Newspoll looks to be taking a week longer to return than I expected, but Essential Research was back in action yesterday with a poll showing no change in voting intention since the previous survey on December 20: the Coalition leads 52-48 on two-party preferred, with primary votes of 46 per cent for the Coalition, 38 per cent for Labor and 10 per cent for the Greens. Unusually, the two-survey rolling average for the latest figures encompasses polling done last week and in mid-December, suggesting little change in sentiment over the break. While Labor remains where it was on voting intention, Julia Gillard has enjoyed a spike in her personal ratings. Her approval is up eight points to 51 per cent and her disapproval down four to 36 per cent – her best figures since July 19 – and her lead as preferred prime minister has increased from 45-34 to 47-32. Tony Abbott’s ratings have improved as well: approval up three to 42 per cent and disapproval down two to 37 per cent. Other questions in the survey related to respondents’ online shopping habits.
The Australian Electoral Commission has also published the full report for the redistribution of Victorian federal electoral boundaries. I don’t believe Antony Green has calculated margins for this redistribution (he did for the more radical first version, which was entirely abandoned after a generally negative response), but I have it on pretty reliable authority that the Labor marginals list runs Corangamite (little change, with the margin still under 0.5 per cent), Deakin (pared back from 2.4 per cent to about 0.5 per cent) and La Trobe (a very slight boost but still around 1 per cent), followed by a big gap before Chisholm (6 per cent), Bruce (8 per cent), Melbourne Ports (8 per cent), McEwen (a four point boost to 9 per cent) and Bendigo (9 per cent). On the other side of the ledger, the 1.8 per cent Liberal margin in Aston has been cut to almost nothing, while Dunkley is unchanged on 1.0 per cent – beyond that are Casey (2 per cent), McMillan (4 per cent) and clusters of traditionally safe seats around 6 per cent (Wannon, Higgins and Goldstein) and 9 per cent (Menzies, Flinders and Indi).
UPDATE (24/1): Crikey reports this week’s Essential Research has Labor gaining a point to trail 51-49. The poll also inquired into various leaders’ handling of the flood crises, with 77 per cent rating Anna Bligh favourably against 6 per cent poor; 61 per cent against 4 per cent for Brisbane lord mayor Campbell Newman; 42 per cent against 23 per cent for Julia Gillard; 19 per cent against 32 per cent for Tony Abbott; 34 per cent against 8 per cent for Ted Baillieu; and 21 per cent against 23 per cent for Kristina Keneally.
UPDATE 2: Full report here. Primary vote figures show there’s not much in the shift on two-party: both the Coalition (45 per cent) and Labor (37 per cent) are down a point. Also covered are “most important issues in deciding how you would vote” (“ensuring a quality education for all children” down from 32 per cent to 23 per cent, for some reason) and best party at handling important issues (results much as you would expect).
his illustrates two points I made yesterday:
1. Since AGW is now officially a political issue, every political commentator regards themselves entitled to be an expert on it (the corollary of this is that every non-political commentator – e.g. ABC radio interviewers – feels it’s his or her official duty to steer well away from any discussion of AGW in order to remain “balanced”).
2. It would not be long before selective figures were used to “prove” this was not an unusual event, in that it was not as bad in some areas as 1974. Fun Fact: since 1974 they built the bloody Wivenhoe Dam and it still came close).
Following on from 2. above I also made the prediction that because, in some areas, the floods were not as great as 1974 would be used to “prove” Labor was “spending like a drunken sailor” in Queensland in a grubby vote-buying exercise. This accusation has not be levelled yet, but I don’t we’ll have to wait too long.
Labor needs to be careful that the spending is not too successful, or else “GFC Syndrome” will set in. Queenslanders will start to believe that either
(a) it was their won true grit that fixed up the mess, or
(b) there never was a flood.
A nice balance has to be maintained between a superlative all-the-trimmings effort and one which is a little less, but which is appreciated for what it is. This means that the state and federal governments have to keep on hammering the point that the floods DID happen and that it IS difficult to reconstruct.
It was possible (emphasis on “possible”) for the GFC to be seen as a “Northern Hemisphere thing” – the “Robb Gambit” – and/or as non-existent in this country because we are a tough, pioneering people who just get on with the job.
Hence the government needs to make sure that their help is vital and advertised as such, and that the extent of the disaster is continually emphasised for all it’s worth.
All part of the “government in exile” mentality.
confessions
There is another significant difference. It is possible for a jurisdiction to take action on smoking and gain benefits – reduced hospital costs, improved productivity and so on and so forth.
The AGW stuff suffers from the additional drag that it is a tragedy of the commons issue and that the UN is a badly flawed set of governance arrangements for dealing with AGW.
[1. Since AGW is now officially a political issue, every political commentator regards themselves entitled to be an expert on it (the corollary of this is that every non-political commentator – e.g. ABC radio interviewers – feels it’s his or her official duty to steer well away from any discussion of AGW in order to remain “balanced”).]
Bushfire Bill, didn’t say so yesterday, but I thought this point of yours was made quite excellently.
Gus – hope you gave Robb a tweet for an explantion. Has he ever acknowledged overspending by Howard Govt?
[ABC24: “The opposition says the government mustn’t introduce a floods levy.” No whys or wherefores.]
Talking about picking the right fight. This is the right fight.
Gillard should fight the Opposition on this. It should not be just a flood levy anyway, it should be a “Natural Disaster Levy” to cover floods, bush fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, and cyclones (any others?).
[Following on from Sheehan’s abysmal effort yesterday, today in the SMH we have Gerard Henderson basically saying that floods in the past prove that the current situation is completely normal and disprove that climate change is even happening and what’s more Bob Brown is the devil incarnate.]
Was that Gerard Henderson the famous hydrologist and civil engineer or Gerard Henderson the right wing political commentator who studied arts/law and wrote speeches for John Howard?
Sorry, it must be the latter. I can find no record of any Gerard Henderson who is qualified to talk about hydrology, flooding and climate change in any credible way.
bh
waste of time
he is merely dogwhistling to the fib shrills in the MSM
sorta sad really
Gusface
[is it at all possible for the opposition to be bi-partisan in this national disaster? ]
Perhaps you could tweet this to Andrew Robb
Angry Victorian flood victims want answers
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/property-at-risk-as-looters-strike-businesses-in-charlton/story-e6frf7kx-1225989881419
[ABC24: “The opposition says the government mustn’t introduce a floods levy.” No whys or wherefores.\
This seems to be why the mob think the Libs are better managers of mostly everything in the Essential Poll today. They pick up on what the Govt. is already thinking and put it out there as their own, e.g. Hockey and the banking issue.
If a levy is announced it will become their idea and they will get the credit.
Very clever
To give Langebroek his due, he probably wants to make sure that one of the TOR is the following:
‘That the Commission investigates the scientific basis for the view that increased burning of fossil fuels is probably causing floods with greater amplitude and frequency of floods. In particular, the Commission with report and make recommendations on the following:
(1) that increased burning of Queensland coal has resulted in increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations
(2) that there is a causal link between increased CO2 concentrations and warmer sea surface temperatures
(3) that there is a causal link between sea surface temperatures and rainfall event amount and intensity
(4) that the warmer the sea surface temperature, the more likely it will be that there will be more floods and that their amplitude will be greater
(5) that there is, therefore, a causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and flood amplitude and frequencey.
In so doing, the commission will:
(1) ensure that any scientific statements take all peer-reviewed research into account
(2) interview climate scientists and those with related expertise, such as hydrologists
(3) ensures that findings are couched in terms of probability and make reference to confidence limits.
Notes
(1) The Commission may make general ‘on the balance of probability’ statements.
(2) The TOR sets no limits on the scope of the recommendations made by the Commission as the result of its findings in this particular Term of Reference.’
I think that is what Langebroek is probably after and I support him 100%
Lucky the libs won victoria imagine the disaster if labor was in charge there. Rioting and looting will always be nicer under a liberal goverment.
vic
done
The ABC can, if it seriously believes it must, offer balance in every report on climate change. All they need to do is present brief credentials of those it offers up as experts.
For example – Prof Smith is emeritus Prof from Uni of Melb who has researched climate change for 15 years and has had nne articles peer reviewed. Mr Henderson is from a think tank – that sort of thing.
It should also be mandatory for said experts to declare conflicts of interest. For example if a think tank member is giving his views and said think tank receives financial support from mining companies, they should say so.
The ABC should have some sort of charter that requires that you know.
[I am really looking forward to the coalitions dam plan. I want a dozens sites identified in queensland in 12 months please. Then the people affected by the compulsory acquisitions can start planning for it.]
How they get out of it will be to claim that from opposition they don’t have the resources to do the needed study, but they will get on with it once back in their rightful role as government.
Will be interesting though if in 12 months when the QLD inquiry reports back, they have examined the need for dam building and made any recommendations as to what catchments could have dams built in them??
This business of the Oopo going definitive on no flood levy could backfire on them.
They may well base their whole economic platform this term on a line that if the govt hadn’t done the Stim Pacs in 2008-2009 we would have a surplus to pay for the flood relief. It allows them to keep running with their 3B’s which i think they see as successful considering the 2010 election result.
Their problem may well be that people have heard it to much, and will stop listenting, especially if Gillard can get on with things this year.
Gusface
thanks. much appreciated 🙂
victoria
I am looking forward to Leak and Nicholson doing a cartoon on the Victorian floods. I am picturing Ted sitting in a dinghy in the flood, racing past distraught flood victims, drowned stock, flooded houses, flooded businesses, and ruined crops.
But wait, here’s the comic bit: Ted has only one oar in the dinghy!
C’mon Leak? Nicholson? Sauce for the Gillard Goose is surely sauce for the Ted Gander? You have demonstrated that the facts are irrelevant, and I’ve done your thinking for you and given you an easy cheap shot.
Their ABC: the news is always newsier under a liberal government
There is a job in journalism for me if I keep this up.
[For example – Prof Smith is emeritus Prof from Uni of Melb who has researched climate change for 15 years and has had nne articles peer reviewed. Mr Henderson is from a think tank – that sort of thing.
It should also be mandatory for said experts to declare conflicts of interest. For example if a think tank member is giving his views and said think tank receives financial support from mining companies, they should say so.
The ABC should have some sort of charter that requires that you know.]
Gos – please send that to Senators Conroy and Ludlum. They are having an enquiry and I also think this should be mandatory. The presenters wouldn’t then have to worry about their Chairman’s reaction to what is or is not being presented on CC.
[“Tittles”……. perhaps?]
A case of “what goes round comes around”, eh markjs?
[If a levy is announced it will become their idea and they will get the credit.]
Whoops – I read the comments as the Oppn approves a levy.
If Howard was still in he’d put as levy on something to pay for it just as he did with the guns buyback.
Did anyone see the guy from Grantham being interviewed on Sky the other day who intially said he was worried about his guns in his house. The interview went on with the fella showing great concern for the security of the village which, of course, is a genuine concern.
When Sky showed the interview in the News bulletins it left out the bit about the guns and only showed him complaining about security of the village. The PM was then shown saying the village had huge security with ADF, Emergency and Police personnel swarming through it.
Why did Sky leave out the bit about the guns in the news bulletins?
[There is a job in journalism for me if I keep this up.]
the lobotomy bit is what stops me
😉
[I think that is what Langebroek is probably after and I support him 100%]
Boerwar@161 – wouldn’t that be great. Perhaps you could confirm with JL?
Boerwar
Ted Ballieu has been totally uninspiring during these floods. Neil Mitchell interviewed him this morning, and there was absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever. If that had of been the PM, Mitchell would be baying for blood. Brumby might just be grateful he is no longer leader. The Liberal party hacks would be savaging him right now.
BH
I actually made the suggestion of the levy the other night on this blog. I don’t know what percentage would be fair and reasonable for people to be expected to pay. But from my mind, it is the most simple and logical thing to do. My take on this is that the recovery is going to cost us one way or the other. Whether through taxes or levies, or budget cuts in other areas. The govt should put it to the nation. We all need to pay, and not only for the current disaster, but put funds aside for future ones.
Insurance cannot be relied on in these cases. In any case, whatever the insurance companies lose now, we will pay through higher premiums. There is no getting away from it costing us all.
Victoria
Interesting excerpt from that HS article on angry reactions to the victorian floods:
[Premier Ted Baillieu said he would examine the warning system.
“In some towns they felt they had very little warning.”
Mr Baillieu said he toured Carisbrook with SES officers who assessed some properties as safe, only to realise an hour later they were being flooded because there was no way of predicting water would come from more than one direction.]
WTF? Water flows downhill. Floods are quite predictable, as long as you know how much water has fallen where. The BOM tells you that. Any hydraulic model will tell you where the water goes.
The Victorian flooding is hardly a “flash flood”. The Campaspe River rain stopped falling on Saturday. There have been three days to get warnings out. See
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDV36750.txt
BH
btw were you able to verify Barnaby’s comments re “helping people with same accent”?
Socrates
truth be told. I think we Victorians are starting to sound like a bunch of whingers.
The Victorian floods would barely make the national news if the QLD floods hadn’t occured.
b-g
not sure about that. these floods are quite extensive.
http://yfrog.com/h5m7dobj
Wow Moreton Bay
Vic
Yes, extensive, but slow moving, and not really effecting more than a few regional towns. Similar to Nothern NSW floods in terms of economic consequences.
Why would the Liberals object to a flood levy? After all, it isn’t a new tax, is it? it would be just like the Private Health Insurance Levy, and that was not a new tax, was it?
http://yfrog.com/h5m7dobj
Wow Moreton Bay
That’s a lot of topsoil.
BG
Yes I wasn’t suggesting the Victorian floods were minor, just that they were slow moving and predictable. Nothing like Toowoomba, which was all over in under two hours. Hence there are no excuses for not getting warnings out.
Abbott and the libs will be trying anything and everything to get some traction.
At the moment they are irrelevant. Everything labor does they will oppose. They will try to push the government into corners and will also at some stage try to drag them into argument. All out of Abbotts play book.
If the government had come out and opposed the levy straight up the libs would have called it a good idea. The gloves are off.
The PM just has to keep on doing what she has been doing. Getting things done. Don’t get distracted by the lib rants over everything she does or says on any issue.
Stay focused on what is important and the people caught up in all this will appreciate her determination. It is not what is said but what is actually done that is important at this stage.
Soc, perhaps they couldnt afford a PPL levy and a flood levy and a dam levy all at the same time. And how are they going to pay for all the new levy banks as well?!!!!
Socrates#183
point well made. Perhaps someone should quizz the Rabbott. After all, he thought a levy on private business to fund maternity leave was a great idea.
BG
What to do with the levy? A taxing question!
Soc,
I noticed that on the BOM Hydro site, many of those western Victorian Rivers like the Wimmera did not have flood levels. They measured river heights, but did not say where a minor, moderate or major flood level was.
So I guess it is not a region that has had to frequently worry about this sort of thing.
Doyley
agreed. It must be hard for this current govt to govern under these conditions though?
b-g
#187
very clever!
b-g
you are right that it is a region that usually does not deal with flooding of this nature.
People that have lived in these areas all their life (some of whom are over 80 years old) cannot believe the water that is around them at present.
[btw were you able to verify Barnaby’s comments re “helping people with same accent”?]
No – I wasn’t and I’ve thought of ringing Sky newsroom to ask for a pointer to them.
OH, whose hearing is far too good, except on the occasions when I nag, swears black and blue that is what Joyce said. We were both so appalled and I reckon Sky is very selective on what it eliminates for later bulletins.
Will keep you posted.
Boerwar;
I think you are right about the causality stuff. It was only a few years ago when the cities were in the grip of severe water restrictions that support for action on global warming was at its highest.
Apparently the Rabbott is holding a presser in Sydney.
Eg
the wimmera river flood gauge does not actually say what river height a flood is.
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDV67206/IDV67206.578004.plt.shtml
Same goes for Horsham
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDV67206/IDV67206.579000.plt.shtml
BH
I think you are right about Sky being selective about what it eliminates for their bulletins.
[Why would the Liberals object to a flood levy? After all, it isn’t a new tax, is it? it would be just like the Private Health Insurance Levy, and that was not a new tax, was it?]
Was there not a Timor Levy and a Guns Buyback Levy?
Now just who slapped them on? T
Also an ANSETT levy