New South Wales election minus one week

Still a tight tussle a week out from the New South Wales election, but reports speak of “momentum” running against the government.

The New South Wales state election is likely to struggled for news space over the next few days, with implications that are not easy to read. Recently noted:

Andrew Clennell of The Australian today reports that “momentum” is “said to be moving away from the Coalition in key marginals”. The remainder of the report largely reiterates conventional wisdom about the state of play, but says the strength of Shooters Fishers and Farmers may be a problem for Labor in its bid to gain Upper Hunter from the Nationals.

• The Sydney Morning Herald reports Balmain, which the Greens have held for two terms, is “strengthening for Labor”, with the Greens’ recent internal warfare making it difficult for them to recruit volunteers.

• The Liberals have been showing a lot of interest all of a sudden in Heathcote, located on the southern fringe of Sydney and held for the Liberals by 7.6%, which has been targeted by robocalling featuring messages from Gladys Berejiklian.

• The Australian had additional results from last weekend’s Newspoll on Wednesday regarding best party to handle various issues, which produced fairly typical of such exercises, although perhaps with narrower margins than is typical. Labor led 44-35 on health, 42-36 on education, 41-30 on environment and 37-34 on energy; the Coalition led 39-33 on law and order, 41-34 on infrastructure, 39-31 on the economy and 37-36 on transport.

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.

86 comments on “New South Wales election minus one week”

  1. I’m going to enjoy 9pm next Saturday.Once people start asserting that the “figures are fudged” its a sign of desperation.

    Just remind me guys, what were the unemployment figures (fudged or otherwise) under Carr/Iemma/Rees/Keneally. Let me know the real stats, leaving your own obvious bias out of the response!!

  2. Yep. The employment figure is historically good. But the stupid method used to measure it fails to read the movement from full to underemployment. The people that are affected however are well aware of the change in their circumstance.

  3. The ABC did a good fact check on the claim about the NSW unemployment rate – the long term average under the current two terms and previous two terms is actually the same. Plus, it’s debatable how much credit (or blame) either government can take for it:
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-06/fact-chec-nsw-votes-jobless-rate-46-per-cent-higher-under-labor/10867388

    Also, the ABS put out a useful article on the number of employed people who only work one hour a week – it’s only about 0.1% of employed people.
    http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0Main%20Features3Jan%202019

    The ABS also publishes monthly statistics on underemployment and underutilisation, as well as the employment to population ratio, which I’d argue is a better measure of how many people are employed than the unemployment rate.

  4. So what’s the percentage of “employed” people who only work 2 to 20 hours a week, compared to 37 -40 hours per week which is considered standard full time employment.

    Could any “average” person exist, bring up a family, pay rent etc. etc. on the magnificent income thus derived?

  5. Well based on the table in the article around 85% of employed people work more than 20 hours per week. What exact hours people need to work would depend on their situation I guess. Not everyone has kids, a lot of people live in households where more than one person works and of course their actual income would depend on their hourly pay. When I was a single student I definitely didn’t need (or want) to work 38 hours per week.

  6. Query how much the unemployment rate affects state politics. Most people look to the federal governemnt in regards to this metric.

    Most people look to the state government for services and amenities. People don’t like privatisation. People know that their power bills have gone up 60% since the liberals came to power and privatised electricity.

    People don’t understand while natural monopolies like the Land Titles Office and desal plant have been flogged off. They don’t understand why heritage buildings have been flogged off. Many people are scratching their heads about why the government demolished not one Philip Cox internationally awarded public buildings, but three.

    People do not understand the purpose behind the government’s infrastructure splurge and rightly suspect that – other than the good north west metro project – most of it is the wrong project in the wrong area built and operated by liberal party mates and that the punter will end up paying twice for it because of private sector price gouging.

    The arrogance of demolishing a perfectly good stadium in the middle of an election campaign is emblematic of the political clusterfuck that is this government.

    I strongly suspect “moderate” that all of those reasons are why Labor is competitive in Sydney seats this election.

    However, it is much much worse for the LNP in the bush where local MPs are seen as mere lick spittles for the obsesssions of Sydney, especially the top end of town. Insofar as these MPs even bother with local politics they are seen to be in the thrall of big mining, big agribusinesses (which are increasingly foreign owned) and large irrigators. Having visited much of country NSW recently for work I am staggered at just how hated the state LNP are. It’s “game on” for next Saturday, even if the tragic events of Friday deprive Labor of campaign oxygen and some late momentum.

  7. • The Sydney Morning Herald reports Balmain, which the Greens have held for two terms, is “strengthening for Labor”, with the Greens’ recent internal warfare making it difficult for them to recruit volunteers.

    This sounds dubious. It isn’t all that hard to bring volunteers across from other electorates to a key electorate.

  8. Andrew you are picking up exactly what I am….. but I have not travelled to country nsw
    in the Bush if all went bad for the nationals they could lose to alp shooters and independents in excess of 10 seats. Against the liberals labor could win Bega Goulburn Kiama and South Coast.. with Goulburn and Bega being the most likely
    Now you need to look at the Metro seats…. in North shore an independent could win same with Wollondilly…… The dynamics of Hawkesbury probably make it a close run thing… despite its demographics being safe liberal is that why the treasurer is now contesting Epping?
    past the 3% on the swing chart there are many seats held by the liberals in the 6 to 10% range mainly which are seat by seat propositions as is Riverstone which is slightly beyond.

  9. I live in Balmain. So does my sister. She and all of her family have voted green for a number of elections. She told me last week that they are all “going home” to Labor. I was pretty shocked. At that point, I knew the Greens were dun.

  10. Hopefully the terrible terrorist attack in New Zealand last Friday will at least have one positive result and the Liberal party with their leader Morrison who fuels hate against Muslims will be voted out. Presumably forever

  11. NSW Libs have invented a non existent preference deal in an attempt to use Christchurch events to save Gladys.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-17/michael-daley-threatens-to-resign-if-nsw-gun-laws-weakened/10909658

    The Shooters HTV is not recommending any preferences in either house.
    http://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/how_to_vote_sff_nsw_state_election_2019

    Gladys should be asked to explain the alleged deal as Labor isn’t receiving any preferences.

  12. Andrew have always counted Bathurst. as competitive….15% margin includes a 54% vote in lithgow… less than 55% alp in Lithgow and less than 40% in Bathurst is unusual ignoring Blaney Kandos and Oberon. a relatively poor vote. Say 54% alp Lithgow and 48% Bathurst equal s an alp win

  13. NSW Nationals HTVs look interesting.
    In the Legislative Council, Nats are recommending 2 for David Leyonholm’s Liberal Democrats.
    The Nats HTV’s can be found here:
    http://www.nswnationals.org.au/page/3/?s=htv

    The Liberal Democrats are running candidates in four seats that the Nationals are also contesting (Barwon, Coffs Harbour, Orange, and Upper Hunter).
    LDP are recommending 2 for Nationals in Barwon, Coffs, and Upper Hunter. In Orange, LDP are recommending Nationals be placed above both Shooters and Labor.
    LDP’s HTV can be found here:
    http://www.ldp.org.au/htv_nsw

    This looks like a preference deal to me. LDP receives Nats 2nd preference in upper house to help elect Leyonholm and in return Nats receive preferences in lower house seats they are struggling to retain or regain.

  14. The Liberal Democrats firearms policy includes the following:
    – There should be no registration of long-arms.
    – There should be no prohibitions or special limits on semi-automatic firearms.
    – Impediments to children participating in safe shooting activities should be removed.

    The full policy can be found here:
    https://www.ldp.org.au/firearms

    If Gladys wants to make claims about preference deals weakening gun laws, she should explain why her coalition colleagues have done a deal with Leyonholm’s Liberal Democrats.

  15. The lower house LibDems are an odd proposition. In Coffs, they’ve drawn the top spot on the ballot, but the ballot draw was the first anyone had heard that they were running, and as far as I know their candidate has done no public appearances at candidates’ forums or the like or taken out any advertising (although I don’t listen to local radio or watch local television, so I could be wrong there). Nobody seems to know, nor care, who he is, so I’m not sure what his preferences are worth.

    It does look like a deal, though, and perhaps simply standing and directing preferences to the Nats is all they’ve agreed to, and they don’t intend to actually campaign.

  16. Probably just to balance their book after taking a bet on the Libs.

    Does anyone know how much these bookies turn over on, say, betting on a seat like Oxley or Kogarah?

  17. Watson Watxh

    The Liberal Democrats firearms policy includes the following:
    – There should be no registration of long-arms.
    – There should be no prohibitions or special limits on semi-automatic firearms.
    – Impediments to children participating in safe shooting activities should be removed.

    The full policy can be found here:
    https://www.ldp.org.au/firearms

    If Gladys wants to make claims about preference deals weakening gun laws, she should explain why her coalition colleagues have done a deal with Leyonholm’s Liberal Democrats.

    I think Labor should be shouting this from the rooftops tomorrow morning.

  18. In campaiging in this last week – Labor should just turn this LDP/Nats ‘stitch-up’ back onto the Coalition every day. You just repeat and repeat and repeat – eventually someone in the media takes up the story. They should ask John Howard what he thinks of the LDP gun ‘reform’ plans!

  19. Watson Watch @ #69 Sunday, March 17th, 2019 – 4:45 pm

    NSW Libs have invented a non existent preference deal in an attempt to use Christchurch events to save Gladys.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-17/michael-daley-threatens-to-resign-if-nsw-gun-laws-weakened/10909658

    The Shooters HTV is not recommending any preferences in either house.
    http://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/how_to_vote_sff_nsw_state_election_2019

    Gladys should be asked to explain the alleged deal as Labor isn’t receiving any preferences.

    This cute TWITTER post from the SFF confirms no deal has been made with Labor at all; its all bollocks from the Fibs.

    https://twitter.com/sffAustralia/status/1107214808657465345

  20. The various Federal Coalition parties seem unable to learn that each time a party knifes its leader it loses votes under the replacement leader. Each time. Rudd, Gillard, Rudd; Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison; so with that fine record of successes the Nats are talking about changing leaders. Next, every party that descends into internal quarrelling and recrimination loses votes. If it’s a small party it may disappear or at least lose most of its seats — see the Australian Democrats, the Palmer United Party, One Hanson. Even if it’s a big party it’s likely to lose the next election – once again see Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, see the Libs cut to a one seat majority under Abbott/Turnbull. So the great hope of the environmentally conscious in our most populous state decides to descent into internal quarrelling and recrimination right before the state election. Good one Greens. At least there won’t be many of you left to continue the quarrelling after the election. If any.

Leave a Reply

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