The cold light of morning - Or, where the Liberals went wrong

In Molonglo also includes two party leaders and two potential party leaders so the minors are a bit starved for air.

The even more interesting this is that the libs only had a 0.9% in Molonglo – and that can be attributed to Richard Mulcahy. This is a tiny swing given the historically high vote the major parties got in 2004.

The big shift here was to Zed who recieved the highest personal swing towards him of any canidate and holds the most “personal” quotas (could he claim that he is the most personally popular and had the most resounding personal approval rating of ANY ACT politican??). Rattenbury also had a big shift toward him personally.

To be honest if Zed had not taken over the Libs would have been in worse shape than they wore and you would probably find the Greens with even more seats, gaining their seat back was a good result.

In terms of where it went wrong was probably the last 2 or 3 weeks when stanhopeless came out with the scare campaign and the Libs didn’t hit back, canberrans being canberrans believe anything they can make a mountain out of.

In terms of what happens now.. well the Greens being the Greens will support Stanhope despite being an arrogant prick, as we’ve already seen straight after the election in his speech. Already assuming the Greens will be on side and they’re off, oh he’s scored the most votes out of anyone too so he’s got a “mandate to rule”. Last time I saw he was running a distant third behind Zed way out in front and Katy a bit in front.

So 4 more years of the same.. Good to see some dead wood cleared from the assembly though, too bad it didn’t go further, whoever voted for Hargreaves need to be hunted down and shot. No doubt he will be the new speaker, keep him out of the way before retirement and that way he can hide his bottle of booze under his chair.

thetruth: One interesting thing is how Molonglo differed so substantially from the other two electorates – in Molonglo, CAP barely troubled the scorers at all, and the Motorists were also well down compared to Brindabella and Ginninderra. Pangallo were the top scoring ticket outside of the big three – maybe they should have contested all the electorates?

What the Greens should do

Pick out 3 Libs and 3 Labor they can work with and together with their 3 form a government with Shane as chief minister. Consensus politics, any of them put forward policies, if the majority agrees it goes to the whole house to be voted on.

Would potentially be the end of the 2 party system in Australia – how good would that be 🙂

Libs went backwards when they almost had to go forwards, they can’t expect too much for mine

Agree with Primal re the Spreadsheets – not an easy read but worth poring over. Not much hope for Val J in Brindabella but good to see both Mick Gentleman and Steve Pratt given the heave – both deadwood. Mick’s election leaflet had to be the worst I’ve seen and please to God will the Libs drop those stupid trite slogans?

Funniest moment on Saturday was the Guy interviewed on ABC radio “what influenced your decision to vote today?” “…Err, the war on terror…”

I think there is some things here that need to be considered:

What was the impact (and ethics) of Stanhope offering a government appointment to Stefaniak – who was the second largest vote winner and most recognised non-labor canidate. Even with the second largest vote winner out of the race Stanhope got a 14% swing against him personally;

The last election (2004) was unusual in the ACT context as there was a swing toward the both major parties (+5.1% to ALP and + 3.2% to the Libs). It was also the ACT’s first majority government

So despite one of its highest vote winner being removed from the race (very close to the election I might add) the Libs are on par with their 2001 result. The ALP is down about 4% on 2001. It should be pointed out that in 2001 the greens and the democrats contested the election and secured a combined total of 17.1% of the vote. With the Dems out of the race the vast majority of their voters would either vote green or labor.

In this election the Greens got 15.6% – where did the other 2.1% of the Dem vote go? not to labor, greens or Libs but to others. “others” actually recieved a larger swing than the Greens.

The Richard Mulcahy group (1.1% of the vote) would have taken votes off the Libs

The Motorist Party formed in May 2007 got 5% of the vote!!!in its first tilt.

The upshot of all this is:

I think the Lib vote is about normal;
ALP vote is below normal;
The Green vote is unremarkable given the general correction from the unusual 2004 vote and the death of the dems;
The big movers were the motorist party and to a lesser extent the community alliance (which got some backing from traditional Lib voters)

My most enduring memory of the election was Katie’s negative disposition as guest commentator on ABC TV’s Election Coverage. I’ve always been a bit of fan of Katie but she was not a happy camper at all; boy she was sour and Brendan Smyth did a pretty good job of keeping her that way too. Not a good night for Katie.

Worth a read

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/10/20/green-growths/

If you can handle the tortuous spreadsheets on the Elections ACT website, they do make for some interesting reading, e.g. Mark Parton behind Vicki Dunne by 400 votes when he gets nominally distributed (*as of Saturday night), Caroline Le Couteur only 200 behind Jeremy Hanson at the same time (and her distribution gets Barr and Corbell and GJones over the line).

Who’s John Howard? 😉

harvyk1 said :

jakez said :

justbands said :

> The ones I met at various functions around the place had an obvious “oh, your one of the little people” attitude about them, which does not sit well with me.

Is it a patronising kind of attitude or more of a ‘I guess I must talk with this peon’ kind of attitude?

A bit of both to be honest. It’s a “I guess I must talk with this peon” combined with a patronising “don’t worry you little head off, we have everything under control”.

The funniest one, and the one which was a nail in the coffin for me voting liberal was the “are you serious” response when at a networking event I asked a liberal candidate who she was and where she was from. I had never seen or heard from her before, and yet the response I got from her was I should have been kissing the ground she had just walked on and how dare I not know who she was.

Mate I hate that. I cannot understand how people can have that reaction. Even if you genuinely think you are the big ticket, you don’t act like it. I could be John Howard and if somebody came up to me and asked me who I was, I would make sure that I didn’t blink.

As someone who scrutineered on polling day, Mark Parton has no chance of getting in. He got barely any preferences, so most of the votes that will go to him are already in his column.

Labor has a better chance of picking up a third than Parton does of getting elected (and they have no chance of getting three. Despite outpolling the libs by 14%, they will end up with the same number of seats in Ginninderra)

A bunch of fellow election tragics have decided the BEST outcome would be to wait for the first sitting day – Labor nominates Jon, Liberals nominate Zed, Greens nominate Shane.

The Greens wait and see who is prepared to work in solidarity under a Green Chief Minister.

Remember, there’s still the slight chance that the Greens can pick up a 4th, and that Mark Parton gets in in Ginninderra. Read, slight. If that happens, however, then that will change the game plan even more.

Looking at how old the new Liberal MLA’s are – Jeremy Hanson looks like he’s in his late thirties early 40s, Vicky Dunne is 52, and you’ve still got Doszpot (50’s) and Smyth (49).

Coe and Giulia, on the other hand, seem much younger. Two people to keep an eye on I reckon.

jakez said :

justbands said :

> The ones I met at various functions around the place had an obvious “oh, your one of the little people” attitude about them, which does not sit well with me.

Is it a patronising kind of attitude or more of a ‘I guess I must talk with this peon’ kind of attitude?

A bit of both to be honest. It’s a “I guess I must talk with this peon” combined with a patronising “don’t worry you little head off, we have everything under control”.

The funniest one, and the one which was a nail in the coffin for me voting liberal was the “are you serious” response when at a networking event I asked a liberal candidate who she was and where she was from. I had never seen or heard from her before, and yet the response I got from her was I should have been kissing the ground she had just walked on and how dare I not know who she was.

verbalkint said :

johnboy said :

The young hard arses have no electoral appeal to anyone.

A. Coe outpolled all his older, more experienced and probably more moderate Liberal colleagues in Ginninderra on the weekend, so clearly they have some appeal.

I agree with johnboy.

Also, I would think that Coe outpolling Dunne is more to do with Stefaniak’s conservative votes having to go somewhere after he dropped out. And since Coe clearly had a higher profile than the only other male Liberal candidate (possibly due to better funding/support), it’s natural they would go to him over Watts. I told someone ages ago (once I saw the Lib Ginninderra team) that Coe would be the leading Liberal in that electorate.

This is very true.

: )

They’re also “usually” the best performing candidates on the ticket.

Wouldn’t it usually be only the sitting members who would manage a quota?

verbalkint said :

A. Coe outpolled all his older, more experienced and probably more moderate Liberal colleagues in Ginninderra on the weekend, so clearly they have some appeal.

Let’s see his true colours and see how he goes?

He didn’t manage a quota.

So who would be the possibly ministers under Liberal? Zed, Vicki, Brendan, then choose two from Jeremy, Giulia and Steve Dospot? Would Zed contemplate putting Alistair in? Or would one or more of the older hands find themselves on the outer, thereby reducing the options?

johnboy said :

The young hard arses have no electoral appeal to anyone.

A. Coe outpolled all his older, more experienced and probably more moderate Liberal colleagues in Ginninderra on the weekend, so clearly they have some appeal.

He does have a point though, the ALP won most of the votes and no one has more seats than they do, which makes them the closest thing to a winner in this election.

The greens, however, were elected to do what they promised, but they do not have a mandate to choose the government.

The greens really should stay outside cabinet, not becuse they wouldnt do a good job, but because they have no mandate to rule. They do, however, have the right to get through as many of their policies as possible.

Really, siding with stanhope on supply and confidence motions (provided the government is responsible and honest) and putting up private members bills with the support of labor or the libs would be the best thing they could do for their chances in 4 years time, and to honour the intent of the electorate.

How the Greens can be expected to make this decision without the seats finalised is a mystery to me.

But Stanhopian petulance and bullying is not going to help his negotiating position any.

Another thought on this. If the Liberals keep pre-selecting zealous young social conservatives with no life experience they’ll end up as the third party if not lower.

The young hard arses have no electoral appeal to anyone.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/20/2395980.htm – Jon seems to be not adjusting well to his new lot in life…

Gungahlin Al said :

I’ve been told (but know very little of ALP matters) that Labor has a constitutional provision specifically preventing coalitions. Is that correct?

I the Tasmanian State ALP put that in place following their previous unhappy experience. Don’t think it applies here.

Perhaps one aspect of more importance would be to negotiate commitments to allow/progress more private members bills, so they can advance their agenda that way while retaining the freedom of not being in the cabinet?

In one of life’s little coincidences, I happen to be reading PSM study notes on conflict resolution right now. I’d suggest that from Stanhope’s latest utterances, that he remains solidly in the Assertive/Uncooperative corner of the matrix right now, with a long way to travel… “is aggressive and can result in antagonism and resentment from the other party.”

My understanding is they need a special dispensation to do it, happy to be corrected by our Labor commenters.

Whether they can get a hall pass considering the insignificance of the ACT and the regard his colleagues hold Mr. Stanhope remains to be seen.

It didn’t stop the WA ALP offering to form a coalition with the Nats…

I’ve been told (but know very little of ALP matters) that Labor has a constitutional provision specifically preventing coalitions. Is that correct?

They will be tempted to try give the poisoned chalices away as Fhakk suggests and as happened to Andrew Barr when he was new, and to Michael Moore (no-one should ever want the no-win portfolio of health).

JB is wondering the same sorts of direcions as I have been. It would be a balance between the freedom to move as/when needed vs the extra exposure and influence a ministry would give them. I’d be wanting to bounce that off a few people before deciding either way I’d think. At least they will have been able to draw on past experiences with these combos in Tassie.

Johnboy’s got a good point – they wouldn’t just have greater bargaining power if they kept out of the cabinet (mainly because they could side with the Opposition at any time if they do), but also maintain their credibility with the constituency. With all the talk about them siding with the ALP all the time (which they haven’t, mind you), they need to keep up the rhetoric about making the government answerable for their actions. That would be jeopardised if they got a ministry and became a coalition.

It also may be a tad ambitious for them to seize minority government in the next election, although stranger things have happened. It does mean that Kerry Tucker’s in with a pretty decent chance next Federal election as well

The Greens say they’ll be concentrating on ACTION and housing regulations (ie solar panels, energy efficiency ratings etc.) so a rehashed TaMS portfolio wouldn’t be out of the question. I don’t think Stanhope would approve of the Greens controlling Dept. of Environment, but Health or Housing could also be a possibility.

If I was a Green with a short term view I’d be thinking hard about taking Deputy Chief Minister and a ministry.

But with a longer term view staying out of Government and using the extra resources and staff to aim for government in their own right in four years time might be a better bet?

well, if I were a Green MLA, the ministry I’d want would be: Environment, Land & Planning – those with long memories will recall that we used to have a DELP back in the day. Although they might want to chuck in transport too.
ALP and Libs won’t want to give away planning though – dries up the donor dollars

That said, unless the Greens end up with four (unlikely), I don’t see ALP offering them a ministry because of Stanhope’s views on cabinet solidarity. The Libs of course would sell their grandmothers if it meant forming government

Indeed. Most people would say environment/TaMS. But the smart money (and area where they could have greatest positive environmental impact) would be a rejigged landuse and transport planning portfolio.
The splitting of transport away from the rest of planning hasn’t worked and it needs to be undone. But the delivery side of transport could/should stay with TaMS.

Re: Speaker- looks like my call of Mick Gentleman getting the nod has been blown out of the water…Hargreaves looks like he’ll be given the nod, given his time spent in the Assembly.

Here’s a question though – if the Greens get a ministry (from either ALP or Libs), what portfolio would it be?

Tom tom, I think it is fair to say a good proportion of the vote for the greens was in protest against the majors. They are seen as an alternative who have some experience, unlike other alternatives (who nevertheless received in total a similar proportion of votes as the greens).

I don’t know why everyone says the Hare Clarke system favours indies – it looks as if the major parties have the advantage over idies to me as they share their prefs with each other.

Tasmanis is also hardly Tasmania.

Tasmanis is hardly the ACT. They were really trying to work out how to downplay the influence of Gunns. Didn’t work either way though.

tom-tom said :

i dont think anyone here is giving enough credit to the greens; they picked up seats on their merits and not just as a result of a protest against the majors.

Indeed, the Greens did very well. A lot of Canberrans voted for them for the first time in their lives. Be interesting to see if the habit takes.

“Of course the majority of these folks don’t put any thought to the fact that greens will side with labor each and every election.”

Typical Liberal spin, reading off the script of Gary Humphries newspaper ads.

In Tasmania they put the Liberals into government once, and the ALP into government once.

i dont think anyone here is giving enough credit to the greens; they picked up seats on their merits and not just as a result of a protest against the majors.

“now we have a situation where almost half of the Legislative Assembly is brand new”

Fhakk: I’ll be intrigued to see how well John Hargreaves can bite his tongue in the speaker role.

Wish we could watch the Assembly broadcasts, the first few meetings are likely to be most entertaining. But it uses quicktime – not part of the SOE here.

“Saturday’s poll was a vote of no confidence in the entire Assembly”

I think it was a bit of a vote against bickering. Much of what people saw of ALP and Libs over the last term was just either fighting between themselves or in-house. Tit-for-tat radio interviews added to the dissillusion. It all serves up stuff the media loves, but the people out there hate.

One of the hardest things for the Greens to do will be to avoid adverse media portrayal of the inevitable differences of philosophy that will occur between them and whomever they put into “government”.

Many missed it last week, but the Greens put out a commitment to a different way of behaving in the Assembly. Having been part of a local government where this sort of approach was taken, I hope they get some support for this sort of more consensual approach to government. You can have your differences in the chamber, but then you should be able to sit down to lunch with each other in a civil manner.

I think Canberra wants an Assembly full of people who (irrespective of differing ideas or positions on the continuum) will ultimately work with each other across party boundaries for the good of our town.

It’s a bit like here on RA. People can debate all day long on the issues. But the people who get personally abusive quickly find themselves ostracised by everyone else.

PS: good to catch up with you Saturday night Fhakk.

fragge, It would have been easier to find positive things to say about the Liberals if they’d said or done anything at all in the last three months.

Erm, 1/3 voters (plural)!

“A swing against the government is not surprising, regardless of what they have done the last four years. Majority government in the ACT is an anomoly and I think it would be impossible for any party to repeat.”

This is classic ‘let’s make the best of it’ bs spin. If the first-eva majority govt had listened to their constituency and not been so damn arrogant, they would probably be another majority govt. They have therefor done no one any favours. Instead, they have created widespread disaffection – approx 1/3 voter, which can be seen by adding up greens plus idies plus informal. I can’t believe some are still not ‘getting’ this.

Firstly in relation to the article – have you read the labor policies and then read the liberal policies? Or did you just take everything on a “more is better” basis? After coming here to see an article on signs (completely biased towards Joy Burch, the candidate with the most signs in the Brindabella electorate – do you have any idea how many signs were vandalised? Candidates like Val Jeffery, David Morgan, Audrey Ray and John Hargreaves stopped putting out signs for large periods because they would be taken within 2 hours. Joy had over 300 signs printed and suffered least from the vandalism, despite the fact that the majority of signs taken WERE probably hers, considering she flooded all major roads with 5-15 signs at a time), I was sadly disappointed at a labor bias worse than the Times.

As for advertising material, in brindabella I saw only 5 different liberal ads, 3 were for different candidates and all used the same liberals skin, 1 was for zed and the party as a whole with a couple of policies, and 1 was a don’t risk it anti-labor ad. On the other hand, I saw 2 “labor you can trust” type ads, 4 smear campaign labor ads, and absolutely nothing on policy. The closest they got to policy was one about what they HAD done, not what they were going to do. As for those posters that complained about material in their letterbox, even with a no junk-mail sticker, get a clue. The candidates are normal people like you, working their asses off to get their faces, information and policies out to you, the voter, so that you can make an informed decision on polling day instead of just running down 1-5 in a straight line for your pre-biased party (as a scrutineer, about 60% of voting ballots I watched over were simple 1-5 form the top down, giving whoever got robson rotation to the top the best bet on that paper). I met so many people who would say “I’m voting motorist party because I want a drag-way” who would then be told that libs have committed to a dragway, plus here are a bunch of other benefits, and then gone off and voted motorist anyway because they thought it was in their best interests, based solely on what they’ve been fed. I’m not opposed to voting for a party when merit is due, but for a party promising “flashing lights” at school zones and a speedway as their major policies, I found it amusing they were even running for election. As for labor voters – can you seriously point me to one credible piece of funded policy which is beneficial to an average 20 year old living in Canberra? Anything at all, please, make my day.

On to the election (Brindabella as a focus), as far as labor candidates, it isn’t surprising Joy Burch got her seat, nor Hargreaves. On the libs side, Brendan came through very easily, and Doszpot came through with a victory I don’t think anyone predicted happening. The greens coming through territory-wide with 15% says something about canberrans that voted for them more than anything – they weren’t pleased with liberals or labor, and decided the only real alternative was greens (then of course there are the regular greens voters that think they’re doing something nice for the environment – what a joke). Of course the majority of these folks don’t put any thought to the fact that greens will side with labor each and every election. As a liberal voter in THIS election, I was sorely disappointed to see a labor victory in percentages with an almost certain green backing. After seeing the result, I quickly went to view the labor policies again to try and see what good might come out of this election instead of just complaining (like 90% of uninformed moronic voters that care nothing for policy do). As far as I can discern – young (and old!) people have lost out on a $5 1-4:30am bus from thurs/sat nights out of civic and around civic/manuka/kingston as a loop, which is a terrible disappointment to Canberra’s night life. First home buyers have lost out on a stamp duty removal. Low income households have lost out on insulation rebates. If things go to plan for labor, the people of Kambah have lost out with the new power station set to be placed nearby houses there. Why the hell can’t it be put in hume?

Finally in relation to the Zed spam, I never received any of it, only heard about it on 666 radio, but I did not agree with that form of advertising – people have a right to privacy when it comes to phones and mobiles. Sorry for the wall of text, had a lot to get off my chest. Congratulations to those that won their seat, now lets sit back and wait for green to make their obvious choice so we can move on with another 4 years of terrible budget, broken promises and boredom.

hey jakez have they come after you yet?

Evidently, the Liberal Party support for Mulcahy seemed to be the only thing keeping him rolling, and now even the wheels have fallen off.

Anyone know a) when the final counts of preferencing tallies are due, and b) when the electoral funding disclosures are due?

I wonder if Mulchay will threaten to sue everyone in the ACT for not voting for him?

Ha, ha, ha, ha………….

Sorry – should have said 6 percent swing for Independents, total of 15 percent according to ABC.

Saturday’s poll was a vote of no confidence in the entire Assembly, not just targeted at either the ALP or the Canberra Liberals. While the independent vote was too fragmented to have the desired effect, the fact that they collected over 6 percent of the vote across the A.C.T, and the vote to the Greens (which in my view isn’t as much of a protest vote as you think), shows the lack of faith the public had in those MLA’s.

While I didn’t mind Mick Gentleman (who was beaten to the post by female Ex-Karin voters), the departure of both Jacqui Burke and Steve Pratt shows a clear message that their constituents wanted better. The fact that Vicky Dunne was outpolled by a relative-unknown in Ginninderra is a clear indication of that, along with the loss of votes to ALP ministers such as Simon Corbell and John Hargreaves.

But now we have a situation where almost half of the Legislative Assembly is brand new. That says something, doesn’t it. Over half of the original Liberal team from 2004 have disappeared.

The assembly will be a different dynamic, and I for one welcome the fact it’s going to get a bit more interesting for all involved. A vote of no confidence is actually going to mean something now.

That is a great marketing idea, Holden!

baueran said :

Not that I can vote in Australia, but I would have voted for that party which would have respected my NO JUNK MAIL sticker on my letterbox. Oh hang on… was there a party that respected it? I felt like putting up another sticker above it saying WHICH PART OF NO JUNK MAIL DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND? The worst abuser was definitely Labor, followed by the Greens, followed by Liberals, and then some minor parties whose names I cannot recall right now. I wonder how many trees had to die for all this worthless junk in my letterbox…

You need to go with the hand written version that reads “NO JUNK MAIL OR POLITICAL SHIT” … I believe there is a house in Ainslie with such a sign.

justbands said :

I’d actually picked JB as a Tori.

That’s his drag name.

I think the Liberals should have had a more transparent media strategy in general.

Less angling for “exclusives” in bird cage liner, more ongoing public engagement and debate.

Assuming they don’t form the government, the best thing the libs could do is metaphorically disappear for a year, put together some credible policy that isn’t written on the back of an envelope and then spend the following three years selling it. They’ve got the time it just depends whether they’ve got the inclination.

Hmmm…ALP advertises heaps and their vote slips 9%.
Libs advertise less and their vote slips 3%.
But JB you argue that the Libs should have done more advertising like the ALP did?
[devil’s advocate mode /off]

baueran said :

Not that I can vote in Australia, but I would have voted for that party which would have respected my NO JUNK MAIL sticker on my letterbox.

This has been discussed here before. Legally, “no junk mail” doesn’t apply to political parties. It’s clear, though, that the majority of people with those stickers don’t think in those legal terms.

I for one was dismayed to receive Green material. I don’t care whether it was printed with vegetable dye on recycled toilet paper – it’s still rubbish. But I understand the Greens would be bad offenders because most of their potential supporters would have “no junk mail” stickers!

If the Libs get behind Zed for the next four years they’ll be in with a real shot to take government.

2012 = Zed vs Katy

I think the election was a big win for Zed personally, but a lost opportunity for the party as a whole. They are in a better position than they were a year ago, but the infighting has cost them. In defence of their presidential style campaign, it worked in very similar circumstances for Labor nationally, so it was worth a shot here. If your team sucks, you’ve got to play to your strengths. It got Kevin 07 in, it didn’t get Zed in, that’s life. (assuming, of course, the Greens side with Labor, which is likely)

I also think the tendency to stick the ‘negative’ label on the Libs is unfair. Yes, they targeted John Stanhope, but who in their right mind wouldn’t? There was clear dissatisfaction with his performance, and has made some very poor decisions for Canberra, the Libs simply attempted to exploit what they saw as a weakness. Just as Labor exploited the divisive past of the Libs for their gain. A sticker on the newspaper that says “Don’t Risk It” is just as much about fear and negativity as anything the Libs did.

Anyway, the worst thing the Libs can do now is dump Zed and cause more infighting. He’s the only one of them who could win an election, and if they can be a credible opposition for 4 years, they’ve got a chance.

Not that I can vote in Australia, but I would have voted for that party which would have respected my NO JUNK MAIL sticker on my letterbox. Oh hang on… was there a party that respected it? I felt like putting up another sticker above it saying WHICH PART OF NO JUNK MAIL DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND? The worst abuser was definitely Labor, followed by the Greens, followed by Liberals, and then some minor parties whose names I cannot recall right now. I wonder how many trees had to die for all this worthless junk in my letterbox…

I think it would also be prudent to request ID at the same time as one supplies ones name, that would certainly reduce fraud, an electoral office sign up front stating the requirement would help prepare the voters in the queues whilst it would only add a little time to the process but much safer all round.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Johnboy, I’m not a liberal party member, or even a Canberra voter, but making it this obvious how much you dislike the libs doesn’t really do this site much credit.

I don’t see how even a Lib could like the Libs at the moment. I’m usually inclined that way, but I think it’s fairly clear that the Libs campaign was all about getting a certain faction elected and it certainly didn’t translate into any more votes. They had a brilliant opportunity and threw it away infighting. I think Saturday’s polling just shows how little choice there was for voters.

And I think JB does a very good job at being impartial!

I’d actually picked JB as a Tori.

what, like tori amos? 😉

The best result in this election is that the motorist party got what they deserved. Perhaps they might now go away.

I actually hope they survive, looking at electronic voters over half motorist party votes expired after they went through the AMP ticket, meaning the dragway crowd actually removed themselves from the process leaving to the rest of us to decide who would govern.

As I said on another blog Stanhope and Cossey ran a howard negative don’t risk it etc campaign both need to be dumped, lib voters dumped their dead wood a shame labor voters did not do the same

The spam analogy is closer to the voluntary voting scenario though.

If you convert 1 vote but annoy 10 it’s a very bad return on the effort.

I know a few Liberal inclined voters who were not amused.

Email/phone spammers can afford to do that as it doesn’t matter how many people they annoy, as long as they get sales. Political parties do not have that luxury…there’s no point gaining 30 votes if you’ve p&^^&^ed off thousands of other voters. It’s perhaps the single dumbest bit of campaigning I’ve ever witnessed.

boomacat said :

STOP SPAMMING PEOPLE.

email spammers do it because for every 10,000 emails sent, something like 500 people respond, and 30 want to buy things.
With an opportunity cost of next to nothing, the spammer sees this as successful, so starts using automated systems to send out hundreds of thousands or millions of emails.

So if they sent out 10000 sms, and it convinced 500 people to look at their website who otherwise would not have, and 30 people change their vote based on what they see, Andrew Heath may consider it as a successful campaign.

Basically, if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of it will stick.

But feel free to send the guy who authorised it a message.
I mean, he did it to you.
(http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=736491998)

I’ll say this – those blooody spam voicemail and text message campaign techniques are a sure fire way to pish people off. People don’t like being spammed. STOP SPAMMING PEOPLE.

I’d say patronising jakez.

justbands said :

> The ones I met at various functions around the place had an obvious “oh, your one of the little people” attitude about them, which does not sit well with me.

Is it a patronising kind of attitude or more of a ‘I guess I must talk with this peon’ kind of attitude?

Exactly – not sure how you can claim to be winners with a 10% and 3% swing against. I think it says the ACT is not rapt with either of the major parties.

The really interesting thing is to see whether the greens can convert the next four years into solid support over just protest vote. Their claimed areas of interest are the ones that have tended to be poorly handled in the ACT.

BTW I think trying to tar JB with the liberal hating brush is a bit much. He has hardly shown any bias accept against the obvious moron’s.

The best result in this election is that the motorist party got what they deserved. Perhaps they might now go away.

Again its worth remembering that a majority Govt under hare-clark is rare enough to be considered an aberation.

GnT said :

Majority government in the ACT is an anomoly and I think it would be impossible for any party to repeat.

You mean like how black swans were impossibile, based on empirical & historical evidence instead of a Bayesian approach?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan_theory

Considering the circumstances around how we actually got our majority government vote in the first place (public’s reaction the Captain Underpants image carried the day against a weak opposition, and it was a shame the Inquiry wasn’t available for two years after the 2004 election), I just see it as highly unlikely and very costly for anyone to try and reproduce through the same methods.

I think the Liberal campaign lacked a “narrative” to distance itself from Labor.

> The ones I met at various functions around the place had an obvious “oh, your one of the little people” attitude about them, which does not sit well with me.

Doesn’t sit well at all with me either…& a major reason why I doubt I will ever vote Liberal (local of Federal). In my experience, they ooze that attitude.

Not much talk about how well The Greens did yet, only of how badly the majors did. They must have been doing cartwheels down the corridors on Saturday evening.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Johnboy, I’m not a liberal party member, or even a Canberra voter, but making it this obvious how much you dislike the libs doesn’t really do this site much credit.

Actually I’d say JB is simply reporting the facts. I don’t see anything that is not factual, and it quite basically sh*ts all over some of the other “professional journalism” seen in some of the other well known publications. If you want to complain of bias read some of the articles in the daily telegraph.

My personal thought is given that Jon Stanhope has not been overly cleaver politically in the last 4 years, managing to piss off quite a few Canberrans in the process (a 10% swing away should have indicated that). Zed and his liberals did not capitalize on that at all.

Zed kept his people on a leash, they followed the liberal mantra of degrade the other guy, which works well in federal elections because bogan’s typically react to such methods. But Canberra is typically a highly educated place, where both seats are considered safe labor seats. This means that tactics used by federal liberals will not work for the ACT liberals. We are more moved by good policy, planning, and what your going to do for us in general. Bad mouthing the other guy doesn’t work very well here.

If the libs really wanted to win, they shouldn’t have embarked on a negative campaign. They should have said “here is our plan” earlier than a week out from the election. Let the plans do the talking. They also need to teach their candidates how to behave at functions. The ones I met at various functions around the place had an obvious “oh, your one of the little people” attitude about them, which does not sit well with me.

The thing that says it all was that even with massive dissatisfaction with the old labor gov’t the libs just did not capitalize on it, and that is evident with the swing away from them.

What I hope is that both major parties look at this election and realize that they both lost, and that they both need to pick up their game. A 13% swing away from the major parties is not the definition of a win.

A swing against the government is not surprising, regardless of what they have done the last four years. Majority government in the ACT is an anomoly and I think it would be impossible for any party to repeat.

jimbocool, I like to think my shameless plugs are worth at least half of Watts’ vote ;-P

With the polling finally done and dusted, I can be straight up and down with what I thought of the Liberals campaign and the result.

As has probably been apparent in my (not so) covert grumblings, I was infuriated by the Liberals lack of policy and the Presidential style campaign. I hope that the Libs in the Legislative Assembly finally pull themselves together and do the hard policy work and if they do, I think we could achieve a really fantastic result in 2012.

To that end, I am extremely pleased with the election result. Let’s be completely frank, 12 months ago the massacre was on (and rightfully so). To get seven seats is an improvement in short term fortunes (and considering the campaign, a surprisingly good result). However it is within those seven seats that I am most pleased.

In one of the threads I was bagging out Robson Rotation because I felt it wasn’t bringing incumbents down to an even playing field. I HAPPILY EAT HUMBLE PIE. It appears the ACT has brought Christmas a little early for me because Burke is gone and it looks like Pratt the prat might be gone too. A clearing of the dead wood and injection of new blood is exactly what the Liberal Parliamentary Party needed.

Jakez is feeling good about the future.

> Johnboy, I’m not a liberal party member, or even a Canberra voter, but making it this obvious how much you dislike the libs doesn’t really do this site much credit.

I’d actually picked JB as a Tori. So…there ‘ya go.

The ALP would have expected the swing against them (particularly after such a massive vote for them last time around), but the Libs must be kicking themselves. Going backwards yourselves when the Gov has an over 9% swing against them? That’s laughable…in fact, hahahahaha! The Greens cashed in both ways…their vote has been increasing in any case & Left voters that wanted Stanhope punished voted for them.

Yeah, but Pratt and Burke have been given the arse – how good is that! 🙂

At this rate, in another couple of elections, Zed might have a party of winners to lead to victory!

Johnboy, I’m not a liberal party member, or even a Canberra voter, but making it this obvious how much you dislike the libs doesn’t really do this site much credit.

Well summed up johnboy. That the liberals went backward in their overall vote in this climate is an indictment on their campaign and their period of opposition. You can’t spend the best part of four years knifing each other then expect the public to forgive and forget at the election. The high Greens and “other” vote shows that the electorate was looking for an alternative but the libs failed to convince anyone that they were worth supporting.

The one good result for them is that they have got rid of some dead wood, although the members coming in would appear to hold the same socially conservative views which may not be a good thing in the long run, but should offer a chance for renewal.

“On a brighter note we’re rather pleased to see that Matt Watts with an advertising campaign consisting of sitting at the end of the Pot Belly’s bar and advertising with RiotACT (at very reasonable rates) pulled .2 of a quota compared to Gary Kent’s massive TV campaign for the same result”

Not forgetting Jakez’s tireless boosting of Mr Watts

Otherwise, horror of horrors, I find myself agreeing with most of JB’s argument (although I don’t think the Libs have lost a seat – although Ginninderra may yet please us by despatching Vicki Dunne to the void). I noted in another thread that the use of US style electioneering tactics is always doomed to failure here because of compulsory voting. The presidential style of campaigning is all well and good, but you still have to have policy to be presidential with. Lib policy was weak, with health policy a disaster.

A Labor-Green ‘coalition’…good luck to Canberra!

I nearly feel sorry for the Labor Party.

At least Canberra residents will see the Green’s true colours.

I thought that Zed was very dignified in his election night speech while John Stanhope was smug and arrogant. Stanhope has certainly not learnt anything from the kick in the pants the voters gave him.

The Greens did very well. Shane seems a little more stable than Deb Foskey. I just hope they will now not destroy the ACT with their fruit loop policies.

Zed was a real winner. He took over a basket-case party (thanks to Smyth and co) only ten months ago and has turned it in to a proper opposition. I was very pleased to see Pratt and Burke get booted out. They have some fresh faces now in Coe, Hanson, Jones and Doszpot. Giulia did very well, especially considering all the hysteria about her last week.

As an outsider I felt the Liberal’s campaign was very amateurish and not effective. Labor completely out-gunned them. It wouldn’t help the Libs having such an inexperienced director and campaign team.

I was very pleased that Mary Porter and Andrew Barr were returned. It would have been good to see Mike Hettinger win as well.

Thank god voters turned away from Helen Cross and Frank Pangallo. Both carry so much bitterness and baggage.

The biggest losers of the election were the Canberra Times and Jim Murphy and Kate Carnell’s Canberra Business Club. The Times coverage was so bias, especially their Saturday’s edition and their little advertising stickers on Thursday and Friday. It is clear they were batting for Stanhope. Jim and Kate funded non-Liberals with money raised by Liberals for Liberals. They must be very proud of themselves.

I think you’re a bit hard on the Libs. They’ve got an extra tough job in an area that almost always elects two Labor MPs in Federal elections.

Nonetheless, you’re right that the arrogance of both parties in the last couple of days is unhealthy. If Little Jonny thinks he has a mandate after such an enormous swing, he’s a bigger idiot than I thought he was. Rattenbury is right to say that it should be about policy outcomes for the next four years, not how popular or unpopular Zed and Jon are now.