Federal election open thread

234

There’s been a lot of comments on various electorate profiles about the federal election that have been a bit more general than about a particular seat, and I’ve had a few requests for an open thread to discuss the federal election.

I’m working on a couple of other blog posts I’m hoping to put up later this week.

Liked it? Take a second to support the Tally Room on Patreon!

234 COMMENTS

  1. James
    I tend to agree about NSW BUT I think the independents may do well in some seats. Bradfield would be my first call because Morrison is definitely not one of them. A prominent independent – perhaps a Dr, barrister or similar might slip through the middle.

    I also agree more or less about Victoria- the ALP vote is already high there but I think perhaps one seat is winnable.

    SA and WA – yes I think the ALP will pick up here- more than the three suggested – perhaps 4-5

    Tas will be status quo. So that more or less brings them to 5 extra with the LNP losing one to an independent

    Qld is where the battle must be for the ALP. They must pick up at least 4 or possibly just two if they get supply support from the Bandt and Wilkie. I think Flynn and Longman are the most likely. Brisbane and Ryan are three way races with the Greens well and truly in the mix.

  2. I really think all that will happen in QLD is a straight swap of Flynn & Lilley.

    Will have to look elsewhere for any change to happen on election night.

  3. Maverick
    The Greens position on China is the same as the left generally. Apparently the govt has failed “to manage the relationship” !. I doubt their thinking has gone any deeper than those kind of glib, & facile judgements, & pronouncements. Probably still want to cut defence spending too.

    Trying to apply 21st century views, & beliefs, to early 20th century history is inappropriate & contextually false. If you let revisionists like PJK misrepresent the times you’ll end up with indefensible statements like “Those who saw Australia as a separate entity to the UK were reluctant to have a repeat of Gallipoli, whereas those who still called England “home”were keen as mustard”

    For 2 decades every australian household had endured endless conversations punctuated by WW1 battlefield names, signifying the loss of a relative, or close friend.(read Les Carlyon “the Great War”) We today can’t possibly comprehend the depth of pain or loss involved. Exemplifying Gallipoli militarily, over all the other battles is misplaced. It (now) has some greater historical relevance, thats all. I’d contend that Fromelles, or Bullecourt were greater (australian) defeats.
    When war was declared (1939) there was a solemn, sober , even grim resolve to follow, & honour the sacrifices of the preceding generation. There was nothing “keen” whatsoever. I suggest you re-watch Menzies speech which captured the mood of the time. If Menzies had contained it to 3 minutes it would have been one of the greatest speeches of all time.
    In fact most of the “20%” were the left who believed that Stalin had created a “worker state (paradise sic!) that should be preserved at any cost, even a pact with Hitler. By 1941 such considerations, or naiveté had been somewhat overtaken by events ! Eddie Ward & the left of the ALP were also preoccupied with “the conscription of capital” in “exchange” for manpower, & labour. This prevented a wartime cabinet, & brought down the govt. There was also significant division, & residual effect from the conscription/ Irish civil war (“troubles”!). Overall though this view had little relevance, or impact.
    Consequently the application of a 21st century view of nationalism is profoundly misplaced.

    I don’t understand what you mean by “emotional” when referring to Latham (or me for that matter !). What distinction do you make between emotion, & feeling ? When i look at Latham i see evidence of a journey of learning how to channel rage, passion, & aggression, into control, reason, strength, rational thought, & powerful action. Are there any other political figures willing to challenge themselves on that level ?
    cheers wd

  4. Wine

    Sorry but i think you are rather wrong on the attitudes of the 1930s. First many joined up because they were STILL unemployed in the wake of the depression. So it was for my uncle, who at 25 had his first real job when he joined up. he was in Singapore when it feel, but managed to catch a tidy rowing boat and escape to sea.

    There were many of Irish descent who loathed the idea of any British war (much as did JFK’s father old Joe Kennedy).

    Those on the left feared that the war would rapidly turn into one against Russia. So essentially it was not until japan entered the war that you had any Australian unity re the war.

    You are of course right about Gallipoli not being the only relevant place but very, very few of us at school ever learned much about the Australian role in France, largely I suspect because that would mean praising monash, who being Jewish was not regarded as a full member of society (he was excluded from many clubs).

    It was NOT every Australian household. Remember most Irish families did not join up. You are talking of English/Scottish families. Not quite the same thing.

    Oddly enough Menzies LOST the election after 1939, so I do not think he was really talking for most Australians. Moreover the fact that he had NOT joined up in WWI told against him. Clearly his speech was not great in the sense that it failed to inspire the nation to love him. he was always known as “pig iron Bob”

    Latham has an aggro streak which I think can fairly be termed emotional. I have respect for latham in many ways, and some of his stuff as leader of the ALP I liked alot. He is however still quite emotionally volatile.

  5. An interesting quirk of the 1940 election was that every state recorded a swing to the Coalition *except* NSW. Unfortunately for Menzies, that swing was large enough to deprive him of his majority. I wonder what factors unique to NSW could have caused that? A high concentration of Catholics, like you suggest Watcher?

  6. Not Catholics in particular, Surely it was Victoria where Archbishop Mannix was based that had the strongest anti war/UK sentiment.

    I think it was probably the role of the Lang Labor party,

  7. Watcher
    Thanks for your comments
    You’re quite correct about the residual effects of the depression, & it did indeed motivate some enlistment.
    It is doubtful the the trepidations of the left for a war against Russia affected “Australian unity” any more than I’ve already acknowledged, likewise the Irish Catholic factor, as this was transcended by a well established Australian nationalism, & identity.

    “It was NOT every Australian household. Remember most Irish families did not join up. You are talking of English/Scottish families. Not quite the same thing”
    Check out the honour role on any War Memorial & you will find plenty of irish names in direct proportion to the Australian population of the time. So i find your view an overstatement at best, & somewhat vaguely disrespectful to the australians of Irish heritage who put aside any reservations to serve our country & stand with the other australian soldiers. We have to bear in mind the values of that generation (WW1). God King & Country still applied even if the “King” was disliked.
    Personally on behalf of my great-grandmothers Irish family whose names litter the honour role in Balranald (& elsewhere) your view is offensive.

    “pig iron Bob” : Churchill stated that “an appeaser someone who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last” When the Japs demanded he close the Burma Road (to China ) in 1941 He closed it immediately.
    The USA traded with Japan until sanctions were imposed in august 1941. Should Menzies have ignored British & American policy, & direction, & started a trade Jihad (against Japan) on his own !? Maybe the Japs would have hurt themselves laughing !? Or been provoked into a psychotic episode inspiring mass hara kiri !?
    Which action was a greater act of appeasement, or hypocrisy !?
    In reality “pig iron Bob” was just a glib, opportunistic political slur, from hypocritical dickheads who knew the real situation, & exploited the moment. What excuse do hundreds of lefty historians, & writers have for perpetuating this gross mendacious misrepresentation ? Ignoring the context, facts, & realities ?

    ” Moreover the fact that he had NOT joined up in WWI told against him.” It is fully documented that His 2 older brothers (who served OS) made him SWEAR that he would not volunteer for overseas service as they agreed that 2 of 3 brothers was enough, & their father was infirm. Yes this was another highly effective slur, & knowing deception. Ironically Menzies was concripted in 1915 commissioned, & campaigned FOR Conscripts to be posted OS !. Presumably he was seeking to circumvent his oath ?
    So called historians misrepresent, & distort facts, present opinion as fact, or just plain lie. It is good to maintain rational thinking, & logical thought. Putting things in a proper accurate historical context can also be useful……! Menzies did NOT lose the 1941 election, he resigned in august 41 because of a rare mistake – allowing Churchill to send the ANZAC corps to Greece, against his own better judgement.
    “Clearly his speech was not great in the sense that it failed to inspire the nation to love him.” That is a really shallow value judgement. Menzies was respected, & admired. “Love” is overrated. Our most appalling PMs have all been “loved” & some still are !!. If you can’t see the humble unifying brilliance of Menzies speech you are really missing a wonderful moment of our history, & an illustration/embodiment, of some of our finest national qualities
    The reason WWI France is not taught is because it is a positive view of the qualities, & values of our people. The sacrifices, & achievements don’t fit in with the negative “black armband” historical narrative. It has Sweet F**k All to do with Monash being Jewish. After the war he was excluded from a few anti- semitic elitist Melbourne clubs, probably the same ones that view women as a subspecies. However he had many prominent appointments
    What is wrong with forcefulness,& passion. (which is the “emotional volatility” i presume you are referring to) ?
    I can think of plenty vile, & sleazy qualities that are far more obnoxious & widely displayed by our current politicians !
    Menzies was Australia’s greatest PM followed by Curtin, & Hawke.

    Perhaps you have gained some insight why my year 9 (modern) History teacher (the fabulous Mr Robert King) spent a lot of 1975 aiming hypersonic missiles of chalk at me all year !

  8. Menzies was popular in the post war era, when times were good and the economy booming, but very nearly lost government in 1961 when there was a severe recession (unemployment above 2% (seems laughable now).

    I think you overestimate the popularity of the man rather than the good times of which he was a symbol. Of course he was wiser, with age and that certainly helped him.

    However I do accept he was a wise and effective PM as well as being very smart, but was not fully trusted by the electorate at large. Remember he lost the referendum on banning the communist party, reflecting the reality that while seen as a secure PM, he was not regarded as infallible or completely trusted. Menzies’ greatest strength was i think caution and a sense of balance. Oddly enough i read/heard that he strongly opposed plans by some in the USA to nuke China. He also did not allow US forces to stay in Australia with permanent bases, perhaps reflecting his stronger loyalty to the UK but also the views of the Australian people.

    Of course there were some Irish lads that joined up, but forget the King and country motive – the silly young boys were keen on adventure and a chance to travel. The shock of Gallipoli and France drove those notions out and YES the shared experience did forge that sense of Australian nationalism and started the process of breaking down the great catholic/protestant divide that was still with us well into the 1980s.

    Give the eulogizing cover story of the two brothers a miss. A bit of PR pap, given many families sent all their sons to the war. Menzies was the darling favoured younger son- the smart one – he is distantly related to me via an aunt’s marriage, so I have a tiny bit on inside gossip.

    Sorry WD, but the black armband theory about France is just not so. I was taught in the pre black armband era, when there was never a word about massacres or native rights (some trouble in Tasmania made the text books i think). There was no such thing as black armband history and we all learned “God King and country.” i was taught and retaught Gallipoli, but not anything about France. In hindsight it seems crazy. I wonder what the reason was. Perhaps it was to protect Britain, perhaps to further the anti Monash sentiment of the media (helped along by Murdoch’s daddy), or perhaps just lack of good information and perhaps the view by education cv writers that the Gallipoli story was much better suited to young kids. Perhaps it was a mixture, but one think I can say categorically is that it had nothing even remotely connected to what you see as black armband history.

    Perhaps you can explain to me why when at school in Sydney, I never heard of Monash other than via my father who told me of his being banned from Clubs. (I always came top of the class so it was not because I was lazy). It is possible, that it was an anti Melbourne thing – had he been from NSW perhaps he would have made it into the curriculum. Did the Victorian curriculum include him I wonder.

  9. maverick
    thanks for such a thoughtful, & comprehensive response. There are several subjects that well deserve a detailed reply so i’ll separate them.

    1/ Australian history, & the way it’s taught, & the curriculum etc. I’ll add the “black armband theory ” aspect about France ,WWI etc.
    2/ Menzies
    3/ Australia in the 50’s & 60s “when times were good and the economy booming, but very nearly lost government in 1961 when there was a severe recession (unemployment above 2% (seems laughable now).”
    4/ The Irish/ Catholic divide “into the 80s”

    I’ll start with the more minor point of 4/ first
    We seem to broadly agree on much of it ,& thanks for your acknowledgements. So just some observations, or comments. Growing up in the 60s, & 70s i was AWARE of it (I/C divide), & witnessed it in some country communities. Mostly it was just a thing that my parents observed, & talked about. So my view is that comparatively the divide diminished through the 60’s & was of little influence in the 70s.
    Personally I had a Jewish father, Anglican mother, & married a 3RD GEN Irish catholic australian (all non practising) WD Junior is a supremely proud heathen !. Miss WD is exercising her right as a female to keep changing her mind & regularly acquires a new religion ! So perhaps I’m a neutral observer !?

    “the silly young boys were keen on adventure” I’d suggest that by 1916 the realities of newspapers filled with casualty lists, anecdotal accounts, experiences, & reporting had shattered such perceptions. along with the amputees etc. had comprehensively eliminated that “silliness”.

    So this leaves the fascinating historical challenge, questions, conclusions, & understanding the true essence, & lasting effects of WW1 on Australia, & our people that endure to this day.
    Questions like why did those men continue to serve, fight, overcome, & achieve the impossible ? What was it that sustained, & motivated them. What were their beliefs, & values. What was their bequest, or legacy to all Australians ? So i’d be grateful for anyone contributing to this inquiry.

    I’ll come back to all this asap
    cheers WD

  10. Wine
    Not quite sure what you mean in point 1. My issue was that at least in Sydney in the 60s, Australia’s role in France was totally ignored when discussing WWI. It was definitely not black armband stuff. It might have been pro British or perhaps just too terrible for teachers to tell children. But is is completely off truth to think there was any connection to current black armband thinking.

    If you are talking the Catholic/Protestant divide, well it was certainly dying in the 70s but was still alive in the early 80s, albeit rather hidden and very rapidly fading. I suspect you could almost put a year on it, ie when the decline was terminal, ie when it was assumed all politically minded young devout Catholics would join the ALP, versus the current situation where most such will join the LNP. Take two passionate, intelligent, devout Catholic boys from Sydney, both influenced by BA Santamaria. Keating in the mid 60s headed for the ALP while Abbott less than 10 years later headed to the Liberals. 1970 may be a convenient date to mark the switch as those years 1968-1972 showed profound social changes in many areas. Perhaps it was the Vietnam war etc that triggered the switch, although the arrival of the DLP was the start of the change.

    I recall it being notable that Phillip Lynch was in the Cabinet in the 60s and his religion was significant. However the existence of the divide was still alive (if definitely unwell) in my workplace in the early 80s.

  11. https://www.tallyroom.com.au/42746/comment-page-5/#comment-756835

    Previously non-Catholic parts of the Abbott family converted to Catholicism in the 1930s/1940s and were in the upper middle class professional demographic (back when that was a heavily Coalition/Conservative voting demographic), so they were likely a Coalition/Conservative voting family well before many other Catholics.

    Keating is of mostly Irish-Catholic ancestry and working class background, so was from a background more likely to vote ALP.

    The heavy ALP lean of Catholics was for interlinked largely class and Irish Nationalist reasons. Increasing availability of professional jobs for Catholics, increased post-war migration of Catholics from majority Catholic countries that had a supply of right-wing Catholics without significant historical links to Irish Nationalism (including refugees from Communism), the gateway party of the DLP and Catholic school funding are likely some of the most significant factors in the delinking of Catholicism and ALP voting.

  12. This is an interesting article which deals with the migration of the Catholics to the Liberal party.
    https://insidestory.org.au/australias-great-political-shift/

    Post-War migration changed Australia forever. We now had Continental European migration that involved Catholics from countries such as Yugoslavia (Croatia), Italy and Malta and both Protestants and Catholics from countries such as Germany, Netherlands and the Baltic Countries. This lead to old sectarian divisions between British Protestants and Irish Catholics becoming irrelevant as Australia transformed into a multi-ethnic society. There was a greater sense of Australian nationhood rather than defined by loyalty to the Empire, the Decolonisation process had also started. Furthermore, the decision of Menzies to grant state aid led to increased social mobility for Catholics longer terms. Previously, nuns played a greater role in the Education sector even teaching secular subjects. This changed after state aid and there was more professional teachers and improved academic outcomes in the Catholic Education sector which led to the growth of the Catholic Middle Class.

  13. Dennis Atkins seems to think a Nov 27 election is likely so strap yourselves in for that, assuming it happens.
    Also I don’t see Victoria getting out of lockdown any time soon so that will be intriguing.

    Anyone who alleges that there will be vote rigging can go get stuffed bc that’s not how paper ballots work.

  14. Tom
    Yes totally agree with your comments. The Abbott being middle class and English versus Keating being Irish and from the Western suburbs is important I agree, Nevertheless in his Uni days there was the potential for his to join the ALP and he was encouraged by some to do so. The non Irish Catholic immigration is important too.

  15. I think we are heading towards minority government folks. I see the Libs losing 6 seats definite
    Chisholm
    Boothby
    Swan
    Pearce
    Hasluck
    Casey
    I see them gaining probably 1 in Hunter
    That leaves it at 71 Libs 74 Labor and then Labor get to 76 with Bandt and Wilkie! If it’s any less than that seat gain wise or if Libs pick up Patterson then Libs will probably return in a minority government.

  16. Question: with the NSW and COmmonwealth Governments now failing to manage this current COVID outbreak and things totally getting out of hand – what impact will this have on the election? Does it mean more likely a:

    1) Labor Majority
    2) Labor Minority
    3) Liberal / Nationals Majority
    4) Liberal / Nationals Minority

  17. Did you realise that the Liberal Party has been the Majority Government (i.e. with 50% of the seats or greater) 3 or 4 times out of the 19 that Australia has had a Liberal Prime Minister.

  18. I feel that it will help labor in NSW/SA as only the liberals can be blamed, in VIC/QLD it may help either side as blame can go to state or federal governments

  19. Polling is less predictive this far out than simply just assuming a 50/50 result 2PP (source: Dr Kevin Bonham).

    Too early to speculate but events *appear* to favour Labor at the moment.

  20. With Albo spruiking high speed rail again, does anybody know if:
    1. He is just getting back on his old hobby horse.
    Or
    2. He was pushing Sydney – Newcastle as a vote winning ploy in the Hunter. Are Labor concerned enough that they need to pull out – imho a most dubious – big ticket item?

  21. @ Redistributed

    I think with the time Albo spent in the Hunter / Newcastle / Central Coast (at least 3 days in a row) and making big announcements then Labor maybe in trouble in this region. Interesting that he seemed to remain on the Coastal Seats and did not go into the heart of Hunter itself (i.e. the mining and power towns).

  22. I remember reading an article some time last year that said for the Vic Liberals, some of them actually would secretly want the fed Libs to lose, as that would get many of those Canberra staffers to come back to Melbourne to help them with the state election (much of the potential Vic Lib talent is seen to skip state politics and just goes straight for federal politics due to the much better electoral successes the Libs have had there), and the federal Libs being a constrast to state Labor (aka whom Vic Labor can constantly blame for problems) would also no longer be a drag on the Victorian Libs.

    Anyway, it’s still early days – so wouldn’t really bet on a Labor federal win yet, even if polling has been trending that way for awhile.

  23. @James you’re right that he was very specific to include the Central Coast in the seat, so it could just be him targeting Liberal held Robertson.

    The policy seems to be starting up high speed rail by first proving it for Sydney commuters. Other similar high speed rail corridors that could be prioritised as a first small step would be
    Sydney -> Wollongong (safe Labor)
    Sydney -> Canberra (Hume is safe Liberal, Canberra is safe Labor and it wouldn’t help Eden Monaro much)

    I’m not saying that Labor is safe in Hunter or even Paterson & Shortland, it just wouldn’t be beyond Labor to do this announcement solely to win one Liberal held seat.

    The other transport announcement I remember was a trackless tram announcement for Rowville, which is in Aston (Tudge holds it 60/40). It was a pretty lame announcement all told but using the same logic, Labor are in a very strong position. If they can win the blue belt in Melbourne’s east, they’re in.

  24. That trackless tram serves marginal Higgins and ultra marginal Chisholm so it can be said that it is an attempt to try to win those seats

  25. @ BJA from Ryan as somebody who lives in Flynn and isn’t a huge fan of the Coalition to begin with, I just don’t think there is enough votes for Labor here to overturn the National margin, even if it ballooned in 2019 as part of the anti-Labor swing across QLD. While I think people who believe seats like Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn will have yet another swing in favor of the Nationals this election are kidding themselves, it’s definitely the beginning of a prolonged trend towards them, even if they do suffer swings towards Labor this year.

  26. @ Laine the issue with seats of:

    a) Dawson (margin 14%) – swing of 11% at the last election – but One Nation Vote of 13% – One Nation did not participate in the election before. Will One Nation have a vote of 13% this election and were will the preferences go
    b) Capricornia (margin 12%)- swing of 11% but One Nation Vote of 13% – One Nation did not participate in the election before. Will One Nation have a vote of 17% this election and were will the preferences go
    c) Flynn (margin 9%)- swing of 8% but One Nation Vote of 19%, One Nation did participate in this seat, but were will the preferences go.

    Also no incumbent member in Flynn and Dawson. These 3 seats will all be decided on the One Nation vote and were the preferences go? If you consider the 2016 election, these seats were all in play for Labor.

    While they are all coal mining seats – was 2019 an aberration or the new norm in these seats.

  27. Certainly expecting swings back to Labor, each of the 3 seats just have unique circumstances:

    Capricornia – quality of incumbent will I think withstand any swing to Labor

    Dawson – has had a high profile incumbent & the new LNP candidate is a local mayor. I know nothing of the Labor candidate.

    Flynn is different – has had a low profile incumbent but Labor has the local mayor (of Gladstone) as candidate. Unsure how the new State MP candidate compares with the incumbent in order to complete. If this seat is given away on election night based on swings in Gladstone, only to come back on postals again for the 3rd time, I would be surprised. Thanks for the local perspective Laine, then if the Labor vote in Gladstone cannot go much higher though, I would be very pleased.

  28. Interesting the 3 seats now have rather large np margins… which are rather inflated by the 2019 election. Based on normal demographics Capricornia is the most marginal.. and is normally alp held. Dawson is normally np held .. and Flynn is a classic marginal.

  29. @Laine thanks for your insights from the seat of Flynn

    @James thanks for that quick summary looking at swings and ON Votes

    @BJA from Ryan @Michael Quinlivan thanks for your commentaries

    to add to the debate and my take and 2 cents worth.. [I’ve gone seats South to North]
    FLYNN [My view: LNP Retain]
    Flynn is interesting in that, I remember reading last year, that area could have up to 3 Elections in the space of a couple of months! {ie Fed General, Mayor By, State By}(If ALP Matt Burnett wins, he’ll resign Mayor. LNP Colin Boyce has to resign from state parliament to run, regardless if he’s successful – a la Andrew Constance [Bega By-Election NSW].)

    For Flynn – I’ve put this down as LNP retain. Colin Boyce going against his party in a vote a couple of years ago in regards to coal went down well in his electorate and saw ONP and KAP not field candidates against him in the 2020 QLD Election. The interesting question will be the Callide By-Election and if ALP will run the mayor in an essentially open seat. It must be noted Callide TCP besides 2020 for the past 3 state elections have all be minor parties in second place, not Labor. (KAP ’12 PUP ’15 ONP ’17) Both Majors have seen their vote decline from 2010, and mostly at expensive of ONP. ONP declined big time at QLD 2020 but with Pauline leading the ticket federally, expect their vote to hold up a bit more but no real contest here. [EDIT: Sharon Lohse ran here for ONP in 2019 and State Seat of Maryborough at 2020 QLD Election. I do wonder if ONP run her again here or another seat.]

    CAPRICORNIA [My View: LNP Retain]
    Next seat up North and I’ve also marked this down as LNP Retain. Yes Labor choosing a 3rd Generation Miner in Russell Robertson was a good strategic move (and he was the ALP Candidate in this seat for the 2019 Election), in trying to get this seat to swing, but with the entrenched incumbent and high margin, I just don’t see it falling.

    DAWSON [My View: LNP Retain]
    This one would be a wildcard if George decided to stay but seems unlikely, although, as we saw with NQF in QLD 2020, MPs sometimes overstate their popularity. Have this down as a LNP retain. Again ALP chose a candidate who worked in the coal mine industry, which has been alluded to in above comments as the common theme in these 3 seats, but it’s a low base of ALP to again overtake and win.

    HERBERT [My View: Most Likely LNP Retain, Possible ALP/OTH Gain]
    I thought I’d chuck this one into the mix as it’s the next one north. This is the one most at risk of changing hands. Cathy O’Toole (ALP) won it off 30.5% of Primary vote in 2016 for ALP Gain, only to loose it to Phillip Thompson (LNP) with 37.1% of the Primary Vote. Preferences here will be the key. I have it at about 65% LNP Retain, 30% ALP Gain and 5% Others Gain (either ONP or KAP). It really does depend on how low the LNP stays (sophomore effect vs national drag) and the preference snowball. (Hinchinbrook 2017 QLD Election comes to mind-extreme example but anything is possible.) At 2019, LNP 37.11%, ALP 25.45%, ONP 11.09%, KAP 9.8%, GRN 7.31%, UAP 5.7%, CON 1.82% and AJP 1.72%. I just think there’s enough variance there for a surprise result. If LNP vote goes up, that shuts the door to the minors and only ALP can hvae a slim chance. If it stays or drops, it’s game on. Also, KAP have already chosen their candidate and been campaigning hard here already, taking this seat seriously. Nevertheless, this is on seat I’ll be keeping an eye on election night!

    [KENNEDY is technically the next one north surrounding Herbert. KAP retain, it’s basically Bob’s until he dies/reties.]

    LEICHHARDT [My View: LNP Retain]
    And I’ll include this one as well. The green vote is strongest here at 10% compared to the other 5 seats mentioned above. I have this as LNP retain with Warren Entsch. Without him, possible ALP Gain. ALP chose the same candidate as in 2019. The LNP vote here is essentially same as Herbert, but a higher ALP and Green vote. Brings it close, but think incumbency will keep LNP here safe unless ALP really throw some resources here. Happy for others to disagree and postulate further on this one.

    MINOR TREND OBSERVATION
    One thing when looking at the above electorates (minus Kennedy) is the vote trend of ONP, which @James mentioned above. As you go north, Flynn 19.6%, Capricornia 17%, Dawson 13%, Herbert 11% and Leichhardt 6%. While yes, 2019 Fed is one sample point, shows a clear descending pattern of ONP further north you go.

    UAP hovered 3.65%-6.6% across the 6 electorates with no real trend, but Kennedy polled their strongest.

    KAP didn’t run in Flynn but shows their strength up north with opposite trend to ONP.
    KAP votes as follows Capricornia 3.67%, Dawson 6.32%, Herbert 9.8% and Leichhardt 8.15%. (I’ve excluded Kennedy here-41% for KAP for those wondering.)

    GRN vote is lowest in the south at Flynn with 3% and improves as you go north to 10.4% in Leichhardt.

    A long post but hope that encourages some debate/discussion 🙂 all in all, looking forward to what could be a fascinating Federal Election!

  30. @ Politics_Obsessed

    You comments make sense – however, I think LEICHHARDT is in play significantly for Labor. Albo is in Cairns today and must be his 2nd trip in 12 months to Cairns. He would not be wasting this amount of time there if there was no chance.

    We will really know if Scomo makes a trip to Cairns soon

  31. Basically for Labor to do well in any of these regional seats it’s gonna need ON and UAP to do badly. ON fell apart at the state election when being dumb about COVID was less fashionable. Palmer basically did nothing in 2020. That’s not the case this time. Palmer’s spending big, just like he did in 2019, and ON are similarly much more active. I think Turnbull was the only reason Labor ever did as well as it did in 2016.

    Leichhardt is the only seat outside SE Queensland that I see Labor having a hope in hell of winning. Its voters generally aren’t as conservative as in Flynn, Herbert, Dawson, etc and its margin is the smallest besides, so Labor could be competitive here again. But I think Entsch will hold it.

  32. Interesting to note that in 2019 in Flynn that Labor only outpolled ON by 130 votes in the senate count. Labors vote was horrendous in Central QLD – and that includes Herbert. Seriously hard to see them coming back for a long long time. If the UAP, ON, KAP and LDP seriously combined they could be on a winner in that part of the world. Fortunately for both Labor and the LNP, they are so fractious and so personality driven, that they are unlikely to put together a vote winning combination without big preference leakages.

  33. Leichhardt has two big differences to the seats further south.
    1. Big indigenous communities on the Cape – where Entsch has polled surprisingly well in the past.
    2. It isn’t mining driven so the whole Adani thing did not resonate the same way as the seats further south.

    Agree with others without Entsch, it would be very hard for the LNP to win.
    .

Comments are closed.