This time yesterday, Liberal member Fran Bailey held on to a 32-vote lead in McEwen which, though rapidly diminishing, was calculated by Antony Green to be 77 per cent likely to hold after the few remaining votes were counted. Those votes are now in: the last few absent votes broke 100-93 in favour of Labor’s Rob Mitchell, postals went 37-21 his way, pre-polls favoured him to the tune of 33-23, and further rechecking of booth votes cost Bailey 14 and Mitchell eight. All of which leaves Mitchell seven votes ahead. This is apparently the final result, pending the final recount, which could certainly turn up enough anomalies to overturn a lead as small as this. Adam Carr further argues that with a margin of fewer than 20 votes, “the Liberal Party’s lawyers will be able to scrape up some pretext or another for a court challenge”. He also states: “Unfortunately for Labor, most of the precedents are that the incumbent government loses the subsequent by-election (Nunawading, Mundingburra, Greensborough).”
Mundingburra of course was the Queensland by-election in February 1996 that cost the Goss government the one-seat majority it retained after the 1995 election. The other two are from Carr’s home patch of Victoria. There are probably about five people in the country who can tell you about the 1985 by-election for the state upper house province of Nunawading, and I am not of their number. UPDATE: Scratch that – the result cost the Cain government its short-lived control of the upper house, so probably quite a few people know about it, including me from now on. What’s more, it followed an initial tied result and a win for Labor decided by a draw from a hat. The Greensborough by-election refers not to the one Sherryl Garbutt won in 1989, but rather to the one Poll Bludger commenter Chris Curtis ran in as DLP candidate in 1977, which produced a massive swing to the then Labor opposition. ANOTHER UPDATE: A correction in comments from Brian McKinlay (of McKinlay case fame), who says Carr was in fact referring to yet another by-election for Greensborough which took place in 1973, which saw a Liberal win overturned by the court before being re-confirmed by the electorate. One might respond that the 1996 Lindsay by-election demonstrates that voters do not take kindly to initiators of legal challenges, but perhaps the 5.0 per cent Liberal swing on that occasion had more to do with Labor’s generally poor performance at re-matches than is generally realised.
Anyway, let’s assume now for the sake of argument that this result stands. We now have a new modern standard for close federal electorate results to beat Liberal candidate Ian Viner’s 12-vote win in Stirling in 1974. The historians among you are invited to relate other famous close shaves in comments. We also have Labor on 84 seats and the Coalition on 64, with two independents. This is pleasing from a personal perspective as it’s exactly what I predicted early in the campaign for New Matilda, although I did underestimate Queensland’s contribution to the Labor total. Unfortunately, the day before the election I upped the ante to 87 in a prediction for Crikey, which looked very good on election night but became progressively less good as counting proceeded.
This prediction was highlighted today in The Australian, which has promoted me from confuser of fact with opinion and baser of opinion on ignorance and prejudice to the slightly more elevated title of “pundit”. I suspected at first that The Australian compiled this list as a subtle dig at an online commentariat that had leaned a little too heavily to Labor in its predictions, but that doesn’t explain the inclusion of Malcolm Mackerras. In any case, Brad Norington bails me out in the accompanying article by trying on the line that Labor owes its win to “fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates”. Those of you marvelling over the seven-vote margin in McEwen are invited to consider an election in which the Coalition held on to power after retaining each of Bass, Bennelong, Braddon, Corangamite, Deakin, Flynn, Hasluck, Robertson and Solomon by one solitary vote. On this basis, I hereby declare that my prediction of 87 seats was only out by 595 votes out of 12,350,549. It would in fact be far more accurate to say it was 0.2 per cent out, which isn’t so bad either I suppose.
UPDATE: Adam Carr on historical close results:
In terms of numbers of votes, the closest result in a House of Representatives contest was 1 vote (13,569 to 13,568), when Edwin Kirby (Nationalist) defeated Charles McGrath (ALP) in Ballarat (Vic) in 1919. The result was declared void in 1920. In 1903 Robert Blackwood (FT) defeated John Chanter (Prot) in Riverina (NSW) by 5 votes (4,341 to 4,336). This result was also declared void. The closest result allowed to stand was 7 votes (13,162 to 13,155), when John Lynch (ALP), defeated Hon Alfred Conroy (Lib) in Werriwa (NSW) in 1914. In terms of percentages of the vote, the closest result was Kirby’s voided win in Ballarat in 1919: he polled 50.002% of the vote. The closest result allowed to stand was that in the Griffith (Qld) by-election of 1939, when William Conelan (ALP) defeated Peter McCowan (UAP), after preferences, with 50.007% of the vote. The closest winning margin in recent times has been 50.011%, polled by Ian Viner (Liberal) in Stirling (WA) in 1974 and by Christine Gallus (Liberal) in Hawker (SA) in 1990.
Mitchell has 50.003%, so his percentage is lower than both Conelan’s in 1939, Viner’s in 1974 and Gallus’s in 1990.
664 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 » Show All
Jasmine,
If I knew how to motivate the government on education, I would have succeeded by now. It cannot avoid the allegations, which are lies and have been shown to be lies again and again – as my letter to The Australian showed on Friday. It took me 16 attempts this year to get that one refutation published, and The Australian will continue its campaign against teachers despite that publication. As for WA, it seems that the government there has made an almighty mess of education and the union has just tagged along for the ride.
I predicted Labor would poll between 6,440,000 and 6,441,000
its presently 6,440,029
oh , I made the prediction this morning BEFORE looking at the Internet
The point is Rudd won
enjoy the moment
(think how ALL Liberals are feeling right now)
Antony Green at #246 is spot on.
There will be no by-election.
There he is on the TV news – Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister Rudd – playing host to the New Zealand PM, holding essential trans Tasman talks and conducting the nessesary affairs of state. Where are these international talks being conducted? On Kev’s verandah! Makes you proud to be a Queenslander.
For what it’s worth, this was the final word from the late Mr Justice John Starke in the Nunawading Court of Disputed Returns Case (convened in Court Room 6 of the Victorian Supreme Court) ..
“My final conclusion therefore is that there have been errors and omissions by electoral officers which have not been shown not to affect the result and accordingly the election is absolutely void.”
Ron, there’s almost certainly about another 100,000+ primary votes to count. In addition, 2PP needs to be completed for Kennedy and New England, the seats won by independents. This requires a 2nd scrutiny of votes in those seats to see which of Labor or Coalition was preferred in those 2 seats.
Re Donkey voting.
Donkey voting has declined over the years. In part due to education in part changes to the system (Above-the-Line etc) I recall the days when ballot papers where published in order of Surname (as opposed to the random draw used today) In those actions that were close (Within seven votes) then clearly a donkey vote would give them an advantage as would having a name starting with “A” thus ensuring you had the top spot.
donkey votes do exist. Analysis of the below the line preference data (Which some nameless Commissioners do not want published for fear of exposure of their mistakes in the count) does show up a donkey vote/. Whether this is unintentional or not is hard to determine. A party will also consider the allocation of its preferences based on the ease of filling in the ballot paper. There also is what is referred to as the inverse donkey vote – You fill in the ballot papers with the candidate of your choice and then start at the top or bottom and number every other square . The reverse donkey vote where you number from the bottom up… If I had a choice I would prefer to be at the top of the ballot paper and most certainly ahead of my main competitor. Every vote counts.
Rob Mitchell was interviewed on ABC NEWS! Nice bloke! He wasn’t claiming victory at all, just said Labor had done very well to take the supposedly safe seat of a well established sitting member right down to the wire.
The Liberals are claiming some votes for Mrs Bailey were unfairly classed as informal.
In the Nunawading case, the judge refused to open sealed envelopes to check if votes had improperly been categorised as informal. The Labor barrister Michael Black QC (now Chief Justice of the Federal Court) argued the Libs were not entitled to go on a fishing expedition in search of potential swing votes, and the judge agreed.
For those who don’t believe me @ 242 and 248, just click on:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/747?cp=all#comments
then scroll to comment #2.
My memory must be fading as the TPP prediction I gave was 54-46 not 53-47 (the latter being a prediction I made earlier in November) and primary support of 46% not 45% for Labor. However at least I remembered which seats I predicted then!
Flash it was a dingy court room with little room to move. I was the youngest observer present and I felt intimidated at first. Looking back I am amazed that Victoria’s court room were left wanting and in such poor condition. It was like stepping back in time to the turn of the 19thy century. nowadays the conditions are much more conducive and civilised even if the debates are not. thanks for reminding my of the name of the Judge My memories are vivid. It was my first Supreme court hearing I observed. I met Jude starkey in the Parliament later on a formidable man of stature wig and all.
Interesting, Flash. Should give the Libs pause for thought on their strategy wrt “challenges”.
Taking this sort of “double negative” as the precedent, Nelson et al could end up with at least half a doz less seats after re-elections if they get “challenge happy!”. Then there are all those by-elections that look like they are coming their way anyway as a result of the “changing of the guard”.
How many seats do you have to have to maintain party status?
Cheers
Rod
Yes Melb City, that is a fair description of the court room. Sat through it all myself – just upstairs from the old press room.
There was a strong sense that it all was a game as each side put forward their argument ” A draw out of the hat was not the way to determine who should hold the balance of power”. Bob Ives I think along with every one else that a fresh election was on the cards. Lets not forget the dirty tactics of the now defunct Nuclear Disarmament people and the Mountain Cattle men (Most who lived in Nunawading) The NDP were not about the environment they were the same people as behind the Greens today. and as a result of their efforts and politics, think they set back the environment movement 10 years of more.
Kennet in the leadup to the by-election at first indicated support for reform of teh upper-house but when he realised the tide was in his favour soon backdown form that idea. We had teh chance to refoprm the Upprhouse back then when Bob Ives held the balance BUT the likes of Jean McLean and George Crawford sabataged any hope of reform insisting at the time that any reform MUST include prtovsions to prevent the blocking of supply. We did not have the numbers to change that provision of the consitution BUT we did have the numbers to change the electoral system.
Melb City 179, the rolls are conclusive: you couldn’t petition simply because you find some voters were left off the rolls or others wrongly included through excessive zeal or administrative errors, unless possibly if you showed a course of malpractice.
Flash 261, the scrutineers will have been taking notes already about arguably informal or wrongly included ballots. Doubtless the recount will throw more up. They may of course balance each other out.
Melb City, can I just point out that Labor has just come to power on the back of Greens preferences.
Throughout my life I’ve been involved with both to some extent. If truth be known I like one party’s stance on some issues and the other on others.
If Labor is going to form a long and stable government in Australia, and get its stuff through the Senate, then it has to learn to live with the Greens. My impression is that most Labor Party people already recognise this.
I think you need to move on and come to grips with the fact that the Greens are NOT the enemy in today’s political climate!
Cheers
Rod
I think Labor might have grounds for a challenge in Bowman and perhaps Herbert too.
Adam,
Nice article, I agree with the susgestion that I fell forthe polls for several months I refused to believe the ALP would score a 10% but with some 50 polls showing a landslide I started to look for seats that may change, look 96 seats was based on a uniform swing although my final prediction was 93.
Generally I agreed with most of what you wrote, and as I wrote many times making predictions was navel gazing at best.
I wonder what Hedley is up to?
Could there be a breaking story soon?
Are the cracks opening and the vile being exposed?
I await with interest…..
I don’t mind saying that I predicted 84
http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/last-chance-for-the-election-competition/#comment-5764
My tip of biggest swing was not that close to the top of the board, but still better than some
I agree with Antony Green too. There won’t be a by-election in McEwen. If there was, it’s likely that Labor would win (despite the stats) as the voters would decide to get with the strength – Big Kevvie!
Chris Curtis.
when you mention reform to the LC are you are referring to the scrapping of the property franchise where only persons who owned property could vote. A lander-owners chamber if I recall… proportional representation was not on the agenda back then. I recall the campaign to change the upper-house franchise back then. Maybe it was because I lived in Eltham and the Democrats had just surfaced. We placed both the democrats and ALP signs out front of our house at the time. Whilst I liked Lynn Alison, always enjoyed my conversatison with her, I do not lament the demise of the democrats. They were just a feeder to the Greens and failed to keep the bastards honest watching their in house split was appauling.
The Libs (or should one say, more correctly, their ‘leader’) already have a looming disaster given the liklihood of several by-elections because of retiring members (and I use the word advisedly) such as Lord D, Costello, etc. Why would they want another for a member who has barely managed to hang on before and has no merit anyway? They could lose three or four seats before the parliament sits. That would be fun. I can’t see why Nelson would want another by-election just to save Fran bloody Bailey.
Alex given Frans age and the cost involved in mounting a challenge I doubt if they will BUT then you never can tell. When is the declaration of the poll and return of thr writ? They have 40 days following in which to submit a challenge and section 355 (b) of the Act will decide the outcome
Libs look like they are having a minor implosion in the ACT with Stefaniak’ leadership support being questioned on the ABC news tonight. Oh joy of joys – the last 2 weeks and the next decade are going to be great!
MelbCity,
what is your beef with the greens? As a former Labo(u)r voter who feels they lost their way sometime around Tampa, I love the fact that there is a left wing party with clear allegiances to LabOr that gets a message from voters by getting second preferences but still the vote, with the No 1 going to Greens. How else do we let you know that we do not support a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, or that we want renewable energy options invested in heavily. or that we want the “Pacific Solution” dismantled, or that we want Indigenous people supported as opposed to invaded etc.
And guess what – it works.
we get rid of Howard, we all get Kevin,
and eveyone gets the message.
Ode to 64.
Tabitha dear tabitha
Such a dreadful shame
Diligently still working
On writing her name
Where is she now
When we are all out to play
Oh Why Oh Why
Does she stay away?
Is she thinking up Sets
Of Rhyming Couplets
From her Golden Book Readers
Or dreaming of Leaders
Felled in their vain glory
Now mere poignant story
In tales moral and foretell
End of days for the Tory
Oh Terrible State
Of the Deaf to their Fate
As Nemesis contrived
To slay Hubris and Pride
We wish you all well
Tabitha, Glen, ESJ
You were always fun
In your inimitable ways
Brave to the Finish
Fought on undiminished
We admired your courage
And hope you will stay.
273 MB
Expat got it spot on. From Posum’s site:
Expat Follower Says:
November 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm
84 Labor, 64 Coalition, 2 independents. 2PP close to 53%. Bennelong to go, Wentworth not.
Where is Expat Follower? It is now safe to come back home.
Agree with earlier commenters that the Liberal Party is unlikely to support a McEwen by-election, when Liberal resignations will be causing three or four more over the next six months.
The re-count is Bailey’s only chance.
Well I said all that except I said a 2PP of 53.5%…
But fair enough, there were plenty who tipped 84/64/2 earlier or better than I.
But I’m allowed a little joy aren’t I?
Have I missed something here is Lord Downer resigning? or is this just a pipe dream? If he is this is the second sweetest victory of them all.
Jen (279),
I have been asking that exact same question of MelbCity for a while with no response.
MC, you can’t come out with outrageous statements like the Democrats “were just a feeder to the Greens” without the evidence or reason to back it up. It’s obvious you have some personal contempt for the Greens but never have articulated why.
I just read (and read….and read….) Adam Carr’s post mortem of the election. Having some small involvemet in the Haneef matter I’m interested to read Dr Carr’s summation that in spite of all the bungling and obvious abuse of process, the Hannef matter was a plus for the Coalition. I wonder if Dr Nelson or backbencher Andrews agree with this assessment?
Melb City,
Dick Hamer promised electoral reform of the Legislative Council in 1973 in return for DLP preferences. It was in his policy speech. The property franchise had long gone. The reform was to be PR. Negotiations on the details was reported regularly to the DLP Central Executive after the election. It eventually became clear that he had no intention of carrying ut his promise. It was all reported in the press at the time.
Melb city [284] where are you getting that?
Not sure if anyone has drawn attention to the Coogee result in the 1973 NSW election. Michael Cleary, League, Union and Athletics legend, lost by 8 votes for the ALP, but he won in the Court of Disputed Returns and ended up winning the by-election by 54 votes.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/resources/nswelectionsanalysis/1973/Coogee.htm
Ferny Grover… I believe his point was made in relation to the majority of voters. The majority of voters might not necessarily look at all the factors surrounding the Haneef matter but may instead just say “He’s guilty… I know it” and support the Coalition’s tough stance on terrorists.
Some commentators place far too much confidence in the depth of political analysis that takes place among the general populace when I think most people have only a very shallow understanding.
In my view, the Haneef matter was originally a strong positive for the Coalition as it showed them getting tough on terrorism… however by the end I do think a lot of people genuinely felt that he was hard done by (although not the majority). I think by the end it was a neutral issue and something unlikely to change many votes, particularly as Rudd supported the government’s actions early on.
Hi LTEP. Yes I understood Adam Carr’s reasoning perfectly. However, Mr Andrew’s current residency on the backbench seems to indicate the Liberal party did not see it as a positive. I’m waiting with interest to see if the Attorney-General follows through on an investigation of the matter.
290,Wasn’t Kevin Andrews in charge of that portfolio at time,if he was then you can understand the stuff up.
LTEP 290
As posted before, on the subject of Haneef, it was intended always to be both a wedge and to reintroduce the Fear Factor, terrorists etc.
Unfortunately for the tired old players, it no longer inspired the necessary, and Haneef came to be seen as a victim of foul play. Quite likely by the majority.
In years gone by, it may have worked as a divisive factor, but there is only so long one can hope to mobilise that.
As I have said before, even if an actual terror strike had eventuated, it would have resulted in backlash against the Government. (of that day)
The Greens are a con. There run in the lower house is a joke, The fact that their rep in the City Council supported moves to discuss in secret behind closed doors in illegal council meetings issues and matters that should be discussed and determind in open council. (Risstrom would never have sanctions such determinations) Their pre-selction of the brother inlaw and dumping of Risstrom. The list goes on. You say they are a left party.. Well I recall the likes of the pledge (Apart from Don) I came to see them for what they were politcial prostutes (I am sorry to denegrate prostitutes to their level) . I had known Jean McLean for many years… in the end she was just a shame along with Joan and George. Don’t Tell Andrew but I liked Kim Carr but somehere he lost control. The ALP left was a team to reckon with. I do not see the Greens as being the “Environment” group they claim to be. Their agenda is much much more… its not about democratic values or reform (If it was they would have also supported challenges and changes to the electoral system). Opportunists is all I can say. There mistake was challenging for the lower house and cutting deals with the libs? Many are the same people associated with the NDP…
I help Risstrom get elected to the Melbourne City Council, I rejected the Cole left plot and put out my own ticket placing Risstrom striaght behind the ALP and I am pleased to say my preferences help him get elected. (Even Cr Brennan agreed with my decison after the fact) But his predessor has not impressed me nor did those Di Natalie and the rest. Simple We were sold out by playboy Maoist capitalist McClown but Risstrom proved to have been a good choice. He should have been elected in 2004 and tried again 2007.
Downer’s value in the private sector is extremely high (7 figures pa) at the moment but only for a year or so. After a few leaders start to change and the dynamics of world change as well, then his value goes down rapidly. That is why he is going to resign sometime in the new year.
Costello also can chase the big bucks and he is not worth as much as Downer either.
Andrews is likely to go because he was treated badly by Nelson and might see better value outside the game. Ruddock is old enough that sitting on the backbench is not going to seem like a lot of fun. Plus his seat is so safe that it would allow an up-and-comer in (if they have any).
Jen,
I would agree with you that ALP & Greens should work together. I am aware at local gov’t level of progressive ALP Councilors having actively worked with Green Councilors in order to achieve changes to policy and more environmentally friendly Council operational systems. Unfortunately in at least one case green support has now swung behind others with policies that directly contradict Green policy – e.g. desalination – as part of an ‘ABL’ (Anyone But Labor) policy on the part of the Greens. It is unfortunate that opportunism has overtaken principle so quickly. Hopefully it will be rectified, as I agree that the hope of the future is in Labor & Greens being able to work closely together.
Well MelbCity, finally!
RE Downer – I know someone at Santos who said he was in the office last Monday. I believe that John Ellis-Flint from Santos has some links with the Liberal Party, so perhaps Downer could be earmarked for assisting with some of their negotations for their new overseas ventures?
How does the Prime Minister’s 18 month rule on jobs for the boys affect these “retirements”? (Maybe they just want to spend more time with their families) I don’t suppose it is official just yet.
Melb city writes: Maybe it was because I lived in Eltham and the Democrats had just surfaced. We placed both the democrats and ALP signs out front of our house at the time.
That would be the 1977 election, Melb city, back in the days when the Libs won two seats for every one of Labor’s in Victoria!
Most of us thought of Chipp and the Dems as basically a Lib spinoff back then, of course, so I guess your combined signs would have attracted a fair bit of attention! Was Eltham still in Race Mathew’s old seat of Casey, (won by Falconer for the Libs in 75) then?
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 » Show All