Seat of the week: Blair

Blair has covered a highly variable area around Ipswich since its creation in 1998, having been substantially redrawn at three redistributions since. Originally covering areas inland of Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast, the redistributions of 2004 and 2007 saw it progressively take over central Ipswich from Oxley. Prior to the 2010 election it lost 28,000 voters in territory south of Ipswich to the new seat of Wright, in exchange for 13,200 voters in rural areas around Lake Wivenhoe to the north (previously in Dickson and Fisher) and 5500 in the eastern Ipswich suburbs of Collingwood Park and Springfield Central (from Oxley). As the areas lost were rural and conservative, Labor’s margin was boosted from 4.5% to 7.0%. The seat further recorded what by Queensland standards was a mild swing of 2.7%, the resulting Labor margin of 4.2% making it their fourth safest seat in the state.

Ipswich had been an area of strength for Labor since the early days of the party’s history owing to its now defunct coal mining industry, but it has more recently been prone to rebellion against the party’s efforts to appeal to new middle-class constituencies. The most famous such occasion occurred when Pauline Hanson won Oxley in 1996, scoring 48.6% of the primary vote as an independent after the Liberals disendorsed her for advocating the abolition of government assistance for Aborigines. The creation of Blair in the next redistribution did Hanson a poor turn, dividing her home turf between two electorates. Rather than recontest Oxley or (more sensibly) run for the Senate, Hanson chanced her arm at the new seat, but the major parties’ decision to direct preferences to each other may have sealed her doom. Hanson led the primary vote count with 36.0% against 25.3% for Labor and 21.7% for Liberal, but Liberal candidate Cameron Thompson pulled ahead of Labor on minor party preferences and defeated Hanson by 3.3% on Labor preferences.

Thompson went on to absorb most of the disappearing One Nation vote in 2001, more than doubling his primary vote without improving his two-party margin over Labor. A redistribution ahead of the 2004 election clipped this by 1.8%, but he went on to handsomely consolidate his position with a 4.5% swing. In 2007 the Liberals targeted Blair as part of its “firewall” strategy, a key element of which was a risky decision to fund a $2.3 billion Ipswich Motorway bypass at Goodna in the neighbouring electorate of Ryan. This proved of little use, with Labor picking up a decisive swing of 10.2% which typified the shift of blue-collar voters back to Labor on the back of WorkChoices.

Labor’s winning candidate was Shayne Neumann, a family lawyer and partner in the Brisbane firm Neumann & Turnour and member of the state party’s Labor Unity/Old Guard faction. His LNP opponent at the coming election will be Teresa Harding, who is “director of the F-111 Disposal and Aerial Targets Office” at the RAAF Base Amberley.

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.

2,255 comments on “Seat of the week: Blair”

Comments Page 41 of 46
1 40 41 42 46
  1. Meguire Bob,

    I’d say Peta has some form of ‘NO’ prepared. But you have to remember that there are elements of the population that responds quite readily to his dog whistling.

  2. Roy,

    So the panel has recommended as a solution something that’s illegal? I don’t think so. They have said legislation should come into parliament to facilitate it.

    Every headline and new piece will focus on Nauru. It’s a political disaster in my opinion.

    I hope I’m wrong.

  3. the government wins in 2 ways

    if the coalition agrees to this they have gave in , because abbott and Morrison said they will not agree to anything wiht Malaysia

    2 if abbot and the coaliton say no

    they will show they are only interested in political points

  4. Abbott’s speech will be:

    We respect the panel, but don’t need to outsource decisions that the Government is elected to make. Gillard has lost all credibility.
    We stand by our Opposition to Malaysia because it goes against the UNHCR. We have principles. Gillard has lost all credibility.
    We support Nauru because it will work. Gillard has lost all credibility.

    Rinse and repeat.

  5. I have to say I’m disappointed by Houston’s review. I have great respect for him, however, he has kind of done what a rookie high school kids does – given a great answer to the wrong essay question.

    This wasn’t about finding a compromise, this was about finding real solutions. I have to say that it hasn’t that.

  6. Its a full progam of actions. Unlike anthything the PS has thrown up to date. At least its comprehensive, but boy is it expensive.

    I reckon $1 billion is the starting price. Its only going to rise from there.

  7. [The government will accept all the recommendations is my guess.]

    Agreed. Only ideology and/or hubris would say no to them.

  8. Is that Toolman trying to get a gotcha off Mr Aristotle.

    He seems to be trying to get him to admit that offshore processing worked originally.

    Paris is having nothing of it.

  9. Houston: On Turn Back: I have experience with this, have talked to distinguished lawyers in AG’s department. Conditions do not exist to turn boats back from whence they came. Diplomatic arrangement needs to be put in place with country boat to go back to.

  10. [It is believed that while it endorsed the Malaysia solution, it found that it required further work. It would be a major blow to the Gillard Government which has consistently claimed the Malaysia people swap deal was superior to Tony Abbott’s preference for a return to the Pacific Solution of re-opening Nauru, imposing temporary protection visas and turning back boats at sea.]

    Simon Benson.

  11. Lynchpin

    [Only ideology and/or hubris would say no to them.]
    Now why do those words make this come to mind…. :monkey: ?

  12. [How has the government got the Libs over a barrel when the panel has recommended Nauru and Manaus? It’s the Coalition’s policy for god’s sake.

    Sure they also say work with Malaysia, but that’s not what will make news. It’ll be the opening of Nauru and Manaus.

    It’s another loss for the government on this issue, and it’s going to be an embarrassing back down.]

    There may be a little embarrassment at first but I prefer to see it as a tactical change of direction which in one way or the other will cost Abbott his trump card.

  13. Meguire Bob

    I do not support the Coalition.
    And they have not lost on this issue. While it is there, it is a win for them.

  14. [ABC Q&A ‏@QandA
    #QandA tonight NSW Minister for Community Services Pru Goward will fill in for unwell Kelly O’Dwyer #getbettersoon
    1:09 PM – 13 Aug 12]

  15. [If Ashby goes belly up we may hear even less from Chrissie]

    … or we may hear even MOAR about something else 😀

  16. Houston: Malaysia does not require to be a signatory to Refugee Convention.
    L’Estrange: For a Regional Solution to work we have to go ahead with countries not a signatory.
    Aristotle: legislation required to counteract High Court Ruling to achieve the above.

  17. gloryconsequence
    [“Turn em back” will drift slowly and quietly into the wilderness, without any accountability from Abbott.]
    Sadly you are right BUT Abbott has lost an effective sound bite come dog whistle.His playlist is becoming very limited.

  18. Bushfire,

    Yes it did. It said there would need to be an amendment to the Migration Act with regards to Malaysia certainly. i believe they said Nauru could run straight away, but I’m not sure about that.

  19. Shorter Houston: Govt wins some & lose some. LNP ditto but Greens lost out on Offshore processing and Idealogy based approach #asylum

  20. I don’t care as much about who wins or loses politically, as long as something is done about it.
    I think a lot of people will think like that.

  21. The way I see it no party wins with this result. The merry-go-round continues to spin.

    Labor wont accept Naru without Malaysia.

    Libs wont accept any solution without TPV’s and which includes Malaysia.

    Greens don’t like any mix.

    Basically stuff the refugees.

  22. [to be frank I’m absolutely gobsmacked that they’ve recommended opening Nauru]

    So am I. Nauru is just another version of what we currently have.

  23. Houston & Aristotle: Taking bits and pieces of the package will mean it won’t work as a disincentive to irregular maritime arrivals.

Comments Page 41 of 46
1 40 41 42 46

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *