Rudd’s choice: move on pokies or risk losing Tanner
|
Andrew Bolt might be a corrosive influence on society but occasionally he produces an interesting polemic such as Wednesday’s effort claiming that Kevin Rudd is destroying the political careers of numerous ministers. The ultimate test of this theory would be Labor cabinet ministers losing their seats in an Abbott victory at the coming election. While ministers Wong, Conroy, Faulkner, Ludwig, Carr and Evans are safely ensconced in the Senate, here are the margins lower house cabinet members will be defending:
Most NSW and Queensland margins have changed courtesy of redistributions and these have made Grayndler and Sydney potentially close contests if the Greens can finish ahead of the Liberals. That’s the scenario that makes Lindsay Tanner the minister most seriously at risk, especially given the boost for the Greens expected from Labor’s ETS backflip. Charles Richardson, anti-pokies campaigner Paul Bendat and I attended the campaign launch of Tanner’s Green challenger Adam Bandt in February. Richardson wrote this Crikey analysis and the following piece appeared in Crikey on March 11 suggesting the anti-pokies movement may target Tanner. The Prime Minister came to the Melbourne Press Club for the first time last Thursday and enjoyed lunch in the River Room at James Packer’s Crown Casino. Given the PM was at the world’s largest casino complex, seated with Crown CEO David Courtney, when it came to questions, I was third up with the following:
The long answer (see video) of full exchange) included this waffle suggesting little will happen:
Some cynics fear the Rudd government will bury a “do nothing” response to the PC recommendations in Budget week. As finance minister, Tanner has the influence to compensate state governments for meaningful attempts to deal with their addiction to pokies tax revenue. The most important would be implementing the PC’s $1 maximum bet proposal. The Tasmanian Liberals under Will Hodgman broke new ground when they took that policy to the recent election and the Tasmanian Greens have now proposed legislation that will probably make it a reality, as Nick Xenophon explained on Lateline last Thursday. The Rudd government should roll that one out nationally and save billions of dollars for the tens of thousands of low-income gambling addicts who escape life’s troubles and get into the zone with the world’s most lethal poker machines. If not, stand by for a strong campaign backing an independent anti-pokies candidate in Tanner’s seat of Melbourne, where pokies damage to live music is another very hot issue. Brit Caroline Lucas became the first Green in the world to win a single member electorate in a general election last Thursday, so Adam Bandt is now aiming to be the second. |
|
|
|
12 Comments
And wouldn’t you love to see the Greens dealing with an Abbott government on education, employment, health and “the environs”?
If one Labor voter in ten decided not to vote Labor, Prime Minister Rudd would get a very strong message that bashing asylum seekers might go down well in western Sydney but canl cost him a Senior Minister in Melbourne.
The brakes have to be applied to Rudd. Visa Suspensions, locking up kids all over again, refusing refugee visas to hundreds of persecuted Hazaras to frighten them off, too frequent loss of life at sea under the eyes of a most extensive and elaborate naval, air and satellite surveillance are just some of the ways that refugee bashing is being implemented.
Mayne forgot about Adele Carles, who won the single-member electorate of Fremantle in the WA Legislative Assembly.
It is wishful thinking to believe that pokies or even pokies-are-killing-live-music are significant issues. I’d like to see more attention paid to the harm they cause but it is farfetched to believe they could cause Tanner’s downfall.
The average punter is likely to fall for the ‘benign entertainment’ line and will view an attack on pokies as wowserism and an attack on the viability of his/her local club.
Dont underestimate Melbourne Voters- most of them actually THINK unlike voters in many other parts of the country.
Melbourne voters also actually FEEL. This unusual sensory capability allows them to demonstrate EMPATHY an unusual emotion in many parts of the country.
Pamela, thanks for that classic bit of Melbo-chauvinism. You gave the rest of Australia a good laugh.
Pamela, any voter who “… decided not to vote Labor” would have their ballot paper declared invalid. In a Federal election you must fill in every square on the ballot paper. It is not optional.
What you mean of course is that many voters are faced with the decision about who to vote for last on the ballot paper. Many will vote for a Green or their favourite local independent in the No.1 spot but then have to decide what to do with each of the Labor and Coalition candidates who are still most surely there on the form. If you want your vote to count you must vote for each of them. But in what order?
When the chips are down can a Labor voter “put Labor last” and invite an Abbott government? I doubt it.
A vote against Labor in Melbourne is one of the few places where you are NOT putting Abbott up.
In Melbourne the tussle is between Green and Labor- Libs are not in the race and yes Hugh you are right about invalid ballot paper.
David there is not much to laugh about today so if Melbo-chauvanism does it for em- grrreat.
Tanner would have to be one of the most intelligent people in the govt — if he was lost, it would be tragic for the country. Put him up against any member of the opposition and he would wipe the floor with them.
Klewso - I can see that as the result of the next Federal election. Abbott gets in in the lower house, the Greens (results boosted by Labor voters, like myself, for whom dropping the ETS was the last straw) hold the balance of power in the Senate.
Cue fireworks!!! The ultimate irony would be if the Greens joined with Labor to block supply
Malcolm — do you honestly think the Coalition will do anything about CC? Do you honestly think the Greens will have enough clout to have any effect?
Get real. The coalition seems bound and determined to take us back to the good old days. I can see it now — the return of:
White Australia — no headgear of any kind allowed (unless of course you are a shhhh, its a secret, kkk member)
No women in the workforce (they won’t have time — they’ll be barefoot, pregnant collectinh massive amounts in maternity leave so they can become well-paid baby factories, and of course, ironing their hubby’s shirts);
No computers in schools — hey what’s wrong with inkwells and paper? We did it, didn”t we?
No broadband — what’s wrong with carrier pigeons? That’ll get business to be so competitive!
Dirt roads — why the heck should we spend money on infrastructure?
No GPs — hospitals can do everything — what, no beds — ahh let em sleep in the halls!
Climate change? what is that?
Global financial crisis — - surely you jest — that was just some Labor party socialist plot. Or was the Climate change? Oh well, they’re probably responsible for both!
Caroline Lucas isn’t the first Green to win a single-seat constituency at a general election. Jeanette Fitzsimmons won the seat of Coromandel in New Zealand in 1999. Hans-Christian Ströbele has won the Berlin seat of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg at the last three German federal elections.
The French National Assembly is also elected by single-seat constituencies using a two-round runoff system. The Greens have won 7, 3 and 4 seats at the 1997, 2002 and 2007 elections respectively. There may have been other single-seat victories at a national general election, but the 1997 French election appears to be the first.
There have also been elections wins on a state level in the US states of California and Maine.