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.
Thanks Dyno
Would agree that Shanahans main beef is people questioning his opinion, he trys to muddy the waters by some obscure reference to bloggers posts about the Superdome after hurricane Katrina.
If Shanahan wants to take people to task over comments he should be going his beloved PM who talked of “Chaos and Madnees” should labor win. Though there does appear to be a fair bit of chaos and madness in the lib and nats following their defeat.
re Adam@48. The myth of Communist preferences to Killen well killed off. There are always a “leakage” of preferences despite what parties do with HTV cards.
In this election I analysed about 300 votes at a booth (a mixed very average SA booth) as they were counted on just this issue.
Of 109 ALP 1 votes – 35 followed ALP HTV card exactly or nearly exactly (given rush of observation), 24 gave a direct 2nd to Greens (who were low down on ALP HTV) and 50 had other versions of preferences.
Of 92 Lib 1 votes – 39 followed Lib HTV exactly or nearly exactly, 12 gave a direct preference to Greens and 41 had other versions of preferences.
Of 33 Greens 1 votes – 10 followed Greens HTV and 23 had other versions of preferences (often 1 Greens 2 ALP).
Other version include a fair % of Libs giving 2nd preference to ALP and vice versa ie people who don’t much like smaller parties or vote for names that they recognise.
On these figures, overall at this booth 6.5% voted 1 Greens, about 10% voted 1 ALP 2 Greens and 5% voted 1 Lib 2 Greens.
This means about 36% of people followed HTV cards exactly or close to. Its the people who decide (or should decide) where there preferences go. Good reason to provide more options in Senate voting. People are afraid to vote below line for well founded fear of mistakes. But surely the experience of Family First in Victoria in 2004 (and check Christian Democratic Party in WA getting close this time) and the DLP in Victorian upper house is enough to wonder about how well the result reflects peoples’ views.
THE MSM simply cannot accept what is happening now. MSM no longer has the mortgage over the facts, opinions, dissemination and the distribution anymore.
Their value, power and influence are being slowly but surely eroded. Since when the MSM let facts get in the way of their interpretation and analysis. How often they dress up their opinion as fact.
Furthermore, what is fact anyway. It’s all relative as Albert would say. They are all opinion.
Plus a by-election without Bailey would possibly be a 3-corner contest (although the Nats would only play a small role given the level of support they got at state level in the same area).
pedant #93 – Thanks for the background giving true credit. Fascinating, especially the Lewis Carroll bit.
Common misspellings on this blog: McEwan (for McEwen), bye-election (for by-election), Michelle Gratten (for Grattan).
I have to thank you again William for your excellent content. I found your site after reading comment in the SMH and what an eye opener it has been for an oldie.
I learnt to laugh at The Oz instead of screaming about the columns by Shanahan and Milne. How they must dislike us obtaining better and more lucid comment from blog sites such as yours, Possum and LP. Your sites kept me sane and, as a consequence, my poor husband. I have forgotten how to put a small sum your way via Paypal or whatever. Can you enlighten me please. And also another thanks to your interesting commenters who appear to have a better interpretation of what is actually happening than a lot of our one dimensional MSM journos.
I was the DLP candidate in both the 1973 and the 1977 Greensborough ?by-elections?. The DLP did not contest the 1976 election as it wanted the Liberals to lose seats because they had broken their promise from the 1973 election to reform the Legislative Council. The DLP could not bring itself to recommend second preferences to the ALP as a way of guaranteeing Liberal loses. I advised DLP people to vote for Brian McKinlay in Greensborough. Not enough did, obviously.
I was not included on Bluebottle?s list, but I was not far off with my predictions: House – Labor 82, Coalition 66, independents 2; Senate ? Labor 34, Coalition 37, Greens 3, FF 1, Nick Xenophon 1. I was wrong on individual seats, thinking Labor would win McMillan and LaTrobe, but not McEwen.
260107 (Idle speculation about the federal election)
?The only prediction I make is one I have been making for years: the Democrats are finished. No ifs, no buts ? they will lose all their Senate seats ? and it will be their own fault.?
280207 (Idle speculation: late February edition)
?I?ve just looked through Labor?s National Curriculum Policy. Kevin Rudd will retain the initiative all year. He is absolutely determined. He will hit hard and fast and without warning from every direction under the sun. He will keep the government on the run, and he will win. If I?m right, I?ll claim bragging rights. If I?m wrong, I hope you will all forget I said this ? I will.?
120307 (Idle speculation: mid- March edition)
?It would be foolish to say that Kevinism is unstoppable, but I still think Labor will win and win clearly. I?ll leave the numbers till later. This is not 2001, or 2004, or even 1969. This is 1972, but with the advantage of no Whitlam government at the end of it.?
030607 (Idle speculation: annihilation edition)
?I predict Labor to gain 22 seats. I should add that, as a person with little interest in football, I have entered only one football tipping competition in my life. I won.
?I think there is a chance that the coalition will gain only two Senate seats in one state, which would leave it with the ability to block Labor legislation on its own but take away its ability to carry any bills, amendments or motions without the support of Family First.?
(Note that this was predicted before Nick Xenophon announced his candidacy, which has resulted in the Coalition?s being reduced to only two seats in two states.)
If the opinion polls had had the Coalition in front all year by the amount Labor was, noone would have had any doubt about a Coalition win.
The Australian?s silly article about how close the election was is nonsense. Think back to the Victorian state election in 1999. A difference of just a few votes in Geelong, I think it was, would have meant another four years of suffering for the state, but Steve Bracks went on to be re-elected in a landslide in 2002.
I think a result of 84 is close to a prediction of 82. The lessons are, on the one hand, not to carried away by the initial enthusiasm of the crowds and, on the other, not to discount all the evidence staring you in the face in opinion polls.
With the Senate, I was right about 37 Coalition seats, right about the Democrats losing, right about Family First not gaining another seat, right about the ACT, NT, Queensland, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. I was wrong about the Greens. I should have paid more attention to WA. With SA, my prediction was made before the candidacy of Mr Xenophon.
I still expect Kevin Rudd to win the next election with a swing to Labor.
AJ @ 99
The logic in the last par way off beam. The comparison of fact A alongside fact B in no proof.
Have you bothered to look at Higgins? I’ll say no more.
I was the DLP candidate in both the 1973 and the 1977 Greensborough ?by-elections?. The DLP did not contest the 1976 election as it wanted the Liberals to lose seats because they had broken their promise from the 1973 election to reform the Legislative Council. The DLP could not bring itself to recommend second preferences to the ALP as a way of guaranteeing Liberal loses. I advised DLP people to vote for Brian McKinlay in Greensborough. Not enough did, obviously.
I was not included on Bluebottle?s list, but I was not far off with my predictions: House – Labor 82, Coalition 66, independents 2; Senate ? Labor 34, Coalition 37, Greens 3, FF 1, Nick Xenophon 1. I was wrong on individual seats, thinking Labor would win McMillan and LaTrobe, but not McEwen.
260107 (Idle speculation about the federal election)
?The only prediction I make is one I have been making for years: the Democrats are finished. No ifs, no buts ? they will lose all their Senate seats ? and it will be their own fault.?
280207 (Idle speculation: late February edition)
?I?ve just looked through Labor?s National Curriculum Policy. Kevin Rudd will retain the initiative all year. He is absolutely determined. He will hit hard and fast and without warning from every direction under the sun. He will keep the government on the run, and he will win. If I?m right, I?ll claim bragging rights. If I?m wrong, I hope you will all forget I said this ? I will.?
120307 (Idle speculation: mid- March edition)
?It would be foolish to say that Kevinism is unstoppable, but I still think Labor will win and win clearly. I?ll leave the numbers till later. This is not 2001, or 2004, or even 1969. This is 1972, but with the advantage of no Whitlam government at the end of it.?
030607 (Idle speculation: annihilation edition)
?I predict Labor to gain 22 seats. I should add that, as a person with little interest in football, I have entered only one football tipping competition in my life. I won.
?I think there is a chance that the coalition will gain only two Senate seats in one state, which would leave it with the ability to block Labor legislation on its own but take away its ability to carry any bills, amendments or motions without the support of Family First.?
(Note that this was predicted before Nick Xenophon announced his candidacy, which has resulted in the Coalition?s being reduced to only two seats in two states.)
If the opinion polls had had the Coalition in front all year by the amount Labor was, noone would have had any doubt about a Coalition win.
The Australian?s silly article about how close the election was is nonsense. Think back to the Victorian state election in 1999. A difference of just a few votes in Geelong, I think it was, would have meant another four years of suffering for the state, but Steve Bracks went on to be re-elected in a landslide in 2002.
I think a result of 84 is close to a prediction of 82. The lessons are, on the one hand, not to carried away by the initial enthusiasm of the crowds and, on the other, not to discount all the evidence staring you in the face in opinion polls.
With the Senate, I was right about 37 Coalition seats, right about the Democrats losing, right about Family First not gaining another seat, right about the ACT, NT, Queensland, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania. I was wrong about the Greens. I should have paid more attention to WA. With SA, my prediction was made before the candidacy of Mr Xenophon.
I still expect Kevin Rudd to win the next election with a swing to Labor.
The question marks were quotation marks when I posted them.
Is religious faith based on facts? I rest my case.
…except for the ones that were apostrophes.
43 Ferny Grover “Jen, in between elections we pine away for the next election while analysing the previous one to bits.”
So that means we’re all against 4 year terms, and for shorter terms.
92
Basil Fawlty
Yep, it’s been harrowing Basil, you know how it is with evictions: they mess about, stall, feign illness, try locking themselves in, and just go into complete denial.
It really is quite sad, but the Rodents Snr have been getting calls from their doctor, one Horatio Hornet, advising medications and doing some patient listening. According to Dr Hornet, Mr Rodent is in the early stages of dementia (and has been for at the least the last 12 months), and seems to think he’s still the leader of something called the “Coalition”, and wants to give Dr Hornet lots of strange advice. Even worse, it seems that Mr Rodent Snr has been calling up world leaders and keeps pretending to be the Prime Minister of Australia!
Anyway, we’ve started now, and we’ll have the old dears safely removed before Xmas, where they can wait for Santa to bring them lots of retirement reading about Don Bradman and a swag of recipe books for Mrs Rodent. That should see them out, eh?
Christopher Pearson is running the same line that the LIberals require only a tiny swing. We can see the majority of the Liberals will persaude themselves that the election result was an aberration, due to Howard not retiring. Thus they will drift helplessly until 2010
Posts @ mid 70s
Regarding circular ballot papers, I understand that it was proposed by Calwell – I think following 1961.
Interestingly, in the current Vic senate ballot, the Socialist Equity Party (Former Socialist Labour League – Pommy-based group claiming to be the ‘4th International’) registered 3 tickets – i.e. 1/3 of prefs to each of ALP, Lib & Green.
At one point it was in theory possible that their prefs could re-elect the third Lib over ALP or Green. Such precient leadership for the workers!
Earlier posts – previous thread – observed that Calwell would have wanted two Penny Wongs. An observation that no-one has made that I had expected. While his original comment contained a reference to a then Federal ALP M.P. (White) today the ALP Federal MP is Wong – not sure if we still have a White in either state or federal parliaments. (The former Vic. Health Minister, David White, having left Parliament some time ago.)
Good morning al. Apparently Kevin Rudd is just a nicer Mussolini and we can all expect our civil liberties to be smashed under Kevin’s jackboot:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/lost-in-ideals-brace-for-ruddslide-on-liberty/2007/12/08/1196813079449.html
With all the talk of the Oz’s attitude to scrutiny, it seemed appropriate to repost this link to an article by Prof Tiffen from Uni of Syd on the Murdoch press’ political bias and what it now means under a Labor government.
http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/comment_results.chtml?filename_num=183199
The final para is worth quoting here:
“Two conclusions should not be lost sight of. Labor won this election without any help, and in the face of some hindrance, from News Limited, and so the government owes the company precisely zero. Second, the Murdoch press has exposed itself as being out of touch with public opinion, and with a more limited capacity to influence it than they might have imagined. Its senior ranks are so dominated by conservative ideologues that this colours all their views of politics. This long ago started to damage their professional credibility, but of more interest to their boss may be the fact that now it is also increasingly threatening their commercial performance.”
It’s pretty foolish to start predicting what’s likely to happen in the next election, but at this stage some of the more vulnerable Labor seats appear to be Bass, Braddon, Corangamite, McEwen, Deakin, Robertson, Solomon, Flynn and Kingston. But when you consider redistributions, incumbency, economic unknowns, the Liberal fragmentation and the rise and rise of Kevin Rudd, who would bet on anything?
On Antony’s ABC election site the spot for the picture spot for the leader of the coalition is still occupied by el roedor.
Kirribilli Removals, your job is not yet done.
Congratulations Wiliam on picking the margin within 0.2%! I would hardly criticise, as I also picked Labor 87 seats, though I suspect my prediction was more guesswork than your own calculations. 🙂
Curious that the Australian didn’t mention their own election eve prediction of “too close to call”. If that meant 76/74 or thereabouts then they were quite a way out themselves. Perhaps they are just jealous of the “pundits” who happened to be more accurate than the “expert political commentators”.
Re FG’s 118 and The Finnigans back at 103 – MSM especially at News Ltd is not only out of touch and less intelligent relative to this and similar blogs; they are also mostly deadly dull by comparison; don’t you think?
I must say that Maxine has always been the object of my manly lusts. Watching her over the last 2 decades on the 7:30 Report and Lateline she was always the thinking bloke’s sex symbol. Now with her win in Bennelong we can add ‘heroic’ to the list of descriptors.
With the PM now disposed of and the media attention next time going to be more muted, I wonder how Maxine will go in Bennelong. It’s going to take a lot of effort from the new member to lock in her support and move the margin into ‘safe’ territory. In spite of her obvious talent and intellect, I wonder if her energies in this first term should be entirely devoted to protecting her seat rather than distracted by parliamentary sec duties. Any thoughts?
Another vulnerable seat, but the demographics are moving McKew’s way and she’ll be the incumbent, not the prime minister. A huge advantage.
Neophyte, gotta agree. They are dull compared to this forum. It has amused me this year to see the MSM (headed by News Ltd) mount a campaign for freedom of the press in the face of what they have argued is increasing government secrecy. Freedom of the press is vital in any democracy – but our current press is anything but free. Its editorial content and position is almost entirely controlled by Mr Murdoch (Fairfax excluded) – and he therefore controls the flow and the bias of MSM information around the globe. In this country it has been nearly impossible to establish a truly independent news journal. In Qld we either have to read Murdoch or nothing. No other points of view are available in the local daily press. That is NOT freedom. The internet, and blogs such as this, now present us all with a chance to read, and contribute to, truly independent analysis and thought. The internet, therefore, is fast becoming far more essential to democracy than the privately owned and inherently ideological main stream press.
Anyone who watches the ABC Insiders this morning will notice the orchestra has started to play already. Those in the “bad chairs”, eg: Milne and Farr, have started to blow the trumpet to pin Rudd as the Rodent was pinned by his own deception, namely “I will keep the interest rate at record low”.
The symphony they are playing has the theme that:
1. Rudd has promised to bring down the grocery prices.
2. Rudd has promised to bring down the petrol prices
3. Rudd has promised NOT to let interest rate rise.
Just wait for the violins, cellos, harps, drums etc to join in the next few months and years for the crescendo.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,22891462-5001031,00.html
Agreed FG and Neophyte –
I would click on The Age website and after about 2 minutes would turn to PB for a much more informative and interesting (not to mention amusing) rundown of the real state of play. Being Not a pseph at all, but v. interested in politics some of the more infomed bloggers were a bit too numbers oriented for my poor addled brain, however I was surprised at what i had picked up when talking to people who relied on MSM.
And I’m still here post election – how long will we go on I wonder??
I can’t even be bothered with Crikey anymore.
I’ve noticed that too Finnigans. Rudd promised to do all that a government can do to ‘put downward pressure’ on inflation, interest rates, etc. and not to single-handedly reduce prices. They well know that in a free market economy it is impossible to make such promises. Still, the Murdoch Press need to create a straw man to push over and this is how they’ll do it. As mentioned above, our supposedly ‘free press’ will do all it can to follow the Masters orders and see Rudd defeated.
Adam at 406 (previous thread) said: “If the result is within 20 votes after the recount, the Liberal Party’s lawyers will be able to scrape up some pretext or another for a court challenge. There is always some little irregularity in a campaign and in the count that can be used. Did an ALP booth worker go into a booth wearing a Kevin07 cap? Did someone step inside the 6m line? Were these absent votes properly witnessed? Is that really Mr Nguyen’s signature? Has this envelope been tampered with? That’s not how you spell Woori Yallock. Is that a 1 or a 7? (Always a popular one, that).”
Presumably the Liberal Party will also seek proper legal advice before attempting to file such an election petition, and its attention will be drawn to section 365 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which reads in part as follows:
“Immaterial errors not to vitiate election. No election shall be avoided on account of any delay in the declaration of nominations, the provision of certified lists of voters to candidates, the polling, or the return of the writ, or on account of the absence or error of or omission by any officer which did not affect the result of the election…”
The AEC automatically recounts all the ballots in close seats before making the formal declaration of the poll. Following the declaration by the AEC, election results can only be voided by the Court of Disputed Returns on the grounds of specific illegal practices under the Act that can be shown to have affected the result of the election (see section 362).
Most of the irregularities listed by Adam (is that a 1 or a 7?) are issues that would (should) have been resolved in the polling booth in front of political party scrutineers, well before the declaration of the poll.
More seriously, if there is any suggestion of tampering with declaration votes, or fraudulent signatures, which might amount to an illegal practice under the Act, then it is for the petitioner to provide the Court with solid evidence. Filing a petition in the absence of such evidence, as a “fishing expedition”, is generally not appreciated by the Court, and costs would probably be awarded against the petitioner.
Grace, I concur with your jurisprudence.
Ferny Grover @125
Hi there,
It is indeed restrictive for Queensland to have one newspaper, but hey, their agenda worked for a long time though.
I believe the blogs are constantly evolving into a forum and is influencing future policy direction and public opinion.
I know for fact that we have been monitored by the political parties and Rudd appreciates the support that he has received.
Imagine if we organised and formed a lobbying bloc?
That would keep the bastards honest!
scaper…
The Coalition is certainly entitled to seek legal opinion re the result in McEwen, but I would hope my colleagues have sufficient independence and ethics to avoid fishing expeditions. There has, as of yesterday, been two counts in McEwen, and the AEC has stated its confidence that any further recounts would produce the same result. As you say, Grace, it would therefore require hard evidence of gross error or fraudulent activity to warrant any petition to the Court. At this stage I would say that McEwen is lost to the Coalition.
The News Ltd MSM is partly so dull in its attempts to influence because it is so predictable IMHO; but its predictability is much of its raison d’etre (pardon my French) so really it cannot win with a public that can get its evidence from elsewhere; can we hope these are its last days ?
If you need a laugh, go to:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/missed_it_by_that_much/#commentsmore
Hi Scaper. I’m sure Kevin has appreciated the support he has received from these blogs. There is certainly an air of hope and renewal about the place. As I’ve said previously though, those of us with a strong ‘social democrat’ inclination (who tend to be the majority on these blogs) are much more likely to criticise our party when it steps out of line or pursues policies that run contrary to civil rights. Even those of us who are rusted on Labor will have no hesitation in publicly rebuking the ALP when we feel it is justified. Our support is far more qualified than that given by conservatives to their party.
William,
do you know whether any/many of the MSM journos blog here under other guises?
Ferny Grover,
Well said my fellow Blogocrat.
This is even funnier:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/all_noise_little_action/
It’s certainly reasonable for the Lib to request a recount in McEwen – but it does sound like the outcome will be then same.
The question is whether they take it one step further and try to dig up some reason to have another election called. With enough lawyers and money they could probably find something. It would depend on whether they think they can win.
In the shadow of Rudd’s Honeymoon period as PM and with their scare campaing now being redundent I think the Libs could be deeply embarrassed if they pushed for another election.
Hence, I think the Libs will make a few noises – make it sound like they were ripped off and then concede.
I think we’d be very silly to challenge the result in McEwen. The electorate would resent having to go back to the polling booths and the Liberals would rightly earn a sore loser tag. William, Mundingburra should not offer the Liberals any comfort whatsoever – North Queenslanders were fed up with Keating and chose to take out their frustrations on poor old Wayne Goss, who was one of this country’s finest (conservative) premiers! Lindsay is precedent the Victorian division of the Liberal Party wil take notice of if they have any common sense.
Talking of close ones, surely Lyne in 1993 is still the mother of all close shaves, at least federally – the Nats pre-vailed over the Liberals by 2 votes. As a South Aussie, I also note Millicent, which future premier Des Corocoran lost by 1 vote in 1968 I think
WTR, contrary to some public perceptions, most lawyers don’t go around finding ways to twist the law. The legal advice being given to the coalition re McEwen would be, as stated above, that without hard evidence of gross error or fraud then there is no point pursuing a petition. They may meticulously look for such evidence (as is their right) but they cannot manufacture it or proceed with only flimsy evidence. This would not be in the best interests of their client and would be considered quite unprofessional. As Grace said above, such a course would likely result in a costs order against the coalition. If the court considerd the exercise was an abuse of process then costs could also be awarded against the lawyers (see the White Industries case).
Re 130 and 132, thanks Ferny Grover, just my two-bob’s worth…
Election predictions, Yes I overestimated the seat gains for the ALP but I did over the course of the year write that I couldn’t see the 57-43 result happening for it would have meant several very safe Liberal seats would fall.
I also made the point that things would tighten and while I expected 54-46 compared to 52-48 I was only 9 seats out.
I correctly predicted Turnbull would score a swing to him in Wentworth, I also predicted big swings in seats like Casey 5% Aston 8% Macarthur 10%? etc, I also correctly predicted the behaviour of seats like Dunkley, Goldstein and Higgins
Interestingly some of the seats I missed just staged with the Liberals seats like Lt Trobe, Dickson, Bowman, Herbert, Stuart
My prediction was right that the ALP would lose Cowan yes I was wrong regarding Swan.
I was right also on seats like Leichhardt and Forde and wasn’t far off in Kagoorlie.
I was very wrong with seats like Ryan and McPherson and while I knew the swing in Queensland was on I didn’t see Kelly losing in Dawson.
Chris Curtis, what are you doing trawling clown town? Surely their caravans will have to move on shortly, no matter how quickly they try to duck back out for one last encore to a non-existant crowd?
FG says:
“contrary to some public perceptions, most lawyers don’t go around finding ways to twist the law.”
Fair point. Maybe I’m still getting over the inbuild expectation the Libs will try to bend the system to support them.
I was listening to the radio yesterday and a news story started with “The immigration minister said today that….”
I automatically prepared myself for twisted piece of wedge politics – hand ready at the off switch. Instead I got Chris Evans talking in a simple and reasonable manner on what would happen to the Indonesians fishermen at Christmas Island.
I think I need time to adapt 🙂
The Sunday Age is to the left what The Australian is to the right. Both are absurd and not worth buying. The only newspaper I buy now is the weekday Age, mainly for the crossword and (in season) the football. I get all my news and opinion online. I don’t know why people bother buying the Australian press at all any more.
Someone asked earlier for a post-McEwen pendulum. Here it is:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007/pendulum2007.txt
The Coalition will need a gain of 12 seats for a majority in 2010, which will require a swing of 2.3%. This is of course contingent on redistributions, and also on whether Katter and Windsor run again. Page now becomes the “index seat.”
Here are some nice maps also:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2007/mapindex2007.shtml
Pancho,
Good question. I think the caravan will stay stuck until the next election. I am sure there are Liberals with more insight than those I have referred to, but given the reaction of state Liberal Parties to their losses, I wouldn’t count on it. They may keep on fighting the 2007 election, just as Paul Keating is still fighting the 1996 one.
Adam, that is a great map of Sydney. The battle lines are reestablished, it would seem.
Thay are nice maps, Adam, except for WA. I love maps as much as I love trains, which makes my 1944 map of the Victorian railway network just superb.