Essential Research and Resolve Strategic offer further numbers on budget polling, both tending to support Newspoll’s impression of a lukewarm response to the budget, and one — or possibly two, with Resolve Strategic to be confirmed — also supporting its finding of no discernible impact on voting intention.
What we have so far from Essential Research is a report in The Guardian relating that its 2PP+ measure of voting intention has Labor steady on 53% and the Coalition up one to 42%, with the remainder undecided; Anthony Albanese up three on approval to 54% and down two on disapproval to 35%; and Peter Dutton steady on approval at 36% and up one on disapproval to 45%. For primary votes will have to wait for the pollster’s publication of its full results later today.
The poll found 24% expecting the government would be good for them personally, which presumably had a corresponding result for bad that will also have to wait for the full report. Only limited numbers felt it would create jobs (33%), reduce debt (29%), reduce cost-of-living pressures (26%), whereas 46% felt it would “create long-term problems that will need to be fixed in the future”. Respondents were most likely to rate that the budget would be good for people receiving government payments and least likely to younger Australians and “average working people”.
There was also a forced response questions on the Indigenous Voice and a republic, the former finding the margin from yes in to 59-41 from 60-40 a month ago, with small state sub-samples finding recording big leads in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, but an even balance in Queensland and Western Australia. The republic question, which apparently left the devil undetailed, broke 54-46 in favour. The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1080.
The Resolve Strategic poll in the Age/Herald, which will presumably follow up with voting intention results fairly short, seemingly produced the most favourable results for the budget, with 31% saying it would be good for them and their household compared with 26% for bad; 44% good for the country with 17% for bad; 36% good for the health of the economy with 15% for bad; and 39% good for “rebuilding a healthy budget” with 17% for bad. Similarly to Essential Research, it found respondents were most likely to see the budget as good for the less fortunate and disadvantaged, with 56% for good and 14% for poor, but it substantially more positive results for both older people (48% good and 17% bad) and younger people (39% and 17%).
Respondents were asked about twelve specific items in the budget, finding majority support for all but two: limiting growth in NDIS spending to 8% a year, which still recorded a net positive result with 37% in favour and 17% opposed, and facilities for the Brisbane Olympics and Tasmanian AFL, which were supported by 27% and opposed by 37%. The most popular measure was the spending on Medicare to encourage bulk billing, at 81% in favour and 5% opposed, with funding for a wage increase for aged care workers, energy bill relief and doubling of medicine prescription periods recording between 73% and 75% support. The poll was conducted Wednesday to Saturday from a sample of 1610.
UPDATE (Essential Research): Essential Research voting intention numbers are here and the full report here. The former’s primary votes are very strong for Labor, suggesting the static 2PP+ numbers relied on a change in respondent-allocated preferences: Labor are up two 35%, the Coalition are down one to 31%, the Greens are steady on 14%, One Nation are steady on 5% and the United Australia Party is down one to 1%. Further, the report allows comparison of the budget response with five budgets going back to 2020, which makes the numbers look better than at first blush. Twenty-four per cent for “good for you personally” is about par for the course; the 41% and 37% for “good for people on lower incomes” and “good for older Australians” are comfortably the strongest results out of five budgets going back to 2020; 46% for “place unnecessary burdens on future generations” is the best result of the five.
@WWP: If the other members of the Big 4 were doing it, they are doing a much better job of keeping it quiet, because people will be looking out for evidence of it. Evidence such as PWC created by the ton because to make a crust off the illicit information they had to promote to prospective clients what they were doing
In the absence of evidence I wouldn’t assume the other 3 of the big 4 were as daft as PWC thinking that they could do this and not get caught.
Good to see the RBA in action, rents have gone up, so they are putting up interest rates, that will encourage the further increasing in rents and if they are really lucky they can make a rent inflation spiral that will force thousands of thousands out of homes and onto the street so Labor can setup a spiv fund that has to pay interest and gamble on the markets to maybe fund housing in the future and the greens and try and stop any housing from actually being built through selfish privilege and the ugliest and stupidest nimbyism.
How good is late democracy neo-feudal almost unregulated capitalism Australian style!
[‘One Nation leader Pauline Hanson asked an appeal court to overturn a defamation decision ordering her to pay former senator Brian Burston $250,000 in damages, despite a judge finding she had proven he sexually harassed two female staff members.
Burston, a former One Nation senator and later leader of Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party in the Senate, launched defamation proceedings against Hanson in June 2020 over comments Hanson made in a 2019 Facebook post, a television interview on Nine’s Today program and a text to his wife. He split from One Nation in 2018.
Burston’s claim was successful in relation to the Today interview.
In a decision last year, Federal Court Justice Robert Bromwich found Burston sexually harassed two former staff members, but Hanson had gone further on Today and accused him of “sexual abuse” against a female staff member and physically assaulting Hanson’s chief of staff, James Ashby, “without provocation”.’] – SMH
Hanson can give it (see, for example, her remark to Faruqi: “Piss off back to Pakistan.”) but can’t take it, though she & Burtson are two of a kind.
@WWP – much as I agree that the RBA has the shoe on the wrong foot at the moment, that rant feels a couple of weeks behind schedule? The rate rise was 2 weeks ago.
Strictly speaking, I think Hanson has a case. Even if she overstated what Burston did, how much damage has Burston actually suffered from being called a sexual abuser instead of a sexual harasser in one interview?
One of those “how much good reputation did he even have to lose” situations.
66% of Australians live in owner occupier dwellings.
Basically the fed election before last demonstrated that both of the majors need to pocket a substantial number of those foods to form government.
A fair swag of young people who are renting but whose parents are owner occupiers would aspire to inherit the houses of the olds. They will follow the housing money and will resist attempts at transferring wealth from owners to renters.
The Greens political strategy is to nibble away at a few more inner urbs rental strongholds so that they can achieve in the House what they are achieving in the Senate: block.
Blocking housing for 60,000 homeless men, women and children? Blocking housing development in their NIMBY strongholds? Hypocrisy is not a problem.
Not an ethical problem. Being consistently in bed with Dutton, Littleproud and Hanson? Routinely sleeping with dogs is not an ethical problem.
Getting into bed with Price on Indigenous Housing? Not an ethical problem.
Running dead on the Voice? Not an ethical problem.
Gimme the money or I’ll shoot the kids. For their own good.
“The Greens underperforming. Much?”
It is what they are best at, they have everything running in their favour (economy and climate) over 20 years, and they’ve done next to nothing with all that advantage.
“@WWP – much as I agree that the RBA has the shoe on the wrong foot at the moment, that rant feels a couple of weeks behind schedule? The rate rise was 2 weeks ago.”
Yeah it is behind schedule. I missed it at the time, and I don’t know if someone has written something new that I saw today, or if I saw today something they’d written two weeks ago.
“In the absence of evidence I wouldn’t assume the other 3 of the big 4 were as daft as PWC thinking that they could do this and not get caught.”
I guess the evidence I’m using is having worked for them, and subsequently with them as a client. It is possible that the other three lacked someone as capable as Peter Collins (and so didn’t have a full opportunity to misbehave in the first place), it is also possible the other three were smarter about hiding it.
I don’t remember seeing how PwC got caught in the first place, that would be interesting.
WeWantPaul says:
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:22 pm
“The Greens underperforming. Much?”
It is what they are best at, they have everything running in their favour (economy and climate) over 20 years, and they’ve done next to nothing with all that advantage.
中华人民共和国
To be fair to the Greens, as I often am, they are blocking Social Housing. Especially in the Electorates they represent.
Curious what other bludgers (Team Katich, a r, Socrates, Up North, et al) Think about the morals of going off-grid. In my situation, in a year I will export 2 ½ time the electricity I import, yet still have to pay an electricity bill. From a purely financial perspective, I could buy batteries and go completely off-grid.
The service charge (basically for the transport of electricity by poles & wires) is the killer, and I feel hard done by, as I don’t use this transportation of electricity to anywhere near the extent of my non solar neighbours, in fact the power companies profit from on-selling my clean, green electricity via my grid connection.
So while I would personally profit from going off-grid, I worry that others, without the option of going solar, would end up paying a much higher price for electricity if large numbers of people go off-grid, as less electricity would be generated forcing the price up.
When does the hip pocket over-rule our own morals?
I understand ScoMo had a short term gig with a Big4 – KPMG. But only because of maaates.
He was trying to build a tourism consulting practice based on his ‘expertise’, and Liberal Party links.
They wised up to him quick smart, and let him go.
In 1998, Morrison moved to New Zealand as the inaugural director of the newly created Office of Tourism and Sport, reporting directly to NZ tourism minister Murray McCully. The two entered a widely reported power struggle with the independent NZ Tourism Board. In a 1999 report, NZ auditor-general criticised Morrison’s role, particularly his commissioning and handling of a report critical of the board. These events have been detailed in The Saturday Paper.
Returning to Australia, a year before his contract was up, Morrison took up a what appears to have been a short-lived stint at KPMG Consulting, where people in the industry said he was “knocking on doors trying to drum up work”.
The common thread here appears to be Tony Clark, former New South Wales MD for KPMG (he stepped down in 1998). Clark was famously John Howard’s golfing partner and was subsequently also a supporter of Tony Abbott when prime minister and was an attendee at Abbott’s post-budget “Jesuit old boys” dinner. Clark was at the same time serving as a long-time deputy chairman at Tourism Australia and its predecessor body the Australian Tourist Commission.
Clark did not respond to a request for comment. Requests to both Morrison’s office and KPMG to detail his time there, went unanswered.
https://dingo.news/voice/comment-a-closer-look-at-scott-morrisons-cv/
Stephen Koukoulas @TheKouk
The dog’s breakfast that is the RBA Board is at it again. Now it’s services inflation in focus and the reason why it hiked in May.
Huh? The target is inflation. Goods and services. It is making stuff up as it goes along and the economy is suffering as a result.
“The service charge (basically for the transport of electricity by poles & wires) is the killer, and I feel hard done by, as I don’t use this transportation of electricity to anywhere near the extent of my non solar neighbours, in fact the power companies profit from on-selling my clean, green electricity via my grid connection.
So while I would personally profit from going off-grid, I worry that others, without the option of going solar, would end up paying a much higher price for electricity if large numbers of people go off-grid, as less electricity would be generated forcing the price up.
When does the hip pocket over-rule our own morals?”
It is the fault of the very slow policy development at state and federal level, but the more people try to go ‘off grid’ where the grid goes past the driveway the more likely it will be that the service charge will need to be applied anyway. State Govts should really already have that kind of policy in place.
Obviously farmers and remote communities are unlikely to face this charge.
Also with two teams in Australian politics both working for the elite, and one team a nimby team that is barely working for itself, there is some chance you’d get away with it.
But putting it all together in my view you shouldn’t feel a moral obligation to account for the incompetence of policy by staying connected where being disconnected is currently financially advantageous. This has been coming for decades and it is on those responsible for policy developmnet not you.
Justin from Geelong says:
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:36 pm
Curious what other bludgers (Team Katich, a r, Socrates, Up North, et al) Think about the morals of going off-grid. In my situation, in a year I will export 2 ½ time the electricity I import, yet still have to pay an electricity bill. From a purely financial perspective, I could buy batteries and go completely off-grid.
The service charge (basically for the transport of electricity by poles & wires) is the killer, and I feel hard done by, as I don’t use this transportation of electricity to anywhere near the extent of my non solar neighbours, in fact the power companies profit from on-selling my clean, green electricity via my grid connection.
So while I would personally profit from going off-grid, I worry that others, without the option of going solar, would end up paying a much higher price for electricity if large numbers of people go off-grid, as less electricity would be generated forcing the price up.
When does the hip pocket over-rule our own morals?
中华人民共和国
This is true cobber. When more people go away from the “Common Weal” then those least able to afford the migration, unless Government stands in the market, will pay the price.
I’m in Thailand so it’s muchly different here. But a mate of mine with his Thai family has constructed a new house at Hua Hin (I am the curator of his Cricket Pitch). He built out in the sticks. No town water. No electricity. No wired wifi. Septic for sewerage.
We put in a bore for water, 5G wifi router for wifi (Thailand has excellent communication services) and solar plus battery for electricity. His lives totally unwired. But he can afford it – it cost a bomb!
Down the road the neighbors live off rainwater and bottled drinking water. Bottled gas for cooking and use their mobiles for surfing. Kerosene lamps and some solar for lights. They use an old fashioned out house with a hole in the ground.
They have been to visit my mate (Thais are a friendly bunch) and look in wonder at his TV, Pool, Running Water, flushed Dunny and Air Con (they can’t quite come to grips with cricket).
The “Common Weal” in most of the developed world provides all those services (roads too). But I can see a time that you refer to when for energy there will be the haves and have nots.
Personally cobber, I would push the button and go for it. Your contribution to a carbon neutral future would balance off the loss of “social equity”. But many as you point out won’t be in that position.
There’s a maxim in politics that holds that you don’t make unnecessary enemies – one that DeSantis is obviously unfamiliar with:
[‘Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law Monday banning the state’s public colleges and universities from spending money on diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
“If you look at the way this has actually been implemented across the country, DEI is better viewed as standing for discrimination, exclusion and indoctrination,” DeSantis said during a news conference at New College of Florida in Sarasota. “And that has no place in our public institutions.”
Many institutions across the U.S. have DEI offices aimed at diversifying staff and to promote inclusivity for faculty and students.
The location of the bill signing is notable as DeSantis has targeted New College of Florida to put it in a more conservative direction. Earlier this year, he appointed six new members to the school’s board of trustees, putting conservative allies in control of the board. He accused the school’s leadership of overemphasizing DEI, critical race theory and gender ideology, which he characterized as not “what a liberal arts education should be.”] – NPR
Next he’ll have a public burning of books.
Imagine Angus Taylor being the leader of the Liberal party instead of dutton
Libs have no one in leadership in Sydney or Melbourne and must be affecting potential votes.
The reserve bank was always going to have a vote on the budget. It gets to cast that (politely in July) or rudely in June.
Either way it will have a vote.
Scott plays Imagine by John Lennon and Peter Dutton comes into his tortured mind and images of corrupt media organisations.
In response to DeSantis:
[‘”When you see elected leaders demonizing educators and weaponizing education, it’s a five-alarm fire for democracy,” Irene Mulvey, president of The American Association of University Professors, told Nature. “It [is] important to understand that when governors attack DEI efforts, they completely mischaracterize them to create a straw-man demon that they now have to do away with.”] – Nature.
Hey Justin,
“From a purely financial perspective, I could buy batteries and go completely off-grid.”
Does it really make sense? Batteries are still quite expensive. But you do your calculations for you.
“The service charge (basically for the transport of electricity by poles & wires) is the killer”
It’s not just transport, it’s insurance for if your peak demand exceeds your system’s output or if your system fails.
But, yeah, there is a bigger point regarding how we apportion costs for energy service networks. There’s no clear answers, just more arguments.
Cronus
And still no boost in the polls for Greens either it seems.
This depends. Thanks to Senator Shoebridge, Greens support is way up in Gaza and the West Bank.
Justin from Geelong @ #161 Tuesday, May 16th, 2023 – 1:36 pm
I guess the question is, do you have a moral obligation to support a business that is for profit, but provides critical services?
As more customers move off grid then the power companies that manage the poles and lines have a choice, charge more to the existing customer base, or turn it off (which I think they are legislated against doing).
So if it no longer is a going business concern then we’ll find ourselves back to government run services. The UK Labor party are suggesting that they will re-start a government owned power network that is fully renewable.
I’d say that this outcome would remove the moral obligation, you’ll pay for it via your taxes anyway.
UpNorth,
“Your contribution to a carbon neutral future would balance off the loss of “social equity”.”
I don’t think it would. But I haven’t looked at it in detail. Sounds like an engineering thesis project. Ta.
This seems to gone under the Radar
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-voters-really-think-of-labor-one-year-on-20230515-p5d8k6.html
Albanese heads towards his first anniversary in power with a significant edge over Opposition Leader Peter Dutton as preferred prime minister, leading by 53 to 20 per cent.
While Labor won the election on May 21 last year with just 32.6 per cent of the primary vote and a narrow majority in parliament, the latest survey shows it has lifted that primary vote to 42 per cent and has kept it at or close to this level in months of polling.
The Coalition gained a primary vote of 35.7 per cent at the election but lost to Labor after preferences and has since witnessed a fall in its support, although the latest survey shows its primary vote increased by two percentage points to 32 per cent.
Shogun says:
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:08 pm
Cronus
And still no boost in the polls for Greens either it seems.
This depends. Thanks to Senator Shoebridge, Greens support is way up in Gaza and the West Bank.
中华人民共和国
They did however lose every seat in Thailand.
Dandy Murray says:
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:08 pm
UpNorth,
“Your contribution to a carbon neutral future would balance off the loss of “social equity”.”
I don’t think it would. But I haven’t looked at it in detail. Sounds like an engineering thesis project. Ta.
中华人民共和国
Damn you Dandy Murray! Where is my flying car?
Holdenhillbillysays:
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:42 pm
Stephen Koukoulas @TheKouk
The dog’s breakfast that is the RBA Board is at it again. Now it’s services inflation in focus and the reason why it hiked in May.
Huh? The target is inflation. Goods and services. It is making stuff up as it goes along and the economy is suffering as a result.
———————-
More like Kouk hasn’t been reading the statements because Lowe has been talking about services inflation for months.
Scott, why are you posting links (with seeming approval) of corrupt media organisations like the SMH?
Warning: Viewer Discretion Advised:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNO5GQGiK9s
One thing needs to be made clear about the blocked housing bill. The ALP have a policy to invest in housing supply to help take pressure of rental prices.
On the other side the Green’s policy will not lead to an increase in housing stock, their policy is designed to force people out of the private rental market and into social housing. At best it will be a zero sum gain, at worst homelessness will increase and those who have houses will be living in Soviet style housing. While the Libs want housing subject to the law of the jungle.
Lambie and Pock have acted like gown ups and got realistic concessions.
The ALP won government they should be allowed to govern. If this policy is as bad as the critics say than the Greens and the Libs can campaign on it at the next election. The fact that they would rather block it then make Labor accountable for their action at the next election says every think you need to know.
Interesting proposition…
Justin from Geelong @ #162 Tuesday, May 16th, 2023 – 1:36 pm
I don’t really see much of a moral question there. I mean, would it be morally superior for everyone to just sit on the current grid forever (or until it falls apart), for fear of indirectly causing a neighbor to pay more? Even if the grid is dirty, and inefficient, and in some instances funneling profits to people who’re doing everything they can to prevent the transition to sustainable energy? Insulating others from hypothetical price fluctuations isn’t your responsibility.
A bigger moral quandry is the 2 ½ times your consumption’s worth of clean exports that get lost if you completely disconnect from the grid, imo. I think the future endgame is something like “distributed microgrids”. Transport costs exist because generation has been consolidated at large power stations far away from most users. But if every other house has solar, and storage, and generates more than it needs, then residential communities don’t need the large power stations as much. Or potentially at all. Though that only happens if the people with surplus power stay on the grid.
More broadly, if large numbers of people are going to abandon the grid then that’s something that happens regardless of what you do. Time marches forwards, things change, and change creates winners and losers. If you think the grid is deprecated and about to become a financial drag on anyone still connected to it, you do yourself no favors by staying on. Accelerating its demise and/or the time it takes for the actual responsible agency to realize there’s a problem and do something isn’t without its own moral worth. Can’t focus exclusively on the negative indirect effects, etc..
That said, I’m still on the grid. I don’t think it disappears, just becomes more local.
wranslide says:
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 2:22 pm
Scott, why are you posting links (with seeming approval) of corrupt media organisations like the SMH?
——————————————–
Dont know where you get the seeming approval part from , like it or not they are the ones publish opinion polling
USAF National Museum, UpNorth
carbon capture and storage is stalling tactic bollocks, I hope blocker bandt blocks this crap to oblivion 😡
The federal government will work with the oil and gas industry to expand carbon capture and storage, putting it on a collision course with the Greens, write Mike Foley and Nick Toscano.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/labor-wants-to-help-gas-giants-scale-up-carbon-capture-potential-20230515-p5d8iz.html
davo says:
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:04 pm
carbon capture and storage is stalling tactic bollocks, I hope blocker bandt blocks this crap to oblivion
————————-
It’s just a scam.
Wranslide is it Scott ? Maybe he’s been compromised and it’s fake Scott posting now ?
Surely Madeleine King has to take out the title for worst minister of the new Labor ministry……………
PageBoi @ #190 Tuesday, May 16th, 2023 – 3:14 pm
She’s doing Labor slowly.
‘PageBoi says:
Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:14 pm
Surely Madeleine King has to take out the title for worst minister of the new Labor ministry……………’
——————————————
Why?
Labor made an election promise.
Labor is trying to implement that promise.
The policy effectively doubles Australia’s national social housing build.
She has lined up all the state and territory housing ministers to support the policy.
Numerous social welfare agencies support the policy.
Pocock supports the policy.
The Lambies support the policy.
Dutton, Littleproud, Hanson and Bandt don’t.
If the NIMBY Greens want to be callous brutal arseholes condemning homeless people to sleeping rough that is nothing to do with Collins.
This may cut through with inner urb young renters
LOL Rex Douglas
If the greens are fighting for the renters why did they vote with Dutton and his cronies who are not fighting for renters
Boerwar @ #192 Tuesday, May 16th, 2023 – 3:20 pm
Pageboi is referring to Carbon capture and storage
The Greens, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are joined at the hip in fighting right now to stop 60,000 renters from accessing affordable housing.
I’m not sure being The Party of Renters is terribly aspirational. I might’ve thought home ownership was what young Australians were really hoping for.
How long before the seat of Sydney is lost to Labor …?
To be fair to blocker, I doubt there will ever be mass home ownership again, the
good news though this will keep the lnp out for a generation 😆
Playing the politics of envy, ie. labelling folk as “property moguls” is political hemlock for a party of government, but great for the 12%ers preaching to their choir.
Of course, Integrity loves it, because were Labor to drink the hemlock it would hasten the return of a LNP government (and hence he could harrumph in purity and impotency against the evil government and ‘for’ progressive politics, but still keep the proceeds of the system he rails against).
Let’s start from first principles: Q. Why shouldn’t middle class or wealthy folk invest in property? As opposed to the stock market?
Isn’t the point, surely, to ensure that any favourable tax treatment for any sort of investment (whether it be property, a business or stocks etc) to ensure that the concession is focused on worthwhile national goals?
In the context of housing – whether it be for the first or 10th property in the portfolio – shouldn’t the tax concessions be focused on increasingly the pool of housing stock, especially affordable housing stock? If so, therefore shouldn’t all negative gearing concessions and capitals gains concessions be directed to new buildings and (this is where special rules MAY come into play for second and subsequent investment properties) with a special focus on affordable housing stock?
My guess is that ideas like the one I’ve advanced are too sophisticated for sloganeering; especially for the politics of envy merchants like Baa-ndt and his boy band of piss-ants.