Brisbane’s Courier-Mail today carries a Galaxy poll of 800 Queensland voters showing Labor leading 51-49 on two-party preferred, compared with 50.4-49.6 at the November 2007 election. Both parties are down on the primary vote – Labor from 42.9 per cent to 41 per cent and the Coalition from 44.5 per cent to 44 per cent – while the Greens are up from 5.6 per cent to 9 per cent. Also included are questions on preferred leader (Kevin Rudd 57 per cent, Malcolm Turnbull 34 per cent) and economic management.
The first Essential Research poll conducted entirely on Malcolm Turnbull’s watch should be through either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
UPDATE: No bounce for Turnbull from Essential Research, whose two-week rolling average has moved a point in Labor’s favour to the Nelson-era level of 58-42. Also featured are leadership approval ratings and questions on preferred Treasurer (Swan 34 per cent, Bishop 19 per cent), Kevin Rudd’s overseas travel (51 per cent believe he should have gone to the US, 30 per cent say he shouldn’t) and the value of a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
442 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All
GP
Agree with your latter point there , perhaps as policy compromise , seeing share of profit cake over last decade as not been affected but actualy increased there may be room for a little more % contribution from that sector AND also policy consideration of utilising a future tax cut as employee supa contribution (maybe logisticaly backdooring via Co tax’s reduction offset)
‘profit cake’ of corporate sector
No 401
Well, ultimately, my political philosophy entails the concept of individual responsibility. With that in mind, it makes sense for employees to be more responsible for their own retirement savings. Keating makes the point that 15% is the ideal percentage of income for the superannuation policy to work effectively. I see no reason why that additional 6% cannot come from the employee.
well whilst my politcal philosophy varys & thats what demacracy involves , th remaining 6% becomes a by product of both econamy as whole in future , ‘profit cake’ , potential future tax cuts & Governemtn outlays prioritiees , and see room having a combination
I have a fiscal philosophical stand I would like the chance to develop and propound.
It is based on the principal of shared risk and equal opportunity.
Simply stated, it takes into account the losses of the Mum and Dad speculators and investors who have suffered so horribly in the stock market crash through no fault of their own, and on following Government recomendations over the past 12 years.
It also takes into account the undeserved profits of the fiscal hoarders, who, without regard for the need to invest seed and venture capital into speculative investments in order to advance the cause of capitalism, have squirrelled their money into cash, interest bearing deposits, thus making huge profits without taking risks in the National interest.
My proposal is a national equalisation scheme, whereby the profits of the hoarders are used to offset the losses of the speculators, thus enabling both to survive the current crisis, and live to speculate another day when times improve.
I know it requires some work, and is certainly not a prospect that the Labor party is likely to entertain, but it would save a lot of financial skins on the conservative side of politics, and must therefore be worthy of serious consideration.
What do you think, GP?
Hoarding = saving, meaning your argument is somewhat bizarrely in favour of irresponsible. In any event I disagree that earning money from low-risk cash investments is “undeserved”. Whatever an individual chooses to do with their money is not for anyone else to comment on and nor should it be the domain of governments.
The only time “hoarding” could be construed as wrong is when a government is involved in the practise - when it should be returning money to taxpayers.
All that does is ensure that speculators are never responsible for their irresponsible management and investments. What you are suggesting is morally reprehensible and is principally why I disagree with the bail out of the financial system in the United States.
Furthermore, your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you argue that speculators advance the cause of capitalism, yet on the other you propose to socialise their losses by stealing the savings of responsible investors (or “fiscal hoarders” in your words), thereby distorting capitalist markets. You cannot absolve markets from risk.
I totally object.
First sentence should read:
Hoarding = saving, meaning your argument is somewhat bizarrely in favour of irresponsible borrowing.
GP
Your argument that business pays super for their employees is wrong. Super was introduced in to replace pay rises. So instead of the money that employers would have paid anyway going into the pockets of workers it went into super.
This is the dishonesty of the idea that real wages did not rise under Keating.
Seems that this is the current generic thread at the moment, apologize William if this isn’t in the right place …. Brits have leaked a memo saying our collective campaign in Afghanistan is DOA …….
I am getting mightily cheesed off with reading statements like this:
Mr Rees said his Government would do whatever was needed to retain its triple-A credit rating from Standard & Poors and Moody’s,
S&P and Moodys are the clowns that rated the sub-prime mortgages triple-A. The chances of an Australian state going belly-up are minuscule, yet apparently they are as risky a proposition as parcels of dodgy loans cooked up by shysters. LOL.
The whole world is now paying for their incompetence. Or was it corruption?
Instead of governments continuing to pay these idiots to rate them - and yes, the rated pay, as in hello!: conflict-of-interest - they should be holding them to account for their part in the deceptions at the root of this disaster!
S&P haven’t received a lot of curry so far in this scandal, but it’s bubbling along on the back burner.
I’d go further. After Howard privatised the national debt by over-taxation - clearing government debt at the expense of private debt - it was an easy sledge for him to bash state governments if they couldn’t maintain surpluses. As a result we got the whole PPP mess we’re in today, where essential government and even some social services (e.g. Centrelink affiliates) turn what should be publicly funded utilities into profit-making operations. We, the mugs, always pay.
God knows, the old model had its faults, but at least we got some things built which would never have gotten up if they had to make a profit.
S&P and the other ratings agencies have a lot to answer for. They’re essentially running protection rackets. With political journalism ready to pounce on the slightest gaffe or seeming weakness, the whole concept of “the public good” seems to have disappeared, replaced by, as Mayo puts it, shysters in sharp suits, spruiking doom and gloom if governments don’t pay up.
“Nice little state you got here… pity if something was to ‘happen’ to it, eh, Mr. Premier?”
Substandard & Poor Judgements
Avarice Avoidance Apoplexy
Apologies Apologies Apologies
(Sorry all.)
(I’ll be normal again now.)
When you consider that this poll has actually moved 1 point to Labor since the last one, the headline becomes even more ridiculous. Protecting Turnbull perhaps?
I think Turnbull may need some protecting as even his former colleagues are having a go at him now. Yesterday nit was the ANZ Bank.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/turnbull-bites-hand-that-paid-him-20081001-4s1x.html
Wayne Swan just keeps on growing in stature as Treasurer and the Opposition just keep floundering.
If Turnbull & Co keep this sort of thing up, then I can’t see the Polls changing much at all leading up to the next election.
416 - unfortunately the MSM is not reporting this criticism of Turnbull as widely as Turnbull’s crtiticism of the government in this matter. One has to ask why.
Turnbull continues to contradict himself, this is becoming a habit.
419 - Turnbull realises his mistake.
This here is a pretty lame attempt at critisising Wayne Swan’s $4 billion intervention into the mortgage market by one of the LNP’s attack dogs. Rudd should get rid of him and the rest of the Coalition appointees who are quietly undermining the Government.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/4b-help-policy-panned-20081001-4s1y.html
When you read the critisism and Swan’s response, you can see just how feeble and uninformed/misleading the critique is.
One wonders why the head of the Fair Pay Commission, a government instrumentality, thinks it is role to offer a critique of government policy in an area which has nothing to do with his responsibilities. If he wants to be a politician I’ll send him a nomination form. Otherwise he should mind his own (very considerable) business.
He’s on a mission from God.
I think the answer is pretty obvious given the MSM fanfare he has received since getting the leadership
Turnbull did get a bit of a roast on the ABC this morning, but I guess that doesn’t count as “MSM”. In any case, being criticised by the banks just now can be read two ways. It’s not as if the banks are exactly pillars of wisdom, and they will attack anyone who threatens their right to charge what they want.
What sort of a roast?
The Coalition’s “economic credibility” is going to keep going backwards if this sort of thing keeps up.
Australia’s “greatest ever Treasurer” is out and about giving economic advice to Kevin Rudd. I thought Costello’s economic management was part of the reason we are in the difficulties Rudd & Swan are now dealing with.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24434972-5013871,00.html
Certified Angus Beef.
Terry McCrann is into Turnbull too.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24433272-36281,00.html
Chris Joye and Joshua Gans show Harper’s critique up for the arrant, partisan nonsense that it is.
Keep non-bank lenders afloat
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24433179-7583,00.html
You see the bind Turnbull is in. Conservative economic doctrine has ruled the roost since the 1970s, and now it has led us into this enormous mess. Rudd and Swan are loyally following conservative economic doctrine in their responses. Turnbull therefore cannot find a line of attack except from the “left” - populist bank-bashing, reckless spending promises, sabotaging the surplus. But then he is attacked by people like McCrann, who actually believe in conservative economic doctrine.
McCrann makes a very good point.
Turnbull is just following on from Nelson’s lead and going after populist causes. We saw how that worked for Nelson and the same will happen to Turnbull in the long run.
Interesting finish to McCrann’s article.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24433272-36281,00.html
Rudd now owns the middle ground. He is not going to relinquish any of it easily.
The problem for the Opposition is how to peel off some of that ground and regain credibility’
At present they can only go to the “left” or move further to the “right”, neither of which would be acceptable to the majority of their supporters and unlikely to gain them any ground with voters in those sectors.
Besides which, there aren’t too many votes to be had in those sectors anyway.
These are Sky News headlines, no mention oF the critism Allbull is coping from all and sundry (imagine the headlines if it was Swanny getting carpeted)
“PM has defended not pressuring the banks to pass on full rate cut.”
“Julie Bishop has called on the banks to pass on full rate cut”
zakly so.
Sky News = Fox News. Expect nothing less.
copping (pardon my spelling)
haven’t been game to check their ABC yet (lol)
dario and OO = ABC
Nah, just ABC News services (excluding 7.30 report and Lateline)
New thread.
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 7 8 [9] Show All