No Newspoll this week, which is holding back for the resumption of parliament next week. However, we do have a new Victorian state poll out from ReachTEL, which you can read about in the post directly below this one, along with an update of my poll aggregation from the state. The Guardian should bring us results from Essential Research’s regular fortnightly federal poll overnight tomorrow. Also on the polling front:
• The Fairfax papers have reported state breakdowns aggregated from the last three monthly Ipsos polls, which mix one poll from before the leadership coup, one from the immediate lead-up to it, and one from a month after. This shows Labor leading 52-48 in New South Wales (53-47 in the previous quarter), 56-44 in Victoria (unchanged), 52-48 in Queensland (unchanged) and 51-49 in Western Australia (an unusual 53-47 to the Coalition last time), while the Coalition leads 51-48 in South Australia (52-48 to Labor last time).
• The Guardian reports on another poll in Wentworth, conducted for the Refugee Council of Australia, which I’m going to assume was a ReachTEL although the report doesn’t say. This one is particularly interesting in providing two-party results for Liberal-versus-Phelps as well as Liberal-versus-Labor. This suggests Phelps will win 53-47 if only she can get ahead of Labor. However, the primary votes suggest she has a hurdle to clear, with Dave Sharma (Liberal) on 38.1%, Tim Murray (Labor) on 24.5%, Kerryn Phelps (independent) on 15.9% and others in single digits (there may be an undecided component in the mix of perhaps around 5% or 6% as well). The Liberal-versus-Labor result is consistent with earlier polling in showing it to be extemely close: 50-50 in this case. However, as with the previous polls, this is based on Labor receiving around two-third of preferences from mostly conservative independent candidates, which seems a bit much. The sample for the poll was 870; no field work date is provided. UPDATE: Ben Raue has provided the full numbers. After inclusion of a forced response follow-up for the 4.8% undecided, the primary votes are Sharma 39.9%, Murray 25.0%, Phelps 17.3%, Greens 9.1%, Heath 3.6%. Respondents were also asked how they had voted in 2016, and the responses are fairly well in line with the actual result.
Also on Wentworth, my guide to the by-election has been expanded and updated. Antony Green’s guide offers a particularly useful survey of the how-to-vote card situation that makes use of the term “virtue signalling”. Joe Hildebrand of the Daily Telegraph has taken aim at the Greens for putting Labor ahead of Kerryn Phelps – which, he correctly notes, reduces her chances of overtaking Labor and making the final count, at which she would receive a stronger flow of preferences than Labor and thus stand a better chance of defeating the Liberals. But as Antony Green also rightly notes, “Green voters are a tough flock to herd”.
p
The Deniers trot out nuclear power whenever they want people to talk about something other than the world is fucked.
Border Force can be charged with turning the climate back at the border.
poroti @2.43pm
WTF?
Sweden non compulsory voting turn out 82.6%
Switzerland compulsory voting turn out 38.6%
At this point, it is Liberal tradition to just straight out lie about emission reductions in Australia, Scott Morrison happily telling us like fools that we are doing our bit, but he knows we are not.
I would rather him just saying he doesn’t give a stuff about it to be honest.
One of my pet peeves is predatory, churn pricing where you take a calculated (I’ve talked one of the guys it is VERY calculated) choices to punish loyal customers. A rule that customers who’ve been with a service provider at least 2 years must receive the lowest offered rate (to anyone over any period) would soon fix that.
WeWantPaul @ #448 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 4:14 pm
Including personal liability for all company directors regardless of corporate structure, with the potential for both financial penalties and incarceration to be applied for any regulatory violation of the company. No more limited liability, corporate veil bullshit.
The Gs do not want to help Phelps or anyone like her because they are a direct threat to the case for voting Greens.
The Gs will direct prefs away from 3rd-Voice/independent candidates whenever they think their generally-stagnant franchise is vulnerable.
This makes a lot of sense from a G-favouring perspective. They don’t want viable competitors stealing their thunder.
Their prefs might help Labor or they might help the Liberal. Who knows! But in any case, they’re really hoping they don’t go to Phelps.
The Gs have a recurring existential dilemma. As long as Independents can win House elections (when Gs cannot), voters will have reason to support Independents. This really nullifies G campaigns, which are premised on the same/same falsehood. To the extent voters buy this false line, they can respond to it by voting Ind rather than G. The G same/same dog whistle becomes pro-Indy campaign/counter-G trolling.
This must drive the Gs nuts. Their theme song becomes self-cannibalising. No wonder they are favouring their usual enemies ahead of Phelps.
Boerwar @ #436 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 4:56 pm
I’m still waiting for the 💐 flowers 💐 and I expect to be 💋 kissed 💋 beforehand.
‘mikehilliard says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:17 pm
poroti @2.43pm
WTF?
Sweden non compulsory voting turn out 82.6%
Switzerland compulsory voting turn out 38.6%’
They should stop putting polling boths on the top of the Matterhorns.
Also with underpayments and overcharging, don’t let the bastards just make it right by refunding or repaying the amounts, make them pay a 200% penalty to the victim and a 200% fine to the regulatory authority. Looking after shareholders would start to look a whole lot different very quickly.
Siddle breaks through Pakis 4-260. Victorian bowlers doing the job.
GG
Breaking through like a water drip eroding granite?
BW what I want Labor to do is not to commit to a UBI. Merely to do the detailed number crunching needed to establish its feasibility.
PCC
You Greens want it, you guys do the work. Or are you all bone lazy when it comes to real policy-making?
When it comes to global warming god had better provide. Because Morrison won’t.
Boerwar @ #445 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 1:06 pm
So the drought is entirely the Governments fault! 🙂
Nicholas
Neither camp is right and its a shame to see a UBI and Jobs Guarantee being played off against each other.
We actually need to see governments take an active role in creating productive work alongside a UBI. The danger of a Jobs Guarantee is the attitude that prevails work for the dole. We don’t need street sweepers so much as we need more nurses and child care workers and engineers within the public service and so on.
BW for a start I’m not a card carrying Green. Secondly its pretty childish of you to adopt that tactic.
A UBI is essential and its going to be a Labor government that does the hard work needed to figure it out.
Labor have costed a UBI. They have declined to adopt it.
Siddle keeping it tight as predicted
Greg Sheridan (The Drum) said that Alan Jones The Parrot is a tourist attraction, and if we don’t like his rude manners we don’t have to listen to him.
Tourist attraction???
MH
That was a head scratcher. Thought it must be a typo but no it is low. From a Swiss site they reckoned as Swiss vote 3-4 times a year on various issues they have become ‘selective’ on what they vote for.
Pseudo Cud Chewer @ #468 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 4:31 pm
Twenty years ago, Australia should have nationalized the minerals and resources industries. Have the state manage it, and put all the proceeds in a Sovereign Wealth Fund like what the Saudi’s have. That probably would’ve covered it.
briefly
There is a difference between a back of the envelope dismissal of a rival political party’s idea and being in government and committing many person years to the detailed and thorough study of the process.
a r
That sounds too much like an idea from those whacko Greens 🙂 Never!
PCC
Keep talking Greens crap. It suits you.
lizzie
When I think of Alan Jones as a tourist attraction, I think of re-opening Old Sydney Town and employing him as the guy that gets the lash repeatedly 🙂
BW keep talking tired crap. It suits you.
PCC
Embarrassed about the Greens UBI? So is Di Natale. He has stopped talking about it.
PCC
I thought it was a very strange thing for Sheridan to say.
I am simply astonished at the number of outright lies in this article …
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/scott-morrison-defends-australia-remaining-in-paris-agreement/news-story/6b38cbadf032d3ee4df8bcd6fd61154c
The reporter – someone called RACHEL BAXENDALE – should be ashamed of herself. So many outrageous lies in just a few paragraphs (and I have only quoted a small part of the article) – and so easily checked! 🙁
AR
Im pretty sure Gough Whitlam tried that which lead to the loans affair.
BAU for Blaxendale.
Alan Jones: the face of Luna Park
Mr Sheridan is quite right. No one needs to listen to Jones. No one needs to choose to be interviewed by him.
However, is it in the best interests of democracy for a horse owner to bludgeon the NSW Premier into advertising his services?
Sheridan says lots of strange (or wrong, or stupid) things..
Golly @ #488 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 1:54 pm
Doesn’t it have a smile? 🙂
The number of outright lies should be predictable from the url..
https://www.theaustralian.com.au … / …
You should read about Job Guarantee proposals. It isn’t a street sweeping scheme. It isn’t workfare. The jobs would be socially useful, individually rewarding jobs that respond to unmet needs in local communities. There would be a strong emphasis on skill development and helping people who wanted to get higher paid jobs in the private sector and the regular public sector to move out of the JG.
Here is a good place to start reading about JG proposals:
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_2018_3.pdf
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_4_18.pdf
A JG is a macroeconomic stabilizer in addition to being a public sector job creation program.
A UBI would not eliminate labour wastage because it would not directly create jobs that fit the needs and abilities of the long-term unemployed and people with other significant barriers and challenges in their lives. The private sector will never create jobs for all who want them. That isn’t what the private sector is set up to do.
A UBI would be highly inflationary. Its proponents don’t engage much with the macroeconomic consequences of their preferred policy.
A UBI reduces people to consumption entities instead of emphasizing belonging, contribution, participation, reciprocity, positive social interactions, mastery experiences.
Even if by some miracle a UBI were implemented, it would not succeed. It isn’t smart to waste political capital on a policy that wouldn’t achieve its stated objective.
We need to significantly increase income support for people who cannot or should not be working.
A JG combined with a targeted Basic Income is the way to go.
Plus active use of discretionary fiscal policy (which is where more public sector scientists, engineers, project managers, statisticians, teachers, health care workers etc come in).
A JG would create a buffer stock of employed people who are paid the minimum wage with all of the benefits of permanent employment. This would be much better than the current mechanism for controlling inflation (maintaining a buffer stock of miserable unemployed people).
Skill-based wage structures are for the private sector and the regular public sector.
A JG would establish the wages floor for the entire economy.
Is the Opera House brouhaha a factor in the Wentworth by-election?
Meanwhile, good to see Siddle, a vegan, getting wickets.
Nicholas
The problem with a JGP is that it will be seen as a make-work scheme and treated as a make-work scheme, and become a make-work scheme, unless you are very, very careful.
Some attitudes and ideas are deeply entrenched. Yes I know it could be a lot better than that. But in the real world its a lot harder.
Its easier to implement a JGP in the context of an overall UBI.
Winning big races is the only thing that increases stud fees.
The way cartoonists can so quickly juxtapose issues is amazing as David Rowe demonstrates.
Clive Palmer has welcomed another court victory over China’s biggest conglomerate in their war over the $16 billion Sino Iron project in Western Australia.
The latest legal setback for CITIC Ltd involves a failed attempt to recoup foreign exchange losses on $97.6 million it was ordered to place in a holding account while its legal battle with Mr Palmer’s Mineralogy raged in the WA Supreme Court.
The ruling, handed down on Monday by Chief Justice Peter Quinlan, rubs salt into the wounds of CITIC and its subsidiaries after previous orders that they pay Mineralogy $US149.4 million ($211.6 million) in disputed royalties from the Sino Iron project.
An increasingly frustrated CITIC Pacific Mining warned in July that investment in WA was at risk because of the running legal battle with Mr Palmer’s private company over the largest investment by a Chinese entity in a resources project on foreign soil.
It claims the Sino Iron project is under threat from continuing legal action and Mineralogy’s refusal to co-operate on making more land available to allow efficient mining despite growing demand for magnetite concentrate.
https://www.afr.com/business/mining/iron-ore/clive-palmer-hits-out-at-citic-after-sino-iron-court-victory-20181008-h16czf
No, it won’t. If it is designed in the way that is recommended by the core group of MMT economists, it will be and will be seen as a program that creates socially useful jobs that add to the productive capacity of the economy.
The core group who have been developing the macroeconomic stabiliser JG are Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, Bill Mitchell, Randall Wray, Pavlina Tcherneva, Scott Fullwiler, and Eric Tymoigne.
There is a very extensive literature on the buffer stock employment JG that goes back to the early 1990s. I suggest that you read some of it. Assuming that a JG = workfare indicates zero engagement with the literature.
Paying people for doing socially useful things is far more consistent with cultural norms than giving everybody an income regardless of their regardless of their circumstances and needs.
UBI advocates hope that the monetary production mechanism (in which output generates income) can be used to undermine that very mechanism. It is a naive hope. The macroeconomics of a UBI are terrible: very high inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation, unless the government imposed heavy taxation on workers. Trying to sever the link between work and income on a mass scale is unsustainable in a monetary production economy. That link is crucial to the mechanism. An advanced society has the real resource capacity to provide for a segment of the population without expecting them to work (children, the frail elderly, people with disabilities or illness). Trying to provide a living income to everyone without expecting any output in return depreciates the currency, which defeats the point of the income guarantee (that everyone will have enough purchasing power to meet their needs).
A JG is much better because it has an inflation anchor built into it (it pays a fixed price for labour; and the size of the scheme rises and falls in response to the private sector’s demand for labour).
A JG widens the scope of what paid work can be. UBI advocates have good ideas about liberating people to do socially useful things that are meaningful to them. A JG can be administered in a decentralised way. The job design can be customised to workers’ abilities and interests. A wide variety of jobs can be created by a JG. The categories of jobs that could fit into a JG include social and community services, artistic and cultural services, environmental services, and small-scale public works.
A JG can actually pay people to do things that they like without causing inflationary pressure. A UBI wouldn’t be able to get that done.
A UBI is a much heavier lift politically and culturally because it violates the deeply ingrained cultural norm of reciprocity. People are happy to share resources with people who are seen as pulling on the same rope. They want people to contribute based on their capacity to to contribute. Giving everyone a pot of money with no link to production, no requirement to do something useful for it, will infuriate the workers who have to pay higher taxes to combat the inflationary pressure caused by a UBI.
Paying people to do something that is valued by the community will always be an easier political sell and a better cultural fit than giving money for nothing.
Pseudo Cud Chewer @ #487 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 5:57 pm
Sheridan is a spectacularly stupid man.
Climate change must be limited to 1.5 degrees, from the Australian Academy of Sciences
https://youtu.be/Yvkm9t7xRF4
Now that’s a big renewable project ! What a shame Australia will own so little of it.
The project, called the Asian Renewable Energy Hub, is looking to build 11 gigawatts (GW) of power capacity, with more than half to be allocated to energy users and potential hydrogen producers in north-western Australia.
https://outline.com/EdAUnm