Post-match report: Melbourne

In Melbourne as elsewhere, the November 24 election produced a pattern of strong swings in outer suburbs and weak ones nearer the city, which cut across the partisan divide. The swing against veteran Liberal moderate Petro Georgiou in blue-ribbon Kooyong was just 0.05 per cent, while Peter Costello faced a similarly mild 1.7 per cent shift in neighbouring Higgins. This pattern carried over to the conservative dead zone of Melbourne, which swung only 1.1 per cent in Labor-versus-Liberal terms. However, the real story here was Greens candidate Adam Bandt’s success in edging out the Liberal candidate to take second place. The Greens’ primary vote was up 3.8 per cent to 22.8 per cent, 0.7 per cent behind the Liberals. This gap was bridged after distribution of minor party preferences, with Bandt leading the Liberal candidate 21,996 (25.1 per cent) to 21,405 (24.4 per cent) at the second last exclusion. Liberal preferences then took Bandt to within 4.7 per cent of victory, producing the first ever “Labor versus Greens” two-party result in a federal seat at a general election. This is the first time Melbourne has met the AEC’s definition of a marginal seat (6 per cent or less) since 1904.

Beyond the swing-resistant inner core of Melbourne, Kooyong and Higgins lay a band of seats separating it from the volatile outer suburbs. Batman followed the broader pattern of mild swings of around 4 per cent in inner suburban Northcote, and heavier ones of 6 per cent to 7 per cent at Preston and Reservoir further to the north. The Greens’ vote was up 3.2 per cent to 17.2 per cent, a potentially bridgeable 3.4 per cent behind the Liberals. Jagajaga, Chisholm and Menzies produced near identical swings of 4.6 per cent to 4.7 per cent, respectively staying safe for Labor’s Jenny Macklin and Anna Burke and the Liberals’ Kevin Andrews. On the bayside, Melbourne Ports produced a relatively gentle 3.4 per cent swing which was nonetheless the biggest movement in the electorate since 1993, while its safe Liberal neighbour Goldstein swung 4.0 per cent.

The two biggest swings were in the Melbourne area were in the outer suburban suburbs of Calwell in the north and Holt in the south-east. Calwell topped the table at 11.1 per cent, with swings topping 15 per cent at Craigieburn on the outermost urban fringe. The 10.1 per cent swing in Holt was most pronounced in the south, peaking with a mighty 17.5 per cent swing at the electorate’s largest booth of Narre Warren South. Swings in the north were in the range of 5 per cent to 9 per cent. In what might be regarded as the defining booth result of the election, a 10.96 per cent swing to Labor was recorded at Kath and Kim’s home of Fountain Gate.

Labor added some fat to a number of margins in traditionally safe south-eastern seats that were cut uncomfortably fine in 2004. After previous member Ann Corcoran suffered an unexpectedly close shave in 2004, newcomer Mark Dreyfus boosted the Labor margin from 1.5 per cent to 7.7 per cent in Isaacs, which produced heavier swings in the inland suburbs of Keysborough and Carrum Downs than along the coast. Immediately to the north, Simon Crean increased his margin from 7.4 per cent to 13.0 per cent in Hotham, with particularly strong swings recorded in Springvale. In Bruce the swing to Labor was an evenly distributed 4.8 per cent, increasing Alan Griffin’s margin to 8.3 per cent.

Liberal seats in the eastern suburbs mostly followed the trend of their Labor-held neighbours. Only in the case of Deakin was the swing enough for a seat to change hands, Labor winning the seat for only the second time since its creation in 1937. Their candidate Mike Symon picked up 5.7 per cent on the primary vote and 6.4 per cent on two-party preferred to prevail with a margin of 1.4 per cent, ending the 11-year parliamentary career of Liberal member Phil Barresi. Labor achieved an identical swing further afield in McEwen, which was famously 12 votes short of what was needed to unseat Fran Bailey. The swing peaked at South Morang (10.6 per cent) and Wallan Wallan (9.1 per cent), but there was no clearly discernible pattern to its distribution. Labor’s other disappointment was a 5.3 per cent swing in La Trobe that fell 0.5 per cent short of delivering them the seat. The Dandenong Ranges formed a rough dividing line between suburbs on the city side where the swing was in the order of what Labor required, and the hill suburbs and surrounding small towns where it fell just short at around 4 per cent.

On safer ground for the Liberals, Bruce Billson’s seat of Dunkley returned to the marginal zone with a swing of 4.2 per cent that was felt more heavily in Frankston than Mornington and Mount Eliza. In outer suburban and semi-rural Casey, Tony Smith suffered a 5.4 per cent swing that was higher in suburban Croydon and Kilsyth than in the satellite towns of Monbulk and Woori Yallock. It is interesting to note a particularly sharp 8.1 per cent swing in Aston, which memorably gave the Liberals a bigger margin in 2004 than Kooyong. Any thoughts that this might have marked a long-term realignment can now be laid to rest, as the respective margins are now 5.0 per cent and 9.5 per cent.

Labor’s safe seats in the west and north of Melbourne produced remarkably consistent swings of between 5.5 per cent to 6.7 per cent, excepting the aforementioned Calwell. Wills followed the pattern of neighbouring Batman in producing smaller swings of around 4 per cent at Brunswick at the southern end nearer the city, increasing to around 7 per cent at Glenroy in the north. Bill Shorten’s candidacy appeared not to make much difference one way or the other in Maribyrnong, which swung to Labor by a locally typical 5.8 per cent which was evenly distributed through the electorate. There was similarly consistency in the swings in Gellibrand (6.5 per cent), Gorton (6.3 per cent) and Lalor (6.7 per cent).

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.

739 comments on “Post-match report: Melbourne”

Comments Page 14 of 15
1 … 13 14 15

  2. Edward did not “back” Obama. He was simply trying to hop on the “change train”.

    If I were to advise Hillary, I would suggest that she could kill the “change train” stone dead with one statement: “You want change? I am offering the biggest change in the US history. The first US female President. How many female US Prez has there ever been? These gentlemen are the status quo, not me”. That’s the risk she has to take. It might not work, but it will kill the “change train” stone dead.

  4. What I thought was interesting in the debate is that Obama was not treated like the front-runner, Clinton was. If Obama really was the front runner, Edwards would have ben trying to take him down. I think what Edwards wants is Obama to be the one left to make him easier to take on than Clinton.

    Obama’s answer on the Pakistan scenario was more hawkish than anyone’s elses and was in line with what Bush did in Iraq (as the moderator pointed out). But people don’t care about that, if he is black he must be radical. This euphoria about Obama is unfathomable.

  6. Jen, where on earth did you get that Bush stuff you are quoting?

    Is it real? Sorry, question answered, both yes and no.

    Too tragi comedic.

  7. Stewart J @ 627

    Yes I think if you look at the Victorian State you will notice a Green split ticket. (Part of the Greens sweet heart deal with the Liberals for supporting them in the Victorian Upper house) Now you were saying. I know the Greens are beyond such things.

  8. I note with concern that the Australian Electoral commission has not published copies of the “below the line” preference data files.

  9. Crikey Whitey –
    they are from the revered tome of “the 2008 desk calender of George W Bushisms”
    And yes, sadly they are all accurate quotes.
    (you can see heaps more via Slate Magazine on line).

    And just to start the day –
    “I think anybody who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.”

  11. an additional concern is the way in which the EC has presented their summary count sheet. The count sheet does not show the number of ballot papers involved in each transfer but the aggregated value of the formula they are required to use is based on the number of ballot papers not on the aggregated value. What the AEC is showing is the aggregated transfer value expressed as a vote. For example in the Victorian Count the AEC show in the second count a transfer of -870,104 as being Votes transferred. In reality this is 1,324,729 ballot papers (Votes) each with a transfer value of 0.6568. The question is what is a vote is it the ballot paper or the value of the ballot paper. The rules for calculating a transfer value require the AEC to calculate the surplus value of votes and then divide that by the number of ballot papers. To those who are not familiar with the counting procedures the use of the terminology “Votes” in this case can and is misleading. If you assume one ballot paper is one vote then what is actually being transferred is the value of the vote not the number of votes/ballot papers. This inappropriate use of terminology masks the inbuilt distortion in the way the AEC calculates teh transfer value and the distribution of the votes as any one can tell you that if you have 900.000 ballot papers worth 0.001 plus and 1000 ballot papers at full value (1.00) to transfer each ballot paper at an equal value seriously distorts the full value votes and inflates the lower value votes this losing its proportionality. The way in which the AEC presents its summary count sheet hides this disproportional value. If the AEC publish the BTL Data files then it would be possible to more accurately present the method used by the AEC in calculating the result.

    This is not saying that the results as published are incorrect, they are just misleading in the way they have been presented (as a result of the adopted format and inappropriate use of terminology) as they do not show in sufficient detail the method of calculations.

  13. 655 Steve, I had a look at the Rev Pat Robertson link, to think that people like him have influence over the world of US politics is nothing short of terrifying.

  15. SenateWatch –
    “I think if you look at the Victorian State you will notice a Green split ticket. (Part of the Greens sweet heart deal with the Liberals for supporting them in the Victorian Upper house) Now you were saying. I know the Greens are beyond such things.”
    There was no split ticket in the Victorian Senate. Just as there is no “deal” between the Greens and the Liberals in the Victorian Upper House. Honestly, you spout such nonsense!

  16. Regarding the US and Obama’s chances, I hope this isn’t the kiss of death (no pun intended Jen) but the Oz quotes some well respected polls that he will win in New Hampshire today:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23020740-601,00.html

    As for the forces of dumbness, Huckabee may not quite be their kind of idiot after all. This is a link to a good artiicle pointing out that Huckabee did poorly amoung the Catholic voters in Iowa, which will hurt him in other Republican states, including southern ones with a large Latino population:

    http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2008/01/huckabee-and-catholics.html

  18. Fox News had an interesting debate last night with the Republican candidates answering questions in front of a panel of NH party members. It struck me that if one of the group got elected as preznit over the Democratic candidate we would be in safer hands than those of the incumbent. A small mercy indeed. The audience liked Romney best and Fred Thompson least.

    The New Yorker has an interesting colour piece on the Iowa caucuses at http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/01/14/080114ta_talk_lizza

  19. Senate Watch @ 657
    Actually, you should check the VEC site with respect to GVT’s (http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/grvotingtickets.html) – the Vic Greens did not run any ALP/Lib split GVT’s, although the Democrats did in 3 regions. In every UH region the Greens preferenced the ALP ahead of the Libs. That would seem to fit with the Greens voter base don’t you think?

  20. Actually I am still not convinced that McCain will win NH convincingly tomorrow on the Republican side of the ledger. If a big move is on by independents to kill off the Clinton campaign then McCain can not possibly do as well as expected. McCain’s polling has been well within the margin of error of the polls and I will watch with interest to see if the hype of McCain is matched by votes on the ground. There is something fishy about it all and a good Romney showing would not surprise.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html

  22. US presidents have a 5% chance of dying for each year they are in office (half are assassinated and half die of natural causes). Overall, 19% will not reach the end of their 4 year term.
    Amongst more common professions, fishermen are about 20 times more likely to die than if they gave up their job, especially in Alaska!

  25. Interesting. The chance of a US president dying is comparable to the danger of living in Iraq for its citizens (> 1 million dead in 20 million population = 5%).

  26. Senate Watch (Melb City) @ 673/674

    That link you point to takes you to a null file – there’s no information in it. But all the tickets are still up on the ABC website at
    http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/guide/groupvotingtickets.htm

    And yes, there are two tickets

    Ticket 1 preferences: ALP 30-33, Libs 38-40
    Ticket 2 preferences: ALP 30-33, Libs 65-67

    As with the Vic state election tickets, the Libs appear 100% AFTER the ALP. In what way does this support your erroneous assertion about the tickets being part of a sweetheart deal with the Libs?

    Actually, count that a rhetorical question – because it just doesn’t.

    I find your posts fascinating . . . there’s often some good stuff buried in them. It’s just frustrating to have to wade through the huge volume of hyperbole, repetition and error to find them.

  27. 675 socrates- Actually, the 1 million in Iraq (5% mortality) would be over a four year period, which equates to a 19% mortality in POUSA. George W is considered the fittest President ever so he’d be less. Which reminds me of the phenomenon of healthy and energetic political leaders recently (Bush, Howard, Blair, Sarkovy, Putin, Arnie…). Evidently the electorate rates this quite highly according to a survey I saw somewhere.

  28. Well thank you. You falsely first claimed there was not a split ticket.

    The link was that provided on the AEC website. I agree they do not maintain their web site all too well.

    I am still having a struggle in obtaining copies of the below-the-line preference data. It should take them 10 mins to extract the data each file approximately 1 mb in size. If we do not receive a satisfactory response from the AEC by tomorrow we will have no alternative other then to submit an FOI application and commence legal proceedings to secure this data. The requirement to make an FOI application to obtain the detailed results is an abuse of process on behalf of the AEC and sadly an indictment against the AEC. This data should have been readily available as a down load. Thankfully the elections results were not close but had they been close the only way you can effective scrutinise an electronic count is if the data files are available for independent analysis. This was one of the problems identified with the Victorian Count and it tool the VEC three months before it reluctantly provided a copy of teh data file (But it failed to provide a copy of the preliminary count preference data Why? I can only guess they have something to hide) All members of the Senate have been contacted and all have express interest and support in having this information published. We shall see if the AEC is capible of self regulation and committed to maintaining an open and transparent electoral system.

  29. 666
    Socrates – With Huckleberry not getting the Micks that’s good news for Rudy Giuliani who is classified as a Roman Catholic thus he’ll have a better shot in Florida and California with the latino republicans…

  30. Glen-The latest polls have Giuliani only 2% ahead of Huck in Florida, which is the first really important vote numbers-wise. If Giuliani loses that one, his big lead in California might collapse. I think Florida might make or break him.

  31. Giuliani has big leads in all the major States, California, New York, Pennsylvania which won’t just drop out of mid air and Giuliani has been campaigning strongly in Florida and has a good organisation down there to get the winner take all state.

    I agree that should he not win Florida it will be far harder for him to win the nomination but so long as he maintains his leads in the big states and the North West with Oregon and Washington he’ll have a big lead in delegates soon. California for the Republicans as i understand is winner takes all and Rudy would then get a whopping 173 delegates in one go.

    Still he’s not getting favourable press with his strategy and it should hurt him but really can the Republicans win the Election with a baptist minister, a morman or a senior citizen???? The only logical choice for them is Giuliani and if he’s not nominated the Republicans will have no shot whatsoever.

    Unlike the Democrats the Republicans have far more winner takes all contests which favours Giuliani and Obama. This helps Giuliani as he should pick up the bigger States giving him more delegates and likewise it should give Obama sizable numbers of delegates from the big States even if Clinton wins them.

  32. 676 –
    “As with the Vic state election tickets, the Libs appear 100% AFTER the ALP. In what way does this support your erroneous assertion about the tickets being part of a sweetheart deal with the Libs?

    Actually, count that a rhetorical question – because it just doesn’t.”
    Very well put!

  34. Senate Watch – maybe you didn’t read what I said
    “Actually, you should check the VEC site with respect to GVT’s (http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/grvotingtickets.html) – the Vic Greens did not run any ALP/Lib split GVT’s, although the Democrats did in 3 regions. In every UH region the Greens preferenced the ALP ahead of the Libs. That would seem to fit with the Greens voter base don’t you think?”
    And my previous post referred to your comment about a “sweetheart deal with the Liberals” – so there was no split ticket with respect to the ALP & Liberal Party.

    Your twists and turns do you no credit – if you are trying to black the Greens over doing split tickets preferencing the ALP below the Libs through GVT’s (which I would suggest is your intention) then you should cite some actual evidence instead of these silly comments – and I am aware of the alternate tickets but they don’t refer to reversing an ALP-Lib preference (in Western Victoria it was between Whelan & de Pieri).

  35. senate watch – it aint that hard. The Greens preferenced the ALP ahead of the Coalition in the senate at the 2007 federal election.

  36. IT seems Senate Watch’s rantings are considered CONSTRUCTIVE, but it is obvious The Greens are fair game on here! I would have thought that considering that the ALP is in government everywhere, that there would be a lot more to be said about how they are going?

  38. Brenton, the Labor Party has been in power for about 6 weeks and already Nicola Roxon has copped a spray on here for not bailing out the hospital in Phillip Island and making the old dears drive to Wonthaggi and get in the queue. More recently Stephen Conroy announced himself as the man most likely to fill Tony Abbott’s shoes in government which has also been discussed.

    The Greens get a lot of air-time around here because there are a couple of regular posters who are Green supporters who won’t shut up about them.

  39. “already Nicola Roxon has copped a spray on here for not bailing out the hospital in Phillip Island and making the old dears drive to Wonthaggi and get in the queue”
    That’s quite a long drive if your seriously ill, TW.
    I’m only talking about the Greens to clarify any misconceptions arising from SenateWatch/MelbCity’s lies.

  40. Stewart J 684

    The issue under discussion is the Australian Senate registered tickets and your previous statement express the view that the Greens did not issue a split ticket when in fact the Greens had issued a spit ticket. Why I fail to understand as it was fairly clear that the Greens would not be elected on primary votes and as was the case their preferences would not be distributed. Personally I consider split tickets deceiving and should not be allowed or if they are permitted then it should be possible for parties to nominate the percentage breakdown of each ticket.

    Should you require further information on the Greens/Liberal alliance I refer you to comments available on http://www.greens-liberal-deal.com.au/

  41. Thank you for your reference to that site, and in turn I refer you http://www.howtovote.com.au/greens-liberal-deal.html?gclid=CImYve-a5pACFQSOggodPF7CVw, which repudiates all of the claims on greens-liberal-deal.com.au (which I supposed is authorised by the ALP, yet they don’t clearly declare that. I wonder why…?)
    Still, both of the “split tickets” you claim the Greens issued preference the ALP highly, so I really don’t see why you are complaining.

  42. Here, in case you missed it:
    “Upper House voting data shows that Greens have voted with Labor 32 times out of 37 divisions (86%)
    Labor has voted with the Liberals 27 times out of 37 divisions (73%)
    All three parties have voted in unison 27 times out of 37 divisions (73%)
    In only 6 out of 37 divisions in the upper house (16%) did the Greens and the Liberals both vote against the Labor government.
    …
    On most occasions when the Greens and the Liberals voted together, the Labor party voted with the Liberals too.”

  43. The hospital at Phillip Island is a Private Hospital and should not be funded with public money. If the people on the island want the hospital than they should put their hand in their pocket and save it, simple.
    I applaud Labors’ stance.

    However on the banks and the rise in rates, well it serves Labor right for privatising the Commonwealth in the 1990’s, by having a bank in public hands you could have at least stopped the excesses of these rapacious bankers from doing such. Wayne it is no use bleating about the banks you should instead be criticising your former colleagues for privatising a bank letting the deregulated market do as it wants.

  44. “The hospital at Phillip Island is a Private Hospital and should not be funded with public money. If the people on the island want the hospital than they should put their hand in their pocket and save it”
    Good grief, you sound like a Liberal!… And what if the people don’t have the money?

    “Wayne it is no use bleating about the banks you should instead be criticising your former colleagues for privatising a bank letting the deregulated market do as it wants.”
    I agree with you on that. Wayne looked just pathetic. If that’s the attitude he adopts (“Please, Mr Bank, stop raising your rates…”), will he really make a good treasurer?

  45. That is not being a Liberal by stating that not using taxpayers money to pay for a privately owned bank. Public money should be used for public means and not to be provided for private businesses, unfortunately all governments are giving money to private enterprises these days and it should not occur.
    Saw Wayne again on the news, sitting down with reserve bank- why? what is that going to achieve Wayne? He will be a nothing within a government led by a nothing with a bunch of nothings, so Wayne will not be alone. I look forward to next three years because very little will change in this country, and i am a Labor voter.

  47. marky marky @ 693 claimed

    However on the banks and the rise in rates, well it serves Labor right for privatising the Commonwealth in the 1990’s, by having a bank in public hands you could have at least stopped the excesses of these rapacious bankers from doing such.

    Again, can you cite a single instance when the CBA was used by a federal government to hold down interest rates, fees and charges, or anything else?

    So far Commbank hasn’t adjusted its rates beyond the recent RBA increase, and given that it, unlike NAB and ANZ, sources most of its loan funds domestically it probably won’t. However, this, and the same non action by Westpac, hasn’t stopped the other two from doing so which suggests your basic premise is flawed.

    I might add that as both a, very minor, shareholder and customer of one of these banks I don’t see why it should loose money or impose higher rates or charges elsewhere because of factors beyond its control. If you want to blame someone look no further than the US government.

  48. #616

    okkkkaayyy….googled “scaper” and got this 🙂
    1380432, PAD INCONTINENCE TENA LADY SUPER 6X30 860ML, SCAPER-757730, C180.

  49. Gearing up again for my night raid against water waste. Will sleep shortly, wake early.

    The neighbour has adjusted his start time, which is good really, the later the better. Last night was 4.00 am start. I allowed a half hour of bore watering, by which time the road was sufficiently soaked. As was the footpath, the stobie pole.

    Still no reply from Mike Rann, to my email on the topic of bore water wasteage.

  50. Hey Turning Worm – if you want to get out and defend your home team be my guest. For my part I’ve seen little to complain about from the new Govt – at least in respect of what was promised and delivered. I may have issues with some decisions, but not like we didn’t know about them (think Tassie forests/Gunns) – overall I’ve been impressed by Rudd’s sincerity, Joel Fitzgibbon has been doing well in defence, Penny Wong has been a star, and (for the opposition) Nelson seems to have been overtaken by Minchin in reshaping the Kiberal Party, if the MSM is to be believed (IMHO thus illustrating why Nelson’s a lame-duck leader).

    And I defend the Greens as it warrants it, and comment on other issues as I see fit (especially NSW & WA issues). To be clear, I think this blog is mostly ALP posters, some Greens, and the odd (in the nicest possible way!) Lib.

    As to the hospital on Phillip Island – the issue surely is the provision of service where none other exists? While I would wholeheartedly agree that public money should not be used for propping up private business, unless the state is prepared to provide the service then private business is the next best option for operating it. An example I can provide is in regard to the provision of education services in remote (indigenous) communities. There are a number of Independent School operators (private) running schools there, funded with public money, because the state will not provide those services. We should of course provide them from the public purse, but that may be some time (and political will?) away, so paying a private provider seems appropriate. The obvious answer is then to build a public hospital, but is that a reasonable (and financially responsible) use of public money? Such is the conundrum of government.

    Of course, we could look back 100 or so years ago and see that communities at times banded together to raise their own funds and build hospitals without state assistance – but that rather begs the questions of the role of the state.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 14 of 15
1 … 13 14 15