Morgan: 56-44

UPDATE: This post was originally called “Newspoll minus three days”, but has been changed after Roy Morgan broke their normal fortnightly pattern by issuing results from last weekend’s face-to-face polling (i.e. before the stimulus package was announced). From a sample of 853, it shows Labor’s two-party lead down from 59.5-40.5 to 56-44. Labor’s primary vote is down four points to 46.5 per cent, the Coalition is up two to 38 per cent and the Greens are up half a point to 8 per cent.

The excitement of the past few days has quickly overloaded Tuesday’s thread, while adding real interest to the next set of opinion polls. Unless ACNielsen and Galaxy have something planned over the weekend, the next ones up are the regular Monday double of weekly Essential Research and fortnightly Newspoll. John Hewson tells Crikey he’s expecting an election later this year, presumably a double dissolution:

You’d have to think that the odds are narrowing on the possibility of an early election, towards the end of this year. At best, the Rudd Government’s second stimulatory package will just buy some time – simply delay the inevitable. As long as the global recession continues to deepen and, as a consequence, China’s growth continues to stall, the best Rudd can hope for is to hold up consumer spending by the cash handouts sufficient to avoid a technical recession – namely, two consecutive quarters of negative growth … Moreover, the ETS is to be introduced next year with all the scaremongering opportunities that carries for the major polluters. So why not go the people for a “mandate” to continue with the strategy, especially now that Turnbull has so clearly nailed his colours to the mast, becoming such a fixed target, from both outside and within?

Of course, there’s much here that might be contested, not to mention the lack of a double dissolution trigger at this stage. In brief:

• Possum dissects the electoral impact of the stimulus package here and here.

• Antony Green analyses the finalised federal redistribution boundaries for Western Australia.

• The Senate has amended legislation abolishing tax deductible political donations, which will instead be limited to donations from individuals rather than companies. Deductions applied for donations of up to $100 from individuals before the Howard government’s 2006 “reforms” jacked it up to $1500 and extended it to companies. The legislation as amended maintains the $1500 threshold.

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.

1,270 comments on “Morgan: 56-44”

Comments Page 4 of 26
1 … 3 4 5 … 26

  1. I don’t think you read the whole article, Grog.

    The point is that any emissions cuts we make are actually being capped by the government at 5%. Whatever we, as households save, gets sold as permits to business and the more we save the cheaper the permits get. So we can’t actually cut more, and even if we don’t cut, the cuts will be made by business anyway.

  2. GP

    While you comment was distastefull I will let it slide. I have paid, probably, a million bucks more in tax than I have recieved.

    Good to see it is still Liberal Party philosophy to label anyone on social security as a bludger. 😛

  3. GP

    [Life’s always good on the taxpayer’s back.]

    Funnily enough, from my experience, life’s normally pretty crap for people “on the taxpayers back”.

  4. [The point is that any emissions cuts we make are actually being capped by the government at 5%]

    But that’s the problem with the cap not the package.

  5. Doesn’t RUawake have some horrible cancer? For Generic Person, Liberal spokesman on the blog, to write:

    [Life’s always good on the taxpayer’s back]

    I hope plenty of people read it and see what black spirit resides at the basis of Liberal Party “philosophy”.

  6. GP and his ilk are the types who kicked women and kids out of there homes in the Depression in the 30s they still think we should be on the gold standard and the invalid and old should have to rely on charity.
    That’s the type of mindset your dealing with with the Liberal party,I,m an disabled pensioner and bumbling Colin has decided to jack up the power prices by 113%,if he does that he will not be in charge for very long at all.
    Not sure how he thinks some one on a pension is going to pay an extra $50 a week,but hey he’s a Liberal so it wont worry him or GP and his ilk either.

  7. It’s the sort of verminous mindset that gave Australia SerfChoices, whereby they reached into the paypackets of the poor, young and weak, extracted money and handed it to greedy Liberal-supporting “employers”.

  8. GP, well you could say i live on the taxpayers back also, my husband a career soldier had to fight in a few wars and die for me to get my war widows pension and a share of his DFRB pension, his name is on the wall of heroes in Canberra along with his dad’s, i bloody take exception to your remark, thank god i had legacy helping me and mine.grrr!!!

  9. Peter Costello introduced “Welfare to Work” when he put the budget into deficit to pay for our foray into Iraq.

    By moving people from DSP to Newstart he saved a few bucks. That is Liberal philosophy.

    But of course all these people had “bad backs” and were bludgers. 🙁

  10. [Why the package is wrong”]
    Why should we believe anything this economist has to say when you don’t believe anything the hundreds of economists working in the Treasury department say?
    [So what should be done? Given the poor state of infrastructure in Australia, projects with high ratios of benefits to costs should be adopted.]
    WRONG! Projects that have both a benefit AND can be built quickly should be done. This economist is confusing building something with long term benefit, with immediate stimulus. This package is designed for the latter, not the former. Or to put it another way, just as long as the government spends money on SOMETHING that will have an effect, because by definition whatever the government spends gets added to GDP.

  12. There is a fascinating symmetry between the Rudd vs Turnbull approach to the GFC in Oz and the Obama/Dem vs Repug stoush in the US.

    Both countries have a huge stimulus package to vote on, basically based on ideological/philosophical grounds of Keynesian vs Austrian School/neoconservatism. It’s like a battle for the economic soul of the countries and both realise that the outcome will dominate their countries “world view” for years to come.

    Obama has now denounced the tax-cuts philosophy (having been a bit wimpy and conciliatory to the Repugs on it initially, only to still have them all vote against it in the HOR), and the battle lines are well and truly drawn.

    http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/obama-rachets-up-rhetoric-attacks-gop-economic-philosophy/

  13. [Life’s always good on the taxpayer’s back

    I hope plenty of people read it and see what black spirit resides at the basis of Liberal Party “philosophy”.]

    And Barnett is showing it too with his opposition to parts of the package. No problem with the funding for schools and infrastructure, but doesn’t like giving $950 to people.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25017001-12377,00.html

    [Whereas simply paying out $950 – it’ll be spent in all sorts of ways.
    “Sometimes it will be spent very well, sometimes it won’t be spent very well, but it can go either way.”]

    Just an inherent liberal dislike of giving money to people. No problem giving it to business, you can trust business, but not people.

    If he is so opposed to it he should request that the package be amended so that WA folk don’t get the $950.

  14. The Tories will only be happy when cardboard boxes are recognised as a legitimate place of residence for homeless unemployed “bludgers” in Australia.

    Perhaps Moneybags should propose the abolishment of pensions and push for a tax break on cardboard boxes as a means of “assisting” those ungrateful welfare bludgers (Richard Pratt would love it, to be sure).

  17. I’ll bet if it were an election year, the Libs were in, and no recession bearing down, he would be all in favour of handing out 950 per head, except to people with life-threatening illnesses of course.

  18. [I’ll bet if it were an election year, the Libs were in, and no recession bearing down, he would be all in favour of handing out 950 per head]

    That was Howards SOP wasn’t it?

  19. [That was Howards SOP wasn’t it?]

    Yep – that’s why the Old Age Pensioners started taking their clothes off when it wasn’t in the May Budget.

  21. Howard and Costello were perfectly happy to give cash bonuses and tax cuts when the economy was booming – resulting in interest rate rises. (Don’t fall for Costello’s rewriting of history – interest rates did not suddenly start to rise in 2007).

    Howard and Costello made some huge blunders as “economic managers” and we are reaping the rewards of their lax policy.

    Costello blames the RBA and the Rudd Govt for interest rate rises – sorry Peter it was ALL your fault. Zero productivity will haunt your legacy and no amount of media appearances will correct this error. (But of course you could always blame it on Mr Howard).

  22. hey GP i forgot to tell you i have a brain damaged son, like that from birth and HE’S ON A PENSION as well, i save the government heaps by being his unpaid carer and paying a morgage to keep a roof over his head instead of him having to go into support accomodation–but thats beside the point, he’s a bludger along with me.

  23. [hey GP i forgot to tell you i have a brain damaged son, like that from birth and HE’S ON A PENSION as well, i save the government heaps by being his unpaid carer and paying a morgage to keep a roof over his head instead of him having to go into support accomodation–but thats beside the point, he’s a bludger along with me.]

    But I wonder if GP would change his tune if Cwentrelink descided to cut benefits to Pensioners living in safe Liberal seats ? It’s ironic that in WA, the Major Spinal Injuries care facility, the Quadriplegic Centre, as well as the Spinal Unit are Julie Bishop’s own electorate of Curtin 🙂 I’ll bet she is hard lobbying Canberra on their behalf.

  26. Talking of illnesses, pancreatic cancer (which has a very poor prognosis) has now affected a third high-profile person. After Steve Jobs and Patrick Swayze, the Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg now has it. She is the only female and is one of the liberals on the Court. It was found early though so she’s in with a chance. Incidentally, Don Dunstan also died of pancreatic cancer.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D965LQKO0&show_article=1

  27. [But that’s the problem with the cap not the package.]

    I didn’t realise this blog had turned into an exclusive analysis of the stimulus package by bush economists.

  32. Oz

    You don’t need to “worry” about the supposed 1% reduction in CC emissions happening according to one theory. The Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate states that an increase in energy efficiency in the home will just allow any extra money saved on electricity/insulation to be spent on even more carbon intensive products. It will be counter-productive.

    It’s very counter-intuitive but it’s quite fascinating.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom-Brookes_Postulate

  34. [I didn’t realise this blog had turned into an exclusive analysis of the stimulus package by bush economists.]

    cheers Oz.

    My thinking was that you were commenting on the insulation item in the package, and thus in that context I gave my response.

  36. Adam

    We all have different and varied circumstances – these colour our opinions and values. I don’t think I have used my circumstance as a trump card in any debate – if I have I apologise it was not my intention.

    But my circumstances give me a perspective on some issues that are definately relevant. Just as you have experienced things that I have not.

  37. Oz

    I hope they’re wrong coz it’s extremely depressing. It means that making car manufacturers built more fuel efficient cars will actually increase CC emissions because people will drive them more (as they get more km/L) and more people will buy cars (because they cost less to run).

  41. [i wasn’t refering to you]

    That is irrelevant, what I said still applies. Our circumstances make us what we are and forge our opinions and thoughts. 🙂

  43. Adam if you meant me i’m not going to apologise or back down, i’m bloody furious not trumping, angry enough to throw my mouse across the room to my daughter’s amazement, i’m usually a very placid person, i’ve had to be, but when something like that statement is made i get fired up, the rare times ive ranted here i’ve come right out and apologised because i’ve been at fault, but not this time, i’m still fuming.

  45. So, in GP’s world, tax cuts are the long acting stimulus for the Australian economy? So what was the effect of Howard and Costello’s long run of annual personal and business tax cuts during the boom period when capacity constraints were emerging? A turbocharged economy with inflationary tendencies? Who woulda thunk it? Oh wait, the Reserve Bank and its plentiful warnings.

    So GP, unfortunately your economic conservatives don’t seem to know when a tax cut is appropriate or do you simply work on the premise the a tax cut is always the answer, no matter what the circumstances?

  46. Oz at #178

    No you are not overreacting, and the whole article is no better than the headline.

    Re the distaste some political parties have for giving money to those they consider undeserving perhaps it is relevant to recall this:

    In the 2005 and 2006 Federal budgets [now who was the treasurer then?] the tax cuts that were made strongly benefited the richer individuals in iur nation.

    The richest 1% received 9% of the cuts.

    The richest 5% received 25% of the cuts.

    The richest 10% received 43% of the cuts.

    The poorest 50% received 19% of the cuts.

    ‘To them that have shall be given, from them that have not shall be taken.’

    No wonder the COALition likes tax cuts.

  47. Whilst I meant no personal offence to those of us here that are suffering from disabilities or caring for people with disabilities, ruawake’s comments about life being “good” makes people who work 120hours a week, like my parents, paying tens of thousands in tax to subsidise this “good” lifestyle, angry.

  48. Grog life certainly aint meant to be easy, 🙂
    it’s not going to be for Rann now they’ve discovered a bottomless pit of missing money, bugga, now this will get MHS and co on every local newscast and in the Advertiser all weekend and i’ll have to put up with him next door going on about labor and recessions.

  49. [ruawake’s comments about life being “good” makes people who work 120hours a week, like my parents, paying tens of thousands in tax to subsidise this “good” lifestyle, angry.]
    If they don’t want to pay as much tax, they should work less, and find the point where they earn the most amount of money for the least amount of tax.

    We all make trade offs like this. Most people who work 120 hours a week do so because they enjoy it, not simply because of the money.

  50. Judith, yes I was referring to you. I take it you are responding to GP’s comment that “Life’s always good on the taxpayer’s back.” GP may be crass, but I doubt he’s so crass that he intended this remark to be a reference to people receiving carer’s benefit. (If he did, he can say so and defend that position.) I don’t think it’s a fair debating tactic to use one’s personal circumstances as a form of attack.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 4 of 26
1 … 3 4 5 … 26