The latest bi-monthly Newspoll survey of state voting intention in New South Wales is nothing short of a catastrophe for Nathan Rees’s government. In the wake of last month’s mini-budget, which cut against the federal government’s economic strategy with a range of tax hikes and spending cuts, Labor’s primary vote has slumped to 26 per cent from 29 per cent in the last survey – which was itself the worst Newspoll result ever recorded by either major party in New South Wales if the Liberals and Nationals are taken together. Rees’s relatively encouraging personal ratings from the previous survey have evaporated: his dissatisfaction rating has rocketed from 26 per cent to 47 per cent, while his satisfaction is down five points to 34 per cent. Barry O’Farrell now leads as preferred premier, though not by a sufficient margin (33 per cent to 30 per cent) to douse talk about Joe Hockey being drafted to replace him. Tellingly, Newspoll saw fit to ask if the government should be allowed to serve out its full term – 49 per cent said it should, which is less than the Whitlam government was getting in response to similar questions in late 1975. The Greens are up three points to 14 per cent, a further indication they stand poised to win seats in the lower house for the first time. The chart below shows the primary vote across all Newspoll and election results going back to Newspoll’s foundation in 1985.
UPDATE: Antony Green employs the good old-fashioned uniform two-party swing method to calculate which Labor seats would fall to the Coalition if the result of this poll was borne out. However, Antony concedes that “with a third of voters off with the Greens and ‘Others’, more than admitting they will vote Labor, I’m not sure that analysis based on uniform 2-party swing is very useful”. That being so, I’ve taken a different approach: changing the results in each electorate in proportion to the shift indicated in the poll and applying the same preference distributions as last time. No doubt this is statistically clumsy, but accepting the exercise as a bit of fun (unless you’re one of the dwindling band of Labor loyalists), here’s what I’ve come up with. Coalition gains from Labor: Camden, Cessnock, Drummoyne, Gosford, Granville, Heathcote, Londonderry, Macquarie Fields, Maitland, Menai, Miranda, Monaro, Mulgoa, Penrith, Riverstone, Rockdale, Ryde, Swansea, The Entrance, Wollondilly, Wyong. Greens gains from Labor: Balmain, Coogee, Heffron, Marrickville. Independent gains from Labor, should the relevant candidates choose to run again: Charlestown (Paul Scarfe) and Newcastle (John Tate). Result: Coalition 55, Labor 25, Independents 9, Greens 4.
One other complicating factor for Labor may well be that the city voters are probably more enraged with them than is the case with the rural/regional voters. I havent seen any electorate specific or even region specific polling figures, but in my travels I get the feeling that the anger is stronger in the Newcastle/Sydney/ Wollongong area than elsewhere. This is probably a reaction to the fact that outside that area there are fewer services to stuff up. In any case if true it could help the Libs run further up the pendulum than polling figures currently indicate.
[ Labor gained two seats at by-elections over the next 6 months. ]
Now there’s a thought. People like Joe Tripodi probably won’t lose their seats, but they won’t be hanging around long if they’re out of govt for the next 10 years. There’ll be a few by-elections in the really, really safe Labor seats – they oughta be fun to watch.
Anybody looked much at the upper house? I had a look, but since I know precisely nothing about the CDP or Shooter’s Party, I can’t really comment. It works as one 22-member electorate rather than dividing up the state like WA, Vic etc – is that a good or a bad thing for Labor if they really cop a thrashing?
I’m going to play the devil’s advocate here, at the risk of being branded an apparatchik of the detestable Sussex Street machine, and make the following proposition: The Labor government in New South Wales is not THAT bad. Let’s look at various state government services.
First up, education. My nephew in Year Four at an outer-western Sydney state primary school is a bright little critter, except he has dyslexia. He gets a few hours of specialist “Reading Recovery” individualised education every month. When I attended a state primary school in NSW some 20 years ago, there were certainly no programs for the kids in my class who had trouble with reading. There’s also the fact that TAFE students who are disadvantaged are exempted from paying tuition fees in NSW – allowing those at the bottom to climb up the skills ladder and make something of themselves, unlike in QLD where everyone must pay.
Then, the environment. Bob Carr created some 70 new national parks. As Frank Sartor suggested in an op-ed piece in the SMH a few weeks back, NSW now has the strictest sustainability regulations for residential developments in the country.
Now, law and order. Yes, there are certain districts of Sydney (mainly located in the south-west and South Sydney) where even well-armed angels fear to tread. But for the vast majority of the state’s residents, the law rules the streets, not gangs.
Health care. I invite anybody who wishes to complain about NSW hospitals to come up to Queensland and stay a few nights in a Brisbane hospital. I’ve had the medical misfortune to receive treatment at hospitals in both Sydney and Brisbane. NSW patients are treated like royalty when compared to the rudimentary standards of patient comfort in Queensland’s joke of a health system.
Public transport? Yes, there is one hell of a lot of work to be done on Greater Sydney’s system – integrated multi-modal time-based ticketing would be a good start. But the frequency of services, the 24/7 availability to much of the Sydney metropolitan area, and the fact that you can often get across town without going all the way into the city still make Sydney’s public transport system the best in Australia.
By the way, I am not a cheerleader for the venal Sussex Street machine that runs the First State. Nor am I a one-eyed Labor supporter. I just like being a contrarian sometimes – taking the alternative view can stimulate healthy discussion.
And I’m starting to think — is there the possibility that the MSM is exaggerating how bad things are in NSW? And if so, why are they exaggerating? And what effect is the MSM’s antipathy to Rees having on the poll numbers?
Catatonia @ 53
I have a slogan for the NSW Labour Party in the next state election:
‘Yes We Can’t’
If I can avoid driving a car in Sydney, I will. If I can avoid getting on a bus or a train in Sydney, I will. I really don’t like the look of those rail lines. They look worn out to me. I am glad I avoided buying a house in SW Sydney because I would probably be looking at the old negative equity thingo. I am glad that I am not on a waiting list for surgery in NSW. I am glad to be able to avoid going anywhere near some of the hospitals in NSW. I am not glad that kids are in schools which have bits falling off them. I am glad that I live where the electricity infrastructure is being re-newed.
I would give nine out of ten for the national parks. As for Mr Sartor’s rules, rules, schmules, their application can be bought and sold. I am glad that I do not have to receive state services from inefficient workplaces.
BTW, how venal is too much venal?
I didn’t need the MSM to tell me any of the above.
[I have a slogan for the NSW Labour Party in the next state election:
‘Yes We Can’t’]
Not entirely dissimilar to their actual slogan at the last election.
Possibly the worst slogan in the history of slogans. Unfortunately, I think some will take that as a challenge..
Antony Green employs the good old-fashioned uniform two-party swing method to calculate which Labor seats would fall to the Coalition if the result of this poll was borne out. However, Antony concedes that “with a third of voters off with the Greens and ‘Others’, more than admitting they will vote Labor, I’m not sure that analysis based on uniform 2-party swing is very useful”. That being so, I’ve taken a different approach: changing the results in each electorate in proportion to the shift indicated in the poll and applying the same preference distributions as last time. No doubt this is statistically clumsy, but accepting the exercise as a bit of fun (unless you’re one of the dwindling band of Labor loyalists), here’s what I’ve come up with. Coalition gains from Labor: Camden, Cessnock, Drummoyne, Gosford, Granville, Heathcote, Londonderry, Macquarie fields, Maitland, Menai, Miranda, Monaro, Mulgoa, Penrith, Riverstone, Rockdale, Ryde, Swansea, The Entrance, Willoughby, Wyong. Greens gains from Labor: Balmain, Coogee, Heffron, Marrickville. Independent gains from Labor, should the relevant candidates choose to run again: Charlestown (Paul Scarfe) and Newcastle (John Tate). Result: Coalition 55, Labor 25, Independents 9, Greens 4.
Labor going from 51 to 25?
I don’t think so brother!
Check it out:
http://www.nswalp.com/content/upload/files/Pendulums/Pendulum_State_2008.pdf
Donnak,
With a uniform primary vote swing of 13% away from Labor (as this poll suggests) and a typical standard deviation on that swing of around 3 and a bit, the TPP based pendulum doesnt become particularly useful since seats that Labor would ordinarily consider safe (and are way up the pendulum) end up falling if the primary vote swing is on the upside for any of those seats (like 1.5 standard deviations on the upside).That would cause some safe seats to have a minor party coming in second behind Labor on the primary vote and falling over the line on Coalition preference flows.
So a fall from 51 to 25 is entirely possible, depending on the distribution of the primary vote swing.
If there are more independents, they’ll almost certainly come from Labor seats rather than Lib/Nat seats. If the polls keep going the way they are, the Nats should be able to prevent more independents getting up in their own seats, and could win back seats like Dubbo and Tamworth. Partly because any general rise in the conservative vote would put them in a strong position, and partly because they could run a monumental scare campaign on the prospect of Labor sneaking back in as minority government. The fact that some rural independents announced their support for Labor in 2007 might come back to bite them.
Donna K
Labor’s Primary vote is 26%, a guide to how many seats it would win would be the Liberal (not lib + Nat) performance in 2007. which is 22 seats. and the Liberal’s 27% are distributed over fewer seats (they do not contest National seats)
Lets look at a seat like the Blue Mountains, which had a 22% margin and 11% swing. If 10% of the vote went from ALP to the Liberals, and that is lower than what all the polls are saying. Liberal would be 39%, ALP 31% and Greens 16% in optional pref voting, the Green vote will probably not get the ALP over the line
And then I wonder if the preference flow would be even worst for the ALP in this election due to their popularity (not).
What about the informal vote?
Voters may not see the libs as a viable alternative and a higher informal vote could mean less seats loss?
That aside it would be good to see the libs get in, NSW is long overdue for a cleanout, should have had one last time.
A strong victory to libs means they would also clean out the public service.
As far as I am concerned, it is not over yet. Labor can still win. All is not lost.
My justifications:
1. Newspoll has a long history of slightly over exaggerating the Liberals’ support.
2. The 59 to 41% is not able to be relied upon. I’d put it currently at around 55% to 45% — a position that is still recoverable and a position where the L/NP+Ind has the potential to still be denied a majority over Labor.
3. The public sector unions will certainly run a pro-Labor campaign on the central coast and western Sydney marginals. This works and will provide a core of volunteers in places the Liberals’ have few resources.
4. Hawker Britton will be appointed to produce highly targeted focus-group tested advice and ads. The Liberals’ won’t be able to compete with these politically or financially. The Liberals’ strategy will rely on two badly understaffed head offices and a team of state MPs who have no resources.
5. The Liberals will field a pack of dud candidates: ex-cops, ex-lawyers, washed up small businesswomen. Whilst Labor will N40 into seats candidates that will run under slogans like “go local” using ultra targeted, focus group tested lines, airbrushing out state issues in lieu of local council issues. This works. This has traction. People in heavily migrant communities will swallow it.
6. Labor will leave the Liberals to rack up huge majorities in places like the Hills district, southern highlands and north shore. It doesn’t need these votes. Let them rot. These are the places where the 59 to 41% is actually being accrued. The doctors’ wives are the ones answering the landlines when Newspoll phones – it is not generally the Labor voters, who are, you know — actually at work rather than sitting at home!
7. Fundraising: the coalition cannot compete with donations. Labor is well in front by any measurment.
8. Country Labor – Monaro, Maitland and others are having huge resources thrown at them. New infrastructure announcements, pork barrelling, federal govt projects – the whole shebang. What can the Liberals’ promise or offer? Does anyone living in these seats even know the name of the state National party leader – no. The coalition has a fundamental brand problem in “Country Labor” held seats.
9. The Greens. It is impossible to envisage any “Lib-NP+Ind+Grns” majority actually working (assume 2 Grn LH seats which in itself is a stretch). Denying the Liberals’ winning these 2 or 3 seats will count in Labor’s favour in the long run.
10. The power of sitting Labor MPs. The printing allowances, direct mail, glossy brochures, a physical office, 1 or 2 staffers, years of having their faces in the local rags = it all counts.
11. Clover. There is 1 less vote for the coalition.
12. Rees. He is a blank slate. Marketing can do wonders to invent a simple straight-forward good guy message. Lock up the rest of the cabinet for the election. Put all the focus on Rees and run a Team Beattie style campaign. It works. O’Farrell lacks the media profile and charisma to do likewise.
Donnak, two things need to be corrected.
[Newspoll has a long history of slightly over exaggerating the Liberals’ support.]
In 1995 Newspoll underestimated the ALP primary by 2.3 and underestimated the Coalition by 0.9.
In 1999 Newspoll underestimated the ALP primary by 2.2 and overestimated the Coalition by 4.3
In 2003 Newspoll overestimated the ALP primary by 3.3 and underestimated the Coalition by 1.5
In 2007 Newspoll overestimated the ALP primary by 3 and underestimated the Coalition by 2
So that’s not actually true.
[The doctors’ wives are the ones answering the landlines when Newspoll phones – it is not generally the Labor voters, who are, you know — actually at work rather than sitting at home!]
No offence, but that’s just straight out piffle. Polling is much more sophisticated than that.
#63 While I admire your enthusiasm donnak it ain’t going to happen.
1: dealt with by possum above
2: I agree. The 59-41 is probably wrong- it flatters Labor!
3,4,5: this presumes anyone is still listening. If Labor keep polling sub-30% it shows nobody cares anymore.
6: Dealt with by possum. Funnily enough, whenever the Liberals are behind the conservative partisans all flood the blogs to claim the exact opposite- labor voters are unemployed at home while Lib voters are out working!
7: Might well be true. But spending squillions on ads and spin won’t do squat if the people’s minds are made up. We saw that with Howard in 2007.
8: Ironic to claim brand issues when Country Labor is nothing more than a brand. Its leader is the ALP leader, it votes with the ALP, its policies are the ALP’s. And again, see Howard 2007 to prove bribery doesn’t work on a cynical, fed-up electorate.
9: Irrelevant as if the polls continue the way they are the Coalition will win a clear majority in their own right.
10: “it all counts”; not if the people have made up their minds it won’t (see 7 and 8)
11: Irrelevant as Sydney is closer to a Labor/Green seat than Lib seat on these boundaries.
12: I agree it’s not Rees’ fault the government is so unpopular, and he can’t be worse than Iemma, but people aren’t stupid. If they want change and new leader won’t fool them, and they’ll have no hesitation in booting him out to punish the government.
All your points assume this is a temporary blip for the government that can be turned around with a few ads and sweetners. Whereas it’s more likely the people’s minds are made up and nothing the government do will turn things around. Once again, look at Howard 2007 for a recent example of this.
Hmm..in point 10 the smiley face should be number “8”
The Liberals will field a pack of dud candidates: ex-cops, ex-lawyers, washed up small businesswomen. Whilst Labor will N40 into seats candidates that will run under slogans like “go local” using ultra targeted, focus group tested lines, airbrushing out state issues in lieu of local council issues. This works. This has traction. People in heavily migrant communities will swallow it.
Q: How many unionist does it take to change a lightbulb
A: The lightbulb have not been changed in NSW in 14 years
Note the Asian community is already turning against the Labor party, the biggest local swing in the local election held recently are in areas of high Asian population (maybe they are turned since Howard is not around) The ALP can no longer rely on the migrant vote to save it
Dudd candidates, try Reese, Costa, Dancing undies police minister, Sartor
Reese a blank slate ….. when was he elected, he has been part of this government the whole time, just becasue he is a faceless man does not mean he is better than people like Sartor and Costa who has more talent than him …. that is saying a lot
As for Clover Moore’s vote …. If Clover was the casting vote … a. she can vote with the ALP, a decaying government in NSW, or an up and coming coalition …. does she want to be associated with this incompetant govenment, and potentially have her career destroyed?…. See Maynard in SA
#63. That was Labor’s very successful strategy in 2003 and 2007. Reminds me of the Federal Coalition running its succesful 2004 strategy again in 2007. If I were the Coalition, I’d contact Pete Townsend and buy the rights to Track 9 of the 1971 “Who’s Next” album.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_Next
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Next
donnak, you are kidding yourself.
While I have no doubt that Labor are a professional political machine and that they will do all the things that you mention, it won’t help them this time. They are so far on the nose as to be unsalvageable. I can’t tell you the number of traditional Labor voters I’ve spoken to whose only decision is whether to direct their Green preference to the Liberals or just let it exhaust. Diehard Labor voters who just can’t wait for them to lose so that they can clean up their act.
Labor are going to lose and they are going to lose big.
Caveat: As long as the Liberals don’t so anything stupid (always possible in NSW).
Interesting debate. Now for Catatonia & DonnaK;
Catatonia: your list of potential positives are now negatives – education has started going backwards again, with cuts to all those ‘special’ programs, maintenance issues & teachers pay/retention all becoming big issues (watch teacher loss from the public system in the next 10 years) – Carr creating national parks? You can easily create 70 parks when they’re the size of postage stamps (the Escarpment National Park on the south coast promise always springs to mind : promised to put the whole escarpment in a park and it ended up as 70ha), and anyway, they keep allowing developments in them (not that NPWS is happy with that) – Public Transport is a shambles in Sydney, not just because of rail infrastructure underspending for 20 years : one of the biggest issues is Sydney’s main roads have all reached or surpassed capacity, and bus services tend to run as best they can, when they can : all the latest reports (either from RIC or IPART) say that trains will be over capacity again within 4 years, even after the latest round of ‘upgrades’.
DonnaK: Hawker Britton are just another lobbyist firm full of ALP’ers – and yes, the PSA, still run by ALP place-holders (but only just – they won 53%:47% at the election this time) will run some pro-ALP campaign – N40’ing in candidates can be very counter productive (just ask Sharon Bird about Cunningham in 2002) and pisses off the local branches – and yes, we are already seeing mountains of ALP MP’s resources pouring through our letterboxes…but as MDM says, someone has to be listening for it to work.
The question remains, though, whether the Liberals under O’Farrell can keep it together long enough to win, and also if Rees can pull a rabbit out of the hat (though I don’t know where he’s going to get the rabbit…or the hat…) and buy a few seats. We will see a huge scare campaign from the ALP about how ‘bad’ the Libs will be, but I suspect that alot of voters think we’re already there in policy outcome terms, so why not give them a go for a term or two.
[Caveat: As long as the Liberals don’t so anything stupid (always possible in NSW).]
Don’t think it matters as much this time Matt.
Last time labor had Howard and WorChoices to help them get back in, not so much as the drovers dog winning this election but more of a leg-humping, flea infested, drovers dog with rabies would win it.
Let me further unpack the case for Labor retaining government:
– Labor will do the sort of in-depth qualitative research in its marginal seats that will very closely examine voters’ attitudes and develop strategies and messaging to retain them. People can be turned around. The coalition does not typically do this level of research – it leaves its groundwork until late in the campaign and when it finally does do focus groups, typically ignores the findings anyway.
– The Liberals’ have no clear, consistent, message. The are not authoratative on anything. They are not convincing. Nobody knows their shadow treasurer or their spokespeople. Their brand recognition with young people, migrants and minorities is close to nil.
– By 2011, Labor’s campaign war chest will be somewhere north of $20+ million ($15 million was used in 2007 election). The coalition’s will be dramatically less – preventing them from matching the sort of media buy that Labor will take. The Liberals will be demonized by being propped up by the likes of tobacco companies.
– The Lib/NP have been hopeless with viral campaigning and running the sort of dirt unit / opposition research that Labor has perfected. They will pay for this.
– The Lib/NP’s shadows are usually scattergun, off message and poorly prepped. Labor’s messages will be centralized from the leader down. The few messages Labor sends, will use only very tested and highly refined concepts.
– Labor will have significant phone banks and wireless messaging capacity for push polling in marginals – backed up by a dozen unions doing the same. The coalition will stuggle to do any of this well.
– The state Nationals’ primary vote is through the floor at the moment. For them, lacking a credible identity will force them into running a defence strategy diverting their few resources away from Labor marginals and into contests against fighting independents.
Yes Labor will lose seats. But it will not be the train wreck people think. There is capacity to retain significant seats and more resources to draw upon than the coalition has.
[Labor going from 51 to 25? I don’t think so brother! Check it out:]
Check what out? The link you provide confirms that a swing of the size indicated by the Newspoll result would indeed reduce Labor to about 25 seats.
“The Lib/NP have been hopeless with viral campaigning and running the sort of dirt unit / opposition research that Labor has perfected.”
“Labor will have significant phone banks and wireless messaging capacity for push polling in marginals – backed up by a dozen unions doing the same.”
Hmm…unless you’re a Liberal troll pretending to be a Labor insider, it’s probably not the smartest idea to telegraph your election strategy as being push polling, lies, dirt and viral smears……
Donna, your points one at a time:
– Too late, won’t work.
– They don’t need one.
– Labor is in bed with unethical people as well, the hotel lobby and developers.
– A smear campaign is not going to win Labor anything.
– Doesn’t matter, too late.
– Won’t have an effect.
– Even if they hold all their seats, possibly even lose a few, it won’t matter.
There has only ever been one government in NSW to have more than 16 years and that was right after WW2 when people didn’t want change. For any government to win a 5th term it has to be an outstanding government that is loved by the people. This is clearly not the case of NSW Labor. The only reason Labor one back power in 2007 was due to the Liberals terrible choice of leader. Now the Liberals have a stable leader who has reformed the party to stop faction wars (unlike NSW Labor). I am sure the polls will improve for Labor but it will simply not be enough for them to win back Government in 2011. People will simply just want change and be able to have trust in their Government.
Wow,
I thought the Liberal optimists on here last year were out of touch with reality, but donnak puts them to shame. Of course Labor may do better than 25 seats. Some people saying they will vote Liberal might get scared off closer to the day (although I’d think they’re more likely to vote informal or for an independent and exhaust than actually come back to Labor). Low 30s is conceivable.
On the other hand, if two more years of disasters, combined with the Liberals getting a real spring in their step could easily make things worse. Its just as likely Labor will go under 20 seats.
Interesting little tidbit here: Labor have been the single biggest party (treating the coalition as two separate entities) in the NSW Legislative Assembly since 1941. This could certainly change in 2011.
Talking about Carrs National Parks in rural NSW is a sure way to lose even more votes. Everyone knows he proclaimed several more, but farmers nearby know that he never staffed or otherwise resourced them. They are now a constant source of feral pests such as rabbits, goats, pigs and dogs and of noxious weeds.
They might have fooled a few voters in the inner city, but they are electoral poison in the bush!
Although I am no where near as optimistic as Donnak, the possibility that Labor candidates can come back over the next two and a half years is not out of the question.
1 There is an awful lot of money coming NSW’s direction in the very near future. Do not under estimate the power of the big spend. Reference John Howard. I expect that Labor will not die wondering whether splurging money on the electorate is a good idea.
2. Local members will have the privilege of photo opportunities and being on the spot to hand over sizable cheques to kindergartedns, schools etc. I can assure you people remember fondly that nice man who spent $100k on my local football pavillion. Road openings are bound to have their own television programme.
3. Given Labor brand is on the nose, then it likely that such a brand may not feature prominently in advertising. Will this confuse things?
4. No doubt the Libs will be preaching responsibility, prudence etc. It could be the money or the virtue.
5. The Libs are not that good and have been known to cock up before in NSW.
6. Regardless of who you support, Nathan Rees has only been there five minutes. He may yet come through his baptism of fire and emerge as one of those “hang tough” sort of pollies that people will support once they get to an election.
[ 3. Given Labor brand is on the nose, then it likely that such a brand may not feature prominently in advertising. Will this confuse things? ]
This might work for a few well-known, popular local members… at the recent WA election it worked OK for John Quigley, who got a swing towards him while all other Labor MP’s in Perth’s northern suburbs were getting squashed. Can’t see it working for the party as a whole, though. I see what you’re saying but Labor really does look too far gone.
It’s possible Labor could win. It will remain possible for a while longer. 27 months is a long time. But not without a massive change in NSW politics.
Also, re. Clover, the only government she has ever supported was a COALITION government! I analyse independents differently. I tend to think most of the independents are more likely to support the party which is weaker in their seat. Think of it this way: if you are Clover Moore, you’re main opposition is Labor (and Greens), not the Liberals. For tories in the inner-city she’s the only real option, despite her NIMBYism, she’s not that much of a lefty. She’s more like a conservative who’s adapted to their electorate on social and environmental issues.
In contrast, rural and north-shore independents have tended to be close to the ALP. The independents who challenged the ALP in Newcastle and Maitland were both conservative, while the independent in goulburn was considered to the left of the Liberal.
Most independents exist in areas without a real two-party contest, so they often become surrogates for the weak major party.
One other thing: people always wring their hands about the low Nationals vote, but I’m sure there are plenty of Nationals voters who would vote Liberal if a Liberal was standing. In the Newspoll, they do have the choice of voting Liberal, they’re bound to go back to the Nationals come election day. It’s irrelevant. In states (and federally) where the Liberals and Nationals do not run many 3-cornered contests and effectively run as a single party, the separate votes is irrelevant. Just look at the Coalition number.
[at the recent WA election it worked OK for John Quigley, who got a swing towards him while all other Labor MP’s in Perth’s northern suburbs were getting squashed.]
You’ve forgotten Tony O’Gorman.
1. A big problem for Labor in 2011 will be fund raising. Many businesses, associations and especially developers won’t risk giving money to Labor when it is more than likely they are going to lose because that would get them off side with a coalition government. As seen in the 2007 Federal Election Labor saw a huge boost in fund raising because everyone believed they were going to win so even traditional Liberal Funders decided to either not give money to the Liberal Party or even give money to Labor. This will probably happen in 2011 but in the coalition’s favor. We may even see the Nursing Federation back the Liberals since clearly Labor hasn’t delivered to the nurses since 2007.
2. Never underestimate the people of New South Wales they will not buy into photo ops and handouts. The people of NSW now have a good opposition who they are not scared of.
Macca,
1. Wishful thinking.
2. Emotional hyperbole.
Next!
[The people of NSW now have a good opposition]
Is that you, Mr. O’Farrell?
There’s not all that much Rees (or Rudd for that matter) can do to save NSW Labor. Remember that Iemma won in 2007 on a slogan something like “We’ve been crap but we’ll try harder from now on, we promise”. I don’t think that can work twice in a row, unless …
… the Liberals do something very stupid (most likely pick a scary leader instead of the plodding but reliable Barry).
As a long-suffering NSW Liberal voter, I am therefore not even close to breaking out the champagne …
Can I ask, William, how can you predict four Greens seats? (i know, it’s not technically a prediction)
I can’t imagine what the third and fourth seats are after Balmain and Marrickville fall.
The Greens did really well in one of the northern Wollongong seats that overlaps Cunningham. Keira I think it was?
As Heffron and Maroubra gentrify there would be a strong chance of the Greens doing well. Not sure if that will be the case in 2011.
Even if there’s a ~7% swing in Heffron against Labor with most of it going to The Greens seeing them outpoll the Liberals, Liberal preferences would have to go 90% The Greens way and with OPV that doesn’t seem likely?
Coogee is even harder. The Greens need 14% to get over the Libs and 18% to get over Labor.
I can see a decent chunk off the Labor vote coming off for The Greens but I don’t think very much of the Liberal vote will swing over.
The latest poll shows Labor at 26%, a swing of 13% against their 2007 result. I’m sceptical the swing will be that high in the inner-city and the Eastern Suburbs and even more sceptical it will all to The Greens, which is what they need for Coogee.
Does anyone want to have a punt at what Liberal preferences would be like? If this was compulsory preferencing I wouldn’t doubt the vast majority going to The Greens but I have no idea how many Liberals would just exhaust.
Surely Coogee is much more at risk of being lost to the Liberals, not the Greens? I guess the Greens’ best bets are those seats where the Liberals are non-existent, and the Lib vote is too high in Coogee.
I’m surprised the Liberals would outpoll the Greens in Heffron. Where on earth would the support for the Libs come from in that seat?
I don’t think Coogee has a chance of going Green, I only mentioned it because William thinks so.
Heffron isn’t quite as urban-lefty-latte sipping-any other stereotype you might like as the surrounding inner-city seats.
Too right about Heffron. Sure, the Green Square and Alexandria area is growing. But visit Mascot or Eastlakes or Roseberry or Tempe and try and convince yourself they are gentrifying.
Maybe they’re just into nouveau grunge – you know, where people spend 800 dollars an outfit to look like a hobo 😀
Coogee or Heffron? I’d go Heffron. As people have said, Coogee is much more likely to go Liberal than Green with a lot of voters needing to switch ALP-Green. This is possible (Green-voting demographically Coogee is moving to something similar to Marrickville), but not at this election I would have thought. And then there will be the high green-vote exhaust. Heffron remains more interesting as it slowly gentrifies north-south. But Antony is right, the southern end is still pretty hard-core ALP (alot of state housing, migrant families and Port Botany workers, none of which would normally be Green voters). But I also know (from talking to a former Lib campaign manager) that they think it’s not one for them to win, so resources might be thin on the ground and the candidate may not be well profiled. That said, last time they ran Randwick Councillor Scott Nash, who was re-elected comfortably at the Council elections with 33% in a ward covering the Randwick section of Heffron. On the other side of the electorate, The Greens polled 40% in South Ward of Marrickville, half of which lies in Heffron. And Keneally has the poisoned ministerial chalice of Planning which will always be a sore point, particularly with the Redfern-Waterloo Authority and the expansion of Port Botany (b-doubles rumbling through the neighbourhood anyone?). Still, Keneally would need to drop at least 10% for it to even think about coming into play, and that would still require a strong flow of prefs from Lib to Green.
Coogee might yet be an interesting one if Pearce’s vote collapses, but it doesn’t all flow to the Libs. Making up that 14% as quoted above would be pretty difficult, but what if that 14% was coming off the ALP and distributed evenly between the Greens and Libs? The Libs still wouldn’t have won (they’d be 42%) and it’d be the ALP who would then be excluded (as their 25% would be less than the Greens 28%) – sure it’s not likely, but if some of the swings being mentioned and speculated about (and noting the byelection results) are seen then it might be possible.
Sad to say, my own sense of what is likely to occur is that Pearce loses in Coogee and Kenneally retains Heffron – its just nice to speculate sometimes!!
Marrickville – I think that would be one of the first to fall to the green, if Labor loses 7% vote Marrickville is history, and they might lose 13 … so Tebbett better be looking at her husband for another job
Stewart J, I live in Enmore and it’s in South Ward of Marrickville Council. From my quick check of the numbers, it is max one-third of South Ward in Heffron, and that is the weaker end of the Ward for the Greens. Even the parts of Erskineville in Heffron is the Housing Commission estate end, not the gentrified bit. I just checked the 2007 Federal figures and Redfern is still solid Labor, and as you move south the booths get stronger. And unlike areas like Newtown, the Liberals still outpoll the Greens. The b-doubles for the port has been an issue round Marrickville where the truck go cross country, but it becomes much less of an issue down towards the port. If the Greens thought Heffron was really vulnerable, they would have run in Botany Council at the local government elections and created problems for the local Labor branches. The Sydney City Council LG results aren’t a good guide because of Clover Moore running, but again, the minute you’re south of Redfern the Green vote just drops away. Even the new areas around Green Square don’t look that good for Green vote. All those odd bits of suburbia in between the factories and ports have shown no sign of gentrification, and probably won’t until more of the industry moves away.
I suppose my point is, Antony, that the Greens are running to outpoll the Libs not the ALP. Will the Libs pick up much fin this area? I don’t know myself. As for Greens being serious and therefore running in Botany – I can tell you there was a concerted attempt to find someone who would run, but there very few Greens down in that neck of the woods (and even less prepared to stand). There was some money for a basic campaign, but just no candidate. The way I’ve been looking at it is that any increases in the Green vote in Heffron will come from the north, east and west ends of the electorate, but not the south – Roseberry is still not much good for the Greens either, let alone Mascot – but as the area does change (parts of Pagewood and Eastlakes, as well as Mascot, are slowly becoming quite pleasant). With public housing not on the governments agenda (oddly enough, its the Greens who are stronger supports of it) we’ll see no increase in that form of housing, but an increase in medium density flat developments such as around Kingsford & Green Square – and now across the railway line in east Erskineville as well. Still as you say, working off a low base makes it pretty hard to see anything happening. Oz is right too – the Libs would have to preference to the Greens for votes to flow in the kinds of numbers needed to get past Kenneally. I don’t see that happening without a reciprocation…
As I said – nice to speculate sometimes.