Call of the board: Sydney (part two)

A second, even closer look at the electoral lay of the land in the Sydney region at the May 18 federal election.

On reflection, my previous post, intended as the first in a series of “Call of the Board” posts reviewing in detail the result of the May 18 election, was deficient in two aspects. The first is that patterns in the results estimated by my demographic model were said to be “difficult to discern”, which can only have been because I didn’t look hard enough. In fact, the results provide evidence for remarkably strong incumbency effects. Of the 12 Liberals defending their seats in the Sydney area, all but Tony Abbott outperformed the modelled estimate of the Liberal two-party vote, by an average of 4.0%. Of the 15 Labor members, all but two (Julie Owens in Parramatta and Anne Stanley in Werriwa) outperformed the model, the average being 3.4%.

The other shortcoming of the post was that it did not, indeed, call the board – a now-abandoned ritual of election night broadcasting in which the results for each electorate were quickly reviewed in alphabetical order at the end of the night, so that nobody at home would feel left out. You can find this done for the Sydney seats over the fold, and it will be a feature of the Call of the Board series going forward.

Banks (Liberal 6.3%; 4.8% swing to Liberal): After winning the seat for the Liberals in 2013 for the first time since its creation in 1949, David Coleman has now scored three wins on the trot, the latest by comfortably his biggest margin to date: 6.3%, compared with 2.8% in 2013 and 1.4% in 2016. In a post-election account for the Age/Herald, Michael Koziol reported that Labor’s national secretariat and state branch were at loggerheads over the seat late in the campaign, with the former wishing to devote resources to the seat, and the latter recognising that they “didn’t stand a chance”.

Barton (Labor 9.4%; 1.1% swing to Labor): Located around the crossover point where the inner urban swing to Labor gave way to the outer urban swing to Liberal, Barton recorded a slight swing to Labor that was perhaps boosted by a sophomore effect for incumbent Linda Burney.

Bennelong (Liberal 6.9%; 2.8% swing to Labor): A fair bit has been written lately about Labor’s struggles with the Chinese community, particularly in New South Wales, but that did not stop the nation’s most Chinese electorate recording a reasonably solid swing to Labor. This perhaps reflected the quality of Labor’s candidate, neurosurgeon Brian Owler, but was also typical of a seat where Malcolm Turnbull had played well in 2016, when it swung 2.8% to the Liberals.

Berowra (Liberal 15.6%; 0.8% swing to Labor): Most of this outer northern Sydney seat is in the outer part of the zone that swung to Labor, barring a few lightly populated regions out north and west. However, Liberal member Julian Leeser is what I will call a half-sophomore – a first-term incumbent, but one who succeeded a member of the same party (in this case Philip Ruddock), so there was no reversal of the sitting member advantage. So the 0.8% swing to Labor is about par for the course.

Blaxland (Labor 14.7%; 4.8% swing to Liberal): The anti-Labor swing suffered by Jason Clare was fairly typical for Sydney’s south-west.

Bradfield (Liberal 16.6%; 4.5% swing to Labor): Apart from the exceptional cases of Warringah and Wentworth, this was the biggest swing against the Liberals in New South Wales. However, given it was only fractionally lower in neighbouring North Sydney, that’s unlikely to be a reflection on sitting member Paul Fletcher, instead reflecting the electorate’s affluence and proximity to the city. The seat also recorded the state’s biggest swing to the Greens, at 2.0%.

Chifley (Labor 12.4%; 6.8% swing to Liberal): Ed Husic suffered Labor’s biggest unfavourable swing in Sydney (and the second biggest in the state after Hunter), after enjoying the second biggest favourable swing in 2016 (after Macarthur).

Cook (Liberal 19.0%; 3.6% swing to Liberal): As noted in the previous post, Scott Morrison enjoys the biggest Liberal margin in New South Wales relative to what might be expected from the electorate’s demographic composition. Only part of this can be explained by a prime ministership effect, as his 3.6% swing ranked only twelfth out of the 47 seats in New South Wales.

Dobell (Labor 1.5%; 3.3% swing to Liberal): The two seats on the Central Coast behaved similarly to most of suburban Sydney in swinging solidly to the Liberals, but there was enough padding on the Labor margin to save Emma McBride in Dobell, a marginal seat that lands Labor’s way more often than not.

Fowler (Labor 14.0%; 3.5% swing to Liberal): Labor’s Chris Hayes suffered a swing unremarkable by the standards of western Sydney, or perhaps slightly at the low end of average.

Grayndler (Labor 16.3% versus Greens; 0.5% swing to Labor): As illustrated in the previous post, Anthony Albanese’s personal popularity continues to define results in Grayndler, where the Labor margin is well out of proportion to demographic indicators. Whereas the Greens hold the largely corresponding state seats of Balmain and Newtown, in Grayndler they struggle to harness enough of the left-of-centre vote to finish ahead of the Liberals. They just managed it on this occasion, as they had previously in 2010 and 2016, outpolling the Liberals 22.6% to 21.8% on the primary vote, narrowing to 24.2% to 23.8% after the exclusion of three other candidates. Albanese cleared 50% of the primary vote for the first time since 2007, helped by a smaller field of candidates than last time, and had a locally typical 1.5% two-party swing against the Liberals.

Greenway (Labor 2.8%; 3.5% swing to Liberal): The swing against Labor’s Michelle Rowland was typical for middle suburbia, and roughly reversed the swing in her favour in 2016.

Hughes (Liberal 9.8%; 0.5% swing to Liberal): Craig Kelly did rather poorly to gain a swing of only 0.5% – as a careful look at the results map shows, the boundary between Hughes and Cook marks a distinct point where Labor swings turn to Liberal ones. The demographic model suggests Kelly to be the third most poorly performing Liberal incumbent out of the 13 in the Sydney area, ahead of Tony Abbott (Warringah) and Lucy Wicks (Robertson).

Kingsford Smith (Labor 8.8%; 0.2% swing to Labor): It was noted here previously that Matt Thistlethwaite strongly outperforms the demographic model, but the near status quo result on this occsion did little to contribute to that. This seat was roughly on the geographic crossover point between the Labor swings of the city and the Liberal swings of the suburbs.

Lindsay (LIBERAL GAIN 5.0%; 6.2% swing to Liberal): One of five seats lost by Labor at the election, and the only one in Sydney. Like the others, Lindsay was gained by Labor in 2016, with Emma Husar scoring a 1.1% margin from a 4.1% swing. This was more than reversed in Husar’s absence, with Liberal candidate Melissa McIntosh prevailing by 5.0%. The 6.2% swing against Labor was the biggest in the Sydney area, and produced a Liberal margin comparable to Jackie Kelly’s strongest.

Macarthur (Labor 8.4%; 0.1% swing to Labor): To repeat what was said in the previous post: Labor strongly outpolled the demographic model in Macarthur, a seat the Liberals held from 1996 until 2016, when Russell Matheson suffered first an 8.3% reduction in his margin at a redistribution, and then an 11.7% swing to Labor’s Michael Freelander, a local paediatrician. The swing to Labor, tiny though it was, ran heavily against the trend of urban fringe seats across the country. In addition to Freelander’s apparent popularity, this probably reflected a lack of effort put into the Liberal campaign compared with last time, as the party narrowly focused on its offensive moves in Lindsay and Macquarie and defensive ones in Gilmore and Reid. Macarthur was one of six seats in New South Wales contested by One Nation, whose 8.6% seemed to be drawn equally from Labor and Liberal.

Mackellar (Liberal 13.2%; 2.5% swing to Labor): Jason Falinski’s northern beaches seat participated in the swing to Labor in inner and northern Sydney, though in this case it was a fairly modest 2.5%, perhaps reflecting Falinski’s half-sophomore effect. A 12.2% vote for independent Alice Thompson caught most of the combined 14.9% for three independents in 2016, leaving the large parties’ vote shares little changed.

Macquarie (Labor 0.2%; 2.0% swing to Liberal): A sophomore surge for Labor member Susan Templeman surely made the difference here, with the 2.0% swing to the Liberals being below the outer urban norm, and just short of what was required to take the seat.

McMahon (Labor 6.6%; 5.5% swing to Liberal): The swing against Chris Bowen was well at the higher end of the scale and, typically for such a result, followed a strong swing the other way in 2016, in this case of 7.5%. This was among the six seats in New South Wales contested by One Nation, whose 8.3% contributed to a 7.4% primary vote swing against Bowen, and perhaps also to the size of the two-party swing.

Mitchell (Liberal 18.6%; 0.8% swing to Liberal): Where most safe Liberal seats in Sydney were in the zone of inner and northern Sydney that swung to Labor, Mitchell is far enough west to encompass the crossover point where Labor swings gave way to Liberal ones. This translated into a modest 0.8% swing to Liberal member Alex Hawke, and very little change on the primary vote.

North Sydney (Liberal 9.3%; 4.3% swing to Labor): Trent Zimmerman’s seat caught the brunt of the inner urban swing to Labor, the 4.3% swing to Labor being the state’s fourth highest after Warringah, Wentworth and Bradfield, the latter of which just shaded it. Labor managed a hefty 8.3% gain on the primary vote, largely thanks to the absence of Stephen Ruff, who polled 12.8% as an independent in 2016. The one independent on this occasion was serial candidate Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, a former Democrats member of the state upper house, who managed only 4.4%.

Parramatta (Labor 3.5%; 4.2% swing to Liberal): Parramatta marks the crossover point where the Liberal swing in western Sydney begins, producing a 4.2% swing against Labor’s Julie Owens that only partly unwound the 6.4% swing she picked up in 2016.

Reid (Liberal 3.2%; 1.5% swing to Labor): The Liberals maintained their remarkable record in this seat going back to 2013, when they won it for the first time in the seat’s history, by limiting the swing to Labor to a manageable 1.5%. While the 3.2% margin is only modestly higher than that predicted by the demographic model, it was achieved despite the departure of two-term sitting member Craig Laundy, who is succeeded by Fiona Martin.

Robertson (Liberal 4.2%; 3.1% swing to Liberal): Similarly to neighbouring Dobell, the Central Coast seat of Robertson swung 3.1% to the Liberals, in this case boosting the margin of Lucy Wicks.

Sydney (Labor 18.7%; 3.4% swing to Labor): The inner urban swing to Labor added further padding to Tanya Plibersek’s margin. The Greens continue to run third behind the Liberals, who outpolled them by 26.6% to 18.1%. As is the case in Grayndler, this presumably reflects local left-wing voters’ satisfaction with the incumbent.

Warringah (INDEPENDENT GAIN 7.2% versus Liberal): Zali Steggall took a big chunk out of the big party contenders in recording 43.5% of the primary vote, but the largest of course came from Tony Abbott, down from 51.6% to 39.0%. Abbott won four booths around Forestville at the northern end of the electorate, but it was otherwise a clean sweep for Steggall. She particularly dominated on the coast around Manly, by margins ranging from 10% to 18%.

Watson (Labor 13.5%; 4.1% swing to Liberal): In a familiar suburban Sydney pattern, Tony Burke had an 8.8% swing in his favour from 2016 unwound by a 4.1% swing to the Liberals this time.

Wentworth (Liberal 1.3% versus Independent): Listed as a Liberal retain in a spirit of consistently comparing results from the 2016 election, this was of course a Liberal gain to the extent that it reversed their defeat at the hands of independent Kerryn Phelps at last October’s by-election. There was an unblemished divide between the northern end of the electorate, encompassing the coast north of Bondi and all but the westernmost part of the harbourside, where the Liberals won the two-candidate vote, and the southern end of the electorate, where Phelps did. As noted in the previous post, there was a swing to Labor of 7.9% on the two-party preferred count, but this was testament more than anything to Malcolm Turnbull’s local support.

Werriwa (Labor 5.5%; 2.7% swing to Liberal): A half-sophomore effect for Labor’s Anne Watson may have helped limit the swing here in this outer suburban seat.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,936 comments on “Call of the board: Sydney (part two)”

Comments Page 29 of 39
1 … 28 29 30 … 39

  1. In response to this:

    Abolish Medicare, force people to take out private insurance, NIB boss says
    by Patrick Hatch (Nine/Fairfax headline)

    Cormann claims LNP will never abandon Medicare. He probably means that compulsory private health insurance will be renamed MEDICARE”.

  2. citizen
    People who suggest we get rid of public hospitals don’t understand that they have major functions besides patient care like training and research.

  5. IMO the closed question that asks for a single specific fact is sound QT strategy.

    POOs on relevance become relatively easy to make. A point specific question not answered also makes the Government look dodgier than usual.

    The reason is that if an open-ended question includes a bit of background or some general terms the responder can say what s/he likes which is generally Labor bad/Government good. POOs on relevance nearly always fail.

    Improved work by Labor in QT, IMO.

  6. The key Medicare question seems to be whether the younger gens will consent to subsidizing the Boomers.

    If not private health premiums are going to go through the roof.

    And if private insurance fails the governments are going to have to pick up a large additional tab.

  13. I hope youse all sank the slipper into the Coalition’s complete trashing of our democracy while I was otherwise engaged?

  19. Hi, Meoldema is still unwell, so I have not been here much. Also I am still disappointed and disheartened by the election result.

    As for SA, the Marshal Lib state government is busy doing all the nasty things they never told anyone during the election campaign that they were going to do.

    My favourite social media hashtag at this time?
    #DoNotBlameMeIvotedALP

  20. One of the Ruddster’s initial attempts at reform was to establish “The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission” to decide on how to bring Universal Health Insurance out of the 1980s. The commissions’ preferred option was “Medicare Select” which abolished Medicare and required all people to take a private health plan with a default no premium scheme controlled by the government. This is similar to many European national schemes and has the advantage of separating the provider from the purchaser, a key concept in health system efficiency.

    As with all Rudd’s attempts at reform he wet himself when he saw the Commission’s choice and Medicare remains antiquated compared to other universal schemes

  22. “Its official Boris Johnson PM”

    Typical Guytaur:

    “Missed by that much”.

    BoJo is only officially leader of the Conservative Party: now he has to advise the Queen that he has the confidence of the house. Then she will invite him to form a government and he will then be appointed as First Lord of the Treasury.

    Then it’s official.

  26. The relevant questions in health care are about developing sufficient real resource capacity to meet everybody’s needs.

    Anyone who says that an issue is “finding the money” or “getting young people to subsidize the old” doesn’t understand how our monetary system works.

    The federal government has no problem making payments in its own currency.

    Having the federal government pay all of the bills in health care, and making health care available to all residents with no user fee is obviously the most efficient and the most equitable way of organizing the payment side of things.

    That does not mean that the government needs to provide all of the services – just that the government should be the payer.

    The challenges and the complexities are in the real resource issues. Developing and managing a health care workforce that can meet everybody’s needs is really, really complex and hard. Developing and managing health care research and training capabilities that meet the system’s needs is really, really demanding.

    The process of doing the appropriate credits and debits in bank accounts is straightforward and not a problem at all.

  27. AE

    Yes you are correct I should have phrased that it’s official Johnson is the expected PM.

    The hand kissing hasn’t happened yet.

    The snark does show your personality well though.

  31. With Boris as PM ( with a massive victory) any Conservative Politician who now thinks they can Vote to stop a No Deal Brexit will have to have decided that they don’t want to be selected by their party or win their seat at the next election – or be a complete moron.

    The EU really has to decide if it will cut off its’ nose to spite its’ face or come up with a better deal. Surely Ireland, France, Holland and Belgium will push the EU to stop being idiots.

  32. Speculation only, but BoJo will advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament till after October 31 – giving him time to do the NoDeal Brexit.

    When Parliament sits again, he expects a no-confidence motion in him to be successful – and he will go to an election, where a grateful public will return the Tories in a landslide.

  34. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-23/boris-johnson-next-uk-prime-minister-after-winning-tory-ballot/11335788

    “Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London, will become Britain’s next prime minister after winning the Conservative Party leadership ballot.

    He won with 92,153 votes, while his rival Jeremy Hunt received just over 46,000.

    Mr Johnson will replace Theresa May as leader of both the party and the country after a revolt by Tory MPs over her Brexit policies.

    He has been the clear favourite with Conservative members since the campaign to replace Ms May began last month.

    Theresa May will officially give her resignation to Queen Elizabeth II tomorrow after holding her final cabinet meeting and taking part in her last Prime Minister’s Questions.

    Mr Johnson will take office shortly afterwards, following an audience with the Queen at Buckingham Palace.”

  36. sprocket_ says:
    Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:24 pm

    He will only Prorogue Parliament if they force his hand.

    What are your assumptions that lead to a loss of a confidence vote? The DUP will support him. A loss would only occur if Tories crossed the floor and that would be political suicide individually and for the party – I can’t see it happening.

    If there is an election before Brexit then the Conservatives and Labour will be destroyed. The Lib Dems will rise but the Brexit Party and the Conservatives will be coalition that will deliver Brexit.

  37. “Speculation only, but BoJo will advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament till after October 31 – giving him time to do the NoDeal Brexit.

    When Parliament sits again, he expects a no-confidence motion in him to be successful – and he will go to an election, where a grateful public will return the Tories in a landslide.”

    That’s been my thinking on the subject for some time as well. Perhaps too bold, even for a swashbuckler like BoJo, though who knows in these CraCra times.

  39. One of the Ruddster’s initial attempts at reform was to establish “The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission” to decide on how to bring Universal Health Insurance out of the 1980s. The commissions’ preferred option was “Medicare Select” which abolished Medicare and required all people to take a private health plan with a default no premium scheme controlled by the government.

    This would have been incredibly stupid and retrograde. It is a good thing it was never pursued. The financial side of health care is easy: have the federal government pay for everything. The difficulty is planning, organizing, delivering, researching, training, and managing all of the people and equipment and processes that are involved in a health care system.

  40. a r says:
    Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:30 pm
    Pegasus @ #1417 Tuesday, July 23rd, 2019 – 9:07 pm

    “Disgusting. Definitely April 1 over there today.”

    It’s a magnificent victory for the true conservatives in the party and for Brexit to occur.

    May never had her heart in a Brexit – just wanted to rearrange things a little so it was a Brexit in name only.

  42. “How Boris Johnson’s majority compares with other party leaders’
    Boris Johnson received 66% of the vote, on an 87% turnout.

    In percentage terms, that is better than Jeremy Corbyn achieved in the last Labour leadership election, in 2016, when he got 62% of the vote on a 78% turnout (although the electorate in that contest was much larger). It is also better than Jo Swinson achieved yesterday, when she was elected Lib Dem leader with 63% of the vote on a 72% turnout.

    Johnson has also done better than Iain Duncan Smith, the first Conservative leader elected by members, not just MPs. In 2001 Duncan Smith got 61% of the vote on a 78% turnout.

    But Johnson has not managed to beat his old rival, David Cameron. Cameron had 68% of the vote when he won in 2005, on a turnout that was also 78%.”

  43. I believe that the polling forecasts were accurate on the Conservative Leader outcome.

    Disappointed it wasn’t a bigger win but this massive one is good enough.

    Clearly was priced into the FTSE and global markets. Positive day for Stirling.

  45. Buce

    The assumption is BoJo will burn the Irish, including the DUPs. And enough ‘Never BoJo’ Tories will abstain, or cash in their chips and cross the floor.

    The Tories have been happy enough tearing down May, so why not another?

  46. guytaur says:
    Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:34 pm
    “Puff

    As put on twitter.

    The Lodge

    The White House

    Number 10

    The Axis of Buffoonery”

    You’re all so effing smart and you can’t win anywhere. There might just be a message somewhere in that but make sure yo ignore it and blame it on other factors.

  47. sprocket_ says:
    Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:40 pm

    “The assumption is BoJo will burn the Irish, including the DUPs.”

    How exactly will he burn them? The DUP are on board and have said they will give confidence. The only way that he could burn them is accept a hard border and he isn’t going to do that (and neither is Ireland).

    “And enough ‘Never BoJo’ Tories will abstain, or cash in their chips and cross the floor.” The only ones who would do that are ones who want to retire immediately and I doubt that there are any in that boat.

    “The Tories have been happy enough tearing down May, so why not another?” May reneged on her multiple promises to deliver Brexit by trying to get the current dodgy Brexit-in-name-only deal accepted. Tossing her didn’t lead to an election.

  49. A no deal Brexit means a hard border between the Republic and the six countries.
    Boris will burn the Irish

  50. Prorogation is a relic of pre-Glorious Revolution England, when Parliament sat only when the King wanted it to and had much more limited powers. It is inconsistent with parliamentary democracy and is centuries overdue for scrapping.

    Proroguing the parliament to subvert the will of the elected House of Commons would be undemocratic and may and should be refused by the Queen.

Comments Page 29 of 39
1 … 28 29 30 … 39

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *