Comments on: Victoria Park by-election live

By: Andrew Owens

Andrew Owens — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:26:38 +0000

An interesting bynote – I had a look (as anyone can, btw) at the disclosures for the byelection at WAEC (AXA building, Perth) and apparently nobody but myself and a couple of the minor candidates/parties got donations – something a bit not right there! Those of us who got donations received just enough to cover the nomination fee. In expenditure terms, the spending was curiously consistent with the votes, with everyone getting about 1% for each $1200 or so spent (although Labor spent over $70k).

By: Andrew Owens

Andrew Owens — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:48:04 +0000

Swan was only a cliffhanger because of its odd construction – it’s a bit like the federal seat of Stirling as it has, broadly speaking, a wealthier, safe Liberal western half and a less wealthy, safe Labor eastern half. If anyone’s interested I have put together a quick analysis and some comparison maps (most of which I assembled long before the election) and placed them at http://www.andrewowens.com.au/misc/byelection.html

By: bernard

bernard — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:02:38 +0000

Victoria Park state electorate is part of the Swan federal electorate which was the cliff-hanger in 2004 it would be interesting if someone could make a comparison between the state election of 2005 ,this by-election and a possible outcome in 2007-08 federally

By: adam

adam — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:44:22 +0000

I suspect the fact that 11 candidates contested the VP by-election may have had something to go with Wyatt not gaining the “magical” 50 per cent that appears to bring some comfort to supporters of the other candidates…the Conservative Right were well represented and I am not aware of any party contesting the seat that actually gave Wyatt their second preference in their “how to votes” (I might be wrong on this??)

By: Vic Park local

Vic Park local — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:50:38 +0000

Oh, just noticed something else interesting.
Wyatt started on 7786 or 49.38% of the vote.
He needed to get to 7885 to have over 50% of the vote. A mere 99 votes.
He didn’t achieve that until the 5th distribution of preferences.
What does that mean? Dunno, just thought it was interesting.

By: Vic Park local

Vic Park local — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:41:02 +0000

Ok, the distribution of preferences is now up. I was just about 30 mins premature.
Interesting. Order of knock-out:
1) van Lieshout
2) Ward
3) Tattersall
4) Greaves
5) Dunn
6) Owens
7) Bateman
Heggers
9) Margetts.
The flow of preferences were also interesting:
1) van Lieshout’s flowed across the board
2) Ward’s was reasonably well spread with a slight lean toward Stevenson
3) Tattersall went overwhelmingly to Margetts… surprise
4) Greaves not surprisingly went primarily to Heggers
5) Dunn went fairly strongly to Wyatt
6) Owens went chiefly to Margetts
7) Bateman went mainly to Heggers! Those One Nationers are apparently Christian Fundamentalists too!
Heggers went overwhelmingly to Stevenson, and
9) Margetts went 75-25 to Wyatt over Stevenson.
So, the final margin 9632 to 6111 Wyatt over Stevenson or 61.08% to 38.75% (if my quick calcs are right).
So, yes a swing to the Libs but not a big one. Either way it looks unlikely to save Matt Birney now (see today’s West!).

By: Vic Park local

Vic Park local — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:39:42 +0000

Well, I’m back, but just briefly. I wasn’t sure anyone would still be here! Interesting to read Andrew Owen’s comments – I would have though you would have been free to post here so long as you revealed who you were. Dee Margetts certainly did.
So, I was checking the WAEC website for the distribution of preferences which I understood was to ocurr today – still waiting. But while I’m here I can make two remarks:
1) Ben Wyatt is probably going to go down in history as the most honest politician ever elected to parliament – he promised Vic Park nothing but what they already have and that’s certainly what they’ll get.
2) Mike Ward said at the ‘debate’ that he knew he couldn’t win but expected to get more votes than people thought he could, that he was tapping into a previously unacknowledged vein of resentment in the community and that his vote would make the majors take notice. Well, he got the second lowest number of 1st prefs (after only van Lieshout) and only 0.5% of the vote. Is that the sort of numbers he was talking about?

By: chris pannell

chris pannell — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:57:06 +0000

about that remark an earlier poster made about the 1.4% was lower than others, problem is there was no context…

you look at the elections WA site and every electorate except the really outer rural/mining ones had around 90% turnout, this one had just 65% so maybe the sort of people who normally donkey vote didnt vote this time around.

also about the green vote, someone said victoria park was “inner city” its actually inner suburban, inner city would be perth or nedlands or maylands and they do get high green votes and used to be high democrat… no other party but labor and liberal has ever done that well in vic park so for the big minor parties to keep their votes steady and the new ones to take away from labor actually suggests they’re doing very well indeed.

By: Adrian Thompson

Adrian Thompson — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:12:36 +0000

Thanks for posting, and it’s always interesting to hear the story from the horse’s mouth. I would not doubt you’ve grown a lot from running this campaign, and no doubt the results coming back may have given you some ideas as to what worked and what didn’t. Not only is hindsight great, but an admirable first result combined with a lack of attention statewide give you plenty of chances to use these lessons to succeed in future.

My own analysis – many older people may have questioned the ability of a 27-year-old to represent the electorate, although they may have admired your commitment and enthusiasm. Your lack of profile prior to the byelection would have led some people to feel you were an unknown quantity, whereas they know who and what the ALP is, whether they like it or not. As you said, the overall lack of media attention and your out-of-electorate address didn’t help much. In fact, I feel more media attention would have damaged the ALP candidate, as he’s one of the weakest in a winnable seat I’ve seen in years. Finally, your campaign was aimed squarely at the ALP’s voter base, and I wouldn’t doubt there are many people who feel (incorrectly IMO) that the ALP do look after the area and just need more time to fix the problems. A higher budget, prominent advertising, inviting the media to your doorknocking, all would have increased profile. Please don’t take any of these as criticisms – VP is a traditional voter base in many ways and I think if you take that into account and plan well in advance, the potential for growth is immense. Obviously, byelections don’t allow planning, so this was a good “dress rehearsal” in a sense.

I admit to being won over at the debate, but the debate was poorly attended (40ish out of 25,000 voters and no media) – you present well and answering questions intelligently is a strong point for you, so I would suggest for future that getting to speak to already-convened groups of people may help you (I don’t think candidate public meetings attract more than the curious and the already committed). I would also suggest getting experience in public speaking to increase your confidence.

By: Andrew Owens

Andrew Owens — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:06:46 +0000

Apologies for the occasional wandering of the last piece – I got home at midnight almost every day for 3 weeks, and after talking to a couple of the other candidates in the days since, I know I’m not the only one who’s finding settling back into normal life again quite weird