Comments on: Newspoll: 56-44

By: STROP

STROP — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:56:47 +0000

Its not a waste of time Peter, its something interesting to do with people with a keen interest in Oz politics and where this place we call home is heading.

I think we have targeted the right number and right type of seats which are shall we agree ‘vulnerable’ ? How it pans out come election time is open to debate re all five seats. A big swing swamps good sitting members along with duds as you rightly point out Peter-

Should be interesting but Im still not counting on Labor gains in Victoria to win Govt where other States (QLD/SA/NSW/TAS) should do that part. Victoria is one place where Id be hoping for any seat gains to nullify any Labor losses, particularly in WA or the inevitable ‘rogue’ seat losses.

By: Peter Fuller

Peter Fuller — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:05:30 +0000

Strop,
Thanks for providing the 2004 state-wide Victorian figure. I stand corrected in my orthopaedic shoes. Also acknowledgment to blackburnpseph for a customary thoughtful contribution.
Because I consider 2004 aberrant, I think it’s worth also having a look at the 2001 pendulum. Obviously the swing later this year has to represent a movement from 2004, but if electors have changed allegiance in the pro-Government direction in one election, they are less rusted on than those who have always been committed Liberals/Nationals.
Prior to 2004, the Deakin margin was 1.6%, McEwen 2.2%. My speculation that these are feasible Labor gains rests on the judgment that East Link tolls had a distorting impact on Deakin (which YRAW threatens to do in reverse this time around). In McEwen, interest rates were likely to have been a powerful influence. Fran Bailey has been a very effective local member, as has Phil Barresi. However, Ms. Bailey is up against difficult demographics, and I sense that her Ministerial role may have reduced her undoubted proficiency in local representation.
Corangamite (5.3% now, 5.4% after 2001) has been shifting (geographically and psephologically) for a long time, and as its population becomes more concentrated around Geelong and its proximate coast, it becomes less favourable for the Liberals. It also seems doubtful that the aging Stuart McArthur will have a large personal vote.
McMillan (5.0%, 2.9%) and LaTrobe (5.8%, 3.7%) seem less likely to me. The LaTrobe MP, Jason Wood, succeded an outstanding marginal seat campaigner Bob Charles in 2004, and faced a fairly strong Labor candidate. The sophomore effect should help Wood. Christian Zahra had been a good local Member in McMillan, but redistribution cost him the seat. However his standing must surely have moderated the swing last time, which makes the 5% margin skinny. Labor also did poorly in the State seats in and near McMillan in November last year, which makes it likely that the Liberal vote will be more sustainable here than elsewhere.
Normally, I don’t go in for this kind of seat by seat analysis, as I argue that when a tidal wave swing is on, good and less good MPs get swamped just on the basis of their statistical vulnerability. However, there are always idiosyncratic exceptions to this, which I guess is why we spend (waste?) time chewing the fat about it.

By: bmwofoz

bmwofoz — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:11:12 +0000

Mansfield isn’t in McEwan.

By: Tim W

Tim W — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:58:29 +0000

“Swings in inner Melbourne were small or to the ALP (Kooyong).” Yeah, I bet they were popping corks all over Kew that night!

By: blackburnpseph

blackburnpseph — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:29:10 +0000

It should also be remembered that the ALP won Ballarat in 2001 when the sitting member (Michael Ronaldson) retired and the liberals had an unholy stoush on the way to the polls which included losing the endorsed high profile candidate (Russell Mark). What the Victorian results since 1990 show is:

1. The liberals have usually endorsed good vote winning candidates
2. Incumbency has definitely helped them

Labor may do very nicely in Vic on a 2pp basis but it might yield many seats as the swing in 2004 was very concentrated in outer suburban seats – Aston, Calwell, Lalor, Gorton, Holt, Casey, Flinders. Swings in inner Melbourne were small or to the ALP (Kooyong). So there may be a whole lot of 8% swings in outer Melb without yielding anything.

On that basis, the order might be Corangamite, La Trobe, Deakin, McEwen with McMillan or even Dunkley as an outside chance. McEwen is particularly interesting as it is so different – labor voting outer Melb mortage belt around Craigieburn and very rural – Mansfield, Yea etc. Will the outer suburban growth overtake the possible anger with State Labor over water – the latter becoming a major issue.

By: Phil Robins

Phil Robins — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:42:41 +0000

The name of the seat is McEwen (after ‘Black Jack’)

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:47:40 +0000

At 58-42 in today’s Newspoll state by state breakdown I’d say there aren’t too many Vic Coalition seats that aren’t in play (including Higgins, 8.8%). Brendan “Oils aint Oils” Nelson may yet have a shot at the Lib leadership. There certainly wouldn’t be a lot of counting to do.

By: James

James — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:05:42 +0000

hi STROP
Just one thing on victorian 2 pp vote it was 53.5 in 1998,52.1 in 2001 and 49 in 2004

By: STROP

STROP — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:59:28 +0000

Peter Fuller Says:

July 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Strop,
Your assumption about Victoria is based on an unusually poor result in 2004, which has left Labor looking for a sizable swing to win anything

Gday Peter, hows you ?

For the fussy, AEC indicates Labors 2PP in Victoria was 49.0 in 2004, a swing of 3.14 percentage points, but whats 1.0 between bloggers ?

Actually my assumption about Victoria is based on a few things, not just the “poor” 2PP result in 2004.

(1) On the whole, Victoria was Labors best results State for Labor in 2004 where it held all its own seats, including Ballarat (2001) which has been the only seat to change hands in the past 3 elections in Victoria (if you assume that the SEAT result is the critical issue).

(2) In the order you presented, Deakin (since 1984), Corangamite (since 1929) McEwin (since 1996) and Latrobe (since 1990) have been Coalition seats for some time. The exception is McMillan which has changed hands several times since the 1980s, including 2004. This history would reverse the order of change likelihood you have ‘roughly’ put up for discussion.

(3) The improvement in Labors 2PP vote in Victoria from 50.5 (1998) to 52.1 (2001) yeilded only one seat (Ballarat) which required a 5.5 percent 2PP swing to win it for Labor.

(4) A 3.1 percent 2PP swing away from Labor in 2004 (49.0) produced no change of seats at all in Victoria, which makes me wonder if a swing in the order of 5.5 percent (circa Ballarat in 2001) will be needed for any seats to change hands in Victoria in 2007.

Therefore, I stick to my statement that I think Labor is at the peak of its seat quota in Victoria, unless a big swing is on (i.e 5.5%+) in which case I would be put McMillan and McEwin in the frame ahead of Deakin, Latrobe or Corangamite. Over to you Peter……

By: STROP

STROP — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:15:27 +0000

Mr Q

Of course your right about the ACT HOR seats; as far as Solomon goes Im not sure how thats going to go given the unknown factor of JWHs imposition of ’salvation’ upon a State that isnt keen on the ‘big city folk’ sticking their nose in where they dont want it to be stuck, per se.

However, only 9% of the population in Solomon is Indigenous, and Tollner only scraped in in 2001 (50.01) and didnt improve his margin much (2.8) in 2004; there isnt enough history in the seat to claim it as ’stable’ for anyone. I wouldnt be surprised if it went to Labor, but Im not counting on it.