a rant about plastic bags from Henry and it’s settled…

“Misogyny”? You really are a fruitloop, aren’t you….

Did you, or did you not, hear Gillard’s “East Timor” speech, within a week of becoming prime minister?
Obviously that speech said a lot about the quality of the numpties working in her office, but very few politicians would have been dumb enough to read that crap out, even if they did employ people dumb enough to write it in the first place.
As far as I am concerned, that episode told me exactly how Gillard was going to pan out. Our first female PM, and it had to be a union-sponsored mediocrity.

breda said :

Diggety, stirrer.

Tasmania, The Mendicant State, has six times as many senators as we do and a much higher percentage of people relying on government benefits as their primary source of income. The population difference is trivial in the national context.

Ya reckon that might skew the voting just a bit?

At least 40% of the ACT are on government benefits (public servants + welfare).

Hence the high Left wing party vote – Canberran’s are not net wealth creators, we rely on other peoples’ productivity to survive.

Diggety said :

poetix said :

dungfungus said :

Welcome back HenryBG. I’ve been holding “Fort Abuse” for you while you have been absent.

He’s not real, you know.

Neither are Tree Niggers. But both of them make me laugh!

Apologies, that was not Diggety’s comment.

Diggety, stirrer.

Tasmania, The Mendicant State, has six times as many senators as we do and a much higher percentage of people relying on government benefits as their primary source of income. The population difference is trivial in the national context.

Ya reckon that might skew the voting just a bit?

poetix said :

dungfungus said :

Welcome back HenryBG. I’ve been holding “Fort Abuse” for you while you have been absent.

He’s not real, you know.

Neither are Tree Niggers. But both of them make me laugh!

breda said :

I remember reading an analysis by Antony Green (I think) a few years ago about why Canberra, despite its steadily growing population, would not get a third HoR seat under the current arrangements. It is because other parts of the country’s population is growing at a faster rate, so we keep getting pushed back in the queue.

The consequence is (given only 4 senators as well) that it would take a cataclysmic shift in voting patterns to change the current configuration. On current trends, we could exceed the population of Tasmania and still have only 2 HoR (they have 5) and 4 (they have 12) senators, and the political composition would not change.

By the time you read the convoluted reasoning processes behind the ACT even getting any representation (thank you High Court), you’ll be amazed we got this much.

It’s not a numbers issue, it’s very much a legal and political one.

breda said :

I remember reading an analysis by Antony Green (I think) a few years ago about why Canberra, despite its steadily growing population, would not get a third HoR seat under the current arrangements. It is because other parts of the country’s population is growing at a faster rate, so we keep getting pushed back in the queue.

The consequence is (given only 4 senators as well) that it would take a cataclysmic shift in voting patterns to change the current configuration. On current trends, we could exceed the population of Tasmania and still have only 2 HoR (they have 5) and 4 (they have 12) senators, and the political composition would not change.

I don’t think giving public servants that much representation is a good idea.

If a leech was sucking your thigh, you don’t offer it your testicle for dessert, do you? It’s one thing beauracracies sucking the blood out of our nation, quite another offering it our mojo.

dungfungus said :

Welcome back HenryBG. I’ve been holding “Fort Abuse” for you while you have been absent.

He’s not real, you know.

That first graph in Antony’s post says it all, and makes clear why a Coalition government would not be going out of its way to do Canberra any favours.

I wonder if Canberra is one of the few (if not the only) place where Labor’s vote might actually fall if Rudd is re-installed as PM(?)

MERC600 said :

I wonder what Antony has to say about our neighbour Monaro, the “bellweather” seat.

Warning…pedantry follows…

Coming from a farming family, I believe the correct term is “bellwether”. It refers to placing a bell around the neck of a wether so that other sheep will follow the bell. Hence, a bellwether seat refers to a seat that leads other seats, in the manner of a castrated sheep leading a bunch of other sheep around, sometimes to their doom. At the moment this seems to me to be remarkably apposite terminology.

End of pedantry…

Oops, 2 senators to their 12. Sorry.

I remember reading an analysis by Antony Green (I think) a few years ago about why Canberra, despite its steadily growing population, would not get a third HoR seat under the current arrangements. It is because other parts of the country’s population is growing at a faster rate, so we keep getting pushed back in the queue.

The consequence is (given only 4 senators as well) that it would take a cataclysmic shift in voting patterns to change the current configuration. On current trends, we could exceed the population of Tasmania and still have only 2 HoR (they have 5) and 4 (they have 12) senators, and the political composition would not change.

Welcome back HenryBG. I’ve been holding “Fort Abuse” for you while you have been absent.

HenryBG said :

c_c™ said :

gungsuperstar said :

For the Greens to win, they would have to grow their primary vote by about 40% to get in on their own right, or grow it by a still large fraction, and hope that Labor doesn’t run a second Senate candidate who ends up sucking most of the Labor surplus up.

So…let’s think about all the things the Greens have done over the last 5 years that might improve their vote
…..blocked the ETS….shafted Rudd….caused a change in PM to a right-wing union-connected lawyer……(who really isn’t that clever)….and then spent virtually all their parliamentary hours pushing fringe issues unconnected from anything that currently matters to any wider demography.

Nope, I’m sorry, the last election ripped shreds out the Greens vote, the upcoming one isn’t going to help them much.
At some stage they may learn to ditch the idiot leftie politics and go back to environmental conservatism, which may not happen until they chuck out the unrepentant ex-stalinists who yet lurk in their midst.

That’s it. I’m convinced Mr G and HenryBG are the one and the same. The misogyny is there from both, just need a rant about plastic bags from Henry and it’s settled…

c_c™ said :

gungsuperstar said :

For the Greens to win, they would have to grow their primary vote by about 40% to get in on their own right, or grow it by a still large fraction, and hope that Labor doesn’t run a second Senate candidate who ends up sucking most of the Labor surplus up.

So…let’s think about all the things the Greens have done over the last 5 years that might improve their vote
…..blocked the ETS….shafted Rudd….caused a change in PM to a right-wing union-connected lawyer……(who really isn’t that clever)….and then spent virtually all their parliamentary hours pushing fringe issues unconnected from anything that currently matters to any wider demography.

Nope, I’m sorry, the last election ripped shreds out the Greens vote, the upcoming one isn’t going to help them much.
At some stage they may learn to ditch the idiot leftie politics and go back to environmental conservatism, which may not happen until they chuck out the unrepentant ex-stalinists who yet lurk in their midst.

gungsuperstar said :

I’m surprised we haven’t seen more of the Greens promoting themselves in Canberra. In the past that second senate seat hasn’t been far off winnable. And with strong preference support likely from the ALP to try and prevent tory-control of the Senate, I would’ve thought this was the year for them to have a red hot go.

If you’re going to seriously have a crack at Gary Humphries’ seat, you’d have to be doing it with somebody who has a name other than, “Sheikh”.
Don’t forget, the *vast* majority of people either –
– don’t give a flying fark about elections
or
– are under no illusion their vote will in any way determine the outcome
or
– both.

Therefore, the majority of votes are cast semi-randomly with name-recognition and other mostly very shallow non-political factors “informing” the decision. Which is something the media rely on when they comprehensively salt their coverage of all issues with lies and misdirection.

gungsuperstar said :

I’m surprised we haven’t seen more of the Greens promoting themselves in Canberra. In the past that second senate seat hasn’t been far off winnable. And with strong preference support likely from the ALP to try and prevent tory-control of the Senate, I would’ve thought this was the year for them to have a red hot go.

Not quite that simple. I think a lot of people are buying into a narrative that goes; Labor gets Greens elected, and the Greens are close by a hair in the ACT.

On the first point, in metro seats it’s the Liberals who have been bumping up the Greens, their preferences got Bandt over the line, and with the change this election, they’ll undo him. so just in general, keep that in mind.

But, for the ACT…

In terms of the Senate in the ACT, Greens were behind by over 25,000 votes after preference distributions in 2010.

They never had a chance. There were only 15,800 surplus votes in total to be distributed!

Of those, only 554 went to the Greens from Labor in the first round. Which when you consider even Humphries managed to pick up 182 Labor preferences, is tiny.

For the Greens to win, they would have to grow their primary vote by about 40% to get in on their own right, or grow it by a still large fraction, and hope that Labor doesn’t run a second Senate candidate who ends up sucking most of the Labor surplus up.

Remember after the first round of preferences, there’s only a few hundred votes in play if Labor runs a second candidate, if they don’t, there’s many thousands.

Ben Raue at the Tally Room has put up a detailed look at every seat and all the Senate races, including maps with booth-by-booth results from the last election.

For the ACT, there’s Fraser, Canberra and the ACT Senate race.

MERC600 said :

Thought as much. 1 Lib, 3 Labor. Some commentators will say, ”Well, Canberra is a Labor town. … John Howard once remarked that this city looks like Killara, votes like Cessnock.

I wonder what Antony has to say about our neighbour Monaro, the “bellweather” seat.

Baaa?

I’m surprised we haven’t seen more of the Greens promoting themselves in Canberra. In the past that second senate seat hasn’t been far off winnable. And with strong preference support likely from the ALP to try and prevent tory-control of the Senate, I would’ve thought this was the year for them to have a red hot go.

Black Caviar would be considered long odds at most of her races compared to the surety of Canberra’s seats.

Thought as much. 1 Lib, 3 Labor. Some commentators will say, ”Well, Canberra is a Labor town. … John Howard once remarked that this city looks like Killara, votes like Cessnock.

I wonder what Antony has to say about our neighbour Monaro, the “bellweather” seat.