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”

  1. I agree fully with Guytaur, given that Scott Morrison is shown what side he is on the issue of the ‘Climate Emergency’. Along with turning up the Trumpian rhetoric, which he will continue to do even if he distances himself from Trump.

    Also I argue Labor being seen as sitting on the fence on this issue, could led to electoral annihilation in 2022 and the Greens profiting in a big way electorally due to being seen as taken a side on this issue. I can see them winning more than 20% of the primary vote at the election, with them having 15 or 16 senators and a dozen lower house MP’s as well. Not to mention Anthony Albanese facing a real risk of losing Grayndler to the Greens, since their vote would be high enough to win the seats without the need for much preferences. I am trying to think the last time an opposition leader lost their own seat in a Federal Election.

  2. phoenixRed:

    Not necessarily. Lawfare has two suggestions it believes Congress could reasonably adopt:

    The first is that Congress should be clear that it will draw adverse inferences from the assertion of executive privilege on matters pertaining to allegations of presidential misconduct. In the criminal setting, this would be verboten. If Corey Lewandowski were to assert his Fifth Amendment rights before a jury and refuse to answer questions about his conversations with the president, it would be quite improper for that jury to interpret this as an indicator of some impropriety or as evidence of guilt. In fact, it would be unlawful; a criminal defendant is actually entitled to a jury instruction forbidding the jury from giving weight to his or her decision not to testify. But critically, the logic behind this is not that it’s unreasonable intellectually to assume that someone who refuses to answer questions is hiding something. The reason, rather, is that the Fifth Amendment gives the defendant the right to hide such things.

    The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, it bears emphasis, has no application to noncriminal, political judgments. So Congress gets to deploy a different standard here—and in my judgment, it should. With respect to Lewandowski, the president has the power, at least in the short term, to direct him to refuse to answer certain questions. And Lewandowski has the power to resist answering other questions, as he did. In addition to moving to compel him to answer those questions—in other words, contesting the president’s assertions of privilege—the House Judiciary Committee should regard itself as free to read such refusals as effective confirmations of the worst reasonable inferences from the relevant passages of the Mueller report. If Lewandowski refuses to provide information that mitigates the inferences one could reasonably draw about what Lewandowski’s interactions with Trump suggest about the president’s intent, the committee should draw those inferences.

    A second important point is that Congress needs to develop its own witnesses. The current whistleblower fight is instructive. So far, the House Intelligence Committee has gone after the whistleblower’s complaint, and it has sought to hear from the inspector general and the acting DNI. It has not demanded to hear from the witness personally—at least not yet. Before it gets into a lengthy standoff with the executive branch over the fruits of the inspector general’s investigation, replicating its posture with respect to Mueller, Congress should seek the witness testimony directly. Remember that Alexander Butterfield didn’t reveal the Nixon taping system in conversations with the executive branch investigators, but with Congress.

    To be sure, the executive branch can try to block this person from testifying or meeting with congressional investigators, and this person may honor the executive’s bar. But executive privilege is ultimately deployable only if the witness, like Lewandowski, is willing to honor it.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/witness-and-whistleblower-some-thoughts

    And there is also the ruling by that federal judge in Manhattan who threw out Trump’s case not to comply with the DA requesting among other things, his tax returns.

  3. Victoria says: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 9:30 am

    PhoenixRed

    Rick Wilson on his Twitter feed has been saying wtte that the Democrats are not going in hard enough, and are losing at the politics

    ****************************************************************

    Seth Abramson‏Verified account @SethAbramson

    They’re doing this wrong

    The subpoena should’ve already been prepared prior to the time the witness was supposed to appear

    On the date/time on the subpoena, a motion to compel compliance should be in the hands of committee counsel with a car running ready to go to federal court

  4. I see that the Australian Government is trying to avoid being held accountable for its deputy sheriff role in the Great Kurdish Betrayal by focusing its public messages on its refusal to ‘risk Australian lives’ to rescue Australian citizens, including dozens of Australian women and children, currently mired in hellholes in northern Syria. FFS!

    This is total moral bankruptcy on the parts of Morrison, McCormack, Payne and Reynolds. Reynolds in particular must know from her first hand experience that this will have serious ramifications for future operations. How can any potential allies on the ground possibly trust Australia and why should they put their lives at risk on behalf of Australian soldiers?

    Our honour and trustworthiness as a reliable ally is being sold down the drain. We refuse to protect our citizens of colour. And the whole exercise is turned into yet another variation of the Government’s ongoing ad industry islamophobic culture war pogrom.

    Just imagine if the Australian citizens concerned were a busload of white Hillsong school kids!

    Morrison is the Prime Minister of Gutless Betrayal.

  5. ‘Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practised at spare moments; it is a whole-time job.’ – W. Somerset Maugham

  6. @Mavis Davis

    President Trump is effectively an Icehead, with being addicted for a long time to prescription medication, in particular Adderall which has exactly the same effects as Ice. How knows what type of damage is going to inflict as he goes down. Sure many Republicans will disassociate from Trump eventually. On the other the MAGA folks, increasingly subscribing to the Qanon conspiracy theory, will stand by him to the bitter end. Also some are heavily armed and will answer any call to initiate insurrection against the ‘Deep State’. Many of my Americans believe this is a real possibility.

  7. [‘Sondland’s attorney, Robert Luskin, said his client was “profoundly disappointed” that he wouldn’t be able to testify.’]

    The convention is to invite first, subpoena second if the kind invitation is rejected by the witness, or in this case, the Executive.

  8. zoomster @ #1215 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 8:10 am

    Queensland Labor and federal Labor are two different things. Most voters do actually understand that.

    This must surely be a contender for the lamest defence of the federal Labor party of the day … and it’s not even coffee time!

    Vote for the federal Labor party! We are heaps better than your state Labor party!

    Regardless, by the next federal election, Adani will be a dead parrot. Virtually noone will cast their vote with Adani in mind.

    Wow! Two contenders in one post!

    Seriously, what are non-politicaly savvy people (i.e. the majority of Australians) supposed to think, when right here on PB we have not one, not two, but at least three hard-line Labor partisans spruiking coal in general, and Adani in particular (“Stop the Embargo!”), while the best defence a couple of the others can come up with is “oh, it’s ok – Adani will go bankrupt before any more damage is done”.

    Those who want to come here and spend their time banging on about what Labor should or should not be doing FEDERALLY should find another issue.

    And it’s a trifecta!

    Please don’t call your federal Labor member about global warming! We seem to have mislaid our policy on the issue, and even if we could find it, we couldn’t do anything about it for the next three years anyway!

    Honestly! 🙁

  9. @lizzie

    America since the middle of the 2000s has been in what has been described as a ‘Cold Civil War’. It has now reaching a stage, that it could turn hot. Trump seems determined in order to save his a** , would be happy to start a civil war.

  10. Tristo
    What have you had for breakfast this morning?
    The Greens winning 20% of the vote in 2022! I’ve no doubt that you wish this a possibility, but have you any evidence to indicate the Greens will double their share of the popular vote.

  11. Tristo

    I can’t see a bona fide civil war. There have been lots of bad episodes in the US. Like those situations, they will get through this one. Hopefully it will bring in much needed long term changes.

  12. Tristo

    From what I read, the gun-happy have been arming themselves for years to defend themselves. It’s part of their belief in being armed. Trump will give them an enemy to fight.

  13. The convention is to invite first, subpoena second if the kind invitation is rejected by the witness, or in this case, the Executive.

    Conventions no longer apply seeing as Trump has trashed just about all of them.

  14. @Goll

    In Britain Brexit has radicalized the country and Labour being seen as ‘Sitting the Fence on the issue has meant a revival in Liberal Democrats (who are Remainders) support. The Liberal Democrats are currently polling more than 20% in the opinion polls at the moment, also they came second in the European Parliament elections in May. In 2017 election the Liberal Democrats only won 8% of the national vote. The Australian Greens won just over 10% of the vote in the Lower House and the same in the Senate at the recent federal election.

    If the Climate Emergency radicalizes Australian electorate in the same way as Brexit has done in Britain, along the Labor party becoming to be seen as ‘sitting on the fence’ on this issue. Then can see Greens support rising to such high levels. Also there are signs this issue is starting to do this process. The emergence of the #stopadani, the climate strikes and the extinction rebellion movements are those signs. Not to mention I believe Adani was a much bigger issue in the recent federal election campaign, than commentators realize.

  15. lizzie @ #1243 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 9:29 am

    Marian Smedley @MarianSmedley

    So I just attended a “politics in the pub” event with Mark Butler in Torquay. He waxed lyrical about Labor’s “commitment to action on climate change” but when asked about Labor supporting Adani he said “it won’t contribute to global emissions because other coal mines will suffer”

    And some people wonder why Labor couldn’t seem to win the votes of the 60-70% of people who say they want action on global warming?

  16. Tristo:

    [‘Also some are heavily armed and will answer any call to initiate insurrection against the ‘Deep State’. Many of my Americans believe this is a real possibility.’]

    Although there is a core of Trump supporters who would answer a call to arms, I think such would be spasmodic, disorganised, easily put down by police or the National Guard. Part of Trump’s strategy is to attempt to intimidate Congress by claiming that if he were to be impeached, civil war might ensue. To its credit, the House has refused to be intimidated. I’m confident that Congress will prevail over this cretin.

  17. Brad Simpson@bradleyrsimpson
    2h2 hours ago
    The White House letter announcing that Trump won’t cooperate with the impeachment inquiry reads like it was drafted by Rudy Giuliani, Stephen Miller, and Sean Hannity after snorting a bunch of coke, reading an Anne Coulter book, watching a Dinesh D’Souza talk, and sniffing glue.

  18. And, finally, here you have it … the reason so many Labor partisans here have been bending over backwards to defend coal for the past few weeks, and why Labor can’t seem to find its own climate change policies any more …

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-09/joel-fitzgibbons-a-less-ambitious-labor-climate-plan/11585176

    Labor frontbencher Joel Fitzgibbon wants his party to adopt the Coalition’s climate policies

    Complete, unconditional surrender 🙁

  19. Confessions:

    [‘Conventions no longer apply seeing as Trump has trashed just about all of them.’]

    It doesn’t necessarily follow that because Trump does not abide by conventions, the Democrats should follow suit. Robert Luskin was invited to appear and was willing to do so. Trump prevented him from appearing. The next step is to subpoena him. It’s far better to have a volunteer than a conscript.

  20. @Player One

    I argue that people in the Labor party such as Mark Butler, learned the wrong lesson from the election result. If Labor had been seen as firmly on the side of the #stopadani crowd, the result would have been a hung parliament at least, maybe a narrow Labor majority. Sure, Labor would have been hammered in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley.

    However, they would have made gains elsewhere, particularly in middle class capital city electorates, especially in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne and even areas of Brisbane. Labor could have won Brisbane at least, maybe successfully defending their other Brisbane seats and maybe winning Dickson.

  21. P1

    Fitzgibbon is doing a lot of damage by ‘confirming’ that Labor doesn’t have a solid position on coal and AGW. Following their position requires quite a large amount of reasoning and, dare I say, logic. Most people have neither the time nor the energy as they are coping with Morrison’s Brave New Surplus.

    It’s difficult, I know, because Labor is still working out its response to the election, but I think Albanese needs to knock a few heads together and make some strong statements. If he’s done that, they haven’t yet appeared in the media.

  22. lizzie @ #1277 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 10:31 am

    Fitzgibbon is doing a lot of damage by ‘confirming’ that Labor doesn’t have a solid position on coal and AGW.

    Absolutely. It really doesn’t matter whether Fitzgibbon is right or not. He has completely destroyed any credibility Labor could ever hope to have on the issue.

    The punters will forever be aware that Labor is utterly riven on the issue, and cannot be trusted to hold firm to any commitments.

    And the Coalition (and the media) will never, ever let them forget this fiasco.

    How on earth did it come to this?

  23. Player One

    IMO all Fitzgibbon cares about is his own seat. That’s not unusual, I suppose, but he was never a team player, right through the RGR period.

  24. It’s entirely self-defeating. If the Fitzgibbon types think that Labor appears too close to the Greens now, just wait until they lose a handful of inner city seats to them and need their votes for confidence and supply!

  25. Player One

    It doesn’t have to be Albanese. Could be Butler, if he had a stronger presence.
    Ironically, Fitzgibbon is supposed to be Shadow Agriculture, but is apparently enthusiastic about covering the Hunter Valley with spoil from coal mines.

  26. Player One:

    [‘It really doesn’t matter whether Fitzgibbon is right or not. He has completely destroyed any credibility Labor could ever hope to have on the issue.’]

    You’re over-egging the matter to match your narrative, and so early in the political cycle. Labor will adopt policies on coal and AGW in due course. Fitzgibbon’s seat is resource-dependent. Thus his statement comes as little surprise, though I do think that he, like you, has overreached.

  27. Mavis Davis

    Unfortunately the hiatus after the election has provided a policy vacuum and that’s why Fitzgibbon’s opinions are being aired so enthusiastically (by ABC and social media).

  28. lizzie @ #1284 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 10:50 am

    Player One

    It doesn’t have to be Albanese. Could be Butler, if he had a stronger presence.
    Ironically, Fitzgibbon is supposed to be Shadow Agriculture, but is apparently enthusiastic about covering the Hunter Valley with spoil from coal mines.

    Excpet Butler is also in favor of watering down Labor’s policies 🙁

    From the ABC article …

    Labor’s climate change spokesman Mark Butler last month started making the case for the 2030 target to be dumped or reworked.

    They really are in a shocking mess 🙁

  29. Mavis Davis @ #1285 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 10:51 am

    You’re over-egging the matter to match your narrative, and so early in the political cycle. Labor will adopt policies on coal and AGW in due course. Fitzgibbon’s seat is resource-dependent. Thus his statement comes as little surprise, though I do think that he, like you, has overreached.

    And the media will no doubt sit back, analyze his statements dispassionately, and wait patiently for Labor to reason their way out of this difficult and complex – but perfectly understandable – dilemma.

    Oh look! Airborne bacon!

  30. “People are more likely to deny climate change if they’re inclined toward hierarchy, have lower levels of education or are more religious. But the strongest predictor of denial is a person’s politics.”

    have lower levels of education or are more religious?, that applies to the LNP by the sounds of it!.

  31. lizzie:

    [‘Unfortunately the hiatus after the election has provided a policy vacuum and that’s why Fitzgibbon’s opinions are being aired so enthusiastically (by ABC and social media).’]

    Yes, there has been a policy vacuum. Once the review of the 2019 election is complete, Caucas will determine policy and the Labor shadow cabinet will come out fighting early next year. In the meantime, there will be skirmishes such as the one we’re witnessing now. It’s cliched but today’s headlines morph into tommorrows’s…

  32. My observation:
    First UKIP did it, and now the Brexit Party is doing it again. They are showing us how you move public opinion on a single issue. Since the Conservative Party (under Johnson) took on board the reason for the Brexit Party’s existence, the Conservative Party support has grown at the expense of the Brexit Party. (Follow the blue and purple curves.)


    https://theconversation.com/conservatives-poll-lead-continues-despite-brexit-turmoil-124727

    Looking for a local context, and ignorant as I am of Australia’s politics at the turn of the millennium, did One Nation do the same to Australia’s Liberal Party?

    My conclusion:
    A single-issue minor party can shift an entire country.

    My questions:
    * How important does a single issue need to be for this dynamic to dominate? Is Global Warming reaching this level of importance among the voters?
    * Must the minor party be single-issue to effect change? In other words can or does the message become conflated with other issues and lessen the effect?
    * Would this quickly and effectively lead to the end of the single-issue party, once its job is done? Would the minor party welcome the result of its own demise?
    * The genius of the Brexit Party is in the name. Would a Climate Party work in Australia?

  33. @jonkudelka

    9m

    There once was an MP called Joel
    Who had quite the penchant for coal
    “We’re really just friends!
    Until the world ends!”
    Which was inadvertently droll.

  34. Interesting post, LR!

    Yes, I think a “Climate Party” could work here. There is only one direction this issue is going to go over the coming years. It has already been a critical issue in the most recent elections – something Labor acknowledges, if you read between the lines – and is likely to become the single most important issue in all forthcoming elections.

    If there was such a party, I think I would join. Should we start one?

  35. Tristo says:
    Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 10:21 am
    @Goll

    In Britain Brexit has radicalized the country

    No it hasn’t. It has divided the country into Reactionary and Status Quo groups. Left/labour opinion has been divided and weakened – so seriously weakened that Labour have no hope of succeeding in the coming election. Brexit is not a radical expression. It is archaic, neo-imperialist, reactionary and escapist.

    If the Climate Emergency radicalizes Australian electorate in the same way as Brexit has done in Britain, along the Labor party becoming to be seen as ‘sitting on the fence’ on this issue. Then can see Greens support rising to such high levels.

    This is delirious. Voters have had many chances to support the Green agenda. They don’t vote for it in large numbers and nor will they. Labor does not ‘sit on the fence’. Its enemies make this accusation but it is false. Not that it makes a difference…..the decoy games of the Greens and the LNP work in their own ways.

  36. Tristo
    ‘If the Climate Emergency radicalizes Australian electorate in’
    There appears to be a small section of the Australian electorate radicalized by the climate emergency.
    There appears to be a largish section of the Australian electorate aware of climate change but totally unprepared to alter their lifestyle to accommodate remediation.
    There is smaller section and influential section of the Australian electorate totally opposed to any acknowledgement of climate change, totally opposed to any economic interference to alter their business models and in complete control of the MSM and elected politicians.
    This last section have control of taxation, the courts, administrative appeals, communication, public influence and climate policy.
    I suggest your ‘if’ is a “Sunday too far away”
    I would very much like to seesome radical change to climate policy affecting this dry and unpredictable continent. Nothing practical has much chance of succeeding without a united combined effort by the radicalised, together with the the largely apathetic (and largest proportion of the electorate).
    The continuing counter productive fighting between the Greens and Labor will not radicalize the apathetic, but it will send many voters to continue to digest the complete bullshit and lies perpetuated by the LNP continuing to ingratiate themselves to the rich and their godless abhorrence of anything which will be for the benefit of Australia and its future.
    The types (including myself) availing themselves of this wonderful site are removed from the general sentiment widespread throughout this nation.
    Sometimes I wonder whether we on poll bludger are no better than the LNP with our propensity to believe our own bullshit and cocoon ourselves in a web of self-indulgence and deceit.
    To make change in Australia, all voters preferring a non LNP government, need to unite to rid this country of the bunch of corrupt, neo fascist troglodytes holding the country to ransom.

  37. RI @ #1295 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 11:18 am

    This is delirious. Voters have had many chances to support the Green agenda. They don’t vote for it in large numbers and nor will they. Labor does not ‘sit on the fence’. Its enemies make this accusation but it is false. Not that it makes a difference…..the decoy games of the Greens and the LNP work in their own ways.

    Like many people, I used to believe that Labor’s policies were superior to the Greens.

    Like many people, I will be rethinking that opinion after today’s fiasco.

  38. If Brexit-like sentiments were to become as pronounced in Australia as they are in the UK, the White Australia policy would be revived and Pre-WW2 – really, pre-Federation – social and economic values reinstated generally.

  39. Goll

    To make change in Australia, all voters preferring a non LNP government, need to unite to rid this country of the bunch of corrupt, neo fascist troglodytes holding the country to ransom.

    I said something very similar earlier today.
    It seems impossible for a united front, but a war can be won by attacks from multiple sources.

Leave a Reply

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