The verdict from the McEwen recount is in: Labor candidate Rob Mitchell’s six vote win has been overturned, and Liberal member Fran Bailey declared re-elected by just 12 votes. This gives the result level pegging with the Liberals’ 1974 win in Stirling as the closest federal electorate result of modern times. Labor is still considering a legal challenge, but it’s an open question as to whether a re-match would really be in their interests. It seems very likely that we can now settle on a final result of 83 seats for Labor and 65 for the Coalition plus two independents. Two other recount demands await adjudication:
• The Greens will reportedy call for a recount for the Victorian Senate, a contentious move given that nearly 3.3 million ballots would need to be rechecked. Antony Green’s projection shows both the Coalition and Labor winning third seats upon the exclusion of eighth placed Family First, the Liberals doing so with a surplus of 21709 votes (0.68 per cent) and Labor with 6088 (0.19 per cent). At this point Greens candidate Richard di Natale is left stranded on 13.4 per cent, 0.9 per cent or 27804 votes short of a quota. This of course assumes that all votes are cast above the line, when there are in fact 65101 (2.05 per cent) below-the-line votes for which we presently have only first preference results. These are unlikely to make much difference, as most are votes for parties whose preference tickets favoured the Greens ahead of Labor. Much of the leakage would come from Liberals going below the line to ensure the Greens did not get their vote. Against this can be weighed Labor voters who gave their first preference to a Labor candidate before switching to the Greens, but past experience suggests this is unlikely to account for more than 10 per cent out of 14123. If the assumption of all votes behaving as ticket votes were to hold, the Greens would need for Labor to finish around 2000 votes below the quota after Family First’s exclusion, which is roughly 8000 less than they presently appear to have. The distribution of the Liberal surplus would then be enough to give di Natale the narrowest of victories. In support of their recount appeal, Greens spokesman Jim Buckell provided The Age with an interesting list of claimed irregularities: “309 Greens Senate votes from one booth were not recorded at all; in Isaacs 150 votes were missed; in Dunkley 173 Greens votes were recorded as 17; and in Gellibrand, some Greens votes were attributed to another minor party”. However, it seems most unlikely that the required average of around 215 votes per electorate would be found to have wrongly favoured Labor over the Greens.
• Labor candidate Jason Young’s request for a recount in Bowman following his 64-vote defeat has been knocked back by the divisional returning officer. Young is continuing to pursue his recount request further up the Australian Electoral Commission hierarchy, but one suspects he is unlikely to find any joy.
On a completely unrelated note, here is a chart I knocked together showing each state’s deviation from the national Labor two-party preferred vote going back to 1949.
The first thing to note is the hyperactivity of Tasmania, which can in large part be put down to its small population of five seats. Nonetheless, the results tell a story of a natural Labor state which turned around temporarily following the Whitlam government’s tariff cuts and Labor’s opposition to the Franklin dam at the 1983 election. The largest state by contrast has stayed within a narrow 5 per cent band on the Labor side of the ledger, dipping below the line only in 1987 and 1998. Victoria’s long-lost standing as the jewel in the Liberal crown looks very much like a symptom of the 1954 Labor split and the party’s subsequent paralysis at state level, and its Labor vote has only once fallen below the national result since 1980. The exception was the 1990 election which also proved aberrant for reliably conservative Queensland, state government factors providing the explanation in each case. It can also be seen that the Coalition’s relative strength in Western Australia at the 2007 election was matched only by 1961, there is nothing new about its conservative leaning.
On another completely unrelated note, I have just had to pay a fee to renew the pollbludger.com domain. This wasn’t hugely expensive ($50 to be precise), but it nonetheless offers a good excuse to pass the hat around among those of you who enjoy giving me money.
William, i’ve chucked in a bit from my ill gotten gains i won when Maxine took Bennelong, it’s good to be able to use it for something that gives this old dear as much pleasure as this blog does.
Well a landslide it may not be, however I am sure anyone would have taken 83-65 if offered on the 23rd of November.
It is still a very comfortable win considering rags like the GG gave the Labor Party no chance of gaining 16 marginals let alone the 23 they ended up with.
The Co-alition require approx 2.5%swing to regain office, however a 1% swing to the govt would reap a whole host of Tory marginals.
Will be interesting if the world economy, followed by China goes belly up in the next few years.
Wheres Glen? Thought he would be on here gloating about Fran Baileys great win.
For the sake of clarity I’d just like to point out that I am not to be confused with Judy (even though I am one). She’s the generous one.
As noted about, two candidates, Paul Siebert and Mark Hill, polled one vote each in the SA Senate election. This is a new record low in terms of number of votes for a federal election, beating Theo Hetterscheid’s 4 votes in NSW in 1996. It is also a record in terms of percentage: 0.000000993%, against Hetterscheid’s 0.000001086%. This is disappointing, because I was rather fond of Theo Hetterscheid, and was thinking of endowing a Hetterscheid Cup for the least successful candidacy in any election. Now it would have to be the Siebert-Hill Cup. Perhaps it can be awarded to the CEC in perpetuity: their complete and utter failure to win votes, despite the large amounts of money they mysteriously acquire and spend, deserves some sort of recognition. Even the Natural Law Party did better in its day. I guess self-levitation has more appeal than the world J*wish conspiracy.
Hilarious Adam. Not even having 1 vote beyond their own means that their mate/s and even mother can’t say ‘well at least I voted for you’ whether they did or not. A frosty family dinner or two in the Siebert and Hill regions you’d think.
Nice work Adam. And so much for supporting each of their party’s HTVs!
The difference between 1996 and 2007 was that Howard only had 9 seats to make up, whilst Rudd had 16.
JUDE, i’ve changed my title to my full name so nobody gets confused, i think a few South Australians here already know who i am anyway and hey! not generous just grateful for William providing this site — it’s given me hours of pleasure even though i’m rarely game to venture an opinion lol, my brimfire fighting days are behind me.
#89 Sorry Gary, it matters very little how I, or your good self, choose to define the word “landslide”. However, when the Collins English Dictionary defines it as “an election in which a person or political party gets far more votes or seats than their opponents” it might be time to take notice!?
Adam,
yay – i beat them.
I think Labor’s achievement deserves a new word, as Diogenes suggests. Ruddslide looks good to me.
But what about the rodent’s achievement as the second sitting PM to lose his seat? Surely there should be a word for this. Stanley Melbourne Bruce was the first and only other PM to earn this distinction in 1929, so what about: Howard was bruced. (OK, the Urban Dictionary lists some semi-rude definitions but does that matter?)
apres- I think Left E has already coined the phrase “embruced”, which could be used in the sentence “In the 2007 election, John Howard’s status as sitting member of Bennelong was embruced by the electorate”. The opposite is embraced or maxined.
Indeed Apres, and in fact we’ve covered that critical issue extensively: Embrucement, Brucifixion were the faves.
Lord D re: Howard getting 63% of seats in ’96 (cf Rudd’s 55%): yes, but isn’t starting point rather too big a factor in that definition?
Howard started on on 65/148 (needed 10); Rudd 60/150 (needed 16)
I know what Im more impressed by.
Ferny Grover’s somewhat biased prerequisites for a ‘Landslide’:
1. The earth must move in an electorally orgasmic way
PLUS
2. The GOODIES must totally thump the BADDIES – in an electorally orgasmic way.
So…it’s only a landslide if a lot of seats change hands AND your side wins by a thumping margin (otherwise it’s not a landslide it’s just victorius interruptus).
brucified or brucifixion (shades of Life of Brian)
112, 113. Redfaced for forgetting those earlier learned suggestions. ‘Embrucement’ is a fine word. Barbara’s ‘brucified’ also rocks.
Interesting to compare popularity of some prominent candidates compared with party. The erstwhile rodent in Bennelong got 45.5% and senate vote for Libs in Bennelong was 43.6 – plus 1.9% cf State average of plus 1.2% higher than Senate. So rodent is plus 0.7% more popular than party. Higgins Costello 53.6 (with donkey vote of say 0.5%) cf Senate 49.3 and Vic State Reps 41.1 compared to 39.5. Costello is about plus 4% cf State average of 1.6% so Costello is plus 2.4% compared with party vote. Rudd in Griffith 53.9 compared to Senate 40.9 cf Qld average of ALP in Reps 43.0 and Senate 39.2. So Rudd is 9.2% over ALP party vote.
111 and 112 – how about ‘de-Howard’ or de-howered’?
Does anyone in SA think Mike Rann will be able to shut up about the legal case against the serial arsonist in the Adelaide Hills (47 fires allegedly)? Assuming she is found guilty just before the next election (which fits the timetable) and gets less than 10 years, I can see a frothing outburst about “community expectations” coming.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22936530-5006301,00.html
1 thing continues to bug me about this election.
why did Kevin Rudd so openly and brazenly come out at least twice in the week before the election and shout that he was going to take a razor to Canberra beuracrats. At the time he was shouting it, it didn’t seem to fit his otherwise incredibly tight and disciplined message, and i was wondering why he was being so in ya face about it and why it needed to actually be said at all.
at the time it looked as though the ACT was going to elect a Labor and Green senator with Humphries on a lowly 20 something %. as we know now, Humphries defied the tipsters and fared well enough to comfortably secure the Libs the vital immediate Senate seat to maintain their majority at least til July.
i can’t help but think Rudd’s razor statements contributed largely to this and i can’t help but wonder why he did it.
it can really only be for 1 of 2 reasons.
either
a) he didn’t and doesn’t want control of the Senate in this first term
or
b) he wants to use the Libs control of the Senate as a double dissolution trigger(almost definately over workchoices legislation being blocked ).
i just can’t figure out why he needed to make a point of shouting about that Canberra razor gang when there was no reason to make a big deal of it when he did.
as i say it was almost as if he was deliberately trying to get Humphries elected in the ACT.
and the People giveth…
“The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has authorised the first payment to political parties and candidates for votes received at the 2007 federal election.
“The total of the first payment is $46,536,277.23. Payments have been made to seven parties and 15 independent candidates.
“AMOUNT AS AT THE END OF COUNTING ON 14 DECEMBER 2007
Name Amount ($)
Parties
Australian Labor Party 20,922,325.51
Liberal Party of Australia 17,222,359.78
Australian Greens 4,148,615.11
National Party of Australia 3,076,663.58
Pauline’s United Australia Party 202,440.72
Northern Territory Country Liberal Party 160 719.91
Family First Party 133 965.51
Independent candidates
Nick Xenophon (Senate, South Australia) 296,627.70
Tony Windsor (New England) 105,217.86
Bob Katter (Kennedy) 64,919.66
Gavin Priestley (Calare) 37,979.71
Tim Horan (Parkes) 34,114.90
Caroline Hutchinson (Fisher) 21,141.74
Gavan O’Connor (Corio) 21,010.05
Noel Brunning (Forrest) 19,800.93
Aaron Buman (Newcastle) 12,655.91
Ben Quin (Lyons) 12,155.10
Cate Molloy (Wide Bay) 11,125.55
Ray McGhee (Boothby) 8 759.18
Rob Bryant (Murray) 8,727.25
Tim Williams (Macquarie) 8,270.34
Jamie Harrison (Lyne) 6,636.23
Total 46,536,277.23”
More at http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/12_18(c).htm
Sorry 109 Boll but this definition provides more questions than answers. “far more votes or seats”? Define please. How many?
The latest on McEwen – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/18/2122087.htm?section=justin . It aint over until you know who sings.
HarryH (120) presumably Rudd wanted to keep Howard on the defensive over spending, but the Senate theory is interesting. Especially given the Bulletin’s report that Labor is getting the Democrats’ Murray to review Budget transparency. I think that is very significant.
More problems for gridlock Campbell as the Brisbane City Council elections get closer.
Could be a long 87 days for the senior Lib left in office in the continent. Last week we had the spectacle of a 2 meter hole gouged in the bitumen from a burst watermain in an inner city street, today four more have burst.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/peak-hour-to-be-wet-n-wild/2007/12/18/1197740263162.html
120 & 124 I think you are putting on the tin foil hat so you can jump at shadows. My observation of Rudd is that he intends to implement what he promised in the election.
If that means a razor gang to look at spending in Canberra, I would be very confident that is what he meant.
All those wasted millions spent on advertising by the Libs, the announcements about cutbacks to staffers etc. This is exactly what they said they would do.
Why are you surprised?
2008 Parliament sitting schedule
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/sittings/08sitpa.pdf
120 HarryH – That’s been a point of interest for me too. There was no need whatsoever to do it as far as I can see. The point about fiscal responsibility was being made perfectly well in the campaign. There was no impression in the community that there had been any waste or bloating of the public service, as there has been in the past. So indeed, why? He didn’t even promise there would be no forced redundancies, which he could have done. One thing is for sure, he knew exactly what he was doing – but what was it? Any insiders know?
There was one other bit of last minute discord – Rudd’s measured equivocation about the ‘sorry’ announcement. However, in that case I can see that would have been for the general consumption of those swinging conservatives who wanted a pat on the head from Rudd saying ‘ relax, we won’t rush on indigenous issues’. But the p. service thing has me wondering.
126 Gg
Yes, but if he can save hundreds of millions in advertising, why not rail about that instead of picking a fight with public servants?
120, 124, 126 Isn’t it also the case that if he had not been absolutely clear about intending to use a razor on the public service he could have been accused of withholding the information just as Howard did with Work Choices?
Thinking further on finances and Rudd’s tactics, I was watching the news about Centro and further falout from the US financial crisis. I am actualy glad that such financial baggage is coming out so soon, when it obviously can’t be Labor’s fault. It will enable them to take realistic action on inflation, which could be a threat to Labor’s long term prospects otherwise, and not be blamed for it. They could do worse than start with a whole bunch of measures that amount to business and farm welfare (eg diesel fuel rebates), and even middle class welfare (non means-tested family payments). A few billion saved their easily, and thats just for starters.
As for how the financial problems emerging so soon are portrayed, there are only two possibilities – they are either due to the aftermath of the Howard government, or world financial forces.
Of course, for the Lib-Cons who say that it is world forces, that will raise the obvious question of whether Howard’s economic run of success was also due to world economic forces, and therefore just luck. That in turn undermines further the claims of coalition economic credibility, and that they were “unlucky” to lose.
Sorry if this is off topic, but I think its pretty important to the long term success of the Rudd government.
GG (126) I don’t think there is any great conspiracy theory involved on his cuts announcement, it politically made sense against Howard’s spending splurge and anyway, it is what he intended to do so he may as well have announced it.
But Rudd’s attitude to the Senate raised by HarryH is interesting. Using Murray to review budget transparency is unusual, to say the least. It seems to be a way that Rudd is using external constraints (like he is using overdone inflation fears) to curb the ability of groups in the party to push their agendas in spending programmes.
GG i have no doubt he will take the razor to Canberra.
but my point is there was no reason for Rudd to shout his intentions from the rooftops in election week. it didn’t fit any narrative Labor was articulating at the time. yes i take shrike’s point about keeping Howard on the spending defensive but this was such a loud attack on a specific core of potential voters that didn’t need to be made in the vociferous way it was made.
he virtually yelled at Canberra voters to beware voting Labour . This, in a seemingly vital area where Senate control virtually rested.
it seemed very strange at the time and i’ve seen nothing to explain it since.
to me, it would be very doubtful that Rudd would want a DD election. i may be proved wrong.
i think he is happy not to have a Labor/Green majority in the Senate. i think he has a clear 3 or 4 term strategy in his sights and he is very happy being kind of hamstrung for this term Senate wise. don’t scare many horses
83/65 or 84/64. It’s a good number because it’s good size margin yet it will keep Rudd on the watch all the way until the next election. If it was 30+ Rudd might get too cocky and forgets who put him there.
I did not know a lot about Fran Bailey before 24.11 amd still dont. However heard her on the radio before the recount and the impression was to form the impression instantly that she is a dick.
Having previously run the “corruption and mayhem” line when she was behind, Bailey has, of course, now moved solidly to the “abide by the umpire’s decision” approach. Don’t you love politicians! 😉
she is s stupid old hag stealing my 20 dollars from centre bet 🙁
Apologies if this point has already been made: a successful challenge to the Court of Disputed Returns does not necessarily mean a by-election. It is within the power of the Court to declare a losing candidate elected if, for example, the Court disagrees with the rulings of the relevant AEC officers on a sufficient number of ballot papers to reverse the result.
From today’s Hun.
“Mr Swan warned inflation was a serious concern.”
“The inflation pressure has been building for a long period. It will take some time to deal with . . . the most important thing we can do is to have a new era of fiscal discipline, and the Commonwealth ought to start with itself.”
The $31 billion in tax cuts are an iron clad committment that the Rudd Government is going to deliver.
Obviously, they are potentially inflationary as has been pointed out by numerous economists both professional and amateur.
Therefore the new Govrnment is going to need to look at savings on the spending side that will alleviate the inflationary pressures.
Greens Senators are not a core consideration of The Labor Party. I believe that Rudd was stating clearly and cogently his actions in Government. Would you want him to continue the lies and deceits of the Liberals?
Not sure who you are having an argument with GG. HarryH was just asking why Rudd made an announcemnt that probably helped them lose a crucial Senate seat. Given Tanner’s use of Murray, it sounds like he didn’t want it. I would suggest part of the reason is to keep his own party in check.
The inflation fears are overdone. What are we talking about? The RBA thinks they will go to all of 3.25% before coming back to below 3.0%, in the last November briefing I saw. Hardly a crisis.
Although the tax cuts will have to be delivered, but in times of boom you do not cut taxes, you spend the money that has been provided on services and infrastructure. It is economic stupidity to cut tax in a time of boom, and the Liberals did such madness and now Labor is doing it as well. And guess what just when the economy looks to be on a downturn we cut spending, madness! yep these economists really know how to run an economy – into the ground.
The issue of climate change should be our main priority, and now and why latest reports suggest that
http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/nasa-scientist-canary-has-died.html
#122 Sorry Gary, the ony question we are left with is what we mean by `far more`. More than twenty? two-thirds? Whatever. It is certainly more than 2 and it certainly has no relationship to the`large increase in seats` crap that you and others were peddling before.
Fran Bailey is about as attractive as a mack truck!
Yep, very convenient for her those extra 30 votes suddenly turned up!
Piping Shrike,
I think I answered the point about the possible effect of a Rudd announcement on the Greens. Not a consideration.
Inflation- Petrol up 10-15 cents since the election, electricity prices to rise by 17% in Victoria and a muted doubling of water charges. This is on top of the the interest rate rises under the Howard administration.
Rudd is right to focus on reducing inflation.
And it proves how boring this blog has become that you all spent today arguing about the term “landslide” and whether it’s applicable to the size of Rudd’s victory! I roll my eyes in disbelief!
GG are we talking about the same thing? By Murray I meant the Democrats’ Andrew Murray, not the river!
The link:
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=334499
Progressive- the big issues still dominate.
In case anyone is still in thrall of the often repeated delusional notion that Alan Greenspan was some kind of wonderboy of central banking, here’s a bit of Gretchen Morgenson’s article in today’s NY Times:
Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford.
But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.
…so what does this have to do with us, you might ask?
Just take a look at the last two days on the ASX!
KR, are there any photos anywhere of you at work on your finest day?