Essential Research: 56-44

The latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s two-party lead down from 57-43 to 56-44. Also featured are questions on carbon emission targets (evenly divided between 80 per cent by 2050 and 60 per cent), the state of the economy in face of the global slowdown (worst believed to be over), whether Australian companies “should accept the laws and justice systems of those countries even if they are very different from our own” (yes), the government’s handling of the Stern Hu issue (somewhat favourable), whether the Prime Minister’s experience with China will help govenrment in dealing with the issue (no), and the ban on climbing Uluru (opposed). Elsewhere:

• Put a mark around Friday in your diaries as the day the Australian Electoral Commission is due to publish proposed boundaries for the federal redistribution in Queensland, which is gaining a thirtieth seat.

• Dennis Jensen, the Liberal member for Tangney, has been defeated in the local preselection vote by Glenn Piggott, from a field that also included Alcoa government relations manager Libby Lyons. The West Australian reports that Piggott won on the first round with the support of 20 branch delegates against 10 for Jensen and eight for “spoiler candidate” Libby Lyons (who unlike Piggott lives not locally but in the western suburbs, having earlier tried her hand at the state preselection for Nedlands). There is still the possibility that the result will be overturned by the party’s State Council on Saturday, as it was before the 2007 election when Jensen was initially defeated by Matt Brown. However, The West Australian report baldly states that Jensen “appears certain to lose his seat”. The only facts that gan be gleaned about Piggott from this remove is that he is a 52-year-old finance manager with Toyota.

• Another weekend preselection challenge proved to be a non-event when AMWU official and Geelong councillor Andy Richards withdrew from his tilt against Maria Vamvakinou in the safe Labor Melbourne seat of Calwell. Richards has attracted his fair share of critics: AMWU colleague Ian Jones launched a colourful spray quoted at length in The Australian, describing him as “dead wood” and “unsuitable for public office”, while federal MP Darren Cheeseman (whose electorate of Corangamite partly coincides with his council turf) made no effort to spare Richards’ feelings in a letter to Calwell preselectors. Beyond that, one can surmise that Richards’ withdrawal was influenced by peace deals between rival sub-factions of the Right, one of which was threatening to back Richards in defiance of a “stability pact” protecting the candidates of Left powerbroker Senator Kim Carr, among them Vamvakinou. Andrew Landeryou at vexNews reported last week that two state preselection challenges had been shelved under similar circumstances: Darebin councillor Tim Laurence dropped his bid to topple incumbent Steve Herbert in Eltham, and Fiona Richardson was spared a seemingly derisory challenge in Northcote from Kathleen Matthews-Ward, a Moreland councillor reportedly associated with the Right faction Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association.

Andrew Landeryou also reports that the state Liberal member for Sandringham, Murray Thompson, faces a preselection challenge from Margaret Fitzherbert. They are respectively said to be associated with the Peter Costello and Ted Baillieu factions.

• The Maribyrnong Leader reports youth worker Les Twentyman, who contested last year’s contentious Kororoit by-election, denies reports he will run against Labor member Marsha Thomson in Footscray, but says he will “look at” the possibility of running in an unspecified electorate if his health improves (he is “still recovering from surgery complications which threatened his life”).

• In case you missed it, George Megalogenis of The Australian provided the authoritative word last week on what an increased Labor majority at the next election might look like. Money quote:

Of the top 50 seats for tradesmen, 23 are marginal: 14 Liberal and nine Labor. A number of blue-collar Liberal seats proved hard to shift at the 2007 election, including Bowman and Herbert in Queensland, McEwen and La Trobe in Victoria and Macarthur and Paterson in NSW. All but Paterson had been solid Labor seats in the 1980s, swung to the Coalition in the 1990s because of the fallout from the last recession, and remained rusted on to the Howard government throughout the nation’s longest boom.

• I’ve added a thorough update to my ongoing post on Tasmania’s Pembroke upper house by-election.

• Another entry to the to-do list: a South Australian government proposal to reform the upper house through an end to staggered eight-year terms and a populist cut in numbers to below the point of effectiveness. This could be put to the voters at a referendum coinciding with the state election next March. However, legislation initiating the referendum will first have to pass the upper house itself.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,426 comments on “Essential Research: 56-44”

Comments Page 28 of 29
1 27 28 29
  1. Gusface @ 1336 & 1342, Kersebleptes @1341

    Between the 1996 and 2007 elections there was a shift of 10.7% of the primary vote to the left.

    Given 13,646,000 enrolments for the 2007 election that equals 1,460,000 voters

    Add the 2.9% extra in polling since the election equals another 395,000

    Resulting in a total of 1,855,000.

    So not quite Melbourne, but very large nonetheless.

    It is this structural problem that is killing the Coalition.

  2. Possum did an analysis on this phenomena. It’s more that as the older demographics fall off the perch they are not being renewed from the bottom for the Libs.

  3. More Morgan details:

    ALP dips slightly but still has big lead – ALP (57.5%, down 0.5%) ahead of L-NP (42.5%, up 0.5%)

    In mid July 2009 support for both major parties increased at the expense of the Greens. ALP primary support is up 1.5% to 48% and L-NP is up 2% to 37%. Support for the Greens is down 3.5% to 8%, support for Family First is down 0.5% to 2% and Independents/ Others are unchanged at 4.5%.

    On a two-party preferred basis, support for the ALP is 57.5% (down 0.5%), while support for the L-NP is 42.5% (up 0.5%). If a Federal Election were held now the Rudd Government would retain Government according to the latest face-to-face Morgan Poll conducted on the weekends of July 11/12 & 18/19, 2009.

    Despite the slight decrease in support for the ALP on a two-party preferred basis the Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating is 138.5 (up a significant 10pts) with 61% (up 4.5%) of Australians confident that Australia is “heading in the right direction,” compared to 22.5% (down 5.5%) that say Australia is “heading in the wrong direction.”

    In other news: support for John Key’s Coalition Government is 57% (down 1.5%) comprising National Party 52% (down 2%), Maori Party 3.5% (up 0.5%), ACT NZ 1% (unchanged), and United Future 0.5% (unchanged) according to the Roy Morgan New Zealand Poll conducted July 6 – 19 — July, 2009.

  4. your right aristotle but at this stage they are not even likely to do a minor overhaul to retain their current supporters, let alone a major overhaul to win new ones

  5. Sounds like the Rabble Shadow Cabinet have had a telephone hookup and will suggest passing the CPRS (with amendments) in August.

    All they need is support in the party room. Ha. 😛

  6. This email just in from Lib HQ to one of their “loyal supporters” (me):

    [Notwithstanding the good sense of waiting until after Copenhagen, if the Prime Minister is determined to force an earlier vote on this legislation for political purposes, the question arises therefore whether and on what terms the Coalition would be prepared to consider supporting the legislation prior to the Copenhagen Summit.

    So in that practical context, I have set out below the principal issues which must be addressed in Labor’s scheme.

    Amending the ETS to address these issues will take some time and if the Government ignores these legitimate concerns and insists on a vote on its ETS in its current form on August 13, the Coalition will vote against the Bill.

    If the Government amends its ETS to put in place these crucial improvements, I will seek, and am confident of obtaining, the support of the Coalition party room for the amended scheme.

    The ball is now in Mr Rudd’s court. If he genuinely wants to legislate for an ETS which protects both the environment and Australian jobs, then he should be prepared to engage with the Coalition and address the issues set out below.

    Specific Issues

    An Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) should offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than an American ETS which is being developed and is presently in the form of the Waxman Markey Bill which has been approved by the House of Representatives but is yet to pass the US Senate. The final form of any legislation may be materially different from Waxman Markey and will not be known until later in the year.

    To that end there must be an effective mechanism, such as a regular review by the Productivity Commission or a similar expert independent body, to ensure that the Australian ETS does not materially disadvantage Australian industries and workers relative to American industries and workers. The legislation must bind the Government to correct any disadvantage identified by the review process.]

  7. Prepare for Liberal love ins as incumbant MHRs like Dutton and Laming and ex MHR Brough look for the new abodes.

    This will be a firecracker of a re-distribution.

  8. from a normal voter
    you all and i mean all lab/lib doctors/it/officeworkers/ are wasting your time other than you think you know how the vote will go.
    i am a truck driver and voted for labour live in mudjimba but we do not care about anything other than the back pocket and why not. if my family is happy i am. go nuclear future . wind farms solar mice wankers

  9. Amazing the similarities between the US and Australia.

    The conservative delusion.

    [Why? I think part of it is that, in the minds of quite a few, it’s a betrayal of a promise. They gave their loyalty to the GOP and the conservative movement in return for the expectation of being part of a permanent ruling party. It’s just wrong, as they see it, a perversion of the way things ought to be, to have the other party sitting in the White House.]

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/deminted-republicans/

    [Obama Complains About the News Cycle but Manipulates It, Worrying Some ]
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/us/politics/24memo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

    I heard Fielding on the radio keep going on about a double disillusion. I guess if there were a DD the Fielding version of DD would also occur for the Libs, doubly so.

  10. Brough could win his seat back lol! Only he hates the LNP…

    So he’s waiting for Fran to increase her margin at the next election and then slide in for 2013 😀

  11. Glen,

    I’ll see Mal Brough off and raise you Nathan Buckley for McEwan. How’d you like them apples.

  12. Tony Jones mentioned last night that, in two weeks time, Julia and Malcolm will be on Q&A. The Auditor-General’s report may add some spice.

  13. ets, most voters don’t care and will not until election is called so you all can yap about it all you want but you will not make 1 vote difference

  14. Thomas Paine @ 1364,

    Yes, that Krugman blog sounds very familiar.

    It’s a extraordinarily scary feeling to look through the right-wing (not even far-right) blogs (Bolt, Akers etc.).

    It’s not even the wholesome irritation of hearing forthrightly expressed views that you do not agree with. It’s the skin-crawling horror of finding yourself in an asylum of dangerous maniacs.

    Whatever it is, it’s clearly pathological.

  15. [i am a truck driver and voted for labour live in mudjimba but we do not care about anything other than the back pocket and why not. if my family is happy i am. go nuclear future . wind farms solar mice wankers]

    This solar mice tossing is way cool

    any more info would be much appreciated
    😉

  16. I get emails from the GetUp group and here is an interesting quote from one that just arrived. It concerns Gunns Pulp-Mill project and statements made about it:

    “Construction of the mill and flow-on investment would create some 8,000 direct and indirect jobs spread across the trades and other areas. Another 1,500 jobs would be created during operation.” – Ministerial Statement by The Hon Tony Burke MP, 20091
    “Construction of the Pulp Mill and flow-on investment will create some 8000 direct and indirect jobs spread across the trades and other areas. A further 1500 to 1600 additional direct and indirect jobs will be created during the Pulp Mill’s operation.” – Gunns statement, 20082

    What a coincidence! Is Tony Burke a Minister or a paid PR hack?

  17. Finns 632. Thanks for the links – just what I needed.

    Crikey had a piece today about the US ETS. Apparently works out to be harsher than our proposal. What will the Libs do if that is the case.

    Had a laugh at Minchin last night. Said they won’t pass it before Copenhagen but then if Copenhagen gets an agreement they will pass it. Weird logic – Minchin’s verdict is that before Copenhagen it will cost jobs and after ???

  18. Tomburns!! You may care to get a few facts straight.

    -First this blog was one of the first if not the first too actually pick the last federal election result.

    -This is only a politics blog of course you would expect to only have polly watchers visit, just as Bigfooty is popular amoungst footy fans.

    -What job you do has nothing to do with one has a right to a view.

    -the issues discussed here are various and change as the general polictical debate does.

  19. Socrates

    GetUp are a month late, Bob Brown was whining about this weeks ago. As an aside were Burke’s comments factually incorrect?

  20. Turnbull is still composing his political suicide note. Tuckey already said he will cross the floor.

    [MALCOLM Turnbull has called for sweeping changes to the Rudd Government’s emissions trading legislation before the Coalition will agree to vote for the scheme.

    The shadow cabinet met today to consider its position on the emissions trading scheme after days of disagreement between senior Coalition figures.

    In a statement released today, Mr Turnbull broke his silence, demanding the Government address nine specific issues to win Coalition support for an ETS.]

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25829154-601,00.html

  21. [ShowsOn
    Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    If we stick with what we have peak nuclear has come and gone.

    Wrong:

    Most of the 30 countries already using nuclear energy plan to expand their output. More than 60 countries – mostly in the developing world – have informed the IAEA that they might be interested in launching nuclear power programmes. Of these, 12 countries are actively considering nuclear power.]

    For sure the number of people silly enough to consider building nuclear reactors hasn’t peeked ( the number actually building may have, few plans actually seem to progress to projects). It’s the rate of fuel production that has peaked, the high grade ore has gone.

  22. Turnbull has laid out his reasons for not passing the CPRS next month. But it does not solve his problems.

    In fact it creates even more. 🙂

  23. [Crikey had a piece today about the US ETS. Apparently works out to be harsher than our proposal. What will the Libs do if that is the case.]
    BH
    A couple of weeks ago Robb was saying the opposite 😉 he reckons Rudd has a big stick wheras Obama has a nice little carrot 😉
    [Mr Robb said the US proposals allowed much longer periods for adjustment, more assistance for business and big offsets under carbon trading.]

    [Mr Robb said the US treatment of power generators was fundamentally different from Australian proposals: “Eighteen years adjustment period in the US, five years here. Three times more assistance in the US than here.

    “With energy-intensive trade-exposed industries, there is 100per cent free allocation of permits until the rest of the world has its schemes in place.”

    Mr Robb said US electricity price increases would be lower than for Australia.

    In the US, only 15 per cent of all the permits would need to be bought over the next 10 years, while in Australia, from year one, 70 per cent would be bought. “That means our scheme is far more punitive and will put us at a disadvantage,” he said.]
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25763536-11949,00.html

  24. ruawake

    I can’t find Truffles nine reasons yet. Do you have them?

    They seem to be even more compensation, biochar and a better voluntary scheme from what I can see.

    Rudd’s ETS has a crappy voluntary scheme and I’m sure they can improve it. There is too much compensation already but I can see Rudd caving on even more compensation. Biochar could be incorporated but it’s open to abuse.

  25. Sequestering carbon requires that it be removed from the carbon cycle.

    In “natural” terms this mainly means carbonate minerals (limestone etc.) & coal seams, with old-growth forests to a much lesser extent. Whatever the carbon is locked up in must endure for a long time compared to the atmosphere/hydrosphere’s response time.

    I don’t see how anything to do with agriculture can manage this…

  26. [Agriculture must be excluded from the scheme, but agricultural biosequestration – storing carbon in soils and plants – must be included]

    How do you exclude agriculture but not?

  27. Here are some of Turnbull’s amendments, he mentions the US a lot
    [“If the Government amends its ETS to put in place these crucial improvements, I will seek, and am confident of obtaining, the support of the Coalition party room for the amended scheme.”
    Some of the key principles of the Coalition’s position include:

    – no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than being offered by the US scheme

    – emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries to be at least on a level playing field with the US and other advanced economies and receive full compensation for higher energy costs until the bulk of their competitors face a similar carbon cost

    – as in the US legislation, agricultural emissions to be excluded from the scheme and agricultural offsets (eg. bio-sequestration or green carbon) included, “since Australia’s greatest near-term potential for reducing its CO2 emissions are to be found in the better management of our own landscape

    – general increases in electricity prices to be no greater than comparable countries to minimise the impact on all trade exposed industries and to reduce the need to compensate for households

    – effective incentives and/or credits to be established to capture the substantial abatement opportunities offered by energy efficiency, especially in buildings

    – adequate incentives for voluntary action which can be added to Australia’s greenhouse reduction 2020 target.]
    http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2009/07/24/96795_national-news.html

  28. [Here are some of Turnbull’s amendments, he mentions the US a lot]
    Turnbull’s plan is the ETS you have when you don’t really want an ETS.

    I hope that everyone can at least appreciate that the Government’s ETS is far superior to Turnbull’s proposed amendments.

    I hope the government refuses to cave in to any of these demands. As Tony Abbott said today, the opposition can’t win a D.D. election on this issue, so the government has all the bargaining power, it should demand the Liberals agree to the ETS in its current form.

  29. ruawake

    [Agriculture must be excluded from the scheme, but agricultural biosequestration – storing carbon in soils and plants – must be included]

    Turnbull’s position is the NFF position. They don’t want farmers/forestry etc to be penalised/scrutinised for land clearing etc so they want agriculture excluded (which Rudd has done). But they want farmers etc to be able to get money if they reduce CO2 emissions by
    1. biochar
    2. nitrification inhibitors
    3. “holistic farming” which reduces degradation of grazing properties

    It’s a win-win for farmers.

    vera

    It looks like Truffles wants us to be part of Obama’s USA.

  30. [It’s a win-win for farmers. ]
    It’s also completely unfair. Why should they reap benefits before their costs are taken into account?

  31. SO

    I agree. It’s all carrot and no stick for farmers but those three initiatives can allegedly help reduce net CO2 emissions and it would be better if we could use them somehow. It’s hard to argue with Turnbull’s last two points, which are serious flaws in the Rudd-Wong scheme.

    [- effective incentives and/or credits to be established to capture the substantial abatement opportunities offered by energy efficiency, especially in buildings

    – adequate incentives for voluntary action which can be added to Australia’s greenhouse reduction 2020 target.]

  32. This may of been mentioned but I missed it. The fact the electricity generation industry wants $20 billion of hand outs suggests that the ETS actually has more teeth than some are willing to give it credit for:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25822366-11949,00.html

    Note that Turnbull thinks electricity generators should receive “adequate compensation”, which suggests billions more hand outs.

  33. [It’s hard to argue with Turnbull’s last two points, which are serious flaws in the Rudd-Wong scheme.]
    I disagree that they are serious flaws, they are accounted in the operation of the scheme. If people voluntarily use less electricity, then electricity companies don’t need to buy as many permits because they won’t be producing as much CO2, and the company doesn’t need to pay as much money for increasingly expensive electricity.

  34. So will Turnbull’s amendments be enough for Minchin. Tuckey and the Nats to do a backflip and agree to pass the ETS? Somehow i don’t think so.

  35. [So will Turnbull’s amendments be enough for Minchin. Tuckey and the Nats to do a backflip and agree to pass the ETS? Somehow i don’t think so.]
    I doubt it. Barnaby Joyce promised us that the Nats will oppose it in any form, if he changes his mind then he would forever be remembered as a gutless liar who couldn’t keep a promise, I think his term was “I’ll give you certainty. No!”

  36. Shows On I had to laugh at your comments. Barnaby Joyce came into parliament saying he would never vote for the Teltsra sale. He already IS a gutless liar!!!

  37. ShowsOn @ 1309

    The cheapest and most technological viable way to sequester carbon is to leave it in the ground.

    Spot on!! “Clean coal” is the great lie of the 21st Century. Just like “Trickle down effect” was the great lie of the 20th Century.

  38. There’s been a lot of rubbish from the Libs today about Minchin referring to the first vote and Abbott referring to the second vote to explain their diametrically opposite views. They haven’t yet explained why their policy is to DEFINITELY vote against a bill on its first presentation and then DEFINITELY vote for the exact same legislation the second time.

  39. SO

    [If people voluntarily use less electricity, then electricity companies don’t need to buy as many permits because they won’t be producing as much CO2, and the company doesn’t need to pay as much money for increasingly expensive electricity.]

    Jevons Paradox suggests that it not what will happen.

    [In economics, the Jevons Paradox (sometimes called the Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

  40. [Kersebleptes
    Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
    I don’t see how anything to do with agriculture can manage this…]

    I’ve always thought that the best thing to do is grow trees and then chuck em in the dam.

    On a more serious note; recent agriculture practice has reduced the organic matter in the soil; it really does need to be fixed. Increased organic matter in the soil will increase the amount of carbon locked up.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 28 of 29
1 27 28 29