ReachTEL’s monthly federal poll for the Seven Network is unchanged on the previous result in putting Labor ahead 51-49 on two-party preferred, and is similarly stable with respect to the major parties’ primary votes, with the Coalition on 41.6% (up 0.4%) and Labor on 37.4% (up 0.1%). Reflecting other polling over this time, it has the Greens up (by 0.7% to 10.5%) and Palmer United down (by 1.4% to 5.3%). There are also leadership ratings which find a shift from poor to the intermediate result of satisfactory in Tony Abbott’s case, and questions on Iraq which show support for sending military planes but opposition to sending troops. In a separately published release today derived from the same poll, ReachTEL found stronger support than I might have anticipated for parliamentary seats being reserved for indigenous Australians, with 36.7% supportive and 43.1% opposed. As usual, this was an automated phone poll with a big sample of 3470, conducted last night.
ReachTEL: 51-49 to Labor
The latest monthly automated phone poll from ReachTEL finds no change on two-party preferred, but reflects the trend elsewhere in having the Greens up and Palmer United down.
[Once again, the Australian media has been completely bluffed by national security theatre.
What the Prime Minister and the various police chiefs – even George Brandis – have said may be proven. They haven’t been proven yet and their words are worth nothing. Nothing. All this would have much more credibility coming from a judge after fair and extensive trials, even with the law’s palaver.
No government is entitled to be taken at its word, especially this one. A policeman’s finding is the start of a trial, not the end.]
http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/national-security-theatre.html?spref=tw
but lizzie – glad they got that Queensland doctor a few years ago – Haneef wasn’t he? He was a terrorist wasn’t he? It said so next to his picture on the cover of the HeraldSun/DailyTel/CourierMail/Australian etc!
This is an excellent poll for Labor under the circumstances. Still in front, virtually no lift in the Liberal pv despite all the war talk and posturing. The Liberals must be starting to wonder if they will ever repair the damage done to their electoral standing by their budget.
Beatup?
[The Age: Though beheading was never mentioned in the call “it is assumed” this would have been the method of killing. pic.twitter.com/TWhko6s9Fl ]
From the previous thread…
714
Fran Barlow
Fran, I can sympathise with your desire to make the CF generators wear the costs of closure.
However, there are other ways of looking at this.
From the viewpoint of consumers of electricity, some of their spending is directed towards shifting the proportion of energy derived from renewable sources. This is true whether the cash is used to close obsolete CF plant or buy energy from RE generators. So this is value-neutral from the viewpoint of the consumer $.
Of course, when the cash buys closure of plants, it buys a near-on permanent shift in the renewable/non-renewable ratio. So there is possibly a bigger shift available from each $ spent on consumption. That can’t be bad.
Here we’re talking about the buyout of externally-accruing costs, as you’re doubtless well aware. There are lots of similar instances. They include the fishing and forestry industries, agriculture and irrigated horticulture as well as transport and communications. Cash is used to enable the liquidation and exit of capital from obsolete, polluting or uneconomic industries and to prompt the transfer of mis-allocated resources to new ones. The same sort of rationale has applied following the reduction in tariff protection and other kinds of industry assistance.
In these cases, the moral standing of the recipients is seldom the issue, though it certainly could be made into one. The issue is always to shift behaviour, and to impel mobility of capital and other resources away from activities that carry high negative external costs.
These generate public goods/benefits in themselves. But they also have other advantages. In particular, it should be relatively easy to quantify the relevant opportunity costs of failing to act. This means we can focus on objective outcomes – what we get for each $ spent or each $ foregone.
In the case of the RET, we can see very clearly what each $ spent on electricity will buy in terms of emissions reductions. At the very least, this means we can allocate our spending to places where it will achieve the greatest effect, at the best discount and at the earliest time.
Murdoch Uni VC suspended and sent to CCC
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-19/murdoch-uni-vice-chancellor-richard-higgott-referred-to-ccc/5755776
So far it looks like the terror alert and the police raids have done virtually nothing to raise Abbott’s personal approval and the government’s standing.
This weekend’s Newspoll results will either show some improvement for them or confirm the status quo. Past experience says they should benefit from terror related issues but if not, then the Abbott government really has some serious problems to overcome.
Oh well, if we had the same pollsters as the UK, the result would be 55/45 to Labor. 🙂
Darn@3
Well put.
And to quote Keane on the Abbott regime at Crikey
[It will surely now receive a terror-inspired poll boost in the wake of the raids. If that doesn’t help, nothing will]
http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/09/19/terror-raids-a-media-spectacle-but-its-war-that-puts-us-in-danger/
I suppose all this heightened terror alert stuff means that residents of SE Qld will be moved into northern NSW for the G20 so that thousands of police can have accommodation for the increase in security.
Memo to self – don’t wear balaclava in November. Too hot anyway. And certainly don’t wear burqa.
briefly
Up to a point, your counterclaim makes sense. Buying decommission is arguably more effective than buying new RE, since the unused capacity sits awaiting its moment to participate in the market and its mere presence forces down prices. Arguably, if high priced gas decommissions first due to the better prices offshore, coal could make a comeback, but nobody is going to build new coal plant on that margin and at that risk, given the 40-year amortisation cycle.
I still wonder though if we need to pay them to close. If we make conditions for them far tougher, wouldn’t this be as likely to make them give up and go away as bribing them out of public money to close? Would not this latter course be far more ethically satisfying, especially given the likelihood that they will lack the funds to remediate fully the sites on which they stand?
In some cases of course (NSW, WA and QLD) some of this capacity is owned by the states, so the states could simply choose to decommission the plants and write off the cost. In these cases I could see a case for some public funding, since effectively, it’s a matter of mere accounting.
briefly
Up to a point, your counterclaim makes sense. Buying decommission is arguably more effective than buying new RE, since the unused capacity sits awaiting its moment to participate in the market and its mere presence forces down prices. Arguably, if high priced gas decommissions first due to the better prices offshore, coal could make a comeback, but nobody is going to build new coal plant on that margin and at that risk, given the 40-year amortisation cycle.
I still wonder though if we need to pay them to close. If we make conditions for them far tougher, wouldn’t this be as likely to make them give up and go away as bribing them out of public money to close? Would not this latter course be far more ethically satisfying, especially given the likelihood that they will lack the funds to remediate fully the sites on which they stand?
In some cases of course (NSW, WA and QLD) some of this capacity is owned by the states, so the states could simply choose to decommission the plants and write off the cost. In these cases I could see a case for some public funding, since effectively, it’s a matter of mere accounting.
So National Security has not got the LNP in front. What next?
Interesting that Sanderson has talked to Ryan O Keefe about a coaching role at Adelaide.
[@andwcampbell 4m
Not much for cynicism but Labor got through 6 yrs of govt without any wars, terrorism or national security rhetoric. 1yr of Abbott & boom!]
[What next?]
Well, they could start acting like a adults but that won’t happen.
Mike
It is onteresting that all the hype has them treading water. When the hype dies they will sink.
Oops!
“@sallyjsara: Woman in burqa posted by @LambieJacqui is actually of female Afghan police officer Malalai Kakar killed by Taliban in Afghanistan.”
guytaur
Lead balloons here’s hoping.
From one Economist to lots of others
” Johnstone says. “Economists fall in love their own models and crave the authority of being scientists.”
http://m.smh.com.au/business/dorc-rort-the-art-of-getting-energy-infrastructure-paid-for-twice-20140919-10jega.html
A post, of sorts, on tomorrow’s New Zealand election:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2014/09/19/new-zealand-election-wrap-up/
Despite all the khaki Ra Ra Ra the public are still not fired up for action. Not even L/NP voters. From Reachtell.
[Would you support Australian sending troops to Iraq to join the fight against Islamic State : Support -32.8&]
citizen
[ So far it looks like the terror alert and the police raids have done virtually nothing to raise Abbott’s personal approval and the government’s standing.
This weekend’s Newspoll results will either show some improvement for them or confirm the status quo. Past experience says they should benefit from terror related issues but if not, then the Abbott government really has some serious problems to overcome. ]
I note with some relief that others (I mean others than the few sane heads here on PB) are beginning to question why it took 800 parliamentary police to arrest just one demented jihadi – and why it took four months for them to do so after the threat was first uncovered.
Were they waiting in the vain hope that some real threat would eventuate, but ran out of time?
And is it just a coincidence that this occurred only a day after a parliamentary committee recommended sweeping new powers for our various spooky agencies? Due to be considered by parliament in the near future?
The timing is just to incredible to be credible.
While it’s good to see Labor still ahead as a the first day of the Security /ISIS flap, it’s only day 1. This has a way to run. Labor needs to change the conversation back as soon as possible. Even if we were safer from evil beheaders (which I strongly doubt), we still have a crap budget, growing unemployment and an increasingly uncertain economy.
Big Police presence at Chatswood railway station (one of Sydney’s busiest). I assume it’s related to the terror flap.
Darn
A typical tweet on my timeline today
“@senthorun: 800 police.
Rolling national coverage.
Two people charged.
Our largest “terror raid” seemed more about spectacle than safety.
#auspol”
guytaur
So that makes it 400 police per arrest. Hmmm overkill ?
First fallout
“@3AWisfootball: CONFIRMED: Paddy Ryder has quit Essendon #AFL”
A repost from the previous thread.
Whether it’s a jihadist with a sword or a madman with an axe, you’re dead or injured both ways. In Canberra this afternoon:
[A police officer has been injured by a man armed with an axe and a molotov cocktail at Brindabella Park.
Police were quick to reassure residents the incident was not related to national security amid increasing fears of a terrorism attack.
The incident occurred the same day Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed Parliament House had been identified as a potential target and security ramped up at the national institution, following a number of counter-terrorism raids across Australia a day earlier.]
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/police-officer-hurt-at-brindabella-park-by-man-armed-with-molotov-cocktail-and-axe-20140919-10jgge.html#ixzz3DkleiMQ8
It’s good to know this wasn’t an official terrorist attack but I’m not sure the police officer who was injured would care much about the difference.
Was looking through the SMH and what do I see but I am famous as I go under maggie in the SMH Think I may have “borrowed” a PBer brlliant comment for top one :devil:
Terror alert: Tony Abbott addresses the media
Just about to go to DEFCON 1 ….. the RAAF Tiger Moths, Winjeels and F-111′s are already circling at their FAIL-SAFE positions …. code books open ….just waiting for TAs coded command to GO ….
Commentermaggie Date and time September 12, 2014, 2:27PM
Terror alert: Tony Abbott addresses the media
Have adjusted my fridge magnet.
Commentermaggie Date and time September 12, 2014, 2:23PM
Julie Bishop most popular cabinet minister, Joe Hockey least popular with voters: poll
Notice not one of the got close to a good mark of 76% think that is a pretty bad inditement of this government
Commentermaggie Date and time September 09
[11
Fran Barlow
briefly
I still wonder though if we need to pay them to close. If we make conditions for them far tougher, wouldn’t this be as likely to make them give up and go away as bribing them out of public money to close?]
We could beat them with a stick. Or we could devise another system.
The obsolete generation plant is represented as an asset on the the balance sheets of the generators. If they scrap the plant, they have to write off the assets. Instead of this, a generator that scrapped obsolete plant could be deemed to have created a specified class of RE certificates. These certificates could be used to buy RE-derived energy, or they could be sold to energy distributors, they could be used to finance the installation of new RE plant, or they could retained for future use. That is, RE certificates could have a measurable value that could be reflected in a balance sheet to replace scrapped plant. The value wouldn’t be the same as cash, but would still have income-producing potential in the RE sector.
For example, I read (I think here at PB) a few days ago about developments in the domestic PV market in California. The second-largest home-builder in the US is offering a “free” PV system in every new house. The builder will install the sytem and then sell the electricity to the home-buyer (at a discounted price) for a given term…maybe 40 years. This will save the home-buyer up-front and finance new RE capacity at the same time.
An Australian CF electricity generator could create RE certificates by scrapping CF plant and could then use the value embedded in the certificates to buy and instal (for example) PV systems – or any other renewable generation source – and then sell the electricity to consumers.
There is a guaranteed market for the certificates, so we would be using a quasi-market mechanism to drive investment in RE technologies and helping shift the renewable/non-renewable ratio.
It would not be necessary to confine such transactions to this economy. Certificates could be used to buy (say) domestic PV plant in California, solar plant in Spain or wind-powered plant in the North Sea.
This would be a way of making use of the idled financial capacity represented by the obsolete plant of CF generators in this economy and could occur with limited additional cost for electricity consumers.
Would that be win/win? Would it turn the evil polluter into a green energy producer at essentially no extra cost to anyone?
mari@29
Link please.
Be careful not to confuse your roman numerals and your Chinese leaders:
[Indian TV news anchor sacked after referring to Chinese president Xi Jinping as Eleven Jinping
An Indian television news anchor has been sacked after referring to Chinese president Xi Jinping as Eleven Jinping, apparently confusing his name for Roman numerals.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-19/indian-tv-news-anchor-sacked-after-calling-xi-eleven/5757066
pATHETIC.
[A young woman was in tears after police kicked her out of the queue to Apple’s flagship Sydney store before she was able to buy the new iPhone 6.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/student-in-tears-after-being-kicked-out-of-iphone-6-queue-20140919-10j7uq.html ]
Bemused
I just copied and pasted the top of smh on line,(underAustralian Breaking News).
They were taken from comments on the various articles as shown, must admit I got a shock when I read them 😀 Funny I hadn’t submitted any comments for about 18 months
Could it actually be that footy fever outweighs zombie jihadists for prominence on the front page?
http://www.smh.com.au
Bemused
Think this will come through OK, can’t preview as on tablet and it won’t let me preview
mari@36
Not seeing what you apparently saw.
Bemused
I just clicked on what I posted and I can see it, Under comments in middle of page , so don’t think I “apparently” saw I can see
mari@38
I am obviously looking in the wrong place.
briefly@754{previous thread}:
[In these cases, the moral standing of the recipients is seldom the issue, though it certainly could be made into one. The issue is always to shift behaviour, and to impel mobility of capital and other resources away from activities that carry high negative external costs. ]
Isn’t there a worry that if we make a habit of buying out those engaged in anti-social / undesirable economic behaviours, we run the risk of creating moral hazard? In future, those engaged in analogous activities might well hang on for longer than they otherwise might, hoping to be bought out themselves.
It’s not like we’ve paid off the tobacco companies to exit that industry, for example.
Fran, when these most of these CF plants were built, awareness about climate change was low and the effects of carbon pollution were not given much credence. The builders of the plants believed that they were providing a social good by generating really cheap electricity. The external effects were not counted, and rights to pollute were assumed to be free.
So what punishment are they due? None, but we can still endeavour to close them down. I’ve suggested a revision to the RET that should work towards this goal by altering their incentives.
You think we should just legislate them out of existence. I think that’s an extreme measure.
You want the CF plants to close down, and to remediate their local environment, but you’ll give them no way to fund that activity. Forgive me if I remain sceptical.
(And what briefly said – but he’s being a bit wordy up there!)
zoid:
Sorry to hear of your loss. Take care.
If we introduced indigenous seats, presumably by analogy with the New Zealand example whereby an elector can be enrolled either in their local Maori electorate or general electorate but not both, then it seems likely that the Northern Territory would have to lose one of its general electorates (so there would be one general and one indigenous electorate both covering the entire NT).
the dog ate my post again!!!
Libertarian Unionist:
[Fran, when these most of these CF plants were built, awareness about climate change was low and the effects of carbon pollution were not given much credence. The builders of the plants believed that they were providing a social good by generating really cheap electricity. The external effects were not counted, and rights to pollute were assumed to be free. ]
Much the same could be said when J Hardie got into the business of mining Chrysotile. Business is all about making bets, and in this case they made a bet and lost.
caf:
In that case the ‘indigenous electorate’ would be the NT electorate which covers the non Darwin areas, ie the rest of the Territory.
To be honest I’m not sure how I feel about designated seats in parliament for indigenous MPs. I think it works in NZ because the Maori culture isn’t as diverse like it is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Maoris have one language for eg.
I’m leaning more towards the major parties doing what Labor does for women and designate a percentage of their seats for indigenous candidates. How this would work in practice however is another matter.
Also the relationship between the State and the Maoris is different to that of our indigenous population. The Maoris have a treaty for a start.
On Sunday morning I saw the “beheading” video 4 times in one hour on (neocon Stokes) channel 7. On channel 10 tonight some female journos lamented the effect of graphic TV images on kids. I late 2001 when toping red hill (Canberra to see multistorey buildings) my then 3 year old daughter asked “Daddy is a plane going to cash into that building. I guess that’s what’s called collateral damage
Hi caf,
[Isn’t there a worry that if we make a habit of buying out those engaged in anti-social / undesirable economic behaviours, we run the risk of creating moral hazard?]
The difference between tobacco and CF power generation is that coal is burnt to produce something really useful and highly desired, but the cost of problems with burning coal are external to those doing the burning.
Burning tobacco, otoh, is just inhaling an addictive carcinogen.
[
Much the same could be said when J Hardie got into the business of mining Chrysotile. Business is all about making bets, and in this case they made a bet and lost.]
That’s a fair comparison, in that JH was continuing to expose it’s workers to danger when they were in possession of information telling them they shouldn’t, and the costs were, tragically, born by the workers. But again, the risks weren’t well known at the outset (which is not at all a justification of management’s treatment of their workers in the interim).
Yar, it’s supposed to be its.