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”
All I am saying (1143) is that, Gippsland notwithstanding, the barrier to Rudd doing more on climate change is not public opinion, which is what some seem to be suggesting here. By the way, it is also not why Turnbull has become more sceptic. In terms of straight out votes, it makes no sense.
I also don’t go along with this idea that everything in Australian politics comes down to the hip-pocket.
but ShowOff , how can you be a Greenie and apparently support nuclear weapons builyt here
“Re-read all my posts in this thread, I think you’ll find I don’t support nuclear weapons”
Oh silly me I forgot NUCLEAR WEAPONS come from the fairiess at the bottom of your garden.
[All I am saying (1143) is that, Gippsland notwithstanding, the barrier to Rudd doing more on climate change is not public opinion,]
It is the fact our economy has been based on an abundance of cheap, but highly polluting natural resources.
You can’t change that over night, or even in a decade.
[I also don’t go along with this idea that everything in Australian politics comes down to the hip-pocket.]
Well, it is kind of the same as when pollsters ask voters what they think the government should do with money, they usually say spend it on health and education, but if it is handed out as tax cuts, you don’t hear many people rejecting it.
[but ShowOff , how can you be a Greenie and apparently support nuclear weapons builyt here]
Re-read all my posts, then tell me if I support nuclear weapons.
(HINT: Pay REALLY close attention to post 1086)
[Oh silly me I forgot NUCLEAR WEAPONS come from the fairiess at the bottom of your garden.]
I don’t think this is true.
[Security agents destroyed the shoes thrown at US President George W Bush by an Iraqi journalist during checks to ensure they did not contain explosives, the investigating judge says.]
I propose a minutes silence.
Thanks for your reply
“All I am saying (1143) is that, Gippsland notwithstanding, the barrier to Rudd doing more on climate change is not public opinion, which is what some seem to be suggesting here.
I entirely agree with you about current public and don’t agree with th contrary view put here My argument is based on th view here th Greens view of Rudd should hav announced 25% unconditional target on Minday…and my disagreement is once australians realize they’re being asked under th 25% to sacrifice to save th world but USA ets ar doing nothing …..plus th devasting econamic impact of doing so all by ourselves in th world is also realized …then suport would drop BUT that also th later point sensible econamic responsibility is precisely why Rudd did not do so in advance of Coppenhaggen
Pretty low quality blogging lately. Maybe this page will be better.
Oh silly me I forgot NUCLEAR WEAPONS come from the fairiess at the bottom of your garden.
I don’t think this is true.
Nuclear weapons come from Nuclear material
Now if you think you are God then ok,but personally I cant get away from the simple fact
“Nuclear weapons come from Nuclear material’
Piping Shrike (enjoy your site btw),
Rudd is playing three dimensional cricket. He has dropped the markers of intention, left ample room for further negotiation as a real player on the international field and skewered the left and the right at a local level.
Jaw dropping performance of excellence in my books.
To be totally fair, Rudd has played a “blinder of an innings” and there is more to come in the second dig.
“Pretty low quality blogging lately. Maybe this page will be better”
Dont be too hard on yourself Its Time
as they say practice makes perfect
[Nuclear weapons come from Nuclear material]
You mean like the stuff that is stored in most hospitals in most capital cities?
Or like the nuclear waste produced by the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights?
Or like the nuclear waste that had to be cleaned up from Maralinga?
Or the radioactive material in most home smoke alarms?
Or the radioactive material used to irradiate food so it is safe to eat?
God with all that material around it is surprising we don’t have……………. ~*NUCLEAR WEAPONS*~
[Now if you think you are God then ok,but personally I cant get away from the simple fact]
No, I don’t think there is a God.
[“Nuclear weapons come from Nuclear material’]
I’m sure you said this before.
So what has this got to do with nuclear power?
[Rudd is playing three dimensional cricket.]
WHAT! NO TIME! THE UNIVERSE HAS ENDED!? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I blame nuclear weapons for this catastrophe!
Amigo you’ve summed up my arguments using cricket parlance even better However he also avoided being left on 99 not out , left with @5% unconditiona whilst th last man is bowled and left him high and dry with 25% by himself ..99 not out …..and left a little inswinger wedgie on USA as well seeing they say we ar such staunch friends
“I blame nuclear weapons for this catastrophe!”
Shows in some weird and wonderful way I can see enightment awaits you
rage agianst the machine,go on you know you want to 🙂
[Shows in some weird and wonderful way I can see enightment awaits you]
Sure, from now on I am blaming everything on wRONg and nuclear weapons.
Who cares about facts.
I keep forgetting that Nuclear’s Genesis was in response to a need for an alternative energy source 🙁 oops my bad
Should I burn all my History and science books 🙁
and then buy Shows Revised Cyclopedia Of Energy Development 🙂
Well facts have never been part of your repetoire. Cutting and pasting does not an intellectual make.
SNIP: Self-indulgent comment deleted – The Management.
[I keep forgetting that Nuclear’s Genesis was in response to a need for an alternative energy source 🙁 oops my bad]
True – experimental nuclear fission was demonstrated well before the first nuclear weapons were used.
SNIP: Whinge about moderation deleted – The Management.
And that is why the Enola Gay was ACTUALLY only testing a “broadband” version of Nuclear energy and its application as WAN
Too Bad some boffin got the figures mixed up
GEE I”m already firing up the pot belly to burn me science books Shows
pps When are you recieving the Nobel prize agin?
There was a politcal ALTERNATIVE Rudd could hav chosen on Monday
He could hav restated support for CC and Kyoto as a PR talk and said due to GFC I’m getting Garnaut to revisit seeing Garnaut repored in July and GFC happened after that , BUT assured all that he would SUPORT whatever target Kyoto agreed to
Result would hav been 1/ NO target announsed 2/ NO criticsm from Greens or Rudd disenters of th 5% because there would not hav been a target figure at6 all to criticise 3/ ETS would therefore be delayed till July 2011 , instead of July 2010 start
Why didn’t Rudd take th soft politcal option , I mean rudd had th GFC as a compeling reason for delay for another Garnaut talk feast/Report and also GFC was a convenient excuse for awaiting on other Countrys Kyoto agreement based on there reaction to th GFC
I tink Rudd was policy CC committed brave in wanting to get th pre requisite CC controling machinery th ETS operational from July 2010 …and needed a target figure to do so
[I keep forgetting that Nuclear’s Genesis was in response to a need for an alternative energy source ]
Oh, and there’s this little issue of fission reactions naturally occurring about 1.5 billion years ago:
[And that is why the Enola Gay was ACTUALLY only testing a “broadband” version of Nuclear energy and its application as WAN]
I personally don’t think this, but if you do, then that’s fine, I guess.
[pps When are you recieving the Nobel prize agin?]
After you I guess.
“Oh, and there’s this little issue of fission reactions naturally occurring about 1.5 billion years ago”
Mum saw that and said that the Aurora Australis put it to shame 🙂
your point Shows ?
[your point Shows ?]
Fair go, I’m still figuring out what the hell your point is.
SNIP: Self-indulgent comment deleted. I understand that the commenter believes he is making a brilliant point by provoking me into deleting this comment, but he is in fact merely exposing himself as a childish pain-in-the-arse – The Management.
My point is simple
as night follows day,nuclear leads to Weapons
Fat Boy was not some experimental generator-It was a messenger of mass death
To cloak Nuclear as some bunny rabbit alternative,is intellectually weak, and as someone who I have admired,nay defended,I am at a loss as to why you would defend the indefensible.
To date you have used not one arrow to peirce the subject matter,your fluff and pomposity truly does you a disservice sir.
See what I mean about causing headaches?
[My point is simple
as night follows day,nuclear leads to Weapons]
This is just wrong. Countries that use nuclear power but do not have nuclear weapons:
Japan, Germany, South Korea, Ukraine, Canada, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Taiwan, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Finland, Slovakia, Brazil, South Africa, Hungry, Romania, Mexico, Lithuania, Argentina, Slovenia, Netherlands, Armenia
I don’t count Iran, because they are obviously TRYING to make nuclear weapons.
[To date you have used not one arrow to peirce the subject matter,your fluff and pomposity truly does you a disservice sir.]
Why thank you, but it isn’t like any of my evidence is given any reasoned consideration.
Yes GG , and yet I’ve always found you very affiable …but then I’m discerning
“Why thank you, but it isn’t like any of my evidence is given any reasoned consideration”.
And, well might you look in the mirror and say, “Why”
“Why thank you, but it isn’t like any of my evidence is given any reasoned consideration.”
except for a few client states and basket cases-scary thought actually 🙁
THEY ARE PART OF TREATIES THAT ALLOW NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Since It’s Time’s high hopes at #1158 have gone unfulfilled, I’m going to be active in enforcing higher standards for the remainder of the evening.
you’ve opted for the Lobotomy?
William @ 1184,
PR Spin comes to clocking in for work!
[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.]
So the only real good and beneficial decisions, Piping, are unpopular ones? Hardly.
Unpopularity doesn’t make a decision worthwhile. In fact many times it can be quite the opposite.
Why go all out on an unpopular move when you can edge your way into it and take the populace with you step by step.
[I also don’t go along with this idea that everything in Australian politics comes down to the hip-pocket.]
No-one said “everything” but on the major issues massaging the hip pocket, one way or the other, is of prime importance to the voters and thus to the political parties. History shows this.
[except for a few client states and basket cases-scary thought actually :(]
WTF? So is Japan a basket case (2nd biggest economy in the world), what about Germany? (biggest economy in Europe).
That list of countries shows that there are many countries that have nuclear power, but not nuclear weapons, which completely contradicts your statement that nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons.
Oh, and many of those countries are signatories to the NPT.
But that doesn’t seem to matter, NO FACTS Friday starts soon.
thats right the installations in Japan and Germany have fairy Nuclear weapons as part of a secret nuclear power treaty-my bad again
Shows I commend Janes defence weekly to you- its easy to find , and it has nice maps of who has what in term of fairy nuclear weapons posing as nuclear power generators
ps A tad more informative (and reliable) than wikipedia
[Shows I commend Janes defence weekly to you- its easy to find , and it has nice maps of who has what in term of fairy nuclear weapons posing as nuclear power generators]
You may want to send your back issues to the U.N. security council, they’ll like to know about this.
“You may want to send your back issues to the U.N. security council, they’ll like to know about this.”
As long as they dont google google the world is safe.
[I also don’t go along with this idea that everything in Australian politics comes down to the hip-pocket]
I do. I believe that’s how Howard managed to keep squeaking back into office, by gnawing away at people’s economic perceptions. (With good cheesy baits of fearmongering and racist wedging to tickle the whiskers). Bill Clinton said it best: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
In good times Australians (and Americans too, I guess) are preoccupied with the hip-pocket. That’s in good times. In times of economic uncertainty, as we’re entering, “the economy” will be the issue that sidelines all others, including climate change. Regrettable, but undeniable I think.
SNIP: Example of what I meant in #1184 deleted – The Management.
[That’s in good times. In times of economic uncertainty, as we’re entering, “the economy” will be the issue that sidelines all others, including climate change. Regrettable, but undeniable I think.]
But won’t some people connect the two things, that the period of prosperity when they cared simply about their own living standards eventually led to a sharp economic down turn.
Won’t some people reflect on that and conclude that there were serious things wrong with our economy during the boom, that led to the bus, e.g. the fact so much wealth was just inflated housing prices.
ShowsOn, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that all Australians are single-minded graspers who base their votes on how they’re doing financially at each election.
Not all. But wide swathes of them, for sure!
th Piping Shrike
#1151 “All I am saying (1143) is that, Gippsland notwithstanding, the barrier to Rudd doing more on climate change is not public opinion, which is what some seem to be suggesting here”
From th very first 1/2 hour of Rudds annoucement & thereafter , there was overwhelming initial response of PBers that Rudd’s 5% target was “Rudds decision is pathetic” …. that PBers and th public expected more And Piping Shrike you ar re-emphadsing that that is th public view
Almost alone initialy I defended Rudd/cabinet not because i doubted public sentiment expecting more action , but because I thought th govt acted econamicly responsibly in NOT committing unconditionaly say to th Greens 25% target….where th potential was w’d be left all by ourselves against th rest of World
ie I believed Rudd correctly saw th stupidity danger of a govt unconditionaly offering a foolish 25% or even 10% unknowing of what USA & china for example position was …with th potential seeing neither hav ever had a target in past they may resist in future and as our biggest trading partners we’d be left high and dry trading with them uncompetitively So I’ve always believed Rudd went against public support for doing more on CC , and did so corectly in our interests for th econamic reason abov stated
Expect Rudd will wear some pain in polls for doing so ,a nd Cabinet probaly has pre assumed that anyway knowing Greens would scream loud
I was amazed from day one so few understood Rudds responsoble econamic rationale , it was a national security financial decison…some perhaps see that now but some still ar unpersuaded
th second thingy I’ve not understood Rudd disenters since monday is PBers not appreciating Rudd having made a sensible Govt econamic decision against th Greens 25% or 10% unconditional , Rudd then still chose a risk a reduced risk of 5% as a price unconditionaly of starting CC action at th potential sacrifice of being 5% uncompetitvie to say USA and China
So Rudd thoughtfuly balanced our econamic security against CC starting with this policy annuncement and in taking that CC start action of a target also consequentaly commenced th necessary ETS startup required anyway for CC control whatebver is th target And th final arm of this balnced approach is to allow flexibility to be committed to Kyoto internationa agrement with his 15% conditional offer
So Piping Skrike , Rudd was aware of public expecting more , but chose to ignore it on sensible econamic ground…knowing ultimately th public wuld pay higher prices & unemployment if he had followed that pubblic opinion ,and we were only country making that sacrifice …but it would hav been that very public alone making that sacrifice for th world with potentialty USA & China not paying a sacrifice ..then that public sentiment of suport would hav disolved in hip pocket fury of why do we carry USA , China sacrifice of sving th planet These feel god emotions ar great in theory until people realize th world had us and hip pocket is empty
Rudd made th right calls on all 4 grounds , and public will gradulay come around to that belief despite there curent sentament of expecting mor action
[ShowsOn, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that all Australians are single-minded graspers who base their votes on how they’re doing financially at each election.
Not all. But wide swathes of them, for sure!]
Yeah, even last election there was 47 odd percent of them.
They’re called Coalition voters.
I think people are willing to pay a small amount to deal with climate change, say $10 a week absolute max. But the more people in similar countries do, the more Australians will feel compelled to do.
[I think people are willing to pay a small amount to deal with climate change, say $10 a week absolute max.]
I’m sure there is a tolerance limit that people would be prepared to extend their hip pocket nerve to. It would need rigorous polling and focus-grouping to ascertain the exact figure I’d imagine. Hopefully Labor has already completed that research as part of the groundwork for the ETS proposal.
[I’m sure there is a tolerance limit that people would be prepared to extend their hip pocket nerve to. It would need rigorous polling and focus-grouping to ascertain the exact figure I’d imagine. Hopefully Labor has already completed that research as part of the groundwork for the ETS proposal.]
I’d thing so, and it looks like it came in pretty low.
But there is a big contradiction. Basically families with kids and pensioners are getting more compensation than the price increases.
But what happens when the price of carbon is $50, or $100? The tax cuts that went through last year were forgotten about almost immediately. When energy prices start rising because of carbon, are people going to remember that they have already been over compensated?
I don’t think so! I think people will demand ANOTHER round of compensation (look what happened when petrol was $1.50 a litre). So this could be an on going spiral of more and more transfer payments.
At some point this would have to stop, and a government would have to start taking back the permits, WITHOUT a massive compensation package. Whoever is in government then is going to take a massive hit int he polls.
so to sum up showson:
With 24/7 news and internet access th public realize anyting we do on CC will make no diference They therefore know USA for one is doing nothing , and they realize until USA & others actualy start doing someting then th feel good bit of paying to feel god without reely helping CC would imagine is a low $ tolerance
a Greens target would exceed that $ tolerance feel good emotion whilst public saw CC in other countrys is not being addressed Ultimately as th massive dire econamic costs of that 25% hit th econamy , and th $ price of that feel good consequentialy increased further with higher prices and higher unemployemnt whilst internet news showed little CC action elsewhere on planet was beig done then thats how you be come a one term govt for being econamicaly irresponsible
Comments are closed.