The Australian reports that this fortnight’s Newspoll has Labor’s lead at 54-46, down from 55-45 last time. However, Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is up five points to 59 per cent, while Malcolm Turnbull is down one point to 25 per cent. Essential Research has Labor’s lead up from 59-41 to 61-39 in its weekly survey, which is Labor’s second successive two point increase. Also included are questions on leadership approval and attitudes to the financial crisis.
UPDATE: Graphic here. An interesting set of figures: despite going backwards on two-party, Labor’s primary vote is up three points to 44 per cent, the Greens having returned to earth from 13 per cent to 9 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings are well up: satisfaction up nine to 65 per cent and dissatisfaction down six to 26 per cent, his best figures since May and June respectively. He’s also taken a commanding lead over Turnbull as best leader to handle the economy, up nine since September 19-21 to 50 per cent with Turnbull down eight to 35 per cent. Also included are questions on the carbon pollution reduction scheme, which over half now believe should be at least delayed.
No 549
Steve, Wayne Swan has been talking the economy down since he came to office.
Any suggestions for a headline? How about “Turnbull led rush on non-banks” or “Turnbull among first to panic”
Of course not Dario It’s political suicide and not to be talked about before the election, Scrubbed from the talking points.
GP, the Liberals have been talking Wayne Swan down since the day he became treasurer.
In the 1998 election the anti-GST ALP got 50.98% of the tpp (http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/1998/hor/two_party.htm) and so the Howard Government should not have been returned but was because of the single member system and so did not have a democratic mandate to introduce the GST or govern.
GP @ 548.
The Liberals scrapped in 1998 – it was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Australians hated ‘Fightback’ in 1993. And they hated it being introduced (in part) by stealth by Howard in 1998. And they hated it again in 2007.
The only difference between 1998 and 2007 was the amount of seats that Howard had to play with.
The level of distaste for the ideology of the Libs (when they are being true to it) was the same in 1998 as it was in 2007 and it always will be.
Sorry the link did not come through properly.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/1998/hor/two_party.htm
No 556
Rubbish Kit. The reason why Hewson lost in 1993 was because he failed to properly enunciate his policies. He ran a dumb campaign, and he deserved to lose. In 1998, Howard and Costello devoted unbelievable energy to explaining the GST and the reasons for its introduction. And they won.
Because of the anti-democratic single member electoral system!
No mandate!
GP the only reason Howard brought in WorkChoices is because his head swelled, he looked at the figures they were sitting on and the press saying that Labor would need two elections to come back to Government and thought he was unbeatable.
He thought he could pull the wool over our eyes with a huge taxpayer funded advertising campaign and unfortunately for him it didn’t work.
He ran a dumb campaign, and he deserved to lose.
GP, he ran a good campaign but deserved to lose. It was only in the dying days of the campaign the loss became apparent.
No 560
Part of the problem with Workchoices is that it added more regulation than it removed, it was rushed and it was poorly sold.
That said, for all Labor’s bluster over the policy, they’ve only modified it rather than abolish it altogether.
A very interesting article by Alan Ramsey, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 August 2004 on the Rodent performing callisthenics with the truth re: the GST (and other issues besides). A taster:
[Let’s have the honest truth, once and for all
… He issued a four-sentence statement saying, “Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future.
… Howard lied about the GST before the 1996 campaign. He lied about these lies during the 1998 campaign.
…The central truth is, however grave the charge, that John Howard’s prime ministership has been a lie from the outset. ]
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html
No 561
Rubbish steve, he ran a very poor campaign even though the fundamental policy work on which the campaign was based was detailed and sound.
That’s true. It’ll certainly be interesting to see how ‘Forward with Fairness’ looks when it’s introduced.
No 563
Alan Ramsey is an ALP shill. He has no credibility.
William at number 540
Thanks for that. I retract my statement about Buswell being promoted after news of his harassment-type activities had broke. In fact the Liberals chose to keep him as leader in a leadership spill, in full knowledge of his actions.
No 567
Yes but that’s because they did not believe there was anyone else to take over the leadership. It wasn’t until Colin Barnett withdrew his retirement plans after Buswell resigned that there was a clear path forward.
564 GP, nice attempt to rewrite history, there was nothing wrong with Hewson’s campaign but plenty wrong with the policy. The main one being that people wouldn’t buy it.
No 564
Steve, if it was a good campaign he would have won. He didn’t because his campaign failed to explain the biggest tax reform in federal history. Howard and Costello did explain it properly and they won.
Not at all GP, it was the complex policy. Cake and icing etc.
[Alan Ramsey is an ALP shill. He has no credibility.]
Generic Person, you are a Liberal shill, and, given Howard’s cavalier approach to the truth over many years and issues, and your fervent, uncritical support of nearly everything he did, plus your propensity to shoot the messenger, and your defense of the hated SerfChoices, it would appear it is you who has “no credibility”.
Turnbull is Joe Average:
[“That fund … had declined significantly in value and we were advised to dispose of it. I still have investments in a fund that is frozen.
“I’m in the same boat as many people who have got investments in managed funds – a lot of them have had their redemptions frozen.”]
the boat might be the same, but methinks Malcolm isn’t travelling steerage…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/29/2404504.htm
No 571
Steve, you cannot call it a good campaign if he lost. Sorry, but it’s the truth whether you’re talking about Liberal or Labor.
[Yes but that’s because they did not believe there was anyone else to take over the leadership. It wasn’t until Colin Barnett withdrew his retirement plans after Buswell resigned that there was a clear path forward.]
A chair sniffer is the best the WA Liberals could come up with. How fitting.
No 572
Alan Ramsey refuses to accept that when Howard changed his mind on the GST, he took it to an election and won. If he doesn’t have the intellectual honesty to accept that, then he has no credibility.
And as for your adamant hatred of Workchoices, just remember that Julia Gillard has retained most of it including many of the severe restrictions on unions.
No 575
Oz, you can keep talking about Buswell, but the reality is that Barnett formed government after becoming leader a day before the campaign begun. I think that’s more of an indictment on the corrupt incumbent Labor government than the WA Liberals.
You don’t think people have won after running poor campaigns, GP? Or lost despite giving campaigns their all?
So when Howard declared the GST “dead”, sending out pressers saying it would “never ever be part of Liberal Party policy in the future”, what do you take that as having meant?
GP I was merely restating what you said, in a more blunt manner.
GP
Workchoices went too far, Labor has stopped AWAs, re-instated unfair dismissal, these are huge differences. Workchoices lite is crud.
But Workchoices and the casualisation of many jobs will help Labor. The official statistics on unemployment will look good for at least another year. People will be under-employed but this will not show in official figures.
If you look at the real cost of intrducing WC it was over $500 million (check the budget papers).
Half a billion bucks wasted for what? 🙁
No 579
He changed his mind. Now you can call that lying, but I believe it’s not a lie. He took it to an election which is about as honest as you can be about it.
GP, that is indeed good news that Liberals are happy to change their minds. Now if you can only convince them that there is a Global Credit Crisis and can they please stop talking down the Australian economy at every opportunity, the country would thank you for it.
GP, what do you take his statements as having meant?
GP, I don’t agree with anything you’ve said in the last few pages and agree with the general contention that you are an official Liberal Party shill.
Having got that off my chest, I do agree with you on the following matters:
1. Blu Ray (and the now defunct HD-DVD) are superb media.
2. There is no discernable difference between 1080p and 1080i
3. Brando in Mutiny On The Bounty gave one of the classic (if high camp) performances of all time, and it looks fabulous in high-definition.
You need a bigger screen than even a 60″ plasma or LCD to truly appreciate 1920 x 1080 high definition images. I use a projection system with an anamorphic lens for ‘scope presentations, on a 12 foot wide (by 53 inch high) screen. Only then do you really appreciate hi-def. As the screen gets larger you just see more detail. Fine films transcend politics, I am forced to admit.
No 584
At the time he did not intend for the GST to form part of the Liberal platform. He has since changed his mind and he did the right thing and took it to an election. I can’t believe you’re still going on about it.
P.S.
4. Playstation-3 is the way to go with Blu-Ray.
No 587
Yep agree with all your film comments. I picked up a PS3 last Christmas. A wonderful machine and great value.
No 583
The Opposition is not talking down the economy.
I have no problems with a GST per se. It was supported by Keating as “option c” and really should have been Labor policy. What I have a big problem with is the fact that people were inadequately compensated for its introduction and that Rat Man ripped off the States. Plus the Democrats turned it into a dogs breakfast.
[If you look at the real cost of intrducing WC it was over $500 million (check the budget papers).
Half a billion bucks wasted for what?]
Think of the stakes the Liberals were playing for. Its aim was clearly to hurt their political opponents. If they had gotten away with SerfChoices, the Labor Party would inevitably have been hurt, possibly slowly wiped out altogether.
Andrew Charlton, The Age, 30 September 2007
[You won’t hear Howard admit this, but one of his key motivations for the WorkChoices reforms is the tangible prospect that the new rules will hurt his Labor opponents by crippling their financial backers in the union movement.]
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/pm-of-ulterior-motives/2007/09/29/1190486626917.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 2007:
[The former federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, told the Herald earlier this year he feared for Labor’s future if it lost the next election because the new workplace laws would destroy the ALP’s union base.]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/union-decline-puts-heat-on-labor/2007/04/03/1175366240481.html
“The Opposition is not talking down the economy.”
Did they announce a policy change this afternoon?
[Democrats senator Andrew Murray … point out the obvious: “There is a political motive in play … Given that unions are one of the ALP’s largest donors, reduction in union membership will impact financially on the ALP.”]
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/pm-of-ulterior-motives/2007/09/29/1190486626917.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
The right-wing rodent, proudly self-declared as “the most conservative leader the Liberals ever had”, using the legislative powers of the federal parliament, to seek to eliminate the major rival to Liberal political hegemony.
A one (major) party state. I believe that was the rodent’s goal.
[Leadership changes can be a circuit breaker, but the only circuit Turnbull has broken was the long term polling trend that was running slowly back towards the Coalition.
Nice work Malcolm!]
Nice work Possum. 🙂
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/10/29/pollytrack-october/#more-2532
Not the way that I read the transcript.
[Then it turned out that far from working in the closest possible contact with the Reserve bank, he hadn’t spoken to the Reserve Bank directly himself at all. He had, according to what he said in parliament, a one line exchange with the Secretary of the Treasury to confirm that the Reserve Bank supported it or endorsed it, whatever the language was that Dr Henry used. You know I have to say to you, when you make a decision as momentous as this, which deals with banking and deals with the markets, the idea that the Prime Minister and his Ministers would not have worked through this for hours with the Reserve Bank Governor and the senior officials at the Reserve Bank is hard to believe. Can any one of you imagine if you were in Mr Rudd’s position you would not have got the Reserve Bank in and worked through this, every pro and con, worked through it up hill and down dale?]
http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=1937
Can someone remind me again of exactly how the Opposition is talking down the economy?
Does Malcolm Turnbull have a conflict of interest in seeking a Treasury briefing on “investment funds” ?
He managed to withdraw his money before funds were frozen, was this before the 12th Oct? How long does it take for the pecuniary interest register to report changes?
Will the 60,000 people affected be happy they did not have the quality advice that Turnbull seems to have?
Not saying Turnbull has done anything wrong – but how can he pretend to be the champion of people who have had their nest egg frozen when he knew to get his funds out just in time?
Well he couldn’t really tell the public to do the same could he?
Why?