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.
2,662 comments on “BludgerTrack: 52.9-47.1 to Labor”
I think you’ll find the CFMEU were clapping particularly when Ged confirmed the opposition to the ABCC.
Essential just bumping around the MOE I would suggest.
Next IPSOS and newspoll will be interesting.
[Essential is up. 52/48.]
Is that the newest post?
My point is not all unionists were clapping. Some were eating lunch drinking and asking questions.
So some unionists there clapped and some did not.
Its your assumption which unions were there.
silmaj @ 2601
On last nights 4 corners there was a clip of Abbott addressing the national press club. Warren Truss and, surprisingly, Margie Abbott, were clapping when he said something.
We can win this if my gut is any indication.
You came up with a really good justification to getting it.
I just went ahead and purchased it with the interest-free portion of my credit card and paid it all up when the CC bill came.
My justification was that I’m a tech-head and also I was afraid Abbott might have destroyed the RET and whatever rebate the panels came with.
Didn’t regret it though. My electricity bills have been in the double-digits every quarter.
Looks like it:
Yes. 17 March. Just go to their site
I should have asked was that Essential Federal or State?
Ged personally acknowledged the CFMEU and the nurses Union for their attendance. Did you not see that bit?
I must have missed the joke. Is he a career scrutinieer?
imacca @ 2600
[Its a simple concept and i think there is enough low hanging fruit, the plucking of which can be framed as “reducing revenue forgone” that the ALP can sell it from Opposition.]
They could just call it REVENUE REPAIR.
Has a simple ring to it.
So it was a Federal poll and Abbott has improved!
Abolishing negative gearing would make investing unsustainable in some ectors of the market.
In Sydney, particularly the Eastern Suburbs, the margin on gross rent has been squeezed over the last 15 years as the price of housing has shot passed the CPI and cost of rent. From approx 4% to 1-2 (this is gross remember). Negative gearing improves this a little but investors bank on a taxable capital gain.
I would love to see a comparison between tax foregone by negative gearing compared to tax on capital gain and stamp duty in rental investment. I suspect that in a superheated market the government is a net winner
No I was watching 24 and there was talking.
I still come back to who cares anyway. Kearney had support organised or not Carnell did not.
What an utter farce that thing is as Speaker! She is trashing the Parliament and this country.
Abbott’s security speech derailed by laughter and his crass boorish behaviour
guytaur @ 2618
Yet another example of that man’s unfitness to be our PM. The sooner he is gone the better for this new definition of an Irish joke.
Labor to back metadata laws. Husic not impressed.
Amusing sidenote. The colours of jackets on LNP side are rainbow colours.
Associated with gay flag and environmental movement.
[ What an utter farce that thing is as Speaker! She is trashing the Parliament and this country. ]
Careful. Bronnies Hair will have its mates in their UFO abduct you and perform undignified probing investigations!!
Primary for coalition same as last time, labor down one in essential.
No leader ratings as far as I can see.
Could actually be 47.6 to 52.4 with rounding.
Gutless PM cannot even trust himself to answer questions that aren’t scripted. So he gets the idiot fixer to do it instead.
@_AdamTodd: Pyne: “I’m fixing Labor’s problem, I’m fixing Labor’s failures because I’m a fixer Madame Speaker.” #qt http://t.co/yl6Es0tGtV
Perhaps I misheard it in the hubub, but did Abbott just make some sort of Irish joke gag in QT in his metadata answer? Just before BB announced one of the distinguished guests in the gallery is the Irish Ambassador?
“@shanebazzi: .@Mark_Butler_MP: my question is to the fixer #qt”
The way these govt eejits bang on about Oz living beyond its means, paying $100m in interest every day etc a political neophyte could be forgiven for thinking for they are still in opposition.
Someone should tell Bronnie that the “wall of noise” is a sign in older people of hearing loss as in “Difficulty following conversations when there is background noise”
“@Bowenchris: If it wasn’t so serious, @cpyne claiming to have saved the scientists’ jobs he was holding hostage just yesterday would be comedy gold #qt”
[1) Investors take the pressure of the government to build public housing (at a considerable cost to the taxpayer when this general revenue can be used on other social initiatives such as health or education).]
Except that the rent coming in from the public housing – less than the prevailing market rate though it might be – is still another revenue stream.
[2) Regardless of what the bloke from the Gratten institute said last night (quoting what happened when Neg gearing was abolished nearly thirty years ago was really strange in my opinion – Sydney may have had a big housing prices lead in the 1980;s however other capitals such as Melbourne and Brisbane have totally changed since then), Rent would go through the roof which would be another attack on the poor.]
Why would rent go through the roof now? The widespread abuse of negative gearing is crowding out the housing market and wildly inflating prices. Not only is -that- attacking the poor, it’s also creating a bubble. And given how many people have borrowed against their homes’ (inflated) values, that’s a recipe for economic disaster when the bubble pops, as eventually it must.
[I am not a greedy investor. I am trying to supplement my rather poor super with an investment that may allow me to have a relatively decent retirement.]
And abusing tax loopholes is the only way to do that?
[Anti negative gearing people tend to treat it like it is free money. It is only a tax deduction on money already spent on the investment, so in reality it is getting only approximately one third of what has been expended.
And the housing market is not just one homogeneous mass. it has high and low points, good and poor investments. AN investor is taking a risk, while providing a service to both the government and renter.]
-rolls eyes- You’re doing God’s work, huh? Nice meeting you, Mr. Blankfein.
You’re in it to make money, not perform a service – don’t cloak yourself in a cloak of fake altruism. And frankly, negative gearing -is- free money. It’s a tax-free investment that’s widely rorted by the rich.
[I am getting a little tired of all the experts who think every property investor is a bloody multimillionaire. I didn’t make the rules and I have to try and live in a society that encourages investment with the premis of taking pressure of the welfare system, and making enough to live on in my fast approaching retirement.]
Once again – using tax dodges is the only way you can do that? Not only is that lazy investment, on the broader economic scale it’s also locking up capital in non-productive assets, crowding out more productive investments (and making them more expensive than they should be) and generally a Bad Idea.
[Both of which are going to cost the Budget. A Small Business tax cut FFS???? What, they are going to argue a 1.5% cut will lift economic activity enough to cover the loss in revenue and then some? What some would call a brave assumption i reckon.]
Not “brave”. “Fantastic” – as in, rooted in fantasy.
Businesses need to make profits more than they need tax cuts – no point cutting taxes if they’re not making money to pay taxes on.
Answering my own question – according to the Guardian, yes he did:
[For the first time in living memory, the Liberals and the Nationals in the New South Wales Coalition are offering two opposing policies at a state election.
Premier Mike Baird’s Liberals want to lease 49% of the electricity network’s “poles and wires” to a private operator for 99 years.
They have listed TransGrid, Ausgrid and Endeavour Energy, the three operators covering Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and the Blue Mountains, to be sold into private leasing arrangements for $20 billion to finance Rebuilding NSW infrastructure.
On the other hand, Deputy Premier Troy Grant’s Nationals resolutely oppose any sale of power assets in their regional stronghold. Central to their manifesto is keeping 100% of the rural distribution network, Essential Energy, in public hands.]
McClintok surely taking the piss here?
Hope Justice White hands down you ( McClintock )are total Prat ruling.
McClintock urges Justice White to “strike out” cross-examination of Hockey by Fairfax on basis it is “manifestly irrelevant” #HockeyFairfax
McClintocks Hockey defence seems to rest entirely on the SMH being malicious, who could blame them if they were. Hockey born to rule preciousness ( like Pyne ) brings it on him self.
Isn’t that a worthy defence?
Come on down the Attack Wombat.
McClintock does have a point when it comes to Joe. The phrase “manifestly irrelevant” applies to much of what Joe does and says.
Electricity privatisation for thee, but not for me.
Once again, the Nationals prove themselves utter hypocrites – truly, Keating got it right in describing them as “putrid”.
Matt @ 2631
We have been having a reasonably civilised discussion and then you come in.
For starters, how is using negative gearing ‘abusing tax loopholes?’ That would mean claim Family Tax benefit is abusing a tax loophole, or claiming a deduction to a charity recognised under the tax act.
We cannot have a constructive discussion about tax law when people take an all or nothing approach. Leave it to Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne to do that. Even they do it better than you.
Unless you are a naive member of the Communist Party, there is nothing wrong with investing to make money – it’s a driver of the modern mixed economy. How many people turn up to jobs they hate just to make money?
The fact is that negative gearing is an incentive to private investment in housing. To the extent that this incentive is needed can be debated, as can the question of whether negative gearing in its current form or at all is the most effective means of achieving public housing policy objectives.
On the only serious policy issue you raised, while Governments owning and leasing public housing to tenants provides an income stream, there is a serious question about whether it is cost effective.
Frankly, I don’t know the figures about how much each state government puts into public housing each year. What I do know is that I provide property management and ownership risk (and there are some personal financial risks involved) that no government needs to pay. I don’t charge a salary to manage my properties. I don’t have to pay myself workers compensation or leave. I don’t have to pay any inquests or overheads and I carry all the costs of rates, repairs, etc, save only for what the taxman subsidises – somewhere between 30% and 15% as my marginal reduces. I also carry the cost of paying the interest. Finally, I carry the cost of vacancies (no less than 70%, after any negative gearing is applied), as well as the cost of legal action if my tenant defaults.
Now, I point these things out to show what the public saves by not having to find, let and manage housing to middle class mobile young people (who are essentially my tenants). Of course, I’m in it for the returns. But it is not lazy and it substitutes, I think, more efficiently in terms of time and money than public housing for this cohort. My tenants may also benefit if my response to their problems is more timely than an underfunded public housing department.
Now I could be wrong and what I do could be done better, cheaper and more in the public interest by a government. If that is the case they are welcome to do the research and change the law. But I’m sick to death of ideology from all sides, where policy is driven by logic built on some highly questionable dogma which is nevertheless treated as axiomatic.
If you want to have a debate on negative gearing pros and cons, I’m all for it. But leave the spite, envy and dogma out of it. Save it for the fools we have put in charge of the country.
Country NIMBYs? 😛
[when the bubble pops, as eventually it must.]
Thank-you Steve Keen, but if I had a dollar for every failed prediction of an inpending crash in house prices…
[And abusing tax loopholes is the only way to do that?]
In less inflammatory language It’s called taking advantage of a tax concession.
It’s fine to have a debate about the merits of tax concessions/incentives but don’t attack another poster as if they were evil for doing so in a moderate way. It just shows how thin your argument really is.
Did anyone at the NPC ask Kate Carnel if she was a Neoliberal? That’s if the journalists know what a Neoliberal is, apart from Chris Uhlmann that is, being one himself.
Hmmm… indications that caucus members are concerned with the leadership of Bill Shorten.
It takes 75% of the caucus to make a change, let’s not forget…
Re the Hockey case
From what I can gather, there is a threshold question about whether he had been defamed by Fairfax. If he can win that he is nearly home and hosed, subject to showing that there was malice and lack of care by Fairfax.
Could someone take the imputation of corruption, which Fairfax clearly stated would not be true, from what it had published?
So the objective of the Fairfax defence was basically to paint Hockey as an oversensitive whiner who put an unreasonable construction on the headline, especially when seen in the context of the story as written.
It will be interesting to see what the judge decides. For myself, I cannot ever recall reading the headline in that way. And, apart from a doddering old dad and an innocent young daughter I have not seen where Hockey has shown others reading it as corrupt, other than in the sense that Malcolm Fraser meant it – paying for access, but not for decisions. And as Hockey and other point out, that happens all the time and nobody bats an eyelid – EXCEPT WHEN THE MURDOCH CRAP WANT TO DO A NUMBER ON LABOR!
[If you want to have a debate on negative gearing pros and cons, I’m all for it. But leave the spite, envy and dogma out of it.]
Sorry, my irony meter just overloaded. You open your post with personal abuse, then finish it with -that-. You hypocrite.
Ducked out for a bit arrived back in time for a Broomhilda booting. What is Bronnie’s boot tally today ?
[And, apart from a doddering old dad and an innocent young daughter]
Even then those are just HoJo stories. He says a lot of things.
Think Big @2641:
[Thank-you Steve Keen, but if I had a dollar for every failed prediction of an inpending crash in house prices…]
And you think this is sustainable?
America’s housing bubble burst when the average house price to income ratio was 2.7. Here, it’s 4.2 – and by encouraging investors to buy up existing properties to rent (as negative gearing has the effect of doing, as most investors buy extant properties rather than pay to build new ones), negative gearing’s just driving it up higher.
The more evil of the two Tonys – Tony Blurrr
[when the bubble pops, as eventually it must.
Thank-you Steve Keen, but if I had a dollar for every failed prediction of an inpending crash in house prices…]
Well, one could say, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,”
or point out all those “doomsayers” in European and North American property markets that were correct in 2007/8, or Southeast Asia in 1997,
or say, “look at 1894!”,
or try to paraphrase Minsky, or Hayek and von Mises,
or point to our rapidly escalating CAD, collapsing dollar, private debt levels and apartment-build overhang…
but you’ve probably heard all that before too.