| 2007 | 2004 | ||||
| ALP | LIB | ALP | LIB | Swing | |
| Booths | 34,067 50.16 |
33,851 49.84 |
26,919 41.21 |
38,402 58.79 |
8.95 |
| Pre-Poll | 2,802 46.03 |
3,285 53.97 |
1,635 36.21 |
2,880 63.79 |
9.82 |
| Absent | 1,681 52.43 |
1525 47.57 |
1,456 44.16 |
1,841 55.84 |
8.27 |
| Postal | 2363 50.05 |
2358 49.95 |
1,769 41.30 |
2,514 58.70 |
8.75 |
| Provisional | 58 51.79 |
54 48.21 |
180 45.80 |
213 54.20 |
5.98 |
| Total | 40,971 49.94 |
41,073 50.06 |
31,805 40.88 |
46,004 59.12 |
9.06 |
| ALP | 50.0 | ||||
| LIB | 50.0 | ||||
Saturday evening. This post will be used to follow the final stages of the count in Bowman, where at the close of election night counting the ABC computer has Liberal incumbent Andrew Laming and Labor candidate Jason Young locked together on 50.0-50.0. On raw figures Labor is 0.3 per cent ahead, but the Liberals had a relatively stronger performance on absent, pre-poll and postal votes in 2004.
Sunday evening. About a quarter of the pre-poll votes have been counted, and they have so far been swinging to Labor 8.1 per cent compared with 9.3 per cent from the booths. If that 8.1 per cent remains constant through the pre-poll and postal votes, the result will go right down to the wire with a Labor win of 200 votes.
Monday 6pm. I was in error in the previous entry: pre-polls are not in fact swinging differently to booth votes, although Laming is still closing the gap in absolute terms. Today they have added 609 for Laming and 539 for Young, after yesterday’s 590 and 466. Together they have narrowed the gap from 159 votes to 55. Pre-polls are thus following their pattern from 2004 when they favoured the Liberals. Postals and absentee votes however were a lot stronger for Labor, which is why my adjusted figures in red and blue above have Labor in the lead.
Tuesday 3pm. Laming has taken a 27-vote lead after the addition of another 1366 pre-polls, which split 724-642 in his favour. However, the swing to Labor on pre-polls is in fact tracking slightly upwards. Everything depends on whether absents and postals follow the same pattern of relative favourability to Labor from 2004.
Wednesday 5pm. Young has recovered the lead after a strong performance from 1664 postal votes, about a third of the likely total. These have split 856-808 in his favour for a double-digit swing compared with 2004, putting him 21 votes in front. His adjusted lead has increased from 0.1 per cent to 0.2 per cent.
Thursday 4pm. Postal votes continue to trickle Young’s way, a further 1955 breaking 997-958 and increasing his lead to 60 votes.
Friday 3pm. The addition of 1672 absent votes, probably half of the total, has increased Young’s lead by 56 votes.
Monday 3pm. A further 1105 absent votes have increased Young’s lead by 47, while adjustments to booth figures have cost Young seven votes and Laming three. Young currently leads by 159.
Monday 11pm. A curious development: the results from the Capalaba booth have been shifted to Capalaba School, and Capalaba is now listed as having 81 fewer votes for Laming and 121 fewer for Young than Capalaba School did previously (uncanny how every single thing seems to be running against Labor in every single seat). On top of that, a further 903 postal votes have gone 465-438 in Laming’s favour. Combined with minor adjustments in other booths, Young is now just 90 votes ahead. There are still 762 postal and about 400 provisional votes to be counted.
Wednesday 7pm. Truly are the election gods smiling upon the Coalition. A further 2043 pre-poll votes have split 1129-914 in Laming’s favour, giving him 55.3 per cent compared with his previous 53.9 per cent from this source. After a few more booth result adjustments, Laming has now gained a 119-vote lead. Still to come are 1003 absent votes, which might be expected to boost Young by around 40 votes, 627 pre-polls which should boost Laming by about 50, and a handful of postals which should split evenly. Nor can Young expect to gain around 40 votes from provisionals.
Thursday 7pm. Postals: another 425 gives Young a surprise 57-vote break. Pre-polls: a further 429 provide another pleasant surprise for Young, going 217-212 his way. Provisionals: 112 of these, going 58-54 to Young. Re-checking: Laming gains nine votes and Young gains two. That leaves Laming with a lead of just 46 votes. Reportedly still to come: 226 postals and 70 pre-polls. Young needs 58 per cent of them.
Friday 8pm. With 199 postal votes breaking 127-72 to Laming, the prospect of a Young comeback is diminishing. Other than that, only a small number of pre-poll and absent votes added. Booth votes are unchanged.
Go Laming! Hope you can hold on!
As one other blog (can’t remember who) commented: The Libs lose a good minister in Mal Brough but may keep an accident-prone numbnuts in Andrew Laming. Great stuff……..
No Marcus, its worse than that. Brough gone and probabaly Dutton as well while useless hacks like Somlyay and Slipper remain in parliament and bible-bashing lunatics like the guy in Fadden get elected
Speaking of Slipper, wonder if Brough will challenge him for Fisher preselection next time around? That would be a win-win situation all round if Brough got up.
I bet $25 on Labor winning this seat, paying $7. Go $ !
I expect Young to get over the line,this is going to the wire.We’ll wait a long time for the result.Nervous times for all.
Was scutineering pre-poll yesterday
about 55-45 to Laming
Bye Bye Laming
Only 55 votes in it now.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-155.htm
Laming’s attracting around 55% of pre-poll votes and can expect around 50-50 on postals
This should get him over the line
It looks to me like Laming will get home.
I do not get the analysis, how does Labor get a lead when the postal/prepolls and absentees favors Liberal last election?
William’s analysis is wrong
My analysis is not wrong. The booths have swung 9.2 per cent. The pre-polls (so far) have swung 9.4 per cent. The margin was 8.9 per cent. If all the remaining votes continue to swing around 9.3 cent (e.g. Labor gets 53.5 per cent of absent votes compared with 44.2 per cent last time), which they may or may not do, Labor will win by 0.4 per cent.
The latest update on AEC has Laming in front by 27
ok I understand your analysis, I am not sure I agree with it, but it makes sense, Laming is useless anyway
Okay, I was a little bit wrong: an error in my redistribution adjustment was adding an extra 0.14 to the Labor booth swing.
Laming will be (and always has been) a lame duck. I could not have less respect for a politician. Anyway labor has far more postal votes to be counted than Laming so my money is on Young. And at least he’s an honest and sincere sort of guy. Who wants their local politician to be in opposition? Laming never did anything before, except be rude to people with problems, so he’d get less done now.
When are all results finalized?
If Young has 300 more postal voters that his workers have visited than Laming it makes sense to me Young will catch up and will have an overall win. Thank you God. For people in Bowman it’s as needed as getting rid of Howard.
the analysis is right – if the swing to Young is consistent (as it appears to be going) then Young will sneak in. Laming did extraordinarily well on pre-poll last time but 9% will get Young over the line. Also there were over 3000 Absent votes last time and if they follow the swing (which you would have to assume) that supports Young.
bye bye Laming
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-13745-155.htm
Young has pulled ahead. The pre-poll votes split 1923-1647 in his favour.
Wait, mistake on my part. That should read 856-808 postal votes in Young’s favour.
two party preferred has Young 21 ahead. the swing on these first postals is 10% backing up the earlier analysis and making my bet on Jason when he was at $1.95 looking pretty good!!!!
bye bye Laming (I love saying that)
The member for denim is on the ropes.
Latest figures has Young 60 in front.
It says he won the postals 1853 – 1766. That is a great result for a challenger.
Kick it home son. Kick it home !!
If Labor wins here – I get muchas plata.
So I hope my statement @11 will be proved wrong.
Now we’re in the home straights looking towards the finish line. My money has to be on Jason Young. And lame Laming claims to be down in Canberra choosing a new leader, who isn’t going to be his! Yet another wrong choice! Hope Turnbull asks for a recount.
the member for distressed denim couldn’t comment to the local paper because he was in canberra – I didn’t know mobile coverage was that bad, nor that no land lines existed that could connect him with far-off Cleveland!!!
I shall say it again
BYE BEY BYE BYE LAMING
I think jason young will eventually win bowman as for laming he is a lectch and a grandstander good for nothing who was all spin, and over ambitious good riddance
Young is pulling ahead – i think he’s got it. That would mean (Yet another potentially defamatory comment deleted – PB) Vasta, Hardgrave and Laming have all got the chop and good riddance. Im in the Bonner electorate and was at Mass on Sunday sitting just behind Ross Vasta’s brother and his family when Senator John Hogg brought the collection plate around – he was wearing a red t-shirt with a yellow happy face on it and the words “Im Happy” – he went straight to the Vastas stuck the plate under their noses and said “My kids gave me this and I definitely am happy!” All of the aisle broke into laughter even the Vastas.
When jason young gets over the line what will laming do????
1. Run For Mayor???
2. Go back to Medicine SNIP: Defamatory statement deleted – PB
3. SNIP: Another defamatory statement deleted. Please watch your tongue, Thorny Mick – PB
4.call for recount and then if unsucessfull off for a court challenge?
if could get a bet on id pick all 4
Jason Young, the ALP candidate has pulled ahead by 116 votes. I hope he pulls through. Potentially defamatory comment deleted – PB.
Perhaps Laming could go back to his old job! Now was that sweeping mines in Afghanistan or performing abortions in London? Lovely choice.
AEC update, Dec 3 11:33 am
Young (Labor) now leading by 163 (up by 47 from 116).
This increase from counting of another 1105 absent votes which split 576:529 to Young.
William,
Commen 32 goes very close to being libelous….
As does comment 30
Not sure what you mean about comment 30, Shane-o. While I have you, allow me to rub your nose into comment 13.
Oh, I see now. Acceptable political rhetoric in my view, but I’ve removed the offending word just in case.
The trend continues in Jasons favour, and the booth recounts have no impact
My prediction on Sunday night was Labor by 58 votes, based on extrapolation of 2004 voter turnout in the various categories. the higher enrolment numbers (and subsequent voter turnout) warrants a re-assessment and I now say Young by 150.
BYE BYE LAMING BYE BYE 9whistled)
Yes, yes, I consider my nose thoroughly rubbed 😉
Thanks for removing those comments.
Young by less than 50
yes the people of Bowman must be proud to have removed a well educated articulate member who spent his spare[holiday]time doing humanitarian work overseas for a planted E.T.U. official who was very noticable by his lack of campaigning on his own right and thoughts[if he ever had any]
To suave re comment 33. At least his productivity at hospitals was more useful than merely changing light bulbs.
According to the AEC site after the update Dec 4 12:21 (AEDT), there are 991 more absent votes, 2539 more pre-poll votes and 1130 more postal votes left to count.
Projecting the tallies based on the current splits, this will give Laming a net gain of 133 votes. The large number of pre-polls is where Laming gains.
Young is currently ahead by 154 votes. So this could go very close.
Left out of this analysis are the two unknowns of 1) the 1049 provisionals (not able to project how they will split) and 2) possible further rejections of votes by scrutiny.
i think Callum is spot on. my updated prediction (at comment 39) was based on the assumption that all pre-polls had been counted. As pre-polls is the only area laming has led, callums prediction looks on the money and my original prediction of Young by 58 votes looks on the mark too.
As for Noodles and their cutting retorts – call the ambulance my sides are splitting.
idiot
Redlands Rod said: “idiot”
Now now Rod, name calling will get you nowhere.
What’s interesting though is Young’s claim on his website.
“I am a member of the Queensland Government’s Workplace Health and Safety Manufacturing Industry Sector Standing Committee.” – http://www.bowmanlabor.com
My research say that, yes, he is a current member of that committee.
So, wouldn’t this be an office for profit under the crown?
Interesting….
I am very sorry if i have caused Redlands Rod to have an anatomical explosion.
But Shane-O brings up a very interesting point indeed re A.E.C. regulations.
It is interesting, yes – I would assume it is an honorary position and not subject to any remuneration and therefore not an office for profit under the crown. i would also assume that some-one in the Liberal Party, noodles, would have checked well before now and in fact Young would have been named along with the others in the last week of the election by Malcolm Turnball – don’t you??
I suppose the Libs would have raised this as an issue already….
Unless they were keeping it as a trick up their sleeve?
Ah Rod, my favourite Redlander….wrong again.
Under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, Division 7, Section 64, members of this committee are entitled to be paid the remuneration and allowances fixed by the Minister. The WHS Act 1995 makes no provision for automatic resignation of the position if the member nominates for state or federal parliament.
Mr Young didn’t resign did he?
Can anybody say by-election?