The Xavier Post blogs

All Is Not Lost In Queensland: 10 Seats The ALP Can Win Back In 2013 [Updated]

Alex Hamilton — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:21:17 +0000

I’m no psephologist, but....

The last few months has witnessed a notable tightening in published opinion polls. At my last Branch meeting, a branch member asked Senator Thistlethwaite which seats the ALP could conceivably win, given that Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are widely expected to lose their seats. (For what it's worth, I think both independents could surprise).

A few days later, PM Gillard hosted Community Cabinet in Yvette D'Ath's marginal Queensland seat of Petrie. With almost each question asked, one thing was obvious – namely, more than just a general distaste of Campbell Newman and some of his decisions over the course of the last few months.

As a result, I decided to turn my mind to ten electorates in Queensland that are worthy of some closer attention. With a tightening in opinion polls, I present below ten seats that the government could perhaps have its eye on.

Note: we should also consider that there was a significant swing against the ALP at the 2010 election; which we might call the Rudd factor: Queenslanders were unhappy about their local boy being done over, and they punished the ALP for it. Throw into the equation that then Premier Bligh wasn’t too popular at the time either, and it translated to many Labor voters voting Liberal for the first time; a punishing protest vote.

Now, providing Rudd tows the party line between now and the election, that he campaigns well and importantly as a team player, throw in too the general distaste of Newman in some parts of Queensland, and one could expect many of those votes to come back towards the ALP.

As a result, here’s a list of ten seats that the ALP may very well now have its eye on, and which a year ago, we would’ve been only dreaming about.

1. Bonner: Held by Ross Vasta (LNP), margin 4.53%

This was a seat the ALP lost at the 2010 election, when a 12.73% shift in primary vote away from it cost it dearly. It borders the ALP held seats of Griffith (Rudd) and Lilley (Swan) to the west, and the LNP held seat of Bowman (Andrew Laming) to the east. Vasta held the seat from its creation in 2004 for one term, lost it to the ALP’s Kerry Rea in 2007, then nabbed it back in 2010. [Reach]

2. Bowman: Held by Andrew Laming (LNP)

Held by Andrew Laming, who won in 2007 by literally a handful of votes (the AEC website in fact lists the 2PP at 50/50), but a 10% swing to him in 2010 has made it notionally ‘safe’. Hard to see the ALP winning this, but probably closer than the 10% would suggest. [Tough]

3. Brisbane: Held by Teresa Gambaro (LNP), margin 1.13%

Gambaro beat long time member Arch Bevis, who had held the seat for 20 years, with a 5.7% swing to her. Expect this to slide the other way a touch. One the ALP will definitely have its eye on and should be campaigning strongly in. ALP candidate is Fiona McNamara, who has previously been the candidate for Dickson. [Winnable]

4. Dawson: Held by George Christensen (LNP), margin 2.43%

Dawson is on the Nth Queensland coast, taking in Ayr, Mackay and some south-eastern suburbs of Townsville. Christensen scored this seat on the back of a 5% swing to him (2PP). But for 2007-2010, the last time it was held by the ALP was by Rex Patterson (1966-75). Townsville has been hit hard by Newman's cuts to services, including 45 nurses at Townsville hospital. [Winnable]

5. Dickson: Held by Peter Dutton (LNP) margin 5.1%

The seat in the north western suburbs of Brisbane was notionally Labor at the 2010 election, but Dutton - who is in my opinion one of the most uninspiring shadow ministers there ever was - managed to score a 6% swing to him. This is of course the seat that Cheryl Kernot once held. Cuts to services by Premier Newman will sting in these outer-suburban electorates. [Reach]

6. Fisher: Held by Peter Slipper (Ind), margin 4.13%

Fair to say that Slipper will probably not recontest in 2013, and if he did, he’d probably lose. The LNP candidate however, ex-Howard minister Mal Brough, hardly comes to the contest with clean hands. The ALP candidate is Bill Gissane, a consultant in workplace safety who settled on the Sunshiine Coast two years ago. A recent online poll in the Sunshine Coast Daily (albeit not the most reliable of polls) had Gissane/Brough on 78/21% respectively. [Interesting]

7. Flynn: Held by Ken O’Dowd (LNP), margin 3.58%

The ALP picked this seat up in 2007, holding it by 2.24%. The Rudd-slide pushed it back to the LNP in 2010, with a 5.82% swing to it. Based around the port city of Gladstone, the city of Gladstone traditionally votes strongly for the ALP, while the outer rural surrounds of the electorate tend to be more conservative. [Reach]

8. Forde: Held by Bert Van Manen (LNP) margin 1.63%

This seat was first created in 2007, and was held by the ALP first, before, like Flynn, it went to the LNP in 2010 with a 5% swing to it. [Winnable]

9. Herbert: Held by Ewen Jones (LNP), margin 2.17%

Was a marginal seat going into the 2010 poll, and Jones secured it with a 2.2% swing to him. Based on AEC figures, 2000 votes need to change for this to go back to the ALP. [Potentially winnable]

10. Longman : Held by Wyatt Roy (LNP), margin 1.92%

Roy surprised everyone (including himself) and won this seat on the back of a 3.79% swing to the LNP. 1500 votes or so in it. Roy seems to have a pseudo-celebrity status attached to him being the youngest federal MP ever. Whether that translates to him being a strong local member, remains to be seen. [Winnable]

Article written by Elliot Giakalis, a long-time ALP member, former political staffer, and current senior communications advisor to a Federal Government Department.

[Article updated: Bill Gissane settled in Sunshine Coast, not Gold Coast. And is a consultant in workplace safety]

Tags:

Australian Politics

Politics

ALP

Australian Labor Party

Queensland

Mitt Romney: The GOP Symbol Of Having Done Nothing Wrong

Alex Hamilton — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:16:39 +0000

Barack Obama won the election. No, really, Obama won it. But that's not to say that the GOP didn't make mistakes that helped. And one of the biggies is covered in 'Crisis Management 101': Admit fault.

I am so sick of using the phrase 'The Great Recession', but that 'historically significant event that happened a few years ago, and whose effects are still being felt' is a bit of a mouthful.

Anyway, the GR was a test case in why the deregulating free marketeers shouldn't be allowed to swim in the adult pool.

As it was in the Great Depression.

Deregulating banking for example doesn't lead to good outcomes.

There has been a resurgence of good sense across the world about regulating entities that can bring down the global economy. And more over, a general mood that the so called '1%' aren't the smartest guys in the room, just the greediest.

Woo Hoo? Not so fast.

Oddly enough the GOP doesn't like the cut of this particular jib.

Enter Mitt Romney.

The Primary process in the USA is exhaustive and complex. But eventually a candidate is chosen. And who did the GOP pick?

Mitt. Mitt of the...

"Corporations are people, my friend ... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings, my friend."

And then there's the 47%.

Mitt Romney was not just a candidate, he was a symbol to Americans and the rest of the world that the GOP thought it had done nothing wrong.

That the policies it had enacted over the Bush years (with a little help from Clinton), were good for the economy, good for America.

And yet, the country had accepted that those things needed to change.

Or as Bill Clinton said "we simply can't afford to double down on trickle down."

Not according to Mitt or the GOP.

Mitt Romney was a symbol that all the GOP needed were the keys to the kingdom, again, and all would be well in the world.

Obama out organised and out campaigned, and the demographics have changed, but the GOP gave him a pretty good assist in Mitt - Symbol of all that is holy to the 1%.

Article first published as Mitt Romney: The GOP Symbol Of Having Done Nothing Wrong on Technorati.

Tags:

Australia Needs To Get Over Surplus Envy

Alex Hamilton — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 06:39:12 +0000

Surplus envy has gripped this nation, but what does a surplus really mean, should we want one, and at what cost?

Countries are not corporations. We have citizens not shareholders or customers. We have a social contract not a sales contract.

It is lazy politics and economics to treat the nation's finances like that of a major corporation, and fixate on a surplus.

What is a 'surplus' in the business sense? Profit. And this is where ideology kicks in, should a government aim to 'profit' from its existence? I say no.

Businesses can pay dividends, pay off debt or invest. And it is the last one that is the most relevant to governments.

What is the role of government in a country? I think that the role of government is to invest in a nation. Education, infrastructure, health and so on. Not to 'profit' from the wealth created by citizens.

Some investments cost more money than you have available. Shouldn't a government borrow money for things that will create wealth, like roads or education.

The argument that gets trotted out against this is the 'household' argument. Households need to balance the books, we can't be in debt. Debt is bad. If your household is spending more than it earns you are bad. And governments should behave the same way.

What is funny about this argument is I agree partially. Governments are more like households than corporations. Households have families, have a heart. But they also have mortgages.

Whoa, hang on, a mortgage. What is that exactly, that sounds like debt. And debt is bad. Except if it is a mortgage.

Households borrow money to invest in an asset that they pay off over a long period of time that reaps rewards both financially and in so many other ways.

So if a government were to invest in building a fiber optic infrastructure across the nation but do it on borrowed money, isn't that exactly like a household?

And what about university places or GPs or heavy rail lines, the list goes on.

And so the profit may well be there sometimes, but often times you are technically in debt. But you are still rich.

Tags:

The Internet Needs Less 'Big Brother' And More 'Concerned Mum'

Alex Hamilton — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 12:06:25 +0000

It is long overdue for governments to regulate the Internet. Don't freak out, I am talking about protecting citizens, not stalking them. Let's talk about password security.

I am no expert on this topic, but a great primer on the topic can be found here.

When we talk 'internet regulation' these days, it is code for either Big Brother or corporations trying restrict their content on different platforms (aka piracy).

Big Brother type regulation is a civil liberties issue as much as it is a law enforcement/counter terrorism issue, and while fertile ground, not the kind of commercial regulation that I want to talk about.

Piracy too has led to many attempts at regulation, but again, not the kind I am talking about.

What I am talking about is how secure your password is with online companies. Try to get past how nerdy this topic is, and focus on how much info you now put on the Internet.

I have written before about how our collective consciousness is being uploaded to the Internet; but so is your mother's maiden name. And your social security number.

It's ok, because those lovely smart people at the Internet company of your choice are using the most advanced technology to prevent your information from leaking, right? Oh wait, no they are not. Not even close.

And I am not talking some small business that you wouldn't expect to spend money on security. No, this is Sony, LinkedIn, Apple, Gawker, the list goes on and on.

Some of these companies are not even taking the most basic of precautions, let alone 'industry standard'.

Which brings me to regulation...

A legitimate function of government is to protect citizens by regulating things for their safety. Testing drinking water, medicines, seat belts and so on, not argument here.

It is time that governments regulated password security.

If a company has over a certain number of users on their database then a minimum standard of security must be applied to the storage and retrieval (online as well as offline) of the password used to access the account. Nothing too controversial there.

I am sure the same hackles will be raised at this suggestion as all other calls for regulation, but requiring car manufacturers put seat belts in cars is much the same.

A multi-billion dollar company has the resources to do some salting of the hash, set up two-factor and generally get pretty acquainted with ways to stop brute force.

The Internet has been described as the Wild West, untamed and unregulated. Lawless. Often the people making such statements are politicians as they try to pass things like this.

But requiring common standards for password security would be a good, mature step in protecting people like this guy from having to rebuild his life.

Article first published as The Internet Needs Less Big Brother And More Concerned Mom on Technorati.

Tags:

We Don't Mention The War (On Carbon) In Government Advertising

Alex Hamilton — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:27:52 +0000

The Gillard Government is afraid of one of it's defining policies, the Carbon Price. All mention of it has been scrubbed from the advertising campaign selling the government benefits needed to compensate people for price rises, the Household Assistance Package.

The Household Assistance Package compensates people for the price rises caused by the introduction of the Carbon Price, not that you would know it watching the television ads.

People are getting "...help with their everyday expenses..." says the advertising campaign, oh that's nice, the government is giving us money. Money for nothing if you go by the ad. No apparent reason, just because. Well not actually.

Politically aware people know why the tax-free-threshold has been raised. And why pensioners are getting a raise, and why families are getting more help and a whole host of other benefits. But the general populace? I think not.

There was a poll done a few years back in the USA; people were asked if they liked government handouts, to which the majority said no. The same poll asked people if they liked Social Security to which the majority said yes. Cognitive dissonance on a grand scale or a disengaged population spoon fed rubbish about the big bad government?

Progressives are as guilty of this as anyone. Progressives are no longer as 'progressive' as they once used to be. Rather than proudly espousing the values and virtues of representative democracy and the social contract, progressives have been playing on the rhetorical field of their conservative opponents for a while now.

And so we have seen so called progressive governments around the world trying 'austerity' whilst not wanting to cut social services. Or worse, cutting social services.

This is all well and good, but what has it got to do with the price of Carbon in Australia?

When the government of the day decouples the reason for benefits rising we get into the same territory as the example above. People will like their extra cash, but not the reason it is necessary.

My favourite villain, John W Howard was the master of exploiting the public purse to sell his abhorrent policies, and I do not want a return to that.

However, simply stating in a government advertising campaign about significant tax changes, the reason for them is Carbon, is not proselytising. It is factual information that is important for keeping the people of Australia well informed about what their government is doing. And why they are doing it.

"The Australian Government put a price on Carbon, to compensate you for minor price rises, the Household Assistance Package will come into affect from July 1". I am not a copy writer, but how hard was that?

Hiding the Carbon Price and favouring the way people will be "assisted" is not the kind of politics this progressive government should engaging in. Stand up for what you did, and why.

Tags:

Household Assistance Package