The latest Essential Research result appears to have Labor leading 54-46 (it says 52% to 46% in the report, but it also says there is no change). GhostWhoVotes was somehow able to relate that the primary votes were Coalition 35% (down one), Labor 38% (steady), Greens 9% (steady) and One Nation 8% (steady). The poll finds 47% saying the government should run its full term, compared with 37% who favour an early election. Thirty-six per cent said they expected Labor to win the next election, compared with 20% for the Coalition, and 18% for a hung parliament.
The poll also found 63% of the view that marriage celebrants should be allowed to refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings, with 27% opposed. Other related issues were finely balanced: 48% opposed the notion that businesses should have the right to refuse service to gay weddings, while 43% supported it; 42% supported parents being able to remove their children from classes that did not reflect a traditional view of marriage, while 44% were opposed.
Seems no appearance today by Turnbull to spruik how he is keeping us all safe from terrorists and the Chinese (in the wake of the White Paper).
Perhaps he thought of the reception all his other recent announcements have received and said “bugger it I’ll have a stiff whisky instead”.
BW:
This claim gets trotted out a lot here. Personally, I do not think it is at all accurate.
I agree that “Labor & Liberal = the same” line is used far too much, and is not truthful nor helpful to the overall progressive cause.
However, if you actually look at statements by Greens MPs and spokespeople, they are far more scathing of Coalition governments and politicians than they ever are of Labor. They are critical, sure, I’ve never heard the Greens accuse a Labor government or minister of the outright incompetence, malice, negligence and criminality that they will lay at the Coalition’s feet.
On the refugees on Manus / Christmas Island:
Not all of them are ethnic minorities or enemies of the state for political purposes. Some of them are gay / bisexual or members of oppressed religious groups which is why they fled. So 0 / All is unlikely. But yes, many of them would disagree with many of the Greens policies and it’s unlikely any would agree with all of them (I’m not sure anyone agrees with every position of their chosen political party) .
Boerwar says:
Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 4:31 pm
So, to sum up, a quarter of a century of the Greens Party has delivered:
1. Coalition governments for most of the time.
2. A drying up of major environmental wins.
3. A rapidly deteriorating environment.
This omits to mention the LNP itself, which has been all-too-willing to position itself as a counter-weight to environmentally- and economically-rational policies. We have Pop-Left and Pop-Right. There’s not always a lot of room twixt the two.
AL
‘This claim gets trotted out a lot here. Personally, I do not think it is at all accurate.’
Greens denial about this line is a standard political line. During the last election campaign it was almost routine. Have a look at Greens Party posts in this string. There are at least half a dozen claims that there is no difference between Labor and Liberal.
I can understand why the Greens Party politicians and the Greens Party political hacks trot out this smear. It is standard political practice.
briefly
True.
The anti-environmentalists have, naturally, made the most of the opportunities created by the Greens Party.
BW,
What I meant was Latham imploded without any assistance from the Greens.
You couldn’t expect voters to get behind a party when it becomes apparent the leader has a few roos loose. But I guess times are changing…
I saw a Twitter link to an article by Michelle Grattan. My understanding of it is that focus groups think Turnbull is incompetent and have stopped listening to him, but not enough is known about Shorten because he has never been PM, therefore they will vote for Malcolm. She seems to have forgotten that Labor will have a 35+ seat majority if opinion polls are correct.
‘bakunin says:
Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 4:50 pm
BW,
What I meant was Latham imploded without any assistance from the Greens.
You couldn’t expect voters to get behind a party when it becomes apparent the leader has a few roos loose. But I guess times are changing…’
Ah, I get your point now. Yep. Spot on.
Voice Endeavour @ #1678 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 4:10 pm
That makes no sense. They are both in the business of buying and selling electricity for profit. In both cases it may be renewable or fossil fuel generated. The main difference is in the scale at which they can do that.
Ummm. Is this a trick question? Or are you really not sure?
Well, I’m glad we can agree on something.
Rex,
Sydney FC and the Wanderers get crowds of 30,000 to 40,000 to the derby depending how the teams are travelling. The SFS is home ground for Sydney FC so 45,000 is a good size. The ground needs a refurb not a rebuild. NRL get similar crowds for finals.
Homebush is appalling to watch any league, union or football match on especially from behind the goals. There’s almost half a football ground between the goals and spectators at either end of the ground. There’s a sentimental attachment to the Olympics and the facilities themselves are fine but it’s a perfect example of a horse designed by a committee.
However given the handful of games that would attract a substantial crowd to rebuild it would be an absolute waste of money.
They’ve already demolished Parramatta Stadium which held 24,000 and are building a 30,000 seat stadium. They could have simply added the extra 6,000 seats by building stands at each end of the ground. It was built around the same time as the SFS and was also in good condition. They removed a well used public swimming pool to cater for the ‘mega’ stadium and have no intention of replacing it. We’re talking western Sydney here not Manly. 10 degrees hotter than the coast in summer.
This is nothing but welfare for the libs mates. I can think of plenty of other uses the money could have been used for.
Like replacing the thousands of demountables taking up playgrounds in our public schools.
Boerwar:
I’m talking about actual Greens parliamentarian and candidates, not random nobodies posting on Poll Bludger.
@P1 – Snowy 2.0 can deliver energy to the wrong place at the wrong time for cheap.
Batteries can deliver energy to the right place at the right time for more money.
To say that they are selling the same service is as apt as saying that Hyundai and Ferrari sell the same product, then going on to point out that clearly Hyundai is better in all circumstances because you pay less $/wheel.
batteries are not selling kWh. They are selling “the ability to integrate more than 50% variable renewable energy into the NEM without causing reliability issues”. That is a product that Snowy 2.0 can never sell, because it is slow, and poorly located.
AL
When the Greens Party political hacks claimed during the last election that the Greens Party politicians were NOT saying that the Coalition and Labor were the same we were able to find plenty of examples at the time.
When these examples were pointed out, the Greens Party folk merely shifted the goal posts.
For some reason they seem to be embarrassed by the fact that they helped the Coalition during the last election.
Greens are not the enviroment’s friend.
Asha Leu @ #1708 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 4:01 pm
DiNatale rarely does an interview without an ” old parties ” reference, it’s one of his permanent talking points. Adam Bandt did it a lot at the last election, having heard much from him since.
@P1 – the business models of Snowy and Batteries are about as alike as comparing the business models of stock traders and snowy.
______________________________________
That makes no sense. They are both in the business of buying and selling electricity for profit. In both cases it may be renewable or fossil fuel generated. The main difference is in the scale at which they can do that.
If a wind or solar farm has batteries as part of the setup, it is not buying electricity on the open market, it is not buying low and selling high, it is making electricity for no marginal cost, storing it in batteries, and selling it when convenient and cost effective.
The Turnbull hydro battery has to buy its electricity on the open market, hopefully when the price is low, and sell it when it is high. The Turnbull hydro battery does not make electricity on its own, as wind farms and solar farms do, it is just a giant, expensive battery.
If you can’t see that, I give up.
@Aqualung, being a WSW member I can say we need the new stadium at Parra. The capacity was reduced to just over 21k……
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parramatta_Stadium
“In December 2002, work began on converting the formerly grassed hill areas (The Brett Kenny Hill and The Peter Sterling Hill) into seated terrace areas (holding 4,500 spectators). This redevelopment reduced the ground’s capacity to 21,500, down from the previous capacity of 27,000.”
At the end of last season the WSW had 20k members which is expected to grow. The Sydney derby last season in Oct had a crowd of 61K ( Olympic Stadium). The current home venue Spotless is HATED by fans. Hard to get in to, hard to get out of. Crap public transport, especially late in the evening.
The new stadium is needed.
P1
Wrong.
If the pumped hydro is behind the meter, as it will be with the former Arrium at Whyalla, then you can use your own excess renewable power to do the pumping. If it is centralised then you have to buy either on the spot market or under contract – e.g. with a coal power station. If it is on the spot market then you rely on buying cheap and selling high; if under contract, then you have to accept whatever contract price is available. Historically coal-fired power is cheap at night, because they can’t shut the generators down, and this situation is likely to maintain itself, which is how Snowy 2.0 fits Malcolm’s plane to keep polluting and assuaging the RWNJ’s. The problem with this is what happens during the day. With all the solar, wind and batteries, daytime demand from central sources is actually going to drop.
And that’s before we consider the massive initial capital requirement for extra transmission, and ongoing transmission costs.
Snowy 2.0 is a dead duck, and Labor will drop it, even if it survives the feasibility study.
Voice Endeavour @ #1710 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:03 pm
They are selling the same service, it’s just that one is more efficient at it than the other. Also, Snowy 2.0 can deliver electricity to the markets that currently rely most heavily on coal – i.e. NSW and Victoria.
Decrying Snowy 2.0 when it could be the enabler of a complete and cost-effective replacement of all coal-fired generation in NSW and Victoria with renewables really just shows how partisan you solar enthusiasts are. Yes, you want renewables … but only your renewables … and you don’t care how much coal is burnt in the meantime.
Oh dear. The Energy Wars are baaaack!
What purpose does this serve.
I liked Janet Rice’s reply.
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/senator-leyonhjelm-to-bring-milo-to-parliament-house/9185464
don @ #1714 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:08 pm
If you are using your own electricity to charge your batteries it just means you are forgoing the income you would have made by selling it on the open market. Buy low and sell high is the same in both cases. If you are then going to claim that using your own electricity costs you nothing, then you should indeed give up – you are simply wrong.
C@tmomma @ #1719 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:17 pm
Don’t worry. It will last only about as long as the new Tesla battery could power South Australia – i.e. about an hour 🙂
P1
Except this is not true. Snowy 2.0 keeps the coal generators going – if they can compete with solar plus storage behind the meter. A very big if.
phoenixRED Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 4:05 pm Comment #1677
This looks like recycled news that was widely reported in June:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/trump-intel-slip
For example:
http://www.newsweek.com/israel-hacked-isis-cell-reveal-laptop-bomb-plot-down-international-flights-624400
C@t
Makes a change from anti-Greens prattle.
Trog Sorrenson @ #1723 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:28 pm
It’s just a big battery, Trog. And batteries are good, right? Or are batteries only good when there are big bucks to be made from them?
Barney,
The goal is provoke outrage from the left.
I don’t believe the Tesla battery is intended to power SA for longer than an hour.
Trog Sorrenson @ #1725 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 2:29 pm
We all get bored by outbreaks of circular hostility that don’t involve subjects which don’t interest us. Just scroll past.
Now for the energy wars…
Player One @ #1721 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:27 pm
I’m glad you’re that confident! 😉
shiftaling @ #1727 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 1:30 pm
Are you trying to say it’s part of an integrated plan, whereas Snowy 2.0 is a brainfart and no one really knows about how it fits into an overall strategy.
Player One @ #1721 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 2:25 pm
You’re only forgoing the income of selling the electricity on the open market if you intended all along to sell that electricity on the open market, rather than using it to pump water uphill, and for some reason you can’t or don’t want to sell it on the open market.
If your solar/wind assets were constructed with the specific intention of pumping water uphill for some, most or all of the time, then you are foregoing nothing.
Often the circular hostility is the fun part . Until of course someone loses an eye 😉
P1`
A big battery that is owned by someone else, the power from which has major retail, transmission and other premiums. Pumped hydro is fine, but a larger number of small local projects would be more efficient than Snowy 2.0.
grimace,
I’m here, come hell or high water. Or flat batteries. 🙂
Barney in Go Dau @ #1731 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 2:38 pm
You are being negative BiGD!
The real Brian Trumble (TM) has been sighted and will turn up shortly to demonstrate just how wrong you are.
shiftaling @ #1728 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:30 pm
I know that. I’m just having a bit of fun 🙂
grimace @ #1732 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:39 pm
So we should install some solar panels or wind turbines specifically to power the pumping of water for Snowy 2.0? Great idea!
Trog Sorrenson @ #1734 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:40 pm
Only if the transmission losses were significant. Which for powering NSW and Victoria, they are not. Certainly not enough to offset the additional cost of batteries. Not by a long way.
Yeah but how about that Nathan Lyon!
WAG!
GOAT!
ratsak @ #1740 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 1:51 pm
Pretty impressive! 🙂
Player One says:
Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:25 pm
don @ #1714 Thursday, November 23rd, 2017 – 5:08 pm
If you can’t see that, I give up.
If you are using your own electricity to charge your batteries it just means you are forgoing the income you would have made by selling it on the open market. Buy low and sell high is the same in both cases. If you are then going to claim that using your own electricity costs you nothing, then you should indeed give up – you are simply wrong.
Sigh.
From the top, with renewables backed up by batteries:
Your solar/wind farm is producing electricity, willy nilly. It is a good day, the sun is shining, and/or the wind is blowing.
You have electricity to sell where there is zero marginal cost.
When the price is low, you charge your batteries.
At other times, or when the batteries are fully topped up, you sell your electricity on the open market at whatever price you can get. Anything above zero is just fine.
When the price is high, you sell all your production plus what you have stored in your batteries.
With solar, at night, when there is no sun, you either sell what is in your batteries, or you go back to bed and wait for the sun to rise.
With a wind farm, if there is no wind, and the price is high, you either sell the electricity in your batteries until there is none left, or if the price is too low, play cards, drink whisky, tell tall stories, and whistle up a wind.
With pumped hydro, you have to buy your electricity. Maybe that escaped your notice. It costs money to buy electricity.
The marginal cost is not zero. The marginal cost is not zero. The marginal cost is not zero.
Then you sell the electricity you have stored as potential energy in high altitude water when the price goes up.
Start up the turbines, let ’em rip.
When you have used up all the available water in the high storage, stop. Wait for low prices for electricity, sleep, eat, drink and be merry. When low prices come, as we hope they do, pump the water to the high elevation holding dam again.
So:
Renewables produce electricity for zero marginal cost.
Pumped hydro requires a difference between costs at different times in order to make a profit. They must buy their electricity for a low price, and sell it for a high price. Or go bust.
Do you need a graph?
https://mobile.twitter.com/FinancialReview/status/933583393836511235/photo/1
Right on cue David Rowe latest
Meh, I’d be inclined to go along and be entirely nonchalant if I was anyone of significance. Milo’s only brand value is in provoking Left outrage and he’s got no personal loyalty to the stuff he sprukes other than that it delivers him cash and he likes performing. This is a fairly transparent attempt at (re) establishing his brand in a global context after he screwed it up in the US.
Sonar, I am a Wanderers fan. Not member. As I mentioned earlier this state has thousands of students housed in demountables. From where I’m sitting I know what the priority should be given most of these stadiums will rarely be filled.
I notice Ayres has been running the line that these rebuilds will attract more events to NSW. What events?
If anyone is harbouring delusions that we’ll get the fifa world cup. I’ve got news. No we won’t. Leaving aside the brown paper bags.
Fifa requires 40,000 seat stadiums for the stage round and 80,000 for the final.
We have 2 stadiums that adequately satisfy the requirements for the group stages. The SFS and Lang Park.
If you want stadiums that are poor for watching games you could add in Docklands and Adelaide Oval. Maybe the new Perth stadium.
Facilities will rule us out even if we can overcome other obstacles.