Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Newspoll and Essential Research: 56-44 to Coalition

GhostWhoVotes reports Newspoll has come in at 56-44 to the Coalition, down from 57-43 last time, which exactly matches Essential Research's progress over the last week. In Newspoll's ca

Share

GhostWhoVotes reports Newspoll has come in at 56-44 to the Coalition, down from 57-43 last time, which exactly matches Essential Research’s progress over the last week. In Newspoll’s case, the picture on the primary vote is very much the same as a fortnight ago, with Labor, the Coalition and the Greens all up a point at the expense of “others”, to 29%, 48% and 12%. Personal ratings offer multiple stings in the tail for Julia Gillard. Where last time she was up three points on approval and down four on disapproval, those results have exactly reversed, putting her back at 28% approval and 62% disapproval. Tony Abbott has seized the lead as preferred prime minister, gaining four to 41% with Gillard down one to 39%, and his approval rating is up three to 35% with disapproval down four to 54%. GhostWhoVotes also relates that Gillard’s “trustworthiness” rating is down from 61% to 44% since the 2010 election, with Abbott’s down from 58% to 54%. Presumably this portends a battery of attitudinal results concerning the two leaders.

Essential Research had the primary votes at 48% for the Coalition (down two), 31% for Labor (steady) and 11% for the Greens (steady). Also featured were its monthly personal ratings, which had Julia Gillard’s approval steady at 32% and her disapproval down three to 58%, Tony Abbott’s respectively up two to 38% and down two to 50%, and Gillard’s lead as preferred prime minister shifting from 40-37 to 38-36. Support for the National Broadband Network was up a point since February to a new high of 57% with opposition down three to 22%, and 46% saying they will either definitely or probably sign up for it. There was also a question on appropriate areas for federal and state responsibility, with the states only coming out heavily on top for public transport and “investing in regional areas”.

I now offer a Senate-tacular review of recent happenings relating to the upper chamber, where it’s all happening at the moment:

• There has been talk lately about the potential make-up of the Senate if the Coalition wins next year’s election in a landslide, which might upset long-held assumptions about the political calculus under an Abbott government. Half-Senate elections usually result in each state’s six seats splitting three left and three right, and the territories’ two seats invariably go one Labor and one Coalition. However, four and two results have not been unknown, usually involving Labor winning three and the Coalition two with the last seat going to the Greens or the Democrats. The only four-right, two-left results were when John Howard gained control of the Senate at the 2004 election, in Queensland (four Coalition and two Labor) and Victoria (three Coalition, two Labor, one Family First). There is also the occasional unclassifiable like Nick Xenophon, who is up for re-election in South Australia next year and presumably likely to win, and perhaps even Julian Assange, of whose aspirations we have heard nothing further.

The difficulty for the Coalition is that a four-left, two-right result in Tasmania at the 2010 election (three Labor, two Liberal and one Greens) will carry over to the next parliament. However, on the basis of Newspoll’s recent state breakdowns it is easy to envision this being counterbalanced by a four-right, two-left result in Queensland, either through a repeat of 2004 or, perhaps, a Katter’s Australian Party Senator joining three from the LNP. This would leave the left with 38 and the right with 37 (including the thus-far low-profile Victorian Senator John Madigan of the DLP, a carryover from 2010), plus Xenophon – still leaving the left with a blocking majority, even when Xenophon voted with the right. However, the Queensland election wipeout and a further dive in Labor’s federal poll ratings encourages contemplation of further four-right, two-left results in New South Wales and Western Australia. Assuming no cross-ideological preference deals such as that which produced Family First’s win in Victoria in 2004, a rough benchmark here is that the combined Labor and Greens vote would need to fall to about 40%. This compares with Labor-plus-Greens results in 2010 of 42.2% in Queensland, 43.7% in Western Australia and 47.2% in New South Wales. Any two such results would be enough to get the carbon tax repealed, given the likely support of Xenophon, and all three would leave a Coalition government similarly placed to its state counterpart in New South Wales, where Labor and the Greens can be overruled with the support of the Shooters Party and the Christian Democratic Party.

• Bob Brown’s announcement he will exit parliament at the end of June creates a plum parliamentary vacancy for the robust Tasmanian Greens. Speculation first fell upon the party’s current leader in state parliament, Nick McKim, who if interested could have followed the path from state leadership to the Senate previously trodden by Bob Brown and Christine Milne. He immediately ruled himself out though, which has left Bernard Keane of Crikey, Sid Maher of The Australian and Gemma Daley of the Financial Review identifying Peter Whish-Wilson as the front-runner. Maher’s report describes Whish-Wilson as a “wine-growing, surf-riding economist”, while Daley offers that he “worked in equity capital markets for Merrill Lynch in New York and Melbourne and for Deutsche Bank in Hong Kong, Melbourne and Sydney”, before moving to Tasmania in 2004 and making a name for himself as the operator of Three Wishes Winery and a Gunns pulp mill opponent. Daley reports former state leader Peg Putt is “understood to have ruled herself out”, as has former Greenpeace International chief executive Paul Gilding. An ABC report also mentions Hobart deputy lord mayor Helen Burnet as a possible starter, while Sid Maher offers “Wilderness Society campaigner Geoff Law and Geoff Couser, candidate in the federal seat of Denison”.

• A fiercely contested battle over the order of the Victorian Liberal Senate ticket has ended with Scott Ryan taking second place at the expense of Helen Kroger, who is demoted to third, with Mitch Fifield as expected secure in first. Fifield won on the first round with 251 votes to 92 for Ryan and 71 for Kroger, before Ryan achieved a surprisingly strong 276 to 139 victory over Kroger on the second round. VexNews offers a revealing account from a no doubt interested party who says Ryan took advantage of new preselection rules introduced under the “Kemp reforms” to empower the party membership. These provide for one third of the vote to be determined by the members, but the system allocates six delegates to each federal division – rather an odd way of going about it, given that Liberal members appear to number only in the dozens across northern and western Melbourne. Ryan, it is said, has assiduously cultivated support in these “rotten boroughs” to turn the tables on the Kroger camp, which has its power base at higher levels of the party organisation.

Nick Butterly of The West Australian reports some WA Liberals are “frustrated at the calibre of candidates coming forward” to fill its looming federal parliamentary vacancies: retiring Judi Moylan and Mal Washer in Pearce and Moore, and now, sadly, Senator Judith Adams, who succumbed to cancer on March 31. A further addition to the list is Senator Alan Eggleston, who has announced he will not seek re-election next year. The current form guide is evaluated as follows:

Among the most promising candidates being considered for either a Senate or Lower House spot are State Liberal Party treasurer Dean Smith and aerobatic pilot Drew Searle. Wanneroo councillor Ian Goodenough is so far the only declared candidate for Dr Washer’s seat, while Hyden farmer Jane Mouritz and former Liberal staffer Alex Butterworth are also being touted in some corners as options for Senate spots. One Liberal said yesterday they would push for retiring WA Mines Minister Norman Moore to sit in the Senate.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

3913 comments

3,913 thoughts on “Newspoll and Essential Research: 56-44 to Coalition

  1. Mod Lib

    [Centre
    Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink
    What do you think Mod Lib, can you see any similarities leading into 2013 with 1993?

    Like Keating, Julia stays put pal!]

    I wish I could pull off that line from the democratic VP debate:

    “Senator, I know Keating. Keating was a friend of mine.

    Senator, Gillard is no Paul Keating”

  2. Henry

    And Abbott is not even close to tying Hewson’s shoelaces so where does that leave us.

  3. Centre

    Hey Pegasus, do you actually realise and are you prepared to concede that;

    1) the polls were close to 50/50 before that fateful day where both the Labor Party and then the Greens held press conferences to introduce a carbon tax, and

    2) the Greens policy of a carbon tax is resposible for Labor’s 5% drop in the polls?

    Can you handle the truth?

    Now the Greens don’t want the government to deliver a budget surplus!

    Why don’t your mob do us all a favour when it comes to issues that involve $ and ZIP…

  4. poroti

    Cuppa

    […SELF-reliance…]
    As in Juche ?

  5. Centre

    Mod Lib, the :mrgreen: is no Hewson 😉

  6. CTar1

    Mod Lib suggesting being taken for a ‘ride’!

    I’m over any attempt at rational conservation after that ‘claim’.

    Good night all – including the silly ones!

  7. Gorgeous Dunny

    [Mod Lib
    Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    But I notice you have not challenged my point that the two governments with whom you were comparing the current one had both chalked up well over a decade.

    I am sorry, I thought that was a little too obvious to respond to, but if you insist, yes the NSW and Qld governments had been in office for a long time.

    But a quick note:
    After 13 years of ALP government the ALP won a third of the seats in 1996
    After 12ish years of Lib government they won 40% of the seats in 2007

    The NSW ALP won 22% of seats
    The Qld ALP won 8% of seats ]

    The results are straw man diversionary tactics.

    You still squibbed it on the question of valid comparisons. Federal Labor: one election (count ’em, one) since coming to office, NSW: four; Qld somewhat similar.

    So are the polls a year or so prior to their demise a reliable indicator of how federal Labor will fare this far out? I’d seriously doubt it.

  8. Cuppa

    I had to google it, Poroti, but… yeah! Juche!

  9. Aguirre

    OK:

    To get a major reform through you need to be consistent, persistent and right.

    You what? Where did you get that from? Did you see how many hoops the GST went through before it got up? It took a last-minute deal to remove it from fruit and veg to get the go-ahead. Politics is compromise, and compromise depends heavily on alterations and changes. Do you think guiding a policy through parliament is simply a matter of saying “here it is” and waiting till everyone comes around?

    I think you’ll concede she’s been persistent. We do have carbon pricing.

    Gillard has not been consistent, she went from greatest moral challenge to put it on hold to community challenge and then no tax, yes tax. She may well have the right, but she has stuffed everything up well before the opportunity to argue the third aspect.

    Re-writing history again, eh? You talk as if she had all the free will in the world to make these choices. ETS – blocked by Greens, and therefore effectively taken off the table. It had to be re-thought or tossed in the bin completely. Same deal with your no-tax, yes-tax claim. That again was the Greens forcing the ALP‘s hand (it’s important to keep in mind here that the ALP had a choice – adjust it or bin it again). If you truly believe that carbon pricing will do good, you make that compromise because the alternative is nothing at all. We’d been through that once, but this time around the Greens were a little more flexible.

    You can make a big stand and get nothing done. But I don’t find that particularly useful. Maybe you do.

    I am not conceding the ‘right’ because, I still contend that this has not been explained properly.

    From this point on, you’ve moved away from the topic at hand. I’ve already said there’s a debate to be had in the areas you mention, and I’m open to that.

    But if you could tell me why having it operate as a tax during the implementation period is so much worse than not doing that, I’d be very appreciative. Because that’s what the big fuss seems to be about.

  10. Centre

    No Mod Lib, the last government to introduce a tax (20 times larger than the carbon tax) actually managed to hold government 😉

    Would you call Abbott’s paid parental scheme given that it will be funded by an increase in coy tax, a new tax?

  11. Mod Lib

    “The results are straw man diversionary tactics.”

    Huh?

    so I am trying to confuse you by using facts. Ok, not sure what to say to that.

    Yes, the Federal government has won 2 elections, vs. many more for the NSW and Qld state governments.

    Remember my earlier post where I said the fed ALP had managed to go straight from election to “we are sick of you”, without the honeymoon period?

    Opinion? Yep.

    Mine.

  12. Aguirre

    ML:

    Yes a good example 1993.

    The ones trying to introduce the new tax got slammed.

    Then isn’t a better example 2001? Nobody’s trying to introduce anything. It’s done, it’s there. A few adjustments to the GST – taking it off petrol mainly (ooh, look at that, an inconsistncy I believe) saw an immediate jump in the poll figures for Howard.

  13. Mod Lib

    [Centre
    Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
    No Mod Lib, the last government to introduce a tax (20 times larger than the carbon tax) actually managed to hold government]

    After two decades of arguing the case, and they did it from a massive majority (albeit not in the league of the current drubbings but at the time it was a massive win).

    This mob hasn’t been consistent, they haven’t been persistent and they haven’t made any serious attempt to prove that they are doing the right thing.

    But good luck with your view!

  14. confessions

    [Not a falsehood. An attack on the Coalition for putting pressure on the government to have a surplus.]

    Which is itself a falsehood. And it reinforces everything the coalition have been saying about the govt.

    For this reason it’s not an attack on the coalition, but a boost for Abbott’s and the coalition’s credentials.

    A novice mistake by Milne, and one I hope she doesn’t make again.

  15. Mod Lib

    [Then isn’t a better example 2001?]

    If Howard had gone to 1998 saying no GST and then introduced it in bills in 1999 and it started in 2000 and he went to an election in 2001, maybe.

    2001 was different- Sep 11, Tampa and the GST sky fall in hysteria from the ALP worked into Howard’s favour.

    The compensation will be in people’s pay packets, you are right. However, there will be several electricity bills between July and the election (assuming it is in 2013) and any dollar in the pay is going to be forgotten when the power bill arrives.

  16. confessions

    ABC news online headline:

    [Man acquitted of Facebook grooming]

    Is so far removed from the actual story.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-17/facebook-grooming-richard-markham/3955574

    Another ABC fail.

  17. Tricot

    Oh goodness – so much discussion around a word “tax”.

    At the end of the day, the voting public, whether rightly or wrongly, now talk about a Carbon Tax.

    What’s the point of arguing the toss whether JG called it a tax or a stack of feathers?

    It is now part of the folk lore and is unlikely to change.

    The conservatives have had a rhetorical victory on this one, but where they were dead wrong, is justifying their failure to win office in 21010.

    They put this down to the fact that JG, so say, did not tell the truth about “The Tax” whereas the real reason was the electorate could not bring itself to accept Abbott.

    He was not trusted by the electorate then, is not trusted now, and is despised by nearly 60% of voters. What a great position to make a pitch for the leadership of the country – not!

    His one strength has been to attract every whinger/hater/naysayer to his cause.

    This is very soft support and the Libs know it.

    His support is like the military leader who relies on mercenaries who will be the first to quit in a tough battle.

    There is actually 6-8% of the primary vote which Labor is missing. This is the real problem for Labor. They must get this back to win in 2013.

    It is not lost, but misplaced – some with the conservatives, some with the Greens and some with Other.

    It is galling to the conservatives that despite all, they are really no closer to government now than they were in August 2010.

    The conventional wisdom is that Labor is doooooooomed I tell you. They have to lose in 2013!

    However, the real task for Labor is to recollect the AWOL voter – probably some of Howard’s Battlers and certainly some who were Rudd fans. There is time for this – even four weeks out from an election is still time.

    The best thing going for Labor is Abbott and doubt in the minds of the conservatives.

    This will grow and grow closer to the election.

    Labor with its hard work and effective government is still odds to win in 2013 – despite what the polls say now. Incumbency is a powerful starting point.

  18. confessions

    [So are the polls a year or so prior to their demise a reliable indicator of how federal Labor will fare this far out? ]

    Has Mod Lib answered this question?

  19. Cuppa

    Centre,

    [No Mod Lib, the last government to introduce a tax (20 times larger than the carbon tax) actually managed to hold government 😉

    Would you call Abbott’s paid parental scheme given that it will be funded by an increase in coy tax, a new tax?]

    And Abbott’s Great Big New Tax (for a tax it undoubtedly is) would hit 6.6 times the number of businesses than Labor’s carbon price. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/maiden-tonys-great-big-tax/story-fn6br25t-1226295921746

    So much for the Abbott Liberals and their infantile three-word slogans. You can’t trust a thing they say.

  20. smithe

    I see someone on here earlier banging on about Swan and Gillard being the worst we’ve ever had etc tec etc…..

    Whoever thinks this clearly slept through the years of Howard’s stint in Treasury.

    That one gave us the trifecta: Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and the highest interest rates ever recorded.

  21. CTar1

    Centre

    [Mod Lib is no Hewson ]

    Hewson was too honest and he put it out there – I didn’t agree with him but it was clear what he was proposing.

    The whole Mike Willisee I ‘gotya’ style of journalism was spawned from that very unworthy episode – the “I’m a player” aspect of journalists.

    Reporting – what’s that … Cakes with iceing are the value of policy?

  22. Aguirre

    After two decades of arguing the case, and they did it from a massive majority (albeit not in the league of the current drubbings but at the time it was a massive win).

    You’re kidding, right? What’s consistent – or persistent for that matter – about saying “never ever” one election campaign and then bringing it back for the next one? You argue the ALP aren’t consistent, but at least they argued the case two elections in a row!

    And if I’m reading this right, you’re saying no government ought to attempt any major reform unless they have a massive majority?

  23. confessions

    [Oh goodness – so much discussion around a word “tax”.]

    But no discussion around that actual tax, namely Abbott’s regressive nannies and PPL tax on business, which will arguably hit more consumers and hit them harder because there is no compensation to households for its impost.

  24. Mod Lib

    [ETS – blocked by Greens, and therefore effectively taken off the table. It had to be re-thought or tossed in the bin completely.]

    Options:
    1. Adjust (not done)
    2. Negotiate with Greens (not done)
    3. Persist (not done)
    4. Double Dissolution (not done)
    5. Hide (done)

    Not consistent
    Not persistent

  25. Centre

    This is how simple it is Mod Lib, and yes the government has been consistent:

    1. The carbon tax will be charged on only the 50 largest polluters in the country.

    2. The revenue to the government that the carbon tax raises will be fully returned to 90% of hoseholds (excluding the highest income earners such as Palmer, Rinehart and Forrest), trade wxposed industries and investment in renewable energy.

    3. The vast majority of households will be better off (simple mathematics).

    4. Abbott policy will NOT work (Turnbull has admitted that very fact),

    5. Abbott will pay the largest polluters from taxpayers dollars to cut emissions.

    6. An economic fact that taxpayers will be better off with the carbon scheme than Abbott’s phony climate change policy.

    Do you understand, or would you like me to grab a kid from the nearest child care centre to explain it to you?

  26. spur212

    guytaur

    1. Swan’s cuts now give scope for the government to stimulate if there’s another GFC. On top of that, they’re giving the RBA room to cut interest rates drastically which it looks like they’re going to do next month. The structural stabilisers of the economy are working and the best thing the government can do in this sea of mediocrity around the world is get the budget back to surplus.

    2. Milne’s comments are condescending and take the ALP for granted while at the same time play right into Abbott’s talking points and allow him to play his favourite game “split the left” again.

  27. confessions

    Centre, Cuppa:

    Snap!

  28. shellbell

    What is the problem at 966, Fess?

  29. Cuppa

    smithe,

    [I see someone on here earlier banging on about Swan and Gillard being the worst we’ve ever had etc tec etc…..

    Whoever thinks this clearly slept through the years of Howard’s stint in Treasury.

    That one gave us the trifecta: Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and the highest interest rates ever recorded.]

    And the worst recession since the Great Depression.

    And debt and deficit that climbed steadily year after year.

  30. Aguirre

    If Howard had gone to 1998 saying no GST and then introduced it in bills in 1999 and it started in 2000 and he went to an election in 2001, maybe.

    Complete rubbish. The ALP argued for carbon pricing in the 2007 election campaign. Which is equivalent to Howard’s 1998 election. The only difference was that the ALP didn’t say “never ever” to carbon pricing in 2004.

  31. bemused

    Dr John @ 920

    bemused – don’t let it go to your head.
    I thought you had migrated to Moscow.

    Now why would I go there?

    I always drift back to PB. Too much fun with my sparring partners. 😀

  32. Mod Lib

    Centre:

    Ignoring the “50”, so why $23? Why not $18.75 or $12.34?

  33. Diogenes

    Are we handing Afghanistan directly back to the Taliban, or are we pretending that rock solid pillar of democracy Karzai is going to run things?

  34. Centre

    [and any dollar in the pay is going to be forgoten when the power bill arrives.]

    Mod Lib, do you seriously think people are that stupid?

    No, they just may see that they are no worse, in fact better off with the carbon scheme, you see, that’s why PM Gillard is not going anywhere.

    She is going to do the :mrgreen: slowly!

  35. Mod Lib

    [confessions
    Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
    So are the polls a year or so prior to their demise a reliable indicator of how federal Labor will fare this far out?

    Has Mod Lib answered this question?]

    They were spot on in NSW and Qld.

    Time will tell if they are spot on Federally.

  36. Pegasus

    [Milne’s comment was based on a falsehood.]
    For those who want to see Milne’s comment in context.
    [Greens leader Christine Milne says Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is to blame for an environment where Labor feels locked into delivering a budget surplus.

    The Greens believe the Gillard government shouldn’t be rushing to bring the budget back to surplus if it means tough spending cuts and delaying reforms such as the introduction of a universal dental care scheme.

    ‘Everyone in Australia knows if the prime minister hadn’t come out and made an emphatic statement in 2009 saying the budget would return to surplus this year on the basis of Treasury modelling about the extent of the growth that was predicted we wouldn’t be in the position we are,’ Senator Milne told Network Ten on Sunday.

    ‘But it’s actually Tony Abbott and the Ju-liar community who are responsible for this because it’s a political imperative.’

    Senator Milne said Prime Minister Julia Gillard believed the government couldn’t change its position.

    ‘That’s the tragedy of the actual political debate around the economy at the moment,’ she said.

    ‘We need to be creating the space for people to change their minds and be able to nuance a position according to what’s going on in the world.’]
    http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=740057&vId=

  37. shellbell

    Dio

    Maybe Karzai with Taliban in a government of national unity?

  38. Mod Lib

    [She is going to do the slowly!]

    Unfortunately, it appears Abbott is doing Gillard quite slowly and quite effectively, just as he sent off Rudd.

    Its very hard to get the ideal outcome of an Abbott challenge while you guys in the ALP are being so crap that the Libs are coasting…

  39. Cuppa

    [5. Abbott will pay the largest polluters from taxpayers dollars to cut emissions.]

    Which is perverse and outrageous because the revenue shifts from those who pollute least (households) to those who pollute the most (big polluters).

    The only reason they’re not being hounded out of town for this chicanery is the boosting they receive 24/7 from the Orwellian biased media.

    Remember, this is the despicable rabble that whined as though the sky was falling when a small temporary levy was imposed ON SOME (not all) households to help reconstruct Queensland in the wake of its biggest ever natural disaster.

  40. Diogenes

    shellbell

    The Taliban don’t seem like the sharing sort. I expect the country will, in effect, break up into different zones with Karzai, the Taliban and the warlords controlling different sections.

  41. Mod Lib

    [Centre
    Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
    and any dollar in the pay is going to be forgoten when the power bill arrives.

    Mod Lib, do you seriously think people are that stupid?]

    Its not stupid to trust the tax and question the compensation.

    BB said some time ago that the compensation would be wound back over time- do you agree?

  42. Lord Barry Bonkton

    Zoomster, try giving Westnet a ring. Very good techs, and very helpful .

  43. CTar1

    shellbell – Maybe Karzai will run for it – more likely. Life in California or Florida …

  44. shellbell

    CTar1

    I dont hold any tickets for Karzai, but I have always though him brave for staying as long as he has. Although I think he was a Northern Alliance leader fighting the Taliban before taking power

  45. Gorgeous Dunny

    [Mod Lib
    Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    “The results are straw man diversionary tactics.”

    Huh?

    so I am trying to confuse you by using facts. Ok, not sure what to say to that.

    Yes, the Federal government has won 2 elections, vs. many more for the NSW and Qld state governments.]

    Results are fact, yes, but have got nothing do with your predicting the fate of the next federal election by pointing to polls in those states long warning us they were gone. Apart from Gus, I can’t think of anyone at PB seriously expecting either state government to survive. Glad you finally admitted it was just your opinion.

    The point you’re apparently trying to make is that voters seem to punish Labor more severely than they do the tories when they are sick of the government. 1931 and 1975 come readily to mind even before the ones you mention. I assume that is something to do with destroyed or betrayed ideals.

    The coalition, having much less of them, is thus not punished quite so severely, albeit it was quite nice that the only sitting PMs to lose their seats were Bruce and Howard. Nice also that both went for the same reasons: trying to destroy fairness in industrial relations.

  46. Centre

    Mod Lib,

    it really dosen’t matter what the fixed carbon price is as the scheme will convert to a floating price just two years after its operation.

    This is why I hate the Greens, they make things so difficult politically.

    We could have gone straight to a floating carbon price mechanism of an ETS and had the :mrgreen: well and truly by the marbles!

    But nooo, STUPID Greens.

  47. zoidlord

    @Mod LIb/936

    Is planting trees (The Coalition Policy) a tax on tax payers?

  48. Mod Lib

    Planting trees would be an eminently sensible approach to this problem IMO.

  49. Aguirre

    Options:
    1. Adjust (not done)
    2. Negotiate with Greens (not done)
    3. Persist (not done)
    4. Double Dissolution (not done)
    5. Hide (done)

    Not consistent
    Not persistent

    Boy, you’re way off your game tonight.

    For a start, a DD would have been a crazy idea. There was absolutely no guarantee that it would have resulted in the ALP having control of both houses. Firstly it had to be engineered – and you can imagine what having the ALP and the Greens at odds with each other over that entire period would have done to the popularity of both of them. Plus we’ve seen what the effect of Abbott’s denialism and negativism has had on the political landscape. Playing politics over carbon pollution would have just made things worse.

    What the ALP did was a combination of 1 and 3. They took it off the table, re-thought it, and took it to an election 10 months later. With success. 1 or 3 on their own wouldn’t have been as successful. Persist without re-thinking it and you have an impasse. Adjust immediately and it looks as if you look like you’re abandoning your own policy. The Greens weren’t happy with the ETS at all, it wasn’t a couple of minor points they were talking about.

  50. confessions

    [What is the problem at 966, Fess?]

    Grooming to me is waxing, shaving and haircuts.

    A more appropriate word could’ve been sourced IMO.

Advertisement