Courtesy of The Australian, the final Newspoll of the year is something of a non-event, with two-party preferred unchanged at 53-47, primary votes unchanged at 36% for the Coalition, 37% for Labor and 10% for the Greens, and the only move being a one point drop for One Nation to 7%. Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings are also unmoved, at 32% approval and 57% disapproval, while his lead as preferred prime minister shifts from 39-33 to 41-34. Bill Shorten is down one on approval to 32%, and up two on disapproval to 56%. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1669.
For years Lib/Lab have frozen out the minor parties so they may as well make it official and form a coalition Govt with mandatory 12 month ministerial reshuffles including the PMship.
I believe that the Greens hold the BOP in one house in only one jurisdiction across Australia ATM.
Great outcome for a quarter of a century’s worth of nobbling Labor.
The interesting thing is that the one thing the Greens with the BOP are NOT doing is looking after the environment.
That alone should be alerting environmentalists to what the Greens Party is really on about it.
They should, at least, be more honest.
They should rename themselves the Reds Party.
Clearly you are not thinking about what happened to Nick Glegg and the Liberal Democrats in the UK. It might be death for the GRN’s to form a coalition.
Far better for them to offer confidence in an ALP government, have the balance of power, and stay pure.
Trog Sorrenson @ #331 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:00 pm
Just remind me – what was your other famous prediction? That we will all be flying cars powered by orgone accumulators by 2030?
P1
By 2030, 90% of energy and transport needs will be electric. Some countries – admittedly some are little small – like China and India – are already moving to mandate electric vehicle sales.
Trog Sorrenson @ #355 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:21 pm
I suppose they will be coal or gas powered at the P1 eco resort.
Joe Root just got his first wicket of the series. Bowling Bairstow with a classic English line of headshaking, handwringing and whinging.
bemused
Yep.
Question @ #353 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:15 pm
Let’s just end the great Australian political pantomime and make it official – The Lib-Lab coalition Govt of Australia.
Simon Katich @ #358 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 12:28 pm
Always a problem when you don’t want to play!!! 🙂
LU, NEG, apart from an announcement, what is the government actually doing to achieve the goals (affordable, reliable and, and…… was it burning more coal?)
I know GRN’s are very fond of that slogan, but it hardly addresses my point.
Boerwar
Thanks for the link. Could see that place two ridges away from our farm. Couple of rellies have farms adjacent to the battle site.
Rex
What happens in South Australia when the Libs are in Govt with SA Best?
Jeepers these energy wars are boring.
Surely the Obvious energy policy goes something like this
1. Research technological improvements which give better outcomes
2. Use a CT or an ETS to compensate for adverse externalizes of all forms of power (not just CO2 but other pollutants and waste disposal issues and also any OHS or social disruption
3. Promote energy conservation and energy efficiency
4. Promote renewables as far as possible, provided they are cost effective for their purpose. They should easily be able to meet most domestic and commercial needs.
5. Mandate solar etc into roofs of all new buildings and progressively retrofit with incentives or compensation for renters and poorer people
6. Establish appropriate energy supply, security and back up for all users. This could involve a mix of energy sources depending of circumstances. In some situations (eg rural places, ye old diesel generator may be the most energy efficient option if it ONLY kicks in say after 3/4 days of no sun or wind etc. Where there is a newish coal fired plant and the coal in nearby then use it to supply heavy industry and places where renewables not installed and of course to supply domestic users where there is a prolonged period of overcast days
7. Gas fired stations should also be in the mix especially where there is heavy reliance on renewables. Unlike coal plants they can be fired up quickly so they can provide back up in cases of renewable failure (say a massive volcano erupts and we have 3 months of cloudy weather). Something like this happened in the early 19th century and to a lesser extent following Krakatoa. Gas also makes sense where there is not an easy source of coal and/or transmission lines are too long or not economic
In terms of environmental impact we have renewables very good, gas middle for CO2 but pretty good for other pollutants, coal bad for CO2 and middle for other pollutants if proper emissions control equipment is in place.
Now what in the name of dog is the whole argument about.
Trog Sorrenson @ #341 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:08 pm
So your logic is that if SA can build 100MW of renewables in 2 years, then it is technically possible for the rest of Australia to build – what – about 3,000 MW of renewables in the same time frame?
Except of course that if you did shut down all the fossil-fueled generation, you’d actually need something like 2 or 3 times that generation capacity. Plus you then have to add huge amounts of battery storage (since you don’t like the idea of pumped hydro).
Dill.
After 30-odd years of split-politics from the Gs, the centre-left plurality has been wedged and wedged and wedged and wedged again….and the plurality of Curtin, Chifley, Whitlam and Hawke/Keating has been reduced to about 1/3 of the electorate.
This is the entirely pernicious result of phoney G-decoy politics.
Question @ #362 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:33 pm
It’s not a slogan.
Ides of March @ #364 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:34 pm
I guess they govern.
P1
I explicitly refrained from mentioning a 2 year time frame.
OK Rex.
Good luck for the GRN’s if they block a minority ALP government. And good luck if they form a ALP coalition. I don’t get the feeling GRN voters would like the compromises that would entail… And think of how much fun the L-NP would have with…
“The ALP-GRN coalition”.
“I believe that the Greens hold the BOP in one house in only one jurisdiction across Australia ATM.”
Believe that all you like, doesn’t make it true.
I’m going to describe balance of power as one of two things (all of which assume the Libs and Nats vote opposed to Labor in all cases). Either the party is essential for support of bills (Opposition+Greens >= half but opposition alone is not >= half), or is sufficient for support of bills (government + Greens >= half+1 but government alone is not >= half+1).
The Greens have an essential BoP in Victorian upper.
The Greens have a sufficient BoP in NSW upper
The Greens are both essential and sufficient in the ACT’s only house.
The Greens also have significant power in WA upper, where the government needs the Greens and 1 of 5 x-bench, or 5/5 x-bench. Also SA upper house, where they need 4/4 or 2/4 + Greens. And Federal where they need 1/12 + The Greens or 10/12 without.
The Greens do not have any claim to BoP in Tas, NT, or Qld.
Final Count – 3 with BoP, 3 with a huge amount of influence, and 3 with no real power.
That’s hardly bad.
daretotread
A lot of the simplistic assumptions incorporated in your post.
Particularly the rate at which it is feasible to get rid of fossil fuel generation altogether.
Question @ #370 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:44 pm
Hardly matters what the Greens Party wants if the ALP don’t want a bar of them and are more policy compatible with the Liberals.
SK – How much did they fine you?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-18/dashcam-footage-reveals-car-narrowly-avoiding-police-bikes/9269058
Rex
♤
A return to the Dark Ages. The Hornsdale battery will be disconnected, and there’ll be greenies hung from the turbine blades at Snowtown.
Peebee,
you have the full list of positive measures there 🙂
How hard is it for you anti-deluvians to grasp that the world ahs changes sine 1985 and there is a demographic of voters who are green rather than Red or Blue. if the greens disappeared some other equivalent party would emerge.
This endless finger pointing at the Greens as somehow disruptors is really thick headed, because it assumes that the greens somehow created the demographic whereas in reality they are a product of it.
There is a large group of voters, concentrated in the yuppie belt who regard the LNP as evil meanies on a par with Darth Vader but also find the ALP boring, old fashioned, bogan and weak. So they will give their preference to Labor ahead of Darth Vader but will not love the ALP. If the Greens collapsed they would coalesce around some new party – the progressive basket weavers or rainbows are forever party. They will not become enthusiastic supporters of the ALP.
It is a Slogan Rex, and demonstrably nowhere near reality.
The ALP put in an ETS with the GRN’s. I would argue the changes to accommodate the GRN’s are the reason we don’t still have one.
Listening to Jim Maxwell is like listening to Bob Katter in Parliament!
Often unintelligible!! 🙂
Question @ #379 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:55 pm
The reason we don’t have the CEP is due to team Abbott-Rudd (Lib-Lab) terminating it.
Trog
I did not give any kind of time lines. I have no doubt that renewable will shortly be able to meet most of our needs.
It is just the coal/gas argument that seems absurd.
Now I do support having a back up generation system, if even only to supply electricity in the case of a nuclear winter. Of the available fossil fuels gas has the advantage of being lower in pollution, easier to transport and of course quick to start up in an emergency.
anti-deluvian? I am anti-antediluvian.
Jim Maxwell is much better on BBC. He recently commented on the failures of Root and Cook as it being ‘a bad series for verbs’.
Libertarian Unionist @ #349 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:12 pm
Thanks, LU. Sometimes I just lose patience with some posters 🙁
OK Rex, you like the slogan.
I don’t think a coalition would help ALP or GRN. I have said my reasons why. I can’t be bothered arguing with a slogan.
Question @ #385 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 5:02 pm
I agree with you.
It’s time for the official Lib-Lab.
The Gs have had an entirely destructive effect on the progressive side of politics in Australia. If the Labor-leaning share of the G primary – say, 6-7% of the total vote – is added to the Labor PV, which sits around 35%, give or take a point or two, the plurality is around 41-42%. This compares with 45-46-47% that applied until the consolidation the G party. This reduction has made it more difficult for
Labor to win and easier for the LNP to win. It has made Labor more vulnerable rather than, as the Gs like to pretend, made them stronger.
The endlessly repeated decoy games played by the Gs have always been intended to weaken Labor. They worked for a long time though I think they’ve now begun to be self-destructive for the Gs.
The Gs are an entirely counter-productive feature of the tableau. The sooner they fold the better.
Barney in Go Dau @ #343 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 4:09 pm
Right. And we can all just install air-conditioning to keep us cool in the meantime. I posted these graphs yesterday. Take a good hard look at them, and extrapolate out where C02 levels will be by the time we stop burning coal:
http://www.co2levels.org/
briefly @ #387 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 5:07 pm
Enough of the ‘progressive’ pretence, briefly. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Come out of the closet as the first openly Lib-Lab supporter on PB.
The Gs play the “Blame Labor” routine just as frequently as do the LNP. They pose themselves against Labor all the time…and yet want to suck up to Labor when they want a shoulder-lift or a piggy-back-ride. Is it any wonder at all that Labor reckon the Gs should walk on their own two legs!
briefly @ #390 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 5:13 pm
Free yourself briefly.
Say it !
I AM LIB-LAB !!
Rex Douglas says:
Monday, December 18, 2017 at 5:11 pm
briefly @ #387 Monday, December 18th, 2017 – 5:07 pm
The Gs have had an entirely destructive effect on the progressive side of politics in Australia. If the Labor-leaning share of the G primary – say, 6-7% of the total vote – is added to the Labor PV, which sits around 35%, give or take a point or two, the plurality is around 41-42%. This compares with 45-46-47% that applied until the consolidation the G party. This reduction has made it more difficult for
Labor to win and easier for the LNP to win. It has made Labor more vulnerable rather than, as the Gs like to pretend, made them stronger.
The endlessly repeated decoy games played by the Gs have always been intended to weaken Labor. They worked for a long time though I think they’ve now begun to be self-destructive for the Gs.
The Gs are an entirely counter-productive feature of the tableau. The sooner they fold the better.
Enough of the ‘progressive’ pretence, briefly. You’re embarrassing yourself.
From my point of view the populists are all the same. The Gs = the Cons + ON. They play decoy games and peddle junk to the voters.
Two generations of phoney G-politics has knocked around 5% off the Labor-positve plurality. The Gs have done far more harm to Labor’s chances than the LNP ever could.
Rex, DiNatale is on the record saying he’d be happy to be a Lib-Green, so free yourself Rex and say, I am a Lib Green
I can’t understand why they joined up with the Lib’s to pick on backpackers?
Question says:
Au pairs were exempted ?
LU
Whether they get rolled out or not, their actual generation contribution, and hence emissions, will be minor compared to the massive roll-out of renewables.
daretotread
When people talk about gas emissions, they often forget to factor transmission leakage, which is considerable, as well as methane discharges associated with extraction.
At the point where it is burnt, gas has about 50% of the emissions of coal, but that’s not the whole story.
https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps/city-snapshots/boston
Katherine Murphy looks at the state of play with the MYEFO.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/18/pm-begins-long-march-from-camp-tantrum-as-he-sells-economic-revolution
There has been a significant increase in the number of candidates contesting elections in recent decades and the Greens are not the only party to have taken votes off the ALP. Parties like the Animal Justice Party are hardly likely to be taking more than a small minority of their votes off the Liberals (they take votes from both the ALP and Greens). The Reason Party has also taken votes from many parties. One Nation and KAP take votes off both sides. There are many other examples.