The second week of Essential Research polling under Julia Gillard has perfectly replicated the first, with Labor and the Coalition steady on 42 per cent and 39 per cent of the primary vote and Labor maintaining its 54-46 two-party lead. This compares with a Coalition primary vote lead of 40 per cent to 38 per cent in the final poll under Kevin Rudd, when Labor’s two-party lead was 52-48. Essential has also surveyed on approval of Julia Gillard for the first time, finding her approval rating at 48 per cent (seven points higher than Rudd’s final result from May 31) and disapproval at 27 per cent (20 points lower). Approval of Tony Abbott has been gauged for the second week running, and it does not replicate the result of the previous week – which was itself reflected in Newspoll – showing a bounce in the wake of the leadership change. His approval has gone from 35 per cent on May 31 to 40 per cent on June 28 to 37 per cent on July 5, while his disapproval has gone from 50 per cent to 39 per cent to 47 per cent. Gillard leads as preferred prime minister 49-29, which is little different from the 47-30 lead Rudd recorded in his final poll. Also canvassed are best party to deal with various issues, which finds Labor gaining ground on every measure since three weeks ago (the interesting exceptions are “being honest and ethical” and “handling environmental and climate change issues”, which are stable). “Attributes to describe the Prime Minister” allow comparisons with Gillard on July 5 with Rudd on May 10, which are uniformly favourable to Gillard (who scores 21 points higher on being “down to earth”). Further questions show clear hostility to any notion of a “big Australia”.
I think one big rule is never go to an election with a tax, unless you can afford to lose a lot of seats.
A price of carbon will be perceived as a tax, muchas gracias to the Liberal fear machine.
Richard Fidler had a good “converstion” with Lenore Taylor today.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2010/07/05/2945009.htm?site=brisbaneµsite=conversations§ion=latest
[Shitstorm: Inside Labor’s Darkest Days published by MUP]
One thing of interest, among many, is the role played by Andrew Robb in rolling Turnbull and scuttling the CPRS. If you have a lazy hour it is worth listening to.
To Speak of Pebbles @ 82
The estimable Glen does his best work while scrawling meaningless drivel on his blackboard, whilst crying like a baby, so unfortunately your parody can’t do Glen real justice.
For those PBers who have never seen the execrable Mr Beck, do yourself a favour and watch his caricature of a current affairs show on FoxNews if you want a solid belly laugh, as he makes all of our shock jocks and TV pinheads look like rank amateurs.
If it’s not a tax it shouldn’t be called a tax, it should called a “carbon bonus” or a “carbon Xmas present” or a “carbon free gift with every purchase.” Don’t greenies know anything about marketting?
I should have declared a conflict of interest. I hold junior gold explorer cum producer shares.
Just use whatever language the Libs used for their PPL stuff. If they complain the obvious retort is goose and gander.
We are 1.5% of emissions, remember?
That’s a line from the deniers. The fact is that the figure you mention represents about 3x the average emissions across all nations. Not good, and an excellent reason for us to be in step with the advanced nations in policy implementation supporting the aim of no more than 450ppm.
[I think one big rule is never go to an election with a tax, unless you can afford to lose a lot of seats.
A price of carbon will be perceived as a tax, muchas gracias to the Liberal fear machine.]
There are two obvious solutions:
– branding as Psephos hinted
– a carbon tax as part of a package of tax reform – adding carbon taxes but reducing pesonal and company tax. If it is revenue neutral then it is just a change to the tax system. So it is a new tax, but it is notextra tax unless you burn a lot of carbon. Combine it with eliminating pesonal tax returns and you coudl do OK with that.
Iraqed my brain but got nowhere.
Hey, Big Ship, that’s no way to speak of PB’s Glen.
Knew he was a school teacher (the blackboard reference) but didn’t know his surname was Beck though.
I shall walk this path and not the other one.
The other one Estonia.
Oh FFS:
[That’s a line from the deniers.]
It’s also a fact.
[The fact is that the figure you mention represents about 3x the average emissions across all nations.]
I’m aware of that. That’s why only concerted action by all countries under a binding international agreement is going to have any effect.
[to be in step with the advanced nations in policy implementation supporting the aim of no more than 450ppm.]
I agree, but without the US that isn’t going to happen, and the US won’t move unless China moves too. China is the big problem.
Socrates went:
[- introduce mandatory emission standards for new cars for both GHG and oil security reasons. Most Australian made cars can meet a standard around 260 G CO2/km except for V8 Commodores and turbo Falcons. But they are precisely the problem.]
If the government effectively removes local V8s from the Australian market by punitively regulating them out of existence via “emissions standards” – it’s a dozen seats right there that the Labor party will lose and not get back for more than a decade.
As someone that drives around in something with more horsepower than a 1950’s industrial factory, I’d be more than willing to pay my carbon way via higher rego costs or an additional tax on the purchase – as long as that extra cost goes back to carbon abatement measures that ameliorate my car’s higher carbon output.
But regulating them out of the market? It would make Gillard look like some sandal wearing wet green that hates the cultural realities of outer metropolitan and regional Australia.
China is ‘a’ big problem. There are others, including the US. But that is not a reason for us to go into ‘wait and see’ mode, as the Professor G has demonstrated. There is progress in both countries and excellent progress in others, particularly Europe. We can assist their internal impetus with what we do.
Frank
Cmon
dolly should be good for a laugh or two at
Possum
Don’t you already pay higher rego for 8 cylinders in Qld?
Maybe Gillard should go the whole hog about getting real?
(1) China, India, the US and Indonesia are all going to increase their emissions.
(2) ergo, forget about reducing emissions on a global scale
(3) ergo, start investing in mitigation.
Possum Comitatus@114
Aka the Cashed up Bogan vote.
Mess with them and their cars and they will go to Tony, and STAY there.
…aaagh, Gillard loses the V8 revhead marsupial segment…Uteman rampant…
[Mess with them and their cars and they will go to Tony, and STAY there.]
The Rum Pig revolution. 😉
possum on the prowl
🙁
lock up your cohorts!
Boerwar@118
Yes, move everyone to the mountains where it’s cooler and not subject to rising sea levels. 😆
(I understand you’re indulging in absurdist humour out of frustration.)
[We can assist their internal impetus with what we do.]
Well I hope that is true. I’m in favour of trying, but unilateral action is a hard sell politically.
Frank 112 – we still get Downer telling us what he thinks about everything each fortnight in the local rag. Imagine how pompous he’s going to get knowing he is talking to a national audience.
[ne thing of interest, among many, is the role played by Andrew Robb in rolling Turnbull and scuttling the CPRS. If you have a lazy hour it is worth listening to.]
Rua – is it replayed at any other time. I’m till one of those conspirasists who say that Robb declared his illness when Turnbull said he was going to negotiate with Rudd. He was supposed to stay away for 6 months but surprise, surprise, he returned on the day of the vote and talked the Party Room into knocking it back.
I think he and Minchin were working on it while he was away. Did Taylor have that idea?
What is really interesting about Shitstorm is the fact that the two journos who wrote it allowed the bile and hate to be directed all at Rudd all of the time when they knew it was not true.
He was the only world leader who got things right and the bastards in the back rooms with no faces or names shafted him.
Possum
I understand the impact; that is why I offered multiple solutions. A carbon tax that was revenue neutral could be used to fund other tax cuts. A carbon tax that was realistic for fuel would raise the cost of petrol, so people could make their own decisions.
When you look at problems like peak oil, dangers of deep sea drilling etc, there are many good reasons to discourage V8s and the like. At present we still give concessions to large 4WDs, a class which is generally even WORSE than V8s. Alternatively we could gve a positive price signal (i.e. rebate) on rego for vehciels with say under 170 g CO2/km, or hybrids to reward things like the new Toyota Camry Hybrid. BTW I enjoy watching Top Gear and had an RX7 which I loved in the 80s. But there are ways cars can be fun without burning quite as much black stuff.
[For those PBers who have never seen the execrable Mr Beck, do yourself a favour and watch his caricature of a current affairs show on FoxNews if you want a solid belly laugh, as he makes all of our shock jocks and TV pinheads look like rank amateurs.]
It’s a classic fool’s act and I’ve been waiting for comedians to pick it up. Haven’t seen any yet on the Comedy Channel but there’s hope.
[electricity generation, fewer belching cattle and less land clearing. All forms of transport combined are only about 16% of our emissions; Cars are 55% of that or 9%.]
what effect does this have on selling a small car at the moment i am going to up grade to deizel like oh my oh say i want to much for my golf should i reduce the price and sell it quickly
if we have this type of carbon tax
my say @ 98
The age representativeness differential between online and offline populations starts to diverge at about 65 years and above, that is, the number of people aged 65+ that are Internet enabled starts to diverge from the actual population numbers who are above 65 years of age.
The issue of who is at home to respond to an e-mail invitation is the same one that applies to who is at home to answer the phone, or the door, so that one is not necessarily statistically significant, and tends to affect the younger age cohorts who are more likely to be ‘out’ at any given time. The advantage on an online e-mail invitation is that it sits in the respondent’s inbox until they open it, somwtimes days after it was sent, as opposed to the momentary chance of catching someone at home on the phone or when doorknocking.
As I said in my previous post, an online access panel of members who are incentivised for their time, provided that it is well managed, is broadly in line with ABS standard demographics in it’s makeup, and is of sufficient size is OK for opinion polling, or any other research, provided that their sample ‘outgo’ is balanced on age, gender and geographic location, that they run a hard quota of achievements to replicate known ABS numbers, and that they weight the data back to ABS demographic norms.
If all that is done, then the online research should be as valid as any other research methodology within the standard margins of error for their respective sample sizes.
Psephos
[Well I hope that is true. I’m in favour of trying, but unilateral action is a hard sell politically.]
That is why I am suggesting a revenue neutral carbon tax. It doesn’t increase the overall tax burden, but still gives a price signal.
John Quiggan has a useful thread on the relationship between carbon prices and fuel costs here:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/05/29/carbon-taxes-and-fuel-prices/
A carbon price of around $30/tonne adds about 9 cents a litre to fuel prices. This would bring in maybe $3billion per annum in revenue.
[I think he and Minchin were working on it while he was away. Did Taylor have that idea?]
Sort of, although she stopped short of saying it outright. She mentions 4 Corners manouvers and Robb getting his view out the day before he was due to be 7th speaker in the Lib party room discussion.
my say
Don’t worry. A carbon tax on fuel would only increase the value of small cars. Sell when it suits you.
jv
au contraire.
Based on all known industrial and technological trajectories, and based on all known global political probabilities, I believe that it is more likely than not that sometime in the next 20 years an Australian Government will have to switch from AGW prevention to mitigation as the more sensible public policy approach.
Poor Twiggy:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/05/2945160.htm?section=justin
Boerwar
[Based on all known industrial and technological trajectories, and based on all known global political probabilities, I believe that it is more likely than not that sometime in the next 20 years an Australian Government will have to switch from AGW prevention to mitigation as the more sensible public policy approach.]
I utterly disagree. We will have to do BOTH, not one or the other. Climate change is not like some on/off effect that we will suffer from if we pass some threshold. We are starting to feel its effects now. It will get worse the higher the CO2 concentration goes. The only long term solution is to reduce CO2 emissions. We will still have to adapt ot the climate changes we have already caused.
Frank
Marn should have offered to extend the tax to nickel.
Rua went:
[Possum
Don’t you already pay higher rego for 8 cylinders in Qld?]
Around a couple of hundred bucks a year.
[We are starting to feel its effects now.]
True. I noticed that I was only freezing at my busstop this morning rather than fkking freezing as in the past.
Socrates
OK. Both, already. But today’s policy weighting is still heavily in favour of prevention. I will alter my prognostication thus:
‘More likely than not, sometime in the next 20 years an Australian Government will have to switch policy priorities away from investing in prevention towards investing in mitigation.’
[Sort of, although she stopped short of saying it outright. She mentions 4 Corners manouvers and Robb getting his view out the day before he was due to be 7th speaker in the Lib party room discussion]
I’m more convinced than ever, Rua. It seemed so obvious. They worked Turnbull beautifully and sold MacFarlane like a goose but the poor fool now thinks he’s one of them. In the meantime their man, Tone, came through for them.
I truly lament for people suffering from depression but Robb has used his for political purposes imho
Yeh. We need solar heated and/or cooled bus stops.
[True. I noticed that I was only freezing at my busstop this morning rather than fkking freezing as in the past.]
Yeah it was 12C this morning, freezing. 😉
BH
robb was depressed cos he wasnt in gvt no more
🙁
Five minutes in Hong Kong tells you that, energy-wise, the amount of inertia in the world’s social, political and economic systems is utterly humungous.
rua
You really should stop spruiking for more mexicans and cucurachas.
[robb was depressed cos he wasnt in gvt no more]
Agree Gusface and also the RWers were on the outer with Turnbull and his followers at that time. Of course, the followers left him hanging in the breeze and now follow Tone – Hunt, Pyne, Hockey, Morrison. Nice bunch ain’t they and the same bunch giving JuliaG nasty names.
Boerwar 141
OK that is better. But arguably that is already happening. For example, engineering guidelines on stormwater design are already being revised to reflect changes in rainfall intensities in the past two decades.
If we melt Greenland there isn’t must you can do to mitigate sea level rise for the tens of thousands of houses between 2 and 5 metres above sea level on the Australian coast. How do they adapt – build a dyke? Waterproof the lower two floors and buy a boat? That is the whole reason why bodies like IPCC recommended acting against climate change. The cost of adaptation is far higher than the cost of fixing it.
ruawake@144
try near zero here in Perth – still 15.5
http://www.bom.gov.au/wa/observations/perth.shtml