The Australian reports tomorrow’s Newspoll will have Labor’s two-party lead at a relatively modest 57-43. However, Liberal hopes of positive headlines have been dashed by a preferred prime minister rating showing Brendan Nelson back in single figures at 9 per cent, compared with 72 per cent for Kevin Rudd.
UPDATE: Graphic here.
169 comments on “Newspoll: 57-43”
From some research on the weekend, I found some more interesting data to reflect on the Howard years with. Its about growth. Australia’s GDP grew at about 3.8% per annum between 1993 and 2006. Thats pretty good – 10th out of 37 OECD countries, with China leading the way. But if you look at GDP per capita ours is now about $35500, still mid-field after a decade of above average growth. Its because our population was also growing faster than the OECD average. When you look at GDP growth per capita, we are only around 2%, pretty much the OECD average. So we are not growing in cleverness or productivity any faster than average. We are just importing lots of people to fill low skill jobs.
Socrates (146) I am amused by your BS meter. Probably because quite often (but not always) I have a STL (sh*t toleration level) meter operating when I read some of the comments on PB threads. Generally my STL meter is set at a fairly high level.
Have you seen this poll William?
There’s a nice link to mortgages in that article – will those people vote Liberal while they’re in those mortgages?
It goes some way to explaining the crud coming out of Allbull’s mouth; he’s trying anything he can to stop the mega-mortgage-conned from becoming permanently non-liberal. Without getting too negative, that group fell for the Liberal policies last time; I guess Allbull is hoping they will again.
There’s going to be an awful lot of unhappy voters, one way or the other.
It seems to me there are actually two groups of voters that the Liberrals stand to lose for a long time. One group is, as you say, those in huge mortgages who were led to believe the boom would never bust.
The second group is less vocal but just as annoyed (at least the ones I work with). It is Generation Y (Generation X already hates all politicians). These are the young 20 to 30 year olds that are now priced out of the housing market by the boom. Howards words that he “didn’t hear anyone complaining about the rising value of their homes” are infuriating to this group. They are also one of the biggest inflation risks – because they must feel they need to increase their wage to have any chance to buy a home.
RACQ 1 Turnbull 0
Turnbul’s car price claim has just been questioned by a long time car industry watcher. RACQ External Affairs General Manager Gary Fites speculated that the change to luxury car tax might lower prices. He said that, given the strong dollar, some importers would probably adjust their car specifications and margings to stay just under the limit. See:
Fites has worked for RACQ for over a decade and knows the industry very well.
In a way, Nelson can take comfort from Turnbull’s performance over this. It shows he is not the worst leadership candidate in the Liberal Party.
Socrates @ 156,
And, with all due respect to our friend at RACQ, pigs might fly.
Whinging about car prices goes straight over my head, but the relative pricing of items between Australia and the US, when our dollar is approaching parity, shows up pretty clearly some of the structural problems we’ve got.
The price of electronic goods here is exorbitant relative to the US, and with very little reason.
I do think there will be some crafty dealing with car specifications that will cause some market shifts around the luxury tax limit. I would rather see a european taxation system on vehicles however, where taxation is calculated on engine capacity – it has a very similar effect with far more environmental benefit. If carried across the commercial vehicle fleet it might even trigger some serious thinking of freight in this country.
157 Dyno – that’s it? No argument suggesting why he is wrong?
Well, putting taxes up rarely reduces the price of stuff, does it?
What is more likely is that exhcnage rates are making imported vehicles cheaper, so the govt can put the tax up without it really being felt in anyone’s pocket. A neat, if somewhat phony, piece of politics, that doesn’t hurt anyone much, if at all.
But a tax increase making the price go down? Sorry but I don’t think too many people are going to believe that!
If you are familiar with the economic literature about price stickyness and price substitution, there are many examples where exactly that can happen, irrespective of exchange rate movements. The opposite can also happen. Basically, producers sell for the price that the market will bear, sometimes absorbing cost increases, other times increasing prices when there is no cost increase. So I certainly don’t suggest tax increases reduce prices generally. That isn’t what I (or Fites) said either. It depends on the market. In this case, it might well mean a price fall for SOME cars.
The point is not that either an overall car price rise or fall will necessarily be the outcome in this instance. The point is that Turnbull, for all his business reputation, has made a statement that is obviously false – that ALL car prices will rise from a tax increase on one sector of the car market. He really demonstrated a sound bite level of knowledge of economics when it comes to public policy. Swan must be laughing.
Thanks Dyno – I don’t think he is suggesting all prices will go down. (“I wouldn’t be surprised if we see in fact some tuning down of some prices just to make sure that some do come in under that limit.”)
He is right to suggest it is a very competitive market out there particularly if people shy away because of the tax increase and then we may see “bargains” being offerred. I’ve seen that happen plenty of times with many items. If they are not selling then something has to be done.
GB @ 162,
Agree with that, I don’t think Fites was saying all car prices would go down as a result of this tax increase. They might go down for other reasons, though.
(89) Just me,
Cosgrove should be reminded that our ‘great leader’, JWH, was so in touch with the troops he adored that he ‘forgot’ to invite the widow of SGT Andrew Russell, to the wreath-laying ceremony (for her husband) at the AWM in 2003.
car prices are bizarre things. If you delve a little deeper in to it you can find plenty of models being sold in Oz that are loss makers for the major manufacturers, for the sort of reasons that Fites is suggesting.
Here’s a specific example i know about: a manufacturer has designed and constructed a vehicle and tooled up for years of production for what is a very mass market semi-luxury vehicle that is sold world wide. This vehicle has been identified with this brand for decades. Unfortunately the construction cost of this vehicle is higher than the sale price for the vehicle in almost all markets across the globe. Given the design cycle of the vehicle there’s stuff all they can do about it except keep pumping them out to maintain market volume; each one is sold at a substantial loss.
To correct the problem they have to wait for the next design cycle and design the new car to be cheaper to construct. In the mean time they have to keep adding features and rebates to the car they’re already selling at a loss to keep the current production run competitive.
The dealers are still making their profit, as are the shipping companies and various country wholesalers while the parent country cops it hard.
International economics at work.
The “Luxury” car tax change will make little difference, it kicks in at about $60 grand after on road costs. So cars that cost around $63 Grand may be cheaper as the price will drop to avoid the tax.
As my mum said on mums day “If you want a Jag and it is going to cost $3 grand more, you are still going to buy it”. Or who cares if your company lease payment goes up $20 a week?
Good politics though – tax those rich folks. 😛
bingo – big kerfuffle over a small issue
From the ALP perspective any discussion can be written off by its insignificance. Allbull fell for it hook line and sinker.
Maybe he had the fluffly slippers on and knew stuffing another foot in his mouth wasn’t going to hurt that badly?
Agree with 166 and 167 – it’s utterly trivial. Turnbull should have just said so, if he had been smarter.
New federal politics open thread up.
Comments are closed.