CDP only running eleven candidates in Bradfield


Because twelve would be silly.

This week’s North Shore Times reports that Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party plan to nominate multiple candidates in the Bradfield by-election. Why? Well, why not? Apparently they have already chosen two candidates and could choose as many as nine more:

Campaign manager Michael Darby said the party would run multiple candidates, with the maximum of 11 being chosen because it was “the number of loyal disciples”

“We don’t want a Judas,” he said.

It’s an ingenious strategy. If one CDP candidate can poll 4%, imagine how much eleven candidates can poll.

Meanwhile, One Nation aren’t falling for the mainstream media bait. It might be typical for candidates to be announced to allow them to get media attention and campaign, but One Nation are smarter than that. They don’t want the media to ‘crucify’ their candidate, so they aren’t telling anyone who their candidate is. Genius.

Article over the fold.

This article was in the North Shore Times, and you can find it on page 14 of the digital edition, but it is not available as an online text article, so I’ve reproduced it below:

Page 14 of North Shore Times, October 16 2009
Page 14 of North Shore Times, October 16 2009
Liked it? Take a second to support the Tally Room on Patreon!


  1. The CDP ran two candidates in the Lakemba by-election last year, so this must be the new tactic… I guess at each booth they’ll have 11 booth workers each handing out a different HTV? That’ll be enough to scare voters away – if you survive the CDP gauntlet, you get to vote!

    Anyone know the last time a party endorsed multiple candidates in a federal seat?

    Who said the by-election would be boring?

  2. They both continue to confirm my suspicions that they are ridiculously stupid. What a joke.

    Unfortunately, I do actually think a well organised and intelligent Christian party would be successful in Australia. But when they get idiots like the CDP and One Nation tainting the Christian political brand, it won’t ever happen.

  3. Ziggy – no, but it will split the right wing vote ridiculously, with votes in many directions. I mean, this is a Liberal seat, the only serious challenge (and then only by dint of the ALP not running) is the Greens. Are the all the voters going to suddenly forget who they normally vote for and rush off to the DLP or CDP? Hardly. If anything, the kind that might will do what they normally do in these situations and stay at home. I haven’t heard that there’s enormous anger at PC for quitting so its not going to be an election where spleen’s are vented at the Libs. Ah, but if the DLP and CDP think they might get 4% and some money (lets not forget the money) this is the worst tactic. Lakemba is instructive – two candidates polling 5.5% between them – but polling 3.3 & 1.2 individually, so no dipping into the communal money pot for them. Then the question of a protest vote begs the question of what they are protesting – climate change (nix to the DLP), refugees (thats to the Libs), Laura Norder?

  4. Deposits for an extra ten candidates: $3500
    Failing to get public funding: $6000 (est)
    Trashing your brand by making yourself look truly ridiculous: Priceless

  5. Ah, well, I’ve found what seems to be the last time a party endorsed multiple candidates in a federal by-election: The Richmond by-election of 1957, when, on the death of his father, future party leader and deputy PM Doug Anthony defeated 3 other Country Party candidates who polled a combined 70% between them! Multiple endorsements were a common tactic of the Country Party at state level in NSW in those days.

    Of course it may have happened at a general election since then, but that’s a lot more material to check through.

  6. @Stewart J

    I think this could very well be a unique opportunity for a DLP candidate.
    There is an ever increasing move against the CPRS by both Liberal and ALP voters. The ALP voters would feel more comfortable with the DLP centre left econmonic policies, and would certainly favour them to any Liberal candidate. The other question is with the Liberals becomming more anti CPRS as the time goes on, the DLP candidate may be able to cash on their protest.
    The CDP would certainly preference the DLP first after preferencing each other so the vote should all flow to the DLP before reaching the liberal candidate. The other thing is that the green candidate may pickup some of the ALP vote but would also certainly preference the DLP ahead of the liberal in an attempt to maximise their vote. This could very well be a battle between the DLP and Liberals. As for the refugees well the ALP/DLP policy are the same. Economically the DLP is probably more Labor then then the ALP so if the DLP put in a good candidate and run a reasonable campaign they’ll go alright.
    As soon as the executive inform me of the candidate, I’ll let you know

  7. Ziggy – you assume that the DLP and CDP will preference each other before anybody else, without knowing who’s standing – so I assume there has been some sort of deal already? Or is that conjecture? The CDP may just preference the Libs straight off given this rather odd strategy of standing multiple candidates – so as to lock anyone else out. But seriously, I would not expect the DLP to get more than 8% all up, and less if there 10+ candidates. Even then lots of ALP voters (well, those over 40) are likely to remember the DLP, and not be inclined to forgive them either. Your assumption regarding the Greens preferencing the DLP ahead of the Libs is interesting too – are the DLP actively talking to Susie Gemmell, or is this an expectation?

  8. @Stewart J

    I am unaware of any discussions the DLP have had with the greens at this stage. But if you were a green who would preference? The CDP and the DLP work frequently together on preference deals, and I don’t think they would have paid out this sort of nomination fee if they didn’t have some sort of deal in place with the other minors.
    One thing I can say is that the DLP in NSW market themselves heavily as being a labor party and many of their younger members are ex ALP members who crossed over when the started rebuilding in 2007. Bradfield is a seat that they can run a campaign in as well. Remember too that things aren’t good in the liberal party at the moment and many are upset that Malcolm is Pro CPRS, Pro Republican and many are looking at a chance to send a message. Its not likely that any liberals will cross to the greens, but these two minor parties allow them to send just that message. The greens can either participate or just throw their preference straight to the liberals. What would be you plan ?
    As for the CDP and the DLP, I think its all in the Candidate and the campaign.

  9. @Stewart J
    Dont forget there is an independent Labor and a one nation candidate that
    may help the DLP as well.
    One Nation is likely to pass to the DLP (or possibly the CDP).
    This may give the greens an opportunity but cant see them passing to One Nation. I dont know enough about the Independent ALP

  10. It’s pretty stupid but it did get the media’s attention. I can only assume than Darby subscribes to the all media is good media belief.

    I love that One Nation thinks that it’s still relevant enough for the media to ‘crucify’ them.

  11. My proposed CDP ad (approximately 2 words per candidate):

    “Not a refugee, environmentalist, atheist, sinner, non-Anglo Saxon, or homosexual? Never had pre-marital sex? Don’t like paying tax (unless it goes to persecuting above mentioned heathens)? Vote for the CDP!”

    On the up side, if 4% of the vote is split between 11 candidates, assuming some get more than others, we may see the lowest vote total in an election ever (CEC excluded naturally).

Comments are closed.