Both parties spent most of the last two months pandering to a relatively small number of voters in outer-suburban Sydney and Queensland regional electorates. It was smart politics, because according to the numbers, that was where the election was to be won or lost.
Both sides ramped up the middle-class welfare, targeted at Family Tax Benefit A recipients. Both sides played on poor infrastructure provision by state governments and spoke of cutting immigration and punishing asylum seekers. Both sides pitched messages about cost of living pressures, even as we were presented with evidence that inflation had fallen. And Labor caved in to the Opposition’s asinine insistence that any debt is a monumental evil.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of the weekend results was that the rest of the electorate refused to play along with this game of “follow the swinging voter.”
There’s certainly substance to the view that State Labor Governments played a role in Labor’s woes, but it doesn’t get us that far in explaining the result. The only state where that applies strongly is Queensland. Queensland swung, if not uniformly, then consistently hard against Labor, everywhere. Bush, regional centres, Brisbane — Labor candidates all copped big swings, over 6% and often over 10%.
The only ones who didn’t were Labor’s candidate in Fisher, where the appalling Peter Slipper, got virtually no primary vote swing at all and actually had a 2PP swing against him, Chris Trevor in Flynn, who kept his swing below 5%, and Tony Mooney in Herbert, who despite pre-election criticism was surprisingly competitive with a swing of only -3%.
But the main beneficiaries of the anti-Labor swing were the Greens, whose swing in Queensland, 5.11% on current figures, was just under twice that of the LNP.
But in NSW, there was no uniform swing at all despite the universal contempt in which the NSW Government is held. The hard swing against Labor was in Sydney, and much of it went straight to the Liberals, rather than to the Greens. Outside Sydney, there was a swing to incumbents. Janelle Saffin in Page, who was tipped to be one of the first to go in NSW, picked up nearly 5% on her primary vote, and the Nationals actually went backwards there. Robertson, too, had been tipped to fall, but Deborah O’Neill scored a small 2PP swing. Mike Kelly consolidated his position in Eden-Monaro, belting local Liberal luminary David Gazard with a 2% swing. But it wasn’t just Labor. In Cowper, National Luke Hartsuyker pulled off a big swing. Liberal Bob Baldwin did too in Paterson.
In larger regional centres like Wollongong and Newcastle, the results were in-between — Labor had a small swing against it, but not enough to unseat anyone.
In Victoria, the Liberals went backwards, but the main beneficiaries were the Greens (as also happened in Tasmania). Labor had a small primary vote swing against it, which translated into a small 2PP swing to it, but the Greens scooped up a 4% swing across the state. But again there was a swing to incumbents in regional Victoria — Ballarat swung hard to Catherine King, and Steve Gibbons hammered the Liberals’ dud candidate Craig Hunter in Bendigo, almost turning it into a safe seat for Labor. And the Nationals Darren Chester and John Forrest both got swings, as did Sharman Stone. One wonders if Fran Bailey had stayed on for another go at McEwen whether she might have benefited from a swing as well.
In WA, the Greens also picked up most of the sizeable anti-Labor swing. In fact, the WA Liberals performed relatively poorly — Alannah McTiernan managed a swing against Don Randall, and as of this morning Sharyn Jackson had further narrowed Ken Wyatt’s slim lead in Hasluck.
It’s hard to construct a theme that explains all of these results even at a state level, particularly when regional incumbents are picking up swings regardless of party. And while Labor might have the problem of being pulled from both the Left and the Right — trying to satisfy the voters of Lindsay and of Melbourne at the same time, the Liberals have whole states to worry about.
Tasmania may yield only five MPs but it has the full quota of 12 senators, and on Saturday the Liberals lost one to Labor — in fact lost him by a big margin, with Guy Barnett not even close to getting a quota ahead of Lisa Singh. In Victoria, too, the Liberals have lost a spot, with Julian McGauran, who has offered public life nothing but a source of generous donations to whichever party he has graced with his presence, being replaced with, most likely, a senator from the living dead DLP.
And in the end it will be regional independents, not the good citizens of outer-suburban Sydney or regional Queensland, who will decide who forms government. And at the moment there’s very little in common philosophically or politically between regional Australia and our outer suburbs.
Why NBN is a white elephant
I am a network architect for one of Australia’s largest Telco’s – so I speak with some authority on this issue.
Here are the technical reasons this will fail :
1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit. Over time, the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it can’t do its bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia’s houses, except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15 years. So after 15 years, you will have to replace it. Whereas the copper network will last for many decades to come. Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile. That`s why no other country has done this.
2) You can not give every house 100Mbps. If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet. In reality, there is a thing called contention. Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers). That means, you share that 20Mbps with 20 other people. It`s a long story why, but there will NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth. Not for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution. The “Core” can not and will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth. The 100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the exchange. From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds you get now. The “Core” of Australia’s network is already fibre (many times over). And even so, we still have high contention ratios. Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up. You will not get better download speeds.
3) new DSL technologies will emerge. 15 years ago we had 56k dial-up. Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+. There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now. $zero cost to the tax payer
4) 4G wireless is being standardised now. The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in Australia. There are problems with it, but remember that it was developed for voice. The 4G standard is specifically being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier). $zero cost to the tax payer
5) The “NBN” will be one of the largest single networks ever built on earth. There are only a few companies who could do it – Japan’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom etc. Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this scale. Yet we are led to believe that the same people who can’t build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do it ??? Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off !! Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces ! (shhhh don’t tell anyone, it`s our secret)
I notice Mark Arbib failed to show on Qand A last night, and then issued a statement which charged that the caretaker PM had forbidden him from appearing.
All to preserve a semblance of unity and keep the lid on any appearance of internal party rancour, as Julia tries to convince the independents that she has a mandate and a functioning party.
This will be grist for the mill for Abbott, for it simply highlights that the executioner of K. Rudd is being kept from public scrutiny.
Morris Iemma denounced Bitar and Arbib as “part of the problem”, Anna Bligh insists she doesn’t want to “catch the NSW disease”.
I actually think there will be some benefits in letting Julia govern.
Abbott will tear them apart.
Especialy when the Greens start trying to see their quasi Marxist programme implemented. Business is already sounding the alarm bells.
I had a Telstra bloke come and do some work on my phone lines 2 months ago, he said that on the central coast the NBN cable was planned to be hung from poles and not underground, so that means 15 years life and another ugly cable hanging from the poles
@ Astro
You appear to have have quoted pre-election disinfo verbatim.
Isn’t it time to let some facts percolate back into our national debate?
See the discussion below this article:
http://www.cairnsblog.net/2010/08/why-labors-national-broadband-plan-will.html
It sure didn’t work. Even in SA there was no swing against the ALP, partly because the BER has been wonderful here, in Tassie, mostly in Victoria and I note there were no complaints from WA really and only 2 from the NT.
The Australian lost the election as well because there is no way Abbott can get up and with a large greens block in the senate not much they could do that would be really harsh and not much either party can do now that is really harsh because they will be flogged if they try.