The latest federal ACNielsen poll, published in today’s Fairfax broadsheets, has Labor’s two-party lead down to 55-45 from 56-44 last month. Malcolm Turnbull’s approval rating is down four points to 51 per cent and his disapproval is up five to 35 per cent, while Kevin Rudd is more or less steady on 70 per cent and 22 per cent. Also included are questions on the government’s economic management (positive) and expectations about the economy (surprisingly optimistic).
UPDATE: Galaxy has also produced a poll showing Labor leading 55-45. The poll has Labor on 43 per cent of the primary vote, the Coalition on 40 per cent and the Greens on 11 per cent. No mention of a sample size that I can see, but in Galaxy’s case it’s usually about 800 (UPDATE: It’s 1004 for Galaxy, 1400 for ACNielsen).
UPDATE 2: A surprise from Essential Research: they too have Labor’s lead at 55-45 in their weekly survey. This is down from 59-41 last week, and as far as I’m aware is the closest result they have thus far produced. Also featured are questions on which party is deemed best to handle various issues (huge leads to Labor on climate change, environment and industrial relations, narrow ones to Liberal on inflation, national security and economic management) and the car manufacturing industry assistance package (47 per cent approve, 35 per cent disapprove).
Giving it to pensioners killed two birds with one stone. They will spend it quickly, thus boosting the economy. And they will stop complaining for a while and making bad publicity for the stingy ol’ government. No-one has much sympathy for rich people.
bob1234
I’m sure the pensioners are an excellent bet to spend it and they certainly deserve it. I’m more thinking about the families. I would think that people on higher incomes would be more likely to have a discretionary spend.
As much as I don’t understand it, what is my pensioner mother spending hers on?
A plasma widescreen.
😐
bob1234 @ 92
[So why was polling the same, or higher, during the time Rudd Labor was in opposition?]
I said new governments. The Howard Government wasn’t new and had long since past the terminal point, just as the NSW ALP has, and possibly Qld ALP in a year or so. My hypothesis doesn’t really hold up though if you look at the WA Liberal vote in the year or even months prior to the election, where they didn’t regularly poll great numbers. It’ll be interesting to see how long the Liberal polling holds up in WA.
Diogenes are you really wondering why the Government didn’t give money to rich people?
ltep
I know why they don’t but I’m pointing out that it’s a cynical vote buying exercise, rather than a “rescue stimulus package” and should be recognised as such.
bob, mine did exactly the same thing. who says TV is a dying medium?
[If it’s to stimulate the economy, why is it means tested? Don’t couples with children earning over $150,000 (or whatever it is) spend money at Christmas? ]
Well 1. lower income will generally spend more and save less (though admittedly it’s at the margin).
2. The package cost $10b… how much do you think it would have cost if it wasn’t means tested?
3. And yes… they don’t need it lol (and I am one of them – though I do get the carers bonus)
Diogenes, it’s both at once. Since the stimulatory value is the same whoever you give it to, of course you give it to the politically most advantageous constituency. That’s not cynicism, it’s democratic politics.
HOWARD YEARS REVELATION 1: The 1996 cabinet was full of gun owners.
Dio 102 – Grog is right. Think about it in reverse – whoever is least likely to save the money is most likley to spend it. The rich are most likely to save or invest the money rather than spend it. Not only that, what they do spend is most likely to go on imported luxury goods. Hence the best way to stimulate the economy is to give the money to people with low incomes (pensioners) and high needs (families with kids). I miss out myself but I have to admit the economic logic is sound.
Diogenes, surely any expenditure by govt can be seen as a cynical vote buying excercise?
Oh geez Shows ON – I forgot!! oh well you can catch the entire episode here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/howardyears/
I’ll give it a look tomorrow at work (lunch break of course 😉 )
I think there might be a huge gap between the theory of how to keep an economy from falling into recession and the nasty remedies that will be required if the recession becomes reality. It would be the far lesser of two evils if recession is avoided in Australia.
Just had a check of the extra interviews of the JWH Years – Downer blames Pauline Hanson on the media and the left! – Yep they used her to attack John Howard.
Howard’s future.
http://www.iccaction.com/
It didn’t take me long. I started getting into the sick bag with the one word to describe John Howard.
WARMONGER 1
RACIST 2
LUCKY 3
Centre – I was reaching for the sick bag as soon as Downer moist eyed pointed out how much Howard “loves the flag”.
I think it is minute 2.
Well ,what I took away from Episode #1 (and I won’t be watching again… too excruciating) was that Wreith painted himself as the bewildered bloke who – far from Hitchcockiyngly “knowing too much” – knew “too little”.
It’s amazing that such an ignoramus regarding his portfolios never twigged to what was going on, ever, yet manageed to get promoted to the dizzy heights.
The Wharfies, Children Overboard, his son’s Telstra card? “Wasn’t me,” say Wreithy. “I never had a clue.”
And now he’s occupying some sinecure position on some overseas bureau, happy as Larry? If I was his boss I’d be thinking of sacking him as a happy, but total ignoramus on anything he gets involved in, if his interviews are anything to go by.
It’s clear that the Libs are still in denial. They think that telling Friendly Fran a few porkies will resurrect them in the Public’s eyes. These poor losers have a long way to go.
SNIP: See Article 2 of comment moderation guidelines.
While I am happy to defer to Adam’s extreme pragmatism, I’m not completely convinced by the economics argument. Won’t a lot of people with credit card debt put the $1000 straight into that debt. You could argue that the rich are just as likely to spend the money as the poor.
[People, rich and poor alike, attempt to impress others and seek to gain advantage through what Veblen coined “conspicuous consumption” and the ability to engage in “conspicuous leisure.” In this work Veblen argued that consumption is used as a way to gain and signal status. Through “conspicuous consumption” often came “conspicuous waste,” which Veblen detested. Much of modern advertising is built upon a Veblenian notion of consumption.]
Grog
If the expenditure was targeted at increasing the PMs popularity rather than for good policy, it would be cynical.
SNIP: See Article 2 of comment moderation guidelines.
HOWARD YEARS REVELATION 2: Reith misled parliament, he DID know that Corigan was training scab labour in Dubai.
[Won’t a lot of people with credit card debt put the $1000 straight into that debt.]
No? While that’s the sensible thing to do, it’s not what people do. That’s why year after year we get a few billion dollars more into debt.
[If the expenditure was targeted at increasing the PMs popularity rather than for good policy, it would be cynical.]
I’m not sure if this primarily is. Yes it won’t do him too much harm (though you have to admit there isa fair block out there who think the surplus is sacrosanct), but my cynicism meter first asks if the primary aim is to increase popularity. And these measures aren’t – no election coming, popularity already doing great.
No point pump priming the economy with unpopular funding, if popular funding will do the same thing.
These measures are 100% about getting people to spend money (the Govt should send out a Harvey Norman catalogue with the money). So give them to the people who will most likley spend the most of it.
If politically that’s good, well then as Adam says, kill two birds…. Doesn’t mean the spending shouldn’t be done in the first place. If there was no economic reason for the fiscal package, then I’d be with you as a screaming cynic (or more likely sighing that Rudd = Howard)
Who thinks Labor would’ve won the 1998 election if they promised a 5% GST, and higher income taxes on people earning say over $75,000 p.a.?
Why would’ve people voted for a 10% GST when they could’ve voted for a 5% GST instead?
Thinking back to that 98 election, Howard should have been a one term PM. John Della Bosca, that loser, blew it for Beazley with his timid and ineffective campaign on the GST big time.
Actually he didn’t mislead parliament, as the other guy stated, he replied only to one part of the question, in that he didn’t know of the companies mentioned.
[Thinking back to that 98 election, Howard should have been a one term PM. John Della Bosca, that loser, blew it for Beazley with his timid and ineffective campaign on the GST big time.]
Labor had a stupid capital gains tax policy that didn’t help.
Well the Howard Liberals basically did lose the 1998 election. Labor won 50.98% of the 2pp, the largest 2pp without a majority of seats in history, thanks to the biggest marginal seat pork barrelling in history, and single-member electorates.
ShowsOn it was amazing enough that Labor got so close in 1998 but honestly if you have a 45 seat majority you arent going to lose.
Looking back it is amazing that the Libs did so much in their first term…and far more difficult things than Labor has done.
Who reckons its harder to sign/ratify Kyoto and say Sorry to the Stolen generation than it is to clean up the waterfront, establish the ground work for a GST and create national gun laws???
I don’t think Rudd will be too disapointed if the bribe money goes straight to the big 4 banks either – I imagine they’ve all been given a government issued hotline phone to his office in the current circumstances, and I’ll guarantee a lot more back scratching before this thing is over.
[Actually he didn’t mislead parliament, as the other guy stated, he replied only to one part of the question, in that he didn’t know of the companies mentioned.]
That was only ONE question he was asked on the issue. He was asked REPEATEDLY day after day about this, and denied he had any knowledge.
I remember watching the whole issue play out in question time day after day.
From the howard Years, it’s amazing how he took the good work he did on gun control and just flushed it with his no response (and I would argue – sanctioning of) Hanson. His speech in QLD on the “lifting of the pall of censorship” was a direct wink to Hanson and he supporters that he was with them.
If we’re truly trying to stimulate the economy, as Rudd is doing on a Federal level with the unexpected bonus of popularity, why is the SA Government cutting back all it’s spending projects in response to the GFC. $770M on a new prison has been shelved amongst other projects. Isn’t that going to worsen a recession. Why are the Federal Labor and SA Labor Government responses completely contradictory.
“Who reckons its harder to sign/ratify Kyoto and say Sorry to the Stolen generation than it is to clean up the waterfront, establish the ground work for a GST and create national gun laws???”
Who prefers the former to the latter?
The polls now compared to then must be a real soul-killer for you Libs 🙂
Not to mention designing a fair IR system.
Glen – if signing Kyoto and saying Sorry were so easy, why didn’t Howard do them?
[ShowsOn it was amazing enough that Labor got so close in 1998 but honestly if you have a 45 seat majority you arent going to lose.]
True. The government in 1997 was even worse than the Fraser government. As Howard has admitted in this episode, he needed the GST so that he would have something to talk about.
[than it is to clean up the waterfront, ]
You mean allow Chris Corrigan to suck the government into charging tax payers for his own companies’ redundancy pay!? GENIUS!
[clean up the waterfront]
Interesting that you refer to giving support to a private company for sacking workers, purely because they belong to a union, as “cleaning up”. Similar to how Corrigan on the program tonight called those workers, yes the ones that give him his fat pay check through their labour, “those people”.
[establish the ground work for a GST]
What? So he got elected after saying “No GST” but once in Parliament started working on it right away? That makes him a liar. Nothing less.
[create national gun laws]
Ignoring the problems with the gun buyback, he did synchronise gun laws.
Saying that the only thing Labor has done is ratify Kyoto and apologise to the Stolen Generations is so stupid it’s funny. It also clearly isn’t that easy, since your almighty Howard never managed to do it.
The GST should have been explained for what it was. Another form of revenue raising for the government. There was already a SGT in place. A Selected Goods Tax.
A GST was broadened to include all goods as well as services at a flat rate. That’s it! You call that tax reform?
The majority of the extra revenue that the GST raised went into the pockets of the top-end-of-town with tax cuts. Middle income earners were conned and low income earners were screwed.
Now it’s there turn to get screwed ($10.4 billion worth).
[Why are the Federal Labor and SA Labor Government responses completely contradictory.]
NSW is the same. Cutting projects, laying off staff.
Yeah it is contradictory but that’s hardly the fault of the Federal government.
Just because they were easy didnt mean they were the right thing for the country.
Howard didnt feel they were good for Australia.
bob that IR system was fair, it had no-disadvantage tests with those AWAs the IR laws of 1996 essentially set up the fall in unemployment during the Howard years.
bob what this will show you is that eventually all good things must come to an end and eventually so will Rudd, politics runs in cycles and right now its nicer being a Labor supporter than it is being a Lib but that will change….
Agree 100% Shows On @ 129.
OZ i am taking about tangible things original things…Labor cant claim credit for spending the surplus that we built up to stave off a recession…sorry but you cant have that one mate!
Glen,
You want to thankful that Rudd didn’t do what Howard did literally on day one and start removing his perceived enemies. The fact that Auntie Janet was able to bring you this sickening hagiography is testament to how different the two PMs are. I’m sure that nice Mr Morris, with his incisive commentary, was a boost to you!
Sooner or later, someone (won’t be the ABC) will do a warts and all expose and the vicious, insecure, little despot and I don’t think you will enjoy it as much you are this one.
Diog,
[sleeping with their women] – no such luck in Peru mate. In Rio, no probleme as they say in Portuguese. The girls from Ipanema are just as easy as the samba beat.
You are just jealous because they know how to pay tribute to the Los Amigos even in Peru where the Ruddster is heading next week for APEC. I already left a message to the locals to ensure that they will give the Ruddster a warmer welcome than Dubya gave him. But who gives a shirt anyway with Dubya, as he is both a lame and dead duck.
As Obama is turning a Clintonite in drag, I like the kid.
[Why are the Federal Labor and SA Labor Government responses completely contradictory.]
Because we have a federal system.
[$770M on a new prison has been shelved amongst other projects. Isn’t that going to worsen a recession]
Well not directly. The stimlus package is about getting money spent now, rather that infrastructure investemt. We need both – and by God I want infrastructure projects. I have to admit not being up to speed on the SA budget situation, but I’d wager that $770m was spread over a fair length of time. Perhaps they’re redirecting spending? I don’t know. I only have some knowledge of the Oz Govt’s package, and the reasons for it.
Plus the Oz Govt is also cutting back on spending. Not all spending is the same.
Will building a new prison stimluate the SA economy? I don’t know; not in the short term. Long term yes. But as Keynes said, in the long term we’re all dead. No point planning for the long term if a short term recession kills off any chance of long term plans.
[Just because they were easy didnt mean they were the right thing for the country.
Howard didnt feel they were good for Australia.]
Sure, he was just wrong.
[OZ i am taking about tangible things original things…Labor cant claim credit for spending the surplus that we built up to stave off a recession…sorry but you cant have that one mate!]
Why not? Labor got rid of industry protection, introduced enterprise bargaining, got rid of over regulation of the financial sector that let the economy grow. That is how the surplus was eventually created.
“bob what this will show you is that eventually all good things must come to an end and eventually so will Rudd, politics runs in cycles and right now its nicer being a Labor supporter than it is being a Lib but that will change….”
Of course.
Hawke/Keating got 13 years.
Howard got 11 years.
Labor, perhaps Rudd himself, will beat Howard’s 11 🙂