The previous federal election thread was getting long and unwieldy, so I’ve closed it and set up shop here. Perhaps you might like to discuss today’s front page splash in The Australian, "Labor in strongest electoral position since 2001", based on a 56-44 Newspoll result.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
Bob Brown’s comments today on shutting down coal mining (whilst probably right in a purist environmental sense) show that the Greens are political fringe dwellers, and will stay there.
Ruddy, by coming out straight away and rejecting the notion is showing that Labor can be proud and realist, and is not looking over his shoulders at the Greens and preference flows – they are not going to send them to the Nats of FF are they? Labor have them in the bag no matter what happens.
The essentail difference between Ruddy and the other Labor leaders since 1996 is that Ruddy is confident and to some extent leading the agenda. He is not a huffing and puffing windbag like Kimbo, whinging and whining like Simon (and who spent more time looking over his shoulder protecting his back than he deserved), or reading childrens books and looking for fairies at the bottom of the garden with Bob Brown as Mark Latham did – I do so wish that I had charged up to Anna Burke when I had the chance during the 2004 campaign and told her that Mark L. was the first major party leader since Dr Evatt who was unfit to lead the country, I would have liked to see her reaction but I was late for something else (btw Anna Burke is a very good marginal seat MP) – so through his confidence Ruddy is drawing back to the ALP voters who may defected to the Greens as thet can see the possibility of a Labor government. Despite what Grahem Richardson or Mark Latham may say, a primary vote is better than a preference any day of the week.
Bob Brown should remember the old truism that ‘politics is the art of the possible’. He had a great win with the Franklin in 1982, but on balance not a lot since…(I have now curled into a ball waiting for the wrath to descend). I feel that Ruddy and P. Garrett will deliver a lot more on environmental outcomes that BB can in a month of Sundays.
It may now be BB who has been outflanked with the ALP as the winner and credit taker.
The try hard buisness suckers the ALP will never tackle the environment and they cant even look after their supposed core voters leaving the workers no better off. If the ALP was even slightly different to the libs we wouldnt been in another election year looking at another Howard win. Rudd (ill use my religion coz it works for Howard and co) is a total bore and will not win the election leaving the ALP needing a new leader again.
If the ALP scraps its no new uranium mines policy then the Green vote is likely to go up possibly making Green HoR victories more likely.
If the ALP changed its IR or Nuclear power then the Green Vote would massivly increase possibly making it the main party of the left.
and pigs might fly
Totally. From today, Bob Brown has ensured that no coal miners or any industrial person will go anywhere near The Greens. I was planning to preference them second at the election, but they have lost my vote.
Actually in a sense Tom is right. The Greens are already the “main party of the left”, because Labor is a party of the centre, although it is has a left wing. The “left” consists of about 10% of the electorate, and the Greens are now their prefered party.
Nat,
The problem with SOSE was that it downgraded both history and geography, the former becoming Time, continuity and change, and the latter Place and space. This gave approval to schools to throw everything into themes, to reduce the role of history and geography in their timetables and to ignore the need for teachers to have relevant subject qualifications.
But the point I was making was essentially political: John Howard’s attack on “new age†curriculum is in essence an attack on the policies implemented by his own party and already overturned by the Labor Party (in Victoria, at least: NSW never went mad in education, and states like WA still are). Public responses already link the “new age†curriculum with the Labor Party rather than the Victorian Liberals who actually did the deed. I have sent letters to the editors of The Age and the Herald Sun, but they have not been published – yet(?).
What other politician can attack the policies of his own party and have it regarded as not only an attack on the Opposition but also a well justified attack on it?
As we keep seeing the experts are predicting dramatic events due to climate change. The comments to the Greens solutions on here is very ALP/big business and this attitude will push us over the no going back point. Even with this extremely life threating event the two major parties are vying over votes with little thought of the destruction of life and the environment. What we have in our political world is two parties who are tied to big business, another that believes that global warming is gods will and that only they will be saved, a party that is so small now that they will soon be in the grave with One Nation and then we have the greens, warning people for decades to look at the environment, protect it because once its gone thats it. We only have one window of opportunity to get this right but i fear with peoples political stubbornness that window will disappear.
Grim toll in doomsday forecast
February 11, 2007 12:00am
Article from: The Sunday Tasmani
HEATWAVES that kill thousands, gigantic bushfires and regular 100-year storms are part of a frightening new climate change forecast for Australia.
A leaked CSIRO report into the impact of global warming predicts a century of climatic horrors for the nation.
The doomsday scenario will form the basis of the Australian chapter in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the Federal Government’s key stocktake on global warming due for release in April.
The United Nations’ IPCC reports into climate change represent the world’s most up-to-date assessment of how rising global temperatures will change our planet.
The CSIRO report found that extreme fire days will be more common across Australia.
The report predicts Tasmania and Victoria’s east coast will be battered with massive 100-year storms, adding to beach erosion and the destruction of coastal properties.
Eucalypt forests will start to disappear, along with the delicate habitat necessary to sustain Australia’s native animals.
Human lives in bigger cities will come under increasing threat, with the annual death toll from heatwaves expected to reach 1300.
And refugees from Pacific Islands submerged by water will flock into the country.
Without solid rain, Australia’s crops will be affected, despite the higher temperatures helping increase the yield.
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has forecast a rise in average global temperatures of between 1.1 per cent and 6.4 per cent by 2100.
The CSIRO report looked at the impact of a range of temperatures, from a small decline to a rise of more than 5 per cent.
It examined the impact of rising temperatures in five key areas: ecosystems; crops, forestry and livestock; water resources; public health; and human life.
A senior CSIRO scientist said: “For the higher levels of warming, it’s pretty serious for Australia.”
The CSIRO paper – based also on input from universities and private groups – is the Federal Government’s most authoritative report into the local impact of climate change.
The report’s findings were yesterday backed by predictions of worse droughts, bushfires, floods and less marine life for Tasmania.
At a Global Warming and Politics seminar in Hobart yesterday, scientific experts and politicians agreed the clock is ticking.
“Climate change is real, its effects are happening now in many forms,” visiting expert Stuart Rosewarne, senior lecturer in economics at Sydney University, said yesterday.
Dr Rosewarne said many effects were already having an impact on Tasmania and yesterday’s seminar heard the more populated areas and major agricultural and farming regions would be hardest hit.
“The drought that is being experienced in Tasmania at the moment is very much shaped by global warming,” he said.
“The impact will vary across Tasmania significantly with agricultural areas to be hit the hardest.
“With declined rainfall and increased temperatures, some of the forests will be badly affected.
“Some of the plantations that are being developed at the moment are not growing as fast as anticipated which is directly related to climate change and rainfall patterns.”
Dr Rosewarne said rainfall was expected to decrease 10 per cent in summer but in some areas it could fall a further 20 to 30 per cent.
“There has been a fairly significant decline in rainfall patterns in some areas of Tasmania in the past five years,” he said. “Predictions indicate this will only get worse
Would i want to keep working in an industry that will eventually cause my life to be ruined or would i look with the governments help to a new clean industry with a real long lasting future.
C-WOO said Totally. From today, Bob Brown has ensured that no coal miners or any industrial person will go anywhere near The Greens. I was planning to preference them second at the election, but they have lost my vote.
Im am industrial worker and i will not only vote green i am a candidate and member with a strong union background. I can predict with confidence that if the ALP win this election my life wont get any better and with their attitude to climate change and the wishy washy IR policy it will get a lot worse
Greg Combet, John Brumby and Maxine McKew have been mentioned as possible ALP candidates. Denials and disclaimers.
Brumby wont shift to fed, unless given an ultra safe seat. He doesn’t need too, he already has a good job.
John Brumby has already had a go in Canberra as MP for Bendigo from 1983 to 1990.
The common gossip is that Harry Jenkins will bail out of Scullin at the last minute and the left will install Combet. The sticking point apparently is that Combet doesn’t want to go. I haven’t heard it suggested that Brumby still had federal ambitions, but who knows? The right have used up all their vacant seats in Victoria, so where would he stand? Perhaps he could knock off dozy old Stewie McArthur in Corangamite. The left certainly won’t give back Bendigo, despite Gibbons being a complete dill.
The latest ACNielsen poll gives Labor a 58-42 2PP lead, which makes Morgan seem a tad conservative.
Let’s see how Rudd is doing mid year. If still at similar levels, expect Howard to cut and run.
AC Nielsen confirms Newspoll as we expected. I agree with Chris, Howard may go if these numbers stay as they are. Especially if the polling numbers in Bennelong are the same as the national trend.
Howard will stay regardless of polls. He may be many things but I don’t think he is a coward. He will go down with the ship like Fraser. Neither Costello nor Abbott nor Turnbull would do any better anyway. If the electorate has decided to toss out the Libs, a desperation leadership change shortly before the election is not going to change their minds. Precedents: Cain/Kirner, Dowding/Lawrence, Lewis/Willis, Ahern/Cooper and (in NZ) Palmer/Moore.
Nielsen polls always overstate the Labor vote. I don’t know why, but they always have done. And as I said at the top of this thread, polls in February for an October election don’t mean very much. We have a long parliamentary year, a Labor national conference with a nasty uranium debate, and a Costello giveaway budget between us and the election.
Peter Brent at Mumble had an oft-quoted theroy that Horward would retire .. sparking a whole host of overbearing eulogies from the media that would secure his “undefeated” place in the political pantheon. It certainly seemed plausible late last year .. and perhaps he was contemplating it .. but then Rudd entered the scene and started getting very good polling results. Under such circumstances retirement would look like “cutting and running” .. so he would have been forced to stay regardless of his intensions. Now, of course, the election’s getting too close, and that “experienced and stable” matra (so much personified by Howard) is about all they have left.
I agree with Adam .. Howard won’t go.
I always thought it was Morgan on the left, Nielsen on the right and Newspoll down the middle
If Howard does stay, expect a very mean and tricky next few months…..should be fun.
I’m not accusing any polls of political bias – I think there is a methodological problem with Nielsen, but whatever the reason it always overstates the Labor vote. Morgan polls say whatever Gary Morgan decides they should (enough said). I only pay attention to Newspoll.
Newspoll is no more accurate than the others.
Morgan uses cluster sampling and face to face methodology, vastly different to the others. I don’t believe Morgan has any vested interest in a Labor bias, he’s the same guy who yells at Big Issue vendors and buskers for ruining the streetscape.
Best thing to do is average the 3 as ozpolitics does;
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/
Those jumping on the “bag Bob brown” wagon should read the press release that set it all off. (http://www.bobbrown.org.au/600_media_sub.php?deptItemID=2222). It starts:
“Australia should develop a plan, in the next three years, to reduce and phase out coal exports, Greens Leader Bob Brown said today.”
The ABC reported (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1844757.htm) this as “The Greens said yesterday a plan to phase out the exporting of coal should be drawn up within the next three years.”
However, News Limited (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21202562-421,00.html) managed to turn this into: “Greens leader Bob Brown today called for Australia, one of the world’s largest coal producers, to stop exporting coal within three years to help reduce global greenhouse emissions.”
As for ‘industrial people’ not going anywhere near the Greens, I would have thought that the manufacturing industries would profit from a boost to (labour intensive) renewable energy industries as opposed to the (capital intensive) mining industry. I think voters will be thinking about climate change at the next election, maybe not as their first thought (that always seems to be the hip pocket, or occasionally the nationalist achilles heel…) but as an issue that government’s of either ilk will need to do something substantial about. The smart move on Rudd’s part was to let Garrett say what he wants on coal and climate change (lots of media) and then simply reply that its not going to happen if it means an end to coal exports – he wins all ways round withoug actually having to do anything.
People also might like to consider that a good number of coal miners also know the direction their industry is going (down) and so want something better than platitudes and more enormous gouges in the earth. Retraining, new jobs, new industries – that might be a smarter policy for a phased transition, don’t you think?
I’ve always favoured AC Nielsen over Newspoll. Harking back to October 9 2004, the day of the Federal Election, the SMH, relying on AC Nielsen polling figures confidently stated that “Howard back for a 4th term” (or something like that.) Compare this with the Australian’s Newspoll relied headline “Latham within striking distance”. Enough said.
Adam says:
“And as I said at the top of this thread, polls in February for an October election don’t mean very much. We have a long parliamentary year, a Labor national conference with a nasty uranium debate, and a Costello giveaway budget between us and the election. ”
If the economy is still strong (but still two paced in at least two areas) Costello can’t do a giveaway budget and go to the polls late in the year, it would cause interest rates to rise again this year like it did last year, and Howard would go to a poll with last times interest rate lie killing him.
So unless the economy is dead and the March quarter inflation figure back in bounds (comfortably) if there is a traditional inflationary budget Howard has to run to the quickest election he can find … honeymoon or not.
And I think the uranium compromise is easy.
Leave granting mining leases to the States as they chose. Allow exports from the mining states to all NNPT countries (but not others) and a blanket nationwide ban on importing back nuclear waste or nuclear power generation. A couple of billion (or more) half for clean coal r&d, half for renewables r&d and a united face.
If such a good compromise seems so obvious and easy to me … trust the powers that be to be working on a much much better one as I type.
Since when have the major parties ever got anything right?
as jasmine said .. announce an invest in clean-coal as a “short-term” solution (which placates votes in areas like Capricornia) until our renewable targets start getting met (which they should do sooner rather than later given the big push on investment in that area). It just slides off the tongue sooo easily.
And leave nuclear out of the picture altogether .. it’s dangerous, expensive and a backward step considering renwable energy is the future. If Howard keeps trying to push it (did you know Rumsfeld has moved into the Nuclear power generation game?) he’ll be easy to castrate closer to the election with a few well produced fear inducing Chernobyl style ad’s .. possible headline? “With nuclea, the stakes are high .. do you want one in your backyard?”
Stewart: If this is a beat-up Bob Brown et al haven’t tried to debunk it at all ?
MUA, just because nothing has appeared in the media from the Greens doesn’t mean the Greens haven’t tried to set things straight.
Less then 0.01% of Vic Green releases have ever seen the light of day. I’m willing to bet its the same everywhere
Ahhhh .. the gods do smile :
“LABOR has poached a key Treasury policy adviser to bolster its economic credentials as another poll showed Kevin Rudd opening up a commanding lead over the Coalition.
Amanda Sayegh, widely regarded as one of Treasury’s best operators, is understood to have told colleagues in the budget policy division last Friday that she will be moving to shadow treasurer Wayne Swan’s office.
The appointment will be a significant boost for Mr Swan as Prime Minister John Howard prepares to hammer Labor over a lack of experience ahead of this year’s election.”
Bert dear, you sound a little jaded, over more than 100 years of our Labor party we have been getting things right and making Australia one of the best countries in the world.
Even the Libs who get most things wrong don’t get everything wrong … for example Howard did some gun restriction banning stuff early on … and in fact really early on when Howard still had had some residual soul he sacked some Minsters for unacceptable conduct. Of course over time he has corrected these tendencies but there was a little good even in the Libs.
When my wife ran in the last South Australian election there was a health issue that brought the local branch of the Greens to protest peacefully. As the candidate my wife thought she would be interviewed- surprise surprise everyone else was except her. The issue is still ongoing & posing a threat to human health
bill weller
“And leave nuclear out of the picture altogether .. it’s dangerous, expensive and a backward step considering renwable energy is the future.”
Guess which one of the following sources of electricity generation has had the least number of deaths per unit of energy generated including workers and consumers (at least during 1970-1992): nuclear, hydro-electric, natural gas, coal? You might be surprised.
No doubt it’s nuclear – not very surprising really. It’s like asking which form of weapon has caused the fewest deaths since 1970 – atomic bombs or hand grenades. Of course atomic bombs have caused fewer, because none have been used since 1945. That doesn’t alter the fact that atomic bombs kill a lot more people than hand grenades WHEN THEY ARE USED. Likewise, nuclear power plants don’t kill anyone UNTIL THEY GO WRONG, and then they can kill large numbers of people, as nearly happened at Three Mile Island and did happen at Chernobyl.
MONDAY POLITICAL UPDATE
There is no ways about it. After today, Howard is struggling. Yes Rudd is high up in the polls, as Labor was in front early in 1998, 2001 and 2004 and still were defeated. Something this time though feels abnormal. Labor has come out better than I though with their approach. I feel if the polls don’t improve (or get worse) for the Liberals by early June, I think it should seriously be time to replace Howard with a cleanskin like Costello or Nelson or Bishop so,
1) They can come out looking fresher than they would with Howard, who is slowly but surely become a liability, and either one of them can bang home the economy and unemployment positives (which are nothing not to be proud of) and try and get a victory that way.
2) Just put someone in their so Howard won’t have to go through a Fraser ’83-esq thing. One one hand this could work. On the other hand it could tear the party apart for years (Liberals 80’s, Labor 96-till recently).
The figures for deaths from nuclear-generated electricity compared to other forms include deaths from accidents. How many people do you think died as a result of the Chernobyl accident?
What is the risk of an accident at a nuclear power plant?
This http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/en/ web-page may help.
The russians did everything they could to cock up at chernobyl, i think its a cheap attack to use it as an example.
Im willing to bet theyll be tax cuts in this budget, and yes theyll be inflationary, but that wont show in the official figures for six months.
People are getting used to tax cuts coming every year, so if they dont get them this year a lot of people will be upset they didnt get their gift, and look to punish the government
To get enough nuclear power plants up and running which would power Australia’s needs(min 25) it would take up to 15 years. Think of the energy needed to make them and the amount of years before its workable and guess what? ITS TOO LATE! this is the sad thing. While the major parties use global warming as a political football the game is into added time. Oh by the way if the world heats up to the point that the Tundra melts guess what lies under that? METHANE! and with that and new increase in global warming which it turn will destroy more areas. But hey we might get a tax cut if either ALP or Libs win or extra centrelink payments. Pity we wont be around to use them! When the Greens policies come out on Environment, IR, Social Justice , the unemployed, Social issues etc compare them with the ALP. The Greens are where the ALP should be.
bill weller Says: “The Greens are where the ALP should be.” Bill, you maybe right but the trouble is if the ALP were to be where the Greens are in the policty sense they would also be where the Greens are in a political sense ie a very long way from the government benches and you can do bugger all from that position.
Adam-
I am a little confused by your comments regarding the AC Nielsen. If I recall rightly, the final ACN polls in 1998, 2001 and 2004 overstated the Coalition primary AND two-party-preferred, although it has in fact been the closest of the three major polling outfits at all 3 elections. Could you justify your statement?
I disagree with those who say a change of Coalition leaders would be unproductive. Costello would almost certainly get a honeymoon of his own, and has far more credibility on the environmental issues that are taking centrestage right now, as well as as being separate from the Bush/Iraq negative. Further, he is far more effective on the attack than Howard.
The point about nuclear is not that it is a magic bullet, but that it is an option to properly consider along with all the rest. Ideally we’d have fusion reactors but we don’t.
“But hey we might get a tax cut if either ALP or Libs win or extra centrelink payments. Pity we wont be around to use them! ”
This is silly – we’ll be around, but life may be much more challenging for many people.
Is Howard starting to lose it? His attack on Obama and the US Democrats was extraordinary, especialy considering that the Dems now control Congress – like it or not, Howard has to deal with them. This coming after his slip on climate change last week might suggest that time is cataching up with him (as it does to all of us in the end). There was always a risk for Howard in staying on too long. A leader can turn from “wise and experienced” to “old and out of touch” very quickly. History tells me not to write off the old dog just yet, but he’s certainly not exhibiting the political touch that we’ve seen from him over the years.
Sacha – ‘Ideally we’d have fusion reactors but we don’t’
This kind of cuts across your whole ‘should be considered with the rest’ conservative talking point. Either you’ve concluded or you are still considering only someone as dishonest as the PM would try to be both.
It is a stupid idea that doesn’t even stack up economically – you don’t have to go to the not unreasonable fear factor to kill the idea as stupid.
Every does realise the Nuclear power debate is all about making the left fight amongst itself
In Victoria, I think there is a good chance that the ALP will not only not pick up any seats, they will actually lose at least one. I think that the seat of Holt is in grave danger to the ALP because of demographical change, the fast growth of the aspirational class in that area who vote Liberal.
I dont understand your comment, Jasmine.
I wrote and submitted a comment but it disappeared. Summarising I wrote that fusion reactors have few wastes and there is a lot of available fuel, and so theyre a good energy source to potentially use. The thing is to not at first reject any particular energy sources but to look at all the costs and benefits of each energy source and then make decisions.
I am not saying that nuclear power should or not should be used, I am saying that it should not be reflexively rejected, especially if that rejection is based on fear.
People who are seriously interested in energy and environmental matters are thinking of potentially using all sorts of energy sources (eg see the Sep 2006 issue of Scientific American).
I dont do “conservative talking points”.