Developments yesterday and today in the Liberal leadership spill should only reinforce the belief that Malcolm Turnbull’s survival as leader would be the Liberal party’s only sane option.
Joe Hockey went to lunch with John Howard, didn’t reply to any of the tweets he received, and is being spoken of by some Liberal MPs as the new Peter Costello – not wanting to grab the leadership, and waiting for it to be handed to him on a platter. I’m not at all sure going to see the ghost of Wollstonecraft to ask what to do enhances his reputation for decisiveness, either.
Meanwhile, NSW Liberal Party state director Mark Neeham has emailed his executive to advise that public opinion is on the side of Malcolm Turnbull, while the hard right have finally realised that Turnbull will win against Abbott.
Wayne Swan has given Hockey a preview of what’s ahead for him if he runs:
My message to Joe Hockey is pretty simple – don’t sell out to the climate-change deniers and sceptics; keep your word. A couple of days ago you said it was in the national interest to do something about climate change and to support the [carbon pollution reduction scheme]. Well, don’t sell out for your own selfish political interests on climate change.
And, this morning, Kevin Andrews has said that he won’t rule out being a candidate again on Tuesday.
It’s all vastly entertaining, but perhaps not if you’re a Liberal. They must surely have realised by now that the Minchkins’ push has succeeded only in rendering “Anyone But Turnbull” a suicidal option. Perhaps Abbott and his crew of has beens and never has beens should gracefully retire to the farthest of the far back benches with Mad Uncle Winston? That whole bright idea of resigning en masse from the front bench isn’t looking as clever now as they thought it was.
Update: Malcolm Turnbull has been having a fun time on Laurie Oakes, questioning whether Abbott changes his mind too much, accusing Minchin and crew of bullying and intimidating the party room, and firing a shot across Hockey’s bow – pointedly observing that he’s not in the business of being anyone’s puppet or frontman. However, he also asserts that Hockey assured him of his support as recently as last night.
As Phil observed on Twitter, Turnbull has handed Labor about a million talking points if he loses – perhaps most significantly his accusation that a Liberal party with Minchin pulling the strings risks becoming a fringe party of the hard right. Which is true, when you think about it.
To quote Phil again – “Turnbull has burned all the canoes in this interview, they either go with him or they are finished.”
Elsewhere: Possum contemplates the electoral prospects of the Spillists.
Update: Joe Hockey has been meeting with Peter Dutton at his Sydney home, sparking speculation that his run is on. Presumably his meeting with Howard yesterday gives symbolic legitimacy to some sort of claim to be in the Liberal apostolic succession, unlike Turnbull. It seems unlikely that if Hockey does run, Turnbull will step aside. Andrews might also run as a candidate of those who won’t support a moderate under any circumstances.
Update: Sky News is reporting a Hockey/Dutton ticket is firming, with Abbott to take Treasury.
Update: Howard’s obviously been leaking – he’s the kingmaker, not Minchin.
Update: Peter Martin critiques Joe Hockey’s record.
Update: New post on all the latest.
It has been delicious watching the Liberal Party stop a millimetre from destroying itself and even more delicious that the CPRS will be passed. Also the comments from Chinese and Indian Leaders that they will move in the direction of reducing emissions (or emissionsions intensity) is all good.
I have been thinking of 1975 and following the LP shenanigans with a broad smile on my face.
Update: Malcolm Turnbull has been having a fun time on Laurie Oakes, questioning whether Abbott changes his mind too much, accusing Minchin and crew of bullying and intimidating the party room, and firing a shot across Hockey’s bow – pointedly observing that he’s not in the business of being anyone’s puppet or frontman. However, he also asserts that Hockey assured him of his support as recently as last night.
As Phil observed on Twitter, Turnbull has also handed Labor about a million talking points if he loses – perhaps most significantly his accusation that a Liberal party with Minchin pulling the strings risks becoming a fringe party of the hard right. Which is true, when you think about it.
To quote Phil again – “Turnbull has burned all the canoes in this interview, they either go with him or they are finished.”
I think comparing Hockey with Costello is a bit harsh – Hockey seems to be genuinely likable, for a start.
According to Saturday’s AFR, on Tuesday Minchin’s people were calling Hockey “a fatter, stupider version of Turnbull”. On Friday they became his best mate.
He’d look like the Last Emperor of China being the titular head of Japanese controlled Manchuria in the 1930s if he took this gig.
Hehe.
The 72 virgins Kevin Andrews won for his previous suicide attack must have been unacceptable to his eyes.
I think he appeared on morning tv to prove that he’s not undead.
Did he succeed?
Not if he arrived at the studio in a black limo with darkened windows.
Malcolm Turnbull’s survival as leader would be the Liberal party’s only sane option
Maybe – I don’t have too many problems with him other than his mishandling of the Republic issue, and that his policies are indistinguishable from those of KRudd. I think that part of the explanation of KRudd’s insane approval rating is that many previous Liberal voters think that they may as well support a [perceived] conservative Labor leader in preference to a progressive Liberal leader.
If Abbott gets up, the results in the polls will be most interesting.
Andrews could have been making a play for the Buffy demographic…
He’s no Spike, though.
As has been made quite clear from recent events, self-knowledge isn’t a prerequisite for political prominence.
Not only do we have to endure Kelly’s drone on insiders, but the platform is being hijacked by Bolt to spread his denialist propaganda. Gillard was sinister good, she’s diabolical!
“You can’t govern the country by tweet”… And I loved her invoking Howard to wedge the denialist Libs!
I was making coffee, what were Gravitas Kellius’ two Hockey conditions?
No one can remember. They were highly portentous though.
I think (a) was that he gets handed the leadership by Turnbull.
As Barrie Cassidy no doubt rightly said, neither of the two conditions will be met. The second, I think, followed on from the first happening.
(b)nick minchins testicles in a golden chalice.
That may have been it!
Elsewhere: Possum contemplates the electoral prospects of the Spillists.
So why did Joe Hockey go to see Howard? The only reason I can think of was to get an advanced tutorial in deceiving and lying to the electorate.
On the one hand I sort of want Malcolm to win this contest, but on the other hand if he loses the only Opposirtion we are likely to have will be an ultra-far right party rid of all its moderates. And one day, in the far distant future, they will be the Government again. That’s frightening.
What of this last Friday Galaxy poll claiming that a whopping majority of voters don’t want the CPRS passed without getting more information? In other words, the article suggests that they don’t want the legislation passed in the Senate on Monday. I would have thought that people would have had ample time to avail themselves of the details by now, but there it is…
Howard a mentor for Joe Hockey! Hilarious! One wonders what Howard is really thinking right now? It’s twenty years since Iron Bar Tuckey boasted so publicly on TV about how they did the dirty on Howard himself! That has to count as a plus for Turnbull.
This crowd apart from Turnbull aren’t nearly as intelligent but the “electoral college” power struggle reminds one of C.P.Snow’s “The Masters”.
Sorry, the link didn’t work – http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26416092-421,00.html
Hockey is no leader. They’d be completely insane to……….oh!
There just isn’t anyone in the Libtards who has any talent!! Turnbull, while he may be a good merchant banker and highly intelligent, is no leader of people. He doesn’t have the discipline, political acumen or judgement to pull the liberals into a cohesive group. Much as I dislike the Rodent, he had that ability.
Turnbull’s dismissive arrogance is very off-putting as well. I realise anyone who claws their way to the top has to possess self-confidence and a degree of arrogance, but Turnbull’s arrogance goes beyond self-belief. I’m convinced he believes that he’s far too clever for the rest of us plebs and we should all bow down to his crushing intellect.
Having said all that, there just isn’t anyone else who stands out. If they elect a denier, there’ll be even more blood on the forum floor and while it’s vastly entertaining to watch them savaging each other, it’s a poor outcome for the country. But I suppose another few days won’t hurt.
If theyform a far-right Party they will disappear being way too far from the mainstream community.
All of this is just the expression of what Possum has been banging on about, the Libs’ two mutually contradictory bases.
@23 – small sample (400), and it’s one of those polls where one wonders how slanted the questions are. Having said that, the ALP has to move beyond just reciting “we’re doing something about climate change” and explaining the CPRS.
If The Greens had some political nous they would announce their support for the CPRS today.
Then the ALP would only need the support of Nick Xenophon (who is broadly onside) plus one Liberal. And they would almost certainly get support from Gary Humphries from the ACT.
Then it would be game over Monday and a genuine shift in Australian politics in a more “Green” direction. Climate change deniers would have lost their biggest battle.
Best line of the day – from Possum Pollytics
Commenter Nippler Quigley:
Commenter BK:
“If The Greens had some political nous they would announce their support for the CPRS today.”
That would surely spell the end of The Greens, Terry. Just like Meg Lees, the G.S.T. and the sinking of The Democrats.
Nick Xenophon, the media tart, wants a carbon tax, doubt he supports the cap and trade CPRS and in any case if helping to sink it gets him media exposure he would do it.
The Greens are playing politics on this their basic belief thinking they will get more support/voters by opposing the CPRS.
Numbskulls the lot of them!
But The Greens can never get beyond the 8% of the vote they currently get as long as they are hog-tied to their anti-capitalist base. Its clearly not paying off for them in Bradfield and Higgins, where they would be doing much better given all that is happening with the Libs if they didn’t have Clive Hamilton as their candidate, who requires a moral denunciation of everything they do rather than the opportunity to make a tactical statement on the folly of the Mincheviks and the CC deniers.
My bet is that Hockey won’t run. he’ll cite family reasons (little kids etc) and everyone will say fairy nuff.
If he runs and The Senate refers the legislation, what then? The Libs will eventually have either pass of block it. By then we’ll (perhaps April) be we’ll be in election mode and Joe will have to stump up a policy. The electorate will be saying didn’t we vote on this three years ago? BTW North Sydney hasn’t always been a Liberal seat.
I was musing on this yesterday as I walked past Kirribilli Anglican Church, which was holding it’s monthly fair trade market.
I don’t now if anyone watched Inside Business this morning? But Alan Koehler had the CEO of Origin Energy and the head of The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network. The AIGN guy was basically saying that the CPRS is a new tax and quoting figures like a 50% increase in energy costs and that this is all a massive new tax which will fill the treasury coffers. The Origin CEO (remember he actually RUNS an energy company)was much more positive about the CPRS. He was saying that the passing of the CPRS bill would actually be better for Origin. At the end Koehler does an opinion piece in which he says (amongst other things)that the projected 30% increase in power costs is a direct result of Australia’s failure to implement the recommendations from The Kyoto Protocol.
It’s worth watching the whole programme.
Jovial Monk @31, if it is true that Xenophon wants a carbon tax, that is an improvement on the silly Frontier Economics proposal.
Have you had some delicious beer while watching the Liberals almost destroy themselves?
Paul Kelly pointed out that either Malcolm Turnbull would win Tuesday’s ballot or he’d lose. See, you just don’t get that kind of stuff by sitting at your PC in Glebe or Fitzroy or wherever the hell you people come from. You have to have broken every major political story – and sat on a few more – since Billy Hughes told you he was fed up with the Labor Party, and that he meant it this time. That’s why journalists have it all over bloggers – they just can’t piece it together, they need us professionals for that.
Sorry, Mark – but is this not what I got pilloried for saying on the other thread?
If he survives, the outcome will be simple – the CPRS passed, less conservatives on the front bench and the issue dealt with inside the Libs – then, in a few years when the Libs are back in government this whole thing can be revisited and updated as the science and international concensus improves and changes.
If Turnbull survives Tuesday (or is it Monday?).
Well, just reiterating the Greens position: they essentailly support the CPRS as detailed by Ross Garnaut – the government appointed economic expert; and beleive the cuts proposed are too small.
When all the hoohaa dies down, and the CPRS is passed, the ALP then confront the next challenge: Copenhagen is back on, it will deliver actual cuts, greater than 5% and the CPRS cant deliver. Its just not up to the job. Because there’s too much compo, the timetable is too slow, and the cuts proposed are too small.
So, it will be back to the drawing board, and practically everything the Greens said about it will come to pass.
They’ve been sidelined by Rudd’s bipartisan strategy, along with Xenophon and Fielding – and fair enough, that’s politics. But the Greens will emerge fine from this, and are odds-on to have sole BOP after 2010.
Xenophon wants to fiddle around with the free permit allocation scheme.
Frankly, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, as best I understand it.
Andrew E, thanks for insightful Kelly update. Was the phrase “moment of truth” intoned at any point on this Insiders piece of #gravitas.
Jovial Monk@31: The Greens would dearly love a DD election because as a result of a reduced quota they would most likely gain more senators. Hence their refusal to pass the legislation and thus give Rudd, ostensibly, a trigger for a DD. Following from that after a DD election it is almost certain that they alone would control the balance of power in the senate, the LP/NP Coalition being dealt out of the game altogether and Fiedling gone. In that likely scenario the ALP would have to negotiate a more stringent emissions scheme with the Greens. That is one of the main reasons why Rudd will not be keen on a DD – he would rather negotiate with what’s left of the Libs, even if it meant sending the Bill to a committee. Also, a DD may not automatically mean the passage of ALP’s legislation after a joint sitting as there could be a High Court challenge if it is not clear that the Bill was actually technically denied; at the very least it will delay the enacting of the Bill into law.
Lefty E,
Which means that the Liberal’s original position, to wait until after Copenhagen, makes sense.
It was just a pity that Brown was not out there shouting that from the rooftops to undermine Rudd’s political strategy – and to box the Lib right into supporting that position. If he had been, then the political momentum from the government in favour of the current fudge may have been blunted.
Either way, The Greens have had zero impact on this debate, which is extraordinary, and points to a real lack of tactical nous. They needed an asylum seeker boat to enter Australian waters to get noticed no less than the Libs did.
I suppose so AR – but not for the reasons the Lib right hoped for (failure at Copenhangen taking pressure off).
Unless that CPRS has mechanisms that can be tinkered with more than is apparent ; or other non-CPRS emission cuts can be mobilised, the govt may find themselves in a pickle here.
But we don’t really know all the answers to that, since the CPRS is so poorly detailed and not really understood.
Incidentally, I *have* heard Brown & Christine Milne saying it locks in failure. Thats been their consistent message for months.
Well, all you’re saying Terry is that they arent in government, and dont have the BOP in the Senate. Which isnt exactly news.
But – they will very likely be proved right after Copenhagen (unlike *both* the ALP and Libs), and are also likely to have sole BOP after the next election.
Onward and upward.
I have heard it too, Lefty E – but soto voce. If they had come out right after the Libs said “wait until after Copenhagen” (not before – the Right would not have wanted to be in the same bucket as the Greens) and said “We agree with waiting until after Copenhagen and then implementing that agreement” and then kept saying it ad nauseum the political force would have been irresistable. Rudd would not have been able to put this through – or at least he would have been brave to try and one thing he is not is politically brave.
Apart from anything else, this is yet another demonstration of how naive the Greens are.
“Incidentally, I *have* heard Brown & Christine Milne saying it locks in failure. Thats been their consistent message for months.”
Their position has been loud and clear even though typically neglected.
It is more a case of journo preference for the media tart, twins… Barnaby and Steve. They sing, dance and make fools of themselves and that fills in the boring Canberra days.
agreed joe2, the media seem to avoid the greens unless they can portray the greens as some kinda of irrelevant loony fringe dwellers. I think it’s quite deliberate, they certainly don’t want to give any credibility to the greens for anything.
Aunty is reporting that Hockey and Dutton? will be having a press conference this afternoon to announce they will take on Turnbull. Sounds about right given the trip Joe made to see Howard.
Yes, Murdoch has an open fatwa on the Greens – and its always gets ramped up before election time.
Andrew, I think you’re also forgetting that 3 weeks ago, Copenhagen looked like a deadset failure. It looks less so now.
The Libs cooked up their strategy (delay now, and then forget about it later when the international pressure doesn’t come) in that earlier environment. They are the ones who have been proven naive.
What the Greens were pushing for was a more effective agreement with biggers cuts NOW. Thats pretty much why they werent saying “We agree with waiting until after Copenhagen”, if you’re wondering – because they oppose delays on action. Of course, that doesnt mean they want an immediate agreement which locks in failure.
I fail to see any naivete in that approach – its actually just confronting the inevitable. The ALP will have to as well – but not before they bust the coalition apart. That’s not troubling me much – as long the confrontation with reality happens soon afterward.
The Beazleyfication of Hockey continues…
All the niceness is gone.
No pairing in the Senate as the ALP whip can’t agree with a non-existant Liberal whip on who to pair with whom.
The senate vote will be called at 9.01 AM on Tuesday after sitting all night. Liberal Senators will face a choice of party room vote or ETS vote. The all nighter might kill a few of the older Liberals.
“The all nighter might kill a few of the older Liberals.”
We can only live in hope, Dave.
Update: Joe Hockey has been meeting with Peter Dutton at his Sydney home, sparking speculation that his run is on. Presumably his meeting with Howard yesterday gives symbolic legitimacy to some sort of claim to be in the Liberal apostolic succession, unlike Turnbull. It seems unlikely that if Hockey does run, Turnbull will step aside. Andrews might also run as a candidate of those who won’t support a moderate under any circumstances.
Update: Sky News is reporting a Hockey/Dutton ticket is firming, with Abbott to take Treasury.
Hockey and Dutton as compromise candidates?
They won’t be anything beyond puppets – what upside does this have for Hockey?
To be a well behaved stooge wheeled out as needed?
The far right faction is aiming for eliminating the influence of Turnbull and stuff what policy conflict or excuse is used.
Turnbull has been enemy No I since the defeat.
Dutton? Will he even have a seat after the next election? Newspoll of Queensland 9-12/11/09 (link to the pdf on Poll Bludger <a href=http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/11/16/newspoll-56-44-11/comment-page-34/ ) has 2PP ALP 53% Coalition (Dutton) 47%
Or has a Lib/Nat decided to resign in his favour?
Good ol’ duplicitous joe!
Still, I suppose it’s part of the job description for a latter day liberal.
And Hockey will be easier pickings for Rudd. I was starting to get the feeling that a few too many people, from the wrong quarters, were beginning to warm to Mal just because he stood up for something, once.
Hockey-phobe that I am I have found it hard to believe that he would prove loyal to Turnbull and do the right thing and help push through the ETS. Yet surely even he can see it would be an act of political suicide to go with the delayers?
Does it follow that meeting Peter Dutton (surely the most lack-lustre leadership hopeful the Liberals have had for at least 20 years) means that he is considering a joint ticket with him for Tuesday? Maybe he is taking the opportunity for a frank man-to-man explanation of the other course he has chosen i.e. staying with Turnbull who seemed this morning to think he still had Hockey’s unqualified assurance of support?
Mind you that brilliant Andrew Bolt who is across all aspects of climate science did suggest on Insiders today that Hockey lacks intellectual discipline. It seems he is incapable of following the argument against anthropogenic global warming! If Hockey joins Dutton in a challenge then I could find myself agreeing with Andrew Bolt! Not just lacking discipline, he must be an intellectual moron!
Oh dear, it’s so hard to know what to believe about all this. Perhaps I should ask my Facebook friends what they think! Then I can decide.
Sky News is reporting a Hockey/Dutton ticket is firming, with Abbott to take Treasury
Wouldn’t that be fun? Hockey who favoured passing the bill as recently as last night could be called puck, for more reasons than one, and have a s a deputy someone who wanted to walk away from standing when he couldn’t have the seat of his choice and have in his team someone who can’t make up his mind what he thinks about anything, unless it involves offending someone or looking stupid.
All of them look like sockpuppets for “faceless men”. Turnbull won’t go quietly either, you have to think.
If Hockey runs things certainly look worse for Talcum. What are the Lib Senate numbers like for Turnbullites, anyone? Could they CPRS out of spite? The Mincheviks could hardly complain about having the rug pulled out, and keep a straight face.
If Howard’s had a crack, my guess is the play could be: Hockey-led LNP defers vote, cans CPRS for now, develop non-CPRS emissions strategy that wedges Rudd from left by going for higher nominal cuts.
Rudd’s played this less well than he thinks – 5% is pretty bloody easy to trump which a bunch of non-CPRS reduction policies, illusory or otherwise.
Waters muddied, reverse wedgie.
This is what I had to say on Peter Black’s blog: Malcolm Turnbull is correct. The ETS has been a policy issue for both parties for a number of years. Following numerous reports both scientific & then political ie The Stern Report & then the Govt Green & White Papers the opposition including the sceptics have had ample opportunity to debate climate change. More than that the opposition engaged in a bilateral negotiation with the Govt. The opposition sought and received huge consessions through a several week negotiation which gives all time to adjust to an ETS. This was agreed upon and signed off on by the opposition party room with its leader having the final say.
It seems the Climate sceptics amongst the Opposition have been disingenuous all along. They didn’t really want the consessions to the ETS Bill, rather they didn’t want any ETS or action on Climate Change period. In my view if the sceptics in the Co-alition win this contest they will lose not only for the party; but the individual seats at the next election. We all as Australians lose because any action taken in the future will require stronger more onerous CPRS policies. Meanwhile we are likely to be left behind as other countries implement ETS policies. It will not be Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie Hoy Hoy Hoy ! but rather Shame Australia Shame!
In theory, yep, Lefty E, but surely complicated by the fact that a stack of Hockey’s party room support would be deniers.
And didn’t Turnbull already try that move when Hunt was still the climate change point dude?
Is this the same “Dutton” who recently wanted to be parachuted into a safe true-blue Liberal seat, but couldn’t even convince the local blue rinse party branches to endorse him? And had to crawl back to his existing party branches and ask for forgiveness for wanting an easier ride elsewhere?
At the last federal election, the Liberal party banners were just miles of uncompromising black plastic – that wrapped all the nation’s school fences like a medieval shroud – prior to a massive nation-wide funeral.
So Maxine McKew’s election night dance really was a “dance on your grave ’til I’m sure that your dead!”
Let the wake begin in earnest!
“Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen – A Toast: Good riddance to all those Liberal Party ghosts: May they rot in the Dust-bin of history: Here’s to Pig-Iron Bob aiding and abetting the Japanese war machine with the sale of raw materials; that conniving Harold Holt and his genocidal attacks on the people of Vietnam through his: “All the way with LBJ”; Malcolm Fraser and his punitive Razor Gang, and last but not least – to that aweful little “Honest” Johnnie Howard and his catatonic vision and incantations of a re-birth of an 1850′s Australia full of fear and loathing.
Here’s to the 21st Century and a new era!”
It’s hard to see how a Liberal Party led by ‘anyone but Turnbull’ could have enough credibility on the issue of climate change. Hockey could develop whatever policy he liked; I doubt anyone concerned about the issue would listen to him.
Thats true Mark – he did tilt at direction that with the Biochar-based proposal thingy – but that didn’t seem to survive scrutiny for long.
Which only points to the wider problem – a leadership change isnt actually going to do get them out of this mess they’re in.
But you get the sense in crash through or crash for some – a recognition style struggle from the conservatives. All material and electoral considerations have been thrown to the wind in a visceral and personal stoush: someone “progressive” will not carry our flag into the coming slaughter.
Ironically, the leadership of the Liberal Party couldn’t muster the bottle to tap John Howard on the shoulder when in the interests of the party it was time for him to go.
Now, the one aspirant for the position of leader who has a vague chance to preserve the party from extinction feels the need to chat with the man whose absence of political nous has driven the party to its present terminal state.
I hope Howard gave Hockey some truly excellent advice.
Peter Wood at #35
No, no beer of any kind yet. Been gardening when the sun was covered by clouds when it was bright I has on-line at my little politics site, Pollbludger and here at LP. funny kind of a day.
Will be drinking some amber fluid soon tho!
Katz wrote:
That’s what Minchin is doing now – there wasn’t much love lost between Howard and Minchin (a man, it appears, who hates everybody), so Minchin is finally having his long stewed over victory.
I am utterly shattered that we won’t have an Abbort led denialism / far right / religious ratbag party. Kevin Andrews just doesn’t cut it in the nutjob stakes for me. Hockey will merely be a pinata for Gillard, I’m not sure Rudd (who prefers the long, carefully thought out chess game) will bother directly with a buffoon.
And what’s not to laugh about when famed sports reporter Andrew Bolt accuses somebody of being an intellectual lightweight. He can’t be serious any more, the visage is starting to crack (check is garbled OMGWTF at the end of that ridiculous Barrie Cassidy show this morning). Clearly he’s just a performance artist.
The buzz and bookies suggest that Hockey will run, which probably means he will. Therefore Turnbull and the ETS are finished.
But so are Hockey and the LP.
If Hockey runs he will a lame duck from Day 1:
– disloyal: reneged his promise to not run against Turnbull;
– unprincipled: flip-flopped on the ETS, which he supported;
– poisoned chalice: the LP is doomed in the next election, double-doomed if it runs as climate change deniers or delayers;
– shot his bolt: he is young and making his run too soon
– guilt by association: he will be seen by the majority as beholden to loonies.
This sort of thing used to happen to the Left ALP. But the Right of the L/NP seem to have picked any all the Lefts old vices, with none of their virtues.
It seems that nothing can save a party from itself once its base gets in the grip of an enthusiasm.
Of the cuff thought … if Turnbull were to lose on Tuesday, what are the chances of him splitting from the party and taking a bunch of the moderates with him, Don Chipp style?
I suspect it’s the kind of thing that only he could pull off.
The poisoned dwarf gave Hockey the nod in his piece in today’s Sunday Mail. Unfortunately I can’t provide a link. As I said previously, I don’t think Hockey is leadership material, but a change is as good as a holiday. Any odds on the next bloodbath?
Hockey is a good talker but rarely says anything worth listening to. He’s great in opposition. He just repeats today’s mantra and the funny line until the writers give him new ones. Personability isn’t the best criterion for selecting a leader (Rudd has gone a long way without it) especially if he needs to apppear to be pleasing everyone. It can’t be done.
The electorate will still want to know what he is going to do about global warming and expect action.
Tell what’d make me laugh: Hockey wins, immediately instructs Lib senators to pass the CPRS, sacks Minchin.
It’d make about as much sense as anything else the LNP has done lately.
AR – hat’s ‘ad nauseam’ – dative not genitive.
May be a good talker, Mr Rennie, but he’ll have a hard time talking his way out of this one. According to Paul Kelly “he has no intention of running and becoming leader on Tuesday in this mess over the ETS he wants it sorted out before hand and frankly that will be very difficult.”
He he he. The Guru has done it again. Six hours is a long time in politics for pundits of the clairvoyant talent of Kelly:
“He is likely to run subject to two conditions – the first condition is he doesn’t want blood on his hands – he will not oppose Malcolm Turnbull at all.
“The question therefore becomes the extent to which Turnbull takes a step backwards to enable Hockey to step forward that is the critical issue the second critical issue required by Hockey is that the party must sort out and clarify its position on the ETS before he becomes leader.”
Gosh, News Limited is bursting with talent: Shanahan, the Evil Dwarf, Boltie…
It’s not about leadership it’s about policy. Nick and Tony have been assuring us of that. A new leader means they have won their policy position. I wonder how the govt will ever be able to negotiate with the Libs again if Turnbull loses. Would seem a complete waste of time. They even rat after a win.
It’s not about policy, it’s not about leadership. They decided they just don’t like Malcolm. But there may be probs down the track. What if Ted Mack comes back?
Oi Sir Henry good call re Mack. Other possibility Labor could Maxine-nate him, hehe.
Its not about leadership, its about policy. Hang on, its not about policy, its about leadership.
Malcolm Turnbull has upset Nick Minchin’s 12 year old daughter and must therefore be put to the sword by whoever is still awake after an all night Senate sitting.
Peter Dutton could stand for the seat of Wentworth when Malcolm wanders off in self-righteous high dudgeon. An ex Qld copper with limited intellectual capacity will go down a treat with the good burghers of Bellevue Hill and Paddington.
On international news now;
Reuters
AFP
Lefty E at 61: It’s a pity you have not taken the trouble to see how Australia’s position compares with the US position. That often happens to a person so firmly entrenched in his/her own ideological position that facts can’t be allowed to intrude.
The Australian Government proposal is an unconditional cut of 5 per cent on 2000 emissions by 2020 (that’s 4 per cent of 1990 emissions) if no agreement is reached at Copenhagen or up to 15 per cent on 2000 emissions (14 per cent on 1990 emissions) if there is an agreement.
Now, both of these happens to be bigger percentage reductions on 1990 totals than the US position which is a 17 per cent cut on 2005 emissions by 2020.
US Energy Information Administration figures (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/} show that in 1990 the total of all US greenhouse gas emissions was 6241.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. In 2000 this had increased by 833.2 million metric tons (13.3 per cent) to 7075.0 million metric tons and in 2005 had increased by 1015.1 million metric tons (16.3 per cent) to 7256.9 million metric tons.
To cut the 2005 US total by 17 per cent by 2020 would mean a reduction of 1233.7 million metric tons to 6023.2 million metric tons, which is 218.6 million metric tons (3.5 per cent) less than the 1990 total of 6241.8 million metric tons.
So the only US position is 3.5 per cent below the 1990 figure while the unconditional Australian position is 4.0 per cent below the 1990 figure. The Australian proposal in the event of an agreement equates to a 14 per cent reduction on 1990 totals. The US proposal remains at 3.5 per cent below 1990 levels..
You say: “If Howard’s had a crack, my guess is the play could be: Hockey-led LNP defers vote, cans CPRS for now, develop non-CPRS emissions strategy that wedges Rudd from left by going for higher nominal cuts” before saying “Rudd’s played this less well than he thinks – 5% is pretty bloody easy to trump which (sic) a bunch of non-CPRS reduction policies, illusory or otherwise”. Substituting “with” for “which” in this sentence means it almost can be understood.
So, in this fanciful world, John Howard is your new green guru, just itching to devise higher emissions cuts for Australia.
Somehow, I can’t equate that Howard with the one who took an inferior emissions trading scheme to the 2007 election and who reduced expenditure on renewable energy.
If you are in such awe of the advice you postulate that Howard will give to Hockey, it may be time to change your title from Lefty E to Righty E.
In keeping with your admiration for Howard’s political nous, you would apparently think it brilliant to announce higher cuts to Australia’s greenhouse emissions even if there were no intention to achieve them. I think Howard called them “non-core” promises.
The Greens have had a consistent position for a long time. I certainly don’t agree with all of it, but it’s been clear, internally consistent, and a realistic negotiating position.
Yes, it’s sad that it hasn’t got much attention, but they simply don’t have the numbers.
Given the events of the last week, it’s worth watching (or reading)this performance again by Joe Hockey on Lateline. Sorry, but I can’t see any leadership qualities -this man is an insincere thickhead.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2606544.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200906/r389288_1818728.asx
I am still bemused that (1) Tony Abbott was silly enough (on 4 corners) to use Plimer’s book as a justification for his views and (2) that neither Turnbull nor the media have called him on this. (you can see why the government won’t — like most of the posts above, they can sit back and enjoy the spectacle).
You’d think they would have learned from the Godwin Grech caper not to rely on fabrications, and Plimer’s book is extensive fabrication.
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
for the tedious details — try skimming the index.
Robert, it’s not that the Greens don’t have the numbers. It’s that they don’t do negotiation. Which is why the Government has been trying to negotiate with the Liberals to get their legislation through the Senate.
I am sorry but my Hubris detector kept going off while I read these comments. Malcolm has hardly been outstanding since he became leader and his desire to negotiate CPRS amendments was lousy political judgeship.
The crucial question is what the new leader will do. There is plenty of scope for the coalition to come up with a simpler, better alternative that people can actually understand before the next election. Rudd has put too much political capital into CPRS.
GregM
“It’s that they don’t do negotiation. ”
Wrong
This is a red-herring. It is no prerequisite of good policy that it be simple and understood by all. Think tax, health, foreign policy or anything at all.
The only sticking point at the moment is that not enough people believe that Climate Change exists. Once they do – they’ll be happy to leave it to the politicians to scrap over the detail. Nevertheless it is a sound tactic from any Liberal left standing after next week – to push this idea as a delaying mechanism. Pretend that the govt is sneakily trying to put one over the voter. People love to think that someone might be trying to con them. Nearly as much as they love to be sold snake oil, in fact.
Bullshit, GregM. You just haven’t been paying attention.
Hockey is even dumber than I thought.
Why would the moderates in the Liberal party vote for him if he is just a front for the Minchkins? Doesn’t make any sense but then none of this has to make any sense.
“It’s not about leadership it’s about policy.”
My tuppence worth.
If Minchin is the Prime Mover, then its about Rudd’s leadership, not Malcolm’s, and it has nothing at all to do with the future of our grandchildren. Minchin does not do policy, he only does politics.
Minchin knows that Rudd wants the ETS before Copenhagen, more than anything else in the world, more even than a DD. So Minchin is playing only one hand: the ETS will not pass. Rudd must suffer public ignominy on the international stage. All the rest is noise.
Andrews was a political feint, by the numbers, to put the fear up Malcolm Turmoil and persuade him to drop the ball and resign. Minchin (the cold calculator) and Andrews (the crazed ideologue) have nothing in common, miles apart, so maybe the Ghost of Wollonstonecraft has his hand up Andrew’s jumper.
Wilson Tuckey and Barnaby Joyce are just convenient fools, and nobody is driving. Yabber yabber.
Abbott is an ambitious man, who has an appointment with destiny. Pell told him so. The dagger is at the ready, but he is not sure that this is the right time. Who cares? Have a stab.
Hockey is the wild card, and he is not part of Minchin’s stack. He is the Chosen One according to our infantile press gallery (just like Costello was). But Turmoil has told him clearly – either back off or a hypocrite be. Hockey has everything to lose if he stands now, because as Kelly said, the terms are clear.
Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey should hold fast. Tomorrow is another day..
Enough moderates might vote for Hockey because they’re worried that the Turnbull divide is terminal. They might hope that Hockey can placate the right without completely selling out on the ETS. There is no good solution – so they may see this as the next best thing. They might be right, too. Turnbull’s brain snap on TV this morning was not smart. The Minchinites won’t suddenly disappear if he just huffs and puffs enough. In the end they have to find a way to get along. Hockey now the best bet. If for no other reason than that everybody seems to think they like him. (God knows why, but probably because Hockey’s vacuousness allows great scope for projection and self-deception.)
Presumably when Hockey went to see JWH, the first thing Howard told him was : By all means break your word to Malcolm. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being dishonorable.
Rudd prefers continuing mayhem amongst the Libs to getting an ETS before Copenhagen. He couldn’t give an impolite emission whether the ETS is passed this month or early next year. That it passes in time to be implemented – that’s all that matters. The Libs internal knife-fight is the point of the artificial Copenhagen deadline.
At Copenhagen Rudd will talk the talk – on the world stage he will say we have an ETS starting in 2010 – nobody has time to look at who’s actually walking yet. Everybody’s got their own domestic drama to worry about. We all have our Nick Minchins.
The Hun is reporting that Hockey Joe is likely to run.
“The crucial question is what the new leader will do. There is plenty of scope for the coalition to come up with a simpler, better alternative that people can actually understand before the next election. Rudd has put too much political capital into CPRS.”
I disagree with this. I know you don’t like the CPRS, but where are the libs going to go on this issue? Do you really believe they will go for deeper conditional or unconditional targets than Labor? I doubt it. Do you really believe they are going to do any more to limit emissions from the stationary energy sector and mining, or do more to undermine those sectors’ longer run profitibility? Given the scope of the amendments they wanted, this also seems very unlikely. Remember, Robb wanted to reject the ETS in the end because the amendments did not go far enough to protect those sectors!
Malcolm is getting rolled for a range of reasons – bad position in the polls, lack of consultation with the party, lack of judgement, but support for significant action on climate change is one of them. You really think they are going to roll him and then Minchin is going to support deeper emissions cuts and less favourable support for emission intensive producers? Do you think they are going to advocate a flat carbon tax when most of their business constituency hates the idea and the Nats are campaigning against the CPRS because it is a new tax?
IMHO, if Hockey takes the leadership on under the agreement that the CPRS is deferred to a Senate Committee, it merely delays the day of reckoning. At some stage they have to commit in one direction or another and if Hockey wants to push action that even goes as far as Labor (which isn’t that far), he will be destabilised by the same group. This idea of the Libs outflanking Labor on this issue from the left is pure fantasy.
Perhaps, but isn’t that what David Cameron is doing to Gordon Brown?
Pop quiz, leftists: To even get a vote recommending the bill goes to committee the Coalition will need the Independents to support the motion calling for said vote, right?
I’ve left this question at Antony Green’s site, but I suppose he won’t answer it until he gets to work tomorrow.
Long story short—if the ALP wants a waterproof DD trigger that gives them legitimate passage of the ETS at a joint setting then I think Fielding and X can give them that trigger. Am I right?
Perhaps a ‘not’ should be part of the sentence?
Actually, beyond possibility.
Er, that trigger would of course be a straight defeat for the ETS in a senate where all (or enough) of the Coalition hangs together in new found denialist fervor, while the Greens vote as they’ve always said they would vote on this dreadful ersatz CPRS.
Wheels withing wheels.
John L, its a pity you dont understand the CPRS – you might then get how the US position is superior. There is no 5% cut – there’s no cuts at all. We’ll not be cutting a jot of CO2 until 2033 – and it only dips then on the modelling because thats when a completely imaginary thing called “clean coal” allegedly gets invented.
Our CPRS “cuts” are all permits bought elsewhere.
And as for your final paragraph, your misunderstandings probably speak well enough for themselves.
Update: Howard’s obviously been leaking – he’s the kingmaker, not Minchin.
Update: Peter Martin critiques Joe Hockey’s record.
Reading that made me feel quick ill, Mark. Lord Howard has risen…
Well, at least we know who’s going to moderate next election’s TV debates – Kochie & Mel.
shite.. quite
Oh dear, Mark. Could Turnbull have seen that coming? Could anyone?
And would it explain Andrew Robb’s unexpected appearance, or should one say apparition?
Nielsen has a poll out.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudds-approval-rating-slips-but-his-scheme-wins-voters-20091129-jyvm.html
2PP unchanged at 56:44
ALP and COAL both down 1 and Greens up 4% to 13% for their best poll result ever.
Two thirds of Oz voters support an ETS including about half of COALition supporters.
Hockey slightly ahead of Turnbull in L Opp choices, Abbott a fair way back.
Minchin and the international dittohead fraternity -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8385126.stm
BNP leader Nick Griffin, who has said global warming is “essentially a hoax”, will be at the Copenhagen climate change conference.
The MEP will be there representing the European Parliament, as he sits on its environment committee.
The BNP said he would be “the only politician there prepared to say that the science is somewhat dodgy”.
anyway, looks like we will be getting used to a Hockey led Liberal Party….will be interesting to see how that turns out….on the one hand he is a more conciliatory figure that Malcolm, which might appeal more to the electorate. On the other, he can be a lightweight on policy sometimes and it still isn’t clear how he will manage the divisions in the party in the longer term without giving ground to the Minchinites….
Here is a question. Although one message from the polling seems to be that the government’s position enjoys majority support, there also seems to be sympathy for the idea of waiting to see what happens at Copenhagen. What outcome does Rudd need from Copenhagen to retain support from those that support an ETS in principle, but are nervous about moving too far ahead of other countries? Does he need binding targets from all major emitters? Or just developed countries? Will non-binding commitments to improve efficiency from China and India be enough?
A bad outcome at Copenhagen could make the domestic political scene quite interesting, assuming the coalition can settle on a single credible message…
http://www.theage.com.au/national/hockey-ready-for-leadership-of-divided-party-20091129-jyw7.html
And after Joe, presumably, let it be any Tom Dick or Harry.
Malcolm sez:
I don’t think either of them really do want a DD, but in Rudd’s case it must be tempting–Minchin would still be there, but he would probably have a few less colleagues to subvert if Malcolm came back from the dead.
(Malcolm kinda reminds me of Gough’s “Crash through or crash.”)
The difficulty faced by Labor in an election campaign driven by climate change policy is that the government is forced to defend its particular policy choices whereas an opposition has the luxury of attacking that policy from a number of not necessarily coherent or even consistent points.
Keating’s demolition of Hewson’s GST is the model for this strategy.
Malcolm Turnbull is to politics what F. Scott Fitzgerald was to Hollywood screenwriting.
So leaders of the Liberal Party now get chosen by a politician the Australian people kicked out of Parliament. Of course its disgusting, but I wouldn’t expect anythting else from these unprincipled pieces of garbage.
The polls overnight have pretty well buried Turnbull and it looks as though Hockey will run, and win. Abbott said it was a case of getting rid of the CPRS first and then healing the party. He’s happy if Joe can do that, presumably in return for the shadow-treasure gig.
But this means that Hockey’s leadership is the gift of the anti-AGW Minchkinites, so the chances of Hockey ever having a policy position that Rudd/Wong can negotiate with are extremely remote. The right of the party have made it clear that they won’t tolerate an ETS. There is a percentage of the Libs that are against the CPRS but in favour of doing something about climate change, but it is hard to see them getting any kind of policy up.
So Rudd will be faced with waiting until after the next election and then negotiating with the Greens. There are all sorts of reasons, including political, why he won’t want to do this.
Antony Green said Rudd can call a DD any time up to August. I think there is a fair chance that he will do so. Make it a climate change election and put forward his CPRS as the “just right” Goldilocks solution.
But he won’t any longer be beholden to the MacFarlane-negotiated agreement, so the farmers may be back to square one – not included now, but a fair bet they will be from 2015.
And Barnaby, spoiling for an election on climate change will have ensured that they have no influence on policy until about 2016.
Precisely. Minchin will have successfully installed left-leaning but wishy-washy liberal that he can manipulate. Hockey doesn’t have the courage of his convictions like Turnbull.
A Hockey leadership and the CPRS delayed to committee until February is total victory for the denialists.
Greens naively hit their highest rating in Australian polling history.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/go-joe-voters-back-hockey-20091129-jyv9.html
I expect the record to be broken over the next few months.
As soon as the Libs decide what they’re doing (one way or t’other) doesn’t the government surely have to start getting out there selling the specifics of the CPRS, if for no other reason than to short-circuit the impending scare campaign in the lead up to the next election?
Yesterday and today has been an interesting mix of both relaxation and drama. No sooner than I settle here in the serenity of Devonport, Tasmania, with my summer reading already chosen (Poppy King’s biography – Lessons of a Lipstick Queen), I was up at 6am to grab a copy of The Australian from a newsagent in order to follow the whole Libs drama – only to find The Oz doesn’t arrive here until 7am
There’s many interesting points made in the last 24 hours. Andrew Bolt’s claim that Joe Hockey “lacks intellectual discipline”. Sophie Mirabella’s claim in The Sunday Age that “on important issues, people don’t vote for concepts, they vote for models and they vote for details”, Jason Wood’s counter-claim in The Sunday Age about Malcolm Turnball’s “intelligence and accuracy for detail”. Such is the confusion of the situation that the Liberal Party express no clear policy position on concept, model or detail, while the politics swings wildly between the ego-centric, the heart and the head.
Which brings me back to the point that I’m also egaged in some relaxing summer reading, rudely interrupted my return to the Op-Ed pages of the Australian this morning.
While the Glenn Milne article reminds us that Joe Hockey’s weekend decision-making process would have had him split between the heart and the head, and the David Burchell article examines a brief history of both the rational and emotional elements of politics, one of Poppy King’s life lessons has been to determine early in a decision-making process what is driving force that motivates a course of action – the heart, the head or the ego?
From what I’ve gathered, Malcolm Turnball is a mix of ego and head. His right-wing rivals leaning more towards the heart. Both camps have probably made their errors by letting the wrong drivers select their course of action at the wrong times. In particular, Turball has demonstrated an amazing Mark Latham style mix of head and ego in the space of a few days.
As I’ve predicted here months before, Joe Hockey is the most likely person for the job because even in the worst of cases, the timing and the likely required strategy will suit him.
…From Justin
PS: VIP comments so far in this thread – 59, 70, 93, 97. In my opinion, anayway
Annabel Crabb on ABC Online:
Her take is that knowing he cannot win, he seems to be very willing indeed to have his great reckoning in a little room with bomb belts strapped on so he can maim as many of the other contenders as possible for his swansong.
The scare campaign has begun. Have a look at the horror expressed by Daily Telegraph readers at the news at how much this green tax will set them back.
If anyone saw the news footage of Tony Abbott is his budgie smugglers yesterday at Sydney’s Queenscliffe beach that would quickly put to rest any notion that the reptile is fit to be PM of Australia…
*gross*
Some points:
- Abbott is clearly no fool. He thinks Malcolm’s done his dash, but realises that while he may be better than Turnbull, Hockey is a better bet than himself.
- If the ALP keep moving to the centre on the CPRS issue, then the Greens will be the beneficiaries, but in the HoR, this will mean very little. All those votes will eventually get back to the ALP.
- What Turnbull will do if he loses the leadership is now really interesting. The only thing we know he won’t do is stay in the Parliamentary Liberal Party. He’ll either quit, sit as an independent and leave at the next election, quit immediately, or sound Rudd out about completely crossing the floor for a cabinet post. His performance yesterday with Oakes makes it clear he only wants to lead the party if it does what he wants it to do. It’s his style of leadership that is the real problem.
- If Hockey wins, and the CPRS is delayed, don’t expect the moderates to do what the conservatives were threatening to do, and vote differently from the rest of the party. There is a reason they are moderates, and it means they also behave in a moderate fashion.
The other issue here is this. When Turnbull secured party room and Liberal support for negotiating amendments in good faith it was clearly implicit tjhat the party room and the Liberals had sufficient confidence in the process to be able to commit themselves to support whatever was negotiated and approved by the shadow cabinet. If they were reserving the right to reject the recommendation of shadow cabinet, what this really meant their ethically defencible options were as follows:
a) Declare that no negitiations were worthwhile as they were unwilling to suppoert an ETS in any form that might conceivably emerge from the process
OR
b) Specify what was non-negotiable about the CPRS at the start of the process
AND
c) Specify that any recommendation from any negotiator had to go to the whole party room rather and not to shadow cabinet
AND
d) Specify the benchmark for ratifying the deal eg 75% support? Both coalition partners?
Only on this latter basis could there have been good faith negotiations have been carried out. Self-evidently, the failure of 35 liberals to accept shadow cabinet’s recommendation (carried 14-6) really was a declaration of no confidence in the shadow cabinet. It’s hard to believe that this want of confidence arose between the time the same liberals authorised negotiations and empowered shadow cabinet to sign off on it and the other day.
The facts show that those opposed have been duplicitous and disingenuous. If Hockey now accepts the brief as their political lawyer, he must also associate himself with this double-dealing, including of course their lack of confidence in him, since he was both a member of shadow cabinet and one of those supporting the majority shadow cabinet recommendation, bith there and in the party room. In these circumstances it’s hard to imagine how he or anyone could be appointed to redraft the CPRS of propose any other combination of measures to reduce emissions.
His credibility would be zero. No wonder he was tweeting for advice.
You know what I’d love to see? Given the sort of concensus the Lib right want (agree with us or shut the f up or we will destroy you) wouldn’t it be funny if Hockey and Turnbull BOTH quit and crossed the floor or even better set up their own centre left Liberal party. I remember seeing Hockey squirm while he was trying to sell workchoices, he’s obviously still bothered by that pesky ethics thing.
An independent Turnbull/Hockey ticket would be very very interesting.
Lefty E at 102: You assert that there will be “no cuts at all. We’ll not be cutting a jot of C02 until 2033…”
Notably, you do not provide any sources for this assertion. There are a number of pointers that it is wrong.
In a joint media release on November 24, 2009, the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Climate Change and Water Minister said: “The deal will ensure that Australia can achieve its ambitious unconditional target of 5 per cent; conditional target of up to 15 per cent and top-end target of 25 per cent off 2000 levels by 2020 if a global 450 parts per million outcome is achieved.”
That statement is unequivocal in saying all the various targets (5 per cent, 15 per cent and 25 per cent) relate to being off 2000 levels by 2020.
If your assertion had any basis in fact, one would have expected critics to use it to slam these three Ministers for misleading the public.
The logical reason your assertion does not seem to have been picked up is that it has no basis in fact.
Another pointer to this comes from Ross Gittins in The Sydney Morning Herald on November 30 under the heading “Ills of Rudd’s climate bills may be cured within time”. He writes: “…though the pro-action critics of the scheme have focused on the unconditional target of reducing emissions by only 5 per cent, it now seems likely the global agreement to emerge from Copenhagen or a subsequent meeting will require us to lift that to the promised 15 per cent reduction.”
Gittins goes on: “Admittedly, a target of reducing emissions in 2020 by 15 per cent of their level in 2000 represents only half the minimum reduction the scientists say we need to achieve by then.
“But remember the compromise scheme is built to allow the target to be raised to 25 per cent should the multilateral agreement be sufficiently comprehensive as to limit global emissions to 450 parts per million. For such a deal to be achieved, the Americans and the Europeans would have to greatly increase their own targets.”
I can recall pro-action critics putting the focus on the inadequacy of the 5 per cent target. If there were to be no cuts at all until 2033 as you assert, I wonder why so many did not concentrate on this rather than the inadequacy of 5 per cent cuts by 2020.
Perhaps you need to reassess your assertion.
Abbott is clearly no fool.
Uh…. Um…. Ah….
re tax: how much does the current tax on fuel set us back?
Though I will say Hockey is the real idiot here (no surprises). King for a day, fool for a lifetime.
I have difficulty squaring up the ritual description of Hockey as a moderate and a small ‘l’ liberal with his running off for advice to John Howard, surely the most right-wing leader the party has ever had. He was Turnbull’s loyal lieutenant and now he will drafted in by the far right as their latest “don’t scare the horses” shopfront candidate. Howard himself tried that trick when he got knockabout, avuncular Joe to try and sell workchoices. It seems to me Mr Hockey is a mile wide and an inch thick. He’s a shallow opportunist digging himself a very deep grave.
JohnL @ 126: according to Treasury modelling, all the cuts come from overseas offsets, not within Australia, until 2031 or thereabouts. That’s what Lefty E is complaining about. And the Greens have indeed been screaming about this for a while, it’s just that the media don’t care because obviously they are crazed lunatics with no basis in, say, the science.
It’s a bad thing for 2 reasons in particular:
1. It means our own industries are not becoming more sustainable, which is a big problem in the long run
2. overseas offsets have proven completely unreliable thus far (so much so that the USA bill gives them a 0.75 weighting and caps the amount they can be used).
Very good description of the smiling Mr Hockey, Mr Denmore. Anybody who has seen his performances on Q&A would agree.
It’s interesting in a perverse sort of way how the Canberra press gallery all sing the same tune, and that tune is usually played by the hard right. The current tune is that Joe Hockey is the unifying candidate and will heal the divisions within the party.
The facts of his assumption of the leadership, the depth of the divisions in the party, and his own sorry record seem to fade into insignificance when the fix is on.
I did provide a link JohnL. Go look at it. Cap n trade schemes allows you to buy reductions achieved elsewhere. Thats where your 5% is from – not Australia.
And the CPRS as currently constituted may not be able to achieve the larger cuts. Thats why Rudd may have a problem in the long term if he does embed the scheme now – depending on what happens at Copenhagen.
@112 -
The problem the Libs have with adopting a Keating strategy is that Hockey is no PJK.
@112, @113 Also no-one wanted a GST, people want climate change legislation.
People want climate change legislation. But are they prepared to pay at least $400 a year out of their pocket? Are they prepared to put themselves out in regards to power usage?
Hockey really wants to think about how a 2010 election loss will look on his CV. Agree with Katz – who needs advice from the man who drove the Liberal party into this dead-end? Reminds me that I saw Howard on a US doco recently saying (to yanks) “well, in a parliamentary system, everyone loses in the end…”.
No they don’t John – only people who don’t know when to RESIGN.
tssk, does that $400 figure account for the compensation in the CPRS package? And would the LIbs like to explain how their amendments reduced the compo ordinary people get?
It may not travel too well as a scare campaign.
There’s rumours that the Libs are attepting to draft a compromise decision so Joe won’t look to hypocritical. What on earth could this position be, when the current legislation is already a compromise on a compromise?
Update: New post on all the latest.
Fine, that highly relevant figure Lord Alexander Downer had a go at squaring this particular circle in that must read publication Adelaide Now:
Linked text
If you can get to the end of that opinion piece without suffering some form of migraine headache (at the very least) you have done better than I did.
Only three things, Alexander? Gawd. No wonder you lot are in opposition.
For obvious reasons there is focus on today’s poll results for Malcolm Turnbull. Am I naive in wondering why there has been little comment on the variation down in the PM’s approval rating. It’s obviously not critical, but it seems consistent across Newspoll, Nielsen and Essential Report. Are voters expecting him (or Gillard?) to be more pro-active in current situation?
I’m not a Tweeter, and rely on LP for reasonable soundings in my political ponderings alone here at home, so hey team, I’d appreciate your views.
Lefty E at 133: You seem to be somewhat loose with the truth in saying “I did provide a link JohnL. Go look at it.”
Well, I went and looked at posts by you at 38, 44, 45, 50, 61, 66, 74, 102, 117 and 133 and there was no link.
Can’t say I am surprised that you did not, and could not, respond to the points I made in 126 and took refuge in a false statement about a link.
Unlike you, I will give a link – this is to a report in The New York Times on November 25, 2009 (www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate.html) which says: “Mr. Obama has now essentially adopted the targets of a climate and energy bill that passed the House in June.
“The House bill aims at greenhouse gas reductions of 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 and sharper cuts in the following decades, through a cap-and-trade system that includes most of the nation’s major sources of carbon dioxide emissions.”
Wikipedia in its entry on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the Waxman-Markey Biil) – (that’s the one you say is superior to the Australian proposal): “The New York Times has noted that ‘while some environmentalists enthusiastically supported the legislation, others, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, opposed it’. Friends of the Earth, an international environmental organization, announced its opposition to ACES believing the bill to be too weak and cited support from Shell Oil Company and Duke Energy as evidence of the bill’s shortcomings. Environmental organizations critical of the bill say it falls short by allowing for 85 per cent or more of pollution permits to be given away free of cost to the electricity sector. A coalition of environmental groups released a statement saying that ‘to craft a bill that allows for 2 billion tons of offsets per year — roughly equivalent to 27 per cent of 2007 US greenhouse gas emissions — is to allow for continued and dangerous delay in real action by our country at a time when the world is looking to the US for leadership on climate change’.
“Critics of the bill about it not going far enough claim that there were too many concessions made in rewriting the bill and that they gave into special interests. Thus, making the bill weak and potentially harmful to the economy and environment. (Oh, no, not on your superior US position).
“Dr. James Hansen, one of the first to warn about the risks of climate change and an advocate of taking related action, also has argued strongly against the bill: 1) It restricts the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants; 2) it sets “meager” targets for emission reductions, with only a 13 per cent reduction by 2020; 3) it lacks certain controls important to the trading of allowances to emit carbon; and 4) fails to set predictable prices for carbon, making it harder for businesses and households to make investment decisions. Dr. Hansen advocates a carbon tax rather than a cap and trade system.
Lefty E it is plain that your statements cannot be taken seriously.
The 7.30 Report was particularly amusing this evening.
O’Brien to Ian McFarlane: So, what’s going on with the Liberal Party this evening?
McFarlane: “I have no idea.”
Comedy gold.
Patricia, Mr Abbott asked: “Who’s on next?”
Yep, Fine@145. And just when you warm a little to McFarlane for all this crap he has had to endure, the swine comes out with some rubbish about how ‘our job is to get back to beating up on border security and asylum seekers’. They really are such a creepy bunch.
joe2
McFarlane nominated the issues the Liberals are comfortable with: the economy, Govt waste and over-spending, border security.
It seemed a limited list. Shouldn’t an Opposition “expect the unexpected” as much as a Govt needs to?
Apart from his work with Penny Wong on the ETS, he doesn’t sound like he’s thinking of new policies…..
John L, its plain you cant see very well, or are very new to blogs: here’s the comment with the link in it. When you see bold purple type, its a link, which you left-click on – ok? http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/11/29/hockey-the-new-costello-howard-has-lunch-andrews-deals-himself-back-in/#comment-840386
As for your other comments – sure, I could well end up critical of the future US cap n trade system – I actually dont think they’re a very effective means of reducing emissions. But as you’ll see if you stop wasting my time and actually press the link, our proposed one is *even worse* – as it proposes no cuts to emissions. My money is therefore on the US one to be more effective, and for the upcoming Copenhagen agreement to put pressure on Australia – even if the CPRS passes the Senate. Hopefully the same will happen to the US – I agree their proposed targets are inadequate.
“It seemed a limited list. Shouldn’t an Opposition “expect the unexpected” as much as a Govt needs to?”
Yer, Ambi, they could be joining in the international goading of Iran to ensure a few more desperate boat people land in and make conditions more impossible on Xmas island. Strategic Malicious Thinking is what their famous for.
Note: McFarlane always went back to border security as their most comfortable issue.
It seems pretty clear now that this whole Liberal melodrama/farce actually has nothing to do with the CPRS. If Malcolm is defeated and Hockey gets up the ultra-right doesn’t want a free vote on the CPRS – which sounded to me like a pretty good compromise position. Nobody has to sell out their principles (leaving aside the question if there is such a thing as principle in the modern Liberal Party.) But no, the ultra right wants complete victory on CPRS and presumably everything else. Seems the problem with Malcolm wasn’t style of his leadership. Rather, under him the moderates were becoming too powerful in the party. What we’re really witnessing is an attempted ultra right wing coup.
With respect to the proposed CPRS (Oz version), I have long been concerned about its apparent ineffectiveness wrt to curtailing CO2 emissions.
There is a different take on the reasons for this at Gutter Trash which seems to account for this failure.
So Joe is not acceptable as a compromise candidate after all because he hasn’t come up with a compromise which gives Abbott and Minchin everything they want.
Jesuit casuistry? Or just plain stoopidity?
“Jesuit casuistry? Or just plain stoopidity?”
The training is certainly there, on both counts.
Let’s just look a bit.
From Wiki: Abbott and Hockey are both St Aloysius old boys.
Andrews attended Newman College while at Uni. Other details unclear.
(As for the Minchkin, early days are undeclared. Rumoured to have been planted, in Canberra, by the H.R. Nicholls Society. No amount of insecticide has so far proved successful in eradication.)
thanks joe2
I wasn’t aware that Tampanitis particularly afflicted Mr McFarlane; must pay more attention. I had thought it was endemic with regular outbreaks on that side of the House.
http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/behind-closed-doors-in-the-land-of-the-lobbyist/#comment-12160
.
This may be the link Pterosaur was after?The link embeded in their post didn’t seem to work.
Any news on the track conditions in Canberra as the big race draws near?
Rumour, so far, that Tony was up at 4.00 A.M. for stations of the cross, a run, a swim followed by mass at six. Fruit salad and vits for eats.
Joe had a bugger of a night with the new kid screaming from 3.00 on. Wheeties on again for breakfast.
Mal and Lucy plan for a light brekky of smoked trout, beluga caviar, camembert and croissants followed by a stroll in the park.
Oh and Kevin Andrews might not be able to make it because he can’t find his car keys.
LeftyE, the figure of $400 or thereabouts was being touted by the Tele. (A financial expert on the 7pm project said it would be closer to $600.)
Andrew Bolt is right about one thing. If the Libs could actually keep themselves together they could use that sum as a stick to hit the ALP with. The public generally only accept tax rises when the Conservatives do it.
Thanks Murph @ 154 – didn’t check the link after posting – much obliged
First ballot:
Turnbull 26
Abbott 35
Hockey 23
*****
Then on second round
Abbott 42, Turnbull 41
Abbott to give Press Conference at 10.45am
****************
Then its true: it would have been a tie with Fran Bailey. She needs to be sacked by the producers for ruining the next episode!
Lefty E at 149: There was no purple type in any of your 10 posts from 38 to 133 that I mentioned in 144. Thank you, though, for providing the link.
However, the link shows that your statement at 102: “There is no 5% cut – there’s no cuts at all. We’ll not be cutting a jot of CO2 until 2033…” misrepresents what is said in Policy Brief No. 5 “Harder to to than to say?” by Richard Denniss.
The Policy Brief says: “Despite the bold language used by the Minister for Climate Change, modelling conducted by the Treasury makes clear that there will be no real transformation of the coal-fired power generation industry in Australia until at least 2033”
Saying “there will be no real transformation of the coal-fired power generating industry in Australia at least until 2033! is not the same as saying “there is no cut at all”. This is demonstrated by analysing the Policy Brief.
It is true that the Policy Brief does say on page three: “Perhaps the least understood feature of the proposed CPRS is the fact that the whole point of the scheme is not to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions but to import a large number of permits from developing countries.”
However, there is a logical inconsistency in the Policy Brief, arising from its use of a figure of “Electricity generated by black and brown coal – terrawatt hours (TWh), 2010-2050” – a chart that came from Treasury.
The Policy Brief says of this: “As the figure shows, after the introduction of the CPRS there is a slight reduction in the amount of electricity generated from black coal between 2010 and 2020 and virtually no reduction in brown coal electricity (the dirtiest form of electricity generation) over the same period.
“After 2020, emissions from black coal-fired power stations are actually forecast to rise slightly before stabilising until around 2033. The figure shows that electricity generated from brown coal-fired power stations is also stable between 2020 and 2033.”
Well, that’s an inaccurate description of what the figure shows. The line for black coal is shown to be around 140.0TWh for 2010 falling to below 120.0 in 2016, rising slightly to 120.0 in 2017 and then rising to a peak of about 128.0 from 2021 to 2026, then falling to 120.0 around 2027 where it remains until 2033. At no stage does it reach the 140.0 mark shown in 2010, with the highest mark of around 128.0 being a reduction of 12.0 (8.6 per cent) under 2010 and the lowest of just under 120.0 being a reduction of 20.0 (14.3 per cent).
What this means is that for every year after the CPRS projected start date of July 2011 until 2033, the electricity generated by black coal is between 8.6 per cent and 14.3 per cent below the 2010 total. For nine of the 22 years (40.9 per cent of the time) the total is 14.3 per cent below the 2010 total.
The story is similar for the line representing brown coal. The figure shows this to be above 40.0 at 2010, falling to 40.0 from 2011 to 2013, then remaining below 40.0 for the 20 years to 2033.
If the amount of electricity generated by coal is falling after 2010, then it follows that emissions from electricity generated by coal will also fall.
Well, we can argue the toss on those issues John L – but the fact is it was a dud scheme. Im happy its gone down. lets go to round two, receive a reality check from rest of the world, put the Libs back in their box with it, and move on to a scheme which actually does something meaningful – hopefully with Greens BOP after the next election.