Tonight, in the Australian state of New South Wales, Barry O’Farrell has swept 16 years of Labor government into history with a landslide victory. The magnitude of his 17 per cent swing has surprised many. Labor is likely to end up with as few as 20 seats in the 93-seat parliament.
During the election campaign, while Mr O’Farrell could have played it safe and stuck to state issues, he choose to also campaigned on the federal issue of the carbon tax. Remarkably, Mr O’Farrell also mentioned the carbon tax and the need to “fight the carbon tax” in his victory speech.
According to Samantha Maiden writing in the Herald Sun: While the outcome was regarded as a foregone conclusion, Labor MPs at a state and federal level complained the Prime Minister’s decision to announce a carbon tax hurt the campaign.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Great result for the coalition and hopeless for Labor and the Greens.
With a swing of 17% to the libs/nats the idiot Green extremists only got a 1% swing and O’Farrell and Nats strongly opposed the co2 tax, stressing the mess it would make to family budgets.
After the Flannery idiots revelation to Bolt about no change to the climate for 1000 years even if the entire world stopped emitting now it’ll be interesting to see how the Gillard labor lying machine reacts.
Bolt’s interview with Flannery has gone viral around the globe.
This Washington paper has the headline spend trillions now and you might get a fall in temp in 1000 years.
Bolt says wait till they meet 100 metres Williams. ( ABC science show )
Where do they find these hopeless, barking mad dingbats?
What an embarrassment for Australia parading these hayseeds and numbskulls for all the world to see and hear.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/spend-trillions-now-and-world-temperatures-might-fall-1000-years
It looks like that tiny 1% swing to the greens was probably a protest vote by traditional Labor voters who could not convince themselves to vote liberal/national.
Interestingly the massive swing did go straight to the liberal/nationals which would further indicate that the NSW electorate does not like that carbon tax at all.
That would explain the dearth of votes to the greens.
A lot of people are probably highly disgusted that Labor and the Greens have hijacked the research on climate change and have used it to justify a tax.
I know I am.
They want to be ‘seen’ to be taking action on climate change. Most people do not believe a ‘tax’ will do anything about climate change.
The Labor party and the Greens seem to think that you can drive the market by walloping it with a massive financial stick and thus remove the Australian market’s ability to compete.
Where did they learn about motivation and how to win friends and influence people?
The libs want to be ‘seen’ to be doing something about it too.
Hopefully they may at least understand that they will need to have a plan that makes some financial sense.
That does remain to be seen.
I still don’t understand why these people think it’s a good idea to ‘demonise’ the industries that actually supply our basic requirements. The industries that we all depend on heavily to conduct our daily lives.
You know…stuff like food on our tables and reliable, affordable power to our homes and steel for our and clean, potable water and numerous others.
What’s up with that?
Probably should mention that those same industries are massive employers as well.
Why do Labor and the Greens think it is a good idea to kick them around?
Why do they think it’s a good idea to remove their ability to compete?
Seriously, I don’t get it!
It appears as if the NSW electorate doesn’t think it’s a good idea either.
Debbie,
Good point about the Labor vote going straight to the Liberals/Nationals. Though I think it was mostly Liberals – with the Nationals picking up some seats that were previously Independent?
And that the Greens didn’t get a significant swing to them is fascinating. I thought they would have at least picked up a fair percentage of the Labor vote. Why not?
Neville,
Perhaps just wishful thinking on your part that Andrew Bolt’s interview with Tim Flannery has gone viral. When I did a google ‘News’ search ‘Tim Flannery’ and ‘1,000 years’ I could only also find it at The Australian here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/no-fast-result-in-cuts-flannery/story-e6frg6xf-1226028366173 .
And the comments from Tim Flannery are pure nonsense… to say there will be some slight affect in 1,000 years. Even accepting that carbon dioxide is a warming gas: How long does carbon dioxide stay in the atmosphere?
Maybe the Nationals gains over Independents is a further protest aimed at the Federal Govt and its carbon tax philosophy?
Apparently there are many from the Windsor and Oakshott (sp?) electorates who are not at all impressed with their alliance with Labor/Greens, especially since the carbon tax.
Tim Flannery’s nonsense possibly heavily influenced traditional Labor voters to NOT vote Green?
If Labor voters are protesting about that carbon tax (which appears to be the case) then they would have figured out that a vote for the Greens would not have been a protest but in fact an endorsement.
Jennifer the interview is on many of the overseas blogs that I read plus the newspaper I referred to.
I agree about it being nonsense, but that’s why it will work, it will help many of the people who are unsure to seek more info and sow the seeds of doubt.
The time spent by co2 in the atmosphere is very debatable, I’m sure you and Luke would have a difference of opinion as do many scientists.
Abbott and O’farrell won’t leave this co2 tax alone from now until the next Fed election and Flannery’s comment can only help their cause.
Newman’s move in Qld is working a treat and labor’s support has nose dived in the latest Galaxy poll, see Bolt this morning.
@ Jennifer
>Good point about the Labor vote going straight to the Liberals/Nationals. Though I think it was mostly Liberals – with the Nationals picking up some seats that were previously Independent?
And that the Greens didn’t get a significant swing to them is fascinating. I thought they would have at least picked up a fair percentage of the Labor vote. Why not? <
I think you are missing the most cogent piece of evidence here
Look at the seat of Bathurst. The two major population centres are Bathurst and Lithgow. The swing against the ALP was about 30%. Bathurst is generally conservative and the vote there didn't much change. What did change was the Lithgow vote – staunch ALP-all-their-lives voters actually changed to the Nats for the 1st time in their lives, and did so in droves. And what is the major industry in Lithgow ? Coal mining & power generation (I worked in the very heart of Lithgow for about 15 years). So in essence we have the three major regional centres of coal mining – Newcastle/Hunter, Wollongong/Illawarra and Lithgow – voting Lib/Nat heavily for the 1st time ever.
Gee, I wonder why ?
I agree with Ian, Labor people have voted for the Nats because of Julia’s carbon dioxide tax. Not just in Lithgow, but in Bathurst as well, because of the recent hike in power bills.
Even staunch Labor voters here have deserted ship and this spells doom for Labor federally.
Ian8888,
No need to wonder.
Good point.
The NSW electorate has sent a resounding message to the Feds about that carbon tax.
Traditional Labor voters from those coal mining areas have made it very clear by not voting Green either.
It appears they don’t like the philosophy behind that carbon tax and they don’t believe it will achieve a single positive result.
They also must believe that it is a downright threat to their livelihoods.
It’s a resounding message.
I hope the Feds have heard it.
Debbie,
“I still don’t understand why these people think it’s a good idea to ‘demonise’ the industries that actually supply our basic requirements.”
This makes me think about the energy use and CO2 production, “pollution”, per capita in pre-industrial era.
Those days everyone used some kind of solid fuel, for heating and cooking etc.
Would like to know the difference in quantity/person between then and now, the only difference I can see is that now the energy production is centralised.
Johnathon,
Yep, good point.
‘Per capita’, domestically, there’s a good chance that the figure has always been constant or possibly even higher back then.
They also used a lot of soilid fuels to run their steam engines, their trains, their boats, their blacksmith shops etcetera.
So quantity/person for domestic requirements is an interesting comparison.
Has anyone seen a study on that?
It could be hard to do because it wasn’t centralised (as you rightly point out) and our statisticians would have to make some assumptions (which may or may not be correct)
There is another massive difference though Johnathon.
There are at least a billion more of us than in the pre-industrial era. (Not sure of the exact figure?)
The massive expansion of industry would also make a difference.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that mankind en masse produces more CO2 than in earlier times.
You do however ask a valid question about ‘per capita’ and it’s doubly valid because we’ve had that one rammed down our throats too:
“Per capita, Australians are the highest emitters of CO2 globally”
We did all hear that one didn’t we?
Going back to the topic of this post:
There seems to be little doubt at all that the NSW electorate does not think much of the Labor/Green philosophy to demonise the very industries that ACTUALLY SUPPLY OUR BASIC REQUIREMENTS.
Can I also make an appeal to not forget that this Carbon Tax fiasco is only one of many similar tactics?
The Federal Government’s attempts to grab control of water management (and the considerable financial revenue that will come from that) is also being marketed by ‘demonising’ agriculture…you know…..the industry that puts food on your tables and also contributes positively to our national export earnings and GDP?????
It’s also a huge employer, just not as concentrated as the coal and power industry and therefore not as noticeable.
Same s**t different day?
That is not limited to one side of politics either.
Whenever they want to smooch up to the Green vote, it seems a requirement is to kick a supply industry around and make them out to be some kind of monstrous environmental rapist.
I truly don’t get it! How could that possibly be a good idea?
Jen,
More evidence – see
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/25/more-flannel-josh-88.html
for a straight point to Josh’s cartoon on Tim
Another intriguing aspect is the sell off power utilities by the various state governments – the carbon tax has been in the works for a long time and as long as government was the principal emitter of CO2 for power generation, well, you all get the drift.
I know I sometimes rabbit on about electrical power generation, but it shines a direct light on that ‘per capita CO2 emissions’ myth, and to highlight that I’ll just compare the US with China, but keep in mind here that for Australia the per capita emissions ratio is approximately the same as for the US.
Recently China just overtook the US as the largest producer or electrical power on the planet, so in effect both Countries consume relatively the same amount of electrical power.
The population of China is 1.35 Billion.
The population of the U.S. is 305 Million.
So China’s population is 4.4 times greater than the U.S.
China and the U.S. have roughly the same split of power generation with the US having 70% produced from CO2 emitting sources (Coal 48% and Natural Gas 22%) while in China it’s just a tick higher with most coming from the coal fired sector.
So, they have ‘roughly’ the same amount of CO2 emissions from that power generating sector, but China has 4.4 times the population, so China’s per capita CO2 emissions are 4.4 times lower than that for the U.S. not because China is emissions ‘responsible’ but because everyone in the U.S. has access to a constant and reliable source of electricity, while in China, nearly 1 Billion people have no electricity at all.
Now Australia’s split is around 90% of power coming from CO2 emitting sources, so their per capita emissions ratio is slightly higher than for the US.
In India however with a population of 1.15 billion people their ratio is even lower again because they only generate 15% of the power that the U.S. (and China) does.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with responsibility or irresponsibility when it comes to CO2 emissions, and everything to do with access to a lifestyle we have in the Western World where that access to electrical power is now a staple of life, and also those population figures.
That CO2 per capita argument is an entirely bogus argument that has been incorrectly used to pursue an agenda.
I understand that this actually sounds like a political point of view on my part, but it’s something that people have been grossly mislead on, and all I’m attempting to do is to explain it carefully for the sake of perspective.
Again, I suppose I’ve sidetracked ‘off the main topic’, but when I hear that bogus per capita mantra, it makes my blood boil.
Tony.
Anecdotally, I have encountered several genuinely good-willed – if naive and somewhat ill-informed – people who once believed that the Greens were the party of the environment, complaining they were duped… These same people own property, have good jobs, service mortgages and have aspirations for their children, you know, like most of us.
I reckon, one by one, people of good will, who once supported the Green’s environmental agenda are waking up to the more sinister side of the Greens movement and they are realizing that to vote Green is to vote against the very future of their children.
That’s why the Labor vote in NSW didn’t go to the Green’s. The gig is up. We all now know what they stand for and it has already cost the country many billions in bad investments. (desal plants instead of dams.)
Another reason is that for all practical purposes we now have two coalition parties. The Labor/Green coalition and the Libs/Nats. To vote Green is simply to vote for the left-wing of the Labor/Green coalition.
Thanks for clarifications on both issues. Jen
Tony,
I don’t think you’re rabbiting on at all.
Neither have you strayed off the point.
That per capita argument is completely bogus and I think you have explained it extremely well.
Same s**t different day with those desal plants too.
Unfortunately they got away with that one!
It looks extremely likely that they may not get away with this one (carbon tax)
They’re still trying to demonise the very industries that we all depend so heavily on.
I’m sorry I’m being repetetive but it’s the industries that put food on your tables and supply reliable affordable power to your homes and steel for the roofs over your heads and potable water for you to drink and earn massive export earnings for your country and employ a rather large percentage of the populaion and the list goes on and on.
I am not saying that all these industries are run by saints. Far from it. But neither are they the evil environmental rapists that some (particularly the greens) would have us believe.
We probably shouldn’t forget that control of power and water belongs to the States (among other things).
The Feds can only get their hands into the rather large revenue tin if they invoke
‘environment’ because they do have jurisdiction over that.
They can change legislation and charge taxes if they invoke ‘environment’.
I wish I wasn’t so cynical but it looks fairly likely that may be at the bottom of it.
There is definitely no evidence that ‘the environment’ is going to benefit from any of it.
Jen,
Your googling might have run foul of the google non-words of the day e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/an-open-letter-to-google/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/18/friday-funny-google-to-take-on-climate-skeptics/
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/when-amy-met-noaa-and-jpmorgan-chase-and-wwf-and/
because Tim is sure out there in big lights
Will the CO2 fanatics accept the voice of the people?
READ ALL ABOUT IT! READ ALL ABOUT IT!
It is claimed that a new carbon tax on petrol soon to be introduced in Australia will result in a reversal of global climate change! It is that simple! The new tax, rumoured to be around 6c./litre of petrol will cause global temperatures to fall! However, so far, neither Greens leader Bob Brown nor his follower Julia Gillard have been able to explain why this particular tax will have such an impact, whilst the 40c.+ tax per dollar of petrol that Australians have long been paying has not had any impact on global temperatures! So, according to Bob Brown and Julia Gillard, it is this magic ‘carbon tax’ that will do the trick; taxes by any other name will continue to be ignored by global climate!
hunter, the people have been bombarded with intense propaganda on AGW for a long time, but clearly they can see through it.
All the Liberal/National Coalition have to do from here on is proclaim No Carbon Tax and they will romp home.
The NSW victory will give Abbott greater strength over Turnbull and his supporters within the Coalition, who will now be forced to face the reality that the electorate don’t want a bar of the PMs tax.
Tim Flannery is obviously realising that it is time to take a two way bet. This is not the first time that he has indicated that things might take a long time_ possibly a very long time to change. In his article in the SMH (Sep 25/26, 2010 ), referring to the ‘expected’ rise in sea levels, he stated ‘ It will be impossible to put a time scale on the flooding, but Shangai, London, New York and most other coastal cities must suffer partial or total abandonment, OVER WEEKS OR DECADES OR CENTURIES’.
Will someone please tell Tim that making a forecast with infinite variance is absolutely useless!
And in any case, if the seas do rise, WHO is going to stop it?
I live in a traditionally Nationals seat as it’s a farming community. Yet even here we had a 9.4% swing to the Nationals.
Tony – Brent Gunther, managing director of InterGen, gets stuck into Garnaut in this morning’s Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ross-review-fever-garnaut-principles-could-prove-to-be-disastrous/story-fn59niix-1226029023629
The Labor/Greens coalision have committed political suicide by attempting to introduce a carbon tax. Previously I was a staunch Labor voter, falsly believing they governed for the working class Australians. Although I don’t have a lot of faith or trust in the Liberal/National coalition they appear to be the better of 2 evils. At least on the surface the Liberal/National coalition appear to be putting a stop to a carbon tax, time will tell (as it has been with Julia Gillard and the Labor/Greens coalition) if they are being honest on this issue. If Julia Gillard and the Labor/Greens coalition want to know what the people want on the issue of a carbon tax they should have the guts to ask the people in a referendum to vote on. The Australian people are not happy and upset with the ever increasing price increases for our basic needs, electricity, gas, water which are now all owned by foreign investors. Tune into tonights 7 news at 6pm which will be pointing out the confusing tax system we have in Australia and how we are one of the most taxed countries in the world
The recent landslide in NSW is being touted as a revolt against the carbon tax.
In fact it is a revolt against the idea of global warming. If we vote against the carbon tax, global warming will go away and we will be safe in our preferred way of life.
It is all part of denial that most terminal patients go through.
As global warming effects get worse, compounded by peak oil attitudes will change to “why us” and then anger.
Only then will the popular vote be cast for a party that is trying to combat the inevitable.
In the meantime the “new broom” L/N government will get into bed with big business as usual and we will see an increase in mining in the Hunter and elsewhere, huge new development programs on prime agricultural land, immense roadwork’s, clear felling in state forest and all the usual manifestations of a government run by the BUA lobby groups.
I would not like to be a citizen of Sydney from here on. The traffic and pollution will get worse, more population will be packed into the city decreasing the lifestyle even more.
It will only be as conditions worsen that the voter will ask, “Who can we turn to save us”?
The only alternative will be the Greens.
Even though the propaganda campaign against them will be running at it’s strongest, there will be an awakening that there is no alternative.
More labor?
I don’t think so. Continue with Liberal Nationals? People will have seen the empty promises left abandoned.
Will it be too late by then to save anything? Probably.
As for a rosy future where we all live in Mac Castles, drive even bigger SUV’s, live the life of an Australian billionaire, forget it.
Just 400 people in the US have 50% of the assets of the whole country or 155 million of the population and that’s the way we are headed.
ian18888 mentioned this above, but it deserves to be highlighted again after the Prime Minister and some of her Ministers scoffed at suggestions that the proposed ‘Price on Carbon’ had anything to do with this election result.
You may point at The Hunter (Coal mining) and The Illawarra (Steel production)and say that those 2 major Labor areas deserted Labor, and with the overall swing away from Labor, an argument may be put that this was indeed just ‘part of the overall swing’. The same may also be said for the City of Broken Hill where the Nationals not only won one booth for the first time ever, they won all of them.
However point directly at the one seat of Bathurst, in what might be termed National Party heartland, and a seat they have coveted yet never won. While the electorate is mainly National by nature, that has always been totally overcome by Lithgow, staunch blue collar Labor voters all their lives. The Nats could sweep everywhere else and still Lithgow would ensure Labor was elected.
At the last election Labor got 54% of the Primary vote, and was at 73% Two Party Preferred.
At this election, the same sitting Labor member got only 21% of the Primary and fell to 26% Two Party Preferred.
For that to happen, Lithgow, lock stock and everyone deserted Labor.
And what is at Lithgow that provides all those blue collar staunch Labor people with jobs?
One coal mine, and two coal fired power plants.
No backlash against a price on CO2. Really!
Tony.
For crying out loud, I voted lib because I wanted to make sure that the state labor government was chucked out, the greens are just a branch of the authoritarian left – voting for them risked a labor-greens coalition/minority government.
State governments are supposed to do services- roads, rail, hospitals and so on- the NSW Government had become a byword for corruption and gross incompetence.
‘Carbon’ is a federal/global issue.
I hope that Mr Farrel will focus on fixing up the NSW governments delivery of services and not waste much time on matters that are not state matters.
All good points, Tony.
I’m just wondering if this is the beginning of Barnaby Joyce’s agrarian socialist movement?
Carbon tax did not hurt Labour. Labour’s demise began with its in-fighting and internal ‘strong-arm’ tactics of Arbib, Shorten and their fellow union cronies. The escalation of Labour’s demise was the political assassination of Iemma (NSW) and Rudd (Canberra). People also did not forget the treachery of Gillard and Swan at the fedreal level. No, the carbon tax has little to do with the real disgust laborites felt about Labour Caucus. What is the point of electing Labour MPs when they are bullied and dictated by Caucus (the faceless men behind the curtain)? Many Labour supporters (and I) are waiting to show our disgust at the next federal election. It will also have very little to do with cabon tax or any other policies. Labour is dead and will remain so for a very long time until the likes of Arbib, his cronies and treacherous Gillard-Swan are wrenched away from the face of Labour.
Pedestrian, the premier has promised to tackle transport and hospitals as a priority, so what’s the harm in jumping on the No Carbon Tax bandwagon?
It’s a sure vote catcher and will help persuade Abbott to grow a backbone.
Today MTR interviews Paul Toole who won the Labor seat of Bathurst in the NSW election with a record 36 per cent swing. The new member of the lower house tells MTR he credits Julia Gillard’s carbon dioxide tax for some of his success.
Some? That would have to be an understatement.
The Carbon Tax would have to have played a part otherwise, the protest vote against Labor would have gone to Greens and Independents as they have in the past.
The fact that they went straight to Lib/Nats from traditional Labor seats definitely indicates the NSW electorate’s disgust with the tax and other bi polar green policies.
The Greens and the Independents did not gain much at all from the swing against Labor (in fact they have lost out big time). Out of a 17% swing the Greens supposedly got 1% and no seats and the Independents lost seats.
Jolly and pedestrian have also made valid points.
The new NSW Govt, while recognising the groundswell protest against the carbon tax, must definitely focus on State issues and hopefully return some sanity into State government.
There is no doubt that many Labor voters are disgusted with the strong arm tactics of the NSW Labor Party and the way they uncerimoniously dumped elected representatives.
They saw it as a misuse of power and as Jolly says, ‘treacherous’ to the Labor movement.
It doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming majority of that massive swing went straight to the Libs/Nats rather than to Greens or Independents.
The antics from the Feds re that carbon tax and other bi polar Green policies must have influenced where the swing went.
@ TonyfromOz
There is quiet a few more than one operating coal mine in the Lithgow district
Tony, I have not been around the Lithgow area for at least 8 years now but I can name at least 3 coal mines which area still operating -Angus Place, Springvale and Clarence, and I am pretty sure that Baal Bone is still operating. Clarence (just east of Lithgow on the Bell plateau) is an export mine in the Katoomba seam (above the Lithgow seam which I think is now also being mined there), Baal Bone in the Lithgow seam is/was also an export mine. Airely, a new mine little north of Baal Bone, may be also be in the Bathurst electorate.
The two power stations are Wallerawang (at Wallerwang) which has two units of 500MW and Mt Piper (6km from Portland) which has two units of 660MW and is the newest in NSW.
@cementafriend
Clarence supplies both export and domestic (Mt Piper) markets from the Katoomba Seam. The Lithgow seam in that tenement is not mined there, uneconomic. The Lithgow Seam is mined just south of Clarence but only small tonnages
Baal Bone is still going but the deposit is close to exhausted now compared to twenty years ago.
Both Angus Place and Springvale supply Lithgow Seam (domestic) to Mt Piper on dedicated contract.
Invincible still supplies domestic Lithgow Seam to Mt Piper. Airly mines Lithgow Seam and is able to supply both domestic and export markets. Charbon mine, further north, is still operative (Lithgow Seam)
Mt Piper is a critical part of the national grid. The Wran Govt built it but skimped on a coal train unloader, then banned road transport by truck, so both Angus Place and Springvale built cross-country conveyor belts to keep the both the power station and mines alive
All of this says quite bluntly that Gillard’s about-face on a carbon tax is a potent factor in the 36% swing against the ALP to the Nats in the Bathurst electorate. The ALP knows this, despite contrary bleatings
Delivering the inaugural Gough Whitlam Oration in Sydney the PM used spin like a professional.
Ms Gillard said NSW voters had made it clear they were “sick of the scandals, intolerant of the factionalism, disheartened by the failures to perform”.
That’s all true, but the difference between a comfortable win and a landslide was the carbon tax issue.
And she has the audacity to lecture Abbott on honest government.