BludgerTrack finds Labor’s tailspin continuing as the trend catches up with the slump that has followed last fortnight’s leadership fiasco, with two new polls (both conducted despite the interruption of Easter) adding further fuel to the fire. Labor sheds a further 1.6% on the primary vote and 1.1% on two-party preferred, with the seat projection putting the Coalition shy of a century that would be achieved with the gain of just one independent seat.
The new poll results are from Essential Research and Morgan’s new multi-mode series, which supplements their much-maligned face-to-face polling with online surveying, and which I am now introducing to BludgerTrack for the first time. The results are being adjusted with bias measures obtained against the poll trend itself, so adding it will not introduce any bias to the model that isn’t there already. So far, the move looks to be producing results more typical of phone polling than the notoriously Labor-leaning face-to-face series. This year Morgan has published five face-to-face followed by five multi-mode polls, and the average deviations from the trend have been as follows:
Face-to-face: Labor +1.0%, Coalition -3.9%, Greens +0.7%.
Multi-mode: Labor -1.4%, Coalition -0.9%, Greens +1.5%.
The latter set of numbers are the ones I am currently using for the bias adjustment (I will recalculate this each week), and they’re very similar to those I’m using for Galaxy.
The other development in BludgerTrack is that Newspoll’s quarterly aggregate has been added to the state differentials calculation, which again puts Victoria’s anti-Labor swing ahead of New South Wales. One possibly unfortunate consequence of the new numbers being added is that any post-leadership crisis effect in Queensland is being further obscured by a result that was four-fifths derived from before the event.
The growing size of ‘Others’ is, I guess an indication that people are starting to ‘think about it’.
The Superannuation stouch at this point in time is ‘unfortunate’.
Good morning Dawn Patrollers.
Abbott’s opportunistic hypocrisy on this matter is palpable.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/tax-rises-a-betrayal-that-abbott-might-not-reverse-20130402-2h53i.html
Surely! Not a facelass man in the Liberal ranks!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/lobbyists-oppose-kingmakers-plan-to-cash-in-on-abbott-links-20130402-2h4u8.html
If he is successful on April 13 does this mean that the fool will have to resign from the Senate?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/joyce-nominates-for-lower-house-seat-20130402-2h3kt.html
As is frequently the case, Peter Martin nails it on the superannuation issue.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/stopping-leakage-of-funds-to-rich-is-a-super-idea-20130402-2h4ts.html
And Jess Irvine basically says that even though the proposed changes are proper, Labor has stuffed it up, therefore it’s a bad change. I don’t get it.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/federal-government-about-to-ruin-superannuation-tax-reform-plan/story-e6frede3-1226611119348
Alan Moir on Kim Il Idiot.
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/alan-moir-20090907-fdxk.html
David Pope contrasts superannuation policies.
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/david-pope-20120214-1t3j0.html
Ron Tandberg has a real swipe at the Catholic church here.
http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/ron-tandberg-20090910-fixc.html
As usual, David Rowe has some interesting imagery.
http://www.afr.com/p/national/cartoon_gallery_david_rowe_1g8WHy9urgOIQrWQ0IrkdO
And from the Land of the Free –
My daughter is honeymooning in the US and, despite my advice, visited LA. They did not feel at all comfortable there, describing it as a dump where it is clearly apparent that US society has a very clear distinction between the quite and very wealthy and the poor. They appreciate Australia so much more as a result.
And here’s a good example of how it got that way.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/04/02/doonesbury-new-restaurant-managers-slogan-attention-workers-it-could-be-worse/
Some more cartoons on guns.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/04/02/cartoons-of-the-day-nra-business-as-usual/
The riduclous Pat Robertson excels himself here!
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/robertson-god-gives-less-miracles-too-educat
WTF!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/nra-school-safety-report_n_2999968.html
BK. I too love Peter Martin, but his article today is filled with embarassing factual errors. rule #1: before you rant and rave about thr injustice of a system, understand the system (which is still perhaps unjust, but not as much as he portrays it).
He talks about salary earners on a million dollars a year having $90k put into their super account through an employer contribution and that being taxes at 15c in the dollar.
It’s a non-existent scenario. Under the rules which have applied since July 2011, thr most that csn go into a super fund at the concessional tax rate for people on any income is $25k and this in lures the employer contribution.
From July 2012, the super concessional tax rate for people earning over $300k per annum was raised to 30 cents in the dollar.
This means that the maximum tax benefit any very high income earner can hope to recoup in a year is now called at around $4200 per annum. When I multiply this by thr top 1 per cent of salary earnersI get around $400 million per annum, not the billions and billions per annum I’ve been reading about. So if they are trying to raise billions of dollars, they must also be going after these people ‘s savings and going retrospective as well.
In the end, I guess, they are attempting to remove any superbtax benefits these guys have ever received over their lifetimes. But, having done that to 1 per cent of the population, what’s to stop them graduslly moving down the food chain? It’s an easy scare campaign for Tony to dine out on for months. People will buy it, I reckon.
And what will the High Court say about the retrospectivity? In a beautiful irony, the High Court judges’ own superannuation will be slashed by this measure….!
There surely must be better ways than this of raising a couple of billion.
AFR (Fairfax tabloid financial paper) on RBA:
[Barring a sudden catastrophe in Europe or another such event, the central bank is unwilling to deliver more rate cuts in order to spur the investment in new homes that policymakers are counting on to offset the looming downturn in the resources investment boom.]
http://www.afr.com/p/national/rba_backs_stance_new_homes_on_the_MgimIOeyNHGddIdTxD9sZJ
RBA on RBA:
[The Board’s view is that with inflation likely to be consistent with the target, and with growth likely to be a little below trend over the coming year, an accommodative stance of monetary policy is appropriate. The inflation outlook, as assessed at present, would afford scope to ease policy further, should that be necessary to support demand. At today’s meeting, the Board judged that it was prudent to leave the cash rate unchanged.]
http://www.rba.gov.au/media-releases/2013/mr-13-06.html
AFR tabloid quality in accounting concepts: this surely needs a bit of an explanation, or does “blame the government” cover every eventuality these days, obviating the need for any critical thought or analysis:
[Valuing Medibank is tricky. Estimated proceeds from a 2010 sale were valued at about $4 billion but profits were higher back then. According to its 2012 annual report Medibank’s statutory profit was $127 million, compared to $300 million a year earlier. The shortfall is largely due to the government’s special dividend payouts.]
http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/medibank_privatisation_will_have_mZUUmpvHcOD77pNGCGGf5I
Laocoon: i don’t know what the AFR is going on about special dividend payouts shouldn’t change the value of Medibsnk Private unless they have somehow made it insolvent. Bi reckon somewhere upwards of $400 billion is about right.
I wouldn’t sell it: it’s a nice little earner for the Government It’s useful to note that the Howard Government thought about selling it for the best part of 12 years, but never did.
I’m posting this early as I have to go out, but I think it’s worthwhile having a look at a writer who is not blaming everything on “personality” – the main thrust of newspapers and shockjocks.
Instead she tackles ideology and suggests reasons for the current splits, comparing Labor’s problems to the implosion of the Democrats.
[There was a generational divide between those who saw themselves as breakaway liberals, and a younger generation that saw themselves as young lefties. The party could not reconcile the generational divide and imploded. Not pretty, but based on real, important stuff and our public debate was impoverished for not understanding it at the time.
A similar failure to engage in the nitty gritty is happening in the analysis of Labor’s implosion. The reflex to dismiss outgoing ministers’ explanations for their discontent with the Gillard leadership and to reduce it to personality clashes erodes the national debate.
The Labor Party currently has three competing traditions jostling for dominance. It has its old blue-collar tradition based in the union movement that was traditionally socially conservative, suspicious of big business, and saw a strong role for government in reducing the scope for the rich to exploit the poor.
A second tradition was the Hawke-Keating tradition, which argued that robust economic growth was essential for providing the material conditions of the working classes, and to being able to afford a welfare state. They tended to overlook the exploitation in markets and focused on being able to compensate the free market losers through a robust safety net or the ”social wage”.
The third tradition sprang from the liberation movements of the 1970s. It sought to tackle the next generation of challenges to social equality by addressing the marginalised status of women, Aborigines, migrants and gays. This generation also embraced saving our environment as a core ethical norm.
Gillard has strongly positioned herself in the first old blue-collar tradition since seizing the leadership. It is a response to a lot of Labor’s traditional supporters feeling betrayed and abandoned by the Hawke-Keating government.]
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/clashes-over-ideology-key-to-labors-ructions-20130402-2h4vu.html#ixzz2PL84P5c0
meher baba
Yep – who knows what the AFR is on about!
I have a different view. I think they should sell it. It is a highly regulated industry. Fairly competitive (by Australian industry standards). Use money for other purposes. Robs coalition of a policy that is not bizarre (precious few of those), politically allowing for focus on their high tax approach.
This tidbit from AFR business column (selling MBprivate is the AFR’s topic d’semaine btw):
[But the Medibank float was shelved, on the advice of Lazard, amid concerns it could interfere with the Telstra T3 sale. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd, who also opposed the floating of Telstra, made it clear at the time he would not proceed with the planned sale of Medibank deal when he got into office. Interestingly Lazard now employs Lindsay Tanner, who was finance minister under Rudd and opposed the sale of Medibank]
http://www.afr.com/Blogs/Opinion_Street%20Talk
Morning All
It’s sounding more and more like the cut off for the changes to super will be $300k – that’s a silly approach imo. The top marginal tax rate kicks in at $180k – the changes should start from there as well. Taking things off people is never popular but in this case it needs to be done. The budget needs the money both now and in the longer term.
One thing I’m starting to see more of is discussion about Abbott’s whack at the bottom 3.6 million, i.e. those on under $37k – I care a hell of a lot more about them then the 1% on $300k or more. Even if the later have a louder voice.
I caught the last few minutes of Showdown last night on Sky – I don’t know who the guy was but he effectively wrote those 3.6 million people off by saying “they don’t care about super” – arrogant pig.
The focus may change a bit today with the start of the Royal Commission – BRING IT ON
Off to work, have a great day All
Another increase for the others group. Hope it will be around 14 percent come election day.
William:
Thanks for the Bludgertrack update.
Whatsupwith 99?????? C’mon, work that little abacus of yours a little harder and get them into the triple digits :devil.
Now on a more serious note, I understand your calculations are based on a seat by seat analysis. Is there any chance you could generate a Result calculator (like the Antony Green Pendulum calculator but better)? It would be very interesting to see which seats are likely to change based on each Bludgertrack update.
NB: Please throw things at the wall, swear and drive your pen through your computer screen to dissipate some of your rage at me for suggesting this before replying here :devil: I do realise it is a lot of work, but you appear to have that much detail in your model!
Ctar1
The size of other hardly matters when the Liberal vote is 48%, in fact the size of the other could be to the likes of One nation, FFP, KAP etc, whose preference will flows to the Liberals (in the senate), so the size of the other is actually very worrying for the ALP and the Greens, when people are no longer using the Greens as a protest party of choice
Actually, it would be more like Nate Silver, Votamatic, Electoral vote, Election-projection and Princeton Election Consortium than Antony Green (as Antony’s calculator just works on the assumption of an evenly distributed swing whereas the others work on an individual result level).
[dovif
Posted Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 8:17 am | PERMALINK
Ctar1
The size of other hardly matters when the Liberal vote is 48%,]
Bingo.
The combined ALP+Green vote is dropping and going to the Libs this year.
The size of other hardly matters when the Liberal vote is 48%, in fact the size of the other could be to the likes of One nation, FFP, KAP etc, whose preference will flows to the Liberals (in the senate), so the size of the other is actually very worrying for the ALP and the Greens, when people are no longer using the Greens as a protest party of choice
For the Senate it does matter since the more loose preferences laying around the better. I assume all major parties will put the ASP last so that really is the ASP only chance for a senator.
Someone is rich with Super at $300k+ $300k at retirement would last about 7-8 years, while most will live for 10-20 years
So the ALP force employers to increase super contribution (ie decrease our wages) now they wants to increase tax on the savings in the Superfund. Sounds like a tax increase for Australians
Aggregate Coalition TPPs (and seat projections) today:
Kevin Bonham= 56.0
Marktheballot= 56.1 (or 100 seats)
Bludgertrack= 56.5 (or 99 seats + 5 Indie results not included)
The fact is I really cant see the ALP pulling back from this.
I expect the Greens and Katter to exchange preferences – at least in Qld
The coal seam gas issue is the basis for alliance – plus many of the Katter rural socialist issues
http://australiansforhonestpolitics.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/anatomy-of-sales-v-gillard-interview/
dare to tread
Katter hates the Greens, the likelihood of them swapping preference with the Greens are Zero, in fact I would bet the Greens are last on their preference ticket
I agree there is just no way the greens can exchange preferences with Katter with out giving up the moral high ground on social issues.
Not so Dovif
The Greens and Katter are working together on many issues here in Qld – especially CSG.
Katter is even going softly softly on gay issues with a gay candidate in the ACT I think.
Like I said its not going to happen CSG is just one issue, look the the greens campaign material it basically says vote for us or Katter will get in.
Although Katter attracts old one nation types it is very foolish to assume there is not a major difference in the nature of the leadership.
Katter for starters is in no way a racist and in fact favours increased immigration- develop the North strategy. Not saying all his team are not a bit Hansonesque but personally he is not the same as Hanson.
DTT
The other caveat is that KAP is very likely to out-oll the Greens in Qld meanings the Greens will deliver a seats to KAP
If the Greens does do this, I would not be surprise if the KAP candidate is elected in front of the ALP 2nd candidate giving Qld a 5-1 split
Repost!..Greg Hunt has to be the new Chauncey Gardner…:”If..all is well….with the roots….then….the garden…will be ….well…”
What a dumb-simpleton
FTR, I’d be appalled if the Greens started trading preferences with the Katterites. I can’t imagine it happening though.
DTT
Katter will be walking backwards from Canberra to Chartered Towers then.
ASPS
Yes Katter and the Greens will be fighting it out for a Senate spot but they are also fighting Labor and LNP.
I agree besides either way Katter needs the other minor wing parties who he will have to put in front of the greens anyway to get there preferences.
Amazing.
I just saw a calm, polite, grown up informative interview with the Prime minister on telly.
What the feck is going on.
Rosemour or Less
You saw an interview of John Howard or Bob Hawke then
Professor John Piggott Uni of NSW and member of the Henry Tax Review team was interviewed by Fran Kelly today. He confirmed what I always suspected: that the $32 billion cost of superannuation tax concessions was a completely crap figure.
He also confirmed that changes such as those which appear to have been mooted are going to have random and often quite severe effects on some people who are heading towards retirement.
I don’t believe he is a right-winger. He is undoubtedly an expert on global superannuation policy.
dtt
this doesn’t sound like a party ready and willing to swap preferences with Katter:
[Queensland Greens lead Senate candidate Adam Stone has labelled Bob Katter’s calls to remove legal protection for Queensland flying fox communities ‘reckless and irresponsible’.
“Political representatives are elected to care for people and the environment, yet Mr Katter is advocating removing all protections from this vulnerable species,” Mr Stone said.]
[Mr Stone said that Katter’s statements provided a ‘stark contrast’ for voters in the upcoming Federal election.
“The final Senate spot in Queensland is likely to come down to a choice between myself from the Greens or someone from Bob Katter’s party,” he said.
“We’re getting a real sense of KAP’s environmental priorities now. We can have someone who cares for all people and our environment, or a reckless environmental vandal in Bob Katter and his party.”]
http://qld.greens.org.au/content/katter%E2%80%99s-calls-remove-protection-flying-foxes-reckless-and-irresponsible-greens
And I doubt the Greens will be linking hands with someone who
[is fully behind the Abbott plan for the repeal of the carbon tax.]
and says
[remember that we are the anti-Greens party”. ]
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/bob-katter-the-man-with-friends-in-odd-places-20130314-2g2m1.html#ixzz2PLTbZvu1
rosemour
There has certainly been a shift in the media since the challenge that wasn’t.
Super is the ONLY issue that they seem to be pursuing, and even that not very hotly (because it can’t be mentioned without also bringing up the Coalition’s plans to cut super offsets for lower income earners).
And super (a) isn’t a burning issue with most people; and (b) has been defined by Joel Fitzgibbon et al as only a threat to battlers on $250k and above…
(I’m amused this morning to note a Nationals candidate for the Senate declaring super is ‘sacrosanct’ to the Coalition — he’s got a limited career ahead of him!)
The feedback I’ve been getting from voters over the last year or so is that they want a rest from politics. It’d be ironic if they get that rest in the months leading up to the actual election…
Dovif
Cannot quite see that chance. Labor would need to poll below 27% to miss a second place.
However I would agree that if this were at all likely then Greens would not or SHOULD not do it.
The more I think about it Labor should pull an election sooner rather than later so that it can split the senate from the HoR election
Zoomster
Super is a HUGE issue. Not sure why you think it is not.
It is especially an issue in the sea change tree change belt.
Zoomster
Yes Adam Stone and Katter will be going head to head so they will seek to attack one another (although with widely different constituencies I am not sure they have a large group from which to battle.
The Greens battle Labor in the cities and SEQ while Katter appeals to country party types. Problem for Labor is that in North Q he attracts many, many former labor voters.
meher
the $32b figure, like all revenue foregone figures, assumes a steady state. If parameters such as tax rates change, the relative merit of alternative investments changes as well. So Piggott is partially right.
what he should have said in his point about “tinkering” is that Costello blew the whole super model out the window with his blanket tax free super over 60 changes. Totally irresponsible action.
Morning all.
[FTR, I’d be appalled if the Greens started trading preferences with the Katterites. I can’t imagine it happening though.]
Neither can I.
DTT
The ALP vote will need to drop below 28.57% which can easily happen when the 2PP is 40%, and the Green has about 9% of those, all that will be require is about 3-4% leakage to the likes of FFP, KAP, Sex party, Democrats which always happens to the major parties. the ALP will likely be under 2 quota, it is just a matter of how much and they will be starved of prefeence except for the greens.
I see Peter Martin has changed his poorly researched and ignorant article on super guarantee and tax rates for over $1m earners. The $90,000 super contribution by the employer, taxed at 15% has been changed to:
[Think about an executive on $1 million a year. Not quite one of Joel Fitzgibbon’s ”battlers”, but someone several rungs above.
Advertisement His or her firm pays a legislated maximum of $17,190 per year into a super fund of his or her choice, perhaps a self-managed one. Instead of being taxed at his or her marginal rate (45 per cent plus the 1.5 per cent Medicare levy) the payment has until now been taxed at just 15 per cent. So instead of paying $7993 the executive pays just $2578. The gift from the tax system is $5415.
]
How humiliating.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/stopping-leakage-of-funds-to-rich-is-a-super-idea-20130402-2h4ts.html#ixzz2PLYnPyhl
meher baba@35
Plenty of views to the opposite from highly placed people in Treasury and across other areas, so take your pick I guess.
It would be nice to get some declarations of interests by those doing the spruking though –
http://www.afr.com/p/home/super_tax_concessions_unsustainable_7mqSYeSVU0xJzbn870L08K
[Amazing.
I just saw a calm, polite, grown up informative interview with the Prime minister on telly.
What the feck is going on.]
Rosemour – Who did the i/vw please? ABC24 or Sky?
and this tag from the red-faced Peter Martin
[Corrected. The print version of this article said $90,000 of the million dollar earner’s salary could be paid in super. The maximum super contribution base means the amount is $17,190 per year. The calculations have been adjusted to reflect this]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/stopping-leakage-of-funds-to-rich-is-a-super-idea-20130402-2h4ts.html#ixzz2PLZW4f52
Abbott could not even do his job as Health Minister properly. What a buffoon
[Judge Anna Katzmann ruled that these GP members had not been validly appointed because the then health minister Tony Abbott had not consulted the Australian Medical Association before appointing them.]
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/open-slather-for-penalised-doctors-after-abbott-gaffe-invalidates-panel-20130402-2h4sm.html#ixzz2PLZI7skW
BK Great cartoon from David Pope today. Thanks
[Perth and the South West would face almost permanent drought unless urgent action is taken now to stop greenhouse gas emissions, a report to be released today warns.
The Climate Commission also argues the State’s Wheatbelt could be left a shell of itself, with yields plummeting, as extended dry and hot periods make cropping increasingly difficult.
The report outlines how Australia’s climate is already changing because of a build-up of greenhouse gases in the environment.
It notes that heatwaves have become longer and more numerous, more record hot days are being experienced and when it does rain, those events are heavier and more destructive.
Between 1911 and 1974, Perth’s dams averaged 338 gigalitres of inflow annually.
Over the past six years that inflow average has fallen to just 65.8 gigalitres.]
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/16504244/wa-warned-of-severe-droughts/
Very sobering news for anyone who lives here. Yet the coalition are still persisting with this nonsense that planting trees and paying farmers for soil sequestration is a sensible, effective carbon abatement program.
And what a slap in the face for Mark McGowan who stupidly tried to distance WA Labor from carbon pricing!