Sep 15 2007
Albert Park and Williamstown by-elections live
| 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.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
So, informals running at 7%…Liberals voting with their pencils?
What percentage of booths (as opposed to total vote) counted?
September 15th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
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
September 15th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
OK - I understand - different figures.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Has anyone ever tried changing their name by deed poll to Informal and running as a candidate?
September 15th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I see you are post (104) maybe every Liberal MP needs to do just that it may add a few points.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
William do we have all the Albert Pk booths in?
September 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
It’s a good night when the ALP wins 2 byelections.
Woohoo!
September 15th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Not as good as Tarquin Fintimlimbimlimbimwhinbimlin Bus Stop Ftang Ftang Olay Biscuit Barrel (Silly Party)
September 15th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
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
September 15th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
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
September 15th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
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!!
September 15th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Anthony,
Thanks for the link LOL
September 15th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
[stamps foot impatiently at this silliness] do we have all the Albert Park booths or not?
September 15th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
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
September 15th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
The VEC doesn’t seem to have St Kilda booth - do Williams’s figures include it?
September 15th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Remember Nixon in California “Well, you won’t have Nixon to kick around any more” Would that it had been true!
September 15th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
So in belated answer to your earlier question, Adam: yes.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
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
September 15th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
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).
September 15th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
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
September 15th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
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?
September 15th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
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.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Slopover!? Are they the votes you get which make you feel just a little dirty?
September 16th, 2007 at 12:13 am
97 Adam, “Where have all the Liberals gone?”
Long time passing!
September 16th, 2007 at 12:19 am
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!
September 16th, 2007 at 12:38 am
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 1:04 am
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…
September 16th, 2007 at 2:10 am
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:32 am
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
September 16th, 2007 at 7:46 am
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:35 am
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:05 am
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:31 am
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:44 am
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
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?
September 16th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
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%
September 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
So much for the claimed Thwaite’s personal factor.. As I said before it never existed…
September 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Thwaite’s? Oh MelbCity!
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
September 16th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
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….
September 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
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
September 16th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
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…
September 16th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
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.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
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).
September 16th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
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%.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:45 am
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:55 am
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 4:28 am
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:15 am
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:51 am
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%.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
A redistrabution is due in Victoria befor the next election.
Any predictions?
September 17th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
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.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
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.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:09 am
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.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:54 am
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.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
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.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
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.