The Poll Bludger’s New South Wales election guide is now operational – all 30,000 or so words of it. Virtue is of course its own reward, but if you think my labours deserve a little extra you are invited to follow the directions here. Further embellishments, like candidate photos and local issue summaries, will be added in due course. Please drop me a line if you spot any errors, particularly if they’re of a kind likely to invite ridicule. With that out of the way, I really am going to be keeping a low profile around here in the next four weeks or so; heavy duty state election coverage will commence thereafter.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
New South Wales election guide
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
197 Comments
Great work. On Murray-Darling Labor did very poorly in Broken Hill (vote under 60%) at the 2004 federal election which was due to a backlash against chnages to the local health service. This may still be an issue.
Two corrections. Eric Willis didn’t lose Earlwood in 1978, he retired earlier and Alan Jones was the Liberal candidate at the by-election and lost to Labor’s Ken Gabb. Diane Beamer was not the Labor candidate in Badgery’s Creek in 1988, she lost preselection, despite being the head Office candidate (like Fay Lo Po), to Greg Lucas (electorate officer for Roger Price I think). I meet him before the 1988 election and he was so confident that he wasn’t bothering to doorknock, but he fell to Anne Cohen, the Jackie Kelly of the 1980s.
The guide shows the difficulties for the Libs in NSW – a 4% swing just to win a single seat! By all normal measures, Labor and Iemma should be dead in the water. Even as a committed ALP voter, I can see that the government looks tired and probably just past its use-by date, and yet it would be a major upset if they were to even lose their majority. Debnam clearly is a dud – it’s hard not to think that Brogden would be miles ahead at this point. I suppose we should be mindful of memories of Carr in 1991 and Bracks in 1999 – in a smallish electorate, bigger swings are more possible – but I just don’t get that sense that the great unwashed are itching to turf Iemma out.
I reckon the biggest likely change will be a hung parliament.
The six independents elected in 2003 should all get re-elected. I’m not certain about Dubbo or Manly, but the way that independents are going at the moment they should be able to make it.
I don’t think that either McTaggart (elected to Brogden’s seat in 2005) or Stephen Pringle (resigned from the Liberals when he lost preselection) will win, but there’s a chance.
And there’s a bunch of new independents running with strong backing, including the (Lord) Mayors of Newcastle, Wollongong, Goulburn, Lake Macquarie and Maitland.
And there seem to be other opportunities, as well as the Greens running in Balmain and Marrickville.
I’d overall say that independents or Greens are in with a credible chance in:
-Dubbo
-Northern Tablelands
-Tamworth
-Port Macquarie
-Manly
-Sydney
-Pittwater
-Hawkesbury
-Balmain
-Marrickville
-Newcastle
-Maitland
-Swansea
-Shellharbour
-Goulburn
And I’ve heard rumours about other country electorates. That’s 15 electorates. Obviously not all of those will go to the independent, but many of them will, and thus the chances of a hung parliament are pretty bloody good.
Looks like interesting times ahead in NSW.
Great work as always.
A couple of small things. The guide for Strathfield I think should say that is replacing the abolished seat of Burwood rather than Earlwood. The link for Albury needs to be fixed.
Agree that Labor have been a poor enough government to lose, but they are just starting from so far in front that it will probably save them. Debnam’s seeming ability to make himself the issue by making ridiculous comments isn’t helping the Libs either.
You would have to think that any credible independent should do quite well in the current circumstances.
Brilliant guide, absolutely top effort. Must now be absorbed at length. Just two things: wasn’t Willoughby IND vs LIB in 2003? and wasn’t Keira ALP vs GRN (just) as well?
The Wollondilly profile should note that Phillip Costa and Phil Costa are the same person. He was boosted as a potential independant, then joined the ALP to become a candidate.
Good call, WSM. Real good call. Other errors identified have been corrected – keep ‘em coming.
Josh, you are right on both counts. However, Antony Green’s post-redistribution assessment is that the Greens would not have stayed ahead of the Liberals in Keira on the new boundaries, so the ALP vs LIB figure is the only one there is. Also, I am only using IND vs ALP/LIB/NAT figures where the independent did actually win the seat – otherwise I’m using Antony’s notional ALP vs LIB/NAT figures.
Some of the strongly Green booths in Keira were redistributed into Heathcote and less Green booths in the south were redistributed into the electorate from Wollongong, thus the change.
The candidates box for Port Stephens says that a Labor candidate is yet to be announced; the text says that Jim Arneman was endorsed unopposed.
Thanks Rebecca – fixed.
Pah! Mere swing picks are for pikers. This thread picks the seats to be won/lost and the repercussions afterwards. The fact that it is so wildly speculative and poorly grounded in fact is a side issue.
I will take a chance and say Labour will lose 6 to 7 seats but pick up 4 to 5. Net loss of 1 to 3 seats.
Debnam is prancing around like a Prince Charles look alike, speedos in the surf whoo hoo.
Ben Raue
Of the 3 high profile independents in the Hunter, I would say the Mayor of Maitland Peter Blackmore is at short odds to win, especially without the popular sittimg member John Price standing. His popularity in Maitland is very high. I would also rate John Tate quite likely to win Newcastle. I am unsure about Grep Piper in Lake Macquarie.
I have to point out a couple of errors with Tweed.
Firstly, Pottsville has actually been added to the electorate from Ballina.
Secondly, whilst there were rumours about a year ago, mostly whipped up by Labor, that Warren Poleglase was going to stand as an independent, as far as I’m aware (and I follow what’s happening in Tweed pretty closely) this is not happening.
And thirdly, minor point, but the Tweed River doesn’t comprise any part of the NSW/Qld border. The river does form the telephone area code boundary though, hence Tweed Heads and Banora Point have 07 phone numbers despite being in NSW. It’s quite a common mistake.
Thanks Nick, that’s all corrected.
Labor candidates announced at the weekend include:
Monica Hayes in Port Macquarie – I predict her vote will be less than Hough in 2003 and he got only 8%
Lisa Clancy in Myall Lakes who stood at the 2003 election – she has no chance buit will no doubt aid any reasonable independent candidate.
I’d add that with Newcastle, regardless of who wins, the fact that there are four strong candidates, and only one of those is from a major party, indicates that it is likely to end up with a crossbench MP, one way or another.
Hi Ben,
I can’t agree with your analysis for the following reasons.
1. Talking up the Greens in Marrickville and Balmain. The margins are 10% and 7%. Both seats have young female left-wing Labor candidates. Carmel Tebbutt has a significant profile while neither of the Greens candidates are not particularly well known. It is possible that water and global warming may be issues in the election but I doubt if they will be major issues. Even if they are, the thinking voter will be able to choose between a party that talks alot but is never in a position to do anything and a party that can form government. I think the margins are too high.
2. My completely non-random and small poll in Newcastle (5 friends and relatives in fact) shows that Jodi McKay has a surprising level of support. I always thought she was a particularly incompetent news reader but this has apparently given her a much higher profille than Gaudry (who has been the member for 15 years) or the Lord Mayor, Tate. In addition she is seen as a refreshing change from the power playing men who usually represent Newcastle. She may have difficulty getting branch members out to hand out HTVs but apparently the right wing unions have promised help. The margin is 15%.
3. Maitland.The Independent Mayor Blackmore has the disadvantages of being a former Liberal member for the seat. There are also questions of propriety, he has faced but been cleared of charges of sexual assault and has also been accussed of the abuse of funds when he was the member. The Margin is greater than 10%
4. Swansea The margin is 17%. I think the outfall from Orkopoulos’ charges have been neutralised by the government with particular help from Debhnam. The independent, if he stands, is the mayor of Wyong. The overlap between his council and the seat is quite small – I would think his profile in Swansea is equally small.
5. Finally, if all the seats you predict to fall actually do fall, the Labor party will lose 6 seats and the coalition will lose a further 3. Labor would have 49 (majority of 1) coalition 28 greens 2 independent 13. Labor would have no difficulty maintaining government.
Sorry 49 is a majority of 5 and the coalition would lose 2 for a total of 29
Nick, all my life I have assumed that the Tweed was the state border, and now you say it is not so – I looked at the map and you are right. Is it then a coincidence that it is named after the Tweed which is on the border of England and Scotland? Was the river named before or after the NSW-Qld border was decided?
William, Barry O’Farrell, the member for Ku-Ring-Gai, is the Deputy leader of the Liberal Party (I think!) – he’s not a Labor member.
would anyone care to tell me the marginals in which left candidates/members are running for the ALP?
from an above post ive seen marrickville and balmain, but unsure of others.
I didn’t say that all those seats would fall. I’m sure quite a few of them won’t. But all of them have significant challenges.
My own read of Newcastle and Maitland from people who live in those seats say very different things to what you have heard.
It’s true our chances are not great in Marrickville, but there will be a very strong Green vote there and that is why I’ve put it on the list. Balmain is another story though. I reckon we have a fairly good chance there, as good as some of these independents running.
Also, I still expect the Coalition to win seats off the ALP, so your assumption that all of those seats fall to independents and every other seat stays the same is faulty. If the ALP lost, say, 3 seats to Independents, it would substantially aid the Coalition’s prospects of a hung parliament. It doesn’t take away from the fact that the Coalition still needs to win seats (just because they’re not gonna gain a lot doesn’t mean they won’t win seats). Who knows, maybe I’m affected by the fact that in my local area I expect at least two Labor seats to fall to the Coalition.
Fair enough.
Which seats do you think the coalition will win from Labor?
Looking at William’s table, I think it’s quite possible now that Labor won’t lose any seats to the Coalition, and have a fair chance of winning Murray-Darling from the Nats. I don’t get the impression that Debnam has made any impression at all. It’s possible Labor will lose some seats to independents, but not I think to the Greens.
Irrespective of possible sub 4% uniform swings (and thus the Coalition not getting enough to win any seats) its not unreasonable to expect some seats to experience quite severe swings. Macquarie Fields may yet be one of those seats. As to Murray-Darling, thats already held by the ALP so it would be a save not a win (although frankly Black is one very conservative individual and would remain suited to the place…).
I suspect Wollondilly, Monaro and Tweed could all fall with non-uniform swings, and then we move onto to the other seats where demographic changes may play a bigger role. Heathcote is one which could become an increasingly ‘Green’ seat while Keira moves back into the ALP fold (but then a good strong independent there could upset Campbell’s applecart too). Kiama has been a bit of swing seat at times and the southern NSW seats have all been the scene of some intense pork-barrelling over the years.
Personally I would be watching the Hunter-Lake Macquarie area for some bigger shifts in votes which, while not delivering necessarily the required seats for the Coalition to win, will considerably weaken the ALP’s hold on the region.
Of course, the big question is about Debnam and his campaign. For now I don’t see him becoming Premier due to plain old poor campaigning, but some of the other Coalition candidates are actually putting in some effort (Flegg in Coogee, although I doubt he’ll even get close). Looking into the future this election may well have huge ramifications for the ALP firstly in local government election in 2008 (loss of Councillors, Councils and talent), and then the next state election in 2011 (loss of Government, loss of remaining talent).
I thought that the Marrickville by-election was the best opportunity in a long time for the Greens to win a lower house seat. They might win Balmain and/or Marrickville with Labor being on the nose – and might have a chance at Sydney if they get a good primary vote and get a lot of preferences.
Adam, you’re fogetting Edward the First’s rough whooing of the Scottish. One very important part of the Tweed is not the border between England and Scotland. Some north of the border still complain that the old Scottish town of Berwick on the north side of the Tweed is in England, and Berwick Rangers is the only English football club to play in the Scottish League.
The border was defined along the watershed between the Clarence and Moreton pastoral districts, which were defined in the 1830s or 1840s. The Tweed was named by John Oxley in 1823, and the notion of a new northern colony was written into the NSW Constiutution of 1856, the seperation proclaimed in December 1859. Queensland elected members to the NSW Parliament at the first three elections after the grant of self government in 1856.
If Clover Moore runs we won’t win Sydney. And while I remember someone speculating on what would happen if she retires, I haven’t seen any sign she will and don’t expect her to do anything except run again.
But we’ve been campaigning in Sydney since the start of last year, have a strong candidate, and should do well.
I agree that swing is seldom uniform, and that there may be some seats which produce a swing greater than 4% while the statewide swing is low or nonexistent. But it is equally possible that the high swings will be in places where they are not needed, and that no seats will fall to the Coalition. That’s what happened in Victoria – the Libs got good swings in their own seats, and low swings in the key marginals.
Murray-Darling has a Nat majority on the new boundaries, so if Black holds it that counts as an ALP gain.
Clover is unbeatable. The Greens’ only chance is Balmain, but the ALP is getting quite good at defending inner-city seats against the Greens by running women who put up a good “left” front at the local level. Witness Bronwyn Pike’s successful defence of Melbourne in Victoria. I would be VERY surprised if the Greens win a lower house seat anywhere.
Regarding electorates in my area:
My experience in South-West Sydney is that MacFields was in serious danger after Chaytor got into a spot of bother, but McDonald should be able to put off that danger. My understanding is that the ALP realised that preselecting another Labor machine hack (like most of the ALP pollies in Campbelltown) would have led to the seat potentially going to the Libs (Nola Fraser is a strong and likeable candidate, and doesn’t reek of the problems Debnam is having – indeed she was chosen by Brogden just before his breakdown), but they headed that off at the pass. What I have heard tells me the ALP was sniffing around in the local community for candidates who have no history of even supporting the ALP and have strong local community links (including some who support other parties). Of course, this assumes Debnam running a better campaign that he has, but the potential was there.
I also reckon that, even if the overall swing is very small, Labor will lose Wollondilly. There is no local member to protect the ALP vote, and my feeling is the Liberals will be successful.
I’ve also just been redistributed into Camden. That’s got a margin of roughly 8%, but even that I reckon is achievable for the Liberals. So my feeling living in an area with a few marginal seats is that the Liberals aren’t doing as badly as people are saying on here.
Adam
Off the top of my head, without looking up the exact dates – the Tweed River was discovered and named in the 1820s, and it seems it is just a coincidence that the state border was drawn in that vicinity over 30 years later.
Tweed will be a very interesting seat to watch. Despite being the most marginal Labor-held seat there’s no guarantee that the Coalition will win it. I’m told the Nats are quietly confident, but other reports suggest Newell will hold on. Ultimately it will be decided by Greens preferences – there was a report in the SMH last year suggesting they would preference Labor, but my local sources say they will run an open ticket.
Even when Greens run an open ticket their voters usually decide to preference Labor. Newell is a proved vote-winner in that area.
Even though I am from Adelaide, you can easily see that Labor cannot lose in NSW, even though their incompetence is unbelieveable.
It is similar here in South Australia. Rann has done bugger all here, and yet will probably be Premier till at least 2014 due to the Liberal party incompetence (or it manages to pick up 25 seats. The only time something like this happened is in 1993, post State Bank disaster. I doubt it, unless Evans either beefs up a bit more or he hands the leadership over to Chapman or Hamilton-Smith (who would take up the fight to Rann a bit more.)
I am going to move a motion at National Conference that all Labor members resign from all state and territory parliaments and that Labor not contest the subsequent by-elections. Thus we will hand over all the state and territory governments to the Coalition. This will ensure that we win the next federal election, and probably the next five. Since Howard has transferred most state powers to Canberra it won’t matter that there are Coalition governments in the states. The only flaw in this brilliant scheme is that I am not a delegate…
It seems almost everyone believes that Iemma’s government is incompetent and losing support. I just don’t see that from here and the opinion polls are not showing it. Last weekend’s Herald poll had the 2PP at 53/47 for him. In NSW, because of the demographics of the North Shore the Coalition generally has to get well over a 50% state-wide 2pp to gain government, although local variations in seats do of course occur.
Certainly those interested in politics are finding 12 years of Labor a bit boring and the SMH seems to have had a year long vendetta against the government, in which Iemma gets the blame for everything. Last week they had a “Special Herald Investigation” that revealed (shock, horror) that there were no toilets on Sydney trains and people had been peeing in the area between the two carriages. What a piece of news! What a shocking indictement of government!
What is the outstanding local issue that is going to generate an 8% swing in Balmain? I often get the impression that those who talk up the Greens argue that ” well, last time we came second with 46% of the 2pp and next time we will probably do better” even when there have been no general swing, no local issue and no local demographic changes. It is the same as Labor saying “well, last time we got 46% in Upper Hunter, so this time we are going to win”. While it is not impossible, it is also unlikely to happen.
Don’t forget that the SMH has never endorsed Labor at a state election. What effect has this had on NSW electoral history? Very little.
Sorry. I meant that the Greens got 42% 2PP in the boundaries of Balmain last time. I am not having a good mathematical day.
Yes, the SMH tends to preach to the converted.
Adam,
I was worried for a minute. I was worried how you could be a delegate when you are not in a faction. I thought the rules must have changed while I was out to lunch. I’m happy for NSW to have a Liberal government in order for us to get a federal Labor government, but please, I couldn’t bear to have the Liberals back in Victoria. There’s not much left for them to sell, though disposing of teachers and nurses would be likely.
The problem is that even when a government is manifestly incompetent or tired or both (in the Iemma government’s case), there still needs to be a credible opposition for that government to lose office. Better the devil you know …
When I was in Sydney over the xmas break, and politics was spoken of, there was an inevitable shrug of the shoulders, roll of the eyes, or growl when the Iemma government was mentioned. And every single person, loyalist of left or right said “if only the opposition was credible”. There was an incredible sense of exasperation with both sides of politics. Labor does not deserve to win in NSW, neither do the liberals, and if Iemma does win, the NSW population have condemned themselves to 4 more years of whingeing about the government (they may get even worse!)
It is possible that there could be a massive swing to independents, and to the Greens in seats like Balmain, as it is the only way to break the logjam. It could be interesting and deliver representation or it may just lead to complete breakdown, and even more cynicism as loose self interested confederations may form. And for the major parties … the talent pool gets even smaller.
Nick,
The Nationals are always confident of defeating sitting State ALP members but rarely succeed.
The NSW Nats have only defeated 2 sitting state ALP MPs in the last 30 years.
In 1988, Peter Cochrane (NAT) won Monaro from John Akister (ALP).
In 1981, Jim Curran (ALP) was defeated in Castlereagh by Roger Wotton (NAT). Wotton had been the MP for the abolished seat of Burrendong, a large portion of which had been moved into Castlereagh. Curran was a new MP, having only been in Parliament for 18 months.
And was largely elected by dead people, if I recall.
Ok, so Iemma’s government is a disaster and in normal circumstances Labor should be kicked from office. But the Libs are a weak and ineffective opposition, so what do voters do? They’ll turn to independents. I expect local mayors to emerge as strong candidates in a number of ALP-held electorates (I hope that someone stands in Swansea as surely this would be an easy gain for a decent independent). I also expect the Greens to come within a couple of percent of winning Balmain and Marrickville, but fall short as usual.
Thanks William for another insightful and interesting election guide.
I’m another Sydneysider expecting the Iemma government to retain office, although with a reduced majority. The bar has been set too high for the Libs, and Debnam is a frigging disaster, and Pete, parading around in speedos didn’t work for Baillieu in Victoria. ! I have to agree that if Brogden was still leader, he’d be the next Premier on March 25.
My own seat of Epping will as usual be won by the Liberals – Greg Smith the new Liberal candidate.
I suspect Labor will lose Tweed, Menai, Miranda, maybe Penrith or Camden. I doubt any of the Hunter Valley seats will go to independents.
And, the real shock on election night might be the Libs not being able to win back either Manly or Pittwater.
I think people are kinda missing the point – its not what’ll happen at this election (Debnam loses as predicted, but ALP margins cut in many seats), but at subsequent elections. If Iemma loses core support and this is then translated into the loss of Councillors and Councils in 2008 (and with the Libs entering Councils as Liberals and not as ‘Independents’ as previously) there will be increasing sniping at ALP members and Government at a local level. This will erode support at that level to the point that sitting MP’s will see % loss to their seats. It also diminishes the talent pool from which the ALP has often drawn (as much as the Libs). The loss of Government at the 2011 election would further diminsh that talent pool and could herald a lengthy stay in Opposition.
I was in Melbourne during the last week of the 1999 state election. At the beginning of the week it was all over and Kennett was a shoe in (and the ALP was struggling to properly staff their booths). By mid-week there was a palpable sense that something could happen (people volunteering to staff booths and campaign against the Coalition). By the end of the week people dared to think that Kennett could lose. So Iemma might look comfortable against a weak and ineffective Opposition, but its not in the bag. While the general trend is simply for voters to erode support for the ALP with say a 3% swing, the individual tenor of local campaigns will be for the more volatile. Thus the Hunter could throw up interesting results, as could Western Sydney. If the ALP first preference vote suffers through people voting for Independents, Greens and minor parties it ensures that preferences come into play – and then it becomes dangerous.
I still think the ALP will win, though, but with a reduced majority – I would pitch for them losing between 4-6 seats, including Murray-Darling, but not all to the Coalition.
Adam,
I seem to recall the SMH endorsing the re-election of the Carr govt in 2003.
Given that the swing will be in Sydney, Tweed and Monaro should be safe I think. Neville Newell has always been underestimated as a campaigner (see Neal Blewett’s diary on 1993). Macquarie Fields is one of Labor’s rotten boroughs where they can get away with anything and will continue to do so. The curiousity about the north coast is that on federal figures Lismore, Page and Ballina are all line-ball, eventually they will go the way of Tweed and the Nats will be in trouble. On the Greens: they never try to appeal beyond 10% of voters, look at their NSW press releases, the result is that working-class Labor supporters are condemned to put up with crap Labor governments.
There is too much focus on Debnam’s weaknesses, and not enough attention on the incumbent premier’s inadequacies. Maurie might be a nice guy but he is better suited to the job of a minister’s driver than a minister. Indeed, when introduced to him by Mike Egan a few years ago, that is who my friend thought he was (Egan’s driver).
The only one who is credentialled to be premier is Watkins, and he is in the wrong faction.
I think people have too harshly judged Debnams role in the removal of Brgoden and similarly, there is a misconception that Brogden would be doing exceptionally better. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it the actions of Brogden who established this virtually insurmountable task for the Coalition due to the swing towards the government at the 2003 election. Whilst I dont believe in Karma, what goes around, does come around. And with Brogden this became a reality.
Debnam has toned down his approach in recent times, and I do believe that the policies are starting to take some good shape. The biggest issue is the ridiculous swing that is needed, the responsibility of which, lies with the performance at the last election under Brogden.
On the SMH: I stand corrected – it used to be notorious that the SMH had never supported Labor in a century but I wasn’t aware they had broken their tradition in 2003.
On Victoria: I must say I don’t remember it the way Stewart does. We (Labor) thought we would pick up a few country seats given Bracks’s Ballarat origins, but no-one expected the sweep that took place. We were worried that we might actually lose seats in Melbourne. In the week before the election the shadow cabinet was out doorknocking in Dandenong North, a Labor-held seat. In fact we picked up (I think) four Melbourne seats. The day before the election Ewen Hannan wrote in The Age: “Labor supporters will be crying in their beers tomorrow night because Kennett will be easily re-elected.” (He hasn’t been allowed to forget that.) Moral: late swings and under-the-radar swings can still happen.
On the Greens: The Greens are a niche party. 10% of the electorate loves them, 90% hate them. They will never progress beyond about 10% of the vote – this has been the case in Germany and NZ.
On NSW politics: It’s curious that everyone says they want an alternative to the Labor/Coalition two party system, but no-one does anything about it. The only viable centre party, the Democrats, is on the verge of extinction. The Greens can’t be the alternative because they are a left-wing niche party. Right-wing populism seems to be the only other brand on offer.
Someone up there said “I hope that someone stands in Swansea as surely this would be an easy gain for a decent independent” – not so. The candidate is Robert Coombs of the MUA. He’s impressive, friendly, smart and was heavily involved in the Patrick’s issue (being son of John Coombs). He’s exactly the sort of candidate needed to win that seat – stevedores are mightily well respected up there. And he has no links with the former candidate. For the record I think the Labor candidate in Balmain is outstanding, and helped by the fact that she is a cleanskin, who has no association with the current government. I have no doubt that Marrickville is safe for Labor.
Bracks vs Kennett doesn’t work. In that case you had a hubristic premier and a steady, reliable opposition leader who was able to steal the march without anyone really noticing. In this case you have a steady premier versus a most unpredictable and inexperienced pollie who steals the march on things nobody believes. I suspect Debnam is going to be the Latham of the Liberal Party. He’s too chaotic for the voters to like.
I don’t doubt that the government is in trouble, but can’t see much change here.
Of course, in the best of all possible worlds an election would clear out the dead wood in all factions in both parties. But that’s not going to happen.
re Adam: well, I was assisting in some negotiations with the ALP (from the Greens perspective) and on Monday things were looking decidedly grim. The message we heard back on Wednesday was things were looking interesting, especially in some of the country seats, and then on Friday (and given the comments we were hearing back from Greens members) it was seeming that there had been a shift in voters thinking over the period of the week. The last couple of fed elections have shown up the same last-week swing (in the Fed case to Govt) which hadn’t really been showing prior. If Debnam settles and his campaign starts to function smoothly, and Iemma’s starts to falter the electors may sense this and change direction. Latham copped this in the last week, even though things were unravelling prior to that.
On the Greens being a niche party (’10% of the electorate loves them, 90% hate them’) – this is very broad brush stroke approach, especially since we have seen votes in different state & territories of between 5%-18%, and in electorates up to 39% primary. Scrutineering has proved interesting, especially in the number of ALP voters who number directly to the Greens (1 ALP, 2 Green) and the number of ALP voters commenting that they would have voted for the Greens but they didn’t want the Liberals to win (and thereby confirming that they didn’t understand preferential voting).
As to European results, numbers vary between different states, nations and regions – at the last Finnish elections the Greens came in second in Helsink with 23%, in Belgium Ecolo polled 23% in 1999, and in European elections have polled exceptionally well. I think it too simplistic to just say ‘they’ll never attract more that 10%’. As to the Australian Democrats, they face the same problems parties of their ilk have faced across Europe – diminished results.
I reiterate, the real problems for the ALP aren’t going to show up at this election but at subsequent elections, especially in relation to Councils. 2011 will be the election where the Coalition could win Government, so long as they don’t lose further ground.
I’m not sure whether Geoff R is referring to the Greens just in NSW or nationally when he says we never try to appeal beyond about 10% of the vote. If the latter then the fact that at the last six Tasmanian state elections we’ve got over 10%, and 18% in one case needs a little explaining.
Likewise Adam’s comments about how the Greens will never score more than 10%. Looking at the results from the Australian electoral study (and yes I know the response rate is too low to rely on it too strongly) you see a more complex picture, with a substantial pool of people who rate the Greens quite well, giving up scores of 7,8, or 9 out of 10, but are still not voting for us. Why not is an interesting question – clearly we are doing something wrong not to get these votes. The polls are not suggesting this will change this time, but to say it never will strikes me as improbable.
On a different tack, the polls I have seen (not being up there have missed anything in the SMH) have not shown a strong vote for independents. This seems very odd to me. Most of the discussion on here is about how we are likely to see more strong independents, and whether they win or not you would expect this election would draw in enough independents to raise the statewide vote significantly.
What is more, given how bad the majors look I would have thought that lots of people would be telling pollsters they would be voting independent, even if it turned out there was no one worth voting for in their seat and they went back to the majors. Yet it doesn’t seem to be happening. Any ideas?
Statewide samples less than a thousand will have a substantial margin of error – a margin that might be as large as an conceivable independent vote.
I think the Coalition can be pretty confident of winning Murray Darling, Tweed, Tamworth, Dubbo, Manly and Monaro.
I think that the vote for independents will not show up in opinion polls. The reason for this is that nearly all votes for independents will take place in seats with strong votes for independents (ie. it’s not equally spread across the state), thus they do better than their proportion of the vote. Thus a 6% vote for independents can yield quite a large number of seats.
Interested Third Party – just as an aside I hear that all the old ALP greats are making an appearance at Robert Coombs fundraiser tonight, along with the good folk of the MUA., so he is a very popular fellow.
And re Verity Firth as ALP candidate in Balmain, she isn’t exactly a political cleanskin either is she – with the family, Sydney Council and staffer connections through the NSW ALP. Not saying anything wrong with that but Verity brings a more experienced background/team than ‘cleanskin with no association with the current government’ implies. I suspect also she’ll be safe – my query is whether there’s a chance that the Libs will pref greens in Balmain which would change things surely (mind you the Lib candidate seems to think he’s got Balmain in the bag himself from the candidates’ forum the other day…)?
Adam why was I able to see Kennett losing a swag of seats 6 months out from 1999 and the ALP didn’t.
I expect the Lemma Government to be returned with a lost of a handful of seats like Tweed, I really don’t see the Liberals having a very good night.
My prediction for the NSW Greens:
Two Upperhouse seats
No lower house seats
The Greens aren’t that interesting in NSW.
I’d rather speculate on whether One Nation can get 2% and snag an LC seat without Pauline splitting the vote, or the Democrats can maintain their seat.
Is there an electorate called Hurstville, I through that was where I normally vote?
Hurstville was abolished in 1999. If Iemma is still your local member, you are now in the seat of Lakemba. If you are on the roll, you should receive a letter from the NSW Electoral Commission this week or next telling you what electorate you are in and confirming your enrolment. If you don’t hear from them by the end of next week, you might not be correctly enrolled. You have until 2 March (or maybe 5 March but I’d go for the earlier date) to get your enrolment correct.
On the other hand, if you’re a Liberal, just go along anyway and vote for Eric Willis. If he’s not on the ballot, write him in.
If you were a Liberal, I’m sure any positive would make a better night than 1999 and 2003.
At the moment those positives are likely in a few general areas each with a few seats in play:
The Northern Beaches (v Independants)
The Sutherland Shire (v ALP)
The Macarthur (v ALP)
The Central Coast (v ALP)
North West Sydney (v ALP)
The Upper House (as compared to 1999) – maybe 1-2 more quotas
If two or three of the regions shift any seats into the Liberal column, that would dramatically bolster their talent pool, and give the party room more views from different parts of the Sydney/Coast.
Debnam knows how important this is, and has taken precautions in preselection along with others to ensure strong candidates are chosen, not just those who have the numbers in the branches.
I’m sure the Libs will improve their position in the upper house, but that will likely not come at the expense of the ALP, more at the expense of the crossbenches.
dovif,
You can check your enrolment on the AEC website. Go to the following address and enter you details.
https://oevf.aec.gov.au/
You should receive a response like:
ENROLMENT CONFIRMED
Your enrolled address is ………..
Your Federal Division is……….
Your State Electoral District is…….
Your Local Government Area is……
Emily, I didn’t mean cleanskin in the sense that Ms Firth is free of Labor party ties (of course, her family ties are very impressive, and her credentials as staffer etc are impeccable), I just meant she is a fresh face for Labor, especially in the context of a seat that has been represented by a longstanding minister.
Also, no whiff of scandal surrounds her.
BTW, I got a new electoral card in the mail. Did anyone else? I’ve been at the same address for years, so I wondered if the AEC isn’t trying to work around the new restrictions on when you can update your voting details.
I got my electoral card from the AEC in the mail yesterday. I presume everyone has to display this at the polling booth, in order to cast a vote on March 24?
John Watkins: a much better media performer than Iemma! He would have been my pick to succeed Carr.
Peter Debnam will have to sack a lot of public servants to pay for all the election promises – I’m sure Michael Costa and the ALP dirt unit are furiously looking for that black hole in the costings.
I’m pretty sure that it’s voluntary, but the electoral card makes it a lot easier on the polling booth workers and probably speeds up the whole process.
R my point above about independents and polls. I would think the situation would be something like this:
5 Independents win clearly, average primary vote 40%
5 Independents thereabouts, average primary vote 30%
10 Independents do well but not close to winning, average primary vote 15%
50 Independents have a go but their campaign never takes off, average vote 3%.
That only translates to a statwide average of 7%, not much higher than the polls are showing. However, polls often overstate the independent vote, because some people want to vote for a strong independent and tell the pollsters this, only to discover there isn’t one running in their seat. This time it looks like the polls may be understating.
Ben Raue (11.07) is correct that the cards are voluntary. I’m almost certain that there is no provision for requiring an elector to produce any form of identity, whether that’s desirable or not. The cards were used in the Victorian election, and are just a device for speeding things up. God knows how slow the process would have been had some electors not presented with those cards on 25 November.
Since recollections of 1999 in Victoria are being discussed, I offer mine. As a rusted on Labor partisan and an incurable optimist, I was hoping that Labor might pick up 4-6 seats which would have been enough to deprive Jeff Kennett of his Liberal absolute majority. My optimistic scenario suggested that Kennett would find this intolerable, as the Nationals would begin to flex their muscles. I figured that a Kennett resignation some time after the 1999 election might then usher in an opportunity for Labor to come through. That is a progression which some posters here are forecasting as feasible for the NSW Liberals.
I’ve two other anecdotes which conform with Adam’s recollection of a Labor victory being a bolt from the blue, rather than bmwofoz’ and Stewart J’s version.
Early on election night, Terry Bracks was offered a bottle of wine, with the condition by the donor that they drink it “when Labor wins”. She said something to the effect that she hoped it cellared well, indicating what her and presumably her husband’s expectations were.
On Terry Lane’s program, the National Interest the following day, Terry introduced Brian Costar (then at Monash, now Swinburne) with the description of “former Professor of Politics at Monash University”, on the grounds that as the professional observer, his failure to anticipate the actual result would lead to him offering his resignation.
I also recall the Labor Party’s desperation to shore up its existing seat of Dandenong North, referred to by Adam.
I’m sure that on all sides of politics, and from the perspective of almost all observers, this was a shock of thunderbolt proportions.
I know too little of NSW politics to comment sensibly, but I’d be interested if anyone closer to the scene than me sees anything of 1988, when Unsworth Labor was comprehensively beaten by Nick Greiner, within two years of Neville Wran’s departure. As far as I can tell, Debnam is no Greiner, and I suspect that the margin was much more achievable in 1988 than in 2007.
We could also recall the 1991 NSW election. In the week before the election all the talk was about who would replace Bob Carr, the failed Opposition Leader, after Greiner easily won a second term. What happened? Greiner was ambushed, lost his majority, became embroiled in the Metherell affair and was forced out. Carr went on to glory (of sorts). Moral: NO ELECTION IS OVER TILL IT’S OVER. Opinion polls are decreasing in reliability and predictive power (for reasons I will explain if asked). While I agree that there are few positive signs for the Libs at present, that doesn’t mean there can’t be another under-the-radar swing.
If you would like to list more Greens candidates on your election page their names can be found at http://www.nsw.greens.org.au The Greens have pre-selected about 80 lower hosue candidates about 60 of which are up on the web. Candidates for all 93 seats will be posted on the Greens site over the next few weeks.
Yes, I think cautionary tales are the order of the day here. The Libs should be well in front, and everyone (polls, pundits, punters and contributors to this blog) seems to think that they have no chance of winning government. Sure, the maths is against them and they have a dud leader, but one should always be wary of a sure thing.
I actually feel that the Liberals did have a good chance to repeat 1988 when Carr first resigned, and the joke was that “Iemma is Italian for Unsworth”. I could easily have seen Brogden playing the role of 21st Century Greiner, and indeed I reckon a lot of people who are very scared off by the Debnam alternative would see Brogden as making a good premier.
… except that he’s a drunken fool.
the link to “Wallsend” is broken.
Thanks Barney, fixed.
William,
If i get time tomorrow i’ll update you on the local Hunter scene by email.
With reference to Peter Fuller and Adam above:
This is not 1988 over again, Nick Greiner was ready to take over and all in control. They just had to win on the day -also remember he had authority in the party as well as he had picked up a good swing as leader in 1984. Unsworth was dead in the water when Neville Wran’s seat of Bass Hill was lost in the byelection (a swing of 23% if I recall) and Unsworth won his own seat of Rockdale (after transferring from the upper house) by only 52 votes.
In 1991 I recall being told by someone who is now a NSW minister that the ALP were petrified of winning when they came so close as they were not ready- and if you recall the Carr government was a shambles for the first 18 months and a reaction to the Carr Govt was a big contributor to the Liberal win in 1996. Nick Greiner was similar in 1991 to Jeff K. in 1999 that no one realised that all the bits of the community that were pissed off would come together on the day as a protest vote – I suppose Wayne Goss in 1995 was no dissimilar. I sometimes wonder if the Libs in 1991 may have been better off if they had not reduced the size of the parliament from 109 to 99. Fiddling the size of parliament being an old NSW tradition carried on by both sides.
Some info about candidates for the state seat of Sydney: Chris Harris, the Greens Deputy Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney, is the Greens candidate for Sydney (his campaign website is http://www.chrisharris.org.au/index.php). Linda Scott (whose campaign website is http://www.lindaforsydney.com/) is the Labor candidate for Sydney.
The redistribution of 1987(?) was criticised in some quaters for being significantly pro-Labor. Minchinbury (not Badgery’s Creek as suggested by Geoff R above) was a particularly bizarely shaped seat (which Labor still managed to lose). It should be remembered that after the first two years Greiner was extremely unpopular and the papers of the day were widely predicting a Labor win. This all changed in the third and subsequent years, so that Carr only scrapped in in 1995. However the 7 years of the Coalition were still the shortest term in NSW government since the great depression.
In the Western Suburbs, Labor was devestated when Elizabeth Kirby, the sole Democrat in the L.C., changed her mind and voted at the last minute for a reduction in the number of members and a further redistribution. The legend, at least amongst Labor members in the west, is that Labor would have won easily in a 109 seat house.
However let me reassure you that Iemma is no Unsworth and Debnam is certainly no Greiner.
If you want to know more about the 1988/1991 elections and redistributions, you should chase up my publication “NSW Elections 1984 to 1991: A Comparative Analysis”, NSW Parliamentary Library Reserach Service Background Paper 1994/2, or “Changing Boundaries, Changing Fortunes: an analysis of the NSW Elections of 1988 and 1991″, NSW PLRS Occassional Paper No. 7, 1998. Or if you want the history of the period rather than just the numbers, read my history of the 1991 election in “The People’s Choice: Electoral Politics in 20th Century NSW”, Michael Hogan and David Clune (eds).
The boundaries used in 1988 were drawn in such a manner that the Coalition needed a swing of more than 6% before significant numbers of seats fell, and also guaranteed the Coalition could only win a narrow majority. Despite winning 56% of the 2PP vote at the 1988 election, the swing for the Coalition to lose its majority was only 1.3%.
Cutting the number of seats before the 1991 election was the method adopted by the Greiner government to overcome this problem. It did lift the swing to lose to about 2.8%, still a disadvanatge for the Coalition, but an overconfident campaign, and not enough attention paid to local contests, cost the government dear. As calculated for those publications, had the 109 seats been used, the result of the 1991 election would probably have been a minority labor government, not a minority Coalition.
The dramatic turnaround in the Greiner government’s popularity in 1990 coincided with problems with labor governments in WA, SA and Victoria. As various building societies and banks collapsed in 1990, and governments were forced to slash public spending and raise taxes, the public mood changed. In NSW, voters were suddenly aware that depsite the tough few years Greiner had inflicted with various economic reforms, it was clear these reforms had something to do with NSW avoiding the financial disasters that occurred interstate.
And always remember this fact. In two decades of political life, Bob Carr only gave up keeping his diary once. That was six months before the 1991 election, when Carr wrote that ‘prospects got too depressing to record’. The Labor Party’s confidence in the result can be revealed by the fact that they only bothered to order in two cartons of beer for head office on election night. No one was expecting a celebration. And there was certainly lots of un-drunck champagne at the Liberal function at the Intercontinental Hotel.
Re Memories of 99. I remember constantly saying to people “labor will do better than people expect”. But it still never occurred to me that they would win. I was unusual in thinking they would pick up more than half the seats they needed. I even thought it possible they might get to a point of being 2-3 seats short and the Libs being scared of by-elections. This generally made me considered a nutter.
Handing out at the Benalla by-election I found myself on the same booth as one of the newly minted Labor MPs. She said that in the weeks before the election she realised she was in with a chance. After the election she talked with all the other MPs, and discovered they had also concluded this at the time, but that they had all thought this was something local to their seat, and maybe a few surrounding ones (no doubt some put it down to their own genius). She said none of them had a clue they might pick up the swing they did across the state.
All that said, I don’t see many parallels between this and 99. If there was to be a shock result I’d think the similarities to Qld 95 would be greater, though without the single issue costing a raft of seats.
From another state, let me sum it up in a few words. Iemma will win easily but lose some seats.
I know we are always wiser with the benefit of hindsight, but as far as under-the-radar results go, Qld ‘95 and Vic ‘99 have three things in common which just are not present here:
Firstly, in both instances, there were regions of the electorate that were ripe for the picking. In Qld, it was the 3 or 4 seats down in the southern suburbs that revolted against Goss in relation to the Gold Coast motorway. The Borbridge led opposition milked that for all its worth. That was the difference between Goss ultimately being defeated (admittedly it took another 6 months) and being returned with a heavily reduced majority. I remember G Richardson saying on election night ” I hope its a really good road, I really do, because its going to cost Wayne Goss government”. In Victoria it was the Liberal seats in the middle of the state responding to that brilliant “dripping tap” ad – surely one of the best used in state election campaign. I remember the shock when Kennett’s heir-apparent in Ripon (his name escapes me) was unseated. Once again, several seats responding to a specific message making all the difference between defeat and a close run thing for the incumbent. Where is the sleeper issue here? Is anyone willing to nominate one? Antony, on the ABC website some time back, suggested the transport issue hitting ALP in the outer suburbs but it seems to me that the sort of seats in question are just two far out of reach.
Secondly, Bracks and Borbridge were switched-on and did not enter the campaign as damaged goods. I cannot think of one thing Debnam has done right! Closely aligned to this, both Bracks and Borbridge had competent supporting cast. Whatever you might think of them and their policies, you cannot deny the likes of Thwaites and Brumby in Vic and Sheldon and Santoro were an asset rather than a liability (in each case, there were anumber of others). Who are Debnam’s assets? O’Farrell and Goward aside, the NSW Liberals have displayed amateurism on par with One Nation and Stoner is a disgrace when you line him up against the likes of Cutler, Murray and even Armstrong.
Thirdly, Bracks and Borbridge went into an election with their comrades in Canberra sitting on the opposition benches. Accordingly, they weren’t having to factor-in a protest vote against the Federal Government. In my opinion, there is absolutely no doubt that Federal issues can encroach on a state campaign with devastating effect – e.g Qld 1974, SA 1975 and 1989 and WA 2001. The only question is the degree.
For what its worth, I am struggling to see the Coalition making a net gain off the ALP and the possibility of a net loss overall is certainly not out of the question. I don’t think Peter Black will be toppled in Murray-Darling (now notionally NP) and I can’t see the Nats getting even close in Monaro or Tweed. There might be a couple of shockers for the ALP but where are they? Does anyone want to pick them? In other words, if the Opposition makes a net gain, it will be by virtue of winning back seats from Independents that should not even be in the mix, like Hawkesbury and Pittwater
Chris,
The member for Rippon was Stephen Elder, Henry Bolte’s grand-nephew and the parl sec for education.
Chris from Edgecliff: Kennett’s heir-apparent was Rob Knowles, who was attempting to transfer from the Upper House province centred on Ballarat (from memory). Knowles lost, and the Liberal Party lost the by-election for the Upper House province.
I’ve been impressed with Stoner’s performance compared to other National Party leaders – he actually often seems reasonable to me, which is a nice surprise (I grew up in Qld when Joh was Premier, so my baseline for the National Party is quite low!).
Knowles thought he was Kennett’s heir, but I don’t think anyone else did. Elder even less so. Kennett intended being around for a long time and groomed no heir. That’s one of the reasons the Vic Libs fell in such a hole after the election. With Kennett, Knowles, Gude and Stockdale gone their talent pool was very shallow, and it still is.
Interesting comments so far on this thread, a very good read and good to see the varying opinions.
I believe the pendulum will swing towards the Coalition in this election. It has to. I cannot see the ALP gaining any more ground out of this election. The Coalition has the best chance it has had in years to at the very least take back some of what it has lost to the ALP over the past 8 years. I think it is likely that we could well end up with a hung parliament.
I believe the Coalition can win Murray-Darling, Monaro, Wollondilly and Penrith. Tweed may be out of the Nationals reach given the high green vote in the area. Port Stephens, Menai, Miranda and Camden could well have large swings but may be not enough to unseat the ALP. Riverstone looks interesting. Given the way people vote federally in this part of the world, don’t be surprised if there is a huge swing against the ALP here.
As for the Independents, most of them will still be there after March 24. Tamworth and Hawkesbury are the only seats I see the Coalition with a real chance of winning. In the case of Hawkesbury, the Liberals will win it. I seriously cannot see it falling out of the hands of the Liberals (then again, they said that about Pittwater). Newcastle will be another interesting contest, and I reckon this will go to an independent. It’s just a matter of which independent wins it.
Anyways, just my two cents worth.
Ah yes, sorry folks, clearly wrong about the personalities regarding Ripon -Rob Knowles was indeed who I was thinking of when I rightly or wrongly described him as Kennett’s “heir-apparent”.
The next Liberal Premier of Victoria is probably in year 10 at Scotch at the moment.
Election campaigns level the playing field and give opportunities for a credible opposition. In Victoria 1999 and Qld 1995 the opposition won the campaign. it wasn’t just the Tollway in Qld labor lost Barron River and Mulgrave. Debnam’s chance is to focus on services and practical proposals to fix them, but the ruling faction in the NSW Libs seems to be easily diverted into nutty-right culture wars politics, as John Howard (if not his detractors) knows this stuff is at most the icing on the cake.
Anyone who seriously thinks the Greens have a good chance of picking up a lower house seat: Balmain, Marrickville, or otherwise; need only refer back to the recent Victorian election. There, it was not a matter of if, but how many: Richmond, Northcote, et cetera, et cetera; then Labor brought in the big, bald artillery and the Greens were left to make a What We’ve Gained speech when all was done and dusted. Any reasonably organised ALP will have enough energy and resources to effectively quash a Green challenge, no matter how promising.
Quite so, Daniel. The very high profile that Garrett has given Labor’s environment policies, and the complement Howard and Turnbull have paid him by attacking him so strongly, will boost Labor’s standing with inner city voters. This, together with good choice of candidates in the inner city seats, will greatly strengthen Labor’s ability to repel Green challenges in Balmain and Marrickville. I think the Greens will go backwards in these seats. They would do better to concentrate on trying to win three seats in the upper house.
Yes, the way the Greens talk up a) their prospects, and b) their moral standing is a bit galling. The Greens (and I say this as someone who is genuinely sympathetic to what they actually stand for) need to learn that the only way to gain real power is to learn how to compromise. In other words, the Greens will never amount to anything other than a feel-good talking shop until they learn how to strategically sell out. Achieving half of what you believe is of a whole lot more practical value than staying ideologically pure and achieveing nothing. Garrett (and even Turnbull!) will achieve more (in the way of practical outcomes) for the environment than Bob Brown ever will.
As Gough Whitlam allegedly said to the Victorian executive:
“Yes comrades, the impotent are always pure”
I would contest that Victoria 06 is an ideal example of what will happen in Balmain and Marrickville this year, Bracks is still a popular Premier of 7-8 years, while Iemma is an electorally-untested leader of a very unpopular government. The issue in NSW is that the opposition is worse. I would like to see a large rise in the Indie/Green vote, including in those seats, that results in some serious representation and hopefully a hung parliament producing an ALP gov’t with again an indie/Green balance of power. It’s possible but not exactly an ideal bet as it’s a little specific! We can dream.
As regards to NSW Labor’s environmental policies, Anvil Hill may yet turn out to be a major wedge issue for Labor (if it becomes a bigger issue, it’ll lose ‘em seats in the Hunter or Inner sydney, kinda depends on how they play it) and there are the perennials of climate change and desalination. Both play OK for Labor and badly for the coalition, but a green vote is going to be on the cards for at least some of the disaffected major party voters. We’re allowed to hope out loud!
The official Greens line about prospects for the Vic election was:
Win one possibly two UH seats and make a third winnable, and Melbourne was a possibility, none of the others were, except to people outside the party.
Antony said…(re 1991)….The Labor Party’s confidence in the result can be revealed by the fact that they only bothered to order in two cartons of beer for head office on election night. No one was expecting a celebration. And there was certainly lots of un-drunk champagne at the Liberal function at the Intercontinental Hotel.
Aahhh…. but 1988… now, THAT was a night to remember… in the Tally Room at least. I remember seeing a very drunk John Singleton chase a equally drunk Richard Farmer down Harris St, wielding a chair from the TR patio. Earlier in the night, Richard Farmer had threatened us (Wilderness Soc.) that he would “kick your bloody heads in”.
They don’t have them like that any more
Re Hugo’s comment
Can anyone point out to me where a Green predicted we would win multiple lower house seats in Victoria? I want to know so I can jump on the person in question. I believe that Antony Green predicted we would win Melbourne and Richmond right at the end (after being fairly skeptical for most of the campaign) but I am talking about a Green party member, not someone Green by name.
Throughout the campaign I said that we had some chance of winning Melbourne, but could not be considered favorites, and we were outsiders at best in the other three top seats. I heard some people overstate our chances in some upper house regions, but all the comments I heard from the party were pretty much along those lines.
Without the Greens and Bob Brown, Peter Garret would never have been anointed as “hit man” or Malcolm Turnbull been able to buy the water portfolio.
Remember the false accusations that the Greens were a “one issue” party, well how the wheels have turned. Now look at “the issue”, GLOBAL WARMING, and how the LIB/LAB are in such a panic to catch up to the Green .
As usual the Green lead the way and LIB/LAB try to catch up. The voters are showing there support to the Green despite the presses total bias in favour of big money. See democracy4sale web site.
So to those who say the Greens are ineffective “wake up and open your eyes” the Green have arrived long time ago, and have been setting the agenda, here and across the world, for quite some time.
The Green are the future “you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing”
Stephen L said:
“Can anyone point out to me where a Green predicted we would win multiple lower house seats in Victoria? I want to know so I can jump on the person in question. I believe that Antony Green predicted we would win Melbourne and Richmond right at the end (after being fairly skeptical for most of the campaign) but I am talking about a Green party member, not someone Green by name.”
If the amount of heat and light generated by Gurm Sekhon in the wake of the Steve Brown “Roundhouse-kick-a-Green Day” fiasco was anything to go by, I’d reckon he considered himself a shoo-in for Richmond (with Melbourne being a formality) up until that point.
Re Greens chances in Balmain, I agree with others that we are the underdog. A well-organised Labor machine will always out-spend the Greens by a factor of ten. A Greens win will always be against the odds.
And to avoid the debates that Stephen and Hugo are referring to, let’s be clear: no-one in the NSW Greens is predicting that we will win LH seats. We are saying that we’re in with a chance in a couple. If anyone hears bold predictions of Greens MLAs this campaign it won’t be from the Greens.
But the assertion that we’re in with a chance in Balmain is clearly sustainable. A margin of 7 odd per cent, no incumbent member to leverage public entitlements, a Labor govt that is generally on the nose and a Greens candidate who is a high-profile, successful local councillor. All those factors are pertinent. At least until the tidal wave of Labor money crashes down on the electorate.
Apologies to those with comments stuck in moderation – I will be unable to attend to this until tomorrow evening.
I can do this, I suppose. “Mally” has left the following comment:
Oakeshott Country says:
Alex C
At no stage that I am aware of did Gurm think he was a shoo-in, the closest he got was talking about Richmond as a ‘winnable’ seat.
Winnable means the Greens have a ever so sleight chance of getting over the line, as in: Richmond was more winnable then Mildura.
Ben Raue – Your comments re Macq Fields are interesting. Why do you think the Party machine seems to not be helping him out? I have not seen one candidate poster or leaflet at all?
Mally neatly summarises the point that the Greens habitually over-state their case. I personally feel that the Greens do serve a useful purpose, of being a conscience on the body politic and being a genuinely annoying gadfly bringing up inconvenient topics. However, to argue that the Greens are solely responsible for the emergence of the environment as a political issue (and it remains to be seen just how far people are willing to change their votes over this) is a bit much. Teddy Roosevelt, for example – a Republican no less – was showing green tendencies a century ago. The Greens have quite a history of over-dramatising their case and of over-stating their influence. This is not so surprising, as the Greens struggle to attract more than 5% of the vote in any given election, and obviously feel the need to keep themselves relevant, and “in the game”.
The irony is that even though climate change will seemingly be a big issue at this year’s poll, I’d be surprised to see the Greens do that well in this year’s Federal poll, as both the major parties have high-profile and articulate spokesmen in the environment portfolio. As for the State election, they may well do well in certain seats (such as Balmain, Marrickville or Tweed, though I’d be genuinely surprised to see them win anything), which would only underline the inconvenient truth that they are largely a middle class, university dilettantes’ party.
Dear Hugo
I don’t know where you get your information, but to bring you up to date, the Greens easily achieve over 5% of the vote on a shoe string budget and with a hostile media, constantly telling lies about them. For example lying about Bob Browns ADOPTING a PLAN in the next 3 years to PHASE OUT COAL MINING OVER NEXT 15 YEARS. Imagine if we had a free press in Australia and the Greens got a fair coverage?
Second point the Greens won’t “sell out” to the highest bidder, just because the current LIB/LAB practice is so corrupt doesn’t mean the Greens have to fall into that trap. Have a look at ‘democracy4sale’ web site and you can learn about who is running our country.
Sorry , The Greens have the high moral ground but the view is good from up there. The Greens are the future Hugh weather you like it or not so why don’t you join us?
I think Hugo misunderstands the nature of the Green polity. To argue that it is just about the environment really does only touch the surface. Yes, the environment is critically important, but that doesn’t mean human rights, social justice and economic wellbeing aren’t critical as well. It is just that emphasis is shifted from people being social beings living in an an economy to social beings living in an ecology. The economy then becomes a means of describing transfer between people, but does not itself take on a persona – the ‘invisible hand’ of the market is no more, but the marketplace itself remains.
So yes, Teddy Roosevelt thought of himself as a ‘conservationist’ – his biography makes interesting reading – but he did believe that nature existed to benefit mankind. This is a fundamental difference to modern day Greens. Some commentators on the right like to make much of the fact that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn’t make him ‘Green” either!
The issue for me is that greens have been very effective in bringing together extra-parliamentary activity (protest, petition, blockade etc) with parliamentary action. This is led to Greens in parliament but also the acceptance of ‘green’ issues by the mainstream. The ALP has equally always had a strong social justice focus, so it is natural that on such issues Greens and ALP can agree.
The point remains that people often have strong attachments to the politics they grew up with. As more people grow with the ‘Greens’ or with greenish sympathies, then the Greens can grow from what was a quite well-educated beginning. And I think it is education, rather than ‘class’, that it is the distinction here. The growth in tertiary education over the past 30 years HAS assisted the Greens – as much as it has assisted the ALP – electorally, and has of course assisted the country has a whole.
As to over-dramatising their case – I remember M Latham coming down to the Illawarra (during the Cunningham byelection) and stating ‘10,000 jobs will be lost if a Green is elected in Cunningham’. Other parties too have a history of over-stating their cases, over-dramatising their position (John Howard comments on Barak Obama), so maybe its more a feature of politics, but we accept it from the major parties but not from others.
As for winning anything, well, there’ll be good votes in Marrickville and Balmain, and quite possibly in Sydney too (I don’t think Clover is doing as well as previously), but most will be in the 5-20% mark, including the bulk of seats in western Sydney. But lets consider that ALP & Coalition parties poll 20-50% in most seats, so this isn’t so bad!
I was reading in the SMH today in the “on this day” section and they were talking about the 1971 NSW election, where (from what I garnered in the brief article) the election result was close and a natural disaster (flooding, I think) prevented 25000 voters in a few seats from voting on the day and thus were delayed. Due to the closeness of the result there was no final result about which party would win the election until the supplementary election in those seats.
I was wondering if Antony or anyone else knew more about that? It seems pretty interesting.
Stewart J, you do take all the fun out of things when you reply so eloquently and reasonably. Despite earlier posts, I am not anti-Green, and indeed I find I am in agreement in many policy areas (and not only the environment), and you’re right to point out that the Green movement has had no shortage of extra-parliamentary successes. However, I can’t help feeling that the Greens will remain a fringe group (in terms of party politics) until they learn how to compromise their ideals (with the idea that half a reform is better than none), and when they do that, they will lose a lot of their appeal to some people.
A bit damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Hugo, that a arguament that goes on a lot in the party, the big issue is that the German Greens became factionised over it (idealists: remain pure, and realists: compromise) and it hurt them for a while. I dont think the Oz Greens will do any compromising until they are more established. To many voters, the Democrats were the main voice of the left, so now they are gone I think there will be more tendency to compromise.
But then look what happened when they compromised to form government with the ALP in Tas. The ALP did a backflip on a core agreement between the parties and the Greens got blamed.
Just thought I’d mention that I read in the Wentworth Courier on the weekend that John McInerney, one of Clover Moore’s Ind Councillors on the City of Sydney, is considering running in Heffron as an Independent.
I suspect he’d have buckley’s chance in winning, but it may help build a “local” profile for the City of Sydney elections in March or September 2008. The Council area has to be split into wards, and it’s possible that John McInerney may consider running in a ward roughly in the same area as Heffron. It’s unlikely that Clover Moore’s team would win more than 1 seat in each ward if there are 3 wards each returning 3 councillors, and so he may be positioning himself to be the Clover Councillor in the south of the City of Sydney.
Ben, Don Harwin has this to say in his chapter on the 1971 election in The People’s Choice: Electoral Politics in 20th Century NSW, bearing in mind that Labor utlimately won 45 out of 96 seats:
I think it was mentioned in the federal thread, not here, but the “leaked ALP internal polling” showing the ALP trailing 49-51 in twelve marginal seats looks to me a classic case of something identified after the Queensland election – namely that leaks of internal polling usually bear at least a passing resemblance to the truth, but in such a way as to downplay the prospects of the party producing them as much as possible.
In this case, assuming that the 12 marginal seats in question were the 6 most marginal Labor and 6 most marginal coalition seats (and leaving out ones where independents/Greens are the nearest challengers), the 2003 2PP result for those seats combined for the ALP was a little under 52%, so a 49-51 result in a poll of them would indicate a swing around 3% (or a statewide 2PP result around 53-54). On a uniform swing that would gain no seats at all.
(An interesting sidelight on the political psyche in the two countries is that in the United States polls commissioned by parties/candidates are not taken seriously for the opposite reason – they routinely exaggerate prospects).
I just finished watching a replay of the NSW debate.
A few things struck me. Firstly, it didn’t seem to be as much of a non-debate as most recent election debates like recent federal ones. There actually seemed to be some decent to-and-fro and was decently interesting. I remember turning off the Howard-Latham debate as little more than simultaneous press conferences.
Iemma didn’t actually seem to be above Debnam like most Premiers/PMs are over their opposition. They seemed to be truly on an equal footing. Iemma also seemed to be more desperate to attack Debnam on every point. Of course, these are all just imagery. I’m not saying what is actually an accurate representation of reality.
I found the one point on which Iemma really knocked down Debnam, and why I reckon he won the debate, was over Debnam’s “20,000 jobs” promise, and I’d predict that this could be the big blow that will sink Debnam’s campaign. Mind you, Iemma did look silly as they argued over whether it was 18 months or 12 years that Iemma had been in government. Debnam was clearly making a lot more sense, and it didn’t seem like it did Iemma any good to try to pretend his government is completely divorced from the Carr government.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if more Independents and a few Greens got up and ended up with the ballance of power then decided to try and form a minority government.
My thoughts on the debate was that Debnam looked very nervous in the beginning but improved as the debate got into full motion. Iemma looked over-rehearsed and unnatural in his opening and final comments, while looking desperate to counter Debnam on everything during the debate (as Ben said above).
I agree with Ben that Debnam’s failure was his inability to clearly explain the 20,000 job loss. I feel that it could have easily been deflected but he failed. Iemma is already pushing that issue and now Labor will see Debnam’s lack of conviction in the policy and they will go even harder now.
Iemma was made to look very silly over the coal export to China issue when he was pushed by Dempster. Yet Debnam barely followed through with an attack. Gee, I wonder why.
The other thing that annoyed me was the comment at the beginning by Dempster regarding the exclusion of minor parties and independents by saying, “it’s all about executive power”. I believe that this underestimates the power of minor parties and independents and further cements institutional inertia.
Nevertheless, election debates are useful and should be encouraged if not mandated.
I didn’t see the whole debate (I was watching the replay on Sky), so I didn’t hear that comment from Dempster, but I’d say it’s particularly wrong because of the heightened possibility of a hung parliament, considering how many credible independents are running, the large number already sitting, and the enormous difficulty for Debnam to win a majority.
And I’d say that most debates I’ve seen are a waste of time, but that one wasn’t, and it’s a pity there aren’t more of them closer to the poll, and maybe with a greater audience.
There are only two men who can possibly be Premier following next month’s election. That was the thrust of Dempster’s remarks, which were perfectly fair. And obvious.
Excellent and v useful Bludger Bowe. As a historical footnote: You say that in Davidson the newby Adrew Humpherson suffered a historic swing not so much against him but against the Liberal Party because of a protest vote over Terry Metherell.
This is only partly true.
The swing would have been truly massive and possibly gone to the Independent Julie Sutton had it not been for a redistribution which took in Roseville environs, a very very safe rusted on Liberal bailiwick and excised the Houso/fibro areas of Narraweena and Beacon Hill.
Sutton was (and remains) a local personality who was a teacher at three of the local high schools, a marriage celebrant, a long-time councillor at Warringah and Warringah mayor. She knows a lot of people and a lot of people know her. She ran for the seat in 1981, 1984 and 1988. (She’s also the sister of Jeanette McHugh the ex-federal MP (first woman MP from NSW).
Interesting to read Sacha’s comments comment about John McInerney standing as an Independent in Heffron. I don’t wish to be unkind to him, but not only has he no chance there but he will have extreme difficulty in the 2008 council elections. Whilst his political naiveity may may be attractive, he must realise his election to Council in 2004 was due entirely to Clover – and the reason she had him on the team was to give her team credibility with his planning expertise. I think he now has had a taste for power, and like so many pollies start to believe its because of “themselves”- not because of other factors. The bottom line he is not a good people person – and thats what electors vote on – not on how much expertise a person has.
A pretty ho-hum debate I thought – no one really got the upper hand, which I guess means Debnam won by default. However, election day is still five weeks away, and I can’t imagine that many people outside the political junkies of the type who populate sites like this are taking the slightest bit of notice at the moment. The ascent of Rudd in Canberra is probably taking a lot of oxygen from the campaign, and that will probably help Iemma. Let’s also not forget that the NRL starts the weekend before the election, and that will also eat up a lot of media (and probably interest a lot more people).
However, I can’t help thinking that this election is ripe for a “protest vote gone wrong” (such as in NSW 1991, Qld 1995 & Vic 1999). The margins are such that Labor should be returned, but I suspect they’re going to have a bit of a fright on election night.
It’s interesting to note that some commentators are simultaneously saying that Debnam can’t win because the swings required are so big, while simultaneously arguing that Rudd CAN win DESPITE the big swings required. In fact Rudd’s task is in the same order of difficulty as Debnam’s – the overall swing required isn’t as high, but the 16 seats he needs are scattered all over the country – but Rudd has most of the intelligentsia-commentariat urging him on, while Debnam does not.
Adam, since when did Rudd need an 8 percent swing?
Adam, I’d have to agree with Gary Bruce. Rudd requires a swing of 3.3% to govern in his own right. Debnam, meanwhile, will need a swing in the order of 10% and more.
I also agree with Hugo’s comments. The fact that Iemma is the favourite to win will no doubt assist in a larger than average protest vote. My guess is that Labor will sneak in with a bare majority of the 2PP but there seat buffer will only be slightly reduced, 5 seats perhaps?
Adam may have the math wrong (thank you Gary Bruce for pointing out the obvious) but the thrust of Adam’s comment has some merit and should not be dismissed so easily by Labor well wishers.
David, without wanting to sound a smart alec about this can you explain to me the “some merit” in what Alex said. They are really two very different situations in issues, numbers and political landscape. Debnam’s task is much tougher than Rudd’s given these factors.
Gary, I do not think you are a smart alec and I thank you for inviting me to expand on my view. Yes, of course Debnam’s task is tougher than Rudd’s because of the “numbers”. However, relative to Federal politics, I would not say that Debnam’s task is “much tougher” than Rudd’s because of the “issues” and the “political landscape”. On those matters, the State government is as vulnerable if not more so than the Federal Government. I deliberately qualified my opinion on the “merit” of Adam’s view with the word “some”, in recognition that commentators and/or partisan supporters of one side of politics, are apt to write off too easily the chances of any opposition (including an opposition led by Kevin Rudd). It is quite possible Debnam might win in spite of himself, and because of the inadequacies of the incumbent government and the man who leads it. To put it another way, there may yet be a nasty surprise for Morrie if enough of the “low invovement” voters (who ultimately decide the contest), with blunt pencil in hand, think “enough is enough” at the various polling stations around (our once prosperous) State on Saturday, 24 March. That is a scenario many of Labor’s barrackers in the commentariat and elsewhere do not seem willing to entertain.
Thanks David – let me expand on my contention that “Debnam’s task is much tougher than Rudd’s given these factors”. My understanding, and I may be corrected here by those who are better informed on these matters, is that the Liberals have to win more than 50 percent of the vote to win government in NSW. That is that there is a slight gerrymander favouring the government. This doesn’t apply Federally. Secondly up to this point in recent times I have not seen an opinion poll placing the Liberals in front of the ALP in NSW. This doesn’t apply to the ALP Federally.
Thirdly, Debnam is as popular as the well known in a swimming pool. Certainy Iemma has the advantage here. Again Rudd has the advantage over Howard right now. Lastly, from what I have observed from Victoria, the ALP has some scare campaigns in there kick. I admit the opposition have some pretty good ammunition but, I’ll tell one thing, nothing beats a good scare campaign as Howard can attest to last election with his interest rates campaign.
I assume you are a conservative supporter, which is your right of course but let’s not over look the facts and figures when hoping for the outcome you seek. Debnam may win but it would be a bigger surprise to me, given the reasons stated above than if Rudd won the Federal election.
Is anyone willing to guess at what sort of vote Mandouh Habib will attract in Auburn?
I think Habib might get 10%…
That would be about all.
And to add to other thoughts… the mood is different to that found in NSW in 2003. I’m not sure exactly how different it is, but it is definately different.
I clearly said that Debnam’s task was statistically harder than Rudd’s. And Psephophile, the 2-party swing Rudd needs is 4.8%, not 3.3%.
Gary, I am not a “conservative supporter” and I have no hopes of an outcome favouring the Liberal party. Thank you for telling me about facts and figures but I can’t help thinking you are stating matters of opinion as truths. You are in good company! Cheers for now.
David, please tell me where I’m wrong. I’ll certainly be happy to change my mind if you can convince me otherwise. I’m very open to debate.
I apologise David if I have misrepresented your position regarding your political leanings, that certainly wasn’t my intention but you seem to have a strong feelings against those stating their opinions here. This is afterall a blog dedicated to discussing ones opinions.
Adam, I’m not so sure Malcolm Mackerras would agree with you on the swing now needed.
I’ve looked at Malcom Mackerras’ lower house
predictions in the Australian
they suggest a swing against labor of in excess of 5% , However the
upper house predictions are indicating labor plus green vote approx
4-5 % higher than lib-np plus call to Australia(Mr Nile) this suggests
a 1-2 % swing against Labor. These 2 sets of figures do not add up.
Also it is possible that NONE of his predicted seat changes may occur.
Mackerras was SPECULATING that if Labor got a swing of 3.3% and won 14 seats, then the three independents would support a minorty Labor government. Well, they might, but they might not. To win 16 seats and form a majority government Labor needs 4.8%.
Gary, I said you were in “good company” in expressing your opinions. Think about it!
First a question: Can anyone remember a union advertising directly during a campaign? I can’t but that does not mean a great deal. The reason for the question is the NSW Nurses Federation ad. Has anyone else seen it? It’s dynamite – if this is a trial run for the Federal election – we are in for an emotional time.
Second a comment: Despite the above I am left with the impression of election, what election. Rudd and Howard seem to be the only game in town and at the moment that has to be in Iemma’s favour. I don’t know if this will change- not only is the weekend before the start of the NRL but there will also be major celebrations for the 75th aniversary of the bridge. Arguably the one thing Sydney people get emotional about – expect to see the ghost of Jack Lang.
Third a request: The argument about whether the Greens will or won’t seems to be degenerating and despite being a fairl minor side show is taking up more than 50% of this excellent site. Could it be hived off into a new thread?
I meant the one thing Sydney people get parochial about.
Is anyone willing to write off any Labor Seats?
Let’s take Miranda – waterfront suburbs, traditional liberal seat last held for the ALP by Michael Egan – surely the rusted on liberal vote is going to come home this election? I would think the ALP will win but it seems unlikely seats like Miranda could realistically stay with the ALP?
I would also nominate Ryde and Strathfield as seats to watch – were up until the last 2 elections seats with a liberal bias, unlikely to go to the coalition but i would anticipate big anti-government swings nonetheless setting them up to be the must win marginals of 2011.
oakeshott being in Victoria I haven’t seen the ad to which you refer but wait until the Federal election and the unions get going there and they will believe me. It will be the mother of all scare campaigns. I hope the ALP run with the anti IR theme in NSW. I want to see if it has the effect on the poll I believe it is capable of. As for the Green argument I’m with you.
From what I have seen so far I wouldn’t nominate any Labor seat as a CERTAIN loss, and Black has a good chance of retaining Murray-Darlinjg, which would count as a Labor gain. Newcastle, Tweed and Monaro must be considered most likely to fall, but none of them are being written off. Newell is a proved vote-winner, and the Whans are very well-known in the Monaro. But a lot can happen in five weeks.
Not THE Edward St John, surely?
what Adam is saying is right given that there are a lot of good sitting members in marginal seats & the margins involved 4% before any losses( not counting Murray – Darling) it is possible that no seats are lost.this is unlikely
but still possible
The nursing federation ads are now at: http://www.nswnurses.asn.au/
I love it when people try to ignore The Greens and exclude 10% of the voting population. Just goes to show what an impact they and their policies are having on the minds of their opponents. Better get used to it The Greens will be around for a while yet.
Maybe the people who tore down Greens. Port Jackson’s, Rochell Porteous, election telegraph poll posters are the same bunch that see The Greens as a threat to the status Que. Funny how the same night The Greens posters came down The Labour Party’s posters went up, how smart is that?
Adam,
Where do you get 4.8% from? :S
Oh, I see it. For some reason I was led to believe it was initially a 4.4% swing required and then the QLD/NSW redistribution reduced it to 3.3%. Would I be correct in assuming that this is just for the Howard Govt to lose its parliamentary majority? Or did the redistribution help the Govt?
In any case, that means that Rudd would need to get about 52% of the 2PP on a uniform swing across the seats in order to become PM and govern in his own right. This has completely changed by view about Rudd’s chances.
That said, I realise this is a discussion for another thread.
Anybody know when the next NSW opinion poll is out?
Ted St John has misstaken electorates when he referred to Michael Egan. Egan held the neighbouring seat of Cronulla 1978-1984. Whilst similar demographics, Labour has had stronger bases in Miranda which was held during the Wran years and was not won by Libs until 1988. Agree this is not a natural Labour seat but local Lib argy-bargy havent helped. The choice of a “star candidate” such as Graham Annesley can work both ways. Libs a chance here but nigh 10% is a long way to claw back at once.
Psephophile,
After the 2004 election, the ALP needed a swing of 4.4% to take 14 seats where the coalition would lose its majority. The 14th or median seat was Bennelong (4.4%).
After the redistribution, this was reduced to 3.3% to take 14 seats, with the median seat being Eden-Monaro (3.3%). So yes the redistribution helped the ALP. See the link from Malcolm Mackerras below:
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=548688
To take majority government (16 seats), the uniform swing would be 4.8%, which would take Bennelong (4.0%) and Eden-Monaro (4.8%).
Of course swings are never uniform and many seats higher in the pendulum may fall before Bennelong.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the correction Wombat, Memory escapes me as to the last ALP member in Miranda but I believe it was 84 not 88 they went
My simple thesis is that there is a number of Sydney seats with a “natural” Liberal vote that abnormally went to the ALP in 2003 and to a lesser extent 1999, these inlcude:
Miranda
Oatley
Ryde
Strathfield
Drummoyne
The point is that natural liberal vote is going to return in 2007 no ifs no buts, it may not be enough to see these change hands but it will mean each of these seats is considerably more competitive in 2011, ie single digit margins.
For mine much of the commentary assumes a repeat of Qld and Victoria, ie that Labor is permanently entrenched in former Liberal seats – i just dont believe it!
I would dispute that there is any such thing as a ‘natural liberal’ Sydney seat beyond the seats that they hold now. Of the list given by Edward StJohn above only Miranda could even be considered remotely as such.
Georges River (the predecessor of Oatley) was always marginal but labor more ofetn than not post 1970 by election. Ryde is a potential liberal win but the demographics are moving against it (see also Bennelong comments on this site)and it contains no rock solid lib areas. Strathfield is probably gone from the liberals forever -again the demographics have moved and the seat has only a small lib base left. The libs haven’t held Drummoyne since 1953 or 59 -often close but not close enough – a potential win at some stage but when?
Menai could be added to the list but really nothing else.
Looking at the pendulum and looking at possible electoral behaviour it seems that the libs could never get a majority of more than 5 in their wildest dreams ever – (and that includes knocking off 6 of 7 inds).
Maybe the ALP hard heads realised that reducing the house to 93 seats may actually lock the Libs out forever – another Bob Carr legacy – a one party state! What does the readership think of that hypothesis?
Hard to see bbp,
Look at Sydney property prices in those areas and tell me again that these are “gone forever”. Its true there is a bias towards the ALP – largely due to wasted liberal votes on the north shore but the natural cycle is more like the libs winning 1 out of every 4 elections on average.
The second issue is that this is probably a good election to lose, the choices are bad for the govt after 24 March – cut services, raise taxes (which Iemma basically reversed due to the political fallout) or borrow (a la Cain Kirner) for the ALP this will have to mean a major fallout with its public sector union base.
just a question does menai still contain big tracks of housing commision
As a resident in the Seat of Drummoyne, I cannot see a 9% swing occuring. Whilst the area is becoming more affluent, and the demographics shifting, there does appear to be a consistent growth in the number of ‘new-age’ families who’s views would resonate with those residing in the ‘cosmopolitan’ inner city, and is represented by the Green showing at the polls. This has been my observation not only at the last state election, but also at the 2004 Federal Election where the Greens obtained, 9% and 10% respectively. Further, the ALP obtained 46% of the primary vote in 2003, which would require something remarkable to change.
Ultimately, to form government the Coalition needs to win Drummoyne, which despite having a solid Liberal candidate, is highly unlikely.
My seat of Epping will be retained by the Liberals, although I predict the independent candidate Martin Levine will do quite well.
One seat to watch on March 24 will be Maitland: the longtime Labor member has retired, so there is no incumbancy factor, and the ex-Liberal member and current mayor Peter Blackmore is running as an independent, so that should be an interesting 3 way contest between the ALP, the Libs and the Independent.
Ted St John seems very well-informed for someone who has been dead since 1994.
Does anyone else here read The Australian? Does anyone have local knowledge to support the article on p6 which says that Grant McBride is “gone” in The Entrance, a seat he has held since 1991?
I find regular vitamins help with my health
Ted, you are correct viz 1984 with Miranda, I was mistaken in my recollection of Ron Phillips winning this one in 1988. It’s boundaries have changedsomewhat since then being moved westward as part of the abolition of Sutherland pre 99 poll.
Georges River has always been a marginal with its longest term MP over past 35 years being Frank Walker (state and Fed minister). Held 99-99 by Libs but boundaries of this seat changed considerably as it has moved more north taking in more of old seat of Hurstville. An inflated margin but not really in play here.
Drummoyne has been Lab held for the past 45 years. Agree with Stewart’s comments re demographics.
Strathfield is unlikely to go back to Libs considering the current demographics of the seat. Since 99 redistribution, this seat has taken in territory further east in the prev Lab safe seat of Ashfield.
Ryde is not a natural Lib seat, more a natural marginal. Looking at the history of the seat, it has primarily been Lab held with the exception of 88-91. The abolished seats of Gladesville and Ermington that made up most of the current seats were marginals either way with the more conservative northern areas from abolished seat of Eastwood now in Epping. An inflated margin, agree.
It was Bill Robb in Miranda
I am also interested in what is happening in the country, just how weak are the Nats?
I would think the Liberals would be upset at passing on the Country marginals due to their coalition agreement particularly if the night goes well for them in the City (ie more than four seats from the ALP [ Miranda, Wollondilly, Port Stephens and Penrith and 2 from independants Manly and Pittwater)
Edward,
There was an opinion poll published in the Tweed Daily News on 5th Feb for the seat of Tweed. It had Newell (ALP) 55%, Provest (Nat) 25% & Other/undecided 20%. Things may have changed since then.
Article can be found at http://www.tweednews.com.au, then click on More Local News, then More Archived News. Scroll down to Monday, February 05, 2007.
Edward StJohn
Stories of the demise of the Nats have been around since about 1922, and have generally been found to be exaggerated. The real story is the demise of the ALP in country NSW with the candidates and party structure being sacrificed to the strategy of supporting/running dead for the so called independent candiidates.
This time round I predict that the Nats will achieve their “quota”
Countrylad,
I admire your optimism.
Since 1988 the NSW National Party has been going backwards. In my opinion, all of the seats they have lost in that time can be attributed to their own mistakes (apart from seats abolished at redistributions).
Tamworth – lost to independent in 1991 due to preselection stuffup.
Port Macquarie – lost due to National MP quitting the Party
Northern Tablelands – lost to independent due to National Party MP being a poor local MP (this was a widely held view within the National Party long before his defeat)
Dubbo – lost to independent in 1999. The National Party candidate made too many gaffes during the campaign.
Tweed – lost to ALP in 1999. I suspect that the key issue was the Pacific Highway upgrade through Tweed shire. Coalition spent 7 yrs trying unsuccessfully to find a consortium to build a Tollway. ALP government built the road without a Toll.
Clarence – lost to ALP at 1996 by-election. National Party candidate ended up in hospital with stress during the campaign after it was discovered that he didn’t live in the electorate as he had claimed. Regained by Nationals when Harry Woods retired in 2003 – one of the Nats 2 bright spots in the last 20 years! (the other was Katrina Hodgkinson winning Burrinjuck).
This time around I reckon they will be one down at best – Lachlan has been abolished and they have chosen not to run in Goulburn.
Barry,
Thanks for that. Apart from what you “reckon”, I’m not sure on what you base the analysis.
Look to the commentators and you get a different story. Tamworth, Dubbo Murray Darling Monaro and Tweed are all seen as strong chances.
I’m happy to comment on each of the seats you refer to but the reality is the loss of Tamworth in 91 has had a ripple effect. Neverthless in ‘99 we were all told the independents would roll out across the state, but they didn’t. In 2003 the same thing.
Additionally, as I said earlier, the ALP has played an interesting game with the independents. Look at their vote in the last election in Tamworth in 2003. It was 12%. In Northern Tablelands it was about 6.5%.
The facts are that the ALP vote in some country seats is transferring to the independents. Coupled with that is the run dead factor. Apart from Tamworth, just when did the ALP announce it’s candidates in the independent seats? Was it only in the last couple of weeks?
Look at those candidates. Look, for instance at Dubbo. I think the candidate who has been announced is a 22 year old student from Bathurst (not even in the electorate).
I might be getting a little cynical but it looks to me like their plan does not involve even trying to win the seat.
Barry
You could argue Tweed was lost by the Nats because of changing demographics- it’s basically now an urban seat which should be contested between Labor and the Liberals.
I agree with most of your comments, country lad. The ALP has created a problem for itself in country NSW. Most would agree that the relabelling of the party as “Country Labor” was a procedural move to give the Sussex St Right control of the branches and mors ghost votes at the state conference. The result has been the destruction of the branches. There are now a number of seats in country NSW where Labor is unable to get 10% of the vote. Port Macquarie is another where the vote was 8% last time. (Bizarrely Mackerras’ pendulum has PMQ requiring a swing of 7% for Labor to win. Presumably because the Nat vote last time was 15%).
It looks as if Labor is only trying in Murray-Darling, Monaro and Tweed where the demographics are changing the seats into the poor man’s Gold Coast. This is a great pity given the long tradition of Labor in Country NSW and the suprise results like Clarence that regularly occurred when top candidates were supported.
I suspect Sussex St is not too unhappy because running dead with drongo candidates has allowed the party to support impressive independents and has discomforted the Nationals who as a result have lost 4 or so seats in the process.
Of course such a situation cannot continue without Labor eventually losing its credibility in non-urban NSW. I suspect it will only change when sussex St realises that the lack of a rural party infrastructure has resulted in a decline in the LC vote
Where can I find information on the LC candidates?
Much angst lately about the election being there to lose for Labor, but I really can’t see how. No one is paying the slightest bit of attention to the campaign, which this week (for example) has been drowned out by: Federal politics, a losing cricket team (news-worthy in itself of course), 2 big boats, Britain leaving Iraq, Anna Nicole Smith, Britney shaving her head, and numerous other inconsequentialities.
The average voter is not going bto pay too much attention until the final week – and look! The NRL and the cricket World Cup start. Barring Morris being caught in flagrante with a sheep in Martin Plaza, it’s hard to see how the Libs are going to get people worked up enough to get a big enough swing.
Hugo are you in NSW? If so is that how you read the mood at the moment? I’m a Victorian – don’t hold that against me – and unable to judge naturally enough. I had the mood right for our last state election though – there just wasn’t the feeling for change. Have you seen the polls in the Daily Telegraph? Me thinks the Libs are having a field day there.
Gary, yes I am from NSW, and so consequently would advise you not to take an on-line poll in the Terror too seriously. All of the press seem to have it in for Iemma and the ALP, but it doesn’t seem to be making any difference (this could be because newspapers aren’t nearely as influential as their owners would have us believe). The ALP should be miles behind, given the state they are in, but the more reputable polls (Newspoll, AC Neilson) have Labor comfortably in front, and given the margins at play, even a “protest vote gone wrong” would be unlikely to dislodge them. It’s also late summer, which is a pretty nice time of year in this part of the world (ie Sydney). It’s just hard to see Debnam getting the traction he needs to surf into office.
Oakeshott, the real reason Labor has abandoned most of rural NSW is simply demographics. The disappearance of the rural proletariat (shearers, railway workers, postal workers, miners, timber workers etc etc) has greatly eroded Labor’s base. Farmers and small-town businessfolk are not going to vote Labor no matter how sterling our candidates are. The days 30 years ago when Labor could win (from memory) Murrumbidgee, Castlereagh, Burrinjuck, Armidale, Albury and Clarence are gone – the same is true of federal seats like Gwydir, Hume and Riverina. “Sussex St” is quite right to concentrate on seats we can win and leave the unwinnables to the independents.
N.S.W ALP heavyweights are talking about the Iemma Government being in danger of losing 14 seats: Labor spin to blunt a protest vote, or something more?
Hugo, I hope you’re right. With these new IR laws the last thing any state needs at the moment is a conservative government. I hope Labor is highlighting IR in the campaign because I believe this is the issue that is holding many back from voting conservative.
Adam, I disagree at least as far as coastal NSW is concerned. The North Coast population is expected to double in the next 25 years. Most of these sea changers are from the Western Suburbs or are Mexicans . When they arrive on the coast there is no Labor infrastructure and they find that they can not vote for a reasonable candidate. Their best alternative is an independent. Don’t be fooled by the tag, most of the current lot of independents are former Nats. In the case of Oakeshott he stated that he left the party because it was controlled by the self-confessed local Rob Jolly but I suspect he really had no future in a rural party. During his last days as leader the bewildered Brogdan publically invited Oakeshott to join the Liberals so I don’t see how supporting him is in Labor’s interests.
The Nats have difficulty connecting with sea changers and as a result continue to threaten to disintegrate on the coast. At the last state election in this previously rock solid Nat electorate, the Nats were down to 15%. If the disintegration happens there is a strong chance that these seats will become straight Lib/ALP contests but there will be no ALP to take part.
I agree that the Rural proletariate no longer exists and except for Murray-Darling and Monaro the Alp is unlikely to win seats on the west of the divide. But this area is depopulating and with each redistribution interior seats disappear and new seats appear on the coast or in the city. Demographic changes can work to Labor’s advantage as well as its disadvantage. This is shown by seats like Clarence, Port Stephens and Maitland (admittedly the last two get a slice of Greater Newcastle) in State elections and Patterson, Page and Richmond in Federal elections.
There are two other important reasons that Sussex St should support a rural infrastructure. Firstly to maximise the LC vote (How else are the apparatchiks going to continue their careers) and secondly because of the large amounts the electoral commission gives to the party if the candidates get more than ? 10%.
Well said Hugo, there really is no campaign yet apart from the papers. I also think the Bridge Celebrations in the week prior to the election will have a numbing effect provided the transportation system works. Both the Herald and the Terror have spent an enormous amount of effort in bagging Iemma during the last year but I just don’t hear it being said over barbeques. Today’s Herald front page is a good example. It is all Iemma’s fault that North Shore folk had to wait an hour to catch a ferry when the QE2 and QM2 were in the harbour. However, most of the letters in the paper commented on how well the city coped with 200000 people suddenly turning up. I think the papers have just been bored by a Labor Government that most unusually hasn’t sunk into corruption after 12 years. Maybe they are trying to breathe some life into a lack-lustre campaign.
There still is a rural working-class but it is more lower level non-manual retail etc. and its not unionised. One Nation won some of their support. There is one Labor voting group whose numbers are increasing in rural areas: indigenous people, as farms get bigger and farmers’ children go to the cities for good their numbers will increase.
* Oakeshott, it should have been obvious that I wasn’t talking about the North Coast seats, which are getting better for Labor as they urbanise. I was talking about The Bush.
* Geoff, yes that’s true, but shop workers in Dubbo are MUCH less likely to vote Labor than were the shearers and railworkers of the yesteryear. As for the indigenous vote, I’m not aware of any seats in rural NSW where it amounts to much. Can you suggest a seat which is, say, 5% indigenous?
Countrylad,
Thanks for your reply & apologies if I’ve ruffled your feathers.
I was a financial member of the NSW Nationals for 20 years, so I heard a lot of gossip about which MPs are looking after their electorates and also what went right or wrong in election campaigns.
I make no claims that I am able to accurately predict election results, but I suspect the commentators you are referring to have looked at the pendulum and said if there is a uniform swing of this amount then these seats will change hands. Local issues tend to affect state seats in country areas, so it is unusual for them to all swing in the same direction.
As for ALP candidates “running dead” to help independents, you are probably right. Major parties tend to not waste resources in seats they can’t win. In Sydney, the ALP nominates token candidates in safe Liberal seats and the Liberal Party nominates token canidates in safe Labor setas. The Liberals are still announcing candidates this week. If the Nats receive over 50% of the vote in a seat, then it doesn’t matter whether the ALP receives 6.5% or 49.5%.
Marcus,
You may be right about changing demographics. It is now mostly an urban electorate on the coast. Prior to the latest redistribution, it still contained Murwillumbah and all the farming areas in the Tweed valley. In Murwillumbah, the ALP outpolled the Nationals in 1999 and 2003.
I don’t know how much difference there would be between a Liberal or National candidate. Some people will vote Liberal but not National and other National but not Liberal and most can’t tell the difference.
Oakeshott_country,
The name “Country Labor” was adopted after the Nationals began referring the ALP as “Sydney Labor” in all of their press releases.
Clarence was probably not a surprise result. Since 1971, the area has changed parties each time the sitting member retired.
Adam said:
Oakeshott, the real reason Labor has abandoned most of rural NSW is simply demographics. The disappearance of the rural proletariat (shearers, railway workers, postal workers, miners, timber workers etc etc) has greatly eroded Labor’s base. Farmers and small-town businessfolk are not going to vote Labor no matter how sterling our candidates are. The days 30 years ago when Labor could win (from memory) Murrumbidgee, Castlereagh, Burrinjuck, Armidale, Albury and Clarence are gone – the same is true of federal seats like Gwydir, Hume and Riverina. “Sussex St†is quite right to concentrate on seats we can win and leave the unwinnables to the independents. ”
Mate, not only is that cynical, it fails to recognise that there is a goodly proportion of the vote that is available in rural electorates. Look at seats like Northern Tablelands. In the past it had a Labor member. Now what is the Labor vote?
Think of it this way. The ALP is destroying its branch structure to the extent it cannot field candidates, and cannot even be guaranteed to man all the booths. I suppose that’s not my problem but it strikes me there are loyal party members out there who are not being shown any loyaly by head office.
Let me use an example of what I am talking about. Look at the ALP vote at the last federal elecvtion in the seat of New England. Look at the vote the Independent got, look at the vote the Nats and Liberal candidates got. Then go and have a look at the vote the Coalition got in the Senate.
Now compare the vote the ALP got with what it could achieve, say, twenty years ago.
It’s not just that the seat is fundamentally conservative. It is the failure of the ALP to put up a decent showing. The result is a strong Senate vote.
In the long term the changes in demographics will wipe out the
National party. they will not win seats on the north or south coasts of NSW
nor will they win seats in the urban corner of south east Queensland or the
provincial cities, eg Townsville, Cairns Mackay. The problem for the National
party is they do not have a seperate identity from the liberals.Watch what happens in the next Queensland election, to win Government the opposition
leader will need to be replaced by a liberal as the liberals will win more seats.
Also witness the first Federal election where Labor polls well in country
areas and the liberals decide to challenge the National sitting members
Mick, Mick, Mick,
At my age I have heard these arguments before, seems to an old gent like myself the real revelation of the future is going to be the ALP. Union density of less than 20% outside of the public service. The real lesson is Richard Milhous Nixon and the famous Southern Strategy,
Split white conservative democrats from the party at a national level in the 60’s over civil rights a stratey that is only now really percolating down to the state level in the US
Is the real trend of the future to watch for who will be the first to find Howard battlers at the State level? Poor old Debnam has amateurly tried out his dog whistle (a la lock up 100) but the Libs will eventually find someone who can play the sweet tunes – What do you all think?
Adam, I hear what you say but I think it supports my argument.
As the coast becomes urbanised, the ALP vote should obviously increase. However this has not occurred. Look at the results from the 2003 election at which there was a state swing to Labor (thanks to Antony):
Seats with strong independents:
Seat ALP primary vote Swing
Coffs Harbour 19% -12%
Ballina 26% – 2%
Lismore 25% – 3%
Myall Lakes 22% -7%
Port Macquarie 8.5% – 19%
Seats without independents:
Tweed 44.3% Steady
Clarence 39.3% +2%
Oxley 33% + 8% (ONP collapsed)
Labor is not gaining from the demographic changes on the coast.;
Tell Larry Anthony that. His dad and grandad didn’t have to worry about losing Richmond.
But 2004 Richmond is very different in size and location to 1970’s richmond