After giving Labor its worst poll result of the Rudd government era a month ago, ACNielsen has now returned to the field. This month’s survey has Labor’s lead up from 52-48 to 56-44, from primary votes of 46 per cent for Labor (up five) and 39 per cent for the Coalition (down three). Remarkably, both leaders’ approval ratings are up 10 points, Kevin Rudd’s to a personal best 71 per cent and Malcolm Turnbull’s to 55 per cent. However, Rudd has blown out to big lead on preferred leader, 64 per cent (up eight) to 26 per cent (down seven). Further detail on attitudes to the financial crisis from Michelle Grattan at The Age.
UPDATE: The weekly Essential Research survey has an unusually sharp two-point move in favour of Labor, who now lead 59-41 on two-party preferred. Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister has also blown out to 55-20 from 45-25 a month ago. Interestingly, respondents are more confident the economy can withstand the financial crisis than they were a week ago. Also included are questions on the government stimulus package, the emissions trading scheme and more.
@1500
Nobody.
Liberals, consigned to the political wilderness for a decade.
mexicanbeemer,
There’s an old saying “those that can do, those that can’t teach”. It’s a bit unfair on teachers of course, but journalists are the dregs left over from the teachers. If they understood anything that they were crapping on about they wouldn’t be journos. With a few honourable exceptions they come from the shallow end of the gene pool.
The next poll will be Interesting for there is an argument for both sides to drop support this week, maybe that is what will happen.
The currant debate is evidence as to the limits of the Greens for while we have had this debate the Greens have been missing, don’t they have a spokesman on the Economy.
Next newspoll 55-45
Malcolm will remain leader untl the next election, the next election in the ALP’s to loose.
On the topic of this net-filter, the Libs say they’re going to oppose it which would mean the Gov needs Fielding, Xenophon and The Greens. Fielding is obviously going to support it, Fielding not sure but I can almost guarantee that The Greens will not support the legislation.
Generic Person @ 1475 –
Lefty, before you continue in a maze of partisan rancour, I might remind you that it is thanks to Peter Costello’s regulations that our banking system is a strong as it is and not on the verge of collapse.
You go on as if there weren’t any regulations in place before Costello. Utter nonsense. The only thing he did was consolidate 3 or 4 regulatory agencies into one. Whether that was good or bad is debatable. Regulators tend to end up favouring the regulated and there is an argument that splitting the work across multiple entities can counter that tendency.
bob1234 @ 1485 –
Howard wanted to enact those reforms throughout Fraser’s time as PM, but Fraser wouldn’t let him do it.
So Howard claims, but he has never been able to provide a shred of evidence to back him up despite repeated challenges by Fraser to do so. History shows the Libs are very good at claiming credit for the work of others and faining Alzheimer’s whenever their stuff-ups are mentioned.
bob1234, the worth of your opinion is decidedly lightweight given that you have, among other obscenities, attempted to blame the Liberal Party for the appointment of Wayne Swan.
adub! Agreed but the media companies need to show some responsibility to ensure the people reporting actually know what they are talking about!
Is this the largest thread in PB history?
@1506
Play the ball not the man. But as a card-carrying Liberal, I can’t say it is to be unexpected.
Oh wait, that’s playing the man too!
@1505
Indeed. Howard was always more concerned about his own image than the welfare of Australia.
Well it is the Libera Party fault Wayne Swan is Treasurer!! had they been a better Government they would eb in office and Swan would still be in opposition.
@1511
Rudd stated that no ministerial positions were set and had the potential to change after the election. The Liberals knew Swan wasn’t up to the task prior to winning the election (as did most people), so they decided to be politically selfish rather than do what’s good for the country. They could have targetted any shadow minister, but they chose the weakest one, Swan, in order to get him locked in to the position so they (thought) they might have it easier once in opposition. Rudd still said Swan, and the rest, did not have their positions set in stone, but the Liberals and the media wouldn’t let it go, and it took away valuable oxygen from the rest of the Labor campaign. It was the only pragmatic choice.
Again, Liberals, politically selfish rather than do what’s good for the country. They should have not pushed it, and Tanner would then have been treasurer.
But now we’re all acting as if the treasurer and not treasury does the hard yards. So a bit moot really.
[The currant debate is evidence as to the limits of the Greens for while we have had this debate the Greens have been missing]
Because the Australian media is renowned for allowing The Greens to express their views?
Anyway, I doubt anyone actually cares what they think. Essentially the media releases they’ve put say that this reflects that the current system is fundamentally broken, there needs to be more intervention and to “fix” the issue the Government needs to embark on a new nation-building agenda; “a massive investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy, alternative transport and forest protection, creating high quality, permanent jobs in a thriving, prosperous, green economy.”
They’ve also called for an extra 5% tax on incomes of over $1 million and cap executive salaries. They actually moved to amend the stimulus package to add the caps in. On the topic of the bank guarantee, they support the action taken by the Government so far but if the Government tries to go further they will ask for a senate inquiry.
This is all from media releases so it’s not as though they haven’t been commenting in public as well as moving ammendments and voting on legislation.
GP: enough with the O word, for your own sake.
@1513
9.04 percent of those who formally voted at the 2007 federal election cares what the Greens think.
No 1512
bob1234, what you’re saying is that Rudd doesn’t have a mind of his own and instead beholden to whatever the Liberal party says. I don’t think so. Your argument is utter nonsense.
[Because the Australian media is renowned for allowing The Greens to express their views?]
The less air time the Greens receive, the better.
No 1514
I promise not to say Barack Hussein’s surname. 🙂
[The less air time the Greens receive, the better.]
Because that how liberal democracy works, yes? Or should that be “Liberal” democracy.
@1516
Initially he didn’t fall for it, but after days of Liberal and media hounding and taking away oxygen from the Labor campaign, he had no choice, it was destabilising. He had to be pragmatic and say yes, he will be treasurer after the campaign.
Debate this, rather than simply saying Rudd has a mind of his own and insulting the people who post the comments. Poor form, but a rather accurate reflection upon Liberal supporters.
Is that another ‘play the man’ comment again?
No 1519
Oz, the only reason why the Greens receive so little air time in the first place is because they’re effectively a single issue party and most of their parliamentarians are insufferably incompetent on issues that lie outside the environment sphere. That, and the fact that they’re just Labor Left by another name.
Thanks Oz! I ask that considering most political commentators recognise the Greens are growing their support and in order for them to broaden further they need to be active in debates like the one facing the country at present.
[Dario, it is the height of obscene arrogance to suggest that the Opposition or the media is responsible for the run on non-banks! The Government has just guaranteed $1.2 trillion, effectively saying that bank deposits are now the safest investments in the country, and you expect there to be no media attention?]
It’s just as arrogant to suggest that the problem was caused by the Government when these funds have been freezing before they announced the guarantee, and that an accelerated run on them only began after the faux story in The Australian and Turnbull’s antics in Parliament. Post hoc ergo propter hoc works both ways. Were bank deposits not the safest investments before the gurantee?
A shallow analysis of the issue which completely ignores the fact that my earlier post negates any such argument that The Greens are a “single issue party”.
[Dario, in what parallel universe would you think the Govt would make a decision like this one, and then people would not talk about it?]
‘Talk’ is not what caused the problem… unfounded attacks on public servants and Government decision making did. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
No 1520
bob1234, it is entirely reasonable that Rudd should reveal who his key ministers will be prior to the election. That does not mean he had to retain Swan or Gillard, or that he was forced to do so by the Liberal Party. It was Rudd’s own obfuscation that sucked oxygen out of the campaign.
[It’s Time, it is utter ignorance to refuse to acknowledge the damage that the government guarantee, in its current guise, has caused to non-bank investments.]
I think it’s utter ignorance to believe that non-bank investments were somehow ‘safe’ in the first place during the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, after seeing the AUD nearly halve in 6 months, and the ASX drop 40% in a year. Fantasy land some might say.
People suggesting that high-risk funds should be guaranteed need to come out and draw and line as to where the guarantee stops and present a reasonable case for why. That’s yet to be done by anyone.
If the government decides to guarantee these trusts, another part of the finance sector will demand a guarantee and then another… It’ll turn into deposit guarantee whack-a-mole. Hit one mole and another pops up.
Anyone who thinks the Greens are a single issue party really do not pay attention to them. They fill the social liberal hole that has left the ALP. Try reading social issue debates from Hansard sometime.
“Were bank deposits not the safest investments before the gurantee?”
Exactly. The run on the funds would have happened anyway. Turnbull’s efforts accelerated it and perhaps exacerbated it, but it was inevitable. People aren’t stupid, when they see their nest egg’s in danger they get out if they can.
At least with the bank guarantee we didn’t see a run on the banks which was a frighteningly real possibility two weeks ago. No one has yet proposed a better solution than what the government actually did. It has consequences, but most of them are positive consequences and these far far outweigh the negatives. Any other action would almost certainly have had far more wide ranging and damaging negative effects. You could say it was the worst solution, except for all the other ones. Just a shame the government is so politically inept that they have left room for the Oppositions scare campaign to work up a head of steam.
[People suggesting that high-risk funds should be guaranteed need to come out and draw and line as to where the guarantee stops and present a reasonable case for why. That’s yet to be done by anyone.]
It’s been done by the Government several times I believe
No 1523
No, it is not equally arrogant to claim that the problem was caused by the Government. The fact of the matter is that even if funds were being frozen prior to the guarantee, the Government’s guarantee prompted a more aggressive run on non-banks, by virtue of the fact that a) the guarantee was unlimited and free for over 99% of depositors and; b) the policy was so hastily-contrived that it did not countenance unintended consequences. Alan Kohler has been particularly scathing in his assessment of the policy today on the Business Spectator website.
I also find it quite diabolical that you believe the Opposition or the media is not entitled to criticise the Government after it has announced a $1200 billion guarantee.
1468 – I say you’re exaggerating a point so that means I support what you’re criticising by exaggeration? A great leap in logic that ltep.
No 1527
Did I say that non-bank investments were “safe”, or even “safer”? No, I did not.
No 1533
So why don’t you elucidate your position on the Great Firewall of China: Australian Edition, rather than obfuscating and appearing to defend an abominable policy?
The vast majority will believe the government guarantee was right. Why, because they feel safe. This is not a negative for the government and won’t be in the future no matter how hard some of you wish otherwise.
Well that’s fine if you judge policy based on what ‘the majority’ think or feel.
Dyno, please detail what the government could have done instead. Don’t be like AB on “Insiders” on Sunday who, after saying the government got it wrong, when asked well, what could they have done said “I’m not an economist”.
[No, it is not equally arrogant to claim that the problem was caused by the Government.]
Yes, yes it is
[The fact of the matter is that even if funds were being frozen prior to the guarantee, the Government’s guarantee prompted a more aggressive run on non-banks, by virtue of the fact that a) the guarantee was unlimited and free for over 99%]
No, that is not the ‘fact of the matter’, highlighted by the Lateline transcript I have posted several times. The run began after the Opposition’s antics and media circus.
[when asked well, what could they have done said “I’m not an economist”.]
Just like he isn’t a climatologist. He loves to pretend he’s an expert though…
[Did I say that non-bank investments were “safe”, or even “safer”? No, I did not.]
You don’t actually seem to be saying ‘anything’. The criticism is that what the Government did was “wrong” but no sensible alternative has been offered. Whenever the more obvious ones come to mind and the consequences are pointed out, the critics rush back and hide behind “I never said that!!!11!!1”
ltep, someone suggested people may see this as poor policy over time. I suggested otherwise.
[Just like he isn’t a climatologist. He loves to pretend he’s an expert though…]
Bolt’s blog has one thing going for it – It keeps the lunatics isolated to one particular part of the web.
Fair enough. Somehow I imagine the government’s response will be measured in a year’s time based upon where we are at that time. If lots of people lose their jobs etc. the Government will be judged to have taken the wrong decision, no matter whether it is objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
Ltep, so you’re saying that the global economy will have nothing to do with it? No who’s being arrogant.
Dario,
Any details on when Government’s have guaranteed a market based investment? Not saying you’re wrong, just not aware of any instances. It isn’t something I believe should be supported for all of the issues of moral hazard etc. As Oz so eloquently put it, such a move would lead the government into an never ending chase to plug the next hole in the dyke.
The APRA entity guarantee works because they have a pretty good idea of the risk (not that much), a very well defined scope (APRA regulated in – non APRA regulated out) and it is these entities that are essential to the workings of the real economy. It’s highly unlikely the guarantee will actually be called on, but it did it’s job to put some confidence back in the economy. If the government starts intervening beyond that then they’re fools. The guarantees in at least some of these funds would be called on, leading to all sorts of budget problems and reduction of our national credit worthiness. It would be utter madness and could eventually lead the national government into bankruptcy (see Iceland).
The only thing the government can do to help those in these trusts is to stabilise the economy and restore trust asap. That is the only way these people are going to see their money again. The Opposition and it’s Organ are actively undermining this with their antics. They deserve nothing but contempt.
Alan Kohlers article today is a complete U turn from his view on friday, viz :
“But it would be wrong to blame Alan Greenspan, who let securitisation rip, or the financial planners and investment bankers who sold the securities, although they do have a lot to answer for.
Nor is it reasonable to blame Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan for the confusion around the introduction of the bank deposit guarantee two weeks ago that resulted in a run on mortgage trusts and cash trusts, and the freeze on redemptions.
It would have been better had they more carefully thought through the details of the guarantee before announcing it, but they did not know how soon it would be before a run on smaller deposit-taking institutions started. Time was of the essence.
In a way this situation has been inevitable from the moment the credit crisis began: at its core is the mass migration of capital from higher risk to lower risk, from cold to warmer weather, as it were. Much of time the migration has been at an inexorable walking pace, but occasionally the wildebeest get a fright and stampede.
The decision to guarantee bank deposits, also inevitable, was such a moment.
Mortgage trusts, however, cannot be guaranteed: the money in them is not a deposit backed by regulated capital, but simply a pooled investment.”
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-Greenspan-putz-KPS7Y?OpenDocument
The last sentence is way out of wack with his article today.
1544 – again I disagree. If it was only confined to Australia you would have a point. This is no ordinary slow down. Warnings of world recession and mass job losses across the globe have already been given. People are expecting them.
People aren’t and won’t blame the government. Tell me ltep, do you?
[No, that is not the ‘fact of the matter’, highlighted by the Lateline transcript I have posted several times. The run began after the Opposition’s antics and media circus.]
Rubbish. The run was occurring prior to the guarantee and even more vigorously after the policy was introduced.
Read the following piece by Kohler:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Savings-in-a-stranglehold-KSRL2?OpenDocument&src=sph
The accelerated run has nothing to do with the Opposition and everything to do with a carelessly introduced guarantee.
Wow, that’s some backflip. Combine that with the fact that he admitted he doesn’t have a clue what’s going on, why exactly should we listen to him?
Poor bloke should take a holiday.