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.
a r @ #1592 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 10:31 am
One positive re the polling debacle is that the CPG will actually have to base their conclusions on their own instincts rather that lazily rely on polling.
g
Exactly.
Keep the attacks on the Coalition coming, Peg and Guytaur!
It is noble the way you are standing up for Indigenous people and for the LGBTIQ community – both of which groups have suffered immeasurably at the hands of Morrison and the Coalition.
Well done!
Stick it to Morrison!
Guytaur
Andrews 2014 win wasn’t due to him being opposition for opposition sake, the then Liberal government had a waffer thin margin and basically Victoria did what it usually does at state level by registering a small swing against the government and it was enough to elect Andrews. He didn’t campaign as you seem to think he did, and he really didn’t need to do much as the Liberals didn’t have much to run on. The one thing Andrews has never done is campaign on “top end of town” and more taxes or less subsides but has instead focused on policies.
lizzie @ #1585 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 8:26 am
Exactly Lizzie. Although far from perfect (from my perspective at least), the policies Labor took to the election would have made this country a far better place.
I too fear exactly what Labor will become after this review. If, as many of the RW Labor functionaries on here claim, that Labor will move to the right to try and win the disaffected voters who voted for Hanson, Palmer, et al, they will lose far more progressive voters than they gain from the right.
We shall see.
BK
‘Where is this all going to end? Residents of an Alexandria apartment block are at a “public risk” after a private certifier illegally allowed them to move into a building that the City of Sydney was so concerned about it sought demolition orders.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/residents-at-risk-council-sought-demolition-orders-on-alexandria-block-20190723-p52a1t.html‘
Kohler noted that our tax regime was encouraging build to sell rather than build to rent and that build to sell encouraged trash building while build to rent encouraged solid building.
zoomster @ #1570 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 10:14 am
Praise the Lord (sorry – out of ammunition).
Reading your information I glean that what is happening is another chink in the wall of unemployment.
Someone Else is a metaphor for Cats Lives. (Old joke about Any Cat having one more life that No Cat who has Nine Lives.
What will be required is that you must execute a formal document handing down through the ages your claim to the license in question.
Someone Else will also formally lay claim to the right to examine your claim and also claim the right to cancel and reissue the license. This right will then pass to his/her nominee and so on down the ages.
By the time of the next great extinction (possibly 15th August (full moon)) this process will have engendered support staff of thousands plus various family, friends, urgers, movers, shakers (non religious) masseurs etc.
Shorter version of the above.
I’ll be blowed. Is there a vacancy for the job of Someone Else ❓
and
will you be using the license ❓
Please forgive the verbose BS. I blame the Gummint. 😇
Being of the briefly school of constant and seemingly infinite repetition, Boerwar forgets to remember a number of salient points:
– Mostly anonymous opinions posted on a blog are worth two thirds of SFA, and have as much influence.
– An obsession with the apparently irrelevant Greens sounds increasingly unhinged.
– Any criticism of Labor does not indicate support of the Greens, or whatever you would like to call them.
– Labor cannot win government IF their strategy is to avoid opposing at all costs, and adopt their usual defensive posture. Perceived strength is supported by voters.
– Abandoning or taking for granted may of their current supporters is no way to win government.
– Hey, a left alliance may be a good idea.
– Criticism is not heresy.
– Dogma is dull.
Simon Katich @ #1596 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 10:33 am
😆 …not sure if you’re serious SK ..?
Every word out of their mouths – every voting action in parliament – confirms their shift to appealing to Liberal voters.
DG
Yep. But according to these “RW Labor functionaries” it’s all about winning seats in Queensland. Nothing else matters.
What I fear is what the Coalition will become under Morrison.
Slowly but surely the hidden agendas are coming out from under the woodwork.
One thing is for sure. Indigenous people, asylum seekers, the LGBTIQ community are all disposable trash as far as the Coalition is concerned.
It is good to see that the Left is absolutely appalled and filled with fear and angst about what the Coalition is going to come up with over the next 3-10 years.
Because if Labor morphs into the Greens the Coalition will be in permanent government.
Rex Douglas @ #1600 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 8:36 am
Not really. They’ll just listen to what other members of the CPG are saying, and base the feelpinions on whatever the groupthink is.
Pegasus says:
Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:43 am
Where do you see the seats required to change the Government coming from?
If Labor morphs into Coalition-lite, the Coalition will be in permanent government.
Why vote for the imitation when you can get the real thing.
Mexican
One Seat is a wafer thin majority
‘adrian says:
Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 10:41 am
Being of the briefly school of constant and seemingly infinite repetition, Boerwar forgets to remember a number of salient points:
– Mostly anonymous opinions posted on a blog are worth two thirds of SFA, and have as much influence.
– An obsession with the apparently irrelevant Greens sounds increasingly unhinged.
– Any criticism of Labor does not indicate support of the Greens, or whatever you would like to call them.
– Labor cannot win government IF their strategy is to avoid opposing at all costs, and adopt their usual defensive posture. Perceived strength is supported by voters.
– Abandoning or taking for granted may of their current supporters is no way to win government.
– Hey, a left alliance may be a good idea.
– Criticism is not heresy.
– Dogma is dull.’
Adrain
Thank you for yet another thoughtful critique of what Morrison is doing to Australia’s environment, economy and society. Excellent. Do keep them coming!
Dan Gulberry says:
I don’t know about Karvelas, but van Onselen is a died in the wool Liberal. It says a lot when Liberals are praising Albanese but life long Labor voters, and members have doubts.
—————————–
ALP supporters probably need to listen to the otherside a little bit because clearly listening to the echo chamber as highlighted by the Guardian’s comments and social media shows many ALP supporters are not understanding many of their fellow Australians and while a third will always support the Lib/Nats but there seems to be a disconnect between the base and swing voters.
Mexican
Yes and doing that they will find there is support on the right for some policies regarded as progressive like a People’s Bank. Pauline Hanson included it in her policy manifesto.
You can be centre left and win. You don’t need to be pale right wing.
Imagine a campaign on banks. Who would win that. Labor would. The LNP have nailed being the party of big business
Peg
Excellent stuff. I wonder what your thoughts are at Indigenous kids having the world’s highest suicide rate?
Do you think that Morrison should take some personal accountability for this?
Do you think that Morrison’s automatic giving in to the racists in his Party in relation to the Indigenous Voice was yet another example deserving some gut criticisms?
Do keep up your visceral criticisms of the racist bastardry of successive Coalition governments!
On Hanson and progressives, the ALP can play both if the focus is on jobs but more importantly financial security, Two things the left needs to understand, most Australians hate handouts and hate taxes so don’t campaign on them, instead focus on policy delivery and economy conditions.
I take it for granted that bumbling Boris has a too hard tray:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/boris-johnson-s-overflowing-in-tray-five-urgent-tasks-for-britain-s-new-leader-20190724-p52a3q.html
Well, as one of the few on here who normally vote ALP yet prepared to criticise the ALP and Shorten during the last term and the term before, I am ready to do it again. Just not straight after an election loss.
Yes I want the ALP to take on some of Mundo’s recommended gusto and stick it to the LNP and the toadying journos. Yet momentum is important – so a slow build after a short period of reflection and review. Otherwise they will just look like bad losers.
Look, I was disappointed there wasnt a leadership ballot. And said so. I actually believe the tax vote made good sense. Some other positions are concerning. However, I 100% agree with BW on this, the target for now must be on the mob in power who are IMHO the most dangerous government to the public good that this country has seen.
Mexicanbeemer @ #1619 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 10:54 am
Hmm ..so what exactly should Labor do to win back PHON voters in particular ?
Pegasus @ #1613 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 10:48 am
Good to see Pegasus doing the Coalition’s propaganda work for them.
*golfclap*
Sesame Street Baker style I hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SCQ24T-viw
Simon Katich @ #1621 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 10:56 am
..and yet Labor a voting FOR the entire LibNat agenda !
How is that in any way taking on ‘the mob in power’ ??
Morrison’s govt has no shame in breaking any rules. (Newstart inquiry)
Amy
Peg and Rex are off target in their attacks.
Correct me if I’m wrong Josh, but isn’t it one of your colleagues raising this issue?
The Guardian blog
Mexican
Thus a People’s Bank. Not being ripped off by the hated banks is a vote winner.
Same goes for jobs. The reason Labor is not trusted is it’s halfway station on the climate crisis. The Greens don’t get the voters for two reasons.
One is the scare campaigns about how extreme they are. The second is the mantra Labor machine people rely on. The Greens are not a party of government.
As we see with the ACT that only applies until the voters make it so. Lose the base and Labor will never govern in majority again and may need to have Green Ministers in Cabinet.
Multi Member electorates make it easier for minor parties. Yet we saw that trend come to the Federal sphere. It’s going to happen again. A lot faster with Labor trying to compete with the bastards that are the LNP.
Labor can’t win that one. The LNP have already got it covered.
Onto more serious matters …
It disturbs me that the leaders of the mighty USA and UK can’t accept their baldness with dignity and strength of character.
Rex
I don’t think there is one answer as I think it really depends where those voters are and why they are Hanson supporters, In some places its because the ALP is seen as out of touch with local wants and needs, in other cases they are really disenfranchised LNP supporters.
Mexicanbeemer @ #1631 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 11:09 am
It just troubles me greatly that Labor partisans would urge the party to take on LibNat or UAP or PHON values just to win Govt. I mean where’s the logic in that ..??
Labor will attempt to amend Dutton’s bill in the Senate, where, unlike the Reps, it has a chance to stop the Reichmarschall from attaining more personal power.
Mavis Davis says:
Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:13 am
Is that official?
I was thinking as much, but haven’t seen any reference that yet.
We see this same battle in the Democrats.
The Biden faction is in front on name recognition and nostalgia.
Yet Trump has already started campaigning on the extreme left socialist Democrats.
Just as the LNP will do again with Labor going right and more tax cuts more coal jobs. Etc. it won’t work.
You craft the policies that are right for your party. That is the values you are known for. Competing for being the Big Business Party and for being the authoritarian party won’t work.
Labor should be screaming about human rights. The Police State Grab for power. Like Palasczuk did with Newman. Not voting to increase the power of that police state b
Peeps stopped listening to the ALP leading into the election (and earlier I would argue – I wont rehash why). They certainly wont be hanging on their every word atm.
Immediately after an election it is other institutions and community groups and even individuals that take up the cudgel. Yet many seemed to have forgotten that and instead using it to beat up on the ALP while they are on the ground.
On a separate topic… I listened to Mark Butler on the Radio this morning. He was very coherent. Probably not going to morph into an attack dog… my opinion of him keeps rising (from a low base).
Mavis
Labor has already said they will pass it. Thus the Crossbench won’t stick their necks out. The numbers to amend won’t be there.
I would like to be wrong on this but we have seen the history
Rex
Its not UAP or Hanson they need to win over, its the people that vote for them and in many cases do so because they know it upsets progressives, these people want certain things and I doubt many of them are taking the time to read whatever Hanson or Palmer are offering or maybe there was things progressives are missing because they are too focused on Hanson and Palmer like Palmer running ads promising an increase in the pension.
As someone still with a full head of thick hair I just dont get what their problem with baldness is.
Barney in Makassar:
[‘Labor will attempt to amend Dutton’s bill in the Senate, where, unlike the Reps, it has a chance to stop the Reichmarschall from attaining more personal power.
Is that official?
I was thinking as much, but haven’t seen any reference that yet.’]
I heard it on RN news at 11 am. I think the substantive amendment is to empower a judge to rule on the proposed two-year rule, not Dutton.
lizzie @ #1627 Wednesday, July 24th, 2019 – 11:03 am
As is guytaur, adrian, mundo, LvT, bakunin, clem attlee, Quoll, Firefox, WeWantPaul.
Have I forgotten anyone? 😐
Every piece of legislation that Morrison has pushed through Parliament since the election so far has been a attempt to divide labor and wedge Albanese. Nothing more. Morrison in search of a fight to cover the fact he has nothing to offer Australia.
Drought funding, national security, the tax cuts etc etc were thrown on the table as attempts to portray labor as weak, not in touch with the struggles of ordinary Australians or both. Even the rumbles from a number of government members re increasing Newstart was a attempt to drag labor into committing to a $12 billion hit to the budget from opposition. A $150 a fortnight increase that would never be accepted by Morrison and would be used by him to bash labor for three years.
Meanwhile, wages are going backwards, people are scared of losing their jobs, money is tight as everyday cost of living goes through the roof and people are pissed off with all the bullshit coming out of the mouths of all politicians. If labor wants to reclaim the trust of voters then it is on these issues it must concentrate and not some Don Quotioux windmill chasing feel good attempt to increase the dole from opposition or die in the ditch over drought relief and or national security. Issues on which ordinary disengaged punters would be more likely to support the government if they were even listening as they sat around the table at home trying to workout how to pay the bills.
There will be plenty of opportunity for labor to show some backbone over the next three years over real issues of importance to voters. So far it has been all noise, stunts, wedges and smoke and mirrors from Morrison and others on the cross bench. Labor will work through its review and hopefully land with plenty of steel in its spine,very little jelly in its belly and a suite of policies that reflect the real priorities and concerns of voters and can offer labor a chance of drawing these voters back to the party. At the moment with a PV of 33.34% something is very wrong. I have no idea what that something is but more of the same just will not cut it.
Going all high dungeon over second and third tier issues for the next three years is going to leave a lot of hand wringers, purists and the perpetually angry and agitated exhausted and drained. But, perhaps, they have nothing else to which to cling.
Cheers.
Cheers Mavis. 🙂
Rex arrives and, sure enough, the Coalition is his number 1 target!
Go for it Rex!
The numerous injustices inflicted by Morrison are justly deserving of your continued criticisms!
Well done!
Doyley
Good to see that you are backing up the Greens criticisms of Morrison and the Coalition.
Nothing like team work against the No 1 National creepy anti LGBTIQ freak!
doyley,
I’m not meaning to pick on you, believe me I’m not, but every time I see you write ‘high dungeon’ I scream at my laptop screen, ‘It’s high dudgeon, doyley!’
Anyway, now that I have that off my chest, write whatever you want. 🙂
Bravo, Doyley.