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.
PhoenixRed
It is really a sad situation.
Victoria @ #1322 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:37 pm
And I can implicitly understand that. The comfortable middle class, on the other hand, are finding it much harder to grok that essential point, as they DEMAND Labor do this and that. 😐
11,000 Kurds died fighting on our behalf and our side.
Where is Morrison?
Where is Payne?
Where is Reynolds?
C@t
Nothing effective will occur with climate change policy at present. I really do feel it is a waste of hot air.
Especially with the unsettled situations in US and UK. Constitutional crises are at hand.
Victoria @ #1325 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:39 pm
Trump loves Authoritarian Dictators. He wants to be one himself. And he is giving tacit approval to the ones that already are out there.
Boerwar
Exactly. Is this the thanks the Kurds get from the west. It is beyond the pale.
C@tmomma @ #1350 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:38 pm
Well, given that this is a psephological site, at least it has some bearing on Australian polling and politics.
Especially given that it seems Labor is just about to rip the scab off its climate change policies, which (arguably!) lost it the last election.
But sure, we can talk about something else. How was your long weekend?
Victoria @ #1329 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:41 pm
Like I said, the comfortable middle class can afford to spend all day, every day, on a blog, berating Labor and their supporters. The working class have simply got survival, in the here and now, on THEIR minds.
C@t
Leaving the Kurds high and dry at the mercy of Erogadon is the lowest of the low
Tristo
Rather hoping something can be done before the catastrophic makes some action the only choice.
Some may say we are already in the catastrophic.
But it would be nice to see some climate action and not this continuing outright denial.
Boerwar:
[‘Turkey’s on the move, seemingly oblivious to Trump’s threat that he’d “obliterate” its economy:’]
[‘It is appalling.’]
That it is. The wider question is whether the US would come to our aid if we were to be threatened?
Boerwar:
[‘Turkey’s on the move, seemingly oblivious to Trump’s threat that he’d “obliterate” its economy:’]
[‘It is appalling.’]
That it is. The wider question is whether the US would come to our aid if we were to be threatened?
I tend to doubt that any of it was actually Trump’s decision. Trump does what he’s told and/or pretends to be a decision-maker when other people outmaneuver him and do things outside of his control.
Victoria @ #1334 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:44 pm
And Putin. And Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad.
Mavis Davis @ #1337 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:45 pm
Who by? China?
I’d say, that would be a ‘No’.
Boerwar:
I omitted to attach this link:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/key-lesson-for-australia-in-trump-s-move-to-abandon-kurds-20191008-p52yni.html
a r @ #1363 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:45 pm
Indeed. The though occurred to me that Trump’s creditors now think he won’t last much longer, so they are lining up and presenting the bills. I would be expecting quite a few more irrational decisions before this plays out.
PhoenixR,
and isn’t it just ironic that the Syrian civil war started because of what – oh yes severe unprecedented drought caused by climate change and actually predicted by scientists on a BBC program in the 80’s. Also a journal for anyone wanting to thing there is no link published by the American Meteorological Society
“Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria
Peter H. Gleick
Weather, Climate, and Society
Vol. 6, No. 3 (July 2014), pp. 331-340
Published by: American Meteorological Society
jeff @ #1368 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:48 pm
Woah! You’re really grabbing a c@t by the tail by making such a connection!
C@t
Yep. It was ever thus.
Attended funeral on Monday for cousins brother in law who we knew very well since he was a young kid. He was 44 and recently diagnosed with scaladerma. Very aggressive, It killed his mother 25 years earlier.
Feedback was how wonderful the hospital staff were etc etc.
That sort of stuff is what focuses the mind for people more so than climate change policy.
For example, I can’t see air travel being minimised anytime soon by the general public. As this would be one very vital way of tempering climate change.
People just want to get on with their day and will only focus the mind when climate change is so bad it can no longer by ignored.
Tristo keeps hoping for economic calamity in the belief this will dislodge the Reactionaries. This is a forlorn belief. If there is a crisis the electorate usually rallies to the Right.
This is especially likely to be true if ‘safety’ is a theme in the crisis. It’s notable that Abbott will refer to safety (and freedom) anytime he gets the chance. The Right depict themselves as the safe-keepers. It works.
When Curtin passed reforms allowing the Commonwealth to pay unemployment benefits he described them as Social Security. This term has been discarded. It has been replaced with ‘welfare’, which is code for dependence. Welfare is semantically counter-paired with independence or self-reliance. This language is a very long way from the idea of Security that was enunciated by Curtin. It allows the Right to erode the role of the Commonwealth in providing economic and social security for the broad masses of the population. ‘Self-reliance’ is a cousin of ‘freedom’. The Right pose as protectors of ‘Safety’ in relation to ‘threats’ of various kinds while also campaigning on ‘freedom’. These are themes in Reactionary ideology. They are the very antithesis of either safety or freedom. But they work.
Anyone like to comment on the idea that Fitzgibbon is a “factional heavy”, or is it just in Fitz’s mind?
lizzie @ #1372 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:52 pm
I guess we’ll know tomorrow 🙁
lizzie @ #1347 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 12:52 pm
As is Adam Bandt a Greens’ ‘factional heavy’, and if you want to believe his propaganda Tweets, you can. Or, you can reflect back on Mark Butler’s interview on Insiders a few weeks ago and get some realistic perspective.
Joel Fitzgibbon may be a ‘factional heavy’ from the NSW Right, however, it seems to have escaped your attention, apparently, that the federal Labor Opposition leader is from the Left faction, as is the former President of federal Labor, Mark Butler. I doubt either of them are as feckless, reckless, or lacking in principle, to do as Bandt is screeching from his Twitter that Labor is going to, like the galah he is.
‘All the parrots in the pet shop’. A great Keating saying, sums him up perfectly. He’s just angling for votes. And best ignored.
@player one,
As i have stated over and over prior to the election, it doesn’t matter what your political leaning, mother nature, and science doesn’t care.
I am not making a link, nature made the link and the human race done what it does best, act in the most appalling of ways 🙁
“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.”
————————————
With decades of the ALP caving into and contributing to the BS LNP narrative about jobs vs environmental sustainability. Exemplified by the useless blowhard ALP partisans here going on for years and running with every LNP talking point under the sun. More important for them to spread their spiteful small minded never ending critique of anyone who doesn’t agree with their mantra, is to be derided and labelled as a deplorable Green.
The incumbent duopoly of the major parties, corrupted as we can see by donations from the fossil fuel and development industries, have fostered the profoundly ignorant attitude of many Australians. That complete BS worked even a little bit reflects just how much wilful ignorance has been cultivated, even facilitated and not challenged by the duopoly of LNP and ALP, in exchange for the interests of their political donors.
As others have noted, physics and bio-geochemistry don’t give shit for any fool human’s political strategy or delusional plans about what they’ll do when one magical day they can apparently sneak into power without anyone noticing they actually stand for nothing but self interest.
The economy and society requires a functioning environment stupid.
In my opinion, no matter that I sympathise with their anxieties, the protestors who have joined XR have adopted tactics that will shift the focus from the environment to public order. This will mean they remain a marginal outfit with next to no public support. They are Green-run. This can only be a bad thing for their goals and for the environment.
What it will mean is that to speak up for biodiversity will mean speakers will be tagged as collaborators with truculence and civil disruption.
Very sad. Very, very sad.
C@t
I didn’t necessarily believe Bandt, but I didn’t need a thumping, just an opinion.
Ante Meridan.
Don’t forget Victoria is spending millions on desal water.
As a general rule whenever someone from one political party uses adjectives to describe someone from a different political party, take all the adjectives with a large grain of salt.
Q….repeating the falsehood that Labor receives funding from mysterious and powerful ‘donors’ who have determined Labor policies on the environment. This is just nonsense. It is delirious. It is the substitution of conspiracy theory for electoral politics.
Really, the farther and the faster Labor can take itself from Green delirium the better. Labor will have to achieve change wrt the environment in spite of the Greens rather than with them.
Vic,
Scleroderma, your family has my sympathies. 🙁
You’re absolutely correct about what motivates people to vote. 10% will always vote for The Greens, due to their concerns about issues such as asylum seekers and Climate Change/Global Heating. It was ever thus. The rest, as we have seen recently, can see Collaroy Beach and Stockton Beach in NSW, and Inverloch in Victoria, wash away into the sea, as a result of Climate Change, and still walk up to the ballot box and not vote with that, and the issue of Climate Change, as the decisive issue, top of mind.
Furthermore, Quoll….of course there is not a ‘duopoly’ in Canberra. There is mostly uninterrupted one party rule. The Liberals run this country. They have got things absolutely nailed. Their opponents have succeeded in just one of the last nine elections….and then the government was reduced to defeat in less than 3 years.
RI,
I consider that by far the majority of people on this forum (no matter their allegiances) have a very good grip on politics in this nation as it stands (far better than mine). Obviously opinion on policy varies.
Now that being said, what future direction in politics can you see in the next 10 years that is going to deliver the environmental and social policies/reforms to provide a safe future for your children / grandchildren?
I am not am XR member, but i do admire the direction they are taking. Will it work? no idea, but hey at least they are trying.
Is there any significant evidence supporting this?
I saw some clips of the protests on TV the other night, and it seemed like they were mostly just hanging around in garish costumes, holding signs, and chanting slogans. You know, pretty standard protest stuff.
That was intercut by clips of non-protesters having a whinge mostly about how they couldn’t get to their cars because the protest was in the way. Oh woe is them, I guess. And sure, that would be legitimately annoying. But the protesters have a right to free speech and public assembly and to wear whatever outrageous costumes they want (well not actually, because no Bill of Rights here, but they should have such rights). What are they doing that goes beyond standing around and making people annoyed at their own poor choice of parking spot?
MD
Uhlman calling it for what it is.
Bang. Right between the eyes.
No more fucking around with Trump.
Stockton washed away due to interference with wave patterns by breakwaters.
Collaroy has washed away before, and come back. It’s probably cyclical. Also, a good proportion of the buildings built at what is now the Collaroy beach water’s edge were built literally on top of the historical beach and dunes. That is: FAR too close to the water.
Any input by climate change to either beach is minimal.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02208-0
Un zo – join together 100 billion neurons—with 100 trillion connections—and you have yourself a human brain, capable of much, much more.
When the aforementioned human brain is connected to a maybe human of the asshole variety – only about 20 or thirty connections are available for anything other than self admiration, aggrandisement and praise coupled with the reverse for others humans of the not necessarily asshole variety hunceforth known as fodder of various types.
Green, green they say – women’s cricket in Brisbane. The field is in excellent shape and as green as – well grass. 🏏🦗
lizzie @ #1378 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 1:03 pm
Sorry, lizzie, I’m suffering P1 Stockholm Syndrome! 😆
BB,
and the record floods that destroyed large part of Brisbane? the bush fires that are now starting in Winter? the bush fires that are burning previously non-burnable areas such as rain forests and mountain alpine regions? the heat records, flash drought? Destruction of the great barrier reef? destruction of vast kelp forests?
I can mention about 30 areas in Tassie right now grappling with water inundation of coastal areas.
What is your point exactly?
C@t
Thanks.
Yes. People generally vote what is front of their own mind. Altruism is usually in short supply.
jeff…
The unfortunate facts are that the electorate supports LNP governments most of the time. They have a very good grasp on public sentiments – on what voters will affiliate with, on how they can be motivated.
Those who would change this are divided among themselves. Before the LNP can be challenged this division has to be set aside. This is a necessary – if not a sufficient – condition for upsetting Liberal rule. The secular trends here are discouraging. Climate change and disruptions in the global economy – in agriculture, industrial production and population – really mean the economy here will only become steadily worse. The LNP know how to work this in their favour.
Labor can contest this by proposing to deal with both the economy/jobs and the environment/climate change. But they will find it difficult to run this line while centre-left opinion is caught in internecine conflict. Labor are depicted as the enemies by the Greens. Indeed, the enmities are real. There is a lot of blame-making. As long as it persists Labor will have to recoil from the Greens….and so it goes.
Politics is premised on antagonism. But we will have to settle differences to accomplish anything. This really means humans will have to overcome their frailties. I’m a pessimist on that. It is because of our frailties that we find ourselves in our current predicament.
Lizzie says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:52 pm
Anyone like to comment on the idea that Fitzgibbon is a “factional heavy”, or is it just in Fitz’s mind?
Adam Bandt @AdamBandt
..
I’d suggest it is only in Adam Bandt’s mind.
‘lizzie says:
Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 12:52 pm
Anyone like to comment on the idea that Fitzgibbon is a “factional heavy”, or is it just in Fitz’s mind?
Adam Bandt @AdamBandt’
Usual disgusting Greens tripe.
1. Bandt’s Party failed dismally to deliver in the last election. As a result they will not deliver 0% net emissions by 2030 and they will not destroy the coal industry by 2030. FAIL. Perhaps Fitzgibbon is not the problem? Perhaps it is Di Natale? Please explain, Mr Bandt!
2. Listening to Bandt is listening to the Party of losers. The Greens got thrashed by around 90% of Australia’s voters. Following Bandt’s recipe for success will lead to electoral disaster for Labor.
3. Bandt’s Party makes its own policy decisions in secrecy. Press not allowed. Public not allowed. Who is Bandt to criticize? And when Greens MPs disagree with the Program they are bullied, harrassed or run out of the Greens’ Party.
4. Bandt may just be trying to distract from what happens to Kurdish light mobile forces, as per the Greens’ preferred ADF model, when invaded by a real army. Slaughter beckons.
5. Bandt might not have noticed but the 100% pro coal Coalition did seriously eroded Labor’s large margin in the Hunter during the last election. The Greens with their pro 100% destruction of coal achieved fuck all.
6. Bandt is attacking the Labor man. Soooooo happy with Morrison are we Mr Bandt?
7. Bandt may not have noticed but it is the Coalition that is 100% pro coal. Perhaps he might just spend a nanosecond attacking Morrison, Taylor and McCormack? No?
·
C@t
OK. I forgive you. 🙂
There are many people flailing around for solutions, and some are worrying over the problems like a dog with a bone, or an itch they just have to scratch.
Meanwhile, we have the commercial media stirring up the antagonism towards the activists (what happened to ‘protesters?’) with stuff like this.
frednk & Boewar
That’s better!
RI,
Totally agree, just to clarify though, you mention ” Labor are depicted as the enemies by the Greens”, it cuts both ways. Being a Taswegian i have first hand knowledge of vial deceitful campaigns run by Labor against the Greens, i have never seen the Greens stoop to the level of hatred campaigns run against them.
This, again just reinforces my statement that our populace will not collectively work together to reduce the harm of AGW so as a society we will suffer, and suffer horrendously.
In case anyone here thinks the Indue card is generally a good idea should read this. Longish read but very good. Situation in the NT
https://theaimn.com/drivers-licenses-for-workers-to-be-restricted-for-the-common-good/?fbclid=IwAR2fhWVMkFGqsmRFNk312J2w9ghQy9F_0GFITonhn-8U9PMZcEZ-qN20lHU
Bushfire Bill @ #1387 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 1:17 pm
Okay, so Inverloch, the Siberian Permafrost, the Arctic, the Antarctic and Greenland.
🙄
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/victoria/this-victorian-surf-club-is-under-threat-as-climate-change-eats-away-at-the-coast-20190927-p52vgy.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
The Arctic region is warmer than it used to be and it continues to get warmer. Over the past 30 years, it has warmed more than any other region on earth. Most scientists agree that Arctic weather and climate are changing because of human-caused climate change.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html
Although the impact of climate change and the Arctic are discussed often in the media, climate change in the Antarctic is comparatively neglected, or reported misleadingly.The science, however, is clear: climate change is already negatively impacting Antarctica.
The West Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming areas on Earth, with only some areas of the Arctic Circle experiencing faster rising temperatures. However, since Antarctica is a big place, climate change is not having a uniform impact, with some areas experiencing increases in sea ice extent. Yet in others, sea ice is decreasing, with measurable impacts on wildlife. ASOC believes that understanding climate change impacts on Antarctica is a matter of critical importance for the world and for the continent itself.
https://www.asoc.org/advocacy/climate-change-and-the-antarctic
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49483580
Climate change: Greenland’s ice faces melting ‘death sentence’
People hear all this, but prefer not to heed.
Kerrie Ann, being a blonde and in need of a gig, has adopted the RW Fox News blonde bimbo conservative persona. It appears to be paying the bills. 😐