The Australian has a surprise in store tomorrow, with the latest Newspoll survey showing the two parties at level pegging on two-party preferred, wiping out a 53-47 lead to the Coalition at the last poll three weeks ago. The Coalition is down three on the primary vote to 43%, Labor is up one to 35%, and the Greens are up one to 12%. This has been reflected in personal ratings, with Malcolm Turnbull down five on approval to 48% and up seven on disapproval to 38%, while Bill Shorten is up three on approval to 28% and down three on disapproval to 57%. Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister narrows from 59-20 to 55-21. The poll also finds 47% support for Labor’s negative gearing plan, with 31% opposed and 22% undecided. It was conducted Thursday to Sunday by Galaxy Research from a sample of 1807, contacted online and through automated phone polling. UPDATE: Also from Newspoll are results on “words used to describe the leaders” and “best leader to handle issues.
Note that there are a further two new posts beneath this one, one providing a forum for discussion on Senate reform and double dissolution talk separate from the main thread, the other being the return of Seat of the Week.
UPDATE (Roy Morgan): Roy Morgan finds no change on a much improved result for Labor a fortnight ago, with the Coalition again leading 52.5-47.5 on both respondent-allocated and previous-election measures of two-party preferred. The primary votes are Coalition 43.5% (steady), Labor 29.5% (up 0.5%) and Greens 15% (down one). The poll was conducted by face-to-face and SMS over the past two weekends from a sample of 3116.
UPDATE 2 (Essential Research): Essential Research is steady at 52-48 to the Coalition, but Labor’s primary vote has bounced back two points to 35% after dropping the same amount last week – unusually volatile behaviour for this series, which provides a rolling average of two weekly results. The Coalition is up a point to 44%, with the Greens down one to 10%. The most interesting of the supplementary questions divided the sample into two halves and asked a separate question on negative gearing: a straight one on reform “so that, for future purchases, investors can only claim tax deductions for
investments in newly built homes”, and another attributing the policy to Labor. The switch made surprisingly little difference: the former had 38% approval and 28% disapproval, the latter 37% and 32%, with moderate variations between Labor and Coalition voters cancelling out in the totals. Other results find 31% approval and 54% disapproval of cutting Sunday penalty rates in hospitality, entertainment and retail, and grim assessments on the health of the economy and respondents’ financial wellbeing – only company profits perceived as having improved over the past year, and very large majorities rating that the cost of living has worsened. The poll was conducted online, over two weeks from a sample of 2017 in the case of voting intention, and Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1002 for the rest.
Matt@2099
I am amazed at the number of words being wasted on it here.
It just seems so clear cut to me.
Well, thank goodness for that. I was afraid the RWNJs n the Senate might have blocked it.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-passes-medicinal-cannabis-legislation-20160224-gn2gjk.html
Yay!
Federal Politics @PoliticsFairfax 14m14 minutes ago
Senate passes medicinal cannabis legislation http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-passes-medicinal-cannabis-legislation-20160224-gn2gjk.html … #auspol
lizzie
Great result on Medicinal Cannabis congratulations to the mother of the young man who was dying and she fought to the end.
Yes, but no. Like I said the value of the house and land is ALWAYS less than the value of the vacant block + the cost of building. It is the value of the building that is less than the cost of building (partly because it isn’t ‘perfect’). The land value hasn’t changed.
and ain’t Malcolm being revealed.
ratsak
I always knew real estate agents were shonky.
Paul you can’t offset capital gains against taxable losses only against other capital losses.
Seems Greens are no different since the change of Leadership.
Renai LeMay @renailemay 1m1 minute ago
So wait, Greens are now ones rushing controversial changes through Parliament with only short consultation. Boooy. Shoe on the other foot.
Ha maybe so. But the net effect is the same. If your place burnt to the ground the land would still be worth the same. If it was the land that was less that wouldn’t be true (unless you wanted to argue that the land increased in value when the building burnt down).
Cory Bernardi and Mini Me, Andrew Hastie behind the Anti Safe Sex Coalition smear campaign and in conjunction with the vile Lyle Shelton and the ACL:
The grassroots backers of Bernardi and Hastie are being a little less subtle. In fact, so worried are they, many saw the Safe Schools Coalition as contributing to the final decline of civilisation as we know it.
https://newmatilda.com/2016/02/24/exclusive-anti-safe-schools-emails-to-mps-reveal-homophobia-and-confusion-among-programs-opponents/
Renai not feeling the love for his previous employer.
I think Labor really does need to stop taking scalps, looting the Liberal village, and shooting their horses, and start thinking of the next policy release before this one wears off.
There’s a long war ahead, and I get the feeling that this victory may have been a little unexpected by both sides. Best not to gloat or waste too much time celebrating.
And just get on with it.
I don’t believe anyone can realistically predict what the effects of the proposed Labor changes to NG will be. Likely there will be winners and losers depending on individual circumstances and how the market movers react with new strategies.
Assuming the changes have grandfathering provisions then one possible outcome is that people with existing NG properties will hold those properties while they get a financial advantage from those investments. We will likely create a new pool of “pre-September 1985” asset types.
New investors will likely look to NG primarily in new developments which may restrict the people able to take advantage of the new NG rules.
It will no doubt be messy for a period of time until the changes wash through the property market.
It will be interesting for a time if it goes ahead.
Yep. Malcolm wants to set in for a long siege. Time to attack him from a new direction. He’s so flat footed he’ll never expect it.
Aint that the truth
Can they? I know the greens proposal does not allow losses to be carried forward, does the labor proposal for non new res premises?
The greens proposal also read as if you could transfer or carry forward losses in relation to commercial and industrial property, although it might not have been their intent.
Does Labor let you negative gear commercial and industrial property?
BB
Absolutely agree it ain’t over till it is over.
davidwh,
Of course you can reasonably predict realistic effects and identify unrealistic effects.
Everything Turnbull is talking about is utterly unrealistic. Like I said being wiped out by a comet is more likely than Labor’s proposals causing a collapse of house values.
Minor price drops are of coua realistic possibility in some markets.
phoenix
Thanks for the Hellstorm info. Just watched it.
How sad that innocent people pay such a huge price for war. More people should see this.
Lorax
Coming from you that is high praise indeed – and in one way a bit ironic. You now seem to be giving Labor more chance of winning the coming election – under Shorten – than I do. And I am a paid up member of the dreaded echo chamber that you spent so much time criticising – one of the lemmings you might say.
I actually give Labor no chance at all this time around, despite the current Liberal travails. But I am predicting with great confidence that Shorten will flog them in 2019, after they have been fully exposed as the frauds that they really are.
Mal had better enjoy his short stint as PM. The seeds of his destruction are already there.
ratsak generally I agree and a rational person would likely hold onto a pre-2017 property that allows them to take advantage of the pre-2017 laws however 2008/2009 showed us that where there is uncertainty people often don’t do what seems to be the rational thing.
As I said it will get interesting for a while.
No wonder we need all that extra money for defence – its the F-35 wondercraft:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-f-35-testing-schedule-unrealistic-could-cause-purchase-delays/article/2582174?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=farklandingpage
In fact we will need to cut a lot more from health and education not to mention NDIS just to pay for it!
Darn
The way the rules work there will another leadership ballot after the election I suspect.
Link, sorry.
https://newmatilda.com/2016/02/24/federal-senate-urges-abandonment-of-anti-protest-law-as-wa-parliament-prepares-to-pass-it/
More on ratsak and MB’s excellent posts.
The fact that existing NG properties are grandfathered means impacts will be moderated and over a period of time.
Existing NG owners have no need to sell, only buyers are affected and for any particular property they are only part of the market.
It would be more equitable to not grandfather but the risk of a market impact is far greater.
MTBW
A ballot for leadership after a loss is surely the usual thing. Shorten would know that.
There should be an ALP leadership ballot after the election, if the party does not win, however at this stage Shorten deserves to win, assuming the result is better than 2013.
lizzie
I am sure he does!
Which I expect Shorten to win – if he isn’t PM, of course.
In the immediate future the Defence White paper could be an issue to attack on.
With that, the Libs are about to announce programs that are over a long period and going to cost a lot.
How are they going to fund that with the Budget strategy they are running?
They are all about cutting spending in areas perceived as more immediately relevant to people than Defence, have no idea about increasing revenue in any meaningful or fair way, BUT are insisting that they will deliver Tax Cuts.
Short of magic pudding economics, and hitting up mythical creatures for their fairy gold how the fwark do they expect to deliver on all that while laying out a plausible path back to a balanced budget???
I reckon they are looking at a scenario where among all the other matters they have retreated on, they may have to ditch the tax cut proposals as well (particularly corporate tax) which leaves them with what exactly to go to an election with??
I think its becoming apparent its a complete
miss-characterisation to say that MalPM is the man with a plan for a plan. He’s not even that good.
Trump wins Nevada
Oh absolutely. I’ve no doubt the grandfathering was mostly politically driven, but the stability aspect is enormously important.
If it wasn’t grandfathered I would agree that a property slump would become much less unlikely.
{Chrissie does a pontius pilate}
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/csiro-workers-still-in-the-dark-on-jobs-after-meeting/7196522
Federal Science Minister Christopher Pyne also asserted, during Question Time this week, the decision was made by management and not by the Government.
Perhaps. But if Shorten does well in this election and gets them within striking distance for 2019 I think he will be given the nod again.
“I was surprised at my reaction to “Berlin” – I felt sorry for the Germans.”
Long ago (long before I read ‘Berlin’) I played hockey with some German lads. I got on great with them. One night we all went out for dinner and stopped at a bottlo for wine. They were taking ages to decide and, as they didnt know the where the restaurant was, I waited for them. I got impatient and jokingly said ‘hurry up, the Russians are coming’.
Even tho they took it well I regretted it immediately and when I got over my embarrassment I apologised. Its right up there for stupidest non-funny things I have ever said.
Actually, on reflection thats me being silly. I forgot the dictum for a moment:
Its Liberal, It Lies.
So they will go to an election with a pile of poorly polished bullshit they have no intention of following up on if re-elected. 🙂
And how about I throw another tax into the equation.
If the Government is considering the possibility of a death tax (ain’t everything except GST on the table?) what about gift duty.
A tax on the value of every gift received (at the recipient’s income tax rate), and every gift made by the donor. (at a slightly lower rate).
Then the rich and soon-to-be pensioners couldn’t reduce or distribute their capital inter-vivos without the State taxing it.
Why doesn’t Bill ask Mal if he’ll rule it in or out?
@C@tmomma 2066
Yeah, I gave you crickets because I felt your response collapsed in on itself. Labor made a good start on affordable housing with the stimulus package, but then the Greens spent the following years trying to protect it from Labor’s own cuts. One can only hope that Labor is planning on restoring the program, but these are old policies which were already funded. Now we have new money saved from negative gearing on the table.
Money saved from negative gearing should be directly reinvested into new affordable housing stock. It’s new money, new capacity and it should bring new ambition.
bemused
It suited the Americans to punish the smallest number of Germans for the maximum of war crimes.
That the Wehrmacht and Civilians had no knowledge of what was happening is a fallacy.
Simon Katich@2138
I always try to recall that the first victims of the Nazis were Germans and that there was a German resistance.
The movie “Sophie Scholl: The Final Days” is a good reminder.
Nah. Mal wants to talk about defence so he doesn’t have to talk about tax.
Therefore Labor should hit him with another tax policy. Tomorrow morning.
Doesn’t have to be a big ‘un. Labor already has the ground as the only party with a tax policy. Even some minor tax change would mean no one wants to talk defence (Labor’s position is pretty much bi-partisan), and everyone will be talking tax.
That means Mal will take another option off the table, ramp up his scare campaign to lunacy, and he and his ministers will fluff their lines whilst the media asks ‘where’s your policy?’
Sun Tzu mate.
WWP @ 2117
My understanding is that is definitely the case.
ratsak and others: thanks for your responses. I’m still struggling to understand the point of a “reform” which won’t collect much more tax and, according to all of you, won’t have any significant effect on the housing market.
I still reckon it will lead to rental increases, rental shortages in some areas and a strong downward pressure on the market value of second-hand apartments in areas where there are large numbers of them: Sydney, the coastal strip between Sydney and Noosa, and possibly parts of Melbourne. The extent to which this downward pressure flows through to the housing market more generally will depend on a variety of factors: interest rates, net migration levels, the overall state of the economy and market sentiment.
All we can do is to speculate about what might happen, but the way Turnbull and his crew are going at the moment, it’s possible we’re going to find out.
CTar1, is history going to condemn each and every one of us for the torture the Australian Government is putting asylum seekers though in the same way you are (apparently) condemning the German people for the atrocities of their then Government?
dwh
Careful, I work in accounting and tax software development. You’ve got this backwards.
“you can’t offset capital gains against taxable losses only against other capital losses.”
The law is you can’t offset capital losses against taxable income only against other capital gains. Rental losses will now be carried forward too.
meher baba@2146
It will not collect much more tax initially, but the tax take will grow each year.
It will moderate the rate of increase in house prices and perhaps avoid an eventual collapse of the housing bubble or at least make it less severe.
It’s long term structural reform. The benefit will take a long time to flow through, but the first thing that needs to happen is that the unspoken rule that negative gearing cannot be touched needs to be broken.
Should the Labor changes go through reasonably smoothly it will be much easier for future governments to make further reforms. It will also make it much easier for future oppositions to propose reforms and not instantly write off their election chances.
It’s unreasonable to expect too much ‘Big Bang’ reform. It’s a hard graft of small changes that (hopefully) build on each other to amount to something really substantial.
From little things, big things grow…