tip off

By-election bloodbaths

The Pittwater by-election stands as a disaster of historic magnitude both for the New South Wales Liberal Party, which has lost its third-safest seat, and for the Poll Bludger, who has lost $25. Apologies are due to Alex McTaggart and to various journalists whose prescient remarks about the Liberals’ troubles received short shrift on this site.

In my defence, I was in good company – my assessment was echoed by Antony Green, whose recent Parliamentary Library background paper on New South Wales by-elections from 1965 to (early) 2005 provides historical perspective on the scale of the disaster. The paper notes that major parties have often declined to nominate candidates because they felt that leaving the field vacant for independents was the best chance of depriving their opponents of the seat. Until yesterday, the tactic had not been particularly successful. Antony lists 24 "one-sided" by-elections held in New South Wales between 1975 and 2004, to which two more were added at the triple M by-elections of September 17. Of these, the only defeat for a major party candidate was at last year’s Dubbo by-election, and this did not represent a loss for the relevant major party (the Nationals) because the previous member had also been an independent.

This should not come as a surprise, because newcomer independents traditionally win their seats on the back of major party preferences. Once they are privy to the advantages of incumbency it is not uncommon for independents to turn in results as good as that achieved yesterday by Alex McTaggart, but getting their foot in the door normally involves finishing second and then surging ahead on preferences from a third-placed major candidate. That McTaggart was able to skip this phase and outperform Paul Nicolaou on the primary vote underscores the magnitude of the catastrophe for the New South Wales Liberals.

As the Sun-Herald puts it, "the result has left poll specialists reaching for history books to find when a safe seat had swung so demonstrably against one of the major parties". In the Federal arena, the examples that spring to mind are Bass in 1975 (when Labor’s primary vote fell 17.5 per cent), Canberra in 1995 (when it fell 21.8 per cent) and Cunningham in 2002 (down 6.1 per cent, but with the result being a historic loss to the Greens). At State level, the Sunday Telegraph quotes Antony Green citing the Coffs Harbour by-election of 1990, when the National Party vote fell from 67.3 per cent to 37.4 per cent. But this was partly influenced by an increase in the number of candidates from two to seven, and the Nationals still won the seat by a two-party margin of 5.4 per cent.

Since my command of the subject is sketchy, I would be grateful if readers can help me put together a list of noteworthy State by-election massacres. Major disasters only please – as a rough guide, it will take a primary vote swing of at least 15 per cent to make the cut. To get the ball rolling, here are three examples that do spring to mind – note the home state bias.

Benalla, Victoria (13/5/2000). Locals were not pleased when Nationals leader Pat McNamara quit parliament not long after the unexpected defeat of the Kennett Government, and reacted by sending the party’s vote down from 57.4 per cent to 41.0 per cent and delivering the seat to Labor for the first time in its history. Unsuccessful Nationals candidate Bill Sykes would go on to narrowly recover the seat from Labor’s Denise Allen at the otherwise disastrous 2002 election.

Floreat, WA (16/5/1991). Now the member for the successor electorate of Churchlands, Liz Constable came to parliament in this safe Liberal seat at a by-election brought on by the death of Andrew Mensaros. Constable was the popular local choice for a Liberal preselection that instead went to the favoured candidate of controversial powerbroker Noel Crichton-Browne. She contested as an independent and scored an easy win with 49.0 per cent of the primary vote, with the Liberal vote falling from 63.3 per cent to 37.0 per cent in a field vacated by Labor.

Geraldton, WA (13/4/1991). Carmen Lawrence’s Labor Government was already reeling from the WA Inc fiasco when a botched reshuffle caused three dumped ministers to quit the Labor Party, depriving it of its parliamentary majority. Geraldton MP Jeff Carr quit parliament altogether, prompting a by-election at which the Labor vote fell from 47.6 per cent to 16.6 per cent, leaving the Liberal and National candidates to fight it out for first and second place. The narrow winner was Liberal candidate Bob Bloffwitch, who would go on to suffer an electoral meltdown of his own at the 2001 State election.

Surfers Paradise, Queensland (5/5/2001). Upon conceding defeat after the disastrous 2001 election, at which he had taken his party from 23 seats to 12, Nationals leader Rob Borbidge told supporters that his own seat of Surfers Paradise was among the casualties. This puzzled election watchers who correctly believed him to be about 5 per cent in front. It may have amounted to wishful thinking, as his resigned his leadership and parliamentary seat immediately upon his re-election. The resulting by-election reduced the National Party from a near primary vote majority (49.7 per cent) to the status of a minor party (8.0 per cent). Votes were lost to the first Liberal Party candidate in the seat since 1992, John-Paul Langbroek (21.2 per cent), and to Gold Coast mayor and independent candidate Lex Bell, who won the seat with 35.9 per cent of the vote. The result meant the end of the National Party as a force on the Gold Coast, although they still won’t admit it. The seat returned to the Coalition fold at the 2004 election partly because Bell had became mired in local scandals, but also because the Nationals left the field free to the Liberals, who again ran with Langbroek. Tip: Darryl Rosin.

Bass Hill and Rockdale, New South Wales (2/8/1986). The writing was on the wall for Barrie Unsworth’s Labor Government after the two by-elections marking the departure of his predecessor, Neville Wran (Bass Hill), and another MP in a safe seat, Brian Bannon (Rockdale). Unsworth used Rockdale to make the necessary switch from the upper to lower house a la John Gorton in 1968, but received the shock of his life when a 17.1 per cent dive in the primary vote combined with hostile independent preferences to bring him to within 54 votes of defeat. The result in Wran’s old stronghold was even worse, with a 22.2 per cent drop on the primary vote delivering a 103 vote victory to the Liberal candidate. Although Unsworth was swept from office at the subsequent State election in 1988, both Bass Hill and Rockdale reverted to type and were easily won by Labor. Tip: Geoff Lambert.

27
  • 1
    Di
    Posted Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Hi, have to say I’m delighted with the Pittwater result – not only delighted but proud of my fellow residents. The Liberals have taken this electorate for granted – they thought that Pittwater “belonged” to them. The “right” of the party thought they could get rid of a leader they perceived to be too moderate and then replace him with an outsider whose biggest claim to fame was the ability to raise funds for their party.

    The “Liberal right” totally usurped Brogden and even when they had his resignation as Leader of the Opposition they couldn’t rest there. They added further salt to his wounds through further media leaks, resulting in John trying to take his own life.

    The ego of those involved is beyond belief. They had achieved their aim in getting rid of John and now they felt so pumped up with ego and their own self worth, they didn’t listen to the local Libs who told them they had better elect a local representative – they were on a roll; adrenalin was pumping; they were the victors; they were invincible –they endorsed an outsider.

    The electorate was outraged but the party know-alls still kept on steamrolling. I received 8 personalised letters and 9 brochures (some of which were enclosed with the letters). Not only were we bombarded with direct Liberal mailings, we also received the infamous “Dear neighbour” letters that were placed in most of the peninsula’s letterboxes. We were besieged by their propaganda and each letter/brochure appeared more desperate. McTaggart was painted as a Labor candidate and it was suggested that voting for an independent was in fact a vote for Labor (“Don’t reward Labor by voting for an Independent” – this was openly said in literature and at polling booths on polling day). We knew the truth of what happened to John; we watched as further “unconfirmed leaks” were carried in the media and in many ways learned more about dirty politics than ever before.

    We watched as Liberal money obscenely flowed into publicity, postage and media stunts and every day through our local paper learned that yet another issue would seemingly be solved once the new Liberal was elected. We were treated as children vying for candy – insult had been added to injury.

    We proved we’re not children yesterday and this electorate came of age.

    The residents of Pittwater are not silvertails as Labor sometimes paints us. “We’re hard working individuals who believe in a fair go. We believe in paying taxes but also expect that those taxes should pay for services that are essential to the wellbeing of our community.

    Watch out you’ll be hearing from Pittwater. McTaggart has 16 months to prove he is worth his mettle – gosh I hope he can.

  • 2
    Antony Green
    Posted Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    If Di’s ebullience spreads to other Liberal electorates, and not just disadvantaged areas like Pittwater, then Morris Iemma won’t win the 2007 election, he’ll receive a coronation.

    n.b. – please read the above with some irony.

  • 3
    Antony Green
    Posted Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Actually, I’ll make a post and ask people to give their opinion.

    On past evidence, the seven current Independents will all be re-elected in 2007. Six represent safe Coalition seats (Dubbo, Manly, Northern Tablelands, Pittwater, Port Macquarie, Tamworth) and one a Labor electorate (Bligh, re-named Sydney in 2007.)

    Say Labor loses 10 seats to the Coalition. That leaves the Parliament as 45 Labor, 41 Coalition, 7 Independents. There is no majority. Who should form government?

    If most of the Independents back Labor because they have more seats, it is the easier option. On difficult issues, they can always abstain without bringing the government down.

    Or as 6 of them hold overwhelmongly non-Labor seats, should they back the Coalition, even though that requires them having to be brought into discussion on every piece of legislation? Would such an arrangement compromise independence?

  • 4
    Antony Green
    Posted Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Some background on the above. If the hung parliament result occurred and the Iemma government made no arrangement with the Independents before Parliament sat, it would continue in caretaker mode until the Parliament met. It can then only be defeated by a vote that can unambiguously be classed as a no-confidence motion. On the first sitting of Parliament, the election of the Speaker is usually the important vote. If defeated, the Iemma government would probably have to resign and presumably be replaced by a Coalition government.

    I say probably, because if the Opposition viewed they did not have the complete support of the cross-benches, it could refuse to take government.

    The NSW Parliament’s fixed term legislation now has quite strict rules on no confidence votes. If a government is brought down by a no-confidence vote, a set period is set down in which the government can re-assert confidence, or in which a new government can be formed. If neither end can be met, the result will be an early election after a delay while the constitutional niceties are resolved.

    Having covered the 1991-1995 NSW parliament, and followed closely the hung Tasmanian Parliaments of 1989-92 and 1996-98, I can assure everyone that they are extremely interesting to watch and extremely stressful for the participants.

  • 5
    edward o
    Posted Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Antony’s hypothetical reminds me of the 1998 Queensland Election when Rob Borbidge said the Labor Party they didn’t have a mandate to form a government. Wags I speak to reckon the next NSW Election will yield even more independents as non Iemmaphiles in Labor, and tired old past-its stand down.

  • 6
    Di
    Posted Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Hi Antony, don’t get too carried away. Your quote “Morris Iemma won’t win the 2007 election, he’ll receive a coronation” doesn’t address the vast majority of voters who feel totally disillusioned with Labor. Quite a few of us can’t work out whether they are totally inefficient or corrupt. There have been many incidences, apart from the Cross City Tunnel that have us shaking our heads and wondering what the hell is going on.

    We’re all asking “Where has the money gone?” The NSW govt has over the past five years had a bonanza from stamp duties on property sales and the GST reimbursed from the Federal government – why when they have had all this extra money and have been fending off their other responsibilities (roads, etc) to PPP’s have they not at least kept up with maintenance on our hospitals and schools? Both major parties are not representing us as constituents – they are representing their own interest.

    Maybe it’s time for all of us to kick out both major parties and hopefully we’ll see the emergence of a new party that actually has Australia’s future in mind – not their greedy selves. Most of my friends at the moment are very disillusioned with both major parties – state and federal. We’re sick of picking the better of two evils – we want someone we can really believe will make a difference and hopefully set Australia up for our grandchildren.

  • 7
    Sally Yusef
    Posted Sunday, November 27, 2005 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    Alex Hawke is better than Harry Potter. His magic can not only destroy a party leader, he can get rid of his seat too!

  • 8
    Antony Green
    Posted Monday, November 28, 2005 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    Di. There is always a conflict between what an MP can achieve for their constituency and what government can pay for. I’m not going to try and defend every spending initiative of the current or previous state governments. But in the end, Independents must fight for local services up against all the other MPs in the parliament, both party and non-party.

    Government is about trying to find some way to allocate resources between these competing demands. As an example, Mona Vale Hospital. It covers one small and relatively isolated part of Sydney, and a part that does not have a growing population. Perhaps there is a good case for upgrading the hospital. But if there is, there is a good case for upgrading many hospitals. But how do you pay for upgrading them all, and if you don’t upgrade them all, which ones do you upgrade and how do you decide?

    Perhaps the Labor and Liberal parties are under the thumb of their ‘interests’. Perhaps that’s why they build the new hospitals and roads in politically sensitive areas. But in putting those services in marginal seats, aren’t they just repsonsing to the interests of their constituents in those seats?

    Isn’t the argument of independents, that if they make their seat more marginal they will get more services, just another way of jumping the queue?

    Now before you jump down my throat, I’m being deliberately provovative. All I like to point out to people who believe their area is so specially deserving is that many areas are deserving, and while Independents may be able to do a wonderul job working on local roads, hospitals, schools etc, the money all has to be pulled from a big pot of money taken from taxpayers and doled out between competing interests. Depending on your point of view, a vocal local MP can gain what the local area rightfully deserves, or can distort the rational allocation of resources between competing ends. Which of these views you take probably depends on where you live and if your area was a winner or not.

    My comment about the Iemma government’s ‘coronation’ was because most of the upwelling of Independent support is in safe Liberal and National seats. All seven current Indepdnent MPs were originally elected in Coalition seats, though Clover Moore’s seat of Bligh would now be a mainly Labor seat.

    Labor lost Wollongong to and Indepdnent in 1984, and Balmain, Newcastle and Swansea in 1988. It won all 4 back in 1991 and hasn’t lost one since. Apart from North Shore, the Coalition have not been able to defeat a sitting Independent in 25 years.

    Labor might be in trouble to Greens in Balamin and Marrickville in 2007, but so far the Indepdnents are a problem which is besetting the Coalition, not Labor.

  • 9
    Neil Lockhart
    Posted Monday, November 28, 2005 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Antony, what ten seats do you believe will swing to to Liberals in 2007 and why?
    Also if you look at the work done by the independant member for Manly David Barr for the local electorate in return for his consistant voting with Labour, he has managed to get the local Seaforth TAFE closed, Manly hospital just had its maternity section closed and also the local Beacon Hill High School also closed, not to mention his great plan to widen the Spit Bridge(has not happened and likely will not happen), and would not have prevented the horrible bus crash we saw the other week on Spit Hill, nor reduce the take on one of the RTA’s best speed camera. Good luck Pittwater you have just elected a Lame Duck member as effectice as David Barr in Manly and probably ensured victory for Labour in 2007. The rest of NSW thanks you for returning Carl Scully, Di Beamer and John Aquilina and Iemma Who? So next time you are complaining about Cross City Tunnel, Lane Cove Tunnel, desalination plants and Zoning issues, remember you voted to continue as is with the current management.
    Di, the local Pittwater Liberals actually preselected Paul over a local, because they believed that he would make the best member to represent Pittwater out of the candidates who put themselves forward in the pre-selection.
    Sally, don’t believe all the conspiracy theories that you read, join a party get involved and you will find out for yourself the actual facts rather than rely on fictional media releases ‘leaked by factoinal war lords’.

  • 10
    Ben Raue
    Posted Monday, November 28, 2005 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Some of those independents who have been elected, while sitting in areas where the Coalition are broadly considered to be the ‘natural’ major party (country NSW and northern Sydney).

    In New England and Central West NSW, people are represented by independents both on a state and federal level, and have seen a successful transition from one independent to another. So independents seem to be becoming systemic, rather than just being about a single personality.

    The point of this is that it isn’t easy to say that independents are in “conservative” electorates so will support the coalition. Firstly, the fact that their main competition is usually the Coalition may lead them to be less likely to support a Coalition government, and voters who may support the ALP or Greens in Sydney are among the supporters of the country independents.

    So while not being an expert, I’d predict that at the very least Labor would get support of half the independents, and if Labor comes out ahead (which I would say is more likely than not) there would be more.

    Added to this is the possibility of Greens in Balmain particularly, but also Marrickville and Ballina.

    Of course, a Labor government supported by independents/Greens would be different to a Labor government with a majority in the Legislative Assembly.

    Of course, a question not being discussed is the prospects in the Legislative Council. The LC seems to be tending towards more consolidated parties. Out of the 6 crossbenchers up for election in 2007, I’d expect the Greens and CDP to retain their seat, and Greens to gain one, but the other four should all lose their seats (David Oldfield, Jon Jenkins, Democrats, Unity). Overall, even if another party wins a seat, you’ll see political parties having more control of the LC and more of a real “balance of power”, whereas currently the ALP, needing 4 votes to have a majority, can pick and choose from a very diverse group of 11 crossbenchers.

    So while the 11 currently are made up of 8 parties, I’d be surprised if there are more than 4 parties (including those with only 1 seat) on the crossbenches after March 2007.

  • 11
    Antony Green
    Posted Monday, November 28, 2005 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Just discovered today what a crap newspaper the Manly Daily is.

    After initially refusing to make a prediction for Pittwater, I was assured they were just after a comment for inside the article.

    So what do they do. Turn a cautious prediction into a frontpage headling screaming ‘Guru picks Libs’.

    Chalk it down to experience, but I know what to say if the Manly Daily ever rings again. No point putting your reputation on the line just to give some trashy local paper an unjustified headline.

  • 12
    Extreme Dem
    Posted Monday, November 28, 2005 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Surely the broader point of Pittwater is that the Coalition is hollowing out. What was traditionally a state-based organisation is eroding at the state level in its core constituencies across the country. Labor is also having a problem but at least has some constituency especially with public sector workers. I think this phenomenon is being concealed because Howard is still in at a Federal level. But it would suggest to me that 1) he will hang around too long 2) when he goes the Liberal disarray will become fully evident.

  • 13
    darryl rosin
    Posted Monday, November 28, 2005 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    Noteworthy Qld by-election: Sufer’s Paradise 2001.

    Opposition leader and former Premier Rob Borbidge resigns after the 2001 disaster. National Party primary drops from 49.7% to 8%. (the by-election was a four-cornered contest – the Libs got 21.2% and Labor declined from 38.3% to 20% – but that’s still a combined swing of over 20% away from the Coalition).

    http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=198&show=election.district.detail&id=90

    http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=198&show=election.district.detail&id=79

  • 14
    Peter K
    Posted Monday, November 28, 2005 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    The Liberals made two disasterous mistakes in Pittwater and both factions have to take responsibility

    1/ Leaking polling in the last 10 days which identified Mcaggart as their main threat – and therefore establishing him as a lightning rod. They should have leaked polling identifing both McTaggert (for credibility) AND another independent as equal threats – therefore splitting up non-Liberal vote. Even better, they could have run a well funded dummy independent with a “just vote one” card. Failing that they should have just kept quiet.

    The blame for this must go to the right wing run state executive which presumably ran or at least oversaw the campaign.

    2/ The second stuff-up however is not of the right’s making. I find it interesting that they are now being blamed for endorsing an out of area candidate when Nicolau was clearly the darling of the group / moderate faction with a history of spectacular failure in Ryde in 2003 with a 9% 2pp swing against him. I’d go so far as to say the right permitted him to run against their better judgement? due to fear of more talk of a factional takeover if they didn’t. In so doing they copped a dud candidate with no affinity to the area and made a bad situation worse.

    Dosen’t say much for the judgement of either faction…

  • 15
    Peter Mitchell
    Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Antony, what happens if the indepe’s get together and support the ALP for Government and make a Liberal the speaker? in your scenario.

    If I remember correctly, before Federation nearly all Victorian MLA’s were independants, with around 15 governments in the last 10 years of the colonies existance, could we be heading down a path of the rump of the majors combined controlling say 705 of seats and the rest becoming Inde’s

  • 16
    Antony Green
    Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Well, that would be fun. But it would deny the Liberals a vote, as the Speaker only gets to vote on a tie.

    Just a bit of history. In 1913, the sudden resignation of two Labor MPs cost the McGowan Labor government its majority. With the opposition about to move a vote of no-confidence, Acting Premier Holman asked the Governor to prorogue parliament until the by-elections were held. The Governor refused and Holman promptly resigned the government’s commission, which created a pickle for the Governor as Holman had not lost a vote and the Opposition could not form government. He had to back down, allow Holman to withdraw his resignation and prorogue the Parliament.

    From 1920 to 1925, the NSW Parliament was elected using the Hare-Clark electoral system. At the 1920 election, Labor won 43 of the 90 seats, with the opposition split between the Nationalists and Progressives with a couple of Independents. With no Coalition agreement, Nationalist Daniel Levy took the Speakers chair.

    In late 1920, it looked like an agreement had been made for a Coalition. Levy resigned as Speaker, Labor Premier James Dooley resigned but stayed as caretaker for a week until until the Fuller Government could be sworn in.

    It was sworn in on 20 December 1921, but the Coalition agreement had come apart during in the week and the government resigned seven hours later. It was the shortest government in Australian political history.

    I think revolving door government like that, or as occurred in Victoria between 1945 and 1952, would not be acceptable these days. In a hung Parliament with more than half a dozen Independent and minor party members, there would be constant pressure in parlimamentary divisions and enormous pressure to consistently back one side or the other.

  • 17
    Brett J
    Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Ben Raue from the Greens is conveniently overlooking the Greens dismal performance in the Pittwater by-election (almost halving their vote from 14% to 8%) and their average performance in the Marrickville by-election, where although they increased their vote (in the absence of a Liberal candidate) so did the Labor party.
    It is important to note these points because the Greens, as a party of protest, should be able to harness additional votes in by-elections, and in seats like Marrickville they really should have won given the current state of NSW Labor.
    Failing to do this in a by-election (and also given they are not competing with the Democrats for votes), I don’t like their chances in winning Marrickville or Balmain in the 2007 State Election.

  • 18
    Antony Green
    Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    The Greens never do as well in seats where there is a significant Independent. They don’t poll nearly as well against Clover Moore in Bligh despite record votes in neighbouring Marrickville and Port Jackson. The Pittwater result is meaningless for how the Greens will poll in 2007.

  • 19
    Deewun
    Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    Brett J. The fact that you see the Greens as a protest party shows how little you know about these things. Yes, it is a protest party in that it gains a lot of dissaffected voters. However, the fact that it is one of only 4 parties that has a comlete and up to date range of policies. The other three are Lib, ALP and NATS. This shows they are a serious party and are here to stay, unlike the Dems, One Nation, DLP, and so on.

  • 20
    Brett J
    Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2005 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Ok Deewun, well tell me this, how many Greens voters actually vote for the Greens on account of their ‘full range of policies’? I suspect it’s an extremely small amount of their total voter base. Biggest chunks come from disaffected ALP voters and Liberal voters who still think the Greens are warm-and-fuzzy-environment types (and who obviously haven’t delved into the ‘complete range of policies’ on things like open border immigration and over the counter illegal drugs). Therefore they get the lions share of their vote as a ‘protest party’.
    But… I suspect this moves off the topic of Pittwater. :-)

  • 21
    Deewun
    Posted Wednesday, November 30, 2005 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    Well, for one those two aren’t policies, which could be why no one looks at them. For another, how many voters look at more then one or two policies anyway? But, yes, the Greens are getting most ly protest votes, but this is because the major parties are so bad that the Greens would be voted for if their policy was to prove the moon was made of cheese.The greens gain the voters with a protest vote and keep them with the policies. This is relevent to Pittwater because since Cunningham, the Greens hoave shown they can win, which means they get less of a protest vote, which accounts for a large amount of votes in a by-election.

  • 22
    Parry
    Posted Sunday, January 8, 2006 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    The Pittwater By-election was nothing but a referendum on Mona Vale Hospital, an issue that has 99% of the electorate engaged
    I had never been phone polled before the election, but during the run up to this poll I was phone polled 3 times!!

    On one occasion when I said that the main issue to me was Mona Vale Hospital the person calling me immediately said, without thinking, “everyone is saying that”.

    If the Liberals had supported the Level 5 hospital at Mona Vale they would have retained the seat.

    If the Labour do not now support the Level 5 hospital at Mona Vale they are mad. If they do, it will ensure the seat remains independent.

    I think, Anthony, you placed far too much weight in the Brogden factor and ignored the real issue when making your prediction

  • 23
    Posted Monday, January 9, 2006 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Parry, you may well be right for all I know – I can’t say I know the area very well – but why would voters take Mona Vale Hospital out on the Libs, who haven’t been in power for over 10 years?

    If any of my more devoted readers are out there, this site will shake off its festive season lethargy fairly shortly, I promise …

  • 24
    edward o
    Posted Monday, January 9, 2006 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    I don’t quite agree Parry. Pittwater is safe Lib vs Labor, and when Labor contests it, it will likely become safe Liberal again. It being in independent hands, where under any normal circumstances would have had it in blue hands is a positive for Labor. North of Sydney has a weakness for independents, and McTaggart might hang around for a while, it’s extra resources the Libs have to spend to get a seat back at the expense of funding elsewhere, all the while, Iemma will dole out the money in the marginals and be at significant advantage – much smarter than dropping money on the Mona Vale hospital.

  • 25
    Parry
    Posted Friday, January 13, 2006 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    The reason I am so sure it was all about Mona Vale hospital is it is an issue that has been number one on the community agenda for 5 – 6 years
    There have been many rallies (over 6000 attended one Rally), 40000 signatures on petitions etc.
    The Area Health want to close Manly and Mona Vale Hospitals and have one acute hospital on the Northern Beaches.
    It is for sure and for certain that if Mona vale hospital is not upgraded to the Level 5 Acute hospital it will eventually close and the land sold off for development.
    The Liberals did not support the Level 5 at Mona Vale!
    The very powerful Save Mona Vale Hospital Committee endorsed McTaggart, who is best known for his support and efforts in the fight for Mona Vale Hospital.
    The Liberals thought it was about Mona Vale Hospital, just look at their advertising and campaign material.
    Polling done also verified it was all about the Hospital.
    The Liberals believed they could win without offering the Level 5 at Mona Vale. They were worried about the seat of Manly which is currently held by David Barr (ind) which they need to win if they are ever going to govern again. They were wrongly frightened that they would hurt their chances in Manly if they agreed to the Level 5 at Mona Vale instead of down the Manly end.

  • 26
    edward o
    Posted Saturday, January 14, 2006 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I don’t doubt that people attended rallies. But some people I know who went out and protested IR reform still voted for John Howard, and will do so again.

    But anyway, my main point still stands; Labor are not mad if they don’t support the hospital, because on a regular Labor vs Lib measure, Pittwater ain’t on their radar. That’s why they sat out – like an inverse Cunningham, if they’d entered, the Liberals would have been returned with a smaller margin.

  • 27
    Posted Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    You mean to say that people can’t help vote for the same guy whether he has done good or bad to the whole nation?

    Don Lapre Fan
    webmaster@j-ams.org
    http://www.j-ams.org

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...