The latest bi-monthly New South Wales state Newspoll result is about what you’d expect. Conducted through November and the first half of December, it has Labor’s primary vote down four points to 26 per cent, the Coalition up two to 44 per cent and the Greens vaulting five to an unprecedented 17 per cent. Labor’s primary vote equals the record low set in November-December last year, which is three points lower than the next worst ever major party result (as I illustrated at the time with this chart). The Coalition is up from 55-45 to 59-41 on a two-party measure that tells you less than the primary vote, due to optional preferential voting and a combined minor party and independent vote that exceeds Labor’s.
For all that, Kristina Keneally’s personal ratings are better than she might have feared. From a sample of the 637 most recent respondents, she leads Barry O’Farrell as preferred premier 35 per cent to 34 per cent, and more say she will be a better leader than Nathan Rees (24 per cent) than worse (16 per cent). The former ratings are about the same as Nathan Rees’s towards the end, but they have been achieved against an O’Farrell whose approval rating has improved six points to 44 per cent, with disapproval down seven to 30 per cent. Approval and disapproval ratings for Keneally are not provided.
Isn’t funny how theres now near unanimous agreement that the Greens will win multiple lower house seats in NSW… this never used to happen.
Not to mention the fact that it will most likely be the first time the Greens win a seat(s) at a general election.
Yeah, the Greens are definately imploding! LOL! Wishful thinking by Labor hacks.
Yes, no longer can the right be appeased at the expense of the left.
😀
[Of course not Dovif, we were completely stuffed for not running. But most people thought that the ALP would naturely convert to the Greens but it didn’t. They decided to stay home instead!!!]
More crap. The majority of Labor votes went to the Greens over the Libs or informal/not voting, at a better rate this by-election than previous by-elections.
Still can’t believe it…
Coalition 44%
Labor 26%
Greens 17%
This looks like figures more for any current UK Con/Lab/LibDem poll…
Labor needs a good flushing out, in terms of both internal personnel and MPs… until they do this they will not be a viable competent government. I hope this happens sooner rather than quicker. Some on this forum have the exact same attitudes Liberals had in 2007… and still have today…
NSW Labor will be out for at least two terms. Let’s hope they can renew rather than delay and stall which all too often happens by naval gasers inside and outside the party who are too stubborn to admit where they went wrong and how to fix it.
*gazers
How do I get that stfu thing? So I don’t have to read bob’s idiocy.
[ This looks like figures more for any current UK Con/Lab/LibDem poll… ]
Before you get too excited, look at the Tory / Labour / SDP-Liberal vote split in the 1983 UK election. Then look at the number of seats each party got. The two-party is a powerful beast.
* ‘two-party’ = ‘two-party system’.
[How do I get that stfu thing? So I don’t have to read bob’s idiocy.]
Get Firefox.
Download Greasemonkey add on
Install Script from here.
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/63741
Enjoy the silence 🙂
Legend. Ta.
[ Enjoy the silence 🙂 ]
Ahh, the sweet sound of no dissent. Much as Bob bugs me sometimes, I don’t believe in blocking people’s posts just because I don’t agree with them. I think it’s a fairly unpleasant move.
[I don’t believe in blocking people’s posts just because I don’t agree with them]
It’s their way of throwing in the towel. Their choice but it speaks volumes about them 😉
106
That was with fptp. NSW has optional preferential which is not as bad. UK 1983 with compulsory preferential would have looked a bit different in seat outcome.
Bird of Paradise – #96
Thanks for that information. It has inspired me to look at the WA State election for 2008. I will also look at the 1988 NSW State election. I want to see if there are trends for a reduced turnout and/or increased informal vote at such elections.
Anyone aware of any other state elections, where Labor governments were on the nose (either in reality or perceived to be) ?
I am thinking of a theory for NSW state Labor (based only on instinct) along these lines:
Labor voters comprise:
1. Welded on voters. These are people who would vote Labor, irrespective of the circumstances or the candidate e.g. Mickey Mouse. My gut feeling is these are 15-30% of the formal vote. The NSW Nov-Dec Newspoll gave Labor 26%. In the 2008 Sydney City Council election Labor scored 17% in the councillor election and 15% in the mayoral contest. The council elections were held a week or two after Iemma was lynched following his attempts to privatise electricity assets.
2. Rusted on voters.
a. Strongly rusted on. These people cannot bring themselves to vote anything other than Labor. Where a Labor government is on the nose, they will either:
(i) Fail to attend a polling booth, or
(ii) Vote informal.
b. Lightly rusted on. These people will normally vote Labor, but when it is clear that Labor is completely useless e.g. Labor doesn’t field a candidate, will vote on a 2CP basis possibly in the proportion Greens (70-80%) and Liberal (20-30%) – based on Dr Good’s work.
3. Swinging voters who change their vote from Labor to Liberal to Green etc, depending on the circumstances.
The categories are not mutually exclusive.
re: Reduced turnout
I have looked at the WA state election results to see if voters fail to turn-out when a government is on the nose.
Figures are available from the WAEC for the 1993, 1996, 2001, 2005 and 2008 elections. Voter turnout as a percentage of those enrolled was:
1993 – 93.5
1996 – 90
2001 – 90.5
2005 – 89.8
2008 – 86.5
Change elections (those at which the government were defeated) were 1993 (Labor defeated), 2001 (Liberal defeated) and 2008 (Labor defeated).
Bird of Paradise – #96 – says the Labor government in 2008 was painted as being on the nose.
The turnout figures generally show a downward trend since 1993. If this non-turnout effect does exist , it would not be more than 4% of the electorate.
Informal voting:
From the WAEC the informal vote as a percentage of votes cast was:
1993 – 4.1%
1996 – 4.4%
2001 – 4.5%
2005 – 5.2%
2008 – 5.3%
These figures show an upward trend in informal voting since 1993.
A bunch of WA elections might not be the best to compare with each other… in particular, 2001 had One Nation, which is gonna be remembered most in 50 years time as an annoying blip that makes turn-of-the-century data a pain to analyse. Try comparing NSW 1988 and the 1992/3 elections in Vic, SA and WA; they all featured broken-down old ALP governments being taken out the back and given a bullet. Qld 1995 might fit the bill too, although that was a little bit different (Qld always is).
# 115
Thanks for that. Difficulty is that basically results are available on the web only for elections subsequent to 1990. Which means I have to go to the Library and do a paper based search. Urrrrrrrgh.
Hmm, not even at Psephos apparently.
I’ve gotta go to the Alexander Library sometime, I haven’t for ages – I might tomorrow. They’ve got a bunch of old WA stuff on the top floor. Hopefully it’s open…
(Friendly warning to the Sydneysiders: our new Liberal premier has many cost-saving ideas, one of which was closing the state museum and art gallery for a day each week – not sure if the library got that treatment too. Hopefully he doesn’t give O’Farrell too many bad ideas.)
Bird of paradox – #117
I have found a website which might just solve my problems – currently checking it out.
http://elections.uwa.edu.au/
re: Voting turnout.
That website at the University of Western Australia is perfect for my needs. 🙂
http://elections.uwa.edu.au/
I was looking at turnout/informal when Labor was on the nose. From my understanding there is no such election in Queensland in modern times. However, the 1989 election was one in which the conservatives were on the nose. That election followed a 3 Premier (Bjelke-Petersen, Ahern, Cooper) term, and the incumbent Nationals were defeated. Labor won the 1995 election, but a re-run in a seat ordered by the Court of Disputed Returns, resulted in Labor losing the seat and the Nationals formed government with the support of an independent. The Nationals went to the 1998 polls as the government, but were defeated by Labor led by Peter Beattie.
The turnout figures with the informal vote in brackets is:
1986 – 91.3% (2.2%)
1989 – 91.2% (3%)
1992 – 91.5% (2.3%)
1995 – 91.4% (1.8%)
1998 – 92.9% (1.5%)
2001 – 92.6% (2.3%)
2004 – 91.4% (2%)
2006 – 90.5% (2%)
2009 – 91% (1.9%)
Do you think that the low voter turnout has something to do with the knowledge that if you don’t vote, you get fined, a reminder and then nothing else. ie it is not enforced so people are saying stuff it.
re : Voter turnout in WA – Addendum to #114
The figures in #114 were from the information provided on the WAEC website. The discovery of the UWA website (see #118) enables results prior to 1993 to be tabulated.
Voter turnout with informal in brackets is:
1980 – 88.4% (3.5%)
1983 – 89% (2.8%)
1986 – 91.4% (2.6%)
1989 – 90.7% (7.4%).
Change elections in this period were 1983 (Liberal defeated).
re: Voter turnout and informal – NSW
From the UWA website (see #118) voter turnout with informal in brackets is:
1981 – 91.2% (3.1%)
1984 – 92.5% (2.4%)
1988 – 93.6% (3.3%)
1991 – 93.6% (9.3%)
1995 – 93.8% (5.2%)
1999 – 93.1% (2.5%)
2003 – 91.9% (2.6%)
2007 – 92.6% (2.8%)
Change elections were 1988 (Labor defeated) and 1995 (Liberal minority government defeated. The 1991 election saw the Liberal government led by Nick Greiner retaining government, but as a minority government with support of independents.
Over the period voter turnout is fairly stable. Likewise the informal vote except in 1991 and 1995 when they were high. The informal vote in the change election (Labor defeated) of 1988 was the 3rd highest in the period.
Wonder what caused the high informal rate in 1991?
“Greiner scares me but the other mob aren’t ready to govern, so stuff ’em both”, perhaps?
MDMConnell – #123
Your suggestion seems feasible.
MDMConnell – #123
However this is another explanation:
[ New South Wales has had optional preferential voting in the Legislative Assembly since 1979. Voters are asked to mark a number one for their first preference, and then any further preferences if they wish.
From 3.3% informality at the 1989 election, the rate jumped to 9.3% in 1991. A tick or cross had been a valid first preference since 1982, but was declared informal in 1990. The concurrent referendum to reform the Legislative Council also meant that voters were faced with three ballots and three different voting systems, with different formality rules for each.
Informality decreased to 5.2% at the 1995 election, after which the formality rules were revised and a tick or cross were once again considered formal. In the following elections, informality decreased again to 2.5% in 1999 and 2.6% in 2003.
]
see: AEC, Research Report 10 – Informal Voting at State and Territory Elections
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/Strategy_Research_Analysis/paper10/page01.htm
[NSW Labor will be out for at least two terms]
I hate it when people say that. I remember people said the same after Latham and after Debnam. Elections are never for sure.
re: Voter turnout and informal – VICTORIA
From the UWA website (see #118) voter turnout with informal in brackets is:
1979 – 93.3% (3.0%)
1982 – 94% (2.6%)
1985 – 93.2% (2.7%)
1988 – 92.4% (3.9%)
1992 – 95.1% (3.8%)
1996 – 94.1% (2.3%)
1999 – 93.2% (3.0%)
2002 – 93.2% (3.4%)
2006 – 92.7% (4.6%)
Change elections were 1982 (Liberal defeated), 1992 (Labor defeated) and 1999 (Liberal defeated).
re: Voter turnout and informal – SOUTH AUSTRALIA
From the UWA website (see #118) voter turnout with informal in brackets is:
1977 – 93.4% (2.7%)
1979 – 93.0% (4.4%)
1982 – 93.2% (5.8%)
1985 – 93.5% (3.5%)
1989 – 94.4% (2.8%)
1993 – 93.6% (3.1%)
1997 – 91.8% (4.0%)
2002 – 93.6% (3.1%)
2006 – 92.3% (3.6%)
Change elections were 1979 (Labor defeated) 1982 (Liberal defeated) 1993 (Labor defeated) and 2002 (Liberal minority government defeated and replaced by a Labor minority government).
[I hope we don’t get a hung parliament in 2011, or if so the Coalition has the numbers with some independents. It would be a nightmare for the Greens to have to choose between propping up the hated ALP government and working with the Liberals.]
Hung parliaments with the Greens can work: ACT is exemplary. I agree that Labor needs to be chastened and the only way that’ll happen is if they’re out of office.
[Thankfully I think it’s extremely unlikely the Greens will decide who forms the next government. Even if it’s a hung parliament there will be enough independents and they would be the ones the Liberals would work with.]
Yes given that there are no Greens in NSW lower house and it took 5 elections before the ACT greens had enough MLAs to govern with the ALP – also the ALP in ACT is a very different beast to the NSW ALP – this is as fantastic a discussion as they come. Fun to needle the Labor hacks though!
A hung parliament given these swings is very unlikely anyway, outright Coalition is what we’ll have. If we had a hung parliament it’d make NSW politics much more interesting though…
[I hate it when people say that. I remember people said the same after Latham and after Debnam. Elections are never for sure.]
They were already in opposition. NSW Labor isn’t. They won’t be given a majority by the voters the first election after being voted out. Any belief otherwise is silly.
It has been put forward on this website that rusted on Labor voters, who have lost faith with the NSW Labor government for reasons including it has lost it’s way, it’s old and tired and/or is perceived as being on the nose, will, rather than giving their vote to any other candidate/party, fail to ‘vote’ or record an informal vote at the 2011 NSW state election.
Could someone explain, apart from anecdotal evidence of what they or members of their close circle of friends will do/have done, the basis on which this assertion is made and the quantum of enrolled electors who might be expected to act in this fashion.
The voter turnout and informal vote figures for recent years are set out above. NSW @ #122, Victoria @ #127, Qld @ #119, WA @ #114 and #121, and SA @ #128.
The turnout at the next NSW election will fall several percent. That will be because automatic enrolment is being introduced. Instead of people who never get around to enrolling, next time these people will be on the roll and not get round to voting.
Why is it silly? The NSW Libs are nutters and are led by a man that the public doesn’t know what he stands for. It’s silly to say that a major party will be unable to win an election for 8 years.
Antony Green – 132
[ The turnout at the next NSW election will fall several percent. That will be because automatic enrolment …..]
That is a very good point. It is like comparing apples with oranges. After the 2011 election the high “fail to attend booth” figures will be explainable by that, not by “disillusioned Labor voters refusing to support other candidates/party’s”.
[They were already in opposition. NSW Labor isn’t. They won’t be given a majority by the voters the first election after being voted out. Any belief otherwise is silly.]
They did in 1995. Beazley very nearly won after a single term in 1998.
The problem with state turnout figures is that they are also affected by the proximity of Federal elections, and by how ‘sudden’ the election was. The AEC supervises most of the roll processing under the Joint Roll arrangement. Historically they do a major purge of the roll 6-12 months before a Federal election, removing names of people who have moved. The enrolment drops at that point, so a state election held before the purge will contain a slightly higher proportion of people on the roll who have moved and so won’t vote. The AEC and state authorities try to do purges before state polls as well, but this doesn’t happen with snap state polls.
So last year’s WA election was early and sudden and the roll was not in as good a state as if the election had occurred at the normal time. Snap elections also seem to affect the number of people arranging postal votes. elections held at an expected time normally get a higher turn out than unexpected elections.
Hung parliaments with the Greens can work: ACT is exemplary. I agree that Labor needs to be chastened and the only way that’ll happen is if they’re out of office.
Hung parliaments with the Greens can certainly work, and like you say, I think the situation in the ACT is ideal.
The problem with achieving the same result in NSW is that you’d be in a Sophie’s choice situation – be responsible for re-electing the most incompetent government in Australian history, or for electing a government that makes Ghengis Khan look positively progressive. You can’t win with those choices.
That is a very good point. It is like comparing apples with oranges. After the 2011 election the high “fail to attend booth” figures will be explainable by that, not by “disillusioned Labor voters refusing to support other candidates/party’s”.
I doubt it. What else do you think people who are fed up with Labor, think the Clarkist Liberals are nutters, and don’t want to go to the Greens are going to do?
Yes, but making those choices is what the balance of power is about. Responsibility comes with power. You are either a serious player in politics and make that sort of decision, or you’re dillettantes.
The German Greens had to make a choice in 1999 on the Kosovo war. Agree to Nato’s decision to bomb Belgrade, or sit idly by while the Milosevic governing expelled more that a million people from their homes and country. Not choosing wasn’t an option. Holding power can involve tough and unsavoury decisions. You don’t get to pick and choose which decisions you make.
For what it’s worth I give the Greens no hope in Heffron. Sure, half the electorate, from Tempe to Waterloo and Kensington is your sort of inner-city environment that could just, on occasion, elect a Green (assuming the Libs running third AND preferencing the Greens).
The other half of the electorate is nothing at all like that. Have any of you ever driven through Rosebery, Eastlakes and Mascot (going to the airport doesn’t count)? Not much gentrification or “inner city” character. The voters in these places aren’t going to vote Green (or Liberal).
http://www.elections.nsw.gov.au/state_government_elections/electoral_districts/all_districts_/heffron/results_2007/first_candidates_post
I don’t really understand the angst against the NSW Government. I think that they’re actually pretty good at governing; they’re just terrible at politics and the latter has been dragged through the media and people have linked the unable-to-look-after-the-party to unable-to-look-after-the-state. If you look at the stats, NSW Hospitals have the shortest waiting lists in Australia, the average NSW student score was the highest in the 2009 nationwide exams and certainly where in Sydney I live the public transport is great.
The Libs are kind of the opposite. They have terrible inter-party brawls and have genuine Keith Windshuttle fan clubbers, but manage to keep a lid on it, and then they have pretty well no policies but seem to get by on a ‘fixing the state’ mantra.
Just my thoughts, but I will certainly be filling all the boxes and putting the Libs below the Government.
Hamish, the Cons have 44%, Lab 26%, Green 17%. They are incompetent and inept.
[If you look at the stats, NSW Hospitals have the shortest waiting lists in Australia, the average NSW student score was the highest in the 2009 nationwide exams and certainly where in Sydney I live the public transport is great.]
It is worth remarking on how health has been kept out of the media compared with the other states. I’m sure Carmel Tebbutt is glad that her portfolio hasn’t been the media nightmare that it has been under previous ministers (Reba anyone?).
Education hasn’t been quite so lucky – that’s been more federal focused. It’s also John Kaye’s pet portfolio so I don’t think the NSW Greens will ever stop needling the government where they can.
The Coalition won’t contest the election on those two issues as they know it’s a quagmire for them; rather I think it’ll be law & order, planning and the managing of the state economy that’ll be used to thwack the government down.
Certainly on planning they’ll be whipping out their election-drawer policies to get into office, then quietly do a policy switcharoo. When that happens I think the public will swing back support for the ALP.
rogan – 140
[ Have any of you ever driven through Rosebery, Eastlakes and Mascot ]
I have actually walked all around it !!!
I agree it has characteristics that make it strong Labor territory. However, it is changing, particularly with the new large scale apartment style buildings e.g. around Green Square. There is a push commencing for gentrification in the workman style cottages as well. Conveniently located close to the CBD and relatively inexpensive this push will continue. Just have to be able to put up with the airport noise 😆
I am not predicting which way it will go politically. I am saying it is changing.
I think Labor supporters need to get together and agree on their lines.
Half of them are claiming O’Farrell is a vicious rightwing wolf in sheep’s clothing who’ll unleash a secret radical agenda.
And the other half claim he’s an empty vessel who has no policies and stands for nothing.
He can’t be both at the same time. SO which is it?
Peter – then you would know!
Green Square is about 5 streets, admittedly with higher density living than other areas of the seat. Lots of people in Eastlakes and Mascot though. It could change character sufficiently in maybe 5-10 years. Not in 2011 though.
So anthony or anyone else, what can the ALP do to save some furniture.A. Go hard on schools and hospitals, jobs? B. Be as quiet as possible to take out the heat or C. attack the opposition for lack of policies.
My guess is B for next year, 6 months out switch to A and a bit of C
The election is still a very long time a way. plenty of time for warm and fluffies to be paraded here and there. You know like hey I was so mad about the state of the Government, but isn’t that dog cute hahah things aren’t that bad are they
[Hamish, the Cons have 44%, Lab 26%, Green 17%. They are incompetent and inept.]
Do I know you? I was simply giving my opinion, as we are all entitled to. A bit of civility never goes astray on a blog.
[I think Labor supporters need to get together and agree on their lines.
Half of them are claiming O’Farrell is a vicious rightwing wolf in sheep’s clothing who’ll unleash a secret radical agenda.
And the other half claim he’s an empty vessel who has no policies and stands for nothing.
He can’t be both at the same time. SO which is it?]
I wouldn’t consider O’Farrell to be particularly ‘right.’ He is in the moderate faction of the Libs. I’m concerned my some of the others in the NSW Libs though, who of which is well documented. It’s hard to say if he stands for anything. He may, but he seems to be taking a very cautious approach by not voicing anything too controversial and simply letting the media focus on the Gov. No doubt some policies will come closer to the election, but hopefully not in the same vein as Debnam chose.