This time yesterday, Liberal member Fran Bailey held on to a 32-vote lead in McEwen which, though rapidly diminishing, was calculated by Antony Green to be 77 per cent likely to hold after the few remaining votes were counted. Those votes are now in: the last few absent votes broke 100-93 in favour of Labor’s Rob Mitchell, postals went 37-21 his way, pre-polls favoured him to the tune of 33-23, and further rechecking of booth votes cost Bailey 14 and Mitchell eight. All of which leaves Mitchell seven votes ahead. This is apparently the final result, pending the final recount, which could certainly turn up enough anomalies to overturn a lead as small as this. Adam Carr further argues that with a margin of fewer than 20 votes, “the Liberal Party’s lawyers will be able to scrape up some pretext or another for a court challenge”. He also states: “Unfortunately for Labor, most of the precedents are that the incumbent government loses the subsequent by-election (Nunawading, Mundingburra, Greensborough).”
Mundingburra of course was the Queensland by-election in February 1996 that cost the Goss government the one-seat majority it retained after the 1995 election. The other two are from Carr’s home patch of Victoria. There are probably about five people in the country who can tell you about the 1985 by-election for the state upper house province of Nunawading, and I am not of their number. UPDATE: Scratch that – the result cost the Cain government its short-lived control of the upper house, so probably quite a few people know about it, including me from now on. What’s more, it followed an initial tied result and a win for Labor decided by a draw from a hat. The Greensborough by-election refers not to the one Sherryl Garbutt won in 1989, but rather to the one Poll Bludger commenter Chris Curtis ran in as DLP candidate in 1977, which produced a massive swing to the then Labor opposition. ANOTHER UPDATE: A correction in comments from Brian McKinlay (of McKinlay case fame), who says Carr was in fact referring to yet another by-election for Greensborough which took place in 1973, which saw a Liberal win overturned by the court before being re-confirmed by the electorate. One might respond that the 1996 Lindsay by-election demonstrates that voters do not take kindly to initiators of legal challenges, but perhaps the 5.0 per cent Liberal swing on that occasion had more to do with Labor’s generally poor performance at re-matches than is generally realised.
Anyway, let’s assume now for the sake of argument that this result stands. We now have a new modern standard for close federal electorate results to beat Liberal candidate Ian Viner’s 12-vote win in Stirling in 1974. The historians among you are invited to relate other famous close shaves in comments. We also have Labor on 84 seats and the Coalition on 64, with two independents. This is pleasing from a personal perspective as it’s exactly what I predicted early in the campaign for New Matilda, although I did underestimate Queensland’s contribution to the Labor total. Unfortunately, the day before the election I upped the ante to 87 in a prediction for Crikey, which looked very good on election night but became progressively less good as counting proceeded.
This prediction was highlighted today in The Australian, which has promoted me from confuser of fact with opinion and baser of opinion on ignorance and prejudice to the slightly more elevated title of “pundit”. I suspected at first that The Australian compiled this list as a subtle dig at an online commentariat that had leaned a little too heavily to Labor in its predictions, but that doesn’t explain the inclusion of Malcolm Mackerras. In any case, Brad Norington bails me out in the accompanying article by trying on the line that Labor owes its win to “fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates”. Those of you marvelling over the seven-vote margin in McEwen are invited to consider an election in which the Coalition held on to power after retaining each of Bass, Bennelong, Braddon, Corangamite, Deakin, Flynn, Hasluck, Robertson and Solomon by one solitary vote. On this basis, I hereby declare that my prediction of 87 seats was only out by 595 votes out of 12,350,549. It would in fact be far more accurate to say it was 0.2 per cent out, which isn’t so bad either I suppose.
UPDATE: Adam Carr on historical close results:
In terms of numbers of votes, the closest result in a House of Representatives contest was 1 vote (13,569 to 13,568), when Edwin Kirby (Nationalist) defeated Charles McGrath (ALP) in Ballarat (Vic) in 1919. The result was declared void in 1920. In 1903 Robert Blackwood (FT) defeated John Chanter (Prot) in Riverina (NSW) by 5 votes (4,341 to 4,336). This result was also declared void. The closest result allowed to stand was 7 votes (13,162 to 13,155), when John Lynch (ALP), defeated Hon Alfred Conroy (Lib) in Werriwa (NSW) in 1914. In terms of percentages of the vote, the closest result was Kirby’s voided win in Ballarat in 1919: he polled 50.002% of the vote. The closest result allowed to stand was that in the Griffith (Qld) by-election of 1939, when William Conelan (ALP) defeated Peter McCowan (UAP), after preferences, with 50.007% of the vote. The closest winning margin in recent times has been 50.011%, polled by Ian Viner (Liberal) in Stirling (WA) in 1974 and by Christine Gallus (Liberal) in Hawker (SA) in 1990.
Mitchell has 50.003%, so his percentage is lower than both Conelan’s in 1939, Viner’s in 1974 and Gallus’s in 1990.
Glen, do yourself a favour and read this Laurie Oakes article. He sums up nelson beautifully.
http://thebulletinelection.ninemsn.com.au/talent_quest.htm?_cobr=optus
“…their masthead says ‘ the Heart of Australia’ – it may be time to change that.”
Perhaps ‘ the Heartlessness of Australia ‘ ?? That would sum up quite a few opinion writers.
*Sigh* More winge winge winge winge winge about The Bloody Australian. If you don’t like it, DON’T BUY IT for Chissakes.
On the McEwen recount, just transcribing the wonderful wireless:
Bailey says that 2 votes were “found” by the AEC this morning, which reduced the difference to 5 votes, and her specific reasons for demanding a recount are as follows:
inconsistent rulings on formality
missing ballot papers
lack of security
uncertainty on vote counts
party scrutineers not present at times
votes not on official ballot papers or not intitialled
huge discrepancy between McEwen absents at 8651, when Vic state average at 5000.
Bailey says that most of these issues were raised and adjudicated during the normal scrutiny (probably all except the last one).
The AEC says that a very small margin is not sufficient to trigger a recount (thanks Martin B!) but that it will consider Bailey’s request on its merits.
By the way – a voter pulled me aside on polling day to point out the Libs HTV had a whole lot of material printed on the back that was clearly party promotion.
He asked me if it was correct that no advertising material could be inside the polling booth and so was it possible that this was a breach of electoral rules.
I referred him to the returning officer, and heard no more.
But , if he was right could this invalidate the entire election???
No one could fathom why on earth Nelson would be aircraft useless to our needs – even his own know it was wrong. So why?
A Liberal MP says party leader Brendan Nelson made the wrong decision in his previous role as defence minister when he ordered 24 Super Hornet jet fighters for the RAAF.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113688.htm
An earlier story, but most relevant.
NELSON’S announcement at Fairbairn made for a fitting farewell for Boeing Australia president Andrew Peacock. The former Liberal leader and ambassador to the US retired just days before the big Super Hornet announcement. His 4 years at the helm had been a success, securing Boeing $5 billion in other defence contracts as well as a huge to deal to supply Qantas with 115 787 air liners.
Although companies as big as Boeing are rarely troubled getting access to politicians and officials, having Peacock as a door-opener made putting a case to Canberra’s decision-makers that bit easier.
“A brilliant strategic appointment … he was very good in dealing with the top level of government,” says a source who has seen Peacock in action for Boeing.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-hornets-nest/2007/07/08/1183833340924.html?page=fullpage
503 Adam hear hear… Its not like its the ABC… funded by public money
If the Australian doesn’t give its readers what they want, then it will have fewer and fewer readers, and slide into total irrelevance.
The Australian loses money, and always has, but Murdoch has been prepared to cross subsidise it from the profit making parts of his empire because it has given him influence and cache as a respectable, serious newspaper (at least compared to his other newspapers). If the Australian degenerates into irrelevance, with Albrechtson writing for Pearson and vice versa, then Rupert will have no reason to keep it going.
Adam, I don’t buy The Australian. But that is not the point. A lot of us, and certainly myself, lament the fact that we only have one national newspaper (apart from AFR) that fails to adequately reflect the nation. Our voices should be heard…
506
Jen Says no.
504 –
I think it’s a bit late to be demanding a recount in Western Victoria considering the Victorian state election was OVER A YEAR AGO!
“Our voices should be heard…”
It’s very expensive to start your own national newspaper, so that isn’t feasible.
But you can start your own blog. Your voice can then be heard all over the world.
Jen at 506, only if it could be proved that it affected the result of the election in that division. See here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s365.html
Thinking of “The Australian” I can’t help but recall the political poetry of one P.J Keating who recently described them as “those middle-of-the-road fascists at News Limited.” Bless you Paul – nailed it again.
On a slightly different, but related point – the circulation of that toilet paper is not the issue; its about political muscle flexing in whatever way possible. They can’t win an argument on merit, because they have no merit….what they can do is muddy the waters of an argument and derail the process of clear democracy (I’m talking about the “is climate change real?” rubbish they’ve pushed for so long as one example). They can also try to shape the focus of national politics by beating an issue up until it needs to be propped up for further beating (Glen Milne really thinks he was doing Australia a favour by dwelling on Rudd’s strip club visit?).
These people are just plain rotten, but don’t think lack of profitability has or ever will stop the likes of Murdoch and his pissant toadies.
Did anyone happen to record the ABC Election coverage? If possible I’d like to obtain a copy on DVD(s) if somone would be so kind as to help me out.
(triffid at internode dot on dot net)
That’s what we have the internet for. Newspapers are a dying medium. If Rupert wants to lose money publishing a Liberal Party propaganda rag, that’s his business. No-one has to read it, and almost no-one does. There’s no point going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how bad it is. We know, OK?
Gary (361),
The DLP recommended preferences to the Liberals because its members had been expelled by the left-wing controllers of the ALP in the 1950s and it hoped to deprive the ALP of office until it reformed, which it eventually did. Below is the statement of principles from the DLP in 1977. You would be hard pressed to argue that they are not on the left of the political spectrum. In fact, some of them are to the left of the current ALP.
The DLP Looks Ahead 1/5/1977 1.1(1…3)
SOCAL PHILOSOPHY
1. Democatic labor’s Social Philosophy
The broad goal of the Democratic Labor Party is to develop and modify the existing structure of Austral;ian society to in order to bring it closer to being a free and just democratic society. The basic principles which form the foundation of Democratic Labor’s political objectives are summarised below.
2. The Primacy of the Human Person
Democratic Labor maintains that every human being has an inherent dignity and essential worth which is absolutely independent of all value or usefulness to society.
On tis principle rests the prime political goal of the Democratic Labor Party –
TO DEVELOP AN AUSTRALIAN NATION OF FREE MEN AND WOMEN BASED ON THE RECOGNITION THAT THESTATE EXISTS FOR THE GOOD OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON.
Freedom – Humanity’s Rightful Inheritance
Democratic Labor maintains that the dignity and essential worth of the human person can be best respected and preserved if each individual has the ready opportunity to participate in the making of decisions which affect him.
On this principle rests the second political goal of the Democratic Labor Party –
TO DEVELOP AUSTRAL AS A FREE SOCIETY IN WHICH EACH CITIZEN HAS THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAKING OF ALL DECISIONS (ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL) WHICH AFFECT HIM.
Responsibility – The Corollary to Freedom – imposes on the individual correlative responsibilities to the common good.
On this principle rests the third political objective of the Democratic Labor Party –
TO DEVELOP AUSTRALIA AS A JUST DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY IN WHCH POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INFLUENCE OR POWER IS DISTRIBUTED ON THE WIDEST POSSIBLE BASIS THROUGHOUT SOCIETY.
Establishing a Just Society
Democratic Labor pledges itself –
TO DECENTRALISE TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE THE OWENRSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXCHANGE.
Recognising the undue political power stems from a societal structure in which decision-making is remote from the individual, Democratic Labor pledges itself –
TO THJE BROADENING OF THE POWER BASE OF SOCIRTY BY DECENTRALISATION TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT EFFECTIVELY POSSIBLE OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY WITHIN SOCIETY.
DEMOCRATIC DECENTRALSM
THE IDEOLOGY OF FREEDOM AND JUSTICE
1. Defining Decentralism
The guiding political philosophy, or ideology, of Democratic Labor is DECENTRALISM, which may be broadly defined as the spreading through constitutional means of wealth, power and property on the widest possible basis throughout the community.
As a general principle, in a DECENTRALIST SOCIETY, the State should do only what individuals or intermediate autonomous bodies are not able to do. Further these autonomous bodies (regional councils, trade unions, residents’ associations, cultural societies, professional institutes and so forth) should only do what individuals or family groups cannot do well.
2. Political Decentralism
In the field of Government, this means that there are certain duties (for example, immigration, defence or international treaties) which are most appropriately performed by a central political authority – the Australian Government).
Outside this range of duties, the central government’s function must be to help co-ordinate, towards the common good, the efforts of those levels of government or the many autonomous organizations which are more directly controlled by their constituents or members.
3. Economic Decentralism
Economic decentralism means that the personal ownership of the nation’s wealth is equitably distributed on the widest possible basis.
Political decentralism without economic decentralism means that they employee is relegated to the position of a ‘wage slave’, and has little or no opportunity to achieve his destiny though the exercise of responsibility.
In order to bring about this free and just democratic society, the DLP is pledged to the following political principles –
The creation of a nation economically strong, nationally secure, fully employed, in which poverty shall have no part, with the greatest possible educational opportunities and the highest possible moral and cultural values, and dedicated to the principles of liberty and peace.
1) The establishment of the economic, social and political foundations of personal freedom by decentralisation to the maximum extent possible of the ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange; by the devolution of power to the smallest units for effective decision-making; and by the decentralisation of population. The implementation of economic democracy by support for profit-sharing, co-operatives, worker ownership, small scale enterprise and employee and consumer participation in the control of industry.
2) Te maintenance of Parliamentary Democracy, the assertion of the individual and community duty to observe the rule of law, the assertion of independence in judgement and action of duly democratically elected political representatives.
3) The preservation and support of the family as the basic unity of society.
4) Te acknowledgment of the roles of Individual Initiative, Private Enterprise and the State in social and economic affairs.
5) The maintenance of the Australian Federal system wit a due distribution of power and economic resources between the Commonwealth, the States and Local Government.
6) The restoration and maintenance of effective legal authority of the Arbitration system as a means of determining wages and salaries and as the instrument for resolving industrial disputes.
7) The acknowledgement of the necessary and proper role of the trade union movement in society and the democratic control of trade unions by their membership.
8) The strengthening and extension of the concept of Australian Nationalism with due regard for Australia’s membership in the community of nations, and recognition of Australia’s duty to contribute to the welfare of the underprivileged peoples of the world.
9) The development and maintenance of an adequate Defence Force.
10) The closets possible economic, cultural and mutual defence alliances with friendly nations.
11) The adoption of electoral systems under both Federal and State laws to enable appropriate Parliamentary representation for significant minority groups within the community.
12) The establishment of the concept of pluralism in education, and that the principle of general per capita payments be adhered to in the distribution of Government assistance to non-Government schools.
13) The protection and conservation of our natural environment and the planned use of natural resources in recognition of the close relationship between man and nature and the finite nature of the earth’s resources.
Democratic Labor calls upon all citizens to join with us in achieving these goals, so that Australians may enjoy a better life.
oh please.
Noocat you have Intenet. Stop buying newspapers full stop, stop destroying the environment and stop lamenting. Internet is far better resource. It is the only free media and “free press”. The Age and the Australian will soon disappear from our streets.
So….The Australian doesn’t have any revenue from its online version?
> Interesting to see how the AEC will respond to the Libs “demand”
According to 12pm news, the AEC has ordered a full recount in McEwen
Siros.. it costs nothing one of the best news sites and coverage of the election can be found here and here and there is always Google or what ever other search engine you wish to use. You can even start your own blog/news site.
Ron Brown (367),
To the best of my knowledge the DLP did not preference ALP candidates apart from some in the 1955 election and in Gordon Freeth’s seat in 1969 (though I am not certain of the latter), but it did not always preference the Coalition. In 1969, it preferenced a number of independent Labor candidates in Victoria, such as Sam Benson. After the DLP disbanded in 1978, the new DLP started to preference pro-life Labor candidates, as it did in the recent federal election.
If Alexander Downer were to step down from Mayo, the ideal independent to win the seat would be … Natasha Stott Despoja.
MC, if you regard the Age and Australian’s election coverage as biased, what then is Andrew Landeryou’s? Neutral?
526
Sean: Another political opinion that you can accept or reject according to your own bias.
Brendan Nelson: NOWHERE MAN.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uf9N5UCuss
Mogfeatures@456
Whilst I agree with you on Greens not wanting to preference Liberal. In a strong Liberal seat, one way (for a Tory) to send a message to the Tory side of the party, is to preference Liberal after the Greens. I’m sure this happend during the NSW State election, as it was the vibe that came across on the booth. However, I’m certain that at the Federal level many Green voters understood that their preference is best directed to Labor (via HTV or personal choice). I think this was also the intention of the Greens themselves – I’m sure that Bob Brown uttered the words that a vote for the Greens would of course be a vote for Labor, maybe someone can pinpoint when BB said that. It was certainly the attitude of the Greens on the both I was on.
I watch the BBC every day and I know it gets it wrong most of the time. The lesson to be leant the truth is out there but is can to be found on the BBC, BC Age or the Australian. Do not trust or believe in what you read or see on TV. I saw a baby being throrn overboard. Was she discarding the child and oplacing its life at risk or was she trying to save it by throwing it to a more safe place.
Phil I do not know about Ideal. I am sure the elctorate woudl consider worthey of some support just how much is hard to know. I somehow think Naty is tied of politics and has opted for a new life.
The AEC has been busy with updates today…
melb city did you get knocked of your push bikeby a man driving a AEC truck when you were a kid?
seriously its one of the most impressive grudges ive ever seen..
533 –
I think it dates back to a court case in the ’90s against the VEC.
Victorian Senate count 90.73%
Greens still needing over 100% of the minor party BTL vote… to remain a contender in the race.
Party Liberal ALP Green Others (BTL) Total Quota
1302710 1293586 380450 36463 3,013,210 430460
43.233% 42.931% 12.626% 1.210% 14.286%
Quotas 3.0263 3.0051 0.8838 0.0847
“These people are just plain rotten, but don’t think lack of profitability has or ever will stop the likes of Murdoch and his pissant toadies.”
Optimist, I think this is what is the most interesting of all. They believe they have great influence and yet the readership is relatively tiny.
Adam and others miss the point completely. It is not about wingeing. Sure, there is an element of disgust. BUT, it is also about UNDERSTANDING. It is our national newspaper and it therefore receives greater attention and status than a political magazine or journal.
At the same time, it is also a commercial failure, and despite their rabidly right-wing or neo-conservative stance, they regularly try to deceive their readers of being balanced, while at the same time, taking up a crusade against their fictitious version of the “left”. I find the whole motivation and general mindset behind the editorial intentions of this paper bizarre. It also leaves me curious about how the incoming government will deal with it and what the future of the paper will be.
But most of all, because the paper has no real competition, who will oppose it? Who is there to counter some of their silly views and editorial stances if not the bloggers?
McEwen result has been updated @ AEC: 6 votes different!
And for Jen somewhere way back there – I’m still in moderation for some reason!? So you will probably never see this comment or the one above, unless you troll through all those previous comments.
Chris how can you say that the Qld Labor Party was controlled by the left wing. The Groupers were expelled because they owed alliegence to external bodies, the National Civic Council and the Catholic Church, Bob Santamaria and Cardinal Mannix. The Groupers were doing exactly what they accused the Communist Party of doing. That is Taking over the ALP by stealth. If the DLP were left of centre in the 50’s,60’s and 70’s why did they support the Menzies, Holt,Gorton and McMahon governments? Strange behaviour for a left of centre party if you ask me.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22898577-12377,00.html
“FORMER Howard government minister Fran Bailey says electoral officials have found two of the eight votes she needs to retain her Melbourne seat.”
C’mon Adam, you know the ‘whinging’ about the GG is about far more than the editorial bias of one newspaper. You also know that the problem won’t be solved by us all just ignoring it.
The problem is that our so-called free press in this country has ben effectively hijacked by one person and that freedom of the press has been largely reduced to freedom to perpetrate Mr Murdoch’s agenda. As a recent UK inquiry has discovered, Mr Murdoch actively uses his newspapers to promote his right wing agenda and support those candidates who agree with him.
The focus of our collective angst is that the concentration of our not-so-free press in the hands of this right wing idealogue presents a clear threat to freedom of thought and to our system of democracy.
Howard behinds McKew 2,432 votes in Bennelong
To those who say simply stop buying the Australian, I’d point out that Murdoch has a lot of regional Australia by the balls on this. He deliberately reduces national and international coverage in the regional press to boost sales of the Oz, and in large parts of Australia that’s all you can get unless you want to wait for Fairfax papers and read your news a day old. (No, it doesn’t improve in the bottle.)
If you check the sites for the Hun, the Tele, the Courier-Mail, the Tiser and the Mercury today, you’ll find there’s not a single national or international headline between them. Looks as if it’s business as usual for the laughably titled News Corp.
Even the ABC news has been dumbed down thanks to Albrechtson’s crusade about ‘balance’. And which paper does she write for?
Chris (518) the DLP’s platform is interesting. Maybe they have more than a handful of genuine adherents, plus (especially in Victoria) some diehards from their former incarnation as anti-communists. But as far as I can see, apart from fluking upper house seats in Victoria, their main electoral consequence seems to be to siphon votes from the real Labor party. Just see how their vote is risible when they are on the right of the ALP on the Senate ballot, and how much higher it is when they are to the left of the ALP.
Also, wasn’t it the case that one of the Macgaurans was helping prop up their registration?
Observer,
Bob Brown made it very clear reapeatedly that the Greens supported a Rudd Labor government to win the election.
He also made it clear that ew disagreed with Labor on a number of issues – principly, their support for uraning mining and export, their support for Howard’s disgraceful Indigeneous Invasion whoops I mean Intervention, not fully repealing Workchoices, and the support for the appalling Pulp Mill in Tasmania, among other sustainability and enviromental issues.
So while we supported Rudd to get elected in preference to Howard, there are many areas that The Grrens seek to alter Labor’s current position.
Observer – by the way what did you do to upset William?
Labor will not mess up their preferencing for the next state election in Victoria and the DLP will disappear once again as a consequence.
MelbCity at 542 – there was a parliamentary inquiry over a decade ago into whether there should be one national electoral authority, and it was concluded that for constitutional reasons this was not possible. The States did not want to cede their powers to conduct their own elections to the federal government. End of story.
Grace … the do nothing argument that beaucrats love to rely on…
Melb City – the conspiracy against you deepens… have you considered therapy?
Oh, great: Gunns look as if they’ve already ‘inadvertently’ breached the environmental conditions for building their monstrosity:
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22897731-3462,00.html