Call of the board: Sydney (part two)

A second, even closer look at the electoral lay of the land in the Sydney region at the May 18 federal election.

On reflection, my previous post, intended as the first in a series of “Call of the Board” posts reviewing in detail the result of the May 18 election, was deficient in two aspects. The first is that patterns in the results estimated by my demographic model were said to be “difficult to discern”, which can only have been because I didn’t look hard enough. In fact, the results provide evidence for remarkably strong incumbency effects. Of the 12 Liberals defending their seats in the Sydney area, all but Tony Abbott outperformed the modelled estimate of the Liberal two-party vote, by an average of 4.0%. Of the 15 Labor members, all but two (Julie Owens in Parramatta and Anne Stanley in Werriwa) outperformed the model, the average being 3.4%.

The other shortcoming of the post was that it did not, indeed, call the board – a now-abandoned ritual of election night broadcasting in which the results for each electorate were quickly reviewed in alphabetical order at the end of the night, so that nobody at home would feel left out. You can find this done for the Sydney seats over the fold, and it will be a feature of the Call of the Board series going forward.

Banks (Liberal 6.3%; 4.8% swing to Liberal): After winning the seat for the Liberals in 2013 for the first time since its creation in 1949, David Coleman has now scored three wins on the trot, the latest by comfortably his biggest margin to date: 6.3%, compared with 2.8% in 2013 and 1.4% in 2016. In a post-election account for the Age/Herald, Michael Koziol reported that Labor’s national secretariat and state branch were at loggerheads over the seat late in the campaign, with the former wishing to devote resources to the seat, and the latter recognising that they “didn’t stand a chance”.

Barton (Labor 9.4%; 1.1% swing to Labor): Located around the crossover point where the inner urban swing to Labor gave way to the outer urban swing to Liberal, Barton recorded a slight swing to Labor that was perhaps boosted by a sophomore effect for incumbent Linda Burney.

Bennelong (Liberal 6.9%; 2.8% swing to Labor): A fair bit has been written lately about Labor’s struggles with the Chinese community, particularly in New South Wales, but that did not stop the nation’s most Chinese electorate recording a reasonably solid swing to Labor. This perhaps reflected the quality of Labor’s candidate, neurosurgeon Brian Owler, but was also typical of a seat where Malcolm Turnbull had played well in 2016, when it swung 2.8% to the Liberals.

Berowra (Liberal 15.6%; 0.8% swing to Labor): Most of this outer northern Sydney seat is in the outer part of the zone that swung to Labor, barring a few lightly populated regions out north and west. However, Liberal member Julian Leeser is what I will call a half-sophomore – a first-term incumbent, but one who succeeded a member of the same party (in this case Philip Ruddock), so there was no reversal of the sitting member advantage. So the 0.8% swing to Labor is about par for the course.

Blaxland (Labor 14.7%; 4.8% swing to Liberal): The anti-Labor swing suffered by Jason Clare was fairly typical for Sydney’s south-west.

Bradfield (Liberal 16.6%; 4.5% swing to Labor): Apart from the exceptional cases of Warringah and Wentworth, this was the biggest swing against the Liberals in New South Wales. However, given it was only fractionally lower in neighbouring North Sydney, that’s unlikely to be a reflection on sitting member Paul Fletcher, instead reflecting the electorate’s affluence and proximity to the city. The seat also recorded the state’s biggest swing to the Greens, at 2.0%.

Chifley (Labor 12.4%; 6.8% swing to Liberal): Ed Husic suffered Labor’s biggest unfavourable swing in Sydney (and the second biggest in the state after Hunter), after enjoying the second biggest favourable swing in 2016 (after Macarthur).

Cook (Liberal 19.0%; 3.6% swing to Liberal): As noted in the previous post, Scott Morrison enjoys the biggest Liberal margin in New South Wales relative to what might be expected from the electorate’s demographic composition. Only part of this can be explained by a prime ministership effect, as his 3.6% swing ranked only twelfth out of the 47 seats in New South Wales.

Dobell (Labor 1.5%; 3.3% swing to Liberal): The two seats on the Central Coast behaved similarly to most of suburban Sydney in swinging solidly to the Liberals, but there was enough padding on the Labor margin to save Emma McBride in Dobell, a marginal seat that lands Labor’s way more often than not.

Fowler (Labor 14.0%; 3.5% swing to Liberal): Labor’s Chris Hayes suffered a swing unremarkable by the standards of western Sydney, or perhaps slightly at the low end of average.

Grayndler (Labor 16.3% versus Greens; 0.5% swing to Labor): As illustrated in the previous post, Anthony Albanese’s personal popularity continues to define results in Grayndler, where the Labor margin is well out of proportion to demographic indicators. Whereas the Greens hold the largely corresponding state seats of Balmain and Newtown, in Grayndler they struggle to harness enough of the left-of-centre vote to finish ahead of the Liberals. They just managed it on this occasion, as they had previously in 2010 and 2016, outpolling the Liberals 22.6% to 21.8% on the primary vote, narrowing to 24.2% to 23.8% after the exclusion of three other candidates. Albanese cleared 50% of the primary vote for the first time since 2007, helped by a smaller field of candidates than last time, and had a locally typical 1.5% two-party swing against the Liberals.

Greenway (Labor 2.8%; 3.5% swing to Liberal): The swing against Labor’s Michelle Rowland was typical for middle suburbia, and roughly reversed the swing in her favour in 2016.

Hughes (Liberal 9.8%; 0.5% swing to Liberal): Craig Kelly did rather poorly to gain a swing of only 0.5% – as a careful look at the results map shows, the boundary between Hughes and Cook marks a distinct point where Labor swings turn to Liberal ones. The demographic model suggests Kelly to be the third most poorly performing Liberal incumbent out of the 13 in the Sydney area, ahead of Tony Abbott (Warringah) and Lucy Wicks (Robertson).

Kingsford Smith (Labor 8.8%; 0.2% swing to Labor): It was noted here previously that Matt Thistlethwaite strongly outperforms the demographic model, but the near status quo result on this occsion did little to contribute to that. This seat was roughly on the geographic crossover point between the Labor swings of the city and the Liberal swings of the suburbs.

Lindsay (LIBERAL GAIN 5.0%; 6.2% swing to Liberal): One of five seats lost by Labor at the election, and the only one in Sydney. Like the others, Lindsay was gained by Labor in 2016, with Emma Husar scoring a 1.1% margin from a 4.1% swing. This was more than reversed in Husar’s absence, with Liberal candidate Melissa McIntosh prevailing by 5.0%. The 6.2% swing against Labor was the biggest in the Sydney area, and produced a Liberal margin comparable to Jackie Kelly’s strongest.

Macarthur (Labor 8.4%; 0.1% swing to Labor): To repeat what was said in the previous post: Labor strongly outpolled the demographic model in Macarthur, a seat the Liberals held from 1996 until 2016, when Russell Matheson suffered first an 8.3% reduction in his margin at a redistribution, and then an 11.7% swing to Labor’s Michael Freelander, a local paediatrician. The swing to Labor, tiny though it was, ran heavily against the trend of urban fringe seats across the country. In addition to Freelander’s apparent popularity, this probably reflected a lack of effort put into the Liberal campaign compared with last time, as the party narrowly focused on its offensive moves in Lindsay and Macquarie and defensive ones in Gilmore and Reid. Macarthur was one of six seats in New South Wales contested by One Nation, whose 8.6% seemed to be drawn equally from Labor and Liberal.

Mackellar (Liberal 13.2%; 2.5% swing to Labor): Jason Falinski’s northern beaches seat participated in the swing to Labor in inner and northern Sydney, though in this case it was a fairly modest 2.5%, perhaps reflecting Falinski’s half-sophomore effect. A 12.2% vote for independent Alice Thompson caught most of the combined 14.9% for three independents in 2016, leaving the large parties’ vote shares little changed.

Macquarie (Labor 0.2%; 2.0% swing to Liberal): A sophomore surge for Labor member Susan Templeman surely made the difference here, with the 2.0% swing to the Liberals being below the outer urban norm, and just short of what was required to take the seat.

McMahon (Labor 6.6%; 5.5% swing to Liberal): The swing against Chris Bowen was well at the higher end of the scale and, typically for such a result, followed a strong swing the other way in 2016, in this case of 7.5%. This was among the six seats in New South Wales contested by One Nation, whose 8.3% contributed to a 7.4% primary vote swing against Bowen, and perhaps also to the size of the two-party swing.

Mitchell (Liberal 18.6%; 0.8% swing to Liberal): Where most safe Liberal seats in Sydney were in the zone of inner and northern Sydney that swung to Labor, Mitchell is far enough west to encompass the crossover point where Labor swings gave way to Liberal ones. This translated into a modest 0.8% swing to Liberal member Alex Hawke, and very little change on the primary vote.

North Sydney (Liberal 9.3%; 4.3% swing to Labor): Trent Zimmerman’s seat caught the brunt of the inner urban swing to Labor, the 4.3% swing to Labor being the state’s fourth highest after Warringah, Wentworth and Bradfield, the latter of which just shaded it. Labor managed a hefty 8.3% gain on the primary vote, largely thanks to the absence of Stephen Ruff, who polled 12.8% as an independent in 2016. The one independent on this occasion was serial candidate Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, a former Democrats member of the state upper house, who managed only 4.4%.

Parramatta (Labor 3.5%; 4.2% swing to Liberal): Parramatta marks the crossover point where the Liberal swing in western Sydney begins, producing a 4.2% swing against Labor’s Julie Owens that only partly unwound the 6.4% swing she picked up in 2016.

Reid (Liberal 3.2%; 1.5% swing to Labor): The Liberals maintained their remarkable record in this seat going back to 2013, when they won it for the first time in the seat’s history, by limiting the swing to Labor to a manageable 1.5%. While the 3.2% margin is only modestly higher than that predicted by the demographic model, it was achieved despite the departure of two-term sitting member Craig Laundy, who is succeeded by Fiona Martin.

Robertson (Liberal 4.2%; 3.1% swing to Liberal): Similarly to neighbouring Dobell, the Central Coast seat of Robertson swung 3.1% to the Liberals, in this case boosting the margin of Lucy Wicks.

Sydney (Labor 18.7%; 3.4% swing to Labor): The inner urban swing to Labor added further padding to Tanya Plibersek’s margin. The Greens continue to run third behind the Liberals, who outpolled them by 26.6% to 18.1%. As is the case in Grayndler, this presumably reflects local left-wing voters’ satisfaction with the incumbent.

Warringah (INDEPENDENT GAIN 7.2% versus Liberal): Zali Steggall took a big chunk out of the big party contenders in recording 43.5% of the primary vote, but the largest of course came from Tony Abbott, down from 51.6% to 39.0%. Abbott won four booths around Forestville at the northern end of the electorate, but it was otherwise a clean sweep for Steggall. She particularly dominated on the coast around Manly, by margins ranging from 10% to 18%.

Watson (Labor 13.5%; 4.1% swing to Liberal): In a familiar suburban Sydney pattern, Tony Burke had an 8.8% swing in his favour from 2016 unwound by a 4.1% swing to the Liberals this time.

Wentworth (Liberal 1.3% versus Independent): Listed as a Liberal retain in a spirit of consistently comparing results from the 2016 election, this was of course a Liberal gain to the extent that it reversed their defeat at the hands of independent Kerryn Phelps at last October’s by-election. There was an unblemished divide between the northern end of the electorate, encompassing the coast north of Bondi and all but the westernmost part of the harbourside, where the Liberals won the two-candidate vote, and the southern end of the electorate, where Phelps did. As noted in the previous post, there was a swing to Labor of 7.9% on the two-party preferred count, but this was testament more than anything to Malcolm Turnbull’s local support.

Werriwa (Labor 5.5%; 2.7% swing to Liberal): A half-sophomore effect for Labor’s Anne Watson may have helped limit the swing here in this outer suburban seat.

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.

1,936 comments on “Call of the board: Sydney (part two)”

  1. ‘citizen says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 9:50 am

    We can’t wait until Trump calls Morrison “Australia’s Trump”.

    Donald Trump praises ‘Britain Trump’ after Boris Johnson becomes PM in waiting’

    Baby Drumpf?

  2. Barney

    I linked to the Daniel Andrews winning strategy of gaining government from Opposition.

    Therefore your post is irrelevant Andrews won by being an Opposition

  3. Victoria @ #871 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 9:43 am

    There was an election. The voters didn’t like what Labor were selling.

    Actually, about 48.5% of voters did like what Labor was selling. And now Labor is abandoning them. There’s no wisdom in that.

    The coalition have the spoils of victory. Winners are grinners and all that

    The Coalition has whatever they can get away with under a one seat majority in the HoR, and nothing more.

    You can be damn sure that if the situation was reversed and it was Labor holding the one seat majority the Coalition wouldn’t be quietly voting for Labor policies.

    This whole “we narrowly lost, so meh to everything” phase is just bizarre.

  4. Guytaur
    Excellent stuff. Praising Andrews in order to praise Albanese. Well done!
    I am sure that Morrison will not keep liking you Greens if you keep attacking Morrison like this!

  5. ar
    Labor lost. If they rinse and repeat which you seem to be suggesting, they will lose again. If they pretend to be Greens which the Greens want they will lose by more.
    Labor and the Greens need to remember that the Right spent $600 million relentless killing Bill.
    The obvious response is to attack Morrison and the Government on policy and personality.
    ATM the main target is Taylor. And the stench around Taylor is very noisy indeed.
    Three years is a long time.
    And it is excellent that the Greens realize that there is nothing for the environment, for workers, for poor people or for LGBTIQ in having a Morrison Government repeat itself in three years time.
    It is just such a good feeling seeing the Greens’ first response to every single issue being to attack the Great Protection of Religious Bigotry, Morrison.
    Excellent stuff.
    We all know who the real enemy is!

  6. Essential – https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/24/scott-morrison-and-anthony-albaneses-approval-ratings-climb-essential-poll

    Approval for the new Labor leader has also gone up four points in the past month from 35% in May to 39% in the latest poll. Two months after replacing Bill Shorten, Albanese’s standing is equivalent to Shorten’s prior to the federal election.

    While the early voter sentiment for Albanese appears positive, the survey also indicates voters are yet to get a fix on the Labor leader, with 37% of the sample (and 33% of people identifying themselves as Labor voters) saying they don’t know whether they approve of his performance or not. Twenty-four per cent of the sample say they disapprove.

  7. @MeckeringBoy
    Luck Of The Taylors
    Dingo News
    “From the time Angus Taylor entered parliament in Sept 2013, companies & organisations the Taylor family have managed, directed or are directly associated with have benefited from over $93,515,673 in fed & state govt funds.”

  8. Barney in Makassar @ #1548 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 9:50 am

    adrian says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 9:37 am

    Boewar forgets that Guytaur et al are not her Majesty’s opposition, and therefore it is not their job to oppose and condemn the obvious and multiple failings of this government.

    Boewar forgets whose job that is.

    The Opposition’s main task is to position itself to win the next election.

    Yes, that can and often includes opposing Government proposals, but that is not its role.

    That you and others think this just highlights your limitations in understanding the English language and how much you were effected by Abbott.

    Having spent some time (too much) in Makassar, I can understand how being there may alter your perceptions (and not for the better), but if you think that the opposition can win the next election by becoming a pale shadow of the government, it is your your political perceptions that are at fault.

  9. AR in The Guardian

    Anthony Albanese’s ban on the word ‘liar’ just means shadow frontbenchers and their staff have to break out the thesaurus a little more. Hence – weasel words.

  10. It’s hard to know what to take of Essential’s surveys at the moment.

    Without polling figures we have no indication of how well they are capturing all voters.

  11. Nick McKim:

    “We so desperately need a charter of rights in this country so we can protect and enshrine those fundamental rights and freedoms that actually are amongst those things that make Australia such a great country.

    Those rights and freedoms that so many of us take for granted are now being taken away, hand over fist, by a combination of the major political parties in this place, the LNP and the ALP.

    They do that because they stitch up cosy deals behind the closed doors of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, a committee that operates often in total secret, without public scrutiny and which denies any crossbench representation and input into its decision-making process.

    What we get because of that collusion is the ongoing giving away of fundamental rights and freedoms in Australia.

    The crossbench should be on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security; there’s no doubt about that.
    :::
    I say to our media that in fact the issue here is far broader than just press and media freedom; it’s about the freedoms of ordinary Australians to go about their day-to-day business without unnecessary spying and intrusion into their personal privacy by intelligence agencies in this country.

    It’s time we had a charter of rights to protect a broad range of rights, including our rights to privacy.

    It’s time that we had an informed conversation in this country about the ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms in the name of national security and an informed debate about whether or not giving away those rights and freedoms is necessary or, indeed, whether giving them away makes us any safer at all from the threats that no doubt exist today.”

  12. Political Alert @political_alert
    ·
    1m
    Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services Linda Burney will hold a doorstop to discuss ‘the Government’s push to include the family home in the age pension assets test and kick people off the pension’, 10.30AM APH #auspol

  13. Hmm. Listen to naysayers and numpties here, or the opinions of Pats Karvelas and Peter van Onselen about Albanese’s political strategy?

    Absolutely a no brainer.

  14. Amy

    Malcolm Roberts has the Senate Matter of Importance debate today and he has chosen the topic:

    That the flawed and dangerous Medevac legislation undermines Australia’s border security and must be urgently repealed.

    Well slather me in vinegar and call me pickled – that just happens to be the very thing the government wants to talk about!

  15. George Megalogenis
    @GMegalogenis
    ·
    2m
    The Oz is the new Hong Kong: one paper, two systems.
    News pages/opinion/editorial: climate change hoax.
    Business: existential climate risk.

  16. adrian says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:03 am
    Barney in Makassar @ #1548 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 9:50 am

    The Opposition’s main task is to position itself to win the next election.

    Yes, that can and often includes opposing Government proposals, but that is not its role.

    That you and others think this just highlights your limitations in understanding the English language and how much you were effected by Abbott.

    Having spent some time (too much) in Makassar, I can understand how being there may alter your perceptions (and not for the better), but if you think that the opposition can win the next election by becoming a pale shadow of the government, it is your your political perceptions that are at fault.

    😆

    I rest my case, you have completely failed to comprehend what I said.

  17. KayJay

    Have been told my registration problems will be resolved today.

    As it was obviously a problem created by Someone Else’s error, I was worried that frantic attempts at blame shifting might slow solving the problem down – particularly as the person resolving it is the same person I dealt with for the original registration…

  18. ‘Nicholas says:
    Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 10:15 pm

    The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland get to decide how hard or how soft their border will be. There is nothing natural or inevitable about a hard border following a no deal Brexit. If they think that a hard border would be bad then they will craft the rules to make the border soft. It doesn’t matter whether there is a Brexit deal or not.’

    If this sort of insight equals your MMT insights then MMT really is a load of cods.

    When the Republic of Ireland’s border is the EU’s border then the EU will have a huge say in what the border will look like. If the UK’s border is the same border as the NI border then the UK will have a huge say in what the border will look like.

    You may have forgotten that two primary drivers of Brexit were xenophobia and racism and the desire to control the influx of foreigners into the UK.

    If all these very same foreigners have to do is to fly to Eire and walk across any place along 500 km of ‘soft’ border then you will see the soft border evaporate. Ditto for huge amounts of smuggled goods. And given that a Hard Brexit would essentially involving the English destroying the Good Friday Agreement, large amounts of smuggled guns and explosives.

    BTW, you might not have realized but the US Democrats (among whom doubtless many with Irish antecedents) actually do understand the Irish border issue. They have told Tory trade negotiators that if they are NOT satisfied with the resolution of the Brexit Irish Border, there will be NO trade agreement with the US.

  19. lizzie says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:09 am

    Amy

    Malcolm Roberts has the Senate Matter of Importance debate today and he has chosen the topic:

    That the flawed and dangerous Medevac legislation undermines Australia’s border security and must be urgently repealed.

    Well slather me in vinegar and call me pickled – that just happens to be the very thing the government wants to talk about!

    It should be a masterclass in logic and reason¿ 😆

  20. Barney in Makassar @ #1548 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 7:50 am

    The Opposition’s main task is to position itself to win the next election.

    Actually the main, indeed the sole function of every elected member of either the House or the Senate is to represent the people of their electorates or states.

    No wonder people have such low opinions of politicians if the politicians see their primary function as being to move from one side of the chamber to the other.

  21. Rod Meyer says that there is no evidence that halting superannuation rises will boost wages.

    Of course it does not. What it would do however is allow the screwing over of employees to carry on just a bit longer. As not having it,like the pathetic tax cuts for the peasants, will allow them to stave off for a short while actually paying people more.

    For those up to date a question re Superannuation rises. Are they still connected to productivity/pay rises as they were at the start ?

  22. Pegasus
    May I congratulate your repeated and determined attacks on Morrison, Taylor and the Coalition so far today!
    They have gutted hundreds of millions out of Indigenous program spending and the human wreckage strewn across the vast inland archipelago of remote Indigenous communities is absolutely appalling. Nothing demonstrates this better than world record suicide rates among Indigenous children.
    It is excellent that you, who are privileged to have a voice on Bludger, are relentlessly attacking the Coalition for their despicable record on Indigenous Affairs.
    Well done!

  23. Someone’s totted up Boof’s election promises and they come to the usual mix of racist ratbag right wing populists sums: billions in tax cuts to the rich PLUS billions in bounty and booty to all and sundry.

    The total cost to Budget is in the order of plus $30 billion a year, but may run up to a $100 billion a year.
    This from the chap who was lying routinely about the immediate budgetary implications of Brexit.

  24. Britain seized an Iranian ship, Iran seizes two British ships, Britain pleads with Europe for help. The USA tells Britain, your problem. You would think there was a lesson for Britain in there somewhere.

  25. Dan Gulberry

    Get with the program. Doing what you think is best for the country is waaaaaaaaaaay back towards the end of the queue. Inter and intra party political power games are No.1 ,2 and 3 these days although the Coalition has seen ‘Money for Maaates’ sky rocket up the leader board.

  26. So far this morning there have been dozens of attacks by the Greens on Morrison and the Coalition and none at all on Labor!
    Well done the Greens!
    After all, if you don’t want your taxes to subsidize coal, Morrison’s is your No 1 National Enemy.

  27. Dan Gulberry says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:16 am

    Barney in Makassar @ #1548 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 7:50 am

    The Opposition’s main task is to position itself to win the next election.

    Actually the main, indeed the sole function of every elected member of either the House or the Senate is to represent the people of their electorates or states.

    No wonder people have such low opinions of politicians if the politicians see their primary function as being to move from one side of the chamber to the other.

    Yes, but the discussion relates to the formation of Governments and existence of political Parties has changed the dynamics that existed at Federation.

  28. Dan G

    I would be much happier if I could be sure of Labor’s policies now. We’ve been told there will be a review, and I understand that if there is much consultation, that will take some time, but I was happy with the Shorten-Bowen lot. I hope we don’t lose all of those.

  29. AR

    KK – “If you will, this is the beginning, unfortunately, of the compact of a committee which has worked very well and unlike any other committee, has produced bipartisan recommendations that have improved every piece of national security legislation.”

    Labor did not take on all of the committee’s recommendations on the telecommunications data retention bill, which the government is using as precedent for not taking all of the recommendations on this one.

    Labor is supporting the bill, despite its concerns. One of those being that the minister is the power which will get to decide who the temporary exclusion order applies to, not, as it is in the UK, on which the Australian laws are based on, a retired judge, or independent judiciary member. Peter Dutton says that would undermine the intent of the bill. Keneally says the UK, which has had these laws since 2015, has not found that.

    But again – it doesn’t matter, because the laws have bipartisan support to go through the parliament.

  30. ‘frednk says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:23 am

    Britain seized an Iranian ship, Iran seizes two British ships, Britain pleads with Europe for help. The USA tells Britain, your problem. You would think there was a lesson for Britain in there somewhere.’

    One fuck up from one fuckwit and we could well have a general ME War. And, let’s face it, the ME has a surfeit of fuckwits – some Indigenous and some drawn to it like blowflies to rotting meat.

    There is some irony here. Very early in the negotiations May put the British contribution to European security on the table as part of the Brexit negotiating mix. After an uproar (inside Britain and inside Europe) this threat was withdrawn. A scant two and half years later and Britain is crawling to Europe for help.

  31. Barney in Makassar @ #1571 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 10:13 am

    adrian says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:03 am
    Barney in Makassar @ #1548 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 9:50 am

    The Opposition’s main task is to position itself to win the next election.

    Yes, that can and often includes opposing Government proposals, but that is not its role.

    That you and others think this just highlights your limitations in understanding the English language and how much you were effected by Abbott.

    Having spent some time (too much) in Makassar, I can understand how being there may alter your perceptions (and not for the better), but if you think that the opposition can win the next election by becoming a pale shadow of the government, it is your your political perceptions that are at fault.

    😆

    I rest my case, you have completely failed to comprehend what I said.

    I doubt it, but whatever.

  32. C@tmomma @ #899 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 10:08 am

    Hmm. Listen to naysayers and numpties here, or the opinions of Pats Karvelas and Peter van Onselen about Albanese’s political strategy?

    Didn’t Karvelas and PvO both predict a thumping Labor victory in May? Don’t see why their opinion on what makes good strategy should hold any particular weight. If we go by past performance, neither of them can hold a candle to Wayne. 🙂

  33. ‘lizzie says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:28 am

    Boerwar

    You are very clever, and sometimes amusing, but I wish you’d make it clearer when you are being sarcastic.!!!’

    I am extremely pleased that the Greens have realized that it is Morrison who is intent on bastardizing asylum seekers, Indigenous people, LGBTIQ folks -especially the young and vulnerable ones, the environment, and poor people.
    The Greens are absolutely relentless in attacking this wall-to-wall bastardry.
    Excellent stuff!

  34. Well, with the ascension of Boris there is growing confidence of a Corbyn Govt after the next general election.
    In the mean time , the Brexit stalemate will soon be resolved, which will allow the UK to finally move on.

  35. but if you think that the opposition can win the next election by becoming a pale shadow of the government

    This is the flaw in your and others arguments on this. Yes, if the ALP become a pale shadow of the LNP then ofcourse they will lose the next election, and rightly so. I certainly wont vote for them.

    However, that is not what they are doing at present. The election is three years away and voting for or against something immediately after an election loss (esp when the LNP have the numbers anyway) is not a good indication on ALP values and the policies they will take to the next election. You can disagree on the tactics, but you can not assume it makes the ALP LNP lite.

    Hold the government to account on the legislation first and foremost. Arguing about ALP tactics is fair game. Wild accusations that the ALP is ditching its core values is premature.

  36. lizzie says:
    Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:26 am

    Dan G

    I would be much happier if I could be sure of Labor’s policies now. We’ve been told there will be a review, and I understand that if there is much consultation, that will take some time, but I was happy with the Shorten-Bowen lot. I hope we don’t lose all of those.

    I commented yesterday that those policies should still be the policies until the reviews are completed and they can be reaffirmed or replaced as determined.

    They are the policies that gave Labor their numbers in the Parliament and should be respected until any changes are determined.

  37. The Kill Bill attacks worked because of the talking out of both sides of your mouth meme. The whole you cannot trust Labor thing.

    So what is Federal Labor doing. Going about proving you cannot trust Labor

  38. Wild accusations that the ALP is ditching its core values is premature.

    Some would argue the ALP ditched its core values a long time ago.

Leave a Reply

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