The Poll Bludger’s popular Call of the Board series, in which results for each individual electorate at the May 18 federal election are being broken down region by region, underwent a bit of a hiatus over the past month or so after a laptop theft deprived me of my collection of geospatial files. However, it now returns in fine style by reviewing the business end of the state which, once again, proved to be the crucible of the entire election. Earlier instalments covered Sydney, here and here; regional New South Wales; Melbourne; and regional Victoria.
First up, the colour-coded maps below show the pattern of the two-party swing by allocating to each polling booth a geographic catchment area through a method that was described here (click for enlarged images). The first focuses on metropolitan Brisbane, while the second zooms out to further include the seats of the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. As was the case in Sydney and Melbourne, these maps show a clear pattern in which Labor had its best results (in swing terms) in wealthy inner urban areas (for which I will henceforth use the shorthand of the “inner urban effect”, occasionally contrasted with an “outer urban effect” that went the other way). However, they are also bluer overall, reflecting Labor’s generally poor show across Queensland (albeit not as poor in the south-east as in central Queensland).
|
|
The seat-by-seat analysis is guided by comparison of the actual results with those estimated by two alternative metrics, which are laid out in the table below (using the two-party measure for Labor). The first of these, which I employ here for the first time, is a two-party estimate based on Senate rather than House of Representatives results. This is achieved using party vote totals for the Senate and allocating Greens, One Nation and “others” preferences using the flows recorded for the House. These results are of particular value in identifying the extent to which results reflected the popularity or otherwise of the sitting member.
The other metric consists of estimates derived from a linear regression model, in which relationships were measured between booths results and a range of demographic and geographic variables. This allows for observation of the extent to which results differed from what might have been expected of a given electorate based on its demography. Such a model was previously employed in the previous Call of the Board posts for Sydney and Melbourne. However, it may be less robust on this occasion as its estimates consistently landed on the high side for Labor. I have dealt with this by applying an across-the-board adjustment to bring the overall average in line with the actual results. Results for the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast seats are not shown, owing to the difficulty involved in classifying them as metropolitan or regional (and I have found the model to be of limited value in regional electorates). The coefficients underlying the model can be viewed here.
And now to review each seat in turn:
Blair (Labor 1.2%; 6.9% swing to LNP): Shayne Neumann has held Blair since taking it from the Liberals in 2007, on the back of a favourable redistribution and Labor’s Kevin Rudd-inspired sweep across Queensland. His margins had hitherto been remarkably stable by Queensland standards, but this time he suffered a 9.8% drop in the primary vote (partly due to a more crowded field than last time), and his two-party margin compares with a previous low point of 4.2% in 2010. Nonetheless, the metrics suggest he did well to hang on: he outperformed the Senate measure, and the demographic measure was Labor’s weakest out of the six Queensland seats it actually won (largely a function of the electorate’s lack of ethnic diversity).
Bonner (LNP 7.4%; 4.0% swing to LNP): Bonner was a notionally Labor seat when it was created in 2004, and it says a lot about recent political history that they have only won it since at the high water mark of 2007. Ross Vasta has held it for the LNP for all but the one term from 2007 to 2010, and his new margin of 7.4% is easily the biggest he has yet enjoyed, the previous peak being 3.7% in 2013. Labor generally did better in swing terms around Mount Gravatt in the south-west of the electorate, for no reason immediately obvious reason.
Bowman (LNP 10.2%; 3.2% swing to LNP): Andrew Laming has held Bowman for the Liberals/LNP since it was reshaped with the creation of its northern neighbour Bonner in 2004, his closest scrape being a 64-vote winning margin with the Kevin Rudd aberration in 2007. This time he picked up a fairly typical swing of 3.2%, boosting his margin to 10.2%, a shade below his career best of 10.4% in 2013.
Brisbane (LNP 4.9%; 1.1% swing to Labor): Brisbane has been held for the Liberal National Party since a redistribution added the affluent Clayfield area in the electorate’s east in 2010, making it the only seat bearing the name of a state capital to be held by the Coalition since Adelaide went to Labor in 2004. The city end participated in the national trend to Labor in inner urban areas, but swings the other way around Clayfield and Alderley in the north-west reduced the swing to 1.1%. Trevor Evans, who has held the seat since 2016, outperformed both the Senate vote and the demographic model, his liberalism perhaps being a good fit for the electorate. Andrew Bartlett added 2.9% to the Greens primary vote in recording 22.4%, which would have been the party’s best ever result in a federal seat in Queensland had it not been surpassed in Griffith. This compared with Labor’s 24.5%, with Labor leading by 25.4% to 23.7% at the second last preference count.
Dickson (LNP 4.6%; 3.0% swing to LNP): The shared dream of Labor and GetUp! of unseating Peter Dutton hit the wall of two broader trends to the Coalition, in outer urban areas generally and Queensland specifically. However, as the map shows, there was a pronounced distinction between the affluent hills areas in the electorate’s south, which swung to Labor, and the working class suburbia of Kallangur, which went strongly the other way. Dutton’s result was well in line with the Senate vote, but actually slightly below par compared with the demographic model. It may be thought significant that One Nation struggled for air in competition with Dutton, scoring a modest 5.2%.
Fadden (LNP 14.2%; 2.9% swing to LNP): The three electorates of the Gold Coast all recorded below-average swings to the LNP, and were as always comfortably retained by the party in each case. Fadden accordingly remains secure for Stuart Robert, who had held it since 2007.
Fairfax (LNP 13.4%; 2.6% swing to LNP): The northern Sunshine Coast seat of Fairfax will forever wear the ignominy of having sent Clive Palmer to parliament in 2013, but Ted O’Brien recovered the seat for the Liberal National Party when Palmer bowed out of politics all-too-temporarily in 2016, and was uneventfully re-elected this time.
Fisher (LNP 12.7%; 3.6% swing to LNP): Second term LNP member Andrew Wallace did not enjoy a noticeable sophomore surge in his Sunshine Coast seat, picking up a slightly below par swing. All told though, this was an unexceptional result.
Forde (LNP 8.6%; 8.0% swing to LNP): This seat on Brisbane’s southern fringe maintained its recent habit of disappointing Labor, comfortably returning Bert van Manen, who gained it with the 2010 backlash after one term of Labor control. Reflecting the outer urban effect, van Manen gained the biggest swing to the LNP in south-east Queensland, and was able to achieve an improvement on the primary vote despite the entry of One Nation, who polled 11.8%. His 8.6% margin easily surpassed his previous career best of 4.4% in 2013, when his opponent was Peter Beattie.
Griffith (Labor 2.9%; 1.4% swing to Labor): It’s been touch and go for Labor’s Terri Butler since she succeeded Kevin Rudd at a by-election in 2014, but this time she was a beneficiary of the inner urban effect, which helped her eke out a 1.4% swing against the statewide trend. Of particular note was a surge in support for the Greens, who were up by 6.7% to 23.7%, their strongest result ever in a Queensland federal seat. Butler’s 31.0% primary vote was well below the LNP’s 41.0%, but Greens preferences were more than sufficient to make up the difference.
Lilley (Labor 0.6%; 5.0% swing to LNP): One of the worst aspects of Labor’s thoroughly grim election night was newcomer Anika Wells’ struggle to retain Lilley upon the retirement of Wayne Swan, who himself experienced a career interruption in the seat when it was lost in the landslide of 1996. However, the metrics suggest the 5.0% swing was fuelled by the loss of Swan’s personal vote, showing barely any difference between the actual result and the Senate and demographic measures. The Labor primary vote plunged 8.1%, partly reflecting the entry of One Nation, who scored 5.3%.
Longman (LNP GAIN 3.3%; 4.1% swing to LNP): One of the two seats gained by the LNP from Labor in Queensland, together with the Townsville-based seat of Herbert (which will be covered in the next episode), Longman can be viewed two ways: in comparison with the 2016 election or the July 2018 by-election, which more than anything served as the catalyst for Malcolm Turnbull’s demise. On the former count, the 4.1% swing was broadly in line with the statewide trend, and comfortably sufficed to account for Susan Lamb’s 0.8% margin when she unseated Wyatt Roy in 2016. On the latter, the result amounted to a reversal of 7.7% in two-party terms, with victorious LNP candidate Terry Young doing 9.0% better on the primary vote than defeated by-election candidate Trevor Ruthenberg, recording 38.6%. One Nation scored 13.2%, which compared with 9.4% in 2016 and 15.9% at the by-election. Lamb actually outperformed the Senate and especially the demographic metric, suggesting a sophomore surge may have been buried within the broader outer urban effect. Despite the electorate’s demographic divide between working class Caboolture and retiree Bribie Island, the swing was consistent throughout the electorate.
McPherson (LNP 12.2%; 0.6% swing to LNP): As noted above in relation to Fadden, the results from the three Gold Coast seats did not provide good copy. McPherson produced a negligible swing in favour of LNP incumbent Karen Andrews, with both major parties slightly down on the primary vote, mostly due to the entry of One Nation with 5.9%.
Moncrieff (LNP 15.4%; 0.8% swing to LNP): The third of the Gold Coast seats was vacated with the retirement of Steve Ciobo, but the result was little different from neighbouring McPherson. On the right, a fall in the LNP primary vote roughly matched the 6.4% accounted for by the entry of One Nation; on the left, Animal Justice’s 3.9% roughly matched the drop in the Labor vote, while the Greens held steady. The collective stasis between left and right was reflected in the minor two-party swing.
Moreton (Labor 1.9%; 2.1% swing to LNP): This seat is something of an anomaly for Queensland in that it was held by the Liberals throughout the Howard years, but has since remained with Labor. This partly reflects a 1.3% shift in the redistribution before the 2007 election, at which it was gained for Labor by the current member, Graham Perrett. The swing on this occasion was slightly at the low end of the Queensland scale, thanks to the inner urban effect at the electorate’s northern end. Relatedly, it was a particularly good result for the Greens, whose primary vote improved from 12.7% to 16.8%.
Oxley (Labor 6.4%; 2.6% swing to LNP): Only Pauline Hanson’s historic win in 1996 has prevented this seat from sharing with Rankin the distinction of being the only Queensland seat to stay with Labor through recent history. Second term member Milton Dick was not seriously endangered on this occasion, his two-party margin being clipped only slightly amid modest shifts on the primary vote as compared with the 2016 result.
Petrie (LNP 8.4%; 6.8% swing to LNP): This seat maintained a bellwether record going back to 1987 by giving Labor one of its most dispiriting results of the election, which no doubt left LNP member Luke Howarth feeling vindicated in his agitation for a leadership change after the party’s poor by-election result in neighbouring Longman. Howarth strongly outperformed both the Senate and especially the demographic metrics, after also recording a favourable swing against the trend in 2016. He also managed a 3.4% improvement on the primary vote, despite facing new competition from One Nation, who polled 7.5% – exactly equal to the primary vote swing against Labor.
Rankin (Labor 6.4%; 4.9% swing to LNP): Rankin retained its status as Labor’s safest seat in Queensland, but only just: the margin was 6.44% at the second decimal place, compared with 6.39% in Oxley. Jim Chalmers copped a 7.9% hit on the primary vote in the face of new competition from One Nation (8.6%) and the United Australia Party (3.7%), while both the LNP and the Greens were up by a little under 3%. Nonetheless, Chalmers strongly outperformed both the Senate and demographic metrics. That the latter scarcely recognises Rankin as a Labor seat reflects the electorate’s large Chinese population, which at this election associated negatively with Labor support in metropolitan areas.
Ryan (LNP 6.0%; 3.0% swing to Labor): LNP newcomer Julian Simmonds was in no way threatened, but he suffered the biggest of the three swings against his party in Queensland, all of which were recorded in inner Brisbane. As well as the inner urban effect, this no doubt reflects ill-feeling arising from his preselection coup against Jane Prentice. It is tempting to imagine what might have happened if Prentice sought to press the issue by running as an independent.
ANNOUNCEMENT: If this painstakingly compiled post interested you enough that you have made it all the way through to the end, perhaps you might care to make a donation. These are gratefully received via the “become a supporter” button that appears just below, or the PressPatron button at the top of the page.
I’d assume Chalmers and Marles would fall in behind Fitzgibbon.
‘jeff says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 4:10 pm
Boerwar
“The Greens Party single biggest existential policy promise was to deliver zero net emissions by 2030. They cannot possibly deliver that with 10% of the vote.
So, against their own No 1 benchmark, they failed miserably.”
So how is that different from Labor?’
Excellent question.
Labor has acknowledged defeat. Shorten has resigned. Shorten has acknowledged he failed. Labor is conducting a comprehensive review of its election performance and of the policies it took to the election.
The Greens Party has declared victory. Di Natale is still there. The Greens are not conducting a review.
Spot the differences!
Rex Douglas:
Please stop agitating for regime change.
Alan Tudge couldn’t bring himself to criticise the Kerry Anne recommendations. He went right off on activists shouldn’t interrupt people etc.etc.
Probably didn’t see the video of them standing aside to let an ambulance through.
zoomster @ #1450 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 4:27 pm
Kim Carrs self-interest rivals Bill Shortens.
I love this “election review” shite Labor is undertaking, the Greens did it too after some state elections i think?
What a load of baloney, quite simple really, Labor where indecisive, failed to sell the message, held double standards and lost as a result.
I found it very telling, given my rantings about selfishness in relation to climate change, that there was a bleeding heart news story about some rich fat arsed Queensland retirees who were sobbing on board their precious yacht (which would cost more than my house – not to mention the mooring fees) about how the franking credit changes would hurt them, really FFS?
It hit home, can you imagine what a great like Hawke or Keating would have made of that? Straight on the front foot calling them out for what they were! “do you have private health insurance” style!!!
Guts and conviction of your own policies, that’s what lost Labor the election. Its the same as any good salesperson will teach, if you don’t believe in your own product, how can you sell it? Great leaders sell dire situations, unfortunately for the country and planet, i don’t think Albo can sell beer to an alcoholic.
Mavis Davis @ #1454 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 4:30 pm
Joel Fitzgibbon is doing all the agitating…
Rex
You sound just like the mourners’ chorus at a Victorian funeral. Every now and again I have to block you, just to keep my sanity.
Rex Davis:
[‘Joel Fitzgibbon is doing all the agitating…’]
I haven’t heard that he’s challenged. He’s merely looking after his turf, suffering a 9.5% swing in May.
“The Greens Party has declared victory.”
News to me? Did Di Natalie visit the governor’s residence?
Boerwar, can i have some of the S##t your on? it would be great to live in your reality?
it’s so sad that you are so one-eyed that even the most basic of reality eludes you….
jeff
It’s what federal Labor does after every election it loses. It’s absolutely nothing new.
The theory is that, as Labor lost the election, there must be something wrong with its policy platform, and it needs to be looked at.
It also allows even the worthiest of policies to be renewed and updated.
Stagnation isn’t a good thing. Circumstances change. Policies need to change, too.
Good grief !!
Fitzgibbons tenure as defense minister was an absolute fucking debacle, and his career since that time proves that if you’re enough of a fat useless rightwing hack then there’s no end of second-chances in the Labor party.
I’m confused. Is Fitzgibbon agriculture or mining? Logic says he can’t possibly be both.
I am with Amy Remeikis. It was not just Queensland’s fault.
All this blame Adani for Labor’s loss ignores the rest of the country. Labor has to stop looking at North Queensland as the be all result of the election.
She is right. Tasmania did have two seats won by the LNP.
Sydney seats also went to the LNP. Nothing to do with Adani.
I find your views refreshing and mostly apt and to the point, jeff.
Unlike others, who may not support Labor, and use it as an opportunity to hurl abuse, like that which I have just read Watermelon has hurled (with the emphasis on the Australian colloquial meaning of ‘hurl’) at Joel Fitzgibbon.
I mean, how would he react if I called his leader, Dick the Dickless Wonder di Natale, for example?
Click on this link to get a PDF of Barrie Cassidy’s lecture at RMIT
https://t.co/sGlsHGgton?amp=1
Fair point Zoomster!
I cannot see however, how you can review policy that was not sold with consistency or conviction?
All the polls indicate that people want action on climate change, and Labor are selling a policy where they want to have more ambitious targets than the coalition, but at the same time allow an entire basin to be opened up for coal production?
Had their approach been consistent, then yes, you could gauge the mood of the public, but given the above, i hope they are paying whoever has to sort that mess out a lot of cash, because if they can work it out they would have deserved it!!!!
lizzie:
Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources.
jeff @ #1469 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 4:48 pm
jeff,
Labor do not ‘want the whole (Galillee) Basin opened up for coal production’. In fact, it may have been too subtle for you but, via federal Labor’s policies to have a greater % of Emissions reduction and more Renewable Energy, a TAFE policy which transitioned workers AWAY from coal mining into the jobs of the future and a Hydrogen industry in Queensland…as opposed to actively encouraging coal production, you can hardly get away with making that bold statement about Labor.
Well, only if you’re a shallow Greens’ supporter, I guess. 😐
Change the position to Shadow Minister for Regional Australia to balance the Minister for cities. Split agriculture and resources into separate ministries.
Minister for agriculture and the environment would make more sense if you don’t do that
“The Greens Party has declared victory.”
It was a pyrrhic victory. 🙂
Rex Douglas
says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 4:32 pm
zoomster @ #1450 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 4:27 pm
Rex
Alternatively, he took advantage of the deal Albanese had negotiated. Obviously Albanese thought the deal would benefit himself. It didn’t.
Kim Carrs self-interest rivals Bill Shortens.
_________________________________
it was good news for the Liberals that Shorten got the leadership, that’s for sure!
I mean, how would he react if I called his leader, Dick the Dickless Wonder di Natale, for example?
Go for it. I don’t like him either.
‘Guytaur and Andrew_E, enjoy your coffee!
This a “Nixon goes to China” moment for Poll Bludger.’
Hola Guytaur.
I’ve been off bludger today, but still available to meet for coffee around 11am at the Associate tomorrow. If you need to contact me and I’m not online, my mobile is (REDACTED – Ed).
Cheers Andrew
C@t,
I know it might seem that i am an apologist for the Green’s but can assure you i actually am not.
Definitely left wing, i suppose i push back against some of the anti-green rhetoric because i have only one concern and that is the future of the planet for my kids. The Greens hold the only position that gets us close, but in fairness, i just ensure that my vote never leaves the left side of the ballot, in fact my vote would of helped the Labor member get over the line in Lyons, (the Green’s didn’t stand a chance and Labor only won because of the antics of the Lib candidate).
I have said on many an occasions, if Labor adopts a humanitarian approach to asylum seekers and ups its game on climate change, it will relegate the Greens to history and win back it’s base. Until then it will be mid 30%’s at best.
jeff
I’m not sure anyone gets paid cash for the policy review process. (The election review is a separate thing, but I’m pretty sure that’s pro bono, too). It’s a mix of MP driven, member driven, consultation driven, ultimately wrapped up by Fed conference. (I’ve even had input, as a member of one of the Vic policy committees).
As I keep saying – and it’s relevant in this context – Adani won’t be an issue next federal election. The failure to please both sides of the fence on the issue will probably be seen as a learning experience, however, but it will be more in the election review bit rather than the policy bit.
Adani lost votes because Labor was seen as possibly against it, rather than possibly for it. After all, when given the choice of a definitely pro-Adani party and a party fence sitting, if being anti-Adani is your defining characteristic, you’re not going to put the former over the latter. If you’re worried that Adani won’t go ahead, however, and that will lose you your job, then you’re definitely going to take the first option.
Labor’s only possible out on this that I can see (in that wonderful thing, hindsight) was along the lines of “We can’t stop this project, because it conforms with the legislation as it is at present, and stopping it will mean an expensive court case. We can, however, change the legislation to ensure that similar projects don’t happen in the future, by tightening up environmental laws.” — but that would have required a media prepared to do nuance, and we don’t have that.
jeff
Labor doesn’t need to win back its base. It needs to win voters back from the Liberals, not voters from the Greens. It can’t do that by going further left.
I assume zoomster will be hoping Albo loses the next election!
Mavis Davis
That’s an interesting combo and doesn’t make sense to me, unless agriculture is the equivalent of mining the soil (not really a joke).
Victory?
‘We’ve delivered in spades’ Di Natale.
nath
Why would I hope that? I’m capable of criticising members of my party and still wanting them to win.
PB is a strange place. You get criticised for toeing the party line, even when you’re expressing your own opinions, and then you get criticised for not toeing the party line, because you’re expressing your own opinions.
@guytaur
The issue of ‘religious freedom’ played a signifcant in Sydney at the Federal Election, particularly in the Western Suburbs. MP’s such as Michelle Rowland in Greenway and Chris Bowen in McMahon, have been clamoring for Labor to be more as they describe it, respectful to religious Conservatives or ‘people of faith’. In Northern Tasmania I believe Morrison was more liked by people there, than Turnbull ever was.
I would strongly advise against posting your mobile phone number in public.
zoomster
says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 5:04 pm
nath
Why would I hope that? I’m capable of criticising members of my party and still wanting them to win.
PB is a strange place. You get criticised for toeing the party line, even when you’re expressing your own opinions, and then you get criticised for not toeing the party line, because you’re expressing your own opinions.
_____________________________________
I just assumed your animus towards Albo meant that you preferred he not become PM.
Watermelon @ #1475 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 4:57 pm
I’ll pay that one. 🙂
Rex
Good advice.
AE
I have noted the number you can ask William to delete it now.
I am going to have to take a rain check. Surprise visit from my brother from Tassie.
Tristo @ #1485 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 5:05 pm
Yes..the likes of Chris Bowen would like to see more tolerance of people being more intolerant.
The MSM are so admirable. Any hint of a difficulty within Labor and it’s all over the news for as long as they can spin it out. Jenny Morrison has a strange RW friend? Shhhhh.
C@tmomma @ #1488 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 5:10 pm
I just wish that RDN would pick up the phone to Peter Garrett and offer him his support for the leadership.
Let’s assume that Adani has not been opened by the 2020 election because the price of coal has fallen, and because Indian investment in cheap renewables is skyrocketing, because the cost of financing new coal (even with the ship loads of free money floating around the globe) becomes prohibitive, and because the risks are large and already increasing.
This is, on the face of various public announcements and various analyses of ROI, the lack of any progress in constructing the mine, is the most likely outcome.
The Indian Family will not announce that their asset is stranded. They will keep it on the books. They will do so until the Greens Government of the future forces divestment. At which the Family will sting the Australian taxpayer for a motsa.
But why not another Adani Convoy in 2020? It gave the Greens Party government once, why not again?
jeff,
I have children too. I really, really want them to be able to have a job with the same pay and conditions I had, and enough money to put a roof over the head of themselves and their family in the future. And a planet to live on.
It’s not much to ask, you would have thought, but there’s only one party of government who want to get us to that point.
So, the question then becomes, how do we get there?
Strange isn’t it that we are told to be more respectful of ‘people of faith’, seeing that the definition of faith is the absolute belief in something without any evidence.
lizzie @ #1458 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 4:33 pm
The higher the education attainment the less likely you are to be ‘conservative’.
The bulk of the voting population have reached only modest levels of education and demonstrate no or very little interest in pursuing further education beyond secondary school.
I would expect Australia generally to be conservative, afraid, easily manipulated and essentially binary. I agree with Labor’s capitulator-in-chief Joel Fitzgibbon. Onya Joel.
Cat
You don’t get there by digging up coal to burn.
You get there by increasing targets. Having stronger policies.
Nuclear is better to mine than coal. It’s safer. That’s how dangerous coal is.
zoomster @ #1479 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 3:31 pm
This.
It is a couple of percent of voters currently just to the right of Labor that need convincing, and they are not going to be convinced by Labor going further left or Greens’ protest convoys.
guytaur
Thanks for the link to the Mark Kenny and Amy Remeikis podcast, interesting.
Mike
I found myself agreeing with a lot of what was said. Except I think the media plays a greater role in Labor’s failure to “sell the message” than the journalists do.
Edit: The most interesting was the American guy’s comparison of Trump and Morrison