I'll review the results of the State Election once the fallout from the LC and Balmain are known, probably by this weekend. In other news:
Gavin Atkins on The Drum and Adam Brereton on New Matilda document last week's anti-carbon-tax rally. Jeremy Bass writing in the National Times is concerned that it represents the rise of 'astroturfing' in Australia.
Also on climate change the ever predictable Chris Berg responds on The Drum to Jonathon Holmes' piece on Media Watch suggesting that the Commercial Broadcaster's Code of Practice requires the talkback radio shock jocks to have a more balanced coverage. Elsewhere the National Times examines the question: Should we have an absolute freedom of speech?
Meanwhile Massimo Pigliucci examines on Rationally Speaking whether the bombing of Libya amounts to a 'just war'.
Tuesday 29 March 2011
Tuesday 22 March 2011
NSW State Election Contests: The Swing
This is the final in my series of NSW State Election Contests posts, previewing the interesting contests for election watchers beyond the obvious conclusion of the poll. I'll be back after March 26 to make more commentary. In this post I'll examine the swing.
What is the swing?
For those Lindy Hoppers out there I'm not talking about this, I'm talking about what is mooted to be one of the largest swings in Australian electoral history. The swing is a crude measure of the change in the two-party preferred vote since the last election. It is supposed to measure the change in preference of the electorate for one side of politics over the other. However it does have a number of flaws. It's not an entirely useful concept as in a multiseat parliament where each seat elects one candidate, the swing may not necessarily predict the outcome of the election particularly for close elections. It also doesn't reveal complexities in voter trends, such as the recent rise of the Greens, or shed much light on local contests with independents.
However as a single number to tell you how the election fares up for the major parties it's the best figure out there.
A brief comparison of past swings
Antony Green has an excellent post on his blog about past swings in Australian electoral history. Here's a few records since 1950 (prior to 1950 it is difficult to determine a 2 party preferred vote):
Polling
There are four main polling companies that gather data for the NSW Election (although there are others). Two of these are commissioned by the two major newspaper organisations in Australia (Nielsen by Fairfax, published in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, and Newspoll by Newscorp published in The Australian), another poll is done by Essential Media a social marketing and communications firm and the fourth by Galaxy Research another PR and communications research firm.
Here are the last four polls done by each firm. They all differ in their timing and methodology and the additional questions asked. I've listed the primary votes of Labor, the Coalition and the Greens and then the two-party preferred vote (2PP) as well as the swing.
Nielsen - Published 16 February - Swing 18%
Labor 22%
LNP 53%
Green 13%
Labor 2PP 34%
LNP 2PP 66%
Galaxy Poll - Published March 4 - Swing - 16%
Labor 23%
LNP 50%
Green 14%
Labor 2PP 36%
LNP 2PP 64%
Newspoll - Published 14 March - Swing 15%
Labor 26%
LNP 50%
Green 11%
Labor 2PP 37%
LNP 2PP 63%
Essential Poll - Published 18 March - Swing 17%
Labor 24%
LNP 54%
Green 12%
Labor 2PP 35%
LNP 2PP 65%
This sort of polling generally has sampling errors of a few percent so there's no clear trend up or down in the data. What is clear is that even the lowest swing is pointing towards what will almost certain be a record in NSW and likely a record nationally too.
Applying these results broadly suggest a result along the lines of:
Coalition: 65-71 (including 16 Nationals)
Labor: 13-19
Greens: 2
Independents: 7
Though as I outlined in my previous post, some of the independents are in for a tough fight whilst some Labor seats could be had by independents. A statewide swing doesn't tell you much about these local contests.
Some might suggest that at least part of the swing is due to other factors. I'll talk about two that are sometimes discussed:
Incumbency
It is suggested that incumbent candidates receive an advantage in elections. It's difficult to determine what the average advantage is, but it's usually assumed to be between 1 and 2%. With so many Labor members retiring at this election (18 vs 7 Coalition MPs) you might assume that this could affect the magnitude of the swing. However in a 93 member house the effect would be less than a half of a percent and not influence the result. It could lead to the loss of a seat that Labor would otherwise be able to retain if the seat with a retiring member is held by a margin close to the predicted swing, though only Campbelltown would fit this description.
An increase in the Green vote
An increase in the Green vote (assuming it's coming from what would otherwise be Labor supporters) would reduce Labor's primary vote and potentially its two party preferred vote through exhaustion of preferences. However given that the Green vote appears to have collapsed almost back to it's 2007 figure of about 9% (possibly from left voters switching back to Labor in a futile attempt to boost its primary vote) it's unlikely that the small increase in the Green vote will increase the swing by much.
Conclusion
Aside from a record breaker, there's nothing terribly exciting about the swing in this election. The 'Bazslide' (you heard it here first) is going to go down in the history books. I'll know what I'll be watching on election night - the Legislative Council and the local side contests.
What is the swing?
For those Lindy Hoppers out there I'm not talking about this, I'm talking about what is mooted to be one of the largest swings in Australian electoral history. The swing is a crude measure of the change in the two-party preferred vote since the last election. It is supposed to measure the change in preference of the electorate for one side of politics over the other. However it does have a number of flaws. It's not an entirely useful concept as in a multiseat parliament where each seat elects one candidate, the swing may not necessarily predict the outcome of the election particularly for close elections. It also doesn't reveal complexities in voter trends, such as the recent rise of the Greens, or shed much light on local contests with independents.
However as a single number to tell you how the election fares up for the major parties it's the best figure out there.
A brief comparison of past swings
Antony Green has an excellent post on his blog about past swings in Australian electoral history. Here's a few records since 1950 (prior to 1950 it is difficult to determine a 2 party preferred vote):
- Last NSW Election - 3.7% against Labor
- Record at a State Election - 14.6% against Labor in Victoria in 1955
- Record at NSW Election - 9.1% to Labor in the 1978 Wranslide
- Record at NSW Election for change of Government - 8.3% against Labor in 1988
- Record at Federal Election - 7.4% against the (dismissed) Labor Government in 1975
Polling
There are four main polling companies that gather data for the NSW Election (although there are others). Two of these are commissioned by the two major newspaper organisations in Australia (Nielsen by Fairfax, published in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, and Newspoll by Newscorp published in The Australian), another poll is done by Essential Media a social marketing and communications firm and the fourth by Galaxy Research another PR and communications research firm.
Here are the last four polls done by each firm. They all differ in their timing and methodology and the additional questions asked. I've listed the primary votes of Labor, the Coalition and the Greens and then the two-party preferred vote (2PP) as well as the swing.
Nielsen - Published 16 February - Swing 18%
Labor 22%
LNP 53%
Green 13%
Labor 2PP 34%
LNP 2PP 66%
Galaxy Poll - Published March 4 - Swing - 16%
Labor 23%
LNP 50%
Green 14%
Labor 2PP 36%
LNP 2PP 64%
Newspoll - Published 14 March - Swing 15%
Labor 26%
LNP 50%
Green 11%
Labor 2PP 37%
LNP 2PP 63%
Essential Poll - Published 18 March - Swing 17%
Labor 24%
LNP 54%
Green 12%
Labor 2PP 35%
LNP 2PP 65%
This sort of polling generally has sampling errors of a few percent so there's no clear trend up or down in the data. What is clear is that even the lowest swing is pointing towards what will almost certain be a record in NSW and likely a record nationally too.
Applying these results broadly suggest a result along the lines of:
Coalition: 65-71 (including 16 Nationals)
Labor: 13-19
Greens: 2
Independents: 7
Though as I outlined in my previous post, some of the independents are in for a tough fight whilst some Labor seats could be had by independents. A statewide swing doesn't tell you much about these local contests.
Some might suggest that at least part of the swing is due to other factors. I'll talk about two that are sometimes discussed:
Incumbency
It is suggested that incumbent candidates receive an advantage in elections. It's difficult to determine what the average advantage is, but it's usually assumed to be between 1 and 2%. With so many Labor members retiring at this election (18 vs 7 Coalition MPs) you might assume that this could affect the magnitude of the swing. However in a 93 member house the effect would be less than a half of a percent and not influence the result. It could lead to the loss of a seat that Labor would otherwise be able to retain if the seat with a retiring member is held by a margin close to the predicted swing, though only Campbelltown would fit this description.
An increase in the Green vote
An increase in the Green vote (assuming it's coming from what would otherwise be Labor supporters) would reduce Labor's primary vote and potentially its two party preferred vote through exhaustion of preferences. However given that the Green vote appears to have collapsed almost back to it's 2007 figure of about 9% (possibly from left voters switching back to Labor in a futile attempt to boost its primary vote) it's unlikely that the small increase in the Green vote will increase the swing by much.
Conclusion
Aside from a record breaker, there's nothing terribly exciting about the swing in this election. The 'Bazslide' (you heard it here first) is going to go down in the history books. I'll know what I'll be watching on election night - the Legislative Council and the local side contests.
Thursday 17 March 2011
NSW State Election Contests: The Side Contests
Just because the election is all but a foregone conclusion doesn't mean there still aren't some exciting contests happening. I've put together a list of electorates to watch on the evening of the 26th. They won't change the result of this election but could set up an interesting contest in 2015 with the rise of Independents and minor parties in traditional Labor heartland. I'm going to categorise these contests more broadly by which parties they are between.
Labor vs Green
Marrickville
Deputy Premier and health minister Carmel Tebbut holds this seat with a 7.5% margin against the Greens. The Greens candidate is the Mayor of Marrickville, Fiona Byrne. A low Liberal primary vote and lack of other front-running candidates would indicate a Green win, however bad press relating to Marrickville Council's boycott of Israel as well as claims of some dirty tricks muddy the waters somewhat. One to watch closely.
Balmain
Labor education minister Verity Firth holds this seat with a margin of 3.7% against the Greens whose candidate is also a local Mayor. The Green candidate, popular Leichhardt Mayor Jamie Parker, is tipped to win with the crash in the Labor vote. The Greens face more challenges in Balmain than in Marrickville, with the Independent, former Mayor Maire Sheehan, potentially splitting the green/left vote and the Liberals polling higher in Balmain than Marrickville. There's an outside chance the Liberals could win on first preferences and steal the seat or of Labor retaining it - making Balmain a seat to watch.
Labor vs Independent
Wollongong
Labor holds this seat by one of the biggest margins in the State (25.3%) but the sitting member, Noreen Hay has been embroiled in a number of scandals including corruption at Wollongong City Council. She was cleared of any wrongdoing but damage to the Labor brand and a lack of any local government elections for the electorate to express their displeasure could narrow that margin significantly. Well known local minister Gordon Bradbery is running as an Independent and is polling quite highly, but would need preferences from Green and Liberal voters to get over the line. The how-to-vote strategies from the Greens do preference Bradbery, but the Liberals don't lower his chances. Nevertheless this could be the only seat in the State which goes from being safe Labor to marginal against an Independent at this election.
Sydney
Independent and Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney holds this seat with what appears to be a comfortable margin, 16.6%. Moore should retain the seat however voter dissatisfaction with her mayoral performance may reduce her primary vote. A split on the left and a large number of exhausted votes could give the Liberals an outside chance at victory.
Lake Macquarie
Independent and Mayor Lake Macquarie Council holds the seat with a very narrow margin, 0.1%, over the ALP. Although he needs Green and Liberal preferences to hold the seat it's highly unlikely he'll lose to Labor in this election.
Newcastle
Former local news reader and current sitting Labor member Jodi McKay battles Newcastle Mayor and Independent John Tate. McKay holds the seat by 1.2%, so Tate has a reasonable chance of winning if the 17% swing against Labor at the 2007 election continues.
Independent vs National
Dubbo
Sitting Independent Dawn Fardell holds this seat by 0.9% over the Nationals candidate of Troy Grant. With dissatisfaction at the rural independents federally and a desire by the locals to have their member in government this seat is tipped to fall to the Nationals.
Port Macquarie
Peter Besseling has held this seat since a 2008 by-election after the move by Rob Oakeshott to Federal Parliament. He holds it by a fairly slim margin, 4.5% and dissatisfaction with Oakeshott and a desire by the locals to have their member in government could mean a loss to the Nats.
Tamworth
Independent Peter Draper holds this seat by 4.8%, although holding the seat since 2003 is in similar circumstances to Peter Besseling in Port Macquarie.
Liberal vs Independent
Hornsby
Hornsby Mayor Nick Berman got passed over for pre-selection and has decided to challenge the Liberal candidate Matt Kean as an Independent. The sitting Liberal member is retiring so Berman has a decent chance at splitting the Liberal vote. However votes for the right side of politics are quite high, making it unlikely that Berman will win.
There are a number of other seats where high profile Independents or Greens could narrow margins considerably however any change in those seats (aside from Labor to Liberal) is unlikely. I'm not going to discount any bolts from the blue though.
Labor vs Green
Marrickville
Deputy Premier and health minister Carmel Tebbut holds this seat with a 7.5% margin against the Greens. The Greens candidate is the Mayor of Marrickville, Fiona Byrne. A low Liberal primary vote and lack of other front-running candidates would indicate a Green win, however bad press relating to Marrickville Council's boycott of Israel as well as claims of some dirty tricks muddy the waters somewhat. One to watch closely.
Balmain
Labor education minister Verity Firth holds this seat with a margin of 3.7% against the Greens whose candidate is also a local Mayor. The Green candidate, popular Leichhardt Mayor Jamie Parker, is tipped to win with the crash in the Labor vote. The Greens face more challenges in Balmain than in Marrickville, with the Independent, former Mayor Maire Sheehan, potentially splitting the green/left vote and the Liberals polling higher in Balmain than Marrickville. There's an outside chance the Liberals could win on first preferences and steal the seat or of Labor retaining it - making Balmain a seat to watch.
Labor vs Independent
Wollongong
Labor holds this seat by one of the biggest margins in the State (25.3%) but the sitting member, Noreen Hay has been embroiled in a number of scandals including corruption at Wollongong City Council. She was cleared of any wrongdoing but damage to the Labor brand and a lack of any local government elections for the electorate to express their displeasure could narrow that margin significantly. Well known local minister Gordon Bradbery is running as an Independent and is polling quite highly, but would need preferences from Green and Liberal voters to get over the line. The how-to-vote strategies from the Greens do preference Bradbery, but the Liberals don't lower his chances. Nevertheless this could be the only seat in the State which goes from being safe Labor to marginal against an Independent at this election.
Sydney
Independent and Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney holds this seat with what appears to be a comfortable margin, 16.6%. Moore should retain the seat however voter dissatisfaction with her mayoral performance may reduce her primary vote. A split on the left and a large number of exhausted votes could give the Liberals an outside chance at victory.
Lake Macquarie
Independent and Mayor Lake Macquarie Council holds the seat with a very narrow margin, 0.1%, over the ALP. Although he needs Green and Liberal preferences to hold the seat it's highly unlikely he'll lose to Labor in this election.
Newcastle
Former local news reader and current sitting Labor member Jodi McKay battles Newcastle Mayor and Independent John Tate. McKay holds the seat by 1.2%, so Tate has a reasonable chance of winning if the 17% swing against Labor at the 2007 election continues.
Independent vs National
Dubbo
Sitting Independent Dawn Fardell holds this seat by 0.9% over the Nationals candidate of Troy Grant. With dissatisfaction at the rural independents federally and a desire by the locals to have their member in government this seat is tipped to fall to the Nationals.
Port Macquarie
Peter Besseling has held this seat since a 2008 by-election after the move by Rob Oakeshott to Federal Parliament. He holds it by a fairly slim margin, 4.5% and dissatisfaction with Oakeshott and a desire by the locals to have their member in government could mean a loss to the Nats.
Tamworth
Independent Peter Draper holds this seat by 4.8%, although holding the seat since 2003 is in similar circumstances to Peter Besseling in Port Macquarie.
Liberal vs Independent
Hornsby
Hornsby Mayor Nick Berman got passed over for pre-selection and has decided to challenge the Liberal candidate Matt Kean as an Independent. The sitting Liberal member is retiring so Berman has a decent chance at splitting the Liberal vote. However votes for the right side of politics are quite high, making it unlikely that Berman will win.
There are a number of other seats where high profile Independents or Greens could narrow margins considerably however any change in those seats (aside from Labor to Liberal) is unlikely. I'm not going to discount any bolts from the blue though.
Wednesday 16 March 2011
NSW State Election Contests: The Legislative Council
The outcome of the upcoming NSW State Election seems to be done and dusted. You might think that for a politics-watcher and self-confessed election geek there might be nothing in it for me. But you'd be wrong. There's a number of contests that will shape the course of politics in the state, some for the next 4 years and others further down the track. Over the next 10 days I'll be previewing three important contests:
The Role of the Legislative Council
NSW has had a bicameral (two houses) parliament since 1856 with the upper house originally intended as a house of review - with all members apointed by the Governor. The LC has undergone many reforms, including several attempts to abolish it, and became directly elected in 1978.
It still has a strong review role with a series of committees which scrutinise Government Ministers and business, conducts inquiries and forces the Government to produce state papers. It also plays a strong role in amending legislation, through it rarely defeats bills.
Electing the Legislative Council
The LC has 42 members who have 8 year terms, half (21) being elected at each State election. The council is elected by proportional representation with the whole state being treated as a single electorate.
To be elected to the LC a candidate needs to achieve 4.55% of the vote or roughly 180,000 votes. Anything less than a full quota will be redistributed through preferences. Voting for the LC is similar to the Federal Senate with large ballot papers featuring a series of 'groups' above the line and each individual candidate below the line.
However this is where the similarity ends - for the Senate ballot paper a voter can determine the preferences for all candidates by numbering all the squares below the line or by voting above the line and letting the party they vote for determine the flow of preferences. For the Senate all formal votes count and will be used to determine preference flow. Voting in NSW uses optional preferential voting. The ballot paper looks similar but there are more options to vote formally.
You can vote above the line by placing a number one and then (if you wish) numbering as many other candidates in order of preference as you like.
Or you can vote below the line by numbering at least 15 candidates in order of your preference.
This system has a couple of advantages; it makes it easier to vote formally, particularly if you vote below the line; political parties don't determine preference flow to other parties if you vote above the line; and you don't have to vote for a candidate you don't like.
But there is one drawback. About 80% of people just vote 1 above the line, and don't number any others. This may be because they're lazy, or because they think its like voting in a federal election for the senate. Either way a large number of votes exhaust, which means that a relatively small group of voters determines who will pick up the scraps in a LC contest. According to the ABC's election guru Antony Green any candidate picking up 2.5% of the vote has strong chance. The Shooters won with 2.1% in 2003 or about 76,000 first preference votes. Incidentally this seat is one of the ones up for election.
So if you want to be one of those voters make sure you fill in the blanks.
The 2011 Election
Now onto the 2011 election. Of the 21 continuing MLCs there are:
Labor/Country Labor - 9
Liberal/Nationals - 8
The Greens - 2
Christian Democrats (Fred Nile Group) - 1
Shooters and Fishers - 1
It is the continuing members that make the upper house a more interesting contest. On the left side of politics you have 11 continuing members and on the right side 10. The effect of any swing is thus diminished by the existing membership of the LC. In order to secure a full majority in the upper house the LNP would need to secure about 60% of the vote - a swing of 27%, something you won't see outside of a by-election.
No, one of two things will happen in the LC. The balance of power will be held by either the Greens or the conservative minor parties and independents. This will direct the power-plays in NSW politics over the next 4 and 8 years.
Under either circumstance the LNP may be forced to work with Labor to pass legislation, when Greens or conservatives are playing hardball. Although there's plenty of bipartisan legislation, the contentious stuff will end up being decided by either a group of conservative parties and independents or the Greens. The conservatives could extract amendments (or other concessions) dragging a piece of legislation towards the right, whilst the Greens could drag it back towards the centre.
Current polling suggests that the LNP will pick up 11 seats giving it a total of 19. Labor will pick up at least 5, the Greens at least 2 with another seat swinging between them. Based on past voting patterns it is reasonable to suspect that the Shooters and Fishers will pick up 1 and Family First (the candidate a former Christian Democrat) and the Christian Democrats are fighting over a further 1 seat.
There are two maverick independents: Pauline Hanson and John Hatton, both of whom have an outside chance of picking up enough votes for a quota.
Let's deal with Ms Hanson first. The last time she had a tilt at the LC in NSW was in 2003 when she managed to pick up 1.9% of the vote on her own, with One Nation (their candidate then is now #2 on her ticket) getting 1.5%. That's a total of 3.4% of the vote that could well go to Hanson potentially delivering her a seat.
On the other hand in the last election the most similar party was Australians Against Further Immigration, who are not running in 2011. They only picked up 1.64% of the vote, with a swing of 0.74%. Even if that swing were to continue that's only about 2.4% of the vote, and probably not enough for seat. On the other hand Hanson could split the vote that is otherwise going to the CDP and Family First, muddying that contest considerably.
Now onto John Hatton the anti-corruption advocate who was one of the forces behind the establishment of the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption. He was also the local member for South Coast between 1973 and 1995. He's campaigning on an anti-corruption and anti-part3A platform. In the current political climate and with enough publicity this could resonate with enough voters to get him enough votes for a quota. Given his platform and the role of the LC its a pretty damn good fit. Unfortunately there's not much in the way of good data to judge his chances. There is some alignment with the Save our State party (aka Save our Suburbs) who picked up 0.3% of the vote at the last election, suggesting his chances aren't great.
Now here's where things get interesting. Using Antony Green's example Labor could wind up with about 5.5 quotas and The Greens 3.3. Labor has a chance of picking up another seat, but only if Greens voters preference them. If most of the Greens votes exhaust, then this seat that the Greens could have given Labor will likely be lost a party on the right (most likely the LNP).
If, like me, you believe that a 'hostile' senate is good for democracy then you should make sure you preference above the line, back through to the major party on the side of politics you think will be in opposition. In the example above, if you vote Green you should then preference Labor, to ensure that your vote gets counted in the fight over partial quotas. Otherwise your vote exhausts and you could help a candidate on the right win.
So number more than 1 - vote for as many preferences as you feel necessary.
Next time - the side contests.
- The Legislative Council
- The side contests - Greens and Independents in the Legislative Assembly
- The swing - how big and who to
The Role of the Legislative Council
NSW has had a bicameral (two houses) parliament since 1856 with the upper house originally intended as a house of review - with all members apointed by the Governor. The LC has undergone many reforms, including several attempts to abolish it, and became directly elected in 1978.
It still has a strong review role with a series of committees which scrutinise Government Ministers and business, conducts inquiries and forces the Government to produce state papers. It also plays a strong role in amending legislation, through it rarely defeats bills.
Electing the Legislative Council
The LC has 42 members who have 8 year terms, half (21) being elected at each State election. The council is elected by proportional representation with the whole state being treated as a single electorate.
To be elected to the LC a candidate needs to achieve 4.55% of the vote or roughly 180,000 votes. Anything less than a full quota will be redistributed through preferences. Voting for the LC is similar to the Federal Senate with large ballot papers featuring a series of 'groups' above the line and each individual candidate below the line.
However this is where the similarity ends - for the Senate ballot paper a voter can determine the preferences for all candidates by numbering all the squares below the line or by voting above the line and letting the party they vote for determine the flow of preferences. For the Senate all formal votes count and will be used to determine preference flow. Voting in NSW uses optional preferential voting. The ballot paper looks similar but there are more options to vote formally.
You can vote above the line by placing a number one and then (if you wish) numbering as many other candidates in order of preference as you like.
Or you can vote below the line by numbering at least 15 candidates in order of your preference.
This system has a couple of advantages; it makes it easier to vote formally, particularly if you vote below the line; political parties don't determine preference flow to other parties if you vote above the line; and you don't have to vote for a candidate you don't like.
But there is one drawback. About 80% of people just vote 1 above the line, and don't number any others. This may be because they're lazy, or because they think its like voting in a federal election for the senate. Either way a large number of votes exhaust, which means that a relatively small group of voters determines who will pick up the scraps in a LC contest. According to the ABC's election guru Antony Green any candidate picking up 2.5% of the vote has strong chance. The Shooters won with 2.1% in 2003 or about 76,000 first preference votes. Incidentally this seat is one of the ones up for election.
So if you want to be one of those voters make sure you fill in the blanks.
The 2011 Election
Now onto the 2011 election. Of the 21 continuing MLCs there are:
Labor/Country Labor - 9
Liberal/Nationals - 8
The Greens - 2
Christian Democrats (Fred Nile Group) - 1
Shooters and Fishers - 1
It is the continuing members that make the upper house a more interesting contest. On the left side of politics you have 11 continuing members and on the right side 10. The effect of any swing is thus diminished by the existing membership of the LC. In order to secure a full majority in the upper house the LNP would need to secure about 60% of the vote - a swing of 27%, something you won't see outside of a by-election.
No, one of two things will happen in the LC. The balance of power will be held by either the Greens or the conservative minor parties and independents. This will direct the power-plays in NSW politics over the next 4 and 8 years.
Under either circumstance the LNP may be forced to work with Labor to pass legislation, when Greens or conservatives are playing hardball. Although there's plenty of bipartisan legislation, the contentious stuff will end up being decided by either a group of conservative parties and independents or the Greens. The conservatives could extract amendments (or other concessions) dragging a piece of legislation towards the right, whilst the Greens could drag it back towards the centre.
Current polling suggests that the LNP will pick up 11 seats giving it a total of 19. Labor will pick up at least 5, the Greens at least 2 with another seat swinging between them. Based on past voting patterns it is reasonable to suspect that the Shooters and Fishers will pick up 1 and Family First (the candidate a former Christian Democrat) and the Christian Democrats are fighting over a further 1 seat.
There are two maverick independents: Pauline Hanson and John Hatton, both of whom have an outside chance of picking up enough votes for a quota.
Let's deal with Ms Hanson first. The last time she had a tilt at the LC in NSW was in 2003 when she managed to pick up 1.9% of the vote on her own, with One Nation (their candidate then is now #2 on her ticket) getting 1.5%. That's a total of 3.4% of the vote that could well go to Hanson potentially delivering her a seat.
On the other hand in the last election the most similar party was Australians Against Further Immigration, who are not running in 2011. They only picked up 1.64% of the vote, with a swing of 0.74%. Even if that swing were to continue that's only about 2.4% of the vote, and probably not enough for seat. On the other hand Hanson could split the vote that is otherwise going to the CDP and Family First, muddying that contest considerably.
Now onto John Hatton the anti-corruption advocate who was one of the forces behind the establishment of the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption. He was also the local member for South Coast between 1973 and 1995. He's campaigning on an anti-corruption and anti-part3A platform. In the current political climate and with enough publicity this could resonate with enough voters to get him enough votes for a quota. Given his platform and the role of the LC its a pretty damn good fit. Unfortunately there's not much in the way of good data to judge his chances. There is some alignment with the Save our State party (aka Save our Suburbs) who picked up 0.3% of the vote at the last election, suggesting his chances aren't great.
Now here's where things get interesting. Using Antony Green's example Labor could wind up with about 5.5 quotas and The Greens 3.3. Labor has a chance of picking up another seat, but only if Greens voters preference them. If most of the Greens votes exhaust, then this seat that the Greens could have given Labor will likely be lost a party on the right (most likely the LNP).
If, like me, you believe that a 'hostile' senate is good for democracy then you should make sure you preference above the line, back through to the major party on the side of politics you think will be in opposition. In the example above, if you vote Green you should then preference Labor, to ensure that your vote gets counted in the fight over partial quotas. Otherwise your vote exhausts and you could help a candidate on the right win.
So number more than 1 - vote for as many preferences as you feel necessary.
Next time - the side contests.
Wednesday 9 March 2011
Why Men Lead and Women Follow - 10 Wrong Reasons
Spuds posted a link on Yehooid to this article written by a dancer named Lloyd on his blog. It claims 10 'good' reasons why men should lead and women should follow in partnered social dance. He doesn't refer specifically Lindy Hop much but it's definitely relevant to the Lindy scene.
Enough preamble - here's why he's wrong:
1. Someone has to lead
This is no more a justification for men to lead than for women, or space monkeys, or cats.....
2. Men are taller than women
I've 5'5", which is about the average height of Australian women - does that mean I should restrict myself to following? I disagree with the 'simple fact' that taller follows are harder to lead, I've never found that in my experience. I'd say that, if anything, taller leads find it harder to lead (particularly when they're learning) as they need to match the size of their movements to the range of movement of their, sometimes much, shorter partner. This is a skill that some may associate more with following than leading.
He also says something about the leader needing to be closer to a tall follow in order to turn her with his hand above her head. A big height difference can create opportunities for cool moves, such as jumping when you lead this sort of turn. No uncomfortable contortions required.
In any case - there only needs to be one counterpoint to this argument - Shorty George. Enough said.
3. Men are stronger than women
Lloyd argues that there are many moves (particularly in 'Jitterbug') that involve the lead taking the follow's weight including aerials. You could apply this argument to performances or competitions, but how many moves like this do you actually see on the social dance floor apart from established couples (who should know better than to pull crazy aerials on the social floor anyway).
There's plenty of moves where the follow supports the leads weight. Moves that involve one of the partnership taking the 'weight' of the other are much more about timing, balance and counterbalance and making the physics work for you than they are about brute strength.
He goes on to say that followers need to trust their leaders to support them and that men are unlikely to trust women, particularly if they are a stranger. Lloyd should consider that the reverse of this might be as valid. It's a damn good argument for not pulling crazy stuff on strangers. More importantly trust in a dance partnership needs to be mutual for these sort of moves to work and be safe and fun.
4. It avoids arguments
Yes, I know Lindy Hoppers aren't renowned for this, but the only thing that avoids arguments is communication. It only takes a couple of words to establish who's leading and following and if this exchange were a convention it would be even easier. In fact you can ask it in the same question as asking the person to dance. For example the conversation:
"Would you like to dance balboa with me?"
"Sorry, I don't dance bal - would you like to lindy instead?"
"Sure - let's dance"
becomes:
"Would you like to dance as a lead with me?"
"Sorry, I don't lead - would you like to lead instead?"
"Sure - let's dance"
5. Each sex can specialise
The argument presented is that a new dancer should pick one part and stick with it. Whilst Lloyd uses this to support the established gender roles it's not really an argument for it per se. Nevertheless it's still wrong.
Think of all the best dancers you know. You'd have trouble naming any who can't both lead and follow. Knowing the other part makes you a better dancer.
It may be advisable for a beginner to pick what role they're going to start out with and stick with that whilst they're learning. Once they decide to pick up the other part they will be able to do so quicker as they already have fundamentals such as pulse, balance, frame, connection etc. It will never take twice as long to learn both parts and ultimately learning the other part improves your dancing.
Having said that I think there is a case for teaching both parts from the get go and I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has ever learnt or taught both parts more or less at the same time. The first ever blues class I did had a huge excess of guys, so some of us followed as well as led. Whilst it probably helps that I was already a lindy hopper and blues isn't really a left or right handed dance I managed both parts fairly easily. I actually ended up having a couple of insights during that class that helped me pick up the basics well.
6. Sex is part of the fun
Here I will refer to number 10: You need to get out more and post some videos
Dawn Hampton dancing with Steven Mitchell, Virginie Jensen, and Frida Segerdahl
Thomas Blacharz and Max Pitruzzella
Max again, this time with Alain Wong
7. Men prefer it
8. Women prefer it
I'll group these together as it's basically the same argument and makes the common fallacies of appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice. I'm sure there's plenty of men who like to follow and plenty of follows who like to lead all to a greater or lesser degree. And you will find plenty of people who prefer to exclusively dance in their traditional gender role. Reasons for preference probably have more to do entrenched socio-cultural norms than pop evolutionary psychology (which isn't really a science) explanations.
9. It isn't command and obey
This is about the only point that's on its own is correct. Many dancers have discussed the partnership in great detail, for example here , here and here. However it still doesn't refute the argument that in partnered social dancing generally and Lindy Hop specifically there is a strong current of sexually conservative gender norms and to a greater or lesser extent more obvious sexism.
10. You need to get out more
Basically this entire argument is an appeal to common practice, a common fallacy. Just because something is a common practice or a tradition, doesn't make it right. And the truth is that there is a lot of sexism (much of it not intended and little of it malicious) in the lindy hop community. Others have posted about this at length, for example this excellent posting by Sarah.
Whilst most of us do have fun within this construct of gender roles I believe that we could have more fun by breaking them down. We're also excluding many members of our society who could enrich the community we are a part of. I don't think this will really change until more men start learning to follow, but more about that another time...
Enough preamble - here's why he's wrong:
1. Someone has to lead
This is no more a justification for men to lead than for women, or space monkeys, or cats.....
2. Men are taller than women
I've 5'5", which is about the average height of Australian women - does that mean I should restrict myself to following? I disagree with the 'simple fact' that taller follows are harder to lead, I've never found that in my experience. I'd say that, if anything, taller leads find it harder to lead (particularly when they're learning) as they need to match the size of their movements to the range of movement of their, sometimes much, shorter partner. This is a skill that some may associate more with following than leading.
He also says something about the leader needing to be closer to a tall follow in order to turn her with his hand above her head. A big height difference can create opportunities for cool moves, such as jumping when you lead this sort of turn. No uncomfortable contortions required.
In any case - there only needs to be one counterpoint to this argument - Shorty George. Enough said.
3. Men are stronger than women
Lloyd argues that there are many moves (particularly in 'Jitterbug') that involve the lead taking the follow's weight including aerials. You could apply this argument to performances or competitions, but how many moves like this do you actually see on the social dance floor apart from established couples (who should know better than to pull crazy aerials on the social floor anyway).
There's plenty of moves where the follow supports the leads weight. Moves that involve one of the partnership taking the 'weight' of the other are much more about timing, balance and counterbalance and making the physics work for you than they are about brute strength.
He goes on to say that followers need to trust their leaders to support them and that men are unlikely to trust women, particularly if they are a stranger. Lloyd should consider that the reverse of this might be as valid. It's a damn good argument for not pulling crazy stuff on strangers. More importantly trust in a dance partnership needs to be mutual for these sort of moves to work and be safe and fun.
4. It avoids arguments
Yes, I know Lindy Hoppers aren't renowned for this, but the only thing that avoids arguments is communication. It only takes a couple of words to establish who's leading and following and if this exchange were a convention it would be even easier. In fact you can ask it in the same question as asking the person to dance. For example the conversation:
"Would you like to dance balboa with me?"
"Sorry, I don't dance bal - would you like to lindy instead?"
"Sure - let's dance"
becomes:
"Would you like to dance as a lead with me?"
"Sorry, I don't lead - would you like to lead instead?"
"Sure - let's dance"
5. Each sex can specialise
The argument presented is that a new dancer should pick one part and stick with it. Whilst Lloyd uses this to support the established gender roles it's not really an argument for it per se. Nevertheless it's still wrong.
Think of all the best dancers you know. You'd have trouble naming any who can't both lead and follow. Knowing the other part makes you a better dancer.
It may be advisable for a beginner to pick what role they're going to start out with and stick with that whilst they're learning. Once they decide to pick up the other part they will be able to do so quicker as they already have fundamentals such as pulse, balance, frame, connection etc. It will never take twice as long to learn both parts and ultimately learning the other part improves your dancing.
Having said that I think there is a case for teaching both parts from the get go and I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has ever learnt or taught both parts more or less at the same time. The first ever blues class I did had a huge excess of guys, so some of us followed as well as led. Whilst it probably helps that I was already a lindy hopper and blues isn't really a left or right handed dance I managed both parts fairly easily. I actually ended up having a couple of insights during that class that helped me pick up the basics well.
6. Sex is part of the fun
Here I will refer to number 10: You need to get out more and post some videos
Dawn Hampton dancing with Steven Mitchell, Virginie Jensen, and Frida Segerdahl
7. Men prefer it
8. Women prefer it
I'll group these together as it's basically the same argument and makes the common fallacies of appeal to popularity, appeal to tradition and appeal to common practice. I'm sure there's plenty of men who like to follow and plenty of follows who like to lead all to a greater or lesser degree. And you will find plenty of people who prefer to exclusively dance in their traditional gender role. Reasons for preference probably have more to do entrenched socio-cultural norms than pop evolutionary psychology (which isn't really a science) explanations.
9. It isn't command and obey
This is about the only point that's on its own is correct. Many dancers have discussed the partnership in great detail, for example here , here and here. However it still doesn't refute the argument that in partnered social dancing generally and Lindy Hop specifically there is a strong current of sexually conservative gender norms and to a greater or lesser extent more obvious sexism.
10. You need to get out more
Basically this entire argument is an appeal to common practice, a common fallacy. Just because something is a common practice or a tradition, doesn't make it right. And the truth is that there is a lot of sexism (much of it not intended and little of it malicious) in the lindy hop community. Others have posted about this at length, for example this excellent posting by Sarah.
Whilst most of us do have fun within this construct of gender roles I believe that we could have more fun by breaking them down. We're also excluding many members of our society who could enrich the community we are a part of. I don't think this will really change until more men start learning to follow, but more about that another time...
Tuesday 8 March 2011
Links of the week
Today is International Women's Day. Here's a few articles from women that consider a range of issues about the status of women (and men) in contemporary society. There are still many challenges facing women around the world - but few men seem to be writing about them. The closest I could find to an opinion piece written by a man for International Women's Day was 007 in drag and this article in The Guardian about the gender pay gap in the UK. Come on gents - we need to do better than this.
Elsewhere on the interewebz:
- Annabel Crabb argues on The Drum "that the main reason women are under-represented in the senior echelons of just about any professional field is that they hardly ever have wives".
- Also on The Drum, Julie Cowdroy notes that whilst women in the West enjoy many more freedoms than they did 100 years ago, this is not true across the rest of the world. In The Australian Ida Lichter catalogues the challenges facing Muslim feminism and argues that the west should do more to help.
- Even in the west some hard-won rights are in danger of being eroded. Amanda Marcotte on doubleX shows the absurdity of attacks by the religious right in the US on Planned Parenthood.
- Finally Daniel Craig and Dame Judi Dench feature in this advertisement specially commissioned for International Women's Day
Elsewhere on the interewebz:
- As the carbon tax debate in parliament heats up Andrew Dyer on Unleashed offers a much more reasoned critique on the Government's proposed carbon tax. The short answer: it won't work on its own.
- Rodney Smith argues in the Australian that it's about time for the NSW Liberals to start outlining policy. They've probably won this election, so now's the time to set the agenda and start thinking about winning the next one.
- Spurred on by The Pope's new book Dick Gross in the National Times takes a look at what the Bible says about who killed Jesus. Turns out it was the Romans all along.
Thursday 3 March 2011
Links of the week
 |
| Image credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute |
Election guru Antony Green explains on his blog how you could be throwing your vote away if you don't fill in as many preferences as you can at the next NSW State election.
As the Compton Cricket Club visit Australia, Brian Palmer explains on Slate.com why American's don't play cricket. The same probably also goes for Canadians, though presumably if you could invent a version of the game that was played on ice they'd go for it.
Nobel prize-winning biologist Christian de Duve argues that we have evolved traits that will lead to humanity's extinction but Tim Flannery's new book Here on Earth argues for hope.
Ross Gittins explains in the National Times how even though drugs on the PBS are relatively cheap here in Australia, Big Pharma is still ripping off the government and the taxpayer.
Another amazing photo - as the space shuttle Discovery makes its last ever flight, check out this shot of Discovery and the International Space Station. This photo was taken using a hand guided telescope - wow!
And Nick Williams explains the other side of being a Lindy Hop Rockstar - you're always on the road, never at home and you have to deal with promoters, gossip and jet-lag. Aside from not making a great deal of money its much like the real thing. Thankfully they love what they do and help make Lindy Hop the great community it is - so next time you're at a workshop, don't forget to thank your instructors.
Tuesday 1 March 2011
Swing dancing on Australian screens
I found a video today through Yehoodi of some jitterbug dancers in 1961. The poster expressed a bit of surprise to find footage of swing dancing in the 1960's. This got me thinking about the history of lindy hop in Australia - something I have an interest in but have never had the time, and still don't, to go research properly.
I thought I'd turn to the intertubz to see what I could find...
Although there's record of Lindy Hop making it's way to Australia before World War II (The Big Apple was being taught in Sydney in early 1938 and Frankie Manning and a troupe of Harlem dancers performed in Australia in 1938 and 1939) it seems that it wasn't caught on film until 1940.
I've done some searching on the National Film and Sound Archive website and come up with a list of clips that I'd be interested in checking out. Unfortunately the majority of the holdings of the NFSA are very difficult to access and impossible to reproduce without permission from the copyright holder. I'll put this on the list of longer term projects and see what I can come up with...
The British Pathé does have a few clips available. This one features a couple of young swing dancers and a bunch of kids joining in - reminds me of Groovie Movie
1943: This clip details the R&R experience of an American serviceman in Australia. It's not clear where this was shot, but it certainly shows a rather different view of the War in the Pacific.
1944: This film show footage from a Jitterbug contest in July of 1944. It's difficult to say where this was shot, contests were occurring in Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, even Papua New Guinea.
The Australian Jitterbug Championships, which saw contestants from all over the country compete, were first held in the early 40s (probably 1940 or 41) and continued until at least 1954
Here's a few more modern videos charting some of the Lindy Hop revival. There's not a lot of information out there about how the revival got going in Australia. The prevailing assumption is that it first got going through groups of Rock and Roll dancers (who danced rock and roll back in the 60s when it was very popular) where it is still danced today - it's also how I first started dancing. I need to go and do some more research and talk to some folk to learn more.
1995?: The early days of the revival in Australia
1997: Frankie Manning returns to Australia
2001: Competition Lindy Hop in Sydney
2003: The Today Show and ABC's Stateline featured the return of the Australian Jitterbug Championships:
I've also tracked down the first group email newsletter from Swing Patrol in Sydney
There's plenty of other recent footage out there on the intertubz, but if anyone else knows of anything older, particularly vintage footage or clips from the 90s please let me know. I'm going to keep updating this post; it will be linked on my Lindy History page.
I thought I'd turn to the intertubz to see what I could find...
Although there's record of Lindy Hop making it's way to Australia before World War II (The Big Apple was being taught in Sydney in early 1938 and Frankie Manning and a troupe of Harlem dancers performed in Australia in 1938 and 1939) it seems that it wasn't caught on film until 1940.
I've done some searching on the National Film and Sound Archive website and come up with a list of clips that I'd be interested in checking out. Unfortunately the majority of the holdings of the NFSA are very difficult to access and impossible to reproduce without permission from the copyright holder. I'll put this on the list of longer term projects and see what I can come up with...
The British Pathé does have a few clips available. This one features a couple of young swing dancers and a bunch of kids joining in - reminds me of Groovie Movie
1943: This clip details the R&R experience of an American serviceman in Australia. It's not clear where this was shot, but it certainly shows a rather different view of the War in the Pacific.
1944: This film show footage from a Jitterbug contest in July of 1944. It's difficult to say where this was shot, contests were occurring in Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, even Papua New Guinea.
The Australian Jitterbug Championships, which saw contestants from all over the country compete, were first held in the early 40s (probably 1940 or 41) and continued until at least 1954
Here's a few more modern videos charting some of the Lindy Hop revival. There's not a lot of information out there about how the revival got going in Australia. The prevailing assumption is that it first got going through groups of Rock and Roll dancers (who danced rock and roll back in the 60s when it was very popular) where it is still danced today - it's also how I first started dancing. I need to go and do some more research and talk to some folk to learn more.
1995?: The early days of the revival in Australia
1997: Frankie Manning returns to Australia
2001: Competition Lindy Hop in Sydney
2003: The Today Show and ABC's Stateline featured the return of the Australian Jitterbug Championships:
I've also tracked down the first group email newsletter from Swing Patrol in Sydney
There's plenty of other recent footage out there on the intertubz, but if anyone else knows of anything older, particularly vintage footage or clips from the 90s please let me know. I'm going to keep updating this post; it will be linked on my Lindy History page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)