Thumping defeat for Labor and Liberals.

I really want to know if Labor are going to take the lesson that an allegedly cocaine snorting, mafia connected candidate looks more appealing than the Woodside candidate who runs at the first sign of hard questions over gas.

Like it's ridiculous, it's not like her main opponent was a Greens candidate. The ON candidate is probably worse on corruption and fossil fuel support, in that situation why run the comparisons write themselves.

But in reality I think debate was really on things like red bins and a general discontent which she couldn't counter by being an engaging or exciting candidate on real issues.

So, question, is Labor going to learn that backroom staffers and lobbyists are far from the flavour of the day and they need to start finding real community candidates?