Call of the board: South-East Queensland

How good was Queensland? The Poll Bludger reports – you decide.

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,593 comments on “Call of the board: South-East Queensland”

Comments Page 24 of 32
1 … 23 24 25 … 32

  1. Player One,
    Now you are being totally fatuous. Opposition MPs shouldn’t be paid at all because they don’t dance to your tune!?! Give. Me. A. Break.

    They have constituents to represent. Across a wide array of areas. Australia is not a constituency of one, Player One.

  2. C@tmomma @ #1148 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 10:08 pm

    Player One,
    I strongly doubt you ‘do more than that’. You spend way too long on PB to do anything much at all.

    You do remember I also run a business, right? And I also work part time. And a few other things besides that I do on a voluntary basis.

    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.

    Gosh, I’m sorry I don’t do things the same utterly useless way you do.

    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.

    Honestly, you expect me to agree with you that Labor MPs are actually completely useless, and also lie to their constituents?

    Ummm … ok 🙁

  3. C@tmomma @ #1151 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 10:12 pm

    They have constituents to represent. Across a wide array of areas. Australia is not a constituency of one, Player One.

    Gosh, I’m having real trouble with this. You just established that Opposition MPs ignore and lie to their constituents.

    Now you are saying we should pay them for this “service”?

    Why?

  4. PO is gaslighting. Utterly mendacious. They have yet to explain how the proposed embargo will prevent the combustion of even one kilo of coal.

  5. It’s certainly the case that if the Opposition goes quiet on an issue, it gives the Government cover to implement whatever they want without having to explain or defend it. That’s one of the reasons we have the official role of Opposition.

    For example, in the area of climate change, the Government should absolutely be having to constantly defend their do-nothing policies and appalling emissions record. This does all also rely on having a media that is willing to cover that, though – and since the election we do seem to have a media that is strangely unable to draw attention to the massive policy voids at the centre of this Government.

  7. P1, you obviously have a very tenuous grasp of how our system works. Which means you’re spinning wheels futilely. I’ve pointed you in the direction of meaningful action, but apparently you don’t even begin to understand what that involves.

    As a result, you’re wasting everyone’s time. If you want to do that, go ahead, but you shouldn’t deceive yourself into believing you’re doing anything useful. But you will, of course.

  10. Don’t make me re-post all your old posts

    To say nothing about the new ones, where Labor’s only objective is to never be seen even slightly agreeing with the Greens on anything… 🙄

  12. A polite reply to a letter IS NOT LYING, Player One!!!

    And *golf clap* for ‘I run a business and work part time’. Guess what? So do many advocates for causes they are passionate about, but they can find a way to do it all. But yet, there is not only that but you expect, nay demand,Labor Members of Parliament do nothing else except address your concerns about Climate Change, to your, never-attained, satisfaction!

    And, lulz to the person who puts down the effective way campaigning is done, via representations to parliament and parliamentarians, but who thinks that snarking and condescending to faceless contributors to an obscure politics blog is the way to go!

    How ridiculous!

  15. I had a look at the QLD government stats yesterday….thermal coal production has been running at about 80 million tonnes pa, including production aimed at both the domestic and export markets. Global consumption of thermal coal is around 7,600 million tonnes pa. Qld has about 1 % market share in thermal coal. Coal contributes 38% of the energy used in electricity production. Electricity production emits 25% of global GHGs.

    So the combustion of Queensland thermal coal – scope 3 emissions – releases 0.09% of global GHGs.

    0.25 x 0.38 x .01 = 0.0009 = 0.09%

    Not a whole lot.

    The outlook for NSW is detailed in this report…anticipating significant declines…

    http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/NSW-Coal-Exports-November-2018.pdf

    The reason for this rapid transformation is an unprecedented decline in the cost of renewable energy generation and the significant ramping up of renewable energy deployment since 2014—factors that will continue to drive the market in the years ahead. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) sees coal’s share of the global electricity market at just 11% by 2050, down from roughly 40% in 2014.

    And….

    Among the key issues facing the NSW thermal coal industry are:
    • Major investors and financial institutions are turning away from coal at an accelerating rate, a trend that has now spread to Japan–NSW’s largest thermal coal export market.
    • Total coal demand in Japan, NSW’s largest market, is expected to drop 71% in the long term under the SDS.
    • Total demand for coal in China, NSW’s second-largest export market, is forecast to fall 57% by 2040 under the SDS.
    • Taiwan plans to reduce its dependence on coal-fired power from 46% to 30% of generation by as soon as 2025.
    • Coal imports by South Korea, NSW’s fourth-largest market, are forecast by the IEA to decline by nearly 50% to less than 60Mtce in 2040.
    • India is not a major destination for NSW thermal coal exports and won’t be in future. The Indian government has repeatedly committed to reducing thermal coal imports in the long term, the highest cost source of electricity generation in India.
    • Any growth in coal consumption across Southeast Asia will not be enough to compensate for declining consumption in NSW’s four major export markets.
    • Asia’s rapidly developing offshore wind power sector could displace 300-350 million tonnes of thermal coal annually—about 35%-40% of the global seaborne trade.
    • Australian thermal coal’s much touted quality advantage will not be enough to maintain export volumes. According to Wood Mackenzie, less than a quarter of Australia’s thermal coal exports meet South Korea’s the new sulphur content limit.
    • Australian exports will not benefit from declining Indonesian exports as much as is often assumed – cuts to the power capacity build-out of Indonesian utility PLN will lead to less domestic coal demand and more thermal coal available for export.
    • As global coal consumption declines, NSW thermal coal exporters will face increased competition for remaining markets from other exporting nations.

  16. Steve777:

    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.

    Currently (because coal and renewable electricity cost of production is similar) an emissions intensity scheme (EIS) can be set up so that no voters pay – instead the coal generators pay the renewable generators and no money enters or leaves the electricity generation system.

    This works (at the current time) without adding to electicity prices because the cost of production for renewables has fallen. The effect will be to allocate more money into renewables (not currently problematic as there is currently a large surplus of money looking for investment) and be mildly stimulators.

    Note however that (per Robert Solow) the long term driver of growth is technological change rather than capital aggregation and that an EIS risks militating in favour of current renewables technology BUT against the next (more efficient due to better technology) generation. It is probably possible to design a more complicated EIS that isn’t subject to this problem (have to account for the development cost of the next generation…) but this might be much more difficult to explain. Alternatively the EIS Could have a finite lifetime associated with the expected lifetime of the coal generation fleet.

  17. Leaving aside the environmental and climate impacts, the combustion of seaborne thermal coal is already a dud on commercial grounds because it cannot compete with its substitutes – renewables + gas or renewables + batteries. The success of renewables is driving coal out of the electricity market.

    This has been happening in many jurisdictions and is beginning to take effect in the largest coal-using economies.

    There is large scale capital retreat from coal. Large scale production retreat will follow…inexorably. Even if we wished to change it, we could not.

  18. Good post, EGT.

    An EIS was my own favored policy … seems like many years ago now. I did once ask here whether this was still Labor policy, but no-one seemed to actually know for sure.

    An EIS achieves the outcome we so urgently need – i.e. de-carbonization at a configurable pace, which can be as fast as we decide we need – and it does it with minimal impact to the consumer.

    Given the small number of years we have left to address the issue, any longer term deficiencies in an EIS can surely be overcome once we have our emissions under control again.

  19. Re the discussion earlier….I don’t find this place friendly but I give money to William monthly and do so his blog continues and for BK’s morning contribution that keeps me reading many articles over my day….I rarely post…

  20. The LNP will promise to subsidise the uneconomical Adani mine.

    At which point Labor will have to do the same or be seen as anti-jobs and pro-Green.

    At which point we’ll be given a very intelligent explanation as to how subsidized coal mines actually reduce the use of coal

  21. I dunno if the LNP will promise to subsidise one mine in preference to any other. All the thermal coal mines are cactus. This is obvious to all. There is no point in subsidising a high-volume trade that is in secular decline. The subsidies would only ever get bigger. They would have to be copied in other QLD provinces and in NSW.

    This is most unlikely to happen.

  22. Watermelon
    says:
    Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 10:56 pm
    The LNP will promise to subsidise the uneconomical Adani mine.
    ______________________________________
    They couldn’t possibly do that. They finally pulled the plug on the car industry. It would be utterly perverse.

  26. Just catching up with PB for today.

    It has felt a lot more like the pre May 18 2019 PB, and I have enjoyed the posts, and the back and forth. Perhaps the trauma of the upset in the last Federal election result is finally abating.
    Guytaur and Andrew_E, enjoy you coffee!

  27. I dunno if the LNP will promise to subsidise one mine in preference to any other. All the thermal coal mines are cactus. This is obvious to all.

    It’s obviously not so obvious, otherwise the plans for Carmichael would have already been cancelled.

    The fact that it is still planned seems to imply an expectation of some eventual public subsidy.

    And you are correct that there is “no point” to subsidizing this mine in economic terms, but in political terms the LNP understand that it is the perfect electoral wedge. They also have an ideological commitment to coal.

    The voters in this area will vote for jobs. From their perspective, standing in the way of a little public investment to help get this mine up and running is practically the same as standing in the way of its environmental approval. Oh, you’re not going to support the project? We’ll vote for the party that will.

    And so, by the same logic that has compelled Labor to approve a controversial project that is already, apparently, “obvious cactus” on the grounds that this obvious cactus is going to deliver jobs, Labor will be wedged into subsiding the thing.

    But at least they’ll be drawing a distinction from the Greens, which is what really matters.

    That’s where this type of politics gets you. If it seems far fetched, think about why Adani is being planned when it is obvious cactus before it’s started.

  28. Coal contributing 38% of the energy in global electricity production doesn’t mean it contributes 38% of the carbon dioxide emissions. In fact it looks like that 38% of energy corresponds to 69% of the emissions.

  29. They couldn’t possibly do that. They finally pulled the plug on the car industry. It would be utterly perverse.

    The LNP is utterly perverse. Guided by corruption and infantile spite, it gets more perverse each year. Manufacturing is expendable, but fossil fuels must be defended at all costs.

  30. Especially for Nath, about the bravery of protesting:

    [n.b. trying to find a free, legal, audio recording of this.]
    The Folk Song Army, by Tom Lehrer.

    (Introduction, spoken:)
    One type of song that has come into increasing prominence in
    recent months is the folk song of protest. You have to admire
    people who sing these songs. It takes a certain amount of courage
    to get up in a coffee house or a college auditorium and come out
    in favor of the things that everybody else in the audience is against,
    like peace and justice and brotherhood and so on. But the nicest
    thing about a protest song is that it makes you feel so good.
    I have a song here which, I realize, should be accompanied on
    a folk instrument, in which category the piano does not, alas, qualify.
    So imagine, if you will, that I am playing an 88-string guitar!

    We are the folk song army,
    Every one of us cares.
    We all hate poverty, war, and injustice
    Unlike the rest of you squares.

    There are innocuous folk songs, yeah,
    But we regard ’em with scorn.
    The folks who sing ’em have no social conscience,
    Why, they don’t even care if Jimmy Crack Corn.

    If you feel dissatisfaction,
    Strum your frustrations away.
    Some people may prefer action,
    But give me a folk song any old day.

    The tune don’t have to be clever,
    And it don’t matter if you put a couple extra syllables into a line.
    It sounds more ethnic if it ain’t good English
    And it don’t even gotta rhyme… excuse me: rhyne!

    Remember the war against Franco?
    That’s the kind where each of us belongs.
    Though he may have won all the battles,
    We had all the good songs!

    So join in the folk song army!
    Guitars are the weapons we bring
    To the fight against poverty, war, and injustice.
    Ready, aim, sing!

    https://www.rockol.it/testi/822474/tom-lehrer-the-folk-song-army

  31. Watermelon
    says:
    Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:30 pm
    They couldn’t possibly do that. They finally pulled the plug on the car industry. It would be utterly perverse.
    The LNP is utterly perverse. Guided by corruption and infantile spite, it gets more perverse each year. Manufacturing is expendable, but fossil fuels must be defended at all costs.
    _____________________________________________
    I wonder how much government money across the world has gone into renewable energy research over the past 40 years. Then compare that with subsidies that the global coal industry has received. It would be an interesting analysis.

  33. Come gather round, children,
    It’s high time ye learned
    ‘Bout a hero named Homer
    And a devil named Burns.
    We’ll march ’till we drop
    The girls and the fellas.
    We’ll fight ’till the death
    Or else fold like umbrellas.
    So we’ll march day and night
    By the big cooling tower.
    They have the plant
    But we have the power.
    So we’ll march day and night
    By the big cooling tower.
    They have the plant
    But we have the power.

  38. Boerwar @ #817 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 9:17 am

    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.

    The metric of political success: How much of your policy has been implemented (and stayed implemented)?

    The answer for the Oz centre-left over the last 23 years being a stark fuck-all, with no prospect for improvement for at least two more years.

    Player One @ #1103 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 7:06 pm

    Depending on which poll you give most credence to, 60-70% of people want more action right now on climate change.

    But they are not voting for it.

    Can you see the problem?

    Frankly, if you want effective action on climate change in Oz, or anywhere else, then do everything you can to ensure the US Dems win big in 2020. Nothing Oz Labor or Greens can do now will make any real difference until and unless that happens.

    itsthevibe @ #1105 Tuesday, October 8th, 2019 – 7:12 pm

    Posted all the way back on Page 17, but I simply can’t let it go unchallenged:

    1. I didn’t say climate policy was the only critical factor.

    2. I agree that the distorted voter perception of Labor’s economic credentials was also a critical factor, and that Labor have to wear some blame for that, starting back with the election of Howard and continuing to this day.


  40. Watermelon says:
    Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:22 pm
    ….
    And you are correct that there is “no point” to subsidizing this mine in economic terms, but in political terms the LNP understand that it is the perfect electoral wedge. They also have an ideological commitment to coal.
    …

    And for the Wedge to work the Liberals need there anti Labor junior partner. Labor have made it pretty obvious there are not playing so the junior partner is upset. In political terms the Greens are encouraging the opening of these mines.

  41. Remembering Doris Day with fondness.

    When I was just a little girl in school
    I asked my mother
    What will I be
    Will I be pretty
    Will I be rich
    Here’s what she said to me:
    Fuck the patriarchy!

  42. I think ‘callous’ is the best word we can use to describe the Morrison Coalition government:

    Defence Minister Linda Reynolds has declared the government “will not jeopardise the lives of any other Australians” in response to a sudden decision by the United States to withdraw troops from parts of Syria now home to Australian women and children left behind by Islamic State.

    Senator Reynolds played down the prospect of action to help the families of former foreign fighters in northern Syria, where 20 Australian women and 46 children could be caught in fighting between Turkish and Kurdish forces.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-won-t-risk-lives-to-bring-isis-brides-and-children-to-safety-defence-minister-20191008-p52yt4.html

  43. Dotard has a conflict of interest regarding his business dealings in Turkey…

    “I have a little conflict of interest ‘cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul,” Trump told Steve Bannon during a December 2015 interview on Breitbart’s radio show. “It’s a tremendously successful job. It’s called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it’s two.”

    Critically, Trump does not actually own these towers. Rather, he licenses his brand to the building’s owner, Turkish tycoon Aydin Dogan, an ally of Erdogan. This arrangement may actually leave our president more vulnerable to extortion from the Turkish regime than if he owned the towers outright. According to Trump’s financial disclosures, he has collected between $3.2 million and $17 million in royalties from the licensing deal since 2012. This means that Trump could ostensibly lose millions of dollars, should Dogan terminate their partnership. Which is to say: The president could have a multimillion-dollar motivation to avoid pursuing any policy that might incur Dogan’s wrath. Notably, the prospect that Dogan might leverage his business relationship with Trump to influence his policies isn’t a mere hypothetical.”

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/trump-turkey-kurds-syria-conflict-of-interest-istanbul-towers.html

  45. Yep.

    Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions has urged the High Court to refuse George Pell’s bid to appeal his conviction for multiple child sex offences, warning it should be reluctant to override a jury verdict with its own judgments about the bitterly divisive case.

    Kerri Judd, QC, told the High Court there was no error in the Victorian Court of Appeal’s majority decision to uphold Pell’s conviction and the Cardinal’s legal team had failed to raise any important question of law in his application for special leave to appeal.

    Ms Judd said that Court of Appeal Justice Mark Weinberg’s dissenting view that Pell had been wrongly convicted was not grounds, on its own, for the High Court to grant an appeal.

    “The mere fact that Weinberg JA has taken a different view of the evidence to the majority does not justify intervention by the High Court,’’ the DPP argues in documents lodged on Tuesday with the High Court.

    “The [special leave to appeal] identifies no error in the majority approach and no question of law for this court to resolve; it does no more than ask this court to substitute for the view taken by the majority and the jury a different view of the evidence.”

    Quoting from the majority Court of Appeal decision by Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Court of Appeal President Chris Maxwell, Ms Judd urged the High Court to be “slow to substitute its own judgments about human behaviour for those made by a jury”.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/high-court-told-to-sound-final-bell-on-pell-20191008-p52ys1.html

  46. David Hall looks at why people stick with climate change denial like shit to a blanket in this Conversation article.
    https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763

    A large and growing empirical literature is exploring what drives denial. Personality is a factor: people are more likely to deny climate change if they’re inclined toward hierarchy and against changes to the status quo. Demographic factors also show an effect. Internationally, people who are less educated, older and more religious tend to discount climate change, with sex and income having a smaller effect.

  47. The Trump family are milking the Presidency for all they can get. A short list:

    – having the military encounters to Europe stay over at Trump’s Scotland golf course
    – Mike Pence on his visit to Ireland staying at Trump resort
    – Ivanka being granted Chinese patents on the same day Trump lift sanctions on ZTE
    – Trump declaring that the next G7 meeting would be at his Florida resort

  48. Another canary in the Australian Recession coalmine:

    Another month, another poor NAB business survey with serious implications for unemployment – and no sign of anyone in the government bothering to do anything about it.

    The immediate concern coming from NAB’s September business conditions survey is a forecast that employment growth is likely to fall to about 18,000 a month over the next six months.

    By comparison, monthly employment growth averaged nearly 28,000 over the past six months – and the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate still rose from 4.9 to 5.3 per cent.

    https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2019/10/08/employment-nab-wages-worsening/

  49. Watermelon

    You miss the other explanation for Adani – that it is cactus, it isn’t viable, and therefore the only hope its backers have of recouping their investment is for some level of government to do something illegal (such as refusing permits or vetoing the project) so that they can sue the ass out of them.

    This scenario – which involves both sides daring the other side to call their bluff – explains most (if not all) of what’s going on.

    Regardless, as I keep saying (sorry, William) Adani will be off the table, one way or another, by the next federal election. I suggest, therefore, that if posters want to beat up on Labor that they choose a cause which has a bit more life in it.

  50. SENSIBLE’ SETTLEMENT
    From Crikey

    [Opposition resources spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon is calling on his party ($) to adopt the government’s 2030 emissions reduction target of 26-28% on 2005 levels, as Labor struggles to decide what to do with the 45% target it took to the election.

    Fitzgibbon will speak at a Sydney Institute event tonight, arguing the “sensible settlement” on climate change would lift the party’s support in working-class and regional areas, invoking Gough Whitlam’s “the impotent are pure” line. He will also criticise former leader Bill Shorten’s strategists for underestimating Scott Morrison, and urge his colleagues to “check our progressive instincts” ….]

    Presumably Fitzy will kick off by saying thanks Gerard when Hendo introduces him at the Sydney Institute.

Comments Page 24 of 32
1 … 23 24 25 … 32

Leave a Reply

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