| ALBERT PARK | RAW | ADJUSTED | ||
| Vote | Swing | Vote | 2PP | |
| Martin Foley (Labor) | 47.3 | 5.1 | 46.1 | 59.0 |
| John Middleton (Greens) | 27.8 | 9.1 | 28.2 | 41.0 |
| Cameron Eastman (Family First) | 4.8 | 3.8 | ||
| Adrian Jackson (Independent) | 1.0 | -0.2 | ||
| Shane McCarthy (DLP) | 1.8 | |||
| Paul Kavanagh (Democrats) | 4.7 | |||
| Prodos Marinakis (Independent) | 5.4 | |||
| John Dobinson (Independent) | 0.8 | |||
| Nigel Strauss (Independent) | 6.5 | COUNT | 78 % | |
.
9.55pm. Long-delayed final two-party booth for Albert Park now in, Labor’s 2PP on 57.7 per cent.
9.12pm. Postal votes now added.
8.49pm. Turnout in Albert Park not too bad: 25,669 polling booth votes cast (including informal) compared with 26,804 last year.
8.44pm. Two-party count for all booths in Williamstown has Labor on 64.6 per cent.
8.42pm. Informal vote a rather high 7 per cent in each electorate.
8.39pm. We’ve also got a two-party count from five booths in Albert Park, with Labor on 59.05 per cent, suggesting my preference calculations did their job.
8.38pm. Labor’s vote has also continued to edge upwards in Williamstown.
8.37pm. All booths now in for Albert Park, producing a slight narrowing the margin, but still a clear win for Labor.
8.25pm. Bridport and St Kilda Park booths now in, producing little change.
8.20pm. Now we’re talking. Confusing the two St Kilda booths actually flattered the Greens slightly, not Labor.
8.19pm. Actually, scratch that – there’s something screwy with my new calculations. Working on it. Labor should be doing better than they are.
8.16pm. I was actually comparing the wrong St Kilda booths just now. The correction has made the result a little closer.
8.10pm. A big burst of figures in from Williamstown, lifting the count from 37 per cent to 60 per cent. This has pushed Labor’s vote up to a handsome 56.5 per cent. It’s starting to look like a pretty good night for John Brumby.
8.07pm. St Kilda South now in, but it doesn’t quite bear out what I said in the previous comment. Greens up a fairly typical 8.8 per cent, producing only a slight narrowing of the two-party vote.
8.01pm. The Greens picked up a handy 13.4 per cent in Middle Park, which is nearest the St Kilda booths that are still yet to come. If that’s indicative of a trend in the south of the electorate, the Greens could at least be confident of closing the gap a little.
7.55pm. The new booth results are from Middle Park Bowling Club (weak for Labor), Elwood Park and Sol Green Community Centre (about average for Labor). There’s also a new booth in from Williamstown which has produced little change.
7.50pm. Three more booths in at Albert Park, and Labor looking good.
7.44pm. Actually, the 40 per cent mark is probably not that dangerous in the context of this election. Their vote in 2006 was 41.0 per cent. I’m reasonably confident about my 2PP figure in the above table (unless the result in this booth is aberrant).
7.41pm. More than 30 per cent counted in Williamstown and Labor comfortably over 50 per cent.
7.36pm. The first booth in for Albert is the Sandridge/Fishermens Bend booth, which is Labor’s strongest and the Greens’ weakest. Labor’s primary vote is dangerously close to the 40 per cent mark.
7.33pm. More results in from both seats …
7.33pm. Slowest count ever.
7.12pm. Two booths in from Williamstown, Labor on just over 50 per cent of the primary vote (compared with 62 per cent in 2006).
6.56pm. Looks like my “half an hour” ETA on first results was a little optimstic.
6.15pm. Polls closed for the Albert Park and Williamstown by-elections 15 minutes ago, and we should be getting results in about half an hour. I will keep a lazy eye on Williamstown, but the focus here is Albert Park where the Greens have at least a theoretical chance of recording an upset. The table above will compare available booth results with those from last year’s state election to produce an estimated final result on the primary vote, which will then be converted to two-party preferred on the following basis: 70 per cent to the Greens from the Democrats, Nigel Strauss and Adrian Jackson, 50 per cent from John Dobinson and 30 per cent from the DLP, Family First and Prodos Marinakis (all of whom are recommending the Greens be put last). Anyone who doubts any of these assessments is invited to raise their voice in comments, and I will consider changing them.
183 Comments
Looking good for Labor!
Any news of Family First or Exclusive Brethren campaigning tactics against the Greens?
GG: Funny
This has already probably been well discussed, but The Greens should do well with the donkey vote.
Arbie Jay:
Yes I heard rumours that FF was distributing leaflets at every polling booth encouraging people to vote for them and giving the Greens the last number. Shocking yet true.
My comment from the other thread
I did a turn for Labor on the HTVs in St Kilda this morning. There were a few angry Greenies after our successful sting on their silly selective schools policy, but since the Libs squibbed the fight the by-elections really have no federal relevance. The recent federal shenanigans mean that the by-elections have had very little coverage, so the Greens have got no traction.
IMHO the Greens blew their chance of winning Albert Park by picking a “typical†candidate (geeky-looking male with beard) instead of finding a star candidate, and then being baited by Labor into arguing about Labor’s allegations rather than promoting their own winning issues (bay dredging, Grand Prix). They should stick to what they are good at – why does a greens party need a selective schools policy at all?
I don’t think there is any anti-state-Labor sentiment in Victoria, so I don’t see any prospect of a big swing. Most Liberals will either stay home or vote DLP or FF, with preferences to Labor ahead of Greens.
Of course, I may be totally wrong. We will see in an hour or two.
Why is it shocking that FF should distribute HTVs or not preference the Greens?
Sorry Adam I was being sarcastic.
Speaker
So no-one driving around in cars with pig masks on, no leaflets saying the Greens will legalsie every drug possible and turn your kids gay.
I’m impressed, looks like they are becoming civilised.
ah, OK.
Can somebody please explain exactly why the Greens don’t have a leader in Victoria despite having a parliamnetary team of 3?
In Albert Part I reckon without the Liberals running FF may poll okay I’m not sure what Issues they pushed but in places like St Kilda you have those whom are very Liberal minded then next door you have have people whom are quite Conservate in nature, I suspect they’ll poll over 10%
I though Gary Barber was the Green leader.
In my strong experience in council elections, the smaller the party/candidate the less you can expect their preferences to flow a certain way and the more that you need to assume 50-50.
If FF were handing out greens last leaflets, then you could expect their voters to follow to about 80%. If the DLP were not then you would assume that their 3% would probably put labor last about 70% as you’ve said.
Not sure who Prodos is, but anything more than 60% would be overestimating the power over his voters, the majority who have probably never heard of him.
I reckon the Dems will come in at 75-80%, and the two independants I reckon will be closer to 50% than 70%. If you only assume they’ll get a 1% vote, that translates to about 250 votes tonight (assuming about 70% turnout today, with another 15% to come later). so changing from 70% to 50% is only about 50 votes anyway so it won’t (perhaps!) make a huge difference.
Will keep watching tonight!
Cheers
Former Hack
How many booths have each electorate got?
They have a radical collectivist, anti-leader ideology. Barber is the de facto leader but won’t be identified as such. Given the way the media works they pay a price for this. The federal Greens used to do the same but theye eventually accepted reality and now promote Brown as their leader.
The Kiwi Greens have male and female co-leaders.
Sounds interesting, but I wonder how well it works..
What is happening with postal and prepoll for this election?
Prodos is a disendorsed Liberal – a Greek cross-dresser with long hair and lots of jewellery. We need more candidates like this
His HTV’s refered to his “liberal philosophy” so he may attract some Liberal vote, but most of it will go to the DLP or FF. (Or nowhere.)
From my understanding I think Southbank comes first (normally a Lib booth) I think there about 13 booths but may be wrong.
Adam (5),
Of course there are ALP people who don’t like the party’s support for selective schools too, but they tend to be a minority these days.
I’ve got a colleague who I think will be voting for Prodos then. He was looking for a crazy independant.
Above, I meant to say that 70% DLP will put GREENS last, not Labor.
I think FF will get most of the Liberal vote, but remember that 104 effectively endorsed the Greens by having a crack at Labor during the campaign.
Prodos is a deadset legend.
Adam,
You don’t think that a few Liberals will vote Democrat rather than DLP or FF? There is no doubt in my mind that Labor will win both seats comfortably.
16: “The Kiwi Greens have male and female co-leaders.”
The Swedish Greens similarly have co-spokespeople (as opposed to leaders). That’d probably work similarly, and then the media would know who to talk to I guess if that was really the issue they had…
Thank you Adam, I thought that might be the answer, but I was chiding myself for thinking in stereotypes.
I wonder if today’s announcement from John So and backed by John Brumby of Melbourne’s answer to the APEC shutdown will have any effect on polling?
For non Melbournian, it has been announced that the corner of Swanston Street and Flinders Street will be shut down for a whole weekend next February for a Steven Speilberg movie. Which means no trams on these streets and no public access to Flinders Street Station. Hope the Chaser get a cameo role!
Non MelbournianS
104 should explain why it didn’t turn up to Albert Park, okay we excuse them for hiding from Williamstown
Yes Christian Prodo is a Legend.
An idle thought during the wait..
I thought Labor’s “The Greens vote Liberal 62% of the time” (or similar) was a slight mistake.
It might make Liberal voters think voting Green is the next best thing when there are no liberal candidates around.. but maybe it was designed to undermine the Greens core constituency..
Good point speaker if I lived in Albert Park I would have considered voted Green, but Martin Foley is a good choice for the ALP
25: “I wonder if today’s announcement from John So and backed by John Brumby of Melbourne’s answer to the APEC shutdown will have any effect on polling?”
Interesting to see that happened less than a week after Brumby KB’d a “car free day” in the CBD and John So abstained.
Good to see you on board CK. Enjoying the book you’ve published and hope you and Susie are keeping well.
What I am suggesting is that wherever the lib vote goes, I think that a fair chunk of it will come back to the greens before labor. Their first vote is largely irrelevant (and will almost certainly be spread widely).
I reckon the Greens will get up tonight.
Liberla voters see the Greens as a radical left party and they see Labor as well to the right of the Greens. It is one thing to follow a htv and give preferences to the Greens but faced with a choice they are likely to prefer Labor. This was the pattern in the Labor-Communist electoral battles of the past.
Chris, I think the Dems are a busted brand, but they may get some Liberal votes. They preferenced the Greens.
Blackburn, this is the first I’ve heard about the shutdown, so I doubt it influenced many votes (bit then I don’t watch TV so I’m not very typical).
Speaker, the “68%” provocation was designed to stop Labor votes leaking to the Greens, and to bait the Greens into debating our allegations rather than their own issues.
I predict easy Labor wins.
“The Greens win Albert Park” if St Kilda East, Reden Central, Ellwood south were still in Albert Park I could see that happening but I feel the ALP will hold this seat.
Adrian Jackson’s prefs at the last state election went 142 to Labor, 148 to green, 109 to the Libs and 119 to CK’s mate’s PP party. If you extrapolate the 109 libs votes out you can probably assume a 60-40 split or 50-50. Not the 70-30 you’ve suggested.
The Greens are a tarnished brand in Victoria. Their close association with the Libs will come back to bite them on the rear.
Where were People Power anyway ?
btw I think the DLP taking Vern Hughes was poor judgement. I thought his takeover of the PP website after being ousted as president was sour grapes and unethical.
The Greens in Victoria are a joke at present which will be interesting come federal election day, this may also be explaining why the Green vote is well down according to the polls.
Thanks FH, Jackson preferences amended as suggested.
Adam,
I agree the Democrats are finished, but the by-election atmosphere may pull a few more centrist liobs in tneir direction. I guess we are all certain that the order on primaries will be 1) ALP, 2) Greens, 3) others, but the breakup among the third group will be interesting. I don’t know much about the independents standkng, but I expect FF to get more votes than the DLP and the Democrats.
Looking at the 06 election results and assuming the following preference flows to Labor from the Greens to create a notional 2PP (Lab-Greens) vote for the entire electorate, the greens would need to get 80% of the Liberal vote to get up.
(This assumes CEC goes 50% to Labor, Jackson 40%, FF 30%, PP 30%)
If you adjust a few of these low numbers up, you’d need the greens to get only about 70-75% to get up. This is highly likely and in my mind I reckon it will happen.
I will produce notional polling place 2PPs soon so we can get an idea of swings required as we would for a normal poll.
Sorry, just checked VEC site, PP are de-registered.
Does anyone know who Catherine Cumming in the Williamstown bielection is? The early results has here polling at 9.3%? Perhaps a huge donkey vote or is there something there?
I know she’s on Maribyrnong council, just off the top of my head.
I think for conservative voters that FF is now a better-known brand than the DLP, although I imagine Catholics would be reluctant to vote for them. Chris might have an opinion on this.
I disagree that the Greens are a joke etc. They make lots of mistakes, but they are still the prefered option for leftwing voters, and Albert Park has plenty of those. Foley is from the SL which may help a bit but his image is of “standard Labor bloke,” so I expect the Greens will get most of the “left” vote despite their dull candidate.
Greens polling 25% in williamstown to Labor’s 52%. 2 booths in.
It will be interesting to see how much voters follow the HTVs for the independents and minor party candidates. I would expect most of the Dems preferences to go to the Greens, as we had solid booth coverage. Adrian Jackson did not register a HTV, and there was no one handing out for John Dobinson on the booth I was on in South Melbourne.
Every other candidate had someone handing out for them, though.
Catherine Cumming is probably benefiting from the donkey vote ?
A pleasant sign for any Greens awaiting Albert Park results.
GG @ 37 “close association with the Libs” – you know thats not true and so do others here. But then, that’d be like the fact that the ALP and Libs vote together in the Senate & HoR’s so often too…
bmwofoz @ 39 ” The Greens in Victoria are a joke” – that would be like the ALP’s climate change policy, eh! Come to NSW and sniff the coal dust in the air from all the new mines and power stations…
Interesting to note that (albeit only 5.5% of the vote in) the informal rate at Williamstown is running at over 6%
Reading Adam’s last comment made me think yes I’m being harsh on the Greens for they are not a joke, and they are in with a change, if they did win I wonder what the reaction in Spring St would be.
Greeensborough Growler:
How are the Greens close to the Liberals? Evidence please. Dates. Times. Documents. Otherwise give up this cant. And let’s not include the voting record in the upper house because that proves nothing but the Greens have their own mind. Have you looked at how often the ALP Votes with the Liberals in the Vic Parliament?
Labor will need to poll the following percentages in the AP booths in order to get over the 50% line:
Bridport 48.1%
Elwood 46.6%
Elwood North 50.8%
Kerferd South 49.6%
Melbourne Airport 41.5%
Melbourne Town Hall E Centre 46.9%
Middle Park 45.8%
Port Melbourne East 55.1%
Port Melbourne West 55.2%
Sandridge 69.5%
South Melbourne 51.1%
Southbank 47.0%
St Kilda 45.1%
St Kilda Park 48.6%
St Kilda South 48.4%
This is the 50-50 Labor Greens position (I reckon). Labor needs to exceed this to win.
Adam,
The Herald Sun carried an article that the DLP was leafleting accusing FF of being run by the AoG. Look for as many levels of irony as you can in that. I am sure that the type of person who is an activist for FF would have been very anti-Catholic 30 or 40 years ago, but I don’t think religious divides count for much these days, outside a tiny minority. I don’t think a Catholic who shared FF’s views would have any problem voting for them.
I don’t know what difference a Labor candidate being in the SL makes, given that the SL doesn’t seem to make any difference within the ALP.
Handing out in Williamstown today, boy Family First really bring in some interesting people to do their how-to-vote cards.
Although I have to say seeing someone spruiking with ‘The most attractive candidate in the field’ is one I haven’t heard before.
As for Catherine Cumming, she is a very well known local, who is on the Maribyrnong council and runs in just about everything she can. 10% is not uncommon for her. She got about 15% in the state election in the seat of Footscray.
what’s the general significance of the donbkey vote? moght be higher in these bhy elections.
Re Green Leaders http://www.greenyes.org/ this links to the no site.
Did the row over ALP preferencing Adrian Jackson over FF cause much controversy?
Former hack, Elwood and St Kilda aren’t in use at this by-election.
I’m off to watch Dr Who. So what, you say. Well, in tonight’s episode, the Doctor discovers that the UK has a very strange prime minister – the Master. I’m sure the Doctor will see him off. Typical ABC bias!
I think Elwood Booth is in the seat of Brighton and St Kilda maybe in Prahran for the VEC put all of Elwood south of Glen Huntly Rd into Brighton while all of St Kilda East of Barkley St is now in Prahran
Thanks Chris – Melbourne Ports has the lowest proportion of Christians of any federal electorate in Australia, so it’s not very fertile territory for FF or the DLP, but the 30% Liberals have to vote for somebody, although I’m sure of lot of them just didn’t vote. If I lived in Kew and there was a by-election with no Labor candidate, I wouldn’t bother voting.
I’m off to watch the NRL semi but I’ll check back in.
This count is sure slow. “Melb City” Van der Craatz will be fuming.
Thanks will. Where do you think these voters are likely to vote in this election? I can move their votes over in a suitable proportion. Or should I smear their votes across the whole electorate?
They’re two non-labor booths. THat means Labor would win by 1 % or so with these numbers above as voters for these booths would have to vote somewhere. They’re about 7% of the population in the last election.
William what booths are those raw figures from?
Sandridge/Fishermens Bend with informals removed – I think it’s right …
OK I see now. If 56.6 is the final result I will regard that as quite satisfactory for Labor.
Can I guess on those numbers that its Port Melbourne (Sandridge) or maybe Southbank alot of those people work in Business and Brumby is well regarded in Business circles.
So yeah, Labor’s up 0.8 per cent in that booth, so I’m adding 0.8 per cent to their overall total and calculating a 2PP estimate from there.
That is a good result for the ALP its a booth that as always been ALP but is slowly changing with the large Tower developments, I think this is the ALP’s strongest booth in the seat of Albert Park
wow haven’t been to this site in ages – good reporting again will – even though its just early stages tonight – I admit it’s a pity only you’re reporting it with much enthusiasm… considering the ABC site didn’t put up the notice for the by-elections. [Then again these probably aren't as fascinating as the Triple M byelections of NSW past or Gaven et al. in Qld past.] Just out of curiousity – does anyone know when the byelection will be for Brisbane Central in Qld replacing Peter Beattie? Should be interesting to see the date on that one re: the timing of the Fed Election. That might be another seat to watch with Greens improving on their vote in the 2006 Qld State Election in most Brisbane seats compared to 2004. Perhaps they have a chance up north too?
On a slight aside… went to Qld recently [july] and saw billboards out west [toowoomba and district way] with Family First party promoting their candidates for the Senate. And the website was something along the lines of ‘a good bloke’ .com or something like that. Pity they snatched it before John Howard could.
Labor was meant to get 69.5% in sandridge but got 73%
Extapolating out, Labor may win with 53.5% of the vote. As Antony Green says though, one booth does not make an election.
To Former Hack,
Anthony is right, I will add that Sandridge/Fishermans’ Bend is the ALP strongest booth, I think had the ALP vote really dropped there then game on!, even when the Liberals are around its a very safe ALP booth.
Labor on 57% adjusted 2PP after allowing for previous election results as above. Greens not doing better than expected in any booth. I am calling it, after 4 booths, that LABOR HAS WON THE ALBERT PARK BYELECTION…
Greens would need to blitz the southern end of the electorate to even get close now, and I don’t think its going to happen.
In Williamstown Janet Rice is doing ok for the Greens but still won’t get close
I’m enjoying this and I’m in NSW! It’s a nice little mouth watering entrée – sans Libs/Nats – for the fast approaching main course.
Two booths from Port Melbourne, 1 Booth from Middle Park and 1 Booth from Ellwood with the ALP on 52% compared to Greens 28% surprisingly clear cut.
My pre-poll prediction was 35-40% Labor, 30-35% Greens, so if this is the result I consider it good for Labor and poor for the Greens. Of course both the Labor and Green % are being inflated by Liberals not voting ior voting informal.
Fagin… i agree I’m from NSW and it’s interesting to watch – what will be interesting to watch re: Libs/Nats is the three way contest produced by a new seat around the city of Gladstone [mid-north Qld coast]. Shall be interesting to see how the coalition works around that one, especially at the Qld state level given their ferocity towards each other.
It looks like another easy Labor replacement again… same routine and success they produced in NSW and QLD. I was really holding out for another 2002 Green upset. [re: cunningham byelection] But with changing demographics – one could – in a few years say- start refering to a Lab/Grn coalition – at least at the state level. If the right circumstances happen in Tas 2010 … it could be one interesting government to watch.
I can assure you there will be no Labor-Green coalition in Victoria. And after the debacle of the Field government few people in politics hate each other more than Tas Labor hate the Greens and vice versa.
Wm the Greens will do best at St Kilda Beach and St Kilda Park IMHO.
true adam – but then again – things can change in politics – it’ll just be interesting to see what happens – and if another ‘accord’ comes out or produces a hung parliament…….. and to one of the above comments- I guess Brumby will be having a good night sleep – wonder where Bracksie is in all this and if he might make an appearance towards the end of the night?
I agree with both of Adam’s last two post.
While this is navel gazing I wonder what will happen when the VEC do the next redirbution for I suspect more of St Kilda will disappear into Prahran, maybe they will re form the old seat of St Kilda that would be an interesting contest.
Back to reality – I’m not that surprised by this result for while this seat is very Liberal minded its becoming more and more like Prahran and Hawthorn, these inner city seats have always had strong third party or person votes but in the wash up will remain with the major parties for many of the people whom work at the top of Govt or deal with it live in these parts.
VEC website is now showing 2PP (ALP-Green) in Albert Park as 59.05/40.95 and Williamstown as 64.23 / 35.77
This is a slow, slow count, but looking good for Labor in Albert Park. Huge win in Williamstown. Please, no spoilers on NRL semi – I’m a Vic, but like my rugby, and will tape it overnight.
What are people’s thoughts on Albert Park for the medium to long-term? With the way its being transformed by Southbank etc, one would assume it would increasingly be populated by more wealthy residents who can afford to love in those apartments, so is it possible it would shift toward the Liberals? Or is it still insufficient to dilute the old industrial and housing commission population you find in those areas?
Labor TPP in Albert Park looking 56.5% from starting point of 52%, swing of 4.5% to Labor.
The LT future for Albert Park is like that of Richmond and Melbourne. It will eventually be a real red-green marginal
Swordfish,
As I understand Albert Park is about if not over quoter, at the last redistribution the seat lost one Elwood and three St Kilda booths, I wouldn’t be surprised if this seat was abolished or had more of the Elwood part removed.
This would make it harder for the Greens, for the Southbank booth is a fast growing and increasingly Liberal booth and the Liberals are quite competitive in Middle park.
I would image it remains an ALP area until their is a major landslide against the them which I don’t see happening anytime soon. the ALP are still very strong around South and Port Melbourne.
While St Kilda only votes Liberal when the Liberals are more liberal.
The LT trend is that rich inner city folk increasingly vote Labor, which is why the Libs are sweating on Wentworth, North Sydney, Ryan, Boothby and maybe even Kooyong if we believe today’s Age.
is there any radio coverage available on the internet?
56% counted in Albert Park, Labor 47.1, Grn 28.2. 2CP 59-41
Well the thing with Kooyong is that Petro is a bludger – I spoke to a Liberal friend who said in 2004 they struggled to do advertising for him because it was a struggle to find anything that could be sold as a local achievement by him.
Last night I was checking out Google earth seat maps and it struck me just how far West Wentworth western boundary is.
Look Kooyong shouldn’t fall but as Swordfish’s Liberal friend said he hasn’t done much, and come polling day I reckon a lot of voters are going to go okay
” Do I vote for Petro for he stood up for Boat people 6 years ago meaning I’m voting for Howard, or do I vote against Howard after all I won’t miss Petro for he has done bugger all, and that Kev bloke seems a nice bloke”
BMW and Swordfish: I’d be making sure that Dr Ken Harvey gives Petro a run for his money. Petro has taken this seat for granted given it’s history. I don’t think it will win, but I do think it will become marginal, which would mean next election it will have the Libs out offering money by the bucket loads.
William how do you get 71% counted at 8.45 when the VEC is only showing 56.6% – do you have a secret source?
Michael, I’ve calculated it by using the vote proportions for each booth from the state election, so all the booths combined accounted for 71 per cent of the total. Whereas they have divided the number of votes cast by total enrolment, so their final total will not add up to 100 per cent.
any idea of the turnout and the informal vote? Both the DLP and FF have polled poorly, so I suspect most Libs have abstained.
Ah I see now. Puzzling. Where have the Libs gone?
The problem for the ALP in Kooyong will be Balwyn the booths around there are very solid I think some may have swung to the Linerals in 04.
I suspect the ALP will win Goldstein before Kooyong, but until election day all we are doing is naval gazing.
Labor TPP in Albert Park now looking 57.5%.
BMW #87
St Kilda hasn’t voted Liberal for nearly 30 years and won’t do so ever again.
So, informals running at 7%…Liberals voting with their pencils?
What percentage of booths (as opposed to total vote) counted?
1979 I seem to recall that its the seat (St Kilda) which keeped Hamer in office.
How can we say it will never again vote Liberal, the area is forever changing sure I can’t see the Liberals winning the area anytime soon
OK – I understand – different figures.
Has anyone ever tried changing their name by deed poll to Informal and running as a candidate?
I see you are post (104) maybe every Liberal MP needs to do just that it may add a few points.
Looks like a 10% 2PP swing away from ALP in Williamstown and about 1% in Albert Park. These are very good results for the ALP – particularly in Albert Park.
On Primaries it looks even better for the ALP in Albert Park, where the ALP has a swing to it and the greens haven’t even been able to pick up one third of the Liberal vote.
In Williamstown, the ALP primary has dropped by 5% and the greens have picked up about half of the Liberal party vote.
Considering that the turnout is not too bad for a by-election and the informal rate has not jumped dramatically, the result must really be seen as bad for the Greens.
Yes it’s a very good night for the ALP
BMW, I was refering to the suburb of St Kilda, not the seat of St Kilda. Yes the Libs won the seat of St Kilda in 1979, but the border ran along Barkly St, so all of western St Kilda wasn’t in the seat. The suburb as a whole hasn’t voted Liberal since the Whitlam years.
104: It has been tried in the past, but rejected at the deed poll stage. There was a clown in Tasmania who actually got his name changed to either Informal or No candidate or None of the above or something along those lines and there was a court case about it that ruled that it was direct attempt to confuse voters and the candiancy was rejected.
William do we have all the Albert Pk booths in?
104 – Yes. Someone did it in Tasmania in the 1990s, 1996 or 1998, can’t remember, but he took the electoral commisioner to court and won.
My fovourite is some one in the UK who changed his name to “None of the Above”. Much funnier.
Adam,
That’s interesting, I have never seen the boundaries so I presumed back in 79 (28 years ago) all of St Kilda was in the seat of St Kilda.
On that I tend to agree the suburb of St Kilda isn’t Liberal voting. but I guess that’s like the Liberals win the seat of Prahran but Prahran itself doesn’t vote for them.
It’s a good night when the ALP wins 2 byelections.
Woohoo!
Not as good as Tarquin Fintimlimbimlimbimwhinbimlin Bus Stop Ftang Ftang Olay Biscuit Barrel (Silly Party)
The result should be seen as equally extremely bad for Family First and DLP. To only get 5% and 2% respectively without a Liberal candidate suggests that something in their messages is not appealling to mainstream voters.
HH – it will be an even greater night when the ALP wins the Federal Election!!!
that will be a woohoo – particularly when the object of your disaffection has to concede in bennelong
For those of you not as old as Adam and I and have no idea what he’s talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUCP_MGrx0k
So where did the Liberal vote go? If turnout is not down, and the informal vote is only 7%, and the DLP and FF got only 7% between them, the rest of the Libs must have voted for the ALP or the Greens.
I’m touching wood but when I was reading Michael Proud post about Howard conceding Bennenlong I just pictured the ABC having a Technical hitch. backed with this site crashing!!
Anthony,
Thanks for the link LOL
[stamps foot impatiently at this silliness] do we have all the Albert Park booths or not?
Paul Kavanagh has gotten a solid 5.59% for the dems (according to the latest VEC figures which include postal and early voting results). The DLP ended up 1.74% and FF got 4.38%, and the dems have clearly out-polled them. There’s certainly the potential for Lyn Allison and Andrew Bartlett to attract disaffected Liberal voters in the senate in the federal campaign – it will be tough but they’re definitely in with a chance if the dems can put together good campaigns and get a good flow of preferences.
Re (116)
“that will be a woohoo – particularly when the object of your disaffection has to concede in bennelong”
Sure will be a good one to see – we know he doesn’t take defeat well, doesn’t take responsibility for anything, and has been known to take refuge in the bottle ….. so it is anyone’s guess what state he will be in that night
The VEC doesn’t seem to have St Kilda booth – do Williams’s figures include it?
Remember Nixon in California “Well, you won’t have Nixon to kick around any more” Would that it had been true!
Adam, two booths from the state election weren’t in use today: St Kilda (Primary School) and Elwood (St Columbas Catholic Church Hall). For the purposes of my calculations I rolled St Kilda together with St Kilda South and Elwood with Elwood North.
So in belated answer to your earlier question, Adam: yes.
cheers antony for that link
ha so in this election which on was the silly party – the greens or labor? 
mine you the act did have some crackers in its first election didnt it? with the ripe tomatoe party and the party party party
Thanx Wm, brilliant service as always.
There’s no doubt in this election we were the Sensible Party, and the others ranged from Slightly Silly (Dems, DLP) to Silly (Greens) to Extremely Silly (all the others).
I voted at St Kilda Park Primary this morning, and the FF HTV guy was so daggy and gormless my boyfriend and I were almost inclined not to give him our traditional voting day anti-FF mocking verbal abuse. Almost.
He was in fact bussed in from further afield than I imagined – he was an American (a missionary?). He seemed to be spending his time talking to the similarly dressed god-botherer from the DLP. I hope they’ll be very happy together.
I was in Canada for the 1997 General election and a candidate for one of the Vancouver area ridings had changed his name to Tan Sa, which would be listed on the ballot as Sa, Tan. He had a slogan along the lines of “why vote for the lesser of two evils” and his main campaign event was an orgy in a barn outside of town, advertised on just about every telephone pole in Vancouver.d
d
haha that’s gold darryl – in re: to the dems before – if they get back poor old upperhouse will have to change the democrats death calculator. Indeed a good result for them beating FFP and DLP, considering the DEMs didnt contest both seats at the election. Perhaps a last revival for the pending fed election before the curtain falls?
Pish – all the Dems got was a bit of Liberal slopover. If there had been a Lib candidate they would have got their usual 1%. The Dems are dead. All that remains is the last rites.
Slopover!? Are they the votes you get which make you feel just a little dirty?
97 Adam, “Where have all the Liberals gone?”
Long time passing!
I didn’t mind which party got up, but for the record voted Greens, Democrats, ALP.
The main reason for my vote was the dirty politics used by the ALP in this by election.
However, it was interesting that I received an avalanche of Labor pamphlets and none from any other party.
Bring on the Federal election!
These bi-elections prove that Greens vote goes backwards when their policies are subject to any scrutiny.
In Albert Park the ALP primary has increased by 6% following the disclosure of the Greens “School closure” policy. And, don’t the Greens squeel like stuck pigs!
This result would normally be cause for reflection by any political party. However, the Greens are likely to continue their disgraceful ways and vote with their new best friends the Libs whenever they can in the Upper House.
140: “Greens vote goes backwards when their policies are subject to any scrutiny.”
How do you figure that? The Greens recorded the biggest swing of all parties. Granted, the Libs weren’t there, and so their votes had to go somewhere, but it’s a little hard to argue that the Greens’ vote has gone backwards, no? Maybe if the ALP or FF or the Dems or DLP received a larger swing, you could argue that. And sure, you could argue that incumbents suffer at byelections. I’d suggest, though, that when the Greens’ policies are subject to reasonable scrutiny, that their vote actually increases.
As for the throwaway line about the Greens voting with the Libs so much, let me know when you actually want to have a reasonable discussion about voting…
Definition of a Green – a Labor voter with delusions of grandeur.
Intelligent enough to know what’s wrong with the Liberals , but with enough ego to want to differentiate himself from the working class without knowing exactly why.
For a comprehensive dissection of the Greens disastrous campaign in Albert Park, the following link has it all.
http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2007/09/smashed-sunday-greens-party-is-over-in.html
Just a note for Adam and all the other democrat haters out there:
In the last four lower house elections the Democrats have stood in:
Democrat vote in the 1999 Victorian election: 0.28%
Democrat vote in the 2002 Victorian election: 0.14%
Democrat vote in the 2002 East Yarra by-election: 3.00%
Democrat vote in the 2007 Albert Park by-election: 5.59%
Last night was a stand-out for the Democrats in Victoria.
GG @ 137
I’ve normally enjoyed your contributions, but find your current contributions no better than Glen’s or others who slide into invective and abuse. BTW if you believe everything Landeryou publishes you’ll believe in the tooth fairy too.
As to the policies of the Greens – yes bring on scrutiny, but do it a reasonable way, not as part of polemical attacks. The ALP squeals when the Libs deliberately misrepresents them, so why shouldn’t the Greens when the ALP does the same? Sadly, of course, politics is neither rational nor reasoned, as it all to often descends into a gutter brawl. But for your information, Australian Greens policy is argued over by a very wide cross-section of people, both inside and outside of the party. But like all policies, it is open to interpretation, misrepresentation, dispute and disagreement… but at least they are there, not secret, not hidden, and available for the electorate to see. The Democrats are also open about their policies. Too many others are not.
A pertinent question is why, even though they are not running a candidate, the Liberals are so disorganised?
Why wasn’t there a “Liberal” independent/ minor party or if there indeed there was one why was it made clear that is were the Liberal vote should be “parked” and the Liberal membership organised to hand out HTVs despite tha fact that as minor parties show this can be achieved with a tiny bit of organisation?
We know that historically this is what the Liberals have been able to do at both state and federal levels when they have either chosen not to run or not had a candidate eg. Cunningham and Gordon.
Greensborough Growler and jh,
It is perfectly legitimate for the ALP to point to the Greens’ voting record in the Legislative Council. I have no objection to the Greens voting with the Liberals on accountability matters such as the gambling enquiry, but the Greens can hardly expect the ALP not to mention the fact.
dembo,
The Democrat vote was inflated by the absence of a Liberal candidate, as were the votes of probably everybody else, including even the ALP, so neither the 4.7 per cent in the table at the top of this thread nor the 5.6 p per cent claimed by you are going to be repeated at the Senate election. A party has to have workers on the ground to gain votes and the Democrats cannot cover the booths for the whole state. I’d like to see a scenario presented under which the Democrats have any hope of a Senate seat.
Dembo dearest, I do not hate the Dems, in fact I used to vote for them on occasion, the last time being for Sid Spindler I think, and I have a high regard for Natasha SD. I think the Dems played a useful role as a centre party and an indepedent voice in the Senate. OK? But the fact is that the Dems are politically defunct. I’m not sure why, since the generally sour public attitude towards the major parties should benefit a moderate centre party. It seems to have begun with Lees’s deal with Howard over the GST, accelerated with the Kernot defection and NSD’s resignation as leader, and concluded with the Bartlett-Ferris incident. Unfair though it may seem, these petty events appear to have busted the Dem brand, just as the Gair affair busted the DLP brand. Bartlett and Allison have both been poor leaders, and the departure of NSD and Murray (another admirable person) will bring down the curtain. If you think the pathetic stats you cited earlier are evidence of a political viability, you are sillier than I thought. This is a party that can’t even win a seat in the SA upper house, its natural habitat. This is a dead parrot, it has ceased to be etc etc . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GipFyAsYK1M Get over it.
Adam,
The Gair Affair did not help the DLP, but it was in long-term decline any way, and its failure to adjust to the Whitlam Government was its downfall. If it had not co-operated so often with the Opposition but worked with the ALP, if it had maintained the role it had establised for itself under the previous Liberal Government, it would have lasted longer. It should never have deferred Supply in 1974, because if there had been no double dissolution it would have had two senators still – Frank McManus and Jim Judge (the latter being Senator Gair’s replacement). Its basic problem was that it could not adjust to changes in society and it never developed a younger leadership to take over from the ‘55 generation.
People often give the Democrats’ support for the GST as a reason for their demise. This may be true, but it is illogicall given that they went into the election promising to support a GST. It is true they made it a less efficient and less effective tax by getting food exempted, but they should not lose votes for supporting what they said they would support.
Voters don’t always behave rationally Chris. I thought at the time that the Lees-Howard deal was not unreasonable given that as the holder of the balance of power in the Senate she had to take a position. But the retrospective judgment seems to have been otherwise. What other explanation do you have for the Dems’ decline since 2001?
It is a bit misleading to report the greens showing a 9% swing. You really need to look where the traditional liberal vote (35%) went. 7% informal and only 9% to the Greens. A swing to the government in a by-election is very impressive. Normally by-elections show a 4-6% towards the opposition parties not the government.
MelbCity, correct. See Andrew Landeryou’s analysis linked to at #140 above. Although his rhetoric is a bit over-heated as always, his analysis is correct. The Greens swallowed Labor’s bait hook, line and sinker. They were vulnerable not on “green” issues as such – on which most Albert Park people including me would agree with them – but on their silly Old Left policies like abolishing selective schools. I ask again, why does an environmentalist party need a policy on selective schools at all? If they had campaigned on stopping bay dredging and the Grand Prix, ignored Labor’s baiting, and found a decent media-friendly candidate, they might well have won.
8.49pm. Turnout in Albert Park not too bad: 25,669 polling booth votes cast (including informal) compared with 26,804 last year
CORRECTION
Recheck votes
Total Enrolment: 43926
Formal Votes: 36025
Informal Votes: 1630 (4.33% of the total votes)
Total Votes: 37655 (85.72% of the total enrolment rechecked
Recheck first preference votesCandidate Party 1st Pref Votes % 1st Pref Votes
REECE, David CEC 269 0.75%
THWAITES, John ALP 14787 41.05%
JACKSON, Adrian 458 1.27%
MIDDLETON, John Greens 6871 19.07%
SMITH, Clive Liberal 12479 34.64%
ROBERTSON, Sam FAMILY FIRST 390 1.08%
PAVLIS, Stratos PEOPLE POWER 771 2.14%
Results after distribution of preferencesCandidate Party Votes after distribution % votes
THWAITES, John ALP 21502 59.69%
SMITH, Clive Liberal 14523 40.31%
So much for the claimed Thwaite’s personal factor.. As I said before it never existed…
The other point to make is that federal sentiment is spilling over into state politics. I’m sure a lot of people stuck with Labor because with the federal election approaching and Rudd riding high they are in a pro-Labor mood. They knew a Greens win in Albert Park would be a defeat for Labor and thus in a sense a win for Howard. The federal Libs are going to be utterly slaughtered in inner Melbourne and the by-election reflected that.
Thwaite’s? Oh MelbCity!
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Chris Curtis, are you sure that the Democrats went to the election supporting a GST? I always thought it had to be referred to the membership and that the parliamentary leaders did not do that.
The Democrats went to the election promising they would “never support a GST on food”. I remember the TV ads. I was certainly left with the impression that a GST on other things was an option. Some people were angry because they supported the GST in general, whatever the promises. Others were angry because the deal they eventually agreed on allowed the GST on some food, and this was seen as a betrayal of those ads.
However, the fact is that at the following election the Democrats got a fairly similar vote to the previous one. Their real problem was not that they lost voters over it, but that they lost active members. This not only increased the chance of the internal fighting that occurred later, but left them in a weakened position to recover.
I think this result is a decent one for them. Under the circumstances they would be expected to do better than their state result, but this is a fair bit better. I’m particularly impressed by their prepoll vote. Nevertheless, it is a fairly small step on a long path to recovery.
I don’t usually bother responding to Andrew Landeryou’s site, but I did find one thing amusing. Apparently the 2006 election result was a “triumph” for us. Strange, because I seem to remember that at the time our critics, Landeryou included, were tripping over themselves to say what a disaster it was for us and how anything less than six seats proved we were on the way out.
Yes, it’s pity so many commentators clearly have a bit of a barrow to push (myself included I s’pose) … honestly, asking a hardcore Labor (or any party’s) supporter to comment on the Greens’ result is next to pointless, as they have a vested interest in their opponent failing.
But, damn it, I going to try. I pledge here and now to cut back on my Democrat hackery, and to try and honestly and impartially discuss polls and stuff here (calling Adam a “democrat hater” made me realise I am too close to the material), without spinning it.
27% is a great figure for a third party – but I was disappointed Labor coasted in at Albert Park, Martin Foley is such an underwhelming candidate (he may prove me wrong but I doubt it) that I thought the Greens had a good chance. But seeing John Middleton on the news last night … well …
Thank god the by-election is over. Now I can finally take a long, well deserved break from politics. WHA??? You say FEDERAL election??? Uh oh! Here we go again….
27% may be a great figure for a third party, but the Greens were the second party, not the third, in Albert Park. If the Libs had run the Greens would have got about 20%, and their prefs would have given Labor a substantial two-party swing.
This was a very good result for Labor. This reflected (a) general satisfaction with the Brumby government and (b) deep loathing for the Howard government. Foley’s qualities as a candidate were irrelevant. The Greens were in a bind – they could only make progress by attacking Labor, but the voters are not interested right now in voting against Labor.
But the Greens could have done better. Barber says in the Age today that “the ALP has made themselves the issue with their negative campaigning.” He still doesn’t get it. The only reason that Labor’s tactics were an issue was because he chose to make them one by responding to Labor’s baiting. If he had ignored Labor and campaigned on bay dredging and the Grand Prix, issues Albert Park people actually care about, he would have done better, though probably not much better.
It appears that a few Greens have taken umbrage with the content of some of my blogs. Clearly, they enjoy the ridicule and castigation of politicians as long as it is not them.
For these petals there is a more gentle summary in the dead tree version of the Herald Sun today by Brendan Donohoe.
For those who just want the statistics raw without any coloured commentary Andrew Landeryou has published a fantastic analysis of the “Updated and reconfigured spreadsheet showing a 5.3% swing to ALP in Albert Park against the Greens party, comparing nominal 2PP 2006 results with Liberal preferences distributed to actual 2PP 2007 by-election results.” (pure Gold). Read it and weep Greens. Read it and weep.
http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2007/09/tally-greens-stare-disaster-in-face.html
Adam (147),
I agree that the Democrats’ support for the GST cost them votes. I was making the point that such a reason is illogical because those who did not want a GST can hardly vote for a party that promises it and then complain afterwards that the party did what it promised to do. I think that the disunity in the Democrats also contributed to their demise. I remember when some in the party referred others to the NCC because they had been naughty. (That’s National Compliance Committee – not a well-named organ for a party called “The Democratsâ€.)
Phil Robins (154),
I am sure that the Democrats promised to support the GST. I do not know whether that promise was subject to a membership vote or not.
Stephen L(155),
The Democrats did promise to exempt food from the GST, and the compromise was that fresh food was exempted, which made the GST more complex to administer and deprived the states of billions of dollars in revenue.
I don’t think they are on a “path…to recoveryâ€. No one has presented any set of numbers that shows that they can win a Senate seat in the current political climate.
GG 159: “showing a 5.3% swing to ALP in Albert Park against the Greens party, comparing nominal 2PP 2006 results with Liberal preferences distributed”
Why would one use Liberal preferences distributed at the previous election as a guide? They weren’t handing out HTVs on the weekend for the byelections, were they? I’m nowhere near as psephological here as some, but it seems to me that the Greens received a larger swing towards them than the ALP did (both due likely because of no Libs running). Whether either party is actually happy with that is another matter…
The Democrats tax policy was changed by a membership ballot to allow for a GST in 1998 just before the federal election. Most members, unfortunately, did not participate in the ballot, so when the parliamentary team negotiated on the GST (after also extensively campaigning on it in the 1998 federal election) there was a backlash against the deal amongst the active membership (some members objected to the GST outright, others were unhappy that there was a GST on books).
Chris, regarding the democrats chances in the next election, senate polls from both Newspoll last year, and the recent Morgan senate poll have the party on 5% in Victoria and 5.5% in Queensland. This certainly gives us a good outside chance of getting someone returned (particularly in Queensland). Kerry Nettle managed to get elected for the Greens in 2001 on about 4% of the vote.
Landeryou’s analysis is flawed.
Determing a notional Labor v Greens 2006 figure is an interesting exercise. And I suspect his figure is about right.
But he makes the heroic assumption that the Liberal voters who preference Greens over Labor do so as an active choice, rather than just mindlessly following the HTV card. A more reasonable assumption is that without a Liberal candidate, many of those Lib voters will opt for Labor over the Greens, or simply vote informal.
It is therefore nonsense to talk about a 5% pro-Labor swing when you’re comparing apples with oranges.
Had there been a by-election in Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote or Brunswick with no Liberal candidate, we probably would have seen the same thing – an increased Labor margin.
Polly,
Family First got elected in 2004 with two per cent of the vote because the preference flows aided it. I can’t see the preference flows aiding the Democrats, which is why I keep asking for a scenario with numbers. I do not take Morgan Senate polls seriously because many of those intending to vote for a minor party will turn up at the polling booth to find no-one from that party handing out HTVs. Imagine a result of ALP 43.9, LNP 37.6, Greens 9, FF 4, Democrats 2, DLP 2, others 1.5. After the ALP’s three quotas and the LNP’s two quotas, you have ALP 1, LNP 9, Greens 9, FF 4, Democrats 2, DLP 2, others 1.5. The DLP will favour FF, which will go to 6. The ALP may go to FF, the Greens or the Democrats, meaning FF 7 or Greens 10 or Democrats 3. If we assume the last, the Democrats would probably go to the Greens, pushing them to 12; FF would go LNP, pushing them to 15 and the last seat. If the LNP vote is a little lower and/or the Greens vote a little higher, the last seat would go to the Greens. Someone – anyone – give me a Democrat path to victory.
As a former English teacher, I have to point out that I had all the correct apostrophes in my post. Some malevolent force in cyberspace removed them in transit.
Chris, I agree with you – if we get 2% we won’t get someone elected, however I think we will poll more than 2% in the senate. I can’t comment on every state, but I think we’ll have strong booth coverage in QLD, Victoria and SA. Most of our votes went back to the major parties in 2004 rather than to the Greens, and with a smart, targetted campaign, and strong booth coverage, we can get a higher vote than the 2 – 2.2% our encumbant senators got in 2004. I think if we can get 4% or higher, than we are in with a chance (particularly in Queensland).
Senate polls are complete bunkum. Most people follow their party’s HTV and will the same way in both House and Senate, whatever they tell posters now. The Dems will not get 3% anywhere and will lose all their seats. I’d have given NSD some chance of re-election – with her gone there is none. Bartlett looks like an undertaker with that sinister beard and since he gave up the drink he has become painfully dull – he talks like a zombie. I can’t think of a less electable politician in Australia: he will probably get a minus vote if that is possible. Aiden Ridgeway was a vastly more attractive candidate and he got 2.2%.
Chris Curtis is normally an astute commentator on this site. However his expectation (comment 41) that Family First would outpoll the Democrats was a shocker. Many underestimated the Democrats.
Despite zero coverage in the dailies, the Democrats polled 5.59% to Family First’s 4.38%, even though Cameron Eastman was their candidate.
This is the highest Democrats vote in any election for a long time – hardly an indicator of being wipped out, as often predicted in this column.
A feature of the Democrats campaign which was focused on local Albert Park issues was the enthusiasm for the Party amongst young people – perhaps turned off by the relentless negativity by the Greens and the ALP.
This blog appears to be turning into a gloating site for the ALP or maybe I read too many of Adam’s posts.:
Some perspective on the ALP’s enormous victory in Albert Park:
2006 State Election
ALP 2PP votes:
THWAITES, John ALP 21502 57% of total votes
2007 By-Election:
ALP 2PP Votes
FOLEY, Martin ALP 16664 53% of total votes.
Better hope that the voters who have abandoned the ALP, flock back at the federal election.
An upset was unlikely.
Sure the count is not over. But the ALP will need to do a lot better to reverse the 4% drop in the proportion of voters’ preferences.
The Greens result is unsurprising, given the lack of endorsement from their purported chums in the Victorian Liberal Party.
I’m also confused at how increasing the 2PP against the ALP from 40.31% to 42.8% indicates some major strategic failure or lost opportunity for the Victorian Greens. They still got more ALP voters to jump ship than Liberal voters who preferred the ALP to the Greens. I suppose the Victorian Greens must be more effective, strategic and resourced than the Liberals in Victoria at any rate.
The result seems commensurate with what most psephologists would predict from a by-election like this, Rudd or no Rudd, imminent federal election or not.
I still can’t work out why most of those liberal Liberals are not strongly preferencing Democrats any more. People can explain why most of the activists and centrists abandoned them; but the liberal economics, social liberals? Confusing. I expect they must just find those silly bearded Greens sexier.
Adam (158) Spot on.
Under normal expectations I would have expected defending a 5% swing away for the government as being a typical by election backlash. BUT a 5% swing to the government is total unexpected.
This most certainly is a win for the Brumby/ALP leadership. How much of it reflects federal politics is hard to say.
I would expect Micheal Danby to do well when and if John Howard calls the election. Danby is a hard working local member who is actively involved in his electorate.
The liberal party did well to stay away this avoiding any of the backlash or political stain.
Whilst we poll junkies love polls the reality is by-elections are a waste of money and we should be thinking of alternative democratic methods of filling casual vacancies.
With fixed elections and local/state government elections due every two years any vacancy could be deferred until the next election cycle.
While the Liberals did not endorse the Greens, Ted B emphasised that the ALP was their main opposition.
This position was interpreted by the lazy media as Ted B endorsing the Greens, even though there were nine candidates – including one active member – and the Democrats who many Liberals prefer over the Greens.
No no, Greens and Dems, you can’t spin your way out of this. If it was a bad result for the ALP I would acknowledge that. But it is an unequivocally good result for an 8yo government at a by-election following the resignation of a popular sitting member. This is one of the greenest areas in Australia, and anything under 30% for the Greens in a 2-horse race is a bad result. All the other candidates got no meaningful vote at all, just random spray from disfranchised Libs. Ten years ago, with no Lib running, the Dems would have got 15 or 20%.
Given the Libs not running, I don’t think it is a zero-sum game between the ALP and Greens.
IMO it is obviously a very good result for the ALP and an okay one for the Greens, with that surplus of benefit made up by the Libs who ensured that it would be a disaster for themselves regardless.
So they don’t get criticised by the ALP as being a one-issue party perhaps?
But seriously I’m sure you are aware that the Greens membership is a divided group between the idealists who see the Greens role as writing the best policy possible regardless of electoral impact, and those who are committed to electoral success.
A redistrabution is due in Victoria befor the next election.
Any predictions?
Paul (168),
Yes, I wasn’t so astute on the Democrats and Family First. I though that the more conservative Liberals would go to FF and the less conservative ones to the Democrats, while those whose main motivation was hitting Labor would go to the Greens, irrespective of their personal ideology.
The lack of Democrats coverage is a far cry from the days of the party’s foundation when Don Chipp had front page headlines all day every day. Of course, the press is not interested in policy, and the Democrats are now being treated by the media as the DLP was. I understand that those committed to the party will want to fight on, but we won’t see a Democrat elected to the Victorian Legislative Council in 2036. The braver course is to close down and free the activists to go somewhere else.
Well, glad that’s all over, even if the result didn’t go the way I wanted it to.
A 9% swing is not a bad result for the Greens. But neither is it great in this context. I estimated that they would have required 35% primary to have a hope of winning the seat and they fell well short.
That said, the ALP did run a negative and misleading campaign. Many commentators seem to think that the Greens “took the bait” by responding to the claims. However, from my own experience, the media did not seem interested in asking too many questions aside from questions based on what the ALP was saying (for example, the ABC story that ran in the lead up was headlined “Greens Liberal deal?” or something similar). I know from my conversations with people in the electorate that the ALP advertising blitz certainly had an impact.
All in all, as a former supporter, I’m disappointed at the way the ALP behaved. But, what else can I expect from mainstream politics these days?
As I stated before on this site, it was always going to be a mystery where 25-30% of the Liberal vote was going to end up. I’ll have to wait for the full results to confirm, but at this point, it seems obvious that it didn’t go to the Greens.
Now, I’m looking forward to a short break from politics before things heat up for the federal election.
Chris Curtis, what a erroneous use of the word ‘brave’ in recommending that people committed to Democrats principles of judging every issue on its merits should shut up shop on the basis that the Dems will not attract media coverage. I would say that would be far from brave.
It’s far braver to continue to work in the established structure in support of a more humane, compassionate, peaceful, prosperous and fair society, without obligation to outside organisations.
It is quite useless to compare two-party preferred votes when we are not comparing the same two parties. Most Liberal voters see the Greens as being well to the left of the ALP, hence when forced to make a choice between Labor and the Greens they will prefer Labor, just as in the past when they had to choose between Labor and Communists. What the result does suggest is that Labor is traveling well and the Greens are not making progress in detaching support from Labor.
An interesting read.
Comment 36: is correct in his comments about my preference plow in 2006 in Albert Park. While I registered 3 HTV’s I used a pro Liberal one at the Mobile and Early voting booths while my last letterbox leaflet and my HTV on election day was pro ALP. However I only manned two booths out of 14. I got 2% at the 2 manned booths and between 0.5% to 1.5% at the unmanned booths which gave me 1.27% overall. I spent $10,000 with 3 leaflets and 7 local newspaper add that attacked John Thwaites as a failed MP and Minister. His primary vote went for 48% to 41% and now he has retired – mission accomplished.
Comment 48: is correct in saying I did not register a HTV for the Albert Park by election and no booths were manned. However I did say in a 50 word candidate statement in the Port Phillip Leader (11 Sep 07) that:
“Water was the main issue. Locally other concerns include) law and order, affordable private housing, new local hospital, reopen Albert Park College, detox Gas Works Park, infant and aged care, sustainable energy, recycled water, and stop the St Kilda triangle horror. Thwaites failed; I’m preferencing the Greens.”
Comment 60: is correct about the Christian issue in Albert Park. In West St Kilda, Middle Park and Albert Park suburbs (2006 Census) the biggest religious groups is the “No Religion” voter (25/28%) closely followed by the Roman Catholics , smaller is the Church of England and smaller still are the Orthodox voters with other making up the rest. Jewish resident (not voters) are about 2200 but that includes kids and many are moderates politically and religiously.
Elwood only has one “L”
This by election I spent nothing, except the nomination fee but still got 1.1%. My sole aim was to highlight the looming water crisis and I had limited success (letter to the press and local editorials).
In 2006 I beat CEC and Family First and was 3rd to be eliminated in the preference count.
Next state general election with a Liberal standing the DLP, Democrats, Family First and other independents votes will largely disappear. I think these parties/independents who all lived outside Albert Park District (except me) were having a try out and getting known so they can stand in the Federal election, perhaps in Melbourne Ports.
I will continue to push the water issue as I think we will run out of it in 18 months unless action is taken fact.
In relation to my ban on US and Israel citizens at my B&B this was a boycott in 2003 to protest the Iraq invasion and the oppression of the Palestinians. Last year I was also critical of Sen Fifield (Lib, Victoria), Helen Shardey (Lib, Caulfield) and Michael Danby (ALP, Melbourne Ports) for attending a pro Israel rally during the Hezbollah/IDF war at the same time as Israel was bombing Aussies visiting Lebanon who were well behind the border combat zone. Who’s side were they on was my big concern – the Aussies or the IDF.
I am a small L centre progressive politically. I am not anti Semitic (the indiginous peoples of greater Palestine who are Jewish, Muslim and Christian and include many Arabs) as some in the Israel lobby would say but I am anti Zionist which I consider to be a racist, segregationist and fascist political movement both hear, overseas and in Israel.
Regards, Adrian Jackson.
To completely disregard the Democrats now 5.96% (in Albert Park) vote on the recheck concerns me. Many people including commentators love to say the Democrats are dead, many also say they will not have good polling booth coverage (without knowing the state of the membership.)
There are young enthusiastic people flooding into the Democrats with the revival of the Young Dems and in SA we have been able to recruit Jenny Williams (sister of Port coach Mark Williams to stand for Hindmarsh) as well as former Green members who are unhappy with how conservative they have become in SA. We have also been getting reasonably good press and candidates flooding the radio talkback and breakfast shows.
South Australian Democrats have filled every seat for this coming election and have 3 candidates (which includes myself) under the age of 25.
Whilst I acknowledge that the election will be tough for the Dems, we have a great team of candidates in South Australia that I feel can and will be able to boost the Democrat vote and bring in family, friends and supporters to staff polling booths.
Drawing a parallel with the last SA election vote saying the Dems can’t pull more than 1% is disingenuous because at Federal level there is no Nick Xenophon and the Democrats currently have 4 hard working Senators with recent wins on the board. The most recent Advertiser poll shows the Democrats at 3% on a state level in SA and usually the Democrats poll higher in the Senate. So don’t write the Dems off yet because the only real poll is the one on election day and anything could happen.
It looks like the Democrats came equal third on first prefs behind ALP and the Greens. Not bad, not bad at all. Unfortunately impossible to extrapolate to any national figure.
Very interesting result. I think a number of you have commented on the spin some of the parties have put on the results…..so trying to strip away the spin and skewed % swings. I think this may be a useful contribution. [Looks only at the primary vote]
12479 Liberal votes (where did they go?)
Greens increased by 1577 (would have got 265 on increased enrollment with 0% swing anyway)
UP>>>>>
1) Increased did not vote 7047
2) Increased informal 762
3) New Candidate Democrats 1702
4) New candidate Strauss 1702 (ironic dead heat according to latest figs)
5) Prodos (Spark from Albert park) 1422
6) Dobinson (Aged care single issue) 297
7) DLP 512
9)FAMILY FIRST Increased by 916
DOWN >>>>>
1)ALP decreased 920 (in spite of the increased enrollment)
2) Jackson -0.11% swing 104
3) CEC and People Power did not contest 1040
INCREASED ENROLLMENT 1394
_______________________
Balance 0
So I think its hard to make a case that anyone really benefited from the Liberal “no show” other than a bit of spillage across all the minor parties and independents. It seems the liberal voters pretty much “no showed” as well.
Can the voting figures listed above please be updated.
The Democrats finished with 5.78 % not 4.7% – finshing clear third, after the early voting figures came in.
These early voters knew who was contesting as the candidates greeted them at the polling booth. Other voters and non-voters, relying on media coverage, mostly thought there were only two candidates.