Blair has covered a highly variable area around Ipswich since its creation in 1998, having been substantially redrawn at three redistributions since. Originally covering areas inland of Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast, the redistributions of 2004 and 2007 saw it progressively take over central Ipswich from Oxley. Prior to the 2010 election it lost 28,000 voters in territory south of Ipswich to the new seat of Wright, in exchange for 13,200 voters in rural areas around Lake Wivenhoe to the north (previously in Dickson and Fisher) and 5500 in the eastern Ipswich suburbs of Collingwood Park and Springfield Central (from Oxley). As the areas lost were rural and conservative, Labor’s margin was boosted from 4.5% to 7.0%. The seat further recorded what by Queensland standards was a mild swing of 2.7%, the resulting Labor margin of 4.2% making it their fourth safest seat in the state.
Ipswich had been an area of strength for Labor since the early days of the party’s history owing to its now defunct coal mining industry, but it has more recently been prone to rebellion against the party’s efforts to appeal to new middle-class constituencies. The most famous such occasion occurred when Pauline Hanson won Oxley in 1996, scoring 48.6% of the primary vote as an independent after the Liberals disendorsed her for advocating the abolition of government assistance for Aborigines. The creation of Blair in the next redistribution did Hanson a poor turn, dividing her home turf between two electorates. Rather than recontest Oxley or (more sensibly) run for the Senate, Hanson chanced her arm at the new seat, but the major parties’ decision to direct preferences to each other may have sealed her doom. Hanson led the primary vote count with 36.0% against 25.3% for Labor and 21.7% for Liberal, but Liberal candidate Cameron Thompson pulled ahead of Labor on minor party preferences and defeated Hanson by 3.3% on Labor preferences.
Thompson went on to absorb most of the disappearing One Nation vote in 2001, more than doubling his primary vote without improving his two-party margin over Labor. A redistribution ahead of the 2004 election clipped this by 1.8%, but he went on to handsomely consolidate his position with a 4.5% swing. In 2007 the Liberals targeted Blair as part of its “firewall” strategy, a key element of which was a risky decision to fund a $2.3 billion Ipswich Motorway bypass at Goodna in the neighbouring electorate of Ryan. This proved of little use, with Labor picking up a decisive swing of 10.2% which typified the shift of blue-collar voters back to Labor on the back of WorkChoices.
Labor’s winning candidate was Shayne Neumann, a family lawyer and partner in the Brisbane firm Neumann & Turnour and member of the state party’s Labor Unity/Old Guard faction. His LNP opponent at the coming election will be Teresa Harding, who is “director of the F-111 Disposal and Aerial Targets Office” at the RAAF Base Amberley.
[grey
Posted Saturday, August 11, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
It’s the snobs that don’t like her, puffed up, silly people who love themselves and not the country that nurtured them. They are despicable.]
see my 329
We Love JG.
It’s just taking a while for the the try-hards of the early 80s (JH’s aspirationals) to recognise themselves and to get on board.
A big cheer for this guy in the marathon
[Olympics: Stateless marathon man represents the world
A refugee runner without a country will represent the whole world in Monday morning’s marathon after surviving a war-torn childhood and being separated from his family.
Guor Marial will run under the flag of the International Olympic Committee …..
The 28-year-old has not seen his family for almost 20 years but said they will walk 40 miles to get to the nearest town with a TV to watch him compete. ]
Fran – Yes the seat of Higgins is mostly tribal Liberal but as we saw in the Higgins by-election without an ALP candidate, the Greens were unable to carry the ALP vote and made little impact on the Liberal vote.
I agree with you that has the Greens grow, they will gain and develop extra resources that in turn will help to create policy.
Channel 9
Intro for the incoming news.
‘Council rates jump higher than expected due to the carbon tax.’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/turnbull-points-finger-at-gold-plating-for-power-price-rises/story-fn59niix-1226448198200
[Turnbull points finger at ‘gold-plating’ for power price rises
From: AAP
August 11, 2012 4:40PM
OPPOSITION frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull says the carbon tax has contributed to electricity price rises, but has backed the government’s view that the “gold-plating” of state government electricity infrastructure has done much more.
His comments run counter to the view of Liberal leader Tony Abbott, who says price rises are wholly down to the carbon tax, accusing Julia Gillard of fabrication in blaming the states.
Mr Turnbull told Saturday Agenda on Sky today that the Prime Minister did deserve “a gold medal for chutzpah” for seeking to minimise the impact of the carbon tax.
But he said states had contributed more to power price rises.]
More in the AAP report. Youse all know what’s going on here…
bw
Yes a minus 4 for fomenting division and discord only to benefit News Limited and Mr Abbott. It certainly does not benefit Prime Minister Gillard.
BW
[You should have showed him the Bisons and asked why the British Government is concentrating on bread and circuses instead of trying to keep the country out of depression.]
I would have but he’s decided to live in Australia now. But he still backs the Poms in sport.
He’s got the best of both worlds.
Anyone who has met Angus Houston will laugh out loud at the idea of anyone trying to tell him what to do. He is the most modest and self-effacing of men, but he has a will of iron and absolutely inflexible integrity. He will call this issue exactly as he sees it. How that may be, I have no idea. But he will be very aware of Navy’s extreme distaste for spending its time and assets fishing illegal immigrants out of the Indian Ocean.
I did see your 329 Kezza 2, just agreeing with you a whole lot.
Guytaur:
Would now be a good time to point out that the Greens vote has ‘grown’ from 12-13% about two months ago to 10% in the most recent polling?
Anyway, I think this preserve-the-status-quo argument is a load of tosh. There’s a proportion of the electorate that are going to vote for the Greens anyway, and the fundamental reason they stick with them is an environmental one. They’ll swallow anything the Greens tell them. It’s true for any party – all of them have a base level of support that won’t desert them no matter what. For the Greens that base looks to be at or just below 10%.
If they want to build on it, they’re going to have to reach out. They’re going to have to be seen as the party that Gets Things Done, that works with the major parties to achieve good solutions. There are some issues – predominantly environmental – where the Greens would need to stick fast, but if they’re going to do it they’d better be very sure they’ve got public opinion on their side.
If you ask me, asylum seekers is a damn stupid one to stick fast on. First and biggest problem is that the vast majority of this country couldn’t give a fat rat’s clacker what happens to asylum seekers. No matter what direction you approach the issue from, that’s an unpleasant fact you’re going to have to face. The only way to get a solution that’s in any way humane past the electorate is to assure them that it has enough bipartisan support and that it’s not going to hurt.
There’s no practical reason for the Greens to hold fast to their policy position. It’s just leading to an impasse. I can understand the political reason for it, but again I don’t see it doing much for their primary vote. That just leaves the possibility that they truly believe in what they’re saying. If that’s the case they should be able to explain clearly what sort of cap they’re going to place on the number of AS they’d accept, and how they propose to enforce that limit. I’ve followed the debate reasonably closely, but I’m still unsure on that one. I’m up with all the touchy-feely stuff.
New Yorker profile of Paul Ryan, personally and policy-wise, from last week: http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza
Guytsur
Think you’re dreamin.
Greens will not get a doublle digit percentage in 2013. You and your mob are in a necrotic freefall right now.
They might get a chance to redeem themselves after Houston is released, but that would mean action …. Not their strong suite. I’ ll be pleasantly surprised if they do anything more than hand work ….. Hand wrining and sitting on hands, augmented by the mandatory, occasional weep.
psyclaw
[To those saying Angus Houston, Paris Aristotle or Michael L’Estrange as individuals are susceptible to being “told” what to find in their review is fantasy.]
I’m not disputing that that is true. That’s not the problem.
As Sir Humphrey says, you only commission a report when you know what the authors will say. I’m guessing Gillard had a pretty good idea what their opinion was when she appointed them.
Hamis Hill
Hmm… please quote the exact piece of scripture in the Bible which supports that statement.
Wow its happening again. The Coalition really is the dog wagging he Labor tail when it comes to AS policy.
Psephos.
Totally agree with you about Mr Houston and company and I have never met any of them.
This is why I say anyone predicting an outcome is a fool.
You are the cynics cynic Diogenes, but you are probably right. Maybe, a bit, slightly, just possibly.
Boerwar I’d add a fifth point to C@tcomma excellent post.
Julie Bishop’s odd speech lauding Abbott’s ‘feminine’ side – !!?? And her claim that Wayne Swann is pitching for the top job!!?? Unhingemento extraordinaire…..
Surely, guytaur you do not believe that the United Tasmania Group is the ultimate source of all “The Greens” world wide?
Did the Sydney “Green Bans” have anyhting to do with the name?
And Green Principles, did they come from Tassie too?
These are rhetorical questions, don’t waste your effort on an answer.
Psyclaw
The meaning of longterm is not just till the next election.
Aguirre
[If you ask me, asylum seekers is a damn stupid one to stick fast on.]
Unfortunately, all AS are not the poor, the hungry, the dispossessed. We need to stop being sentimental and think more clearly.
http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/202058/labor-endorses-union-official-chesters/?cs=79
[Labor endorses union official Chesters
By BRETT WORTHINGTON
Aug. 11, 2012, midnight
UNION official Lisa Chesters will represent Labor at next year’s federal election in Bendigo after the shock withdrawal of a high-profile candidate.]
HH
Yes you are Tea Party. I never said what you just did.
Diogenes I cheer for both the Aussies and the Poms. But living thru 20 odd years of sledging every time the poms lost at cricket, and then the results from London. Payback time…..!! 🙂
grey
[You are the cynics cynic Diogenes, but you are probably right. Maybe, a bit, slightly, just possibly.]
She couldn’t very well take the chance the panel wouldn’t back her policy. No-one would take that risk.
Diogenes: yes, that is because the Government had previously received expert advice on the best way forward, which is why they developed the Malaysia Solution as the first step towards a truly regional solution to the problem.
There is no way on earth that any panel of genuine experts on the issue would not come to a similar conclusion, which is why she knew she was safe.
I hasten to add that the Government has already been told that the Coalition’s approach won’t work this time around – as have the Coalition – so that advice is likely to be repeated, only to a wider audience this time.
This is why the “expert panel” was such great politics. You know your approach (or one you can live with) will be endorsed by the panel, and your opposition’s will be flayed alive.
Win-win for the government.
Or, to put it another way, yet another win for the Ranga and a humiliating defeat for :monkey:
Aguirre
Continuing impasse means Labor loses votes not Greens. If Labor people blamed Mr Abbott who voted no to Labor then there would be no problem as that is the blockade Labor needs to address. Either that or Labor will have to move towards an On Shore policy.
Labor has the choice. Labor is the Government. If Labor wants Off Shore the solution is simple. Get Mr Abbott to say yes.
What a silly old duffer Deblonay is.
He asserts voters “hate Gillard’s guts” without any supporting evidence other than his crude prejudice. He then becomes antsy when his basic misogyny is pointed out. Rather than argue his case about his putrid assertion he seemlessly transforms his opinion to voters “don’t vote for women Leaders”. Unfortunately, this little canard is undermined somewhat by the little fact that Gillard won the last election. He then chides me for predicting an improvement in the Government’s fortunes once the Carbon price and MRRT were implemented on July 1. This has actually occurred and he now seems to be arguing that if I’m correct in my predictions that it makes me wrong and him right (He really is in the right Party nowadays).
For his next trick in making his credibility disappear he’ll no doubt be predict a Greens victory in the Melbourne by election……….. Oh, that’s right he did!
Another great and glorious prediction from the necromancer of nonsense. Must be the water in Deblonay’s castle, methinks. Thank goodness we have proper filters in Greensborough.
@Puff, can’t give you the gospel and the verse but the King James version goes something like, “whomsoever scandalises these little ones should have a millstone placed about their necks and be cast into the depths of the sea”.
The God of the Roman invaders, who crucified him, was a molester of children, look up Europa and Gannymede. it follows that the priests of the Roman god were molesters as well in emulation of their god.
Explains why the early Jesus followers died in the arenas for the crime of atheism, for the god of Rome was not their god. I am an atheist too BTW.
DL
[There is no way on earth that any panel of genuine experts on the issue would not come to a similar conclusion, which is why she knew she was safe.]
I’m sure you could choose an expert panel which would come up with something else.
Turnbull contradicting Abbott very publicly on electricity prices. He’s been quiet for a while. Mesmerelda lauding Abbott. Tingle, Atkins questioning Abbott’s policy credentials and political tactics. Methinks it will be on for young and old very soon.
Diogs,
I’ve no doubt Gillard has a pretty fair idea what Houston will come up with for the simple reason that the government’s policy has been formulated with input from all of the same experts that Houston has consulted. That’s not quite the same thing as requesting a report to produce the answer you’re after.
Houston will obviously be against towing back, the Navy hate it and the Indonesians hate it. He will probably also recommend against Nauru on cost and efficacy grounds. PNG might get a guernsey, and I’d say Malaysia is reasonably good odds to get a tick. There might be some more left-field suggestions, but probably nothing that hasn’t been pretty well canvassed – simply not a long enough enquiry.
The aim of the report is a stick to beat both Abbott and Milne with until hopefully one of them yields.
ABC just used word breakthrough on Tassy Forest Agreement.
I was aware of what Bishop said about Rabbott’s feminine side but wasn’t aware that she was calling on the party to spruik it????
Definately suggests something…………………….
[opposition deputy leader Julie Bishop has called on Liberal party members to spruik the feminine and caring credentials of leader Tony Abbott, dedicating much of her lengthy speech to him as the party prepares for an election at any time.
Addressing the WA state party conference in Perth, Ms Bishop emphasised Mr Abbott was surrounded by women, listing his female relatives and close colleagues.
“Believe me he gets plenty of advice and takes plenty of advice on the way women see the world,” she said.
“We have a responsibility to tell people who Tony Abbott is.]
Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/national/julie-bishop-spruiks-feminine-and-caring-tony-abbott-20120811-240yk.html#ixzz23Dr8c7c3
Paul Noonan (@PTNoo)
.@geeksrulz Abbott is writing his own book – “50 Shades Of Nay”.
Diogenes,
You really allow your cynicism to run a bit wild at times. Why do you think you are the only person in the universe who makes decisions based on evidence and research?
Traducing the integrity of Houston and the other panellists without evidence is very poor form. What the Government and the country needs is actually fearless advice of the facts and their best opinion of what to do next.
Dee
………Suggests that perhaps internal polling is telling them that Abbott is not doing so well with females?
Womble asked
[Do Labor supporters here care what happens to those we send to Malaysia if it goes ahead???]
Do Green’s supporters care what happens to the 4200 refugees that would, without Green intransigence, have been transferred from Malaysia to Australia?
As a Green supporter could you indicate how you would explain the Green’s decision to these 4200 refugees? Do you think they would be impressed?
C@tmomma,
I’d have no idea how the NT election would play out, but now that Mackerras has put his money on Labor it seems the CLP’s election to lose.
GG
I have made no negative comment about Houston.
But now that you mention it, I’m unaware that Houston is an expert on international refugee policy.
Gillard’s line that Abbott is constantly at war with experts and constantly at war with reality is going to bite I think. Expect to hear it a bit more after Houston hands in his homework.
Jolyon,
The Greens have a bottom of the ocean Asylum Seeker Policy.
GG
No that is Abbott policy. Hence tow back the boats. Then put holes in them
Diogenes,
Experts got us in to this current mess.
Remember, the Titanic was built by experts and The Ark by amateurs.
[I’m unaware that Houston is an expert on international refugee policy.]
Why does he have to be? He has one on his panel, and is consulting the experts.
guytaur,
Pop goes the weasel!
Danny Lewis is correct. Anyone who has any claims to expertise in this area knows that the only way to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants across our maritime border is to prevent them from achieving their objective, which is to get themselves inside the Australian immigration zone. That means that they must be processed offshore. That is undoubtedly what any expert panel will say, because that is the fact. The only reason the Liberals are blocking the Malaysia option is to prevent Gillard getting a policy win. As far as they are concerned, the more illegal immigrants that arrive the better.
GG
You are totally unravelled when you cannot tell the difference between your baseless allegations of undemocratic Greens and AS policy discussion.
Rossmore@384
LOL!
Has anyone considered the political implications of this..
http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-traffic/too-hard-too-costly-but-too-important-to-ignore-20120810-23zpn.html
With any luck the NSW bureaucracy will do to O’Farrell what it did to Keneally 🙂
psephos,
1. Fresh eyes can sometimes throw up new solutions.
2. Having the “facts” presented by an unbiased panel may persuade waveres to alter their opinion.
3. It could also be a crcuit breaker for those wanting to chnage sides but not be seen to cower to the PM and Government.
I notice that Turnbull was being contrary to Abbott regarding electricity prices. It might be a case of watch this space!