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.
[Diog, you are wrong again, as usual. How many times your beloved Obama has to “modify” his policies to suit, eg:]
This doesn’t make much sense considering that Bush has spent the last 6 months copying Obama’s Iraq policies.
GG , you’ve pinched my parrott , remember Sir joh’s saying about th chooks
Can someone point me to where Rudd nominated a figure greater than 15% by 2020 since he became leader of the Labor Party? For that matter an someone point me to where Rudd nominated a figure less than 15% by 2020 since he became leader of the Labor Party?
[GG , you’ve pinched my parrott , remember Sir joh’s saying about th chooks]
LOL! 😀
#151, obviously you have not had enough spanking from my amigo GG
GG you ran in Banyule local council election. In the first ward probably
[#151, obviously you have not had enough spanking from my amigo GG]
Spanking? He just talks about himself.
[GG you ran in Banyule local council election. In the first ward probably]
He lost apparently.
Look, you’re right ShowsOn. Rudd should have put a 10% percent target on it. He should have ensured the Senate would knock it back and at the same time given the opposition the best ammunition ………
GB spot on as usual. And I wonder whether the Greens’s anger is really about being dealt out of the political equation now that one of the main parties has embraced climate change. Didnt they become a little more irrelevant as of today??
[Oz do you think a target of 20+ would pass the senate?]
Maybe, maybe not? Like I said, no one knows and we never will know.
Admit it – It has nothing to do with the Senate. If they were serious they would have tried for a 20-25% target and then negotiated, just like they have with the rest of their policies this year. They fact that didn’t even *try* to pass anything serious through the Senate and they didn’t even bother consulting the Senators whose votes are quite important, but spent the last few months writing down the industry wish-list demonstrates how serious they are.
Andrew
If the target moves to 15% I will be much happier. I always said 20% would be fine and I will stop whingeing if it’s 15%. Rudd has given us no idea how he will chose his 5-15% target. It seems to be entirely at his whim. What are global meaningful reductions? Who needs to make them and how big are they? What level do they have to drop to?
Rudd has given himself so much wriggle room that it’s clear this was a political not a policy decision. And I think this is too important for a cynical political decision. There is no leadership in this decision.
Howard did nothing in 11 years. That’s why we voted him out. If he, or Nelson or Turnbull came up with this, we’d all be attacking him. But because it’s Rudd/ Labor, we seem to be looking for any excuse to agree with it.
Yes 5% was dissapointing. He should have gone 7.5% and pushed max out to 20%. But you can’t change too much too quickly – see Gough, or you can be out on your ear quickly and no use to anyone. Far more important to get the thing off the ground in a year than the initiakl targets
[Look, you’re right ShowsOn. Rudd should have put a 10% percent target on it. He should have ensured the Senate would knock it back and at the same time given the opposition the best ammunition ………]
What ammunition? As in “you said you would do something about climate change but didn’t”
To which Rudd could reply “well, we tried to, but YOU voted against it”.
I think Rudd wants something in parliament, in operation before the next election. He wants this to be the centrepiece of his first term.
Regardless,
I put myself out there and had a go.
I recommend the same therapy to you all.
I’m not looking for an excuse to agree with it, I have said it appears modest and too low, especially if it sticks at 5% which is a MINIMUM I may add. I just happen to think it is a balanced way to start.
[I put myself out there and had a go.]
Don’t QUIT! Have another go!
The next opinion poll should be a belter anyway. I’d love to see what happens to Rudd’s popularity.
A journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step. Is that too deep for some of you?
[And I wonder whether the Greens’s anger is really about being dealt out of the political equation now that one of the main parties has embraced climate change.]
Andrew can you please elaborate on how a redistribution of billions of dollars to carbon intensive industries masquerading as a “CPRS” demonstrates that Labor as “embraced climate change”?
Finns
A journey of two metres also begins with a single step. As does a lemming walking off a cliff.
I had a go too GG. Came bloody close pipped by a few hundred votes
Much interesting comment here and elsewhere in the intertuby thingys. Must admit I felt initially gutted by the 5% target till I started doing some reading, and am now somewhat confused, so will have to do some more, obviously. Got to say, I really hate the amount of money going to coal vs. renewables in the announcement.
Showson,
As always you talk a good fight. What I do in the future is my business.
We have a wonderful democratic process in this country. You obviously have strong opinions. Well, convince others they mean anything by having a go.
That might temper some of the unnessessary vitriol.
Cheers
No no, yes yes, Diog, a journey of 2m only needs 2 steps. And the lemming should learn how to step before it walks.
On a global basis 5% is close to being statistical noise – it certainly won’t do anything to stop CC. I do hope the world does not follow Rudd down to 5%.
“Rudd has given us no idea how he will chose his 5-15% target. It seems to be entirely at his whim. What are global meaningful reductions?”
Yes he has , read how coppenhaggen has been proceeding (with anti USA suport) , then read his statement its quite clear re a specific 15% target , both re nexus to EU’s 20% , for India/china dev countries and pointeddly at your mate USA to make an offer
Rudd’s pref was probably not to quote th 5% at all to prevent disengenous people concentrating on it , cause th 15% is all that counts But he had to quote A figure (outside of Coppenhggen paramaeters so he could actualy DO someting like introduce RET and ETS schemes , now yous disengenuously or wrongly concentrate on this 5% (rather than th 15% negotiating target) to no relevance
NOTE , if 15% is oked at Coppenhaggen , then we hav 15% …thats approx 35 BILLION added to Industry costs in first year alone…all passed to consumers…all with a scare campaign , but Rudds defence will be thats th World Kyoto mark11 agreement
GG
I don’t have the temperament to run for office as you may have noticed but I have offered to help someone run for the Senate in 2010. We’ll see what happens.
[As always you talk a good fight. ]
What fight? You seem to interpret all sorts of implicit meaning in my posts that simply isn’t there.
[What I do in the future is my business.]
Where did I say it wasn’t?
[We have a wonderful democratic process in this country. ]
Of course.
[You obviously have strong opinions.]
As do you.
[Well, convince others they mean anything by having a go.]
Wonderful advice, that you have obviously attained through significant experience in the cut and thrust of the democratic process.
[That might temper some of the unnessessary vitriol.]
What vitriol? You seem to interpret all sorts of implicit meaning in my posts that simply isn’t there.
Ron, I would have thought this announcement takes a lot of pressure off the Liberals, if they are only smart enough to grab their chance (which is only an “if”, of course…)
5% (that’s all it is, the sliding scale is just fairy floss and everyone knows it).
Compensation to affected industries.
So the Libs can support it without giving the “brown lobby” any real reason to jack up too much.
And if the Libs do support it, and it goes through the Senate without much drama, I’m pretty sure most of the Green ire will be aimed at Labor, not at the Coalition.
[I don’t have the temperament to run for office as you may have noticed but I have offered to help someone run for the Senate in 2010. We’ll see what happens.]
G.G. Here’s your next campaign manager!
Wait, don’t tell me Diogenes…… is it Kermit?
Rudd has way oversold his green credentials. And that’s being generous, the harsh view would be to accuse him of being a blatant hypocrite.
I’d be very pissed off now, if I’d voted Labor in 07 on account of climate change.
For all those who say the 15% target is realistic and sensble politics, I have to ask – how do you even know this deal will pass the Senate? Has the deal already been done? Feilding is more conservative than most coalition members, as the cretins in Vic Labor who did the preference deal with him realise by now. What if he argues that there is no concensus on this target and votes no? It just seems weak to me.
Labor’s target reminds me of the US dems in congress. When they face a tough fight and they don’t think they will get a measure through the Senate they compromise before even sending a bill up for a vote. Then they look like the guilty party. Why not set a 20% target and have to negotiate it down to appease Fielding? At least it would show where the problem is. This way it exposes the fact that the biggest obstacle remaining after Howard is gone is the CFMEU.
If there is already some clever long term strategy agreed behind close doors and this is just the clever way to get the ETS in place then you can call the rest of us fools in a few years time. But in the mean time Labor has burnt a lot of political capital tonight. The weak target was bad enough; the compensation to the guilty parties just added insult to industry.
And I’m starting to get pretty tired of subsidising one payoff after another to those who have children. This one can’t be justified by arguments about recession and greater propensity to spend – its a straight bribe. An inability to practice contraception seems to be the one trait in life that is consistently financially rewarded these days.
Night bludgers. Enjoy your three years Labor staffers.
Ron
What if China or India don’t go with 15% at Copenhagen? Do we go with 15% then? How many need to sign Copenhagen? What if Obama wimps out, which is highly likely given his adoption of Hillary as SOS (shakes head, God how I suffered for that man, all that abuse from Finns, GG and you). What if they use Rudds lame emissions per capita argument, so they can keep their per capita emissions until they reach our target per capita? They’ll argue “why should the US, Oz etc be able to emit more CO2 per capita than us?”. It’s kind of hard to argue with that. That’s why fudgeing on the per capita thing is so dangerous.
Diogenes,
You clearly have passion without follow through. Support your friend whole heartedly because that is what they will need.
Wiining elections is more than a presence on a blog.
Fulvio
He’s not Green. He’s very Centre and independent. I’m trying to get him interested in Water. This is SA after all.
[Maybe, maybe not? Like I said, no one knows and we never will know.]
I think we do know. Massive scare campaign-defeat in senate-‘humiliating defeat’.
Mate the Libs scared up a defeat for national introduction of one of their own initiatives.
Yep – your right. It’s certainly not what I expected. If this is the best Labor can do which seems pretty ordinary to me) then the only thing I can think of thats good about it is…WWJD
(John, not Jesus)
Dyno
I partly agree and partly I don’t T
There ar politcal nuances domestic and overseas
Those that hav followed th politics of CC worldwide (where reel decsisions will be made) know USA is th problam , followed by Russia , query India/China depending on dev Country treatment that EU and Rudd suports BUT USA Obaam and McCain don’t
Same politcal mess here , a higher target BEFORE Coppenhaggen was goona get a Lib scaree campaign with credibility , and a lower one get opportunistic political heat from Greens, Fielding/X…..no target set by Rudd was going to get an easy passage
hence his low fixed one with realistic 15% negotiating
Rudd would hav been foolish to go high before Coppenhaggen , hav Libs scare run , and Coppenhaggen may end as zero What Rudd would do then he has cleverly held his cards
[Those that hav followed th politics of CC worldwide (where reel decsisions will be made) know USA is th problam ,]
You mean George W Bush, not the USA.
Dyno, I’d be more pissed off if the Libs were returned next election to delay the ETS for a further umpteen years.
[Mate the Libs scared up a defeat for national introduction of one of their own initiatives.]
So the Labor Party shouldn’t even bother negotiating with the the cross benchers? They should just say “Hey we won’t go it through so why try”?
Why didn’t do that with all their other bills? Why did they not bother negotiating with the minors? Why did they spend all the time they had in bed with the coal lobby?
Indians rule OK, not Brittania.
[Sachin Tendulkar crafted his 41st Test century as India stormed to a magnificent six-wicket victory over England in the first Test in Chennai. Tendulkar and Yuvraj Singh (85) contributed an unbeaten 163 to the home side’s 387-4 – the fourth highest successful run chase in Test history. ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/7782947.stm
It’s like being in the twilight zone, i thought whoever won election made decisions?
Since when do Labor need to discuss policies with then get permission from the opposition parties before they make a policy? What next, a seat for the whole mob Lib/nat included in ALP party room? I don’t want the Independent show pony, the FF stripper and (shudder) that Milne woman running the country. So far in the Senate everytime Rudd calls their bluff they fold pretty fast.
As for Rudd getting a flogging at next poll, I wouldn’t bet on it. For the last 12 months the Greens have said more negative things about Rudd than the fibs. Up til now I have always put Greens 2nd after ALP, not anymore. And I don’t reckon I’m Robinson Cruso on this.
I’d vote for Chuckies mum before voting for any party with the likes of Milne in it
Yep the Senate is the problem… Only slightly, if the Labor party cared state parliaments would be showing some initiative in regards to policy, instead here in Victoria it is more roads and desal plants and didn;t Rudd announce significant infrastructure programs on roads and on a rail line from the Hunter Valley a Coal plant to the port of Newcastle. Measures which are not about doing something about the problem. Seriously they do not get it… Russia at present are experiencing temperatures eight degrees above average and no snow and it is winter.
Climate change will only worsen… it will not go away.. With the arctic rapidly melting and Greenland and the Permafrost in Canada and Russia next significant more amounts of water and carbon will be realised into the atmosphere increasing temperatures more and increasing sea levels… Instead of carrying on about the Senate ask why can” some of our State Governments who have no Senates to worry about do something.
The Greens must have a split ticket next election at every polling booth… this would hurt Labor more than the Greens because many of its marginal seats needed green preferences to get over the line… and it may split Labor open and deserdedly so because they are doing very little and seemingly do not care. The problem is serious and each time you read scientists predictions regarding the consequences and how soon get closer and closer…
Our pollies children should start asking what are doing so that we can have a life similar to your own.
Go Vera!
Yeah Marky,
What we need is another ten year of Liberals. That’s what you support ain’t it?
[i thought whoever won election made decisions?]
Yes Vera, and like it or not, Xenophon, Fielding and Greens all won seats.
[The Greens must have a split ticket next election at every polling booth… ]
I think you are right, unless the Liberals like endorse a plan for nuclear power or something that really pisses the Greens off.
[this would hurt Labor more than the Greens because many of its marginal seats needed green preferences to get over the line…]
I doubt it. There are research papers that show that Greens preferences go to Labor 2/3 – 3/4 of the time with or without how to vote cards.
Remember, in a lot of seats outside the inner cities, the Greens can’t even get people to hand out how to vote cards.
Vera th magnificent