This site’s slow-moving Call of the Board series, which takes a closer look at the results for every seat at the May 18 election, now makes it to regional Victoria. This area once enjoyed its fair share of marginal seats (see Ballarat, Bendigo and Monash/McMillan below), but now has only Corangamite to offer in the way of reliable election night seats-to-watch. Nonetheless, there were a few interesting things going on in the results for those who cared to look. (And while you’re here, note also the post on Brexit developments immediately below this one).
Ballarat (Labor 11.0%; 3.6% swing to Labor): Labor has been strengthening in this once highly marginal seat since Catherine King gained it at the 2001 election, at which it was the only seat in the country to shift from Coalition to Labor (with some help from the retirement of Michael Ronaldson, later a Senator). The only serious speed bump in that time was a 6.8% swing to the Liberals in 2013, reducing her margin to 4.9%, which she has now almost made good with successive swings of 2.4% and 3.6%. The Liberal primary vote on this occasion was down 4.0% despite the absence of the Nationals, who polled 4.2% in 2016, although they did face new competition on the right from the United Australia Party, which polled 4.6%.
Bendigo (Labor 9.0%; 5.2% swing to Labor): Victoria’s other regional city seat has followed a similar pattern to Ballarat over time: won by Labor from the Liberals in 1998, retained only narrowly in 2004 and 2013, and now looking secure again after successive swings of 2.5% and 5.2% in 2016 and 2019. The current member, Lisa Chesters, has now almost made up the 8.2% swing she suffered when she came to the seat on Steve Gibbons’ retirement in 2013. The Liberal primary vote was down 6.1% amid an overload of competition on the right, with One Nation, Conservative National and Rise Up Australia all in the field alongside the ubiquitous United Australia Party.
Casey (Liberal 4.6%; 0.1% swing to Liberal): Located on Melbourne’s eastern outskirts and held for the Liberals by the Speaker, Tony Smith, Casey was one of many Victorian seats that looked promising for Labor after the state election, but singularly failed to deliver on the day. Smith actually picked up a very slightly swing on two-party preferred, and none of the primary vote swings were particularly significant. Labor tended to do better in the more urbanised western end of the electorate, particularly in those parts of it newly added from La Trobe in the redistribution.
Corangamite (LABOR NOTIONAL GAIN 1.1%; 1.0% swing to Labor): Corangamite was designated as a notional Labor seat by the barest possible margin, so whoever received the swing was almost certain to win the seat. That proved to be Labor’s Libby Coker, just, in a result perfectly in line with the state average. Defeated Liberal member Sarah Henderson picked up a few swings in the booths newly added to the electorate on the Bellarine Peninsula, but the Great Ocean Road swung to Labor, reflecting its affluent and educated sea-changer demographic. The Greens were down 3.0% on the primary vote, as voters situated in the state’s south-west failed to warm to a candidate called Simon Northeast.
Corio (Labor 10.3%; 2.1% swing to Labor): Labor’s Richard Marles picked up 4.2% on the primary vote and 2.1% on two-party preferred, the former assisted by a small field of four candidates. The Liberals picked up some swings in Geelong’s down-market north, but the city centre and its surrounds went solidly to Labor.
Flinders (Liberal 5.6%; 1.4% swing to Labor): One of many disappointments for Labor was their failure to seriously threaten Greg Hunt in an area that had swung forcefully their way at the state election. Hunt was also little troubled by Julia Banks, who managed 13.8% of the primary vote, well behind Labor on 24.7%. Banks’s presence cut into the vote share for Liberal, Labor and the Greens – Hunt was down 3.8% to 46.7%, and needed preferences to win the seat for the first time since he came to it in 2001.
Gippsland (Nationals 16.7%; 1.5% swing to Labor): For reasons not immediately apparent, Labor was up 3.0% on the primary vote and cut slightly into what remains a secure margin for Nationals member Darren Chester.
Indi (Independent 1.4% versus Liberal; 4.1% swing to Liberal): As a number of highly trumpeted independents failed to live up to the hype elsewhere, Helen Haines performed a remarkable feat in retaining the independent mantle of Cathy McGowan. Haines’ primary vote of 32.4% was only slightly short of McGowan’s 34.8% on her re-election in 2016, although the Liberals put up a stronger show after gouging half of the Nationals vote. An interesting feature of the result was the 7.7% swing to the Liberals on two-party-preferred versus Labor, suggesting Haines’ preferences favoured the Liberals more strongly than did McGowan’s.
La Trobe (Liberal 4.5%; 1.3% swing to Liberal): A swing to the Liberals in Melbourne marginals was not a feature of too many pre-election predictions, but such was the outcome in La Trobe. Both major parties were up slightly on the primary vote amid a smaller field of candidates than 2016.
Mallee (Nationals 16.2%; 3.6% swing to Labor): Vacated with the demise of Andrew Broad’s two-term career, this was retained by the Nationals against a challenge from the Liberals, as it was in 2013 when Broad succeeded John Forrest. Liberal candidate Serge Petrovich actually fell out of the preference candidate before Labor, despite outpolling them 18.8% to 15.7% on the primary vote, and his preferences duly delivered a large winning margin to Nationals candidate Anne Webster. Webster would likely have won the seat even if Petrovich had survived to the final count, given her 27.9% to 18.8% advantage on the primary vote.
McEwen (Labor 5.0%; 1.0% swing to Liberal): Despite being an area of dynamic growth, particularly around Mernda and Doreen at Melbourne’s northern edge, McEwen turned in a largely static result on this occasion. This was in contrast to its form at the five elections from 2004 to 2016, when two-party swings ranged from 4.1% to 9.0%. Both major parties were down slightly on the primary vote as One Nation took to the field, scoring 5.9%, and Labor member Rob Mitchell’s two-party margin was slightly clipped after a blowout win in 2016.
Monash (Liberal 7.4%; 0.2% swing to Labor): The solid margin built up by Russell Broadbent since 2004 in the seat formerly known as McMillan was little disturbed, although the 7.6% recorded by One Nation took a 3.6% bite out of his primary vote. A noteworthy feature of the result was a heavy swing to the Liberals in the Latrobe Valley towns of Moe and Newborough, a pattern reflected in coal and electricity producing areas across the country.
Nicholls (Nationals 20.0%; 2.5% swing to Labor): After a three-cornered contest in 2016, in which Damian Drum gained the seat for the Nationals on the retirement of Liberal member Sharman Stone, the Liberals vacated the field in Nicholls (formerly Murray), and Drum retained the seat with a majority of the primary vote. One Nation polled 11.3%, easily the best result of the five seats they contested in Victoria.
Wannon (Liberal 10.4%; 1.2% swing to Liberal): Liberal member Dan Tehan picked up slight favourable swings on both the primary and two-party vote. Former Triple J presenter Alex Dyson polled 10.4% as an independent.
I wonder what it means to be a conservative these days. There are parts of the architecture that are many decades old and were decades in the making….instruments to serve social justice for example: unemployment benefits, sickness or invalidity benefits, disability support, aged pensions, support for social housing; public funding for state education and for post secondary and technical education and other organs that generate and distribute human capital; centralised wage-fixing and industrial arbitration/conciliation instruments – systems that served to provide living wages for working people; universal social insurance for medical costs and social provision of hospital care….
These systems are being dismantled by so-called conservatives. They are not conservative. They are reactionary.
In a very real sense, the conservatives these days are those who seek to defend these systems and who likewise seek to conserve the social and natural estates that are to be found in the environment. Those who call themselves conservative are seldom concerned with the preservation of these values. They want only to privatise them. The so-called conservatives respond to appeals to authority. But they do not do so because they want to protect things. They do it to destroy things.
Bucephalus says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 1:57 pm
Mexicanbeemer says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 1:51 pm
Ballarat has not been a marginal seat for a very long time and wasn’t considered one at the last election.
—————–
That is because Catherine King has built the margin up, but it has always been a marginal seat.
Caving in to the coal lobby didn’t work to well…
Trusting poll numbers didn’t either.
“New York: US President Donald Trump has cancelled a planned trip to Poland to remain in the country to monitor Hurricane Dorian, which could be the worst hurricane to hit Florida in more than 25 years.”
Oh, OK, that makes sense. I thought the visit had been cancelled because Poland had refused to sell part of their country to the USA.
So what is Annastacia to do …?
Rex,
There’s a Cabinet Minister and Staffer who need firing to start with.
Re Briefly @7:31.
“I wonder what it means to be a conservative these days. There are parts of the architecture that are many decades old and were decades in the making….instruments to serve social justice…”
The “conservatives” mostly opposed the introduction of these reforms, although for several decades they maintained them. As for social justice, the conservatives aren’t interested, especially whenit interferes with the dominence of their favoured “tribes”.
briefly:
PvO recently in one of his columns set out what conservativism is by referencing Coalition (reactionary) approaches to SSM federally and abortion law reform in NSW. It was a nice excoriation of those inside the Liberal and National parties who call themselves conservative, but are instead simply head in the sand, refuse any kind of change, regardless of the progression of public opinion.
PvO said conservatives would be the ones not only questioning the need for change, but recognising when the court of public sentiment had changed, and being prepared to work with proponents to shape policy. Today’s conservatives (reactionaries) simply oppose for the sake of opposing, and then find themselves irrelevant third wheels when the tide of public opinion finally mobilises legislators to act.
Lars von Trier:
Will she be swimming with dolphins? I’m definitely seeing dolphins for some reason…
Electability is an ABSURD conversation. You don’t really know how electable somebody is until the election. So in a primary contest just focus on which candidate best reflects your priorities and values and has a compelling communication style according to your judgement. Don’t try to guess what millions of other voters want. You have no idea what they want. The task when you vote is to express what YOU want.
briefly:
At least you’re now somewhat reductionist?
The art of communication – written, verbal – is to keep it short, simple; no names, no pack drill.
LVT
Who do you think was the last NSWALP General Secretary to have a career that did not end in controversy of one form or other?
The so-called conservatives are not conservative at all. They are Reactionaries. They want to undo the reforms made in the late 19th century and over the course of the 20th century. They describe themselves as conservative, but mostly they are simply adherents to the symbols and organs of authority – religious bodies, the Liberal Party and its clones, the plutocrats.
Reformists are running defence these days.
E. G. Theodore says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:48 pm
Lars von Trier:
My ALP Truth and Reconciliation film would be magnificent in its bleakness.
It reminds me of my personal favourite, Breaking the Waves with a young and hot Emily Watson before she got old and fat. It was a magnificent story of sad failure and dysfunction – like the ALP.
Will she be swimming with dolphins? I’m definitely seeing dolphins for some reason…
_____________________________________________
The dolphins all die because environmental standards were lowered to allow developers to put known carciogenics in the water. The female lead commits suicide she is so bereft. The story ends ….. bleakly.
Oakeshott Country says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 8:03 pm
LVT
Who do you think was the last NSWALP General Secretary to have a career that did not end in controversy of one form or other?
______________________
Interesting question.
It does seem like a poisoned chalice.
Tammany Hall is ending………………… what will replace it?
sprocket_ @ #280 Friday, August 30th, 2019 – 6:21 pm
Small things amuse small minds.
When ALP head office is shut down – there will be the inevitable public viewing of how the masters lived. I can see the camera crews being particularly fixated with the General Secretary’s private quarters.
Shades of Honecker!
Magnificent!
I am nominating Peter Westerway who was the last General Secretary recruited from outside the Broderbund. He was there during the pseudo Federal intervention of the early 70s. Geoff Cahill succeeded him in 1973 and the rest is a history of institutionalised corruption.
OC – who could forget Geoff “Met at the Airport” Cahill.
Back in the day when omertà really did apply.
Confessions….the so-called conservatives want to tear the place down around our ears. They milk their religious constituents. They milk the homophobes, the xenophobes and the Islamophobes. They milk the working poor. They milk asylum-seekers and the unemployed and those who either fear or despise these outcasts. They milk the aged and the peasantry.
Basically, they have an anti-social agenda and they will pursue it. They’re not interested in freedom except to the extent that it licences their desires to discriminate.
briefly:
I’ll concede one point: you’re now not carrying as much as you used about “lib-lin”(etc), following the caution of…
Moving on, I noticed earlier in this thread that reference was made to the “finnigans” – I wonder if that was the same contributor from years ago?
Rather than the General Secretary’s Dacha, I think the film crew will be interested in the General Secretary’s Wife’s car provided at a special price by Obeid Motors on the condition that its ownership is not registered
OC – Interestingly the underpinnings of the NSW regime (the unions) are also shifting. The liquor trades and the NUW are both now left controlled.
In the immortal words of V.I.Lenin what is to be done?
No mention of the fact that one is a powerful convicted paedophile and the others are powerless refugees.
People like the poster who wrote the above have little idea as to the double standards that they have applied in the Pell and the Priya/Nadesalingam cases.
The basic difference is that PB adjudges Pell to be a bad, old, white, Catholic, man and the two Sri Lankans to be “powerless refugees”.
The former is therefore entitled to be criticised for everything he does, including accessing the legal system, and also to be labelled as a filthy criminal.
The latter are seen as deserving of the benefit of any and every doubt, despite their legal opportunities being even more near to exhaustion than Pell’s.
Pell is vilified for having most if not all of his legal expenses paid for by others. The Sri Lankans are quasi-sanctified for having similarly well connected allies with deep pockets.
Pell seeks High Court attention to his case and is condemned as an elitist taking unfair advantages of technical legal processes that others cannot enjoy.
The Sri Lankans do exactly the same thing , down the same legal avenue, but there’s no talk of them taking unfair advantage, if anything at all.
If PB hates you, nothing is sufficient to remove the opprobrium. But if PB likes you then no legal pathway, no desperate appeal, no midnight grounding of an international flight is too much.
E.G. Theodore asked me to look at a link regarding a newly-released convicted pedophile, back up a bit in the thread. I didn’t, but I’m vaguely familiar with the issue from general reading today: do we release convicted criminals who it is feared are un-reformed and thus likely to re-offend?
If the law says they should be released, then release them – and any other habitual criminal (of whatever stripe or predilection).
If you don’t like the law, then change it. But be aware that indefinite detention, and arbitrary extension of legally imposed sentences to guard against alleged future crimes is more than a few steps down the road towards a full police state. Today’s un-reformed paedophile might be tomorrow’s un-reformed street protestor, or government critic. If you don’t believe me look at what happened regarding arrests of protest leaders in Hong Kong today.
Others have insinuated that I think Milat should have been released pending appeal to the High Court. They assume this is because (they argue) that this is what I proposed for Pell.
This is a farcical and mistaken reading of my position.
Milat was convicted after the most thorough forensic and circumstantial investigation in Australian criminal history, by hundreds of police and scientists, with literally dozens of witnesses to back up the investigation.
Pell was convicted on the evidence of one person.
I never argued for Pell’s release. Rather I argued that he should be afforded relief from the hatred expressed here and elsewhere. If ever there was a time for sobriety, it is now. The Pell case is of world importance in many ways. It deserves a full hearing, in my opinion morally, as well as legally. By “morally” I mean that as a society we shouldn’t allow ourselves fall into mob rule and guilt – and hate – by acclamation, certainly not based on only a partial process.
For myself, I don’t like Pell or his church very much at all. I have little time for either, as I have tried to explain probably a dozen times. Some here chose to disbelieve me, which is tantamount to saying I’m lying about my position. I’m not, but I don’t think some want to believe this. They’d rather take sanctuary in their hate, and transfer it to anyone who urges caution.
As far as the Sri Lankan family is concerned, I hope they get to stay here and live happily ever after.
BUT… I wish that the members of the PB Moral Police would at least be be consistent in their attitudes to legal processes. What’s fair and just for one is fair and just for another, no matter how outraged you might feel at what you reckon are the issues.
Otherwise we may as well resume the thumbs-up/thumbs-down attitude of the mob, and all that entails.
Bushfire Bill says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 8:24 pm
______________________
Y.A.B.O.F.R
The NSWALP would not be in the mess if Bruvver Ducker and the Assassin in the Cardigan were still in charge
Lars Von Trier
says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 8:09 pm
When ALP head office is shut down – there will be the inevitable public viewing of how the masters lived. I can see the camera crews being particularly fixated with the General Secretary’s private quarters.
___________________________
The dissolution of the ALP can’t come soon enough. Then the work of building a new Progressive Party capable of incorporating the Greens and others can begin. And as William suggested without the burden of the union movement. Myself, William and Lars could probably draft an excellent new constitution while partying pretty hard at Crown one weekend.
I have thought that the NSWALP was one more scandal away from dissolution but in fact it will linger on for some time because the only progressive alternative is a Trotskyist front unable to get above a 10% primary vote. The already record conservative regime in Sydney is likely to continue well into the 2020s
Firefox ignored the data and said
It seems to be difficult for some Labor supporters to grasp the reality that support for the Greens increased significantly at the recent election. That may be understandable, considering many of them are still in shock and denial about Labor’s terrible result. Honestly, I don’t blame them. I think we all thought Labor would perform much better than they did.
Firefox I think it is more honest to say people are lamenting the failure of the Greens to do anything other than keep Labor or out of power, with a declining vote, a fact that the statistics show.
The Greens are the Liberal second column, nothing more and nothing less. If that is what you care about then so be it, but don’t pretend they are their for environment. On that front they have made things worse.
Perhaps Labor’s reputation and internal processes are irredeemably soiled. If Labor does dissolve itself to make way for a new party, perhaps that party could be called the Australian Progress Party.
Rex Douglas says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:32 pm
#YouGov / Galaxy Poll QLD State Primary Votes: ALP 32 (-3) LNP 37 (+2) GRN 13 (+2) ON 13 (+5) KAP 3 (-1) #qldpol #auspol— GhostWhoVotes (@GhostWhoVotes) August 30, 2019
Caving in to the coal lobby didn’t work to well…
Dart board gave two party preferred 54 to labor. I don’t believe it either.
“Australian Progress Party” is just so 1965. We need something like Force NSW! (The exclamation point is mandatory)
So the labor party is going to dissolve over $100,000 donation; give me a break.
‘Pell was convicted on the evidence of one person.’
Bill: please stop being an apologist of Pell. Like GG, both of you don’t seem to get it. Pell is a serial offender, sharing digs with Risdale, a serial child offender. FFS, come to terms.
Moreover, I very much doubt that you’re a lapsed catholic.
Team NSW!
Thoughts?
Wow 13 points fall in Palaszczuck’s approval rating. All to do with the integrity crisis. She has looked very weak indeed in handling of it. Jackie Trad must surely be sacked now unless she gets a total clearance from the CCC.
BB
Pell’s in jail for a reason. They have put six from the local gang there; was there others is the real question.
Spoiler alert: the comment didn’t get any better from this point on.
Mitch Marsh is batting at number three in a tour match at a time when the Ashes are tied with Steve Smith batting below him because…
No the NSWALP’s problem was that Kaila was promoted as the next generation who was going to clean out the Augean stables of the Obeid era.
But the party has had a philosophy of “whatever it takes” ingrained for the last 45 years. Internal reform is impossible when there is no moral compass.
BB
Give it up. You’re flogging a dead horse.
Firstly, your juxtapositioning of the Pell and Tamil cases is hyperbowl and sophistry, in the selfish cause of justifying all the subjective rubbish you’ve posted about Pell since February. You took a defence-of-Pell line then and it’s beyond your dignity to back down………. all qualified by “I’m in no way a Pell supporter but ……..” Well as far as I can see it’s falling flat on its face here except as far as Brucephalus and GG are concerned ……. and both of them are paragons of objectivity aren’t they.
Secondly, Pell was not convicted only on the basis of the one complainant source of evidence. What did you think the court and the jury were doing for many days of the case ……. having a knitting competition, or doing crosswords?
The appeal judgement addressed in detail their displeasure with the defence evidence, especially that evidence they referred to as opportunity evidence. They gave a detailed criticism of that evidence despite the large number of defence witnesses. They criticised it as inconsistent, self contradictory and unreliable both between witnesses and within the evidence of individual witnesses.
You can go on gilding your lily to your hearts content, and writing reams of abusive criticism about other PBers. You can continue to ridicule references to other prisoners who not been able to approach the HC. Have fun.
I eagerly await your further defence of Pell when the RC Report redactions about him are released. I know! I know! This present matter is only about Witness J’s accusations. But your many subjective lectures here are consistent with your wider perspective of the life of Pell.
This of course can always be rejected as patronising wankery, which of course it is.
Oakeshott Country says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 8:53 pm
No the NSWALP’s problem was that Kaila was promoted as the next generation who was going to clean out the Augean stables of the Obeid era.
But the party has had a philosophy of “whatever it takes” ingrained for the last 45 years. Internal reform is impossible when there is no moral compass.
____________________________
Dissolution and appointment of a trustee is the only sensible solution.
Probably not that important unless the Medevac legislation is overturned, but the Full Federal Court handed down judgment on Wednesday confirming that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for removal on medical grounds from Nauru, it being suggested by the Commonwealth that only the High Court in its original jurisdiction could hear such matters
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2019/2019fcafc0148
Looks like the 100k donation can be traced back to Shorten and his table sold to Huang.
https://sl.sbs.com.au/public/image/file/7a55578e-0372-48f8-9d5e-9ffdfd70c76f/crop/16×9
You don’t appoint trustees to something that’s been dissolved
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/30/former-labor-mp-accused-of-lying-to-icac-over-100000-table-at-bill-shorten-dinner
Lars Von Trier says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 8:48 pm
Team NSW!
Thoughts?
——————————————————————————————
It stinks
shellbell says:
Friday, August 30, 2019 at 9:00 pm
You don’t appoint trustees to something that’s been dissolved
____________________________________
There’s a precedent – the Search Foundation took over the assets of the wound up Communist Party of Australia.