Easter has meant that only the regular weekly pollsters have reported this week, which means Essential Research and Morgan. The latter polls weekly but reports fortnightly, which I deal with by dividing each fortnightly result into two data points, each with half the published sample size. Neither Essential nor Morgan is radically off beam, so this week’s movements involve a correction after last week’s Greens outlier from Nielsen. This is not to say that Nielsen’s Greens surge was measuring nothing at all, the 17% result perhaps having been partly a reflection of it being the poll most proximate to the WA Senate election. In fact, both of the new results this week find the Greens at their highest level since at least the last election, and probably a good while earlier. Their 11% rating in Essential may not appear too spectacular, but it comes from what is the worst polling series for them by some distance – indeed, the only one the BludgerTrack model does not deem to be biased in their favour. Nonetheless, their rating in BludgerTrack this week comes off 1.8% on last week’s Nielsen-driven peak.
The dividend from the Greens’ loss has been divided between other parties in such a way as to produce essentially no change on two-party preferred. However, state relativities have changed in such a way as to cost Labor three seats and its projected majority, illustrating once again the sensitivity of Queensland, where a 0.8% shift has made two seats’ worth of difference. The New South Wales result has also shifted 0.6% to the Coalition, moving a third seat back into their column. Another change worth noting is a 2.4% move to Labor in Tasmania, which is down to a methodological change – namely the inclusion, for Tasmania only, of the state-level two-party preferred results that Morgan has taken to publishing. I had not been putting this data to use thus far, as the BludgerTrack model runs off primary votes and the figures in question are presumably respondent-allocated preferences besides. However, the paucity of data for Tasmania is such that I’ve decided it’s worth my while to extract modelled primary votes from Morgan’s figures, imperfect though they may be. The change has not made any difference to the seat projection, this week at least.
Finally, I’ve amused myself by producing primary vote and two-party preferred trendlines for each of the five mainland states, which you can see below. These suggest that not too much has separated New South Wales and Victoria in the changes recorded over the current term, leaving aside their very different starting points. However, whereas the Coalition has had a very gentle upward trend this year in Victoria and perhaps also New South Wales, their decline looks to have resumed lately in Queensland. Last week I noted that six successive data points I was aware of had Labor ahead on two-party preferred in Queensland, including five which are in the model and a Morgan result which is not. That’s now extended to eight with the availability of two further data points this week. The other eye-catching result in the charts below is of course from Western Australia, which clearly shows the effects of the Senate election with respect to both the Greens and Palmer United. The current gap between Labor and the Greens is such that the latter could well win lower house seats at Labor’s expense on these numbers – not that I recommend holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
As I drove along the Federal Highway from Canberra this morning, I was distracted by flashing lights on the other side of the road: at least three police cars and at least one motorcycle cop with a small group of cyclists in velcro. Our illustrious PM did cross my mind but I dismissed the idea; after all it was a normal working day, not a holiday or weekend, and surely the PM and his bike-riding buddies must have more important things to do, like persecuting the poor, the weak and the vulnerable.
Did I actually witness his latest stunt? If so, even if he does not continue his old practice of charging the taxpayer for his hobbies, it cost us quite a lot. It would probably have been better for the nation if he’d just taken the money out of general revenue.
That said, I bet he loved those flashing lights. Almost as good as sitting in that cockpit yesterday. The prime minister’s job brings great oportuniies for boys and their toys.
It’s hardly a matter of record that Battys father had mental health problems if the police assisting the Coroner have said this
[Detective Sergeant Birch said investigators would also try to determine whether Mr Anderson had been diagnosed with mental health problems and whether he was getting any treatment.]
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/luke-batty-inquest-coroner-to-examine-warrants-intervention-orders-mental-health-of-father-greg-anderson-20140305-34604.html#ixzz2zmlh87v5
@political_alert: Direct Action White Paper ‘hip-pocket robbery’ strengthens Greens’ resolve – @AdamBandt: http://t.co/6dWhobxOSM #auspol
Diogenes@302
Jeez, Diog! Logic and evidence will get you nowhere on this particular issue!
@guardian: Apple’s iPhone ‘lock-out’ patent could end texting while driving http://t.co/WjbhFhVFrz
I hope so as it will save lives
It’s also a bit naive to expect the Greens to endorse any particular defence materiel purchase when Greens MPs do not get access to any of the briefings actually laying out the arguments for them.
Helen Sykes 301
Thank you for a good post , came on to PB and all I seem to see is abuse being hurled around, come back later hopefully will have quiten down by then 😀
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/car-registration-and-stamp-duty-to-rise-20140424-zqyu7.html
To add to Victorians woes, Dr Napthine is slugging motorists for the second time since elected in 2010.
I think there’s a landslide election win for the Opposition on the cards in November.
Player one
“How is this “Obvious”? It isn’t obvious to me that it is even possible, given our aging fleet of aircraft and submarines.”
Because they say as much. I thought most people would understand the Greens wish to spend less on the military.
You are quite welcome to disagree with the policy and argue that it can’t be done. But that is the Greens Policy.
“Also, isn’t the whole point the fact that neither you (who are presumably a Green) and we (who presumably you want to entice to vote for the Greens) appear to know what the Greens would spend money on?”
Not sure I could convince anyone to vote Green by discussing the Peace and Security policy.
Also, most of the decisions regarding purchases require an understanding of what is being purchased and why. Not being in Government means the Greens don’t get to look at confidential briefings etc.
fran
Sure, sure.
A classic Greens response: attack the poster who questions their committment to Defence spending on fighters etc.
A provisional list of Greens Defence purchases would clear this flame war up very nicely.
Just looking at PUP’s Lambi on Sky Aganda. Seems to be a rabbit.
I’ve had a skip through the ERF White Paper.
It is intended to be run as a reverse auction system. If it gets off the ground it will be bureaucratically administered.
The ERF is being set up with a budget of $1.55 billion to be spent from 2015 until 2020 and an emissions reduction goal of 421 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent. The implied price per tonne of emissions is $3.68. There is a notional extra $1 billion available to find the emissions purchases. If this was also spent and the emissions reduction targets were met, the cost be would be $6.06/tonne.
The electricity sector is not included in the ERF at this point, which means the reductions will have to come in these areas:
2020 forecast emission projections (before ERF taken into account)
Fugitive Emissions 72 mt
Waste 11.5 mt
Agriculture and land use 112 mt
Industrial processes 35 mt
Transport 98 mt
stationery energy
(excl electricity) 115 mt
These sources are forecast to total about 443 mt in 2020. If the ERF works, 131 mt in emissions – or about 29% of 2020 forecast emissions – will be abated. (The total emission abatement trajectory is given as 421 mt over 5 years.) The White Paper lists these kind of projects as ones that may attract funding:
[Methods currently under development include:
• a generic method for emissions reductions at facilities reporting under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme
• capture and destruction of coal mine fugitive emissions
• reductions in emissions-intensity of transport
• commercial, industrial and aggregated energy efficiency
• capture and combustion of landfill gas
• alternative treatment of organic waste
• capture and combustion of biogas from wastewater, and
• methods for the land sector, including increasing soil carbon, reducing livestock emissions, expanding opportunities for environmental and carbon sink plantings, and reforestation.]
Up to $6.06 per tonne of tonne of abatement…cumulative 421 mt of abatement…131 mt pa in 2020….electricity generation not included….no real idea of the kinds of projects that will be submitted or their costs or how the auction process will work in practice…sounds like wishful thinking more than anything….
caf@306
I’m not asking if they support any particular purchase. I’m asking how they could support any purchase, given their stated policy is to “reallocate and if possible reduce” defence expenditure.
Given that we already know we need new aircraft and ships (not necessarily submarines), where do they intend reallocating the money from? Reducing the size of the armed forces? You’d have to sack a lot of personnel to pay for even one aircraft!
Since this is their policy, surely they must know?
I hate to say it, but now having read and thought about their stated policy, I think I’m beginning to agree with Boerwar – and I didn’t start out that way at all. The Greens policy just doesn’t seem to make any sense. If think if I was a Green, I would not be pointing people to that particular policy at all. Probably better just to stay quiet on the whole subject.
Have we done “world is fukt” yet?
http://mumbrella.com.au/afr-apologises-world-fukt-front-page-222572
[ Did I actually witness his latest stunt? ]
Some would see passing the PM on his bike as a missed opportunity. 🙁
Greg Hunt pretending that Direct Inaction will meet our emission reduction target (“without a tax on…” mentioning a list of people that didn’t include polluters). Why doesn’t someone challenge him to cite support by credible authorities.
William Bowe@314
How appalling! Those bloody kiwi subeditors never could spell!
Boerwar: Ahh, I had mistaken your name for some kind of Boer War cheerleading… which does seem a little bit odd, to say the least. Apologies.
Mari, when I logged on to PB this afternoon and saw the infighting, I remembered a job I had where there were endless meetings. A couple of people would get into an argument that was irrelevant to everyone else in the room. They’d fight about it for ages, while everything else ground to a halt.
I always skip the posts when there is an outbreak of this disease on PB. It seems to be a few giant egos who have to convince themselves they’ve demolished every opponent. It’s such a pity at a critical time like this when we are watching the government trash the country.
Player One
Why don’t you ask them?
“Given that we already know we need new aircraft and ships (not necessarily submarines), where do they intend reallocating the money from? Reducing the size of the armed forces? You’d have to sack a lot of personnel to pay for even one aircraft!”
Their aim is to have a smaller defence force, yes. As I pointed out if you make the region more secure through aid etc, you don’t need a larger military.
As I said I have no idea about the particulars, and I am not sure if new purchases are included in the policy or if it is solely about ongoing costs. I am pretty sure that the purchase of new aircraft and ships doesn’t come out of the ongoing Defence budget.
The Greens have absolutely no difficulty in criticising any and all defence purchases – despite the lack of briefings, etc, etc, etc.
caf
No worries.
Claiming the TNI are a serious invasion threat is quite silly, though – the Indonesians can barely keep a lid on their own restive provinces, let alone mount a successful invasion. I suspect that if they did start to look like a threat one day, we’d start covertly supporting their various seperatist movements.
Player ONe
Oh I see your confusion:
““reallocate and if possible reduce”
See the reallocate isn’t to reallocate the money out of defence, but rather reallocate it within defence to achieve the earlier stated aims. So that’s about having a defence force that is about defending, rather than fighting offensive wars (so, for example, not going to war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc.).
Re Greens Defence Policy
I have no idea what it is. However it must be ok as the Australian has not used it to destroy them at the ballot box.
Boerwar
“The Greens have absolutely no difficulty in criticising any and all defence purchases – despite the lack of briefings, etc, etc, etc.”
well they discuss them where they can in Senate Estimates… There’s an awful lot of money spent on these things and huge opportunity for waste. The best they can do at the moment is try and reduce the waste.
Boerwar
They were a group psych up adrenalin rush inducing activity before the real violence. Even after the arrival of the guns NZ terrain means much of the combat was up close and personal, one on one stuff so lots of adrenalin flowing would help.
Meanwhile it is weird where the haka is turning up.
[.. traditional Maori Haka performance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLmS9e_4m6A
Meanwhile in Texas gridiron one of their top college teams does…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxB25H4yB2E
“@cathywilcox1: So, if Direct Action were applied to domestic violence, the govt would pay you more the less excessively you beat your wife.”
Seriously?
Astrobleme@320
I thought you were “them”
Or perhaps some of the other Green’s here would know? Surely someone must know?
[ See the reallocate isn’t to reallocate the money out of defence, but rather reallocate it within defence to achieve the earlier stated aims. So that’s about having a defence force that is about defending, rather than fighting offensive wars (so, for example, not going to war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc.). ]
Yes, I got that. I just don’t see how it is possible. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it clearly isn’t possible, unless your idea of “defending Australia” is to have no ships or aircraft, but just bunkers on the beaches manned by volunteers.
But I’m happy to let you (or someone else) explain it.
Possum Comitatus @Pollytics 1m
LNP member submissions condensed: “I was so angry at seeing fire fighters have an opinion, I drove off the Hornibrook bridge by accident”
@murpharoo: I really hope Greg Hunt’s right on DA & we are all wrong – because this looks like an absolute dog’s breakfast http://t.co/FUVwDwxy0Q
Diogenes@302
Good to see someone it is possible to have a sensible discussion with commenting on this.
His ex-wife said he did so that must have been based on something. She also said that he refused to get help, not an uncommon situation.
It will be very interesting to see what the inquest comes up with, but as you would be aware, there are a lot of mentally ill people out there not receiving treatment and refusing to acknowledge there is anything wrong with them. You can see some of them roaming the streets of any city conversing with their voices and otherwise behaving strangely.
guytaur@325
Or is it that nobody really expects sensible policies from the Greens, so they’ve never really had to come up with any?
William Bowe
[Have we done “world is fukt” yet?]
Not as good as the great headline from the 50’s.
[Hillary, Fuchs off to the Pole]
For old cockies they will be pleased to know that Sir Ed and crew got there first in the race against Sir Vivian Fuchs using good old Fergie tractors.
[Sir Edmund Hillary, Derek Wright and Murray Ellis arriving at the South Pole in their Ferguson tractors ]
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/dash-pole-tractors
P1
You can bet that those mob at the Australian would keep to their word. Any tool to attack the Greens they would use.
Publicly stated. Therefore the only logical conclusion is there is no tool to use
PLayer one
“I thought you were “them””
No, I am not The Greens
“Yes, I got that. I just don’t see how it is possible. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it clearly isn’t possible, unless your idea of “defending Australia” is to have no ships or aircraft, but just bunkers on the beaches manned by volunteers.”
I don’t believe this includes purchases of equipment. Does the ongoing Defence budget include the new F-35 purchase? I would say the Liberal Govt would assign extra money for those sort of purchases. I would think the Greens would similarly need to assign extra money to replace large equipment.
Greg Hunt has put out the garbage the afternoon prior to a 3 day long weekend.
Clever man is our Greg.
Player One
Before the Election last year the Greens had Treasury fully investigate their commitments to expenditure, why don’t you have a look?
“Or is it that nobody really expects sensible policies from the Greens, so they’ve never really had to come up with any?”
Ok, I don’t think that ‘Policy’ actually includes the details you expect. No Policy does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy
It’s just a set of guidelines/principles.
To claim that their Policy should include the details you’re after is not correct.
Michaela Whitbourn @MWhitbourn 1h
Former mining magnate Nathan Tinkler is among the witnesses to give evidence at new #ICAC inquiry next week: http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/images/Spicer%20PI/Witness%20List%20Week%20One%2028%20April.pdf … #auspol
[ His ex-wife said he did so that must have been based on something. She also said that he refused to get help, not an uncommon situation. ]
And you really can’t see anything wrong with this logic, can you?
(Sorry, William).
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/383575,ombudsman-wants-to-monitor-warrantless-metadata-access.aspx
Commonwealth Ombudsman joins in the frey to access metadata.
Talk about priorities of this government.
“Neave and his team wants their powers extended to include oversight of metadata access, which last year hit a record of 291,501 authorisations, according to the Attorney-General’s Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act annual report. That figure is up significantly compared to 243,631 metadata authorisations the year prior.”
I don’t care if they wanting oversight of metadata access, it’s just another gov agency having access to metadata.
It ends up similar situations in UK where data may have been access lawfully, but still allow things to be accessed.
No Government Agency or Government should have access to metadata.
caf@323
Yes. An academic I knew. who had expertise on Indonesia. once described the TNI as an army of occupation occupying its own country.
Seems pretty right to me.
guytaur@336
Well, I can’t fault your logic about the Australian – but it could be that not even the Australian thinks anyone would bother to read an article entitled “Greens Defence Policy – simply not credible!”.
It would be akin to publishing an article saying “Exclusive – Department Store Santa turns out to be just some fat guy in a suit!”
The discussion here on PB regarding the killing of Luke Batty by his father is facile, futile and infantile.
The young boys death in such a horrificly public way was disturbing and distressing.
I live about a kilometre from where two young girls were killed, apparently by their father last weekend the week end. The fact that it was not done in public to an audience makes it no less disturbing or distressing.
I believe an awful lot of time, effort and money needs to be spent in this area of human interaction to find solutions to make it stop.
All people must learn how to leave the kids alone, not regard them as chattels or pawns to be used in property settlements or revenge scenarios against disaffected partners.
342
Meta data should be able to be accessed with warrants. Not blanket surveillance over everyone but for the investigation of crimes.
BW
We have at the moment 9 Federal MPs of which 8 are in the senate. We don’t qualify for defence briefings. If someone from a betting agency asked me to bet on the year that a Green would become a member of a Federal cabinet and offered me 100/1 I’d not be picking any year before 2020. Why in these circumstances we as a party ought to be stating a preference for this or that means of raining death upon Australia’s putative enemies is not obvious.
One might add that even if we were interested in how best to kill putatively dangerous foreigners the offerings in recent years have been unimpressive. Sea sprite helicopters, Collins Class subs, FA 18s … an odd assortment of things that seem not to be related to any clear idea of whom we would like to kill but rather, seem to be related to how we can help the US kill people. Recently, it Abbott announced that Australia will be doing joint exercises with the Chinese so it’s even less clear which death machines Australia ought to be buying.
The idea of defence centres on identifying actual or potential threats to our legitimate interests, devising a timeline describing when these might arise and evaluating technically and temporally feasible solutions. The further out the timeline, the less plausible the model. Who, in 1967 would have bet on China’s posture in 1980 or their role in the world economy and politics in 1992 and been right? Imagine if you’d tooled up to fight the Warsaw Pact in 1977 only to see it collapse between 1989 and 1991?
We talk a great deal in this place about evidence-based policy — in particular on climate change. That is a real threat and although Australia is a relatively minor contributor in jurisdictional terms we quite rightly advocate application of exemplary policies. Our basis for this is the incontrovertible evidence of the threat to ecosystem services from business as usual policies. There is nothing comparable to the IPCC in Australia identifying threats over five, fifteen or twenty-five years that would recommend purchase of fighter jets or submarines. Yet the sums involved are multiples of the money involved in the modest CO2 abatement programs we have here.
It’s the regime that needs to make the case for submarines and fighter jets, not us.
Astrobleme@339
You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say the policies were “fully investigated”. On the other, you say the policies cannot be expected to be detailed enough to be costed at all.
Which is it?
Anyway, I am not asking for costings, and I am beginning to understand Boerwar’s frustration – why can’t the Green’s ever answer a simple question:
Will you support new defence spending if it is required to adequately defend Australia?
And if so, doesn’t that contradict your own “Peace and Security” policy?
I worked at Wallsend Hospital where was a ward named after a retired Doctor the Firkin Ward. While still practising quite a queue would form on Saturday Mornings before the surgery opened, one morning a man went straight to the front of the queue, someone called out “hey you go to the back of the queue.” the man replied “but I’m Firkin the doctor.” a bloke in the queue said ” I don’t care who your Fu–in get to the end of the Queue”
Stella Young on the Drum explaining why the assessment criteria for DSP has to be approached carefully