Still no new polls, so let’s take a look at some old ones instead. After the 2016 election, I wrote an article for Crikey on the performance of the pollsters, particularly in regard to seat polls, and published here a chart showing the distribution of their errors. After being asked if the findings bore up over the seat polling conducted since, I have now conducted a similar exercise on seat polls conducted since the 2016 federal election, of which I identified 25 conducted in the final fortnight of various state elections and federal by-elections. However, rather than use the two-party results, which have separate issues of their own, I have produced separate results from Labor and Coalition primary votes. These can be found at the bottom of the post.
In the 2016 analysis, I concluded that the polls behaved more like they had a 7% margin of error than the 4% margin theoretically associated with polls sampling 500 to 600 respondents, as is typically the case with seat polls. It turns out that this chimes quite well with the polls conducted since. The mean error for the Coalition was +1.9%, which is to say the average poll had the Coalition that much too high high, while for Labor it was -0.5%. The difference is just inside statistical significance (the p-value on a two-sample t-test coming in at 0.047).
However, this does not mean you can confidently treat any given seat poll as biased to the Coalition, because their record is so erratic that any given poll could fall either way. The charts below record the spread of pollster errors (i.e. their result for a given party’s primary vote minus the actual result) as histograms, with two distribution curves laid over them – a thinner one in black, showing what the curve should theoretically look like with a 4% margin of error, and a thicker one in blue, showing their actual distribution. The lower and flatter the blue curve, the more erratic and unreliable were the results. As such, the charts show seat polls have been particularly wayward in predicting the Coalition primary vote. They have been somewhat nearer the mark with Labor, but still below theoretical expectations. The distributions suggest an effective margin of error for Labor of 6.5%, and for the Coalition of fully 9.5%.
It should be acknowledged, however, that a lot can happen over the last fortnight of an election campaign, and pollsters can always defend an apparent misfire by asserting that the situation changed after the poll was conducted. Perhaps significantly, the two worst performing polls in this analysis only barely fit within the two-week time frame. These were YouGov Galaxy polls from the Victorian “sandbelt” seats of Mordialloc and Frankston at the state election in November last year, crediting Labor with two-party votes of 52% and 51% in seats where the final results were 62.9% and 59.7%. If these cases are removed, the mean Coalition error comes down to +1.1% and the effective margin of error to 8.4%; while for Labor, the mean becames +0.1% and the margin of error 5.3%.
Victoria,
yup, sorry i was referring someone buying an existing home after implementation?
Jeff
The counter terrorism unit in Melbourne are simply doing their job.
Palmer paid for sugar-hit relevance and Morrison bought it. Shorten knows his Lady Gaga.
https://youtu.be/oqMgUI7XQ3k
Jeff
From what I can tell, existing properties purchased after policy implentation can no longer be negatively geared. I stand to be corrected
Clive to Morrison: “Now we’re partners, you pay the f… ing workers.”
Remember: this is according to Palmer. Labor probably asked him to preference them over the Libs and he’s turned it into a full-blown negotiation.
But that is almost beside the point, which is surely that whoever negotiated with whom, the Libs gave a better deal to UAP than Labor may or may not have been prepared to offer.
Victoria,
And maybe they are? we wont know until after the election… But i am sure the PM will be all over it with his puffy chest out on prime time TV tonight? Could be wrong….
Jane Norman? There is this header to her tweet… but it could have been more specific in explaining where the attached Coalition media release came from…
“Only” two debates? Howard in 2007 agreed to…. one debate.
jeff
Unless they are new builds.
Of course we won’t know until the legislation is passed, but if you’re going to throw in that quibble, it was a bit pointless asking the question.
When I was in Hobart, I saw a Cliver Palmer’s Make Australia Great poster and some person sprayed, Make Australia Great for swindlers like me.
Jeff
From what has been reported, a man was inside Anglican church in North Melbourne wearing a white forensic suit. Not sure if the staff at church called for help, or police were already aware of this person etc.
jeff @ #386 Friday, April 26th, 2019 – 3:44 pm
Jeff,
Any rental property that shows a loss after non-interest expenses is such an abysmal investment that it is difficult to even imagine.
All that is required is that the additional, newly entered into, investment property is accounted for separately from any other sources of income and the expenses associated with those other sources. If there is a loss on such a new investment property, it can be carried forward, and applied against profits in later years. The new rules only apply, in the future, to real estate purchases of existing (not newly built, not previously occupied) properties.
I think Shorten is right to have just 2 debates. Can you imagine the ratings for a third debate?
Jeff
Here is one report
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-26/counter-terrorism-operation-in-north-melbourne/11049274
Tristo
Saw one in Sydney saying Make [first] Australia[ns] Great.
Greensborough Growler @ #380 Friday, April 26th, 2019 – 3:35 pm
He’s all like “Don’t touch me! STOP TOUCHING ME!!!”. With his eyes.
Here’s a good overview of the proposed negative gearing changes —
https://www.domain.com.au/advice/what-is-negative-gearing-and-what-are-labors-proposed-changes-797586/
And for clarification —
‘If elected, Labor proposes to limit negative gearing to new housing only. ‘
Here’s one of those out takes much loved by some. I think this is from MAFS.
Yabba
Thank you for your reply.
On your point “Any rental property that shows a loss after non-interest expenses is such an abysmal investment that it is difficult to even imagine.”, but this is exactly what occurs now and why there is a need to change it.
It is not that the “investment” is a loss, it is that the owners of said investment claim all their own expenses against the investment, you know, fridges, tv, ovens etc to ensure it makes a loss and drives down their taxable income – hence the rip off to other tax payers.
Your other comments are very helpful – thank you.
Zoomster? not sure about your comments about a quibble? Was actually a genuine question. I support the changes, based on my understanding of them, just need some clarification. I don’t accept the premise that “we won’t know until the legislation is passed”. A policy like this would contain that level of detail for sure, you could not do economic modelling for it if not.
Kimberley Kitching
Verified account
@kimbakit
13m13 minutes ago
More Kimberley Kitching Retweeted Nine News Queensland
Scott Morrison’s “Liberal” govt is paying a Liquidator to sue Clive Palmer for $500 million and has referred Palmer to ASIC
Clive Palmer has called Morrison a Nazi
Morrison is so desperate for preferences, he’s willing to elect Palmer to the Senate #auspol #ausvotes19
Just saw Patricia Karvelas struggle at trying to figure out what Scott Morrison’s agenda is for the next 3 years.
Sums it up really, Liberals are doing small target, lots of words about Labor but nothing much else.
Zoomster – thank you for that link, exactly what i was after, i can share around now!
The problem with debates between Ministers and Shadow Ministers is that the Coalition is a one man band because the factional divides sees Ministers who will not be in the parliament post the election because they have resigned still Ministers in this dysfunctional “government”.
So, what is Ad Man from Mad Men’s Cabinet line up he is taking to the election?
Imagine the response of media if this was the position with Labor.
They would be crucified.
Who are you voting for as an incoming government?
The problem the Liberals have as I am told is that Ad Man from Mad Men has the vote of 12 in the current Party Room.
So who and what are we voting for?
Wilson, as the senior IPA operative in the lower house (by self description) sees himself as the Liberal Party Leader – and in the next month.
I’ve been waiting all day for our right wing media luvvies to say something about the Sudanese background woman murdered by her red headed boyfriend and dumped in middle 0f city.
Apparently he is a schizophrenic, so there is that.
If it were a Sudanese man who had done this to his red headed girlfriend, me somehow thinks he being mentally unwell, would be irrelevant, and people like Anning would be yelling fr0m the rooftops.
Wilson sees himself as the next Mike Nahan.
Victoria – have you caught my cynicism disease 😉 – sorry it is contagious
Jeff
When it comes to maligning Sudanese people, our right wing pollies and MSM are quick to do so at any opportunity. When they are the victim of crime, not so much. Just stating a fact
Victoria
Couldn’t agree with you more
jeff @ #419 Friday, April 26th, 2019 – 4:19 pm
Jeff, losses are made after interest expense is subtracted, not before. People borrow 80% on properties, and get their interest expenses subsidised by avoiding tax on other income. That is what the term ‘negative gearing’ means. Gearing is borrowing. The gearing ratio is the ratio of borrowing to the total investment/funds employed. I have written books on this and related topics, and given numerous university courses. I used to teach advanced financial management to Institute of Chartered Accountants PY and ongoing education students.
Victoria @ #424 Friday, April 26th, 2019 – 4:28 pm
More importantly than his illness is the fact that he was not taking his anti-psychotic medication to control his symptoms.
How can this occur? He was recently discharged from hospital. Were there no arrangements in place to ensure he took his medication? Rhetorical question, all too often there is not and tragedy ensues.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5DzvAwUYAALnTZ?format=jpg&name=medium
EGW
It’s a difficult one. Many people say they are taking meds, but are not being honest. People take what they say on face value.
What do you do?
From the AEC’s FAQs about Voting in Australia:
Now I know it would look funny for them to say openly “look, there’ll be some instructions on the ballot paper but you don’t have to follow them”, but this is also odd – an over-dogmatic “must be met” which they later explain doesn’t really mean “must”, and a hint that there is a risk of your vote not being counted when in fact if you do 1 above or 6 below there is no risk at all.
I wonder if their staff will be as badly trained as last time, and will be telling people to number exactly 6 above or 12 below, displaying (i) an inability to understand the words “at least” (unforgivable!) and (ii) total ignorance of the existence of the savings provision (understandable, in view of the AEC’s embarrassment about it)?
The next newspoll will have our great LNP in front by 51/49 and that will win them the May 18 election …
Shorten should resign now and put Albo in charge to win the 2022 election
Victoria @ #432 Friday, April 26th, 2019 – 4:42 pm
If they are thought to be at risk of being non-compliant, then they need to be supervised by their local community mental health service.
De-institutionalisation was supposed to provide for this. It has been a sham.
Jeff
In regards the loss from a Negatively Geared property (Negative gearing being a LOSS), the major cost base by a long, long way is the interest on borrowings cost.
Land Tax, Insurance, Council Rates, Water Supply and Repairs and Maintenance are minimal compared to the Interest cost (noting that, as a LOSS is the reason for the purchase, the debt is Interest Only because why reduce your cost base when the reason for entering into the transaction is to make a LOSS?)
To satisfy the Loan to Valuation Ratio required by the Lender, “equity” (including Capital Gain and ANY repayment of the original debt) in another property is offered as collateral security.
So, if interest rates rise (as they will do in a functioning economy – so not the economy we have now) OR if there is a fall in property values (as we have seen over the last 18 months and continue to see), servicing (so income alternate to the income from the negative geared property because that returns a LOSS) and the LVR will be reviewed by the Lender, annually.
This could very well see Lending Covenants breached and forced sales.
Further, in the current climate, there is no guarantee the Interest Only Lending facility will be extended, instead offered on a Principal plus Interest basis over normal commercial terms, so 5 years or 10 years maximum (these are not residential homes where 25 and 30 years are on offer – this is COMMERCIAL lending).
The principal reductions are NOT tax deductible.
As with Reverse Mortgages, there are many, many questions to be addressed.
The days of going to your friendly Lender or Mortgage Broker and saying “buy a house for me so I can get rich off increases in property values” – NOT debt reduction – are gone and we await the fall out.
Many of those with Negative Gearing as a feature of their Statement of Position are simply not rich enough to be there.
On the other hand, Investors (so NOT speculators) have “hurt money” in the purchase, so an actual cash contribution, meaning they are positively geared PLUS they repay the debt – the objective being that the Investment contributes to their Income (except if there is a period of vacancy).
They also do not offer collateral security – because the transaction is stand alone both in regards LVR and servicing.
The mortgage will, however, include Personal Covenant Clauses, so the lender can attack any other asset including the family home.
Many do not realize this.
So, at the start of the real campaign, for the entire day, the front page item #1 topic in the SMH has been whether Shorten will debate ScoMo, or not… and how this “looks”.
FFS, we have a trivial media.
EGW
The full circumstances of the matter has not been reported. Who knows if he was being supervised or not
Trivial is an understatement BB
Trivial and compliant. As someone posted earlier – todays topic was led by the Coalitions media release.
WayneFakeNews# has surfaced again, unhinged as ever.
Observer
Negatively gearing does work to reduce taxable income, and at the same time have the investment grow in value to offset the high repayments.
As you say, those days are well and truly gone.
Steve Davis
Your the unhinged person I have ever known and pls shut your mouth till you have something nice to say
Wayne @ #438 Friday, April 26th, 2019 – 4:54 pm
Um, Wayne, you can’t tell people to do that. It’s not your blog. 🙂
Wayne,
*You’re
Formatting tip for anyone who uses (blockquote) (where the brackets are angled of course) but doesn’t like the look of the quotes being all in italics (assuming I’m not the only one who’s so fussy). After the blockquote tag do an end-italics tag and then if you want anything emphasised within the quote you can use the usual start and end italics tags. Just tried it in my quote from the AEC above. Also did a start italics before the end-blockquote but not sure if that was necessary.
Nath:
I’m sure we won’t have to imagine your rating
Victoria @ #442 Friday, April 26th, 2019 – 4:51 pm
Yes.
Negative gearing is taxpayers subsidizing someone’s loss-making investment whilst they play speculator on real-estate prices.
It’s reasonable for people who want to speculate on real-estate to have to cover their own costs in all situations. It’s reasonable enough to do that in all cases except where the speculator has made a positive contribution to housing supply by building a new property instead of grabbing an existing one. Labor’s policy is the latter thing.
Wayne, if you’re not unhinged you have a very childish sense of humour. In fact I have long suspected that you are actually a child. Now you’ve revealed that you’re an over-sensitive child. I’m so glad you’re not one of mine.
a r
Agreed