Polls Apart

The new Newspoll was released today. Suffice to say that it will bring no joy to John Robertson or the ALP as a whole.

First, the party numbers:

Full table here

And the Premier numbers:

Full table here

True it is that there has been a gradual drift back to the ALP since the election. Their present 2PP numbers are some 5% better than at the election.

The problem is that a few simple sums show that, at this rate of improvement, the ALP will not win the next election. Believe it or not, we are almost half-way through the 4 year fixed term that O'Farrell won in March of 2011. Labor has made up 5% of the 14% shellacking they got almost 2 years ago.

There are good reasons why politicians who make decisions based upon polls deserve contempt. That said, when the polls are consistent over a long period of time, more concrete conclusions can be drawn about the attitude of the electorate.

That said, the numerical issue over how fast Labor catches up is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

There should always be a rebound of sorts after a big win for a challenger in an election. Many people will often vote for the opposition because "it's time for a change" or "because we need to send a message". In and of themselves, those are pretty stupid justifications for a vote, but it is a common reason after a government has spent a long time in power.

People who naturally see themselves as supporting the incumbant will, for reasons that remain opaque to me, choose to vote for someone else. Those people should naturally flow back to the new opposition once they have been defeated.

Even more common is the disillusioned supporter - those people who voted for the challenger (perhaps against their better judgment) and then are immediately shocked/surprised/horrified by the changes introduced by the new government.

When you consider that a new government will often "get the bad stuff out of the way early" there should be a pretty large group of dissillusioned voters.

This is particularly so after a particularly heavy victory - there must be hundred of thousands (if not millions) of people who voted Liberal/National for the first time in their entire lives in 2011.

Those people must, for the most part, have been appalled by O'Farrell's actions since the election. They would have plenty company.

This makes the failure of the Labor opposotion to make inroads since the election surprising - and no doubt concerning for the Labor faithful.

Whilst O'Farrell has, for reasons I have discussed previously, an excellent chance of serving at least 8 years, Labor will not be willing to roll over and concede this. Their failure to make up significant ground renders this almost inevitable.

A Strayn Connection

The relationship between Federal and State branches of a political party must often be a fraught one.

We've read countless stories in recent years about whether a poorly performing federal party is having an effect on a state election, or whether a state party wracked by scandal is affecting the federal vote.

Of course, these things are impossible to determine, given that, even when they are specifically asked, no one can know why a voter ticks a certain box or answers a polling question one way or the other.

Not that that stops all those blasted columnists and bloggers.

In any event, it seems like the most common source of friction must be issues where an option is good for the country as a whole but effects states differently.

The infrastructure funding is a good example.  The Federal Government allocates a particular sum of money each year to Infrastructure projects, and the states jostle each other for the cash.

In the last year of the NSW Labor government a fairly half-hearted application was made for Federal funding. As a result of the sub-standard effort the state missed out entirely.  This was despite the fact that a large injection of cash may have significantly boosted NSW Labor's numbers in the lead-up to the 2011 election.

Of course, that didn't stop Federal Labor offering to throw great big wads of money at the NorthWest Rail link during the campaign, but that's another issue.

It's not often, however, that a State branch and a Federal Branch are perceived to be working at cross purposes.

Full Story here

Now, O'Farrell is on record as opposing the Carbon Tax.

Additionally, the NSW Liberal website has great big swathes of space dedicated to the issue. I went there to download a press release or comment, but found this instead.

In any event.

Now, despite some people's protestations, pursuit of clean energy will undoubtedly create jobs.  Whether those jobs will replace those lost because of the carbon price is all but impossible to determine, but it would be plain wrong to say that NO jobs will be created.

And, of course, those jobs will have to be created somewhere. So the NSW government has to chase those jobs for the state. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

The most interesting part, though, is the fact that this announcement was only the creation of 40 jobs. It's not an enormous investment in Sydney's future - in the face of approximately 3. 5 million people employed in NSW, it is a miniscule number.

Notwithstanding, a big fuss was made about it, including a joint press conference with O'Farrell and Gillard.

Brad Burden, O'Farrell's media man, had this to say:

He may be right, he may not be.  But the more I think about, the more I see this announcement doing very little help the NSW Coalition, but probably hurting the Federal Coalition quite a bit.

What it shows, in short, is NSW getting on with the job - accepting that there will be a price on Carbon, and that energy is best invested dealing with that rather than rending garments in protest.

No matter, what you think about the Carbon Price, I think NSW would be stupid to not try and ensure that as many of these new jobs as possible are in NSW.

Having said all that, it seems that the debate on the Carbon Price and in particular the reporting from certain segments of the media means that all reason may well have flown out the window, so what would I know?

A Nudge in the Right Direction

This is unfortunately going to be an abridged blogpost, because I'm on holiday and was planning on leaving this blog alone for a few days.  But this is an issue I simply cannot let slide past without comment.

Look at what the Terror served up for us today:

Now I've had plenty to say, both here and on Twitter, about our old friend Laura Norda.  To be expected I suppose, given my job as a criminal lawyer.

On one hand, I agree that harsh sentences are often not just appropriate but also required.  In many cases, gaol is the only appropriate response, and the community is right to be demand it.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who are in gaol for no good reason, forced there by vicious laws created only to keep TalkBack Radio and the Tabloid Media off politicians' backs.

There needs to be balance in the debate, and Greg Smith has been one of the first politicians to suggest that the issue is far more nuanced than "tough sentences equals less crime".

The problem for him, however, is that certain media outlets are always going to hammer him for any change that softens sentencing.  This article, which shamelessly labels him "soft on crime", is a textbook example.

Again, this post isn't meant to be another complant about the media (although God knows that is what I would like to write).  What it is about is an observation that this is the kind of rubbish that is going to be printed (and no doubt believed by many) if Mr Smith wants to actually achieve something good and worthwhile whilst the Coalition is in power.

Labor had this little nuggett of wisdom for the AG:
That's nice.  Let's make it about the fact he lives on the North Shore and therefore cannot possibly comprehend the "gang war raging" on the streets of South-West Sydney.

I mean for heaven's sake - a "gang war"? Spare me.

Smith going to cop it in the neck for this.  But what better time to do it?

We've already seen that this government appears to have a licence, at least for the moment, to do what they want and not get penalised for it. I've written about that here and here.

That window of opportunity won't last forever.  Smith should take the chance to push these reforms through now before the populist rubbish has a chance to really penetrate.

I've never met Smith, and I have no idea what he is like as a person.  The fact that he is pushing these reforms that (surely) won't win him many votes is a good sign that he was sincere when he said, before the election, that he was determined to make the right changes, not the popular ones.

It bodes well for our state.

A Cheque Poll

Polls this far out from an election really don't mean a great deal.

The problem is that there really isn't any other way to know, as a party, whether the message you are putting out there is gaining any traction at all. I suppose you can monitor the press (as any politician does) and you can keep track of what is discussed on talkback radio, but that can only gets you so far.

Even once you know the numbers, it's hard to know whether there is any effect on the election that is still over three years away.

My view is that there is practically nothing that any party can do that is going to sink them next election. It's no coincidence that O'Farrell has made a lot of very unpopular changes recently - capping salary growth for public sector workers and making changes to the police disability scheme being the most traumatic.

Police marching on Parliament.  Photo from here

But the voters aren't going to remember that in three years. It is material for a Labor ad, but realistically no one is going to care a great deal.

So, I don't think that yesterday's Newspoll numbers say anything important about O'Farrell's changes:

Leaked with the usual efficiency by @ghostwhovotes

Now, I don't really want to get stuck into the details of the numbers, for those reasons. What I do want to do is note that they have barely moved an inch since the election date.

In circumstances where O'Farrell has done plenty to give the public reason to shift their allegiance, that is something that will give him comfort.

I've had a look through the old Newspoll first preference figures, and interestingly this has not been the rule previously. After coming to power in 1995, the Labor numbers went up over 4% in the first poll 4 months later, but then plummeted 8% in the next poll 2 months later.

This government was plagued by problems in it's first year relating to the delivery on some promises.  The contrast to O'Farrell is worth noting - whilst he has annoyed a lot of people, the hand he was dealt in the lead-up to the election meant that he didn't in fact have to break any promises - so people are annoyed only because of what he is doing, not because he is doing something he promised not to do.

In 1999, after retaining power, the first poll 4 months later had Labor 4 points up, but then back down 2 in the following poll. 

Following the 2003 election (also won by Labor), they dropped 3 points in the first poll and then remained steady, whilst in 2007 they dropped 5 points and then pulled 1 back.

From Anthony Green's blog. Obviously doesn't include 2011 result

So, why has the Coalition managed to retain this huge lead over Labor?  Is it because they haven't actually broken any promises?  Could it be that the public are happy to give you a free hit once in power as long as you don't break any promises?

I think so - although I'm not certain that we have the precise cause right.

It could be the fact that no promises were broken.  On the other hand, it could be the fact that Labor were so reviled that only the most heinous conduct by O'Farrell would be punished. Whilst his changes have annoyed a lot of people, I fancy Joe Citizen is pretty content with how things are going at the moment, which would accord with a +21 satisfaction rating.

Either way, it bodes well for the remainder of the Coalition's term.  O'Farrell may well now be encouraged to make as many unpopular changes as he wants as long as he does it soon - this will mean that he can save all the popular stuff for the 2 years leading up to the 2015 election when he will want to limit the amount of ground Labor is able to claw back.

Labor made a lot of noise in the lead-up to the election about the "blank cheque" that O'Farrell was being given. It seems that he is hard at work cashing that cheque right now.

A First Impression

The first NSW Newspoll since the election.  It ain't pretty reading for Labor.

Labor primary is at 22%.  Twenty-two percent!

That is 3.5% less than what they polled at the election. Looking at the numbers before the election makes it even more striking.

Shamelessly nicked from Newspoll and The Australian

From the 2007 election the number slowly trended downwards from 39% to 23% shortly before the election.  It may be that the 23% just before the election and the 22% now are both an underestimate, and the true figure is 25% they polled at the election, but either way, the numbers are still subterranean.

The TPP has deteriorated too: down marginally from 36% to 34%.

There are a few things I should say at this point, in fairness.  First of all, the next election is 42 months away.  Whilst the Clarence election is next weekend, the polling numbers are not actually going to "matter" for some time yet.

Further, voting intentions at a time well outside the lead-up to an election are not worth much because people aren't in a place where who they might vote for enters their mind, not to mention that the parties are not in anything resembling campaign mode.

That said, polls do give politicians an idea of how they are tracking.  I firmly believe that any politician who claims that they don't read polls is a liar - polls matter, and for better or worse they motivate a great deal of what our politicians do.

Labor will be disappointed with these numbers.  They have to be.

In saying that, I note what The Poll Bludger has had to say today:

Respectfully, I disagree.  Regular readers (yes! Both of you!) will know that I have had a great deal to say about how Barry O'Farrell has, to be frank, pissed a lot of people off since his election: solar panel owners, public service unions and Green voters.  We've had a minister resign in disgrace, another minister (as yet unnamed, publically at least) accused of a public sex act, and an administration whose gloss (it has seemed to me, at least) has started to wear off.

And yet the Coalition's numbers are BETTER than at the election?

It seems that the voters must still be hanging onto their revulsion at the thought of a Labor government.  It is the only reason I can think of why there has not been a leakage of "Close you eyes and think of England" Coalition voters back to Labor.

Additionally, John Robertson has remained fairly anonymous outside of the BearPit, to the extent that Kristina Keneally, just about the only non-freshman Labor member without a shadow ministry, has a bigger profile than him.

That explains, I think, his incredibly low approval rating.

 

People don't know him and can't think of something positive he has done, and are therefore unlikely to approve of his performance.

It's early.  And this poll doesn't actually make any difference to anything other than the Clarence by-election, which is already in the bag for the Nationals.  But if you think there are no Labor members concerned about this, you're kidding yourself.

Sean Nichols article in the Herald today took a very different tack.  Besides a brief opening about Robertson's very low approval, the article focussed on the halving of the National's support, and questioned whether the Coal Seam Gas issue is to blame.

On this issue, I think that the Poll Bludger is most likely right.

The Liberals' primary is up 6%, and I fancy that the vast majority of those that have left the Nationals' column have ended up in the Liberals'.  If not, what other explanation is there for the Liberals' numbers going up at the same time as the Nationals' numbers go down? At the very least you would expect the Liberals' numbers to stay steady.

These numbers are unlikely to have any real world implications.  No one will be suggesting that Robertson's time is up - he will be given years (not months) to get Labor into a position where 2015 is winnable.  Even if he doesn't manage that, most people expect that the Coalition will have 8 years (at least) and the expectation may merely be that he gets them close enough to have decent shot (with a more viable candidate) in 2019.

But that doesn't mean they are going to like being where they are at.  Not one bit.

Pushing the envelope

Push polling is a nasty, nasty business.


Wikipedia defines push polling as "political campaign technique in which an individual or organisation attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll." Most commonly, it relies on either an existing rumour or a potential rumour that the opposition thinks may have legs.


These polls are usually phrased along the lines of "Would you be more or less likely to vote for candidate X if you knew that [miscellaneous allegation of questionable veracity]"


Push polls seem to have more of a history in the United States, where complaints about push polls are an almost constant feature of any election campaign.


In the 2008 US Presidential election, both sides of politics flung accusations of push polling. Voters were allegedly asked what they would think if Obama had donated money to the PLO. McCain may still have been smarting from a poll that George W Bush was alleged to have run during the primaries in 2000 that asked if the voter would be less likely to vote for McCain if they knew that he had "fathered an illegitimate black child?"


That last push-poll was especially insidious as McCain has in fact adopted a Bangladeshi girl - the pollster clearly realised that the most damaging false rumour usually has just enough truth to it to make it irresistibly believable.


There have been intermittent claims of push polling in Australia, apparently dating back to a Northern Territory election in 1994 (details here: http://bit.ly/goyyWz).


This present NSW election has, sadly, been no exception.


The initial complaints were made in mid-February in the seat of Blacktown, where John Robertson is attempting to complete a move to the lower house, presumably to then make a push for the leadership after Keneally resigns or is deposed. The seat is held by a margin of 22.5 percent, but in this Brave New World no seat is safe.


The Daily Telegraph alleges that voters in that seat were asked "how voters would feel about two Liberal cabinet ministers being "anti-teachers", how they would feel about the Liberals cutting 25,000 public sector jobs and about Liberals outsourcing call centre services to India."


These are not Coalition policies - the poll is not actually designed to provide any useful polling data. The responses don't even need to be recorded. The only purpose is to spread gossip and even slander about the other side.


Today there were complaints from the Greens that Labor have been pushing polling in the inner-west seat of Marrickville (held by about 7.5%), where Green candidate and Mayor Fiona Byrne is tipped to defeat Carmel Tebbutt.


The poll asked "Did you know Fiona Byrne led a boycott against Israel on council recently?"


Now, for what it's worth, I think the council "boycotting" israeli products as a result of the Israeli "treatment of Palestinians" is utterly ridiculous, and an atrocious waste of limited council resources (86 hours of staff time spent as of as of 15 February 2011: http://bit.ly/hqHpDk pages 134 to 136). But of course, that's not the point.


The allegation in the poll is not even true - the Mayor did support the boycott but in no way "led it".


The poll is a vicious attempt to smear the name of the candidate. I couldn't find any denials from Labor in relation to the Blacktown poll, but Tebbutt denied that the Marrickville polls came from Labor.


It's difficult to imagine who else could possibly stand to gain from the polls. Perhaps the poll is being paid for by a Labor supporter with a "wink wink nudge nudge" approval from Labor staff. Denials notwithstanding, I think it's safe to assume that Labor persons are, one way or another, involved.


Politics is often ruled by innuendo and rumour. In the US, Obama is to this day constantly dogged by the utterly unfounded and ridiculous claims that he was not born in the States and is therefore ineligible to lead the country (see http://bit.ly/jP76Q). Some resourceful soul has even dug out the initial birth notice published in the Honolulu Advertiser - but this has not been enough to quell the ridiculously persistent rumours.


You might say that a push polls is an incredibly expensive way to win an election, one call at a time. But that's not quite true,


First of all, it targets voters in the seats you are most concerned about. Second of all, it lets you say things that you could never say on television, where people could test out your accusation. Thirdly, it's in an allegedly independent poll, so is therefore unlikely to be questioned by the voter.


Finally, the average NSW state district has about 40 000 votes cast. A poll that calls 1000 people, who tells an average of 3 other voters, has suddenly planted a nasty, insidious rumour with a full 10% of voters.


Rumours change elections - and there can be little doubt that some Labor persons are resorting to what can only be described as dirty tricks to hang onto what should really be safe seats.


Politics is a nasty, nasty business.

Polls Apart

There was a very interesting set of polling numbers released on the weekend, faithfully leaked to the Twitterverse by @ghostwhovotes.  They can be seen here: http://bit.ly/gYdVDy


At first glance, the numbers seem to be a little encouraging for Labor.  Primary vote has risen from 23% in Jan-Feb to 26% in Mar 2010 (down from 39% at the last election).


Think about that, just for a second.  Even on these improved numbers, one out of every three people who voted Labor in 2007 will not be doing so this time round.


The strange thing is that the Coalition has picked up 4% as well, moving from 46% to 50%, up from 37% in 2007.


That's an impressive number too - a full half of the population marking Liberal or National.


So, where have these numbers come from? It's from the Green column - down from 17% in Jan-Feb to 11% in Mar 2010 (down from 9% in 2007).


Is that actually possible?  Could it be the case that one out of three Greens voters have jumped ship in the last month?  I doubt it.


Some people on Twitter theorised that the fall was, at least in part, due to the announcement of the Carbon Tax.  Personally, I don't think so.


To have moved one's vote because of the Carbon Tax, this hypothetical Green voter needs to so fundamentally misunderstand that Federal/State divide that he/she thinks that their state vote matters on this issue, but have a nuanced enough understanding of the present state of Federal politics that he/she can see the Green fingers all over this move.


Such a voter may exist, but surely not more than one or two of them?


It is possible that this is some sort of Green backlash, but I would have thought that most people who already feel that strongly about the issue are already firmly lodged in the Coalition column.


Far more likely, in my view, is that this result is just statistical noise - a false positive, if you will.


Let's look at the small print.  Obviously only people who are home at the right time of day, interested in being part of a poll, and additionally able to speak English would be polled.  Newspoll no doubt balance for all these things, and besides, the same restrictions applied to the previous poll.


The important point, however, is that only 1000 voters were surveyed in this poll.  1000!  That's such a minute quantity of the NSW population that we're immediately taking a risk extrapolating.


Now, no poll can be truly random.  That goes without saying.   But it's still very easy to forget that polling is an inherently inexact science.


Even if the poll was 100% random, there will still be variation.  Indeed, this poll (like all good polls) tells us that the "maximum margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1".  Stretching back to the small amount of statistics I studied at uni, this tells us that there is a 95% chance that the "true" result is no more than 3.1% more and no less than 3.1% less than the stated figure.


Now, the Green vote plummeted 6%, so we're outside that standard deviation - but notwithstanding that, 5% of results will still fall outside that range.


At the end of the day. there may well have been a fall in the Green vote, and it may be a significant one.  But I severely doubt that it could possibly be 6%. I'd be very surprised if there was not an "inexplicable" rise in the Green vote in the next poll back towards the kind of figures we saw in Jan-Feb.


Polls are important.  They let us and politicians know what is going on, and when it is time to punt the old premier and rotate round again. If the Greens are smart, I'm sure they'll be calm about this result.  As the cliche goes, there is only one poll that counts.  


As a final note, according to these numbers, 11% of people think that Labor will win, including 4% of Coalition voters! I guess there are some questions no poll can satisfactorily answer.

Betting on it

There has been some interesting chatter recently about the betting market for the NSW election.  I always take very careful note of what the betting agencies are offering - after all, they more than anyone have no partisan interest, and the amount of money they have riding on the result means that the odds they offer are (presumably) untinged by emotion or sentimentality.

It is in the bookmaker's interest to make sure that the actual favourite is priced as the favourite - if not, it is likely they will loose money.

The one thing that must be borne in mind, however, is this.  Once a bookmaker takes a disproportionate amount of money on one "runner", they will shorten the odds to prevent a monetary loss.  This does not necessarily mean that the prospects of this runner are any better than they were a day ago - but because the bookmaker now wants to discourage betting on this runner, they will shorten the odds.

Whilst the betting company has no sentimentality, the betting public certainly does.  For example, I would expect that when Australia plays in a sporting event the Australian betting public bets more on Australia than, say, a bookmaker in the opponent's country.  Consequently, all things being equal, the odds on an Australian win should be shorter with the Australian bookmaker.

Having said that all that - I doubt it makes a huge difference for political betting, although divergent odds on different major betting company websites suggests that that view may be premature.

Anyway.  I've made a spreadsheet on google docs which you can see here: http://bit.ly/gdecpv

It lists the NSW electorates, names the current member's affiliation, and then lists the winner as predicted by Sportsbet.com.au.

Frustratingly, Sportsbet is only offering odds in 38 electorates, and they're listed in black in the "Sportbet tip" column.  It's not even only the "close" competitions that are in the market - of the 38 markets, 8 have one runner where the odds offered are $1.05 or less.

I've filled in the remaining 55 electorates using Anthony's Green's tips and some guesswork, and they are all marked in red. Surprisingly, there are some very tight competitions that are not on the Sportsbet market - there 7 seats presently held by the ALP with a margin of 10% to 15% that have no market.  

Of those 7, six are left in the ALP column.  One (Kiama) is left marked for the Coalition because Anthony Green said so, apparently because a redistribution makes it s bit more Liberal.

So, what did this spreadsheet reveal?  When the Sportsbet market is combined with my guesses, the ALP win 26 seats, the Coalition win 61, the Greens win 2 and 4 seats are won by Independents.

Of course no one expects a uniform swing - Kogarah has a margin of 17.7% and Sportsbet tips it to move to the Coalition, whilst Toongabbie with a margin of 14.5% is tipped to be retained by the ALP.

That said, if we get out Anthony Green's Election calculator out and plug in numbers, what swing spits out the ALP winning 26 seats?  Roughly, 12.2%.  That's about a 60/40 two party preferred split.

Even if I move all 6 of the 10% to 15% ALP seats into the LIB column and make it 67 to 20, the swing is still less than 15%

60/40 a shellacking, by any measure.  Probably too much for Labor to be back in power in 4 years time.  But the swing "predicted" is still far less than the numbers we're seeing in the polls, which which have tipped swings of as much as 18%.

Of course the only poll that matters is the one carried out in polling booths on 26 March.  But I think we learn far more looking at the Sportsbet market than we ever will looking at a Newspoll.

A Federal Incursion

With all the drama and inevitable weeping and gnashing of teeth about the Carbon Tax in Canberra yesterday, it was perhaps inevitable that it would become an issue in the NSW election.

Of course, anyone who is influenced by what either leader said on the issue surely misunderstands the delineated roles of the Commonwealth and State governments, but let's put that aside for the moment.

Keneally came out in support of the tax, saying "Climate change is a real problem and we as a nation need real leadership to deal with it," (SMH Online) whilst O'Farrell said that he opposed the tax because it "is going to boost families' power bills by $500, boost the power bills of small businesses by $2,000, and threaten industries like the steel industry in the Illawarra." (ABC Online)

To what extent the Federal leaders have instructed these two to follow the party line is anyone's guess.  The way both fell in line seemingly without question highlights the clear ideological divide between Federal Labor and Coalition on this issue.

To see a stark ideological difference extend past meaningless rhetoric is a treat in Australian politics.  I often have the feeling that it is anyone's guess where the two major parties will land on any particular issue.  

WorkChoices was, until now, the most obvious example.  Labor (and the unions) in the 2007 Federal Election used WorkChoices to brilliant effect, galvanising their base and reminding people who they (ostensibly) stand for.

The Carbon Tax appears to be the next WorkChoices, which should be a guarantee of some first class niggle from both sides.  The NBN and the flood levy have also been interesting to watch, for the same reason.  Abbott's "Oppose or Die Trying" approach has certainly helped lift some pulses on both sides of the aisle.

In NSW, there are few issues on which there is a true ideological split.  Labor have been trying to paint O'Farrell as someone who will privatise everything, in typical Liberal style, but their efforts must seem a little disingenuous given they just crashed through the power privatisation.

There are differences in the plans for transport, but there is no major difference for ideological reasons.  Same goes for health and education.

In fact, it's a little hard to think of a state issue where we have the same ideological battle that we are now seeing in Canberra.  This may very well be a product of the fact that the Coalition knows that all they have to do is stay on their feet long enough to fall over the line - why risk alienating all the Labor voters who have drifted across to them by doing something that will annoy traditional Labor voters?

This all makes O'Farrell's willingness to "nail his colours to the mast" a little confusing.  Have a look at this Newspoll: http://bit.ly/efUTcT 

Admittedly, the numbers are from December last year, and presumably we'll see an avalanche of polling on the issue soon.  Also, I'm not a huge fan of the question asked by the pollsters,  but this will have to do for now.

Labor voters are 57:39:4 (in favour:against:uncommitted) on a price on carbon.  Liberal voters are 31:65:4

As things stand in NSW, there are hundreds of thousands of people who would usually be Labor voters who are telling pollsters they will vote for the Coalition.  

These people voting Coalition on 26 March is surely the key to a crushing Coalition victory - and O'Farrell allowing climate change to become an issue and tying himself to the Federal Coalition position on going to push these people back towards Labor.  Further, it's hardly going win any voters from Labor - based on present polling, I think it fair to assume that the only people still planning to vote Labor would vote naked before they voted Coalition.

In my view, irrespective of whether he actually believes it or not, O'Farrell would do well to steer the conversation towards state issues rather than risk chipping away at the Coalition's monumental lead rather than importing an issue that is only going to lose him votes.

A Cult of Personality

The question of the importance of the leader is always an interesting one. In some elections, it seems that all any one cares about is who the leader is and what he or she is like.


Barack Obama was a perfect example. People were sick of George W Bush, true - but much of Obama's victory was a result of the vision he offered, and the person that he appeared to be.


This is a phenomenon that, for better or worse, doesn't show itself as much in Australia. Of course the leader is important, and of course a bad leader will sink faster than you can say "a conga line of suck-holes" - but by and large the leader's effectiveness is really only a product of his or her ability to enunciate a message, or his or her ability to connect with the public.


This may be a product of our voting system, or perhaps the amount of power with which we invest the executive. Either way, it's important.


Some time ago, NSW Labor abandoned any pretence of trying to win or retain votes based upon the Labor brand. Since Keneally's ascension, it has been all about "Brand Keneally". We've even had stories about Labor candidates actively removing any reference to Labor from the campaign posters.


One of the important questions of this campaign was always going to be how well this worked. Much of the answer would always be dictated by Keneally's performance, and yesterday she showed that she certainly wasn't going to die wondering.


The Channel 10 televised debate was inexplicably scheduled for 12 noon, so I expect that about 16 people watched it. Of course what this means is that most people will rely upon news outlets to tell them who "won" the debate, which for reasons that have always puzzled me seems to be what sways voters the most.


Many commentators noted that Keneally performed far more like an opposition leader, and O'Farrell more like a incumbent. She attacked and probed, whilst he seemed to spend much of the debate trying to keep his head above water. She seemed energetic and likeable, quick on her feet and confident. O'Farrell seemed under attack - his only response to much of what Keneally said was to say that Labor cannot be trusted, which surely is practically beyond question and therefore hardly worth mentioning.


Having said that, the incredibly unscientific SMH Online Poll suggested that O'Farrell won the debate, although this may reflect more of the reader's preconceptions and predetermined voting intentions than being a fair assessment of the debate.


The SMH also surveyed the 75 audience members: 25 Labor voters, 25 Coalition voters and 25 undecideds. How any editor could put the results of such a survey on the front page is beyond me, especially with the headline "Voters like Keneally but dump on Labor". (http://bit.ly/h6Qej7)


That's without even talking about how non-random a sample of 75 people who at a few days notice could attend a debate held at 12 noon on a weekday would be. Even more so, and ignoring for a minute the inherent problems, the "survey" result was 26 labor, 21 Liberal, 15 Undecided, 9 Green, and 0 National. For reasons passing understanding, the story was that Keneally had only swayed one voter, rather than the fact that O'Farrell had shed 4 or that the Greens appear to have picked up 9 of the 25 undecideds without even being a part of the debate. If you're going to write a story using a pointless survey, surely you owe it to your readers least draw the right conclusion from it?


The actually interesting part (as opposed to pointless surveys), was this. One of the audience members said that Keneally was "a better debater, and seemed more sure of herself," whilst another said "O'Farrell was visibly rattled at times." (SMH online)


Reading those remarks as they were reported yesterday reminded me of one category of people who would be switching to Labor to build on their awful poll number at the start of the campaign (as I wrote would inevitably happen here: http://bit.ly/ebGqKw)


Some people would decide they liked Keneally better, and that will be all it takes for them to switch to Labor. It's fair enough to question why people would switch based on something as superficial as whether you like their tone, but for better or worse it's what people do.


I think this all vindicates the Labor policy of Brand Keneally. It may be that Labor (correctly) judged that Keneally would play better on TV and would be generally liked by the voters - this would explain why Labor (contrary to the generally accepted approach by incumbent governments) agreed to more debates than you can shake a stick at. They may be banking on Keneally winning people over.


Of course there is practically no chance that this will swing the balance close enough to even make the contest interesting - but if O'Farrell wants a win big enough to all but guarantee 8 years then he will need to make sure people start seeing a side of him that they like.

The First Battle

As we all know, the Liberal Party goes into the 2011 NSW election overwhelming favourites. All the talk appears to be not whether, but rather how much.


The SMH published a poll earlier this week that predicted a truly extraordinary swing of 18% to the Coalition. That's not as much as the 25% swing at the Penrith by-election in June of last year, but it is still enormous, and far, far in excess of the swing the coalition will need to secure victory.


Such has been the size of the swing suggested by these polls that the media has, almost across the board, done what it usually does, which is the extrapolate the swing out to be uniform across the state, assumed that these polls are an accurate reflection of the way the votes will fall, and then published breathless stories about how Labor is going to be "wiped out" (ABC) and faces a defeat of "historic proportions" (SMH).


The Sydney Morning Herald even reported that Labor "could be reduced to as few as 13 seats".


The Coalition's polling has been stratospheric for a long time. It has been above 50% since the middle of 2008, just 1 year after the last election, and has been above 60% since the middle of last year. This Nielson poll had the two party preferred at an incredible 66:34, which is a staggering number by any measure. Labor's primary vote is down to 22%.


Some people on Twitter this week have been wondering out loud who these 34% of people are, and on what basis they can still think that Labor are the people to lead NSW, which is fair enough. The government has been on the nose for so long it is almost difficult to remember a time when they were popular.


But the thing is, anyone who has watched a few elections in their time knows that from here it's all downhill for the Coalition. There is no way whatsoever, barring something catastrophic, that Labor will go down 66-34 on 26 March, and there is certainly no way that they will only achieve a 22% primary.


At the moment, most likely the only people voting for Labor are people who have some sort of vested interest, people who will vote Labor until they're wheeled out in a box, and people who would sell their soul before they vote Coalition (which for them probably amounts to the same thing).


Labor have been shouting , screaming and rending their garments for months and months about how O'Farrell looks set to cruise into government with barely a policy announced. He has run the small target strategy to great effect, which is no surprise since a vast proportion seems prepared to vote for anyone who isn't Labor.


What Labor have clearly decided to do is that if O'Farrell won't tell the public what he stands for, they will. Which brings me to the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Council's Debate.


At present, the NSW government's policy is that approximately 70% of new homes are to be built in established areas and 30% on the city's fringe. At this debate, O'Farrell revealed that he favoured a ratio of about 50:50.


It's more than possible that this position is influenced by O'Farrell's electorate. Many communities have been horrified by what they see as over-development in their suburbs, and many have been vocal about, but the residents of the "leafy" North Shore have been perhaps the most vocal and best organised of the lot.


O'Farrell's electorate covers, more or less, the route followed by the North Short Train Line between Roseville and Hornsby. These suburbs have seen a large number of new developments in line with the policy of putting as many developments as possible near existing transport infrastructure.


O'Farrell will have won some friends, certainly in his own electorate and in others with similar issues (not that he needs the help, given he won with a 79/21 2PP last time round). He even has an opponent on issue - William Bourke, running for the Save our State party, a party whose prime purpose is to prevent overdevelopment.


Labor, on the other hand, have gone into overdrive selling the Coalition as the party for Western Sydney Sprawl. Every Labor politician near a microphone has been talking about this since almost the moment the ration 50:50 fell from O'Farrell's lips. Keneally and David Borger (Minister for Western Sydney) have bandied around the figure of 550 000 extra people being moved into Western Sydney, with the obvious implications for public transport, roads and other facilities.


A website has even been launched: www.stopthesprawl.com.au. It's worth a look, just to see the way that Labor are beginning to brand O'Farrell in the face of his refusal to do it himself. It's also worth a look to see the outstanding photo of O'Farrell they've chosen to emblazon the website with.


The really interesting thing though, is the way that the Coalition has been comprehensively hosed this week, almost exclusively on this issue. O'Farrell has had little to say about this, and anything else he has said has been drowned out by this issue. Combined with a debate win for Keneally (although given that the debate was held at 12 noon on a weekday, surely no one saw it or cared) it's been a pretty bloody good week for Labor.


I said earlier that the polls were always going improve for Labor before the election - this is how. Inevitably, O'Farrell and his team are going to piss some people off. Some people will decide that in fact they could tolerate Labor for 4 more years, and shift their allegiances back across.


It may be that the Coalition's strategy is that no one is listening to what Labor says anyway, so it's better to let them blow off some steam, build a few websites, get their base (who was always going to vote for them anyway) excited, and focus on the Coalition campaign launch (as we speak occurring out at Penrith, unsurprisingly enough).


That may well be a smart strategy, and time will tell whether it works. In the meantime, what remains to be seen is how far the Coalition deviates from the "Look, we're not Labor" approach. If the answer, is "Not much" we can look forward to a great deal of shouting , screaming and rending of garments from Labour between now and 26 March.


A