Banks – Australia 2016

I live around this area and strongly believe that the Coalition will retain this seat. It has been trending their way for years now and without Melham plus an incumbent of their own…

Looking at that booth map, a more natural division might be a Labor-leaning North (everything north of Henry Lawson Drive / Forest Road), then split the Liberal-leaning riverfront into East and West.

Agree with Wreathy of Sydney, even on a small margin, I’m confident the Liberal Party will hold on in Banks with a relatively small swing against them. Labor’s Chris Gambian seems to have a decent following, but if Daryl Melhem couldn’t hold on after 20 years in the seat, I doubt Labor can get the seat back.

We all seem in furious agreement. Coleman’s sophomore surge – Melham’s personal vote = lib win.

Just to add to my prior assessment, the Asian vote is also very high here and word on the streets has it that Coleman is simply adored by that community. Anyway, it should all equal a Liberal retain, as we have all agreed.

W of S
The state lib MP for Oatley also works his ringer off. Also particularly with the asian community. Coleman is certainly a hero in the liberal party, according to my ALP insider , who incidentally grew up in Banks !!.

@Winediamond, I am aware. I was very involved in the ground game for Oatley in 2015. While we all knew the Libs were in for a huge corrective swing of ~ 10%, everyone I was working with also knew that Coure was a shoo-in. Turns out we were not only right, but hugely so as he was one of the few Lib MPs to have a swing towards him.

not agreed on the result will be close

The Liberals are favoruites here, aided by demographic change. Coleman does seem to have established a local profile for himself

The new boundaries are similar to what they were in 2004. But the differences are significant: the northern boundary was further north along Milperra Rd and the south-eastern part from Kogarah council wasn’t then part of the electorate. Melham won that contest 51-49. On these boundaries, his parliamentary career probably would have been over nine years sooner.

Looking forward to what should be another intriguing election.

This seat has two critical factors working in its favour to the Liberal Party:

*Gentrification along the Georges River, creeping North. The cut-off for this was traditionally Forest Road/Stoney Creek Road but is now creeping towards the M5.
*The loss of Daryl Melham, along with his personal vote, which started falling apart following his support of the pokie reform from Nick Xenophon, despite his place on the board of Revesby Workers Club.

I see this seat as a probably Liberal hold, with the margin back down to around 1%

@David Walsh it is also important to remember that it has been over 10 years since the ’04 election. As Hawkeye points out, there has been considerable gentrification in that time and that favours the Liberal Party enormously.

@Ben Raue how did you calculate the margin for this seat? Did you do it yourself or use another method?

I only ask because I noticed that on the ABC’s website and in the redistribution page by Antony Green, Banks is listed with a 2.6% margin, not a 2.8% one.

Am I missing something here????

I did calculate my own margins, which I use for the booth breakdowns and for primary votes, but I am using the Parliamentary Library margins for the two-party-preferred figures. You can read it here.

I wouldn’t worry too much about precise figures – there is a large degree of uncertainty when it comes to redistribution margins, particularly in terms of how you distribute the ‘other votes’, so small variations are to be expected.

@Ben thanks for clearing everything up.

Sure there’s been gentrification, but its political effects might be overstated. The more important factor here is geography. Even on 2013 figures, this seat would be more like 50-50 on the 2004 boundaries, because you’re trading places like Connells Point for places like Punchbowl South. And it would certainly still be a Labor seat on 2007 boundaries, when the northern boundary was the Hume Highway.

what of the liberal trouble in east hills?

As a ‘conservative’ conservative voter, Coleman has unnecessarily spoiled his copy book on SSM – why endorse a Greens Policy?? – anyway, he has lost 9 votes from my household on this issue (extended family, not two guys and a poodle) so I will be doing my best to ensure he forfeits his seat.

I suppose his honesty is to be acknowledged, but, his lack of social foresight means my LNP conservative vote is reduced to just supporting a neo-con economic position, which I don’t favour – and getting no punch on important social issues for the family. Two people a day are getting gay ‘married’ in Ireland, so much ado about nothing in the longer term. If only we had better media advocacy for the majority!

Alas. Like many of these seats in southern Sydney, it looks like candidate “I.N.Formal” will be increasing his/her share of the vote – perhaps as high as 15%, plus the 7% who didn’t even bother to vote in 2013.

Given the Liberal party won’t permit a conscience vote on same sex marriage, an individual MP’s stance on the matter doesn’t amount to much.

Kaiser’s Trad
Being against SSM, is like pissing against the wind !!!. What a forlorn , & hopeless cause. I simply can’t believe how, it can be a vote- changer in 2016 ???

@Kaiser’s Trad perhaps he saw the hypocrisy of a Liberal Party that advocated ceaselessly for smaller gov’t when it comes to economics, but betrays this principle at the first rumble from the right when it comes to social policy? That maybe it is not the gov’t business to be poking its nose into who people want to marry?

So I was at good old Hurstville station today catching my train. In the morning I see Chris Gambian campaigning hard, getting out the early-birds and workers heading into the city. While the man himself was particularly enthused, his dreary, one-woman support team was lacklustre to say the least.

Whattya know, in the evening who do I see? None other than David Coleman and his legion of campaign staff. This would seem to vindicate my earlier view that the Libs are putting up a particularly spirited campaign and trying to match Labor’s ground game which would seem to indicate they are taking this seat very seriously.

well, I may be pissing in the wind, but, that the effectiveness of the the first and best affirmative action policy that sees a strong domestic economy (ie a stable, child producing family of future tax paying workforce) is lost on the likes of you and other so called conservatives around the world is the reason our economy and nation (and western culture) is screwed….hope you enjoy the Caliphate…as they say, it’s all about the numbers.

Smaller Government was when child payments were linked to an annual tax deduction and not huge departments of every conceivable welfare payment to all and sundry since 1975. Marriage was a social contract…play by the rules and get the support. Now, why bother with marriage at all? Yes, the government no longer has any public policy role or purpose, so yes, maybe I am wasting my breath, but, stay the course I will.

As for the enthusiastic Colemanites, perhaps that is PaTH in action already?

KT: You control 9 people’s votes, eh? Good luck with that. You’re gonna be so devastated when your firstborn son comes out of the closet.

God will do that to you, just like he did with Job… maybe to test your faith… maybe just for the merry hell of it. “Why have you forsaken me?” 😛

kaiser’s trad
What possible connection is there between SSM , & the caliphate !!! ???.

@KT It has nothing to w/a ‘caliphate’ as you call it, it seems to me that you are just using this economic argument to surreptitiously advance a theocratic and profoundly Christian agenda. ***NEWS FLASH*** Christianity is a dying religion these days and even if it were not, it should NEVER be involved in gov’t. Ever. When religion and gov’t intertwine, you get corruption and oppression, history is very clear on this.

Further, the points you raise about a future tax base and workforce are only relevant with a welfare state that cannot stop spending money. Your entire premise is based on the gov’t handing out money for marriage and child endowment. When I say small gov’t, I really mean small gov’t – none of these wastes of money. The gov’t does not need to collect so much damn tax and would be better off scaling back to its essential functions – barebones pro.

It is a matter of principle.

Oh the few, sad, tragic homophobes are screeching their hatreds like the flock of galahs down at the park. Sorry galahs at least you have ‘pink’ chests! The above comment proves that homophobia/transphobia is parent taught. “Oh so what did you teach your children to be? Oh, Bigots, Haters and Discriminators” Fabulous effort.

Getting waaay off topic guys.

No Ben, it’s the commentariot that is way off course.

[deleted for lack of relevance]

Alright, most of kaiser’s trad’s last post has been deleted due to being massively off-topic.

LOL Ben, your very actions prove my point. How you can think a pre-eminent Australia social and economic researchers opinion and a century of international family policy is ‘off topic’ significantly damages YOUR reputation.

That said, you have every right to make the decision to limit free speech and thought on your website. The MSM do that all the time. After all, it would appear you are here to perpetuate the current problem with Australian politics. Spin, surf some numbers and think you are very clever.

Ben
Shit !!!. You have forced me to agree with Kaiser’s Trad.
I understand why you deleted him. However IMV you ought to have at least left his rant there as an example of what was NOT acceptable !!!.

If the ambit of this site is just the ‘counting of pebbles’, then, sure my musings may be off topic, but if we are seeing psephology beyond mere voting trends, then, let’s think bigger.

The topic of this post is about the seat of Banks. There is an open thread on the front page. If you have any further concerns about the comments policy please email me.

In my opinion, trying to keep the comments focused on matters electoral helps prevent it turning into yet another policy-based political slanging match of which there are innumerable already elsewhere on the internet.

I live in Banks. I have run as a candidate in Banks. I may again. But, as a voter in Banks, I am not just going to swallow major party tripe. My seat is now marginal, and I will take advantage of that and do my best to ensure that we don’t make the LNP think it’s theirs for the next 20 years.

Do the ALP deserve the seat back? Hell no, but, do I want a left wing LNP in the party room – where the decisions are made on who is in cabinet etc- when he doesn’t represent traditional family policy? Equally no.

Ben, it’s your site and I will try and remain respectful of your aspirations for it. But never be afraid to think bigger!

KME – “matters electoral” v “policy based political slanging” – this could be a reductionist position where ‘managerialism’ – that has corrupted the party policy and preselection processes – reigns supreme.

A well run and successful party that can get elected sees where we are at now – seriously, what policy initiatives has the local Banks voter seen in the last term that would be of any significant benefit to them? What new Mal-ScoMo plan (with Sinodinas’ donors pushing the policy /legislative buttons) can we hope to see in the next term helping self funded retirees and housing commission mums?

David Coleman’s sole contribution to my local area is like his policy contribution – a publicly funded roundabout with ratepayers money to get Woolworth’s off the hook. Brilliant… looking after your paying mates.

Australia – home of the cartel, where policy is bought by the highest bidder!

@KT well he unseated Daryl Melham so that’s always a plus XD

Yeah, the previous Lib candidate went close too! Military precision in his case, but, demographics and shifting boundaries are playing against ALP, that said, either way, we will get a left leaning representative!

Been driving through this area a lot over the last few weeks. What I have noticed in particular, is the huge amount of signage for the Greens, far more than last time – they are putting in a noticeable effort it seems.

@Ben Raue, also there is an error in the text – it states that the ALP have always held this seat. No doubt a relic from the old guide.

WoS: can’t imagine why. This isn’t a strong seat for them at all….with both major parties polling 40%+ it’s not even a seat they could challenge for second.

@MM From what I have observed the Greens have a small but dedicated support base here – not nearly enough to threaten the major parties, but enough to poll reasonably.

Or perhaps the followers of the Greens are simply more strident in their activism, enough to put up posters outside their homes I suppose.

I haven’t noticed the Greens at all where I live in the western part of the seat.

@DW that would explain a lot – I am generally confined to the very far EASTERN part of the seat, closer the the water. Perhaps that would explain the higher concentration of Greens voters?

Dead set Kaiser. This is to discuss voting habits and statistics, not a place for you to release your thoughts on Same Sex Marriage. Having an issue on a politician about their view about a certain issue is one thing. Becoming a Mouth-Piece for the Australian Christian Lobby is another.

Anyone, back on topic. This seat is one that I can see Coleman retaining, with the ever-strengthening vote along the Georges River being a critical aspect. The Canterbury section of the seat is key. I actually think whoever wins the booths around Riverstone will go on to win the seat.

Riverstone? “Hawkeye?” On Topic indeed? I think you mean Riverwood…

17% of people didn’t bother voting properly last poll (7% didn’t show, 10% informal), so I think policy issues do count and if people see tweedle dee/dumber and figure the ‘why bother’ then the margin becomes ever more important.

So, if I was Coleman, I would be dusting off the resume and seeing if I can get that vacancy at 60 Minutes…

Just to clarify, rightly or wrongly, it’s not only politicians that have ‘conscience votes.’

Now, contrary to assertions that this is an ACL plot, many ‘Christians’ don’t subscribe to the Calvanistic legal approach of ACL, or Fred Nile etc. So, not only do they not want to subscribe to SSM, but, they don’t want to subscribe to ACL edicts either.

So, if this issue, about the first and best affirmative action policy to regulate home and economy (oh, that’s what marriage is???) is not being supported by either major party, and, further, single income fathers and mothers raising their own children and managing their household in a traditional fashion is now to be penalised (eg Family Tax Benefits Part B, dual income tax threshold exemption when two salaries are involved etc), then us economic pawns/slaves might just take the ‘pox on both houses’ attitude.

Enough of us doing it means less funds for any party…

And yes, “Politics is for those who turn up.”

Apologies. I did mean Riverwood. My wife will kill me for making that mistake.

The point still stands. This has turned into a swing seat, albiet a marginal Liberal Seat by nature.

My other point still stands. Enough with the vitriol.

Vitriol? None intended or perceived. Diversity of opinions is still allowed/tolerated?

Yes, I agree that the gAyLP have lost the fiefdom of Banks, but, on such a small margin the Libs just expect us conservatives to side with them or give them our preferences. Having a left wing Liberal is of no use to me. Having a referendum that does not spell out the definition of marriage in the constitution is of no use either. (We need to put judicial activism back in its place!)

I appreciate that many in the community have no understanding of the public policy position of traditional marriage and that since 1975 it has effectively lost so much of its previous status/protections as to be ‘de facto’ dead, but, even if only 5% of us conservatives (religious or not) decide to just put 1 on our ballot papers for the major party of our choice, and leave the rest blank (ie. informal) and write MARRIAGE, we can send a message to the parties (via the scrutineers). They can calculate how much a certain position cost them both in votes and funding.

So, will someone advocate that course of action and persuade people to consider it? Cheaper and easier than running as an independent…?