In an inconvenient bit of timing for the psephological fraternity, the Australian Electoral Commission has published proposed draft boundaries of federal electorates for Victoria. Antony Green notes Sharman Stone’s seat of Murray is abolished – perhaps setting up a Liberal-versus-Nationals contest involving Stone at the next election in the seat of Mallee. The new seat is Burke, extending from the strongly Labor outer north of Melbourne through more conservative territory to the Macedon Ranges. Burke revives a name that was put out of commission when Victoria lost a seat at the previous redistribution, meaning Wills is no longer out on a limb. There is now a period where objections will be lodged and the boundaries probably slightly revised – obviously these boundaries will not be in effect for the election.
Please keep this thread for the redistribution – general discussion regarding the election should go to the thread below.
UPDATE: Some impressions gleaned from discussions here and elsewhere. Jenny Macklin’s seat of Jagajaga might become loseable owing to losses at the Heidelberg end and gains at semi-rural Diamond Creek. VexNews notes that the addition of Endeavour Hills to Aston (where Alan Tudge will succeed Chris Pearce as Liberal candidate at the coming election) could make life difficult for them in what had once been a safe seat. Psephos notes that Burke might become available for Rob Mitchell in 2013 should he win McEwen in 2010, and that McEwen rather than Mallee might be an option for Sharman Stone given it will now include Shepparton.
Docklands to Melbourne Ports. A Liberal booth, I guess the AEC did that inorder to justify the name Mebourne Ports (strange reason)
Glen – Adding South Yarra and Pradran to Melbourne Ports while Caulfield is removed may lead to a slight increase in the ALP vote for the Winsor booth is very poor for the Liberals.
It’s called Melbourne Ports because on its original boundaries it was based on Port Melbourne and Williamstown. There is a community of interest between Docklands and Southbank, I guess.
oh the chaos of a good redistribution…..
Well what must that do for Higgins?
If it loses South Yarra and Prahran?
Ports becomes stronger for Labor, because it loses all the Liberal voting areas in Caulfield. Prahran is solid Labor and South Yarra 50-50. It would be a much better seat for the Greens.
Glen – Higgins should be over 10%
Psephos – Docklands has a great deal in common with northern end of Melbourne Ports.
In many ways these proposed boundfaries gives that seat a more common sense of community than the current boundaries do.
Higgins gains the wealthiest part of Caulfield.
Yes I agree it’s a more compact and logical seat.
Side note on these boundaries the Greens would be more likely to win the seat of Melbourne for Docklands is one of their poorer booths.
I don’t have enough local knowledge to assess the changes to La Trobe, Aston and Deakin.
Seriously the Greens a chance in Ports?
They only get 14000 votes?
They’d have to get 25,000 + Lib preferences.
Really they should have abolished Mallee and called the combined seat Murray – the Murray runs along the whole of its border, and nearly all its voters live in the Murray valley. The Mallee has lots of hectares but very few people.
St Kilda, Prahran, South Yarra, South Melbourne – all very greeny areas.
From a really quick squiz and only relying on the written descriptions rather than maps, Corangamite looks better for the Libs as it moves west into the country. Corio moving into the Bellarine, and losing votes on the northside of Geelong may make it winnable for the Libs in a lib good year. Deakin is probably better for the libs as it moves east and picks up liberal voting Vermont from Aston. I note that the Deakin boundary cuts Blackburn in two – this no doubt will be appealed against as their reason for the boundary is spurious – the same proposal was put up and rejected at the last local government area redistribution.
Aston appears to lose strong Liberal voting Vermont South. Those booths appear to be moved into Bruce. also it appears that Casey is pushed westward into suburbia
I expect John Forrest will retire in 2013 so Stone would probably win the new Murray. But she might also run for the new McEwen, which has Shepparton in it. Ir Rob Mitchell wins McEwen for Labor this time, presumably he’d expect to get the new seat of Burke next time.
Docklands in Melb Ports seems quite understandable.
Mexican
I think Casey goes eastwards into the country.
Blackburnpseph – Verm,ont South to Deakin makes some sense and I agree with you for Blackburn has no natural reason for being split.
Agree with Adam, the Greens could do well in the new Ports.
I was under the impression that Aston nearly took up all of the city of Knox and from this map it looks less than that
Without having worked it out, my best guess is that Aston might be better for the ALP
william i thought i put a post here re policy so thats not allowed on new posts
[Agree with Adam, the Greens could do well in the new Ports.]
Does that mean tactical voting by Liberals could turn the seat Green?
Coud the Nationals win McEwen.
Shepparton is strong Nat, Mansfield and Alexs might vote for the Nats and the area around Murrundini has a large number of NFF members
Peter Ryan for McEwen would make it interesting Mexi 🙂
Glen. Maybe but Peter Ryan is from Gippsland and the voters from the central highlands are very localised in their thinking.
If Stone runs for Murray, the Nats could conceivably win McEwen. The two parties might agree to swap seats. But the CP/Nats have represented the Mildura-Swan Hill area since the 1920s, they’d be reluctant to give it up.
They seem to have followed (to an extent) the independent submissions, esp Charles Richardson’s.
* McEwen and Corangamite would be safe-ish Liberal seats, and Deakin would be better for them to.
* Interesting one is Jagajaga, which is proposed to lose its best Labor areas in West Heidelberg and push into semi-rural Diamond Creek and Kangaroo Ground.
* Unusually extensive transfer between Higgins and Melbourne Ports: seems to make both seats safer for their respective parties.
* Endeavour Hills to Aston is stupid, there’s no connection between that area and Rowville. The obvious thing to do is move Aston eastwards into Boronia/Bayswater but the report makes some vague comment about “being in character with the mountains”. Don’t get the logic of that one at all.
* Labor would be pleasantly surprised with Dunkley; even they conceded in their suggestion that it would move south into Mount Martha and become more Liberal, but in fact it has barely changed.
* Northern Geelong into Lalor is messy but it makes Gorton and Corio more logical. Don’t agree that Corio would be more winnable for the Libs; the strongest Labor booths in Norlane, North Shore and Corio remain in Corio.
Overall it looks like the Liberals have done better than Labor out of this one, which is arguably only fair after having every other redistribution go against them.
Sadly I have to agree that Labor has had a very good run with redistributions in Victoria, and it was bound to end sooner or later.
* New seat of Burke should favour Labor but wouldn’t be ‘rock solid’
* McEwen is now a safe Liberal seat
* Casey loses Croydon and becomes a more rural and safer Liberal seat
* Aston loses strong Lib Vermont Sth and picks up strong ALP Endeavour Hills. Marginal middle Melbourne seat now
* Deakin favouring the Libs a touch with the Lib voting Vermont Sth/Croydon while losing the ALP leaning Blackburn
MDMConnell
JagaJaga will be more uniform in lay-out for Dimond Creek and Kangaroo Ground have a great dea in common with Eltham. These boundaries make it marginal but leaning towards the ALP.
Aston with Endeavour Hills actually isn’t that bad for it does have some things in common with Rowville they are mortgage belt. although you are correct in saying the AEC would be better top push Aston into Bayswater which is currently split beteen Aston and Deakin
However the timing of this one is very bad, and it shows a serious deficiency in the Act. People in Corangamite and McEwen now know that if they elect a Labor MP this time, the MP they elect won’t be around next time. This will help the Libs in those two seats. The redistribution is thus an intervention in the current election campaign – unintended to be sure, but nevertheless real.
Stone is based in Shepparton. I imagine she would transfer to the new McEwan in 2013 and Mitchell would move to Burke. If the Lib wins McEwan this year though it might be more interesting. I wouldn’t mind seeing Stone knocked out of her seat.
The ALP could turn that around and run the line that yeah McEwen and Corrangamitt voters here is your last chance before the redrawing of your seats to give the Liberal Party a kick around the ears for in future you will be a safe Liberal seat and they wont care then.
#34
Antony Green said he thought the redistribution process would halt once the election was called and be finished off sometime later in the year, so don’t know why that hasn’t actually happened.
Libs seem to have a decent candidate in McEwen I hope he wins and for Mitchell he’d get the seat he nearly and probably should have had in 2007 (Burke in 2013).
Interestingly, despite all major parties recommending substantial changes to Bruce and Chisholm, the two seats have generally been left alone.
So normally safe Liberal voting Wheelers Hills is in a safe ALP seat while normally safe ALP voting Endeavour Hills is moved to Aston.
#39
As a resident of the “Northern” part of Chisholm all my life. I saw the dividing line between “North” & “South” as the Monash Freeway
Bruce in particular is a North/South divide by the freeway with totally different socio-economic regions once you cross the Freeway
From a “logical” point of view …
I’d have Deakin running from Box Hill/Warrigal Rd/Whitehorse Council east border to Ringwood along the Burwood/Maroondah/Eastern Freeway corridor
Chisholm from Warrigal Road/Burwood Highway/Monash Freeway/Dandenong Creek
Aston taking in FTG/Bayswater/Knox Council area
I am not a Victorian or knowladgeable on the AEC but just looking at the boundaries in a demographic sense the changes seem failry logical. However – why anounce them now? Are they obliged to?
Your right Adam, Greens must be grinning about this one. Melbourne looks better and adding Melbourne Ports to the list. Michael Danby will be spinning because of the loss of Caulfield which is a strong Jewish area.
Could Melb Ports be one of those seats where it depends on who finishes third which will give the seat to the Greens or Labor. It’s finely balanced for strong contest next time.
I don’t think the Greens have any chance in the new Melbourne Ports. They’ll get a stronger vote, but the Liberal vote is still way too high for the Greens to reach second place. On the old boundaries the Liberals often came first on primaries, so it’s not like Melbourne where the Greens are only a few % behind them. Adding a few Green-friendly areas won’t change that.
William – Boothby link broken in the guide. While on SA, any chance there is some media polling coming up this weekend on SA Marginals?
44
It is not an immediate chance for the Greens but there are more Green votes and less Liberal votes through the loss of parts of Caulfield.
I’ve done the booth figures for Ports now and the change is actually surprisingly small – a slight increase in the Labor and Green vote, but not as much as you’d expect. This partly reflects Danby’s high personal vote in Caulfield.
Nats will fancy their chances in the new McEwen and Mallee. They should never have lost Murray when Bruce Lloyd retired. I suspect they have been waiting patiently for a redistribution or Stone to retire.
There’s not much science behind that comment. The Nats are in decline everywhere. They nearly lost Mallee when Peter Fisher retired. If Forrest retires, the Libs would be favourite to win both seats. If Stone runs in Mallee she’d be favourite against any Nat.
Sharman Stone Last,
Nats second last,
OMG a nasty greens preference deal.
I’d move there just to vote Green and get that result. What hope the ALP could come third.?