Every seat in alphabetical order, with commentary where there’s anything that needs saying. See the post below this one for my first take on the Legislative Council.
Albany. Before: Labor 1.0%. After: Labor, unknown. I’m a little confused here, because the Nationals rather than the Liberals finished second here, and the WAEC presumably only conducted a Labor-versus-Liberal two-party count, which has been pulled from their site. So I can only assume the Labor-versus-Nationals result displayed on the ABC site is based on Antony’s estimate, and not as I first suspected a rebadged Labor-versus-Liberal result. Certainly the margin displayed is more what would expect from a Labor-versus-Nationals count, i.e. lower. If so, the result for Watson is better than the swing makes it appear – more like an 8% than 5.5%. That’s still more remarkable given that Watson’s excellent electoral performance in the past presumably meant he didn’t have as much slack to take up.
Armadale. Before: Labor 9.6%. After: Labor 25.0%.
Balcatta. Before: Liberal 7.1%. After: Labor 5.8%. Labor’s defeat here was their first in a history going back to 1962, and the swing was fairly typical for Perth.
Baldivis. Before: Labor 6.1%. After: Unknown. Reece Whitby hasn’t completely shaken off the electoral bogey that followed him through two failed bids for Morley, as he is being run fairly close by independent Matt Whitfield. In this he has suffered from the collapse in the collapse of the Liberals, who went from 33.1% to 14.2% and finished third. Whitfield would win the seat if he got 82.6% of the preferences from the Liberals, One Nation (7.0%), Greens (5.1%) and the rest (5.8%). The ABC projection is crediting him with two-thirds, but Carol Adams got around three-quarters under similar circumstances in Kwinana, from which Baldivis draws most of its voters. She also did very badly on absent votes, for some reason. Presumably a Labor-versus-independent vote will be conducted tomorrow, and I won’t be calling this until I see it.
Bassendean. Before: Labor 5.1%. After: Labor 21.7%.
Bateman. Before: Liberal 23.1%. After: Liberal 10.0%.
Belmont. Before: Liberal 1.0%. After: Labor 13.2%. Another seat Labor lost for the first time in 2013, and has now recovered with a vengeance on the back of a regulation 13.2% swing.
Bicton. Before: Liberal 10.0%. After: Labor 2.4%. Dean Nalder’s determination to contest Bateman instead was vindicated by a fairly typical 12.4% swing, contrary to impressions that the Perth Freight Link might make a difference one way or the other.
Bunbury. Before: Liberal 12.2%. After: Labor 11.3%. The Liberal vote fell 30.6% in John Castrilli’s absence to 45.3%, translating into a devastating 23.4% swing to Labor. The Nationals campaigned pretty hard here but only gained 6.5%, and finished well behind the Liberals in third.
Burns Beach. Before: Liberal 11.3%. After: Labor 2.7%. Environment Minister Albert Jacob gained the notionally Labor seat of Ocean Reef when he entered parliament in 2008, and now he’s lost its reconfigured successor on the back of a fairly typical 14.1% swing.
Butler. Before: Labor 1.0%. After: Labor 19.9%. John Quigley’s 18.9% swing is particularly notable given he only suffered a 1.1% swing in 2013.
Cannington. Before: Labor 2.1%. After: Labor 18.7%.
Carine. Before: Liberal 18.3%. After: Liberal 9.9%.
Central Wheatbelt. Before: Nationals 8.9% versus Liberal. After: Nationals unknown. The Liberal vote went from 31.2% to 11.0%, which presumably reflects conservative voters falling in behind Nationals member Mia Davies, who was up slightly, now she’s the sitting member. A former upper house MP, she came to the seat in 2013, filling the vacancy created by Brendon Grylls’ move to Pilbara. The Liberals fell to third, so the notional count was redundant, and the two-party result on the ABC computer is presumably an estimate.
Churchlands. Before: Liberal 20.0%. After: Liberal 14.6%.
Cockburn. Before: Labor 4.6%. After: Labor 16.2%.
Collie-Preston. Before: Liberal 2.9%*. After: Labor 13.9%. Big swings here across the board as Mick Murray effortlessly retained a seat that had been made notionally Liberal by the redistribution, but the biggest of all were in suburban Bunbury.
Cottesloe. Before: Liberal 21.1%. After: Liberal 13.8%. Swings were relatively modest in the wealthy western suburbs, including the one against the Premier.
Darling Range. Before: Liberal 13.1%. After: Labor 5.4%. A well above par 18.4% swing delivered Labor one of its strongest wins, and typified the Liberal collapse in the outer suburbs.
Dawesville. Before: Liberal 12.7%. After: Labor 1.6%. A nervous debut for Zak Kirkup, who succeeds former Deputy Premier Kim Hames.
Forrestfield. Before: Liberal 2.2%. After: Labor 9.6%. A slightly below average swing, but plenty enough to take out a fragile Liberal margin in this eastern Perth seat.
Fremantle. Before: Labor 15.4%. After: Labor 24.0%. Of academic here of interest is who finishes second out of Liberal and the Greens – the Liberals are on 20.0% and Greens are on 18.1%, and presumably preferences won’t close the gap. Labor’s Simone McGurk won a clear majority on the primary vote.
Geraldton. Before: Liberal 10.9% versus Nationals. After: Liberal 0.8%. The ABC computer says the swing here is 10.1%, but it’s wrongly measuring the Liberal-versus-Labor result from this election with the Liberals-versus-Nationals result from the last. The real figure is 22%, which appears to have brought Labor to just short of victory in a seat where they finished third in 2013. Nationals candidate Paul Brown, who was seeking to move from the upper house, came in third.
Girrawheen. Before: Labor 2.8%. After: Labor 16.7%.
Hillarys. Before: Liberal 16.0%. After: Liberal 3.9%. Liberal-turned-independent Rob Johnson came in third with 21.0% to Labor’s 28.2%. Liberal candidate Peter Katsambanis, with 39.7%, would have been in big trouble if he had got ahead of Labor and soaked up their preferences.
Jandakot. Before: Liberal 18.3%. After: Labor 0.1%. Liberal leadership hopeful Joe Francis going right down to the wire here, with absents and outstanding postals to decide the result. Based on the past form of such votes, my guess would be that he will sneak over the line.
Joondalup. Before: Liberal 10.4%. After: Labor 0.5%. The 11.0% swing against Liberal member Jan Norberger was fairly modest by outer suburban standards, and he may yet hang on.
Kalamunda. Before: Liberal 10.3%. After: Labor 3.1%. A typical 13.3% swing was sufficient to tip out Health Minister John Day out, and deliver Labor a seat it had never before held (it existed from 1974 to 1989, and has done so again since 2008).
Kalgoorlie. Before: Nationals 3.2% versus Liberal 10.3%. After: Unknown. The ABC computer says the Liberals will gain this from the Nationals with a margin of 5.1%, but this assumes these will be the last two candidates, when there’s an effective three-way tie between Labor, Liberal and Nationals from the top three positions. I believe it’s also based on an estimated preference flow, since there’s no two-party result shown on the WAEC site. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t have thought Labor and One Nation preferences would have favoured the Liberals. Nationals candidate Tony Crook will certainly win if preferences cause the Liberals to finish third.
Kimberley. Before: Labor 5.1%. After: Labor 8.8%. Unclear here who finishes second out of Liberal and Nationals, but Labor goes untroubled either way. The swing was relatively mild, as it was in 2013.
Kingsley. Before: Liberal 14.0%. After: Labor 0.8%. Labor with their nose ahead in a close race in a seat they had only previously won in 2005, after a fairly normal 14.9% swing.
Kwinana. Before: Labor 18.5%. After: Labor 4.3%. At his third election, incoming Deputy Premier Roger Cook finally goes undisturbed by independent Carol Adams.
Maylands. Before: Labor 2.7%. After: Labor 18.4%.
Midland. Before: Labor 0.5%. After: Labor 13.0%. An easier night for Michelle Roberts this time around.
Mirrabooka. Before: Labor 4.6%. After: Labor 19.2%.
Moore. Before: Nationals 5.9% versus Liberals. After: Nationals 8.7% versus Liberals.
Morley. Before: Liberal 4.7%. After: Labor 12.1%. A particularly big swing in a seat Labor didn’t expect to lose in 2008, and couldn’t win back in 2013.
Mount Lawley. Before: Liberal 8.9%. After: Labor 3.8%. A regulation swing tips out the Liberals in a seat that wouldn’t have responded too favourably to the One Nation preference deal.
Murray-Wellington. Before: Liberal 12.0%. After: Labor 1.1%. Labor looks like it’s done enough in a seat it has only won in the past when it was more oriented to Mandurah, with a mid-range 13.1% swing.
Nedlands. Before: Liberal 19.1%. After: Liberal 8.8%.
North West Central. Before: Nationals 11.5%. After: Nationals 8.8%. I think the WAEC conducted a Nationals-versus-Liberal count that proved redundant because the Liberals crashed to third, so I guess the ABC figure is an estimate.
Perth. Before: Liberal 2.8%. After: Labor 12.5%. A particularly big 15.3% swing in a seat Labor was always going to recover, perhaps reflecting an inner-city One Nation preference deal effect.
Pilbara. Before: Nationals 11.5%. After: Labor 1.4%. I called this seat for Brendon Grylls on ABC Radio, so I’m a bit perplexed that the preference count has him trailing Labor by 1.4% at the end of the night. Preferences overall appear to be splitting evenly, which is pretty extraordinary given their make-up: Liberal 14.6%, One Nation 11.1%, Shooters 9.9%, Greens 3.8%.
Riverton. Before: Liberal 12.7%. After: Liberal 4.5%. Another relatively mild swing in a stronger Liberal seat.
Rockingham. Before: Labor 13.2%. After: Labor 23.9%.
Roe. Before: Nationals 16.7% versus Liberal. After: Liberal 14.9% versus Nationals. This is a new seat that essentially merges Wagin, held by Terry Waldron of the Nationals, and Graham Jacobs, a Liberal. Waldron didn’t contest, but Jacobs was nonetheless unable to put the Nationals under serious pressure.
Scarborough. Before: Liberal 17.3%. After: Liberal 5.1%.
South Perth. Before: Liberal 20.0%. After: Liberal 7.7%.
Southern River. Before: Liberal 10.9%. After: Labor 8.6%. A massive swing to Labor in an area that also moved heavily in their favour at the federal election.
Swan Hills. Before: Liberal 3.7%. After: Labor 14.2%. Always a very likely Labor gain, but went well beyond the call of duty with a swing of 17.9%.
Thornlie. Before: Labor 1.8%. After: Labor 15.9%.
Vasse. Before: Liberal 21.1%. After: Liberal 15.0%.
Victoria Park. Before: Labor 4.0%. After: Labor 16.6%.
Wanneroo. Before: Liberal 11.0%. After: Labor 8.0%. The one seat where the Liberals really hoped the One Nation preference deal might do them some good returned a 19.0% swing, in another example of the outer suburbs effect. One Nation polled 9.6% — a look at their preference flow will have to wait for tomorrow.
Warnbro. Before: Labor 10.6%. After: Labor 24.2%.
Warren-Blackwood. Before: Nationals 7.2% versus Liberal. After: Nationals 12.0%. Another former Nationals-versus-Liberal contest where the Liberals fell to third.
West Swan. Before: Liberal 0.9%*. After: Labor 18.5%. Made notionally Liberal by the redistribution, but swung fully as forcefully as neighbouring Swan Hills.
Willagee. Before: Labor 2.5%. After: Labor 16.4%.
Nah….reform of the voting system in the upper house.
The front page of tomorrow’s The West Australian
https://twitter.com/westaustralian/status/840896046096031744
[The front page of tomorrow’s The West Australian
https://twitter.com/westaustralian/status/840896046096031744%5D
Any idea what the ferry story is about?
@josh_jerga 12h12 hours ago
Told plans from the Premier’s office on Friday was a “scripted” media ferry tour with Barnett & Harvey. Nahan would be on JetSki. Seriously
@josh_jerga 12h12 hours ago
The GMO’s plans for “Colin Barnett’s Friday ferry” were scrapped after ministers basically called it stupid… and Nahan can’t ride a JetSki
Reform of the upper house seems impossible on the ABC prediction and the only path on Williams is through Daylight Savings.
Unless Fluoride Free proves unexpectedly sane but I’m not placing bets on that.
Briefly – Are you saying that any revenue raising measures that a WA Govt enacts will immediately effect its GST take on a dollar for dollar basis. You may be right. But I would be very surprised.
Of course McGowan should break any promises he made in relation to the mining companies. Big black hole … need for everyone to pay their way … Anyway, promises extracted by menaces (which is what these, I assume, were) have no moral force.
Don’t know about the rest of the Nats policies in WA, but if they weren’t too smelly, I would have voted for Grylls. Will be very upset if he doesn’t get over the line.
western sunrise @ #104 Monday, March 13, 2017 at 3:15 am
Nahan coming a cropper would have been the highlight of it.
Are you saying that any revenue raising measures that a WA Govt enacts will immediately effect its GST take on a dollar for dollar basis. You may be right. But I would be very surprised.
Yeah I don’t think so. The funding formula takes into account potential revenue in order to prevent the sort of race to the bottom crap old Joh used to pull.
Still I’m with Briefly. The non-core bullshit of Howard and Abbott isn’t legit. Even if you could get away with it anymore (and thanks to media bias Labor never ever would be able to), it just further erodes respect for the system. If McGowan has fatally compromised his ability to fix the states finances then he’s a fool and will pay the price, but to just dump clear commitments is a far greater sin at a time where confidence in our political institutions is being undermined.
Labor just need to make progress within the parameters they have set themselves for this term. If circumstances require new parameters (like further resource taxation) then that is an argument to take to the next election.
Ratsak – No it’s not. McGowan says he’s just got a Treasury briefing and “my God” things are much worse than he thought and then slug the miners. They’re not pensioners etc etc. In four years time nobody will remember the broken promise. However, in four years time they will know if the state is getting extra billions in revenue. McGowan is making a big POLITICAL mistake if he doesn’t slug the miners now – a very big one.
Oh, and if Labor didn’t have the courage to take on the miners at the last election, why would they have the courage at the next one. Nup, launch a sneaky attack early and then move on. Otherwise, this will just be Barnett with more competence.
The Greens and a micro party will back upper house voting reform around the same time turkeys start voting for Christmas
antonbruckner11 @ #109 Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:38 am
Completely agree, point of business number 1 needs to be for ALL the miners to get it in the neck. And I’d go for $10 per tonne, not $5, and I’d drag in oil & gas.
Grimace – Yep, in six months time Labor will own everything broken and declining in the state (including the debt). At that point, McGowan will be either working for the miners or working for the public. I hope it’s the later. But I’m a bit worried about his boy scout haircut, it must be said.
The Greens would likely back malapportionment reform, their seats don’t have the rural bias the other parties do.
They aren’t going to back how can we reform the upper house to screw smaller parties for the lulz reforms, no.
If McGowan moved on the miners he’s be Gillarded.
I don’t know if he gave himself any wriggle room, but from the little I’ve seen he seems to have been pretty unequivocal. It might be grossly unfair (not to mention more than a great deal destructive to the national interest), but the rules are different for Labor. Then old audit and a-ha look at the blackhole game that the Libs have pulled out every single time they’ve come to power since 96 is the sort of bullshit they’re allowed to get away with. Labor is not.
The GST issue will start to sort itself out naturally over time (that’s how it’s meant to work). So that will help fix the bottom line. And hopefully plenty of misallocated and wasteful spending can be found to cut.
It would have been better obviously if McGowan had shown the sort of balls Federal Labor did over Neg Gearing and lined up the miners for a hair cut prior to the election. But seeing as he didn’t he’s going to have to suck that up. I’d be all for giving the pricks a right screwing over, and the schadenfreude of seeing them cry would be delicious. But people are cynical enough. Leave the broken promises for the Libs.
But of course that doesn’t mean the new government shouldn’t absolutely destroy any claims to economic competence from the Libs by exposing absolutely every detail of their failure and hammering home who created the mess from day 1 until the next election. Barnett’s Black Hole should be the most overused term in West Australian politics for the next decade. Never again should Labor make the mistake Rudd made of not nailing every single fault to the Libs without remorse or reprieve. The myth of Liberal economic competence needs to be destroyed utterly and completely. It’s not like the Libs themselves aren’t giving Labor a big helping hand in that. Labor should gladly do everything they can to work with the Libs in a spirit of bipartisanship on this issue.
Ratsak – He can’t possibly be Gillarded because he’s just won a huge election victory. Now is the time to strike. Further, Labor’s problem was that it didn’t stand up to the miners, not the reverse. If McGowan doesn’t take on the miners he’s dun – not the reverse.
And if Labor won’t take on the miners, what’s the point of the Labor Party? Should just hand back power to Barnett.
antonbruckner11 @ #115 Monday, March 13, 2017 at 11:53 am
I am with you Anton. Democracy should not be able to be bought by companies with deep pockets.
Step 1. Politically neuter them
Step 2. Ensure they pay appropriate taxes / royalties
[Yeah I don’t think so. The funding formula takes into account potential revenue in order to prevent the sort of race to the bottom crap old Joh used to pull.]
As if the federal Liberals/Nationals would let an increase to mining royalties result in a reducing in WA’s GST share.
Do they want to win 0 seats in WA at the next federal election?
[And if Labor won’t take on the miners, what’s the point of the Labor Party? Should just hand back power to Barnett.]
Exactly.
Never underestimate the desire of the Fed Libs to screw a state Labor Party.
Also the Government is in a bit of a jam with GST, if you alter the formula to help WA you hurt the other states and the entire mainland east coast gives you better lower house bang for your buck.
[Never underestimate the desire of the Fed Libs to screw a state Labor Party.]
They have a 1 seat majority. They would be screwing themselves right out of government.
The Greiner / Brumby GST share review points out that Wayne Swan DID intervene to make sure that Barnett government royalty increases did not reduce WA’s GST share. I’m sure Morrison could be persuaded to keep doing the same.
http://www.gstdistributionreview.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=reports/finaloctober2012/07chap7.htm
Bunbury is my favourite seat EVAH. Exactly how does one go about losing 30% of ones’ primary vote? Is this unprecedented for a major party without some sort of internal split?
Bemused – Step 1A – Play dirtier than they do (if possible)
Labor lost 32.5% of its primary vote in Bathurst in the NSW 2011 election. A Green said this was the record at the time
As much as I hate the CME, and they really do deserve a through public thrashing, it would be insane to impose a royalty on them if that royalty is going to go straight into the grants commission calculation:
“Through the Inter-government Agreement (IGA), the states and commonwealth have agreed that the states should have ‘comparable’ fiscal capacities so that Australians face a similar tax burden, and level of service provision, regardless of their state of residence. This objective, derived from notions of equity and the need to support a national market for the movement of goods, services, people and capital, has underpinned inter-governmental relations in Australia since federation. It is not unique to Australia, and is a central principle in inter-governmental relations in many countries.”
There are also the very very many Western Australians whose current and / or imagined future income depends on the mining industry. I suspect Labor would like their votes again next time.
Labor needs to focus on keeping its promises.
The work on the first stages of Metronet, and the railway car construction should be very loud and broadly shared. Perhaps they should have a website that lists what is being done and anticipated deadlines. Open, honest, warts and all, but make it obvious they are delivering.
They have said no renewable target, so they can’t set one but that doesn’t stop them committing to renewable projects. Hopefully they have one or two they can wheel out, and not wait for the greens in the upper house to try and claim the credit (I haven’t seen much comment yet, but the greens were beaten by one nation in at least three seats I could find).
They also need to do the WA jobs thing, also in a big and public way.
Thanks Oakeshott Country, I’d blocked that election out.
McGowan should however go to war on the Grants Commission formula. There are some political big winners he could focus on. Not including pokies revenue, if that is the case, is insane.
A cheeky renewable / smart grid pilot with ‘well you couldn’t do this if you’d sold it off’ type line would be welcomed too I’m sure.
WWP – But aren’t you saying that Grylls may have thrown away his career for nothing? I’d be surprised if that was the case. Surely, he assured himself that the state would end up ahead.
“WWP – But aren’t you saying that Grylls may have thrown away his career for nothing? I’d be surprised if that was the case. Surely, he assured himself that the state would end up ahead.”
It was a classic popularist move, and it was made early on. Very early on. A small group of us had thought it would be the first of many very popular, if somewhat insane ideas he would have during the campaign. But it appeared to be his only insane popularist idea, bit like bringing a plastic picnic knife to a machine gun fight.
https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/gst-sends-grylls-tax-to-nsw-ng-ya-122535
According to Grylls, WA would get about $7.2 billion before the other states started devouring most of the increased royalty (assuming WA didn’t get a chance to the grants commission formula).
[Labor needs to focus on keeping its promises.]
McGowan has repeatedly said that getting the budget under control is his #1 priority.
Do you really think that can be achieved by spending cuts alone?
ShowsOn – I don’t know: cut a few big-wig salaries, fire the coffee-lady and, before you know it, you’ve reduced the deficit from 30 billion to zero.
[According to Grylls, WA would get about $7.2 billion before the other states started devouring most of the increased royalty (assuming WA didn’t get a chance to the grants commission formula).]
The GST share review I linked to suggested that the $1 billion royalty increase made by the Barnett government would result in a GST share loss of $400 million.
I could be wrong, but that suggests that WA comes out ahead by $600 million.
I do want to say that “According to Grylls” is the flaw in that sentence, but there is an averaging formula which would have a pocket now / pay later impact on the State. Would we stay that $7.2 billion ahead or would it all be clawed back? A timing difference, particularly in a recession, is still a nice thing, but it isn’t particularly good policy. Much more important to attack some of the stupidity of the grants commission formula. At least into the leadup to the next Federal election. State / Commonwealth politics will get a lot messier from McGowan and team as soon as there is a Labor Fed Govt. Although hopefully McGowan is smart enough not to so obviously and clearly put party ahead of State like the emperor did.
wewantpaul @ #125 Monday, March 13, 2017 at 1:15 pm
The collection of royalties or taxes on mining activity really should be the responsibility of the Federal Govt.
WWP:
Of course One Nation beat the Greens in some seats, One Nation ran only in what they perceived as their best seats, getting beaten by the Greens in all of them would be an epic embarrassment. Especially since the demographic overlap of ON and Greens voters is small so it’s hard to have a strong Greens and One Nation vote.
WWP – Grylls thinks WA gets to kee the $7.2 billion. It would also have plenty of time to get an adjustment of the formula. But you can accept the modelling from the Mineral Council. I didn’t even bother to read it.
“But you can accept the modelling from the Mineral Council. I didn’t even bother to read it.”
Lol I wouldn’t accept advice that today was Monday from the CME. Much less their modelling.
Here’s a good comment in the Australian. If the Grants Commission didn’t accept an adjustment in WA’s favour, WA could reduce OTHER taxes to keep the money in WA. Dunno if this would work, but I suspect it would:
Go Brendan and stick to your guns!! This Levy will raise circa $2.8bn per annum which is an 11% increase on WA’s current total revenue so it is massive. Some argue that given the GST calculation methodology WA will lose it in any case – this assumes the $2.8bn is not spent elsewhere. For example, the elected government could abolish 100% of all property stamp duty in WA (currently this equates to $1.5bn) and abolish land tax ($900m). The net effect on GST distribution to WA would be effectively zero as the additional revenue has been spent through abolished taxes. Imagine how this would stimulate the property market and drive the WA economy. Alternatively the Government could do a Queensland and just employ 60,000 new public servants at the average wage of $50k and solve the unemployment problem overnight! When the Mining companies made their case that this policy would cost circa 3,500 jobs the Iron Ore price was $45 – today it is $84 per tonne so a measly $5 is affordable. It is actually only $3.50 after tax with the Federal government giving up $1.50 per tonne which is why they are so mad. Any West Australian who doesn’t vote for the Nats at this election is a mug!
“One Nation ran only in what they perceived as their best seats”
I don’t think they were nearly that organised or strategic about things. For example if they were they’d have run in West Swan and Midland. I didn’t think the greens would like it pointed out that they were beaten at the booth I was at by a one nation that sent along two dodgy looking characters, who missed the early rush entirely and went home about 3 pm before the last gasp.
How’s Brendan going today?
[way.
The collection of royalties or taxes on mining activity really should be the responsibility of the Federal Govt.]
Of course, it should be done as a tax on profits.
Exactly what the Rudd government wanted.
ShowsOn – These mining companies wash their “profits” in singapore. Easier just just slap on a royalty and then try to collect some profits, methinks.
antonbruckner11 @ #144 Monday, March 13, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Legislate to shut that down by imputing their profit based on prices paid to the Singapore scam offices.
WWP – I think he’s still on life support. But not much counting today. Anthony thinks he’s going down.
Elaugaufein
Never underestimate the desire of the Fed Libs to screw a state Labor Party.
It will be brave fed lib who tries to screw wa labor in the wake of Saturday.
People like Porter Hastie and Wyatt will be looking very hard at the votes booth by booth and comparing them with last July.
It won’t be a pretty sight.
Antonbruckner11
Monday, March 13, 2017 at 2:00 pm
Labor will not begin its term by breaking promises. It is exactly such high-handed disdain that drove voters to Labor. We will not do it. We will find ways to keep our fiscal promises as well as every other promise.
WA Labor can claim very real political authority as a result of this election. We are not about to squander it.
WWP:
I’m pretty sure the Greens wouldn’t much care, they run in electorates in Queensland where a potted plant running on the “Nationals” part of the LNP platform would easily win unless One Nation was running. You lose some, that’s how things go.
I watched Grylls’ speech at the close of counting on election night. It seemed to me that he is over the whole thing. He was making no excuses and offering no apologies, but clearly wants to do something else with his life. Good luck to him. He’s a talented and likeable person with a love of the bush and all its people, including most notably our first peoples. He’s a made a contribution. He’s managed to steer the Nationals through an avalanche and should be commended for that. But it does look like his time in state politics is over.