A barren spell for polling has ended with a vengeance over the past week, with results emerging from Newspoll, Galaxy, ReachTEL, Morgan and Essential – everyone indeed except Nielsen, who are presumably due next week. Each of the five polls sang from the same song sheet, and poll aggregation being the name of the game here, the BludgerTrack results on the sidebar do the same. On the primary vote, the Coalition maintains its downward trend while Labor perks up after a period in which it lost market share to the Greens. The Greens continue to fade after their Nielsen-driven peak of three weeks ago, but remain above the single-digit level they typically recorded throughout 2013. The big mover apart from Labor this week is Palmer United, which is at its highest level since December.
On the seat projection, Labor emerges in majority territory after gaining one each in New South Wales and Victoria and another three on an already hard-to-credit result in Queensland, for which I now have ten consecutive data points showing Labor with a two-party preferred, something it rarely enjoys in Queensland historically. Those who observe BludgerTrack closely will be aware that the “territories” result – which, it should go without saying, is based on a rather shallow pool of data – has long shown curiously strong readings for the Coalition. I’ve now addressed this with a bias correction measure, with a rather dramatic effect. This is a little crude methodologically, but I’m more confident in the result as it stands now, which closely reflects the national swing.
Of the many polls this week, only Newspoll furnishes useable results for the leadership tracking, and being the only leadership result of any kind for the past three weeks, the present BludgerTrack reading reflects it very closely. The result shows a sudden slump in Tony Abbott’s net approval, while Bill Shorten’s continues to settle in to the mediocre but by no means disastrous territory he has inhabited since the air went out of his honeymoon ratings over summer. Preferred prime minister remains on its steadily narrowing trajectory.
So we are getting roads we have to pay for and higher petrol prices
Increase of Petrol Levy is new taxes.
Bill Shorten’s tweet not speculation now
victoria
Abbott is politically stupid. He should have asked Howard why he dropped petrol indexation, or asked Brendan Nelson why he waxed lyrical about Toyota Tarago’s
I have just had an email to update my expiry date on my credit card for my subscription to the SMH.
I replied to them with a comment chastising them for the sacking of eighty people who are striking today.
Some of you may like to do the same!
So we paying for new taxes, for an out of date network (again – i.e. Roads).
On top of paying for the other out of date network (FTTN) – which will drive up electricity costs.
Great thinking liberals.
“@political_alert: Unemployment rate remained steady at 5.8% in April 2014 according to @ABSStats: http://t.co/XSrLAHQL89 #auspol”
[“@brigidglanville: The media room is very quiet at #icac today. @Kate_McClymont and @MWhitbourn not here as Fairfax reporters on strike.”]
Guytaur No doubt the Murdoch journos are taking up the slack and tweeting furiously from ICAC 😉
Bemused,
It was about gender. It might not have been for you, you had your grief over PMKR to deal with. But the gender implications of the PMJG era will not be washed away with a lame swipe of ‘not up to the job’. Just watch the PhDs that will be based on the gender politics of the first woman PM in Australia. There are a swag of them waiting in there.
And this is not a fighting of the old KR/JG wars. It is a observation based on sociological theory, whether you like it or not.
No commentary on something so important to women, and some men, as our first female PM and the social reaction to it can be dismissed by a put-down about her competency.
Even if you were correct and PMJG was incompetent in some aspects of the job, what has that got to do with it.
Because the question becomes, and this harks back to my premise, why were these in-competencies no tolerated in the same way various incompetencies have been tolerated in every other male PM?
Kevin Rudd had in-competencies as Prime Minister, but according to you and a large swathe of our society, these did not make him unsuitable for the job. But Julia Gillard’s in-competencies did make her unsuitable for the job.
What is the glaring difference in the two? Their gender is the answer; and that answer is supported by the vicious campaign of sexism amid a storm of stark gender political wars not seen in this country for many decades.
You may wish to wipe it aside with a claim of misandry but that is just the same as an old white guy claiming racsim because he can’t offend black people anymore.
“”Abbott wants to build rods only. Great way to keep big oil happy.””
They should build a modern NBN then people could work from home
and they would not need MORE roads!.
guytaur@94
Labor should leave the fuel excise decision alone.
Howard should never have stopped the indexation and Labor should be prepared to continue it. To criticise Abbott on this would be just unprincipled opportunism.
bemused
I agree with that except for one thing. Pursue him on increasing taxes he promised he would not do.
Get him for the lie. Labor can do this even as it agrees with the actual increase that they were too politically wise to touch while in Government,
Saying anything that may even hint at raising fuel prices would be electoral suicide for Labor.
Puff, the Magic Dragon.@108
Your rampant misandry greatly disappoints me as I otherwise greatly respect your intelligence.
Puff
Labor never touched increasing the excise as they would have been crucified for adding to the cost of fuel.
Higher petrol prices is one thing that really bugs consumers
It is a good time for Shorten to lay low and let the Libs squirm.
Don’t share the stage when the audience is throwing rotten fruit.
bemused
we can criticise the hypocrisy – the impact on petrol prices was one of the reasons Abbott said he opposed carbon pricing – whilst agreeing that the measure should be implemented, in the same way we can approve of a the notion of higher taxes and less welfare for ‘the rich’ whilst pointing out that Abbott promised no new taxes and no cuts.
guytaur@111
Yes, if it is possible to attack the lie while supporting the actual decision I would agree with that.
I would go so far as to say that the increase in excise will annoy voters more than the deficit levy
Reckon Abbott’s got the prism around his leadership now. From this point on he’ll probably get whacked for anything he does just because he’s doing it. Seems as insulated and shut down as Gillard was.
Probably is even under the delusion that he’s a popular leader. No wonder Hockey admitted the PPL scheme is a tax today!
I had one VFF type do a pre emptive ‘don’t tell me Gillard was the victim of sexism.”
My response was, “OK, but do you think she was treated differently to other Prime Ministers?”
He agreed.
So I left him to think about that…
Bemused,
And I am disappointed that a person as intelligent as you cannot discuss a topic of sociological and historical relevance without interpreting it as misandy, even when I have provided you with solid argument and points that can be debated on their merits.
Note that I do not accuse you of misogyny, but a refusal to see the debate in any other way than your grief and anger of the dismissal of Kevin Rudd.
I am sorry this is a topic I seem unable to discuss with you, because your emotions get in the way of rational debate.
bemused
Labor can have its cake and eat it too. The Greens will support the increase. Labor can vote against it in the Senate and it will still pass.
This is why I say its so politically stupid for Abbott.
Howard and Nelson did their actions purely for votes. So Abbott is going for losing votes 👿
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0
[APRIL KEY POINTS
TREND ESTIMATES (MONTHLY CHANGE)
Employment increased to 11,561,400.
Unemployment decreased to 723,800.
Unemployment rate remained steady at 5.9%.
Participation rate increased by less than 0.1 pts to 64.8%, based on unrounded estimates.
Aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 4.2 million hours (0.3%) to 1,595.7 million hours.]
Trend employment growth was 0.8% on annual basis – less than the rate of growth of the workforce.
In an economy with negligible income growth and almost invisible employment growth, the LNP are planning to increase taxes and cut social incomes. They are asking for trouble.
Dave @ 52
Joes staples must be coming loose
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/23322000/budget-2014-joe-hockey-says-federal-government-never-promised-not-to-introduce-new-taxes/
But Tony said a Levy isn’t a tax!
Tony Joe et al are the dumbest clowns ever to lead the country…
zoomster@120
You are assuming that sexism was the only possible reason for her being treated ‘differently’.
That is just nonsense.
The best thing that the ALP could do, from a psycho-social point of view, imho, is to get the Lie-Liar tag to stick to Abbott. The reason is that Abbott himself and his coterie have trained the brains of the public to hold this view. Like an advertisement jingle you remember from childhood, the work has been done to plant the idea in the minds of people.
It is much easier to add to an already planted thought than replace it with a new one. Like a rutted wheel track the next vehicle has an easier following it than striking off on its own.
It’s time (haha) to use Abbott’s opposition tactic against him. Transfer the Liar tag from PMJG to PMTA.
Get out there and use the words Liar and Lie at every possible opportunity. It will destroy Abbott, it will drive him nuts.
@124
But Tony said if you going to do a price on Carbon, do it with a “simple tax”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74
Puff, the Magic Dragon.@121
My claim of ‘misandry’ is simply a response to the constant squeals of ‘misogyny’ and ‘sexism’.
You appear to think it is silly. Yes, it probably is, just as the squeals about ‘misogyny’ and ‘sexism’ are.
You might be catching on.
Gillard had some serious weaknesses.
Just got this from an organisation called Clime Investments:
Last week the Federal Government released the Commission of Audit’s report which included sweeping recommendations to cut spending. The Abbott Government has also flagged a ‘deficit tax’. Both will have a serious impact on the economy, companies and investors.
But few are asking the obvious questions: is Australia really facing a budget crisis? Will new taxes actually cut government debt? And why is the Government ignoring a simple, obvious tax that could help solve its ‘budget crisis’?
Why the fuss about our debt?
If you observe the chart below (Figure 1), which looks at the major developed economies, it clearly suggests our current debt position is not a problem.
At the end of 2013, the average net debt of the advanced economies (excluding China) was 78.7%. But Australia’s net debt was just 14.5%, or about $230 billion. Our gross debt was a bit higher at around $300 billion and this is the number that the Treasurer consistently focuses on when he projects the future.
Given the above, it is difficult to understand what the fuss is about and why the Government is actively suggesting that new taxes or levies have to be found and expenditure slowed.
Indeed, based on the Government’s projection that gross debt may reach $600 billion before the budget stabilizes towards the middle of the next decade, the forecast is that net debt will reach just 25% of GDP.
A glance at the above chart shows Greece has the highest net government debt in the world today. It is remarkable therefore that they have re-emerged into the European bond market. Greece shows that even massive debt will not impact access to further debt, if there is a sensible and supportive monetary policy regime.
Even Portugal, which has 115% net debt to GDP (number 3 on the net debt list) was able to climb back onto the bond raising bus the week before last; Portugal was so successful that it was able to raise 10 year bonds at a lower interest rate (3.6%) than Australia can at present (4.0%).
Think about that carefully. A country with junk bond status can raise long term debt cheaper than Australia with our AAA rated bonds. Something is clearly not working here in Australia.
Will higher taxes cut debt anyway? READ MORE >>
guytaur@122
Too opportunistic.
Labor should state a principled position of supporting it while condemning the pre-election lies.
BH
[Guytaur No doubt the Murdoch journos are taking up the slack and tweeting furiously from ICAC :wink:]
Leo Shanahan is tweeting for the Oz – is he the product of Dennis’ loins?
MTBW Nature is sometimes amazing. You’ll love this one http://funnycatsgallery.com/mom-cat/the-cat-and-the-ducklings/
bemused
right – so no former PM has made mistakes, no former PM has made bad judgements, no former PM has had difficulties getting their message across.
I can think of a number of former PMs who had these difficulties, and none of them achieved half as much as Julia Gillard did.
These claims of misandry are like climate denialists saying that the science of climate change is like a religious belief.
Labor gets attacked by the media for it’s progressive policies but the preferred tactic by the media is to attack the messenger rather than the message.
It’s relatively easy for media owners and their employees to attack the person and they have a long history of trying to avoid complicated issues analysis in favour of gossip and scandals that are allow sneer and smear.
Both Rudd and Gillard were personally attacked by the media.
In Rudd’s case think the nightclub scenario when LOTO and Utegate as PM just to name 2.
For Gillard it was, still is apparently, the union past history stuff and Slipper somehow became her problem and not that of his Liberal Party.
But the attacks on Gillard had an extra and different dimension.
Her gender.
We have never had before such an relentless chorus of trivia related to gender only as that which came from the media which was duly echoed by the COALition.
dress sense, colour
ear lobes
empty fruit bowl
sexuality
childless
religion or lack of
accent
bum size
strident
no hand bag
living in ‘sin’
cleavage
‘swooning’ at Clinton
We actually had several newspaper articles, thinly disguised as ‘commentary’, about each of the above many ‘themes’ repeated for years.
And the crescendo grew into blatant and often violent misogyny
‘kill the old cow’
‘target on her head’
bitch
witch
‘no doesn’t mean no’ [straight from rape culture]
won’t lay down and die
All the items on both lists above could be added to easily.
It was, and is, a bloody disgrace and Australian society, in particular the media and most politicians, should be deeply ashamed of perpetrating [carefully chosen word] or passively condoning such.
shellbell
Yes, Leo is one of ‘those’ Shanahans with a fair dose of Young Liberalism thrown in (not sure he is one).
I once got into an email argument with him when he wouldn’t give me the right of reply (to posts addressed to me) on a blog he was editting for The Oz.
Although I was posting anonymously, he made references to Sophie Mirabella, making it obvious he knew exactly who I was, with the implication that – if I didn’t stop bugging him – he’d make that public.
I’ve never had a journalist behave in such a blatantly partisan fashion before.
Puff
You are dead right about sticking the liar label to Abbott. Labor now has the basis to do so.
Why go after the fuel excise levy when there are so many more salient and impactful targets to go after like the potential $6 co-payment on GP visits.
zoomster@133
Who said no former PM made mistakes? They all have.
I am greatly disappointed to have to now lump you in with Puffy, Kezza2 and confessions as a sexism delusionist.
And for the record, Gillard did not really achieve a great deal as it looks like Gonski and NDIS will be gone before they really begin.
spur
Its a tax that resonates with voters big time. Use it. Along with the Dr and Emergency Hospital Taxes.
Toliar is here. I hope spin dr can do better than my feeble effort at a name,
bemused
[And for the record, Gillard did not really achieve a great deal as it looks like Gonski and NDIS will be gone before they really begin.]
In which case, Paul Keating ss PM achieved nothing, because Howard unpicked all of his legislation.
zoomster@141
Arguably.
Whitlam achieved more – Medibank. But even that was undone for a while.
bemused
right. So all past PMs – except for Liberal ones, I assume – were cr*p. Interesting viewpoint, but I don’t subscribe to it.
[
In which case, Paul Keating ss PM achieved nothing, because Howard unpicked all of his legislation.
]
What about Compulsory Super, wasn’t that introduced by Keating? I’m aware there have been changes, but the substantial reform is still in place. I’m happy to be corrected on that one.
The budget drama now unfolding has its origins in two intersecting trends. First, Labor ran a revenue policy that was tight as a drum and also kept a lid on outlays. As Labor found, any increase in outlays (say, for the NDIS) had to be accompanied by an increase in taxes (top up to the Medicare levy, amendment to the Super and FBT concessions). It follows that any change to Labor’s settings entail either the need for higher taxes or lower social spending or both. Labor’s settings were therefore fiscally defensive and politically super-charged. Very smart, all considered.
The second force acting on the budget outcomes are the LNP’s own policy choices: the plan to abolish the carbon pricing mechanism, introduce an ERF, amend the MRRT, boost spending on roads and increase defence spending all at the same time MUST entail a higher deficit. This wouldn’t necessarily be bad for the economy, but it’s bad politics as far as the LNP are concerned. Very foolishly, they have also decided to fabricate a “debt crisis” in order to dismantle some of Labor’s social architecture. This is very high risk politics for which the LNP have no claim to electoral support.
So they have set about doing things they said they never would. Essentially, they are about to jettison their whole policy platform rather than work within the boundaries left them by Labor.
It is a risky gambit. First, it entails a complete breach of faith with the electorate. Second, it may in any case be rejected by the Senate, in which case they will have trashed their reputations for no detectable policy gains. And third, if enacted their measures are likely to retard growth in incomes and jobs and maybe create the conditions for their own loss of office.
Maybe Gillard was a much, much shrewder PM than any of us recognised. She not only governed for three years with a minority and for no thanks, she has conditioned the dynamics of this Parliament as well. Who knows, she may have set the politics up for Labor to win again in 2016.
[In which case, Paul Keating ss PM achieved nothing, because Howard unpicked all of his legislation.
]
Anything in particular you are referring to? Although clearly Keating’s greatest achievements were as Treasurer the bulk of which survived or in fact carried the Howard government.
Native title was a massive success which Howard didn’t destroy.
Obviously the vision into Asia stuff was reversed by the racist liberals and we have been traveling in the wrong direction ever since with a brief reversal in early Rudd.
BH
How beautiful? Thank you so much for that if only people could all act the same way.
BH
How beautiful? Thank you so much for that if only people could all act the same way.
zoomster@143
Well I don’t subscribe to your straw man either!
You need to try harder.
Labor PMs have provided good government while they were in office and directed more funding to areas of need.
But major reforms like NDIS are difficult to initiate and entrench without several terms of government in which to do so.
Gillard lacked the ability of someone like Hawke who was able to set up a long running Labor Govt. and she established a pattern of Labor leadership instability as her legacy.
bemused
Leadership instability was a team effort no matter which leader you supported.