Essential Research: 61-39

A narrowing trend in recent federal polling has come to an abrupt halt with this week’s Essential Research survey, which shows Labor’s lead blowing out from 57-43 to 61-39. Supplementary questions find the punters anticipating budget misery and loving it – twice as many (38 per cent to 19 per cent) expect it to be bad for them personally as expect it to be good, while 49 per cent want tax cuts deferred against 35 per cent who want them to proceed. In other news, most support the government’s changes to the emissions trading scheme and oppose the commitment of further troops to Afghanistan.

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.

2,495 thoughts on “Essential Research: 61-39”

Comments Page 50 of 50
1 … 49 50

  1. So the real question is, not why should alcopops be taxed more, but why should they be taxed LESS than other forms of spirits, as the Liberals want? To put it crudely, this was a favour done to distilling interests by the Liberals, and Labor doesn’t owe the distillers any favours.

  2. I read that the tax had reduced the sale of alcopops. Is there evidence now that it has reduced binge drinking among teenagers? I thought I had read that there was no such evidence.

    There hasn’t been any such evidence because there haven’t been any studies done. That is not evidence to the contrary.

    It doesn’t logically wash that there would be such a reduction.

    Of course it does. Alcopops are well documented as the drink of choice for 14-19 year olds. It would be naive in the extreme to think this did not have an impact on them.

  4. Psephos
    Peter Dutton’s talking points? Brrrrrrrrr. That is a cruel cut indeed.
    For me (hopefully not quoting Dutton now!) I just see the tax as a clumsy and ineffectiive way to affect bingeing behaviour, if that is the aim. It is a bit of unfocussed tinkering without any demonstrable benefit. The problem is a lot larger than the limited action the tax is. The government hasn’t shown any willingness to take on the alcohol industry as a whole with strategies to reduce the acceptance of alcohol, as previous governments reluctantly and eventually did with smoking – of course the tax implications are huge if there is an OVERALL reduction in alcohol consumption.

    http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=88

  5. What’s the difficulty in a group of kids moving from a case of Bundy & Coke cans (now taxed) to a bottle of Bundy (not Taxed) & a bottle of Coke?

    An important point that I have seen “ALL” commentators miss is that the greater majority of binge drinking of alcopops is by young people in company at Nightclubs and similar establishments.

    This has often been encouraged by management at these establishments by offering “specials” and there are a variety of these, happy hours, three for two deals etc.

    One thing these establishments “DO NOT” allow however, is the sale of bottles of spirits and bottles of mixes separately to patrons and hand out empty glasses of ice for the patrons to mix the drinks themselves.

    Two reasons for this. One is that these establishments make the most money by either selling ready mixed alcopops or separate glasses of mixed drinks, ie nips of rum & coke or scotch & dry etc. The second is that it is illegal for them to sell spirits by the bottle on the premises and it would not be possible to monitor the drinking rate or consumption of patrons. It would be an absolute security nightmare to try and control a crowd of uncontrollable young people in such a situation.

  6. The simple solution is to abolish young people, or at least put a heavy tax on their production. Given the generational voting pattern Possum has identified above, this may well appeal to the Liberals.

  7. Dario –

    There hasn’t been any such evidence because there haven’t been any studies done.

    No, I didn’t think so. Rather weakens the argument then.

    Dario – I see little insight into teenagers in your views. I have a particularly acute insight at the moment through of my 17 year old and friends. The naivety is in assuming that making one narrow little modern packaged presentation of spirits more expensive will discourage binge drinking in teenagers. The pressure of peer groups and the desire to experiment to excess was, is, and always will be far greater than the relative cost of one single packaging style.

  8. despite Mr Turnbull’s efforts to obstruct this measure and protect the alcopops industry.

    Well put, Psephos. This to me is the crux of the whole issue. The Coalition is being held captive to vested corporate interests and every decision or position they take “MUST” be seen in light of this factor whether it be the tobacco lobby, the coal lobby the alcopops lobby and many, many more.

    For the past 13 years the Howardista Coalition has based their policy platform and governmental policy on what is good for the business and corporate sector and “NOT” on what is good for the overall population and the country as a “WHOLE”.

  12. Scorpio

    This has often been encouraged by management at these establishments by offering “specials” and there are a variety of these, happy hours, three for two deals etc.

    Yes, the kids can simply move to the vodka with orange juice or rum and coke etc. mixed drinks, which the clubs will probabby now put on special instead of the pre-mixed bottles should the tax come in. Those drinking at parks and parties around the suburbs will just buy the spirits and mixers separately and put them together themselves. Having compared the price of canned bundy and coke with the cost of a bottle of rum, it is already cheaper than the cans. Even without the tax it is around $80 for 24 cans (5% alcohol mix) but less than $40 for a 750 ml bottle of Bundy, which I think represents 25 cans (one 30 ml nip per can). I think it’s the same with bottles of vodka and other spirits.

  14. Yes, the kids can simply move to the vodka with orange juice or rum and coke etc. mixed drinks, which the clubs will probabby now put on special instead of the pre-mixed bottles should the tax come in.

    Which is more labour intensive for the club, and therefore less profitable.
    So keeping the tax lower on Alcopops – qui bono?

  15. Love the MedicareChoices thing- sure to instill fear into the hearts of voters!

    Re: alcopops- I think the govt should have stuck to “this is a tax equalisation measure” rather than a health measure because the evidence is not clear cut

  16. Psephos – Re the chocolate coated heroin, I prefer chocolate-coated orange rind – delicious.
    The ‘chocolate’ equivalent in the mixers is the sweet soft drinks or juice. That’s easily addressed either in the nightclubs or under a bridge. Unless you think it will be too hard for teenagers to mix their own? That someone in the group at 11pm on a Friday will say to the others: “Gosh, doesn’t this tax on alcopops just drain the desire to get pissed. Let’s go off the blue light youth club for some life coaching instead.”

  17. No, I didn’t think so. Rather weakens the argument then.

    Not much at all. I think you’re just looking for an excuse. The link between alcopops and teenagers is well established.

    Dario – I see little insight into teenagers in your views. I have a particularly acute insight at the moment through of my 17 year old and friends. The naivety is in assuming that making one narrow little modern packaged presentation of spirits more expensive will discourage binge drinking in teenagers. The pressure of peer groups and the desire to experiment to excess was, is, and always will be far greater than the relative cost of one single packaging style.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/alcopops-kapow/2008/04/27/1209234656438.html

    In four years the number of female drinkers aged 15 to 17 consuming ready-to-drink beverages (RTDs) shot from 14% to 60%. And those who drank them were most at risk of alcohol-related harm. In 2004 among 14 to 19-year-olds who drank at dangerous levels, 78% of girls and 74% of boys preferred alcopops over any other drink.

  20. 2464

    Which is more labour intensive for the club, and therefore less profitable.
    So keeping the tax lower on Alcopops – qui bono?

    Not quite with you, but I don’t see mixing drinks from a bottle of spirits as less profitable for the club because it’s more ‘labour intensive’. Got a time and motion study and the pricing practice?

  21. jaundiced view, BDfO exemplar, wrote

    “The Kevin Andrewses’s policy against Indian doctors was appalling.”

    But, but, but… couldn’t one use “The Kevin Andrews’ policy…”? Or at worst “The Kevin Andrewses’ policy…”?

    As a reformed abuser of the apostrophy, I now live by: apostrophies for contraction and possession (except for “it”) and none for plurals.

    Perhaps a 12.5% tax on apostrophy misuse should have been in the budget.

  22. Not quite with you, but I don’t see mixing drinks from a bottle of spirits as less profitable for the club because it’s more ‘labour intensive’. Got a time and motion study and the pricing practice?

    You only need to stand at a bar for 5 minutes to see how long it takes to mix a spirit compared to grabbing a breezer from the fridge, or ice bucket. There is a big difference.

  23. JV @ 2470
    Do I really need one, or are you just being difficult? Been in a student bar recently? Noticed what drinks they are promoting?

  24. Footy tips R8

    JB one out for Hawthorn
    all in for the Bulldogs
    all in for Geelong
    all in for Brisbane
    JB one out for the Eagles
    all in for Port, Carlton and the Saints

  30. Dario

    The link between alcopops and teenagers is well established.

    Alcopops are not the reason teenagers binge drink. You aren’t suggesting that I hope. The link between alcopops and teenagers is that is the cool way to drink at the moment. Something else could replace it next year. There are many who binge drink on other forms of alcohol packaging.

    The issue is – as stated by the government – whether further taxing one of the current popular drinks will reduce binge drinking in teenagers.
    In the absence of any evidence to base the tax decision on, why would we not logically assume that teenagers wishing to drink to excess in groups will find another way to guzzle alcohol? Then yet another style of drink will become the new popular teenager drink of choice. Will we then move to tax further whatever the new popular drink is? And the next, and the next?

  31. Kate appears to need a hairdresser.

    Perhaps you should be casting a critical eye over the presentation of some on your own side:

    ?w=229&h=300

  32. Flaneur

    But, but, but… couldn’t one use “The Kevin Andrews’ policy…”? Or at worst “The Kevin Andrewses’ policy…”?

    Well reasoned Flaneur, but when I asked the old question (who or what owns the policy? per Bottomley in 3rd year) I came up with the answer ” The Kevin Andrewses (plural)” To use “the Kevin Andrews'” is ambiguous and could be either one or both of them. Hence the ludicrous Andrewses’s. Personally, I’d find another way, even if it took another paragraph!

  33. GP, that Norman Thomas quote is a fake, as was proved at the time. Reagan just made it up, as he made up most of the “quotes” and anecdotes he used in his speeches. He lived in a senile fantasy world and assumed everyone else did too.

  34. Poss

    I find your analysis entirely believable. I work with a lot of young graduates and if they are any guide, the rise in house prices to unaffordable levels ties with inaction on climate change for raising their ire. Those who have secure jobs aren’t too sorry about the recession and the first home buyes bonus is extremely popular with them.

  35. If you’re inviting Neil Andrew and his wife, and Kevin Andews and his wife, to dinner, who are you inviting? The Andrews and the Andrews? No, you’re inviting the Andrews and the Andrewses. And if you’re inviting their friends as well, you’re inviting the Andrews’ friends and the Andrewses’ friends.

  36. Alcopops are not the reason teenagers binge drink. You aren’t suggesting that I hope. The link between alcopops and teenagers is that is the cool way to drink at the moment. Something else could replace it next year. There are many who binge drink on other forms of alcohol packaging.

    No, I never said that was the reason they drank, I was referring to it being WHAT they drank. The tax on it was HALVED in 2000. Teenagers flocked to it. Reverting that tax will mean many of those that flocked to it will need to move to other alcohol that is either more expensive or less ‘lolly-water’-ish. The benefits are obvious, but it would appear you can’t make that connection or don’t wish to, for whatever reason.

    The issue is – as stated by the government – whether further taxing one of the current popular drinks will reduce binge drinking in teenagers.
    In the absence of any evidence to base the tax decision on, why would we not logically assume that teenagers wishing to drink to excess in groups will find another way to guzzle alcohol? Then yet another style of drink will become the new popular teenager drink of choice. Will we then move to tax further whatever the new popular drink is? And the next, and the next?

    If they did just find other drinks instead, why did alcohol consumption fall by 5%?

  38. Who cares if the tax reduces binge drinking or not? Governments make revenue decisions from time to time and I see nothing wrong with taxing a product which is not an essential.

  39. I can’t see any sentence in which Andrewses’s would be needed. If I have two cats eating dinner, it is the cats’ dinner, not the cats’s dinner.

  40. I don’t think anything we can say here is going to change JV’s view on alcopops. The shop is obviously shut.
    JV, you aren’t going to convince any of us, either, so you may as well give up. You’re on your own with this one.

  42. I can’t see any sentence in which Andrewses’s would be needed

    My understanding is that Andrewses’s isn’t a valid construct, though its meaning/intent is synonymous with Andrewses’. When the possessive apostrophe follows an “s”, or any other sibilant, the terminating “s” is dropped.

  43. I’m curious as to why Morgan feels the need to include the section “During the polling period”, which includes such incidents as

    30,000 flee California bushfires
    A stubborn bushfire that consumed 75 foothill homes above the US coastal town of Santa Barbara raged with renewed ferocity for a fourth day, forcing at least 30,000 people to flee as it advanced on the city and two nearby communities.

    Whilst it may be true I don’t really know how it’s relevant to the poll.

  44. I’m curious as to why Morgan feels the need to include the section “During the polling period”,…

    I find it useful when looking over old polls to get a feel for what was happening at the time.

Comments Page 50 of 50
1 … 49 50

Comments are closed.