The Poll Bludger’s popular Call of the Board series, in which results for each individual electorate at the May 18 federal election are being broken down region by region, underwent a bit of a hiatus over the past month or so after a laptop theft deprived me of my collection of geospatial files. However, it now returns in fine style by reviewing the business end of the state which, once again, proved to be the crucible of the entire election. Earlier instalments covered Sydney, here and here; regional New South Wales; Melbourne; and regional Victoria.
First up, the colour-coded maps below show the pattern of the two-party swing by allocating to each polling booth a geographic catchment area through a method that was described here (click for enlarged images). The first focuses on metropolitan Brisbane, while the second zooms out to further include the seats of the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. As was the case in Sydney and Melbourne, these maps show a clear pattern in which Labor had its best results (in swing terms) in wealthy inner urban areas (for which I will henceforth use the shorthand of the “inner urban effect”, occasionally contrasted with an “outer urban effect” that went the other way). However, they are also bluer overall, reflecting Labor’s generally poor show across Queensland (albeit not as poor in the south-east as in central Queensland).
|
|
The seat-by-seat analysis is guided by comparison of the actual results with those estimated by two alternative metrics, which are laid out in the table below (using the two-party measure for Labor). The first of these, which I employ here for the first time, is a two-party estimate based on Senate rather than House of Representatives results. This is achieved using party vote totals for the Senate and allocating Greens, One Nation and “others” preferences using the flows recorded for the House. These results are of particular value in identifying the extent to which results reflected the popularity or otherwise of the sitting member.
The other metric consists of estimates derived from a linear regression model, in which relationships were measured between booths results and a range of demographic and geographic variables. This allows for observation of the extent to which results differed from what might have been expected of a given electorate based on its demography. Such a model was previously employed in the previous Call of the Board posts for Sydney and Melbourne. However, it may be less robust on this occasion as its estimates consistently landed on the high side for Labor. I have dealt with this by applying an across-the-board adjustment to bring the overall average in line with the actual results. Results for the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast seats are not shown, owing to the difficulty involved in classifying them as metropolitan or regional (and I have found the model to be of limited value in regional electorates). The coefficients underlying the model can be viewed here.
And now to review each seat in turn:
Blair (Labor 1.2%; 6.9% swing to LNP): Shayne Neumann has held Blair since taking it from the Liberals in 2007, on the back of a favourable redistribution and Labor’s Kevin Rudd-inspired sweep across Queensland. His margins had hitherto been remarkably stable by Queensland standards, but this time he suffered a 9.8% drop in the primary vote (partly due to a more crowded field than last time), and his two-party margin compares with a previous low point of 4.2% in 2010. Nonetheless, the metrics suggest he did well to hang on: he outperformed the Senate measure, and the demographic measure was Labor’s weakest out of the six Queensland seats it actually won (largely a function of the electorate’s lack of ethnic diversity).
Bonner (LNP 7.4%; 4.0% swing to LNP): Bonner was a notionally Labor seat when it was created in 2004, and it says a lot about recent political history that they have only won it since at the high water mark of 2007. Ross Vasta has held it for the LNP for all but the one term from 2007 to 2010, and his new margin of 7.4% is easily the biggest he has yet enjoyed, the previous peak being 3.7% in 2013. Labor generally did better in swing terms around Mount Gravatt in the south-west of the electorate, for no reason immediately obvious reason.
Bowman (LNP 10.2%; 3.2% swing to LNP): Andrew Laming has held Bowman for the Liberals/LNP since it was reshaped with the creation of its northern neighbour Bonner in 2004, his closest scrape being a 64-vote winning margin with the Kevin Rudd aberration in 2007. This time he picked up a fairly typical swing of 3.2%, boosting his margin to 10.2%, a shade below his career best of 10.4% in 2013.
Brisbane (LNP 4.9%; 1.1% swing to Labor): Brisbane has been held for the Liberal National Party since a redistribution added the affluent Clayfield area in the electorate’s east in 2010, making it the only seat bearing the name of a state capital to be held by the Coalition since Adelaide went to Labor in 2004. The city end participated in the national trend to Labor in inner urban areas, but swings the other way around Clayfield and Alderley in the north-west reduced the swing to 1.1%. Trevor Evans, who has held the seat since 2016, outperformed both the Senate vote and the demographic model, his liberalism perhaps being a good fit for the electorate. Andrew Bartlett added 2.9% to the Greens primary vote in recording 22.4%, which would have been the party’s best ever result in a federal seat in Queensland had it not been surpassed in Griffith. This compared with Labor’s 24.5%, with Labor leading by 25.4% to 23.7% at the second last preference count.
Dickson (LNP 4.6%; 3.0% swing to LNP): The shared dream of Labor and GetUp! of unseating Peter Dutton hit the wall of two broader trends to the Coalition, in outer urban areas generally and Queensland specifically. However, as the map shows, there was a pronounced distinction between the affluent hills areas in the electorate’s south, which swung to Labor, and the working class suburbia of Kallangur, which went strongly the other way. Dutton’s result was well in line with the Senate vote, but actually slightly below par compared with the demographic model. It may be thought significant that One Nation struggled for air in competition with Dutton, scoring a modest 5.2%.
Fadden (LNP 14.2%; 2.9% swing to LNP): The three electorates of the Gold Coast all recorded below-average swings to the LNP, and were as always comfortably retained by the party in each case. Fadden accordingly remains secure for Stuart Robert, who had held it since 2007.
Fairfax (LNP 13.4%; 2.6% swing to LNP): The northern Sunshine Coast seat of Fairfax will forever wear the ignominy of having sent Clive Palmer to parliament in 2013, but Ted O’Brien recovered the seat for the Liberal National Party when Palmer bowed out of politics all-too-temporarily in 2016, and was uneventfully re-elected this time.
Fisher (LNP 12.7%; 3.6% swing to LNP): Second term LNP member Andrew Wallace did not enjoy a noticeable sophomore surge in his Sunshine Coast seat, picking up a slightly below par swing. All told though, this was an unexceptional result.
Forde (LNP 8.6%; 8.0% swing to LNP): This seat on Brisbane’s southern fringe maintained its recent habit of disappointing Labor, comfortably returning Bert van Manen, who gained it with the 2010 backlash after one term of Labor control. Reflecting the outer urban effect, van Manen gained the biggest swing to the LNP in south-east Queensland, and was able to achieve an improvement on the primary vote despite the entry of One Nation, who polled 11.8%. His 8.6% margin easily surpassed his previous career best of 4.4% in 2013, when his opponent was Peter Beattie.
Griffith (Labor 2.9%; 1.4% swing to Labor): It’s been touch and go for Labor’s Terri Butler since she succeeded Kevin Rudd at a by-election in 2014, but this time she was a beneficiary of the inner urban effect, which helped her eke out a 1.4% swing against the statewide trend. Of particular note was a surge in support for the Greens, who were up by 6.7% to 23.7%, their strongest result ever in a Queensland federal seat. Butler’s 31.0% primary vote was well below the LNP’s 41.0%, but Greens preferences were more than sufficient to make up the difference.
Lilley (Labor 0.6%; 5.0% swing to LNP): One of the worst aspects of Labor’s thoroughly grim election night was newcomer Anika Wells’ struggle to retain Lilley upon the retirement of Wayne Swan, who himself experienced a career interruption in the seat when it was lost in the landslide of 1996. However, the metrics suggest the 5.0% swing was fuelled by the loss of Swan’s personal vote, showing barely any difference between the actual result and the Senate and demographic measures. The Labor primary vote plunged 8.1%, partly reflecting the entry of One Nation, who scored 5.3%.
Longman (LNP GAIN 3.3%; 4.1% swing to LNP): One of the two seats gained by the LNP from Labor in Queensland, together with the Townsville-based seat of Herbert (which will be covered in the next episode), Longman can be viewed two ways: in comparison with the 2016 election or the July 2018 by-election, which more than anything served as the catalyst for Malcolm Turnbull’s demise. On the former count, the 4.1% swing was broadly in line with the statewide trend, and comfortably sufficed to account for Susan Lamb’s 0.8% margin when she unseated Wyatt Roy in 2016. On the latter, the result amounted to a reversal of 7.7% in two-party terms, with victorious LNP candidate Terry Young doing 9.0% better on the primary vote than defeated by-election candidate Trevor Ruthenberg, recording 38.6%. One Nation scored 13.2%, which compared with 9.4% in 2016 and 15.9% at the by-election. Lamb actually outperformed the Senate and especially the demographic metric, suggesting a sophomore surge may have been buried within the broader outer urban effect. Despite the electorate’s demographic divide between working class Caboolture and retiree Bribie Island, the swing was consistent throughout the electorate.
McPherson (LNP 12.2%; 0.6% swing to LNP): As noted above in relation to Fadden, the results from the three Gold Coast seats did not provide good copy. McPherson produced a negligible swing in favour of LNP incumbent Karen Andrews, with both major parties slightly down on the primary vote, mostly due to the entry of One Nation with 5.9%.
Moncrieff (LNP 15.4%; 0.8% swing to LNP): The third of the Gold Coast seats was vacated with the retirement of Steve Ciobo, but the result was little different from neighbouring McPherson. On the right, a fall in the LNP primary vote roughly matched the 6.4% accounted for by the entry of One Nation; on the left, Animal Justice’s 3.9% roughly matched the drop in the Labor vote, while the Greens held steady. The collective stasis between left and right was reflected in the minor two-party swing.
Moreton (Labor 1.9%; 2.1% swing to LNP): This seat is something of an anomaly for Queensland in that it was held by the Liberals throughout the Howard years, but has since remained with Labor. This partly reflects a 1.3% shift in the redistribution before the 2007 election, at which it was gained for Labor by the current member, Graham Perrett. The swing on this occasion was slightly at the low end of the Queensland scale, thanks to the inner urban effect at the electorate’s northern end. Relatedly, it was a particularly good result for the Greens, whose primary vote improved from 12.7% to 16.8%.
Oxley (Labor 6.4%; 2.6% swing to LNP): Only Pauline Hanson’s historic win in 1996 has prevented this seat from sharing with Rankin the distinction of being the only Queensland seat to stay with Labor through recent history. Second term member Milton Dick was not seriously endangered on this occasion, his two-party margin being clipped only slightly amid modest shifts on the primary vote as compared with the 2016 result.
Petrie (LNP 8.4%; 6.8% swing to LNP): This seat maintained a bellwether record going back to 1987 by giving Labor one of its most dispiriting results of the election, which no doubt left LNP member Luke Howarth feeling vindicated in his agitation for a leadership change after the party’s poor by-election result in neighbouring Longman. Howarth strongly outperformed both the Senate and especially the demographic metrics, after also recording a favourable swing against the trend in 2016. He also managed a 3.4% improvement on the primary vote, despite facing new competition from One Nation, who polled 7.5% – exactly equal to the primary vote swing against Labor.
Rankin (Labor 6.4%; 4.9% swing to LNP): Rankin retained its status as Labor’s safest seat in Queensland, but only just: the margin was 6.44% at the second decimal place, compared with 6.39% in Oxley. Jim Chalmers copped a 7.9% hit on the primary vote in the face of new competition from One Nation (8.6%) and the United Australia Party (3.7%), while both the LNP and the Greens were up by a little under 3%. Nonetheless, Chalmers strongly outperformed both the Senate and demographic metrics. That the latter scarcely recognises Rankin as a Labor seat reflects the electorate’s large Chinese population, which at this election associated negatively with Labor support in metropolitan areas.
Ryan (LNP 6.0%; 3.0% swing to Labor): LNP newcomer Julian Simmonds was in no way threatened, but he suffered the biggest of the three swings against his party in Queensland, all of which were recorded in inner Brisbane. As well as the inner urban effect, this no doubt reflects ill-feeling arising from his preselection coup against Jane Prentice. It is tempting to imagine what might have happened if Prentice sought to press the issue by running as an independent.
ANNOUNCEMENT: If this painstakingly compiled post interested you enough that you have made it all the way through to the end, perhaps you might care to make a donation. These are gratefully received via the “become a supporter” button that appears just below, or the PressPatron button at the top of the page.
RI @ #722 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 12:56 am
So your conclusion is that if we could just open enough new coal mines, Australia could single-handedly solve the problem of global warming? That’s very convenient, because we just happen to have a shedload of the stuff that we are prepared to sell at a knock down price!
How good is coal?
The Tony Abbott/Greg Hunt strategy. Do something small and practical and pretend the big problem is solved.
https://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns/warren-entsch-envoy-to-the-great-barrier-reef-position-legitimate-or-pr-exercise/news-story/83f97326759432235944fa5041a80a1b
Tim Wilson could well be labelled the Ivanka Trump of Aussie politics. Striving to build credibility overseas yet avoiding ruffling feathers at home.
It exposes the rank hypocrisy of the MSM & the gov. ‘We like the *idea* of freedom but only if it doesn’t mess up our backyard”
“Right. Because to you, briefly, frednk, GG and a host of other Labor partisans here, global warming is all about winning the politics, and not about actually doing anything to preserve the environment ”
Because in a democracy ‘doing anything’ politically that achieves anything can only happen after you ‘win the politics’. So much is obvious I would have thought, or have you been in a coma for the past decade P1? Unless of course you have a secret army just waiting to strike and sieze power. In which case I say ‘purge the Kulaks’ and ‘cleanse the proletariat’!
Lizie
I would add arrogant.
We seem convinced we don’t need to change and the world will just keep buying our dirt. This arrogance was shown last week when Morrison seemed to echo Trump on China only to retreat after the Chinese put him on notice.
I think it was P1 who wrote it but we do seem to be regressing, the quality of policy and policy debate has deteriorated in recent decades but its also impacting other areas like the media.
I am so frightened of ever needing a placement in an Aged Care ‘Home’.
Mexicanbeemer
Ah yes, ignorant AND arrogant. An unbeatable combination.
Andrew_Earlwood @ #806 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 10:04 am
What nonsense. Look at what is happening on the streets across the world. Fewer people now believe a political solution will come in time, and more people are now taking action themselves … precisely because politics is full of dinosaurs who can’t seem to see any urgency at all.
And you know what? It doesn’t even matter whether they are correct or not.
With your complacency, you are busy alienating the very voters you would need to get back into power … and if you believe briefly and his ilk, who apparently thinks opening new coal mines is the way to solve global warming, this is probably a good thing.
You are writing yourselves out of history.
If history’s a guide Graham won’t stay on the wrong side Trump for long:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/what-happened-to-lindsey-graham.html
A federal court judge has dismissed Team Trump’s claim that he is immune from a Manhattan DA because he’s a sitting president. And the judge has done so apparently in scathing terms. This could pave the way for other federal judges faced with the WH stonewalling on congressional oversight.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/07/federal-judge-takes-sledgehammer-trumps-stonewalling/
Thanks BK for your excellent list of links each day.
This one from the AFR is particularly galling
https://outline.com/m92Rnx
Did Howard achieve his aim of taking us back to the fifties, when wool and wheat were our main exports?
Well, actually that’s unfair.
Post war, into the fifties, Chifley and Menzies invested in import replacement industries. We actually made stuff, like cars, and railway carriages, glass, and a myriad of tools, hardware items, farm equipment and so on. CSIRO was a big organisation providing a lot of employment for our budding research scientists . We had the Snowy scheme, electricity and water and rail were still in state hands, providing apprenticeships and work for STEM graduates
It gave us new industries with demand for skilled employees.
The fifties had full employment, with <3% unemployed, cheap housing and food, and optimism.
Now all we have is Abbott (I know he's dead but he won't lie down), Morrison, Dutton, Murdoch and misery.
The perception that the country is just a shell, producing little, has been re-enforced by this Harvard study.
Andrew_Earlwood @ #806 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 10:04 am
Backing democracy is probably the single most important thing anyone can do to progress any issue. Representative democracy means you have to build a consensus about identifying what the problem is and then what action needs to be taken.
This is not easy. It’s hard. But, it’s a damn sight better than the alternatives.
Socrates @ #739 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 6:03 am
Until they enter the ballot box.
Labor lost the last three elections, and barely scraped into minority government the time before that. In all four elections climate policy was a critical factor in the outcome.
The Oz voters have made it abundantly clear they are not serious about climate policy.
Until that changes, and in a big way, nothing will be done by Oz governments.
Oz voters are unlikely to actually move on this issue until the USA does, and that is not going to be before Jan 2021 at the earliest.
–––––––––––––––
I note that Richard Di Natale has come clean about the effect of the Greens’ Adani convoy of performative idiocy on the election outcome. Time the rest of the Greens did likewise.
It was an extraordinarily foolish and counter productive political stunt.
JM
says:
I note that Richard Di Natale has come clean about the effect of the Greens’ Adani convoy of performative idiocy on the election outcome. Time the rest of the Greens did likewise.
It was an extraordinarily foolish and counter productive political stunt.
__________________________
The Greens did very well at the election. Despite some disappointing Lower House results they returned a Senator for each state. The convoy was a great success.
It truly was a convoy of courage.
nathsays:
Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 10:39 am
That may be so, but when more votes went Right than Left it’s not a good result for progressive politics.
‘nath says:
Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 10:39 am
JM
says:
I note that Richard Di Natale has come clean about the effect of the Greens’ Adani convoy of performative idiocy on the election outcome. Time the rest of the Greens did likewise.
It was an extraordinarily foolish and counter productive political stunt.
__________________________
The Greens did very well at the election. Despite some disappointing Lower House results they returned a Senator for each state. The convoy was a great success.’
Delusions of grandeur abound.
Benchmarks of success:
1. Did the Greens form government? No.
2. Did the Greens achieve the BOP? No.
3. Have the Greens stopped a single ton of coal from being mined, transported, or burned anywhere in the world? No.
4. Is a Federal Government in place which is increasing subsidies for all forms of coal activity? Yes.
5. Will the Greens achieve their stated main aim for the election which is zero net emissions and the elimination of all coal activity in Australia by 2030? No.
nath
Only if you put Greens increasing their numbers in Parliament over getting rid of the Liberal government.
That Harvard study is only telling us what the rest of the world has already figured out …
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-08/fujitsu-out-latrobe-valley-hi-tech-precinct/11581432
Will the ecofascists demand draconian pregnancy controls to reduce population pressures on the environment?
What?
Ita says anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change is absolutely blinkered.
Signal for Morrison et al to defund the terrible ABC!!
There they go again: Labor v. Greens.
Endless taunting and heckling, sniping and bitching at each other, boring everybody else witless.
If there are any sober heads in the two parties (which excludes pretty much everyone here), can they please commence coalition talks immediately so that the REAL enemy is engaged, rather than the continuous squabbling over crumbs left over by the LNP.
Anyone who swears such a coalition is impossible is automatically excluded from negotiations.
Fair dinkum, if the Greens and Labor didn’t exist, the Libs would have had to to invent them.
‘ML
The perception that the country is just a shell, producing little, has been re-enforced by this Harvard study.’
I believe that our exports by value have never been greater. It is not the value that is the problem it is that the economy is increasingly reliant on fewer activities rendering it vulnerable and less resilient to shocks in any one product.
The Israeli indecisive election is at an interesting stage- Bibi Netanyahu has been given 6 weeks to form a majority coalition. Benny Gantz has told him to GAGF. The other possibility, Agivdor Lieberman with his 8 seats has been more direct..
“Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman slammed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other members of his Likud Party on Monday, saying the premier “isn’t capable of understanding concepts like friendship or loyalty.”
“The problem with Bibi is once you have a different approach or perception than his, and it goes against his interests, you immediately become a personal enemy. You are immediately accused of hating the prime minister, that you’re a leftist and that you’re trying to overthrow him, while ignoring the facts,” Lieberman said.
When asked what he would do if offered a rotation agreement for the position of prime minister, Lieberman responded: “They can go to hell. I care about essential issues.”
In reference to ultra-Orthodox Shas leader Arye Dery, Lieberman said that “What Arye did to me constitutes betrayal. There’s no turning back.” It was not explained in what context Lieberman made that statement.
Lieberman also called Culture Minister Miri Regev “a beast,” and Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz a “pathetic liar.”
“If an intellectual like [Ze’ev] Jabotinsky would have listened for one minute to Miri Regev, who’s proud of the fact that she’s never held a book by [Anton] Chekhov, he would be horrified. It’s an insult to the people of the book. That’s what happens when you take an animal and put her in the Culture Ministry,” Lieberman said of the culture minister.
According to Maariv, when Lieberman was asked if he wants to apologize for what he said ahead of Yom Kippur, he responded: “I offer a heartfelt apology to the beasts.”
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/lieberman-bashes-netanyahu-implying-he-sent-investigators-to-follow-his-family-1.7957820?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
“ What nonsense. Look at what is happening on the streets across the world. Fewer people now believe a political solution will come in time, and more people are now taking action themselves … precisely because politics is full of dinosaurs who can’t seem to see any urgency at all.
And you know what? It doesn’t even matter whether they are correct or not.
With your complacency, you are busy alienating the very voters you would need to get back into power … and if you believe briefly and his ilk, who apparently thinks opening new coal mines is the way to solve global warming, this is probably a good thing.
You are writing yourselves out of history.”
Noble Player One, please enlighten this feeble fool as “what is happening in the streets across the world” actually produces a desired outcome in terms of reducing global emissions? If these protest heroes truly have given up on a political solution then how does protest action achieve the necessary outcome to address the climate emergency? I’m pretty sure that switching off the lights before you leave in the morning lacks a certain scale, as does eschewing cars for public transport. I’m pretty sure its a fair bet that at the end of the day most of the protestors (at least the ones that don’t deliberately stink) will go home, turn on the lights and have a shower and maybe even done clean clothes occasionally: activities that all use energy, typically electricity which is typically powered via the grid and whatever fuel is used on the grid. That might all be ‘clean energy’ but if so, its because of the POLITICAL actions taken by governments (however feeble) to seed renewables and to not underwrite fossil fuels over the past decade.
Protests, ‘speaking out’, campaigning etc etc can only have one of two methods to acheive actual change: 1. In a democracy by changing enough people’s views to change votes in the right areas to change government and then implement change. This is what Labor is trying to do.
Or 2. To create a revolutionary climate which can ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority.
These protestors taking to the street obviously mean something, but what? If it is democratic change then it seems pointless to ‘give up on a political solution’, if its revolutionary, then the question is: are they prepared to pay the iron price of revolution? If so, how’s their army going?
Right now, the protestors are 100% repellant to the people they need to win over to affect political change and they lack an army to affect a revolution – in fact while the at may adopt revolutionary language I suspect they are just indulging in posturing: otherwise they would have already slaughtered their grandparents for returning coalition governments pretty much since 1996.
Your last point I suspect is true. Melancholy true. However it is not just Labor that suffers from the following problem – it is all social democratic and democratic socialist parties/movements across the globe. … I’ll put it this way “the man” can only ever be beaten or at least kept at bay by “little people” making common cause. Right now Labor needs to win back the low interest low information ‘hi-vis’ vote in the burbs and regions: these folk find you repellant. I’m sorry but they have been successfully conditioned against your cause and like minded progressive causes.
And yet, for Labor to ‘go after’ these voters (and I suggest on a platform exclusively focused on a hope based platform of jobs, job security and incomes) it risks losing you, and others for whom a progressive issue transcends all. Guytaur etc are similarly enraged by Labor contemplating ‘going after’ the missing voters at the expense of campaigning on a raft of progressive issues.
I dont know how this is all going to pan out: but one thing seems certain to me. Short of bloody revolution (and I’m actually up for that) nothing can be achieved outside a political solution – whether it is on climate change or even more pressing environmental issues IMO like land management, or on social issues such as poverty.
Inside the framework of a political solution, nothing can be acheived without a sufficient cross section of ‘little people’ making common cause with each other to beat ‘the man’. Right now ‘the little people’ are at each other’s throats. Just as Howard intended, just like Rupert and ScoMo have made reality.
This is tricky stuff. Shorten and Gillard gave it a crack and failed. Rudd had the right idea but turned out to be a mad Prince. I’m not sure Albo has enough charisma as a salesman to pull it off. One thing is for sure, P1: you are not helping to acheive anything: either revolutionary, or politically. As for direct action: I reckon my EV plans and home solar panels and batteries have as much effect as anything you have done or will do by yourself. Which is no criticism actually – just pointing out that a global problem like global heating needs a global collective response. Ergo something by way of a political solution (or revolutionary if you can get together enough Abrams tanks to crush all obstacles).
Anyway, Peace and Love.
Andrew out.
lizzie
“I am so frightened of ever needing a placement in an Aged Care ‘Home’”
There are “good” ones and bad ones.
My sister-in-law is in one which seems OK.
I look in on a solitary person (the brother of a scientific collaborator who is now dead).
He does not participate, he is grumpy and just “difficult”
I see two types of residents where there is no option: those who are mentally with it, but physically incapacitated.
Those who are “out of it” in some way, which is so sad.
Getting home help is very useful, but it is often hard to get the right type!
An option to think about is a live-in companion, but the possibilities of a bad outcome are endless!
phylactella
I consider all the options almost every day. I’ve always been someone who plans ahead for the future, so it’s not imminent.
Exactly so.
Boerwar @ #825 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 10:53 am
The actual value of our exports is irrelevant. What is relevant is that our exports are being produced by fewer and fewer workers, and the profits are being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Many of the industries we have left are going to fail within a decade or so, and there are very few emerging industries to replace them.
Apart from the tiny percentage involved in actually digging stuff up, the bulk of our population is now supernumerary.
Yesterday we had a quick look at Haiti.
Today the Republic of Madagascar.
Those Bludgers with an interest in the relationship between extinction rates and political systems would do well to study the political and environmental history of various polities that have run the island of Madagascar (Currently called the Republic of Madagascar) since Independence. For most of the time since independence, the country has been run by socialist regimes, generally non-elected. (I assume that this is the basic model being sought by some of the fellow travellers inside the Extinction Rebellion, but they are rather coy on this in general).
Despite this succession socialist paradises, 91 species of the 103 species of lemur are on the brink of extinction.
One of the major particular culprits has been the Peoples Republic of China which has purchased and cleared monstrous swathes of the island.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/madagascar-s-most-endangered-mammals.html
The notion that the Revolution will deliver ecological nirvana is risible.
Rick WilsonVerified account @TheRickWilson
Every tweet from Trump today was an outstanding argument for the 25th Amendment.
spr
Not a whole lot of love going to waste in those government formation negotiations!
As for unemployment, reducing our overseas workers by 500,000 would (a) solve the unemployment problem and (b) solve the stagnant wages problem.
We are being sold a pup.
Andrew_Earlwood @ #828 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 11:03 am
Happy to do so. Just as soon as you can tell me how the Labor partisan’s continual moaning about their electoral misfortunes, and blaming everybody else for their self-inflicted loss, and also doubling down on their policy of fence-sitting, or possibly even tipping right over the edge and supporting coal mining, actually produces a desired outcome in terms of reducing global emissions.
I await your answer with bated breath.
lizzie
I’m with Ms Kernot on that. Effin outrageous!
Those who oppose Adani have not shown how the proposed embargo would stop so much as single tonne of coal being burned in India or anywhere else. The embargo is a decoy. It is entirely irrelevant to the problem of reducing coal consumption.
The Greens did make a handsome profit on the embargo gambit. For every vote they gained, the Liberals also gained between 4 and 15. The Liberals won the election. Mission accomplished for the Greens. Profits piled up in the anti-Labor Parties.
We are not going to achieve zero net emissions by 2030 so we will all be rooned.
I blame cosmic rays, the vast majority of Australian voters and the Failure of the Revolution to Arrive in Time.
I think I’ve cracked it …
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-08/plan-to-close-ivanhoe-jail-future-town-devastated/11581252
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-08/police-negotiate-as-person-hangs-from-story-bridge-in-brisbane/11581382
Clearly, what we need to do is arrest all the climate protesters, and turn all our regional towns into detention centres.
Every cloud of C02 has a silver lining!
Good Morning
I see the extreme climate denialists we must embrace coal has brought out the extreme democracy is doomed mob.
Neither is true. What is doomed is neo liberalism. As is the idea of infinite economic growth. Probably the most triggering words for the RWNJ’s that Greta Thunberg uttered.
To offer a real alternative Labor has to reject new coal mines. Yes that means no Adani.
We MUST have harms to the environment included in economic measures. We should be changing how we measure GDP that says reconstruction after a bushfire is good and preventing the bushfire is bad.
We have in the meantime the courts and insurance companies.
For Labor a good place to start is being proud that the carbon price worked as well as pointing out the big stick policy is increasing electricity prices.
The deniers have to lose the politics as reality takes over. The only question is will it be fast enough to prevent the worst case scenario?
So far the two major parties on coal are backing the worst case.
RI @ #838 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 11:25 am
That’s right. How could closing coal mines ever reduce coal consumption?
What were we all thinking of! Silly us! We should actually open more!
But, just as an aside, do you know what actually does reduce coal consumption? A carbon tax!
Who knew?
Boerwar @ #840 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 11:28 am
The revolution arrived last Friday week but was quickly absorbed into the duties of the Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef and hasn’t been seen since.
I understand that a “tweet” or two will be forthcoming any day now with news of the long awaited event. 😲😵
“ Happy to do so. Just as soon as you can tell me how the Labor partisan’s continual moaning about their electoral misfortunes, and blaming everybody else for their self-inflicted loss, and also doubling down on their policy of fence-sitting, or possibly even tipping right over the edge and supporting coal mining, actually produces a desired outcome in terms of reducing global emissions.
I await your answer with bated breath.”
So, you got nothing. Thought so.
Labor is a political party dedicated to being a party of government. Government’s are only formed after elections. Federally the next chance occurs in late 2021or early 2022. Right now Labor is engaged in the beginning phases of reflection. This is messy. It will get messier still. It needs to be.
I’ve posted some poor musing on ‘what happened’ (it was mainly Labor’s fault) and also tentatively made some suggestions for Labor’s future direction, but its early days in a 3 year election cycle.
However, you are not trapped in some 3 year electoral cycle. ‘Direct action’ eschewing a political solution can happen now, surely. In fact your are demanding action now. So, Noble Player One, please don’t use Labor’s period of introspection to hold back on giving us the benefits of your wisdom.
Once agin I ask: please explain how “what is happening in the streets across the world” actually produces a desired outcome in terms of reducing global emissions? What is your master plan for direct non political action reducing global CO2 emissions?
Nothing? Tumbleweeds? What?
Player One @ #841 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 11:29 am
Gawd help us if the Gummint sees an opportunity associated with the image of the dude hanging from the story bridge.
Otherwise – excellent plan.
Elephant stamp and gold star material
🐘 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Andrew_Earlwood @ #845 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 11:36 am
Just like the Greens, apparently. And with about the same chance of success, the way you are going.
So, in essence, your plan is to sit on your arse for the next 3 years contemplating your navel, and hope you can con the voters a bit better next time around, while my plan is to encourage those very same voters – the ones you need to vote for you – not to wait, but to educate and inform themselves, make noise, raise awareness of the issue, and generally upset the navel gazers. Actually, that’s just phase 1. Phase 2 is likely to involve a lot more direct action.
Will it make any difference in the long run? I have no idea – but I do have to say my plan seems to be working a lot better than yours so far.
RI @ #838 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 11:25 am
Ever heard the expression “think globally, act locally”? It’s all the average Australian can do, along with a hope that there is a similar groundswell in other more significant countries like India.
RI @ #838 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 10:25 am
We can’t, because depending upon the time of day an embargo will apparently:
1. Unfairly harm people in developing nations by restricting their access to coal; and
2. Be pointless because some other nation will be happy to sell them coal if Australia won’t; and
3. Be pointless because developing nations have their own coal reserves that they’ll use if Australia won’t sell to them
…which is pretty amazing, given the extent to which those outcomes are mutually exclusive (and/or economically irrational).
But one thing an embargo would definitely do is give Australia clean(er) hands, which is worthwhile in its own right. And if it does send coal prices higher (which #2 and #3 say it won’t, but #1 says it must) then it’s actually extremely likely that it will result in less coal being burned.
So do it because it’s right, and because it’s something that Australia can do, and because it sets a positive example for other nations. If it indirectly reduces third-party consumption of thermal coal via price signaling, count that as a bonus.
Bellwether says:
Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:45 am
Ever heard the expression “think globally, act locally”? It’s all the average Australian can do, along with a hope that there is a similar groundswell in other more significant countries like India.
_____________________________
Also, regardless of any argument about the supposed insignificance of individual coal mines on total global emissions, ensuring that local groundwater is not contaminated is pretty important. Coal mines contaminate groundwater. That is enough of a reason to be against them.
guytaur
My uncertain memory says that was suggested and roundly defeated by the blokes in charge at least thirty years ago.
PO…Bell….so in short, you are unable to show how the decoy proposed for the Galilee will stop so much as a single tonne of coal being combusted in India or anywhere else. It is practically ineffectual. But it has been politically profitable. The profits include the prevention of any national policy on climate change. Well done.
Labor absolutely have to avoid decoy games with the Greens. Absolutely.