I have a new thread about this one that will follow late counting in seats by rather conservative results system still considers in doubt. This post attends to the ones that it is recording as having changed hands, or close enough to it — I have made the cut-off point a 95% probability rather than the usual 99%. First though, a plug for my paywalled article in Crikey yesterday on the likely make-up of the Senate, where Labor and the Greens between them look set for a clear majority they didn’t quite get to after the 2022 election, despite having respectively lost the services of Fatima Payman and Lidia Thorpe (erratum: I have Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts the wrong way around in the article — it was the latter who was up for re-election). And second, here is a podcast I did yesterday in a state of hopefully not too obvious sleep deprivation (still ongoing) with Ben Raue of The Tally Room:
The summary below encompasses fourteen Labor gains from the Coalition based on post-redistribution margins from the 2022 election, which involves three complications: Bennelong was a Labor-held seat that became notionally Liberal (just) following the redistribution; Labor had held Aston since winning the by-election there in April 2023; and the defeated incumbent in Moore was elected as a Liberal in 2022 but contested the election as an independent. There are also two Labor gains from the Greens, both in Brisbane, and the special case of Calare, which former Nationals member Andrew Gee has retained as an independent. If these are the only seats that change hands, the final numbers will be Labor 88, Coalition 48, independents ten, Greens two and one each for Katter’s Australian Party and the Centre Alliance. The other new post for today focuses on the undecided seats that could potentially change this calculation. Relevant to this question is a point made in relation to each seat below: fairly consistently, Labor did best on election day votes, second best on early votes and – so far – worst on postal votes. However, the first batches of postals are fairly reliably the most conservative.
New South Wales:
Banks. One of the election’s many unexpected Coalition casualties was David Coleman, just months after he was unexpectedly elevated to the foreign affairs portfolio in part because of his reach within a Chinese community that accounts for a substantial chunk of the seat’s population — for all the good that did anyone concerned. Coleman went in with a 2.9% margin and came out, on my current projection, with -2.6%. The swings were 7.3% on the day, 2.8% on pre-polls, and — so far at least — 1.3% in his favour on postals.
Bennelong. A technical Labor gain, having had a post-redistribution Liberal margin of 0.1%, for which my usual formulation of “accounted for by a 9.4% swing” feels like understatement. That Labor was up 13.3% on the primary vote and the Liberals down only 5.6% reflects the gap in the 2022 numbers created by the seat’s absorption of much of North Sydney, where around a quarter of the vote went to Kylea Tink. The swings to Labor was 10.9% on the day, 7.3% on early votes and 5.3% so far on postals, though the latter will likely increase as further batches are added.
Calare. Former Nationals member Andrew Gee held his seat as an independent from 23.9% of the primary vote, easily overhauling the 30.3% for the Nationals candidate after securing most of the preferences of teal independent Kate Hook (15.9%) and Labor (10.2%) to hold a 6.3% lead that late counting is unlikely to change much.
Hughes. A result no one saw coming was Labor’s win in a seat Labor last held before John Howard came to power in 1996. A post-redistribution margin of 3.2% was accounted for by a 6.2% swing, giving Labor a margin I project to 2.8%. In the absence of two independents who polled 17.5% between them in 2022, Labor gained 11.2% on the primary vote while the Liberals were only down 3.5%. The swings to Labor were 7.7% on election day, 4.5% on pre-polls and 2.1% on postals-thus-far.
Victoria:
Aston. James Campbell of News Corp related mid-campaign that Labor “hadn’t bothered” to poll the seat they gained from the Liberals at a by-election in April 2023, and every indication was that the Liberals regarded it as in the bag. I am projecting a 3.4% Labor margin from a swing of 6.0% compared with the 2022 election, almost exactly equal to the 3.6% Labor margin at the by-election. Swings were 6.7% on both election day and early voting, and 3.0% on the postals counted so far.
Deakin. The script for the election did not involve the Liberals losing seats in Victoria, but so it proved in Deakin, where I project a 3.2% swing off a Liberal margin that redistribution reduced from 0.2% to 0.0%. Swings were 4.6% on the day, 2.3% on early voting and 1.1% the other day so far on postals.
Queensland:
Bonner. Labor’s second ever win in a seat created in 2004 was not close, the LNP’s 3.4% margin accounted for by a swing I project at 8.7%. Primary vote swing for and against the major were around 10%; the Greens were down 4.7% on a strong performance in 2025, no doubt reflecting an increase in the field from five to eight candidates, and competition from Legalise Cannabis in particular. Swings: 9.3% on the day, 8.4% on early voting, 7.4% on postals so far.
Brisbane. Both in 2022 and 2025, this seat came down to whether it was Labor or the Greens who made it to the final count and defeated the LNP on the other’s preferences. In 2022, Labor scored eleven more primary votes than the Greens, a gap the latter closed on Animal Justice preferences. This time Labor is up 4.9% and the Greens are down 1.5% (with the LNP also down 3.3%), a gap the Greens would need nearly every preference from lower order candidates to close. A two-candidate count the AEC was conducting between the Greens and the LNP on the night has been junked, and it is now in the early stages of a count between Labor and the LNP that will only confirm the former’s winning margin.
Dickson. The day that Peter Dutton feared when he pitched for a safer seat before the 2010 election arrived at a particularly inopportune moment, from a swing of similar dimensions to a number of seats in outer Brisbane: 7.8%, compared with a margin of 1.7%. Dutton has a projected 34.9% primary vote, down 7.2%; teal independent Ellie Smith’s 12.8% kept a lid on Labor, up 2.0%, and contributed to a 5.7% drop for the Greens to 7.3%. Swings were 9.5% on the day, 7.0% no early voting and 3.7% on postals so far.
Forde. My system still gives the LNP a sliver of a chance, but I’m quite sure I’ve never seen a lead approaching 3000 votes slip away at this point in proceedings. Further discouraging the notion is that postals are not favouring the Coalition as they are elsewhere, the swings being 6.8% on the day, 6.1% on early voting and 6.4% on postals.
Griffith. The 3.3% drop in Max Chandler-Mather’s primary vote does not of itself explain his defeat in a seat where he outpolled Labor 34.6% to 28.9% in 2022. The decisive point was the swing from the LNP, who were down 4.1%, to Labor, up 6.0%, resulting in Chandler-Mather facing Labor at the final count, rather than the LNP as he had done in 2022. The AEC was conducting a Greens-versus-LNP two-candidate count that it has pulled in recognition of that outcome, leaving my system to rely on an estimated 70-30 break in LNP preferences in favour of Labor over the Greens in projecting the final result.
Leichhardt. The retirement of Warren Entsch presumably had something to do with the biggest swing in Queensland, presently at 10.1%, off an LNP margin of 3.4%. Booth results suggest Entsch was known and liked in Indigenous communities, but nowhere was the swing insubstantial. It was 11.4% on election day, 9.7% on early voting and 4.7% on postals so far.
Petrie. Another Queensland seat Labor has long had trouble shaking loose, this time doing so off a 5.8% swing accounting for a margin of 4.4%: 6.9% on election day, 5.4% on pre-polls and 3.4% on postals so far. I note that, with the exception of lineball Longman, Labor has won all the seats in Brisbane that formed part of Kevin Rudd’s statewide sweep.
Tasmania:
Bass. Northern Tasmania had one of its trademark changes of heart at this election, with noted Liberal moderate Bridget Archer’s 1.4% margin was demolished by a 9.8% swing, panning out to 10.2% on the day, 8.9% on early voting and 8.1% on postals so far.
Braddon. Unlike a lot of other places covered here, there were rumblings about northern Tasmania, but not like this: Labor’s Anne Urquhart, hitherto a Senator, picked up a 15.3% swing, possibly helpd by the retirement of Liberal incumbent Gavin Pearce. Labor was up 17.3% on the primary vote and Liberal down 12.3%, the gap reflecting the 7.8% vote in 2022 for independent Craig Garland, now in state parliament. The swings were 15.3% on the day, 14.9% on early voting and, unusually, higher yet on postals-so-far at 16.5%.
South Australia:
Sturt. The Liberals’ last seat in Adelaide, retained by 0.5% in 2022, swung to Labor by 7.2%: 8.5% on the day, 5.9% on early voting and 5.5% on postals-so-far. Their primary vote was down by more than Labor’s was up (8.9% and 4.6% respectively) because of independent Verity Cooper’s 7.3%.
Western Australia:
Moore. The Liberals’ last seat in Perth, retained by 0.7% in 2022 (bumped up to 0.9% by redistribution), swung 3.8%: 5.0% on the day, 2.6% on early voting and 3.1% on postals-so-far. Presumably not helping was incumbent Ian Goodenough, who ran as an independent after losing Liberal preselection and polled 9.9%, declining to direct a preference to his old party on the how-to-vote card. The Liberal primary vote was down almost exactly the same amount while the Labor vote primary hardly changed.
@Steve777 says: Saturday, May 10, 2025 at 9:56 pm
The remaining moderate Liberals, if there are any, should leave the party and become Teal-like independents. Meanwhile, the rump “Liberals” can merge with One Nation, the LNP and the Nationals and become the far-right warriors that they want to be. Maybe include Newscorp in the merger.
~~~
I’m using this as a source bc it’s the closest thing I have to a list of all Liberal MPs (as of 2021) and their alignments.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/who-s-who-in-the-liberals-left-right-and-centre-factions-20210303-p577gv.html
Out of a quick skim of that list, here are Liberal MPs of the Moderate and Centre Right factions who are still in the House of Representatives by 2025:
Sussan Ley (Farrer)
Angie Bell (Moncrieff)
Julian Leeser (Berowra)
Terry Young (Longman)- Assuming he retains Longman
Scott Buccholz (Wright)
Garth Hamilton (Groom)
Andrew Wallace (Fisher)
Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay)
Dan Tehan (Wannon)
Jason Wood (La Trobe)
Including the new MPs to Parliament who ik are Moderates but not mentioned in the SMH list:
Aaron Violi (Casey)
Zoe McKenzie (Flinders)
Gisele Kapterian (Bradfield)
Even if there are still moderates, would the Teals even want some of them to join their ranks? Tim Wilson is part of the Moderate faction but I doubt the Teals would welcome him with open arms after he ousted Zoe Daniels.
Given that major Teal candidates have came close to winning the seats of Bradfield, Flinders and Fisher, I doubt the Teals dump their preferred candidate who could be successful in future elections. Furthermore, I find it hard they’ll choose Ley, Tehan or Hamilton over their own Teal candidate who managed to enter 2CP count with respectable results (in Farrer, Wannon and Groom)
Also if the Elephant in the room hasn’t been pointed out yet, I can’t see a situation where any of these people will defect to the Teals (or a hypothetical Teal party if they do form one)
Adding Japanese curry powder to your gravy for the mash elevates both dishes remarkably. Regular Japanese curry is best left for children and those who otherwise find their karaage a little bit too challenging.
Dr Doolittlesays:
Second, there were strong swings to Wilson around Brighton. Nadia88 had mentioned a local issue possibly with resonance there (she claimed it had resonance and Daniel had been very wishy-washy about it, but I can’t remember if it was about Brighton).
____________
Yeah that was a state government policy to lift height limits near train stations which was not popular in Brighton for some reason.
Boerwarsays:
Saturday, May 10, 2025 at 7:33 pm
Albanese is the first and only prime minister in forty years to deliver on climate action.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Really? So why have emissions risen since the 2022 election? Emissions may fall over the next three years – I really hope they do – but they haven’t so far, and are not projected to prior to 2028.
Emissions* fell from early 2012 to early 2014 (Gillard-Rudd), from early 2018 to early 2020 (Turnbull-Morrison), and then (obviously) during the pandemic. Under Albanese, emissions have risen to above the pre-pandedmic trendline, so the recent rise is not just a “post-pandemic rebound” as I have seen claimed.
*I am referring here to actual emissions, excluding LULUCF figures, which at best are “creative accounting” and at worst a complete fiction. But if you want to include LULUCF, then every Prime Minister since 2007 *except* Albanese has delivered emissions reductions. Since 2022 real emissions have risen slightly (or counting LULUCF, are as flat as the Nullabor).
Exclude LULUCF, or include it if faux-reality is preferred – either way, your claim has no basis in reality.
The changes Labor are proposing (despite some shortcomings) will likely deliver some improvement in the years to come, perhaps even before the end of this term, and will hopefully lay the groundwork for further improvements down the track. I have no quibble there.
But lets not pretend that Labor under Albanese have already delivered any climate action that other governments of both stripes could not also claim with more justification, hmmm?
clem
“ Diogenes, I would rather be as you describe, ‘a union thug’, than a pompous pissant such as yourself!”
That is your prerogative, and I genuinely don’t care if you think that.
Your wing of the party is anti-science and anti-intellectual and Australia is going to sink further into mediocrity over the next 3 years because timid stupid factional apparatchiks run the party.
Only consolation is the Libs would have been worse.
In three years time, Australia will be even more a stagnant backwater. Singapore, South Korea and Middle Eastern oil countries will be more relevant than a complacent, smug tiny economy.
clem
I’ve had numerous bets here about not posting if I lost and I’ve never lost once. If Australia improves its GDP per capita more than the OECD average over the next three years, I will happily not post here again. If you promise to do the same if we don’t.
Put up or shut up.
Tim Wilson is obnoxious, whatever his political alignment. From his days on “The Drum” and other ABC News and Current Affairs, I recall him as an enthusiastic IPA Right-wing warrior. The Teals would definitely not want him.
Steve777 @ #2957 Saturday, May 10th, 2025 – 11:39 pm
Tim Wilson reminds me a lot of Andrew Sullivan. Yes, he’s gay, but is otherwise totally with the rest of the hard right and their goals to wind back the 20th century. Just as long as he’s not among those that they want to send to the camps.
It really is a shame that he managed to get back into parliament, but hopefully him being in the fray as a wedge between those that want Jacinta Price, Matt Canavan, Angus Taylor, Sussan Ley, etc in power will make things more difficult for them.
@Dr Doolittle
“If you look at the swing figures and the margins two factors were decisive against Zoe Daniel in Goldstein.
First, Wilson’s lead on postals was about 4,000, whereas it had been less than 2,000 in 2022. That difference is more than the likely final margin.
Second, there were strong swings to Wilson around Brighton. Nadia88 had mentioned a local issue possibly with resonance there (she claimed it had resonance and Daniel had been very wishy-washy about it, but I can’t remember if it was about Brighton). ”
I think both of those back my view that it was primarily the elderly rich Liberal base which got cold feet about Zoe Daniel and to a lesser extent Monique Ryan with an increase in postal votes this time likely because of the proximity of holidays in sunnier climes. Maybe there’s a bit of a Jewish community factor thrown in. You can’t pick this sort of thing out of booth data with that much specificity.
For the latter point, I just do not buy that in an election where Victoria defied the apparent unpopularity of state Labor to back Federal Labor, that suddenly Brighton is where people couldn’t tell the difference between state and Federal issues. I was extremely skeptical of Nadia’s stuff about Vic seats at the time and said so – I would have to go back and look at her list but I suspect that I ended up being right about most or all that skepticism, the one I know for sure was Macnamara as I was pretty outspoken for over a year that the Greens would get nowhere in Macnamara while Nadia was not the only Bludger whose view of Macnamara and how well the Greens or Libs would do there came to grief.
Pageboi observes astutely that the election result was a rejection of Peter Dutton, not an endorsement of Anthony Albanese or of neoliberal centrism. When people are polled on issues they support policies that go much further than Labor’s tepid proposals to tinker ever so slightly, and to appease the powerful at every step of the way.
The numbers in the Senate create a historic opportunity to give the people the policies they say they want on health care, education, housing, workers’ rights – all issues where they want more action than what Labor has offered.
I think it would be healthy to have plebiscites on specific policy proposals as a routine part of our democratic processes. People should have a say in what happens in a specific domain of public policy. An election is a blunt instrument that measures how people feel about the personalities of leaders – it usually says little about the people’s policy views. More popular involvement in policymaking would foster shared accountability for our future.
Diogenes posted, “Your wing of the party is anti-science and anti-intellectual and Australia is going to sink further into mediocrity over the next 3 years because timid stupid factional apparatchiks run the party. ”
And what is “my wing of the party exactly”? More nonsense from you!
And again, “I’ve had numerous bets here about not posting if I lost and I’ve never lost once. If Australia improves its GDP per capita more than the OECD average over the next three years, I will happily not post here again. If you promise to do the same if we don’t.
Put up or shut up.”
You are pretty good at making dumb, dumb assumptions, like knowing what ‘my wing of the party’ is. But you’re not finshed making a complete fool of yourself, next you want to challenge me to some obscure bet, which is singularly irrelevant to the point either of us were making
Are you on the piss or something? Err you’ve gone troppo mate, all I said was that you were a pompous pissant and you have lost all composure. Just settle down, have a Bex and a good lie down. Everyone will have forgotten the nonsense you have posted by tomorrow!
Pakistan and India have agreed to a ceasefire. Trump is taking credit for negotiations.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/india-fires-missiles-into-pakistan-targeting-multiple-sites-20250507-p5lx56.html
@Nicholas –
Ah yes, the “people didn’t vote for the Greens but really they wanted Greens policies” horseshit.
No they didn’t.
Publicly available policy polling is notoriously bad – it is invariably commissioned with an agenda and aimed at a result for the commissioner. Policy in the real world isn’t presented on a list with friendly framing – it comes with counterarguments, costs, implementation issues. The very reasons that people might tell an issues pollster they want to take more action on climate and then go vote for Tony Abbott and repealing the carbon tax.
Do you remember issues polling telling us the Voice was rabidly popular? I do. A prime example of how misleading friendly issues polling is, and how it does no good when the rubber meets the road.
There was issues polling doing the rounds which purported to show Australia was pro nuclear energy and issues polling doing the rounds showing the reverse. This has been going on so long there’s a brilliant Yes Prime Minister bit about it where Humphrey demonstrates how to get the same person to say both yes and no to reintroducing National Service.
The truth is – people end up voting for what they want. The Greens went backwards, the Coalition went backwards, Labor went up. Pretty sure that demonstrates a lot of people did actually want the ALP’s policies, champ. You don’t speak for the majority.
The Greens didn’t even speak to enough people to realise Bandt was in trouble in his own seat and you guys want us to believe you have such a finger on the pulse that you know people were just anti Dutton not pro Labor? A position which conveniently fits your long held prejudices? Do me a lemon.
Nicholas, you and others like you on PB desperately need to go out into the real world outside your silo and talk to people who don’t share your echo chamber.
New thread.
Having the Teals morph into a party type structure or voting bloc would be an interesting experiment, and likely to end in tears.
Currently, the Teals are an expression of warm, fuzzy feelings. They can be pure without consequence. In the current Teal world, they are responsible for nothing, there are no negotiations, no difficult compromises or disappointed stakeholders. Others take the burden of those things while they enjoy the benefits of whatever it was they were advocating for.
As the Democrats & Greens before them have found, the transition from party of protest to a party of responsibility is an extraordinarily difficult one.