Bill Shorten 2.0 will end the same as the first
LABOR is making the same mistake again.
Anthony Albanese has made a calculation on climate change and he is sleepwalking to an election defeat.
Get off Twitter. Stop listening to The Project and get out of the cities.
They think (and Liberals crow about this as well) that Victoria won the Coalition Government the election, and believe this is where they can win Government.
Wrong. With redistributions, the Liberals held their ground in Victoria.
Where did they pick up seats?
Queensland, NSW and Tasmania - incidentally these are states that have effective senators who have regional offices - and these electorates were all hypersensitive to cost-of-living issues and job security.
Labor believes voters attitudes towards climate change has materially changed since the bushfires.
Perhaps marginally, but that will likely dissipate given it has rained and there's a long way to go until the next election.
But this is the mistake so many commentators and politicians make.
There is a big disconnect between accepting climate science and the need to act, and the mechanism that should be used to address the issue.
It is the mechanism that can create the economic shocks.
Labor's commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 is all smoke and mirrors. There's no detail and no modelling.
In their daily lives Australians do not make life-changing investment decisions before asking the cost or working out if they can afford it.
Why should it be different for political policies?
Comparing what other countries will do on addressing climate change is silly, especially given that Australia's main economic pillars all have a significant CO2-equivalent footprint; resources, tourism, agriculture and transport.
And what does not make sense is Albanese pushing for net zero emissions by 2050 but saying Australia will still export coal.
What about the fugitive emissions from that process - that is the methane that escapes during the process of mineral extraction?
Right now that equates for about 6 per cent of the country's total emissions.
Then there's the issue of transitioning resources workers. Albanese has to answer this question; will they be like-for-like jobs? Will they pay the same?
And with Labor going gung-ho on renewables and the likelihood of better storage capacity in the future (which is right), why can't they accept that coal capture and storage is a real possibility in the future in some parts of Australia?
Do they ignore it because it's about coal?
On top of that, last week shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers spruiked the idea of replicating NZ's Wellness Budget.
Last year, NZ Jacinda Ardern championed that, "while economic growth is important - and
something we will continue to pursue - it alone does not guarantee improvements to our living standards".
"Nor does it measure the quality of economic activity or take into account who benefits and who is left out or left behind.
"We know for example that New Zealand has had strong growth for a number of years, all
the while experiencing some of the highest rates of suicide, unacceptable homelessness and
shameful rates of family violence and child poverty."
Chalmers will get rolled on this because in Australia we know all this information.
The problem is that these issues are complex - a perfect example is the Closing the Gap strategy.
Economic growth must be the core focus of a Federal Government so it can pay for those who are being left behind, but more importantly, states have primary responsibility for healthcare, child safety and family violence.
The idea of a Wellness Budget is such a Left concept and ridiculous.
If the Labor goes down this path they may as well just abolish the states because more and more they are relinquishing their responsibilities to the Commonwealth.