The latest Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead down from 58-42 to 57-43, remembering that this is a two-week rolling average which was half conducted before Malcolm Turnbull replaced Brendan Nelson. Also included (just from the last week’s sample) are various questions on leadership and one on industrial relations (45 per cent think the government moving “too slowly”).
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Essential Research: 57-43
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
762 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 » Show All
No 448
Nonsense. Terria, one of the major consortium’s bidding on the National Broadband Network is seeking a protected monopoly to stop anyone competing with their investment should they win the tender. Telstra is not seeking one.
News Flash: Optus has had a competing HFC cable network for the same amount of time. The ACCC need not intervene where there is already infrastructure competition.
In reality your idea is that Telstra should do all the investment, but let everyone else leech of the network. Sorry, but not only is that absurd, it’s not even real competition because everyone would simply compete on price rather than on innovation and new services.
I don’t support your point because it’s arrant nonsense.
Yes they should. Telstra shareholders paid for them.
More rubbish. All the ISPs below Telstra, particularly iiNet, Internode and Optus, are experiencing massive growth.
The idea that they’re being held to ransom just isn’t supported by the reality.
scorpio, it’s the narrowing…
The Libs introduce a GST (”T” standing for “legalised theft”) on just about everything, along with ShowsOn’s list and Labor “enjoys legalising theft” even more than the Libs? Is this man serious?
It does, because it’s principal argument for the recent tax increases is that the Liberals introduced them.
No 454
Its not it’s.
No 451
consortiums/consortia not consortium’s
Gp -Oh, that explains it then. What are you talking about?
No 452
Dario when is the first debate?
Friday night US time I think… Sat morning for us. Should be on ABC TV.
No 457
The ALP enjoys stealing from people more so than the previous government, otherwise we’d have a better argument underpinning the tax increases (LCT, alcopops etc) than “well, the Libs introduced them”. Oh, so that makes it all better….
If Rudd and Swan were serious, they’d abolish these dumb taxes (yes, dumb, even though Cossie introduced them), and actually walk the walk on their “root and branch” reform of the system.
Debate screening info
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/media/s2369375.htm
No 461
Cheers Dario.
So giving $30b tax in income cuts while raising other taxes only by a billion somehow means this government taxes more than the previous one? You need to check your maths GP.
that should have read ‘$30b in income tax cuts’
GP
The Labor Government’s tax take as a % of GDP fell by a full percentage point in this year’s budget, so even it it true what you say that the ALP enjoys stealing from people, they do so to a lesser extent than the former government: 06/07 26.6%, 07/08 26.9%, 08/09 25.9%.
Let me get this straight GP, because the Libs introduced a “legalised theft” and Labor wants to increase or decrease it (Medicare levy for some) that means Labor “enjoys legalising theft” even more than the Libs who introduced the GST as wellas that tax in the first place. I don’t get it.
No 465
This is getting boring. Who cares.
There seems to be huge volatility. Early last week McCain was up by 20 E.C. votes according to this:
http://www.pollster.com/
Now he’s trailing by over 60. It seems that the bad economy is working for Obama, which makes sense, last time there was a Democrat in the White House the budget was balanced, and the economy was actually growing. And of course Democratic administrations going back to the 1930s produce – on average – higher economic growth than Republican administrations. Curiously, Republican administrations on average spend more than Democrats.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/03/opinion/oe-kinsley3
{Dario when is the first debate?}
GP, what happened to Google.
Not getting lazy again are you?
This is wrong. The tax to GDP ratio of this years budget shows a reduction compared to the last budget of the previous government. Therefore, by your absurd standards, the previous government enjoys stealing more than the current government.
I think a process of self-reflexivity has occurred!
I still can’t believe Fielding voted to keep a tax on middle class families, even after an extra $600 million has already been put into public hospitals.
I hope the Victorian ALP refuse to do any deals with him at the next election. In fact, they should go out of their way making voters aware that he voted to retain such a stupid tax on families who aren’t rich.
Hello!
“The previous government also introduced, wait for it, the luxury car TAX! (25%)
They also introduced the wine equalisation tax
They also introduced a 1 cent per litre tax on every litre of milk as compensation for industry deregulation.
They also introduced a tax on imported ethanol!”
Not to mention
the electricity delivery tax
the plumber tax
the water delivery tax
the motel tax
the telephone provider tax
the electrician tax
the hot but not cold chicken tax
the heater repair tax
the internet provider tax
the concreter tax
the roofer tax
the computer repair tax
the air conditioner repair tax
the carpenter tax
the cable guy tax
the builder tax
the brickie tax
the interior decorator tax
the carwash tax
the dogwash tax
the hogwash tax
the all the services I cant think of at the moment tax
and of course, the tax on tax
ShowsOn,
It’s not just about the money. You also have to turn the money into doctors, nurses and facilities.
Not sure how much I trust such glorious institutions as the NSW Health Department to be able to do that.
ShowsOn, I note you’ve admitted defeat by not continuing to debate broadband.
Sure, but I think the public health system will work better with $600 million going in, rather than the previous decade which saw $1 billion in real terms taken out.
Oh so sorry! You were BORING me, so I no longer CARED.
I was going to reply to it in detail, but I read this:
I couldn’t stop laughing, because most of Telstra’s phone exchanges were actually paid for by Australian TAXPAYERS, using money appropriated out of general revenue when Telstra was called P.M.G, and later Telecom Australia.
ShowsOn @ 467 -
And of course Democratic administrations going back to the 1930s produce – on average – higher economic growth than Republican administrations. Curiously, Republican administrations on average spend more than Democrats.
So do the Libs. Both have this carefully crafted image of being the parties of small government, low taxes, and all round fiscal conservative superior economic managers, but in reality they are the exact opposite.
Unfortunately, the Big Lie technique really does work, especially when their oppositions are regularly plagued by bad economic luck. For example, almost all of the problems Labor faced in the late 1980s/early 90s can be attributed by the disastrous Savings and Loans debacle created in large measure by that spendthrift Reagan. Sadly, it looks like Labor is again falling victim to the stupidity/culpability of another Republican President.
It is no coincidence that the Great Depression, the Savings and Loans recession and the current crisis all occurred during long periods of Republican occupation of the White House.
Yes, that’s why the Liberals have created this myth about “managing the economy”. The economy extensively manages itself, but they have to pretend they manage it so they have something to talk about. I mean they aren’t good at talking about productivity, innovation, climate change policy, education, health. So they just talk about the economy as a kind of abstract end in itself, rather than a means of creating a fairer society.
Of course the Liberals never mention that almost every other developed country went into recession in the early 1990s. After internationalising our economy in the 80s, how exactly were we to avoid the same fate? I think one of the reasons we are still growing well is because we had a central bank willing to jack up rates to control inflation induced – in part – by the Liberal re-election spending spree. In the U.S. they did the absolute opposite, they kept interest rates ridiculously low to keep the gravy train moving.
Reagan wasn’t that much of a spend thrift. When he started as president U.S. debt was about $70 billion, when he left it was around $150 billion. George W Bush has just taken Reagan’s spending policies to an absurd level.
To be fair, one of the main reasons behind the 1929 crash was the U.S. unilaterally increasing tariffs, which resulted in other countries doing the same in retaliation. That threat to free trade killed investment, profits, and ultimately employment.
Irrelevant. Telstra shareholders paid $60 billion to taxpayers in order to take ownership of those exchanges. That they were built by PMG no longer matters, and if you still think it does then you have no understanding of property rights.
If the purpose of the economy is to create a fairer society, then why do you proclaim that it extensively manages itself? The reason why socialists intervene is because they think they can make it fairer.
Because the word extensively doesn’t mean completely.
Socialism is dead. Move on.
A few other polls out showing Obama leads.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Seems to be a daily occurence now – a slow but steady drift.
wrong thread
YAY! Federal government to abolish the milk industry deregulation TAX imposed by the legalised thieves / socialists in the Liberal and National parties:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24398885-5006301,00.html
It’s the economy, stupid.
Who you gonna call,
Ghostbusters!
GP will have to find an interesting new way of opposing this removal of ‘legalised theft’…
I get the feeling that Fielding voted against the Medicare levy bill simply because he could. I think his reasons are nonsense. The people he is talking about would be the ones eager to get out of the damn things anyway. And of course the reverse never happened, we never saw premiums go down.
The danger with independents is if all they want to do is get their names mentioned to attract voter attention. And we have seen that already with Fielding’s stripper with the pensioners stunt. It is a position of all care but no responsibility.
Senate blocks Medicare levy bill
“Family First voted against the Government’s change to the Medicare surcharge levy thresholds because it would impact and hit lower income families very hard when they renew their health insurance,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/24/2373504.htm
He considers luxury cars a necessity, and milk a luxury. So I’m sure he opposes this policy.
Not Dead Yet!
Read between the lines.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24395351-2702,00.html
Have a read of Tuesday’s Senate Hansard. Senator Erica Betz constantly attacked Fielding over his support for the luxury car tax. So it is possible that Fielding has just sided with the opposition on the Medicare levy because he doesn’t want to be seen to be supporting the government too much.
I certainly can’t make sense of the policy. If can’t see people on really low incomes who struggle to pay for food and petrol paying for private health insurance. Thanks to Medicare, private health insurance isn’t a necessity.
The levy is of course a Howard mechanism to give money to health insurance companies and no doubt part of a strategy to entirely privatise the health insurance and hospital industry. Not often you see a government make you give money to a company and penalise you if you dont.
Not to mention the 30% private health insurance rebate!
The Liberals are just being unreasonable on this. OK I can see how their ideology stops them from raising the rate to $100,000. But $75,000? That’s not rich. Leaving it at $50,000 is unfair, and demonstrates that the Liberals – at this stage of opposition – just aren’t willing to compromise on anything.
No 486
I don’t oppose it.
Once again ShowsOn has avoided the broadband debate.
No 492
Your definitions of rich and poor are arbitrary.
Someone should really shoot Conroy for this ridiculous explanation of wireless broadband. For someone overseeing the biggest project since the snowy mountains scheme (by his own definition), it would seem he is somewhat out of his depth:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds240908.pdf (p71)
Oh! SO SORRY! I forgot that I’m your slave and I have to do whatever you say.
Your definition of “arbitrary” seems to be arbitrary.
I will have to go into ‘Get Up’ and give Fielding a decent raz with no doubt many others. And will add Scullion to that as well.
I can’t believe that at least one Lib or Nat wasn’t sensible enough to understand they had the chance to vote on a giving a heap of people in their electorate a tax cut.
Commsday published this piece on Henry Ergas, chairman of Concept Economics, which details his new book criticising the ACCC’s oversight of telecoms:
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 » Show All