Albert Park and Williamstown by-elections live

183 comments on “Albert Park and Williamstown by-elections live”

1. So much for the claimed Thwaite’s personal factor.. As I said before it never existed…

2. 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.

3. Thwaite’s? Oh MelbCity!
   

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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….

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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 Democrats”.)

    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 recovery”. No one has presented any set of numbers that shows that they can win a Senate seat in the current political climate.

11. 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…

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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).

17. 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%.

18. 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.

19. 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.
    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. 😉 An upset was unlikely.

    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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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%.

23. 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.

    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.

    why does a greens party need a selective schools policy at all?

    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.

24. A redistrabution is due in Victoria befor the next election.
    Any predictions?

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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?)
    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
    8) Greens increased by 1577 (would have got 265 on increased enrollment with 0% swing anyway)
    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.

33. 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.

Comments are closed.