Chisholm covers a band of suburbs in Melbourne’s electorally sensitive east, from Box Hill and Mont Albert in the north through Burwood and Mount Waverley in the centre to Chadstone, Oakleigh and Clayton in the south. Labor is strongest in the far south, with most of the remainder being naturally marginal and the Mont Albert area leaning Liberal. Reflecting the area’s static population, the redistribution that will take effect at the next election has added around 18,000 voters at Blackburn South, Burwood East and Forest Hill in the east (previously in Deakin), balanced only by the transfer of about 8000 voters around Glen Waverley to Bruce and 1500 in Mont Albert North to Kooyong. Antony Green calculates the changes have shaved 0.3% from the Labor margin, which is now at 5.8%.
Chisholm was created with the enlargement of parliament in 1949, but was then based on Camberwell and Glen Iris further to the west. It no longer contains any of its original territory, which now bolsters the Liberals in Higgins and Kooyong. Its progressive drift to the east accordingly made a Labor-leaning seat of what had traditionally been a safe one for the Liberals, its members being Wilfrid Kent Hughes until 1970, Tony Staley until 1980 and Graham Harris until 1983. The Liberal grip was loosened by successive swings in 1977, 1980 and 1983, the Labor candidate on each occasion being Helen Mayer, who succeeded on the third attempt. Early Howard government Health Minister Michael Wooldridge recovered the seat for the Liberals in 1987, and held it precariously until he jumped ship to the more secure Casey in 1998. The current Labor member, Anna Burke, prevailed at the 1998 election with a 2.1% margin that was little changed in 2001 and 2004. She finally achieved a secure margin with a 4.7% swing in 2007, before the seat went slightly against the statewide trend with a 1.3% swing to the Liberals in 2010.
Anna Burke had been an industrial officer with the Finance Sector Union before entering parliament, and is aligned with the Right sub-faction associated with the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. She has had two spells as Deputy Speaker since Labor came to power in 2007, the interruption coming after the 2010 election when the government partially bolstered its fragile parliamentary position by having Liberal member Peter Slipper take her place. Burke returned to the role after the government appeared to go one better in having Slipper replace Harry Jenkins as Speaker in November 2011, and her national profile received a considerable boost when allegations of sexual harassment and misuse of taxi dockets compelled Slipper to stand aside in April 2012, leaving her the semi-permanent occupant of the chair.
The Liberals have again preselected their candidate from 2010, Vietnamese-born John Nguyen, a partner at Ernst & Young who was five years old when his family fled their native country in 1979. VexNews reports that Nguyen won the preselection ballot ahead of Nicholas Tragas, Telstra executive and Boroondara councillor, and that the two were respectively backed by “the sometimes united Kroger/Costello group” and its traditional rivals associated with Premier Ted Baillieu.
my say said:
[So no one is allowed their personal opinion, not even a pm]
Of course she is. The right to an opinion is a bit like the right to expel flatus in a lift. One has the right to do it and others have the right to object to the results.
[I would say she can think for herself]
Yes you would, but there’s little evidence that anything more than instrumental thinking is involved — and what there is of that seems flawed.
[good on her for not saying otherwise just to please to getting invoved in any debates. Too busy knitting]
Gosh … oh dear …
Pegasus
Order directed to the Greens (pass it on):
– Never ever bracket Gillard with Abbott for any criticism of any issue ESPECIALLY if it is not warranted.
Take the following advice; tell the Greens to shut up and ZIP… ESPECIALLY on issues that involve this “$” 😉
[Rummel and Psephos together over lunch would be interesting? ]
Im almost an gentleman face to face, but with some Queanbeyan vices.
ru
So gays can get married according to you. The meaning was changed by an amendment to the act by JWH.
[I like Bob Brown’s line on the way out as played on Insiders today “we’re not here to keep the bastards honest” ]
BB’s line is “We are here to replace the bastards”.
In the same way as Labor sees it as its birthright to replace the bastards (aka Coalition members)
[The greens will pursue their own interests]
Of course they will. They might score (hypothetically) one or two extra seats in the Reps and cost Labor several seats elsewhere. I guess that’s a good move by the greens?
Shellbell
[More likely Slipper’s and the Commonwealth’s lawyers are playing hardball to gnaw away at Ashby’s credit.]
If I understand it correctly it is Mr Slippers lawyers, not the C’wlth, who are asking it to be struck.
That the C’wlth seems to be taking administrative action while this matter is active in the Federal Court to dismiss Ashby and one other Slipper staffer says to me that they believe they are on very solid ground in defending what is important for the C’wlth.
Any idea that Mr Slipper’s interests and the C’wlth’s in the matter are fully one and the same is erroneous.
Centre,
Why do u bother to address posts to me? I have made it clear that I ignore your comments and am happy to let u run with whatever u wish to emote and advise 🙂
rummel
[Im almost an gentleman face to face]
It’s not you I am worried about it is Psephos!
[It’s not you I am worried about it is Psephos!]
MTBW
🙂
Indeed Pegasus – I tried to find the rest of the line but the Insiders website has nothing on it 🙁
TH
For the Greens yes. Of course the latest polls show Greens gaining votes off the LNP not Labor. So your basic premise could be flawed.
The Greens would prefer to be idiologically pure and live in sackcloth rather than pragmatic and live in satin
UNSW Faculty of Law.
I want gay people to be able to marry each other, why are politicians like SHY trying to stop them from doing so?
No Howard legislated what the High Court had ruled. Bastard act number 32543
sprocket_
Shorten: No (factional Bill is a large part of the problem)
Carr: No seat, too old and no
Roxon: no
Plibersek: no
Wong: no seat available and no
Combet: way too early
Rudd: ding, ding, ding, ding, ding
Ru
You still ignore my point. JWH changed the meaning of the act with his amendmend. If you are right that means that amendment is invalid.
Cannot have it both ways.
Kevin Bonham,
When RU going to provide an answer to your trivia question?
That’s the sense I get from this SHY quote:
Not only does it say that the PM opposes “equality” – in its entirety – when it’s already been abundantly clear that she has fought for, and achieved, equality in law for same sex couples; but also that the PM is holding MPs back from voting yes, when she is openly supporting a conscience vote.
He changed nothing, he just codified the common law meaning of the term marriage. Its not a hard concept to grasp.
Finns right on cue you were (Pegasus making a cut and paste in relation to one of my posts).
So much for ignoring my posts 😆
Pegasus, we should continue the debate, maybe at Byron Bay over a long weekend :kiss: 😈
Brough article by ABC says brough has not been subpoenaed
Thought he has been ,or is it just by who he has been by?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-17/brough-to-assist-in-slipper-case/4075586
[The winner was shorter than the challenger??? In 1980 Frazer was taller than Hayden.]
I like it! Nope.
[Kevin Bonham, you have got to be kidding?]
Nah, just making a point about a common debating fallacy. Invoking the right to express an opinion is not a valid argument against criticism of that opinion. If SHY was trying to ban the PM from expressing her point of view it would be different.
[It’s the loony Greens and some gays that get their nickers in a knot where people put forward reasonable explanations to their views.]
I am neither a Green nor gay and I find the PM’s claimed personal stance on this issue perplexing.
Ru
Also another point. Autralia can legislate to uphold International Treaties. This one is already covered under such a treaty. So the Foreign Affairs power that stopped the Franklin River Dam can apply hear. Its called the Interntional Treaty on Human Rights.
[It is settled law that the Commonwealth cannot define the constitutional meaning of marriage through legislation.]
Bullshit!
[So tickle your fancies people.]
Piss off, it isn’t settled law at all. You are clutching at nothing.
rummel
[Im almost an gentleman face to face, but with some Queanbeyan vice.]
I thought you’d discard the flannelette shirt for the day and resist the urge to bring your own slab of Bourbon & Coke along. 🙂
When is this being planned for? (I’m jugling some dates for some work travel at the moment but have not finalised them yet).
George Harcourt Inn is convenient for me.
If I have the time and inclination I will correct blatant anti-Greens memes, lies and BS, regardless of the source 😉
[“The Prime Minister’s opposition to equality is stopping MPs from all sides from voting yes,]
Isn’t SHY telling a fib here. The PM is not stopping MPs from voting. She’s giving them a chance to vote yes if they want to do so. If SHY wants to change the PM’s mind she is going ab out it the wrong way. She’ll get Abbott instead and never get change.
guytaur
Nice try, no cigar.
Next. You will come around to my point of view that a referendum is required eventually. 😛
vic. the original tweet regarding who is paying legal fees for Ashby is the one i’m watching for… not sure how this gets revealed though.
Spur
what’s this “no seat” for Carr and Wong? Didn’t stop John Gorton.
they’d find some timeserver on 20% and promise Ambassador to Paris or similar.
Both of these would wipe the floor with Abbott and his motley crew, and don’t have the loyalty issues which would dog Rudd.
My views on gay marriage have been consistent from day 1.
I believe that now the views of our PM are very similar 😀
Brilliant minds think alike 😛
😆
WARNING: The following is a Rudd-free contribution. It consists of loony, mindless prattle.
+++
Had another delivery of excellent redgum firewood today from the long-time supplier, a well-established farming family in these parts.
Dad used to do it, but he’s getting on. The son and daughter now do the job. Mainly, the
daughter. Apparently, she cuts the stuff with a chainsaw down by the creek, carts it back, splits it, and then delivers it to cold people, like me.
She is an impressive young woman. She is also doing some sort of Uni degree.
Anyway. Daughter lobbed today with the wood – with boyfriend in tow. We were correctly introduced. Strapping bloke, I think I approve, but will reserve judgement. Never give a rake an even break, I always say. Possibly in his early 20s.
At this time of year when the wood arrives, it has been a tradition that I supply the family with fruits of the garden. The oranges are superb. Plus lemons and limes.
Last wood delivery, I supplied a bag of oranges.
Farmer’s Daughter said: ” He’s never eaten oranges before … he loved them.”
What do young people eat?
So, I supplied some quinces, some limes – and two big bags of oranges. Plus instructions on cooking methods. And such.
One has to tend the gene pool.
[Not only does it say that the PM opposes “equality” – in its entirety – when it’s already been abundantly clear that she has fought for,]
Yes it is true that Gillard opposes marriage equality.
[and achieved, equality in law for same sex couples; but also that the PM is holding MPs back from voting yes, when she is openly supporting a conscience vote.]
Yes she is holding back some MPs from voting YES because she ISN”T SHOWING LEADERSHIP on this issue. She is allowing some MPs to use her failure to support the legislation as an excuse for doing the same.
Gillard is WEAK and is NOT SHOWING LEADERSHIP on this issue.
Ru
You fail. See Toonen submission that got the Override in the Tasmanian Situation.
[My views on gay marriage have been consistent from day 1.
I believe that now the views of our PM are very similar ]
Consistently wrong is still wrong.
mm
There are quite a few aspects of this case I am watching out for!
[Next. You will come around to my point of view that a referendum is required eventually. ]
Stop repeating bullshit, it is still bullshit.
ABC work experience shift on the weekend
[Mr Brough says he has not been subpoenaed by the Federal Court, but he is happy to provide information about phone records the court is seeking.]
Brough actually said wtte “he had not received a subpoena yet, only read about it in the media” – handed down Friday, Sunday today – join the dots ABC dunces
Carbon tax rorts ,even before its in
http://www.bit.com.au/News/305093,carbon-tax-hall-of-shame-houses-solar-panels-taxi-trips-weddings-gym-memberships.aspx
Important as the issue of same sex marriage is to some posters I really do not think it will have any great impact on the next election.
Have a look at questions asked in polling re important issues. Same sex marriage not near the top.
I have no set position on this issue, no problem with it either way.
Bit it really gives me the shits when those who support same sex marriage go on and on about respect yet fail to respect the views of those who do not agree.
Does the concept of accepting different points of views and beliefs only go one way ?
Also must be a amazing power to have to know with certainty that the PM is lying about her position on this issue.
Why not accept that her view is different and respect that or is respect only a one way street on this issue ?
[I thought you’d discard the flannelette shirt for the day and resist the urge to bring your own slab of Bourbon & Coke along.]
A Queanbeyan gentleman like myself fits right in a the George.
[Isn’t SHY telling a fib here.]
Absolutely BH.
Of course, the Greenies here can’t admit it!
Labor policy is a conscience vote on the issue. What is their (loopy loony Greens) problem?
Doyley
Same Sex Marriage Equality will have n impact. Just ask Tasmanians about their recent experience getting change in this area. In the Long Term supporting gay rights, which are human rights gains votes. Just as supporting all human rights does.
Legislating gay marriage is about ending discrimination. Why have a conscience vote on it?
[Important as the issue of same sex marriage is to some posters I really do not think it will have any great impact on the next election.]
If Gillard supported it she could go out and show LEADERSHIP on the issue which 60% of the electorate supports. Gee, fancy that, Gillard going out for a change and advocating on what is a popular policy!
It would also show voters that she is willing to stand for something popular for a change.
[Have a look at questions asked in polling re important issues. Same sex marriage not near the top.]
The same old issues are always at the top, e.g. health and education, taxation. But what is wrong with a P.M. supporting a social change as a way of building their character, oh and doing the right thing too.
I have no set position on this issue, no problem with it either way.
[Bit it really gives me the shits when those who support same sex marriage go on and on about respect yet fail to respect the views of those who do not agree.]
I have complete respect for your right to be completely wrong.
[Does the concept of accepting different points of views and beliefs only go one way ?]
When someone writes something like this they have lost the substantive debate. When someone reverts to stating the bleeding obvious they clearly know their position is weak.
[Also must be a amazing power to have to know with certainty that the PM is lying about her position on this issue.]
I haven’t accused her of lying, I have accused her of repeatedly failing to explain why she has her particular position, which is why people don’t think she is being sincere on this issue.
[Why not accept that her view is different and respect that or is respect only a one way street on this issue ?]
Because respecting everyone’s right to have an opinion is just a basic right. It does not mean that all opinions are equally valid or that some opinions make sense.
Scringler
[Farmer’s Daughter said: ” He’s never eaten oranges before … he loved them.”]
Not a country football player I guess – or have things changed?
It’s ground hog day again on PB 😆
rummel,
What’s Walsh’s like these days, last time I lived in QBN was the mid 90’s
[Labor policy is a conscience vote on the issue. What is their (loopy loony Greens) problem?]
No, it is Labor policy to “end discrimination in the Marriage Act”.