The Australian reports the Coalition’s lead in Newspoll has blown out to 58-42, from primary votes of 30% for Labor (down four on the previous fortnight’s result) and 50% for the Coalition (up six) and 10% for the Greens (down one). There has also been a big move to Tony Abbott on preferred prime minister, going from 42-38 behind to 43-35 ahead – remembering that the result of the previous poll was well above the trend for Labor. More to follow.
UPDATE: Julia Gillard has recorded her worst personal ratings since September 2011, while Tony Abbott’s ratings are the best they have been since the middle of that year. Gillard is down six on approval to 26% and up eight on disapproval to 65%, while Tony Abbott is up three to 39% and down five to 50%.
I agree that the amount of taxpayer $$$ provided as subsidies to elite private schools is a disgrace. But, as Latham shows, attacking that would be even stupider politics than attacking the super savings of high income earners.
People who earn 5 digit salaries don’t feel rich. But they want to send their children to private schools, have private health insurance and want to get tax concessions on their super. They don’t give a toss about trade unions, public school teachers, etc. They aspire to be rich, so they don’t support the idea of punitive taxes on the rich. And they really hate the idea of asylum seekers coming here on boats and being granted refugee status.
These are the aspirational voters of suburban Sydney, suburban Brisbane and suburban Perth. If you want to be in government, you’ve got to work with them and not against them, or they will vote you out.
Politics 101.
ESJ
the teachers’ union isn’t aligned to the ALP.
It’s also one of the few unions which doesn’t enforce compulsory action – individual members decide for themselves whether they’ll support a particular strike etc.
And, of course, it’s never had compulsory membership, either.
rummel@2495
Swanny and the ALP will be lauded for the MRRT in years to come. If it was up to your mob the greedy miners would siphon all these profits back to their foreign bases.
ESJ,
The State Aid debate goes back to the sixties.
The Catholics won.
The Private System reaps the benefits.
Diogenes
Ding. Therein lies the logical flaw. Why should private get the same as public, when private has its own rules of exclusion? Should the owner of a vintage MG get a subsidy because he won’t use public transport?
Government money should go to those in need surely. If parents want to wank sending their brats to exclusionist private schools, then let them pay full freight. Why should govt assist?
Young lib outed ha ha.
Surely GG it’s something you would agree is a failing of the government to address ?
Anyway if your on the way out why not bombard the bastions of privilege on the way out? Would be very hard for tone to give the private schools the cash back.
Memo to the Young Libber, this aint #QANDA
GG it ain’t the local parochial schools, it’s the independent private schools you want to sort out.
No 2505
They don’t get the same as public students, they get a nominal amount far less.
ESJ,
All the Labor pollies and much of the Union hierarchy send their kids to Private Schools.
That horse self interest is always running.
[No 2494
That will always happen, but the point is that the feds impose strings for the obvious reason that they want the states to be accountable.]
So what is wrong with that Mr Wanker?
“subsitised” ?
Shouldn’t have given this bum the last question.
ESJ
I wouldn’t make that distinction. Look at the court lists. Not the sort of cloistered fingering I want to support with taxation.
That was final question
[All the Labor pollies and much of the Union hierarchy send their kids to Private Schools.
That horse self interest is always running.]
Come off it. One reason for that is there are still a lot of Catholics in the ALP who prefer to send their kids to Catholic schools.
It’s a free country still right Mr Wanker?
@GP/2510
An Amount is still an Amount, that you can’t get away with.
Actually GP it isn’t your money to you receive it in the bank
The Government owns all bank notes that are put into circulation
-Customer walks in and buys a plate of Pasta and pays the business
-The business then pays you but first takes a small amount out for the Government to build things like the road you used to travel to work
Glenn Stevens says hi
Good night, Bludgers.
[Ding. Therein lies the logical flaw. Why should private get the same as public, when private has its own rules of exclusion? Should the owner of a vintage MG get a subsidy because he won’t use public transport?
Government money should go to those in need surely. If parents want to wank sending their brats to exclusionist private schools, then let them pay full freight. Why should govt assist?]
1. They don’t get the same. They get less.
2. Sending kids to private schools save the taxpayer money and improves the choices available to patents.
zokmster@2496. It depends on whether you are in a defined benefit scheme or an accumulation scheme. People in defined benefit schemes mostky think very little about their super until they are near retirement. Accumulation schemes by thrir nature force members to think about them much more, including precisely how much tax is being taken out each fortnight or month.
The changes we are likely to get will be designed by people in defined benefit schemes and will entirely impact people in accumulation schemes. To me, this looks like the right conditions for a policy train wreck.
Good night from me as well. 🙂
I think Howson got his wanking in a bit of a bind.
@Dio/2520
If they go to private schools to save tax payer money, then why was it we still giving them money?
Should be self-funded by now.
Once again, without the prism of the tired old biased fogeys of the MSM, the PM comes across as a sensible, thoughtful and intelligent PM; well and truly on top of the detail.
Imagine monkey man in a similar setting, “well ah, look ah, I’m going to ask Andrew to give you a response on that one. Andrew? Andrew? Wake up Andrew”.
mb
First question would be why Gillard etcs super scheme hasn’t been changed.
Agree on the super too meher, the real source of unfairness tax wise in this country is that we tax asset ownership very lightly. People striving to chip in between 10k and 35k into super aren’t the wealthy it’s those owning the assets.
No 2512
Nothing is wrong with strings, I was merely pointing out the fact to zoomster.
GP – With his nunber’s is fun.
No sense, of course.
Private school kids get about $6k gov funding per student, the bulk of which is federal money. Public student Get about $11.5K per student the bulk of which is state.
The argument of the private schools is that by sending their kids here they are saving the tax payer money by going private and with subsidy still save $5.5k per anum.
However the standards are often chalk and cheese due to the extra exhorbitant fees, and not all (well most) can’t afford to go to a private school, so the ones that get a priveledged education have far more oportunities.
The only solution i see is to increase public school funding, imrove the standard and over time, they will be become competitive hence reducing the affordality, the need and eventually the numbers of private schools and private school places
GP by rights the Government should not give money to any private business that means private schools and private hospitals.
But to do that would be as short sighted as your idea to cut newstart
zoidlord
They don’t go there to save the taxpayer money but that is the effect of it. The taxpayer pays less to educate a kid in a private school than a public school.
It’s basically the same as private health care.
Diogenes
1. They don’t get the same. They get less.
2. Sending kids to private schools save the taxpayer money and improves the choices available to patents
1. Why should private education businesses get any public money when they exclude who they wish? If they accept anyone, without charge, I have no issue.
2. The choice isn’t removed. If you think a private school with teachers trained at the same unis as the public ones is better, fine. But you should pay for it, not me.
Henry,
Suppose “Mr Abbott, would you like to address the people of Thorndike as I did, with no restriction on questions or attendees?”
There is a decent advertisement there.
ESJ,
It’s like that clause in the American Constituion about ‘the right to bear arms”. It creates a dichotomy when there a million shade so of grey opinion and thus creates an us versus them mentality.
The currnet argument by the schools is they pay tax and are entitled to a cut of Government spending on education.
What hardworking taxpayer can disagree?
No 2527
You didn’t see our land tax bill last year, obviously. What a ludicrously silly thing to say.
[2. Sending kids to private schools save the taxpayer money and improves the choices available to patents.]
Well no, it actually wastes money because Gonski found that for many private schools the education outcomes aren’t any better than public schools.
So the parents have essentially wasted a lot of money that would be better spent elsewhere in the economy.
Rummel 2462 Up to now I have usually just scrolled through your “comments” but don’t wish for absolute power sunshine, remember what happened to Howard when he found himself in that position :devil:
@Dio/2532
So what’s the point of calling it private then?
Educating a Kid isn’t cheap to the parent regardless which way – Public or Private.
GP
[You didn’t see our land tax bill last year]
Post it.
[No 2527
You didn’t see our land tax bill last year, obviously. What a ludicrously silly thing to say.]
Land tax is a better way of taxing property than applying idiotic stamp duty simply for the transfer of a property.
Gp your probably not structuring your tax affairs correctly, get a better accountant.
… with, of course, recent evaluations.
Delimiter @delimiterau 3m
FYI We’ve posted an update to our Adobe story today, removing several paragraphs: http://delimiter.com.au/2013/03/27/adobe-misleads-it-price-hike-inquiry/ …
Super “a policy train wreck” waiting to happen as Meher Baba suggests? Probably.
Is there any possibility that the brilliant minds mapping the strategy for Julia Gillard to achieve the most unlikely victory in decades could do something smart for once?
As in stop doing dumb, error-prone and potentially divisive stuff like the media reforms and messing with super?
It really does start to look someone has paid several senior Labor insiders a lot of money to sabotage the already nearly-dead election campaign from within.
You’re so wRONg on this Diogenes. There is no need for private school education to be publicly funded. It is a creature of the late 1960s, state aid. There was never an argument based on costs to suport it. It was always a religious thing.
dio@2526. Policy changes instigated from Opposition by Latham fixed it for everyone elected to parliament post-2004. But the people already in the scheme
were grandfathered. I think there would be huge administrative and legal issues in trying to make the changes retrospective
Alias , the Manchurian candidate theory ?
No 2537
In many cases, the choice to send kids to private schools is about much more than generic education outcomes. It’s often about discipline standards, facilities, extra-curricular opportunities and so forth, which are often beyond what even a good public school would be able to offer.
No 2541
No disagreement for me re: stamp duty.