Two big new polls:
• In The Australian, Newspoll repeats its surprisingly strong result from the Coalition at its previous poll three weeks ago, with Labor’s two-party lead steady at 51-49. Primary votes are 41% for the Coalition (steady), 36% for Labor (down one) and 11% for the Greens (steady). Tony Abbott’s personal ratings continue to rise from their low base, with approval up four to 33% and disapproval down two to 59%, while Bill Shorten gets his worst figures to date with approval down three to 33% and disapproval up four to 54%. Abbott all but closes the gap on prime minister, now at 41-40 compared with 41-36 last time. The poll was as always conducted from Friday to Sunday, the sample being 1172.
• By stark contrast, the latest Ipsos poll for the Fairfax papers belies the pollster’s previous form as a leaner to the Coalition in giving Labor two-party leads of 54-46 on previous election preferences and 55-45 on respondent-allocated preferences. This represents a three-point shift to Labor from the previous Ipsos poll in late February on both measures. Labor’s primary vote is up two to 38%, the Coalition is down three to 39% and the Greens are up one to 13%. Reflecting the trend elsewhere, Tony Abbott’s approval rating is up two to 34% with disapproval down two to 60%, while Bill Shorten is down one to 42% and up one to 44%. Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister has widened slightly from 44-39 to 46-38. The poll also finds 37% support for an increase in the goods and services tax with 59% opposed – a relatively favourable result. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1404.
Zoomster has a point on Scientist, for a group of people who are pretty obsessed about process and how views are presented, one would expect that they would want to engage the community on matters which impact on their research.
Dr Karl should have referred back to the last IGR and just needed to look at how this government presented its large budget, the problem for Dr Karl is far more people will see the ads than actually hear his regrets for taking part.
psyclaw
Malcolm Turnbull in a bit of trouble over the Mayor giving a reference for Luke Lazarus while the Mayor was a part time electorate officer in Malcolm’s office.
[ It’s an astonishing indictment of their collective political judgment that they continue to attach themselves to this deal. Maybe they misread Daniel Andrews reluctance to engage on the matter as politically, rather than commercially driven. I suspect they will now be sadly disabused of that miscalculation.]
You gotta laugh at this though. Of course the media will try to ignore the extent to which the Feds have stuck their oar in and tried to bully the State Govt there into giving the consortium what they wanted. Release of the contract docs, now that a deal to mitigate the losses to the state has been done, really cant be anything other than damaging for the Libs and couldn’t happen to a nicer lot.
Will be interesting to see how far the fallout from that spreads?
Lizzie
One way or other Dr Karl was conned and recklessly left himself open to it.
He now says he endorsed a report with unknown content.
ON EW-Link, the government appears to have come out of this arrangement well, going from potentially $1.1 billion down to $339 million.
It may sound like a lot but all costs start off larger at the front of a project as the logistics are brought together.
psyclaw
I don’t deny he was conned. I’d like to know who did it!
[845
Nicholas
The money required to redeem government bonds is created ex nihilo by the Reserve Bank.]
But so what? This simply describes the mechanism by which currency is supplied. It does not go to the question of demand for currency. Willingness to hold currency (demand) is not “created ex nihilo by the RBA.” Currency demand in a market economy is conditioned by many factors, not the least being the perceived values attending all other currencies and currency-alternates, including especially land and commodities; and, other than in the artificially-constrained official market, the discount rate applied to currency in respect of time.
All these things are currency-reciprocals. It is the values that attach to reciprocals that determines current demand for currency.
In practical terms, an unwillingness to hold currency reflects as inflation (depreciation of currency). Negative discount rates represent a preference for future capital-return over current income/consumption while high discount rates represent the opposite: a desire to unload currency and either consume today or to buy currency alternates.
The point is that no matter what official instruments are used to set currency supply (and supply prices), the negotiable value of a currency will be discounted one way or another in the real economy. The Venezuelan economy is an extreme example, but of course every economy exhibits its own evidence.
Lizzie
Maybe Dr Karl was but he isn’t some 20 year old uni student whose idea of debating is working out if to go to a lecture or have another drink.
It is surprisingly common for people to be strong on the theory and weak on the practice.
Dr Karl took the government at there word. He has now openly and publicly said that that word was no good. This is all downside for the government and shows the government for what they are playing political games.
The fact that Dr Karl assumed that the government was genuine and has proved not to be should not be used to condemn Dr Karl, it should be used to condemn the government.
Dr Karl’s explanation on AM this morning didn’t cut the mustard. He used a story of the frog and the scorpion to try and put the issue into context and provide some explanation.
It certainly didn’t work IMHO. As was posted early on PB this morning he needs to cut the spin and man up and admit what really occurred.
A shame really as he comes across as easy going and accessible to everyone.
Not so now. A very regretful decision.
[ The fact that Dr Karl assumed that the government was genuine and has proved not to be should not be used to condemn Dr Karl, it should be used to condemn the government. ]
Actually, both stand condemned – Dr Karl for greed and stupidity, and the government for mendacity.
Some of you are so intolerant and quick to condemn – on many things.
[Dr Kruszelnicki said he was only able to read parts of the report before he agreed to the ads as the rest was under embargo.
Despite assurances otherwise, Dr Kruszelnicki now believes he put his name and reputation to a report that is highly political and which largely ignores the impact of climate change.]
lizzie
You aren’t alone I am with you. People make mistakes some time and if he made a mistake show me someone who never has.
The Intergenerational Report should be valuable resource for long term policy planning. The fact that it is not should be universally condemned. As Dr Karl says, read the report and make up your own mind.
[ Despite assurances otherwise, Dr Kruszelnicki now believes he put his name and reputation to a report that is highly political and which largely ignores the impact of climate change. ]
Quite a reasonable statement from a good communicator of the science. Good that someone with his profile is not too old, established and arrogant to learn something and admit he made a mistake.
I actually support the concept of a periodic IGR. The problem at the moment is that this Govt will corrupt anything they can get their dirty mitts on for short term political purposes. Which indicates to me that they are completley fwarking self interested morons who actually have no concept of long term planning.
They really are unfit to be in Govt.
shellbell@804
Pretty shabby stuff from Lawrie. No question that she should have stepped down the moment that damning judgement was delivered.
[You aren’t alone I am with you. People make mistakes some time and if he made a mistake show me someone who never has.]
Agree a bit on the “Let he who is without sin…”part, but Dr Karl wasn’t picked because he is a handsome professional actor just doin’ a job. There are plenty of those.
He was picked because he is a go-to guy on all matters “Science”. He has a credibility that has been won over a couple of decades, based on factual “Scientainment” reporting.
There is also a vague waft of being a Lefty about him, mainly because many of the positions he espouses are contrary to the prevailing anti-Science schtick that this government, its apologists and its camp followers adopt. In short, he has “tell it like it is” credentials. The government knows it and he knows it.
So he risked a lot in overlaying his personal identity and the credibility that comes with that over the flawed Intergenerational Assessment report.
He was not shown the full report. They probably waffled on something about “embargos” or similar to him. But the assurances would have been there thatthe bits he didn’t see were relatively benign, and politics-free.
He lent both himself, in person, and his cred as an honest broker who does his homework to the campaign and thereby came a rather large cropper.
Dr Karl swallowed the bait, hook line and sinker. The money (he tells us) was too good to refuse.
He probably realizes now that he should have stuck to demonstrating how you can force an egg into a milk bottle and balancing forks on water tumblers with just a cork as a prop.
His mea culpa this morning explained this fairly well, I thought. He said the government was not trustworthy. They fooled him, with the implied outcome being that he won’t get fooled again.
I think he needs to grovel a little more on this, if not for our sakes, at least for the sake of his reputation. He should tell us how he (and we) should take care that these kind of enticements don’t blind us to the consequences. If he doesn’t, he’ll never be trusted again. It’s a simple as that.
Whether Dr Karl likes it or not he’s in it now, up to his neck.
frednk@639
Churchill of the Dardanelles?
[Dr Kruszelnicki said he was only able to read parts of the report before he agreed to the ads as the rest was under embargo.]
And that didn’t make him the least bit suspicious…?
The problem for Dr Karl is that he is honest, and assumes, as many honest people do, that others are honest too. This is a very normal state of affairs.
He must now take the position ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me’
Giving back the money they paid him would be a good first step.
[633
MTBW
Dr Karl had a good reputation and Abbott has just wrecked it for him.]
Standard Abbott modus operandi: Deceive, exploit, trash.
My impression of the IGR, before now, was that it was a non-partisan independent look at the future economy.
I believe that future IGRs should be conducted by a body like the PBO with no government input, otherwise they will become a partisan waste of time.
It should be the starting point for debate as to the future direction of long term economic and social policy, not a political document to support the current government’s economic and political direction.
In relation to Dr Karl, I think Lizzie is pretty close to the mark, although the fact that parts of the report were embargoed should have rung some alarm bells. In a report like this there should be no reason for this to occur unless there was a political element to it.
victoria@593
Which suggests she did the right thing politically in throwing Gordon out of the Labor party, because it demonstrated that she put integrity above hanging onto power.
Dr Karl sold his arse bottom line. He hacked out
[870
don
The problem for Dr Karl is that he is honest, and assumes, as many honest people do, that others are honest too. This is a very normal state of affairs. ]
The problem for Dr Karl is that there are no excuses for intelligent, informed, media savvy Australians not knowing full well by now the true nature of Abbott’s basic game & tactics.
I hope Dr K can rebuild his reputation, and show by example how to handle a stupid naive mistake.
But it has hurt him bad, and so it should. Societies simply cannot afford that level of complacence about ruthless predators like Abbott.
So just sign this checque, don’t worry bout the amount we’ll fill that in later
cheque
[Dr Karl is an example of why I get so frustrated with scientists.]
KK is a media personality not a scientist.
So up until he agreed to push the IGR, Dr Karl thought that the Abbotteer’s were trustworthy.
A slow learner scientist. What rock has he been under.
http://www.roymorgan.com.au/findings/6159-morgan-poll-state-voting-intention-april-2015-201504150230
[NSW Premier Mike Baird enjoys clear honeymoon lead; Voters in Queensland back Premier Palaszczuk after strong stance on Billy Gordon
April 15 2015
The SMS Morgan Poll on State voting intention and preferred Premiers was conducted earlier this week on April 10-12, 2015 with a cross-section of 5,631 Australian electors including 1,308 New South Wales electors, 1,242 Victorian electors, 968 Queensland electors, 681 Western Australian electors, 719 South Australian electors and 358 Tasmanian electors.
A special SMS Morgan Poll on State voting intention conducted over the weekend (April 10-13, 2015) with a representative cross-section of 5,631 Australian electors shows the L-NP has increased its lead since the NSW State Election held on March 28, 2015 while new Queensland Premier has received a definite boost in support after forcing North Queensland MP Billy Gordon out of the Queensland Government.]
New Daily coverage of RM polling
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/04/15/honeymoon-continues-baird-palaszczuk-andrews-poll/
[ http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/incredible-footage-of-isis-suicide-bomber-sent-sky-high-in-botched-mission-as-car-explodes-midair/story-fnh81ifq-1227304172771 ]
A bit OT, but an interesting video on the perils of being a ME suicide bomber trying to dick with the Peshmerga.
I’m slightly surprised at the kerfuffle about Karl; I guess it’s a sign he has a strong place in the contemporary cultural pantheon.
He did an ad for the money – dumb and obviously damaging to his reputation. OTOH I just don’t see it as quite the hanging offence some do.
Just Me @ 875
A bit harsh, not everyone is a political tragic like most of us here.
His focus in his career is an excellent general knowledge of science which would require an enormous amount of reading to keep up with. I would hardly expect him to have the time to keep up with politics above a superficial level.
As a sidenote, if the population as a whole were as politically engaged as many of us, the polls would be looking a lot worse for Abbott and the L&NP.
Last year I heard Dr Karl say on 612 ABC Brisbane that in a year he reads a one-metre-high stack of scientific material and he spends five thousand dollars on journal subscriptions.
Most of the population thinks the government is trustworthy.
[ I’m slightly surprised at the kerfuffle about Karl; I guess it’s a sign he has a strong place in the contemporary cultural pantheon. ]
True – the government chose Dr Karl precisely because of his former high regard amongst their target non-scientific audience. The government no doubt realized he would be seriously damaging his reputation in the process, but why would they care?
Even if Dr Karl was utterly apolitical and knew nothing of the lack of honesty that seems to be the hallmark of this government, the fact that they wouldn’t let him even read the report he was spruiking is pretty telling, and would set off alarm bells for most people.
But apparently not for Dr Karl. He obviously expected he would be able to just take the money and walk away with no consequences. Turns out he was wrong about that as well.
I think the only thing he could do now to salvage his reputation would be to return the money and also ask the government to pull the ad. Of course they won’t do so, but he could make a show of asking them to.
[ Last year I heard Dr Karl say on 612 ABC Brisbane that in a year he reads a one-metre-high stack of scientific material and he spends five thousand dollars on journal subscriptions. ]
Perhaps he just needs to get out a bit more.
Martin the most condemnatory post I’ve read here is that KK was dumb for selling his reputation by fronting an ad for a product sight unseen and that his reputation is now shot. If this is seeing it as a hanging offence then as you think the same – “He did an ad for the money – dumb and obviously damaging to his reputation” – you must have joined the lynching party.
There are a couple of silver linings to the Dr Karl debacle.
1) He has been taught a very valuable lesson.
2) The fact that the IGR was bunk is now in the mainstream, and everyone, as opposed to political tragics like us, is now aware of how low Abbott and co will stoop to push their agenda.
There is no more point in kicking Dr Karl as the kicking he has given himself is sufficient.
The focus should now be back where it belongs, squarely on the turds who hoodwinked him into this debacle, as well as the IGR itself being complete bunkum.
Working for the ABC he could hardly be ignorant of “no cuts to the ABC” and what then happened.
In further breaking news:
Kevin Andrews has been dumped from the pub trivia team.
😆
So Abbott is now saying there will be no new expenditure without offsets in savings.
Sounds like a previous Treasurer … would that be Swan?
Martin B
[KK is a media personality not a scientist.]
Exactly. We need people like Dr Karl to communicate science to the general public, and (hopefully) get the public excited about scientific discovery. But they are not vocational scientists (even if many of them once were). As someone with media experience, Dr Karl should have been savvier.
While walking through inner Sydney last week, I couldn’t help notice all the Dr Karl/IGR billboards (especially at bus stops). This campaign is costing a pretty penny.
The key to the matter of Dr Karl is a matter of trust. As a matter of standard practice, scientists consider that their work is separate from issues of – religion, politics, morality. Stephen Jay Gould called it “NOMA” – non-overlapping magisteria.
The world is not that simple – consider the morals of the atomic scientists in USA during WWII. I think Dr Karl should have become aware that the Abbott government could not be trusted, long before this! Well, he is now.
On similar issues of trust, do you trust experts with ties to Monsanto to be scrupulous in evaluating GMO? Or medical scientists with funding from Roche or Pfizer to be completely disinterested when writing up drug trials?
The report on the 2013 federal election by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is now out: see http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2013_General_Election/Final_Report.
CTar1@892
Sounds like…..look over there to me.
The main game with abbott has been about expenditure cuts – not new expenditure >>> and the were cuts aimed at the poor.
The wealthy *Still* have only had nominal cuts to their ‘entitlements’.
There are many Dr Karl / IGR posters at Brisbane bus stops. It is a highly visible campaign.
Dan Gulberry@889
I agree. This could turn out a nasty bit of blow back on Abbott & Co.
dave@896:
The LNP’s problem is that their owners (Rupert, Gina, et a;.) don’t get the difference between shareholders, employees and voters. More than 50% of voters can.
The LNPs problem is they think stacking a report to say what they think it should say is being honest.