Tomorrow sees voters in Peter Costello’s old seat of Higgins (and Brendan Nelson’s seat of Bradfield) go to the polls. Labor is not running in either by-election. That seemed like an arguably justifiable decision at the time nominations closed, but it’s looking, in the eyes of some observers, like less of a smart roll of the dice in the wake of the Liberal #spill madness, and what might be charitably described as a very scrappy start to Tony Abbott’s leadership. It’s interesting to ponder the remarks attributed to Anthony Albanese, who apparently was telling MPs to pencil in the last scheduled Liberal party room meeting of the parliamentary year as the day the leadership would change hands. Whether or not that’s so, or it’s a claim made or inflated with the benefit of hindsight, Labor would have been anticipating the likelihood of the ETS defeat this week, but probably a Hockey leadership rather than the ascension of the Mad Monk to such ethereal realms.
Reports of the amount of money the Libs have been spending suggest that they must be seriously worried about Higgins. It’s difficult to say from this distance, but a number of observers suggest that The Greens’ Clive Hamilton has not run much of a grass roots campaign. That could be scuttlebutt, and I’d be very interested in any views from those closer to the action. But the prospect of the Liberals losing Higgins to The Greens is quite an extraordinary one, and the converse to the ‘Labor should have run’ argument is that it would be an even greater reverse for the opposition than the seat falling to the ALP (though, as Hugo Kelly and Rebekka Power argue, it could be a case of Labor strategists being too clever by half in handing The Greens an inner city Melbourne base).
If Hamilton runs Kelly O’Dwyer close, it will highlight the absurdity of the argument that the Liberals, in rejecting the ETS and elevating Abbott, were playing to their ‘base’. If Higgins isn’t a blue ribbon Lib seat, it’s hard to think of one. As Antony Green observed, while the margin has sometimes been deceptively narrow, the consistency of the Liberal hold on the areas that make up the core of the electorate is what counts.
The other fascination about these by-election contests is that they represent the first test of the new Liberal leader in seats held by one of his two predecessors this term (both of whom now hold sinecures courtesy of Kevin Rudd and the Labor government), and of course, the former electorate of the Great Pretender to the Liberal crown. A loss in either one would be a devastating blow. I wonder how the results will be called, and if there’ll be a bit of bar raising by the commentariat, but serious reverses on the primary vote in either or both seats should speak for themselves. Again, the case for Labor not running candidates in by-elections in Liberal seats is that the focus will be all on the opposition, as opposed to the usual media predictathon when governments lose traction at by-elections.
It should be interesting to watch both unfold. Please feel free to add any reports and links to this thread throughout the day!
Update: The Liberals have retained both seats, it would appear with increased margins on the 2PP. Looking at Higgins, the key is the fact that the Greens’ primary vote is less than Labor’s at the 2007 general election. [Update: That previous comment was made with a number of booths still outstanding. But see also this analysis from Rebekka Power.] It’s evident that there are a fair few ALP voters who won’t vote Green, something I noted on a number of occasions. No doubt these results will be spun as a great victory for Abbott, but the missing element in the equation is the absence of a Labor candidate.
Having said that, I still think The Greens made a big mistake by nationalising the contest, and running a candidate like Clive Hamilton. Kelly O’Dwyer’s ‘Mayor of Higgins’ campaign capitalised on his outsider status well, it would seem. I suggested previously that The Greens might have done better to run a well known local – parochialism always plays well in by-elections, particularly against blow-ins, as the Liberal research no doubt showed. As I intimated in the post, there may have been an element of expectations management going on, with the Libs talking down their chances in advance of the vote.
But I think it’s fair to say that The Greens won’t, and shouldn’t be, happy with the outcome.
But the Libs shouldn’t be all that happy either, as they know full well they ran defensive strategies avoiding the big issues of national politics. These seats should be a total shoo-in for anyone with the Libs’ label on the ballot paper.
The final verdict – the whole thing is probably a bit of a side show.
Recent comments
Sam, Paul Norton, Sam, Paul Norton, anthony nolan, Helen [...]
jules, anthony nolan, Legal Eagle, jules, Geoff Robinson, Mercurius [...]
informally yours, Saint Furious of Ikea, informally yours, Chris, informally yours, Saint Furious of Ikea [...]
Paul Norton, wilful, Mark, Kersebleptes, El Diablo, Sam [...]
rumrebellious, RightHandThread, Nabakov, rumrebellious, Nabakov, RightHandThread [...]
el oso, Fine, Pavlov's Cat, Saint Furious of Ikea, Zorronsky, Razor [...]
Kiashu, Fran Barlow, Robert Merkel, Kiashu, Mervyn Langford, OldSkeptic [...]
Mark, Saint Furious of Ikea, Luke Walladge, Mark, Paul Burns, Bert [...]
Mark, Paul Burns, PinkyOz, Paul Burns, Lefty E, PinkyOz [...]
Paul Burns, Fran Barlow, CMMC, Gummo Trotsky, Guido, pablo [...]
BilB, Peter, BilB, OldSkeptic, anthony nolan, mitchell porter [...]
Jack Strocchi, Chris, Ken Lovell, Gummo Trotsky, desipis, Pavlov's Cat [...]