The Labor Frontbench

[Contra Mundum]

That isn't what my friends in that electorate told me, they said that Garrett indicated that the Green's were giving their preferences to the Libs in those seats, that was an out & out lie.

I wish Garrett hadn't joined the Labor party.

Mantis I respect the Greens but you have got to give it to him he went were he thought be could actually influence Government policy directly. No point being sour on him. As for Labor brining him down to Victoria to campaign for Labor in the seat of Melbourne. It was a legitimate tactic that paid off - Green vote was virtually static in the seat of Melbourne

 

[Contra Mundum]

.

Superannuation - Sherry. Will retain his current portfolio, mostly because there's nowhere obvious to move him to. Might find himself with Communications if Faulkner doesn't return.

Charlie Nick is the only person in Parliament who understands it inside out. He has had an interest in the subject for over 20 years

 

[- PC -]

Its interesting. Last week we were all moaning about the lack of talent on the Opposition benches and here we are presenting a formidable team

 

[MrMeaner]

It was a legitimate tactic that paid off - Green vote was virtually static in the seat of Melbourne

And for all the Laborites he's scared off, he's also brought a few ex-Greens back into the fold.

 

[mantis]

Mantis I respect the Greens but you have got to give it to him he went were he thought be could actually influence Government policy directly. No point being sour on him. As for Labor brining him down to Victoria to campaign for Labor in the seat of Melbourne. It was a legitimate tactic that paid off - Green vote was virtually static in the seat of Melbourne

Only because he lied, if labor want to go down the same path as the libs & it appears what they are doing, then I won't be voting for them.

 

[CharlieG]

Charlie Nick is the only person in Parliament who understands it inside out. He has had an interest in the subject for over 20 years

Fair enough then. If he takes Communications it'll be in addition to his current responsibilities, on that basis.

Now, where can I hide Kelvin Thomson? I wonder if Rudd will be tempted to form a new Federalism portfolio? If so, fellow former public servant Kelvin could be the man. Hasn't had any impact scratching the sheen off Downer, Vaile, Howard et al in 'Public Accountability' at all.

What are your thoughts on my efforts overall, Contra?

 

[MrMeaner]

Only because he lied, if labor want to go down the same path as the libs & it appears what they are doing, then I won't be voting for them.

He did not lie.

 

[- PC -]

Only because he lied, if labor want to go down the same path as the libs & it appears what they are doing, then I won't be voting for them.

How old are you? Politicians lie. If a politicians lips are moving there is a high chance they are lying

 

[Contra Mundum]

Fair enough then. If he takes Communications it'll be in addition to his current responsibilities, on that basis.

Now, where can I hide Kelvin Thomson? I wonder if Rudd will be tempted to form a new Federalism portfolio? If so, fellow former public servant Kelvin could be the man. Hasn't had any impact scratching the sheen off Downer, Vaile, Howard et al in 'Public Accountability' at all.

What are your thoughts on my efforts overall, Contra?

I think it's good effort. Linch pin for me is Tanner in treasury. He can give Labor a chance at economic credibility which is the only thing which will ensure they win the election

Kelvin Thompson has almost subnormal intelligence.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Only because he lied, if labor want to go down the same path as the libs & it appears what they are doing, then I won't be voting for them.

This is the trouble for the Greens. If you want a lower house seat you have to play dirty. Whatever it takes. The preselection agreement with the Libs was a sign of political maturity.

The Vic Party enlisting Garrett was absolutely predictable and a strategy should have been in place to deal with it.

 

[GuruJane]

Hard to say - both are marginal seats. I'm inclined to think that forestry will be less of an issue this time. Keep D|ck Adams and his Gunns masters under control (how he wasn't expelled from the party I'll never know) and it shouldn't turn the election.

The Liberals don't have any Federal marginal seats left in Victoria after the last debacle. If timber jobs are any sort of an issue Garrett will be a disaster in Environment. Brumby was staggered Labor lost Narracan. Memories are long in the bush.

Sneer at Adams as much as you like but funnily enough the Labor Party was actually invented to look after jobs first. If Labor continues to cede that ground to Howard prepare for many more years in Opposition.

At the same time, even if it makes a difference in Bass and Braddon, it could help Tanner in Melbourne and Plibersek in Sydney. Might be that Garrett's electoral effect is neutral in the House and positive in the Senate.

If Tanner and Plibersek need Garrett to save their seats in a Federal election Labor is truly effed before they even start. Electorate might indulge Greens statewiSe, but not Federally especially when up against Howard.

Garrett needs a portfolio that will interest him but not one that's his hobby horse or has anything to do with the nuclear debate unless Rudd wants to court another disaster.

PS Last time Howard ran on interest rates. This time it'll be on emplyment.

 

[Dry Rot]

If Tanner and Plibersek need Garrett to save their seats in a Federal election Labor is truly effed before they even start.

I have never voted for Plibersek and always urge anyone from around here to do the same.

Waste of space.

 

[CharlieG]

The Liberals don't have any Federal marginal seats left in Victoria after the last debacle. If timber jobs are any sort of an issue Garrett will be a disaster in Environment. Brumby was staggered Labor lost Narracan. Memories are long in the bush.

Sneer at Adams as much as you like but funnily enough the Labor Party was actually invented to look after jobs first. If Labor continues to cede that ground to Howard prepare for many more years in Opposition.

Adams participated in a Liberal rally. That's political treason, as far as I'm concerned. You can oppose the policy but you don't help the Government to defeat your party.

The big failing in the policy last time was its impact on jobs - I agree with you wholeheartedly there. I just don't see forestry jobs having a major role to play. If I'm wrong, then you'd hope that Garrett and whoever is Emmployment Shadow are ready for it.

If Tanner and Plibersek need Garrett to save their seats in a Federal election Labor is truly effed before they even start. Electorate might indulge Greens statewiSe, but not Federally especially when up against Howard.

Melbourne and Sydney are the two biggest Greens electorates in the country. You might disregard that, but I promise you that Tanner and Plibersek haven't.

Garrett needs a portfolio that will interest him but not one that's his hobby horse or has anything to do with the nuclear debate unless Rudd wants to court another disaster.

The electorate might just surprise you on this one, Jane. We shall see. Either way, Garrett's the prediction in this thread that I'm most comfortable with.

PS Last time Howard ran on interest rates. This time it'll be on emplyment.

Of course. Employment scare campaign versus the reality of Work Choices. Hopefully the electorate surprises *me* on that one.

 

[Murray]

The Liberals don't have any Federal marginal seats left in Victoria after the last debacle.

Good old Jane - when you don't know the truth just make it up.

FYI the net gain to the Libs was 1 seat (from 15 to 16)

 

[GuruJane]

Good old Jane - when you don't know the truth just make it up.

FYI the net gain to the Libs was 1 seat (from 15 to 16)

Murray I think if you look it up there are no Liberal seats available on a swing of less than 5 per cent.

The last Fed election was an absolute disaster for Labor in Victoria.

 

[GuruJane]

Adams participated in a Liberal rally. That's political treason, as far as I'm concerned. You can oppose the policy but you don't help the Government to defeat your party.

Agree. However doesn't alter the fact the Labor Party was invented to protect jobs not trees and if Labor continues to cede this ground to Howard it will continue in Opposition.

The big failing in the policy last time was its impact on jobs - I agree with you wholeheartedly there. I just don't see forestry jobs having a major role to play. If I'm wrong, then you'd hope that Garrett and whoever is Emmployment Shadow are ready for it.

Why take a risk when you don't have to? Garrett doesn't have to be Environment spokesman. He can be just as effective, possibly more, elsewhere.

Melbourne and Sydney are the two biggest Greens electorates in the country. You might disregard that, but I promise you that Tanner and Plibersek haven't.

Federal elections for the Reps are quite, quite different to State elections. The "it'll cancel out in the urban areas argument" was floated and destroyed last election. I'm afraid being an (old!) hand at Labor elections, the moment I saw the pic of Howard with the timberworkers I was able to tick the seats off on my fingers. Don't see how its going to change in 3 years.

The electorate might just surprise you on this one, Jane. We shall see. Either way, Garrett's the prediction in this thread that I'm most comfortable with.

As above. Rudd would be foolish to risk a downside, imo.

btw, I thought your analysis was very good.

Of course. Employment scare campaign versus the reality of Work Choices. Hopefully the electorate surprises *me* on that one.

Labor will need to run a very clever campaign. I think they'll need more than "it's gonna muck up family weekends" though.

 

[CharlieG]

Agree. However doesn't alter the fact the Labor Party was invented to protect jobs not trees and if Labor continues to cede this ground to Howard it will continue in Opposition.

The ALP stopped being about protectionism in the '80s. They flirted with it in the Hansonite era, and it was a mistake.

Why take a risk when you don't have to? Garrett doesn't have to be Environment spokesman. He can be just as effective, possibly more, elsewhere.

I disagree.

Federal elections for the Reps are quite, quite different to State elections. The "it'll cancel out in the urban areas argument" was floated and destroyed last election. I'm afraid being an (old!) hand at Labor elections, the moment I saw the pic of Howard with the timberworkers I was able to tick the seats off on my fingers. Don't see how its going to change in 3 years.

Because, Jane, the ALP isn't trying to protect 150,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest this time around. Simply, any votes lost on this issue will be holdovers from 2004. It's stagnant, and your the first person I've seen who's even floated the suggestion that it might be an issue for Garrett.

If they're at all worried, expect a package aimed at developing the plantation industry. That will promote value-adding jobs in the timber industry... at the same time, there's no need to threaten the primary industry.

As above. Rudd would be foolish to risk a downside, imo.

btw, I thought your analysis was very good.

Thanks.

Labor will need to run a very clever campaign. I think they'll need more than "it's gonna muck up family weekends" though.

Absolutely. It's a winnable election, but a tough election. A lot has to go right.

 

[Bombers 2003]

That isn't what my friends in that electorate told me, they said that Garrett indicated that the Green's were giving their preferences to the Libs in those seats, that was an out & out lie.

I wish Garrett hadn't joined the Labor party.

We have found something we agree on for a change.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Kelvin Thompson has almost subnormal intelligence.

I wouldnt tell Marsha that.

 

[DaveW]

Good old Jane - when you don't know the truth just make it up.

FYI the net gain to the Libs was 1 seat (from 15 to 16)

I wouldn't even count McMillan as a gain given that it was the boundary changes that turned it into a Liberal seat.

Jane is right that Liberal marginals like Deakin and La Trobe now have heftier margins. But is this significant? I guess that depends on whether you think these margins were simply the result of an anti-Latham backlash, or whether these voters have more permanently thrown their lot in with Howard.

 

[GuruJane]

The ALP stopped being about protectionism in the '80s. They flirted with it in the Hansonite era, and it was a mistake.

You don't seem to know what I'm talking about. Many don't, particularly middle class urban dwellers. However Howard does. Which is why Labor has been in Opposition since 1996.

I disagree.

I really don't get how you can be so insouciant! Don't you realise how hard it's going to be to win the next election?

Because, Jane, the ALP isn't trying to protect 150,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest this time around. Simply, any votes lost on this issue will be holdovers from 2004. It's stagnant, and your the first person I've seen who's even floated the suggestion that it might be an issue for Garrett.

Charlie, Brumby was staggered when Labor lost Narracan. He was surprised when they lost Morwell. The results are a hangover from 04. When the bush turns against you it turns.

And are you saying old growth forests are no longer an issue?

Well you can bet your espresso Howard will make sure it is - by doing something provocative.

If they're at all worried, expect a package aimed at developing the plantation industry. That will promote value-adding jobs in the timber industry... at the same time, there's no need to threaten the primary industry.

Yeah, well ...

 

[1jasonoz]

You don't seem to know what I'm talking about. Many don't, particularly middle class urban dwellers. However Howard does. Which is why Labor has been in Opposition since 1996.

I really don't get how you can be so insouciant! Don't you realise how hard it's going to be to win the next election?



Charlie, Brumby was staggered when Labor lost Narracan. He was surprised when they lost Morwell. The results are a hangover from 04. When the bush turns against you it turns.
And are you saying old growth forests are no longer an issue?

Well you can bet your espresso Howard will make sure it is - by doing something provocative.



Yeah, well ...

And the reasons for the ALP losing the long held eastern seats at the recent state election was?

 

[GuruJane]

I wouldn't even count McMillan as a gain given that it was the boundary changes that turned it into a Liberal seat.

Jane is right that Liberal marginals like Deakin and La Trobe now have heftier margins. But is this significant? I guess that depends on whether you think these margins were simply the result of an anti-Latham backlash, or whether these voters have more permanently thrown their lot in with Howard.

I'd like you to name me one Liberal seat here that has a margin of less than 5 per cent? From memory this is unprecedented..

You have simply no idea how bad that election was for Labor in this State.

Find out when there was a swing of five per cent or more against the governing party in a Federal election!

btw - it wasn't Latham himself who turned the electorate off - it was the policies he went with - his return to Whitlamism and the timberworker issue was emblematic of that - as was Medicare Gold.

 

[GuruJane]

And the reasons for the ALP losing the long held eastern seats at the recent state election was?

Which "long held" Eastern seats are you talking about? Long held by who?

 

[DaveW]

Jane: Labor holds 19 of Victoria's federal seats compared to the Coalition's 18.

Imagine if they performed that 'badly' in other states!

By way of contrast, in 1990 Labor was reduced to 14 Victorian seats compared to the Coalition's 24. So 2004 was hardly the disaster you paint it as - in Victoria at least.

Yes the margins in many Liberal Victorian seats are depressing. But not insurmountable.