| # | % | Swing | 2PP | Proj. | |
| Varga (IND) | 574 | 3.3% | |||
| Totten (CEC) | 44 | 0.3% | |||
| Ter Horst (IND) | 145 | 0.8% | |||
| Zagami (IND) | 927 | 5.3% | |||
| Boni (IND) | 302 | 1.7% | |||
| Du Plessis (FFP) | 158 | 0.9% | -0.8% | ||
| Tagliaferri (ALP) | 6,748 | 38.5% | -0.4% | 46.7% | 47.1% |
| Hollett (CDP) | 300 | 1.7% | -0.2% | ||
| Lorrimar (IND) | 136 | 0.8% | |||
| Carles (GRN) | 7,802 | 44.5% | 17.5% | 53.3% | 52.9% |
| Wainwright | 400 | 2.3% | |||
| TOTAL | 17,536 |
Monday
Here’s me on the by-election in Crikey.
Sunday
I’ve knocked up a map showing the primary vote swing to the Greens at the different booths. No visible pattern can be discerned, but I’ve done it so here it is. I’ve also tried to find correlations between votes, swings and demographics, and found only one worth mentioning: the Greens swing had a correlation with the Italian-speaking population of -0.47 and an R-squared value of 0.22. No doubt statisticians will tell me a sample of 10 booths doesn’t mean very much, but the scatterplot looks persuasive to my unpractised eye and it makes all kinds of sense intuitively. Equally interesting was the lack of a significant correlation between the Greens swing and the Liberal vote from the state election. That would seem to argue against the notion that a static Labor vote was swamped by Liberals moving to the Greens. Note that the lowest swing was recorded at a Catholic primary school, Christ the King in Beaconsfield. For what it’s worth, Alan Carpenter was handing out how-to-vote cards there.
Saturday
9.20pm. Antony Green: “There is a very important bit of history in this reslt. This is the first time at a state or federal election that the Greens have outpolled the Labor Party on primary votes. All previous cases where the Greens have won or come close to victory have seen Labor ahead on the primary vote and the Greens chasing Labor down on Liberal and Independent preferences.”
9.10pm. All together now …
Mea culpa to Greens pianist Geoffrey, who was told by me that his candidate would fall short by about 52-48, despite his enthusiastic protestations to the contrary.
8.42pm. So, the new maths for our already very exciting Legislative Assembly: Labor 27, Liberal 24, Nationals 4, Independent 3, Greens 1.
8.39pm. Carles now leads on the WAEC’s two-party count 8745 to 7370.
8.32pm. Now the WAEC has the Greens lead at a definitively insurmountable 7421 to 6395. I would like to thank them though for that little moment of excitement, while reminding them that that isn’t their brief.
8.30pm. Now the WAEC says Carles leads 6056 to 5535, which sounds still more like it. Too much to rein in on postals.
8.27pm. Beaconsfield PS and 1306 postal votes added. Despite what the 2PP says, I don’t see how Labor could win from those primaries.
8.24pm. WAEC count now has Carles leading 4900 to 4660, which sounds more like it. However, it does suggest that Labor are doing slightly better on preferences than I or Antony had projected. It might not even be over yet. But again, who knows.
8.22pm. So, to summarise. Thanks to the WAEC, I have absolutely no idea what’s going on. If anyone from the WAEC is reading this, please send a fact-finding mission to the Tasmanian Electoral Commission to find out how to conduct a count properly.
8.19pm. Antony Green also doesn’t appear to have any real world preference figures he can use. If the WAEC has decided that we only need to be given a lump sum two-party count, I can only say that they’ve bungled once again.
8.15pm. Hmm. The WAEC has a big, uninformative “notional distribution of preferences” which has Tagliaferri leading 4071-3824. This is extremely exasperating. Where are these votes from? Why haven’t they been recording them booth by booth like everybody else does?
8.04pm. Big win for Carles at Fremantle Primary School. I’m calling it for her.
8.01pm. Carles also has a big win at East Fremantle Primary School, making it very tempting to call it for her …
7.59pm. Carles wins the upmarket Bicton booth.
7.53pm. Carles wins Richmond Primary School, up near Bicton way, which gives Zagami his first big result. Nonetheless, that has Carles’ lead narrowing a little further on my estimate. I might also note that the Greens didn’t do a postal vote mailout.
7.52pm. ABC has Christ the King bringing Carles down only a little, to 53.2 per cent (exactly where I have it). Tagliaferri still needs some more big results.
7.46pm. Very good result for Tagliaferri at Christ the King School makes things interesting again. Interesting to note that Alan Carpenter was handing out how to vote cards there …
7.43pm. VERY surprised no other candidate is over 5 per cent.
7.41pm. Re the previous comment – White Gum Valley, the most Italian booth of all, was also a big win for Carles. No particular reason to expect the nearby Beaconsfield booths to behave differently.
7.23pm. Beaconsfield and Christ the King are two strongly Italian booths that are yet to report – but so was Palmyra, and Carles won that.
7.22pm. Another good result for Carles in White Gum Valley – 46 per cent to 39.5 per cent. Minor party vote lower than I might have thought.
7.21pm. Antony now has the Greens 2.5 per cent in front after preference projection.
7.20pm. Tagliaferri finally wins a booth, the solidly working class Phoenix.
7.18pm. Carles wins Anglican Church Hall as well, which is in a similar area.
7.16pm. Greens win the Palmyra booth as well, which isn’t their heartland. I suggest my projection flatters Labor a bit.
7.14pm. Antony’s projection has the Greens 3.4 per cent ahead.
7.13pm. St Patrick’s in – Carles wins the primary vote, but check out that projection …
7.08pm. Few teething problems with the table as usual – working through them.
7.06pm. 622 pre-polls added (along with Rottnest Island) – there’s reason to believe these might behave unusually, but at they’re at least a little bit exciting for the Greens.
6.37pm. Come on, you’d think at least Rottnest might have reported by now … Anyway, I’ve been doing a bit of work so I do get a projected two-party result, based on the booth figures calculated by Antony Green. I wouldn’t stake my wages on its accuracy though.
6.14pm. First trickle of daylight saving votes coming in. Big no majority, but it doesn’t mean anything yet.
6.05pm. Some explanations of what you will see above. Booth matching will be employed for the primary vote swings, but not the two-party preferred vote as no figures are available in Labor versus Greens terms from the state election. The figures will at first be estimates, but will be replaced with real world numbers as booths report their notional two-party counts.
6pm. Polls have closed, so welcome to the Poll Bludger’s live coverage of the Fremantle by-election count. I don’t think I’ll have much to say about the daylight saving referendum, which you will in any case find covered more than adequately at ABC Elections.
679 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 14 » Show All
From John Walsh over at LP:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/05/11/the-battle-for-fremantle/#comment-735035
Frank Calabrese: The Greens are hardly ones to be taking seats for granted. Brown can get a bit optimistic from time to time, but I highly doubt anyone in Fremantle will be resting on their laurels in 2012. Carles won that seat because she comprehensively out-campaigned Labor, and she’s going to need a similar effort if she’s going to do it again – which I’m sure she will.
Bule: If the Greens are to keep on growing, they’re going to have to start taking on Labor in head-to-head fights and winning. Surprise victories like Cunningham don’t count for much if you can’t hang on to them in the general. This time, the ALP knew the Greens posed a huge threat in Fremantle, and yet the Greens ran a much more effective and targeted campaign than Labor, getting more volunteers on the ground both during the campaign and on election day, getting together the sort of resources that you need to win a campaign of that nature, and then putting it into practice very effectively. It’s a very good example of the sort of campaign the Greens are going to need to be doing if they’re going to get competitive in similar seats elsewhere.
I also don’t think it’s a bad thing if Labor starts considering the threat from the left as well as the right; if it stops the Labor Right comprehensively telling the left to get stuffed, and ends their tradition of stacking safe inner-city seats with party hacks, the Greens’ll have already achieved a hell of a lot. If this brings with it more of the sort of dirty campaign tactics Labor are so used to, then that’s something they’re going to have to get used to; if they keep getting candidates of the calibre of Carles, and as effective campaign teams as Carles had, I think that can be dealt with.
Oh, and Adam, your crowing about holding off the Greens in Albert Park? It’s a bit like crowing about holding off the Liberals in Holt. The alternative could conceivably happen, but don’t be surprised if you get looked at like you’re a bit nuts.
HEAR HEAR!!!
Sorry, Rebecca, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. Holt? What about Holt?
Oh Dear, so the Greens were campaigning against a proposal that wasn’t even going to be built in the Electorat ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/18/2573993.htm
Transcript of Tonight’s 7.30 Report re Fremantle By-Election.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2574070.htm
Turn it up Frank, you know the area that will most affected by the development will be the port and Fremantle itself.
If NPQ didn’t feel it was a relevant issue for this election, why spedn so much of advertising and put up stooges to direct preferences away from the Greens?
Sucks to be them.
ha ha suffer in your jocks, Varga
North Freo, the suburb, is (usually) the token Labor voting booth in the seat of Cottesloe, as it’s north of the river. (And it’s still semi-industrial, but with more hippies all the time – maybe that explains the Greens almost outpolling Labor in Cottesloe, against Barnett’s 60%.) It is, however, in the City of Fremantle, and if you’ve ever driven that part of Stirling Hwy or caught a train between North Freo and Mosman Park, you’ll know why.
Something from Peter van Onselen on the 7.30 Report:
Federally, I’ve heard of Melbourne, Sydney and Grayndler, and thought about Denison (if the Greens think they can possibly get two seats there under Tassie PR, it’s gotta be on their radar), but I haven’t heard of Melbourne Ports before. I imagine that’s Williamstown / St Kilda etc, south of Melbourne CBD… Adam, you’re the obvious person to ask. Do the Greens have a great vote there, either federal / state / local govts, or did he just mix it up with Melbourne (Lindsay Tanner’s seat)?
Here is the video of the 7.30 Report.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/05/18/2574070.htm
William, get yourself a copy of the West – they go to town on this. (Tomorrow’s I think.) Both Paul Murray and Gerard Henderson have a go at it. Henderson wants a preference deal between the Greens and Libs, so that when the ALP/Lib/Grn vote goes something like 45/25/25, the Liberals have a chance to take seats like Grayndler or Melbourne off Labor the same way the Greens can. He has the grace not to mention the numerous policy similarities between the Libs and Greens that could make such a deal happen.
Murray has a big go at the Labor factional machine and Jim McGinty, and reckons it’s not Eric Ripper’s fault. Has a bit of a bash at the North Port Quay development too:
Ad then he has more of a go at the machine, and ‘a Labor rat’, who I’m not sure is supposed to be McGinty or Tagliaferri.
Bird, there’s a lot of discussion about this on the Newspoll thread. The Henderson article is here – I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to read Murray. I don’t think Henderson’s arguing that the Liberals could win Grayndler and Melbourne in particular – he’s saying they should do deals in which the Greens give the Liberals preferences in marginal Labor-Liberal seats, rather than just giving the Greens their preferences in Grayndler and Melbourne with no quid pro quo.
Video of Tonight’s ABC News Item on the By-election Wash up.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/05/19/2574226.htm
Bird of Parodox! Melbourne Ports does not include Williamstown, it did for many years but for the past few decades it has been south of the yarra. and yes I agree Prahran will be very Interesting at the next election, if the Greens can get a better candidate than last time they could surprise as they may do in Albert Park.
When Rebecca talks about Holt its clear what she means for the ALP should not but are always in danger of losing it to the Liberals just has Albert Park should not fall to the Greens but may one day do so.
Finally someone who agrees with me on Prahran. I would like to see the Labor response if the Greens put them in third place.
Tom! If you look at Prahran it is a very Interesting seat.
At the last federal election the Liberals were beaten by the ALP in all but three or four booths and in the area around Windsor and St Kilda East the Liberals were either beaten by the Greens or only narrowly were ahead.
If my memory is correct the only booths the Liberals won were Hawksburn, Toorak Central, Toorak West and Armadale, to my big surprise the ALP appear to have won the Domain booth on the back of the Green’s, Domain is normally a strong Liberal booth which along with St Kilda East is in Melbourne Ports. whilst the remainder is in Higgins.
If the Greens can crack South Yarra then based on their already strong vote in St Kilda East/Windsor they are a real change of finishing second but the South Yarra end is still a firm Liberal Vs ALP area.
At the next redistribution (2013 I think) Albert Park will need to be made smaller because it is well over quota and this would probably trigger a move in Prahran`s boundaries that might include a loss of Toorak and gains in St Kilda.
There used to be information on this on the EBC website which moved to the VEC website after the EBC website was scrapped but I can no longer find (where is Melbcity/Democracy@work when you need him?).
The West letter page correspondent Kevin Moran on the changing face of Fremantle:
Of course, i take all of my social cues from Kevin Moron.
But like it or not, that is the image of the Greens and their supporter base by your average voter.
I don’t see that Paul Murray piece online. Has anyone seen it yet?
The West are very slow in uploading content online – It should be up tomorrow.
Frank, Kevin Moron is not your average voter (especially not in Fremantle), he is a right wing twit of the highest order and he would most certainly not vote for the ALP.
I don’t know how you can claim that is the “image” of the Greens after you were so comprehensively spanked on Saturday. The people of Fremantle certainly don’t share your view.
You haven’t missed anything. It’s too easy for Paul – if Labor is pragmatic, he gets to bucket them for losing touch with their base; if they keep the base happy, he can accuse them of being out of touch with the mainstream.
There is the old saying of “action speak louder than words” and when you see pictures of protestors getting arrested and theit’re either wearing Greens T shirts and/or carrying Greens signs and Banners, the average punter will tar them with the “Radical Ferals tag.
It’s a political fact of life – either clean up your image to appeal to a broad userbase – and we ain’t talking Freo folk – that’s preaching to the Converted, I’m talking about the mum and dads who live the Northern suburbs who would turn against the Greens if it threatened their job.
Bird of paradox, I’ve read the Murray piece (available here http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=54&ContentID=142648).
Murray’s use of the phrase ‘Labor rat’ is… idiosyncratic. He’s clearly using it to describe Tagliaferri.
Traditionally, a rat is someone who has been a member of a party for a long time and then renounces their former loyalty for other, individualistic goals. Given that one of the points of criticism of Tagliaferri was that he joined the party just days before being nominated, its use here would hardly appear appropriate.
It seems like Murray was in search of a witty conclusion to his column, but has failed abysmally.
William: You ignore that every single other letter writer in The West today was absolutely bucketing Labor for neglecting Fremantle, preselecting Tagliaferri, and generally being incompetent. Even Moran’s piece was so rambling that I wasn’t too sure where he thought he was by the end of the article.
I thought Paul Murray’s article was apt, and I was a bit surprised to see it coming from him. It was a sight better than Henderson’s daft article, at any rate.
Henderson’s suggestion is idiotic: it would benefit Labor with zero benefit for either the Liberals or their agenda. The Liberals keep preferencing the Greens because it’s smart: they get to annoy the Libs, and elect MPs that they can work with as an alternative if they need to at the expense of Labor. They realise full well that there isn’t a chance of the Greens actually preferencing the Liberals for the time being (although if Adam’s ilk keep crying wolf when we split-ticket, they’re going to immunise us to that among the public and we may as well go do it – I’d love to see the response of the hacks if we did), and that one-way support of the Greens is the next best thing.
I also thought it was interesting in The West today that what I’ve been saying for a while now (and was dismissed for here a couple days ago) – that preselecting Tagliaferri was a disaster – seems to becoming generally accepted.
Numerous articles and letters (along with evidently a few figures from the ALP) bagging him as being out of touch with many voters and especially many Labor supporters, and suggesting that his pro-business political alignment was disastrous in a seat like Fremantle.
Frank Calabrese: The sort of voters you’re talking about are hardly going to vote Green, nor do I think they’re the sort of voters that the Greens are going to be chasing after anytime soon.
The Greens are a party of social justice, the environment and good government. This, unsurprisingly, appeals to a not insignificant community of voters in both major parties. One might think, however, that voters with minimal interest in those issues are probably not a good fit, and should go find some other party.
Have you heard of the term “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing” – To most non political people that’s what they think of the Greens, much like how the Libs describe them as Watermelons.
Perception is everything in Politics, and it’s hypocritical of the Greens to attack Labor and the Libs, and not look in their own backyard.
Frank, you appear to be suggesting the Greens have some sort of an image problem that needs to be remedied. If this is not what you are saying, can you please explain what you mean?
If this is what you are saying, doesn’t the result from Saturday demonstrate that is not a problem the public perceive, or at least is on track to being remedied?
Rebecca, #518 wasn’t intended as a representative sampling of The West’s letters page, I was just stirring the pot. Could be though that I’m being unfair to Mooner. He may have had a Damascene political conversion in the past week, and in future will present the perspective of a True Believer in the Light on the Hill. I await his next few columns with interest.
You obviously don’t get it – Fremantle is the exception to the rule. I’m refering to the Electorate in general in other seats.
As I’ve said, don’t come crying on Poll Bludger when Adele’s vote is used to bring in a policy which adversly affects Fremantle.
William,
Regarding teh Paul – refer to The Worst Of Perth on the method of Murray’s Madness
In particular the following Videos
http://www.youtube.com/my_subscriptions?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&sq=&dm=2&s=gjYDJkxRQ78#
http://www.youtube.com/my_subscriptions?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&sq=&dm=2&s=gjYDJkxRQ78#
http://www.youtube.com/my_subscriptions?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&sq=&dm=2&s=gjYDJkxRQ78#
Such a policy being…
I was not aware you had said that but given she is not bound to the ALP or Liberal caucus, why would she vote for a policy which adversely affects Freo?
If was an Environmentally Friendly Project, but would result in the loss of Jobs for workers in the electorate which would she choose ?
Such as NPQ?
I think we know the answer to that.
Or to be more precise, what if Barnett decided to Ban the Live Sheep Trade, but the result would be that there would massive job losses at the Port of Fremantle.
So you support a rise in Unemployment in Fremantle then ??
Real Smart
How many Fremantle jobs depend on the live sheep trade or on NPQ?
You may find it hard to believe, but most Wharfies live in the Fremantle electorate and surronds – same with Tradespeople etc who would be working on NPQ, and aslo they employment of young people who would be working in the Bars and Cafes as a result.
Sorry, I should clarify, how many wharfies are directly employed to work on the live sheep trade as opposed bulk and general and other cargo?
You may find this hard to believe Frank, but a number of my friends and work colleagues who are MUA members believe that NPQ is the greatest threat they face to the working port. As a result of residential buildup around the Port, they are already restricted in the hours they can load certain cargo such as scrap steel. If people have paid millions of dollars for property in NPQ, they won’t be very happy about having their sleep disturbed by the working port.
Further, if we scrapped the live sheep trade, the trade of meat to the middle east will not cease, but rather the meat will be processed here creating hundreds of jobs in the meat industry. That is why the AMIEU is so supportive of the campaign to ban the live sheep trade.
What else have you got?
Well maybe the last was a poor example, but what if Barnett decided to allow the construction of a Coal Fired Power Station in East Fremantle, bringing in more employment into the area ?
You haven’t been offered funding for your blogging by NPQ have you Frank?
If not, I can give John Halden a ring and see if he will put you on the payroll.
*facepalm*
And you think your last example was a poor one?
Why would they build a coal fired power station in East Freo so far from the coal?
Maybe the coal would be brought to the Power Station by Sea or Rail ?
Pages: « 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 14 » Show All