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.
In relation to the environment, the charade that is Canberra-politics is a distraction. The action in climate and energy in Australia is in the States and in the private sector. There is no majority in Australia for effective national policies on climate change. Labor have lost 4 elections in a row on this.
False. In the previous election Labor ran with a fence-sitting policy on climate/coal. Adani was neither welcomed nor condemned.
You’re correct that they’ve since stopped doing that and come down on one particular side. That’s an improvement, but undermined by the fact that they picked a lamentably bad side to come down on.
lizzie
The multiple sources are attacking each other, says the LNP with much glee.
lizzie….the Right are powerful in Australia. They win nationally most of the time. This is not going to change until Labor’s plurality is restored to its former levels. And this cannot be done as long as the Greens write and publish themes that undermine Labor.
Labor need to win 10 seats from the LNP to have a bare majority. There are very few Lib-held seats on margins below 5%. So Labor will need to change the political landscape to win. There is no sign this can happen. Anti-Labor/Labor votes split 2:1 against Labor in PV terms. This is pretty-well rusted on now. We are facing another long period of Reactionary rule. Howard held power for 11 years. This current phase could last a lot longer than that.
Fitzgibbon’s Hunter is a coal seat. As BB has previously described, half an hour touring Newcastle Port makes this obvious.
Hunter is one of four large state regional seats still in the hands of Labor. The Coalition now holds 27 such seats, the generally pro-Coalition Indies 3 such seats, and the Greens zero such seats.
At the last election the choices were quite clear, IMO.
100% pro coal: Coalition.
Somewhere in between: Labor.
0% coal by 2030: Greens.
There was a very large swing to pro coal in the last election.
The 0% coal by 2030 position was rejected by a very large margin in the electorate.
The assumption that this swing can ONLY be fixed for Labor by campaigning for the Greens’ zero coal in 2030 policies is counter intuitive at best.
RI @ #1299 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 10:24 am
The similarity between UKIP and One Nation wasn’t lost on me. I was wondering if Climate might become a similarly polarising and hence influencing issue. Perhaps though you’re saying the issue doesn’t have to reach those extremes for the dynamic to assert itself, or we would already have seen White Australia reinstated?
I have sufficient contempt for Fitzgibbon and his position on emissions that if I lived in Hunter I would probably abstain from voting. I think the ALP and any future parliament would be better off without him.
Boerwar
Perhaps Labor could employ Morrison as their PR man since he’s so good at refining messages to a few words.
(OK I know that’s not funny.)
Adani was made into a token for climate policy more widely. This is utterly idiotic but it worked. Adani is the greatest beat up of all time. But it helped keep Labor from winning. Mission accomplished for the Greens.
Labor will be out of power for many years to come. The Lib pretend-policies on energy and climate will remain in force. Mission accomplished for the Greens.
Wouldn’t it be a real laugh if the 5 billion dollars that was set aside for the wall, was actually siphoned elsewhere.
That would throw a spanner in the Trump shit show.
‘Jolyon Wagg says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 11:39 am
I have sufficient contempt for Fitzgibbon and his position on emissions that if I lived in Hunter I would probably abstain from voting. I think the ALP and any future parliament would be better off without him.’
The pro coal candidate would thank you very much.
caf @ #1296 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 10:20 am
Yes, and interestingly reflecting the Remain stance taken by the orange line. It’s the same issue, just the other side.
RI @ #1310 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 11:41 am
I presume you mean the proposed “bipartisan Liberal/Labor policies on energy and climate”?
And I presume you would support them, since this would certainly “Stop the Embargo”?
Fitzgibbon should go off and join the Nats.
Boerwar @ #1312 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 11:45 am
You will have to be more specific 🙁
The Coalition is impacting people’s standard of living and causing this nervousness, so in a sense they are wedging the progressives’ desire to act on AGW. Labor correctly wanted to restructure taxes so that there would have been money for compensation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/extinction-rebellion-risks-polarising-public-on-climate-veteran-activist-says?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=soc_568&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1570581457
The good news is —The Australian continues on it’s winning way with agenda setting quality journalism.
The better news is that I will now commence my vacuuming and other cleaning. The stories about the “quiet Australians” are “must miss” items (probably applies to the other items also).
Toodles. 😵
Putting Fitzgibbon aside for the moment, at the last election the choices were quite clear for Hunter voters, IMO.
100% pro coal: Coalition.
Somewhere in between: Labor.
0% coal by 2030: Greens.
There was a very large swing to pro coal in the last election in Hunter.
The 0% coal by 2030 position was rejected by a very large margin in the electorate.
The assumption that this swing can ONLY be fixed for Labor by campaigning for the Greens’ zero coal in 2030 policies is counter intuitive at best.
Beyond that it is plausible that there were as suite of anti-regional policies that helped reinforce coal policy aversion. These policies mainly related to two sets: the first being culture war positions and the second being the generally anti-farming position of the Greens in particular. The Coalition were very pro farming. Labor was in between but was widely regarded as being closer to the Greens than the Coalition.
Again, the notion that Labor becoming more like the Greens will win back some of the 30 large state regional seats seems, at best, counter intuitive. Fitzgibbon gets this. The Greens cannot put up with this so ‘fix’ Fitzgibbon’s political comprehension by attacking Fitzgibbon personally and policy-wise.
And so it goes.
Thus the zero net emissions by 2030 chimera is pushed back indefinitely and our climate policies are, at last, “fixed”.
Late Riser
“A single-issue minor party can shift an entire country.”
It helps if they are supported strongly by the right-wing media!
Boerwar @ #1319 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 11:55 am
Not “fixed” so much as “the fix is in” 🙁
‘mikehilliard says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 11:47 am
Fitzgibbon should go off and join the Nats.’
If the political nostrum of zero per cent emissions by 2030 is adopted by Labor then Hunter will go National.
Then the people who consider themselves to be policy perfect will be able to enjoy their purity untrammelled by vile scums such as Fitzgibbon.
Thank KayJay.
I see the Australian is helping to put the boot into Labor through that pillar of ethical behaviour, Taylor.
Lately…. I think ‘climate change’ is a trigger issue for the Romantic/Escapist Right. They conflate recognition/action on climate change with sinister ‘global’ forces. Together they signify loss of autonomy, conspiracy, modernity. There is a longing for the past…for certainties in culture, economy, tribal affiliations.
As a digression, I was at a funeral yesterday. The assembled were all very conservative Christians. Their creed would have them hold the view that the Bible is literally true – that the earth is 6,000 years old. For these people climate change is a doctrinal impossibility. They really are escapist in the most startling ways. They were overwhelmingly white, Anglo and submissive to authority symbols. They’re very very sweet as well. I have not a bad word to say of them in that respect. But they have a really child-like, simplistic world-view. Science….reason…change….these mean nothing to them. They seek ‘grace’ and ‘the love of the saviour’. They would be politically conservative to the very last.
lizzie @ #1323 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:01 pm
Labor certainly seems to have a “Kick Me” sign stuck on its back at the moment.
Boerwar says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 9:52 am
Just imagine if the Australian citizens concerned were a busload of white Hillsong school kids!
Morrison is the Prime Minister of Gutless Betrayal.
———————————-
Absoluteley spot on!
Once again, using women and children as political pawns.
They are rotten to the core!
WRT the seat of Hunter swing there was bugger all ALP visibility here during the campaign – all the while we were bombarded heavily with Palmer and Coalition adds.
Its probably also worth remembering a lot of the mine workers are on high incomes (lots of hours in a 24/7 industry) and will benefit greatly from the Coalitions tax cuts. They would not want the ALP to roll them back.
The Facebook death taxes campaign was rampant as well especially among females.
I am personally not aware of an “ALP is anti coal” campaign here but I don’t work in the industry. I think Joel has misjudged the electorate badly.
Goll @ #1271 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 11:21 am
This.
The quality of one Goll post outstrips, by a country mile, the quantity of Player One’s posts.
Turkey’s on the move, seemingly oblivious to Trump’s threat that he’d “obliterate” its economy:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/turkey-to-cross-syrian-border-shortly-says-erdogan-s-office-20191009-p52yzy.html
‘Terminator says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:09 pm
WRT the seat of Hunter swing there was bugger all ALP visibility here during the campaign – all the while we were bombarded heavily with Palmer and Coalition adds.
Its probably also worth remembering a lot of the mine workers are on high incomes (lots of hours in a 24/7 industry) and will benefit greatly from the Coalitions tax cuts. They would not want the ALP to roll them back.
The Facebook death taxes campaign was rampant as well especially among females.
I am personally not aware of an “ALP is anti coal” campaign here but I didn’t work in the industry. I think Joel has misjudged the electorate badly.’
Thanks for the local inputs. I did not describe the ALP position as anti-coal but as somewhere between the 100% pro coal Coalition position and the 100% anti-coal Greens position.
Do you mean that Joel misjudged the electorate when he lost a large percentage of the vote last time? Or because he is misjudging the electorate because he is trying to shift Labor policies towards the Coalition and away from the Greens this time?
C@tmomma @ #1328 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:10 pm
How’s your pro-coal campaign coming along?
‘Mavis Davis says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:12 pm
Turkey’s on the move, seemingly oblivious to Trump’s threat that he’d “obliterate” its economy:’
It is appalling.
The ‘Free Syrian Army’ largely consists of pro-ISIS and ISIS elements under the tutelege of the Turks. The Kurds will fight but simply do not have the stand off weapons to severely punish the FSA.
‘It’s going to get worse’: Rick Wilson explains why the GOP wants to ‘tear the Band-Aid off sooner’ on impeachment
On Tuesday’s edition of MSNBC’s “All In,” Never-Trump GOP strategist Rick Wilson highlighted the Republican strategy to protect President Donald Trump from impeachment: Trick Democrats into holding the vote too early, so Trump and his inner circle won’t have as much of an opportunity to blurt out incriminating facts or obstruct justice.
“A dead fish never smells better a week later,” said Wilson. “It’s going to get worse and have more political consequences as time goes by. That’s why they’re rushing.”
“These guys recognize, also, Donald Trump is the greatest advocate and argument for impeachment,” continued Wilson. “He keeps doing things in broad daylight that are impeachable. They keep doing things to obstruct Congress. They keep doing things to reveal the depths of his malfeasance on these foreign calls. And so none of the Republicans right now bravely pounding their chests saying ‘Do it now, do it now,’ really want it to happen at all, but they’d rather try to tear the Band-Aid off sooner and pop this bubble of anticipation, and if Democrats are smart, which is always an open question when it comes to these hardball maneuverings, they’ll delay this, stretch this.”
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/its-going-to-get-worse-rick-wilson-explains-why-the-gop-wants-to-tear-the-band-aid-off-sooner-on-impeachment/
@Goll for now these people on both sides of the climate emergency debate are a small section of the population.
What happens if a catastrophic drought and a summer from hell were to occur?
This is likely for at least this summer coming up, that is going swell the ranks of the climate strikers and the extinction rebellion. Not mention such a severe drought will push the Australian economy into a recession into the latter half of the 2019/20 into the 2020/21 financial years.
This is going to result in the sense of urgency about the ‘Climate emergency’ spreading from the Generation Zers and Millennial’s to a lesser degree, into the older generations. When people have that type of mindset, they are much more prepared to pay any cost.
Whistleblower reckons Trump’s crazy:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/crazy-trump-phone-call-left-official-frightened-whistleblower-says-20191009-p52yzf.html
Here’s a local opinion on Fitzgibbon.
Yes, it was. And in politics tokens matter. Even if/when they’re idiotic and meaningless. You’re not going to be acknowledged as having suitable policy in a particular area, such as climate, if your policy ignores the token issue(s) of the day.
Tristo @ #1334 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:21 pm
We are already in the midst of the worst drought on record, and the bushfire season is not waiting for summer.
But I believe Sydney had some rain, so we’re all good 🙁
Player One @ #1305 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:16 pm
Because I’m not a one-eyed ideologue who pointlessly wastes every day on PB taking potshots at rational contributors who understand reality, quite well, thanks for asking.
And goodbye. Who needs to waste their time, every single day, on irrational individuals who appear to care more about making themselves feel superior than they do about actually rolling up their sleeves and achieving the things they profess to care so much about? Which is you, in a nutshell, Player One. As it appears you learned less than zero yesterday, because here you again, trotting out the same old, same old, pointless and ineffectual snarky drivel.
Hi all,
Have not been on the site much since the election but things don’t change much really.
Have read through a few pages of this thread, and yes i know this is a political thread -polling to be more precise but polling on politics, there are the usual arguments each way on what direction “politics” should go on climate change.
I posted prior to the election and will re-iterate now, physics, chemistry, oceanography, climatology etc. does not give a f**k about politics.
Society really progressed for the better when the majority actually trusted qualified scientists before the right wing media.
What are these “qualified scientists” telling us, simple really we are already f***ed, its just to what degree of F***ed we want to become. 1.5°C of warming is already locked in, there is no avoiding that even if net CO2 emissions become 0 tomorrow. The lag effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere already and the resultant loss of Aerosol reflective coolants when coal is phased out will take us to at least 1.6c above pre-industrial levels, this is of course not even accounting for positive feedback loops, which are already kicking in far sooner and at a larger rate than predicted.
I have made peace with the fact that the general population in first world countries such as ours are too selfish to act on a clear and present threat.
I have also lost sympathy for those affected by the consequences of climate change who have done F**k all to prevent it. Farmers voting for the nationals, Karma hurts, Queensland voters who overwhelmingly voted Right wing nut-jobs and now being burnt out in bush fires that started in winter for FS, again Karma hurts. I could go on and on, most particular in my home state of Tassie, but hey this was not supposed to be a novel.
A final note/question. If the “Qualified Scientists” told us that a large asteroid “Bruce Wills style :))” will hit and wipe us out in 50 years but we could build good defences and save the planet at the cost of “economic growth” would anyone care?
C@tmomma @ #1339 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:27 pm
Be sure to give my regards to Joel!
I went camping in central Victoria last weekend, on a private property. The grass was lush, thick, and knee-deep. The river was the highest I’ve seen in decades.
I wonder if the place qualifies for a million bucks of drought assistance.
Edit : That’s the Goulburn River.
Jeff
In relation to your asteroid question, the answer depends on which teams are playing in the GF.
What happens if a catastrophic drought and a summer from hell were to occur?
We’ve been having them for a few years now, and at the last federal election people voted with their hip pocket nerve. The Clive Palmer/Coalition’s (same thing really), propaganda and social media campaign worked a treat.
So, if the lived experience over the last decade at least didn’t work, what do you propose that will make things work better next time, Tristo?
And don’t say a Recession will make the scales fall from people’s eyes, it won’t. People will just hunker down and attempt to keep whatever jobs they have now, and vote accordingly, again, with their hip pocket nerve.
C@t
We live in hope
And then dicovered the saying
Live in hope die in caergwrle
And as unpronounceable as it seems
We continue
WaPo’s David Ignatius @IgnatiusPost · 1h1 hour ago
A bad situation in Northeast Syria is about to get much worse. Sources tell me that US officials have just informed the Syrian Kurds that Turkey is likely to attack on air and ground in next 24 hours. The US will do nothing. Targets are Tal Abyad and Ras al Ayn….
…Ironically Tal Abyad was the main supply route for ISIS in 2014-15 through an open border from Turkey. Turkey refused repeated requests from US to shut border. That’s a big reason why US decided to partner with SDF, which took the town in the summer of 2015.
…I’m also told that Turkish attack appears coordinated with the Russians. Russian-backed forces are mobilizing to invade the Kurdish area from the south — towards Tabqa and other spots. Meanwhile, ISIS is mobilizing sleeper cells in Raqqa and attacks have taken place tonight.
…And finally there is the scary issue of the thousands of ISIS detainees and families, who may be breaking out of camps and prisons after Turkish attack–with NO American back-up plan. This is a major disaster coming at us because of Trump’s decisions. Hours left to stop it…
https://twitter.com/IgnatiusPost/status/1181724206242902016
Goll @ #1319 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:34 pm
We’re all going to die reading Lewis Carroll books!?! 😆
C@t
Ultimately it is always about what affects people in the here and now.
phR
Fucking terrible.
phoenixRED @ #1320 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:36 pm
And Player One will be back again tomorrow demanding Labor up their game on Climate Change policy. 😐