Menu lock

NSW Politics

Jun 23, 2009

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.

Topics

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

44 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
philofsydney
Guest

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

zombiemao
Guest

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!

Oz
Guest

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%.

blackburnpseph
Guest

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?

Tom the first and best
Guest
Tom the first and best

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

Dave
Guest

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.

Tom the first and best
Guest
Tom the first and best

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.

Oz
Guest

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.

Sam Bauers
Guest

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.

Oz
Guest

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

bob1234
Guest

[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.

Sertse
Guest

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.

Oz
Guest

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

b) It’s true.

Greensborough Growler
Guest
Greensborough Growler

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.

Oz
Guest

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.

Oz
Guest

[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.

Greensborough Growler
Guest
Greensborough Growler

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.

Oz
Guest

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.

philofsydney
Guest

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…

Rebecca
Guest

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.

wpDiscuz