Grayndler – Australia 2013

1. David, the chances of the Greens preferencing the Libs is zero. The good people of Grayndler would go beserk.

2. Albanese will win this seat with an increased margin over the Greens.

3. Ben Raue, your response is appreciated. Yes he was an ALP member & elected to Leichardt council twice. He has worked for the Bulletin and won a Walkley.

   The period that you have neglected to mention, and which will be most scrutinised, is from the late 60s to the late 80s when he was considered an ardent socialist activist. There is a reason why I used the term “former ultra Marxist” as I believe it reflects this period but you may disagree. He wrote a biographical book on Trotsykists in Australia…..which I am sure much of middle australia would love to read!

   None if this in itself is to prejudice who he is now anymore than dragging up racist or far right comments from 3-4 decades ago of a right wing candidate would be. People change and their opinions evolve. However, politics is politics and the NSW right is known for beating up opponents anyway they can (sometimes literally…).

   The point is that The Greens have a potential to be elected in Grayndler in the next 1-3 elections. They have a solid, core vote there, especially in the east of the seat strongholds of Newtown & Marrickville. However, they need to attract some of the middle ground voters from both the ALP & LIBs to get over the line, especially from the west of the seat.

   Most of these voters that the Greens need probably aren’t insightful enough to understand or care about the ideological differences between an old Marxist, Trot or Socialist. Some will be deterred by the his past statements that the ALP will use against him. The age issue is pertinent as it seems a bit late to be advocating starting a Federal parliamentary career though I acknowledge it could help attract a few older voters.

   In summary, selecting a 69 year old with such a past is not going to advance the Greens vote in my view. Did the Greens really have no other options? I could be completely wrong and the voters wont’ care about his background nor his age. We’ll see if the Greens vote continues the growth trend in the seat – which it should regardless if the overall state Greens vote falls – or if it falls this time.

   (Similarly, I am sure in the rush to appoint KAP & PUP candidates that commentators will find all sorts of interesting past statements from some of them!)

4. “Among the campaigns pushed by Greenland on Leichhardt Council in the early 80s was one calling for a new town plan to have a blanket density control of only 125 people a hectare, and a two-storey limit on development – policies that, Harris writes, “would have made it uneconomic for developers.” (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/left-field-danger-for-albanese/story-e6frg6z6-1226675061618).

   Hall Greenland’s approach to housing and development in inner-Sydney is totally extreme and unrealistic and downright selfish. He clearly has no desire to cater for the growing population of the Grayndler electorate. The rental vacancy rates in places like Marrickville are less that 1% yet Hall Greenland wants to restrict housing development as much as possible. Hall may as well hang a sign on Parramatta Road saying “F*uck Off Leichhardt is Full”. Such an approach to development will only cement gentrification and reduce multiculturalism in the area. To impose a “population cap” on inner-Sydney suburbs is both absurd and totally extreme in the face of a growing population and more people wanting to experience inner-city living. Does Greenland still hold this view? Ie. That essentially a blanket ban on any development in the inner-city be enacted? How ridiculous! Such a policy would drive the price of housing through the roof and make living in the inner-west impossible for anyone except the rich. So much for Hall Greenland’s supposed Marxist views. No wonder the Greens are branded as extremists when they put up candidates such as Hall Greenland.

5. For Ben : I respect your knowledge and integrity, but not your partisan response (above) on matters relating to the inner west Greens. Perhaps you are just too young. I have an active knowledge of Mr Greenland’s political past having been involved for many years in local area. Anything I said can be backed up by reference in Tony Harris’ exhaustive account of Leichhardt’s political history – Basket weavers and True Believers.

   Tony Harris was a far-left political ally of Halls in the 70s and 80s (they appear to have fallen out at some time) but are now reconciled. Hall contributes to Tony’s “Watermelon” blog (a ultra left-wing critique of the Greens) and Tony was a writer at a news magazine run by Hall, (The Week) which folded in 2011.

   Tony’s book (available from the publisher – Leftbank Publishing and in the local history section of Leichhardt Library). It has numerous colourful descriptions of Hall’s political extremism and opposition to absolutely everything. In one Caucus meeting, a former Labor mayor of Marrickivillle (Barry Cotter) remembers, “There were 158 resolutions that we discussed at caucus and he opposed 158 of them. It was impossible to work with such a person.”

   Good luck with getting “this person” elected, Ben. Many progressive people in Grayndler have memories and are less than impressed. Why oh why did the Greens pre-select him for a winnable seat?

6. Coco Bunter

   What makes you think it is a winnable seat? It’s not. Notwithstanding that Mr Greenland was probably preselected before the Ruddstoration, the fact that Mr Albanese is now Deputy PM has put paid to any hope The Greens may have had for this seat. I reckon this seat will have the biggest swing to the ALP of any seat in NSW.

7. Oh god. It sounds like Fiona Byrne is Hitler compared to Hall Greenland.

8. And I have to vote in this seat….sigh.

   Probably have to hold my nose and vote Labor.

9. If, the Liberal Coalition is elected in September/October, then maybe Anthony Albanese is eyeing the opposition leaders job. Will he have the numbers in caucus to fight off Bill Shorten, I wonder. If he gets elected that is. Labor doesnt have a good relationship with the left. Remember the Nathan Rees experiment. Labor would be looking for a fresh rebuild, unless we get another hung Parliament. Anthony Albanese’s precise thoughts perhaps…………..

10. Re: DB. I agree, Labor is safe here, there will be a swing back from 2010. My comment that it was “winnable” was really based on the ever hopeful appraisal some of the Greens supporters and highly partisan commentary that gets sprayed around whenever Grayndler is mentioned. Few of these people actually live in Grayndler. Sam Byrne obviously though it was “winnable” when he demanded a recount from 25.9% in 2010. On the numbers, if everyone preferences against Albo and there is no slippage, a low primary like that can produce a “win.”

    But it won’t this time.

    Re: David Hunt, I share your prediction that the Libs will do well. They will come second. Hall is the wrong candidate and his preferences will be counted (he has indicated, despite his truculent hostility to Labor that they will go in that direction). But David you appear to be on the wrong blog. Most of the people here are interested in numbers, not idle ill-informed speculation on the Labor leadership post election.

    And we would like to know where the Libs will go? In 2010 your party preferenced the Greens Now David, be honest now… Do you want Hall over Albo?

11. I think your right when I should be concentrating my posts here on the blog to numbers, not comments. Thanks to all number counters, for your patience. And your tactful advice.

    Hal over Albanese? I think that would extend into the Liberal Party. Hal versus Anthony? I’ll be honest and say I will support Cedric Spencer the Liberal. More? Thats for the Liberal Party to decide.

    One last before I read my first sentence and go and write over on the blackboard, voting is a combination of the Party you support, their track record and their candidate. After all the commentry including mine, its for the voters to decide whos best. Cedric Spencer is not controversial, would go out of his way to assist anyone, even before either himself or the Liberals organised the pre-selection. I champion him no only as a Liberal but as someone genuinely worth knowing.

    We could open a new topic for blog on how redistributions could be organised in the future to whittle “any” safe seat including the others, so the candidates have to fight harder. I dont exactly see the incumbant fighting to save his seat.

    Will go and read my first sentence now. Many thanks.

12. I don’t think whittling away all safe seats, even if practicable, would be a good idea. If you could engineer a map where all seats were roughly the same, elections would tend to produce wipeouts every time. That sort of distortion would be just as undemocratic as a system (like the American House of Representatives) where only 10% of seats are really up for grabs at an election.

13. So lets not use Grayndler but just an example seat. Either or all parties. Distribution works by number of people in the seat matched to geographic landmarks such as a river or busy road. RichR Explain the wipeout factor more. Some safe seats are impractical to do what I am saying. Imagine out in the country, how would you redistribute entire regions. There are safe seats next to safe seats. It would not work. But in the city where its more densely populated, it would be interesting, from all sides. Not directly but just part of the overall mathematical formulae for distribution. Getting away from Grayndler, to make any safe seat just as important as the marginals. Can anyone relate examples and studies in general politics, for the sake of an interesting conversation where this has been attempted or partially implemented? It would be interesting!

14. David Hunt,

    Your call was for getting rid of all safe seats, so for simplicity let’s just pretend for a moment it was possible to make all seats sit within a given range. Let’s use the 6% swing-to-gain, which means a range of 12% overall. Now let’s start with the last election, which is basically perfect because it was essentially a 50/50 election. With these numbers we have Labor’s strongest seat at 56% on a TCP basis, and the Coalition’s best seat also on 56%. If Labor were to win with a swing of 6%, it would win all the seats it won last time and almost all the rest. It would lose some or all of the conservative-on-conservative seats and perhaps the odd seat that bucked the trend. That would leave the conservative side of politics with just a handful of seats despite winning 44% of the two-party preferred vote. Assuming an even distribution of seats across the 12% range, a TPP of 53% would mean somewhere around 110 seats, or around 73% of the seats.

    Another way to think of it is in terms of Australia having 150 at-large seats. So every voter gets 150 ballots on polling day. If the Liberals win in seat 1, they are likely to win all 150 seats. The more you are able to make the seats similar, the closer you get to approximating that situation.

15. Deputy PM Albo + 67 year old communist Green candidate = Big swing to the ALP + The Greens coming in third place.

16. Agree with the prediction Lachlan, but you are wrong twice: Hall Greenland is 69, not 67. He is not a communist. During most of his long activist career he belonged to a group led by an obscure Trotskyist theoretician who argued the Communists had betrayed the revolutionary working class by being too conservative. He later (in Tony Harris’ Watermelon blog) accused the Greens, the party he now represents and preselected him for a winnable seat, as doing the same. He has belong to the ALP, the No Aircraft Noise Party, and now the Greens.

17. Calling the Greens “too conservative”. Hahahahahaha.

    I think I might even put the Liberal ahead of this fruitloop.

18. Getting away from Grayndler, to make any safe seat just as important as the marginals. Can anyone relate examples and studies in general politics, for the sake of an interesting conversation where this has been attempted or partially implemented? It would be interesting!

    The system SA has had for the last couple of decades is a bit like that – it’s supposed to ensure the party with over 50% of 2pp vote wins over 50% of the seats. It doesn’t work all that well, and makes redistributions more messy than they need to be.

19. This thread is very funny. Fascinating insight into the lines the ALP is trying to shop around.

    “He’s an old communist. Wait he’s not really a communist he was in the ALP. Ok ok he was in the bit of the Left that didn’t like the bit of the Left which worked with the Right (aka Albanese’s mob).

    But he’s still a communist”

20. Oh Oz, it’s not fair to assume that everyone is a micro-faction hack. Often people just look at candidates and their parties and make judgements of their own. I imagaine that you wouldn’t be pleased if everyone discounted your opinions on things on the basis that you are a party operative.

    Fact is that Greenland has a long history of activities both within and outside the mainstream. In politics, it is expected that that history will be analysed – just as the Greens would criticise someone who used to have a far-right background, you can expect that someone with the history of Greenland will have his past activities examined and criticised. When that history involves writing a book about the Trot movement (speaking of micro-movements) and labelling the Greens as conservatives and bourgeois, that will attract ridicule from 90% of the population.

    Greenland may have once been a Labor member, but he was certainly not a candidate and, if he were a Labor candidate, he would have been roundly criticised as being a radical.

    I appreciate that you can’t admit this until after the election, but it is my view that, strategically if not politically/ideologically, Greenland is a very poor choice of candidate for a seat that the Greens aspire to win.

    Respectfully, PJ

21. The problem with the SA system is that it doesn’t work. The idea is supposed to be that you create a map where winning a majority of the 2PP results in a majority of seats. But this doesn’t take into account non-uniform swings – which at the last election saw a supposedly ‘fair’ map result in the Libs winning a majority of the 2PP but the ALP winning a majority of seats.

    You just can’t make a system of single-member electorates ‘fair’ – most people who support it do so because it doesn’t distribute seats fairly, but instead has a bias towards the strongest party. You can’t have both fairness and a system that is biased towards single-party government.

    If every electorate looked the same (or similar) to all others, under single-member electorates you would actually see massively exaggerated results at every election (like we saw in Queensland). It’s the diversity between electorates that makes our system look a bit less disproportionate than it has the potential to be.

22. At the risk of flogging a dead horse (many others have already commented on this), but Ben Raue did ask that I “put up or shut up” on Hall Greenland’s Marxism. Allow me to do so.

    I will point you to Hall’s own book, “Red Hot: The Life and Times of Nick Origlass.” Hall calls the Marxist revolutionary “my mentor and hero” and says he was his “anointed heir.” There are 3 copies permanently available in Leichhardt Library. Let’s hope someone who writes admiring bios of old Trotskyists on Leichhardt Council are not trying to live off lending rights!

    To his credit, Hall has never denied his colourful past as a follower of the International Marxist Revolutionary Tendency – the failed Pabloite movement which had its peak (if you could call it that) mid last century. His comments on that 7.30 Report indicate that he never will.

    Copies of Tony Harris’s book on the decline of the Left in Sydney’s inner west is also in low demand (Basket Weavers and True Believers) – 3 copies on shelf now (I am typing this in Leichhardt Library) It contains several large sections on Hall, his extremist politics and his pivotal role in the Left’s implosion. I hereby tender it to evidence. Read it, Ben, its both sad and hilarious – much of the last section relates to the formation of the Sydney Greens.

    Hall Greenland was expelled from the ALP in 1984 for supporting an opposing candidate in a local election. (Source Harris op cit p174). Ancient history? Yes, it is. But why is this man standing in 2013 for the Greens? He is 70 years old next year.

    BTW. I am not ALP, or an apparatchik in any party. It is odd (Oz) that any comment critical of the Greens is assumed to be an “ALP “tactic” or smear. The ALP in Grayndler regards the Liberals as their opponents, not the Greens. However I imagine that they are especially happy that their candidate selection on this occasion will ensure them a healthy preference flow.

23. Have just read Alastair’s comment: He asks (rhetorically) how Hall Greenland’s anti-development policies benefit the working class and the less well-off. Please, M’ Lord, allow me to tender more evidence:

    “Move over Mosman and Point Piper, Sydney has a new list of prestige suburbs.”

    That was the Herald last weekend on the inner west suburbs Hall Greenland’s Nimby policies have most successfully been applied to. They are now Sydney’s richest.

    http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/inner-west-beats-east-on-home-front-20130712-2pvl7.html

    It’s enough to make an old Marxist smile.

24. The problem with your analysis Mandrake is that East Balmain has become a millionaire’s playground not because of the policies of Hall Greenland but under the polices of successive ALP councils and state governments who have been only too willing to allow private developers (who coincidently happened to be big ALP donors) to take over what used to be affordable or public housing in this area and turn it into upmarket waterfront developments. Have a look at the excellent job the ALP did on turning the old power station into :”Balmain Shores”, an enclave for the wealthy, with no affordable housing in sight. They would have done the same to Callan Park if the community hadn’t stopped them. The ALP sold itself to the property developers throughout its last decade in power in NSW and Anthony Albanese was in a position of power throughout that time. He bears a lot more responsibility than Hall for pricing average income earners out of the inner west.

25. Leichhardt Local – The reason the inner city is expensive is because it is close to the city and there is a shortage of housing in Sydney, which naturally puts a premium on places nearest where people work and play. It always kills me when people whinge about not being able to afford to live in the most desirable parts of the city, as if it’s their inherent right to. As any economist will tell you, property prices are high across Australia because of a collapsing construction sector and the successive failure of consecutive governments to both offer enough new land or accept wide-spread high-density housing near the city and on train lines.

    To expect Governments to block development on the basis that a bunch of NIMBYs (respectfully), want to keep Balmain grungy and low-density, is, to me, completely elitist and silly. Balmain is one of the most desirable parts of the city – it makes sense that people are happy to pay more money to live there. Fact is that it is the lack of development in the inner-city that has been ‘pricing out’ middle-income residents. Think about it. There has been massive population growth in Sydney over the past forty years. The inner-city/inner-west used to make up a much greater percentage of Sydney’s population as a whole (say 20%) than it does now (say 10%). This is because Government’s have build out instead of up in the inner city. The relatively uncommon parts of the inner-city that are affordable are so precisely for the reason that they did build up (apartments in Maroubra, Mascot, Eastlakes, Redfern, Zetland etc aren’t much above the average Sydney price, but the old houses in Balmain etc are well above). This is because development allowed more people to live there, making it less competitive and thus more affordable. (Public housing is another matter, but it is worth noting that the electorate of Sydney has the most public housing of any in the state).

    I appreciate that some people feel affection for expensive old houses, but the fact is that with a growing population, the choice is either build up or build out and it is clear to me that any decent environmentalist would support the former. Further, anyone with the slightest economic understanding would appreciate that limiting development and thus not allowing growth in the inner-city, puts a greater premium on exisiting properties, which pushes the value/price up.

    Your assertion that it is the development of the inner city that has made it unaffordable is completely wrong.

26. PJ – I support development in the inner-city however in areas with high heritage value (such as Balmain, Rozelle, Annandale, Newtown etc) the old terrace style housing stock should be retained as much as possible. The development of old industrial sites with high density apartments is much more logical. It is possible to provide much more housing in inner-Sydney without demolishing attractive heritage suburbs.

27. PJ – Sydney has lost too much of its built heritage already. Its not the 1960s anymore, you dont go in with a wrecking ball and demolish Victorian era buildings and build modern apartments in their place in the name of “increasing density”

28. PJ – Then again i’m not sure if that’s your attitude to development in the inner-city. How do you view the concept of heritage conservation in the inner suburbs of Sydney?

29. DB & Coco Bunter
    Do you think that the PNG “solution” has placed Albo in peril??. I’m thinking it has. If there is any place in the country where this is going down badly it’s here.

30. Given the Greens won’t get Liberal preferences, probably not. This seat is also more diverse than you’d think.

31. morgieb – I think you’re envisaging the wrong situation.

    Labor loses votes, Liberals gain votes, Greens gain votes. Suddenly, ALP is in third place, and it becomes a Libs vs Greens race. And ALP preferences are probably going to flow more to Greens than Libs. THAT is how the Greens win the seat – not off Liberal preferences, but off Labor preferences.

    It’s not entirely implausible. Suppose that the Greens draw 10% away from Labor, and the Liberals grab 6% off Labor. That’s enough to put Greens at 36%, and Liberals at 30%, while dropping Labor down to 30%, with Labor a little behind the Liberals. Of course, PUP votes will draw away from Libs, which makes it a bit harder, and Albanese will probably get a boost from being DPM, but 6% swing to Libs in NSW isn’t implausible, while Greens capturing about a quarter of Labor voters due to the Asylum issue isn’t implausible, either.

    I don’t think Labor will lose it to the Greens… but it’s certainly a reasonable possibility. The main reason to think that Labor will keep it is that, if opinion polls even hint at an issue in this seat, Labor will almost certainly set up a major push to keep it.

32. Labor won’t finish 3rd here. That’s crazy talk. Do you actually know anything about the district?

33. It’s not entirely impossible. In the case in which Labor loses a large number of votes over the asylum issue, which is winediamond’s supposition, it can really happen.

    Consider that the Libs got nearly 30% 2PP at the last election, and about 29% in 2004. 90% of Greens preferences in 2007 went to Labor, so less than 2% of the Libs 2PP was due to Greens vote leaking.

    Since it happened in both 2004 and 2010, let’s call that the baseline. Now, what happens given the whole NSW corruption issue, that saw Labor experience a 13.4% swing against them at the state level. More specifically, in Labor’s strongest part of Grayndler, Marrickville, Labor saw a swing against them of 8.5% (most of which went to the Liberals), and Labor only held onto the seat against the Greens by less than 1%. In Canterbury, the swing against Labor was 9.9% (almost all went to Libs) and in Strathfield, it was a massive 16.6% (nearly all to Libs) – Canterbury and Strathfield both cover parts of Ashfield. Balmain, which covers Leichhardt, had a swing against Labor of 9.1% (and it ended up being Libs vs Greens for 2CP.

    So on the corruption issue, which is likely to benefit the Liberals, Labor may see a strong swing against them, of 6% or so, if 2011 is anything to go by (of course, it’s hard to tell how much of the swing happened in 2010, and how much the Rudd and DPM effects will be). And then, of course, there’s the Greens vote, which would likely be boosted more by the Asylum issue in this seat, and which will be one of the Greens’ most-targeted seats. If they can get a strong swing to them, then yes, I could see Labor falling to third place.

    Indeed, the state district of Balmain may be a good way to see what could happen. In Balmain, in 2007, Labor had a primary vote of 39.2%, Greens were at 29.5%, and Libs were at 23.8%. In 2011, Libs were at 32.6%, Greens were at 30.7%, and Labor was at 30.2%. And that’s without a major policy issue that left-leaning voters would leave Labor over.

    I don’t think it’s a high chance that the Greens get it, but I would put the chance at somewhere around 5%, at this point in time; assuming, that is, that NSW numbers don’t improve for the ALP. Liberals, of course, have no real chance of getting it.

34. Morgieb, & Glen
    Who said the Libs preferencing Labor was a done deal ??. They did not in 2010. I seriously doubt they will this time.

35. Its certainly likely the libs will preference labor seeing as though it would be the libs fault for any green in the parliament and wont be able to ramble on about how the greens and labor are in bed.
    Labor will win this seat

36. winediamond – I didn’t say otherwise. That said, Observer is right, it’s unlikely that the Liberals preference the Greens above Labor, given their recent rhetoric on the Greens. And even if they did, I find it unlikely that Liberal voters would be any more likely to follow it than they were in 2010, when having Greens above ALP on their how-to-vote cards still only resulted in 75% of preferences flowing to the Greens on 2CP. If we assume that those who put Labor ahead anyway, 25% of them, wouldn’t go Greens at this election either, then Labor will get an extra 6% immediately on preferences. PUP voters would also grab some Liberal votes, and likely have Labor above Greens, too.

    Let’s suppose that the Libs put out HTV cards with Labor ahead, as is more likely. Then it’s probably going to work similar to the proportions in 2010, in reverse – 75% preferencing Labor. Even if we suppose that my situation mentioned above happened, except with Labor coming out ahead of Liberals by a small amount, then 22.5% from Libs preferences flow to Labor, giving Labor a 52.5% 2CP and Labor retains the seat. But if Labor drops to third, the Greens win the seat.

37. winediamond (1) I’m not sure how Labor’s “PNG solution” will play here. Maybe +1-2%… I suspect that anyone in Grayndler who votes on that issue has already made up their mind long ago. All that “I’m ashamed to be an Australian” and “I’m ashamed to have ever voted Labor” nonsense (todays Inner West Courier’s letters page) is just white noise, empty moral posturing. These people have been Greens voters for years. And “ashamed” of their fellow citizens? Well, that says a lot…

    Observer – I agree with winediamond – the Libs will preference the Greens just as they did in 2010. Anyway, that’s my gut feeling – they have been very cagey despite being pushed. This won’t matter if they run second, which is (still) most likely. Just to clarify – second to Labor… I know this issue causes angst amongst Libs, but the hard-head view usually prevails. Having Adam Bandt as their foil worked brilliantly for them post-2010. They would be over the moon with joy at having a 69 year old ex-Trot knock off Albo.

38. Coco Bunter
    Thanks. Interesting thoughts. The libs ran 3rd as i recall in 2010. What will be different this time ??. I agree that the libs would be happy to see Albo scalped in this election. ATEOTD this is always going to be more embarrassing for Labor. After all it is THEIR heartland that they are losing.
    An aside : Paul Murray has christened Albo Deputy Prime Minister “Tool”!!.

39. As I suggested a month ago the Greens will really rue their decision of their candidate pick here. Given Rudds PNG AS decision and the change to the Carbon price & ETS, a stronger, younger candidate could increase the Greens vote even with Albo now being DPM but I still expect it to drop in this seat compared to 2010.

40. Yappo
    You may well be right. However it is a different world (in this electorate) So is the population .
    Latham called them “the hairy underarm brigade” !!!. I am always amused to remember how horrified my father was when he saw my first wife in a bathing costume sans 1986!!!.
    “

41. Sorry guys, I cant resist.

    Anthony Albanese was one of the main men that got former Mining Minister McDonald his pre-selection. I always thought out of all of these ICAC matters, the public should be looking at the branches where these offenders came from. Looks like the media and the whole world are looking in at this moment. Time for the Greens to make a stand…..Truth or time for the Greens in Grayndler.

42. Truth or Time for the Grayndler Greens to say they have had enough. For all this to end. The only way is for the Grayndler Greens to make a proper stand and now after black ICAC Wednesday to join up with the Liberals, as they have from time to time when circumstances have been right. Particularly in the other states of Australia. Nothing new here. Time to clean up NSW politics.

43. Albanese is hated by the Liberals, and so the Liberals WILL preference the Greens, the Greens WILL finish second, and the Greens WILL win the seat. Goodbye Albo.

44. ummm, its wat they did last time and he is still here……

45. Preference decisions cannot be completely finalised until nominations close, which is not scheduled to occur until next Thursday, August 15.

    Will the Greens preference Cedric Spencer, the Liberal? Caring means standing up for honesty. Not Anthony Albanese standing up for Ian Mcdonald preselection.

    At least the Liberals know the difference between farming and mining leases. Mount Penney.

46. Yawn. David – No. The Greens won’t preference the Libs. The Libs, as I understand it, won’t preference the Greens. Albo should get close to half the vote in his own right.

47. First and probably not the last was Ian McDonald.

    Heres another one from the Daily telegraph in the last few hours

    http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/deputy-pm-anthony-albanese-has-beers-with-controversial-mp-craig-thomson/story-fnho52ip-1226692427293

48. I find it absurd that the Liberals are making even a small deal out of this. Guilt by association? Albanese isn’t allowed to TALK to Thomson?

    Let’s be serious – if there was anything real involved in the meeting, they’d have done it in a private place, where the media couldn’t see it. There are only two reasons for them to have met in a public bar like that – either Albanese is trying to send some sort of message (although what that message could be, I don’t know), or it was a completely innocent meeting between acquaintances.

49. Frankly, as long as Albo isn’t sending pics of his groin or his penis in a wine glass, then he can drink with whoever his wants.

    As for pref deals in this seat, why not just wait D Hunt. You made your views clear in the first post.

50. Like most of their photoshopped jokes, The Tele’s front page was quite fun. But pretty pointless. The story was also old. Did Col Allen really need 3 days to think of it?

    A better story on Grayndler was the front page of the Oz

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/libs-preference-greens-last-to-prevent-hung-result/story-fn9qr68y-1226693130585

    Libs to preference Greens last, for those barred by News’ paywall…

Comments are closed.