Good morning, I have been writing this blog post after getting home to wrap my own head around the scale of the count. I expect I will have some issues with the website’s accessibility today, so some of this may also be posted over on Tally Room in Exile, my backup blog.
Firstly, it appears that there has been a significant increase in the number of contests involving minor parties and independents, but it will be some time before we can say how many seats are now non-classic.
Right now, 116 seats appear to be classic contests, 15 are Coalition vs Independent (including Katter and Sharkie), 10 are Labor vs Greens, 8 are Labor vs Independent, and one is Coalition vs Greens (Ryan).
But there are 19 seats where it is not clear at this point which parties should be in the 2CP, and it will require further counting to make that clear. I’m sure some of these seats will require a 3CP. That isn’t to say all these seats are in play – in some cases there is a clear winner and two parties competing to come second.
In theory as many as 43 seats could be non-classic, but at the moment 34 are leaning that way. As a reminder, the 27 non-classic seats in 2022 was an enormous jump. It’s hard to see the number not being higher this time.
I’m going to introduce a term I haven’t used much in the past: “Maverick”. The AEC uses this term to apply to seats where their initial chosen 2CP turns out to be wrong. This year, an enormous 22 seats were declared Maverick, although the Maverick status of Macnamara was later overturned. I think there’s three others where they could arguably do the same, and resume counting the initial 2PP count.
The Maverick status also covers two seats in WA where they picked the wrong party out of Liberal and Nationals. Ten of these 21 seats continue to be unclear as to what 2CP pairing will apply. There is thus a further 9 seats where it is unclear which parties make the 2CP, but since the likeliest pairing is the current pairing, they will continue counting until they decide otherwise.
The main reason for all of this complexity is the closeness of the second-placed and third-placed candidates. There are 30 seats where that gap is less than 5%.
I previously analysed these gaps at the 3CP level, which is not quite the same thing but is usually similar, and I have found the gaps have kept getting smaller. Well it looks like this trend is continuing in 2025. It is getting harder and harder to know which two candidates are the top two.
As for the seat outcomes, my current estimates are:
- Labor winning 86, leading in another 7
- Coalition winning 36, leading in another 4
- Independent (including KAP and CA) winning 10 and leading in 5
- Greens leading in 2
I won’t go into what those seats are now. Right now it looks like five of the six urban teals, plus Sharkie, Katter, Dai Le, Wilkie and Haines have all been re-elected. Zoe Daniel is leading in Goldstein, as are independents in Bean, Calare, Bradfield and Cowper, with the Calare candidate being ex-Nationals MP Andrew Gee. The total vote for independents (not including CA or KAP) has surged again to 7.8%.
The historic scale of Labor’s victory and the Coalition’s defeat forced me to collate some data on previous results, and this chart shows, as a proportion of the House, how many seats the government, opposition and crossbench have held after each election.
The exact record will depend on the final results, but it seems likely that this election result will produce more seats than the 90 seats won by Tony Abbott in 2013. There’s a chance Labor could surpass John Howard’s result in 1996, although I don’t think they’ll quite get there. As for Labor results, this is their best result in seat terms since 1943, and I don’t think any other result before that was any better.
For the Coalition, this looks like the worst result for any major party since 1943, even producing a lower seat proportion than Whitlam’s Labor in 1975. Of course the ballooning size of the crossbench means the defeat of the Coalition is a bit more impressive than Labor’s victory – an exaggerated version of the mismatch we saw in 2022.
For this whole campaign we have been looking at the declining major party votes, and what is amazing is that Labor has achieved this enormous victory while barely raising their primary vote.
The combined major party vote has continued to drop, currently sitting at 66.4%, just below two thirds of the total vote. The Coalition has also broken their own record for their lowest vote share since 1943. And the combined vote for the minor parties and independents has now passed the Coalition, and is over one third.
The final point I want to touch on is the Greens’ performance. At the moment it looks like they will scrape by in Melbourne and potentially win other seats like Wills and Ryan. Their result wasn’t particularly impressive, but I want to emphasise how much they are victims of the electoral system. Nationally the Greens vote is steady, just over 12%, and part of the story is that the Greens suffered primary vote swings in many of their best seats while gaining votes elsewhere. The map at the end of this post makes this very clear in cities like Melbourne and Brisbane, although you don’t see it in the same way in Sydney.
But in a number of their seats, their defeat did not primarily come due to a dropping primary vote, but a rearrangement of their opponents. In Brisbane and Griffith, the rising Labor vote pushed the LNP into third, and thus LNP preferences will elect Labor.
It’s a perverse part of our system that the most conservative voters decide who wins in some of the most progressive seats. Elizabeth Watson-Brown likely will survive while Max Chandler-Mather will be defeated because she represents a more conservative seat where the LNP is the main opponent.
And this is a challenge for the Greens because so many of their best seats are now Labor vs Greens contests where Labor will easily win the 2CP on Liberal preferences.
And finally, this map shows the swings for Labor, Coalition, Greens and One Nation on the primary vote, and a 2PP swing for the 124 seats with 2PP counts at the moment.
Amongst those 124 seats, the biggest 2PP swings were again in Inner Metropolitan seats, averaging 5.08%. Outer Metropolitan averaged 4.07%, Provincial 2.55% and Rural 2.12%. The urban-rural divide is growing even now.
ABC now has Hulett ahead of Labor in the 2pp count with a result of 51.8%-48.2%, another seat to look out for is Flinders, it’s a close result when Ben Smith gets in the 2pp.
I the Teals had a mixed night. They had stagnant performance in Wannon and Cowper but are the favourites to gain Bean and Bradfield. Not to mention almost all the incumbent Teals have been returned, barring Zoe Daniels in Goldstein if pre-polls keep favouring the Liberals.
@Lurking Westie Fremantle’s going to come down to the wire but the early 2PP preferences that I’ve seen comes from Fremantle PPVC and postals which heavily skewed Labor. Looking at the margins of the primaries it wouldn’t surprise me if Fremantle and its surrounds have a 2PP in Hulett’s favour but the rest of the electorate like Cockburn, Beeliar, Success, Atwell etc will push Wilson over the line.
Given Simone McGuirk was able to hang on in Fremantle in a less favourable environment (admittedly also with Liberal preferences) I think Wilson should still retain but it will be a close one.
Should clarify that what I meant specifically was that the Fremantle PPVC favoured Hulett by about 53-47 but the postals favoured Labor by quite a margin. Antony Green mentioned that any postals/absentees should favour Labor vs Hulett and combined with the mixed but slightly favourable results to Labor across the outer suburbs of the electorate Wilson should have a path forward but the seat will be marginal this time.
Labor had an emphatic victory. I was stunned by the swing and increase in seat count.
The most shocking results were:
– Massive swings in Southeast Queensland and Northern Tasmania. They had swung hard to Labor.
– Outer suburban electorates as well as multicultural middle-ring electorates in Sydney and Melbourne either had negligible swings away (e.g. MacMahon) or swings to Labor. Electorates with large Muslim populations like Wills, Calwell, Blaxland and Watson are exceptions.
– Record number of non-classic contests where the 2CP is a major party vs a minor party or independent. The collapse in Liberal primary votes meant that lots of teal independents and Muslim independents and even One Nation entered the 2CP.
Some wise person on the ABC (I can’t remember who) in response to Peter Dutton uniting the Liberal Party said “he has united the party but he has also shrunk the party”. I will leave it at that.
Just some quick updates to the leading party by seat and margin:
* Bean: Labor by 4,677 (84.6% counted)
* Bendigo: Labor by 606 (85.4% counted)
* Bradfield: Independent by 905 (81.2% counted)
* Bullwinkel: Labor by 85 votes (75.3% counted)
* Flinders: Liberal by 3,133 (80.3% counted)
* Fremantle: Independent by 196 (78.8% counted)
* Goldstein: Independent by 95 (79.2% counted)
* Kooyong: Independent by 1,891 (75.2% counted)
* Longman: Labor by 318 (72.5% counted)
* Melbourne: Labor by 2,899 (63.8% counted)
* Menzies: Labor by 1,900 (74.8% counted)
* Wills: Labor by 2,813 (74.5% counted)
I’m calling Bean for Labor and Flinders for the Liberals.
@Nether Portal, there are some seats where the preference counts and allocations will be messy. A lot of seats assume the ALP vs LNP or whatever the last election’s 2CP pairing was. There are some 3 or 4 cornered contests.
In Victoria and on the Gold/Sunshine Coasts, there are Liberal seats with an independent on primary votes in between Labor and Greens. I think people assume a LIB vs ALP count which of course means Labor has lost. However most Greens preferences will probably be distributed to teals ahead of Labor. I think many right-wing parties will also favour teals over Labor.
Also, ABC currently has Labor behind in Fremantle (only just) and ahead in Bean. There’s to-ing and fro-ing.
@Votante I didn’t include seats like Franklin where the only reason they haven’t been called is because it’s unclear who’ll come second.
The eesult in franklin show if the libs had preferenced he would have won.
Nether Portal, yes. ABC admits Monash will be a preference mess.
Ibis, like others above you, I think you are willfully ignoring the Greens’ failings by hiding behind the dominating factor of liberal vote collapse towards Labor.
All three of those Brisbane seats look like losing at least 1% and in Max’s case over 2% of their PVs as sophomore candidates where they had 3 years to consolidate their presence.
Likewise in Melbourne. They have clearly taken a significant hit to their primary pretty across all of their targeted seats across inner Melbourne as well (except Wills)
There was a substantial swing to labor in those seats that exceeded the national average despite a very hard pushed dominant narrative in progressive mileius and organs that Labor had been a week government and was campaigning on a “bare minimum” agenda.
Their overall PV will be a few % down nationally despite clearly getting a small step change in traditionally lower vote areas through their grievance politics.
Potentially zero lower house seats after approaching 2 decades of a strategy prioritising winning gentrifying inner city traditional labor lower house seats.
My head is melting trying to understand our voting system. For the past year or so I dont think Ive spoken to ONE person that would put ALP,coalition or Greens in their top 3 preferences.
The country is hurting more than ever, Im 51 and the decline in living standards,mental physicsl health and over all wellbeing is astronomical. The middle class is quickly joining ranks with the lower class. Trust in government is at an all time low. I dont think there is an approval rating anymore because so few approve of anything the Albanese gov. has done. He is widely regarded as the worst Prime Minister the countrys ever seen.
So I have to be honest and say this doesn’t add up…..unless everything is TPP…because Duttons policys were so stupid it looks like a deliberate attemp to help Albonazi.
And with the WEF proudly disclosing they have infiltrated every government at the top level, theres a putrid stench over this whole election… Poverty, homelessness, electricity, immigration ,food and fuel prices have soared in the past 3 yrs and you dont need to be an “expert” know this. Corruption and coverups are blatently flaunted because theres no accountability or penalties imposed.The Corruption watchdog has become complicit, its deaf,dumb and blind….growing fat on kickbacks.Corruption has been normalised and excused, the rewards and gains are labelled legal and thats that.The smuggness that the upper eschalon has makes me sick. So, please, can anyone make this make sense… because something feels very, very off.
I think the Greens are experiencing the tensions between trying to market themselves as a populist left party but disproportionately targeting upper middle class electorates. If you’re going to target the upper middle class, then you need a strategy that appeals largely to symbolic issues rather than material issues. This is what the Teals and Albanese do so well in the inner city – concentrating on climate change, environmental protection, the Voice, pretending that Dutton is a “fascist”, making reference to the “threat” of Donald Trump, being a quiet “good local member” and so forth. Talking about large scale material issues like rent freezes, dental into Medicare and taxing the rich are not really the concerns of the upper middle class.
The reason why Albanese’s message of “stability” resonated so much with these people is because they don’t want the economy radically upended – they want things like house prices to keep going up and they want unlimited economic growth so that their stock portfolio isn’t put at risk. These preferences are just a natural consequence of having more capital. Moreover, inner city elites are more likely to read the news, thereby reading about everything Trump is doing and feeling threatened by him and so-called “increased global uncertainty”. This is why “stability” is such a powerful message.
Although inner city elites might have voted Greens (and Liberal) in the past, we are starting to see a shift to Labor. In the past, these types felt Labor was too pro-union and economically left wing whereas the Greens were the more polite and unthreatening alternative – especially because they were hardly ever in a position to actually get elected or wield power. But that has now changed. The Greens are becoming far more pro-union (see Chandler-Mather supporting the CFMEU), economically populist, and in a position to actually get elected. Labor, meanwhile, probably since Whitlam and accelerating under Albanese, are making substantial efforts to tone down that part of their identity and instead become “teal-lite”. So long as this continues, it’s going to be tough for the Greens to win inner city seats where a high concentration of upper middle income elites are concentrated. Barring a catastrophic loss of confidence in Labor among the inner city elite, the Greens are either going to have to aggressively pivot in a “woke” direction to revive their inner city prospects by concentrating more on symbolic issues like Labor and the Teals do (i.e. being far more aggressive in supporting things like the Voice while toning down economic issues), transition away from the inner city altogether (unlikely as that’s where they get most of the Senate vote), or try to run two messages like Labor does – one for the inner city focused on symbolic issues and one for the outer suburbs focused on material issues like healthcare and taxes.
On the Greens, this wasn’t an unexpected result, there was always a chance they would lose the three Brisbane seats and not pick up McNamara, Wills and Richmond (and I know they might still pick up Wills and hold Ryan and Melbourne but a lot of Greens partisans thought they had them all in the bag). There has clearly been a loss of votes in their core inner urban constituencies, it really is just whether that is a change in the demographics voting for the Greens or a change in the demographics in Greens constituencies? If the former, then it is not that bad as they will keep their Senate seats, but if the latter then there is a danger they lose both the new voters and not gain back the old voters and then their Senate seats become a lot more precarious.
Is there counting today or just checking?
@Mostly Labor Voter, you raise an interesting point w/ regards to the potential ways the Greens vote will change, but I think the former of your two options is the most likely.
Just looking at the booth results, the Greens nationwide figures have been kept up via swings in the outer suburbs. In Melbourne for example they got double-digit swings towards them in places like Tarneit, St. Albans, Dandenong etc to match the big swings away in most parts of the Inner City. Those are hefty numbers; and the swings do tend to be in places where the Greens did well at the 2024 local council elections so it’s seemingly not just a one-election thing. The problem for the Greens is that like the Liberals they really don’t have much of an outer suburbs campaign infrastructure, so turning sympathy into solid Greens votes is gonna be rough for them.
I also got my logic the wrong way around – if it is a change in who votes for the Greens, and it is because of Israel/Gaza, then there is a possibility of losing those new voters and not gaining the old ones back.
Surprise for the Greens is that their vote dropped in seats that they held. I had expected them to increase
I think instead of Israel/Palestine the thing that may have stopped them picking up support is some of their tactics in parliament in this term. They tended to block Labor to score some political points where their constituants may have preferred them to them to take a more co-operative approach with Labor and have now decided to back what appears to be a more reasonable option for left leaning voters
Again raising a theory I had in light of the Queensland State Election results. It is possible that the core constituency of Greens voters might have been displaced into the middle and outer-rings due to the increased cost of living in the inner-urban parts of our cities from 2020 to 2025.
Rising housing prices and rent in inner-city lifestyle locations has attracted in more of the upper-middle class with a different risk-profile than Greens voters.
Less affluent and younger voters meanwhile have been likely pushed into more affordable pockets along transport corridors where culturally-diverse working populations reside.
The main thesis typically presented from commentators is that the rising Greens vote in the outer-suburbs can be attributed to the Gaza issue. But I think this might be too much of an over-simplification. I think the changing residents of transient divisions, affected by the cost-of-living crisis is also a major factor.
I agree @SEQ. As commented in the Melbourne page, I think the next census will reveal fascinating insight into the demographic changes in the country’s inner city areas. Certainly from my own circles (friends, family, colleagues) very few people who rented in the inner city 5 years ago still live there. Most now live in middle ring suburbs/transport hubs such as Reservoir, Coburg and Sunshine (all of which have seen growth in the Green vote) and anyone wanting to buy has gone regional – particularly to Geelong (for the easy commute into Melbourne) – where again suburbs along the railway line have seen growth in the Green vote.
On the Liberal result, I think there is a serious misconception. The truth is that in may cases the so called moderate position is radical and the so called conservative position is moderate. This was seen with the Voice and also to an extent with Israel/Gaza, when Labor put that behind them and focussed on COL their position turned around, helped by the opposition basically backpedalling from every so called culture war position they supposedly held. I am also not that sure Dutton, despite his reputation, is particularly conservative. Jacinta Price had to talk him into opposing the Voice and he never seemed comfortable with, say, reducing immigration.
But this brings me to my main point – should the Coalition split? It has seemed to for some time that the Coalition are trying to merge two separate political philosophies together, conservatism and liberalism, and they really don’t belong together. When their main position was keeping Labor out it worked fine, but as Labor transitions away from its industrial union base to public sector/professional workers who are more likely to lean liberal then you have the Libs and Labor (and now the Greens and Teals) all fishing in the same waters. It would actually I think be better for the Nats to move away and form a National Conservative party leaving the Liberals to soak up the Teals/some Green/some Labor vote.
@WanderWest @SEQ – if the story is that inner city renters from 5 years ago have moved further out to buy/have family – but still vote Greens – then who has moved in to replace them to see the Green vote drop? International students tha don’t vote? DINKs buying former share houses? Lib/Labor voters buying apartments?
You might be right SEQ and WW, but didn’t the QLD election also show increases in the Green vote corelating with high Muslim populations? It might be due to the low rent in those areas, but I would have expected a broader spread of the Green vote, with a large number moving back in with mum and dad, if your thesis held.
Mostly Labor Voter, I haven’t ruled out the other thesis, and both can be true. I just think the population-change thesis is under-explored, and the issue thesis is over-stated. Yes it’s clear that the higher Greens vote correlated with a high Muslim vote in Queensland. But it’s also true that this vote is close to the rail corridor where it affordable to live. Regarding a broader spread of the Green vote: that seems to be evident in Ben Raue’s map across plenty of outer-suburban, regional, rural and provincial divisions.
I am not suggesting either one is more likely either (I reckon about 50/50)
Self-correction: there seems to have been a decline in rural divisions.
MLV
I don’t think it is the Nats that form the basis of a National Conservative Party as they have their own internal splits between NSW and Victoria on one hand and the Queensland Nats on the other hand. What they need is a ‘Sensible Conservative Party’ that focusses on economics and maybe conservative to some extent on social policy but stays clear of culture wars and wants to move forward on Climate change. I think most of the remaining House members from NSW and Victoria would fall into that category as well as moderate Nats such Darren Chester and Michael McCormack. You can then have a rump of Joyce, Canavan, Jacinta Price, Alex Antic joining together with Gerrard Rennick and One Nation to form some Right wing populist Sky After Dark Pro Trump Farageist Rabble that the sensible centre sensible left and sensible right will and can run a million miles from.
The one thing I was just going to put up redistributed was a quick little precis.
2007 – Howard commits to an ETS – Loses
2010 – Abbot opposes an ETS – drives ALP to minority
2013 – Abbot opposes Carbon Tax – Wins
2016 – Turnbull at least tacitly commits to action on climate – barely hangs on
2019 – Adani convoy – Morrison wins
2022 – Morrison commits to net zero – Loses (and his drop in the polls starts about the time of the announcement)
2025 – Dutton produces Nuclear plan to achieve net zero – loses big time
It does seem that contra to what you suggested, action on climate change is a vote loser but if both sides commit to it then the Libs lose. So basically the first port of call for the new Lib leader is to scrap net zero and abandon Paris goals.
@MLV ,
Problem with your very long bow is:
2007 – was an election about working rights, Rudd also committed to an ETS
2010/2013 – Murdoch media lied like lying liars until Murdoch got his man. Climate was just a McGuffin.
2016 – The ALP proposed net zero, so why the swing to them?
2019 – Adani cost a few seats in Queensland, but it wasn’t the big issue (which was tax reform)
2022 – Morrison was about as popular as warm beer. ALP went to the election fully committed to net zero/Paris.
2025 – Dutton chooses nuclear over renewables.
Don’t fall into the logical fallacy of making the data fit your thesis. It’s more useful if you do it the other way around.
Further to WanderWest’s anecdotal observations, I have also heard this exodus of trendy “inner-city” types out into the corridors towards Sunshine and Resevoir remarked upon in real-estate. Real-estate commentators have been promoting this notion of Sunshine and Preston under-going a gentrification of sorts. These areas have been recently popular for young and trendy types for their affordability and access to the city via public-transport.
It’s also true that my own personal circles of acquaintances in Melbourne, they have ejected themselves from the likes of Melbourne and Brunswick and out into the more “authentic” working-class neighbourhoods, or back up to Queensland. Some forced by cost-of-living pressures.
The pockets that are traditionally regarded as trendy (and are known to be such) become cost-prohibitive once the upper-middle class buy into these trendy lifestyle neighbourhoods.
It’s possible these established cool-places might undergo a reverse-gentrification of sorts.
I’ve anecdotally observed similar trends occurring in SEQ but will tie it together with some data before describing it in more detail here later on.
I simply looked at the top line climate policy for the Libs at each election and overlaid it onto the result. In fact I could accuse you of doing the same thing – the 2 elections that climate policy most specifically played a role were 2010 & 2013 which you conveniently cloud under a ‘waaaaaah Murcdoch’ conspiracy theory. You also ignored my point that I felt Morrison started to lose any popularity he had at the same time he committed to net zero. In fact, maybe (probably) committing to net zero made him as popular as warm beer!
Other than that, you admit to my thesis by pointing out Rudd committed to an ETS, so when both commit Labor wins.
Oh, and before you yell 2016 @LR, is there anyone who went into that election thinking that Turnbull wouldn’t commit to action on Climate change? It was one of if not his biggest point of difference with Abbott.
@MLV – I’m mostly a reader but you’ve infuriated me enough for me to comment. The Libs lacklustre climate policy is what lost them the election in 2022. They leaked seats everywhere to climate-backed independents and the Greens. This time around, they have no climate policy at all. Labor don’t have a strong climate policy either, but it exists.
Morrison contravened the Paris Agreement commitments. Dutton refused to acknowledge the impacts of climate change in his debate. The Coalition still includes sitting representatives that do not even believe in climate change.
You’re living in complete delusion if you think that the Coalition have ever had a strong climate policy.
@MLV “waaaaaah Murdoch” was a thing. Unless you’ve forgotten the AUSTRALIA NEEDS TONY banner headline in 2013? The wonderful development in Australian politics in the last ten years has been the tide going out on the influence of Murdoch on elections. This too is a thing. What made Morrison the collosus of conservative intellectualism was “I don’t hold a hose, mate.” But if you see causation between inaction on energy policy and electoral success you don’t need me, you need OPSM.
@ All,
Are we saying that the Coalition should advocate pulling out of Net Zero, Paris Agreement. What should the Coalition policy be on LGBT issues?
@ Redistributed should Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Bev Macarthur going the Pro Trump Sky After Park party?
*Sky After Dark
@Nimalan my vision would be to while still remain more socially conservative than Labor (as they drift more woke to combat the Greens), the policies should be similar to the ones I’ve been saying should be policy, and the ones that pretty much are policy on the state level:
Support:
* Optional Census inclusion of LGBT topics for people over the age of 16
* Net zero and the Paris Agreement
* Both renewables (hydro, solar, wind, etc, open to exploring other options too) and nuclear power
Are there any others you’d like my opinion on as a Liberal voter who knows other younger Liberal voters?
I haven’t. But it still doesn’t override the fact that Abbott changed the Libs policy and got swings towards him twice. That and the fact that climate policy is one of the few things that has constantly changed in Lib policy over the last 20 years or so. Trying to hide that under the banner of a Murdoch conspiracy theory is a very Greens thing to do.
@ Nether Portal
What about Trans issues. In 2013 the Sex Discrimination Act was amended to recognise Gender Identity interestingly no one really discussed it at the time but many in the Conservative side want “What is a Woman?” to be defined. Dutton did not want to discuss it
I think after the last 2 elections these are some of the things that the LNP should no longer talk about in their campaigns/policy
– LGBTQ issues
– energy policy in regards to dictating what should supply electricity
The should go back to their core values
– balance the budget and reduce taxes by not investing in anything
– don’t be mean to indigenous or other minority groups – just ignore them
– talk about feel good topics – just don’t actually do anything about them
@Nimalan I think trans issues are complex as they usually don’t require legislation due to the fact that they make up quite a small part of the population.
I think anyone with common sense knows that a woman is defined as an adult human female (and that a man is an adult human male, though no one really asks “What’s a man?”, only “What’s a woman?”). So I don’t think this really needs legislating.
If we’re talking about sport then it’s absolutely unfair that trans women can compete against biological women, but it doesn’t happen much. I’ve advocated for women’s sports, particularly women’s football, for a long time. One of the Matildas I know well who I am proud to call a friend of mine (won’t name her though or discuss her political leanings) said this to me: “Is it unfair? Yes. But it just never happens, because coaches and players are smart enough to know that it’s unfair.” Pretty much sums up my point.
As for whether they should be allowed to serve in the military, I don’t think anyone should ever be forced to serve in or wrongfully excluded from serving in the military. So Donald Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the US Military is unfair on trans people, even if they are only a fraction of the population.
They need to ditch the nuclear idea but the Nats are still stuck on it . Could be something to break the Coalition over?
It was a good idea however the left and vesged interests scared people about the cost. Do u btful.
Also this election was the worst possible result for the libs not only have they ensured labot will govern until at least 2031. They cannot tie the teals to labor or the greens anymore..
I would broadly agree on that @NP, except that there are plenty of videos of transwomen (that is biological (fully intact) men) playing sport at quite a high level (college) happening in the US, not Australia I know. Still overall small in number, but with something of an outsize impact. I do think the AFL saved us from a lot grief by banning Hannah Mouncey from the AFLW, what was it 10 years ago or so now.
I don’t think the federal Lib/Nat/LNP coalition have a recent record of delivering infrastructure for the nation so it is understandable that the general public would be dubious about there ability to deliver nuclear.
It is a shame that such a poor proposal from them has probably shut down the nuclear debate for another 10 years
I actually think once the full system cost of basically 100% renewables becomes known, and the system vulnerabilities (a la Spain and SA) are taken into account, even Labor might look at the nuclear option again.
@MLV I’m aware it happens but it’s rare and doesn’t happen in Australia or the UK (where she lives) and doesn’t happen in football/soccer.
As for nuclear we kinda need it, it’s hard to live off renewables given how big Australia is. MLV mentioned Spain: Spain is a much smaller country. Spain is much smaller than even NSW which is one state. The smaller the country the easier it is to power with only renewables.
OMG, don’t you know what happened in Spain last week NP?
@ Nether Portal
I agree with you if the question is always “What is a woman?” people should also ask “What is a Man?” This is my personal view so i am not trying to impose it on others. I would differeniate between team/contact sports and other sports generally as someone who is biologically male and always indentified as male. If i played Rugby for example i would feel uncomfortable playing with biological females. However, i am happy to play a singles Tennis match against anyone irrespective of their biological sex or gender identity or if i was a swimmer or a marathon runner. I totally agree people should not be excluded from the millitary/police because of the gender identity. Claire Chandler has a private members bill on Gender Identity and Sports i think both parties should allow a conscience vote and not make it a Wedge issue.
Im saying libs will win bradfield and goldstein. Kooyong will be close too. With only 76% counted houd have too assume 10,000 votes at least to be counted. Turnout here is usually very high in the mid 90s so if that repeats and If the libs can get 55-45 they should either win or get incredibly close. Depensing on amount to be cpunted that could tip it over. Nats did well to hold cowper and tehan in wannon calare as i expected gee easily wins a nat vs gee contest.