Essential Research has produced its final weekly survey for the year, ahead of a sabbatical that will extend to January 12. It shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly from 59-41 to 58-42. I might proudly note that they have taken up my suggestion to gauge opinion on the internet filtering plan, and the result gives some insight into the government’s apparent determination to pursue this by all accounts foolish and futile policy. Even accounting for the fact that this is a sample of internet users, the survey shows 49 per cent supporting the plan against 40 per cent opposed. Also featured are questions on the government’s general performance over the year, bonuses to pensions and families, optimism for the coming year (surprisingly high) and the target the government should set for greenhouse emission reductions (only 8 per cent support a cut of less than 5 per cent). Elsewhere:
The West Australian has published a Westpoll survey of 400 WA respondents showing 60 per cent believe the federal government’s changes in policy on asylum seekers have contributed to a recent upsurge in boat arrivals in the north-west. However, only 34 per cent supported a return to the Pacific solution against 48 per cent opposed. Sixty-nine per cent professed themselves concerned about the increased activity, but 54 per cent said they were happy for the arrivals to live on Christmas Island while they were assessed for refugee status. Fifty-one per cent were opposed to them being processed on the mainland. Westpoll also found that 62 per cent of respondents definitely supported recreational fishing bans to protect vulnerable species, with nearly eight out of 10 indicating some support. I suspect The West Australian commissioned monthly polling in advance expectation of a February state election, and has tired of asking redundant questions on support for the new government.
Imre Salusinszky on Bennelong in The Weekend Australian:
The experience of Labor in 1990, when Bob Hawke was mugged in Victoria by the unpopularity of former Labor premier John Cain, shows there are occasions when a Labor state government can throw an anchor around the neck of its federal counterpart. According to Newspoll figures published in The Australian yesterday, federal Labor’s primary vote in NSW is running at 41 per cent, nearly four points down on its level at last year’s federal election. Although this is still much higher than the 29 per cent primary vote recorded in a Newspoll last month for the state Labor government which, as it happens, was precisely the party’s primary vote in Ryde it certainly suggests Rudd has problems in NSW. Given Rees’s recent decision to scrap plans for a metro rail system linking central Sydney to the city’s northwest, some of those problems could manifest in Bennelong. And while Howard was a formidable adversary, it would be possible to argue his presence assisted McKew by encouraging every gibbering Howard-hater in the country including the activist group GetUp! to get involved in the battle for Bennelong.
The key, obviously, lies in the calibre of candidate the Liberals manage to put up. Two names that have been mentioned are former state leader Kerry Chikarovski and former rugby union international Brett Papworth. Chikarovski represented Lane Cove, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1991 to 2003; Papworth is a son of the electorate who began his playing career there. But if there is one candidate who could give McKew a fright, it is Andrew Tink. Tink represented the state seat of Epping, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1988 until last year’s state election. A true-blue local, Tink would be able to exploit a lingering perception of McKew as a celebrity blow-in. Tink appears to be enjoying his second career as a historian of NSW politics, but there have been approaches from senior Liberals who would like to see him make history of McKew.
Noting the difficult position of the Canadian Liberals as they pursue power behind an interim leader, Ben Raue at The Tally Room looks at differing methods used overseas for selection of party leaders and offers a critique of Australian practice (part one and part two).
Possum: ETS Why 5% in two charts. Even shorter version: it all comes down to the Senate.
1,208 comments on “Essential Research: 58-42”
From last thread:
[it should not implement it by confiscating Telstra’s assets. That borders on communism.]
What so every time the government compulsorily acquires land they’re being unconstitutional communists?
No, I did not say that Oz. It may not be unconstitutional, but it is communist. 🙂
I can see that Essential tried to present “both sides” in the question on internet censorship but it’s still a misrepresentation of the facts.
[The system will include mandatory nation-wide blocking on a range of ‘prohibited’ and ‘inappropriate’]
Should be replaced with “The system will block legal, “unwanted” content on a secret list purely at the discretion of a government department, the Minister and other politicians”.
[Opponents of this scheme say it is a form of censorship, will
make the internet significantly slower and will not totally prevent distribution of illegal material.]
Should be replaced with “The government’s own tests confirm that the filter will significantly slow internet speeds, block legal content and allow illegal content to get through. The AFP also acknowledges that the filter will do nothing to stop the majority of child pornography on the internet”
[Do you support or oppose the Governments proposed internet filtering system?]
Should be “Do you support or oppose the Government spending upwards of $150 million on this filter, in light of the above, whilst simultaneously cutting the budget of the AFP who actively work in apprehending those who procure and distribute child pornography”.
Why don’t they throw in “anyone who supports the idea is a fascist”.
I think internet censorship is probably one of the few issues with which there is almost unanimous opposition on this blog.
[Why don’t they throw in “anyone who supports the idea is a fascist”.]
Because everything I’ve said is true, and that is not.
[Why don’t they throw in “anyone who supports the idea is a fascist”.]
LOL, yes William, Oz certainly watches Yes Minister 🙂
[Because everything I’ve said is true, and that is not.]
Edmund Burke could also hav said if here today , “All that is necessary for the forces of CC to triumph in th world (of reel politic and other Countrys self greed) , is for men of good & wise like Rudd to set his two schemes in tabancles , and throw out a 15% negoiating figure to other Countrys/US heathen capitalists who talk th talk but don’t act th act”
Of course Greek philosophers sit in there own wing , except that Greek philosdopher who actualy reely lived in a tub in ancient Athens , who spends too muuch time with th FL/intelegentsia confusing his thoughts of greeneconamics
We hav also had some Labor suporters today I tink too quick to criticise without looking at th 2 schemes , th econamics and th Coppenhaggen negotiations Today is start of World CC poker emmissions targets politc style , not the end
If that was a reference to “Yes, Minister” I missed it. I’ve only seen a few episodes.
[Da doo Ron ron Ron da doo Ron Ron]
just read your post from previous thread about keeping the faith,
sure will, always the optimist me.
How do ya like my singing of your song by the way?
Crap you say? well have a listen to The Crystals then, they’re much better
Gold! And my point as well. A poll on a subject as complicated as this is unlikely to accurately represent how Australians would feel about what the policy actually is.
I personally would have gone with “based on what you know, do you support or oppose the policy”. If it turns out most people don’t know about it, or have the wrong idea about it, that’s interesting in and of itself. Still, what would I know.
On the public’s current view on climate change, Hugh Mackay indicated the following on The 7.30 Report in late November.
“KERRY O’BRIEN: The last time we spoke, you said the message from the public was they expect decisive action from Kevin Rudd on climate change, and Kevin Rudd is insisting, even now, that he’ll introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2010, even if this economic crisis is still in play. Do you think that that public resolve on climate change that you identified is so rock solid that the Government will be able to count on that support no what is happening with the economy come 2010 when it’s time to introduce the Emissions Trading Scheme?
HUGH MACKAY: No, I definitely don’t think that. In fact, recalling our conversation, which I think was in early July, I was saying then time is fast running out, people will need to feel as though they are call up in this war on climate change, and global warming and so on. What are we expected to do. What are the big moves that are going to be made. The longer they are postponed and the softer they seem, the less likely it is that people will maintain their fervour about this. I was sensing in July the probability that the fervour was fading, that it was too late to expect people would remain passionate.
Also, of course, we previously had the luxury of thinking about issues like that because we assumed that Australia was a wealthy country, we were all fine, everything would go on as it is, we could afford to make sacrifices and so on, now suddenly the sense is we are not wealthy as we thought we were, suddenly, backs to the wall, we are the victims of this international situation. Everything in this situation gets overshadowed by economic anxiety.”
If the government was serious about the science around AGW; indeed if the science was that threatening and the environment in that much danger; then it would authorise the expenditure of about $20 billion to ensure that every home in Australia has a solar panel.
I would not oppose that plan.
“Da doo Ron ron Ron da doo Ron Ron
just read your post from previous thread about keeping the faith,
sure will, always the optimist me.
How do ya like my singing of your song by the way?
well have a listen to The Crystals then, they’re much better
Vera , listened to that Crystals bit , great but so would you be , here a belle amongst so many thorns
Virginia Bell appointed next High Court judge
“So your not, and have never been a liberatrian”. Hmmm, too bad the backblogs say differently. From Feb 18 this year posted by a Generic Person.
“blind optimist, you are right…I have a development degree from UNSW –
GP is a right wing communist (or socialist) …it seems that some people need to be extreme and mutually exclusive to one side of the political spectrum. Quite a few people who were marxists now have the same views as GP. When they go, they have to throw out the baby with the bathwater!!”
What contradictory rubbish are you on about. I consider myself to be a libertarian mainly because the more I read about the philosophy of freedom, the more it makes sense. Senator Ron Paul is a brilliant exponent of this thinking as are Hayek and Friedman.
The only communists and socialists here are those which believe the government should nanny society from birth to death, that all decisions should seek their moral permission and that all free enterprise is exploitative.
I tend to like Andrew Norton’s summation of Clive Hamilton’s illogical eruption in Growth Fetish:
Economic prosperity remains a vital component-though no more than a component-of personal and social well-being. Going for growth in Australia isn’t a ‘fetish’. It is an aversion to the consequences of economic decline, of which we were so harshly reminded only a little more than a decade ago.”
And, please, don’t call me Dave!
Re post 889 in previous thread.
As well as the governments of China and India, I too am very happy for the eventual world-wide emissions trading scheme to be roughly based on a per capita basis.
I can’t see why we Australians should be allowed to end up with a higher pollution allowance than anyone else.
I also appreciate that we, along with residents of North America, are currently the worse emitters (per capita) in the world. So we have furthest to go in the end.
But to be consistent we would have to applaud the government for announcing what I repeat is some of the highest unilateral per capita reductions 1990-2020 of any country in the world (34% below 1990 levels).
Furthermore, these reductions have to counteract Howard’s 8% increase in pollution (nationally) with only 11 years to go while other countries have accomplished reductions already.
Socrates @ 901
Good point about per-capita emissions. Even Europe and UK have half our emissions on a per-capita basis.
Yes, indeed. Just a few stats (as at 2004) from here:
Australia: 16.3 metric tons per person/year
Germany: 9.79 (also the UK)
In principal, I generally agree with libertarian ideals but I’m a pragmatist as well. And therefore, I cannot be a libertarian in the strict sense of the word.
For example, I agree with government involvement in health and education.
[I think internet censorship is probably one of the few issues with which there is almost unanimous opposition on this blog.]
Speak for yourself, GP, you softy pinko libertarian you. Us *genuine* rightwingers don’t see why media enjoyed by the intelligentsia should be free from censorship while media for the proles should be subject to it.
That is a “pick a winner” approach.
It is better if people were paid to switch to green-power. Then the suppliers
find the currently and locally best way of supplying the consumer with
non-polluting electricity (using efficiencies of scale as well as the
reach of the grid). Roof-top panels are not ruled out: they just have to
And how do we pay to get people to switch to green power? Simple.
Make coal power just as expensive (roughly some 14% dearer, or a bit more)
and give people, especially the low paid, enough cash to cover the increased
cost. Then people can and will choose at no personal inconvenience.
But, hang on. That is just what an ETS with the right carbon price and
compensation to consumers will do.
So the new ETS will have as good or better and effect than your suggestion GP.
I’m not convinced that increasing the price of coal power is going to suddenly result in a mass exodus toward green power. The problem with a lot of green technology is that it is still developing and is very expensive.
This is one of the few areas in which government can actually make a huge change by directly subsidising a transfer to solar electricity. And in the process, it avoids the complexities of contriving an artificial carbon market. $20 billion over ten years plus mandatory new building standards which dictate the inclusion of solar in every new home.
Just on Imre’s pice of analysis, didn’t the Fed Libs receive a lower vote than Labor in that newspoll in NSW? I’m still not convinced Maxine will cop the brunt of NSW Labor’s troubles.
pice = piece
If it is cheaper to sign up to green power how many consumers do you think are not going to switch?
(of course the utilities can not let too many switch at once now because they can’t cope or are not ready with building so much infrastructure at once. But they will be under a financial imperative to do the best they can)
Telstra is not getting much sympathy in the media. Tony Boyd article is excellent
Today’s exclusion of Telstra from the federal government’s $4.7 billion national broadband network selection process says that something has gone horribly wrong with the relationship between Telstra and the federal government.
The fracturing in the relationship will have big implications for Telstra shareholders, the other NBN bidders and users of broadband services in both city and regional areas.
It may well be that the breakdown in the relationship will result in Australia getting improved broadband infrastructure in the metropolitan areas faster than would have occurred under the NBN with Telstra involved.
Telstra chief executive Sol Trujillo made it clear in an analysts call this morning that the Telstra board has a range of options that it will pursue if the exclusion from the NBN process ultimately results in it not winning the NBN contract.
Trujillo’s performance on the conference call, which excluded questions from the media, was typical of what you would expect.
He attacked the federal government department responsible for the NBN process and virtually accused them of incompetence.
He made the NBN expert panel appear irrelevant by repeating earlier messages that the outcome of its deliberations would not affect Telstra’s ability to pursue its preferred option of negotiating directly with the Minister for Broadband Stephen Conroy or Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
He issued a veiled threat to the government by saying that any final NBN decision that excluded Telstra would be met with the full force of the company’s financial power in terms of investment in competing infrastructure.
Trujillo also attempted to pre-empt any decision that might involve handing the NBN to someone else and giving them legalised access to Telstra’s network.
He labelled such potential action as the sort of thing you would expect in North Korea, Cuba or some other ‘extreme’ place. He said no government in the world had attempted to build a NBN by excluding the incumbent provider of telco infrastructure.
One example of cooperation occurred in Singapore, where Singapore Telecommunications is working with a consortium which won the tender for an NBN network in that country. SingTel set up a company that will own access to the SingTel ducts. That company will later be sold.
One of the key bits of information to come out of the Telstra conference call today was from the company’s general counsel Will Irving. He said that there was no legal reason why Telstra should have been excluded.
He said that the company had complied with the requirement to have a plan for small and medium sized enterprises.
On the one hand, the fracturing in relations between the government company that holds the key to the pace of development in the critical area of telecommunications could be seen as a bad thing.
Telstra could adopt a capital strike and slow down the pace of development.
But at a time when its competitors are ramping up their broadband reach with ADSL2+ services, a capital strike would harm its business rather than assist it.
Telstra could accelerate its investment in wireless. That is likely to happen anyway. Not to mention that wireless broadband is probably the only viable option for those in rural areas.
Telstra could launch legal proceedings against the government and against the ultimate winner of the NBN contract. This would slow down the NBN implementation but it will not stop it.
The more likely response from Telstra if it loses out on NBN will be to ramp up its investment in its HFC cable network which passes 2 million homes in the major cities.
It could extend this network which runs across the top of the telephone poles in major cities.
Another possible response will be to build its own fibre network services in densely populated areas. Telcos in Europe have been able roll out fibre in densely populated areas and make money from the increased range of services offered.
However, Trujillo was today keen to emphasis that it will take five years for the NBN to be built. He also stressed that if Telstra is not involved it may take even longer.
His soothing message for Telstra shareholders was that they have no need to fear Telstra not winning the NBN.
But it would not be surprising if analysts and investors now start to factor in the risk to Telstra from the government passing legislation that makes viable the NBN bids of rivals.
Trujillo’s final dramatic quote to the analysts was “Nothing Stops Telstra”.
But so far, it has to be said, that whenever Telstra has taken on the government it has lost.
A pice is an almost worthless Indian coin (1/100 rupee). That’s about what Imre’s analysis is usually worth.
Of course, for Adam, anyone not of suitably left persuasion, namely Michelle Grattan, is unworthy of praise.
Hey, GP, I just criticised you from the right, so don’t give me any of that tosh. You’re just a weakie pinko liberal friend-of-the-pornographers, just like the rest of the elitist intellectuals here who think *their* media should be exempt from regulation while the proles are stuck with Channel 10.
OMG ! Channel 9 in sydney just gave the government climate change announcement pretty positive coverage.
They ACTUALLY gave FACTS and DID NOT beat the whole thing up.
Must be christmas or something…..
You see, I can always rely on my Amigos to do and say the right thing.
#801 – amigo Ronnie:
[Diogenes “To all the hardline Labor apologists out there (Ron I’m looking at you)” You cann’t even appologise for th pathetic Obama …because he does not even hav a 2020 target !! (nor does he suport Kyoto ratification either , thats where World Leadership & econamics start)]
[Cause Vera they they use double standards They locked themselves into suporting Obama whose WRITTEN policy does NOT say suport Kyoto mark 11 ratification (Edwards & Hillary’s written policys DO) and Obama has in POTUS contest made NO 2020 target at all !!! Despite my warnings that US leadership was crucial & that Obama’s and McCain’s) pathetic stanse would hurt CC Copenhaggen negotiations , and now its happened , they’ve got red faces]
#850 – Amigo GG,
[GP, Disagree re the exclusion of Telstra. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of monopolist bast*rds.]
#852 – For goodness sake, i even agree with Poss now:
[Smartest thing anyone has done with Oz comms in 30 years. The only way to achieve structural separation (since Howard completely arsed this up with the float) is to build a new structure. Telstra monopoly – good riddance to bad rubbish.]
Tq to the Amigos for saving my time. They have expressed it much better than I could. Conroy has called Telstra bluff. it’s time somebody stick it up to the Tesltra’s “3 amigo”.
Not like Diog who is wrong everytime, yes everytime now. Diog, you could do a Conroy and have the ball to stick it up to Obama for a change. Obama is still bamby pambying on Kyoto and CC. He should have appointed Ralph Nader as his CC Czar.
Congratulations Adam, you’ve joined Conroy with your hysterically insolent arguments that liken any opponents of the censorship plan with kiddie-fiddlers. Gee, such argumentative tact.
These per capita figures show that we have a long way to go to get to a fair level of pollution which I suggest should be equal per person across the world.
However, practicalities suggest that in the early days at least to 2020 some allowance has to be made for those countries that are starting at a high level: it takes a while to turn things around.
Thus I expect Aus, USA and UK for example to end up at still a much higher level in 2020 than India and China in per capita emissions. They must make more of a cut. This is despite the fact that China has a much higher total (not per capita) emission that Aust or UK.
If you agree then you are actually agreeing with me that it is per capita emissions that is the way to manage the medium term reductions fairly.
Thus Australia’s world leading reductions on a per capita basis are impressive and the PM is right to mention that.
Well GP, you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, you know. If you want to argue that the elite should have access to uncensored media, while the proles have to watch censored media, then you have to live with the consequences.
bye till tomorrow.
“Scientists – including the CSIRO – are telling us that Australia must achieve emissions reductions of 60 per cent by 2050 if we are to avert the significant economic consequences of dangerous climate change. These reductions can be achieved while maintaining strong economic growth.” Renewable energy policy statement, Nov 2007.
(… 60% by 2050 …)
“[A Rudd Labor government will] set a target to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.” Sustainable energy policy statement, Nov 2007.
(… 60% by 2050 …)
“Unless we take decisive action to tackle climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions now, the future health of the Great Barrier Reef will be at serious risk.” Reef rescue plan, Nov 2007.
(… “decisive” …)
“We share a vision for an ambitious, equitable, environmentally effective, economically responsible post-2012 global agreement on climate change and will work together to this end – drawing on our complementary regional and global relationships.” Rudd address to the London School of Economics, Apr 2008.
(… “ambitious” …)
“[Climate change is] the great moral, environmental and economic challenge of our age.” Rudd address to the Brookings Institution, Apr 2007.
(… “moral” …)
“Australia needs new leadership on climate change.” National Press Club address, Nov 2007.
(… “new leadership” …)
“Today, this generation – our generation – stands at the crossroads of history.” National Press Club address, Dec 15 2008.
(… 5 pathetic per cent …)
I’m far from Conroy’s biggest fan, but I heard him speak recently about the trials and tribulations of the national broadband process, and it appears that every time the government so much as scratches its collective arse it gets hit by a deluge of writs from one or other of the parties. So these days they go out of their way to ensure every ‘t’ is crossed and dot dotted or the whole mess will drag into the 22nd century. I’m guessing the Telstra decision was taken with that very much in mind. Not that it looks like helping any.
I wish Adam would stop arguing against straw men. Clever bloke, what a waste.
[The problem with a lot of green technology is that it is still developing and is very expensive.]
Second part first – The fact that it’s relatively expensive, compared to coal, is exactly why you raise the price of coal to make renewables more affordable.
“Still developing”? What precisely, are you talking about? Not hydro, plenty of those. Not wind farms, plenty of those. Not PV, plenty of those. Not even solar thermal which is provided baseload power right around the world with more plants currently being constructed to provide gigawatts of power, using Australian technology.
So you’re probably talking about geothermal and tidal which are still in their elementary stages for the most part. That point would be relevant if we had maximised our capabilities using all the others mentioned above. We haven’t done that, so it’s not relevant.
Some of the various measure needed to reduce pollution most efficiently are:
Government ownership of the major players in the electricity industry with direction of electricity retail profits to the construction of solar, tidal, geothermal and wind.
Encouraging the replacement of gas and energy inefficient electric appliances with efficient electric and other environmentally friendly type appliances.
Expanding facilities for and encouraging travelling by walking/cycling/public transport (other than aviation) and discouraging car use and aviation (high fuel taxes and road/facility closures).
Moving freight from roads to rail (including rail monopoly legislation).
Replacing vehicle types that are still needed (forklifts, tractors, local trucks, buses, taxis and much more restricted number of cars among others) with compressed air and electricity.
Discouraging waste and encouraging reuse and recycling.
Encouraging a more sustainable food sourcing system.
These many of these changes also have benefits for health and government finances.
i would love to know what you regard as a prole Adam,I,m an invalid pensioner,working in the construction Ind when I could work,left school at 14 to do an apprenticeship,but I have had computers since they came out and been on the net as well since then,I was a union member and had some pretty crap jobs Prole enough for you.
I don,t think you know what you are talking about,I don,t watch commercial TV cause its crap, but I watch pay,I also like 2 and SBS maybe I,m an elite,that would surprise a lot of people I know.
I am opposed to Conroys Filter as I dont want anyone telling me what I can see read or hear,it will get shot full of holes in a week anyway
John, in case you didn’t notice, you’ve been banned twice in the past – I’m giving you a second reprieve, so please don’t abuse it.
Anything to do with Obama is a red herring and a pitiful red herring at that, more of a red whale. For a start OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET. Let’s wait and see what he does after 12 months. And if he caves like the homunculus paper-pusher who is our PM, I’ll say the same about him.
Your own targets were 15-20% but when Rudd ran up the White Flag, you suddenly found 5% just peachy.
The people against internet censorship must decide, if you do not want the internet censored do you want books, films, TV shows etc. censored?
This is the crux of the issue. If I write a book that is banned, for good reason, is it OK for me to publish it online?
Those who oppose internet censorship are really opposing all censorship. (Fine by me) but be honest in your opposition.
The eastern states local radio editions of PM have just run an item on Robert Ray’s report into the WA ALP’s state election campaign which wasn’t on the RN edition, which sounds like it says everything I would have said – particularly about the advertising campaign and media coverage. Ray made the point that The West Australian’s outrageous anti-Labor bias infected the rest of the media. A perfect illustration of this came when former Liberal leader Matt Birney told Simon Beaumont of 6PR that his own party had been “aided and abetted by the West Australian newspaper”, to which Beaumont responded that he hadn’t noticed any bias from the paper – which frankly raises very serious questions about the bloke’s intelligence.
Ruawake, stop playing Adam’s silly game.
Conroy’s policy IS not simply synchronising the internet with other media. We’ve been through millions of times. Go back, read what it’s about and then bring yourself into the discussion.
I have played in the media space since before you were born. I know what the discussion is. Ever heard of convergence.
It will not be too long until all media is delivered by digital means. If you want this totally uncensored fair enough. But be honest enough to say so.
Completely miss the point my post because you know you’re wrong.
You’re a fan of the straw, ruawake.
That’s a straw man argument. I agree with censorship of certain things esp child porn obviously and violent sites. I don’t agree with the filter. If Conroy can do it properly and not block legal sites and slow the internet, I’d support it. There is also the danger of Conrpy banning legal sites to appease Mr X, Fielding etc which he has indicated a willingness to do.
Comments are closed.