Forever blowing bubbles

More reform talk, this time involving suggestions MPs should be prevented from defecting from the parties for which they were elected.

Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters chair James McGrath has floated another reform bubble, this time proposing that parliamentarians should be prevented from resigning from their parties under pain of either facing a by-election or being replaced by the nominee of the party for which they were elected. The Australian helpfully summarises recent situations where this would have applied: “Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus from the Palmer United Party, Cory Bernardi and Julia Banks from the Liberal Party, Fraser Anning and Rod Culleton from One Nation and Steve Martin from the Jacqui Lambie Network”. University of New South Wales constitutional law expert George Williams is quoted noting potential constitutional issues, particularly in relation to the lower house.

The proposal brings to mind the passage in New Zealand last year of what is colloquially known as the “waka jumping bill”, insisted upon by Winston Peters of New Zealand First as part of his coalition agreement with Labour after the 2017 election. This requires a constituency MP who quits their party to face a by-election, while party list MPs must vacate their seats and have them filled by the next candidate along from the list at the election. The move was poorly received by academics and the country’s Human Rights Commissioner, as it effectively gives party leaders the ability to dispense with troublemakers. It was also noted that Peters himself broke away from the National Party to form New Zealand First in 1990, but changed his tune after a split in his own party in 1998. However, the McGrath proposal would seem to be quite a lot less pernicious in that it would only apply to those who leave their parties of their own volition.

In other news, I had a paywalled article in Crikey on Tuesday regarding the YouGov methodological overhaul that was discussed here on Sunday, which said things like this:

Of course, transparency alone will not be sufficient for the industry to recover the strong reputation it held until quite recently. That will require runs on the board in the form of more-or-less accurate pre-election polls, for which no opportunity will emerge until the Queensland state election still over a year away. It’s far from certain that YouGov will prove able to get better results by dropping the telephone component of its polling, notwithstanding that phone polling is less conducive to the kind of detailed demographic parsing that it apparently has in mind. Nonetheless, the movements the pollster records over time within demographic and geographic sub-samples will almost certainly offer insights into the shifting sands of public opinion, even if skepticism will remain as to how it sees the numbers combining in aggregate.

I’m not sure when exactly we will see the fruits of YouGov’s approach, but we’re due some sort of Newspoll result on Sunday or Monday, and the fortnightly Essential Research falls due on Tuesday – we’re still waiting for the latter to resume voting intention, but I was told a little while ago it would happen soon.

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.

1,328 comments on “Forever blowing bubbles”

Comments Page 4 of 27
1 … 3 4 5 … 27

  1. Mavis Davis @ #150 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 12:37 pm

    Warren takes the lead in latest poll:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/25/elizabeth-warren-biden-national-poll-democrats-bernie-sanders

    I was just reading that article from the other day about why Biden may not be the best choice for Democratic candidate:

    As the Democratic presidential contenders begin a four-month sprint to the Iowa caucuses, the front-runner, Joe Biden, is in trouble. Biden surged to the lead even before he announced, buoyed by name recognition, experience and his service as vice president to Barack Obama. He was anointed the “most electable” of Democrats. But, now, his early lead in polls is fading, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even inching ahead of him in a recent Iowa poll. This marks only the beginning of Biden’s fall: In reality, as findings from a new book by veteran Democratic pollster and strategist Stanley Greenberg suggest, among the lead contenders Biden might well be the weakest potential opponent to President Trump.

    It is not his age but his history that bedevils Biden, and not style but substance that weighs on his candidacy. Biden got the big things wrong repeatedly over the last 40 years. In what he has since called a “big mistake,” he championed the infamous 1994 crime bill that contributed to the unconscionable mass incarceration that particularly ravaged the African American community. As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, he left Anita Hill to fend for herself during the Clarence Thomas hearings. He defended President Bill Clinton’s repeal of Aid to Mothers of Dependent Children. He consistently backed pro-corporate trade treaties — from the North American Free Trade Agreement to letting China into the World Trade Organization — that savaged America’s manufacturing workers. He voted for the invasion of Iraq, surely the greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. (He now claims he was duped by then-President George W. Bush.) And he was all in for Wall Street deregulation that helped lead to the worst recession since the Great Depression, then served in the administration that bailed out the banks, put no major banker in jail for what the FBI called an epidemic of fraud and left homeowners adrift.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/24/biden-might-not-be-one-beat-trump/

  3. @PeterFitz tweets

    Not quite sure that Alan gets it, but anyway. Interesting piece.
    Alan Jones lashes corporate cowardice over activist ‘blackmail’ https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/alan-jones-lashes-corporate-cowardice-over-activist-blackmail-20190926-p52v2a.html via @smh

    Edit@Newsweek tweets

    “Laughing hysterically”: Democratic staffers react to attempted “recall” of White House talking points re: Trump/Zelensky phone call https://trib.al/GFA4ybc

  4. C@tmomma:

    [‘I was just reading that article from the other day about why Biden may not be the best choice for Democratic candidate:’]

    It’s starting to seem that name recognition might not be enough for Biden. The other problem is that with name recognition (after being in Congress for some 40 years) comes plenty of ammunition for your enemies. It’s a bit early to call it, but Biden does seem to be running out of momentum, and Sanders appears to be out of contention.

  5. C@tmomma @ #151 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 10:43 am

    It is not his age but his history that bedevils Biden, and not style but substance that weighs on his candidacy. Biden got the big things wrong repeatedly over the last 40 years. In what he has since called a “big mistake,” he championed the infamous 1994 crime bill that contributed to the unconscionable mass incarceration that particularly ravaged the African American community. As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, he left Anita Hill to fend for herself during the Clarence Thomas hearings. He defended President Bill Clinton’s repeal of Aid to Mothers of Dependent Children. He consistently backed pro-corporate trade treaties — from the North American Free Trade Agreement to letting China into the World Trade Organization — that savaged America’s manufacturing workers. He voted for the invasion of Iraq, surely the greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. (He now claims he was duped by then-President George W. Bush.) And he was all in for Wall Street deregulation that helped lead to the worst recession since the Great Depression, then served in the administration that bailed out the banks, put no major banker in jail for what the FBI called an epidemic of fraud and left homeowners adrift.

    These are also reasons why Clinton (H) was a terrible candidate as well, and why so many Democratic voters, particularly in the rust belt, either stayed home or voted for change.

    Yes, I know Trump was an even worse candidate, but that doesn’t change the fact that Clinton was also a terrible candidate. Too close to Wall Street and nowhere near Main Street.

  6. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explains why the Ukraine scandal is much more serious than any previous Trump allegation

    Speaking to CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Wednesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) opined that this was the right move, in part because the Ukraine scandal is different from all the other scandals in a very big way: It concerns Trump’s attempts to impact a future election.

    “One of the things we’ve been seeing by the president is he has been engaging in continuing, escalating, disturbing behaviors,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “This is a very serious matter of national security. We’re talking about the president using the full power of the United States government in order to pursue and manufacture a politically motivated investigation against a political opponent.”

    Withholding aid to an ally and then, quote unquote, asking for a favor to essentially benefit yourself politically, not in the interest of the United States of America, but in the interest of your own reelection.”

    “But what also makes this urgent is that this is about something that is going to happen. The 2020 election,” continued Ocasio-Cortez

    https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-explains-why-the-ukraine-scandal-is-much-more-serious-than-any-previous-trump-allegation/

  7. ENA Media Release:

    Energy Networks Australia has rejected the Australian Energy Market Commission’s (AEMC) claims that distribution networks have been slow to support the rapid growth of renewable energy

    What a strange construction – ENA is almost talking about itself in the third person.

    That reminds me of an interview of a British multiple Gold medal winning Olympic rower (can’t remember the name, so I’ll call him “Chris Watson”):

    Interviewer – “So what is Chris Watson thinking about after winning X gold medals across Y Olympics?”
    Chris Watson – “Chris Watson is thinking that if Chris Watson continues to talk about Chris Watson in the third person then Chris Watson will disappear up Chris Watson’s own arsehole!”

    End of interview (and possibly, end of interviewer…)

  8. Haven’t seen it posted previously

    For anyone wanting to get an idea of how and why climate is impacting on Australia right now.
    The BOM ‘s special climate statement tears apart any mythology that everything is fine.

    Even if it rained a lot today, the level of water deficiency, ecological devastation and climate change effects seems to mean things will never be the same as they were in any currently living human’s experience, and there may never be similar conditions as the last century or two of Australian climate has been.

    Some still seem to be thinking that just add water and we can return to business as usual.
    The evidence seems to suggest that everything is going to change, whether farmers, the LNP or anyone else is happy with that or not.

    As day zero approaches for some towns and villages, all the BS in the world won’t help.

    Special Climate Statement 71—severe fire weather conditions in southeast Queensland and northeast New South Wales in September 2019, 24 Sep 2019
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs71.pdf

  9. What a strange construction – ENA is almost talking about itself in the third person.

    Probably because they know a dodged up report by the AEMC when they see one.

  10. Danama,
    The same author says this about HilaryC.:

    Greenberg indicts Hillary Clinton’s “campaign malpractice” for her loss in 2016. She didn’t want to criticize the Obama recovery and seemed oblivious to the damage done to working people by the financial wilding and the purblind trade policies. She joined Obama in praising a recovery that most Americans were not experiencing. If Clinton had only put a populist focus on the economy in the waning days of the election, Greenberg argues, she would have won. Then again, in an age when voters are understandably cynical about politicians — and when Trump routinely scorns their corruption — credibility matters. Given her history — her husband’s embrace of corporate trade and financial deregulation, her coziness to Wall Street — Clinton would have a hard time credibly presenting herself as a populist tribune.

  11. “But, now, his early lead in polls is fading, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) even inching ahead of him in a recent Iowa poll. ”

    A recent Iowa poll? I assume this poll was specific to Iowa Democrats, who tend to be a very left-leaning bunch, dominated by uni students and academics. In other words, over-educated white folks. I’d be surprised if Warren wasn’t the frontrunner in Iowa.

  13. The marginal price of electricity is already very far below the marginal cost of production of electricity derived from coal generation for most of the hours of most days. The marginal price of electricity is below zero at certain times. Really, this entirely obviates the need for a carbon price. That is, the cost of production of coal-derived electricity is already well above the market price for electricity even without a carbon price.

    This alone will ensure that as renewables are introduced into any grid, the economics of coal-derived production will force coal out of the market. This has already happened in WA. Investment in renewables will depress demand for coal.

    But in itself this is not enough to bring down the cost of electricity and maintain supply stability. The cost and capacity of batteries needs to improve. The interactions between system-wide demand and system-wide supply need to be digitised and handled as one entire machine. This is all happening. It’s happening faster in Australia than in many other places because of our geographic advantages in renewable supply.

    It’s also notable that as coal production declines, gas-derived production will likely increase because gas can be used to meet ‘peaking demand’. This is a corollary of the replacement of coal by renewables, at least until installed battery capacities can also replace gas-generation.

    This is a moving feast.

  15. So, Dutton, Porter are considering legislation to overturn the ACT’s pot law. What a pair of Neandertals, many people having had convictions recorded for possession of this relatively innocuous drug, which can untowardly affect them in a number areas, including employment, insurance, travel. The Tories pulled the same trick in the NT with its euthanasia law, extending the pain and suffering for the terminally ill. But the Tories couldn’t give a tinker’s as long they can inflict their jaundiced, archaic views on society. No doubt Morrison will lead the push. They need to look at Portugal’s drug policies, but they’d be too blinkered to do so.

  16. C@tmomma @ #160 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 11:08 am

    Danama,
    The same author says this about HilaryC.:

    Greenberg indicts Hillary Clinton’s “campaign malpractice” for her loss in 2016. She didn’t want to criticize the Obama recovery and seemed oblivious to the damage done to working people by the financial wilding and the purblind trade policies. She joined Obama in praising a recovery that most Americans were not experiencing. If Clinton had only put a populist focus on the economy in the waning days of the election, Greenberg argues, she would have won. Then again, in an age when voters are understandably cynical about politicians — and when Trump routinely scorns their corruption — credibility matters. Given her history — her husband’s embrace of corporate trade and financial deregulation, her coziness to Wall Street — Clinton would have a hard time credibly presenting herself as a populist tribune.

    Exactly.

  17. @brianschatz tweets

    Can’t wait for the argument for mainstream republicans to be yeah he’s reckless and uniquely corrupt and incompetent but the opposition wants too much healthcare and to take care of the planet so

  18. For the remarkably little it’s worth, in the industry in which I have worked for the last 30-odd years, the economic consequences of climate change are not events that will take place in the future. They’re events that have already occurred. In WA, these events include a near-90% decline in production and the destruction of more than 90% of the jobs that used to exist in the industry. Net real earnings and asset values have been reduced to very low levels. These will not be restored. Incomes and assets are gone for all time, as are the raw materials once drawn from the environment.

    The same processes that have destroyed one industry can be seen arising in others – in others with which I have further first hand knowledge. This is not in dispute by anyone with direct exposure to these industries.

    The issue is not climate change. It is trying to figure out how to respond. It is trying to assemble a consensus in relation the many things that have to be done to prevent this from becoming much much worse. It is trying to figure out how to procure power so that these things can be put in place.

    Nothing much that I see published here at PB gives me any reason for confidence. I see only a bickering over the spoils of defeat.

  19. Quoll:

    [‘Special Climate Statement 71—severe fire weather conditions in southeast Queensland and northeast New South Wales in September 2019, 24 Sep 2019′]

    The Gold & Sunny Coasts’ hinterlands are particularly susceptible to catastrophic fire events at the moment and we’re only in early spring. I’m thinking of moving to the ACT.

  21. guytaur

    “Its a national poll no matter the commentary pointing out the lead in one specific state”

    I’m not clear on what you mean. Is it a poll of primary/caucus Democrats within the state, or a state-wide poll?

  24. guytaur….there is no need for a carbon price. This will not make things easier or faster or better. It is a complete distraction.

    There is already liquidation in coal-fired power production. A carbon price will not accelerate that. It would only reduce household incomes. It would be contractionary with respect to the economy as a whole.

    It is already the case that low-income households commit disproportionately more to energy bills than do high-income households. A carbon price would make that worse. Much worse. It is possible for high incomes households to almost completely avoid power bills. It is not possible for low income households to do this…at least as things stand.

    One thing I hope to do in WA is to trial the delivery of ‘social electricity’ – low cost electricity – drawn from renewable sources as a way of extending the share of renewables in the grid. This is a much better and more socially/economically desirable path than pushing up the electricity costs of low-income households.

  25. @E. G. Theodore:

    What a strange construction – ENA is almost talking about itself in the third person.

    Media Releases are always written in this style. The idea is to provide copy in the format that the releasing organisation would like to see directly incorporated into media reports.

  27. In any case….there is no electoral support for a carbon price. This is a decade-old solution that has been displaced by political, technical and economic events.

    No-one who wishes to win an election should be advocating a carbon price. They will lose.

    The number one issue in climate change is that those who want change have little or no political power. This is the first-order problem. Win elections.

  28. Kakuru:

    I’d be surprised if Warren wasn’t the frontrunner in Iowa.

    Yes – from what I can see, of the early voting states Iowa is a must-win for Warren; New Hampshire is a must-win for Sanders; and South Carolina is a must-win for Biden (Nevada is just a nice-to-have for someone). If any of those three fails in those respective states, their campaign is in big trouble.

  29. UI

    Yeah I get it. Labor’s right is not ready to defend the proven policy of the Gillard Government. No praise for her from Labor’s right on a very good policy. Just all blame.

  31. UI

    If you were for Labor you would not argue against science and Julia Gillard’s proven policy.

    Its a fair question to ask as you pop in with reasons why no action on climate change can work because as you put it “Voters won’t accept it”

    If Labor took that attitude with Medibank we would not have Medicare now.
    You are the one saying nothing can be done as the right wing edifice of lies is now being exposed.
    Its taken too long but its finally happening.

  32. Mr Biden

    It could be that Mr Trump attacking Mr Biden (openly and underhand) is the making of him.

    Remember it was Mr Carter’s attack on Mr Reagan that had the effect of legitimising him…

  34. A carbon price is absolutely needed to continue to drive the necessary changes in the energy mix both for electricity and for transport. As long as the cost of emitting carbon dioxide is not priced in, the market will overinvest in emissions-intensive processes.

    This doesn’t say anything about what you do with the revenue from the carbon price, though – if you just treated it like an extra tax then the effect would indeed be contractionary (and it would be a regressive tax as you note, because of the generally higher share of incomes spent on energy and transport by low-income households). You can get around both these problems by directing revenue from the carbon tax into to those low-income households.

  35. Meicanbeemer
    “Warren has been gaining momentum for sometime and some of it seems to be at the expense of Harris, whose support has softened.”

    Certainly agree. Warren appears to be gaining at the expense of Harris (who seems to be in terminal decline) and Sanders. If Warren gains at the expense of Biden, then Biden is in trouble.

  36. caf
    “Yes – from what I can see, of the early voting states Iowa is a must-win for Warren; New Hampshire is a must-win for Sanders; and South Carolina is a must-win for Biden (Nevada is just a nice-to-have for someone). If any of those three fails in those respective states, their campaign is in big trouble.”

    Warren could very well win in both Iowa and NH – in both states Dems tend to be very white and very educated. But SC may be a bridge too far. Warren doesn’t have much support among African Americans. Biden does (at the moment).

  37. UI @ #163 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 1:17 pm

    The marginal price of electricity is already very far below the marginal cost of production of electricity derived from coal generation for most of the hours of most days. The marginal price of electricity is below zero at certain times. Really, this entirely obviates the need for a carbon price. That is, the cost of production of coal-derived electricity is already well above the market price for electricity even without a carbon price.

    We have been over this several times before. I won’t repeat it all here, but suffice to say your post is yet again wrong in several important respects. You don’t seem to understand the purpose of a carbon price at all, yet you are strenuously opposed to one.

    Now, I wonder why that should be?

  38. UI @ #177 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 1:41 pm

    In any case….there is no electoral support for a carbon price. This is a decade-old solution that has been displaced by political, technical and economic events.

    No-one who wishes to win an election should be advocating a carbon price. They will lose.

    The number one issue in climate change is that those who want change have little or no political power. This is the first-order problem. Win elections.

    I’m confused. Are you criticising Labor here, or the Greens. Or perhaps both?

  39. Caf:

    This doesn’t say anything about what you do with the revenue from the carbon price, though – if you just treated it like an extra tax then the effect would indeed be contractionary (and it would be a regressive tax as you note, because of the generally higher share of incomes spent on energy and transport by low-income households). You can get around both these problems by directing revenue from the carbon tax into to those low-income households.

    That’s similar to the Rudd scheme

    The political problem is that the low-income compensation is a magnet for downwards envy: “aspirationals” see low income people getting something and don’t see the regressive effect that requires the compensation.

    There was a chance to psss this in 2009 (and things would have been very different had that been done). It’s unlikely there will be another chance

  40. EGT

    All that needs to happen is to redo the Gillard Government legislation.
    Thats it. Problem on the start of its way to being solved instead of opposed

    Edit: In other words no need to reinvent the wheel.

  41. This is why you are likely to see the electricity generators and distributors imposing “service availability” charges sooner rather than later …

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-26/wa-power-retailer-synergy-posts-massive-financial-loss/11550420

    They are currently busy laying the groundwork …

    “The impairment can be attributed to changes in our generation operations, long-term power purchase agreements and regulated network charges that are no longer being offset by adequate levels of revenue available through the franchise, contestable and wholesale markets.”

    Join the dots, people 🙁

  42. The political problem is that the low-income compensation is a magnet for downwards envy: “aspirationals” see low income people getting something and don’t see the regressive effect that requires the compensation.

    There was a chance to psss this in 2009 (and things would have been very different had that been done). It’s unlikely there will be another chance

    Sure, “politics is hard”.

    Maybe you throw a few beans to the aspirationals in the form of subsidies for luxury EVs or something.

  45. P1,

    The WEM is a capacity market, and is not directly comparable to the NEM. C

    apacity markets are, in theory, less efficient than wholesale gross pool spot market (like the NEM) for dispatch; and it would seem that way in practice, too.

  46. Didn’t the LNP (and Murdoch etc) at election time tell us that electric vehicles were evil and would destroy civilisation as we know it?

    The federal government is banking on up to half of new car sales by 2030 being electric vehicles in order to reach Australia’s emissions reduction

    (Canberra Times headline)

  48. Guytaur:

    All that needs to happen is to redo the Gillard Government legislation.
    Thats it. Problem on the start of its way to being solved instead of opposed

    Edit: In other words no need to reinvent the wheel.

    I think the Gillard scheme was more regressive than the Rudd scheme.

    A revived Gillard scheme would need to have a higher price for the reasons UI (and his evil twin Briefly) have noted – cost of renewables has fallen in the meantime, so carbon price would now need to make coal fired production unviable, whereas previously the price only had to be high enough to make new coal fired investment unviable.

    Result of higher carbon price is to make scheme more regressive. Add that to the already highly-regressive effect of rooftop solar ownership and you have a highly regressive effect – essentially making low income people pay the cost of decarbonisation.

  49. EGT

    The proof is in. The Gillard Legislation resulted with lower power prices and lower emissions.

    Some more money for poorer households would be welcome. However it would go better for building new homes that are eco friendly with solar installed to reduce Housing waiting lists. Follow Finland give people homes.

  50. Caf/UI

    From an economic standpoint, a carbon price is saying polluting the atmosphere is not free – there is a marginal cost in doing so.

    And compensation for lower income cohorts is the progressive approach. And to take a lesson from Marketting 101, why not call it a Carbon Dividend? And to be cheeky, why not a Franked Carbon Dividend?

    Everyone benefits. The atmosphere is no longer free to pollute. Everyone on a progressive scale gets a Franked Carbon Dividend to offset any price rises. The FCD would increase in line with cost of living.

Comments Page 4 of 27
1 … 3 4 5 … 27

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *