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.
Gary,
the modelling was from the period 2010 to 2050.
Re Compulsory voting, I think it’s benefits outweigh it’s cons.
Without it voters are deliberately disenfranchised by political parties and corporations by discouraging them from voting or making it difficult for them to vote, and without compulsory voting, encouraging turnout becomes as much a battle for parties as does any of the issues concerned, causing them to resort to hyper partisan and dangerous rhetoric in an attempt to get their base to turn out.
You only have to look at the USA to see examples of this. Compulsory voting is an anti extremist measure in that it ensures voter turnout cannot be manipulated by outside forces. I’ll take it with the caveat that you you don’t have the freedom not to vote, a stupid ‘freedom’ in my opinion anyway, any day.
Just started reading and agree with VP’s earlier posts.It is important for ALP to play a slow game. When Rudd was PM I couldn’t help thinking at the time that there were too many issues at the table and maybe they weren’t getting due diligence.The volume and speed of announcements dulled me and I think the electorate. This is what I think is meant when the electorate stopped listening. Now this isn’t hind sight–I felt it at the time. What I can say in hindsight is that ALP lost sight of the politics. Rudd was running things at a million miles an hour and the Govt got a helter-skelter look about it. I’m almost certain that if Rudd had have said to the public at the height of GFC wtte look we are in a crisis. It is like a war cabinet . All of our energies are now on this and if some of our projects/promises have to be put on hold until we get through this crisis then I think public would have accepted it. So today I say to Govt ..take your time, keep an eye on the politics because it would be better to get reforms in place at a later date than not at all.
Greensborough Growler
Posted Monday, September 13, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Permalink
Diogs,
I notice you are still lying about Martin Ferguson and his attitude to Climate Change. You really are pathetic.
“TONY JONES: Let me ask you this directly. Do you personally believe in the science that says that human-induced greenhouse gases are the cause of dangerous global warming and climate change? Do you personally believe that?
MARTIN FERGUSON: Not only do I believe in it, that is the view of Government, but perhaps more importantly I am actually more FOCUSSED on actually how you make practical progress to reduce emissions”.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2842402.htm
Diogenes (and j/v) hav derailed this site consistently for years with lies about CC , which has actualy prevented sensible CC discussion on PB
They’ve been repeated called out on it by GG , frank , Gary but got away with it cause others aint also called them out so they know they is irelevant
For those intersted , what Ferguson mant and said then (or may be at a later inteview was his Depts current numerous operational tests re Wind , biomass , solar , CC& S and geo thermal for viability , tech and process toth electricity grid for large scales domestic consdumpton and business useage These is practical co2 mitigation steps which may be boring but only to those just wantin to air fluff feel good coments on PB
Marieke Hardy writes a letter of condolences to ‘The Australian’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/13/3010334.htm
[The Treasury’s modelling demonstrates that early global action is less expensive than later action]
Now see you’re trying to convince me of CC. You don’t need to do that. I’m not a denier. The word that stands out there is “global” by the way. What happens if it’s not global?
[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]
I do.
Confessions
JG said she would have a policy in place for the end of the kyoto period
Exact words from climate speech
[In April, the Government took a difficult decision which deferred the CPRS until at least 2012. ]
followed by
[And I will maintain the Government’s current commitment to review our progress in 2012, as we approach the end of the current Kyoto commitment period.]
The decision not to replace the CPRS with something meaty is essentially a renegging on Australia’s committment to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020.
i’d go for carbon tax – australia should be a mixed economy, a la scandinavian – as resource rich and primary producer – too much economic liberalism in world and accept many criticisms about speculation and dysfunctions by market forces in ETS. of course most people and industries since menzies fooled by anti socialist propaganda — wasn’t it wheeled out on mineral tax in last election. agree in economic interest to have early decision – postponement = failore or manipulation. but please, a gradualist fabian model – no draconian goals at first, just get legisation in then adjust (same with mineral tax, why was it all at once, why not 20% at first for example …)
[ 30,000 about no at bunnings and still realtive ]
30, 000 directly, another 100,000 indirectly. Most of these jobs are not your Bunnings type low skilled jobs. I’m not sure if you have spent any time down a modern long wall coal mine, but we are not talking low-tech operations and these people are not just going to neatly transition out of a pit in the hunter into a windmill factory.
A price on carbon we can do, make the coal companies fund their share sure, to think we can shut the industry overnight though is just crazy.
Ron
[We got best system in World ]
Well stop complaining about Wilkie making his own decisions then.
Dr Good
[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.]
I worry that the libs think they have a better “solution” because of the diagram before the election saying theirs was tops for cutting emissions. Frankly, I couldn’t understand that – even allowing for disbelief on their actual policy.
I’ve long thought that Australia is better placed than just about any other part of the world to act as a “show case” when it comes to reducing carbon emissions.
Firstly we have a comparatively small population, and high education levels and technological capability
Secondly we are wealthy enough to be able to afford to be in the “early adopter” group.
Thirdly we have an environment that makes the generation of electricity by sustainable means easier than just about anywhere else. Wind, Tide, Solar, Geo-thermal – we’ve got em all covered.
Fourthly we have a political and economic structure which lends itself well to the development of substantial infrastructure developments through a combination of public and private financing (though we haven’t been making as much use of it as we should for such things in recent decades!)
Fifthly, our status as one of the world’s great pollutors in per capita terms should at least give us a bit of an impetus to do better.
Sixthly, we are country that is likely to be substantially affected by climate change, given our issues with both water and fire, and our proclivity for living close to the shore line, and have possibly seen the signs of it already through an apparent increase in extreme weather events.
Seventhly, we like being “best” at things – hence our passion for sports. We are probably now just about mature enough as a nation to want to move on to something more serious than games. Becoming a world leader in the implementation of low emission strategies is within our means , and would vastly improve our international reputation.
Finally, we could certainly make a quid out of it. China is crying out for reduced and zero emission technologies. It alone could provide the lifeblood for a major Australian industry in this area, but the countries that get a jump with this stuff generally are going to do very well indeed the world over.
I first heard something about the probability of global warming from CO2 emissions from my 5th Year High School Geography teacher , Miss Cruikshank, way back in 1968. I heard a heck of a lot more about it when I was studying for a Grad Dip in Environmental science some 20 years later. Another two decades later its time we bit the bullet. Australia has a huge amount to gain, and little to lose, by grabbing the opportunities we have in this area with both hands. It is simply crazy to delay any longer.
RNM – “Slow game” – are you kidding? If labor sits around on its hands, not doing much except massaging the message it is heading for a catastrophic defeat.
Implicit in your analysis is a belief that Rudd would have actually lost the last election. Don’t accept that for a moment.
[A price on carbon we can do, make the coal companies fund their share sure, to think we can shut the industry overnight though is just crazy.]
Jon, that’s a straw man argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
No one here has said shut it down overnight. No policy options on the table suggest shutting it down overnight. The CRPS was not going to shut down the industry overnight. Even the Greens carbon tax was not going to shut it down overnight.
[Diog clearly you believe the coal industry must be smashed regardless of the human cost.]
Umm, that looks like a hysterical straw-man.
I’m sorry that you don’t understand climate science.
Rod
I might just borrow your list 🙂
RNM – Indeed, because this is a minority govt it has to run even harder than Rudd’s government, because it has to justify its existence even more. The MSM are desperate to call it weak and feeble and call for it tobe put out of its misery.
You want to see a govt that plays a “slow game” look at NSW
Ets was not simply ‘liberal’ economists – there was a krugman article on how it had already been used to great effect in that left wing crazy place the USA. Google the article it called for some direct action as well. Say banning new coal powerplants but not I think shutting down a whole industry over night.
blue-green: It’s irrelevent now what the PM said in the campaign, as the election outcome delivered a result which largely takes the matter out of her hands.
As I said, delaying action on CC for 5+ years would be untenable. I doubt they will though.
Rosa
given that 3 indies and a green all want a carbon price- thats a pretty good consensus.
My slogan for this year is:
“addressing climate change- Australia, it’s not too hard”
b g,
I hoped you’ve noticed that the Government doesn’t actually have a majority on the floor of the HOR and negotiating any CC legislation through is not going to be straight forward or necessarily comply with the Government’s intentions.
That’s not to say the Government won’t try. But, implementing policies is a lot more tricky than before. Your simplistic expectations of Government action in this new power sharing paradigm is disingenuous.
GG
[Your simplistic expectations of Government action in this new power sharing paradigm is disingenuous.]
I have said before that some easy reforms may become hard and some hard reforms may become easy.
All three Indies are on the record wanting a carbon price. It is worth testing.
[As I said, delaying action on CC for 5+ years would be untenable.]
Untenable but not unlikely.
Thanks Jon
No no shut down, all changes gradual and at end of day clean coal might keep in. market driven to extent of competing energies. But when will it start? suddenly Labor is on defensive again, and not even sworn in
RNM@203 – spot on. Some very experienced people made the same comments in that Kev had a short attention span. As soon as he’d thought of one thing he was on to the next without bedding down the first. Howard’s only virtue was in knowing not to frighten the horses with too much on the plate at one time and if things went wrong he was there to dogmatically argue his case.
Labor definitely lost sight of the politics. Minority govt. will refocus them very quicky, I hope.
[ No one here has said shut it down overnight. ]
How long would be acceptable then BG?
[Jon
Posted Monday, September 13, 2010 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
No one here has said shut it down overnight. ]
[How long would be acceptable then BG?]
Its a mix of adaptive managment and precautionary principle.
Reduce and watch. Reduce and watch.
The further we go into this century the surer we will be about the need (and magnitude) of the reductions needed.
Australia would be better off reducing in our own time than having reduction foisted upon us by tarrifs.
William Bowe
Posted Monday, September 13, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Permalink
‘Ron: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
William: “I do”
then th balance of my post will apply that said:
‘then we’d in oz (with a then NON compulsory voting sytem) 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’
and I’d suggest to you that in ACTUAL on th ground practice that those my above USA type negs far out weigh your positives , unless you feel oz politcal partys is always ethical
Jon
How much warming is acceptable?
How much risk of runaway climate change are you willing to bear?
Let me guess, now they’re not happy with Combet?
So how well does someone need to understand climate science for Australia alone to mitigate global warming?
Just let the loonies, like Diogs 😆 get their jollies pretending that we can solve the problems of CC regardless of whether the real polluters fail to act or not.
Playing “pretends” is a real favourite of theirs in Skyland!
It is rather cute seeing everyone interpret Combet’s words re: coal jobs.
One way or another, we will likely see coal mining and exports double and then double again before it peaks and reduces. The coal industry will not even begin to decline within the next 20 years. As some mining areas fade, others will come online. Infrastructure is being built right now with lifetime of over 40 years. One way or another, this capacity will be used until it needs to be replaced.
All the people spouting the “Australia will be rooned with a carbon price” are should try explaining how they are different to the COALition.
They should also read something about climate science, as well as reading about the economic consequences of climate change.
Doing nothing is much more expensive than doing something.
[Centre
Posted Monday, September 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
Let me guess, now they’re not happy with Combet?
So how well does someone need to understand climate science for Australia alone to mitigate global warming?]
Its not so much the science, but the 1st words from a new climate minister is WTTE ‘we will protect the coal industry’ and then demonstrates a misunderstanding of economics and technology by expecting clean coal to fix it.
I did my PhD on the economics of climate change and get very frustrated with each and every forum or comments column I read on different sites when the subject of climate change comes up.
Needless to say, one of the benefits of the subject getting widespread public recognition is that it now now taken much more seriously.
One of the big negatives though is that the level of debate has deteriorated dramatically in recent years, the level of ignorance and misinformation from all parties is very frustrating to read. Which is why for the most part I generally skim, ignore and very rarely participate in these arguments.
For what it is worth, in my opinion a carbon tax is a far superior policy to the ETS/cap and trade option. Sadly, those with influence do not want a carbon tax, those who can profit from an ETS want it and they have the ears of the politicians.
[They should also read something about climate science, as well as reading about the economic consequences of climate change.
Doing nothing is much more expensive than doing something.]
Also the international relations and defence consequences of CC.
http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=133
Diog – have you heard the new Grinderman album yet?
blue_green 234
amen. another shot in the foot. when will these guys learn to speak well in public?
Gweeds
Thanks for the link. Rather chuffed she picked up the handbag nonsense and Ruddock/Wyatt Roy hugs, both of which I commented on earlier.
You are sorry I don’t understand climate science, how very sweet, but whether or not you are right on that call we aren’t talking science we ate talking politics and how best to get from the nasty world we are in to a world that is clean and green and has beautiful people in white outfits in a garden of Eden like that beer add. We are talking about a frame work to get the whole world there. I’m suggesting the ets was as good as any a first step and much better than many. I am also suggesting you need to carry all the people with you and not just stomp on the bogans cause you don’t like their southern cross tatts and v8’s.
BH 226
For what it’s worth, I agree 100% with you about Kevin. He is such a clever, intellectual sort of guy, and hard worker working (too) long hours, there is always the risk of having too much on the plate at once.
I can understand why he did it this way, Labor having been out for 12 years, but in the end the message of all the good things achieved is swamped by the not so good ones.
Most Australians wouldn’t have a clue as to the great innovative achievements of the Rudd-Gillard government. The focus of the MSM is always on the MSM. I hope Julia does things at a slower, but more effective pace, and somehow getting the publicity, though it’s nigh impossible with the current state of the MSM.
deflationite
[For what it is worth, in my opinion a carbon tax is a far superior policy to the ETS/cap and trade option. Sadly, those with influence do not want a carbon tax, those who can profit from an ETS want it and they have the ears of the politicians.]
I completely agree. That makes you a loon though.
Hamish
I have heard part of it. Better than the first one. More grunt and edgier.
Another OO Beatup:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/labor-faces-brain-drain-as-staffers-quit/story-fn59nqgy-1225920649496?from=public_rss
Sorry, that should read
“The focus of the MSM is always on the negative”.
B-G @ 234,
There is no misunderstanding of economics here. Raising the cost of living for the vast majority of Australians for miniscule benefit to the climate (provided major polluters don’t act) is without doubt one of the most stupid policies I have ever heard.
Get off Skyland and back onto the real world!
wewantpaul 240. I agree completely. ETS last year was “as good as any first step and much better than many”. will there be another go – greens assume there will be but yet ot be proven
bg
There will be trade tariffs against climate sceptic countries like Australia as well. The EU etc will bring them in for recalcitrant economies who try to bludge on their international duties.
[ Its a mix of adaptive managment and precautionary principle. ]
Such a principle could just as easily be turned around on you BG. Am sure adapt and tread cautiously is a line straight from the Lavoisier Group.
I agree in theory, what needs to happen is more industry funds need to get funnelled into alternative technologies. Right now short of nuclear there just isn’t an alternative to coal without causing serious financial pain.
b g,
And the first rule of politics, if you are intent on a meaningul outcome, is don’t insult people if you want them at the negotiating table.
The Coal industry has to be a player in any negotiations. It would be pointless for Combet to be dictating outcomes at this stage of proceedings.
Greensborough Growler@249
AKA imagine Twiggy Forrest as a Coal Miner.