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 surpasses 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 the 0.8% margin Susan Lamb was able to eke out 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 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 think it’s very clear now that Joel Fitzgibbon is positioning himself for a tilt at the Labor leadership.

    This fight will be the final nail in Labors coffin.

  2. ‘Bushfire Bill says:
    Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 1:17 pm

    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.’

    As you indicate, tn the case of several Australian beaches, the construction of breakwaters and jetties has interrupted coastal sandflows, causing the coast line to edge outwards in some areas and inwards in some other areas.

    Even with the small changes in sea level we might get large changes in energy distribution along the coast. This may or may not be made worse by changes in energy distribution caused by changes in onshore and offshore storm patterns including considerations of changes to surges and changes to river outflows and variations in the silt burdens.

    Human activities impacts on coastline growth and retreat has been going on for much of the past several thousand years at least. For example, felling of the Anatolian Plateau forests and the resulting erosion and silt deposition, has caused cities that were coastal in biblical times to be 20-30 km inland now.Oil, gas, peat and water extraction has caused flooding in some coastal areas. Isostatic rebound since the last Ice Age is also impacting on coastlines. Add massive global clearing of mangroves.

    Sea level rises, permafrost melt adjacent to coastlines, and reductions in sea-ice extent are already having separate and/or cumulative impacts on all of the above. Several Alaskan villages are now being constructed in such as way as to allow the buildings to be dragged further inland as the coast line retreats.

    It would be safe to say that if we added US and Dutch expenditure on managing global warming sea level rises… we would probably be reaching the first billion by now. This is just the tiniest start to what is inevitably is going to be a growing series of multi-billion dollar shit fights over the next century.

  3. It looks like Bandt is positioning himself to get rid of that serial failure, Di Natale.

    Di Natale’s Party has lost every single election since he was leader.

    Bandt is so roneri, so roneri…


  4. Rex Douglas says:
    Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 1:40 pm

    I think it’s very clear now that Joel Fitzgibbon is positioning himself for a tilt at the Labor leadership.

    This fight will be the final nail in Labors coffin.

    ROFL

  5. lizzie @ #1410 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 1:46 pm

    Rex D

    You give up too easily. I have seen suggestions that FitzG should swap to the Nats, or retire like Marn Ferrson into a sinecure.

    Fitzgibbon has been increasing his media profile and is clearly creating a mark of difference with his advocacy for coal.

    These are the clear signs of an impending leadership challenge.

    Quite obvious he is attempting to secure the factional support of the CFMMEU as part of his quest for power.

  6. frednk @ #1411 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 1:47 pm


    Rex Douglas says:
    Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 1:40 pm

    I think it’s very clear now that Joel Fitzgibbon is positioning himself for a tilt at the Labor leadership.

    This fight will be the final nail in Labors coffin.

    ROFL

    The question is how will Albo shore up his position given he will most likely lose the support of the CFMMEU.

    I’d urge him go for broke and run on a progressive left agenda with environmental policy at the forefront.

    Interesting times ahead.

  7. Well, that was exciting. Hubby dropped a car onto his hand, had to be taken to the Base Hospital by ambulance. Despite all the drama, all he has is bad bruising.

  8. C@tmomma says:
    Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 1:38 pm
    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.

    Oh dear!

    I wish you hadn’t said that comrade.

  9. I wonder how much government money across the world has gone into renewable energy research over the past 40 years. Then compare that with subsidies that the global coal industry has received.

    Total global spending on clean energy research and development, by governments and non-government entities combined, is a minuscule 22 billion USD per year.

    That is not a typo. Twenty-two billion USD per year, from all nations combined.

    The US Government alone spends $600 billion per year on its military.

    In view of the immense benefits that would be gained by deploying clean energy technologies worldwide, it is tragic that the world’s national governments allocate a pittance to this field of research.

    https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2019/7/11/20688611/climate-change-research-development-innovation

  10. Boerwar @ https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/10/06/call-board-south-east-queensland/comment-page-27/#comment-3267130

    “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?”

    I only visit PB spasmodically – and sorry, yes the latter – he is misreading the electorate now. I doubt the Adani/coal was THE major driver for Joel’s near death experience. I have family in coal mining and none have raised this as an issue with the ALP in general conversation, not that I have specifically asked them.
    What some have said though is they see Joel as lazy and has taken the electorate for granted for too long. Maybe this sentiment feed into the election result as well.
    Shorten was also very unpopular with them. And, for whats is worth, my household consists of 4 centre left adults including me. The other 3 disliked Shorten deeply. He was seen as wooden and as the face of the axing of both Rudd and Gillard. I do not know how they voted in May.

  11. Coal mining has been subjected to Thatcher-like political exploitation, this time from the self-styling Left.

    It’s no surprise that Joel is trying to defend the dignity of miners. They are his base.

  12. I am struggling to understand the rational behind some of these Green’s failure at last election comments?
    Didn’t win? well i can understand that, was anyone expecting them to?
    Failure? on what scale, looking prior to the election i thought the Greens would lose quite a few senators, given the last election was a DD. The fact that they held QLD, SA and NSW would have been a miracle for them, and with only 3 sitting members up for election next time a repeat performance will take their senate numbers to 12 at the least? in addition they are still making steady progress in the ACT
    In the HOR it was clear (and opined on many occasions here) that they ran dead in quite a few contestable seats to help Labor?
    One thing can be said was that they ran strongly on a key message and it certainly resonated well in the senate, just a shame that it wasn’t enough to to hold the BOP with Labour in the senate.
    All amounts to nothing anyway as you don’t govern from the Senate, so BAU will continue for another critical 3 years. If today’s news out from Labor is anythingto go by, then we have no hope in averting catastrophic AGW anyway.
    edit: Sorry the DD i was referring to was the election previous to last obviously 🙂

  13. From the ABC “Police are investigating the “suspicious” origins of a devastating bushfire, which is believed to have started late Friday and yesterday destroyed up to 30 homes in northern NSW.”
    ROTFL did they start with the Liberal Party, big coal, oil and the RW media?

  14. Jeff,

    It was no surprise the Greens won a Senator in NSW. The full count in 2016 showed they would have won the sixth seat had it been a half-senate election.

    South Australia became a doddle for them due to the collapse of the party formerly known as NXT. Without that collapse it would have been an impossibility (or at least a high improbability).

    Queensland was the only state where their performance was unpredictable. In the end they just got over the line due to a strong surge at Labor’s expense (for some reason). There’s likely to be some springback at the next election, making the Greens’ task in Queensland very difficult.

    The ACT is out of the Greens’ reach, at least for the next twenty or so years and probably forever. They may have had an outside chance under the old voting system, if the Liberal vote had fallen another one or two percentage points.

  15. Player One @ #1279 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 9:06 am

    The punters will forever be aware that Labor is utterly riven on the issue,…

    The different groups of punters that Labor have to appeal to are utterly riven on this issue.

    There is currently no climate policy position Labor can take that reconciles these profoundly conflicting groups sufficiently to win government.

  16. AM,
    Interesting points, but i cannot see how you can substantiate many of them. NXT voter decline in SA does not necessarily translate to Green votes, nor is it that simple that if Labor loses 3% in QLD and Greens Gain 3% these voters simply switched.
    In relation to NSW, given the hammering they were taking from the MSM in relation to party unity etc etc i would class the result as exceptional for them.

  17. Jeff wrote:

    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?

    My point, exactly, is that it’s doubtful Collaroy and Stockton have been eroded due to climate change or global warming.

    Stockton has had large breakwaters erected that have stuffed up the natural ebb and flow of currents, and hence sand deposition and migration.

    It’s doubtful whether Collaroy has even been eroded beyond its (millennia-old) natural cycles. A few mugs built their houses and apartment blocks on the beach, that’s all. They are now whingeing about the beach impinging on their real estate values. The oceans have risen by a few centimetres, not the metres needed to devastate Collaroy (or any other) Sydney beach.

    As a general point, attributing every single extreme event – be it storm or fire – as being caused by global warming just plays into the hands of climate deniers, who characterize such hyperbole as irrational panic.

    Yes, it’s getting warmer, and yes, the bushfire season is longer than it ever used to be. But that doesn’t mean every bushfire or East Coast Low in NSW happened because of global warming.

    Panicking about it isn’t helping. Jumping on people and demanding to know “What is your point exactly?” isn’t going to win friends or especially influence people into retracting their climate change denial.

    OK, fuck the climate change deniers. We don’t want to be their friends particularly, but we DO want to influence them enough so that they at least get out of the way of action to mitigate – and maybe one day, centuries hence – restore the climate back to normal.

    But even then, what’s “normal” mean? Earth is between ice ages, it is said. The planet experiences a lot of them, with their frequency measured not in geological millions, but mere thousands of years, few enough thousands for geneticists to be able to trace back the lineage of homo sapiens to the last ice age (where our species, going by mitochondrial DNA, looks like it was reduced to a few isolated bands).

    Now we have 7 billion humans. In 100 years this will be close to 25 billion, unless something (once again) almost wipes us out. Climate change IS important, but a large part of that importance is due to overpopulation, not global warming directly. For example, it’s mostly overpopulation that, one way or another, directly or indirectly, is wiping out species, not global warming.

    Overpopulation is a dirty, nasty subject, because discussing it necessarily involves discussing the necessary death of billions before our species gets back into balance with nature, by being reduced to a size that frankly can’t do much harm.

    But who’s going to make the sacrifice? You Jeff? Me? BW? Who’s going to delete their own great-grandkids from the future human mitichondrial DNA register? Any volunteers for the Soylent Green production line? The healthier we as a species get, the more we do to mitigate global warming and eradicate disease, the more we’ll feel safe procreating. It’s a law of nature (if you really want to talk about what’s natural), common to all species. We as humans are not exceptions, but we need to figure out a way we can be.

    Overpopulation – how to deal with it, how to stop it, and should we even try to – is the real question, not squabbling over a few millionaires’ beach houses in Collaroy.

  18. Bushfire

    Must be about a century since we were warned about overpopulation, but that was laughed away, probably by the fans of continuous economic growth.

  19. @TessaHardy9
    ·
    48m
    So far in court all climate change protesters have been released with no punishment, no fine, the Magistrate saying time in the watchhouse is enough. Story Bridge Paul Jukes released on bail. Prosecutor wanted him banned from city bridges, that was refused.
    @9NewsQueensland

  20. Jeff,

    NXT hoovered up votes from all over the place at its peak. With them out of the way SA reverted to a more standard three-way contest, which suited the Greens as they had been strong there before Xenophon came along.

    You’re right that the result in Queensland might be more complicated. The LNP lost votes as well as Labor, so it probably wasn’t a simple direct shift. Nevertheless, the loss of Labor vote is a very close match to the Greens’ gain, so it might not be a coincidence.

    As for the hammering from the MSM in NSW, what else is new? How is that different from the election before and every election since the Greens were formed?

  21. BB
    You seem to narrow the whole issue to overpopulation, sorry not that simple. Is overpopulation an issue? yes is it the cause of AGW? no. I would implore you to perhaps research what a minor % of the worlds population contribute the history of carbon pollution, you will find it to be very much in line with the distribution of wealth.
    “But who’s going to make the sacrifice? You Jeff?” I wish. if i had known as much about the planets plight before i had children (or B.C as my wife calls it 🙂 ) i would have never bought them into this world. I have apologised to them for my role in this mess and urged them to think very seriously about their decision to have kids.
    You may not have realised it but 400,000 kids too to the streets because they understand our plight better than the supposed “adults” of this world. The dire shit we have left to them is not lost on them, hence frank speeches by the likes of Thunberg etc.
    In case it may have not got your attention, i personally don’t give a F**k about “winning friends” and have absolutely no sympathy for rich (meaning first world) people such as ourselves, whinging when their homes are flooded or burnt to the ground when they let self F***ing interest dictate their pathetic decision making when it comes to voting.
    “As a general point, attributing every single extreme event – be it storm or fire – as beung caused by global warming just plays into the hands of climate deniers, who characterize such hyperbole as irrational panic.” – actually i didn’t, all the events I Have mentioned are as a result of climate change, not every event, big difference.

  22. BB

    The Earth’s climate is a single partially open system. Some energy goes in and some energy goes out. When you pump masses of energy into the system then the entire system is perturbed.
    Every weather event, whether within recent historical ‘normal’ parameters, has been impacted by humans.

    Global Warming matters because of the accelerated rates of change. Neither natural nor human systems are adapted to cope with the accelerated rates of environmental change.

    The impact of all other environmental pressures, including population, will be dominated by global warming.

    If it were to be one in all in I would be prepared to halve my standard of living. This is far more than would be necessary to halt global warming.

  23. AM
    “As for the hammering from the MSM in NSW, what else is new? How is that different from the election before and every election since the Greens were formed?”

    Good point!

  24. ‘jeff says:
    Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 2:12 pm

    I am struggling to understand the rational behind some of these Green’s failure at last election comments?
    Didn’t win? well i can understand that, was anyone expecting them to?’

    The Greens Party single biggest existential policy promise was to deliver zero net emissions by 2030. They cannot possibly deliver that with 10% of the vote.

    So, against their own No 1 benchmark, they failed miserably.

  25. Paranoia setting in for the govt?

    Organisers at the Australian Cyber Conference in Melbourne asked a speaker to edit his speech on Australia’s anti-encryption legislation, after they had dropped two other speakers, who were delivering talks related to whistleblowing, from the line-up at the last minute.

    Guardian Australia has learned that Ted Ringrose, partner with legal advice firm Ringrose Siganto was told to edit his speech, and conference organisers had sent him an edited version of his slide pack on his talk stating that the original version was “biased”.

    He said they took issue with a comparison between Australia’s encryption laws and China’s, despite the fact that his talk points out that while Australia’s look worse on the surface, in reality it is “just about as bad”.

    Ringrose said he pushed back at the attempted censorship and the conference organisers agreed to let him present his talk as planned.

    …The conference also banned media from attending a session where an official from Home Affairs explained the development of the government’s 2020 cyber security strategy. Non-media attendees said the talk contained nothing that wasn’t already public knowledge.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/09/melbourne-cyber-conference-organisers-pressured-speaker-to-edit-biased-talk?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

  26. Rex Douglas:

    [‘I think it’s very clear now that Joel Fitzgibbon is positioning himself for a tilt at the Labor leadership.’]

    You’re not, then, au fait with the rules governing a Labor leadership change:

    [‘First, knocking off a leader would require a minimum of 60 percent of the caucus vote if the party was in opposition, and 75 percent if it were in government.

    Second, if there was more than one candidate for the leadership, either after a spill or an election loss, a temporary leader would be installed while there would be a month-long ballot process with the caucus and the rank-and-file each having a 50 percent say in the outcome.’]

    Given Albanese was, and probably still it, favoured by the rank-and-file, I think he’s safe as houses – nice wedge though.

  27. Boer….I’m starting to think the use of the term ‘system’ is misleading wrt both the environment and especially in relation to the human population.

    We do not have a ‘system’ – in the sense of an ordered set of processes – so much as chaotically interacting pressures, loops and inflations/deflations.

  28. C@t,

    Luckily we are not near the Otto in Rosebery. When we helped mum get her unit we had a preference for an older one. Hers was built in 2007.

    That preference has been far more important than we could have conceived.

  29. Mavis Davis @ #1437 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 3:50 pm

    Rex Douglas:

    [‘I think it’s very clear now that Joel Fitzgibbon is positioning himself for a tilt at the Labor leadership.’]

    You’re not, then, au fait with the rules governing a Labor leadership change:

    [‘First, knocking off a leader would require a minimum of 60 percent of the caucus vote if the party was in opposition, and 75 percent if it were in government.

    Second, if there was more than one candidate for the leadership, either after a spill or an election loss, a temporary leader would be installed while there would be a month-long ballot process with the caucus and the rank-and-file each having a 50 percent say in the outcome.’]

    Given Albanese was, and probably still it, favoured by the rank-and-file, I think he’s safe as houses – nice wedge though.

    Albanese has always had the rank and file, but that didn’t stop Shorten from working the factions to beat him.
    Fitzgibbon will have learned from Shortens method and will have the CFMMEU behind him as a start…

  30. Boerwar

    “The Greens Party single biggest existential policy promise was to deliver zero net emissions by 2030. They cannot possibly deliver that with 10% of the vote.

    So, against their own No 1 benchmark, they failed miserably.”
    So how is that different from Labor?

  31. ‘Albanese has always had the rank and file, but that didn’t stop Shorten from working the factions to beat him.’

    Bollocks. Albanese demanded, as part of the leadership contest, that MPs be released from factional obligations. Shorten obliged. Albanese lost because left wing MPs – those who knew him best, one would assume – voted for Shorten. The Left punished MPs who broke ranks, the Right didn’t.

  32. Rex Douglas:

    [‘Albanese has always had the rank and file, but that didn’t stop Shorten from working the factions to beat him.’]

    That was pre the change to the rules. Currently, Albanese is in the equivalent to the “Phoney War”, unable to get on the front until the election review completes its work. He’ll come out firing early next year.

  33. zoomster @ #1445 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 4:13 pm

    ‘Albanese has always had the rank and file, but that didn’t stop Shorten from working the factions to beat him.’

    Bollocks. Albanese demanded, as part of the leadership contest, that MPs be released from factional obligations. Shorten obliged. Albanese lost because left wing MPs – those who knew him best, one would assume – voted for Shorten. The Left punished MPs who broke ranks, the Right didn’t.

    The rat Kim Carr sold out to the right for a shadow front bench spot.

  34. Mavis Davis @ #1446 Wednesday, October 9th, 2019 – 4:16 pm

    Rex Douglas:

    [‘Albanese has always had the rank and file, but that didn’t stop Shorten from working the factions to beat him.’]

    That was pre the change to the rules. Currently, Albanese is in the equivalent to the “Phony War”, unable to get on the front until the election review completes its work. He’ll come out firing early next year.

    Albanese has no choice but to differentiate himself from Fitzgibbon who has forced this situation.

    He can’t be seen as a lame duck leader led by the nose so he has to put down this revolt by shifting Labor to a strong left progressive agenda with the environment front and centre.

    Bring it on !

  35. Rex

    Alternatively, he took advantage of the deal Albanese had negotiated. Obviously Albanese thought the deal would benefit himself. It didn’t.

  36. In news that will surprise nobody except the usual suspects…

    Almost 400 all-time high temperatures were set in the northern hemisphere over the summer, according to an analysis of temperature records.

    The records were broken in 29 countries for the period from 1 May to 30 August this year.

    A third of the all-time high temperatures were in Germany, followed by France and the Netherlands.

    The analysis was carried out by the California-based climate institute Berkeley Earth.

    Over the summer, there were 1,200 instances of places in the northern hemisphere being the hottest they’d ever been in a given month.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49753680

Leave a Reply

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