OK, so it’s an odd title, but it’s an odd week! 
First up, it’s worth looking at the two party swing toward and away from the ALP that each seat experienced as a function of the notional ALP two party preferred of that seat heading into the election.
If we break them down by state, just what occurred at the election becomes really easy to visualise (at least as an alternative to the visual of a train derailing at high speed). We’ll do NSW, Qld and WA in one batch, then later, SA and Vic in another (click to expand):
These charts really show not only the general pattern, but also the seats that behaved unusually. In Qld, it was all swing to the LNP across the board while WA was exactly the same except for one lonely seat – the Coalition held seat of Canning.
In NSW a cluster of 4 ALP seats stood out that had a swing towards them, with Page and Eden-Monaro having swings to Labor of around 2% and Robertson and Dobell with swings around 1%.
Also worth noting is that big swag of very safe Labor seats sitting heading into the election – sitting on two party preferred results of 60% or greater – having swings against them of 7-10%, or in the case of Fowler, a massive 13.4% swing against.
Yet the other half of the country was very different:
The Victorian regional seats of Murray, Mallee and Gippsland as well as the safe Coalition urban seat of Menzies bucked the trend with swings against Labor of between 2% and 6%, while the rest of the state either wobbled around very small swings either way or blew out towards Labor.
In SA, seats generally moved towards the incumbent, with Boothby and Adelaide (just) being the exceptions – Coalition held Boothby moving towards Labor by 2% and Labor held Adelaide moving a bare 0.3% against the incumbent Kate Ellis.
Not meaning to be the 900th person to state the obvious here, but it was almost like we had two separate elections going on last Saturday.
The other thing that’s worth having a squiz at is the Indie seats of Lyne, New England and Kennedy. As someone that grew up in Lyne and has significant amounts of family in both Lyne and New England – the absolute piffle that has been peddled about these seats is just mind blowing in its ignorance.
While these seats may all be rural – that’s pretty much where the similarity ends (well, apart from the crappy state of the roads and the lack of GPs).
Lyne is particularly different. But it’s an obvious difference when you just think about it a little. If you start from the NSW/Qld border and head south along the coast, you go through the ALP seat of Page (that’s getting redder), into the volatile seat of Cowper (that has changed from being a safe Nats seat into one that swings wildly between a very marginal and safe Nats seat) and you end up in Lyne. From the South you come up through the ALP seats around Newcastle, into the volatile seat of Paterson (similar in its behaviour to Cowper) and into Lyne.
There’s a strong demographic change pushing up from the South and a similar change pushing down from the North – Lyne is where they meet. It is a typical coastal seat in that it’s largest employment industries are retail and health care/services and tourism rather than primary production. The days of agrarian socialism are long gone in Lyne – it has an industry profile more outer suburban than outer Whoop Whoop.
About now it’s worth looking at the composition of Rob Oakeshott’s vote on Saturday. If we compare the primary vote at the 2007 election (when National Party leader Mark Vaile was the winner) to the 2010 result, we get:
The ALP runs dead in Lyne to help Oakeshott (in the same way it does in New England – not that either Independent really needs the help). As we can see from the changes in the primary vote between 2007 and 2010 (which added together along the bottom row, make up Oakeshotts current primary vote) – the composition of Oakeshott’s vote is different to what you may expect, and certainly different to the twaddle being peddled elsewhere.
In fact, if we look at the changes in the primary vote and turn them into percentages to estimate who it is that actually votes for the Independent Member for Lyne, we get:
Around 40% of his vote is from ex-Labor voters, 36% from ex-Nats voters, 6% from ex-Greens voters and 17% from people that used to vote for other independents or minor parties. Looking back at those minor parties and Indies from the 2007 election, 5 of the 8 were conservative(ish) and 3 were much less so. That pretty much comes out as half of Oakeshott’s current support coming from conservative quarters and half from Labor supporters and progressive voters.
Oakeshott, among the three rural independents, is the one with the most bipartisan vote composition – having equal proportions of conservative and non-conservative voters as his electoral base. It also explains a great deal about Rob Oakeshott himself.
It’s hard to run these numbers for Windsor as he was elected in 2001, and the 1998 election that we might use as a baseline had One Nation muddling things up – but Windsor would have somewhere around a 2.5 to 1 ratio of conservative to non conservative supporter base, while Katter would be in between the two.
Yet it highlights that the three members are rather different, coming from completely different styles of seats and enjoying vastly different ideological compositions in their actual local support base.
The other thing that has been a bit silly was the polling questions of late done in these three seats on who the Indies should support – with the big problem being that the pollsters were asking the wrong question.
These 3 blokes won their seats by being independents, beating off major party competition. The question needing to be asked is whether voters in these seats believe that their local member should support an Abbott minority government, a Gillard minority government, or whether the independent members should support the party they believe to be in the best interests of the electorate and the country – after all, they were elected as independents presumably to be independents, and are acting as independents. One would think the polling would deal with the realities of the political environment we actually find ourselves in.
49 Comments
Based on a quick analysis of the Newspoll today, it’s fairly obvious that in Lyne more of Oakshott’s primary voters want him to anoint Labor. the figures are:
Oakshott supporters: 64% want Labor**
Katter supporters: 68% want Labor
Windsor supporters: 55% want Labor.
Lyne is the most favourable to a Labor minority government among the primary voters for Oakshott.
** Based on 100 – ((“Newspoll Result” -”Nats+Coalition”)/”Indie Primary Vote”)
Katter figure should be 58%, not 68%
Possum, you have nailed it again.
Yes,
I’ve been trying to make something of the same sort of point in a couple of the PollBludger threads, Poss.
Demographically , in fact, Lyne is more like Page than New England. The electorate has comparatively little to do with Agrarian or pastoral pursuits these days. Retirement, tourism, health, tree changers, sea changers etc make up the vast bulk of the population these days, not farmers. (If anything, the effect is even more pronounced in Lyne than in Page, in fact).
Another important point is that neither Page nor New England have any significant mining base (unlike Katter’s seat). There is no reason for Oakeshott or Windsor to be locally negatively concerned about the “mining tax” issue, and good reasons for them to want to receive some of the potential benefits that it produces for infrastructure development etc. They undoubtedly have a lot more voters who are going to be concerned about the implications of climate change and the like, too.
Lyne is not a seat that will ever go back to the Nats. In reality Oakeshott could probably see the writing on the wall when he became an Independent. It is just not a “Nat” electorate any more. He’ll either lose to a Labor /Green vote or to the Libs at some stage in the future, or, more probably, stay there until he retires.
(Cowper is an interesting seat. It is poorer by a significant margin than either Page to the north or Lynn to the south, but it will go the same sort of way before too long too as it gets “Coff’s Harbourised” and the coastal tourism and retirement takes over even further from other industries
With Windsor hitting 60 he isn’t likely to stick around for more than one more election anyway. He may well be replaced by another Independent, given the success he has had there. The more genuinely “rural” base in New England might see it back in the hands of a Nat, if the Libs and Nats don’t amalgamate in NSW too before long, and it will take longer before the same sort of process occurs that that has happened in Page and Lyne. I suspect, though, that Windsor has given the locals a taste for Independent representation that it will be hard for them to eschew in the foreseeable future.
Katter’s electorate is vastly different again, with the big mining town Mt Isa at one end , Cairns at the other and one heck of a lot of country in between (even within that stretch there are great variations – I’ve spent a lot of time in the Charters Towers / Hughenden / Richmond area and even between these towns there is a world of difference.) A lot of poverty and a fair bit of wealth too in Kennedy. It is always going to be a bit of a conundrum.
The shouting campaign at the Oz (like “we are the people”…right!) to get another election up and Abbott over the line is preposterous on several fronts, and you’ve covered them all very well for once.
Once again, nice work.
One gets the feeling that the Shamster is near to blowing a fuse, I mean, how dare democratically elected members decide how they are going to vote in the Big House! Isn’t it Rupert’s Right to employ people to tell them what to do, afterall?
Brilliant analysis. I’d love to see Denis Shanahan’s reaction to this post…
“…all very well.”
(my editor is off sick today!)
Lefty Rod Hagen should be read for pleasure only. Nothing he says should b taken seriously.
Over 90% of NSW’s $1.8 billion in mining royalties comes from New England coal.
Tony Windsor sold his farm earlier this year to the coal mine next door to his farm for more than $4 million, twice the next highest local farm land price per hectare.
That’s certainly begged many questions among locals if not our farcically poor and lefty-bent national media.
Possum, while there are differences in the senate and house of reps votes, did you also look at the way the senate vote in Lyne and New England to get an idea of where the independents are getting their votes from?
What’s interesting comparing the states is how the Coalition got an excellent bang for their buck in Queensland: converting the swing directly into big gains of seats, whereas they really struggled to do the same in NSW.
Labor also “wasted” their swing quite badly in Tasmania (where they actually lost a seat) and also South Australia, although to be fair it seems the Coalition threw all their SA resources into defending Boothby and Sturt.
JamesK Meet New England details from AEC, I believe you may be talking about Hunter Valley Coal down the road
Location New England covers an area of approximately 59,344 sq km from the Queensland border in the north to the Gunnedah, Liverpool Plains, Tamworth Regional and Walcha local government areas in the south. The main towns include Armidale, Barraba, Bundarra, Deepwater, Glen Innes, Gunnedah, Guyra, Inverell, Manilla, Quirindi, Tamworth, Tenterfield, Uralla, Walcha, Werris Creek and parts of Delungra and Urbenville.
Products and Industry Cattle, sheep, grain, forestry, dairying, oats, maize, fruit, vegetables, tin-mining, bricks, trout hatchery, tourism, concrete pipe works, leather goods, tannery, gemstones, tobacco, lucerne, honey, grain processing, rubber industry, plaster works and concrete.
yer coal’s in yer Muswellbrook and Singleton – seat of Hunter.
As a COALition guy you should know that
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Green voters realised the first four letters of Coalition spelt “COAL”.
They must have needed a change of pants.
MDMConnell, if you haven’t already, then read George Megalogenis in today’s Oz, he really does a good state by state explanation of why we are no longer one country.
JamesK, don’t let them pick on you. It’s OK, we allow you to have your own facts if that’s what it takes to get through the day in this complex world.
@JamesK “Over 90% of NSW’s $1.8 billion in mining royalties comes from New England coal.” Sadly this sort of misinformation is typical of the lies constantly peddled by the Libs/Nats. Repeated often enough the gullible out there will believe the lies. Honesty and Integrity eh?
JamesK is full of that stuff – dissembling and obfuscation is the Lib stock in trade
You’ll find there is this thing called the Australian Census that comes in handy when you want to check things like the number of people engaged in a particular industry in a particular area, JamesK.
The grand total of all people engaged in the mining industry in the statistical division equivalent to the New England electorate at the time of the last census was a princely 372.
By way of comparison there were 12,256 engaged in Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, 8,170 in the retail trade, 6,987 in Education and training, 7,605 in health and allied services, 4,653 in Accommodation and Food services, 4,285 in Administration and Safety services, etc etc etc. The Mining Industry actually ranks last of the 20 or so industries of employment listed for the area!
Tsk-tsk Dave. I’m very disappointed……
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/independent-mp-tony-windsor-in-league-of-his-own-on-farm-sale/story-fn59niix-1225911091227
http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/windsor-defends-sale-of-family-farm/1898438.aspx
And, Paul Gallagher…. maaaate.
New England is that part of Australia stretching from the Hunter Valley through to the Queensland border and incorporating the Hunter Valley, the Mid North Coast, the Northern Rivers, the New England Tablelands, Slopes and Western Plains.
You Pathetic Laborite drones, We Bringers of Truth and Enlightenment Shall Crush your Hopeless Efforts !!
I think New England is up the hill and is not the Hunter Valley. I be livin here at the minute.
You have named it as half of NSW
Don’t just read the Oz get ya facts right
Kinkajou…….. And you probably lived there your entire life……. right?
http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/New_England_New_State_Movement::sub::Geographical_Description
Possum will be interested in this report:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/latham-effect-has-thousands-blanking-out-20100828-13wxt.html
@9
It’s hard to say too much about the Senate since you get bogged down in arguments over what’s “right-wing” and what’s “left wing”, plus there’s a bunch of odds-n-sods minor parties and Indies.
But generally the Senate vote confirms all three electorates as conservative leaning, counting ON, CDP, FF as clearly “conservative”, and assuming Shooters and Fishers aren’t a bunch of Lefty tree-hugging fluffy bunnies either.
E.g. Lyne: LNP(45.89%), CDP (1.95%), FF (1.22%), ON (0.78%), Shooters and Fishers (3.86%) gives 53.7% for “Right” parties in the Senate. That’s not counting the DLP (1.01) or LDP (2.09) who are probably a mixed bag of Left and Right.
New England: LNP (43.33%), CDP (2.30%), FF (1.50%), ON (1.49%), SaF (6.04%) gives 54.66% for Right, again not including DLP or LDP.
Kennedy: LNP (40.88%), CDP (0.51%), FF (3.55%), ON (2.11%), SaF (4.18%) gives 51.23, again not counting a bunch of other minor parties. Dunno how “Fishing and Lifestyle Party” (6.78%!) classify themselves.
Sure haven’t JK, sorry if reality isn’t organised according to your ref ( the 1935 New England new state movement WELL YA SHOULDA SAID SO ……THAT New England!)
Would that then be including the separate states of FNQ and Riverina and the Kimberleys ceded to Japan?
@26
Don’t bag out JK too soon, Kinkajou. If Bob Katter gets his way we just might see a state of New England and FNQ!
Fine by me. One way of getting rid of the NSW disease
From the ref I gave Kinkajou:
“These boundaries were adopted by the New England New State Movement and used as the basis for the 1967 self-government referendum.”
I just thouht as a kinkster ya mighta bin moderately rather than very decrepit……
and what? Perhaps you should have reffed your ref when you use the term New England . Most of us would think we were talking about the federal electorate here (not the 1935 New State movement area)….but then I imagine its the fastest google answer you could find to justify your assertions.
Job for you somewhere in Tones new bureaucracy. Unfortunately he’s firing not hiring
And what what?
My language has been clear.
What is equally clear is that your imagination isn’t.
your language is unclear. Only your objectives are clear. Prosecution rests
JamesK,
Yes Werris Ck is, indeed, inside the New England Electorate. It employs 66 people. I didn’t say there was NO mining in New England, merely that it was of very limited significance, and only employed a very small number of people there. The vast coal income resource that you refer to as “New England Coal” is being worked almost totally in the Hunter electorate (where over 8500 people are employed in the mining industry, compared to the 372 identified in this industry in the New England electorate).
Perhaps you could turn your thoughts to other aspects of this situation. Do you disagree with the central tenet of Possum’s argument that the three independents represent three quite different electorates.
Possum, on a minor point, if the electorates both sides of the border here are any guide, Labor runs dead in country electorates whether or not there’s an independent. They have improved to the degree that candidates are occasionally seen in the electorate but you couldn’t really say they campaigned seriously.
Hi Possum,
Just 2 little points – I agree that labor always runs dead – independent or no independent or at least spends a minimum of Sussex St money in Lyne. The function of the candidate is to get >4% of the vote and federal funding for Sussex St and to increase the Senate vote.
2. Both Paterson and Cowper had a 4% swing in primaries to the Coalition. In Paterson this was straight from Labor but in Cowper it was complicated by an Independent (from Woolgoolga no less) getting 10%. I think it would be fairer to vary your primaries in Lyne by 4% This would give adjusted 2007 figures of ALP 28% Nat 56%
The differences then are: ALP -15% Nats – 21% Greens -3% Others -8%
Oakeshott’s votes are then composed of 32% ex Lab, 47 ex Nat 6% ex Green and 17% ex other. Safe National seat – my a%%e!
It’s a pity that Paul Sheehan is unlikely to take this analysis on board.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/independents-support-for-labor-would-betray-rural-folk-20100829-13xjq.html
There is a decent amount of coal mining going on around Gunnedah, which is now in New England. But it certainly hasn’t endeared itself to a lot of the local farmers!
The kinkster is obviously a defence barrister’s wet dream prosecutor.
What about sparing the Rod?
JamesK – this debate was about the *seat* of New England. You threw in your statistics about “New England” coal mining when it was for the *region* of New England, which is a totally different animal. You’ve been caught out…
Dang Malcolm Street!
I suggestively implied that over 90% of NSW mining royalties came from the “*seat* of New England” ………… but now……. I’ve “been caught out…”
Brilliant undercover detective work, howsoever belated, Malcolm.
D’ya mind if I just address you as Mr Gifted from here on in?
Because……. you deserve it.
JamesK
You have the remarkable ability to be both self-delusionary, and effortlessly offensive.
You would not know ‘gifted’ if it bit you on the posterior. You and Bob Katter make a fine pair.
Keep up the good work! You do your ‘side’ harm every time you post.
cheers,
Mad Dog
There’s no doubt Oakeshott (like Windsor) gets at least 40-55 % of his vote from the Labor side of the fence – politics tends to find a level and since Labor (and Liberal) aren’t competitive in a lot of country seats (ref. Riverina 2010, Parkes 2001) the two party system for a lot of people in these areas is National vs Independent (if they can choose a decent independent).
Many people who wouldn’t have supported Oakeshott when he was a Nat vote for him now because he is the only serious alternative to a Nationals member.
However there are also a significant number of people who support Oakeshott who were part of his Nationals support base and who clung on when he went independent. These are the ones likely to be upset if he sides with Labor and they probably number more than 15%. Reference Karlene Maywald and Russell Savage – conservative independents (or Nats sitting in an ALP cabinet) can come to a nasty end if they stand between their electorate and a conservative government.
That said, Crag Ingram is still hanging around in East Gippsland and Mt Gambier still hasn’t fallen to the Libs.
**If you’ll indulge me Poss (I couldn’t comment on the “what if” thread for some reason) you’ve given the Nats a bad run and probably for good reason. Remember, though, that politics – especially at a branch level – attracts nut jobs and for obvious reasons rednecks in these areas are often attracted to the Nats. This doesn’t mean that all members are like that and in fact most Nats members don’t attend branch meetings or let it be known that they are Nats – they just pay up their money each year.
I hope the conversations you refer to in that post didn’t happen in the last five years, and I hope that you’ve noticed a change in the type of candidates we’re putting forward these days, such as Kevin Humpries (ex CEO of the Aboriginal Employment Service) and Bridget McKenzie. The ratbags will always cause trouble but hopefully the voices of our more moderate members might start to be heard a lot more in the future. I’m sure you agree that letting the entire community (rather than just the local membership) choose our candidates is a good start.
The analysis of Oakeshott’s vote seems a bit disingenuous. If that 36% of the National vote comes out and goes back to the Nats, Oakeshott is completely boned – even if he gains the entire ALP vote to replace it. With Oakeshott likely to join the ALP ministry, there’s a strong chance they’ll do just that.
If you struggle to comprehend why, think of it this way: You’re a raging lefty but you vote for your local independent. He however, sides with the COALition in a minority Government because he’s offered the Environment portfolio. Do you a) Vote for your “independent” again or b) Vote hard Green. Chances are high that you’ll pick option b) because as much as you love him being the Environment Minister – he’s just gone and supported the Evil Satan Party!
In effect Oakeshott has the same problem the Democrats had. When they’re being independent, everyone loves them. The minute they pick a side though, they lose all their supporters as they desert them for the major parties.
Effectively, Oakeshott has become the ALP candidate in a seat the ALP have never won.
As Possum said, Lyne has changed demographically to the point where without Oakeshott it would be pretty marginal. Cowper to the north came within 1% of falling to Labor in 2007, and Paterson to the south has changed hands a few times. The Senate results in the three this time around were within a few points of each other. To classify it as an ultraconservative electorate is simply the stuff of fantasy.
And JamesK, you will notice if you read your own link about New England that even in 1935 when the Hunter was included in the state separatism proposal that there were tensions about including the Hunter, because it’s outside New England, but was considered necessary to statehood for the urban/industrial capacity that New England lacked. The idea that the capital of “New England” would be outside New England was one of the reasons the proposal failed to get much support. Most New Englanders probably didn’t see much difference between being governed externally from Sydney and being governed externally from Newcastle.
“The initial separation discussions excluded the Hunter, in part because of tensions between the industrial and mining heartland of the lower Hunter and the rest of the area. This created a problem because an urban/industrial centre like Newcastle and the Hunter were seen as an essential part of New England, or any new state, in economic and geographic terms.”
And as a resident of the Mid-North Coast myself, I can tell you that nobody around here considers it part of New England. To get to New England, you cross the mountains (and at the top, you pass the “Welcome to New England” sign!)
Slightly off topic but I wasn’t sure where to post it.
I have been examining the AEC results and particularly the 2PP. I now realise that they are close to being utter rubbish. A bold statement but.
For 2010, they currently only include the seats in which the final 2 candidates are ALP & LNP. And so seats like Batman & Grayndler don’t get included in the ALP 2PP count. Denison, Kennedy, Lyne, Melbourne, New England & O’Connor also don’t get included. Thus the 2010 2PP, currently has more than 650,000 valid votes (5% of the total) excluded.
But there’s more.
The AEC also includes a ‘swing’ column which compares the 2007 result with the 2010 result.
To do this, the AEC went thru the 2007 setas and did a notional 2pp count i.e. as if the final candidates were ALP & LNP. This means that in Melbourne, the ALP vote was inflated from 47,916 (in the real 2pp between the ALP & Greens) to 63,299 in the notional 2pp.
New England is more interesting. The real 2pp was Ind (Tony W) 63,286 v Nat 31,854. The notional result is LNP 55,167, ALP 29,973. I’ll bet Tony W. appreciates that.
Then all these numbers are added up and reduced to a single statistic – viz, ALP 52.70% LNP 47.30% – notice the precision.
That very precise determination is then compared with the current 2010 2pp, and reduced to a single highly publicizable, precise swing.
On that basis, there is a 2.70% swing to the coalition in 2010. Whaaaaaaaat ??!!
Note also, that at some point, the 2010 figures will also be adjusted (notionally!) – and all these pesky Independents, Greens, whatever, will just disappear (!) and their votes will be allocated to the ALP & LNP. We should have just waited til then to determine the Gov., it would have been much simpler.
This is not just a fundamental statistical error (fraud?). It is completely meaningless garbage.
No it isn’t, it’s just a national TPP (as if Australia was just one electorate) between the two major parties. A statistic, calculated on a basis that allows different elections to be validly compared. No more no less.