The latest fortnightly Newspoll sees Labor’s 51-49 lead last time obliterated by a six-point shift to the Coalition, with Labor’s primary vote down four points to 32 per cent, the Coalition up five to 45 per cent and the Greens steady on 12 per cent. Large amounts of tosh were written about the Labor lead last fortnight, even though a lack of corroborating evidence from other polls made it clear enough the result was an aberration. No doubt there will further over-analysis of this correction – probably over-correction, with the New South Wales state election perhaps injecting a bit of static into proceedings. On the primary vote, Labor is down four points to 32 per cent, the Coalition up five to 45 per cent and the Greens steady on 12 per cent. Julia Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 50-31 to 46-37.
[It would have been so much easier for Labor to tax electricity generators based on carbon produced (wind, hydro etc no tax). Distribute the tax collected to the wholesale purchasers based on the total electricity purchased regardless of source.]
That would be my idea. In fact I assumed it was going to be this until all the “tax cut” talk took hold. May still be, as tax cuts are only a “live option”, not confirmed.
Distribute the compensation based on kW hours, not dollars. The aim would be to make green electricity slightly more cost-competitive than fossil-based electricity.
There aren’t enough reliable figures for a blog post, and relative costs differ from country to country.
But say green electricity costs 120% of fossil electricity. You then charge the fossil electricity companies an extra 21%, to make green energy slightly more competitive. Now fossil electricity costs more than green.
When the bill is calculated, the rebate is calculated along with it. You get an invoice item right there on the bill called, say, “Federal Government Energy Rebate” based on the number of green electricity kW hours you use.
This not only encourages the fossil electricity generators to get more efficient, but also encourages the consumers to pick green electricity.
Many complications, for example, there isn’t enough green electricity available for every consumer to make the switch all at once. So the program would have to be phased in. Too complicated for my tiny mind to work it all out, but there’s you basis for compensation, details come later.
[I see today will be a ‘Rudd the hero’ vs ‘Rudd the dud’ sort of day.]
No, just a ‘Rudd the hero’. We actually had that “sort of day” last night.
The second coming of Lampe, so soon after after her self proclaimed personal issues, Diogenes, is not dissimilar to Robb’s miraculous recovery from depression, I would have thought.
I recall you were very sympathetic to his circumstances at the time …
[Bolt’s farewell to Insiders on Sunday]
Oh. I mentioned his closing remark earlier, but I wasn’t aware that it was a farewell. I don’t remember Cassidy or any panellists mentioning it.
Oh no. Does this mean we’ll get more of Akerman now? I pine for Bolt after an hour of Akerman.
SK,
And if you could outline a plan to do that? Maybe if you asked Neil Mitchell, Mark Scott, Lachlan Murdoch, James Packer, Gina Reinhart, Kerry Stokes & John Singleton really nicely to stop misusing the media for their own selfish, nation-destroying gain they would all see the light.
Get on Twitter this instant, Space Kidette! You’ll have it sorted in a trice, I’m sure.
The main point is that Rudd didn’t say anything new – most people knew that Gillard, Swan & Arbib wanted the ETS to be shelved completely.
Julia’s problem is that she’s now arguing for the implementation of something that she was against 12 months ago.
Fulvio
Robb had his depression treated. Did Lampe’s partner give the kid back?
Robb either faked his depression, or he was lifted out of it by the intoxicating prospect of destroying climate change action in Australia.
Whichever it was, he gets no sympathy at all. Just the opposite, in fact.
[Ms Rinehart has also been heard to complain about the alleged left-wing bias of Ten’s popular 7PM Project, and to say the network needs a right-wing Fox News-style show in its line-up.]
If Ch10 go with a “Fox News-style show in its line up” it will fail. Sky tried it with Hadley, and had to can him within a month because of poor ratings. What is it with rightwing idealogues and continually wanting to force their agenda onto people?
And hiring Amanda Lampe as National Secretary would signal that Labor has learnt nothing from the debacle of last year.
It’s time for a complete shakeup in many areas of the party organisation & its structures.
[I don’t remember Cassidy or any panellists mentioning it.]
They’re hardly likely to give a competing show any publicity, are they?
Hopefully he’ll take Akkerman, Albrechtsen and the rest with him. Keep ’em all in one place where they don’t have as many outlets for their bile.
[But like it or not, if the voters don’t start getting a more positive message soon, they could spend billions on a nine week advertising campaign and it will do nothing because the punters will believe the government (despite the real truth) is totally stuffed and vote accordingly.]
its the drip, drip, drip which gets you. I think that one of KR’s worst decisions was to go holier than thou on government advertising – not only did it dissipate, but when it was resurrected (eg to combat the lies on the mining tax) it was made boring to fit the straitjacket guidelines.
having recently been in the USA, and regularly checked in on the radio shockjocks and Foxnews, I was at first dumbstruck that many of the ads being aired were government advertising – from join the army, to social engineering ones like be a good parent and feed you kids right. I thought why is the Obama administration giving money to these right wing attack dogs via paid advertising?
funnily, it not only might lessen the damage caused, but drip, drip, drip – the listener/viewer might actually think the government is doing something. can’t be sure, but it seemed a clever left-field tactic to use.
so JG should unleash the adverting dollars – stonewall the criticism (LNP are whingers about everything anyway) and start selling all the big,medium and small things on the reform agenda.
Bolters show will die in weeks. Should be fun to see.
And if its on Sunday. I will start a viral email campaign to get him strung up for working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 31:15
[You may work for six days, but the seventh day is a day of worship, a day when you don’t work. It is holy to the LORD. Whoever works on that day must be put to death.]
And think of what it will do to shrink Church audiences.
[The main point is that Rudd didn’t say anything new – most people knew that Gillard, Swan & Arbib wanted the ETS to be shelved completely.]
That’s never been admitted to by any of those. Nor does it need to be. So what if people change there minds?
Evan @ 206 and 210
You are spot on!
[And hiring Amanda Lampe as National Secretary would signal that Labor has learnt nothing from the debacle of last year.]
The vast majority of people will go “Who?”
I don’t know about Lampe’s kid.
Do you know anything about Robb’s “treatment” Diogenes?
Lynchpin: what I find most interesting about the polls is how much they HAVEN’T moved for the Coalition since the election.
We’ve had nigh on 9 months of toxic media, an opposition hellbent on fomenting civil unrest and a government mooting policies in such a way that they are gifting both the media and the opposition with opportunities to run scare campaigns.
So, where exactly have the opposition gained? A measly 1% of the primary vote? After all it (and Uncle Rupert) has thrown at the government?
People aren’t shifting to the opposition so much as parking their votes AWAY from Labor. Someone made the point earlier – and it bears repeating – that something close to 30% of voters are not giving the 2 major parties their first preferences. The Greens vote is pretty much stuck between 10 and 12 %, so it is the “Others” who are picking up the slack.
I would also suggest that the reason the TPP is so wide is because of the way the preferences are being distributed and if those “other” and Green voters were in the ballot box, they would be overwhelmingly preferencing back to the government, rather than to the Coalition. One look at Tony’s PPM and approvals/disapprovals tells us that.
Expect the rhetoric to be ramped up between now and July, but I would suggest the polls will continue to bounce around a bit until then.
Can’t think of a better endorsement of the Arbib/Bitar style of political management than the recent NSW elections…………;)
[What is it with rightwing idealogues and continually wanting to force their agenda onto people?]
The bottom line?
MONEY
There appears to be a few people going weak at the knees a bit prematurely at the moment. I agree that these sort of Newspoll figures, combined with the taunting of the trolls, is a bit hard to take – in fact bloody depressing. We all feel it, but it’s how we respond to it that’s important. We just have to wait until the detail of the CT is provided by the government and THEN draw conclusions about how it’s being received.
Sure, Abbott’s getting a lot of free kicks at the moment but we’re still only halfway through the first quarter (in AFL terms) and there’s still a lot of politics to play out.
Labor may well cop a hiding at the next election, or it may have a famous victory. At the moment we are just not in any position to know either way.
So let’s just try to be patient and not allow ourselves to be driven into an irrational and premature sense of defeatism.
fulv
it entailled deposing malcolm
👿
[If Ch10 go with a “Fox News-style show in its line up” it will fail. Sky tried it with Hadley, and had to can him within a month because of poor ratings.]
Ch10 has a much bigger reach than Sky, and Rinehart can afford to have it run at a loss as long as the “message” gets out. Similar thing with “The Arsetralian” newspaper and Murdoch.
[Alan Jones Live
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Presented by Alan Jones
Country of origin Australia
Language(s) English
No. of seasons 1
No. of episodes 64
Production
Running time 30 minutes
Broadcast
Original channel Network Ten
Original run 31 January 1994 – 28 April 1994
Alan Jones Live was a nightly Australian current affairs and talk-back television program that aired on Network Ten from 31 January 1994 to 28 April 1994. Hosted by then 2UE Sydney radio broadcaster Alan Jones, it aired nationally at 7:00 pm each weeknight and was repeated at 11:30 pm.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Jones_Live
On 28 April 1994, it was announced that program would cease production due to low ratings.[1]
[Ms Rinehart has also been heard to complain about the alleged left-wing bias of Ten’s popular 7PM Project.]
It’s hard enough for a TV network to devise and produce a program that is popular. Apparently that’s not enough for Rinehart.
Fulvio
[Do you know anything about Robb’s “treatment” Diogenes?]
Yes, he had to try two different anti depressants before he got better. He told us that.
Lampe didn’t have the baby. Her partner did.
I couldn’t work out why Bolt wasn’t quite as obnoxious as usual when he was on the 7pm Project. Now we know it was because he was on his best behaviour to get his own show.
[Bolters show will die in weeks.]
Just like the OO would die in weeks if it was run as a business. It’s survived for decades on life support because it provides the owner with the political carrot and stick used to maximise profits elsewhere with politicians of course being the donkeys.
A cheap investment when you look at it.
Bolt’s show could be run along the same lines.
[The main point is that Rudd didn’t say anything new – most people knew that Gillard, Swan & Arbib wanted the ETS to be shelved completely.]
Gee evan, Kevin Rudd last night for the first time admitted it was a HUUUGEEEE mistake about his decision on ETS. He admitted he should have gone for a DD.
Nobody is anti Rudd. i had a go at him because of this. i wrote to him back in december 2009 that he should call a DD over this. Even if Labor lost, so what. At least, you lost fighting “the greatest moral challenge of our times”. He did not have the gut to do it. No mater what others think then, he was the leader and PM.
It also dont matter if Gillard wanted the ETS to be killed then. She probably also now realises that it was a mistake then for urgng Rudd to kill the ETS. She is making the amend now. she should be supported not condemned.
The only “anti” people on PB are you and Thomas the Pain Engine.
[Julia’s problem is that she’s now arguing for the implementation of something that she was against 12 months ago.]
There seems to be a bit of doubt out there as to whether Gillard was against and ETS all together, or wanted it shelved for a time. Personally, in the absence of confirmation from the lady herself, given her current stance, i’d be inclined to giver her the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Regardless, where are we now?
ALP under Gillard has a plan to implement a fixed price on Carbon and move to an ETS in 3-5 years. Absolutely market based and does the basic thing that just about everybody has wanted which is to send a price signal into the market that CO2 pollution is no longer free.
Libs under Abbott have a definitive, public record of rubbishing the science of CC. They have proposed a Direct Inaction Plan that is only “market based” in the weird space that is Andrew Robb’s mind in that it means they will be handing out taxpayer dollars to the biggest polluters. As they are not implementing a new revenue stream as part of their plan they will have to get those dollars by cutting somewhere in the budget.
We are talking here about speculation on a position on CC that Julia G may or may not have taken during a difficult time legislatively, in the privacy (hah!) of cabinet. As against the Libs position on CC which they took on the floor of the parliament.
Gillard knows that if she is to win in 2013, she MUST deliver on certain things, CC being one of those. She seems to be pretty well on track at the moment. Budget this year is going to be difficult for them though. Given the Carbon price should kick in mid 2012 is suspect the realistic people in the ALP will not be expecting to do any more in the polls than tread water for a while to come.
The worst thing about Rudd’s demise is that he was right the first time.
Climate change is a moral challenge.
[If Ch10 go with a “Fox News-style show in its line up” it will fail. Sky tried it with Hadley, and had to can him within a month because of poor ratings. What is it with rightwing idealogues and continually wanting to force their agenda onto people?]
What if Rinehart were prepared to accept a loss-maker for the sake of getting the right wing shit out there. Merdeoch does the same with the OO.
K,
The one area the government are not playing in is the one that does not have a third party control AND it is the one a huge number of the voting public play in every day – the social media space.
The other area they have control over is the message. Every bloody point is an essay for the ALP it has to stop. People and the media think in soundbites. Bushfire Bill was hammering this point home earlier this year.
Also the other area the government do have control is advertising budgets. Those budgets pay for the commercial journo’s paypackets and if the govt advertising budgets are slashed it will hurt the already financially strapped msm.
Or they could choose to go the other way and pay for advertising the FACTs to the public about the mining taxes and the Carbon tax.
It doesn’t matter which way you look at it the government media team are mediocre at best.
Ch 10 is probably the most left-wing of the 3 networks. Bolt is a poor fit for the brand.
[I couldn’t work out why Bolt wasn’t quite as obnoxious as usual when he was on the 7pm Project. Now we know it was because he was on his best behaviour to get his own show.]
But won’t it be Bolt’s job in his own show to be as obnoxious as possible?
Lenore Taylor on the decision to drop the ETS
[
Kevin Rudd was coy last night about which of his cabinet colleagues had supported the strategy of ”killing” the emissions trading scheme altogether in March and April last year.
But the Herald has already reported who did.
Initially we heard that it was national secretary Karl Bitar and NSW right frontbencher Mark Arbib.
Advertisement: Story continues below But in a deeper post-election post-mortem of the period during which the Rudd government hit the wall we discovered that two other frontbenchers had also eventually come around to advocate what was being called the ”kill option” – Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan.
Those vehemently, adamantly opposed were Penny Wong, Greg Combet and Lindsay Tanner. Rudd was caught in the middle, having invested more in the policy than almost any other, but aware that Tony Abbott was making strong headway with his ”great big new tax” campaign.
]
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-rudds-ets-was-killed-from-within-labor-ranks-20110405-1czw7.html
Dio,
Brand be damned, Gina wants a megaphone. In ten and bolt she has one.
[having recently been in the USA, and regularly checked in on the radio shockjocks and Foxnews, I was at first dumbstruck that many of the ads being aired were government advertising – from join the army, to social engineering ones like be a good parent and feed you kids right. I thought why is the Obama administration giving money to these right wing attack dogs via paid advertising?]
A lot of that advertising isn’t paid for by the government, but is public service announcements. At the conclusion of many of the ads is the tail: “Brought to you by the Ad Council”. The Ad Council is an organisation that coordinates public service announcements across the US media.
BB from page 4:
I think the problem with a direct cost on MWhrs is it wont be possible right? Because renewebles in real terms cost something like 2-3 times as much (being generous) as coal fired power
how do you think putting a completely rebated 300% tax on coal fired power sounds? And then how do you get out of it when the population moves to renewables, and you are left subsidising 75% of the cost?
Sounds like a disaster to me. On the other hand, you can explain it in a sentence, so at least communication wise it would be a step forward.
Sk @ 192 The average person at my work cares more about their footy teams woes and triumphs, or the celebrity farces in the magazines than politics at the moment. I am in WA and the NSW election was a passing blip. Crowded trains bother us. We wish it would finally cool down at night and while we are uncertain about the Carbon Price we think that something should be done about the environment. We feel sorry for the poor Japanese people. We don’t like thinking or talking about politics that much.
The media is operating in a vacuum in terms of public opinion. They actually are mesmerised by the blogs and twits because it is some feedback they can feed off – but also really easy fodder for manipulation. As is this site. The Pavlov response to any mention of the Labor leadership produces an instant feedback loop. The hair pulling, hand wringing at the supposed ineptitude of Labor strategists is the same. How many here actually understand the “light on the hill” speech?
Why do you think that Chifley made that speech – who was he talking to? The hair pulling, hand wringers of yesteryear. That hill has always been a steep climb. It will never be easy. There is no magic bullet. Just hard slog.
I have a simple rule – if I am not happy with my union, my party I get in there and fix it. The people on this site who will make a difference are the people who act – write, complain, congratulate – participate in the political debate rather than spectate and whine. SK you are an activist, as are many others, including myself. If we stop then it all stops.
[There seems to be a bit of doubt out there as to whether Gillard was against and ETS all together, or wanted it shelved for a time.]
According to Lenore Taylor it was the former.
labor will progress and win because climate change policy is right and will be seen to be reasonable. julia’s speech last week on greens was almost as bad as rudd dropping ets however – she lacks speech making skills, is more sound grab aggressive interlocutor. it is not her accent that is problem, it is lack of fluency and articulation and rhetorical charm. of course compared to her abbot is a monkey.
[Ch10 has a much bigger reach than Sky, and Rinehart can afford to have it run at a loss as long as the “message” gets out. Similar thing with “The Arsetralian” newspaper and Murdoch.]
Rhinehart doesn’t own Ch10, she simply owns a stake in it. As such, she will have to convince her fellow investors of the ‘wisdom’ of allowing an unprofitable, rarely-viewed show continuing, if that is the fate of Bolt’s new program.
[Brand be damned, Gina wants a megaphone. In ten and bolt she has one.]
Yes and we might also see politics reporter Paul Bongiorno shunted out as well. Channel 10 might be an unhappy workplace in the next year or two.
[Brand be damned, Gina wants a megaphone. In ten and bolt she has one.]
Ohh Yuck! That connection hadn’t occurred to me. The thought of those two being buddy buddy is frankly a danger to ones mental health. 🙁
[But in a deeper post-election post-mortem of the period during which the Rudd government hit the wall we discovered that two other frontbenchers had also eventually come around to advocate what was being called the ”kill option” – Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan.]
That doesn’t tell us where the info came from. Nor is it backed up with admissions from those concerned. Lenore may as well have said “undisclosed sources”.
Gweneth,
Thanks. 🙂
From the Lenore Taylor article:
[Those arguing the government had to press ahead with its plan said it was both bad policy and disastrous politics to do anything else, given all the government had said before.]
There is the problem! Gillard is perceived by many in the broader community to not stand for anything. Dismiss it if you like but politics is all about perception.
[Dio,
Brand be damned, Gina wants a megaphone. In ten and bolt she has one.]
Yes, but she hasn’t bought the station. She only owns 10%. There are shareholders to keep happy.
I doubt whether the other two biggies, Packer and Murdoch The Younger, are in the business of blowing their investments away based on whims. They wouldn’t set out to do it.
Bolt’s appeal is to political tragics. He’ll fail in a free-to-air program. He’s over 50, so there goes the young audience. This is not a winner for the TEN investors.