1. Destroyed CPRS, ruining political capital for addressing climate change for at least a decade
None of those things make him a 'subhuman piece of garbage', though, do they? I mean, what's wrong with opposing a wind farm that's being built in the wrong spot?
Have the Greens ever spotted a development they didn’t oppose?
Please. Dutton is already circling, he doesn't want a fundy nong like Morrison running things any more than I do.Illuminating piece in Oz by Simon Benson:
" There are two great untold stories of the election; the first is what happened to Labor voters.
This doesn’t make a pleasant read for the true believers. And they shouldn’t think it can’t get worse.
The second story is what happened to the polling. The most comprehensive and intelligent analysis so far, conducted by a private research firm, provided to senior Liberals and shown to The Weekend Australian, reveals a large-scale structural shift in the strength of Labor support and, to a lesser degree, Coalition support.
For whatever reason, whether it was Bill Shorten or Labor’s tax agenda, there was a historically significant soft vote for Labor before and on the day of the election. This made the outcome on election day very difficult for a broader national poll to predict, if at all.
In the 1990s it was the case that the Coalition could count on 30 per cent of people supporting it no matter what. The core numbers for Labor were about the same, with 40 per cent of voters floating. John Howard would often cite this formula.
That has dramatically changed, and it has done so only over the past 10 years. That number has shrunk to 25 per cent for the Coalition and about the same proportion for Labor, with the core vote for the Greens and other minor parties, such as it is, accounting for about 10 per cent.
Going into this year’s election campaign, the so-called “soft vote” for both the major parties was about 45 per cent of their supporters. The research shows that, as the campaign went on, the softness in the Coalition vote began to reduce and ended up between 30 to 35 per cent by polling day.
Labor’s remained at a high 45 per cent. This was the percentage of Labor voters who said they were leaning to Labor but had not yet committed.
For Labor, the alarm bells should still be ringing. Labor voters, more than any other party, are normally very brand loyal. They stick. This time, however, a lot of Labor voters were conflicted. And in the end many of them just didn’t want to vote for change — at least not the radical changes Shorten was promising.
For pollsters, the explanation as to the difficulty of getting a handle on what happened on election day begins to become clearer.
Going into the final week, several pollsters who spoke to The Weekend Australian off the record confirmed a consensus view that up to 20 per cent of all voters who had not cast their ballot had yet to decide which way they would vote.
A similar trend had emerged in the 2016 election when, by polling day, 10 per cent of voters did not make up their mind until they had pencil in hand. The number was similar or slightly higher this time around.
A decade ago, this number was about 5 per cent. For whatever reason, at this year’s election there were double the number of people who decided only on the day — May 18 — than what has historically been the case.
Rather than Newspoll overestimating the Labor vote — which at 33.34 per cent ended up being the worst result since 1934 — the research pointed to another explanation.
The undecided and “soft” vote factors were more profound in this election. The “hard” undecided vote emerged in private polling in the final days of the campaign and was quantified at about 5 per cent.
The problem was in determining the Labor primary vote rather than the Coalition’s.
Pushed to answer which way they would vote, the research shows many Labor voters said they were only leaning towards Labor.
What was extraordinary was the number who on the day of the election couldn’t bring themselves to back Labor, and abandoned the party and largely went with a minor party whose preferences came over to the Coalition.
The short answer to the election result is that Labor and Shorten made it very difficult for their soft supporter base to stick with them.
According to the research briefing: “Rather than Newspoll results suggesting Newspoll ‘got it wrong’, a more informed interpretation is that the hard undecided voters (those still undecided on May 17) did not support Labor on election day.
“And soft Labor voters got cold feet on Labor’s tax changes, anti-coal jobs stance and climate overreach, and were unimpressed with Bill Shorten’s ‘Latham moment’ of celebrating rather than campaigning on May 17 before 75 per cent of voters had cast their ballot.”
It wasn’t the polling that changed. It was the unusual behaviour of voters that has shifted over time.
Even polling on Friday night would not have picked up what was going to happen.
More people than usual didn’t make up their mind until they walked into the ballot box — and most moved violently away from Labor.
Labor certainly didn’t pick it up. If it had, it wouldn’t have allowed Shorten to put his feet up and start drinking beer while more than 1.5 million voters still tossed up who they would support."
NoCookies | The Australian
www.theaustralian.com.au
Just goes to show how a tough, relentless, old fashioned campaigner like Morrison (and Abbott before him) can sow the doubts then reap a rich harvest.
Being built in the wrong spot on tenuous and questionable grounds at best.
Well of course they're tenuous and questionable grounds if you don't give a s**t about the local wildlife
Yeah ok, Dutton is circling. The only one circling is Plibersek and Shorten around Albo’s neck.
Just shows how dumb this electorate is. Seduced by a stimulus package which was forced upon us by Coronavirus yet that decision has put him ahead in terms of PPM. Like everything else that's been going on with his leadership has been swept under the rug. Any wonder we have a greedy selfish society when we continually reward greedy selfish leaders.
Nice melt
