Very slight movement to Labor after a quiet week on the opinion poll front.
The only new poll this week was the usual weekly result from Essential Research, which causes the BludgerTrack poll aggregate to move slightly in favour of Labor. This includes a single gain on the seat aggregate, in this case from Victoria. Nothing new this week on leadership ratings.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
lizzie @ #1599 Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:25 pm
Why am I not surprised? : (
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/13/roxane-gay-labels-mamamia-cruel-and-humiliating-will-she-fit-into-the-office-lift
Hmmmmm.
Where to stand on this hilarity?
On the one hand you have Mia Freeman.
A woman so smug and unjustly full of herself and who runs one of the most stupid and vacuous websites on the whole net but on the other hand you have Roxanne Gay who presents herself in public as though she lives her life without a mirror and has just served 20 hard in Bedford Hills.
In this instance I have to side with Mia Freeman.
If Roxanne Gay doesn’t want to be seen as a disgustingly gross fat slob then she shouldn’t be a disgustingly gross fat slob.
Now await the usual suspects to whine and bitch about my comment.
Those very same hypocritical ‘feminists’ on this site who have slagged off Julie Bishop, Michaelia Cash, Theresa May, Pauline Hanson and even Melania Trump for their looks.
Not to mention their commentary on other gross fat slobs like George Christensen but he is a man so being a hypocritical bitch is tolerated.
Free tip for Roxanne Gay.
Eat less, do some exercise, put on clothes that weren’t handed down from a lumberjack and work on your now very tiresome ‘tough chick’ routine.
She aint a lesbian by choice that’s for sure.
The thing that annoys me about the “technology agnostic” line is it is the same piece of bullshit that Turnbull used to defend the indefensible regarding the NBN.
Experts have been saying since the turn of the century that fibre is the end game. Once you build fibre you have a network that will last you half a century or more. There’s no need for a debate on how you use it or how much speed you need. Fibre will deliver anything you can possibly want from it.
Decades of service. A network that will pay for itself many times over.
So what did Turnbull do? He said we can do it cheaper (lie) and faster (lie). And the catch phrase was “technology agnostic”. God, more than anything else that one phrase is the one thing that makes me most angry at Turnbull. The extreme dishonesty of it.
And that’s why I don’t like the term being used to cloak what is basically Turnbull lying about the best end game technology regarding energy and also, relying on general ignorance. I don’t mind some PB posters being pig-ignorant about the rise of renewable technology and deluded about the time frame. But when Turnbull does this, it just wants me to run a bus over him for a second time (after I’ve run it over him for what he’s done to the NBN).
Yes, I’m an engineer. Yes, I do actually know my shit. And yes I do make a living from electronics in various fields and I do know more than the average joe about the real costs of industrial scale renewables. Renewables are prime time. They are what we should be doing right now, today. Energy storage isn’t settled. In about 3-5 years it will be and then we just won’t be having this argument. It’ll be a no-brainer. That 3-5 years gives us time to continue the roll out of renewables at pace. It just won’t matter if its a variable resource because there is sufficient capacity in the system to handle that over the short term. Where storage will come into its own is early 2020s. And it will be a solved problem. And if its not batteries, it’ll be innovative pumped hydro projects (such as the one I’m working on).
In the mean time, behind the meter PV and battery will start eating into demand by the end of the decade. At no stage do we need new gas plants, although we will need to keep the ones we have for another 15-20 and they will be used increasingly less.
The Finkel report is a disgrace because it assumes new coal fired power. This is never going to happen. Not unless our government goes mad and spends billions being “technology agnostic” and funds a CCS project. Coal fired power stations will most likely close at the end of their natural life and that will be the end of it. Gas will not expand to fill baseload, despite the delusions of some.
Renewables are prime time. I talk to the people who invest in them and sometimes advise on their electronics so I have inside knowledge (which I won’t reveal). It really is a great time to invest in new energy and there are tons of people waiting for better industrial scale deals on batteries coming as certain plants come online (not the figures you see quoted in reports, but real deals). That’s all.
P1, Do you really want to continue in the childish practice of reflexively dismissing sources that don’t agree with you, instead of looking a little harder and challenging your own assumptions?
Inbred White Male
Thankfully you and your ilk will all be bred out within a few generations.
Then we’ll have a bit more hybrid vigour around the place, a few more smarts, better resistance to disease.
By the way. How’s your sister?
You can’t be technology agnostic when some technologies continue producing CO2 emissions while others do not.
cud chewer @ #1603 Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm
The thing that annoys me about the attacks on the “technology agnostic” line is that in this context this is a classic ‘straw-man’ argument, trotted out by those who seemingly can’t justify their position any other way.
Our government is already mad. Don’t hold your breath waiting for sanity.
@ BK & Trog
With NBN, I dug in for the best part of three years and got my local area reclassified from HFC to FTTP* firstly by corresponding with NBN, speaking with managers of increasing seniority until one of them told me WTTE “no matter how many times you call, you’re not going to get NBN sooner or FTTP rather than HFC”, to which I responded WTTE “we’ll find out what my local MP’s attitude to that is”, then I started on Porter, my local MP.
By pure coincidence, NBN made a decision to upgrade my suburb from HFC/FTTN to FTTP** shortly after the WA election. One of Porter’s staff called me to tell me the good news, and my suggestion that the change to proper FTTP occurred because of the WA election result, the suggestion did not go down well.
*I’m in stage one of a housing development which commenced with ADSL a matter of weeks before FTTP NBN became compulsory, stages 2 – 4 have FTTP
** I live in Ellenbrook, a greenfields suburb of north eastern Perth which has been under development for about 20 years. We have a hodgepodge of FTTP NBN, Telstra Velocity FTTP, Telstra HFC, some other company’s HFC and ADSL. The technology you have depends on which particular development you are in and when it was developed.
Patriot; the last refuse of a scoundrel; and Dutton stepped right up.
P1. More bullshit please. I’m planting more roses.
A R
Well, of course you can – if you are ‘agnostic’ in the sense that you’re willing to accept the technology mix which most efficiently and effectively reduces emissions.
However, it would appear that the phrase has taken on levels of meaning it shouldn’t have, and thus triggers unhelpful and inappropriate responses, so in the interests of good communication I’ll abandon it.
As I said previously, just because a phrase has been misused is no reason not to use it.
Player One
‘Technology agnostic’ is just another way of saying “We want to support coal forever, but we won’t admit it.” Abbott admits he loves coal, and Frydenberg uses weasel words.
Lizzie, exactly 🙂
Just been ReachTel’d on the CFA issue.
a r @ #1607 Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:39 pm
As long as we continue to burn coal while there are less emission intensive alternatives available, this argument makes no sense.
cud chewer @ #1612 Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:43 pm
I wonder if others notice – as I have – how rarely you engage the point under discussion?
So Hartcher and Bramston of Fairdoch (or is it Murfax) are conspiring to push “Albanese for leader”. Why? Anyway, what’s this “Labor’s flagging support”?
lizzie @ #1609 Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:41 pm
Does this mean that the whole ❓ or part thereof, of the current “mad” government, should this be possible, front and centre themselves/itself, then the fabric of religious society would disintegrate ❓
If the answer is yes then I suggest that a whiparound would be in order to hire transport to get them/it to church on time.
More fresh ☕ and a good night from him.
“Could Albo copy Corbyn?
TROY BRAMSTON
Voters don’t trust Shorten. The UK poll shows a popular leftie may be what’s needed to rebuild Could Albo copy Corbyn? (Oz headline)”
should read
“Could Albo copy Corbyn?
TROY BRAMSTON
Voters don’t trust Shorten. The UK poll shows a popular leftie may be what’s needed to rebuild Labor’s flagging support.”
Citizen
Anything to try and start a bit of leadershit hay. It was Getting a little old in 2016/
Cud Chewer .. Interesting. Which local companies, in particular, in this field impress you?
The interesting thing with the Hartcher article on Albo/Corbyn, he makes the point that the young supported ‘far left’ policies and came out to vote, but doesn’t say why.
It is as if the only proper policies are right or centre-left and so nothing else need be considered.
Player One @ #1619 Tuesday, June 13th, 2017 – 6:50 pm
So you’ll accept any technology that does better than coal. Or in other words, you don’t accept the idea of building new coal plants. Which isn’t technology agnostic. You’re excluding a particular technology by nominating it as the worst option available and then committing to the goal of doing better.
Agnosticism can only fit if you don’t care about reducing emissions. Otherwise the fact that coal is the most emissions-intensive technology (with no reasonable prospect of changing) combined with the goal of actually reducing emissions means you pretty much have to rule coal out (you can’t reduce emissions by building more of the most emissions-heavy technology; it’s mathematically impossible). Or pin your hopes on some magic breakthrough that makes “clean coal” 1) non-fantastical and 2) economically viable. But no such breakthrough currently exists or is even credibly on the radar.
The Project just made fun of Turnbull’s terrorist and citizenship rhetoric, than gave Mr Potatohead a hard time in an interview.
James Massola
@jamesmassola
“Text from Coalition MP in party room. So far, 21 speakers against, 5 for, 5 non-committal on Clean energy Target”
6:32pm · 13 Jun 2017 · TweetDeck
It’s fairly clear where the climate wars are being fought.
The MonkeyPod have their issue. It may well be on…..
by Phillip Coorey
Malcolm Turnbull has been hit with a stronger-than-anticipated backlash over plans to introduce a Clean Energy Target in a battle which is fast becoming a test of his leadership, Liberal sources say.
Despite the CET having the support of senior conservatives and other ministers, it did not translate into backbench support late on Tuesday as Coalition MPs at a special meeting discussed the findings of Chief Scientist Alan Finkel and his main recommendation for a CET to be adopted post-2020.
By early evening, sources inside the meeting said only four MPs had so far spoken in favour of Dr Finkel’s key recommendation while about 20, including Tony Abbott and junior minister Angus Taylor, were against, and four more unclear.
“It’s a slaughter,” said an MP inside the meeting “and a lot of the usual suspects haven’t spoken yet”.
Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/coalition-mps-revolt-against-clean-energy-target-20170612-gwpsnr#ixzz4js8t8vpC
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook
markjs @ #1629 Tuesday, June 13th, 2017 – 7:15 pm
Sounds like the Q&A panel (minus the LNP guy) was successful in their efforts to paint the CET as a “price on carbon”.
P1 and you just quote gov review?
markjs @ #1627 Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:15 pm
So that’s it then!
It’s up to Labor to win Government for us to have any sort of rational energy policy.
I thought Finkel went out of his way to keep Abbott and the RWNJs happy over coal. What on earth do they want – a deliberate policy to increase carbon emissions to help warm up the earth some more?
If Truffles can’t even carry the Coalition party room ..that SURELY is the end of his miserably ineffective PM-ship!!
..and the end of this miserable Govt!!
Deja vu, Malcolm?
a r @ #1625 Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:11 pm
No, you are quite wrong. If we could fit our existing coal plants with CCS technology then of course I would support doing so. Or if we could retire an existing brown coal plant and replace it with a super-critical black coal plant then I would support that too. Wouldn’t you?
Then having done that I would then look at replacing those options with something with even lower emissions. Any technology that results in reduced emissions should be considered. That’s what ‘technology agnostic’ means – and by the way this is exactly how a properly designed emissions trading scheme would work. It doesn’t stop at any point – it just keeps on rewarding lower emitters over higher emitters, regardless of technology.
Que? Your logic escapes me here. While I personally don’t think ‘clean coal’ is a viable option, if I am wrong then I would happily accept it until we could come up with an even better option. What would you do?
I suspect there is a shit load of lobbyist $s that have landed in the hands of all those Coal is Cool LNP peasants. Fed ICAC NOW . All donations available in real time.
Beautiful work from Shorten et al to offer bipartisanship to Trumble on an issue he can’t even get through his own party. What a pissweak piece of shit Brian Trumble is.
‘Probes’ on 7.30 reckons strong opposition in coalition part room to Finkel, and not just from the right.
Of course it’s all about energy security and price, nothing about reducing GGE.
zoidlord @ #1631 Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:19 pm
Que?
James Massola just tweeted that so far speakers
Against 21
For 5
Non Comitted 5
On clean energy Target
He’ll most likely cave, just like he’s done on everything else that upsets the Abbottobads.
730 obviously following the same lead Qanda did last night. How very disappointing.
Confession
Yes. Spot on. Plus Finkel trashed his reputation as a scientist for nothing.
The Daily ToiletPaper has names….
“Former prime minister Tony Abbott is among a group of dissident Liberal and National MPs who have spoken against the policy in a lengthy meeting tonight.
Others, including Victorian MPs Kevin Andrews and Tim Wilson, Western Australians Rick Wilson, Andrew Hastie, Chris Back and Ben Morton and Nationals Ian Macdonald, Ken O’Dowd, Bridget McKenzie, Mark Coulton, Andrew Broad, George Christensen and Andrew Gee have also raised concerns in the meeting.”
Guytaur:
Don’t get me started on Finkel. What a sell out to the scientific interests when it comes to such an important national issue such as AGW!
Frednk
Truffles beat him to the draw. He asked Labor to support the latest nonsense in the name of “patriotism” earlier.
The coal lobby is obviously going all out to get as many Coalition MPs as possible on its side.
On the car radio today the resident shock jock had a chat with the Minerals Council boss (and of course agreed with him that “coal is good”.).
Leigh in non-interruptus mode with Frydenburg, whose ability to polish a turd is severly hampered by reality.
Not that Sales is in the mood to go in for the kill.
Frydenberg allowed to repeat the lies about SA, without challenge of course.
Is there anything more repulsive than Xenophon, who supported repeal of the Carbon Tax, claiming we now need regulatory certainty?