Unpredictable Roy Morgan has unloaded two very different sets of poll results: one using its usual face-to-face methodology, but based on one week’s sample rather than the recently more usual two, and the other a phone poll in which respondents were also asked about leadership preference, contrary to normal Morgan practice. The face-to-face poll is from 999 respondents, and shows Labor’s lead narrowing from 60-40 to 58-42. Labor’s primary vote is down 0.5 per cent to 49.5 per cent, while the Coalition is up a quite healthy 3.5 per cent to a still not-healthy 37.5 per cent. The Greens are down a point to 8 per cent.
However, the phone poll has Labor’s two-party lead at a more modest 54.5-45.5, from primary votes of 45 per cent Labor, 40.5 per cent Coalition and 7.5 per cent Greens. At present, a dedicated page for the phone poll result tells us only that Kevin Rudd leads Malcolm Turnbull as preferred prime minister 60.5 per cent to 26.5 per cent; that Rudd’s approval rating is 57.5 per cent; and that Turnbull’s approval rating is 43 per cent. Perhaps it will be fleshed out with more information at a later time.
Two other pieces of news:
• It seems Andrew Wilkie will run as an independent candidate for Denison at next year’s Tasmanian state election. Wilkie is the former Office of National Assessments analyst who quit over the Howard government’s actions before the Iraq war, and subsequently ran as a Greens candidate against John Howard in Bennelong in 2004 and as Bob Brown’s Tasmanian Senate running mate in 2007.
• A beleagured British Labour Party is considering sweeping electoral reforms, including an elected upper house. House of Commons reforms might presumably include some kind of preferential voting, which Britain’s three-plus party system badly needs, or more radically proportional representation, with which Britons have become familiar through elections for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, its members of European Parliament, and local government.
[“Kevin Rudd’s popularity (60.5%, down 8.5%) amongst Australian electors has retreated in recent months from the highs of last December. Rudd’s popularity at 60.5%, although down is still above the level (55%) it was at the time the ‘Global Financial Crisis’ began with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008.”]
What a pointless comparison. Since December???
Ruawake
Did you believe the Minerals Industry report? Seriously?
“When will it get into the pure heads, of some, that an ETS with 1% cuts is incredibly difficult to get up? ”
So because it’s hard we avoid making the hard choice?
“Every one who wants a mechanism for reducing CO2 emissions should back the Govt. Not because it is perfect, it has major flaws. But the alternative is zilch.”
Err no. If the govt negotiated with the Greens and X they could get one through.
The Govt want us to think the alternative is zilch, but that’s simply not true.
[I disagree, people aren’t so simple-minded as you think. The Greens have made it pretty clear the current ETS is no good, and why they would vote against it. If the Govt just plows ahead without negotiating they will be just as responsible for it failing. With the current Upper House split they need to negotiate.]
And tell me what compromise can you see happening that will see the Greens and the Libs agreeing on the same ETS? The government has already been seen as “caving in” to the Libs remember. So the Libs will look real bad and the Greens to most I’m sure look extreme.
[All the polling suggests people want a strong ETS but when given an option between a stronger ETS with a small number of jobs lost, compared with a weak ETS and minimal job losses I think the latter would win.]
Provided that the job being lost doesn’t belong to the people being interviewed!
If there was a survey done using the question “Do you support an ETS, even if it increases the chance of YOU losing YOUR job?” I’d be shocked if 50% of people said YES.
Negotiate! Greens want 40% target and Milne was on TV 2 weeks ago saying they would not budge.
Amazing that Bob Brown is one of Obama’s biggest fans and hasn’t said anything about his 17% target but slagged off Rudd for his 5-15% and not satisfied with a now possible 25%.
Gary
“And tell me what compromise can you see happening that will see the Greens and the Libs agreeing on the same ETS? ”
why would the libs and the Greens have to agree? You don’t need both.
I can’t say what the Greens would agree to, I don’t have any inside info.
The evidence question was rhetorical, you provided no ‘evidence’ for your opinion.
[It’s always easy to say you support a good issue as an isolated outcome (eg CO2 reduction, saving forests, more hospital beds) but when put in an economic context the answer is often quite different.
(Shakes head) I’m sounding like a Labor hack myself now!]
Don’t despair Dio when reality hits it can be brutal.
Vera and Gary
So Labor won’t negotiate? I don’t think that will sell well.
[Amazing that Bob Brown is one of Obama’s biggest fans and hasn’t said anything about his 17% target but slagged off Rudd for his 5-15% and not satisfied with a now possible 25%.]
But doesn’t the U.S. bill propose a cut of 17% from 2005 levels, whereas our ETS is proposing a cut of 5 – 25 from 2000 levels? So it is hard to directly compare them?
Astrobleme
The Govt started the process in Opposition (Garnaut) they had a green paper, a white paper and now policy.
If it does not pass the Senate it will be blamed on The Greens (if they do not support it) even if the Rabble also vote against it.
[So Labor won’t negotiate? I don’t think that will sell well.]
Of course they will negotiate, but they won’t agree to wrecking amendments that will turn it into a complete different scheme.
[If it does not pass the Senate it will be blamed on The Greens (if they do not support it) even if the Rabble also vote against it.]
Come on this isn’t very fair considering all 5 Greens could vote against it, and it could STILL be blocked.
I find it very hard to believe the Greens will get blamed if they vote for it! More likely the Liberals will be blamed, we already know the Nationals are voting against it.
56 Astrobleme – Take a look at the latest opinion polls Astro and tell me where the ETS is affecting Labor. People are aware of the ETS.
Labor may not need the Libs AND the Greens but if they go down the path of the Greens they will lose Fielding for sure and X is an unknown quantity.
Astrobleme
It was Milne on PM Agenda a couple of weeks ago refusing to budge from the Greens 40% target. How are Labor supposed to negotiate with a stubborn attitude like that?
[Come on this isn’t very fair considering all 5 Greens could vote against it, and it could STILL be blocked.]
I meant all Greens could vote FOR it.
SHowsOn
“Of course they will negotiate, but they won’t agree to wrecking amendments that will turn it into a complete different scheme.”
I agree with you about the compromise position, remeber this discussion started because Gary Bruce said
“It’s this ETS or the highway”
I disagreed, If the Labor party don’t negotiate on this they will suffer more than the Greens.
[Labor may not need the Libs AND the Greens but if they go down the path of the Greens they will lose Fielding for sure and X is an unknown quantity.]
X isn’t an unknown quantity at all. He opposes trading schemes and instead supports a Carbon tax that slowly increases every year.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25096826-5018312,00.html
Labor DOES need the Libs or Greens to get this passed.
[I disagreed, If the Labor party don’t negotiate on this they will suffer more than the Greens.]
I would say it is more than fair for the government to PRETEND that they won’t support amendments. The Government has a right to use as much pressure at first to get Senators to agree to their position. Of course we know the real horse trading starts when the bills go to the Senate.
Vera
“It was Milne on PM Agenda a couple of weeks ago refusing to budge from the Greens 40% target. How are Labor supposed to negotiate with a stubborn attitude like that?”
How is this any different from the Labor Party attitude? You have Gary Bruce saying that “It’s this ETS or the highway”
The Labor Party want us to think that it is this ETS or the Highway, but it isn’t. That’s the point I am trying to make,.
ShowsOn
“I would say it is more than fair for the government to PRETEND that they won’t support amendments. The Government has a right to use as much pressure at first to get Senators to agree to their position. Of course we know the real horse trading starts when the bills go to the Senate.”
Yes, for sure.
Let’s hope it’s a Labor-Green-X compromise rather than a Labor-Lib-Nat-Fielding compromise!
I thought the Greens had agreed to drop the mandatory cut from 40% to 25%, which was at least a step in the right direction although there’s no way Labor will go that far IMHO.
[X isn’t an unknown quantity at all. He opposes trading schemes and instead supports a Carbon tax that slowly increases every year.]
Ok, then Labor doesn’t need the Greens, they need the Libs. If X is going to vote against the ETS for being “the wrong system” then only having the Greens and Fielding onside will not give them the numbers required. The Nationals will vote against it no matter what.
Gary
Wouldn’t it be more likely for a Labor-Greens arrangement to be accepted by X? If Labor and the Greens came to an arrangement, there would be huge pressure for X (or even Fielding) to pass it.
Gary Bruce & Diogenes # 57
[It’s always easy to say you support a good issue as an isolated outcome (eg CO2 reduction, saving forests, more hospital beds) but when put in an economic context the answer is often quite different.
(Shakes head) I’m sounding like a Labor hack myself now!
Don’t despair Dio when reality hits it can be brutal.]
You are talking there about the short-term economic context. That is what suits the government, which is driven by short-term political considerations (the next election), which is why they’ve put the whole plan off until then.
But the proper approach is not to put climate change into a short-term economic context – but the long-term one. The Stern Report made clear that the future economy depends on the right emissions decisions being made NOW. Not when the current ‘temporary’ economic problems abate. They may abate much for a long time.
As reported recently recently about Tony Blair’s comments on it:
[In prepared remarks, the former prime minister acknowledged that world leaders would be consumed by their efforts to climb out of the economic recession. “But 2009 should also be the year we summon the will and the wit to conclude a new treaty on climate change,” he said. “We can not ignore it. To do so would be to multiply the risks to our future economy as well as environment.”]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/03/tony-blair-climate-change-obama
This is a scientific reality that must be addressed. That’s where you start – not with short-term political considerations and then work backwards. If you do that you are in danger of becoming another “Minister For Not Yet” like Penny W.
Astro
Look how the mining industry are carrying on about job losses at 5%. labor is trying to negotiate with all involved, business, green groups alike. 40% is just not credible IMO
[The Labor Party want us to think that it is this ETS or the Highway, but it isn’t. That’s the point I am trying to make.]
It should be IMHO. The Labor Party has gone a long way towards the Libs view. Why should they have to go further? They certainly won’t get anywhere going down the Green’s path.
74
“They may abate much for a long time” should of course read: “They may NOT abate much for a long time “
Diogenes, if the Greens target is now 25% I’ll be happy with them just this once 😉
[The Labor Party want us to think that it is this ETS or the Highway, but it isn’t. That’s the point I am trying to make,.]
Sorry but it is. OK Senate you reject our legislation – Greens, X, Rabble sort it out yourselves. We have our position.
Next election – ALP we have our position on an ETS. Rabble – well we kind of support it but not until 2025. Greens our position is even scarier than wot the Rabble said against the ALP.
ALP win election – Greens seen a spoilers and yet again fail to win a Senate spot in NSW,Vic,Qld .
Gary,
“It should be IMHO. The Labor Party has gone a long way towards the Libs view. Why should they have to go further? They certainly won’t get anywhere going down the Green’s path.”
They need to negotiate, they can’t avoid it. If they had won control in the Senate they could do what they like, but they didn’t.
[Let’s hope it’s a Labor-Green-X compromise rather than a Labor-Lib-Nat-Fielding compromise!]
The Nats have already voted internally and have since stated that they won’t be supporting an ETS in any way shape or form. Senator Barnaby Joyce stated the same in the Senate last Thursday:
[Those opposite talk about certainty. I will give you certainty. How is ‘no’ for certainty? ‘No’ is a very certain word; it is very easy to understand. You talk about arguing for a position. It is an amorphous, nebulous concept of this bumper sticker morality which has become the ETS scheme. The answer is no.]
Senate Hansard, 14/5/09, Page 23
http://aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds140509.pdf
74 jaundiced – reality hasn’t struck yet in this neck of the woods obviously.
Ruawake
Well, that may be the gamble the Govt takes…
However, the current govt split is that the Govt needs to negotiate to pass bills. I feel like I am just stating the obvious here.
[I thought the Greens had agreed to drop the mandatory cut from 40% to 25%, which was at least a step in the right direction although there’s no way Labor will go that far IMHO.]
I think 15% is a distinct possibility given that the U.S. will be on 17% and most European countries at least that, if not more.
But remember, we need a system in place to enforce a target! If we have no ETS, then you can have all the targets you want, but we won’t have a way of achieving them.
ShowsOn
A Labor-Lib-Nat-Fielding compromise would have been the WORST option by a mile.
80 Astrobleme – Gee that sounds easy. “They must negotiate.” Negotiate what? How do you string together an ETS that won’t upset one side or the other when the gaps between them are gaping canyons?
[A Labor-Lib-Nat-Fielding compromise would have been the WORST option by a mile.]
If the Libs vote for it, the Nats and Fielding aren’t required…
But it would be a peculiar NO coalition, the Greens, Nats and Xenophon. 😀
Gary
It would seem the target is the biggest stumbling block.
Of course it will be hard, but hey that’s what they’re paid to do!
Let’s just not be fooled by the ‘our way or the highway’ rhetoric.
ShowsOn
I wonder what the Greens would do if the Libs say yes… That would be interesting…
For me that would be the worst option, as I think we need strong targets.
[It would seem the target is the biggest stumbling block.
Of course it will be hard, but hey that’s what they’re paid to do!]
My ideal compromise would be for the Government to agree to removing the ban on domestic nuclear power, provided the Opposition agrees to a mandatory 15% cut.
If that happened then I’d be SURE the Government and Opposition were both serious about this problem.
[From 2002 to 2009, voters’ partisan identification has moved from virtual parity — 43 percent Republican and 43 percent Democratic at the height of George W. Bush’s popularity in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 — to a massive Democratic advantage today of 53 to 36, a 17 percentage point split, by far the largest difference in the past two decades.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obamas-new-electorate-pol_n_206249.html
Never know Malcolm might decide to pass a 5% target to keep business onside and make himself relevent into the bargain. Business are always banging on about needing a decicion made so they have certainty.
Astrobleme
You think the Govt. is doing this for fun? Politics is hardball stuff. They have put forward their proposal, which is the only one likely to be adopted.
They will continue trying to get the legislation passed. It will dawn on voters that it is the others who are the spoilers.
[I wonder what the Greens would do if the Libs say yes… That would be interesting…]
That would be the WORST outcome for the Greens, because they would instantly become COMPLETELY irrelevant!
At the moment they have a moderate bargaining position PROVIDED they bias themselves in favour of supporting the scheme. If they rock up to the Senate all militant and REFUSE to vote for the scheme without the 25% mandatory cut, then they will just deal themselves out of the negotiations.
[Never know Malcolm might decide to pass a 5% target to keep business onside and make himself relevent into the bargain.]
If you believe Paul Kelly, Turnbull is under enormous pressure from the business community who want the government’s modified scheme enacted before the next election. Big business is paranoid that a Labor-Green compromise passed after an election would be much harsher.
Arthur Sinodinus’ (who is in a pre-selection battle for Brendan Nelson’s seat) op ed in The Australian a couple of weeks ago said the same thing. He wrote that the Liberals will be completely handicapped if they have to fight the next election on the ETS or climate change more broadly. His opinion is the Liberals should pass the government’s scheme in the Senate, but then reserve the right to change it if they win the election.
ShowsOn
It would be a nightmare… But it might always smash the Libs… Probably the best thing for Labor…
I would be very disappointed with the Greens and the Govt if they can’t get this together.
Vera
Do you not think the Libs would suffer if they passed the bill?
All of this quibbling about the angst and difficulty of the local politics on climate change is missing the larger point.
Blair is spot (in the article linked at 74 above) on about what is required from governments like Rudd’s, but which is not forthcoming – I think he must have read some of my posts from a while back 🙂 :
[Blair said he identified with leaders facing the competing pressures of the economic recession and climate change.
“It is not so long that I have been out of office that I don’t still understand what it is like to have to take those practical decisions,” he said. “It is always more difficult when in a sense you have short term pressures but the challenge is a long term challenge that you know is acute.”
He added: “It does require a special kind of leadership.”]
Should be enough to make Kevin and Penny blush.
[I would be very disappointed with the Greens and the Govt if they can’t get this together. ]
I think I can guess what is going to happen. If it looks like Fielding and Xenophon are going to support it, the Greens will oppose it due to the compromises required to get Xenofielding’s support. If only one half of Xenofielding will support it, the Greens will vote for it so they can point out that they were constructive and didn’t block it.
The Greens don’t want to look obstructionist, but I don’t think they like the scheme at all.
When push comes to shove, I think the Liberals will oppose it, which would mean it will become a huge issue at the next election – does the populace want a carbon trading scheme when the economy is only just starting to recover?
No offence but the Wilkie thing is quite old news. i am pretty sure at some point i have mentioned it a while ago. Not that i can bleame anyone for not noticing with the wolrd the way it is these days and so much going on.
Shows on
Can’t they get it through like they got the anti-workchoices legislation through? When they only had Fielding and the Greens? Or did I misunderstand that process?