Three new polls this week, from Newspoll, Ipsos and Essential Research, all of them featuring leadership ratings as well as voting intention. As was widely noted, there was a big gap between the results from Newspoll and Ipsos, which has contributed to something of a two-track trend in polling, with one clump of results around 54-46 (Ipsos and ReachTEL) and another around 51-49 (two Newspolls and a bias-adjusted Roy Morgan). The middle ground plotted by BludgerTrack now has Labor’s two-party vote down to 51.9% – only a small change on last week, but enough to shift two seats on the seat projection, including one in New South Wales (which has done a lot of the heavy lifting in the recent Coalition poll recovery) and one in Victoria.
Leadership ratings are starting to look increasingly alarming for Bill Shorten, whose net approval has dropped a full 10% from the stasis it was in through most of 2014. Tony Abbott has now recovered to where he was before Australia Day, and while that’s still a bad position in absolute terms, the gap between himself and Shorten is rapidly narrowing. The same goes for preferred prime minister, on which Shorten’s double-digit lead after Australia Day has narrowed to about 3%.
Two polls warranting comment:
• I neglected to cover this on Tuesday, so let the record note that this week’s Essential Research result ticked a point in the Coalition’s favour on two-party preferred, putting Labor’s lead at 52-48. Primary votes were 41% for the Coalition (up one), 39% for Labor (steady), 10% for the Greens (steady) and 2% for Palmer United (steady). Also featured were monthly personal ratings, which found Tony Abbott up two on approval to 31% and down five on disapproval to 56%, Bill Shorten up one on both to 34% and 39%, and Shorten’s lead as preferred prime minister down from 39-31 to 37-33. Other questions related to asylum seekers, with 43% nominating that most were not genuine refugees versus 32% who said otherwise. However, a separate question found 49% allowing that asylum seekers arriving by boat should be allowed to stay if found to be genuine refugees. The government’s approach was deemed too tough by 22%, too soft by 27% and just right by 34%. In response to Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus leaving the Palmer United Party, 41% said those in their position should leave parliament and allow a new election to be held for their seat, with 19% favouring a new member nominated by the party and 24% saying they should be allowed to remain in parliament.
• Roy Morgan has published one of its semi-regular rounds of SMS state polling, finding the newly elected Coalition ahead by 54.5-45.5 in New South Wales, and Annastacia Palaszczuk’s newly elected Queensland government up by 52.5-47.5, after last month’s result and the weekend’s Galaxy poll both had it lineball. Labor governments are credited with leads of 54-46 in Victoria and 51-49 in South Australia, while it’s 50-50 in Western Australia. A 56-44 lead to Labor is recorded in Tasmania, which is more than a little hard to credit.
Preselection news:
• Murray Watt is set to win preselection for Labor’s Queensland Senate ticket after securing the endorsement of the Left faction at the expense of incumbent Jan McLucas, who entered parliament in 1999. Susan McDonald of the ABC reports that Watt’s position will likely be at the top of the ticket, reflecting the Left’s new-found ascendancy within the Queensland Labor organisation.
• It’s a similar story in the lower house Brisbane seat of Oxley, where Labor’s Bernie Ripoll has announced his retirement following reports he stood to lose preselection in any case to Milton Dick, Brisbane City Council opposition leader.
• Crikey’s Tips and Rumours section recently offered details on the Labor preselection in the marginal eastern Melbourne seat of Deakin, which has been won by Tony Clarke, manager of Vision Australia and unsuccessful state election candidate for Ringwood. His main opponent was Mike Symon, who won the seat for Labor in 2007 and 2010 before being unseated by current Liberal member Michael Sukkar in 2013. Symon narrowly defeated Clarke in the local party ballot, but this was overwhelmed by support for Clarke in the 50% of the vote determined by the state party’s Public Office Selection Committee. It was reported in Crikey that the Left abstained from the POSC vote, as it wished to let “the Right factions fight out between themselves”. For more on Deakin, see today’s Seat of the Week post.
Happiness
[As I did with my check of the economic indicators for the last 40 years, I decided a priori what economic indicators I would choose and I decided to check everything from Whitlam on. I did exactly what I planned. ]
Oh, bollocks.
You used the ABS’ regular comparison of governments and cherry picked the data that suited your argument.
It’s notable that, when the ABS updated their reports to take into account the Rudd/Gillard governments, the statistics changed in Labor’s favour for a couple of your metrics — so you promptly dropped them.
Sorry to burst your self-congratulatory bubble, happiness, but the order of that table probably hasn’t changed much, give or take minor variations, for a very long time, so you could have done the same table at different times to prove exactly the opposite.
SA, Tassie and ACT are almost always on the bottom, which would only change, not from electing the Liberals, but by finding a few gold mines.
DTT will be right on to this –
[Mysterious disease that kills patients within 24 hours leaves at least 18 dead in Nigeria]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-18/mysterious-disease-in-nigeria-kills-18/6403558
briefly –
I’m not saying they “should”, but I’m also not saying they shouldn’t. You have assumed they are equivalent things, whereas I don’t see them as in any way equivalent, and if it suits the needs of our taxation system (in terms of generating sufficient government revenue in a reasonably equitable way) to treat them differently, then we should treat them differently.
As you happily included your manifesto again it is clear this is all part of the theory that you have formulated. Good for you, but I don’t accept your assumptions and clearly don’t accept your conclusions.
And note your phrasing in the example above “$1.00 of income flowing to households” vs “the same $1.00 should be taxed hardly at all if it flows through an incorporated entity”.
You’ve created arbitrary and unequal descriptions of the interactions of households and business in the economy. Why does money “flow to” households, while it “flows through” an incorporated entity?
Income earnt by households is the basis for meeting the needs and wants of the household members. This is quite different to the way that income is used by business and I see no reason why there should be any equivalence in treatment.
Household income is the basis for the economy. The economy exists to meet the needs of people. It doesn’t exist to meet the “needs” of corporations – corporations have no needs and are merely organizational constructs to coordinate resources for the production of goods and services. Business and households are fundamentally different things, and trying to produce a rationale for taxation based on an assumption that they should be on some sort of equal footing is nonsense.
[zoomster
….Sorry, but you then said you were wrong, you didn’t mean NSW, you meant Victoria.
If you’re all over the place on this, you can’t then accuse others of ‘cherry picking’, when all they’re doing is trying to work out what you’re talking about.]
OK, I can’t resist coming back for this! Just too delicious to resist….better than sunshine
The correction was the “decade” comment- you used it in relation to Vic and I used it in relation to NSW, who cares? NSW had a longstanding ALP government, before the Libs won.
You said an interpretation of the data could be that the longstanding NSW government was responsible for the good economic position of NSW.
Remember?
Then I pointed out that after the longstanding NSW ALP government the state was positioned last. After a term of LNP government, NSW was positioned first. Thereby refuting the spin you were attempting.
The continued writhing and thrashing about is pure entertainment and quite embarrassing for you, but none of you seem to get it (mimhoff still doesn’t apparently).
[zoidlord
…Same old BS? Libs vs Lab? Can we get a real GOOD GOVERNMENT?]
Unlikely
[zoomster
…..Oh, bollocks.
You used the ABS’ regular comparison of governments and cherry picked the data that suited your argument.
It’s notable that, when the ABS updated their reports to take into account the Rudd/Gillard governments, the statistics changed in Labor’s favour for a couple of your metrics — so you promptly dropped them.]
Haha, another gem!
😀
[You used the ABS’ regular comparison of governments and cherry picked the data that suited your argument.]
Cherry picked? I used every government presented and every one of the major economic indicators (growth, budget deficit/surplus, interest rates, inflation, wage growth, unemployment…..did I miss anything?)
[It’s notable that, when the ABS updated their reports to take into account the Rudd/Gillard governments, the statistics changed in Labor’s favour for a couple of your metrics — so you promptly dropped them.]
The Australian Parliamentary Library did another analysis jettisoning the Whitlam years. Although many Australians might want to jettison the Whitlam years for economic management reasons, you need to justify that decision if you want to do it. I don’t blame the APH, they can do whatever analysis they like, but there is nothing wrong with me sticking with the original analysis which includes them.
When you say “changed in Labor’s favour” when you remove the Whitlam inflation years things do look better for the ALP, yes. However, by the time they re-analyse to include the Abbott years, the differences will have vanished, so enjoy your 5 seconds of sunshine on 1 of the 6 indicators through removing the bad data you don’t like!
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/jon-stewart-reveals-why-he-really-left-the-daily-show-and-his-loathing-for-fox-news-20150419-1mo4zm.html
Loathing Murdoch’s Fox News – he is not alone.
Ctari
Thanks for the link
Yes very interesting BUT at first glance it seems more like a form of poisoning than an infectious disease.
If I were the investigator i would be looking for botulism or some related bacterial poison which IS of bacerial origin but it is the poison that kills not the bacteria.
Mind you IF it is an infectious disease then I would start to be worried – Nigeria is a transport hub, so an infectious disease spreads very rapidly from Nigeria.
It is VERY much to the credit of Nigeria that they contained the Ebola outbreak, something of which the Nigerian health authorities should be justifiably proud.
So Ctari
You are quite right – in the UNLIKELY event the deaths are from an infectious disease not some kind of poisoning then I will “get right on to it.”
guytaur@997
Which is of course entirely at odds with what BB reported.
Bushfire Bill@948
Peter Martin is correct in his reporting. I was surprised by what Hockey had to say.
BB would benefit from watching Insiders so he knew what was actually said rather than making stuff up.
VPNS could be blocked under new legislation (following UK):
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/17/vpns-could-be-blocked-under-proposed-copyright-legislation-say-choice
Typical censorship goverment.
After discussions with the Christian Scientists, Scott Morrison has now removed religious exemptions from the new vaccination rules.
This guy truly is the Star Performer of this Government. He does what he says he is going to do and gets results.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/19/vaccination-crackdown-australia-announces-end-to-religious-exemptions
[“Doctors will be given incentive payments so that parents stick to their children’s vaccination schedule, and the one religious exemption to vaccinations will end, as part of a push by the federal government to boost the immunisation rate.
Social services minister Scott Morrison on Sunday announced that the only religious group currently able to claim religious exemptions for vaccinations, Christian Scientists, will no longer be able to do so.
Morrison said the exemption, in place since 1998, “is no longer current or necessary and will therefore be removed”.
“Having resolved this outstanding matter, the government will not be receiving nor authorising any further vaccination exemption applications from religious organisations,” he said.
Families will still be able to claim exemptions to vaccinations on medical grounds. “This will remain the sole ground for exemption under the Coalition government,” Morrison said.”]
[1054
Jackol
And note your phrasing in the example above “$1.00 of income flowing to households” vs “the same $1.00 should be taxed hardly at all if it flows through an incorporated entity”.
You’ve created arbitrary and unequal descriptions of the interactions of households and business in the economy. Why does money “flow to” households, while it “flows through” an incorporated entity?]
This is a purely semantic point. You are at liberty to change “flow to” to “flows through” any time you like.
[Income earned by households is the basis for meeting the needs and wants of the household members. This is quite different to the way that income is used by business and I see no reason why there should be any equivalence in treatment.]
Income is income. Since you want to create suppression of one class of income recipient and exemption for another, you should explain why. There might be a good reason for this. For example, as a matter of law we excuse minors but not adults from criminal liability. But it’s not clear that income in the hands of one class should attract a lower liability than it would if the income were in the hands of another class, which is what you’re asserting should occur.
[Household income is the basis for the economy. The economy exists to meet the needs of people. It doesn’t exist to meet the “needs” of corporations – corporations have no needs and are merely organizational constructs to coordinate resources for the production of goods and services.]
Quite obviously, this is not accurate. While households and corporations interact with each other and are co-reliant in some respects, they are also competitors. It is true that an organisation is more than the sum of its parts, meaning a corporation is more than its shareholders and more than its employees; it is more than its brands and its IP. Their abstraction does not mean they are “mere constructs”. They have all kinds of advantages that enable them to both outgrow and outlive their competitors.
In many ways, the financial and legal structures in place mean the corporeal are now organised to serve the interests of the incorporated, rather than, as you appear to assume, that corporations exist to serve households.
Happiness
I’d be interested seeing the update including ‘the Abbott years’. I couldn’t find one, last time I looked.
Yes, so would I. There is a lag with all of these as you know. However, the data are there so you can input the recent economic indicators into an excel spreadsheet and see where things are headed.
The point is your accusation that I cherry picked the economic indicators is a slur, just like your many other slurs against me. I was simply correcting your error as is my right.
On the subject of Hockey, I just watched this morning’s Insiders. Here’s how it goes. Cassidy gives Hockey a piss-weak, soft-cock interview. Interview done, Cassidy then sits down with the real journalists, who proceed to tear apart Hockey’s answers – raising the questions that Cassidy should have asked Hockey during the interview.
[1057
Happiness]
These claims are utterly incapable of confirmation. The only way Labor and the LNP could be meaningfully compared would be if they both had the chance to run the same economy at the same time. Obviously, this is not possible.
What we can say is that the formation of fixed, human, social, cultural and intellectual capital is stronger when Labor holds office, leading to greater long-run income growth – especially social incomes – and higher long-term job creation impetus. Labor also have a far better record of managing “balanced” growth, meaning financial dynamics and public finance usually improve when Labor is in power and deteriorate when the LNP are in power.
@TBA/1062
Compared to his attacks on Disabled ?
[briefly
….Happiness
These claims are utterly incapable of confirmation]
The claim that the 5 states and territories with the longest period of LNP rule are the 5 states and territories with the best performer economies is easy to confirm. Work out when the governments were elected, which party they have and compare with the CBA rankings.
The claim that over the last 40 years the periods with LNP governments have had better outcomes on all 6 of the major economic indicators is easy to confirm. Take the Aust Parl Lib data and correlate with which party was in government.
Anyhow, enough of this nonsense now! I have boring data to sift through for work and can’t use this entertainment to delay any longer.
Enjoy whatever spin you need to reconfirm your pre-existing bias…….
Au revoir
[1069
Happiness]
These claims are spurious…utterly spurious.
Bemused,
[BB would benefit from watching Insiders so he knew what was actually said rather than making stuff up.]
I did watch Insiders and Hockey did say that. He probably said BOTH.
All that has happened under his watch is that old – and sadly some new – industries have closed down. None have started up.
[1070
Happiness
Anyhow, enough of this nonsense now! I have boring data to sift through for work and can’t use this entertainment to delay any longer.
Enjoy whatever spin you need to reconfirm your pre-existing bias…….
Au revoir]
Likewise. I need to attend to formation of some additional human capital while also enjoying some current income…to the garden!!
Happiness
[However, by the time they re-analyse to include the Abbott years, the differences will have vanished,[
Right. So you not only choose the timeframe which suits your hypothesis, but you include figures which aren’t there.
…and then you have the cheek to accuse other people of cherry picking!!
(And, seriously, you must be the only sentient being on the planet who thinks that including the Abbott years is going to be a plus…)
The Govt would be foolish to try blocking VPNs ..a relatively cheap solution to this type of censorship is already available:
https://www.goldenfrog.com
briefly –
This is your assertion. It is my assertion that income is used in entirely different ways by people as opposed to business. Personally (obviously) I think my assertion is correct and yours is nonsense based on simple observations of the world.
“Create suppression”. Lol. What a crock.
One “class of income recipient” in this discussion is people. The other is corporations. They are very different types of entity and I see no reason why there should be any assumption that they should be treated equally.
This is a complete misrepresentation of things as far as I’m concerned. Corporations “compete” only to the extent that the business they undertake – to meet one group of stakeholders’ needs/wants – conflicts with the needs/wants of some other group of stakeholders. It is the differing interests of different groups of people that compete, as it does in all aspects of economic activity – an economy is a structure for balancing competing demand for limited resources, but the competition is between people, not people and corporations except in as much as the corporations are acting as agents of people.
Of course there are cultural aspects to the way corporations operate – they are, ultimately, groupings of people so of course they are going to be influenced by all the usual anthropological factors. But despite the rise and seeming dominance of corporations in modern life, the corporations have no independent existence. If corporations are dominating our lives it is because the people who own and control these corporations have been working assiduously to obtain and maintain power through corporations.
But it all comes down to people.
Corporations are not human beings.
Taxation should be about ensuring our government has the resources it needs to do the things we want it to do. We have a longstanding preference for taxation to be levied predominantly on those people who can afford it. And, obviously, we shouldn’t seriously distort/crash our economy in the process of imposing taxation.
Company tax may or may not be part of that equation. If it can be made to work efficiently, and we can remove the blatant distortion that is exhibited at the moment, then great, let’s keep company profits tax. If, on the other hand we decide that company tax is too problematic and we can restructure our taxation to achieve the revenue we need through other conventional direct or indirect taxation then I say we should explore that idea rather than getting so invested in this particular tax.
A factor that usually plays a larger role than who is treasurer are global economic events . The first Oil Shock 1973,1987 stock market crash , 1990 recession and the GFC fell into Labor gov laps. All of which would severely dent your stats.
Bushfire Bill@1072
I hope there will be a transcript to clarify.
I acknowledge your implied point that Hockey is quite capable of saying and believing two contradictory positions simultaneously.
[Jackol
If, on the other hand we decide that company tax is too problematic and we can restructure our taxation to achieve the revenue we need through other conventional direct or indirect taxation then I say we should explore that idea rather than getting so invested in this particular tax.]
If you are going to assert this, then it should follow that you would agree that every economic agent – every worker, every household – should be able to incorporate for taxation and other financial purposes. Everyone would then be equally free to avoid their pecuniary liabilities and minimise their taxes.
[zoomster
….Right. So you not only choose the timeframe which suits your hypothesis, but you include figures which aren’t there.
…and then you have the cheek to accuse other people of cherry picking!!]
Gosh, I reckon we have crossed the bridge from sublime now!
No.
Again, I determined a priori what indicators would be interesting, I searched the APH dataset including ALL governments and then presented everything I found (no “cherry picking” at all).
(And, seriously, you must be the only sentient being on the planet who thinks that including the Abbott years is going to be a plus…)]
It aint hard to note that inflation aint the problem with the Abbott years.
Gosh this is a strange place sometimes.
All this because you can’t bring yourself to admit that when you said it could be the longstanding ALP government in NSW that was responsible for NSW being #1 in the rankings was wrong (given I pointed out NSW was LAST after the longstanding ALP government and is FIRST now after the LNP governments win).
These things are not complicated, you just make them so to try and justify things in your own minds.
The data is the data.
The data ARE the data that should be!
[1076
Jackol
briefly –
Income is income.
This is your assertion. It is my assertion that income is used in entirely different ways by people as opposed to business.]
We tax income for what it is rather than for how it may be used.
The economically rational choice – the one that optimises economic welfare – is to tax income/s in the same way/s. Besides, who says that income in the hands of corporations is going to be spent “differently” from income in the hands of persons. If you’re right, and corporations are only people in another form, then there will be no intrinsic difference. Yet you will permit these incomes to be differently taxed. This difference constitutes fiscal repression for one class and fiscal exemption for another.
[1080
Happiness]
This is all gibberish. There is no coherent basis for the comparisons you’re seeking to make. None.
@markjs/1075
All you had to do was block payments and website providers of VPNs.
briefly –
As it stands every worker, every household could do this if they were so inclined.
I have repeatedly stated that the income tax system needs to have integrity, and that means a well enforced FBT system. If you incorporate but derive benefits as an individual – residence, vehicle, salary of any sort, food, whatever – provided through the corporation, then FBT or income tax should be levied on these benefits.
FBT and CGT (quite possibly with a substantially reduced discount) are essential to ensuring that income or benefits received by any individual are treated the same. There is where equity of treatment comes in – whoever you are, and however you derive your income, be it through PAYG or shares or property – you should have a similar taxation burden for the same total income as someone else, and high income earners should be contributing substantially more as a percentage of their income than low income earners.
But that’s about people and their income.
[I hope there will be a transcript to clarify.]
You are unbelievable, mate. Are you actually going to go to the trouble of grabbing a transcript of that poxy show to make some bitchy point?
You are sailing close to the “Moderator In Exile” role, the self-appointed invigilator and authority on simply everything that gets you into so much trouble here and elsewhere.
It always ends in tears (or cheers – depending on one’s point of view), so why bother going down the same tired path again?
zoidlord..
They’re getting around it in China ..will be a breeze here.
Trying to stop payment won’t work ..I pay my UseNet news hosting website account by going to a retail website & ‘purchasing’ one of their legitimate products. That website then passes on the payment to the news hosting website..
PayPal + Google Wallet + Bitcoin can all be used to transfer payment to the service you wish to join..
briefly –
I have never said that “corporations are only people in another form”.
Corporations are created by people, but they are not people. They can act for people, but they are not people.
Corporations don’t eat. They don’t defecate. They don’t sleep. They don’t need beds. They don’t want to drive fancy cars. They don’t want to impress other corporations. They don’t want to have sex with other corporations. They don’t lie awake at night wondering if they’ve chosen the right career. They don’t regret eating that spicy food.
Corporations are not people. They don’t use income to satisfy wants and needs. They exist to facilitate satisfying the wants and needs of people.
dtt@1059:
“Common symptoms were sudden blurred vision, headache, loss of consciousness followed by death, occurring within 24 hours,” [WHO} spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said.
The symptoms quoted, time course and strike rate are more consistent with acute cerebral oedema or rapidly raised intracranial pressure (ICP) – which is quite unlike most toxins, except for methanol or other direct neurotoxins (ie toxic encephalitis due to mycotoxins or metals). Bacterial toxins, like botulinum, do not cause headache or raised ICP. The most likely causes for such an outbreak event would be methanol or neurotoxin contamination of food or drink, but the differential diagnosis would include flaviviruses (eg West Nile), Marberg, rickettsial meningoencephalitis, mycobacterial disease or even (in that part of the world) malaria. It is highly unlikely to be ebola.
Thanks to whoever put up this link.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/ww1/defining-the-anzac-spirit-celebration-or-commodification-20150418-1mntwp.html
[It has been spruiked as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to commune with the Anzac spirit.
On Friday, more than 40,000 Australians will pay up to $120 to spend a night camping out in swags “just like the Diggers did”.
But Camp Gallipoli – an extravaganza of “great tucker, historic footage and iconic entertainers” – is causing disquiet.
While organisers promise the Anzac Day Eve event at 12 showgrounds and racecourses across the nation will “take your emotions on a rollercoaster”, military historians have likened the concept to a “music festival for the patriotic”.
They fear the event is symptomatic of a broader trend that commodifies, and cheapens, the Anzac memory.
“The risk is we Disneyfy our military history and lose track of the costs of war as we sell trinkets and partake in festivals which, though loosely tied to commemoration, don’t help us understand and value what soldiers did 100 years ago or do for us still today,” said former Australian Army officer James Brown, author of the book Anzac’s Long Shadow.
Unlike the Diggers, who survived on a diet of fly-blown bully beef and tinned jam and endured the unrelenting sound of gunfire, Camp Gallipoli ticketholders will enjoy a well-stocked bar and a menu of gluten-free eggplant moussaka or braised chicken with mustard cream, while listening to music acts Shannon Noll, James Reyne and You Am I.
The event – organised by former Adelaide advertising executive Chris Fox – has been funded by a $2.5 million federal government grant through the Anzac Centenary Advisory Board.
Any profit will be divided between veterans’ groups Legacy and the Returned and Services League of Australia, which have backed the venture.
But The Sunday Age understands there is concern within the organisations about the way the event is being marketed.]
My immediate reaction on first seeing a TV advertisement for this was to think: “I hope the bastards behind this go broke.”
ANZAC day no longer fulfils its original purpose and is being taken over by spivs, hucksters and shoncks.
I say this with great regret as one who as a child, and for some time thereafter, proudly watched my father march with his RAAF comrades and attend moving commemoration ceremonies.
The fact that Morrison has already reversed one part of the new vaccination rule tells me that this government is too lazy to get all the details and examine possible outcomes before they rush out with their decisions. I wonder whether it’s the fault of their staff or the Ministers.
Heard about a man who was shot late last night in my part of town.
They’ve still not caught the shooter.
Bushfire Bill@1086
*YAWN*
[*YAWN*]
Time for your afternoon nap then.
[The claim that the 5 states and territories with the longest period of LNP rule are the 5 states and territories with the best performer economies is easy to confirm.]
As is the relationship between income and voting Liberal. What mechanism are you using to establish that Liberal governments cause stronger economic performance, and not the other way around?
Of course, the best way to compare economic management across governments is to stack them up against the OECD figures at the time.
A government which performs well during a period of high growth, for example, may simply be the beneficiary of good economic times, rather than a good economic manager in itself.
I once asked John Brumby (when he was Treasurer) why Victorian Labor was travelling so well compared with Labor federally. I expected a typical Treasurer reply – “We’ve got a superior team. We made some hard decisions, which we’re now seeing the benefits of…” yada yada – and instead got “It’s a great time to be in government. You can hardly go wrong with the current economy.”
When I was very little, and first becoming aware of politics, I asked my mum what the difference was between the parties (she always voted for an independent, herself). She said that the Liberals did OK when times were good, but Labor were the ones you wanted in government when times were tough.
Moving the Fleet Base argument has been done over many times in the past – no govt has ever been keen to make a commitment because of the cost:
[Fierravanti-Wells wants navy base at Port Kembla ]
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/3019008/base-navy-at-port-kembla-senator/?cs=300
CTar1@1094
Actually, the garden beckons. But the weather is unattractive.
Raaraa
This is report on shooting
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/man-shot-dead-in-driveway-in-altona-meadows-20150419-1mo4hm.html
There will be no Federal Newspoll just after the Anzac day weekend, no doubt due to public holiday rates on the Saturday, too hard to call on that day etc, plus some states having the Monday off. The Newspoll calendar for all phone research work of any kind has them resuming the following weekend. Normal Newspoll fortnightly federal polling would have their next poll out in just over a week, but it will be a 3 week gap this time, out 4th or 5th of April.
http://www.newspoll.com.au/our-solutions-2/omnibus/national-telephone-omnibus/