Scare for Costello in Higgins?
While there is attention on Maxine McKew’s chances against Howard in Bennelong, Costello in Higgins may get a scare, especially if the ALP is smart with preselection.
Higgins bucked the national trend last federal election and swung slightly against the Liberal Party (two-party preferred), no real change in the Labor vote, a Greens vote of around 12%, and Family First under 1%.
What is interesting is the breakdown by booths, as the "Doctor’s wives" end (lots of degrees) had a large swing away from Howard, while the underprivileged end (including Housing Commission flats) swung significantly to Howard.
The likely changes this election are:
- The high-middle income professionals will continue their swing against Howard, as they will be more comfortable with Kevin Rudd than Latham, and have had another 3 years of reasons to dislike Howard.
- The underprivileged demographic are likely to have been affected by WorkChoices, and may swing against the government this time.
A respectable high-profile candidate might even win. Who might the ideal candidate be - apart from an ABC person?
If you look at newspaper home-delivery sheets in the area, you’ll find almost a 10:1 ratio between The Age (Fairfax) and The Australian (Murdoch), so an Age journalist with economic credentials, such as the current-account deficit hawk Kenneth Davidson (a critic of federal AND Victorian economic policies), would really give Costello a nasty fright and also bolster economic credibility of the ALP team generally outside the electorate.
Davidson’s interests are not just economic, as he contributes to Dissent magazine, which criticizes social policy of the Howard government, making The Monthly and The Quarterly Essay look right-centrist.
These three journals are very common in newsagents at the "Doctor’s Wives" end of Higgins, along with others like The Guardian Weekly, The Economist, Foreign Affairs Review and The New Yorker, which outnumber those like the Howard-apologist Quad-rant.
In coffee-shops, even those who I know are members of the Liberal party are expressing concern about human rights, growing racism, and/or trade/current-account deficits. The latter issue aims squarely at Costello’s credibility.
Only at the northern end of Higgins, Toorak (fewer degrees, more corporate types) are voters likely to swing towards Costello as they love the IR laws.
Just as Howard’s increased efforts inside his electorate decrease his efforts on the national stage, distracting Costello with a good high-profile candidate would cut down on his time touting the economic credibility of the Liberals and irresponsibility of the ALP.
I wonder what other seats in "Doctor’s Wives" belts are vulnerable. Any suggestions?
What about provincial seats where climate change is worrying farmers? South-West Victoria is a good example.
Even if the Liberals are returned because their resilience in WA, and the inevitable rabbit-out-of-the-hat scare campaign, it is possible, just possible, that both Howard and Costello might both fail to be re-elected.
Stories the server thinks are related:
Posted: by David Bath May 23rd, 2007 under Politics, Victoria, Elections, 2007 Federal Election, Australia.
Comments: 15
Comments
Comment from Rebecca
Time: May 24, 2007, 4:06 pm
I think Higgins is the sort of seat which could only conceivably be in play if the ALP found a good celebrity candidate. In light of what has happened so far in Victoria, I think this is kind of unlikely. In contrast to their attempts in other states to headhunt candidates, the ALP has not landed a single star candidate in Victoria, and is running some utter deadshits in some of the key Liberal marginals. It isn’t for no reason that there’s been quite a lot of speculation on the psephological blogs that the ALP may well win the election and not pick up a single seat in Victoria.
On a related note, can I just say that the term “doctor’s wives” annoys the hell out of me? It’s completely patronising and sexist.
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 24, 2007, 4:31 pm
Melbourne is Australia’s most pro-Labor city, and there are no Liberal seats that are truly marginal, unless a really big swing is on.
Costello will probably be at his most vulnerable in this election, but I would think he’d still pull through. He is in vaguely similar position to some other Liberals, who hold seats that are becoming slightly more Labor-leaning (such as Wentworth, or Kooyong).
I am guessing that there is still room in Victoria for a sizeable swing to Labor, but it may be in seats that are already reasonable safe (like Scullin, or Jaga Jaga).
I’d like to see Labor have a dash at McEwan, by putting in a high-profile candidate. The outer-suburban (Labor-voting) demographic is growing there, so Labor would be in with a chance if a swing is on. Also, Danby in Melbourne Ports needs to make sure he doesn’t lose his seat, which is a tricky one.
Finally, does anybody know much about the guy Labor’s running in Deakin? Is he a hack, or is there some substance there? I have to agree that there are a few no-hopers on the Labor backbenches in Victoria, and it’s a shame that Combet didn’t settle on a Victorian seat.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 24, 2007, 4:32 pm
I know “Doctor’s Wives” is an annoying label - I hate it too - please suggest a better one.
“Professional Baby Boomers and Generations Xers With Degrees And High-Middle Income and Have A Social Conscience” is a tad of a mouthful, and causes RSI
Comment from Rebecca
Time: May 24, 2007, 4:50 pm
I actually disagree with much of the punditariat about the potential: I think Labor could still do quite well in Victoria. For that to happen, however, they’d have to quit screwing around and actually take the election seriously.
In particular, there are at least two seats Labor should be seriously out to win: Corangamite and Deakin. Corangamite has been getting seriously marginal for years, but Labor keep putting up a parade of complete and utter deadshits (seriously, every election since the Hawke era, at least); this year, being no exception, they’re running some random former councillor from Ballarat, which isn’t even in the damn electorate, in spite of having some excellent, high-profile, candidates who actively wanted preselection. Deakin is similar - they’ve stuck a union hack into a seat which probably isn’t very union-friendly to begin with, over the top of the 2004 candidate, a local doctor. Accordingly, their chances of winning either of those are pretty low.
I agree that there would be potential to take McEwen if they ran a good candidate - it was seen as a potential pickup in 2004 before Labor ran off the rails, and I hate Fran Bailey more than just about any other MP. Alas, I seem to recall Andrew Landeryou saying that they were going to run a deadshit hack there as well.
Finally, I think Labor should have recruited Christian Zahra to run again in McMillan. Though a redistribution has made it into a Liberal seat, Zahra was a popular member, and there is no way in hell he would have lost in 2004, redistribution or not, had it been for Labor’s national woes. Without Zahra, however, I don’t think they have a chance in hell of taking the seat back.
On the Labor-held side, I think Michael Danby is safe for now. He knows his constituency, and he’s survived some really concerted attacks (especially in 2004) in worse times, so I think he’ll be around until he retires. How the seat fares after that is anybody’s guess.
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 24, 2007, 4:58 pm
I think the punditariat have ignored Victoria a bit, and seem to think the election will be won and lost elsewhere.
Melbourne is an interesting place, politically. Historically, it seems to have thrown up some of Melbourne’s most blue-blooded, protestant conservatives, as well as some of the more bolshie sort of characters.
I suspect that, in the traditional ‘blue ribbon’ Liberal seats, we might see more pseudo-progressive Liberal candidates like Turnbull or Georgiou, who don’t alienate the less socially conservative Liberal voters.
Also, I think Melbourne is a strong counter-example to the commentariat nonsense regarding ‘Howard’s battlers’. If one leaves Melbourne’s ‘latte-belt’ and moves towards the ‘mortgage belt’, one finds that virtually every seat is safe Labor territory (with the eastern suburbs being an exception).
As for useless hack candidates, I think Labor have a few of these in safe sets in Melbourne and NSW. They seem to treat a safe seat as a jackals treat a carcass, with the factions squabbling over the spoils.
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 24, 2007, 5:00 pm
My rather long-winded comment seems to have been lost.
Comment from Kieran
Time: May 24, 2007, 5:13 pm
possibly caught in the spam filter, I’ll try and dig it up.
As for no seat being marginal without a big swing being on, chuck the latest polling figures into this.
Labour with that sort of a majority… it would be scary.
Comment from The Happy Revolutionary
Time: May 24, 2007, 5:20 pm
The OzPolitics thing shows that Labor need a 2PP of about 52.5 to be assured of victory, assuming the swing will be uniform (which it won’t).
Still, Bennelong and Wentworth look very vulnerable if you look at the numbers alone. It would bring a bit of joy to see Howard and Turnbull voted out this election…
Comment from Rebecca
Time: May 24, 2007, 5:32 pm
The Happy Revolutionary: The ALP has dud candidates in safe seats all over the country; that isn’t unusual in the last. The problem in Victoria is that they’re running complete dud candidates in all the marginal seats they could conceivably pick up. This, accordingly, is maiming their chances across the state.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 24, 2007, 5:32 pm
Corangamite is my old stomping ground, and where most of my rellies live. Like Wannon (Warrnambool, another old stomping ground and just down the road), the dry is unpleasant, the farms are usually small, the people are educated.
Corangamite also includes bucketloads of SeaChangers (well, it was filmed there, after all).
On the other hand, there is a lot of new housing and Howard aspirationals south/west of the Barwon in greater Geelong.
Note that I was saying “scare”, “just possibly”, etc, all heavily qualified about Costello. But the educated right-of-centre elites (and big latte-suckers) are definitely worried about the demise of what THEY see as Australian values under Howard (i.e. tolerance, etc) and have enough economic nous to look behind the data. This group extends to other suburbs in the inner-south-east of Melbourne (Petro Georgiou is to the north, and has limited the dropping liberal vote because he has stood up for common decency) like Hawthorn, Kew, East Braaaaaghton, etc.
It’s going to be an interesting election going through booth results. I still expect the illiterati who don’t look at the economic big picture but the notional value of their house (without considering disposable income/debt ratios) to succumb to scares about the “Risk of Rudd”.
BW: The “Hubris of Howard” although equally alliterative, won’t work - too many aspirationals wouldn’t know what hubris is, and probably don’t have a dictionary.
Kieran: I agree a huge ALP majority is scary, but the senate will still probably be in coalition hands. I’m hoping the minor parties pick up lower house seats. This is possible in (put on Juuuude and Truuude Braaaaghton accents) “couldn’t paaaassibly vaaate Labaaaar, daaaant like Hooowaaard anymaaare, sooooaw I’ll vaaate Dem or Graaan” electorates.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 24, 2007, 5:41 pm
Rebecca: Your point about dud candidates is spot on, which is why I spent a few column-inches on describing what a decent candidate for Higgins-and-similar-electorates would be.
btw: For Corangamite, another relative of a player-or-ex-player for the Cats would add at least a few percentage points. Just think about the loyal following for Nipper Tresize in the Vic parliament.
Perhaps someone like Blake (father of current player, ex player himself, and a vet by trade to keep the farmers around Colac happy)
Comment from Kieran
Time: May 24, 2007, 5:54 pm
But those people think the Dems are dead and the Greens deal drugs to school children.
It’s what I’m involved in this election, attempting to convince dissillusioned country conservatives that Greens make better senator’s than Labor party members, but I’m still skeptical.
Comment from David Bath
Time: May 24, 2007, 6:03 pm
Actually, I just used Jude-n-Trude because they’ve got a VERY exaggerated Doctors-Wives (sorry Bec) accent, and Braaaaghton is in the next electorate down. Like Higgins, the Green vote is quite high compared to the countries average. Apart from inner Melbourne with lots of students, etc, the “Doctor’s Wives Belt” is the next-down-the-ladder for Green voters. But then, that’s what happens when you read New Scientist and the other rags I mentioned.
I think there are one or two seats in north sydney that showed similar trends last election.
Pingback from Club Troppo » Missing Link - Thursday 24 May
Time: May 24, 2007, 10:47 pm
[…] a good look. Jeremy begs the PM to stay and face the music. David Bath predicts that in any case Costello may have trouble holding Higgins. Bryan at OzPolitics reckons the leadership penny has dropped. Is it time for Peter […]
Pingback from The Dead Roo » “Blackberry Bolsheviks”
Time: May 28, 2007, 10:49 pm
[…] “Blackberry Bolsheviks” On a related note, can I just say that the term “doctor’s wives” annoys the hell out of me? It’s completely patronising and sexist. - Bec […]
Write a comment