Labor scrapes through to claim victory in Werribee byelection despite big swing against it

The Victorian Labor party is claiming a narrow victory in the Werribee byelection, with its former stronghold now held on a slim margin.
At last count and after preferences, the Labor candidate, John Lister, received 50.71% of the two-party preferred vote, compared with the Liberal party's Steve Murphy on 49.29%.
That followed a 16.5% slump in Labor's primary vote.
Labor has held Werribee, in Melbourne's west, since 1979, and the byelection was held after the resignation of former treasurer Tim Pallas.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The party claimed the win on social media on Friday, congratulating Lister and describing him as the new Labor member.
'John has served Werribee as a teacher and a CFA volunteer – now, he'll represent the community he loves in Victoria's parliament,' Victorian Labor said.
The byelection was the first electoral test for the premier, Jacinta Allan, after she took over the top job from Daniel Andrews.
The deputy premier, Ben Carroll, said previously the party had heard voters 'loud and clear' over the slump in support.
Commentators have speculated whether the result could translate to a shift to the right in Victoria at the next federal election, which must be held by 17 May.
The vote in Werribee was held on the same day as a byelection in the inner eastern suburb of Prahran, which Liberal candidate Rachel Westaway won.
The seat had been held by the Greens since 2014, with the vote prompted by the resignation of Sam Hibbins.
The Greens said they were hurt by lost preferences after Labor chose not to run a candidate and by absentee votes not being allowed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Spectator

17 hours ago

• Spectator

Tories will remember this assisted dying vote

'I judge a man by one thing, which side would he have liked his ancestors to fight on at Marston Moor?' So said Isaac Foot, the Liberal MP and father of Michael. For some Tories, both in and out of parliament, Friday's assisted dying debate will carry a similar weight in judgements of character. Some 80 per cent of Tory MPs voted against Kim Leadbeater's Bill at Third Reading, with 92 against, 20 in favour and five registered abstentions. Of the 25-strong new intake, elected last year, just four backed Leadbeater's Bill: Aphra Brandreth, Peter Bedford, Ashley Fox and Neil Shastri-Hurst. Social conservatives note that the Tories were much more aligned on assisted dying than Reform, which split by three votes against to two in favour. Only six MPs backed both this measure and Tuesday's abortion liberalisation vote: Brandreth, Shastri-Hurst, Luke Evans, Kit Malthouse, Andrew Mitchell and Laura Trott. A striking number of senior Tories were among the 20 who supported assisted dying including Rishi Sunak, Oliver Dowden and Jeremy Hunt. Six shadow cabinet members backed it too including Mel Stride, Victoria Atkins and Chris Philp. 'That's the end of his leadership hopes', remarks one opponent. Among those who opposed assisted dying, there is praise for Kemi Badenoch. The Tory leader had previously supported the concept in principle before coming out strongly against Leadbeater's Bill in November. Her argument centred on the legislative process: that insufficient time was dedicated to the Bill and that MPs ought to serve as scrutineers, not campaigners. Her robust stance since then has impressed begrudging internal critics. 'She did do a good job', admits one MP who backed a rival candidate. Friday's vote showed Badenoch's thinking to be firmly in-line with the majority of her own MPs on this issue. There is frustration among some of her supporters that if twelve Tory proponents had changed their mind, Leadbeater's Bill would have been sunk. Perhaps, in time, assisted dying will become accepted wisdom in Tory circles. Those in favour cite its public support and point to the party's history of belatedly backing 'progressive' measures. In March 2003, it was a minority of modernisers who disregarded Iain Duncan Smith to back scrapping Section 28. Within five years, one of them, Boris Johnson, was standing for Mayor of London. Within ten, a Tory PM was championing same-sex marriage. But for those still reeling and angry from yesterday's vote, it certainly doesn't feel that way today.

The Guardian

19 hours ago

• The Guardian

Ancient trees are shipped to the UK, then burned – using billions in ‘green' subsidies. Stop this madness now

How green is this? We pay billions of pounds to cut down ancient forests in the US and Canada, ship the wood across the Atlantic in diesel tankers, then burn it in a Yorkshire-based power station. Welcome to the scandal of Drax, where Britain's biggest polluter gets to play climate hero. The reality is that billions in public subsidies has enabled Drax to generate electricity by burning 300m trees. Now the government is trying to force through an extension that would grant Drax an estimated £1.8bn in public subsidies on top of the £11bn it has already pocketed, keeping this circus going until at least 2031. This isn't green energy. The mathematics alone should horrify anyone who cares about value for money or the environment. Burning wood creates 18% more CO2 emissions than coal. Even if you replant every tree Drax destroys, it takes up to a century for new growth to reabsorb the carbon released. We're supposed to reach net zero by 2050, not 2125. Yet through circus-trick accounting, all of Drax's massive emissions magically disappear from Britain's climate ledger. They've simply been wished away – counted as 'zero', while the company becomes our largest single contributor to climate breakdown. Extraordinarily, this scandal unites opposition across the political spectrum. From the Greens to Reform, from the Morning Star to the Daily Telegraph, there's rare consensus that Drax represents everything wrong with our approach to climate policy. The Labour-dominated public accounts committee condemned Drax as a 'white elephant' that's been allowed to 'mark its own homework' while claiming 'billions upon billions' in subsidies. A Lords committee agreed, saying parliament needs to see key documents before approving any more funding. I don't agree with Ed Miliband on everything – we clearly have different views on nuclear power. I respect the energy secretary's commitment to tackling climate crisis, and it is worth noting that the further subsidies are half of what was previously on offer for Drax. But that's exactly why continuing to subsidise Drax at all is so disappointing. When Miliband announced his plans to 'ramp up' biomass burning back in 2009, he was genuinely trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels. But 16 years on, this policy has gone badly astray. What was meant to be a bridge to renewable energy is actually making emissions worse. If, on Monday, the House of Lords votes to extend this unabated wood burning for another four years, what is to stop these subsidies being extended again and again? And why should the government deal with a firm as untrustworthy as Drax? Perhaps most damning is what Drax refuses to reveal. After the BBC's devastating Panorama investigation into the company's destruction of Canadian primary forests, Drax asked auditor KPMG to investigate, hoping for a clean bill of health. However, the evidence was so damning that the reports are still being hidden from the public. If Drax has nothing to hide, why not publish these reports? A former top Treasury official turned whistleblower accused it of deliberately concealing unsustainable practices to secure subsidies. The case, now settled, raises questions of dishonesty that should disqualify any company from public funding. The extra billions Drax is seeking could help build enough wind and solar capacity to power millions of homes. It could create permanent jobs in genuine renewable industries, not temporary employment destroying irreplaceable ecosystems. Every pound spent subsidising tree burning is a pound not invested in technologies that could actually deliver net zero. While other countries race ahead with wind, solar and battery storage, we're burning money on the most primitive fuel known to humanity. There's a huge loophole in the government's pledge to stop Drax burning trees from primary forest. Their restrictions on Drax only apply to subsidised electricity supplied to the grid. Drax wants to power private data centres but there is no plan that prevents it from destroying ancient forests to power 21st-century AI searches. That means Drax could be cutting down even more primary forests than it does today. MPs have lost trust in the government's ability to hold Drax to account – the criticism from parliamentary committees has been brutal. The environmental movement didn't fight to establish renewable energy so politicians could facilitate the burning of ancient forests that took millennia to grow. Real climate action means making hard choices, not hiding behind accounting tricks that make our emissions disappear on paper while making them worse in reality. It is time for Labour MPs to speak up; the fight for net zero is hard enough. More subsidies for Drax's wood burning in the name of sustainability is just more fuel on that fire. Dale Vince is a green energy industrialist and campaigner

The Herald Scotland

a day ago

• The Herald Scotland

Ewing: 'Who, hand on heart, can defend the SNP's record?'

'It's a sad day,' he said. 'Lots of professional friendships, loyalties made me think very carefully before coming to the conclusion that I did, but it is the right decision, and it isn't a rehearsal we're in. So we have to try and do the right thing.' READ MORE Mr Ewing, who has represented the Highlands since 1999, said he could no longer "defend the indefensible" and that he believed the SNP's record in government had become impossible to justify — particularly in relation to the A9 and A96. 'And these are not just policies on paper, but they're things which have seen people lose their lives on the roads simply because, unlike in the central belt, our roads lack central barriers to prevent head‑on collisions.' His decision sets up a high-profile contest with the SNP's Emma Roddick in Inverness and Nairn, where he is defending a majority of 9,114. Mr Ewing served in the governments of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, but in recent years became one of the SNP's most vocal internal critics. He was briefly suspended from the SNP Holyrood group in 2023 after voting against Green minister Lorna Slater in a motion of no confidence, defying party whips. Fergus Ewing outside Holyrood (Image: Colin D Fisher/ Mr Ewing accused the SNP of abandoning traditional supporters. 'They used to stand up for oil and gas workers, farmers, fishermen. Now they insult farmers, want to stop fishermen from fishing with no scientific basis, and claim to support oil workers while refusing to allow new drilling,' he said. 'The coalition with the Greens was, in my view, the final blow. 'Just look at the facts: we've lost three-quarters of our MPs, 65,000 members, and 10 to 15 percentage points in the polls. That's about a third of our support. Who, hand on heart, can defend that record, and yet, that's really what they're doing.' Asked why he had made the announcement now, he said he had been 'wrestling' with his conscience for 'perhaps too long.' 'I've been disgruntled with almost every serious aspect of SNP policy, and I've said so.' What encouraged him was the 'overwhelming' level of local support — including from voters outside the independence movement. He said the timing was also practical — announcing before summer to allow him to campaign at local events like the Nairn Games and Inverness Show. 'I also didn't want to announce it after Parliament had gone into recess, because I think that would have made it look as if I was a bit cowardly, scared to go back and face my colleagues. 'I mean, since three-quarters of my SNP colleagues haven't talked to me for four years, then I don't really think there's going to be too much change.' READ MORE Leaving the SNP means surrendering access to party infrastructure and campaign data, but Mr Ewing said he remained undeterred. He was, he insisted, capable of winning. 'The idea that the SNP machine is a finely tuned Rolls-Royce is, sadly, not true. Headquarters was barely functioning at the last election. The machine is now out of oil and probably spends more time in the garage than on the road.' He added that around 20 volunteers were already on board: 'You don't need huge numbers to run a campaign. Twenty dedicated people are better than a hundred turning up for a selfie.' Mr Ewing said his re-election bid would be strengthened by the fact that, over more than 25 years as a constituency MSP, he had helped thousands of local people. 'List MSPs don't really do very much constituency work. I mean, they pretend to, but the truth is they don't. Not many constituents go to them. They don't know who they are.' Mr Ewing said the Parliament had become 'tribal and fractious,' and that more cross-party cooperation was needed, particularly given the rise of Nigel Farage's Reform UK. 'It may sound a bit naïve to say, well, parties can work together in Scotland, but it depends on the context. And if the context is Reform ends up with 32 seats and becomes the second-largest party, it might not be naïve — it might be necessary — for the other parties to stop their bloody bickering and get on with governing in a grown-up way,' he said. Despite his criticisms, Mr Ewing said he would continue as a 'critical friend' to the SNP and reiterated his support for Kate Forbes, though he stopped short of saying he would rejoin if she became leader. 'I was against the Green deal from the start. I was the only one who voted against it in the whole group, the only one. I was proven to be correct. But nobody has actually ever said we got it wrong. 'The SNP are like the emperor in the emperor's new clothes. They're in denial. And the trouble about that is that although — I'm not the wee boy that blew the gaff on the emperor and said he was naked, I'm a 68-year-old whippersnapper — nonetheless, the public can see it." In a statement, First Minister John Swinney said it 'was with real sadness and deep regret that I heard of Fergus Ewing's decision to leave the Scottish National Party'. He added: 'We have both served the SNP and the cause of independence for many years, and I commend him for all that he achieved while serving in the SNP Government until 2021. 'Fergus had the option of standing at the forthcoming election for the SNP, given his status as an approved candidate. He chose not to accept that opportunity, and I regret that he has ultimately decided instead to leave the party. 'The SNP approaches the 2026 election ahead in the polls, with growing support for independence, and I am looking forward to taking our positive, ambitious vision for Scotland's future to the people.'