A discussion of the role of legal actions, a multi-front strategy, and the need for young people to understand and help manage the end-game. Available here, on my web page, or on our new program web page.
~Jim
3 July 2014
Like my Facebook page
Share on social media
Visit my program web page
csas.ei.columbia.edu
|
Why this ad?
Compare Electricity Plans – iselect.com.au/Electricity – Find a Range of Plans to Match Your Needs. You Could Save at iSelect.
|
|
Inbox
|
x |
|
2:16 PM (7 minutes ago)
 |
|||
|
||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
« How Senate Rotations are Re-established After a Double Dissolution | Main
The Napthine government goes into Victoria’s November state election as slight underdog, a unusual situation for a first term government in a country that traditionally gives governments at least two terms in office.
There has not been a first term government defeated in Victoria since 1955. Across Australia since 1969, there have been only five governments come to office and be defeated after a single term. These were the Tonkin Labor government in Western Australia 1971-74, the Tonkin Liberal government in South Australia 1979-82, the Borbidge Coalition government in Queensland 1996-98, and two minority governments in Tasmania, the Bethune Liberal government 1969-72 and Field Labor government 1989-92.
At the 2010 Victorian election the Coalition polled 51.6% of the state wide 2-party preferred vote, winning 45 seats to 43 for Labor.
In an 88 member chamber where the Speaker’s casting can only be used to resolve a tie, the Coalition government was left with a bare floor majority of 44 to 43. The move of Frankston MP Geoff Shaw to the crossbenches has since tied the party vote 43-all, making Shaw’s actions on every vote critical to the functioning of the Legislative Assembly.
At the 2014 election Victoria’s electoral geography will change, with a deferred electoral redistribution making major changes to electoral boundaries reflecting 12 years of uneven population growth, especially in Melbourne.
The redistribution’s overall picture is that two safe Coalition seats have been abolished, one National and one Liberal, and two safe Labor seats created in Melbourne’s west.
There have also been important knock-on effects to other electorates. Labor may have gained two new seats, but five seats it currently holds now have notional Liberal majorities. Overall the new boundaries give the Coalition 48 notional seats and Labor 40.
On the old boundaries Labor needed to gain two seats on a uniform swing of 1.2% to form government. On the new boundaries the number of seats needed for victory increases to five, but the uniform swing falls to 0.9%. (There is more information on the political impact of the redistribution via this link.)
Remarkably for the Coalition, only three of its nine most marginal seats will be defended by sitting members. Five have Labor incumbents and the sixth is held by controversial independent Geoff Shaw.
This gives the Coalition no incumbency advantage, minimal ‘sophomore surge’ of new members defending seats gained in 2010. This could be a critical factor at an election where all polls have been showing a state wide swing to Labor.
It reminds me of the Western Australian election in 2008 when Labor lost after going into the election with sitting members in only four of its 13 marginal seats. The Labor government had instituted one-vote one-value electoral laws, creating a host of new marginal seats in Perth. The Carpenter government was defeated, creating the first gap in the wall of coast-to-coast Labor governments.
Now Denis Napthine finds himself in the same predicament as Alan Carpenter. Perhaps as with Western Australia in 2008, the 2014 Victorian election will mark a new turn in the national party political cycle.
In this post will concentrate on assessing the government’s propsects of holding on to its nine most marginal seats. Using results in these seats at state elections since 1985, I’ll show how these seats have tended to mirror the state wide swing. The conclusion from this analysis is that any state wide swing to Labor is highly likely to be reflected in the key seats that Labor needs to win to form government.
On the new boundaries, the government’s most marginal seat is Wendouree (0.1%), a seat previously known as Ballarat West and before that Ballarat North. It is the first of the five marginal Liberal seats currently represented by a Labor MP. Under its old electoral name it was won by Labor’s Sharon Knight in 2010, succeeding long serving Labor MP Karen Overington.
I’ll first explain my analysis using the Wendouree graph. (You can click on all the graphs for a larger version.)
The two lines show Labor 2-party preferred, the yellow line being the electorate results since 1985 and the black line the overall 2-party preferred vote for Victoria. Points above the 50% line represent a Labor majority, points below 50% a Liberal majority. The vertical lines represent redistributions, so when a seat’s margin is changed by a redistribution, two points appear and the yellow line may be broken. In the case of Wendouree, the yellow line for 2010 shows the actual result of 51.1% for Ballarat West, while the second dot shows the post-redistribution result of 49.9% for Wendouree, corresponding to 50.1% Liberal 2-party preferred.
When the yellow line is above the black line it indicates the electorate is more Labor leaning than the state as a whole, and when it is below the line it indicates the electorate being more Liberal leaning than the state.
In the case of Wendouree and its predecessors, the electorate has been more Labor leaning than the state at every election since 1992, though Ballarat West was not won by Labor until 1999.
The yellow dot showing the new margin indicates that Wendouree is still more Labor leaning than Victoria as a whole. On past voting patterns for Wendouree, any state swing to Labor should be reflected in Labor winning Wendouree.
Wendouree Candidates: Labor MP Sharon Knight, Liberal candidate Craig Coltman, who also contested the seat in 2010.
The redistribution also turns Yan Yean (0.1%) on the northern fringe of Melbourne into a ultra-marginal Liberal seat, but again it currently has a Labor representative in Danielle Green. Yan Yean and its predecessor Whittlesea have been Labor held for three decades, but lying on the northern edge of Melbourne, its boundaries tend to be radically altered by each redistribution.
Danielle Green was first elected in 2002 after the 2000/01 redistribution had also turned Yan Yean into a notional Liberal seat. It has been a repeated pattern in this part of Melbourne that the new housing estates covered by Yan Yean tend to be Labor voting, and with these areas being where the enrolment growth is concentrated, Labor is assisted by growth. Even if there is no swing at the next election, population growth might be pushing Yan Yean back on to Labor’s side of the electoral ledger, and the Labor Party will be assisted by Danielle Green campaigning as an incumbent. If there is any swing against the government, Yan Yean will be very difficult seat for the Liberal Party to win.
Candidates: Labor MP Danielle Green, Liberal Sam Ozturk, Greens Daniel Sacchero
In the last three decades, Carrum (0.3%) has only been won by the Liberal Party twice, in 1996 when is was the only Liberal gain on the re-election of the Kennett government, and in 2010 when it was one of the Liberal Party’s key gains on the Frankston line. Of elections since 1985, the 2010 result was the only one where the Labor 2-party preferred vote in Carrum was below the state wide vote. As shown by the redistribution dot for 2010, Carrum has become more marginal on new boundaries. Only twice since it was first created in 1976 has Carrum been won by the Liberal Party, in 1996 and in 2010, though the electorate has been drifting towards the state average over time. The trend analysis in the graph indicates that Carrum will be tough for the Liberal Party to hold in the face of a state wide swing to Labor. One possible advantage for the Liberal Party is in having an incumbent MP in her first term, though that did not help the Liberal Party in 1999.
Candidates: Liberal MP Donna Bauer, Labor Sonya Kilkenny
Frankston (0.4%) is greatly complicated by the resignation from the Liberal Party of controversial MP Geoff Shaw. The graph below shows that since Frankston returned to being a single seat at the 2002 election, its results have closely matched the state vote. Sitting just below the black line of Labor’s state vote indicates the seat has generally been more Liberal leaning, though the redistribution now puts Frankston above the black line though still notionally Liberal held.
The Geoff Shaw factor greatly complicates analysis, but it is clear Frankston will be a key contest, and once again the government does not have the advantage of incumbency.
Candidates: Geoff Shaw Independent MP, Liberal Sean Armistead. Labor is engaged in a new pre-selection after its first nominated candidate` Helen Constas was forced to stand aside.
Bentleigh (0.9%) was the last Labor seat to fall at the 2010 election. It has generally been a more Liberal leaning electorate over the last three decades, only being on the Labor side of the black line at the last two elections. The Liberal Party also has an incumbency advantage in Liberal MP Elizabeth Miller defending a seat she won in 2010. As a seat that swings in line with the state vote, Bentleigh will be tough for the Liberal Party to hold against a swing, but it has better prospects than in other marginal seats.
Candidates: Elizabeth Miller Liberal MP, Nick Staikos Labor, Sean Mulcahy Greens
Monbulk (1.1%) is another notional Liberal seat being defended by a Labor MP, in this case Labor Deputy Leader James Merlino. This is a seat that has tended to follow the state trend, and with a sitting Labor member, it will be tough for the Liberal Party to win Monbulk if there is any swing to Labor.
Candidates: James Merlino Labor MP, Mark Verschuur Liberal
Mordialloc (1.5%) is the fourth of the key marginal seats that straddle the Frankston line. Like Bentleigh, the Liberal Party has an advantage in defending this seat with a first term MP in Lorraine Wreford. However, once again Mordialloc is a seat that has tracked the state swing. Only twice since 1955 has Mordialloc and its predecessor Mentone failed to return government members, Mentone being retained by the Liberal Party on government defeat at the 1982 election and Mordialloc in 1999.
Candidates: Lorraine Wreford Liberal MP, Tim Richardson Labor
At the 1999 election, the dramatic swing to Labor in small booths reporting from Ripon (1.6%) was the first sign that the Kennett government was in trouble. As the graph below shows, prior to 1992 Ripon had been a strongly Liberal leaning electorate. Between 1992 and 2006 it almost exactly tracked the state vote. In 2010 it recorded a well below average 1.6% swing against Labor, creating a divergence in Labor’s favour in the graph. The redistribution has reduced Labor’s 2-party preferred vote to 48.4%, which means the redistributed margin for Ripon now sits precisely on the black line.
Labor is disadvantaged by the retirement of Joe Helper, who has held the seat for Labor since 1999. His retirement plus the new boundaries makes Ripon a critical seat that the Coalition must win. The contest will be complicated by a three-cornered contest.
Candidates: Daniel McGlone Labor, Louise Staley Liberal, Scott Turner National
Lying to the east of Geelong, Bellarine (2.5%) is the fifth of the marginal Liberal seats with a sitting Labor MP. Lisa Neville has held Bellarine since coming in with the Bracks landslide in 2002. The loss of Labor voting Newcomb, Whittington and St Albans Park to Geelong, replaced by Liberal voting Barwon Heads from South Barwon, has converted Neville’s 1.4% margin in 2010 into a notional Liberal majority of 2.5%. Again this is a must win seat for the Liberal Party, but Labor has the sitting member, and in a regional seat such as Bellarine, the sitting member factor can be more important.
Candidates: Lisa Neville Labor MP, Ron Nelson Liberal
In summary, the Napthine government is in a weak position to retain government, with sitting members in only three of its nine most marginal seats. Labor incumbents in four of those seats are well placed to notionally win their seats back for Labor, while other marginal seats have in the past shown a tendency to follow the state swing.
Polls have indicated a decline in support for the Victorian coalition since 2010, grim news for the Napthine government. Unless the Coalition can improve its state wide position, its position in the key marginal seats makes it difficult for the government to win the 2014 election.
Posted by Antony Green on July 03, 2014 at 12:57 PM in Victoria Elections and Politics | Permalink
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
An image recorded by NASA’s Landsat 8 satellite shows melting Beaufort Sea ice in the McKenzie River delta area in June 2014. National Snow and Ice Data Center
Sea ice in the Arctic melted at a moderate pace in early June, but the rate accelerated late in the month, matching a pattern shown in other recent years, the National Snow and Ice Data Center said on Wednesday.
Average June coverage was the sixth lowest recorded for that month since satellite measurements began in 1979. Arctic ice coverage for the month averaged 4.37 million square miles, a level 224,000 square miles below the 1981-to-2010 average recorded for June, the Colorado-based center said.
However, the melt acceleration brought end-of-the-month coverage to a level nearly as low as that recorded at the same point in 2012, the year that turned out to post the record low minimum.
Areas that opened up during the month include the southern Beaufort Sea, where melt ponds have appeared on the drifting first-year ice, the center said. The Beaufort has had “dramatic summer ice loss” in recent years, with some multiyear ice melting out completely, the center said in its statement summarizing the month’s conditions. That was especially the case in the record-low year of 2012, the center said.
The rapid late-month melt in June was noteworthy, said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “But will we continue at this fast pace? We don’t know,” he said in an email. “July, the month of peak melt, will be telling.”
Several experts and observers have been crunching numbers and analyzing data to try to predict this year’s sea-ice minimum, an annual milestone that usually occurs in mid- or late September.
The Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, or ARCUS, last month compiled 28 Arctic-wide forecasts, which as of June 19 were yielding a median predication of 4.7 million square kilometers (1.815 million square miles) for this year’s sea-ice minimum. The record low, reached two years ago, was 3.413 million square kilometers (1.318 million square miles). Last year’s sea-ice minimum was 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles), a significant rebound from 2012 but still the sixth-lowest minimum recorded since satellite measurements began.
ARCUS is now soliciting updated forecasts, incorporating the most recent data, to post in July.
Contact Yereth Rosen at yereth@alaskadispatch.com.
TranslateHuman-induced climate change is an issue beyond politics. It transcends parties, nations, and even generations. For the first time in human history, the very health of the planet, and therefore the bases for future economic development, the end of poverty, and human wellbeing, are in the balance. If we were facing an imminent threat from beyond Earth, there is no doubt that humanity would immediately unite in common cause. The fact that the threat comes from within – indeed from ourselves – and that it develops over an extended period of time does not alter the urgency of cooperation and decisive action.
The world has agreed to limit the mean temperature increase to less than 2-degrees Centigrade (2°C). Even a 2°C increase will carry us to dangerous and unprecedented conditions not seen on Earth during the entire period of human civilization. Various physical feedbacks – in the Arctic, the oceans, the rainforests, and the tundra – could multiply a 2°C temperature increase into vastly higher temperatures and climate disruption. For this reason many scientists and some countries advocate for 1.5°C or even stricter targets.
To give up on the 2°C limit, on the other hand, would be reckless and foolish. We would abandon our remaining chance to stay within a safe operating space for humanity and that of millions of other species. By holding the 2°C limit, we would retain the global option to adopt an even more stringent emission reduction limit in line with evolving scientific knowledge and technological capacities.
The 2°C limit, or an even stronger target, can be met through long-term national strategies and concerted global cooperation. All countries must commit to a deep decarbonization of their energy systems, shifting from high-carbon energy (coal, oil, and natural gas) to low-carbon energy of various kinds (e.g. wind, solar, nuclear, carbon capture and sequestration, known as CCS). Low-carbon electricity plus massive gains in energy efficiency and the electrification of vehicles, heating and cooling systems of commercial as well as residential buildings can lead to a dramatic reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions alongside a growing economy. Changes in lifestyle patterns and urban planning can make another important contribution. The many co-benefits of decarbonization with the deployment of sustainable energy, information and communication technologies will include cleaner air and water, enhanced biodiversity, and security of domestic renewable energy resources. Targeted efforts are also required to decarbonize key industries. Finally, countries need to curb greenhouse gas emissions resulting from agriculture, livestock, and land-use change, such as deforestation. They must also manage and restore ecosystems to ensure they can serve as a significant net sink for greenhouse gas emissions.
The technological transition during the first half of the 21st century is within reach, especially in light of massive advances in knowhow in recent years. In many parts of the world and in some contexts, solar and wind power are already at “grid parity.” Large-scale deployment of electric vehicles, carbon-capture and sequestration, next-generation nuclear power plants for those countries deploying nuclear power, and other low-carbon energy technologies are all within reach. They can be pushed to commercial readiness and large-scale deployment through concerted public and private programs of research, development, demonstration, and diffusion (RDD&D) on a global scale.
We have nearly exhausted the Earth’s carbon budget, which measures the cumulative emissions of CO2 that will likely keep the planet within the 2°C limit. Only through a drastic reduction of carbon emissions between now and 2050, en route to a zero-net emission economy in the second half of the century, can we meet the challenge of remaining below 2°C. Yet, deep decarbonization can be accomplished. As President John F. Kennedy said a half-century ago, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills …”
In our time, humanity again must choose, this time to save our planet from shortsightedness, greed, and apathy to avoid catastrophic climate change. This time too, we must organize and measure the best of our energies and skills to stay within 2°C. We call upon you, world leaders, to recognize the gravity of the situation, and to call upon all of us to rise to the occasion. We owe nothing less to ourselves, to future generations, and to Earth itself.
Founding Signatories:
(* denotes members of the SDSN Leadership Council)
Irene Agyepong, Regional Director, Health for Greater Accra*
Belay Begashaw, Director, Columbia Global Center, Nairobi*
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)*
Joseph Bell, Hogan Lovells, Washington*
David Berry, Founder, Joule Unlimited*
Joshua Castellino, Dean, Law School, University of Middlesex*
Madhav Chavan, Co-founder and CE-President, Pratham, India*
Sir Partha Dasgupta, Professor Emeritus, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Bineta Diop, President, Femmes Africa Solidarité*
Achim Dobermann, Director, Rothamsted Research*
José María Figueres, CEO, Carbon War Room*
Maria Freire, President and Executive Director, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH)*
Michael Gerrard, Professor, Columbia University Law School
Jennifer Gross, Member of the Board, Gross Family Foundation
Zakri Abdul Hamid, Chair, International Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)*
James Hansen, Former Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies*
Tom Heller, Executive Director, Climate Policy Initiative*
Pavel Kabat, Director, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)*
Joan Kaufman, Director, Columbia Global Centers East Asia
Geoffrey Kent, Founder, Chairman and CEO, Abercrombie & Kent Group of Companies*
Niclas Kjellström-Matseke, Managing Director, Novamedia Swedish Postcode Lottery*
Israel Klabin, Founder and Executive Director, Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable Development*
Felipe Larraín, Director, Centro Latinoamericano de Políticas Económicas y Sociales (CLAPES-UC)*
Richard Layard, Director. Well-Being Programme Centre for Economic Performance London School of Economics*
Frannie Léautier, Partner and Chief Executive Officer, Mkoba Private Equity Fund*
Yuan Lee, Former President, Academia Sinica and Nobel Prize Laureate*
Klaus Leisinger, President, Stiftung Globale Werte Allianz*
Gordon Liu, Director, Peking University China Center for Health Economic Research (CCHER)*
Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis*
Arun Majumdar, Energy Initiatives Lead, Google Inc*
Michael Mann, Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, Director General, IUCN*
Dirk Messner, Director, German Development Institute
Shahid Naeem, Director, Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability*
Claude Nahon, Executive Vice President for Sustainable Development, EDF*
Rebecca Nelson, Professor, Cornell University*
Cherie Nursalim, Executive Director, GITI Group*
Ikenna Onyido, Founder and Director, Centre for Sustainable Development, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria*
Mari Pangestu, Minister of Tourism and Creative Industries, Indonesia*
George Papandreou, Former Prime Minister, Greece*
V (Ram) Ramanathan, Professor, SCRIPPS Institution of Oceanography, UCSD, California
Srinath Reddy, President and Executive Director, Public Health Foundation of India*
Irwin Redlener, Director, National Center for Disaster Preparedness, Earth Institute, Columbia University
Aromar Revi, Director, Indian Institute for Human Settlements*
Angelo Riccaboni, Rector, University of Siena, Italy*
Johan Rockström, Executive Director, Stockholm Resilience Center*
Cynthia Rosenzweig, Professor, Earth Institute, Columbia University*
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, Earth Institute, Columbia University Director of the SDSN*
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Josette Sheeran, President, Asia Society*
Will Steffen, Adjunct Professor, Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian University
Lord Nicholas Stern, IG Patel Professor, Chair of Grantham Institute, London School of Economics
Pavan Sukhdev, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, GIST Advisory*
Jatna Supriatna, Chairman, University of Indonesia Research Center of Climate Change
John Thwaites, Chair, Monash Sustainability Institute*
Lena Trenschow-Torell, Chairman, MISTRA*
Laurence Tubiana, Professor, Sciences Po (Paris) and Columbia University, Co-Chair of the SDSN Leadership Council*
Ted Turner, Chairman, Turner Foundation, Inc. and Turner Enterprises Inc.*
Hans Vestberg, President and CEO, Ericsson Group*
Virgilio Viana, Director General, Amazonas Sustainability Foundation*
Martin Visbeck, Chair in Physical Oceanography, GEOMAR – Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel & Kiel University*
Robert Watson, former Chair of the IPCC
E.O. Wilson, Emeritus, Harvard University
Xue Lan, Professor and Dean, School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Co-Chair of the SDSN Leadership Council*
Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Professor, New York University*
Soogil Young, Professor, KDI School of Public Policy and Management*
Hania Zlotnik, Former Director, UN Population Division*
Signatories:
To be added
11.06.2014
Courtesy: McGill
By Katherine Gombay, McGill University
Researchers from McGill University and the U.S. Geological Survey, more used to measuring thawing permafrost than its expansion, have made a surprising discovery. There is new permafrost forming around Twelvemile Lake in the interior of Alaska. But they have also quickly concluded that, given the current rate of climate change, it won’t last beyond the end of this century.
Twelvemile Lake is sometimes called the disappearing lake. That’s because over the past thirty years, as a result of climate change and thawing permafrost, the lake water has been receding at an alarming rate. It is now 5 metres or 15 feet shallower than it would have been three decades ago. This is a big change in a very short time.
As the lake recedes, bands of willow shrubs have grown up on the newly exposed lake shores over the past twenty years. What Martin Briggs from the U.S. Geological Survey and Prof. Jeffrey McKenzie from McGill’s Dept. of Earth and Planetary Science have just discovered is that the extra shade provided by these willow shrubs has both cooled and dried the surrounding soil, allowing new permafrost to expand beneath them.
The researchers were initially very excited by this find. But after analyzing the thickness of the new permafrost and projecting how it will be affected by continued climate change and the expected rise in temperature in the Arctic of 3°C, they arrived at the conclusion that the new permafrost won’t last beyond the end of the century.
Widespread lake shrinkage in cold regions has been linked to climate warming and permafrost thaw. Permafrost aggradation, however, has been observed within the margins of recently receded lakes, in seeming contradiction of climate warming. Here permafrost aggradation dynamics are examined at Twelvemile Lake, a retreating lake in interior Alaska. Observations reveal patches of recently formed permafrost within the dried lake margin, colocated with discrete bands of willow shrub. We test ecological succession, which alters shading, infiltration, and heat transport, as the driver of aggradation using numerical simulation of variably saturated groundwater flow and heat transport with phase change (i.e., freeze‐thaw). Simulations support permafrost development under current climatic conditions, but only when net effects of vegetation on soil conditions are incorporated, thus pointing to the role of ecological succession. Furthermore, model results indicate that permafrost aggradation is transitory with further climate warming, as new permafrost thaws within seven decades.
New permafrost is forming around shrinking Arctic lakes, but will it last? by Martin A. Briggs,Michelle A. Walvoord,Jeffrey M. McKenzie,Clifford I. Voss,Frederick D. Day‐Lewis,John W. Lane published in Geophysical Research Letters doi 10.1002/2014GL059251
Read the abstract and get the paper here.
McGill University news release here.
In regards to state governments defeated after a single term, I thought that the first South Australian Dunstan government from 1965-1968 and its vanquisher the Hall Liberal Government from 1968-1970 were also both one term governments?
COMMENT: You’re right. The measure I’ve always used is 1969, the year the Bethune government came to office and brought on coast to coast non-Labor governments. The 1955 Victorian reference made me try and count backwards for other examples and I forgot your two. I’ve amended it back to my usual 1969 reference point.
Posted by: Matthew Bowman | July 03, 2014 at 01:24 PM