Australian Federal Election - Results Thread

[Smid]

I mentioned Bowman back in the pre-election thread, but the swing there last election was exaggerated because of a scandal. Perhaps Bonner was the same (scandal was also there, although I would consider it probably a marginal Labor seat in most elections).

Corio borders on Lalor and I think where the boundary is (the bit near Werribee) is all a similar community of interest (indeed, the new boundaries in the draft redistribution bring them together). Her office is down that end of the electorate too, I think, and she'd certainly be popular down that way.

McEwan (I think I've mentioned) had 10,000 new voters whose houses didn't even exist at the last election, most of whom had moved out of northern and western Melbourne.

The rest that you've mentioned about Sydney, I think is fairly spot on. The last redistribution had brought in some fairly safe Labor territory around Kings Cross, I believe, but I think much of the swing to Turnbull was his stance on the ETS because it is quite a green electorate.

[Sibboleth]

Socialist Alliance in NSW:



I noted their slightly strange 'strength' in a couple of divisions and thought 'lol; why ever not?'. The patterns are... er... could anyone explain? Socialist Alliance are a coalition of Trot groups, but that was probably obvious from the name. They stood elsewhere but did so badly there was no point in mapping them.

The delightful and totally sane CDP - Fred Niles Group:



Outside WA and NSW there seemed no point mapping their vote.

General points about the maps (and those to come)... I've tried to be fairly consistent with rounding and so on, but if there is inconsistency it shouldn't be systematic. I've also only done a few of the many minor parties to poll relatively strongly in certain places. I couldn't see any interesting patterns wrt the Sex Party or the Liberal Democrats so haven't bothered and I was well underway with the maps before I noticed that One Nation still managed to poll over 1% or so in much of regional Queensland.

[Sibboleth]

Various rural protest parties:



The DLP:



Logically I should only have done Victoria, but finding out were re-grouped groupers live was too amusing/tempting.

Family First:

[Sibboleth]

The ALP:



The Coalition:



Just the Liberals in WA, actually.

The Greens:



As always, there are bigger versions hiding in the gallery.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

"Tony Crook, the WA National who looks to have won the federal seat of O'Connor in Western Australia, says he doesn't believe the Federal Nationals should be in a Coalition government with the Federal Liberals."

WTF is wrong with this dude?

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201008/s2992127.htm

[Sibboleth]

He's a country politician for country people rather than a conservative politician that happens to represent country people.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

He's a country politician for country people rather than a conservative politician that happens to represent country people.

How zen.

Question for those who know about Australian history than my wikipedia-perusing self - why has there been historically so many right-wing splits from the Labor party like the DLP or various 'anti-communist' factions? (Catholicism?)

[Sibboleth]

Question for those who know about Australian history than my wikipedia-perusing self - why has been historically so many right-wing splits from the Labor party like the DLP or various 'anti-communist' factions? (Catholicism?)

The big split (that created the DLP) had a lot to do with Catholicism, but there was more to it than that. It's sort of complicated to explain briefly, but basically a Catholic organisation usually called 'the Movement' (under the guidance of prominent Catholic activist B.A. Santamaria) infiltrated and took over the Industrial Groups (organisations set up by the ALP to fight Communist influence in the Unions) with the aim of wiping out Communism and things that looked like the might be Communist in Australian politics and society. The 'groupers' became very powerful within the ALP and by the mid fifties effectively controlled the Party in Victoria. Grouper MP's would often break ranks with the federal leadership on certain issues (usually relating to Communism in some way or other). After a painfully narrow defeat in the 1954 election, H.V. Evatt, the Labour leader, basically went ape and had the groupers thrown out of the ALP. They then formed the ALP (Anti-Communist) which later changed its name to the DLP. The DLP never managed to win a House seat on their own, but were a significant force in the Senate and were also able to ensure significant damage to the ALP by directing their preferences to the Coalition, something that caused a long-running electoral catastrophe in Victoria in general and Melbourne (the most consistency Labor big city in Australia during the first half century of federation) in particular. The DLP's strategy was to prevent the ALP from taking power federally until suitable terms for re-unification were agreed; they collapsed following the election of the Whitlam government.
Things get even more complicated, btw, because in Queensland the split was a little later and had nothing to do with Catholicism or Communism; the QLP (which merged into the DLP) was formed in 1957 by supporters of Vince Gair (the last Labor Premier of Queensland until 1989) who was expelled from the ALP because of a political crisis that began with a shearers strike. Gair later played an important role in the collapse of the DLP. But that's enough of that.

The ALP (Non Communist) was just one of many chapters in the long-running spat between Jack Lang and the federal ALP and had nothing to do with Catholicism.

[Χahar]

Was Lang left of the Canberra party, or right, or neither? I can't tell.

"Tony Crook, the WA National who looks to have won the federal seat of O'Connor in Western Australia, says he doesn't believe the Federal Nationals should be in a Coalition government with the Federal Liberals."

WTF is wrong with this dude?

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201008/s2992127.htm

Why do you think something is wrong? Now that the Queensland establishment has left, the Nationals would be better off adopting a more independent course if they wish to remain viable.

[Mr. Morden]

Two of the Independents, Wilkie and Windsor, say that they'll decide which side to support this week:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/29/2996462.htm?section=justin

Even if the others take longer, this could give us a pretty good idea of which side will end up forming a government.  Wilkie will most likely side with Labor, but Windsor could go either way.

[Secretary Polnut]

Two of the Independents, Wilkie and Windsor, say that they'll decide which side to support this week:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/29/2996462.htm?section=justin

Even if the others take longer, this could give us a pretty good idea of which side will end up forming a government.  Wilkie will most likely side with Labor, but Windsor could go either way.

If Wilkie and Windsor, along with Bandt support the ALP, if Katter and Oakeshott support the Coalition that would be 75-75...

The question could therefore be, if Windsor and Wilkie move to the ALP, would that put enough pressure on the other two to move also?

[Mr. Morden]

If Wilkie and Windsor, along with Bandt support the ALP, if Katter and Oakeshott support the Coalition that would be 75-75...

The question could therefore be, if Windsor and Wilkie move to the ALP, would that put enough pressure on the other two to move also?

My hunch is that, if Wilkie and Windsor go to Labor, then at least one of the other two would too (more likely Oakeshott than Katter), which should be enough for Labor to form a government.

OTOH, if Windsor goes with the Coalition, things will remain a lot more up in the air.

EDIT: Just saw on SBS World News that Oakeshott says he's hoping to make a decision by the end of the week as well.

[Vasall des Midas]

Question for those who know about Australian history than my wikipedia-perusing self - why has been historically so many right-wing splits from the Labor party like the DLP or various 'anti-communist' factions? (Catholicism?)

The big split (that created the DLP) had a lot to do with Catholicism, but there was more to it than that. [snip]

And that a Catholic organization could win such an importance in the ALP has a lot to do with the strong Labour lean of Catholics in the decades before 1950... which has a lot to do with so many of them being the descendants of Irish convicts.

[Platypus]

Question for those who know about Australian history than my wikipedia-perusing self - why has been historically so many right-wing splits from the Labor party like the DLP or various 'anti-communist' factions? (Catholicism?)

The big split (that created the DLP) had a lot to do with Catholicism, but there was more to it than that. [snip]

And that a Catholic organization could win such an importance in the ALP has a lot to do with the strong Labour lean of Catholics in the decades before 1950... which has a lot to do with so many of them being the descendants of Irish convicts. immigrants.

Fixed (although to be fair it was probably many convicts as well, but most convicts sent across were English, and almost all the Welsh and Scotsmen were free settlers).

[Mr. Morden]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but according to this:

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm

the latest vote tally now has the Coalition ahead in the national 2PP vote....by 636 votes out of over 10 million cast.  Not that the national popular vote technically counts for anything.  But it'll surely enter into the Coalition's talking points for why it has a "moral claim" on holding power.

[Vasall des Midas]

Question for those who know about Australian history than my wikipedia-perusing self - why has been historically so many right-wing splits from the Labor party like the DLP or various 'anti-communist' factions? (Catholicism?)

The big split (that created the DLP) had a lot to do with Catholicism, but there was more to it than that. [snip]

And that a Catholic organization could win such an importance in the ALP has a lot to do with the strong Labour lean of Catholics in the decades before 1950... which has a lot to do with so many of them being the descendants of Irish convicts. immigrants.

Fixed (although to be fair it was probably many convicts as well, but most convicts sent across were English, and almost all the Welsh and Scotsmen were free settlers).

A quarter of convicts were Irish. But yeah, hardly the sole source of Irish immigration of course - the Gold Rush immigration that really made Victoria was quite heavily Irish too.

[Platypus]

Also remember that Victoria was freely settled.

[Vasall des Midas]

Also remember that Victoria was freely settled.

That's South Australia, actually.

[Platypus]

Also remember that Victoria was freely settled.

That's South Australia, actually.

Both, if you exclude the short-lived convict camps in what is now Victoria, that had no influence on the eventual towns of Victoria.

[Vasall des Midas]

Also remember that Victoria was freely settled.

That's South Australia, actually.

Both.

Technically not.

(And not in practice either - both colonies got settled to a considerable degree by excon exilees.)

[Platypus]

Also remember that Victoria was freely settled.

That's South Australia, actually.

Both.

Technically not.

(And not in practice either - both colonies got settled to a considerable degree by excon exilees.)

Well, the second part is correct, but it depends how technical you are - if you mean the foundation of continuous settlement; no. If you mean there-were-at-some-point-before-the-PPP-were-there-some-convict-camps-at-Sorrento-and-the-Surf-Coast, then yes

[Vasall des Midas]

There was also a second - quite minor - phase of convict immigration to Victoria a few years after the (also as yet quite minor) establishment of continuous settlement.
Only the abortive 1803 attempt would be mighty technical, yeah.

[Sibboleth]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but according to this:

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm

the latest vote tally now has the Coalition ahead in the national 2PP vote....by 636 votes out of over 10 million cast.  Not that the national popular vote technically counts for anything.  But it'll surely enter into the Coalition's talking points for why it has a "moral claim" on holding power.

The reason for the change is that the number of divisions temporarily not included in the national 2PP count has increased from six (O'Connor, Melbourne, Lyne, Denison, Kennedy and New England) to eight; Batman and Grayndler have been added to the list. Those two seats are just about the worst parts of Australia for the Coalition.

[Harry Hayfield]

Formal Declaration
Mitchell Electorate : Primary Vote
Liberals 63%
Labour 26%
Greens 7%
Others 3%
Two Party Preferred
Liberals 68% (+8%)
Labour 32% (-8%)
Swing: 8% from Lab to Lib

[Novelty]

The ALP:



The Coalition:



Just the Liberals in WA, actually.

I've been reading this thread with interest although I'm not Australian.  One thing that jumps out from the maps of Sydney above is the North-South divide of the city between the Coalition and the ALP.  I'm wondering why this is so.  Does it have anything to do with settlement patterns and river drainage geology?