Call of the board: South-East Queensland

How good was Queensland? The Poll Bludger reports – you decide.

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.

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.

1,593 comments on “Call of the board: South-East Queensland”

Comments Page 4 of 32
1 … 3 4 5 … 32

  1. Rex is right, the transformation of many Bludgers to outright climate denial is almost complete. The “punter” does not now necessarily trust the CSIRO and other scientific bodies as Julia Gillard alluded to, but now in fact Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones.

    D and M, I have a genuine question. Is there a difference between CO2 emitted now, and that which has been in the atmosphere for 100 years? If so, why the delayed reaction?

    Also developing nations will always be with us. Why is imperative that they be allowed to burn fossil fuels?

  5. Lovey

    Rex is right, the transformation of many Bludgers to outright climate denial is almost complete.

    Name names, damn you !

  9. Fake scientists are protecting their corrupt incomes by conspiring to stop genuine scientific sceptics from publishing their research outputs.

  10. Greta has the establishment terrified of losing their grip on their corporate profit-based narrative.

    She can cut through better than most.

  11. MD

    ‘China displays world’s first armed stealth drone…’

    There is a lot of disinformation about armed stealth drones, but, IMO, not the first.

    The best? Who knows? The bragging might have been brought forward to get in line with the 70th anniversary of the Party.

  12. Climate Front socialists are first terrifying and then brainwashing immature kiddies who don’t want to go to school and do the hard yards like the rest of us.
    Urging them to eat babies! How crass is that?

  13. GetUp should organise a tour of Australia by the dream team of David Attenborough and Greta.

    They could generate some really engaging discussion that would hasten the exposure of Morrison as a shonky salesman PM.

  14. First we were all going to freeze on snowball earth.
    Now we are all going to cook.
    Will the so-called scientists please make up their minds?

  17. frednk says:
    Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:04 pm
    RI
    Some questions.
    1) Do you think the Asian hub will happen?
    2) Do you have enough projects in the pipeline to deal with the loss of the coal fired stations?
    3) What are you going to do about energy storage?

    The hub is a hydrogen project. I’m not sure where this development is at….will find out….but hydrogen is already starting in Australia and will progressively replace LNG in peaking turbines. This will also reduce reliance on storage, as both batteries and turbines can be used interchangeably.

    Coal is already obsolete and is being displaced by solar. There are solar projects in WA that have approval but which not received final development finance because of access/price obstacles. These will be dismantled and the projects will kick in. There is no shortage of new project proposals here.

    Storage is an issue…but the costs are falling and capacities increasing. WA has large reserves of lithium and other metals that are required for battery production …now being escalated in WA.

    Personally, I think hydrogen fired turbines combined with wind and solar might be better than batteries…can readily displace gas turbines…this combo can easily compete with fossil fuels in most locations.

    It’s also possible to replace diesel with biodiesel in the plants that use liquid fuels. WA is a very large producer of Canola, most of which is used in biodiesel production in the EU. We can copy this very easily.

  19. Boerwar:

    [‘There is a lot of disinformation about armed stealth drones…’]

    Could be sabre-rattling? It looks pretty impressive, though.

  22. MD
    I assume that the take home message is that anywhere inside the outer islands ring is now going to be prohibitively costly for conventional elements of the USN.
    Taiwan (and Japan) are increasingly military shags on their respective rocks.

  23. The climate sensitivity elements of CAGW-inspired models are largely stabs in the dark. In particular, they still have not been able to incorporate cloud cover dynamics.

  26. Sea levels have always changed.
    Absurd claims about local and regional sea level rise simply ignore isostatic rebound after the last Ice Age.

  27. Boerwar @ #173 Sunday, October 6th, 2019 – 1:12 pm

    The climate sensitivity elements of CAGW-inspired models are largely stabs in the dark. In particular, they still have not been able to incorporate cloud cover dynamics.

    Your model seems to incorporate the GAGF sensors which cause bowel irritation to the Greeny Armagheddonists on this site. You need to crank it up a bit more.

  28. pip courtney
    @pipcourtney
    ·
    1h
    Hi @senbmckenzie I went thru customs @BrisbaneAirport yesterday.
    Declared I’d visited a farm in Samoa – pigs aren’t fenced in – they roam
    Boots not checked.
    NO Q’s asked by
    @BorderForceAu

    No signage about swine fever either.
    A dozen journos & scientists on plane been to farms too

  29. lizzie @ #178 Sunday, October 6th, 2019 – 1:22 pm

    pip courtney
    @pipcourtney
    ·
    1h
    Hi @senbmckenzie I went thru customs @BrisbaneAirport yesterday.
    Declared I’d visited a farm in Samoa – pigs aren’t fenced in – they roam
    Boots not checked.
    NO Q’s asked by
    @BorderForceAu

    No signage about swine fever either.
    A dozen journos & scientists on plane been to farms too

    Bridget will just shoot anyone with Swine fever with her gun. Problem solved. 😐

  31. frednk @ #86 Sunday, October 6th, 2019 – 10:53 am

    You really are a lost cause, they are closing down most of their largest power station and you write this. Mate it is not hard to work out 854 is bigger than 416, it is kindergarten stuff.

    Do some reading … please …

    https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2019/08/Muja-Power-Station-in-Collie-to-be-scaled-back-from-2022.aspx

    The two Muja D units, Collie Power Station and Bluewaters will continue to operate. The retirement of Muja C will ensure Muja D units operate more frequently, increasing their stability and long term viability.

  33. ‘Enough is enough’: Joe Biden blasts Trump’s abuse of power in scathing Washington Post op-ed

    Former Vice President Joe Biden responded to attacks on his family in an op-ed published by The Washington Post on Saturday.

    “Enough is enough. Every day — every few hours, seemingly — more evidence is uncovered revealing that President Trump is abusing the power of the presidency and is wholly unfit to be president. He is using the highest office in the land to advance his personal political interests instead of the national interest,” Biden wrote. “The president’s most recent violation of the rule of law — openly calling for China to interfere in our elections, as he stood on the South Lawn of the White House — is so outrageous, it’s clear he considers the presidency a free pass to do whatever he wants, with no accountability.”

    Biden noted how Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General Bill Barr are all implicated in the scandal.

    “It is easy to be distracted by Trump’s daily outrages — to become obsessed with them or numb to them, or to normalize behavior that Americans would not have tolerated in any of the previous presidents in the nation’s history. Not me,” he wrote.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-biden-trump-wont-destroy-me-and-he-wont-destroy-my-family/2019/10/05/9544b9a4-e7cc-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html

  34. Is there any evidence that the scientific disciplines that study climate change are structurally and culturally flawed to the point that the mainstream conclusions are way off?

    Macroeconomics is a field of study that has been way off for forty or fifty years. The field is riddled with group think, motivated reasoning, gatekeeping behaviours, and alliances with the ruling class. This has enabled the mainstream to be wrong for a long time without being replaced by other frameworks. Change is coming to macroeconomics, but it has taken a long time and immense damage has been done to people’s lives. But I think that the climate sciences are less prone to blowing it. There is politics and cognitive bias involved in any field of study but it is harder for bad science to be coddled when it is a hard science about physical phenomena that can be observed directly. When it is a social science like economics there is a higher risk that the interests of the ruling class will trump scientific rigour.

  35. Rick Wilson‏Verified account @TheRickWilson

    If your argument is that Rick Perry is the conniving mastermind who forced Donald Trump into this…ummmm….get help.

  37. The CAGW crew reckon that most of the so-called additional heat went into the oceans. It must be hiding somewhere, right? But the measurement of global ocean heat is a scientific shambles.

  40. It’s no use demanding you be shown examples of more typhoons, hurricanes, wildfires or storm damage, and then argue whether or not they are caused by climate change.
    Seriously, as far as the risk managers of property insurance companies are concerned, the evidence is already in.
    Bear in mind, they only make money if they price risk correctly. Too high, and their competitors take the business, too low, and they go bankrupt.
    So I invite you to read what they have to say. I copied the following from
    https://www.insure.com/home-insurance/climate-change-home-insurance-rates
    Ok, it’s from the US, but a Google search on the effects of climate change on insurance costs will get Australian examples too.

    Climate change top issue for insurers
    Many insurance experts consider climate change as one of the most pressing issues. That concern will lead to higher insurance costs for homeowners.
    Here’s why: Insurers base their costs on risk. The riskier the property, the more an insurer charges.
    The result — more climate change-related claims means:
    Higher insurance costs
    Insurers becoming stricter about who even gets coverage
    “It could limit coverage availability in vulnerable areas that have not taken appropriate mitigation/adaptation measures,” warned Childs, founder and CEO of Prisere, LLC. Prisere develops software applications and provides technical assistance and training for climate and disaster resilience.
    Todd Teta, chief product officer at ATTOM Data Solutions, which curates a property database, was recently affected personally when an insurer rejected him for a homeowners policy in California. The reason: A risk of wildfires.
    Teta said the community suffered a small fire three years earlier, but no structures were destroyed. However, the insurer was still concerned about potential risk.
    “Insurance companies are outright rejecting entire ZIP codes because of wildfire risk, even in areas they previously wrote policies in,” Teta said

    It’s increasing premiums in cyclone areas, bushfire areas, on ocean fronts.

    What do they know that all the sceptics do not?

  43. Instead of engaging in genuine scientific debate the Frappe CAGW Socialist Left manipulate some school truants into chucking public tanties. yeah. Right. Beats going to school.
    Then the whole scientific debate is turned into yet another useless culture war shit show between genders and generations. This proves what, scientifically, exactly? That it isn’t cosmic rays?
    Thank God the bulk of the world’s youth are studying hard so that they can do real scientific research.

  44. ML
    That shows you can trust insurance companies one hundred per cent to do one thing: use any excuse to increase their fat profits.

  45. When the Greenies stop sensible control burning and therefore cause huge wildfires, they increase the profits of insurance companies. Who knew? Are they in each others’ pockets?

  46. C@tmomma says: Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:08 pm

    phoenixRED @ #185 Sunday, October 6th, 2019 – 1:55 pm

    Rick Wilson‏Verified account @TheRickWilson

    If your argument is that Rick Perry is the conniving mastermind who forced Donald Trump into this…ummmm….get help.

    Not only that but Trump could’ve refused to do what Rick Perry asked, couldn’t he?

    **********************************************************

    •In May, Perry led a U.S. delegation to Ukraine for Zelensky’s inauguration in place of Vice President Mike Pence, and Democrats have begun to press Perry for more information about the trip and his conversations with Ukrainian leaders.

    Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday that, “as God is my witness,” neither Joe or Hunter Biden’s name ever came up.

    Sec. Rick Perry Explains ‘Expansive Relationship’ With Ukraine: ‘God as My Witness Not Once Was Biden Mentioned’

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/october/sec-rick-perry-explains-expansive-relationship-with-ukraine-god-as-my-witness-not-once-was-biden-mentioned

    Rick Perry didn’t make Trump call Ukraine. Trump called Ukraine as part of an organized shakedown operation to get them to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for military aid.

    Trump is looking for a scapegoat, and he is floating Rick Perry because he needs someone to take the fall to save his presidency.

    https://www.politicususa.com/2019/10/05/trump-perry-ukraine-call.html

Comments Page 4 of 32
1 … 3 4 5 … 32

Leave a Reply

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