Election plus two weeks

A deep look at federal election swings, plus a few meagre snippets of post-election polling news.

Two points to emerge from our friends in the polling community, which passed notice while I’ve been diverted by close counts:

• ReachTEL has published a helpful table illustrating pollster accuracy, which is sporting of them given the attention it calls to the eye-watering accuracy of Newspoll. However, all concerned did very well in predicting a two-party preferred result which, by my back-of-envelope reading, will ultimately settle at around 50.5-49.5 to the Coalition. Essential and especially Ipsos overshot on support for the Greens, with the latter landing around 2% too low for both major parties, but the only other substantial errors involved the balance of support between the Liberals and the Nationals, which I don’t regard as particularly important. Electorate polls were a different matter, and will be looked at in greater detail when all the results are in.

• On the Tuesday evening following the election, Roy Morgan conducted an SMS poll poll from 3587 respondents on leadership approval. The poll had Malcolm Turnbull with a narrow 51-47 lead as preferred prime minister, which the Morgan release sets up for comparison with a 57-24 result from May. However, the May result was an interviewer-administered phone poll, a method evidently less conducive to a “neither/can’t say” response. The poll also found Malcolm Turnbull leading Tony Abbott by 71-25 as preferred Liberal leader, and Anthony Albanese leading Bill Shorten 49-48 for Labor.

Now to an exercise I’ve conducted to get a clearer sense of what sort of areas did and didn’t swing. The chart below shows results of a regression analysis on 6582 polling booth results in which two-party swing data was available, which excludes the 14 electorates where the AEC’s two-party count is not between Labor and the Coalition. The purpose here is to discern if the swing to Labor was more or less evident in areas with particular demographic characteristics. The results record a big move back to Labor in the ever-volatile mortgage belts; an apparent failure of the Abbott-to-Turnbull leadership switch to improve the Coalition’s standing in ethnic communities; and better swing results for the Coalition where voters were wealthier and better educated, and – perhaps more surprisingly – older.

2016-07-17-regression

After the constant and starting with “Age”, the table lists the associations between polling booth swings to the Coalition, which in practice usually means negative results recording swings to Labor, and five demographic variables for the census districts in which the booths were located. All but one of these variables, English spoken at home, records a statistically significant association with the swing, as indicated by a score of less than .05 in the significance column on the right. The “B” coefficient of .001 for “Age” tells us that areas with a median age of 40 would generally swing 1% more favourably for the Coalition than areas with a median age of 30. “MFY” stands for median weekly family income and is measured in thousands, so the coefficient means swings tended to be 0.3% stronger for the Coalition for every $1000 of average household income. “School” represents the percentage of the 18-plus population who had completed high school, every point of which associates with nearly 0.1% of swing in favour of the Coalition. Conversely, Labor did 0.02% better for every percentage point of mortgaged dwellings.

The five demographic variables are followed by geographic ones that are there to ensure the results for the demographic variables aren’t influenced by regional differences in the swing, particularly those from state to state. Sydney is excluded so it works as a baseline, so the coefficient for Melbourne tells us that the Coalition would typically do 2.6% better there than at a demographically identical booth in Sydney. Finally, two variables are listed to control for retiring member and sophomore surge effects, which prove to be significant in both cases. “LNPgain” was coded 1 where the candidate was a Coalition sophomore and -1 where a Coalition member was retiring; vice-versa in the case of Labor sophomores and retirees; and zero where neither applied. “ALPloss” was coded 1 where Labor lost the seat in 2013 and 0 otherwise, to measure the boost to the sophomore effect in seats where Labor had a sitting member defending last time. The results suggest Coalition members who won their seats from Labor in 2013 did 2.2% better in swing terms than other Coalition candidates, which reduces to 0.5% in seats where they were replacing retiring Coalition members.

To observe these effects in action, the four tables below identify the 15 highest and lowest ranked electorates by the four statistically significant demographic indicators, and show their two-party swings to the Coalition where available. The lowest education electorates, all of which are regional, were 4.0% worse for the Coalition than those at the top of the scale, of which all apart from Fenner in the ACT are near the centres of the largest cities. Median age was more of a mixed bag — old electorates are regional, but the young ones encompass inner cities, mortgage belts, enclaves, a defence town and the largely indigenous seat of Lingiari. Nonetheless, the distinction here is as great as it was for education, and not in the direction that might have been anticipated from a touted backlash over superannuation policy.

2016-07-17-tables-B

The lowest income electorates, all of which are regional other than two in Sydney, recorded an average 3.5% swing to Labor, only slightly above the national result. But the results for the Liberals were well above average among the wealthiest electorates, over half of which swung in the Coalition’s favour. The mortgage effect is more modest, with 2.8% separating the averages for the top and bottom fifteen. Electorates at the top end of the mortgaged dwellings table are all in the outer suburbs of big cities, but the bottom end is a dissonant mix of regional and inner-city areas, producing a wide range of swing results.

The extent to which this exercise actually explains the results is illustrated by the chart below. For each electorate, the result the model would have predicted is plotted on the horizontal axis, and the actual result is plotted on the vertical. The electorates identified by name are those where the Coalition most under-performed or over-performed the prediction. Keep in mind that this accounts for regional as well as demographic factors, so Lyons shows up as a strong Liberal performance because the swing there was lower than in the other three Tasmanian seats included (remember Denison is not included due to its lack of two-party swing figures). Most electorates’ results were within 2% of the prediction, but a good many had results where alternative explanations are substantially required.

2016-07-17-model-B

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,112 comments on “Election plus two weeks”

  1. Nicole

    While I appreciate where you are coming from, the reality is that each one of us has perhaps 5 issues that are the important ones, and another 5 that we care about but not so much as the others and another 20 or so we support but would not make any effort because we do not care enough. For those of us with Labor inclinations our top 5 hot button issues might be : Wage equity and penalty rates, supporting manufacturing industries, protecting medicare, taxation equity, pension and new start rates. Renewable energy and carbon pricing may make it into the second five for many but not all. The AS issue might be in the second five but two very different perspectives are to be found. Now because most of the top five hot button issues for most ALP members are stongly opposed to the Liberals, labor people see themselves as very different from Liberals, despite the fact that there a number of contenious issues on which they are in lockstep- asylum seekers, national security, coal mining, terror laws, US alliance etc. because these issues are not “hot button” for ALP members they tend to discount them.

    However for many or if not all Greens, their top five “hot button issues might be asylum seekers, national terror laws, Carbon price and promoting renewables and banning coal mining and or frackingand maybe the US alliance . Now since the ALP and the Liberals are in lock step on 4 of those top 5 issues, it should hardly be a wonder that many Greens (not all) will see little or no difference between the parties. Now for those Greens who place marriage equality in their top 5, edging out say the US alliance, they will see a friendlier face of labor and for those with connections to the union movement, labor will be friendlier still.

    It seems to me a little self defeating to get upset because greens say that labor and Liberals are just the same. It might be more useful to critically examine the claim to see what if any justification their is. Labor needs to convince greens voters that they are in fact much better on many issues than Liberals and that these issues do matter.

  2. David at 11:46 pm
    But under the old system the majors would’ve had Hanson way down to the bottom of their preferences. This time around I’m sure many in QLD voted with Hanson higher in their preferences. They’re the old Palmer voters who relate to her outsider status.

  3. Just seen Dastyari telling Hansen what she is so good at on Q&A.

    Very good to see him speak so directly and unequivocally and take no prisoners on this issue. Needed to be said in such a fashion.

  4. The G claim that Labor=Liberal is not only false, it is not believed by anyone, least of all by the Gs themselves. It therefore only serves as a pretext for G attacks on Labor. About 3/4 of G-leaning voters would like it if the Gs were to attack the LNP. But the Gs don’t do this. Instead they do what they vouch to be the “next best thing”, which is to campaign against Labor.

    It is important to note that the G campaign is pure attack theatre. It consists of all the deprecations…. insult, lie, indignation, exaggeration, shame, blame, guilt, anger, acrimony, sanctimony…and so on. This is precisely the spectacle that offends and repels the overwhelming majority of voters. Such conduct repels voters from the Gs and; and it causes G-voters generally to hide their intentions.

    Interestingly, Labor seldom attack the Gs. To do so would be to risk alienating Labor-positive G-voters. But more than this, to engage in “squabble-politics” would just affirm voters’ most commonly held perception – that politicians demean themselves by fighting each other with predictable regularity.

    The question is not whether the Gs attack Labor. Clearly, they do this all the time. The question is why do they do it? What do they hope to achieve by it? This is hard to figure out, especially considering the very high costs they incur by playing the attack game so often. I think they have just failed to really think their strategy through. They have largely failed to establish themselves as a credible alternative 3rd force in Australian politics. Their voter base is getting narrower, not wider. Their parliamentary representation is waning. They are now outnumbered and are out-manoeuvred by Pop-right 3rd voices. They are no closer to holding the B-o-P than they’ve ever been. They have created very great resentment among onetime G-friendly Labor voters and supporters. They are also losing activists and volunteers.

    G politics is very stale. They are steadily proving their irrelevance to most voters.

  5. Wow. So it becomes pretty obvious that Pauline needs the meaning of haram explained to her, and has a deep and abiding ignorance as to what Islam actually is.

  6. The real measure of change in G support is to be found in the Senate results:

    NSW -0.66% swing
    Vic -0.45%
    Qld +.66%
    WA -5.25%
    SA-1.57%
    Tas -0.69%
    ACT -3.37%
    NT +2.11%

    The Gs have lost ground in their most important franchise. The OPV system means they will likely lose Senators as a result.

  7. nicole @ #860 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:32 am

    shea mcduff @ #850 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 11:48 pm

    Boerwar
    Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:52 pm
    “The truth is that Labor’s support INCREASED by MORE than the Greens’ support in this election.”
    http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-20499-NAT.htm
    Monday 18/7/16 11.17pm CST
    Swing %
    ALP 1.33%
    Greens 1.48%

    You forgot the Senate
    Labor 29.98%
    Greens 8.36%
    http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-NAT.htm

    Quite right…a -0.87% national swing against the Gs.

  8. Or, to put it another way, the Greens scored the biggest swing of all the 4 major parties in the House of Reps – better than the ALP.
    Why not acknowledge numerical fact instead of ignoring it and trying to evade it?

    And note, this was in response to Boerwar’s claim that ALP did better than the Greens.
    They didn’t.
    He also claimed Sen. Larissa Waters lied.
    She didn’t.

  9. The difference is explained by the 2014 WA Senate election.
    Then the ALP did very badly and so this current result looks good compared to 2014 but not compared to 2013.
    Conversely the Greens did very well in 2014 and this result [in WA] looks bad compared to that.

    If you compare the full Senate elections of 2013 and 2016 then both the ALP and Greens have declined.

    Both parties should be concerned about that.

    The presence of NXT in SA has also depressed both parties national vote slightly but the smaller population of SA cf WA has masked that impact.

    Nevertheless that should also worry both parties, but the ALP more so – the Greens were never going to get 2 Senators up at this election in SA.

  10. daretotread @ #851 Monday, July 18, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    However for many or if not all Greens, their top five “hot button issues might be asylum seekers, national terror laws, Carbon price and promoting renewables and banning coal mining and or frackingand maybe the US alliance . Now since the ALP and the Liberals are in lock step on 4 of those top 5 issues, it should hardly be a wonder that many Greens (not all) will see little or no difference between the parties.

    I reject and refute your lockstep claims. I would never support Labor if they were lockstep with the LNP on all of the issues you claim they are. It’s just flat out untrue. It’s a superficial oversimplification and misrepresentation. You can’t just compare without contrasting.

    Labor’s policies and attitude towards asylum seekers is very different than the LNP’s. Now of course I cannot speak on behalf of Labor but only generally and from my point of view. I want to know from the Greens and opposers how ignoring 1000’s dying at sea is compassionate? If you could find a better way, wouldn’t you want to do all you could to find it? Or is concern for these people merely feigned populism? The difference between Labor and Liberal on this is we really do care about it, not just use it as an excuse to be assholes. We just want to bring them here safely. The Libs on the other hand just don’t want to bring them here at all by the looks. The differences are in the details and there are many differences to be found. The difference in quotas, bringing in and funding the UNHCR and seeking a regional solution just for starters.

    Same goes with carbon pricing and renewable energy which leads us from coal dependency to a clean energy future. Our track record when compared with the LNP’s tells an entirely different story. Just because something differs from the Greens does not make it the same. As to Top 5’s, I think you are stereotyping way too much and who says you can’t have a Top 10 and value everything on your Top 10. Mine includes most you have called Green issues as well as ones you call Labor issues. They are all important to me. You kinda remind me of the vote compass. Labor has a left too.

  11. Actually I’ve just been looking at the Senate results and the ALP did quite well in SA.
    Where they went backwards was in the populous states of NSW [-.21%], Vic [-1.42%] and Qld [-1.68%] , despite positive swings in the H0R in each of those states.
    That needs some explaining.

  12. briefly @ #866 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:50 am

    shea mcduff @ #865 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:58 am

    Senate ALP vote 2013
    30.11%
    Senate ALP vote 2016

    currently

    29.98%
    Both parties went backwards.

    The AEC currently describes the Labor senate vote as an increase of 0.35% in its national share of the PV.

    shea mcduff @ #865 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:58 am

    Senate ALP vote 2013
    30.11%
    Senate ALP vote 2016

    currently

    29.98%
    Both parties went backwards.

    You were comparing Labor and Greens before remember? A positive swing is the improvement obviously since the last election and it was a 0.35% swing. Nothing backwards there and it’s only been one term. The Greens in contrast had a negative swing of -0.87%. That’s a 1.22% difference which means Boerwar was correct in saying that Larissa was wrong. The fact that the Greens recovered marginally better (0.15%) in the HOR does not change that. Besides, Larissa Waters is a senator and my bed is calling so I’m outta here.

  13. shea mcduff @ #869 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 2:13 am

    Actually I’ve just been looking at the Senate results and the ALP did quite well in SA.
    Where they went backwards was in the populous states of NSW

    -.21%

    , Vic

    -1.42%

    and Qld

    -1.68%

    , despite positive swings in the H0R in each of those states.
    That needs some explaining.

    1. It’s only been one term
    2. The Hands off the CFA dispute hijacked by the Libs with impeccable election timing.
    3. The impeccable timing of Eddie O’beid in contrast to all the Liberal MP’s being sentenced couple of days before we voted. What a coincidence huh? Malcolm couldn’t have timed it better.
    4. An extremely biased media sadly including the ABC. Only one endorsement out of 19 major newspapers.
    5. QLD needs a little longer to forgive.
    6. Labor were attacked simultaneously from both the right and the left.

    After just one term, we have done well. Next election, Labor will kick it in regardless of the naysayers.

  14. Morning all. A thought on William’s excellent analytical model and seat by seat analysis. Apart from helping identify various local factors (eg CFA) and demographics, it really does point out who were good and bad candidates. Two obvious examples are Wyatt Roy in Longman and Jamie Briggs in Mayo. Roy really had electoral demographics against him. A young, outer mortgage belt ekectorate was exactly what swung against the coalition. Whereas Briggs was the opposite. Older, well educated, wealthy Mayo should have been a coalition stronghold, yet he still lost it. Sophie Mirrabella had a similar “achievement” for different reasons in Mayo.

    You would think, the next time some of these people sought pre-selection, that somebody bright might pull out William’s graph and say, “Well Jamie/Sophie, last time you got a swing X% worse than the state average. We think we would be better off going with a complete unknown.”

  15. Sorry , Mirrabella in Indie, had demographics in her favour (old electorate). Much as I dislike his style, Scott Morrison in Cook did pretty well, all things considered.

  16. C@tmomma
    Monday, July 18, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    Pauline Hanson denies it is her who is causing the increase in Islamophobia in Australia.

    She’s brazen, that’s for sure.

    You might be mistaking being brazen for ignorant. I don’t think she knows what Islamophobia means – the word more than two syllables.

  17. shea mcduff @ #869 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 2:13 am

    Actually I’ve just been looking at the Senate results and the ALP did quite well in SA.
    Where they went backwards was in the populous states of NSW

    -.21%

    , Vic

    -1.42%

    and Qld

    -1.68%

    , despite positive swings in the H0R in each of those states.
    That needs some explaining.

    With the elections happening just 1 term after one major party lost government to be claimed by another, I think people chose to park their vote elsewhere this elections.

    The electoral pie can’t grow so the mainstream parties (Lib Lab Greens) lost their votes to all the minors and micro parties.

  18. Good morning

    As we know, the most useful and responsible thing to do whenever somebody makes a stupid, inflammatory statement is to look to the ethnicity, nationality and/or religion of the perpetrator and then ask “where oh where are the Community Leaders condemning this dangerous rhetoric?”
    http://www.theage.com.au/comment/view-from-the-street/im-sorry-about-sonia-krugers-stupid-inflammatory-comments-20160718-gq87dj.html
    The elevation of Matt Canavan into the cabinet and the return of Luke Hartsuyker to the ministry are nods to the increased heft of the National Party within the Coalition.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/malcolm-turnbull-tries-to-keep-everyone-happy-with-frontbench-reshuffle-20160718-gq8cov.html
    Malcolm Turnbull has unveiled his new cabinet, where new portfolios have been created and Nationals MPs promoted, resulting in a reshuffle.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ministerial-reshuffle-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-revamps-his-frontbench-postelection-20160718-gq7vka.html
    Greenpeace slammed Mr Frydenberg’s appointment to replace Greg Hunt in the expanded portfolio as a blow to the Great Barrier Reef, while Climate Council boss John Connor said the upcoming review of the government’s climate and energy policy framework could deliver progress.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/combined-energy-and-environment-portfolio-for-josh-frydenberg-a-huge-blow-for-great-barrier-reef-20160718-gq89eo.html
    This is an argument we’re seeing a lot of in election post-mortems: that the super policy was a huge problem for the campaign because it affected fundraising.
    https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/sean-kelly/2016/18/2016/1468824062/absolute-outrage-right-under-our-noses?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Today+-+Monday+18+July+2016&utm_content=Today+-+Monday+18+July+2016+CID_b37ab30471857e79475d8d0b2de2a79e&utm_source=EDM&utm_term=READ+MORE#round-up
    For the full effect of the swizzle stick that passes for a thought process in the Hanson mind, you couldn’t go past the earlier moment when she found herself engaged with her panel neighbour, Labor Senator Sam Dastyari.
    http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/qa-recap-would-pauline-hanson-ban-a-young-muslim-sam-dastyari-from-australia-20160718-gq8i5y.html
    Controversial comments calling for a halt to Muslim migration to Australia are just the “tip of the iceberg” and will become more common unless they are denounced by the government.
    http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/sonia-krugers-migration-comments-highlight-uncomfortable-reality-for-australian-muslims-academic-20160718-gq8bwa.html
    Many on the Coalition’s right wing – including some in Cabinet – don’t want to back the former Labor man.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-needs-to-consider-australias-interests-in-kevin-rudds-united-nations-bid-20160718-gq89h5.html
    Malcolm Turnbull has snubbed conservative MPs pushing for promotion and rewarded key supporters and the Nationals in a larger-than-expected reshuffle.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/turnbull-snubs-conservatives-rewards-backers-20160718-gq88cp.html
    “I am not a farmer and I am not a small businessman . . . It is an unusual path to travel from the Productivity Commission to the National Party.”
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/matt-canavan-leads-charge-of-the-new-conservatives-20160718-gq84oy.html

  19. “This is a big change, a big reform and it requires additional leadership and additional oversight, additional advocacy and drive,” said Turnbull, appointing Christopher Pyne.
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/christopher-pyne-warned-against-favouring-south-australia-in-new-defence-industry-portfolio-20160718-gq8f7x.html
    “Environmental policy is often energy policy and vice-a-versa

    sic

    .”
    http://www.theage.com.au/business/energy/energy-industry-cheers-frydenbergs-holy-grail-portfolio-20160718-gq89xx.html
    Engineers and technicians were among those who had applied for a redundancy package, leading to fears that Airservices’ work could be compromised.
    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/union-fears-for-safety-as-airservices-cuts-up-to-one-in-five-jobs-20160715-gq6zfs.html
    Fairfax Media can now reveal the 72-year-old and his entrepreneurial middle son Moses, 47, were quietly charged last year over a coal deal at Mount Penny in the Bylong Valley near Mudgee.
    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/eddie-obeid-and-son-moses-charged-over-30-million-coal-deal-20160706-gpzycv.html
    Labor voters have a price ceiling. In every suburb where the median house price is more than $700,000, voters swung to the Liberals or the Greens.
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/why-the-housing-bubble-spells-big-trouble-for-labor-20160718-gq86wd.html
    “The number one concern in the region today is not China, it’s the US. There are questions about the durability of American power, and it’s the first time I’ve experienced this.”
    http://www.theage.com.au/comment/global-alliances-and-friendships-rocked-if-donald-trump-wins-us-election-20160718-gq81o9.html
    It is an “own-goal” of epic proportions. Ebay Australia has managed to arouse the interest of the Tax Office by suing a former employee and consequently allowing compromising court documents to seep into the public domain.
    http://www.michaelwest.com.au/ebay-scores-own-goal-on-tax/
    Malcolm Turnbull has suggested the plebiscite on same-sex marriage may not take place until early next year now, rather than this year.
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/18/turnbull-suggests-marriage-equality-plebiscite-may-be-delayed-until-2017

  20. I think misattributing Hanson’s success this election to Turnbull or the Greens is a failure to understand where her voter base comes from.

    Under a DD she actually got more than a quota, which automatically counts for a 6 year seat. Even in the case of a half-Senate, she would have picked up some 0.6 of a quota in Queensland, which through gathering of preferences, would have won her a seat from run off from the Christian, far-right, Katter and outdoor recreational parties. This effect would have been more pronounced in the old system’s preference snowball system.

    The likes of people like the ALA and the Halal Choices campaign has tapped on migration fears have seen a well run campaign contribute towards Hanson. This also includes the complete collapse of the PUP vote. These come from people who are disillusioned with mainstream parties and would rather put the vote with Hanson.

    With voting preferences shown in Herbert, we have some evidence that these voters aren’t the sort who would normally preference the LNP. Their preference flow back to Labor in the lower house. It is possible too that these are those who would prefer tariffs and protection against the foreign market.

    I’ll however concede the point that if this was a half-Senate election and not a DD, Hanson would only have won a seat in Queensland and would fall short in other states.

  21. dtt

    ‘For those of us with Labor inclinations our top 5 hot button issues might be : Wage equity and penalty rates, supporting manufacturing industries, protecting medicare, taxation equity, pension and new start rates. Renewable energy and carbon pricing may make it into the second five for many but not all. ‘

    Climate change not in your top 5? Maybe it’s different in Queensland, but in Victoria it would be hard to find an ALP supporter who didn’t have it there. I’m not sure many of them would put ‘pension’ in there, however.

  22. Bravo Lizzie. A very fine round up you’ve done this morning. I should be still sleeping after a late night but the kids go me up early. No rest for the wicked huh? Yawn. 🙂

  23. Mike Carlton ‏@MikeCarlton01 · 16m16 minutes ago

    Pity the wretched Treasury public servants assigned to “brief” Hanson on economic policy. They’ll end up with PTSD…

  24. Nicole

    It is interesting to note that our local independent, Cathy McGowan, has gone from challenging the Liberals’ stance on Nauru/Manus to accepting it (but, like Labor, believing the process should be better managed, with more transparency).

    To her credit, McGowan has looked at a number of issues and made her decision on the basis of expert advice – she has agreed with the removal of cattle from the High Plains (something many thought she would oppose, and which would have won her votes) and is against the expansion of a local dam (again, to support it would have been a popular decision).

    So I assume that, like many of us, she’s looked at the alternatives to N/M and concluded that it is a grim necessity. (This discussion always gets messy; I have often stated I’m opposed to N/M. The rider, of course, is that I mean ‘under current management’. I am fairly sure that N/M compares favourably with UNHCR camps, for example).

  25. I made an error of fact when I stated that the Labor had gained a larger increase than the Greens. This is out by .2% in the House.
    My Bad.
    Waters lied when she stated that both the big parties had gone backwards.
    Shea stated that Waters had not lied. There are two lies here. The first is a basic statement of fact that she got wrong. The second was the oft-repeated lie of the Greens that, in going backwards as in all else, Labor and the Liberals are the same.
    Despite’ Shea’s assertion that Waters did not lie, she did.

    This lie about the big parties being the same has been repeated so often by the Greens that they have swallowed their own bullshit.

    Despite Shea’s assertion, Water’s second big lie is that the two big parties are the same when it comes to climate change. This lie was repeated endlessly by the Greens during the election campaign. Water’s was quite specific when she stated that Labor does not have a climate change plan.
    So, Shea McDuff, and all the other apologists for Waters and the Greens last night – over to you.
    Simply asserting that Waters did not lie does not cut it.
    Either Waters lied repeatedly last night or she did not.
    Just like Di Natale and the Greens lied endlessly about Labor during the election campaign.

  26. zoomster @ #888 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:46 am

    dtt
    ‘For those of us with Labor inclinations our top 5 hot button issues might be : Wage equity and penalty rates, supporting manufacturing industries, protecting medicare, taxation equity, pension and new start rates. Renewable energy and carbon pricing may make it into the second five for many but not all. ‘
    Climate change not in your top 5? Maybe it’s different in Queensland, but in Victoria it would be hard to find an ALP supporter who didn’t have it there. I’m not sure many of them would put ‘pension’ in there, however.

    Yeah, I’m in QLD and they are right up top for me too. I was at a BBQ hosted for Labor yesterday and they wrote a song about the things Labor care about and it starred in the song too. I don’t buy it myself this imagined great divide.

  27. Thanks Lizzie
    Watching Q&A last night was depressing.
    Is the rise in Islamophobia the fault of Abbott?
    Or the fault of Rudd, who in his narcissism and weakness allowed for the rise of Abbott?
    Or John Howard, with his cynical manipulation of the Tampa, and sycophancy to Bush and the US alliance, blowing up the Middle East and spawning terrorism?
    Or the spiv capitalists and their promotion of inequality, aided and abetted by lies spawned by the likes of the Murdoch press and numerous spiv subsidised anti environment, anti humanity, ‘think’ tanks?
    I reckon if we could retrospectively eliminate either John Howard, or the spiv capitalists, we would have avoided the problem either way.

  28. Trog

    I thought Dastyari put his finger right on Hanson’s motivation when he said, in effect, “First it was Aboriginals, then Asians, now it’s Muslims”. Anything for a headline and an income. I do wish the media would stop focussing on her. QandA last night was The Hanson Hour.

  29. Lizzie
    Hanson is a racist, that’s clear. The problem is that she now has a megaphone and dwells in all our living rooms. I reckon a fair number of her supporters are probably racist as well, but its a type of latent racism that only comes to the surface when you feel threatened. Like some bastard is taking your job, or you want to blame someone for the shit position you find yourself in.

  30. Morning all.
    Did we actually get a decision on the counting in Herbert.
    Was the final count – us by 8, or have they still got to count those 570 odd votes listed at the bottom of the AEC Herbert Page.

  31. trog sorrenson @ #895 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 8:07 am

    Thanks Lizzie
    Watching Q&A last night was depressing.
    Is the rise in Islamophobia the fault of Abbott?
    Or the fault of Rudd, who in his narcissism and weakness allowed for the rise of Abbott?
    Or John Howard, with his cynical manipulation of the Tampa, and sycophancy to Bush and the US alliance, blowing up the Middle East and spawning terrorism?
    Or the spiv capitalists and their promotion of inequality, aided and abetted by lies spawned by the likes of the Murdoch press and numerous spiv subsidised anti environment, anti humanity, ‘think’ tanks?
    I reckon if we could retrospectively eliminate either John Howard, or the spiv capitalists, we would have avoided the problem either way.

    I complete agree that the rise in Islamophobia is largely due to the politicisation and demonization of asylum seekers practised by the LNP and may I add corroborated by our media. I still find myself debunking incorrect centrelink data regarding asylum seekers reported by Nine News back in 2009. Snippets of it get combined with other fallacies that get shared in chain emails and in internet posts. It has sadly become urban myth. Combine the lot and we have one rather large sentiment being played like a fiddle by the likes of Ms Hanson. If it had a soundtrack, the soundtrack could be the song “What About Me?”. Hence there are Brexit undertones here.

  32. Trog

    One thing that annoyed me was that there is so little logic in her yet she talks as if she is the only one with “the truth” (OTOH we have some other pollies who do that, as well).
    She states “people are in fear” but extrapolates instantly from a war-torn country overseas to the streets of Brisbane.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *