The first Roy Morgan face-to-face poll in a fortnight shows Labor’s two party lead down from 61-39 to 59-41. Labor’s primary vote is down 1.5 per cent to 50 per cent, while the Coalition’s is up 3 per cent to 36.5 per cent. Possum detects a negative correlation between Morgan’s sample sizes and Coalition primary vote. I would observe that there are two clusters of sample sizes, around 900 and 1800, depending on whether the poll was from one weekend of polling or two (the latter being the case on this occasion). Perhaps the correlation tells us something about how Morgan decides whether to sit on its results for another week (conspiracy theories ahoy).
Elsewhere:
• Tune in for live coverage tomorrow night as voters in three of Tasmania’s 15 Legislative Council districts go to the polls. Independent Ivan Dean, who was approached by John Howard to run in Bass at the 2004 federal election, faces a strong challenge from independent competitors in Windermere, which covers outer Launceston and the eastern side of the Tamar Valley. The retirement of independent Norma Jamieson has produced a tight four-horse race in the Devonport seat of Mersey, the field including Jamieson’s daughter Carolynn. Bartlett government Treasurer Michael Aird is unlikely to be troubled in his bid to keep Derwent (outer Hobart and Derwent Valley) as one of four upper house seats held by Labor. In the regrettably unlikely event that you wish to discuss this, please do so on the dedicated thread. Further reading from Peter Tucker at Tasmanian Politics. Further coverage tomorrow from Antony Green.
• Gary Clark, husband of former MP Jackie Kelly, has been found guilty for his role in the Lindsay pamphlet scandal. This was for the benign-sounding charge of “distributing unauthorised electoral material”, which carries a fine of $750. Former Liberal powerbroker Jeff Egan was acquitted, the court accepting his explanation that he was not aware of the content of the pamphlets. Not content with that, Egan has launched a private prosecution (presumably because his complaints have failed to interest the authorities) for assault against the Labor “possé” who caught the Liberal trio in their act, which includes Senator Steve Hutchins.
• Michelle Grattan of The Age reports that Josh Freydenberg has provided a formidable pair of referees in his application for the Liberals’ Kooyong preselection: John Howard and Andrew Peacock (the latter of whom held the seat from 1966 to 1994, in between Bob Menzies and Petro Georgiou).
• The Warrnambool Standard reports that Sarah Henderson, former host of The 7:30 Report and daughter of former state MP Ann Henderson, has entered the crowded field for the preselection in Corangamite. Others mentioned include former Kennett government minister Ian Smith; Graham Harris, head of the Liberals’ Corangamite electorate council; Victorian Farmers Federation president Simon Ramsay; “Internet expert and former Howard government adviser” Rod Nockles; Simon Price, unsuccessful Colac Otway Shire Council candidate and former electorate officer to Stewart McArthur; and Michael King, “Geelong businessman and owner of Kings Australia funeral services”.
• Peter Brent of Mumble comments on the audacity of Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson expressing concern about the electoral roll in an excellent piece for Inside Story.
• After being reduced to the deadly third position on the Liberal ticket, conservative Tasmanian Senator Guy Barnett reportedly has his eyes on Bass, which Labor’s Jodie Campbell won from Michael Ferguson in 2007.
• If you thought Possum’s booth maps was dope, wait till you see Nathan Lambert’s Google Earth files.
567 Comments
What a crying shame. Our last bastion of credibility: national security. What does Turnbull do? Say there are no credible threats. The guy is an idiot.
If Turnbull continues along this path then it is just a huge political free kick to Rudd and the rusted on Liberals will be scratching their heads.
However I do commend Turnbull on the anti-dog whistling anti-fear approach as something less low than we have seen from the coalition.
I tend to be with the Govt on this that on the face of it there are many unique uncertainties in the future and that we will need to be prepared to present a credible deterrence.
This will surely create problems within the ranks of the coalition. I expect Turnbull to quickly change his position once more.
Will whoever the shadow defence minister please stand up!
Turnbull is a liberal. I cannot understand why Liberals do not like him.
No 5
So was Menzies. But even he didn’t advocate gutting our defence budget, or not increasing spending to meet credible threats.
The more liberal the leader, the less the Liberals like him.
No 7
A credible small-l liberal still believes in the defence of our nation. Are you saying that you’re a Greens voter now?
Turnball’s comparitively moderate. A moderate is in the best interests of the Liberals right now. He may say some things that put off his core constituency, and thats never a good thing if you want to prevent a coup, but who else is there? Costello or Hockey?
Actually i’ve got to say i’m surprised Turnball isn’t doing a better job, i’ve always prefered him to most of the competition and probably so too have many in the community. Could it be that the Coalitions poor performance in the polls has little to do with the ‘leadership’ and much to do with the Liberal Parties policies on GW, industrial relations and disregarding Keynes when it comes to the GFC?
And conversely, someone who’s not at all liberal – Howard – Liberals think the sun shines out of him.
THM we dont have any policies on these issues so your point is spurious.
The Heysen Molotov, I agree with your suggestion in number 9. The problem is not the leader (though the last three or so haven’t helped); the problem is the Liberal brand. They’ve been behind in every poll for more than two years. This goes way deeper than the faults of whoever happens to be their latest or current front man. It goes to the party itself, its record of malfeasance in government, its ideologies and values.
Fine. Then its coz of the ‘vibe’ and the statements that the spokespeople have made in rescent years when it comes to GW, industrial reltions and the handling of the GFC.
I never take into account who the leader of a party is when I vote or whether or not on a personal level they come across as a jerk. I only care about policy and ideology.
No 12
The continual bad polling since election day is thanks to zero policies, no principles, no values.
The party itself can recover if it actually becomes serious about the above three things. And it would also help if Turnbull tried not to alienate voters by saying we don’t need to spend money on defence.
It probably has a lot to do with the leadership in a way. For a decade the Liberal Party was John Howard. Now no John Howard. The Liberal assume that their long time in power was more than just being JH and thus that they should now be almost as popular as before.
But it is worse than that. The games, wedges and positions JH could use are no longer available, the world has moved on and to the left, leaving parts of the Liberal Party stranded at low tide. They have lost the major thing that made them electable JH and their position out on the right no longer in fashion.
They need to reinvent themselves if they want to get in anytime soon.
Turnbull in trying to keep the dinosaurs happy is appearing irrelevant to everyone else.
And his position on Defence seems to have had no thought at all, he has just gone the negative of the Govt’s position. In other words Turnbull is at his wits end, he is out of ideas.
Speaking of “out of ideas”, the Herald and The Age this morning report that the “first Australian” Swine Flu victim has arrived.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/first–australian-swine-flu-victim–man-quarantined-in-london-20090502-aqev.html
He’s lived in London for years, but his nationality is Australian. Never mind that in Australia there are no victims of Swine Flu. Someone, somewhere with an Aussie passport has the lurgy and that’s good enough for the front page of the two major Fairfax broadsheets.
Makes ya wanna up and cry, it does.
And also on “Pur ABC” online as well.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/02/2558888.htm
And just so we don’t overdo the panic bit, and obsess about Swine Flu and stuff like that, the ABC has this link at the end of their article:
It can’t be long before they start blaming Rudd for it. Someone will make a mistake, or be accused of not reacting fast enough, or they’ll miss a “flu suspect” at the airport and then it’ll be on for young and old. Imagine the “photos, video and audio clips” pouring in then.
At the other end of the scale, an anecdote. At work today I contacted our OH&S rep, asking him whether we had a “Flu Plan” or suchlike. I received a lecture about how the company can’t be “blamed” for people getting the flu. No court in the world would allow an employee to sue their employer because they contracted an illness maybe at work and so on. When I said my question was simpler than that – I just wanted to know whether we had compulsory handwashing, disposable cutlery and things like that as an option, I was told I was a Nervous Nellie.
I showed him the Government pandemic booklet (Google “”Australian Health Dept pandemic response”) which recommended thee types of things in the home and workplace and he just said that was “Government bull$shit” and not to worry about it.
Currently three of my colleagues have colds which (I am embarrassed to say) they likely caught from me. The first cold I had, four months ago, I went through all the washing and other anti-infection precautions and got laughed out of the place. But no-one caught it. This time I didn’t bother; I didn’t want to go through the wringer again, being mocked.
God help us if something really serious – and infectious – ever crops up.
Is the ABC becoming as bad as Today Tonight in covering this – The ABC are wishing for a death so it can blame Rudd etc. Tonight’s news had a report from Mexico City and the reporter had a face mask on FFS.
Poor Turnbull, takes the no position and upsets the serious right wing of his party. Poor guy can’t win, and he has worked so hard to keep those living in the past happy.
I would suggest our increased spending on defense has little to do with a creditable threats and a lot to do with having to look after our own position if china and the usa decide to have a dust up. Life is going to get more complicated for Australia. Perhaps it’s an admissions that our diplomacy isn’t up to it.
I wonder what it is like to have gone to school with a polly?
http://ny-image3.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.48385763.jpg
Re 7,
Case in point with Malcolm Fraser – I’m on the left Labor fringe and I love the man, Glen has previously said I can have him
Bushfire Bill @ 19,
During 1998, business in my city took full advantage of Howard’s new Workplace Act and took a hard line on absenteeism which resulted in people turning up for work when they really7 should have been home in bed.
Of course during that winter there was a really bad flu epidemic resulting in at one stage, over 40% of the workforce coming down with a severe dose of it and either being hospitalised or laid up in bed at home because they were seriously effected.
Business virtually shut down and many were so affected by absenteeism that they shut or suspended operations for more than four weeks. Strangely enough, about a month after things started to return to normal, many of those people went down with another version of the virus which also affected many who had missed out on the first one.
They didn’t make the same mistake this time and instructed anyone with symptoms not to attend work so as not to infect the others. A place I worked at during the 80’s almost ceased operations because of a flu epidemic.
It just demonstrates why employers should have a OH&S plan in place to deal with issues such as this but as you show, most are too stupid to do so.
Turnbull should have a quiet talk with this gentleman and pick up a few pointers. This fellow knows how to make his personal wealth work for him in furthering his popularity!
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5404XV20090501
But!
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5404XV20090501
Italian PM has an overinflated view of himself
And as for the bad polling since December 2006?
Oh what short memories you lot have GP. I love it most when Liberals say that anybody who gives out cash like a drunken sailor would get the polling Rudd is getting – NEWSFLASH! It’s been like that since December 2006!
Talk about revisionism.
What pleases me the most though? The fact that Rudd Labor reached a record 63/37 on 2pp terms… now what happened during this time of astronomical polling? Cash handouts? No. Infrastructure spending? No.
The apology to the stolen generations.
Whoa. We do have some integrity.
Re inheritance tax from previous thread. Maybe there can be a GST applied to the inheritance, as it is a change over of cash and assets, from one party to the other.
The Liberals are really wrist-slashing now. Funnily enough, this is first time I’ve agreed with Turnbull. The Defence budget is hugely overblown. The last thing we need is more unused toys for them to play with. We’ve got to make some cuts somewhere and Defence looks like a great place to start. What the hell do they actually do?
If on death all capital gains are realized. There is no longer any need for death duty. The problem is the structures used to hide the wealth.
Proof that global warming is a hoax. This is the earliest start to the Victorian ski season for 45 years.
They defend us.
Diogs,
I ask myself the same questions about medical spending.
The more doctors the more illness, expensive but terribly bland white coats are a fashion disaster and these overpaid and oversexed medicos seem to have all day to post their meaningless chatter on political blogs.
Tough love is required. Tell the malingering public that it is their duty to die. That’ll sort out if their sick or not.
It seems that what OH&S reps lake in knowledge they make up with self-importance and bombast.
Adam
You only need to be defended if you are attacked. When did that last happen?
More accurately, they are prepared to defend us in the unlikely eventuality that we are attacked. And they are a deterrent.
On the flu the only criticism I’ve seen of the Ruddster has been from Bolt who has accused him of fear-mongering. A reminder of 40M dead from the Spanish flu and pointing out that we have followed WHO procedures completely negates that argument.
One thing you have to credit Bolt for is that he really works hard, a bit like Andrew Sullivan in the US. They both manage about 10 posts a day, Sullivan’s all being excellent and Bolt all being crap.
GG
You obviously haven’t been sick recently. I can’t remember the last time I saw a doctor wearing a white coat. And I did put a
after my comment.
Arrrr, damn those Asian hordes!
The impetus for boosting the military at this time is the imminent rise of Asian powers like China. Does anyone seriously believe that if China were to engage with us militarily on some level (very, very unlikely) a few extra submarines and planes would have any effect?
A guaranteed 3% increase in spending over 20 years shows some inconsistency about the government’s rhetoric on the economic crisis which they’ve use to not only cut spending in other sectors (including firing workers) but also to argue that we don’t have money to spend in other, arguably more important, areas.
Of course I expect a whole of lot of posts saying “What’s more important than defence?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?”. Well I don’t think we should dissolve the defence force (both my father and grandfather were in the army) but I don’t think spending a $100 billion on battleships and trucks should be a priority at the moment.
Diogs,
Those emoticon thingos are a scourge. They are so much like canned laughter. They should be cut out of the Budget too!
Oz
I was waiting to be accused of abandoning Australia and handing it on a platter to China or any other country who wants to stroll along the red carpet I’d laid out by suggesting we cut the Defence budget.
Diogs,
I just thought you were being creative in promoting Australia as a tourist destination for our Asian neighbours.
GG
Given that conversations on blogs are just that, it’s really hard to convey things like irony and sarcasm to people who can’t actually hear you speak without them. I’m glad that Rudd and Conroy will be allocating a balanced amount of the budget to setting up a taskforce for the implementation of a better Emoticon strategy.
In 1941, when we found that we didn’t have an air force or a much of a navy because of 20 years of thinking like that. And military hardware has much longer lead-times now than it did then. We live in an increasingly dangerous region and the time to prepare for future contingencies is now.
Which workers has the government fired?
Which other areas has the government argued we don’t have money for?
In the ABS.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/executive-stress-as-180-abs-jobs-to-go/1465638.aspx
And the Department of Immigration.
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/700-jobs-to-go-as-rudds-axe-falls-20090430-aoy4.html
Well they applied a 3% efficiency dividend on every department, so pretty much every area.
More specifically, revenue shortfalls mean that infrastructure fund is about a third of what was suggested and as a result there will be less spending. Other than that, there’s speculation about the pension increase being lower than expected but I’d rather wait for the budget to make more specific comments. But it’s a certainty there will be cuts in areas, or less spending than earlier suggested, but defence still gets their guarantee.
If we’re going to spend money on Defence – which of course we should – investment in the Navy is the way to go.
Meeting threats before they get here is much cheaper than waiting til they’ve landed.
I’m sure that in the 1930s Australia didn’t think there were any credible threats out there, either.
On the flu discussion: the Victorian Education Dept has for many years now provided free flu shots for teachers as a matter of course, so I suggested the same to our CEO. He couldn’t see the sense in it (I argued that the Ed Dept must have done some cost analysis).
That winter, the majority of the staff, including the CEO, came down with the flu.
Free flu shots are now standard.
Also job cuts at Geoscience Australia.
http://www.cpsu.org.au/campaigns/news/12574.html
Which, ironically, is the organisation researching CCS.
Ok I see. Reductio ad Hitlerum only applies when it refutes Adam’s position as opposed to supporting it.
It’s an absolute pleasure to see the Government handle a potentially important and controversial issue like the H1N1 flu without politicising it. They have been honest and professional and just got about doing their jobs without point-scoring or grand-standing. If it was Howard, there would be tub-thumping, xenophobic whistle-blowing and public servants being bashed up and forced to spout ideologically driven propaganda to the public. I don’t often praise Rudd but this reminds us that we’ve got an excellent PM, even if he is wimpy on CC.
Another reason we had a shortage of Navy and Air Force in 1941 was a large portion of what we did have was in Europe/Africa.
The reason for the name Pig Iron Bob was`t particularly helpful either.
And right now we’re building up our military because we’re scared of the potential threat of China yet we have no problem with selling them uranium.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/sinophile-pm-sends-beijing-a-blunt-signal-20090501-aqad.html?page=-1
* China’s military capability is on the rise while the USA’s is on the decline and “It acknowledges China’s right “to develop a globally significant military capability” and “The paper paints a far-from-comforting picture of how the power balance around us is likely to change in coming decades. China’s rise and rise will mean the relative decline of American power in the region”.
* There is the “unknown unknown” about how China will exercise this military capability.
* The old “pawn” that has bound USA and Japan together, namely Taiwan, is no longer a player because Beijing and Taipeh relationship is at its best for many years. The indication is that it will only get better. “One country, three systems” is not out of the question.
* Japan is paralysed economically, politically and socially. It is no longer being regarded as the de facto leader in Asia. China has taken that place firmly.
* China’s model of “Guided Democracy”, which is a copy that has been pioneered by Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, is increasing being viewed as a better model for the Asian countries, in the context of Asian culture and custom. The Thailand, India, and sometimes, Taiwan, model of free wheeling and dealing democracy has led to the best democracy that money can buy.
* The action is at North and East Asia where China, Japan, India and Russia. In particular if Japan and china can work out their historical baggage, the indications are that they are trying very hard.
* “But the message is Australians will be living in a different world, where the US umbrella will jostle with the Chinese one (and perhaps others too), with who knows what consequences” – yes, Australia has to look after its own interests independently. China will respect Australia for that independent stance, rather than hostility.
* I really hate to think how would Australia react if Indonesia is emerging as the next China, economically, politically and militarily, in Southeast Asia, on our doorstep. But that will happen, not if but when.
Finns,
If the Chinese do decide to invade, there is only one hymn sheet to sing from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzC5HT1Qhmo
Diog, Obi is in danger of over exposing himself. he makes the other self confessed media tart, Peter Beattie, looks like a recluse. Did you see the way he gate crashed the press conference held by his own Press Secretary. Not looking good.
GG, was there not a song called “I like chow mein”
Finns,
http://www.pbmcube.com/FG/Chow-Meow.html
No, Oz, that wasn’t reductio ad Hitlerum – we weren’t attacked by Hitler. It was what actually happened in Australian history. War broke out in our region and we were very unprepared to the meet the threat.
Tom, that of course is correct. The army was mostly in the Middle East. But it’s not all that difficult to raise an army fairly quickly – all they need is boots and rifles. Building an air force and navy quickly is much more difficut, and much harder now than it was then.
If Australia wants F-22s then it is going the wrong way about getting them.
The way to try is say F-22s or European instead of the F-35s/JSFs.
GG, yes Poor Harry in his yellow Taxi up in the sky. He died too young.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/miss-californias-breast-i_n_194385.html
This must be very important event to be reported by Huffo. I thought everyone, i mean everyone, male and female, in Kalifornia has breast implants. Look at Arnie.
It really makes the Chinese military threat looks like a sunday picnic. The Breast Attacks!!!!
The Navy was in the Mediterranean too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Espero_Convoy
54 – Our resident Obama hater in full flight. Beattie did win elections comfortably and so will Obama, media tart or not. Just one question, what’s so evil about being a media tart?
The estimated number of swine flu deaths in Mexico has fallen from 176 to 101, and only 16 are confirmed. Not quite a pandemic yet.
Frank @ 20
Every time I’ve seen the ABC report from Mexico City this week at some point the reporter has dramatically announced that “*everyone* in Mexico City is covering their faces with surgical masks” (or words to that effect), and everytime they’ve said that, there have been several people clearly visible in the background, *not* wearing masks!
Listy,
Clearly, a good story for radio though.
I’m not saying this will happen at all but the Spanish Flu, which was also a H1N1 flu, started in much the same way. It petered out over the Northern spring but came back later in the year in a big way.
I also note that Australia is the only major Western country not to have a confirmed case of swine flu except Italy. Proof that it’s all due to nuclear power stations if you ask me.
GP fantasies about Ming’s military prowess
Ming did not too much of a practical nature having been, so far as can be ascertained, the only fit male of military age who held a a militia commission not to have enlisted in the first AIF. Of course like most chicken hawk Tories he didn’t mind other mothers’ sons spilling their bllod on some foreign field.
No 50
I don’t recall any ideological heart-thumping or xenophobia when there was a SARS-scare. Obviously, you are misguided and deluded.
H1N1 – hmmm, is that the Harvey Norman Flu, Gerry will be very pleased.
GB, learn to aim properly
Me simply love Da Man.
No 52
Remember though, a lot of the announcement is a reannouncement of spending – we already knew about the 100 F35 JSFs and the 24 FA/18 Super Hornets.
I would be wearing a face mask too if I was in Mexico City.
This is is untrue Kim Landers, the female reporter on Lateline who had a face mask draped around her neck, explicitly pointed out that NOT EVERYONE was wearing face masks.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2557584.htm
The opposition continues to criticise the defence white paper:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25417877-29277,00.html
Turnbull is weak on defence.
No 67
Are you calling Menzies a coward? Pathetic.
There is no point in being “scare” of the emerging China’s military might. It is going to happen whether you like it or not, you just have to live and deal with that.
Consider this. China is the third country to put a man into space on its own, after USA and Russia. It has plan to put a man on the moon by 2020. If it can do that, it will be only the second to do that.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-03/10/content_7565194.htm
Menzies was 20 in 1914, he was physically fit, and he held a commission in the Melbourne University Rifles. Yet he did not enlist. Why not? Because his brothers were already serving, and his family decided that he should not enlist until he had finished his law degree. Well, that is an excuse of a sort, but he turned 21 in 1915 and did not need his family’s permission to enlist. Many other families saw all their sons enlist. Many men lied about their ages to enlist before they were 18. Menzies was certainly a hypocrite for campaigning for conscription in 1917 when he himself had not volunteered, as many pointed out at the time. Certainly some of Menzies’s contemporaries thought he was a coward. The RSL campaigning against him in his first campaign in East Yarra, which he lost. Earle Page refused to serve under him in 1939, citing his failure to enlist as one of the reasons.
Sure, but if China threatens Taiwan or Japan, then we, along with the U.S., will help defend those countries.
China wouldn’t be stupid enough to ever threaten the U.S.
Again I ask, if we’re actually scared about China being a threat than maybe the first thing we should do is stop selling them things like uranium?
Showy, forget Taiwan. Unless you want to hangon to the coattail of the USA’s looney Right who still yells , occasionally, who lost China. Japan? Remember Changi or the Bridge on the River Kwai.
This would only be necessary if they withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, because that would imply that they are going to use Uranium to build nuclear weapons, instead of running power stations.
WWII ended in 1945. Times have moved on, Australia and Japan are now strong allies.
I don`t think Australia would go to the defence of Taiwan. We are too close to China. the Australian Government has a bit of a superpower complex. First Britain then America and we are now moving towards China. “I wonder when we will get an Australian Yuan” he says jokingly.
Maybe we should ask the RSL about that. More relevant is who is paying the bills.
there’s a horse called Malcolm about to race in Sydney,
China has Nuclear weapons and is allowed them under the NPT.
It has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (neither has the US) and has not even signed the partial test ban treaty.
It is a FACT Australia and Japan share strong bilateral ties. I couldn’t care less what the RSL’s OPINION is. Japan has reformed itself from a quasi-theocratic imperialist death cult, to a liberal democracy, thus we now share a strong bilateral relationship.
Sure, like Russia, U.S., U.K. and France. That’s fine.
But in the long term, all these states should give up their nuclear weapons, which Russia and the U.S. have slowly been doing over the last decade.
SO
I’m all for nuclear disarmament but isn’t it a bit naive to think that giving them up will stop them being used. The technology and materials will still be there are they could be assembled in a day or so if the US etc really wanted to.
So we’re scared we’re going to go to war with them but we still trust them enough to uphold treaties.
No 87
The nuclear deterrant is what keeps the world away from an all-encompassing skirmish.
You don’t need thousands of them, but a few is enough to keep others warned of MAD – mutally assured destruction.
Fewer nuclear weapons will make the world safer. That’s the bottom line.
Where did I write that Australia is afraid of going to war with China? We need to be aware that China historically has had extremely dangerous relationships with both Japan and Taiwan, to the extent that the Japanese thing conflict with China is inevitable, and China doesn’t think Taiwan should even exist.
Sure, but the problem we currently have is that the U.S. and Russia do have thousands of them. Fortunately both of those countries realise how absurd that situation is, and are rapidly converting them to nuclear fuel.
Yes, i can really imagine now. The diggers, along side the Flag of the Rising Sun, standing on the beach of Fukuoka, Kyushu. Waiting to repel the Chinese invaders. the last time the Chinese Yuan Dynasty tried it some 800 years ago, the Japanese were wisely enough to know it was futile and pray for the divine wind Kamakaze.
Of course, Oz was never that smart anyway, just ask Gallipoli.
I didn’t say you were, but it’s the reason given for why we’re building up our defence forces.
Finns @ 74. “The key technology problem is the returning”
WTF, what technology problem? The Americans went to the moon and back with the type of technology before the innovations of colour TV and the basic calculator. I have it on good authority I tell you that man has yet to land on the moon!
StilI, I don’t really know what to believe? But I wouldn’t be betting that they did
Centre, gee you were lucky. We used the slide rule.
I remember playing with it all the time.
My calculator as a young kid that is
GP
There are quite a few historians who refer to the Cold War as the Long Peace.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/workers-memorial-unveiled-in-queensland-20090502-aqoe.html
Somebody sounds sour and bitter as they realise their party has no heritage, reason for being or soul.
Surely the libs can think of some memorial, what about a “white feather’ made from pig iron, captures Menzies in one.
The calculations for the first nuclear bomb were all done with a slide rule. Nothing wrong with a slide rule.
whatever turns you on.
I agree with Turnbull on defence spending cut backs. We are facing a large deficit and we are not going to go to war with anybody in the short term. Of course we all know that if Rudd was making cut backs, then Turnbull would be crying for more spending. It is good to see Turnbull so wedged and alienating his core support lol.
Rudd is the smartest politician we have ever seen. Better than Howard. I remember Ruddock asking in QT with tongue in cheek “what is this wedge politics”. By the time Rudd is finished, the liberals will wish that they had never heard of the Tampa or wedge politics
What on earth are you going on about? Japanese and Australian troops fought together in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is the way of international relations – states that are enemies in one conflict, may be on the same side many years later.
Moreover, not all members of the RSL are as rabidly anti-Japanese as Bruce Ruxton. Some realise that the Japanese soldiers were just being manipulated by a corrupt and evil regime.
What effing game!!!!
What? The Cuban Missile crisis was good, and we should have more world events just like it?
Robert S. McNamara refers to The Cold War as The Hot War. He would be in a better position to know than miscellaneous historians who weren’t there making the day to day decisions.
Fought? Japanese “soldiers” are not allowed to fight.
Oh OK. Japanese and Australian soldiers SERVED together on the same side of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is that any better? My point remains exactly the same.
I don’t think any member of the Japanese SDF has ever fired a shot in anger. Correct me if I’m wrong. When Japan was pushing for a permanent seat on the Security Council a few years ago, it was quite rightly pointed out that they would then be in the position of sending other countries’ troops into conflicts that their own constitution does not allow them to take part in. It’s long past time that Japan rewrote its pacifist constitution, but they are afraid of Chinese and Korean reaction.
He’s also as far away from being objective as you can be.
You can add Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Burma, Vietnam, HK and Taiwan that were under the iron boot of Japan. They have forgotten.
They have forgotten. = They have NOT forgotten.
GP splutters:
Yep. And third rate.
I think you are right. In fact one of our roles in Iraq was specifically to provide protection to the Japanese force:
http://www.blackanthem.com/TheAllies/2005050101.html
Apparently the Japanese Navy you have when you aren’t allowed to have a Navy has helped the U.S. quite a lot:
[Japan’s role in the war on terror, especially Operation Enduring Freedom, was a major step in its taking on a greater security role. Since December 2002, Japan has maintained a flotilla of logistical support ships and Aegis-equipped destroyers of the Maritime Self Defense Forces (MSDF) to refuel and supply the U.S. and coalition ships operating in the Indian Ocean as a part of OEF.
The Japanese ships in the Indian Ocean are directly supporting a wartime coalition operation that has captured large quantities of weapons, smuggled drugs, and traffickers.[1] This logistical support has increased the opera-tional capabilities of coalition forces.]
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23464/pub_detail.asp
However, this just supports my point that in WWII Australia was involved in extreme conflict as the Japanese tried to invade our country, flash forward 60 years, Australian forces were defending the Japanese. Bruce Ruxton times who think a country should always begrudge its historical adversaries are delusional, and are a threat to world peace.
He was actually in the room with JFK deciding what the hell to do about the soviet union setting up nuclear weapons in Cuba. His opinion should be respected a great deal more, than people who pretend that the cold war was peaceful.
GP at 1, yes Turnbull is an idiot (althoug quite scary for him that tories are calling him that. He seems content to continue with his oppose at all costs strategy that has worked so well for him
And Centre at 101, Rudd is an adept politician. Defence one of the only things the tories have credibility on, then Turnbull tears it to shreds. Not only alienates his base but ignores that fact that Howie played on fear and the electorate have been conditioned to be fearful
This week Turnbull did support the increased troop deployment to Afghanistan. But that is the first Government policy he has supported in a long time.
The point is, can you trust a fully re-armed Japan? They still pay regular visit to the Yasukuni shrine that still glorifies Japan’s past military aggression. Their history books still tell their children that Japan was a victim not the aggressor. If that is what you want? be my guest.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t listen to him, but objectivity is one of the most important tenets of history. It’s almost impossible to suggest McNamara’s writings and commentary on the Cold War are objective.
I remember my slide rule at school fondly, as I do my logarithm tables. These new fangled calculators will never catch on
Tom
Doesn’t this also support the argument that it’s completely plausible to not have a large standing defence force, even when surrounded by past and current enemies (China and North Korea) and be fine?
Tom,we dont need batteries on the slide rule ]
I don’t think there’s the slightest chance of militarism regaining a place in mainstream Japanese politics. At whom would it now be directed? East Asia is no longer full of European colonies ripe for the picking, but rather of well-armed independent states. I agree that Japan should grow up and stop denying its past, and Japanese PMs should stop visiting the Yasukuni shrine. But at the same time, China and Korea should get over their preoccupation with Japan’s crimes of the past. I don’t think all the other states Finns listed are nearly as concerned about Japanese power as they are about the rise of China as regional hegemon. Japan, in alliance with the US, Austraklia and India, is the obvious counter-weight.
Guy Barnett of the hardline religious right considering running for a Lower House seat? Funniest thing I’ve heard all week. Any chance of Erica doing the same? Bring it on!
Herr Doktor, which one is the chicken and which one is the egg?
Japan was on our side in WW1.
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles26/world-war-one-8.shtml
So it the great Austrlian Internet filter ever got up ( note how quite it has all gone), it would be the US funding the average user software to bypass the dam thing.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/01/1436237
It’s a good sign that Barnett thinks he has less chance of holding his Senate seat at No 3 on the ticket than he has of winning Bass from Labor. In fact he has almost no chance of doing either.
If the Senate was enlarged then he would have a chance.
If there was a DD he would have a chance (at No 3).
(at No 3)=(at No 5)
What about a statue in the shape of a WorkChoices Pen. (There are tens of thousands of these pens lying around, apparently.) Captures the Liberals in one!
If there was a DD, then Tassie would be interesting – the Greens are pretty much guaranteed 2 seats and could get 3, if they get well over a (normal) quota like they did last time and Labor don’t try any funny business with Family First again. That’d possibly throw a hammer in the works for the two majors… if the Libs only ended up with 4 seats (and ALP 5), then a sitting senator would get pushed out.
Well the Senate isn’t going to be enlarged. I agree if there was a DD he would probably be 4 or 5 on the Lib ticket and would get back. But he has to decide soon whether to stay on the Senate ticket or run for Bass.
Three quotas is 23.1%. I doubt the Greens could get that in Tas. They already get most of the middle-class left vote, there’s not much more to take from Labor. Tas is a fairly blue-collar state and Labor’s blue-collar base won’t vote Green in a fit.
It’s also unclear if Brown will run again which will dent the Green vote due to his charisma vote. That’d leave Milne to lead the ticket. Someone with the political maturity of a screaming banshee.
Diogenes
Actually, I think I remember from “Surely you’re joking, Mr Feynman!” that one of the earliest mainframe computers was installed at the Los Alamos site of the Manhattan Project specifically to crunch the numbers for the first atomic bomb. Someone who has read it more recently might confirm.
Adam would you say that states like Victoria have a larger middle class left vote and therefore a higher potential left vote?
Greensborough Growler:
You have Milne pegged – i believe Adam called her “bossy” – and that was being polite
I don’t think mainframe computers existed in 1945.
Tom, yes I would. The Greens have done well in Tas for several reasons: hot-button issues like Lake Pedder, the Franklin dam, old growth forests and the pulp mill; a traditionally very un-green state Labor party closely linked to the Hydro and timber firms; and a charismatic leader in Bob Brown. But I think they have maximised their vote in Tas. In Vic there is still a big “potential green” vote. But so far they haven’t found the key to winning it over. They had a potential breakthrough opportunity in the Albert Park by-election, but blew it badly with a bad candidate and a weak campaign.
I’ve been watching Milne in the Senate hearings. She’s very smart and determined, and she knows what she’s talking about. But she has an unfortunately self-righteous manner. So does Brown, of course, but I’m afraid in media and public image terms this is less forgivable in a woman leader.
The other main reason the Greens have done well in Tasmania is Hare-Clark.
I think the existence of the Green MLCs will help the Green vote in 2010.
Tom, (a) yes of course, I should’ve added that, (b) I doubt it, but then I don’t live in Vic anymore so maybe I’m wrong.
polyquats
They had a prototype of ENIAC, short for Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer, at Los Alamos but they mainly used slide-rules. von Neumann was at Los Alamos but not in a computing role. ENIAC was used to develop the H-bomb though.
They had a bunch of Jewish scientists and that’s really all you need.
This could get interesting. I doubt that Nitschke can expect a lot of sympathy or help from the Ruddster.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25418852-5005962,00.html
You’re right, according to Gribbin they used a ‘new kind of calculating machine’, supplied by IBM and assembled by Feynman and friend because they couldn’t be bothered waiting for the IBM engineer.
Polyquats,
And so began the history of shocking support by computer manufacturers.
If Hitler hadn’t lost all his Jewish nuclear physicists by expelling them or having them flee from Eastern Europe, he would have had enough expertise to have built an atomic bomb. They lost Szilard (who had the first idea for the chain reaction), Teller, Wigner, Franck and many others. There was some serious karma.
I recently read a biography of Frederick Lindemann, Churchill’s scientific adviser, who was born in Germany. In 1933 he began offering jobs at Oxford to German Jewish scientists who were being kicked out of German universities. These men became the core of the Tube Alloys group which laid the scientific foundations of the A-bomb project.
And of course it was Albert Einstein whose letter to FDR got the Manhattan Project up and running.
The Jewish scientists obviously didn’t know what was happening to the Jews who never got out of Nazi Germany. I wonder if it would have been counter-productive if they had’ve known the truth.
They had a pretty good idea. That was why they were so determined that Hitler would not get the bomb first.
The dangerous moment came in December 1944, when the Americans captured von Weizacker’s papers at the University of Strasbourg. These proved that Germany was nowhere near getting the bomb. There was then a moral crisis for some of the Manhattan scientists. If there was no danger of a Nazi bomb, what was the justification for building a US bomb? One or two of them resigned at that point.
A few days ago there was talk here about nuclear reactors that can turn high level nuclear waste into fuel. I linked to Fast Breeder Reactors, but these generally produce plutonium, that could be used for weapons. There is a better experimental alternative called Integral Fast Reactors, with lots of information on this blog:
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/
There is a wikipedia page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
Finns
Is there anything you’d like to share with us
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25419926-5005962,00.html
Put the pen and the white feather with a hammock in between, surround it with a white picket fence and you have the liberal memorial.
Pakistan is in a world of hurt ……
If the Greens win seats in the Legislative Assembly then I think that will raise their vote.
The victory of a Green in Rucker Ward will help with their vote in Northcote in 2010 (and hopefully in Batman in the future (has Martin Ferguson ever done anything not bad and rightist?)).
The Poisoned Dwarf still fighting for the conservatives. now Rudd should sack one of his Senators according to TPD. LOL
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25418759-952,00.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17072-first-genetic-analysis-of-swine-flu-reveals-potency.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
It would be a smart idea when this year’s Australian Federal budget is bought down for a plan for debt repayment schedule was attached so people can see that the economic stimulus spending has indeed been necessary, temporary and affordable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/us/politics/01budget.html?ref=economy
Where did this guy come from? Michael Coulter, Production Editor of The Age, write so well:
in a banner on your front page – clearly hinting some poor sod has “certainly” got the flu – then, on the actual article inside, change your headline to:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/aussies-quarantined-overseas-as-officials-try-to-contain-virus-20090502-aqrp.html
They’re hanging out so much for their first flu case on Australian soil. Then we’ll really be a grown up country. We’ll have the “flu pandemic” too, and they can really go to town on the scaremongering.
Note of caution: if we go much longer without a genuine case, then the story may switch to:
God help Rudd then if we actually do get a case at this stage of the story…
This one’s got a long way to go.
Watching Insiders. Is Hugh White the only Defence analyst in Australia??
I’ve seen his head just about everywhere the last few days. He is to defence asVan Onselen is to the LIberal Party – the media’s go to person. (to the exclusion of other views)
Maybe not Bill
[In an announcement expected to ease fears around the world, Mexican health officials are now saying the strain of swine flu may not be as deadly as first feared.
According to the health ministry, information it is still gathering from hospitals across the country indicates that if sufferers are treated within three days of the onset of symptoms the prognosis is good.
Mexico’s health minister said authorities might, on reflection, have overestimated the danger of the virus when it first appeared. …
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/03/2559192.htm
I agree – the “God delusions cloud a world of wonders” piece is a good one. It’s a pity this wasn’t the page one story. After all it’s an opinion piece just like most of what’s served up as News these days.
Another strong performance by swannie on insiders. The libs thought he was a weak link ? Gotta be joking
Dave, I too thought he mike be the governments weakest key minister but that hasn’t been the case after he got his first budget behind him. I still think Tanner is the better salesman but Swan is still a very strong performer in the toughest of all ministries at this time.
mike had nothing to do with it
make that ‘might’
GB these days Milne is nothing more than an irrevelant bitter man. I just how the media say “under pressure” or embattled to beat up their own story. He mus be pretty partisan though not to realise that he is batting for what will be the wrong team for a number of terms
Amazing Scenes!
Gerard Henderson beats up Turnbull for betraying Liberal Party Principles by not supporting extra Defence spending and then says “Reds Under The Beds” is a perfectly reasonable position for Turnbull to take in this modern world.
You hadda be there (Insiders).
Yyep.
Other good self fulfilling lines:
“This issue has the potential to cause embarrasment to …” (pretty much ever issue does)
“Questions have been raised about… ” (usually the person raising the questions is the journalist)
“The Minister/leader is struggling to get his message across in the media” (becasue we keep writing abvout how he’s struggling to get his message across).
“A quick check of opinions at my local butcher’s shop…” (always good to make it sound like you listen to “real people” – forget about sample size though)
“While the polls suggest…” (which means I am going to now spend the rest of the article arguing the polls are all wrong)
“Some governent insiders are worried that…” (look I was having a beer with a lackey nobody and he agreed with me on what I was saying so now it’s an anonymous source).
“Peter Costello…” (I’ve really got no story, so it’s break the glass time and I’ll write about Costello’s leadership challenge)
Dave
In chess it is a classic trap to portray a part of your game as weak. Draws the opponent to that side where you leisurely wipe them out.
Apologirs if others have already seen it but there is a very good article on Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) technology at Barry Brooke’s blog:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/30/rethinking-nuclear-power/
If Rudd wanted to do ANYTHING that might be credible in the long term in solving CC/energy problems, and wedge the Liberals to boot, he should position Australia to investigate/research into this technology, as part of a mix of renewables. Environmentally it seems to be the least harm option. Economically it faces an initial investment cost barrier, but then has low operating costs. If France, Germany, South Korea and Japan can maintain competitive manufacturing using nuclear energy (at least in part) then so can we. Rather than havign blanket ideological positions for or against nuclear energy, we need to set out under what circumstances it would or would not be acceptable. If we are honest, we will find that clean coal does not pass such criteria anyway.
Assuming the real hurdle is political, someone needs to tell the mining companies that in the long term IFR is the best way for them to still make money selling all the other base metals industrial societies need without coal power, and also tell the CFMEU that lots of jobs will be created making the power plants and a new electricity grid.
Next I will imagine how world peace might be created …..
How about:
“Minister let me ask you this. Some people say…” without ever naming the people who say. Maggie Thatcher, famously asked a question in this form by our own George Negus (in his 60 Minutes days), replied, “Who are these people? What are their names?”
“The [xyz] government was reeling today after allegations that…” The journalist writing the article made the allegations yesterday, or the writer’s mate (who works in the office next door) made the allegations in the morning edition.
Anything to do with an “Affair”, as in “As the [xyz] Affair gathered momentum…”
My personal favourite: bootstrapping.
Day #1: original speculative story.
Day #2: a colleague picks up story and discusses a new angle.
Day #3: (if you’re lucky) your opposition picks up the story.
Day #4: Articles starting with “Newspaper reports that..” in the same paper that broke the story.
Day #5: Articles containing the words, “The Minister refused to deny…” (or confirm, as the case may be) appear.
Day #6: “As the [xyz] affair drags on, causing grief for an embattled government…”
Day #7: Allegations are now Established Fact, good enough for Pies Akerman to dredge them up as “facts” when he writes his bi-annual “fact file”: a list of egregious Rudd crimes from the past, usually with the words, “Where there’s smoke there’s fire…” to cover up the fact that none of the facts have ever been proven to be “facts”.
Day #8: “An increasingly brittle government is over-reacting to what amounts to a political storm in a teacup…”. To be most effective this article must be written by the original journalist from Day #1.
Love it, don’t ya?
Socrates, well said.
Ah yes, here we go:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25419362-421,00.html
So we know the drugs are approaching their use-by date. We’re replacing them at the required rate. But now that we’re facing “stiff market competition” we might not be able to get them in time.
It appears that if you stock up early the use-by date will arrive to bugger up your efforts.
If you wait until the flu appears (just a week ago, remember), then your back’s against the wall and you’re “admitting” you’re in a tight corner, especially against “stiff market competition”.
If you ignore the use-by date and buy up big year before it expires then, presumably, you’re wasting money on panic purchases when there’s perfectly good and effective drugs already on the shelves.
Sheesh!
Senators up in 2010
NSW
Hon John Faulkner (ALP, age 56, elected 1989) Cabinet Minister
Mike Forshaw (ALP, 58, 1994)
Steve Hutchins (ALP, 54, 1998)
Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, (Lib, 46, 2004) Shadow Parliamentary Secretary
Hon Bill Heffernan (Lib, 67, 1996)
Fiona Nash (Nat, 45, 2004) Shadow Parliamentary Secretary
Likely result in 2010: No change
Vic
Hon Kim Carr (ALP, 55, 1993) Cabinet Minister
Hon Steven Conroy (ALP, 45, 1996) Cabinet Minister
Hon Michael Ronaldson (Lib, 56, 2004) Shadow Minister
Julian McGauran (Lib, 53, 1987)
Hon Judith Troeth (Lib, 70, 1993) RETIRING
Steve Fielding (FF, 50, 2004)
Likely result in 2010: ALP gain from FF
Qld
Hon Joe Ludwig (ALP, 51, 1998) Minister
Hon Jan McLucas (ALP, 52, 1998) Parliamentary Secretary
Hon George Brandis (Lib, 53, 2002) Shadow Minister
Hon Brett Mason (Lib, 48, 1998) Shadow Parliamentary Secretary
Barnaby Joyce (Nat, 43, 2004) Nats Senate Leader
Russell Trood (Lib, 62, 2004)
Likely result in 2010: ALP gain from Lib
WA
Hon Chris Evans (ALP, 52, 1993) Cabinet Minister
Glenn Sterle (ALP, 50, 2004)
Judith Adams (Lib, 67, 2004)
Mathias Cormann (Lib, 40, 2007) Shadow Parliamentary Secretary
Chris Back (Lib, 60, 2009)
Rachel Siewert (Green, 49, 2004)
Likely result in 2010: No change
SA
Annette Hurley (ALP, 55, 2004)
Anne McEwen (ALP, 56, 2004)
Dana Wortley (ALP, 51, 2004)
Hon Nick Minchin (Lib, 57, 1993) Shadow Minister
Hon Alan Ferguson (Lib, 67, 1992)
Mary-Jo Fisher (Lib, 48, 2007)
Likely result in 2010: Either no change or Green gain from Lib
Tas
Kerry O’Brien (ALP, 59, 1996) Government Whip
Helen Polley (ALP, 53, 2004)
Hon Eric Abetz (Lib, 52, 1994) Shadow Minister
Stephen Parry (Lib, 50, 2004)
Guy Barnett (Lib, 48, 2002)
Christine Milne (Green, 57, 2004)
Likely result in 2010: ALP gain from Lib
ACT
Kate Lundy (ALP, 43, 1996)
Gary Humphries (Lib, 52, 2003)
Likely result in 2010: No change
NT
Trish Crossin (ALP, 54, 1998)
Hon Nigel Scullion (CLP, 54, 2001) Shadow Minister
Likely result in 2010: No change
Socrates,
This (Integral Fast Reactors) IFR seems to be a Magic Pudding solution:
The key advantages of IFR are listed as follows:
1. It can be fueled entirely with material recovered from today’s used nuclear fuel.
2. It consumes virtually all the long-lived radioactive isotopes that worry people who are concerned about the “nuclear waste problem,” reducing the needed isolation time to less than 500 years.
3. It could provide all the energy needed for centuries (perhaps as many as 50,000 years), feeding only on the uranium that has already been mined.
4. It uses uranium resources with 100 to 300 times the efficiency of today’s reactors.
5. It does not require enrichment of uranium.
6. It has less proliferation potential than the reprocessing method now used in several countries.
7. It’s 24×7 baseline power.
8. It can be built anywhere there is water.
9. The power is very inexpensive (some estimates are as low as 2 cents/kWh to produce).
10. Safe from melt down because if something goes wrong, the reactor naturally shuts down rather than blows up.
11. And, of course, it emits no greenhouse gases.
Would be very interested in what others have to say.
BB, if you don’t mind I will save your piece re the typical beatup scenario to give to my kids.
Might help them understand these dills in the Oz media.
Have noticed how different Obama’s Press conferences are to ours. Absolutely no respect in this country but even if they disagree with Obama (or even Bush at the time) they at least showed a little respect for the office.
Oz journos are a hypocritical bunch.
Bit surprised at Henderson this a.m. spouting against Turnbull on a couple of accounts. Turnbull must surely be in trouble.
But how about Henderson’s defence of Howard and Costello’s big spendathons. That gave us a good laugh.
Opium of and for the masses.
Fiona Nash is no longer a shadow parliamentary secretary.
Ltep, Oops, correct. She resigned in December after voting against tax deductions for carbon sinks.
Yes, similar effects and opium is usually via a a prick in the arm whilst with the other can be a prick in the ***.
BB
You could also point out to the dimwit who wrote that article that Tamiflu isn’t a vaccine.
You mean this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFh3pu0uGxQ
The problem with Thatcher in this interview is that is sounds like if he named them she would hunt them down and have them “removed”.
Have to admit BB I’ve never seen this article. I count myself lucky.
I sincerely apologise for the comment at 178 in light of the new miracle.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25414099-401,00.html
There are fairies in the garden.
GG
IFR’s have been around for a while in the development phase. When they showed promise in the US, Bush cut their funding and banned the scientists from speaking about how promising they were.
We’ve still got the NIMBY problem here (and a PM who’s not big on “courageous/suicidal” decisions). One of the guys in the BraveNewClimate blog posted this though
Another nail in the newspaper coffin. The Oracle of Omaha says he wouldn’t buy them at any price. That should please Rupert.
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/05/02/buffett-sees-unending-losses-for-many-newspapers/
Dio
The apology to the aboriginals was one of the most courageous political ddecisions I have ever seen. You cannot say that about Rudd that he lacks courage.
Diogenes,
The reason we have the NIMBY problem is that the protagonists of Nuclear Power have never addressed (IMHO) the issues of concern.
Blees in his advocacy seems to confront issues such as cost blow outs, regulatory failure, waste management, proliferation of weapons, possible accidents et al head on. He seems to be saying that the fourth generation nuclear power plants do. If so, I am prepared to listen and evaluate nuclear power with an open mind.
Here’s a radio interview from that site. Forty minutes well spent.
Peter%20B%20Collins%2011-25-08%20H1[1] 41:25
More on the death of newspapers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-jarvis/no-newspapers-at-any-pric_b_195189.html
protagonists =/ proponents
Oh, tosh. What political risks did it carry for him? None. A courageous decision is one that antagonises your own support base, antagonises powerful interest groups and/or may cost you votes. Howard’s gun laws in 1996 were courageous. The apology was the right thing to do, but took no particular courage.
Some genuinely courageous things Rudd could do
* Scrap the tax cuts in this budget
* Scrap the private health rebate
* Scrap the SES schools funding formula
* Go for 20% by 2020
* Sell uranium to India
* Go nuclear
[good enough for Pies Akerman to dredge them up as “facts” when he writes his bi-annual “fact file”:
Pies has a habit of filing away every anti-Rudd accusation for a rainy day. Every now and again (at about 6 months intervals) he spews them all out onto the table. I think the idea is that there are so many accusations floating about that some of them must be true.
The last occasion this happened was with The Affair Of The Slobbering Stewardess. Pies dredged out Therese Rein, Rudd’s Childhood, Scoresgate, Long Tan, the resignations from his office over the past few months, something to do with the Governor General’s batman and, I think, Heiner, to “prove” Rudd was a hypocrite and a phoney, just as making a 23 year-old cry would attest. Most of these “affairs” were either not proved at all, or partially proved, as when Milne tried to make out Rudd was drunk and disorderly and never retracted it, or indeed when the story went out that Rudd was upset at the hostie because he couldn’t get tofu with gold flakes and ground caterpillar’s testicles on the plane (or whatever the allegedly fancy meal was supposed to be), when in fact there were no meals at all on board that night, just snack food.
As I wrote above, these kinds of stories seem to come out around every 6 months. All the alleged “Affairs” are stitched together to provide (Pies hopes) a litany of innuendo and scandal, some of the mud from which (again, he hopes) has stuck.
I’ve now signed up to follow Rees, Brumby, Bligh and Rann on Twitter (Barnett and Bartlett don’t have it). Rann uses it very effectively – a steady stream of messages making short sharp points against the Libs and the media. His populist instincts are second to none.
This is all about using new media to bypass and outwit the Tory press. Rann only has 3,800 followers atm but that number will grow exponentially. This is the politics of the future.
William
I think AIC account has been hacked, he is displaying, identified leftist tendencies
Adam,
Is that courageous in the “Yes Prime Minister” sense?
Castle, you left off the last 2 on the list!
Anyway, I didn’t say I was advocating those things, I said they would be courageous decisions.
GG, in the sense that “courageous” = “politically suicidal”, no I don’t think so.
Bull bl*du s***, Howard had a chance to stand up for gun laws when Unsworth proposed them 10 years earlier.
Apology was the right thing, but given the inherent racism of white Aussies to the natives it took a lead it took a lead to force the acknowledgement that so many wrongs had been done.
Howard’s lack of courage in 1986 does not alter the fact that the 1996 laws were courageous, because they angered a large sector of his own supporters.
I don’t accept that proposition.
I think IFR is worth exploring for most of the reasons Greensborough Growler puts forward. However, I have no idea where he got #9 and I’d be astonished if its true.
BTW, similar technology can be used to produce power from thorium. This removes the whole thing one step further from weapons proliferation, which would make me more comfortable, although there are benefits to using U238 as well.
Bill Heffernan keeps going on about thorium – can someone expand on this?
More pain for the Repugs. Their squealing about Obama (and I’ll include Hillary) engaging the Middle East has backfired completely. Jews give Obama the highest rating of any racial group.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/gallup-jews-muslims-come_n_194400.html
#182, why go all the way to Mexhiho, I give you Virgin Mary here at PB:
http://messengerandadvocate.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/virgin-mary-2.jpg
#184, Diog, where is Gus when i need him:
Another Minister besides Swanny who is thumbing his nose at his detractors (media & Libs) is Fitzgibbon. I saw him on Sky yesterday doing an interview at Garden Island with Gilbert. He was well on top of things and came accross as knowledgeable, confident and straight forward, no BS. He answered all the questions in a way that the ordinary punter could understand. I also like the fact that when he visits the troops in Afganastan he doesn’t just pop in at a base for photo op, a week ago he went out in the “danger zone” or “outside the wire” i think is the term used, with a patrol and met the locals in their villiages and checked on the schools and hospitals being built with our help.
.
At the white paper announcement he had a dig at the Libs by saying that it wasn’t much good paying a fortune for stuff so you could pose beside it and get your photo taken, when it was useless as it wasn’t compatable with what we allready have. (not his words but that was the gist of it).
Talking of photo ops, did anyone see Rudd sitting at the dinner table in the junior sailors mess on the Stuart? He was in the middle with half a dozen sailors sitting either side of him and another dozen on the opposite side, they were all laughing and looking like they were having a good time
When the other half was still in the Navy full time Kim Beasley came on board his ship once and had a brew in the senior sailors mess with him and he reckoned he was a good bloke.
It’s good to see the Boys are in good form. Methinks they were trying to see Virgin Mary over the Vatican:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv–radio/the-chaser-take-their-pranks-on-world-tour/2009/05/01/1240982406927.html
In fact if Rudd were to announce that we are going for 25% by 2020 and building a nuclear power plant at Jervis Bay, a move to the left and to the right simultaneously, he would snooker everyone nicely.
Finns
Gusface is probably better staying away with this new-founded PB enthusiasm for nuclear power.
Adam
There is a great book just out “Prescription for the Planet: The Painless Remedy for Our Energy & Environmental Crises” by Tom Blees which has really provoked and popularised the idea of nuclear being part of the solution. It goes through all the nuclear options and is a big fan of IFRs.
http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Planet-Painless-Remedy-Environmental/dp/1419655825/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241321660&sr=1-2
Jervis Bay is in my backyard but we have been thinking of mooving and it is a Lib electorate so build away I say
spelling bad should be moving not mooooooving, I sound like an old cow don’t I
Amigo Vera, It’s Time for a new hairdo.
Finns can I make an appointment?
Amigo, Option 1:
http://www.touchlocal.com/media/business/3140994/love%20the%20hairdo.jpg
Barnett is a luddite – he only bought a mobile phone in the last couple of years
LOL Fins are you calling me a dog?
Option 2:
http://www.todayandtomorrow.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/hairdo.jpg
Option: 3
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~lah/emma/Images/Shots_of_Emma/new_hairdo.jpg
awww! 3 is much too cute for me
Option 4, but this for Diog. As he’s been under the Knowledge Tree for too long.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a400/clemclone/Funny%20Pics/hairdo.jpg
Adam @199
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
Italy has now had it’s first case of Mexican flu. That only leaves Australia of the major Western countries which hasn’t had a single case, a fact that is just killing the MSM here. They are just praying for someone to test positive.
It’s looking very good for Senor Rudd.
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-sci-swineflu3-2009may03,0,1977454.story?track=rss
Insiders was very good this morning. Swan is the best treasurer since Keating. Unfortunately many Bludgers were fooled into believing that he’s nervous, and a weak link for Labor. I’m not saying that Tanner will not be as good, but at the moment Swan has an edge in experience.
You can’t seriously criticise Gerrard Henderson. Sure he was a strong Howard supporter and is obviously sensitive to his wasted economic legacy but compared to Akerman, Milne and Bolt, he makes a fine analyst.
Diog,
I tend to see the WHO as a bunch of charlatans. They need to advocate extreme positions to justify their existence.
I recall they were spouting that Avian Flu would “kill” 25% of the population at one stage.
When are you Bludgers going to get with the times and stop buying newspapers? I buy it twice a year, for the Golden Slipper and the Melbourne Cup. I’m giving the Slipper edition the flick. I don’t need it, don’t want it, and won’t miss it, and it could only be a matter of time for the Cup as well. Newspapers are on death row!
The amigos might be innocent afterall. It might be the great satan.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iIJELPg1J9wrXVWqPf126EfWrLxg
And now the poor pigs are also getting it. The Egyptian has been killing the pigs. Maybe, it’s time to start killing the humans to save the pigs.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMEVmxTOZhCOoN3yDxx0HjaZl0jgD97UGJB80
I tend to see the Catholic Church as a bunch of charlatans. They need to advocate extreme positions to justify their existence.
Shows On,
I agree. Unfortunately, “Peace, Love and Goodwill” are extreme positions in this world we share.
If anyone overcalled this one it was the Mexicans. There seems to be some friction between the WHO and the Mexican health authorities, the source of which will probably come out in a few weeks.
I’m reading a book ATM on emerging diseases. It’s really hard for the health authorities to get it just right because the numbers can be exponential. It’s really easy for them them to overcall or undercall and outbreak.
Don’t forget that a “pandemic” doesn’t mean anyone has to die. It just says the disease is being transmitted worldwide by person-to-person contact.
This is getting effing ridiculous! From the Herald – front page banner – just now (3pm AEST):
from 17…. to 19.
Then, as a side bar:
If those 80 had swine flu then we’d have the second biggest outbreak in the world, compared only to Mexico. So clearly only a small proportion of them, if any, will actually have Swine Flu and are actually expetced to get it. Ergo, “80 sustected swine flu cases” do not really exist in anything but the fevered imagination of the Herald’s front page editor.
Where do these moronic journalists get their cheek from, running nothing stories with headlines like that?
Perhaps we are seeing the next, terminal stage of the dumbing–down of Fairfax, right before our eyes.
With newspapers as with people, death is frequently preceded by dementia.
GG, you seem to be a good catholic, unlike me who I consider myself as a naughty catholic. (Diogs how do you do the red devil looking face)?
I happened to watch the DaVinci Code again last night. Surely you can’t deny JC and MM were an item. The true historical evidence appears to be quite strong lol.
Centre
It’s the “evil” one at this site
http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies
I refer to new scientist article linked here last night, pig flu fatality 1% and not very contagious as flus go
BB
Did they mention this? It looks like fizzling out.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25421921-5005962,00.html
Here’s an interview with Simon Jenkins of the Guardian who reckons the whole thing is a scam perpetrated by the media.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/files/hectic_30409.mp3
Starts 12 minutes from the end.
Death of Jack Kemp, Republican Vice-Presidential nominee in 1996.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/02/jack-kemp-dies_n_195265.html
GG is a good Catholic
Centre is a naughty Catholic
I am into a catholic good and naughty of frolicking in the deep blue.
Here’s the actual article by Jenkins.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/29/swine-flu-mexico-uk-media1
I think my goodness has been gratly exaggerated.
GG, i thought it was your death that has been has been greatly exaggerated
Before being downgraded to 19 I believe it got as low as 11, then upped to 17. When it rose to 19 the Herald responded by screaming:
Toll From Swine Flu rises
They should have based their headline on the “11″ number and told us:
Killer Flu Toll Nearly Doubles In One Week”
Finns
So we can take it that you and GG are now an item Finns?
centre, we are the Amigos.
Finns
Heard anything from the third Amigo? I’m missing him. I swear my IQ has dropped 5 points since he stopped blogging here.
222,
we get it delivered on Saturday only. I purchase it every Friday (footy pregame supplement) and Mondays if my team wins (footy postgame supplement).
Good on you Vera (SYD getting up) – STK and WBD not withstanding, Fev’s poster in the dying seconds is all that is standing between me and a perfect tipping record this week >;-( …….. you changed your pic too I see
Yes, where is he?
I can confirm that he’s alive and well. Just been a bit busy lately, apparently.
Diog, the last email was 29/3/09 to which i replied. but no reply from amigo ronnie since. will try again.
It looks like sexy Jacko has hit the jackpot. It’s good news for the Oz film industry and will ensure Jacko singin, tappin and jivin the Oscar for the next few years. Goodbye Max Mad.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i06056b3e43453484bef211017ad33d39
Finns @ 243. That could mean two things. a) I know that the 4 Amigos are GG, Finns, Ron and Vera. b) I may be offered a membership to the Amigos.
If b) that would make me no.5. Before Diogenes, what a hoot!
Juliem, only got to watch the 3rd quarter of Swans but still got to swear at Big Bad Barry for giving away free kicks
Fins said I needed a new hairdo so decided to go the whole hog ( or cow) and get a new head
Centre
Were you a Hillary-worshipper in the US election with an extreme case of blindness to the consummate skills of the greatest politician of the modern era? That’s one of the prerequisites to being an Amigo.
GG
Just to be clear; nuclear technology is complex and there are a few different options beign researched. I would argue that safety concerns were largely resolved by 3rd Generation (cold water) reactors common in France, Germany, Sweden, Finland and South Korea. That still leaves waste, cost and longevity of fuel supply as issues (all soluble though).
Fourth Generation reactors are a more advanced standard reactor – more efficient use of fuel;
Integral Fast Reactors are different and would work in tandem with some conventional reactors. They have the advantage of burning up a lot of the conventional reactor waste, and making still better use of the fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
Thorium reactors are a different design, using a nuclear reaction but with a thorium fuel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
The point is there are a number of different fuel types viable for nuclear reactors and a number of different ways you can “burn” them to produce energy. It can eb done safely and sustainably. The real problem remaining is capitla cost (3x a coal plant but lower operating cost). With clean coal technology (if it works!) the capital cost edge of coal will dissappear. Once you get a nuclear reactor built and the fuel supply cycle established, operating cost is quite low.
GG
I should add to the above that Thorium has a lot of potential in the long term, but it is still in the development/research phase, whereas 4th Gen and IFR (Uranium) reactors could be built now. Thus from the POV of solving CC I (like Barry Brook) think they are the best available solution.
Ahaaa. And criticise the best President of all time, NEVER!
Well Centre, tough, isn’t it. The choice of being immortalised as an Amigo (We ride, we love and we sing) or being mortarised under the bus with Obi & Michelle & Bo.
Errrr Amigo, new head? I hope you kept the old amigo brain.
Look for a battery pig farm next to a battery chook farm, somebody sneezed… add misery.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25422171-601,00.html
EXCELLENT! Looks like some common sense is going to be used. We can’t afford tax cuts at this time, ESPECIALLY tax cuts going to high income earners, who are least likely to spend the money.
The easiest way to sequester carbon is to NOT dig it up from the ground.
Yes, but maybe they will allow the cuts to go ahead but discount the health rebate and others which will mean a net tax payment for the subsidised wealthy
Well that doesn’t say a real lot – all he’s had to better is “one slow acting dope”.
Meanwhile…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/03/2559378.htm
Has warned?? What’s he going to do? Block the budget on the basis of those earning $150k+?? Please do Malcolm…
Yes the Amigos are immortalised. The Speaker referred to Simon Crean as an Amigo in QT.
The eligibility criteria for an Amigo should be changed. You should only at one time have proven that “Diogenes, you are wrong, again!” to qualify
Ah woops I forgot the tax bracket has changed – 80k to 180k.
Well there will probabll be a choice – get the cuts but get lots of means testing cutting in at 80k, or no tax cuts and higher means testing…
Possibly both?
Socrates,
Thanks for those links today. I think I learnt something new. Which always makes the day worthwhile.
Agree that it is better to go with something ready to go now rather than wait for an even betterer solution.
Turnbull is now arguing that tax cuts for the rich should go ahead. So which is it Mal, keeping the budget deficit as low as possible or blowing it out further?
It seems when it comes to keeping the rich happy Mal couldn’t care less about the deficit really.
Um, Treasurers never guarantee that anything will or will not be in the budget. If they do, they have to resign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Dalton
The old “refuses to guarantee” trick.
The budget should be absolutely ruthless. After a decade of presiding over the strongest resources boom in history, Labor was left with a LOUSY projected surplus of 14 billion in which they themselves increased to 20 billion (from memory).
Costello continued to deliver tax cuts to the top end that were unsustainable when the boom would end. The tax cuts that were given to the top end must now be reversed in order to bring the budget back to balance within a reasonable time.
What are Turnbull’s alternative???
Tax cuts.
GG
Thanks you are welcome. I should clarify one of my comments was wrong – the safety problems were licked by late 2nd Generation reactors (France, Germany, Sweden, South Korea), not 3rd Generation (which is being built now in Finland). Most of the accidents occurred in late 1st and early 2nd Generation reactors (Cold War 50s/60s designs). 3rd Gen should be safer (i.e. still less likely to have a problem) and have better long term economics, with longer life, more efficient use of fuel, and easier repacement of spent fuel. Anyway, the point is we already have rector designs that have proven safe. Assuming Olkiluoto III works out OK we will also have reactors that are twice as efficient.
BTW, Olympic Dam has about 30% of the world’s economically recoverable uranium, so its not as though we wont still make money as a nation exporting minerals if the world shifts from coal to nuclear. The real problem is the capital cost (higher) and the grumbles from those who now sell coal or have invested in the existing coal plants. But we just have to pay that cost if we want to fix CC, because if we burn all the coal, the atmosphere will be the same as prior to the carboniferous era when coal deposits were laid down. Then there were >2000 ppm of CO2 in the air (380ppm now), and rainforests on Antarctica. Sea levels were +200 metres. We’d be stuffed.
Thinking further about power, here is some maths. Coal power stations cost about $1.5Bn/MW to build, whereas nuclear might cost $5bn/MW. Australia has about 28MW of coal power installed, so that might cost $140Bn in 2009 dollars to repalce with nuclear or other renerable plants. There is then a significant saving in operating cost – for each 1MW coal plant, operating costs might be $200 million per year. The nuclear plant is less than half that cost. We woudl also want to build all the wind power we can (similar $/MW) and a better grid (say $10Bn) for that price.
To put it in perspective, that is less than the Howard govt squandered on buying elections in their time in office. Internationally, the amount already spent by OECD nations bailing out banks in the GFC is MORE than was required to shift the USA and EU to alterantive energy supplies. We might go $200Bn inot debt in the current recession anyway. So its not cheap, but comparable to other large ticket expenditure and we could do it if we got serious. If the problem is really bribing the current polluters to not oppose the change, perhaps we should just build the plants with govt money then let current coal plant owners swap them for a nominal price, then close the coal plants. It would certainly create more jobs than bailing out financiers does.
How many people are employed in a NPP per unit of power generated compared with a CFPS? (plus in mining coal v mining uranium per unit of power generated with the product). My guess is that NPPs employ a lot fewer. (In The Simpsons there was Mr Burns, Smithers, Homer, and the two guys who stand around the water cooler, for a total of five, but that may not have been typical.)
You sure?
The 2600MW Bayswater Powerplant cost almost $4 trillion?
Australia has a lot more than 28MW installed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_power_stations_in_New_South_Wales#Coal_fired
Soc, Can i do your power plants please. I do the Coal for $2M per MW and $10M per MW for Nuclear. And I still make 100% profit
I hope Obama and Hillary can talk some sense into the Pakistan leader when he rolls into town this week …… he can’t go on giving the Taliban defacto power in the western part of his country.
Really Soc, i am very cheap:
Type Installed Cost per MW USA
Oil- Genset $300,000
Waste Wood $800,000
Waste Agriculture $800,000
Gas Natural & Methane $830,000
Waste Household $1,000,000
Waste Building $1,000,000
Coal $1,000,000
wind $1,500,000
Coal Gasification $1,500,000
Nuclear $2,000,000
Ocean Power $2,000,000
Hydro $2,500,000
Geothermal $4,000,000
Solar & Fuel Cell $5,500,000
Zardari is a corrupt fool but the Pakistani army has taken more casualties in this war than any other and 6000 Pakistani civilians have lost their lives. The issue is a bit more complicated than just saying “do more”.
Oz and others,
Doh! Sorry I used the wrong units – I should have said $1.5bn per GW, not MW. Hence Bayswater = 2.6GW x $1.5 Bn/GW = $3.9Bn is about right. I believe that the relativities are still as I quoted though. It varies a bit depending on what generation of reactor you compare.
AIC
There are a less jobs in a nuclear plant, although I don’t know exactly what the comparison would be. There are also jobs in fuel processing etc. The main difference in operating cost is the cost of the coal and more maintenance.
The days of big power plants are numbered. They will go the way of the old mainframe computers.
The future of power generation is what we call small scale power plants (SSPP) between 5-40MWs, using a variety, and sometimes combination, of fuels, horses for courses.
The reason that SSPPs are now feasible is because the improvement in technology that will allow SSPP to reach about 80% efficiency. Just think of your notebook that you are using now. It has more power than the old mainframe some 30 years ago.
In particular for industrial usage, it will be what we call the Captive Power Plant.
That means there will only be about one new Amigo per year. And all of the four Amigos were grandfathered in to avoid having to meet that criterion IMHO.
Finns
I have no vested interest either way (I design roads and railways) but I have heard widely conflicting views on SSPP. Some people in my company design bio-waste combustion plants. Everyone agrees they are getting better, but there still seem to be economies of scale for almost all energy types. Also, there seems to be debate on whether there is phyically enough of all that material to burn to provide all the power we need. Grid losses are less than some might think – about 1% per 100km transmitted. So I remain skeptical until I see large private power companies building SSPP in preference to large base load stations. The obvious solution is to use all teh renewable sources we can to their full, adn then build nuclear or gas for the balance. But EVERY engineer I have read on that topic thinks there will be a balance left i.e. some need for base load stations in the foreseeable future.
Soc, We took a different view, especially for developing countries. The transmission lines are a killer. Expensive to build, ugly and to maintain. The biggest “loss” in the developing countries from the transmission is by human, “theft”. Just look at those spaghetti of wires hanging off the power lines, ala India. The losses could be as large as 40%.
True, but the trend is not the large private companies to build the SSPP. They got too much invested in existing power plants. For SSPPs, they will have to be a new way of funding. Like the computers, it will come and downsize.
Diog, by the way you are going, we have to hire the National Opera House of Mexico City to fit all the Amigos.
http://www.mexicovacationtravels.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/view-of-bellas-artes-palace-mexico-city.jpg
This just had to happen. The whole thing could be an OHS nightmare.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25422403-5005962,00.html
Fins
For developing countries we are in agreement. In fact, those people I mentioned in my company were designing what you call SSPPs (package plants) particularly for Pacific Islands. They were also easier to maintain. However Australia is different – here 85% of our demand is in the five big capital cities. Throw in other large urban areas like Canberra, Gold Coast and Newcastle and you have over 90% of our electricity demand met. That means large plants witha grid will dominate. For remote areas, by all means we should consider SSPPs instead of a long grid connection. I would also concede that there is a problem with some state electricity supply authorities being “captive” to their existing grid and existing suppliers. Here in SA the main limitation on installing more wind capacity is the lack of grid capacity to get the power to Adelaide. The state authority needs to shift its focus IMO.
Finns
Being in Mexico City, I’ll bet it’s empty at the moment.
The City of Sydney has recently been seeking proposals to develop a small scale power generation system for Sydney. Clover Moore’s preference is for tri-generation gas, fairly good idea.
I know of some companies that developed and costed proposals to build small scale solar and wind generation systems throughout Sydney but the state government didn’t want to lose any revenue and said bugger off.
Instead they’re increasing energy costs by $18 billion to build outdated technology.
Oz your Sydney story doesn’t surprise me. One difficulty I have found in understanding the whole power industry now is that it is often used by state governments as a de facto means of stealth taxation to pay off debts elsewhere. So the real cost of power production is much less than the “retail” price we pay. Garnaut points out that even if an ETS caused a 50% rise in energy production costs, there woudl only be a 20% rise in retail prices to consumers. It isn’t easy to disentangle these hidden financial transfers from actual costs to understand what is really most economical.
Diog, maybe we should make your the “Honorary Amigo”, you know like they used to call the japanese “Honorary White” in the old Apartheid days. Since you are the chief culprit. Hillary will be pleased and probably cry as she has been shedding few tears in the last few days..
Finns
Hillary must be shedding a few tears over her Chelsea’s impending matrimonials.
Diog, no. i saw her really choke up yesterday because some senior diplomat at the State has died. What a classy lady.
Adam in Canberra says
Oh, tosh. What political risks did it carry for him? None. A courageous decision is one that antagonises your own support base, antagonises powerful interest groups and/or may cost you votes. Howard’s gun laws in 1996 were courageous. The apology was the right thing to do, but took no particular courage.]
Agreed.
Gun law reform was the only (major) positive move Howard made in all those years as PM.
Oz, that was what IBM said to Microsoft and Intel about the PCs. The rest is history. Same thing will happen in the power industry.
My use of indentation in my last post makes it look like I take credit for Adam’s thoughts on courage. I do not.
Adam’s senate predictions are interesting but I disagree a bit. I concur on QLD (however bonkers and unexpected stuff can hapen up there, Green or minor-right not impossible), WA, Tas., ACT (although maybe after the territory election im not so sure) and NT. Nevertheless I reckon the Greens have a descent shot at taking a seat from the ALP in NSW and from FF in Vic.. Adam sits the fence on SA: “Likely result in 2010: Either no change or Green gain from Lib”. SA seems no harder to predict than most of the other states IMHO. The Greens have room to grow in SA, plenty more ex-Dems to tap. I reckon the Greens will see a serge at the next state election and win another senator from the Libs federally.
My use of indentation in my last post makes it look like I take credit for Adam’s thoughts on courage. I do not.
Adam’s senate predictions are interesting but I disagree a bit. I concur on QLD (however bonkers and unexpected stuff can hapen up there, Green or minor-right not impossible), WA, Tas., ACT (although maybe after the territory election im not so sure) and NT. Nevertheless I reckon the Greens have a descent shot at taking a seat from the ALP in NSW and from FF in Vic.. Adam sits the fence on SA: “Likely result in 2010: Either no change or Green gain from Lib”. SA seems no harder to predict than most of the other states IMHO. The Greens have room to grow in SA, plenty more ex-Dems to tap. I reckon the Greens will see a serge at the next state election and win another senator from the Libs federally.
Actually after I posted that info I realised I had forgotten about Xenophon. He may or may not be able to transfer his popularity to another candidate (Harradine never could). But a possible outcome in SA is ALP 3, Lib 2, Xenophonite 1. ALP 2, Lib 2, Green 1, Xen 1 is also possible, as happened in 2007. I’d be surprised if the Greens won seats in NSW, Vic or Qld but anything is possible. So far there’s no real sign that the unpopularity of the NSW Labor government is affecting Labor’s federal vote in NSW, so you would think Labor is well placed to win 3 seats there, as they also are in Vic and Qld. I can’t see a Labor 3, Lib 2, Green 1 result anywhere except Tas.
I like to point out that Xenophon also had no luck transferring his popularity to another candidate at the 2002 state election, when the No Pokies ticket polled little over 1 per cent in his absence.
Candidates campaigning as independants against the untrustworthiness of large parties and then seeking to transfer their mandate to other persons seems a bit of contradiction doesn’t it?
“Trust me not that faceless machine”.
“Now vote for this faceless person in my name”
If Mr X endorses a candidate then they’d do poorly. Its just a boost for the Greens or FF (last time officially split between the two) or whoever it is that Mr X’s candidate prefences coz people that otherwise would not vote in that way will inadvertantly do so, if you get my drift.
just a thought: maybe Mr X wouldn’t endorse a candidate coz if he/she gets a lousy vote (most likely) it could reflect poorly on him. Didnt stop him endorsing Di Bell or Kris “Glug Glug Glug” Hanna though. Also they both did well, though Bell could have done better.
No 297
Would it not have been more effective if the No Pokies ticket was called Xenophon’s No Pokies Party/Ticket….
Sorry, I’m not well versed in electoral law but it strikes me as being more effective for the candidate to trade on X’s name.
Catholics cop a real hiding in the comments here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/03/notre-dames-obama-invite-_n_195298.html
Paul Sheehan’s at it again. He manages to blame Rudd and Crean for the excesses of Tim Johnston and his phoney Firepower company. Johnston through Firepower received federal government grants for snake-oil fuel additives, then gave hundreds of thousands to the Liberal Party, did all their dirty work under Howard’s patronage, ripped off consumers right left and centre before Rudd was elected … but it’s still Rudd’s fault he’s a free man.
What a w@nker you are Paul Sheehan.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/truth-almost-as-sordid-as-the-lies-20090503-arep.html
BB but Sheehan does have a valid point that the work done by the financial regulators over the past decade and a half has been very weak at best. I don’t know how well funded the regulators are at present but Sheehan seems to be under the impression that their position has been bolstered under Rudd, Crean and Swan. Regulators do seem slow to act but when they do they usually cling on like bulldogs, it would be good if they have been given the resources to sort out the Firepower scam once and for all.
Not too sure what a “Çommand economy run by Canberra” is supposed to mean. It sounds ominous even if its meaning is obscure.
My understanding of a “command economy” was one planned With 10 year plans, five year plans etc taking the place of supply and demand. I fail to see how that situation applies to Canberra. It seems silly to argue that “the regulators are not up to the task” in the same breathe as whining about a “command economy run by Canberra”. Does he want strong regulators or not?
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-accused-of-fuelling-new-arms-race-20090503-arg9.html
I have been keeping an eye on China Daily (English version of the People Daily), Times of India, Taipeh Times and Japan Times, since the release of the White Paper. Not a single mention, not a single sausage. They are more occupied with the attack of the Flu’ than the attack of Australia.
The moral of the story is that you can go and dig up any analysts you like that would back up whatever you want to trumpet, just like statictics. And really, Australia is not that important when comes to defence in the Asian context. In SMH case, a very sad case, it’s delution of grandeur to try to sell the dying newspaper.
Turnbull told to drop deadwood MPs
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25423618-421,00.html
Where to start – 80% of this party is deadwood waiting on the Howard messiah to return. When will they realise that Howard was rejected lock, stock and barrell?
Tom
Fair enough comment by Sheehan, an accurate observation and I would not see it as an attack on Rudd but more of a challenge to him that the current regulators are not up to the task.
There is talk that politicians should not take up appointments related to their portfolios, should the same be set in law for public servants?
Maybe it is Turnbull using the report to gain more control, are the named MPs his supporters.
Still if the libs don’t do it the voters may at the next election, though some of them seem to be in very safe seats it could mean other libs will lose their seats in a swing against them being a party of the past.
An interesting link there on why people are leaving the church, interesting in that only 30% stated the priests kiddy loving activities as the reason they left.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/coalition-parties-dress-for-battle-over-proposed-electoral-changes-20090503-arer.html?page=-1
“Fearful that western NSW would again be in the commission’s sights, the Nationals submitted that some Labor seats in metropolitan Sydney – such as Lowe – should be considered because they were under quota. It recommended the abolition of the south-western outer-suburban Banks, held by the Labor stalwart Daryl Melham.
Labor has gone for the semi-regional Macarthur, held by the Liberal Pat Farmer. Labor’s proposal is that Macarthur be abolished and the Sutherland Shire seat of Hughes, held by the Liberal Danna Vale, be pulled further west, making it notionally Labor. The marginal Liberal seat of Paterson, on the North Coast, would also become notionally Labor under the ALP’s proposed boundary changes.
The real controversy will be caused by the Liberal submission. Convinced the commissioner will plump for a western rural seat anyway, the Liberals are prepared to sacrifice one of their own – or one of the Nationals’ seats – in order to save another. It recommends the rural seat of Hume, held by Schultz, be merged with the rural seat of Riverina, held by the Nationals’ Kay Hull. It would be called Bradman and which party represented it would depend first on whether the commission adopted the proposal, and second which of the Coalition partners won the subsequent fight.
There have been suggestions Schultz might retire at the election but one source says there is no way he will walk away and cede what was his seat to the Nationals. In all likelihood there would be a three-corner contest. Schultz despises the Nationals because he thinks they are overrepresented in senior positions in Parliament when the Liberals hold far more regional and rural seats. He has been made aware of the Liberal redistribution plan and approved it.
When a senior National heard of the Liberal plan at the weekend, there was instant outrage. “That’s just stupidity,” he said. “It’s bullshit that they can’t do any better than that. This proves we’re the only party that really cares for the regions. They’ve just helped our election campaign.”
What will really rub them the wrong way about the Liberals’ declaring Riverina expendable is that it is aimed at shoring up the Liberal seat of Macarthur. The plan is that with Hume pushed towards Riverina, Macarthur would move further south, taking in Bowral and other Southern Highlands towns, making it a safer Liberal seat than the threadbare proposition it is now.”
No 303
BB, it’s time for you to have a bex and a lie down.
Here’s a more detailed article by Milne than that at 306. Good reading as long as you aren’t stuck in the “Howard” past.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25422679-33435,00.html
Here’s a nice old piece of Doom and gloom based on debt decreasing leading to rising unemployment, up to double digits by 2010 according to this blogger.
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/05/04/debtwatch-no-34-the-confidence-trick/
scorpio
Does Turnbull have much say in whether those people get re-endorsed? Wouldn’t it be pretty hard to chuck them out if they didn’t want to go?
I’d think his best option would be making them back-benchers to they quit in disgust but then they’d start fomenting dissent.
There’s a few seriously bad advertisements for the Libs in that pile of deadwood.
Most of them are already back benchers.
Diogenes
It’s hard to say whether Turnbull is stuck in denial or is just captive of the right of the party. There are some very telling comments at the bottom of this article.
[Mr Turnbull has told AM he has not received the list.
"Nobody sent that list to me," he said.
"We have a strong team, a mixture of youth and experience, a mixture of people who have been in Parliament for a long time, people that have had long careers in other areas and have been in Parliament for a shorter time.
"We have a strong mix across the board and we are demonstrating that our experience is producing not only an informed and constructive critique of Labor but the alternative policies that will provide the platform for a [economic] recovery.”
The Australian has reported that along with the list is a letter from a senior business figure who says that party composition is an “issue”, with donors expecting an “upgrade”.
The last Newspoll had the Coalition on 42 per cent behind Labor at 58 per cent and Mr Turnbull has sits at just 19 per cent compared to Kevin Rudd’s 67 per cent as preferred prime minister.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2559744.htm?section=australia
In both the ALP and the Liberal Party candidate selection is done at the electorate level, although in all states the state executives have the power to intervene. In the ALP the federal executive also has this power, but I don’t know if this is the case in the Liberal Party. Recall that the Vic Lib state exec swiftly overturned Ken Aldred’s selection in Holt last time. Dumping sitting members is very difficult if they have strong support in their own branches or on the state executive. Recall the unsuccessful efforts to unseat Simon Crean, Denis Jensen and Judi Moylan last time. Crean won his local ballot decisively. Jensen lost his but was rescued by the WA state executive. On the other hand the ALP federal exec swiftly axed Kelly Hoare and Mike Hatton. The parliamentary leadership doesn’t get much say in these matters unless they are willing to go public and put their authority on the line. Evan Howard as PM was reluctant to do this – recall the Towke fiasco in Cook, which did the Libs considerable damage but which Howard unable to stop. He also didn’t want Michael Johnson in Ryan but couldn’t prevent it.
That’s just a blatant lie by Turnbull. Even ignoring the first half (none of their criticisms are constructive) the second half is absolute rubbish. Where are these alternative policies?
In the words of Maggie, who are they? Tell me their names!
The comments on articles on the ABC or news.com.au are never particularly illuminating. They read, to me, as the ramblings of party hacks.
Christian Kerr having a little swipe at Costello.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/houserules/index.php/theaustralian/comments/st_peter_badly_needs_transfiguration/
And a good comment.
There do seem to be some very selfish people in the parliamentary coalition ranks at present. Ruddock, Heffernan, Schultz, Gash, Bishop, Tuckey, May, Scott and Somlyay have all had good innings and should retire. Some of them probably will do so but haven’t announced yet. I’d exempt Andrews, Moylan and Forrest, I think they are useful members (also Paul Neville, who isn’t on Milne’s list for some reason). Laming and Johnson are quite young and Milne seems just not to like them (in which he is far from alone), but it can’t really be said they’re deadwood.
Adam
Do you know anything about this?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25425113-5006301,00.html
Adam
Do you know anything about this?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25425113-5006301,00.html
Adam
Do you know anything about this?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25425113-5006301,00.html
No, no, and no.
Diogenes,
I’m guessing that due to:
a) GFC; and
b) obvious Senate intransigence,
the government feels it’s being forced to delay the CPRS.
Blame Turnbull, Brown and toxic debt
Diogenes, have you got cramp in your index, posting finger?
The ABC is tipping a one year delay.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2559899.htm
Howard has a “senior moment”!
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/houserules/index.php/theaustralian/comments/its_tough_being_an_ex_pm/P25/
Loved this comment.
If those reports are correct, it would seem that Rudd is reverting to essentially what Howard promised in 2007.
Read this carefully:
If Turnbull agrees to delaying the introduction of the scheme, increasing the number of free permits, removing the automatic 1.3% per year reduction of free permits, BUT ALSO wants a 25% target, then the ONLY way that can be achieved is through a MASSIVE increase in the carbon price after the 5 year phase in.
If Turnbull agrees with this range of contradictory amendments (delay the start, give away more free permits, arbitarily keep the carbon price low AND increase the target, thus decrease the cap), then he could kill off the coalition’s chances of winning the environmental debate for the next DECADE.
The government would be able to point out “we are simply doing what you wanted us to do when the CPRS was agreed to” whenever the price of carbon is dramatically incrased.
Hmmm. Not sure what happened there. Bloody public service computers.
Kit
That’s my guess too. A delayed implementation. Things could get a bit heated around here is that’s the case. Personally, I wouldn’t be too fussed as long as they get it right in the end. This bloody GFC has really made it hard to get up a decent scheme but it has bought us a bit of time.
No. The Howard government proposed 100% free permits for trade exposed industries.
Here is another story about the likelihood of GM going broke:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/analysts-think-gm-could-go-bankrupt-too-20090504-arop.html
This time it looks fairly likely, it is based on talks between the government and GMs bondholders.
The obvious action needed here is fore whoever in government is giving Holden assistance money to check where it is and what strings are attachd. It would be very niaive not to assume that if GM go under they will ransack Holden and other subsidiaries to shore up losses in Detroit. That might leave our workers in trouble in terms of entitlements etc. Hopefully any money we have given is secured against Holden’s (non transferable) assetts. Remember what Lehmans did to their UK branch.
I’ll get in before BB on Grattan’s latest effort? Here a few samples
“a source”
malcolm says…
back to this old beat up when changing seats would have put Kev in the middle so he would still have been sitting beside the Chinese lady.
another test
more what malcolm says
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/rudd-feels-the-heat-over-china-syndrome-20090503-aqzf.html?page=1
Wong on Sky now
CPRS delayed till 2011
vera, grattan and her fellow reporters at the Age have really let themselves and their readers down of late. They are morphing into a Herald Sun/OO wannabe. A shame really. Declining sales I guess means resorting to trying to fabricate crises. Then the object becomes embattled/ under pressure/ forced to deny etc etc
The World’s Lamest Climate Change Policy Just Got Lamer
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25425220-601,00.html
If the target gets increased to 25% and 95% comes from the taxpayer, the poor old tax payer will go broke. This scheme won’t work. It’s a blank cheque to our worst emitters.
95% permits to EITIs
“starting slower because of the GFC, finishing stronger, is good policy” Rudd
That’s kind of funny because Penny Wong said it wasn’t when Turnbull suggested the same thing.
politics, politics
So Labor has adopted Liberal policy on the ETS. Me-toism making a comeback?
If it’s Liberal policy, presumably Turnbull will now support the CPRS bill. Betcha he doesn’t.
Adam
last night you asked a question about jobs in nuclear plants. If the objective of Labor is to not lose any jobs in the coal industry, then my question would be: do you intend to change anything?
As far as jobs for emissions trade offs goes, if Rudd is becoming “old-jellyback” II, there is one industry wth few jobs and much emissions in Australia – aluminium. target them and brown coal in Victoria only (they don’t vote Labor in the La Trobe Valley anyway), fund an alternative industry in the same state in its place, and at least you will get some way to a 20% reduction by 2020. Then we can stop having farsical arguments about ETS schemes that are only designed to save votes and the CFMEU.
Socrates
The Liberals don’t have a policy on anything but if they had a policy on the ETS, this would be it. It’ll be a good test of Turnbull if he supports his own policy or if he just can’t help himself and votes against it. I’ll disagree with Adam and bet he votes for it.
So would this be a correct summation – new policy
1. Doesn’t start to 2011
2. Has a artificially low price from 2011-2012
3. Increases the amount of grandfathered permits to major emitters
4. Increases the ‘potential’ target if an international agreement takes place.
?
IF Turnbull were a competent politician he would first thank Rudd for adopting coalition policy and then vote for it, reminding anyone who switched votes on this issue at the last election that they would have been just as well off udner the Coalition. He could neutralise one of teh two biggest differentiators (CC and Workchoices) in one instant.
You are right though, he probably won’t; I said “IF he were competent”.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25425382-29277,00.html
Yo ho ho
Yes all that plus:
5. Major emitters get 95% permits for 5 years (till 2016)
So before 2016 the only effect will be for energy suppliers to make one last great price gouge out of we domestic consumers, because they won’t actually change anything. Meanwhile if we install any solar panels they get to pollute more.
GP 330 is correct IMO.
Last week Milne was on PM Agenda sticking to their demands for 40% cuts?
Socrates. As I have said before, I’m not the ALP, and nothing I say here should be taken as reflecting ALP policy. Nor should questions for the ALP or the Rudd government be directed to me.
I’m not aware that “the objective of Labor is to not lose any jobs in the coal industry.” A long-term shift to a low-carbon economy must entail job losses in coal mining in Australia as elsewhere. Obviously no government wants to cause job losses anywhere in the middle of a global recession. The aluminium industry does not employ a huge number of people but it earns nearly $6bn a year in exports. It can’t just be shut down. “ETS schemes that are only designed to save votes and the CFMEU” is a stupid statement as I’m sure you know. If Rudd wanted to take the easy course he would do nothing at all, using the GFC as a pretext. There are many more votes to lose than to gain for Labor in this.
I believe this issue has been addressed in today’s statement. Details in our next bulletin.
The next election will not be fought on the 2007 election issues. Also, you’re assuming a large proportion of voters had a sophisticated knowledge of the Coalition’s climate change policy and that they based/changed their vote accordingly. I doubt this is the case. I’d imagine the perception back then was that Howard wanted to do nothing on climate change.
Now, to me, it would make little political sense for the Opposition to fully support such a major policy. I’d imagine whatever the Government comes up with they’ll attempt to create something to scare the masses and then pose themselves as the saviours.
Vera – I gave up reading Grattan a few months ago. The Age has changed and so has she Even her sessions with Fran Kelly on RN reflect more of Malcolm Turnbull’s line than previously. Perhaps she is trying to keep her job altho I did wonder if Kev had upset her in some way.
Can’t see Turnbull not agreeing to the CPRs changes. He seems to be getting a lot of business people offside lately. If they are happy with their consultations with the Govt then Turnbull needs to be a bit careful. He can’t put up all the money for the next election surely.
I blame the Greens. They should’ve backed the original policy the day it was released. This would’ve placed enormous pressure on Xenophon and Fielding.
I’ll wait with interest to see if all the bloggers say about this after we get the details. I will especially be interested to see the views of those who provided high-level sophistry to explain why Rudd’s first ETS was right and that Socrates and I were wrong about individual effort being ignored in ETS Mark 1.
BH, I listen to Grattan on RN most mornings, and that is just nonsense. She is a model of fairness and balance, to the point of tedium sometimes. I’m supposed to be the Labor partisan hack around here, but some people here just seem incapable of accepting that it’s the media’s job to scrutinise the government. Journalists who give Rudd a hard time are doing their job. (I don’t include News Ltd commentators in that, of course).
Somehow I doubt the Greens support base would’ve been too happy.
Dio – what is the reaction to the ‘bag ban’ in SA. Are the stores still allowed to charge for plastic or are they banned completely.
When we were there last year our rellies didn’t seem to mind not getting plastic bags in Coles. In fact, they were racing in to get just a couple of items and carrying them out in their hands.
The Greens have now suddenly shifted from 40% to 25%. They have realised what a huge mistake they made by giving the impression that they would never compromise on 40%, forcing Rudd to give ground to pass the CPRS in any form. Now they want to come to the party but it’s too late.
Andrew and BH, yep we got a bland old media here, all copying each other saying the same things. Getting hard to see any difference between ABC Online and Newltd?
Adam
If the changes mean the contributions from private individuals voluntarily reducing their emissions are taken into account then I will be much more pleased, though the 95% free permits for 5 years still sticks in the craw. I can accept the logic of starting slow and ramping up, but not letting the worst offenders off scott-free.
Nope Adam – she has changed. I have admired her for years but there is a definite difference.
Altho I admit there are mornings when she does correct Fran on her misguided interpretations of what is happening. I think Fran Kelly takes her opinions directly from the front pages of news ltd. and on my darn 8c a day, too.
Too right Vera – I feel sorry for the rubbish our kids will be fed when the responsible journos have gone.
Kev & Co wil have to eat crow about changing the date – the headlines will all be that the Libs were right.
Sure, but it means a massive increase in carbon prices after that period.
This is a mistake. The longer we delay getting the system working, the harder the changes will have to be in 5 years time. It means the price of carbon will be kept ridiculously low for a long time, which will then mean massive increases after that period, instead of letting the market set the price.
Except the Libs were advocating their ‘delay’ before the GFC came about
…and not for that reason
Three Wong press releases
A NEW TARGET FOR REDUCING AUSTRALIA’S CARBON POLLUTION
The Rudd Government has today committed to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution by 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower by mid century.
This new commitment follows extensive consultation with environment advocates on the best way to maximise Australia’s contribution to an ambitious outcome in international negotiations at Copenhagen this December.
If the world achieves this agreement, Australia will meet this 25 per cent target by harnessing the CPRS, the expanded Renewable Energy Target, and with substantial investment in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency and strategic investment in carbon capture and storage.
Up to 5 percentage points of this target could be met by purchasing international credits, such as avoided deforestation credits, using CPRS revenue no earlier than 2015.
In the White Paper, the Rudd Government emphasised clearly that an ambitious agreement to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450 parts per million or lower by mid century would be squarely in Australia’s national interest.
At that time, we committed Australia to playing its full and fair part in an agreement, but assessed prospects for such an ambitious deal in the near term were challenging.
Since then, international developments have improved prospects.
The Obama administration has already injected a great deal of confidence in the process through its unambiguous commitment to play a leading role in global efforts to limit climate change.
President Obama has reinforced his election commitments to mid and long term carbon pollution reduction goals and to introduce an emissions trading system similar to the CPRS.
His Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate is helping drive progress in UN negotiations for a global agreement.
The United Kingdom has also recently announced a strengthening of its 2020 target for reducing carbon pollution.
Nevertheless, achieving an ambitious global agreement will still be very tough.
It will require a significant further shift in negotiating dynamics so that all advanced and major developing economies take serious action to restrain and then reduce emissions.
The Government will retain its White Paper target range of:
• an unconditional commitment to reduce carbon pollution by 5 per cent by 2020; and
• a commitment to reduce carbon pollution by 15 per cent by 2020 if there is an agreement where major developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia’s.
A Ratification Review will be established in addition to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) Process to assess whether the terms of any global agreement meet the conditions set out for Australia to adopt the 25 per cent target.
Should the world achieve this ambitious agreement, the Government would seek a new election mandate for increased 2050 targets.
Crucially, this new target reinforces the need to secure passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme this year.
Australia cannot responsibly sign up to targets without a means to deliver them.
The attached documents set out the conditionality for Australia’s targets and the terms of the Ratification Review.
CANBERRA
4 MAY 2009
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME: SUPPORT IN MANAGING THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL RECESSION
The Rudd Government will delay the start of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme by one year to help Australian companies manage the impacts of the global recession.
Australian businesses are currently dealing with the worst global recession since the great depression.
In this environment the Government has decided to act to further support jobs and assist businesses during these difficult economic times:
• A one year fixed price phase will apply between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2012. During the fixed price phase, each carbon pollution permit will cost $10. From 1 July 2012, businesses covered by the scheme will need to purchase permits at the prevailing market price.
• A new Global Recession Buffer will be provided as part of the assistance package for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries.
• Eligible businesses will receive funding to undertake energy efficiency measures in 2009-10 as part of a $200 million tranche of the Climate Change Action Fund.
CPRS start deferred to 2011 and permit price fixed at $10 for one year
To allow the Australian economy more time to recover from the impacts of the global recession, the CPRS will commence on 1 July 2011 with a one-year fixed price phase.
During the fixed-price phase, an unlimited number of permits will be issued to liable companies at a price of $10 per tonne.
Fixed-price permits from the first year will not be able to be banked for use in later periods.
The expanded Renewable Energy Target will be in place as planned from 2010 to drive investment in Australia’s vast renewable energy resources.
To encourage carbon pollution reductions before the scheme starts, reforestation will be eligible to voluntarily generate permits for carbon stored from 1 July 2010, creating economic opportunities in regional Australia.
A price cap will apply from commencement of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, with the 5-year EITE review to look at whether the price cap should continue into the future.
A number of other changes have been made to the EITE assistance program, including to the terms of the five-yearly EITE review (see Attachment A).
Global Recession Buffer
An additional Global Recession Buffer will be provided for emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries for the first five years of the Scheme.
This Buffer will provide an additional 5 per cent free permits for EITE activities eligible for 90 per cent assistance, giving an effective rate of assistance of almost 95 per cent to these highly emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities in the first year of the scheme.
The Buffer will provide an additional 10 per cent free permits for EITE activities eligible for 60 per cent assistance, giving an effective rate of assistance of 66 per cent to these moderately emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities in the first year of the scheme.
Rates of assistance will decline at a rate of 1.3 per cent per year, in line with the Carbon Productivity Contribution set out in the White Paper.
Support through the Climate Change Action Fund
The Government has allocated up to $200 million to the Climate Change Action Fund in 2009-10 to support businesses and community organisations that do not receive EITE assistance, but do have significant energy costs, to take action to reduce carbon pollution through energy efficiency before the scheme starts.
The $200 million tranche of the Climate Change Action Fund for 2009-10 will include:
? $20 million for a business information package to provide advice to businesses on how the CPRS will work and what impacts and opportunities may arise.
? up to $100 million for Early Action Energy Efficiency Strategies for Business, including energy audits and capital investment.
? $80 million for capital investment grants for businesses and community organisations.
Together, these measures will help businesses cope with the global recession while making a contribution to Australia’s comprehensive climate change response.
CANBERRA
4 MAY 2009
MINISTER WONG’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7920
ATTACHMENT A
EITE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The CPRS legislation will include an ‘aims’ clause which directly relates the EITE assistance program to the impact of the scheme on the international competitiveness of EITE activities.
When conducting their five-yearly EITE reviews, the Expert Advisory Committee will consider the following issues (amending and building on the position in the White Paper):
(a) the review of eligibility assessment for activities (e.g. taking into account falls in commodity prices etc as outlined in policy position 12.8 in the White Paper);
(b) whether modifications should be made to the EITE assistance program on the basis of whether it continues to be consistent with the rationale for assistance or is conferring windfall gains on entities conducting activities;
(c) the extent to which the Scheme has resulted in an increase in the cost of electricity and the extent of pass through to EITEs;
(d) the extent to which EITE firms are making progress towards world’s best practice energy and emissions efficiency for their industry sector;
(e) the future shape of the permit price cap, recognising the need to balance the development of market mechanisms and business certainty;
(f) international developments, including the extent to which Australia has entered international agreements, tangible emissions abatement commitments have been made by countries which compete with EITE industries, and major partners or competing countries have introduced carbon constraints into their own economies; and
(g) whether broadly comparable carbon constraints (whether imposed through an explicit carbon price or by other regulatory measures) are applying internationally, at either an industry or economy-wide level, or an international agreement involving Australia and all major emitting economies is concluded, in which case the Committee would make recommendations to Government with regard to the withdrawal of EITE assistance; this assessment will draw on analysis by an independent expert body (initially the Productivity Commission) of quantitative measures of carbon prices or shadow carbon prices in major economies.
Five years’ notice will be provided for any modifications to the EITE assistance program, unless the modifications were required for compliance with Australia’s international trade obligations.
The continuation of the Global Recession Buffer beyond five years will be reviewed in light of domestic and international economic conditions and other relevant factors.
HELPING ALL AUSTRALIANS DO THEIR BIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The Rudd Government will establish the Australian Carbon Trust to help all Australians to do their bit to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution and to drive energy efficiency in commercial buildings and businesses.
The Government will also take into account the contribution of individual households that purchase accredited GreenPower in setting Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme caps.
The $75.8 million Australian Carbon Trust will incorporate:
• a $50 million Energy Efficiency Trust, and
• a $25.8 million Energy Efficiency Savings Pledge Fund.
Australian Carbon Trust – Energy Efficiency Savings Pledge Fund
A new website will provide a one-stop shop for individuals and households to simply calculate their energy use and buy and retire carbon pollution permits under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Because the Pledge Fund will pool pledges, even small amounts can combine to make a big difference.
Households and individuals will be able to pledge as little or as much as they can afford to reduce carbon pollution.
The Pledge Fund will be entirely voluntary and contributions to the Pledge Fund will be tax deductible.
Australian Carbon Trust – Energy Efficiency Trust
The Government will provide $50 million in seed funding for an Energy Efficiency Trust to promote energy efficiency in the business sector.
The Trust will work by putting proposals to businesses to undertake energy efficiency measures that will save money over time.
The Trust would cover upfront capital costs of undertaking energy efficiency investments and put in place arrangements for business to repay the capital costs at a commercial rate as energy cost savings flow through.
For example, the Trust could identify lighting improvements in a business that would cost $2 million to undertake. The Trust would cover this $2 million cost, with the business contributing nothing upfront. The business would then pass the energy cost savings from the lighting improvements back to the Trust at a commercial rate until the full $2 million with interest is paid back to the Trust. Once the upfront capital is paid back, the business keeps the ongoing cost savings.
The Trust ensures participating businesses save money without having to tie up any capital.
The Trust also earns a solid rate of return on its investments and demonstrates to other businesses that energy efficiency pays dividends.
The Australian Carbon Trust will be developed in collaboration with the Carbon Trust in the United Kingdom, which is a leader in working with business to cut carbon and develop commercial low carbon technologies.
Supporting individual action through GreenPower
Many households, businesses and community organisations purchase accredited GreenPower to increase the supply of renewable energy and help Australia make the transition to a low pollution future.
As part of the new measures announced today, additional GreenPower purchases above 2009 levels will be directly recognised when the Government sets caps under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Additional GreenPower purchases will be measured annually and future caps will be tightened on a rolling basis.
The Rudd Government has listened to Australian households who have raised concerns that their individual efforts to reduce emissions will not be adequately taken into account under the CPRS.
CANBERRA
4 MAY 2009
Well there you go…
OH FFS! The Opposition still won’t support the CPRS.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25426549-29277,00.html
So WHY ON EARTH did the government propose the changes? They should’ve only proposed changes that they KNEW would be able to pass parliament.
Couldn’t you just copypasta the links instead?
I don’t have them as links. They’re not at Wong’s website yet. You are getting them in advance.
You think the Greens dropping their target to 25% today as well was a coincidence?
And how are they supposed to know that in advance? Turnbull appears intent on opposing any scheme at all. The Greens may now come on board, but that won’t be enough to pass the bill.
Adam I agree with BH, Grattan has CHANGED. I too have always admired her balance, particularly leading up to the last election when Howard’s cheersquad was screaming the loudest. But lately she seems to take up the Lib talking points quite freely and doesnt seem to include the caveats of the poll situation. Eg. she wrote tha Rudd was feeling the heat about China- WOW, the polls show 58/42, that’s some HEAT Michelle
The Defence Department and AusAID announced that they have signed a cooperation agreement last Thursday:
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=9033
The press release is pretty light on for detail.
Radio Australia covered the announcement:
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/200904/s2556941.htm
It isn’t very clear what the repercussions of this cooperation might be for either agency.
On one hand, this is good news for those who see international development assistance as a corollary to Australia’s strategic interests. Stability in our region is an important foundation to preventing conflicts on our doorstep, and social and economic development play an important part in ensuring such stability.
However it is possible that such cooperation could undermine the credibility of our international development assistance. If countries and communities are more likely to accept aid that is at least perceptively free from such strategic objectives, but suspicious of Australia’s intentions in other more defence oriented objectives, closer ties between the departments could have our aid program perceived as a stalking horse.
It would be interesting to know how this agreement is intended to be implemented. Will it have an impact on program support decisions by AusAID? If it does, is that necessarily such a bad thing?
Sorry to drag us back to this from Glen, but it has a touch of gold about it:
This is, of course, the only thing that the Liberal Party has ever consistently stood for. It is the reason that Free Trade and Protectionists combined into the first Liberal Party, and the reason that the anti-Labor parties reformed the Liberal Party in the 40s.
This highlights why the Liberal Party in Opposition is always a shambles. Whenever pressed to stand for something, as opposed to simple opposition for its own sake, their internal divisions become apparent. Even in government they have a hard time maintaining a consisted policy position, witness the immigration debate.
This is also why Turnbull’s safest ground is pure opposition – it’s the only line that’s guaranteed to keep his unruly party somewhat unified.
Good to see that the Government has taken up my suggestion and been out more aggressively promoting the increased ability of individuals to make a contribution to cutting GHGs under an ETS.
As I said before, under an ETS, for about $100 per year, we each can reduce Australia’s emissions by 4 tonnes, which is the same amount as a solar panel will do. Furthermore, there is no limit on how much pollution we can save, even going greatly negative in our individual contributions, except our own wealth and priorities.
Can’t do that under a carbon tax system.
Turnbull is offside with business yet again.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-business/business-backs-changes-to-ets-20090504-asa5.html
Caroline Overington is ecstatic.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php
The only trouble is, is that he now says he will not support it which means he has just negated any electoral support benefit he could have gained by the Government’s backdown. 65% of people support an ETS.
Exactly. Overington is an idiot.
Talking about “own goals”!!!!
If they had an own goals Olympics, then Turnbull would be shoe-in for the gold medal.
Turnbull has a problem. The Newspapers will credit him for the changes, as will the door stop journalists. So just how does he oppose them then without looking like a political opportunist and economically wreckless? He has been backed into a corner, one that has only one way out.
I have to say, most of the mainstream media has analysed this completely incorrectly. The only journo to get it right so far has been Keane. The line is that this is some kind of olive branch to The Greens.
Bob Brown is apparently about to have (or just had) a press conference so his position will be clear imminently, but it’s fairly obvious to me (and Keane) and the changes are far less a capitulation to The Greens and far more a cave-in to some of the demands of the Libs and industry. AIG is applauding this move. Why would they applaud a move that is shift towards The Greens?
The only “Green shift” in this new proposal is a higher potential target, that’s still at the very bottom of what The Greens want. Everything else is what industry wants and virtually the opposite of what The Greens were asking for. The Greens don’t want the scheme delayed, industry wants it delayed – it’s delayed. The Greens don’t want big polluters to get exemptions, industry wants more exemptions – they get more exemptions. The Greens don’t want a low carbon price, industry wants a low carbon price – there’s a low carbon price. Not to mention the other criticisms The Greens made regarding less investment in RE etc.
Given that virtually all the changes were what Turnbull (as a proxy for the big polluters) wanted and only one could be called (dubiously) a tilt towards The Greens it’s fairly obvious to me who the hand was extended too.
Turnbull is an idiot. He probably got suckered in by The Australian’s spin that this was a Greens appeasement tactic.
Rudd virtually took on board all of Turnbull’s points. The fool should have said “See, we were right all along, Rudd’s doing what we wanted so we’ll support it”.
I think CO jumped in a bit quick on this one trying to save her job by getting a head start on her colleges. Bad mistake girl. Shoen up especially by her response to a commenter.
Sorry Caroline, Malcolm and the Liberal Party don’t “HAVE” a CC Policy!!!
The Nationals do though. CC doesn’t exist. I think Malcolm has copied the Nats policy.
Agreed!
OK, so are bets on yet for when Turnbull will go? Any auspicious dates we should be aware of?
Agreed!
BTW don’t accept The Greens to change their mind based on this. Just a heads up.
Absolutely correct Oz. The Greens dealt themselves out of the argument forcing the government to chase the Libs. You got the very thing you should have been avoiding at all costs.
Blocking government legislation is easy for Turnbull – all he needs is Fielding to agree with him. But it’s only a political winner for him if the voters agree with him that the legislation ought to be blocked. There’s no evidence that the voters want the CPRS bill blocked. They support a CPRS, even if they don’t really understand the details. The political message from today is that Rudd has bent over backwards to accommodate Turnbull’s “concerns” and he *still* opposes it. I don’t see how that’s a win for Turnbull.
Rudd has just snookered Turnbull. Adam, (395) you are spot on.
Turnbull has missed a golden opportunity to get a jump on the greens here but instead, he has allowed Bob Brown the opportunity to jump in and get a small reflected glow.
Politically naive is an understatement in relation to Turnbull. I wonder just what the rusted on Lib supporters think of this one?
No one forced anyone to do anything. The government thought it would be easier “brown down” the ETS and thus make the big polluters happy and have a higher chance of passing it at the same time. If they negotiated with The Greens it had less chance of passing the Senate, but if it was blocked, and if Rudd was serious was about it he’d either call a DD or take it to the next election. Liberal private polling published in The Australian on the weekend suggested that they would lose up to 10 seats in a DD called over the ETS.
The “forced to negotiate with the Coalition” argument only works if you honestly believe that Rudd/Wong wanted a stronger ETS that didn’t give the polluters a free ride. You can believe that if you like but there’s no evidence to suggest that’s the case.
Yes, but Oz it seems like Labor will still fail to have an ETS passed and thus be able to hold a double dissolution election, with perhaps an even stronger case against the Opposition.
By the way, energy efficiency in new homes will apparently deny many young Australian families the dream of home ownership, according to the Master Builders Association:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2560129.htm
Thanks, that’s exactly what I believe.
Just as well Oz gave you permission to believe it, then.
Personally, i’m fascinated by today’s proceedings.
Turnbull puts pressure on Rudd to ‘brown down’ the ETS in a fairly lame attempt to get some political traction.
Rudd (oddly) does so, giving Turnbull the chance to say ‘aren’t i great?’. Turnbull does the exact opposite, reinforcing the argument that the opp. is obstructionist.
I mean, everyone is doing the wrong thing. The only people who benefit out of this is the govt, but only because Turnbull is a dolt.
I think the penny has dropped.
I mean does anyone else feel like they’re part of some nation-wide monty python sketch right now?
Brown’s shift to 25% is more apparent than real:
“The Greens have set a bottom line for Australia to make an minimum unconditional emissions cut of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, with a commitment to move to 40% conditional on the success of the Copenhagen conference. ”
http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/
The key word is “unconditional.” Rudd’s embrace of 25% is *conditional* on a Copenhagen agreement. His only unconditional target is 5%. So there is still a wide gap between Rudd and Brown. I don’t blame the Greens for sticking to their principles. But this disproves the view that Rudd and Brown have convergent positions so there was no need for Rudd to make the decisions he announced today. Labor, the Greens and Xenophon cannot pass a CPRS bill without either the Coalition of Fielding. To assemble a Senate majority Rudd needs *either* the Coalition *or* everyone else.
Well if Rudd just wanted to expose that Turnbull had no intention of agreeing to any meaningful ETS he has succeeded. Well-done Malcolm, you have lowered the bar yet again. You could have scored a point, but its yet another own goal instead.
Despite my previous criticism of the Rudd ETS (which still stands) I accept that its impossibleto get something up if the opposition is opposed to even this low level of cuts. Alas poor planet, I knew you well.
Yep, quite right Adam, this Bill looks all but dead.
Thankfully for Australia there is still time to have a double dissolution election before Copenhagen.
Well the Government can forget about Fielding and Xenophon.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25426410-601,00.html
Errr Steve, it may pay to read a newspaper occasionally or look at the News on TV sometimes.
The government can rightfully say now they’ve bent over backwards to get the CPRS through no matter what the result. Turnbull can’t take any kudos heaped on him for the changes because he still won’t vote for it. A win/win for the government but not the planet.
Agreed, Gary.
In these uncertain times, Australia needs certainty in its government, a government that is able to rely on a Parliament that will act on the critical issues our nation, indeed, the world, must confront.
It would be irresponsible of the government to allow itself to wait until the end of next year before Australia has this certainty.
Turnbull is not an idiot. He’s still an investment banker. Once a IB, always an IB. You see, IB never satisfied, happy or contented. He wants more and more and more. They just dont get it. I think this joke from the Web says it all:
Condaleeza Rice – Anything the President says is legal is legal (the Richard Nixon defense)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/03/AR2009050301739.html?wprss=rss_politics
Rudd could come out and say it wants to hand the Govt over to the Coalition and Turnbull would oppose it.
Just as well!
Heather Ridout gets it right:
I completely agree that the government has got the politics of this correct in terms of snookering Turnbull. However political capital is only useful if it’s used on something and I believe they had enough to strengthen their position.
Essential Research: 57-43.
Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the changes, it illustrates how inept Turnbull is as opposition leader. As others have noted, he could have taken credit for the changes, and dealt the opposition back into the issue. But he has opposed? Huh?? When is this guy getting replaced???
I think we’ve seen enough of Fielding, X and the opposition to realise that unless their is a shift in the balance of power in the Senate at the next election a worthwhile CPRS is unattainable and that isn’t Rudd’s fault.
Some interesting figures in there on refugees and Australia’s role in the Pacific.
It will be interesting if it turns out he is the person that sinks everything. I guess he could say that the Govt’s plans weren’t perfect in his eyes, and thus couldn’t enter heaven.
Oz,
Given that both Xenophon and Fielding are both saying they won’t support this new version of ETS legislation see 409 above), how, pray tell could the Government “strengthen their position”?
All the Greens can hope for now is that Labor uses ETS as a DD trigger, hope they win a balance of power role and then negotiate.
William, do you have any idea about what the proportions of respondents by age group might be? The question about the pension increase v 1st homeowners bonus is the question I’m looking at in particular. Is it possible that the overall figure of 68% is skewed because of a higher respondent rate in older respondents?
Xenophon was closer to The Greens on this issue than any other party, but you’re right, even by strengthening the ETS it was unlikely to pass the Senate. But given that as many people wanted a stronger ETS than wanted the current one, plus the apparent Liberal polling that suggests they would have gotten hammered at a DD over the issue, I would have expected/liked the government to go an election over it to get it passed. I certainly believe that it’s an important enough issue to have one over.
GG, I think today’s events have established that there is NOTHING the government can do to get the senate numbers. I just wonder why they didnt just go with something more ambitious in the first place. Although I guess at least today’s events have helped diminish Turnbull even further
It would have to be a representative sample that reflects age breakdown of the entire country. Doing a poll without proper age weighting would be pointless (well, unless you are investigating a particular age demographic)
Just me or does that Essential Poll have the opposite results to the Newspoll one on the question of whether Rudd is “too soft”?
From ER poll it seems the last dog whistle found a few ears. I expect a pseudo Govt ‘toughening’ up on refugees.
I think we know the reason but we don’t want to admit it!
Thanks ShowsOn.
Glen, did you see this yet?
….
[
Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
Party leaders go on 'listening tour' with eyes on future
"You can't beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I don't like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that," Mr. Bush said.
"So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it’s great, but it doesn’t draw people toward your cause,” Mr. Bush said.
“From the conservative side, it’s time for us to listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit, to not be nostalgic about the past because, you know, things do ebb and flow.”
The Florida governor joined former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor on Saturday at a small pizza parlor in Arlington for the inaugural event of the National Council for a New America (NCNA).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/
]
Andrew,
You seem to think that Labor is a homogenous block of same thinking on this issue. You would only have to read the comments of various Union officials and be aware of the internal debate within Government to understand that this issue is highly contentious within the Labor Party.
The Government also governs for all stakeholders in the community including the mining companies.
Therefore to propose an ETS that was more radical is not a simple matter of adding a sentence here or there.
The Newspoll asylum seekers results are here. They didn’t ask quite the same question as Essential Research, but at the very least both provide evidence that the public are less enamoured with Labor on this issue than most others.
Sorry Bule, I don’t have any detail from Essential Research beyond what gets published.
I buy no papers except the local rag since fairfax seems to want to emulate the Murdoch media and, avoid ABC except for headlines.
And I don’t think Crikey can emulate Huffington Post since they can only link to papers that now all appear to be right leaning.
Would be nice to have one left leaning outlet to balance the avalanche of right wing media.
Crikey ought to realise that there is no shortage of places to find stories gratuitously slagging Rudd and the Govt day in and day out so it really is adding nothing to the community by coming out with the same stuff. Why would I want to subscribe to that when I can get it everywhere?
Fair enough, and union officials representing coal miners, for example, are paid to represent the best interests of coal miners.
However, the national interest over the next two decades would be for some people who currently work mining coal to stop doing it, because it makes the country as a whole worse off. So there will come a point when that section of Labor will have to be ignored, for the good of the majority of both the party, and the nation as a whole.
If only we could offer them a domestic nuclear industry as a substitute…
BH
It’s a bit annoying but it’s a good policy. You can by a bag which costs 10c and is compostable. Evidently it will save 500M plastic bags a year ending up in landfill. Everyone knows it had to be done.
Agreed with Bule and others that a DD is looking more and more likely.
Realistically, the Coalition will never back a Rudd ETS. Many of them sincerely believe we should do nothing and I bet a lot of the rest are looking medium term and hoping to blame a second or third term Labor government when electricity bills start going up etc. They can’t do this unless they vote no now. The only way I could see the Coalition coming on board if is business really piles on the pressure in the search for investment certainty.
Realistically, the Greens will never back a Rudd ETS either. They sincerely believe the current one doesn’t go far enough and they too have strong political incentives to oppose one even if it became, for them, a lot better:
1. it gives them added reason for being if they have a big differentiation point from Labor on a core environmental issue;
2. an election with climate change as a major issue would give them extra prominence in the campaign, giving them more of a chance of knocking off Tanner, Plibersek etc;
3. compromise with a major party on an issue like this would not go down well with their membership – it could even put preselections at risk if Brown wasn’t around to take the heat;
4. a DD would probably see more of them elected in the Senate.
The result: the Rudd ETS, as amended today, will pass in a joint sitting as long as Labor wins the DD, which seems pretty likely at the moment. I suppose all this is predicated on Labor wanting a DD though. I’m not really sure about this either way.
Most people would contend it is in the “national interest” that they keep their jobs. A Government ignoring those who put it in to power for some higher ideal. The last Government that did that was the Howard Government re Workchoices! And that worked out well!
As for nuclear power, it is worth discussing and debating. However, it is not where the main game is today.
Is Australia heading towards an anti-ETS led recovery? Could abandoning the ETS altogether be the recipe for an Australian led world recovery?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2560532.htm?section=justin
As bad as Rudd looks on CC, Turnbull looks a whole lot worse. If his only policy is to oppose everything Rudd does and doesn’t provide any alternative, I’d be happy for Rudd to have a DD on the ETS. It’s got beyond ridiculous now. And bloody Adam was right and I was wrong and I really hate that.
Thanks re bags Dio – I’d be happy for it to come into NSW.
Juliem – I watched that Jeb Bush/Mitt Romney thing on CPAC. It actually was quite funny because they called it a Town Hall Meeting but obviously didn’t have enough people to fill the Town Hall. It was held in a small Restaurant instead with the staff joining in to make up the numbers.
The talk was quite strong on them starting their new order to become more revolutionary and take back their country from that evil Obama and his cohorts.
I’m with GG – I’d would love a stronger CPRS but the mob would hate it if unemployment crashed before the new green economy got going. Get something passed and then move fast to improve it as soon as possible.
John Edwards is under investigation about why his campaign funds wound up in an account of somebody he had an affair with.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090504/ap_on_re_us/us_edwards_affair
Diogenes, you were W’ron’G.
It’s getting bad when even Fielding can point out your failings as a flip-flopper who has trouble sticking to your policy.
Did anyone notice that when Rudd said that he was listening, he failed to mention that he had ignored the main criticism of his ETS which was the pitiful 5% lowball target?
Anyone heard of a deepening GFC?
It’s also getting bad when PBs start quoting Fielding
Diogenes, he ignored the second main criticism of free permits to the worst polluters too.
That figure in Essential Research re ’soft on asylum seekers’ is a worry. I had hoped we had grown up but obviously Malcolm’s nasty message cut through.
Geoge M’s article in the OO was emailed to us today – he is spot on about Costello giveaways which put us in deep doodoo before the GFC. Too many tax cuts and tax bonuses paid during the good times.
Greenpeace weighs in:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2560560.htm?section=justin
There is a mixed message here: we’re running out of time so we should do nothing now but wait until we can achieve the (currently) legislatively impossible.
As GB said, four months ago the GFC wasn’t as bad as it is now
Diog’s Daily wRONg Watch:
Serve you right for bludging on the public. get your own computer and the way you’re going, we will have more amigos than the Mexicans.
Rudd’s change of position confirms what I have been suggesting for some time, his goal was to negotiate “down” with the coalition.
Given that he’s started off low and gone lower, it looks unlikely that he’ll address the concerns of The Greens and thus they will not pass it.
So it’s up to Turnbull. Doesn’t look like he’s going to pass it. If he doesn’t then this becomes an election issue at the next election. At the next election, I don’t think Labor can back flip again and argue for something else (closer to The Greens). So even if The Greens do win the balance of power it doesn’t look likely that the government’s going to negotiate with them. This is possibly the very “best” ETS Australia will get.
I love how the same people who lambasted Turnbull so recently are now applauded Rudd for capitulating to him and doing what he asked!
How many more children must die before all homoeopathic ‘treatments’ carry warning labels that point out they are untested, and most likely useless?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25428078-12377,00.html
It’s called good politiking. Something that Turnbull still has to learn.
Yeah, they seem to be losing numbers due to the flu!
What was I right about?
I’m not. This is a mistake by the Government. They should’ve put through the legislation as is (well, except for some minor amendments) and actually let it go to a vote before proposing any major changes like they have today.
Even if it was blocked, the government could still say “we tried”.
[What was I right about?\
Everything??
Scorpio, yes I think so, but I don’t expect that’s what Diogenes meant.
By the way it’s 30 years today since Margaret Thatcher became PM of the UK.
The Greens are no better than Turnbull. They demanded 40% targets or they’d block and Rudd has put them in their place (back at the bottom of the garden with the fairies)
fair dinkum you’d swear they think they are the Govt and Rudd is on this earth only to appease them.
From the submissions on the NSW redistribution:
Rob Oakeshott, MP for Lyne, wants the name of the electorate changed. Not least because it sounds too much like “Lyons” and has apparently caused parliamentary confusion.
You’d swear Rudd thought they weren’t elected on their own policy platform…
Not widely reported. Just wondering why? Thumb up for the Ruddster:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2560133.htm?section=justin
It should be renamed “Andren”.
No matter where you stand on the political podium, you will find some very interesting analysis by Aristotle, here on the relationship to the leader’s standing on issued to the party position.
Going by this, Turnbull has an uphill battle ahead of him. Warning, the post is fairly long but well worth the read and bookmarking.
http://www.ozforums.com.au/viewtopic.php?id=5417
Adam:
To think Thatcher will get a state funeral – she definately made it “grim Oop North”
Well Calma got that bit right, until the education in remote areas picks up nothing much else can change.
What did Andren have to do with Lyne?
Oakeshott’s suggestions are “Pacific Coast”, “Innes”, “Many Rivers” and “Biripai”.
I have just logged in and have not read any of the comments so far today. Rudd had no choice but to stall the introduction of the CPRS. Last week a couple of the big banks reported to the market. The ANZ results especially were alarming. The stock fell some 7%. The media has intentionally zipped up since not to talk the economy down. The fact is that this recession is now hitting harder than expected and the real economy is yet to feel the full brunt of it. When the CPRS is finally introduced we will be in a stronger position to adapt to it.
Increasing the target to a potential 25% should make the Greens happy and therefore they should now pass the bill. But let’s face facts, if the rest of the world don’t increase their targets in unison, it would be LUNACY for us to do so!
Wong on 7:30 Report tonight.
The Italian Job continues:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/04/2560583.htm?section=justin
Just imagine how long Rudd would last if this happens with Therese.
They still can can’t they?
It;s still going to be introduced into the parliament this year isn’t it?
That is so lame. We’re almost exactly where we were expecting to be. The GFC is running a fairly predictable course.
Adam
I said Turnbull would agree to pass the Mark II ETS and although I’m not wRONg yet, it’s not looking very promising. What really gets me is not that I was wrong but that my error was in not being cynical enough about a Liberal politician. I won’t be making that mistake again for a long time.
Diogenes, does that mean we can expect a bounce in Turnbull’s ratings in the next Newspoll based on his refugee dogwhistling over the past couple of weeks?
Grog, it’s going to be introduced into parliment next week according to Brissleton on 7.30 report
Bulldust
477 Vera,
GOODIE
…………… QT is back, it is always a long, lean haul without much going on to get all the way from the end of summer parliament session to the Budget one in May ….
The unbelievable thing is that Turnbull could have declared victory on this and made it sound like he was the real author of the plan. Instead he comes out YET AGAIN on DAY ONE and says
Why does he need to go anti straight away??? Did this guy have a policitical nous bypass in an earlier life?
Not till the 12th
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/sittings/2009/09sitpa.pdf
Cheers just caught that bit.
Kerry asking the DD question. Wong gives the straight bat answer.
Red Kerry couldn’t crack Pinky Wong
Penny for PM in 2020
Quite clearly his party doesn’t want an ETS under any circumstances, and have told him so. He’s screwed.
Juliem, I just read your email
will keep an eye out for next weekends tips.
I thought Treasury was predicting above trend growth by the end of 2010 anyway.
No Diogenes sadly that’s not true. Things are looking more alarming every day, and I have had reluctantly to agree that GFC+CPRS+2010=CFD*
*complete freakin’ disaster (NOTE: Previous phrase neutered by editor to ensure compliance with article 2 of comment moderation guidelines – The Management).
So if there’s a DD, or this isn’t passed by the next election, you’ll have Turnbull with no policy (or at least no credibility on the issue) Rudd with his 5-15-25% and The Greens with 24-40%.
You’d have to say the most likely situation is still a Rudd win with a Green balance of power. And since it’s very unlikely Rudd would go completely the other way just after being elected on a different policy, and if Turnbull still didn’t pass we wouldn’t get anything.
But depending on the timing of the election you’d have Copenhagen as well and whatever that throws up. At this stage (and most likely) we’ll still be arguing for lower cuts than Europe.
Is that a situation anyone here supports? The EU officially says “We will go up to 30%” but the UK says 42% and we say “No, go back down the 25%”.
So Treasury and Swan are wrong?
This is what I meant at #454 btw. lololol.
Oz, unemployment should get to 8.5% in 12 months (an election year). They are doing the right thing by delaying it.
Btw, Turnbull is so ROYALLY WEDGED! lol
vera
Here’s Turnbull saying the same thing. And they’re just quoting Rudd, whose own words are coming back to haunt him. A bit like Climate Change being “the greatest moral challenge of our generation.”
Grog, i realize that
….. but you couldn’t have read into my mind. I saw Vera’s post where she said ” …. next week …. ” and I said ” QT is back ” where perhaps what I should have said is ” …… QT is back next week ….. ” instead of leaving that part unspoken and assumed (as you didn’t make that assumption). 
They have to be careful not to talk the economy down. I don’t. We haven’t seen the worst of the recession yet by a long way.
Nothing, but he is a well respected rural independent who received huge support.
Kind of like Oakeshott
Adam
I completely agree but that was not my point. I was saying that the GFC looks very much the same as it looked 4 months ago. It wasn’t pretty then and it’s not now. We were always going to get three years of pain.
Doigenes
I’m a bit confused here (that could be my new head, Finns did warn me)
So you are saying you didn’t quote Fielding, but are now quoting Turnbull quoting Fielding quoting Rudd?
Hey Mr Management Who Monitors Every Word, could you possibly answer my email of last Friday?
Again, bulldust
So was Sir William Lyne. It was he who called out “Judas! Judas! Judas!” at the top of his voice in the House when Alfred Deakin did his dirty deal with George Reid in 1909. This enabled Billy Hughes to come back with the immortal line, “No, that is unfair to Judas, who did not fail to hang himself afterwards.” Lyne should keep his electorate.
So what are Obama’s targets anyway, Oz mentioned UK an EU but not USA?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050400567.html
There are many annoying electoral authority websites in the world (which is why I created my own), but the website of the Panama Electoral Tribunal is very nearly the worst.
Thomas Paine, above:
That’s one of the funniest one-liners I’ve read in years. Made my day. ROTFL.
It had to come to this:
Rudd’s imcompetence: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25426831-601,00.html
and this:
Labor bungling mixed with fatality envy.
nope will have to wait for the NBN till we’re able to do that on blogs.
He probably WOULD oppose it. He knows he doesn’t want to be in government at the moment because it’s all too DIFFICULT and he could not possibly cope with simultaneous economic and climatic crises so he is happy to leave it to Kevin to do all the hard work while he snipes from slidelines like the (rhymes with banker) he is.
Sorry for triple posting, but my point was that after a week of crisis and pandemic in the Press, they dare have the hide to accuse the government of going over the top.
They’re just disappointed that the only Aussies they could lumber with the Swine Flu were a few expats in London, who aren’t really all that sick, as it happens. Fair dinkum, if I was an emotional man, it’d bring a tear to my eye how Goddamn, desperately, bloody awful our media can be.
Well he didn’t exactly cover himself in glory while Minister…
Bernard Keane on why Turnbull has gone anti:
he also makes a good point:
Combet needs to be a Minister. Too much talent wasted at the minute.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/04/ets-changes-a-complete-surrender-to-the-big-polluters/
Ch 7 Perth had a story on passengers on a Garuda Flight being quarentined on arrival in Perth when a passenger complained of flu symptoms – with one passenger saying it was a joke that they quarentined the plane.
Oh and the London woman was complaining how SHE had to notify British Authorities.
vera
Both Fielding and Turnbull quoted Rudd’s “delay would be reckless and irresponsible” comment. I think we’ll be seeing it during the election.
Dec 2008 Press conference- “to delay any longer, to stay in denial as the climate change sceptics and some members opposite would have us do, is reckless and irresponsible”.
April 2009 Press conference- “we’re going to delay blah blah blah”
Finns, just reading some of todays comments. After reading 348, I think it was a bad idea to allow any of us to become Amigos if we prove that Diogs was wRONg.
At this rate you blokes will be runnunig out of telephone numbers lol.
Diogenes, would you rather have a PM who says: “Last year I said I was going to do X, and even though the economy has gone into a nosedive since then and it would now be grossly irresponsible to do X, I’m going to do it anyway because I said I would and I’m too stiffnecked and stubborn to acknowledge that circumstances have changed.” Would you?
Doubt it. What do they say with it?
moving the ETS back to 2011 is hardly L.A.W. tax cuts.
Diogenes we might see some of that in the ad campaign against Rudd’s climate credentials to be released by the Greens before the next election
Why would it be grosely irresponsible for the scheme to start at a time when industry isn’t as active, and thus doesn’t need to buy as many credits (because they aren’t creating as much pollution). I think that is a GOOD time to start the system.
I also don’t understand why there will be an arbitrary price limit of $10 on carbon at the start, and unlimited number of permits, that defeats the purpose of MARKET based solution that sets the price of permits based on DEMAND.
Adam. From Bernard Keane’s article;
I completely disagree that the reason the lamest CC policy in the world just got lamer is because of the GFC. It’s because Wong has completely stuffed up. He won’t replace her but the whole thing has been a disaster. The GFC is just being used as an excuse.
Pffft. Then you’ll see footage of Malcolm repeatedly claiming it should be delayed till 2011, followed by footage of him still saying no after exactly that.
Oh good grief…
These “big polluters” that Bernard is so Keane to demonise are in fact the industries that employ large numbers of blue collar Labor voters, and which also earn most of our export income and keep all of us in the affluent lifestyles to which we have become accustomed. They can’t just be made to walk the plank. As I have said before, trying to decarbonise the Australian economy was always going to be immensely difficult, and is now even more so because of the recession. Where’s your evidence that Wong has stuffed up?
Good thing for the ALP they don’t have to beat the rest of the world at the next election, only a party that won’t even support this “lame” CC policy.
Has the EU just adjusted it’s CC targets because of the GFC? No.
Have they delayed them because of the GFC? No.
Do they have a GFC in Europe? Yes.
That’s because the EU’s ETS is a phony as everyone knows. They’ve given away so many permits that their market value is now zero.
Did anyone see this?
any ideas who?
Resigning over what? Morris is hardly a credible source when it comes to the ALP
And they are same industries who have PROFITED from putting CO2-e into the atmosphere for decades, even though they have known for at least the last decade that eventually they would have to pay for the right to pollute.
They weren’t being made to walk the plank! They were going to get 90% free permits up front, with that amount decreasing by just 1.3% a year. Now they have managed to get EVEN MORE permits for free, and have the automatic decrease removed!
But it didn’t translate into votes for the Libs. a 1% on and 1% off is within the MOE. Did it really get through? Does it really matter that much that it will change votes?
The fact that the mining industry seems to be writing her CC policies, which incidentally is literally what they did under Howard. Not much has changed.
Is this Senator alleged to be resigning because the CPRS goes too far, or because it doesn’t go far enough? There are members of Caucus who have very strong views in both directions.
That’s not evidence. That’s just a restatement of your opinion.
Well the changes today weaken it, so surely because it doesn’t go far enough.
The Government had a better plan yesterday.
Except as I said previously you will see the CFMEU swing their support behind Turnbull Tasmanian style.
I know at least one Labor Senator who thinks the CPRS ought to be abandoned altogether unless and until there is a global agreement, because we will be committing national economic suicide by adopting it unliaterally, for no gain in stopping climate change. I don’t share that view, but it is a not uncommon one in the labour movement. So there could be dissidents in both directions. This is the situation Rudd has to manage.
It’s a fact, get over it.
Agred, and given I got the quote from a certain news.ltd shock blogger, I wouldn’t vouch for its accuracy.
We saw a rump of Greens arguing in the recent Queensland election for a closer alliance with the Tories too, Frank.
Why, what is the policy that they would be supporting?
If they do this Labor should disaffiliate them immediately. Labor has compromised their position as far as necessary. if the AWU or CFMEU can’t accept the concessions the government has made, then they should be treated like climate change deniers.
The fact is simple, if we want to hit big targets down the track, SOME AWU and CFMEU will no longer work in their current jobs in a decade from how.
No you won’t.
The Turnbull policy – each year say that you’ll legislate for an ETS in the next year.
So that Senator supports the Liberal “after you, no, after you, no after you” policy. S/he should be reminded that Australia has the most to lose from global warming.
Good luck with that…
hahahahahaha
That’ll look good on an election banner.
No doubt that is occurring. My point is that Rudd has a difficult task of party management here as well as extremely daunting objective circumstances. It’s no use saying Oh they can do it in Sweden or wherever. Apart from the fact that EU ETS is a fraud as I said, there is also the small fact that we, having (unlike the EU) renounced nuclear, are probably the most carbon-dependent of all developed economies. Rudd is trying to turn around a century of carbon-based industrialisation in a decade.
ShowsOn
Welcome to my world. I suggest you find a nice soft wall and pad it a bit more. You’re going to need it.
Oz @ 489
If there was a DD over the ETS, and Labor won, it could then have a joint sitting of both houses to pass it. Unless the Reps result was an absolute squeaker, Labor’s margin in the Reps would give it the numbers to do so. The Bill would have to be in the same form as the one that triggered the DD.
My main point is that this is a wasted POLITICAL chance. The Government should’ve put the original plan to the floor of the senate, and forced the Liberals, Greens, Xenophon, Fielding to vote it down. That should’ve been the first step because they are the Government, if the initial draft legislation wasn’t closer to what they wanted, then why did they propose it? We already knew the world economy was screwed when the draft legislation was released, so I don’t buy that argument that circumstances have changed.
Your second point about nuclear is simple. Why didn’t Rudd put that issue into the mix, and tell the Left that they the Government would support say a 10% unconditional cut if they were willing to support removing the ban a domestic nuclear power industry? (Which of course would make a 10% cut easy to achieve)
I just don’t like seeing this thing get compromised more and more. All it means is some SERIOUS pain 4 or 5 years from now when the price of carbon completely sky rockets in ONE year. How does THAT help business out, going from a restricted $10 carbon price, and an unlimited supply of permits to a system where the carbon price is driven by a market? How is THAT useful for them?
We can’t keep delaying this, especially considering that we don’t have the ability to use nuclear power, which is the easiest way to make huge cuts.
The EU recession is far worse than expected according to a French news agency.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090504/bs_afp/eueurozoneeconomyrecession_20090504093716;_ylt=Agf4DTkcwk3ma6na2TOhjReFOrgF
And in 10+ years when the first Nuclear power plant came on line, what would you be saying then?
I’d support that, but it would be difficult to undo the effects of 30 years of anti-nuclear sentiment – shared until recently by me among many others.
It happened on mining after some sections of the left supported it including Chris Evans.
There needs to be a Labor for Nuclear Power ginger group modelled on the extremely successful Labor for Refugees internal organisation.
Diog, what have you got against that good looking Malaysian born Chinese Hakka woman, Senator Penny Wong.
SO
The very low price of carbon removes any incentive for RE or nuclear or any change in the practices of the big emitters. I can just see them turning around in 2016 and saying “There’s no way we can pay these high prices for carbon!”. Just imagine if we have a 15% ETS target. The price will be absolutely crippling for the last four years to meet our 2020 targets.
Dario, can you lift the standard of your contributions please (see 478, 499 and 543),
Adam @ 498: I did, to your Iosphere address (from which you sent the email). I’ve just sent it again.
John Quiggin seems to be very supportive of today’s announcement.
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/04/25-per-cent-by-2020/
Thanks William but I don’t think that address works any more, and I don’t know why my email came from that address (these issues are beyond my comprehension I’m afraid). I will send you my current address.
Peter Martin is having IT problems too.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2009/05/blogging-update-somethings-stuffed.html
hearing the reactions on our ABC (surprisingly giving a more balanced than usual coverage of federal politics), Rudd appears to have pleased the business groups by the slower roll out and the environmental groups by the increase in maximum targets. Quite a deft political move it would appear. Whether its the best thing for the environment or the economy is yet to be seen. I’m willing to give Rudd the benefit of the doubt given that he seems to have taken methodical and comprehensive approach to government. I really hope they get this right, and I think he has the good will of voters to give this a crack
When I heard the news I went to PB immediatly to see how the ALP hacks reacted.
OZ:
Amen
Yo ho ho
MP has a sketch about election night coverage with an Anthony Green like host very excited to be on TV. The candidates stand sollumly on a podium awaiting the results and its Serious Party that wins. The Silly Party candidate (dressed as a loopy clown) looses because even though their has been a demographic increase in silly people in the electorate the silly vote was split (bloody 1st past the post!) due to a very silly independent (legs dangle in the air out of a cement block) also running.
The Greens are working with 1990 levels as their standard whilst the government is using 2000 levels. I wish they’d use consistent scales, we rarely mention gallons and yards anymore. I think 1990 is more universally accepted. The ALP is just using 2000-standard to make their reductions apear larger. So ALP’s 25% is less ambitious than the Greens 25%.
All I heard on the ABC was the usual carping from Turnball, indeed all Aunty seems to show these days are the inconsequential bleatings of the Liberal shadow front bench.
And Dario, I always love your comments, you’re much missed at the other place where I post.
Newspoll 55-45, 5% fall in Labor primary
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25430179-601,00.html
Joshua Gans seems to think that the changes announced today should be passed by the Senate.
http://economics.com.au/?p=3325
New thread.