GhostWhoVotes informs us a state Nielsen poll in The Age has Labor with a two-party lead of 52-48, and that the Greens primary vote is steady on 16 per cent. More to follow.
UPDATE: We now also have Newspoll which puts Labor’s lead at 51-49, from primary votes of 37 per cent for Labor, 39 per cent Liberal and 5 per cent for the Nationals. The poll also shows a striking five point drop for the Greens to 14 per cent, which is coming off an all-time high and is not replicated in Nielsen. The two pollsters also give divergent impressions of John Brumby’s popularity: whereas Nielsen has his personal rating at plus 13 (approval 53 per cent, disapproval 40 per cent), Newspoll has it at minus six (42 per cent, 48 per cent). Newspoll also has Ted Baillieu at minus six (40 per cent, 46 per cent), while Nielsen has it at evens (45 per cent). Brumby has a slightly wider lead as preferred premier from Nielsen (53-37) than Newspoll (50-36). As was the case before the federal election, the Coalition’s supporters appear to be firmer in their intentions than Labor’s.
UPDATE 2: Full tables from the Nielsen poll here, courtesy of GhostWhoVotes.
Having met the lib candidate for Burwood- he is scary, died hair, with those scary eyes!! God I hope Bob holds on here. I met a few of the other Libs candidates and members around and I suppose they are ok for Libs- but this guy has to be kept out of politics
Shaun Carney on the Greens and Labor in Victoria
[
The Greens’ greatest strength is the way they are viewed by most of their supporters, and that is not as a conventional political party at all but rather as an idealistic movement that should not be judged in the way that conventional parties are judged.
Unless or until the Labor Party can break that spell, it will continue to see its supporters gradually moving over to the Greens, most of them for good.
For all of the talk about a new paradigm in Canberra, a new one already operates in Melbourne, on the ground. Today’s Age/Nielsen poll shows Labor on 36 per cent and the Greens on 18 per cent in metropolitan Melbourne – a two-for-one ratio
]
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/greens-in-for-a-kill-20101112-17r30.html
centaur009
no worries. I think Labor should be re-elected with a loss of about 6 seats.
madcyril
what has happened re preferences?
vic, apparently we don’t find out until Monday at the earliest.
Just had a look at the photos of the Liberal candidates looking for a picture of the would be MP for Burwood and I noticed that while most of the women looked normal and capable of running the state but for some reason several of the blokes looked a little shifty.
Burwood – I think the ALP will hold Burwood unless we are actually going to see a change in Government. the Liberals would fancy their chances.
Stensholt is gone for all money regardless
His high density pro-development mantra being his deathknell
madcyril#55
thanks.
BK Hat
Does Burwood include Box Hill? I thought that was a declared development centre.
No Box Hill is Box Hill electorate (held by Liberal)
Is multi-storey developments popping up all over Burwood with community not happy and Stensholt towing the Justin Madden line and openly ridiculing those that oppose the developments
7 storey joint down in Ashwood was a nasty debate with Stensholts’ office being picketed by protestors but VCAT railroaded that through. Add to that the old Blind School in Burwood Highway now an ugly Australand development and even this week talk of a new development on Warrigal Road
Bye bye Bob
Has Tone campaigned for the Liberals in Vic yet? I saw images of Turnbull campaigning in Melbourne.
Taking the crudest measure of the latest Newspoll – going through seats and adding 4% to the Green vote, 5.5% to the coalition and -6% to the ALP – and the picture is much grimmer for the ALP than say applying the 51-49 to Antony Greens election calculator. It would suggest that the Greens would get their 4, and that Gembrook, Forest Hill, Mitcham, Mount Waverley, Burwood, Frankston, Ripon, South Barwon, Bendigo East are all gone for the ALP. That takes the ALP to 42 – but seats like Ballarat West, Bentleigh, Eltham, Mordialloc, Monbulk, Seymour even possibly Carrum would be knife edge. Not that Labor would be down to 35 but the ALP is not in as good shape as might outwardly appear.
If the ALP camapign continues to be less than stellar then it may be a lot closer than we have all thought up to now.
confessions 61
If I was Liberal election manager I would send him on a holiday far from Victoria!
RR:
Given the Libs did so poorly in Vic federally, I wouldn’t want to be seen with him either if I were Baillieu!
[Has Tone campaigned for the Liberals in Vic yet]
No, Tone goes for the redneck, hansonite, ute man, alcopop demography. In Victoria the liberals tend to be liberals.
Three weeks ago, I posted on this site that the Brumby Government was in real strife – not just in inner Melbourne where the Greens about to storm the barricades, but also throughout the East and SE suburbs. The public polls are starting to move. They will keep going. Its gone from 50/50 as to the next Premier ( as I posted) to 55/45 Baillieu. Todays polls are not news to many!
Firstly, talk of what ‘traditional’ Labor governments are in the Victorian context is meaningless. We’ve had very very few in 150 years, and of those only two have gone more than a term….and one of those is the current government.
Secondly, blackburnpseph, with reasoning like that you should take the pseph out of your name.
Swings don’t even begin to work like that, so using the figures that way is as meaningless as some of Tom’s “if X had done Y in 1903′ games.
There will be big swings against Labor in rural and Liberal held seats, which will mean little or no change elsewhere.
I think Antony’s calculator is a better guide to what’s going to happen!
I don’t think Brumby should lose, but I am beginning to wonder. Labor seems to be putting a lot effort trying to beat a party that has no chance of forming government in it’s own right ever, no matter how the press spruke their case.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/greens-in-for-a-kill-20101112-17r30.html
fredn
Labor is not taking this election as a win. They know it is going to be a challenge, especially by the Greens. I am interested to know what the Greens are going to do with their preferences.
The irony of the anti high rise development lobby is Melbourne 2030 and other similar policies supported by all the parties will lead to an increase in these developments.
We ever have more spawl or higher density.
I would not right off the ALP in Burwood at this stage
blackburnpseph – Clearly you are thinking that the Government is on the nose and sure there is strong movement towards the Greens and some swing towards the Liberal but when I compare this period with the lead up to the last two changes of Government 1992 & 1999 then this Government is in good shape.
Where are the regular rallies up Bourke Street, where are the Unions or Business community calling for the Government death.
Lets go back to the last federal election, if Brumby is so on the nose then where was the Gillard/Brumby based campaign, in both NSW and Queensland we saw a campaign by the Liberals claiming that a vote for Gillard was a vote for Bligh and in NSW a vote for Gillard was a vote for Keanelly.
But in Victoria where Brumby actually was Guillard’s former employer and close friend, we saw nothing.
If we revisit the last Federal Election where was the Anti Brumby swing in booths directly impacted on by his more high profile issues.
Most booths directly impacted on by Brumby’s projects actually swung towards the ALP
I think the more people that meet Watt in Burwood the more votes he will lose. bob still in with a good chance.
If people had their way nothing would ever get built anywhere. Deep down everyone is opposed to any development except their own- the noise the disruption, the more people cars, etc…. but this isn’t reality.
mexicanbeemer
you make some very interesting observations.
Had enough of this bloody weather- can’t letterbox
Victoria – The last federal election was very interesting because there are several big issues yet there was no adverse reaction in the booths.
Lets take Footscray, according to the media, the suburb was up in arms about the transport plans in the area yet five of the six booths swung towards the ALP on the TPP, one booth moved by over 4%.
The sixth booth recorded no movement on the TPP
If we look at the Yea booth in Seymour, this booth at the center of the North-South pipeline issue that is said will hand Seymour to the Liberals, the actually swing was over 5% TTP towards the ALP.
mexicanbeemer
maybe Victorians are just good at distinguishing between State and Federal govt?
Victoria – Yes, except and I may be incorrect but isn’t the federal government partly funding the regional rail link as part of its stimulas package.
mexicanbeemer
I am not sure about the funding arrangements. I wonder if voters would have made that distinction anyway?
[
Victoria – Yes, except and I may be incorrect but isn’t the federal government partly funding the regional rail link as part of its stimulas package.
]
Yes although the funding has been delayed according to this
[
THE Gillard government has delayed $400 million in funding for the nation’s biggest rail project – the Regional Rail Link through Melbourne’s west – after a request from the Brumby government.
The Victorian opposition said yesterday that planning for the $4.3 billion rail line from Werribee to Southern Cross Station was in disarray, after it emerged that Canberra is to hold back the $400 million until at least 2014.
The change, the only major alteration in federal spending, was revealed yesterday in the government’s mid-year economic forecasts for 2010-11.
Advertisement: Story continues below The move will help the Gillard government balance its books, but could delay the rail project – although both Canberra and the state government denied there would be any change to the train line’s scheduled opening date of 2014.
A spokesman for Public Transport Minister Martin Pakula said the changed funding arrangement would not alter the project’s completion date. ”It is common for projects of this size and scale to have cash flows revised to reflect project milestones,” he said
]
http://www.theage.com.au/national/opposition-blasts-rail-link-planning-as-canberra-delays-funding-20101109-17m4p.html
In Melbourne last night(Friday)the Trades Hall Council carried a resolution calling for “all progressive forces” to unite to prevent the election of an anti-trade union government under the coalition.
This reflects the alarm at the growing possibility of a coalition victory in Victoria,and also at the virulent anti-Green campaign waged by some Labor operatives and others allied with Bolt,Mirrabella and now Kevin Andrews against the Greens…who are seen as the real enemy.
Andrews reflects the DLP-Right to Life view(Cardinal Pell’s views in the main )as he always does on social issues.speaking in essence for the Catholic Church on abortion euthanasia and social issues.As polls show ,about a quarter of the population rejects religious status in the census…..to coin a phrase they
“:detest”the churches intervention in politics,and thereby identify with Green policies.
Recent polls show the likely result as close and with the Greens having the Balance of Power in both Houses…and perhaps a Labor-Green coalition.??
Carney in The Age looks at the fact that about a third of the Labor vote has now gone across to the Greens,and this has major consequences for the ALP.
Newnham and other Labor head-kickers may have to be told to shut up for the good of the party if this occurs !!.
Yes, meant to comment about the anti development brigade, too.
It appears that it’s progressive to be against Melbourne growing outwards but its also progressive to be against Melbourne growing upwards.
I can’t see how it’s progressive to be anti Melbourne growing full stop but assume that that’s the underlying mindset.
It’s also progressive to be pro migration for boat people.
If we’re to encourage migration, then the city will grow. If the city is going to grow, it makes more sense for it to grow upwards than outwards.
I’m also intrigued as why ‘developers’ are automatically portrayed as evil profiteers. This seems to be a blanket thing, a bit like bank bashing.
Developers are selling a product. If people didn’t want what they’re selling, they wouldn’t be in business. So its in their interests to keep people happy.
zoomster
Developers also need (want?) to make as much profit on their investment as possible, so some tend to push up the number of storeys to increase that.
I think some municipalities try hard to keep a lid on this, regulating for, say, four stories maximum, but VCAT is hard to control.
Upwards but not too high would seem to be a sensible compromise.
But we don’t seem to ‘do’ sensible, sometimes.
[It’s also progressive to be pro migration for boat people.
If we’re to encourage migration, then the city will grow. If the city is going to grow, it makes more sense for it to grow upwards than outwards.]
Boat people are completely insignificant in terms of population growth, zoomster, as I’m sure you really know.
But there is a third way , other than either, “upwards” or “outwards” when it comes to combining population growth with reduced pressure on Melbourne. Regionalisation (a la Whitlam’s ‘Albury/Wodonga’ programs etc). State Labor have made some moves in the right direction here, but at both State and Federal levels a lot more could be done.
With good , high speed rail infrastucture development, the NBN and some real Government pressure and incentives to encourage it a major regionalisation program could make a huge difference in Australia at present. We’ve played around with such things over the years, but it seems to me that the time has come when it really needs to be given a big priority boost.
Rod
Every now and then we are told that Whitlam’s regionalisation was a complete failure. I was studying planning at the time, and thought perhaps as a student I was being naive.
But perhaps it wasn’t the theory but the execution of it that was at fault.
Perhaps, as you say, the NBN etc. will make all the difference.
But for that we need ‘vision’ and not online surveys 😆
[But there is a third way , other than either, “upwards” or “outwards” when it comes to combining population growth with reduced pressure on Melbourne.]
Downwards?
Diogenes
No, we missed the boat there when we stopped including cellars in our buildings.
[Every now and then we are told that Whitlam’s regionalisation was a complete failure. I was studying planning at the time, and thought perhaps as a student I was being naive.]
Whitlam’s government wasn’t around long enough for it it to really come to fruition, lizzie, or to continue to drive the vision involved. To my mind, though, we can’t afford to not make much greater endeavours to shift growth to such areas, if growth is what we are to have. Let’s hope it is one the “spin off” benefits of the current governments new found interest in the regions, driven by the three Indis!
85&86
In the inner-city where heritage restrictions make it hard to go up or back with extensions there are people who have another cellar with extra rooms put in as their extensions.
The rise of the Greens vote is seen as a threat to ALP as was the DLP in the 1950s – ’60s, but with significant differences.
1/. The DLP vote was relatively evenly spread across the state, so they rarely won seats,but delivered many seats to Libs, due to extremely tight ANTI-Labor preferences.
2/. In most seats Greens will come in behind Libs and ~80%+ of their preferences (unless ticketed against ALP, risking damaging the Green brand) will flow to Labor, so ‘no harm done’.
3/. In a handful of inner city seats the Greens vote is strong – analogous to Nats in rural seats – so they will be elected on Lib preferences, at the expense of Labor. THis is why Greens are ‘hated’ by both Lib & Lab activists.
There is a very easy solution for Labor to avoid this outcome, introduce munlti-member lower house seats, with proportional representation as for the upper house (and also Tas lower house).
In a 5 member seat – quota 20%+1 – if Greens achieved a quota they would be elected, if not votes would probably flow to Labor. Libs would probably achieve 1 in Labor areas, their choice as to where surplus goes – Lab or Green. Labor likely to get 3 quotas.
If Greens can get quotas their supporters are ENTITLED to representation. From a political perspective however the important thing is that, while competing for first preferences, ALP and Greens could still reinforce each other, while the Libs are left ‘in the cold’.
The Greens do take votes from Labor’s left, just as the DLP did from Labor’s right. However, with proportional representation, the Libs would not be able to play ‘spoiler’ as they do with preference allocation in single member seats.
There would also be fewer ‘safe’ seats for all parties, most voters would have a ‘local’ member they felt spoke for them and multiple local members would compete to be seen to deliver for constituents.
All of these are outcomes that would be ‘wins’ for the community.
81 zoomster
[If we’re to encourage migration,]
The Greens want to decrease migration.
62 “…closer than we have all thought up to now.”
It has been feeling shaky for quite some time. Minority govt. is a real possibility. Which side is the question. Bob Brown is holding cards very close. Wonder what the Vic Greens would prefer. All power corrupts.
Rocket
I thought so – I’m trying to point out a few contradictory stances here.
Rod
Decentralisation is one of Brumby’s key passions, always has been (I date my friendship with him from a conversation in 1996 on that subject).
Under the Brumby govt, regions have grown faster than Melbourne and faster than ever in Victoria’s history.
Creates other problems, of course.
I can’t understand how the Greens justify decreasing migration.
Taking people from countries where there is starvation to countries where there is not must be environmentally a Good Thing (because starving people take everything there is out of the environment).
Further more, all studies show that by moving people to developed countries you decrease the birthrate.
No one can seriously argue that – compared to most other countries in the world – we are over populated.
Or is it just a NIMBY thing – as long as we’re OK in Australia, who cares whether people starve elsewhere?
zoomster
Which party do you think has the ancestral demographic closest to the USA’s Tea Party?
Rocket
you have to have had a history to have a past….easy to look virtuous with a blank slate.
If you can’t justify a stance except to argue that in the past other parties were worse, then you’re on very shaky ground.
I think you have misinterpreted what I meant.
Probably because of their social demographic, I think the Greens are probably the most Anglo-Saxon Party (maybe the Nationals would be about the same)
OK, Rocket! Apologies!
regionalisation
But what is the big advantage, why bother? I’m a country lad so I’m not asking cause I don’t like the country, I just don’t see any advantage.
Good links between Ballarat and Geelong that I can understand. Albury, I’d really like someone to Give me a why.
Portland, a 500kVA power line 1/2 across the state, why?
I actually think the best benefit of regionalisation is that it makes for happier humans.
[It appears that it’s progressive to be against Melbourne growing outwards but its also progressive to be against Melbourne growing upwards.]
Often objections by local councils and local communities are not to “upward development” per se but to the scale of the development and the need for infrastructure to support such developments.
One such high-rise development that generated a great deal of controversy in Whitehorse LGA was the $100 million, 38 level tower which had been planned for Box Hill, a suburb designated as a Hill Central Activity District (CAD). If built, the tower would have been the tallest building outside the CBD and St Kilda Rd precinct.
In August 2009 the Whitehorse Council, despite supporting higher-density housing and the Government’s consolidation strategy, voted against the proposed development. Four councilors voted for the proposal and include councilors who are members of the Greens, Labor and Liberal political parties. Councillors who voted against the motion are also members of the same three political parties.
The Council refused the application based on 15 grounds including the detrimental effect the development would have on the character of the Box Hill Central Activity District (CAD), the limited mix of uses, excessive scale, bulk and mass of the development, insufficient car parking and lack of integration with public transport services.
The developer then appealed the decision of council to VCAT.
In January 2010, after representations from the developer, Madden decided to “call in” the project to “fast track” its decision-making.
When calling-in the application, the government cited the need to accommodate a growing population and locate intensive development in and around activity centres. Madden maintained the proposal was consistent with the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and the government’s strategic vision.
The Council responded by saying that, while it would stress its opposition to the project to Mr Madden and his department, if the Minister approved the application he should make the Barton Group contribute a $6 million sweetener for public transport improvements, parking and sustainable transport strategies.
The council had also lobbied to secure a $20 million upgrade for the bus interchange, which was “intrinsically linked to increased residential development on this site”. Box Hill has the busiest transport interchange outside central Melbourne and is in dire need of an upgrade.
In June 2010 Madden back flipped and dumped the proposed development. In his media release he stated:
[“As submitted, the proposal was a stand-alone development and not in keeping with the Whitehorse Planning Scheme or the State’s strategic vision which encourages development that responds to, integrates with and improves upon the surrounding area.
“It just wasn’t the right development as stated by the council, the community and now the Victorian Government.”]
http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/10604.html
Did the government’s change of heart have anything to do with a perceived voter backlash in the upcoming state election if the development had been approved by Madden over the opposition to the project by the local council and community?