Longman is centred on Caboolture and Burpengary in Brisbane’s outer north, from which it extends eastwards to Bribie Island and the mainland coast immediately opposite and westwards to the semi-rural townships of Woodford and D’Aguilar. The seat was created at the 1996 election from territory that had mostly been in Fisher, which thereafter assumed a more coastal orientation along the southern half of the Sunshine Coast. Caboolture and Bribie Island have been the constants of the electorate amid frequently changing boundaries, which have variously appended the electorate’s core either with outer northern Brisbane suburbs or semi-rural hinterland. The former was most evident when the boundaries encompassed the coastal suburb of Deception Bay at the time of the 2007 election, which was the only occasion thus far when the seat has been won by Labor. This area was transferred to Petrie in the redistribution before the 2010 election, with Longman regaining the Woodford and D’Aguilar area it had temporarily lost to Fisher.
Longman had a notional Liberal margin of 1.6% on its creation at the 1996 election, to which the party’s candidate Mal Brough added a further 10.0% in the context of a disastrous result for Labor throughout Queensland. Brough was nonetheless lucky to survive the 1998 election after a 1.6% redistribution shift and a 9.1% swing back to Labor left him with only 0.5% to spare. After picking up successive swings of 1.8% in 2001 and 5.2% in 2004, Brough’s margin was pegged back by redistribution to 6.6% going into the 2007 election. By this time Brough had emerged as a senior figure in the Howard government, serving progressively as Employment Services Minister from 2001 to 2004, Assistant Treasurer and Revenue Minister from 2004 to 2006, and Families and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs from 2006 until the Howard government’s defeat a year later. His profile was considerably raised by the latter role, in which he oversaw the government’s sweeping intervention into Northern Territory indigenous communities.
Longman gave Labor one of its most rewarding victories of the 2007 election when Brough was dumped by a 10.3% swing, which was notably more concentrated in low-income Caboolture than the more affluent Bribie Island. Labor’s winning candidate was Jon Sullivan, who had served the area in state parliament from 1989 as member for Glass House and Caboolture, before losing the latter seat to One Nation in 1998. The exchange of urban for semi-rural territory at the 2010 election reduced the Labor margin from 3.6% to 1.9%, though even the pre-redistribution margin would have been insufficient against the 3.8% swing Sullivan suffered amid an election result which cost Labor seven of its 15 Queensland seats. His cause was not aided by a late campaign gaffe committed during a public forum broadcast on ABC Radio, in which he drew jeers from the audience after responding critically to a question posed by the father of a disabled child.
The LNP’s victory was especially noteworthy in returning a candidate who at 20 years of age was the youngest person ever elected to an Australian parliament. Wyatt Roy had won preselection at a local party ballot the previous March, at which time the seat was not considered one the party had much cause to be optimistic about. A University of Queensland student, electorate officer to state Glass House MP Andrew Powell and president of the Sunshine Coast Young Liberal National Party, Roy reportedly impressed party members with his pitch at the preselection meeting, and performed well in subsequent media appearances. His win in the ballot ahead of former Caboolture councillor Peter Flannery and local businessman Steve Attrill was confirmed by the party’s state council, despite criticism from Mal Brough who queried how such a candidate would connect with the the electorate’s “large component of veterans and seniors”.
Labor’s candidate for the coming election is Michael Caisley, an organiser with the Left faction United Voice union (formerly the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union). Meanwhile, Mal Brough will be seeking to return to politics as LNP candidate for the electorate’s northern neighbour, Fisher.
ah. good catch? Do you have tsigatuara poisoning there?
guytaur
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 6:53 pm | Permalink
Can you trust a man to run the country who does not know the difference between a tax and a market?
———————————————————
can you trust a man to run the country when he forgets he has a $710,00 mortgage?
he failed to advise under the Parliament Rules
[Psephos
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 6:55 pm | PERMALINK
Swan and other ministers foolishly said it was “in effect a tax” or something like that. That made the argument “it’s not a tax” unwinnable.]
I can provide some links to Gillard and Combet calling it a carbon tax if needed :devil:
TAKE ME DOWN TO PARADISE CITY WHERE THE GRASS GREEN AND THE GIRLS ARE PRETTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can someone with a better understanding of dates tell me, when can an election be called if you take as a given, Rudd recalling Parliament?
I think what’s being forgotten here is that the reason the “carbon tax” has been so toxic for Labor is not anything to do with the carbon price/tax itself, but the fact that Gillard said “there will be no carbon tax” and then proceeded to bring in a scheme which ministers admitted was a carbon tax. She never recovered from that, as Bludgertrack shows. Rudd is not shackled to that promise, and gives him more room to move politically on the issue.
[I can provide some links to Gillard and Combet calling it a carbon tax if needed :devil:]
Well, when Abbott went on Sky and said a carbon tax would be simpler than an ETS what he actually described was closer to a fixed price ETS than a carbon tax.
So Abbott is pretty clueless about this whole issue and shouldn’t be trusted on it.
Can you trust a man who belongs to party of Edie Obeid…
Boerwar
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
ah. good catch? Do you have tsigatuara poisoning there?
———————————————–
it was a great day…threadfin salmon, mangrove jack, couple Spanish mackerel and my favourite…bald chin groper…just gotta freeze and cook properly because of the worms
[Can someone with a better understanding of dates tell me, when can an election be called if you take as a given, Rudd recalling Parliament?]
See here:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/election-date-speculation/
Apparently removing the carbon tax reduces cost pressures on families.
Do we all agree with that?
Psephos
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
I think what’s being forgotten here is that the reason the “carbon tax” has been so toxic for Labor is not anything to do with the carbon price/tax itself, but the fact that Gillard said “there will be no carbon tax” and then proceeded to bring in a scheme which ministers admitted was a carbon tax. She never recovered from that, as Bludgertrack shows. Rudd is not shackled to that promise, and gives him more room to move politically on the issue.
—————————————————–
very true…………and aided by MSM
Make no mistake, the ALP were always going to the election on bringing forward the ETS no matter who was leader.
An ETS has been their policy for many years.
Little Coalition soldiers like Kenny can spin as much as they like, but everyone including business knows an ETS is the preferred model.
Old@That
Is that a news ltd banner?
Not MacroBusiness @Macro__Business 32m
Sydney posts massive 81% auction clearance rate, highest since 2009, boom is back baby! http://australianpropertyforum.com/topic/8385815/129/#post8411104 … @thekouk @BullionBaron @cjoye
Retweeted by Stephen Koukoulas
[very true…………and aided by MSM]
Well, yes, but Abbott didn’t need any help from the MSM when Gillard so blatantly broke a clear election commitment, and never gave a clear explanation for why she had done so.
my say
be an optimist 55 now, 58 later. go on
Greensborough Growler uttered:
tbw,
You’d be perfect for marriage.
“Find someone you can’t get on with and buy them a house”.
Yes, that gag is often used in the context of a locality. As in:
Q. How do you save time in Yallingup?
A. Find someone you can’t get on with and buy them a house.
I mention Yallingup because it’s the general locality where I live and is also close to where Confessions resides (I think….)
Some sections of Yallingup are “sea change gentrified” whereby cheap surfer’s houses from the ’70s are now worth millions (sadly, not in my case though). Lots of marriage breakups happened pre-GFC when women realised the dopey surfers they married all those years ago were now easily discarded for rivers of cash. Suddenly divorce looks a LOT more attractive when it coincides with huge sums of money. More than a few blokes coughed up huge sums circa 2005/2006 to pay out departing wives, only to discover their properties in 2012/2013 are now worth less in total than the amount they borrowed years ago (for a half share) to pay out their exes.
In my band, the frontman often uses the line “this is another song about the never ending struggle between men and women”. We play acoustic country blues from the 1920s/30s, so that intro can be used for every second song….
Occasionally he adds a wry (and admittedly misogynist twist) which I contributed: “Or, if you live in Yallingup, it’s another song about the never ending men between women and struggle…”
It’s been interesting to observe the migration patterns of some women as they negotiate a path through the eligible blokes, while managing to shoot through to Broome during winter and/or (in some cases) heading to international destinations such as India, Thailand or Bali to “find themselves”. I’ve actually had multiple women tell me (without a trace of irony) that they no longer concern themselves with material possessions or “working for the man” in a capitalist society. Well, if I’d just been given a cool million or two in cash, I’d probably say the same thing!
I apologise for the misogynist slant of the humour – I adore women and actually think they’d do a far better job of running the world than men – the humour is directed at a particular kind of woman. I’m still a long way from recovering after the disgraceful manner in which Australia treated PMJG – I found it deeply distressing. Suffice to say, most of the people I find intellectually impressive are women. This is particularly true in the ALP, while the women in the Coalition are far less interesting.
Mod Lib
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 7:02 pm | Permalink
Apparently removing the carbon tax reduces cost pressures on families.
Do we all agree with that?
———————————————————
NO. Because there is no guarantee that the power companies will reduce prices. No guarantee that any goods that have increased in price due to the carbon price will be reduced.
Abbott can say he’ll reduce power costs, and has as much chance as King Cnut (Canute)stopping the tide
My Nielsen prediction – 52/48 Coalition
ML
Depends if they’re stilling getting compensated
@Mod Lib/1769
And it didn’t do Can’t Do any good either, promised to fix Electricity pricing and still going up.
Psephos
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 7:06 pm | Permalink
very true…………and aided by MSM
Well, yes, but Abbott didn’t need any help from the MSM when Gillard so blatantly broke a clear election commitment, and never gave a clear explanation for why she had done so.
—————————————————–
the failure was not explaining the difference between a carbon price and a carbon tax.
then Labor using the same term used by Abbott calling it a tax…..
Labor have failed to properly explain a number of policies and that has caused problems for them with the voters. It has enabled people like sean to make their stupid comments
[AussieAchmed
…
NO. Because there is no guarantee that the power companies will reduce prices]
Well Kevin said getting rid of the Carbon Tax will relieve cost pressures on families.
It kinda proves what the Coalition has been saying for the last 3 years doesn’t it?
Mod Lib
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
AussieAchmed
…
NO. Because there is no guarantee that the power companies will reduce prices
Well Kevin said getting rid of the Carbon Tax will relieve cost pressures on families.
It kinda proves what the Coalition has been saying for the last 3 years doesn’t it?
———————————————————–
the pressure relieved will be not having to listen to repetitive Tony
@Mod Lib/1774
No it does not prove the point.
Newman tried to do something, only to increase the pricing.
Psephos,
surely you don’t believe yourself that when Gillard said “no carbon tax” she was saying “no carbon price at all” ?
Its pretty clear in the context she was saying “no carbon pricing in the form of a tax”. It might have in retrospect been a stupid thing to say in the sense of can be easily spun and manipulated, but its very clear she had every intention to introduce a carbon price and said that in order to differentiate herself from the Greens.
on this thread, i hope improbable blow in like wyatt are knocked out of ring
ML
Abbott is saying a “floating price” is a tax. “Floating price” floats because that is how a market operates.
Abbott is dead wrong. He cannot tell the difference between a tax and a market. He has proved Peter Costello right in his assessment of Abbott competence
rex. boooooooo. have a scotch
Its just another example of the narrative problem with the ALP:
1. There is no asylum seeker queue, oops yes there is
2. There will be no carbon tax, oops yes there will be
3. There is no link between surplus and interest rates, oops we will deliver a surplus to decrease pressure on interest rates
4. There must be a surplus as it shows we are good economic managers, oops…..
5. The Coalition are lying when they say removing the carbon tax will decrease electricity prices……then Rudd confirms exactly that!
I always thought it was dumb to promise that power prices would fall if the carbon price was repealed or lowered. It opens you up to more boring hours of Question Time when electricity bills are presented and haven’t fallen.
[Apparently removing the carbon tax reduces cost pressures on families.
Do we all agree with that?]
The vast majority of people in Australia don’t suffer cost of living pressures, they have cost of life style pressures which are very different.
[Well Kevin said getting rid of the Carbon Tax will relieve cost pressures on families.]
Did he say that?
If so it is incredibly stupid.
australia by christmas
ShowsOn
Posted Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 6:59 pm | PERMALINK
TAKE ME DOWN TO PARADISE CITY WHERE THE GRASS GREEN AND THE GIRLS ARE PRETTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Mod Lib/1781
Going back to the old 5 point or 10 point routine isn’t going to work you know.
WA for example shows Liberals are not good economic managers.
ML:
You must be excited at Malcolm’s words today.
Production costs are not the big problem, although the suppliers would like you to believe that.
The problem is that they have failed to invest in maintenance, upkeep and replacement of poles and lines.
That’s what happens when you privatise and don’t follow up ensuring companies are doing what they are meant.
Makes you wonder who is getting paid not to look
[You must be excited at Malcolm’s words today.]
Which?
“Economic modelling will show this will ease cost-of-living pressures for families and create jobs,” a government source said of the shift to scrap the tax.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-shifts-to-emissions-trading-scheme/story-e6frg6n6-1226679039589
Cant find Rudd’s exact words but it was something like the above
Did John Howard call an ETS a tax?
Does the EU call an ETS a tax? Tony Abbott does.
ML:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/turnbull-says-many-prefer-him-to-abbott-20130714-2pxql.html
@Mod Lib/1790
He didn’t say that but a number of liberals did.
http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1618628/sophie-abolished-carbon-tax-will-boost-jobs/
“By getting rid of the carbon tax, not only will we be making it easier for household budgets, but we’ll be bringing down the cost of making things in Australia.”
– Sophie Mirabella
You note in your link there was no name given, only “source”.
[You note in your link there was no name given, only “source”.]
Yes, well I heard it from Kevin’s own mouth in a news bite just now (although cant remember the exact wording) so no doubt we will all hear it again!
Malcolm talcum. pyne whine. abbott … so it goes, names emptied of a future
ML
Turnbull has the advantage over Abbott in that he has not called a market a tax
BREAKING:
Kevin Rudd Announces Major New Transport Initiative for Sydney
“At the present time, it takes an hour and a half for folks to get here from Parramatta. Under pur new plan, the good burghers will be able to zip here in 90 minutes.”
I think Turnbull has many more advantages over Abbott than just that! 🙂
[In 2007 John Howard warned those who had voted for him up to then that voting against the Coalition would put at risk everything the Howard government achieved. Mark Textor came up with the idea of defining Rudd as “Howard lite”. Lite products are popular, creating the impression that you can have the good aspects of a product without the negative aspects. Even tobacco companies branded their products as “lite” until the government told them to stop, a move that their advisers at Crosby Textor neither anticipated nor countered.
With Rudd as “Howard lite” people felt free to vote for Rudd, negating Howard’s stern alarums, and did so. This morning Textor and Andrew Bolt agreed that Rudd was now “Tony Abbott lite”. Never mind that this doesn’t make sense (how could anyone be more vacuous than Tony Abbott?), swinging voters who want to vote Labor out but who have reservations about Abbott should have no reservations in voting for Rudd and Labor.]
http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/turnbull-holds-forth-on-holding-back.html
I don’t watch the Bolt Report, but is that seriously the best that an experienced strategist like Mark Textor can come up with?
Abbott lite? ‘Howard lite’ made sense at the time, but Abbott lite does not.
Nice try, Mod, but again you’re oversimplifying what has been said. The government has been arguing that the opposition’s position – that most of the increase in electricity prices are due to (and will be removed by the scrapping of) the carbon price – is incorrect.
The same opposition has, after all, been getting up in parliament with bills showing price increases and claiming the whole lot was due to the carbon price.