There’s been a lot of comments on various electorate profiles about the federal election that have been a bit more general than about a particular seat, and I’ve had a few requests for an open thread to discuss the federal election.
I’m working on a couple of other blog posts I’m hoping to put up later this week.
Neither Labor or the Coalition is getting my after-preference vote at the election after they passed these laws. You cannot make it harder for your opponents to run in elections. They sound like they are running scared. This is the problem with Major parties, They will do anything in their power to stop minor parties from gaining power which is wrong.
The people are the ones who should decide, The coalition should have gone to a referendum with the new laws and asked the people because there is nothing wrong with a party having the word ”Liberal” in it, Voters are not dumb at all. Compare the Liberal Democrats to the ”Literal Democrats” who ran in the UK in 1994, I can understand how that would be confusing. But not ”Liberal Democrats and the Liberals”
My Informal vote will the a protest to this, Because I am not happy at all about it.
Presumably the Lib Dems will just revert to the “Liberty and Democracy Party”. And I’ve heard on Twitter that the New Libs are actively considering name changes now.
the New Libs are just going to run as TNL now.
Daniel its too easy to play the ‘major parties ganging up togeather’ card which some in the media and the minor parties have played.
The fact is the changes in registering party names and registering 1500 members are backed by politcal expert Antony Green he’s hardly what you could call a Graham Richardson or Michael Kroger.
Green notes the 1500 number is still lower per person population in registering members then some states.
My biggest complaint is unlike some states there is no requirement to pay a fee for members. It makes too easy for the Clive Palmer’s to meet the threshold to handing out memberships to freinds, family, associates, workers etc. Or a recruiting drive where where the only threshold to be a member is to fill out a form with your details. Palmer won’t have to worry about this election as noted he recruited Craig Kelly so he has paliamentry representation.
https://antonygreen.com.au/more-on-minimum-membership-requirements-for-registering-political-parties/
‘Political expert’? He’s a psephologist. It’s a question of fairness and democratic ideals.
Antony Green is a relatively electable-party-neutral electoral expert. He does however come at this from a NSW perspective. NSW has been most impacted by large ballot paper sizes (at both Commonwealth and state level), is most able to form a single state party with 1,500 members and is least likely to have parties with state specific ambition. NSW is also the only state with state party registration requirements over 500.
I know quite a few people were preparing to dance on the Libs’ grave in NSW when the lockdowns happened, but Resolve still shows them ahead 53-47. While everyone should be right to express skepticism about Resolve’s polling methods, that’s a pretty healthy lead considering the circumstances.
As I have said, the public have been pretty forgiving when it comes to Covid-19 and I don’t foresee lasting damage to their electoral chances. Because of this, I still don’t think we can say goodbye to Morrison and the Federal Libs in NSW just yet.
Resolve Strategic polls are bullish. The coalition won’t win the election on 39% of the primary. It’s just too low. It doesn’t matter if Labor’s primary vote is even lower because that’s now how it works. If both parties are bleeding too much support to minors and independents we could see the largest crossbench in history IF the votes are in the right places.
The coalition are in huge danger under 40% of the primary. This also assumes Labor will get better preference flows than the last election. On the primary numbers shown by Resolve I am getting a 50-50 TPP from 2016 preference flows. Unless I miscalculated.
Not to mention the other polls are too biased the other way as well. I think nationally it leans Labor maybe 51-49 and I think a hung parliament is almost certain at this point. Labor isn’t winning a majority but nor is the coalition.
I wouldn’t even trust Crosby Textor (Liberal cronies) and Lib researcher Jim Reed even if I were became acephalous. It was plainly obvious they were nothing but drivel after:
1. The last WA poll had a Greens vote of 21%.
2. The first WA poll had a 6% One Nation vote (where from).
3. They cite “x% of people supporting independents” yet fail to recognise that not every electorate has one, meaning their polling is technically moot.
Daniel, the gap between the major parties will matter significantly more than the raw numbers.
Ryan, these concerns have been noted by multiple psephological commentators. I would point out that it doesn’t mean the poll has no value. For one, it at least demonstrates that the herding issue which plagued pollsters in 2019 is no longer apparent. Furthermore, it would be dangerous for those wanting a Labor victory to dismiss contrary data.
Regarding the predictive powers of polling this far out from an election, I strongly suggest reading Dr Bonham’s and Rebekah Veykh’s articles on this topic. Put simply, incumbents usually (though not always) improve between this time in their term and election day. Indeed, past polling demonstrates that a victorious Opposition will usually have had polling leads in the mid 50s; Labor have yet to reach that number.
I don’t believe that herding together the five smallest states and territories into a supposedly contiguous group is logically sound.
Each of them have different issues and ideologies at play and the concept that they’re all the same is just the same problem with eastern states-based pollsters, because they could not give a flying flamingo what other people think.
Did you hear about two Liberal MPs fighting against each other in preselection in WA? Probably not because only the Australian had a tiny article.
> Indeed, past polling demonstrates that a victorious Opposition will usually have had polling leads in the mid 50s; Labor have yet to reach that number.
That’s because all changes of federal government in recent decades have been lopsided elections. I doubt that rule holds up if you include state elections.
David, the article actually looks at polling as far back as 1949 so I don’t think that’s dispositive. Only time will tell.
So the path to a Liberal Victory
Hold all current seats (ok so they are already in Government and have a majority so this will be to make sure they have a larger number of seats):
NSW: Win MacQuarie, Dobell, Hunter, Eden-Monaro, Gilmore, Greenway, Paterson, Shortland, Werriwa, Paterson
Vic: Corangamite, Dunkley
Qld: Blair, Lilley, Griffith
WA: Cowan
ACT: very unlikely to win any seat and the Senate seat could be doubtful
NT: Solomon
WA: Cowan, Perth
Tas: Lyons
https://www.tallyroom.com.au/42746/comment-page-4#comment-756479
The Coalition are unlikely to gain any seats outside NSW, with the AKLP likely to make gains in at least the ALP run states.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/simon-holmes-a-court-is-sitting-on-a-1-4-million-election-war-chest-here-s-how-it-will-be-spent-20210924-p58uha.html
Lots of money being thrown at Voices candidates at the next election but I really wonder how realistic a 6 seat target is for them. The chances of knocking off Zimmerman or Falinski seem very low to me.
The working assumption has always been that IND candidates have more chance in regional electorates because they are more likely to be able to build a profile across the whole electorate through regional media, whereas in the capital cities they are a small cork bobbing in an ocean. On the evidence, Steggall would have to be seen an an exception, basically down to Tony Abbott.
The past few elections indicate that IND candidates can get to the low to mid teens, but no more. In Mackellar in 2016, 3 x IND candidates got 15% in total. In North Sydney it was 13% for 1 x IND Candidate. At that level they are not pulling down the Liberal candidate anywhere near enough, nor are they getting into 2nd place – occasionally they beat the Green’s into 3rd.
I think it is obvious that voting patterns are changing and all the old certainties have fallen over. Just some of the changes:
1 The emergence of the greens obviously, first threatening safe ALP seats but increasingly now safe LNP. They win if they can just edge ahead of the lesser major. So formerly very safe LNP seats such as Kooyong, Higgins, Ryan, Wentworth, Bradfield and Berowra are now potential targets. We already know of the ALP seats under threat, although the Greens have not been making much headway. i suspect that you could pick the seats by the number of traditional professionals- doctors, lawyers, architects etc, for the LNP seats and for the ALP look at teachers, IT people and younger professional.
2. Almost as a follow on from the above, small l liberals running s independents are also targetting many of the same seats, but with a wider range so you add seats like Mackellar, North Sydney and of course Warringah. In Qld i would think the Sunshine coast could swing independent. Most of Adelaide and Tasmania would be vulnerable I would think. This trend is pretty obvious and the Voices mob are an expression of it, but obviously election of Steggall and Sharkie, indicate its significance.
3. Regional independents have always been a factor but seem to be growing in significance. Darren Chester’s recent decision should perhaps be seen in that light too.
4. The emergence of working class angry parties. This demographic once was solidly ALP but now tends towards PHON and similar. This is an unpredictable vote but it has upset all the old assumptions.
Essentially we now have the following voting blocks:
i) traditional upper middle class LNP voters, but shrinking in percentages
ii) traditional LNP voters who see themselves as liberals and progressive. These are he independents voices, who once would have made up the core of the Menzies era LNP
iii) Small business owners, traditionally to solid vote of the LNP, but adding to them the many tradies who how own their own businesses, who perhaps thirty years ago would have been unionized workers solidly with the ALP
iv) the religious right, who will mostly swing LNP. Pretty much all religions in this group, excluding perhaps Muslims
v) angry white me – the protest factions. They will go first PHON but are unpredictable. Populist candidates whatever their policies will capture this mob
vi) public sector workers – teachers, nurses, etc. generally ALP leaning but also heavily Green
vii) traditional unionists. This shrinking demographic will still vote Labor
viii) the seriously disadvantaged. Generally still ALP but also ripe for the taking by the populist parties.
Maverick
I truly sense that you are getting ahead of yourself here. We need to go over the entrails of the next election before coming to the kind of conclusions you seem to be reaching for. 2019 showed some shifts & indicated new directions.
Here are some thoughts about your points
1/ The Greens have gone nowhere for 4+ elections . Their vote is (id like to pronounce “moribund !) as hopelessly fixed (fixated) & hopelessly stuck, as they are themselves. An outward embodiment of failure that reflects a profound inner toxicity, & stasis of consciousness ! The Green vote is stuck at 10%
2/ Your typification of “small l liberals running s independents are also targeting many of the same seats ” is ridiculous . These are Greens masquerading as faux conservatives, or “centrists”. They have no chance or relevance barring special circumstance ie Wentworth in a by election or Warringah (for 1 term) THEY HAVE LITTLE IF ANY SIGNIFICANCE.
3/ It is incredibly incautious of you to give Darren Chester any attention at all. Read my post in the Gippsland thread. The man is contemptible. The only light to see anything he does is through the prism of self- interest.
4/ Trying to measure voting trends through last century class distinction is pretty futile, as it is often contradictory, & very localised. The old tribal, & class divisions have at least blurred, if not eroded.
i) Maybe
ii) don’t agree . This comparison doesn’t make any sense
iii) clearly
iv) clearly
v) Wrong i am one such voter. I will remind you that i vote AGAINST POLITICIANS NOT FOR THEM.
My vote is calculated to be as vindictive as possible . Popularity as nothing i repeat NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. As voters we are clearly the most intelligent & discriminating of all voters in the electorate.
vi) YES
VII)YES
viii) yes
cheers wd
WD
Thanks for the reply, however I am certainly not looking just at the last election, nor just federally. My response to you:
1. The Greens certainly have stalled in the inner city ALP electorates, largely because the ALP have responded sensibly and put up more appropriate candidates eg Jed Kearney rather than David Feeney. However they have been making more progress in the traditional Liberal areas eg Kooyong and Ryan. The Greens themselves have become much more middle of the road, no longer having the NSW socialist wing or even the WA pacifist wing. Moreover in state elections the Greens are still making slow but steady progress. They now have two members in the Qld state LA and came within a whisker of taking a third.
2. Sorry your response is emotional wishful thinking. There has clearly been an increase in these centrist liberals in recent years and the trends are pointing towards a steady increase. prior to 1990 independents were rare in the federal parliament – one or less per election and mostly made up of people who had lost preselection or quit a major for some reason, or someone who rapidly joined a major (usually the Liberals). The first signs of changes were the emergence of the Democrats and the near miss of Janine Haines in SA, then you had in the early 90s Ted Mack and Phil Cleary – 2 for a few years . 1996 saw 4 independents elected, although only Andren was a stayer. Hansen was significant however. 2001 saw three regional independents – Andren, Katter and Windsor. So the 1990s say 1, then 2, then back to 3 but all stayers. This trend has continued. 2008 added oakshott, 2010 added Wilkie, Bandt and the national from WA (i think we must include the minors as independents at this stage.) . So in the next decade we have seen numbers grow from 3 to 4 to 6. 2013 saw 2 independents lose but two new entrants (mcGowan and Sharkie. 2019 with Steggall raised the total to 7. It is a very big increase since 1990. My prediction is that just as you not the old class lines are blurring, so too are party allegiances and in this context independents and minor parties will increase. I expect 1-3 seats will swing independent/minor, because there is a trend. So yes in Sydeny, Mackellar, North Sydney and Wentworth are vulnerable and of course Hunter to a pro mining independent. In Victoria Higgins and kooyong and perhaps Chester’s seat. The ALP vulnerable seats are complicated by COVID and I wonder how Kahlil will fare. ACT seats are always vulnerable to the Greens. Tas and SA are always a little maverick so just not sure. WA I expect will swing ALP not independent or minor. Qld is interesting. Low hanging LNP seats (to Green or independent) include Ryan, Brisbane, Flynn and Fisher as well as all the Northern regionals which are also maverick. Katter or PHON may score there. The ALP has so few seats to worry about, but I suppose Griffith and Blair are vulnerable to minors.
3. Sorry Chester is an elected member even if you do not like him. renegades such as Chester rarely win as independents (same for Kelly) but you cannot discount the possibility.
4. I thought that was what I was doing. the rise of the independents and minors is just such a removal of old class lines.
As for you comments on my summary
ii) see above
v) I was not aware you were a PHON voter. My point still stands. To have electoral success, PHON must capture the populist vote. They will NEVER attract the educated professionals and small l liberals, so they must attract the battlers – those who would once have been solid ALP or perhaps DLP for a while. Plus regions former Nationals.
What will be interesting to see play out is the seats with high mortgage stress. If things go wrong under LNP watch this could spell trouble in seats such Lindsay, Macquarie & La Trobe.
James if that is the liberal path to victory. Then they are in big trouble….
They would be very very lucky to win 3 seats in nsw only….. I would pick most of those as likely alp hold
Just regarding the discussion over electability of independents – I believe there is one clear issue that can catapult an independent into contention to win a seat and that is – the current member is taking the seat for granted, and by extension showing contempt for its constituents. Whether that’s because of a scandal (Jamie Briggs in Mayo), the member does not pay attention to its electorate (Sophie Mirabella in Indi) or the member’s views are seen as severely out of line with the electorate (Tony Abbott in Warringah).
Upon the election of the independent, it then comes down to – has the change to an independent been meaningful in getting improvements for the electorate, and also in particular for regional electorates, does the electorate consider the candidate as one of them – see Peter Watson for Albany in WA). If not, and the major party’s new candidate is seen as aligning with the electorate’s views, they’ll switch back (Dave Sharma taking back Wentworth for the Liberals).
@WL
I still think the driving force for Tony Abbott losing his seat of Warringah is he’d been there too long. He was hanging around parliament undermining Malcolm Turnbull and even voters in his own electorate had tire of his nonsense.
He simply wore out his welcome. There was even a poll before the 2016 federal election in his own seat that thought Abbott should retire at that federal election.
Abbott hung around on a misguided hope of being Prime Minister again. Voters were ready to move on and would have supported a new Liberal canidate. But Abbott forced their hand to vote for an independent instead.
Nah I agree with WL. It wasn’t just that Abbott was undermining the Liberal leader, I mean compare his 2019 results to Peter Dutton or any number of the right wing wreckers. The difference was that Abbott was just insolently indifferent to the issues of the electorate he represented. Inner-city blue ribbon voters, tree Tories, whatever you want to call them- they care about the environment, about climate change, about gay rights etc, or at least want a candidate that pays lip service to those values.
And it could be that lip service is all it takes, and that alone could very well save Zimmerman and Falinski (and I think it will). But clearly they’re happy to yeet the Libs out if the party or the candidate aren’t willing to project a base level of solidarity with some socially progressive values. That’s even more true in Flinders and Kooyong, where there’s already a high floor of left-leaning votes that’s probably rising.
It’s also true that those same voters could come back to the Libs, although it should be pointed out that Sharma won on a much, much smaller swing than what Zali beat Abbott with.
Maverick
thanks for the reply
1/ Can’t agree ” The Greens themselves have become much more middle of the road, no longer having the NSW socialist wing or even the WA pacifist wing.” Lee Riannon going still leaves the revolting treasonous Maureen Faruqui & the state MPs . i know Shoebridge & he is in the Bob Brown mould. There is nothing ‘moderate” about these people, that is simply an absurd, if not insane proposition ! Are you serious ?
The China threat will polarise the electorate, & expose the Greens. The Greens progress in QLD is mostly the result of the abolition of OPV, so i can’t see why you would give them credit for any greater achievement. VIC is different…….! as always
2/ Ive lived my long life of 61 years in the 3 NSW electorates you have named as at risk so i think iv’e got a feel for what goes on with them No one is going to win them off the libs, to my regret i assure you. My feeling about the MPs concerned are detailed & on the record. So i can confirm to you that “Sorry your response is emotional wishful thinking.” Could not be further from the truth !. In fact that statement is so spectacularly wrong it nearly does my head in….
I’LL stand by what i said about Lib “centrists”
The indies you named fall into 2 pretty clear groups
successful strong personalities , & dissembling pretenders.
I don’t see any strong personalities atm -yet.
Stegall & Haines are pretenders & may yet be tossed
For a minor party to succeed they need to not do what all other parties do
Be self absorbed, & endlessly talk about themselves (their ideas, spending , politics & other politicians)
Popular wisdom is that there is room on the ” right” for a new party ie PHON , LIB DEMS etc.
In truth there is room in the genuine centre providing that the new party can maintain the discipline of being focused on the people & the nation. Now that would be exceptional.
3/ Chester is irrelevant
4/ Sorry that’s not how it appeared to me. Recent indies have just banged the “CC drum”( & the inequality/unfairness whinge) to win, & that drum may already be broken, it certainly will by 2025. Its very shallow, venal stuff. It doesn’t have much connection to political change or much else.
” I was not aware you were a PHON voter. ” Did you miss my repeated statements that i’m a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT member, & voter ?
I believe you are failing to distinguish Hanson from PHON. ON in NSW is led by Latham & is already differentiating itself from PHON in QLD. Only small so far… However all the cards of minors are in the air (to put it metaphorically) & it is unclear where they will fall. Or indeed what will emerge.
cheers wd
Wine
Some valid points but not all.
Firstly you seem to equate LDP with angry white men. I do not. I put them more into the Independent category.
I too have lived in the electorates named so I have a reasonable feel for them.
I am not distinguishing between Latham and Hanson, because even though they are very different, they still will attract the same demographic. Calwell and Whitlam were very different but still attracted the same core demographic.
Your attack on the Greens is just a bit emotional. Look here in Qld the Greens have always been fairly centrist, and indeed in their early years looking at sending preferences to the Liberals. When they joined with the nationals that was a bit less likely. of course the change in NSW is significant. It may not be a complete shift but it is not nothing either.
Your comment about China is interesting. I suspect that it could be make or break for the Greens. If ALP does not differentiate itself from the LNP (which it will not) then the Greens may emerge as the bona fide voice of the old 1980s left. Yes it will be divisive BUT while the population is very keen to curtail China re trade etc, I rather doubt they will be keen for a full on war, which is an still unlikely but not negligible risk just now.
Maverick
The LDP is in a transition challenge atm. It is in flux IMV. So who knows. There are definitely angry elder people moving in. Disillusioned Libs like Newman, John Ruddick etc.
You may be selling Latham short as he has the intellectual credibility that Hanson does not. Therefore he may be capable of broader appeal, given the chance
Your typification of “emotional” I’m uncomfortable with. Passionate or impassioned sits better thanks!
The Greens are dominated & predominantly reformer/perfectionist type 1 fixations (enneagram) So the certainty of the purity (& superiority) of their beliefs, & the resistance to challenging themselves is their greatest weakness. This will not change anytime soon. My fury at being lectured to, & preached at, is equally unlikely to diminish. They marginalise themselves constantly, by their gross & offensive behaviour . The contention of moderation”or fairly centrist ” is incongruous (even contradictory), enough to send a palpable physical (shock like) sensation through my body ! Perhaps you could explain what i’m missing, when i experience Larissa Waters, Amy McMahon or any others ?
Mrs WD mk1 has given me 38 yrs experience with this personality type.
Re China it’s worth remembering that about 20% of Australia opposed war in 1939. PROVOCATIVELY it could be interpreted as evidence that 1 in 5 people would rather live on their knees, than die on their feet !. there is never consensus about war. However the positioning has already happened Japan has sworn to stand with Taiwan, so we don’t get to choose. However i do agree with your risk assessment. Still if China senses an opportunity or miscalculates who knows. My point about China & the Greens is that the Greens position further marginalises them
cheers wd
@ Furtive Lawngnome
The results in North Sydney and Mackellar are not very similar – though the LIB PV is the same in 2019, Mackellar had a much higher IND primary vote, but a lot returned to Falinski. The TPP is 9.3% vs 13.2%. In North Sydney, 43% of voters gave a first preference to the ALP, Greens, or the Greens candidate from the election before. Even counting all of Julia Banks PV in Flinders, the equivalent was only 45% (for a TPP of 55.6%). North Sydney is at least as similar to Flinders as it is to Mackellar.
High Street, I’m not sure I understand your point. Is Zimmerman more likely to lose than Falinski? Probably. But going by 2pp, Greg Hunt is more vulnerable than both.
WD
Firstly I am not sure what the Greens position is re China. My point is IF they come ourt against war then that same 20% that was against WWII will switch to them- not enough to win government but certainly a larger haul of seats.
Secondly i think you will find that most of that 20% were opposed to war in EUROPE not about war in the Pacific. I know from family experience that many who would never have joined up in 1939, were keen to do so in 1941. It is essentially about nationalism. Those who saw Australia as a separate entity to the UK were reluctant to have a repeat of Gallipoli, whereas those who still called England “home”were keen as mustard.
Of course the China issue is complicated by our trade relationship and the economic costs to Australia from a war with China (even a cold war) will be much larger than were the costs of the war with Japan. The electoral impact of this is yet to be determined. Sure the instinctive pacifists will move green, dragging along what is left of the ALP left. Perhaps 20% maximum. However the role of business interests is yet to be determined. The iron ore magnates obviously but I assume also some elements of the agricultural sector, education sector and tourist sectors. The travel sector obviously would be a major loser and I guess also Westfarmers and other large importers.
As to you comments re Latham – yes the man has a brain, but he is also very emotional. Moreover it does not change the point. Despite being a smart guy, Latham will never appeal to the inner city or north Shore types. His appeal will still always be the battlers.
As to the LDP – taking on Campbell Newman is probably not an electoral winner in Qld although name recognition might win him a Senate seat.
High St
I get your point. North Sydney is very, very different to Mackellar. I would put North Syney closer to Wentworth – it is essentially an inner city seat, vulnerable to greens and also green independent. In Mackellar even though the Green/Independent vote is high, I suspect these are more just ALP voters who have switched because the ALP has no chance whatever and they do not want to vote LNP.
On the other hand Mackellar is also a very isolated area and subject to a sense of regional feeling – just right for an independent of the right sort. However I would think less Green and more PHON but it is a long time since I lived there so it may have changed. Of course there are Green pockets eg Scotland island, but as a whole I see Mackellar resembling the Shire ie Scotty’s stamping ground.
Kylea Tink claims she had 200 letterboxing on the weekend. Impressive no matter how you spin it. Happy to be proved wrong about North Sydney…
200 volunteers*
https://www.tallyroom.com.au/42746/comment-page-4#comment-756611
The 1939 opponents of war would have included multiple different groups:
The isolationist nationalists who wanted to stay out of Europe.
Pacifists.
Those Communists who were supporting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
People who wanted to Nazis to win.
People supporting the war in 1939 would have included:
British Imperialists.
Opponents of fascism of various political persuasions.
@ Furtive Lawngnome
I’m not sure what my exact point is, as I responding to your comment. You bundled North Sydney with Mackellar, and Flinders with Kooyong and I don’t think life is that simple.
I think this all comes down to mis-apprehension of likelihood of defeat. An incumbent Liberal in an inner city seat (lets call Mackellar and Flinders that for the time being), has a more than negligible chance of losing to either ALP/Greens or Greens. It’s not terribly high in any case, for any seat being discussed in fact, but I would argue it more than a negligible chance in any scenario. So who are they more likely to lose to? I’d argue Falinski is clearly more likely to lose to an INP than ALP/Greens, whereas Hunt is the opposite in Flinders and certainly in Kooyong an IND is VERY unlikely to get to even 2nd place of the last 3 (Oliver Yates got 9% in 2019)
So if you agree with me up to this point, in which category does North Sydney sit?. Just because the media can’t introduce the electorate of North Sydney without introducing it a “Liberal Heartland” doesn’t make it a fact. That is, North Sydney is not Bradfield…
@High Street
How do you think Voices of Bradfield will perform?
I’m giving my 1st preferences to the Australian Labor party in the next federal election despite I dislike Kristina Keneally but the worse of the worse is the coalition. I’d prefer an end to the 9 years of the lnp rather than having labor in opposition for more than a decade for the 3rd time if the lnp wins, (1949–72) & (1996–07), are the years labor was in opposition for a decade, please make Scott Morrison the 1st coalition pm to lose the election & keeping his seat since Malcolm Fraser in 1983.
High St
Absolutely agree. Mackellar of course is in no sense inner city. It would not go green but it could go independent. North Sydney is more complex because it has a more mixed demographic and is in fact a business hub, unlike Mackellar which is very much a dormitory suburb.
Ive said before that the unique characteristics of North Sydney are twofold:
1. Zimmerman gets more than 55% of the 2PP at nearly very booth., Nothing votes much more than 65% (maybe Hunters Hill) but there is a soliditly to the LIb vote in suburbs such as Northbridge that will be difficult to move. Additionally, it doesn’t quite have the same doctors wives phenomenon as Manly/Mosman.
2. The seat also covers 4 quite separate and diverse LGAs. There is no one community of interest and by extension no burning local issue that an Ind can use to fire up his/her base.
That having been said the seat is slowly trending more marginal. I’d expect it to be 56/44 after the election.
certain labor win next election…… only joking.North sydney has got all the suburbs such as Hunters Hill Lane cove Northbridge which used to be in Bennelong in the past. It has never been lost my the official liberal sin Billy Hughes 1929…… expect it stay liberal
The Greens are blatantly pacifist (remember Kerry Nettle and Bob Brown heckling George Bush back in a joint sitting one day over Iraq) and will likely win votes with the nuclear submarine issue, especially since nuclear disarmament was one of the major issues which started the ex-WA Greens, aka the Vallentine Peace Group.
Mick
You forgot Ted Mack – the first of the independents really. It would take a very big swing combined with a very strong independent or Green to unseat Zimmerman – not impossible but not very likely
Sorry all – I had a typo in my post on 30/9. I meant to say: has a more than negligible chance of losing to either ALP/Greens or an Independent. Thankfully most of you got the gist of my point.
@Nicholas.
I am actually in the seat of Bradfield (due to the last terrible redistribution that complains about constantly) so I will let you know when I see some activity. The LIB PV is probably too high but Fletcher has become a relatively unendearingly “born to rule” type so maybe an inoffensive IND can grab a decent share and knock him down to <45%. There are not many sources of preferences for him. His PV dropped a point last time, even though there was no CDP candidate and that 3.7% from 2016 was up for grabs, plus 4.5% for an IND.
Similar to North Sydney, which also had a TPP swing of almost 4.5%, the question that we will not know the answer to until election day evening, is will these swings reverse themselves (a reversion to mean) or do these seats dislike Morrison and the influence of Central QLD LNP members and Senators, on what they viewed as a truly Liberal government under Turnbull in 2016.
I am not convinced that any of these Climate 200 independents are in with a show unless they have a past track record in local government or state parliament (Ted Mack, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott), a high public profile in their area combined with an unpopular MP (Zali Steggall vs Tony Abbott or Cathy McGowan vs Sophie Mirabella). It is also possible that their allure may fade closer to the election when there may be the prospect of a hung parliament – there is an underlying Australian desire for stability. If there was the propsect of a minority government, the independents may be forced beforehand to nail their colours to the mast. We know that in 2013, Windsor and Oakeshott were unpopular in their conservative seats for supporting the Labor government – we will never know how actually unpopular as they both wussed out from running again.
Secondly, I really don’t know whey they are bothering running senate tickets when the chance of winning is less than zip. Except in Tasmania, it is bloody hard for any of the dogs and cats that fill up the senate paper to get a look in. The logistics of trying to communicate to voters across a whole state (how to vote cards etc.) is next to impossible and they don’t have group voting tickets and Glenn Druery to help any more.
A few days ago I put the Liberal path to holding government, here is the Labor path to winning government:
On the assumption of holding all seats:
NSW: Win 1 of: Reid, Robertson, Banks, Lindsay, Bennelong (the seat of Hunter is doubtful) It would not surprise me if no seats in NSW changed
Victoria: Win 2 of: Chisolm, Higgins, Casey, Deakin, LaTrobe similar to NSW it would not surprise me if no seats in Victoria changed
SA: Win 1 of Boothby, Sturt
WA: Win at least 2 of Swan, Husluck, Pearce, Canning, Tangney – I also think Moore is in play. Poor selection of candidate who is too conservative. There is a university and Joondalup CBD which are generally progressive voters.
QLD: where the election is to be won: Win at least 4 of Longman, Leichardt, Dickson, Brisbane, Ryan, Capricornia, Dawson, Petrie, Forde, Flynn, Bonner. Interesting the majority of these seats changed hands to Labor in the Rudd 2007 election. A number of these seats have inflated margins too.
Tas: Win at last 1 of Bass or Braddon
ACT and NT – keep all seats.
I think that equals 77 seats if it holds up.
James
Probably 6 of those seats James I wouldn’t even have up for grabs at all as there is really no chance or Bennelong, Canning Tagney Sturt, La Trobe, and Deakin with others of Casey, Higgins, Hasluck being pretty slim chance and there is no way Labor win 4 seats in Queensland it’ll be probably 1 max I doubt Morrison will poll worse then Turnbull in 2016 there
The ‘just win Capricornia and Dawson, forehead’ talk is a windup, right?
Comments are closed.