Taverner: 64-36 to Liberal in Ryde

Today’s Sun Herald brings us a poll of 500 respondents in Ryde, one of four New South Wales state seats which face a by-election next Saturday. It points to a 24 per cent two-party swing against Labor and an easy win for Liberal candidate Victor Dominello – a barely believable result in normal circumstances, but one that sounds entirely plausible in the current environment. The other Labor-held seats which go to the polls are Lakemba (margin 34.0 per cent, being vacated by Morris Iemma) and Cabramatta (29.2 per cent, vacated by Reba Meagher). The fourth seat is Port Macquarie, which is vacant as a result of independent Rob Oakeshott’s move to federal politics at last month’s Lyne by-election. This looms as a contest between Nationals candidate Leslie Williams and independent Peter Besseling. More on all this at some point in the next few days.

UPDATE: Crazy large overview of the Ryde by-election from Antony Green at ABC Elections.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

80 comments on “Taverner: 64-36 to Liberal in Ryde”

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2
  1. When the parties in NSW were 50:50, (after the 1995 election), the boundaries of Ryde indicated a 4% Liberal margin.

    Poor candidate selection and the general political tide worked against them with swings of 10% in 1999 and then another 10% in 2003. There was a correction in 2007, but like all the Marginal seats in Sydney, the ALP held back the tide. But there was a 10% swing across Liberal held seats away from the government.

    The nature of ALP key seats campaigns in 1999 and 2003 means that there are many over-inflated margins in the suburbs.

    The recent ALP strategy in NSW to say, sure we may be bad, but look at them, didn’t work where people already had Liberal representatives. I think the rot has set in enough now for it not to work more generally.

  2. As we are currently learning, our sovereignty is pretty fictional. If we are going to have a global market, and if we agree that markets need to be regulated, then it follows that we need a world regulatory body with coercive powers – which is a government.

  3. It is striking that Labor’s 1999 Sydney gains have seen major increases in Labor’s vote whilst nearby Liberal electorates have not: Miranda vs. Cronulla, Ryde vs. Eastwood. Is this evidence of a personal vote? This is what I mean by an inflated vote. The point is that if Labor is clobbered by a 20% swing in Ryde this does not mean that its 2PP vote at the 2010 election will fall by a similar margin. Ryde is the worst possible seat for Labor to face a by-election, Lakemba is probably the best. But Labor will lose and lose badly in 2010

  4. No 53

    Wrong. Co-ordinated efforts can be achieved through multilateral negotiations, as is occurring now. There is no need to institute a global government. As Thomas O’Neill once said: “all politics is local” – I doubt a global government could ever understand the needs of local people and entities.

  5. No 57

    You can dress it up however you like, but I will never in a million years support a supraterritorial government.

  6. Well, in defence of GP, the European parliament was a good idea until the voters temporarily got to say in non-binding referendum that they didn’t want it.

    I would be worried as an Australian about that sort of arrangement. 21 million doesn’t get many votes or voices in 6 plus billion.

    At least we can expect some sort of advantage of national leadership, and the inevitable competition between countries (like the competition for global capital currently happening).

    Not everything will be in the control of the Australian government (nor was it ever) but there do under the current system still exist levers to encourage people to invest here etc.

  7. [Well, in defence of GP, the European parliament was a good idea until the voters temporarily got to say in non-binding referendum that they didn’t want it.]

    Very good point. It is verging on the United States of Europe, which plainly is undesirable to average European people. Just look at the failure of the Lisbon Treaty.

  8. I think I just heard at the end of the ABC news something like “ALP expected to lose Ryde by-election in biggest upset ever”

    How can an expected result be an upset?

  9. Yeah it’s quite a swing, but he’s right, it’s not really an “upset” since everyone saw it coming from the second Watkin’s handed in his resignation.

    The fact that you’re calling it an “upset” a week out from the election automatically disqualifies it from actually being an upset.

  10. Yeah, the Libs haven’t had much to gloat about recently. Now their ideology is intellectually bankrupt on the world stage and the opportunism of their recent and current Federal leadership teams exposed as morally bankrupt, all they have to look forward to is to put themselves forward as potentially better local managers (and then only by default) of an even bigger public sector – welcome back to ‘Society’ brothers and sisters (by all acounts Maggie T’s not to know now anyway). So, for chrissake, let’em think it’s a massive rebuff/ upset, or whatever.

  11. No 66

    The Liberal ideology is not libertarian. After all, it was Peter Costello who introduced the prudential regulation that has proved to be visionary in its foresight.

  12. If anybody cares …

    Steve Annabelle @18
    State governments of their own volition abolished state income taxes

    … that is not correct …

    ruawake @20
    Only the Federal Govt. can levy income tax. The States thought they may be able to levy excises, but the High Court found this to be unconstitutional.

    … and that is not correct …

    Adam in Canberra @23
    The states voluntarily ceded their income tax powers to the Commonwealth in 1943.

    … and nor is that …

    Adam in Canberra @31
    #24 there was a premiers’ conference and all the premiers agreed to it.

    … or that.

    1. Income tax

    The States have, and always have had, the constitutional power to impose income taxes, and they did so up until World War 2. During World War 2 the Commonwealth wanted to take over sole control of income taxation. It did so not by the consent of the States, but by a legislative scheme which made it practically (although not theoretically) impossible for the States to impose income taxes. Four of the States challenged the legislation in the High Court, but lost. Later, in the 1950s, a second High Court challenge was brought by two States. This time the High Court ruled that part of the legislative scheme (which had in any case been changed by that point) was unconstitutional, but part was constitutional, and the practical result was that the State challenge failed. You can read all about it by looking up ‘First Uniform Tax Case’ and ‘Second Uniform Tax Case’.

    2. Excise taxes

    Nobody ever thought that the States could constitutionally impose excises. The Constitution explicitly prohibits this. The problem is that the Constitution does not define what counts as an excise. For decades the States ran schemes for franchise taxes on the theory that these did not count as excises. When a legal challenge was finally brought, the High Court ruled that the franchise taxes did count as excises and the States had to stop imposing them from then on.

  13. J-D
    well done
    I read somewhere that the original war cabinet decision was only temporary,but at wars end was lost in the swirl of new legislation and the subsequent 50’s case merely was a case of “sort it out among yourselves”.
    Is this correct?

  14. Gusface

    The wartime package of legislation included one part which said that taxpayers could not pay State income taxes until they had first paid their Commonwealth income taxes, but said that this was for the duration of the war only. This, along with the other parts of the legislation, was upheld as constitutional in the First Uniform Tax Case. Later, that part of the legislation was changed and the time limit was removed. In the Second Uniform Tax Case the majority of the High Court ruled that particular provision unconstitutional, departing to that extent from the earlier decision, but a different (but overlapping) majority continued to uphold the key provision making Commonwealth grants to the States conditional on the States not charging income taxes, so the overruling had no practical effect (the Chief Justice actually said: ‘I think that par. (a) of s. 221 (1) of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act should be declared invalid. Whether such a declaration is of practical importance in relation to the system of uniform taxation is a matter about which I may be permitted to remain sceptical, but it is part of the relief for which the plaintiffs have asked.’).

    It was never the case at any time that the Commonwealth tried to pass a law forbidding the States from imposing income taxes (that would have been obviously unconstitutional). The States always had the constitutional power (and still do) to impose income taxes. The legislation and the court decisions always left it up to the political judgement of the States to decide whether or not to impose income taxes, but the political intention of the Commonwealth was to make it impossible for them to do so, and that’s how all the States always read the situation.

  15. once again J-D well done.
    Was also Mings influence,though not overt or “wrong’,a factor in the states accepting the decision,though an appeal to the privy council was mooted (I think) at the time.

  16. Mogfeature

    The Liberals ideology is intellectually bankrupt on the world stage?

    What cause this global credit crunch is the US policy of forcing banks (ie Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae) to lend to borrower, who cannot repay the loan.

    The goal is a social goal of everyone being equal and everyone in America to own a home. These loans are then packaged and sold to investors

    This is a liberal/socialist ideology, rather than a free market ideology. Note: The Liberals in Australia is the right wing party

  17. “What cause this global credit crunch is the US policy of forcing banks (ie Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae) to lend to borrower, who cannot repay the loan.”

    Oh psht. What a shallow analysis. That could possibly explain a few banks in the US posting negative returns, it can’t explain the complete collapse of the financial system in most of the developed world.

  18. In relation to the Port Macquarie by-election look for the Nationals Leslie Williams to recover the party’s brand in the midnorthcoast of NSW.

    A Nationals victory in Port Macquarie will go a long way in repairing the damage of the loss of Lyne. The party will also remember though that when Tony Windsor switched from the state seat of Tamworth to Federal New England they won the Tamworth by-election only to lose the seat again at the 2003 NSW election. So if Leslie Williams wins Saturdays by-election they will have to work hard to ensure it remains a safe seat in the future.

  19. Indeed, because a Leslie Williams win will be not so indicative of her own popularity or that of the Nationals brand but disaffection with the NSW government. Port Macquarie isn’t a rural die-hard conservative belt anymore.

  20. Oz, the government also ask bank to give non-recourse loans (unlike Australia) ie if I cannot pay my mortgage, I give the property back to the bank and I have no liability

    And then the property market drop 15%

  21. From my understanding Ryde is very much a marginal seat!!

    I have a rule of thump on voting patterns which is totally unbacked by any scienific evidence!

    You have a group of voters I will say two! these two may not like the Government but in a normal election only one will change their vote.

    Whilst in a landslide both will change, therefore when looking at a By-election result I always half the swing result so if the ALP do suffer a 24% swing which I think will be a record! then I would predict the ALP are looking at a 10%+ swing statewide.

    One thing I have noticed is that Governments start off by winning a narrow election then at the following election score a large swing to them then at the following election there is a swing back towards the Opposition, normally in either very safe Government seats or opposition held seats

    Then at the following the marginals swing knocking the Government out.

    I think the real test for the ALP is what happens in Lakemba and Cabramatta, these two seats should not be lost after all Ryde stikes me as the sort of seat that the Liberals will need to win if they are too be in Government whilst the two soild ALP areas are close too if not the two safest ALP seats in the country.

  22. If my memory serves me correctly the Nationals won the By-election for Tamworth when Tony Windsor moved to Canberra only to see an Independant win Tamworth at the following State Election.

    While Port Maquarrie may be changing, I still think we should consider it National party heartland

  23. Dovif!! The policy of encoraging home ownership is nowadays considered a by-partisen policy, yes I know the Republicans have had very slack regulation and while Howard saw himself as a Republican type his Government was left wing compared to the Bush administration.

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *