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.
We Want Paul
Antony Ting, a senior lecturer in taxation law, says that Apple has its iPads manufactured in China, ships them them to Apple Ireland, then Apple Ireland sells them to Apple Australia for 550 each, then Apple Australia sells to Australian customers for 600 each. Apple Ireland is a kind of shell company with almost no employees; it doesn’t produce anything, it doesn’t sell to customers. All it does is receive goods from China and to intra-firm sales to Apple Australia.
Ting reckons that of the 550 that Apple Ireland receives from Apple Australia for each iPad, 220 dollars is not taxed anywhere – not in Australia, Ireland, or the United States.
This affects Australia in a big way because Apple is free riding on Australia’s public goods. Apple benefits from having operations in Australia – proximity to customers, a highly educated workforce, good infrastructure, rule of law, political order. Yet Apple pays very little in tax for the upkeep of the public goods from which it benefits.
DN
[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.]
That’s probably true, at the the rhetorical level, but of course, if one wants a rational policy, there’s no reason as a general rule to prefer more to less.
A mediaeval knight who carried more weaponry and armour than he needed could be at a disadvantage compared with one carrying lighter weapons and armour but who was more agile, whose horse could carry him farther and faster and so forth.
Back in the contemporary world,spending large sums of money buying assets we say we hope we will never use in anger is one definition of a boondoggle or ‘white elephant’. (The story behind that last term is a fun one) Of course what it does entail is not merely waste but a denial of resources to things that actually might make a difference to someone.
And of course if you do acquire the resources you need to frighten your neighbours, you’ve created a strong case for them to copy you — and hence we have a kind of arms race in which two parties keep trying to get a strategic edge.
The arms industry may think it all good fun, but everyone else? Not so much.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-24/unions-hand-tasmanian-government-alternative-savings-plan/5838806
Let me try again.
Assume we don’t know how much defence we need. Then, adding more either brings us towards the amount we need or provides a buffer on top of it. We are naturally guaranteed, at the very least, no decrease in safety.
On the other hand, suggesting we could make do with less provides no such natural guarantee. That guarantee only comes from an accurate assessment of exactly how much we need and making sure we stop there.
Hence vaguness is a greater enemy of following the latter than the former.
Of course that leaves out any consideration of what else we might spend money on, how other nations might react (e.g. arms races), etc.
Astrobleme
[When you say ‘Strategic interests’, what do you mean. It’s a vague question.]
Those are probably what you would suggest go in a white paper. Basically answers to why we need specific pieces of equipment. Where we might have to send our forces, etc.
Fran @ 902
snap 😉
MTBW@888
Yes they are.
And others are equally allowed to point out the errors of their way!
Keane in today’s ‘Crikey’ does a bit of Liberal heir-apparentshit.
[Meanwhile, on the other side, leadership tension is starting to cause problems — not over Abbott’s leadership, which is perfectly secure, but over who’s now the heir apparent. The only apparent thing is that it’s no longer Joe Hockey, who has vanished off the political radar while on G20 and APEC duties. Scott Morrison’s ambitions are now so obvious as to have offended his colleagues, but Julie Bishop — well-known for her ambition during the last Howard years — is emerging as the strongest contender. Gone is the Bishop of gaffes, stumbles and plagiarism that we saw in opposition, replaced with a figure whose straightforward competence has elevated her head and shoulders above most of her colleagues. And she knows it.]
nicholas
[Yet Apple pays very little in tax for the upkeep of the public goods from which it benefits.]
They should be slapped with Withholding Tax. Let them claim it back.
MTBW
Eagerly awaiting you making the same kind of post when a Green here makes the same sort of attack on Labor.
So far all I’ve seen is you supporting them.
Time for something more interesting, perhaps, – NSW by-elections tomorrow night in Newcastle and Charleston with the libs not defending their seats.
BW #907
Indeed, Bishop would make a great LOTO, after the next election.
DN
[Basically answers to why we need specific pieces of equipment. ]
JWH’s purchase of 100 refurbished Abrams Tanks rate as one of the sillier defence purchases.
Meanwhile, in Victoria, the odds on Napthine winning seem to be drifting out. You can now get over $4 for a coalition win.
It seems generous to me as I’d expect the polls to tighten up during the campaign.
Speaking of Victorian polls, they seem very thin on the ground this close to an election.
Nicholas@901
They don’t ship to Australia via Ireland, they go direct to Australia.
The insertion of Ireland into the transaction is really a fiction for taxation purposes.
It is a sham, it is corrupt and it is theft.
The Irish Govt that allows its country to be used to rob other countries should be condemned and subjected to sever sanctions.
Nicholas while it seems wrong it is in fact Kosher under existing tax laws both here and internationally. It is not transfer pricing as defined by the taxation act just Apple Ireland receiving value for their IP rights.
It’s a problem that has to be addressed at an international level.
On a more non-specific basis companies virtually never pay exactly 30% of their accounting profit in tax due to a range of both permanent and timing differences. The most common is the different depreciation rates used to calculate accounting and taxable profit. That article made no attempt to try and properly analyse what the differences were due to and whether they are fair and reasonable under each circumstance.
It sort of like all the hype used against Twiggy for not paying any tax for a number of years. The simple reason was that his allowable tax deductions in all those years exceeded his income.
DN
I have no real understanding of Defence… So I really an’t answer.
I would suggest we need to focus on our region, and focus on what will be a large number of climate refugees. We can expect many people from Pacific islands, followed by more from south asia.
Our ‘defence’ is more about support nearby nations so they don’t have any reason to ‘attack’. Nations don’t go around ‘attacking’ much anymore the Economics doesn’t add up.
Of course, one could always argue that we as mere citizens don’t need to or should not have access to all the working. In which case Boerwar will live in eternal dissapointment so long as he sits here looking for it on PB :P.
CTar
I’m sure they will be put to good use fighting green, ebola ridden muslim zombies on the steps of Canberra. Can they even get there? They might tear up the roads. Though I suppose if you’re worrying about zombies, you might not care about the roads.
A question to the armchair generals and war analysts here:
Barring the insurgents and rogue states, who are we likely to fight in a war next?
My understanding is that we’re in a state of Economic Mutually-Assured Destruction, where any one state wanting to go into war risks destroying its own economy and its trading partners and will appear uncompetitive next to those who chose to sit out (except in the field of weapons manufacturing).
[This affects Australia in a big way because Apple is free riding on Australia’s public goods. Apple benefits from having operations in Australia – proximity to customers, a highly educated workforce, good infrastructure, rule of law, political order. Yet Apple pays very little in tax for the upkeep of the public goods from which it benefits.]
There are two different issues here. But to conclude that ‘Apple Australia is free riding on Australia’s public goods’ you and / or the good professor would have to show that either the $50 dollars profit in Australia (or $30 after selling costs) isn’t taxed or that $550 was not a proper arms length selling price to Apple Australia. I am not sure you or the good professor could actually establish that.
The reality of the $220 untaxed is almost certainly entirely attributable to non-Australian sources. Ireland and the USA both seem very comfortable with letting Apple free ride on their public goods. Well at least until Ireland closes of the rort they deliberately opened. The USA is a really weak corp tax jurisdiction and are least likely to tighten up.
So there is no real evidence Australia is missing out on any tax revenue. There is a separate question of if or how we attempt to punish companies and taxing the untaxed portion here, even though it is not at all Australian sourced profit. Bearing in mind with new companies coming here to make 50 per unit and then pay 30% tax on 270 for a loss of 31 dollars per unit.
I hate agreeing with David but I do.
(paywalled)
http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/10/24/poll-bludger-voters-spoilt-for-choice-in-nsw-byelections/
http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/10/24/three-way-manjam-in-the-fight-for-prahran/
It’s OK WWP it’s not like we have suddenly become best mates 🙂
[Fran Barlow
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm | Permalink
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).
Yes. Australia is well-placed to ensure that any campaign by anyone to invade and control Australia pays an extremely high price for it. We are also in a place to make sure that any resource payoffs require a complete rebuild of all relevant infrastructure. This would include a rigorous scorched earth policy including destroying all irrigation dams, all gasification plants and all coal and iron export infrastructure, for example.
But if your threshold is that everything should work all the time, IMHO, your threshold is too high. It is, IMHO, more useful to think in terms of probabilities.
Nothing works all the time.
[I very much doubt that a sensible answer to that question is possible.]
In broad terms the trick would be to make the attempt (where successful or failed) so expensive, or so long in the effort, or so risky, that the game is not worth the candle. This logic has enabled Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to see off the West. It enabled all the colonies who had to fight for independence gain that independence. It is most likely what saved Switzerland in WW2.
Conversely, very weak neighbours are a standing temptation.
There are plenty of practical examples of these sorts of things within our lifetime.
[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.]
I am not proposing a continuation of the client state approach.
[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 agree. Nearly all of our wars are a direct consequence of fear-driven entry into wars in the vague hope that their might be some future protective pay out.
The issue here is that those who support our client state approach strongly avoid enumerating the real costs. And, at heart, my basic point in this discussion is to seek a more open and transparent dicussion of the issues.
I heartily support some of the Greens’ Peace and Security policies, for example.
This openness should apply to all parties. It should apply to the Greens so that we can all make a judgement about the risk/reward equation.
[I see that as a very poor trade.]
So do I.
DN
[Can they even get there? They might tear up the roads.]
They are designed to fit through railway tunnels. It’s not intended that they’re driven far.
Getting them to Canberra from Yass Junction or from Goulburn down the Monaro Line would be quite a trick.
[ I have no real understanding of Defence… So I really an’t answer ]
Dumping Labor and voting Green because Labor refused to support Howard going to Iraq in 2003 certainly does seem to indicate some confusion
Been out all morning and I come home to see Boerwar is STILL AT IT!
Give it a rest, PLEASE.
[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.]
Does this logic apply to the experience of Rudd, Gillard, Rudd governments?
“BW v. FB” is like “Mountain v. Mohommed”.
The awful thing about is that there’s no levity or humour; nothing to lighten up the proceedings. It’s bare-knuckle boredom all the way.
RaaRaa
[My understanding is that we’re in a state of Economic Mutually-Assured Destruction, where any one state wanting to go into war risks destroying its own economy and its trading partners and will appear uncompetitive next to those who chose to sit out (except in the field of weapons manufacturing).]
Exactly… It’s too expensive now and there’s no economic game to fighting wars anymore. Sure some countries may want to secure resource access, but typically countries want to sell their resources so war is un-necessary.
Boerwar
Why no outrage at the lack of Defence policy on the ALP website?
CTaR1
They could float them along part of Lake George, ATM. But they may have to hurry.
BB
Mostly TL;DR stuff.
[Astrobleme
Posted Friday, October 24, 2014 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
Boerwar
Why no outrage at the lack of Defence policy on the ALP website?]
Because we have just had five years of learning what ALP defence spending and foreign policy looks like.
The Informal Party was not happy.
Bushfire Bill@926
It’s his war of attrition.
He will only stop when all have surrendered to him 😀
BW
[But they may have to hurry.]
Yep. It’s looking like a very long dry year.
I’ve got my air-con booked for maintenance next week.
David you should know I have a number of deeply LNP friends.
Greens policy on defense:
If invaded, throw Boerwar at the invaders and wait till they flee from his incessant bloviating.
WWP I’m not surprised. I think that is pretty normal for most Aussies and even strong opposing political views within families. It’s like the footie only much more important.
[David you should know I have a number of deeply LNP friends.]
Between WWP and DavidWH the rest of us should expect missile flights across the Nullarbor.
[Because we have just had five years of learning what ALP defence spending and foreign policy looks like.]
That was over a year ago… And they have a lot of other policies up there… But no defence? Maybe they’re worse than the Greens… Perhaps they have secret plans to not have any defence at all!
You should be outraged…
tielec@937
IT’S A SURE WINNER! 👿
Astrobleme
Why should a founding member of the Informal Party defend Labor’s defence and foreign affairs policies.
I don’t support them. But at least we have a vague notion what they are.
NSW by-elections seem to be about nature restoring a balance in the park.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/alp-set-for-victory-in-nsw-by-elections/story-fni0xqi4-1227101058309
If the Greens get us invaded then they are obviously the ones who should go and throw sticks and stones and engage in discusswion with whomever.
Given that no-one much liked my plan I would be scarpering o/s on the first plane out on a First Class seat.
War is, after all, hell.
Boerwar
[Why should a founding member of the Informal Party defend Labor’s defence and foreign affairs policies.
I don’t support them. But at least we have a vague notion what they are.]
So why on Earth are you going on about the Greens? It makes no sense and bores everyone to death. It’s obvious you have no interest in this but just want to spam this board with incessant rambling.
Astrobleme
[So why on Earth are you going on about the Greens? It makes no sense and bores everyone to death. It’s obvious you have no interest in this but just want to spam this board with incessant rambling.]
Just tell us what you are really going to do in relation to defence with the BOP in two year’s time.
Are you going to refuse to pass the budget if the government of the day wants to spend motsa on JSFs and subs?
Oh I get it. Boerwar wants to vote for the Greens. He just needs them to have the right policies first.
[So why on Earth are you going on about the Greens?]
So why one Earth are you replying.
Scroll, man.
I think that’s what we call “poking with a stick” ;).
In today’s Crikey Tom Westland has entertaining fact check fun with the rightards, amongst whom Sheridan, who could not wait to bury Whitlam’s reputation using ahem, untruths.