No change to Labor’s 53-47 lead on two-party preferred from Essential Research this week, with the Coalition steady at 37% on the primary vote, Labor down one to 36%, Greens up one to 10% and One Nation steady on 8%. Other questions find an even split of opinion on whether dual citizens should be allowed to serve in parliament, with 41% for yes and 40% for no, and identical results for a question on whether the affected ministers should stand down. Fifty-nine per cent support a “citizenship audit” of parliamentarians, with 25% opposed. Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt drew 39% approval and 38% disapproval. Forty per cent deemed the tax system fair compared with 51% for not fair, with majorities agreeing that corporations and “some wealthy people” don’t pay their fair share. Respondents were hard pressed to separate the last four prime ministerships as best/least bad, but with the order of preference running Rudd, Turnbull, Gillard, Abbott. This week’s survey was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1027, with the voting intention numbers being a combined result including last week’s survey.
Is this the latest “NO” ad?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2017/sep/01/my-child-is-a-bird-parody-of-coalition-for-marriages-no-campaign-ad-video
http://amp.theage.com.au/world/turnbull-comments-show-australia-a-second-class-citizen-says-chinese-newspaper-20170901-gy8tdd.html
I want to be a bird…
Braaaak!
@ P1 – you seem to be misunderstanding.
If 2016 is assumed to be an aberration, then the growth looks like exponential if you consider start 2009-start of 2016, with an R2 value of 0.9485. it does not look like linear, with an R2 value of 0.5899
If 2016 is not assumed to be an aberration, then the growth still looks like exponential from start 2009 to start 2016, with an R2 value of 0.9633. it does not look like linear, with an R2 value of 0.7268
The inclusion of 2017 at the RE estimate, considering data from start 2009 to estimated data at start 2018, increases the R2 value for the exponential curve, to 0.9723. It decreases the R2 for the linear curve, to 0.7092
In all 3 of these cases, Exponential fits the data extremely well, and linear fits it extremely poorly.
The only way to make it look more like linear growth than exponential, it to not count 2017, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. I.e. it looks linear if you only keep 3 data points.
Voice Endeavour @ #1055 Friday, September 1st, 2017 – 2:40 pm
No, I don’t misunderstand. If you filter out 9/10 of the data (as you have done) and then also assume everything left that doesn’t fit your preconceived notion must be aberration, then you can conclude anything you want.
That doesn’t make it true.
try again
SK
Dont make me flip the bird…..
Turnbull new slogan “practical love”….
Not sure the focus group came up with that slogan.
I think my previous post is the most appropriate response to Turnbull.
Sk
You’re a hoot.
@ P1 – ok, leaving all the smaller plants in there, so not filtering out any data this time.
1/1/2009 to 1/1/2017
matches exponential @ 0.9801
matches linear @ 0.6495
1/1/2009 to 1/1/2016
matches exponential @ 0.972
matches linear @ 0.5485
1/1/2009 to 1/1/2018 (estimated)
matches exponential @ 0.9854
matches linear @ 0.641
1/1/2015 to 1/1/2017
matches exponential @ 0.9098
matches linear @ 0.9878
1/1/2015 to 1/1/2018 (estimated)
matches exponential @ 0.9392
matches linear @ 0.9454
Again, in most cases, it either looks exponential, or looks like either could explain it equally well.
The only way to make it look conclusively linear, is to ignore all of 2017, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009.
Back to however many posts ago, last night. People were saying the ACT’s entitlement to a 3rd seat was only because of the “add 2 standard deviations if close” rule and I said, “no the table in the press release shows it was entitled to 2.5+ on the actual population”. Turns out that that “population” was after adding the 2SDs – see the full calculation at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017G00945 Sorry to anyone I said was mistaken or whom I misled.
VE,
If you look at the monthly data then the increase from the end of 2010 is linear. It is definitely not exponential!
For some earlier periods in the data there is perhaps some evidence for an exponential increase (i.e. a positive and steadily increasing gradient).
To say the increase is currently exponential is just plain wrong.
VE
You are overthinking it. If you eyeball the data from the end of 2010 it is linear.
@ Jolyon – can I ask if you’re talking small scale, behind the meter solar, or grid scale?
‘Turnbull new slogan “practical love”….’.
Sounds perfect for ‘the sensible centre ‘.
Really if he said that, Turnbull is beyond redemption.
Katharine Murphy laying out the state of play for the Government in relation to creating an energy policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/01/malcolm-turnbull-often-talks-about-wicked-problems-right-now-hes-waist-deep-in-them
Jack A Randa
Lers just say we where both wrong and move on?
VE
I thought we were all talking about the same data set that was linked below: http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses. I am not sure how that data relates to the breakdown you mention. Perhaps I am underthinking it!
Jolyon Wagg
If you look at the data over the last ten years it is a relatively straight line, but I think this reflects market forces masking an underlying trend. In the last ten years we saw the introduction of solar subsidies which have been gradually withdrawn, and Tony Abbott’s fucking with the carbon tax. An initial stimulus was followed by a contraction which flattened the curve.
2017 is the breakout year for this trend, with a major surge in both small and large scale solar. This marks the beginning of the disruption with sustained compound growth.
Katharine Murphy laying out the state of play for the Government in relation to creating an energy policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/01/malcolm-turnbull-often-talks-about-wicked-problems-right-now-hes-waist-deep-in-them
____________
Barney
That was an excellent article on several fronts.
BK,
She’s a good writer.
I don’t understand much of the criticism aimed at her.
@ Jolyon – that is the small scale data, i.e. rooftop solar.
Rooftop solar is limited by the amount of viable rooftop. In qld, 37% of freestanding houses have solar, and many of the rest are rentals, or wouldn’t have enough solar due to shading, or the owners can’t afford it. As Trog mentioned with the S curve, real world constraints on rooftop mean it couldn’t be exponential for long.
Grid scale will never run out of sunny space in Australia, will always be able to get loans if it is a net return on investment.
Barney – Murphy has spent the last two years sucking up to Malcolm and only recently started to see the light.
Voice Endeavour @ #1065 Friday, September 1st, 2017 – 3:12 pm
It is not even linear. The kW installed for 2017 (pro-rata) is far less than the kW installed for 2016, which is far less than the kW installed for 2015. There is simply no way anyone could conclude this is “exponential growth”.
I suppose you could argue that the figures are wrong (they probably are) – but these are the figures you provided.
Trog Sorrenson @ #1074 Friday, September 1st, 2017 – 3:55 pm
You keep saying this, and I keep pointing out that all the available data says you are wrong. All of it.
No. Turnbull is the problem. He is the one who is putting a nice frock and lipstick on a pig and pimping it to everyone saying – ignore the oinking, just focus on the dress.
Turnbull became PM and made some deals in doing so. He became the clean face to the numpty far right. A perfect match – he gets to be PM, they keep power (and keep others out of power). All of the problems stem from that deal. All of the problems stem from one man wanting the top job over and above the good of the country. At a time when we needed leadership and strong policy direction we get a hollow specious man who’s wants have outweighed the needs of everyone else combined.
@PLayer One
Your the only one saying that.
I always felt Murphy failed to call Abbott out when she had the chance. Perhaps I’m wrong but she seemed beholden to the “best opposition leader ever” as any in the CPG.
I disagree anton.
If you listen to her podcasts, you hear that she’s frustrated at how dysfunctional governments have become.
If you look at today’s piece, it’s all about what needs to be done but in the background are constant reminders to why this probably won’t happen.
Barney in Go Dau @ #1076 Friday, September 1st, 2017 – 4:26 pm
She’s better than most in the CPG, but there is still an unwillingness to call out this mess of a government for the putrid pile of excrement that it is.
As though if it can only do x.y and z, everything will be ok, without recognizing that it can’t even get beyond a, b and c.
Simon Katich
Well said.
I think all the data shows is that the market responds strongly to policy.
What P1 needs to get through his/her thick skull is that if we want a lot more solar then we can have it, fairly quickly.
One of Ps bullshir assumptions has been all along that solar cannot be scaled fast enough. This is bullshit. It has nothing to do with extrapolating curves. It has everything to do with the engineering. The simplicity of construction of a solar farm and the huge manufacturing capability already built up for the panels themselves.
Yes, it’s as though he’s found himself with these problems that are scarcely of his making. She’s still not attributing the agency that his actions deserve.
Adrian,
I’m with you. You can find examples of a twinkle in Murphy’s eye for Turnbull, but she was by no means the worst (Tingle & *Riley), and has generally been quite good. All of them have finally taken some smelling salts in the past few weeks. It will be interesting to see what level of genius they regard Turnbull’s next cunning plan.
*With Riley it might be ch7 producers. He’s not bad on Insiders.
From Guardian comments on Murphy’s article. A pretty good summary:
Adrian,
Yes, that is a good list, but you can’t expect an article to cover everything.
zoidlord @ #1082 Friday, September 1st, 2017 – 4:45 pm
Me and the data.
457 visas
I heard a new wrinkle on that one while handing out HTVs for our Council election pre poll today.
Apparently, Retirement Village owners, who, as we found out recently via the Fairfax/ABC investigation are liable to be Asian, or, at the very least, capitalists in search of the quick buck, when the village’s villas need repainting, the work isn’t going to local painters. Nope, nope, nope. The owners of the village are importing every single painter that they need to do the job on 457 Visas! Plus, the lady I spoke to said that the job they did was terrible.
I guess the owners of the villages can say that, hand on heart, that they repainted.
cud chewer @ #1087 Friday, September 1st, 2017 – 4:52 pm
Hmm. Let’s look at VE’s data again … the best we have ever done was in 2015 – 174 MW. Presumably this was an exceptional year because we have never done that well either before or since. But we need about 30,000 MW. So that’s 172 years. Of course, that doesn’t all need to be solar, so let’s be generous – 100 years?
Am I being too optimistic?
‘Turnbull new slogan “practical love”…brought to you by the government’s Ministry of Love
We will have another data point in a few months once the 2017 solar pv installation is assessed.
Thinking has already changed a lot in the past few months. e.g. in 2016 grid scale batteries – and domestic for that matter – were deemed too expensive. Now battery prices are falling faster than solar panels. People are going to start to realise that we are at the beginning of a disruption – not a linear shift to renewables.
No major technological disruption has ever followed a linear path, it has always been an S curve or something approximating one.
Why do people want to do this to themselves?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/woman-who-underwent-botched-procedure-dies/8864854
Barney in Go Dau @ #1097 Friday, September 1st, 2017 – 5:24 pm
Practical love?
Moronic.
Check out @roweafrs Tweet: https://twitter.com/roweafr/status/903515928284954624?s=09
So true