BludgerTrack: 53.7-46.3 to Coalition

Aggregated poll ratings find Malcolm Turnbull falling short of the heights he achieved towards the end of last year, without giving Labor any real cause for optimism about the election due later this year.

The latest reading of the BludgerTrack poll aggregate finds at least some of the gloss coming off Malcolm Turnbull’s honeymoon poll ratings, with Labor gaining half a point on two-party preferred since last week and clawing back a point on the seat projection. This week’s Newspoll result means there are now two useable data points this year for personal ratings, the other being the monthly reading from Essential Research that was released a fortnight ago, and they collectively indicate a double-digit drop in Turnbull’s net approval rating since the end of last year, and a downturn in his standing on preferred prime minister. Nonetheless, Turnbull retains commanding leads, and the Coalition is credited with a bigger two-party vote and seat majority than was achieved at the 2013 election.

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.

2,129 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.7-46.3 to Coalition”

Comments Page 42 of 43
1 41 42 43
  1. Re neg gearing: briefly is correct. Any unravelling of it needs to be done gradually. This is a lesson we need to learn from the failure of 1985.

    Here’s a radical suggestion from someone who, as I have said before, would prefer there to be no change.

    What the government should do is put a limit on the percentage of an individual’s annual wage and salary income (including employer super contributions) that can be reduced through superannuation concessions and losses on geared investments. I’m thinking of something in the order of 10-20%. Or, it could be a cash limit like $20-30k.

  2. Acquire Fields is an example of what happens when you force people to relocate out of their local communities to one location on the outskirts of a city taking away all their social contacts they grew up with.

    Then entrenches that by making all their new social contacts more poor people with more issues to do with lack of money that is well documented.

    The new government policies are sensible in breaking up these ghettos.

  3. SK

    Developers are part of the problem. Maximum profit chasing means they price people out of the market.

    This is market failure. Another reason why totally free markets fail society.

  4. [That is interesting it is also a largely Housing Commission area and yes a lot of the tenants may not be the best of tenants.]

    Some of the tenants were the most wonderful of people. Others not so. There was at the time a big push for people to buy their house. Many of them could afford it, but said they would rather live somewhere else. A suburb of housing department houses was not a good idea.

  5. Anyone who was around in 1975 will remember Fraser’s promise that he would not only keep the universal health fund, Medibank, but improve it.

    He improved it into the private sector as a private health fund, which required the Hawke Government to create Medicare as a new universal health scheme. Despite the most entrenched and vehement obstruction of the Coalition in Opposition.

    Anyone who thinks the Liberal Party does not want to destroy Medicare as a prime objective has rocks in their heads.

  6. [Then entrenches that by making all their new social contacts more poor people with more issues to do with lack of money that is well documented.]

    And further entrenches it by providing inadequate services, particularly public transport.

  7. re housing shortages. A sudden cessation of negative gearing, as occurred in 1985, would have an observable impact on rental housing supply in many areas: particularly in places like Hobart and Adelaide where housing prices rise very slowly. I don’t know about other cities, but market rents in Hobart, once coats like rates, land tax, insurance, etc are deducted are typically in the range of 5% of purchase prices: ie, at current interest rates about one third of a viable commercial rate of return on a geared investment.

    Without the ability to deduct interest payments from other income, no individual investor in Hobart would go into rental property, as the prospect of capital gains averaging 10% per annum – conceivable in Sydney – are zilch down here. The only way that this could change would be if either market rents were to treble, or house prices to fall by two-thirds, or some combination of the two. That’s a 1929 recession level of disruption to the finances, and lives, of countless ordinary people.

    Economists like Saul Eslake might be able to talk quite blithely about such a scenario, but they don’t have to run for election.

    Here be dragons.

  8. Negative gearing should get reformed. Grandfather it however you need to to make it palatable, but move to it being applicable to new builds only.

    Super concessions should be reformed. A proper, modeled debate on how needs to be had as to whether the Libs plan to restrict concessions in the accumulation phase or the ALP plan to restrict concessions in the payout phase is more effective. I suspect a bit of both is the way to go, but with a lean to the ALP plans as being more effective and fair in the medium to long term.

    Rowan – ‏@FightingTories

    So Morrison wants to fudge the budget by saying they have a 50b medicare ”saving” Even though they know it won’t get through.]

    I’d say that is exactly where they are heading. A budget fudge to make it appear they are doing something and to deflect the fundamental argument about whether or not to privatise Medicare (which they will lose ) into one about Senate intransigence crippling the Budget and any chance of “reform”. 🙁

    Its pure politics rather than governance and a direct expression of Pynes reported comment hat they are ther to get re-elected.

    What it does show is that the Libs are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of their depth as regards managing the economy at the moment. No coherence and discussion / debate by brain-fart. I suspect they are well on the way to dumping a nasty budget on people that has no actual economic rationale behind it beyond neo-con ideology.

    If they cant make the tax cuts they are wedded to big enough then they lose a lot of the political kudos they are hoping to gain. And if the ALP make the case that maintaining services is more important and that tax cuts are just wrong at this point in the economic cycle then the Libs are in all kinds of shit after May.

    Funny. I haven’t seen anyone link ScoMo’s “on water matters” secrecy with his current “dont need a tax green or white paper you will find out in the budget” reticence on tax matters?? 🙂

    And flying the Medicare privatisation kite if just fwarking stupid. People will oppose that more intensely than a GST rise.

  9. Am I missing something?

    The Opposition asks whether Medicare will be privatised.

    The Government responds by talking about the need for updated technology.

    I cannot see how the question and answer are connected, unless the Government is arguing that it has so damaged and undermined the Australian Public Service that it is not capable of scoping technology improvements. Not that there is any evidence that a private sector operator could do better.

  10. There is no easy solution to providing affordable housing when land and construction costs are high unless governments are prepared to heavily subsidise the demand.

  11. mb
    I dont think anyone is talking sudden cessation. And its for that reason (slow/delayed implementation) that a policy should be enacted soon.

  12. davidwh@2065

    If it’s anything like the QLD health IT system it would probably cost $10 billion and still not work.

    Ahhh but it has provided a wonderful and widely used case study in how things go wrong. 😀

  13. [Renai LeMay
    Renai LeMay – Verified account ‏@renailemay

    ABC MD @mscott denies the ABC sought to gag @NickRossTech, says ABC wanted him to comply with editorial policies #estimates]

  14. Re negative gearing:

    There are two components to the value of a property:

    – the land value, which is permanent and tied to the location and therefore provides the vast bulk of any capital gain; and

    – the accommodation component, which devalues and depreciates over time and requires expenses to maintain the liveability of the accommodation.

    In terms of providing housing, the accommodation is most relevant. To the extent that negative gearing provides the most benefit per dollar to those who can most afford to invest in land, rather than accommodation, in order to maximise capital gains. As it now stands, the current negative gearing concessions therefore do not operate efficiently to improve housing stock. Similar to the way the superannuation concessions, which most benefit those who will never expect to be on the old age pension, are completely missing their objective at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

    There is a significant case for some concessions to people who invest in housing stock – but negative gearing at the taxpayer’s marginal rate is certainly missing the mark.

  15. I was reflecting – in the ample time that one of Turnbull’s answers allows one to – that privatisation of services is an admission of failure by a government – “We can’t make it work, perhaps someone else can.”

  16. zoomster@2072

    I was reflecting – in the ample time that one of Turnbull’s answers allows one to – that privatisation of services is an admission of failure by a government – “We can’t make it work, perhaps someone else can.”

    That is an ideological article of faith for the Libs.

  17. The ALP smells blood in the water over the nimrodgate. Ministers are ducking and weaving all over QT to not answer questions about what went on with Roberts in China. Waffles sure as hell doesn’t want that card to surface. Pyne is trying to do the blocking tactics but it is all getting very smelly.

  18. SK

    [I would suggest it is possible to generate substantial earned income without being highly educated – either through unfair advantage or hard yakka.]

    I’ve seen that happen – a recognising opportunity thing.

  19. In answer to a Dreyfus question Roberts is using the Brough defence: I refer the member to my answer to the previous question. It seems that he is just delaying the inevitable

  20. [Rowan
    Rowan – ‏@FightingTories

    My money is on this, Friday at 5pm Turnbull will release a statement that Stuart Robert will stand aside till inquiry is over #qt]

  21. Turnbull: “I think I go with a more succinct answ… (interrupts himself, goes off on rambling tangent for the next 30 seconds)”

  22. Asha
    [Turnbull: “I think I go with a more succinct answ… ]
    Never use one word where ten will do. And don’t forget to embellish your topic. You know, like icing a wedding cake.

  23. Oooo-ee. These imbeciles don’t just want to lose the election, they want a damn good thrashing.

    Malcolm. Helllloooo Malcolm. Stop waffling for 5 seconds and listen son. Robert is an ex-parrot. You’ve already waited far too long to cut him loose. Every minute you wait your judgement, ticker and leadership come under more and more question.

    Oh, and what the hell is the point of dropping a GST proposal that would have probably lost you an election only to come out the next day with a proposal to privatise Medicare that would put the loss beyond any doubt? Do you have money on Shorten winning? It is obvious as tits on a bull you are going to have to make another humiliating backdown on this one, but hey at least you’re familiar with the manoeuvre.

    What a dunce Turnbull is.

  24. [ It is obvious as tits on a bull you are going to have to make another humiliating backdown on this one, ]

    Lol! Agreed, but where do they go to from there is the question??

    This lot are confused, and well on the way to confusing everyone else. Who’s in charge, and whats their policy thrust?

    Insignificant tax cuts that wont do sweet FA for stimulating growth, and cutting / privatising services??

Comments Page 42 of 43
1 41 42 43

Leave a Reply

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