With the fortnightly cycles of Newspoll and Morgan coinciding, and other pollsters having gone a bit quiet lately, the polling calendar has fallen into a pattern of on weeks and off weeks. This one was an “off”, with only the regular Essential Research to relieve the monotony. The poll may have recorded a move to Labor on two-party preferred, but there wasn’t much behind it so far as the primary vote numbers were concerned. This makes for the dullest week ever on BludgerTrack, on which the biggest change is an increase in the Greens vote by all of 0.2%. That said, the Greens result is of genuine interest, in that the party has held on to its 1.4% lift from last week, leaving little room for doubt that the bipartisan consensus on Iraq has been to its advantage. This week’s seat projection is unchanged on last week, but there’s at least a little something happening under the surface here, with Labor up a seat in Western Australia and down one in Victoria. There were no new results this week for the leadership ratings.
…I will add that I have years of experience doing exactly what I’m saying Rudd should have done and persuading a room full of doubters to back a position.
I would never do that through coercion or imposition, because then you only have reluctant backing.
Where I haven’t been able to convince people to back a certain position, I’ve either accepted that my arguments weren’t persuasive enough – and therefore I was wrong to present them – or looked at other ways (including very long term persuasion…) to achieve what I wanted.
If I can do it, in my humble sphere of influence, then someone who aspires to lead the country should be able to, too.
Rudd couldn’t – something none of his supporters here seem to be denying.
Peter Murphy
Your words sum up Planet 2GB and its inhabitants well
[ Belligerent and ignorant…. Loves to pontificate, thinks he’s smart, and as dumb as a box of hammers.]
WWP
No abuse, when you use the word ‘unhinged’?
Right.
zoomster@647
No need for abuse, just enjoy the comedic relief provided by the likes of you and briefly. 😆
zoomster@651
You should be only too well aware that persuasion simply doesn’t work when people are locked in to supporting factional positions.
I think the Judge is telling Mr Hird to get stuffed.
bemused
1. No, that’s not always the case. There are numerous examples of one faction being persuaded to support a position they initially opposed. Again, I have been able to do this – someone with the authority of Rudd should thus be capable of doing that, too.
2. Rudd was elected by the party as PM. This means he had factional backing.
Saying a claim is unhinged is different to saying a person is unhinged. It wasn’t abuse of you at all just the claim that Rudd showed no leadership and at all times was opposed by his own cabinet as you’ve complained. There are so many facts in the public domain inconsistent with this claim there is nothing to be done with it but laugh at it and call it unhinged as it clearly is.
zoomster@657
zoomster for PM! 😆
Your genius is needed in Canberra.
Essendon lose ASADA case and have to pay costs.
They’re farked.
Justice Mddleton smacks down the Essendon and James Hird applications and awards costs against them.
ASADA has acted in a proper way.
Speaking of voting . On this day in 1893 the NZ Electoral Act gave women, including Maori women, the vote becoming the first nation to do so.
Digs,
It’s a massive loss for the Bombers but, they’ll appeal!
Diog
Middleton J came off the top rope to smack down Hird and Essendon. So ASADA can now reissue the show cause notices one would think.
GG
Essendon’s lawyers are going to get very, very rich.
BK
Yes, the show cause notices to the 34 players are now applicable and have to be answered.
This is part of the reason behind the perceived Labor vs Liberal aspect to the Drug saga.
[Middleton: I have concluded that Andruska was under some pressure from the then federal government and the AFL.]
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-v-asada-judgment-day-20140919-3g3lu.html#ixzz3DjPXl6FR
Diog
It looks like ASADA will give them 14 days to show cause.
Popcorn time?
643
outside left
Posted Friday, September 19, 2014 at 1:38 pm | PERMALINK
[Victora, Sundays function went well. John Faulkner was very entertaining and informative. He despaired at the lack of intelligence of Brandis and Abetz in the Senate, and said that a federal ICAC would be fully supported by Labor once it was a ratified party policy, and that the AWB scandal was a priority for investigation. He told me that in retirement he was not interested in a board position, and was looking forward to being an ‘very’ elder of the party]
Appreciate the feedback. 🙂
Senator Jacqui Lambie posts far-right anti-burqa image, raising fears MPs are assisting Islamic State recruit terrorists
PUP senator Jacqui Lambie has posted online a provocative photo of a person wearing a burqa about to fire a gun, as Muslim leaders have warned “inflammatory” comments from her and Liberal senator Cory Bernardi are assisting Islamic State recruit potential terrorists.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senator-jacqui-lambie-posts-farright-antiburqa-image-raising-fears-mps-are-assisting-islamic-state-recruit-terrorists-20140919-10j74z.html#ixzz3DjR7fjx3
I suppose there is always the chance that the Essendon regime will apologise to their players and the public, repudiate their actions as unconscionable, accept whatever punishment is deemed appropriate and promise not to do it again.
WWP
so dtt is unhinged? She was the one who claimed Rudd was opposed by his Cabinet. I was just discussing why that was proof he wasn’t a good leader.
bemused
so, no actual argument again.
GG
[I suppose there is always the chance that the Essendon regime will apologise to their players and the public, repudiate their actions as unconscionable, accept whatever punishment is deemed appropriate and promise not to do it again.]
Just after ISIS wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Appears Scotland votes no
BBC is now forecasting NO. For Scotland.
So now the question will be how long before England has a First Minister?
Diogs,
Another big loser in this is the Herald Sun and Fox Sports who have been cheering Essendon and Hird along throughout this saga.
Looking for reverse ferrets very shortly.
GG
[Diogs,
Another big loser in this is the Herald Sun and Fox Sports who have been cheering Essendon and Hird along throughout this saga.
Looking for reverse ferrets very shortly.]
So true! Lol!
Diogs,
I reckon Hird might end up coaching ISIS!
[645
Libertarian Unionist
If the oil city Aberdeen is voting “no” that resoundingly (58%), it’s not happening.
Well done Scotland, for having the courage to ask the question.]
Except Scotland did not ask the question. Cameron did. And he did so from opportunism – from a populist impulse. The Tories have come close to precipitating the dissolution of the Union. Act II is a vote on EU membership – a vote on whether to reject modernity or embrace the past.
Zoomster/Briefly
I have posted this AT LEAST twice before
Rudd Cabinet – supporting CPRS
Strong
1) Rudd, 2)Garrett 3) Wong 4) Faulkner 5) Tanner
Supporting but I am not sure how strongly
6)Albo 7)Macklin 8) Evans
Known opponents
Stong
1) Crean 2) Ferguson 3) Kim Carr (I think I am right on this)
AWU group so quite strongly so because of mining industry
4) Swan 5)Lutwych 6) Roxon
Opposed to some extent
7) Gillard
Assumed opposed if only weakly because they have never expressed strong committment to any “green” issues
8) Conroy 9)Bowen 10) Burke 11) McClelland
I will leave Smith for Briefly to comment on.
Now how in bloody hell could you rud a DD when at best you have just 25% in the strongly support group.
When you have the answer please assist because I love a good miracle story.
GG
[I reckon Hird might end up coaching ISIS!]
I reckon there are 34 players with show cause notices who aren’t overly keen on him coaching them next year.
Caneron thought the Indepence case had no chance when he agreed to it.
The fact that about half the population voted yes is a black eye to Cameron.
The only no campaigner to come out with any real credit is one Gordon Brown.
The pressures for change are on with a vengeance now. As Scotland gets more power Welsh and English people are going to be saying why not us?
The Westminster thinkers are saying Federation style is impossible. That is what they said of Scotland ever going Independent.
681
daretotread
dtt, for the record, I have never discussed this with Stephen; and none of my posts here should be taken to reflect his views. I’m his friend, not his cypher.
Zoomster
Take a bloody good hard look at that list of cabinet Ministers.
All factional hacks of one kind or another and few would say boo to their overlords.
The AWU group – Roxon, Swan, Lutwych do as old Bill says and Bill said Nyet.
The left stick together mostly but the “manufacturing left” Carr and Ferguson did step in a different direction
dtt
I actually know some of the Cabinet members you’re talking about. One thing they say consistently is that factions don’t operate as strongly at the federal level, and even less so within Cabinet and caucus. Even the factional leaders play most of their games at State level.
The fact that a PM from the Right was replaced by someone from the Left sort of reinforces that.
dtt…If Rudd was not in a position to deliver on carbon pricing, why did he promise he would? Why did he make his “greatest moral challenge” speech? Why did he waste 2 years of Parliamentary time then humiliate himself in Copenhagen?
He had an opportunity – in 2008 – to set the pace and he didn’t take it. He just bungled it.
..and if, as people here contend, Cabinet wasn’t commited to carbon pricing, they would not have continued to support it and still be supporting it now.
There have been a wealth of opportunities for them to walk away from it, yet here they are, still advocating something very similar to the original CPRS.
All the usual Rudd lovers are back.
It’s inexcusable that he spent YEARS leaking against his own party.
His behavior towards public servants and his own colleagues was also inexcusable.
Despite all the waffle from his apologists, none can dispute the above realities.
Hi Fran,
[ (Milne) did, however, reject the idea that the policy’s proposed emissions reduction fund could be used to pay heavily polluting power stations to close.
So the most stupid part of the policy is expressly ruled out.]
Good. Now back on to that reverse-RET idea I floated yesterday (sorry I couldn’t continue the discussion
Apologies to everyone interested only in Dons vs ASADA, Scottish Yes Vs No, or R vs G, for the following long post on the RET…
Like a lot of good ideas in modern neo-classical economics, the RET starts with Ronald Coase. To get around the problem of the social cost of externalities, Coase’s ingeniously simple suggestion was to clearly define an allocation of property rights over the externality, and facilitate trade in those rights. This is the basis for cap-and-trade systems like the CPM (e.g. the govt owns the right to pollute, and will auction a limited amount of it off to polluters) and is used to manage other finite resources (e.g. the govt owns the right to fish in its territorial waters, and will auction it off at a sustainable rate); the RET works in a similar way too.
Under the RET, property rights are allocated to large renewable electricity power stations, in the form of LGCs (Large-scale Generation Certificates), with one LGC created per MWh of energy generated (pro-rated if a mixed fuel source is used). Final demand for LGCs is set by the Clean Energy Regulator, in that each retailer is required to surrender a fixed number of LGCs in proportion to the amount of energy they purchase in the wholesale market. In order to meet their requirements, retailers purchase LGCs from RE generators (typically, although secondary trade also occurs), which sets the market price. Importantly, the government injects no money into this process, it only allocate property rights to RE power generators. Almost all of the trade in certificates is between the parties that produce them and are required to surrender them, and the resulting market efficiently distributes the cost of achieving of the RET across them. The costs of producing LGCs are ultimately recovered by retailers from end users.
Now, the wholesale current market is suffering from excess capacity, and construction costs are too high relative to returns to justify any new RE investment, even with the extra revenue earned from selling LGCs. In contrast, existing coal-fired plants have been paid off, so only need to cover their fuel and operating costs to earn a profit, which they are doing,* so they won’t shut down anytime soon.** In fact, it’s the significantly less emissions intensive gas fired plants that are coping in the neck.
Since demand for LCGs is legislated, the risk is that the number of LGCs created won’t meet the number required. What happens when inelastic demand hits a supply limit? In theory the price sky-rockets – and and this hurts consumers. In practice, supply should increase, but there’s a limit to how much capacity the power system needs, and as is commonly understood, we’ve already reached it, or even passed it with subsidised RE generation investment.
So now you could argue that the new RE generation financed with projected revenue from higher LGC prices will displace the coal fired generators. Unfortunately, there’s an additional complicating feature of the NEM to do with the dispatch process:
The coal-fired plants have huge shut down and restart costs. As such, they bid negative prices into the NEM for their first few hundred MWh of output, right up against the lower bid limit of -$1000/MWh. Since this is way below the market price for LGCs, RE generators bid higher and the CF plants are always dispatched (gas-fired generators bid higher again). So what your left with is a situation where:
1. There’s too much generation capacity and no incentive for additional RE plants;
2. The generators you don’t want to dispatch because of their emissions are the ones that are dispatched first; and
3. An unnecessarily-high LCG price which is paid for by consumers.
Yes, unnecessary.
This is all occurring because the RET implicitly assumed increasing demand, with new capacity requirements being filled with RE investment. Since demand is falling, we need to remove capacity from the system, and the same principle can be used to drive divestment in generators with high emissions. Simply allow large high-emissions generators to claim an ongoing number of LGCs when they shut down, relative to the amount of energy they have historically sold through the NEM.*** The outcomes would be:
1. A significant incentive to shut down polluting power stations, but not drawn from govt funds,
2. A higher wholesale energy market price, making new RE investment more attractive, and
3. Relaxation of supply LGC constraints, which will lower the price for them and the cost of the RET imposed on end users.
The aim of the RET is to achieve 20% stationary energy from renewable sources. It’s not to reduce carbon emissions. The benefit of opening up this new avenue of producing LGCs is that under conditions of falling demand, the price of achieving the 20% stationary energy target can be in part achieved by removing the most emissions-intensive generators from the system.
Where’s the downside?
*With the exception of some of Stanwell Co’s plants, but they’re are also restricting supply to increase the nodal market price in Qld where they hold market power due to the unreliable Terranora interconnection – classic oligopolist behaviour.
** Yes, yes, yes, a proper carbon price would have made this much more difficult for them, as would an (impossible to enforce) commitment not to pay them to shut down.
*** OK, so maybe it’s not that simple!
Huge No vote in Edinburgh – 61.1%.
[Huge No vote in Edinburgh – 61.1%.]
Must be all the English students getting a free education.
The Glaswegians should declare war on the Peoples Front of Edingburgh …. bloody Terrorists.
[Research by IMF staff shows that for most large emitters, action to put a price on carbon dioxide has economic benefits beyond reducing global climate change.
The paper, prepared by two International Monetary Fund staff and a University of Bologna researcher, finds that there are economic benefits from factors such as improved health and reduced congestion if a carbon price is introduced and reduces the burning of fossil fuels.
“The potential for co-benefits suggests that countries need not wait on internationally coordinated efforts if some carbon mitigation is in their own national interests – that is, the domestic environmental benefits exceed the CO2 mitigation costs, leaving aside climate benefits,” the researchers concluded.
The researchers also find a “double dividend” from carbon pricing if revenue generated is used to cut taxes in other areas, such as on income or company profits, through the stimulus these tax cuts provide to the economy.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-19/domestic-non-climate-benefits-justify-carbon-pricing-imf/5756002
[692
Libertarian Unionist
Huge No vote in Edinburgh – 61.1%.
Must be all the English students getting a free education.]
were they allowed to vote?
[were they allowed to vote?]
They sure were – any EU citizen residing in Scotland could vote.
Bobalot
It’s no good protesting. They don’t believe the leaking and undermining.
[694
lizzie]
Those economists at the IMF…what would they know!! Compared to the LNP cabinet, they are economic illiterates.
A LNP/Greens ‘direct action’ plan to reduce CO2?
Sounds costly. Lucky they already teamed up to give themselves an unlimited debt level!
[696
Libertarian Unionist
were they allowed to vote?
They sure were – any EU citizen residing in Scotland could vote.]
So not a purely Scottish act of self-determination….I wonder if it this has changed the result…