Friday 29th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

lying scomo and his disastrous clowns should be voted out.....

pollspolls

Results from the 2019 federal election and the Willoughby by-election suggest that green preferences are likely to decide whether Independent candidates can win previously safe coalition seats.

Analysis of the last federal election results in seats with strong independent candidates and the recent NSW by-elections suggest Green preferences could decide whether Independent candidates can win key seats.

It is dangerous to read too much into any by-election. When they are for state seats while the forthcoming election will be federal it makes detailed assessment even more risky.

The recent NSW by-elections produced a wide range of different results which give only a weak sign of the standing of the NSW government and even less insight into the Morrison government’s standing in NSW.

The only serious indication of potential federal implications was the big swing to an Independent candidate in Willoughby.

While there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge before the federal election, particularly while the drums of war are beating around Ukraine, the Willoughby result does appear to be an indicator of an important trend.

The result in Bega* must be encouraging for Labor in Gilmore, but the impact of Andrew Constance as the Liberal candidate is an unknown there. The result in Strathfield will probably encourage the Liberals to feel they have a chance of holding on in Reid but local factors may have been in play here. The result in Monaro is ambiguous and really provides no insight into a likely federal result in Eden-Monaro, if and when the Liberals finally choose a candidate.

Therefore, the potentially important trend to examine is the upsurge in votes for Independent candidates in otherwise safe coalition seats.

This is not a new phenomenon but it has taken on new strength with a conjunction of circumstances generating support for a growing number of “Voices of” candidates with real chances of success in the next federal election.

While some of the seats of most interest are in other states, such as Curtin in WA and Goldstein in Victoria, the Willoughby result can only be taken as an indication of possible trends in urban NSW.

In Willoughby, the Liberal vote was down by 18%, the same independent candidate as last election lifted her vote by 20%, the Greens were up slightly and Labor, which won 14% last time chose not to contest the by-election.

Even after discounting for the fact that there is always potential for a protest vote in by-elections and recognizing that Gladys Berejiklian was the premier at the general election this is a result that should worry Scott Morrison.

Applying a rough formula which tries to take into account the discounting factors from Willoughby and the results in 2019 the seats which appear most at risk to Independents in Sydney are Mackellar and North Sydney with more distant possibilities in Berowra and Bradfield.

The impact on Wentworth is more difficult to assess as the Kerryn Phelps vote was so strong last election. However, it will obviously be a hard-fought election between Dave Sharma and Allegra Spender.

The other two wild-card seats are Bennelong and Hughes. The ALP put in a big effort in Bennelong last time and if they do as well again (34%) no Independent will have a chance. However, if a strong Independent emerged it could prove interesting. The other seat to look at in Sydney is Hughes. The current member, Craig Kelly, is now running for the UAP. The Liberals are unable to agree upon a candidate and may even drop in a North Shore candidate over the wishes of the locals. There are two Independents running strongly here but it is impossible to predict what will happen. At the last election Kelly received 53% of the primary vote and Labor got 30%.

A key factor in all these seats may be what the Greens do with their preferences. Relevant results from 2019 suggest that they may well come 4th on the primary vote. In 2019 the Greens primary vote was down by 7% in Wentworth and 6% in Warringah compared to 2016. This is a rational voter response for those concerned with issues like climate change. If this happens in the key seats again in 2022 the Greens will come 4th. Should their preferences flow to the Independents this raises the prospect of the Independent getting ahead of Labor. This would then mean that Labor’s preferences would flow to the independent and generate a serious chance of upsetting the sitting Liberal.

Given the slim majority the coalition holds in this parliament and the slightly negative impact on their chances of the redistribution of boundaries, as soon as the Morrison government loses a single seat, they are in minority territory. This makes seats such as North Sydney and Wentworth very important at this election and potentially for years to come.

Current trends in Queensland and Western Australia do not suggest that Australia is heading for a hung parliament, but the possibility exists. Whether this happens or not the fate of independents in safe coalition seats will be an important medium-term influence on policies like climate change and corruption. This may lead to more attention being paid to issues of concern to affluent suburbs in the cities. It may even lead to a break with the Nationals until they can rid themselves of the extreme climate denialists and pork barrellers who seem to dominate the Nationals at the moment.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/green-preferences-may-decide-seats-for-independent-candidates/

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Bega* is the electorate in which John Richardson lived... 

deficient scomo.....

Exposure and vulnerability of various natural and human systems to climate change are discussed at length in the latest IPPC report (6th Assessment Report on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation).

IPCC again used the “burning embers” diagram to highlight levels of concern that scientists have about the consequences of climate change. These diagrams are expressed as levels of increased risk with temperature rise; they also offer an indicator of confidence of transition from one level to another. For each major theme and for each broad region they graphically highlight key areas of concern.

One area of concern that caught my eye is found in the Technical Summary on page 29. For Australasia there is recognition of “failure of institutions and governance systems to manage climate risks”. Interestingly, the Summary for Policymakers (p.17) does not show a glowing ember for this level of concern.

While the creation of a new federal recovery and resilience agency with a disaster risk reduction framework is a positive step, it is but a small step in overcoming the many barriers that exist in Australia addressing both the challenges of adaptation and the threats of maladaptation. Important as it is, there still in no national adaptation strategy that embraces all three levels of government in a coherent, inclusive way that will address the “enabling condition” set out in the policymakers summary for implementing, accelerating, and sustaining adaptation in human systems and ecosystems (SMP C.5).

My experience in working across all three levels of government In Australia (and the natural resource entities) reveals disconnects in political commitment, policy consistencies, bureaucratic silos, staff capacities, inadequate financial support, and struggles in communicating and sharing of information. Coordination and integration in decision-making are objectives frequently subverted by institutional practices that go back decades.

By way of example, I am currently tasked to chair group under a NSW Government initiative to improve the management of waterway health of Sydney Harbour. This includes consideration of issues arising from climate change and involves working with five government agencies and 20 local councils that encompass the catchment of Greater Sydney Harbour. There is no single entity or even process to manage that iconic waterway in association with waters that discharge from its catchments. This work requires an assessment of what governance requirements are best to implement any adaptation strategy that this city will need in the future in waterway management.

Looking more broadly, the IPCC notes that our cities are exposed to the cascading impacts of climate change with a 2-degree warming that will create considerable hardship for many. The burden of addressing such hardships rests to a large degree with local governments. They are constrained in so many ways to meet these challenges. There are big differences in capacity of local councils both within and between states. Huge fiscal imbalances exist as well as technical capacities to address on-going let alone long-term challenges.

What is the way forward? In adaptation terms we cannot continue to follow the incremental pathway which we appear to be on at present. There is a need to be “transformative”. This is a huge ask, but what is the alternative given roles and responsibilities under current institutional arrangements? Organisations such as the Insurance Council are calling for major investment by governments to mitigate disaster risk yet I cannot see how that would work unless there is alignment in planning across all three levels of government. It is not just adaptation to adverse impacts of extreme events, but also for incremental effects such as those resulting from sustained coastal inundation due to sea level rise.

To achieve better integration there is clearly need for a national commitment to strategic regional planning inclusive of governments and purpose. It must be at a scale than can manage programmatic funding over a time period that enables effective mitigation action (including where needed the purchase of property at severe risk of harm). This will involve agreement between the Commonwealth and states to enact common legislation to establish a regional framework with consistency in form and function, including a defined role for local government.

A regional model existed during the days of Natural Heritage Trust Mk.2 However, successive federal governments lost interest in creating a permanent national system to support Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions. Such a model would not meet all the challenges of climate change adaptation. We have to do much better than this. Now is the time to rethink governance arrangements to address all that IPCC has put before us otherwise the pathway to “climate resilient development” will be unachievable.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/ipcc-throws-down-the-gauntlet-on-australian-institutional-deficiences/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

SEE ALSO:

she's cactus, mate...

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!