The second federal poll conducted for the Fairfax papers by Ipsos is somewhat less bad than what they’ve been accustomed to recently, while still giving Labor a lead of 52-48 according to preference flows from the 2013 election (up from 51-49 in last month’s poll) and 53-47 on respondent-allocation (steady). The primary votes are 40% for the Coalition (down two), 37% for Labor (steady), 12% for the Greens (steady) and 2% for Palmer United (down one). Ipsos was also about two points below trend on the Coalition primary vote last time, and landed a little high for them in its last poll before the Victorian election.
However, the poll corroborates other recent polling in having Tony Abbott’s personal ratings slumping, with approval down four to 38% and disapproval up eight to 57%. Bill Shorten is up three on approval to 46% and one on disapproval to 41%, and he now leads 47-39 as preferred prime minister after a 41-all result last time. The poll was conducted Thursday to Saturday from a sample of 1400.
J341983
Coorey did make the point yesterday on insiders, that the friction, paranoia and distrust within the cabinet between Abbott Bishop and Co is very real.
Here is a billboard re uni fees
https://mobile.twitter.com/KnottMatthew/status/541807584806584320/photo/1
@351 – Indeed, but that makes it so completely and utterly transparent. It also looks like someone trying to establish plausible deniability and a more ‘Independent’ public image.
By attacking the PMO Bishop is attacking the PM. Why do it in the AFR?
J341983
Of course. It is been transparent for ages that JBishop has her eye on the main prize
imacca at #349
[Now, my recollection is that the ALP actually went into the last election with plans to impose a 15% tax on super earnings over $100k / year?
So this measure would be an easy one for them to support and an easy one to add LOTS to revenue over the forward estimates.]
According to the Guardian interactive the ALP policy would cut the deficit by nearly $70 billion in 4 years leaving a piddling $34 billion to go.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2014/may/09/budget-cuts-revenue-interactive
Kevin @282
Re Abbott and the rest of Team Australia,
I wonder what Hockey thought of Abbotts last minute decision to have a press conference just before the launch of the Murray report,
This was on a Sunday morning, probably the date set well in advance.
A and it was Hockey’s chance to reframe the debate.
Victoria @ 352
That bus stop is at Monash Uni. One wonders how long it will be until it is vandalised in some ‘creative’ way.
Steven
Steven Grant haby
Hope some creative student fixes up the message
Steven grant Haby
Btw does CPyne and the Abbott govt realise that the majority of students wont be returning to campus until early March. 😀
Victoria @ 360
Good point. The government should haul the advertising agency over the coals for the placement of this advertisement.
Funny.
The other issue re: Bishop… I agree. I think she sees herself as the only performer of the whole bunch. But, I didn’t think she’d want to be seen as Rudd-ing Abbott.
Here, I’m a member of a strong team… I just happen to be speaking disparagingly of the PMO, that’s all.
The other thing that Coorey noted was that Hockey and Bishop had caught out Abbott trying to play each off against the other.
I’m still backing my opinion when the GP Tax backflip/foward roll silliness was on. The senior members of the Cabinet have basically put Abbott on notice. He gets to stay PM only because of how cutting down a first term leader has worked for Labor and in Victoria, but essentially his authority has been revoked.
The PPL stuff is just another manifestation of this. He’s been told to get out there and clean his mess.
I think the purported reshuffle is therefore also off the agenda. If Bishop is still backing Johnson he won’t be going anywhere, and Abbott doesn’t have the authority to knife Hockey. Bishop will be happy for the smell of Johnson to linger around Abbott and for him to look feeble, but if he tries to move against her ally it will probably lead to open warfare.
Need more popcorn.
It is indeed satisfying to see Abbott squirming and making a fool of himself on a daily basis.
Despite this, Labor only leads 52-48 and there’s still two years to the next election.
We should not hope for Abbott to be dumped as Labor will lose one of its best weapons.
A new Leader has the potential to turn things around for the government.
A little less Labor hubris is called for.
feeney
Where is the labor hubris? I dont see Shorten et al displaying it at the present time.
I doubt it’s actually 52-48 to start with.
I think a leadership change would only result a potentially positive outcome if there are substantive policy changes.There would probably be some kind of bounce to the LNP, but as long as the ALP is worth their salt… hmmm, yeah.
The issue for me, isn’t the 2016 election date, it’s the 2016 Budget. Which is 18 months away and is absolutely crucial for the Government’s survival or end.
I still think anyone confident that this is a one-term government is fooling themselves, but the very fact that just 15 months in, it’s a very real possibility is enough for serious questions to be asked.
victoria
I am referring to some of the comments here on PB.
Some amusing stuff from the Bolter.
The two of the three top blog pieces at his H-S site. Love the headlines.
First on the Ipsos poll:
… and the third down, on the SA by-election…
La-La Land.
Let’s be clear about one thing. Tony will not be deposed. He will be told that the whole team supports him and then left in a room with a Webley revolver.
I have zero time for the Minister for Rupe. But I wonder how the great unwashed will react when the liberal party says, nope, you don’t get Malcolm, we’re giving you Julie instead. Talking about tone deaf (no pun intended) and starting on the wrong foot. I’m usually wrong, but I think she’ll be a disaster.
feeney
I don’t even see hubris here on PB, with an exception or two.
If the LN:P change leaders it will do them no good unless they change policy and sharpen up their competency.
Maybe then they can look at a second term. Changing the lipstick on the pig will not help them as the public sees them as having lied to het power.
J341983
I feel the 52/48 figure is more accurate overall.
In any event, I agree with the rest of your comments.
Yeah – @369 – the only circumstance I can see a leadership change is one that is perceived (though obviously not) to be voluntary.
[Where is the labor hubris? I dont see Shorten et al displaying it at the present time.]
Shorten looks relaxed and happy. Opposition leaders aren’t supposed to look like that unless full of hubris.
feeney
From what i can tell, many bludgers are merely happy that the karma bus has hit Abbott and the coalition. Whether that translates into this mob losing the next election is another matter
I’m chock-full of Hubris right now. But that’s hardly likely to infect the labor party.
Further to what others are saying, if the Liberals do change leaders, then the public would be entitled to demand an election, given the Government would’ve just replaced an ‘elected’ (Westminster system notwithstanding) leader with an ‘unelected’ one. This would, after all, only be holding this Government to the same standard they applied to the last one.
JD – I think they would rush to an election before Julie Bishop ran out of new clothes.
TS:
[Shorten looks relaxed and happy. Opposition leaders aren’t supposed to look like that unless full of hubris.]
I think there is a big difference between self-confidence and hubris.
Gee feeney, be careful with that kind of talk or you might be taken for a Liberal party supporter.
feeney
I tend to agree with Vic.
mtbw
I am always for someone to agree with me. 🙂
Oops meant to say always “happy”
Re negative gearing and public housing.
Briefly: I’ve seen you continually assert that housing is consumption rather than a genuine investment.
The truth is that, of course, it is both these things: investment in a new or existing rental property is, in one economic sense, exactly the same as investment in any new or existing capital good which is then used to produce goods or services for sale to consumers (in this case, a house or apartment is purchased and then used to produce an accommodation service for tenants).
The difference with investment in housing is that properties that can be purchased for renting out are also more widely traded in an owner-occupier market, which arguably is the most influential of the two connected markets in setting the prices of dwellings. Because Australia has a rate of population growth that is more rapid than that of most other developed country, competition in the owner-occupied housing market is pretty intense, which thereby can provide rental investors with capital gains that are arguably above the odds.
But, if this is true it’s not the access to negative gearing (which is available for just about any sort of capital investment) that produces the distortion, but the dual character of the housing market. So removing negative gearing and/or quarantining it to housing income wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem that some people believe they want to solve: in particular, it won’t take away the above the odds capital gains available to rental investors.
But it will produce a strong distortion in housing markets where those above average capital gains do not occur: for example, Hobart, where I live. Why would anyone with half a brain wish to invest in rental properties in many parts of Hobart if negative gearing is no longer available?
Ah, but some say, perhaps we can limit negative gearing to newly-built properties. But that’s another distortion: all being equal, it will push rental housing out to the fringes of our major cities and push up the costs of the rental housing in the inner areas, driving out all but the wealthiest people.
I don’t much like the idea of introducing one size fits all measures which distort of the market. If we feel that some landlords are making returns out of all proportion in some locations due to owner-, then let’s do something specifically about targeting those. Otherwise, let’s leave it all to the market to sort out.
ratsak
Agreed, the GP tax imbroglio a few weeks ago, was a shot across the bow to Abbott
Steven Grant Haby
Didnt take long. 😀
https://mobile.twitter.com/NTEUNational/status/541788365922656256/photo/1
Should have included
NTEU NAtional Office
We fixed that for you, Christopher Pyne #auspol #highered #debtsentence pic.twitter.com/ZeOXA3bMhA
Monash and billboards, good to see they have removed the one from last year with the shoppy typo which would Mexi look smart.
http://media.smh.com.au/featured/jack-thompsons-reading-of-63-not-out-6068094.html
Have a look at this spoken by Jack Thompson reading a tribute to Phillip Hughes.
What a magnificent voice he has!
On the Public Housing thing yes it has become a poverty trap. Laws brought in because of stories of people kiving in public housing owning BMW’s
Now as soon as you get a job and get above a certain income you lose your home and have to go into the private sector. Undoing any advantage of having a job.
The incentive has been made not to work in anything likely to lift you out of poverty
The polls range from 52/48 – 55/45, both extremes are quite likely to be a bit under or over the ‘true’ figure at the moment. What is inarguable is that the Coalition is in trouble and they know it.
Their leader has appalling ratings and is widely seen as a liar. Their assault on debt and deficit has seen the deficit widen and the debt grow. Their budget has largely floundered as it is widely and correctly seen as unfair and littered with broken election promises. They have shown themselves interested only in governing for the most rusted on of their supporters and will happily screw everyone else.
Can they recover? Yes well anything is possible. Is it likely? Well that we can debate. But the same level of thinking that produced the mess they are in sure ain’t going to get em out of it if you ask me. Something needs to change, and it needs to be something big. I don’t believe they are capable of it and I don’t believe Labor is in any mood any longer to self immolate.
I’m quite happy to all but write these morons off, because what they would turn out like in government was pretty obvious in opposition. This is as good as they can manage.
And now on to public housing (I thought I’d break up my post).
The problem with public housing in Australia in 2014 is that – as the failure of the “victims” of the Millers Point sell-off to gain much public sympathy beyond a few socialist die-hards like Albo – the general population no longer support the idea of public housing being supplied to anyone other than the most desperate people: that is, it is now seen as “welfare housing” rather than “social housing”.
So most states now operate on the basis that, if people begin to improve their financial situation by going to work, they either have to move out to a private dwelling, or else pay a lot more rent.
Some of the aforementioned die-hards would like to return to the days of social housing with “cost rents” (ie, below market rates). But I reckon that, in this era, there is very little remaining public sympathy for such a concept. So public housing inevitable increasingly becomes welfare housing (or “ghetto housing”, to put a negative spin on it). In that context, it still serves a useful function, but it will increasingly support people who have left the labour market for good and/or will never join it.
ratsak
Bludgertrack tells the story and this Ipsos/Fairfax poll will not shift it much.
Mb
I gather the Govt sold off the Millers Point houses.
Tony must be getting heartburn right about now. Gearing up to what will be a MAJOR climate change action milestone in Paris next year, climate change is returning to the public’s attention as a major issue, and they have found Abbott lacking:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fairfax-ipsos-poll-shows-climate-change-concerns-heating-up-around-tony-abbott-20141208-122eus.html
[ According to the Guardian interactive the ALP policy would cut the deficit by nearly $70 billion in 4 years leaving a piddling $34 billion to go. ]
And if the Libs refuse to pluck it, it becomes low hanging fruit for the ALP after they win in 2016. 🙂
they cant let that happen, and as such i think the Libs should move on it this term. ALP can support it as it was their policy anyway provided the Fibs dont link any nasties to whatever bills it is in. Issue neutralised, budget in better shape, and argument moves on.
If the Fibs are really sensitive to the broken promises thing then it is something that they can take to the next election so as not to break an election promise. ( Lol! )
The ALP then simply say fine, they are just now catching up with our policy position from 2013 and we will go to the 2016 election with the same policy. Issue neutralised for the ALP but bad for the Libs as they should have moved on it before if they think its good policy, and by taking it to the next election the Libs are denied any revenue from it this term.
Baba
As the Liberals are finding out the market does not fix all.
Some things where society needs to intervene. Housing is one of these as we see from all the homeless people
If anything, this Government is probably one of the most clearly ideological we’ve had, potentially since Whitlam. The problem with these types of Governments is that the believe their own spin.
They seemed to believe that the problem was the Labor Government and once the ‘Adults’ were in charge, everything would right itself. Consumer and overall economic confidence would return, Mining Boom 2.0 would kick in with the Mining Tax gone etc etc…
They’re now facing the challenge of governing … and realising the pieces didn’t naturally fall into place and they obviously assumed they would.
Would much prefer a moderate liberal lead the Govt to the next election than these destructive and denialist lunatics occupying the PMO at the moment.
A leadership change can’t come soon enough.
…to add. My favourite part is that the Government is now acknowledging, but tacitly, that the line the ALP used on the economy being impacted by external factors they cannot control is, in fact, true. The next step is whether they start to talk about structural deficits.
victoria & MTBW
I am happy about it, too.
Enjoying seeing Abbott hoist on his own petard.