tip off

Newspoll: 55-45 to Coalition in NSW

The latest bi-monthly New South Wales state Newspoll has the Coalition increasing its lead after a Labor recovery in previous surveys, from 53-47 to 55-45 in two-party terms. Labor’s primary vote is down two points to a parlous 31 per cent – particularly dangerous territory under optional preferetial voting – while the Coalition is up a point to 41 per cent. The Greens are up a point to 14 per cent, while “others” is steady on 14 per cent. Nathan Rees has recorded his worst personal ratings yet, his approval down four to 30 per cent his disapproval up three to 49 per cent. Barry O’Farrell is respectively down one to 34 per cent and down three 34 per cent. For all that, the two are effectively level on preferred leader, Rees maintaining a one point edge with 33 per cent.

44
  • 1
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    I think that the Greens will win Balmain and, if the Libs direct preferences to them, Marrickville as the Greens seem to have improved their vote in NSW quite a bit since the election. I would also rate them as a high chance for three MLCs to add to the two that were elected in 2007.

  • 2
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    What is party status in the NSW Parliament? Is it 5 like the Commonwealth Parliament and the WA Parliament?

  • 3
    Sam Bauers
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    “What is party status in the NSW Parliament?”

    Whatever the party holding the balance of power wants it to be.

  • 4
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    I think it’s something like 10.

  • 5
    The Heysen Molotov
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    It would be a sad day for democracy if the Greens do get 14% of the vote yet miss-out on any seats. What is the highest plausible vote a party could get and still go unrepresented? I know technically it is 49.9% but that is not realistic. If a party gets 14% statewide and go unrepresented then the system is deeply flawed.

  • 6
    Antony GREEN
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    The Australian Democrat vote passed 16% at the 1997 South Australian Election without electing a lower house MP.

  • 7
    rogan
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Although I wouldn’t vote Green, being realistic about things, I hope the Greens have the balance of power in the LC. At least you then get some policy consistency and predictability. The present situation with Nile plus a Shooter is an awful result…

    But with the ALP down in the low 30s on primaries there will be more LC seats for all the minors…

  • 8
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    I think with a 7% swing (which is also a doubling of the vote) is easily enough to win Balmain and Marrickville, barring any dramatic changes. On those numbers, if the Liberals were to decide to direct preferences to the Greens those two seats wouldn’t even be particularly close.

    Of course, that assumes we win 14%. I expect we won’t quite hold up at that level, although we have almost consistently maintained 13-15% support in the polls for the last 18 months.

  • 9
    Generic Person
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Good result for the Coalition. Shame that the election is 2 years away.

  • 10
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    I expect we won’t quite hold up at that level, although we have almost consistently maintained 13-15% support in the polls for the last 18 months.

    If the ALP was showing any hint of stability or coherence, I would agree with you.

  • 11
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Well the Greens say they loose 2% in election campaigns because of the big party media deluge so that holds against getting above about 13%.

    Is there any chamber based restriction on that ten as in Victoria?

    The highest the Greens have polled without getting any seats is the 11% or so they got in WA last year (since rectified with 1 out of 59).

    The Greens polling is at similar levels in Victoria without the terrible ALP polling that NSW has and this, on a uniform swing*, would have them taking Melbourne and making Richmond and Brunswick very close.

    *The swing is likely not to be uniform.

  • 12
    The Heysen Molotov
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 2:55 am | Permalink

    1973 Legislative Council Result
    Party Seats
    Australian Labor Party 54.6% and 2 seats
    Liberal and Country League 44.5% and 8 seats
    Independents/Other 0.9%
    1973-1975 Legislative Council
    For a total of:
    Liberal and Country League 16
    Australian Labor Party 4

    This result is rediculous. What electoral system did the SA upper house have back then?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_state_election,_1997
    My namesake electorate was the Dems best bet, pitty that whopping 16% statewide went unrepresented. Still the Greens vote in NSW & VIC these days seems more geographically concentrated than was the Dems in 1997 in SA so under the single-member electorate system they may get a couple elected, though would still be proportionally under-represented.

  • 13
    Rebecca
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 3:47 am | Permalink

    But with the ALP down in the low 30s on primaries there will be more LC seats for all the minors…

    I wouldn’t be so sure about the non-Green minors this time around.

    The Shooters Party stuffed up severely by voting with the government on the farmland mining issue, and seemingly haven’t got much for it, as they’re now complaining that Labor isn’t doing what they want on gun laws. I wouldn’t bet on Brown getting re-elected.

    And the CDP have self-destructed. Nile’s support isn’t what it was in the 80s when he survived the Bignold split, and Gordon Moyes is a much better politician than Bignold was. It’ll be an interesting battle between Moyes, the new CDP candidate, and the other parties, but I wouldn’t be surprised of Moyes and Nile take each other down.

  • 14
    Rebecca
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 3:49 am | Permalink

    This result is rediculous. What electoral system did the SA upper house have back then?

    I think that might have been the last election held under the old system before the Legislative Council was reformed.

  • 15
    Bird of paradox
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 6:49 am | Permalink

    The old SA upper house was outrageously weighted to rural SA (2:1 bias rural over Adelaide despite the population being the other way round). I don’t know, but it may have been something like WA pre-1980′s or Vic pre-2006: two-member districts with one member elected each time, so effectively single-member districts – that along with the rural malapportionment could’ve caused such a badly skewed result. Adam, you know any more?

  • 16
    bob1234
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    A property franchise remained in place for Council elections until 1973. Enrolment was also voluntary, with many voters not taking up their right to enrol. Together with a massive rural bias in the drawing of electoral boundaries, this meant that between 1941 and 1973, every Legislative Council election returned 2 Labor members to 8 for the Liberal Country League.

    http://www.abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/lchistory.htm

  • 17
    gareth perkins
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    I usually vote one of the various left-leaning minor parties, but a part of me this time wants to vote for Gordon Moyes just to stick it to Nile.

  • 18
    J-D
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    The old districts were four-member districts with two members elected at each periodic election. Normally one of the two urban districts returned ALP members while the other urban district and all of the three rural districts returned LCL members. Thus, the usual election result was ALP 2, LCL 8, and the usual composition of the Council was ALP 4, LCL 16.

  • 19
    dovif
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Have we gone completely off topic?

    Or are you guys saying the ALP might only win 20% of the lower house/upper house seats at the next state election

  • 20
    rogan
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Rebecca @ 13

    Plenty of people who usually vote ALP appear not to be voting ALP next time. I’m not sure that even most of them will go Green, and they aren’t exactly flocking to the Coalition.

    If 30% of the electorate votes for minor parties in the upper house, IMO there’s a good chance of getting a range of difference candidates elected. 16% of the electorate not voting for any of ALP/Coalition or Greens. Anything could happen…

  • 21
    Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    This is what happened when the Greens didn’t get what they wanted at the last Tasmanian State Election…

    http://42south147east.info/2009/06/20/pegg-putt-mha-the-tasmanian-greens-tasmanian-election-night-06-speech.aspx

  • 22
    Posted Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Interesting (I didn’t even click tbh) but it has what to do with a NSW Newspoll?

  • 23
    Rebecca
    Posted Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 4:21 am | Permalink

    If 30% of the electorate votes for minor parties in the upper house, IMO there’s a good chance of getting a range of difference candidates elected. 16% of the electorate not voting for any of ALP/Coalition or Greens. Anything could happen…

    I’ll believe this when I see it. The disgruntled getting split between Lib/Lab/Green is more likely. There’s no other parties on the horizon with any significant strength, and thanks to the post-1999 reforms, the days of electing microparties are probably dead. Almost a shame, though. I’d love to see someone from a group like the Australian Sex Party get up – it would be awesome lulz.

  • 24
    philofsydney
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    I posted this on Oz’s excellent blog, but was curious on what others thought:

    The basic problem in NSW is that there is not enough money to fund important projects (NW rail line etc). Given the GFC and declining GST receipts, this is unlikely to change. To fund these things, Labor wants to sell off assets such as NSW Lotteries and electricity generators.

    The Greens are very anti-privatisation, so are of no use to the Gov when they need to raise money, so the Gov have to turn to the nutty types in Parliament, which is bad for their reputation and for wider policy.

    I would like to see the Greens do deals with the Gov in return for key social and environmental concessions. Outright opposing something when the other option is the Gov having to give concessions to Gun nuts or Fred Nile may look good on the TV and may calm the true believers, but it's bad for NSW. I know that this isn't Green ideology, but the truth is that you have to play with what you have for the greater good - and if that means making compromises, you have to bite the bullet and do it.

    The question is, would you go against a policy/principle of yours (say, privitisation) to secure another policy/principle of yours (say better same-sex rights or wider environmental protection), when the other option is to get nothing and force the Gov to deal with the Shooters (who want to remove environmental protection)? Politics is a dirty game folks.

  • 25
    Rebecca
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    philofsydney: I doubt that. It’s too big an issue.

    I have a feeling that backing privatisation of major government services would turn out to be the Greens’ equivalent of the GST. It’d outrage the hell out of a lot of the Green base, and I can’t think of anything conceivable that they could win in exchange that’d alleviate that – it’d have to be something substantially more than the ACT-Green accord in the ACT, and the ACT Government’s even having trouble funding that.

  • 26
    philofsydney
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Then what’s their relevance if they don’t get any legislation passed or even any concessions? The Green Senators, to their credit, have largely danced with the Fed Government and won some very handsome concessions. The NSW Greens just oppose things and, by implication, force the Government to work with Shooters/Nile to pass legislation, which give those types concessions. Surely it would be better for the Greens to accept that legislation will be passed one way or the other and get Green concessions rather than gun concessions? I guess this is the old realist v idealist argument…

  • 27
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Phil, the thing is, Labor is genuinely more comfortable negotiating with the CDP, Shooters and Coalition than The Greens, particularly on issues of privatisation.

    This is ironic because Labor and The Greens are the only parties that oppose privatisation of essential services in their policy platforms.

    On a privatisation bill Labor would have the option of negotiating with any of the parties. There isn’t really much to negotiate on the actual bill – to privatise or not to privatise (sometimes it’s more complex than this but the core of it is the same) so it becomes a case of horse trading. Labor much prefers to cut these sort of deals with the other minors than The Greens. The Greens are in no way opposed to negotiating with Labor and it happens sometimes, when they can reach a common ground that Labor can’t with the other parties. But The Greens (and they’re often derided for this) view themselves as a party of principle. If you support privatisation of electricity it shoots down your credibility in opposing it in other areas. The “reality vs. idealism” argument, in my opinion, is often used as a wedge to make The Greens feel as though they are in fact betraying progressive ideals by not voting for poor legislation that runs contrary to their policy.

    The other point about The Greens is that they’re a grass roots party where policy is formulated by members and resonates much more with their MP’s than it does with other parties. So while MP’s are ultimately the elected representatives and can do whatever negotiations they like, they’re ultimately much more responsible to the membership.

  • 28
    Greensborough Growler
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Oz,

    It just shows the Greens are not to be trusted in balance of power situations. At what stage do they take responsibility for maintaining Government versus the mindless application of their ideological fantasies.

  • 29
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    At what stage do they take responsibility for maintaining Government versus the mindless application of their ideological fantasies.

    The Greens aren’t in government.

    They’re effectively not even in the balance of power as Labor takes every opportunity to deal with the CDP and Shooters. Labor doesn’t do this because they are “forced” too but because practically, they have more in common with right-wing extremists than the only progressive party in parliament.

  • 30
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Your definition of an “ideological fantasy” is anything that runs contrary to whatever the latest Labor position is on anything, even if it contradicts the position immediately prior, which makes this a pointless discussion.

  • 31
    Greensborough Growler
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Oz,

    Comrade, you can’t own the high ground of the debate by abusing people with whom you disagree.

    Maybe you should grow up a little.

  • 32
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    a) It’s hardly abuse, don’t be precious. You’ve got thick skin.

    b) It’s true.

  • 33
    Sertse
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    A remote possibilty, but this is probably one of the few situations where the Greens could be forgiven if they side with the Liberals. The view of Labor is just that bad here, (i.e. it’s not merely they do things I don’t like as usual, but questioning of whether they are competent in the first place), that I don’t think the backlash would be too great if it happened. Symbolically it would be a huge change.

  • 34
    bob1234
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    Your definition of an “ideological fantasy” is anything that runs contrary to whatever the latest Labor position is on anything, even if it contradicts the position immediately prior, which makes this a pointless discussion.

    So so true.

  • 35
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Sertse, are you talking about preference deals or voting on legislation?

  • 36
    Sam Bauers
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    In NSW at 10 MLAs you get:

    * A Leader in the Legislative Assembly
    * A Deputy Leader in the Legislative Assembly
    * A Party Whip in the Legislative Assembly

    At 9 MLCs you get:

    * A Deputy Leader in the Legislative Council

    As far as I can tell this is not constitutionally bound and is in fact tied to the parliamentary remuneration act (of all things), so it’s certainly possible it can change.

    There seems to be no actual wording in any legislation I could find about what “party status” is, but the implication is that you aren’t a party until you have a party leader in the Legislative Assembly.

  • 37
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    I think the more interesting implication of party status is what you get in terms of resources, like staff.

    I’ve tried reading the remuneration act to figure out if it’s stipulated there but got bored.

  • 38
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    36

    Thank-you I have been looking for that information for a while. You wouldn`t happen to have the same information for Victoria would you? I have tried hard to find Victoria but all I know is from a news item around the time of the last state election that the number of MLCs needed for party status was cut from 4 to 2 (the Nats went from 4 to 2) and that there would still be a minimum number of 10.

  • 39
    Dave
    Posted Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    Tom@38,

    For party status in Victoria, unless I’m mistaken there is no set number of MLA’s or MLC’s needed for party status, you only need 10 MP’s.

  • 40
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    No, they definitely did cut the required number of MLCs from 4 to 2.

  • 41
    blackburnpseph
    Posted Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Getting back to the Greens seat chances ….

    One seat that the Greens would surely have a chance of winning is Sydney, should Clover Moore decide to retire in 2011 or 2015.

    One likely outcome also is that the Greens could quite likely come second in a swag of safe liberal seats (they came second in Vaucluse and Northj Sore last time if I recall). Maybe someone should open a book on how many seats the ALP will record a single digit vote in … 7 or 8?

  • 42
    Posted Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    The Greens may have come second in Vaucluse but it was a very distant second. 20.4 % vs. 59.9% for the Liberals.

    Similar stuff in North Shore. 17.9% vs. 53.4%.

  • 43
    Posted Sunday, June 28, 2009 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    and you thought NSW was bad. Say hello to California:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/26/BAPD18EOGV.DTL

    CRIKEY!

  • 44
    philofsydney
    Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    I’m dissapointed every time Arnie isn’t called Governator in an article.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...