|
| Blue and red numbers respectively indicate booths with two-party majorities for the Liberal and Labor parties. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room. |
Held by the Liberals without interruption since 1984, Casey covers Melbourne’s eastern suburban fringe at Lilydale, Kilsyth and Monbulk, together with the Yarra Valley townships of Yarra Glen, Healesville and Warburton and unpopulated Yarra Ranges areas further afield. The suburban areas are Liberal-leaning, middle-income and culturally homogenous, with an above-average number of mortgage payers. Outcrops of Labor support further afield coincide with lower incomes at Healesville, a “tree-changer” tendency around Monbulk, and a combination of the two at Warburton (the Greens outpolled Labor at the 2013 election at the Warburton booth and The Patch just south of Monbulk). Healesville and Warburton were added with the redistribution before the 2013 election, which further cut the Liberal margin through the transfer of Croydon and Ringwood to Menzies and Deakin.
Casey was oriented further westwards when it was created in 1969, extending northwards from Ringwood to Kinglake. The bulk of the modern electorate remained in La Trobe, the area having previously been divided between it and Deakin. Casey assumed approximately its current dimensions when the expansion of parliament in 1984 pushed it further east into the Yarra Valley, and the 1990 redistribution added some of its present outer suburbs territory. The seat has been in Liberal hands outside of two interruptions, from 1972 to 1975 and 1983 to 1984. The inaugural member was Peter Howson, who had previously held the abolished inner urban electorate of Fawkner since 1951. Race Mathews won the seat for Labor with the election of the Whitlam government, and after being unseated in 1975 entered state politics as member for Oakleigh in 1979. Peter Falcolner held the seat for the Liberals through the Fraser years, before being unseated by Labor’s Peter Steedman when the Hawke government came to power in 1983.
Steedman was in turn unseated after a single term by Robert Halverson in 1984, with some assistance from redistribution, and the seat has been in Liberal hands ever since. Halverson’s retirement in 1998 made the seat available as a safe haven for Howard government Health Minister Michael Wooldridge, whose position in Chisholm had been weakened by redistribution in 1996. However, Wooldridge only served a single term before quitting politics at the 2001 election, at which time he was succeeded by Tony Smith. During Smith’s tenure the Liberal margin broke double digits for only the second time at the 2004 election, but he went into the 2013 election with a margin of only 1.9% following successive swings and an unfavourable redistribution. He nonetheless retained the seat easily on the back of a statewide Liberal swing that pushed his margin out to 7.2%.
Smith’s entry to politics came via a staff position with Peter Costello, with whom he remained closely associated. After the 2007 election defeat he won promotion to the shadow cabinet in the education portfolio, but Malcolm Turnbull demoted him to Assistant Treasurer when he became leader in September 2008. Smith formed part of the front-bench exodus in the final days of Turnbull’s leadership, together with Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin, in protest against Turnbull’s support for an emissions trading scheme. He duly emerged a strong backer of Abbott in the ensuing leadership contest, and returned to shadow cabinet in broadband and communications. However, Smith was widely thought to have struggled during the 2010 campaign and was demoted after the election for a second time, this time down to parliamentary secretary level. With the election of the Abbott government he was dropped altogether, making way for the promotion of fellow Victorians Josh Frydenberg and Alan Tudge.
This decision will be good for the longer term. I am sure there will be no subversion by Albo.
[I didn’t vote for Shorten, but fact is, just because the membership didn’t get what they wanted doesn’t mean this method is flawed. It’s better to have a say than not.]
Those whingeing about the outcome should bear in mind that only 74% of members voted. If more members had voted, Albo would be leader.
[and 40% of them voted FOR Shorten. Should their voices not count at all?]
Well we know Labor don’t care about the majority of Australians who want to get rid of the Carbon Tax, so Labor is well on it’s way to fringe status.
{The Silent Assassin scrapes in]
if he was that you’d be gawn for starters
matt31 –
I’m sure the ALP cares SFA about what you think, as a Green, of the Labor leadership process and outcome.
The 60% of members who didn’t want Shorten have not just the possibly unmovable caucus block to convince otherwise but an additional block of members who did want Shorten and who may be far more amenable to convincing.
It’s not over, and to say the result is the same as it ever was and nothing has changed is to give up while the fight is just getting started. Naturally Labor’s opponents are going to do their best trying exactly that.
MTBW@436
Are you trying to start a domestic in the Fran household? 😀
I reckon this line is in for a bit of a run against Shorten:
“Only about 1 in every 4 ALP members actually voted for you hardly a glowing endorsement!”
Compact Crank
I’d be more concerned about the huge portfolio quota your party sets aside for the terminally useless.
Factional power will always win over grass roots Labor members.
This is Labor folks!
Mod, sure and that opinion is no longer so easily ignored.
Note to media:
Abbott won by one vote – that is important (ignore the subsequent unanimous results – they don’t count).
The fact that Shorten won by a slim margin and 60% of ALP membership voted against him is irrelevant.
The people will never see a reduction in power costs as promised by Abbott.
It will just add to the list of broken promises
[psyclaw
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 2:39 pm | PERMALINK
Been out. Just read #196.
She’s still got the gall to re-post “weddings are tax deductible”.(note I am writing in 3rd person prose).
Weddings are not “tax deductible” even for hospital workers, no more than oxygen is nitrogen.
It’s still utter crap and her intelligence must now be highly questionable. Either that or she’s PB’s best game player and absolutely a virtuoso of unicorn spotting. If the latter, then shame!]
Did you spot the question, posted about a dozen times about whether or not you knew Wedding catering was eligible to be claimed in the Meal Entertainment scheme when you posted the “utter crap” post?
Why the reluctance to answer?
Sean
So when are the Liberal party going democratic and taking the power away from the back room men.
CC @ 462, no it’s not irrelevant, that’s precisely the point.
I wouldn’t say that 60% of members ‘didn’t want’ Shorten, they just preferred Albo, as I did.
If the choice is now Shorten vs Abbot, then consider me a Shorten man.
MTBW
[Did your husband donate to the ALP? That would be the reason.]
No. He’s a member of the NTEU and in 2007 signed onto a “Your Rights at Work” campaign contact list. Those are our best guesses.
Kevin Rudd announces he’s not going to challenge for the Labor leadership… Shorten(d) is rooted! LOL
That 60% of members didn’t prefer Shorten is now more relevant than it ever was as their vote holds real weight simply by the fact it is counted.
Mod Lib’s calculator needs work.
0.4 * 0.74 is basically 0.3
If you’re choosing a “1 in X”, then “1 in 3” is substantially closer than “1 in 4”.
And of course 0.6 * 0.74 is about 0.44, so Albo had less than half the membership explicitly voting for him.
A quarter of the membership obviously didn’t have a strong opinion either way (or as Dio might snarkily point out, the dead may not have strong opinions in general).
Mod Lib@458
Go back to primary school and learn basic arithmetic you clown.
Rudd is within his rights to claim undying loyalty to Shorten right up to the time he walks into the caucus room to vote against him (that is what Shorten did after all).
1 in 4 labor voters….lib maths on display.
Look out the economy
No, ABC News 24, no need to interview anyone involved with the Labor party about the leadership vote – the soothing, seductive voice and fascinating political insights of Lyndal Curtis are all we need.
Oh, wait, its okay, now. They’ve crossed to a rant by Jamie Briggs. ffs
Re #458
So 12k out of 30k is now 1 in 4.
Who’s surprised!
We live in a democracy and yet I’m surrounded by people who are more than happy to demonstrate their ignorance of how it works. I live in constant dissapointment.
[bemused
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 3:08 pm | PERMALINK
Mod Lib@458
I reckon this line is in for a bit of a run against Shorten:
“Only about 1 in every 4 ALP members actually voted for you hardly a glowing endorsement!”
Go back to primary school and learn basic arithmetic you clown.]
The ALP has about 45k members doesn’t it?
The caucus might have overwhelmingly voted for Shorten as an up yours. You got us into this mess now you can lead us out of it.
It is highly unlikely Shorten will ever be PM.
bemused
[Are you trying to start a domestic in the Fran household?]
No chance of that. We’ve been together for more than 30 years and we’ve run out of stuff to argue about. 🙂
No surprise about Shorten.
It’s funny, but the consolation prize is almost as good a first prize: the first leader after a loss of government has never won office back. Albo is nicely poised, as is Bowen, who’s done a reasonable.
What’s REALLY a surprise is Joe Hockey (I thought there weren’t going to be any surprises, though?)
Shiver me timbers and strike me lucky… Joe’s a “debt junkie” after all!
And I love the kicker…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/debt-an-early-issue-for-parliament-joe-hockey-20131013-2vfzz.html#ixzz2hZUYg1SP
“… searching for a solution?
But… but… but…I thought they had all the solutions BEFORE the election?
shorn – there’s a place for you on the other half of the bas-relief
[Rudd is within his rights to claim undying loyalty to Shorten right up to the time he walks into the caucus room to vote against him (that is what Shorten did after all).]
Rudd voted for Albaense.
But hey, it isn’t like we expect accuracy from you.
Kinkajou #474
Great minds!
Your fingers too nimble for me.
confessions
74% of branch members voting is a good turnout.
Remember this was not compulsory voting.
Even if 100% had voted, the proportion would have been much the same.
When there was a vote for National President, I understand the turnout was about 40%.
I think Mr Shorten gets the fact of where the membership is. I think this was behind his quota proposal.
So I do expect Labor has had its right wing peak and will slowly move back more towards the Whitlam era. My guess somewhere between the Hawke/Keating era and Whitlam.
So big problems to overcome but as we have all said before we knew the result a good first step of reform for the party.
A more important number. Coalition membership weighting 0.0%
Don’t worry about the 60% of the members who wanted Albo folks… the factions have SPOKEN!
You must now completely ignore the “democracy on the ground” shit and go back to backing the latest factional appointed stooge because well… it’s Labor.
[psyclaw
Posted Sunday, October 13, 2013 at 3:10 pm | PERMALINK
Kinkajou #474
Great minds!
Your fingers too nimble for me.]
I think small minds never differ is a more appropriate phrase!
Only 74% of eligible voters voted (so there are >40k eligible members). Then we heard that there were another 4k members since the election (who are not eligible).
So Shorten stands at the dispatch box with the support of 12k out of 45k(ish) ALP members.
OUCH!
[74% of branch members voting is a good turnout. ]
Sure it is. But this is the first time members have been able to vote for Labor’s leader, and I expected more would’ve taken that opportunity.
[What you are saying is what a lot of tweets on my timeline are saying. Caucus has learnt nothing]
Faction bosses will never give up their power ofcourse-
Lol listening to the spin at the ALP Presser.
It’s a “democracy” folks! 60% voted for the other guy who lost, but it’s “democracy”!
@Sean,
Your a idiot.
Coalition Party are the ones who are dictatorships because they forced Malcolm Turnbull to resign.
ML – 458
Hmmm… then followed by asking how many Liberal Party members voted for Abbott and whether he’d like to risk a party ballot with Turnbull…
Bemused #472
Imprecise on numbers ……. Imprecise in words …… All in the cause of being a moving target!
You should stop living in your little fantasy land, Tisme.
[Lol listening to the spin at the ALP Presser.
It’s a “democracy” folks! 60% voted for the other guy who lost, but it’s “democracy”!]
Thank you for conceding that John Howard actually lost the 1998 election.
Bring back Rudd !!
Somebody should update wikipedia article on democracy.
Apparantly under Labor it means the guy who gets 60% of the vote loses.
Anyway, as we’ve constantly pointed out here, what happens next is just as, if not more important.