Menu lock

Ipsos: 53-47 to Labor

The first Ipsos poll for a while has a conventional two-party preferred result, while continuing to record much stronger support for the Greens than other pollsters.

Courtesy of the Fairfax papers, we have our first Ipsos poll since May, and it’s your usual 53-47 to Labor on the headline two-party preferred. However, the primary vote results are rather less orthodox: only 35% for the Coalition (down two) and 34% for Labor (down one), with the Greens on 14% (up one) – high results for the Greens having long been a feature of Ipsos. Ipsos publishes both previous election and respondent-allocated two-party results, and I’m not sure which is being invoked here: my rough calculation tells me a previous election result would be more like 54-46 to Labor, although the very high minor party vote means the final total is very sensitive to small changes (UPDATE: Turns out this is previous election preferences; respondent allocation is a bit better for the Coalition at 52-48, a pattern now evident across multiple pollsters). On leadership ratings, Malcolm Turnbull is down three on approval to 42% and up three on disapproval to 47%, Bill Shorten is down six to 36% and up five to 52%, and Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is up from 47-35 to 48-31. The poll was presumably conducted Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 1400.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

534 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Trog Sorrenson
Guest

Andy Vesey’s plan:

Mr Vesey’s statement said renewables with gas back-up would be the favoured power source in the short-term, and beyond that it would be large-scale batteries supporting renewables.

No coal, just renewables with gas peakers as a temporary measure while moving to batteries.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/agl-appears-committed-to-closing-liddell-power-station/8893822

Trog Sorrenson
Guest

LU

IMHO AGL want to convert (at least one of) the Liddell generators into synchronous condensers, to offset their potential future fast frequency service cost allocation for holding so much wind and solar PV, and make some money off an inertia market – particularly if this service is defined in terms of rotating mass.

This would only make sense if market rules defined the service in terms of rotating mass as you suggest. There are numerous more efficient ways to achieve this, as noted by Finkel.

A R
Guest

Also, Placebo @ Brisbane

comment image

A R
Guest

guytaur @ #525 Monday, September 11th, 2017 – 11:58 pm

AP: Pope Francis criticizes climate change deniers, cites ‘moral responsibility’ to act. apne.ws/hZorBX6

Francis is turning out to be a surprisingly decent pope.

CTar1
Guest

Anyone who thought Ken Matthews would deliver a convenient ‘not much to see here’ report hasn’t encountered him –

Murray-Darling Basin Plan: ‘Grenade’ Matthews report reveals ICAC probing alleged water corruption

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-11/murray-darling-basin-plan-grenade-report-icac-four-corners/8893456

(Fairly quickly after Mike Baird’s surprise resignation lots of ‘sh#t’ is floating to the surface.)

guytaur
Guest

Paul_Karp: AGL Andy Vesey speaking at parliamentary friendship group for LGBTI people. Joking it’s the “highlight of his day” after meeting Turnbull…

cupidstunt
Guest

Turnbulls week already turning to shit as usual with AGL sticking to its guns.

Libertarian Unionist
Guest

Hola everyone,

IMHO AGL want to convert (at least one of) the Liddell generators into synchronous condensers, to offset their potential future fast frequency service cost allocation for holding so much wind and solar PV, and make some money off an inertia market – particularly if this service is defined in terms of rotating mass.

From a technical perspective, it could make great sense to do this, particularly if the transmission network to SA and/or QLD is reinforced to move more of their renewables around. The network is already built, and the SCs would provide inertia and voltage support near large load centres that may end up being quite remote from generation points. I trust Vesey is familiar with the repurposing of old coal-fired units in California and Ohio, to mention but a few.

guytaur
Guest

AP: Pope Francis criticizes climate change deniers, cites ‘moral responsibility’ to act. apne.ws/hZorBX6

TallebudgeraLurker
Guest

Yabba88 @ #513 Monday, September 11th, 2017 – 10:59 pm

TL, Bayswater has its own reservoir out the back, called Platchett or something like that.

Yabba,

Thanks for the heads up – I see from Google Maps that the Platchett Reservoir is west of the power station and looks like it has a water harvesting arrangement further west again on the Hunter River because it only has a very small natural catchment.

Thank you for setting me straight.

Barney in Go Dau
Guest
guytaur
Guest

The Liddell Power station idea lasted from lunchtime until Lateline. 🙂

Barney in Go Dau
Guest

Is this Turnbull’s attempt to circumvent cabinet and the need for a policy.

[AGL to deliver plan to avoid energy shortage if Liddell power station closes]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/11/agl-to-deliver-plan-to-avoid-energy-shortage-if-liddell-power-station-closes

cud chewer
Guest

Gas Peaking!?! P1 will be overjoyed!

C@, That wasn’t P1’s position as it stood a few months ago and as far as I can tell P1’s position hasn’t changed.

Essentially P1 maintained the following nonsense:

1. Renewable technology was immature, expensive and it could not be rolled out at a rate to match the decline in coal fired power (which is in the order of 15 years). P1 has never retracted this claim and as recently as yesterday was arguing that the current rate of roll out predicts the future rate, not realising that this has nothing at all to do with capability.

2. That we needed not just peaking plants but gas fired baseload plants. So its not just a few GW, its tens of GW that P1 was arguing for. Again, never retracted.

3. That the kind of “backup” we needed of one form or another was in the order of the entire grid (currently 30GW). In other words P1 kept assuming that the entire country would be devoid of wind at the same time and also that the storage needed to shift between the solar peak and the demand peak represented the entire load and not a part of it. Again, never retracted (or even attempted to be understood).

4. That not only are batteries too expensive but within the relevant time frame (15 years) they would always remain so. Again, never retracted.

Bottom line here is that its prudent to build a small amount of gas peaking (a GW or so) to reduce risk over the next few years. But beyond that solar thermal, battery or pumped hydro would take over. Again, P1 just never ever contemplates this. Its dream is to have tens of GW of gas fired power – an investment that will never be recouped since these plants will operate over increasingly fewer hours over the coming decades.

Basically, SA got it right.

Just thought I’d add that for the record 🙂

guytaur
Guest

Ben Cubby posted this on twitter.

comment image

guytaur
Guest

SMH has a poll result. Looking good for yes if turnout is as poll suggests

C@tmomma
Guest

Anyway, I reckon you could create a shedload of Power up that way with Wind! Not to mention the Sun.

If they have the Transmission Lines connected to the area they’d be silly not to take advantage of it in some way.

briefly
Guest

AGL has been handed a great deal of leverage by Turnbull. By refusing to sell they will be reinforcing their message to the public that they are getting out of coal. This is gold to AGL. They will be rewarded in the consumer market for sticking with their commitment.

Of course, the LNP cannot really afford the political cost of a dispute with AGL. By asking for something they cannot have, the LNP will now have to get serious about the CET. They LNP will hate this. AGL will be very pleased.

C@tmomma
Guest

IdesofMarch,
Gas Peaking!?! P1 will be overjoyed!

wpDiscuz