Firstly, let me note that I have dedicated posts for late counting for the lower house and upper house, so if you’ve got anything to offer that’s particularly related to the progress of the count, I encourage you to do so there. What follows is a summary of the results and the fortunes of the various players.
Labor is up 2.5% to 38.8% on the primary vote, which will come down very slightly, say to about 38.5%, as absent and pre-polls come in. It won 43 seats in 2010, of which five were made notionally Liberal in the redistribution (Bellarine, Monbulk, Ripon, Wendouree and Yan Yean), while two new Labor seats were created (Sunbury and Werribee), giving them a net total of 40. Four of the five notionally Liberal seats have been retained, the exception being Ripon, the only one which was not defended by a sitting member. The ABC computer isn’t giving away Ripon either, but Labor’s chances appear slim. However, Labor appears likely to lose Melbourne to the Greens, although that is not as certain as it may have appeared earlier in the evening.
Assuming Labor loses Melbourne, that brings them to 43, which is supplemented by one clear gain from the Liberals in Mordialloc, leaving them one seat short of a majority. Added to that, Labor is all but certain to win the sandbelt marginal of Carrum, and likely to win the other two, Bentleigh and Frankston. Further, Labor is trailing but not out of contention in Prahran (assuming they finish ahead of the Greens, as seems very likely), and a technical possibility in South Barwon. If everything goes wrong for them they might end a seat short of a majority, but that would leave the Greens holding Melbourne, with no option but to support a Labor government even if they didn’t want to.
The Liberals are down 1.8% on the primary vote to 36.2%, which will probably rise very slightly in late counting, perhaps to 36.5%. The Nationals are down 1.2% to 5.5%, which is unlikely to change much, and have lost the seat of Shepparton, which was vacated by the retirement of Jeanette Powell, to independent candidate Suzanna Sheed. This was the worst aspect of a generally poor result for the Nationals, who were also given a fright in Morwell where their margin has been cut from 13.3% to 1.7%, and suffered meaty swings in a number of their very safe seats.
The Greens looked to be big winners early in the count, but their position weakened as the evening progress, such that it’s no longer entirely certain that they have won Melbourne. Certainly they have fallen short in Richmond and Brunswick, as well as the longer shot of Northcote. Their current primary vote of 11.2% is exactly as it was in 2010, although absent votes will probably push it up a little. However, they look to have won two extra seats in the Legislative Council, in Eastern Metropolitan and South Eastern Metropolitan, while also retaining their seats in the other three upper house regions. In no case do Palmer United preferences look to have been responsible.
There is a lot more to be said about the upper house result and the apparent bevy of successful micro-party candidates, but that’s dealt with here. Keeping things focused on the lower house, the one point to be made about the minor players is that Sheed’s victory brings elected independent representation back to the chamber. The result of the 2010 election was the first Australian federal or state election since 1993 at which all the seats were won by the major parties.
Finally, apart from shooting just a little too high for the Greens, and making no effort to account for the possibility of seats not being won by the major parties, I’d like to observe that my poll tracker (and no doubt poll trackers in general) just about nailed it.
UPDATE: Here’s a Labor swings map which I knocked together for my Crikey article today, but which I’ve decided not to use because it isn’t interesting enough.
The hatred Labor right people have of the Greens is a clear reflection of the fact that the Greens now occupy many positions which should be occupied by a principled ALP.
The childish attitude that the Greens are utterly unlike the ALP in every possible way, obstructionist, etc is just pathetic, as is Labor preferencing right wing micro parties ahead of the Greens.
A great many people in the electorate effectively preference Labor and Greens either 1-2 or 2-1. That is because there is some significant overlap between the Greens position and the left flank of the ALP on many issues.
The truth is that in elections it probably helps both of them to pretend they are nothing alike – for the Greens it encourages left Labor types to put them first, for Labor it helps build the myth referred to above to try to court the centre right vote while quietly getting preferences back from the left. But that doesn’t justify either party preferencing parties with values radically different from their own ahead of one another.
Will there be any count today or will it only resume on Monday?
Rocket Rocket @ 2
Get off your high horse Rocket. Both parties are as bad as each other. In light of your last paragraph, please justify the reasons why many State MPs do not reside in the electorate they represent. In particular why Frank McGuire represents the working class poor in Broadmeadows, yet lives in bayside Brighton.
Was mentioned on the ABC radio coverage last night, and poor old David Feeney struggled to explain the reasons why. Both sides are guilty of it, but all this talk of grassroots, connecting with local communities as reasons for victory is just total crap.
Alpine grazing isn’t a problem, unless it’s used as a bargaining chip.
The Napthine government weren’t able to go beyond a trial in a lower altitude section of the park, which had only gone from private to public ownership relatively recently.
All Labor has to do is abandon the trial (or let it lapse naturally and then discover, surprisingly, that it shows cattle grazing is detrimental).
Shouldn’t have to go anywhere near a Parliament.
zoomster
I hope you’re right and CA don’t make a big issue of it.
BTW, how did your electorate fare ?
tm 53 – my last paragraph was not my creation – it was a story told by the former Federal Deputy Liberal Leader and his opinion of his own partu.
I have respect for all politicians of all colors, and indeed anyone who puts their name up to run for office. Which is why I was appalled by that stupid “Boot” on Channel 9’s coverage. I have had some respect for Laurie Oakes over the years but if he can sit there while his broadcast makes fun of people who have mad a lot of sacrifices for their families just to have the hard life of a politician he should get the “Boot” himself.
There is no law requiring people to live in the electorate or region for which they are running – as in the husband-wife team from Hampton who could soon be in tne Upper House representing Shooters and Fishers from Eastern and Western Victoria. If the voters in an electorate or region don’t like it – well this is a democracy and they can vote them out.
At every election I just think of those around the world who cannot vote. In 1994 a white South African lady complained in a long voting queue “I have been waiting two hours to vote!”. The black lady behind her in the queue replied “I have been waiting fifty years!”
Shepparton was nice, it show democracy is still alive.
The Libs and Nats may say it was stolen (as if it is theirs), but then the conservatives don’t do democracy very well.
Same goes for the ALP in the cities, I think the ALP and Greens will always be conflicted in these seats, but they do not belong to any political party.
Patrick,
The assertion that the Greens are the only principled party is just self serving bollocks. I don’t buy it and I’m sure most Victorian votes don’t either.
Labor is now occupying the centre of the political spectrum (that is where Government’s are formed). The Greens are out on their limb talking their sanctimonious nonsense still.
Any dealings Labor has with the Greens will be on the basis of how it helps Labor implement it’s policy agenda. The Greens can squark and carry on as much as they like.
Which is why I have little problem with anyone elected to the Upper House or Senate. they have stood for public office. They have not broken any law (even if they run for a rural region from the wilds of Hampton). They have been legally elected by the voting system that our elected government has created.
Enjoyed that one. Greens and Indies coming up all over the place, the bemusement of the Libs, and the utter chaos of the upper house.
The problem with nuclear is that it’s never on time, never on budget, and even at the best estimates it’s only just comparable to other forms of energy, presuming no subsidies anywhere but market pricing for fuel (ie. the implicit fossil fuel subsidies from the mining industry remain). I’m a big fan in theory, but I just don’t think the economics are close to adding up yet.
The smell of Abbott is absolute poison and not just in Victoria.
I suspect that Baird may win next year in NSW but I think Newman will go in Queensland.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-sweats-as-victorian-voters-cast-harsh-judgment-20141129-11wsgd.html
I think the marginalisation of safe seats is one of the best things to come out of this election. I saw someone quoting a constituent in Albert Park saying they benefit more from Albert Park not staying a safe seat.
Before people get too carried away with the “right wing minors being elected is all Labor’s fault” narrative, it might actually be worth reading William’s Upper House summary. Most of them are being elected at the expense of the coalition. They are not left-right fights.
I also don’t think that a party that preferences to PUP ahead of Labor or petulantly issues open tickets in key marginals (which it is of course perfectly entitled to do) is in the strongest of positions to complain about preference decisions that actually knock off coalition members.
There’s also the very real possibility that many of the scenario’s are only that and that the final vote produces quite different results.
Before people get too carried away with the “right wing minors being elected is all Labor’s fault” narrative, it might actually be worth reading William’s Upper House summary. Most of them are being elected at the expense of the coalition. They are not left-right fights.
I also don’t think that a party that preferences to PUP ahead of Labor or petulantly issues open tickets in key marginals (which it is of course perfectly entitled to do) is in the strongest of positions to complain about preference decisions that actually knock off coalition members.
There’s also the very real possibility that many of the scenario’s are only that and that the final vote produces quite different results.
GG, the problem is that Labor’s LC primary vote is in a situation where it now looks like it will NEED the Greens to pass anything in the upper house unless the Coalition supports it. I have no issue in principle with Labor dealing with the Greens however they like, but they appear to have put themselves in a position of either negotiating with their actual Opposition, or somehow corraling the Greens into agreement with the Shooters and Fishers Party. Maybe late counting will shift things around a bit, but even if it does this result should be an indication of what can happen if deliberately anti-Greens preferencing is undertaken (as you’d think they would have learned from Steve Fielding and how the 2008-11 Senate played out, but apparently not).
Am I the only one who find Greens’ way of taking the moral high ground in every issue annoying? Greens have proven themselves hard to work with. They are almost religious in their political beliefs and not open to compromise.
The Greens are absolutely not in a position to be complaining about Labor doing this, especially not after their embarrassing attempt at screwing Labor with open tickets yesterday, which was just a deeply counterproductive fail on all sides.
Some of these are seats that would have gone right, yes, but others are not. And while, as I’ve said before, part of me relishes the chance to get out the popcorn and laugh at Labor making their own misery, mostly I’d rather not see Labor be unable to easily legislate through having to form ridiculous alliances to get through the upper house.
There is no situation in which, by your own doing, you have to rely on the hard left AND the hard right to pass a bill is a sane outcome for governing.
(Of course, all being well this will all be irrelevant anyway, as surely the major parties will do something about the voting system before 2018.)
Frickeg,
Labor will play the cards it has been dealt.
It is unlikely that the Greens will have BOP. So your doomsday scenario is just another doomsday scenario.
The other factor is that people lump the Nats with the Libs in this Parliament. They tend to be a looser alliance rather than a coalition in opposition. They can confound the situation even further inmho.
Patrick Bateman
[The childish attitude that the Greens are utterly unlike the ALP in every possible way, obstructionist, etc is just pathetic, as is Labor preferencing right wing micro parties ahead of the Greens.]
Equally, the childish attitude that the ALP and Coalition are indistinguishable, sell-outs etc. is just pathetic. Without the ALP the Greens have no hope of enacting any of their policies.
[Daniel Bowen
Hope Labor has learnt the lesson of the Coalition: Don’t get elected on public transport, then push motorways instead.]
lizzie
We were up against it – Melbourne based candidate, who had major family issues during the campaign, which meant she couldn’t get up to the electorate very often, which led to a very unfair spate of attacks on her from one local media outlet on that issue and an inability to run an effective ‘on the ground’ campaign.
We appear to have managed a swing of around 2.5%, which compares favourably with the seats around us. Out of four seats in the area, we’re only being beaten by one (which looks like getting a swing of 6%, with a full time local candidate who raised and spent a considerable amount of money).
GG, I wasn’t saying that they would have balance of power on their own, but in the initial scenario last night it appeared they would be an essential part of it (i.e. the 6 others would not be enough on their own to pass legislation, Labor would also need the Greens). It looks like some of this has shifted in late counting, and certainly everyone will be better off if the Sex Party does win in N Metro rather than Family First. However, the situation remains that Labor is generally in the position in upper houses around the country that to pass legislation opposed by the Opposition, they require the Greens PLUS right-wing minors. That is not a recipe for a good legislative process. Labor can attempt to weaken the Greens all they want, but they should at least be doing so in favour of left-wing or at least centrist groups, of which the DLP and the Country Alliance are really not.
I will be fascinated to see how the Nats behave. This result should be a wake-up call to them, and they do have some new blood in Steph Ryan and Emma Kealy. If they do break the Coalition, then Labor might be able to pass legislation with the Nats plus ALL the right-wing minors. What lovely legislation that would be.
Just in. In an editorial, The Australian blamed the loss in Victoria on Labor.
(Labor should also, you know, get something out of it if at all possible. I don’t believe the right-wing minors gave Labor anything serious in return, although I might be wrong about this.)
zoomster
I admire people like you who fight an uphill battle for years.
Robb denies there is any connection between Fed Libs and Napthine defeat. Yet Abbott was obviously fighting the Victorian election in QT. Was Robb asleep?
[Terri Butler MP 14 hours ago Brisbane, Queensland
Tony Abbott has been tying #vicvotes to federal issues through dixers in #qt about #EWLink all week ]
Seems like Matthew Guy, having cast a shadow over the Shrine of Remembrance, is about to cast his sahdow over the Liberal Party.
http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/matthew-guy-has-the-numbers-in-battle-for-liberal-leadership-20141130-11wzv7.html
Dave K
[The Australian blamed the loss in Victoria on Labor.]
That’s surely a spoof. 😆
If Dan Andrews can’t negotiate with other parties he shouldn’t be a politician.
Victoria would have formed a Labor government last August 2013 – it had the numbers in the lower house, but the Speaker used the simple expedient of always keeping some ALP members banned for 5 week periods so that the ALP never had a majority to vote themselves into power – no suspend standing orders
GG
[The assertion that the Greens are the only principled party is just self serving bollocks. I don’t buy it and I’m sure most Victorian votes don’t either.]
Please tell me where I said that?
You are ranting and raving at imaginary opponents. I am simply suggesting that if one reads the Labor platform and the Greens platform there are a lot more common threads than between Labor and most other parties or the Greens and most other parties. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change reality.
As for the “centre” being where government is won from, how do you explain the hard right Abbott government? One thing you can say for the Liberals, at least (unlike Labor) they are prepared to acknowledge their own principles (term used loosely). People are more interested in whether a major party appears to be competent and consistent than what precisely its policies are most of the time. Labor’s failings have been disunity and incoherence, not policy.
Rocket,
Guy is a very divisive personality. I’m not sure he’ll fare particularly well against People Person Dan Andrews.
O’Brien would be the better long term choice imho.
gg – well looking at it with my “Liberal” hat on – probably best for Guy to be the sacrificial lamb. Because yesterday’s result notwithstanding, it is usually a pretty thankless task taking over as leader after a defeat.
Patrick,
The inference of your 51 is that Labor lacks principles and that the Greens occupy policy spaces that only a principled party could occupy. This is crap.
As I have said on a number of occaissions this morning, Labor will be implementing their policy agenda. This is the policy agenda they took to the electorate and won a smashing victory.
The Greens did not run on this agenda. Ergo, to state that the Greens and Labor policy positions are similar/the same etc is bollocks.
The lesson out of this election is that the voters are sick of Parties that bait and switch. The Libs won the previous election on a series of Public Transport policies. They ditched all that to build the E_W tunnel.
Andrews has already announced this morning that all the documents regarding the E-W tunnel will be released as soon as possible. He further re-iterated that the tunnel will be not be built and that Labor will commence their railway crossing removal plan and TAFE reinvigoration programmes immediately.
This is where the action is not in the Greens trying to coat tail on Labor’s success.
Another body of a baby has been found by children at Maroubra Beach.
More to come!
http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-election-2014/matthew-guy-has-the-numbers-in-battle-for-liberal-leadership-20141130-11wzv7.html
Napthine and Asher should have stepped down after the loss in 1999, and not contested the next election.
The call for ‘new blood’ is over a decade late!
Rocket,
Yeah look how thankless Dan Andrews feels today.
If the Libs collapse into personality politics and internecine fighting they’ll never get back.
[The inference of your 51 is that Labor lacks principles and that the Greens occupy policy spaces that only a principled party could occupy. This is crap.]
You possibly have reading comprehension problems. The post clearly states:
[That is because there is some significant overlap between the Greens position and the left flank of the ALP on many issues]
And the point was that it is tiresome to hear people (like you) constantly carping about how the Greens are irrelevant to Labor. For every Greens voter there are about 3.5 Labor voters. You act like it’s a million to one. If all those Greens voters preferences the Libs then Labor would never form government again. They have similar principles on many issues. You act like they are as far apart as they could possibly be. They should be natural allies, or at least able to cooperate effectively from their respective positions.
A lot of this, IMHO, is Labor people buying into the Lib/Murdoch “extreme Greens” crap which has been saturating the airwaves and print media for about a decade now.
PB
OK, this is bollocks —
[One thing you can say for the Liberals, at least (unlike Labor) they are prepared to acknowledge their own principles (term used loosely).]
Both the Liberals in Victoria and federally pretended that they weren’t going to do most of what they then did…which is why both started polling badly from very early in the piece, when it became clear the electorate had been dudded.
For some reason, the Liberals recognise in Opposition that they have to pretend to support most of what Labor’s done or is proposing to do, and promise they’ll do much the same (just more efficiently) — but once they’re in government, they seem to think that everyone knew that they weren’t going to do any of those things, and seem surprised when they then lose support.
If they have principles – particularly federally – it’s hard to see how they’re applying them. If they did indeed have principles, it would be a lot easier (for example) to work out why they introduced the $7 co payment, why they structured it as they did, and whether or not they can or will abandon it.
63, they’re rightwing seats based on the last parliament, with a swing of 12% of a quota to them the ALP should be picking up seats not losing them.
68, as people have already said ALP tried to be too clever by half in the upper house and create multiple different paths to get legislation through, but like it always does for the victorian ALP it’s backfired. Instead they’ll need support from the greens AND three of the mainly right wing micro parties or the libs.
zoomster
Laura Tingle on Insiders insisted that there must be a “price signal” to make Medicare sustainable. Wouldn’t it be easier to raise the levy? (I know I’m not the first to suggest this.)
Interesting that LT sat with her body firmly turned away from Uhlmann throughout Insiders.
Patrick,
Labor received over 80% of the Greens preferences in the booth I captained yesterday. Really, they are little more than preference collectors for the ALP.
Your arguments about the alleged similarities between Greens and Labor policy could equally be said for the Libs. The reason is that they are all trying to appeal to the same voters (in the middle).
The fact that you find my arguments tiresome is your concern not mine. We often have the Greens mouthpieces here on PB extolling their self endorsed virtue, ethics and general loveliness. Now that’s nauseating.
Perhaps I’ll leave it you to explain why you think the Greens policy positions are principled and other Party’s policies are not. Maybe that will clear up your confusion.
Labor preferences have only prevented one Green candidate winning in the Legislative Council. Yes, it might be nicer for Labor to have to negotiate with one fewer minor, but regardless of their preferences, they’re not getting anything through the LC without The Greens plus help.
Labor, Green and Nationals voting together might be fun though.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/elton-john-dedicates-song-to-phillip-hughes-and-offers-support-to-sean-abbott-20141129-11wr5z.html
Lovely gesture by Elton John.
The ALP-Green arguments on this blog are pure monty python. They should have to be labelled so the rest of us can more conveniently skip them.
[84
Greensborough Growler
……The lesson out of this election is that the voters are sick of Parties that bait and switch. The Libs won the previous election on a series of Public Transport policies. They ditched all that to build the E_W tunnel.
Andrews has already announced this morning that all the documents regarding the E-W tunnel will be released as soon as possible. He further re-iterated that the tunnel will be not be built and that Labor will commence their railway crossing removal plan and TAFE re-invigoration programs immediately.]
Very well stated, GG.
One outcome from the election may be that Joe Hockey might be in line for the chop. Julie Bishop was here during the last couple of days of the election and she’ll be reporting that Federal issues certainly affected the outcome.
Apparently, Hockey went off his face when the PMs office briefed journos that the $7 co-payment was being dumped. If Abbott is looking for a sacrifice, the buck might stop with Joe.
K17
[The ALP-Green arguments on this blog are pure monty python. They should have to be labelled so the rest of us can more conveniently skip them.]
Could not agree more!
Patrick 88
Actually, It’s not your Murdoch straw man we buy into.
Part of it is that we compete for the same electoral territory. If it wasn’t for the marginal seat of Prahran, the Greens couldn’t point to a single example of their even being close to winning a seat that wasn’t at the expense of Labor.
The biger part, however, is the sanctimonious carping about Labor’s failure to execute the Green’s policy manifesto. This normally comes immediately after claiming credit for a Labor policy achievement and/or immediately before doing as grubby a deal with the right as any we “labor people have been associated with.
k17 95 – William, wasn’t there a temporary truce declared here some years ago between Labor and the Greens?