tip off

Seats of the week: Forde and Herbert

A double feature encompassing two of the LNP-held seats which Labor is eyeing greedily on the back of its Queensland poll resurgence.

UPDATE (Morgan): The weekly Morgan poll is little changed on last time, with Labor down half a point to 41.5%, the Coalition steady on 41%, and the Greens up two points to 9%. There is actually a slight move in Labor’s favour on two-party preferred as measured using preference flows from the previous election, presumably because of rounding, their lead up from 51.5-48.5 to 52-48. On respondent-allocated preferences, the lead is steady at 52.5-47.5. Regrettably, the poll does not come with state breakdowns, which keen observers among us had started to think would be a regular feature (as it surely should be with such a large sample size). We will surely have Newspoll along later this evening, while the regular Essential Research is delayed this week and will be along tomorrow.

Two for the price of one this week as I scramble to catch up with the Queensland seats suddenly deemed in play under Kevin Rudd 2.0 …

Seat of the week #1: Forde

Straddling the southern edge of Brisbane, Forde was one of a number of Queensland seats which fell Labor’s way under Kevin Rudd’s leadership at the 2007 election, only to be lost again in the wake of his demise three years later. The electorate contains the eastern part of the municipality of Logan City around Beenleigh and extends southwards along the Pacific Motorway to accommodate, somewhat awkwardly, the rapidly growing suburb of Upper Coomera at the interior northern edge of the Gold Coast. The latter area was acquired in the redistribution which preceded the 2010 election, when Forde provided the new seat of Wright with about a third of its voters in rural territories extending to the New South Wales border.

Forde was created with the expansion of parliament in 1984, at which time it covered Brisbane’s outer south-west. Liberal candidate David Watson won the seat on its debut by 43 votes, but was unseated after a single term at the 1987 election by Labor’s Mary Crawford. Watson would later return to politics in the state parliament, eventually leading the Liberal Party into a disastrous result at the 2001 election. Crawford meanwhile built up a handy margin on the back of swings in 1990 and 1993, before a punishing redistribution pulled the seat into the rural Beaudesert region on the New South Wales border. Thwarted in a bid to be reassigned to an outer suburban seat, in part as a consequence of the party’s determination to accommodate Kevin Rudd in Griffith, Crawford was left with no buffer to defend herself against the savage swing that hit Labor across Queensland, which struck in Forde to the tune of 9.6%.

Forde was then held for the Liberals throughout the Howard years by Kay Elson, who retained comfortable margins in 1998 and 2001 before enjoying a further 5.9% boost in 2004. Elson’s retirement at the 2007 election was presumably a factor behind the spectacular 14.4% swing to Labor, making the seat one of three in Queensland where Labor was able to overhaul double-digit Coalition margins. It was then held for a term by Brett Raguse, a former teacher, local newspaper publisher and TAFE college director who had more recently worked as an adviser to state ministers associated with the AWU/Labor Forum sub-faction of the Right. The aforementioned redistribution improved Raguse’s margin from 2.9% to 3.4%, but this proved insufficient at the 2010 election in the face of what by Queensland standards was a fairly typical swing of 5.0%.

The seat has since been held for the LNP by Bert van Manen, a financial planner from Slacks Creek who had run as the Family First candidate for Rankin in 2007. Van Manen’s Labor opponent at the coming election is Des Hardman, a radiographer at Logan Hospital. Brett Raguse meanwhile re-emerged as a candidate for the preselection to succeed Craig Emerson in the neighbouring seat of Rankin, in which he was narrowly unsuccessful despite claiming support from Kevin Rudd.

Seat of the week #2: Herbert

The Townsville-based electorate of Herbert has been in conservative hands without interruption since 1996, although it has been highly marginal throughout that time. The seat has existed since federation, at which time it extended north to Cairns and south to Mackay. More recently it has covered central Townsville and a shifting aggregation of surrounding territory, the pre-2010 election redistribution having transferred the southern suburbs of Annandale and Wulguru to Dawson and added Deeragun and its northern coastal surrounds from Kennedy. The strongest booths for Labor are generally around the town centre, while those in the outer suburbs tend to be more volatile as well as more conservative, having moved strongly with the statewide tides toward Labor in 2007 and against it in 2004 and 2010. Lavarack Barracks makes the electorate highly sensitive to defence issues, with the sector accounting for about one in eight jobs in the electorate. Presumably as a consequence, the electorate is unusually youthful, the median age of 32 being four years lower than for any other seat in regional Queensland.

Herbert was a working class and Labor seat for much of its history, being in Labor hands until the 1960s and turning in a 34.2% vote for Communist Party candidate Frederick Paterson in 1943 (Paterson went on to win the state seat of Bowen the following year, the only such success for a Communist candidate in Australian history). A watershed moment came with the victory of Liberal candidate Robert Bonnett in the 1966 landslide, which was followed by further Liberal swings against the trend of the 1969 and 1972 elections. The seat came back on Labor’s radar after the 1980 election, when their candidate Ted Lindsay succeeded in reducing the Liberal margin to below 1%. Lindsay went one better when he ran again in 1983, gaining the seat with a 3.7% swing and retaining it throughout the Hawke-Keating years. Together with most of his Queensland Labor colleagues he was unseated at the 1996 election, when unrelated Liberal candidate Peter Lindsay won off a 9.0% swing. Ted Lindsay came within 160 votes of pulling off a comeback in 1998, before Peter Lindsay consolidated with swings of 1.5% in 2001 and 4.7% in 2004. He survived another close shave by 343 votes in 2007, a swing to Labor of 5.9% being slightly below a statewide 7.5% which cost the Coalition eight seats.

Lindsay bowed out at the 2010 election and was succeeded as candidate for the Liberal National Party by Ewen Jones, an auctioneer for local real estate agency Ferry Property. Jones’s Labor opponent was Tony Mooney, who served for nearly two decades as mayor of Townsville and earned a footnote in Australian political history when his failure to win the 1996 Mundingburra by-election for Labor led to the downfall of the Goss government. Perhaps reflecting the loss of Lindsay’s personal vote, Jones picked up what by Queensland standards was a modest swing of 2.2%, which was nonetheless enough to secure his hold on a seat which the redistribution had made, by the narrowest of margins, notionally Labor. Jones’s Labor opponent this time is Cathy O’Toole, a former chief executive of a disability employment service and member of the Left faction.

2266
  • 101
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    confessions

    Yep.

    The distances involved, the widespread scattering of islands and islets, and particularly in the good weather seasons, a tinnie gets you a long way. Most of the time.

    From time-to-time the motors fail and there is a brief news item about a search for ‘lost fishermen’ in Torres Strait.

  • 102
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    Oh and ModLib, you seem to think they have no responsibility for where they end up, the whole point of the idea is that they chose to go to PNG when they pay 30k and get on a boat to Christmas island, they decide to go to a place where there is violence, poverty and women aren’t treated well all the time.

  • 103
    my say
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    one thing that has me truly mystified is why any one would vote for the liberals
    as they are now,

    or even at other times one of the mysteries of life

  • 104
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    If you were Sean I’d understand where you are coming from. If you were a green I’d understand where you are coming from. What you are saying makes no sense from any other point of view.

    Saying we need to live up to our signed responsibilities does not make sense unless I am a right wing or left wing blogger?

    Huh?

  • 105
    triton
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Oh, dear :sigh: Whatever happened to Oz maps, geography, history – and other states’ realities?

    Sorry, OPT, for being an ignoramus on life in our north, as well as a city-bound, southern disappointment, but your post is a good start on the path to redemption.

  • 106
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    WeWantPaul
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 9:57 am | PERMALINK
    Oh and ModLib, you seem to think they have no responsibility for where they end up, the whole point of the idea is that they chose to go to PNG when they pay 30k and get on a boat to Christmas island, they decide to go to a place where there is violence, poverty and women aren’t treated well all the time.

    I respect your right to hold this opinion WWP. I say: “Not in my name”

  • 107
    OzPol Tragic
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    I am still waiting for Milne or Sarah Handwringing-Young to tell us how many AS we should accept and once that number, whatever it is, is exceeded, what would they do

    BK latish last week, SHY opined on TV that we had plenty of space, ?/resources to settle ALL the refugees.

    Given Milne & Co have hysterics every time anyone talks of “Big Australia” – Oz’s having a considerably larger population (30, 40 or so millions) – I was gob-smacked at that bit of SHY/ Greens hypocrisy!

    BTW, though, SHY was right – we do have the room & resources. There’s no reason (except racist, sectarian, dog-whistling politics) we can’t accept the refugees and train them for work in positions/ industries where we currently have to employ OS labour on 456 visas.

  • 108
    Al Dente
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Insiders, like pigs snouting swill, doing leadershit.

    That’s a very unkind remark…to pigs.

  • 109
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    I find this site interesting. Note the area of Greenland across which ice is not melting. (Note that the ice would be melting around the coastal areas but because of difficulties with separating sea from land, this is kept neutral.) The other matter of interest is just how much more data we have now than we used to have.

    http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

  • 110
    OzPol Tragic
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Using that logic, every citizen of PNG would be entitled to seek asylum in Australia, on the grounds that living in PNG is unsafe.

    In fact; though PNG’s entitlement to open migration to Oz, though less that NZ’s “free for all citizens”, is still liberal enough to mean a great many PNG citizens, with passports, can migrate here (and do) without formal application. It used to be an Oz Territory (inc Mandated territory), remember!

  • 111
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    I respect your right to hold this opinion WWP. I say: “Not in my name”

    Well in a democracy you don’t have that choice, good luck with a new country, but if you have 30k and they apply your kind of logic, and you survive a dangerous boat trip you can pick the country of your choice.

    Your comment:

    Saying we need to live up to our signed responsibilities does not make sense unless I am a right wing or left wing blogger?

    is a convention worshipper comment, it assumes the convention is perfect and obeying is it perfectly correct not matter the dreadful outcomes and disobeying is incorrect no matter how good the outcomes. It is difficult for me to imagine a stupider position for you to hold. Least the left and right wingers are doing it for political gain.

    Frankly your level of belief in the convention rivals the belief of Catholic priests in the need to protect the Church. It is identical logic.

  • 112
    izatso?
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Psyclaw….. I fear my endurance is impaired t’day….. soz.

  • 113
    izatso?
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Moddy-Wobbles…..
    not worldsbestpractice balancing from moddy this day……

  • 114
    izatso?
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    WWPaul, we mightn’t always agree, but we orbit…..
    excellent cornering of the little player, but……

  • 115
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    My guesses on potential political impacts of Manus Rendition (before the first polls come out!!!!):
    A. 2010 ALP preferencing voters:
    i) Rusted-ons (like ruawake?): will vote ALP no matter what they do
    ii) Lefties (like Fran?): not happy but how many would actually change over this???
    iii) Others (like Carey?): not happy but wouldn’t change to Abbott I reckon.
    iv) Sick of the flip flopping and can’t trust ALP: how many here?

    B. 2010 LNP preferencing voters:
    i) Rusted-ons (like Sean T.?): love the new policy, but it wont change their vote
    ii) Moderates who don’t like Abbott and might have voted ALP but not happy about Manus- how will they split?
    iii) Swingers who like the Manus plan: might go with ALP as they are harder line Or will they stick with LNP “the original and best” as per Abbott?
    iv) Swingers who don’t like Manus plan: likely to stick with LNP

    So, irrespective of what the polls say about whether this is a popular or unpopular move, the question is what will be the net shift of voters’ voting preferences….and that appears to come down to A4 & B2 & B3.

    So my guess is that there will be a temporary boost to ALP TPP but a fall in Rudd approval, however, over time A4 might show its face! Particularly once the problems with PNG and delays and cost blowouts become evident- hence Rudd must go to GG right NOW!

  • 116
    Sean Tisme
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Belinda Neil on Bolt Report!

  • 117
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    WeWantPaul
    .....is a convention worshipper comment, it assumes the convention is perfect and obeying is it perfectly correct not matter the dreadful outcomes and disobeying is incorrect no matter how good the outcomes. It is difficult for me to imagine a stupider position for you to hold. Least the left and right wingers are doing it for political gain.

    Frankly your level of belief in the convention rivals the belief of Catholic priests in the need to protect the Church. It is identical logic.

    Right, so saying that we should stand by our side of an international agreement is the most stupid position you can think of is it? Haha :)

    If you think we should not be signatories to the convention then say that we should remove ourselves from it. That is fine, and I have said we should do that some time ago, because it is pointless pretending that we are operating under it when we clearly are not. I think it would be very informative for the Australian public to reflect on this by actively removing ourselves from it formally…..then we can think as a nation whether we like what that says about us!

  • 118
    Greensborough Growler
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    ML,

    Where your analysis fails is that you assume that people actually think about the issue.

    Many will go with the media response that Labor has now got a policy that’s tougher than the Libs policy. You can smell the fear as the Libs realise they’ve been out bastarded.

  • 119
    zoomster
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Some people seem to be conflating ‘not accepting refugees who come by boat’ to ‘not accepting refugees’ or ‘racism’.

    Firstly, not accepting refugees who come by boat means taking exactly the same number of refugees we do at present. Our quota is our quota; at present, that includes refugees who come by boat, with the remaining numbers filled by refugees from camps. If less people come by boat, more come from the camps.

    Secondly, taking refugees from the camps in practice means taking in refugees who are much darker skinned than Iranians, Afghanis and Iraqis and whose culture is even further away from our own.

  • 120
    Sean Tisme
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    God I love the Bolt Report… helps balance out the Sunday Morning of the leftwing love in over on the ABC with Insiders

  • 121
    izatso?
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Tisme re-establishes its Flaker credentials…..

  • 122
    DisplayName
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    zoom, there is a distinction to be made in providing space for refugees while they’re in limbo and giving them residency. Even if we increase our quota, there are still 40 million displaced persons out there. So sure, we don’t reject refugees as potential residents, but we do reject having to be confronted by them while they’re in limbo.

  • 123
    Gary
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Tisme and Bolt are made for one anther. Both right wing nut jobs.

  • 124
    Sean Tisme
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Andrew Bolt asking Belinda Neal if Labor should apologise to John Howard for their attacks on his AS policy.

    Of course they should, Howard was right and Labor were wrong as Mark Latham admitted the other week on Q&A

  • 125
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Greensborough Growler
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:21 am | PERMALINK
    ML,

    Where your analysis fails is that you assume that people actually think about the issue.

    I guess what I am saying, is that it is likely the only voting “blocks” that MIGHT change over this issue is B2 and B3, and it is unlikely that this would represent a large block of changers. the A4 group is not specific to the AS issue, so cant really be counted as voters who are changing their vote over this issue.

    IMO Tampa was not the reason Howard won in 2001 either, and KB’s fear of it was unfounded.

  • 126
    izatso?
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    mOdDy !
    mOd…
    not a totally wasted effort, but close ……
    ….ginormous FaFFing exercise from th’mOdDsTer

  • 127
    Mick77
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    ML 115
    Pretty thoughtful analysis and I think that in short term little effect and then drift down for Rudd, if this works at all which I doubt. My money is still on the people smugglers to overwhelm the system and rely on a change in weeks, months to come, and they can also become children smugglers who I suspect won’t be shipped to PNG for a long-long time if ever.

    Campbell’s comments are a doozie and means that Rudd has to protect his backside from a Queensland backlash (thehordes coming from PNG after “resttlement”). As we know the Qlders are a strange mob and inbreeding has already produced Rudd, Swan and Bjelke-Petersen, although there may be a bit of viking inbreeding in the last named.

  • 128
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Right, so saying that we should stand by our side of an international agreement is the most stupid position you can think of is it? Haha :)

    When your signed contract ends up with really really bad and stupid outcomes blindly following it is the stupidest possible outcome. It is why noone does it. To suggest we should do it in relation to an international convention which doesn’t even have the same level of enforcement is absurd.

    Laughing at me because I hate that in Austtralia now honoring the convention results in death, massive domestic cost, and the refugees being wealthier self-selectors is fine I’m happy to be laughed at, but boiling your whole analysis down to whether or not something ‘fits the convention’ is illogical beyond my ability to believe you actually hold that position.

  • 129
    guytaur
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Good Morning

    I hate the PNG solution, be in no doubt. It , however does have a redeeming feature it looks like it works.

    The buildup of people waiting in Indonesia will make it Indonesia’s problem giving motive for the next Indonesia Government to want the regional solution we all want

  • 130
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    BOLT has Rudd next week!!!!

  • 131
    dave
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    OzPol Tragic@110



    Using that logic, every citizen of PNG would be entitled to seek asylum in Australia, on the grounds that living in PNG is unsafe.


    In fact; though PNG’s entitlement to open migration to Oz, though less that NZ’s “free for all citizens”, is still liberal enough to mean a great many PNG citizens, with passports, can migrate here (and do) without formal application. It used to be an Oz Territory (inc Mandated territory), remember!

    PNG people do not have entitlement to open migration to Australia. They even require visas to enter, a matter PNG have raised and want changed, but it would not be open slather.

    The Papuans (but not New Guineans) were Australian citizens but lost it upon PNG becoming Independent and various legal challenges on same were defeated.

    Even limited entry for seasonal work etc seems to have gone very quite ?

  • 132
    izatso?
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    mOdDy !
    The proper definition for what is wedging you, is …..

    The Manus Manoevre.

    Your Welcome.

  • 133
    ___cog___
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    Zoomster 119. I agree. Said yesterday that previous AS policy was turning out to be very racist. Our whole humantiarian quota was in danger of being taken up by people from 3 or 4 ethnic groups who could afford to get to Indonesia and then pay $10k each for a boat trip.

  • 134
    Sean Tisme
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    BOLT has Rudd next week!!!!

    Suck it Insiders!

    Gonna be great watching, Bolt will grill him

  • 135
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    Forde looks like an interesting one. Comparatively younger, mortgaged, lower NESB and education levels, slightly lower income than average.

    I’d suspect it’s a working-class family zone. Well, should be pretty clear what how the government would pitch there..

  • 136
    Oakeshott Country
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    OPT

    While I appreciate that it is possible to live a subsistence life in the Daintree, how many of the irregular arriving asylum seekers would be able to do this or, more importantly, want to do this.
    As they are fare paying it can be assumed that many are from the middle class – being a hippy in FNQ or even a rural labourer is not what they envisioned when they paid their money.

  • 137
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    WWP:

    You seem to be saying that we should stick with the convention but not abide by it
    I am clearly saying that we should get out of the convention since we are not abiding by it

    You laughed at me and said my position was the most stupid thing you had seen!

    That was what I thought was hilarious!

  • 138
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    IMO Tampa was not the reason Howard won in 2001 either, and KB’s fear of it was unfounded.

    I honestly believe you are wrong and think that without 9/11 and Tampa Howard wouldn’t have won. Maybe just 9/11 would have got him across the line just, it was his evil brilliance combining the two together with his lie that won it for him.

  • 139
    izatso?
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    guytaur
    re regional answer, great point…..

  • 140
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    I honestly believe you are wrong and think that without 9/11 and Tampa Howard wouldn’t have won. Maybe just 9/11 would have got him across the line just, it was his evil brilliance combining the two together with his lie that won it for him.

    So that was evil brilliance?

    What is the Manus policy then?

  • 141
    Mick77
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    WWP 138

    .. with his lie ..

    What are you talking about?

  • 142
    Greensborough Growler
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    ML,

    The block that has changed are the Ruddersitas who want to use every opportunity to vindicate their hero as some sort of political genius. This decision actually gives more momentum to Rudd and Labor as waiverers start to be impressed by his tough guy stance.

    As has been pointed out to you previously, Abbott’s support was broad and not particularly deep as evidenced by his toilet level personal ratings.

    If Rudd turns an 80/20 against issue in to a 60/40 or 50/50 then it’s hard to see waht Abbott can offer as a unique selling proposition for him and his Party.

  • 143
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    guytaur
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:30 am | PERMALINK
    Good Morning

    I hate the PNG solution, be in no doubt.

    I think this is actually the interesting medium to long-term impact: how will these policies impact on the ALP Brand with the “True Believers”?

    We have already seen many ALP voters not very proud of their party at the moment (although many others are jubilant and the potential electoral boon of this policy!)

  • 144
    triton
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    zoomster

    If less people come by boat, more come from the camps.

    This is the “queue” that Amnesty & the Greens insist does not exist. It’s not a line of people in order, but if some people have to wait longer because others jump ahead then it is analogous to people pushing in at the front of a queue. Unless they can give a better explanation of how it’s not a queue than I have to assume that it is a pointless semantic disagreement over the meaning of the word or how the analogy is defined.

  • 145
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    You laughed at me and said my position was the most stupid thing you had seen!

    I didn’t laugh at you I mocked the policy position which I still do not fully understand. I was also unhappy with the idea you wanted to be an Australian some of the time but opt out at others, but still it was your position I was attacking not you.

  • 146
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    What is the Manus policy then?

    Where is the lie in the manus policy?

    WWP 138

    .. with his lie ..

    What are you talking about?

    If you don’t know I can’t discuss it with you.

  • 147
    Mod Lib
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Greensborough Growler
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:35 am | PERMALINK
    ML,

    The block that has changed are the Ruddersitas

    Indeed, Rudd has beaten the Gillardistas into the dirt. The Gillardistas are keeping mum and smiling politely at the moment, but I suggest Rudd goes to the election early, as I suspect this aint going to last throughout the year!

    Its a bit like the Ashes Test :) We need to hang in there for two full days without losing 10 wickets……improbable.

    Gillardistas staying loyal to Rudd as he continues to trash the Gillard legacy……impossible!

  • 148
    DisplayName
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    triton, it’s a queue because Australia has set it up that way. It’s a queue that can be jumped because Australia has set it up that way.

    The point it we don’t have to set up our system of dealing with asylum seekers as such a queue.

  • 149
    Mick77
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    ML

    the “True Believers”

    of the ALP today are believers in winning, nought else, and not a principle in sight. Maybe Whitlam will yet be wheeled out at 95, like Fraser, to tell us what he thinks of his successors. Whitlam, Hawke, Howard all had principles which were often divisive but they held to those principles unlike Rudd, Gillard, Abbott (and the fake watermelons who hopefully will become a non-party in the coming battle).

  • 150
    AussieAchmed
    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Sean Tisme

    Posted Sunday, July 21, 2013 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Andrew Bolt asking Belinda Neal if Labor should apologise to John Howard for their attacks on his AS policy.

    Of course they should, Howard was right and Labor were wrong as Mark Latham admitted the other week on Q&A
    ——————————————————-

    The people gave Labor a mandate by electing them to Government in 2007.

    And the Liberals provided support for the dismantling of the PS.

    And Howard was given a very clear “f**k off” message when he was booted out of his own seat in Parliament.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...