Contrary to expectations it might put its head above the parapet with today’s resumption of parliament, there is still no sign of Newspoll – or indeed any other polling series, at least so far as voting intention is concerned. Essential Research, however, is maintaining its regular polling schedule, but so far it’s been attitudinal polling only. The latest set of results was published in The Guardian on Friday, and it encompasses Essential’s leadership ratings series, which I relate here on a better-late-than-never basis. Featured are the first published ratings for Anthony Albanese, of 35% approval and 25% disapproval, compared with 38% and 44% in the pollster’s final pre-election reading for Bill Shorten.
To put this into some sort of perspective, the following table (click on image to enlarge) provides comparison with Newspoll’s debut results for opposition leaders over the past three decades. The only thing it would seem safe to conclude from this is that Albanese’s numbers aren’t terribly extraordinary one way or the other.
Scott Morrison’s post-election bounce lifts him five points on approval to 48%, with disapproval down three to 36%, and he leads Albanese 43-25 on preferred prime minister, compared with 39-32 for Shorten’s late result. Also featured are questions on tax cuts (with broadly negative responses to the government policy, albeit that some of the question framing is a little slanted for mine), trust in various media outlets (results near-identical to those from last October, in spite of everything), and various indigenous issues (including a finding that 57% would vote yes in a constitutional recognition referendum, compared with 34% for no). The poll was conducted June 19 to June 23 from an online sample of 1079.
Elsewhere in poll-dom:
• Australian Market and Social Research Organisations has established an advisory board and panel for its inquiry into the pollster failure, encompassing an impressive roll call of academics, journalists and statisticians. Ipsos would appear to be the only major Australian polling concern that’s actually a member of AMSRO, but the organisation has “invited a publisher representative from each of Nine Entertainment (Sydney Morning Herald/The Age) and NewsCorp to join the advisory board”.
• A number of efforts have now been made to reverse-engineer a polling trend measure for the last term, using the actual results from 2016 and 2019 as anchoring points. The effort of Simon Jackman and Luke Mansillo at the University of Sydney was noted here last week. Mark the Ballot offers three models – one anchored to the 2016 result, which lands low for the Coalition in 2019, but still higher than what the polls were saying); one anchored to the 2019 result, designed to land on the mark for 2019, but resulting in a high reading for the Coalition in 2016; and, most instructively, one anchored to both, which is designed to land on the mark at both elections. Kevin Bonham offers various approaches that involve polling going off the rails immediately or gradually after the leadership change, during the election campaign, or combinations thereof.
Cry Baby Chalmers is there only because of Qld. The sort of craven behavior exhibited in the Rudd revelation is a bit of a worry. I feel he will fold under pressure, and probably cry.
I’m guessing this is partly due to the lack of certainty on their reasons. Perhaps, as during the campaign, this has not been laid out clearly enough.
briefly @ #1054 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 8:53 am
Lambie was elected by Tasmanians to deliver for them.
Labor partisans should understand that before tearing her to pieces.
nath @ #1095 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:22 am
Taking Rudds word as gospel is fraught with danger. Just saying…
Lars Von Trier @ #1093 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:21 am
You might well want to answer that question as well.
I’m trying, as I was simply attempting to do with Nicholas, however the job is made harder when others just use it as an opportunity to take a free kick in my direction.
RD
Apparently Katter is happy with Lambie’s leverage – the power of the cross bench in action and all that.
These Q&A from Chalmers with Speers are illuminating.
SPEERS: I mention that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard will both be here. This is a bit of a moment, because we haven’t seen the two of them I don’t think in the same room since their fallout. You of course were there through all of that as a staff member. How significant is this? They’re putting that to one side today.
CHALMERS: I think it’s terrific that they’ll both be here today, and both of them are doing amazing work on the campaign trail. I pay tribute to both of them. Kevin’s been doing a lot of stuff in Sydney and Melbourne particularly in our multicultural communities, and Julia as well. In the Labor team, we are united and stable and steady and experienced and ready to deliver a fair go for our country.
SPEERS: Is there some irony in the fact that Bill Shorten did play a hand in the demise of Kevin Rudd and a hand in the demise of Julia Gillard, now here they are helping make him Prime Minister?
CHALMERS: I just don’t see it that way, David.
SPEERS: Of course you don’t!
CHALMERS: It’s good to see that they’re both doing a power of work for the good Labor cause.
SPEERS: On wages, I get that you want to restore the penalty rates for retail, hospitality and pharmacy workers. You want to do more on the minimum wages, there’s no guarantee that will go up. Is there anything more that you can say to ordinary workers out there as to whether wages really will go up under Labor?
CHALMERS: Yes there is and Bill will be saying some more about that in his speech. It would be career-limiting for me to try to steal my boss’s thunder.
Rex Douglas @ #1096 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:24 am
Good luck with believing she has done that. All she has got is a promise to maybe do something she wants in the future. Maybe.
C@tmomma @ #1102 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:27 am
Should I take your word for that… ?
What does Labor stand for? It’s obvious why ordinary citizens don’t know.
Thy name is equivocation.
Lars Von Trier @ #1100 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:27 am
So, you’re going to keep trotting that out at every opportunity? How pathetic.
Though I must thank you for laying out so clearly what your true modus operandi is. 🙂
Rex Douglas @ #1102 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:29 am
You don’t have to. Time will tell. Also the words of Cormann are self-explanatory. But, hey, go me till the cows come home if it makes you feel better. 🙂
Pegasus @ #1103 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:29 am
Could you please let me know if there were any Amendments to the Bill that The Greens proposed? Or did they just take the easy way out and vote against it in its entirety? Money for jam for The Greens Senators I reckon.
Labor would be wise to not waste time on the humiliation in the senate today and just have Wong deliver a single speech on the tax reforms then abstain from any votes.
They need to move on from this immediately.
Rex Douglas @ #1097 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:26 am
Do you really think the nath grub cares!?! He has his 4×2 to beat Labor over the head with for another 3 years. That’s all he cares about.
C@tmomma @ #1106 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:31 am
Relax, I’ve no interest in attacking you.
My comments relate to Labor on this issue.
Rex Douglas @ #1109 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:35 am
*thumbsupemoji*
c@t
Labor don’t have a majority in HOR and senate and yet we have those on this blog and elsewhere believing Labor have power to make wholes changes to policy. This election has seen Labor’s power further reduced.
All the railing against labor is bullshit hot air
Rex Douglas:
The facts are, those who are most deserving of the tax cuts will get them. The on-the-nose third round can be reviewed at the appropriate time. One government can’t hold another to its legislation.
Rex Douglas @ #1091 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:13 am
They need to come up with a reason why people should support Labor instead of the Coalition. Before the election Labor was already essentially in lock-step with the Coalition on anything you could hit with “national security” and “immigration” labels. And since the election we’ve had:
1. A highly publicized fight between Labor and the Unions.
2. A Labor state government rushing through approvals for coal mining in QLD.
3. Labor MP’s voting in favor of the Coalition’s entire tax plan.
4. A Liberal state government pledging to hit 100% renewables by 2030 in SA.
So add tax, environment, and Unions to national security and immigration. Where’s the point of difference between the two major parties? It’s hard to tell at this point.
Maybe they’ll at least oppose whatever “religious freedom” nonsense Morrison puts forward and fight to keep Medivac alive? I sure hope so.
If Labor’s main selling point is not being the Coalition they need to go super-hard on stuff like “we’re not corrupt like those guys and won’t fuck up water management and kill all the fish like they’re doing and will have a Federal ICAC”. You shouldn’t be able to turn on the news without seeing a story about some Labor MP publicly accusing some Coalition MP of corruption, incompetence, or some other rort and demanding a Federal ICAC with full powers to investigate and punish any government person who’s done anything in the past 10 years or so.
Victoria @ #1111 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:38 am
Yeah, I know. They just take any opportunity to grind their axes against the Labor Party.
Let alone the dropkicks on Twitter. They aren’t going to vote for Labor any more because Labor aren’t the government apparently. 😐
Cat
The Greens oppose the bill. The Greens, as did Labor, knew the Coalition would not split the bill.
If the Greens had put up an amendment or two, I would hazard a guess both the Coalition and Labor would have voted against them, as they usually do.
If the Greens had put up an amendment or two that didn’t dovetail with Labor’s amendments, I hazard a guess you would be vocal in your anti-Greens rhetoric.
Pegasus @ #1115 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:42 am
Did The Greens at least vote for Labor’s Amendments to the Bill? I think the answer is no. Because. Purity.
Mavis Davis @ #1113 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:38 am
Well, personally I’m against any tax cuts.
I’d prefer Govt close tax loopholes for business and remove subsidies for environmental polluters to free up funding to generate green jobs and infrastructure..
MD
Those people living in poverty with income below the tax threshold will get nothing.
But then they are the “undeserving layabout dole bludgers” and other assorted maligned minority whose votes are unimportant and who do not need to be pandered to, unlike the minority of swinging voters in a few marginal seats.
a r @ #1114 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:40 am
Couldn’t agree more.
I don’t want to see the likes of Stephen Jones for instance on tv trying to happily say hate speech is just part of multiculturalism.
Victoria says:
Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 9:38 am
The Government doesn’t have a majority in the Senate, so if Labor is able generate sufficient crossbench support it is able to amend legislation there.
Rex Douglas @ #1118 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:45 am
This is the tack Labor need to take now.
Barney in Makassar @ #1121 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:50 am
Obviously they weren’t able to because CA and Lambie are cheap dates for the Coalition.
Cormann: ‘Do you want fries with that, Jacqui?’ 😐
C@tmomma @ #1123 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 9:50 am
That’s the tack the Greens party have been taking for yrs.
The Guardian:
The tax debate has started in the Senate. It will go on until 11.45am, when the notices of motion pop up.
That will go for an hour. Then it’s back to tax. Then question time at 2pm. Then back to tax at 3.30pm until the bitter end.
157 million!!
It’s a third of a splash to mates and spivs to save the Reef being listed as endangered.
It’s a joke. An aside. Morrison and Freiberg will be pissing themselves laughing behind her back.
Rex Douglas:
[‘Well, personally I’m against any tax cuts.’]
I’m okay with the first round. The question is whether those who’ll receive the cut will spend them, the economy in dire need of stimulus, there being little left the RBA can do. Anyway, I’m out of here.
Why on earth would The Greens propose amendments when they’re against the bill’s substance? Any amendment to make it palatable to them and their supporters would have been defeated.
Even though I and my family will benefit financially from these cuts, I don’t want them. I don’t need them. Raise Newstart instead, or give one-off tax bonuses to everyone earning under $150k to stimulate the economy. Don’t lock in this structural loss of revenue which will be the basis for future cuts, and hand-wringing. We all know that Labor will never, ever, reverse the stage 3 measures when / if they next form government.
And now if the ALP ultimately vote against it in the Senate, after supporting it in the Reps, that just looks amateur hour. Whoever is running their playbook should be sacked, put on the first flight out of Canberra, and preferably sent far far away to do something that better fits their level of incompetence, such as running the NSW ALP.
Mavis Davis says:
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 . How did you keep a straight face while typing that ?
No one should be surprised that the Senate will pass the Liberal’s proposals. The Senate is conservative. This will get worse.
The most important immediate result is there will be no fiscal stimulus for the economy. Recession will ensue. It will prove to be very difficult to arrest. There already is recession in many places and it appears the Victorian economy is also decelerating. The Liberals will look forward to this with alacrity.
Heaps of time for MPs without proper training or independent guidance to figure out the implications of such a large change to the tax structure.
Stuff committees, just give my state some millions (maybe) and some sort of pinky promise of an airy fairy gas reservation policy and happy to forgo my duties as a senator. Too much like hard work anyway. Gotta go, here comes Matthias, he wants a chat about a bridge I am interested in and a timeshare GC apartment. What a guy.
Progressive income tax is about to be undone. This is attributable to dysfunction on the centre-left as much as to the ideological ambitions of the Right.
If the budget runs into the Red the Liberals will propose two remedies. First, they will cut social spending. They will set out to undo what remains of the programs of Hawke and Gough. And then they will propose an increase in GST.
In the meantime they will intensify their exploitation of environmental issues and the unions. This will set the scene for their further political attacks on Labor – attacks that will succeed with the aid of the Greens.
This is plain as day.
briefly @ #1139 Thursday, July 4th, 2019 – 10:12 am
My good friend Blind Freddie sees it too….except for the loony Green bit…..
Lambie has done well. She’s going to be depicted as the Senator for tax cuts. She’s a winner.
I thought that Labor said that they wanted to see the full details (including effects) of the tax ‘relief’ before voting???
Victoria
Wonderfully expressed!
mundo…the Bob Brown handbook requires the Greens to campaign for the destruction of Labor. This has been working so far for them. They will continue to follow the handbook.
Notably, no Green has ever disputed that this is their goal. Never once. The truth stands.
@briefly
An increase in the rate of the GST would benefit the states, since currently they receive all of the GST revenue.
Abbott and Hockey will look like try hards compared to Morrison.
John Falzon – If Australians want a fairer society, we must unite to protect one another
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/04/empathy-is-more-useful-than-fear-in-the-fight-for-progress
Tristo says:
Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 10:20 am
@briefly
An increase in the rate of the GST would benefit the states, since currently they receive all of the GST revenue.
The Liberals will declare that Commonwealth funding in health and education will be terminated, as applied before Gough. They will return responsibility to the States and fund it by increasing indirect taxation….and will likely further cut income taxes at the same time.
Count on it.
“Labor’s dilemma on the tax cuts a la Guardian:
Why is what Labor will do in the tax bill important, considering its vote is meaningless, at least as far as the legislation matters?
It’s all about the next election. And while that is a good three years away now, the decision Labor makes will impact what it decides to do in the next term, if there is a change of government.
Repealing a tax cut you helped legislate is not a great sell, politically. Hence the wringing of hands within caucus. But then to vote for it is to overturn six years of policy foundation. To not vote for it means not voting for stage one and two, which everyone is in agreement about.
Cool beans.”
I think Rex is right. Labor should obstain on the final vote, making it clear that legislating for tax cuts to take place in 5 years time is reckless.
I also think that for the next 2-3 years Labor should propose bringing forward the stage 2 cuts it is advocating to start this week and not in 2022: this puts pressure on the Government to deliver tax cuts that all Australians could use immediately, and take away from the focus on the aspirational cuts that will only every benefit the top decile in 5 years time. Ultimately, economic reality will hit the Government and I expect that next year there will be another round of cuts to help stimulate the economy. Labor can then claim credit for this.
As to what hand Labor should play at the heal of the hunt in late 2021 or early 2022 regarding both the Turnbull tax cuts and now the Morrison tax cuts that are due in 2024 I think labor should keep its powder dry for now: no doubt every mewing CPG hack that’s in the thrawl of the tories and on the PMO drip (that would be all of them) will only ever ask one question of Labor over the next 3 years – “will you increase taxes on working Australians by repealing the legislated tax cuts” or some variation of the same, but labor should simply bat these questions away, saying “we remain concerned as to the responsibility of these tax cuts given the economic climate and will make up our mind before the election at a time of our choosing”. Repeated ad nauseum.
Ultimately, Labor is probably stuck with the tax cuts and it would be suicide to promise to reappear them before the election, or repeal them having promised not to after the election.
I note the pessimism by various commentators along the lines that the tax cuts take Australia back to the 1950s / they have stuffed the National accounts for 15 years / they can only be paid for by austerity and cuts cuts cuts to services. Of course, there are at least two alternatives open to any in coming Labor governments to fund its programs and agenda, even with these tax cuts.
Firstly, as Nicholas advocates, deficit spending. Leaving aside economic theory for the moment, the problem I perceive with this is that it would be political poison. Australians believe as an article of faith that a good government is one that “balances the books”, “debt & deficit” = disaster, “Labor can’t manage money” and other tropes.
Secondly, whilst the May 2019 election probably stands for the proposition that oppositions wont be politically rewarded by promising to take money away from people, no matter how well thought out, targeted and justified those policies are. However, I don’t think that well thought out, targeted and justified revenue measures taken whilst in government are by any means verboten. There was an article recently that identified $160 billion per annum of tax expenditures and concessions that favour wealthy Australians and large corporations. Franking credits and negative gearing is only a small part of the whole basket that could be targeted by a revenue expenditure revenue committee of cabinet, once labor forms government: so long as any measures don’t appear to amount to some fundamental breach of some promise then these type of changes are politically doable, imo.
The bottom line for labor is to hold the government to account for the omnishambles of its own making and hold out a sensible, hopeful modest program of measures as the alternative. If Labor projects itself as a safe pair of hands and the economy is ratshit then it should actually win in 2022.