The post-budget polling avalanche rumbles on:
• Yesterday’s Financial Review had a Freshwater Strategy poll with two-party preferred at 50-50, unchanged on mid-April, from primary votes of Labor 32% (up one), Coalition 40% (steady) and Greens 14% (up one). Anthony Albanese is down one on approval to 37% and steady on 45% disapproval, while Peter Dutton is down a point on both to 31% and 40% respectively. Albanese’s lead as preferred prime minister is out from 45-39 to 46-37. Twenty-four per cent said the budget would make them better off, 23% worse off and 46% no difference, but 39% felt it would have an upward impact on interest rates compared with only 11% for downward and 28% for no effect. Nonetheless, questions on which parties were better placed to handle various areas of policy found Labor doing better on the whole than last month, having widened their lead on welfare and benefits and narrowed deficits on economic management, crime and social order and immigration and asylum. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1056.
• The Guardian reports the fortnightly Essential Research poll has Labor and the Coalition unchanged at 31% and 34% of the primary vote respectively, but with the Greens down to 10%, One Nation up one to 8% and 6% undecided. The pollster’s 2PP+ measure is unchanged with the Coalition leading 47% to 46% and the remainder undecided. Last time it was noted here that the 2PP+ implied an unusually strong flow of respondent-allocated preferences to the Coalition – this remains the case this time in lesser degree, my own estimate of two-party preferred based on 2022 election preference flows being 51-49 in favour of Labor. All the major initiatives in the budget recorded strong support, but only 27% thought it would make a meaningful difference to the cost of living. Sixty per cent felt only low and middle-income households should get the $300 energy rebate, with only 35% favouring it going to all households as per the government’s approach. The poll had a sample of 1149 and was presumably conducted Wednesday to Sunday – there will be more detail in the full release later today.
• After four successive weeks at 52-48, the regular Roy Morgan poll has Labor’s two-party lead narrowing to 50.5-49.5, from primary votes of Labor 30.5% (down one-and-a-half), Coalition 37% (steady), Greens 14.5% (up one) and One Nation 5.5% (steady). The poll was conducted Monday to Sunday from a sample of 1674.
Republicans bad, Republic good.
How does that work?
@8:35pm
Badthinker bad. Thinking good.
That’s how it works.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/vile-voice-messages-to-alex-greenwich-played-in-defamation-case-20240524-p5jgcy.html
Latham in his current iteration is a pig. I met him once, and inadvertently audibly farted as I shook his hand. I was mortified at the time, but now wear it as a badge of honour. It’s the least that man deserved.
The incentive starts on November 1 and can be accessed through approved solar suppliers, which will become accredited over the coming months.
________________
That’s got rort written all over it.
A stunning, homegrown rendition of the trio from Mozart’s Così fan tutte:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-m_7DNvf8Y
Ven posted
And exactly how does it do that, when the law is very clear that sex with under age girls is illegal whether they are pregnant or not?
“ By the age of 14, he had survived the Holocaust; by 44, he was an Israeli diplomat; now, at the age of 94, Theodor Meron recommended the ICC seek arrest warrants of Israeli and Hamas leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity”https://t.co/HixQX6f1DG— Emily ️ Tamkin (@emilyctamkin) May 23, 2024‘
According to Newscorpse, Peter Dutton, and dare I say it – FUBAR and PP – that would make Theodor an antisemite. Pretzel logic at its most vile.
Ven @ #1451 Friday, May 24th, 2024 – 8:18 pm
It’s an ok initiative. But it has more PR value than real value in reducing emissions. It is unlikely to shift the emissions dial much if at all, and is therefore a terribly inefficient use of taxpayer money. Money which would be far better invested in new grid scale renewables and batteries. Especially when with their other hand the government is intent on increasing subsidies for coal burners.
Reduce emissions with the one hand, increase them with the other 🙁
Ven@ 8.18pm
Thanks for posting this Ven. It is a very good policy initiative. A little bit of government money will go a long way to tipping the scales for those of us who are trying to decide if installing batteries is financially viable over a 5 to 10 year scale.
This is particularly important for those of us of my generation, the one without a name, between the baby boomers and gen X, who do not have defined benefits superanuation, but also did not have workplace superanuation until we were too old to accumulate much.
We do have some superanuation, but not much, so the government encouraging us to spend what we do have on installing batteries, to save a lot on power bills, is quite smart. We contribute some, the government contributes some, and we all benefit.
A $250 to $400 incentive will also be offered for connecting to a virtual power plant, and can be claimed a second time three years later.
This does sound reallly interesting. Sharing local electricity generation and storage over a commmunity grid “a virtual power plant ” could work quite well.
Badthinkersays:
Friday, May 24, 2024 at 8:35 pm
Republicans bad, Republic good.
How does that work?
================================================
Same as being liberal is good. Supporting the liberal party is bad because it means you are not liberal but highly conservative and judgemental.
And further to my above post, there is no “one true way” to solve the problem of providing energy for modern humanity without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and methane being the most commonly recognised).
We need a large number of incremental advances, with popular support, to change human behaviour so that most of the human race is willing to do “what they can” to reduce the use of greenhouse gas emissions.
‘Ven says:
Friday, May 24, 2024 at 8:18 pm
Sprocket and BW
A great initiative by NSW government regarding Renewable energy. I know P1 and Rex would say ‘meh’. But that is life.
NSW government to subsidise solar batteries in renewables initiative
….’
———————
Thanks. Good stuff. Only a part of the whole suite of Labor initiatives around Australia. Cumulative. Good.
As for the usual suspects choking on their Labor snarking weeties… tant pis.
So, hands up all those planning to race out next week and install a battery to supplement their solar panels …
Anyone? … Anyone? … Bueller? …
So according to Origin Energy boss. Coal-fired generation is uneconomic compared to renewables,
“Origin chief executive Frank Calabria said the economics of coal-fired generation would still be “incompatible” with a power grid increasingly dominated by renewables.
But delays building new wind and solar farms, storage projects and high-voltage transmission lines meant the market might not be ready to handle the exit of such a large source of reliable electricity, he said.”
Yet according to Dutton we get this.
“Dutton on Thursday insisted that the extension of Eraring showed the grid would need nuclear plants to replace coal-fired power.
“The renewables-only policy of Labor is going to result in higher electricity prices and less reliability in the system,” he said.”
So who to believe the Origin energy boss who says renewables are more economic or Dutton who claims they are not?.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/origin-boss-backs-eraring-to-stop-blackouts-as-states-go-nuclear-on-dutton-plan-20240523-p5jfz4.html
Player One says:
Friday, May 24, 2024 at 9:53 pm
So, hands up all those planning to race out next week and install a battery to supplement their solar panels …
Anyone? … Anyone? … Bueller? …
___________
Right on cue 🙂
Yes P1, I just e-mailed my solar and battery installer to book a job in….
Next!
High Street @ #1470 Friday, May 24th, 2024 – 10:18 pm
Be sure to tell us all how you get on.
P1
Yes, it actually is an OK initiative.
No, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and methane, to name two such gases).
Your use of the word emissions>, when you mean the net emission of greenhouse gases is very imprecise.
So, are you saying this policy will not reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses? Or it will reduce them a little bit? Please clarify.
And when you say “terrible inefficient use of taxpayer money”, are you averse to the government giving a subsidy to people who will put their own money in, to match a government grant, to help ameliorate climate change?
Please explain why the rooftop solar and local battery storage cannot be part of grid-scale renewables and batteries. This is actually why the federal government is upgrading the electiricity transmission infrastructure – so we can get the electrons to where they are needed, fast.
Non-sequitur. It is net greenhouse gas emissions that are important.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will come about by many small initiatives, around the world.
To dismiss any one of these as “not good enough, and therefore not worthy of support” is to totally misunderstand the big challenge facing the human race globally.
See this article by Michael Mann, (a very highly regarded climate scientist*), as to why the doom-spreaders, who argue that no initiative is good enough, are actually working for those who want to shut down action on climate change – unless you have the perfect solution, now!! – it is or will be too late, so why bother.
https://www.positive.news/environment/were-not-doomed-yet-five-reasons-for-climate-hope-by-a-climatologist/
* I was lucky enough to be at a colloquium by Michael Mann in my department, when he was on sabbatical in Australia. Although it consisted of equations I already knew, it was just lovely to see them brought together – it is classical physics after all – and to be reminded of how simple the science really is.
And it is really sad to see how people who cannot even be bothered to inform themselves about these simple, elegant equations, are then “experts” on the political actions we need to take NOW!!!! or it will be too late to do anything.
P1
Why does it need to be next week?
Andrew_Earlwood
Why do you argue for cutting the migration intake from 250k a year?
Only a racist would argue for reducing migration.
Seems like such an abrupt turnaround from not engaging with the issue for months on end and labelling any suggestion as racist. Seems like you did a bit of reading on the subject.
What’s with the 180? Or are you now not going to defend your argument because some righteous git labelled you as racist?
You can’t throw around the term racist and then in the same breath basically agree with everything I’ve been banging on about for months.
It comes down to: you’ve actually educated yourself on the migration idea but it still irks you to admit that what I’ve been saying has been correct all along. So you try to have your cake and eat it by continuing to label me as racist but agree with everything I’m saying. Must be a confusing place up in that noggin of yours.
Griff
😉
I wish I could make my points as succinctly as you do. I dips me lid.
ICJ’s current ruling due soon at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyGrrwwbXng
Player one is an idiot but we knew that.
I’ll be applying for the battery rebate next week.
Bring it on.
New thread.
Also D&M, note how Player One never offers any complex, worked solutions of their own, just simply and simplistically unrealistic demands of others and snarky criticisms of others doing what they can within their budgetary and legislative requirements.
I honestly don’t know why anyone continues to take Player One seriously any more? The evidence of their non-seriousness about what, practically, needs to be, and can be, done to address CO2 Emissions is overwhelming.
As we like to throw in a little proverb these days, let me contribute this observation about the general tenor of Player One’s contributions:
‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.’
“A summary would be as follows:
wealthy, well-educated people used to vote conservative
poor, poorly-educated people used to vote socialist
now:
well-educated poor people vote socialist
poorly-educated wealthy people vote conservative
leaving behind the un-represented, or electorally anxious:
well-educated, wealthy people who are embarrassed to vote conservative, since their policies are stupid
poorly-educated, poor people who are afraid of voting for the socialists, because of the gays and the trees and the blacks”.