|
| Red and green numbers respectively indicate booths with two-party majorities for Labor and the Greens. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room. |
Wills covers an area of Melbourne’s middle north, from long-established Brunswick in the south and Coburg in the centre to post-war suburbs further north. Like its eastern neighbour Batman, it straddles the divide between the Greens stronghold of the inner city and the expansive Labor heartland of Melbourne’s northern suburbs. However, the former area carries lesser weight in Wills than in Batman, being confined to the area around Brunswick, which makes the seat substantially more secure for Labor. The electorate was created with the expansion of parliament in 1949, though at that time its southern end was covered by the since-abolished electorate of Burke (an unrelated electorate of the same name covered Melbourne’s outer north from 1969 to 2004). Prior to 1949, an electorate called Bourke had boundaries similar to those Wills has had since Burke was abolished in 1955. Labor’s strength in the area was established early, with Bourke being held by either Labor or socialist independents from 1910 until it was abolished.
The inaugural member for Wills was Bill Bryson, who had won Bourke for Labor in 1943 before losing to an independent in 1946. Bryson was among seven Victorian “groupers” who were expelled from the party during the split of 1955, and he contested that year’s election as the candidate of the Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist), which would shortly evolve into the Democratic Labor Party. However, Bryson was defeated by Labor candidate Gordon Bryant, who went on to serve as Aboriginal Affairs Minister in the Whitlam government. When Bryant retired in 1980, the seat was used to accommodate Bob Hawke’s long-anticipated entry to parliament, enabling him to assume the prime ministership three years later.
Hawke resigned from parliament immediately after losing the leadership in December 1991, providing Paul Keating with an early electoral test in the form of a by-election for a seat the party had never lost before. The test was failed disastrously: in a record field of 22 candidates, local football identity Phil Cleary outpolled the Labor candidate 33.5% to 29.4%, prevailing by 15.7% after preferences. The result was declared void the following November when the High Court ruled Cleary had not been qualified to nominate as his job as a teacher constituted “an office of profit under the Crown”. The imminence of the 1993 election meant no new by-election was held, but Cleary won the seat at the ensuing election by a margin of 2.4%. Cleary’s position was subsequently weakened when redistribution pushed the seat westwards, and Labor candidate Kelvin Thomson provided his party with a rare highlight at the 1996 election when he polled 50.0% of the primary vote to prevail over Cleary by 5.8% after preferences.
A member of the Labor Unity (Right) faction, Thomson entered politics as the state member for Pascoe Vale in 1988, and served in the shadow ministry following the Kirner government’s defeat in 1992. He was elevated to the federal shadow ministry in 1997, serving in portfolios including environment and regional development. However, he resigned from the front bench in March 2007 when it emerged he had given a reference to colourful Melbourne identity Tony Mokbel. From February 2013 until the government’s defeat he served as a parliamentary secretary, first in the trade portfolio and then in schools after Kevin Rudd resumed the leadership in June, after which he returned to the back bench. Thomson supported Julia Gillard in the February 2012 leadership ballot, but was among those who defected to the Rudd camp in June 2013. Together with the rest of his faction, he supported Bill Shorten in the post-election leadership contest. While Thomson’s electoral position has at all times remained secure, the Greens achieved a minor milestone at the 2013 election when they finished ahead of the Liberals to secure second place, ending up 15.2% arrears after the distribution of preferences.
ModLib
You can’t blame me for calling you an idiot.
You refuse to actually discuss the facts, and would rather make it about yourself.
If someone refuses to discuss things rationally and devolves into mindless and stupid semantics, they deserve to be called an idiot. Because, you are one.
Weirdly you think that’s a victory, well wear your badge of ignorance with pride Modlib!
DN
I don’t think zoom did.
DN:
zoom also implied that I had said it was zoom that had thrown insults.
The reason zoom decided to run and hide when I asked for proof is that she realised that I hadn’t claimed she had, just that others had.
….and then what happens? Astrobleme comes in with a perfect example right on cue!
Mod Lib,
As our host said, stop being called an idiot!
[zoomster
Posted Monday, October 28, 2013 at 10:29 pm | PERMALINK
ModLib
I asked where I had insulted you, so no, that’s not a win.]
And I asked where I had said you had insulted me.
Thats the win! :devil:
Modlib
I notice you have walked away from science, and it’s now just woe is me…
You can’t engage with the science because you have no understanding. Much safer for Modlib to talk about his ir herself, yes?
Haven’t you lot anything better to do than detrouser flies!
ModLib
no, the reason I refused to get engaged is because I find it very boring when you play these games. Your responses are entirely predictable.
Astro
For example, where in Australia should we move to.
I’ve read that Tassie and NT will actually be better off but the rest of us (90% or so) will be a lot worse off so we should think about moving there eventually.
However others say we don’t know.
I missed Qand A.
Did Pyne have an earpiece so Credlin could keep him ‘on-song?
ModLib
er — what???
I knew I hadn’t insulted you, so what’s the point in showing me that someone else had? I hadn’t denied others had insulted you.
Anyway, as Astro says, you can’t argue on the science, so you’re now just doing the attention seeking thing.
Which is why I’m going to politely ignore you…for now, anyway.
Astrobleme:
You accused me of shifting goalposts and then became enraged when I showed you that the two posts in question were completely in synch…..not to mention in complete agreement with one of your posts as well!!!!
You then accused me of getting my facts wrong when I said that the warming trend line had flattened out in the last 15 years and then you said because the data remained within the uncertainty limits it meant my statement was wrong. It was not. It was right.
[zoomster
Posted Monday, October 28, 2013 at 10:33 pm | PERMALINK
ModLib
no, the reason I refused to get engaged is because I find it very boring when you play these games. Your responses are entirely predictable.]
….as are your posts!
Diogenes
So you want region specific projections?
CSIRO have done plenty. BUT you have to determine what you want from the place you live in. Tassie would be best for me as the increased humidity and temps in the NT would be unbearable (for me).
[Which is why I’m going to politely ignore you…for now, anyway.]
….well “politely ignore” is a step or two up from “despise”, so it appears I am making progress!
[ I’ve read that Tassie and NT will actually be better off but the rest of us (90% or so) will be a lot worse off so we should think about moving there eventually.
However others say we don’t know. ]
I’ve read that Canada and Russia wouldn’t mind a bit of thawing
[The Barnett government has denied it has mismanaged Parliament, despite moving to rush forward three Bills after running out of legislation to debate in the Lower House.
The Legislative Assembly has been focused on the government’s uncontroversial taxi bill which last week prompted Liberal MP Rob Johnson to accuse the government of “filibustering” because it had no other legislation to discuss.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/parliament-mismanagement/5050414?section=wa
I thought they just prorogued parliament once there was no business for it to deal with.
Mod @ 1456 & 1512
What is your definition of flattening and what is the computation you used to determine that it’s occuring?
This is not an irrelevant question! If you’re using rolling averages, for example, then talking with confidence about the trend over the past 15 years will require some data points into the future.
The period over which you’re taking your average is important. We could use a window of 1 data point and talk flattening every time the temperature hits a point of inflection. A definition of flattening that relies on a rolling average has to have a specified window.
It’s the same thing that occurs with William’s graph right here on PB. Sometimes new data shifts older computed values on his graph, because each computed value depends on datapoints in the future. The current end of the graph is a discontinuity that produces temporary artifacts.
I know that’s what you’re trying to say with “flattening then correcting” (to paraphrase) but it’s a confused way of putting it.
Myself @ 1518.
Actually, you need at least 2 points for a slope ;).
It seems that my pic on twitter may be of a Blueberry Ash
Astro
I read that NT might become cooler and get less rain. I forget the reasons. They said crops would be easier to grow.
Tassie was going to become like Victoria.
[DisplayName
Posted Monday, October 28, 2013 at 10:43 pm | PERMALINK
Mod @ 1456 & 1512
What is your definition of flattening]
The eyeball test.
Mod Lib, have you OD’d on the attention seeking twit pills tonight or something?? 🙁
Mod @ 1522
I think we’re going to have to live with your “flattening and then correcting” then as being appropriately accurate to the computation of your eyeball ;).
ModLib
“You accused me of shifting goalposts and then became enraged when I showed you that the two posts in question were completely in synch…..not to mention in complete agreement with one of your posts as well!!!!”
I have shown you at least twice why they were different. You want it again? Here:
The first about about the specifics of which forcing affected recent climate the most. There is no uncertainty about that. AND STILL you haven’t acknowledged or disputed this. Despite this being your first claim and it being completely wrong. This is one reason you are an idiot.
The second was a general claim about how climate science had over stated it’s certainty coupled with a claim that science needed to be absolutely true or some such.
They’re different claims. If you can’t understand how making a specific claim and then making a general claim isn’t shifting the goalposts, then you are an idiot.
I’ll give an example.
I claim that there is uncertainty that Ricky Ponting has scored more test runs than any other Australian Batsman.
Claim = false.
No, what I really meant is we can’t be sure whether Australian Batsmen will always hold the record for the most runs.
Claim = not really anything to do with first claim.
See, different. One is specific, the other general.
I am sorry if you can’t understand what you, yourself write. But probably it’s because you’re an idiot
paaptsef
If you were Russia and had swathes of new temperate areas and 1.4 billion Chinese next door who were suffering droughts etc, you would be very nervous.
Dio
Do you remember where?
I think half the uncertainty comes from people forgetting where they read things 🙂
“I’ve read that Tassie and NT will actually be better off but the rest of us (90% or so) will be a lot worse off so we should think about moving there eventually.”
Which version of The Idiot’s policy was that? Not the one he spruiked to Colon in the WA, obviously.
[ If you were Russia and had swathes of new temperate areas and 1.4 billion Chinese next door who were suffering droughts etc, you would be very nervous. ]
does climate change trump MAD?
Astrobleme:
1. Did you say that science is never certain?
2. Did you then criticise me for saying that there was uncertainty about the science around the impact of human CO2 emissions on global warming.
Do you see the connection between 1 and 2?
TLBD
This paper said WA will be a write off in fifty years.
[imacca
Posted Monday, October 28, 2013 at 10:47 pm | PERMALINK
Mod Lib, have you OD’d on the attention seeking twit pills tonight or something??]
Multiple people direct posts at me and I respond and then another poster comes out and claims I am attention seeking…nice little schtick you guys have going here!
The trouble is that I have decoded the modus operandi!!!
There’s no schtick, Mod. It’s an natural, emergent phenomenon of too many noisy people talking at once.
[does climate change trump MAD?]
Evidently a few nukes going off would reverse quite a bit of climate change. A really big one could cause a nuclear winter which ironically would obviate the need for the war.
Dio
You mean “people” :P.
Astro
It might have been in the book Six Degrees.
“Astrobleme:
1. Did you say that science is never certain?
2. Did you then criticise me for saying that there was uncertainty about the science around the impact of human CO2 emissions on global warming.”
Oh wow.
So Again it is this stupid rhetoric. STILL ignoring the fact that you were wrong on the first count, and you had shifted the goalposts…
I never said that Science is never certain. That would be dumb, and if I did then I was wrong. There are facts, which make up parts of science, that we ARE certain of.
Really I don’t know why you need this described to you…
Anyway, there are facts, from science that are not in dispute. Maybe you could even contemplate what they might be…
I critised you for saying this:
“All I am saying is that to imply that we have this all completely worked out and we know exactly that is happening to the climate and why is an overstatement of the level of certainty. ”
See, again you have misrepresented what you have said…
I’ll show you again.
Here is your specific statement:
“If by AGW you are saying that human CO2 generation is the most significant factor driving temperatures higher then no, that has not reached the level of certainty.”
And yes, we know that CO2 is the most significant factor (although it would seem you have no real interest).
Here is you shifting the goal posts to a more general statement:
““All I am saying is that to imply that we have this all completely worked out and we know exactly that is happening to the climate and why is an overstatement of the level of certainty. ”
Which is not what you said above, is it? Which was specific to CO2. AND this statement is demanding of climate science a level greater than other sciences. We don’t say that Quantum Mechanics is wrong because they can’t get gravity to work in it, do we? Nor can we say that specific statements about particular aspects of Quantum Mechanics are uncertain (when they’re not) because gravity doesn’t work in Quantum Mechanics.
Newspoll
44/56
[GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 1m
#Newspoll Preferred PM: Abbott 47 (+2) Shorten 28 (-15 compared to Rudd) #auspol]
Primaries
LNP 47
ALP 31
We have our honeymoon bounce!
Dio
Hmmmm… CSIRO website has lots of discussion on climate projections for Aus, that’d be the best place to look. I can’t imagine the north of Australia will be pleasant at all.
Also maybe read about the Pliocene climate as that is basically where we are headed.
A Newspoll!
[(-15 compared to Rudd)]
Oh FFS! Why are they still comparing Labor leaders with Rudd.
[ A really big one could cause a nuclear winter which ironically would obviate the need for the war. ]
how big?
Astro quoted ML:
[If by AGW you are saying that human CO2 generation is the most significant factor driving temperatures higher then no, that has not reached the level of certainty]
If that’s ML’s claim (and I don’t know what “that” means in conext so let’s say “high confidence”) then ML was wrong.
The IPCC-consensus is robust on that matter and has been for, arguably, nearly two decades.
[TONY Abbott is riding a post-election honeymoon high, with nearly half of voters preferring him as prime minister and support for Labor retreating to levels last seen during the party’s June leadership crisis.
In the first Newspoll since the September 7 election, the Prime Minister has recorded his best net satisfaction rating since he took over as Liberal leader in December 2009.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll/tony-abbott-builds-on-landslide-in-first-newspoll-since-election/story-fnc6vkbc-1226748544836#sthash.D0UwhIf4.dpuf ]
It is a real concern at the lack of transparency of the WA Senate recount.
The AEC has stopped updating the WA Senate stats.
It is unclear as to why the AEC will not be rechecking below the line votes, with over 300 votes identified that are worth rechwckin
Fran
Yes, but ModLib has cleverly avoided discussing the reality of the statement. Preferring the path of the ‘idiot’ which is dumb transparent rhetorical devices.
[Oh FFS! Why are they still comparing Labor leaders with Rudd.]
Because it’s the first Newspoll post-Rudd?
Abbott’s getting a honeymoon, it’s to be expected. Also, Shorten and Labor need to prove themselves again.
[Astrobleme
Posted Monday, October 28, 2013 at 11:02 pm | PERMALINK
“Astrobleme:
1. Did you say that science is never certain?
2. Did you then criticise me for saying that there was uncertainty about the science around the impact of human CO2 emissions on global warming.”
Oh wow.]
Oh wow….that is a long post.
Perhaps I can make it simpler?
It is not certain that human production of CO2 is the most significant factor in global warming. It is probably true, yes. It is not certain.
If you think it is certain, then you are contradicting your claim that it is self evident that science is not certain.
Yes, facts are certain, but we are not talking about facts, we are talking about measurements. Measurements always have uncertainty and are approximations. Numbers, on the other hand are certain, but we are not talking about numbers here but measurements.
[Fran Barlow
….The IPCC-consensus is robust on that matter and has been for, arguably, nearly two decades.]
The IPCC-consensus does not convey certainty, it conveys probability.