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
I’m sure this has been asked many times before… but what is it with polling and overstating the Greens vote these days?
A swing to Labor in QLD since the last election – they’d not only hold all their seats, but also pick up Herbert, Dickson and another seat in Brisbane(its name escapes me for now). So despite the predictable MSM spin in Turnball’s favour, a good result for Rudd.
Max, there might actually be something in it. The Greens vote was up 4.3 per cent to 11.9 per cent at the WA election, and they polled as much as 23.6 per cent in the seats they contested at the NT election. I suggest that Labor being in government is good for them, as they get to harvest protest votes from left-leaning voters disaffected by government actions.
It appears that on primary votes there has been a swing from the Nats to the Greens. The Libs and the Greens are the only parties to record a swing in their favour. Could the LNP confusion be at work?
“The poll shows the switch to Mr Turnbull has put the Coalition back in the race for the Sunshine State.”
No Clinton it does not say any such thing.
He must be Shanners’ protege
The difference there is that I would have thought that given those two state governments had been in power for some time they would have, by default, given off multiple reasons for dissatisfaction in them during that time (as any long serving inevitably government does.)
Rudd has been in power for eight months, I would have thought it’d be a bit far-fetched to suggest that around 3.5% of his support has leaked further to the left in that time given his approval. But I see your point, and voters around that side of the spectrum don’t exactly have to rally around Labor at this stage of the electoral cycle, especially given the lack of ‘anyone but Howard’ sentiment now. Either way, the next federal election will certainly be a big test in terms of the Green vote. I highly suspect they will do very well in the Senate. Not that I am particularly pleased about it
It will most likely mean less parties to deal with in the upper house for whoever wins government in 2010, which can be both good an bad
This is interesting. I looks as though Labor may be confident enough in their polling figures to have a go at Farmer’s seat if he pulls the pin.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24416570-5013404,00.html
So for all Turnbull’s huffing and puffing, he has won back no ground at all in Qld. This is the kind of poll we like to see. I’m not surprised the Greens are polling well – people who didn’t believe Rudd when he said he was a conservative on many issues are now finding that he meant what he said, and some of them are moving to the Greens as the only left alternative. The ALP under Rudd is a centre party, which is how it wins elections. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Greens won a Senate seat in every state in 2010. If the result in every state in 2010 was Coalition 3, Labor 2, Green 1, the overall Senate from 2011 would be ALP 30, Coalition 36, Green 9, Ind 1. A very nice situation.
The poll is misleading unlike other states where the Liberal and National parties are seperate enities in Queensland they are united as the LNP federally within Queensland. Claiming that the Nationals have a primary vote of 9 percent is wrong the LNP has a vote of 45 percent.
Adam:
There’s been some talk in Greens circles of trying to restore “workers rights” and union power to what it was before the Winter of Discontent (which as you once said, proved unions should be limited)
Will Coalition federal candidates in 2010 contest their seats as “LNP” or as Libs and Nats? They still sit in the House and Senate as Libs and Nats.
Mary, you’ll have to quote what I actually said before I can comment on that.
Paul
35+9 = 44
Do the Coalition even know?
Or will it be as Libs, Nats, LNP, New Libs, New Nats. ?
or No Nads?
Whoever it will be, LNP. LIN,NAT or NSDAP, the ABC web site is reporting that “business” (actually the the Australian Chamber Of Commerce And Industry – ACCI) will not be supporting the maternity leave proposals. Apparently, “administering the scheme will place higher administrative costs on businesses.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/29/2377183.htm
I’d like to see the Whatevertheirnameis LIBs squirm out of this one.
Shock horror. Never mind that us and the USA are the only two developed countries not to have it…
The BCA supports it, but it is not surprising that ACCI – the bosses union, does not. ACCI is the peak body for all those chambers of commerce that thrive in every town and city.
It will be interesting to see if Talcum can resist this grassroots Liberal Party lobby group.
Today’s Essential Report (which Billbowe Baggins will have up any time soon) suggests that Truffles bounce might be one of the shortest in history. From my reckoning he lost every bit of his bounce in a week.
Next Newspoll will be interesting.
Nyah Nyah – told you.
This is a good poll for the Coalition.
After less than a year in office, the ALP’s vote in a vital state is essentially flat. It’ll likely drift further south by election day given the Bligh’s rotten performance and a deteriorating economy.
I don’t think the MSM will be reporting any polls that show his bounce waning with much fervour
Onya AC
Turnbull is running as fast as he can away from a Republic…
http://news.smh.com.au/national/turnbull-says-republic-not-inevitable-20080929-4q9w.html
# 26
With good reason too. The only reason why Rudd wants a republic is to split the opposition.
Personally, I think the entire idea of fundamentally altering our constitution and political institutions solely on the basis of political point scoring is repugnant. Trust no one other than our completely berefit of ideas PM to raise it.
Labor are only ahead because of the Greens, and i suspect their vote of 9% is inflated well above what it will be in 2010, after all QLD is one of the worst if not the worst State for them.
I’m surprised we’re as competative as we are, but well behind what we used to get in the golden years under Howie where we’d be at least 55-45 ahead.
Although I myself am a constitutional monarchist I think Malcolm was right to say that if Rudd was a true Republican he’d wait and not call for it now. Malcolm was also right to point out Rudd was nowhere to be seen on the barracades in 1999.
I am also quietly confident about ACT.
Hear hear Glen.
In the past decade or so Qld has been a graveyard for Labor Federally. That is why Labor picked up 9 seats when they only achieved 50.4% of the TPP vote.
Ignoring MoE and Galaxy – if this poll was the result at the next election Labor would gain seats in Qld.
Glen you thrive on disappointment.
I was confident about WA and look what happened?
Ruawake Labor won seats it should never have won in QLD, for example Forde and Flynn now if the Coalition can get its act together there we’ll easily win those seats back after all we lost both of them because the Nats and Libs ran candidates and we split our vote. Now we have the LNP in QLD and that wont happen again.
There would be at least 2-3 seats in QLD that the LNP could pick up regardless of the Federal Result.
Glen
Do you really think that the Fed Libs will want the 9 Nats from Qld to decide who leads the party?
Labor won seats because people voted for them, get over it. The LNP will only be allowed to be a State Party, that is why its constitution says members of the LNP can be members of another party.
The shitfight will begin with pre-selection for the QLd election. But at least the Fibs will have a scapegoat for losing.
The ALP could also pick up Burnett,in the Wide Bay area, especially if Neville calls it quits.
The Fibs, Nats and two “independents” formed Govt. Hardly a resounding success.
Ruawake im sure they’ll have learnt the lesson on 3 cornered contests and how well that did us in 2007. Ruawake must you call the Liberals Fiberals? I dont use petty insults of the ALP it demeans you sir!
Ah but we came from 18 seats down to win
and our last leader was a chair sniffer and we still won 
see that makes it even more of a success.
Muskiemp
The Labor slow and steady creep up the Bruce will take a while to get to the Wide Bay- Burnett, it was One Nation heartland but The Greens are probably gaining some votes from Traveston Dam.
Look to Fisher and Fairfax as the next dominos to fall.
Fair point Glen, I will try to retrain myself – although I cannot guarantee it. Before the last election I did post that Rat Man should be called John Howard, out of respect for the office.
William, I implore you to ban all infantile references to major political parties and politicians.
That includes rubbish like Dudd, Talcum, Krudd, Fibs, Gnats, Turnball, Tip and other such nonsense.
Neville was taken to postals in 2 elections, including 2007and1998. Burnett now covers Hervey Bay and Bundaberg.
Glen, don’t fall into the trap of thinking that Forde and Flynn are rural seats first and foremost that only fell because of a fluke.
If the population and demographics of those two seats were frozen at 2004 levels, Labor wouldn’t have won either of them in 2007.
Those seats are going to continue to experience not only quite rapid population growth, but even larger population substitution (where people move out of the area, being replaced by those moving in from elsewhere).
Forde has a large urban corridor, and by large I dont mean some pissy little subdivision filled with a couple fo hundred legoland houses, I mean thousands and thousands of planned homes running into it from the east like an urban army. Forde will soon enough become a seat resembling Oxley with a small rural rump attached to it.
Flynn is a bit different, but population change is equally dramatic and demographic change is profound. I think Flynn will become a bit of a test bed for the next 30 years or so, for which ever party can manage that type of seat well will, I reckon, also tend in the future to bag the non-metro coastal seats elsewhere in QLD and NSW.
We should be allowed ‘tip’
Is Burnett going to be a new seat?
An interstinghing sidelight…
‘Er Indoors came home from work just now and told me her boss (a bigwig with one of the major vehicle manufacturing companies) asked her whether I thought Rudd was doing OK. She said, “Yes, he thinks they’re doing pretty good actually. Why?”
His replay, “Oh nothing really. We just heard from some people right at tthe op of Defence that Labor weren’t doing anything at all, just marking time, and that the ADF thinks they’re pretty hopeless. The brass are worried that we won’t be able to defend ouselves if we get attacked.”
Sack them all, Kevin.
GP – and what is wrong with calling Turnbull “Truffles” I ask?
It has a certain ring to it.
I dont doubt the demographics, but just because a seat turns more urbanized doesnt automatically make it a Labor seat.
Glen you got me there I did mean Hinkler.
Wonder what the refugees he sent to the psychological torture camps of the Pacific Solution think about this:
LOL!
Neville had a small swing of -2.12% in Hinkler. If you look at swing moving up the Bruce Hwy from Brisbane it is not yet in the winnable area. Maybe in 2013.
I couldnt remember the name (Hinkler either).
Neville does have a good profile and its his personal vote that has kept the seat National but for gods sakes the Nats need to get ride of just about everyone of them over 60. They need new young blood in there or they’ll be sorry.
Glen – sure, but it ceases to make it a Nat seat and throws it, in the case of Forde, right into Labor heartland over time.
or into a Liberal seat.
It could Glen, but the demographics running in Forde are more Oxley than Lindsay
Dickson will be the first LNP federal seat to fall. The very small margin for Dutton and the loss of incumbence added to demographic trends will sink Dutton next time.
Glen
Between 1500-1000 people a week are moving to SE Qld. They are divided into two groups, retirees and workers.
Unfortunately for the Libs the are more of the latter group, this has been occuring since Joh days. Despite the doom and gloom about house prices, they are still booming in retirementville. So the workers need to find a cheaper place to live.
This pushes them up the Bruce Hwy – hence Mal Brough losing his seat. This will not stop in the foreseeable future.
I disagree. Dutton will increase his majority Dickson had an unprecidented swing against it and if it wasnt going to fall in the 07 landslide then Rudd wont win it in 2010. Especially considering Peter’s high profile i shouldnt think he’d have any troubles.
Rubbish, Mal Brough would probably win Longman if he ran again in 2010, especially against that nobody! Longman’s the margin is only 3.5% and he’d only need half of those who backed him in 2004 that didnt in 2007 to get him over the line.
Glen
Those people don’t live there anymore.
There’s a redistribution in the pipe so speculating about individual seats isn’t very useful right now.
I agree with Glen that the Nats (if they still exist in 2010) will struggle. With De-Anne Kelly gone their Qld Reps are Truss, Neville and Scott – all dinosaurs. In the Senate they have Boswell, another dinosaur. Joyce is their only mammalian member. If their Reps members retire only Maranoa is safe, the Libs would pinch Wide Bay on its current boundaries and maybe Hinkler too. Maybe Joyce should switch to the Reps.
MayoFeral @49
George Orwell got it so right: Freedom is slavery. But to imply any kind of philosophical connection (ironic or no) between Orwell and Howard is to elevate the shniffling little twirp well beyond his place in history.
Janette (gently in her husband’s his ear, at the time of the Baxter incarcerations): They’re not real children luv; not like ours.
I agree Adam, if they dont want a Fed merger just get Barns into the Lower House.
Agreed they did get a young one in Gippsland but the average age of their MPs must be 60!
Joyce to Maranoa, and if they are smart they’ll try and get Larry Anthony back too someone young and experienced.
Glen
Saying it doesn’t make it so. Dutton is now a nobody in opposition. Will he be waving the flag as an LNP candidate at the next election? Even formerly loyal Liberal voters may baulk at that prospect in a federal election.
Well Anthony had his chance to come back in 2007 when he could have run for Page but declined. Apparently he’s happier making money in the private sector.
Mallee will be at risk if Forrest retires, although Turnbull’s just put him on the front bench I think. He’ll be 60 next year.
In NSW Cobb, Coulton, Hartsuyker and Hull are relatively young, although Cobb is hardly foreman material.
“New polling shows Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull still has plenty of work ahead of him despite his opening week of leadership delivering the federal coalition a strong bounce.”
http://news.smh.com.au/national/turnbull-still-has-plenty-to-do-poll-20080929-4qat.html
They don’t tell us the strong bounce figures
Given the state of the Nats i couldnt blame him if he refused to come back.
Adam,
Isn’t Larry Anthony a Director of ABC. Their demise might make a career in Parliament a more secure sinecure. Just like Costello has worked out!
“TONY ABBOTT has attacked any taxpayer-funded paid maternity scheme that delivers more help to working mothers than stay-at-home mums.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24419340-601,00.html
The slightly deranged monk (moderated for GP and Glen), can’t help himself.
Sometimes I don’t quite get the logic.
Rudd has been right out in front of the public center of focus for a long while now. It is inevitable that any policy you make will upset a section of the community and along with the negative memes and spin that has been regularly coming from the media – a disapproval rating of 30% doesn’t sound like an issue to me.
However Turnbull coming from a lower profile than Rudd, talked about in quasi Messianic terms by the media prior to his ascension and touted as the leader the Liberals can have success with – comes ready made with a disapproval rating of 30%
I would have thought the early rating of 30% for Turnbull in comparison to Rudd would be the issue of concern.
What a joke, when in Queensland rant and rave about how all and sundry are now fully paid up members of the Liberal National Party. When in Canberra call yourself something you claim you are not when in Queensland.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-party.asp
And we should pontificate on a miniscule trends based on a poll with a MOE of 3.5% because…?
I agree. Pollsters should just shut up and deliver the raw numbers as they repeatedly show they know nothing about analysis of them.
We can.
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.
Our team when in Queensland.
http://www.lnp.org.au/our-team/273.html
William what ever happened to Yougov starting up in Australia there was talk about it before the 07 election??
So Abbott is saying that ’stay at home mums’ (mums that don’t have/want a job) should get 18? weeks pay after they have a baby, the same as the working mum might? Another baby super duper bonus in effect – by the tax payer. Wonder if he will produce a policy with funding for that idea?
Too hard to enforce, though I agree people shouldn’t do it.
Glen @ 76: Never heard from them again.
What is the standard disapproval rating for an Opposition leader new and used?
I don’t like it.
It’s not like education. Nobody has a patent on education therefore we all have a right to it. It’s not like health as anybody can fall sick or get injured. Or transport that we can all use.
Surely tax payers should not be funding paid maternity leave. What about tax the payers who don’t have a kid? At the very most, they should not be getting any more than the dole!
I’m right wing on this one.
I see that well known Communist pro Labor journo, Glen Milne has jumped on board the Rudd/Swan bandwagon. The moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24415571-7583,00.html
Pretty good numbers for Rudd
I wonder if the moderately cerebrally challenged former religiously inclined person has cleared his point of view with the messiah. ?
What about the tax payers who don’t have a kid?
edit before post
Dario,
After 72, one can only surmise you are more full of yourself than Malcolm Turnbull.
Now that is a big statement!
Now we’re standin’ on the corner of a world gone home
Nobody’s changed, nobody’s been saved
And I’m feelin’ cold and alone
I guess I’m lucky, I smile a lot
But sometimes I wish for more than I’ve got…
“What About me, it isn’t fair
Get used to it Centre.
Boswell has ‘done a Howard’ and promised to leave part way through his Senate turn. Whether he will or not is anyone’s guess. Really the man is a joke and I find it amazing he was Senate leader for 17 years, overseeing a plummet in the Natoinals Senate vote in Queensland.
Maternity leave vid here:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3604471/9945575
William, Essential Research appears to track a Morganesque line. Do you think there are systemic issues with the survey that might affect its accuracy?
Based on what GG? Pollsters like Gary Morgan and this guy try to make political conclusions from their numbers to make their polls more ‘juicy’, and most of the time its complete rubbish. Why shouldn’t we point it out?
Ltep, a good job for Springborg and it would save him from an embarrassing third loss.
It would appear so, Ozpolitics. Their methodology is similar to that of the ACNielsen online panel polling during the federal election, which consistently had the Labor vote in the high 50s (not that their phone polling was much different).
Anyone’s better than Boswell.
ruawake, you know that I am all for a level playing field and for the less fortunate be given every chance to make a success of it, but paid maternity leave should not be funded by an amount any more than the dole at the very most by the taxpayer.
Yes I must say that I’m still not particularly sold on internet polling.
Dario,
And your qualifications are………..
Keen observer
Centre, we all pay for stuff we don’t use as a society, or stuff that’s passed us by. One of the points of doing parental leave economic support is that securely attached infants do much better developmentally (also in terms of health outcomes), and eventually as productive citizens. Our society is already challenged by fractures a mile deep in relation to our connectedness to one another.
What about the Liberal front bencher, tax payer who had a kid that he later found out he didn’t have after all.
I can see some employers, especially very small businesses, employing older post family women. Not that is bad a thing if it makes use of an under utilised older workforce.
It is all in the implementation of course when and if they make a policy on it.
Maybe the internet polls are useful for seeing changes occurring rather than for their absolute values.
Agreed Thomas
scorpio, I don’t think he claimed any parental leave, though if he had, it would be risible, would it not?
For those that are true junkies and can’t wait for Billbowe to stick the Essential Report up:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2008/09/essential-report_290908.pdf
The undecided numbers in the supplementary questions are interesting and pretty much show the true state of affairs.
Ooops – missed Williams post.
Centre
If you deduct the “baby bonus” the maternity allowance is $276 per week. The partner rate for newstart is $405.40 each per fn. So it is lees than the dole.
H”S”O, I understand that it may be beneficial to infants, but I don’t believe the amount being suggested should be fully funded by the taxpayer?
Also I don’t fully agree that we pay for stuff we don’t use as a society. Not directly anyway.
why are we talking about maternity allowance?? why isnt Labor doing what it was elected to change IR!
They are avoiding the issue!
Essential Report
More pundit soap bubbles blown away:
* Strong agreement on Rudd going to NY,
* Position on Security Council strongly seen as a plus,
* Rudd miles ahead of Turnbull in PPM,
* Swan streets ahead of Bishop as Treasurer.
* Labor creaming it electorally.
So much for the “common wisdom” of the commentariat.
Centre, the argument isn’t that it’s only beneficial to infants, the argument is that it’s beneficial to society as a whole for children to be raised by a parent for as long as possible rather than raised by others. There’s research that suggests children raised by a parent or parents are more adjusted and contribute more in various areas. Whether you believe that or not is another thing.
Glen what the hell are you doing with a picture of Menzies next to your name.
Glen did you miss the fact that new AWAs are no more?
If Bryan is around – here’s what the Morgan vs. EMC TPP vote looks like for this year. It’s close, but they break quite differently over political events.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2008/09/morgemctpp.png
GG, Milne wrote almost the exact opposite opinion exactly 24 hours before.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24411595-5001031,00.html
Something’s up to get Glenn to change his mind that quickly.
Because Menzies was a great PM and our longest serving and nobody will break that record. The only blight on his time in office was not putting his foot down and demanding the ‘bomb’ off the brits for allowing them to use us as a testing ground.
I have 3 Australian conservative political heros, Lyons, Menzies and Howard.
Centre, see ruawake’s answer @ 106 about the amount proposed to be paid. Agree sometimes the payment for stuff we don’t use is indirect, however, a benefit I get from paying my rates, is access to a local library. Now, I never use it because I have access to a terrific specialist library via my work, but other people do. Do you think I should be able to argue for not paying a part of my rates because for now I don’t need or use the municipal library?
Yeah that, and selling pig iron to the Japanese, urging Curtin to stay in North Africa instead of defending Australia and a penchant for really bad poetry..
“… I did but see her passing by…
Cringeworthy, all three.
ltep, I agree. If you care to read my posts properly you will find that I am in disagreement with the funding. Paid maternity leave should not be fully funded by the taxpayer. At the least, a scheme should be introduced that incorporates contributions by the parents, and employers if they wish, as well.
45% dont know on Swan and Bishop. Swan obviously has trouble getting through to the average public.
Glen, I hope nobody does break Menzies’ record. It would be a sad reflection of our overall talent if we had to keep electing someone for 17 years. What about Howard? He wanted to break his record LOL. Now the liberal party is suffering for it.
HSO, yes but, you can use the library if for some reason you wanted to!
Menzies spent 6 months (SIX months) in London when he was needed in Australia during WWII. He was going to negotiate with Hitler when Churchill was sacked as PM. Some icon.
Howard lied, locked up women and children behind razor wire etc etc. Some icon.
What are you on about jovial?
So, you saying Menzies didn’t spend 6 months in London as the Japs came closer and closer to Australia? Or are you denying Howard locked up men women 7 children in dumps like Nauru?
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
Stick to Lyons
I’m thinking no matter how hard we try, we won’t get Chifley over the line against Menzies in 1949…
He’s shocked. Is all. He’s never heard these ghastly stories before. “Oh, tell me it isn’t true, tell me so!”, he cries while running opened-armed towards father Tony.
Abbott: Oh Glen, dry your eyes you silly duffer. None of this is true. Some unchristian people don’t like us, and they will say and do anything to hurt our cause – you go and wash up and I’ll fetch us a nice cup of rose water.”
Australia wasn’t even at war with Japan when Menzies was PM.
SNIP: Whinge about moderation deleted – The Management.
Ah, yeah, Bill Bowe is right. but Menzies should have been in Australia, not London, with the nation at war.
Oh, I see, so we have to wait for a formal declaration? Perhaps even till after the war to read Tojo’s secret telexes?
Anyone could see war with Japan was about to happen. The threat from Japan -already in China in their hundreds of thousands – was thick in the air, and did eventuate in quick time (which kinda proves the point). Beating Germany first does not excuse Menzies judgement on Japan one iota. He could not see past England and a seat on Churchill’s War Cabinet. He was still urging Curtin to send the troops on their way back from Africa. to Burma. He was incompetent and would have stood a good chance of losing Australia if he’d retained the Prime Ministership. Some Liberal “hero”.
We weren’t at war with North Vietnam when Ming decided it was time to send in the troops and bring back conscription…
william
i read the latest poll info
would you agree a flatline is better than a downward spiral.
Also i think at least 3 months is fair before we judge talcum
I certainly would, Gusface, but this is only one poll. Taken together, the polls should provide Turnbull with cause for encouragement, if not exactly confidence.
BB @ 131: I offer no judgement on where Menzies should have been in 1941 (or indeed Rudd in September 2008).
Menzies didn’t write “I did but see her,” he just quoted it.
Menzies was an utter disaster in his first PMship, the one that mattered. That’s why his own party dumped him, remember Glen?
So Essential has gone from 57/43 to 58/42. When is the MSM going to drop the bull about Turnbull doing so well
Possum – thanks.
Gus – I am with William
O.K. Centre, What about foreign aid? Should we drop that because it’s of no immediate benefit?
Bah the UAP was essentially a one man band and it couldnt cope without Lyons. And Menzies wanting the PMship so much ruffled too many feathers and he found it tough, i dont see a problem with him being in London when we were at war with Germany and not at war with Japan.
I know the MSM want a contest (and I’m not sure whether THIS is classed as MSM now!!!) but if the problem was only Nelson, as we were led to believe, then the polls should have bounced. Now I know it was an entirely different part of the cycle, but Rudd got an immediate bounce when he took over from Beazley
Sure, he had to go to London from time to time. but 6 months?
No quibble re Howard locking men, women & children behind razor wire then?
Sigh, Glen. Past battles, past wars.
The war was being fought in Europe and our boys were there and he was on the War Council so i hardly think there wasnt a reason for him being at home. It’s not as easy as it is also for Menzies to have travelled back then not like Kevin 747 to get from NYC to the Grand Final in hours.
Andrew, perhaps, just perhaps, it’s actually occurred to the Oz electorate that people who say they’ll do what they promised they’d do during the election, and actually attempt to do it, might actually be worth backing for a bit. And bugger the ambitious fluff of Malcolm?
war was being fought in ME
The most crucial point from turnbull’s view would be to maintain his base rating (30ish)
from that point onwards the ability to grab 1 or 2% here or there will be the litmus test or whether he has legs post 2010
Ever heard of Greece or Yugoslavia?
Gusface the fact Turnbull automatically is in the high 30s gives him an edge Nelson never had a base!
But Harry my beef is NOT with the electorate it’s the endless MSM spin and Crikey is not immune from this
And gusface, youre being awfully generous 30ish is hardly competitive. I think Turnbull is a reasonable choice of leader but he should have waited until much later in the electoral cycle
Glen
for your house to progress afew things need to happen and BTW actually happen.
1.have a purge-does wonders for the constitution (pun intended) get rid of the fundies for a start
2.recognise the will of the people (all of them) dont flog dead horses
3.Rewrite your party history (starting from REID) this time take off the rose coloured glasses
4.Distance yourselves as far as possible from howards legacy (worstchoices yada yada) no need to defend the indefensible.
that said,I think turnbull has the smarts to lift the libs stocks but only if some or hopefully all of the above happens.
I must confess I am a bit dumbfounded by the negativity about paid maternity leave. If you look at a country with the best maternity/paternity leave (Sweden) this is a country that also has the highest female participation rate in the world (or close to). Maternity leave keeps women connected to the labour force, something that is crucial for a country like Australia with a low overall participation rate.
Another thing is we need babies. Have a look what the working / dependant ratio will be in 50 years time. We need workers and migration is not enough to deal with this problem. So you can either give these kids the best chance of a good start in life, giving them time to bond with their parents and doing something about parents’ financial insecurities, or you can throw them to the wolfes hoping they luck out and become good contributing citizens (mothers being forced to return to the workforce for financial reasons within 3 months of births is disgraceful). A small investment at the start can bring benefits in the 100,000s of $$ to the community.
And compared to the other investments we make in kids,$12,000 in maternity leave is peanuts. If you don’t want to pay to invest in Australian kids, you’ll probably save more by opposing public schools, health clinics, youth centres etc.
People will have kids, the country needs kids, so why not rebate mothers’ tax liabilites for a short time while they nurture the people that will be paying for the upkeep of public roads, hospitals and defence when you are feeding the ducks at the nursing home.
Ah, Jonsson, our conservatives are much stupider than yours.
Let me say this:
Do I believe that parents should spend as much time raising their children from an early age as possible? YES.
Should parents keep their employment if they take time off to raise their children? YES.
Should parents receive the minimum weekly wage funded by the taxpayer to take maternity leave regardless of their wealth or income? NO. Cut the economics benefit spin! Their is no reason to receive any more than the equivalent of the dole from government purses. And only if you are on a lower than a very high income at that.
The liberals have opposed labor on everything so far except maybe this? You would’nt believe it!
Paid maternity leave is a nonsense. Your choice to have kids is yours only.
Oh no! I’m agreeing with GP again
Jonsson The reason we don’t want paid maternity leave and all those other services you mention, is- we are not prepared to pay the necessary taxes.Elections are fought promising lower taxes then blaming the previous government for lack of services. Low tax, means low tax and we prefer low tax.
The trouble is its one of those policies that wont benefit everybody and leave some rather pissed off.
Rudd should be focusing on IR that’s what he was elected for.
No 156
That’s one of the funny things about comparisons with Sweden, held up as a social paradise. The reality is that the Government steals much of your wage to fund it.
On tonight’s Media Watch was a story which was perhaps the first to make me unambiguously concerned about an aspect of Rudd’s style – one that was far too Howardesque for my liking. It concerned the AFP raids on individuals in Canberra and the Gold Coast regarding investigation of PS leaks. The Canberra one was on the pretext of national security; the Gold Coast one was purely about the employment security fo an embarrassed bureaucrat. This concerned me.
The misuse of security powers to muzzle honest whistle blowing, even when clearly in the public interest, was one of the worst features of Howard’s rule. It became so prevalent that many careerist, unprincipled public servants in Canberra turned into self-censoring doers of their master’s bidding in this regard. SES seemed to stand for Stalins Eager Students.
I felt that Rudd made a mistake in being too nice not getting rid of some of these people when he took office. They gave teh whole CPS a bad name. Those in charge of Immigration and the AFP should have been amoung the first to go, as teh Rau and Haneef inquiries have shown. But if it turns out that Rudd only kept them on so that they could perform the same antics at his bidding, then our new PM will rapidly lose his ethical gloss. He will be lucky to last longer than Whitlam. Australia has always had comparatively low standards of legal protection for free speech and individual rights. If Rudd only intends to govern to the legal minimum, then he is setting the bar far too low. He had promised legal reform in this area, not continuation of Howard’s abuses of power.
Not happy Kevin.
To be fair Glen, most policies are like that
I agree with Jonnson, our lack of paid maternity leave is economically irrational regardless of your personal preference or political philosophy.
Chris, it can’t be explained by tax takes either. Overall our tax take in the OECD is about mid field (2/3 of nations more, 1/3 less) but only 2 other nations don’t have this provision. The older and more retirees we get, the more we are going to need this reform.
like workchoices
like workchoices, the baby bonus, chaplains in schools, HECS, and the list goes on
What ever happened to the joys of having a baby for the beauty of it LOL? Now everbody needs a monetry incentive to do it – double LOL.
Are people aware that it is possible to claim Howard’s wonderful baby bonus as soon as pregnancy is confirmed, pocket the money, then have an abortion? That’s what I call targetted social policy!
Dont we already have the BB which has been increased???
Is it Adam, then i guess it depends on how much an abortion is then as to how economically viable such an option would be.
Does Britain or Canada or New Zealand have ML? Because they are the best examples to follow as those countries are so similar to ours, if they arent going for it we should ask why we are?
Centre
I think for the common man (and woman) having a baby for the joy of it is a luxury brought on by the economic good times of the last half a century. Before then, and still in the developing world, having a baby (many babies) is a way to secure your economic future. Kids=the first super funds:)
For low-income people first trimester abortions are effectively free.
I thought you get the money when you deliver so to speak?
Glen
UK, Ireland, Canada and NZ all have paid parental or maternity leave of varying lengths. Only the US and ourselves don’t, amoung OECD nations.
Apparently not.
Or if it is, then you don’t have to prove that delievery was effected.
Well it’ll never happen in America even if Obama wins, but it is obviously seen as a way of getting women to have children despite the difficulties with work and the like after all in Western Countries women have far fewer children than in poorer African or Middle Eastern countries so i suppose we should do what we can. But i dont think it is something we should rush into.
Yes Glen, and it doesn’t benefit everyone, and not everyone thinks its a great idea
Adam
Are you sure about that. Centrelink webpage says “you have a newborn baby … you have a stillborn child or a child who dies shortly after being born”. Seems a bit different from abortion.
I think we need to disentangle two issues here. The baby bonus was a populist measure that coudl do with some reform in how it is targetted. But that doesn’t speak against the idea of paid maternity leave. If we introduced the latter we could reform the former at the same time.
Yes but Jonsson, we were supposedly having the boomest of economic times under Howard, yet he still felt the need to introduce a baby bonus.
Centre
A boom can increase the need for paid ML. The boom in housing prices meant that it was harder than ever for a single income family to pay for a house. In real terms this has become far more difficult in the 25 years since Hawke became PM. A whole generation of women in the workforce meant that house prices adjsuted ot teh icome of a two working parent family. We even switched from reporting average earnings to average family income to hide the unpleasant truth. Only the poor and the wealthy have non-working parents these days. The middle 70% can’t afford to.
Boom times led to less need to have kids for economic reasons, rather kids became a financial disincentive [extreme generalisation warning on this one]. The baby bonus was a response to Costello’s PPP equation (population, participation, productivity) where population was not holding up (looking decades ahead). Now, I don’t think you can necessarily credit the baby bonus for reversing what was a falling fertility rate, but it is actually rising. Maybe cheap alcopops have helped as well…
Socrates, I will stick to my 153 post on this issue. The policy is a little too far to the left for me. I would prefer to see government revenues invested in health, infrastructure, transport, and business incentives to benefit the economy further.
I’m crashing, nite guys.
The following from good friend of mine commenting on McKerras’s view that Menzies was our greatest PM – (I couldn’t put it better myself)
This is the sort of thing that raises one’s Blood Pressure to extremely dangerous levels. (McKerras article).
Even for mad Malcolm it’s a bit rich!
Firstly, to have RGM even ON a list of great PM’s is practically an obscenity, let alone as No.1!!
Here’s a man who, in his country’s greatest hour of need, spat the dummy, took his bat & ball & went home to spend EIGHT YEARS plotting his own triumphal return! (So MM breaks his own rule that ‘leadership in War’ etc. counts for something).
If he’s a Liberal icon, that more or less equates to being a political nobody. (cf Howard). He successfully sent/kept the country asleep for 20+ years until EGW awoke them/us.
Then Mr.Curtin: his main/only claim to fame ’standing up to Churchill’ & bringing the troops home to defend Australia. Made easier by being 12,000m from WSC at the time & possibly being pissed or with his mistress (or both).
In reality was just the ‘Administrator’ of the Commonwealth taking his orders from from that other fatally flawed character Gen.MacArthur. (Rather than saying “I will return”, some (esp.soldiers) ask why he left! cf. Menzies?).
So the REAL No.1 is simply Deakin, by a long way. Established much of the political/civil ’structure’ that has endured for 100 years. Went mad later, but then the line between genius and . . .?
Fisher more of an enigma, but if he established the RAN can’t be all bad!
My ‘Greats’ simply include Billy Hughes; a great war-time leader who then stood up for Australia’s rights at Versailles etc. Maligned & villified by the ALP later (so must have done something right!) & generally a pain in the a**e for 51 years in Parlt., but the man for the ‘hour’ when it counted.
And of course Gough. Dragged us, kicking & screaming, from our slumber, to try & reclaim a rightful place in the wider world. Undone by dunderheads and a drunk!
QLD State Galaxy: 52/48
http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2008/09/080930_poll/StateTables.doc
Article for the above poll: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24422534-952,00.html
New post up on the Queensland poll: great work as always, James.
It is an absolute outrage that Sharon Burrows believes employers should not only have to keep a vacant position for a new mother, but also “top up” any government maternity payment. It proves Ms Burrows is truly unearthly. Why should employers pay for a woman’s choice to have a child?
Because employers want and need women workers, and it’s a fact of life that women have babies. Baby-having can’t be outsourced, so employers have to deal with this situation as it is. Our birthrate will continue to fall, and the quality of parenting and socialisation of children will suffer, unless it is made bearable for women to work and have children at the same time. This is called social policy, GP. You should read up about it.
Strong performance by Swan on AM this morning. He sounds very firm and confident these days.
I’m interested to hear people’s take on Senator Faulkner’s ideas floated in regard to the reforms to the electoral system (4 year fixed terms; full Senate elections at each election).
He should be confident. He’s essentiall bulletproof as of last week (if he doesn’t completely drop the ball). The whole ball game has changed.
Turnbull is just about begging Swan and Rudd to do the bi-partisanship thing. This is because the only way Truffles can get a look-in on the economy for quite a while is to agree with Labor. He’ll have to quit brainstorming out loud in TV interviews, too.
Although he’s got skills economically, Turnbull runs the risk of being seen as an armchair general if he kibbitzes too much more.
Rudd is at a press conference right now shovelling all our economic woes straight into the Sub-Prime bin. He emphasized that S-P has been around “for over 12 months now” (i.e. before the election), and talked about poor economic conditions we have been suffering “for some time”.
Wrapping it all up into his trip to the US last week he said our people had been in touch with their people in Washington (implying through contacts made last week, and probably so, at least in part) and generally that our banks are in good shape compared to the rest of the world.
Let’s see Truffles top that!
Maybe the meeja has really changed horses in the last few days. Even the West Australian has apparently had a rush of blood:
Who said the Age of Miracles was over!
Itep, four-year terms for both Houses is actually Labor policy, although no-one seems to realise this. It’ll never get up at a referendum. In fact I don’t think any electoral reform that requires a referendum will get up, because the Libs will oppose whatever Labor does just for the sake of opposition.
Meanwhile The Daily Telegraph draws our attention to weightier issues:
* “Matilda Rose and missing $12 million”
* “Britney Spears Sex Tape Shock”
* “Public Mischief Charge for Bird”
* “Ex-Liberal Councillor Admits To Child Sex”
* “TV’s Love Affair With The Girls Is OVer”
oh, and yes,
* “World Crisis: How It Hurts You”
Malcolm Farr has a half-hearted go at our Prime Tourist:
Oh, OK, so the gauge of success of Rudd’s trip is now whether he single-handedly managed to turn Congress around to vote the way he sugested. But one suspects that if the vote had gotten through, we would have been hearing the story about how Rudd can’t brag, it was always going to get up anyway. I suppose Farr’s point, if he was pressed, would be that no matter which way the vote went Rudd’s presence could have had no possible effect. So let’s not even try. I mean, he hasn’t even met Nick Xenophon yet… a much more important matter. Perhaps Phil Coorey’s idea that it was unforgiveable not to attend the AFL Grand Final breakfast is all the buzz in Melbourne today. Who knows what they’ll come up with next?
Bushfire Bill @189 An actor and part owner of an NRL club recently said that Mr. Rudd now has to deal with many difficult and challenging problems of governance, and a lot of them are not of his own making so he should be given reasonable time to address them. This is a fair appraisal and one apparently shared by the public at the moment as reflected in opinion polling. Other than a few partisans on either side of politics, no one can really say yet whether Australia is in ‘good’, ‘bad’ or ‘indifferent’ hands but most hope it is the first of those alternatives.
Name one that is of his own making, and which would stick today, 30/9/2008.
Adam I’m sure the Liberals would not block electoral reforms if they included non complusory voting and a First Past the Post system
!
Glenn not even most in the Liberal Party support non-compulsory voting or first past the post otherwise it’d be law by now.
I have to agree that the proposed changes are highly unlikely to be successful, but I was more interested in public good those changes would have if they were successful. I have no objection, on the face of it, to 4 year terms, it’s really arbitrary as to whether 3 or 4 years are what term lengths should be. I strongly oppose lengths of 2 years (as in the US) or 5 years (as in the UK) as I think one of those is far too short and the other far too long.
The full election of senators at each election, again, has benefits. For instance the Senate we see now reflects not the choice of the people now or from the last election, but the choice of the people from the last 2 elections. You could also argue that opening all slots to election will allow for a better representation of a proportion of the community’s views in Parliament, no matter how batty or objectionable they seem from a centrist perspective. As I flagged earlier though, I’m weary as to how such a system would incorporate provisions for the resolution of disagreements between houses. The current system at least preserves the idea that a government ought to seek approval from the people of specific legislation at an election before passage at a joint sitting.
# 194 As at 30/11/08, I would say Mr. Rudd gets the benefit of the doubt for the time being. At the moment, he is in the public’s mind, entitled to a ‘fair go’ to deal with all or any problems of governance in this country whether or not of his own making.
This Poll is interesting.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24424318-12377,00.html
Just browsing the ‘Financial Review Magazine’ October 2008 that someone left in my office. It has section where a panel chooses the most powerful people in Australia. What I found interesting is the glowing praise of Julie Gillard at No.2 from one Peter Shergold who was on the panel.
I reckon they will be dissapointed given who Turnbull picked as his environmental shadows
No 186
Thanks for the non-lesson in social policy. The fact is that I disagree with it. Compulsory contributions toward maternity payments makes women considerably unemployable because the cost to the business is simply dead money. It will kill small business.
This outburst by Robb shows just how out of touch they are and just how desperate they are to try and regain some traction on CC.
Notice this; “The Government has delegated the Garnaut report to irrelevancy,” Mr Robb told ABC Radio. ”
And then Robb has the gall to say this;
This mob are off with the fairies. It can only get worse from here. Strap yourselves in and get set for an interesting ride. Turnbull is going to regret having these 3 amigos fronting the climate, environment portfolios.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24423770-12377,00.html
GP, I try to play an educational role here
This is frankly one area where business will have to like it or lump it. The economy exists to serve people, not vice versa. Working women have more votes than business. In any case, small business cries wolf too often. The GST was going to kill small business, unfair dismissal was going to kill small business, banning smoking in pubs was going to kill small business, etc etc.
Adam,
Don’t forget the biggest crock of all.
“A rise in the minimum wage will devastate small business and send thousands of them to the wall”.
They have been spruking this one all my working life in the Commission & through the media at every National or State Wage Case Hearing.
What I want to know is, when are we going to have paid leave for uncles?
Today’s meltdown schmozzle makes me relatively happy to be in Australia, rather than you-know-where (i.e. anywhere else).
Turnbull is being commendably bi-partisan and comforting. Good for him! He doesn’t have much choice, but it’s good to see him stumping up and not kibbitzing for a change. The World has gone insane today, “The Market” is making a fool of itself, and there’s no point sniping until it comes to its senses.
Perhaps it’s for the best that the bailout legislation has been delayed for a few days. It might actually get some of those overpaid financial “geniuses” onto their knees, begging for forgiveness and a reprieve (any reprieve, maybe even one that doesn’t leave them walkout multi-millionaires from what they’ve done to us all).
It looks like Three-Star Mince instead of Premium Lean for a while, but we’ll make it through.
Rudd & Swan are going to have their work cut out for them to keep the Australian economy in good order after this;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/30/wallstreet.marketturmoil
Banks are either collapsing or nationalised in Britain & Europe as well asin the USA. George Monbiot gives a decent examination of where it all went wrong here;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/marketturmoil.subprimecrisis
The American people may be a bit slow sometimes but these two commenters seem to have it nailed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/30/wallstreet.marketturmoil1
Adam 203
Quiute right. Not only do small businesses cry wolf tooo often, but they also exaggerate their importance to the economy. Many are in fields that are really just transaction costs to the real engines of our economy. They’re a bit like farmers on that one. Overall the economy needs to encourage women to remain in/rejoin the workforce. Paid ML helps other nations achieve that.
from BB 192
Malcolm Farr says
“But economic growth here, already slowing, could be further retarded and Government revenue will come in significantly below the levels anticipated in ther May Budget.”
didn’t they announce last week that they were $3bil better off than was anticipated?
Malcolm’s just hanging onto his old Rudd Bashing habits. He’ll get out of them eventually. He’s actually made a lot of progress in the past few months.
Watching Rudd this morning being firm, calm & reassuring (what some call boring) I am so glad Oz made the right choice in Nov 07.
Vera,
The receipts for the year 2007/2008 came in $3b better than forecast but the forecast surplus for the year 2008/2209 of I think, $22b could take a fair hit if the meltdown in the Us and elsewhere has a substantial effect on our economy.
I’m concerned about Costello’s Future Fund investments in the US by an Investment Broker who already has a history of failure in his past.
I hope Rudd & Swan had enough sense to try and fireproof it somewhat. Otherwise it may all just go up in a puff of smoke. $80 something billion wasn’t it.
Only small change in the US but means quite a lot in the scheme of things here.
Cozzie has a lot to explain for spruiking the super scheme from last year too. Today there’ll be a lot of people wishing they’d never heard of it or Peter Costello.
Thanks Scorpio, but you are scaring me with news of Smirks rash investments. I wonder if he’ll still be in parliament if and when his chooks come home to roost.
Vera,
I would think that there are a number of reasons why Costello has seen fit to keep a low profile and avoid being placed in a position where he can be directly challenged on his record of skillfully operating the levers & buttons of the finely tuned race car.
I just hope for all our sakes that Rudd & Swan are able to dodge the bullets that our “best Treasurer of all time” left for them.
Management of the Future Fund has come up before and to be fair it seems to be being well handled and is reported regularly. They had parked a lot of their cash in short term cash deposits which has the twin benefits of propping up the equity in our local banks and at the same time limiting their exposure to current losses in share prices. If they have done as claimed the FF should be in an excellent position to buy stocks when the market settles down.
It looks as though Liberal policy is going to continue to originate back at Liberal Party Headquarters at News Ltd. Samantha Maiden is helping out with this contribution.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24423977-11949,00.html
I love the way they pre-empt reports and positions. The old crystal ball is getting a fair old work-over lately.
Adam in Canberra
Even Kevin Rudd knows that small business needs protections from unfair dismissal laws
If you are running a 10 people business, you do not know if you will have enough work in 6 months to employ someone else.
If there are unfair dismissal law, if you employed someone and had to lay off the person, and he/she sues you, you will lose your business and 10 people become unemployed
Just the cost of the lawyer could be crippling (that is why work place lawyer want the rule removed)
If unfair dismissal law applied to small business, it encourage them to not hire or hire casual employees/contractors (higher rates), that is not good for the employee and the employers alike. There should be some fluidity in the system
I don’t know if bludgers have already read this Mungo MacCallum article, if not it’s fun reading.
this about Rudds trip
“Rudd, by contrast, is a born internationalist, but this does not mean his trips are fun – just ask the journalists who, increasingly reluctantly, take part in them. No more visits to five star hotels on the excuse that they need to stay close to their leader; Kevin and Therese are quite happy to save the taxpayers money by camping with the local ambassador and their entourage can make its own arrangements. And forget about sporting events, or any other kind of genteel tourism; it’s still Kevin 24/7, both in the air and on the ground and this applies in spades to his latest trek to the United States.”
and about Smirk’s book lol
“At the close of the Brisbane writers’ festival on Sunday (and seeing the big display) I asked the booksellers how many Costello memoirs they’d sold to the 20,000 people who’d passed through the festival over the week. “Umm,” said the manager. “None actually.”
http://www.echo.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1045&Itemid=543
ABC Sydney is running a “Depression Era Special” show this afternoon: old hard-luck songs, recipes for rabbit stew and so on. Didn’t even raise a smile from me. In fact when someone rang up and said it could be worse – Earth could be hit by a bolide – I found it hard to get my mind off the possibility.
But reading this from Mungo:
…got me laughing out loud. Good on yer Mungo. Thanks for the tip, Vera.
Socrates,
Here is a list of Investment Managers for the Future Fund and the list of Asset Classes where the funds are invested.
http://www.futurefund.gov.au/investment/investment_managers
A quick scan of this list doesn’t give me a lot of comfort. They also haven’t updated the “Interim Reports” of the Investment Portfolios since the 31st of January this year.
I wonder why?
Some of those Asset Classed have “crashed” since January.
http://www.futurefund.gov.au/investment/portfolio_updates
Dovif, read Julia Gillard’s speech at the Press Club the other day.
http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/Gillard/Releases/IntroducingAustraliasNewWorkplaceRelationsSystem.htm
Be calm. All is in good hands.
Small business wont be happy until wages are pushed down to zero…
And they go out of business.
“Cozzie has a lot to explain for spruiking the super scheme from last year too. Today there’ll be a lot of people wishing they’d never heard of it or Peter Costello.”
Wasn’t he encouraging and giving people the opportunity to park their spare million in super? The wealthy wont be happy with that free gift from government.
http://www.switzer.com.au/web_pages/articles_and_tools/financial_planning_and_superannuation/new_superannuation_rules_explained.html
One growth area with the Future Fund is in the number of parasites which are feeding of Australian Taxpayers money.
Seems as though there may be some “limited” updated information here but I don’t expect it to reveal too much.
http://www.futurefund.gov.au/news_room
Yeah, get your hands on $1m as quick as possible and whack it into the investment of a lifetime.
For the greater majority it’s probably not looking so good now. Especially for those who borrowed the money to invest.
Remember the old saying; “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is”.
It looks as though John Mc Cain has been taking lessons off the Aussie Liberal Party in how to “pass the buck”!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24423937-2703,00.html
Err, John, take another look at those voting figures. Just how stupid does he think the American people are?
Sorry, don’t bother answering that!
I loved this comment though.
No, not when it’s easier to blame someone else.
Now where have I heard that before? Now I remember, all the economic problems in Australia since Nov 24, 2007, are all the fault of one Kevin Rudd.
Everything was just rosy prior to that!
It was only about an hour ago that I read an article in the OZ saying how the Reserve can’t possibly reduce interest rates now with all the uncertainty going around, and then I read this;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24424942-20142,00.html
Well maybe Rudd can find some ‘narrative’ in all this. International affairs seem to be assuming a more publically obvious important role when domestic economics and Climate Change is added to the issue. Australia needs to manage its risks, spread its risks and develop its relationship with the growing economies who more and more depend on China. And who better understands this, has shown is skill at this and seeming more able to prosecute the task? Im sure there is a narrative in this – and the bad thing for the Coalition is they have no profile on this apart from Howard being the Sherrif.
dovif @ 218,
I don’t know where you get this stuff from, but it is almost completely wrong. I spent more than 25 years in Industrial Relations and know what I am talking about.
Most employers are members of Employer Associations, (Unions) and are represented free by therm.
No lawyers were ever needed if the employer complied with the Award & Legislation. Besides that they are a waste of money anyway. As an Industrial Advocate for 6 years or so, I took on 34 firms of Lawyers in Unfair Dismissal cases (not what you are talking about) and beat the whole 34.
I used to average around 5 unfair dismissals per week. Of those, 95% were settled by negotiation directly with the employer. Of those settled by negotiation or in the Industrial Tribunals, none were of such a substantial settlement as to cause any noticeable damage to the employers business.
Funny how through the eight years or so of the unfair dismissal laws during Howard’s reign, that unemployment dropped from 8.5% to 5%. If employers wanted or needed workers, they hired them. If they no longer needed some, they made them redundant. All within the laws at the time which worked quite well.
Well put Tommy.
I have lenses manufactured in Nanjing for the work I do (optical design), and I was speaking to the CEO of the company about some technical points just yesterday. We got around to talking about the Sub-Prime Crisis and Ameriica’s role in the world. He said he thought they were finished as the leading nation of the world, at east as far as setting an example for us all to follow was concerned.
I asked him if he’d ever heard about Kevin Rudd. Well, I couldn’t shut him up for the next five minutes. The fact that Rudd simply speaks Mandarin is looked upon by him and his business colleagues in China as utterly compelling. He predicts a bright future for trade between our two countries and only good things happening as a result. He puts most of it down to our recognition of the seriousness and potential of the relationship. Rudd, he said, was “the new man of Asia.” It was actually starting to get embarrassing, he was so effusive.
OK, so a sample of 1 out of 1.3 billion, but I’ve heard this a lot, from all types of sources (maybe not so excitedly as from my lens maker, though). Many, many people in China know of and admire Rudd and Australia.
To think that just a few years ago Howard was crowing about how comprehensively vital to our future was the FreeTrade deal with the US. And how Shanahan wrote that we should be prepared to go to war with China over Taiwan, on the Americans’ side, not “kow-tow” to them like the Mandarin-speaking “would-be Prime Minister” was doing. There was a lot more like that going around at the time, too.
With a wonderful sense of timing and irony, it was the Chinese and other Asian voters of Eastwood who booted Howard out.
There really is a narrative there in our fresh approach to Asia – and it’s a pretty compelling one. I’d like to see the smirkers say otherwise and not get laughed out of town.
BB @ 232 -
To think that just a few years ago Howard was crowing about how comprehensively vital to our future was the FreeTrade deal with the US.
Most of the sectors that advantage us, especially in agriculture, don’t even kick in for up to another decade. By then America will be a much less significant trading partner than it now is, which is already considerably less that it was say a decade ago. This will be especially so if McCain/Palin get their bums on the big chair in the Oval Office.
Why are news services saying the stock exchange drop is the worst % fall ever? I am sure “Black Monday” about a decade ago was 21% compared to 8%.
Micheal Pascoe says it does not even make the top ten of record daily falls.
This “crisis” will be forgotten by Christmas. The big winners will be Rudd and Swan – lower interest rates and steering the economy through the “great debt swindle”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)
Looks like we have a way to go yet.
ruawake, I believe they are reporting the U.S. situation. Here the market was down about 3.5% a few hours ago, compared to a one day fall of nearly 25% back in September 1987, the last time a Republican Prez created a financial implosion. That was the start of the “recession we had to have” which the Libs have blamed Keating for ever since.
Our stock market dropped a total of 50% then and didn’t regain the losses until well into 1994.
I think you’ll find it is the biggest Dollar amount loss in the US. It may also be close here too as 8% of over 5,000 points is almost the same as 21% of about 2,300 points in September 1987. If memory serves me right.
I’m not sure what drugs some Liberal supporters are on, but I think it is time they changed their chemist.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/madness_is_all_in_the_mind/
Exactly how does one base an argument that the Rudd Government is illegitimate or not entitled to be in government?
Muskiemp
The dollar loss is only a “paper one” you lose nothing if you do not sell shares, unless of course you invested in companies that go belly up.
We saw the ASX bounce back a bit this afternoon, why? Because there are smart cookies out there snapping up bargains on the share market casino. But of course these are the guys who have money not debt.
Not sure Itep, but I would love a dollar for every similar statement made across the blogisphere.
I would have no trouble riding out the current financial crisis.
Muskiemp
The dollar loss is only a “paper one” you lose nothing if you do not sell shares, unless of course you invested in companies that go belly up.
We saw the ASX bounce back a bit this afternoon, why? Because there are smart cookies out there snapping up bargains on the share market. But of course these are the guys who have money not debt.
(Reposted minus moderation bot word)
Rep, it’s the old Liberal ‘born to rule’ mentality. Yes, Rudd won the election, but all right thinking persons, i.e. them, know that only they have the intelligence to man the economic levers when the country in the midst of a crisis. The fact that most such crises have been created by the Libs and/or their friends is immaterial.
scorpio, the longer they delude themselves that way, the longer they will be in opposition
They’re just running on momentum. They don’t have a clue. Most of the issues they have said are unpopular are actually quite well-received by the punters, who are much more concerned that the economic boat is not rocked through “dramatic” actions by the government (or kibbitzing by Turnbull… who seems to have realised this given his temperatre comments today).
I’d reckon what they’re REALLY scared of is that we weather this storm nicely. Doing that would put paid to the “Libs better on economy” meme for good.
It does not really matter that the “Global Shocks” were blamed on Whitlam and Hawke, this time it is different.
The vast majority of people realise that this started in the US, that is why Rudd keeps waffling on about pressuring the US congress to sort it out. Of course he has zero influence, it is all for domestic consumption.
The “narrative” is – the USA has stuffed up, we are willing to help, but if the economy takes a hit it is all the USA’s fault.
Rudd has just got a “get out of jail free” card. All economic discussion will resolve around the twits in America until the next budget.
re: 243
Oops. Sorry
Repltep. Time I got a new monitor.Well put Ruawake… going to NY reinforced the “overseas” origins of the meltdown. Hardly a pundit disagrees with the trip (as amended by circumstances). All they are left with is some waffle about Kevin-747… generalizations based on wishful thinking that the punter will see the trip as a junket (yesterday’s Essential Research even showed that the original reason – to attend the UN to lobby for a position on the Security Council – was well received).
[The “narrative” is - the USA has stuffed up, we are willing to help, but if the economy takes a hit it is all the USA’s fault.}
Rudd sure is willing to help ruawake. He has now authorised the Reserve Bank to pump $30b into propping up the US dollar and imprive liquidity in the credit/exchange market.
$20b more announced today.
Damn, imprive – “improve”.
BB,
I sold quite a few Insurance Bonds (AMP) in 1987. I had very unhappy customers in October. Those that wanted to get out did lose money. Those that let them mature made their profits, also increased there profits with the de mutualisation of AMP and received their free shares. Of coarse those that sold their free AMP shares not long after receiving them made a killing at somewhere between $18 and $22 a share.
Legitamcy = Rudd won the election, good majority in HOR.
Rudd won the election = entitlement
I know lefties say some pretty strange things from time to time but the right-wingers are on whole other level of delusion. And indicate they believe in a one party ‘democracy’.
Scorpio back at 238 and others getting their knickers in a knot. I went and had a read of the posts on Jack’s blog, and my reading of that particular one was that s/he had their tongue very firmly in their cheek. I actually suspected someone from here!
HSO, yeah after I read a few more comments from the same poster, I came to that conclusion too.
Although you never can tell these days. Some of the RWDB’s are wacky enough for almost anything.
Doesn’t change the fact though that comments similar in vein to this are everywhere on the web.
BTW, when, do you suppose the MSM might start accusing Malcolm of “Me Tooism” with the daily calls for bi-partisanship and support for Labor’s IR changes? And will he be tempted beyond his ability to restrain himself, to choke the living s**t out of the shadow Environment bloke?
Percival Frontbottom may have things coming out of the wrong orifice?
scorpio, I think that’s the point. Don’t doubt what you’re saying about the comments elsewhere on the web, or the ‘born to rule’ mentality, for that matter, but my, they’ve taken a severe battering of late. It’s one of the reasons why I think Turnbull keeps popping up wanting bi-partisanship on the financial woes crashing about us. It’s the only way he can keep his profile on camera and on air.
ruawake, is it you, you silly boy?
Well, just worked up the courage to look at my Super account for the past 12 months.
About 17% down in the last year.
Actually better than I was expecting. What about youse?
Percival Frontbottom seems to have things a bit ar$e about face it appears.
P.S. I blame KRudd.
Bushfire Bill, kind of you to ask. I’ve lost $85,000 odd. I reckon I’ll be working till I drop. Mind you, in my game, if they’ll still talk to you and you’re making sense to them, that’s probably O.K.. It’s when I stop making sense, I worry about. OTOH, we’re probably stuffed anyway, if that report on Larvatus Prodeo about the methane gurgling up from under the Arctic is any where near correct.
BB,
my rollover lost 12% to June 30th. I wouldn’t be surprised if it has not lost at least that much again since July,1 the way things are crashing at present.
A few years ago it was losing around 8.5 grand a year. I had almost got that back and all of a sudden away it goes again.
A couple of retired guys I played golf with last week said they had lost well over $100 k each in 12 Months.
It’s got a long way to go yet and is going to hurt the little guy the most, especially those closer to retirement. They aren’t going to have the time available to recover.
The Super and Investment Funds are the largest investors in the share market and if they start cutting their losses and shifting assets elsewhere, then the economy is in for a very rough ride.
Wasn’t asking for dollar amounts. Just percentages.
bah it’s only a paper loss and the market will rebound in good time.
For once I agree with you, Glen.
No 265
Well my parents have lost zero. All super is in a DIY term deposit until the storm clears.
Smart move GP. For those able to shift their funds without penalty, there is a cool 8.2 to 8.5 percent still on offer for short term IBD’s.
No 268
Yep. My parents have never trusted the stock market anyway.
Well, Glen, for some of us older b******s, it may only be on paper, but we’re stuffed. Totally screwed. Buggered. Terrific legacy from Bush and the Republicans and their affiliates. A bit like the bitter legacy from Howard and Costello.
Oh come on Harry cheer up, the fact is you only lose any of your money if you sell, you still get dividends and DRPs to offset any current paper loss.
Harry you’d wouldnt have the money to lose if it wasnt for Howard and Costello running a ship shape economy here!
These things happen, you just need to get over it.
Harry I hardly think it is fair to blame Bush and the Republicans for everything, I think it is a far deeper problem that the good times got to the heads of Wall St and the Banks and they blew it themselves. I dont think Bush or the Democrats are to blame for this, the people running the Banks and the people giving out those loans are to blame.
271
Logic isn’t your strong point is it Glen?
So we have Howard and Costello to thank for good economic times but when things turn bad it’s someone else’s fault.
The strong prudential regulation of our financial system did not emerge thanks to Kevin Rudd on November 24, 2007.
They are different completely, look as a Government you can only do so much ie budget surplus and investments in infrastructure but even all that wont stop the economic meltdown seen in the USA.
No matter the budget surplus or lack there of in America it wouldnt have stopped what happened.
Howard and Costello helped very much so but nobody can say they did it all themselves i merely point out they did a good job.
Glen @ 274
Agree with more than half of that.
My point was that your response to HSO that he should thank Howard and Costello that he has money to lose (because “these things happen”) was somewhat glib.
Yeah, Glen they did a fab job … of screwing us. Let me just give you a brief synopsis. Worked from when I was 14, worked my way through Uni, worked from when my twins were 11 months old, have worked ever since, sometimes in both the public and private sectors. I’ve just seen near to a half of what I’d put into Super over the years, disappear.
HSO, what hurts the most for me is that the Funds still have the hide to charge “Management Fees” on top of what they lose on our behalf.
In my case it is something like 1.5% but has a minimum floor rating so that even if they lose most of your money, they still extract a substantial sum out of you.
ie. 1.5% or $x, which ever is the highest.
More like legalised robbery than what GP thinks the taxation system is. At least you get something back for the taxes you pay.
I can only agree, scorpio. The latest rubbish from George the lesser, is just astonishing, I reckon.
I can’t believe this. A potential Global financial meltdown staring them in the face & the US Congress is packing up to go on holiday!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,581444,00.html
No 277
That’s part of the reason why the more I read into this mess, the less I want the Government to bail these imbeciles out.
Socialising the financial system is like shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. A recession is imminent either way and taxpayers shouldn’t be drawn into it any more than they already are.
No 276
Howard and Costello aren’t responsible for your gargantuan losses.
Conservatives in Germany copping the Howard treatment.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,581077,00.html
Social Democrats up in Austria. Although it looks likely a coalition with the far right.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,581098,00.html
Crikey, bang goes the surplus.
http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/steel-industry-in-china-crumples-20080929-4qct.html
If our commodity trade with China collapses, we’re in deep dodo.
This will mean a drop-off in coal prices and exports as production drops.
Oh OK, so you are advocating to simply let those “taxpayers” lose their jobs followed by their homes.
Once that happens they’ll no longer be taxpayers.
GP, check this out. Not a good time to retire.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/business/thinking-about-retiring-think-again/2008/09/30/1222651047987.html
Obviously it is the person’s own fault for getting old and thus having to retire.
More here;
[In a further dent to superannuation funds around the country, the overnight meltdown on US markets is taking its toll on the local exchange today.
"We know our market's going to open up 5 or 6 per cent down, which will wipe another 3 to 4 per cent off super funds in today's trade, assuming it closes in the same position," Bresnahan said before the opening.
"There's very little you can do to stop, for want of a better word, the carnage.
"That will take the rolling 12-month return to minus-12 per cent for a balanced option [fund].”]
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/business/panic-builds-as-nest-eggs-scrambled/2008/09/30/1222651041721.html
Funny how that 12% quoted here exactly matches my Rollover loss for 2007/08 and now I’ve lost 4% in just one day.
I do recall Rudd campaigning on planning for beyond the mining boom. Every one scoffed – the mining boom had be going on for ages. How to plan for beyond the mining boom – education, infrastructure.
Wonder if the MSM will recall.
No 288
Investing your retirement savings in a high risk fund is your own fault.
All funds are high risk when the stock market keeps going down by 4% in a day.
Hopefully this is the end of stupid Reaganomics/Bushanomics – give everyone a huge tax cut and hope for the best economic theory.
Random question: does anyone know where one can find the current federal pendulum? There are loads of 2004 ones around…
Not cash funds
No 292
I classify a high-risk fund as one that is insufficiently diversified.
No 294
Exactly.
Well I guess slowing economies if they dont recover reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We might all make our targets withoug trying. History books will show that the Bush administration accidentally saved the world by crashing the global economy. jj
hahahahaha
Winston @ 272:
It appears that way. Costello, who spruiked his million dollar super changes last year as a great way to go, now blames the poor sods who took his advice for any losses thay have suffered. He says to ask the financial advisers why they urged their customers to take up the “opportunity”.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24428669-5013404,00.html
Our national newspaper continues it’s campaign against doing anything about CC. Their colour writer makes this somewhat disingenuous comment.
21% won’t pay anything extra. 32% will pay $10 a month extra. That means that 47% will pay more than $10 a month to address CC. But somehow, the smallest group of 21% becomes the “average Australian”.
Jobs more important than climate change action
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24417308-5009760,00.html
I think Swan saying banks don’t have to pass along any (or some) of a rate decrease was stupid. He should have taken a risk of rejection and demanded it.
sharon burrow on yraw at press club
should be interesting
No 300
That’s right jobs are more important. No point having a fantastic climate change outlook when everyone is on the dole and not able to find work.
Climate Change is just as important as jobs, only its slower to come about. No point having a fantastic job when everyone and everything is frying up due to Global Warming.
I often wonder what we as a species would do if we found out there was an Everest-sized asteroid definitely heading our way in 50 years’ time. Would we all get together and try to figure a way out to stop it, or just dig more and deeper bunkers?
Well if one is of the opinion, as GP appears to be, that we cannot do anything to alter our climate then of course jobs are more important than action on climate change.
It would seem rather bizarre for a person to not believe in the human contribution to climate change and still advocate action. It’s what always bothers me about ’sceptics’ claiming that we need to look at nuclear as an option of curbing carbon emissions. If they don’t believe the extent of our carbon emissions impact on the climate then why would they care if carbon emissions went up or down?
You would have to be foolish to want to reduce carbon emissions without using nuclear power.
Perhaps, but isn’t that a consideration for thos who believe there needs to be action on climate change? For people who don’t believe there should be action to sell nuclear as ‘climate friendly’ is disingenuous. Funnily, it appears to be only the ’sceptics’ who are advocating nuclear as the ‘climate friendly’ alternative.
No 306
Hear hear Glen.
It is an interesting position for Labor if they are criticised by the unions on something for the next question that that raises is if Labor is badish on this, how much worse would the Liberals be who position themselves as the natural enemies of unions?
The issue of maternity leave I believe is one of encouraging investment in a natural resource/infrastrucutre ie the continual flow of trained adult workers (who also pay tax). Especially in view of an aging population. The aleternative being increased immigration.
To be win something on Labor over the issue of maternity leave the LNP will have to take it on board and offer something. This then makes it less politically damaging for Labor to do something. They could for a start move the baby bonus to employers paying maternity leave. In effect encouraging people to have children but also to remain attached to the workforce to receive the bonuses.
The LNP could go for their usual fear and scare tactic of this will ruin the world etc. And the usual right wing talking points.
I am sure there is a lot of heat to be generated on this topic yet.
It is not a case of picking between climate change and jobs. The whole point of both the Stern adn Garnaut reprots was that theyd emonstrated that fighting climate change was cheaper than doing nothing. But there will be some winners (eg alternative energy suppliers) and some losers (eg coal). The potential losers fight to block change, as in all industries. The job of a competent government is to ignore them, if the change is in the national interest. Otherwise we’d still have weavers blocking the introduction of spinning looms, and blacksmiths on every corner.
Where it gets messy is whether to compensate the losers? IMO that depends on whether the change is foreseeable, or the losers were causing harm. Should you compensate tobacco farmers if you ban smoking? I’d say not as they were causing harm, but then again we still haven’t gotten a ban have we? So we need to structure it so that people can exit from coal without going broke, to get a change accepted.
We are finally seeing our Treasurer back down from a position where he was publicly demanding that the the big banks MUST pass on all RBA interest rate cuts to clients, to letting the public know that it might well not receive any of the RBA cuts, as funding costs have gone up so much. He has obviously (finally??) been briefed on the crises and got over the political tub thumping that was well intentioned but not in the real world.
The general public is finally being told the truth about how bad this credit crisis is and what it might mean for them. Let’s hope Australia is in ‘good’ hands because we need it to be.
Really? Not sure I remember him saying that. Got a link?
I would go for nuclear power if there were not more long term strategic alternatives.
I am not convinced that nuclear power could get up an running soon enough anyway and that its final cost would not be any better than something else.
I think from memory that it is 30% of our uranium that is of sufficient quality that it is ready for use – the remainder of our deposits require further concentrating. Thats what I read I think in the original Australian report on the issue. Highest demand will be on the higher quality and increased demand makes it very expensive especially in ten years time when we could have a plant ready to use it.
My major objection to nuclear would be on the economics of it (it needs to be show to be cheaper than alternatives over the long term as competition for fuels gets more intense), the ability to bring it on-line fast enough, the safety concerns (adding to cost) and storage concerns (adding to cost).
I don’t have an emotional negative response to it but think that there will be enormous costs in making all aspects of it safe enough to satisfy the community and then their is the enormous cost of decommissioning these things.
Strategically you would like to go for renewables if they were able to provide base load power. It would be a significant strategic and security advantage to be cut free from the competition and supply/demand economic aspects of fuels and the economy’s dependence on the results of such competition. You could then imagine the benefits over the past 12 months of oil price fluctuations having no effect on us – the cost of transport and production unchanged.
Thus things like tidal, solar, wind, geothermal etc should be pursued to give us that security and strategic advantage. The question is of course is just how viable are such things.
Quite obviously this only scratches the surface of a many faceted and complex argument.
Dario @ 312 Prior to when the RBA reduced the cash rate from 7.25% to 7.0%, the Treasurer said publicly (links not necessary) that the big banks ought to pass on the full amount of an RBA interest rate cut.
If we already have 30% known world reserves of uranium then consider how much we actually have when WA starts prospecting and a possible LNP Govt in QLD starts prospecting if it wins down the track.
It’s foolish to sell uranium and reduce the emissions of other countries but then not use it ourselves!
‘ought’ not must. Nice try but you fail.
Wind tidal and solar cannot provide base-load power
ie solar is 1/2 a day, wind can stop, tide can receed
The amount of land required for windmills to create enough energy to satisfy Sydney is staggering, it would cover 1/2 of NSW, but if there is a country in the world that has the land for it, it is Australia
However the cost is still really high atm
Turnbull made two interesting comments yesterday on Nuclear Power.
1. It will never be adopted in Aust. withour bi-partisan support.
2. It may never be needed if “clean coal” can de developed.
Sounds to me as if he is distancing himself and the Libs from the issue.
Not entirely correct. With enough of a spread of wind turnbines you will always have power. With tidal and solar you could pump water up a hill to be used to drive turbines when the tide is steady.
Dario
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/swan-warns-banks-to-drop-rates/1247710.aspx
”This is a very serious issue,” Mr Swan said. ”It’s a very serious issue for households, it’s a very serious issue for business, and it’s a very serious issue for our national economy. There is absolutely no excuse for banks not to pass an official rate cut from the Reserve Bank in full, should that occur. Absolutely no excuse.”
Dario @ 316 The Treasurer has now been fully briefed on the gravity of the credit crisis. What is your point about (my) ‘nice try’?
Dario
There are days when there are insufficient wind to drive the wind turbines ie less than 5km/hr winds, and you need about 1/2 of NSW’s turbine to be working at any point in time (that is covering 1/2 of NSW)
Pump water up a hill to drive turbine? basic physics would suggest the amount of energy consumed to drive water uphill (to create potential energy) must be higher then the amount of energy captured when the potential energy is released.
This is not taking into account of inefficiencies such as loss through heat of the machine and not capturing all the water
Dovif, have you never heard of batteries – you know, those things that store electricity?
Also tides can turn turbines whether they are going in or out. (Do I really have to explain this?)
Swans position on rates
Quite a responsible approach to take given the climate.
Of course Turnbull attacks him on this as he would if Swan had take a more hardline approach – something like Swan could damage banks by forcing them to act uneconomically blah.
But at the end of the day the banks will do whatever they want as they have shown many times.
No excuse doesn’t mean must
Adam
Here is an explaination, In relation to tidal energy, you require the water to come in and out of the plant quickly to store the maximum amount of energy, so you need the plant to be at the place where the ride is breaking, the place to pick up the most electricity between high and low tide are very different and you cannot just set a machine in the middle, to capture any energy
As for batteries, on current technology you will need 1/2 of NSW to be covered with windmills to create the energy required to run Sydney for a night, there is not sufficient power required for any use of batteries
dovif,
You are wrong about tidal generators. There are currently two different types in operation and they both generate power on both incoming & outgoing tides.
Even if there is a momentary pause between tides, by spacing these generators apart from each other, there is no drop in power produced whatsoever especially so for the pump type generator which is always continuous.
Check the tide tables and you will see that the tide times vary considerably right around the coast even over very short distances ie a hundred metres or so.
got this email from a friend in the super industry
The final trashing of Costello’s economic credibility.
“Costello said the Howard government had never encouraged Australians to
put extra money into superannuation. He announced in May 2006 that
Australians would be given tax incentives to invest up to $1 million
into super by July 1 last year. Mr Costello said after those incentives
were announced: “The largest-ever reform to superannuation has led to
increased confidence in the system and increased contributions”
Now, he blames financial advisers for the plunge of $15bn into
superannuation between April and June last year to take advantage of the
then government’s tax concessions. Australians who contributed up to $1
million into superannuation last year have now lost close to half their
money – on paper at least.
But Mr Costello said he “wouldn’t worry” about Australians who had
voluntarily placed extra money into superannuation but was more
sympathetic to those who had had 9 per cent of their wages compulsorily
put into superannuation. “My sympathy actually goes to the people at the
other end. As I said to you, I wouldn’t worry about people who
voluntarily made decisions about superannuation. “I would be much more
concerned about those who had a compulsory deduction from their wages,
generally poorer people who will be in exactly the same position.”
http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,24428044-5013954,00.
html
The 9% is not a compulsory deduction, it is an extra paid direct into
super, implemented by Keating and supposed to be topped up to 15%,
instead Howard and Costello chose to offer tax incentives to invest up
to $1 million .
And how much did the tax incentives of May 2006 artificially inflate the
market as $15 billion poured in from those with a spare million taking
advantage of the tax rort.
I think to be seen as successful Treasurers also need to be a little unpopular.
Swan by not hammering home to banks to pass on the full rate cut goes for a more responsible sounding ‘economically responsible’. People know he is asking banks to pass it all on but showing he is congnisant of the current environment and, that there is a greater issue – the economic soundness of the banks.
So Swan’s stance would be ‘love them or hate them’ the economic soundness of the banks is essential to the health of our economy in these uncertain times blah..
Sometimes being a meany earns respect. This is all politics of course. Banks do what they want.
True, but beside the point. You use excess energy from through the day to pump the water.
If we’re going to have many long, hot Global Warming summers, with hardly any rain, the clear choice is to put solar generation in the Outback, which would otherwise be kaput anyway from GW. Putting the power generation out in Bourke or Broken Hill (to name 2 possible sites) would bring industry and prosperity back to those areas(and obviate arguments about transmission line length to the cities). Turn them into centres of excellence and manufacturing, university towns… the sky’s is literally the limit when there are no clouds to get in the way.
Broken Hill was a very big town once, even though it was in the middle of the desert. they made it work because there was profit in it. Arizona in the US could be the modern model. If we have enough solar electricity, we could use it to pump desalinated water from Adelaide.All it takes is the will to do it and we could turn our useless land (if you don’t count 1 cow per 5 hectares useful) into an oasis of wealth and technology.
The great thing about solar is that it can be done in stages, as small as one new panel per day. There’s no need for a complete switch from coal overnight as many seem to think when arguing their respective cases. Economies of scale are not so important.
Solar pre-heated water is another way of helping out coal. If you can add thirty or forty degrees, even eighty degrees to the temperature of water with parabolically focused solar rays, that’s 30, 40 or 80 degrees that don’t have to be achieved from burning coal. The technology is absurdly simple in concept, basic optics. This is already being trialled in America… with Australian technology. Who cares if the sun goes down at night? The input from solar during the day has to help keep emissions from coal down as we develop better and better technologies.
Even Wilson Tuckey is on the bandwagon. His website front page is dominated by alternative energy ideas: http://www.wilsontuckey.com.au/
dovif, where did you get this nonsense from. The energy required to pump the water is provided free by either tide or wave action depending on the type of generator.
A “ram” type pump requires only the energy from the weight of the column of water to power it and in any case, the energy provided doesn’t cost anything so why would anyone be worried about a minimal energy loss.
And your last sentence is just abject nonsense and cannot be supported by any available information and wouldn’t matter in any case.
Geez…never thought I would ever have reason to visit Tuckey’s web site.
But his on Tuckey’s site -
Fellow Bludgers, if you’ve not come across it before, I thought this site “breakfast politics” might be of use and interest. It’s an excellent and comprehensive summary.
http://www.breakfastpolitics.com/
Breakfast politics is the Parliament House cheat sheet compiled by Chris Wallace for Das Kapital Pty Ltd (ACN 109 312 629). It’s read first thing in the morning by MPs, staffers, journalists, diplomats and public servants in Canberra keen to get a jump on the day (and their rivals).
The first thing I read in the morning is Lolcats.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/
It really puts the day’s events in perspective.
Scorpio
please do some research before replying
a. protential energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
b. conservation of energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Conversion
ram type pump, the question is if the ram type pump can creat enough energy to push so many kilo liter of water back uphill, why would we use the energy to push water upstream to creat more energy. we would just try to capture the energy
If we convert some form of energy to another, we will also loss some energy to heat and sound, energy cannot be 100% efficient. Therefore to use a ram type pump to push water uphill is dumb, as we will expend more energy then we recover. we are much better at finding someway to untap the energy from the pump
If we use energy to push a rock (or water) uphill, the amount of energy we use (muscles (burning food) creating a ram type pump) must be higher than the potential energy of the rock/water being at the top of the hill.
Please read up on energy inefficiency, all energy is inefficient, there are always losses of energy through heat and sound. pls see combustable engine
“In short, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another or transferred from one body to another, but the total amount of energy remains constant (the same).”
Says it all really.
Now we have a world wide turmoil interactive map
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26957587
You totally miss my point.
Energy loss here is not important. The energy is free. It comes in the form of either wave energy or tidal energy. This energy is totally different to energy derived from say fossil fuels which are finite, cost energy to recover, transport and cost money to convert into usable energy. The energy provided by wave & tidal power only costs the value of the means of harvesting it & distributing it.
Any losses of energy in this process are inconsequential in the overall capture sequence because the energy captured is “ongoing, renewable & nonpoluting and is FREE”.
Glen @ 306 -
You would have to be foolish to want to reduce carbon emissions without using nuclear power.
Why? In terms of global warming it would make little difference. The uranium in known economically recoverable reserves is sufficient to generate current world needs for only a couple of years, so the high cost of building the plants would only delay the inevitable for those few years.
True, you could extend this indefinitely with breeder reactors, but they produce lots of plutonium. If everyone is having attacks of the vapours over Iran enriching small quantities of fuel grade uranium imagine the palpitations of having large quantities of bomb grade plutonium proliferating everywhere. bin Laden wouldn’t be able to contain his glee!
dovif @ 317 -
Wind tidal and solar cannot provide base-load power
Yes they can. All you need do is generate enough power during the day/when the wind is blowing/tide is turning and store it. Some clever American chappies have shown just how inexpensive it would be – the U.S. could generate nearly 70% of its daily (24hr) requirements for just over half the proposed Wall St bailout: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
On a per capita basis, we could do the same with government subsidies of about AU$35.5 billion! Thats only $800 million a year from now until 2050. Cutting the baby bonus from a 50 inch to 42 inch plasma should just about cover it. Factor in contributions from hot rock geothermal and it would be even cheaper.
Julie Bishop made a slight stuff up today on ABC Coast FM, she got her coasts confused.
Coast FM does cover the Gold and Sunny Coasts, but the morning shows are different, she was interviewed for Sunshine Coast listeners.
She advised a caller from Peregian Springs to contact his local member “Steve Ciobo”, sorry Ms Mesmer his local member is “Alex – who? Somlyay”, she was only a couple of hundred kilometres astray.
On second thoughts perhaps she was correct. Why contact Mr Who.
Does Talcum know what LIBOR means?
7.30 Rudd Interview
Ally Moore is a tough but (I think) pretty fair inquisitor. She asked hard questions and Rudd gave back as good as he got. A good performance by both. I liked his response to
Q. “Why has Swan gone soft on the banks in a matter of weeks?”
A. (essentially) “That was then, this is now.”
Except… I am sick of hearing, “I’ve just asked you a really important, essentially unanswerable in terms of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question on the fate of the nation, but can you be quick please? We’re nearly out of time.”
Rudd took as long as he liked on whether banks should be deposit-guaranteed, and did a good job fielding the question. Essentially Moore was asking him – yes or no – to make policy on the run, kneejerk Turnbull style, and he resisted the temptation, took his time and in doing so effectively pointed out that he’s the Prime Minister of Australia, not the 7.30 Report or any of its presenters.
Incidentally, Ally is the perfect substitute host for this week. She’s in her element, as long as she keeps the “Gotchas!” to a minimum.
Well done K-08.
With the overnight London inter-bank offered rate (LIBOR) surging to an all-time high of 6.88% Swan was being an economic realist. Talcum and Mesmer are still fighting “interest rates will always be lower under a coalition govt.”
Oh its not a “real” interest rate cut, I can hear the screams. If the banks pass on the cut in full it will be because Talcum put pressure on them, if they keep a bit up their sleeve it will be Swanee’s fault.
Nice try – but no cigar.
Rudd on the 7.30 Report. Very good performance. Like Alli Moore a lot, but she’s better on radio as she has the time to develop the discussion more, and is one of the better informed and balanced interviewers.
If Rudd keeps performing like this, the next set of polls are going to be most interesting, given Turnbull has now resorted to either wanting to agree with Rudd, wanting bi-partisanship on the financial crisis, or attacking Swan, as ways to get media oxygen. Bugger of a job, really. No wonder Costello didn’t want it.
This economic climate shoulf represent an opportunity for Swan to stamp his authority on ecnomic management and on the Treasurer’s job.
He should be out there giving press conferences daily with updates and so forth.
Reality Check:
Just got off the phone with the other grandparent.
She voted Labor last election but is now regretting it.
I asked her, “Why?”
“Oh, I dunno.”
“You’ve got to do better than ‘I dunno’ if you’re telling me you regret your vote.”
“Oh, I dunno. Rudd doesn’t even know who was in the Grand Final. He spends all his time overseas and then comes back and gets the teams wrong.”
I pointed out this was Turnbull, not Rudd.
“Aw, they’re all stupid politicians, going on trips withour money, enjoying themselves, taking their wives, going to the cricket and nightclubs.”
“Sue, Rudd didn’t take his wife. Didn’t go to a nightclub. There’s no cricket in New York. Now even the journalists hate going with him because they never get a rest. It’s 24/7 work all day. No fun at all. Where would you want him to be in the middle of a global meltdown? Canberra?”
“They’re all bludgers. What about the pensioners? They couldn’t give a stuff! I haven’t got anything out of them! Charles Wooley says Rudd should be ashamed of himself.”
(Wooley is the syndicated talk-radio host for Port MacQuarie, where Sue lives).
At this point I gave up and suggested she doesn’t believe everything she reads in the Daily Telegraph and that she’s not old enough to be on the pension.
Depressing nevertheless.
BB,
Are you sure she voted Labor last time?
Who is “Mesmer”? Pierre Messmer, the former French Prime Minister? Why are people at this blog so keen on calling everyone by silly derogatory nicknames? And not even names which have public currency, just ones that seem to unique to this blog.
Someone should tell Talcum that he isn’t shadow treasurer anymore and he should get over the fact that when he was Swanny wiped the floor with him. I know his pride is hurting at his failure to perform in that job and understandably he’s not looking forward to taking on Kev but he is supposed to be Fib Leader now so he’d best get his act together or pass the ball back to Brenda. (He at least knew what his job was lol)
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” (Churchill)
Adam in Canberra @ 349. Some people here call Julie Bishop Mesmerelda on account of her strange staring. I’ve got to admit I find her staring very off-putting though I’m not given to calling her Mesmerelda. As to the other “pet” names people acquire, I think “Tip” for Costello got immortalised by Keating’s description of him as “all tip but no iceberg” remark. Other people get nicknames for all sorts of reasons, but usually because people cling together with like-minded people and revile “the other”. I’m as guilty as the next person, though I can’t explain or understand the degree of emotional volatility I see on the U.S. election thread.
Turnbull cops a dressing down by ANZ chief economist Saul Eslake. As Vera said, he has forgotten that he is no longer Shadow Treasurer.
Either that or he doesn’t trust Julie Bishop to handle the job. After her early efforts, I think he has good reason to keep her under wraps.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24430988-5013871,00.html
Thanks Harry. I find everything about Julie B off-putting. Her hair looks like it’s made of some ceramic substance.
I’ve given up on the US thread – it’s like arguing with Scientologists.
“You can’t … go around pressing banks to do things which will significantly undermine their profits as the Leader of the Opposition, to my surprise at least, seeing as he ostensibly represents the more pro-business of our two big parties,
Maybe Turnbull wants to see one of the banks go under so he can save it. Strictly on a bipartisan basis of course.
Adam in Canberra @ 256 -
Why are people at this blog so keen on calling everyone by silly derogatory nicknames? And not even names which have public currency, just ones that seem to unique to this blog.
You mean there is life beyond this blog? Well I’ll be a…! <swoon>
I’m with you Adam – Julie B doesn’t need a nickname – her policies do all the work for her.
I thought William had put a clamp down on nicknames since the move?
Grog, I’ve only said that I wish people wouldn’t do it.
I don’t think we should get too carried away with how hopeless Bishop is. Treasury is a difficult gig and takes a while to learn. Swan wasn’t too crash hot at first, either, but he’s getting rapidly better. Bishop is not a fool although she is an ideologue. She will probably improve.
Adam in Canberra @ 354. You’re most welcome.
Frankly, I find the most off-putting about Julie B. is her politics. It’s a lot like the stuff about Sarah Palin. It’s not that she’s a woman that’s problematic, it’s that she thinks being able to eyeball Russia from Alaska somehow gives her foreign affairs cred.. It’s not the person’s gender or race, it’s their ability to think clearly about what’s good for the common good, in my view.
The U.S. thread, well, all I can say is I have an occasional look, and leave.
358 – I wasn’t impressed with her before she took over the treasury gig, and thought he terrible all last year as Minister.
Yep Swan was bad at first – but the treasurer gets lots of opportunity to improve (or fail); the shadow treasurer struggles to really get oxygen to change perceptions, as Turnbull will do most of the big economic lifting – to whit his attack on Swan going “soft” on the banks…
Which incidentally has drawn a response from the ABA:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/01/2379686.htm?section=justin
And William; so it’s a solid aspirational (non-binding) target??!
(sorry just finished Teh hollowmen)
Well, well, Grog, it will be interesting to see whether or not the criticism of Turnbull gets any airing in the MSM tomorrow.
Will be interesting HSO. What is a lot of fun however, is seeing how much Turbull and Costello hate each other:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24430736-5013871,00.html
the latest series of Newstopia has been on sbs-micaleff up to his usual zaniness
line of the night :”malcolm was raised by wolves, ….well he lived in a flat then”
currently doing a takeoff of the costello memoirs ala the harry potter dressup
pure comedy gold
BTW, William. Again a thank you for your work here. Much appreciated. I’m glad your mum called you William.
HSO,
He was probably glad not to be called late for dinner!
Swan was bad for a few days in parliament through nerves which he quickly conquered. It didn’t take him that long at all to get on top of it. He is on top of it all now but does have a bit of an image issue accroding to some I have spoken to, I know, nothing to do with ability.
Someone ought to ask Julie Bishop if she believes workchoices typ IR is dead, since she is deputy dog now.
scorpio, it’s probably true, but nevertheless, it’s a nice name. Reminds me of my little nephew, who, when he came back from living all of his first three years in Indonesia, couldn’t speak English,and when we took him to the Botanical Gardens for a treat, he promptly went into the duck pond with an icecream container on his head as his preferred hat.
William may be very different, as you’d probably expect, but I just have this strange ‘aunty’ thing about William.
Sorry, William, if this offends, but if there are ‘aunty’ hormones, I think they’ve got me.
Yep, Grog. The internal machinations of the LNP. Wonderful stuff. They haven’t got a clue.
If I were Turnbull I would be saying nothing about Costello and especially not stirring him up.
Just watched Keating on Lateline. I wish he had a spot every week.
The electors made a big mistake in 1996. Australia could have been so much better with a man of his intelligence and vision at the helm for the past 12 years.
Instead, we got a return to Menzies 1950’s and were just treading water compared to what we could have achieved.
I’ve come over all maternal and avuncular for some unspecified reason, so good night to all.
Agree. He makes Cossie look so very, very average.
Keating was fascinating and impressive.
Maybe not, in one book he says he would’ve handed over to Beazley during that term.
ASX now suggesting 96% chance of 50 basis point cut next week:
http://www.asx.com.au/sfe/targetratetracker.htm
I don’t think that that would have been a problem if Keating had put in train all of the visionary policy settings he had outlined.
Kim Beasley is a decent person who is also smart (Rhodes scholar) and I am sure he would have been able to carry on with Keating’s legacy.
As Keating said tonight, if his Superannuation program had been fulfilled, then there would now be 1.8 trillion dollars invested now and Australian banks would not have to beg for very expensive foreign funds to fund the current account deficit and business & housing finance.
This country would be in a far better position to ride out any global financial storm of deterioration in our terms of trade.
Very good point.
Even better, the U.S. would be borrowing money from OUR banks, which would help them increase their profits, instead of withholding interest rate cuts.
No 377
What visionary policies? Higher unemployment? Higher interest rates? Vile and venom toward opponents?
Good riddance to Keating. Australians made the right choice in 1996 in the same sense that you believe they made the right choice in 2007.
No 351
Churchill also said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.
I think Rudd repeated himself 10 times in that 7.30 interview. Ally clearly had him rattled.
They were coming down when Keating was defeated. Unlike what was happening in November 2007!
You mean like Costello to Beazley, or Howard to Rudd?
You seem to want politics to be a kids game, get real.
All politicians repeat themselves, it is how they get out the message they want everyone to hear.
lol Howie NEVER repeated himself
No 382
Yet amidst all that blather you failed to mention any supposedly “visionary” policies. Keating’s sole trait was acerbic arrogance.
Well you would know blather wouldn’t you!
Reconciliation and Republic are enough for me! But increasing the super to 15% would’ve been great. He probably would’ve split Telstra before selling it to annoy you as well.
This is how I know you are an intellectual light weight. You can’t even concede that Keating reinvented our economy in ways that Howard couldn’t. Including in ways that you should approve of! If you actually stood for anything you’d be willing to give a bit of credit where it was due.
Can someone explain how this headline “Labor Support Eases” equates with the text that follows?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24434390-29277,00.html
Well at least they don’t say polls confirm a one term government.
56/44 is a fairly impressive level of support.
387: It was 60-40. The latest figure is 56-44. 56 is smaller than 60. Hence “Labor Support Eases”.
So Labor up 1 from the last poll… the Turnbull anti-bounce perhaps?
Howard commissioned the bloody report from which Keating acted. It was only a matter of time, whether they were enacted under a Fraser Government or Keating Government. Nevertheless, the Liberal Party already has acknowledged and supported the economic liberalisation of the 1980s.
Everyone’s an intellectual lightweight unless they agree with you. Typical elitist insolence from you, either way.
Knock it off, you two.
#387: I take this to mean we’ll be getting the quarterly state-by-state breakdown today. Nothing about it on The Australian site though.
The banks aren’t happy with Malcolm
http://business.smh.com.au/business/turnbull-bites-hand-that-paid-him-20081001-4s1x.html
I must say as one of th few (perhaps only) non intelectual on PB , I’m always fascinated between th descriptions of lightweight intelelctual vs heavyweight intelelctual , sort of like sport of boxing where there ar differing weight classes
GP
queston hanging over howard was not that th Report was commissioned or its recommendations , as howard apparently agreed with most …but his politcal “will” to put his politcal position on th line to implement those recommendations AND even if he did doubt re whehter that would hav convinced LCP then anyway
Histarys of Howard as Treasurer I’ve read including auto of Lynch of actual cabinet stuff indicates Howard had no reel influence on Fraser at all in desisting from non econamic rationalist econamic policys at Frasers whim/gut feel or at Frasers own historical beleifs or at Frasers politcal opportunism
No 395
Howard could not possibly have undertaken wholesale economic reform without the support of both the PM and the Cabinet. Of course, there was a crisis of political will to actually implement the necessary reforms under Fraser, but to suggest that Keating is somehow a “visionary” or “genius” for simply acting on a report that Howard actually commissioned is a nonsense.
GP
Very objective of you to take into consideration politcal will issues & differing politcal approachs/econamic thinking per my #395
Moving then to post Howard as Treasurer to Keating and Keating as Treasurer perhaps politicqal bias both ways influences peoples opinions generally anyway
At minimum I’d suggest Howard & Keating being different ‘characters’ approached things didderently anyway Keating was a “macro” guy AND combined with his general politcal approach of big picture on policy approach (whether right or wrong) meant once he saw Recommendations long term macro benefits he was going to put himself right n th line to achieve it , ESPECIALY in his own Treasurer home backyard
Might add his long term policy opinion perhaps originating from Treasury on employer supa going from 3% to ultimately 15% planned fits same principal of Keating (seeing a big picture seting & accepting its long time benefits (in his view) & he would hav implemented that in full on same basis Thats my description of Keating rather than ‘genius’
‘Labor support eases”. The Australian.
When an ease in support is about three percent higher than at the last election and would give Labor what, 10 – 20 more seats, I dream of suffering such a battering in the polls.
A DD now would be a most gratifying development.
Toughen up, Senator Fielding, the Labor party needs you.
Don’t back down, cheap alcopops is really, truly the way to go, Senator. Pretty please.
“he was going to put himself right n th line to achieve it ” meaning he had one of biggest of big politcal “tickers”…to act on his beliefs & risk himself politcaly to achieve that policy objective….magnificent politcal trait when you ar right
No 397
Perfectly fair assessment of Keating. I actually agree with the superannuation policy. I do wish that employers were less responsible for boosting retirement savings and that employees were made to contribute more from their own pocket; but in principle it is sound policy.
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.