Stuff and/or nonsense

Antony Green blogs on three developments in electoral and parliamentary reform so I don’t have to. To cut some long stories short:

• An all-party agreement to revert the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly to 35 members, from which it was cut to 25 in 1998, has fallen through after Opposition Leader Will Hodgman withdrew support in a riposte to government budget cuts.

• After flirting with a self-interested reversion to compulsory preferential voting, which was ditched in favour of the superior optional preferential model in 1992, the Queensland government has confirmed no such change will occur before the next election.

• The Australian Electoral Commission’s submission to the parliamentary inquiry into last year’s election has called for the federal parliament to follow the lead of New South Wales and Queensland in allowing enrolment to be updated automatically using data available from schools, utilities and such, thereby relieving voters of the bureaucratic annoyance that is currently required of them in discharge of their legal obligation. Antony Green also reports “rumours the Federal government plans to legislate on the matter”. Given the standard of discourse from some elements of the media in recent times, this could get interesting.

On a related note, British voters go to the polls on May 5 to decide whether to replace their archaic first-part-the-post electoral system with the manifestly superior “alternative vote”, or optional preferential voting as we know it in Australia. Antony Green has been working overtime lately responding to the avalanche of tosh being disseminated by the “no” campaign in its efforts to deceive the voters into making the wrong decision.

With no Morgan poll this week, here are some reports on Coalition internal polling which you can believe or not believe according to taste.

• The Australian reports a poll conducted for the Nationals in the wake of the carbon tax announcement had 40 per cent of voters in Lyne taking a favourable view of Rob Oakeshott, against 52 per cent unfavourable. This is said to compare with a poll conducted before the 2008 by-election that brought him to federal parliament which had his approval rating at 71 per cent and disapproval at just 8 per cent.

• Simon Benson of the Daily Telegraph reports a Coalition poll conducted for the NSW election shows 62 per cent “firmly against” the government’s carbon tax proposal, with only 18 per cent in favour.

UPDATE (7/3/11): The first Essential Research poll taken almost entirely after the carbon tax announcement has the Coalition opening up a 53-47 lead. Considering Labor went from 51-49 ahead to 52-48 behind on the basis of last week’s polling, half of which constituted the current result, that’s slightly better than they might have feared. The Coalition is up two points on the primary vote to 47 per cent, Labor is down one to 36 per cent and the Greens are steady on 10 per cent. Further questions on the carbon tax aren’t great for Labor, but they’re perhaps at the higher end of market expectations with 35 per cent supporting the government’s announcement and 48 per cent opposed. Fifty-nine per cent agreed the Prime Minister had broken an election promise and should have waited until after the election, while 27 per cent chose the alternative response praising her for showing strong leadership on the issue. Nonetheless, 47 per cent support action on climate change as soon as possible, against only 24 per cent who believe it can wait a few years and 19 per cent who believe action is unnecessary (a figure you should keep in mind the next time someone tries to sell you talk radio as a barometer of public opinion). There is a question on who should and shouldn’t receive compensation, but I’d doubt most respondents were able to make much of it.

Tellingly, a question on Tony Abbott’s performance shows the electorate very evenly divided: 41 per cent are ready to praise him for keeping the government accountable but 43 per cent believe he is merely obstructionist, with Labor-voting and Coalition-voting respondents representing a mirror image of each other. Twenty-seven per cent believe independents and Greens holding the balance of power has been good for Australia against 41 per cent bad, but I have my doubts about the utility of this: partisans of both side would prefer that their own party be in majority government, so it would have been good to have seen how respondents felt about minority government in comparison with majority government by the party they oppose.

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.

2,939 comments on “Stuff and/or nonsense”

Comments Page 4 of 59
1 … 3 4 5 … 59

  2. [SpaceKidette Space Kidette
    @MrDenmore @darrenlaver Murdochracy: Where journalists have never held an opinion they weren’t given.
    ]

  3. Mark Kenny does some speculating on the Turnbull longshot. It’s all pretty flimsy and doesn’t seem plausible to me, but there are some interesting tidbits in the article

    [
    To observers, it seems out of all proportion. One senior minister told me she was aghast at some of the comments directed at Ms Gillard across the chamber. She said the PM could handle it but claimed such behaviour would not have been tolerated by leaders of either stripe in previous parliaments.

    As a claim, it is hard to verify given that much of what is said on the floor can only be heard on the floor. But one can’t ignore the plain misogyny in some of the insults dispatched elsewhere in the building such as when one Liberal routinely describes the PM as “the red-haired harpy”. If you think that’s mild, go check the definition.
    ]

    …..

    [
    This temperature rise is no accident. Conservative shock jocks such as the Liberal Party agent, Sydney broadcaster, Alan Jones, have been goading disquiet over the independents, and one Liberal is known to be passing on the mobile phone numbers of Messrs Oakeshott and Windsor to anyone who raises concerns about the carbon tax.

    Mr Abbott’s Liberals are now intent on either blasting the regional independents free from Ms Gillard by making their lives so unpleasant that they walk, or more likely, ruining their local standing to ensure their removal at the next election.

    ]

    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-turnbull-longshot-that-couldstop-the-nasty-rhetoric/

  4. OC – I hope it’s seen as Abbott being contrary again.

    Late last night I caught Rob O’s NPC session. He’s a very worthy politician and so much better than Vaille in that seat. I am still impressed with him.

    Not many journos there but Lenore Taylor asked some good questions. She is a thoroughly good reporter. It seems that Fairfax has the pick of the crop at the moment – Taylor, Phil Coorey, Ross Gittins, Laura Tingle and Peter Hartcher. even if I don’t always see things the same way as Harcher.

  5. Pebbles, I agree with you. I don’t think Labor parliamentarians, let alone their supporters and the general public, know what the carbon pricing thing is all about. The ground should have been prepared very thoroughly in time for any announcement.

    As to GetUp!, it did some good work in the High Court in getting the enrolment period extended before last year’s election. It’s terrific to see automatic enrolment on the agenda now. The final solution.

    But GetUp! did not inspire me in the election proper. In Sturt it was supposed to be supporting the Labor candidate Rick Sarre against Christopher Pyne. At my booth the GetUp! workers did not hand out normal how-to-votes but stopped people to question them on issues. Most people just walked past. I doubt whether GetUp! had any real influence at all.

  6. I am getting rather sick of pseuds who make a comparison with another country and say, ‘See!’ that is how we should do it in Australia. The latest is from Noel Pearson in ‘The Weekend Australian’. The headline is ‘Proof of welare’s multiple failings’ and the intro is: ‘Singapore shows us which direction the path from poverty should take.’
    Here are a few points that Pearson missed:

    (1) If he wrote an article like that in Singapore he would probably have fallen foul of their internal security laws and would be facing a bit of jail time.
    (2) Singapore exports poverty so it minimizes welfare investment. It takes workers from o/s, pays them shit wages, uses them up and shoves them back o/s when they are redundant. Pearson might like to take a look at the ‘welfare’ they get back home when repatriated. My question is this: ‘Is Pearson proposing that Australia treats Indigenous people like Singapore treats it foreign workers?’
    (3) It is also about time Pearson stopped being so one-sided when it comes to welfare. I’ll give two examples from personal experience:
    (a) Forty years ago you could count the number of Indigenous people with a tertiary education on less than two hands. Now there are tens of thousands with post-secondary and tertiary qualifications. This is a welfare outcome. Such people are spotted everywhere in Australian society and, while not reflecting the general labour force profiles, have penetrated a long way into the wider economy. A long way to go? Of course. But you cannot deny that welfare funding of postive discrimination programs for edcation and education support as well as for employment support has had a tremendous and positive impact. (I dare say that Noel and his family have been direct beneficiaries of this sort of welfare spending. But I would be guessing.)
    (b) Thirty-five years ago I lived in an Indigenous community that had no running water, no sewerage system, no electricity, and a dirt-floored, unlined, windowless tin shed for every 14 people. The literacy rate was 0%. Welfare means that this community now has all the basic mod cons. Welfare. I am not saying it does not have major problems it does. But housing, reticulated water, sewerage and electricity and major improvements in literacy and education levels are good results from welfare spending. Oh, and health? Blindness from Trachoma, leprosy, turberculosis amongst adults and endemic scabies, lice, tropical ulcers, middle ear infections and gastro conditions were endemic amongst the children. As was malnutrition and outright hunger. Most of that third world stuff has either gone or has been reduced. First world illnesses have taken their place, unfortunately. But, but, but… the welfare outcomes have been tremendous.
    My points? Don’t make spurious and seriously uninformed part-comparisons with other countries.
    Don’t blindly knock welfare as if it is intrinsically evil. It isn’t. Indigenous people have been major beneficiaries of welfare spending. The issues raised by Pearson are reasonable in terms of trying to answer the question: ‘Where to from here?’ But don’t chuck the baby out with the bathwater.

  7. victoria – hope you have a good day but remember SK’s version of childraising is the right one wtte 59 minutes of strain followed by 1 minute of unadulterated bliss.

  9. I am also getting heartily sick of the way that employment outcomes are being discussed in the carbon price debate. Here are some of the things that are pissing me off:
    (1) When will we start getting into true comparitive outcomes of alternative policy settings. For example, how many jobs have we lost because of floods, fire and drought. How many more jobs will we lose from economic dislocations arising from AGW?
    (2) People who point to Spain and say, ‘Spain invested heavily in renewables and it is a basket case with 20% unemployment.’ I will be quite clear: I have no idea how many green jobs were gained and lost in Spain. But I travelled in Spain after the GFC and saw dozens of construction sites (sometimes whole suburbs or apartment complexes) half completed and scattered with rusting machinery, idle cranes, scaffolding and weeds. I understand that there are, literally, hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings unable to be sold. In other words, the Spanish economy collapsed when their massive housing bubble burst. My point is this: if you are going to argue that the Spanish economy demonstrates a point, you need to take all considerations into account, not just your favourite hobby horse.

  10. The OO have, along with their servants in the Coalition, this nasty feeling becoming a gut wrenching realisation that July 1st is getting closer and closer….that day sees a new dawn in Federal politics, the Coalition then come down to earth with an almighty thud as not only have they lost the Senate but they have successfully alienated the cross benches to the extent they will be languishing in Opposition until the end of 2013, a distant two and a half years away….far too long for an unhinged, dropout seminarian, religious freak to hang on as leader of a political party. One doesn’t really know who ones friends are when the stakes are as high as they are in this madmans game. Rabbott will be dropped like the proverbial when the lies, misinformation, name calling, threats and bullying fail to achieve what his masters demanded.
    I have a wonderful bottle of Bordeaux Chateau Latour waiting to be uncorked, that time will be when the knife goes into the MAD one and brings about his demise or better still if he walks showing what a gutless creep he is.
    I feel so much better for letting that out, ah what a wonderful day.

  11. some one should as him if we start cutting welfare it would be howards/tone lot that started jumping up and down first may be

  16. David,

    I will have to hunt down a favourite drop and put it aside for the 1st July. I will join you in that drink from a distance!

  20. really all the shok joks ect are so un australian, this is not the australian way

    howard use to use this word didnt he

    but really its not the Australian way to denigrate and call names
    that i can remember,
    i dont Menzies did it he may have had a quick wit but he never used bad language did he as i was still at school when he was around i stand corrected
    but i get the feeling he would say
    to the this shok jock lot this is so so unaustarlian.

  21. This is from Climate Spectator – needs free registration to view the site,
    so am showing the full article –

    Cheat notes for shock jocks

    Giles Parkinson

    On the way back from a football game the other night, my son decided to aggravate my disappointment over a nil-all draw by flicking the radio dial over to 2GB. Here was night-time radio announcer Brian Wilshire railing against the carbon tax, the Prime Minister and the Greens – and anyone else who “didn’t like humans” – and encouraging his listeners to join the march against the carbon tax in Canberra on March 23.

    Wilshire was quite adamant; there were many subjects where there were two valid sides of the debate, but global warming was not one of them. It was a con, a hoax, and Tim Flannery would be round anytime soon to dig up people’s gardens, because he doesn’t like them either.

    It occurred to me that it wasn’t just his listeners, but Wilshire himself that was being conned. It would be all very well to follow Tony Abbott and join the carbon crusade to protect the right of industry to pollute the atmosphere, if Abbott genuinely believed the science was crap. At least that’s a point of view.

    But that’s not what Abbott says he is about. He says publicly that he accepts the science and he even has a policy to back it up. Like Labor, it is a commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020 (that will be 27 per cent per capita from current projected levels). And just like Labor, he also has a plan to introduce a carbon price, his spokesman Greg Hunt repeatedly assures us.

    The not so subtle difference is that while Labor promises to tax the polluters and compensate the consumers, the Coalition intends to dip into the accumulated savings of the consumers (via the budget), to compensate the polluters. No other government in the world has decided that it can address this problem by meeting the entire cost with taxpayers’ money.

    The government produced a document this week alleging a shortfall of $30 billion in the coalition’s plan, but that was mostly about the ability of “soil carbon” to satisfy most of the planned emissions reductions, and of it being accepted under international rules, which it currently isn’t. Of more concern to the shock jocks should be questions about the impact of the coalition’s proposal to close down brown coal power stations and compensate the owners.

    This is way out of step with what’s happening overseas. The Coalition and its supporters like to reference most things they do with what’s happening or not happening in the US, or China. But these two countries – the two biggest emitters who account for more than half of the world’s emissions – are closing down the worst polluting stations without compensation. China has already closed an estimated 40GW of its dirtiest power stations, the US EPA will likely close down up to 50GW as it enforces the clean air act and delivers on its undertakings to cut its emissions by 4 per cent from 2000 levels from 2020 (or 17 per cent from 2005). They don’t plan any compensation at all.

    The Coalition’ insists it can implement its plan without impacting electricity prices. But many energy market analysts doubt that, saying at best it was a “wobbly assumption” that would require an extraordinarily high subsidy from the taxpayers, particularly with the likelihood that more power stations would need to be closed to meet the target, and with the price of gas expected to rise significantly in coming years as Asian buyers increase their demand for Australian gas.

    Ben Vanderwaal, the managing director of ROAM Consulting, one of the leading energy experts in the country, says replacing coal with gas means that gas sets the marginal price for the market as a whole, particularly in the shoulder periods and leading into the peaks. One of the perverse outcomes of this, and coming from a small carbon tax for that matter, is that while the consumers pay more, the coal generators still operating – and that’s most of them – benefit from higher revenue.

    “The underlying electricity price will be broadly similar where it be direct action or a carbon tax,” Vanderwaal says. The final cost to the consumer depends on where a government either allocates the revenue from the tax under the Labor/Greens plan, or the amount of subsidies it allocates from the budget, under the Coalition plan.

    Which means that the price of the bananas that Abbott was holding in the supermarket the other day would very likely rise the same under the Coalition as the ALP. Which would be what? Five cents an item? As Josh Dowse points out in his Business Spectator opinion piece today, the survey conducted by the Australian Industry Group last week found that electricity costs for most businesses in Australia represented just 2-4 per cent of costs, so even the impact of a $25 carbon price would be a fraction of that. And energy efficiency measures would reduce it again.

    Body parts

    A recent blog on Climate Progress highlighted the attempts by the US Chamber of Commerce to prevent the Environmental Protection Authority from regulating greenhouse emissions. The chamber argued that the EPA had exaggerated the impact of global warming on humans, because it hadn’t taken into account the increased use of air conditioning and the ability of humans to adapt their bodies to different conditions.

    “Overall, there is strong evidence that populations can acclimatise to warmer climates via a range of behavioural, physiological, and technological adaptations. The initial physiological acclimatisation to hot environments can occur over a few days to weeks, but complete acclimatisation may take several years.”

    As the Climate Progress blog noted, the chamber apparently thinks it’s a better idea to allow humans to change their bodies rather than force industries to reduce emissions. So, we ask, what physiological changes would work for you? A camel-type hump to store water in droughts (surely cheaper than a desal plant), webbed feet to cope with rising water levels? Or do we all have to end up looking like Cory Bernardi?

    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/cheat-notes-shock-jocks

  22. Oh dear, things are getting desperate in NZ.

    [Mar 5, 2011 – Thieves break IN to New Zealand prison

    WELLINGTON – A NEW ZEALAND prison suffered a reversal of the norm when it became the victim of a break-in.

    Police said on Saturday that thieves had broken into the prison at New Plymouth, on the west coast of the North Island, just before midnight and stolen a large plasma television.

    ‘If any members of the public saw anyone carrying a big TV at that time of night, or heard or saw anything in the area of the prison, let police know,’ Sergeant Thomas McIntyre said.

    The New Plymouth Prison is the oldest operating jail in New Zealand, having been in continuous use since the 1860s when it was converted from an army hospital.

    The old jailhouse is surrounded by a large stone wall topped with razor wire, while a newer unit is surrounded by a fence topped with barbed wire. — AFP]

  23. From the last thread:
    [victoria
    Posted Friday, March 4, 2011 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    I forgot Bronwyn Bishop and Kevin Andrews. Have I left anyone out?]

    How could you forget Erica? I’d have included Barnyard, too, but perhaps you were referring only to Liberals.

  24. Leaked internal polls mean nothing except they fill the vacuum until there is more information from legitimate polsters like Newspoll.

    The backbenchers/opposition/cabinet will always act to maximise their time in power. Dumping Rudd was a risky action of a party facing a major loss. The hit to the party if they were to dump Gillard would be significant but will be weighed against the popularity of her as leader and the carbon tax.

    I’d be confident that if polls remain 50/50 then Labor won’t dump Gillard but if the government was to become as popular as Labor in NSW then she is bound to get the boot.

    If the polling is really bad and continues after the NSW election, the knives will be sharpened. If she recovers from an initial hit, then Labor will be unable to change the policy and she will lead Labor to the next election with the carbon tax defining her first term.

    My personal opinion is that she is losing the battle of selling this. She has taken an ETS with 70% support and turned it into a carbon tax with 30% support. Gillard, Shorten, Wong etc are not winning hearts and minds and Bob Brown grinning like a cheshire cat is only making things worse.

  25. Can I take the opportunity to thank TP for his forbearance and strength. How lucky we are that such as he are willing to wade through postings they despise so much just so they can share their words of criticism with us, inaccurate generalisations as they may be.

    Sad though that he cannot find anywhere he likes and instead feels compelled to snipe here amongst those he feels below his station.

  26. [Oakeshott Country
    Posted Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    TSOP
    Why make the announcement now without the details?
    Isn’t this politics 101? – you leak the bad news and let your opponents go ballistic over it. Then you release the details which aren’t nearly as bad as the opposition has claimed. Your opponents then 1. look like extremists and 2. are locked into the rhetoric they have already used. In the meantime the public accept the idea.
    Results: policy gets up and opposition is wedged]

    My view, too, OC. The Opposition and their backers at News and talk radio always telegraph their punches. Labor was playing for that effect. They won’t get around to the details before the dust is settled. Whatever outrage is still left (and as you say it won’t be much when they realize they won’t be stung too badly) will be dismissed as crying ‘wolf’

  27. canta o meu coracao alegria voltou
    tao feliz a manha desde amor

    (Singing my heart, joy returned.
    So happy the morning, of this love.)

    Manha de Carnaval, By Luiz Bonfa

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVkDfnGobmI

    [Mar 5, 2011 – Rio unfurls wild, sexy Carnival

    RIO DE JANEIRO – CARNIVAL got underway in Rio on Friday with millions set to take to the streets for days of rowdy, joyous parades and festivities, bringing the nation to a halt for its annual wild party.

    Nearly 800,000 Brazilian and foreign tourists were expected join Rio’s six million residents in the celebrations, whose climax comes on Sunday and Monday with the city’s top samba schools putting on their extravagant processions led by sexy dancing queens.

    Extra security has been deployed to reassure visitors and locals alike – and to attempt to roll back Rio’s deserved reputation for street crime ahead of its hosting of football matches in the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympic Games.

    The official launch of Rio’s Carnival was given by ‘King Momo,’ an honorary figure elected before the partying on the basis of his sizeable girth and jolly nature.

    ‘I give the keys to the city to your majesty,’ Mayor Eduardo Paes told the symbolic sovereign in a ceremony at the town hall. ‘I declare the magnificent Carnival of Rio open!’ King Momo replied, as he quick-stepped into a nifty samba dance accompanied by a couple of sequined Carnival queens.

    Billed as The Biggest Party of Earth, Rio’s Carnival is a magnet for partiers and jetsetters, who rub shoulders with the city’s exuberant residents, rich and poor alike. Hotels are 95 per cent booked, the regional hoteliers’ association told AFP. — AFP]

  28. [Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.

    Napolean Bonaparte (Military and politial leader of France and for a time ruler of much of Europe, 1769 – 1821)]

    I suspect the Liberal internal polling is nothing of the sort.

  29. Whilst today’s blog is mostly centred around political crumbs offered on this “slow news day’ for psephologists.. I’ll deviate a little into the schools debate:

    My Say: Yes, with experience in schools in Tasmania, NSW and Qld at least, I need to state that the situation in each of those states is different with regard to scholarships/selective entrance.

    Tasmania: To my knowledge has no selective government schools and the Catholic schools I know of are generally reasonably priced schools whose doors are open for all.

    NSW: Sydney, in particular, has quite an entrenched class divide with its schools. High end (cost-wise) schools all offer academic scholarships, thus measuring performance at the very high end is quite meaningless, since such students will (and in most cases are required to) achieve well (to maintain scholarships). In addition, Sydney has a number of specialist/selective State High Schools. Frequently discussed is, of course, Jame Ruse. Complicating the issue though is the Sydney metropolitan “drawing area” policy which is reasonably strictly enforced. This means that students who live in the same area as underperforming (to abysmal) government schools without financial means are forced to go there. Thus, if you remove the effect of grade boosting from selective government schools, the government education picture is less rosy.

    Queensland: Maintains a freedom for parents to choose the state school their kids attend. This works quite well in South East Queensland and possibly less so elsewhere (where choice is not an option). What it means for SEQ with only 4 selective schools in the state (Brisbane State High School + Three IB Academies in Health Sciences, Creative Arts and Maths/Science) is that parents can select for performing schools with the very worst schools, even in growth areas (population wise) weeded out or targeted for change.

    Of particular interest in Queensland is the proliferation of Independent Schools. Nearly 45% of education in Queensland is private (including the Catholic Sector). When School data is released, usually three groups are stated: Catholic, State and ‘Independent”. Actually, ‘Independent’ sector needs to be teased out more fully, I believe.

    In Queensland, more than 70% of ‘Independent’ schools are non-GPS, low to moderate fee schools. This has the effect of making the elitism appear far less pronounced in Queensland compared with southern states. In truth, the cost figures are just brought down heavily predominantly by low fee Christian Schools, some of whom do educationally very well.

    Two in particular, Mueller College & Northside Christian College, regularly feature in the top 25 schools in the state for OP & Naplan results. Neither take academic scholarships and both have annual fees less than $6000 a year. Non-selective State Schools in Brisbane also regularly feature in the top 50 including Wavell Heights and Macgregor High.

    Having said that, you can easily pay over $25000 a year in at least a dozen GPS schools in SEQ. So, I believe that “independent” schools ought to be split into GPS/Grammar Schools and lower fee Christian/Jewish/Islam/Steiner schools, possibly by fees to give some kind of fair comparison with southern states on such measures.

    I should state, in closing, that the fastest growing movement is from State SChools into low fee Christian Schools for reasons I have no clue on.

  32. Just done a News poll , usual question Do you want to pay more for a carbon tax , who do you vote for Julia or Rudd , Lab or Lib or greens etc and a question on “how often do you get Constipated ” they must think we all walk like Abbott. I voted Green /Labor and for our Pm Gillard.

  33. [My personal opinion is that she is losing the battle of selling this. She has taken an ETS with 70% support and turned it into a carbon tax with 30% support.]
    Interesting figures – link please.

  34. http://www.theage.com.au/national/just-like-old-times-20110304-1bhyr.html
    [The Opposition Leader had two punches to throw this week and he executed both with customary energy and flair – the broken promise and the prospect of (another) big tax on everything. Julia Gillard struggled initially for just one reason: her failure to give a simple, cogent explanation for declaring on election eve that there would not be a carbon tax if her government were returned.

    She argued that circumstances had changed (and they have), reminded us that she had gone to the people committed to pricing carbon (and she did), and alluded to the fact that a fixed price on carbon ahead of an emissions trading scheme is not technically a tax (and it isn’t). But it didn’t wash, certainly not with those who vent their anger on radio talk shows.]

    A hard road ahead.

  35. [If the polling is really bad and continues after the NSW election, the knives will be sharpened. If she recovers from an initial hit, then Labor will be unable to change the policy and she will lead Labor to the next election with the carbon tax defining her first term.]
    I don’t think so. Labor will either win the war or go down fighting it. A change of leader again would be absolutely suicidal and they know it.

  36. [The Opposition Leader had two punches to throw this week and he executed both with customary energy and flair – the broken promise and the prospect of (another) big tax on everything. Julia Gillard struggled initially for just one reason: her failure to give a simple, cogent explanation for declaring on election eve that there would not be a carbon tax if her government were returned.

    She argued that circumstances had changed (and they have), reminded us that she had gone to the people committed to pricing carbon (and she did), and alluded to the fact that a fixed price on carbon ahead of an emissions trading scheme is not technically a tax (and it isn’t). But it didn’t wash, certainly not with those who vent their anger on radio talk shows.]
    You can only do this for so long. Once the detail is known this crap will be but a memory.

  37. dave @ 171

    Thank you, an excellent article. Abbott’s myths about what is happening overseas should be shot to pieces quickly, but it’s been around for so long… And also the myth about the effectiveness of Hunt’s scheme. Very few have questioned it in real detail.

  39. “Just done a News poll , usual question Do you want to pay more for a carbon tax ,…”

    I would have told them that their question is a leading one since what is proposed is a price on carbon not a carbon “tax”. This will make a difference to how people will respond to the question.

  40. @bluepill.
    [I should state, in closing, that the fastest growing movement is from State SChools into low fee Christian Schools for reasons I have no clue on.]
    I suggest that the shift to low cost christian schools is because of discipline concerns. When we shifted I enrolled my kids in the local state school. I was concerned when my children were explaining it was hard to learn because their teachers were spending all their time trying to control the class. I was further concerned when during presentation nights with parents and outsiders present the injokes, lack of respect and bad behaviour between students and staff ruined the evenings. What finalised the decision for me was when my sons grades over a period of 6 months went from As and Bs to fails. I asked why and he reported a number of times his work had been destroyed by other students and all the teacher’s response was to say “tough, you get no marks”. No attempt to rectify the situation by senior staff.
    I myself and a number of my friends have since moved our children. It is not an isolated incident with even teachers who are friends saying they feel powerless in the system.
    It is not always the case as the local high school in Sout Australia had turned a bad school into a good one.
    The christian school offers a good education, good discipline and affordable fees. My children are back to gaining good results but even more importantly they are happy again and interested in education. I have checked out the material and occasionally put forward contradictory views and this has been accepted in good faith by the staff. All in all it has been a positive experience all round.

  41. Joe2 , i did tell her that it was a loaded question and nobody wants to pay for anything. I said i would pay though. She said that , Sorry i don’t write the questions.

  42. Just done a News poll , usual question Do you want to pay more for a carbon tax

    Do you WANT to pay more or are you PREPARED to pay more?

  44. In 1998, when I was out daily doorknocking, the most common response on the GST was a shrug of the shoulders – ‘It’s inevitable we’re going to have one, so let’s just get it over with.”

    Many of these people didn’t like the GST but it didn’t end up influencing their vote.

    That’s the attitude Labor should aim for: a carbon price is inevitable. We’ll get one, one way or another, whoever’s in power. Get over it.

  46. [Just done a News poll , usual question Do you want to pay more for a carbon tax ]

    now thats a loaded question that makes it sound like

    we the people are paying for the tax

    no wonder this poll will show not good figures.
    just wish we could get this question out and about.

    the question should be, do you think that companies that pollute should pay a tax

    of course they would say yes to that.

  48. well its not really a poll is it.
    when they ask claytons questions.

    and if people are clever when ask they will say what are you talking about.
    i am not paying the tax next question.
    the tell new poll what they think

    Perhaps a few letters to the editor and FAirFax would help
    May be barrry that told us about the question would consider it.

  49. Dennis Atkins with a piece on Turnbull and the leadership

    [
    When Turnbull fell out with his colleagues – and lost the leadership by one vote in a ballot with Abbott – it was his style and attitude that mattered as much as his staunch support for an emissions trading scheme to deal with greenhouse gas pollution.

    And most of them have not forgotten or forgiven what they saw as disloyalty to colleagues and the Liberal Party.

    “Malcolm hasn’t a chance of coming back (as leader),” said one senior and sometimes sympathetic colleague. “People are still angry with him. They remember the (Laurie) Oakes interview and it still pisses them off.”

    ]

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/party-games-turnbull-eyes-the-prize/story-fn6ck620-1226016167104

  50. [joe2
    Posted Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
    “Just done a News poll , usual question Do you want to pay more for a carbon tax ,…”

    I would have told them that their question is a leading one since what is proposed is a price on carbon not a carbon “tax”. This will make a difference to how people will respond to the question.]

    why dont you send a letter to the editor at fairfax telling them the question.
    or even remarking on the email areas on murdoch

Comments Page 4 of 59
1 … 3 4 5 … 59

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *