Random notes

• I’ve variously heard it said that this election was Labor’s biggest ever win, and their biggest ever swing. I presume this is because nobody can be bothered looking past 1949, a benchmark year due to the expansion of parliament, the election of the Menzies government and the fact that the AEC’s historical two-party preferred figures don’t go back any further than this. However, John Curtin’s wartime victory of 1943 had it all over Rudd’s performance. Curtin won 66 per cent of the seats from a primary vote of 49.94 per cent, up 9.78 per cent from 1940. Rudd has won probably 58 per cent of the seats from a two-party swing currently at 6.5 per cent. I personally am not willing to call this a “slide”, be it of the land- or Rudd- variety, given the score on the primary vote is 43.95 per cent to 42.68 per cent (UPDATE: Coalition vote now 41.54 per cent). I was actually expecting the Labor vote to be slightly higher, hence my exaggerated expectations for the Greens in the Senate.

• It is a remarkable fact that there are two seats which the Liberals might gain from Labor, given that there were only four seats in the land which swung to them. The potential gains are the Perth seats of Cowan and Swan, the former of which has definitely been won while the latter is once again going down to the wire. The 2.2 per cent swing in Cowan can be readily explained by the popularity of retiring sitting member Graham Edwards, but rapid suburban expansion in the seat would also have been a factor. The swing in Swan, while only 0.2 per cent at this point of the count, is coming off a disastrous campaign from an accident-prone candidate in 2004. Other seats in Perth swung slightly to Labor. The 3.1 per cent swing that won them Hasluck was at the upper end of the range.

• Interestingly weak swings to Labor in McMillan and Gippsland, which were also areas of weakeness for Labor at last November’s state election.

• A little further to the west, swings were in the exact 5 per cent to 6 per cent range Labor was shooting at. Deakin has been won for only the second time in its history, while McEwen and La Trobe are still in doubt.

• Not hard to spot the odd seat out in South Australia: with swings elsewhere of between 4.3 per cent and 11.0 per cent, Nicole Cornes could manage only 2.0 per cent in Boothby. Makin and Wakefield swung heavily enough that they’re outside the Labor marginal zone, but not so Kingston, which produced the state’s second smallest swing at 4.3 per cent.

• The Liberal vote proved curiously resilient in the Australian Capital Territory: they were down only 3.7 per cent in the Senate, enough that Gary Humphries retains his seat, with swings of below 2 per cent in the two lower house seats.

• This election produced even less support for the “doctors’ wives” thesis than 2004. There was very little movement in inner Sydney and Melbourne, either in safe Labor or safe Liberal seats. The most notable beneficiary was Joe Hockey in North Sydney, where a harmless 4.3 per cent swing was nonetheless a relatively poor result by inner urban standards. Sophomore surges for Julie Owens in Parramatta (7.7 per cent) and Chris Bowen in Prospect (7.3 per cent).

• Outer Sydney swung as heavily this time as it famously did in 1996: Chifley (8.3 per cent), Greenway (8.4 per cent), Lindsay (9.8 per cent), Macarthur (11.0 per cent), Mitchell (9.6 per cent) and Werriwa (7.9 per cent).

• A diverse range of Queensland seats produced double digit swings: Dawson and Leichhardt in the north, Longman in northern Brisbane and the neighbouring Brisbane hinterland seats of Groom, Blair and Forde. Groom was the only survivor. Retiring sitting members were a factor in Forde and especially Leichhardt. Ryan failed to live up to the hype, with a 6.8 per cent swing that was very modest by Brisbane standards. I’d be interested to know why Longman swung so heavily.

• Labor’s two party share of the remote mobile votes from Lingiari was up from 78.7 per cent to 88.4 per cent.

• While enough to bag two seats, swings in Tasmania were relatively mild. Franklin was one of the four seats to swing to the Liberals, a testament to Harry Quick’s personal vote.

• A noteworthy outcome in Melbourne, where Greens candidate Adam Bandt will likely overcome the Liberal candidate to take second place, a first for the party at a general election. Lindsay Tanner made it academic by winning more than 50 per cent of the primary vote, but the seat will be marginal after preferences.

• Links for the “photo finishes” series of posts have been added to the sidebar. The most notable development of the past few days has been very strong performances for the Liberals on postal votes in the neighbouring seats of La Trobe and McEwen.

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.

802 comments on “Random notes”

Comments Page 1 of 17
1 2 17
  1. I have been watching the AEC website on the 7 tight races around the country….nail biting stuff. My prediction is Labor will get 88. I was hoping for 90 but a win is a WIN.

  2. Percy Bysshe Shelley on the decline and fall of Howardism:

    Ozymandias –

    I met a traveller from an antique land,
    Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
    And wrinkled hp and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
    Which yet survive stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    ‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
    Look on my works, Ye Mighty, and despair!’
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

  3. I wish I could explain why Hughes in SW Sydney didn’t turn as much as all of the other seats in our area. 🙁 I live in Werriwa and according to your intro, William, we recorded a 7.9 swing to us in a safe Labor seat. I don’t know what Fowler had (another safe Labor seat and the third of the trio that cover Liverpool here in SW Sydney). I just DON’T get it. It can’t be Vale’s performance as I read letters to the editor weekly in the local paper and the people are really put out with her if the letters are anything to go by.

  4. LTEP: Yes, this is truly sad, and I hope that Bernie’s life and passing are properly marked by our new government.

  5. Seeing Cornes’ performance on TV on election night I think brought home the truth to all non-SA residents regarding her suitability as a candidate. BUT is there any possibility that this was all part of a cunning plan by Labor to make the Libs focus their efforts on saving Southcott, at the expense of other SA seats (including the near-run in Sturt)?

  6. Just wondering if anyone is bothering to count preferences at O’Connor. On the current count Tuckey has 45.25% with ALP second with 12,896 and National party thrid on 11,603. The Green vote was 4217. It was my understanding that all non-liberal candidates were going to distribute their second preference to the National Party. Of course the Nats second preference goes to the Libs. Now if the Green preferences (along with all the minor party/independents) do go this way – then that will put the Nationals candidate ahead of the Labour candidate which will mean that the Labour candidate prefs get distributed (to the Nats) and Tuckey loses.

    I’m not sure whether I’ve got the subtleties of the preferential system right and I’d be interested in other thoughts on this one. Love to see him go. The Nat candidate Phillip Gardiner is a nice bloke who is happy to talk and work with those who don’t support his point of view, whereas Tuckey has always been a bastard when it comes to that part of the electorate that doesn’t vote for him. He was complaining about the ‘conspiracy’ in the Albany Advertiser the week before but really he has only himself to blame IMHO.

  7. kyangadac this may assist you to understand:
    http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/hor_count.htm

    From that page… ” [If] Nobody has gained an absolute majority… the person with the lowest number of first preferences is excluded”

    This means that, as you say, if all the non-Liberal Party’s are directing preferences to the Nats, if the Nats leap-frog over Labor then they should be elected, unless a substantial number of people direct preferences differently than the HTV’s suggest.

    Is there a minor party directing prefs to Libs?

  8. I wouldn’t, however, be completely surprised if Greens voters avoided the HTV’s and preferenced Labor en masse, I think something like 80% of Greens voters don’t follow the HTVs.

    In this case the Nats probably wouldn’t be able to overcome Labor’s primary and Tuckey would be easily elected.

  9. Greens “preferences” are quite meaningless. I got asked whether I would claim credit for my preferences electing the ALP in Macarthur by a journo (if Labor gets over the line – which is the less likely scenario) and I pointed it was Greens voters, not the Greens ourselves. They do what they want. I saw that in my seat where the voters in the Campbelltown areas went straight to Labor in huge numbers while the voters in Picton ignored our HTVs completely.

  10. I wish I could explain why Hughes in SW Sydney didn’t turn as much as all of the other seats in our area.

    Hughes is not merely a SW Sydney seat like Werriwa & Fowler. Liverpool is at the western end of the seat, but it also encompasses most of the Sutherland Shire, which is at the south/south-eastern end of Sydney. Liverpool is strong ALP, but the rest of the seat is more the mortgage belt/aspirational type voters that have been more attached to the Coalition lately. A lot of them swung to the ALP this election (some nice double digit swings in some booths), but they just fell short. I think it’s a solid effort by the ALP in this seat.

  11. William, thanks for all your work on this great site, sterling job.
    While this may not be Labor’s biggest ever swing, it is certainly the most significant , this election represented a watershed in Australian politics, to have lost would have consigned the movement to the dustbin of history. As it turned out, it now seems that it may be in fact the Liberals will be the ones consigned to that fate.

  12. William,

    Thanks for yet another cogent analysis.

    Two serious questions I hope you’ll answer.

    1. Regarding a “Slide”. Since I have no idea what your criteria are for that term, could you give us an example of a “Slide” since 1972? Or haven’t there been any since Curtin’s?

    2. Why are Boothby and the W.A. seats the only “oddities” you mention? I reckon Wentworth was a weird seat both in terms of the counter swing to Turnbull and the bizarre melodramatic behaviour of the candidates.

    Again, well done, mate.
    H

  13. Whilst we’re making some random notes, it appears that there will be a lot of low-hanging fruit at the next election for Labor. This will make it even harder for the Libs to fight back, as they will have to defend a lot of seats that Labor could feasibly win. I’m looking at:
    Victoria: La Trobe, McEwen, Dunkley, Aston, Casey, Menzies, McMillan
    New South Wales: Macarthur, Hughes, Cowper, Paterson, Hume
    Queensland: Fisher, Fairfax, Ryan
    Western Australia: Cowan, Stirling, Canning, Kalgoorlie
    South Australia: Boothby, Sturt

    All up, almost half of all Coalition seats are marginals now.

    If the Liberals go backwards (as I expect) over the next 12 months, I’m expecting Rudd to seize the chance of a double dissolution, where he could easily increase his majority.

  14. Surely the fact that the Curtin 1943 win happened during the dark days of 1943 – with the Japanese still poised to invade the mainland – has something to do with the size of the Labor victory? While 2007 isn’t the largest Labor victory in absolute terms (and, yes, psephologically speaking, that is what counts), the 1943 win is always going to have that footnote next to it, while 2007 is pure and unadulterated…

  15. If the Liberals go backwards (as I expect) over the next 12 months, I’m expecting Rudd to seize the chance of a double dissolution, where he could easily increase his majority.

    The other thing is that a number of relatively marginal ALP seats will now require a whopping swing before they fall. It’s incredible how many already safe seats increased their buffer, compensating for the anti-Latham swing, and then some. Unless there’s either a miracle, or some major volatility in the electorate, it’s hard to see how the Libs could win in one term. On the basis, why would anyone other than a masochist put their hand up for the leadership.

  16. Regarding the “low” swing against Joe Hockey.

    His seat and others in north of the Harbour (Bishop, Abbott, Nelson) are not only hugely wealthy with no balance from lower income pockets (such as with the cityside pockets of Turnbull’s seat), but there’s been little change of demographics. If any new building has gone on there since 2004, only equally rich people could afford to buy them.

    Under the circumstance, Hockey took a good whacking. He knows it and wisely has ruled out running for a leadership spot.

  17. This election produced even less support for the “doctors’ wives” thesis than 2004. There was very little movement in inner Sydney and Melbourne, either in safe Labor or safe Liberal seats.

    But it provided a lot of support for a class analysis hypothesis, namely, that electorates voted along class lines. Some sizeable booths in the poorer parts of outer-suburban Melbourne (such as Broadmeadows, or Lalor) got 2PP figures of around 85%. On the other hand, the Liberal Wets in the leafy neighbourhoods held their collective noses and, for the most part, voted Rodent once again.

  18. Foillowing up William’s final dot point. There has certainly been a strong result for the Liberals in the postal vote count in McEwan and Latrobe, enough to move these two doubtfuls from possible ALP gains to probable Liberal holds. On the other hand in all the remining doubtful seats, Dickson, Herbert, Bowman, MacArthur and Swan, the postals have yet to be counted. That’s quite worrying for those of us hoping for a still higher inbalance in the House of Reps.

  19. I’m glad for the election of Hanson-Young – it fights ageism-”adultism” – there should be an affirmative action policy to promote candidates under 30 – the stereotype is that they are “inexperienced” – but how can they get experience with all the age discrimination?

  20. Meng 6

    While I agree that Nicole Cornes, though given a too harsh ride by the media, was not ultimately a sufficiently strong candidate, I don’t agree on Sturt. As a resident I saw a very large Liberal effort in the final weeks with many large post-outs. Pyne was desperate, even using the cowardly wive’s letter mail out tactic of Turnbull. Hence I don’t agree with the diversion of resources argument. Mia Handshin was simply a better candidate – more articulate and with a better grasp of the issues. I think she could have won Boothby, and definitely should be given more runs in the future, and more support.

  21. Also vale Bernie Banton. Given the suffering involved in that sort of illness, it is perhaps a relief that he has passed away. But I’m glad he lived to see Saturday’s result.

  22. William can you please clarify.

    According to AEC historical data in the 1969 election Labor achieved a 7.1% swing to it and gained 16 seats from the opposition. It just didn’t win the election.

    In 1983 (the greatest Labor leader outside of Curtin) Bob Hawke gained 24 seats from the opposition in a parliamnet of 125 seats.

    So whilst this is a geat win it is not the greatest ever.

  23. 1969 was very significant in changing the political perceptions. !983 was huge in tat it buried the 1975 scare campaign.@007 is right behind themfor labor imo.

  24. Sorry folks -a better post here. I think 1969 then 1983 then 2007 as representing large shifts in perceptions.

    In individualtransformations – it would have tobe Malcolm Fraser.

  25. It is interesting that the doctors’ wives seats (Ryan, Higgins, Goldstein, Kooyong, North Sydney) swung so little. I reckon the voters’ there were convinced by the Liberals’ scare campaign. The people who live in those places never get to meet any actual unionists, so they are liable to convinced by tales of union thuggery.

    The centrepiece of the Liberal campaign thus enabled them to hold seats they were never going to lose, Ryan possibly excepted. It failed in all other respects.

    On whether it was a landslide, primary vote comparisons with the distant past are irrelevant, because now there is a party to the left of the ALP, which gets 8 per cent of the vote. This wasn’t the case in Curtin’s day, or even Whitlam’s, or even Hawke’s.

    The Labor + Green primary vote exceeded 50%. This is, I think, the first time in Australian history that the left of centre primary vote has exceeded half the total. It is a hugely significant event.

  26. GG,

    According to the AEC figures (assuming Labor has 89 seats and wins all the doubtfuls) it would take a 2.66% swing in 2010 to lose 14 seats and government, but then a 1% swing to the Government would deliver similar numbers.

  27. William, thanks once again for your brilliant work! Poll Bludger is an invaluable resource and discussion board for all political junkies!
    RIP Bernie Banton: you will be greatly missed! What a courageous man!

  28. I doubt Labor will get to 89 seats, indeed they might only stay on a total of 83.
    Perhaps a more likely total is 85 – Labor holds Swan and wins one of the doubtful QLD seats – Herbert or Dickson?

  29. Nicely summarised, William.

    My own additional thoughts….

    * The doctor’s wives effect may have been offset by the genuine prospect of transition to Costello this term. I think the Wets gritted their teeth and thought “it’s only another 18 months……only 18 months…..” Maybe this helps explain the Libs holding up in the ACT as well?

    * McMillan and Gippsland: The loss of Christian Zhara’s personal vote, esp in the Latrobe Valley, would have hurt Labor in both these seats. Also, Gippsland swung 10% to Labor between 1996 and 2001 (reason unknown), so perhaps there was room for a bounce-back.

    * Who said any publicity isn’t good publicity? Tony Abbot had a hilariously gaffe-prone campaign, yet suffered one of the Liberal party’s smallest swings in his own seat. Warringah-ites must be a very forgiving bunch.

    * I saw that Nicole Cornes ‘interview’ too: I think the SA ALP deserve some sort of award for finding the only person in the country who’s a bigger waste of space than Andrew Southcott to run in Boothby.

    * We’ll have to think of a new name for the “Howard battlers” now they’ve moved back to Labor….”Kev’s Kath & Kim’s” perhaps?

    * The Queensland result has been reported as an “extraordinary” and “remarkable” result: it’s not really. Barring Dawson, all these seats were held by Labor going into the 1996 election. The Libs got an enormous swing at that election which basically stuck until now, so there was always going to be a rebound.

    * The Wentworth result proves how much better a party can do with an aggressive campaign rather than playing dead: 5-10% swings to Turnball in Darlinghurst and Paddington.

  30. Nelson calls for return to ‘fundamental liberal values’

    Liberal Party leadership hopeful Brendan Nelson says the party needs to recognise that Australians expect more from their government than economic management.

    Dr Nelson said the Liberals would need to articulate a “human and social” vision if they were to recover from the weekend’s humiliating election defeat.

    “Symbolism is extremely important,” he said.

    “I think we also need to make sure that we ensure that the fundamental liberal values for which we have always stood, in terms of creating not just an economic vision of our future but also a human and a social one, are no less important to us than getting the economic fundamentals right.”

  31. Anyone know the deal with Fisher? It looks as though radio bird Caroline Hutchence preferenced labour and liberal equally. all the pretence in the daily about her trying to knock off Peter Slipper and it looks as though she helped him keep his seat. I know my mum voted for her if i was her i’d feel stooged a bit.

  32. Interesting booth data from Lingiari: in communities affected by the NT intervention, the ALP vote was as high as 94%.

    A ringing rejection of Brough’s policy.

  33. ESJ,

    1. Assumes a uniform swing.
    2. Assumes there is no boundary changes between now and then.

    But, yes, Libs only need 49% to win if an election were held tomorrow.

  34. Two questions out of this thread for me.

    Didn’t the SA branch of the party want Nicole Corne’s husband, Graham Cornes (popular former footballer) to run but when he declined she put her hand up?
    Next time they should get Graham to run.

    Also, I have a concern that the flow of Green preferences to us for this election. Does this mean that “the piper must be paid” and those far Left lunatics are going to start to make demands of Kevin Rudd?

  35. This just hit my inbox, not sure where it originated:

    “On Saturday 24 November at 3.30pm I arrived at Epping West Public School on the Rights At Work bus where the then Prime Minister John Howard was also in attendance.

    As I walked into the polling booth with a bright orange Rights At Work t-shirt about to see the PM not sure how to make this situation a success rather than an uncomfortable crossing of paths a smart alec Liberal worker offered me a Liberal Party how to vote which I happily took.

    What happened next is a piece of political history.

    I waited while the PM signed autographs for some kids. He then looked up and said “Nice to see you John. Is the top lip just for this month?”

    I replied “Yes I’m doing Movember.”

    I then asked him if he would sign the how to vote I had been given by the Liberal Party worker. He said “Yes” and I passed it over.

    He wrote on it and then passed the how to vote back and said “Nice to meet you.”

    I thanked him and walked back to the bus in absolute amazement.

    He wrote the following:

    “To John

    Warm Wishes

    & not enough votes

    John Howard”

    In light of the fact that this is only the second time in history that a Prime Minister has lost an election and his seat, this will remain a precious piece of history.

    Regards, John Robertson

    Secretary, Unions NSW

    Level 3, Trades Hall

    4 Goulburn Street

    SYDNEY NSW 2000″

  36. The two worst ALP candidates this election were Nicole Cornes and George Newhouse: both Boothby and Wentworth were winnable.
    On the other hand, Darren Cheeseman and Mike Symon, written off by most people here as morons, won.

  37. I know it doesn’t figure highly in the minds of most of you but for a labor supporter to live in both the Hume(Fed) and Burrinjuck(state) electorates wher both Libs and nats have firmly entrenched positions it was significant to us that Hume is now on a 3.4% margin to Alby Shultz. Having been alongside the Eden -Monaro electorate and witness to the electoral largesse lavished on them we in Hume look forward to being a Marginal next time round.

  38. I thought of another “Any publicity is good publicity” winner: Andrew Laming, who may still hold his seat despite single-handedly taking out two of his colleagues over Shreddergate.

    Any publicity is good publicity, Case Against: Jackie Kelly, who seems to have gone from Liberal party hero to The Woman Who Single-Handedly Cost Howard Victory (TM) in less than a week…

  39. The near parity on the primary vote is interesting, does anyone know whether this is the slimmest / closest margin ever achieved for a party which won government?

  40. How long do we think it is before one of the Lib leadership candidates announces that we should say ‘Sorry’ to indigenous Australians?

    And who will get there first?

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 1 of 17
1 2 17