James J relates that Newspoll has published two further aggregated marginal seats polls to join the survey of five Sydney seats published yesterday. One targets the four most marginal Labor seats in New South Wales outside Sydney – Dobell (5.1%), Robertson (1.0%), Page (4.2%) and Eden-Monaro (4.2%) – plus, somewhat messily, the Sydney seat of Kingsford Smith (UPDATE: It gets messier – the Dobell and Robertson component of the poll was conducted, and published, two weeks ago, while the remainder is new polling from the other three seats). The collective result is 53-47 to the Liberals, suggesting a swing of 7%. The primary votes are 48% for the Coalition and 36% for Labor. The other targets the three most marginal Labor seats in Victoria, Corangamite (0.3%), Deakin (0.6%) and La Trobe (1.7%), showing the Liberals with a 53-47 lead and suggesting a swing of about 4%. The primary votes are 34% for Labor and 47% for the Coalition. Each of the three has a sample of 800 and a margin of error of about 3.5%. The Australian’s display of all three seats of results including personal ratings and voter commitment numbers can be viewed here.
Also today:
• Morgan has a “multi-mode” poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday by phone and internet, which is different from the normal face-to-face, SMS and internet series it publishes every Sunday or Monday. The poll appears to have had a sample of 574 telephone respondents supplemented by 1025 online responses. The poll has the Coalition leading 53-47 on two-party preferred with respondent-allocated preferences (54-46 on 2010 preferences) from primary votes of 30.5% for Labor, 44% for the Coalition and 12% for the Greens. Of the weighty 13.5% “others” component, Morgan informs us that the Palmer United Party has spiked to 4%. The Morgan release compares these figures directly with those in the weekly multi-mode result from Sunday night, but given the difference in method (and in particular the tendency of face-to-face polling to skew to Labor) I’m not sure how valid this is. Morgan also has personal ratings derived from the telephone component of the poll, which among other things have Tony Abbott ahead of Kevin Rudd as preferred prime minister.
• JWS Research has some scattered looking automated phone poll results from various Labor seats which include one piece of good news for Labor – a 57.2-42.8 lead for Kevin Rudd in Griffith, for a swing against Labor of a little over 1% – together with a rather greater amount of bad news: Wayne Swan trailing 53.8-46.2 in Lilley (a 7% swing), Chris Bowen trailing 53.1-46.9 in McMahon (11%), Rob Mitchell trailing 54.7-45.3 in his seemingly safe Melbourne fringe seat of McEwen (14%), and Labor hanging on to a 50.6-49.4 lead in Bendigo (9%), to be vacated by the retirement of Steve Gibbons.
• The latest Galaxy automated phone poll for The Advertiser targets Kate Ellis’s seat of Adelaide and gives Labor one of its better results from such polling, with Ellis leading her Liberal opponent 54-46. This suggests a swing to the Liberals of 3.5%. The samples in these polls have been about 550, with margins of error of about 4.2%.
UPDATE: Galaxy has a further two electorate-level automated poll results, showing the Liberal National Party well ahead in its Queensland marginals of Herbert (55-45) and Dawson (57-43).
MICK 77
You are such a fool, when you can start talking sensibly I will reply The day I have to apologise for starting with nothing and having a comfortable life now is a step too far for me
feeney:
MacTiernan should’ve been elected leader instead of the hopeless Ripper.
And yes, she’ll be a great front bencher! 🙂
[quote]Comparing stimulus measures of different economies without looking at each economy’s circumstances and the size and targeting of the stimulus is also just a junk talking point. For most of the economies you have mentioned the primary criticism of the stimulus measures they implemented were that they weren’t large enough when stimulus was required AND that they weren’t very well targeted – most stimulus in the US, for example, was via bailing out the banks as opposed to stimulus targeted at consumers and construction industries, as it was here.[/quote]
And I’m perfectly happy to talk about this point with you. I warn you I have countries specific stimulus packages saved on my computer (i’ll have to dig them out) and I can also tell you they were plenty large and pretty damn well targetted. Germany’s especially.
And yes, I’ve had this argument before.
Confessions @1300
Ghost tweeted Primary votes are 42 each, no 2PP
fess
GWV reporting the primaries are tied in Brand which means ALP are ahead in tpp I assume
[@GhostWhoVotes: #Galaxy Poll 2 Party Preferred: ALP 47 (-1) L/NP 53 (+1)]
See, this is believable. National poll.
Gimme a seat poll next (preferably not robo)
And a “combo-marginal” last.
[GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 6m
#Galaxy Poll Seat of Brand Primary Votes: ALP 42 LIB 42 #ausvotes]
Primaries only. How odd.
Confessions at 1300,
Both Gary Gray and Donna Gordin has a primary vote of 42, according to Galaxy.
GWV’s little white hands and fingers must be working overtime
Yes, I’ve just realised that now, thanks. 🙂
MICK 77 1276
You can’t read either, where did I say anything about shares in my comment Give up while you are still able to. End of conversation I don’t interact with fools
And Germany emerged from the GFC in pretty good shape, certainly compared to other European countries.
And yes, of course the pre-GFC conditions – budgetary positions, banking system exposure/vulnerability – had an impact on how countries weathered the GFC.
However, you come out with glib lines listing a string of economies – all with varying stimulus program sizes and targeting – and say the only common factor is that they ‘weren’t expoesed’ to China while we were and therefore that is why we did well is bunkum. As you’ve admitted. But now want to change the goalposts again.
New thread.
The individual polls in SA and WA saying no movement of seats which is something Bludgertrack has been saying for at least several days.
[Brand 42-all PV]
Greens got 15% last time, with conservatve OTHs at around 5%.
Id say that puts Gray in ery much in the box seat, though I dont know whos running this time.
WA looking OK for ALP.
[quote]And yes, of course the pre-GFC conditions – budgetary positions, banking system exposure/vulnerability – had an impact on how countries weathered the GFC.[/quote]
Now who’s changing the goalposts. We are talking about the quality of each treasurer’s response to the GFC. Budget positions, which may have been left to them via a previous Gov, banking system vulnerabilities etc don’t apply.
[quote]However, you come out with glib lines listing a string of economies – all with varying stimulus program sizes and targeting – and say the only common factor is that they ‘weren’t expoesed’ to China while we were and therefore that is why we did well is bunkum. As you’ve admitted. But now want to change the goalposts again.[/quote]
I’m done playing games with you. How about this. I will list you each countries GFC stimulus response, and you can tell me, you smartie pants you, why Swan’s response was better.
Come on. Let’s play.
River –
Just you.
We are, but inevitably that is in the context of the post-GFC situation of each economy. I was simply conceding that part of Australia’s economic health was related to pre-GFC conditions, and that many of the European economies had much worse budgetary positions and much more banking exposure to the GFC, and hence some of the poor post-GFC positions of these economies are related to the difference in pre-GFC positions.
To the extent that the pre-GFC positions limited the ability to apply stimulus, or diverted stimulus into bailing out banking systems, it makes sense to assess each country’s approach to stimulus differently. Context and all that.
“Done playing games”? To this point I’ve posted 2 fairly sober posts – the first time I’ve posted on here in months. Who is playing games here?
“Smartie pants”? Who was just complaining about ad hominems?
I don’t care to “play games”; I care to call out glib nonsense such as you were putting forth in your posts.
You said this:
That’s simplistic and wrong, as I pointed out along with others. You squirming trying to reinvent your intellectual credibility doesn’t change the fact that what you said was simplistic and wrong.
Then you tried to use something that Glenn Stevens said – in a different context to a different question – to prop up your point:
And I took issue with the way you were using his statements. You haven’t defended your original statement or your abuse of Glenn Stevens’ statement.
But apparently I’m the one playing games and shifting goalposts.
[quote]To the extent that the pre-GFC positions limited the ability to apply stimulus, or diverted stimulus into bailing out banking systems, it makes sense to assess each country’s approach to stimulus differently. Context and all that.[/quote]
You are right. Each country’s position should be assessed individually. So let’s go. I will post each country’s GFC response on this board and you will tell me why (and I’m quoting you here) each country’s stimulus package wasn’t large enough or targeted well enough. Because that is what you wrote.
Like I said, I’m done playing games with you. Time to back it up.
[quote]You haven’t defended your original statement or your abuse of Glenn Stevens’ statement.[/quote]
I haven’t abused Glenn Steven’s statement at all. The GFC and the mining boom were both major factors affecting our economy, the stimulus package was, in comparison, small-fry.
Sean/1157
How much does Abbott earn? and his business mates?
River,
You keep saying that and not doing it. That would be because it would be a meaningless exercise. There are people – Krugman for one, whom I’m sure you have no time for at all – who have said that the comparative failure of many of the stimulus programs was that they weren’t large enough, delivered quickly enough, or weren’t targeted at the right areas.
I’m not in a position to say that a stimulus of 2% of GDP was too small or a stimulus of 10% of GDP was too large. I rely on the advice of people who I assess as knowing what they are talking about.
With hindsight, the stimulus applied in Australia was a very appropriate size and targeted well. That you give the government of the day no credit for that at all is purely political point-scoring and a distortion of the historical evidence.
You still haven’t demonstrated that the stimulus was unnecessary or badly targeted. When you have major economic forces – you mention here mining boom and GFC – the chances of them being exactly balancing forces is zero. The mining boom itself stumbled badly during the peak of the GFC – exports collapsing, mining companies laying off workers and downsizing etc – and that is exactly the time that a timely, targeted, appropriately-sized stimulus was needed, and that is what was delivered by the government of the day.
Bluster all you like, but that’s the record.
Ban the Burqua …. for fucks sake … what next, ban goths, punks, nuns? I couldnt give a flying f**k what anyone wants to wear. If freedom means anything, it means wearing what you want to wear.
[quote]who have said that the comparative failure of many of the stimulus programs was that they weren’t large enough, delivered quickly enough, or weren’t targeted at the right areas.[/quote]
The reports I’ve read say differently. They say things like this “But on the other hand, countries
with higher GDP per capita (high income countries) were also the earliest responders.” and things like this “In response to the financial and economic crisis of 2008-09, most major economies embarked on an unprecedented level of fiscal expansion in the form of stimulus packages. Among the G20 countries alone, the size of fiscal stimulus amounted to $2 trillion”.
Your source is talking bull. Countries put so much money in to stimulus that they went into severe debt. They couldn’t put any more money in. They were in so much debt that they’re now performing austerity.
[quote]You still haven’t demonstrated that the stimulus was unnecessary or badly targeted. [/quote]
And you still haven’t demonstrated that the rest of the world’s stimulus’s were too small or poorly targeted.
End of the day, the mining boom did the heavy lifting. Swann helped a little.
[quote]and that is exactly the time that a timely, targeted, appropriately-sized stimulus was needed, and that is what was delivered by the government of the day.[/quote]
And Australia was lucky that the mining boom took the brunt of it (the Gov only injected 35 billion dollars, the mining boom injected a lot more.) Again, this doesn’t make Swann better than the other treasurers around the world. And it didn’t mean that Swann saved Australia, cause he had shitloads of help doing it.
River, ok now I know you don’t understand what you’re talking about –
Do you understand the difference between pumping lots of public money into keeping banks open and stimulating an economy?
Having banks closing their doors is very bad for economies, of course, so preventing this from happening stops “anti-stimulus” from a crisis in confidence in the banking system, but it’s not ‘stimulus’ in an economic sense.
The vast majority of the debt that governments acquired during the GFC went into transferring unsustainable private debt generated by the banks due to the low-doc housing crisis etc, and putting it on the public books.
That wasn’t stimulus in any real sense. Yes, the already stretched public finances of European countries and the US took a massive hit, but it was primarily from keeping their banks going.
Your meaningless quotes (you didn’t even bother to provide links or sources to check context – if I could be arsed to check, which at this point I can’t because you’ve already demonstrated cluelessness or deliberate deception):
What does this general comment prove? Nada. It doesn’t say anything about whether “high income countries” responded quickly enough or targeted their programs properly or put in the right amount of money. It just says they were quicker – on average – than (prseumably) low income countries.
Meaningless.
So an aggregate across the G20 was X amount of dollars. How does that show anything about whether it was the right amount of dollars for each country, or the G20? Wow, $2 trillion sounds like a lot, but what is that compared to the GDP of the G20? $2 trillion would be what 13% of US GDP alone? Is that a lot or a little – who cares, $2 trillion sounds like a lot and it’s “unprecedented”. Well, here’s a tip – the GFC is generally considered “unprecedented”.
Another meaningless, unsourced quote designed to sound like you have some backing for your position when you have none.
I’m not the one who said that the fact Australia sailed through the GFC relatively unscathed was down to China and the mining boom alone. You were the one who put that nugget out there, and can’t defend it because it’s simply wrong.
The government injected a lot more than $35 billion. The $35 billion would only have covered the explicit programs.
The budgetary position changed by a lot more than $35 billion dollars due to lower taxes and higher outlays – automatic stabilizers etc – and of course those didn’t require the politicians to do anything except sit on their hands.
But austerity, which was an option, as we’ve seen in many other countries, is about not sitting on their hands letting the automatic stabilizers do their work.
So the government deliberately chose to not cut the automatic stabilizers and added a $35 billion targeted set of programs on top of that, as opposed to cutting and austerity.
It was a choice that was made, and it was the right choice.
[quote]That wasn’t stimulus in any real sense. Yes, the already stretched public finances of European countries and the US took a massive hit, but it was primarily from keeping their banks going[/quote]
Figures, or your point is meaningless. What were the bailout numbers and prove your assertion that european economies took a massive hit from bailing out banks and not through stimulus measures.
[quote]$2 trillion would be what 13% of US GDP alone? Is that a lot or a little – who cares, $2 trillion sounds like a lot and it’s “unprecedented”. Well, here’s a tip – the GFC is generally considered “unprecedented”.[/quote]
Considering ours was 30 billion dollars, and Europe have no money left, yes it was a lot of money.
[quote]What does this general comment prove? Nada. [/quote]
It means other high income countries acted as fast as us.
[quote]I’m not the one who said that the fact Australia sailed through the GFC relatively unscathed was down to China and the mining boom alone. [/quote]
And I’m not the one who said that Australia’s stimulus package was different to the rest of the world’s because most other countries weren’t large enough or were poorly targetted.
You’re calling for proof while providing none yourself. That’s what big boys call hypocrisy.
[quote]The government injected a lot more than $35 billion. The $35 billion would only have covered the explicit programs.[/quote]
Where’s your proof.
Mick 1147,
‘Sorry to dash hopes on the internal polling from “nudge-nudge wink-wink, never told a porkie in my life fraudster Rudd” but sportingbet now has Labor at 15.00 and Libs at 1.01. But what would they know .. it’s only their money at stake.’
Do you realise those odds are based on polls?
That’s precisely why they can’t be trusted.