BludgerTrack: 52.9-47.1 to Labor

Despite Labor’s strong headline figure in this week’s Newspoll, the BludgerTrack poll aggregate records a move in favour of the Coalition, while also correcting a recent downturn in Bill Shorten’s personal ratings.

Last week, the BludgerTrack poll aggregate disappointed Coalition fans by failing to respond much to the morale-boosting poll result the had received from Ipsos. Now it’s Labor supporters’ turn, with a shift to the Coalition recorded despite Labor’s strong two-party result from Newspoll. This reasons for this are that a) BludgerTrack goes off the primary vote, and the numbers provided by Newspoll were scarcely different from those that produced a two-party result of 53-47 a fortnight ago, suggesting that much of that two-point shift came down to rounding, b) numbers added this week for Essential Research and Roy Morgan were both soft for Labor, and c) the very strong results Labor was recording at the time of the leadership spill have now entirely washed out of the system. All of which adds up to a solid move to the Coalition on two-party that brings with it four seats on the seat projection, numbering one each in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia.

Newspoll and Essential Research both provided numbers for leadership ratings this week, and they collectively find the Tony Abbott dead cat continuing to bounce, to the extent that he’s nearly back to where he was at his previous all-time low after the budget. A surprisingly sharp deterioration in Bill Shorten’s numbers has also moderated with the addition of the new numbers, returning him to a more familiar position just below parity. The new figures also knock some of the edge off Abbott’s recovery on preferred prime minister. Full details as always on the sidebar.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

2,662 comments on “BludgerTrack: 52.9-47.1 to Labor”

Comments Page 51 of 54
1 … 50 51 52 … 54

  1. “@ABCNews24: .@mediaalliance: It still has a situation where govts can seek to identify the sources of stories. And we know..that this has been happening”

  2. “@ABCNews24: .@mediaalliance: We have said we don’t believe this legislation should pass… if it does there needs to be a very wide media exemption”

  6. Will Australian farmers follow the lead of their kiwi cousins ?

    Co-ops were wide spread but fell a bit out of fashion. Fonterra has shown what dairy farmers staying in a co-op can do. Now their beef industry looks to be moving the same way.

    [A report into New Zealand’s meat industry has come out heavily in favour of a single co-operative business model similar to Fonterra’s to deal with decades-old issues of overcapacity and too much competition for stock.]
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11418207

  9. What a nasty Repug presidential hopeful. In full Abbott mode at some “grass roots” event he bangs on about the disaster of Obama. He declares “The world is on fire”……

    [From the front row, a high-pitched little voice suddenly exclaimed: “The world is on fire?”

    That voice, according to the Washington Post, belonged to three-year-old Julie Trant, who was attending the speech with her mother Michelle.

    Cruz immediately turned to the child, but instead of withdrawing the statement, or explaining it was a metaphor, he doubled down in a bizarre attempt at offering some comfort.

    “The world is on fire,” he said with a smile and a nod. “Yes, your world is on fire.”]

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/republican-presidential-hopeful-ted-cruz-shocks-threeyearold-girl-the-world-is-on-fire-20150316-1m0o8x.html

  13. Judge does not sound impressed with Hockey Lawyer

    “@MWhitbourn: McClintock is taking court to evidence by SMH ed in chief Darren Goodsir. Justice White says it’s “sounding very repetitive” #HockeyFairfax”

  14. http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/03/peak-carbon-emissions/

    [on Friday…the International Energy Agency revealed that global emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector stalled in 2014, while the global economy grew by 3%. This marks the first time in the IEA’s 40 years of collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions where emissions stood still or declined while the economy grew…coal is well and truly in decline (it would be more so were it not for the Fukushima nuclear disaster).]

    Furthermore, those economies that reduce their carbon emissions fastest will also grow fastest, as they buy into new generation technologies that will reduce energy costs…

  16. Tom Hawkins@2492

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-outclassed-on-qa-by-an-economist-20150316-1m0nrs.html

    The last line of Peter Martin’s article is:

    Hockey was outclassed in a way he rarely is in parliament.


    I mean, seriously? A minister in any government will to some extent be protected by the Speaker. In the case of Bishop it is an organised protection racket to silence the opposition. Despite that support Hockey is still seen as a fool in QT. Is Martin seriously suggesting that Hockey is on top of his game in QT because of some natural strength of personality or argument? Crap.

    I love this. Daley finally puts down the notion that the rent increase during the abolishment of negative gearing was actually due to the lack of housing development in Sydney. It seems as if the backtrack on abolishing negative gearing was rather Sydney-centric.

  17. Portion,

    I think it will be the other way around. As prices increase, consumption will decrease. If anything the drop in crude prices should have supercharged the consumption.

  21. [The BOM data shows that since “global warming” has been kicking in the last few years we have been having less cyclones than ever before.

    Isn’t that the exact opposite of what the warmists doom and gloomers told us was going to happen.]

    Not sure if this piece of idiocy and dishonesty from TBA has already been refuted somewhere but no that’s not the opposite of what was predicted.

    What was predicted was fewer overall cyclones/hurricanes but more strong ones which is exactly what is coming true.

    Cyclones Larry, Yasi, Marcia, Pam and Typhoon Haiyan all in the last few years and all incredibly powerful.
    Marcia also the southernmost cat-5 to make landfall in Australia which also bear out another prediction of scientists: expansion of the tropics.

    Score update: Scientists 100 – Denialists minus one trillion

  25. “@ABCNews24: Luke Foley: It is unfair that there is arbitrary setbacks around wind turbines but there is not around coal mines #nswvotes”

  27. Raaraa @ 2516

    The problem is primarily one of supply and demand. Daly was right in pointing out that the consequences of the Hawke-Keating experiment was not the simplistic answer of ‘rents rise’, but the Q&A format does not permit a more sophisticated discussion (nor does the presence of Joe Hockey).

    Unfortunately, the housing market is not a zero sum game. For example, the person who can now afford to buy a house might have been living at home saving their deposit – so there is no net reduction in renters. Or they may be sharing a house. Further, it does not take into account additional people entering the housing market (whether renting or buying) through net immigration, leaving home, family breakup, etc. It also assumes that people who rent do so because they cannot get sufficient funds together to buy. But many are transients who do not want to buy because they have no plans to remain where they are in the long term.

    This is not to argue for the retention of negative gearing – and certainly not in its current form which encourages its use as a tax shelter by the wealthiest. But private ownership (and management) of rental property serves an important role in providing accommodation to people who want to rent. If it is to be replaced going forward (on the pretty safe assumption that existing owners will be grandfathered) there does need to be mechanisms in place to ensure that there are sufficient properties available to renters to keep rents relatively stable.

    Bowen is right that there needs to be comprehensive investigation into the issue before Labor determines a policy (although Ken Henry previously did that and it went nowhere).

    As a disclaimer, I have investment properties and I get the benefit of negative gearing – although considerably less than when I started because my income is lower and tax thresholds increased dramatically under Howard. I would not anticipate being affected by any change to the regime because it would almost certainly be grandfathered (there would be too much disruption if changes forced existing investors to divest their properties, for starters. Let alone the political implications.)

    The biggest impacts would likely to be a lowering in the prospective capital growth of the properties – but that is a risk I took on and not an argument against changing the negative gearing regime – and the opportunity to raise rents if the ratio of renters to vacancies changes, which will depend on supply and demand.

  29. “@MWhitbourn: “The court will reserve its decision. Adjourn the court,” Justice Richard White says. And that’s it, the #HockeyFairfax hearings are over.”

  30. TPOF@2527

    Raaraa @ 2516

    The problem is primarily one of supply and demand. Daly was right in pointing out that the consequences of the Hawke-Keating experiment was not the simplistic answer of ‘rents rise’, but the Q&A format does not permit a more sophisticated discussion (nor does the presence of Joe Hockey).

    Unfortunately, the housing market is not a zero sum game. For example, the person who can now afford to buy a house might have been living at home saving their deposit – so there is no net reduction in renters. Or they may be sharing a house. Further, it does not take into account additional people entering the housing market (whether renting or buying) through net immigration, leaving home, family breakup, etc. It also assumes that people who rent do so because they cannot get sufficient funds together to buy. But many are transients who do not want to buy because they have no plans to remain where they are in the long term.

    This is not to argue for the retention of negative gearing – and certainly not in its current form which encourages its use as a tax shelter by the wealthiest. But private ownership (and management) of rental property serves an important role in providing accommodation to people who want to rent. If it is to be replaced going forward (on the pretty safe assumption that existing owners will be grandfathered) there does need to be mechanisms in place to ensure that there are sufficient properties available to renters to keep rents relatively stable.

    Bowen is right that there needs to be comprehensive investigation into the issue before Labor determines a policy (although Ken Henry previously did that and it went nowhere).

    As a disclaimer, I have investment properties and I get the benefit of negative gearing – although considerably less than when I started because my income is lower and tax thresholds increased dramatically under Howard. I would not anticipate being affected by any change to the regime because it would almost certainly be grandfathered (there would be too much disruption if changes forced existing investors to divest their properties, for starters. Let alone the political implications.)

    The biggest impacts would likely to be a lowering in the prospective capital growth of the properties – but that is a risk I took on and not an argument against changing the negative gearing regime – and the opportunity to raise rents if the ratio of renters to vacancies changes, which will depend on supply and demand.

    I agree that there needs to be a more thorough discussion than just throwing one-liners on TV declaring whether negative gearing is good or not.

    However, I believe a reputable economist like Daley would know better than to just throw out a line just to win a political argument against Hockey on TV. I’m not saying he’s outright saying it’s the right way to just abolish negative gearing, and I believe he is suggesting that there is a lot to analyse into it. I think by backtracking on abolishing negative gearing, Hawke has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

    Perhaps we should not abolish it. There might be a fair compromise by putting a cap on negative gearing instead. Also there needs to be a lot of work on the state governments’ part on making sure there is a right balance of development to keep the market stable.

    As a potential real estate investor, I do intent to take advantage of the situation but whether negative gearing stays or go, I’m not overly worried. I have noticed in my travels that Australia is among one of the few countries to allow it, and yet we don’t see spiralling rental problems in all the countries that don’t have it.

    That being said, us armchair politicians/economists need to urge the people to have a proper discussion on this.

  36. At end Xenophon was asked to comment on Abbott’s St Patricks day effort.

    [What I would like to say would get me into trouble. Lets just say it will drive you to drink]

  37. Raaraa

    I was not knocking Daly – quite the opposite, as he actually got me thinking again about the whole issue. Which is more than I can say about Hockey, who is just a windbagful of politicised unfounded claims. Daly actually impressed me, because previously I had only seen news soundbites of comments from him that indicated to me that he was a conservative economist leaning gently towards the IPA view of the world.

    Tax treatment of anything creates distortions, and changing that tax treatment creates new distortions – those distortions are always going to be there, so they need to be harnessed for the public interest.

    My main point though, with which I think you agree, is that the housing market is far more complex than can be ‘fixed’ with a substantial change in one policy. And, setting aside the 40 year forecast nonsense of the IGR, critical research work needs to be done on forecasting future housing needs in all the housing markets of Australia (and there are multiple markets with different drivers) so that demand can be anticipated in each of the sectors of each of those markets and supply organised accordingly. Daly’s comments really went to that point – it’s not the tax treatment but the supply that is the critical issue.

  38. TPOF and others

    j don’t think Negative gearing on its own may not be a bad thing. When it was combined with the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount introduced by Costello the housing market really took off her in Perth.

    I think investors should be able to claim one or the other: a tax deduction for interest or tax relief on capital gains. No double dipping

    I understand that changes to tax rates and low interest rates have made negative gearing less attractive and I suspect most people going into the market today are looking for capital gain. After all as the real estate spivs and shysters will tell you, real estate prices never go down. watch this space.

    The key to the market is supply. In Perth the market is flat and I believe the number of houses for sale is up about 30 per cent year on year and demand for rentals is down so rents are falling and one analyst I read the other day said many landlords were looking to get out.

    In other parts of the world I believe people buy houses to rent to generate income, not for a tax deduction and to speculate on a capital gain. It would be a good thing in my view if there was a move in that direction in Australia.

  39. Double negative there … But I am sure people know what i mean …

    all that negative stuff does my head in. Think positive people .

  40. PeeBee

    I was referring to the countries that have moved to low carbon tech and renewables having a big advantage when the prices go up. I should have expressed it a bit clearer.

  41. [ Tax treatment of anything creates distortions, and changing that tax treatment creates new distortions – those distortions are always going to be there, so they need to be harnessed for the public interest. ]

    Agreed that those distortions in behaviour are inherent and they need to be managed in the public interest. I think the basis of the discussion needs to be centred on housing affordability. If its not, then over time we will see an ever growing proportion of the housing stock owned by the wealthy, concentrating assets even further than they are now. I dont think that is in the interests of most people.

    Simplest thing i think the govt could do is to phase out, or reduce the amount of, negative gearing on established houses while applying a “full” rate to new build. That would bias any “distortion” towards increasing the housing stock.

    Now i dont think that would lead to any kind of crash in house prices in the medium term (short term local volatility in the market aside), but it would hopefully mean the rate of increase in prices AND rent slows down, and decent housing becomes more available.

  42. Imacca

    I am with you. Investment in new housing needs to encouraged, not the churning of old housing stock to benefit speculators

  43. Ross @ 2538

    All good points.

    My main concern is that there is too much beating up investors taking advantage of negative gearing as despicable rent seekers (even though they do seek rent) rather than look to decide what is the best way to ensure that there is a stock of reasonably priced rental property in every market for those who want or need to rent rather than buy.

    Negative gearing is one mechanism to achieve this but, arguably, has become far more economically inefficient that it once was. It is ripe for review, but there has to be an evidence based apolitical review. In some respects, doing away with negative gearing is to the left what reducing government spending and selling off every public asset that has any value is to the right – well-known solutions to human problems that are neat, plausible and wrong (to part-quote Mencken).

  44. Poroti, yes then I agree with you, they will have the advantage. Similarly, I was impressed with AGL as they ad invested heavily in wind energy and should have had the advantage when the carbon price was introduced. Unfortunately, things have not panned out that way as the carton price has been repealed and the RET is in danger.

  45. Oh, and that guy Daley on QANDA last night was definitely worth hearing from. Made JoHo look like a complete fwarking amateur and from his demeanour i suspect JoHo knew it.

    All that aside, i am completely at a loss to speculate how the 2015 budget is NOT going to be a disaster for the Govt with Abbott/Hockey in charge of framing and presenting it.

    The closest they came to “revenue measures” in 2014 was their “savings” plans that are becoming more defunct and obsolete with every days new back-flip.

    And after the 2014 disaster they face an electorate with finely tuned and well focused bullsh$t detectors at the ready.

    Just what do they do from here?? More of the same wont cut it.

    The only thing i can think of is that they are desperate for Shorten to start laying out the ALP’s policies so they can go BACK into full on Opposition Attack Mode on whatever Shorten presents. They must be hoping that will give the electorate the impression they are actually doing something, and after all, that’s what the electorate are used to from this mob.

    Their problem is that by now ( from the polls since December 2013 FFS!!), enough people appear to have realised that this lot have no clue and no agenda they can admit too without pissing people off.

    doGs, but i hope Shortens Budget in Reply Speech is a blinder. That would drive a stake through the Abbott/Hockey leadership.

    Then it will remain to be seen if a new Liberal leadership team can salvage things by doing a new Budget, later in 2015 that pretty much makes up for the 2014/15 fwark ups. Thats a BIG ask and i dont think anyone on the Lib front bench is up to it.

  46. The interactions of the negative gearing tax shelter, the capital gains tax concessions and ultra low interest rates have propelled housing costs to their all-time most-expensive levels. We essentially have an unbounded speculative land bubble, now at its most pronounced in the Sydney market.

    This is a serious risk to financial and economic stability. When interest rates start to rise, land prices – which are inversely related to the discount rate – will inevitably decline. In the most expensive markets, declines could be very sharp, depending on developments in (essentially global) financial markets. For the sake of financial stability, we should be deliberately and gradually deflating the speculative bubble in real terms.

    In the meantime, high land prices are also a very large drag on real wages and a creator of economically and socially undesirable income and wealth inequalities. We really need to drive down real long-run housing costs (improve real wages and productivity), costs that are just outlandishly high on any historically-informed measure.

    Negative gearing could be kept for new housing (subsidise new supply) and abolished for existing housing (reduce speculative demand). CGT concessions on land-related gains should be abolished. Arguably, this tax should be higher on land-related gains than on gains from investments in other asset classes.

    We need to stimulate investments in supply without turbo-charging demand, which is the effect of the existing tax laws.

  47. [ It is ripe for review, but there has to be an evidence based apolitical review. In some respects, doing away with negative gearing is to the left what reducing government spending and selling off every public asset that has any value is to the right ]

    🙂 True. Negative gearing is one that everyone talks up as the bogeyman that is just TOOOOOOOOOOOOO hard to do anything about so what we have has to remain set in stone. That polarises opinion about it and leads to some very simplistic positions that wont be workable being proposed.

    ARGGHHH! Thats one thing that really annoys me about this Govt. This attitude that the “solutions” they have proposed are the ONLY possible policy response to any particular issue. 🙁

  48. Imacca

    One of the intresting things about last night’s 4 Corners was the file footage of Hockey presenting last year’s budget.

    There he was all gravitas, announcing breakthrough measures that were going to change us and save us.

    nearly a year later his budget and his career are a smoking ruin.

    When he gets up in a few weeks time and reprises the role I suspect it will be hard not to laugh.

  49. briefly

    I’m not an economist , or anything like it, however for me the real crime of the soaring house prices is what it is doing to disposable income.

    Instead of greasing the wheels of small business and a myriad other activities the money goes straight down the mortgage/rent plughole. Lordy knows what will happen if/when interest rates go up.

  50. imacca @ 2541

    There is already a bias in the negative gearing system towards the purchase of new properties – substantially greater building and asset depreciation. Which is why I bought new properties.

    The problem of affordability still comes down to the market. You either increase supply or reduce demand. Abolishing negative gearing will definitely reduce demand, as you reduce the presence of a significant sector of demand. But negative gearing is only available to investors if the property is genuinely available to rent.

    So, to the extent that you reduce demand from investors, you are also reducing rental stock. This may not have an impact if the demand for rental stock falls – mostly this happens when employment reduces or stabilises in the area (as is happening in Perth). It may also happen if a renter moves to being an owner. But this assumption cannot be made easily and takes no account of younger people leaving home or seeking mobility between workplace locations.

    One thing that is clear – and is clear with much of the current taxation system – is that tax deductions like negative gearing are increasingly regressive. That is, they advantage most those who can afford to pay the most. Indeed, the most cashed up investors (those earning at the top marginal rate) are also those who get the biggest bang for buck from negative gearing and thus have the strongest ability to trump the prospective home-owner at an auction.

    I have no intention of buying another investment property because it is not financially worthwhile now. But if it was marginally – for example, my marginal rate was 40c in the dollar – I would still find it a harder financial burden to own one than, for example, someone on $250k a year who could service the loan more easily AND get a bigger kickback from the taxman (another 10%).

    So it is not just negative gearing that creates a market sector to compete with prospective first home owners, but the fact that negative gearing favours the most cashed up, rather than those for whom it will get over the line into the investor property market.

Comments Page 51 of 54
1 … 50 51 52 … 54

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *