The latest fortnightly Morgan face-to-face poll has not replicated the Newspoll bounce, but that’s cold comfort for the Coalition as they still trail 59.5-40.5, unchanged from last time. The Greens are up three points on the primary vote to 10.5 per cent. Labor’s primary vote is down from 50.5 per cent to 48.5 per cent and the Coalition is down from 35.5 per cent to 34.5 per cent.
We also have Newspoll’s latest quarterly aggregation of polling broken down by state and age group. The outstanding features is a picture of relative Labor weakness in New South Wales, consistent with the theme that the state government is damaging their brand there. Charts galore from Possum.
In other news, 65-year-old back-bencher Philip Ruddock has made the surprise announcement that he plans to run again in his blue-ribbon Sydney seat of Berowra. However, he seems in some danger of being blasted out by the state party’s vigorous Right faction, which did so much to contribute to the party’s success at the last election.
UPDATE: By popular demand, here’s a chart showing how Labor’s two-party vote has tracked across Newspoll, Morgan and Essential Research this year. I only have figures going back to June for Essential, and have generally only used every second poll for Morgan and Essential to keep the figures concurrent with Newspoll. Alternatively, you could just look at Possum’s chart dump, which includes ACNielsen.
923 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 15 16 17 [18] 19 » Show All
Nucilear Power is not the answer, I hope and vote accordingly for never to have that dirty power.
Smartest thing anyone has done with Oz comms in 30 years.
The only way to achieve structural separation (since Howard completely arsed this up with the float) is to build a new structure.
Telstra monopoly – good riddance to bad rubbish.
Best decision he has made to date
GG, Telstra is not a monopolist. The only people seeking a monopoly is Optus Network Investments (new face of Terria), Axia and Acacia.
No 852
Possum, if a Telstra monopoly is bad rubbish, why is an Optus, Axia or Acacia monopoly so much better?
Silly logic don’t you think, mate?
Centre, I posted this on another site but it’s relevant to your last post as well:
“Ok you talk about China and the US because they’re the biggest emitters. But more than a third of global emissions come from countries like Australia. That is, countries that emit less than 2% of global emissions individually.
If we say it’s ok if we do effectively nothing because we’re so small then we also say that it’s ok for those other countries to do nothing. And while every other countries emissions become a smaller slice of global emissions, that third gets bigger and bigger.”
Telstra is seeking a monopoly. They refused to split their company between a fixed-line company and broadband company – if this does not happen, they have a 100% monopoly over telecommunications in Oz in terms of infrastructure.
I’m more than happy for Australia to get a monopoly broadband provider as its NBN – just so long as they don’t have a monopoly over fixed line comms as well…
No 856
Oz, the only thing that concerns the Australian parliament is Australia. We contribute little more than 1% of emissions and thus a unilateral act to dramatically reduce emissions and to our own competitive disadvantage is utter lunacy.
More importantly – what do you think of a company trying to dictate policy decisions to the government. Smacks of arrogance IMHO.
Let the other companies (that had the decency to supply serious bids) have the monopoly – I would love to see how Telstra responds to some decent competition for once…
No 857
Swing Lowe, you have no idea. Sorry.
Refusing to destroy the value of the company by structural separation is not the same as seeking a monopoly.
GP, first of all, there is no case for multiple fixed line networks to the majority of the population in Australia. But there actually isn’t an issue regarding private fixed-line monopolies as long as their successfully. The fact that Telstra owns the network AND competes at retail level automatically puts every other “competitor” at a lower point.
The only way to ensure competition at the retail level is to ensure that the retailers have no connection to the network itself. Neither Axia nor Acacia want to compete in the retail market.
I’m not really a fan of Optus’ proposal, but even they are willing to accept a structurally separated network.
None of those are my preference for how communications infrastructure should be run in Australia but they beat the pants off retail monopoly.
Its not the 5-15% stuff that bugs me the most, though. I mean, I think its weak, wont get us to where we need to be etc, but what gets me most is the $4b to the coal industry. On top of that, there was big bundle of $’s in the Infrastructure spending for Hunter rail to increase the export of coal from Newcastle three-fold. So we might put $500m into renewables (something at least), a couple of $b into rail transport (but half of that to coal freight), but we’re still building roads, giving subsidies to polluters, and expanding our coal export facilities – and of course conveniently saying “well, we”re not burning it”…
Hmm, wondering if GP isn’t right on Telstra. Personally don’t see the point about going all Americana and trying to build multiple systems. Need more info though.
Hey Ron, think you’re posts are pretty on the money today. Just thought I’d let you know.
Unilaterally? So what are the EU and California, scarecrows?
And of course losing our river systems and natural resources does not effect Australia.
Well I agree that Labor made one good decision today (Telstra not getting the $).
But I make no 3excuses for the GW cop-out. Saying Howard or Obama are worse is true, but is setting the bar far too low for my liking.
861 – *As long as they’re successfully regulated.
No 859
The potential policy decisions of the Government could have severe consequences for Telstra. It was only right for Telstra to seek guarantees that no further separation of its business would occur, otherwise the business case would not exist.
I, for one, hope Telstra now announce plans for a massive expansion of its HFC network, which is simply FTTN by another name. By the time the government finishes its pathetic bureaucratic process, Telstra will already have everyone locked into 2 year contracts @ 50mbps. Honestly, Conroy is out of his league.
Because they wont be able to extract monopoly rents from it, being an open access regime.
You would pay $85 for 1mbps speeds with 200mb download quota as Telstra was suggesting in their letter?
Good on you.
No 867
Where has Telstra said that its proposal would not have been open access. Truly, you need to research before making such silly comments.
If Telstra does that, than the government has done it’s job.
No 868
Wrong. Telstra proposed a $29.95 entry plan – 1mbps/200mb. See their NBN submission.
Geez, so much misinformation around these parts.
Ok, smart*ss – explain to me why allowing Telstra to have a complete monopoly over telco infrastructure in Australia is a good idea.
And secondly, the reason why Telstra’s bid got kicked out wasn’t because of monopoly considerations – it was because their bid was a 13 page submission that arrogantly demanded that the government accede to their requests before they submitted a detailed bid. If any other bidder responded in this way, I promise you the government would have (rightly) kicked their bid out as well…
Oz, if the world is serious about polution reduction, at the end of the day, the globe must act together. At least now we don’t have skeptics in power like the Liberal Party and Bush so things can move.
Speaking of Dubya, what about the guy who threw his shoes at him in Iraq. At least he was a straight shooter!
Plato would disagree Socrates. As for Aristotle- he’ld probably reclassify everything
Sure, sure. It’s all the government’s fault that Telstra put in a non-compliant bid. Take your hand off it GP.
No 872
Swing Lowe. Wrong again.
The Government apparently rejected Telstra’s bid because it did not provide a SME business plan with its submission, despite Telstra claims to the contrary.
Also, your concerns about “complete monopoly” are unfounded. There are several networks in Australia – many of which are not run by Telstra, such as the Optus 3G network, the Optus HFC network, the Vodafone and Hutchison wireless networks, the Unwired network….the idea that Telstra is a monopolist is just wrong.
Furthermore, Conroy’s policy is essentially an upgrade of Telstra’s copper network and thus it will entail the confiscation of Telstra’s assets. The mother of all High Court cases…..here we come. Bring it on I say.
Of course Telstra is a monopoly. GP has obviously got shares in them. There should be no monopolies. And their shares deserve to capitulate.
No 875
Telstra believes its submission was compliant. I think they should test it in court to piss Conroy off. After all, this is the same dolt trying to censor the net.
http://www.cio.com.au/article/269016/nbn_government_must_now_enforce_open_network_principles
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/communications/soa/What-is-the-NBN-good-for-/0,139023754,339293767,00.htm
By demanding guarantees of no structural separation as part of the tender and using their existing infrastructure as a core for their NBN proposal (with yet more guarantees of no third party overbuilds) open access becomes a cliche akin to the D in DPRK.
No 877
I hold no Telstra shares whatsoever. All my money is in cash deposits thanks to Kev’s guarantee.
Centaur009,
Archimedes would have had a bath.
No GP, the panel rejected Telstra’s bid. Telstra says it’s because it did not provide a SME plan which they say is wrong and are adamant they put in a compliant proposal, yet earlier they admitted themselves the proposal wasn’t compliant.
The comparison of fixed-line networks and wireless services is pathetic.
No 880
Possum, you don’t need structural separation for open access regimes to work. Telstra is willing to have ACCC oversight. Read its submission to the senate inquiry.
Furthermore, Telstra has not requested overbuild protection.
No 883
The panel is an arm of government; indeed it was created and appointed by the government. So it is the government. Quacking ducks and stuff….
Also, Conroy admitted in April that he would accept non-complying bids. So your point about compliance is moot anyway.
He said they would reviewed in the same way, he didn’t say they would be awarded the tender. =)
It was reviewed and found to be a piece of crap. The end.
No 886
The panel did not cast any aspersions as to the quality of the proposal or lack thereof. It simply stated that Telstra did not submit the trivial SME plan.
845 wrote :
I would like to register my absolute DELIGHT Conroy HAS exclude Telstra from the NBN RFP process. Absolute BRILLIANCE by the minister.
Like GG I think it Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of monopolist bast*rds.
Kohler has a view here :
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Trujillos-trivial-pursuit-$pd20081215-MC4AC?OpenDocument&src=spb
Dr Good @ 841
I know that many readers have not seen arguments about per capita carbon emissions before but they are the important values to concentrate on as we aim for fair reductions over the next few decades.
I’m sure the governments of China and India would love to have carbon emission standards set on a per capita basis. Their per capita emissions are a tiny fraction of ours because the only carbon energy using appliances the overwhelming majority of Chinese homes have is a single light fixture and a small TV with most Indians not even having that, and few drive gas guzzlers reliant instead on shanks pony, draught animals, bicycles or ridiculously overcrowded busses and trains for transport.
Rudd is using the per capita figure in the same way that Howard fudged Kyoto by claiming credits for supposedly not clearing land.
Anyway you look at it 5% is a mockery. Most businesses could easily achieve this by turning off lights and computers after hours.
The fact of the matter is that TLS did not submit a bid that complied WITH the five mandatory requirements set out in the tender documentation. Conroy said that he would accept non-complying bids BUT only accept those that complied with the five mandatory requirements (as opposed to the other provisional requirements laid out in the tender).
If TLS has supplied a bid that complied with these five mandatory requirements, the government would have had no choice but to keep it on foot. TLS can only blame itself for its rejection here. Maybe next time (if there is a next time), they’ll understand that in a RFT, it’s the tenderer that holds the power – not the bidder…
And Pythagoras would just go all obtuse on us!
If it’s so trivial, why didn’t Telstra submit one?
Stewart J
“Hey Ron, think you’re posts are pretty on the money today. Just thought I’d let you know.”
Thanks Stewart J , yes problam with coal yes , part political and part “timing” (to keep competitive) wwhen one looks at total transition period to ween it out
Dr Good re th per capital argument , Garnaut looked at that as well and assessed likelihood of coppenhaggen reely committing to th 450 ppg which he thought unlikely (that required 25% emmissions target for u & 40% reducton per capita) Garnaut reckon 550 ppg was most realistic and so do I and thats 10% target reduction 930% per capita)
Actualy Rudds 15% negotiating figure on table is abov Garnaut’s suggestion based on his expected 550pp Other thingy is th 5% base target figure which in any event under th 2 schemes will be exceeded by 2020 is 25% per capital , and criticaly 13% deviation from Kyoto 2008-2012 rate
Also alot may not realise th 5% and 15% ar on th higher 2000 levels , not 1990 levels
No 890
Swing Lowe, it is not an RFT, it is an RFP. At the end of the day, the expert panel will assess the proposals and provide a non-binding recommendation to the minister. The minister is well within his right to reject the recommendation.
On another topic, there’s going to be another woman on the High Court:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24802484-601,00.html
No 892
It did submit one. But apparently it was not submitted together with their proposal on Nov 26, but in early December.
Even accepting that it’s a stupid error, the Government should not have used the issue to exclude Telstra from the process. To me, it seems as if there is more going on behind the scenes.
GP,
An independant panel said the Telstra bid was non compliant. If Telstra want to challenge that then bring it on. However, on what I have seen to date, you’d have to say they have not complied. Use of words like trivial etc is just market spin for confirming their bid did not comply.
Telstra will turn Conroy in to a folk hero of epic proportions if they keep going with their truculent attitude. I would have thought libertarians like yourself GP would oppose monopolists as a matter of course. You are obviously quite flexible on your underlying philosophy.
I think you will find that Telstra, Sol and McGauchie are less popular than you think.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/telstras-broadband-mystery-20081215-6yn9.html
There will be little sympathy for telstra in the community. They are widely regarded as a bunch of bullies and pri*&ks.
AS for all of the TINA (There is no alternative) nonsense or “telstra” is the “natural” builder of NBN – it too is just self serving tripe.
In truth Telstra has played hardball with everyone they have come into contact with.
Maybe at last they have just gone too far and been too smart by half.
No 895
Hopefully she will not accrue a record of dissension in the same vicinity of Kirby.
No kidding. It’s probably got something to do with the fact that Telstra submitted a pathetic 13 page bid for a National Broadband Network, whilst playing a game of public brinkmanship with the government of the day.
In these situations, someone always loses. Today, it looks like Telstra has lost – badly.
Pages: « 1 … 15 16 17 [18] 19 » Show All