Monaro – NSW 2023

2 to 3 % margin of loss is not crushed. It is close.

Mick- he lost to Barilaro on first preferences by 6% in 2011 and then by 8% in 2015, which is a good 4,000 votes.
2nd preferences made this more competitive than what it was but given this is a state election I weight First preferences more given the higher rate of exhaustion.
You can’t compare state and federal 2PP results as it is not apples with apples. So in relative terms he was rejected both times at an increased rate the 2nd time

if Labor cant win at a by election they wont win now. i doubt another 6% would have changed there minds in that timeframe

Monaro in 2023 is not Eden-Monaro in 2022. With Terry Campese withdrawing, Monaro will stay National. It’s mainly because the National has a huge head start and the next Labor candidate might be hastily chosen and definitely has very little campaigning time.

I read that Steve Whan has nominated for preselection, and he could be unopposed. Mike Kelly would be a competitive candidate but he may have put politics behind him.

lol we don’t use primary votes to decide who wins an election.

He only lost worse in 2015 because Barliaro was a popular first term MP and considered a rising star in the National party.

Comparing a by-election is also like comparing apples to apples. Turnout is usually lower in by-elections, and they aren’t that important because they don’t change the government. Labor mainly focused on Bega which was held on the same day.

I can give plenty of examples of seats here and abroad which were retained by the same party at a by-election, but they lost them at the next election.

For now, this remains a Toss-up and likely will be <2% either way.

Opv in most places in 2015 would have disadvantaged Labor. This time around it will favour Labor as it appears Labor will out poll coalition candidates on a nsw wide basis

I dont think that will be the case mick, Labors federal victory was still won from behind as their primary vote was still below the Liberal/coalition primary vote.

Overall, both major parties are losing primary vote support.

If the opinion polls for nsw are correct most opinion polls are suggesting Labor will outpoll the liberals and Labor is travelling better In nsw at a state level than was the case at the federal election. By 2 to 4%

Ben- I didn’t say we use primary votes to decide elections. I said primary votes under OPV are more significant due to vote exhaustion.

If one candidate from the majors has a higher primary vote than another it’s very hard, not impossible, for the trailing candidate to make up the ground because of the uncertain preference flow.
OPV I believe is a better system because it gives a truer indication of individual candidates’ popularity.
Whan struggled on both occasions despite having the advantage of incumbency in 2011 and then a swing against the Coalition in 2015.
He couldn’t capitalise because he is not a good campaigner, who spends more time in Sydney than Queanbeyan.
I don’t doubt his policy intellect but he should’ve stayed in the Upper House (where Labor needs more country/regional representation) or became a Chief of Staff

Someone described Whan as being “crushed” in 2015. Mick accurately pointed out that losing by 2-3% (2.5% to be precise) is not “crushed”. The primary vote gap doesn’t improve our understanding of that margin.

Ben Raue- It does improve mine and parties though. If you’re a candidate who gets a terrible primary vote but manages to scrape by in preferences that means you have to analyse why your personal vote (first preference) is so disparate from your party vote (2PP) as most voter’s preference logic is based on party/value alignment after their own personal association with their first preference.
Ignoring first preference data altogether is myopic. Because what are you building 2PP on?

For example in Whan’s case he got bailed out twice by the Greens to make the end result more competitive than it probably was for the electorate. I’d be interested to know what % of Greens voters actually did preference or just marked “1”.
He got an extra 2,000 votes moving him from 18.3k to 20.1k votes in 2011, Barilaro got around 800 votes, hardly shifting his end numbers.
The Greens primary vote in Monaro in 2011 was 3.5k, so close to 2k of 3.5k is a large chunk.
Barilaro/Nats didn’t benefit at all but he didn’t need to really factor that in because his primary vote was so strong at 47%
In 2015, Barilaro had a 48.7% primary so less of a mountain to climb (so post election debrief would indicate both messaging and campaigning was effective and could be replicated in other Nationals seats).

Whan only achieved 40% of the primary vote in 2015 and around 4k votes less. He got 18.7k primary- relative status quo.
Barilaro comparatively received minimal benefit from preferences only increasing his vote by around the same 800 votes that he received last time around.
Whan received around 2.5k preferences a slight uptick. Pushing his 2PP to 21k.

Significantly if you are a candidate who relies on preferences to get across the line, you can te-evaluate your messaging for your next campaign to take away some of the primary vote share of those parties/candidates who are most similar to you to avoid splitting of the primary vote and putting you in a stronger position in the Instant run off. Essentially cutting out the middle man from the outset to claim the primary votes. That way getting to 50% + 1 is an easier road ahead.
Conversely, for a Labor candidate in a rural area you may look to also disassociate yourself from Greens and other progressive parties which is why your primary vote maybe so long. Moderating messaging and policy at a local level will increase primary vote and put you in a more competitive spots, if voters from traditionally conservative electorates see you as a more moderating force.

All I’m saying is dismissing First Preference data outright doesn’t tell the whole narrative of an election, nor will it benefit party candidate/selection.

Also to point out that left wing minor parties like the Greens are more likely to preference Labor or preference at all compared to minor right wing parties that seem to exhaust their votes like the Independent that ran in 2011 in Monaro and the No Land Tax party in 2015.
Which broadly speaks to voting tendencies and philosophies. Left wing voters prefer compulsory voting, preferential voting and hybrid representational systems whereas conservative voters opt for the more traditional Anglo-centric voting traditions of non-compulsory voting, FPTP and single member electorates like we see in the UK, US and Canada

One further note is that Whan couldn’t capitalise in 2015 on a first term Government that lost a Premier mid way through and the general, predictable swing against incumbent governments. Where many Labor candidates either won back seats or made significant in-roads.
He was in parliament for 12 years, a minister for 2 and his Dad was also in politics. And lost his last 2 elections.
Might be time for some new blood from the Labor party, otherwise what’s the point in being a local member if they keep going to the well of the same recycled candidates

In NSW recent history, if a candidate gets up in a by-election the electorate will generally stick with them at a general. Joe Mcgirr in Wagga, Phil Donato in Orange, Steph Cooke in Cootamundra, James Griffin in Manly etc.

The view being they deserve a full term before they can be properly judged. And if the MP is worth their salt they have a few wins under their belt and have built up some good will in the community. I don’t know if the Nats MP has done that, but given the factors at play here I’d be surprised if she gets knocked off.

Clyde, if that is the case would Bega MP Michael Holland also be one who could win re-election fairly comfortably? I know Victor Dominello had a further 10% or so swing in his favour relative to the by-election result and Stuart Ayres basically won with the same margin as his by-election result. Both Liberal MP’s gained seats from the Labor government at by-elections prior to the 2011 landslide election.

For other states, Queensland had similar results with Dr Anthony Lynham (Stafford) and Yvette D’Ath (Redcliffe) winning their seats with little or no swing against them following by-elections where they gained seats from the LNP post Campbell Newman’s landslide 2012 victory.

Murray by-election was held on the same day as Cootamundra. Austin Evans, the winning candidate at the by-election, was defeated at the next general election.
When Tony Wndsor transferred to federal parliament, the National Party’s John Cull won the by-election and was defeated at the next general election.

thats also true for Wentworth when Turnbull resigned in 2018 the independant whats her face won and then was defeated at the federal election in 2019.

No-one’s dismissing the importance of primary votes but when you’re judging if someone was “crushed” the 2CP is the relevant factor. I also dispute the idea of looking at the first preference gap vis a vis the 2CP gap to judge the personal support for a politician. Labor systemically would have a lower primary vote for a given 2CP in recent decades because some of their previous support has moved to the Greens and comes back as preferences (even if it’s not as much as under CPV) – that’s a partisan structural issue, not anything specific to Steve Whan.

Yoh An – Would expect Holland to hold for the same reason Overall will.
Watson watch – Evans is clearly an exception to the rule. Quite famously alienated a large part of his electorate in the 2019 campaign. If either Holland or Overall do the same then I expect them to suffer a similar fate.

That’s a pretty suspect “rule” given there’s been an exception at every recent election: Murray 2019, Miranda 2015, Port Macquarie 2011, Pittwater 2007, Tamworth 2003, Strathfield 1999.

Didn’t say it was a rule. But it holds much more often than not.

And FYI Labor won the Miranda by-election but the MP (Barry Collier) retired before the general.

Strathman Scoop point on differential on primary votes is lame. I wonder if he uses same rationale on seats the Libs/Nats have won or narrowly missed out on via One Nation/UAP preferences.

If Labor were able to get a well known former MP candidate at the last minute. It makes me think they still think they are in with a chance in this seat. Its possible that the Nationals retain, but I don’t think a Labor gain cannot be ruled out. A Labor swing back likely will happen the question if it’s enough. Fairfax seem to think Labor is still a chance despite the Terry Campese late withdrawal.

Meanwhile, NSW Labor leader Chris Minns is backing a push to run former state cabinet minister Steve Whan in the southern electorate of Monaro, held by the Nationals.

The Nationals had identified Monaro, once held by former deputy premier John Barilaro, as one of its most at-risk seats when Campese was running, and Labor is desperate to win it.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/nsw/nsw-liberals-race-to-find-candidates-for-almost-20-seats-20230224-p5cnda.html

You’d be silly to write off Labor. With Campese on the ballot they probably had their nose in front, and with Whan they are still very much in with a chance. I’d be surprised if Labor won but it wouldn’t blow me away.

Further to your point PN, under OPV the proportion of exhausted preferences can change depending on the overall political environment. I think with Queensland state elections the exhaustion rate was high in 2012 due to the anti-Labor mood and most Green voters weren’t keen on backing a weak ALP. However, the next election in 2015 saw exhaustion rates drop because those who voted for Greens and other third parties went on to preference Labor as a sort of retaliation against the overreach of the Newman government.

I think this might be the case with NSW 2023, the political mood may be against the Coalition somewhat due to the ‘it’s time’ factor.

I can think of the 2020 NT election as one example where it was the Country Liberals that benefitted more from preferences. They trailed on primary votes in both Katherine and Brennan but went onto win those seats due to preferences from third party and independent candidates.

Queensland is another example where the LNP can win seats from behind using ONP or other third-party preferences, as they achieved this feat in Burdekin and Pumicestone at the 2017 election (first one held under full rather than optional preferences).

Yoh An- Queensland only re-introduced CPV because it benefits Labor. Given the growing strength of the Greens, they would risk losing multiple seats under OPV.
The 2 examples you have are outliers and don’t really give the complete picture where LNP is ahead on primaries in a swathe of seats across SEQ who then get pipped at the post when the preferences roll through.

Argument could’ve been made that federally Ryan would’ve held Lib under OPV, as would’ve Brisbane. With Griffith being the only toss-up.

Minns will attempt to do the same in NSW to sandbag Western and South Western Sydney where Labor will suffer the most swings in 2027. And also to make seats like Monaro more competitive than what they are, via coercing local councillors or identities to run as independent candidates in regional/rural seats, flood the ticket and Labor absorbs 2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences in a vacuum.

CPV is the political equivalent of a golf handicap. It only detracts from greater electoral analysis where psephologists and political commentators should be looking more at demographic changes, evolving campaign techniques and factional power shifts (new personalities entering the political realm) rather than being preoccupied with preference swaps which only alienate average voters from analysing our electoral process by being too esoteric.

Fair point/s Strathman Scoop, although Queensland’s Parliament with lack of an upper house means there is scope for parties like One Nation to solidify their base in regional/rural areas and potentially carve out more of the LNP’s primary vote in those seats.

I do agree that places like UK and Canada which use FPTP have a strong third-party force that is more centrist compared to the Greens. Even France (which uses a two round runoff voting system) now has a third-party centrist force led by President Macron.

For the US, which is still two party dominated, the use of OPV in some states (Alaska and Maine) actually harmed Republicans more than Democrats because in their system it is the conservative vote that is splintered more compared to the left vote.

Although I had a look at Queensland state election results in more detail and the 2020 election saw Labor lead on primary votes for every district that they won. What you said is true for the 2017 election, as that is when Labor won more seats from behind vs the LNP.

I think 2020 was when the Labor vote was naturally higher due to voters wanting to stick with/reward an incumbent government that performed well during the covid crisis. The ALP could have won even with OPV in operation.

Yoh An- Yes the LNP vote has plateaued and declined, as you rightly pointed out the 2020 was an unusual election given every incumbent state government has been returned with the exception of one (SA is still a mystery to me).

LNP was running against the headwinds of an unpopular Federal government, relatively popular Premier and lead by an ineffective Opposition leader. All in the sphere of a pandemic where people wanted certainty and status quo.

Also the Green primary vote had dropped slightly in 2020 which returned to Labor probably further nullifying the need for preferences.

Do you think Queensland voters are also more strategic in their voting approach given there is no Upper House?

Amazes me icac found no corruption in Mr Barilaro ‘s selection for the overseas posting in NYC. But nevertheless icac is an independent body and their decision needs to be accepted. But I urge people to examine the public hearing evidence.. they like me will ask why? We are in a weird situation where in my opinion a rorted selection is not corrupt .

lets face it mick if your friend came to you for a high paying job and you had the choice between them and some person youd choose your friend.

Mick – in the words of Ailsa in Frozen – Let it Go. You have made wild and unsubstantiated allegations all over the place, now not supported by either McClintock SC’s report or ICAC. Not only are you a poor psephologist, but your understanding of our legal system is also (ahem) somewhat lacking.

I also think a quick apology for getting it so wrong would be appropriate?? I’m sure that will be forthcoming…..

But to be honest I should avoid doing that.. I should exclude myself from any part of the selection process. Announce the reason why that person is my friend.. tell my friend this..” sure mate you apply but you are my friend .. I cannot be biased or seen to be possibly biased.. I cannot use any insider knowledge.. ” i could never work for the electoral office on election day as I am a participant and a member of a political party.

In my opinion I did not get it wrong but I accept the icac decision as valid. My allegations were not crazy.. reverse it all.. Minns is the premier and he helps Prue car get an overseas posting in much the same way.. you would consider that wrong. I understand the legal system but read my other post pls

As I said Mick – let it go. Greater minds than yours (not a high bar I’ll concede) have said that the conduct is not corrupt.
You can continue to spready your corrosive trash, or just apologize and move on. I suspect I’ll know what the outcome will be but let me appeal to your better nature…..

Frank Burns in mash Was told once ” but Frank we urged you to do the right thing” he replied how was I to do the right thing.
Moderate sorry you see the need to try and ridicule and insult me.. I have not done the same to you…. maybe this is just part of your communication style.

I used to work for the elections then started volunteering for a and wished I had sooner volunteering is so much more fun. I wouldn’t go back if I could

I never would as I always will help.labor

wow, defending Barilaro to the hilt is a strange hill to die on, but sure keep calling for that public apology…on an anonymous chat thread.

The guy failed the pub test repeatedly throughout his career. The non finding of ICAC counts for nothing.

yea because craig thompson was such a role model

it does not matter it is not tecnicaly cerupt it was jobs for the boys and still a bad idea the 22010 ilectrisity privatisation when the bord directors resigned that liberals mad e a big deal kenealy was also cleared

@mick so did you write to your local member when Rudd got his job from the boys?

maybi the liberals could apolagise to kenearley for claiming with no evidence that she was somehow cerupt or asoasiated with obead Hadley used this for over a decade the fact the factions installed her to distroy her reputation yet whennothing cerupt was ever found with kenearley maybi when the liberals and there media apoligise for the decade long campaign against kenearley thenlabor can apoligise for pointing that barilarow got a job for the boys yes it tecnicaly was not cerupt niver was the nsw labor energy leasing in 2011

jobs for the boyys are on both sides but the liberals are worse at it

@aaron they are no worse then labor. The only difference is the abc makes a big deal about when the libs do it and pretend there’s nothing to see when labor does it

If we are looking at things .. we must examine if the level of wrong doing was corruption icac thinks no.. there is no system to appeal a non finding of corruption..although the reverse can occur as happened with Nick Greiner I believe.
It is possible that there be a level of misconduct that does not constitute corruption.
1. The job was advertised as a public service job a selection made then changed to a public service job again . The result was to cancel a selection and allow Mr Barilaro to apply
2. Amy Brown contradicted her self in her own evidence given on separate occasions.
3. Amy Brown said Ayres did not operate at Arms length. She continually checked With Mr Ayres to make sure the person chosen had the confidence of Mr Ayres.
4. Barilaro ‘s referees were supposed to be current supervisors they were not.
5. Mr Head’s report was the basis of Ayres ‘ sacking from cabinet and deputy leader of the liberal party
6. K LO the public service commissioner approved the selection but admitted she was not in possession of the full facts .. if she had known that she would NOT have approved this selection
This is not rubbish but a rorted selection involving collusion between Mr Ayres and Ms Brown..

i could argu when labor does it the teligraph and herald make a big deal look at the coverige of branch stacking with perottits brothers far worse then 2020 victorian revolations people refusing to answerquestions compaired to the banks town cowncil coverige for days just based on aligations

it was obveous icac would find no ceruption its tecnicaly legal just because its leagal does not mean its right

Agree Aaron, both parties are typically guilty of unethical behavior that is often in the same league as company executives or union leaders.

@aaron my point exactly they are the same as one another just like unions are no better then companies