Revenge of the nerds

If you believe Jason Koutsoukis of The Age, dumped Labor MP Gavan O’Connor is not only the unanimous inaugural winner of the Mal Colston Medal for Treachery, he is also doomed to certain defeat by Labor candidate Richard Marles in his bid to retain Corio as an independent. Koutsoukis writes matter-of-factly of the perks awaiting O’Connor “after he loses the election, which he surely will”. However, this was written before Glenn Milne of The Australian rocked Canberra* with his shock revelation* that “senior figures at the Melbourne (Liberal) campaign headquarters” were finalising arrangements to preference O’Connor ahead of Marles (* sarcasm alert), placing O’Connor “in the middle of the perfect election storm”.

To provide some historical perspective, I present the recent history of sitting members dumped at preselection who sought revenge at the ballot box. I do not doubt there are a number I have missed, particularly at state level, where the only one that immediately sprang to mind was Steven Pringle in Hawkesbury at the New South Wales election in March. Readers are encouraged to note any such omissions in comments and I will rectify them in due course.

• Moore and Curtin (Federal 2006): The only examples on this list where the independents actually won the day were these two Perth seats at the 1996 election, in which sitting members Paul Filing and Allan Rocher respectively lost preselection to Paul Stevenage and Ken Court (brother of then-Premier Richard Court). These results were widely blamed on the machinations of controversial Liberal warlord Noel Crichton-Browne, although the reality was more complicated. The important thing was that they incurred the displeasure of John Howard. This led to the Liberal candidates’ campaigns being starved of resources, and an apparently accurate perception emerging that the independents retained the imprimatur of the party leader. In blue-ribbon Curtin, Rocher easily outpolled Labor 29.4 per cent to 19.8 per cent, proceeding to an easy victory over Court (39.2 per cent) on Labor preferences. Paul Filing won even more resoundingly in Moore, leading the primary vote with 34.1 per cent to Labor’s 28.4 per cent and the Liberals’ 27.3 per cent. The 1998 election saw both members defeated by less contentious Liberal candidates.

• Wentworth (Federal 2004): Malcolm Turnbull’s well-funded move against one-term Liberal member Peter King succeeded by 88 preselection votes to 70, but King did not take his defeat lying down, announcing he would stand as an independent at a press conference on Bondi Beach in the first week of the campaign. Despite vigorous campaigning attended by intense publicity, King recorded only 18.0 per cent of the vote and finished well behind Labor’s David Patch on 26.3 per cent. While Turnbull’s 41.8 per cent was well down on the 52.1 per cent King recorded as Liberal candidate in 2001, it converted into an unembarrassing 2.3 per cent two-party swing after distribution of King’s preferences.

• Dickson (Federal 1998): After one term as Liberal member, the political career of Tony Smith (most certainly not to be confused with the current member for Casey) imploded when he was questioned by police after leaving a building which housed a brothel. Smith forestalled preselection defeat by quitting the Liberal Party and declaring his intention to run as an independent (so arguably this one doesn’t count). By this time it had emerged that the Labor candidate for the coming election would be defecting Democrats leader Cheryl Kernot. Smith predictably failed to set the tally board alight, polling 9.0 per cent of the vote, and Kernot went on to win by 176 votes.

• Hawkesbury (NSW 2007): Liberal member Steven Pringle was dumped after one term in favour of Ray Williams, who had the backing of the ascendant forces of the Right. It was reported that Pringle lost control after an influx of Lebanese Maronite Christians swelled membership of the Beaumont Hills branch from 17 members to 500; according to the Sydney Morning Herald, this included 120 members who transferred from a branch in Hornsby after leader Peter Debnam denied them an influence there by insisting its Left faction incumbent Judy Hopwood keep the seat. Pringle reacted to his defeat by quitting the party and reiterating the popular theme that it had become “controlled by an exclusive sect, an extremist right-wing group”, of which the “Godfather” was upper house MP David Clarke. This prompted a rebuke from the Prime Minister, who described him as a “hypocrite” and a “sore loser”. The former judgement was based on the manner of Pringle’s own preselection at the 2003 election, when he ousted Kevin Rozzoli with support from what Simon Benson of the Daily Telegraph described as “right-wing extremists as well as the left”. Pringle did succeed in getting ahead of the Labor candidate, whom he outpolled 27.1 per cent to 16.0 per cent, but Williams’ 45.6 per cent primary vote was enough to get him over the line by a 6.6 per cent margin. The margin would have been narrower but for the optional preferential voting system, which saw many Labor votes exhaust.

• Newcastle (NSW 2007): After holding the seat since 1991, Bryce Gaudry was contentiously dumped for preselection in 2006 following intervention by Labor’s national executive. As Damien Murphy of the Sydney Morning Herald describes it, Gaudry had been “regarded as a sincere plodder who made a nuisance of himself during the Carr era with a long-running critique of office-winning policies”, prompting his Left faction to sacrifice him by surrendering Newcastle to the Right in exchange for the Sydney seats of Londonderry and Toongabbie. The Right had initially hoped to recruit Newcastle lord mayor John Tate, who had not been part of the Labor grouping on council, had defeated the party’s incumbent lord mayor in 1999, and floated the possibility of running as an independent at the 2003 election. Tate claimed to have been told when approached that Gaudry was planning to retire, and got cold feet when it became apparent that this was not so, and that the Left-controlled local branches still backed Gaudry. Morris Iemma and Mark Arbib then surprised everybody by having the national executive intervene to support a new candidate, 37-year-old former television news reader and public relations consultant Jodi McKay. This the national executive agreed to do, splitting 13-7 in McKay’s favour on factional lines. The reaction in local party circles was typified by former federal Newcastle MP Allan Morris, who wrote first an open letter to Tate criticising his intention to run for Labor, and then a letter to then-federal leader Kim Beazley decrying the installation of McKay. Tate and Gaudry both declared their intention to run as independents, although Gaudry’s hoped dimmed when it emerged he had not told Morris Iemma of the explosive local rumours surrounding Swansea MP Milton Orkopoulos, a colleague of Gaudry in the party’s “soft Left” faction. Gaudry ended up finishing third behind McKay (31.2 per cent) and Tate (24.1 per cent), and his preferences narrowly failed to push Tate ahead of McKay.

• Noosa (Queensland 2006): An unexpected beneficiary of the 2001 and 2004 Beattie landslides, Labor loose cannon Cate Molloy was disendorsed in the lead-up to the September 2006 election due to her public opposition to the government’s dam-building proposals, which extended to leading protest marches and threatening to introduce a private member’s bill. Molloy promptly announced that she would run as an independent, and held off until the campaign before delivering an angrily worded letter of resignation from the Labor Party (from which she was soon to be expelled in any case for running against an endorsed candidate). Molloy finished a fraction behind Labor on the primary vote, 23.7 per cent to 23.6 per cent, overtaking them with Greens preferences. However, Liberal candidate Glen Elmes’ 38.2 per cent primary vote was easily enough to deliver him the seat, with considerable aid from vote-splitting and exhaustion (Queensland also has optional preferential voting) between Molloy and Labor.

NOTE: Do not feel under any obligation to keep this thread on topic.

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.

284 comments on “Revenge of the nerds”

Comments Page 2 of 6
1 2 3 … 6

  1. Anthony L at # 9 re Newcastle at the state election.

    you state:
    “came a distant third to Mayor Tate and Labor’s Jodi McKay.”

    Distant ??

    the final results prior to preferences were
    Mckay 13166
    Tate 10,159
    Gaudry 8870

    To describe that as a distant 3rd is, to quote our PM after November 24, a bridge too far.

    the count before Gaudry was excluded was
    McKay 14153
    Tate 12507
    Gaudry 11485
    Gaudry finished third but it wasn’t too far behind. He was actually closer to Tate pre and post preferences than Tate was to McKay.

  2. Jason Koutsoukis is easily swayed, to say the least. Click here to put his latest missive in perspective, and here for a celebration of Jase.

    You missed Tony Windsor, failed Nationals candidate for the NSW seat of Tamworth, whose political career will almost certainly outlast that of his nemesis John Anderson. SA and WA have long histories of “Liberal independents” and “Labor independents” who build long careers in the face of hostility from those machines and tacit support from those within the ranks.

  3. Here’s the Smirk’s big chance to get called on why he’s letting the Rodent sink the ship.

    Swan can hold his own on the numbers, but ‘Team Howard’ is not a popular brand and the Smirk will have a very hard time explaining why he’s not leader.

    Cossie likes to hide behind the minutiae, nit-picking on the arcane details, but on the big one, ie his leadership credentials, he’s going to look very lonely up on that stage. Swan has a very big target to hit on this score.

  4. Alright I am going to go off topic and say that Rudd is a jerk for saying he is against gay marriage. What an insult to the thousands of gay men and women who want to marry their partners.

  5. William, I believe Cate Molloy resigned in order to contest as an independent after being dumped by the party in preselection. However, I’m a (temporarily) ex-pat Queenslander, so my recollection is based on my vague memories of internet-only news reports at the time.

    I am particularly intrigued to see Labor’s response to Cossie’s debate challenge. Perhaps Kevin should take up the challenge to debate Cossie, as regardless of who “wins”, it will reinforce the perception that Howard is yesterday’s man AND give greater prominence to Costello in the campaign (which is likely to be a negative for the Coalition, notwithstanding their commitment last month to campaigning as a Howard-Costello team). I’m not sure I would warm to Swan in a debate of the treasury spokesmen (again the ex-pat disclaimer applies), although at the very least it would raise his profile. My suspicions are that no further debates will occur.

  6. Re. the Swan/Costello debate…

    Costello has about as much control over The Smirk as Dr. Strangelove had over The Arm.

    The Smirk will appear, probably within the first two minutes. Soon after that Costello will descend into his oh-so-patient-sounding “talking to the kindergarten kids” tone of voice. Next up The Lip will curl, The Grin will appear and the bovver boy shoulders will begin hunching. Finally we will see The Nasty Smile as he begins to get argumentative with questioners.

    It will then be all over for the Treasurer and hence for the pathetic fantasy of the Co-Prime-Ministerial Dream Team.

    No-one wants as Prime Minister a self-satisfied, spoon-fed, born-to-rule, smirking schoolyard bully who’s been handed anything important he’s ever possessed on a plate.

    His appearance with Downer at the debate the other day reminded me of this:

    A failure as a person because he doe not have the self-confidence to stand up for himself. At least Howard has that.

  11. According to Simon Jackmans site the average Labor lead is 54% 2pp and according to the calculator that would mean Labor gets 87 seat. Wow

  13. I think both Costello and Swan will have an awful lot of coaching before next Tuesday. On recent performances:
    Costello was pathetic on the weekend, interviews and debate.
    Swan was polished in his presser yesterday, but a little eager when talking to Red Kez.
    The issue for both of them is ‘who is the target audience?’ Rudd clearly has the skills to present to a range of audience. I don’t think Wayne & Peter quite have that same charisma, so they’ll have to nominate a target and work to it instead. If you pick the wrong target, it doesn’t matter how well you do in the slightest. Costello’s natural target is the opposition during Q-time and his general public record is poor. I’m rating Swan as ‘improving’ – at least he has a smile – and that’s always a cut through.

  14. Onimod, Swan reminds me of Moe the Bartender in the Simpsons no matter how much he smiles he still looks aweful he has the charisma of a brick.

    This debate will make or break Costello’s Prime Ministerial ambitions. If Swan looses Labor will say he lost to an incumbant Treasurer at least he gave it a go.

  15. At this point I am reminded of the example of a famous philosopher, Thales of Miletus, who also turned his analytical skills to practical matters. One year when he realised that there would be a bumper harvest of olives in Miletus, he purchased options on all of the olive presses, and reportedly made a fortune. Perhaps it is time to buy shredder machines in Canberra..

    More seriously, if the writing is on the wall, how will the rats on the sinking ship behave? The smarter ones have already retired or taken new jobs in Italy (hi Amanda). But what do the rest do? I take it it is too late to get appointed on contract into the public service? Last time I saw a governmetn approaching a train wreck at a state level, all sorts of apparachiks were parachuted into teh pubvlic service, oftne into jobs they were unqualified to do. Watch the government gazete (the real one 🙂 closely in the next few weeks.

  17. Jason Koutsoukis is right. O’Connor knew the game and probably played the game. Politics is like that. He lost preselection and now he got all toity about ‘Labor and the Unions’. I am sure he would have welcomed Union support if it came his way.

    He is a rat.

  18. Bit harsh Guido.

    I personally believe People don’t vote for the candidate rather they vote for the Leader of a party or the party through the appointed candidate.

  19. On Newspoll, can someone tell me if there are records that go back for the published polls to the campaign in 1983?

    I’m unable to recall Labor ever having a result like this in a campaign.

  22. That’s stinging stuff from Jason Koutsoukis. Wouldn’t have passed defamation law 15 years ago. And it does seem odd to damn OConnor in such moral language in the same breath as saying what a nice bloke he is!

    The argument makes two claims.

    One. That you live and die by the rules. Fair enough. You lose preselection, you have one option – legal action. If not, well every party excludes you for runing/campaiging against it.

    But the other claim is a cultural one. Namely that it is invariably right for a party to not just ignore you, but to be damned as a ‘rat’. That can’t be right – Senator Georges is a case in point. It’s also a curious claim when ‘lose control of the branches’ is equally a euphemism for ‘out-stacked’ as it can be for ‘a lazy MP loses rank and file support’.

    Sometimes party rules need flouting. The obvious case is the ONP needing to split in Queensland. That was a healthy dose of ‘creative destruction’. But when most of its 11 MPs turned into independents, or the ‘City Country Alliance’, every Joe Blow was calling for anti-party-hopping laws, and citing Mal Colston as if it were a precedent.

  29. Yes, O’Connor played by the sword dies by the sword, etc. But if Libs and Greens preference him then he’s got a good chance. That was a strange article by Koutsoukis … methinks trying to make up for his recent string of hard core articles about leaks and democrats

  30. Re Costello/Swan debate. Smirk will get his Treasury lackeys to draft some pop questions to lay on Swan and he may get a bit flustered. But, if Smirk behaves like he does at QT then the public will be turned off. LikeSsunday’s debate, it will have little impact on the vote.

  31. Costello is banking on presenting a better looking image.

    The problem Swan has is that he knows too much and can’t get it out fast enough. He knows his stuff well.

    If the audience frame questions with economic terms Costello will flounder. AND Swan & the questioners have a great deal of ammunition.

    Costello’s lack of responsibility in stopping Howard’s prolific spending [castigated in no uncertain terms by McQuarrie banks Chief Economist], the real cause and source of Australia’s prosperity, the cut in funding to States and services etc… the list is endless.

    What does Costello hope to catch Swan on? Nothing, there isn’t a question Costello couldn’t ask Swan that he couldn’t answer.

    So I bet Costello is not intending to win the techinical debate but just to ‘look’ good. BUT Swan has an ability to get right under Costello’s skin and could well send the Tip overboard.

  32. [Swan should try pinning the ‘low altitude flyer’ tag on the donkey]

    If tomorrow’s inflation figure is high, then Swan would be able to hammer Costello over inflation, and use F.U.D. to blame him for the chance of another interest rate rise.

    In some ways Costello V Swan would be more interesting than Howard V Rudd.

  33. Even with the great debate being a big yawn, the biggest yawn of it was talk about economics. So I guess we will have the longest yawn-fest ever next Tuesday night. Labor will talk about that has been no real micro-economic reform and since both sides of politics have very similar macro-economic views it will just be Costello trying to pull figures out of his head about how damaging the ALP’s policies will be.

    My bet is the worm will be more entertaining watch it flatline for both sides.

  34. If Swan is such an economic genius then why did his advice muck up Latham and Beazley? Opposed tax cuts and said $600 rebate wasn’t real.

    Where has Labors productivity arguement gone?

  35. Centaur 20 seats to the ALP would mean a ten seat majority, twelve after the bielection.

    As John points out, that 52.1% TPP needed reflects a uniform swing. Labor may win with somewhat less, depending on where the swings really are. Peter Brent at Mumble makes a good argument for Labor probably only needing 50.5% this time around. William links on the home page if you’re interested.

  36. Why can’t Mr. Howard stand up and take the blame for the worm fiasco? Why is he always dodging? Why can’t he say the buck stops with me? Anyway, they’ve found their scapegoat and guess who cut the feed… yep, public servants! (Though to be fair, even the PS aren’t sure they did it!)
    “Department of Parliamentary Services secretary Hilary Penfold says she is unsure how the order to cut the feed was passed to her staff.

    “Who knows where they actually were, they may well have been in the Great Hall for I know, but [it came] from someone on behalf of the Press Club,” she said.” (from ABC).

    Yeah, and don’t worry about Swannie, without the protection of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Costello will be shown for what he is… ‘a low flying aircraft’. Mr. Costello is a goose who is lucky he’s had Mr. Howard there to prevent Australia seeing it more clearly far earlier.

    At anyrate, the days of the flamboyant treasurer are well and truly over – Australian’s want staid and stable from a treasurer… Mr. Keating was a one off – Mr. Costello’s mistake was to model himself on Keating. Swannie will be the trusted bank manager from a country town (for the first 8 years anyway!)

  37. [Even with the great debate being a big yawn, the biggest yawn of it was talk about economics. ]

    Well all Costlelo can do is say isn’t it great how much money the governmetn will give back to tax payers.

    Whereas Swan can show that their tax plan helps education, health, and child care.

  38. I tend to distinguish between lower and upper house for party hopping / floor crossing.

    I mean, seriously: nobody, not one person, except perhaps his family, ever voted for Colston. They voted ALP. There’s a least a case for a personal following in the lower house (though its pretty weak)

    Im all for anti-party hopping legisaltion in the upper house. You leave your party, you resign, and we go back to your party for the replacement.

    The East Timorese have recently introduced it for their lower house (which is party list proportional system – so not “personal” voting either).

    The whole Colston episdoe was one of biggest travesties ever foisted on us.

  40. I think what’s important here is to consider who has played the factional game and who hasn’t. O’Connor never played the factional game, and he has been punted for it.

    This is in contrast to Pringle and King, who did play the factional game then whinged about it. O’Connor has a leg to stand on, whereas Pringle and King are just losers.

  43. Yeah, four years ago _but_ he did survive 6 years after initially being diagnosed with cancer (…and thus avoiding prosecution).

  46. [i would assume the Costello-Swan debate will be on tuesday afternoon. Normal Press Club lunch day.]

    Well that sucks, if it is during the day 9 won’t bother showing or worming it 😐

  47. Swan can also point out his tax plan is implicit approval of the governments tax plan.

    Costello should ask Swan when did he and Labor become economic conservatives after having voted against most government economic reforms such as GST?

    Costello should ask Swan why raid the future fund if you have a surplus from which to draw money from broadband?

    The nail in Swans cofin will be when Costello asks him how will Labor look after working families when prices go up to meet greenhouse gas targets?

  48. Do “bi-elections” support gay marriage or is this a description of a gay Asian male?
    54 Dembo -this is a classic Howard wedge issue – he brings it out at every election. I would judge Rudd on his deeds rather than his attempts to avoid being wedged.

  49. [‘Swan can also point out his tax plan is implicit approval of the governments tax plan.]

    But that would mean Costello has to stop attacking it, else he is attacking his own tax plan.

    [Costello should ask Swan why raid the future fund if you have a surplus from which to draw money from broadband?]

    Spending the surplus has increased inflation, which has resulted in interest rates going up five times, when the current government said they wouldn’t go up.

    [The nail in Swans cofin will be when Costello asks him how will Labor look after working families when prices go up to meet greenhouse gas targets?]

    By cutting wasteful spending that has put pressure on inflation, and thus interest rates. Interest rates have gone up five times since the last election 9 times since 2002, whcih has increased mortgage repayments by $2000 a year.

  50. Seriously… who is going to watch Costello debate Swan? I won’t be. They’re both repulsive and poor media performers.

    Both will just spin away on numbers that noone understands, Costello will make lots of ‘funny’ jokes that will please Lib supporters but turn everyone else off and Swan will mutter on and seem generally unconvincing.

    There… I’ve summed up the debate before its even happened. I can’t see any gain for the Coalition in this to be honest, they already are perceived as the better economic managers and the only way from here is down for them. Costello fluffing up would be majorly damaging to their campaign.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 2 of 6
1 2 3 … 6