Essential Research: 62-38

The latest weekly Essential Research poll has Labor’s lead steady at 62-38. Also included are an interesting question on what Peter Costello should do (34 per cent quit, 46 per stay in various possible capacities), along with very detailed material on economic management. Not only but also:

• A comprehensively briefed Andrew Landeryou at VexNews explains the background to the Victorian Liberal Senate preselection vote to be held this Friday. Michael Ronaldson seems assured of retaining his top position, but Julian McGauran faces an uphill battle for third place against Ross Fox, a Peter Costello backer. The second place is reserved for the Nationals.

• Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reports on a NSW Liberal state executive ruling that new members in Bradfield will not be eligible to vote in the preselection to replace Brendan Nelson, to be held in nine months. Normally party rules require membership for six months for eligibility, but that would be an invitation to mass branch stacking in the current circumstances. Coorey also weighs in on recent shenanigans in the Perth seat of Tangney.

• Tasmanian LHMWU secretary David O’Byrne has confirmed he will seek preselection as a candidate for Franklin at next year’s state election. O’Byrne is a former state party president and brother of Bass MP Michelle O’Byrne. Among the Liberal candidates will be Vanessa Goodwin, who narrowly failed to defeat the now-departed Paula Wreidt at the 2006 election.

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.

1,522 comments on “Essential Research: 62-38”

Comments Page 1 of 31
1 2 … 31

  1. [In nsw the ahem ruckus re privatisation of electricicity involved a Retail side as well.]
    The whole purpose of privitising power is to have multiple private retailers! That’s how you get multiple companies competing against each other to provide power to consumers for the cheapest prices.

    I think it makes sense keeping the distribution in public hands (the actual power lines etc) but privatising the maintenance of it. I also think the generation should be privatised, because fossil fuel power stations SHOULD be worthless in 20 or 30 years time, so it is criminal for the government to retain assests that will effectively be worthless within a few decades.
    [I believe that Gvt acting as the ‘industry standard” could re-enter many areas it has privatised previously.]
    Wouldn’t it be better for them just to legislate on standards, and spend money on consumer affairs to police those standards?
    [A typical liberal view, jobs do not matter but cheap flights and greed does.]
    Of course cheap flights are matter! If flights are cheaper MORE PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THEM!

  2. I am still waiting for Shows on to provide me evidence about the amount of flights Qantas undertook before Privatisation and after… i look forward to it…

  3. [Wouldn’t it be better for them just to legislate on standards, and spend money on consumer affairs to police those standards?]
    Like,say, the ummm, Financial markets
    🙂

    [The whole purpose of privitising power is to have multiple private retailers! That’s how you get multiple companies competing against each other to provide power to consumers for the cheapest prices.]

    I can buy Gvt power and appliances or private power and appliances.
    I thought it was called choice???

  4. Privatising puts quality of services a long way behind the profit motive. Theoretically you may end up with the least possible acceptable service provided at the maximum possible cost that a company can get away with and, because it is an essential service people have no choice.

    And because infrastructure are extremely expensive items you wont see too much competition in the market to increase service quality and keep costs down.

    I think it a little optimistic to believe that competition among a very few providers doesn’t tend to promote cartel type behavior.

  6. Dave back at 1177 (in the last thread – new one came up while I was typing 🙂 ):

    [ If an election was called tomorrow, the 2 smallest neighbouring electorates in NSW would be squished together to form 1. So, hypothetically, what if the 2 electorates were Calare and Hume? Bourke would be in the same electorate as Bowral.
    In other states, think about squishing Grey with Wakefield or Barker (Coober Pedy with Elizabeth or Mount Gambier); Maranoa with Wide Bay or Dickson. Birdsville would be in the same electorate as Noosa / Outer Brisbane. ]

    Yeah, well it would be quick and dirty as Antony says, and not great for an election. Then again, that kind of distance and lack of similarity between places ain’t unheard of – pre-redistribution, WA had a seat called Kalgoorlie which contained both Kunnunurra and Esperance (a good 4000 km apart by road). Now there’s one containing Kalgoorlie, Albany, and small farming towns an hour’s drive from Perth. That’s weird too, but I guess it’s the way the cookie crumbles.

    How would the two relevant electorates be found, by the way? I’m guessing just list all the pairs of adjacent electorates (gee, that’d be fun with NSW), add the enrolments of each pair, then sort and find the lowest? Or do the AEC have some other funky way?

    As a related boredom buster, try and find the weirdest combination of sitting members in adjacent seats that get merged. Dickson and either Wide Bay or Maranoa would be fun to watch – super-marginal Lib vs old, old Nat guys. Who else… hmm. Julie Bishop and Stephen Smith? Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull?

  8. [I am still waiting for Shows on to provide me evidence about the amount of flights Qantas undertook before Privatisation and after… i look forward to it…]
    Before privatisation Qantas was only an international carrier, after it was privatised it was allowed to conduct both domestic and international flights. It’s number of destinations that it flys to is enormous now compared with before privatisation.

  10. [I’m guessing just list all the pairs of adjacent electorates (gee, that’d be fun with NSW), add the enrolments of each pair, then sort and find the lowest?]

    I think that’s it.

  11. Yep competition is answer, so eventually when you have beaten your competitor what do you get a monopoly… And less service. Competition is about doing things at least price, least cost and least amount of service… The cheap customers don’t matter but the rich ones do.. and that is what happens greater services for them. Competition in essential services acheives nothing and plainly inequitable. It is about short term economics and helping consultants and lawyers earn big bucks and helping rich mates own the infrastructure and than get them to provide a nice donation before the election- simple.

  12. [Like,say, the ummm, Financial markets]
    So I don’t get it, would you buy something from a government shop when it would most certainly be more expensive than other places?
    [I can buy Gvt power and appliances or private power and appliances.
    I thought it was called choice???]
    Why would you want to buy government appliances when they’d almost certainly be more expensive? I don’t want an Australian government made TV, when a Sony TV would be better and cheaper.

  13. [1947 The Australian Government buys all shares in Qantas; the airline introduces Constellation aircraft on the London route and operates its first flight to Japan ]

    [1949 Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA) takes over Qantas’ Queensland and Northern Territory networks and the Flying Doctor Service operations. ]

    [1992 Qantas buys Australian Airlines (formerly TAA) for A$400 million.
    1993 The Australian Government sells a 25 per cent share of the airline to British Airways as the first step towards privatisation. Qantas and Australian Airlines are merged under the banner Qantas – ‘The Australian Airline’. ]

    A tad more tangled than your oversimplification Shows
    http://www.qantas.com.au/info/about/history/details20

  15. Yep so what we did was allow Qantas to gobble up the small regional players and control the market.
    How many airlines have gone bust since we deregulated airline industry in Oz?

  16. [A tad more tangled than your oversimplification Shows]
    At the time Qantas was sold, Qantas was Australia’s international carrier, and Australian Airlines was the domestic carrier.

    How many people do you think could afford to catch airplanes in Australia in 1947?

    A person on average weekly earnings? Somehow I don’t think so.

  17. [So I don’t get it, would you buy something from a government shop when it would most certainly be more expensive than other places? ]

    If I knew the Gvt shop was still going to be there next week I would
    😉

  18. Time i nodded off got to earn my pennies so i can afford those cheap airline prices, pity about the high prices i pay for privatised gas and electricity in Victoria.

  19. [Yep so what we did was allow Qantas to gobble up the small regional players and control the market.]
    You are arguing that the government should spend BILLIONS on airplanes, instead of things like schools and hospitals. This is not an argument I find convincing.

  20. [If I knew the Gvt shop was still going to be there next week I would]
    So why can’t you do that with a private retailer? And how do you know it would be there next week if a government decides to privatise it?
    [Time i nodded off got to earn my pennies so i can afford those cheap airline prices, pity about the high prices i pay for privatised gas and electricity in Victoria.]
    You should spend more, because your consumption of energy causes global warming.

  21. [So why can’t you do that with a private retailer?]

    HIH or Enron or ***** or whatever.

    [And how do you know it would be there next week if a government decides to privatise it?]

    COS THE GVT WOULD OWN IT.

    That is the thrust of my argument

  22. [That is the thrust of my argument]
    Government’s come and go. Basicall you’re saying they it will stay open even if it doesn’t make any money.

    So that means you want everything they sell to effectively be subsidised, which I think is just stupid. The private sector can sell things cheaper and more for less money.

  23. [The private sector can sell things cheaper and more for less money.]

    I think you and GP share more in common than you suspect.

  25. [I think you and GP share more in common than you suspect.]
    The difference is I think there are some things the government should do, and other things the government MUST do. Whereas G.P. doesn’t seem to think the government should do anything.

    Airlines were one of the best things the government could privatise. They are extremely costly to run, a single plane can cost nearly half a billion Australian dollars. I just can’t fathom a government spending that much money on an airplane instead of on a school or a hospital.

  28. [I am still waiting for Shows on to provide me evidence about the amount of flights Qantas undertook before Privatisation and after… i look forward to it…]
    [since privatisation in 1995, Qantas had increased staff numbers by almost 30 per cent to more than 38,400, and more than doubled the number of passengers carried each year to more than 32 million in 2005.

    Qantas has also increased the number of flights it operates from 1,900 flights a week to more than 5,000 a week, including 600 international services, and expanded its network from 86 destinations in 26 countries to 145 destinations in 40 countries, as well as expanding its fleet from 136 aircraft in 1995 to 200 in 2005.

    Key financial statistics for the 10 years include a total shareholder return since the float (including dividend reinvestment) of more than 340 per cent (based on an issue price at float of $1.90), total dividends paid to shareholders to date of $2.15 per share (prior to final dividend payment for the current year), and projected revenue growth of 77 per cent from $7.2 billion in 1995 to more than $12.5 billion in 2005.]
    http://www.travelweekly.com.au/articles/ae/0c0351ae.asp

    In case you didn’t catch it first time:
    [Qantas has also increased the number of flights it operates from 1,900 flights a week to more than 5,000 a week]

  29. [Key financial statistics for the 10 years include a total shareholder return since the float (including dividend reinvestment) of more than 340 per cent ]

    See, I told you that you and GP are like peas in a pod.

  30. The world economy has been growing exponentially since 1996. Many businesses and countries did the same. More wealth, more people able and willing to travel, greater profit margins possible and so forth. So the statistics don’t mean too much in isolation. Not that I think govt should own an international airline.

  31. [See, I told you that you and GP are like peas in a pod.]
    LOL! 😀

    The idea that Qantas somehow serves fewer routes and customers than before privatisation is a big fat myth.

  32. [More wealth, more people able and willing to travel, greater profit margins possible and so forth.]
    Sure, but another factor is that privatised airlines are more competitive, and thus are able to offer cheaper tickets, which makes them more affordable, which means they can sell more tickets, which means they can make more revenue and expand their business.

  35. Article at 33:

    [ The improvement in Labor’s fortunes still does not return the Government to the 33 per cent primary support it enjoyed at the time former premier Morris Iemma was ousted last September. ]

    ‘Enjoyed’? That’s a helluva word in the context…

    [ With the next state election two years away, any relapse in the polls by Mr Rees is likely to trigger a leadership challenge. ]

    Isn’t it oppositions that are supposed to go through leaders like cheap home-brand socks? State oppositions, run by luminaries like Ian Evans or Paul Omodei? These guys are acting the part two years early. Absolutely ridiculous.

  37. Iemma should’ve never been kicked. They had a very remote chance of winning with him, but with Rees they have no hope.

  38. No 25

    [The difference is I think there are some things the government should do, and other things the government MUST do. Whereas G.P. doesn’t seem to think the government should do anything.]

    I support notion of public health and public education, among other things, so long as they co-exist with the private sector.

  39. No 37

    Iemma was no better. Typical imbecilic NSW Labor leader with a treasurer that should have joined the Liberal party.

  40. “At the time Qantas was sold, Qantas was Australia’s international carrier”

    What about Ansett, they did international flights too.

  41. Fighting Depression
    Unlike Obama’s spending plan, FDR’s had the support of the GOP, including his Fed chief.
    [It has become in recent months almost a reflex for Republicans to dismiss Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal as a dismal failure of the Democrats — a “jihad against private enterprise” as Fox News’ Britt Hume put it recently. But Roosevelt’s spending plan, unlike President Obama’s, had widespread Republican support. In fact, he was criticized in some quarters for not spending more. And one of his chief critics was a prominent Republican.]

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-nelson2-2009mar02,0,1808586.story

  42. Once upon a time the Republicans were interested in the country and not simply politics.

    The Liberal Party should note, hoping for Rudd to fail rather than give aid to the country by supporting the government’s efforts, would define them as people who have no business in public office. There is a time and place where arguing on detail for political point scoring is harmful to the country.

    Joe’s bloated gaseous exertions that loudly emanate from both ends simultaneously are reminiscent of a fiddler crab protecting is small pile of mud.

    [Eccles, a self-described “child of the Republican Party,” then sounded a prophetic note: “If we spend some every year, but not sufficient to give the required stimulus to private expenditures, we can build up a large debt and still not be out of the Depression.” Thus, Eccles suggested, “the safest policy is the boldest policy.”]

    FDR named Eccles to the Fed in 1934, and designated him as the central bank’s first chairman in its newly reconstituted form in 1935.

    I like this, on having a stimulus too small..
    [“If the cleft is 10 feet wide,” Eccles pointed out, “even a 9-foot jump is worse than no effort at all.”]

  43. [Rann acknowledged he was breaking a pledge made seven years ago not to replace Mr McEwen if he resigned.

    Mr McEwen, a conservative independent, accepted a cabinet position to stabilise the then minority Rann government after the 2002 election, increasing the ministry to 15.

    State Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said previous state governments had managed with 13 ministers.

    “It is the biggest, fattest, most expensive Government this state has ever seen,” Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

    Mr Rann said South Australia had the lowest number of ministers of any mainland government, highlighting Western Australia with 17 ministers and Queensland with 18.]

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25130414-5006787,00.html

    Funny, I thought I recalled Rann saying the previous Liberal government also had 15 ministers? Who’s playing funny buggers here, the Oz, or Rann?

  44. [I support notion of public health and public education]

    In that case GP, I suspect you are very disappointed with the Howard government? Health and Education when Howard came to power was amongst the highest in the OECD, when he left they were amongst the lowest.

  45. the tories dont do well with hypocrisy Bob. Remember Howard was a friend of Medicare and of the workers…

    Have you got figures though for the health and education OECD rankings??

  47. Bob, i also thought the lib cabinet was 15, i could be wrong though i was more interested in getting them out rather than counting numbers.

  48. I haven’t seen OECD “rankings” for health and education in a performance sense?

    “figures” for OECD health rankings would be difficult, other than average life expectancy, which is affected by many things. % investment in health is not necessarily a good indicator. The USA spends a fortne on health but it gets a poor return due to its inefficient system of primary health care and two tiered approach. Likewise we spent a lot on health insurance here during Howard, but I expect real funding of public hospitals would have fallen.

    OECD rankings on % investment in research and tertiary education would have fallen significantly under Howard though. We were one of the only nations that reduced investment (in % terms) during Howard’s time in office.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 1 of 31
1 2 … 31