A couple of days ago, Julia Gillard was in Townsville as part of her election campaign, accompanied by the Labor candidate for Herbert, Tony Mooney.

Oh dear, if there is one person in the world that I could NEVER vote for it is Mooney, who was Mayor of Townsville for many years, and an old arch-enemy in my early environmental and sustainability debating days, fifteen or more years ago.

So this means that I couldn’t vote for Gillard, even if she does really come good on her population and sustainable Australia rhetoric, which are the policy areas that matter the most to me.

Or perhaps I could vote for her if she really really got it right. But by crikey it would be awfully painful to put a tick in the box next to Mooney’s name!

So I was wondering: how important are local candidates in the forthcoming election to OLO people?

I would imagine that they don’t figure very highly at all in most peoples’ voting decisions. In fact, I reckon most people probably wouldn't even know their Labor or Liberal candidates until just about the last moment! Is this right?

[Erm, I just had to do a Google search to find out who my LNP candidate is!! { :> # ]

My local candidate works his guts out for the community .
Every one knows him he will be hard to toss he came close last time.
We will fight hard, have a better candidate, and have found faults but this well known bloke will be hard and the seat will go on local issues.

Ah Ludwig... the purists dilemma.

I live in a Liberal safe seat, so my vote counts for absolutely nothing, and it really gives me the #hits.

The ALP fellow is OK but I'd never give the ALP the first vote.

Preferential voting being what it is though, I have no choice but to vote his way, ultimately, as you would too, unless you are a closet Lib/Nat, which I doubt.

Don't agonise over it... just grant them your reluctant preference after making him work hard for it.

I assume that you have no credible independents, most of whom are really Tory chaffcutters anyway?

And being Qld, no doubt a swag of generally looney Christo-fascists in various guises?

Roll on multi-member electorates, Hare-Clarke, and whatever else is needed to produce something closer to 'democracy' than we endure today.

Of course, the Senate is another matter, and there the ALP deserve to suffer. Most of the Qld ALP Senators are attached by umbilical devices to Christianity first, and Qlders last, so they can sing for their supper as far as I am concerned.

My local siting member has turned a safe seat into one of the most marginal in Australia.
He did this largely though his own ego and his investigated by the CMC over his allowances. It was reported he even refused to supply a copy of his signature.That was a legalistic nil all draw ...not cleared just not provable.

He has a predilection towards not being sure which level of Government he is employed to be in. By his own admissions he claims his biggest "wins" (highly debateable that his input was meaningful) even while in govt, as issues that are state and local govt issues.
When voting he votes with the religious motivated right..i.e. He voted against RU486 quoting his medical experience and ethics....he was an ophthalmic surgeon...?

In his own jurisdiction, he could be labeled as unimpressive and missing in action.
The vote against him in the last election exceeded the national swing.
IMO he will win, because of his posturing and the lack of knowledge and lousey alternatives,the question is will it be by 100 postals like last time.

The current crop of wannabes all have similar profiles as the mangrove blue butterfly, Drab and relatively unseen. Even the Greens fail because they do nothing untill the election period.
Labor are similarly inclined. IMO they are all giving the seat(s) to the NLP.

He is a grand stander par nauseum.



My assessment is that the electorate is now down to rumps V rumps.

Local members are important.
The local member must be forced by their party to live in the electorate.
Bob Hawke became member for Wills, and tricked the locals into believing he would move from his leafy bay side suburb of Sandringham where he owned a castle,Sandringham Castle.He travelled around the electorate with local real estate agents.Once elected he never moved out of Sandringham castle.
The Minister of Transport in the Victorian Labor Government has a western suburbs electorate but chooses to live in the leafy bayside suburb of Black Rock,close to Sandringham castle.
The problem with both these members is that they are never aware of local problems except second hand by their electoral staff.
Kevin Rudd who became a Queensland member had his heart in Canberra and the UN or China.
If he concentrated on local issues I am sure he would have been a better PM and posable still the PM.

Local candidates are very important.
I live in a safe Liberal seat with
an established candidate who wins every
election. And, just
like TBC, it gives me the sh**ts that
Labor can't come up with a serious candidate
you'd give this Lib. a run for his money.
The candidates that Labor sends to our district
are total persona-non-gratas - who are not at
all capable of attracting voters, and this Liberal
candidate will probably be here until he dies.

It also riles me that considering how much the
Liberals are screaming about Labor's spending -
yet in our area alone, we get very fancy,
expensive documentation from the Liberal candidate
instructing us on all sorts of voting information -
and postal balloting, and even fridge magnets.
Whereas the Labor candidate information is not
mailed to each resident but hand delivered by
volunteers into our mail boxes. Simple single
sheet inexpensive information about the candidate,
nothing more.

Who's paying for the fancy stuff coming out of the
Liberal offices? I thought the Opposition wasn't
supposed to spend big - seeing as they're always
accusing Labor's spending. I guess it's a case of
when they do it's allright!

Simple Foxy.

Howard increased the electorate printing allowances to some astronomical figure close to the $150k pa figure, from memory, and as you can see, the ALP is not complaining about that now they govern.

So, incumbents in all parties get the ATO to fund their re-election directly via this slush fund, as well as the $$$ per vote afterwards, and the tax deductions on donations to political parties, plus the under-the-counter donations I assume they all get.

The short answer is that you pay, and so do I.

The price of freedom, and democracy.

Oh, nearly forgot.

The Senators of all parties use their postal allowances to splurge paper nonsense out to you too, and you'd probably find that your Fed ALP candidate's A4s were coming from a state member's offices or one of your ALP Senators.

Probably against the rules, but it's only tax money after all, and there's plenty of that to throw around, except when it comes to providing useful services to the mug-punters.

TBC

Our local member got into bother allegedly by using his then in govt fed allowance to bolster state party interests (candidates).

I do note that he often used the then local councillor(later state candidate) as a public head in most of his literature.

All

Given that I consider the entire electoral system as broken i.e. party policy takes precedence over local needs. What we finish up with is a local party branch office whose primary purpose is to extol the party virtues and spin regardless. Truthfully most 'local' offices are run by usually devoted party specific oriented staff.

I challenge anyone to prove to me that “a local member's office” couldn't run at least as effectively handling govt electoral business with good P/S and without the member, particularly if he/she is a back bencher. I've tested two opposing party local offices in out of govt and measured the differences. They tend to do the real issue work anyway.

Conclusion: the result depends on member's (party) benefit .

I have seen elector's confidential issues find their way to the public domain to help another party candidate. I have seen local electoral marketing 'targeted' on the basis of confidential information given to members in their job.

NB this has happened from both majors.

If one examines Member's 'reports' to the public on what they've done one wonders at how much time we pay for that they spend on 'party' business or is simply undefined.

A pox on both parties and their useless local members.

NB This doesn't necessarily always apply to their offices.

Julia Gillard herself is a local Candidate and unless you live in her Electorate you will never vote for her. Local Candidates make up the House of Parliament, so choose the local Candidate that will do the best for your Electorate and forget Party Politics.

I feel your pain, Ludwig. If it didn't mean putting a tick next to Mooney's name and stroking his enormous ego, I would have been willing to give Gillard a shot at office (not that my one vote would get her there or otherwise).

The trouble with towns like Townsville is that we all know our candidates and, if we don't know them, we know somebody who does. They are open to much more scrutiny than the somewhat anonymous candidates from larger cities. I remember Mooney as a 'small projects man': if Townsville consisted of nothing more than the Strand and Palmer Street, you could say he did wonders for the city. It's just that he left everything else to waste away while focusing on one or two showcase pieces. Before amalgamation, you could tell where Townsville ended and Thuringowa began just by looking at the condition of the roads, the streetscaping and the general liveliness of the community. While Mooney was fiddling away, his 'provincial bumpkin rival' was turning the western suburbs into a real city with real amenities. The moral of the story, then, is that Mooney has a track record of doing very little at a very high price. And the 'very little' wasn't a sustainable 'very little' - it was an apathetic one. He can't escape that track record - Townsville has a long memory.

Dear TBC,

Too simple for some, it would seem...

You've missed the point.

In my electorate it's the Liberal candidate who is
spending up big. Labor by comparison, is being
very responsible, and not misusing public funds.

Whereas, the Libs are the ones accusing Labor of
"spending," in the media. Oh, the hypocrisy!

But Thanks for your input, nevertheless!

Oh my, thank you Foxy... did I read this wrong?

"I live in a safe Liberal seat with
an established candidate who wins every
election. And, just
like TBC, it gives me the sh**ts that
Labor can't come up with a serious candidate
you'd give this Lib. a run for his money."

It is the Liberal who is spending his/her vast resources then, as I suggested, and the poor relative in the ALP who would, probably, be getting his/her A4s via a Senators office, or the local members office if that is an ALP one.

That the Libs are fibbing about the ALP extravagance should not be a shock to you, they fib all the time about everything.

Why not write to both seeking information on their printing costs.

I am sure in the interests of 'full transparency' both will readily oblige.

But how do you know this about the ALP "not misusing public funds"... is the candidate one of those rare keen-as-mustard true believers who self-funds?

My, my, that is impressive!

I just answered questions in a phone poll (for the first time ever, I am part of the random sample used to make predictions - yay!).

The interesting thing was that the questions forced me to think a bit about my voting. My answers surprised me - they certainly shed some light on how I thought I would be voting and how I SHOULD vote. It was an illuminating experience!

<< My answers surprised me >>

Hahaheheeeee. That’s funny Oto! ( :>)

I’d be interested know a bit more about this experience that has led to think that you should be voting differently to what you had previously thought!

Hrrgh!

I'll try that again....

I’d be interested TO know a bit more about this experience that has led YOU to think that you should be voting differently to what you had previously thought!

It's okay, Ludwig...I've always been a bit puzzled as to why there is no editing mechanism on this forum.

I think the concept of local candidates is stupid as far as parliament/government is concerned.

It would be logical in the Senate, but it creates an uncomfortable double-purpose (or double alliegance) when these people- accountable to only a few odd thousand of their neighbours, may get a position as prime minister.

Local GOVERNMENT, on the other hand, would be logical (that is, scrapping states and local councils as a half-way between body, accountable more directly for all of the local and infrastructural affairs.

I have found that Party matters much less than the intelligence, ability and general goodwill of the local member. A dullard or an uncaring, insensitive git will act the same regardless of political affiliation.

Anyone who needs to work with their local member will say the same thing, pick the best person for the job with only a weather eye for the platform of their party. It is worth remembering that not all of the best players are on the one team.

However, the silliest vote of all would have to be the protest vote. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. How can anyone want anyone who sets himself up to be a Devil's Advocate - more likely, a loose cannon? If there is room in parliament for members who are there solely to criticise, there should be a similar reduction in the numbers in the House.

Pick the best available candidate: aim to get value for money, those are your taxes going for that cool $1million PA minimum it costs per member.

Yes Poirot, it is a frequent source of frustration to me that we can't edit comments after they have been posted, as you can on Agmates for example.

----
<< Anyone who needs to work with their local member will say the same thing, pick the best person for the job with only a weather eye for the platform of their party. >>

Corny, I would indeed think it is very important for people to be able to work and communicate with their local member.

You’ve prompted me to start a new general thread about this.

Sorry to disagree here "pick the best person for the job with only a weather eye for the platform of their party"... the problem here is that 'the platform' is all they bother with.

If you are, say, a Labor voter in a Coalition seat, you will be speaking in a foreign language to your local member, and so too if the situation were the other way round.

Imagine being a Green voter in a seat owned by either of the major parties.... no chance in being understood at all.

We need multi-member electorates, and no 'safe' seats please.

I suppose, Cornflower, that what you are trying to hint at is somebody voting for anybody BUT the party you work for is in no way their 'best candidate' but merely a 'protest'.
(would be half-true if one just voted for a single-issue party, though it would mean that "issue" would possibly hold a balance of power in governance).

Nice try though.

There are political parties that are growing in representative power in Parliaments that seek to undermine the values of family. Family (mother father and children) is the basis of society and must be maintained for a healthy society. See below for a fresh look!

http://www.familyfirst.org.au/Policies.htm

http://www.nsw-familyfirst.org.au/GordonsCrossBench/GorgonsCrossBench.htm

Sorry Philo, but despite their sound policy on government standards, Family First policies on abortion, euthanasia, Aboriginal Australians (paternalistic) and censorship have absolutely killed any chance I will ever support them.
Their brief public/private-ownership paragraph that did not once designate what public and private ownership would be, nor clear a stance on privatisation/nationalisation, was unsatisfactory- One Nation and the Greens however have a crystal clear stance (both demand an expansion of public-owned infrastructure and staunchly oppose privatization).

Local candidates often fall victim to voters dissatisfaction. Mal Brough was a prime example. A finer person would be hard to find, yet, he got the chop due to peoples dislike of John Howard.

Brough?

Maybe electors in that Godforsaken electorate of poverty and unemployment and domestic mayhem knew Brough supported WorkChoices '110%' and resented that?

Maybe, doubtful for that area but maybe, they also saw some folly in the domestic invasion of the NT run by Lt. Brough, and knew that 'not much' would come from the exercise, as has proved to be the case, including under that hopeless Macklin?

Maybe Brough's electors could see through the shine, and saw not much underneath?

Particularly when one considers how he's behaved since, in a rather petulant manner, to say the least.

King Hazza,
I suggest you study who opposed privitisation of Snowy Scheme and organised public rallies and voted against the sale of NSW Electricity because it affected families and small business - it was Family First Gordon Moyes - Read NSW Hansard. Obviously you go off half cocked and unneducated. Regarding the other issues that you mention they do not improve the life of women or children or family; they are mere expedient alternatives to a healthy and responsible life.

Fair enough- but again, their other stances I mentioned are simply too much against my values (and what I consider to be personal freedoms and rights) to give them my primary vote. If any candidates endorse interfering with abortion and euthanasia, and endorse any kind of automatic web filtering (or spying if it ever seemed to be the case also), not to mention an indigenous policy that rubs off as paternalistic, the best they can hope for is the middle of the ballot (for parties with SOME good stances and a good example, but too many negatives to justify a more substantial place (and that is even despite their actually quite good and honest position on perks, allowances and privatization whenever it came up in parliament or senate. If they'd reverse the above, I'd well be motivated to put them FIRST.
The Liberals, Labor, Nationals and Democrats, get bottom place, with all of the fishing, shooting, old-people advocate parties just above to minimize their preference value).