The latest fortnightly Morgan face-to-face poll has not replicated the Newspoll bounce, but that’s cold comfort for the Coalition as they still trail 59.5-40.5, unchanged from last time. The Greens are up three points on the primary vote to 10.5 per cent. Labor’s primary vote is down from 50.5 per cent to 48.5 per cent and the Coalition is down from 35.5 per cent to 34.5 per cent.
We also have Newspoll’s latest quarterly aggregation of polling broken down by state and age group. The outstanding features is a picture of relative Labor weakness in New South Wales, consistent with the theme that the state government is damaging their brand there. Charts galore from Possum.
In other news, 65-year-old back-bencher Philip Ruddock has made the surprise announcement that he plans to run again in his blue-ribbon Sydney seat of Berowra. However, he seems in some danger of being blasted out by the state party’s vigorous Right faction, which did so much to contribute to the party’s success at the last election.
UPDATE: By popular demand, here’s a chart showing how Labor’s two-party vote has tracked across Newspoll, Morgan and Essential Research this year. I only have figures going back to June for Essential, and have generally only used every second poll for Morgan and Essential to keep the figures concurrent with Newspoll. Alternatively, you could just look at Possum’s chart dump, which includes ACNielsen.
The white paper can be found here with summaries:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/
Actually MayoFeral wins. He went for 5% by 2020 based on 1990 levels. It’s even lower than that. It’s even lower than Garnaut asked for. What a disgrace.
The hard greenies are going to hate it (they vote green now you would think). The people who support CC but are not dogmatic about it (majority I would suspect) will see this as a good compromise solution given the economic circumstances we find ourselves in. While the Libs will hate it because it takes the wind out of their political sails.
Who will the hardline greenies turn to the next election, the Libs? They would put it off indefinitely if they could.
does that mean that they have to make up 45% by 2050. that only leaves 30 years to do it
No, Gary. The majority of Australians didn’t want any backdown due to the GFC.
sorry that’s 55% by 2050
I have to say I’m dissappointed in that too. With the economic slowdown 5% is bugger all. A few voluntary behaviour change program will achieve that. In fact, this means there is really nothing to compensate.
This is just wierd
Gary sorry but this is a total cave in to the coal industry and/or the NSW state government desperate for its revenue. This is an unfortunate way to end the year if thats Rudd’s final word on GW.
I tend to agree with Gary
It’s smart politics, the “Howard battlers” will be happy, they get a target that after comphensation won’t hurt their budget. Pensionsers and lower income families get 2.5% increase to cover costs. Miners and business happy, jobs safe.
Can’t see too many main stream votes lost there.
People who switch to Greens have a choice , accept the possible 15% by 2020 or preference Libs 2nd next election out of spite and end up with nothing.
The green groups would have bitched no matter how high the cut (that Milne woman has turned me off the Greens well and truly)
It’s hard to imagine the Libs will be able to offer less than 5%. With friends like these…
That’s right vera, climate change should only be confronted to the extent that it doesn’t lose Labor any votes.
Oz at number 754 wrote:
[The majority of Australians didn’t want any backdown due to the GFC]
On the surface of it, this may be correct (for now).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/money-is-no-object-to-save-planet/2008/08/30/1219516797991.html
Sydney Morning Herald, 31 August 2008
[A major survey of Australians’ views on climate change has found an overwhelming majority think it is happening and they’re prepared to pay to address it.
The study by University of Technology Sydney found Australians wanted to see cuts in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions irrespective of the actions of other countries.]
However, that survey (and I’m sure there are others like it) was taken before the GFC began to really bite. Think forward a couple of years (election time). By then economic conditions may be a more pressing, immediate concern for many people. Never underestimate the potential for people to revert to unmasked self-interest when it comes to the crunch.
As much as anyone I hate the self-interest that comes at the expense of global sustainability. Love it or loathe it, though, it’s a fact of human nature. Kevin has to play the political survival game as well here don’t forget.
An interesting aspect that even if there is no international agreement and
we do the 5% cut by 2020 then this still requires us to make a 27% cut per person on 1990 levels.
This would make us one of the world leaders ahead of Obama’s touted return to 1990 levels (which is a 25% per capita cut) and the EU’s 24% planned per capita cut.
You can see the summary at
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/summary/index.html
Gary
I’m not a hardline Greenie and I’m absolutely disgusted. The EU promised a decrease of 20% by 2020 based on 1990 levels. Rudd is promising a ZERO % decrease by 2020 based on 1990 levels (not surprisingly he used by 5%b based on 2000 levels to pretend he was doing something). It might be smart politics coz it gives the Libs nowhere to go but it’s irresponsible and pathetic policy/
Unless they plan to beat their target in some way…
Dr Good
Climate change isn’t caused by per capita changes. It’s caused by total carbon emissions. If we want parity using per capita changes, we need to reduce our consumption by about 80% in the next 10 years to be the same as the rest of the world. You can’t have it both ways.
itep
Just being real, not saying it’s right but that’s the way it is. People say they are for CC but ask them to make the sacrifice with cold hard earned cash and it might be a different story. All the Libs need is a good scare campaign aimed at the hip pocket and mass job losses and the one term wonder Rudd story could become fact. then we get nothing.
Better to start off slow not scare horses and lift target in a couple of years when people realise there is nothing to be afraid of. By the time Copenhagen comes round the WFC will hopefully be over the worst, confidence will be up and we could well match the Europeon target of 20%.
So is it 5% or 15%, or a sliding scale depending on the rest of the world?
“You guys ar not listening to th Oppositions policy , they do hav one”
What are their targets Ron?
Had you not omitted th rest of th para , th answer was there They ar waiting on Coppenhaggen late 2009 meeting figures You also excluded my conclusion , they hav a policy…just thats its no good
It wasn’t “hard greenies” who voted for bold leadership on climate change last November Gary @752. It was middle class Australia. This is a truly pathetic cave-in to fossil-fuel and related industry lobbyists, who, if they had their way, would be content to protect their short term profitability by doing jack all to address the destructive status quo. Thousands of respected scientists around the world are crying out for for 25-40% emissions cuts by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate change. Ross Garnaut himself called for cuts twice as deep as the quasi-cuts announced today.
This is not leadership. Rudd had a chance to define himself on climate change. To transcend the petty and mediocre lowest common denominator appeasement and weasel words that so characterised Howard’s approach to policy development and problem solving.
This is the policy of a weak scaredy cat, who reckons he can “get the balance right” by effectively doing nothing to seriously tackle climate change.
Pathetic.
Diogenes
I agree that climate change depends on total emissions (net of tree growing and other ways oftaking carbon out of the atmosphere).
I also agree that most of the world’s people emit far less than the average Australian
(and have been responsible for far less historically).
However, reduction plans in the short term have to take account of vastly different economies across the world.
Thus to some extent we can be compared to residents of the US, Japan and the EU.
If our government can ensure that every Australian is going further than every person in those countries then we are at least moving in the right direction.
Dario
It’s a sliding scale between 5% and 15%.
Dr Good
I’m saying this it is highly disingenuous to introduce the per capita target when it is convenient ie allowing for our population growth being more than Europe, but ignoring our per capita emissions when it is inconvenient ie when comparing us to 99% of the world who have much lower emissions per capita than us.
90% free permits to emissions intensive industries…
I feel physically ill.
He’s actually encouraging invesment in high emissions industries by giving them a bigger break (90%) then lower emitting technologies (60%).
Grattan was right. He keeps saying that he’ll ge attacked from the “right” and the “left”.
The truth being that the Minerals Council got 5%, which is what they wanted.
Don’t stand there and talk about the Great Barrier Reef, you’ve consigned it to death.
Rudd must be banking on the Libs and Nats voting for it in the Senate. There’s no way the Greens and Mr X will vote for it. It’s a wedge. Johnny Howard is alive and well and is still PM.
How was the heckler, by the way. What a legend.
[Straight off the blocks, the scheme will hand more than $4 billion to the coal industry to compensate it for efforts to tackle climate change.]
http://business.smh.com.au/business/big-emission-cuts-ruled-out-20081215-6ymf.html
So the government taxes the industry who pass those costs onto consumers and the government gives that money straight back to the industry.
In effect, this is nothing more than a tax on Australian’s to further subsidise ancient and environmentally damaging industries.
[It’s a sliding scale between 5% and 15%.]
Any specifics on how the scale would slide though? On a whim, or are there triggers?
[Any specifics on how the scale would slide though? On a whim, or are there triggers?]
Lenore Taylor from The Australian just asked that exact question and he dodged it completely.
The “sliding scale” is fluff. Its 5%, no more. Putting in the “Up to 15%” is his attempt to appease people who want more significant cuts.
[Lenore Taylor from The Australian just asked that exact question and he dodged it completely.]
ffs, surely he would have been prepared for that
Not promising really is it
Dr Good
We are NOT doing more thant the rest of the (developed) world. Starting from a high emission, inefficient position it is easier for us to make savings than Europe, yet they are going further, having already committed ot cuts over 1990, when we were sticking to our 8% concession under Kyoto. Given that a lot of our “reductions” to date have been achieved by ending land clearing practices in Qld that were unsustainable for other reasons anyway we are doing SFA. The only beneficiary from this outcome is the Greens. They will continue to grow.
The GFC is not excuse. Despite the fear campaign it actually makes it EASIER to meet targets. Demand for emission intensive indsutries (eg aluminium smelting) is declining, while there is a need for investmetn which can be channeled into things like wind and solar hot water. I say again, this announcemnet is a cave in to coal companies.
Now I guess we know why Rudd was doing the press club and not Wong… so he couldn’t be accused of hiding out
My post #743 was completely acurate
Thats what Rudd did announse because of th 4 factors I listed Now Gary and other Labor suporters your defense of Rudd has been too soft Th rational reasons ar there , and reely should be embraced and defended …15% is on table for Coppenhaggen …and its a negotiating fiugure remember that can go up
As for th dreamy pseuodo’s , yous were repeatedly warned in dozens of posts over 7 months that th USA was key to targets…and that your suport for a NON Kyoto ratifying suporting Kyoto candidate in Obama would WEAKEN CC targets discussions for Coppenhaggen….this is th “price”….its th “price” of your suport …its called Geo politcs with US ratification Kyoto (or lack of) leadership
So don’t come sanctimonous about pathetic ….Obama was pathetic in not suporting Kyoto , and STILL (quote patheticaly) has no 2020 target !!!! Rudd does
Obama patheticaly with no 2020 target , so Garnaut’s general advice was corect , so is Rudd
Oz 777
Thanks for that link. after reading it I know how democrats must have felt seeing Clinton’s pardon list.
As I said – under this model there was virtually nothing to compensate the coal companies for anyway but we did. Mining company welfare anyone?
I have to say it’s heartening seeing people on this blog, who are generally Labor supporters, see this for what it is – pathetic.
Politically this will see a primary vote move from ALP to the greens but then it should come back again on 2PP. are there any seats fedreally where the greens are in serious contenion against labor?As for the senate obviously where labor elected 5th will be seriously in trouble
[Mining company welfare anyone?]
That’s exactly what it is. They already get billions in subsidies now they’ll get billions more from regular Australians through something dressed up as a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.
Centuar, there’s Tanner’s seat in Melbourne and possibly Sydney which looks extremely safe for Plibersek but if The Greens outpoll the Libs it’ll look very different. Same with Albanese in Grayndler.
In the Senate I think The Greens will get seats in NSW, Victoria and Queensland.
They ought to call it the “Mining Shareholders Debt Reduction Scheme”. Someone should go through the parliamentary records and see which cabinet ministers have shares in coal mining companies or power plant operators. Fairly safe to bet that nobody had shares in Origin or any of the big wind farm operators.
Greens call it for what it is.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/15/2446577.htm
Look at this tool:
[The Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Peter Anderson says reducing emissions by 5 per cent will be difficult for the business community when it is also dealing with a financial crisis.]
If the ACCI business union is crying about the bar being set too high, while the left cries about it being too low, the Liberals will be nicely wedged indeed, given how they seem to be beholden to the business union movement.
Senate’s going to rough going now…
[ACCI business union is crying about the bar being set too high]
Except their crying is totally feigned
To all the hardline Labor apologists out there (Ron I’m looking at you), please ask yourself two questions.
Could Rudd have possibly done less, given his election commitments?
What would you be saying if Howard won and Turnbull was announcing a 5% emissions cut by 2020 (based on 2000 levels) with huge subsidies to the coal industry?
Tanner went 2PP with bandt 55 to 45%, albanese too far ahead, but plibersek in trouble. the greens have to make up 5000 votes on the libs to be in the game
I’ve been embarrassed to be Australian for the last 11 years, so I suppose another 11 years shouldn’t be too hard.
I welcome the Governments announcement that it will continue to stay true to its blue collar vote!! I’m willing to accept the slight increase in energy bill, as for those who want bigger cuts I remind you that this needs an International solution, I also remind you all that this planet of ours will forever have its climate changing, this planet has been hotter and colder and will do so in the future.
Why are we so willing to gutter our economy just so we can feel confortable running the air-con. yes climate change is a fact but it needs a senseable approach inwhich we invest in renewable engery, Solar has been around for over 50 years, and we all know about Nuclear energy.
Yes I know the rich greenie will want bigger cuts, just as the we all want lower taxes, better hospitals, smarter school leavers etc. In this world we need to accept that we cannot have everything and today the Rudd Government has laid out a clear policy of at least 5% with higher targets upon an international agreement, I say this is good sound policy.
Lindsay Tanner will hold Melbourne sure the Greens may improve their position in the Senate and will improve in the House but they are someway off winning any seats in the Reps.
I would Image that the ALP can hold Sydney!! the Greens need to take votes of the Liberals and with Turnbull being more popular amoungst small L Liberals than Howard ever was I would imagine the Liberal primary vote may stay at currant levels in that seat.
I really don’t think some of you get it. What good is introducing a scheme that has bugger all chance of getting past the Senate and every chance of making this a one term government, thus bringing in a government that is far less committed to the cause? This is a chance to gradually get into the business of addessing climate change and maintaining a government that is committed to going in harder in the future. Start with small steps, bring the crowd with you then progress to larger steps.
I’m actually surprised there are intelligent people here who don’t see that or want to see that.