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.
Or alternatively, #ETTD.
I predict once Trump becomes unpopular among the Coalition base supporters, then Morrison will very quickly distance himself from Trump. Right I now I argue it is actually politically profitable for Morrison to associate closely with Trump. Morrison while terrible at governing, is a great political strategist and tactician, arguably the best since John Howard.
D&M makes the truthful claim that she IS a scientist, and DOES consult on Climate Change science, and good for her.
But what about the millions who AREN’T Climate Scientists who happen to agree with her and hundreds of her colleagues? They cite D&M et al – aka “The Science”, or alternatively “98% of Climate Scientists” – but not the actual science and detail of their arguments… just the fact that they have come to a conclusion on Climate Change: that it is a real phenomenon.
How is this different from other people who also cite climate scientists (or those scientists who consult with them), but who don’t agree that Climate Change is real?
Isn’t it just one group of non-scientists summarizing what they believe to be “The Science” versus another group of non-scientists summarizing what they believe to be “The Science”? (And, of course, both camps believe the other camp is delusional about Climate Change).
For either side of the argument, does anyone who is not a climate scientist have any business quoting “The Science” as the be-all and end-all of their position?
Is just quoting the preponderance of scientists advocating the pro-Climate Change case enough ( especially where we see old scientific theories, tropes and shibboleths regularly demolished after new research)?
I’m a Climate Science “believer” myself. I understand the principles (or most of them – Dunning and Kruger take note), can see how climate data backs them up. And what I don’t intellectually “get”, I accept, based on the reputations of the scientists who ask me to take it on faith – faith in both them and in the integrity of the scientific peer review process.
And yes, I can also see it’s “getting hotter”, but why is this personal observation any more valuable a conclusion to come to than that of the (arguably far more climate-sensitive and savvy) farmer or politician who quotes Dorathea MacKellar?
None of this is a criticism of D&M at all. But why is quoting her conclusions, or pointing to her reputation any more “proof” than someone else quoting the contrary conclusions or reputations of other, equally qualified scientists?
And if it’s not any better proof, what IS the killer argument that will change the World’s response to the changing climate?
What Morrison seems to be doing is trialling a few right nationalist populist memes that have worked so well for Johnson, Le Pen and Trump.
If they don’t work he will quietly drop them.
If they gain traction for his targetted voters, he will keep them.
If they have the added benefit of giving the Greens something to fulminate over in the Culture Wars, so much the better.
One immediate unicorn benefit is that Morrison is virtually escaping scot free from the major fuck up that is the Religious Discrimination Bill.
No-one likes it. What a mess!
Littleproud displayed the coalition climate policy as is.
The coalition condescend to admit there might be a problem caused by climate change but any action takes second place to maintaining power and controlling the purse.
The coalition are gutless pretenders.
I blame cosmic rays.
Big A Adrian
Perhaps I haven’t heard enough ABC, but I’ll accept your point. 🙂
I often wondered how they did that.
Boerwar @ #63 Sunday, October 6th, 2019 – 10:13 am
The Insiders almost identified the real problem. The Big $$ accruing, Accountancy/Consultancy firms-KPMG, E&Y, Macquarie Bank, Goldman Sachs, and the list goes on.
So many Coalition MPs are from this area and so many go back there when they leave politics. In the meantime they funnel hundreds of millions of our tax money their way in a never-ending taxpayer teat-sucking exercise.
BW: “IMO, Labor should right now be announcing an immediate and major regional drought aid/global warming mitigation/global warming adaptation policy.
This policy should be double digit billions.”
That would be a sensible approach. A couple of problems occur to me though:
1. such a policy needs months, if not years to properly construct – if they don’t want to be ripped to shreds about ‘funding black holes’ and what-not. Such a policy can’t simply be pulled out of the air as a knee-jerk reaction to the coalition’s inadequate response on Insiders.
2. It would require labor to actually take a consistent and plausible stand on phasing out coal, which presumably would require them abandoning the sacred QLD coal votes you keep telling us is so critical to win elections.
None of this is a criticism of D&M at all. But why is quoting her conclusions, or pointing to her reputation any more “proof” than someone else quoting the contrary conclusions or reputations of other, equally qualified scientists?
And if it’s not any better proof, what IS the killer argument that will change the World’s response to the changing climate?
Maybe you should start your Everyman analysis by reading this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-siberia/
It doesn’t exclusively quote the science or speak to scientists!
That, along with Douglas and Milko’s erudite contributions, based upon the fact that her husband is a Climate Scientist, as opposed to the Climate Science/Global Heating Denialist ‘experts’, like Bob Carter and Jennifer Marohassy, who aren’t, is more than good enough for me.
Victoria @ #95 Sunday, October 6th, 2019 – 11:04 am
Jeez, Donald Trump is an easy to push around pussy! 😉
Tell him to do something, and he’ll do it for you! Even if it constitutes an Impeachable offence! 🙄
Low fibre, high sugar diets. Negative Godism. Yadda yadda.
And Seinfeld.
The Killer Argument?
Plus two per cent!
BB
I watch an interesting video on the issue with regards to the politics of it all. Interesting because he discussed the scientific method in relation to systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4
2. It would require labor to actually take a consistent and plausible stand on phasing out coal, which presumably would require them abandoning the sacred QLD coal votes you keep telling us is so critical to win elections.
Big A Adrian,
I know being a Green (T)trumps everything else, but this person is actually married to a Climate Scientist. You could learn a thing or two from what they have to say:
But, we also need to understand the science – Yes, stop burning fossil fuels now, ASAP, but understand that the global warming we are seeing now is due to fossil fuel burning around 70 – 100 years ago.
The fossil fuel burning we are undertaking now will have the biggest effect in around 50 – 100 years. Very bad, but in no way does this justify hurting people in the developing world so our lovely white wealthy grandkids have a slightly better climate.
We are now well into the mitigation phase.
Not sure? I will happily provide you with the the equations of radiative transfer, so you can draw your own conclusions.
And, if you cannot put together a simple computational model of the equations of radiative transfer – it is not that hard – please do not @me about how you know so much more about climate models than I do !!!!!!!
BW @11:16. “What Morrison seems to be doing is trialling a few right nationalist populist memes that have worked so well for Johnson, Le Pen and Trump.”
Alexander Downer seems to be lending a hand:
“Former ambassador to Britain told a European audience refugees were “undermining the whole system” by seeking permanent migration instead of temporary protection in speech this year that flew under the radar.”
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/alexander-downer-said-migrants-in-australia-were-setting-up-bantustan-style-ghettos-20191004-p52xsu.html
Yep. I knew someone in marketing. More trial and error than anything else.
His efforts have more chance of success. He has his cheerleaders in the RW media, other media happy to repeat it and his foes foaming at the mouth to make fun of it. He cant lose.
If we ignore Snake Oil Scott, will he go away? Internally hollow, externally a shadow.
Big A Adrian @ #110 Sunday, October 6th, 2019 – 11:23 am
Labors commitment to coal donors is solid and enduring.
As a result, so to is their increasing political irrelevance.
The drought now being experienced in parts of NSW is not a drought in the usual sense – a disruption of normal rainfall that will cease at some point, when normal rainfall patterns will resume. It is a part of a secular trend for a hotter and drier climate. In the future, the ‘disruption’ will be the rain.
This is climate change in motion. This is also a study in escapism, denial, paralysis, self-deception, self-pity, political evasion and budgetary tokenism.
A New York billboard poses a question for Donald Trump.
Jericho
😆 well yes, but not really funny, is it.
Victor Orban’s Hungary is a favourite destination for Australia’s hard right demagogues:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/why-australia-s-conservatives-are-finding-friends-in-hungary-20190924-p52uim.html
This is exactly what I was talking about. Just saying “That’s good enough for me” is demonstratably NOT a winning argument for what should be an easy case to make (if our civilization is headed for catastrophe).
That stance boils down to faith: faith that D&M has told us the truth (which I have no reason to doubt, but others might), faith that her “erudite contributions” accurately reflect “The Science”, and faith that Bob Carter and Jennifer Marohassy (whoever they are, but I presume ” denialists”) are crackpots. Some people might take Bob Carter and Jennifer Marohassy very seriously. Why is your (or anybody else’s) opinion better than theirs? Why would the Chinese or US President, or the chairman of a coal mining company care that someone on a blog, or in the street, or at a bus stop reckons someone they personally trust is worth listening to?
No matter how strongly and sincerely an individual personally believes a particular phenomenon is real, or believes in the person informing their position, that is not a logical argument in favour of the position itself.
It’s not a trivial point to make. Statements of faith are being ridiculed by both sides of the Climate debate, while the world folds its arms a does very little.
I blame the cycles.
A pattern of protracted drying, warming and reduced rains can be seen in the SW of WA. This is an irrevocable shift. It is forcing pronounced changes in the composition and location of agricultural production and will soon lead to the extinction of the remaining karri forests in the SW- forests which no longer receive enough rain to survive for very long. Irrigated agriculture in this region is also at serious risk of crashing and there is already quite intense competition for the right to build dams and for access to water from the rivers.
These processes are visible and understood. But they go largely unremarked. Silence is observed in this arena.
Boer, we have to come to terms with the failure of the industrial and agricultural revolutions to achieve the conquest of nature. For about 200 years we have been encouraged to think that we had got on top. But we haven’t. We are still at the mercy of nature, which operates entirely independently of our volition or, frequently, our comprehension.
We will be humbled by nature. Instead of facing this, we will attempt to satisfy our losses by taking revenge on each other. We are very foolish.
RI
I blame the sun. It can’t makes its mind up.
My idea of a potential “killer argument” is to take personality and faith right out of the debate.
“Insurance” is a possible one.
● Premiums themselve are rising, based on rising payouts.
● International sanctions may force changes in government attitude,
● New industries promote greater employment, insuring workforces against retrenchment.
None of these require anyone to “believe in” anyone else. They operate on self-interest: simply put “You’ve got to be in it to win it.”
Climate has changed before.
Insurance companies will use any excuse to increase their premiums.
Why is your (or anybody else’s) opinion better than theirs?
I’m not saying my, or that anybody else’s opinion is better than theirs, I’m simply stating that I believe some people more than I believe other people. You can choose to believe Bob down the street who believes the water level at the local beach hasn’t risen since he was a boy, but I tend not to, because that’s not rigorous scientific method, it’s simply hearsay. Or, is it, hesay?
Why would the Chinese or US President, or the chairman of a coal mining company care that someone on a blog, or in the street, or at a bus stop reckons someone they personally trust is worth listening to?
They don’t. However, they care a LOT what Greta Thunberg has to say. Hmm, I wonder why?
Not that I care what THEY think. I’ll continue to place MY faith in the words and scientific observations of those with no $$ in the , profiting from creating Greenhouse Gases and Global Heating, game, simply care and concern for the future of life on this planet game.
Climate bullies abound.
Boerwar is in a flippant mood this morning. I remember though his attitude when he came back from his Queensland holiday. He put on his serious face then.
Referring to yourself Boery?
“I blame the cycles.”
Yup, cyclists can be annoying. 🙂
The models keep getting it wrong.
The deniers have “scientists” on their side – and Dorothy! Perhaps that is the problem. Any scientist will do, even one with no expertise in climate, atmosphere, etc.
Climate organisations keep changing the facts to suit their theories.
Joe Hildebrand actually makes some good points here. Boerwar same-same.
https://climateactionaustralia.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/joe-hildebrand-why-climate-change-kids-like-greta-thunberg-cant-win/
[‘London: One of Boris Johnson’s closest allies has slammed Julia Gillard’s comments casting doubt on the likelihood of the UK and Australia striking a free trade deal immediately after Brexit.
Nigel Adams, the UK’s sports minister and close friend to Prime Minister Boris Johnson told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age Ms Gillard’s views were irrelevant to ordinary Britons.
“Quite the intervention?” Adams wrote on Twitter in response to the Herald’s report.’]
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/zero-impact-johnson-ally-and-uk-minister-slams-gillard-s-brexit-intervention-20191006-p52xza.html
There’s nothing wrong with Gillard critiquing the proposed free-trade deal with the UK post-Brexit. The Tories are easily offended, probably the result of the pressure they’re under. But they’ve only got themselves to blame. As Ma Anand Sheela often said “tough …….”.
Scientists are just like you and me – in it for the money.
@Steve777
The ideology of at least the more right-wing elements in the Coalition parties, is more closer to that of Hungary’s ruling party Fidesz than I previously thought. Given that Alexander Downer, Kevin Andrews and Tony Abbott went to Hungary to a conference organised by the Hungarian government.
mundo says:
Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 10:00 am
‘Rather than blame the policy itself how about blame the lack of salesmanship of the policy.
Don’t just drop the policy because you can’t find a leader with the skills to sell it.’
Absolutely right.
If Labor dumps this they leave themselves open for the mother of all campaigns from the stone cold killers in the tory party who will go to the next election claiming you can’t trust Labor.
Again, thank you Blind Freddie. Your insights are awesome.
——————————————————-
I know it’s a convenient metaphor. And I’ve raised this in the past.
I hope you might avoid using it in future and find another expression. It is demeaning to people of low or no vision. My wife who is legally blind, and who soon might drop the “legally,” does not find it amusing. No to mention my son Fred and my late father Fred.
I hope other contributors might also reflect on using the expression.
I am sick of those socialist sneaks in the UN plotting to take over Australia under cover of the camouflage of pseudo climate science.
Of course it was!
Yes, I agree that insurance companies will always look for an excuse to raise premiums. But they will NEVER look for an excuse to raise payouts.
And payouts ARE rising. That can’t be plausibly faked for any kind of extended period.
Bushfire and storm damage are increasing, to take two obvious examples. Premiums need to go up. Whether you “believe in” Climate Change or not, you’ll be forced to pay them. As civil and international tensions arise due to climate stress, premiums will rise more.
None of that requires anyone to believe in anything. Instead of being against corporate interests to act on Climate Change, it will be to the advantage of corporate interests not to pay higher premiums, and of nations to co-operate internationally.
No CO2, no life.
Insurance companies are in it for themselves.
Those who are the most easily offended are those who feel the most insecure.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/zero-impact-johnson-ally-and-uk-minister-slams-gillard-s-brexit-intervention-20191006-p52xza.html