It’s looking a very merry Christmas for pensioners and families and, not unrelatedly, the Rudd government, which has added a further 1 per cent to its already formidable two-party lead in a Christmas eve Morgan face-to-face poll. Curiously, the Greens are down from 10.5 per cent to 6 per cent in a survey conducted half before and half after the government’s emissions trading scheme announcement of December 15. The slack has been taken up by a spike in the Labor primary vote from 48.5 per cent to 52.5 per cent, their best result in almost seven months. The Coalition primary vote is also up slightly, from 34.5 per cent to 35.5 per cent.
Morgan also produced two sets of leadership ratings last week, one comparing Rudd to Turnbull and the other comparing them both with their party colleagues. Rudd’s approval rating was up four points from the previous survey of October 15-16 to 68 per cent, while his lead over Turnbull as preferred prime minister had blown out from 62.5-24 to 69-20. Worringly for Turnbull, his approval rating was down 13 per cent to 42 per cent while his disapproval was up from 24 per cent to 37.5 per cent, a much sharper turnaround than recorded by Newspoll over the same period (from 50-25 to 47-32). The preferred Labor leader results turned up no surprises, but the Liberal ratings interestingly found Turnbull tied with Peter Costello on 28 per cent. This compared with Costello’s lead of 31 per cent to 20 per cent in the previous such survey of September 10-11, when Brendan Nelson was still leader.
Diogenes @ 297 –
Looks like 1 million is the target Rudd wants to stay under politically. One million unemployed would sound bad in an ad campaign.
The British with about 3 times our population are predicting unemployment there to hit 3 million next year (it’s already near 2 million). But their economy is already much worse than ours, so unless the brown stuff really hits the fan I can’t see us going as high as 1 million. I think Gillard is using the old ‘tell folks the sky is going to fall and when it doesn’t they’ll think you’re a genius’ technique.
MF
Gillard is saying 5.75%. It’s that dimwit Bishop who’s setting the bar at 8%.
So when Labor do much better than 8%, which looks very likely IMHO, Labor can point to Bishop’s predictions and say how well they’ve done. The Libs really need to get rid of Bishop to have any credibility. Nelson had no idea about politics but Bishop is even worse.
Gary Bruce @ 279
Happy with point B?
Um, not when CC response @ 5% is being downplayed for power maintenance purposes. Not practical. Not balanced.
Finns, Ron and GG
In the US, 2008 is going to end the same way it began, with Hill and Bill Clinton at centre stage. 🙁
[Clintons Selected To Drop Times Square Ball On NYE
Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, will kiss 2008 goodbye on the world’s biggest stage this New Year’s Eve.
That’s because Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that the Clintons will have the honor of pushing the ceremonial button that signals the Times Square New Year’s Eve Ball to begin lowering at 11:59 p.m. on Thursday night.]
[ and even then the Queenslanders would probably store most of it to create a few more inland Sydney Harbor’s to grow rice and cotton. ]
Hey Diog, did you realise Brisbane has been on level 5 water restrictions for a few years?
Geez you make some silly statements. I let your recent vile comment on CLL go through to the keeper, but for a supposedly educated person it is amazing how wrong you are, so often.
Boerwar,
CC is sorted as far as Rudd and co are concerned. A modest ETS scheme is in place and Australia can go along with any international consensus determined later. Your carping and whingeing is so 2008.
2009 is jobs, jobs, jobs. Get with the program.
ruawake
That was an attempt at humour. Lighten up.
And I’m not sure what I said about CLL that was so offensive. Whatever it was, I apologise for.
[ That was an attempt at humour. Lighten up. ]
A poor attempt 🙂
Have a look at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18656259?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Especially the bit that says “Physician use of specific euphemistic phrases to characterize CLL (e.g., “CLL is the ‘good’ leukemia”) was also associated with lower emotional QOL among patients (p<0.001). ”
🙂
Amigo GG,
My “Theory of wRONgness” is the equivalent of “The Theory of Everything” that Einstein failed to reach and Hawkins is still striving.
Basically, it says EVERYTHING about Diog is wRONg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
Whereas Amigo Ronnie is the classical representation of the STRING THEORY that combines the quantum mechanics of his posts and general relativity theory of the gravity of his prose, which only very few can really comprehend the profound implications for our universe. btw where is Amigo Ronnie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
ruawake
Thank you. I wasn’t aware of that study but I’ll take that on board. There are some studies about improved prognosis in breast cancer if patient’s have a “positive attitude”. I doubt that the doctor influences that though.
I certainly never would say something like CLL being the “good leukemia”. ALL’s prognosis is much better but there are no good diseases. Even when I talk to patient’s about BCC, which is about as harmless a cancer as possible (I’ve never seen a death), I don’t use that phrase. I’m just out to dinner with friend I’ve known for 30 years who got multiple myeloma at 30. He’s doing fantastically (two bone marrow transplants later).
If it’s any comfort, doctors tend to minimise their own and their relatives illnesses. That’s partly why so many commit suicide. It’s not just our patients we ignore . 😉
#305
[it is amazing how wrong you are, so often]
What else is there for me to say?
GG @ 306 –
2009 is jobs, jobs, jobs. Get with the program.
Germany, China, America and Spain have created several hundred thousand jobs on the back of Australian solar technology. Foreigners in the know come here to what they regard as solar’s holy grail expecting to see PVC panels everywhere and are left mystified by our indifference.
Especially, when they find out Rudd’s ETS is just a huge welfare scheme for the carbon based energy industry which will likely see our CO2 emissions increase by 10-20%, not fall 5% as claimed and which does nothing to boost investment in alternative energy. That’s an even worse outcome than we could have expected from arch climate change skeptic, John Winston Howard. I’m sure he must be alternating between wetting himself giggling and kicking himself for not having thought of the scam.
If Rudd was serious about jobs he’d use the billions he’s going to gift the coal power generators to boost the economy instead. As the white paper states, they’ll do alright without the largess.
________________________________________________
“By 2020 no Australian polluter will live in poverty”
Mayo,
If it’s such a goer then why don’t you punt your own money or form a consortium or do something apart from lecture the world about its failings to meet your standards of intellectual excellence.
gg @ 306
‘CC is so 2008 and jobs are 2009?’
Well, actually, it will be lack of jobs for 2009, and CC will destroy more jobs than Rudd would ever dream of creating in a life-time of well-crafted, practical and balanced re-elections.
Why lefties kow tow to King Coal is beyond me.
GG @ 313
Is your avatar a Jackie?
I agree that the job claims about low ETS targets are dubious. It is not so much jobs as money and the influence of a powerful union (CFMEU). The biggest at risk indsutry is not coal but aluminium, which is a high subsidy, low value, low employment industry.
As for overall jobs targets, I agree with Mayo. Julie “maths skills” Bishop has set way too high a target. Our not reaching it will only underline Australia’s relatively good economic position. Demographic change alone (declining % of working age population) means we will not see the same level of unemployment as the 70s, even if we have as bad a recession. There are more retirees needing services and fewer young looking for jobs. So 8% ain’t going to happen. Given a realistic stimulus and funding of major projects, we shouldn’t even get close.
Anyway, happy new year. Go Lions 🙂
GG @ 313
So, to be consistent with your standards, you have rounded up some mates to generate investments in King Coal? If so, you would have some good mates in the Liberal Party. *lol*. Wasn’t there an Energy and Resources Minister in an earlier Howard Government who, or whose family, was absolutely rolling in coal shares? No conflict of interest there, btw? I think Howard was good mates with him and they may even have shared flatspace at one stage. I might be wrong on all these little details – but you get the drift. The Libs were in bed with King Coal.
I do have a small investment where my mouth is, more or less, at. Check out Dyesol:
http://www.eco-web.com/register/01031.html
IMHO, an excellent Australian breakthrough technological development which will have world-wide implications in terms of reducing the costs of third generation solar. My only real worry is (not the money – too small an amount) that successive Australian Government approaches will end up with this important bit of solar technology also heading overseas. For our economic future we desperately need to hang onto this sort of stuff and to develop our own sunrise industries around it. My guess? It is a takeover target by O/S solar interests and, yet again, others will benefit from truly exceptional Australian scientific brains and from the lack of brains on the part of governments.
BTW, Martin Ferguson knows about Dyesol and is supportive, but, unfortunately, you can’t isolate particular Ministerial support for this stuff from the Government’s generally unsupportive approach to solar in its CC response framework. Yes, yet another small victory for King Coal. A fomer Lib Minister for Energy and Resources would probably be pleased as punch.
* conflict of interest statement. I have shares in Dyesol.
Warwick Parer was the Howard Minister with millions in mining shares. It was embarrassing as I recall because back then it was before he put in all the escape clauses in his code of conduct
[Happy with point B?]
Happy or not, that is the reality of the situation and always will be Boerwar. You are right. The only difficulty for people like yourself is coming to terms with that fact.
I really think the problem you’re having stems from your naive belief that Rudd was above politics. Anyone who saw how he operated all through 2007 could only come to one conclusion, that being that this man is a master politician.
[That’s an even worse outcome than we could have expected from arch climate change skeptic, John Winston Howard. I’m sure he must be alternating between wetting himself giggling and kicking himself for not having thought of the scam.]
So doing something, like setting up the whole mechanism, is worse than doing nothing? I just must be missing something.
So tell me, which comes first, destroying jobs in one area or creating new jobs in another area?
Gary Bruce
Good point, true, true, he tricked me, a little bit *grins sheepishly*. I had some naive thoughts that Rudd was a leader with some sort of vision for the future other than for his own re-election. It is why I voted for him. Silly me. His response to CC scuppered those sort of thoughts completely. On second-order issues he has been quite good and I have been pleased. It is just on the one big thing that I mark him as a ‘Fail’.
I do recall thinking during the election that he was uncannily like Howard in his single-minded approach to garnering and maintaining power. So, perhaps I was not completely naive, just hopeful? Unsurprisingly, the system best rewards evolutionary convergent HowRudds, or, as you call them, ‘master politicians’. Occasionally, a truly great leader comes along who changes the system. Rudd is not one of them, so, to the degree that Australia will contribute effectively to the development of an international CC response, that response will be inadequate.
The party/political vacuum flask and the folk who inhabit it will continue to say, ‘balanced’, ‘practical’, ‘realistic’ and so on; you know, the opposite to ‘naive’. GG (above) even thinks that ‘CC is sorted out as far as Rudd and Co are concerned’. Talk about reality! That really generated a belly laugh for me, for which I was grateful.
The reality is, that if Rudd lasts long enough, and if he is not rescued by the World’s response to CC, then of course CC will sort him out, not the other way around. That would not be such a bad thing in itself. After all, he should pay for his one big mistake. The truly bad thing is that CC reality will sort the rest of us out as well, all of us, the practical, the balanced, the pragmatic, the naive, the hopeful, and the true believers, one and all.
321 – Good passionate speech Boerwar. What I gleaned from it is that Rudd tricked you but he didn’t and you don’t like being called naive. Oh, and you obviously think Australia can save the world.
I agree with GG.
Happy New Year to all you Poll Bludgers.
There should be many interesting polls & political manouvers throughout 2009 to keep William busy directing traffic from all the regular posters on his site.
1978 Cabinet Papers have been released 🙂 And guess who was Treasurer ? 🙂
[Newly-released Cabinet documents show that 30 years ago, former prime minister Malcolm Fraser’s government was grappling with economic problems similar to those facing Kevin Rudd.
In 1978, the Treasury coffers were controlled by a young man called John Howard.
Cabinet documents released by the National Archives show as he prepared his first budget, the future prime minister was worried about a blow out in the deficit, and he pushed hard to slash welfare and defence spending.
Fred Chaney, who was in the Fraser ministry, says the papers contain valuable lessons for Mr Rudd.
“The lesson is that governments need to be very careful in structuring their budgets in ways which give them permanent difficulties with respect to bringing their budgets back into surplus,” he said.
Mr Howard also took a hard line against the states, concerned they were borrowing excessively for infrastructure.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/01/2457498.htm?section=justin
In reply to Frank @ 324 – have bought a record player that converts LPs to CDs. Played a Redgum LP this evening “Redgum – Virgin Ground – tried to find on youtube not on video. The first verse is:
“The Money’s No Good” – Schumann
You get out of bed about half-past seven
Your days are hell so sleeping’s heaven
Unfold the paper over yesterday’s meal
Good morning Mr Howard, how do you feel?
Another batch of figures says everything’s fine
But that’s not what they’re saying on the dole-form line.
The Redgum album was released in 1980!
Gary Bruce
If it was naive of me to hope for more from Rudd on Climate Change Response than a miserable 5%-15%, a half-arsed ETS, and a wet blanket for the international negotiations, then so be it. I will fess up. I was naive in that hope. You are right, I have not enjoyed the feeling. In good faith, that naive hope earned my vote.
OTOH, in some ways some of my hopes in Rudd are being fulfilled. I believe that the initiatives taken for Indigenous people and the apology are light years ahead of where Howard would ever have got to. So, it is very satisfying for me to see that my vote was not totally wasted.
BTW, I would appreciate it if you didn’t verbal me. I have never said that Australia could save the world. (Given the Howard and Rudd Government records on CC response, perish the very thought). I have said that there was a small window of Australian influence on the only CC game in town, and that is the international negotiations. This small opportunity to make a real difference has been wasted, or even undermined, by the approach of the Rudd Government. That’s it. A Fail on the single biggest issue that the Rudd Government will ever face.
I am now hoping that what the Rudd Government does, or says it will do, will not have an impact on the final form and extent of the global climate change response. Perhaps I am being naive in that hope as well.
BTW, being consistent, I have also said that if the international game fails, Australia may as well abandon the ETS @ 5%. It would not be just a bad joke. It would be an expensive waste of money. All those regulations. All those countings of this and that and measuring of this and that. All those lawyers making contracts and all sorts of useful legal papers. All those bureaucrats. All that lobbying. All those deals. All those twists and turns. All the sharks that smell free rent. All the smaller sharks ready to take their margins on the way through. I suppose it will ‘create’ some jobs, but they would be very, very expensive jobs. Bottom line: all those overheads for mere global statistical noise, for a celestial fart’s worth of difference.
I have suggested instead that if the international negotiations fail, the 5% ETS funding would be better allocated to ameliorating climate change damage, starting with Australia’s first climate change victims – those who have already lost their livelihoods in the Murray Darling Basin.
To reiterate my main message: There is a difference between a good politican, even a master politician, and a good leader. Good politicians more or less muddle through pretty well in normal times and within the existing systems. Master politicians go a step further. They achieve some remarkable things within the system. On the other hand, good leaders rise to abnormal times and may change systems to do so. We have very abnormal times. We need a leader but we have a master politician – a HowRudd, noting that the values of the HowRudds can influence the delivery of bounded outcomes.
I note you agree with GG that ‘CC is sorted out as far as Rudd and Co are concerned’. LoL. It would be nice to think that Climate Change trends show even the faintest traces of the Rudd and Co ‘sorting out’. OTOH, Rudd and Co may have plenty of opportunity to sort out what CC delivers over the next 12 years or so.
Boerwar,
Coming in off a long run at 5 am. The pills or alcohol must be working.
CC is sorted in that this Government has laid down its policy for all to see, examine and criticise. I don’t envisage any significant change to that policy during this term. I expect the Libs will support the Government in the end. Effectively, parties representing 85% + of the Australian poplulation will have reached a consensus. Ain’t politics grand?
That you find yourself outside that consensus is disappointing for you and all the other left wing green fundamentalists. It seems that the number of words generated by this cabal is inversely proportional to the amount of popular support they have in mainstream Australia.
But, of course you always have your delusional moral perspective of saving the world from itself. You also have your quasi religious scientific modelling to fall back on (add 0.1 degree and the moon will become a desolate and sparse wasteland or is that Adelaide. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference). Finally, you can always resort to that cute doe eyed look as you lament that Rudd has disappointed you.
Please keep up the invective against those of us who believe in modest change and trust their elected government to come up with realistic solutions to complex problems. And, don’t let me stop you whingeing. It helps our cause!
Re unemployment, I’d have thought Gillard’s 5.75% is quite optimistic. However it’s early days yet, maybe we’ll be fine, another three months and we’ll have much more idea. And I agree Bishop is a moron for predicting 8%, why not just hold Gillard accountable for her prediction?
Re CC, I think GG and GB miss the point. Like many Liberals I am perfectly happy with what Rudd has now proposed, it is a sensible and measured approach that is appropriate for a player of Australia’s (somewhat limited) importance. That doesn’t alter the fact that he led people to believe back in 2007 that we could lead the world in combating CC. I always thought this was a ludicrous proposition and Rudd himself has proved me right.
Happy New Year all.
Dyno,
Like the strawman argument at the end. However, the reality is Rudd promised to ratify Kyoto, appointed Garnaut to investigate and report back on CC and promised to introduce an ETS sooner rather than later. Mission Accomplished.
That the Libs could have (should have) done the same was their missed opportunity. Who misled the electorate by going to the polls with a “ludicrous” policy and now have flip flopped to basically support the policy of Rudd and Co? Hint it is not Labor.
[Mr Chaney said the prime minister’s wife, Tammie, gave the best possible answer to the great concern of many people. “She told an interview on TV something like this: `The policy must be right mustn’t it, because who would do something as awful as that if it wasn’t right’.”]
http://news.smh.com.au/business/fraser-hiked-up-locally-produced-petrol-20090101-781d.html
Janet should have made a similar statement in support of Work Choices, it would have reassured people and we may have seen a different outcome at the election.
[but we have a master politician – a HowRudd,]
Boerwar, same comparisons were done of Hawke in the early years, I remember the sketches by socialist papers showing Hawke metamorphising into Fraser under the heading ‘ “Awke” its Malcolm Hawke”.
Hawke and co ended up achieving a lot and agree with you that Rudd may too and at this stage he is looking like the riskless taker of Malcolm Hawke.
Well I’m certainly not here to defend Howard’s CC policy.
Having said that, do you think Garnaut is happy with what Rudd has done – sure doesn’t look like it to me!
I have no doubt Rudd will get away with this bit of cynicism – new Govts (of either persuasion) nearly always do. But why pretend it is anything other than politically motivated cynicism?
Dyno,
You call it cynicism, I call it the introduction of a broadly accepted ETS policy. Your only grievance seems to be it wasn’t your side that done it.
Here’s an interesting take on the Liberal predicament. Wouldn’t want to be Malcolm driving ETS reform through his party.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=9&ContentID=114112
[That doesn’t alter the fact that he led people to believe back in 2007 that we could lead the world in combating CC. I always thought this was a ludicrous proposition and Rudd himself has proved me right.]
More Liberal propaganda. Rudd at no time mentioned targets. Please back this statement of yours up Dyno with words from Rudd’s mouth and none of this “Oh, he didn’t actually say it, he just gave the impression” BS. That’s on a par with Milne’s “Rudd promised lower petrol prices and food prices” argument. Total crap.
333 – Spot on GG.
Greensborough Growler (328) – Good shot old boy. Straight over the bowlers head for 6.
Greensborough Growler @ 313 –
Mayo,
If it’s such a goer then why don’t you punt your own money
Well I’ve already invested nearly $6K on personal renewable energy, and am now actively pursuing opportunities in large-scale (1 MW/p+) solar projects in Spain. With a government guaranteed tariff of between AU$0.65 – 0.90 KW/h for 25 years (which provides a minimum return of 12%) it is too good to pass up. The only barrier is language.
Gary Bruce @ 320
So doing something, like setting up the whole mechanism, is worse than doing nothing? I just must be missing something.
What part of the “‘mechanism,’ as announced, will produce a worse outcome than if nothing was done,” don’t you understand Gary?
So tell me, which comes first, destroying jobs in one area or creating new jobs in another area?
Who is claiming that one has to precede the other? Do you have any evidence that employment in Denmark, which now produces nearly 20% of its electricity needs from renewables, has been adversely affected? What about Germany, America, China, or Spain? Each are continuing to invest heavily in renewable energy projects despite the GFC. Indeed, it is about the only bright spot of their economies ATM.
According to the green paper, even a real 25% target would, at worst, have only reduce GDP growth, note growth, not total GDP, by 1% by 2020. Which means it would have taken 3 or 4 months longer to achieve a particular growth target. That is insignificant, especially when compared to the effects CC will have on GDP.
For that matter, do you have any evidence that workers in the coal-fired generator sector are at greater risk of becoming unemployed?
Both the green and white paper state (from CPRS vol 2, p 13-10):
Mayo,
Sources of “Personal renewable energy”: An investment Guide.
1. A new bed? A steady but snoring return on investment.
2. A new bed and a new girlfriend? Expensive to start up and you can’t always be sure you have the right equipment.
3. Your new girl friend on your new bed and her father with a shotgun? Can mean an overcommittment to ageing technology that is very expensive to liquidate when a better opportunity arises.
In search of a new political term.
My two favourites from the Krugman blog are:
[There has to be some word for the kind of person who considers his mild discomfort the equivalent of torture, crippling injury, or death for other people.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/looking-for-a-word/?apage=1#comments
]
[But seriously there is a sweet spot between ‘narcissism’ and ’sociopathy’ that fits the bill here. Perhaps we could coin a neologism and just call Gonzo a ‘narcipath’.]
[hyperpathia = an exaggerated pain response to a mild or otherwise inocuous stimulus. I believe Prof K has uncovered the syndrome of political hyperpathia.]
[Well I’ve already invested nearly $6K on personal renewable energy, and am now actively pursuing opportunities in large-scale (1 MW/p+) solar projects in Spain. With a government guaranteed tariff of between AU$0.65 – 0.90 KW/h for 25 years (which provides a minimum return of 12%) it is too good to pass up. The only barrier is language.]
Now I get where you are coming from Mayo. Yep, I’d be pissed too if a government stood in my way of making a good living I must admit.
[What part of the “‘mechanism,’ as announced, will produce a worse outcome than if nothing was done,” don’t you understand Gary?]
Mayo, with all due respect, what part of “start slowly so that all are on board and something actually happens” don’t you understand?
MayoFeral at 292. No doubt the water in the lakes and lower Murray had elevated salt levels but nothing like sea water (30,000ppm). Humans find water at around 10% of that level too salty to drink so there is plenty of room to speculate. The whole area being tidal does mean some mixing of sea water but your note from Sturt doesn’t tell us much beyond the water is too salty to drink. Having marine fish species up the river again doesn’t tell us much about salt levels – many fish species are happy to move between the sea and fresh water rivers as part of their life cycle.
Gary @ 341/2
If I wanted to make a good living in Australia, I’d invest in coal. Thanks to Rudd the industry is in for a bonanza!
Australia’s action or inaction don’t affect whatever opportunities are available elsewhere. Indeed, if anything, Australia’s disinterest may spur those countries that are serious, like Spain, to go the extra mile, possibly making investing in their renewable initiatives even more attractive.
As for the “start slowly” policy, there are several problems you need to address.
Firstly, whether the target is 5%, 15%, 25% or 100%, under the announced model the outcome will still be more CO2 emitted than by doing nothing, at least the same, probably greater disincentives for renewables, and the same signal to the rest of the world that despite our whining about being the country that will suffer the most in a hotter world we’re not actually prepared to help ourselves in any meaningful way.
Unless the fundamental flaws the government has introduced in the white paper – the massive wealth transfer to emitters, the free permits with an inbuilt automatic increases as emissions grow (by 2020 nearly half of all the permits issued will be freebies which will put an enormous strain on those not getting them, assuming the government doesn’t cave in, which it will unless it wants to see an unemployment rate well into double figures), allowing unused freebies to be sold, the inefficiencies of only having a few emitters in the scheme plus lesser concerns too numerous to mention – are fixed the target doesn’t matter because it won’t be met.
Secondly, the only time any target other than the 5% is mentioned in the white paper is in reports of submissions received to the initial green paper. The white paper contains almost no modelling or calculations for any other target.
Thirdly, having showered the worst emitters with largess for a paltry 5%, where is the money coming from to compensate them as “adequately” for 15/20/25%? Increased taxation? LOL
The government has shot its bolt on 5%, Gary. That is all there is, the rest is plain, unadulterated bull manure.
MayoFeral
spot on
GB, GG et al
Happy to discuss issues but I will be ignoriing personal attacks which seems to be your plan B when, for party political reasons, you are stuck with an indefensible policy:
a 5% bad joke, an an international wet blanket in the negotiations, and a badly flawed ETS.
If the Liberals do end up supporting it, it will be because it is generally consistent with what they have been espousing for their 11 years of do-nothing on CC response. Why this would be regarded as a sign of success is beyond me. What we will have is the triumph of the Howrudds and a major failure of public policy.
Well amusing to see Turnbull’s New Year’s message on TV tonight – “cheer up this year shouldn’t be so bad”! Whuh? Obviously someone has told him the doom and gloom spiel wasn’t helping his ratings so now he is switching to a more positive spin. Presumably it will leave him better placed to attaack the government if things go worse. The funny thing is, next to his previous negative statements and now Bishop’s (unnecessary) prediction of 8% unemployment it is completely schizophrenic. Do the coalition think we are facing a problem or not? Do they plan to support stimulus measures or oppose them? First QT in 2009 should be a hoot.
Socrates @ 346
Yes, they are a rabble. Turnbull should have used the off season for a spring clean with Julie first out the door. His problems were the crazy right and the disproportionate number of WA libs. They now include his polling numbers and the increasing sense of doom.
Costello is positioning himself. The only real question left for the Libs is, ‘When?’ He himself must be wondering, ‘Why?’
NZ’s Conservative Government are going to scale back their CC targets to fit Rudd’s.
[Asked in Parliament yesterday by one of his own MPs about “the need to be cautious” in implementing an emissions-trading scheme, Mr Key cited Australia’s scheme – called a carbon pollution reduction scheme.
“We need to make sure that New Zealand’s measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are aligned as appropriate with those measures taken in Australia.”
He said the Government would be “balancing our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.”
Environment Minister Nick Smith also indicated that New Zealand would be readjusting its ambition more in line with Australia, telling Newstalk ZB that countries had been promising huge targets, that Australia was honest and should not be condemned for it.]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10548431
Last year was an excellent year for Labor according to the polls. I see no reason for that to change in 2009. Rudd and his team have done an outstanding job given it was their first year in government after almost 12 years.
The strongest and most economically responsible initiative to be introduced was the CPRS, with its guaranteed minimum cut of 5% to 15% in emissions. Any hope for the conservatives of Rudd acting economically irresponsible with the ETS (as some have suggested here) has flown out the window.
Rudd has acted on CC, has acted properly, and will be rewarded at the next election.
Centre
I’m sure the ETS has gone down well, although that doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do to meet “the greatest moral challenge of our generation”.
Be that as it may, Rudd is still committed to a 60% carbon reduction by 2050, based on 2000 levels. I’m not sure how a 5% reduction over the 20 years from 2000-2020 means we are on target for the 55% reduction needed over 30 years to 2050.
5% over 20 years followed by a further 55% over the next 30 years. So we need to increase our drop in emissions by 7 times after 2020 compared to the years before.
It just ain’t gonna happen.