Higgins by-election: December 5

Friday, December 4

LATE: Michelle Grattan of The Age reports “Liberal sources” believe the situation in Higgins to be “lineball”.

EARLY: Apologies for lack of updates. Malcolm Mackerras is tipping a Greens boilover: he says the Liberal vote will sink to 44 per cent, and presumably expects something like 70 per cent of preferences to go to the Greens. That would entail a 10 per cent drop on the primary vote, which is not dissimilar to what happened in somewhat similar circumstances in Mayo last year. However, Higgins is notable for its lack of volatility, so Mackerras is taking a bold punt on the force of the Abbott/ETS backlash. I can’t help recalling Mackerras’s prediction of a John Kerry landslide in 2004, which appeared to be rooted in a conviction that voters would prove as angered by the Iraq war as he was – his talk of “resentment at climate change denialists” strikes me as being cut from the same cloth. I’m tipping an uncomfortable night for Kelly O’Dwyer, but expect she will get up. At this point, Greens supporters with long memories will be recalling I said much the same thing before the Fremantle by-election.

Word on the ground is that the Liberal campaign has focused on O’Dwyer’s positives, rather than attack Hamilton as an extremist as might have been expected if they were really worried. However, it seems the party has embarked on a significant change of tack in the past week, with O’Dwyer “issuing a last-minute mail-out to voters to assert her views on climate change”.

As always, tune in tomorrow night for live coverage.

Tuesday, November 17

Blogger and former Liberal Party activist Tim Andrews offers a colourful take on the Greens preselection process, alleging widespread discontent in local branches over the imposition of Clive Hamilton.

Friday, November 13

The ballot paper draw has been conducted, and the order of candidates can be viewed here. Candidates I hadn’t known about: independent Peter Brohier (“lawyer”), Isaac Roberts of the Liberal Democratic Party (“accountant”) and Democratic Labor Party regular John Mulholland (“psychologist”).

Friday, November 6

AAP reports Steve Raskovy, “a 72-year-old former Hungarian wrestler and refugee”, will run for One Nation. Antony Green has embellished his by-election page with candidate details.

Wednesday, November 4

From Friedrich in comments we learn that Joseph Toscano, Anarchist Media Institute director and prolific writer of letters to the editor, is seeking the local residents’ signatures required to lodge a nomination.

Tuesday, November 3

LATE: The Australian Democrats have announced their candidate will be David Collyer, who contributes regular posts to the blog of the party’s Victorian division.

EARLY: Climate Sceptics announces that Stephen Murphy, a Melbourne computer programmer who “speaks five languages”, will run as an “Independent Climate Sceptic”.

Thursday, October 29

Antony Green weighs in on the by-election, adding further voice to the consensus that the Greens’ nomination of Clive Hamilton is tactically unsound. Danielle Crowe of the Manningham Leader reports Crikey empire founder, Manningham councillor and perennial deposit non-recoverer Stephen Mayne has “not ruled out” running as an independent. Nominations close November 12, with the ballot draw to follow the next day.

Monday, October 26

Speaker Harry Jenkins has confirmed that the Higgins and Bradfield by-elections will be held on December 5.

Saturday, October 24

A wide-ranging chorus of critics has chimed in to argue Hamilton’s decidedly non-liberal political and economic philosophies are a poor fit for the electorate he has chosen to contest. As “Carlton’s lone classical liberal” Andrew Norton puts it: “It’s not often that Pollytics, Andrew Bolt and Catallaxy blogs all reach the same conclusion”. Christian Kerr of The Australian reports similar sentiments from RMIT University economist and Institute of Public Affairs senior fellow Sinclair Davidson, who argues voters in Higgins (which as Kerr notes includes “Chapel Street, Toorak Road and the High Street strip”) are unlikely to respond to the “ascetic” and “spartan” lifestyle Hamilton demands to ward off ecological apocalypse, to be achieved if need be by “the suspension of democratic processes”. On top of which, his views on internet filtering could potentially alienate parts of the Greens’ core constituency, particularly if they have an alternative candidate to turn to.

Friday, October 23

The Greens have unveiled a high-profile candidate in Clive Hamilton, founder and former executive director of left-wing think tank the Australia Institute and current professor of public ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics.

Thursday, October 22

Labor has slightly surprisingly decided it won’t be entering the fray. Andrew Landeryou at VexNews reports: “Labor insiders who spoke on condition of anonymity explained that the widespread presumption of demographic change in Higgins, and a big swing more generally, was not substantiated by the party’s secret polling, presented on Powerpoint to the Prime Minister recently, which showed a likely Liberal victory even in the tough circumstances in Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberals find themselves.”

Monday, October 19

Peter Costello formally tendered his resignation today to Speaker Harry Jenkins, who is expected to announce an election date of November 28 or December 5 in the coming days.

Saturday, October 10

Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reports Peter Costello will officially resign when parliament resumes on October 19. Given a campaign of average length, this will mean a polling date of November 28 or December 5: after “the final two-week parliamentary sitting in which the Coalition – if it doesn’t filibuster – will have to vote on Labor’s emissions trading scheme”. Antony Green at the ABC and Ben Raue at The Tally Room have guides to the by-election posted.

Wednesday, October 7

Samantha Maiden of The Australian reports Peter Costello is “set to resign from Parliament today”, which will most likely result in a by-election for his seat of Higgins on the same yet-to-be-announced date as the one for Bradfield. Costello holds the eastern suburbs Melbourne seat with a margin of 7.0 per cent, having suffered a swing of 1.7 per cent at the 2007 election. The preselection to replace him at the next election was held a fortnight ago and won by his former staffer Kelly O’Dwyer.

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.

484 comments on “Higgins by-election: December 5”

Comments Page 4 of 10
1 3 4 5 10
  1. If you make false statements and then make false statements about your false statements, how can I not play gotcha?

    As for mindless optimism, you and Tom spend most of your time here telling how the Greens are going to win this, that and the other seat. Over-hyping your prospects seems to a side effect of chlorophyll poisoning.

  2. [As for mindless optimism, you and Tom spend most of your time here telling how the Greens are going to win this, that and the other seat.]

    Me? Never. I said the Greens have a good chance at Melbourne when federal Labor begins to limp. I never said they’re a certainty to win that seat, or any other.

  3. [The Liberals are in an absolute mess, I doubt they will be this bad during the next general election campaign.]

    As they were in 1983/84 and 2008, but Labor still suffered swings.

  4. [I never said they’re a certainty to win that seat, or any other.]
    And who here said Labor was a certainty to win Higgins? So it’s ok for you to be optimistic about a seat but not ok for “some Labor hacks”?

  5. [And who here said Labor was a certainty to win Higgins? So it’s ok for you to be optimistic about a seat but not ok for “some Labor hacks”?]

    The fact that the thought is even being entertained.

    Higgins was held by the Libs on 57%.

    Melbourne was held by Labor against the Greens on 54%.

    As dissatisfaction with Labor occurs (which inevitably it will), the Green vote will go up – just look at NSW or WA. Higgins at 57% is at the lowest ebb it’s ever been at.

  6. GB @ 155 -especially his “debt and deficit” attacks on the Govt. The faster than expected recovery means projected deficits will be a whole lot lower, wiping out Turnbull’s (and Hockey’s) only mildly effective stratagem.

    Rudd and Swan seem to have set up the conditions for Labor to be regarded as the superior economic managers for many years to come.

  7. [Higgins at 57% is at the lowest ebb it’s ever been at.]
    Same can be said about the Libs now. I’m certainly not saying the Libs will lose Higgins but I can see why people have cause to be optimistic about a swing against the Libs.

  8. [Same can be said about the Libs now. I’m certainly not saying the Libs will lose Higgins but I can see why people have cause to be optimistic about a swing against the Libs.]

    1983/84? 2008? Labor stratesphetic, coalition at horrifying lows, yet Labor suffers a swing AS THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH USUALLY HAPPENS AT BY-ELECTIONS.

  9. It’s unlikely Labor will run a candidate in Higgins, so hopefully there’s a strong local independent who’ll give the Libs a hard time.
    Bob: A Greens win in the seat of Melbourne would be a disaster for this country, particularly as Lindsay Tanner is an outstanding individual and he’d be a big loss to the Rudd Government.

  10. I’m surprised there’s so little media commentary about Fran Bailey’s decision to retire at the next election, an admission surely that she doesn’t expect the Libs to win in 2010, and sacrificing her seat to the ALP!

  11. I think the point Bob is trying to make, is that when either himself or Tom or any other Green get optimistic, they get abused/shouted down/ridiculed by many ALP posters.

    Yet it seems that now that these same ALP posters are optimistic(or at any other time) Bob is pointing out just what was pointed out to him.

    The ALP can dish it out but not take it.

  12. [1983/84? 2008? Labor stratesphetic, coalition at horrifying lows, yet Labor suffers a swing AS THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH USUALLY HAPPENS AT BY-ELECTIONS.]
    Settle down bob. Obviously you’ve looked into the past in some detail. So just what were the polls showing at that time? What was happening in the coalition back then at the time of these by-elections. Has there ever been a swing to a government in a by-election and what were the circumstances?

  13. [A Greens win in the seat of Melbourne would be a disaster for this country, particularly as Lindsay Tanner is an outstanding individual and he’d be a big loss to the Rudd Government.]

    Agreed. He should move to a safer seat.

  14. [So just what were the polls showing at that time? What was happening in the coalition back then at the time of these by-elections. Has there ever been a swing to a government in a by-election and what were the circumstances?]

    A Hawke and Rudd dominance. The coalition is always a shambles in opposition. There have been swings to the government but not many. Adam has already pointed this out.

  15. Does public funding apply in a byelection?

    With Labor chickening out that would make byelections a nice little earner for The Greens.

    Perhaps that’s why the Labor PB cheer squad are so testy.

  16. [As dissatisfaction with Labor occurs (which inevitably it will)….]

    What about dissatisfaction with the greens resulting in a slide in their vote? Once climate change issues are bedded down in law and off the front page (which inevitably it will) the greens are going to sound more and more irrelevant and extremist with the green marginal voters dropping off and going back to Labor.

    You seem to think it’s all up and onward for the greens but I think their relevance has just about peaked. In 5 short years they might be as relevant as the Democrats were in their last 2 to 3 years.

  17. Ok, Higgins question for the nerds.

    Is there an overlap between the Division of Higgins and the original Federation district of Balaclava? I presume there must have been some.

    Antony notes in his piece the irony (of fate) of Costello representing a person chiefly remembered for the Harvester decision, and then goes on to point out that Higgins was the only person to have served in a Labor administration without having been a member of the Labor party.

    However rumour had it that the original member for Balaclava, and the first of Costello’s predecessors in the Treasurer’s office George Turner was asked to continue on in Watson’s administration (but he declined), which would have made him another such.

    Ok so the link is a little tenuous…

  18. GG @ 238

    Sorry

    Was trying to catch up on the days post and saw the comments re the continuing debate over the CPRS and just had to post.

    Being from NSW and having no love of the Liberals or Mr Costello I find comments re Higgins to be of little or no interest.

  19. MartinB! No if i am correct Balaclava ran from St Kilda down though Brighton and Sandringham

    In the early days there was a seat called Fawkner that covered South Yarra (Western part of Higgins) and the Malvern end was in Kooyong!

    P.S that is a rough outline sourced from the AEC and Psephos!

  20. [And the Liberal Party of today is the DLP of yesterday]

    The Liberal Party today couldn’t be more worlds apart with the DLP when it comes to the economy…

  21. Goldstein is the old Balaclava – it was renamed when the suburb of Balaclava was moved into Melbourne Ports. I don’t think any of the current Higgins was ever in Balaclava.

    (The Balacalva area was subdivided during the Crimean War, which is why it has Balaclava Rd, Inkerman Rd, Alma Rd, Sebastopol St, Malakoff St and Redan St, all named for Crimean battlefields. Ironically the area is now filling up with Russian immigrants.)

  22. [Why is it all or nothing for the ALP?]
    The theory is that if you only run in Higgins that tells the voters in Bradfield that the ALP didn’t think it could win, so the Liberals will win Bradfield in a canter (they probably will anyway it is one of their best seats in the country).

    I still think Labor should run in Higgins. All they have to do is come within a few percent and that would probably end Turnbull’s leadership.

    I know there are hardly ever swings to the government in by-elections, but this is somewhat different, the Liberals are an utter shambles and Costello was a popular local member.

  23. [Aren`t the ironies of history interesting.]

    TTFAB
    I worked at 63 inkerman in the late 90’s.
    Besides the fast forward team,I would regularly run into a fair chunk of the richer melbourne jewish establishment,the area being synonomous with emigrees.

    It was at a st kilda bakery that i first met peter c.A nicer bloke you couldnt imagine (at least then)

    The funny thing is that beside the usual melting pot and bohemians, you also were bound to run into some “name”.

  24. Assuming Labor wants to end Turnbull’s leadership (which may not be the case, as Psephos’s comment demonstrates), then they’d be foolish to run in Higgins (or Bradfield).

    By-elections are unpredictable, and it’s possible that Higgins could swing to the Libs. Such a swing would give Turnbull tangible good news, and get the press and the internal opponents off his back for weeks if not months.

    By not running, Labor ensures that it can spin any result as somewhere in the spectrum between a non-event and a disaster for Turnbull.

  25. I accept that Turnbull is the most potent pro Labor argument afloat at the moment, but I fail to see how any potential replacement would do anything but accentuate the chasm of credibility, integrity and effectiveness which differentiates Labor from the sorry mob in opposition at the present time.

    I agree with Dyno, Labor should not do anything to thwart the Turnbull juggernaut in its march to oblivion.

    The Liberals are doomed by their inability to accept reality, their fervent belief that the current political situation is no more than a temporary aberration, and their undying faith in the stupidity of the electorate.

    We live in the age of the internet, where the truth will out, despite the spin and bias of the media, and where the shysters, liars and charlatans are forever exposed to the harsh light of day.

    The next conservative Prime Minister is not yet a twinkle in his or her grandmother’s eye.

  26. Out of interest, if the ALP decide to help a candidate win from bewhind the scenes(hand out, letterbox, etc) would it be better to help the Greens or an Independent?
    Not that it will happen. The ALP would waste money and the Greens probably wouldn’t accept, but just in theory.

    I was thinking that it would be better to win the seat from the Greens then an Independent, but the local members are more likely to be willing to help an independent.

  27. The ALP has a history of supporting and encouraging independents, at least in Victoria.

    Usually not monetary, more helpful advice and willing hands.

    I can think of (without much effort at all) two independents who acknowledged the assistance they had from the ALP.

  28. Thanks BTW to the answers to my replies. I had presumed it likely that Balaclava expanded on Goldstein to the north-east but it seems not.

  29. I do hate it when people ask questions like this, because then I just have to go and find the answers. One of my “pending” projects is an online atlas of federal electorate boundaries, but it’ll be pending for a while yet.

    In 1901 the boundary between Balaclava and Southern Melbourne (to the west) and Kooyong (to the north) ran from Port Phillip north up Barkly St/Punt Rd to Commercial Rd, then east along Malvern Rd, then south on Kooyong Rd to North Rd. So it did include some territory which is now in Higgins – the block bounded by Punt Rd, Malvern Rd, Kooyong Rd and Dandenong Rd.

    In 1906 Fawkner was created, and the northern boundary of Balaclava was pushed south to Dandenong Rd. Fawkner covered the western part of what is now Higgins, the rest was in Kooyong.

    In 1913 Fawkner was moved west to became a Prahran-Middle Park seat, and Balaclava was extended north to the Yarra, taking in the block bounded by Chapel St, Dandenong Rd, Kooyong Rd and the Yarra, which is now in Higgins.

    In 1922 Fawkner was moved east again and the Dandenong Rd boundary was restored.

    In 1937 Fawkner was extended further to the south, so the boundary law along Inkerman and Alma Rds.

    In 1949 Higgins was created as a Toorak-Malvern seat, with Fawkner in Prahran-South Yarra. Balaclava moved further south, with its northern boundary on Glenhuntly Rd.

    In 1955 this boundary was maintained.

    In 1969 Fawkner was abolished, and Higgins became a Caulfield-Malvern-South Yarra seat. Balaclava moved northwards again, with the Balaclava-Higgins boundary running along Alma Rd, Hawthord Rd and Glenhuntly Rd. But none of the present Higgins was in Balaclava.

    In 1977 this boundary was maintained.

    1984 Balaclava was renamed Goldstein, with the same northern boundary.

    So the definitive answer is that the current division of Higgins does contain some territory which was part of Balaclava, from 1901 to 1906, and again fromn 1913 to 1922.

  30. [I do hate it when people ask questions like this, because then I just have to go and find the answers. ]

    Oh you poor baby, can you then tell me the racial, socialogical and age mix too, please.

  31. So if i am following you correctly the only part of Hggins to ever be in Balaclava was the area we would call Windsor and this happens to be the strongest area for the ALP.

    Posehos with how the inner city’s population is growing and the increasing population in the south east do you think that 1901 boundary might be used for Goldstein i would image that the South Eastern seats will be pushed towards Melbourne and Melbourne Ports is well over quoter and Kooyong is under quoter

  32. I should correct previous post for checking the melway shows a fair bit more of higgins than just Windor fitted into Balaclava.

  33. I’m not sure what the point of this discussion is. The Prahran-Windsor area has some strong Labor booths but this is a small part of the electorate. The largest part of the electorate is the Malvern-Armidale-Toorak area which will vote Liberal until hell freezes over.

    An interesting statistic about Higgins is that it has the second highest proportion of people who earn money from investments of any electorate, exceeded only by Wentworth. This is not a seat of high-income inner-city apartment-dwelling trendies. This is a seat dominated by property-owning, investment-making, Anglo-Australian rich people, who live in big houses, send their kids to elite schools, and own three cars and a chalet at Perisher. These people will never vote Labor regardless of how hopeless the Liberal Party is.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 4 of 10
1 3 4 5 10