Galaxy: 51-49 to federal Labor in Queensland

Brisbane’s Courier-Mail today carries a Galaxy poll of 800 Queensland voters showing Labor leading 51-49 on two-party preferred, compared with 50.4-49.6 at the November 2007 election. Both parties are down on the primary vote – Labor from 42.9 per cent to 41 per cent and the Coalition from 44.5 per cent to 44 per cent – while the Greens are up from 5.6 per cent to 9 per cent. Also included are questions on preferred leader (Kevin Rudd 57 per cent, Malcolm Turnbull 34 per cent) and economic management.

The first Essential Research poll conducted entirely on Malcolm Turnbull’s watch should be through either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

UPDATE: No bounce for Turnbull from Essential Research, whose two-week rolling average has moved a point in Labor’s favour to the Nelson-era level of 58-42. Also featured are leadership approval ratings and questions on preferred Treasurer (Swan 34 per cent, Bishop 19 per cent), Kevin Rudd’s overseas travel (51 per cent believe he should have gone to the US, 30 per cent say he shouldn’t) and the value of a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

442 comments on “Galaxy: 51-49 to federal Labor in Queensland”

Comments Page 9 of 9
1 8 9
  1. GP

    Agree with your latter point there , perhaps as policy compromise , seeing share of profit cake over last decade as not been affected but actualy increased there may be room for a little more % contribution from that sector AND also policy consideration of utilising a future tax cut as employee supa contribution (maybe logisticaly backdooring via Co tax’s reduction offset)

  2. No 401

    Well, ultimately, my political philosophy entails the concept of individual responsibility. With that in mind, it makes sense for employees to be more responsible for their own retirement savings. Keating makes the point that 15% is the ideal percentage of income for the superannuation policy to work effectively. I see no reason why that additional 6% cannot come from the employee.

  3. well whilst my politcal philosophy varys & thats what demacracy involves , th remaining 6% becomes a by product of both econamy as whole in future , ‘profit cake’ , potential future tax cuts & Governemtn outlays prioritiees , and see room having a combination

  4. I have a fiscal philosophical stand I would like the chance to develop and propound.

    It is based on the principal of shared risk and equal opportunity.

    Simply stated, it takes into account the losses of the Mum and Dad speculators and investors who have suffered so horribly in the stock market crash through no fault of their own, and on following Government recomendations over the past 12 years.

    It also takes into account the undeserved profits of the fiscal hoarders, who, without regard for the need to invest seed and venture capital into speculative investments in order to advance the cause of capitalism, have squirrelled their money into cash, interest bearing deposits, thus making huge profits without taking risks in the National interest.

    My proposal is a national equalisation scheme, whereby the profits of the hoarders are used to offset the losses of the speculators, thus enabling both to survive the current crisis, and live to speculate another day when times improve.

    I know it requires some work, and is certainly not a prospect that the Labor party is likely to entertain, but it would save a lot of financial skins on the conservative side of politics, and must therefore be worthy of serious consideration.

    What do you think, GP?

  5. [It also takes into account the undeserved profits of the fiscal hoarders]

    Hoarding = saving, meaning your argument is somewhat bizarrely in favour of irresponsible. In any event I disagree that earning money from low-risk cash investments is “undeserved”. Whatever an individual chooses to do with their money is not for anyone else to comment on and nor should it be the domain of governments.

    The only time “hoarding” could be construed as wrong is when a government is involved in the practise – when it should be returning money to taxpayers.

    [My proposal is a national equalisation scheme, whereby the profits of the hoarders are used to offset the losses of the speculators]

    All that does is ensure that speculators are never responsible for their irresponsible management and investments. What you are suggesting is morally reprehensible and is principally why I disagree with the bail out of the financial system in the United States.

    Furthermore, your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you argue that speculators advance the cause of capitalism, yet on the other you propose to socialise their losses by stealing the savings of responsible investors (or “fiscal hoarders” in your words), thereby distorting capitalist markets. You cannot absolve markets from risk.

    [What do you think, GP?]

    I totally object.

  6. First sentence should read:

    Hoarding = saving, meaning your argument is somewhat bizarrely in favour of irresponsible borrowing.

  7. GP

    Your argument that business pays super for their employees is wrong. Super was introduced in to replace pay rises. So instead of the money that employers would have paid anyway going into the pockets of workers it went into super.

    This is the dishonesty of the idea that real wages did not rise under Keating.

  8. Seems that this is the current generic thread at the moment, apologize William if this isn’t in the right place …. Brits have leaked a memo saying our collective campaign in Afghanistan is DOA …….


    The official version of the US-led campaign in Afghanistan received a blow today with a leaked report that the British Ambassador in Kabul believes that US strategy is wrong and the war is as good as lost.

    The potentially explosive views were published by Le Canard Enchaîné, a respected French weekly, which said that they were direct quotations from a diplomatic cable written by François Fitou, the French Deputy Ambassador in Kabul.

    Mr Fitou reported to President Sarkozy’s office and his own Foreign Ministry that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British Ambassador, believed that “American strategy is destined to fail” in Afghanistan, according to the newspaper.

    It published a reproduction of what it said was the coded cable, in which the French diplomat summarised the ambassador’s main points from a September 2 meeting.

    COMMENTARY: a straight-talking diplomat
    Britain to stay in Afghanistan for ‘decades’
    “The current situation is bad. The security situation is getting worse. So is corruption and the Government has lost all trust. Our public statements should not delude us over the fact that the insurrection, while incapable of winning a military victory, nevertheless has the capacity to make life increasingly difficult, including in the capital.

    “The presence — especially the military presence — of the coalition is part of the problem, not the solution. The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them. In doing so, they are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis (which, moreover, will probably be dramatic).”


  9. I am getting mightily cheesed off with reading statements like this:

    Mr Rees said his Government would do whatever was needed to retain its triple-A credit rating from Standard & Poors and Moody’s,

    S&P and Moodys are the clowns that rated the sub-prime mortgages triple-A. The chances of an Australian state going belly-up are minuscule, yet apparently they are as risky a proposition as parcels of dodgy loans cooked up by shysters. LOL.

    The whole world is now paying for their incompetence. Or was it corruption?

    Instead of governments continuing to pay these idiots to rate them – and yes, the rated pay, as in hello!: conflict-of-interest – they should be holding them to account for their part in the deceptions at the root of this disaster!

  10. S&P haven’t received a lot of curry so far in this scandal, but it’s bubbling along on the back burner.

    I’d go further. After Howard privatised the national debt by over-taxation – clearing government debt at the expense of private debt – it was an easy sledge for him to bash state governments if they couldn’t maintain surpluses. As a result we got the whole PPP mess we’re in today, where essential government and even some social services (e.g. Centrelink affiliates) turn what should be publicly funded utilities into profit-making operations. We, the mugs, always pay.

    God knows, the old model had its faults, but at least we got some things built which would never have gotten up if they had to make a profit.

    S&P and the other ratings agencies have a lot to answer for. They’re essentially running protection rackets. With political journalism ready to pounce on the slightest gaffe or seeming weakness, the whole concept of “the public good” seems to have disappeared, replaced by, as Mayo puts it, shysters in sharp suits, spruiking doom and gloom if governments don’t pay up.

    “Nice little state you got here… pity if something was to ‘happen’ to it, eh, Mr. Premier?”

  11. [When an ease in support is about three percent higher than at the last election and would give Labor what, 10 – 20 more seats, I dream of suffering such a battering in the polls.]

    When you consider that this poll has actually moved 1 point to Labor since the last one, the headline becomes even more ridiculous. Protecting Turnbull perhaps?

  12. I think Turnbull may need some protecting as even his former colleagues are having a go at him now. Yesterday nit was the ANZ Bank.

    [MALCOLM TURNBULL has been set upon by his old friends in the banking sector for saying the banks were rolling in money and could well afford to pass on in full any rate cut the Reserve Bank of Australia grants next week.

    The Opposition Leader’s comments were aimed at the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, for saying in recent days the global financial crisis meant banks may not be able to pass on in full any rate cut.

    But the Australian Banking Association accused the former merchant banker of failing to understand how banks were funded while the Government accused him of hypocrisy.]

  13. Wayne Swan just keeps on growing in stature as Treasurer and the Opposition just keep floundering.

    If Turnbull & Co keep this sort of thing up, then I can’t see the Polls changing much at all leading up to the next election.

  14. 416 – unfortunately the MSM is not reporting this criticism of Turnbull as widely as Turnbull’s crtiticism of the government in this matter. One has to ask why.

  15. [“Banks are free to price their products as they wish,” Mr Turnbull wrote. “After all, they are in the business of making profits and, all things being equal, they will charge as much for every product they have on offer as the market will allow them.”]

    Turnbull continues to contradict himself, this is becoming a habit.

  16. This here is a pretty lame attempt at critisising Wayne Swan’s $4 billion intervention into the mortgage market by one of the LNP’s attack dogs. Rudd should get rid of him and the rest of the Coalition appointees who are quietly undermining the Government.

    [THE head of the Government’s Fair Pay Commission, and an architect of the country’s system of financial regulation, has attacked Wayne Swan’s $4 billion intervention into the mortgage market, saying at best it will amount to little, and at worst sinks the Government into a dying industry.]

    When you read the critisism and Swan’s response, you can see just how feeble and uninformed/misleading the critique is.

  17. One wonders why the head of the Fair Pay Commission, a government instrumentality, thinks it is role to offer a critique of government policy in an area which has nothing to do with his responsibilities. If he wants to be a politician I’ll send him a nomination form. Otherwise he should mind his own (very considerable) business.

  18. [unfortunately the MSM is not reporting this criticism of Turnbull as widely as Turnbull’s crtiticism of the government in this matter. One has to ask why.]

    I think the answer is pretty obvious given the MSM fanfare he has received since getting the leadership

  19. Turnbull did get a bit of a roast on the ABC this morning, but I guess that doesn’t count as “MSM”. In any case, being criticised by the banks just now can be read two ways. It’s not as if the banks are exactly pillars of wisdom, and they will attack anyone who threatens their right to charge what they want.

  20. The Coalition’s “economic credibility” is going to keep going backwards if this sort of thing keeps up.

    Australia’s “greatest ever Treasurer” is out and about giving economic advice to Kevin Rudd. I thought Costello’s economic management was part of the reason we are in the difficulties Rudd & Swan are now dealing with.

    [“Kevin Rudd ought to do what is required in the situation which is to call the banks in to make sure that the Australian public gets some relief out of any rate cut,” Mr Costello said while appearing on the Nine Network’s Mornings with Kerri-Anne Kennerley program.

    Mr Costello said he regularly called the banks in for discussions when he was treasurer.

    “They have already allowed the banks to increase their margin by half a per cent. The banks are now charging an additional half a per cent over and above the Reserve Bank rate.”],25197,24434972-5013871,00.html

  21. Terry McCrann is into Turnbull too.

    [IT probably isn’t a good idea for the Opposition Leader to implicitly call Glenn Stevens and the staff of the Reserve Bank a bunch of idiots.

    And further, to do so on the basis that he, Malcolm Turnbull, either didn’t bother to listen to what the RBA governor was saying about interest rates this year.

    Or more embarrassingly, that he, Malcolm Turnbull, didn’t understand what he was saying. ]

    [The danger is more subtle, but still significant and potentially far more dangerous. That you establish the ‘principle’ that banks can be ‘heavied’ to behave irrationally on behalf of some ‘good’ purpose.

    What next? We ‘persuade’ banks to make home loans to people who are out of work or can’t afford them, because it’s a ‘good thing’ to ‘help’ people get a home?

    Oh wait, that’s exactly what created the mess in the US. The way Fannie and Freddie were ‘encouraged’ to make loans to NINJAs: people with No Income No Job or Assets. ],21985,24433272-36281,00.html

  22. Chris Joye and Joshua Gans show Harper’s critique up for the arrant, partisan nonsense that it is.

    Keep non-bank lenders afloat

    [In between, the idea was backed by industry groups, smaller banks, building societies and non-bank lenders. It was also supported by the 2020 Summit and a Senate select committee on housing affordability.

    But there were also many critics, including the leading banks, the Reserve Bank and the Treasury. The Treasury at least appears to have changed its tune. And judging by the Opposition’s comments, the proposal has bipartisan support.

    Our idea was simple. We argued that when critical economic markets fail because of the absence of the public goods of a minimum-level liquidity (that is, trade) and pricing integrity, governments have a responsibility to temporarily intervene to assist in resuscitating activity and pricing visibility. The Reserve Bank does exactly this in the context of the banking and foreign exchange markets. ],25197,24433179-7583,00.html

  23. You see the bind Turnbull is in. Conservative economic doctrine has ruled the roost since the 1970s, and now it has led us into this enormous mess. Rudd and Swan are loyally following conservative economic doctrine in their responses. Turnbull therefore cannot find a line of attack except from the “left” – populist bank-bashing, reckless spending promises, sabotaging the surplus. But then he is attacked by people like McCrann, who actually believe in conservative economic doctrine.

  24. Turnbull is just following on from Nelson’s lead and going after populist causes. We saw how that worked for Nelson and the same will happen to Turnbull in the long run.

  25. Interesting finish to McCrann’s article.

    [Treasurer Wayne Swan has already taken my advice – actually, he took it before I gave it – to bite his tongue and not attack the banks if they don’t pass on next week’s cut in full.

    He understands it is not a good idea to do anything which might undermine the confidence of the public in our banks.

    Swan’s understanding, really is a good idea at this time. Turnbull would be wise to have it as well.],21985,24433272-36281,00.html

  26. Rudd now owns the middle ground. He is not going to relinquish any of it easily.

    The problem for the Opposition is how to peel off some of that ground and regain credibility’

    At present they can only go to the “left” or move further to the “right”, neither of which would be acceptable to the majority of their supporters and unlikely to gain them any ground with voters in those sectors.

    Besides which, there aren’t too many votes to be had in those sectors anyway.

  27. These are Sky News headlines, no mention oF the critism Allbull is coping from all and sundry (imagine the headlines if it was Swanny getting carpeted)

    “PM has defended not pressuring the banks to pass on full rate cut.”

    “Julie Bishop has called on the banks to pass on full rate cut”

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 9 of 9
1 8 9