NOTE: I’m reposting this in the hope the thread in the hope it might be used specifically for commenting on the results. More general discussion can be directed to the other threads.
EXPLANATORY NOTE: Assuming no late-count surprises (which do happen), Labor needs to win four out of these five to be in a position to form a majority if John Bowler and Carol Adams support them. Morley might be a wild card, as it is probable that absent, pre-poll and postal preferences are behaving differently to the booth votes.
|
PUBLISHED
|
LATEST
|
||||||
| ALP | LIB | Total | ALP | LIB | Total | ||
| Riverton | 8002 | 8034 | 16036 | 9247 | 9297 | 18544 | |
| Wanneroo | 7299 | 7293 | 14592 | 10044* | 10170* | 20214 | |
| Albany | 8182 | 8065 | 16247 | 9169 | 9096 | 18265 | |
| Forrestfield | 8177 | 7935 | 16112 | 9307 | 9192 | 18499 | |
| Collie-Preston | 8299 | 7883 | 16182 | 9499* | 9120* | 18619 | |
| * Projected vote used as two-party count progress is significantly behind primary count | |||||||
Tuesday 11pm. The West Australian provides “how the parties are tallying the votes” figures from both parties. Shtuwang’s figures are the Labor ones: the Liberals think themselves 99 rather than 73 behind in Albany, 112 rather than 115 behind in Forrestfield, 29 rather than 50 ahead in Riverton and 89 rather than 93 ahead in Wanneroo. Liberals only 20 votes behind in Alfred Cove.
Tuesday 6.30pm. More count updates from Shtuwang included in the table above (the ones without asterisks). The Liberal lead in Morley has narrowed from 523 to 396 since the close of count on Saturday.
Tuesday 5pm. Shtuwang in comments says Labor leads by 151 (8673 to 8522) in Forrestfield, although this doesn’t account for the 18,444 primary votes in the count.
Tuesday 4pm. The trend seems to be running to Labor in Riverton and to Liberal elsewhere, although progress is painfully slow. Labor has had a very bad batch of 285 votes in Forrestfield go 134 Liberal and 77 Labor on the primary vote – I have their lead at 186, but apparently it’s narrower than that. The addition of 246 votes in Riverton gives McRae 116 primary votes against 90 for Nahan. My preference calculation gives Labor a slight lead, but my sources tell me they are in fact 50 votes behind. Only 156 votes added in Albany, producing essentially no change. 277 votes in Wanneroo include 134 Liberal and 99 Labor: Liberal candidate Paul Miles all but claimed victory today. Labor leads by 379 in Collie-Preston. For some reason a lot of seats have reset their absent counts to zero and started again: where applicable I am using the older figures. I am told rechecking of ballot booth votes will not be conducted until the weekend, whereas it is normally the first order of business.
Tuesday 2am. The West Australian reports a “notional two-party preferred count (which the WAEC apparently isn’t providing us with) shows Labor 57 votes behind in Wanneroo, 111 ahead in Albany, 165 ahead in Forrestfield and literally dead level in Riverton.
Monday 11pm. I’ve changed my way of doing this, so the results have been knocked about a little. To clarify: the columns on the left show the notional two-party counts from the close of election night, which disappointingly will not be further updated by the WAEC. The columns on the right convert the latest figures using the preference ratios from the notional count, notwithstanding that these might not be entirely accurate. Changes in Riverton since election night: Labor down 0.11 per cent to 40.18 per cent; Liberal down 0.19 per cent to 41.53 per cent; Greens up 0.21 per cent to 10.24 per cent.
Monday 4.30pm. 807 new votes in Wanneroo break almost exactly evenly; 619 votes in Collie-Preston narrow the margin by about 35 votes.
1.30pm Monday. New primary votes added (table above not updated). In Riverton, 603 votes likely to split 312-291 to Labor. In Wanneroo, 837 votes to split about 460-413 to Liberal; in Albany, 337 votes to split 177-160 to Liberal; in Forrestfield, 391 votes to split 208-183 to Liberal.
3pm Sunday. This post will be used to follow developments in the late count. Labor can still form a minority government if it wins four out of the above five seats, remembering that in 2005 they generally did about 2 per cent worse on absent and postal votes than on booth votes. Going on the 2005 result we could expect each to seat to have about 400 postal and 2000 absent votes outstanding, although I hear there was an unusually high number of absent votes due to confusion over the new boundaries.
I can feel a Court of Disputed Returns coming on…
Labor should reject Mr Grylls. Let the Libs form a coalition with him. Doing so would provide them with the ability to be reelected.
The economy is turning downwards and governing in this climate is going to be difficult and it is possible the electorate may punish labor heavily next time as a result. The upper house will also be a nuisance if they govern so i believe they should let the libs form a alliance.
If Australia needed more evidence that the electoral system is in dire need of reform, they got it on Saturday.
Back on topic – I’m putting my money on a Labor/Nat alliance putting them just on or over 30 seats, so they can tell that idiot Independent who wanted the Police Ministry to stuff herself.
152 And what sort of a brilliant effort is four seats anyway? It only means anything because of the inability of the others to govern in their own right, but really four seats out of 59 is not that outstanding of itself.
John Bowler won Kalgoorlie largely because he discovered independence and “royalties for regions” which he previously bagged as a Labor Minister.
The disturbing thing about Bowler’s success is the influence Graeme Campbell has over him (heaps) plus Julian Grill.
Let Bowler comment on this forum that he is free from either G Campbell (right wing nutter) or J Grill pulling his strings.
Ummm, isn’t this all over now that Barnett has agreed to Regional Rorts?
WEST Australian Opposition Leader Colin Barnett says he now supports the Nationals’ “royalties for regions” plan as a condition of an agreement to help the Liberals form a minority government.
Colin Barnett backs Nationals’ regional plan
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24312594-601,00.html
Let the Libs make the necessary savings to ensure Grylls is satisfied. Labor needs some time for reflection, to think over their policies and their relationships with people. The corruption report is coming and this will create more probs for labor so it would be best i think to let the libs have it and watch people like Barnett and his pathetic treasurer fight over the positions of power.
As i said the upper house will be like the Senate, a destuctive nuisance.
re post 155
so much for principle !!!
Exactly marky marky, it would be a Pyrrhic victory if Labor “won” under such conditions.
Colin Barnett- WA’s NEW PREMIER
re post 148
labor has won Albany (I think)
most of the rest is right
but I would be very uncertain of Riverton and
Forrestfield
so ALP 28 plus 2 is still possible… but probably unlikely
Oz # 153, the electoral system was “reformed” apparently under McGinty’s One Vote One Value!
Sue Walker lost her own seat! She deserves it for turning her back on the Liberal Party and becoming an Independent. I am enjoying this!
Colin Barnett- WA’s NEW PREMIER
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch, or those words will come back and haunt you 🙂
She was trying to have a cat fight with Julie Bishop as well in the election coverage and Kerry O’Brien had to break it up!
Or perhaps Gryll’s “joint premiers” is possible? 😉
On the 7.30 report Alan Carpenter looked like a man who reckons he might stay as premier. I didn’t know he had spoken to Grylls several months ago about the possibility of the ALP & the Nats forming a loose coalition. Obviously they get on very well personally and at the time the idea was not discounted out of hand by either of them. This is not insignifcant.
I also wasn’t aware of the bad blood between Grylls & Barnett, not helped by the Libs spurning a preference deal with the Nats. How dumb is Barnett, effectively showing contempt for the Nats before the election. It has ever been thus and the Nats usually just cop it. Grylls won’t. Clearly, on a persoanl lebel, Grylls likes Carpenter and dislikes Barnett. This is also not insignificant.
If Grylls had his way I reckon he’d go with Carpenter, but he has to convince the other 3 National MPs. He clearly intimated this in the interview with Kerry O’Brien tonight. It could be a tough ask.
The real sleeper in predicting what may happen in WA is the result in Lyne. Bananaby Joyce is right, unless the Nats go it alone and rebrand themselves then they’re doomed. Going with the ALP would be gutsy and daring, but it would certainly rebrand them. Especially if the money started flowing in Nat seats.
Is Grylls talking to Joyce? If so he might spring a surprise. Grylls is of Joyce’s generation and not Warren Truss’. Old ideological boundaries might yet be replaced with political pragmatism.
Sceptic, live up to your name, Barnaby Joyce has just been baptised as a born again Pineapple Party member and he is expecting us to believe that he wants the Nationals to become a separate party from the Liberals? Some things are just unbelievable and too silly for words.
Joyce visited the Goldfields to support Grylls. They are very close.
Liberal MP Barry Haase famously described Barnaby Joyce as “Barnaby Joke”.
Thought it was stupid of Stephen Smith to call the election for the Libs on Sat night, with so many seats in doubt. Reminded me of the US networks and how they want to be the first to call it. See that he has changed his tune today. Should have shut up in the first place
Give him a break Andrew, it was his assessment, not his desire!
Andrew @ 170
To be honest, I can’t really blame him. I mean, everyone was just stunned at how much of the vote was going against Labor at the time, and with the results that were trickling in, I can see why Smith would have called it for the Libs.
It’s only been in the last 36 hours that more information has come to light and that it’s much closer than *anyone* thought possible (to the point of the Nationals now potentially holding the fate of the majors in their hands).
I keep saying it, but interesting times ahead for everyone, me thinks!
One thing surprised me about Grylls and that is his intelligence. He seems to have more intelligence than a host of New South Wales Labor Mp’s. He also has principles and respect for the people who elected him. This is contrary to many Labor Mp’s these days who go and privatise and stick it to the working classes when they get elected. He is no Hansen, Truss, Sinclair and Vaile.
There are just as many assessments of various kinds being made here and they won’t all be right.
those who keep saying labor will win albany… can i ask why…
they led by only 117 on the notional 2pp…
and the primaries are trending against them
Joyce at least did not vote for the media laws to change and the student services funding in Universities to be axed it is done by a pollie who got in with Labor preferences.
From memory, Smith always said the ‘balance of probabilites’ favours a Liberal government.
And that’s still the case. Even if North West moving back into the Labor column makes the prospects of a third term slightly rosier.
andrew @170
Smith might’ve believed the ABC headlines at 11.30pm Saturday night
‘Labor loses power in nail-biting WA vote’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/06/2357436.htm?section=justin
Diogenes link at 156 makes a couple of interesting points too. Grylls said he will make a decision on Sunday most probably about who the Nats would support. He also said:
[he was aware of reports Labor could possibly win 28 seats and govern with the help of two independents.
“Maybe all this focus on the Nationals may amount to nothing in the end,” he said.]
As I predicted, Barnett has accepted the Royalties for Regions proposal. I’m convinced there is sufficient funding for it anyway, unless the budget papers are fabricating the $2 billion surplus.
That aside, it is really quite irritating that the Nationals cannot make up their goddamn minds on whether they wish to be in coalition with the Liberals. Every state varies and often they sever and rebuild ties every few years. Stupid. A merger must surely be the most logical solution.
This election has basically resulted in an absolute mess. Neither major party will be able to govern effectively with so many crossbenchers.
No 156
It is hardly a “rort” to seek more funding for regional areas. Western Australia is not solely made up of Perth.
Goldfielder #169.
Spot on. Joyce helped Grylls with his campaigning. Observing Grylls’ demeanour towards the Libs it certainly has the trademark of Barnaby Joyce’s attitude. I have no doubt the two are talking about what is happening now and the pros and cons of supporting either side.
Joyce is banging on about the Nats breaking from coalition with the Libs, along with severing other connections the two parties have. Clearly this attitude is causing Grylls to consider his position, you can see it in his demeanour. He’s not keen in joining forces with the Libs at all.
For me the revealing comment was made by Barnett today. The decision to reject the Nats cut of Roylaties for Regions is not good policy but the election result changes everything. This is obvious, but Barnett didn’t finesse his words and I thought he might have. Admirable in its honesty but not particularly diplomatic.
The problem Grylls probably has is that his fellow Nat MPs probably dislike the ALP intensely and the thought of going into coalition with them is unpalatable. But it is not certain that the unthinkable won’t happen. I’m keeping an open mind.
No 183
The question is how do you explain to your base (which typically expects a notional coalition with the Liberal Party) that you are joining forces with Labor? It is absurd and unsustainable. If Grylls coalesces with Corpse, the Nats will be on the verge of oblivion at the next election.
“I’m keeping an open mind.”
Sceptic that’s not your unmatched bet on the Liberals at Betfair is it?
“the Nats will be on the verge of oblivion at the next election.”
GP, so where’s the problem?
No 184
On the other hand how can the Nats keep their credibility when the Liberal leader derided their main economic policy (Royalties for Regions) as a stunt. That was totally contemptuous.
The Nats branded themselves as being “independent”. If they join with the Libs they reinforce their image of being the poor relation of the Liberal party. No rebranding there.
I take your point about the Nats antagonising their base. But there is a flip argument as well. I reckon it will be fascinating to see what happens.
I have read all the comments with interest since the WA election. I’ve only been oin that state for a total of three days in my life, so am hardly qualified to reach political conclusions.
But a few thoughts…
If the Nats DON’T go into a power-sharing arrangement with Labor, and Labor does a deal with independents, then the Nats have blown their best chance ever in WA, and will shrink back into irrelevance. I think Grylls understands that, and, while much of his party may be philosophically inclined towards the Libs, he knows that a deal with the Libs may still not get influence for the Nats, until there’s further successful wheeling/dealing between the Libs and independents. My gut eeling is that the Nats will go with Labor if it guarantees stable government and the fulfilment of the Nats wish list.
The role of Karlene Maywald should not be underestimated. Grylls regards her as a hero, and is talking to her daily. I suspect she’s advising him to go with Labor – the SA experience shows Nats can get a fair bit of what they want by offering Labor a minority but stable government.
How good a dealmaker is Barnett? After all, he wanted to retire at this election. I doubt he would have thought through post-election scenarios in the same depth as Carpenter, who has revealed he had a chat to Grylls some months ago.
As others have pointed out, Carpenter can go into negotiations with the independents and the Nats arguing that Labor has won more seats than the libs, thus there’s a bit of a moral argument that they should back a Labor Government if both major parties agree to their wish lists.
On the other hand, what ELSE do the Nats want, apart from the regional slush fund? They certainly support uranium mining – could this issue persuade them to go with the Libs? Or could Carpenter about-face on uranium mining in order to grovel to the Nats?
And another point – could Lib/Nats actually provide the strongest, most stable government, because they could command a majority in BOTH houses (is that right? I dunno anything about the WA Upper House, but I read that it’s heading for a conservative majority)?
All very interesting.
Steve #185
I punt on the horses and not the polls. I’m not a complete mug.
“the Nats will be on the verge of oblivion at the next election.”
Only if they don’t deliver their promises. If the Nats join with Labor, many voters may be initially disgruntled, If however the rural areas do receive an increase in funding and infastructure the party will be, if anything, even stronger.
At the moment I expect the Nats are trying to decide which party will provide more funding or are willing to contribute towards more of their projects.
Whichever party that is, Liberal or Labor, will be the one to receive the Nats backing.
Sceptic but that bet sitting there is a bet against the Liberals forming government. For just over sixty dollars if you match the $19 Lib punter, you would win just over forty if the Libs lose and I thought that is the way you were leaning.
William, new Newspoll out.
No 187
The fact that it was labelled a stunt is irrelevant in the current circumstances given that Barnett has indicated he now fully supports the proposal. This is also compounded by Corpse’s acceptance of the proposal.
Moreover, whilst the Nats may have attempted to brand themselves as independent, it isn’t a particularly tenable position when you consider that the National Party has been in coalition with the Liberal Party for decades (leaving aside their short stint alone in the late 1980s). In other words, the public almost expects there to be a coalition with the Liberals: it thus makes no sense to coalesce with Labor.
In any event, if the main aim is to secure Royalties for Regions, Barnett has accepted and thus the Nats should simply stop the cynical game and get the Libs into Government. Surely the spectre of Brian Burke should be enough to avoid Labor.
In No 193 I was referring to federal politics in my second paragraph.
No 190
Zach, if Grylls wants the Nationals to be more than just a party which sells its soul to the highest bidder, it rightfully should join with the Liberals.
[Zach, if Grylls wants the Nationals to be more than just a party which sells its soul to the highest bidder, it rightfully should join with the Liberals.]
Do you mean merge?
Rod Cameron on Lateline says the ALP is 50/50 to form a minority government with 28 seats plus 2 independents. Personally I think that’s a little optimistic.
Compelling argument, GP, if you were trying to convince the Barnett crew, and yourselves. Unfortunately, I, like a number of other folk think the game has changed. The wee Nat. looks O.K. and like someone you could deal with really, and Carpenter looks like someone who’s prepared to deal honestly.
No 196
In this situation, the best approach is to have a simple alliance if not a fully fledged coalition. So long as Barnett forms government, that’s all that should matter at this point.
Going forward, the Liberals and Nationals should be merging Australia wide, as in Queensland.
Gotta love it 🙂
“It’s absolutely disgraceful, Warren Truss wondering out loud if we should consider the WA model. Most of our problems in opposition come from our friends in the Nationals. I suspect he will soon recant,” one senior Liberal said.
That’ll sure help convince National voters to stick with the Libs…