Thursday, 19 July 2012

By Election in seat of Melbourne this Saturday

Sixteen candidates have nominated to contest the Victorian State seat of Melbourne this coming Saturday.
With the Liberal Party not fielding a candidate, pundits see this as a two horse race between the ALP and the Australian Greens.
Surprisingly, the pro-euthanasia lobby hasn't fielded a candidate on that platform.
In respect to the issue of euthanasia, three parties have positions against a change in the law (FFP, DLP, Aust. Christians) while one party (Australian Greens) have a a position in favour.
The attached spreadsheet looks at the preference flows of all the candidates. This might give voters a bit of an understanding as to candidate's values - but it certainly gives a clear picture of where each candidate intends that his or her preferences ultimately go should they be knocked out of the ballot.


  1. Paul, I am very disappointed by the story in yesterday's CathNews that Mr Stephen Elder, the head of CEO on Victoria is pretty much endorsing the candidcacy of the Labor candidate.

    He is saying that the Labor Party is the only party to truly committed to funding of Catholic schools.

    I telephoned the office of Jennifer Kanis, to tryi to guage her prolife views (on issues like euthanasia for instance, and they were very cagey. They would not give her views on the matter, or return my calls. I saw on her Facebook page, her being photographed wiht the State Opposition leader, Mr Daniel Andrews, who I know is very pro-abortion.

    As my parish priest always says, we sell our souls for the Catholic school system. Why can't anyone in the Church get behind the DLP, who were the original pushers for state aid for religious schools?

    Mr Elder's opposition to the Greens is laudatory. But if he is concerned about the transmission of moral values in school, why does he get behind the party of death?

    I know that the DLP is preferencing the ALP as well in the by-election but after the Christian parties, and before the Greens, but one would have thought this party is much more supportive of the Church's line, on so many issues. Needless to say, my response to the news piece was not published in CathNews either.

    1. I do not know why it was that the Catholic Education Office made their comments as they did on the subject of education alone and not euthanasia, for example. The other issues you raise are entirely outside my ability to comment given that they don't directly relate to my subject. (I can understand however that they are perhaps relevant vis-a-vis the culture etc.)