Future of Turnbull & Coalition
So much has been happening since my Commentary last Friday 1 December that it is difficult to sort out what is important and what is not. The surprise improvement in the Coaliton’s polling on 4 December from a negative 45/55 TPP to a negative 47/53 TPP, and in Turnbull’s net satisfaction rating from minus 29 points to minus 25 points, has led some commentators to see this as the start of a recovery for Mr Turnbull (see Crowe on Newspoll). Certainly, by announcing Cabinet approval of the establishment of a Royal Commission into the alleged misconduct of Australia’s banks and other financial services entitiesafter he had previously rejected it on several occasions, Turnbull bought off the threat by a National’s MPto move in Parliament for a public banking inquiry. He also claimed support for the Coalition from the favourable swing of about 12% in Barnaby Joyce’s winning by-election, although he played no part in Joyce’s campaign. And he has been helped by the withdrawal of the threatened resignation by Coalition MP George Christensen (initially kept secret to highlight the “crisis”), who reportedly claimed that Joyce’s win gave the National’s a “reinvigorated leader”.
Turnbull A Gonna & High Cost of Energy Policies.
Turnbull is Finished, But…
Today’s media is replite with analyses which, although not actually saying that Turnbull is finished as PM, leave the reader with little else but to conclude that this is the case. Below is a summary of conclusions by several commentators
A Victory for Turnbull?
The week-end’s Media assessment of Turnbull’s New Energy Guarantee (NEG) is generally favourable, but withTerry McCrann predicting an extremely unfavourable outcome for the Coalition viz
“Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg have made a deliberate decision to lose the next election and to lose it badly. The rest of the joint party room voted to endorse the decision, an indeterminate number of Liberal and National members voting for an early retirement. This is the irresistible and even more the irredeemable political consequence of the Turnbull-Frydenberg decision to opt for a policy of (only trying) “to keep the lights on” over a policy of significantly and quickly cutting both electricity and gas prices. Far less, the third, but first-best, option — the option, begging to be embraced by a half-rational government that had the most minimalist understanding of political dynamics — of aggressively aiming to deliver both more and more reliable power and cheaper and sustainably cheaper power”.
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.
Assessing Turnbull’s New Energy Policy
Various developments emerging since yesterday’s Commentary suggest that the quick decision to establish a new National Energy Guarantee (NEG) may largely reflect concerns by Turnbull about his continued poor polling and that “something needs to be done” to repair that.
Energy Policy and Abbott’s Leading Role
It will take time to assess the detail of the forthcoming new Energy Policy of the Turnbull government, but the forward hints in the media leave much to be desired.
Where Can Turnbull Go Now?
My Commentary of last Thursday reported that the (scientist) President of the US SEPP group had described Abbott’s address on Daring to Doubt as “one of the best talks given by a politician in decades”. I also reported that the US EPA head had announced the repeal of the Clean Power Plan initiated by Obama but rejected by the US Supreme Court. Here in Australia, leading journalist Terry McCrann had described Abbott’s address as “seminal”.
More Responses on Abbott
This morning I received a message on Tony Abbott’s London address from the President of The Science and Environmental Policy Project, Ken Haapala, in the US. It was brief but important because Ken is a scientist and an expert on climate change whose weekly messages report on the latest developments in analysing climate changes, including those theses which he judges to be “off the planet”. This message to me was a response to the full text of Abbott’s address which I sent him as an attachment to my Commentary on Tuesday 10 Oct and which I suggested to him is important “both politically and “scientifically”.
Turnbull v Abbott?
I suggested in yesterday’s Commentary that various developments, including the apparent praise for Dutton following his appointment as Minister-Designate for Home Affairs, continued to put Turnbull’s present leadership on shaky ground. This despite the fact that Turnbull himself made the appointment.
Today we find that The Australian has published the result of a special Newspoll, taken between 20-23 July, showing that 58 per cent of voters say Malcolm Turnbull has the best values and leadership credentials while only 23 per cent favour Tony Abbott. The survey also shows that Abbott is little favoured as a either a senior Cabinet Minister (23%) or as a commentator on important issues (17%). Even only 48% support him as a backbencher who makes no public comments, but with fewer Coalition supporters than those from other parties (see Newspoll on Turnbull Leadership).
Why No Clean Energy Target?
Why was Environment Minister Frydenberg unable to tell his equivalent ministers from the States what Clean Energy Target (CET) the Commonwealth government proposes? According to his comments made just before his meeting with State ministers on 14 July:
“There will be discussion about the clean energy target, but ... we received the report just five weeks ago,” Mr Frydenberg said. “We need to get this right. Dr Finkel made it very clear that the clean energy target, if it would be implemented would be from 2020, so there is no rush. What is important is to get the policy right” (see Frydenberg on CET).