What follows is a brief overview of the results in electorates I felt worth commenting on for one reason or another, together with projections of state vote shares based on ordinary votes results (which are not quite fully accounted for in the count, but close enough to it) and the extent to which postals, pre-polls and absent votes shifted the totals in 2010. New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory are covered herein, with the others to follow.
New South Wales
% Swing Projection Coalition 47.3 +2.6 47.2 Labor 34.9 -2.8 34.5 Greens 7.7 -2.2 8.1 Palmer United 4.3 Others 5.8 Two-party preferred Coalition 54.2 +3.2 54.3 Labor 45.8 -3.2 45.7
Banks. The 3.3% swing which ousted Daryl Melham was almost exactly equal to the state total, which followed an 8.9% swing in 2010. An increase in the number of candidates from four to nine restricted the Liberal primary vote gain to 1.7% and contributed to a halving of the Greens vote, down from 9.6% to 4.7%.
Barton. The seat vacated by former Attorney-General Robert McClelland is going down to the wire, the 6.9% margin exactly matched by the swing on ordinary votes. This was the second biggest swing against Labor in Sydney after Macquarie. Barton was another seat that witnessed a dramatic proliferation of candidates, from three to eight, with the five minor party and independent newcomers collectively drawing 11.3%. The Liberals nonetheless increased their primary vote slightly, the balance coming off Labor and the Greens.
Blaxland. Reports on the eve of the election suggested Labor had grave fears for Jason Clare’s hold on Paul Keating’s old seat, despite its 12.2% margin. This proved entirely unfounded, with Labor up 5.4% on the primary vote and holding steady on two-party preferred.
Charlton. For some reason, the seat vacated by Greg Combet gave the Palmer United Party what was comfortably its highest vote in New South Wales at 11.3% (UPDATE: Frickeg in comments reminds me the belated disendorsement of the Liberal candidate probably had something to do with it). The party’s second best showing in the state was 7.8% in neighbouring Hunter. That aside, Combet’s departure did not cause any disturbance to Labor, the two-party swing being slightly below the state average.
Dobell. Craig Thomson managed 4.0%, which was at least better than Peter Slipper and contributed to a double-digit drop in the Labor primary vote, their worst such result in the state. Also contributing was former test cricketer Nathan Bracken, running as an independent with the backing of John Singleton, who managed 8.3%. The Liberal primary vote was up slightly, and its 5.9% swing on two-party preferred adequate to account for the 5.5% margin.
Eden-Monaro. Mike Kelly appeared to be well placed early in the count, but the larger and later reporting booths, including those in Queanbeyan, tended to swing more heavily. Kelly is presently sitting on a swing of 4.8%, enough to account for his 4.4% margin barring late count peculiarities and maintain Eden-Monaro’s cherished bellwether record. This was higher than the state average, part of a pattern in which swings in the state’s regions were actually slightly higher than in Sydney, contrary to all expectations.
Fowler. After all the hype about Labor’s looming collapse in western Sydney, a seat in that very area produced the most anomalous swing of the election in Labor’s favour. The 9.0% swing to Chris Hayes was 12.2% above the statewide par for Labor, and was fuelled by an 11.2% drop in the Liberal primary vote and swings approaching 20% in Cabramatta, the very area the Liberals had hoped to target by picking a Vietnamese candidate in Andrew Nguyen. However, look at the seat’s behaviour over longer range suggests this to have been a correction after an anomalous result in 2010, when Liberal candidate Thomas Dang slashed the Labor margin by 13.8% and picked up swings ranging from 16.5% to 23.1% in the Cambramatta booths.
Gilmore. The south coast seat was one of three in New South Wales to swing to Labor, presumably on account of the retirement of long-serving Liberal member Joanna Gash. Her successor, Ann Sudmalis, has emerged with 2.6% remaining of a 5.3% margin.
Grayndler. The Greens vote fell only modestly, by 1.2% to 22.8%, but it looks enough to have cost them a second place they attained for the first time in 2010. With primary votes generally fairly static, the change in Liberal preferencing policy would presumably have inflicted a hefty two-party swing if they had made the final count.
Hunter. Joel Fitzgibbon was down 10.1% on the primary vote, and while this was partly on account of the Palmer United Party’s second best performance in the state, he also suffered Labor’s biggest two-party swing in the state at 8.9%.
Kingsford Smith. One of a number of pieces of saved furniture for Labor in Sydney, Kingsford Smith turned in a largely status quo result in Peter Garrett’s absence, outgoing Senator Matt Thistlethwaite easily defending a 5.2% margin against a swing of 1.9%.
Lindsay. The swing that unseated David Bradbury was slightly on the high side for Sydney at 3.5%, more than accounting for a margin of 1.1% without meeting the more fevered expectations of a western Sydney disaster.
Macarthur. Liberal sophomore Russell Matheson picked up the second biggest two-party Coalition swing in New South Wales, up 6.8% on the primary vote and 8.4% on two-party preferred.
Page. The expectation that Labor would perform better in regional New South Wales than in Sydney was most strikingly defied in Page, where Janelle Saffin unexpectedly fell victim to a 7.2% swing.
Parramatta. Julie Owens’ seat produced a fairly typical result for Sydney in swinging 3.4% to the Liberals, which hasn’t been enough to account for the 4.4% margin. (UPDATE: I speak too soon. In keeping with a general trend of late counting away from Labor, postal votes are flowing heavily to the Liberals and putting Owens at very serious risk.)
Robertson. As expected, the seat Deborah O’Neill did well to retain in 2010 with a margin of 1.0% was an early election night casualty for Labor, the swing of 4.0% being perfectly typical for non-metropolitan New South Wales.
Throsby. Gary “Angry” Anderson managed 10.5% as candidate of the Nationals, nearly doubling the party’s vote from 2010 despite the number of candidates being up from five to 11. The Greens conversely were well down, by 6.5% to 5.3%.
Werriwa. Frequently written off during the campaign, Laurie Ferguson is set to retain about 2.2% of his 6.8% margin from 2010.
Queensland
% Swing Projection Coalition 45.3 -1.9 45.5 Labor 30.1 -3.9 29.7 Greens 6.1 -4.7 6.2 Palmer United 11.3 Others 7.2 Two-party preferred Coalition 56.0 +1.1 56.3 Labor 44.0 -1.1 43.7
Blair. One Labor MP with good cause to feel glad about Kevin Rudd’s return was Shayne Neumann, who picked up a 1.4% two-party swing and held firm on the primary vote in the face of 12.8% vote for the Palmer United Party. Here as elsewhere in Queensland, the Greens crashed in the absence of the Kevin Rudd protest vote in 2010, dropping 6.9% to 4.2%.
Brisbane. While Labor had much to be relieved about in Queensland, its high hopes for recovering Brisbane were not realised, with Liberal National Party member Teresa Gamabaro up 1.8% on the primary vote, Labor steady. A 6.9% drop in the Greens vote to 14.3%, coming off Andrew Bartlett’s high-profile campaign in 2010, produced a significantly weaker flow of preferences to Labor.
Capricornia. The central Queensland seat vacated by Kirsten Livermore is going down to the wire after a heavy 8.9% drop in the Labor primary vote. This was mostly down to the competition from the Palmer and Katter parties, the former outscoring the latter 7.9% to 5.3%. With the Liberal National Party vote little changed, Labor suffered a 4.4% swing on ordinary votes off a margin of 4.6%.
Fairfax. Clive Palmer seems to be fighting to hold on to a 1411 against a strong trend in late counting towards Liberal National Party candidate Ted O’Brien. However, O’Brien’s current vote count looks to have been inflated by a discrepancy you can read about here. As things stand, the key to Palmer’s potential victory is his clear success in outpolling Labor 27.3% to 18.1% on ordinary votes, with LNP candidate Ted O’Brien’s 41.0% below the safety zone with Labor and Greens preferences flowing strongly against him.
Fisher. With Palmer United Party candidate Bill Schoch apparently primed to overtake Labor on preferences, despite trailing them 21.0% to 18.3% on the primary vote, Mal Brough’s 43.8% share of the vote was an uncomfortably long distance from the 50% mark. Nonetheless, Brough appears to be gaining about a quarter of the overall preferences on offer, enough to get him over the line with a few per cent to spare.
Griffith. Kevin Rudd suffered Labor’s equal biggest swing in Queensland of 5.2%, with Bill Glasson’s 5.9% lift on the primary vote the second highest achieved by an LNP candidate.
Kennedy. Bob Katter emerged a big loser of election night with a 17.1% slump in his primary vote, reducing him to 29.5%. Liberal National Party candidate Noeline Ikin was the beneficiary of a 14.0% spike that put her well in front on the primary vote count with 40.6%, but preferences are flowing solidly enough to Katter to leave him with a margin slightly below 3%.
Leichhardt. There was strong movement to Labor in Aboriginal communities, doubtless reflecting the background of Labor candidate Billy Gordon. This briefly created the illusion of a potential Labor victory as the first booth-matched results came through on election night, but that was negated by a strong performance by LNP member Warren Entsch in Cairns and the electorate’s rural areas.
Lilley. The 1.6% swing against Wayne Swan was well in line with the statewide norm, and if anything a little above it. Given the pre-election publicity though, Swan’s success in retaining almost all of his 2010 primary vote was among the results that lifted Labor’s spirits on an otherwise grim evening.
Petrie. Kevin Rudd’s election night boast of having defended all of Labor’s Queensland seats to the contrary, it appears that Yvette d’Ath has been unseated by a swing of 3.0% on the ordinary votes, compared with her pre-election margin of 2.5%.
Northern Territory
% Swing Projection Coalition 41.2 +0.8 41.6 Labor 38.3 -0.2 37.7 Greens 7.7 -5.0 7.9 Palmer United 4.6 Others 8.2 Two-party preferred Coalition 49.7 +0.9 50.1 Labor 50.3 -0.9 49.9
Lingiari. As usual, swings in the extra-Darwin Northern Territory electorate were all over the shop, the general picture being of a slight swing to Labor in remote communities blunting the swing against Labor to 2.7%, short of Warren Snowdon’s 3.7% margin. This followed a 2010 result which delivered huge swings to the Country Liberal Party in remote communities but partly balanced them out with strong swings to Labor in the major centre, specifically Alice Springs.
Solomon. Natasha Griggs, who unseated Labor’s Damien Hale in 2010, notably failed to enjoy a sophomore surge, Solomon delivering a rare 0.7% swing to Labor to reduce the CLP margin to 0.9%.
Boerwar @ 902
The new rule was adopted by the Caucus before the election.
It will be used in the current leadership ballot, if there is more than one nomination.
The National Conference has the power to adopt or reject the new rule.
[And I am not surprised in the least that you prefer the candidate that has caused so much disruption in the ALP.]
He’s not running bemused, he announced that on Saturday night remember? Or did you doze off too?
Mod Lib
Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
Why don’t you just let the ALP membership nominate the contenders for leadership then the caucus chooses between them?
—————————-
Because the ALP Constitution does allow that to happen.
And as stated many times any change must be done at a National Conference
I don’t quite get the legal challenge dimension of all of this debate about the rules applying to the election of a leader.
I mean, yes, in theory someone might have the legal basis for seeking to challenge such a process.
But in reality, the electorate voted on this proposal as part of Labor’s package of policies it took to the election. Indeed, some might argue it was a significant plank in the policy that largely deflected the suggestion that a vote for Rudd was not necessarily a vote for Rudd.
So against that backdrop, does anyone seriously think the Labor party would be dumb enough:
A: not to to adopt a proposal put to the Australian people at a time when its stocks are already low with said electorate
and
B: to allow a legal challenge that might technically stand up, but that would be demonstrably contrary to the interests of the Labor party
Feeney. You can tell I’m a bit bewildered. Does caucus set the rules? Or the National Convention? Wasn’t caucus simply recommending endorsing by the National Convention. But I’m an outsider. I don’t know enough about this. There seems to be a multitude of opinions!! I’m interested in Psephos views, being the guru on all things related to the Labor machine.
[The new rule was adopted by the Caucus before the election.]
Caucus has no power to adopt new rules. It’s like saying the Bandywallop Shire Council voted to declare war on Uzbekistan.
[But in reality, the electorate voted on this proposal as part of Labor’s package of policies it took to the election.]
Some bizarre logic here. Even if you could suppose that ‘the electorate’ based their voting decisions on the internal workings of the Labor Party exactly how many votes would’ve been needed for it to be taken that ‘the electorate’ endorsed it? Just 1?
alias
[So against that backdrop, does anyone seriously think the Labor party would be dumb enough:
A: not to to adopt a proposal put to the Australian people at a time when its stocks are already low with said electorate
and
B: to allow a legal challenge that might technically stand up, but that would be demonstrably contrary to the interests of the Labor party]
YES and YES
Psephos
[There’s also the question of the unions. Labor has two kinds of members, individual branch members and affiliated union – that’s what makes it a Labor Party.]
silmaj
[On newsradio this afternoon the president of the Alp said that there would be a ballot that included members who are financial for two years. I would assume that the president of Alp knows what’s happening]
What the heck would you do if the aliens landed tomorrow and said “take me to your leader!”, particularly of they landed in Gillard’s front garden.
Boerwar@909
Darren Laver@930
Are you thinking of organising for one? 😮
[Climate sceptic MP Dennis Jensen wants to be science minister]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-sceptic-mp-dennis-jensen-wants-to-be-science-minister-20130912-2tltt.html#ixzz2eflnk2Mi
Loony’s are lining up for their share of the spoils i see.
The rules state that caucus chooses the leader…
Can’t caucus then decide HOW they choose the leader…?
Can’t caucus then decide that the method THEY WANT to choose the leader is a 50/50 spilt between themselves & non-parliamentary party members…?
Alias. The problem is the Labor Party is a legally constituted entity which must act in accordance with its own existing rules. Caucus can’t just change the constitution of its own volition. I see it as a typical Rudd legacy – leaving behind a mess for someone else to sort out. But I emphasise I’m not an expert in these matters. I’m just the dumbo asking the questions!
LTEP
You miss my point entirely. I’m saying that yes, if you want to treat this exercise as a legal process, wherein legal challenges might arise, then of course it could unravel to become a legal quagmire.
However, the “realpolitik” of the situation is that Labor’s stocks are low right now; the electorate was told that henceforth Labor would conduct leadership changes according to these new rules; these new rules are obviously more democratic and inclusive than the old rules.
Therefore, the idea that the legalities of the situation are remotely relevant just ignores the position in which Labor finds itself in September 2013 as it looks to settle the question of its next leader.
[ Oh well, those guys are limber. I’m sure they’ll work out something that tecnically fits both expectations and the rules 😀 . ]
As Boerwar pointed out … the current situation of chaos and disorder within the ALP can be entirely sheeted home to one man.
The ALP doesn’t need any rule changes – especially half-baked ones! Just get rid of that one bad apple, and the entire problem is solved.
Some ALP members still don’t want to accept that. Until they do, no leader of the ALP is safe from media speculation and internal destabilization.
Wasn’t gifting Abbott an election win he didn’t deserve sufficient for you masochists? Do you want to also gift him a three-year honeymoon period when the attention of the media is focused yet again on ALP dysfunction and disunity?
Haven’t you people learned anything yet?
And bemused has the gall to call me a Liberal stooge!
Psephos
The National Executive is the governing body in between National Conferences.
[Troy Bramston @TroyBramston 3m
Noms 4 ALP leader open for 7 days from Fri. If 2+ nominate, 31k members vote (postal likely) for 14 days. Then MPs vote. 50:50 weighting.]
So it looks like they’re just going to do it, and hope no-one challenges the legality of it.
Of course Albo will win the ballot in a canter. That will put Caucus (especially the Right) in the position of having to accept or reject the wishes of the membership. (Or rather half the membership – since the affiliated unions are being denied a say.)
The pres of the Alp was saying the new leader selection process would enliven and enrich the Alp because of grassroots member involvement. It would be difficult to just go back to the old same.
[The National Executive is the governing body in between National Conferences.]
It’s an executive. It can’t usurp the powers of Nat Conf. Can Cabinet legislate when Parliament isn’t sitting? No.
P1
[The ALP doesn’t need any rule changes – especially half-baked ones! ]
Can you tell Bill Shorten than because he supports them?
Thanks Psephos. That looks like an answer to me!
What do the Extreme Greens and Labor have to say about getting Mining Billionaire Clive Palmer elected to Parliament?
And if Albo wins the member ballot in a canter, then Shorten will need to win caucus at an even greater canter!! Doesn’t seem likely to me….
Did you hear that Clive Palmer is going to team up with the Marijuana Party?
It will be known as the Parma and Pot Party.
Who decides if there is a ballot? Labor has no leader. There is no Caucus.
Is it the executive?
They say “jippee”, Tisme.
Koukoulas @TheKouk 9 Sep
Looks like RBA will be hiking rates in Q1 2014 and many times after that
Expand
Stephen Koukoulas @TheKouk 9 Sep
Solid gain in NAB Business confidence… consistent with return to trend growth in the months head: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/10/australian-news/abbott-stumbles-surplus-luck …
Expand
“KEVIN Rudd and Tony Abbott have shaken hands at the door of The Lodge in Canberra, as the former Labor leader handed over “the keys” to the prime ministerial residence …. his political foe welcomed him to the residence that, for three years until June, had been home to former Labor PM Julia Gillard.”
The Ruddrat, who had the lease for only a month or two, even managed to deny Gillard this piece of ceremonial tradition.
ltep@952
Do try to keep up.
Player One prefers Shorten.
Sean. He left the LNP. that’s good enough enough for me. My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
Boerwar
[Caucus cannot change the rules. There is some sort of National meeting which decides the rules. Caucus applies them.
It is vintage Rudd that no-one actually knows what is going on except that there is a complete and utter shambles.}
For someone who rubbishes the ALP all the time you very little knowledge of how the ALP works.
“there is some sort of National meeting that describes the rules”?
I thought that even you would know something about how the ALP functions.
Apparently you have none!
[What do the Extreme Greens and Labor have to say about getting Mining Billionaire Clive Palmer elected to Parliament?]
ST, I’m straining to see the brilliant point you clearly think you’re making here.
Sean Tisme
Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
What do the Extreme Greens and Labor have to say about getting Mining Billionaire Clive Palmer elected to Parliament?
——————————-
We live in a democracy. That’s his right.
Is Meguire Bob running the ALP?
Didn’t you people even consider you might lose and should get your shit sorted out?
@William/982
I think it’s pretty normal with liberals William.
William. If you’re around. Have you got any reply to my question at 810? I think you know who I mean…
Just got this from a friend by email hope it work:
https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/?ui=2&ik=67ab4dd0f8&view=att&th=14111a94d482ffc1&attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=ii_14111a8feae342eb&zw&atsh=1
Adam Goodes ruled out for the season.
Outsider@955
Part of the problem is there are lots of sets of rules!
Caucus has their own rules and procedures, State Branches have theirs and their are Federal Rules.
If push came to shove, I am pretty sure the rules set by Federal Conference would take precedence. That is how in the past the Federal Executive has intervened in the affairs of State Branches.
Gives me an error, mtbw.
[William. If you’re around. Have you got any reply to my question at 810?]
No.
Thank you Bemused. But I too remain bemused. I can’t see any way that caucus can act other than in accordance with the existing rules. But as I continue to emphasise, I’m not an expert on these matters. Hence my questions. I’m just a humble lawyer….
William .. Do hard-working psephologists get post-election holidays? I would say you’ve more than earned one.
markjs@962
You know markjs, when you are not indulging in a frenzy of Rudd hatred, you make sense.
I agree.
William. Fair enough! You make the rules!!!!
FFS, this leadership ballot talk is just that – talk.
The party is not leaderless. Rudd has resigned. Albanese is Acting Leader until a new Leader is installed.
There will be no legal challenges. Only some wanker like Conroy would do something like that.
Incidentally, speaking of Conroy, he should take his own advice and quit politics, and make way, perhaps, for Laura Smyth who lost her seat – a sorry loss.
Conroy could then spend more time with his great mate James Packer playing golf together.
Packer would give him a nice, cushy job.
Maybe Labor should adopt a similar approach to William’s?
On the Labor leadership, to put things another way:
How could Labor – already struggling with its public image – reasonably turn around and say to the electorate: “Oh, you know what? Those new leadership rules we flagged before the election that give the members a say in who leads the party? Forget about those. We didn’t really mean those. Sorry. As you were.”
That would be a wizard way to get this period in Opposition under way.
Display Name
Can open it from here. It is apparently all over social media I will try again for you.
This is the sort of stuff that is appearing all over social media.
https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/?ui=2&ik=67ab4dd0f8&view=att&th=14111a94d482ffc1&attid=0.1&disp=emb&realattid=ii_14111a8feae342eb&zw&atsh=1
[ST, I’m straining to see the brilliant point you clearly think you’re making here.]
William…
After spending nigh on 3 years castigating mining billionaires by the Greens and ALP Members I find it a bit hypocritical that they decided on the one seat that a real, actual, red blooded mining Billionaire was running, they somehow managed to put the guy above the Lib candidate on their how-to-vote cards instead of last where you would expect him to be.
Instead they have effectively got a guy who barely got a 30% Primary vote elected into parliament.
The hypocrisy to me is astounding….