I don’t quite understand invoking the claim that ‘Labor has only twice been elected from opposition’. Is it a caveat that these ‘records’ are based only on two samples and hence relatively meaningless? Or that governments since about the 1920s have been very stable – existential crises (depression, world war) aside – and so we should realise that changes of government are v.unusual?

It is equally true -but rarely noted – that the Liberals have only twice been elected from opposition: 1949 and 1996 (Fraser was caretaker PM in 1975).

If we need comparative hurdles, why not look at state results? There we find a similar incumbency advantage across the century, but have a much better range of instances where oppositions have won, especially Labor ones, and we find a much greater spread of results. I accept the caveat that Labor is more attractive at state level due to focus on services, and less so at federal level due to focus on economy/security, but that configuration is largely a recent artefact (certainly the withering of state powers).

The under-researched question is why such an incumbency advantage? The staple explanations are a relatively prosperous and benign social/economic environment, breeding a ’she’ll be right’ attitude, plus the professionalisation of politics. A deeper explanation, needing some deeper research, is simply that compulsory voting brings out the apolitical govt supporters who otherwise would not vote.

If I’m right, compulsory voting reinforces the status quo, which by historical accident as much as anything, has been conservative federally and Labor at state level. And if that is right, Labor’s araldite commitment to compulsion is not a partisan benefit to it, and conversely the likes of Minchin do the federal Liberals no favour in opposing compulsion.

With the performance of the ALP candidate in Higgins Costello is safe, while Pedro is a no show type of MP the very sort whom would be in trouble if the electorate went into meltdown

the other Victorian seat that caught my attention was Dunkley, I would expect Bruce Billson will be returned for he is a good hard working local member and the local ALP is somewhat a joke.

Kudos to all: Bloggers 1, The Oz, 0

Can you please explain how you derived those figures, for example by using 55-45. I would have thought that to get this back to 50-50 would have need 5 out of 55 to change their mind. That is 1 in 11 or 9%.

Am I missing something?