The previous thread was getting on the long side, so here’s a new one. Conversation starter: a Roy Morgan poll commissioned by Crikey shows the Prime Minister trailing Labor in his seat of Bennelong by 41 per cent to 40 per cent on the primary vote, and 55-45 on two-party preferred. The sample was 394, which is pretty good for an electorate-level poll. The fortnightly Newspoll will be published in The Australian tomorrow.
UPDATE: 54-46 to Labor in Newspoll; down from 56-44 last time, but Kevin Rudd has a headline-grabbing lead as preferred PM. Elsewhere, England’s finest blogger, Harry Hutton, has made his debut entry on Australian psephological matters.
Re Rod B and the ACT Senate – even with Kerrie Tucker as the Greens candidate I don’t see the 2nd Senate seat being lost by Garry Humphries. He’s made some astute decisions on local (ACT) issues, and with Stanhope on the nose politically at present, the ALP may struggle to increase their vote. Since 1998 the ALP Senate vote has stayed at around 42%.
The Libs dipped to just under quota in 1998 (31.15%), when Rick Farley ran for the Democrats, but the Lib vote has increased steadily from there, to the point where they would need at least a 4% swing against them (to reduce the vote from 37% to 33%) to just open the door. Then there may be preferences from FFP/CDP and other minor parties (from the right) that could easily get them over quota. So, for the Libs to lose ACT they would have to have bad preference flows and a catastrophic loss of votes (-5-8%) for the seat to be lost. Not impossible, just rather unlikely…
The most important thing that will happen in this “quasi” election campaign is the budget and budget reply in May.
That still looms as one of the biggest challenges .. though perhaps with the free ride Murdoch (and oddly Fairfax as well) is giving Rudd at the moment any negatives might be contained.
The thrust of the budget reply seems simple on the surface .. give away alot while not seeming too (to stay fiscally conservative), announce “nation building” projects to hightlight the lack of forward planning by Howard over the last decade and concentrate and fedral/state reform (such as he did back in December to wide acclaim) as a way of both part paying for the above, and giving people a better chance of good water, health and education services.
On Melbourne Ports: As some people here know, I worked for Danby until December, so my comments can be seen as either well-informed or partisan, take your pick. I’ve also lived there for 21 years.
* By per-capita income Ports is one of the three wealthiest seats held by the ALP (I think Canberra and Sydney are top of the list). The demographics are working steadily against Labor as high-income people colonise Southbank and Port Melbourne. Walk through Beacon Cove and see why Labor’s vote in Port Melb has dropped. It’s a surprise Labor still holds the seat at all.
* There are two reasons Labor still holds Ports: one is Danby’s ability to break even with the Libs in Caulfield, a suburb which at state level votes solidly Liberal. Even when they ran a Jewish candidate against him in 2004, he held most of his Jewish base. If the Labor candidate was called Smith, there would be a 5% swing to the Libs in Caulfield.
* The other reason is the solid Labor base in St Kilda-Elwood, which has got better for Labor as Port Melb-South Melb-Albert Park has got worse. This area (where I live) votes solidly Labor or Green, and cares about issues like environment, refugees and gay rights. On these issues, Danby is as “left” as any other Labor member. This seldom gets reported. Nor does his work on electoral issues, child care etc etc.
* I don’t know what is meant by “Green slippage.” In 2001 the Greens and Democrats in Ports got 20.2% between them, while in 2004 they got 15.4%. In 2001 Danby got 80.4% of Green preferences, in 2004 he got 86.8%. So the “left” vote is actually declining, while Danby get an increasing share of their preferences.
* It’s true that left-inclined voters don’t like Danby’s views on some issues. Unfortunately, since the Libs now always run Jewish candidates against him (this year, Cr Adam Held), he has to spend a lot of his time in Caulfield defending his record on Israel, Jewish schools and national security.
* Danby’s position on Israel, by the way, is relatively moderate. I wouldn’t have worked for him otherwise. He supports a Palestinian state, which he gets plenty of stick for from the right wing of the Jewish community.
* The political reality is that Labor will lose Ports if Danby’s base in Caulfield defects. The “straddle” between what they like in Caulfield and what they like in St Kilda is difficult, but Danby does it better than anyone else currently on offer. Unless “left” voters want a Liberal MP, they will have to go on supporting him. The left tried to challenge his preselection last year and got (from memory) 20% of the vote.
Chris I really respect your views and I am very interested in the running long and running more than once in a seat. I’ve worked on a couple of successful campaigns in marginals and the candidate has won both times but it is very expensive very hard hard work; but with reward. I can see how losing would be very difficult.
Particularly on the Labor side can we do more to sustain and support candidates, particularly candidates who lose once or twice? I wonder how many candidates that run a reallly good really hard campaign in a marginal actually want to do it a second time after losing.
It also runs against the ‘it is the swing’ mantra so many party people sprout … if I had a dollar for every time a party person said the candidate didn’t really count I’d have to be a liberal (all the wealth).
Finally I’ve heard many party people talk about how unimportant it is where a candidate lives. But at my booth at the last election I had 30 – 40 locals who actually bothered to talk to me say they supported Labor but weren’t going to vote for this guy they hadn’t heard of… part of me wonders if, particularly labor tries the local candidate often enough to really form a view whether or not it can be critical. On they other hand they are in a way spoiled by near weekly contact with the local State Member which kind of raises expectations any federal member is going to struggle to meet.
Incidentally, anyone got any thoughts as to who or what is at numbers 1 & 2 in the mock ballot paper in the masthead of this blog?
Doug Stewart
Re the senate in the ACT.
If the Lib vote dropped to 31% in 98 I think conditions could be right for it to happen again.
The ACT is a public service town and a good scare campaign on work choices being introduced in to the public service would work well.
People in the ACT were rated as seeing themselves as being more socially aware than other Australians, higher incomes and more secure jobs maybe?, but this should also mean more votes such as Hicks, the environment, Iraq and AWB.
Humphries is another pretend rebel like Joyce and Fielding, only standing up to the government when they know their vote won’t affect the outcome.
I would rate the second seat as an outside chance but not a long shot.
Doug Stewart
Re Senate seat.
Actually ALP little chance of picking up the second seat, post should have been more directed to the chances of the libs losing the seats, most likely to the greens as you pointed out, especially with the drought and climate change becoming a bigger issue.
More fantasy predictions. The Greens have as much chance of winning a Senate seat in the ACT as I have of being elected Pope. Don’t be misled by all those trees – Canberra people are as fond of driving cars, eating meat and wearing clothes made of artificial fibres as anyone else. The problem the Greens have is that the more their chances are hyped up, the greater scrutiny their policies attract, and the less chance they have of actually winning.
Adam
Veering into polemic, aren’t we? The issue isn’t about the Greens winning the seat (or the ALP for that matter) – its about the Libs losing it, which as I have said previously is highly unlikely, short of an electoral revolt in the ACT.
Those votes leaving the Libs would need to go to the ALP or Greens (most likely they would go to the ALP) and not the CDP/FFP etc who would in all likelihood deliver them back to the Libs if they did. Further, for the Greens to win, they would need to have a higher vote than the ALP – which if all those CDP/FFP/ex-Lib votes are taken into account they possibly wouldn’t. In the scenario where the Libs drop to 28% (5% below quota and presumably not enough to be elected with the CDP/FFP vote), then unless the Greens are sitting on 18% or better the seat could just as easily go to the ALP.
It wont be scrutiny of policy that brings Greens undone (which in many cases is welcome as it highlights the very real differences between Greens and the ALP/Libs on a host of issues – and the real similarities on a lot of others) – it will be the simple dynamics of preferential voting.
That said, I would agree that an outcome of 2 non-Lib Senators being returned in the ACT is an unlikely event…
As of now I am predicting a Coalition win (Labor 67-68, Coalition 80, Others 2-3), with possibly John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull losing their seats. Labor will pick up Green, remidants of the Australian Democrats and small ‘l’ liberal votes, which will translate into big swings in the inner city. However everywhere else will not shift as much.
Depends on how things go in the next few months, Labor could win a narrow majority. In that event Howard and Turnbull will be goners.
Certain Labor gains: Bennelong, Wentworth, Moreton, Parramatta (Liberal on the new boundaries), Wakefield, Bonner, Kingston.
Probable Labor gains: Solomon, Sitrling, Blair, Herbert, Braddon, Makin, Page,
Probable Labor loses: Macquarie, Labor on the new boundaries, but to an independent Andren (I am assuming he is running there instead of Calare or Parkes).
Coalition seats which have safe for a long time which will turn much more marginal and will be able to be won by Labor in a good election.
Higgins, Goldstein, North Sydney, Kooyong, WARRINGAH, Ryan, Boothby, Sturt, Cowper,
Adam, your desending into Green bashing yet again.
Bob Brown, along with at least a quarter of the party are meat eaters.
So, 75% of Greens members are vegetarians? Oh dear, what an admission – imagine what Andrew Bolt will make of that: “How representative of the Australian people can such a party be? Will they shut down the beef industry as well as the coal industry? Will they ban the BBQ (toxic smoke emissions AND killing harmless sausages)? It will be compulsory tofu for all.” You see how careful you have to be, Bert?
Tristan, why are you giving Labor Stirling but not Hasluck? Why Braddon but not Bass?
If Labor wins Stirling, they’ll win Hasluck. Stirling would definitely be the harder of the two seats for Labor to win.
Unless someone puts a stake through Brian Burke, Labor won’t be winning anything in WA.
Adam do you know the meaning of AT LEAST? You don’t seem too. Anyway, your the one making outragous comment with no back up of any sort.
To Adam:
Braddon will probably be more winnable for Labor than Bass, however outside say Queensland the swing might only be around 2% to Labor (A Queenslander as Labor leader could send the swing to Labor there as high as 6-7%). They could win no extra seats in Tasmania.
Stirling is more an inner metropolitan seat than Hasluck is. Hence I am more confident of Labor winning it than Hasluck which is mortgage belt.
Although I should have added Hasluck and Stirling into the probable Labor gains list.
Adam,
Maybe you should come up with something better than silly lines about vegetarianism. Have you heard about any statistics on the resources that goes into producing meat? Have you missed the boat (pardon the pun) on overfishing that even the Japanese public is getting?
Oh and have you bothered reading Green policy? From what you write, I doubt it.
Makin’s maybe a shoo-in for Labor. The new Liberal member’s main policy is building houses, building houses and building houses.
Did i mentioned he liked building houses.
Speaking as a vegetarian who likes his greens but does not vote Green, I realise that I will now be subject to fines and/or damages for boycotting butchers’ shops under today’s proposals from the insufferably arrogant Liberals who intend to ban boycotts. I suppose the “Live animal export Australia’s shame†sticker on my car will also get me into trouble. The law is directed at PETA for their criticisms of Australia’s sheep industry, but could be applied to anyone. I quote Frank Knoppfelmacher: “When casting your second preference you hold the pencil in the right hand while holding your nose with the left.â€
Queenslander,
The low-income seats which elect coalition candidates tend to be rural ones, which reflects their social conservatism. John Brumby worked hard before the 1999 Victorian election to win rural support for Labor and must be largely credited with the Labor victory that year. As I keep saying, it is the Minnestoa Democratic Farmer Labor Party. The ALP just has to get smarter in rural areas.
I think the natural economic interest of probably 80 per cent of the population lies with the Labor side. It is remarkable that the Liberals, with their demonising of unions, have been able to get the votes they do.
Educated people do tend to the left. I don’t know why this is. The claim that it is the result of their higher intelligence is, of course, arrogant.
The most fascinating feature of the current electoral landscape is the 10-15 -20 per cent of people who vote for the coalition at the federal level and Labor at the state level. If Labor can work out what makes them tick, as longs as it’s not a conscious desire to offset power at the two levels, it will win.
Jasmine,
I won every election I stood in in the DLP. I won every election I stood in in the VSTA/AEU. I won every election I stood in in a school until 2004. I lost every parliamentary election I contested, but it didn’t stop me going back for more. I’d even seek Labor pre-selection, but I’m not in a faction, so there is no point. Candidates who work hard and lose are naturally disappointed, but some are eager to have another go.
When Victorian schools were forced to become “self-managingâ€, they had to take on huge transaction costs as every one of them had to re-invent the wheel – you should see the number of square wheels we have now, often called “continuous propulsion devicesâ€. If a political party endorses a candidate early, there is more time for the campaign. When the candidate contests the following election, there is less need to rebuild the campaign from scratch. Additionally, the candidate will have a local profile, which should help. (Okay, I still didn’t win Diamond Valley on my third attempt!) I cannot quantify the difference this would make, but in a close contest, it is worth having.
Adam, if there’s anything that can be learned from the Peel by-election, it’s that Brian the Bastard Burke isn’t going to be an issue – if Labor can get a swing toward them in a by election caused directly by all these shenanigans, I reckon you can dismiss the issue.
Plus, the Libs are up to their necks in the whole mess as well – Noel Crichton-EvilBastard-Brown’s up to his neck in it, while the state Liberal deputy, Troy Buswell has also been mentioned in dispatches. I doubt the Coalition really wants to bring it up that much. Although the Greens might.
http://origin.abc.net.au/news/items/200611/1796091.htm?wa
Chris
The 15-20% who change their votes at federal and state levels change because they have not had a decent alternative. Latham was too risky and Beazely was more a popular vote seeker than an issues person.
Rudd does offer a serious alternative and may prompt 7-10%of them to change which could offer some suprising results.
Unfortunately on a state level Debnam does not come across as a serious alternative but 3-5% may still change their vote here.
Adam,
A very insightful analysis into Melbourne Ports. One which I was a kinda getting at in my previous post, but obviosuly don’t have the personal experience you do. But one question though … we’ve disagreed on the issue of whether Labor can take Wentworth. Surely Wentworth’s demographics on the new redistribution are similar to those of Melbourne Ports. If Danby can pull it off in MP, why not Labor in Wentworth?
On the relationship between class and voting behaviour:
* Class is still the overwhelming determinant of voting behaviour. The poorer a person is, the more likely they are to vote Labor, and the wealthier they are, the more likely they are to vote Liberal. That’s why Gellibrand is a Labor seat and Kooyong is a Liberal seat.
* Two myths have been repeated above: That the National Party holds all the poorest seats, and that highly educated people are more likely to vote Labor.
* It’s true that many rural seats have low per capita incomes, because most farmers have low cash incomes. But they are not “poor,” since they own their properties and can borrow against them, and do not rely on their cash incomes to feed their families. (Plus they get a vast array of open and disguised government handouts.) Farmers vote for the Nationals (or Liberals) because it’s in their class interest to do so. The genuinely poor seats (relatively speaking) are still the working-class urban seats.
* A more useful social indicator than income is occupational status. If you rank the seats by “% of tradespeople and labourers”, top of the list is Fowler, which is the genuinely poorest seat in Australia. If you rank them by “% of people in professional occupations”, the 10 lowest-ranked seats are held by Labor (Chifley, Fowler, Holt, Brand, Rankin, Throsby, Gorton, Port Adelaide, Scullin, Calwell). This seems to be the best statistical predictor of who holds a seat (although there are some striking anomalies, like Melbourne Ports, which has the 4th highest proportion of professionals of any seat, exceeded only by Kooyong, Bradfield and North Sydney).
* It’s true that there is a conspicuous minority of wealthy and highly educated people who are Labor or leftist, but they are very unrepresentative. Most of the seats with the highest concentrations of people with university degrees are safe Liberal – in order: North Sydney, Bradfield, Kooyong, Higgins, Wentworth, Curtin, Ryan, Melbourne Ports, Melbourne, Sydney, Fraser, Warringah, Goldstein, Berowra, Bennelong… There are concentrations of the “left intelligentsia” in a few inner-city Labor seats but mostly the educated classes live in wealthy areas and vote Liberal.
*”% of persons born in a non-English-speaking country” is also a good predictor. 28 of the 30 highest seats on this scale are held by Labor, although it doesn’t work so well at the other hand, because some Labor regional seats are very Anglo (Lyons, Capricornia, Hunter). The Liberal seat with the highest ranking, by the way, is … Bennelong.
Pseph, I have asked that same question, and apparently the answers are:
* There are more Jews in Melbourne Ports than in Wentworth
* Sydney Jews are more conservative than Melbourne Jews (partly because they are richer, partly for historical reasons to do with country of origin) – also 8,000 recent ex-Soviet Jews, mostly poor and elderly, have settled in East St Kilda since 1990, and they vote overwhelmingly Labor
* Labor has never run a Jewish candidate in Wentworth – George Newhouse is apparently considering a run this year.
Ranked demographic data on federal electorates, by the way, is available here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/2004-05/05RP01.htm#table36. I recommend it
Chris, I assume you mean the old DV shire?
Bert,
I mean the federal seat of Diamond Valley, which I contested in 1974, 1975 and 1977. The seat was shared by Neil Brown and David McKenzie. It no longer exists, its area now being basically in Deakin, Jaga Jaga and McEwen.
Adam,
what about that tradespeople that out earn professionals, there are lots these days, since most of them are small business types as well as tradesmen, are there any statistics that indicate the voting trend of these people, since they straddle both core constituencies
I don’t know if Labor would need to run a Jewish candidate to win Wentworth – what percentage of the electorate are Jewish?
Adam,
Have you ever thought about writing a book about this stuff?
Adam you missed the main reason why Labor holds Melbourne Ports and not Wentworth – incumbency. Melbourne Ports used to be a safe Labor seat and a combination of demographic change and redistributions slowly shifted it towards the Libs.
Wentworth used to be safe Liberal and the redistribution shifted it towards the ALP. Even if the two had identical demographics these days the history means that Labor holds the one seat and the Libs the other and in each case will be hard to displace.
Labor running a Jewish candidate in Wentworth might help them a little, but nowhere near as much as having an already existing Jewish MP.
PS I think I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Labor won’t win Wentworth unless it is a landslide (in NSW at least). In real terms it should be sitting at a swing of 7-8%. The Liberal 2pp vote there was depressed last time by King’s candidate and other factors.
The only reason for the ALP to throw money at Wentworth is to keep Turnbull focused on the seat and away from boosting their vote elsewhere.
Bennelong is a different story.
Chris,
There’s a (rare)* error in your 11.11 p.m. post. None of the former Diamond Valley is in current Deakin. You’re probably thinking of Menzies which is the south of the river segment of the one-time Diamond Valley seat, plus a bit from Casey.
Ironically Diamond Valley was created out of the pre-1967 Deakin, which at the time extended from Greensborough to Healesville.
* rare error from you, one of the more reflective and saner posters.
Peter,
Thank you for that correction. I just relied on what I thought was the case, like when as a child I thought we had something called the Iron Ear Hospital.
IR is often dismissed as a potent election issue by the commentariat, with the idea that it will only affect a minority (booming economy and all that). However, there are interesting demographic factors at play here.
Approximately 40% of union members voted Liberal in 2004 (interest rate scares do work well), which is around 800,000 people. Howard’s WorkChoices is effectively saying to these people that they must choose between their union and the government. We can probably take a stab and say that a good many of these people live in the so-called mortgage belts, and so in marginal seats. If just half of them switched back to Labor, the government is gone. IR is usually underplayed as an issue, but it’s worth pointing out that the ALP has been ahead in nearly all published polls since …. well, well, well, March 2006, the month WorkChoices was finally enacted.
IR is an important sleeper issue, as it has the potential to affect people who don’t otherwise care about politics.
Hugo,
The reason IR is a sleeper issue is because its not affecting people yet. Even when the ALP pulls out the sob stories of 2c at spotlight, once all the facts are out its never as bad as it first seems. Further businesses arent relying on workchoices yet because the laws havent been tested and therefore businesses are unsure of how they work in prectice.
Workchoices arent as extreme as people claim, jobsback was far more right(in the political sense).
and whats wrong with allowing employers and employees to go around unions.
i worked in a union workplace for many years, they kept may wages down and the union appeared to have a very cosy relationship with upper management.
Once i was allowed to deal for myself at my new workplace my pay and conditions were far better than that the union provided.
Once the argument is had, and the liberals actually getting around to explaining what workchoices really are and that the unions, as per usual, arent concerned for the wellbeing of workers, but the wellbeing of the union, then i think your regular folk in the street will understand.
Queenslander, you have missed the point of my argument. I wasn’t discussing the rights and wrongs of WorkChoices, rather that Howard had laid down a stark choice to the 800,000 unionsists who voted for him at the last election. If half those people change their vote (and surely you see the contradiction of people opting to join a trade union, and then voting for a party who are promising to legislate unions out of all usefulness), the government is in trouble.
I think you are making another common mistake about these IR laws. It’s not that people are getting shafted every day of the week (though there’ve been no shortage of examples), it’s that public opposition to these laws (which has run a pretty constant 60% against for a year or more now) is based on people’s concern for the future, and in particular their kids. People have an instinctive distrust of what is a pretty blatant shift in bargaining power to employers.
Whether this concern will lead to a change of government remains to be seen, but it’s possible to see WorkChoices as the start of Howard’s break with his (so-called) ‘battlers’.
Adam,
I might also add the reason Labor never had a chance in Wentworth previously is that they always fielded candidates from the Left. The mere mention of the word “left” can sink a candidates chances in a seat like Wentworth. Whether they are truly left-wing or not is immaterial, perceptions are everything. If they have some good sense, they’ll field a candidate from the Right. But the nature of the branches in the area guarantee that won’t happen unless there is some intervention from Sussex St.
Stephen L is quite right about the value of incumbency in both Melbourne Ports and Wentworth. If either seat were vacant the other party would have a real chance of winning it, depending of course on the overall swing. As it is I don’t expect either seat to change hands this year.
Adam, is the George Newhouse whom you mention as a possible candidate for Wentworth the same George Newhouse who was Vivian Solon’s lawyer?
Tristan, Cowper (my electorate) is a very, very long way from ever being a Labor seat, despite being one of the seats with the lowest per capita incomes (and yes, a Nat seat) in the country. Outsiders often hypothesize that if Labor can win seats like Page and Richmond, Cowper should be next. But Page is in play because it’s historically had an industrial and blue-collar base. Cowper has none, it’s almost entirely farms, tourism and services here. Page also has somewhat of a burgeoning Green base in student-rich Lismore. Richmond’s in play because it has a couple of established lefty ‘alternative lifestyle’ centres (Byron, Alstonville etc) which continue to attract progressive-minded sea-changers, and also because of increasing ethnic diversity in the north of the seat. Cowper has a much more mainstream mindset, and its inward migration seems to be much more white and white-bread preferring too. People come here from the cities either for retirement or to build a McMansion at Macauley’s Headland or Emerald Beach. Cowper is the spitting image of Lyne, and if demographic change is taking it anywhere, i’m afraid it’s more towards Moncrieff than Richmond.
Agreed. Incumbency cannot be underestimated. Turnbull’s high profile will make it additionally difficult for Labor to unseat him in Wentworth. But still …it’s worth a shot.
Tristan,
What about Kingston (0.1%), Lindsay (2.8%) or Eden-Monaro (3.3%)??
Surely they would be in play if Bennelong and Wentworth are?
Actually, most of the time I think the benefits of incumbancy are overstated, but I think that there are a minority of seats where it is quite important, and boht Wentworth and Melbourne Ports fit into this.
To Ben C,
Remember swings are never uniform in elections. I see Kingston is a likely Labor gain. However Lindsay and Eden-Monaro are more just probable Labor gains in my eyes. I am predicting Labor will get big swings in Inner City Liberal and some Labor seats (I see Labor having little problems holding on to Melbourne Ports) and not so much of a swing elsewhere. Hence Labor will pick up Bennelong and Wentworth.
To Stephen L,
The swing to Labor in Wentworth at the last federal election was around 2 1/2%. Sydney and Grayldner near by swung by about 1 1/2% to Labor at that election as well.
Means the estimate of a Liberal margin of less than 3% in Wentworth sounds about right. A 5% notional Liberal margin in Wentworth would be about the maximum. In a highly mobile electorate like Wentworth Malcolm Turnbulls personal vote would not be big (2% at most).
The latest Morgan poll shows a 1 per cent primary vote improvement for both Labor (48 per cent) and Liberal (38 per cent). Two-party preferred, Labor leads 57 per cent to 43 per cent.
I think the ALP has peaked to early. Watch for Howards comeback
bill weller February 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm, you maybe right but Peter Tucker is well woth reading on this.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5494
I think from the moment Glenn Stevens announced the interest rate thing the other day, you thought “Howard’s doomed”. Voters will call him on the fact that he promised to keep interest rates and that they have gone up foru times since the last election.
At the same time, considering election history, it is sad the economy has to nearly go belly-up for a change of government. This time it feels weird, even though we’ve got a good economy, perhaps a non-conservative, moderate social agenda has to happen. I hope so. Sedition laws frighten me and the current media stuff lets a lot of good stuff slip away.