Kennedy – Australia 2025

Bob Katter will turn 80 in 2025 and is already the longest-serving present-day parliamentarian. He might retire in 2025 and his son will then quit state politics in 2024 and run federally in 2025.

I was thinking similar although I think he will hold on until 2028 based on what he’s said in the past. This would also provide a fallback for Robbie in 2028 as the federal election will be in May 28’ and QLD Oct ‘28 Robbie will not carry the same personal vote and if he loses he can always recon test Traeger again at the qld election

I agree with you both in a way – this seat is Bob Katter’s until he retires or dies.

The 2028 timing would work out for Traeger similarly to Callide last year – resignation from state parliament shortly before the federal election campaign officially begins, by-election about a month after the federal election.

KAP might decide they need to give Robbie’s replacement more time outside of a federal election period to campaign though!

It is bizarre that the members of two families – the Riordans and the Katters – have held this seat since 1929 (with the exception of Rob Hulls 1990-93 interlude when no Katter ran). It is almost feudal. Robbie Katter is actually the Federal leader so a move to Canberra is more likely than not. Interesting to see what would happen then to the KAP at a state level.

The other interesting point to note about Bob Katter’s vote since he became an Indie in 2001 is that his vote (with the exception of 2001 and 2010) has moved in a very narrow range of 39 – 42%. It seems that there may be a constant rusted on factor for all the parties there.

theyll name this seat Katter one day

@John I would say so.

@np i dont think there will be any opposition in the eletorate

Bob Katter and Robbie Katter invited Peter Dutton to the Mount Isa Rodeo, and Dutton accepted the invitation and attended.

Could this be the Katters giving confidence and supply to the Coalition if they were to form a minority government?

Bob supported the Coalition in 2010 and 2016. In 2019 it was clear that the Coalition had a majority so he didn’t need to then but would’ve anyway. In 2022 he gave confidence and supply to Albo because it was unclear if Labor had a majority on election night and because Labor was the only party able to form government (which they did, in a majority).

@ Nether Portal
I think increasingly as there are more minor parties/independents to see who won government we need to see who won the notional majority. In 2010 the Coalition actually won a notional majority of 76 seats to Labor 74 if we count Denision and Melbourne as Labor seats and Kennedy, New England and Lyne as Coalition seats. It is why the Coalition feels they ought to have formed government. In 2022 while it was not clear on election night if Labor had won a majority it was clear than there was no chance of the Coalition could form a government as they would have needed the Greens. It is why Antony Green on election night said Labor would form a government but was not sure if was majority or minority. Even in 2019 it was not clear if the Coalition would get a majority as Bass, Wentworth and Chisholm were in the in doubt column on election night but there was no chance Labor party could form a government as they would need the entire cross bench so Labor just conceded. If Coalition wins a notional majority of seats in 2025 then i am sure Katter will back the Coalition and Labor will not bother to court him. If Labor only wins 70 seats but Greens win 6 seats Dutton will just concede anyway so it is moot point what Katter decides.

@Nimalan I agree with you there. Interestingly it is very hard for the Liberals to win the notional TPP when the Greens win a seat even if it is by a marginal amount and the Labor vote is small. In 2014 the Liberals barely won the notional TPP in Prahran when the Greens won it from the Liberals and the Labor vote had shrunk by a lot. In Ryan the Greens only got 52% TPP and the Labor vote was small but Labor won a notional majority of the TPP.

@ NP
If the Greens wins seats then there is no point for the Libs because even the member for Ryan will not back the Libs. However, if the Libs plus Teals win a majority then Dutton will be able to argue that he won the election as the Liberals would have won a notional majority of seats. If you compare to 2007 Labor won 83 seats in 2022 Labor won a notional 84 seats. If i say that Mayo is actually Liberal notionally given that it has a Liberal history Labor still won 83 notional seats so it is clear that Labor won. If Labor won 74 seats and Wikie and Dai Le got 2 then Labor still won the election as most people in Clark and Fowler would prefer a Labor government over a Liberal one. So if there is a hung parliament in 2025 then i think notional majority should determine who should form government.

@Nimalan I agree but that doesn’t mean the member will agree. A teal (especially one like Monique Ryan) won’t support Dutton (and Monique Ryan may never support a Coalition government, she is not a centrist she is centre-left or leftist which is why she may lose Kooyong).

This is going into hypotheticals, but if say the Coalition did win in 2010 even on a minority basis, I wonder how events would have then played out. We know what happened going forward from 2013 – the poorly received 2014 budget, then Abbott getting booted in 2015 in favour of Turnbull leading up to 2016. But I wonder if events would have largely played out the same just 3 years sped up or if the trajectory would have been very different. Date specific events of course like the China FTA (still being negotiated during 2010-13), and MH370 obviously would not have been brought forward.

Also what would they even have been able to pass? The Greens + Labor had majority in the senate. Would have needed either Labor or the Greens in the senate to pass things.

@ NP
I take your point that Monique Ryan will be hostile to Dutton but that question arises only if the Coalition wins a notional 76 seats at a minimum. If Labor wins 68 the Greens win 6 and Fowler and Clark remain held by independents in such a case it does not matter what the Teals do or dont do Labor wins a notional majority of 76. In such a case the Dutton will need the Dai Le and Wilkie. Labor would rather have them than the Teals as they represent Labor electorates. If Dai Le voted for Dutton there will be a huge backlash similar to what Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott had to endure. On the other hand Wilkie and Bandt were not punished by their electorates for backing Labour

@ WL
Interesting question and i always love Alternative history. I do agree that an unpopular budget would have been brought forward. One big question would Labor have been united in opposition between 2010-2013 or will they be constant bickering about the events of June 2010. If they remain united Labor may actually be wise in that case to keep the Coalition government functioning until Late 2012 Why? Let me explain

One of the main reasons why Labor lost seats at the 2010 election were due to unpopular state and territory governments in QLD, NSW and NT. All lost seats except Hasluck fell into those 3 state and territories they had been defeated by August 2012. Unless the Coalition government was popular it was possible to regain some lost seats in 2013 from 2010 such as Forde, Longman, Solomon, Macarthur and Macquarie. The Tasmanian government became unpopular however in that period so i will assume a state drag still led to the losses of Bass, Braddon and Lyons. In such a case there could have still been a net gain of 2. If we assumed that Joanna Gash still retires in 2013 it is possible that the Labor Opposition could have picked up Gilmore so Labor could have theoretically won 75 seats in 2013 and formed government with the Greens and Wilkie.

Dai le Ie if she retained her seat and held the balance of power would back a conservative govt because she is a conservative herself. Katter is like the old alp he would always back a liberal government. The notional 2pp would not make an iota of difference to those two

Any 2025 minority government situation will be very different that what occurred in 2010:
– 2010 was very finely balanced whereas 2025 is more likely to lead to a range of scenarios playing out – the cross bench is likely to be so much more diverse.
– The political culture of the country as a whole is more fractured therefore Dai Le voting for a conservative government may not be such an issue.
– Windsor and Oakeshott did put Labor in parliament and it was obviously against the wishes of voters on what was then and still is now safe Conservative seats.
– They voted in lockstep with the Labor Party right through the term.
– The Greens now have more numbers and are much more aggressive. Labor will not want to be seen to be dependent on them.
– The Teals may provide the numbers for Labor to form government and provide confidence possibly for a period, but after that all bets are off, it will be necessary to negotiate one bill at a time. Andrew Wilkie has also indicated that he would play it differently next time.
– In most of the Teal seats (Indi and possibly Curtin may be the exceptions), I don’t think voters will care that much if they put Labor into office initially if some degree of stabillity is provided AND the MPs maintain their freedom of action.

Katter post should read
Old dlp

Nimalan
The big swing was in Queensland and that was probably about Queensland losing their boy in the Lodge. The other swings were minor and in the case of Macquarie in particular redistribution driven. A lot of where Labor went wrong – before and after the election – was down to Julia Gillard’s poor political judgment:
– She should have said no to the Rudd coup.
– She should not have gone to the polls so early
– She oversaw what was a dreadful campaign by Labor.
– And then the carbon tax announcement .. enough said.
I have always been convinced that if Labor had kept Kevin Rudd they would have won in 2010 with a small but workable majority – maybe 5 or 7. If he was then toppled by Julia Gillard in that second term then, it may not have been the issue it became.

@ MQ
My point about Dai Le is if there is a scenario where she prevents Albanese from forming a government where she is the deciding vote if Dutton aleady has the numbers with other cross bench members it is less of an issue. I think Labor would prefer Dai Le because it is a notional labor seat so they can argue legitimacy and i dont think she will demand much except local funding. She is generally pragmatic and stays clear of culture wars and ideology she is more localist. I do agree with redistributed that it is probably a case of initial confidence and they will have to negotiate a bill at a time. Andrew Wilkie says it was a mistake to sign a formal agreement at the start which he later walked away from but did not support no confidence motions against Gillard.

@Nimalan Bob Katter, Andrew Wilkie and Helen Haines all gave Malcolm Turnbull confidence and supply in 2016, and Wilkie has been fine since then. Though Turnbull is a classic moderate.

If Helen Haines supports Labor she’ll lose her seat. She’ll face the same backlash as Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor did, and she shares many similarities with them (e.g she is a Turnbull fan and dislikes Abbott).

@ redistributed
i do agree with your points actually. I think the coup in 2010 was a mistake in hindsight. This is my opinion but i really wished the CPRS had passed in December 2009 and then there would be no carbon tax announcement needed because there was no climate policy vacuum. I also agree that Rudd would have won if he was allowed to lead the party and the Labor party ran a focused, targeted and disciplined campaign. Gillard did run a shotgun election and came up with dumb policies such as cash for clunkers and a citizens assembly. My only point about the Queensland was the LNP did try and compare Gillard and Anna Bligh in their advertising.

@ NP
That is fine. Labor could not form a government in 2016 even if Wilkie and Bandt voted for Labor because that would given Labor only 71 seats. If Dutton is able to form a government with the Teals in 2025 and Dai Le given an additional vote for increased stability that is fine. I am only taking about a circumstance when Labor plus Greens plus Wilkie get 75 and Dai Le is a deciding vote. I think Labor prefers to talk to Dai Le initially before the Teals thats all.

@Nether Portal yeah but Turnbull didn’t need confidence and supply.

@Scart he almost did though.

Dai le won because she outpolled the liberals and got their preferences she was in the liberal party before there was a parting of ways. Don’t know if it is true or not but I heard her husband was the president of a liberal party branch

@Mick Quinlivan – Yes, Dai Le was a Liberal member before 2016. She ran in the 2008 Cabramatta by-election, gaining a nearly 22% swing to her, and then in Cabramatta in the 2011 state election, losing by around 2000 votes on the 2PP. She was suspended for 10 years from the Liberals in 2016 because she ran for Fairfield Council against the endorsed Liberal candidate. She teamed up with Fairfield Mayor Frank Carbone, an ex-Labor member, to form the independent bloc on Fairfield Council. I don’t know if she will ever rejoin the Liberals, as there may be implications on her hold on Fowler, but it is her choice.

@James……. whether she rejoins to liberal party or nor is irrelevant to me. The
Point I am trying to make is that her ideology and beliefs align with the proliberal side of Australian politics. I would classify her as a proliberal person who happens to align with the conservative side of Australian politics. I don’t know how she would relate to the far right of Australian politics uap onp and liberal democrats

Mick, I believe Dai Le is a moderate Liberal given that she doesn’t appear to espouse far right views that One Nation and UAP align with. She does focus on business interests and ‘small government’ but that is the sort of view taken by other moderates like Malcolm Turnbull, Matt Kean and Andrew Bragg who are generally well liked by the local community similar to Dai Le.

I’ll discuss this more later on the Fowler or Liverpool thread, but the area around Liverpool seems to be moving to the Liberals and it could be a new area for the party.

@yoh An ….. my point exactly she is a liberal.
I looked at the figures for 2022 Fowler and the uap on and ld all stood I would be very surprised if she did not benefit from their preferences. *(got lazy and did not examine preference flows properly)

@yoh An ….. my point exactly she is a liberal.
I looked at the figures for 2022 Fowler and the uap on and ld all stood I would be very surprised if she did not benefit from their preferences. *(got lazy and did not examine preference flows properly)

@Mick Quinlivan preference flows to Dai Le:

* Greens: 35.5%
* Liberal: 71.9%
* Liberal Democrats: 53.5%
* One Nation: 65.2%
* UAP: 69.0%

So she clearly benefitted from almost everyone’s preferences. The only ones she didn’t receive were Greens preferences though I wouldn’t have expected the Greens to preference any conservative candidates.

Np..
Thanks
The green preferences flow is higher than expected.
The others roughly as expected

I am curious why Katter’s vote in 2013 dropped so badly. Any ideas?

@james it was a combination of a good LNp candidate and a backlash after Katter publicly supported KRUdd. Katter was actually concerned the candidate would beat him if she ran again in 2016 but she didnt due to a brain tumour that later kiled her

@James not 100% sure either but surely there’s a reason given his vote dropped double digits.

@John oh yeah forgot about that.

Basically Bob Katter said he would give confidence and supply to Kevin Rudd.

Note that under Julia Gillard he supported Tony Abbott.

@NP he didnt say hed give supply to KRudd he basically came out to bat for KRudd when Rudd took back over and reversed Gillards Live Export Ban. Katter provided it in 2022 because it was unsure if the govt would get into majoirty and they wanted to provide certainty while the results were still being calculated and it was obvious the coalition would not be able to form governemtn

Just a note to self for whenever I calculate this:

This seat includes:

* All of Traeger
* All of Mulgrave except Bayview Heights, White Rock, Woree and the Woree EVC
* Parts of Hinchinbrook and a tiny portion of Burdekin

@ NP just more details
1. 40% of Mulgrave
2. 100 % of Hill and Traeger
3. 30% of Cook
4. 43% of Hinchinbrook
5. 5% of Burdekin

Booths to follow shortly

Booths
1. Alice River (Joint)
2. Aloomba
3. Atherton
4. Bbinda
5. Bentley Park (joint)
6. Biboohra
7. Boulia
8.Cairns PPVC (external)
9. Cardwell
10. Charters Towers multiple booths
11. Chillagoe
12. Cloncurry
13. Dimbulah
14. Doomadgee
15. East Palmerston
16. Edmonton
17. El Arish
18. Flying Fish Point
19. Forrest Beach
20. Garradunga
21. Georgetown
22.Gordonvale
23. Halifax
24. Happy Valley
25. Healy
26. Herberton
27. Hughenden
28. Ingham
23. Innisfail (multiple booths)
24. Julatten
25. Julia Creek
26. Kairi
27. Kalkadoon
29. Karumba
30. Kennedy Central
31. Kurrimine Beach

32. Long Pocket
33. Lower Tully
34. Malanda
35. Mareeba
36. McDonnell creek
37. Mena Creek
38. Milla Milla
39. Miriwinni
40 Mission Beach
41. Mornington Island
42. Mount Garnet
43. Mount Isa
44. Murilyan
45 Murray U[[[er
46 Mitchbilba
47. Normantown
49. Pentland
50. Queenton
51. Rabenshoe

52. Richmond
53. Richmond Hill
54. Rollinstone
55. Silkwood
56. Soldiers Hill
57. South Johnstone
58. South Mission Beach
59. Sunset
60. Tolga
61 Toobanna
62. Trebone
63. Tully
64. Victoria Etstate
65. Walkamin
66. Woodstock
67. Yarrabah
68. Yiunganburra

Labor actually used to be quite dominant in the seat winning from 1900 to 1966 (except for 4 years) and 1990. Although I factors such as Long Incumbents and some boundary changes such as removing some historically Labor towns including Barcaldine (the birthplace of the Labor Party), did the jobs change that led to the demographics to change to National and then the Katters today (with LNP leading over ALP in TPP)?

@ Marh
i think it is a combination of a very things mainly the decline of Rural working class jobs through agricultural mechanization. This led to many rural working class leaving the countryside in search of manufacturing jobs elsewhere. Remember for the first 20 years of Federation, Maranoa was a labor seat. Labor in the past won seats such as Gwydir, Riverina and Hume. In the early years of Federation most Labor seats were outside capital cities.

*combination of a few things.