Essential Research continues its regular Tuesday appearance, with Morgan having moved to fortnightly. Newspoll, one suspects, has been holding off for resolution of the Labor leadership. The latest Essential Research result records only the most negligible change on last week, with the Greens up a point to 10% and the balance subsumed by rounding: the Coalition, Labor and others are respectively unchanged at 43%, 35% and 12%, with the Coalition’s two-party lead steady at 52-48, compared with an election result of roughly 53.5-46.5.
In other findings, 71% of respondents considered the current $195,000 salary for backbenchers too high, against 27% for about right and just 2% for too low; 48% considered George Brandis unfit to review politicians’ entitlements given his recent form, against 26% who think otherwise and 27% who don’t know. Respondents were also asked whether politicians should or shouldn’t be reimbursed for various expenses.
Other questions asked whether respondents considered corruption a problem in various sectors, with government and the media coming off worst. Australian politicians were nonetheless considered less corrupt than those of the US and the UK (though not New Zealand), and especially those of Indonesia and China. A question on lobbying found general support for more regulation and disclosure.
On the question of best party to handle another global financial crisis, the Liberals were favoured over Labor 38% to 29% with 23% for no difference.
BB
[Sorry Mick, but all your guff about Rudd and “Labor lied” goes back three years to another political era.]
From 25/8/2013
[Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has admitted Labor did not have a mandate for introducing a carbon tax, naming it as a major policy the party “got wrong” during its term in Government.
…
“In the past, the Government has got a number of things wrong. All governments do. I seek, however, to admit it, he said. For example, I don’t think our actions on the carbon tax were right. That’s why I changed it and moved towards a floating price. To begin with we didn’t have a mandate for it. Furthermore, a floating price is the best response to changing international markets, so I have changed that.”]
The public is not interested in fine differences, a charge=price=tax and I stand by my earlier assessment. Time will tell but I think that Shorten will find a way to support the repeal. He needs that issue hanging round him for the next few years like he needs a hole in the head.
[ ruawake
Posted Tuesday, October 15, 2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
Will Abbott refund the 10% rise in childcare fees while he decides what to do?
97
Tricot
Posted Tuesday, October 15, 2013 at 7:38 pm | Permalink
The odds of Abbott giving up his precious to go to a DD is zero.
His “brilliant tactic” is to try to hector/bully/shame Labor (“Repent!”) into support his crock.]
What I don’t understand is why Labor who “only introduced the Carbon tax because of unexpectedly having to rely on the greens to secure their last term of government” are not happy to now see it removed.
Why is it now being presented as flagship ALP policy that should be protected?
[I’m making a prediction that abbott will do a deal with Labor to
(a) get rid of the “Tex” part of the tax by June 30, 2014 (which was Labor policy anyway, under Rudd);
(b) Merge “direct Action” with the ETS into one big policy – each side giving a little ground;
(c) try to claim it was all his idea.]
Pretty likely. He’ll be hoping the meeja stays compliant and supportive through the process though and that the electorate all have the memories of a goldfish and the intelligence of ST.
Rudd’s comments during the election were certainly confused and unhelpful to the ALP’s future.
Because the ALP believe that AGW needs to be tackled, and the advice is that an ETS is the best possible mechanism for doing this.
The ALP have supported a carbon price since before the 2007 election. Why should they back away from it now?
[Why is it now being presented as flagship ALP policy that should be protected?]
Because it is the policy they have taken to the 2007, 2010, 2013 elections? It was also Liberal Policy until 2009 by the way.
Nemspy, Labor first suffered a hit to their support when they backed down from several policies they had identified at the time as being key.
out of interest does anyone know labor’s primary vote when democrats where high – say mid 1990’s?? i assume they pulled from both parties (which greens could do if they had brain btw) … but curious
Perhaps in the coming months the new senators will be asked whether or not they support or block. Then labor might be able to decide if blocking now is going to achieve much.
Pyne running Mick77’s lines.
They’ve both received their instructions on this issue.
Labor’s problem with spinelessness predates leadercrap.
Jackol
I am currently not an ALP supporter (in case you haven’t noticed!) but Labor has got to distance itself from the Greens if it wants to reclaim the middle ground. Rudd’s recent policies on the run (tough on AS, “remove” carbon tax) probably got 1-2% of lost “centre” votes back so you can’t have it both ways. He was a one time messiah but makes it difficult for Labor for the future if they suddenly say, well no, we/Rudd/ALP didn’t mean to change anything, we’re switching back again. You’ve gotta continue Rudd’s distancing from the Greens and Abbott is giving ALP a golden opportunity to say: OK on this you have a mandate.
Mick, Rudd got Labor 5% of the vote back simply by becoming leader again. He then proceeded to lose 3-4% of that by developing policies on the run.
there is big support for moderate carbon leglisation and the tax scare is over …. one day someone will aim lights at rabbit and run him over. hope soherten has firepower.
the damage done by abbott is unspeakable … worse than shorten even
Crabbe not doing too badly with Pyne.
[Crabbe not doing too badly with Pyne.]
Has she gelded him yet?
The acid test for the conservatives is to tell the electorate when they will see the $550 in their bank account.
Labor kept faith with the electorate with money in the bank on the off-set.
Along with a DD it will never happen.
In case any missed it.
Latest poll on the GOP. 74% disapproval rating
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/republicans-shutdown-poll_n_4098496.html
M77
It is only a matter of time before the Coalition is crucified (sic) by the real thing: AGW.
No amount of Coalition lying, no amount of Abbott apologising, no amount of Abbott bluster, no amount of Abbott pollyrorting his bicycling tours, will stop AGW.
AGW rubber meet Coalition road.
It will not be pretty.
g
74%?
So much for the superiority of direct Republican Party member democracy by way of the Tea Party activists.
On the criticial task of identifying Labor’s problems so that they might be fixed, if I were Labor I wouldn’t touch the helpful offerings of my opponents with a 10 foot pole.
rua
Crabbe is not a registered vet. She did not quite let Pyne get away with all his familiar fulminations.
Like his Liberal Party member elected leader (not), he is still doing Opposition politics, BTW.
Hunt is now admitting that regardless if the CT repeal is passed in both houses …”It will not take effect until July 1, 2014 as it is just so complex and so much has to be wound back….or wtte.”
So all politics and talk.
As somebody has already said the proposed legislation is already DOA.
Abbott has a very selective memory
Dr Nelson is right to resist the intellectual bullying inherent in talk of ‘mandates’.”: Tony Abbott, 2007.
Mick77 –
Labor has got to focus on being a well run party with sensible policies. The Greens don’t have cooties, and if the ALP don’t get over their Green-phobia they will be able to be spooked into being wedged, as they were on the ‘carbon tax’ nonsense at the 2010 election.
Well, I don’t buy that argument because I don’t think they got ‘1-2% of lost “centre” votes’. Everyone and their dog is trying to describe what the election outcome was all about.
Pyne, just now, insisting that the election was a ‘referendum on the carbon tax’ that the ALP lost. Right, so the voters didn’t punish the ALP for leadership instability, and they didn’t punish the ALP for Obeid and McDonald and Thomson.
Elections are won and lost on many grounds, and this whole notion that you can distil it down to one or two factors and sensibly assess the vote gain/loss from them is just nonsense argument.
You can insist on this all you like. I don’t believe your advice has any value – it’s just you reinforcing your own views, not a rational assessment of the political landscape.
ruawake
Gelding would require something to geld.
bw
Its a worry for Abbott. He is following the Tea Party deny reality policy approach.
Crabb hopeless. She’s smart, but nothing about ALP voters voting to defend the carbon price. Nothing about the BS that the election was a referendum on carbon. She just let Pyne run his mouth on all his crap.
So, the question of $550 in the bank is a bit like Barnett’s Light Rail project in Perth which has now stretched out to 2022 before it starts.
Like, never going to happen. Total Liberal/National Shonkville.
I’ve been reading here for years but have decided that I have an idea I would like to contribute.
I make the disclaimer that the main aim here is to create a policy that, taking account of the politics, serves Australia best for long term emission reductions. This means that it will require a little bit of a shift from both Labor and the Coalition.
First, what is direct action?
The most detail we have on this is from the 2010 election policy paper. It is very vague, but from my reading the general gist is that it is actually a baseline and credit scheme in which the Government will buy back credits when entities reduce emissions, and the Government will charge a penalty when the baseline is exceeded. There is no direct trading of credits between entities. The coalition seemed to back away from the penalties during the campaign, but this didn’t receive much attention. In fact, this whole part of the policy didn’t receive much attention – this is the part of the policy that Greg Hunt refers to as a Market Based Mechanism. The lack of attention means they should have flexibility around the design of the ‘Baseline and Credit’ scheme.
There is also the ‘soil magic’ part of it which received the most attention, which is really more or less than the already legislated Carbon Farming initiative.
Now what do we have in the current policy?
– Emissions trading scheme, fixed price until 2015, permit revenue going to Government to be used for compensation and to support renewables.
– Carbon Farming Initiative
– Clean Energy Finance Corporation
Taking the 2 policies, I think that you could actually take what is already in place, and transform it into something that looks like ‘Direct Action’ without dismantling the basic pricing mechanism that has finally been put in place and which will be essential to meet the 2050 targets that will be essential as part of any future global agreement.
How do we do this?
1. Move from fixed to floating carbon price. This turns it into a true market. Labor has no problems with this part.
2. Conduct the baseline exercise that was going to have to happen anyway for the Coalition scheme, and then give all of the businesses covered by the carbon price free permits based on the baseline, minus the emissions reduction that you need to achieve in that year. Legislate to ensure that the power prices come down for consumers based on free permits (the main political attack of the Coalition was on impact to power prices).
The difference between this and the stated direct action scheme is that if entities reduce their emissions below the baseline they can just sell their permits to those entities that can not reduce their emissions directly at a price set by the market, rather than the government having to buy excess emissions and set penalties, and the coalition can boast that the scheme raises no revenue for the government, and hence is not a drag on the economy in net terms.
3. Carbon farming initiative stays as it as the ‘soil magic’ part of Direct Action
4. Clean Energy Finance Corporation is abolished – let them have this one as this is easier than an ETS to re-establish in the future.
The main point of the above is to let the Coalition look like they have achieved their direct action, but with maximum ability of the ALP to reintroduce a proper ETS in the future with minimal political pain.
Think about it – when the ALP regains power, what do they do to fix the scheme?
1. Start winding back free permits, back towards zero (this is sold as ‘ending corporate welfare’). This brings scheme back to a proper ETS that results in government revenue.
2. Re-establish something like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation if deemed necessary.
Done!
You are back to an ETS and able to meet future emission reduction needs.
This is what the ALP should be aiming for as a condition of passing a bipartisan package on climate change.
Now on the politics – both sides need to be willing to not beat each other up on this for it to work, which is why it probably won’t.
A note on the above – this was not my preferred position. My preferred position was that left of center parties retained control of the Senate after July 2014. As this hasn’t happened, this is my pragmatic fallback that tries to avoid our climate policies having to be negotiated with PUP, DLP, FF etc. It’s not perfect, but nothing really ever is in politics.
have you all repented here yet for believing in climate change
[Like his Liberal Party member elected leader (not), he is still doing Opposition politics, BTW.]
I suppose this will happen until the first QT when the PM gets a question and “I don’t remember” is not good enough.
guytaur –
I don’t think this is quite true. I think we expected this to be the case, and he would follow through with the nut-jobbery he was espousing in opposition.
But so far, when reality has actually intruded, Abbott has (quite cravenly in comparison to his pre-election rhetoric) got on his knees and said “yes, sir, thank you sir, two bags full, sir” to reality.
Maybe, just maybe, the same will happen on carbon pricing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-30/greg-hunt-not-giving-full-story-climate-research/4923258
Tony Abbott made a commitment at the 2007 election to vote for an Emissions Trading Scheme.
Labor should hold him to that promise.
@guytaur 118
[Latest poll on the GOP. 74% disapproval rating
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/republicans-shutdown-poll_n_4098496.htm%5D
My theory: Government scientists have finally perfected mind-control, and it has used en masse on Republican congressmen to ensure landslide Democrats victories in the mid-terms and 2016.
It’s the only rational explanation I think of for this spectacular example of shooting oneself in the foot.
Greg
[
I’ve been reading here for years but have decided that I have an idea I would like to contribute.]
And a PB lounge welcome to you. Keep on contributing.
DN
[Mick, Rudd got Labor 5% of the vote back simply by becoming leader again. He then proceeded to lose 3-4% of that by developing policies on the run.]
I don’t agree. He proceeded to lose 4-5% as the electorate remembered who/what he is/was and he saved some back by a complete and utter turn around on AS policy (worth at least 1%) and an attempted 3-card trick on carbon tax. But anyway time will tell and I’ll hang on to my prediction about Shorten giving in and not wanting to face a DD and I’ll rub it in your faces if I’m right, and conveniently forget about it if I’m wrong.
This Bloomberg article reckons it’s all over for the Tea Party Republicans:
[Budget Battle Ends Soon With Tea Party Loss: King, Corker
House Republicans aligned with the Tea Party have lost their fight with the president, and Congress soon will open the government and raise the debt ceiling on a short-term basis, Representative Peter King, a New York Republican who opposed the shutdown from the start, said in a separate interview on the same program this weekend.]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-11/king-says-tea-party-republicans-have-lost-budget-battle.html
There is one party whose actions have to live up to their words and that’s the one in government. There is diminishing hope of that given they’re busy out and about telling everyone they’re their best friend.
On the other hand people see the current opposition as a basket case. They have a rare opportunity in party reform to demonstrate their actions can live up to their words while in opposition and in contrast to the government.
[This Bloomberg article reckons it’s all over for the Tea Party Republicans:]
It wouldn’t surprise me if more House Democrats than House Republicans vote for the final deal.
It always comes down to the Democrats to do what is right for the U.S.
citizen
The last shut down was a disaster for the Repugs. Saved Clinton’s arsk. Guess they are slow to learn.
If Labor want to be taken seriously as adults they must accept the mandate of the Australian people and axe the carbon tax
If Abbott was to behave like an adult he would stand by his statement.
Dr Nelson is right to resist the intellectual bullying inherent in talk of ‘mandates’.”: Tony Abbott, 2007.
[If Labor want to be taken seriously as adults they must accept the mandate of the Australian people and axe the carbon tax]
Why didn’t Tony Abbott respect Labor’s mandate and support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme?
Abbott was elected in 2007 on a platform of supporting an ETS, but he broke that promise.
jackol
I hope you are right for the sake of the country.
Asha
No wonder Republicans have shares in tinfoil hats 🙂
Greg – welcome, and thanks for your thoughtful comment.
I kind of agree with the broad gist of what you’re saying. If the LNP are willing to talk about their legislation then perhaps this is the way to go. While there are hints, omens, signs that perhaps they may be backing away from their pre-election rhetoric (possibly after a kabuki act with the basic repeal being put to parliament and rejected) – but I still think Abbott and co have made it so hard to back away from their hardline rhetoric it will be a “policy shift” of unprecedented proportions.
Well. There is really no hope that either side aren’t going to try to score political points. The LNP are more vulnerable here (which is why it’s hard to see it happening) because they have been so implacably opposed since 2009, but if they do move the ALP can’t help but take a few potshots, and they will have very little incentive not to, given the history. Once the LNP indicate they are changing position they can’t really change tack again.
Who is Minchin going to replace Abbott with if Abbott doesn’t stick to hardline anti-AGW-action policies? PM Bernardi?
Jackol
I doubt it. Or rather, no doubt he will convince himself that he can please everyone but it won’t be his actions that will bend – I think those are set – it will be his words. We will see similar spin to that of the Liberal supporters here about olive branches and direct market action mechanisms and so on and so forth :P.
Tisme, repeating something a thousand times doesn’t make it reality.
[If Labor want to be taken seriously as adults they must accept the mandate of the Australian people and axe the carbon tax]
Desperation in place of argument. 😆