The other half of my review of electorate results of interest, with numbers and swings cited for the sake of consistency on the basis of “ordinary” polling booth votes.
Victoria
% Swing Projection Coalition 42.6 +3.1 42.7 Labor 35.3 -8.2 34.6 Greens 10.5 -1.7 10.9 Palmer United 3.7 Others 7.9 Two-party preferred Coalition 49.7 +5.4 50.1 Labor 50.3 -5.4 49.9
Bendigo. A 7.9% swing following the retirement of sitting member Steve Gibbons returned Bendigo to a marginal zone from which it had emerged with successive strong swings to Labor in 2007 and 2010.
Bruce. Alan Griffin’s eastern Melbourne seat is now marginal after a swing to the Liberals of 6.2% cut deep into his existing 7.7% margin.
Corangamite. Darren Cheeseman’s two-term hold on Corangamite was ended by a swing well in line with the statewide average, hitting him 8.0% on the primary vote and 4.4% on two-party preferred.
Gellibrand. It appears Nicola Roxon was well liked by her constituents, as the Labor primary vote in Gellibrand fell 12.6% upon her retirement, the second highest drop in the primary vote for Labor in Victoria. That translated into an ultimately harmless 7.6% swing on two-party preferred.
Indi. Support for Cathy McGowan has been slightly stronger in Wangaratta and Wodonga, which both broke about 54-46 her way, than in the rural centres, which were collectively at about 50-50.
Jagajaga. Jenny Macklin copped Labor’s second highest two-party swing in Melbourne, reducing her 11.1% margin by 8.3%.
La Trobe. Jason Wood returns to parliament after easily accounting for Labor member Laura Smyth’s 1.7% margin with a 5.8% swing, which was well in line with the Melbourne average.
Lalor. The loss of Julia Gillard was keenly felt in Lalor, an 18.6% drop in the primary vote being Labor’s worst in Victoria. Much of it spread across a crowded field of minor contenders, whose preferences limited the two-party swing to 10.0%.
Mallee. The Nationals comfortably retained a seat they might have feared losing to the Liberals with the retirement of veteran member John Forrest. Their candidate Andrew Broad had 39.5% of the ordinary vote to 27.0% for Liberal candidate Chris Crewther, and on present counting holds a lead of 9.9% after preferences. The only ordinary polling booths won by Crewther were the six in Mildura and the two in Stawell.
McEwen. The swing that is imperilling Rob Mitchell was notably fuelled by swings of around 12% in the Sunbury and Craigieburn booths, which were newly added to the electorate. Swings elsewhere were substantial, but generally well below the 9.2% margin.
McMillan. Russell Broadbent picked up an 8.0% swing, part of what looks an ongoing trend away from Labor in West Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley.
Melbourne. The Liberal preference switch bit deep into the Greens’ two-party preferred vote, with Adam Bandt’s overall preference share shriking from 77.2% in 2010 to 40.4%. Had that applied on the 2010 numbers, Bandt would have fallen 3.4% short. On that basis, the current 4.9% margin after preferences can be seen as an 8.3% swing, although Bandt’s margin has in fact been reduced by 1.0%. Bandt picked up 7.2% on the primary vote amid a crowded field, for which Labor made way by dropping 10.9%.
Western Australia
% Swing Projection Coalition 51.1 0.4 51.0 Labor 29.1 -2.5 28.7 Greens 9.6 -3.2 10.0 Palmer United 5.4 Others 4.8 Two-party preferred Coalition 57.1 +0.9 57.3 Labor 42.9 -0.9 42.7
Brand. Gary Gray held firm amid a status quo result for Labor in WA, his margin of 3.3% more than enough buffer for a 1.1% swing. Both Labor and Liberal were down fractionally on the primary vote, the big movers being the Greens, down more than half to 7.1%, and the Palmer United Party on 7.4%.
Canning. Canning was one of only two mainland seats to record a double-digit two-party swings against Labor, the other being Lalor. This is clearly a correction after Alannah MacTiernan outperformed the state result by 5% when she ran in 2010. This time the Labor vote was down 14.8%, with Liberal member Don Randall up 6.4%.
Durack. It was a disappointing election for the WA Nationals, who among other things were unable to snare the northern regional seat of Durack which had been vacated by retiring Liberal member Barry Haase. The party’s candidate Shane van Styn was outpolled by Liberal candidate Melissa Price 37.8% to 23.6% on the primary vote, and has on current indications fallen 4.2% short after receiving 57.4% of preferences. In this he was inhibited by Labor’s decision to put the Nationals last, which the experience of O’Connor suggests cut the overall Nationals preference share by about 10%. That being so, the Labor preference decision would have exactly accounted for the final margin.
Hasluck. Amid what was only a slight statewide swing off a high base, Liberal sophomore Ken Wyatt landed a handy 4.3% buffer to what had been a precarious 0.6% margin.
O’Connor. Tony Crook’s retirement combined with Labor’s preference decision ended the toehold the WA Nationals gained in the House of Representatives, the election of Crook having ended a drought going back to 1974. The primary votes were not greatly changed on 2010, when Crook was outpolled by Wilson Tuckey 38.4% to 28.8% on the primary vote before emerging 3.6% ahead after preferences. The biggest changes were that the Nationals were down 3.3% to 25.6% and the Palmer United Party scored 4.4%. The decisive factor was a drop in the Nationals’ share of preferences from 75.3% to 66.0%, landing Nationals candidate Chub Witham 1.0% short of Liberal candidate Rick Wilson.
South Australia
% Swing Projection Coalition 44.8 +4.8 45.1 Labor 36.2 -5.1 35.6 Greens 8.0 -3.8 8.2 Palmer United 3.8 Others 7.2 Two-party preferred Coalition 52.2 +5.7 52.6 Labor 47.8 -5.7 47.4
Boothby. The run of five successive swings against Andrew Southcott at elections going back to 1996 came to an emphatic end as Labor directed its resources elsewhere. Southcott was up 5.9% on the primary vote and 7.3% on two-party preferred.
Hindmarsh. The South Australian swing hit Labor hardest where they needed it least, an 8.2% swing handily accounting for Steve Georganas’s 6.1% margin in the most marginal of their six seats. Labor’s fortunes in Hindmarsh have changed since Georganas won it for them at the 2004 election, at which time Kingston, Makin and Wakefield were Liberal seats on respective margins of 0.1%, 0.9% and 0.7%. Those seats have stayed with Labor since falling to them in 2007, currently being held by respective margins of 9.7%, 5.4% and 3.1%.
Wakefield. After talk that Nick Champion might be troubled as a result of job cuts at Holden’s Elizabeth plant, he retained a 3.1% margin in the face of a 7.1% swing, which was slightly higher than the statewide result of 5.8%.
Tasmania
% Swing Projection Coalition 40.2 +6.9 40.5 Labor 35.1 -9.3 34.7 Greens 8.1 -8.5 8.3 Palmer United 6.2 Others 10.4 Two-party preferred Coalition 51.6 +9.4 51.2 Labor 48.4 -9.4 48.8
Bass and Braddon moved very closely in tandem, with two-party swings of 10.9% and 10.3% that were both driven by Labor primary vote collapses at around the double-digit mark, and increases in the Liberal vote of around 8%. Lyons fell with a bigger swing off a lower base, the margin of 12.3% accounted for by a 14.0% swing with primary votes shifts well into double digits for both parties. However, it was a different story in the south of the state, with Julie Collins holding on to a 4.9% margin in Franklin after a relatively benign 5.9% swing. In Denison, Andrew Wilkie’s vote was up from 21.3% to 38.3%, with Labor (down 10.8% to 24.5%) and the Greens (down 11.3% to 7.7%) making way. The Liberals held steady, but nonetheless remained slightly below Labor and sure to remain in third place after distribution of Greens preferences.
Australian Capital Territory
% Swing Projection Coalition 34.5 -0.1 34.7 Labor 43.4 -2.1 42.9 Greens 13.0 -5.8 13.4 Palmer United 2.8 Others 6.3 Two-party preferred Coalition 40.0 +1.9 40.2 Labor 60.0 -1.9 59.8
With only a subdued swing against Labor, the outstanding feature of the result appears to be a slump in the Greens vote, down 6.0% in Canberra and 5.8% in Fraser. However, this can largely be put down to greater competition for the minor party vote. The 2010 election saw only three candidates nominate in Canberra and four in Fraser (the Secular Party together with the usual three), but this time there were six and eight seats respectively. A clearer picture is presented by the Senate, where the Greens vote was down 4.1% to 18.8% despite the high-profile candidacy of Simon Sheikh, while Labor fell 6.0% to 34.8%. Both major parties were just clear of a quota.
Triton @ 191 – we probably would have had a Labor Government for a week longer. Still, in some parallel Universes we’ll be going to the polls tomorrow and in a very few Julia Gillard would win. Probably the best Universes would be those where Kevin Rudd called a Double Dissolution for March 2010. He would most likely have had a thumping win and won again in 2012 (to realign with the Senate). Tony Abbott out of politics and a footnote in history as Opposition Leader for a few months.
Jackol
Posted Friday, September 13, 2013 at 10:34 am | Permalink
once again not sure that is how public see it
The public have moved on from Kevin Rudd.
So should you.
——————————————
The public have moved on from Gillard…
The public have moved on from Kevin Rudd…
The public have moved on from Labor…
[Saying PUP won’t repeal the carbon tax, when it is contrary to everything Palmer have said in public, not only make you wrong, it makes u look stupid]
It also depends on how bound by party discipline PUP MPs will feel. The senators are unlikely to be re-elected so they might not necessarily feel they need to vote together and may just vote in according with their conscience.
I don’t we know exactly were MR X stands on the Carbon tax. However if you arrange the center between left leaning parties you would have 38 right 1 sports party, and one Mr X centrist. I would think that the sports party coming out of the counties most right leaning state should also be considered as being right besides he worked, I think still works, for the hydro carbon industry. So that leaves us with a parliament of 39 right leaning senators and one 1 centrist senator. To be honest no government has had ever this good in senate. If Abbott cant get it repelled that simply means he sucks at negotiating and to all my left labor/Green friends I would not put my money on it.
[Is there any chance of an LNP Senate floor-crosser on carbon? ]
Not really. Sue Boyce will be gone come 1 July 2014, or potentially before then.
steve777
You a Multiverse believer? I would like to think so. It means somewhere Tony Abbott is Greens leader compassionate and iclusive of all diversity. 😀
There may only be one PUP senator from Queensland also a right leaning state. Besides public office holders always have delusions of grandeur and may think they have got a shoot at getting reelected.
Yes, the LNP has successfully driven out all of its moderate senators.
There are only a handful of moderate LNP lower house members.
[To be honest no government has had ever this good in senate. ]
Of course they have, there have been periods of Government control. The 2005-7 Senate was probably the most friendly in the modern age. Even Fraser’s Senate didn’t give him everything he wanted as there was a greater collection of floor crossers in the old Liberal Party.
The micro party senators will want to raise their profiles before their next election if they have any hope of staying – the best way to do this will be to extract as much out of the Government for every contentious vote as possible.
ASPS
You think and guess. No foregone conclusion there.
None of us will know until the rubber hits the road.
My giess is your guess is wrong due to your assumptions
Is there any chance of an LNP Senate floor-crosser on carbon?
Closest thing to it was Mal Colston resigning from the Labor party. It hardily ever happens the party discipline is usually too strong. If anyone was going to bulk from the carbon tax it would have been the right leaning Labor senators from WA when voting it in.
On twitter
[The Abbott wrecking ball has started work. NBN site is taken down and they’re stopping wage hikes for child & aged care workers. Hello 1950.]
guytaur @ 206 – I don’t think there are that many Universes to make that likely. If the number is infinite, then possibly.
i agree with following from smh – with some regret as there are many fine people in that party. to be green you need to be mainstream as most people are green.
what article omits is bob brown – esp exit before this election. this cost 2% at least of vote and perhaps outcome in senate. so much for things.
—————————————-
Why don’t more people vote for the Greens?
Surely they are the logical choice for the thinking citizen of our planet. No polluting energy sources. A welcome mat for the tragic people who arrive in barely seaworthy smuggler boats.
A range of generally admirable policies against big-money politics and lobbyists, and for healthcare and public transport, and oh yeah, the environment.
But on Saturday the Greens fell from their tally of 11.8 per cent of the vote in the House of Representatives in 2010 to less than 8.4 per cent.
Buy-a-vote Clive Palmer has already two-thirds of their House support – and at least as many MPs (one) from a standing start. The Senate vote painted an even more dismal picture. From a high in 2010 of 13.1 per cent, the Greens attracted 8.7 per cent on Saturday.
I must admit to being a little surprised. Perhaps I listen to too much ABC but I expected the Greens to storm the ramparts.
So why didn’t more people vote Green?
You could try any one of a basket load of theories.
The carbon tax. They diddled Rudd Labor on it and then forced Gillard Labor to implement it after she had faithfully promised the voters she wouldn’t.
Asylum seekers. They frustrated Labor, railed against its “cruel” policy of offshore processing, and allowed the Coalition to paint Labor as soft on border security.
On those two issues the Greens shot Labor’s legs off, and now blame Labor turmoil for costing them (the Greens) votes. Priceless.
But maybe there’s a less tangible reason. The shambolic lawyer in The Castle called it “the vibe”. I’d say it’s the general air of preachiness the Greens can’t help but exude. I see in them a long-past “groovy” schoolteacher with knobbly knees and a strategic use of the rude word and whispered theories about the sinister forces that have us all by the short and curlies. The surfer who found Jesus and wants to tell you how blind we all are. The cranky veteran of the campus boycott against sexist language, who nowadays doesn’t have to be polite in argument because she was too nice for too long to all those sexists.
The Greens seem never to tire of telling Australians they lack compassion, how the “big parties” fool us into a “race to the bottom”, how we are a bunch of mindless consumers; how generally unworthy we are – except of course when we are expressing our support for same-sex marriage.
Australians are in generally sceptical of people who lecture them from a high moral plane. And too often, the Greens look like a bunch of finger waggers.
The Greens spent a lot of time railing against the big parties, dismissing them as the “old parties”. But it was the little parties, the “new parties”, that stole their thunder.
How a party that fancies itself as a future alternative government could be forced into a defensive operation in Sarah Hanson-Young’s state of South Australia, where it had alienated natural ally (you’d think) Nick Xenophon, beggars belief. Worse, the Greens achieved a status quo result in terms of Senate numbers, while a batch of unheard-of micro-parties ran the table.
My fantasy is that the Greens collapse themselves back into the Labor Party. (Back? Well it has been argued that they are the natural successors of Labor’s hard left). They would take such portfolios as health and urban development, while staying well away from treasury and foreign affairs. And why not, if they are to be about 20 per cent of any future Labor government.
The Greens can no longer fantasise, as former leader Bob Brown has sometimes done, that they will supplant Labor as the dominant party of the centre left.
Most commentators hold that Labor was sunk in election 2013. They overlook the fact that the party has plenty of scar tissue. Labor is not about to sink beneath the waves.
But the Greens? Down they’ll go, wagging a finger at us for our unworthiness.
Steve777
See ABC Catalyst. The Multiverse theory is infinite Universes
ASPS @211 – It’s possible but unlikely. While the Liberal / LNP / National parties allow their members to cross the floor, it is still quite uncommon in practice and normally a very career-limiting move.
Hey, Australian Sex Party supporter, have you asked the porn-industry bosses who run your party why they fed your preferences to right-wing parties?
Landslide Victory
Posted Friday, September 13, 2013 at 10:45 am | PERMALINK
Jackol
Posted Friday, September 13, 2013 at 10:34 am | Permalink
once again not sure that is how public see it
The public have moved on from Kevin Rudd.
So should you.
——————————————
The public have moved on from Gillard…
The public have moved on from Kevin Rudd…
The public have moved on from Labor…
—–no they haven’t moved on from rudd or labor … that was not a landslide and vote for ta is soft as hell
labor needs to be careful … the public could move on and the support rudd gained for it drop further. i think he should have stayed
@Wendycarlisle: Absolutely incredible piece on why @CliveFPalmer is @TonyAbbottMHR Nightmare . by @NeilChenoweth RT http://t.co/JiiYoLvevm
Not behind paywall
[While the Liberal / LNP / National parties allow their members to cross the floor, it is still quite uncommon in practice and normally a very career-limiting move.]
We recall that Boyce and Troeth crossed the floor on the CPRS bills. Troeth retired in 2010, and Boyce was forced off the LNP ticket this time.
Guytaur, you may be right. I don’t think my assumptions are written in stone but I try to do my best at analyzing it from apolitical stand point. Only the future can tell us. The senate from 2005-2007 still required all right wing senators to vote inline were as this senate has a member the spare since I believe Mr X may come aboard on certain pragmatic polices. The Fraser senate, which one are you talking about? It is a bit before my time.
[AussieAchmed
Posted Friday, September 13, 2013 at 10:44 am | Permalink
The revelations came as the third boat to arrive since the Abbott Government was elected was intercepted north of Christmas Island.
Abbott abandons his ‘stop the boats’ promise
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Tony Abbott is abandoning his promise to ‘stop the boats’, refusing to say if a Coalition Government would be able to fulfil their commitment.
Mr Abbott has previously said he would stop the boats within months. Yesterday he ran away from that commitment, saying he would only be able to ‘make a difference’ in the first term, should the Coalition be elected to government.
He refused to say when, or if, he would stop the boats.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/indonesia-to-block-tony-abbott8217s-dob-a-people-smuggler-plan/story-fnho52ip-1226718145277#ixzz2ejFqy1Za
]
The whole thing was a crok of shit, Labor could do the right thing and just let the issue die.
http://webmail01.westnet.com.au/service/home/~/?id=331280&part=1&auth=co&disp=i
Dr Suess on Abbott
[ The senate from 2005-2007 still required all right wing senators to vote inline were as this senate has a member the spare since I believe Mr X may come aboard on certain pragmatic polices]
This assumes that all ‘right wing senators’ will vote together on any given issue. It’s just not that simple. When it’s something controversial that comes up, the temptation will always be to oppose.
Having more Coalition senators will always be preferable as the party discipline generally keeps them in line.
So from 219 there you have it.
To get legislation passed Abbott must get Labor/Green support or Pup
I’m starting to like Clive Palmer. 🙂
The whole thing was a crok of shit, Labor could do the right thing and just let the issue die.
——————————————–
All these years of demonising asylum seekers and Abbott one lie rant “stop the boats”, and I will stop the boats from day one if elected.
Why the hell should anyone “let the issue die”?
Abbott is to be held to account for his lies and bu**sh*t.
Only Liberals want to “let the issue die” because they know they were fooled by an even bigger fool
Psephos
Posted Friday, September 13, 2013 at 10:56 am | Permalink
Hey, Australian Sex Party supporter, have you asked the porn-industry bosses who run your party why they fed your preferences to right-wing parties?
I voted below the line, but I believe that the Labor party does not deserve preferences from us since they have failed to fully embrace gay marriage. It still did not stop us from our preferences running to them eventually.
Sustainable future
I doubt he will be mr nice guy, some people don’t see the self awareness, and after all he already thinks he is liked doubt he knows more people vote d labor The votes just fell I to the wrong seats, So I think it will boots and all full steam ahead. I doubt we will see the constant supply of polls. Ess may be , but I don’t remember them getting a heading of their own. , my bet is no polls this side of Christmas Morgan or ess, may be , Today I see Awu, enquiry will the othe enquiry ceace
@Al Dente 13
[I’m sure that media scrutiny of Coalition policies will begin any day now.
‘Cos the Coalition are in government, so, you see, the media’s job is to tell us what the government is doing.
Which I’m sure they’ll get around to, any moment now.]
Well technically Kevin is still PM in caretaker mode.
So maybe wait until they get sworn in then post this again.
ASPs
[Is there any chance of an LNP Senate floor-crosser on carbon?
Closest thing to it was Mal Colston resigning from the Labor party. It hardily ever happens the party discipline is usually too strong. If anyone was going to bulk from the carbon tax it would have been the right leaning Labor senators from WA when voting it in. ]
No, the closest thing was two Liberals who crossed the floor when the previous carbon price (CPRS) was voted on in 2009.
My Say
Can you please stop referring to intellectuals as snobs.
The ALP are responsible for the expansion of education so in effect you are bagging what should form part of the ALP base.
Well I guess we just have to see triton.
[NBN site is taken down]
NBN site is still there. They have their note at the top about caretaker conventions though.
On another matter, was with disgust i read the Lewis article about the inquiry into the AWU “slush fund”. Royal Commission type inquiry?? What they put this on a similar level of importance to say…institutionalised child abuse?? Nasty little boys club out for revenge. 🙁
Still, i have hopes that when Big Clive gets his parliamentary privilege he will have a few words to say about Mal Brough and the Ashby matter and will hopefully sue him as he said he would during the campaign. Along with the Federal court judgement by Rares (which to my knowledge has not been overturned on appeal as yet and may not be) this may be the Fibs Craig Thompson moment. 🙂
triton who were those senators? Are they still in?
[Re Mandate. The real test of a mandate is if you have the support of the parliament. It is the Parliament that represents the people of Australia not the government or its perceived ill considered policies]
Rubbish.
After the 2007 election defeat, the Coalition agreed that Labor had a mandate to scrap Workchoices as it was the number 1 issue at the election and allowed Labor to introduce their own IR policies despite disagreeing with a lot of them.
Thats called accepting the will of the people… something out of touch Labor seems incapable of doing.
This elections number 1 and clear issue was the Carbon Tax. The Coalition won in a landslide and now Labor MUST accept the will of the Australian people just as the Coalition did after the 2007 election.
My Say
I think you mean pseudo intellectuals. The less educated you are the more likely you are to vote conservative. That is according to surveys
[It still did not stop us from our preferences running to them eventually.]
Yes it did. Sex Party prefs elected the petrolhead guy in Victoria. I’m sure he will be a stalwart supporter of same-sex marriage.
I personally believe it would be in Labor’s best interest to drop the carbon tax, but that’s just my opinion.
Psephos please be more specific.
Morning bludgers, a new post today that you might find of interest:
“Very short and very sweet. A final word.” (on the election) http://bit.ly/xIbRKe
All these people with Labor’s best interests at heart. How touching.
[226
Psephos
Posted Friday, September 13, 2013 at 11:05 am | PERMALINK
I’m starting to like Clive Palmer.]
So am I. I don’t think he’ll be anybody’s bitch. Maybe a loose cannon, but he’ll be interesting. I certainly loved his election ads. 🙂
[This elections number 1 and clear issue was the Carbon Tax. The Coalition won in a landslide and now Labor MUST accept the will of the Australian people just as the Coalition did after the 2007 election.]
Agree 100%. Labor can fight the coalition on boats and PPL but to fight them on the Carbon tax will sideline labor as a political party.
Sex Party prefs went to the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics in South Australia. Are they same-sex marriage supporters?
But after the 2007 election Abbott refused to accept that Labor had a mandate to implement an ETS, even though the Liberals went to the 2007 election with one.
Dr Nelson is right to resist the intellectual bullying inherent in talk of ‘mandates’.”: Tony Abbott, 2007.
Abbott and his sycophant supporters need to stop being hypocritical or is it just in their DNA?
But after the 2007 election Abbott refused to accept that Labor had a mandate to implement an ETS, even though the Liberals went to the 2007 election with one.
Dr Nelson is right to resist the intellectual bullying inherent in talk of ‘mandates’.”: Tony Abbott, 2007.
Abbott and his sycophant supporters need to stop being hypocritical or is it just in their DNA?
I won’t be surprised if Palmer comes to some sort of “arrangement” with one of the new oddball senators to form a blocking stake. Then Abbott will be at his mercy on any legislation that Labor & Greens oppose.
Aristotle
Point well made.
Why would you have preferred another coalition senator. They were the final two candidate in the race we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t.