It’s Election Day #savotes! Full moon overnight and turned the radio on to find ‘living on a prayer’ playing - good sign. Already hearing reports of aggressive security guards guarding booths covered early in Liberal signage overnight. It’s going to be a long day. Follow here👇🏻
On my way to my booth, helping mum @KayRollison and @catrollison set up a booth in Dunstan. The booth is St Peters - where I grew up. A supposably safe Lib seat held by Premier Marshall. My friend @CressidaOHanlon has had a huge crack at it - watch this seat! Got a good feeling.
I’m all set up at the booth in marginal Elder - Ascot Park. Candidate in Elder is the amazing Nadia Clancy who has been campaigning > 2 years. It’s a must win seat. Exciting vibe. Also a shared booth with Labor MP Jayne Stinson. There are wonderful Labor women everywhere today.
Just met an ambo. If you haven’t been following SA election, you’ll have missed that we’re in the midst of an ambulance crisis - people are dying waiting over an hour for ambulances. It’s really scary. It’s heroes like this we rely on and we need them to be resourced properly!
There seems to be debate going on about whether volunteers at booths should be wearing masks. Voters have to. Everyone at my booth is. Here’s Liberal Federal MP for Sturt - James Stevens - handing out for Marshall in Dunstan without a mask. Liberals never took covid seriously 😷
Just heard something weird. Apparently @SAElectoralCom have told people in seat of King they can’t park their chalked cars near the booth. Chalk is in support of ambos who were ordered to remove chalk from ambulances. This ruling is way outside ECSA’a remit - private vehicles!
State of play for this election is Labor needs to flip 5 seats to win govt. Huge ask. The polls are suggesting a swing, but we know polls can be inaccurate and also the swing has to happen in just the right places! Marginal seats to watch are King, Adelaide, Elder and Newland.
Another seat to watch is Davenport. It is currently held by a Lib MMAM (mediocre middle aged man) who is so boring I can’t remember his name. Margin of 9%. Erin Thompson is local mayor and has worked tirelessly on this campaign - it’s hilly so that’s extra work! Could be wildcard
This afternoon I’m going to be volunteering for Rhiannon Pearce in ultra marginal King. Another must win seat with an incredible Labor woman! I got to know Rhi through Labor Women Network and she’s the real deal. Smart, confident and kind ❤️ So hope she wins King!
Ummm, not sure about this one. If someone could explain 🧐
Speaking of Labor leader Peter Malinauskas, just want to say how impressive his campaign has been. I knew Pete when we went to Adelaide Uni together (typical Adelaide) and he’s always seemed like a future Premier - even back then. Wish him all the best today!
Another seat to watch is Gibson. Held on a solid 10% by Liberal Corey Wingard, but Labor’s Sarah Andrews is making him work for it! Very proud to have helped campaign for Sarah - a great unionist and feminist. Another seat to watch - go you good thing!
On the running theme of Labor’s amazing candidates, another Labor Woman Network friend I’m so proud of for her tireless campaign in my home seat of Adelaide is Lucy Hood. On a mission to flip a couple of hundred votes, been happy to help (with my daughter Lottie!). Go @LucyHood!
You might think I’ve run out of seats to watch which also have amazing female candidates but I’m still going! The most marginal seat in the state is Newland. Great to have a young-gun Olivia Savvas showing how it’s done. Labor needs this seat to win government.
Still going with key seats! Catherine Hutchesson in Waite has been leading a grassroots charge to flip seat to Labor for first time in decades. Again big margin but some weird stuff going on with ex-Lib turned independent Sam Duluk (‘drunken pest’) running against Libs. Go Cathy!
Ok, so it’s 3pm. Three hours left. I would love to be able to give you an insight into the on-the-ground ‘vibe’ but it’s just impossible to tell. I’ve done this too many times to think anything can be deciphered from poker faced voters walking into booths. Anything could happen!
Just heard there are six Liberal volunteers handing out HTVs for Marshall in Kensington - overkill. Doesn’t get bluer than Kensington. Apparently they’ve flown in from Victorian Liberals to help out. Suggests the Premier is feeling at least a little stressed in his own seat? 🧐
And that’s a wrap. Polls are closed. Time for a drink and then incessant refreshing of 👇🏻 abc.net.au/news/elections…
Having a well earned beer with @JamesDimasWKYZ who has been awake for 22 hours! 😂
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The title of the report gives quite the insight:
👉🏻Under the Facade of Journalism: How News Corp used fear, manipulation and division to campaign against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament👈🏻
Key findings: 1) News Corp’s coverage of the Voice constituted an overt political campaign in favour of a ‘No’ vote.
2) The most frequently used ‘No’ arguments from News Corp were consistent with those of the official ‘No’ campaign.
I’ve been monitoring News Corp’s Voice coverage so I am sadly well versed in the ‘No’ camp’s contradictions, misrepresentations and scaremongering - by both ‘No’ voices and News Corp voices. I’ll try to summarise it into one thread to give you a sense of how bad faith they are👇🏻
First is the idea that the Voice, an advisory body, can override decisions made by parliament. Bolt regularly refers to the Voice as an Aboriginal only parliament. They constantly imply the Voice has more power and can do more than give advice which is a total bald faced lie.
They also say constitutionally enshrined Voice is more powerful than legislated one. ‘No’ campaigners like Dutton and Price say they support legislated regional Voice and call constitutional Voice risky. Constitutional experts constantly say this is false but they keep saying it.
I’m surprised at how few people who are watching Harry and Meghan on Netflix, or reading Spare, are discussing the big picture. Royal gossip and relationships don’t matter. What’s important is their story is about British/Commonwealth establishment fighting progress. A thread👇🏻
When Harry happened to fall in love with Meghan Markle, the royals were given an opportunity to modernise, to be progressive, to reflect a new-British culture. Meghan is self-made, successful, articulate, describes herself as an activist, is an outspoken feminist, and is biracial
Rather than see Meghan as an opportunity for the British establishment to represent a new Britain, in the midst of a country embroiled in Brexit debates, racism versus diversity, British power, particularly media power, decided Meghan was not what Britain represents.
Since we can now talk about the Bruce Lehrmann trial, can I just check if anyone in their entire lives have ever heard of someone having a big night out, and then pissed, deciding to go back to the office to do some work his boss said wasn’t needed? Impossible.
Also, if he was such a gentlemen offering Brittany to share an Uber home to make sure he got her home safely, why didn’t he do that? If he seriously wants us to believe he decided to go back to work, why did he take Brittany there and not drop her home first? Beggars belief.
Furthermore, if Bruce said he was taking Brittany home, why didn’t he do that? Why did he leave her at Parliament House and was seen on security cameras jogging from the scene? Why not go back and make sure she was ok, take her home safely? Doesn’t make sense.
I need to share a story about a really worrying thing I heard a journalist say, and will explain the issue. I'm going to leave names and some details out, as it's not about the specific journalists involved, it's about a wider problem in political journalism. A thread👇🏻
So in this forum, two journalists were discussing representation of women in politics. They got onto the subject of widespread public misogyny about Julia Gillard when she was PM. They discussed the fact the media didn't call it out at the time it was happening.
One of the journalists said that the press pack recognised that Gillard was experiencing this horrible thing where she was a victim of misogyny and just couldn't get any clear air as PM. They talked about how it was so obvious to journalists at the time, they discussed it openly.
This piece ignores fact that if Greens forced Labor to adopt policies Labor did not take to election, Labor would be wiped out next election. Is that what Greens want? I don't recall Greens selling their massive super-profits tax during election either! themonthly.com.au/the-politics/r…
Labor does not have a mandate to introduce the Greens’ policy platform. If you would like to argue otherwise fine, but please stick to this topic. The electorate would crucify Labor if they sprung Greens’ policies on them - how is that good for long term reform?
The Greens won three additional seats VERY NARROWLY to bring their total to 4. Labor won 77. Let’s use that as a frame for who has a mandate and who doesn’t please.