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.
[I would really be interested in what bludgers think about how the Australian gov’t position will play out internationally.]
One UN rep said “Good work on getting an ETS!”
South Africa said “Well if rich countries can only do 5% why should poor countries do more?”
Boerwar, I don’t care if I’m in a minority of one on this issue. I greatly respect all the posters here and this discussion has been one of the most vigorous I’ve seen in my time here, very exciting.
I must say that I do feel vindication for my view when its polar opposite is being espoused and applauded by the likes of Paul Kelly, Miranda Devine and Janet Albrechtsen.
Piping Shrike
5% brings all parties to the table,reduces wedges and stops the denialists going bonkers.
Ramping up the % will be driven by the consensus,but first gain the “beachhead” and then go for the jugular
[That would rank up there with “I’ll love you in the morning” and “trust me I’m a doctor”]
We have an experimental nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, but we don’t have nuclear weapons
We manufacture radio isotopes for health and some electrical appliances (e.g. smoke detectors) but we don’t have nuclear weapons.
We have moderate level nuclear waste stored in most major hospitals in all the capital cities of the country, but we don’t have nuclear weapons.
The British tested nuclear weapons at Maralinga, but we don’t have nuclear weapons.
This slippery slop argument is really a non-argument. Australia is a signatory to the nuclear non proliferation treaty, and also conducted one of the most highly regarded investigations into the risks associated with nuclear proliferation – the Canberra Commission. http://www.dfat.gov.au/cc/cc_report_exec.html
These are two completely different issues.
HSO – I’m not sure what Shrike is saying exactly, my view is that this move is not unpopular generally (I mean 90% of households are getting more money and so are a lot of businesses) but that higher targets wouldn’t lose Rudd an election.
[Yet every poll I see shows the public thinks the government is not doing enough. I can’t think of another issue where the public is unhappy with TOO LITTLE action by the federal government.]
I think this is true UNTIL you ask people how much more they are willing to pay for electricity, gas, petrol and water. THEN you start to get different responses…
Would I be correct in assuming that any ETS legislation and international conventions entered into by the Rudd government could be revoked by a later government with AGW denial tendencies?
How safe does that make you feel?
Gusface, an path many are advocating. At what stage do you believe we should, or the government will, ramp it up?
A lesson of the Gippsland by-election, if anyone still remembers it, is that a local survey of attitudes towards climate change might have run as follows. Q: Do you support tougher action on climate change? A: Yes! Q: Should you, the working class voter of Gippsland, be made to bear the brunt of such action? A: Hell no!
In other words, what ShowsOn said.
he Piping Shrike
#1098
“Yet every poll I see shows the public thinks the government is not doing enough.
It is Rudd’s apparent reticence that is unpopular, not the demands for more action.
the idea that doing more on climate change is politically difficult is a media myth.”
You’ve missed th point entirely Rudd has sensibly taken a decision in th National econqamic interests , depite th public maybe wanting a higher target Furthermore I expect Rudd to hold grounfd and ignore th politcal games of protest of Greens and others
IF you ar seriously suggesting that rudd should follow th alleged majority sentiment and commit say to th Greeens publicly declared position ..25% unconditional target and announsed it 2 days ago…..rather than see what Coppenhaggen agrees on , which may be 10% vs Rudds prior unconditional 25% ….how irreponsible of a National Govt wuld that be…….then th public wuld say to Rudd by then realizing there pockets will be burnt vs rest of world …..why th hell did you guarantee 25% and make us incomptetive and/or looking naive , rather than being prudent knowing coppenhaggen was happeing
Amigo Vera, only 1 because my miserable mices froze on me. but i like to throw more than shoes at Dubya. If only Obi would throw him under the bus, then i would be Obi’s fan forever.
gusface, what about the immortal line from pollyanna:
[“I am a scientist, and I deal in risk”]
ShowsOn:
http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0902%20Carbon%20Pollution%20Reduction%20Scheme%2009-09-08.pdf
[UNDER THE CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME, THE PRICE OF ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND
GAS MAY BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE. WOULD YOU PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST PAYING MORE FOR ENERGY
SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS IF IT WOULD HELP TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING?]
58% yes.
Centre I can’t get past 3!
Found another one about delaying in the light of the GFC.
http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/1006%20Carbon%20Pollution%20Reduction%20Scheme%2028-10-08.pdf
[CURRENTLY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO INTRODUCE THE CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME IN 2010. UNDER
THE CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME, THE PRICE OF ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS MAY
BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE. DO YOU THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DELAY OR SHOULD NOT DELAY THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME BEYOND 2010 BECAUSE OF THE RECENT FINANCIAL CRISIS?*]
30% say delay, 44% don’t delay.
Maybe everyone thought it was time to go to bed?
Lullaby: “For the banks are made of marble,
With a guard at every door.
And the vaults are stuffed with silver
That the miners suffered for”
Oz
great question re when should we ramp it up:
1.when the GFC has settled and the financial industry gets over the scours
and/or
2.when the cabinet reports back on the “local” impact
also the Big O will obviously be the wildcard
[58% yes.]
1) 58% isn’t much more than half.
2) That question really depends on what the respondents think “more” means. $1 a week? $10 a week? $100 a week?
If the GFC doesn’t abate by sometime before half way through the next decade and we don’t get cuts in by 2020-2025, you do know we’ll be stuffed?
Finns,
do you have a problem with risk as a field of study, or are you just being bloody minded?
[If the GFC doesn’t abate by sometime before half way through the next decade and we don’t get cuts in by 2020-2025, you do know we’ll be stuffed?]
I think by this time next year the world economy will be slowly growing again.
Obama is planning to pump $1 trillion into the U.S. economy, because he knows that there is nothing left to do with monetary policy.
William
#1108
“Q: Do you support tougher action on climate change? A: Yes! Q: Should you, the working class voter of Gippsland, be made to bear the brunt of such action? A: Hell no!”
My extra variation argument from day one about making a 25% unconditional offer before th rest of World decides has been
Q: Do you support tougher action on climate change? A: Yes! Q: Should you, the working class voter of Gippsland, be made to bear the brunt of such action…….AND th USA may bear zero brunt or pain of your sacrifice ? A: …fff Hell no! tell USA to get st.ffed “
Vera click straight as soon as you see his face, not before.
Oz
from my readings etc the GFC will have abated mid 2009
by then the cogs will have begun their relentless grinding
by 2020 I believe we and our kids will look back and go what the hell was all the fuss about.
The technologies exist to harness both baseload and rechargeable options.
The 5% is the first step of many progressive measures that combined by 2020 will lead to a figure of 50% renewables.
r
I really hope, Gusface!
Quite a critical and valid deconstruction of that poll there, ShowsOn.
Poly
I think its finns way of apologising for his insolence
or he is just bloody minded
Polly & Gus, as Amigo GG stated yesterday to Amigo Vera (welcome again Amigo Vera), we amigos dont have headache, we give headache.
vera
#1095
“hello amigos
wanna releive a bit of stress? try throwing a shoe or 20 at George Dubbaya”
http://play.sockandawe.com/
Vera , that Iraqi journo who threw two shoes at bush , and missed both times obviously never played cricket An inswinger would hav done th trick just as Dubya ducked….in fact th journo needed a cricket ball
Finns
speaking of Amigo’s and headaches
I had an Amiga 1000 mate ,now that was a headache ( I still remeber paying $100 backs to get 1 yes 1 extra meg of ram- happy days indeed)
ps your insolence to poly has been duly noted
Gusface, what about my Sinclair ZX10 with cassette tape as the input for the BASIC programs.
have i hurt Poly’s sensitive feeling? Amigo Ronnie, i did ask you to be nice to poly.
i find it difficult to come to grips with the self indulgent rubbish going on here. The last post by Ron, is self evident. Sorry, William.
Harry (1100) I think Rudd’s problem of taking unpopular decisions is his lack of social base. Cutting links with the unions is useful to give freedom to respond, but makes a government uncertain when it comes to taking tough decisions. At the end of the day, this is weakness of this Labor government compared to all past ones and will give a sense of drift. In short the government is struggling to find something that is unpopular it can carry through.
William (1108), for every Gippsland there are several more Mayos. Polls have consistently shown that the public is willing to pay for more for climate change action (e.g. even petrol when prices were rocketing). They may be lying, but I would need more evidence for such a dubious conclusion.
Get a life Harry , and stop being arrogantly self iundulgent
Shoe incident was international politcal news and this ais a politcal site….and if you don’t like cricket , well
Harry, what do you call this?
[Maybe everyone thought it was time to go to bed?
Lullaby: “For the banks are made of marble,
With a guard at every door.
And the vaults are stuffed with silver
That the miners suffered for”]
self indulgent rubbish indeed
[i find it difficult to come to grips with the self indulgent rubbish going on here. The last post by Ron, is self evident. Sorry, William.]
NO WAY! Only my posts are self indulgent.
[Get a life Harry , and stop being arrogantly self iundulgent]
GOOD WORK RON, That will learn him!
[Shoe incident was international politcal news and this ais a politcal site….and if you don’t like cricket , well]
WAIT! RON I know this one! You’ll send him to a housing commission house along with members of the Greens, so they can cook lentils and live on the dole?
William Bowe @ 1108 –
Q: Do you support tougher action on climate change? A: Yes! Q: Should you, the working class voter of Gippsland, be made to bear the brunt of such action? A: Hell no!
But under the announced scheme the compensation being ladled out will see the majority a few hundred dollars a year better off, and there doesn’t appear to be any reason why this wouldn’t still be the case with a much higher target. Especially, given the big cuts only begin in 10 years.
Which, if you believe the “one term” soothsayers, will be 8 years into Turnbull’s?Costello’s/Abbott’s/Hunt’s primeministership. At that point many PBers may well be desperately burning any bit of fossil fuel they can get their hands on to fast forward the end. 🙂
PS, Mayo is a doctors’ wives electorate a million miles removed from the point I was making. Anywhere in Gippsland that had an electricity plant anywhere near it swung by over 10 per cent. Do you have any alternative explanations for this?
“WAIT! RON I know this one! You’ll send him to a housing commission house along with members of the Greens, so they can cook lentils and live on the dole?”
at least you’ll have you nuclear power and weapons to preserve your splendid isolation
You’re using th 5% target figures but object to th 5% target !
Use 25% target figures fior th higher target you want commenced , and see how many losers there ar and/or th degree of pain suffered as a result
[at least you’ll have you nuclear power and weapons to preserve your splendid isolation]
Yeah right, because we all know the Greens love nuclear power………
William, no doubt it did, especially without a Labor candidate that would stand up for them. The point I thought you were making is that support for climate change action is soft if there is a personal cost. While they might be the case for those that would lose their jobs directly, I think in the electorate in general that is not true, at least from the polling I have seen done.
Gippsland does not look to have much of a broader consequence outside anywhere where brown coal industry predominates. Even then they might still support Labor if acted on climate change. It would hardly be the first time Labor voters lost their jobs on Labor policy!
By the way, doctors’ wives have feelings too!
William, those Gippsland folks also liked their gas guzzling utes and alcopops if I remember correctly.
Piping Shrike
what you ar suggesting is australians ar prepared to make $$ sacrifices (by high 25% targets annouced now) , to save th planet that th rest is not prepared to make (including th rich USA)…and you think when australians realize that , they’ll support th Govt proposing it
GFC will likely run for 3-5 years, will be running when ETS Bill is being debated.
Obi is in more and more strife with the left and progressive. It looks like Obi is racing to the centre-right as quick as the Dear Leader. I just hope his Inaugural Ceremonies is not turning into “Obama fiddles while USA burns”.
[Rick Warren, Obama Invocation Choice, Causing First Real Rift With Progressives – Nevertheless, the announcement is being greeted with deep skepticism in progressive religious and political circles.
“My blood pressure is really high right now,” said Rev. Chuck Currie, minister at Parkrose Community United Church of Christ in Portland, Oregon. “Rick Warren does some really good stuff and there are some areas that I have admired his ability to build bridges between evangelicals and mainline religious and political figures… but he is also very established in the religious right and his position on social issues like gay rights, stem cell research and women’s rights are all out of the mainstream and are very much opposed to the progressive agenda that Obama ran on. I think that he is very much the wrong person to put on the stage with the president that day.”]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/rick-warren-obama-invocat_n_151877.html
“Yeah right, because we all know the Greens love nuclear power………”
shows you raised the subject,I just thought some of your toys would make you happy in the commune that Ron consigned you to.”
some people are so wishy washy with their beliefs
harry
ignore the barbarians,they know not what they speak of
[what you ar suggesting is australians ar prepared to make $$ sacrifices (by high 25% targets annouced now) , to save th planet that th rest is not prepared to make (including th rich USA)…and you think when australians realize that , they’ll support th Govt proposing it]
Yeah, you heard him Piping Shrike – go eat some lentils. You’re as bad as the nuclear power loving Greens.
[GFC will likely run for 3-5 years, will be running when ETS Bill is being debated.]
Maybe, but when the big cuts in carbon pollution are required, we will be in another boom, i.e. the best time to make cuts.
[shows you raised the subject,I just thought some of your toys would make you happy in the commune that Ron consigned you to.”]
Re-read all my posts in this thread, I think you’ll find I don’t support nuclear weapons.
“harry ignore the barbarians,they know not what they speak of”
but they can pick an elitist intelectual by th arrogance & unreal dreaminess of there beliefs
[but they can pick an elitist intelectual by th arrogance & unreal dreaminess of there beliefs]
wRONg! You forgot the child pornography loving libertans and the nuclear / lentil powered greens!