By-elections of the 44th Australian Parliament (2013-2016)

[Vosem]

We've had the first attempt at a poll for the WA Senate vote...

The results are as expected, massively increased support for the usual suspects, collapses in the smaller parties... keep in mind the quota for a seat is 16.7%

That would be the quota if there were five seats up for election, but since there are six seats the quota is in fact 14.3% -- under the numbers you posted 3 LNP, 2 ALP, 1 Green would almost be assured.

[MaxQue]

We've had the first attempt at a poll for the WA Senate vote...

The results are as expected, massively increased support for the usual suspects, collapses in the smaller parties... keep in mind the quota for a seat is 16.7%

That would be the quota if there were five seats up for election, but since there are six seats the quota is in fact 16.7% -- under the numbers you posted 3 LNP, 2 ALP, 1 Green would almost be assured.

Surely you meant than the quota is 1/7 (6 seats), so 14.3%?

[Talleyrand]

Is there any chance the ALP will bump Joe Bullock down to its 2nd or 3rd slot?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We've had the first attempt at a poll for the WA Senate vote...

The results are as expected, massively increased support for the usual suspects, collapses in the smaller parties... keep in mind the quota for a seat is 16.7%

That would be the quota if there were five seats up for election, but since there are six seats the quota is in fact 16.7% -- under the numbers you posted 3 LNP, 2 ALP, 1 Green would almost be assured.

Surely you meant than the quota is 1/7 (6 seats), so 14.3%?

Ugh - yes, shouldn't teleconference and type at the same time...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is there any chance the ALP will bump Joe Bullock down to its 2nd or 3rd slot?

No... virtually none.

[Talleyrand]

Is there any chance the ALP will bump Joe Bullock down to its 2nd or 3rd slot?

No... virtually none.

This is ridiculous. Not sure why he got the top spot in the first place.

[Vosem]

We've had the first attempt at a poll for the WA Senate vote...

The results are as expected, massively increased support for the usual suspects, collapses in the smaller parties... keep in mind the quota for a seat is 16.7%

That would be the quota if there were five seats up for election, but since there are six seats the quota is in fact 16.7% -- under the numbers you posted 3 LNP, 2 ALP, 1 Green would almost be assured.

Surely you meant than the quota is 1/7 (6 seats), so 14.3%?

Yes -- meant to correct him and just repeated his mistake

[Hifly]

Is there any chance the ALP will bump Joe Bullock down to its 2nd or 3rd slot?

No... virtually none.

This is ridiculous. Not sure why he got the top spot in the first place.

Because he is the right faction candidate, SDA union official and Louise Pratt is not socially conservative enough to get the appeal of the SDA and deserve to hold the top spot on the Labor ticket. The most hilarious thing would be if the unions decide to demote Louise Pratt to third place as they potentially could do by splitting the preselection vote if there is fresh one.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

WA is going back to the polls on the 5th of April for the half-Senate election.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Senate election tickets are out and the ALP/Green tickets will preference each other before PUP and the Libs.

It leans me to suggest a 3 Lib 2 ALP 1 GRN outcome is more and more likely.

[Kevinstat]

The title of this thread makes it seem like a general election is expected in 2016, only three years after the last election.  Didn't the Liberal-National coalition win enough seats that they should be able to last a full term (up to five years, but often with an election called after four if the government's polling okay)?  Or is the Senate posing an issue?

[MaxQue]

The title of this thread makes it seem like a general election is expected in 2016, only three years after the last election.  Didn't the Liberal-National coalition win enough seats that they should be able to last a full term (up to five years, but often with an election called after four if the government's polling okay)?  Or is the Senate posing an issue?

In Australia, full terms are 3 years.

[Smid]

Indeed, as MaxQue said, although state Parliaments are different (federal and each state are governed by their own constitutions, which set out the maximum length of time). Federally, it's a maximum term limit of three years and based on the date from which the new Parliament meets for the first time. Queensland also has three-year terms. I believe all other states and territories are four-year terms, and I think all of them are fixed four-year terms, in which the Constitution sets out precisely when the election is to be called (along the lines of, using Victoria as an example, "the last Saturday of November"). In the case of fixed term states, elections can occur earlier, but it would not be in the Government's interest to trigger an early election, because it basically revolves around a Government losing the confidence of the House... which will either look disasterous, or at the very least, look like the Government manipulating the system to take advantage of polling data in a way that would be seen very cynically by voters.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My very tentative prediction for the Senate election ...

I'm tentative largely because it's an Australian Senate election, therefore the possible combination of result is nuts.

LNP - Primary vote 41% - eventual quotas: 3
ALP - Primary vote 31% - eventual quotas: 2
GRN - Primary vote 12% - eventual quotas: 1
PUP - Primary vote 7%
Others - Primary votes 9%

[morgieb]

3/2/1 most likely. PUP might have had a chance, but it feels like they're imploding and the Liberals are campaigning fairly well.

[Smid]

I won't speculate on percentages, but I agree with the 3/2/1 Liberal/Labor/Greens that the others have mentioned.

As for PUP, my gut tells me that they were never more than a protest party. Even most of their voters didn't want them to win, and now that they've won seats, voters no longer see them as simply a protest party. That's why Palmer's vote went up (according to publicly released polls) as he became more outlandish - the more outlandish he became, the less likely he was to be elected (in voters' minds) and the more likely they were to vote for him. They won seats, and their vote seems to have collapsed since then, in a manner more reminiscent of a deck chair under the party leader's great girth.

That final sentence sounds vaguely familiar - possibly about him, or possibly about someone else, but a search of "deck chair" on this site, and more generally "collapsing deck chair" on Google didn't turn up anything relevant. I feel as if I read that imagery (possibly about Palmer) in an op-ed somewhere. If anyone can find the original reference, I'd be grateful (mainly in order to edit this post).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/labor-wa-senate-candidate-joe-bullock-says-party-cant-be-trusted?CMP=twt_gu

The ALP was apparently worried that people had forgotten about its useless infighting amongst its moronic factions, so Bullock decided to publicly cuss out his running mate, declare that he didn't actually vote Labour that much and that Tony Abbott was an alright PM. Does the ALP have the world's worst political discipline ever?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

He's a bone-headed moron

[Talleyrand]

Pratt was 100% correct when she asked for the the party to reconsider its top three candidates on the ballot.

[Hifly]

If the Labor Party isn't ideologically pure enough for you social liberals then you should join the Green Party.

EDIT: Watch it. -El Caudillo

EDIT 2: This is a non-partisan forum so your warning is not acceptable.

EDIT 3: Generally we like to keep the tone here comparatively civil. The problem here is not your views, but the manner of their expression. Keep it civil and this won't happen again. - Boardbashi

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If the Labor Party isn't ideologically pure enough for you social libtards then you should join the Green Party.

It's less about "idealogical purity", it's about extremely basic party politics. Polticians shouldn't publically bicker with their own running mates. The public have little interest in your petty internal politics and the press are very interested in turning you into a soap opera. This was a gross miscalculation by Bullock, who will probably be forced into a grovelling retraction of his views.

I'd say the same thing if Pratt had publicly said "Joe Bullock is a tiny willied troglodyte. You should probs vote Green".

(Also speculating upon an opponent's sexuality is bad enough, let alone one of your allies)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Ha! So it's us with the problem?

[Hifly]

If the Labor Party isn't ideologically pure enough for you social libtards then you should join the Green Party.

It's less about "idealogical purity", it's about extremely basic party politics. Polticians shouldn't publically bicker with their own running mates. The public have little interest in your petty internal politics and the press are very interested in turning you into a soap opera. This was a gross miscalculation by Bullock, who will probably be forced into a grovelling retraction of his views.

I'd say the same thing if Pratt had publicly said "Joe Bullock is a tiny willied troglodyte. You should probs vote Green".

(Also speculating upon an opponent's sexuality is bad enough, let alone one of your allies)

Pratt is not Bullock's "ally", or else Bullock wouldn't have dumped her from the number one spot on the ticket. Bullock has the high ground here: he is an official in Australia's largest union and thus wields power within the party to an extent that Pratt and her liberal allies could never even dream of commanding. It is within his full rights to say what he said and the ALP would never reprimand him or else their funding would go down the drain. His union is the largest power block within the ALP.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If the Labor Party isn't ideologically pure enough for you social libtards then you should join the Green Party.

It's less about "idealogical purity", it's about extremely basic party politics. Polticians shouldn't publically bicker with their own running mates. The public have little interest in your petty internal politics and the press are very interested in turning you into a soap opera. This was a gross miscalculation by Bullock, who will probably be forced into a grovelling retraction of his views.

I'd say the same thing if Pratt had publicly said "Joe Bullock is a tiny willied troglodyte. You should probs vote Green".

(Also speculating upon an opponent's sexuality is bad enough, let alone one of your allies)

Pratt is not Bullock's "ally", or else Bullock wouldn't have dumped her from the number one spot on the ticket. Bullock has the high ground here: he is an official in Australia's largest union and thus wields power within the party to an extent that Pratt and her liberal allies could never even dream of commanding. It is within his full rights to say what he said and the ALP would never reprimand him or else their funding would go down the drain. His union is the largest power block within the ALP.

Sorry I don't want to get into an argument, but I'm super confused by your position

Even if you don't like someone in your party, it's not good politics to publicly bash them, especially in parliamentary democracies. You are jeopardising your own party by turning off voters. Surely you can agree that it is utterly awful PR for the lead Senate candidate to be ambivalent towards his party, supportive of the opposing party leader and outright dismissive of his own running mate. Even people with "socially conservative" views are turned off by that sort of nonsense. You may see a socially conservative hero valiantly turning back gay marriage, but Murdoch will simply report that the "faceless men" are strangling Labor from within.

And as far as being the "largest power block" in the ALP; well power doesn't last forever. If this sort of thing carries on the Labor leadership will undermine the influence of the "faceless men" by introducing internal reform. One member one vote might become the rule and unions will lose their ability to preselect candidates for safe seats. Of course, his union does have leverage because of funding, but don't think that the ALP won't cut loose if Bullock becomes electoral deadweight.

It's sad talking about the ALP because I think they have many talented people in both Right and Left factions. But their internal democracy is sadly dire; and held back by useless factionalism and petty personal disputes.

[Hifly]

This sort of factional infighting has always been the case, regardless of the optics, and such kind of internal reform won't be instituted without support of the unions.
Right faction officials including Joe Bullock control preselections and so it's within their realm to choose these sorts of candidates. If only Louise Pratt didn't support gay marriage she may have kept the number one spot.