GhostWhoVotes relates that a ReachTEL poll, which I take to be its monthly poll for the Seven Network, has Labor’s lead unchanged on a month ago at 53-47, from primary votes of 40.3% for the Coalition, 39.2% for Labor and 10.5% for the Greens. The poll also finds Malcolm Turnbull to be favoured over Tony Abbott by 53.2% of respondents with only 27.7% opting for Abbott (and 19.1% for Joe Hockey), but this is down to a massive disparity between Coalition supporters, 58.6% of whom favour Abbott versus 27.6% for Turnbull and 13.8% for Hockey, and Labor supporters, of whom 76.5% favour Turnbull, 17.9% favour Hockey, and only 5.6% favour Abbott.
UPDATE: Essential Research has the Coalition up 51-49, reversing the result from last time. The Coalition is up two on the primary vote to 44%, with Labor and the Greens each down a point to 38% and 8%.
zoidlord: I am not cryptic at all, I am afraid.
Have you considered that it might be your difficulty following the thread, rather than it being my fault?
Where’s Guytaur tonight? Missing some of that forensic analysis. Oh Well at least zoidy’s here tonight!
Also even if the carbon tax was exactly accounted for, reduced air fares albeit only by $7 or so would mean a small increase in affordability so volume would go up.
I think I can get away with letting you know that the move to Essential Research this week is because of a pro-Labor outlier three weeks ago which has now dropped out of the fortnightly result, and not because they had a particularly bad result this week.
@Mod Lib/1401
No, because you are being far fetched with your claims, and cannot believe it’s due to Bad Management of Qantas.
[Are Downer and Minchin currently diplomatic officials, let alone Australian diplomatic officials?]
I’m not sure exactly, but there wouldn’t be any shortage of “diplomatic officials” with scores to settle/agendas to pursue.
Mad Lib@1395
Ever heard of an economic concept, the elasticity of demand?
There would be very little change in the number of people flying as a lot of the demand is fairly inelastic.
Do try harder.
Dio:
You have to adjust for PBconomics.
In PBconomics, when the price of something goes up, there is no impact.
Ergo, when the price of something goes down, there is no impact.
One sometimes wonders, whether having nothing but union backgrounds, where the money flows easily from compulsory union dues, means the concepts of price and demand haven’t sunk in here……
Bemused
You are right that QANTAS could be worse off if the full $7 was cut from the fares and they’d only put them up $5 but they’d just find another excuse to bump the fares up again.
BTW where is Edwina/Ed St J??…so sign in recent days ???
Did he/she really go off to fight for he Ukraine as he suggested he might do…
My offer of a send-off was declined ,but perhaps he did so and did he take sephos with him”???????
but don’t they know about the neo-Nazis in the new Kiev regime…and both admirers of Israel !
oh what a mess of contradictions we have here
Everything@1389
I was quoting the Guardian there, you know? The passage was even indented like a quote.
And even then it is your interpretation, and yours alone, that Lenore Taylor meant “the carbon tax meant Qantas would go bust”.
bemused
Plenty of air travel is discretionary. $7 wouldn’t make much difference but it would make a small difference.
Diogenes@1409
Exactly.
Since there is not a fixed price list and they are changing fares all the time, it is difficult, if not impossible to track.
Mad Lib is just being her normal smart arse self.
Dio:
Apparently $7 has no impact.
Therefore, I propose that we solve Qantas’ problems by just increasing prices by $7 every month from April onwards for the next 10 years.
Each $7 price rise, being so small, would, according to PBconomics, have no impact. Ergo, Qantas gets heaps and heaps* of dosh, pays more taxes, improves the bottom line, and the government gets out of debt and passengers are all as Happy as Larry 🙂
*Kewl, eh?
@Mod Lib/1408
There we go, I was wondering when the blame game on Unions… START.
Buswell ran in the Busellton Ironman event a month or two ago, according to a photo on the West site yesterday.
That doesn’t strike me as the activity of a sick man.
I still reckon he’s had a bust up with the Littlest Emperor.
Would dropping the carbon tax make air travel more or less cost competitive with rail, bus and car?
Also I don’t see the phrase “question of sustainability” anywhere in my post, whether it was from Qantas, Lenore Taylor, or myself. So why did you make that part up and then attribute it to me?
Diogenes@1412
Really?
So you would cancel a holiday over a $7 carbon tax?
You wouldn’t fly to a relatives funeral?
You would cancel a business trip over $7?
$7 is miniscule compared to the taxi fare I pay to and from the airport.
I don’t know what the price elasticity of demand is for air travel as I have not bothered to try to research a figure for it.
But an additional factor is that if a passenger is highly sensitive to a $7 difference in price, they can save a lot more than that by adjusting the flight they travel on.
I say again, Mad Lib is just being her normal smart arse self.
She should be ignored as the troll she has become.
You asked who brought up the concept.
I showed you the post where you did just that- you brought up the concept of sustainability.
I didn’t say that you had stated that Qantas was going to go bust.
The fact that you continue to ask questions about this highlights your surrender on the substantial issue……well, its a bit hard when your wrongness has come from the very mouth of the horse, I guess!
[bemused
…..Really?
So you would cancel a holiday over a $7 carbon tax?
You wouldn’t fly to a relatives funeral?
You would cancel a business trip over $7?]
YIPPEEE!!! We can increase the price of everything by $7 and gets heaps of more tax and solve the ALP debt problem in no time at all!!!!
It makes no difference folks…..its just a few gold coins……phew!
Ramp up prices like there is no tomorrow (just remember, you can only do it in $7 aliquots……as many as you like as none have any effect…….but no more than $7- OK?
Price rises lead to lower demand.
[William Bowe
Posted Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 11:08 pm | PERMALINK
Price rises lead to lower demand.]
Shhhh….dont spoil my fun, I am being called an idiot for saying just that!
Rudd ratf*cked by diplomats and officials in the ultimate act of karmic retribution seriously ticks all the boxes for me as someone who has been screwed over by a workplace sociopath. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, as the saying goes.
bemused
If you were a family of four thinking of going to the footy in Melbourne, an extra $28 each way makes $56 and you might decide to take the bus or not go if you were a bit iffy about going.
It would only be a small number who didn’t go but it would be something.
William Bowe@1422
And teh magnitude of the effect depends on the price elasticity of demand.
For some things with high elasticity, it will have a major effect.
But a lot of air travel is not really discretionary and I suspect that, for small changes in price, demand is relatively inelastic.
I gave some examples of reasons why.
bemused, in your outrage at the annoying tendencies of Mod Lib, do consider her as the mosquito on your testicle, and react accordingly.
NO DIO, you are wRONg…..in PBconomics, $7 has no impact…..it doesn’t matter how many $7 aliquots there are as none have any impact so multiples of nothing must still remain nothing.
Why are you struggling to get this?
WB
[Price rises lead to lower demand.]
Which of course is the whole point of the carbon tax in the first place.
Diogenes@1425
So interstate buses don’t pay carbon tax?
You can save a lot more than $56 by adjusting the time of your flight, parking somewhere other than the airport carpark or other means.
That WAS once the whole point of the carbon tax in the first place, but PB has since done a backflip and now thinks it has had absolutely no impact (not a small impact, it was NO impact) and just works by magic (as in Magic Puddin).
Fulvio Sammut@1427
I would man up, steel myself or the pain, and squash her.
The satisfaction derived would be adequate compensation for the short term pain. 👿
$7 max on a flight to Europe …. ye sure I’ll cancel in outrage at this carbony tax thingy.
I got charged $7 for a mineral water yesterday. Will I abandon eating out?
Far out Everything, talk about beating a dead horse.
The CT has, in the grand scheme of things, almost nothing to do with the economic woes of Qantas. A price change at that point has an almost negligible impact, as there is very little elasticity of demand, and furthermore, every other airline competing in Australia has to pay the exact same ‘tax’.
Qantas is failing because it is competing against nationalised airlines, and its management is nothing short of totally incompetent. The CT doesn’t even factor.
[So interstate buses don’t pay carbon tax?]
The carbon tax doesn’t apply to petrol for some ridiculous reason.
Everything
I suppose I should give you credit for at least trying to quote me in your post. Even if you only got one word correct out of the three word phrase you directly attributed to me.
Maybe you really really wanted me to have said those things or ask that question. But I didn’t.
[Jimmyhaz
Posted Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 11:16 pm | PERMALINK
Far out Everything, talk about beating a dead horse.]
Just me, Jimmyhaz? Not the posters who are continuing to argue the ridiculous position that price increases have no impact on a business?
Its just me you want to address is it?
OK
[$7 max on a flight to Europe ]
The carbon tax doesn’t apply to international travel.
[Which of course is the whole point of the carbon tax in the first place.]
Indeed. If a carbon emissions scheme doesn’t make life more complicated for airlines, you do have to wonder what the point of it is.
Mad Lib@1431
It also provides additional incentive for airlines to invest in more fuel efficient aircraft.
They then reduce the carbon tax they pay and make additional savings on fuel.
But in Mad Lib world none of this happens.
[mimhoff
Posted Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 11:17 pm | PERMALINK
Everything
I suppose I should give you credit for at least trying to quote me in your post. Even if you only got one word correct out of the three word phrase you directly attributed to me.
Maybe you really really wanted me to have said those things or ask that question. But I didn’t.]
You asked me who brought it up, and I showed you that it was you.
I am sorry if you are struggling with reality, but you can feel encouraged that you are at least well and truly at home in this alternate universe! 🙂
[1429
Diogenes
WB
Price rises lead to lower demand.
Which of course is the whole point of the carbon tax in the first place.]
Well, not so much….the point of pricing carbon is to encourage investment in alternative generation technologies rather than to discourage energy consumption. Energy supply is essential for the economy. The point is not to restrict energy consumption – an LNP-inspired fallacy – but to change its mode of production by creating adequate investment incentives.
Jimmyhaz, Mod Lib has staked his entire economic credibility on the deleterious effects of a $7 tax on QANTAS (which they recoup any way thru carbon credits).
Its a zephyr on a thimble, but that wont stop him.
Diogenes@1435
buses are mostly diesel.
1435
The rural indies mainly I believe. They are from electorates that drive a long way.
@Mod Lib/1437
lol…. ridicules position…. that increases prices…
You know what would increase? Cancelling CT which will cost Small Business!
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/11/13/carbon-markets/axing-carbon-tax-costs-budget-74bn
[bemused
Posted Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 11:18 pm | PERMALINK
Mad Lib@1431
That WAS once the whole point of the carbon tax in the first place, but PB has since done a backflip and now thinks it has had absolutely no impact (not a small impact, it was NO impact) and just works by magic (as in Magic Puddin).
It also provides additional incentive for airlines to invest in more fuel efficient aircraft.]
Ahem……would it be fair for me to point out that this statement of yours is in direct contradiction to your previous posts on this point.
Above you are saying that it is in Qantas’ interests to go with cheaper fuel because of the carbon tax. So the carbon tax has an impact then, does it?
In previous posts you were telling us that there is NO impact on Qantas from the carbon tax.
Which is it?
I shouldnt, but why do I keep imagining Mathias Corman in an Waffen SS Uniform?
[Well, not so much….the point of pricing carbon is to encourage investment in alternative generation technologies rather than to discourage energy consumption. ]
True but the way it achieves that is by increasing the cost of carbon heavy fuels compared to carbon light fuels so there is less demand for the high carbon fuel and more for the RE fuel.
Not to mention…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/new-carbon-tax-poll/story-fn59nqgy-1226752493090#
“Struggling (Oz): A TOP business group has attacked Tony Abbott’s plans to scrap nearly $4 billion in tax concessions for mainly small businesses as part of the axing of the mining tax, arguing that it will permanently increase compliance costs and cut investment returns at a time when business is struggling.”