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.
As for the IPCC reports, spot the mistakes! They are a huge crew of fake news hagglers using other peoples’ money to make shit up.
“I am sick of those socialist sneaks in the UN plotting to take over Australia under cover of the camouflage of pseudo climate science.”
They are all nefarious bastards who should be photographed, named, shamed, prosecuted, ostricised from their families who should also be punished, and if they are lowlifes on any kind of benefit have it taken away from them and then be shipped off to one of those atolls floating around the Pacific……..
When CO2 is dissolved in water it makes Carbonic acid: Basic chemistry.
As for the Flannery quote
”
That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
“
The name Greenland was a marketing name by the Viking who first moved to settle it. The Medieval warm period did not extend to Greenland.
“When Erik returned to Iceland after his exile had expired, he is said to have brought with him stories of “Greenland”. Erik deliberately gave the land a more appealing name than “Iceland” in order to lure potential settlers. He explained, “people would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name”. He knew that the success of any settlement in Greenland would need the support of as many people as possible. His salesmanship proved successful, as many people (especially “those Vikings living on poor land in Iceland” and those that had suffered a “recent famine”) became convinced that Greenland held great opportunity.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red
https://icelandmag.is/article/what-happened-viking-settlement-greenland-new-research-shows-cooling-weather-not-a-factor
This podcast is a great listen on the subject.
https://fallofcivilizationspodcast.com/2019/03/26/episode-4-of-fall-of-civilizations-is-now-live/
The average Australian (including presumably your average Greens supporter) emits around 15 metric tons of CO2 per annum.
These are the guys who don’t wan the average Indian (1.7 metric tons of CO2 per annum) to escape from poverty and hunger.
CAGW is a rich man’s plaything.
imacca
Good stuff. We should not let the plotters get away with it.
5 posts on the trot from Boerwar = spamming PB
One of the favorite arguments against Australia reducing emissions is the following:
India and China produce much more CO2 so the average Indian and China need to reduce from (1.7 metric tons of CO2 per annum) before Australia does anything( 15 metric tons of CO2 per annum.)
Catprog
Fake news is like a bath in sulphuric acid, right?
There is a long, long way to go until the oceans approach being acid.
‘Acidification’ sounds so much more alarming, don’t you think?
Former Commanding General of U.S. Army, Mark Hertling
The arguments on Ukraine right now – there was no quid pro quo, we always trade x for y, we were just fighting corruption, the phone call was perfect, Rick Perry made me do it – are really stair steps of dumbness.
I must admit, when President Obama said a good strategy was “don’t do dumb sh*t,” I thought it was lame. Seems pretty smart now.
BW,
Yes, insurance companies are only in it for the profits.
Which is why they must price risk correctly.
There are sufficient insurers and reinsurers to ensure there is competition, so collusion on rates is unlikely.
No, they have very clever mathematicians (actuaries) and reams of data which they use to price the risks.
There were howls of dismay from Cairns residents when their buildings insurance premiums increased due to increased risks of storm damage. Even politicians huffed and puffed.
They may have been howling at the moon for all the good it did.
Insurance companies will not insure you if they can’t make a profit.
Climate change is real. The insurance companies know it is.
Just like life insurance companies knew cigarette smoking increased risk of premature death, and priced it accordingly in the ’70s, when ratbag politicians were still complaining about restrictions on ‘the right to smoke’.
It’s real.
Insurers know it’s real.
Sceptics and those who should know better are just deluding themselves and the weak minded who listen to them.
Climate Change is also much less alarming then Global Warming right?
Leroy
Whatever. Things are looking up in Greenland. New mining areas are opening up yearly, and the crops that the vikings used to grow are again becoming possible. Plus, they are going to be major beneficiaries of the opening up of trans-Arctic Ocean trade between the Far East and Europe.
But in terms of selling, you do have a point. They upped their game with ‘Vinland’.
ML
Climate has always changed. So the insurance companies are taking full advantage of it. Can’t blame them for that.
As for the Cairns residents, if you build your house on a natural coastal funnel that is only just above sea level and that, sooner or later, is going to deliver the mother of all storm surges, you have only yourself to blame.
Their ‘solution’ is typical nanny state socialism: other peoples’ money.
‘Catprog says:
Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:33 pm
One of the favorite arguments against Australia reducing emissions is the following:
India and China produce much more CO2 so the average Indian and China need to reduce from (1.7 metric tons of CO2 per annum) before Australia does anything( 15 metric tons of CO2 per annum.)’
Hypocrisy. Right. CO2 is the only consolation in my miserable existence.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/zero-impact-johnson-ally-and-uk-minister-slams-gillard-s-brexit-intervention-20191006-p52xza.html
“Brexit is set for Halloween and Johnson has made a “do or die” pledge that Britain will leave on that date,”
ye gads…….couldn’t write that in a comedy script and get away with it. 🙁
During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate. In practice, each point raised by the “Gish galloper” takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place. The technique wastes an opponent’s time and may cast doubt on the opponent’s debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
“imacca
Good stuff. We should not let the plotters get away with it.”
All good BW. We have Dutton, the Greatest PM Australia hasn’t had yet on the case!! 🙂
‘Catprog says:
Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:29 pm
When CO2 is dissolved in water it makes Carbonic acid: Basic chemistry.
As for the Flannery quote
”
That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
“’
Try telling that to the people downstream from Wivenhoe.
Fourteen posts in half an hour, Boerwar. Shut up.
Catprog
Nice little gishgallop you have going there yourself. It saved you from having to actually debate the contested science!
Plus you did it from the stance of some sort of spurious excellence in setting fake debating standards.
If you can’t stand the heat in the kitchen turn the stove off, right?
Bushfire Billsays:
Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 12:13 pm
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.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with you there Bushfire. In all the arguments about the “science”, with global heating denialists quoting one or two outlying scientists to justify their stance, people should not overlook the future benefits of renewable energy.
If climate change is happening, we’d better move to renewables quick as we can. If climate change is not happening, where’s the harm in ensuring we nevertheless breathe cleaner air, drink cleaner water and operate a more convenient energy system?
Some recalcitrants won’t even accept that; preferring to safeguard their cultural and political identity with arguments that fossil fuels can never possibly be replaced. That’s what happens when people so rigidly entrench themselves in certain positions.
But arguing for more defined benefits beyond preventing climate change could be a way to go.
“It’s real.
Insurers know it’s real.”
Yup. Interesting and significan that seems like anything to do with new Coal mines is fast becoming un-insurable.
William, that is IMO rudely phrased.
Over and out as directed.
Sure we had a flood for one year but for the rest of the time, pretty much everything is looking for more water.
Ocean acidification is also a problem.
Note this does not mean it’s like sulfuric acid.
Is it a problem?
Definitely. It will result in food chain destruction, and that will lead to mass starvation.
Read the article linked below and be appalled.
This is an excerpt from the article on the Smithsonian site
https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification
I think it was a good idea, but…
The person who invented the ‘Try On Tool’ for an online spectacles website, must have been a young, non-glasses wearing digital programmer because you can’t see how you look in bespoke new glasses from their online shop…after you have taken your glasses off! 😆
“Ration your brilliant insights more sparingly” then.
Boerwar
Are you turning into, or have you always been, a climate change denialist?
Your attacks on climate change protesters and suggestions that environmental management of bushland is responsible for bushfires could have come straight from the pages of Murdochland.
Related to that, I think Labor supporters have got to stop blaming the Greens for Labor losing the last election. Maybe the Adani convoy wasn’t such a great idea but real climate action has to be taken and a way to reconcile this with the fears of coal communities losing their jobs has to be found.
As for the greens on bushfires:
Replace mandatory burn quotas with evidence-based, fluctuating hazard reduction burns to reduce fuel loads at appropriate times in bushfire prone areas;
https://greens.org.au/sa/policies/bushfires
The biggest thing stopping fuel reduction burns are actually
1) Lack of resources for actually doing the burns.
2) People who are against the smoke
Can Albo rock the Akubra? He looks a bit like an impoverished farmer or the guy that runs the small town milk bar but it’s not too bad. I’d suggest that like Howard and Fischer he wear a white shirt and tie to offset it.
https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/2618b54bdd6c2fb146a640e0f79aae40
ar,
I think we are probably in agreement about what should be done about climate change. I definitely do not think we should be encouraging the developing world to build new fossil fuel electricity infrastructure. Instead I think the developed world should be pouring enormous amount of money into helping them develop wind , solar and whatever other infrastructure will help them develop.
I think the problem is that politically this is proving a lot more difficult than it should.
My main beef is with people who shut down any discussion of how to proceed with “you are obviously too stupid to understand the science. I have seen this happen to both Simon K and Dandy Murray when they have made very sensible and accurate comments.
I think we need a more nuanced and civil debate to have any hope of moving forward.
I have been pondering today. If farmers “walk away” from their properties, will they be purchased by the lucky rich, such as Gina, or might they return to “the Crown”, and thence to the Indigenous peoples?
OK, I know it’s all unlikely.
Also apologies for not posting the original comment which is some way back. At the hospital on phone. Today is not the best of days. Relative very sick.
Speculating, discussing, debating about how the AGW “argument” will be won is a nonsense. It’s a didactic wank.
No argument about a major aspect of life is ever “won. “
Take your pick …… the Holocaust, vaccination benefits, existence of god, round earth, democracy V dictatorship, capitalism V socialism, the after life, punishment of criminals, equal pay, compensation for domestic/family work , homeopathy and naturopathy etc etc etc
A sizeable proportion of the population will always continue to disbelieve “accepted” view ie the science.
The important issue is how and when will the rubber of actual changed behaviour hit the road, and what will eventually precipitate it.
The answer of course is not simple, but it will not come from just one source such as a change in peoples’ attitude effected by rational argument. Because in all these matters, idiots abound, and idiot media gives them air. Take Malcolm Roberts, Hanson, Katter, Palmer and the like and their supporters…. they just don’t do logical debate. And our “unusual” electoral system gives them political voice. Add to that the Sky after dark mob, and their supporters. They will continue to oppose while ever they can breathe.
Having said that, there is one aspect of societal behaviour which can always play a major role in bringing on change, and it’s not logical debate. It is the movement of money. Be it related to insurance (as others have mentioned), to salaries, to investing, to bankruptcy, to share prices. When enough people start feeling pain from the status quo and at the same time see their more progressive, creative peers trying new things and apparently succeeding, the momentum will take over and produce change.
Applying this to AGW, the momentum is close. The business community (eg BHP, Rio Tinto) some branches of government (eg SA), communities and individuals (solar panels, more efficient appliances, electric cars) are well on the move. Appropriate pain is pretty widespread in the form of energy costs. Despite the idiots’ influence and the RWNJ politicians’ opposition, day by day and week by week, action to counter AGW is happening.
And guess what. In the coming years as renewables take over and carbon emissions are well mitigated, the “argument” will still exist. Anyone waiting for logical science based knowledge to change the abovementioned idiots’ anti AGW views or for ratbag media types to start broadcasting sense, will still be pissing into the wind.
Lovey,
Good question about the CO2. I will write something sensible when at computer. Also, I think developing countries should be assisted to transition away from fossils fuels ASAP.
This is now a political problem, and world politics has taken a big step back with the election of Trump, Morrison and Bolsanaro. Morrison’s election sent shivers through bodies wanting action on climate change. I was surprised, but apparently they accurate predicted Morrison would help Thrump thwart world action.
I think many Liberals like Frydenberg has always accepted climate change is happening but where they differ from practically everyone else that accepts it is on the question of the cause and how much of that relates to human activity.
Mexicanbeemer
Maybe they believe it’s happening, but I’d argue that (a) they don’t know what to do about it and (b) in any case won’t do anything that might affect their position as MPs.
Edit: that is, lose votes.
Mexicanbeemer
says:
Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 3:29 pm
I think many Liberals like Frydenberg has always accepted climate change is happening but where they differ from practically everyone else that accepts it is on the question of the cause and how much of that relates to human activity.
______________________________
IMO it’s more to do with Frydenberg not wanting to do a Turnbull and making the right wing hate him. He’s made it to Deputy so he’s on track. I think his personal ambition trumps whatever intellectual arguments about climate change he might have.
Douglas and Milko @ #234 Sunday, October 6th, 2019 – 3:13 pm
I’m unable to say much of use about that. Maybe just that we (all of us) will, sooner or later, be in the position of needing care and support or will be the carer and supporter.
I spent years (about 20) doing the caring and supporting. It’s a task well worth the doing and is it’s own reward.
Best wishes to you and your family. My bears are hibernating – as will I be very shortly. 😇😇😇😇😇
C@tmomma says:
Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 11:18 am
Proudfoot desperately trying to deny that their reactions have been too slow, but Fran picked that apart’
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.
——————————–
I differently think that all governments are far too reliance on the likes of KPMG and E&Y but I think that says more about the political class particularly on the right with its not wanting to trust what it sees as left lending public servants.
But at the same time its the people working in those businesses that also live in the wealthier electorates that are slowly shifting towards the ALP with businesses like Macquarie doing far more to tackle climate change than the government is.
Nath
That is probably part of it, as would be the green tinting in parts of his electorate.
Climate change is real. The insurance companies know it is.
Just like life insurance companies knew cigarette smoking increased risk of premature death, and priced it accordingly in the ’70s, when ratbag politicians were still complaining about restrictions on ‘the right to smoke’.
Insurance companies don’t need to know for sure whether AGW is real. They only have to know the risk of it being real, if that.
No faith, personal admiration or belief involved. Hip pocket only. If you want to argue the point, find another insurer. Life reduced to its simplest.
Lizzie
The Libs are wedged on it thanks to the cultural warriors building up the argument that its a left wing thing.
Mitigation seems to be the word of the day. Don’t worry, we are mitigating the problem!
Sure we are. Worldwide GHG emissions are rising at record rates. Australia’s emissions are also rising. There was never really any hope of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees, and the window of opportunity to keep it to 2 degrees has also now closed. The most common prediction seems to be somewhere around 3.5 degrees by 2100, and still climbing – although many think it will be worse than that.
https://www.co2.earth/2100-projections
This may not be in my lifetime, but it is certainly within Greta Thunberg’s. No wonder she’s a little pissed off!
Thank goodness we are mitigating!
Good evidence for insurance premiums acting to slow down carbon emissions (apart from domestic insurance going through the roof in bushfire and cyclone regions) is this week’s report of the umpteenth company to refuse the Adani rail link insurance coverage. 20 or so companies have now said “No.” It ultimately gets back to carbon emissions.
And then there is the refusal of many life insurance firms to cover smokers. Different issue, same strategy.
Remember they locked up Al Capone on tax charges. Salvation on AGW may come from unexpected directions.
Another one is trade. If Australia becomes a trade pariah over coal, ScoMo can huff and puff all he likes over his negative glibalism.
It’ll still be shitful knowing that some ignoramuses may still believe AGW is a fairy tale conspiracy, but who cares if they are kept to an ineffectual rump?
As a Queenslander I have tried very hard to pinpoint the reason for the ALPs bad result in SEQ.
All I have come up with Neville Wran’s “they are all greedy bastards” reference to Australian voters.
Also federal labor is too left wing for Queensland unless it’s led by a Queenslander (2007) or its a recession (1961 and 1983).
That climate change is seen as a ‘leftwing thing’ is testament to the extent to which far so-called conservatives have left the reservation when it comes to science, reality and risk mitigation.
The US evangelicals (or most of them) continue to support Trump come hell or high water.
Fessy
Absolutely but the reactionaries see everything they don’t support that way which then often results in those things becoming left wing as its the left or more the case the non-reactionaries that take the issue seriously.