The electorate of Canberra covers the southern half of the national capital together with the bulk of the Australian Capital Territory’s thinly populated remainder, with northern Canberra accommodated by the seat of Fraser. Both seats were created when the territory was first divided into two electorates in 1974. The Australian Capital Territory had been a single electorate since the expansion of parliament in 1949, but its member only obtained full voting rights in 1968. A third electorate of Namadgi was created for the 1996 election, accommodating Tuggeranong and its surrounds in Canberra’s far south and pushing the Canberra electorate north of the lake to include the city’s centre and inner north. However, the previous order was reinstated when the seat entitlement to slipped back to two at the 1998 election, in large part due to Howard government cutbacks to the federal public service. The two ACT electorates presently have enrolment of around 130,000 voters each, compared with a national average of around 96,000.
The Australian Capital Territory electorate was won by an independent at its first election in 1949, but was held by Labor after 1951. Kep Enderby came to the seat at a 1970 by-election and carried over to Canberra in 1974, serving as Lionel Murphy’s successor as Attorney-General in 1975. He was then dumped by a 10.4% swing to the Liberals at the December 1975 election, and for the next two terms the seat was held for the Liberals by John Haslem. The seat’s natural Labor inclination finally reasserted itself in 1980 with the election of Ros Kelly, who served in the Hawke-Keating ministries from 1987 until she fell victim to the still notorious “sports rorts” affair in 1994. Kelly’s indulgent departure from parliament a year later was followed by a disastrous by-election result for Labor, with Liberal candidate Brendan Smyth gaining the seat off a 16.2% swing.
Smyth unsuccessfully contested the new seat of Namadgi at the 1996 election, and Canberra was won easily for Labor by Bob McMullan, who had served the ACT as a Senator since 1988. The reassertion of the old boundaries in 1998 caused McMullan to move to Fraser, the Labor margin in the redrawn Canberra being 5.1% lower than the one he secured in 1996. Canberra went to Annette Ellis, who had entered parliament as the member for Namadgi in 1996, while Fraser MP Steve Darvagel agreed to go quietly after a brief parliamentary career which began when he succeeded John Langmore at a by-election in February 1997. Ellis added 7.2% to an existing 2.3% margin at the 1998 election, and held the seat safely thereafter.
In February 2010, both Ellis and McMullan announced they would not contest the election due later that year. Large fields of preselection contestants emerged for both seats, with the front-runner in Canberra initially thought to be Michael Cooney, chief-of-staff to ACT Education Minister Andrew Barr and a former adviser to opposition leaders Mark Latham and Kim Beazley. However, Cooney shortly withdrew amid suggestions Kevin Rudd was ready to use national executive intervention to block him. The eventual winner was Gai Brodtmann, a former DFAT public servant who had established a local communications consultancy with her husband, senior ABC reporter Chris Uhlmann. Together with Andrew Leigh’s win in Fraser, Brodtmann’s win was seen as a rebuff to local factional powerbrokers who had pursued a deal in which the Left would support Mary Wood, adviser to Housing Minister Tanya Plibersek and member of the Centre Coalition (Right), and the Right would back the Nick Martin, the party’s assistant national secretary and a member of the Left, in Fraser. However, Brodtmann was able to build a cross-factional support base of sufficient breadth to prevail over Wood by 123 votes to 109.
The Liberal candidate for the coming election is Tom Sefton, a Commonwealth public servant who has served in Afghanistan as a commando officer. Sefton polled a respectable 4.2% as a candidate for Molonglo at the October 2012 Australian Capital Territory election.
roger m crawford @rogeramjet60 2m
Does Tony Abbott ever read govt report…oh Tony I remember now no he doesn’t #Auspol http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-08/report-kills-northern-food-bowl-dream/2572856 …
confessions
I didn’t hear him. Of course the denialist loons were out in force on the World Bank Report. After all, the World Bank is a well-known extreme left organization seeking to establish a one world government.
Newman, erstwhile boss of the ABC, came out with a ferocious attack on the way in which the ABC has been infiltrated by alarmists.
This wackaloon, appointee of Howard, appears utterly oblivious to the fact that the ABC is representative of 97% of the world’s climate scientists and all of the world’s science academies.
Newman is in pisspoor company: 66% of Liberal supporters believe that 97% of the world’s climate scientists are wrong.
The majority of the Coalition members also believe that 97% of the world’s climate scientists are wrong.
The only rational explanation is that this mob are undergoing some sort of mass hallucination or groupthing delusion. We even have Gauss, apparently well-educated, running around mouthing the speaking points of Nobel Laureate, HIV-curing, Birthers like Moncton.
It is a worrying thing.
[However, all the Opus Dei stuff sounds a bit unlikely.]
I can well see it happening in the Liberal party now that Howard has departed the scene. David Clarke and his band of religious numpties are increasing their influence in the NSW Liberals at a time when BoF has solid authority within the party.
Abbott, by contrast has no authority within the party. He is a puppet. If there was ever going to be an Opus Dei chapter within the Libs, it will occur under a weak leader such as Abbott.
[Will not happen. That is the reality. Rudd does not have the numbess and has never had the numbers in caucus in the last three years as the fact PMJG is still PM proves.]
He doesn’t necessarily need to have the numbers to stampede the Caucus into giving him the leadership.
So the polls are ‘inaccurate’? What about the aggregate of polls graphically displayed over time revealing the trend? Eg Bludgertrack. Still ‘inaccurate’? Or are all the polls inaccurate in the same way?
[All in all, he didn’t reveal very much that was especially new, other than some more details of Bill Heffernan’s long-suspected role as a subterranean political operative on behalf of Abbott. That a loose cannon like Abbott would choose to have an even looser cannon in the shape of Heffo doing his dirty work for him speaks volumes.]
Senator Hefferman should’ve been expelled from the Senate after he used obviously forged documents to accuse a High Court Justice of cruising for prostitutes.
The fact the Liberal Party did not force him to resign from the Senate demonstrates that they have no sense of decency.
[Shows
Will not happen. That is the reality. Rudd does not have the numbess and has never had the numbers in caucus in the last three years as the fact PMJG is still PM proves.]
If Rudd is leader before the next election, while you support the party YES OR NO?
Answer the question.
Shows
I will answer your hypothetical fantasy this way.
I will be doing the most I can as a private individual to see Abbot remain the best LOTO to never win an election.
Brisbane Lions just proved it’s not over until it’s over coming from 52 points behind to beat Geelong with a goal after the siren, amazing stuff
Julia can do the same imo
“@SkyNewsBreak: Update – Russian News Agency Interfax: Edward Snowden may fly to Cuba from Moscow”
Major unhingement in US if this turns out to be right
Boerwar:
I think the residual unhingement denialism in AUstralia will dissipate in coming years once the reality of carbon pricing as a permanent thing starts to permeate.
In the US, Obama really does need to use this term to implement meaningful action there. This will be the real test of his Presidency IMO.
Shows
I did answer the question. I cannot help it that you do not like the answer
Psephos
[“He doesn’t necessarily need to have the numbers to stampede the Caucus into giving him the leadership.”]
By that glorious logic, even if Rudd gets the numbers he won’t really have the numbers. The numbers will not count because they won’t be governed by the ruling factional grouper bosses any more. They will be ‘stampeding numbers’ that could leave the careerist bosses with 0, a rogue number for them.
confessions
President Obama giving a major speech on climate change next week
[Brisbane Lions just proved it’s not over until it’s over coming from 52 points behind to beat Geelong with a goal after the siren, amazing stuff]
My footy tipping this week has been woeful. First Port defeating Sydney, now Geelong getting rolled.
The saving grace, comp-wise is that everyone else would’ve tipped the same.
[Shows
I did answer the question. I cannot help it that you do not like the answer]
Howl at the moon mate! You haven’t convinced one person to vote Labor ever.
I stand by my previous statement about polls.
Sure, each poll has a margin of error, however, once you have the kind of aggregate that Bilbo has graciously compiled then MOE, which cannot be ‘directional’ or biased (since, by definition it is the statistical range either side of the statistic in question) then the MOE necessarily diminishes.
The polls are also in a much tighter range this far out from ED than they were in 2010, 2007 or in 2004.
Indeed, the volatility around at the close of polling last election led many to erroneously believe that the Coalition might win it.
It is no magic or mystery but the marginal seats were predicting a hung parliament with a 90% confidence interval.
This time, at present, the ALP is statistically screwed. This may change but occam’s razor would suggest that the Coalition will romp it in.
You would need to be truly delusional.
In any case, expecting a war, or “Tampa” moment in order to change polls is hardly a ringing endorsement of the incumbent government..
good work showson
keep up the fight – my intuition commonsense political knowledge and reasoning have been along the same lines as your own for what is dah dah! three whole years tomorrow.
so conroy is the big protector. give us a break.
i will never forgive julia calling out the sisterhood to defend for rescue in her own political mire
guytaur:
I know. But we need more than just speeches from the US. We need leadership and action.
[He doesn’t necessarily need to have the numbers to stampede the Caucus into giving him the leadership.]
LOL! So you are already working the narrative that if Rudd wins the leadership he didn’t really win the leadership.
Your Ph.D. must’ve been in Creative Writing.
The rain has stopped and the clouds here are starting to break up a little. If the moon is super enough, it may just penetrate the cloud to give us a little peek. 🙂
Looks like the Gillard supporters in Cabinet have been given the 4 day game plan.
Sound tactics.
Rudd would look like a complete Tosser if he challenges – I strongly doubt he will.
Gillard won’t quit.
Third party stalking horse possibly an option I think.
briefly@1281
briefly, that is a very good statement of modern Labor educational values which I share with you.
No matter how much public funding is pumped into the expensive ‘independent’ schools, their fees won’t go down. Why is this? Simple, it is all about ensuring only the ‘right types’ go to them and buying access to networks of privilege.
Everyone in society has some sort of ‘aspirations’. The aspirations of the Della Bosca and Latham ‘aspirationals’ are just pure snobbery and stratification of society.
My aspirations are for a fair society with access to quality healthcare, education etc for all. This of course needs to be underpinned by a highly productive economy, another of my aspirations.
confessions
With Labor and Green and HOR cross bench support we have had that leadership. We still have.
Not that you would know woth MSM reporting. Starting with Jones and his Juliar cry
Mitch Fifield features in a Rick Wilson advert, as does the Member for Indi.
Do people in Victoria even know who these people are, much less anyone in country WA?
Just Me@1550 and Player One@1206: that’s right, Abbott has had a very charmed run to the top.
From the support from powerful people which helped get him his Rhodes Scholarship, to the top notch journalistic and political adviser jobs which immediately fell his way after he quit his training for the priesthood, to his smooth ride into preselection for a blue ribbon Liberal seat, to his indulgence by Howard in providing bucketloads of money to patch up some of Abbott’s failures as a Minister to Andrew Robb’s critical betrayal of Turnbull which shoehorned Abbott into the party leader position. It’s all been pretty easy for Tone.
The glittering prizes have kept falling his way as if they were an entitlement. The reason for this is that many powerful right-wing people – including, it is rumoured, Rupert Murdoch – were enormously impressed back in 1978 when, against all the odds (and largely by getting out the rugger bugger college vote for an election in which those types were normally uninterested), Abbott managed to be elected President of the Sydney Uni SRC. This was a triumph for the forces of the right on the most unlikely of battlefields, and it impressed the hell out of people who then took the lad under their wing and mentored him all the way to what now appears almost certain to be an unexpected term or two in the Lodge.
Abbott is moderately clever (I accept that not everyone will agree with my rankings, but I would put him in the league of a Rudd or a Beazley, but not remotely close to a Hawke, Keating, Howard or Gillard. Or a Latham for that matter). But he’s a pretty ordinary politician who is accident-prone: something we will all come to see if he does indeed get elected as PM.
He’s won’t be the least deserving person who has become PM (if he gets there: I still hold out a faint hope that it won’t happen, but I’ve got to be realistic). Billy McMahon and Arthur Fadden were undoubtedly less worthy, and possibly Harold Holt too. And Edmund Barton, our first PM, was quite possibly the worst of all.
But Abbott is no great shakes. Even on his own side of politics, Turnbull would be far better, so would Barry O’Farrell, Colin Barnett and (with all his faults) Peter Costello. I even think Brendan Nelson might have been better: no, scrub that thought, the guy is a goose (it must be my Tasmanian bias that made me think of him).
But Abbott is a very strange dude and he’ll be a very strange PM.
Peter Van Onselen still shit stirring on Twitter:
[…as I say, fascinating Newspoll. Full details in the paper tomorrow, a hint later tonight on Sky News.]
https://twitter.com/vanOnselenP/status/348734239400939520
News poll prediction 53 – 47 Libs (the margin of error snap back) and keeps Gillard as PM.
[ShowsOn
Posted Sunday, June 23, 2013 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
Shows
Will not happen. That is the reality. Rudd does not have the numbess and has never had the numbers in caucus in the last three years as the fact PMJG is still PM proves.
If Rudd is leader before the next election, while you support the party YES OR NO?
Answer the question.]
Absolutely not. My ballot will go into the little box unmarked. A pox on all your houses.
[With Labor and Green and HOR cross bench support we have had that leadership. We still have.
Not that you would know woth MSM reporting. Starting with Jones and his Juliar cry]
Who gives a crap about the cross bench.
That is one reason why Labor is in such a bad position because many people seem to think it is the cross bench running the government.
confessions
‘Boerwar:
I think the residual unhingement denialism in Australia will dissipate in coming years once the reality of carbon pricing as a permanent thing starts to permeate.’
Those bastards Howard and Costello spent 11 years dragging the chain on AGW action. Not only did they do nowt much in Australian, they were activists when it came to trying to undermine the Kyoto Protocol.
Now the reactionaries are about to piss away another decade by undoing the Labor Government’s work and replacing it with a policy joke.
Are the climate criminals? Or are they just ignorant, grasping, greedy nut jobs who just don’t get it that they are climate destroyers.
[Psephos
“He doesn’t necessarily need to have the numbers to stampede the Caucus into giving him the leadership.”
By that glorious logic, even if Rudd gets the numbers he won’t really have the numbers. The numbers will not count because they won’t be governed by the ruling factional grouper bosses any more. They will be ‘stampeding numbers’ that could leave the careerist bosses with 0, a rogue number for them.]
Kindly don’t distort what I said. If Rudd has the numbers, then he has them, and he will use them, and he will be leader. My point was that he can still become leader even if only a minority of Caucus members are willing to vote for him.
Your obsession with faction bosses is indeed curious. It’s been a long time since there were bossable factions in Caucus. Every recent ballot has seen right and left split between the candidates. Even Don Farrell, the “boss” of the SA Right, can’t stop Rishworth voting for same-sex marriage or Champion supporting Rudd. And I take it you have no problems with Sam Dastyari or Kim Carr, faction bosses who are supporting Rudd? Or do they magically cease to be faction bosses because they agree with you?
ShowsOn@1577
“Peter Van Onselen still shit stirring on Twitter:
…as I say, fascinating Newspoll. Full details in the paper tomorrow, a hint later tonight on Sky News.”
This is basically a content-free statement: given what’s going on at the moment, what possible result in Newspoll could not be considered “fascinating”.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
The MOE listed by the individual polls is simply the error you get inevitably from estimating the total population based on a subset assuming you sample in an unbiased way.
Let’s take an example. If you wanted to estimate how many deaf people there are in Australia and chose to sample by having a call centre make voice calls to landlines, you’re going to get the wrong answer.
It doesn’t matter how many people you sample, and if you sample 1000 people, and look up the table that says that sample size should have an MOE of 3% and print it in a table, it doesn’t tell you what the actual error is.
Now, as I said I don’t know what the polling errors actually are, and I don’t for a second dispute that the ALP are heading for a big loss.
However, there are some people here that seem to have a touching naivete on where inaccuracy can creep in to polling.
is it this weeks newspoll or last weeks one they shelved ( or whichever is worse for the gummint)
sure highly ethical newscorpse woont do that
Psephos@1582: those people who want Rudd back as PM (TBW, please note my carefully-chosen words) who go on and on about “faction bosses” are talking out of their fundaments.
Latham, in his published Diaries, revealed that there are well over a dozen separate factional groups in Caucus. As you have pointed out, many of these groups do not vote as a bloc on anything other than, perhaps, supporting each other in contests for ministerial positions or roles in chairing committees, etc.
Most of these PB regulars who want Rudd back as PM express a loathing for the NSW Right. And yet Rudd is totally a creature of the NSW Right: as is evidenced as recently as tonight by Bruce Hawker riding forth from his mansion (funded by Labor Party campaign funds) to gallantly provide support for young Jessica Rudd against accusations that she was lying.
Bruce is as NSW Labor Right as they come.
[highly ethical newscorpse]
Where, where, where?
itll be 55-45 again (its why they been sitting on it…because it proves that all their bullshit produces nothing…..anyway not long now….or is it next week now?
womble
The win by the Lions is remarkable.
Does anyone on PB see Sky News…and what does Van O mean by “fascinating”???????
[However, there are some people here that seem to have a touching naivete on where inaccuracy can creep in to polling.]
Well you can identify the delusional ones pretty easily. They’re the ones who always work on the assumption that any errors in polling methodology will always work to the detriment of the party that they happen to support.
TLBD
which bank?
every fucking bank
Boerwar:
I really do think things have moved on from the HOward/Costello era. Which is why I think it’s crazy brave for the Liberals to run a campaign pledging to turn back time.
At some point the penny must drop that this is wholly unfeasible.
WELCOME BACK BEMUSED !
__________________
Nice to see you back on deck..and at a most “interesting time
Did you follow te debates on PB while in exile ?
Good Luck
Try again. With PVO fascinating can mean anything or nothing.
“Big final sitting week” from Van Insolent
I take that as bad for Gillard meaning pressure for change.
Kinkajou,
I think you confuse this mortal with another of undoubtedly acuter insights.
[Psephos@1582: those people who want Rudd back as PM (TBW, please note my carefully-chosen words) who go on and on about “faction bosses” are talking out of their fundaments.
Latham, in his published Diaries, revealed that there are well over a dozen separate factional groups in Caucus. As you have pointed out, many of these groups do not vote as a bloc on anything other than, perhaps, supporting each other in contests for ministerial positions or roles in chairing committees, etc.
Most of these PB regulars who want Rudd back as PM express a loathing for the NSW Right. And yet Rudd is totally a creature of the NSW Right: as is evidenced as recently as tonight by Bruce Hawker riding forth from his mansion (funded by Labor Party campaign funds) to gallantly provide support for young Jessica Rudd against accusations that she was lying.
Bruce is as NSW Labor Right as they come.]
This is all bullshit.
What this whole thing is really about Labor doing what it can to get the absolute best result at the 2013 election it possibly can.
For whatever reasons – some fair and many unfair – Julia Gillard is now a deeply unpopular party leader.
For whatever reasons, Kevin Rudd is the most popular Labor MP in the federal parliament and possibly the most popular Labor MP in the entire country. I know this annoys many people here, but hey, life wasn’t meant to be easy or fair.
If Labor wants to maximise the number of seats it wins at the 2013 election it should replace Gillard with Rudd.
There will only ever be one 2013 Australian federal election. Labor must do whatever it can to maximise its vote and the seats it wins. It owes that to all Labor party members and supporters around the country.
Anything less than that is a cop out that suggests the party is run based on kindergarten style grudges instead of doing whatever it can – within the law – to maximise the number of votes it wins.
[Kindly don’t distort what I said. If Rudd has the numbers, then he has them, and he will use them, and he will be leader.]
Psephos
Are you suggesting that if Rudd has the numbers he will challenge? He has stated categorically on numerous occasions that he won’t.
Psephos don’t bother arguing with JV. As you are well aware his knowledge of the party is at least 10 years out of date and based purely on Rudd’s propaganda. Now matter how often you present evidence it is an idee fixe. Let him live in his ignorance.