Brisbane’s Courier-Mail today carries a Galaxy poll of 800 Queensland voters showing Labor leading 51-49 on two-party preferred, compared with 50.4-49.6 at the November 2007 election. Both parties are down on the primary vote – Labor from 42.9 per cent to 41 per cent and the Coalition from 44.5 per cent to 44 per cent – while the Greens are up from 5.6 per cent to 9 per cent. Also included are questions on preferred leader (Kevin Rudd 57 per cent, Malcolm Turnbull 34 per cent) and economic management.
The first Essential Research poll conducted entirely on Malcolm Turnbull’s watch should be through either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
UPDATE: No bounce for Turnbull from Essential Research, whose two-week rolling average has moved a point in Labor’s favour to the Nelson-era level of 58-42. Also featured are leadership approval ratings and questions on preferred Treasurer (Swan 34 per cent, Bishop 19 per cent), Kevin Rudd’s overseas travel (51 per cent believe he should have gone to the US, 30 per cent say he shouldn’t) and the value of a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
I think Swan saying banks don’t have to pass along any (or some) of a rate decrease was stupid. He should have taken a risk of rejection and demanded it.
sharon burrow on yraw at press club
should be interesting
No 300
That’s right jobs are more important. No point having a fantastic climate change outlook when everyone is on the dole and not able to find work.
Climate Change is just as important as jobs, only its slower to come about. No point having a fantastic job when everyone and everything is frying up due to Global Warming.
I often wonder what we as a species would do if we found out there was an Everest-sized asteroid definitely heading our way in 50 years’ time. Would we all get together and try to figure a way out to stop it, or just dig more and deeper bunkers?
Well if one is of the opinion, as GP appears to be, that we cannot do anything to alter our climate then of course jobs are more important than action on climate change.
It would seem rather bizarre for a person to not believe in the human contribution to climate change and still advocate action. It’s what always bothers me about ‘sceptics’ claiming that we need to look at nuclear as an option of curbing carbon emissions. If they don’t believe the extent of our carbon emissions impact on the climate then why would they care if carbon emissions went up or down?
You would have to be foolish to want to reduce carbon emissions without using nuclear power.
Perhaps, but isn’t that a consideration for thos who believe there needs to be action on climate change? For people who don’t believe there should be action to sell nuclear as ‘climate friendly’ is disingenuous. Funnily, it appears to be only the ‘sceptics’ who are advocating nuclear as the ‘climate friendly’ alternative.
No 306
Hear hear Glen.
It is an interesting position for Labor if they are criticised by the unions on something for the next question that that raises is if Labor is badish on this, how much worse would the Liberals be who position themselves as the natural enemies of unions?
The issue of maternity leave I believe is one of encouraging investment in a natural resource/infrastrucutre ie the continual flow of trained adult workers (who also pay tax). Especially in view of an aging population. The aleternative being increased immigration.
To be win something on Labor over the issue of maternity leave the LNP will have to take it on board and offer something. This then makes it less politically damaging for Labor to do something. They could for a start move the baby bonus to employers paying maternity leave. In effect encouraging people to have children but also to remain attached to the workforce to receive the bonuses.
The LNP could go for their usual fear and scare tactic of this will ruin the world etc. And the usual right wing talking points.
I am sure there is a lot of heat to be generated on this topic yet.
It is not a case of picking between climate change and jobs. The whole point of both the Stern adn Garnaut reprots was that theyd emonstrated that fighting climate change was cheaper than doing nothing. But there will be some winners (eg alternative energy suppliers) and some losers (eg coal). The potential losers fight to block change, as in all industries. The job of a competent government is to ignore them, if the change is in the national interest. Otherwise we’d still have weavers blocking the introduction of spinning looms, and blacksmiths on every corner.
Where it gets messy is whether to compensate the losers? IMO that depends on whether the change is foreseeable, or the losers were causing harm. Should you compensate tobacco farmers if you ban smoking? I’d say not as they were causing harm, but then again we still haven’t gotten a ban have we? So we need to structure it so that people can exit from coal without going broke, to get a change accepted.
We are finally seeing our Treasurer back down from a position where he was publicly demanding that the the big banks MUST pass on all RBA interest rate cuts to clients, to letting the public know that it might well not receive any of the RBA cuts, as funding costs have gone up so much. He has obviously (finally??) been briefed on the crises and got over the political tub thumping that was well intentioned but not in the real world.
The general public is finally being told the truth about how bad this credit crisis is and what it might mean for them. Let’s hope Australia is in ‘good’ hands because we need it to be.
[We are finally seeing our Treasurer back down from a position where he was publicly demanding that the the big banks MUST pass on all RBA interest rate cuts to clients]
Really? Not sure I remember him saying that. Got a link?
I would go for nuclear power if there were not more long term strategic alternatives.
I am not convinced that nuclear power could get up an running soon enough anyway and that its final cost would not be any better than something else.
I think from memory that it is 30% of our uranium that is of sufficient quality that it is ready for use – the remainder of our deposits require further concentrating. Thats what I read I think in the original Australian report on the issue. Highest demand will be on the higher quality and increased demand makes it very expensive especially in ten years time when we could have a plant ready to use it.
My major objection to nuclear would be on the economics of it (it needs to be show to be cheaper than alternatives over the long term as competition for fuels gets more intense), the ability to bring it on-line fast enough, the safety concerns (adding to cost) and storage concerns (adding to cost).
I don’t have an emotional negative response to it but think that there will be enormous costs in making all aspects of it safe enough to satisfy the community and then their is the enormous cost of decommissioning these things.
Strategically you would like to go for renewables if they were able to provide base load power. It would be a significant strategic and security advantage to be cut free from the competition and supply/demand economic aspects of fuels and the economy’s dependence on the results of such competition. You could then imagine the benefits over the past 12 months of oil price fluctuations having no effect on us – the cost of transport and production unchanged.
Thus things like tidal, solar, wind, geothermal etc should be pursued to give us that security and strategic advantage. The question is of course is just how viable are such things.
Quite obviously this only scratches the surface of a many faceted and complex argument.
Dario @ 312 Prior to when the RBA reduced the cash rate from 7.25% to 7.0%, the Treasurer said publicly (links not necessary) that the big banks ought to pass on the full amount of an RBA interest rate cut.
If we already have 30% known world reserves of uranium then consider how much we actually have when WA starts prospecting and a possible LNP Govt in QLD starts prospecting if it wins down the track.
It’s foolish to sell uranium and reduce the emissions of other countries but then not use it ourselves!
[Dario @ 312 Prior to when the RBA reduced the cash rate from 7.25% to 7.0%, the Treasurer said publicly (links not necessary) that the big banks ought to pass on the full amount of an RBA interest rate cut.]
‘ought’ not must. Nice try but you fail.
Wind tidal and solar cannot provide base-load power
ie solar is 1/2 a day, wind can stop, tide can receed
The amount of land required for windmills to create enough energy to satisfy Sydney is staggering, it would cover 1/2 of NSW, but if there is a country in the world that has the land for it, it is Australia
However the cost is still really high atm
Turnbull made two interesting comments yesterday on Nuclear Power.
1. It will never be adopted in Aust. withour bi-partisan support.
2. It may never be needed if “clean coal” can de developed.
Sounds to me as if he is distancing himself and the Libs from the issue.
[Wind tidal and solar cannot provide base-load power]
Not entirely correct. With enough of a spread of wind turnbines you will always have power. With tidal and solar you could pump water up a hill to be used to drive turbines when the tide is steady.
Dario
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/swan-warns-banks-to-drop-rates/1247710.aspx
”This is a very serious issue,” Mr Swan said. ”It’s a very serious issue for households, it’s a very serious issue for business, and it’s a very serious issue for our national economy. There is absolutely no excuse for banks not to pass an official rate cut from the Reserve Bank in full, should that occur. Absolutely no excuse.”
Dario @ 316 The Treasurer has now been fully briefed on the gravity of the credit crisis. What is your point about (my) ‘nice try’?
Dario
There are days when there are insufficient wind to drive the wind turbines ie less than 5km/hr winds, and you need about 1/2 of NSW’s turbine to be working at any point in time (that is covering 1/2 of NSW)
Pump water up a hill to drive turbine? basic physics would suggest the amount of energy consumed to drive water uphill (to create potential energy) must be higher then the amount of energy captured when the potential energy is released.
This is not taking into account of inefficiencies such as loss through heat of the machine and not capturing all the water
Dovif, have you never heard of batteries – you know, those things that store electricity?
Also tides can turn turbines whether they are going in or out. (Do I really have to explain this?)
Swans position on rates
[Mr Swan says while he believes banks should always pass on interest rates cuts, the current economic environment is also difficult for banking institutions.
“We are in a more complicated environment but I can assure you that I will be putting maximum pressure on the banks to ensure they pass on the maximum amount that is economically responsible given events in global markets and I certainly won’t relent on that,” he told Chris Uhlmann on AM.
“I would encourage all of our banks to act as responsibly and as competitively as they possibly can.”]
Quite a responsible approach to take given the climate.
Of course Turnbull attacks him on this as he would if Swan had take a more hardline approach – something like Swan could damage banks by forcing them to act uneconomically blah.
But at the end of the day the banks will do whatever they want as they have shown many times.
[”This is a very serious issue,” Mr Swan said. ”It’s a very serious issue for households, it’s a very serious issue for business, and it’s a very serious issue for our national economy. There is absolutely no excuse for banks not to pass an official rate cut from the Reserve Bank in full, should that occur. Absolutely no excuse.”]
No excuse doesn’t mean must
Adam
Here is an explaination, In relation to tidal energy, you require the water to come in and out of the plant quickly to store the maximum amount of energy, so you need the plant to be at the place where the ride is breaking, the place to pick up the most electricity between high and low tide are very different and you cannot just set a machine in the middle, to capture any energy
As for batteries, on current technology you will need 1/2 of NSW to be covered with windmills to create the energy required to run Sydney for a night, there is not sufficient power required for any use of batteries
dovif,
You are wrong about tidal generators. There are currently two different types in operation and they both generate power on both incoming & outgoing tides.
Even if there is a momentary pause between tides, by spacing these generators apart from each other, there is no drop in power produced whatsoever especially so for the pump type generator which is always continuous.
Check the tide tables and you will see that the tide times vary considerably right around the coast even over very short distances ie a hundred metres or so.
got this email from a friend in the super industry
The final trashing of Costello’s economic credibility.
“Costello said the Howard government had never encouraged Australians to
put extra money into superannuation. He announced in May 2006 that
Australians would be given tax incentives to invest up to $1 million
into super by July 1 last year. Mr Costello said after those incentives
were announced: “The largest-ever reform to superannuation has led to
increased confidence in the system and increased contributions”
Now, he blames financial advisers for the plunge of $15bn into
superannuation between April and June last year to take advantage of the
then government’s tax concessions. Australians who contributed up to $1
million into superannuation last year have now lost close to half their
money – on paper at least.
But Mr Costello said he “wouldn’t worry” about Australians who had
voluntarily placed extra money into superannuation but was more
sympathetic to those who had had 9 per cent of their wages compulsorily
put into superannuation. “My sympathy actually goes to the people at the
other end. As I said to you, I wouldn’t worry about people who
voluntarily made decisions about superannuation. “I would be much more
concerned about those who had a compulsory deduction from their wages,
generally poorer people who will be in exactly the same position.”
http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,24428044-5013954,00.
html
The 9% is not a compulsory deduction, it is an extra paid direct into
super, implemented by Keating and supposed to be topped up to 15%,
instead Howard and Costello chose to offer tax incentives to invest up
to $1 million .
And how much did the tax incentives of May 2006 artificially inflate the
market as $15 billion poured in from those with a spare million taking
advantage of the tax rort.
I think to be seen as successful Treasurers also need to be a little unpopular.
Swan by not hammering home to banks to pass on the full rate cut goes for a more responsible sounding ‘economically responsible’. People know he is asking banks to pass it all on but showing he is congnisant of the current environment and, that there is a greater issue – the economic soundness of the banks.
So Swan’s stance would be ‘love them or hate them’ the economic soundness of the banks is essential to the health of our economy in these uncertain times blah..
Sometimes being a meany earns respect. This is all politics of course. Banks do what they want.
[Pump water up a hill to drive turbine? basic physics would suggest the amount of energy consumed to drive water uphill (to create potential energy) must be higher then the amount of energy captured when the potential energy is released.]
True, but beside the point. You use excess energy from through the day to pump the water.
If we’re going to have many long, hot Global Warming summers, with hardly any rain, the clear choice is to put solar generation in the Outback, which would otherwise be kaput anyway from GW. Putting the power generation out in Bourke or Broken Hill (to name 2 possible sites) would bring industry and prosperity back to those areas(and obviate arguments about transmission line length to the cities). Turn them into centres of excellence and manufacturing, university towns… the sky’s is literally the limit when there are no clouds to get in the way.
Broken Hill was a very big town once, even though it was in the middle of the desert. they made it work because there was profit in it. Arizona in the US could be the modern model. If we have enough solar electricity, we could use it to pump desalinated water from Adelaide.All it takes is the will to do it and we could turn our useless land (if you don’t count 1 cow per 5 hectares useful) into an oasis of wealth and technology.
The great thing about solar is that it can be done in stages, as small as one new panel per day. There’s no need for a complete switch from coal overnight as many seem to think when arguing their respective cases. Economies of scale are not so important.
Solar pre-heated water is another way of helping out coal. If you can add thirty or forty degrees, even eighty degrees to the temperature of water with parabolically focused solar rays, that’s 30, 40 or 80 degrees that don’t have to be achieved from burning coal. The technology is absurdly simple in concept, basic optics. This is already being trialled in America… with Australian technology. Who cares if the sun goes down at night? The input from solar during the day has to help keep emissions from coal down as we develop better and better technologies.
Even Wilson Tuckey is on the bandwagon. His website front page is dominated by alternative energy ideas: http://www.wilsontuckey.com.au/
[Pump water up a hill to drive turbine? basic physics would suggest the amount of energy consumed to drive water uphill (to create potential energy) must be higher then the amount of energy captured when the potential energy is released.
This is not taking into account of inefficiencies such as loss through heat of the machine and not capturing all the water]
dovif, where did you get this nonsense from. The energy required to pump the water is provided free by either tide or wave action depending on the type of generator.
A “ram” type pump requires only the energy from the weight of the column of water to power it and in any case, the energy provided doesn’t cost anything so why would anyone be worried about a minimal energy loss.
And your last sentence is just abject nonsense and cannot be supported by any available information and wouldn’t matter in any case.
Geez…never thought I would ever have reason to visit Tuckey’s web site.
But his on Tuckey’s site –
[There is no unilateral action that Australia can take to protect our continent from the threats of GLOBAL warming. We must therefore look to a response that will deliver benefits such as long term, environmentally friendly energy security whatever the international response.
To respond to these problems the Government should take an up front role investing in and developing Australia’s only significant and predictable renewable energy resource which is to be found in the tides of the Kimberley.]
Fellow Bludgers, if you’ve not come across it before, I thought this site “breakfast politics” might be of use and interest. It’s an excellent and comprehensive summary.
http://www.breakfastpolitics.com/
Breakfast politics is the Parliament House cheat sheet compiled by Chris Wallace for Das Kapital Pty Ltd (ACN 109 312 629). It’s read first thing in the morning by MPs, staffers, journalists, diplomats and public servants in Canberra keen to get a jump on the day (and their rivals).
The first thing I read in the morning is Lolcats.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/
It really puts the day’s events in perspective.
Scorpio
please do some research before replying
a. protential energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
b. conservation of energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Conversion
ram type pump, the question is if the ram type pump can creat enough energy to push so many kilo liter of water back uphill, why would we use the energy to push water upstream to creat more energy. we would just try to capture the energy
If we convert some form of energy to another, we will also loss some energy to heat and sound, energy cannot be 100% efficient. Therefore to use a ram type pump to push water uphill is dumb, as we will expend more energy then we recover. we are much better at finding someway to untap the energy from the pump
If we use energy to push a rock (or water) uphill, the amount of energy we use (muscles (burning food) creating a ram type pump) must be higher than the potential energy of the rock/water being at the top of the hill.
Please read up on energy inefficiency, all energy is inefficient, there are always losses of energy through heat and sound. pls see combustable engine
“In short, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another or transferred from one body to another, but the total amount of energy remains constant (the same).”
Says it all really. 😉
Now we have a world wide turmoil interactive map
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26957587
[Please read up on energy inefficiency, all energy is inefficient, there are always losses of energy through heat and sound. pls see combustable engine]
You totally miss my point.
Energy loss here is not important. The energy is free. It comes in the form of either wave energy or tidal energy. This energy is totally different to energy derived from say fossil fuels which are finite, cost energy to recover, transport and cost money to convert into usable energy. The energy provided by wave & tidal power only costs the value of the means of harvesting it & distributing it.
Any losses of energy in this process are inconsequential in the overall capture sequence because the energy captured is “ongoing, renewable & nonpoluting and is FREE”.
Glen @ 306 –
You would have to be foolish to want to reduce carbon emissions without using nuclear power.
Why? In terms of global warming it would make little difference. The uranium in known economically recoverable reserves is sufficient to generate current world needs for only a couple of years, so the high cost of building the plants would only delay the inevitable for those few years.
True, you could extend this indefinitely with breeder reactors, but they produce lots of plutonium. If everyone is having attacks of the vapours over Iran enriching small quantities of fuel grade uranium imagine the palpitations of having large quantities of bomb grade plutonium proliferating everywhere. bin Laden wouldn’t be able to contain his glee!
dovif @ 317 –
Wind tidal and solar cannot provide base-load power
Yes they can. All you need do is generate enough power during the day/when the wind is blowing/tide is turning and store it. Some clever American chappies have shown just how inexpensive it would be – the U.S. could generate nearly 70% of its daily (24hr) requirements for just over half the proposed Wall St bailout: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
On a per capita basis, we could do the same with government subsidies of about AU$35.5 billion! Thats only $800 million a year from now until 2050. Cutting the baby bonus from a 50 inch to 42 inch plasma should just about cover it. Factor in contributions from hot rock geothermal and it would be even cheaper.
Julie Bishop made a slight stuff up today on ABC Coast FM, she got her coasts confused.
Coast FM does cover the Gold and Sunny Coasts, but the morning shows are different, she was interviewed for Sunshine Coast listeners.
She advised a caller from Peregian Springs to contact his local member “Steve Ciobo”, sorry Ms Mesmer his local member is “Alex – who? Somlyay”, she was only a couple of hundred kilometres astray. 🙂
On second thoughts perhaps she was correct. Why contact Mr Who. 🙂
Does Talcum know what LIBOR means?
7.30 Rudd Interview
Ally Moore is a tough but (I think) pretty fair inquisitor. She asked hard questions and Rudd gave back as good as he got. A good performance by both. I liked his response to
Q. “Why has Swan gone soft on the banks in a matter of weeks?”
A. (essentially) “That was then, this is now.”
Except… I am sick of hearing, “I’ve just asked you a really important, essentially unanswerable in terms of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question on the fate of the nation, but can you be quick please? We’re nearly out of time.”
Rudd took as long as he liked on whether banks should be deposit-guaranteed, and did a good job fielding the question. Essentially Moore was asking him – yes or no – to make policy on the run, kneejerk Turnbull style, and he resisted the temptation, took his time and in doing so effectively pointed out that he’s the Prime Minister of Australia, not the 7.30 Report or any of its presenters.
Incidentally, Ally is the perfect substitute host for this week. She’s in her element, as long as she keeps the “Gotchas!” to a minimum.
Well done K-08.
With the overnight London inter-bank offered rate (LIBOR) surging to an all-time high of 6.88% Swan was being an economic realist. Talcum and Mesmer are still fighting “interest rates will always be lower under a coalition govt.”
Oh its not a “real” interest rate cut, I can hear the screams. If the banks pass on the cut in full it will be because Talcum put pressure on them, if they keep a bit up their sleeve it will be Swanee’s fault.
Nice try – but no cigar.
Rudd on the 7.30 Report. Very good performance. Like Alli Moore a lot, but she’s better on radio as she has the time to develop the discussion more, and is one of the better informed and balanced interviewers.
If Rudd keeps performing like this, the next set of polls are going to be most interesting, given Turnbull has now resorted to either wanting to agree with Rudd, wanting bi-partisanship on the financial crisis, or attacking Swan, as ways to get media oxygen. Bugger of a job, really. No wonder Costello didn’t want it.
This economic climate shoulf represent an opportunity for Swan to stamp his authority on ecnomic management and on the Treasurer’s job.
He should be out there giving press conferences daily with updates and so forth.
Reality Check:
Just got off the phone with the other grandparent.
She voted Labor last election but is now regretting it.
I asked her, “Why?”
“Oh, I dunno.”
“You’ve got to do better than ‘I dunno’ if you’re telling me you regret your vote.”
“Oh, I dunno. Rudd doesn’t even know who was in the Grand Final. He spends all his time overseas and then comes back and gets the teams wrong.”
I pointed out this was Turnbull, not Rudd.
“Aw, they’re all stupid politicians, going on trips withour money, enjoying themselves, taking their wives, going to the cricket and nightclubs.”
“Sue, Rudd didn’t take his wife. Didn’t go to a nightclub. There’s no cricket in New York. Now even the journalists hate going with him because they never get a rest. It’s 24/7 work all day. No fun at all. Where would you want him to be in the middle of a global meltdown? Canberra?”
“They’re all bludgers. What about the pensioners? They couldn’t give a stuff! I haven’t got anything out of them! Charles Wooley says Rudd should be ashamed of himself.”
(Wooley is the syndicated talk-radio host for Port MacQuarie, where Sue lives).
At this point I gave up and suggested she doesn’t believe everything she reads in the Daily Telegraph and that she’s not old enough to be on the pension.
Depressing nevertheless.
BB,
Are you sure she voted Labor last time?
Who is “Mesmer”? Pierre Messmer, the former French Prime Minister? Why are people at this blog so keen on calling everyone by silly derogatory nicknames? And not even names which have public currency, just ones that seem to unique to this blog.
Someone should tell Talcum that he isn’t shadow treasurer anymore and he should get over the fact that when he was Swanny wiped the floor with him. I know his pride is hurting at his failure to perform in that job and understandably he’s not looking forward to taking on Kev but he is supposed to be Fib Leader now so he’d best get his act together or pass the ball back to Brenda. (He at least knew what his job was lol)