An off week in the fortnightly cycles for both Newspoll and Essential Research, but we do have three fairly detailed sets of attitudinal polling doing the rounds:
• Ipsos has results from its monthly Issues Monitor series, which records a dramatic escalation in concern about the environment. Asked to pick the three most salient out of 19 listed issues, 41% chose the environment, more than any other. This was up ten on last month’s survey, and compares with single digit results that were not uncommonly recorded as recently as 2015. Cost of living and health care tied for second on 31%, respectively down three and up six on last month. The economy was up one to 25%, and crime down one to 21%. On “party most capable to manage environmental issues across the generations”, generations up to and including X gave the highest rating to the Greens, towards whom the “boomer” and “builder” generations showed their usual hostility. The poll was conducted online from a sample of 1000.
• A poll by YouGov for the Australian Institute finds 79% expressing concern about climate change, up five since a similar poll in July. This includes 47% who were very concerned, up ten. Among those aged 18 to 34, only around 10% expressed a lack of concern. Fifty-seven per cent said Australia was experiencing “a lot” of climate change impact, up 14%; 67% said climate change was making bushfires worse, with 26% disagreeing; and only 33% felt the Coalition had done a good job “managing the climate crisis” (a potentially problematic turn of phrase for those who did not allow that there was one), compared with 53% who took the contrary view. The poll was conducted January 8 to 12 from a sample of 1200; considerable further detail is available through the full report.
• The Institute of Public Affairs has a poll on Australia Day and political correctness from Dynata, which has also done polling on the other side of the ideological aisle for the aforesaid Australia Institute. This finds 71% agreeing that “Australia Day should be celebrated on January 26” (55% strongly, 16% somewhat), and 68% agreeing Australia had become too politically correct (42% strongly, 26% somewhat). Disagreement with both propositions was at just 11%. A very substantial age effect was evident here, but not for the two further questions relating to pride in Australia, which received enthusiastic responses across the board. I have my doubts about opening the batting on this particular set of questions by asking if respondents were “proud to be an Australian”, which brings Yes Minister to mind. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the poll is the demographic detail on the respondents, who were presumably drawn from an online panel. This shows women were greatly over-represented in the younger cohorts, while the opposite was true among the old; and that the sample included rather too many middle-aged people on low incomes. The results would have been weighted to correct for this, but some of these weightings were doing some fairly heavy lifting (so to speak).
Elsewhere, if you’re a Crikey subscriber you can enjoy my searing expose on the electoral impact of Bridget McKenzie’s sports sports. I particularly hope you appreciate the following line, as it was the fruit of about two days’ work:
When polling booth and sport grants data are aggregated into 2288 local regions designated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there turns out to be no correlation whatsoever between the amount of funding they received and how much they swung to or against the Coalition.
I worked this out by identifying the approximate target locations of 518 grants, building a dataset recording grant funding and booth-level election swings for each of the ABS’s Statistical Local Area 2 regions, and using linear regression to calculate how much impact the grants had on the Coalition vote. The verdict: absolutely none whatsoever.
ABC RN The Minefield – 2020 — why does the future look so much like the past?
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/theminefield/2020-%E2%80%94-why-does-the-future-look-so-much-like-the-past/11884248
“It’s not every day that the future arrives, but here we are in 2020. The number itself is pregnant with possibilities, evoking as it does foresight, clarity, vision. It’s little wonder that this year has acted almost like an idée fixe on the political and cultural imagination — much like 1984, or 2000, or 2001 did in the twentieth century.
Back in 2008, newly elected prime minister Kevin Rudd convened a summit of Australia’s “best and brightest” to discuss what kind of nation they wanted Australia to be in 2020, what were the big challenges that confronted the nation and what were the big ideas or the great innovations that would be needed to meet those challenges. Going back and revisiting the summit’s final report is a bracing exercise. Because 2020, now that we’re here, doesn’t look very much like the future at all.
What happened?
Following the heady-optimism that was in the political air — which carried Kevin Rudd to power in 2007 and Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 — why was there such a violent reversion, not just to the norm, but to its stunted, Lilliputian parody? Why was the open, expansive vision of the future to which Rudd and Obama appealed, and which they seemed to almost embody, so roundly repudiated? Is there a lesson here about the importance of adopting a sceptical posture, a profound reticence to claim to know, much less predict, our political future? Or are we just reading the wrong signs?”
With Waleed Aly, Scott Stephens ; Guest: George Megalogenis
Zoomster doing her old nitpicking routine with a regular side order of ‘changing the goalposts!
Mavis @ #198 Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020 – 10:18 am
Maybe it’s because, with the numbers, they don’t need to mount a defence.
Email from the Wilderness Society:
“On 18 December, the government regulator for offshore oil drilling—NOPSEMA—approved Equinor’s Environment Plan to drill in the pristine marine sanctuary of the Great Australian Bight. Opening up a new high-risk oil field when we are currently experiencing the devastating impacts of the climate crisis is ludicrous.
Today, the Wilderness Society South Australia—working with the Environmental Defenders Office—has announced legal proceedings in the Federal Court to challenge NOPSEMA’s approval of Equinor’s Environment Plan. Together, we can fight to protect the future of our children and grandchildren, the pristine waters of our southern oceans and all the unique marine life who call it home.
Equinor refused to formally consult the Wilderness Society South Australia, and other environment groups, on its plans. It also refused to formally consult key Indigenous groups and local governments—these omissions form the basis of one of the grounds for the legal challenge.
To be clear, this is not a step we wanted to have to take—for years the Wilderness Society has engaged diligently and constructively via consultation with other fossil fuel companies seeking approvals in the Bight, including BP and also with NOPSEMA. But Equinor has refused to consult.
This legal case is extremely important. When NOPSEMA approved Equinor’s Environment Plan, it set a deeply concerning precedent. Future projects could ignore the perspective and interests of Traditional Custodians—putting cultural heritage at tremendous risk. They could dismiss the impacts these projects have on the functions and interests of environment organisations that represent people like you to protect our climate, wilderness ecosystems and our southern oceans—as well as the communities and marine life that depend on them to survive. It could exclude local governments that are responsible for the people, places and infrastructure most likely to be impacted.
This case is about the law. But this campaign is also about much more than that. It is about big businesses and government not listening to the tens of thousands of Australians who don’t want oil drilling in the Bight—who have protested at beaches across the country, donated, written submissions, and called on their decision-makers and Equinor to keep Big Oil out of the Bight for good.
:::
Equinor should give up trying to steamroll the huge community opposition, including more than 20 southern Australian local governments representing more than 600,000 people. Recent polling shows that the majority of Australians and over 70% of South Australians oppose drilling in the Bight.”
Porter not seeing problems. It makes a nice way of saying thank you.
————————————-
The attorney-general will lead a review into the community sports grants scandal, despite his own electorate receiving nearly a million dollars in funding by the program.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/attorney-general-to-review-sports-grants-program-despite-boost-to-own-electorate
Alternative headline: “FAILURE TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES MAYHEM IN ECONOMY”
Rex Douglas @ #189 Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020 – 10:00 am
In your binary world, how do you deal with reality?
poroti @ #205 Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020 – 1:25 pm
I can see it now.
‘It was all legal’.
No mention of how amoral it was though.
Of course facts and reality are not of much value for deniers, but all the pathetic rants by old mate bogans on youtube or elsewhere might not survive scrutinising the facts of the matter re hazard reduction, even for SmoKo.
Has NSW seen more than twice the amount of prescribed burning this decade compared with the last?
(spoiler alert – yes)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-22/prescribed-burning-nsw-backburning-hazard-reduction/11878316
From Maria Sullivan’s article published in Pro Bono Australia:
[Legal consequences
The first point to understand is that the direct legal consequences of the Audit Office finding are minimal. The report made four recommendations for future reform of the sporting grant procedure. While the Audit Office is very well-regarded by decision makers and commands respect, it is not a court. Therefore its recommendations are not binding and can be ignored by government.
What is more significant are the legal implications of the Audit report.
Here the problem is the Audit Office found the minister did not have legal authority to approve the grants in the first place. This is because the legal power to approve the sporting grants is actually given to Sport Australia (under the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989).
That legislation says the minister can give written directions to Sport Australia in relation to the exercise of its powers. But Senator McKenzie actually made the decisions on the grants (rather than merely give written directions to Sport Australia).
This is, however, somewhat of a theoretical argument as it is unlikely anyone will be able to bring this matter to court to invalidate the grant decisions made. Given community sporting groups who were disadvantaged by the improper grant process are community groups in need of funding, it’s unlikely they will be in a position to bring an expensive legal action.]
Now Turnbull is speaking up a lot – pity he didn’t do so before when he had the power of being PM.
“Given community sporting groups who were disadvantaged by the improper grant process are community groups in need of funding, it’s unlikely they will be in a position to bring an expensive legal action.”
Is this where Slater and Gordon come in?
http://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/news/a-conservation-response-to-the-2019-20-wildfires
BiTB,
Voters don’t know what Labor stands for on the environment. Do you?
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/environment-now-trumps-economy-on-australian-list-of-biggest-worries-20200121-p53td7.html
Not Sure
The discussion started with a statement from Nicholas. My post clearly stated it was a response to Nicholas, not GG.
If I had been responding to GG, I wouldn’t have headed the post ‘Nicholas’.
nath
At least I don’t base my moral universe on “The Wolf of Wall Street’.
Tosser.
Voters need educating.The trouble is they are too apathetic about politics.The Chasers proved that many years ago.
lizzie @ #214 Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020 – 2:00 pm
A few cards from my cognitive bias deck of cards.
The “curse of knowledge” prolly applies to the above.
Quite warm in Newcastle. 32℃
Not looking forward to possible 39℃ tomorrow which will be hell on firegrounds further up the valley.
Zoomster….. another false allegation? Where is your evidence for such a claim? Your credibility and integrity is seriously in question.
Barney in Tanjung Bunga @ #202 Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020 – 12:21 pm
That same argument suggests the Democrats shouldn’t try, either; they don’t have the numbers and know they never will.
But the real thing is probably about optics. The GOP needs to mount a solid defense because the goal isn’t to let Trump off, it’s to 1) make the Democrats look insane/stupid for impeaching and 2) make themselves look like they have an actual reason for letting Trump off.
If the Democrats go hard (or as hard as the rigged format allows) and the GOP plays dead, Trump is let off but they lose in the court of public opinion.
The fun part is that Trump only cares about the part where they let him off. If angry voters trash the GOP majority in November it’s no concern to him. Republican senators are going to throw themselves under the bus for nothing.
Clear skies in Sydney, the right shade of blue, no smoke or dust, sea breezes, 31° at Olympic Park.
Further to William’s theme of voter attitudes to the environment changing, it is not only locally. This article notes a dramatic turnaround in voter sentiment in USA. Strong concern regarding the environment has risen among US voters from 11% to 31% in the past five years. The study interviewed 1300 US respondents. See
https://www.johnenglander.net/new-poll-americans-alarmed-by-global-warming-triples/
Original article here:
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/climate-change-in-the-american-mind/
Maybe it is time to have a policy to actually do something.
This is a long read but has a lot of resonance for Australia as well.
Explains both the PHON supporters and those working class people who voted for the Liberals in 2019 and vote for the Nationals election after election.
https://newrepublic.com/article/156000/educated-fools-democrats-misunderstand-politics-social-class
I do hope that the Federal Court either refuses to hear the Wilderness Society case or rules against it. I’m pretty sure that there are no Native title claims over the area of the drilling 400 km off the coast and in 2,500m of water. Pretty sure no local or State Governments have any rights out there either.
Equinor is a highly experienced operator with a very good safety and environmental record.
We have successfully and safely developed both Bass Strait and NW Shelf offshore Oil and gas areas. There is no good reason why the Bight shouldn’t also be developed.
SA needs the jobs and economic development. The East Coast needs gas. Australia needs a lot more oil and to reestablish our own refining capacity.
Projection, much? from the most un credible poster on this forum…
nath says:
Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 2:20 pm
Zoomster….. another false allegation? Where is your evidence for such a claim? Your credibility and integrity is seriously in question.
Zoomster:
Perhaps it’s time for GG and Nicholas to let you in on their little secret!
nath
Absolutely not false.
You ARE a tosser.
This is an interesting graphic from that US study on voter attitude to climate change:
Barney in Tanjung:
Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 1:21 pm
[‘Maybe it’s because, with the numbers, they don’t need to mount a defence.’]
Perhaps? But if I were a lawyer appearing in an impeachment trial, I’d try a bit harder than have.
Bernie has been extremely successful at getting amendments made to Bills in the House and Senate. He is known in Congress as The Amendment King. He is highly effective at working with colleagues.
Hillary seems to believe that serving ruling class interests is synonymous with having good working relationships. Bernie understands that politicians are supposed to be serving a much wider set of interests. Hillary never understood that.
zoomster
says:
Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 2:44 pm
nath
Absolutely not false.
You ARE a tosser.
________________
Where is your evidence that I base my morals on the Wolf of Wall Street. You are shifting the goalposts.
Bucephalus @ #225 Wednesday, January 22nd, 2020 – 1:39 pm
But some for-profit corporate entity has a right to drill there if they happen to feel like it?
Fees
Listened to Rick Wilson interview you linked.
As always he makes so much sense.
And you are right to point out that what he said regarding election campaigns and fighting on policy is waste of time for democrats and could equally be applied here.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/21/inexcusable-hillary-clinton-who-lost-trump-2016-wont-commit-helping-bernie-sanders
Ok so a candidate who has a national favorability rating seven points higher than Hillary should care that the second most disliked major party presidential nominee in the history of polling considers him unlikeable? Hillary was great at getting oligarchs and corporate media elites to like her. She wasn’t so great at convincing working class voters that she was on their side. Hence she lost. But to reduce cognitive dissonance she clings to the narrative that it was Bernie’s fault.
ajm
A BIG thank you for posting that article. Excellent stuff.
Nicholas
Dead on the money about Clinton. It was her and her campaign people that decided not to campaign in the swing states not that of Sanders.
He did his bit with his 46 rallies in support of her after the Convention.
It was Bernie or it was the Russians or it was the stupid voters. Not that of Clinton. Never that of Clinton.
Nicholas
Dead on the money about Clinton. It was her and her campaign people that decided not to campaign in the swing states not that of Sanders.
He did his bit with his 46 rallies in support of her after the Convention.
It was Bernie or it was the Russians or it was the stupid voters. Not that of Clinton. Never that of Clinton.
I think the concentration on the sports rorts as being a successful attempt by the LNP to win the election is misconceived.
They expected to lose.
It was actually an exercise in stealing as much money as possible from the public purse for their mates and favourite clubs an associations.
It was wrong, not in a political sense, but in a criminal sense; and they are getting away with it just being treated as “political”.
ajm
Agreed. It also says something about Labor that the LNP expected to get away with it after losing an election. Maybe the LNP was just stupid but still its a worry when they can even think they can get away with it.
I think they were wrong in that thinking as events are proving. Apparently expecting ethics and morals from politicians is hysterical according to the Deputy PM.
https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/german-retail-giant-kaufland-abandons-australia-despite-millions-in-investment-20200122-p53tqe.html
Could it possibly be that when firmly separating itself from the Greens, Labor didn’t make it clear they still wanted to protect the environment?
Ajm
All the appointments they made before the election all went to their mates too.
Is this still going ahead? This year? I’d forgotten it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/morrison-government-appoints-colleagues-ahead-of-election/10991478
Seven of the 49 appointments made after the Budget went to former Coalition MPs and senators
Labor has threatened to overturn some appointments that have been described as “utterly outrageous”
Senate Leader Mathias Cormann said the decisions were “good housekeeping”
Nath
You’ve got morals? Who knew!