In early 2006 I identified the ‘gang of eight’, seats that had swung to Labor at the then last three elections (1998, 2001 and 2004). (Of course, these all also swung to the ALP in 2007; the only electorates in the land that didn’t were Swan and Cowan in WA, Franklin in Tasmania and Malcolm Turnbull’s seat of Wentworth in NSW.)
Brendan Nelson’s seat of Bradfield was there, but Peter Costello’s Higgins just missed out thanks to a small pro-government 2004 swing.
At the moment the expectation is that both of these will go to by-election on the same day later this year. Graph below shows their Liberal two party preferred votes from 1984 to 2007, adjusted for redistributions.
Rather different trajectories. Bradfield has been more or less edging towards Labor over the last two decades (all those doctors’ wives!) while Higgins moved Liberal during the 1980s but then the other way, so it’s now about where it started.
But Higgins has a smaller margin, and Peter Costello would have a very large personal vote. Will Labor contest? Depending on the state of the the Liberal leadership, they might have a very small chance.
On the other hand, the benefit of taking the seat at by-election and then losing it at the next national poll is dubious. Think of Ryan (Qld) in 2001. But party types seem to get off on such short-term gratification.
[Update: give or take 2.5 percent in the margin, not dissimilar to Brian Costar's recent thoughts on Kooyong.]
Good graph, will be curious to see how this goes.
Interesting how Bradfield has dropped so significantly but Higgins has only slid up and down in a range of 4 or 5 points over 9 elections. Is Higgins a particularly ’stable’ population?
On taking taking a seat at a by-election and loosing it at the national election, although I think you are right – the benefit is dubious. However it deprives your opponent of the resources of incumbency and quite possibly results in them overspending (or diverting resouces from otherseats) to win back a seat they shouldn’t ever loose.
Not sure how much thats worth, but for higgins for example, if the liberals loose it at a by-election (regardless of to whom they loose it), you could imagine them throwing everything but the kitchen sink to ensure they get it back at the national poll (even though they probably would have got it back with minimal effort)
From a money point of view, the ALP is doing much better in fundraising than the Liberals (it helps to be in Government when it comes to bringing in the cash). The ALP would be wise to run in the byelection if only to force the Liberals to spend money they can ill afford to. Without a Labor candidate, the Liberals could perhaps run a barebones effort.
[...] week I suggested that Labor has a ‘very small chance’ of winning the Higgins by-election. [...]