Greens reaped rewards of emissions backflip: poll

[depakid]

An exit poll commissioned by the Climate Institute shows almost one third of Greens voters in key marginal seats would have voted Labor if the introduction of the emissions trading scheme had not been delayed. The survey was conducted by Auspoll in 30 key marginal seats across Australia.

Thirty-two per cent of voters said they would have been prepared to vote Labor if it had retained the emissions trading scheme, but when that did not happen, they chose the Greens instead. The Climate Institute's John Connor says it is hard evidence the backflip cost Labor the seat of Melbourne.

"Australians don't want to be insulted," he said. "They know that pollution is causing climate change and it's getting worse. They know they want to move from a pollutant-dependent economy and they're ready for some of the reforms. "It's got to be carefully done but it's a mistake to avoid it at all costs."

He says the poll sends a strong message to Labor. "It's got to lift its game, otherwise it will suffer in the polls as it did in some of these marginal seats but it's also the problem for the Coalition," he said. "They've got to move on as modern conservatives are in the UK, who are actually taking action on pollution and climate change."

More: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/30/2996674.htm

Given that on average around 80% of Green preferences flow to Labor, this issue likely cost them majority government.

[Matilda]

1. The Greens benefitted, and so has the Coalition.

I can't see how Labor can possibly form a government now - the three ex-National MPs are going to side with Abbott, abusive phone calls or no, and so will Tony Crook in the end.

Labor has only Adam Bandt, and just maybe Andrew Wilkie.

The only consolation is that after July, Abbott will find it very difficult to pursue an extreme agenda, but right now, July is a long way off. There's a lot of time for Abbott to do serious damage.

[depakid]

2. Kind of a bold prediction

Being a new Australian, I defer a lot to people's judgments about Aussie conventions (even when my political instincts and analysis tell me something different).

Nevertheless, what I'm seeing here is the difference between polls (which are fleeting) CW (conventional wisdom- which hasn't been very predictive lately) AND interests -which are far more stable and meaningful.

The independents have two sets of interests. The first (obviously) is their own position in power- and whether and how long they can stay in the catbird seats, effective calling policy shots for three years.. This is an individual power deal for each of them. A new election puts them back into near irrelevance -with entitled corporate Liberals and a National party who already hates them and wants to bring them down and make them pay for their insolence.

The second is the interests of their constituencies- Lyne, New England and Kennedy. As an Oregonian, I get the difference with the urban, suburban and rural dlvide than more than most Americans might- because it's really striking where I came from.

Rural Australians have been sold down the river by the coalition with Telstra and with respect to a ton of other sets of services and infrastructure- not to mention economic policies that favor concentrated wealth over work and competition.

What do rural Aussies want and need? What are the real everyday interests that improve peoples' lives?

In Lyne, Pacific highway improvements would go a long way- In New England, rural health and hospitals. In Kennedy, schools and other infrastructure improvements to provide local kids with jobs (remember- Abbott wants to send them off to wherever). -and every rural Australian should enjoy the same fast broadband access that more ubanized people have- without paying the premium to some parasitic private corporation.

Howard Dean had the angle on this bit when he said to American Democrats: the men in pickup trucks (utes) with Confederate flags on them -they want and need decent jobs where they live -they want and need good schools and health care for their families. They have a hard earned pride in place- and our policies will improve their places whereas the opposition's have and will only continue to impoverish them

Abbott & Co. will never agree in good faith to policies that further the interests of people living in these areas. A chastized Labor more than likely will.

If the independents follow interests- and are tough enough to endure the browbeating (by authoritarians in the parties and by the Murdoch press) they'll bring home far better deals for the people and businesses they represent.

In short- the question is whether they'll be true- and truly independent.

I guess we'll see.

[Esra Star]

3. :popcorn:

:popcorn:

We are going to see who is good at poker and whether they are prepared to play the short game.
Who will drink from the chalice. I think its probably pure hemlock.

:popcorn:

[Esra Star]

4. Putting the ETS on hold because of a hostile Senate

is not a backflip.
A backflip would be if you decided that it was a bad idea.

More than likely Mr Rudd was just holding it back for the sitting after the double diss.

[Matilda]

5. The problem was that it was to be on hold for such a long time.

Rudd said it would be postponed until 2013, which meant that he wasn't even going to talk about it during the life of the second term, and I think that was a huge mistake. Given that it was always on the cards that the Greens were going to add at least one more to their numbers in the Senate, I never understood why he couldn't say that Labor would hold discussions with the Greens in the second term to determine whether they could formulate a new policy, when they would together probably have the numbers to get it passed. It's vague enough that he couldn't be pinned down, but at least he'd be seen to be talking about it.

And of course, he did lack the courage to go for a double dissolution over it - that might have saved his bacon. Even if it still didn't pass, he'd have had the courage to take the risk for what he believed in.