[Via Labor Outsider in comments] The Australian is reporting that an analysis of Newspoll data collected in September suggests that 63% of urban Coalition voters want the government’s CPRS passed, with only 28% against, and that the Liberals could lose 20 metropolitan seats.
I’d like to see what folks like Possum make of the claims about potential vote switching, and of the changed context from when the poll was taken, but this should nevertheless certainly concentrate Liberal minds as they contemplate whether or not to dump Malcolm Turnbull, and also put all the guff this week about the “Liberal base” in perspective. If there’s any truth to that, and it wasn’t *just* a campaign orchestrated by the likes of Bolta and the Parrot, the Liberal party membership is very seriously out of touch with an awful lot of Liberal voters.
Could this be the game changer Turnbull has been waiting for?
Update: SBS news is reporting that Malcolm Turnbull, at his Sydney press conference this morning, has asserted he has Joe Hockey’s support.
Elsewhere: Ken Parish on constitutional issues and the prospects of a double dissolution, and Trevor Cook asks if the Liberal Party can survive.
Update: Turnbull’s latest press conference via SBS News. He’s confident he will remain leader, and urges passage of the CPRS.
Update: Turnbull surrogate Senator Gary Humphreys says that Liberal internal polling replicates the newspoll story; a wipeout if they go all climate change denially.
Update: New post on the latest thrills and spills.
On the one hand, I’d love to see the denialist rump take control, and thereby see the lunatics-running-the-asylum firmly banished to opposition for while, hopefully to see the liberal party reborn as, oh, a liberal party. The danger though is that the ALP take this as a signal that the centre has moved further to the right, and not that the coalition are run by nutters, and instead tack right to follow in that general direction. Still, Abbott in charge next week and a stymied CPRS would probably double the odds of Kev calling the snap double diss, pushing greens into BOP in the senate. Now that would make for much more interesting times.
Ouch!!
That has to hurt the RWDBs.
If it is not a game changer it should be.
And from the strangest of sources, the OO.
Why didn’t they tell the COALition, and the general public before that:
the ALP like the ALP CPRS
the metro COALition voters like the ALP CPRS.
the marginals, the young, the swingers….
everybody likes the CPRS according to this.
I just read your posts that lead up to this Mark.
You know a thought just occurred to me.
The Newspoll team, and therefore its owners[?], must have known about this for some time.
At the very least have had a vague impression that the ALP CPRS was a lot more popular than some people, eg the OO, were letting on. Even if they only did the fine tuning analysis very recently, there must have been a darn good idea. After all its a long term issue.
So I suspect they have been sitting on this for some time.
And have just decided to release it now.
I wonder why [assuming my cynical suspicions are valid]?
I’m sure that the lessons from this Newspoll analysis still apply, but i think it’s worth nothing that this is an analysis of a Newspoll done in September.
And just on Newspoll, there’s one due this Monday night/Tuesday morning. Although we know to be wary of single polls (think of that 52-48 Newspoll from what seems like sooooo long ago) it will be interesting to see
A) How the media frame the Liberals leadership woes around the next Newspoll and of course
B) To look in a few weeks to see if it has had any noticeable long term impact.
I would’ve assumed that it would but i guess it’s not impossible that it wouldn’t.
I think there’s also a distinct possibility, although i’m not sure of the size of the possibility, that we could see a split in Turnbull’s approval and the Liberals vote share.
Turnbull’s done well in what is a fight for his political life (at least in the short term), in my opinion. He’s had some prominent media spots at key moments, emphasising his line, that almost seems to be a line he’s got all to himlself, that the Liberals will be wiped out at the next election if Labor can paint them as climate change denialists.
ALso as Laura Tingle (on Lateline, gosh what a breath of fresh air that was) and Bernard Keane have noted this evening, like some of the best political operatives, he’s going to force the party to tear the leadership away from him.
[Sorry if some of this belongs in another thread, i got on a bit of a roll]
Thanks for reminding me this is old data, thewetmale. I’ll update the post accordingly. I think I saw that somewhere else, but I’ve been having a few beers tonight while enjoying the #spill fix!
Perhaps one way of trying to figure out what is going on is to add to the liberal/conservative split within metro areas, a regional/city split. There are a lot of different constituencies being managed here. Possum pointed out the other day that among coalition supporters there is a roughly even split between those that support the CPRS and those that don’t (I’m not doing justice to that post with that summary though). The only way I can think of squaring that up with the Newspoll analysis is that much of the angst against the CPRS is in regional areas. So, the libs seem to be in an invidious position whereby if they go one way they lose regional seats to the Nats, and the other they lose them to Labor.
Again, that analysis is a bit simplistic, so I’d love to see a psephologist crunch all of these numbers to project the electoral implications of the two strategies (pass the ETS stay with Malcolm (or Hockey) or dumpy Malcolm for Abbott, reject the ETS)….
Also, note that both Paul Kelly and Laurie Oakes confirmed that Turnbull had the numbers in the party room to pursue his course of action to pass the CPRS with the amendments. I wonder how that will play over the weekend. It appears that much of the noise coming out of the Oz that he didn’t have the numbers was patently false and involved OO journalists being fed bull by the Minchin camp.
Hopefully the non-Minchin camp grow some 8alls over the next few days and realise that a minority is trying to hijack the party over an electorally losing position…
Another question….much has been made of the Liberal Party “base” in this whole affair. But what does it say when the base is so divorced from what the party’s supporters in the electorate believe? Would this situation have arisen if pre-selections were determined by broad based primaries?
I’d be very surprised if that wasn’t pretty much it, LO. I was thinking earlier that Minchin and co seem determined to turn the Libs into a carbon copy of the Nats, and Laura Tingle said some interesting stuff about that on Lateline – about a fear among Libs of a Coalition split and Nats running against them on the ETS (there’s a link in my previous post – ignore Van Onselen’s time filling). Barnaby Joyce has actually played a pretty smart game in all of this, when you sit back and have a think.
The age of the data is relevent, but I’d be surprised if the average coalition supporter in the electorate (as opposed to members) had changed their position much in the meantime….would be interesting to see the margin of error for that question in the marginals though….
Yeah, spot on too.
Hence Turnbull basically calling Minchin a liar tonight.
The record is only being corrected some days late.
Again, I’d refer to my previous post where I complained that too much of the coverage is just driven by journos and columnist being fed lines by “high level sources” on one side of the fight.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/11/28/the-media-social-media-and-the-liberal-thrills-and-spills/
Tingle also said – rightly, one hopes – that some of the Liberals might actually calm down a bit over the weekend.
Indeed…together with Labor, the Nats are almost certainly a winner out of all this…
The other interesting thing on Lateline which I meant to mention somewhere was the image of the letter calling for a spill. If I’m not mistaken, all or at least the vast majority of the signers were Senators. Minchin has not been exactly subtle about concealing his hand in all this. The remarks he made on 4 Corners are looking more calculated in retrospect.
hannah’s dad @ 3
I wouldn’t want to rule out that possibility, indeed with this being planned as the last sitting week it wouldn’t have been all that surprising, that media organisations had been planning some coverage around what was already likely to be a pretty hot issue. But I think this particular article is probably just a quick thrown together thing to attempt to milk the story (insert a joke about crying over spilt milk here) for another couple of days, to bridge the weekend until the fresh Newspoll next week.
I can’t say i agree with the darker side of your argument, that there is an element of a minor media conspiracy at play here (at least i think that’s what you’re inferring, apologies if you’re not)
Mark @ 5
As you should Mark, as you should. It’s funny, i’ve been so caught up in twitter this week that to check my reader i’m suddenly aware of a whole other world. You’ve done well to be running what seems to amount to pretty much a continuing live blog of the whole thing.
(and just don’t #spill your beer, o yes, i’m so funny)
@11, yep.
@9 – I’d agree again, on the basis that Turnbull’s probably come across quite well on the telly this week, while his opponents have looked like a bunch of treacherous nutters, and particularly at this time of year (was definitely christmas party season in the Brisbane CBD tonight), a lot of people won’t have much of an eye on it.
@13, thewetmale, thanks! Lucky I finished all the bloody essay marking in time! It’s been fun – have been snatching some time for completely unrelated fun too, but got quite carried away again tonight – it’s close to as big of a fix for a political junkie as an election! Still, after the beers not #spill’d, probably time for a shower and sleep!
thewetmale
Inferring and suggesting and implying and wondering out loud or on screen.
But really ‘just a thought’.
I accept your interpretation as being more credible.
No apology required.
Hannah’s dad
Cheers, no worries. Never hurts to throw things out i guess.
And with that i think i might do as Mark has done and have a good sleep.
O’Shannessy appears to be the man the Oz rolls out whenever they want to use Newspoll to shift the narrative. A quick Google news search tells me he last spoke from on high about how Rudd’s honeymoon with the marginals was over.
I think this is the Australian’s way of both placing an insurance policy in the event of a Turnbull victory and putting Anybody But Turnbull on notice should he instead win.
Oh, and it just occurs to me that the denialists can only rely on two groups in society: relatively well-educated contrarians (or ideologues, whatever) and people who share Sam Kekovich’s belief that only poofters are well educated. I definitely see that dynamic scaring metropolitan soft Liberal voters.
We’ll just have to see if the ABT can muddy the waters and pretend he hasn’t gone with the scary as his manifesto…
The former are much thinner on the ground than the latter, methinks, Nickws.
Ok, goodnight #spillsters!
Just to pass on some gossip from “Liberal sources” heard last evening:
Paul Fletcher in Bradfield wouldn’t be wild about it either. While Higgins and Bradfield are both clearly liberal, the electorates are more Radio National than Alan Jones, and Age/SMH than Tele/Hun.
The issue is now less about the CPRS – as several people have pointed out here, there were plenty of problems with the Rudd/Wong model – but with the idea of a party where someone like Malcolm Turnbull can be summarily executed by the likes of Nick Minchin, Kevin Andrews and Wilson Tuckey.
The way the denialists have heeded the clarion call and exposed themselves in this very public display over leadership will resound for a long long time.
Good late night analysis MArk, and LO.
Chucking anothery into the mix: the Minchinites (its good to award crazies with obscure leftiste factional names) are still very ‘class of 1996′ thinking. They still think if you pitch everything at middle aged male 4WD-owners you get the whole suit: nullify Hanson, take her vote, wedge ALP in its heartland, win govt w newfound conservative battler constituency.
But those days are over. They need to start reading Megaloginis when they pick up the Organ.
Robert MerkelNo @21
Heard this narrative in a Jon Faine interview yesterday. The Liberal pollie(?) was asked by Faine “but you supported Howard’s ETS”. He replied that Howard had a way of bringing together the party on issues. But he also conceded he did know much about the ETS scheme when he supported it under Howard, but he denied its about style and not substance. He pushed hard exactly that it was Malcom’s inability to take the party with him.
Its a narrative they are putting out. Don’t believe it for a moment. The big end of town that speaks to the liberals has spoken, and thats that.
It’s all upside so far.
The biggest benefit of this shitfight is that the CPRS debate has become completely polarised. This shields the CPRS temporarily from attack by greens.
Once the CRPS flag has been finally raised on this Carbon Pollution Iwo Jima – and the dead have been removed from the battle field – then a new longer war can begin. But for now it’s a great achievement. A toehold. Vital ground gained by some gutsy politicians – including Rudd, Wong, Turnbull and McLachlan.
There is something quite disturbing about the idea that J-Ho not only managed to mask his own troglodyte instincts but convince other trogs that compromise was in their best interests. That would surely make him one of the greatest politicians in our history. I’d prefer not to remember him that way, but if the liberal party was as fractious back then as they are now, that reading of history would be pretty compelling. Not just guns, but climate change too. Say it ain’t so!
Looks like the Minchinites don’t want Hockey as an alternative leader now because he supports the CPRS. This just gets crazier and crazier. No wonder Newspoll is producing the results it is.
Minchin has been outraged by the shocking recent decline in the quality and quantity of Hockey’s toadying
And they said Mark Latham was mad and bad. He had nothing on these guys.
LeftyE @ 24, Paul B @28: Not “Minchinites”. Minchkins.
It is possible, amidst the sturm und drang of Canberra shenanigans, to ignore what is real.I found Turnbull’s performance last night on 7.30 compelling.He spoke with clarity and courage.If you noticed the camera shift to Kerry’s face when Turnbull said that the matter was about ‘the planet’ what we saw was Kerry’s mouth hanging open.The leader of the Libs convincingly doing heartspeak.I have no doubt that Turnbull is aware of the polling but I also now have no doubt that he has been doing some serious thinking and has come to grips with the nature of the problem at least so far as to realise that a ETS is a necessary starting point.Signs of life at last.
Just when I thought that things can’t get more exciting….
I saw MT being interviewed by K’OB and for the first time, I found something to respect (if not like) about him. He was unwavering in his commitment to ETS for the planet and children – and not because it is just politically expedient. He used the word “progressive” several times – a different cry from the conservative ideology. There was no Rudd blaming or ALP baiting. This is a different MT than the blathering idiotic performance over the Oz Car emails. Looks like he need to be in hot water for him to shine. But he is dead meat just because of that. His base is convinced that he is a Labor mole and McCarthyism is rampant.
I can’t wait for Paul Kelly’s breathless pronouncements tomorrow … let me guess … “Look Barry, it is quite obvious Turnbull is in trouble within the Liberal party. His leadership is being challenged by the conservatives – notably Minchin. I predict that the Liberal party will go through a period of turmoil. This is a battle for the soul of the Liberal party (yes, I stole that line from K’OB)” and many such inane crap.
Andyc – love the Minchkins
“This is a battle for the soul of the Liberal party (yes, I stole that line from K’OB)” and many such inane crap.”
He stole that from Katz. I don’t think it makes any sense because they don’t have one anyway.
Oh and Paul@28 Andrew Bolt has now branded Hockey a “leftist” so naturally he is under grave suspicion. You know, with those hidden followers of the conspiracy to de-industrialize the world being weeded out from their leafy hideouts, as we speak.
Possum’s done the numbers for what the ratio of conservatives to moderates will look like after the next election against a swing to Labor:
http://twitpic.com/r8ao5
…it confirms the theory that burning Malcolm is the dumbest thing these dinosaurs could do. At a bit over a 5% swing to Labor (not hard to believe) and the conservatives will be twice the number of moderates in the party room.
Gone for a generation…until the old codgers in the outlying seats dies off.
The “Minshoviks” are revolting!
Which is imported American guff, really. You have to worry about your base in a voluntary voting system, because if they get stroppy with you they won’t turn out to vote. But Australia has compulsory preferential voting. Your base will turn out and will almost certainly vote for you, perhaps indirectly through preferences, no matter what.
The electoral calculus is simple. You have to capture the vote of the unaligned median voter. If you can do that, you’ll win. Ignore the median voter to pander to your base, and you will lose.
Thats right Jacques. Im enjoying the mad confidence with which the Liberal right is marching the party over a cliff.
Like it Chrispydog: but “Mincheviks” would probs be the spelling!
Interesting article in today’s SMAGE by Ross Gittins. He reckons the CPRS will be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emission. He thinks there are big issues relating to its fairness and whether or not the targets are adequate, but says it will definitely reduce GHG emission. It was interesting to hear from an economist. If his analysis is correct, then that will make it much harder for the Opposition to campaign on the CPRS being a pointless, job-destroying tax. The focus would, I suspect, then be on Opposition denialism which would probably not be good for them.
Update: SBS news is reporting that Malcolm Turnbull, at his Sydney press conference this morning, has asserted he has Joe Hockey’s support.
Don’t all you fellers be too quick to assume the Liberal Party has caught hydrophobia or something & is playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the cylinder.
And I liked the comment on Twitter: when will Hockey pull the pin on being Minchin’s linchpin?
@37 – precisely, Jacques. Another example of the deluded importation of American political narratives.
@24 – thanks, LE.
Talk of “the base” may be a bit exaggerated but if you think it’s irrelevant completely then you’ve probably never run an election campaign before. Even though we have compulsory voting we don’t have compulsoray campaigning. So your base might not be pissed off enough to not vote, but if you piss them off enough they won’t campaign/donate.
Hockey maybe riding on his name as Hockey stick, but there are different age groups who vote in the Liberal held seats.How does anyone here fairly describe them in a a manner that is pretty disgusting to read.I consider myself an Leftist,I have held banners against Uranium Mining on Aboriginal Land,sold badges with the same logo in actual worker protests.Supported Green issues water issues and found issues and solutions put into affect..If Bolt is the rallying point of what you consider are missing some sort of realisable intelligent assessment about what is causing temperature change,according to your own choices others, are not.The offensive nature of some here and elsewhere when say, as I do think it, is lack of sunspot activity seems bizarre in the extreme.Then when you go to sites that claim that possibly couldn’t be so,then the same name calling stuff.So I go to then some Australian people involved site that suggest an involving thing on all the Solar System Planets.Then there are others of similar qualifications ready to name that as quite odd.But, If Newton,the man that thought being Jewish was being taken over by some criminals,and was part of the establishment of matters mathematics that are the progenitors of the computer modelling that has whipped up the frenzy of Global Warming,then why is it that all these people going to Bolt’s commentary in High Temperature affected Australia,are not accepting these Australian temperatures as indicative of Climate Change human induced.!? Like some are arguing it, is in fact!Including people who are opposed to Plimer’s views and leave that opinion in Magazines like Silicon Chip!?Most of what the Greens say and do I support by agreement,nothing wrong at all about their position!But there is a point,which in reading Bolt I cannot find,when honesty has to be found!It will not be found at the phoney war of ideas political ,media or the almost aspirational-translational qualities of characterisation and summary,that are the backbone of the blogosphere.If most of these Liberal voters go about their business ,and they may or may not be Bolt visitors, then you are talking about people who are generally law abiding citizens who just may feel much stronger about Malcolm or Climate Change!? Why is Plimer so dishonest when affectively the tax office isn’t saying so!?Scientific credentialisms and writing books with Footnotes? A reference to Silicon Chip means he is unscientific!? The Publisher of Silicon Chip has the inside running on nearly every scientific instrumentation and equipment supplied to Australians. He doesn’t mind being corrected ,found wrong,but prove that he was wrong ,if others supply the information in a manner that he remains unconcerned about that error!!Prove he has seriously engaged in bending peoples’s minds to dishonest assessment!?And you will run into me,at every turn into the forseeable future.
Elsewhere: Ken Parish on constitutional issues and the prospects of a double dissolution, and Trevor Cook asks if the Liberal Party can survive.
Jacques I think a substantial number of Libs including their late unlamented leader ceased to see a significant distinction between themselves and the right wing of the Republican Party a long time ago, which is one reason they have blundered off into the wilderness.
One of the most pathetic aspects of his post-election life, little remarked in Australia, has been Howard’s triumphal march through the halls of places like the AEI and the Hoover Institute. He clearly sees himself as not so much an Australian Liberal as a member of a transnational wingnut movement with ideological headquarters in Washington DC.
Presumably his hard core followers still in parliament feel the same way and resent Turnbull for trying to reclaim the party as an independent Australian one.
A question for all: What is the Liberal denialists strategy, and is it viable?
I assume it goes something like this: They elect an openly denialist leader, like Abbott, and delay or vote down the ETS. They go to the 2010 election with a massive ETS scare campaign (a la Keating GST 1993) and lose big. In the next Parliament the Greens have the balance of power in the Senate and negotiate a much tougher ETS with the govt which passes sometime in 2011. The punters really start to feel the pain of higher energy prices through 2012 and 2013 allowing the Coalition to run a I-told-you-so campaign in 2013 and win.
Plausible?
That sounds about right, carbonsink. Except some of the more deluded might think they can win in 2010. After all, polls aside, the government doesn’t have a huge majority.
No STAP,The Liberals are just dumb and stupid and Minchin and co want to return to 1950,maybe they could import Limbaugh Beck and Palin,that is about the mindset of this bunch of frauds and liars,and wasters.
Turnbull says he’s confident of a win, urges passage of CPRS: http://bit.ly/67UiSx
I count six bullets … and one suicide vest (used only once).
“Don’t all you fellers be too quick to assume the Liberal Party has caught hydrophobia or something & is playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the cylinder.”
Looks to me more like an automatic reloader from here Steve, with a full clip.
(someone actually got a darwin award for that one already apparently! So they wouldn’t be the first)
The Minchoviks must’ve choked on their weeties today when it became apparent that even their beloved QEII is part of the global conspiracy that is AGW.
It’s an irrational mess in the liberal camp (and most of the MSM as far as i can see), but that’s contemporary australian politics for you, laugh, cry or ignore it all, depending upon your perspective.
Got to say it looks (to me) like MT might see this through somehow, as time passes and some political, social and scientific realities set in.
I could even see his personal standing increase in polls, but the liberal vote hitting a new low. On no real knowledge at all, but who knows at this stage of the game. More to the point for the liberals, who really cares anymore, aside from those enjoying a sense of shadenfreude.
Shaun Carney writes in the Age that one of the motivations of the Libs is that they can’t stand feeding Rudd’s ego. Bernardi basically said that on ‘Lateline’.
The by-elections will be very interesting and it’s a pity Labor wasn’t running candidates in them. How influenced will they be by this drama? Or will they be about small scale local issues? I already thought Labor was foolish not to run in Higgins. I don’t think they could win it, but they could put it in reach for the next general election. It’s an electorate that contains exactly the sorts of Liberals who would be appalled by all this.
Jacques Chester point about compulsory voting is an excellent one. Who exactly are these troglodytes going to vote for, in not the Libs?
Said Andrews the other day (Age)
Shorter Andrews: We the denialists are the pustules on the liberal party body politic and that mad bugger Turnbull comes at us with a sterilised, (“63% of urban Coalition voters”) approved needle. What were we supposed to do?
Ms Mirabella:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/turnbulls-position-untenable-frontbencher-20091128-jxfz.html
Shorter Mirabella: The rest of the world is crazy on climate change and we denialists and Bolt spooked morons will stoop to any dirty tricks and delaying tactics to get our way. (And btw a pox on Turnbull for trying to delay the spill until Tuesday.)
Shorter Mad Monk: If Hockey won’t stand I will, but it’s a question of principle and not leadership, so my reversal on principle, (welshing on my assistance with Malcolm–amend and pass) means I’m allowed to hide my new holy principle to follow the lesser principles of Minchkins on the leadership.
People really don’t understand me. Just cos I oppose abortion doesn’t mean I approve people using coathangers, so logically it follows, now that I oppose the legislation doesn’t necessarily mean I approve of the abortionist Minchkins Senators using a coathanger on Malcolm Um Er…..(or do I?)
Shorter Jo Hockey: FFS what am I gonna do. I know, some tweety cover.
Shorter rebellious Minchkins: After us, the deluge.
Good one, Peter!
Those commentators who think the Nats will be winners from this kamikaze festival possibly forget that there will be no Nat candidates in Lib held seats because of “the agreement”. They may pick up an additional rural vote or two in the senate, but the only tri cornered contests will be in ALP held seats and I suspect any coalition gains there can be safely discounted.
But the threat in the lead up to all this has been a Coalition split, Mike, which would enable Nats to run against Libs all they like.
I think this is what the Michevics are doing.
The OO is reporting that the PM has ruled out a double dissolution election. A pity — I was rather looking forward to one. I’m not sure what the strategy is behind him announcing it now — a question that I find quite intriguing.
From reports, Kelly O’Dwyer is trying to run for Mayor of Higgins as much as she can.
I can imagine Robert.
By the way, Laurie Oakes makes an interesting point in his column today:
Yes, that was from government rather than Opposition. But – unlike this issue – Howard made essentially no concessions to his base. None. Told them to get stuffed, pretty much. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that he actively exploited the riling-up of his base (and refused to compromise to placate them, which in many cases he could have done without compromising the overarching goals of the legislation) to cement his appeal to urban supporters of the tightening.
“I already thought Labor was foolish not to run in Higgins.”
They just did not see the point in spending the money, according to Lindsay Tanner.
Not very sporting but you can understand it as by-elections are expensive and these two would provide no real gain.
@57, thanks Mark but trying to analyse the mindsets is often difficult and it’s especially difficult to understand how they can live with the internal contradictions between their words and their deeds.
When legal concepts spill over into politics or vice versa, I often wonder if law graduates like Abbott, Ruddock and Andrews remember a maxim of equity: Those who come to equity must come with clean hands.
And while on that, a few other thoughts on “equity” as it may apply.
I think Malcolm is following this one: Equity abhors a forfeiture
Kevin Andrews recently fell foul of: Equity will not aid a volunteer [idiot]
Ruddock and Andrews fell foul of this one [Haneef and otherwise in political perpetuity]: Equity delights in equality.
Abbott and many frontbenchers miserably failed: Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation.
As for the voters, some Latin and Minchkinsgate:
1)ALP (tick)
2)Greens (tick)
3)LNP (in flagrante delicto/caught red handed-tick)
Where are the Jim Killen’s of the Liberal Party these days???
Update: Turnbull surrogate Senator Gary Humphreys says that Liberal internal polling replicates the newspoll story; a wipeout if they go all climate change denially.
In some ways I think the “split” in the Liberals is more about evidence based policy vs belief based policy (to be very polite,) than it is about climate change. Climate change is just the trigger. It galls me that Abbott and co are presenting themselves as standing on principle and much of the press is swallowing this. What they are standing on is their perceived right to operate without principle. We now see the ugliness of the Howard regime, its bald faced selfishness and ruthlessness. For this right-wing club, truth and objectively where only tools that could be used (but less so than lies and stereotypes) to gain personal political advantage (which was dressed up as political strategy for the cause of Liberalism). They are bereft of morals, compassion and now it seems, common sense. The issue of climate change demands a rational approach. It requires, almost by definition, an evidence based approach. It is little wonder that Abbott, Minchin and co are fighting with all they have got. They are actually fighting for survival because the world in which the politics of lies and fear kept that them in power is shifting. They sense this but can’t respond any other way than what they are doing now. There’s nothing else in the tool box.
Well said Peter Mc.
The Minch Who Stole Christmas
Oz is correct re: appealing to the base. While compulsory voting means they’ll almost certainly still vote for you, without volunteer labour you’re really in trouble during an election campaign.
My view is that it’s one of the things that’s helping/will help the rise of more smaller parties – the massive turnout of volunteers during election campaigns is one of the things (along with the money) that keeps the two major parties so dominant. As membership dies off and shitty true believers move outwards to Greens and Family First (or whatever’s next), primary votes for the two major parties will keep declining. And relying on getting second preferences only works until one of the smaller parties starts getting enough votes to win or come second, in which case they won’t be passing their preferences down the ticket.
Appealing to the base will always be an important factor of politics, even if it’s not as important here as it is elsewhere.
PeterMc:
Labor aren’t doing too well on their “evidenced-based policy” election pledge either. I’m thinking of the net censorship campaign here. Nowhere near as bad as the other mob on the whole, but not exactly respectable either.
Just to qualify…to their credit at least Labor said they were into “evidence-based policy”, instead of pretending that bloody-minded ignorance actually meant you’re a “conviction politician”.
Lacquered Studio:
well yes of course but politics can’t just be purely evidence based either.Generally its a cultural process. But when it comes to climate change we stand or fall on the science, culture comes second.
Here are the Newspoll figures
Sept 18-20
Against ETS, % support
City Coalition 28, City Labor 13; all city voters 19
Rural Coalition 41, rural Labor 16; all rural voters 27
Totals: Coalition 34, Labor 14; all voters 22
***************
For ETS, % support
City Coalition 63, city Labor 78; all city voters 71
Rural Coalition 50, rural Labor 72; all rural voters 61
Totals: Coalition 57, Labor 76; all voters 67
Interesting that amonmgst rural voters, the ETS was favoured 61:27 (contrasted with city voters, favouring the ETS 71:19); hardly “an anti-ETS revolt in the bush”.
++++++++++++
I think John Howard’s ETS policy in 2007 was primarily defensive, as the ALP was making strong running on the issue. He announced his prospective ETS when Mr Turnbull was Environment Minister. Malcolm now says the Minchin/Abott crew “make John Howard look like a greenie!”, suggesting he thinks the former PM was never very “green”. As I recall, Mr Turnbull wanted Australia to sign Kyoto, but was overruled by Cabinet.
Whatever hypocrisies may have been involved, it gives the Govt another stick to wield. As if they needed any.
This is the Liberal Party we’re talking about here folks. They don’t do regicide terribly well. When Howard dug in and dared them to blast him out, they flinched. The same will happen on Tuesday.
Yeah, you can talk about how the Libs dumped Nelson or Peacock or whomever, but none of them were as tough as Turnbull is now, or as Howard was.
It’s telling that the right’s main man, Abbott, is half-hearted at best and a known dud. He knows Turnbull will eat him alive and that with Big Daddy Howard off the scene, he really will end up with less – rather than more – than what he had on Friday. Abbott is not popular because most Australians can see through that swagger and know that he’s full of shit, someone whose popularity among the base just doesn’t translate to the wider community – in other words, Abbott is the Liberals’ answer to Nathan Rees. The pleas of Minchin and other righties to Joe Hockey reminds me of Morris Iemma’s pleas-disguised-as-challenges to Barry O’Farrell over electricity privatisation – if he refuses to play along, they’re rooted.
Turnbull will stay and get kudos for standing up for what he believes in. My prediction is that two of the grenades that Rudd has lobbed at Turnbull will end up in his lap:
a) Turnbull gets the credit for doing something, however imperfect, under difficult circumstances; Rudd will bear the criticism if it doesn’t work, and
ifwhen he comes back from Copenhagen having to amend it yet again.b) In other areas of policy, Rudd develops a reputation for making grand pronouncements and not following through on them (e.g. hospital reforms, infrastructure, whatever the hell Conroy and Macklin think they’re doing, &c.) – Turnbull’s perception as “a bit of a bastard but he gets things done” starts eating into Labor’s polling.
You get the feeling that for many of the Howard backbenchers his 2007 ETS policy was just one of those things he would do before an election and then drop when the job was done. The old “non-core” necessary but annoying promise that could be later easily jettisoned.
Mark@12: one to watch is Andrew Southcott, MP for Boothby. Southcott was Minchin’s pawn to counter Robert Hill’s attempts to move to the Reps in the ’90s. To my knowledge, Southcott has not resigned from the frontbench and nor has he called on Turnbull to go.
Brendon@25: riiight, that would be why the Libs just don’t get the whole Stern issue of risk mitigation whereas TBEOT certainly does (and this is where Turnbull will move on Rudd going forward, looking like Mr Sensible Pragmatist while Rudd looks like a nerdy public servant insisting people fill out forms). It is romantic nonsense to imply there is anyone at TBEOT who speaks to Turnbull and Hockey but not to Rudd and Swan (John Anderson might have been able to get the ear of TBEOT but Truss and Joyce cannot).
Ambigulous@75: Turnbull wasn’t in Parliament when Kyoto was signed. Robert Hill was the Environment Minister who went to Kyoto, got concessions for Australia and was shafted. Hill should have resigned – things woulda/coulda/shoulda been different. Oh well.
To me it just looks like the conservative side of politics (the ALP/Liberal/Nationals continuum) is having an internal re-alignment. I think instead of obsessing about and gloating over the Liberals’ split, the left needs to develop its own voice in opposition to the resurgent Labor version of conservatism – the acceptable face of Howardism.
John Passant, that’s just ridiculous.
Rudd leads the most progressive government since the Whitlam era. It’s certainly an improvement on the Keating Government.
I’m really starting to wonder if my comrades on the Left ever pick up a newspaper or follow what is happening with policy at all (too boring and old-politics in this po-mo age, I guess).
I was disturbed when someone at LP was genuinely ignorant of what Rudd was doing in the area of social/public housing. Rudd is building just under 20,000 new houses for crying out loud!
The level of ignorance of just how progressive the Rudd Government I find simply astonishing.
…meant to say just how progressive the Rudd Government is.
Ginja:
You’re both right and wrong. Rudd has a bet both ways on the conservative/progressive dichotomy. Strategic room enough for a tweak here, a tweak there.
Ginja@80 – yeah, Afghanistan, the Northern Territory intervention (with not one house built), workchoices lite, refugee policy that is the same as Howard’s, a climate change response that is to the right of Howard’s 2007 scheme…I guess calling me ignorant precludes debate and accusing me of not reading a newspaper let alone understanding the policy debates is a typical conservative calumny. Then the penny dropped – your post was a poor attempt at satire. Wasn’t it? If you want to further explore my ignorance Ginja, read my blog.
“The level of ignorance of just how progressive the Rudd Government I find simply astonishing.”
Jenny Macklin and welfare deform?
Not enough credit has been given to John Howard for this meltdown. His succession planning has been a triumph.
Otherwise agree with the general line above. Hockey merely has to stay sane – and Turnbull prevails. Vale Minchin and Abbott – once and for all – relegated to sit next to Wilson for the rest of their natural terms.
The broad centre is where the votes are – Rudd has to keep that in mind when deciding policy
I doubt Hockey wants to be the sacrificial lamb in 2010
“Vale Minchin and Abbott – once and for all – relegated to sit next to Wilson for the rest of their natural terms.”
Wow. That will cure them of their deluded belief that man made emissions play no part in………..
John Passant, there have been serious problems with the building of aboriginal housing in the NT, but tell me: how many houses did the Howard Government build again? The first budget of the Howard Government included very large budget cuts to aboriginal affairs.
Refugee policy that is the same as Howards? I could go into vast detail on just how wrong that is, from duration of detention, to TPVs, to requirements for refugees to pay back thier cost of detention, to allowing refugees to receive government support, to the rhetoric used (or not used) by the Rudd Government. Suffice it to say, I doubt many serious refugee advocates would agree with you.
And as someone who worked on the YRAW campaign, there are some aspects of the Fair Work regime I’m not crazy about, but you can’t tell this trade unionist there’s no difference between IR under Rudd and Work Choices. My union is using the new laws to recruit new members.
And I’m sure John Howard’s ETS – remember this was the man who actively wrecked international talks – would have been really impressive.
On every one of those issues there is a yawning gap between Labor’s postion and that of the Coalition.
If I were writing satire, it would be about the pointless, sisyphean task of speaking truth to silliness in the blogosphere.
I think the Liberals could have carried the majority of voters with a ‘let’s wait and see what happens at Copenhagen before we lock in our position’ line. It’s possible that Hockey, as leader, could still adopt that position, and ‘unite’ his party and not lose any votes.
All this “end of the world as we know it” talk about the Libs is fine but it ignores one very important point – the vast majority of the voting public have no idea about climate science or what an ETS, a CPRS or any other option is, nor what the proposed CPRS actually means for them individually or Australia and the World – environmentally and economically. Outside of government/politics it is only the greens, enviro-policy wonks and committed sceptics who really understand what all these things mean and how they mesh together. Ask average Joanne/Jo voter if nthey can answer a few basic questions about these things and they can’t – I have done this. I am unsuprised by the lack of knowledge, but it goes to the heart of the issue for the Libs – educate the public and they will understand why this dogs breakfasr must be opposed. Then the votes wil come back. Holding this out as some kind of ALP/DLP like schism is ridiculous overhyping by the media and leftists.
I have to give it to the Warmers – they have run an outstandingly effective PR campaign. They have learnt the lessons of the anti-nukes campaigns very well.
The sceptics, or as I prefer to call them – the rationalists (yes, there are a few crazies – both sides have them) really have dropped the ball. The campaign is only finally starting to get some traction and a critical part of that is getting people who were either socialy or professionally cowed from expressing their opinions to start doing so.
Some would call it push polling but I would like to see a poll that asks a question that reflects the reality:
“How much tax are you prepared to pay to support green house gas emmission reduction that will have no measurable environmental impact, cost jobs, stop invesmtent in new base load power stations and reduce our international rade competitiveness?”
The Gary Johns recommendation that a threshhold trigger clause be inserted is a very good idea that should have been included – the proposed CPRRS should not be able to come into effect until the vast majority of emmitters have there own equivalent systems in place and the vast majority of our trade competitors as well.
How much tax are you prepared to pay to support green house gas emission reduction that will have no measurable environmental impact, cost jobs, stop invesmtent in new base load power stations and reduce our international trade competitiveness?
Assumes multiple facts not in evidence.
“Assumes multiple facts not in evidence.”
Which ones?
Do you accept computer models as facts?
You’re comments are coming across in sepia, Razor. Check your browser settings.
John Passant, there have been serious problems with the building of aboriginal housing in the NT, but tell me: how many houses did the Howard Government build again? The first budget of the Howard Government included very large budget cuts to aboriginal affairs.
Ginja, Mr Passant is coming at things from a different angle to you. Rather than quibble about the things, you would do better to look at the angle.
Andrew E @ 78, I’m happy to see you’re getting irrationally exuberant about Turnbull’s chances against the almighty Rudd machine.
I want him to survive and thrive, though I am afraid for his sake (and your’s) that by now the job of a surviving and thriving Malcolm Turnbull is to act as the Coalition’s Neil Kinnock, not as an electoral giant killer. Restoring sanity & maintaining unity for the Libs is a long term project.
Yeah, well, if I was an ex-Labor minister who’d forsaken temporal politics for the cloistered world of shareholder-subsidised ivory towers I’d also pretend to still be interested in real world policy.
And why not? That gravy train funded by the worst pressure group ideas isn’t going to run up those expense accounts by itself, now is it?
The Gary Johns recommendation is a stalling dud. We can have no credibility n applying pressure to prevent rain forest stripping in 3rd world countries if we’re not prepared to make any carbon sacrifices ourselves.
Andrew E is sort of right. This siege of Turnbull has evoked a bit of sympathy which he never had before. If he survives he might be stronger.
Joca-cola, i mean The Big Sloppy Wet One, isn’t really a chance is he?!!?
Andrew E
On Kyoto, likely I meant RATIFIED not “signed”.
Ratty wouldn’t allow it to be ratified (and Turnbull was Minister by then, wasn’t he?)
This morning: Hockey had a long lunch with a former PM (not Gough, not Hawkie, not PJK; one more guess).
Was this
a) a clear signal to the Howard robotniks that he had blessed a Hockey candidacy?
b) to advise Hockey to wait until t=after the next election?
Saturday, Malcolm still claimed the full loyalty of Hockey.
****
Welcome to immigrant Australia: I hear that Hockey’s dad was Palestinian/Lebanese.
Ambigulous, I think you’ll find his family was from Armenia, but they could have been Callathumpian for all that matters.
As for his going to get advice from a retired old codger in Bennelong, well, that’s just talking to the base!
The Chrissie Milne FAIL on Meet The Press this AM showed politics taking precedence over climate action.
Update: New post on the latest thrills and spills.
Gary Johns – isn’t he the next Des Moore? The right have realised that what they need is lots of irrelevant quasi-academics engaging in microfeuds with one another, just like the left.
Ginja: could be worse, but the point is it could be better. And John Passant is right – if you do want a lesson in ignorance go straight to his blog, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Nickws@96: I’m touched that you’re looking out for my sake, even if you must be ungrammatical in doing so.
Ambigulous@99: Kyoto was Rattyfied. Turnbull entered Parliament in 2004 and became Minister at the start of 2007.
Howard has orchestrated the whole mass-resignation thing and needs Hockey to attack Turnbull from the left because the right are too weak to pull this one off. Howard would be trying to assure Hockey that Uncle Nick will look after him, good luck with that. The more time Hockey spends with Howard the less time Howard spends plotting.
The Greens have been completely hopeless on this whole exercise. I would be interested in seeing if a vote shift could happen from The Greens to a Turnbull-led “Green Liberal” team.
Mark made mention via a tweet of Bolt’s piece:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_smh_cant_even_see_the_column_let_alone_the_scandal/
which is truly strange. Part Munch-like scream of “look at me look at me, its all true”, part meja aginst us, but most surprisingly, also a salient warning to the climate alarmists (as Bolt delicately describes his opponents) that the East Anglia scandal has to be addressed.
The emboldment of the Minchoviks to oh so bravely throw themselves upon the funeral pyre of True Liberalism on Thursday rests in part I suspect to the feedback they’ve been receiving in their electoral offices since the East Anglia ’scandal’ broke. That that feedback may finally represent only a small minority of folk prone to climate denialism is yet to be revealed, but I would most desperately appreciate some polling figures from the last week as to what impact if any the East Anglia Affair has had upon public sentiment. The polls that Mark points to are heartening, but unfortunately all pre-EAA.
A number of commentators have also pointed to the failure of the government to respond aggressively enough to the right’s claims that ETS is a new tax regime which will devastate the economy (Treasury calculates that ETS will add a one-off increase of between 1 -1.5% to CPI, half of the impact of GST introduction). Why it fell to Gittens to articulate the positive impacts of ETS and not Wong or Rudd or Swan doing the doorstop or cozy meja moment is a failure of the Government’s strategic planning. Which has also left the door open for the Minchoviks to scare the horses (and hopefully ensure their feet are stuck in the stirrups as the old grey mares bolt down the paddock and over the creek)
Bernice, I suspect that the Galaxy Poll is probably about right, though it’s a very small sample (and it’d be difficult to weight 400) and the questions are a bit dodgy. If the CPRS is passed, or if it’s not passed, the ALP needs to actually communicate what it does, and to reinforce the climate change message. That won’t necessarily be all that easy, since the CPRS is complex, and it will be attacked for having no impact. So far their strategy has been to keep the focus on the Libs by just reciting “action on climate change”.
Razor@93
1. It’s not a tax
2. There is a level of GHG reduction that would make a long term difference (so this is really specious as well as spurious argument)
3. There is no evidence that the proposed CPRS will not “cost jobs” or “stop investment in new baseload power” especially as there will be a continuing demand for baselaod
4. There’s no evidence that anything touched by the CPRS will “reduce our international competitiveness” since all “our” major trade rivals will be doing similar and fluctuations in relative currency are of much greater magnitude in any event.
Yes, computer models are “facts” though their predictions are simply benchmarks containg error bars againsat which we can measure the direction of trends as we arrive there. Rational people use models all the time and anyone who says you can work without them in your personal life would be judged not competent to manage his or her own affairs.
Right now we send children to school even though we know that many of the jobs that exist today may not be there 12 years later. We do that because we think most of the skills we develop will be applicable in 12 years time and because we trust ourselves to be able to adjust as required. But we still need models of the future to get the forward planning in roughly the right place to be able to manoeuvre it into exactly the right place.
Using a computer model doesn’t make modelling less reliable. Done well, it can greatly narrow the range of potential error and allows for new refinement to be processed on timelines that make dew data useful.
Not the least bizarre aspect of the filth merchant tactics is the populist agnotology around “computer” models. Most people know as little of programming and processing within a CPU as they do of their cars or what keeps aircraft from dropping out of the sky, and the filth merchants exploit this FUD to pit “commmon sense” and intuition against the geeks.
Without computer models contemporary life would be very greatly poorer. Far more would be opaque to us. Yet the filth merchant agnotologists squeal in distress, doubtless because it makes it easier to rub shoulders with the “Young Earthers” and other anti-science nutbags.
The fact of the matter is that the Earth’s near surface has recived a massive GHG-driven boost in insolation since the 1970s. SImple physics forces the conclusion that the near surface must warm. It is warming and this too is measurable. Outgoing longwave measurement shows that this boost matches the spectra absorbed by CO2.
The basic science is settled and has been for a very long time.
Sorry for typos in previous posts.
THR: my comment about aboriginal housing was in the context of responding to a comment about there being little or no difference between Liberal and Labor.
Of course I’m not happy about the delays in building those houses (caused by the NT government, which to be fair isn’t much bigger than many local councils, it must be said), but would the Libs have even contemplated spending money on aboriginal housing? C’mon, get real, they didn’t in 11 years in office. There’s not a vote in it for that deeply cynical outfit – they prefered to hand out tax cuts to the well-off.
There isn’t a major issue I can think of where the difference between Labor and Liberal isn’t a large one. And very few where the Rudd Government hasn’t taken a decent, progressive position.
Gary Johns’s idea is pretty dopey. I imagine he pinched it from the health care debate in the US. The idea is that there could be a trigger for a “public option” if private insurers hadn’t brought down costs by a given date. It’s a gimmicky idea and really dumb when it comes to the CPRS because it just delays – adding to the costs – of building the new kind of infrastructure we need.
Mark: I think you are right about the Government needing to explain the CPRS.
Rudd should even consider asking for airtime on the ABC and the other networks to explain what the CPRS is and to clear away the misinformation spread by irresponsible demagogues like Barnaby Joyce.
Ginja, I notice you wisely passed over the opportunity to explain how the Jenny Macklin plan to treat all welfare recipients as child abusers, just in case they might be, is in any way “progressive”. Indeed, the policy was snatched directly from Tony Abbott.
The soundbites are amazing – Turnbull openly slamming the denialists in his own party, and supporting the govt bill. Depends a lot on Hockey, but nothing over the weekend has changed my bet – Turnbull to survive, last of Howard’s legacy to be killed off Tuesday.
I’d be delighted to be wrong , of course: 12 year minimum stint in the wilderness if the the LNP go denialist.
I have wondered why he CPRS has been explained so poorly. Beginning to think it is so if there is an early election and the Libs mount a fear campaign Rudd can then go and explain very clearly what the CPRS is how it will benefit many people and help getting emissions reduced.
If Rudd had already explained that it wouldn’t be news.
Or am I too cynical?
Joe 2: sorry I’ll knock that easy one-liner off, too. For the overwhelming number of people receiving single parent payments all it seems they have to do is occasionally provide evidence that their children are attending school and that will be the end of the matter. Wow, how horribly regressive.
I doubt the government is willing to waste billions prying deeply into the lives of the huge number of people receiving those payments. Try to use a bit of common sense people.
There is anecdotal evidence that the scheme is working in the NT. Combinded with the idea that Bob Debus has put forward about subsidizing nutrious food for these communities, and Labor might actually start to make inroads on health in these communities.
On denialism, there’s an interesting ariticle in the NY Times in the book review section under the title “Battling the Skeptics” (it would be great if someone could provide a link).
The reviewer makes the point that people just don’t trust those in authority anymore, and that includes scientists. Nowadays we have people like Andrew Bolt and Nick Minchin making twits out of themselves by appointing themselves scientists.
Fran @ 107
From online Dictionary.com:
“tax /tæks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [taks] Show IPA
Use tax in a Sentence
See web results for tax
See images of tax
–noun 1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
–verb (used with object) 3. (of a government) a. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.
4. to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one’s resources.
5. to take to task; censure; reprove; accuse: to tax one with laziness.
6. Informal. to charge: What did he tax you for that?
7. Archaic. to estimate or determine the amount or value of.”
The CPRS is a Tax.
“There is a level of GHG reduction that would make a long term difference”
. . . and even if Australia completely closed down today we wouldn’t make an ounce of difference.
“There is no evidence that the proposed CPRS will not “cost jobs” or “stop investment in new baseload power” especially as there will be a continuing demand for baselaod” . . . which is why the ALP had to agree to significantly increase the assistance to power generators (and require continuity of supply legislation) and trade exposed industries in their negotiatioons with the Libs. Why did they do that if it wasn’t needed? You must be reading very different economic analysis to what I am, as well as have a very different understanding of how commerce and international trade works.
You are not comparing apples with apples in your discourse on the use of computer models. Models of climate require super computers and even then they are inaccurate because the scientists do not fully understand how the climate works. There is clear evidence of confidence intervals being relaxed to try and match real world experience to the output from the models. Tim flannery finally admitted last week to the uncertainties in the wake of the UEA CRU hacking scandal.
@76, how will Turnbull be perceived as someone who “gets things done” while he’s opposition leader, if he survives Monday’s further blood-letting? The only things he’ll continue to do are the things he’s been doing up to now; posturing, demonstrating his lack of judgment, being bloody minded and talking down to his inferiors.
However, I think he will retain the leadership simply because there isn’t anyone else, not because of his so-called principled stand.
@89, I thought that was the libs original position, but it appears the Munchkin couldn’t contain himself.
I think what’s happening with the libs at the moment is the bloodletting they had to have after eleven-odd years in the Rodent’s thrall, to paraphrase a certain former PM.
I do think everyone is getting unnecessarily excited at the prospect of the Libs copping a massive hiding in 2010, delightful though that prospect is. A week is a long time in politics, let alone a year.
I also think the meeja’s still unable to reconcile itself to the fact that the Rodent Party no longer rules. As for the architect of the current unseemly cannibalism, I don’t think he gives a rodent’s.
Mark @ 106
Yes, that would be nice if the ALP (and the Lib supporters) actually did explain to the public what the CPRS will do and cost.
Not much to ask really for it to be explained before they impose one of the greatest tax and transfer systems to the economy since Federation.
Might be nioce to do before it was actually made an Act of Parliament.
Anyone got a Birthday Cake handy?
Razor, re: CPRS you project an air of certainty about the CPRS and what it will cost and what it will do. I do hope no computer models were harmed in the forming of your opinion.
Perhaps you have some pretty data and models tucked away in your computer’s hard drive to have such a high confidence level about your predictions? Would you, in the spirit of open enquiry, share the data and source code that lead you to this conclusion..?
And while you’re at it, would you care to explain the basis of your belief that climate computer models are junk, but economic analyses predicting DOOM are to be treated as holy writ?
In fact, no, don’t answer that. This is way too important to waste your time explaining it to us on a blog. Quick! Go and apply for Ken Henry’s job. Your country needs you!
sorry for length..a few days worth
I don’t think the Govt should be content with current polling on ETS. Having said that I don’t the next election will be fought on this one issue, nor do I think the Govt will not be returned, but I do think they need to start countering the the ETS spin..like six months ago.
Like the Republican debate, the ETS has become a confusing technical three/four way issue with the Greens coming from the direct election model side and this doesn’t automatically mean that Labor is perceived by voters as being responsible & in the middle etc..it also translates as purely ‘negative’ noise for the Govt’s ETS position by swinging voters who don’t and won’t ever get past headlines/30 sec grabs.
Polling wise, like the Republican debate, the further you get from the GPO, the more the anti-vote increases.
I was going to post the the other night, and then yesterday morning, before I got quickly re-acquainted with the NSW public hospital system vis my old mum taking another tumble, in respect of Hartcher’s piece in the Sat. SMH on the falling support for ETS falling since 2006 and blaming the Govt for not prosecuting the case, preferring to play politics. Although Rudd gave a substantial speech last month and it was reported merely as a hissy hit over denialists(!)…..but I agree that the Govt needs to climb down.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/floundering-against-the-global-current-20091127-jwwb.html
The other side have their ducks lined up esp. for city voters – it’s a just a tax, it’s the wrong model that doesn’t cut emissions, and it won’t come into operation until 2011, so no need to pander to Rudd’s need to strut world stage and pass it quickly … and they have only started their campaigning full-on over the past few months (aside from Bolt and the Nats who’ve been hammering away for much longer) and the polling as per Possum’s mid Nov post and Hartcher’s reveals significant slides in the AGW position across the entire electorate, not just in the Liberal base.
Of course, it doesn’t help having an ABC where denialists are given more than equal time, however this Govt has often been slow to react on a number of issues, and overly reliant on justifying their actions on purely technical grounds well after the horse has ‘bolted’, rather than setting the agenda.
As far as I’m concerned, this was Howard’s not-so-secret strategy of winning four elections. Every afternoon with a gaggle of eager microphones with John on the fourth step working up opposition talking points before the opposition had made them, total straw men city and then countering them with his suburban plain speak agenda. (The media would then troop off to attack the Opposition using Howard’s rebuttal of his own straw men talking points)….. and it went on like this for frigging years….ahh, flashback……..ok forget Howard, basically the Govt needs to climb down and starting KISSing some voters.
Razor: Treasury has, of course, put out its estimates of the price rises. They’re are much less than the GST prices rises. It’s a safe bet that Treasury has been extra cautious as it usually is in these things – see the stimulus – and the cost will be even less than they predict.
The hyperventilating by the Coalition is out of all proportion with the actual economic cost.
I assume you’re alluding to John Hewson’s embarrassing performance over the GST in the ‘96 election. That was a issue because small business people across the contry are involved in the collection of the GST. Unless a small business person happens to own a coal mine or power station, they won’t be caught up in red tape in the way they have been with the GST. It’s a nice try by the Minchinites, but it’s a silly analogy. Sort of like the idea that a big advertising campaign by business would save Work Choices – wishful thinking.
…sorry ‘93 election.
Mercurius – you make some excellent points.
No I don’t have any certainty except that both the economic and climate modelling will not be accurate. I professionally live and die by economic forecasting and hasn’t that been fun recently!
I suppose that was irony about releasing all the data and code in the spirit of open enquiry, as opposed to climate modellers at UEA CRU.
The push for anti-carbon climate change action is reliant on climate modellers being right, economic modellers being right and from Austrlia’s perspective, the rest of the world doing something. If we apply a probabilities based approach, and assume the probability of climate modellers being accurate as 70%, economic forecasters being accurate of 70% and the rest of the world actually taking effective action as 30% then the probability of getting a “correct outcome” is 14.7%.
I think I have been very generous in my probabiltiy assumptions. In my opinion those odds suck, and I am a betting man.
Razor, you’re entitled to your opinions. You’re even entitled to make assertions, if you like. But you’re not entitled to demand that Penny Wong and the government should use your hunches as a basis for the formation of national energy policy.
Just sayin’
But still, why not pop those probabilities on the back of a napkin and leave them on Ken Henry’s regular table in his favourite restaurant? You just might save us all from economic DOOM!!!1!!11!
And just in case you forget, please remember, these are the rules
Razor corrected as follows:
* probability of disasters if no action: 100%
* probability of economists having anything useful to say about cost of doing what’s needed based on probability that science can give them sufficiently accurate numeric parameters: 0%
* chance of rest of world being any better than us at resisting vested interests: pretty slight, but better if we ante up
* point of multiplying odds of above three factors, or similar: none
Alphonse
Your 100% probability of disaster forecast – is that gloabl or local? Just wondering, because on a global and continental scale there are going to be winners and losers from climate change, natural or manmade, just as in most things in life. And as for the ability of Academics, Governments, Bureaucrats and the UN to pick winners -there is one born every day.
Your second point would appear to nullify the basis of the CPRS – the Garnautt Report (and even he thinks the CPRS is manure.)
And your third point is exaectly right – wjy should little old Australia commit economic Hari Kari when the likelihood of the rest of the world following suit so slim? We can’t get all nations to sign the UN Convention on Refugees or the Doha round of trade talks yet the NDCs want us to pump billions their way?? How is that rational??
Razor @121:
FYI. Data and code availability indexed here
Counter to the expectations of the punditariat, with Guru Kelly leading from the front just this morning: “Joe Hockey will shout it (the necessity of an ETS) from the rooftops”, Joe went to see the nice Mr Howard who told him to run that bad man Malcolm Turnbull out of town. Never mind that you agree with him on principle, the point is no one likes a smart-arse, Mr Howard advised. Well, seeing as the Team on Twitter failed to come up with any clues, Joe will run on Rodent-inspired advice. Boy oh boy, talk about a cup runneth over with Polonium 210. Have a sip, Joe.
Mark @ 106: I’ve said here that Rudd will go backwards in NSW and think that your comments about the lack of explanation behind CPRS will only reinforce this.
What is happening now is that the Libs are basically defining it – Joyce and the far-right Libs as a tax grab and the end of capitalism in Australia, and Turnbull and Hockey in attempting to counter these perceptions (and of course the idea that the CPRS is basically the same as that proposed by Howard largely off the cuff in 2007). Adding to this has been the whole line from Rudd, Gillard and Wong that the Liberals “have a responsibility” to pass the CPRS. Keep that up and you have an issue that the Liberals own.
What the Libs then do is what Labor Premiers have been doing since Carr in the mid ’90s, and run against Labor governments. Labor’s nightmare scenario is for this legislation to be passed, for it to have a few teething problems and for Turnbull to represent himself as the only one who can be trusted to tweak it a bit and run environmental policy “properly”, while Rudd is left defending a status quo that nobody wants.
Jane@115: well then don’t vote Liberal. What I’m asking there is for you to get over yourself enough to imagine that you’re paying less attention to the issues than you do, i.e. the sort of person who voted Labor in ‘07 but who voted for Howard beforehand, and who may be susceptible to voting Liberal again.
Grammar folks. That’s what done gets a response from teh last liberal!
Though in my defence I think the poor grammar Andrew E thinks he identifies is just common post-19th century English usage.
On Radio National, Fran asked the Newspoll boss why Liberal Party ructions hadn’t increased the Labor lead. He said that it can’t go any higher; it’s been 57:43 (2PP) throughout the term of the Govt; only 4% higher for Govt than when they won office.
Sounds like a “natural upper bound” theorem. Still, 57:43 at a general election, were it to occur, would be spectacular in its consequences.
He also said that Liberal warfare only seems to affect the Libs’ primary vote, rather than the overall 2PP. (Does he mean Lib voters scurry away to minor parties, then drift back when a new, steady hand is on the tiller?)
Possum?