View Poll Results: WHO WILL WIN? (THIS POLL ASKS WHO WILL WIN, NOT WHO DO YOU WANT TO WIN)

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Coalition by >30 seats

    0 0%
  • Coalition by 16-30 seats

    0 0%
  • Coalition by 15 or fewer seats [CORRECT]

    4 33.33%
  • Hung parliament

    0 0%
  • Labor by 15 or fewer seats

    6 50.00%
  • Labor by 16-30 seats

    1 8.33%
  • Labor by >30 seats

    1 8.33%
Page 24 of 36 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 526
  1. #346
    CC Candidate Master Blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Hobart TAS
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    I have indicated at the top of this thread that I think Mr. Shorten will win the election. If I am proved correct, I believe it will be the first time in the history of News Corp. that the ALP have won from opposition without the support of the Murdoch press - Murdoch having supported Whitlam in '72; Hawke in '83; and Rudd in'07.
    Well that is interesting (Murdoch's support for Whitlam). Although by all accounts it didn't seem to last : Murdoch editors told to kill Whitlam in 1975

    Makes a change from Kill Bill I guess

  2. #347
    CC Candidate Master Blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Hobart TAS
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Labor’s Plan for an Impoverished Energy Future

    The Australian Labor Party intends taking to the federal election a promise to reduce Australia’s emissions by 45 per cent—well above the target Australia adopted in the Paris Agreement. As one means of reaching this target, Labor has promised to ensure that 50 per cent of Australia’s generation will come from renewables by 2030. This is nonsense on stilts—and very expensive nonsense at that.
    I wonder if professor Aynsley Kellow of UTAS is a fan of Hydro’s Battery of the Nation plan: Clean energy battery of the nation

    Doesn’t sound like he would be. But his claim that it’s too difficult or too expensive to achieve 50% renewables is just NOT backed up by what is happening now in Europe. Again I refer you to the UK: Half UK electricity renewable by 2025

    Attachment 3812

    Note the decline in Coal to nearly 0% this year and Renewables at 40% over taking gas.

  3. #348
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,754
    Quote Originally Posted by Blunderbuss View Post
    Again I refer you to the UK: Half UK electricity renewable by 2025.
    But at what cost? Germany and South Australia already have skyrocketing costs because they are replacing cheap coal that can burn all the time with expensive wind and solar that are intermittent.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #349
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,754

    We have presumption of innocence; deliberate false accusers should be punished

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    Unbelievable. 45 years after women were rescued from marital slavery, and there are still some men who think women have to prove their innocence.
    Name one. All the men I know don't think that innocence NEEDS to be proven, including Dr Baron. The onus is on those who want to prove GUILT.

    Those proven to have made deliberately false accusations should face the same punishment that the falsely accused would have received. E.g. the false accuser of the Duke Lacrosse team as rapists should have faced the long sentence that the team members would have received, and the corrupt prosecutor Mike Nifong should have been jailed for years not a single day for withholding exculpatory evidence. Mind you it's moot for the accuser, now known to be Crystal Mangum: she is now in jail for murdering her boyfriend.

    Sometimes false accusations can be even more lethal, e.g. just in: Man Falsely Accused Of Sexual Assault By Teen Girl Killed In Revenge-Beating By Accuser's Brother (13 May 2019). Brother should at least be prosecuted for manslaughter for his vigilante assault, and the sister as an accessory/provocateur of the attack.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 16-05-2019 at 06:05 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  5. #350
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    But it has already been rebutted. I pointed out an obvious mistake in the report, and other commentators have gone further:
    As your Guardian link makes clear, the ALP response has been to avoid the analysis - rather than refute it - by labelling it as P for propaganda. The ALP has still not costed its climate policies. The Australia Institute is not the alternative government and neither is Patrick Byrom - and neither the Australia Instiutute or Patrick Byrom or The Guardian have costed the ALP policies. How could they - the ALP hasn't given them any assumptions to model? The ALP has shrugged off questions about costings by demonising the messenger and telling voters their questions won't be answered because it costs more to do nothing.
    When Dr. Fisher's analysis has been challenged, left-leaning media outlets like The Guardian have focused on his worst-case scenarios (where international credits are absent). How could he not have included that scenario as part of his modelling? The ALP has still not given any indication of the extent to which, if at all, international credits will be used - which is (surely) one of the main issues here, and they have avoided proper scrutiny of this omission because too many media organisations are broadly sympathetic to the aim of getting a Labor government.

    As to the rebuttals of Dr. Fisher, the AI report relies heavily on older ANU analysis and on the 2015 work of Warwick McKibbin.

    However, Professor Mckibbinn has agreed with Dr. Fisher's analysis and said it confirms his own more recent work!

    Labor has shrugged this off, but the analysis was accepted as being in the right ballpark by Warwick McKibbin, probably Australia’s leading academic economist in the area of climate economics, and one with an impressive international reputation. McKibbin stated publicly that it agreed with his own recent analysis. Labor, however, has been using a 2015 report McKibbin produced for DFAT, based on assumptions then-current, to dismiss Fisher’s analysis. (McKibbin in 2015 used a carbon price of $5/tonne, rising to $10 by 2030; Fisher estimated it would reach $62 by 2030; the current EU price is around $42).

    McKibbin had shown the Labor target knocked only a further 0.5 per cent (above the cost of Coalition’s policy) off Australia’s GDP. A cumulative cost of 0.5 per cent annually by 2030 amounts to $85 billion over ten years.
    (from the Kellow article already linked above).

    Even on his 2015 analysis, there goes the bigger, better surplus of $87 billion that the ALP says will be used to pay down debt - elsewhere in the costings document they also promise a further 'up to $200 billion' in tax cuts off in the never-never. This is magical-thinking economic rubbish! At $62/tonne, the cost to the economy is massive. A cut of 1%GDP is a cut of $170 billion over the life of the ALP costings document.

    It is true that ANU analysis, led by Andrew Blakers and his colleagues, which the left-leaning Australia Institute relies on heavily in its report, says the real cost will be much lower. However, there are significant difficulties with accepting these analyses:

    ...(they)rested on conflating the price renewable generators were bidding into the National Electricity Market with the cost of renewables. The price, of course, reflected the additional income the renewable generators realised from the sale of renewable energy certificates, the value of which themselves was about the cost of electricity from a new ultra-supercritical coal-fired power station ($81/MWh)—the kind that is being built in large numbers in Asia, and which can provide a 25 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over the existing black coal fleet, and around 40 per cent over brown coal.

    Numbers like $50/MWh are frequently tossed around by spruikers of renewables, but this price is acceptable to investors only because they stand to double this income from the sale of renewable energy certificates. Fortunately, we have available some estimates of non-subsidised costs of wind and solar systems in Australia that are regularly updated by the company Lazard. Their most recent estimate (November 2018) is $US43 to 131/MWh for solar, or $A61.92 to 188.64/MWh converted at the most recent estimate for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of $A1.44 to $US1. The estimate for wind is $US34 to 73/MWh, or $A48.96 to 105.12. The spruikers of renewables are always promising us that costs will continue to come down, but Lazard’s Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) Analysis report warns that “over the past several years the rate of such LCOE declines have started to flatten”.

    But, as noted above, income from generation plus sale of renewable energy certificates is only half the story, because this ignores the costs of integration into a reliable electricity system.

    Analyses such as those from Blakers and his colleagues rely upon estimates of the LCOE from renewables, but such estimates ignore system costs that can double the cost of renewables. A more accurate estimate of cost—the System Levelised Cost of Energy (SLCOE)—is ignored by Blakers et al in their continuing attempts to convince us that we can have 100 per cent renewables at no net cost, and that the electricity sector alone can meet our economy-wide Paris target, and do so in a few short years.

    Remarkably, that is the claim Blakers et al recently made. Extrapolating from a rapid growth in renewables installation over a couple of years, they noted that Australia’s growth in installations was the highest globally and all that was required was for government to get out of the way. This was a remarkable piece of analysis, to suggest that we would achieve a renewables nirvana that would meet all of Australia’s Paris commitments for the economy as a whole (and Labor’s 50 per cent renewables target) by 2024. However, they ignored the possibility that the recent level of investment might have been stimulated by something other than cost: a kind of gold rush in renewables investment to capitalise on the Renewable Energy Target scheme that was nearing its goal. They even acknowledged that “the target has now effectively been met, and new solar and wind farms can no longer expect significant subsidy support”. Renewable energy certificates will continue to be earned until 2030, but their value will be eroded by the addition of new capacity, unless propped up by a tightening of the target.
    (from the Kellow article already linked).

    I am not saying Mr. Shorten will suffer at the election as a result of all this. The shame is that he probably won't. The truth is that eminent men like Warwick Mckibbin and Brian Fisher do not deserve to be filed under p for propaganda. With apologies to the ALP slogan from 1975: SHAME SHORTEN SHAME.
    Last edited by idledim; 16-05-2019 at 10:29 AM.

  6. #351
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Blunderbuss View Post
    Well that is interesting (Murdoch's support for Whitlam). Although by all accounts it didn't seem to last : Murdoch editors told to kill Whitlam in 1975

    Makes a change from Kill Bill I guess
    According to this article, Mr. Murdoch also supported Mr.Whitlam in the election following his 1972 victory, since:
    "He expects to support the opposition in the next election," Ambassador Green reported in November, 1974.

    In 1975, Whitlam had the support of horrible adolescents like me (threatened with suspension if I didn't remove my SHAME FRASER SHAME stickers from my brown globite schoolcase). He didn't have the support of the Murdoch press or the Fairfax press and he was slaughtered at the polls. Whitlam was a terrible economic manager, of course - massively increasing public spending in a very short period, ignoring international economic headwinds. It would have been economic madness for Murdoch and Fairfax to support his return from opposition.

  7. #352
    CC Candidate Master Blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Hobart TAS
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    According to this article, Mr. Murdoch also supported Mr.Whitlam in the election following his 1972 victory, since:
    "He expects to support the opposition in the next election," Ambassador Green reported in November, 1974.

    In 1975, Whitlam had the support of horrible adolescents like me (threatened with suspension if I didn't remove my SHAME FRASER SHAME stickers from my brown globite schoolcase). He didn't have the support of the Murdoch press or the Fairfax press and he was slaughtered at the polls. Whitlam was a terrible economic manager, of course - massively increasing public spending in a very short period, ignoring international economic headwinds. It would have been economic madness for Murdoch and Fairfax to support his return from opposition.
    I must confess I hadn’t heard of Whitlam or the dismissal before I washed up here in 2012. Aware of my ignorance I did read George Megalogenis book The Australian Moment. At the time I remember thinking the dismissal must have been an astonishing event to live though. The equivalent in my world of the Queen telling Harold Wilson he has to go! I haven't seen that episode of the Crown yet.

  8. #353
    CC Candidate Master Blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Hobart TAS
    Posts
    245
    In more Whitlam news : Bill shorten to channel Whitlam

    Labor will announce the policy on Thursday as Bill Shorten prepares to deliver his final setpiece speech in Blacktown in the same venue as Gough Whitlam’s landmark “It’s Time” speech in 1972.

  9. #354
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    But at what cost? Germany and South Australia already have skyrocketing costs because they are replacing cheap coal that can burn all the time with expensive wind and solar that are intermittent.
    An overwhelming majority (92%) of Germans are willing to pay for their simultaneous transition from fossil fuel and nuclear energy

    Germany Could Be a Model for How We’ll Get Power in the Future
    National Geographic
    Nov 2015

    The European nation’s energy revolution has made it a leader in replacing nukes and fossil fuels with wind and solar technology....

    And South Australian electricity prices (which are stable, not skyrocketing) have always been Australia's highest.

    Gas not renewables to blame for SA power price surge
    5.12.18

    The high cost of power generated from natural gas is the main culprit for South Australia's high wholesale power costs, not the expansion of wind and solar power or the closure of the Northern coal power station, a new report finds.

    The report from the Victoria Centre for Energy Policy finds that the closure of the Northern power station in South Australia in 2016 and the closure of the Hazelwood power station in Victoria in March 2017 raised SA wholesale prices by $23 per megawatt hour in 2018 from what they otherwise would have been.

    But this was more than offset by price reductions attributable to wind energy and solar rooftop generation, which the report estimates at $38/MWh in 2018....

    How the Tesla big battery kept the lights on in South Australia
    ReNew Economy
    18.3.19

    They say that lightning never strikes twice. But on August 25 last year a single lightning strike managed to take out two major circuits on the main transmission line linking NSW and Queensland.

    The impact was almost immediate, and felt across Australia’s main grid. It caused load-shedding at a scale that made the much-talked about load shedding in Victoria in January’s heat wave look comparatively small beer....

    The report underlines a few important points.

    One, is that the Tesla big battery, again, proved itself to be an exceptionally valuable asset in the face of such events.

    It was the quickest to respond and showed a versatility un-matched by any other asset, and its efforts ensured that South Australia’s was the only state grid not to suffer widespread losses or operate in an insecure state, despite its high share of renewables.

    Point two is that Australia’s ageing and slow-moving legacy assets reacted poorly, and it is increasingly clear that they are going to create headaches for the market operator as it manages the energy transition, and seeks to perform the energy equivalent of the shift from analogue to digital...

  10. #355
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,046
    Sportsbet now show the coalition@19/4, firming from 4/1 early this week and 9/2 before that. There is clearly some late money flowing for the coalition. Early markets were, of course, heavily influenced by a couple of big bets on Labor, with one punter wagering $1 million on the ALP. Contrary to the advice from RR on this thread, odds of better than 5/1 have never been offered by Sportsbet - that was just RR demonstrating his financial nous.

  11. #356
    CC Candidate Master Blunderbuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Hobart TAS
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    An overwhelming majority (92%) of Germans are willing to pay for their simultaneous transition from fossil fuel and nuclear energy
    And also from ReNew Economy : Germany sources 65% electricity production from renewables in last week

    Fun 'widget' on the site : https://reneweconomy.com.au/nem-watch

    It currently shows SA generating over 50% of it’s power from renewables and exporting energy to other states.

    Attachment 3813

  12. #357
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I do not understand your point. Everyone who accuses other party has to prove. What if some girl accuses you of rape? Should you go to prison by default?
    Women/men can apply for divorce any time. However, if I want to claim abuse, I need to be able to prove it. If proven, the abuser should be punished by law (as you know I am all for toughening up laws), but if the claims are false - it is a different story!
    Why should a woman have to justify a breakdown in marriage to receive the single parenting benefit? It's now automatic upon separation and compliance with income and means tests, but you want to take it away and subject it to some sort of bureaucratic process.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Up to the early age e.g. 2-3 can keep it. After that, conditions should apply.
    Last edited by Ian Murray; 16-05-2019 at 10:23 AM.

  13. #358
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,217
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    As your Guardian link makes clear, the ALP response has been to avoid the analysis - rather than refute it - by labelling it as P for propaganda. The ALP has still not costed its climate policies. The Australia Institute is not the alternative government and neither is Patrick Byrom - and neither the Australia Instiutute or Patrick Byrom or The Guardian have costed the ALP policies. How could they - the ALP hasn't given them any assumptions to model? The ALP has shrugged off questions about costings by demonising the messenger and telling voters their questions won't be answered because it costs more to do nothing.
    Why do the ALP need to duplicate the work already done by others?
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    When Dr. Fisher's analysis has been challenged, left-leaning media outlets like The Guardian have focused on his worst-case scenarios (where international credits are absent). How could he not have included that scenario as part of his modelling? The ALP has still not given any indication of the extent to which, if at all, international credits will be used - which is (surely) one of the main issues here, and they have avoided proper scrutiny of this omission because too many media organisations are broadly sympathetic to the aim of getting a Labor government.
    That's not correct. I've already explained that the problem is that Fisher's worst case scenario relies on a ridiculous cost for renewables.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    As to the rebuttals of Dr. Fisher, the AI report relies heavily on older ANU analysis and on the 2015 work of Warwick McKibbin. However, Professor Mckibbinn has agreed with Dr. Fisher's analysis and said it confirms his own more recent work!
    Fisher's worst case scenario is clearly wrong, as I've explained. His other scenarios are probably reasonable, if exaggerated, and show that Labor's policies will not have a significant cost.

  14. #359
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Fisher's worst case scenario is clearly wrong, as I've explained. His other scenarios are probably reasonable, if exaggerated, and show that Labor's policies will not have a significant cost.
    They do not demonstrate this! Fisher's most conservative estimates, which you think are probably in the ballpark and show that Labor's policies will not have a significant cost, put lost GDP at about $57 billion annually, with job losses of about 167,000 during the life of the costings document. Importantly:
    Warwick McKibbin, probably Australia’s leading academic economist in the area of climate economics, and one with an impressive international reputation...stated publicly that it agreed with his own recent analysis. Less conservative estimates model differential rates of international credits - with an even greater economic cost; but the most conservative estimates still represent significant contraction threats to Australia.

  15. #360
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,217
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Sportsbet now show the coalition@19/4, firming from 4/1 early this week and 9/2 before that. There is clearly some late money flowing for the coalition. Early markets were, of course, heavily influenced by a couple of big bets on Labor, with one punter wagering $1 million on the ALP. Contrary to the advice from RR on this thread, odds of better than 5/1 have never been offered by Sportsbet - that was just RR demonstrating his financial nous.
    Sportsbet has already paid out on Labor winning apparently.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Australian Federal Election [COALITION WINS]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 322
    Last Post: 24-09-2016, 08:25 PM
  2. Who will you vote for in the federal election?
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 19-06-2016, 01:18 AM
  3. Australian Federal Election 2013 [Coalition Wins]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 380
    Last Post: 29-11-2013, 02:21 AM
  4. Federal Election 2004 (Coalition Wins)
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 27-07-2010, 12:25 PM
  5. Federal Election 2007 (Labor Wins)
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 347
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 02:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •