The BludgerTrack pendulum swings back to Labor this week following moves away from the Coalition in both Newspoll and Essential Research – although not Roy Morgan, which was little changed on what for it was an unusually strong result for the Coalition a fortnight ago. Newspoll in particular was a surprise packet, but it should be noted that Labor once again appeared to get the better of rounding on its two-party result. If a simple application of 2013 election flows is made to Newspoll’s rounded primary vote numbers, the result that comes out is 52-48 rather than 53-47. Even so, Newspoll has driven a shift of 1.0% on the BludgerTrack two-party preferred and caused six seats to flip on the seat projection – two in New South Wales, and one each in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia.
I say “moves away from the Coalition” rather than “moves towards Labor” advisedly, because this particular crop of polling actually found a degree of softness for both major parties. Both are down on the primary vote, the balance being absorbed by the Greens and especially “others”. The “others” result from Essential this week was at an equal high since it began reporting Palmer United separately last November. Newspoll’s didn’t change, but it was high in absolute terms – something it’s been making a habit of lately, as Kevin Bonham explains.
The other manifestation of collective major party weakness came from Newspoll’s leadership ratings, which have caused fairly substantial shifts to the relevant BludgerTrack readings. The uptick to Tony Abbott that was showing up in recent weeks has well and truly been blunted, and a weak result for Bill Shorten has also caused his upward trend towards parity on net approval to disappear. With both leaders down on net satisfaction to about the same degree compared with last week, there is little change this week on preferred prime minister.
DN
[What the Greens should identify – for the sake of Boerwar’s peace of mind, or so that at least he can say “I told you so”]
No, Boerwar has no ACTUAL interest in the truth. What he is interested in is spreading lies and disinformation. If he wanted to know the truth he would have found out for himself Perhaps two years ago, when he first brought this nonsense up.
Groundhog day on PB.
I swear yesterday’s conversation was exactly the same?
Martin B
[I suspect that the Greens would oppose acquisition of submarines from Japan based on their policy. But I’m really not in a position to say, which is quite obvious and it is quite dumb to keep asking.]
Tsk, tsk, more abuse. Where is all the peace, bro?
There you have it folks. A ‘suspicion’ (about a possible acquisition )that the response might, or might not, but probably would, be that the of Greens’ would oppose the acquisition of a specific item from a specific country.
That is as close as we’ll ever get, I suppose. All the rest varies from ‘No-one knows’ to ‘We can’t say’.
If you are concerned about Australia’s defence and want a bit more than opposition, or suspicions about opposition to all current or mooted acquisitions…
Do not vote Greens at the next election.
[@AP: BREAKING: EU leaders agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030.”]
Just looking up “Tony Abbott” in my historical dictionary.
Nicholas my taxing friend if you are to play in the tax field you’ll need to lift your game quite a lot.
In fact if the TJN is to contribute to this important debate they will need to lift their game too – a lot.
The report you link is so bad some I know have characterized it as deliberate lies – others are much nicer and just conclude it was written by fools who don’t really understand accounting or tax.
There is a whole section on how much extra tax companies would pay if they had no debt – doh!
It is laughably bad. Secret tax havens that have information exchange agreements with the ATO – doh!
Apparently the report authors found it surprising trusts don’t pay tax – hilarious!
As someone who thinks a debate about tax is very important and the appropriate levels of income tax, consumption taxes, capital taxes etc the TJN have done us a huge disservice writing such a bad report.
As for the taking a paycut to work for the ATO and having the a whole lot of extra tax lawyer jobs I think that is a fantastic idea. The TJN should hire / engage a couple of people that understand tax too.
[ BHP slams Barnett over iron ore: ]
The irony is delicious – the emperor opposed the Federal Minerals Tax and now the companies ramp up of tonnages exported and crashing IO prices escape any commensurate increase in State Royalties?
Barnett may need to amend the Royalties tax to cover the situation – wouldn’t that be a giraffe?
[Astrobleme
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
Boerwar
You are a dishonest moron.]
This sort of abuse is a rather nice explanation of Greens’ understanding of the ‘peace’ part of their ‘Peace and Security’ policy.
If that is their idea of ‘peace’ I hate to think of what their idea about war might be.
Astrobleme@849
Your analysis of Boerwar may be correct, but it is difficult to take seriously someone who cannot even get the name of one of their handful of Senators correct.
I am sure Senator Ludlam would be disappointed, but he will never know as your incorrectly addressed email would bounce. 🙁
DN
[What the Greens should identify – for the sake of Boerwar’s peace of mind, or so that at least he can say “I told you so” – is what they think are Australia’s strategic military interests. Where they expect Australia will need/want to project force to, and in what fashion, for example.]
Actually, assuming BW doesn’t think the defence wonks ought to have carte blanche, is what he thinks the rationale(s) for having a defence force in the years 2014-2034 are and what he sees as their key challenges.
While he’s about it, he could identify the extent to which any acquisitions he’d have us make would address those challenges,and how at any time we could conclude we were getting adequate value for the impositions of the public associated therewith.
He could specify also the procedure for reviewing the efficacy of the ADF and its resourcing and what we could in practice do if we found that we had purchased assets that proved to be of little marginal value, due in part to changes in the quality and quantity of the challenges arising in the period.
I’d call that an interesting discussion from PB’s own armchair defence wonk.
Fran @725,
[I write here in part to self-examine, and to record what I thought at a given time — a personal diary if you like. ]
When is it coming out in paperback? 😀
DN
Cf the suggestions in your last post, I could not agree more.
Let’s see some of the big specifics on the table. Let’s be in a position to judge whether the Greens’ Peace and Security policy might mean in practice. Let’s see how much it would cost. Let’s see what it might mean for our disengagement from ISIL under UN auspices.
Let’s see what it might mean, in broad terms, in relation to the size and nature of our planes and ships.
Very big news
[Europe will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, the toughest climate change target of any region in the world, and will produce 27% of its energy from renewable sources by the same date.]
UKs objections got overruled.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/22/eu-carbon-emissions-climate-deal-2030
We Want Paul
How could corporate tax avoidance through transfer pricing be reduced?
cud chewer@860
Or ‘Fran – The Movie’?
DG
My gut response was similar to several outlined above: ‘How hungry is Abbott for a domestic terrorist incident?’
However, that sort of response indicates where I start from. Other responses will vary, depending on the POV of the emotional responder.
The issue is one of interpretation.
However, Abbott has placed himself in a very, very foolish position.
If the first decapitation, death by gunshot, crucifixion, IED detonation, or drone strike is at the AWM, Abbott will be well and truly in the cross hairs of the commentariat.
cud chewer
[When is it coming out in paperback?]
I suspect it would have a market of about 3 … A paperback probably wouldn’t pass environmental feasibility critieria.
😉
oops … criteria …
Fran Barlow@866
Here you are Fran, the world will probably not forgive me, but you can get published here: http://www.lulu.com/create 😀
Astrobleme
Boerwar himself is irrelevant, except in that he represents a question that might be in the minds of many others.
The Greens should seriously consider how they might answer what the real question is – and that is not Boerwar’s tedious elaboration on every (non)acquisition, but – what they consider Australia’s strategic interests to be.
What we have are vague motherhood statements and decisions on specific items without any working shown for how they get from one to the other.
Fran
It might be the case that the other parties are not much better in this regard. However, if we are being conservative – and simplistic – w.r.t. just the question of Australia’s defence, one could argue that more is better than less, so the two majors can’t go wrong adding, whereas the Greens could go wrong subtracting.
tielec
[Groundhog day on PB.
I swear yesterday’s conversation was exactly the same?]
Spot on! It is bloody boring on here lately.
Reams and reams of the same rubbish by the same people.
I have been coming here for years and it was a good place to be with everyone making their comments on what interested them and others responding in kind
It is now the voice of those think they are teaching the world with their wisdom.
Sad!
[We Want Paul
How could corporate tax avoidance through transfer pricing be reduced?]
Is there any? If so we have some of the tightest rules in the world the ATO should prosecute the offenders.
Just been told by a local newspaper that they’re not responsible for what’s written in one of their weekly columns because that’s just that person’s opinion….
Re Victoria @836: someone should report Pyne to the Federal Police.
WeWantPaul
Australians have bought 27 billion dollars worth of Apple products since 2002 yet Apple paid only $193 million to the ATO (0.7 percent of the turnover). The Australian Financial Review estimates that Apple shifted $9 billion of profits out of Australia to minimize tax.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-06/tax-expert-explains-how-apple-pays-193m-tax-on-27b-revenue/5303426
What Prime Minister in the past has virtually told terrorists what is a good place and time to attack?
He is also telling people what the security authorities consider to be a target.
[Prime Minister Tony Abbott has referred to Mr Harper as a “brother” and said the attack was an “affront” on Australia’s Parliament because of the two country’s cultural similarities.
Mr Abbott said while the attack abroad had not “furthered the risk” for Australia’s Parliament he warned “there’s a copycat tendency amongst these people”.
He said authorities has not considered Canberra’s War Memorial a target “prior to yesterday” but now would because it serves as a “symbol of our nation”.
“I suppose to extremist fanatics it could therefore be a target. There’s the Last Post at our War Memorial every day and I guess if someone wanted to do something gruesome that’s the kind of thing that could be looked at,” Mr Abbott told Melbourne Radio 3AW.]
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-war-memorials-last-post-a-potential-terror-target-tony-abbott-20141024-11ayte.html#ixzz3H1SluEXv
[Fran Barlow
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
DN
What the Greens should identify – for the sake of Boerwar’s peace of mind, or so that at least he can say “I told you so” – is what they think are Australia’s strategic military interests. Where they expect Australia will need/want to project force to, and in what fashion, for example.
Actually, assuming BW doesn’t think the defence wonks ought to have carte blanche, is what he thinks the rationale(s) for having a defence force in the years 2014-2034 are and what he sees as their key challenges.
While he’s about it, he could identify the extent to which any acquisitions he’d have us make would address those challenges,and how at any time we could conclude we were getting adequate value for the impositions of the public associated therewith.
He could specify also the procedure for reviewing the efficacy of the ADF and its resourcing and what we could in practice do if we found that we had purchased assets that proved to be of little marginal value, due in part to changes in the quality and quantity of the challenges arising in the period.
I’d call that an interesting discussion from PB’s own armchair defence wonk.]
I am happy to have an item by item discussion on this but it would probably be fairly boring and wrong in many, many significant aspects.
My suggestion would be that the Greens go first in answering the excellent questions you raise, because the Greens will be running for BOP next election in two years time, and what the Greens actually think about all this, and how they intend to exercise the BOP in relation to defence issues, may actually matter quite a lot.
But I doubt the Greens will do anything other than continue to oppose all specific equipment acquisitions, and will continue to hide whatever decommissioning they may or may not intend to do, and will not specify their defence program spending.
I can, OTOH, imagine the Greens initiating some process of review and assessment. The Greens’ policies are redolent with such things. It is the sort of stuff that you do when you intend to do nothing or you do when you want cover for what you really intended to do but were too scared to say before the election. I am thinking Commission of Audit here. Same same?
As I have said time and again, what I think does not matter here. No-one much agrees with me on my preference for strongly-armed neutrality. The vast majority of Australians appear to prefer the client state approach.
Why do I think this stuff does matters, from a personal experience POV, BTW?
(1) I was driven out of my birthplace by a war.
(2) Our family suffered, and continue to suffer, the indirect consequences of PSTD on the part of our WW2 and Indonesian War of Independence combantant.
(3) I was driven out of the next country by the economic ravages of war.
(4) I lived for a decade with a conquered people – Australia’s Indigenous people. The war loss ravages were, and are, everywhere.
Getting into wars is really, really stupid.
Losing wars is really crazy.
Being so ready for a war that other countries think hard about even starting one with you is very, very sensible.
I can tell you that ‘Peace and Security’ are nice concepts. I would love some peace in the world. But, from my POV, those concepts need some real hardware and some real spending to get them and maintain them.
I can understand why the Greens might think the opposite is true, that the iron in the sword is really drawn to blood and that it is therefore better to disarm.
If the Greens do think so, they should spell out what they really think, and how this might really look in terms of defence acquisitions, so that voters are making an informed choice.
I’ll say one thing about “Boerwar” – he sure got his name right.
“Bore” and “War”.
Please, get over it. It is tedious scrolling through the same boorish garbage you have been peddling every day for the last 2+ years. You have a clear anti-Green agenda and take much joy in twisting and deceitfully misinterpreting everything in order to suit that agenda.
I know it must be fun for you, but for everyone else who visits this BLOG it is a PITA.
Please, have some consideration for others and move on.
DR
[Australians have bought 27 billion dollars worth of Apple products since 2002 yet Apple paid only $193 million to the ATO (0.7 percent of the turnover). The Australian Financial Review estimates that Apple shifted $9 billion of profits out of Australia to minimize tax.
]
Well the questions relevant to that is did Apple Australia pay a fair arms length price for the goods they acquired? Secondly did Apple pay a fair arms length price for any support (eg marketing / it) it received from Apple affiliates? There is no evidence Apple Australia overpaid. It is a retail front you would expect retail front type profits. I don’t know a lot about that sort of thing but people who do have told me Apple Australia’s profit margin looks OK.
The tax issues outside Australia may well show Apple has taken advantage of weak us and Irish laws – but that doesn’t impact at all on the Apple Australia tax issue.
citizen
[What Prime Minister in the past has virtually told terrorists what is a good place and time to attack?]
It’s a total FMD.
I don’t understand screeds of comments about the Greens defence policy when the chance it would ever happen is about 0% and if it did, they’d change it all anyway.
I guess in some sense I’m saying that the majors’ policies are simpler and more knowable, in that they don’t need to be as accurate in comparison to the Greens policy which depends greatly on being accurate. Vagueness is therefore a greater enemy of the Greens than the majors. You may think it unfair, but the Greens will have to work harder than the majors to combat it.
Dang it! Just broke the cardinal rule – “do not feed the trolls”.
Couldn’t agree more Tielec. Very very boring.
[DRinMelb
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink
I’ll say one thing about “Boerwar” – he sure got his name right.
“Bore” and “War”.
Please, get over it. It is tedious scrolling through the same boorish garbage you have been peddling every day for the last 2+ years. You have a clear anti-Green agenda and take much joy in twisting and deceitfully misinterpreting everything in order to suit that agenda.
I know it must be fun for you, but for everyone else who visits this BLOG it is a PITA.
Please, have some consideration for others and move on.
DR]
I will give you a big tick for a lack of originality, rudeness, and abject self-pity.
Bad Donald Duck just whispered into my ear that this could mean that you are a Greens supporter who does not want to discuss the Greens Peace and Security policy either.
[Diogenes
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 12:56 pm | Permalink
I don’t understand screeds of comments about the Greens defence policy when the chance it would ever happen is about 0% and if it did, they’d change it all anyway.]
Whoa, there!
[Just been told by a local newspaper that they’re not responsible for what’s written in one of their weekly columns because that’s just that person’s opinion….]
Climate denialism?
There’s various shades of ‘responsible’ of course. Certainly they have responsibility for editorial decisions and legal responsibility as publisher. They don’t need to be responsible for all the opinions but should be responsible for ensuring it is good faith comment.
Finding fun in even the most boring of places is a skill. You lot just need more practice ;).
Isn’t everyone entitled to join a political party of their choice without being attacked for it?
I chose the ALP that does not give me a privilege to attack anyone who didn’t choose that Party.
We live in a bloody democracy for God’s sake.
Boerwar grow up!
DN
[The Greens should seriously consider how they might answer what the real question is – and that is not Boerwar’s tedious elaboration on every (non)acquisition, but – what they consider Australia’s strategic interests to be.]
No, as for a start we’re not ‘The Greens’.
Boerwar is obsessed with the Defence ‘assets’ and in the greens policy it states they would purchase assets suitable for a ‘defensive’ ADF. I don’t particular know what those assets are or would be. And it’s not up to a ‘policy’ to define them. They would be chosen based on some sort of ‘White Paper’.
We have attempted to be reasonable with Boerwar, then we were abusive, then we mocked him, then we tried reason again, the last night I mocked him again, now I am trying abuse.
Thing is, if he was ACTUALLY interested in the facts he would have simply written an email… But he’s not.
DN
[I guess in some sense I’m saying that the majors’ policies are simpler and more knowable, in that they don’t need to be as accurate in comparison to the Greens policy which depends greatly on being accurate. Vagueness is therefore a greater enemy of the Greens than the majors. You may think it unfair, but the Greens will have to work harder than the majors to combat it.]
Have you read the ALP and Coalition Defence policies?
Hope the greens have more up their sleeves with the senate tax inquiry than just the TJN report or it will be a short and damaging inquiry.
[The “deal” between the Palmer United party and the immigration minister to reintroduce temporary protection visas is looking shaky as PUP expresses deep concerns Scott Morrison’s legislation goes far beyond what was agreed.
In late September, Morrison introduced legislation enacting a deal struck with PUP for the reintroduction of three-year temporary protection visas and a new five-year “safe haven enterprise visa” for refugees who agree to work in regional areas for a period of time.
]
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/24/temporary-protection-visa-deal-with-palmer-united-party-looking-shaky
DN
http://www.alp.org.au/what_we_re_for
No ‘Defence policy’ there… Boerwar should be outraged.
[what they consider Australia’s strategic interests to be.]
I think I’ve given my opinion (which appears to be Official Greens Policy – who knew?) before but again I note I’m no expert.
The biggest potential danger is being drawn into a ‘hot’ war between the USA over Taiwan or (less likely) N Korea. The most likely danger is spillover from intercommunal violence in Indonesia including conflict in W Papua.
In neither of these situations is Australian ‘force projection’ going to do much. It would be utterly irrelevant to the former which would be best dealt with through clarifying Australia’s diplomatic relationships. The latter situation needs continuing emphasis on aid and development, and (real) intelligence.
Movement of displaced people in the Pacific and SE Asia (especially Bangladesh) is going to be a huge issue later in the century making our current asylum seeker flows look trivial. Regardless of whether the government -of-the-day wants to help refugees or lock them up, remote surveillance and coastal patrolling are going to be more important.
The continued rise of India is going to be a big thing as well and while it seems unlikely that Australia would be directly involved in any conflict the Indian Ocean may be an interesting place at some stages.
Last updated Sept 2013?
http://www.alp.org.au/campaign_media_foreign_policy_defence
But no policy in there either….
BW
[Being so ready for a war that other countries think hard about even starting one with you is very, very sensible.]
In your opinion, and bearing especially in mind your view that you want “strongly armed neutrality” (i.e. not be an appendage of one of the superpowers and thus tied in with their strategic interests) do you believe Australia was the wherewithal to build and maintin in perpetuity a deterrent of sufficient force to meet or even approach your criterion in realtion to any conceivable aggressor? (Here you should identify the potential aggressors and the human, financial and infrastructure harm we have to be willing and baable to inflict upon them to deter them from considering mounting an attack).
I very much doubt that a sensible answer to that question is possible. Conceivably, if we remain either an ally of the US or perhaps forrged a new alliance with China, then we could just keep doing what we are now, but then again, maybe we could talk one of them into letting us almost entirely off the hook. It’s not as if it costs them anything. If so, then the expenditure is wasteful duplication.
What we are doing now is symbolic political cover for each new US-led military stupidity in the M-E. That substracts from our security and makes us look stupid into the bargain. It generate refugee outflows as well.
I see that as a very poor trade.
At least I could find the Coalition one…
http://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies
Here’s an interesting extract
[The Coalition believes it is irresponsible to make commitments to specific quantities of heavy defence equipment from opposition (such as submarines and fighters). To do so without access to the privileged information available to government is impractical and irresponsible.
Strategic intent is one thing, but specific operational requirements can only be assessed from government with the advice of the ADF.]
Astrobleme
[No, as for a start we’re not ‘The Greens’.]
Did you consider that I might actually be referring to the party?
[Have you read the ALP and Coalition Defence policies?]
Those bits and pieces I’ve read are just as dissapointingly void of the sorts of things I’d ask for, with a similar focus on motherhood statements and acquisitions.
Regardless, my argument is that there is a natural assymetry between “more” and “less” (or even “less, if possible”) that allows “more” to get away with being more vague than “less”.
I’m going to accede to my better judgement and the explicit requests above and refrain from further engaging on the subject of Greens’ defence policies.
DN
[Did you consider that I might actually be referring to the party?]
Apologies, it’s hard to tell.
When you say ‘Strategic interests’, what do you mean. It’s a vague question.