Click here for full Victorian election results updated live.
Friday, December 8
The last in doubt seat was determined in Labor’s favour today, with the preference distribution in Bass showing Labor incumbent Jordan Crugnale the winner with 20,803 votes (50.24%) over 20,601 (49.76%) for Liberal candidate Alan Brown. Labor thus emerges with 56 lower house seats, up one from their total in 2018; the Liberals on 19, down two, and the Nationals on nine, up three, with one or the other presumably to win Narracan when the supplementary election is held; the Greens four, up one; and independents from three to zero.
In the upper house count, the ABC’s projected margin for Transport Matters incumbent Rod Barton over Aiv Puglielli of the Greens at the final count for North-Eastern Metropolitan has narrowed to 16.95% to 16.38%, at which point the Greens could be confident that below-the-line votes would win them the seat. Barton is also a hair’s breadth away from exclusion behind Sustainable Australia at an earlier point in the count.
Thursday, December 8
Labor chalked up another win today when the button was pressed on Pakenham, revealing that their candidate Emma Vulin prevailed over David Farrelly of the Liberals at the last by 19,587 (50.39%) to 19,280 (49.61%). That gets Labor to 55 seats, which most likely will get to 56 when the button is pressed tomorrow on Bass, barring the emergence of some as yet undetected anomaly that up-ends the 211 vote margin on the two-candidate preferred count.
Wednesday, December 7
The preference distribution for Pakenham, earlier promised for today, will now be finalised tomorrow according to the VEC. That remains the only seat in doubt now that Northcote is decided for Labor, although I note that the ABC still rates Bass, where Labor leads by 211, as in doubt. There too the VEC is promising a preference distribution tomorrow. The preference distribution in Preston established that independent Gaetano Greco did not in fact make the final count, at which Labor retained the seat ahead of the Greens by a margin of 2.1%.
Tuesday, December 6
A preference distribution has been run for Northcote, which I believe was conducted electronically, with Labor incumbent Kat Theophanous making it over the line at the final count with 21,413 votes (50.22%) to Greens candidate Campbell Gome’s 21,229 (49.78%). The VEC site says “a recheck is taking place for this district”, but the ABC reports the figures as final.
In the other yet-to-be-called seat, Pakenham, Antony Green relates that the re-check of first preferences has shown up anomalies that will put Labor ahead when corrected, with the published results remaining those of the initial count. This involved an increase in the number of votes designated informal, which cut 274 from the Liberal primary vote tally compared with 111 from Labor’s. The difference is sufficient to cancel out the Liberals’ 90 vote lead on the two-candidate preferred count, though not so handily that you would rule out further anomalies tipping the result back the other way. The matter will seemingly be clarified when a full preference distribution is conducted tomorrow. Should the result go Labor’s way, they will have repeated their feat from 2018 of winning 55 seats, despite a statewide two-party swing that looks to be in excess of 3%.
Monday, December 5
My previous update dropped the ball with respect to Northcote, where a 1523-994 break on absent votes brought the Greens right back into contention. Labor now leads by 189 with the outstanding vote likely to consist of around 1500 postals, of which the latest batch broke an even 123-123, and a handful of provisionals.
The Liberals have opened a 90 vote lead in Pakenham, after the latest early votes broke 450-356 and postals broke 80-67, outweighing a 208-189 break to Labor on absents. There are still about 1500 postals to be accounted for, and since these have broken 51-49 in favour of the Liberals so far, this seems assured to remain close.
Mornington continues to edge out of reach of independent candidate Kate Lardner, with absents (349-338), early votes (268-203) and postals (110-102) all breaking slightly the way of Liberal candidate Chris Crewther, whose lead is out from 491 votes to 575. My results system is now calling it for Crewther, leaving only Northcote and Pakenham in doubt.
In the upper house count, second Liberal candidate Joe McCracken’s position in Western Victoria has strengthened appreciably, leaving him a likely winner over Stuart Grimley of Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party. The Greens and Legalise Cannabis remain in a race for a third left-wing seat, with Labor and now Liberal on course for two seats each.
Sunday, December 4
There are probably three lower house seats that are still in real doubt, not counting Narracan which will presumably be won by the Liberals or Nationals. This gets Labor to 54 seats with a best case scenario of 56; the Coalition to 26 with a best case scenario of 29; the Greens to four; and one outside possibility for an independent.
The most remarkable of the close races is Pakenham which was tied as of Friday, before Liberal candidate David Farrelly opened up a three-vote lead after a batch of absents were added over the weekend. Farrelly held a 220 vote lead mid-week before postals broke 964-781 to Labor and early votes did so by 457-420.
Labor holds a 285 lead in Bass, out from 53 after favourable results on early vote (1768-1643), absents (539-438) and recent batches of postals (826-820). Postals, of which the first batch broke strongly to the Liberals but more recent arrivals have been neutral, should account for most of the remainder, although there may also be significant numbers of outstanding absents.
Liberal candidate Chris Crewther’s lead over independent Kate Lardner in Mornington is now at 491 votes, out from 353, after postals favoured him 751-717 and early votes did so 413-329. The former were less strong for Crewther than earlier postals, of which at least 3000 yet to come. Together with the fact that further absents are likely outstanding, this means Crewther can’t be considered home and hosed quite yet, though he is clearly a short-priced favourite
Elsewhere, Paul Mercurio is probably home for Labor in Hastings, his lead out from 659 to 803 after the lastest postals broke 151-116 his way and absents broke 290-221. Labor’s lead over the Greens in Northcote is down from 874 to 781 after a batch of early votes favoured the Greens 1645-1454, outweighing an 832-734 break to Labor on the latest postals.
Now, finally, to the upper house, where the ABC is currently projecting a final result of Labor 15, Coalition 13, Legalise Cannabis three, Greens two and (deep breath) Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, Liberal Democrats, Animal Justice, Shooters Fishers and Farmers, Transport Matters, the Democratic Labour Party and One Nation on one each. However, the ABC projections assume all votes are above-the-line and duly follow the group voting tickets, which likely means an over-estimation of the number of micro-party winners. To deal with the eight regions in turn, all links below being to the ABC projections:
North-Eastern Metropolitan. Labor and the Liberals will clearly win two apiece, but the last seat could go either to the Greens or the beneficiary or the micro-party preference network, which on current numbers is projected to be Transport Matters but they come close to dropping out at a number of points in the count. Other contenders could be the Liberal Democrats and the DLP, although I would imagine below-the-line leakage would be such that their collective chances are weaker than the ABC projection indicates.
Eastern Victoria. The Liberals and Nationals have a clear two quotas and Labor one, and Labor’s surplus is well clear of what the Greens can muster, ensuring the latter drops out and elects Labor’s second candidate with a substantial surplus of left-wing votes. These then ensure that the final seat goes to Shooters Fishers and Farmers rather than One Nation.
Northern Metropolitan. Two Labor, one Liberal and one Greens candidate each stand to be elected with little surplus to spare. This makes the final seat a question of whether a right-wing preference bloc elects Adem Somyurek of the DLP, or left-wing bloc (Victorian Socialists, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice) elects Fiona Patten of Reason, with the former seeming increasingly more likely as the count progresses.
Northern Victoria. The Coalition has two quotas and Labor has one with a big surplus. Beyond that, it seems clear that One Nation will emerge the beneficiaries of a right-wing preference snowball that will push them from 3.75% all the way to a quota, and that Animal Justice will win a seat out of the Druery preference network they ultimately reneged on, soaking up preferences from Sack Dan Andrews, Health Australia, Derryn Hinch’s Justice, the Liberal Democrats, as well as the left-wing surplus from Victorian Socialists, Reason, Legalise Cannabis and ultimately the Greens.
South-Eastern Metropolitan. Labor has two seats with about 0.4 quotas to spare and the Liberals one plus about 0.6. Labor’s surplus plus the Greens’ 0.4 quotas will elect Legalise Cannabis, leaving the final seat a tight race between the second Liberal and the Liberal Democrats.
Southern Metropolitan. This seems straightforward: the Liberals win a clear two seats without much to spare, Labor falls just short of a second quota on first preferences and the Greens just short of a first, with both of the latter absorbing enough preferences to push them over their respective lines.
Western Metropolitan. Labor will win two seats with about a quarter of a quota to spare and the Liberals one with about a half. The latter two seats then develop as parallel races between the Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Victorian Socialists on the left, respectively at 8.10%, 7.45% and 7.13% at the relevant point of the count, and the second Liberal and the DLP on the right, who are respectively projected to end the count on 17.48% and 15.85%.
Western Victoria. Labor has two seats and about a quarter of a quota to spare, and the Coalition one and a bit more than half. That leaves enough left-wing votes for a third seat that could go to Legalise Cannabis or the Greens, with the former projected to emerge 11.72% to 9.57% clear after one-way traffic on preferences from Reason, Animal Justice and Labor. Most of the ensuing surplus transfer then goes to Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, who are then projected to win the final seat over the second Liberal by 17.45% to 15.88%, although this could seemingly go either way.
Hastings and Ripon are ALP gains, not retains.
They were considered to be notional Labor seats after the redistribution.
Likewise, Bass and Bayswater were considered to be notional Liberal seats after the redistribution so they’ll be considered ALP gains, even though they had Labor MPs in the previous term.
The VEC will also consider Caulfield a Liberal gain because it classified it as notional Labor after the redistribution, but the ABC kept that one in the Liberal column.
3CP in Prahran (2018 in brackets):
– Greens 39.1% (32.0%, +7.1%)
– Liberal 33.3% (36.7%, -3.4%)
– Labor 27.6% (31.3%, -3.7%)
The Greens definitely seem to have a safe hold on this seat now.
The story in 2018 was a large swing against the Liberals that went pretty evenly to both Greens & Labor (keeping that race close); the story this time is a large swing towards Greens that came pretty evenly from both the Liberals and Labor making both the 2CP and 3CP counts very safe for them.
Rocket Rocket says:
Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 9:55 pm
Kirsdarke
I believe it was the then Nationals leader Peter Ryan who convince Baillieu to carry out that strategy. And I agree I think it was a winning move in a very close election that they ended up winning 45 seats to 43. And there were no independents or Greens elected (in the lower house)- the only time this has happened since 1992.
This time it was a very wishy-washy message – “The Greens who we always tell you are even worse than Labor and would push Labor even further left if they somehow were part of a Labor-led government, well maybe (because obviously we can’t win) we think you should try and help those Greens win a few seats to hopefully force Labor into a minority government … with … those same terrible Greens we’ve been warning you about. And then they would … oh this looks sort of contradictory doesn’t it?…”
____________
Can you put together a campaign ad featuring your 2nd paragraph?
Snappy Tom
Obviously the Coalition couldn’t!
After reading your comment I pictured the leader of the opposition saying these words in a 30-second TV ad (with some of the many ‘classic’ Herald-Sun anti-Green and anti-Labor front pages fading in and out across the screen) – it certainly would have got a lot of attention!
The last sentence would have been a ‘failed’ early take – but then that early take version leaks and voilà – the ad goes viral!
I think a similar thing happened in the Queensland 2020 election. The LNP preferenced Greens over Labor and sure, Labor lost South Brisbane to the Greens, but the LNP lost 5 seats to Labor (including seats Labor never held before like Nicklin and Caloundra), and Labor held pretty much all of its other regional seats where the voters tend to rate the Greens as their least preferred party.
Prior to the 2010 Vic election, the Liberals preferenced the Greens ahead of Labor on the simple and easy to understand basis that anyone is better than their main opponent.
The decision to put the Greens last in 2010 was hailed as a masterstroke at the time, but ultimately led to catastrophe for the Liberals. They were left at the mercy of a single rogue backbencher with no crossbench to break the deadlock. They were – as we can now see with 20/20 hindsight – pretty much doomed to a single term right from the start.
And (this is the crucial bit) there’s not a shred of evidence the decision gained them a single vote or helped tip the election their way in the first place. There were a lot of media gurus saying how brilliant it was and how it was responsible for an unexpected victory, but no hard data to that effect. None. (See my earlier post about commentators making stuff up to appear smart.)
And now they’re painted into a corner. They’ve realised their error and desperately want to backtrack in order to weaken Labor, but look weak and hypocritical for abandoning the moral high ground they built for themselves. (See Rocket Rocket’s post.)
I’ve always had the view that the significance of party declared preferences is overblown. I don’t know anyone who follows them.
“The decision to put the Greens last in 2010 was hailed as a masterstroke at the time, but ultimately led to catastrophe for the Liberals. They were left at the mercy of a single rogue backbencher with no crossbench to break the deadlock. They were – as we can now see with 20/20 hindsight – pretty much doomed to a single term right from the start.”
That’s nonsense.
It is the only election they have won in a quarter of a century. They were doomed to on term because they did nothing and had a mad Abbott running amuck in Canberra.
The idea that they would have some done better if one or two red seats were green is absurd.
I don’t know what ultimately is the best strategy for the tories but certainly can’t maintain a coherent case that a vote for Labor risks a Labor Green Coalition whilst at the same time directing their voters to put Greens in Parliament.
I just noticed that after the Kew distribution of preferences, Sophie Torney also failed to pass Labor so it turned out to be an ALP v LIB count as well, with the Liberals winning 54.0-46.0 (+0.3% compared to their 2CP vs IND).
The 3CP count was:
– Liberal 46.9% (20,437)
– Labor 26.8% (11,684)
– Torney 26.3% (11,471)
Looking at this result now along with Brighton, Hawthorn and the federal teal seats, there is a clear trend that preferences usually tend to flow roughly the same (usually around 75-25 against the Liberal) regardless of whether ALP or IND make the final count, with the difference in the final results mostly being due to size of the “head start” your primary vote gives you.
In both Hawthorn & Kew, the IND and ALP primary votes were very similar to each other, all around the 20-22% range, and in both seats there was within 0.3% difference between the LIB v IND and LIB v ALP counts so they flowed very similarly.
In Brighton where the ALP primary vote (24%) was more than double the IND primary vote (10%), for the data we did have prior to them stopping the LIB v IND count, the comparable vote types had the LIB doing about 2-3% worse in the LIB v ALP count compared to the LIB v IND count.
And in Goldstein & Kooyong where the IND primary vote was around 3-4 times more than the ALP primary vote, the LIB v IND count had the LIB doing about 6% better in the LIB v ALP count compared to the LIB v IND count.
In all cases, it appeared that preferences flowed close to the 75-25 range in favour of ALP at the IND exclusion, and also around 75-25 in favour of IND at the ALP exclusion. The difference in the final results is obviously that the bigger primary vote you have, the smaller the pool of preferences is for the the Liberals to get their 25% from, rather than the actual flow of the preferences there are being significantly different.
Trent says:
Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 9:38 am
………Looking at this result now along with Brighton, Hawthorn and the federal teal seats, there is a clear trend that preferences usually tend to flow roughly the same (usually around 75-25 against the Liberal) regardless of whether ALP or IND make the final count, with the difference in the final results mostly being due to size of the “head start” your primary vote gives you
**********
Maybe Rex/P1 etc could start a ‘Labor, Teals Same-Same’ meme.
(I’ve enjoyed your commentary Trent)
The revisionist,
At least you’re not biased. My problem with the Libs after 2010 was that they didn’t revert the LC back to its previous voting system. They had a majority of one after 2010 in the LC but left it as it was. Why? Does anyone think the current system is better than the previous one? PR really only suits statewide multimember electorates.
The Liberals under Ted Baillieu were the best Liberal government that you will ever see, they got absolutely NOTHING done. Therefore they didn’t do any stupid stuff. Towards the end of their term under Napthine, they proposed doing stuff (East-West Link)…
However, the major reason why they lost the 2014 election was the member for Frankston. Labor only managed to pick up 4 seats all in a straight line along the Frankston Railway Line (Bentleigh, Mordialloc, Carrum and Frankston) and lose 2 seats to the greens (Melbourne and Prahran) to scrape over the line.
What the Andrews government has managed to achieve post it’s election has been to focus on simple and easy to achieve projects (Level crossing removals), achieving these simple but effective wins and effectively turning them into a cookie cutter process has given the public confidence that they will be able to deliver on the bigger ticket items with a longer time frame.
Because the public like what is being delivered, it’s hard to see a way back for the Liberal party without some major changes to their policies and focus.
Does anyone remember that the media was reporting that Oakleigh was in play? No wonder why Legalise Cannabis did so well in South East Metro…..
ABC 24 just reported that Pesutto has won the Liberal leadership.
“Does anyone remember that the media was reporting that Oakleigh was in play? No wonder why Legalise Cannabis did so well in South East Metro…..”
LOL!
The Age just reported that John Pesutto won the leadership ballot and is the new Liberal leader. I think “the honeymoon will be over” for Pesutto now.
He’s had the luxury of being idealised simply because he was an outsider over the past 4 years. It really just came from “if only he didn’t lose Hawthorn, he would have been better than Guy” which somehow turned into people seeing him as some kind of saviour, and being on the outside meant he could avoid real scrutiny, was distanced from the party’s poor decisions and factional issues, and even his questionable voting history as an MP was totally ignored.
His presence as a high ranking and high profile Liberal MP between 2014-18 didn’t help them at all in the 2018 election and he even lost his own seat, so I don’t think now being back in the party room, leading a bitterly divided party that is devoid of talent and run by those from the other faction, he’s going to somehow be the saviour the media has made him out to be.
No doubt they will do their best to continue painting him as such though…
But at the first sign of him not making up ground or regaining support fast enough, you can bet that the conservative factions who run the party will be out to replace him.
Interesting that the Liberals’ candidates in Pakenham and Narracan voted in the leadership ballot. Especially if the vote was very close between Pesutto and Battin.
I imagine this would have happened four years ago if Labor hadn’t won the seat of Hawthorn.
The Sky crew will be overjoyed! (not)
John Pesutto was preferable to Brad Battin. He won’t be able to change the direction of the ship too much but he won’t sink it.
Alpha Zero,
And who’s paying for all this? No one? Our great, great grandchildren.
Thats who.
PS: Pesutto will offer just another version of the ALP. You can vote for either the ALP or a version of the ALP. Great choice.
As for the election in Hawthorn:
– Labor never expected to win in 2018 hence why they ran a guy in his 70s. He scraps through to win and has to be woken up for his own victory party.
– Labor does not expect to retain seats in the east of Melbourne that it won in 2018 so let the sitting guy in 70s run again.
– Labor puts in almost no resource to Kennedy’s re-election campaign and there were no visits by the premier to the electorate, major announcements in the seat etc.
– A “teal” runs and Labor assumes that they won’t even come 2nd. Turns out that trying to piggyback off a movement to remove unpopular federal member didn’t work for the “teal”.
– Labor does better than expected in the east and gets a swing to it in almost all Eastern suburb seats except Hawthorn.
I liked having John Kennedy as a local MP and he did personally make a fair effort to retain the seat. But if Labor had put forward a new younger candidate and thrown some effort at the seat Pesutto may not have won. In 2026, I expect a full blooded crack by the ALP to retake the seat.
Kirsdarke says:
Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:27 am
I think a similar thing happened in the Queensland 2020 election. The LNP preferenced Greens over Labor and sure, Labor lost South Brisbane to the Greens, but the LNP lost 5 seats to Labor (including seats Labor never held before like Nicklin and Caloundra), and Labor held pretty much all of its other regional seats where the voters tend to rate the Greens as their least preferred party.
中华人民共和国
100% cobber. And took back Bundaberg. Not only did it cheese off some Tory and swinging voters it also made it harder for the Tories to get volunteers. Many long standing members refused to help.
Pesutto still has to deal with a party room that includes Moira Deeming and Renee Heath. He’ll still need to deal with a membership and branch network that is predominantly run by the religious-right. He’ll have almost half the party room waiting for the first opportunity to make a move for Brad Battin to replace him, and the Murdoch media pushing hard for that too.
And most challenging for Pesutto will be that he’ll have to balance appeasing the dominant conservative faction and all their media backers and their preferred strategy of focusing on the outer western suburbs, while also hanging onto the razor thin 1.7% margin in his own progressive seat..
I’m willing to bet that the biggest reason Pesutto won this time was because he won over enough voters with the promising of “saving” and redirecting the party, if he can’t demonstrate that he has done so, he’ll be in real trouble.
I expect that Labor will run an excellent candidate and throw a lot more resources at Hawthorn in 2026 if Pesutto is still leader, because strategically that would really wedge him and make it difficult to sandbag his own seat while also needing to campaign statewide as leader.
I don’t think Pesutto will have much trouble holding his seat, at least for one election. He’ll be getting the second term surge, with the added boost to his profile from being the leader.
And, it’s natural Liberal territory. Labor’s win four years ago was a complete fluke.
Nevertheless, he’ll have to spend some precious resources defending the seat just in case, which won’t help the Liberal cause overall.
Yeah that’s my thought too EightES.
With such a slim margin, it means he will have to put a lot more effort into defending it (while also campaigning statewide) than party leaders usually have to, so Labor would be smart to apply extra pressure by targeting it and preselecting a strong candidate for no other reason than to disrupt the Liberals’ campaign.
Particularly if the Liberals are trying to send conflicting messages again to outer suburban voters and inner city voters, it will be especially effective because he’ll have to be the face of messaging that he may feel puts his own seat at risk.
But that said, John Kennedy got very close again this year and that was with a very, very strong ground campaign by Pesutto to win the seat back on the promise of reforming the party, so there is always the very real risk that if he is seen as having failed to do that, or is possibly now the face of a still dysfunctional party, he could lose some of those votes he won back.
Apparently Hawthorn is a “progressive seat.” Some people have no clue.
@ Jeremy C Browne
Are you serious?!!! Describing the old Legislative Council: 4 Legislative Assembly Districts grouped into a Province (for 22 of them), each electing 2 members – 1 in turn at each election to an 8(!) year term – by preferential voting; as better than the current one? There was a reason they used to call the Council the “red morgue”. (Red being a reference to the colour of the decor, not the Labor Party.) Under that model, it was basically useless and fit to be abolished. Of course, the reason you like it so much is that it almost always produced a Coalition majority.
@clem, I see you’re back with your rude, combative tone in your responses again.
Anyway, what I meant by “progressive” which I thought should have been obvious, is not “progressive” on a Labor-Liberal spectrum but that Hawthorn is one of the more socially progressive Liberal seats. Do you disagree and think that Hawthorn is the most socially conservative Liberal seats, or did you just misunderstand me once again?
I apologise if I didn’t spell it out clear enough for you. I figured since the topic of conversation was specifically about Pesutto being pulled between the Liberals’ moderate and conservative factions, that would have been obvious.
If you have a problem with me, just say it. This is the second time you’ve replied to me just to attack something that wasn’t even what I said, so the only reason I can think of that you would deliberately be going out of your way to misrepresent my comments and attack me is that I have accidentally insulted you somewhere down the track? Apologies if I have.
@ Jeremy C Browne
That said, if we did somehow revert to the old Legislative Council model the Coalition is in such a parlous position electorally that it almost certainly would have a Labor majority now (as it finally did after the 2002 election).
The old 44 seat Legislative Council was, for almost all of its existence, a rubber stamp for conservative governments and a frustration for Labor ones. The exception was right at the end, when a landslide made it a rubber stamp for Labor.
The current LC might be a mockery of democracy, with members being elected off a squillionth of a percent of the vote due to backroom deals where some candidates pay for preferences, but at least it beats the old way favoured by the born to rule.
Legislative Council was even worse when it had a property franchise. I think it was last body in Australia that an electoral role based solely on property ownership (not including Local government).
@ B.S. Fairman
I think the property ownership requirement to vote for the Victorian upper house was abolished in 1950 and everyone could vote for it from the 1952 election onward.
It was the SA upper house that was the last one, it stayed in place all the way until the 1975 election.
Kirsdarke says:
Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:09 pm
@ B.S. Fairman
I think the property ownership requirement to vote for the Victorian upper house was abolished in 1950 and everyone could vote for it from the 1952 election onward.
It was the SA upper house that was the last one, it stayed in place all the way until the 1975 election.
中华人民共和国
All Upper Houses deserve the Queensland treatment.
I’ve long thought we should abolish the Legislative Council and all metropolitan local councils, expand the Legislative Assembly to, say, 149 or 175 (The Victorian Parliament currently totals 128) and re-establish the Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works.
Upnorth,
I disagree. I like having an upper house that the government of the day doesn’t control. Absolute power in the hands of one party (which, let’s face it, really means a few individuals at the top of the party hierarchy) is not good. We need check and balances.
As long as the upper house is not controlled outright by the opposition, the government just has to debate its case, listen to other points of view, and sometimes, compromise. And, very occasionally, admit defeat. Which is along the lines of how parliaments were designed to work in the first place, before parties took over.
And in my book, that’s a good thing.
Paul Sakkal
@paulsakkal
7m
MPs reporting John Pesutto won by a single vote against Brad Battin 17-16
Was expected to be tight, but closeness means Pesutto faces a split party room
Crozier beat Bev McArthur 21-12
@theage
#springst
————————————————-
I think my prediction that he gets rolled in 2025 might actually pushed foward to 2024!
Trent wrote. “Anyway, what I meant by “progressive.” Yeah well, you will persist with these non specific, wishy washy labels.
EightES says:
Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:27 pm
Upnorth,
I disagree. I like having an upper house that the government of the day doesn’t control. Absolute power in the hands of one party (which, let’s face it, really means a few individuals at the top of the party hierarchy) is not good. We need check and balances.
As long as the upper house is not controlled outright by the opposition, the government just has to debate its case, listen to other points of view, and sometimes, compromise. And, very occasionally, admit defeat. Which is along the lines of how parliaments were designed to work in the first place, before parties took over.
And in my book, that’s a good thing.
中华人民共和国
It’s ok cobber. We are all entitled to our views.
Without Parties, IMHO, Parliaments, in the modern sense, become unworkable. Look at PNG or Malaysia even Italy where a multitude of small Parties make Governing a “horse trading” exercise. Upper Houses encourge horse trading. But then again that’s my humble opinion.
If Australia had no Senate, Whitlam would have got supply and Rudd a CPRS.
I don’t like them but then again I don’t like Daylight Saving.
You stay safe.
clem attlee says:
Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 1:30 pm
Trent wrote. “Anyway, what I meant by “progressive.” Yeah well, you will persist with these non specific, wishy washy labels
—————–
Terms progressive and conservative are more accurate labels than left and right wing.
Specially when this happened .
Rocket Rocket says:
Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:03 am
Interesting that the Liberals’ candidates in Pakenham and Narracan voted in the leadership ballot. Especially if the vote was very close between Pesutto and Battin.
I imagine this would have happened four years ago if Labor hadn’t won the seat of Hawthorn.
The Sky crew will be overjoyed! (not)
Won’t take long for the knives to come out .
The dirt files ready to roll.
Toby – I would be looking at pushing for a less radical change.
Currently there are 88 lower house districts, 11 districts make up the 8 regions with 5 MLCs each. The problem that the 3 regional regions often take in big chunks of the outer areas of Melbourne.
If 2 more seats were added to the lower house, there could be 9 regions with 5 MLCs each covering 10 districts each. That would allow there to be 3 truly regional region and 6 Metro or peri-urban regions.
Or they could go with 10 regions made up of 10 districts with 4 MLCs covering 9 districts each. That way there would only be an increase of 2 politicians and there would be less minor parties elected. If the reform is bipartisan that would probably get both the majors on side.
Kirsdarke says:
Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 8:27 am
I think a similar thing happened in the Queensland 2020 election. The LNP preferenced Greens over Labor and sure, Labor lost South Brisbane to the Greens, but the LNP lost 5 seats to Labor (including seats Labor never held before like Nicklin and Caloundra), and Labor held pretty much all of its other regional seats where the voters tend to rate the Greens as their least preferred party.
中华人民共和国
100% cobber. And took back Bundaberg. Not only did it cheese off some Tory and swinging voters it also made it harder for the Tories to get volunteers. Many long standing members refused to help.
I read the mining industry was going to get involved in the Queensland state election to back the LNP. But scrapped plans for their involvement after the LNP preference the Greens over Labor.
In the Liberal leadership vote, David Farrelly was a vote for Battin, so if Pakenham goes to the ALP the vote would actually be 17-15….. if one vote changes they would be tied.
Well of course if you just isolate the word “progressive” completely out of the context of the comment and discussion that it was used in, you could interpret it as being “wishy washy”, but that’s on you.
I also agree with Mexicanbeemer that it’s more accurate than just referring to left/right, when you have teals who are economically to the right but socially progressive at the same time as parties like DLP, who are economically to the left but socially conservative.
Hawthorn is clearly not an economically left-wing seat but it is a socially progressive one.
@B.S.Fairman: 17-16 is extremely close! Assuming David Farrelly doesn’t win Pakenham, that will most likely be 17-15 among the MPs that actually remain in the party room but still very close, and Battin’s supporters will only need to swing 2 of Pesutto’s supporters in a challenge.
I don’t really understand why the need and hurry to elect a new leader,it’s not like they really have anything to do for the next four years apart from fighting amongst them selves.
Maybe it was about sorting out their new salary packages to get firmly on the drip feed asap before the Christmas holiday at Club Med.
The problem is that “progressive” in Australia has come to be equated with “social progressive” where you can apparently be anti-redistributive policy and critical institutional actors that improve economic equality (i.e. unions) and still get round calling yourself a “progressive”.
Trent says:
Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 2:16 pm
Well of course if you just isolate the word “progressive” completely out of the context of the comment and discussion that it was used in, you could interpret it as being “wishy washy”, but that’s on you.
———-
Trent, you are one of the most informed and reasonable contributors to this forum. This being the internet and all, you’ll nonetheless find someone who has a bone to pick with you, for reasons best known to themselves. Scrolling right on past works quite well, so it is said.
Trent – That is why I revised my estimate of when Pesutto is challenged from 2025 to 2024. Also they have to hope that nobody quits, croaks or becomes involved in a scandal bad enough to force them to the crossbench.
The VEC doesn’t have a set time today for the preferences for Bass and Pakenham to be released. This is what they said on twitter.
Paul Sakkal
@paulsakkal
·
1m
Labor sources say the party has called Pakenham as a Labor win, based on counting today
VEC yet to confirm but Pakenham + likely win in Bass will take Labor to 56 – one better than 2018
Pakenham candidate voted in today’s Lib ballot but sources say voted for Battin #springst
With the result in North Metro becoming increasingly obvious it’s clearly time to celebrate.
Who is Adem Somyurek, this plucky latter day Saint and dragon slayer? How did he pull off this remarkable result against the odds? It just goes to show that good people ultimately triumph, usually. Facing a well resourced media darling like Patton, he could have retired and succumbed to despair. Instead this courageous hero of the people refused to submit and stood his ground, defending ordinary Victorians. For Fiona, ‘prostitution is great’ Patton, it looks like it’s back to the ironically named ‘Eros’ Foundation where she can continue to advance her nefarious cause.
Naturally I’ve sent a congratulatory message to Somyurek and a much shorter message to Ms Patton.
Somyurek is somebody who is selfless, generous in spirit, who just tries to give back as much as possible and help people” In other words, a hero.