Menu lock

Victorian By-Elections

Feb 19, 2011

Primary
%
Swing
2PP
%
Frank McGuire (ALP) 10516 51.0% -11.8% 10215 74.4%
Graham Dawson (GRN) 1227 5.9% -1.4% 3523 25.6%
Mark Hobart (DLP) 1180 5.7%
Merinda Davis (SEX) 1139 5.5%
Celal Sahin (IND) 4758 23.1%
Other Independents 1804 8.7%
Total 20624 13738
Informal 2216 9.7%
Counted (% of enrolled) 54.7% 36.4%
Booths counted (out of 13) 13 10

8.24pm. He also notes that Sahin ran McGuire close in Meadow Heights: 40 per cent to 37 per cent.

8.23pm. Antony Green reckons final turnout will be 76 per cent, which isn’t that unusual.

8.22pm. Meadow Heights added, so all the polling booths are in. Pre-polls and some of the postals will also be added this evening.

8.12pm. Roxburgh Homestead and Campbellfield added; only Meadow Heights to come.

8.01pm. Three booths added on meaningless Labor-versus-Greens two-party count.

8.00pm. Antony Green projects 67.1 per cent versus 31.9 per cent result for Labor versus Sahin on the final count.

7.58pm. GhostWhoVotes notes Sahin won the Upfield booth with 49.5 per cent primary vote.

7.56pm. Hume Central and Upfield booths added. By popular demand, Celal Sahin’s vote is now recorded separately in table. Psephos in comments notes Sahin has obviously harnessed the support of the electorate’s considerable Turkish community.

7.46pm. Independent Celal Sahin is easily the best performing non-Labor candidate on 17.8 per cent, and will finish far ahead of the Greens who are neck and neck with two other independents for third. So the notional two-party figures are purely a measure of the relative support for Labor and the Greens, not how the result will look after final distribution of preferences.

7.44pm. Lineball as to whether the Greens vote will be up and down. Not too big a shock: they also went nowhere in the Altona by-election.

7.43pm. Bethal, Broadmeadows North and Roxburgh Park primary vote results confirm the general trend, although the informal vote is back down to single figures.

7.41pm. I’ve added a row for the informal vote to my table, which is a very high 10.7 per cent from the five booths counted.

7.38pm. Two-party results from Glenroy East and Gowrie Park added, showing Labor with a thumping 81.8-18.2 lead over the Greens – but it’s by no means clear the Greens will in fact finish second, so this is as much a measure of their weak show as anything.

7.36pm. Broadmeadows, Coolaroo and Glenroy East booths added: Labor down quite sharply on the primary vote, further concerning for them with the informal vote is taken into account. Still a clear win on the primary vote however.

7.34pm. Antony Green points to high informal rate: 12.1 per cent.

7.30pm. Basically Labor took a big hit in their extremely strong Gowrie Park booth, but there was little change in weaker Glenroy North (which I have combined with the Glenroy booth, which is not in use at this by-election).

7.28pm. I’d made an error there on my swing calculations: Labor and the Greens are in fact both down, by 6.6 per cent and 1.3 per cent respectively.

7.24pm. To cut a long story short, Frank McGuire has won. Both Labor and Greens are up slightly, but the Greens trail the Sex Party and two independents.

7.22pm. Glenroy North and Gowrie Park have reported: results added.

7.20pm. “Not the most exciting by-election count I’ve covered” – Antony Green.

7.16pm. That same someone reports the Greens vote is down in Glenroy North: from 11 per cent to 8.2 per cent.

7.13pm. Taking their time. Someone on Twitter reports: “Labor’s @Frank_McGuire wins on primary at Glenroy Nth”.

6pm. Polls have closed in the Broadmeadows by-election, which is basically an exercise to rubber-stamp the entry into parliament of Labor candidate Frank McGuire. First results should be in at about 6:45pm. The above table shows the raw primary vote and percentage; booth-adjusted primary vote swing results, which match the available booth results against the equivalent from the November state election; and a raw two-candidate preferred figure, which assumes the Greens will finish second.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

106 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Dr Phibes
Guest

Thanks Barry. Thanks Insiders.

Rebecca
Guest

Independently Thinking@99: I think you’re right to a fair extent in terms of why seats like Broadmeadows are bad for the Greens, but I also think you’re stereotyping working-class voters. These voters undoubtedly exist, but it doesn’t mean everyone. In my time spent campaigning from the Greens in less well-off places, you find plenty of voters who don’t like Labor or Liberal, don’t really give a damn about wedge issues, and are pretty open to talk about infrastructure, health, education, and such. Bird of Paradox listed a few seats where these sorts of campaigns have been run quite successfully. There remains some seats, however, like Broadmeadows, where it just isn’t worth trying; one thing I notice about those sorts of seats is that they’re generally in the far outer suburbs.

Independently Thinking
Guest
Independently Thinking

[This is perhaps one area in which the Greens should take a hint from the major parties and not contest by-elections in their weakest seats]

Very sound call that.

Rebecca
Guest
lenwx@97: Extremely religious? According to the census figures 25% of the Canning electorate, of which Armadale is a big part, consider themselves of no religious affiliation. That is in the top 10% of all electorates. Perhaps it was the booth I was on, but in any election I’ve ever done, I’ve never seen a polling day with so many obviously evangelical voters, and where the amount of people who turned out specifically to vote for the CDP was so high. I’ve handed out HTVs in other conservative seats before, and I’ve never seen anything like it. The Greens put a lot of resources and manpower into the Armadale by-election. How in blazes would you know? They ran a token campaign – nominate a candidate, do up some flyers, and staff the booths on polling day. It saw bugger all of the resources or effort put into Fremantle or even Willagee precisely because it was so unwinnable. Also the media were caught by surprise and some first reported the 70/30 2PP as ALP/Greens rather than ALP/CDP even though the WAEC already early on got it right. This is because of the piss-poor coverage of the by-election. The media seems to universally assume that with only one major party candidate the Greens will come second. On the other hand, the Greens on the ground generally have a clue what’s going on. It is true the CDP poll well in Armadale. However in the Federal election 4 weeks earlier the Greens outpolled the CDP easily in most Armadale booths with the exception of two. This is, rather obviously, because the Liberal vote went to the CDP at the by-election. The point of noting that the CDP polls very well in Armadale is that the breed of Liberal who lives there is probably more likely, given the choice, to go CDP rather than Green, as opposed to Fremantle, where even the Liberals are like “who are these mad bastards?” I still maintain it was Adam Bandt’s hasty alliance with Gillard which turned the Liberals away and will continue to do so. In 2009 in both the Willagee and Fremantle by-elections, where there was no Liberal candidate, the Greens got most of the Liberal votes. No more. Fremantle is one of the best electorates in the country for the Greens. Willagee is a decent electorate for the Greens. The only by-elections we’ve seen have been… Read more »
edward o
Guest

Rebecca@96

Thank you for your detailed response. I have friends who are/have been Greens candidates (one of whom is running in NSW next month and is going to do quite well, I think, she’s smart, attractive and very personable, a real catch for the party) and I always had a problem with the assumption that Lib prefs were a definite. Certainly the party’s voters – perhaps not members – were up in arms about not getting what they thought they had a divine right to: the preferences of a party they hate the guts of and won’t deal with, ever, except under exceptional circumstances (Qld 96 being one example, I think NSW 2007 should have been another). Political party membership is at such an ebb at the moment it can be very easy to conflate the Party itself with its voters. I think your point about Barber is well-made.

Frank Calabrese
Guest

[Bird of paradox

Posted Monday, February 21, 2011 at 2:10 am | Permalink

Frankie:

the Greens shall continue as a boutique party for upper middle class white folk with a penchant for sanctimony and a willful ignorance of the limitations of renewable energy technology.

Last time I looked at my group certificate last financial year it said I’d earnt 28 grand, so I guess that means I’m hanging on by my fingernails to the lower middle class. I’ve lived in Armadale (I don’t remember that many Christians, just lots of drainage ditches and dogs running around the street), and also Coolbellup, Cloverdale and plenty of other suburbs not known for their ‘trendy’ population. (Cooby, by the way, gets something around 20% for the Greens – not bad for a decaying Homeswest suburb that isn’t that close to Freo.) Before that, I grew up as bogan scum from the wheatbelt, and still have a weakness for Emu Export, steelcap boots and Bob Katter. And I vote Green. Deal with it.

As for your working class seats, Rebecca, you should pull out some real examples (they’re easy to come by, just plug a pile of WAEC data into Excel). One I remember is Nollamara – the Greens polled ridiculously well, up to 20%-odd in a few random booths round that area. Even the seat of Bassendean was quite good for them… sure, it’s by the river, but way too close to Lockridge for those la-di-da trendy types I keep hearing about to live in. Eden Hill’s abandoned old shopping centre is more likely to be featured on The Worst Of Perth than a latte appreciation website.
]

You mean like this ?

http://theworstofperth.com/2007/11/08/purple-brain-drain/

Bird of paradox
Guest

Frankie:

[ the Greens shall continue as a boutique party for upper middle class white folk with a penchant for sanctimony and a willful ignorance of the limitations of renewable energy technology. ]

Last time I looked at my group certificate last financial year it said I’d earnt 28 grand, so I guess that means I’m hanging on by my fingernails to the lower middle class. I’ve lived in Armadale (I don’t remember that many Christians, just lots of drainage ditches and dogs running around the street), and also Coolbellup, Cloverdale and plenty of other suburbs not known for their ‘trendy’ population. (Cooby, by the way, gets something around 20% for the Greens – not bad for a decaying Homeswest suburb that isn’t that close to Freo.) Before that, I grew up as bogan scum from the wheatbelt, and still have a weakness for Emu Export, steelcap boots and Bob Katter. And I vote Green. Deal with it.

As for your working class seats, Rebecca, you should pull out some real examples (they’re easy to come by, just plug a pile of WAEC data into Excel). One I remember is Nollamara – the Greens polled ridiculously well, up to 20%-odd in a few random booths round that area. Even the seat of Bassendean was quite good for them… sure, it’s by the river, but way too close to Lockridge for those la-di-da trendy types I keep hearing about to live in. Eden Hill’s abandoned old shopping centre is more likely to be featured on The Worst Of Perth than a latte appreciation website.

Independently Thinking
Guest
Independently Thinking
Rebecca I am not a Labor troll. I have never voted Labor (or Liberal) in my life. Heck, I even include a Greens MP amongst my friends! I appreciate your spirited and sensible defence of the Greens, and I think most on PB do too. It makes a change from cheer squads who call each other names and wackos who are eventually banned. Now, to the debate. IMHO, the Greens, like the Democrats to a degree, appeal to a similar (not identical I stress) demographic, but that can change depending on circumstances in an election or byelection. Unfortunately for the Greens, they may have no problems with the working class, but the working class has problems with them. The Greens appeal to the intelligentsia; educated, tolerant, deep thinking people who believe in a different type of world to what we have now. They also appeal to ecolgists, obviously. They will also appeal to people who are not happy with Labor or Liberal and are happy to vote something else who are an organised alternative. The Democrats lost this vote to the Greens after they imploded. This is a component of the so called ‘protest vote’. Who they do not appeal to – but want to – are the working class (I include what Marxists would call the under class) who, if they are on the electoral roll at all, feel marginalised all the time. They are generally Labor voters, but not always. Some hate unions, some love them and others are indifferent. What they generally care about is something I learnt from eastern European politics. THEY WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE. They don’t want big government, but they distrust the bosses (extend that to the Liberals). They want welfare, if required, for them. Not for migrants. They are generally racist. They are also generally under-educated and that is part of the problem for their distrust and phobias. Tony Abbott and co’s patently racist calls are aimed for these people – they form a lot of what became known as ‘Howard’s battlers’ but some of them had always voted Liberal anyway. Now, to those of more recent immigration, yes it is true the ALP and the Liberals to a smaller extent has spent a lot of effort to woo these communities. Does it help them? Of course it does. But if the ALP and Liberals did nothing with these communities I… Read more »
max
Guest

From what I hear from infomed sources (I live in an adjacent electorate and helped out on one of the polling booths on saturday) sahin has close links to the local liberal party organisation and was supported by them. The alp/sahin 2PP is a reasonable proxy for the alp/lib 2PP i’d suggest.

lenxyz
Guest

[iBoth Armadale (semi-rural; socially conservative; extremely religious)/i]

Rebecca, the Armadale state electorate has no rural elements at all. It is the inner parts of the regional centre. The Greens candidate made the same mistake, he went to cast his vote with the TV cameras watching and was turned back because wasn’t on the Armadale roll (he was in the adjacent electorate of Darling Range!).

Extremely religious? According to the census figures 25% of the Canning electorate, of which Armadale is a big part, consider themselves of no religious affiliation. That is in the top 10% of all electorates.

[iThe Greens knew damn well they were going to come third in Armadale….
the only reason the Greens even contested Armadale and Broadmeadows is because they contest everything./i]

The Greens put a lot of resources and manpower into the Armadale by-election. Without a Liberal candidate they expected a 2 party contest with lots of publicity. In the end it backfired on them – epitomised by the candidate’s blunder of not even knowing which electorate he resided in. Also the media were caught by surprise and some first reported the 70/30 2PP as ALP/Greens rather than ALP/CDP even though the WAEC already early on got it right.

It is true the CDP poll well in Armadale. However in the Federal election 4 weeks earlier the Greens outpolled the CDP easily in most Armadale booths with the exception of two. Overall the Greens performance in Canning was the worst of all the WA federal electorates. In part that was because there was a good ALP candidate, even though she lost. In the immediately following state election, the CDP outpolled Greens almost 2 to 1.

I still maintain it was Adam Bandt’s hasty alliance with Gillard which turned the Liberals away and will continue to do so. In 2009 in both the Willagee and Fremantle by-elections, where there was no Liberal candidate, the Greens got most of the Liberal votes. No more.

Rebecca
Guest

Rebecca, are you going to deny tha the Greens thought they would take at least one, maybe up to four lower house seats in Victoria recently?

They thought that they might win up to four seats on the assumption that they would have Liberal preferences. Had that assumption been correct, they’d still have won three seats (despite what I personally think was a piss-poor state campaign) and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Without, I think they and everyone else realised that was going to be a bloody hard slog, and it’s the next challenge they’re going to have to get over.

To be fair, many Sex Party votes would have otherwise gone the Greens’ way, which to me suggests a lot of blue-greens may be looking elsewhere for their vote. But if there are still enough rusted-ons to poll 5% in Broadmeadows, even at a by-election where they should have done better, the Greens’ future in Victoria looks reasonable rosy.

I don’t think these sorts of obscure by-elections say much of anything about the Greens’ future: the only reason the Greens even contested Armadale and Broadmeadows is because they contest everything.

I’ll be more interested to see how they go in New South Wales, with a drastically unpopular Labor government, Optional Preferential, and without the baggage of Greg Barber (though admittedly against two much stronger Labor members).

Albert Ross
Guest

In an ideal world the MP would live in his/her seat but if they are just outside the seat due to a boundary change ot if the suburb they live in happens to overlap boundaries then i am happy for the MP to live just outside the seat.

The worst case is the candidate that gets parachuted in by the ALP machine, promises to move to the electorate if returned and then stays put in a leafy suburb some distance away eg. Paul Gibson who is for the time being the ALP member of Blacktown. But then, that’s the Zanu-ALP way.

edward o
Guest

Rebecca, are you going to deny tha the Greens thought they would take at least one, maybe up to four lower house seats in Victoria recently?

To be fair, many Sex Party votes would have otherwise gone the Greens’ way, which to me suggests a lot of blue-greens may be looking elsewhere for their vote. But if there are still enough rusted-ons to poll 5% in Broadmeadows, even at a by-election where they should have done better, the Greens’ future in Victoria looks reasonable rosy.

Rebecca
Guest

Frankie V.@92: Yes, as Independently Thinking said, all the places where well-to-do trendies don’t live.

Except that this is crap. There are working-class seats where everyone, including the Greens, expects them to do very badly. There are working-class seats where the Greens expect to do pretty damn well. Is there something that makes Labor voters on this site allergic to looking at actual data?

I’m pretty sure the ALP aren’t using mind control. Immigrants have their own reasons for not voting Greens.>

This is very true. I’m simply pointing out that it’s one demographic weakness for the party, and that it shouldn’t a great shock when heavily migrant seats aren’t great for the Greens. It doesn’t hold true across the board, though; there’s booths in such areas where they’re still getting a solid 20+% of the vote.

As there isn’t an immigrant group (including the poms) that isn’t more socially conservative than the ‘working-class dynamic’ you patronise, the Greens shall continue as a boutique party for upper middle class white folk with a penchant for sanctimony and a willful ignorance of the limitations of renewable energy technology.

…and ne’er shall reality interfere with Poll Bludger’s Labor fans deep and abiding love for dumb stereotypes.

And anytime the Greens manage to outpoll the Christian Democrats or DLP it’s hailed by Bob and co. as the end of the two party system.

Certain elements in the press (and Labor supporters on this site, apparently) love to spout this tripe so they can tear the Greens down when they inevitably don’t meet ridiculously inflated expectations. While Bob can get a bit carried away when the Greens actually take lower house seats, you’ll very rarely hear this talk coming from the Greens short of outright wins in the lower house.

Once again, the Greens tend to be pretty realistic about their hopes. Psephos still loves to crow about how Labor mightily held off the forces of the Greens in the Albert Park by-election in 2008 when no one in the Greens thought they had a damn bit of a chance there. You can build up ridiculous expectations and then crow when the Greens fail to meet those; you shouldn’t be surprised when more sensible people look at you like you’re a bit bloody daft for doing so though.

Frankie V.
Guest

Rebecca @ 85

[The Greens, like every other party, have seats where they don’t do well. These tend to be places with either a) a very large religious base (like Armadale in WA), seats with a high migrant population (as Labor harnesses these groups extremely well and the Greens haven’t learned to crack that – yet), or seats with a particular type of working-class dynamic (socially conservative; outer suburban; weak sense of local community).]

Yes, as Independently Thinking said, all the places where well-to-do trendies don’t live.

[seats with a high migrant population (as Labor harnesses these groups extremely well and the Greens haven’t learned to crack that – yet)]

I’m pretty sure the ALP aren’t using mind control. Immigrants have their own reasons for not voting Greens. As there isn’t an immigrant group (including the poms) that isn’t more socially conservative than the ‘working-class dynamic’ you patronise, the Greens shall continue as a boutique party for upper middle class white folk with a penchant for sanctimony and a willful ignorance of the limitations of renewable energy technology.

[any time an election is held in a seat that isn’t great for the Greens, it’s portrayed as some sort of catastrophic defeat.]

And anytime the Greens manage to outpoll the Christian Democrats or DLP it’s hailed by Bob and co. as the end of the two party system.

wal kolla
Guest

I think Bailieu / Kennett deserve a lot of credit for the underperformance of the greens in the last few months within Victoria.

I will also think that Bailieu will split a lot of the grass-roots “green” groups from the greens – for e.g. PTUA – as what was done with the old BLF for labor.

As Ive mentioned before, I dont vote for any single party consistantly; but I voted for the libs because Im sick of “pollywaffle” that tends to come from the labor side these days.

In the early days, bracks used to talk fairly straight – which I liked – but after his second victory it just become unbearable to listen to. Then Kevin Rudd did exactly the same thing – I could not understand a word he was saying.

Now Julia Gillard has exactly the same problem – though not as verbose. She was on 774 the other day and her answers (and Chris Bowen’s) was so “public-servant speak” that I could of sworn I was listening to a radio play of Yes Minister.

I don’t understand what JG has achieved with the health scheme, but it sounded like “We are going to reduce bureaucracy by increasing it.” Who was the labor-staffer numbskull who told her to say that?

Now, contrast that to the interview John Fayne did with Peter Ryan – in which (even though I may not have agreed with everything) straight forward answers were forthcoming.

As far as stopping the boats and all that nonsense, its easy to understand but I have severe misgivings with it and TA in general.

If labor could deliver a clear and simple message, that hasnt come directly from an episode of Yes Minister, then they would be miles in front.. but no one has a procreational idea about what they are saying.

Red tape is NOT fun.

edward o
Guest

I think the reason the Greens should have done better is because there was NO LIBERAL CANDIDATE. Fremantle doesn’t disprove the point, it bolsters it. The Greens won because the Liberals sat out meaning a not inconsiderable slice of the vote (even in a seat traditionally bad for that party) was up for grabs. They should have done better. Perhaps Bailieu has really demonised the party for wet Libs for the time being.

Firstname Lastname
Guest

Frank #87

So if the Greens manage to wrest away another seat off Labor you won’t throw tantrums again?

Rebecca #88

They don’t go ballistic because only half the Liberal candidates are to the left of them and the choose to only see those to the right. 😛

Rebecca
Guest

lenwx: It might help if you read the post directly above.

Both Armadale (semi-rural; socially conservative; extremely religious) and Broadmeadows (socially conservative; outer suburban; weak sense of community) are very bad areas for the Greens. The Greens knew damn well they were going to come third in Armadale, and I assume they figured as much in Broadmeadows as well.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: why is it that the Greens doing badly in their worst seats in the entire country seems to make ALP fans think the Greens have had a tremendous defeat, and why don’t those same people go ballistic when Labor surprisingly fails to win Kooyong at each election?

Frank Calabrese
Guest

Rebecca and lenwx:

All I will say is welcome to Democracy 🙂

wpDiscuz