Essential Research: 61-39

Newspoll seems to have taken the week off, but there’s always Essential Research, which has Labor’s lead up to 61-39 from 60-40 last week. Also featured are questions on becoming a republic within the next few years (52 per cent support, 24 per cent oppose – the latter sounds a bit low), whether Australia should agree to allow Japan to conduct whaling if it limits its activities to the northern hemisphere (10 per cent agree, 81 per cent disagree), “how would you rate your loyalty to your employer” and “how would you rate your employer’s loyalty to staff”. Furthermore:

• The silly season endeth – Kerry O’Brien and Lateline are back, and parliaments federal, Victorian and South Australian resume today.

• The Australian Workers Union has released a comprehensive survey of workers’ attitudes to the global financial crisis, derived from 1016 interviews conducted by Auspoll. The headline finding is that 40 per cent fear losing their jobs in the next year.

• Parties’ disclosures of receipts, expenditure and debts are available for perusal at the Australian Electoral Commission, at least so far as donations of over $10,500 are concerned. Siobhain Ryan and Imre Salusinszky of The Australian and Bernard Keane of Crikey sift through the evidence; the latter also opens fire on the Coalition over its obstruction of legislation reversing the 2005 disclosure threshold hike. Keane notes that one travesty can’t be pinned on the previous government: that we have had to wait until February 2009 to find out what went on at an election held in November 2007. Anyone who imagines this has something to do with logistics should consider the practice in New York City, where donations have to be declared before election day and “made public immediately on a searchable, online database”.

• Antony Green returns from a fortnight in the wilderness (literally) with a belated post-mortem on the Liberals’ defeat in South Australia’s Frome by-election. As I suspected, independent Geoff Brock owes his win to a peculiarity of the state’s electoral system that saves ballot papers with incomplete preferences by assigning them the preferences officially lodged by their favoured candidate. Without this provision, 258 ballots that were thus admitted the day after polling day would have been informal, leaving Brock 38 votes behind Labor at the second last count rather than 30 votes ahead. Another issue has been brought to my attention by Kevin Bonham, who points to the fact that a certain number of Liberal voters harmed their candidate’s chances by voting Liberal rather than Labor. If 31 such voters had tactically switched to Labor, Brock would have been excluded and the distribution of his preferences would have given victory to Liberal candidate Terry Boylan. Public choice theorists call this flaw in preferential voting “non-monotonicity”, which is elaborated upon here (although Bonham reckons “some of their worked examples are wrong”).

• Antony also gets in early with a preview of Western Australia’s May 18 daylight saving referendum, which combines customary psephological insight with a keen eye for the state’s lifestyle peculiarities.

• Former Labor MLA Kathryn Hay will run as an independent for the Tasmanian upper house division of Windermere (extending from the outskirts of Launceston north to the proposed site of Gunns’ Bell Bay pulp mill), challenging independent incumbent Ivan Dean at the poll likely to be held on May 2. Peter Tucker at Tasmanian Politics reports that one of the the other two seats up for election, the Devonport-based division of Mersey, looms as a clash between Latrobe mayor Mike Gaffney and Devonport mayor Lyn Laycock. Mersey is being vacated by retiring independent Norma Jamieson.

• Staying in Tasmania, a recount has confirmed that the last remaining Labor candidate in Franklin from the 2006 election, Daniel Hulme, will assume the lower house seat vacated by former Tourism Minister Paula Wriedt.

• Mining magnate and former National Party director Clive Palmer is making himself visible as the Queensland state election approaches, having been profiled last week on The 7.30 Report and in a cover story for The Weekend Australian Magazine. The latest salvo in Palmer’s charm offensive is a demand of $1 million in damages for defamation from Anna Bligh, who said there was “something just not right about one billionaire owning their own political party” (the annual financial disclosures discussed previously list $600,000 in donations from Palmer to the Liberal and National parties). Sean Parnell’s Weekend Australian piece describes Palmer as a “notorious litigant”, who “once listed it as a hobby in his Who’s Who entry”. Palmer’s 18-year-old son Michael has been preselected as the Liberal National Party candidate for the safe Labor seat of Nudgee.

Rick Wallace of The Australian reports that Nationals-turned-Liberal Senator Julian McGauran will face a number of challengers in his bid for one of the two safe seats on the Victorian Senate ticket, with other incumbent Michael Ronaldson “widely expected to claim top spot”. The field includes prominent Peter Costello supporter Ross Fox, barrister Caroline Kenny and solicitor Cate Dealehr. Other names mentioned by Andrew Landeryou’s VexNews are Terry Barnes, a “former Tony Abbott adviser”, and Owen Lysaght, who ran as an independent in Chisholm in 2004.

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.

1,780 comments on “Essential Research: 61-39”

Comments Page 36 of 36
1 35 36
  1. [This book did not come out of the treasury as you said, it came from Wayne Swann and Lindsey Tanner]
    With numbers provided by Treasury.

    Try again.

  2. [ShowsOn, you’re unquestioning faith in the Treasury models is concerning, perhaps insane.]
    G.P., you’re unquestioning belief about the inaccuracy of the Treasury figures (they aren’t simply models) is insane.

    What method of economic forecasting would you prefer we use? Astrology? Numerology?

    You are the ultimate economic irrationalist.

  3. #1755 GP
    Regardless of whether one should have faith in Treasury models, that’s what the Treasury is there for. Are you suggesting that the government ignore it? If so, let’s abolish it.

  4. I see parallels to the Liberal response to the GFC and CC.

    First question if it is really happening.
    Then say that if it is happening that we should not really do too much.
    Question if we can afford to do anything.

    Sad really. 🙁

  5. No 1759

    Why is it sad to consider the affordability of the package? $118 billion of deficits over four years is heinous.

  6. [Regardless of whether one should have faith in Treasury models, that’s what the Treasury is there for. Are you suggesting that the government ignore it? If so, let’s abolish it.]
    There’s a pattern here. G.P. doesn’t believe in climate change, because he doesn’t trust the advice of scientists. Now he doesn’t trust Treasury, I guess because he doesn’t trust economists.

    So the question remains, who does G.P. trust? What exactly does he believe in? Because it sounds like he doesn’t believe in anything.

  7. [Why is it sad to consider the affordability of the package? $118 billion of deficits over four years is heinous.]
    Condemning roughly 90,000 people to the unemployment lines is heinous.
    [I see parallels to the Liberal response to the GFC and CC.]
    I’m glad it isn’t just me that sees the connection.

  8. So GP we keep the budget out of deficit – for the sake of argument. What spending measures get cut to make up for the loss of revenue?

  9. [They got control of the place for 3 years remember.

    I can’t ever see Labor getting the numbers in there.]

    You’re right that the ALP will never control the Senate. They’re actually at a pretty high point historically, now.

    However, if you look at history, DD’s have usually resulted in the Coalition losing a number of senators. Even with a regular half-Senate election the Coalition are virtually guaranteed to lose 2 senators next time. With a DD they would potentially lose many more.

  10. No 1761

    Climate change exists showson, my earlier musings only were only ever skeptical of the anthropogenic cause.

    The federal treasury is generally trustworthy, but at the end of the day it is directed by partisan influences. Secondly, given the unpredictability of recent times, it is simply irrational to place unquestioning faith in the job predictions of any government-derived package. Kevin Rudd could not even provide evidence that his first package saved 75,000 jobs, let alone show where exactly those jobs are. And now he expects Australians to believe that plunging the nation into massive deficit is going to save/create (depending on the direction of the wind on the day) 90,000 jobs.

    My response is that more time should be allowed for the interest rate cuts and previous stimulus to be considered before appropriating more money.

  11. [So GP we keep the budget out of deficit – for the sake of argument. What spending measures get cut to make up for the loss of revenue?]
    $115 billion over 3 years… let’s see. If the Federal Government halted ALL health payments to the states for 3 years, that would save $130 billion.

    That would leave the federal government in surplus!

  12. That is one good thing about the recent heatwave – it has finally shut up the Global Warming denialists, or at least forced them to change tactics. (“I was never a denialist, I just wanted to be sure the sciecne was right.”)

    Unregulated free market capitalism and global warming denial are now equally credible.

    No wonder they are opinions usually held by the same people 🙂 Spot on, Ruawake.

  13. No 1764

    -Cut welfare spending – middle class welfare, baby bonus and other wasteful measures
    -cancel the auto-bailout.
    -cancel or reverse the child care rebate to 30%.
    -cancel the rudd-bank
    -deregulate, decentralise university fees
    -moratorium on all benefit increases (in line with inflation) until the fiscal situation improves
    -impose the GST on all goods and services (i.e. abolish the stupid exemptions passed by the Democrats)

    (This list is not comprehensive, but an indication)

  14. [Climate change exists showson, my earlier musings only were only ever skeptical of the anthropogenic cause.]
    As if that makes a difference. If climate change is occurring naturally, human’s would still have to do something about it. We can’t leave it to the koalas to fix G.P.
    [Kevin Rudd could not even provide evidence that his first package saved 75,000 jobs]
    Well, the fact Treasury says it did could be considered evidence:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25013115-36418,00.html
    [And now he expects Australians to believe that plunging the nation into massive deficit is going to save/create (depending on the direction of the wind on the day) 90,000 jobs.]
    Again, you just don’t want to trust ANYONE. According to an economic model, whether something creates 90,000 jobs, or saves 90,000 jobs is the same thing. It is 90,000 more jobs that would’ve of existed if the stimulus wasn’t performed.

    So you are endorsing a plan for higher unemployment. Simple.
    [My response is that more time should be allowed for the interest rate cuts and previous stimulus to be considered before appropriating more money.]
    But interest rate cuts take MONTHS to have an effect. The package assumes rates that are even lower than they are now. There is no time to waste.

  15. Conservative purists argue that in the face of a fall in government revenue, spending must be cut to keep the budget in surplus. In the face of a fall in demand, they call for cuts in taxation – which although it may stimulate demand in the longer run, of course further reduces government revenue, necessitating bigger spending cuts. Given the central role that government spending plays in the economy of a modern state, the result must be a spiralling contraction of demand and spending, leading to mass unemployment and the empoverishment of most of the population. That is exactly what happened in the US, Britain and Australia in the 1930s when these prescriptions were followed. It didn’t happen in France or Japan, because government spending was not cut. In Germany, Bruning’s cuts produced the deepest depression of all, but when Hitler came to power and resumed government spending (mostly on armaments) the economy recovered rapidly.

  16. Perhaps all the coalition staffers who are convinced of the wastefuleness of any government spending could prove the sincerity of their beliefs. If they are ministerial or political staffers they are paid by us taxpayers. Why not send your paychecks back to the Treasury so that you can reduce the deficit? You must believe that overall that will make the economy better off. Go on, do it for Australia! 😉

  17. [-Cut welfare spending – middle class welfare, baby bonus and other wasteful measures]
    Which will decrease consumption and result in an increase in unemployment.
    [-cancel or reverse the child care rebate to 30%]
    Which will decrease consumption and result in an increase in unemployment.
    [-moratorium on all benefit increases (in line with inflation) until the fiscal situation improves]
    Which will decrease consumption and result in an increase in unemployment.
    [-impose the GST on all goods and services (i.e. abolish the stupid exemptions passed by the Democrats)]
    Which will decrease consumption and result in an increase in unemployment.

    At least you are honest! You are for slower economic growth, and higher unemployment.

  18. GP I did not specifically name you either. The aspersion was cast in general, though I consider it very accurate of many people on the far right.

  19. No 1770

    [Well, the fact Treasury says it did could be considered evidence:
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25013115-36418,00.html%5D

    Oh please, the so-called “evidence” is at best circumstantial. Correlation does not imply causation. And unlike you, I am not prepared to hastily support spending an unending stream of deficits to save jobs in a recessionary climate. The nations finances are finite and the government must always look to the long term.

    Job losses are a fact of life in recession. One-off stimuli delay the inevitable, are extraordinarily costly and their effect cannot be accurately measured.

  20. [Oh please, the so-called “evidence” is at best circumstantial. Correlation does not imply causation.]
    There you go again! You seem to hate any evidence that you don’t yourself make up.
    [I am not prepared to hastily support spending an unending stream of deficits to save jobs in a recessionary climate.]
    Oh please! The deficits aren’t “unending”, they will end when the economy starts growing quickly, and when tax receipts go back up.
    [The nations finances are finite and the government must always look to the long term. ]
    Moronic nonsense! If more people are unemployed you will produce a BIGGER deficit, which will lead to more government debt. You are endorsing a policy that will produce the thing you hate – government debt.
    [Job losses are a fact of life in recession. One-off stimuli delay the inevitable, are extraordinarily costly and their effect cannot be accurately measured.]
    The effect can’t be measured by people unable to count.

  21. [At least you are honest! You are for slower economic growth, and higher unemployment.]

    You’re a run of the mill Labor spin doctor. Ring Kev for a job, I’m sure he’d oblige. One of Keating’s true-believers.

    By any stretch, the Coalition’s severe cuts in the 1996/1997 budgets did not result in lower growth and higher unemployment – they simply represented prudent fiscal management.

    The GST did not increase unemployment and reduce growth. Extending it to all goods and services would dramatically reduce complexity and result in higher revenues for the states.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 36 of 36
1 35 36