Institute for Private Enterprise » wpadmin

How to Save the Coalition

wpadmin — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 06:30:38 +0000

Last Sunday I tried to explain in my Commentary why the Coalition lost the Victorian election with such an unexpectedly large swing to Labor (I then thought it was a 5% swing but it now appears closer to 6%) and this loss was immediately followed by a Newspoll showing at the federal level that Labor is ahead on a TPP basis of 55/45. While this is the same as in the previous Newspoll, and Morrison’s personal rating as Better PM actually improved to 46/34, it confirmed that the Coalition would almost certainly lose the Federal election, which Morrison has now set for March. I concluded my Commentary by saying that “whether at the federal or state levels this result is a reflection of the failure of the Liberals to distinguish themselves from Labor”.

There is no doubt that this failure largely reflects the views of Turnbull, who first tried to be head Labor but was rejected there and, despite his leftish views, was accepted as a member of the Liberals. Then, after his second period as leader and then obtaining the PM position since 2015 after defeating Tony Abbott in an internal challenge, Turnbull himself was defeated in a internal contest by Morrison in August which actually arose from a challenge to Turnbull by Dutton. In effect, that challenge indicated that a majority of the party had reached the conclusion that, after a sequence of negative polling throughout his PM-ship, Turnbull’s views would not be accepted by the electorate at the federal election.

I have written in previous Commentary that since taking over Morrison has either not outlined his views on most major policy issues or outlined them only half-heartedly. This has kept the Coalition’s polling at low rates and uncertainty about what the Coalition stands for. Moreover, Turnbull continues to attempt to influence policies and individual MP’s attitudes on particular issues. This has led to suggestions that he should be expelled from the party and there appears to be a basis for doing that (see Turnbull to be Expelled? and Turnbull v Liberal Party). As Andrew Bolt argues, “It’s not just that Turnbull is angry with the Liberals for doing, in his opinion, the wrong thing in dumping him. Psychologically he badly needs the Liberals to now lose to prove to himself that he was right and good and loved (see Bolt on Liberal Party & Turnbull).

It appears however that Morrison has now realised that, for the Coalition to defeat Labor under Shorten, he must return to emphasising the traditional important elements in an election, such as the budget (see attached Morrison v Shorten). As David Uren points out, “the Coalition managed to restrain spending under the tight rein of finance minister Mathias Cormann with growth of about 2 per cent above inflation, despite the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and increased defence spending. The revenue turnaround began in the second half of last year and has gathered pace. Company tax revenue was boosted by a surprise leap in coal and iron ore prices while business profits elsewhere in the economy strengthened. Deloitte Access Economics tips company taxes will reach almost $100bn this year. Capital gains tax revenue is also coming back. Treasury now finds its forecasts are unduly pessimistic” (see Budget Outlook).

However, for Morrison to improve polling and stand a chance at next year’s election he must do two things:

Make a public statement saying that, while he recognises that Turnbull attempted to attract votes through the policies he pursued, he is no longer PM and those policies need to adjusted to the new political environment;
Indicate also that an energy policy based on NEG is no longer acceptable (Morrison has already stated this) and that the Morrison government will modify its emissions/renewables polices so as to ensure that it establishes a situation where electricity prices will fall.

But at the moment it looks highly unlikely that he will make the necessary changes to energy policy to allow prices to fall. As pointed out by David Uren the policy apparently being pursued for consideration by party members next week reflects “surely none as bewildering as a Coalition leadership deciding the solution is to give the Treasurer unfettered powers to force the break-up of private corporations, dictate their prices and order them to enter contracts against their will” (see Uren on Energy Policy). This would be a disaster in effecting the de-facto nationalization of the electricity industry and as such would likely lead to lower polling.

One final word. The attempt by some female politicians in Canberra, including one minister, to suggest that the Liberal Party is treating women badly does not stand up to careful consideration. Their failure to nominate any supposed offenders indicates the accusers have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by the emergence of increased feminism. They also appear to overlook that politics involves exchanges which will, in some cases, cause offence – as it does with exchanges between men (see also Bolt on Liberals Problems on Women)

More Questions on GW “Science” -Activist Opponents In Unis -Ruins of Mid East – Islamists in Aus Need Responses

wpadmin — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:10:44 +0000

More Uncertainties on Climate Change “Science”

Today’s The Australian reports new research indicating that a much higher proportion of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is absorbed by plants/plankton than had previously been thought. This suggests that such emissions may not only contribute more to plant growth than previously thought but less also to the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere which are believed by some to be the generators of heat that then adds to temperatures.

This new research adds weight to the preliminary analysis by physicist Dr Tom Quirk which suggests that the proportion of fossil fuel emissions which stay in the atmosphere may be only about 16%, much less than the 50% assumed by the IPCC. In short, both bits of research may help explain why such emissions are not leading to higher temperatures and that “nature” is the most important determining influence.

Such research is also adding to the many already existing uncertainties about the dangerous warming thesis, not the least being the absence of any global temperature increase for the last 16-18 years despite the significant increase in emissions.

Those who still accept the thesis include the ANU Council headed by Chancellor Gareth Evans, who has a reputation for making questionable judgements. He is reported in today’s AFR as having told a “Fossil Fuel Free” students group (!) that their views would be taken into account in assessing “socially responsible” investment policy on superannuation managed by council. It appears that Evans may have taken over the handling of the issue from Vice Chancellor Young, an oceanographer who was previously defending the inclusion of certain companies on the black list but who, after it was discovered that some of the companies on the black list should not have been there, has now indicated he had some form of conflict of interest.

Abbott has weighed in as a critic of the black list decisions, as has Labor resources spokesman Gary Gray. Abbott is also facing pressure from warmists to include climate change on the Agenda for the G20 meeting in November and, surprise, surprise, former Treasurer Wayne Swan has emerged as one spokesman for the cause. If G20 Chairman Abbott is prepared to point out the extent of uncertainties, it might in fact be quite useful to have climate change as a specific agenda item.

It is of some interest in this context to see that the Chairman of the Australian arm of Shell and the CEO of Rio’s energy arm have publicly criticized “activists” campaigning for an end to fossil fuel usage. It appears that some universities may be educating students on how to be an activist (see below on ‘Degrees in activism’ put brake on growth). More such statements by business leaders would help.

More on Islamic extremism and US Mid East Policies

Below is an excellent in-depth analysis of US Middle East policies under Obama by Victor Davis Hanson, who has lectured in Australia (see below Ruins of the Middle East).Hanson argues that Obama had six important policy failures and “the present chaos of the Middle East was caused by our withdrawal from Iraq and a widespread sense that the US had forfeited its old responsibilities and interests, and was either on the side of the Arab Spring Islamists or indifferent to those who opposed them”. He ends on a very depressing note.

Meantime, The Australian has an article reporting in more detail the address last Friday by Hizb-ut Tahrir’s Australia head, entitled “The War to End a Blessed Revolution” (see below Islamist push with West’s values).Note the refusal to answer “difficult” questions from the audience.

Janet Albrechtsen argues that such extremist spokesmen should be allowed to have their say but that we should respond and should get rid of “that deliberately slippery word, multiculturalism” and “keep challenging men such as Doureihi”. The difficulty here is – do we have respondents?

Our churches are silent as are our business leaders. Abbott has certainly made some critical comments but his government needs to have a broader response on western values and to have a Minister designated to respond to spoken terrorist threats, which is what the leaders of Islamic groups are encouraging.