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.
GG
Oh and I am very glad that Langdon’s interventions did not get the fib candidates over the line in Ivanhoe and Eltham. Put a smile on my dial
BillBo goes mainstream, with TheGuardian carrying his piece..
[Victorian upper house: Daniel Andrews faces a big headache
Five micro-party members are set to win seats in the Legislative Council, where they will collectively hold the balance of power]
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/30/victorian-upper-house-daniel-andrews-faces-a-big-headache?CMP=soc_568
JimmyDoyle@350
I haven’t be saying much of late because I was too busy helping on the campaign for Mount Waverley.
[Peter Brent @mumbletwits · 42m 42 minutes ago
With great sadness I will be voting for Scott in the leadership spill. We owe Tony a lot, he got us into govt, but now we need to look f…]
Abbott reckons his govt has had a great year this year. If he a year like this next year, Mumble’s tweet could well prove prophetic.
MTBW,
You seem to be able to pick an ass when it hits you in the face.
Nationals could lose party status
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/nationals-could-lose-party-status-after-disastrous-showing-20141130-11×412.html
bemused @ 353 – it’s a shame Labor couldn’t break through in Eastern Melbourne.
confessions
I seriously dont see how changing leaders is going to help.
[296
Fran Barlow
299
JimmyDoyle]
I think it is pertinent to reflect on the decay in “classical” left thinking – expressed intellectually, institutionally and politically – in the period following the election of Thatcher and Reagan, themselves reactions to nearly a decade of economic stagnation following the oil shocks of the early 70s and the collapse of Bretton Woods.
The scope – in some ways, the very meaning – of “left” learning and action was completely changed by the perceived failure of Keynesian economic policies, the ascendancy of the new right in the West, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the opening of China and the success of new market economies in Asia (especially India and Brazil).
These changes have been reflected in a re-appraisal of the ability of States to influence national economic and social conditions. In some respects, there has been a loss of confidence in State power, reflected in the de-bureaucratisation/corporatisation of important parts of the economy (finance, transport, education, science & technology, the labour market, communications…to name just some).
If these changes had neo-liberal components, at the same time they were also accompanied by other institutional changes (in Australia) that relied on State compulsion. The re-enactment of Medicare, the Super system, the expansion of Commonwealth power in relation to the environment, the explicit pursuit of “inclusiveness” and “opportunity” in public policy (rather than “equality”, in old-left parlance), and in particular legislative enactments to preserve native title comprise a few of these.
Taken together, so far at least, in Australia these changes had the effect of both increasing real average incomes and of shifting “average” incomes away from “median” incomes.
So incomes are higher, the social wage has been expanded, there has been far more investment in education and the knowledge sector generally; there is more social mobility and there is more income diversity; and there is also more inequality (when median incomes are compared with the highest quartile.)
As well, there is just no doubt at all that in many other ways, the material circumstances of most people has really improved since 1975. People live longer, they have better health, are better educated and have far more personal choices than they once did.
Considering all this, the appellations left/right themselves really lost their definition and, many ways, still lack intellectual vitality.
It’s certainly possible to dispute some of the decisions and alignments chosen by Labor Governments. I can’t see the point of arguing them all. Nonetheless, there is still a great deal of validity in the view that says while Labor (as much as any party of Government) has been forced to adapt to changes in the global economy, it is also brought its historic egalitarian understandings and values to bear.
Even so, I think we need to go much further. In particular, I think we need to re-understand “capital” as consisting not merely of privately owned financial or material accumulations, but as also being comprised of environmental, cultural, social, personal, intellectual and creative capacities, and that to create a better society we really must invest more – much more – in these capacities.
This is a “new left mission” worthy of the name, from my point of view, and it is one that is wholly congruent with Labor’s best traditions.
victoria:
Esp if the change elects Scott Morrison to the leadership!
victoria @ 356 – just warning you Victoria, Tom the first and best is militantly policing the comment section for anyone who posts an article that’s already been posted. I’ve already been burnt. (Tom – relax – I’m just ribbing.)
356
does that have to be reposted on every comment page?
Yep Rudd, Swan and Treasury deserved heaps of praise for their handling of the GFC.
And they got it.
From those in the know, Stiglitz, Galbraith [perhaps not directly but by association] IMF, European economists, Bill Mitchell and others.
And then the ALP backtracked, beguiled by the chimera of a “balanced budget” and it all went downhill slowly afterwards.
Of course the other mob would have been, hell blatantly are at the moment, far worse, but its sad that we lost those years of potential after about ’09.
vic,
Labor were 52/48 ahead throughout the whole campaign. It will probably end up there after all the ballots are counted.
361
If your ribbing, I will have ribs for dinner!
Tom @ 362 – yes. Clearly we’re only doing to annoy you Tom 😛
Greens vote was updated on VEC website, now even with 2010 result at 11.23% (Before early votes and postals etc counted).
JimmyDoyle
[I know a lot of people might disagree with me but I’ve always thought that Labor was a much more natural ally (at least economically speaking) for the rural voters.[
Lots of staunch Nationals say to me, “I don’t know why we don’t go into a coalition with you guys” — if you say ‘unions’, they understand!
But yes, there are a lot of synergies – including a high value placed on education and health services in the bush.
JimmyDoyle@357
Unless parts of Bayswater and Ferntree Gully are different to what I am familiar with, I cannot understand why they are not solid Labor. Same goes to a lesser extent to some surrounding seats.
JimmyDoyle
actually, cattle on the High Plains isn’t that contentious – a lot of farmers secretly resent the free ride given to a favoured few. They won’t say so publically, for reasons of solidarity.
victoria@358
Yep! Worked so well in 2010 didn’t it?
briefly:
Concur with your thoughts. I’ve often said the whole left/right thing is outdated and looks kind of quaint when applied to contemporary context.
[What is your fixation with the Alpine National Park? I think you’re far more interested in it than any Greens voter I know.]
Which is one of my problems with the Greens – people vote for them under false pretences, thinking that they care about the environment, yet they’re missing in action on major environmental issues – whilst getting the credit for whatever action is taken.
Tom the first and best@362
Victoria has an urge to see her name appear regularly so has to say something… anything… 😛
[372
confessions]
This places us on a unity ticket, confessions 🙂
confessions @ 372 – the right doesn’t think it’s outdated, if the antics of the Abbott Government are any indicator.
bemused,
That’s two elections in a row where your erudite advice and assistance has lead to the ALP losing a seat they might otherwise have won.
I’d quit while you are behind, comrade.
Zoomster @ 368 & 370 – Your comments were very enlightening and just convince me further that Labor needs to compete in rural seats, or do more to win over the Nats.
Greensborough Growler@377
Oh really GG, and what were they?
Stick to things you are good at like abuse and incivility.
JD:
The so-called left doesn’t think it’s outdated either, if the comments here are any indication.
Bemused,
Belinda Smyth in La Trobe and Jennifer Yang in Mt Waverley.
Sad for you that you can’t accept you are a hindrance more than a help.
Off to the knackery for you, comrade.
The eastern suburbs were surprisingly solid for the Liberals but there were swings in most seats, up to 4% in some places
If the same sorts of swings happen at the next federal poll the ALP would be pretty confident in Deakin and maybe La Trobe
Greensborough Growler@381
You must be on the grog already GG, Laura Smyth was the member for Latrobe in 2013.
My role in Latrobe was to spend some time working on a phone bank. Hardly a strategic make or break position.
My role in Mount Waverley was as a hard working campaign worker doing pre-polls, letterboxing, shopping centre and railway campaigning and HTVs on election day, as did many others.
We needed a swing of over 8% to wing Mount Waverley.
Apart from your other problems, you appear to be innumerate, as the state wide swing was far less than that.
Has Mod Lib been around? I haven’t seen him in ages which is odd because he normally comments at election time at the very least.
Bemused,
Your modesty is unwarranted. We all know you are the power behind the throne in the smallest room.
It was you that made the indifference in both those seats.
Have I told you how we smashed them in the North?
From over the road a good find. Wonderful analysis of the Victorian budget by Newscorpse from just six months ago. 😀
[With this Budget, Premier Napthine can’t lose the next election
THEY’VE called it “Building a Better Victoria”, but it might as well be called “Building a Bigger Majority” because if the Liberals and Nationals can’t win an election this November with this Budget they should give away politics and go and do something else. ]
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/with-this-budget-premier-napthine-cant-lose-the-next-election/story-fnii5sms-1226907624762
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/with-this-budget-premier-napthine-cant-lose-the-next-election/story-fnii5sms-1226907624762
[With this Budget, Premier Napthine can’t lose the next election
May 06, 2014 2:22PM
James Campbell
Herald Sun
THEY’VE called it “Building a Better Victoria”, but it might as well be called “Building a Bigger Majority” because if the Liberals and Nationals can’t win an election this November with this Budget they should give away politics and go and do something else.
…………..
If that bet turns out to be wrong and the election turns on something else, say health, then this budget might seem one-dimensional.
But that is a quibble. It’s hard to see how a government promising $7.5 billion in transport infrastructure spending and 25,000 jobs in an election year can lose.]
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-budget-2014-shock-and-awe-designed-to-blast-labor-20140506-zr5mn.html
[State budget 2014: Shock and awe designed to blast Labor
May 7, 2014
Josh Gordon
This is a shock and awe budget designed to blast Labor into electoral oblivion. Odds on, it will succeed.
Indeed, the Napthine government’s infrastructure program is so broad, so grandiose, that if the Coalition can’t get an electoral bounce out of this, nothing will save it.
……………
Napthine, still lagging in the polls and beset by internal and external problems, isn’t yet in the clear politically. But as things stand now, Labor’s transport vision – to eliminate 50 level crossings and build an off-ramp on the West Gate Bridge for trucks – seems myopic and threadbare by comparison.]
Greensborough Growler@385
Truly a legend in your own mind.
So you held on to previously Labor seats? Wow!
We needed to win seats.
Co-incidentally, I captained one of the only 2 booths we won in Mount Waverley, and we did so with a much higher swing than the State average. But I claim no credit, it was all part of a great team effort and a good candidate who worked exceptionally hard.
poroti:
How many days later did Abbott’s mob crap all over it with theirs? 😀
GG – you really are a curmudgeon – and I mean that in the nicest way possible 😛
JimmyDoyle@390
GG doesn’t respond to ‘nice’.
Leroy @ 387
Nice work sourcing those. The articles do make a good point. The conservatives did set themselves up quite well with 6 months to go… is only they had actually done something in the previous 3 1/2 years.
Briefly @ 359 – first I just want to thank you for your response. while I’ll focus on what I don’t agree with, I think much of what you wrote is wonderful and informative, and furthermore I agree with a lot of what you said.
I fully accept the left must change and adapt to the times and certainly agree that Labor must adapt, and help Australia adapt, to the changing global economy. I don’t think these suppositions are things anyone can disagree with.
However, I argue that the “reform” choices Labor made in the 80s were at best flawed and have increased economic insecurity, and thus have undermined Australian society as a whole. Neoliberalism does not stop at economic matters. It is about reshaping our understanding of ourselves in a wider context. We are economic units to be exploited, not employees. Consumers not citizens. It is about reducing the role of government as a means of social change. It is about eliminating the idea of the “commons”, the “public good”. We see all this on the proposed university reforms, the sick tax, the withdrawal of the federal government from environmental protection. To cover its agenda to “drown government in a bathtub”, it attacks vulnerable people as not pulling their fair share, as lazy – it blames them for their own failure, instead of the systematic withdrawal of government support. We are no longer, at least in the neo-liberal worldview, a society of people that look at for one another, but a collection of individuals that are only out for themselves.
While Medicare is a fundamental part of Australian social democracy, it is undermined by the neo-liberal worldview that it was brought in to counter. It is too vulnerable to attacks by the right – as “inefficient”, “under-funded”, “a drain on the budget”, a “distortion of the market” etc. To even attempt to push back on this ground, Labor is already at a disadvantage.
Labor’s acceptance of neo-liberal ideas and parlance like privatization, deregulation, surpluses and debt, has fundamentally undermined its own ability to formulate it’s vision and leaves it bereft of ideas. It tried to save Australia’s car industry, but it doesn’t know how to defend it in opposition, precisely because it believes the Government’s neo-liberal rhetoric that the industry is uncompetitive and therefore not worth saving.
You and confessions describe the left-right dichotomy as ‘outdated’ and ‘quaint’. It only seems that way because on economic issues Labor has wholesale bought into the neo-liberal world view on economics and we now have a unity ticket with the coalition on economic matters (Look at the way Workchoices, with the exception of AWAs, was largely kept in place by Labor). When the left has nothing of substance to say on the economy and the insecurity that is now an essential feature of it then, sure, the dichotomy seems pointless. But the right is under no illusion that the dichotomy is not there, it just knows that it’s side won the economic argument, hence their current brazenness.
So in summary, inequality is rising – and this is seen as a good thing in the neo-liberal worldview, as supposedly more inequality motivates the “poor” and “unmotivated” to work harder to improve their lot. The “social wage” is under attack, and while people are healthier and better educated than in 1975, the means by which that happened (which had nothing to do with neo-liberalism and everything to do with government intervention) is being dismantled.
Just my 2 cent worth on the dog’s breakfast that is the upper house.
I think Andrews stands a good chance of working through this problem. For a start, he should be wildly popular for at least a year – so it would hold back the LC from handing him an election trigger.
Secondly, unlike Abbott, he won’t be trying to put poison through the upper house and therefore there won’t be so many bills that get snagged.
Maybe, in the second half of Andrew’s term, it will become more of an issue.
Can’t see any restrictions on duck hunting happening this term.
The Herald Sun and The Age both editorialised against the VIC ALP in this weeks election. Both demonstrated they are detached from the underlying sentiment of the Victorian electorate. Their power and self perceived reach is diminishing by the day.
Strange to say but a hostile Murdoch press seems more to be an electoral asset for the ALP.
Hey Bemused … great effort by you and your comrades in difficult territory for the VIC ALP. You may not have won the seats but certainly reduced the margin to bridge in 2018/ Top effort!
[Rebecca
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 5:58 pm | Permalink
Boerwar: What is your fixation with the Alpine National Park? I think you’re far more interested in it than any Greens voter I know.]
I was using it as a means of focussing the dicussion on what the Greens Party risks when it damages the Labor Party thereby enabling the Liberals to gain government.
I call it the Greens Party playing russian roulette with the environment.
bemused @ 369 – If Andrews and Labor do a good job in the next four year, no doubt Mount Waverley, Burwood and Forest Hill will be prime targets for pick-ups.
Yes,without venturing into the ALP-GRNs stoush aspect of the upper house prefs (since really, thats a symptom rather than the problem: the problem being registered ticket voting is an UNDEMOCRATIC JOKE), I will say this:
Forget the GRNs interests – the strategy of electing a bunch of ‘shooters and nutters’ and other assorted freaks and then having to deal with those loonies in govt is just plain unpragmatic. Bordering on the daft.
BW the ALP lost the 2010 election because it did not pay attention to the sandbelt electorates on the Frankston line although Kevin Bonham says the federal government drag played a part as well as people were loudly hostile about Julia Gillard.
These days people are despairingly angry about Tony Abbott