The Labor Frontbench

[CharlieG]

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?

Of course I do, but you're simply manufacturing a major problem where there isn't one. You're the only one still talking about the timber industry being a major issue.

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?

... You're making this up as you go along. There are timber industries in both seats but the center of the industry in Victoria is further east, primarily in Craig Ingram's seat. Morwell is mostly brown coal production and Narracan is largely agricultural.

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

We shall see. Why you think that having Peter Garrett rather than Anthony Albanese makes such a drastic difference to this has me beat, though.

 

[1jasonoz]

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

You quoted one of them, the Coalition ran the line that the ALP's policy to make the Latrobe power stations used recycled water(instead of first use fresh water) meant that the Latrobe residents would be using re-cycled sewage from the city.

 

[GuruJane]

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.

Dave - you just don't know what I'm talking about. It's not about the number of seats they hold!

Coming in to the last Federal election there was a quite substantial cluster of Liberal marginals seats requiring between 0. something and 3 per cent to win.
Labor was expecting to do well. To pick up seats because they were so close in reach.

After the election, every one of those seats had blown out to 5 per cent or more. McMillan, which was a marginal Labor seat blew out to 5 plus.

It is very rare that a seat in a Federal election gets a swing of 5 per cent unless there are some extraordinary local factors or it is a by election.

As a result Vic Labor will be uphill winning even ONE of those seats next time. On past experience, the best they can expect is to improve their vote by 3 per cent say, and put them in reach for 2010.

Can you imagine that! On historical basis, not one winnable Liberal seat in Victoria for the next election. That's the grim reality.

On top of that a whole cluster of Labor came in from their 4 to 5% buffer to become sitting Liberal targets for next year.

The Libs are consequently better placed to take seats off Labor, whereas Labor can hardly hope to take even one seat off the Libs.

 

[GuruJane]

You quoted one of them, the Coalition ran the line that the ALP's policy to make the Latrobe power stations used recycled water(instead of first use fresh water) meant that the Latrobe residents would be using re-cycled sewage from the city.

Latrobe? What seat is that? Are you talking about the Latrobe Valley? Well that is not an eastern seat, it is a regional area.

 

[CharlieG]

Latrobe? What seat is that? Are you talking about the Latrobe Valley? Well that is not an eastern seat, it is a regional area.

LOL. Jane, Morwell is a Latrobe Valley seat. Narracan is part of the Latrobe Valley and areas to the west.

Incidentally, Latrobe is also a federal suburban fringe seat in and around Pakenham held federally by the Libs.

 

[GuruJane]

Of course I do, but you're simply manufacturing a major problem where there isn't one. You're the only one still talking about the timber industry being a major issue.

Are you seriously saying timber and old growth forests will not be an issue for the Greens at the next election?

And presume you're saying that Howard won't see to it that it is or that if he does the timber workers will be sanguine this time round?

You're making this up as you go along. There are timber industries in both seats but the center of the industry in Victoria is further east, primarily in Craig Ingram's seat. Morwell is mostly brown coal production and Narracan is largely agricultural.

Okay, Charlie. You're right. The timber issue had nothing whatever to do with the disastrous swing in McMillan. (I wonder why then it was one of the seats I ticked off after Howard and the timberworkers got into bed together? Must have thought I'd been involved in many election campaigns before in the area and knew what issues resonate there .... dreaming of course. You know much better than I. Thanks for the correction.)

We shall see. Why you think that having Peter Garrett rather than Anthony Albanese makes such a drastic difference to this has me beat, though.

I'm not arguing against Garrett being on the front bench. I'm arguing that he should not be environment spokesman for all the reasons I've given.

 

[CharlieG]

Are you seriously saying timber and old growth forests will not be an issue for the Greens at the next election?

And presume you're saying that Howard won't see to it that it is or that if he does the timber workers will be sanguine this time round?

For the Greens, sure. That's a good reason to put Garrett into Environment (or have you forgotten already why you ostensibly picked this fight?).

Okay, Charlie. You're right. The timber issue had nothing whatever to do with the disastrous swing in McMillan. (I wonder why then it was one of the seats I ticked off after Howard and the timberworkers got into bed together? Must have thought I'd been involved in many election campaigns before in the area and knew what issues resonate there .... dreaming of course. You know much better than I. Thanks for the correction.)

Oh, get over yourself.

McMillan was redistributed before the election and was already a notional Liberal seat. The swing was only 2.15% - less than the state average. So perhaps you are dreaming after all?

I'm not arguing against Garrett being on the front bench. I'm arguing that he should not be environment spokesman for all the reasons I've given.

Which are spurious.

 

[GuruJane]

LOL. Jane, Morwell is a Latrobe Valley seat. Narracan is part of the Latrobe Valley and areas to the west.

I suggest you scroll back and read what Jason asked and what I replied. Posts 47, 49,52 and 54.

Was making the point to him that Latrobe is a regional area NOT an "eastern" seat.

Clear thinking and comprehension.

Incidentally, Latrobe is also a federal suburban fringe seat in and around Pakenham held federally by the Libs.

Thank you for the information. I campaigned there and scrutineered the year we won it for the first time. The candidate was one of our group from the 1960s Young Labor Association. This was in the dark ages, when your parents were probably young teenagers, younger than you are now.

Or perhaps am just dreaming again!

 

[GuruJane]

For the Greens, sure. That's a good reason to put Garrett into Environment (or have you forgotten already why you ostensibly picked this fight?).

What are the benefits you seem to think will accrue?

Are you suggesting that more Greens will give Labor their primary vote because of Peter Garrett?

Oh, get over yourself.

McMillan was redistributed before the election and was already a notional Liberal seat. The swing was only 2.15% - less than the state average. So perhaps you are dreaming after all?

Charlie, I have already conceded to your greater experience and wisdom. Of course Labor was not expecting to win McMillan. Of course when they lost it they didn't curse Latham and Tasmania. Of course not.

Which are spurious.

Well, we shall see. I feel reassured that you know so much about how to win Federal elections for Labor.

 

[CharlieG]

What are the benefits you seem to think will accrue?

Are you suggesting that more Greens will give Labor their primary vote because of Peter Garrett?

Possibly. From a Greens perspective, he's the best possible Labor Environment Minister. Last month's letter or not.

Charlie, I have already conceded to your greater experience and wisdom. Of course Labor was not expecting to win McMillan. Of course when they lost it they didn't curse Latham and Tasmania. Of course not.

Stop wriggling, Jane. You got caught out. What happened to that 'disastrous swing in McMillan'? The swing was below average and, on top of that, the ALP actually increased it's primary vote slightly.

Well, we shall see. I feel reassured that you know so much about how to win Federal elections for Labor.

Well, at the very least I use actual results rather than invented ones to form my conclusions.

 

[DaveW]

Dave - you just don't know what I'm talking about. It's not about the number of seats they hold!

I understand what you're saying. I was simply putting things in context.

Coming in to the last Federal election there was a quite substantial cluster of Liberal marginals seats requiring between 0. something and 3 per cent to win.
Labor was expecting to do well. To pick up seats because they were so close in reach.

And well they might have been expecting to do well. (Although my recollection is that Labor was more excited about their chances in Queensland and South Australia.)

After the election, every one of those seats had blown out to 5 per cent or more.

It was a depressing story indeed. But like I've asked before, have Labor (semi-)permanently lost these marginal seat voters to the Liberal fold? Or was it just an anti-Latham/anti-Scoresby backlash which will correct itself?

If it's the latter, then exaggerated margins are nothing for the ALP to be slitting their wrists over.

McMillan, which was a marginal Labor seat blew out to 5 plus.

Ok, this just isn't right. The boundaries of McMillan had changed. The more fertile Labor area around Morwell and Traralgon had been excised from the seat. More conservative area around Leongatha was added. Based on the corresponding 2001 booth, this was judged to be a notional Liberal seat of 3%. In that context, the swing in McMillan was much more modest.

It is very rare that a seat in a Federal election gets a swing of 5 per cent unless there are some extraordinary local factors or it is a by election.

Cumulatively a swing of that size might be rare. But within seats themselves it's no extraordinary feat.

As a result Vic Labor will be uphill winning even ONE of those seats next time. On past experience, the best they can expect is to improve their vote by 3 per cent say, and put them in reach for 2010.

I think this is unduly pessmistic. But again it comes back to whether you feel 2004 was some sort of 'base', or just an anomalously poor election.

Can you imagine that! On historical basis, not one winnable Liberal seat in Victoria for the next election. That's the grim reality.

Well we'll agree to disagree about their winnability.

On top of that a whole cluster of Labor came in from their 4 to 5% buffer to become sitting Liberal targets for next year.

Yes some of the Labor margins are depressing. But to put a pro-Labor spin on it you might say that even in a poor election they still hung onto these seats.

The Libs are consequently better placed to take seats off Labor, whereas Labor can hardly hope to take even one seat off the Libs.

Maybe, maybe not. If momentum is with Labor (and it certainly should be), then the Liberals will put more resources into saving their own seats. They wouldn't want to make the mistake Kennett made in targetting the Dandenong seats in 1999!

 

[CharlieG]

Laurie Oakes just reported that Swan looks like staying in Treasury.

 

[GuruJane]

Possibly. From a Greens perspective, he's the best possible Labor Environment Minister. Last month's letter or not.

Possibly.

I presume you are aware that the vast bulk of green preferences go to Labor anyway?

I presume you are aware that Labor's problem has been its inability to build its primary vote?

Think it is a long bow to draw that Green voters will give Labor their direct vote just for Peter Garrett. It's possible, but it doesn't make sense.

Stop wriggling, Jane. You got caught out. What happened to that 'disastrous swing in McMillan'? The swing was below average and, on top of that, the ALP actually increased it's primary vote slightly.

Goodness, soon they won't have lost it at all. And not Morwell or Narracan against the trend in the other regions.

Before the election Labor was confident of holding McMillan. After the election they cursed Latham and the timberworkers. And now there's been a knock on effect even to State Labor.

Well, at the very least I use actual results rather than invented ones to form my conclusions.

Charlie, you have a good mind. But it is evident you have very little practical experience of election campaigns.

To repeat: I have campaigned in that Morwell area many times and in other regions. Many. At one stage when working for the then Opp Leader I organised and ran his country tours. Strangely as result do have a sense of the issues there. You don't seem to, presumably because you are a city dweller - inner city? It's a different world to the regions as it is to the outer 'burbs - and these are where Howard has built his winning majorities.

If you're intending to have a political career you will need to pick up these things really quickly and stop thinking figures tell you everything. Try and intern in the Vic Lab office and get some practical experience.

 

[CharlieG]

Possibly.

I presume you are aware that the vast bulk of green preferences go to Labor anyway?

I presume you are aware that Labor's problem has been its inability to build its primary vote?

Think it is a long bow to draw that Green voters will give Labor their direct vote just for Peter Garrett. It's possible, but it doesn't make sense.

I would suggest that an even bigger issue might be Greens how-to-vote tickets. There are a lot of seats where the Greens' 6-8% of the vote will be critical for the ALP, and most will follow the Greens' card. On that basis, the ALP needs to be talking up its environmental cred as much as possible. Garrett's the best man to do that. Regardless of what it might or might not do in Bass, Braddon and McMillan.

Goodness, soon they won't have lost it at all. And not Morwell or Narracan against the trend in the other regions.

Before the election Labor was confident of holding McMillan. After the election they cursed Latham and the timberworkers. And now there's been a knock on effect even to State Labor.

Nice mantra.

Labor wasn't expecting to lose seats overall. So whilst you might be right about them expecting to hold McMillan, it doesn't really *mean* much.

Charlie, you have a good mind. But it is evident you have very little practical experience of election campaigns.

To repeat: I have campaigned in that Morwell area many times and in other regions. Many. At one stage when working for the then Opp Leader I organised and ran his country tours. Strangely as result do have a sense of the issues there. You don't seem to, presumably because you are a city dweller - inner city? It's a different world to the regions as it is to the outer 'burbs - and these are where Howard has built his winning majorities.

Just moved from a semi-rural fringe seat into an inner-city seat. So in my relatively short time as a political pundit I've experienced two of the three demographic types of seat.

I'm sure you know Morwell much better than I do (something about mocassins and smokestacks doesn't attract me to the place, I must admit).

Now, can we get back on topic? Why don't you have a go at apportioning the frontbench portfolios?

If you're intending to have a political career you will need to pick up these things really quickly and stop thinking figures tell you everything. Try and intern in the Vic Lab office and get some practical experience.

Heh. Am I obsessed with figures, or am I a victim of post-modernism? Make up your mind.

I don't intend to have a political career, so there you are.

 

[bmwofoz]

Tresturer - Lindsey Tanner
Enviroment - Peter Garrett
Health - Julia Gillard
IR - Bob McMullen
Education - Tanya Pilberskek
Attorney General - Nikki Roxton
Defence - Peter McClelland
Welfare - Julie Owens
Industry - Kalvin Thompson
Regional development - Catherine King
Foregn affairs - Penny Wong
Immigration - Anna Burke

Some have made mention of the Lt Trobe valley, its now split between the seats of Gippsland and McMillan, I can't see the ALP winning either seat.

The next election will be close, and all depends on what the Government does in the Budget

 

[CharlieG]

IR - Bob McMullen

This would be suicidal.

 

[DaveW]

Tresturer - Lindsey Tanner
Health - Julia Gillard
Attorney General - Nikki Roxton
Industry - Kalvin Thompson
Regional development - Catherine King
Immigration - Anna Burke

Pretty Vic-centric!

 

[CharlieG]

Pretty Vic-centric!

So is the current Shadow Ministry. Gillard, Crean, Conroy, Tanner, Macklin, Ferguson, Thomson, Roxon, Carr, O'Connor and Sercombe are all Victorians.

edit: Griffin as well. So 12 out of 32.

 

[bmwofoz]

Pretty Vic-centric!

Not really, when you consider that would be 6 of 18 spots.

 

[bmwofoz]

This would be suicidal.

Why?? his only against Andrews

 

[DaveW]

So is the current Shadow Ministry. Gillard, Crean, Conroy, Tanner, Macklin, Ferguson, Thomson, Roxon, Carr, O'Connor and Sercombe are all Victorians.

edit: Griffin as well. So 12 out of 32.

Touche.

 

[CharlieG]

Why?? his only against Andrews

Because they need to win the election in IR. McMullan is a decent policy wonk, but he isn't going to turn too many votes.

 

[bmwofoz]

So is the current Shadow Ministry. Gillard, Crean, Conroy, Tanner, Macklin, Ferguson, Thomson, Roxon, Carr, O'Connor and Sercombe are all Victorians.

edit: Griffin as well. So 12 out of 32.

Gillard, Depty
Crean, should be in
Conroy, should be in
Tanner, should be in
Macklin, Maybe not
Ferguson, Maybe not
Thomson, Should be in
Roxon, Should be in
Carr, No should be dropped
O'Connor, No should be dropped
Sercombe, No should be dropped
Griffin, No should be dropped

I think the ALP have a real problem with lack of talent, unless they take some risk with newer MPs.

 

[CharlieG]

Touche.

I'm thinking that Victoria could lose two spots. Sercombe and O'Connor will be replaced by Anna Burke and Catherine King. Alan Griffin will lose out - the Socialist Left have four spots for six Victorian members. Someone (maybe Thomson or even Macklin if Gillard intervenes to save Crean) is going to be squeezed out from Labor Unity too, if Burke gets her speculated promotion.

 

[CharlieG]

Carr, No should be dropped

I may be about to stun you by saying that I agree. It won't happen, though.