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.
Sorry Xenophon and the Greens.
Fielding gives Head job (hat tip: Michael Gorey).
Shows
The Libs will fudge it, they will say they support an ETS but not until… insert appropriate date. Yes we agree there should be an ETS but not until China commits… OK now India… now … Nauru?
They will not support an ETS for at least a decade.
[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?]
They could only do that if for some reason a Senator proposes an amendment, but later changes their mind and votes against their own amendment. In that scenario you are right that a tied vote would lead to rejection of the amendment, and passage of the bills.
But seriously that is like a really long shot. I don’t think the Government will want to rely on that happening.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
It’s going to be difficult…
jv
[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.]
All I was saying was that the short-term economic/political benefits was with a weak ETS despite having seemingly robust support among the public.
Astro I don’t think it would hurt the Libs if they passed the bill, if anything they might gain support and Malcolm would look like he was willing to negotiate and not just say no to everything so I’d think his personal rating might also go up.
Maybe the best result would be a DD election over this and then an increased Green/Labor senate vote to get it through next time…
Gary, maybe you are right… Perhaps it is this way or no way (until after the DD election whereupon it all get’s re-worked according to who gets elected).
vera
From the Greens website. They have moved down to an unconditional 25%. I’m counting you as a Greenie now as well as GG.
[The Greens have set a bottom line for Australia to make an minimum unconditional emissions cut of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, with a commitment to move to 40% conditional on the success of the Copenhagen conference.]
[All I was saying was that the short-term economic/political benefits was with a weak ETS despite having seemingly robust support among the public.]
I think the government will get a boost in the polls if the ETS in its current form is passed. People perceive Kyoto as symbolic, having the ETS through will be considered concrete action. People don’t care if it doesn’t go far enough, they will know it is a START, and they will understand that companies FINALLY have to pay for CO2-e emissions for the first time in Australia’s history.
Vera,
I think that is the Greens worst nightmare… Hush now.
Diogenes, any club that amigo GG belongs to is OK with me 😉
I mentioned this on the previous thread, but I’ll do so again. The Clerk of the Senate Harry Evans is retiring in December. His job will be advertised in major papers this weekend, I believe the salary is currently $117,920 p.a.
You can email him here: clerk.sen@aph.gov.au to thank him for his service to the nation, and for putting up with Barnaby Joyce’s speeches.
SNIP: See article 2 of comment moderation guidelines – The Management.
William where has the love gone on your blog since you went capitalist?
All this talk of paedos and “morals legislation” from ShowsOn and others. Seems like many contributors have a little of the Salem Prosecutor general in them.
Peace to all men of goodwill.
Article 2 of comment moderation guidelines:
Strong swearing is not allowed (note the word “strong” – you do not have to dance around my filters with “d*mn” and “bl**dy”, or even “sh!t”). This is not because I’m puritanical about such things, as anyone who knows me will attest. I just find it jarringly inappropriate in the context of political discussion. The ban extends to switching letters around to avoid the moderation filters, or otherwise invoking the words without spelling them out. Something like “f**k” is permissible if you’re quoting something, but not if it forms part of your own expression.
Please get that into your heads, everybody.
[All this talk of paedos and “morals legislation” from ShowsOn and others.]
Point out the flaws in my argument. At the moment you are saying “we shouldn’t do what I don’t think we should do.”
Astro, if it isn’t passed before the election something might come out of Copenhagen, like what rest of the world targets are set at and hasn’t Malcolm always said he wanted to see what the world does first? He wants to follow not lead so then he’d have no excuse to oppose the targets or the bill.
Glen do you really think the Libs would wedge the Greens and Labor?
[Gary, maybe you are right… Perhaps it is this way or no way (until after the DD election whereupon it all get’s re-worked according to who gets elected).]
Astro, I was unaware that you were unaware of the numbers situation in the Senate. It is a nightmare. As you have concluded now yourself the government just has to make a stand and go for it. I hope they do.
In all this debate about the ETS, no one has mentioned two of the most important recent developments?
China is demanding 40% emissions cuts by developed countries:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54K0X320090521
And the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has published the first negotiating text for the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations.
From LP:
[CO2 targets of 350, 400 and 450ppm seem to be in contemplation (see para 12, p.8), with global emissions reduction targets ranging from 50% by 2050 to more than 85%. The top bid for the developed countries is to reduce emissions by more than 95% (see para 14 b).
Emissions reductions targets by 2020 range from “by at least 25 to 40? to “at least 45?.
That’s all from a 1990 baseline.
A guard rail of 1.5C is mentioned as an alternative to 2C.
The options for peaking of emissions range from “between 2010 and 2013? and “in the next 10-20 years.]
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf
Australia’s position doesn’t actually register anywhere and is the lowest out of all the developed countries who have announced their positions. Which is all of them, I think, except Canada and the US.
This is despite the overwhelming evidence that the best way to reduce emissions is to replace carbon intensive energy sources with renewable ones, something Australia is best placed to exploit. This negates the faux indignation over job losses in the mining industry, especially since the government’s own modelling suggests that more jobs will be created than lost.
Three separate articles in today’s Crikey demolish the Mineral Council’s absurd claim of 23,000 job losses.
[Astro, if it isn’t passed before the election something might come out of Copenhagen, like what rest of the world targets are set at and hasn’t Malcolm always said he wanted to see what the world does first?]
If the Government gets the legislation passed, then more than likely they will go to the next election proposing an increase in the target in order to wedge the Liberals.
If the Liberals oppose such an increase, then the Government will say they are weak and not serious on climate change. That will be especially potent if the Liberals voted against the scheme.
Vera
Don’t you think they’d use it for a DD election?
Glen
“Astro, I was unaware that you were unaware of the numbers situation in the Senate. It is a nightmare. As you have concluded now yourself the government just has to make a stand and go for it. I hope they do.”
I had figured they could do it how they’d done the anti-workchoices legislation… My bad.
I think if they can’t get X and Fielding with the Greens they should go DD.
Astro I don’t think a DD would have time to be held before Copenhagen, it’s this December i think.
[China is demanding 40% emissions cuts by developed countries:]
If developed countries agree to a 40% cut, what is China offering?
I can’t believe how much coverage that blog post of Tim Andrews is getting. Talk about blowing things out of proportion.
[Maybe the best result would be a DD election over this and then an increased Green/Labor senate vote to get it through next time…]
Too late for that, unfortunately. This ETS is likely to be the strongest that’s passed.
Yes, theoretically, Labor and Greens could have a Senate majority after the next election, but moving towards The Greens would require a complete rewrite of the ALP’s policy – presumably the one they took to that very same election. It’s unlikely they’d reverse their policy immediately after the election.
[William where has the love gone on your blog since you went capitalist?]
Now that it’s a capitalist blog, the GST is attached. We’ve been asked to make our posts 10% more controversial.
I’ve been given a list of topics to bring up when it gets a bit slow.
No 126
I wouldn’t believe anything China says given their atrocious environmental record. It’s one thing to have laws, it’s another thing to enforce them.
[I can’t believe how much coverage that blog post of Tim Andrews is getting. Talk about blowing things out of proportion.]
I reckon. Shame he’s completely destroyed his chances of getting pre-selection anywhere. I liked his attempt to portray it as a “social media experiment”.
[I think if they can’t get X and Fielding with the Greens they should go DD.]
The problem is X wants a carbon tax, not an ETS.
Fielding will want even MORE compensation for low and middle income families, even though under the government’s plan they are already OVER compensated for price increases.
I worry that Fielding and Xenophon are going to try to pull the government in opposite directions so that neither of them will be pleased.
Why go to a DD? The ETS will not operate till after the next election.
Julian McGauran (is he really a Lib? ) has said he will not vote for an ETS. Is a Lib-Nat split emerging?
So, it seems the ONLY way this ETS will get passed is with Turnbulls help.
[I wouldn’t believe anything China says given their atrocious environmental record. It’s one thing to have laws, it’s another thing to enforce them.]
We can’t come up with a climate change solution without them. Some times in international relations you have to deal with what you’re given G.P.
No 131
I was a little shocked to open the Daily Telegraph over lunch to find pictures of all my good friends splashed over the paper.
This talk of “what comes out of Copenhagen” represents a lack of comprehension on how the UN negotiations have/will take place.
Australia is the chair of the arguably the most important and powerful party grouping within the UNFCC, the Umbrella Group – representing the biggest developed non-EU economies and emitters.
http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/negotiating_groups/items/2714.php
No 135
China’s very cash rich, even in this recession, so there’s no reason why it can’t do more. As an authoritarian communist dictatorship, getting things done shouldn’t be a problem.
[Why go to a DD? The ETS will not operate till after the next election.]
I don’t think a D.D. makes sense either. But the argument goes that it means the Senate changes over immediately after the election, AND it kind of shows the electorate how serious the Government is about the issue that they are electorally putting everything on the line.
[So, it seems the ONLY way this ETS will get passed is with Turnbulls help.]
Yes. And Turnbull needs to ask himself if he really wants to go to an election with CLIMATE CHANGE being the other big issue along side the economy. It didn’t work out well for them when it was an important issue in 2007, even though Turnbull’s personal position was much closer to Labor’s than Howard’s.
Astrobleme went:
[So, it seems the ONLY way this ETS will get passed is with Turnbulls help.]
That’s always been the political reality – it’s why the CPRS targets are what they are.
[We can’t come up with a climate change solution without them. Some times in international relations you have to deal with what you’re given G.P.]
While I would like China and India to commit to binding cuts on pre-2010 baseline I think it’s highly unlikely. But that doesn’t mean that the negotiations are already dead in the water, or the environment is rooted.
Getting everyone to an equitable position is the preferable position, but more important is stabilising CO2 at 350ppm (though in reality, close to 450ppm). So if this means the developed countries, who do have more money and a better capability, have to take 25-40% cuts on a 1990 baseline whereas China and India only have to peak or make business as usual cuts – a scenario consistent with stabilising CO2 at acceptable levels, so be it.
Astrobleme went away…
Gary, seems you were right. Doesn’t matter what the Greens say.
The only way the Greens would really affect this legislation is to somehow do some sneaky trick in cahoots with the Govt and do it the way they did the anti-workchoices legislation… Not likely.
[China’s very cash rich, even in this recession, so there’s no reason why it can’t do more. ]
Sure, but there argument is that developed countries polluted for nearly a hundred years, and thus need to set the pace on emissions reductions.
I don’t think that is a perfect argument (for a long part of that time scientists didn’t KNOW the damage that rising CO2 levels could cause), but if all it takes is for developed countries to lead the way for half a dozen years before China comes aboard, then it will be worth it.
The Greens are unlikely to affect the outcome of this legislation but the passing or failing of the legislation is not going to signal the end of climate policy debate in the country.
Ahhh, Chris Uhlman spouting the already discredited Minerals Council report into jobs.
Realpolitik from ShowsON, LOL.
ESJ
How did the “Nixonland” book go apart from the disappointing ending?
ShowsOn, you often tout the fact that the government is about the price carbon for the first time in history. I have attempted to argue that unless the cost is substantial enough to force behavioural change, it is a pointless. The market, it appears, agrees.
[“My mainstream fund manager clients are generally taking the view that, having established that the likely impact of the scheme on these companies is small, they do not need to be continually updated,” she told the committee.
“They are actually getting a bit bored with it. Most fund managers I speak to are pretty sanguine, feeling that the impact of the CPRS will be small given the number of free permits that will be allocated. They feel that other influences like commodity prices, exchange rates and the state of the global economy are more important to their investment decisions.”]
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-two-faces-of-carbon-critics-pd20090522-SA3U3?OpenDocument&src=sph&alerts&loc=center
Books Diogenes,
I have developed a real interest in Islamic studies particularly Af/Pak issues since last we spoke. Also Russia under Putin.
Did you know the Russians give $10,000 US for the birth of a second child?
No 145
Crikey is not an authority for anything but bull and bluster.