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.
I hesitate to draw into the energy/electricity wars, but there is a public hearing on nuclear energy tomorrow in Sydney from 9am to 4.30pm.
This is a parliamentary hearing happening irrespective of the opposition’s policy settings on reducing GHGEs, so I’m assuming all those wringing their hands about what Labor is doing are suitably clued in to what the Australian parliament is doing in this space and will be attending?
Tim Wilson made an ass of himself on PC’s show.
zoomster @ #1087 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 8:12 pm
I am not really sure what your point is. My point was that people feel their politicians are not doing enough, which I think I have demonstrated. Depending on which poll you give most credence to, 60-70% of people want more action right now on climate change. Extinction Rebellion shows that many people are increasingly willing to take personal action to make that very point, at risk of being injured and/or arrested. More action is precisely what they are demanding.
At the moment, they are demonstrating this largely in the form of civil disobedience. But if no action is forthcoming from political parties, it is unlikly to stay that way for long.
Labor has an opportunity to be on the right side of history. But if Labor think these voters are going to stay pacified by ambiguous fence-sitting policy statements for the next 3 years while they try to come up with better policies to take to the next election, then they are just dreaming. What we must do is fairly well known. Labor just seems unwilling to embrace the inevitable.
But honestly – after the last election debacle, what have they got to lose?
[‘Mr Porter says consultations on the bill are “far from over”. The government hopes to pass the laws through Parliament by the end of the year.’]
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/unworkable-and-unfair-big-business-opposes-religious-freedom-bill-20191008-p52yq2.html
Good luck with that comrade Chrisitan.
Posted all the way back on Page 17, but I simply can’t let it go unchallenged:
Right, let’s start with 2010. I firmly believe that Labor’s post-Copenhagen shift rightwards on environmental policy cost them at least twice as many votes as they may have gained from such a transparently cynical manoeuvre. However, by far the most significant reason for the near-loss was the Coalition’s attack line that the stimulus spending during the GFC had been unnecessary, wasteful and mismanaged. This line wouldn’t have been nearly as effective if Labor hadn’t been so determined to give it credence, firstly through Rudd’s misguided attempt at a Beattie-esque apology, and then secondly and more obviously on the night of June 23, when the partyroom saw fit to do something which effectively told the public that the opposition had been right all along, and that in fact they had made the wrong decision at the ballot box in 2007. The eleventh-hour airing of a campaign ad showing Costello scoffing at Abbott’s credibility on “economic matters” was probably the only thing that denied the Liberals a majority in their own right.
Now to 2013. The “carbon tax” soap opera had indeed done much damage to the government’s standing in the polls over the preceding term, but once the package was actually passed into law, the hysteria slowly but surely subsided, and in the last six months or so it was rarely brought up as a source of anti-Labor animosity except by the rusted-on talkback/Sky After Dark crowd. For those whose votes actually made a difference, the main reason for their electing the still-disliked Abbott was – who woulda guessed it? – “debt and deficit”.
Upon regaining the leadership, Rudd initially did a commendable job in attempting to restore the government’s economic credibility; the highlight was the Press Club address (which Abbott obligingly wimped out of attending) where he explained clearly and forcefully (not to mention truthfully!) that, as in other OECD nations, the debt and deficit figures were overwhelmingly due to the post-GFC drop in revenue, and the stimulus spending actually prevented both figures from being far worse. However, for whatever reason (at the urging of clipboard-bearing, Lindsay-testing Sussex St meatheads, I suspect), Rudd ran away from this strategy once the election had been called, replacing it firstly with some laughably random scaremongering about raises to the GST, and then with… well, nothing at all that I recall.
It’s quite obvious to me that this surrendering of the fiscal argument was also the main reason behind the 2016 and 2019 defeats. Is anybody really prepared to convince themselves that it was mere coincidence that the only time Labor has won a majority within the last quarter-century was also the only election where they possessed the conviction to tackle head-on the Coalition’s assertions of “superior economic management”?
The longer Labor goes on pinpointing sensational culture-war issues like climate action or boat people as the cause of their ongoing electoral woes, while doing sweet eff-ay to rectify the currently diabolical public perceptions of their economic competence, the closer this country will shift to becoming to a one-party state.
Boerwar @ #1100 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 7:26 pm
Still better than Trump. By entire orders of magnitude.
Eight years of POTUS Pence would, IMO, provide an interesting comparison.
ajm @ #1100 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 8:32 pm
I guess this is where we part company. I have said before, and I will repeat as many times as necessary – if the LNP came up with a credible set of policies to address climate change (and you could trust them to implement them) then they would get my vote.
Climate change is certainly not the only issue that matters, but there is climate change … and then there is daylight … and then there is everything else.
And I don’t think I am the only one who thinks that way. Or if I am now, then I will not be in a fairly modest number of increasingly hot, dry and tumultuous years 🙁
Boerwar @ #1097 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 8:47 pm
If Trump’s whole objective is to take the system down, then a resignation next year after endorsement would cause the maximum amount of damage.
Boerwar @ #1109 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 5:47 pm
Nah, he’s your bog-standard Republican, religious asshole know-nothing. We’ve seen Potus’s like him before, eg GWB and have survived. Trump has already trashed centuries of traditions and co-opted beyond idiots to key cabinet posts.
No-deal Brexit is looking a very good chance right now:
P1
‘…if the LNP came up with a credible set of policies to address climate change…’
Kipling wrote a nice poem on the topic of ‘if’.
But he did rather have difficulty walking the If talk when his son was killed in the War between the Empires.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35321716
Greensborough Growler @ #1086 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 7:51 pm
Is Mitt Romney a corporation? Corporations are people you know! 😆
GG
But who is Trump’s Delilah?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson#Death
If Labor had more Ged Kearnys and less Chris Bowens it would be in power today. Great speech.
https://www.gedkearney.org.au/media-and-news/speeches/the-role-of-government-in-the-anxious-century/
citizen @ #1116 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 8:59 pm
So, what EXACTLY will happen to the island of Ireland then?
Oh, I’ve got it, Boris Johnson will build a wall between Eire and Northern Island! 😐
#Trumpy
Boerwar @ #1119 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:01 pm
Ivanka. 😐
citizen
Johnson has been faking the negotiations since the day the Far Right put him in to deliver a No Deal Brexit.
Boerwar @ #1114 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:01 pm
The voters.
W
Labor is a broad church that has to hold more Bowens and more Kearneys.
Not less of either.
Well, good night all. Sweet dreams.
P1
‘ My point was that people feel their politicians are not doing enough, which I think I have demonstrated.’
Well, it wasn’t what you said. You said LABOR wasn’t doing enough, and that that was why people were taking to the streets.
I agree politicians aren’t doing enough, but I’m blaming the ones who are actually in government and can therefore actually do stuff.
Labor can do dipsh*t at the moment. That’s what ‘not being in government’ means. Focusing one’s efforts – as you seem to be doing – on Labor coming up with policies is a totally pointless exercise. It is the government which needs to act and who need to be put under pressure to do so.
Yes, people polled say they want action on climate change. It’s not what the majority voted for, however – they may have thought climate change was important, but it didn’t decide their vote. That’s what voters do at every election – tell pollsters that an issue is of utmost importance to them and then vote differently. No one should be surprised by that.
Regardless, if we’re facing an emergency, it’s pointless harping on about what Labor is doing, because (at least federally) Labor can’t do anything meaningful for at least the next three years. I don’t think we can afford to wait that long, and that means the pressure has to be applied on the people who have the power to do something before then. And they’re not sitting on the Opposition benches.
Perhaps Brett McGurk is Trump’s Delilah?
https://youtu.be/quozK0sMK3o
caf
says:
Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22 pm
nath:
Pretty sure George W.’s unintellectual image was just a folksy act.
________________
Perhaps but there’s always this:
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.”
“Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country”
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
Well, if the Liberals weren’t Liberals we probably could all vote for them. But they are.
You also have to wonder how much actual work Bush did at Yale and Harvard. Did he pay others to do his work? Bush Sr was already a multi-millionaire at that point.
BW, Labor is such a “broad church” that it not only welcomes class-enemies but puts them in positions of leadership.
zoomster @ #1127 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:06 pm
My thoughts exactly.
Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey!
zoomster @ #1122 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:06 pm
Labor aren’t politicians? Well, you could knock me down with a feather!
And I blame all of them. I cannot understand why you think opposition parties have no role to play. Why bother even turning up to parliament, if that is the case?
Which is … ummm … the job of the Opposition, is it not?
You could claim this if they had been given a genuine alternative to vote for. But they were not. Labor was all over the shop. Still are.
No, the people sitting on the opposition benches are too busy navel gazing.
Right, P1 – you’re happy to wait three years for something to happen.
Scarcely sounds like an emergency situation.
‘Which is … ummm … the job of the Opposition, is it not?’
It’s the job of all of us. You want to outsource your responsibilities, apparently.
zoomster @ #1131 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:21 pm
Now you are being deliberately obtuse 🙁
zoomster @ #1132 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:22 pm
No, I am happy with the actions I have taken. I would just be pleased if other people also did their jobs – you know, the ones we are actually paying them humungous salaries to do?
Instead of sitting around navel gazing and claiming they “can’t do much for the next 3 years, because – boo hoo – we didn’t get elected” 🙁
“Yes, people polled say they want action on climate change. It’s not what the majority voted for, however – they may have thought climate change was important, but it didn’t decide their vote.”
I’m a bit like a broken record here – people want the Government to do something about climate change but they don’t want to pay to fix it.
So what to do about this? I don’t know. The economics have shifted. The voters who count only care about their wallets. Maybe concentrate on that.
But I admit I don’t know. As far as I’m concerned, stuff the economics. This is too serious. But I only have one vote.
And I couldn’t give a stuff about boats, but voters who count do. It’s guest workers on whatever 457 visas are now called, exploited and underpaid, who are given Australian jobs, not boat people.
No, I’m not, P1.
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s an emergency, and we need action now, then it is the government of the day we should be putting under pressure. They’re the ones who can act now.
Instead of doing this, you’ve spent virtually every day over the last several months here banging on about the lack of action by Labor. Labor could meet every one of your demands – indeed, exceed them – tomorrow and we’d still be in the same place we are in three years time.
If you’re sincere in your demand for urgency – and you really have me doubting that – I suggest you put your energies into trying to get the actual government to do something. For every post you make here, send an email to Sussan Ley, or Scott Morrison. Create an email list for Coalition MPs and email them several times a day. Ring their offices. Write them letters. Visit them. Start a petition.
Almost any of those activities would be a better use of your time and energy than demanding on an obscure political blog that the Opposition party put in a policy which won’t, at the very best and optimistic of probabilities, be able to be implemented for at least four years (three years to get elected, one year to get things up and running).
If, however, you persist in your belief that we can wait until Labor is in power, then the best use of your time and energies is to lobby the actual Labor party, rather than harangue randoms here.
The fact that you think that it’s more important to focus on randoms here than take any action resembling something real and effective has me doubting your sincerity.
zoomster,
I’m surprised it’s taken you so long to realise that.
The funny thing is, for all their bellyaching, over years now, P1, guytaur, Rex Douglas, and the list goes on, they have, combined, achieved less than zero wrt enacting policy to deal with Climate Change, than….drum roll….briefly! Who has worked within the apparatus of the Labor Party to achieve policy outcomes!
Says it all for me. Especially when you consider who those above train their guns on day in, day out.
Best not to waste any more of your precious time on them.
Though I will say, at least guytaur has agreed to meet Andrew-Earlwood for a coffee and a chat this week. Instead of spending, yet another day behind the keyboard berating us for that which we cannot do a damn thing about.
zoomster @ #1136 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:32 pm
“Oh boo hoo – don’t ask us to help, we didn’t get elected. We have no role to play, so please leave us alone!”
Since Labor hasn’t acted – even by clearly enunciating a policy, you can’t possibly claim this.
I do more than that. But I do some of that as well. I also act on a personal level. What do you do?
You really go on about this, don’t you? “Don’t expect us to do anything, we didn’t get elected – boo hoo”. I sometimes wonder why you even bother posting.
This is your belief, not mine. I am firmly of the belief that Labor can and should achieve things in the next 3 years. It is people like you who seem to think otherwise.
I happen to have a job that requires me – amongst other things – to be at the computer a lot. While I am not doing other things, I post here. I have to point out that responding to posts like yours doesn’t actually require either a lot of time or mental effort.
What’s your excuse?
C@tmomma @ #1137 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:40 pm
You too, C@t? Where does this “You shouldn’t expect Labor to actually do anything because we didn’t get elected” crap come from? Is this the talking point of the day from head office?
Why do we pay Opposition party members salaries to sit in parliament? Is it just to fill out the numbers for the TV cameras?
‘I happen to have a job that requires me – amongst other things – to be at the computer a lot’
Great. So you’ll be able to send all those emails to Coalition MPs. Go to it.
zoomster @ #1140 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:49 pm
It is actually more fruitful to send them to non-government MPs. Thankfully, not all of them have your attitude.
P1
‘It is actually more fruitful to send them to non-government MPs.’
Explain why.
zoomster @ #1147 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:57 pm
It scratches the harangue Labor itch. 😐
Player One @ #1144 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:48 pm
We pay government Ministers more. Guess why? Because they are the ones that actually decide to do things. This salient point apparently appears to have escaped your attention. 😐
Not wanting to get my hopes up about green shoots, but…
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/07/polls-begin-to-signal-rising-impeachment-threat-to-trump.html
zoomster @ #1142 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:57 pm
Because you rarely get a useful response from a government MP (possibly unless they are your local member – but mine is an ALP MP). Opposition MPs tend to respond personally more often.
And – funnily enough – I have never had a single one who has ever said anything along the lines of “Oh, please don’t expect me to do anything for you for the next 3 years – boo hoo – we are in opposition, remember?”
C@tmomma @ #1144 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 10:00 pm
So why do we pay opposition MPs at all? If we expect them to do nothing, surely their pay should be commensurate with that?
I have to say, I’m all in favor of this. I think you and Zoomster might be on to something here.
Player One,
I strongly doubt you ‘do more than that’. You spend way too long on PB to do anything much at all.
I’ve actually dealt with advocates at Parliament House in Canberra who come to put their case to MPs. It virtually consumes their lives when they have a worthy cause to promote, and they spend what time they aren’t lobbying MPs, out and about lobbying anyone else they can think of and thinking up ways they can bring their cause to the attention of the media. So, for someone who says they are as committed as you profess to be, it just doesn’t add up when I compare you to those people.
Now, you say that Opposition MPs don’t say that they can’t do anything for 3 years, well, have you stopped to think that it’s just not politic, so to speak, for them to say that. So they are polite and they welcome your concerns, and that’s about it. Isn’t it? Admit it.
Watermelon says:
Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 9:15 pm
BW, Labor is such a “broad church” that it not only welcomes class-enemies but puts them in positions of leadership.
Labor won’t be putting closet Greens into positions of leadership. Count on it.
Labor could make its position much worse by adopting Green policies or near-Green policies.
This must not be allowed to occur.