New results from Newspoll, Essential Research and Morgan has put BludgerTrack back to the position of two-party parity it was at three weeks ago, after which Labor was up to 51.8% and then 50.9%. They have also ironed out the brief slump recorded by the Greens last week, who have progressed from 11.3% to 8.9% to 10.4%. This week’s gain has come entirely at the expense of Labor, with the Coalition vote unchanged. On the seat projection, the Coalition is back in majority government territory, the meter having ticked in their favour by two seats in New South Wales and one each in Queensland and Western Australia. After a quiet spot last week, new leadership figures have emerged from Newspoll and Essential Research, and they find Tony Abbott with a rare lead over Bill Shorten on net approval, although preferred prime minister remains in the stasis it assumed in early December.
Also note that coverage of the Western Australian Senate count is ongoing on the dedicated thread, with a Liberal victory in the final seat looking increasingly likely.
‘fess
[Does this mean just the aged pension, or are they intending to meddle with people getting access to their superannuation?]
I think both. (TG I’ve already got mine :smile:)
Mtbw – 1893 yes of course taking a dump is comparable to giving birth to another human being. That’s got to be a contender for dumbest ever pb comment.
Hockey’s forecasts do not match PEFO etc
But who’s surprised? This mob could lie straight in bed
The baiter is in good form today.
I notice she repeated last night’s question about the Blain preferences, because no one took the bait last night.
And still supporting (but denying the support) everything Abbott does and says, despite “not blindly supporting him”. Ha! Ha!
ESJ
You have absolutely no class at all and your arguments are puerile rubbish.
Edwina
Clearly you are STILL a man. Actually giving birth has very similar sensations to a dump albeit a rather severe case of constipation.
However you point is just stupid. MTBW made a perfectly valid point and you were just rude (what is new).
Now having personally benefited via the tax payer in an extremely generous PAID maternity leave scheme, I hesitate to comment on this. Paid maternity leave at current salary for 6-12 weeks is something we SHOULD be aiming at.
The issue for me is whether we can afford it, if the budget is in such dire straits. It really does not rate when compared to pensions or disability support or even infrastructure.
It seems to me that Labor’s more modest scheme is a good place to start, but EMPLOYERS should be encouraged to make up the difference between taxpayer support and actual salary.
Now IF we had full employment (ie less that 2%) I might start thinking incentives to improve participation rates are a good idea. However there will be winged pigs before THAT happens again.
psyclaw@1904
Have to agree with your comments about Mad Lib.
There was a time when she made some moderately intelligent comments, but that time has long passed and she seems to be reduced to tedious, repetitive trolling.
daretotread@1906
YES!!! Unemployment of 2% or less.
That is what Labor should be campaigning on! That is the way to get people off welfare.
The alternative is just to push people into poverty. The Liberal way!
The key to ‘full employment’ (<2%)
[The contrasting experiences of the Great Depression and the Second World War convinced the Labor Party that governments could and must intervene to ensure the achievement of full employment. The introduction to the White Paper summed this up:
The basic ideas behind the White Paper were those set out by John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Keynes’ neoclassical contemporaries, argued that the economy was naturally self-correcting. Unless real wages were held above their market level by union action or government regulation, unemployment could only be a short run phenomenon. The neoclassical economists drew the same conclusion as that of the fundamentalists today — that government action to reduce unemployment could only make matters worse in the long run. Keynes’ first, and perhaps most important, contribution was to show that the economy could remain at high levels of unemployment for indefinite periods in the absence of government action.
As well as demonstrating the possibility of unemployment in equilibrium, Keynes provided an analysis of the causes of periodic unemployment and the basis for a policy response. Keynes argued that recessions and depressions occurred because the economy was destabilised by fluctuations in private demand, and particularly in levels of investment. To simplify, the remedy he advocated was that governments should increase their own demand in periods of depression, particularly through public works. The increase in income generated by public works would then be fed into demand for other goods and services, yielding a stimulus to the private sector.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_on_Full_Employment_in_Australia
[Everything
Posted Sunday, April 13, 2014 at 9:11 am | PERMALINK
Blain:
Another election in which the ALP cannot get to 40%.
The ALP has not reached 40% in any State, Territory or Federal election in more than 5 years.]
ML
Whether you realise it or not the tide is now on the way out for the Libs. You need to get your attention away from the rear view mirror and start looking at the obstacles that are awaiting them just down the road. The May budget would be a good place to start, as they reveal for the first time how their magic pudding is going to work. If nothing else, it should be entertaining.
1909
All you have to do is overcome the inflation fundamentalists who think there needs to be at least around 5% unemployment to keep inflation to a minimum. The long post war period of mainly very low unemployment was also a period of increasing equality because workers had more bargaining power and thus received a greater proportion of the income generated by their work.
What will increasing the pension age do to unemployment figures and poverty levels? This is a regressive measure that will hurt the least well off – politicians live in a world where ‘working past 65’ means sitting on boards or consulting a few days a week for six figure incomes, in addition to parliamentary pensions. for many people, becoming unemployed past 50 or 55 means no more employment. many low skilled jobs cannot be done by a 60 year old let alone a 70 year old. I remember living in the US and being shocked by the number of old people working in mcdonalds or as checkout staff (or going through the trash looking for deposit bottles). This is our future? A civilized society taxes those who can afford it and improves the lot of the less well off. I am all for greater means testing of benefits, but keeping benefits for those who need them.
Well, a good test of how good the Liberals are/will be, is to see if they can win in their own right – which means standing aside from their National rump.
They should give it a try.
Both the Liberal and and National keep telling us they are “separate, individual and supporting their own constituency” but cling together like orphan children come election time.
So strong but not quite strong enough eh?
My original point is how quickly the conservatives and their media spear carrier prefer to compare the ‘disastrous’ Labor vote against the combined vote of the Liberals and their country cousins.
I note the defenders of the Liberal position have pointed out that on some occasions the Liberals could govern in their own right. Of course, this is when both the Liberal and the Nationals have combined their efforts in an election campaign.
As soon as some threat, such as PUP and other right-wing splinter groups are in the field the conservatives go feral.
Abbott did not spare any attempt to blacken One Nation (sorry about the pun) while the West spend the whole week bashing Palmer before the Senate election.
The conservatives know just how fragile their vote is that is why they get very twitchy when a new party springs up on the right.
That fact that the conservatives still need 42-44% of vote to gain office is just the hard fact. That they have to do it with the support of their Nationals shows that while on paper they might have been able to form office on their own, they rarely test whether they could.
In WA, the Libs ran true to form and despite being able to govern in their own right, last time around, chose not to as they know they will, once the political wheels fall off, need as much of that hay-seed vote as they can get.
The Royalties for Regions pork barrel should go and if the Liberals had any guts they would reabsorb the billion that goes to building expensive toilets in the country.
They just haven’t go the stomach to chance their arm.
Meanwhile, in the State election before that, the harlot Nationals were happy enough to consider jumping into bed with Labor – regardless.
Have had ABC 24 on and it is showing the Vic Lib State Conference.
Napthine has just announced the Libs will build the airport rail link.
Now how many times have politicians made that promise over the last 40 years?
Bemused
Thanks for the link to the White Paper on Full Employment! I had heard of Coombs and the policy, but not the white paper before. Interesting it wasn’t even mentioned to me while doing an entire economics degree in the late 80s including all macro policy subjects.
See ESJ back to his usual puerile comments this time childbirth, what a fool, why I didn’t scroll through as I usually do not sure. Blame you MTBW for your comment back to him 😀
BTW Have been out for a couple of hours a carnival here, beautiful weather very lucky.
Anyway came home to over 300 interactions on my twitter account, still coming in .Joe Hockey’s comments about the left has struck a nerve plus also the missing plane and the MSM and politicians continual beating up when they know nothing really.
Socrates@1915
WOW! Where did you do that course?
Sst
I agree with you that those 60+ are not going to work as laborers, but simple maths tells us we do need to get them to work. Those without skills need to be trained, but even then, what is wrong with people other than teenagers working in a shop or similar? We are so used to seeing teenagers do it, but why not others?
You cannot say you are promoting equity if you say some do not have to do such tasks on grounds of age. That is just as biased as saying some tasks cannot be done by the young. The criteria should be skill and/or ability to do them.
So there are two problems that need addressing. One is taxing the rich. The other is getting everyone to work longer. If they cannot do hard physical labor, fine, do other kinds of work. But if they all do no work there will either be no meaningful pensions and healthcare (US style) or a massive debt or tax burden on the young (Greek style). I do not see either outcome as fair or just.
Bemused
At UQ!
Never heard of Nugget?
FMD!!
[Have had ABC 24 on and it is showing the Vic Lib State Conference.
Napthine has just announced the Libs will build the airport rail link.
Now how many times have politicians made that promise over the last 40 years?]
I hope they do it – but it will not be able to be done until 30 years after kennett’s agreement with Transurban/citylink – otherwise victorians have to pay them compensation. thanks Jeff.
[bemused
Posted Sunday, April 13, 2014 at 1:12 pm | PERMALINK
Have had ABC 24 on and it is showing the Vic Lib State Conference.
Napthine has just announced the Libs will build the airport rail link.
Now how many times have politicians made that promise over the last 40 years?]
The key question to ask them is WHEN? No doubt the fine print will reveal that some feasibilty study will have to be undertaken first, which will take all of the next electoral term to complete. Then, most likely it will report back saying the project is all too hard or expensive, or both, just as their feasibility studies into the Rowville and Doncaster rail lines did. We’ve seen it all before.
My guess is that the Libs have got wind that the Labor party is going to announce something similar and realise how vulnerable they are on public transport. A lot of what they have been saying in that area over the past few months to me smacks of panic, as they realise they are likely to lose in November – and a panicking Liberal party will promise just about anything.
Further to 1919, by the late 80s they had stopped even offering the Economic Philosophy subject to undergraduates. It was all about analysis and econometrics, or you went off to do marketing or IR. It has since been reintroduced, the economics faculties having learned the folly of their too narrow ways. In the mean time we have trained a generation of economists very narrowly. I do not defend it, merely outline what happened to understand what we are up against.
AA
[Trickle down economics is one of the greatest deceptions.]
As William Blum said, trickle down economics is:
[the principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.]
It’s hard to put it any more clearly than that.
CTar
[Never heard of Nugget?
FMD]
I said I had heard of Nugget Coombes; he was well known. I said I had not heard of the white paper. They had stopped teaching it by the late eighties.
Socrates@1919
Did you just do accounting subjects?
Employers are already prejudiced against anyone over 40 years old. I Imagine those over 60, will have next to buckley’s chance
Socrates@1923
I majored in Economics and Econometrics with sub majors in Maths and Politics (both about numbers. 😉
I also managed to squeeze in Labour Economics and Comparative Economic Systems which was very good value.
Sorry to hear about your intellectually impoverished course. 😐
Just to appreciate the low level scum that is Tony Abbott, one only needs to refer to his little photo shoot stunt with his rich guests on his latest excursion.
Not one invited guest was a female!
In his photo shoot, Abbott deceitfully implied that women were invited on his excursion and called to his organisers for the women to appear for the cameras.
There were no women – and most present knew it.
Piece of sh!t scum!
Socrates,
OK. Got you.
I’d observe that anyone who had done better than a basket weaving degree in Australia who didn’t know who people like Nugget, Findlay Crisp, John Burton, Kenneth Bailey and, grudgingly, Arthur Tange should demand their money back!
victoria@1927
Well with true unemployment probably at least 15%, it is difficulty for anyone out of work to get back into work.
The underlying problem is insufficient demand for Labour.
On top of that particular groups do suffer from unlawful discrimination.
Bemused
We have a lot in common educationally. I picked up the economic philosophy later, and have since done a degree in philosophy. But yes – there was a stage in the eighties when the influence of Milton Friedman was strong that the teaching of policy was very narrow.
To be fair the UQ course is much more rounded now and several lecturers there care a great deal about these topics, notably Quiggin and also Frijters.
bemused
I would love for Hockey to detail the type of work he envisages for 70 year olds
With the inequitable distribution of work in our society being what it is, I must adjourn to write a paper and prepare for a workshop tomorrow (two separate tasks). Have a good afternoon all.
Socrates@1932
Yes, I did my BEc in the 70s and the first lecture I attended was by Prof Joe Isaacs and it was pure Keynesian Macro Economics. I was doing it part time so by the time I finished 6 years later all the mad monetarists had taken over. It simply amazed me as I, a mere student, could see the Emperor had no clothes or very threadbare clothes.
I also did International Economics and International Monetary Economics and, based on what I learnt in that, have always been sceptical of the Euro and totally unsurprised by the problems of the Euro zone.
I was tickled pink this morning by the Hockey interview on Insiders.
It was amazing. He was talking such good sense, urging a sustainability approach, urging a mature debate, urging us to think about our grandchildren and urging us to accept that early action would be better than trying to fix a worse mess later on.
Then I realized he was not talking about global warming at all but really about thrashing the poor, the sick, the elderly and the weak in order to open up the floodgates to the spivs.
Sigh.
Speaking of economists another observation that I think I’m well qualified to give having done about 15 years or so of both(changing more than once) is that in the UK Home Civil Service economists are the ones at the top of the tree.
Here in Australian Public Service it’s lawyers.
CTar
[Here in Australian Public Service it’s lawyers.]
Well I can assure it isn’t engineers!
victoria@1933
I am 66 and quite capable of working as well as I could when I was in my 30s. But my work is not physical and I chose my parents wisely and have good health and no signs of slowing down mentally.
Some physical workers could be moved into supervisory roles or other less hands on roles, but that would still leave a lot of others in need of a career change.
Earlier retirement should be offered to any who have health problems or have suffered injuries or just wear and tear.
BTW, my brick-layer grandfather worked until he was 81. He just went into semi-retirement and did small jobs like brick fences. He was working until 2 days before he died.
Not for everyone, but it was what he wanted to do.
Its now clear why Shorten called Bullock “exactly” the type of candidate Labor needed. He overruled Albo at executive level to keep him in the No.1 spot.
He now has two choices – meaningful reform of the Party to stop these hacks from ruling the roost or continue in a death spiral with them.
Over to you Bill…..
[Earlier retirement should be offered to any who have health problems or have suffered injuries or just wear and tear.]
I sincerely believe we and they would be better off if they worked part time in a meaningful capacity. There is some evidence that people doing that live longer and healthier.
Boerwar
Yes, it was a kind of Through the Looking-glass moment by Hockey.
Bemused
I did an MBA at Monash in the mid 80s and even using the name Nugget Coombes was sacrilege in the key finace courses.
Macro was fine (taught by Alan Fels) but for the rest even thinking about issues like Keynsian economics was dangerous.
ESPECIALLY in Corporate Finance which was a course for w***kers. I do recall blurring the various Freidmanite writers together and referring to “Officers Brown Balls”
Spot on Boerwar!
[I had heard of Nugget Coombes; he was well known. ]
He is also William’s relative – great uncle I think?
Socrates
it is obvious you are still in your 40s.
I probably though like you do
There seems to be a bit of a horror age in the early 60s when diseases of old age start to hit. They do not STOP you working but make it harder.
Heart conditions
blood pressure
Diabetes
Stroke
arthritis
Cancers of various kinds
Respiratory issues
autoimmune disease
hearing and sight deterioration
loss of strength
are just a few of the age related illnesses that affect capacity to work.
As William Blum said, trickle down economics is:
the principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.
Great analogy
socrates – we could afford to treat older working people with dignity, and have world class education and health care (which save the nation money and build wealth) if the wealthy paid the taxes they should. There may be no need to increase tax rates, just close loopholes and dodges that favour those with wealth.
Means test middle class welfare and increase superannuation contributions to 12-15%.
Australia has low and sustainable levels of public debt provided governments do not use booms to cut taxes below sustainable levels (as howard and costello did – our current ‘crisis’ can be laid at their incompetence – they cut taxes to the wealthiest, cut benefits to the neediest, pissed money up against the wall on middle class welfare and electoral bribes (the wasted money from the sale if telstra on short term ‘environmental’ programs that have had little lasting benefit is criminal – but will pale into insignificance if the madness of inDirect inAction ever goes ahead). They did not invest in education or infrastructure – damaging productivity.
The idea that the least well off should work longer to get the pension is not worthy of a civilized society. I have no problem with the abolition of the retirement age for those who choose to keep working, and means testing of the pension to stop people with a lot of assets manipulating the system to get the pension, but the pension age should remain as low as possible for those who need it. The idea that australians need to work harder for less is an absurd national objective to have – the objective should be to have most people having enough to have a good life – this means better work-life balance, building community and having a healthy environment.
I want to live in a country where people can take the time to appreciate they live in the richest society and have access to the best quality of life in history. we are a lucky and wealthy nation that can afford to look after our people (and refugees as well). The LNP objective – and the reason for this absurd talk of a ‘debt crisis’ is to cut services, reduce wages and working conditions, and – it seems – to do away with environmental and social protections developed over the last 114 years of nationhood.
The HR Nichols society and IPA have been yelling ‘we’ll all be rooned’ by social democratic protections for over 30 years of mostly continued and sustained economic growth and improved social conditions for most employed people (the unemployed have gone backwards in a major way – with the rise of an underclass/’non-working’ class). Hawke-Keating and Rudd-Gillard showed how an economy can be managed to protect the majority of people and maintain growth – abbott-hockey’s policies during the GFC would have sent us into recession, and have a good chance of doing so now.
sustainable debt and equitable taxes are a much better investment in the future than cutting services and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest. the social democratic economies/societies have fared much better over the past 100 years than the liberal democracies – and abbott’s lurch to the neo-con /libertarian economic and socially conservative mode is not good for the nation’s future. I think Shorten is well placed to debate this if the media give him air and hold abbott to account. Abbott is still getting away with 3 word slogans and running away from any serious media encounter, cheered on the the tory hacks at the Oz (which loses $30 million per year, and exists only as a propaganda sheet) and fairfax (who at least have some balance to these).
Patricia Edgar (In Praise of Ageing) wrote last week that the culture will need to change radically before employers willingly employ anyone over 50.
There will also need to be much more flexibility injected into the system, so that mothers with young children, those with health problems, and carers of all ages, can find work.
daretotread@1943
I did my MBA at Swinburne in the Noughties and there was really zero economics taught in the finance subjects. That is not what they were about.
Keynes is coming back into fashion as the neo-liberals have clearly failed.