No proper Roy Morgan poll this week, but they do provide results on preferred Labor and Liberal leaders. Kevin Rudd scores a surprisingly modest 51 per cent as Labor leader, weighed down by contrary Liberals and a telling preference for Julia Gillard among the small sample of Greens supporters. Among Labor supporters, his rating is 70 per cent. Joe Hockey leads a crowded Liberal field with 30 per cent (up five since July), while Malcolm Turnbull is second on 21 per cent. Possum weighs in with a post on the various Liberal leadership polls conducted since the 2007 election. A separate Morgan release puts Rudd and Turnbull head to head, finding little change since July.
Elsewhere:
• Liberal MP Fran Bailey has announced she will not contest her Victorian federal seat of McEwen at the next election. Bailey retained the seat in 2007 by a court-determined margin of just 27 votes, but the Liberals would have hoped her local popularity in the wake of the February bushfires might help her hold on at the next election. As it stands, the Liberal preselection is unlikely to be keenly sought. Labor’s candidate from 2007, former state upper house MP Rob Mitchell, was said by Rick Wallace of The Australian to maintain “strong local numbers”. However, the Labor national executive’s suspension of the preselection process a fortnight ago has prompted talk its newly acquired powers might be used to install a candidate of its own choice. Rick Wallace subsequently reported that Andrew MacLeod, a “former soldier and UN disaster expert”, had also emerged as a contestant (UPDATE: Greensborough Growler informs me he was also Labor’s candidate in 2001).
• Linda Silmaris of the Daily Telegraph reports senior Labor sources say it is now unlikely Belinda Neal will be forced out of Robertson, an outcome so very recently seen as a foregone conclusion.
• Alex Easton of The Northern Star reports local Nationals are hoping Stuart George, Richmond Valley councillor and son of state Lismore MP Thomas George, will be the party’s candidate for the federal seat of Page. Labor’s Janelle Saffin won the seat in 2007 on the retirement of Nationals incumbent Ian Causley with a margin of 2.4 per cent, picking up a 7.8 per cent swing. The redistribution proposal shaves 0.2 per cent off the Labor margin.
• Robert Ellicott, architect of the Coalition’s constitutional strategy in 1975, has written an article for The Australian in which he muses on the prospect of a Governor-General refusing a Prime Minister’s request for a double dissolution. This has prompted a most informative discussion in comments.
• The Australian Electoral Commission has released approximate figures on the age breakdown of the 1.2 million Australians not on the electoral roll, which progressively falls from 30 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 to 4 per cent of those aged over 65.
• The New South Wales Greens have listed nominees for state upper preselection and the vacancy to be created by Lee Rhiannon’s bid for the Senate. Both incumbents due for re-election, Ian Cohen and Sylvia Hale, are retiring. High-profile Byron Shire mayor Jan Barham is reportedly well-placed for a spot, being an ally of the locally based Cohen.
• The Australian Democrats have lost their last remaining parliamentary member after South Australian upper house MP David Winderlich quit to sit as an independent. The party is now registered only in South Australia and New South Wales.
• Keep following the by-election action on the regularly updated threads for Bradfield, Higgins and Willagee.
[Would a Human Rights Act stop the WA police from searching without due cause? How would a Federal Law trump a constitutionally-decreed state responsibility unless the Human Rights Act was part of the constitution?]
Well I guess it depends on what the Human Rights Act says. But I think one right should be to privacy, i.e. police should only be able to search people if they have reason to, in the U.S. they call it “probably cause”.
[Adherence to the principles of liberalism comes to mind.]
A very narrow version of liberalism though.
[It seems to me the Greens best game play is to sit tight till the last moment and then negotiate a weaker set of amendments with the understanding that the CPRS will be further amended (gradual creep of targets etc) in the next Parliament. Presumably they’d be in a very good position to make that happen.]
What would be the point at the moment for the government or the greens? Between them they still can’t pass anything in the Senate.
@200 while I sympathise, the question here is about what is their best strategy.. and come to think of it.. what *is* their strategy..
[They Greens are just advocating what the science says we should do. It’s pretty simple. The question should be why are the other parties not following the science.]
Labor and the Greens are both advocating that we do what the science says we should do. Labor is in government and therefore has the responsibility of actually doing it. The Greens are not and do not. Labor is trying to do what the science says by means of a process which can command majority support (which does actually matter in a democracy), and which causes as little economic harm as possible. The Greens don’t have to worry about these things, so they are advocating it all be done at once – which is technically as well as politically impossible. That no doubt pleases their constituency, but it has no connection to the realities that the Labor government has to deal with.
The Greens will never have their say Diogs. If the big polluters fail to cut emissions by the 25%-40% target range that the Greens are requesting, they can hold the balance of power all they like, it is never going to happen. If we were the USA, I could understand their position, but we are not.
That’s why I believe the Greens are passing a great opportunity to support the bill with the provision that targets may be increased if major polluters do so.
Dio
Some countries have set extremely high bars.
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/09/norway-1st-rich-nation-to-commit-to-40-reductions/
Psephos
It’s obviously a lot easier for the Greens to put up targets as they don’t have to reach them and it makes them look good with their base. I can’t understand why everyone finds that either a bad strategy, deceitful or worse.
Despite already being the world’s worst emitter, Labor is advocating a minimum target less than all the other countries who are putting up an ETS, eg UK, EU countries, US etc.
Why do all these countries have such a different reality to Labor in Australia? It should be easier for us to make cuts as we are already incredibly wasteful.
Gusface
Exactamundo. We’re at the bottom of the ETS premiership table.
It was nice seeing Rudd on tonight’s news looking relaxed, as you would if your popularity rating was close to 70%.
Dio
[Exactamundo. We’re at the bottom of the ETS premiership table.]
damn those conservatives!
[
Norway’s previous target was to reduce emissions 30% by 2020. It is increasing its goal in order to take the lead in promoting global cooperation around climate change.
Stoltenberg reportedly said that this pledge is especially meant to help reinvigorate the climate change talks before the climate conference in Copenhagen in December, since these talks have hit a sort of limbo or stalemate with rich nations not wanting to meet the demands of developing countries (to aim for more ambitious emissions cuts of at least 40% by 2020).]
[Despite already being the world’s worst emitter]
We may or may not be the world’s worst per capita emitter (some would argue the Gulf oil states are, because they have small populations but export huge amounts of carbon to be burned elswhere), but in absolute terms we are a minor emitter.
[Labor is advocating a minimum target less than all the other countries]
We are advocating 25% with an international agreement. I don’t believe that is worse than everyone else.
[Why do all these countries have such a different reality to Labor in Australia?]
Because we are so much more carbon-dependent for our energy, derr. It’s easy to say “well that has to change,” but actually changing it is hugely politically difficult in the context of democratic politics – which you and the Greens consistently ignore.
I think that for a country who has as much to lose as Australia to propose a guaranteed minimum reduction of 5% to as much as 25% is pretty damn good.
[I think that for a country who has as much to lose as Australia to propose a guaranteed minimum reduction of 5% to as much as 25% is pretty damn good.]
I agree totally.The commitment by norway ups the ante on the denier side,as it is proof that countries are taking this as seriously as they can.
[Because we are so much more carbon-dependent for our energy, derr.]
What is all this crapping on from Wong about all of our wonderful renewable energy options then? Do they exist or not? We have the option of solar, tidal, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear etc etc. We are BETTER placed than ANY other country to reduce our “carbon-dependent” energy.
Derr.
[What is all this crapping on from Wong about all of our wonderful renewable energy options then? Do they exist or not? We have the option of solar, tidal, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear etc etc. We are BETTER placed than ANY other country to reduce our “carbon-dependent” energy.]
They are coming into existence, thanks to Labor’s RET among other things. But they can’t take the load right now, and they won’t be able to do so for some years yet. Nuclear is not a short-term option (ie within ten years) as you well know.
[Nuclear is not a short-term option (ie within ten years) as you well know.]
The target date for our carbon reduction is eleven years, ie 2020. Therefore I am struggling to understand your reasoning.
I should have added
Double derr 😛
Ok Diogs, if you want to lose jobs, substantially increase the cost of living, place our industries at a competitive disadvantage and jeopardise the chances of winning an election, in the interim – fine I suppose!
*must go*
Centre
That’s the COALitions policy!
@205, what would the Greens get from supporting the bill? Presumably they would ask for some changes, or do some kind of deal about future changes?
Diogenes, we have been over this a dozen times. You just refuse to accept that a government has to work within the constraints of the political system. If Rudd was Stalin, he could just order the coal-fired energy industry to shut down, and order everyone to take a cut in living standards, ride a bike to work and eat lentils, but he isn’t and he can’t. The CPRS is a very well-thought-out political strategy to get us where we need to get to and take the Australian people along with us. If you’re struggling to understand the reasoning involved, I suggest you struggle a bit harder.
*gone*
Now is a good time to remind everyone that I actually support the ETS passing. I’m just saying I can easily understand the Greens position. And it’s quite easy to argue. They won’t have any trouble putting it forward to their base.
I think the Greens have to hold the line here.
Successful politics seems to me to be about trying to demonstrate one’s reasonableness, that one is willing to listen to both sides and try to compromise. I’m sure the ALP are actually very happy to have the Greens argue that the ETS doesn’t go far enough, while the coalition etc say it goes too far. This comes across as showing that they’ve ‘got the balance right’.
If the Greens were to come closer to the Govt position, the midpoint between those extremes moves away from their preference and worsens the outcome as far as they are concerned. Pressure is clearly being applied by big carbon emitters to reduce the pain of any ETS for them – does anyone really believe that this pressure would lessen if the Greens dropped their demand for a 40% cut?
[I agree totally.The commitment by norway ups the ante on the denier side,as it is proof that countries are taking this as seriously as they can.]
Norway can make big cuts, most of their power comes from hydro, nuclear and gas. They are also funding a lot of research into Thorium based nuclear.
Stephen
The Greens have dropped the cut to 25%. They want no compensation for the coal industry as well. Now that’s called playing to your base.
Yes, but I’m trying to say is this. If you were the Greens, what would you do in order to get policies you actually want implemented?
SO
[Norway can make big cuts, most of their power comes from hydro, nuclear and gas. They are also funding a lot of research into Thorium based nuclear.]
How are they going to make big cuts if they are already doing all the right things? What CHANGES are they going to make?
cud chewer
[Yes, but I’m trying to say is this. If you were the Greens, what would you do in order to get policies you actually want implemented?]
There is nothing the Greens can do. They may as well just stick with what they believe. There’s no way either of the two parties will do what the Greens want. Labor and Liberal (the Turnbull team at least) basically have the same CC policy.
[Nuclear is not a short-term option (ie within ten years) as you well know.]
But supposedly our major source of electricity generation will be carbon capture and storage on coal power stations. Well, the first fully operational CCS power-station won’t be running until 2035 and is estimated to cost $4 billion in today’s money. We could have our first nuclear reactor working in 10 years.
[I’m just saying I can easily understand the Greens position. And it’s quite easy to argue. They won’t have any trouble putting it forward to their base.]
I would respect the Greens more if they supported nuclear, after all, that is the only way to make huge pollution cuts in electricity generation in a relatively short space of time.
[How are they going to make big cuts if they are already doing all the right things? What CHANGES are they going to make?]
Because they have the easier things to do, like increasing energy efficiency, replacing all incandescent lamps with fluoro or LEDs and converting all their cars and buses to electricity.
We have the hard thing to do, spending billions just so we can replace our dirty electricity generation with clean sources, not to mention having to double our electricity generation in the next 40 years just to satisfy the increasing demand.
Nielsen 57-43.
[The Coalition has slipped two points in the two-party vote, giving Labor a 57-43 per cent lead compared with a month ago. This is a 4 per cent swing since the 2007 election and would yield Labor about 22 more seats.]
Also: Coalition voters against Turnbull’s position on ETS.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/turnbulls-joe-blow-hockey-the-front-runner-20091011-gsex.html
@228 Well, come the election the Greens will have the balance of power. If I were the Greens I’d be quietly talking to Penny about a strategy after the election. Possibly an incremental strategy. I don’t see anything to be gained from not talking seriously. Otherwise they are potentially dealing with a watered down ETS being passed this term.
This is serious for the Liberal Party. I gathered the Newspoll was being friendly but this confirms a trend away and the existence of a rather devastating margin.
They will be praying for a narrowing to more ‘usual’ numbers during an election campaign. But what happens if there is a widening to the incumbent during a campaign?!
After an election the Liberals might like to do a deal if what the Greens offer up is too extreme. So holding the balance of power doesn’t mean they will get whatever they want.
Hmm.. true.. its hard to tell what you’d do…
“The strong feeling by Coalition voters (56 per cent) that the Opposition should delay finalising the coming negotiations”
If the 2PP is 57/43 then the Coalition primary must be around 38%.
56% of 38% is 21%
How can they possibly paint 1 out of 5 Australian wanting them to even DELAY the legislation as ‘The strong feeling …’
[How can they possibly paint 1 out of 5 Australian wanting them to even DELAY the legislation as ‘The strong feeling …’]
Two reasons.
First, they’re only talking about Coalition voters.
Second, it would be more than 21%, as some Labor voters want a delay too, about 21%. 21% of, say 48% Labor primary is about 11%. Adding that to your 21% results in around 30^ wanting a delay. OK, so one-in-three is only an arithmetic improvement over one-in-five, but it’s still an improvement.
From what I can gather from the article it seems that 37% of those polled want the COALition to negotiate re ETS before Copenhagen and 38% do not. Presumably the remaining 25% dunno or don’t care.
It would be nice to see the full set of numbers rather than rely on an article which spits out only little selected bits.
What is it with you lot?
Maximum pressure has to be applied to US, China, India et al to come to the party.
If we, as a rich nation, say “You go first” … I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.
New thread.