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.
kevjohnno
I stand by every comment there.
You missed the one where I predicted Labor would manage her out…. which they did.
Which comment do you have a problem with… ?
Once she was managed out, I wanted her to have a second chance as an independent progressive, but the Labor partisans quickly deserted her like she never existed.
Emma would’ve been a good Independent voice for Lindsay.
kevjohnno
Anyone who is convinced by a few selective quotes of what someone has said over the course of time about something can be convinced about anything.
Anyone can be damned in the same manner.
I understand why it is so important for you and others to play the person in such a manner.
Rex it was clear that when the story first appeared you regarded her as just another Lib-Lab Pollie rorting the system. Seems strange to me that would make her good Independent voice. My actual take on it is that when the news broke you just used it to bash Labor and then at each change in the situation you adapted your position to bash Labor again until we finally arrived at your current presentation. I don’t think you a hoot about Emma or care what kind of candidate she is.
k
This has been used as a defence by many here over the years….it goes something like this….in the light of new information my position changed because that’s what intelligent thinking people do.
kevjohnno @ #303 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 5:27 pm
The allegations were indeed ‘shocking’. We were all shocked.
Emma made rookie managerial mistakes. No one denies that.
I believe though, unlike others here, she deserved a second chance and I believe the voters of Lindsay would have related to Emma’s rookie failings and given her a second chance also.
I’m really not sure why Labor partisans take issue with that.
But Rex,
you were adamant this morning that you didn’t say these things.
You even demanded that Zoomster apologise.
😆
Barney in the rabbit hole of fuckwittery @ #306 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 5:47 pm
I was accused of demanding Emma be turfed which was a mistruth that you and others continue to peddle shamelessly. But this is what has come of Labor partisans it seems. It’s desperate and pitiful quite frankly. Sorry if that offends.
Rex has been pantsed! The blogger with no clothes.
B in …
If you are going to use those selected quotes of Rex where does he say EH should be turfed which was the claim made by the usual suspects?
sprocket is getting unnecessarily excited over nothing.
sprocket_ @ #308 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 5:56 pm
A Labor partisan projecting. Understandable I suppose.
Pegasus @ #309 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 5:58 pm
No courage to provide the quote. A modern day Labor partisan.
Rex Douglas @ #311 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:00 pm
Don’t you ever have anything better to do than post here, Rex?
Ok comrades, here is probably the most useful post of the day.
The ALP are inviting submissions to the review of the recent election result, per Craig Emerson. So stop whingeing here, and tell those who matter what you think went wrong – and how it can be improved for the future.
https://alp.org.au/other/campaign-review-submission/
Pegasus @ #310 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 5:59 pm
It’s a pity they couldn’t get excited about wanting Emma to get a second chance as a progressive Independent.
Dropped her like she was a piece of used waste.
Player One @ #313 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:03 pm
I love posting here and I thank William for the privilege.
sprocket_ @ #314 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:03 pm
“The Greens kept picking on us !! The Greens are big bullies !!”
Rex
Do you deny these are your posts? They appear on the face of it to be critical of Emma Husar. So why the conversion to boosting her as a shoo-in as an independent in Lindsay? Hypocrite.
Rex Douglassays:
Monday, July 23, 2018 at 12:10 pm
Husar should use her own my to pay for domestic duties rather than use taxpayers money.
——————————————————–
Rex Douglassays:
Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 1:04 pm
Logically, all of the senior Labor parliamentarians would have known about the Husar matter for some time.
The denials are simply cover.
————————————————————-
Rex Douglassays:
Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 2:10 pm
Quite shocking allegations revealed today regarding Emma Husar.
The GBRF scandal involving Turnbull is shocking as well.
Lib-Lab really don’t deserve any voters’ first preference given their uninspiring conduct.
sprocket,
But not to put done all the other posters who are your comrades in arms.
Tickets on yourself much.
Peg, why don’t you cut n’ paste as submission?
I’m sure they would appreciate it.
And the ‘most useful’ comment did not relate to my effort – rather that the ALP are inviting public submissions. Unlike the Greens who are happy with their 1 seat and fat senatorial salaries for 10 seat warmers.
sprocket_ @ #318 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:08 pm
I addressed those comments earlier.
Barney in the rabbit hole of fuckwittery @ #307 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 5:47 pm
Like I said, in typically, um, Liberal fashion, he thinks we have the memories of goldfish and that if he asserts something forcefully enough then he must be right because he’s Rex Douglas! 😆
Pegasus @ #320 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:08 pm
Rofl. Says the person who demands, repeatedly, that we answer her questions but gallops off and hides and never answers ours!
C@tmomma @ #322 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:15 pm
I stuck up for you not so long ago when you were on very thin ice here …and yet you peddle mistruths about me …?
Oh yes, I’m sure the findings of that report will be fully released and taken on board by the party. Why, just ask Bracks, Carr and Faulkner.
sprocket
Shall we count up the Labor seat warmers in both houses who are happy with their fat senatorial and HoR salaries? And while we are at it, let’s go back in time a few decades.
It would add up to a pretty penny.
Unlike representatives of micro parties, minor parties and independents, major party aspirants can schmooze their way up the ladder via a network of patronage and run in safe seats that require little effort to hold, all the while backed up by the huge personnel and financial resources of the apparatus.
sprocket_ @ #314 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:03 pm
If I provide my email address will I get spammed by all sorts of unwanted junk ?
I wonder what John Faulkner makes of the current ALP and the position it finds itself in?
John Faulkner post-politics is on the Board of the Global Panel Foundation – Australasia – an NGO that works behind the scenes in crisis areas around the world.
This is in stark contrast to some of his fellow ex-politicians who have gone on to shill for the fossil fuel industry, gambling industry and so forth.
https://globalpanel.org/board-members/
I was a strong supporter of labor and Shorten and the policy suite that was taken to the election. From polling over the past few months ( years ? ) and leading into May 18 I thought voters were as well. Even exit polls on Election Day had labor in front.
However, with a PV of 33.34% something was very wrong. I have no idea what went pear shaped. Whether it be personalities, marketing of policy, a combination of policies or whatever I have no idea and would not be smug enough to assume I would. I have no idea how disengaged voters think and as a outsider will leave that to those with skin in the game at all levels to determine.
However, I would be very surprised if the outcome of the election review found business as usual and doubling down on the same policy suite with a louder voice leading to 2022 because they represented “ labor values “was the way forward. Relying on “ the voters got it wrong “ default position is definitely not the way to go.
The findings will be a very interesting read ( if they are released ).
Pegasus @ #329 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:27 pm
He has a holiday house near me and speaking to him at Easter when he was up I can tell you he has no respect for The Greens. Can’t trust them. He’s big on trust you see.
doyley says:
Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 6:37 pm
However, with a PV of 33.34% something was very wrong. I have no idea what went pear shaped. Whether it be personalities
_________________________
Yep. ‘Personalities’. The Australian public disliked Shorten from the moment he appeared at Beaconsfield to further his media profile. Enough Australians saw his performance in that period and said ‘no thanks’. Further revelations about his role at the AWU only reinforced the view that he was not to be trusted.
Dear Mr Emerson,
You’ve probably never heard of me. I am a small pimple on an ever-so-slightly larger pimple in the North Fuckingup sub-branch of the Western Australian Labor party.
Succintly put, Green Valley will never see a progressive government in Australia again, because the Libkins have managed to subsume the Workers Grand Path to the pathetic G’s agenda.
Even more succinctly put, “We are fucked”.
Hope this helps. If you need to have any of this fleshed out, please ask W. Bowe, proprietor of the world famous PollBludger blog and Labor strategical think tank, to supply you with my email address. I think it’s still current.
Either that, or I can be contacted at the next Proletatian Sausage Sizzle to be held at North Fuckingup Welding Pty Ltd staff canteen. You may have read about NFW in the South Carnarvon Coast & Green Valley Bugler. They’re the firm who lost the welding contract, which was supplying them with the living they regarded themselves as being entitled to in perpetuity.
Yours in solidarity, comrade,
Briefly.
PS. I wasn’t joking. We really ARE fucked!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_6nOFuU0AAqwYb?format=jpg&name=900×900
Player One @ #313 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:03 pm
A question that could be directed at many er…over committed posters.
17 July 2019: https://reneweconomy.com.au/five-years-after-carbon-price-repeal-australia-remains-in-policy-abyss-43066/
This is very interesting. Thank you.
I wonder what it was about the Liberals that they thought would be better for jobs and household incomes.
adrian @ #334 Sunday, July 21st, 2019 – 6:44 pm
But some of those occasionally have interesting things to say on other topics. Rex only has one thing to say … and he says it pretty much 12 or 18 hours of Every. Single. Day.
It just makes me wonder … 🙁
Bearing in mind that there are possibly a few pugilists on this site(?), Pacquiao’s defeat of Thurman (2:1) must enthuse his countrymen, women, who were (locally) cheering him on, the most vociferous of which were women – alongside our table.
BB
They probably would appreciate a more considered view from you – many of your insights are valuable.
Mavis,
Huge win for Pacquiao and the first loss for Thurman. Would have been a big night on Pacquiro home turf I would think.
Perhaps we can have a celebrity match between Senator Pacquiro and a yet undetermined champion of the Australian senate ?
BB:
[‘You’ve probably never heard of me.’]
True! Maybe less pomposity would work(?) – here & elsewhere.
doyley:
[‘Huge win for Pacquiao and the first loss for Thurman.’]
I really like this unassuming man – gutsy. I hope he replaces the no-good Duterte, who has overseen some 5,000 extra-judicial murders.
It’s very sad that most of the few posters who are left on PB cannot resist being nasty to each other.
Lizzie:
If one’s provocative, one can expect a salvo in return. This site flourishes thereof – as in life.
By the way, I’ve observed that you’ve ascribed a capital to your screen persona.
Nicholas
Especially as the economy turned to crap during the reign of the Coalition. Or perhaps it was ‘better’ is about fear of the unknown, a fear that as crap as it may be all that ‘change’ may make it worse for them ?
Mavis
The capital isn’t permanent. I’m temporarily on my mobile.
PB has morphed into a Labor/Green slamming match for now. It’s a touch boring but probably expected after the election result.
Morrison is going well so far. 🙂
And it’s goodnight from him.
Anyone for cricket :?:🏏💤💤
Davidwh
Who ?As for that bloody RDN fellow well let me tell you ………………………. 🙂
I would like it if the media or the political parties invested in qualitative research about why people voted the way they did.
Especially if it included a psychological framework for understanding people’s behaviours.
Objectively there is nothing about the LNP’s policy settings that is especially conducive to abundant jobs and healthy household incomes.
So what created the perception that the LNP is better in those respects?
Is it just a simple trope of “Libs are good at money stuff?” and “Labor are good at services stuff?”
With a charismatic leader and compelling policy messages could the ALP overcome the ingrained perception and prompt voters to regard the ALP as the better party for jobs and household incomes?