GhostWhoVotes in comments is again first with the poll news: the latest monthly Nielsen poll, published in today’s Fairfax broadsheets, is a shocker for the government. The Coalition has opened a 53-47 lead on two-party preferred, from primary votes of 43 per cent for the Coalition, 33 per cent for Labor and 15 per cent for the Greens. The Herald reports this is Labor’s worst result since just after the September 11 attacks. The sample for the poll is 1400.
UPDATE: Sydney Morning Herald report here. The article notes that if preferences were distributed as per the last election rather othan on the basis of and not as indicated by respondents – usually a more reliable method – the two-party result would be 52-48. Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is down four points from a month ago to 41 per cent and his disapproval is up three to 52 per cent – actually better for him than other polls of late – and Tony Abbott approval is down five, also to 41 per cent. Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister has narrowed from 54-38 to 49-39. Only 55 per cent of voters now expect Labor to win the election, down 16 per cent in two months. The government appears to have lost ground in the resource super profits tax, with 41 per cent supporting and 49 per cent opposed comparing with 44 per cent and 47 per cent last month.
Sixty-two per cent, including “more than four in 10” Labor voters, support the Liberals’ promised return of offshore processing of asylum seekers offshore. Interestingly, a “party favoured on asylum seekers” question gets 35 per cent for the Liberals, 19 per cent for Labor and 18 per cent for the Greens. We are also told the Coalition has a remarkable 63-37 lead in Western Australia – which could easily be written off on grounds of a small sample (about 140), if we hadn’t been told something very similar last month.
UPDATE 2: The Australian has published results of a Newspoll survey commissioned by the mining industry targeting nine key seats in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. Respondents were only asked, so far as we know, about the resources super profits tax, its likely impact on their vote choice and who they voted for in 2007. I have taken the opportunity to compile all the available data on this subject, of which there is a very great deal, into the table below. Some pollsters only asked respondents if they supported or opposed the tax, while others asked them to specify whether their support or opposition was strong or weak. Variation in wording of the question no doubt explains some of the distinction between pollsters. For example, Morgan asked about “the new 40% tax on profits of mining projects”, whereas Essential merely spoke of “Higher taxes on the profits of large mining companies”. The numbers shown in brackets are the polls’ sample sizes.
That the Newspoll figures for Queensland are less favourable than Galaxy’s might have something to do with the seats targeted in the former – mining-affected Flynn and Dawson, together with urban Flynn – although the higher undecided result from Newspoll is harder to explain. The 41 per cent strong opposition among Western Australian respondents – from Perth, Brand and Hasluck is a striking figure by any standards. The seats targeted in South Australia were Wakefield, Hindmarsh and Kingston, all located in Adelaide and its outskirts. Among other questions asked of respondents was the effect of the tax on voting intention. Overall 8 per cent said it made them more likely to vote Labor against 31 per cent less likely; from Western Australian respondents, the figures were 6 per cent and 39 per cent.
| SUPPORT | OPPOSE | strong | weak/all | weak/all | strong | |
| Nielsen (1400) | National | Jun 3-6 | 41 | 49 | ||
| Galaxy (800) | Queensland | Jun 2-3 | 16 | 21 | 22 | 32 |
| Newspoll (600) | Qld marginals | May 31-Jun 3 | 17 | 13 | 19 | 30 |
| Newspoll (600) | WA marginals | May 31-Jun 3 | 11 | 10 | 16 | 41 |
| Newspoll (600) | SA marginals | May 31-Jun 3 | 18 | 14 | 18 | 21 |
| Morgan (655) | National | May 26-27 | 44 | 48 | ||
| Westpoll (400) | Brand | May 25-26 | 25 | 56 | ||
| Essential (2000) | National | May 19-23 | 12 | 31 | 22 | 14 |
| Morgan (571) | National | May 12-13 | 41 | 52 | ||
| Essential (2000) | National | May 4-9 | 52 | 34 | ||
| Nielsen (1400) | National | May 6-8 | 44 | 47 | ||
| Morgan (669) | National | May 4-5 | 47 | 45 | ||
UPDATE 3: No such calamity for Labor as far as Essential Research is concerned: they have Labor in front 52-48 on two-party preferred, up from 51-49 last week. However, the poll reflects the general trend in having both parties down on the primary vote – Labor two to 37 per cent and the Coalition one to 40 per cent – with the Greens up three to 12 per cent. Also featured are “best leadership team”, with Labor in the clear 47-31, “awareness of asylum seeker intake” (a very even spread across all the available categories), whose mining tax campaign is least unconvincing (the miners’, just), and whether John Howard should be head of the International Cricket Council (50 per cent no opinion, otherwise in Howard’s favour).
is iga part of safeway
It always cracks me up when people put millionaires together in one basket like they are a generic group. And yes, troothy, I’m looking at you.
There are actually different types of millionaires:
1. Those who inherited wealth
2. Those who started with nothing, worked their guts out, invested wisely and/or got lucky and finally joined the millionaire’s club, and
3. Those who started with nothing and used other people’s money to take huge risks which luckily paid off. Sometimes they didn’t succeed first time and needed to try and try again (with other people’s money, naturally) until they did strike it lucky. These people are then patted on the back and referred to as “entrepeneurs” when they are lucky, and are vilified as snake-oil salesmen (or theiving crooks) when they are unlucky.
These people think and operate differently and certainly have differing motivations in terms of the maintenance of their wealth. For example, those most inclined to share their wealth around – with no strings attached – are category 1s and 2s.
Most mining people – certainly those currently bleating the loudest – are in category 3 (except for the lovely Gina in category 1).
Terese Rein is in category 2 and even if she were a miner, I suspect she’d be in favour of the tax in the same way most of the category 2 “millionaire” miners are. It is no coincidence that all the noise in this debate is coming from the really big greedy end of town and not from these smaller guys.
I suspect this is the essence of the debate; the only people this tax is likely to hurt is the big, big operations (and their greed “entrepeneurs”) – the smaller operations are smart enough to see that, for them, the advangates far outweigh the disadvantages.
no iga ARE NOT PART OF WOOLWORTHS found out from the horses mouth
so thats great to here, i go there all the time
IGA NOT PART OF WOOLWORTH, found out from the horses mouth
[3458 IMOHO
Posted Friday, June 11, 2010 at 10:35 am | Permalink]
hope you saw my suggestion about the other post and face book
James Bodentown
[pancho – Obama’s wealth in early 2007 was about 1 million. Since then he has sold tens of millions of books. His net worth is at least in the tens of millions $USD. His Chicago mansion is worth at least $2 million.]
You are right, book royalties change the bottom line. Even so, the Atlantic estimates his current worth at about $5 million.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/the-net-worth-of-the-us-presidents-washington-to-obama/57020/5/
Interesting.
Truthy would have us believe that he came from struggle street and made a good living for himself from his own efforts.
Yet he cannot apparently understand others who have done the same.
Which suggests that Truthy’s assertions about his wealth and how he came by it are as reliable as his supposed voting record.
Further evidence that he is a silver spooner young Lib.
A rich young Lib? I’d eat my hat. A poor, old-aged pensioner, I’d wager.
Chinda63. But don’t forget Balzac(?) – behind every great fortune is a great crime.
Doesn’t get truer than that.
A few interesting comments in that piece by John Rolfe, “Rudd couldn’t sell a fridge let alone a mining tax, fumes Gerry Harvey”!
[Another millionare / billionare in Harvey that want’s to get in on the act.Mining magnates,radio broadcasters,advertising gurus and now retail giants.All business + commercial millionares all telling us how to live our lives all with genuine concerns for the rest of us.Give me a break.Their agenda is all for self interest only. Arrogant Harvey who opened his Byron Bay resort before he had council permission “I’m Gerry Harvey and I’ll do what I want!!!”Harvey who’s sales dropped during the GFC but were propped back up because of the stimulus hand outs.Ungrateful greedy old men/women who’s only concern is for the short term because they can afford to. ]
[This is from the same idiot who disguised himself as an old man with dementia and then ridiculed his own staff for not selling him anything. He needs to go into the “specials bin”.]
[Has any one noticed that the bigest wingers about this tax are the wealthy ones and most of these bludgers pay buggerall tax after their accountants claim all the bullshit.]
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/couldnt-sell-a-fridge-let-alone-a-mining-tax/comments-e6freuzr-1225878145289
Cuppa
[A rich young Lib? I’d eat my hat. A poor, old-aged pensioner, I’d wager.]
His story changes according to the circumstances of what garbage he wishes to post on a particular day and what subject he wants to bad-mouth the Government on.
From memory his earlyer claim was that he was a University student! I would think he is nothing but a compulsory, lying prat!
From Kev:
Ahh Toolman:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/11/2924532.htm?site=thedrum
Toolman is one grade A fruit loop
I think he has watched one too many eps of “the shield”
Benji @ # 3460
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/mining-tax-willl-cost-jobs-and-other-lies-20100611-y1hf.html
Thanks for that reference.
It really puts some of the rubbish that the miners (and some here) are talking into perspective.
I found it interesting that there are some mining companies that have a retune on investments of 400%. This means that for every $1 invested they get $4 back as clear profit every year. As some mines can last decades this is a massive return on investment. It points out in the article that the return on capital for all businesses for the period 1971 to 2008 averaged 8.5 per cent. Mining industry sources estimate that the typical expected rate of return on a mine is between 15 per cent and 20 per cent.
When you put this with the fact that on average mining business only pay an average of 17% tax (noting that the average tax for a single taxpayer on $50,000 is 18%) we have the equivalent of the “Robber Barons” of yesterday alive and well living the high life right at the heart of our society.
The final 2 paragraphs sum it up nicely.
“Imposing a little bit of tax on returns of 400 per cent sure doesn’t look that outrageous to me.
What is outrageous is that the benefits are not going to tackle health, education, climate change and Aboriginal disadvantage”
[Oooh, google.
Pardon me if I don’t.]
Ignorance is bliss as they say. BTW the Labor hackeries have been busy removing entries from the Wiki article on super profits relating to Kevin Rudd and his Labor Government. This seems strange seeing as Rudd has been using “Super Profits” so often as late and his tax is called Super Profits tax. Perhaps being associated with Marx and Lenin isn’t such a great look afterall and the Labor supporters can rename it the Really Really Big Profits Tax instead.
Any sign of Morgan today?
the “Fair Mining Magnate Tax”
Like I said, 35 – 40, all those references last night to bad mid 80’s -early 90’s music when he was young and impressionable, I suspect a tribally Conservative upbringing in a regional area… How we going so far Truthy?
su•per (so?o?p?r) Very large, great, or extreme
profit (präf?it) the sum remaining after all costs, direct and indirect, are deducted from the income of a business.
Super profit is an appropriate desciption of the year on year returns of the big miners is it not?
No Federal Morgan, but there is this NSW one:
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4508/
An excellent audio segment from Grauniad journos on the Labour leadership contest and other topics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/audio/2010/jun/10/politics-weekly-podcast
[Super profit is an appropriate desciption of the year on year returns of the big miners is it not?]
Only if you consider the “Bond Rate” for hundreds of millions of dollars of risk and years of costs with no income to be “super”.
A very interesting and lucid speech from George Soros on the financial system
[we have just entered Act II of the drama, when financial markets started losing confidence in the credibility of sovereign debt…
What are the implications of my theory for the regulation of the financial system?
First and foremost, since markets are bubble-prone, the financial authorities have to accept responsibility for preventing bubbles from growing too big.]
Clearly, the RBA has this in their minds with the build up of household debt and house prices.
[Second, in order to control asset bubbles it is not enough to control the money supply; you must also control the availability of credit…
Fourth, derivatives and synthetic financial instruments perform many useful functions, but they also carry hidden dangers. For instance, the securitization of mortgages was supposed to reduce risk through geographical diversification. In fact, it introduced a new risk by separating the interest of the agents from the interest of the owners.
Credit-default swaps (C.D.S.) are particularly dangerous. They allow people to buy insurance on the survival of a company or a country while handing them a license to kill. C.D.S. ought to be available to buyers only to the extent that they have a legitimate insurable interest
The financial authorities, in carrying out their duty of preventing the system from collapsing, have extended an implicit guarantee to all institutions that are “too big to fail.” Now they cannot credibly withdraw that guarantee. Therefore, they must impose regulations that will ensure that the guarantee will not be invoked. Too-big-to-fail banks must use less leverage and accept various restrictions on how they invest the depositors’ money. Deposits should not be used to finance proprietary trading.]
Potentially interesting implications for Macquarie Bank domestically
http://www.smh.com.au/business/we-have-just-entered-act-ii-of-the-drama-20100611-y1rs.html
Thanks Frank
check out the primary voting – in an optional preferential voting election, surely dynamite. And rise of Greens is not only a federal characteristic:
[Primary support for the ALP is 28.5% (down 6% since February 2010 and down 10.5% since the 2007 NSW State Election),
Liberal Party 44% (up 3%, and up 16.1% since the 2007 NSW State Election) and National Party 1% (down 1%),
The Greens 16% (up 5%), and Independents/Others 10.5% (down 1%).]
Should Gary Morgan have his home phone number up on that information?
Seems a bit risky.
Uhlmann:
Emperors have no clothes? On the back of Jerry “Kevin Rudd’s Stimulus Packsge Saved My Arse But I’ll Never Say Thank You” Harvey ancient history lesson about shaking sauce bottles?
The Screw, the nastiest person Chris has ever met (and this is in competition with Abbott and Julie Bishop) told him “Never fight naked.”
Giving equality before the court of public opinion to the exaggerating miners, cancelling projects one day, sacking thousands and then all is sweetness and light, no, no we didn’t actually mean what we said (andwithout involving the ASX, of course), over the elected Prime Minister of the country?
And all because Gerry reckons “all spin and no substance” Rudd isn’t using enough spin?
What next? Rudd is a House Of Cards? Oops.. Chris’s already used that one.
Howard is impregnable? Nah, he’s used that one too.
Talk about jumping the shark. Chris likes to style himself as your better class of political journalist, not like the ranting Abbott or Shanahan with his litttle pieces of paper, or the dipsomaniacal Glenn Milne. Chris is yer literary type.
Sheesh! And they actually pay people to write that kind of drivel? Really?
I’m applying for a job at the ABC. At least I’m sober during the day.
It’s hardly dynamite to be told that Labor is going to lose the NSW election. Although I think Keneally’s superior talents, when she is seen head to head with that old duffer O’Farrell, will regain some ground for Labor during the campaign, including from the Greens.
Chinda
[1. Those who inherited wealth
2. Those who started with nothing, worked their guts out, invested wisely and/or got lucky and finally joined the millionaire’s club, and
3. Those who started with nothing and used other people’s money to take huge risks which luckily paid off. Sometimes they didn’t succeed first time and needed to try and try again (with other people’s money, naturally) until they did strike it lucky. These people are then patted on the back and referred to as “entrepeneurs” when they are lucky, and are vilified as snake-oil salesmen (or theiving crooks) when they are unlucky.]
You could also add:
3B. Those who run a business and don’t pay their tax, frequently wind up their company when debtors threaten and don’t pay out their employees entitlements. A surprisingly large number of “successful” business people fall into this category in my experience. They call themselves “clever” but I’d prefer “unethical” or “under-prosecuted”.
Some millionaires who might see themselves in category 2 are really in category 3B. The non-enforcement of existing corporate laws on the wealthy is one of the scandals of our age IMO.
Of course, this doesn’t change your conclusions on the nature of some mining millionaires. Clive Palmer spent the first half of his career in real estate sales. He hasn’t built up anything – he is a classic speculator.
Thansk Laocoon 3524.
I agree with Soros. I have wondered lately whether some of the “panic’ merchants in our markets are not themselves holding CDS instruemnts on things like the Greek currency. They then have an interst in talking down the market. That is some of the world’s financial “commentators” are not observers or advisors, but market players and manipulators. I wish they got less media attention.
PLEASE someone!, does this SITE have an IGNORE BUTTON?.
Morgan out – still good for Rudd despite a VERY small drop.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2010/4510
Just shows how the wealthy like Harvey Norman have a very short memory, the stimulus probably saved his bacon!.
52 – 48 is not close.
I would guess the ALP would be ecstatic to win the election on that level.
And why bother with 0.5%, really.
[ Only if you consider the “Bond Rate” for hundreds of millions of dollars of risk and years of costs with no income to be “super”. ]
Revisit definition of profit.
[52 – 48 is not close.]
Exactly – which poll was Morgan looking at?
Folks
In the write up, Morgan says that phone polls are more responsive to current events – does he base this on anything other than assumption?
On federal Morgan, not much difference in 2PP between preferences based on what respondents say, versus 2007 election
Polling is an inexact science. A shift of 0.5% is meaningless. Labor is ahead in this poll, and is ahead in three of the four most current polls, with Nielsen being the exception. Morgan’s commentaries should be ignored.
assumption? No, logic!
I seem to recall gerry harvey went bust in a pretty big way early on in his business life ?
He has always failed to impress me. Someone who if I ever shook hands with (Heaven forbid) I would be counting my fingers to make sure I got them all back.
But his remarks are pure gold for the MSM, Big Dirt and the libs. Screw them all.
Socrates
Soros actually makes that very point of the feedback loop between the financial markets and “reality”. CDS are pernicious because of that (consider banks’ business models basically just rely on confidence)
As this would be a factor in ac Morgan Poll – trying to pin Rudd at fault ala the Outsiders ?
Interesting Morgan poll – the msm will feralalise in response – they know that unless they can get Abort up to 55 to 45 he doesn’t stand a chance in the election (according to the past history that I choose to gratefully accept as ‘gospel’)
Laocoon,
“On federal Morgan, not much difference in 2PP between preferences based on what respondents say, versus 2007 election”
Yes, and in fact the ALP figure is 0.5% higher for the preferences as “stated by the elector” than “how electors voted at the last election”. Not quite in line with Nielsen’s finding last week.
New thread.