Bennelong follies

I appear to be out on a limb here, but the plan for Maxine McKew to run for Labor in Bennelong (apparently confirmed in the Sydney Morning Herald) strikes me as being Kevin Rudd’s first serious misstep. Last week the Prime Minister homed in on what his finely tuned political antennae told him might be Rudd’s Achilles heel: that the smooth-talking former diplomat was a "bit full of himself". Rudd’s apparent focus on rubbing salt into wounds he hasn’t yet inflicted suggests that Howard might have been on to something.

It is indeed probable that McKew’s candidacy will increase the possibility that John Howard will follow Stanley Bruce (defeated in Flinders in 1929) in becoming only the second serving Prime Minister to lose his seat. However, this must be weighed up against the equal or greater likelihood that she will fail. Psephos curator Adam Carr noted the precedent of Billy McMahon (whose Sydney seat of Lowe is now held by Labor) in comments on this site a few weeks ago:

In 1972, 1974 and 1980 he was widely predicted to be facing defeat. His margins at those elections were 4.9%, 3.0% and 6.3%. Each time he hung on, despite the predictions of Mungo McCallum (who wrote a column called “Swing Lowe, sweet chariot”). High-profile sitting members DO have a personal vote, and can also get a sympathy vote if their constituents think they are being hounded in the press.

The national media attention Maxine McKew’s campaign will attract could well have precisely that effect. If Labor wins the election, this might not be such a disaster: in all likelihood, Howard would quit parliament and McKew would win the seat at the ensuing by-election. But if they lose, they will face their next term of opposition with one fewer member of front-bench star quality in the lower house.

Much of the approving comment in the blogosphere is typified by Tim Dunlop‘s observation: "at last a high-profile recruit takes on something other than a safe seat". I’m sure Dunlop’s memory isn’t so short that he has already forgotten Cheryl Kernot, although he would no doubt argue that her self-destruction was a special case. However, there are also similarities between the two that should not be overlooked. Both have been lured to major party politics by the power and influence associated with high ministerial office. McKew seems little more likely than Kernot to thrive on the unglamorous grunt work involved with tending to a marginal seat. If she is going to be fast-tracked to the front bench, she would be better served without such distractions.

The notion that high-profile candidates should use their capital to secure the seats needed to win government is better suited to local community figures and sports stars (Steve Waugh, perhaps) than to those selected for leadership potential. Those who would invoke the largely unhappy experience of Mary Delahunty in the safe Victorian seat of Northcote should remember the counter-example of yet another ABC television presenter: Alan Carpenter, who was poached by Labor in 1996 and accommodated in the plum seat of Willagee.

Another point worth making is that the Labor hierarchy should be using every opportunity available to it to clear the forest of dead wood that is the New South Wales chapter of the federal parliamentary party. The Poll Bludger is too kind to name names, but a scan through safe Labor seats on the state’s election pendulum should make my point for me.

UPDATE: The opening sentence was based on the initial frenzy of comment from excited anti-Howard bloggers. Those with sober words and wiser counsel were holding back until the morning. Graham Young at On Line Opinion has rounded on the idea in terms similar to my own. Richard Farmer at Crikey and Peter Brent at Mumble go so far as to say McKew would be less likely to defeat Howard than an unknown. Farmer had this to say:

She and the Party are talking as if this is a serious challenge to John Howard in his own seat. They are armed with the good news of the recent Crikey-Morgan poll and the knowledge that changes to the Bennelong boundaries have brought the electorate into the theoretically winnable category for Labor if the kind of swing which would deliver government is actually on. This is really bravado – the real purpose of the McKew candidacy is to irritate and annoy the Prime Minister to help Labor beat his government throughout Australia rather than to actually defeat him in his own seat. A high profile opponent probably increases the chances of Howard being returned whatever happens nationally. There’s unlikely to be a protest vote against a man who has led the country for a decade in a successful and popular way when the voters realize that there is a real chance of him being defeated. The Labor vote in Bennelong would probably be maximized if Howard was facing an unknown candidate with no apparent chance of victory. Should McKew perform the unlikely and emerge the winner she would naturally become a Labor heroine and be assured a glittering ministerial future. More likely she and her boss Kevin Rudd see this as a training run for the future. How she fares will determine her role in any future Labor administration. If Howard is returned McKew will become the key adviser in opposition for the next three years. If Labor wins without her winning Bennelong she will emerge as the boss of the Labor media apparatus. Any future as a member of parliament will depend on how she handles the rough and tumble of her first campaign.

UPDATE 2 (1/3/07): Missed this outstanding analysis of Bennelong demographics from George Megalogenis in The Australian.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

91 comments on “Bennelong follies”

Comments Page 1 of 2
1 2
  1. Labor at a federal level is not good at putting star recruits into winnable seats alas. McKew would be better suited towards say an electorate like Fowler instead of Bennelong.

  2. I couldn’t believe this when I read it.

    Does McKew actually have any connection with the seat? Labor can get away with high profile blow-ins in their safe seats (the Coalition not so much any more with the rise of Independents), but is parachuting an outsider into a Liberal-leaning marginal really a smart thing to do? It makes me wonder whether McKew is being used by the party a la Kernot. Even if she does win, it is a marginal seat and she will need to fight hard at every election to hold it. To paraphrase Peter Costello, I don;t think Labor’s so overflowing with talent in their safe seats that she can’t be accomodated elsewhere.

    Another point overlooked is that if things looked really dicey for Howard in Bennelong- but the Liberals were still a chance to win the election- he could always try jumping ship to Mitchell. Alan Cadman must be over 70 now.

  3. Labor have effeectively ensured that Howard will not take the early exit option if ever that had been under consideration. He will now stay and fight with no exit strategy.

    If he were to jump ship to the seat of Mitchell, as suggested above, he would be accused of cutting and running and probably hand Bennelong to the aLP on a platter.

  4. As an ex-Bennelongian, I think it’s a seat that the ALP is never out of contention in. Don’t forget, the western half of it is usually a Labor-held state seat (currently held by John Watkins). I used to always think that Labor would come very close to winning it after Howard’s departure (for whatever reason), but it could be that demographics are catching up with him. The redistribution has brought in more ALP-leaning areas (a lot of Houso in Ermington and Dundas for example), and there has been an influx of residents with Asian (particularly Korean) backgrounds, and the theory is that many of these people have never really forgiven Howard for those Asian comments of 1988.
    I suspect McKew will go down well in a seat that likes to think it has an intellectual air (Macquarie Uni is nearby, after all). If Labor wins the election, she will probably win the seat, but at the very least, the contest will attract a lot of media attention, and so require a lot of time and money from the Libs to shore it up. Whether she wins or loses, McKew running will be a plus for the ALP.

  5. I also think McKew will go well in Bennelong – a lot of ABC viewers here, probably with similar politics to McKew. The Herald reported that Campbell (previous ALP candidate) is backing McKew too; she has a substantial local following, so that should help.

    I can’t help wondering if there’s more to this than meets the eye though. McKew is one half of the ALP strategy brains-trust for this campaign. Maybe the intention is to try and distract Howard as much as possible – force him to campaign locally, rather than being able to cruise around the country? His campaigning in Bennelong has been best described as perfunctory in recent years.

  6. The Liberals losing the election and Howard getting booted out of Benelong? Too good to be true for this long suffering Labor supporter.
    However, Maxine McKew is probably their best shot to win Bennelong.
    I think a high profile candidate will have more chance against Howard.
    I’m not saying he’s going to lose, but I think this time Bennelong might go down to the wire.

  7. Yes. Silly stuff indeed.

    The 2004 election contained some very unique circumstances that led to unusually low margins in both Bennelong and Wentworth. Add to that the likely survival (and continuing odor from) the Iemma government, and even if Labor won, say, 20-odd Coalition seats across the country, I would be surprised if they took those two.

    PS – Mumble agrees with you, Mr Bludger.

  8. I think a lot of the McKew analysis is missing the mark. Yes she will appeal to ABC-watching doctors’ wives and those who consider themselves intellectual. But in Bennelong (I’m a Bennelong voter) those people are already likely to be voting Labor or Green. No doubt McKew is a good candidate and will do well, but I can’t help thinking that what Labor really needs is someone who can eat into the Liberal core demographic in Bennelong – Anglo, male, disengaged voters. I can’t see McKew getting much traction with the tradies.

    A sports star or ex-military figure would have been a better choice. Someone who could actually win Liberals over, not just make Labor/Greens voters feel good about themselves.

  9. I think this discussion misses the point of McKew Running in Bennelong. Will she win? Probably not, but her high media profile will keep the pressure on Howard to campaign in his own seat while Rudd flys about the country campaigning. This is a distraction that may prove costly. Can anyone imagine the sight of Howard doorknocking?

  10. I don’t think it will make any difference to the outcome. Labor are a (very) outside chance of winning Bennelong at this election no matter who the candidate is. If there is a big swing on then Bennelong will go but not otherwise.

    It may have the benefit for Labor of forcing JWH to concentrate more on his own seat but I think this is a marginal effect at best.

    As to whether, she’d be good in Parliament, who knows? She’s clearly intelligent and was (I thought) a very good journalist, but is she cut out for the slog work of being an MP? Only time will tell.

  11. Yep, someone like Wilkie. If Wilkie had been a Labor candidate then he would have been in with a real chance, because he has the CV, demeanour and presentation to make Bennelong voters feel comfortable. I was thrilled that he ran as a Green, but that removed any realistic chance of winning the seat.

    Or a returned veteran from Iraq. Or even better a male sports star. I have no doubt that Steve Waugh would win Bennelong at a canter, but that’s obviously getting into highly speculative territory.

  12. Everyone said the same about Garrett, and he has turned out very well. Delahunty (a closer analogy) was a perfectly good MP, although she didn’t turn out to be a very good minister – of course her husband dying didn’t help much.

    I agree that if Bob Hogg thinks this is a goer, it probably is.

    But it’s still my view that (a) Bennelong is not as vulnerable as it looks, (b) a serious challenge to a high-profile sitting member brings out loyalties on both sides, (c) If McKew is real talent it’s a pity to waste her on a seat she may well not win, and (d) it’s an even greater pity she now can’t be used as a lever to roll Irwin or Hatton.

  13. It’s a stinker of an idea, on so many levels.

    Perhaps it’s supposed to be “playing with Howard’s mind”.

    However, on Adam’s Lowe point, McMahon surely would have lost if he’d been there in 1983. Similarly, the theory is that Bennelong will fall if Labor has a big win – like 1983.

    Personal vote is presumably built into current margin.

  14. howard wont campaign in bennelong, why should he when hes going to be on every TV station five times a day during the election, that should be enough exposure to allow his constituents to see hes working

    i heard somewhere steve waugh was going to run in blaxland, is this true he lives in alfords point (hughes)

  15. If Howard contested a different seat it would certainly look like he’s cutting-and-running, but if it gave him a chance to be PM for another 3 years I seriously doubt he would care what he looks like. He could always try wheeling out the old “the seat I was elected to in the 1970’s is not the same as the seat now” cliche.

    It might also be the case that a fresh-faced Liberal candidate from the left of the party would go down a lot better in the new seat than a 68 yo Tory in Howard.

    I stand by the point that, if Labor really believes McKew will be an asset to them (and I agree she probably will), why waste her in a Liberal marginal? Get rid of the hacks and no-hopers that are clogging up the safe seats and install someone useful. (Howard running for Mitchell would also help the Libs clear out a bench-warmer of their own.)

  16. It is astonishing, isn’t it, that Turnbull had to spend a zillion dollars rolling a one-term sitting MP out of Wentworth to get into Parliament, while an old droob like Cadman has sat on Mitchell, an ultra-safe seat, for 33 years while doing exactly nothing in all that time. However, I think only Cadman could be called a genuine log on the NSW Liberal side, while the NSW ALP has at least seven.

  17. Further on this: If Cadman had announced a year ago that he was retiring, and Howard had then said he would run in Mitchell instead of Bennelong, he would have a few days of “cut and run” jokes, but by now there would be no controversy. After all, Beazley did the same thing when he shifted from Swan to Brand. But now it’s too late – he has to stand and fight in Bennelong.

  18. This is a bit of a surprise, will make the campaign a bit more interesting, and leaves open the door for the (unlikely) possibility of a a very memorable election night, but on the whole, I agree with Adam. It’s unlikely to work, wastes McKew’s talents if she doesn’t win, makes Labor look a bit foolish if their star candidate goes down, and ensures the survival of wretched dead wood like Irwin for another term.

  19. Good commentary about a different type of candidate being probably the right fit. Combined with both Bowe and Brent thinking it’s a bad move (psephologically), does this mean there’s a deeper reason for it?

    Maybe the idea is that it gives McKew a platform to engage Howard on? She may be in a better position to directly influence media framing and coverage of the national campaign as a candidate opposite Howard, instead of as only the campaign director (or whatever her position is). Any thoughts?

  20. Yes that’s a fair point, but of course she can’t upstage Rudd. Anyone who knows Kevin even slightly knows that NO-ONE will be allowed to upstage him. If you think Whitlam or Hawke ran one-man campaigns, you aint seen nothing yet.

  21. I agree with Andrew Burke that a Steve Waugh type figure would be better than McKew for this seat. On the other hand, we don’t really know whether Waugh is really interested in running for parliament (these sorts of rumours are wrong more often than they are right). Even if he is, he might only be willing to do it in a safe seat.

    It seems to me that McKew in Bennelong is not the best option imaginable, but may be the best option currently available. I think she does raise the chances of Labor winning compared to a low profile candidate (even a local) and I think Labor probably needs to win Bennelong to win a majority in their own right.

    As for Howard shifting to Mitchell, if he does that the election is over. It is totally essential for him to maintain the image of the “man of steel”. If he is seen doing the chicken run the Libs will lose an extra ten seats around the country.

  22. To Adam

    I agree about McKew turning out alright if she wins, she is not going to run in a Safe Seat like Garret and Delahunty were given. She is running in the PM’s own electorate, I predicted before Labor could win Bennelong if they won the election, now I am not seeing that as a possibility.

  23. My prediction for Bennelong: Howard will have a truly awesome direct mail and automated phone budget. I plan on installing a shredder next to the mailbox.

  24. As Tristan says, it’s nothing to do with what sort of pollie or local member she becomes if she gets in. It’s about what happens between now and election night.

    Agree also (as does Richard Farmer in Crikey today) that it lessens the chances of Labor taking Bennelong.

    It really is a bunch of razzle dazzle. Famous people and marginal seats don’t mix. Highly combustible and unpredictable.

  25. This obsession with tradies puzzles me, there must be a sexual element here and envy of their alleged huge incomes from poverty stricken blog posters. The AES shows that the combined left vote (ALP+Dems+Greens) among holders of trade positions has gone up 6% since 1996. The groups where the left vote is really down since 1996 is among unskilled workers and professionals and managers in the private sector. Rudd is playing well to the later (and Workchoices not with the former) and I think McKew will look good to them in Bennelong.

  26. Seems like a lot of second guessing and double bluff going on here. A few points may need to be reiterated:
    1) Bennelong is a marginal seat held by about 4%. If the ALP is to win government, they will probably win this seat.
    2) Maxine McKew is a more than presentable candidate – intelligent and attractive with good name-recognition.
    3) A high profile candidate running against the PM will attract some/ a lot of media interest, both with local media and city and national media. An unknown candidate would not get this.
    4) A good campaign in Bennelong will force Howard to turn a lot of his resources towards saving his own seat. This can only benefit ALP candidates (and indeed other non-government parties) generally.
    5) See point 1 – if the ALP is going to win government, Bennelong is likely to fall, and the free media that McKew will get for much of the year (by being an ex-journo and by running against Howard) will not do her any harm.

  27. There is another factor to consider that no one has mentioned here. McKew running against Howard speaks of confidence – she wouldn’t do it unless she expected Labor to get a decent sized swing across NSW. That’s a pretty good message to send to the troops.

    Throughout last year Labor was behaving as if they had no chance of winning, even though the polls had them ahead. The recent run of polls, and the betting markets, has presumably got through to a lot of Labor people to some extent, but I still think one of the biggest dangers for Labor is that a mood of defeatism will set in and they will start haggling over the spoils of defeat, the way oppositions so often do. That’s a lot harder to do if someone like McKew is saying “well I reckon I’ve got a shot at knocking off the PM”.

  28. For the wiser heads to reflect on:

    – is she is to campaign for her own seat and still do the broader campaign stuff? or is she leaving the broad campaign for the small one?

    – could it be that winning or losing is not the main concern (and I know lots of labor machine people that truly believe the swing makes candidates almost irrelevant) it is having a razzle dazzle (as someone posted) that looks like a contest, as the idea of a real fight and things like the Govt being returned but not the PM (even if it is completely unrealistic) playing to create a level of uncertainy and grayness over the future weakening a leadership / experience campaign.

    – does anyone think Howard will serve a full term if he is elected and can form Government?

    – I also note that if Ms McKew loses she has served a hard-working labor party apprenticeship by fighting the good fight in an important place in an important battle. Subsequent efforts will be able to be seen as dropping a labor warrior into a safe seat not droping a media star into a seat that belongs to the bruvvers (a violent opponent of two campaign strategies usually I have some sympathy if this is the plan).

  29. I have added the following update to my post:

    The opening sentence was based on the initial frenzy of comment from excited anti-Howard bloggers. Those with sober words and wiser counsel were holding back until the morning. Graham Young at On Line Opinion has rounded on the idea in terms similar to my own. Richard Farmer at Crikey and Peter Brent at Mumble go so far as to say McKew would be less likely to defeat Howard than an unknown. Farmer had this to say:

    She and the Party are talking as if this is a serious challenge to John Howard in his own seat. They are armed with the good news of the recent Crikey-Morgan poll and the knowledge that changes to the Bennelong boundaries have brought the electorate into the theoretically winnable category for Labor if the kind of swing which would deliver government is actually on. This is really bravado – the real purpose of the McKew candidacy is to irritate and annoy the Prime Minister to help Labor beat his government throughout Australia rather than to actually defeat him in his own seat. A high profile opponent probably increases the chances of Howard being returned whatever happens nationally. There’s unlikely to be a protest vote against a man who has led the country for a decade in a successful and popular way when the voters realize that there is a real chance of him being defeated. The Labor vote in Bennelong would probably be maximized if Howard was facing an unknown candidate with no apparent chance of victory. Should McKew perform the unlikely and emerge the winner she would naturally become a Labor heroine and be assured a glittering ministerial future. More likely she and her boss Kevin Rudd see this as a training run for the future. How she fares will determine her role in any future Labor administration. If Howard is returned McKew will become the key adviser in opposition for the next three years. If Labor wins without her winning Bennelong she will emerge as the boss of the Labor media apparatus. Any future as a member of parliament will depend on how she handles the rough and tumble of her first campaign.

  30. It’s scarcely the thing that will turn the 2007 Federal election (it’ll just make election night more interesting). But it’s nowhere near as bad a move as some believe.

    1. No point saying that the 2004 margin arose from ‘unique’ or anomalous circumstances, without looking at what those circumstances teach us. A high-profile candidate with personal credibility in Wilkie gathered 16% of the vote (increasing the Green vote by 12%) even though in some ways he was in a worse position than if he’d stood as an independent: the Green policy platform which Wilkie stood on would have been poison to many wavering (small-c) conservative Bennelong voters. So Bennelong is happy to take to its bosom candidates who have personal appeal, regardless of their policies.

    2. The extent to which Bennelong is truly a marginal can be overstated. Feel free to correct me, William (or anyone else) but intuitively I would have thought that MPs with a high primary vote are more likely to hold onto their seat longer-term, than those (with the same theoretical 2PP margin) who are more reliant on preferences. With 49.82% of the primary vote and nearly 6% informal, Howard didn’t have to go to preferences to win in 2004. 53%+ first preference in 2001 and 1996, and 49.2% in 1998 (again with a 5%+ informal vote), mean that in practical terms Howard has never (or at least not for the last 4 elections) had to go to preferences at all to win Bennelong. Not many sitting MPs with a 2PP margin of 4%, could make that claim.

    3. It’s not true to say that Labor must win Bennelong to win the next Federal election. Everyone knows that swings aren’t uniform and the list of seats an opposition ‘must carry’ is notional only. Where the current seat split-up (Labor first) for the ‘major states’ is NSW 21:27, Vic 19:18, Qld 6:21, it’s pretty obvious that Qld will have to swing much harder than the 2 states to its south, to produce a rough equilibrium. If NSW Labor falls over the line on 24 March, Federal ALP candidates’ job of trying to pick up seats in suburban Sydney becomes still more difficult.

    So an entirely realistic scenario is that McKew loses, but puts in a good performance, very significantly increasing the Labor primary vote (an anaemic 28.4% in 2004, and not much better in 2001) as well as shaving the 2PP margin further. However, Rudd wins the election despite not unseating Howard, and McKew becomes the new member for Bennelong in early 2008 anyway (in a byelection result so inevitable the Libs only go through the motions). It’s not clear to me why Farmer in Crikey believes that a Rudd-win, McKew-lose scenario would result in her becoming “the boss of the Labor media apparatus”, rather than collecting the spoils in a by-election that should be the ALP’s to lose. The only way that I can imagine that this scenario wouldn’t unfold, is if McKew turns out to be an unexpectedly poor campaigner.

  31. Howard’s plight brings to mind potential prime minister “Doc” Evatt’s experience in Barton, which he held from 1940-1958 but with a number of close shaves in latter years (holding off Nancy Wake by just 243 votes in 1951). Evatt moved to Hunter in 1958 and two years later became chief justice of NSW.

  32. I can’t agree with those who think McKew’s candidacy is other than a big plus for the ALP. A few months ago I wrote a paper on Bennelong.
    (Please see the attached link: http://www.mumble.com.au/misc/easson_bennelong.pdf
    A reasonable summary of my paper can be found here: http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=556827&category=Opinion)
    I’ll add the following points:
    Once before now has the ALP truly targeted Bennelong.That was in 1961 when the popular Lord Mayor of Sydney, ‘Headline’ Harry Jensen stripped 7.3% off then margin of 8.2% of Sir John Cramer. Ironically, the election of that year resulted in the Menzies Government being returned with a one seat majority. Had Jensen won Bennelong Arthur Calwell would have been PM.
    The ‘pundits’ have ignored the significance of the ALP placing Bennelong on its must win list. No doubt we’ve ran worthy candidates before but always in the context of showing the flag and without the resources that are necessary to stay ‘on-message’ and to counter what will be fistfuls of $ poured into the seat by the Libs. I just don’t get the line that Labor will do better with a weaker ‘drovers dog’ candidate.
    Perhaps the Richard Farmers and co are right. In which case, Kevin Rudd should fold up his tent now. Is it too late to draft Kim Carr? IE a logical consistency of such an argument that Bennelong would be more at risk to a Labor candidate who is ‘unknown with no apparent chance of victory’ leads us inevitably to “Peter Knott 4 PM”
    The demographics are going against the Libs in the Seat. Bennelong on the 2001 census is the Liberal Division with the highest % of persons born in non English speaking countries. The Koreans and Chinese who have replaced the wasps in Eastwood and adjoining suburbs are a growing component in Bennelong and are prone to be more likely than the voters they’ve replaced to vote Labor. Witness John Watkins’s result in Eastwood polling place in the NSW election of 2003 where he gained a 15.3% swing.
    NB Howard’s personal vote is already locked into the current margin in Bennelong. He won’t get a sympathy vote because the locals are outraged that the ALP’s going to run a decent campaign with the best candidate who can represent their interests.
    What might happen though (something the cruelly disparaged Mackerrass keeps dredging up) is the penny may drop that a vote for Howard, should he win Bennelong is a vote for an inconvenient, expensive by-election. Sure, pollies pull the plug all the time but it’s, ahem, rare to go into a contest in a truly marginal seat against a very attractive opponent with such a promise being a ‘core’ promise!
    Finally, the reference to the McMahon factor leaves me flummoxed. Of the ten Federal elections held since 1980 the Coalition’s 2PP % in NSW has ranged from a high of 52.6% (1996) to a low of 45.6% (1993). The 2004 Coalition vote in NSW (51.9%) was its second best result of the last ten elections and is 2.9% above the average of those elections. In other words, the 2004 result for the Coalition was close to the high water mark. It’s remarkable that academic commentators need to be reminded of their duty to inform the less initiated of the connection between the margin in a particular seat and the State wide vote. That in turn tells you whether the margin is firm or not.

  33. Wouldn’t McKew be criticised if she was being parachuted into a safe Labor seat in Western Sydney?
    If Steve Waugh was running for the ALP in Blaxland, I presume he wouldn’t be copping as much negative commentary, but would that be because he’s a bloke and a superstar Aussie Sportsman?
    I give her full marks for courage – it’s no easy task taking on Howard in his own seat.
    If there is a large swing to Rudd in N.S.W on election day, Bennelong surely will be swinging the ALP’s way as well?

  34. Re Shane Easson’s comment:

    Peter Knott was a known quantity alright. That was the problem!

    Also, I reckon McKew in Bennelong is probably a mistake for reasons given at mumble, and for these as well:

    The Labor Party targetting the PM’s seat can be interpreted as cock-suredness. I’m a believer in underdog over momentum effect. This looks like Labor’s getting “full of itself”, getting personal, wants to crush Howard.

    Oppositions in general don’t have many things going for them, but one of them is that they are seen as stoic, never say die, fighting against the odds etc, modest. This dynamic works against that.

    Maxine is easily fit-up-able as chardonnay etc etc. If she’s high profile during the campaign that is likely to be a net negative for Labor.

    At the seat level, I reckon Farmer’s right that highlighting the possibility of a loss in Bennelong helps Howard.

    Plus in general: there is no evidence that “talented” candidates make better challengers than dull ones. Their “talent” is always only recognised after they’ve won. The only “good” candidate I can think of in recent times is probably Pat Farmer in 2001. But Maxine’s appeal is not like his.

  35. I agree with much of Shane Easson’s entry.
    Maybe it should not be over-stated, but how can it be bad news having a candidate with a higher (good) profile? The negative reaction to McKew’s entry sounds like another example of the wobblies that are all over the ALP-supporting bloggers at the moment.
    While I accept the shift in geography and ethnic mix, there is also the fact that it shows the Liberal vote is hollowing out even more than Labor’s. It is not the only high profile Lib seat that is looking marginal.

  36. First, Shane, it is not correct that Menzies won in 1961 by one seat. The result was ALP 60, Coalition 62. If Jensen had won Bennelong, the result would have been 61 each. Since the government has to provide a Speaker, who does not have a deliberative vote, neither side would have been able to form a stable government. The result would probably have been a minority Menzies government followed in early 1962 by a fresh election.

    Second, it is an unwarranted assumption that if Labor wins the election but McKew doesn’t win Bennelong, she would win a subsequent by-election if Howard resigned. After the 1983 election, there were by-elections in Wannon, Moreton, Corangamite, Richmond and Bruce following the resignations of former senior ministers and the speaker. Despite the fact that Hawke was at the peak of his popularity, there were swings to the Coalition in all the by-elections. There has only ever been one federal by-election at which there has been a swing to Labor while there has been a Labor government in office (quiz: where and when?)

  37. That be Carmen in Fremantle.

    But there is evidence of brand new government’s in their early, popular days, getting swings in byelections. Eg Lindsay in ’96 and in Vic after Bracks surprised everyone.

  38. Gold star to Peter. (William can we have a trivia quiz thread please?)

    Lindsay was clearly an exceptional case. There was a widespread view that Kelly had been unfairly forced out and that Free was a dud and a has-been (as was indeed the case). The genii in Sussex St were warned that forcing a by-election was a very bad idea, but did they listen?

    There are exceptions, but the general law is that by-elections go against the government of the day, regardless of its popularity.

  39. Ah, but what if I posit a theory that byelections in the early months of a spanking new govenment give swings to that government? I wonder what the evidence is, say if we restrict it to 4 months after new govt is elected.

  40. Adam’s point is spurious: 1) Labor has generally tended not to field candidates recently in safe Lib seats (including those held by high profile Libs) so would not have registered a swing when a well known Lib retires 2) Does Howard have a personal vote or not? Either he does and there should be a swing against Libs when he goes, or he doesn’t and McKew has a chance in the federal election.

  41. Well, working backwards: 1996 Blaxland no, Lindsay yes; 1983 Wannon, Bruce, Moreton etc no no no no no; 1972 Parramatta no; 1949 no by-elections. Changes of government at federal level happen so rarely that this is not a very large sample to generalise from, but Lindsay is the only one to buck the trend. There are others at state level (Earlwood in 1977, a couple in Victoria after Cain got in in 1982).

  42. Anyway I didn’t say it would be IMPOSSIBLE for McKew to win a Bennelong by-election, I said it was an unwarranted assumption that she would be guaranteed to win, as some early comments asserted.

  43. I don’t think that anyone is focussing on the internal ALP reasons that might be driving this. Who supports McKew, other than Rudd and Hogg? Does she have the backing of a faction, like Garrett did, or is she an internal ‘independent’ like Kernot?

    If she’s an independent, this move is a stroke of genius if you consider her move up the ALP’s greasy pole.

    If she wins, she is on the fast-track to the front-bench as a new rising star.

    If she loses, she has brownie points for the next seat. If she wants to be in Parliament, there will probably be other seats coming available, and if Rudd wins office he can appoint her to something important. And if she loses and takes it on the chin, she’ll prove she’s no Kernot and won’t whinge publically – one of the seven deadly ALP sins.

    Talking about dead wood in the ALP is all true as far as it goes, but ignores the difficulty of actually getting rid of those people. It takes more than just a wave of the hand to lever an old hack out of a safe seat.

  44. McKew running in Bennelong provides a lightning rod for anti-Howard voters to vote for, much the same way Andrew Wilkie was in 2004.

    I also hear John Valder and his ‘not happy John” campaign will be encouraging people to vote for McKew. This will encourage the “soft” Liberal vote.

    In otherwords, if Howard dosen’t get 50% of the primary vote he is going to have trouble scraping together enough preferences to win.

    Despite the opinions of the experts I think she’s a real chance of winning, especially if Family First don’t poll well. Where else would Howard get preferences?

  45. I don’t think there is a consensus of “expert” opinion. My rule of thumb is to see what Malcolm Mackerras predicts and assume the opposite. But the fact is, colleagues, there is no way of knowing in February what will happen in October. It’s been an exciting day, and everyone should now have a cup of tea and a lie down.

  46. It is a big ask, but Howard is is vunerable.
    People may not be as relaxed and comfortable in Benelong as he feels.
    By putting McKew up the ALP is offering a serious candidate, one who has a good profile and would come across asbeing a dedicated member.
    Plus the bonus of having a new member who would be influential in a future labor government.
    A sports star or another party hack could send the message that labor was not serious about Benelong.
    I think it is a clever move as it says that labor is out to give representation to all.
    The reaction in the press and of Howards ministers means they see McKew as a threat. The press and Howard have already started their campaign by saying that Rudd is full of himself ad playing on this message.

    However it is paying a compliment to the voters of Benelong by saying that we give you a serious alternative to Howard.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 1 of 2
1 2