Sunday
While Terri Butler’s 2.3% buffer at the end of the night is enough to secure her victory, Bill Glasson can at least claim the uncommon feat of delivering a by-election swing to the party in government. The current margin represents a 0.7% two-party swing to the Liberal National Party compared with the September election result, which is likely to widen a little further on postals.
Commentators around the place have been scrambling to place the result into historical context, mostly with reference to the long record of federal by-elections. A general paucity of swings to governments is easy to spot, but closer examination shows how much swings can vary according to the circumstances of the by-election, and how unreliable a guide they can be to a government’s future electoral performance. The last pro-government swing federally was achieved when Carmen Lawrence moved from state to federal politics in Fremantle in 1994, and it was followed by a shellacking for the Keating government at the next general election two years later. The most recent state example I can think of is the Peel by-election in Western Australia in February 2007, when Alan Carpenter’s Labor government boosted its margin 18 months before being dumped from office.
Given the array of circumstances that can bring by-elections about, an effort should be made to compare like with like. Griffith is part of a long tradition of by-elections held when a member of a defeated government decides opposition isn’t for them. Unfortunately, those involved tend to be senior figures representing safe seats which the opposing party doesn’t bother to contest. During its first term, Rudd Labor only took the field when Peter McGauran departed in the seemingly winnable seat of Gippsland, only to cop a bloody nose for its trouble. Few were surprised Labor stayed out of the fray in Higgins (Peter Costello), Bradfield (Brendan Nelson), Mayo (Alexander Downer) and Lyne (Mark Vaile). Labor likewise went undisturbed during John Howard’s first term at by-elections to replace Paul Keating in Blaxland and John Langmore in Fraser.
The one by-election held during the parliament elected in December 1975 was occasioned by the death of Rex Connor, with the remainder of Labor’s diminished caucus staying put. It was a different story early in the life of the Hawke government, as Malcolm Fraser (Wannon), Doug Anthony (Richmond), Billy Snedden (Bruce), Jim Killen (Moreton) and Tony Street (Corangamite) headed for the exit at a time when forfeiting a by-election was still thought poor form. The last useable example in anything resembling modern history is the Parramatta by-election of 1973, which brought Philip Ruddock to parliament.
From this field of seven, the only result to match Griffith is Richmond in 1984, when Labor picked up a slight swing upon the retirement of Doug Anthony. No doubt this reflected an unlocking of the loyalty accumulating to brand Anthony, which between father Larry and son Doug had occupied the seat for an unbroken 46 years. Even so, the other Hawke government by-elections weren’t far behind, with the exception of Bruce where voters seemed to take a shine to Liberal candidate Kenneth Aldred for some reason. Coincidentally or otherwise, the two worst swings, in Gippsland (a 6.1% swing against Rudd Labor in 2008) and Parramatta (a 7.0% swing against Whitlam Labor in 1973) were suffered by the two shortest-lived governments of the modern era.
However, Griffith looks quite a bit less exceptional if the eight state results I can identify going back to the early 1990s are thrown into the mix. Four swings in particular dwarf those in Griffith, the two biggest being at by-elections held in country seats in New South Wales on May 25, 1996. Results in Clarence and Orange provided a fillip to Bob Carr’s year-old Labor government and a severe blow to the Nationals, perhaps reflecting the party’s recent acquiescence to the Howard government’s post-Port Arthur gun laws. On the very same day, Labor had an historically mediocre result against the Liberals in the Sydney seat of Strathfield, and finished third behind the Democrats in the Liberal stronghold of Pittwater.
The third and fourth placed results are from early in the life of the Bracks government in Victoria, when Labor pulled off rare victories in Jeff Kennett’s seat of Burwood in 1999 and Nationals leader Pat McNamara’s seat of Benalla in 2000. Also higher up the order than Griffith is the Elizabeth by-election of 1994, held four months after Dean Brown’s Liberal government came to power in South Australia. This may have indicated the popularity of outgoing member Martyn Evans, soon to be Labor’s federal member for Bonython, who had been designated as “independent Labor” for most of his ten years as a state member. Rob Borbidge’s Queensland government of 1996 to 1998 did less well, with the looming Liberal collapse in that state foreshadowed by swings to Labor in the Brisbane seats of Lytton and Kurwongbah.
All of this is laid out in the chart above, which ranks swings to the government (positive at the top, negative at the bottom) from the eight federal and eight state by-elections just discussed. Red and blue respectively indicate Labor and Coalition governments, the lighter shades representing state and the darker representing federal. Stats enthusiasts may care to know that the model y=10+44.3x explains 38% of the variability, where y is the government’s eventual longevity in office measured in years and x is the swing to the government across 15 observed by-elections. For what very little it may be worth, the positive 0.5% swing in Griffith associates with 10.3 years in government.
Saturday
| # | % | Swing | 2PP (proj.) | Swing | |
| Timothy Lawrence (SPP) | 570 | 0.8% | +0.7% | ||
| Geoff Ebbs (Greens) | 6,890 | 10.2% | +0.3% | ||
| Christopher Williams (FFP) | 651 | 1.0% | +0.3% | ||
| Karel Boele (IND) | 458 | 0.7% | |||
| Anthony Ackroyd (BTA) | 526 | 0.8% | |||
| Anne Reid (SPA) | 379 | 0.6% | +0.1% | ||
| Terri Butler (Labor) | 26,356 | 39.0% | -1.6% | 52.5% | -0.5% |
| Melanie Thomas (PPA) | 1,051 | 1.6% | |||
| Travis Windsor (Independent) | 585 | 0.9% | |||
| Ron Sawyer (KAP) | 694 | 1.0% | +0.4% | ||
| Bill Glasson (Liberal National) | 29,456 | 43.6% | +0.9% | 47.5% | +0.5% |
| FORMAL/TURNOUT | 67,616 | 71.2% | |||
| Informal | 2,093 | 3.0% | -1.8% | ||
| Booths reporting: | 42 out of 42 | ||||
Midnight. Finally got around to adding the Coorparoo pre-poll voting centre result.
9.22pm. Or perhaps not – Coorparoo pre-poll voting centre still to report, which is likely to amount for a lot – 5859 votes cast there at the federal election.
8.51pm. Morningside 2PP now in, and I’d say that’s us done for the night.
8.36pm. Camp Hill reports 2PP, leaving just Morningside. Glasson and LNP reportedly not conceding, but 2.4% leads (which accounts for the fact that the LNP is likely to do better on postals – Labor’s raw lead is 3.3%) don’t get overturned on late counting.
8.29pm. That’s all the fixed booths in on the primary vote; the outstanding ones referred to in the table are special hospital booths that may not actually exist (but did in 2013). Camp Hill and Morningside still to come in on two-party, and then I think we’re done for the night. It’s been a pretty quick count.
8.03pm. Two more booths a slight move to the LNP.
8.00pm. Four more booths in and a slight tick in Labor’s favour on the swing projection.
7.53pm. One more primary result and a number more on two-party preferred, it remains unclear who will end up with bragging rights to the negligible swing. What is clear though is that Terri Butler is over the line.
7.45pm. Thirty-two of 43 booths reporting, and the picture of a status quo result is unchanged.
7.36pm. A big rush of results that taxed my data entry chops to the limit has produced very little change to the projection, which essentially looks like no swing at all.
7.26pm. Coorparoo Central was a tricky one from a booth-matching perspective, as it’s a “merger” of two booths from the 2013 election.
7.25pm. Coorparoo Central, Greenslopes, Morningside South and West End in on the primary; Buranda West and Norman Park South on two-party. Upshot: a bit more breathing space for Terri Butler, who will be difficult to pull in from here.
7.19pm. The informal vote seems to be down pretty solidly.
7.18pm. I note that none of the booths from the electorate’s north-western latte belt have reported yet.
7.15pm. Bulimba, Carina Heights, Greenmeadows and Norman Park find Labor still with its nose in front, despite a slight swing against. Annerley has also reported a two-party result, so I’ve switched on preference projections based on the booths that have reported so far. This finds Labor’s share of preferences up 6% on 2013.
7.12pm. Annerley, Bulimba Heights and Norman Park South booth results provide better news for Labor, with Butler now pulling into a projected lead. However, I’m still going off 2013 preferences here, as only two very small booths have reported two-party results.
7.03pm. Holland Park and Buranda West are in, and also Murarrie on two-party, and the swing to the LNP is sticking, as is the extremely close projected result.
6.53pm. Another small booth on the fringe of the electorate – Mount Gravatt East in the south-east – and it’s another bad result for Labor, down almost double digits on the primary vote. I’ve switched off the preference swing calculation for now, so the two-party is going off 2013 preference flows.
6.50pm. The preference result is in from Holland Park West, and Labor has 7.2% more preferences than it got in 2013 – but we’re only going off 14 votes here. Nonetheless, my model is extrapolating off it to project the result for the other booth, causing Labor to go up about 1%. Bottom line: hold off reading anything into anything yet.l
6.42pm. Both booths are on the very fringes of the electorate: Holland Park West in the south and Murarrie in the east. The dynamic nearer the city may well be very different. I’ll stop getting a “#VALUE!” result on the Stable Population Party when I get a result from a booth where their vote in 2013 wasn’t zero.
6.38pm. Two very small booths on the primary vote provide a measure of encouragement for Bill Glasson, suggesting a very close result if 2013 preferences are any guide.
6.30pm. There have apparently been 2090 ballots cast at the Whites Hill booth, which compared with the 2083 cast at the election suggests a pretty healthy turnout.
6pm. Welcome to the Poll Bludger’s live coverage of the Griffith by-election. With polls closing round about now, first results should be in in maybe about an hour, although this can be a bit variable. Results in the table will show raw figures for the primary vote and booth-matched swings for both primary and two-party vote, together with a projected two-party total based on the booth-matching. Where available, the latter will be based on booth two-party results; at booths where only primary vote totals have been reported, two-party projections will be derived from 2013 preference flows taken together with the “swing” in preferences recorded across booths where two-party results have been reported. I’ll be copping my results off the ABC Elections page, as the AEC annoyingly does not publish booth results as they are reported (or at least, never has in the past). So those without a minute to lose should note that my table updates will lag about that far behind the ABC.
Good to have a win but it still feels like a bit of a let down. I’m just a bit apprehensive about the Newspoll result now. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a national swing back to the Libs – nothing major but enough to take a bit of the shine off.
BTW Apart from our mate David where are all the tories tonight?
ABC Swing to prediction gap narrowing. Now shows ALP +1.5% Swing and a prediction of +0.6 to the LNP.
Previously the ABC web site was reporting prediction swing of +4.7 to the LNP and a +2.4 matched Booth swing to the ALP
Clearly the ABC prediction model is flawed. Sure it will eventually tally.
Antony Green should publish the analysis methodology used his calculations.
Ah, nice to see the Gillardistas are still in full swing… Some things never change.
I have no idea how much of his own money Glasson tipped in this time although I’m confident that what is meant by “Tony Abbott personally convinced the candidate to stand again” is that the LNP paid for most of it. I’d guess they outspent us 2 to 1.
I think there was a substantial “if we vote for Abbott all this fucking noise will stop” vote at the last election. Those people would not be pleased with what they saw as Labor raising a ruckus again.
I understand there was a low turnout, perhaps results would tend to be skewed slightly from normal.
Having said that I don’t understand how anyone would vote for a party headed by Abbott & I’m not looking forward to the MSM “analysis”.
Jackol 140
What you say makes a lot of sense.
I’d add that an extremely high profile LNP candidate (Glasson) from the 2013 election was seen to have been the runner up by only a small margin. This time I’d suggest he got quite a sympathy vote from those who voted Rudd but weren’t long-term ALP voters.
The closeness may be a blessing. Abbott et. al. remain cocky about “how well they’re traveling” and continue to degrade their national standing.
If it leads them to think a DD would be a winner for them – even better for the ALP.
Gary I agree. I said at the time Rudd resigned that Glasson would win. I didn’t count on Abbott being even worse that I expected.
For most ophthalmologists $250k would be considered “mad money”. Don’t feel too sorry for Glasson.
I put any swing Glasson may get down to the fact that he removed ScAbbott from his election material this time.
[How did you arrive at that?]
Well, doesn’t the result speak for itself? Honestly, it’s not as bad as I was expecting, given that Glasson has spent the better part of 2 years campaigning in that electorate.
WOW!
Given:
1. Griffith is a seat the ALP has held since 1977 except for the one election in 1996 on the back of the massive Howard win (then lost again in 98 onwards!), and
2. No government has woin back a seat from the opposition in about a century and
3. The average swing against a 1st term government in a by-election is 1.7%
….a swing to Glasson to be within 3% is a seriously good result!
So much for this wildly unpopular Federal and State government schtick, eh? :devil:
Still seeing reports Brandis refusing to concede. Poor form.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a group of losers so delighted before.
Mod, Labor won.
Everything@161
On the other hand there is the loss of Rudd’s personal vote. But if it does turn out to be a swing to Glasson (however small) then I do take it to be raising just a little question-mark about the seriousness of Labor’s polling lead. What I’d be implying there is not that Labor is not in front, but that the intentions putting them there are weak.
Psephos,
[I’m trying to visualise a pirate called Melanie.]
Yes, it would be easier if she was called Mal-Annie.
Why should Brandis concede?
@Mod Lib I agree with Possum:
Possum Comitatus @Pollytics 1m
Delusional to the end
Everything
Love to see comments like yours. Your analysis will be exactly what the LNP cabel want to believe. They don’t need to do good government cause they’re soooo popular?!
They’ll get theirs when the time is right!
Good to see Abbott’s first test is a comprehensive loss.
Glasson had everything in his favour to turn history on its head.
Twitter having fun with Brandis.
He’s the AG. He shouldn’t be coming over as a genuine kook.
Message for Brandis: Goodnight Dick.
[
Retweeted by Possum Comitatus
Rik @Rik_Gardner 5m
Liberal HQ chanting “Bill! Bill! Bill!”.. Hard to know if they’re cheering Glasson or launching the new health policy #griffithvotes
]
[On the other hand there is the loss of Rudd’s personal vote.]
Isn’t that inherent in the 1.7% average for by-elections? I imagine most are Opposition members retiring after contemplating moving from government to Opposition and deciding that it is unbearable?
[
Everything
Posted Saturday, February 8, 2014 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
Why should Brandis concede?
]
Is it an on water matter?
[ausdavo
…..They’ll get theirs when the time is right!]
The time was right tonight, and the ALP fizzled.
Perhaps the populace is sick of Union operatives just slipping into seats?
Just what the Parliament needs, after all, yet another Union lawyer, eh? :devil:
Personal votes for leaders, and particularly PMs, is significantly more substantial than for your average MP.
Everything Mod, can I have some of whatever you are on?
Mod, Labor won the seat.
[
Retweeted by margo kingston
Bridget O’Flynn @BridgetOFlynn 10m
Brandis: We don’t know who the winner was tonight but the loser was Electricity Bill Shorten.
]
The Liberals really are a small minded lot.
@Mod Lib/176
Yet Possum said:
Possum Comitatus @Pollytics 42m
The LNP anti-union ads weren’t supposed to stop people from voting for the ex-union leader Bill Glasson (AMA)
What about the surge in the Bennelong vote after Howard was no longer the candidate?
I have serious doubts about the popularity of PMs like Howard and Rudd (or Gillard for that matter) causing a large swing to the other side when they leave……whosetoknowthoughehwhosetoknow…..
@Gary/179
Mod Lib whinging about a swing, like that’s good sportsmanship.
(not).
[Brandis: We don’t know who the winner was tonight but the loser was Electricity Bill Shorten.]
Brilliant comment Senator, brilliant!
This is not the political biorhythm time to be a union operative it seems….a good time for a massive, all encompassing union Royal Commission, I reckon. And bring it on!
The main loser in the by-electon is Antony Green and his flawed predictive model.
Labor wins the seat. There is a marginal swing to or from Labor which could be attributed to a Kevin Personal vote or the low turn-out
By the Antony Green prediction model is highly questionable. Antony Green needs to publish his algorithm used in his wild predictions and subject it to pier review
Everything
Don’t talk about union heavyweights please. Glasson was once head of one of Australia’s most powerful unions. That’s why he can afford to drop a six figure sum twice in six months on trying to get elected to parliament
176
Obviously a Union lawyer -No.
Union Leader – Yes. He represents one of those sections of the economy that has too many perks.
Well, from my perspective it’s great that Griffith has been retained.
Abbott declared the by-election result to be a referendum on the carbon ‘tax’, so I suppose the people have spoken on that front by returning a Labor candidate to the seat.
Winners are grinners 😀
Who won the pre-poll voting war in Griffith- does anybody know?
Good to see Mod Lib endorsing juvenile name calling behaviour from our senior government ministers.
confesssions
[Well, doesn’t the result speak for itself? ]
As I see it the bigger the swing to the LNP the greater the likely Rudd personal vote that has now disappeared and is now open to being persuaded to go the other way (ignoring other factors).
democracy@work might also be on the money that there was some reaction against Labor because Rudd didn’t serve the full term he said he would.
There are myriad factors involved but the parties of course spin it their way using the most simplistic arguments possible, like Brandis: Swings in by-elections go to oppositions, so this is a disaster for Labor.
@Jackol/191
Why not, Mod Lib does it on PB.
[Peter Brent @mumbletwits 26m
For Sen Brandis: I can think of 4 swings to fed govts at byelections. (Two of them followed by defeats.)]
Anyone???
[
Everything
…
The time was right tonight, and the ALP fizzled.
]
Delusional to the end
[David Speers @David_Speers 42s
Kevin Rudd has apparently joined the crowd at ALP Griffith function.]
Everything
That’s your opinion.
A former PM resigned after saying he’d stay full term. The voters don’t like it. The ALP did well (in my opinion).
Whilst not at a by-election, I well remember Howard (2007) being the first PM to be beaten since Bruce. The seat flew straight back to the LNP at the next election. PM’s are quite different to ordinary MP’s when it comes to voters changing their minds.
Fremantle
What percentage of the 3.28% conservative PUP vote was Glasson expected to receive?
Everything@167
Because whatever argument might be advanced that there is still technically a miniscule chance of victory the fact is there is no realistic chance. Conceding shows that you accept what is virtually certainly the reality and costs you nothing (even if you concede then later win somehow, the win still stands.) Not conceding when you have no realistic hope is just unsporting and silly. Especially from an incumbent government that just had a big election win and doesn’t need any more seats.