The New Energy Policy Has No Substance
In Wednesday’s Commentary I suggested that the explanation given by an “expert” as to how Turnbull’s NEG would work, and how NEG would save $110-115 pa in costs, was incomprehensible. This expert (John Pierce) was making the explanation at Turnbull’s request to a press conference whose attendants included Frydenberg and board members of the recently established Economic Security Board (ESB), and whose role appears to be to ensure the provision of reliable power and the achievement of the emissions reduction target of 26-28% by 2030 (the text of the press conference is now attached to Wednesday’s Commentary on my web and is a “must read”). My guess is that the two ministers put together a group of “experts” as members of the ESB who are sympathetic to the need for government intervention to reduce carbon emissions.
Energy Policy is Getting Nowhere at All
Today’s Australian runs a front page story saying that “Australian households are paying 60 per cent more for their power than those in the US and double their Canadian counterparts”. But while Minister Frydenberg acknowledges that our power cost is “still too high”, he claims that most of the price hike occurred under Labor and that the Turnbull government is “taking unprecedented action to reduce pressure on …household bills “(see “Electricity Bills”). Short of subsidising electricity it is difficult however to envisage significant falls. Frydenberg has dug himself so deeply in the Turnbull camp that is difficult to see how he can get out. Readers of my Commentaries will be aware of the widespread scepticism about the various policy changes first being considered by Turnbull and then dropped or put on one side. As to falls in electricity bills, Frydenberg’s attempt to shift the blame on to Labor seemingly overlooks the recent large increases imposed by my retail supplier AGL and doubtless other similarly large retailers too.
Coalition’s Polling Continues Bad & Quadrant Publishes My Recommended Replacement of Turnbull
Today’s Fairfax Poll confirms that, despite a big fall in Shorten’s performance measure (from 42 to 36) and a big rise in his disapproval rate (from 47 to 52), Labor maintains a TPP lead of 53/47. This is the same as the Newspoll published on 4 September. More importantly, the Fairfax poll shows that “Mr Turnbull's approval rating has fallen 3 percentage points since May to 42 per cent, and his disapproval has risen 3 percentage points to 47 per cent – placing the Prime Minister into net negative territory, according to voters' assessments” (see Fairfax Poll 11 Sept). In other words, Turnbull is not the man to persuade voters to “save” the Coalition.
Assessing the Polling & Turnbull’s Leadership
My Commentary of 5 August included a section on Coalition Leadership and suggested the basic question that Coalition MPs have to face is whether to continue with Turnbull as leader in the event that Newspoll shows no significant change as Parliament resumes. That in fact is what happened, with the Coalition’s TPP remaining at 47/53 (compared with 50.4 at the July 2016 election) and its Primary Vote remaining at 36 (42.1 at July 2016 election). A glimmer of hope was that Labor’s Primary Vote fell by one percentage point to 36 but this is still equal to the Coalition’s and is higher than its 34.7 at the July 2016 election.
Energy & Climate Policy AND Turnbull
Yesterday Environment Minister Frydenberg had a lead article published in The Australian in which he argued that “in order to create a more affordable and stable energy system, the states need to lift their game — business as usual is not an option” (see Frydenberg on States Energy Policies). I submitted a letter arguing that “the same comment might be made about the Commonwealth’s policy game”, but it was not published.
Turnbull or The Liberal Party
My Commentary on Tuesday 27 June noted that, in an address to an IPA function that day, Tony Abbott postulated that “the next election won’t be won by drawing closer to Labor. The next election can only be won by drawing up new battlelines that give our people something to fight for; and the public something to hope for”. I said that his main themes relate to Energy Policy (a freeze on the renewable target at the existing 15% and the construction of a “big” coal-fired power station); a referendum to change the Senate; a slow-down in Immigration; a repair of the Budget through getting spending under control; and tougher measures on terrorism, incl the banning of Hizb ut-Tahri. The text of the speech and a summary of his election agenda are in the attached Abbott’s Plan for Next Election.
Analysing Turnbull
Today Andrew Bolt has made a scathing attack on Turnbull and has extended that to the Liberal Party itself for allowing Turnbull to get away with it. He suggests that, even if Abbott replaced Turnbull, the left that now exists of that party is so strong that he would be unable to repair it. Genuine supporters of liberalism would therefore have to decide where they would vote at the next election. I suspect a goodly number have already decided.
Energy Policy, Turnbull Down 3 Points
The debate over energy policy (which is really about climate policy) looks like continuing apace, with today’s AFR reporting a discussion at tomorrow’s joint Party Room on what it describes as “the energy crisis”. The fact that the Nationals are invited certainly suggests that there is a crisis of sorts (as a separate party, they do not normally participate). Deputy PM Joyce is pictured in the attached digital version practicing with his whip (see Mix of Energies Will Do) and as suggesting that there may be a discussion of a government-owned coal-fired generator. It surely can’t be that such a possibility might be seriously discussed: with an energy policy involving an increase in renewable (under a Finkel 42% by 2030) coal usage would progressively decline and there would be no new investments in coal-fired generators. In such circumstances any government coal-fired generator would lose money and would have to be subsidized. It would not on its own “save” coal.
Bolt on Turnbull, Important New Rebutalls of Climate Policy, AFR Off-Track
Next week is the last for Parliament before it takes a month’s break. Turnbull will be trying to divert attention away from “difficult” issues, such as the Finkel Blueprint, Turnbull’s attack on Trump during a speech at the Winter ball, and the publication of a book in which the author claims that Turnbull told him he joined the Liberals only because Labor wouldn’t have him(see attached Bolt on Turnbull & Finkel).
Leaked Turnbull Speech at Winter Ball Keeps Crisis Going
Earlier this evening I circulated a Commentary suggesting that unless Turnbull recognises the many deficiencies in the Finkel report there is likely to be a political crisis within the Coalition. The Commentary concluded as follows“Turnbull’s responsibility for having Blueprint produced, and his initial quasi-approval of it, means that he has created a split within the Coalition by effectively imposing a tax on carbon. Although the Blueprint is not exactly the same as what Labor wants, their bipartisan offer to get together confirms that Turnbull is on the right track for them. In his article today Andrew Bolt (see attached) asks why is Turnbull “making the Liberals dance to the warmist tune of Labor and the Greens? Is this why Liberal supporters and donors back the party — to produce not just record debts and spending, but global warming schemes that will just make the poor too scared to turn on the heating this winter? While Turnbull is there, there’s no point to the Liberal Party. The Liberals must get rid of Turnbull or he’ll get rid of them”. For full text see attached.