Australia - 7 September 2013

[Platypus]

Victoria over the years in relation to the nation:

1901

Government coalition: 18
Free Trade: 5

1903

Government coalition: 18
Free Trade: 5

1906

Gov. coalition: 12
Others: 9

1910

Labour: 10
Independent: 1
Commonwealth Liberal: 11

The Independent is not part of government, so probably counts as the first time Victoria didn't go with the nation.

1913

Commonwealth Liberal: 12
Labor: 9

1914

Labor: 12
Independent: 1
ComLib: 8

1917

Nationalist: 14
Labor: 6

1919

Nationalist: 9
Independent: 1
Labor: 6
Country: 5

Nationalists win government, but only a plurality of the seats in Victoria.

1922

Nationalists: 5
Country: 5
Labor: 7
Liberal: 2

Labor win a plurality of seats, but the Nationalists and Country party formed government.

1925

Nationalists: 8
Country: 4 (in coalition w Nationalists)
Independent: 1
Labor: 6

1928

Nationalist: 9
Country: 3 (coalition w N)
Labor: 8
Country Progressive: 1

1929

Labor: 13
Nationalists: 3
Country: 2
Country Prog: 1
Independent: 1

1931

United Australia: 12
Country: 4
Labor: 4

1934

UAP: 11
Country: 3
Labor: 6

1937

UAP: 9
Country: 3 (coalition w UAP)
Independent: 1
Labor: 7

1940

UAP: 6 (coalition)
Liberal Country Party: 2 (coalition)
United Country Party: 1 (coalition)
Independent: 2
Labor: 9

The Independents supported Menzies to form government, but in 1941 switched their support to Labor.

1943

Labor: 9
Independent: 2
UAP: 6
Country: 3

Labor won only a plurality in Victoria, but a majority nationally.

1946[/b]

Labor: 8
Liberal :7
Country: 4
Independent Labor: 1

While Labor did win a plurality, this is the first unequivocal time that Victoria and the nation voted differently, as the Liberal/Country coalition was formalised.

1949

Coalition: 20
Labor: 13

1951

Coalition: 18
Labor: 15

1954

Coalition: 18
Labor: 15

1955

Coalition: 23
Labor: 10

1958

Coalition: 23
Labor: 10

1961

Coalition: 23
Labor: 10

1963

Coalition: 23
Labor: 10

1966

Coalition: 24
Independent: 1
Labor: 8

1969

Coalition: 23
Labor: 11

1972

Labor: 14
Coalition: 20

Being the jewel in the Liberal's crown for so long, 14 seats was a good result for Labor in Victoria - but still, this election was by far the most overtly different between Victoria and the nation.

1974

Labor: 16
Coalition: 18

It still wasn't quite time in Victoria, but the equilibrium was being re-established temporarily at least.

1975

Coalition: 24
Labor: 10

1977

Coalition: 23
Labor: 10

1980[/color]

Coalition: 16
Labor: 17

The new paradigm in Victoria had arrived, as the DLP died off for good. Well, more or less.

1983

Labor: 23
Coalition: 10

1984

Labor: 25
Coalition: 14

1987

Labor: 24
Coalition: 15

1990[/color]

Labor: 14
Coalition: 24

Not a good time to be Labor in Victoria, but the rest of the nation had no problems with the ALP.

1993

Labor: 17
Independent: 1
Coalition: 20

After the excellent 1990 result, the coalition could have expected to lose seats, and did - but not enough for Labor to get back on par.

1996

Coalition: 21
Labor: 16

1998[/color]

Coalition: 18
Labor: 19

And here is where the consistent lean to Labor bites...

2001

Coalition: 17
Labor: 21

Unlike the rest of Australia, Victorians show they have character.

2004[/b]

Coalition: 18
Labor: 19

Then again, supporting Latham...

2007

Labor: 21
Coalition: 16

2010

Labor: 22
Green: 1 (supports Labor)
Coalition: 14

In a hung parliament, Victoria is the state that refuses to give the Coalition government.

[Talleyrand]

Do you plan on doing something like this for the other 5 states? I enjoyed it greatly; Victoria's transformation from being the Liberal crown jewel to Labor's strongest mainland state is quite interesting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One issue for Labor in Victoria historically was its weakness outside Melbourne (in the Whitlam victories, for example, the only Labor seat not in Melbourne was Corio) and the tendency for its support within Melbourne to be even more geographically concentrated than other large cities.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Part of the reason why I'd be, very hesitant about trusting the Poll Bludger, is because it is including the robopolls, which there seems to be increasing unease with. That is part of the reason why PB has the ALP losing 3 in Tas, 1 in WA and up to 10 in NSW and VIC combined. Nobody I speak to thinks that outcome is likely...  they think it'll come down to 10 marginals in QLD and NSW. The view of many is that the TPP will not directly correlate with seats at the end of the day. The large swings in VIC, SA and big swings in LNP seats will likely lead to a seat outcome which looks more like 51-49, than 53-47.

I'm pretty sure that we have a polling consensus which has things on average with the Coalition on 52/53...

Also, it turns out that due to the new issues of KAP and PUP, Newspoll cannot rely on 2010 preference flows for their TPP, so are using voter-allocated preferences.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In what direction(s?) are that curious Queensland double act directing their respective preferences?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

They're seat by seat, but PUP and KAP are doing deals between themselves for the Senate, but KAP and ALP have done deals for the QLD Senate and for a few crucial seats in FNQ.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

, but KAP and ALP have done deals for the QLD Senate and for a few crucial seats in FNQ.

oooo...

[Vosem]

What're Palmer himself's chances like in Fairfax? If he can get Greens preferences, as I believe he has (has he?) along with KAP preferences, even if he's in third place on first preferences he seems to have a fair chance of eclipsing the ALP, who would presumably preference him over the Liberals. Could someone point out the flaw in that reasoning (I assume there is one, since nobody really seems to consider a Palmer victory realistic?)?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No.... even though Fairfax saw a pretty massive Greens vote (for QLD)... I think that drops off sufficiently.

Palmer could get 10-15% of the primary... he'd need to be in front of the Greens to benefit, plus, Palmer first preferences are (more) likely to peel off the LNP and Family First than the ALP and Greens. Also consider that a lot of Greens will NOT preference Clive Palmer, no matter what.

It's PLAUSIBLE, but I can't see a scenario where Palmer gets into the TPP mix.

[Vosem]

No.... even though Fairfax saw a pretty massive Greens vote (for QLD)... I think that drops off sufficiently.

Palmer could get 10-15% of the primary... he'd need to be in front of the Greens to benefit, plus, Palmer first preferences are (more) likely to peel off the LNP and Family First than the ALP and Greens. Also consider that a lot of Greens will NOT preference Clive Palmer, no matter what.

It's PLAUSIBLE, but I can't see a scenario where Palmer gets into the TPP mix.

Uh-huh. As a general rule, for HoR preferences, what percent if voters don't follow their first-preferences' HTV card?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No.... even though Fairfax saw a pretty massive Greens vote (for QLD)... I think that drops off sufficiently.

Palmer could get 10-15% of the primary... he'd need to be in front of the Greens to benefit, plus, Palmer first preferences are (more) likely to peel off the LNP and Family First than the ALP and Greens. Also consider that a lot of Greens will NOT preference Clive Palmer, no matter what.

It's PLAUSIBLE, but I can't see a scenario where Palmer gets into the TPP mix.

Uh-huh. As a general rule, for HoR preferences, what percent if voters don't follow their first-preferences' HTV card?

There's no hard or fast rule... it does vary seat by seat.

[morgieb]

Also the party has an impact.

People voting for major parties are more likely to follow HTV cards than people voting for minor parties.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Also the party has an impact.

People voting for major parties are more likely to follow HTV cards than people voting for minor parties.

Indeed... as for most major party voters, preferences are just to satisfy the requirements of a valid ballot.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yet another odd poll...

Essential

Primary
ALP: 38% (-2)
LNP: 43% (-1)
GRN: 11% (+3)

TPP
ALP: 50% (NC)
LNP: 50% (NC)

Approval
Rudd: 41% (-4)
Abbott: 37% (NC)

Disapprove
Rudd: 45% (+2)
Abbott: 52% (+1)


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/files/2013/08/Essential-Report_130826.pdf

[Platypus]

Tasmania:

1901 (Multi-member single constituency)

Protectionist: 1
Labour: 1
Free Trade: 3

Prot/Lab coalition government denied third seat in Tasmania due to vote splitting, giving the opposition Free Traders their strongest result nationally I think.

1903

Protectionist: 2
Labour: 1 (in coalition w Protectionists)
Free Trade: 1
Revenue Tariff: 1

1906

Protectionist: 1
Labour: 1
Anti-Socialists: 3

I can't really analyse this well, sorry. But my thinking is that the split between the Protectionists and Labor probably played a role.

1910

Labour: 3
Commonwealth Liberal: 2

1913

Commonwealth Liberal: 2
Labor: 3

In an incredibly tight election nationally, the incumbents maintain their seats in Tasmania, but with very large swings against Labor in their seats (~11% for King O'Malley in Darwin being the largest)

1914

Labor: 3
Commonwealth Liberal: 2

1917

Nationalist: 5
Labor: 0

1919

Nationalist: 5
Labor: 0

1922

Nationalist: 2
Country: 2 (in coalition w N)
Labor: 1

1925

Nationalist: 4
Country: 1
Labor: 0

1928

Nationalists: 3
Independent: 1
Labor: 1

1929

Labor: 3
Independent: 1
Nationalist: 1

1931

United Australia: 5

1934

Labor: 3
UAP: 2

Despite having a Taswegian PM, the state turned against the UAP government as a whole, although all three senators elected were UAP.

1937

Labor: 3
UAP: 2

This time, Labor not only won the HoR delegation, but also all three available senate spots, even though Lyons still lead the nation, which wouldn't be the case at the next election.

1940

UAP: 3
Labor: 2

1943

Labor: 3
UAP: 2

1946

Labor: 3
Liberal: 2

1949

Liberal: 4
Labor: 1

1951

Liberal: 4
Labor: 1

1954

Liberal: 3
Labor: 2

1955

Liberal: 3
Labor: 2

1958

Liberal: 2
Labor: 3

Unlike the mainland, the DLP had very little influence in Tasmania in this election, and the state may even offer a glimpse into what would have hapenned nationally if not for the groupers.

1961

Liberal: 2
Labor: 3

Or maybe they just didn't like Menzies and the coalition in the Apple Isle?

1963

Liberal: 2
Labor: 3

All incumbents are re-elected,

1966

Liberal: 2
Labor: 3

And again, the seats remain unchanged, although there's a new member for Franklin. Interestingly, there's no senate election in Tasmania this year, which along with South Australia was the only state not to have vacancies in need of filling.

1969

Liberal: 1
Labor: 4

It was time in Tasmania, if not quite in the country as a whole.

1972

Labor: 5
Coalitiion: 0

1974

Labor: 5
Coalition: 0

1975

Liberal: 5
Labor: 0

1977

Liberal: 5
Labor: 0

1980

Liberal: 5
Labor: 0

1983

Labor: 0
Liberal: 5

Despite the national move to Labor, and despite it's history of being Labor-friendly6 during the Menzies era, Hawke makes no gains in Tasmania. The Senate also saw no change, with 5 Liberals, 4 Labor, and Brian Harradine being sent back in an election for the full senate.

1984

Labor: 0
Liberals: 5

The state is firmly at odds with the ALP, as the Franklin Dam dispute is perhaps the most overwhelmingly important issue at any election for any state. Labor do manage to pick up one of the two additional senators, though, along with the Democrats, so the state's delegation was split 3-3-1.

1987

Labor: 1
Liberals: 4

Still no love for Hawke and Labor, but not as catastrophically bad as they win back Hobart-based Denison.

1990

Labor: 1
Liberals: 4

All incumbents are re-elected.

1993

Labor: 4
Liberals: 1

With Hawke gone, Tasmania provides a large part of the boost needed for Keating to win the unwinnable election.

1996

Liberal: 2
Labor: 3

Howard's landslide does get one seat won in Tasmania, but the state is now firmly to the left of the national centre.

1998

Liberal: 0
Labor: 5

A perfect storm of Greens preferences, gun lovers, timber loggers, and general anti-Canberra mood due to the struggling state economy provide the Liberals with a walloping in Tassie, although they managed to hold on to two senate spots.

2001

Liberal: 0
Labor: 5

Labor's absolute control over the Tasmanian seats continued through 2001.

2004

Liberal: 2
Labor: 3

2004 was a controvertial year in Tasmania, as the loggers got support from Howard, and the greenies got support from nobody. The northern seats most affected by the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill both went to the government's side, but Labor managed to hold on to Lyons and with it the majority.

2007

Labor: 5
Coalition: 0

2010

Labor: 4
Independent 1 (supply for ALP)
Coalition: 0

2013 (prediction)

Liberal: 1
Independent: 1
Labor: 3

[GAworth]

Does anyone think the new boat buy up policy of the coalition will change anything? Also I wonder if the Two Northern Territory HoR seats shift to both being Country Liberal? Katter talks a good game but he will only be a force in the FNQ, also it looks like the Green Rep in Vic. is out based on preferences by Liberals.

[Platypus]

It's an awful policy, I can't see it gaining any votes

The seat of Melbourne will be one to watch. I have it going back to the ALP, but it'll be close.

The seat of Lingiari that Labor holds is hard to predict, but the current member is very popular in the seat.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's worth noting that the one Labor seat left in 1949 (Wilmot; since renamed as Lyons) was actually a gain in 1946. And with a further swing in Labor's favour. Also, the division gained in 1958 (Braddon) had not been Labor since King O'Malley's defeat in 1917, but was then held - and comfortably, even in 1966, until the electoral debacle that followed the dismissal of the Whitlam government.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Denison in the post-war era is evidence that even utter idiots can have huge personal votes if they've got themselves a sufficiently shiny war record.

[GAworth]

Yeah I agree that Lingiari will be hard to predict, but looking at the Territorial Election, the Bush seats are the ones that Labour suffered the most in. It will be interesting to watch.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though much of that swing was already in evidence in the last federal election.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I would like to remind people that six years ago Labor were apparently on course to win Kooyong and Wentworth, or at least were saying some polls.

[morgieb]

I would like to remind people that six years ago Labor were apparently on course to win Kooyong and Wentworth, or at least were saying some polls.

Kooyong?

Wentworth was actually quite marginal back in 2007, though most commentators thought Turnbull would hold on.

I heard stuff about North Sydney though...
_______________________

I think the difference this time is respect. Howard had been in there for a long time, he was seen as a known commodity, and his government was well-respected. Unfortunately this government really isn't.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/kooyong-could-fall-to-labor-as-liberal-polls-predict-rout/2007/09/14/1189276987693.html

[Smid]

Julian Assange finally embraces the attention whore within and releases a music video.