Having done my bit to fan the flames of anti-Australian hysteria, props are due to the paper for this morning’s typically excellent piece by George Megalogenis on regional variations in housing price movements. Crucially, a “two-speed housing market” is identified in New South Wales, promising to hit the Coalition hard in marginal suburban and hinterland electorates (specifically Parramatta, Lindsay, Dobell, Robertson and all-important Bennelong), while delivering worthless dividends in the rich inner suburbs (where double-digit swings to the Coalition were recorded in the March state election). There’s a particularly handy cut-out-and-keep graphic listing the 20 electorates where prices have moved most heavily either way, the “price rises” list being monopolised by Western Australia. This ties in nicely with localised polling showing the Coalition collapsing in NSW, while holding ground or better in WA. Also instructive are Possum Comitatus‘s renowned observations on the ratio of interest payments to disposable income. Further analysis of Megalogenis’s data from Simon Jackman.
“jasmine_Anadyr Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
You are kidding right swordfish … there is no question the Government of the day CAN DO ANYTHING to reduce petrol prices, grocery prices and housing prices, so long as a corporation is loosely involved in the process. Like workchoices was setup to create a market that could destroy wages and conditions it is easy to imagine legislation that could destroy these markets from the supply side. And your ‘example’ is indeed an own goal in that is shows how easy it is, just you the example provided is an extreme unrealistic unfair and illconsidered example of how it can be done.
The argument is not about whether or not something can be done – it is whether or not what is proposed will have the desired impact in a way that is beneficial for the consumer, economy and supplier. And frankly a Government that actually cares about the rights and needs of ordinary Australians and makes it obvious it is watching out for them can do a great deal of good indeed.”
Oh dear, another economic illiterate on Pollbludger.
Governments cannot sufficiently protect the nation or ensure spending on services like health unless there is economic prosperity to make such spending sustainable. The Coalition has achieved that, which is why it has been able to boost health spending by a massive amount (see the raw amounts and % GDP amounts). Sure, there are some who haven’t gained as much as others during these times – but the real issue isn’t that Labor will necessarily ensure they do gain, but that Labor will make ALL worse off by being the economic vandals they are.
K David Said
“The other positive for Labor is people in Australia like backing winners, A lot more Aussies followed the Football world cup than they did the qualifying for it, so strong polls will have a snowball effect.”
Not quite, some people like backing winners and some people like backing the underdog, but the way that the polls are and the way that the Australian have been reporting them means that Labor get the best of both effects
Swordfish
you forgot to mention
1.they will deflower our womenhood
2 corrupt the kids morals
3 allow funny looking people in who talk funny as well!!!
4 ruin our glorious toadyism to big business
5 introduce heroin to the milk suplly
Man in the 50’s you were obviously relevant-but now we are in the 21st century your fascist fairy tales have no sway
go back to lib central and try again
Gusface,
I object to your saying that Swordfish’s comments were relevant in the ’50s. I remember the ’50s.
Please delete references to fascism.
I would rather be economically illiterate than have absolutely no grasp of history, community, law, politics and reality.
J-D Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
‘No party has won a federal election without carrying a majority of the seats in NSW’, the article says.
The Coalition won the federal elections of 1951, 1954, and 1961 without carrying a majority of the seats in NSW.
Is it likely that George Megalogenis would be interested in the correction? If so, what is likely to be the best way of letting him know?
J-D you can send him an email at megalogenisg@theaustralian.com.au
In fact for the information of all bloggers, the address structure for all journalists at “The Australian” is the same: last name, first name intial @ the australian.
Last part of that last post should have read,
the address structure for all journalists at “The Australian†is the same:
last name first name intial @ the australian.com.au
When do law and politics have anything to do with reality or is it your perceptions of reality Jasmin
e
Swordfish: JW Howard does not control family budgets.
If that’s the case, would you prefer an honest party that says exactly what it can’t promise to do.
Or one that blatantly lies in saying that it will keep household budgets and interest rates lower then under a Labor government, despite having little to no control.
I thought this government was the highest taxing on record with %28 of GDP. The GST money going to the states sure, it’s amazing how much of it is really getting through. Bracksy has used to fill his bath with.
Swordfish, (aka me, myself, I) I was merely showing what affect you can have on housing, I wasn’t suggesting putting it up and spoil your only Australian dream (please don’t cry).
What reforms have this government introduced exactly?
I can think of depreceation of the dollar, floating of dollar, deregulation of finance sector, medicare, the accord, compulsory superannuation, off the top of my head for my side. What can you come up with?
Cisco if you are going to give me a capital J, thereby increasing my importance substantially from my humble j – you may omit the ‘e’ at your discretion. Politics is merely the organised reflection of community, law is the concrete that holds together the elements of civilised society, together they are the best and worst of what we are.
Reality yes is a more problematic issue. My apologies for introducing reality into a discussion of polling trends and issues.
Swordfish, I really wouldn’t bother with some of these people. The fact of the matter is that whenever ALP/ACTU win a Federal election they proceed to rape the economy and then the conservatives are called in to repair the damage.
Once the cons have cleaned up the mess and leave the country in good shape again, the electorate starts flirting with the ALP/ACTU alternative. I’m afraid this cycle is going to repeat itself again this year.
If only the public realised that kicking out the best government in over 40 years and replacing it with a completely inept, hollow opposition was a a bad play, we’d be a much better nation than we are now.
# Swordfish Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“I do disagree with the last of those though, when Labor implements its job killing policies, raises taxes and imposes its Jurassic Age system of workplace regulations, combined with the Garrett recession, housing prices will collapse as people’s wages fall due to mass retrenchments and a flood of stock comes on to the market for sale.”
What utter rubbish. Swordfish, you are just spouting the usual Howardian propaganda without really thinking about what you are saying.
Here are some simple facts:
– Labor is not introducing “job killing” policies. They are RESTORING the industrial relations to something very similar to what it was only two years ago, before Workchoices. If you think this was job-destroying, then why has unemployment been falling over the past 14 years?
– Nowhere has Labor said that they plan to raise taxes. If anything, Labor has occasionally criticised the Howard government for being the HIGHEST taxing government in Australia’s history. Did you know that in order to bring the total amount of tax collected by Howard and Costello back down to the level that Keating had it, we could have 0% income tax. That’s right, we could have no tax on income and then we would be down to the level of tax that the previous Labor government was collecting. That tells you something about the MASSIVE amount of tax that Howard has been ripping out of the economy and out of people’s pockets. He might give a little back here and there in order to buy votes, but he is taking extraordinarily large amounts away.
– your so-called “Garrett recession” is just a repetition of Howard’s line. You have obviously not given it any thought and have therefore just spouted it out like some kind of mindless monkey. It is another one f Howard’s lies. There is no “Garrett recession”. It doesn’t exist, not now, not ever.
– on your point about falling wages, hmm… a lot of data (most of which is now being kept secret by the government) suggests that thousands of people right across the country have suffered either a reduction in their wages or a loss of various benefits (which has adversely affected overall take-home pay) at the hands of Howard’s WorkChoices. And this is during a boom. When there is a downturn and big business actually needs to cut down on their expenses, rather than just being greedy, there is likely to be a much more severe reduction in take-home pay. This will of course have big knock-on effects for those with mortgages… although it will probably lead to “a flood of stock… on to the market for sale.”
Let’s try tax reform, deregulation of the telecommunications sector, privatisation of Telstra, waterfront reform, workplace reform, the Future Fund, the biggest land transport investment in history through AusLink I and II, FTAs with Thailand, Singapore and the US, negotiations opened with China, Japan, India, Chile, the UAE among others, attendance at the East Asian Summit, the liberation of East Timor, deregulation of the dairy industry, fiscal consolidation doctrine, family tax benefits expanded, higher funding for government and private schools, record investment in healthcare, the Black Spot road programme which is saving countless lives, welfare reform, defence reform, elimination of net Commonwealth debt, less long-term unemployed, more funding for medical research, igniting the trend to return technical education, the list goes on.
centaur_007, ever heard of the Campbell report? If not, I suggest you look it up.
[A-C – The fact of the matter is that whenever ALP/ACTU win a Federal election they proceed to rape the economy and then the conservatives are called in to repair the damage. ]
You are spouting complete rubbish.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a-devil-of-a-time-if-you-look-closely/2007/06/08/1181089330756.html?page=2
Let me remind you of a time not so long ago with Howard as treasurer.
[‘Howard brought down his first budget on the night of August 15, 1978. He would deliver four more budgets. At no time in his five years and four months in Treasury would it ever get any better than it was on the night of that first budget. Inflation at the time was 7.9 per cent, down from 12.3 per cent six months after the Fraser government gained office. Home mortgage rates were 10 per cent. Unemployment was 6.2 per cent. Over the next five years mortgage rates would dip, for one year, to 9.5 per cent and unemployment would hit a low, in June 1981, of 5.4 per cent.
But the budget outcomes announced on the night of August 15, 1978 would never be as good, overall, for Howard’s stewardship of the economy ever again. And when he left the Treasury after Labor’s victory under Bob Hawke in March 1983, all of the key economic indicators would be much worse than when he arrived more than five years earlier. Inflation stood at 11.1 per cent, unemployment at 10 per cent, and home mortgage rates at 13.5 per cent.
There was also the infamous budget black hole of $9.6 billion (in 1983 prices) Howard left Labor to fix after the Coalition had spent absurdly in the run-up to the 1983 election while trying to buy another win. It didn’t work.’]
Well then Noocat, what impact will a 20-30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 have on jobs?
Wayne Swan has said that the 2005 tax policy release is the tax policy they will use at the election. That amounts to a significant increase in tax, not the abolition of income tax as you so erroneously claim the Labor Party is about.
Labor’s workplace policies will get rid of a massive amount of fulltime jobs, only adding to the ranks of the long-term unemployed, being outrageously unfair to small businesses that are, yes, run by families (not this evil capitalist cabal you seem to envisage from your warped Marxist class struggle mindset)
I suppose you can’t cite a source for your final claim, but I guess it’s all part of the wider Bush and the Jews conspiracy to steal the oil.
Swordfish you make it too easy.
Tax Reform. You call a new tax and extra redtape ‘tax reform’ I call it a massive new tax.
Deregulation of the Telecommunications sector. Now you accuse me of not understanding economics, but failure I can spot. Doesn’t that make it a case in favor of re-regulation? Or at least a different regulation that works a bit from time to time? In the same bucket privatisation of Telstra big win that for the country. Can you spell broadband?
Waterfront reform. See workchoices.
Workchoices. This is just distorting the market to ensure that pay and conditions for workers are reduced and corporate profits substituted for what would otherwise have been pay for ordinary Australians to pay the massive mortgages and fruit and vege bills. Again as someone you’ve abused as an economic illiterate can you explain where this is good? Its only redeeming feature seems to be the promise it holds out of delivering a labor landslide in November.
The the biggest taxing government in history (that is by any economic measure, including when the GST is excluded isn’t it sweetie?) should be able to pour a little into needed infrastructure. But it has been a bit election focused and driven hasn’t it? No comprehensive plan for the future there. Just a very small bandaid on the edge of the gulf that is vertical fiscal imbalance.
I got to free trade agreement with the US, and unless you hate Australia or the current Government there is no way a sane person would put this in a list of achievements …. my eyes are watering I can’t go on, I’m not sure whether I should be laughing or crying … we paid for an agreement that has done us damage with going to a war that has cost us millions and made us less safe. Howard’s legacy: Chapter One the Free Trade Agreement and Invasion of Iraq.
If there are actually going to be huge swings in SAFE government seats, then that would signify a major realignment of party support. If Rudd is to win then I guess he will do so by appealing equally to outer suburban families worried about WorkChoices, housing affordability, and basic living expenses, but also inner city voters who are concerned about environmental issues (global warming, water scarcity) and other issues like our involvement in Iraq. Huge swings will only be created by extremly broad support that crosses previous demographic divides.
[Swordfish: Well then Noocat, what impact will a 20-30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 have on jobs?]
Again more complete rubbish. Why do you rabid conservatives love spreading completely false lies and propaganda. Are you part of a tax payer funded government dirt unit?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/labors-plan-is-backed-by-good-economics/2007/06/04/1180809423400.html
[‘Labor is committed to cutting Australia’s greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent by 2050, a position that has strong economic and scientific credentials. (It is not ALP policy to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 — that is a furphy made up by the Prime Minister.)
In its submission to the Prime Minister’s Emissions Trading Task Group, the CSIRO suggested that to avoid more than two degrees warming, developed countries such as Australia would need to reduce their emissions by between 60 and 90 per cent by 2050.’]
Asanaque:
Rubbish, eh? Widen your narrow visors and take a look at the shape of the global economy in the late 1970s / early 1980s.
Also add the “wages explosion” factor into your equation (courtesy of the labour movement). Those sainted, lovely unionists conspired with their political pals in the opposition to drive the economy into the gutter to propel the ALP to victory in 83. Luckily the corrupt and thugish unions have basically been neutered under this government so we can be pretty sure that’ll never happen again.
I also recommend you take a look at the absolute economic disaster the incompetent Whitlam government left the nation in by 1975 and the next 7/8 years were very rosy in comparison.
A-C
[Rubbish, eh? Widen your narrow visors and take a look at the shape of the global economy in the late 1970s / early 1980s. ]
How convenient.
Its all the global economy’s fault when the Liberals are in power, yet its Labor incompetency when Labor is in power?
And the Liberals scare tactics on unions is shown to be the complete fabrication it is, in the post below.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/scare_tactics_ignore_history/
[Also add the “wages explosion†factor into your equation (courtesy of the labour movement).]
They only way our economic got out of the boom bust cycle of stag-flation was because of The Accords with the ACTU. Only a Labor government could negotiate with the unions to ensure that any wage increases were tied to productivity increases.
Don’t you dare prognosticate about regional services Jasmine. Labor’s policy is to steal from the dedicated communications fund for regional services to build a network for the trendies in the inner city which can be built and funded by a private sector consortium. Moreover, let’s not forget which government closed the analogue phone network…besides, as I said in an earlier post, the real cost of mobile phones and local calls has fallen in real terms. What was that you were saying about household bills?
As for waterfront reform, I’m amazed you have the audacity to claim this was a negative. Australian ports are now among the most efficient in the world, but I suppose you’d prefer to restore the old gravy train for the militants in the MUA, despite the fact that our export capacity would decrease.
Again on WorkChoices all you can do is make sweeping generalisations without substantiation. Why do you hate people getting jobs? Why do you romanticise the theft of having people spending their days feeding off a massive welfare state?
Simon Howson, if you support wages being linked to productivity, then I assume you embrace AWAs.
Thanks, Aristotle, I have sent George Megalogenis an email accordingly.
[Swordfish: Don’t you dare prognosticate about regional services Jasmine. Labor’s policy is to steal from the dedicated communications fund for regional services to build a network for the trendies in the inner city which can be built and funded by a private sector consortium. ]
More absolute blatant lies and propaganda. You must be a dirt unit plant.
Labor is taking money from the Future Fund. From the Telstra shares in the Future Fund. And its going to invest in a broadband that will cover 98% of the country by means of a PPP.
You know something that the Howard government has ignored since 1996?
Meanwhile, Labor is forced to do so via PPP, due to the Howard government’s massively flawed plan to sell Telstra which has resulted in the current farcical situation where Telstra and the ACCC are arguing to the High Court. Now if only they had separated wholesale and retail.
That would have required foresight and listening to the critics.
Neither of which the Howard government is any good at until too late and at election time.
[Simon Howson, if you support wages being linked to productivity, then I assume you embrace AWAs.]
Your assumption that AWAs promote productivity is absurd. Stripping conditions from workers will make them less happy with their jobs, which will make them less efficient and reliable, and more likely to leave for a job with better wages and conditions.
Asanaque, the global economy was in reasonably good shape during the early 1970s (Whitlam’s era)
It was also in good shape throughout most of the 1980s. Australia’s economy recovery during the Keating era was very rocky and sluggish thanks to his inept and failed leadership and not to mention the 96$ billion worth of government debt as well as atrociously high interest rates.
Howard’s era:
In contrast, Australia weathered the 98′ Asian economic meltdown, 9/11 (Bush did it!), oil price hikes and has had the longest growth spurt in our nation’s history.
Swordfish,
You are wrong. Wayne Swan has YET to release Labor’s tax policy. Back in May, he said that there will be one prior to the election:
http://www.swanmp.org/swanmp/2007/05/transcript_econ_1.html
So, you will have to wait until it is released and THEN criticise it. Not before.
By the way, there is no reason for Labor to raise taxes. Howard is already raking it in.
Regarding Labor’s IR policies, I don’t see how they will get rid of a “massive amount of full-time jobs”. You will need to explain this one. Think back about two years ago to the previous IR system, pre-WorkChoices – that should give you a start.
“I suppose you can’t cite a source for your final claim, but I guess it’s all part of the wider Bush and the Jews conspiracy to steal the oil.”
My final “claim” was about the loss or working conditions and take-home pay that has occurred for many people since the start of WorkChoices. I’m not sure what that has to do with Jews, Bush, oil, or any conspiracies. It’s just a plain fact, something that Howard has been trying desperately to hide.
[A-C -not to mention the 96$ billion worth of government debt as well as atrociously high interest rates.]
I can’t speak for the early 70’s, and it seems too far back now to be even worth mentioning given its a completely new Labor lineup.
However, its easy to repay $96 billion of debt when you sell off so many assets. Debt is also not necessarily bad as long as its serviceable.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/smoke-and-mirrors-hide-funding-facts/2007/05/16/1178995233015.html
I’ll say mining boom, now you can give me some concrete examples of the exact Howard policies that has led to our prosperity.
“You’re just a couple of gutless individuals and it’s about time you started acting like decent Australians, and men if you are men, and stop this nonsensical disruption and destabilising of the coalition.”
Great statement about Howard government MP’s from one of their own. Confirms what a lot of us already thought about many of Howards MP’s really…
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22094212-421,00.html
Tom
Tom
“they have eaten their own (qld,vic,nsw,sa) now they will eat each other”
teheehee
This is not a site for policy debate.
Agreed with Adam.
Is anyone in a position to comment on the validity of the methodology of the calculations used by Possum Pollytics in his latest post on the implications of recent Newspoll data – perhaps also to comment on the article by Peter Hartcher’s recent article on the electorats that Kevin Rudd has been visiting in the past week?
That’s right, Adam, it’s a site for Liberal Party plants. They’re easy to ID, as soon as you read a phrase that you’ve heard on tv, you’ve spotted one!
Interesting how “Labor’s $96 billion debt” got another run today…
Liberal Party plants should be watered, not argued with. Arguing with plants is a sure sign of madness.
Ford Geelong to close, 600 jobs to go – very bad news for Stewart McArthur one would think.
Well here’s a message for the plants to take back to the boss. And they might like to debrief Tony Abbott while they’re at it.
The polls aren’t shifting in any meaningful way because enough people have had enough. No matter what Rudd does wrong. No matter what Howard does right.
I should bite my tongue, but the privatisation of Telstra, including some fault in the labor policy that preceded the Govt’s vandalism, doesn’t just hurt the regional parts of the country, it is bad for the whole country to have a large effective monopoly in a badly regulated market.
I did not dare pick any distinction between regional and non-regional Australia, but still the ‘don’t you dare’ posturing of your reading of my post lacks coherent argument indicating I could have done this without fear of the retort.
As for the phony unnecessary war on the ordinary Australians because their employers didn’t like paying them, I can’t believe you are supporting the disgusting conduct of the Government and the employer, and the driving down of wages using mercenaries and dogs. If Australia returns Howard with the Senate they are entitled to expect this kind of treatment clearly based on your support for it, and Howard’s kind of the unsubstantiated ends justify the means no matter how immoral or unlawful type argument.
Workchoices … you want substantiation … well isn’t most of the substantiation hidden by the dishonest Government, but we do know that in this marvellous boom, in this time where things are as good as they have ever been, that retail workers under workchoices suffered reduced salary. That is fairly substantial substantiation.
What hasn’t been established is the correlation with increased employment, nor establishing that the exploitation combined with slightly increased employment (assuming for a moment there is a correlation) is better of for the community as a whole. Lots of motherhood statements and assertions, no evidence. And as for productivity you have got to be joking.
That you call a safety net so that the very worst off Australians don’t get left behind in the boom of wealth we have THEFT I think says quite a lot about you and the Howard Government and very little about Australia.
(oops, pressed the wrong key)
They want Rudd to be good enough. By definition, he will be.
That’s true Adam and Amber. I did suspect that Swordfish was a Liberal Party plant, or mole, after I read his/her remaining posts. But it is difficult to ignore the spin and lies being offered as fact. There are probably a lot of lurkers here who will come away highly misinformed.
I promise no more arguments. My apologies.
For those who have the courage of their convictions and are prepared to wager a few dollars, you can now bet on individual seats on Sportingbet.
There are some bets where you can’t lose. I just bet on Richmond my local electorate with excellent odds in my favour. It’d be worth selling BHP shares for some of these bets! Not that I have any.
Oh and yes of course some backbenchers are starting to grumble. Many of them are about to lose their seats. There will be a swing to Labor regardless of whether JWH stays or hands over to Costello or another.
A number of backbenchers think they will be better off with a change and they are almost certainly right. They had better raise their voices a bit louder. Other more timid ones may follow. The move could be on.
Have you got a hat you can eat Richard
Doug, I tried to work my way through the possums methodology and got a bit lost. It is based on safe seat polling which indicates huge swings to the ALP in safe coalitions seats but only 4 – 5% in safe ALP seats. Firstly, I can’t believe some of his speculation, a possible ALP win in Bradfield? Secondly, why would there be a swing disparity in safe liberal seats compared to safe ALP seats, after all it was the latter that swung heavily to JoHo last time? Thirdly, if IR is such a big issue, presumably safe outer suburban ALP seats will be more affected than safe Lib seats. Fourthly, how sound is the sample in the Newspoll safe seat polling – it is not as though they are targetting particular seats.
A lot of his speculation indicates swings of 18 – 22%, yes they may be a swing on, but we are not in a time of political meltdown.
Adam, this is where you are the expert. There have been swings of 15 – 16% in general elections at times – Riverina 1969 comes to mind, but have there been many swings of this proportion in state or federal elections in recent times? By elections don’t count, and Oxley 1996 was a special case.
Blackburnpseph,
Have a look at Wide Bay and Fairfax in 1998 (although that’s probably votes from One Nation having an affect on the TPP). Also possibly Maranoa in 1998.
I think you’d have to go back to 1975 to find swings that big – 18% in Bass, 15% in Franklin. But even then Labor didn’t lose seats of the degree of safeness Possum’s figures suggest. If such swings as he suggests were to occur, it would be the biggest wipeout since 1931, when Labor won only 14 seats.
In 1996 the biggest swings apart from Oxley were: Fisher 14.0%, Fadden 12.5%, Macarthur 12.0%, Lindsay 11.9%, Kennedy 11.6%, Hughes 11.4%, Lyne 11.1%, Rankin 11.1%, Wide Bay 10.3%, Hinkler 10.2%, Greenway 10.1%, Longman 10.0%.
Interesting that all those seats are in regional or outer suburban NSW and Qld. It suggests that what we are now seeing is the return to Labor of the roughly 10% of the electorate that defected to the Coalition in 1996 in those two states – Howard’s battlers becoming Rudd’s returners.