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.;

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?

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.

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.

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.