The latest Essential Research survey has the two parties locked together on 50-50, suggesting Labor has not received a dividend from its success in forming a minority government. The more recent part of the rolling two-week survey was conducted from last Tuesday, when the rural independents’ made their announcements, until yesterday, and it has dragged Labor down from the 51-49 recorded in the previous survey. However, the primary vote figures suggest there is unlikely to have been much in it either way: the Coalition is up a point to 44 per cent and Labor steady on 39 per cent, with the Greens down a point to 10 per cent. Approval or disapproval of the independents’ decision was predictably split on party lines, for a total of 41 per cent approve and 45 per cent disapprove. Respondents were asked to rate the performance of the parties since the election and for some reason the Coalition rated better than Labor, recording a net positive rating of 9 per cent compared with 4 per cent for Labor. However, Julia Gillard was thought to have shown “more leadership abilities during the period since the election” than Tony Abbott, 47 per cent to 35 per cent. Forty-five per cent of respondents rated the increased strength of the Greens as good for Australia against 38 per cent bad, which goes against other polling conducted earlier. Conversely, 44 per cent agree the independents will hold too much power, with only 36 per cent disagreeing.
Elsewhere:
• Anna Bligh has raised the prospect of a return to compulsory preferential voting in Queensland, with The Australian reporting the matter is likely to be considered by a (Labor-dominated) parliamentary committee. Bligh notes concerns that the operation of different systems at state and federal level causes confusion and a higher informal vote, and it is indeed the case that the optional preferential states of New South Wales and Queensland generally have a slightly higher informal rate at federal elections than other states. However, that hasn’t been the case this time – in Queensland the informal vote was 5.45 per cent, against 5.55 per cent nationally (the national total admittedly having been pulled up by a 6.82 per cent rate in New South Wales). It is clear that Labor’s sudden enthusiasm for compulsory preferential in Queensland is due to their parlous electoral position, and the very high likelihood they will bleed votes to the Greens that might not return to them, as they mostly did at the federal election. As an opponent of electoral compulsion in all its forms, I would much sooner the confusion be resolved by a move to optional preferential voting at federal level – though Labor is most unlikely to be keen on this, as it would have cost them three seats at the federal election. UPDATE: As Kevin Bonham correctly notes in comments, it would also have saved them Denison. Note that Peter Brent at Mumble has expressed sentiments almost identical to my own.
• A by-election looms in the Western Australian state seat of Armadale, which Alannah MacTiernan vacated to make her failed run for Canning. Armadale is Labor’s safest seat, and the by-election will not be contested by the Liberals. Labor’s candidate is Tony Buti, a law professor at the University of Western Australia. Also in the field are Owen Davies for the Greens, Jamie van Burgel for the Christian Democratic Party and independent John D. Tucak, who polled 298 votes as an upper house candidate in 2008. The by-election will be held on October 2.
• Another by-election following from the federal election is for the Brisbane City Council ward of Walter Taylor, vacated by newly elected Ryan MP Jane Prentice. Emma Chalmers of the Courier-Mail reported on August 18 that even before his defeat in Ryan, dumped Liberal Michael Johnson was sizing up the seat. The Liberal National Party will hold its preselection tomorrow. The by-election will be held on October 23.
steve,
Diogs has proven already today he is not much fussed about using facts when expressing his opinions.
I daresay, that under his definition of “do nothing” he’d more than qualify as a CC sceptic himself. The inner turmoil of knowing he is a “cause without a rebel” must be difficult for him to deal with.
[Its all too hard. Lets give up. Political and social change is just not worth it. Is it?]
I didn’t say that. I just introduced reality into the argument. Now once again detail how it would work without a government taking this appoach being defeated at the next election and being replaced by a government that would make sure an ETS never happened. We know the change over process would take years and be politically painful at certain stages, as your comment implies. Without bi partisan agreement we are all pissing in the wind.
[ I agree that a politcal consensus was broken. A community consensus was not. A plurality of Australians still suport climate action including the ETS. ]
I’d be willing to bet the farm that consensus will exist till people get the bill. Then it will evaporate. That is why both major parties are vacillating on the issue. Driving up prices would kill whatever government pulls the trigger.
[I’d be willing to bet the farm that consensus will exist till people get the bill. Then it will evaporate. That is why both major parties are vacillating on the issue. Driving up prices would kill whatever government pulls the trigger.]
If the ALP believe that then why are they pursuing CCS which is far more expensive than other technologies.
Again also check the polling.
I could be wrong, but I’m sure that Rudd’s scheme included some compensation for pensioners re: energy. Abbott and his cohorts brushed that aside in the GBNT narrative that everything would be dearer. Also, when asked early in the debate (in a survey :blush:) whether people would be willing to pay a little more for things if it were introduced, they said yes.
Meanwhile, everything’s going up anyway. Should have struck while the iron was hot.
[I just don’t like using the term denialist because I think it plays to the CC is a religion stupidity.]
Fair enough. The reason I hate the word ‘skeptic’ being used is because I consider skepticism to be a healthy attitude and hate when those who have a “pretend it doesn’t exist” attitude towards AGW claim that they are merely in the same boat as someone who is skeptical of an unproven scientific hypothesis.
Diogenes@149
and with good reason – Tasmania 2004 🙂
Apparently it’s the third anniversary of Anna Bligh becoming Premier of Qld.
Gary
[I didn’t say that. I just introduced reality into the argument. Now once again detail how it would work without a government taking this appoach being defeated at the next election and being replaced by a government that would make sure an ETS never happened. We know the change over process would take years and be politically painful at certain stages, as your comment implies. Without bi partisan agreement we are all pissing in the wind.]
Gary, pretty much most hard reforms are not bi-partisan. its the nature of the territory. The GST is a more recent example.
Frank
[and with good reason – Tasmania 2004 🙂 ]
You are haunted by Tassie!
[lizzie
Posted Monday, September 13, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
I could be wrong, but I’m sure that Rudd’s scheme included some compensation for pensioners re: energy. Abbott and his cohorts brushed that aside in the GBNT narrative that everything would be dearer. Also, when asked early in the debate (in a survey :blush:) whether people would be willing to pay a little more for things if it were introduced, they said yes.
Meanwhile, everything’s going up anyway. Should have struck while the iron was hot]
Lizzie
Pensioners were to be compensated 110%
They would have actually made money.
[You are haunted by Tassie!]
Aren’t we all? 😉
Diogenes to tell you the truth CC bores me to tears I have read truckloads of information and it never goes anywhere. Pollbludger argued itself hoarse on the issue and it was boring as bat shit. Today’s effort has nothing new and is just as boring and just as likely to achieve no result.
Pebbles, I think “climate sceptic” comes out of a different dictionary from the one we are all used to. It has gained a new meaning.
blue_green
As a pensioner, I was looking forward to it 🙂
[You are haunted by Tassie!]
Have you ever done a ghost tour of Port Arthur- frightening.
TSOP\
[ You are haunted by Tassie!
Aren’t we all? 😉 ]
I would have thought some people are haunted by what happened to Rudd as well!
Gary, Jon,
Labor should not at this point in time be making decisions based on whether they think they might lose the next election. They basically lost THIS election, so the reprieve they have should be used to actually do good stuff.
The politically great thing (and otherwise scary thing) about climate change is that even if we act decisively now there will still be substantial, and increasing, climate change effects for the next few decades. So the political imperative (and political reward) for acting will just increase as time goes by. Starting the wheels turning on restructuring the economy via a carbon price might lose you the next election. It’s unlikely to be repealed – not a lot of legislation is repealed no matter how much people squeal at the time, just look at the GST – but you should see increasing political returns for (a) having done something, and (b) people realizing more and more as time goes by just how important it was to have done something.
And then again, given the projected impacts of a carbon price are so small, and the fact that the punters like bold government (in limited doses of course), may just win you the next election in a landslide.
Diogenes@167
And wher did the votes from Rudd go to ?? Not to the Coalition 🙂
[Labor should not at this point in time be making decisions based on whether they think they might lose the next election. They basically lost THIS election, so the reprieve they have should be used to actually do good stuff.]
Exactly. Time to put the national interest ahead of self interest. Better to implement what you can and lose than to lose and look back with regret that you achieved nothing.
[Pollbludger argued itself hoarse on the issue and it was boring as bat shit. Today’s effort has nothing new and is just as boring and just as likely to achieve no result.]
I would like to think that a similar argument is being had in Labor caucus.
Rpsa – just read the Glenda Korparaal piece on the PM and handbags. Phew! what a bitchy person she is and its certainly not worth me reading anything else she writes.
Essential 50-50! I had a call from a friend today who said that she is still hearing too much of what the Opposition says about Labor being ‘bad’. She said the impression she gets from the soundbites she hears is not good for Labor and that the Federal Opposition is all good. This woman is not a tragic so doesn’t look for anything that would favour Labor. She only hears and sees short grabs.
This may account for the 50-50 if others are hearing it the same way. We’ll have to wait for a few other polls but I wonder if Julia is right in saying she will not play the 6pm news game. That leaves the space for Abbott every night or does it.
the unions protect coal workers like coalition protects industry – unions dont only protect they inhibit alternative energy competition – and they call shots on this with state and federal labor – this has been going for years and it seems business as usual. is combet right person at all for CC if he’s goes in on industry protection platform? julia seems to have played her hand. this will be interesting although potentially tedious affairm a but disappointing at this stage and potentially big mistake for labor
Ltep
[Exactly. Time to put the national interest ahead of self interest. Better to implement what you can and lose than to lose and look back with regret that you achieved nothing.]
And they burnt their massive politcal capital in doing nothing not doing something.
That has to be some kind of politcal first.
[We’ll have to wait for a few other polls but I wonder if Julia is right in saying she will not play the 6pm news game.]
That was just spin for the 6 pm news 😉
Frank
Some went to the Libs. Labor had a 2.5% swing against them on TPP terms.
Anyhow the elections over. Been fun see you for the next Queensland election in eighteen months time where I’m sure the position on CC will be the same as it is today, was last year and probably will be evermore.
William Bowe
“As an opponent of electoral compulsion in all its forms, I would much sooner the confusion be resolved by a move to optional preferential voting at federal level”
you like most suporting th very undemocratoc OPV alternative , may as well advocate NON compulsory voting in oz at electons , and be done with it to be consistent
then we’d in oz wuld end up with get th USA type flush funds & vested interests in each electorate “buying” possible voters to come out to vote for THERE Party
ps/ We got best system in World and poples want to make it less democratic by rmoving th “politcal left/right slant” PER Seat that compulsory ref voting delivers with 50% plus 2 PPT per seat
hasn’t clean coal been written off by most scientists – esp as a pratical option.
the climate fog goes on. lets see – at least better off after tuesday than the sceptics – imagine damage abbot could do overseas, america, india, china, even as a small player – coaxing along non action
[ If the ALP believe that then why are they pursuing CCS which is far more expensive than other technologies. ]
Because coal is our biggest export income earner at $55 billion.
Employs 30 000 people
Raises $4 billion in royalties
Generates 80 % of our domestic power
Sure we need to find alternatives to coal, however money talks and the above presents the difficulties.
[Gary, pretty much most hard reforms are not bi-partisan. its the nature of the territory. The GST is a more recent example.]
And you do those types of things when your majority is so big that you can afford to lose 20 seats, not when you have an ETS hostile opposition that needs two seats to be in power.
As far as the polls are concerned, the last poll, the election, had one party advocating the approach to a CC policy you are advocating, the Greens. The last time I looked thet did not receive 50% plus of the vote. In fact the parties poo pooing the CC gained a large share of the vote. So let’s not assume CC is in the forefront of most Australians when it comes to voting shall we?
Geoffrey,
clean coal is untested and if at all possible will be ridiculously expensive. The cynical side of me suggests that the ALP govts retiscence about reducing local dependence is more about shielding our coal exports.
I’d imagine Labor will try to get its previous legislation up in collaboration with the Libs before June 30. There will no doubt be some cosmetic changes to the proposed legislation. However, the Libs will be petrified of a Greens dominated Senate making more radical changes.
Combet will be trying to keep everyone in the cart from last time initially and at some stage bring the Libs in to the discussion.
gary (reposted)
[And if people think that a no change position on climate change is good for the ALP they should consider that when
Rudd dropped the ETS
the 2pp went from 54 to 49
and Rudds net approval went from +9 to -1
when JG dropped the ETS (take two)
the 2PP went from 55 to 52
and JGs net rating went from +6 to +1
So the GBNT fear was unfounded.]
Diog clearly you believe the coal industry must be smashed regardless of the human cost. No doubt they are only bogans who will suffer and we don’t really care what they think do we, why would we care if they have homes and can feed the family. Labor has this problem where it has stood for a fair go and improving things at the family table for over 100 years. Whatever cc solution gets implemented needs to allow for this and allow the economy to adjust without a human disaster. Say like the cprs that could have been in place if the greens had of supported it rather than supporting the backflip do nuffin libs.
the $4 billion in royalties is largely spend in state subsidies and infrastructure – why are royalties so low anyway? – i am told by climate economist that coal industry is net loss to our economy. 80% figure has to CHANGE, this is challenge not difficulty. 30,000 about no at bunnings and still realtive – i think industry should shrink, where are plans for its future?? no everyone wins in climate stakes
ALP policy is to put a price
on carbon and to meet our international obligations.
LNP policy was to not put a price on carbon and
see what happens when polluters are given
a small amount of tax payer money to do something
to cut down on pollution.
Green action was to ensure that Rudd and Wong
could not take an actually legislated
ETS scheme to Copenagen.
GG
I think the current policy (which is hard to get a handle on) is:
have a cross party committee
have citizens assembly
have no policy other than renewable energy target till the end of Kyoto (currently 2012)
then come up with something that will WTTE ‘do no more or less than our fair share’.
legislate and implement ~2013-4
With the rumours that the Kyoto period will be extended until 2014 it means we may not have a serious climate policy until 2015-6.
[Starting the wheels turning on restructuring the economy via a carbon price might lose you the next election.]
Do you understand what you have just said? “Starting the wheels turning” means it aint in operation yet. “might lose you the next election.” I would argue probably which would put government in the hands of a group that want nothing to do with a carbon price. Do you actually think they would continuing the work of the previous government on? Really?
Correction to Me @ 184
When rudd dropped the ETS his rating went from +9 to -11 (not -1)
Gary 189
The treasury modelling said that implementing an ETS would do sweet fa to our economy or jobs.
b g,
That would be very good news for the Greens. Even more years to whinge.
Remember the Republican debate. The pro Republicans split and we’re still waiting for an outcome.
CC is the same. There’s plenty of agreement that something must be done. Just none on the specifics.
The Greens by opposing the CPRS have helped engineer this situation. They will fume in frustration because they couldn’t see clearly enough to get the process rolling.
More fool them.
i dont know a lot but suspect carbax tax best way to go and preferred first solution eg mixed economy finland 1990. the transition to carbon tax was gradual and very successful … took EU bureacrats and liberal economists to come up ETS .. however agree with Dr Good, the legislative initiative of ETS last year should be succeeded. bills can always be tweaked or revised. Have not yet forgiven brown for sitting with abbot on this one. great look. and look at political consequences and fall out of empowering abbot – brown knew that risk, but has he ever accepted responsibilty or regret – we came very close to loss for everyone include greens (eg new election DD)
[With the rumours that the Kyoto period will be extended until 2014 it means we may not have a serious climate policy until 2015-6.]
Surely that would be untenable? That said, I don’t believe the Libs will go for an ETS, not after the fuss Tone’s made about GBNT. They’d have to change leaders in order for that to happen.
Summary from treasury modelling of CPRS. Read the 1st line.
[The Treasury’s modelling demonstrates that early global action is less expensive than later action;
that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future even as emissions fall; and that many of Australia’s industries will maintain or improve their competitiveness under an international agreement to combat climate change.
Australia and the world continue to prosper while making the emission cuts required to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change. Even ambitious goals have limited impact on national and global economic growth.
Real household income continues to grow, although households face increased prices for emission-intensive products, such as electricity and gas.
Strong coordinated global action reduces the economic cost of achieving environmental objectives, reduces distortions in trade-exposed sectors, and provides insurance against climate change uncertainty.
There are advantages to Australia acting early if emission pricing expands gradually across the world: economies that defer action face higher long-term costs, as global investment is redirected to early movers.
Australia’s comparative advantage will change in a low-emission world. With coordinated global action, many of Australia’s emission-intensive sectors are likely to maintain or improve their international competitiveness.
Australia’s aggregate economic costs of mitigation are small, although the costs to sectors andregions vary. Growth in emission-intensive sectors slows and growth in low-and negative-emission sectors accelerates.
Allocation of some free permits to emission-intensive trade-exposed sectors, as the Government proposes, eases their transition to a low-emission economy in the initial years.
Accurately predicting which mitigation opportunities will prove most cost effective is impossible.
Instead, broadly-based market-oriented policies, such as emissions trading, allow the market to respond as new information becomes available.]
If only the ALP and others here would read the official govt documents.
Gary, you ‘start the wheels turning’ by putting comprehensive legislation through. That legislation covers the complete system, as seen at the time of legislating. Parts of the legislation apply in a phased approach over a number of years, but are locked in from the beginning. The changes don’t propagate through the economy all at once, that would be too disruptive obviously.
The coalition would have to actually repeal the legislation to stop it from continuing.
(a) the senate maths will remain the same in the forseeable future with the Greens holding BoP, so the coalition will not be able to independently do anything if Labor and Greens oppose
(b) the coalition themselves are not solid deniers, despite Abbott’s protestations. The Greg Hunts and Malcolm Turnbulls are still there. They would not be keen on repeal. It would probably even promote schisms in the Libs once in place.
Once it’s in, there’s a good chance it would stay in.
Do it. Do it now.
[The treasury modelling said that implementing an ETS would do sweet fa to our economy or jobs.]
Over what period of time would the change occur and would every job lost be made up straight way in the “good energy” sector. Treauery can still be right over a period of time but it’s the change over that is problematic.
Confessions
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2269515/un-chief-kyoto-protocol
[The coalition would have to actually repeal the legislation to stop it from continuing.
(a) the senate maths will remain the same in the forseeable future with the Greens holding BoP, so the coalition will not be able to independently do anything if Labor and Greens oppose
(b) the coalition themselves are not solid deniers, despite Abbott’s protestations. The Greg Hunts and Malcolm Turnbulls are still there. They would not be keen on repeal. It would probably even promote schisms in the Libs once in place.
Once it’s in, there’s a good chance it would stay in.
Do it. Do it now.]
To stop or hinder something going ahead is in the Libs DNA. Starve it of funds, delay it. Really, it is child’s play for crafty politicians.
blue-green:
I mean about delaying CC action until 2015-16.