Having done my bit to fan the flames of anti-Australian hysteria, props are due to the paper for this morning’s typically excellent piece by George Megalogenis on regional variations in housing price movements. Crucially, a “two-speed housing market” is identified in New South Wales, promising to hit the Coalition hard in marginal suburban and hinterland electorates (specifically Parramatta, Lindsay, Dobell, Robertson and all-important Bennelong), while delivering worthless dividends in the rich inner suburbs (where double-digit swings to the Coalition were recorded in the March state election). There’s a particularly handy cut-out-and-keep graphic listing the 20 electorates where prices have moved most heavily either way, the “price rises” list being monopolised by Western Australia. This ties in nicely with localised polling showing the Coalition collapsing in NSW, while holding ground or better in WA. Also instructive are Possum Comitatus’s renowned observations on the ratio of interest payments to disposable income. Further analysis of Megalogenis’s data from Simon Jackman.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Unsafe as houses
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
344 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 7 » Show All
Bill is the sentiment in SA that all three (Kingston;Makin;Wakefeild) will go to Labor ? What about Boothby ? If a swing was on in SA there was a kind of domino effect when I was living there. Maybe things have changed.
Laugh now but mark my words in 4 months says Edward St …IM LAUGHING now, thanks.
On the 2PP National outcome Ill take 53-47: what that means in seats for Labor in individual States and divisions is more than enough to win Government- which and where I dont particularly care beyond 16 (net).
The Age published a beautiful full-colour Mackerras pendulum today, with a mysterious seat called Wright sitting where Flynn ought to be. If only they’d looked at my website first
Simon,
I’ve had many of the same thoughts myself. But unfortunately, it seems like nobody (apart from Malcolm Mackerras) seems to want to call this one.
It would appear we’re in unknown territory. Common wisdom (according to the papers) is that “the stars have to be precisely aligned” for a change of government in Australia. And even though they’re not, all the indicators are that that is what is going to happen anyway.
So the experts are all being coy. Saying that Labor looks set to win would be a tacit admission that they don’t really know what’s going on. Worse still, if the ALP then loses, the experts will have to endure undergraduates bashing them on the head with text books that they themselves have written.
Perhaps there is only one true axiom in Australian politics: governments change when Malcolm MacKerras says they will? Time will tell.
I don’t think the punters dislike Howard, are bored with him or have tuned out. My belief is that they know he’s old (68 next week) and won’t be around to tackle the challenges facing the nation into the future – things like climate change, the next wave of economic reform etc
I don’t believe they’re scared or worried about Costello taking over, just that they know that Rudd will be there for the next decade to tackle the problems of tomorrow.
You pick the man of the moment. The issues are running Rudd’s way. Howard looks more and more like yesterdays man – see union scare campaign, response to climate change, closeness to Bush and Blair (yesterdays men?)
I’m tipping a 53-47 2PP outcome for Labor which by implication means a National swing of 5.74 percent. This would take out Bennelong, Eden Monaro, Dobell, Lindsay, Macquarie, Parramatta, Page, Wentworth (NSW): Corangamite, McMillan (VIC); Kingston, Wakefeild, Makin, Boothby (SA): Hasluck, Stirling (WA), Bass, Braddon (TAS): Blair, Longman, Herbert, Moreton, Bonner (QLD), Solomon (NT). Of these 24 seats (swings are never uniform, of course) Labor should win more than enough to Govern.
I rest my case your Honor. Over to the rest of you..Im going just read for a few weeks.
TIM – I don’t think voters HATE Howard either. I think they feel the way they felt about Keating in 1993, (but not in 1996 where that grudging respect had turned to hate) but the difference is Rudd, unlike Hewson, isn’t running on some stupidly radical policy platform open to attack, and isn’t parading around running protests against the government. So I think voters will be more willing to vote for Rudd than they were voting for Hewson.
I just really think the Coalition screwed up by not moving to a new leader. It seems to me that 10 years for a leader is the most voters can handle, after that it is someone elses go. If Costello was leader now I think they would be a better chance of winning, because people would feel that they owed Costello a full term to have a go. But instead they look like they can get the same renewed leadership but from Rudd.
That Guy, MacKerras has a terrible track record. His predictions are kind of a mixed blessing, I’m afraid. The man predicted a “John Kerry landslide”.
Didn’t MacKerras also predict that the coalition had won the 1990 election around 7 PM on the election night?
Simon – agree totally. Costello would’ve been a fresh start. A fresh start on IR, climate change and Iraq. Government’s don’t get the chance to regenerate too often in office. They’ve missed theirs!!
I wonder if the hard heads like Minchin and Robb are looking wistfully at the Blair/Brown transition and the rejuvenation that’s happening in the UK. Local examples include – Iemma, Carpenter and Lennon (despite their problems they won – Carpenter won a by-election in tough circumstances) Beattie’s probably next??
Does Costello lack the ticker or just the numbers or both? Is it too late??
I like the article in the Herald-Sun today Only Disaster Can Save The PM.
I think that eloquently describes the public opinion on Howard. Despite being in government, thanks to
WorkChoicesIR legislation, Iraq, and probably various other things down the years, Howard is now seen as the extremist. It’s the Opposition Leader is who is the moderate, “comfortable and relaxed” candidate.Nevertheless, Mackerras has the nerve to call the election, which most of the rest of us don’t. If he’s wrong, it’ll just confirm the common view that he’s a goose. If he’s right, he’ll be able to retire in a blaze of glory – unlike Howard, who will be remembered forever as (a) the man who stayed too long, and (b) along with Stanley Bruce, the PM who lost his seat. (Incidentally, Bruce came back in 1934 and won his seat back. I doubt Howard would get such a chance.)
I have now added a Senate rogues’ gallery.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/candidates2.shtml
TIM – All the leadership transitions you list are perfect examples. Beattie has already started to signal that he is going late next year, and Anna Bligh is already an obvious replacement. The Carr / Iemma transition was executed perfectly, Carr new his time was up (10 years), but gave Iemma heaps of time to differentiate himself before the election.
I just don’t think Howard could bring himself to let go of the job that he has always wanted, but I honestly think he made a bad decision that wasn’t in the interests of his party, or for that matter, the country.
I actually don’t think it is too late for them to change, as soon as Costello takes over it would be a different ball game, where he can campaign on his treasury experience, and the fact he will be facing his first election. I still don’t think it will be a simple thing for the government to win, but I honestly think that Howard is holding back the government’s vote, just as Beazley was obviously holding back the ALP’s primary vote last year. Howard seems to realise this because he said so in yesterday’s cabinet meeting.
That Guy,
In February on OzPolitics I said the logical outcome was a comfortable win for Labor. The implicit qualification was that elections aren’t about logic, which I don’t imagine anyone here would disagree with, but I was unambiguous about the rest. In my view, nothing has really changed since then. We could say Rudd is more battle-hardened than in February but that is a logical progression over time so I don’t count things like that as change when I say nothing has really changed. As in the final overs in one-day cricket, the team batting second can still win even when they need 30 runs an over but you wouldn’t say with any conviction that they were going to win, or could win. Howard can win but he won’t.
I think Tim and Simon Howson have called it correctly. There are a number of vehement Howard haters but the bulk of people realise that he won’t be around after perhaps a year at most (and more likely four months).
Would-be Liberal voters are aware they are not really voting for John Howard but perhaps Peter Costello, Tony Abbott or Malcolm Turnbull.
Really they should be told unequivocally who will be leader when John Howard retires in a year if he wins.
It will be easy for Labor to run the campaign “who are you really voting for?” with images of Alexander Downer in fishnet stockings, Peter Costello grinning and so on. It’s confusing for voters and that’s a negative.
Kevin Rudd is undoubtedly conservative and therefore OK for moderate Liberals to vote for.
There are many Liberals who are sick about the right wing takeover in NSW. There are not too many small l Liberals left in the party.
John Howard comes now with considerable baggage.
Many Liberal voters did not approve of the Iraq invasion and are reminded of it with the death of the two Queenslanders. Many too are disturbed by the IR legislation and how it affects their family members.
Even more are deeply concerned about global warming and cannot fathom why John Howard would merely parrot George W Bush.
The deep malaise has set in.
Kevin Rudd refuses to be wedged even though there are no doubt those in his party who are shocked at the way he supports even draconian Howard policies. He has nothing to lose. If voters are driven in the to arms of the Greens they will come back to Labor thanks to compulsory preferences (unlike in State elections in NSW at least).
I don’t think it will be the landslide the current polls show, as I have said, but it will be decisive.
The longer John Howard delays the poll the worse it may get. If he tries to put it off to January I think the people will think he is merely desperate to cling to power and punish him even more.
Anyway, let’s see how the polls track in the next few weeks. It will become clearer.
Since OzPolitics is now gone, so-to-speak, and most posters here did not see the original post, I suppose it’s ok to repost it here:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/?p=500#comment-57627
—————————————————-
Comment by Amber Dekstris on Monday 19 February 2007 at 5:45 am
Given the events of the last month or the last few months, I think there’s only one rational conclusion: ALP will win the federal election comfortably, say 8 seats.
I’ve said here before that both men could win and both had a lot of work to do. Rudd has enjoyed his honeymoon and has been solid without being spectacular. Howard has let Rudd get away from him and despite some recent wins has failed to show he is guaranteed to reel Rudd in.
This list is not exhaustive…
Howard pros:
- he is the most able politician in the parliament and has been for a long time
- he has counter-punched Rudd recently and will likely manage to do so again in the future
- he has only just started the pork barrel campaign
- he hasn’t yet started the propaganda campaign
- until recently, ALP have not provided a credible alternative government
- plenty of time to turn things around
- plenty of time to manufacture an effective issue or exploit effectively a happenstance
- has a history of party unity in public (although less unified now)
- still deriving much benefit from the resources boom
- he has the advantages of incumbency
- he will reduce ALP’s lead
Howard cons:
- he is too predictable
- his tried-and-true tactics, primarily wedges, haven’t been working this time; Rudd has anticipated some and countered others
- WorkChoices. Drip. Drip. Drip. Every month, more and more people are having bad experiences and/or learning of family/friends having bad experiences. This is one area that does not ebb and flow. It is a ratchet phenomenon and it is getting worse for Howard all the time. The fact that he refuses to release analysis of AWAs does not help
- housing unaffordability. When a person decides they can’t afford to buy a house (or will have to compromise on what they do buy), no statistic telling them how wonderful everything is will change their mind on how they feel
- he is making errors of judgement
- backbenchers are getting nervous. Leadership speculation will hurt
- “keeping interest rates low†followed this term by a succession of rises and no falls
- David Hicks. Johnnie-come-lately. 4 years detainment is ok to Howard but 5 is too long? Howard decides 5 years is too long after the opinion polls do?
- Iraq. Andrew Wilkie, anyone? Howard has no solution. He’s been very clever at getting political advantage while keeping Australian troops out of harm’s way, kudos to him, but now, that same political advantage is starting to backfire — people are beginning to see Howard has not done commensurate heavy lifting
- demonisation of any opposing view, whether individual or organisation or public or private or non-profit. Includes Andrew Wilkie above. Shoot the messenger
- his abuse of the Senate, especially after promising not to abuse his Senate majority
- Climate Change. Johnnie-come-lately. Where will those 25 nuclear reactors go? Painfully beholden to the fossil fuel industry
- relative inaction over the decade eg. ignored warnings by Master Builders et al of impending skills shortage
- “non-core promisesâ€
- he has lost some advisors. The impact of these losses depends on the extent to which Howard actually relied on the advice of those people
- accumulation of baggage
- Hubris. Should’ve handed over last year and walked off 4no (or 10no depending on how you count)
Rudd pros:
- he is intelligent and analytical. I don’t know if he plays chess but I’m convinced he would make a fine player
- he is tireless
- he has shown he can get the better of Howard
- if ALP get enough support to come close to LNC, they will (in my opinion) by definition go right past LNC. In other words, ALP might lose comfortably but they will not lose a tight one. The swing is on
- ALP are coming off a low base so can reasonably be expected to regain some seats regardless
- creating portfolio combining small business, contractors etc. A change in thinking that needed to be made, and was
- he has been solid without being spectacular: I suspect this is his normal mode of operation and if it is, and if he is running a “don’t scare the horses†campaign, it is a big plus for him
- he recognises we cannot rollback WorkChoices 100%
- Garrett will learn from his mistake
Rudd cons:
- he risks a perception of trying to be all things to all people. If he mismanages this facet he will struggle
- the Garrett non-answer. There will be probably be more mistakes of this nature from various ALP MPs (not necessarily Garrett) so here too Rudd must be mindful
- strengthening unfair dismissal laws (from viewpoint of employees) without upsetting employers will not be easy
- he is being a little too statesmanlike; needs to show a little more passion when appropriate
- has thus far failed to emphasise to people that they can keep their AWA if they like it
- has failed to articulate combination of reasonable reductions in coal-related emissions and reasonable increases in renewable energy sources
- needs to get more variety in the background of his MPs; overrepresented by too narrow a cross-section of society
- historical vulnerability regarding ties to union movement (less of an issue this time, in my opinion)
The issue of inexperience, I don’t buy into. Everyone is a virgin to begin with. What counts is people’s perception of how the challenger will cope with the job.
While the list above is not exhaustive I think it does capture the essence of the situation: this election is more about Howard than it is about Rudd.
Richard Jones said:
“There are many Liberals who are sick about the right wing takeover in NSW. There are not too many small l Liberals left in the party.”
Sorry for the quick hijack – does anyone know where I can look for information on the right or left bent of federal Liberal candidates? I have seen a bit written about Michael Towke (Taouk) and Alex Hawke but would like some more info on the background shenanigans.
Thanks.
/hijack
RICHARD – I agree with the points you make. I think the best thing Howard can do now is retire and endorse Costello. The second best thing he could do is announce that he will retire in late 2008 or perhaps early 2009. I think voters will appreciate the frankness, rather than his constant mantra of staying as long as his party want him to.
He needs to do a Tony Blair and reduce the level of fear and uncertainty about leadership. Blair wasn’t going to lose because of a huge majority, whereas Howard ‘only’ has 16 seats to protect, so he needs to clear up the peripheral leadership issue, so he can concentrate more on policy. He should even consider announcing major policies with Costello so voters get a greater impression of an obvious leadership transition. Rudd and Gillard work as a tag team on some policy announcements, Howard and Costello should do the same.
I’m with you Amber Dekstris. I think Howard’s a goner, barring (a) some sort of national crisis that rallies people behind him, or (b) Rudd making an extremely stupid mistake. (a) is not to be counted on, (b) is extremely unlikely.
So we’re all agreed, then. That’s nice. Just remember the 1992 British election, when every poll, *including the exit polls* showed Kinnock winning. But he didn’t, mainly because English voters didn’t like his Welsh accent and did like Major’s tax bribes, but were ashamed to admit to poll-takers that they were a bunch of selfish racists.
Fulvio
Re the Shanahan article on Howards “cabinet meeting”, I realise they weren’t Howards words but Shanahans.
It is what I thought was an interesting article, especially in light of the previous criticism that Shanahan received and showed that he was a balanced impartial journo who just writes things as he sees them.
As he copped the criticism for his supposedly biased previous article he should also get some kuddos for what he wrote today.
I’m calling it after vacillating for quite a while – Howards is gone. Close but clear.
Sinodinis was the rabbit master. No more rabbits. The clever politician has used up his lifelines.
I was suprised by Shanahan’s apparent objectivity Arbie Jay. But then, my idea of “objectivity” may be another man’s concept of rabid bias, and vice versa.
Anyway, to the extent that we both see Shanahan’s article as being fair analysis, I too applaud him for it.
He still has a way to go to fully atone though…
Howard would probably like to call an election after a successful APEC conference in Sydney, but the problem for him is that he’s hosting George W Bush, perhaps the most unpopular politician on Planet Earth.
Being in close proximity to his good mate won’t help the PM’s electoral stocks.
My guess is the Liberals will mount the most negative election campaign in history, even worse than the L Plate Latham stuff from 2004. They’ll be furiously trying to dig up any dirt on Rudd or Gillard they can find.
Expect to see a lot of “Evil Union Bosses” in their TV ads.
Or “Kevin Rudd the puppet of the Unions”.
On the flip side – tax cuts, bribes for pensioners and people living in outer city mortgage belt marginal seats(Howard’s battlers).
The ALP: lots of “It’s Time For A Change” type stuff, Rudd all over their advertising, Climate Change, Education, Health, Reducing Cost Of Living etc.
The Conservatives probably could not have won `92 on anything proportional or preferential which probably would have brought in a Labour-Liberal-Democrat coalition.
The thing that has me intrigued is something sort of adjacent to Amber’s post at 9.02pm, which is this. The coalitian can’t understand why they are doing so badly in the polls. From my perspective, Howard has moved the govt. to being one of the most centrist govts. around the planet; they are very Sydney centric; they are also dominated by, in my view, mad religious extremists. The entire organisation depends on Howard and his survival, and they have no way of coping or adjusting post Howard – thus they are completely stuck – and stuffed.
And if the franchise were restricted to people called Evans and Jones, look you, then Kinnock would have won in a canter, boyo.
The risk is the absence of Howard will give the appearance of a great big empty space in the Govt – and lead to an avalanche to Labor.
Then again when an election is called and the public forced to focus on the canditates it might be then that flash-backs on Howard might bring out the chainsaws. What we have now might blow out even further.
I think Howard has to sit tight and not do anything. No tricks, wedges, fear campaigns, mudd slinging etc. HOWARD has become the Rabbit and the public a Cobra ready to strike. One tricky move and they will strike him dead.
If one thing has been obvious it is that every type of attack, ploy, trick and gimmick has had the opposite effect. Maybe if Howard had just gone about business as normal in January (instead of trying to destroy Rudd) he would be in a much better position now due to gravity. I am sure that the mudd slinging early on increased the firmness of Rudd’s primary. It is Howard’s own dirty nature that has cost him votes.
The current, more subtle, fear campaign surrounding Haneef will also backfire on them – no matter what they discover.
Howard’s strategy should be sit tight and shut up and limit losses, dont wave about in fron of the Cobras Johnny.
So its’ negative advertising v’s positive advertising and for the government that will mean a further loss of support. Labor when in government will have the same problems in regards to housing affordablity.. as its policies will do nothing. Both parties have been responsible for the problems over the years- first Labor with a costly and subsidy to the rich policy called negative gearing and then the Libs with cuts to Capital Gains Taxes on Investment properties and then ripping into peoples’ salaries and conditions to worsen the pain for people trying to pay off expensive houses.. Which many people buy today just to keep up with one another and to feel important… advertising and the media keeps drilliing this lifestyle and telling us all that we can all make it which unfortunately very few do…
I was saying that if the election had been more democratic then the Tories would not run. There are and have been for a long time serious call for electoral reform in the UK but no serious calls for only Welsh named people to be allowed the vote.
The Mohommad Haneef thing this week smells of another attempted Howard wedge. As a result of 2001, I’m naturally suspicious of anything that comes out of Howard’s mouth!
More signs things are changing: John Laws retires, Stan Zemanek dies.
2 right wing shock jocks, who Howard has shamelessly used over the years, are gone. Only Alan Jones is left, yet Rudd seems to be appearing on his program quite regularly.
evan
spot on -but no one cares anymore
the hip pocket nerve has been severed and like achilles J-HO’s Heel has been exposed
the populi are moving toward the rudd era not looking back because they are only alarmed that they were alert to the wrong threat
Adam, Rudd doesn’t have a Welsh accent last time I checked. And the reason Kinnock lost in 92 had far more to do with the Sheffield Rally than his Welsh accent. What makes you think Kinnock lost bc of that anyway?
Adam’s words of caution to those who are popping the champagne corks are very wise. Nothing would cement Howard’s career then a win.
How many of you reckon Howard was ready to stand down yesterday?
George Megalogenis, along with Lenore of the AFR, are the standout commentators on Insiders. (I met and told George so on a Melbourne tram recently – he was humble and most affable, unlike my experience bumping into a senior femaile political journo).
Pseph, the Sheffield rally only served to reinforce the private views of English voters that they just didn’t like Kinnock. It reinforced his “Welsh boyo” image, of which his accent was the major factor. It is notorious that English voters don’t like Irish, Scottish or Welsh politicians. This is going to be a problem for Brown, but he tones down his Scottishness as much as he can get away with when he is in England. When I was in Edinburgh in May he was being satirised on TV for the way he shifts his accent back and forth between Westminster and Kirkcaldy.
Kinnock’s other problem was that he was bald – focus groups showed that women voters didn’t like this, and that was no doubt also a problem for Hague – not that anything could have got Hague elected. (This doesn’t seem to hurt Howard, but then he was elected before he went bald).
Just had a look through news.com’s “open letter” comments to Howard:
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/news/index.php/news/comments/getting_mugged3/
There are currently 719 comments and after reading these, I have to say that Howard has a MASSIVE credibility problem. The Liberals are stuck now. Either they take the gamble and get rid of him or they face a massive defeat. And even if they do get rid of them, they might still face a big defeat, but at least they will give themselves a chance of holding back the tide to some extent, because on the present course, they are heading for an absolute train wreck.
I have said this before – I think the ONLY way that Howard can leave with some semblance of dignity (and I repeat SOME), will be if there is a leadership challenge. He will engineer it himself if he has to. But it is his only way of looking like he is not cutting and running because at least he will seem to put up a fight. After all, it’s what happened to Hawke, and it didn’t do too much damage to him in terms of legacy.
Whether or not the Liberals have the guts to actually take Howard on is another matter.
Surely dumping Howard at this stage is just not an option.
Who they going to replace him with? Costello is marginally less popular than herpes.
The only other option that I can see is Turnbull. But this is more about damage control than winning.
Howard has created a mess. He has appointed ministers who are not obvious leaders so that he can maintain his grip on the leadership. But it’s a question of losing massively or *possibly* losing marginally – the Liberals will have to dig deep. But I reckon the feedback from the public through polls, focus groups, doorstops, and other avenues will be telling them that Howard has lost their confidence. Nobody seriously believe him anymore, which means that EVERYTHING he says and does will be viewed negatively. This is something that is virtually impossible to overcome.
I think there will be a number of Liberals in the coming week or two who will think they no longer have anything to lose by dumping Howard.
Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the matter!
They should make Coonan PM and Andrews deputy. That should just about finish them off.
Adam – wouldn’t the inclusion of “Wright” suggest they were presenting the pendulum of the proposed rather than the final boundaries? In which case, the name of the seat would be the least serious error.
A-C – It’s taking Mackerras out of context to say he predicted a Kerry landslide. What Mackerras actually predicted was a Kerry win. He used the term landslide but in a rather eccentric way – meant only in the sense that the US system tends to turn all victories into lopsided electoral college results.
Of course, he was wrong on this point. There have now been two close electoral college results in a row.
When he had the opportunity, Costello should’ve challenged, lost, gone to the back bench and ultimately returned with enhanced credentials. He didn’t. It’s too late for Libs to switch now, any leadership change can be viewed by the public in only one way — panic. Howard is man enough to go down with the ship and he will. Costello will be made Opposition Leader and Turnbull will take over when the time is right, presumably in Libs’ second term in opposition. I talked about this in more detail in the previous thread just a few hours before William closed it so some here may possibly not’ve seen.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/509#comment-20207
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/509#comment-20217
Agreed Simon, Howard must clarify the leadership issue and announce a transition plan.
Agreed Monica and Noocat, Howard has formed a govt around himself to the point of choking its future development.
Agreed Kina, Howard overcooked his attacks in Jan/Feb, one of the things that prompted my Feb post.
I have a post awaiting moderation. Presumably due to the links but they were only to posts on this site >shrug>
Two links equals moderation, regardless of what they link to.
Paul Kavanagh Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 12:13 am
George Megalogenis, along with Lenore of the AFR, are the standout commentators on Insiders. (I met and told George so on a Melbourne tram recently – he was humble and most affable, unlike my experience bumping into a senior femaile political journo).
George is about the only commentator whose view I (almost) take as gospel- I think he has a much better ‘feel’ for the pulse of the electorate than tossers like Glen Milne have these days. Enough said.
no sleep William ? You are a busy man.
I live in the west, STROP – it’s only mid-afternoon here.
LOL, funny man William. William I wanted to email you an article written by an Indigenous academic on the NT affair for posting consideration a few weeks ago; but its time has passed on here so I will let it go.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 7 » Show All