A full display of the election results, with complete booth figures, swings and probability estimates, can be found here. No updates will appear today (Sunday).
I believe my election results facility, which after a very slow start is now running almost bug-free (with apologies to the seat of Preston), is the only place where you can find two-party preferred results by booth and vote type – vote type being very important in the context of this election. It also trumps the Victorian Electoral Commission site in having swing results at booth-level, on both primary and two-party. To access these, go to the entry page linked to above and follow one of the electorate links further down the page, where you will find neatly displayed results tables with tabs for toggling between totals, percentages and swings. Note that I have turned off booth-matching for my aggregations and predictions, at least for the two-party vote – my failure to do the same with the primary vote means the swings shown for it are slightly anomalous.
The results display turns up ample evidence of what became apparent as the night progressed, which was that pre-polls and postals very often failed to replicate the massive swings to Labor on election day. This meant the final result, as bad as it was, will not be quite as apocalyptic for the Coalition as earlier booth-matched projections made it appear. Cases in point included Brighton, where a 10.2% election day swing that appeared set to deliver Labor a shock victory was followed by swings of only 2.6% on pre-polls and 1.8% on postals; and Hawthorn, where a 10.8% swing had John Pesutto reading his own obituary on ABC Television, only for him to inch to a 53 vote lead after pre-polls and postals only swung 3.4% and 4.5%.
Another seat where the cavalry arrived late was Caulfield, although alert PB commenter Trent notes what is clearly an anomaly in the result. This relates to the booth of Elsternwick North, where Labor has a higher primary than two-party preferred – a mathematical impossibility that can be readily explained by the party’s two-party results having been entered the wrong way around. On this basis, the Liberal margin would appear to be 1.8% rather than 2.9%, although that should be enough for David Southwick after his early fright.
A particularly interesting feature of the result is that the gap between early and election day polling swings was very much a phenomenon of the affluent areas nearer the city. Late counting did little to diminish the swathe Labor cut through the eastern suburbs, which took in Burwood, Mount Waverley, Ringwood and Box Hill. The one exception to this picture was Bayswater, where Heidi Victoria suffered only a 1.5% swing on pre-polls compared with 6.5% on ordinary votes, and ended the night 72 votes in front. In Labor’s other clear gain, the Geelong region seat of South Barwon, pre-polls actually swung quite a bit more heavily than election day votes — 12.6% compared with 7.5%. Nor was pre-poll voting any less harsh on the Liberals in the sandbelt seats, which have delivered Labor stunning margins of 11.9% in Bentleigh, 11.7% in Carrum, 12.3% in Mordialloc and 9.5% in Frankston.
The least unexpected of Labor’s gains was the heavily over quota electorate of Bass, the story of which is told by the suburb of Clyde: in 2014 had one booth which went 376-165 to Liberal, while in 2018 it had two booths that collectively went 1318-932 to Labor. Still in doubt are Bass’s near neighbour, Nepean, where Labor holds a 1.0% lead after swings of 11.3% on the ordinary vote and around 6.0% on pre-polls and postals; Sandringham, where the Liberals now lead by 1.0% and should have the advantage on remaining postals; and Ripon, a Labor target seat where the Coalition performed well above the norm, as they did in Eildon and Euroa, which have in common being regional seats defended by female sophomores.
As usual, it’s been a nerve-wracking election night for the Greens, who are now holding out for their traditionally strong showing on absent votes in a number of seats (to say nothing of the upper house, which I will defer for a later time). This will presumably be enough to keep Ellen Sandell safe in Melbourne, where she leads by 1.2%, and could well allow Tim Read to close his 72 vote gap over Labor’s Cindy O’Connor in Brunswick. However, the Greens have failed to replicate their by-election win in Northcote, and had a rather poor result in Richmond, despite the Liberals making life easier for them by declining to field a candidate. Prahran was a particularly pronounced example of the Liberals doing better on pre-poll and postals voting in inner urban areas, which removed the possibility of their being excluded in what earlier looked a three-way dead heat on the primary vote. So the winner will be whoever finishes second out of Greens incumbent Sam Hibbins (28.3%) and Labor’s Neil Pharaoh (29.6%).
Aside from Shepparton, which was easily retained by Suzanna Sheed, the following seats have independents somewhere or other in the mix:
Mildura. My model says independent Ali Cupper’s 1.3% margin is enough, but it’s not sufficiently cognisant of how well the Nationals tend to do on postals.
Morwell. Labor’s Mark Richards has the edge in the two-party count against the Nationals, but this is redundant as Nationals-turned-independent member Russell Northe will clearly run second. He must then chase down a 34.2% to 20.0% deficit on the primary vote with mostly conservative preferences.
Benambra. The two-party count was Liberal versus Labor, but the potential for interest here lies in the potential for independent Jacqui Hawkins (16.8%) to get ahead of Labor (17.6%) with preferences from independent Jenny O’Connor (12.9%) and then ride home over Liberal incumbent Bill Tilley (40.3%).
Geelong. Independent Darryn Lyons is a clear second on 25.2% to the Liberal’s 20.2%, and Labor incumbent Christine Couzens’ 40.3% is low enough that she might have to worry.
Melton. An exquisitely complicated contest in a normally safe Labor seats which, in which Labor had a retiring member and a late substitute after their original candidate withdrew. There are twelve candidates, most of whom appear to have at least some sort of following locally, and the Labor primary vote is only 34.3%. If preferences from the first eight excluded candidates lock heavily behind independents Bob Turner or Ian Birchall, the might get ahead of the Liberal and then home on preferences. However, one suspects there will be a good deal of leakage along the way. In pure two-party terms, there has been a very unusual 7.2% swing to the Liberals.
Pascoe Vale. Haven’t heard much talk about this, but the primary votes look a bit dangerous for Labor’s Lizzie Blandthorn, who has 37.1% to independent Oscar Yildiz on 25.5%.
WeWantPaul @ #98 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 2:22 pm
WB has some commentary in in blurb at the top. Lots of theories but no one is too sure atm.
DaretoTread @ #91 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 2:09 pm
They were responsible for setting up the safe injecting room, and the euthanasia legislation.
Greensborough Growler says:
Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 12:10 pm
Boerwar @ #56 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 12:08 pm
GG
Oh.
That DOES create a problem.
If Ratnam is the only MP, and she resigns because she cocked up the election campaign big time, who is going to be the leader then?
Echoes of the Canadian Conservatives who lost their majority government in 1993 and were reduced from 169 seats to 2 (two). It was suggested unkindly that the Tories would be able to hold their caucus meetings in a phone booth. Oh, I forget that outside of Doctor Who or Superman, a lot of PB’ers have never seen a telephone booth.
It would be interesting to know if one factor in this result was the enrolment last year of significant numbers of young people who wanted to take part in the same sex marriage survey. If so, that would be another blooper for which Mr Dutton deserves credit.
Unfortunately I think most PBs have seen a phone booth – a far bigger proportion than the general population
So the rabid, out of touch Murdoch says “Bill Shorten is no friend of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews” and “in the lead up to yesterday’s election Federal Labor Party strategists were nervous Dan Andrews would need to form a Coalition with the Greens. It would have allowed the Coalition to run a scare campaign in the lead up to the Federal poll. That disaster has been avoided”
Nuff said, hey?
The Coalition and Murdoch (and Stokes and Costello) cupboards are bare ahead of the federal wipe out of this dysfunction, ideological right wing “government”
Have been thinking about whether the rebanding of the DLP as “Labour-DLP” helped them by confusing people.
Looking at the upper house regions (which all have approximately the same populations), and obviously this is very early numbers and a rough guide.
Mean DLP vote 2014 per region = 2.32%
Mean ‘Labour-DLP’ vote 2018 per region 2.14%
expressed as a percentage of Labor vote (ie looking at the “confusion” element)
Mean DLP vote 2014 per region as % of Labor vote = 7.25%
Mean ‘Labour-DLP’ vote 2018 per region as % of Labor vote = 5.16%
In the two regions where they were listed ahead of Labor (NM,WV) they went up, in the other six they went up in one (EV) and down in the other five. Can’t find the lists from 2014 to see where the DLP were ahead/behind Labor then but in some ways in this “confusion” argument it probably isn’t relevant.
So did it work?
Northern Metro – vote went from 2.94 to 4.27 (ahead on ballot paper)
Western Metro – vote went from 2.57 to 3.37 (ahead on ballot paper)
Other six – vote went from mean 2.18 to 1.58 (EV only region to go up 0.71 to 1.75)
My conclusion – the “False Flag” ruse helped them when they were listed ahead of Labor,
but hindered them when they were listed after Labor and overall had a negative effect on their vote. I would think that if you took out those “confused” voters who had intended to vote Labor, they possibly lost more votes than those gained by the ruse – people who wanted to vote DLP but weren’t sure whether “Labour-DLP” was some trick instigated by the Labor Party and fellow travellers trying to con them.
So it will be interesting to see whether the DLP/Labour-DLP repeat this vote-losing tactic at the Federal election.
There should be a lot more interesting things to talk about than the fate of the Greens.
Antony Green once again suffered from from premature evaluation and should have learnt from Wentworth that massive prepolling these days is making predicting far more perilous than of yore.
Does anyone have an informed idea of what might happen in Ripon?
‘Oakeshott Country says:
Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 2:41 pm
Unfortunately I think most PBs have seen a phone booth – a far bigger proportion than the general population’
Alas and alack.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/11/25/victorian-election-call-board/comment-page-3/#comment-3011162
Australia still has phone booths, so there would be plenty of younger Australians who have seen phone booths. Australia is even still installing phone booths, party because they can be used as a billboard for advertising but also partly because Tesltra uses them for TelstraAir and possibly public policy as well.
The Toorak Toff @ #107 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 2:51 pm
There you go again, talking about the fate of a Green!
One bit of fun is to tell Greens what their policies are.
They know why Labor’s policies are no good. It is because they are Labor’s policies.
But not one Greens in ten thousand will be able to tell you why they intend to shut down the $1 billion, ten thousand job cotton industry.
WOULD.NOT.HAVE.A.CLUE.
After the Victorian election, Berejiklian doesn’t want Morrison anywhere near NSW. Is he welcome in any State or Territory these days?
The Curious History of Mr Bragg.
To create an opportunity for Mr Bragg, albeit without necessarily intending so to do, the Liberal Party Room sacked Mr Turnbull and a sacked Turnbull duly quits his seat.
Mr Bragg is well in the running to be pre-selected in Wentworth.
But Mr Bragg is persuaded to trade that for a winning place on the NSW Senate list, because Mr Morrison wants to install a female candidate in Wentworth to prove that the mass bullying and harrassment of Liberal women had not attended his rise to the Liberal equivalent of the Dalai Lama.
Then Morrison’s preferred female candidate is rolled by Sharma.
Meanwhile, Ms Nash is rolled by the High Court. Then, presumably to show that the Liberals have learned nothing and forgotten everything, her replacement, a Ms Hughes, is also rolled by the High Court.
Showing some sense of tactics, Gen Molan (ret) charges in and secures the high ground.
But, the upshot of this was that Molan’s position is tenuous because it was felt that Ms Hughes was owed the position as soon as she got her financial affairs into some sort of order consistent with the Constitution.
Now, to make there is enough space in the top two on the Senate list for Ms Hughes and Mr Bragg, the outflanked Gen Molan (ret) gets shunted to No 4 on the ticket. This means he gets to run around furiously during the election knowing that it is all for nowt. Gone. Totally fukt. Faced with defeat and ignominy, Gen Tough Guy Molan (ret) spits the dummy. He is no Napoleon.
So, Mr Turnbull is gone. Mr Morrison’s female candidate is gone. Sharma is gone. Ms Nash is gone. Ms Hughes was gone but has a ticket to get back on the Snouters Blue Bus. As does Mr Bragg.
Avid readers will have noted that Mr Bragg got there because of his ability to produce and sell good policy.
Other avid readers would be well aware of Mr Bragg’s huge contribution to the public interest thus far in his career.
His achievements are without equal, and equally are they without number.
Oh, and the lesson for the day: any NSW Liberal wannabe would be well-advised not to get between Mr Bragg and a seat.
“BW is simply holding the Greens to rigorous scrutiny”
Rigorous scrutiny of the Greens? Fine by me- I am not one, and have no interest in being one.
Celebration of preference-harvesting (as some have done here), on the other hand? Something that really ought not be encouraged- an examination of results for the Senate demonstrates that it has served to harm the ALP far more than it has aided it, both in terms of costing it seats (including in Victoria) and in terms of making their legislative agenda harder to accomplish. If you’re willing to celebrate it when it’s hurting your foes, I hope you have no plans to complain about it when it hurts your own goals.
MB
Wrong, wrong and wrong
So you are back to the drawing boards before you have even gone to the drawing boards
G. Rochon Loll
I have no interest in the preference harvesting except to say that I hope that the rules are changed to stop it and the sooner the better. All parties play by the same electoral rules, whatever they happen to be at the time.
My take on what is happening to the Greens is that the old environmental greens have finally twigged: they are being taken for a ride by the Reds. IMO, this was always going to happen eventually. Basically a Party that started by wanting to protect biodiversity is now touting the most extreme forms of progressive policies. Some of those policies are demonstrably destructive of the environment.
The Reds take no prisoners. They hate the Labor Party for all the usual Red reasons.
Labor has also finally twigged: when the Reds come to you with a deal, do not take it. They will stab you in the back.
The true irony is that the Greens do not take themselves seriously in the policy sense.
Go and have a look at their policies: shut down Olympic Dam, shut down the cotton industry, unlimited immigration, some sort of UBI/UJG, shut down the ADF. These policies are all there, although some are not plainly worded as such.
As a certain tennis player would once have yelled, ‘You have got to be joking.’
RR
Unless MT does a Malcolm Fraser and resigns from the Liberal Party before they can expel him
G. Rochon Loll @ #114 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 3:24 pm
Labor introduced the proportional representation system in the LC which the Greens used to win their seats. Now, when someone else finds a way to win and it doesn’t include the Greens, the system is unfair.
Suffer in your jocks!
Victorian election set to deliver Derryn Hinch’s party four seats, Fiona Patten likely to lose seat.
Micro-parties are set to become one of the big winners in the Victorian election, as the Labor victory that swept Premier Daniel Andrews back into power hands them up to 10 seats in the state’s Upper House.
Labor was set to increase its representation from 14 to 19 in the Legislative Council, while the Liberals were predicted to drop back from 14 seats to 9, according to the ABC’s election computer at 3:00pm on Sunday.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-25/victorian-election-results-upper-house-fiona-patten-derryn-hinch/10552692
DaretoTread @ #80 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 9:40 am
Actually the point was about the Greens’ primary vote, so who it benefits is irrelevant.
That some Liberals would go to the Greens seems obvious and means they would have a larger primary vote.
@Boerwar: Actually, in my experience, I’ve met many Greens who can tell me exactly why they want to cut water allocation to cotton growers. They want to do it because the Murray-Darling is in crisis and cotton – despite growers’ efficiencies, which most (not all) Greens will acknowledge if it’s pointed out to them – is a water hog. That’s largely unavoidable; it’s the nature of the plant.
I’m not sure I agree with their rationale (cost vs benefit of growing cotton vs other uses of the water), but I can understand it. The Murray-Darling is in crisis – between a shift in rainfall patterns and habitual overconsumption, Australia’s mightiest river system has tried to a trickle. And since we can’t make it rain more (despite Truffles’ best efforts back in 2007), we have to cut the amount of water we’re drawing from it if we want it to survive to pass on to the next generation.
That water has to come from somewhere – so do we draw down the groundwater by using aquifers (and hope the rainfall patterns change again), cut crops (which ones?), reduce industrial uses (imperiling many jobs as water-heavy industries relocate) or limit residential water rights (but people will still need to drink)?
I like Labor’s plan; I consider it a good blend of the practically helpful and the politically plausible. But I can understand why the Greens want to go harder on it, even if I think it’s a nonstarter.
***
On a separate note: Nice way of telling the Curious Story of Mr. Bragg – I chuckled into my morning caffeine while reading some parts of it!
Greens feeling the pain of being irrelevant.
It is fair to say that, whatever the final result ends up being in the LegCo, it will be an utter abomination from a democratic perspective. It will, however, probably be a good result from Labor’s perspective.
I truly hope that they take the high road here and use that good result to remove group ticket voting. They should do it right away too, because the crossbenchers will LOATHE them for it but they won’t be able to justify opposing everything for the whole four years, so they should get it out of the way with some of that political capital.
While the result is terrible, I have limited sympathy for anyone, including the Greens. I certainly didn’t hear a peep out of any party about reforming the voting system all term, and it was obvious this was going to happen from the start, so they have only themselves to blame. The Greens should have demanded this from Labor in return for support for some other legislation, and that they didn’t is incredibly stupid. Yes, they absolutely should be winning more seats than they will for their vote share (the fact that a party winning around 10% of the vote may end up with a single seat is ridiculous), but they should have been proactive in getting the change made.
(The Shooters’ performance is annoying on both fronts. They’ve done quite well despite devoting approximately zero effort to the campaign, but they’re also losing in places where they deserve to win like Northern Victoria, where they have 8.3% at the moment but are losing to Hinch (4.3%) AND the Lib Dems (3.4%).)
In the lower house – depending on how the doubtfuls fall, it looks like Labor will be very close indeed to gender parity.
Am I correct that the VEC will reveal an update of counting a 5pm today?
Frickeg @ #124 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 4:19 pm
Whole lot of Blah going on!
Matt
The Greens intend to totally stop the cotton industry. That is 500,000 hectares of cotton. Gone.
It is no use talking to individual Greens about their policies. They are generally utterly clueless.
You have to read the Greens policies to see why the Greens will kill the cotton industry.
The specific Greens policy is to remove ALL GMOs from the environment.
All cotton grown in Australia is GMO.
Poof!
In terms of chemicals, the GMO cotton uses vastly less chemicals than do the old cotton varieties.
As for water management in the MDB, cotton as a crop is not the issue per se.
Water rights have been decoupled from land parcels and the annual allocation is tradeable.
This means, essentially, that water goes to where the return is best. This makes economic sense. It also makes environmental sense because water is treated for what it is: a very expensive input. This means it is no longer allowed, willy nilly, to enter the groundwater table thus causing irrigation salinity.
There are three serious issues IMO. The first is that the environmental water allocation is not enough. The second is that water is being stolen. The third is that the $12 billion that went into the MDB package is being gamed by thieves.
These problems relate to mismanagement, inadequate supervision, and failure to prosecute theft – ALL arising from the well-known failure of will among Coalition politicians at the Fed (Joyce) and state levels. Gladys, here’s looking at you, kid.
BTW, and without wishing in any way, shape or form to allege that Mr Schwartz is a thief or anything remotely like that, I note that Mr Schwartz polled spectacularly badly on Saturday.
Ben Raue’s posted a breakdown of Below-The-Line LegCo voting.
Short version – the only party where the majority of voters went BTL was Reason (just over 50%), the Socialists (30-something%) and Greens (20-something%) also had high percentages. The voters for most of the Micros also went below the line fairly often (in the 15-25% range) – which is maybe a little weird as you’d think their supporters would want to maximise the Druery preference-go-round.
Lib voters were the least likely to go below the line.
Overall, proportion BTL was quite a bit higher than 2014 (almost 10% rather than about 6%) but might not make enough of a difference to stop RWNJ micros getting in.
Looking at it all now – I think posters above saying that Labor have done ok out of this are right… They have multiple paths to getting legislation passed, via about 4 different channels. If the Animal Justice Party get the last West Vic seat, then together with Ratnam, Labor would presumably have a bloc of 21 to pass socially progressive legislation (even without Fiona Patten, who will be missed). But the HynchMob and other nutters may also prove useful in cases where the Greens disagree.
With respect to the Greens and cotton, Boerwar is correct. When I was a Greens member I attended a State conference about 5 years ago where a cotton farmer was elected to an unwinnable spot on the Upper House ticket. A majority of delegates wanted her off the ticket because it contradicted their stance on GMO’s, not because of the water that cotton farming took.
@ beguiledagain “Oh, I forget that outside of Doctor Who or Superman, a lot of PB’ers have never seen a telephone booth.”
There are phone booths all over the place, you just tend not to notice them unless you look.
rob harris
Verified account @rharris334
26m26 minutes ago
It’s 4.40pm and still no statement from @ScottMorrisonMP on Victorian election. Odd.
Mark Butler MP
Verified account @Mark_Butler_MP
4h4 hours ago
That’s twice in 12 months the Liberals have fought an election attacking Labor’s renewable energy policies and promising to build new coal stations – and lost! Time for Scott Morrison to junk the hard-right rubbish on climate and energy.
@boerwar-
Good points, and I’d add another:
To a heavy degree, especially outside of Tasmania and Western Australia (where a combination of environmental issues and the relationship of the local branches of the ALP to extractive industries in the 1980s were key), the Greens have tended to rely heavily on the same sort of protest vote that the Democrats harvested for so long (and, in many cases, from voters who, either literally or in spirit, come from the same rough backgrounds).
The issue is that approach tends to rely on an actual feeling that this vote is going to people who aren’t going to be more of the same. In the Democrats’ case, this ended up hurting them several times (in the mid-1980s when the small-l liberal and left factions clashed, in 1993 when they ran a single-issue campaign at right angles to the key issues in that election, and after 1996, with an acceleration after 2001, when the Democrats took to the circular firing squad approach). The Greens have also felt this- their Tasmanian vote has dropped after their dealings with the ALP after the 2010 state election, and their vote in NSW has long been affected by the power the hard left has had in the state party. In the case of this election, voters in Victoria as a whole weren’t interested in that same sort of protest vote against the ALP, and the chief issue that has tended to harm the ALP in the Melbourne area in recent Federal elections (the sense of Labor Right personalities thrust upon an unwilling electorate) wasn’t an issue.
Hughes shouldn’t have taken up a position at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal after failing to win a seat because she should have been alert to the possibility that one of the elected Senators might get disqualified and she would get in on a recount?
z
Renewables also featured in all three by-elections where the Coalition was trashed.
William
Good point. I DID think at the time that it was a matter of black letter law triumphing over justice and common sense.
In slightly re-interpreting history, I was exercising poetic licence.
Boerwar @ #135 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 5:30 pm
Actually, you were bullshitting!
G Rochon Loll
‘In the case of this election, voters in Victoria as a whole weren’t interested in that same sort of protest vote against the ALP, and the chief issue that has tended to harm the ALP in the Melbourne area in recent Federal elections (the sense of Labor Right personalities thrust upon an unwilling electorate) wasn’t an issue.’
It did occur to me watching the Brunswick (?) Labor Candidate being interviewed during the night that Labor had chosen someone who was going to appeal to the electorate – not at all like some of the same old same old white male Labor Party hacks of yore.
GG
‘Actually, you were bullshitting!’
Puhlease!
BAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
The Shovel
@TheShovel
I’ve seen tables at IKEA with more seats than the Victorian Liberal Party #VicVotes
8:31 AM – 25 Nov 2018
Boerwar @ #129 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 5:36 pm
Jane Garrett?
Cindy O’Connor?
Tom the first and best says:
Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 2:53 pm
https://www.pollbludger.net/2018/11/25/victorian-election-call-board/comment-page-3/#comment-3011162
Australia still has phone booths, so there would be plenty of younger Australians who have seen phone booths. Australia is even still installing phone booths, party because they can be used as a billboard for advertising but also partly because Tesltra uses them for TelstraAir and possibly public policy as well.
They are not phone “booths”, they are essentially open-air telephones in bus shelters. What I was referring to were the formerly ubiquitous red, fully-enclosed booths with dangling phone books. Telstra wanted to get out of that business and in Sydney at least, went along with the French company Decaux which wanted advertising spaces. They installed these open-air phones at bus stops and intersections and other noisy places where there is heavy foot and vehicle traffic which is what they wanted exposed to their ads. Have you tried to make a call, almost on the curb, as buses, trucks and stop-and-go traffic make it challenging to hear. Or try it in the rain. If you know of any recently-installed fully-enclosed booths I’d like to know where they are.
for out of Staters, here’s a thread of consciousness from Raf Epstein who does the 3-6 shift on ABC Melbourne. Some good insights.
https://twitter.com/Raf_Epstein/status/1066569824657059840
VEC
Verified account
@electionsvic
37m37 minutes ago
More
Website results update will now occur between 6 and 6.30 to allow for all results from today’s counting to be reconciled and entered. Thanks for your patience.
…just in case anyone’s waiting!
Emerson (I think) on twitter was saying state Liberals internal polling dropped by 5% immediately after Turnbull was rolled…
Can someone tell me the state of play for Melbourne? Has Ellen Sandell been re-elected?
Does anyone here know much about Catherine Cummings? She seems vaguely similar to Fiona Patten in at least some policy areas.
Can anyone give the rest of us a sparknotes version of her background and key differences to Patten etc?
Ditto for Clifford Hayes… both of them coming from a local council background you’d think there’d be some indication of how they’re likely to vote on various key issues?
Blanket Criticism @ #138 Sunday, November 25th, 2018 – 6:06 pm
Find out for yourself.
Do your own research.
Go up and click on WBs remarkable election analysis.
Green retain. Shame.
Liberals are self-imploding.
Nine News Australia
Verified account @9NewsAUS
16m16 minutes ago
Premier Gladys Berejiklian quickly moved to distance herself from her Federal colleagues today, insisting she doesn’t “want or need” any “help” ahead of our state election. @CUhlmann #9News