tip off

Griffith by-election live

Live coverage of the Griffith by-election count, featuring booth-matched swing calculations and result projections.

Sunday

While Terri Butler’s 2.3% buffer at the end of the night is enough to secure her victory, Bill Glasson can at least claim the uncommon feat of delivering a by-election swing to the party in government. The current margin represents a 0.7% two-party swing to the Liberal National Party compared with the September election result, which is likely to widen a little further on postals.

Commentators around the place have been scrambling to place the result into historical context, mostly with reference to the long record of federal by-elections. A general paucity of swings to governments is easy to spot, but closer examination shows how much swings can vary according to the circumstances of the by-election, and how unreliable a guide they can be to a government’s future electoral performance. The last pro-government swing federally was achieved when Carmen Lawrence moved from state to federal politics in Fremantle in 1994, and it was followed by a shellacking for the Keating government at the next general election two years later. The most recent state example I can think of is the Peel by-election in Western Australia in February 2007, when Alan Carpenter’s Labor government boosted its margin 18 months before being dumped from office.

Given the array of circumstances that can bring by-elections about, an effort should be made to compare like with like. Griffith is part of a long tradition of by-elections held when a member of a defeated government decides opposition isn’t for them. Unfortunately, those involved tend to be senior figures representing safe seats which the opposing party doesn’t bother to contest. During its first term, Rudd Labor only took the field when Peter McGauran departed in the seemingly winnable seat of Gippsland, only to cop a bloody nose for its trouble. Few were surprised Labor stayed out of the fray in Higgins (Peter Costello), Bradfield (Brendan Nelson), Mayo (Alexander Downer) and Lyne (Mark Vaile). Labor likewise went undisturbed during John Howard’s first term at by-elections to replace Paul Keating in Blaxland and John Langmore in Fraser.

The one by-election held during the parliament elected in December 1975 was occasioned by the death of Rex Connor, with the remainder of Labor’s diminished caucus staying put. It was a different story early in the life of the Hawke government, as Malcolm Fraser (Wannon), Doug Anthony (Richmond), Billy Snedden (Bruce), Jim Killen (Moreton) and Tony Street (Corangamite) headed for the exit at a time when forfeiting a by-election was still thought poor form. The last useable example in anything resembling modern history is the Parramatta by-election of 1973, which brought Philip Ruddock to parliament.

From this field of seven, the only result to match Griffith is Richmond in 1984, when Labor picked up a slight swing upon the retirement of Doug Anthony. No doubt this reflected an unlocking of the loyalty accumulating to brand Anthony, which between father Larry and son Doug had occupied the seat for an unbroken 46 years. Even so, the other Hawke government by-elections weren’t far behind, with the exception of Bruce where voters seemed to take a shine to Liberal candidate Kenneth Aldred for some reason. Coincidentally or otherwise, the two worst swings, in Gippsland (a 6.1% swing against Rudd Labor in 2008) and Parramatta (a 7.0% swing against Whitlam Labor in 1973) were suffered by the two shortest-lived governments of the modern era.

However, Griffith looks quite a bit less exceptional if the eight state results I can identify going back to the early 1990s are thrown into the mix. Four swings in particular dwarf those in Griffith, the two biggest being at by-elections held in country seats in New South Wales on May 25, 1996. Results in Clarence and Orange provided a fillip to Bob Carr’s year-old Labor government and a severe blow to the Nationals, perhaps reflecting the party’s recent acquiescence to the Howard government’s post-Port Arthur gun laws. On the very same day, Labor had an historically mediocre result against the Liberals in the Sydney seat of Strathfield, and finished third behind the Democrats in the Liberal stronghold of Pittwater.

The third and fourth placed results are from early in the life of the Bracks government in Victoria, when Labor pulled off rare victories in Jeff Kennett’s seat of Burwood in 1999 and Nationals leader Pat McNamara’s seat of Benalla in 2000. Also higher up the order than Griffith is the Elizabeth by-election of 1994, held four months after Dean Brown’s Liberal government came to power in South Australia. This may have indicated the popularity of outgoing member Martyn Evans, soon to be Labor’s federal member for Bonython, who had been designated as “independent Labor” for most of his ten years as a state member. Rob Borbidge’s Queensland government of 1996 to 1998 did less well, with the looming Liberal collapse in that state foreshadowed by swings to Labor in the Brisbane seats of Lytton and Kurwongbah.

All of this is laid out in the chart above, which ranks swings to the government (positive at the top, negative at the bottom) from the eight federal and eight state by-elections just discussed. Red and blue respectively indicate Labor and Coalition governments, the lighter shades representing state and the darker representing federal. Stats enthusiasts may care to know that the model y=10+44.3x explains 38% of the variability, where y is the government’s eventual longevity in office measured in years and x is the swing to the government across 15 observed by-elections. For what very little it may be worth, the positive 0.5% swing in Griffith associates with 10.3 years in government.

Saturday

# % Swing 2PP (proj.) Swing
Timothy Lawrence (SPP) 570 0.8% +0.7%
Geoff Ebbs (Greens) 6,890 10.2% +0.3%
Christopher Williams (FFP) 651 1.0% +0.3%
Karel Boele (IND) 458 0.7%
Anthony Ackroyd (BTA) 526 0.8%
Anne Reid (SPA) 379 0.6% +0.1%
Terri Butler (Labor) 26,356 39.0% -1.6% 52.5% -0.5%
Melanie Thomas (PPA) 1,051 1.6%
Travis Windsor (Independent) 585 0.9%
Ron Sawyer (KAP) 694 1.0% +0.4%
Bill Glasson (Liberal National) 29,456 43.6% +0.9% 47.5% +0.5%
FORMAL/TURNOUT 67,616 71.2%
Informal 2,093 3.0% -1.8%
Booths reporting: 42 out of 42

Midnight. Finally got around to adding the Coorparoo pre-poll voting centre result.

9.22pm. Or perhaps not – Coorparoo pre-poll voting centre still to report, which is likely to amount for a lot – 5859 votes cast there at the federal election.

8.51pm. Morningside 2PP now in, and I’d say that’s us done for the night.

8.36pm. Camp Hill reports 2PP, leaving just Morningside. Glasson and LNP reportedly not conceding, but 2.4% leads (which accounts for the fact that the LNP is likely to do better on postals – Labor’s raw lead is 3.3%) don’t get overturned on late counting.

8.29pm. That’s all the fixed booths in on the primary vote; the outstanding ones referred to in the table are special hospital booths that may not actually exist (but did in 2013). Camp Hill and Morningside still to come in on two-party, and then I think we’re done for the night. It’s been a pretty quick count.

8.03pm. Two more booths a slight move to the LNP.

8.00pm. Four more booths in and a slight tick in Labor’s favour on the swing projection.

7.53pm. One more primary result and a number more on two-party preferred, it remains unclear who will end up with bragging rights to the negligible swing. What is clear though is that Terri Butler is over the line.

7.45pm. Thirty-two of 43 booths reporting, and the picture of a status quo result is unchanged.

7.36pm. A big rush of results that taxed my data entry chops to the limit has produced very little change to the projection, which essentially looks like no swing at all.

7.26pm. Coorparoo Central was a tricky one from a booth-matching perspective, as it’s a “merger” of two booths from the 2013 election.

7.25pm. Coorparoo Central, Greenslopes, Morningside South and West End in on the primary; Buranda West and Norman Park South on two-party. Upshot: a bit more breathing space for Terri Butler, who will be difficult to pull in from here.

7.19pm. The informal vote seems to be down pretty solidly.

7.18pm. I note that none of the booths from the electorate’s north-western latte belt have reported yet.

7.15pm. Bulimba, Carina Heights, Greenmeadows and Norman Park find Labor still with its nose in front, despite a slight swing against. Annerley has also reported a two-party result, so I’ve switched on preference projections based on the booths that have reported so far. This finds Labor’s share of preferences up 6% on 2013.

7.12pm. Annerley, Bulimba Heights and Norman Park South booth results provide better news for Labor, with Butler now pulling into a projected lead. However, I’m still going off 2013 preferences here, as only two very small booths have reported two-party results.

7.03pm. Holland Park and Buranda West are in, and also Murarrie on two-party, and the swing to the LNP is sticking, as is the extremely close projected result.

6.53pm. Another small booth on the fringe of the electorate – Mount Gravatt East in the south-east – and it’s another bad result for Labor, down almost double digits on the primary vote. I’ve switched off the preference swing calculation for now, so the two-party is going off 2013 preference flows.

6.50pm. The preference result is in from Holland Park West, and Labor has 7.2% more preferences than it got in 2013 – but we’re only going off 14 votes here. Nonetheless, my model is extrapolating off it to project the result for the other booth, causing Labor to go up about 1%. Bottom line: hold off reading anything into anything yet.l

6.42pm. Both booths are on the very fringes of the electorate: Holland Park West in the south and Murarrie in the east. The dynamic nearer the city may well be very different. I’ll stop getting a “#VALUE!” result on the Stable Population Party when I get a result from a booth where their vote in 2013 wasn’t zero.

6.38pm. Two very small booths on the primary vote provide a measure of encouragement for Bill Glasson, suggesting a very close result if 2013 preferences are any guide.

6.30pm. There have apparently been 2090 ballots cast at the Whites Hill booth, which compared with the 2083 cast at the election suggests a pretty healthy turnout.

6pm. Welcome to the Poll Bludger’s live coverage of the Griffith by-election. With polls closing round about now, first results should be in in maybe about an hour, although this can be a bit variable. Results in the table will show raw figures for the primary vote and booth-matched swings for both primary and two-party vote, together with a projected two-party total based on the booth-matching. Where available, the latter will be based on booth two-party results; at booths where only primary vote totals have been reported, two-party projections will be derived from 2013 preference flows taken together with the “swing” in preferences recorded across booths where two-party results have been reported. I’ll be copping my results off the ABC Elections page, as the AEC annoyingly does not publish booth results as they are reported (or at least, never has in the past). So those without a minute to lose should note that my table updates will lag about that far behind the ABC.

517
  • 451
    tom jones
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Centre

    No I am not happy with the carbon tax.. Why call it a carbon tax, when it will do nothing to help the environment.

    If you think the tax raised is all returned to the people then we are all in la la land.. its cost money to collect and redistribute the tax.

    I think my point has been lost with you, I am saying that for myself and friends, once proud labor, don’t need anymore spin.. We want real thinkers, real people.

    And as far as cost neutral goes, your kidding, you have wound up my wife now, I cannot see it in my bills, the rebate we got did not cover a fraction.

    and maybe someone can expand on this. But will not Australia need to contribute a large amount to the EU for the carbon tax / ets ?

  • 452
    lefty e
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Tom, the CO2 price reduced electricity sector emissions by 7.6% last year.

    And thats what we need to do: reduce emissions.

    Price rises are a real probelm: but 90% of your price rises had nothing to do with the CO2 price. overspending on electricity infrastucture to cover peak demand is the big cuulprit. This is very well established.

    Those price rises are almost completely unrelated to the CO2 price. They were happening before it came in, and theyll be there after its gone. Mark my words. Because thats ISNT the reason prices are going up.

  • 453
    Centre
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    tom jones

    The only people who want to call it a carbon “tax” are the Liberals so they can score cheap political points from uninformed voters.

    Labor have made a huge mistake by not distinguishing between the two. Go to You Tube and catch a replay of Abbott himself making the distinction and actually preferring a carbon tax to an ETS.

    The scheme has reduced emissions therefore is doing something for the environment. That is a fact.

    Do you believe Australia should do its fair share to tackle global warming?

  • 454
    Centre
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

    tom jones

    You should check REAL FACTS and find out for yourself where the revenue raised from the ETS is allocated.

    You won’t believe me or anyone else in the Centre or the Left, so go and find out for yourself.

  • 455
    lefty e
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    said that the by-election was a great result for the LNP given the commentary that Abbott has had a poor start to government.

    Well I stand corrected.

    Well done Bill Glasson, new member for the seat of “I’m a 3 time loser who got zero-point-bupkiss swing against a no-namer”.

  • 456
    Centre
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    tom jones

    Look, if you are truly fair dinkum, 90% of the spin are from the Liberals and 90% of the thinkers are with Labor.

    Examples:

    Interest rates are low but spun by…guess who to sound bad.

    The NDIS and the NBN are initiatives. Initiatives evolve from thinkers.

    Do you get my drift :cool:

  • 457
    ShowsOn
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Centre

    No I am not happy with the carbon tax.. Why call it a carbon tax, when it will do nothing to help the environment.

    WRONG!

    With the carbon price as is there will never be another coal power station built in Australia. That is a very good environmental outcome.

  • 458
    Centre
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    William you should get everyone from the other thread to come over.

    We’ve got the singer here…tom jones :D

  • 459
    ShowsOn
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    and maybe someone can expand on this. But will not Australia need to contribute a large amount to the EU for the carbon tax / ets ?

    No.

    Stop reading Andrew Bolt’s blog.

  • 460
    tom jones
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Sounds like you all support the greens.. no point arguing with fact checkers. you all too smart.

    our electricity bill 2 years ago this time $ 476.00 last quarter 687.00.. Maybe one of you can convert that into into a percentage for me ( fact provided by wife ).

    As far as NBN goes, don’t really care, our kids convinced us to go wireless and get rid of the landline.. so guess we will never know.

    Signing off from my wireless galaxy notebook

  • 461
    Centre
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Sounds like you all support the Greens..

    wwwwrrrroooonnnngggg!!!!

  • 462
    DisplayName
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Kevin Bonham

    When you say “soft” – as opposed to hard, presumably. Is this a reflection of comparing a real election where an actual decision has to be made with polls that measure intent? The further out from a decision the softer a polling result is, for example. Softer meaning a higher chance of someone reconsidering their decision?

  • 463
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Royal Commission into Union “slush” funds.

    Royal Commission into the insulation stimulus package.

    Raking over the past – what plans have the Liberals got for the future of Australia?

  • 464
    DisplayName
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    AA

    Raking over the past – what plans have the Liberals got for the future of Australia?

    To take us to the past. I suppose it’s logical that if you’re going to go somewhere you should examine it thoroughly first.

  • 465
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    tom jones

    So you are not happy with the carbon tax?
    ==============================================

    But happy to vote Liberal.. Whose Direct Action plan takes taxpayer money from the budget and transfers it to the polluters.

    Where does the money in the budget come from? – taxes paid workers and businesses.

    Where will the Liberals cut spending to make taxpayer money available to add to the polluters bottom line?

    Direct Action is the transfer of taxpayer money to polluters.

  • 466
    ruawake
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Signing off from my wireless galaxy notebook

    Which connects to? I missed a moron. Rtas. :lol:

  • 467
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    tom jones

    No I am not happy with the carbon tax.. Why call it a carbon tax, when it will do nothing to help the environment.

    And as far as cost neutral goes, your kidding, you have wound up my wife now, I cannot see it in my bills, the rebate we got did not cover a fraction.
    ================================================
    The introduction of the carbon price along with the Renewable Energy etc has seen the number of homes with solar panels climb from around 60,000 to over 1 million. It has driven massive investment in the production of cleaner energy.

    When Abbott and his science denier supporters get their wish and repeal the legislation, how many billions in compensation will the taxpayer be paying out of the budget?

    Research it…use your computer for more than whinning and whinging about paying the equivalent of a coffee at the local shops or a middie of beer every week.

    I am in the earnings bracket where no compensation was paid with the introduction of the carbon price. I pay around $64 every 3 months, around $1.50 a day. Anyone claiming the carbon price has destroyed their household budget is exaggerating in order to assist the Liberals.

  • 468
    DisplayName
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    rua, let’s not jump to calling people morons.

  • 469
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    As the Abbott inept government rushes forward into the oats

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bf_WTkVCYAAlNRL.jpg

  • 470
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    ……………rushes into the PAST

  • 471
    Swing Required
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    This is an interesting result, with some factors that are probably absent from many by-elections. Apart from the LNP having such a high orofile candidate, almost deified in the media, the new Government has only been in power for 5 months, including the Christmas break.

    Queensland is also a conservative state, but a status quo result isn’t a bad result for the LNP, exceot for the obvious money they splashed and the extremely favourable media coverage they always enjoy.

    I’ve been following politics for a long time, but I have to say that, with the exception of 1975′, I’ve never seen such a dangerous time. The LNP, aided by the Murdoch press, have trashed the normal political conventions. They know they won’t be held to account by News Ltd, who screamed ‘free speech’ before the ekection and are now Censorship Central.

    There was a time when a Minister had to resign for not declaring a Paddington Bear at Customs. Now, a Prime Minister can be shown to have lied frequently and it’s accepted as ‘smart politics’.

    The latest attack on the ABC is just the latest move from a dangerous Government hell bent on ideological attacks with taxpayers’ money. Accountability has disappeared.

  • 472
    Swing Required
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Thete is no doubt the LNP are there for the wealthy. I might not agree with wealthy people voting for them, but I at least understand it.

    I don’t have much time for those who aren’t wealthy who swallow the anti-Union line and think Mr Murdoch is looking after their interests.

    Those who hang on the tripe of Andrew Bolt, Chris Kenny and assorted News Ltd troglodytes aren’t worth a pinch of the proverbial.

    And trailing along the bottom of the slime barrel is Ms Grace Collier. A misnomer if ever there was one.

    Thanks, I feel better now :)

  • 473
    ruawake
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Glasson ran two campaigns. He could afford to.

    The first was the normal LNP smuck run of the mill campaign.

    The other was that of an Independent attacking his own Govt, the Unions and his opponent – complete with yellow and black signage of impending doom. All of course properly authorised by the LNP without mentioning them.

    Next time the Libs try to complain about dirty tricks, maybe they should be reminded they invented them.

    Look out Redcliffe.

  • 474
    silentmajority
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Tom jones,
    Another “I’m a labor voter thru & thru, BUT…..

    And you guys fed the troll.

    He is a plant

  • 475
    Centre
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    silentmajority

    Well unfortunately many in the electorate share his views therefore a response is warranted.

  • 476
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    tom jones

    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Sounds like you all support the greens.. no point arguing with fact checkers. you all too smart.

    our electricity bill 2 years ago this time $ 476.00 last quarter 687.00.. Maybe one of you can convert that into into a percentage for me ( fact provided by wife ).
    =======================================================

    Perhaps you should look at how much the price increase is due to increased prices imposed by the power company/government.

    In WA power costs, not including the carbon price, have increased around 60% as the Liberal government puts more money into its coffers to replace what is has misspent

  • 477
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    The inept Abbott is spending $100M to run a political inquiry just after he refused to spend $25M to save 3000 jobs

    We know where his priorities are…and its not jobs or working Aussie mums and dads.

    Its vindictive political actions that he cares about.

  • 478
    frednk
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    tom jones

    You have clearly read too many Andrew Bolt columns, or get paid too much by the liberals to troll. If the former it might be an idea to do some research for yourself (there are plenty of sites that explain the science, the value of markets and economics) and stop and think.

    So far you have made it clear you don’t understand the ETS, you somehow believe it involves forced transfer of funds to the EU and have no idea as to what is driving electricity price rises.

  • 479
    frednk
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    silentmajority
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Tom jones,
    Another “I’m a labor voter thru & thru, BUT…..

    A line from the Liberal trolling handbook, 101.

  • 480
    davidwh
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Technically I’m a Labor voter at present but ….

    It may change next year.

  • 481
    Libertarian Unionist
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    With the carbon price as is there will never be another coal power station built in Australia. That is a very good environmental outcome.

    While you are not wrong, there won’t be another coal-fired power station built in Australia WITHOUT a carbon price either. It just doesn’t add up when compared to this.

  • 482
    DisplayName
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    *waters david*

  • 483
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    tom jones aka prettyone aka sean tsime

  • 484
    frednk
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    davidwh
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Technically I’m a Labor voter at present but ….

    It may change next year

    Well thats slightly different, second line; Liberal trolling 101?

  • 485
    davidwh
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Just being honest Fred. In all likelihood I will vote LNP at the QLD election despite Newman’s shortcomings.

  • 486
    Acerbic Conehead
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    Hey Tom Jones,

    Go easy on the sniffin’.

    It affects your critical faculties.

    http://according2g.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Tom-Jones-4-300×225.jpg

  • 487
    Jimmyhaz
    Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    If you don’t mind me asking, why are you voting for the Newman government?. I just don’t understand the logic behind voting for someone to trample on your (and mine, sadly) fundamental freedoms.

  • 488
    geoffrey
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    aren’t there a lot of latte booths uncounted?

  • 489
    Albert Ross
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 12:17 am | Permalink

    our electricity bill 2 years ago this time $ 476.00 last quarter 687.00.. Maybe one of you can convert that into into a percentage for me ( fact provided by wife ).

    This post was so stupid that I had to get up out of bed to respond.

    Tom’s post was the PB equivalent of the time Abbott got up in Parliament and waved some old biddy’s electricity bull around claiming that the amount had gone up since the last bill by some fantastic percentage. Turned out that the old girl must have left every appliance and light in her house on 24/7 for a month and a half to see such an increase.

    By way of contrast a neighbour of ours has received a negative bill this last quarter. She’s a widow and works three days a week and she is I would admit frugal in her ways having been dudded of a large amount of her super during the Howard years as a result of one of the investment scams organized by one of those “financial planners” Joe Hockey is bending over backwards to restore their entitlements to.

    Anyway she is using electricity normally but she did invest $4000 last spring on a solar panel array on her roof. Seems like that in less than 10 quarters she will see a positive return on her investment.

    So you see Tom there are ways to positively manage your expenditure on household power.

  • 490
    mexicanbeemer
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    I have heard a University lecturer call it a carbon tax, and the lecturer in question was openly an ALP supporter

  • 491
    mexicanbeemer
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 1:44 am | Permalink

    687000-476000/476000*100=44.32%

    Carbon Price was about 10%

    33.32% would be inflation and state government approved energy company price rises.

  • 492
    Hugoaugogo
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    One important factor that the political commentariat has completely ignored is turnout. The turnout on Saturday was around 65%, whereas last September it was over 90%. While it’s hard to judge whether Labor or LNP voters stayed home, the conventional wisdom is that it is Labor voters that tend to abstain in by-elections. If this is true, it could explain why new Tory governments get softer swings than new ALP governments.

  • 493
    kakuru
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    AA:

    Direct Action is the transfer of taxpayer money to polluters.

    Exactly. It’s trickledown economics and corporate welfare disguised as an environmental policy.

  • 494
    Centre
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Beemer @ 490

    WOW!

    Did you ask the lecturer what ETS actually stands for?

    Maybe he was talking about the fixed price component of the carbon price.

    Next time pay attention, norty :lol:

  • 495
    KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    KEVIN BONHAM – Kevin, don’t answer if you’re not interested, but I’ve been pondering Howard’s first term and what lessons can be derived from it. There is a school of thought that (rather ironically) what really saved Howard was the GST. I know, I know, it was unpopular. But it let Howard pretend he was a conviction politician and was actually going somewhere. Do you agree/disagree?

  • 496
    KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Been reading the Vanity Fair article on Rupe/Wendy. I’ve actually got some time for old Wendy. A gold-digger – no doubt. But who can blame her. Rupe, on the other hand, comes across as a truly stupid old fool. Jeez Rupe, she never loved you. What a surprise.

  • 497
    victoria
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Most bludgers are on this thread today

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/02/06/bludgertrack-52-6-47-4-to-labor/?comment_page=53/#comments

  • 498
    KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Victoria

  • 499
    Kevin Bonham
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN@495

    KEVIN BONHAM – Kevin, don’t answer if you’re not interested, but I’ve been pondering Howard’s first term and what lessons can be derived from it. There is a school of thought that (rather ironically) what really saved Howard was the GST. I know, I know, it was unpopular. But it let Howard pretend he was a conviction politician and was actually going somewhere. Do you agree/disagree?

    First-term incumbents tend to win anyway even if their mid-term polling is bad. It was a better move than it seemed though, in that the risk was overstated. Taking it to the people at the election where the previous result made it almost impossible for Labor to win back enough seats gave him a safe mandate for it and he could always say that while he did change his mind, at least he sought the permission of the voters to do so.

    The biggest things to save Howard’s first term in my view were (i) hostile Senate stopping him from getting carried away (ii) sophomore effect from 1996 election.

  • 500
    Kevin Bonham
    Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    With turnout, need to compare like with like. Turnout increases as post-count votes are added. It is now up to 73% and there is about another 10% to go, so it will come out down on the general election, but not by as much as some comparisons suggest.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...