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.
Right on cue, up pops Vanstone:
Citizen
The whole response to Greta is looking like a coordinated response with a number of people basically repeating the same points.
Well, I suppose Amanda would know all about “promoting the person”. Did she mention her radio show?
Mexican: certainly looks like a coordinated response, except that they’re all puppets of Murdoch??
I don’t think economists have a clue as to how the inequality gap can be rendered more equitable. Friedman, for example, was a standout, having been schooled in the prestigious economics department of the Uni of Chicago, where a staggering thirty Nobel Prizes have been awarded ‘to people who taught or were in the department’, but even he was often wrong, bringing to mind ‘An old joke: an economist is someone who wanted to be an actuary but lacked the charisma’. No offence to the economists out there.
There’s certainly scant evidence that there’s anyone in the Morrison Government who’s got an inkling.
Certainly the RWNJ element seem to not have an original thought in their collective skulls.
Greta Thunberg had a cut-through message on Global Heating, so the partisan right, at least in the Anglosphere, instinctively line up to attack her with varying degrees of contumely. There was no need for coordination.
One can go disappear up Ones own fundament as far as I’m concerned.
When Morrison addressed the UN I wonder how many interns gathered in the Assembly?
An actuary, an accountant and an economist walk into a bar…
Mavis Davis,
I doubt very much that 30 Nobel Prizes have been awarded to members of the economics department of the University of Chicago, or any other economics department. That’s because there’s no such thing as a Nobel Prize for economics. Nor, might I add, is there a Nobel Prize for palmistry, astrology, or reading the entrails of goats (sorry, this is one of my pet peeves).
The Bank Of Sweden Prize For Economics In Memory Of Alfred Nobel (or whatever it’s called these days, having changed it’s name a few times) isn’t a Nobel Prize. Just because it’s awarded at the same time and has Nobel’s name in it doesn’t make it one. I can’t award an Ante Meridian’s Prize For Monty Python Appreciation In Honour Of Alfred Nobel and claim it’s a Nobel Prize, for example.
I looked up Anglosphere because I wasn’t quite sure what it meant. I assumed it was derogatory.
https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-australias-dangerous-obsession-with-the-anglosphere-97443
The Nine network must be really grateful to Jones for pissing off so many advertisers with his public utterances.
From an economic standpoint, a carbon price is saying polluting the atmosphere is not free – there is a marginal cost in doing so.
From an economic standpoint, taxing people who cannot substitute their energy consumption for less polluting sources is most efficient (i.e. Ramsey pricing); but it’s also highly inequitable because of the reasons why these people cannot substitute their energy consumption.
The Anglosphere is basically the English-speaking world, or maybe a bit narrower, it is the United Kingdom plus the English-speaking settler nations of the former British Empire, the United States, Australia, Canada and NZ. The term isn’t derogatory.
Dandy Murray,
I’m always sceptical of anyone who claims not to be able to substitute their energy consumption. They never seem to consider the option of, for example, wearing a jumper instead of turning the thermostat up to 25 degrees.
Ante Meridian:
Merely quoting from “The New Yorker”, Sept 2, 2019 – “Widening Gyre, The Rise and Fall of Economic Inequality”, Liaquat Ahamed, p. 27.
I would add that I enclosed ‘to people who taught or were in the department’ in single inverted commas. What the author may’ve meant is that some, even all of the thirty achieved awards further on in their careers, in other disciplines but taught or were taught at the school of economics at some stage in their academic careers? I’m unsure. And sorry to agitate one of your ‘pet peeves’.
guytaur:
I agree that if one had a time machine, went back to 2010, enacted the Gillard scheme then the effect from 2010-2013 would very likely be similar to what it historically was.
However, it is now 2019 and circumstances are different. In particular production costs for renewable generation are now at/below equivalent costs for coal generation. The purpose of the Gillard scheme was in fact to accelerate that change in circumstances and it was successful in doing so.
Your “proof” is based wholly on the circumstances applying in the 2010-2013 period and you have made no attempt to account for the consequent (and subsequent) change in those circumstances.
MD,
I know. I was just being picky. When it comes to the so-called ‘Nobel Prize For Economics’ I can’t help myself. The implication that economics is somehow on the same level as physics and chemistry really pulls my nose-hairs.
If it were really possible to add to the categories for Nobel Prizes, the obvious candidate would be mathematics, which Nobel himself inexplicably left out.
As I posted above.
E. G. Theodore @ #220 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 3:18 pm
+1
Anglosphere
Both former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr and former prime minister Kevin Rudd attacked Abbott’s enthusiasm for the Anglosphere. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is far less likely to invoke the term
____________________________________________
The term has some use and doesn’t necessarily need to be shied away from. There are cultural links amongst ‘anglosphere nations’ which are impossible to deny and I think it was Bill Gates who said that Australia’s greatest asset was being partially proficient with the English language. The anglosphere nations are also the FIVE EYES grouping, what Samuel Huntingdon called the ‘intelligence sharing core of the West’. Although there is some irony in that India has the second largest number of English speakers at 125 million, a number which is expected to ‘quadruple in the next decade’ and is not considered a member. So to deny that there are no racial implications in the term is incorrect.
Ante Meridian:
No probs.
Breakfast radio presenter Alan Jones has attacked corporate Australia for giving into “blackmail” from activist groups on issues such as climate change, and criticised superannuation funds for putting social goals ahead of returns for members.
Good old, black and white world, Alan.
I imagine he has stopped to think before opening his mouth but hasn’t said that,
1. Maybe corporate Australia has a conscience that he clearly lacks.
2. Superannuation Funds can do profits for members, AND social goals.
3. Corporate Australia can see a greater profit to be had for their goods and services from satisfying the people who don’t like Alan Jones, over those that do.
Steve777 @ #209 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 2:50 pm
You’d think the economist would have ducked…
Of course Alan Jones did an interview with The Age/Sydney Morning Herald. It’s Chairman is Peter Costello, who has twice already stopped 2GB from sacking Alan Jones, in his role as Chairman of 9/2GB…SMH/The Age.
[‘Why Nobel Prize is not given in the field of mathematics?
The apocryphal answer is that the Swedish mathematician Gosta Magnus Mittag-Leffler had an affair with Alfred Nobel’s love interest. Infuriated by that, he decided to exclude mathematics as an awards category. … Alfred Nobel wanted to award people for “practical” inventions. He thought mathematics was too theoretical.’]
Well, I guess Peter Costello got to run Australia in the end. By proxy.
At last.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/26/albanese-says-scott-morrison-has-a-habit-of-being-loose-with-the-truth?CMP=share_btn_tw
This is The Guardian’s summary of the Trump/Ukrains events:
In that case, Costello is doing to Nine/2GB/Fairfax exactly what Jones is criticising companies and super funds for doing – putting ideology ahead of returns to shareholders.
Dandy/Ante
The generation of electricity is elastic, insofar as the market will trend towards cost efficient alternatives creating sufficient supply to meet demand. Sadly, we have fully amortised coal generation, subsidised by the planet’s free atmosphere, being kept alive by government policy for non-economic reasons.
In such a flawed model, we should go for bribing consumers. What could go wrong?
In the last few days Morrison has made it so easy for Albanese to attack him – attacks on Greta for supposedly frightening children, lying about Australia’s emission levels, cosying up to Trump against China, and so on.
E. G. Theodore @ #217 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 3:18 pm
This one comes up periodically. Most such analyses fail to take into account the plummeting price of coal, and instead rely on the “export” price (which is inflated by transport costs), or else some historical or average price from the last few years. But apart from an anomaly in 2008 (caused by a short-lived supply disruptions due to floods), the downturn in coal prices over the past 12 months has been the most dramatic ever seen, in both size and speed – and it shows little sign of halting:
https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=12
This is the really nasty reality about coal. Everyone knows that coal-fired generation has no future. The coal companies are not complete cretins. But his means existing thermal coal mines have no intrinsic or long-term value, and therefore the price can just keep dropping. Sure, this means some mines will close as the price drops below their lowest cost of production – but these will tend to be the more expensive higher quality coal mines, not the cheapest and dirtiest coal mines.
Without a carbon price to make coal-fired generation reflect its true cost (and not just the ever decreasing cost of the fuel alone) there is still a long way to go before coal-fired generation will cease being economic – in most cases not before the plants themselves require excessive maintenance, or reach their natural end-of-life. But this is virtually the “business as usual” scenario that the UN has just pointed out is not sufficient to prevent catastrophic global warming 🙁
In other words, a carbon price is necessary.
nath @ #1996 Wednesday, September 25th, 2019 – 10:34 pm
Very sensible and logical propositions.
lizzie @ #228 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 3:51 pm
This is what is required.
Chip chip chip away at the credibility of this shonky salesman PM. It has to often and it has to be relentless. Morrison will offer up many opportunities and they need to capitalised on.
The federal budget is on track to reach the end of next decade with the largest surplus since the days of John Howard but it will be built on a soaring tax take from low and middle-income earners.
The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), in its annual review of the budget and its long-term projections, said a combination of strong revenue and tight control on spending meant the budget was heading for a $53.7 billion surplus in 2029-30. At 1.6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), it would be the largest surplus since 2007-08.
The PBO noted surpluses were likely to drop in some years as the government put in place its planned tax cuts but the overall trend was positive because of solid revenue flows.
It said by 2029-30, the government would collect $393 billion in personal income taxes, or 12 per cent of GDP. Last financial year it collected $223 billion, or 11.5 per cent of GDP.
“The main driver of the increase in total receipts in the second half of the decade is a projected rise in personal income tax,” the PBO said. “This increase occurs even after factoring in all stages of the government’s personal income tax cuts, worth around 1.6 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade.”
The first stage of the government’s tax cuts started in July with an expanded low and middle-income tax offset. The next two stages will be phased in through 2022-23 and 2024-25.
The PBO said the combination of all the tax cuts would mean the average tax rate would drop for the top 20 per cent of income earners but increase for those on much lower incomes.
“Overall, average tax rates for individuals in the second and third quintiles are projected to increase by 4.5 percentage points and 3.9 percentage points respectively over the period to 2028-29,” it found. “Average tax rates for individuals in the top quintile are projected to fall marginally.
Even in retirement, Michael Danby still manages to make a contribution to the advancement of the Liberal Party. Thanks Michael.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/26/michael-danby-paid-staffer-consultancy-fees-for-help-with-tv-interviews-foi-documents-reveal
Morrison: Tactics
Albanese: Strategy
The Hare, or the Tortoise?
lizzie,
Sara Jade, the body language expert could have a field day with this photo! I know who I think has the upper hand:
I have to agree with P1 on this one.
A carbon price, or an emissions intensity scheme as proposed by Frank Jotzo, is necessary to drive out the use of coal in generation.
An EIS has the benefit of keeping all of the transfers within the set of generators, so all the “tax” raised goes back to lower- or non-polluting generators.
C@t
😆
Also, on Amanda. (Rightwing trolls hate Carlton.)
MORRISON’S COLOSSAL BULLSHIT
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/morrison-un-summit/
Speaking of the batshit crazy Right Wing, the Trumpists sent their Biden-Ukraine talking points to the Democrats!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/25/republican-ukraine-talking-points-email-accident-what-to-say
“The federal budget is on track to reach the end of next decade with the largest surplus since the days of John Howard but it will be built on a soaring tax take from low and middle-income earners.”
These surpluses mostly won’t happen. They’ll be thrown away in election bribes, targeted tax cuts and subsidies to favoured groups, middle class welfare, all creating groups with a vested interest in their continuation. Also more corporate tax cuts and move moves towards a level income tax system.
In his Undress to the UN Morrison bragged about:
1. Increasing CO2 emissions.
2. Subsidizing coal exports.
3. Subsidizing thermal coal use.
4. White-anting international efforts at combatting global warming.
5. How it was all China’s fault.
6. How his Government had subsidized farmers with billions to deal with global warming consequences.
7. How all the rivers were dry.
8. How thousands of hectares of Gulf mangroves cooked to death.
9. How one kilometers of kelp beds cooked to death.
10. How successive heatwaves had smashed coral along huge distances of the Great Barrier Reef.
Prime Minister Morrison finished with one of his pet rhetorical flourishes:
HOW GOOD IS ALL THIS!
Joyce pissed away two thirds of million dollars on being the Drought Envoy.
And it worked!
The Drought is worse than ever.
same old same old
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/26/co2-is-plant-food-australian-group-signs-international-declaration-denying-climate-science
Boerwar @ #249 Thursday, September 26th, 2019 – 5:30 pm
I’m not going to bother reading the declaration but I have to ask, if CO2 is a plant food why aren’t the plants eating it? And I’d respond by publicly adding the signatory’s names to a list. The idea of Climate Trials isn’t far-fetched.
Dandy Murray
I.e. not regressive (nor progressive, for that matter) and on that basis preferable.