Newspoll: 56-44 to Coalition in NSW

The latest bi-monthly Newspoll survey of NSW state voting intention shows a slight recovery for Labor from the disastrous November-December result, while still pointing to a Coalition landslide. Labor’s primary vote is up four points from the last survey’s record low 26 per cent, while the Coalition is down one point to 42 per cent. The Coalition’s two-party lead has moderated from 59-41 to 56-44. Nathan Rees has regained the lead over Barry O’Farrell as preferred premier, leading 34-29 after trailing 30-33 last time (although what really stands out is that 37 per cent are uncommitted). Rees’ approval rating is up three points to 37 per cent, and his disapproval is down five to 42 per cent. O’Farrell’s ratings are said to be “steady”.

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.

128 comments on “Newspoll: 56-44 to Coalition in NSW”

Comments Page 2 of 3
1 2 3
  1. dovif you might want to consider that other’s opinions are just as valid as yours. Even if those such as mine and yours come starkly from one side of the political spectrum. yes it is good for Labor and yes, there is time for Labor to recover. this is a fact. May be see it in comparison to what has gone before.

    Importantly, the preferred premier stat can be seen as a barometer as to how much attention people are paying to the party leader, how much press they are getting (not an exact test but an indication). IUt is good news for my side of politics that the people of NSW are starting to pay attention to the good stories and work of the government. you may disagree, fine, but the stats show progress and that can’t be argued with. two years is a millennium in politics, and NSW likes the left side of politics.

  2. whilst i accept the comments about approval and PPM in general, the question is, why have both turned in Rees’s favour since the last poll???

  3. While Nathan Rees may be somewhat more popular than he was in Nov-Dec, the fact remains that the Labor party brand is absolutely on the nose in NSW. Some of the core vote has returned to Labor; that’s all that’s happened. Labor would need at least high 30’s to be in an election-winning position, and I certainly can’t see that happening.

  4. [ But while Liberal preferences might seal Balmain and Marrickville and rack up the margins, there isn’t really a clear next contender. Seats like Keira, Coogee, Blue Mountains, Ballina and Heffron are all possible contenders, but none of them are such “perfect storms” as the two inner-city seats. ]

    Yeah, true. I wouldn’t write them off, though, considering they’re doing it the hard way. Back in 1988 there were a few WTF?! results like independents winning in the Hunter Valley… the Greens being bigger now than 20 years ago, you’d have to expect some unexpected results like that for them, although I don’t know NSW enough to say where.

    (Expected unexpected results? Sheesh, I sound like Donald Rumsfeld tonight.)

    And anyway… c’mon, Sydney boy. Shouldn’t you be cheering on yer own mob to be the first state with a lower house (well, single-member district) Greens MP? We may just beat you and the Vics if that by-election happens, y’know. 😛

  5. No 51

    Ellis, please name a good story of this government. Its entire time in office has been one of gross atrocity and stupidity.

  6. Well, they managed to not stuff up the Olympics way back when. They probably couldn’t organise an under 13’s footy carnival these days, but I guess that supports the argument that every govt has two terms in it.

  7. ellis

    the figures are 44-56, there is no way to spin the truth to say that is anything but an horrendeous result for the NSW ALP.

    And this poll is assuming the greens wants to have anything to associate with this government or preference this incompetant government like the next election. I think it is more likely that the green draw up 6-7 seats and attack the ALP over them.

    If the Greens does not preference the ALP, the 2PP is probably closer to 40-60.

    I also think the Federal poll of 40.5-59.5 is horrible for the Lberals, if it improved to 44-56, it is just slightly less horrible, I would not call it a great result for the Liberals

  8. Reminds me a bit of when Howard was going down in 2007: after a series of horrendous polls there’d be one that wasn’t quite as terrible, like 45-55. This would then be spun as “Howard’s back” and “Rudd no certainty” despite the fact that 45-55 is a thrashing. 44-56 only looks decent because it’s not as bad as the previous poll. That’s one good thing about hitting the bottom, I guess…the only way is up!

  9. Just so I’m not misunderstood here let me say again I believe Labor will lose the next election and deserve to do so but we will not know whether this poll is a dead cat bounce or not until the next poll will we?

  10. Andrew at 52

    All that really has occurred is that Rees and his government have gone a few weeks without a really major stuff up. Although I should quickly add that that may not be especially relevant – aren’t these Newspolls taken over the preceding quarter?

    In any case, I am sure there are plenty of opportunities to bugger things up over the next little while. The prisons issue may be bubbling up. Tripodi is still running around doing whatever it is he does. Transport is a total joke (trains, ferries, roads, even the pathetic new overseas passenger terminal), and Rudd’s $$$ can’t be expected to fix it. There are further risks around schools – particularly in relation to the allocation of the Rudd $$. It’s so fraught with risk that the Canberra bureaucrats should be told to keep a very close eye on things, to save the NSW government from itself. Hospitals and health care can flare up at any time. Not to mention the massive opportunities for the the broader planning area to cause ministerial headaches, following the reversal of Sartor’s reforms. Then there’s the electricity “reforms”…

  11. On these polling figures the Nationals should be able to pick up Bathurst, Cessnock and Monaro from Labor and regain the Labor preferenced inspired seats of Northern Tablelands, Tamworth, Port Macquarie and Dubbo.

  12. Dubbo and Tamworth would be serious possibilities- any general rise in the Coalition vote could/should get the nats over the line (similar to what happened in Manly and Pittwater in ’07).

    Don’t know about the new guy in Port Macquarie but Tablelands looks very safe for the Independent.

  13. Yes they did at the last NEW SOUTH WALES General Election in March 2007 thats what i’m comparing not the by-elections that may have happened subsquently.

  14. The independent in Northern Tablelands is also the speaker of the Legislative Assembly so he is a Labor mate and with Labor on the nose his seat is certain to fall back to the Nationals.

  15. Without preferences, the Lib/Nat coalition wouldn’t exist. Do some research in to preferential voting. With first past the post voting Labor would dominate your arse.

  16. [Yes they did at the last NEW SOUTH WALES General Election in March 2007 thats what i’m comparing not the by-elections that may have happened subsquently.]

    LOL in 2007 the Independent won with 67% of the PRIMARY vote.

  17. Give me another one Labor has scrapped in with Greens, Democrats and rag tag bunch of parties from socialist alliance to Nuclear Disarmament party over the years. Study the 1990 Federal Election results and you will know the truth Bob and don’t use such crass language.

  18. Port Macquarie may have shown some odd results recently but it was held by prominent republican and minister in the Fahey Government Wendy Machin for the Nationals for many years and in the fullness of time this will be the case again.

  19. [Give me another one Labor has scrapped in with Greens, Democrats and rag tag bunch of parties from socialist alliance to Nuclear Disarmament party over the years.]

    The Democrats used to split 50/50 to the major parties so don’t give me that rubbish.

    Shall we even bother going back to the DLP in the 50s and 60s?

    Prior to the Democrat emergence in 1977, the Labor primary vote was practically it’s two-party vote. Politics used to be Labor v the rest. The conservatives introduced preferential voting to stop the conservative vote being split between the Lib/Nats. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_by-election,_1918

    [Study the 1990 Federal Election results and you will know the truth Bob]

    Yeah go have a cry when preferences don’t go your way, but your side has happily taken them to win for the past century.

  20. [LOL in 2007 the Independent won with 67% of the PRIMARY vote.]

    I felt like telling you it’s not worth debating with such stupidity, but hey, pot kettle.

  21. [Traditionally the Australian Democrats issued a split how-to-vote card. One half of the card showed how to vote Democrat and direct preferences to Labor. The other showed how to direct preferences to the Coalition. In the last decade, deals with the major parties over Senate preferences have caused the Democrats to trade off lower house preferences for Senate ticket preferences. This has been a response to the rise of the Greens, the Democrats forced to compete with the Greens in a bidding war for Labor’s Senate preferences.

    Until 1990, Democrat preferences tended to split relatively evenly. From then on, Labor appears to attract about 55-60% of Democrat preferences.]

    http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/minorprefs.htm

    So the Democrats aren’t a Labor preference boat as you might claim. And those who do preference Labor would have voted Labor without the Democrat choice anyway.

    How about blaming the policies and politics of your party, rather than silly preferences, for having been in opposition for 13 years? That’s the problem with your side. The reason you’re in opposition is everyone elses fault rather than yours. Stand up and take some responsibility for once.

  22. Oh, and the only times during 1996-2007 that the Liberal Party got a higher nationwide primary vote was 1996 and 2004. Labor got a higher primary in 1998, 2001, and 2007.

    Not to mention prior to that, a higher primary vote in every single election going back to 1966.

  23. If O’Farrell stays Opposition Leader until 2011, don’t write off Labor’s chances of falling over the line. “Fatty O’Farrell” is the best thing Labor in this state has going for it.
    If the Libs installed Mike Baird in the top job, they’d win the next election in a canter.

  24. Bob1234

    You’re overlooking the fairly obvious point that if we did have first past the post here, there probably wouldn’t be two competing conservative parties. You’d have one Tory party like they do in the UK.

  25. Bob 1234 said

    Oh, and the only times during 1996-2007 that the Liberal Party got a higher nationwide primary vote was 1996 and 2004. Labor got a higher primary in 1998, 2001, and 2007.

    Not to mention prior to that, a higher primary vote in every single election going back to 1966.

    That is a little misleading, considering that Liberals do not contest country seats held by the national, obviously they are unlikely to win a primary vote contest.

    Evan14 – If a 3 legged dog was the leader of the Liberals, ALP will still lose

    In the federal campaign, the ALP would not have won the following seats, if it was first past the post. In each of those seats Liberal/National vote was higher than the ALP, who rely on Green preferences to win the seats.
    Bass, Benelong, Braddon, Corangamite, Deakin, Hasluck, Page, Robertson, Soloman
    Flynn, Forde was 3 corner where the lib + Nat had the higher vote

    Optional preferential voting would seem to benefits Lib/Nat while full distribution benefits the ALP. I think both system are as good as each other.

  26. [You’re overlooking the fairly obvious point that if we did have first past the post here, there probably wouldn’t be two competing conservative parties. You’d have one Tory party like they do in the UK.]

    The Country Party came in and divided the vote, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_by-election,_1918

    There’s no evidence to say they would have merged. Australia is far larger than the UK with much more of a “rural” area.

  27. [In the federal campaign, the ALP would not have won the following seats, if it was first past the post. In each of those seats Liberal/National vote was higher than the ALP, who rely on Green preferences to win the seats.]

    If we have first past the post I would have voted Labor, not Green.

  28. #81

    If having two competing parties consistently disadvantaged the conservatives, they’d take action to stop it. That’s obvious, surely? If we had FPP here, they’d either have merged by now or agreed not to compete directly against each other (no 3 cornered contests). It’s the only way they would have ever won government.

    They wouldn’t just sit there and let themselves be defeated over and over again because they didn’t change.

  29. Bob1234
    If it is optional preferential voting, some people might not. A lot of Green voter would not have voted 1 labor, there would be about 8-9% according to the Green. Whether the Greens and the ALP would merge would be the other option

    In Qld they did merge to stop the 3 corners, they merged, and Federally you could argue that they did too, The Coalition would probably have won Flynn and Forde if they were not 3 cornered

  30. The Country Party was first led by William McWilliams. He wanted them to be a balance of power party, looking out for rural interests. They took seats off Labor too. They target particular seats. If FPP wasn’t brought in i’m sure conservative politics would have still survived. Would have just meant a bit of pride swallowed by the Nationalists and not contest seats they thought the Country Party would win.

    The point though, is that the conservatives introduced preferential voting to accommodate the Country Party and not lose seats to Labor. And now in the modern day where parties to the left of the major parties exist and survive, with preferences from a slight to a strong majority going to Labor, the conservatives now scream and cry that this system of voting is crap and advantages Labor. It only began to advantage Labor from the time of the Democrats in the late 1970s. Prior to that, it was Labor v the rest, Labor’s primary vote was practically it’s two-party vote.

  31. [If it is optional preferential voting, some people might not. A lot of Green voter would not have voted 1 labor, there would be about 8-9% according to the Green. Whether the Greens and the ALP would merge would be the other option]

    8-9% of Green voters don’t preference in OPV systems? That’s not very much. In the house of reps in 2007, the Greens got 7.8% of the vote. In OPV, that’s around 7% of the vote that still gets distributed.

  32. For a start i wish people would stop peddling this nonsense of two conservative parties its two non-labor parties one is Liberal (LIBERAL PARTY) similar to the one that once was strong in the United Kingdom and one is Conservative (NATIONAL PARTY) Which has similar aspirations as the Republican Party GOP in the United States.

  33. The Liberal Party houses Liberals and Conservatives, go back and study the merging of MPs of Liberal and Conservative leanings, who formed the Fusion, aka Commonwealth Liberal Party in 1909. It was ALP v CLP until 1916 when some of the pro-conscriptionist ALPers merged with the CLP to become the Nationalists. The Country Party formed in 1920, by rural farmers. They were agrarian socialists. Your analogy is completely and utterly incorrect.

  34. “The point though, is that the conservatives introduced preferential voting to accommodate the Country Party and not lose seats to Labor”

    And you could argue OPV was introduced to maximise the splitting of the conservative vote. Now, in an opposite scenario to CPV, this is working against Labor due to the strength of the Greens.

    Partisan bulldust aside, I personally prefer OPV as it allows voters to refuse both major parties- or any minor party- if they want. It also helps limit the impact of the party machines and their preferencing ‘deals’.

  35. MDM,

    Sure, the Greens not preferencing Labor might deliver a LNP government with all the outlook of Paul Nash but without his charm, logic and committment to Green causes.

  36. Would have been fascinating to see if Menzies managed to remain PM for so long if we had OPV. I bet many DLP votes would have been exhausted.

  37. #93

    Well, the DLP generally cut into the ALP primary vote, so wouldn’t that have made it easier for the Liberals to win under OPV in any case? A real close one like 1961 might have been different, I concede.

    In addition, if there was FPP or OPV, would the DLP have even been a major force? People who thought the ALP was too left-wing may have been more likely to have voted Liberal directly.

  38. [Well, the DLP generally cut into the ALP primary vote, so wouldn’t that have made it easier for the Liberals to win under OPV in any case?]

    DLP preferences overwhelmingly went to the coalition. With OPV, i’m sure many would have exhausted.

  39. [On these figures the Nationals should be able to pick up blah , blah , blah]
    Here we go again, extrapolating this poll onto the election in 2011. Useless exercise. A week is a long time in politics, two years an eternity.

Comments Page 2 of 3
1 2 3

Leave a Reply

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