Essential Research: 54-46 to Coalition
This week’s Essential Research poll has Labor recovering the point they lost last week, with the Coalition lead on two-party preferred down from 55-45 to 54-46. However, the primary vote figures suggest there is little in the change: the major parties are steady on 34 per cent for Labor and 48 per cent for the Coalition (although a one-point drop for the Liberals disappears from the Coalition total after rounding), with the Greens up a point to 11 per cent. Other questions find mounting opposition to the contention that the budget should return to surplus at all costs. Seventy-one per cent declared themselves opposed if doing so meant “cutting services and raising taxes”, with only 13 per cent supportive. Fifty-eight per cent said there was no need for the budget to return to surplus so quickly compared with 38 per cent in April, but if the government remains determined, the number who believe it should be paid for by removing tax breaks for high income earners (59 per cent) and increasing taxes for corporations (72 per cent) is up eight and nine points respectively. Only 35 per cent nominated cuts to “middle-class welfare”.
Further evidence of voters’ curiously social democratic bent was furnished by a question in which respondents were asked to indicated whether various parties had benefited from the mining boom: 68 per cent said yes for mining company executives, 48 per cent for shareholders and 42 per cent for foreign companies, against 12 per cent for regional communities and 11 per cent for “all Australians”. There was also an interesting question on the leaders’ performances during Barack Obama’s visit, in light of suggestions that Julia Gillard had been too effusive and Tony Abbott had politicised the occasion. The results suggest much more support for the latter contention than the former: Gillard’s performance was rated good by 38 per cent and poor by 23 per cent, compared with 18 per cent and 30 per cent for Abbott.
Categories: Federal Politics 2010-
Why is it that every time Labor is doing poorly in the polls there is talk about the need for party reform, and this doesn’t happen when the Liberals are in a poll doldrums? I don’t recall any talk during late 2006/07 of the Liberal Party needing to reform its party processes.
Great advice Roy
Except even they stink as a party of the ‘left’.
by ltep on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:14 am
This is just so funny.
So they can’t choose whether they vote for a conscience vote.
And Paul Howes actually supports gay marriage.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/gay-rift-deepens-for-alp-right-20111201-1o9ad.html#ixzz1fK84IOyI
by Diogenes on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:15 am
Dio
Howes is a media tart who looks out for Howes first and foremost.
by MTBW on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:17 am
MTBW
I’m guessing the conscience vote will get up and gay marriage will die.
by Diogenes on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:19 am
Dio
I think you may be right and if that is the case it will be a shame. Hope springs eternal though.
by MTBW on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:25 am
Mari
He’s actually usually pretty good. Perhaps Limited News journos have more freedom if they?re on the periphery of the Empire
by ajm on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:29 am
Ooooh! Now that is a beautiful and beautifully-written piece, refuting a very shoddy piece of policy document analysis. I hope Swan wrote it himself – it’s of a standard expected of his generation of senior students and undergrads – and of my generation of teachers.
If he did, I hope he’s emailed it to his English teacher, whose sour comments on his character vis a vis his popular election as NSHS School Captain (male) I’ve (probably more than once) reported on PB; though I think she might have kissed a cane toad and been turned into a certain member of the Canberra Press Gallery.
PS: He has forgotten about the semi-colon, though he was among the first drafts of Seniors for whom correction of sentences and textbook The ABC of English Usage (ie Fowler: Concentrated Version) were no longer requirements. Not that any of us actually stopped teaching either, not in the incredibly competitive world of Q Senior English Teaching, Radford Assessment Style.
by OzPol Tragic on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:31 am
for the real tragics, you can watch it live
http://www.alp.org.au/conferencelive/
by sprocket_ on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:32 am
Dio
There was no mention of this at the last election, so I’m not sure how they would justify changing the policy now, unless they leave any parliamentary vote on it till after the next election.
by triton on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:33 am
On “tests…”
I received a Brian Loughane pollie-gram in my in box yesterday. It’s heading was “Three key tests for Julia Gillard and the Labor Party at the National Conference”.
I used to read them for a bit of a laugh, but lately haven’t even bothered with that. But the title was interesting.
and so on…
Everyone sets Gillard “tests”. Hartcher, La Stupenda, Shanahan, St. Paul Kelly and all the rest are always telling us what new “test” she needs to face. Hartcher recently (and famously, around here at least) set a test for Gillard and failed her in the one article, on the Qantas dispute. The workers never got locked out and the airline was back in business within 40 hours – hammered out over a weekend, with the court sitting all that time – but apparently it had been a “crisis”. Even though she solved the crisis, the fact that the “crisis” happened at all meant Gillard had “failed” a Hartcher “test”.
But this is a rare example of the results of the “test” actually meaning anything or being followed up. The most important part of any of these “tests” is that they are set at all.
Setting tests for a government that has been in power now, in one form or another, for over four years, keeps up the impression that it is on training wheels, that it is still a clumsy toddler learning its way about the world. In other words, it’s not ready to be called a proper government. It’s still “on probation”. A government that is always facing “tests” can’t be legitimate, right?
So, that’s one aspect of the constant “test” setting that’s going on for four years (Rudd had a whole swag of “tests” he had to pass too, if youse remember): it engenders an air of immaturity about the government.
The other aspect of this constant “testing” is that we rarely hear the results of these “tests” (Peter Hartcher’s most recent deliberation being a dishonourable exception).
It was a “test” for the government to still be in power by Christmas 2010. Then by Easter. Then by the Festival of Rudd in June. Then (Bolt) by October, and (the Daily Telegraph) by end-November… with all the other deadlines in-between.
It would be a “test” for them to get the “fractious” independents in line enough to agree with anything, much less get any legislation passed at all. 254 bills later and the “testing” continues apace. Each new issue is a new “test” with the very survival of the government on tenterhooks literally on a daily basis.
Think of any routine piece of government business – the Queen’s visit and whether Gillard would curtsy, Obama ditto, Foreign Affairs, CHOGM, the Tax Summit, Tobacco legislation, the MRRT and hundreds of others – and a “test” was applied to it, with dire results if the “test” was “failed”. All these “tests” were passed, and forgotten, as we moved onto the next “test”.
In my view, the other main aim of the “testing” is to set up a constant aura of failure around the government. If the government doesn’t actually “fail” one of these “tests”, then talking endlessly about how they might “fail” it is as good as a “Fail” anyway.
Take interest rates. It was to be a “test” for Gillard to keep interest rates from rising. Every single month after November 2010, we got the Reserve Bank bulletin that said interest rates would be kept on hold. Right on cue our commentariat would then tell us that this month’s interest rate announcement wasn’t the “big one”. The real “test” would be whether interest rates went up next month. Stories started out like…
The government couldn’t take a trick on all these “tests”. Whether they “passed” or “failed” them, all the negative talk about what would happen if things didn’t turn out so well in the “test” department did the real damage.
On interest rates, it even got to the ridiculous extreme of the head of David Jones retail actually blaming “rising interest rates” for his miserable performance as CEO… when in fact they hadn’t gone up for 8 months, and are now as low as they were in April 2010, back when Rudd was the PM being “tested”. (He also blamed the Carbon Tax, another famous “Test”, which wasn’t even legislated then).
The aim of all these “tests” is not whether Gillard and the government “pass” or “fail” them.
The aim is to keep up an atmosphere of chaos by making the punters believe our government is only filling in, on training-wheels, not quite ready, still has a long way to go before they pass their final exam, learning on the job etc. In the meantime, we are one heartbeat away from disaster with “tests” crowding each other out for the right to be the one that destroys Gillard Labor.
Contrast this with an Opposition that was in government for 12 years, knows the ropes, and could clearly slide into the driving seat at literally a moment’s notice. Even if they have no actual policies, they could just dust off the old ones and use them for a few weeks until the country was stabilized (or so the implicit story seems to go).
The further aim of the “tests” is to allow a discussion of the dire things that will happen if or when the “test” is failed. This will collapse. That will be a disaster. The other will set back {relations with China|The Economy|Unemployment|Gillard’s authority|and a thousand more} for {months|years|decades|beyond recovery}.
We are being conditioned to live in constant fear that our government will “fail” these concocted “tests” that are being set for them by a rabble of lazy “senior journalists” who write most of these horror stories while eating their Weeties at the breakfast table in the morning, or (in Annabel Crabb’s case) before they even bother to get out of bed or enjoy a satisfying first wee-wee of the day.
It is not important that the “test” is passed (although the odd, rare “failure” is a bonus for the “We Told You So” follow-up column, (cf. Alan Kohler’s latest crowing sourpuss piece at The Drum), only that the fear conjured up by the prospect of failure is constantly and remorselessly applied.
If you don’t believe me, just look at The Economy. We have a government that survived the GFC and held the nation together by the implementation of visionary schemes with ridiculously low wastage rates, better by far than any other country (just about) on Earth. We have interest rates so low that the last time Howard achieved them was in April 2002. We have low unemployment. We have the lowest debt of just about any nation. Our Treasurer was voted “World’s Best Treasurer” recently. We have a whopping trade surplus running, the biggest in history. We have hundreds of billions of investment in the pipeline, committed for the coming years. The nation has just scored a “AAA” trifecta with all the ratings agencies. The list of economic achievements and sound fiscal helmsmanship goes on and on.
Contrast this with an Opposition adrift. They make up numbers. Their costings cover barely two quarto sized sheets of papers. The firm that does their “auditing” is found guilty of professional malpractice and fined. One minute they are boasting about “$70 billion” worth of cuts. The next this money is “only an order of magnitude”. They list spending cuts as “savings” but fail to enter the tax revenues that would have financed them as “losses”. Their first Shadow Treasurer was sacked because she was an embarrassment. The current Finance Spokesman is a basket case of stammering slogans who is clearly still suffering from a mental illness and deserves treatment, not exposure. Their Shadow Treasurer is a bullying buffoon who clearly is making it up as he goes. Their leader knows zilch about Economics, and couldn’t care less that he does. The entire Coalition set about a deliberate program of talking the economy down at every opportunity, and succeeded in destroying confidence quite comprehensively.
Yet every single one of the phenomena listed as government achievements above was set as a “test” to be passed, with the devastating consequences of “failure” laid out in endless miles of column inches whose despair-laden wailing and doomsaying would have broken the heart of Pollyanna. When the “test” was passed, we moved onto the next “test”.
As a result, it is the government that is regarded by the public as the worst economic managers of the two contenders, worst on interest rates and only marginally ahead on full employment
It didn’t matter that all the “tests” were passed. The misery and fear generated by discussion of whether they could be “passed” (mostly coming down on the side of “unlikely”) was the important part.
Hence, today, we have this historically economically and fiscally successful government regarded as “failures” on the economy, with a majority of the nation fearing they will send us broke if they keep up with their wrecking ways. Even going for a surplus a couple of years hence is now seen as a disaster in the offing. These are the consequences of the constant setting of “tests” and the rabid contemplation of failure that our media and our conservative politicians have gone about.
Failure has been plucked from the bonfire of success. Fear is about the land where there should be confidence. Mockery and hatred of anything the government does abounds, when instead the ungrateful bastards should be down on their knees thanking Rudd, Gillard and Swan for doing such a great job under such desperate circumstances, or in any circumstances, for that matter.
The government is seen as illegitimate, simply because they did what any other party (including the Coalition) would have done in negotiating with key independents, forging a deal, and carrying it out. Record amounts of legislation have been passed, with much more flagged for future sittings of parliament, yet the government is seen as “do-nothing”.
When the talk is relentlessly negative, even in the clear evidence of success, when “tests” are constantly set, when “faillure” is the only option considered, it’s no wonder that the nation is so full of shouters and screamers at the moment, slagging off not only the government, but governance itself.
I hope that one day the public wakes up to what’s been going on. I’m seeing signs of it. The polls have stopped falling and are on the up-tick again.
I’m also seeing signs of overreach in the media. The way Hadley and his pals at 2GB are turning feral on Barry O’Farrel’s government is a good sign that their megalomania has become systemic and may destroy its host. The Daily Telegraph is now a parody of a newspaper, our own Down Under News Of The World, at just the wrong time, given what’s happening in the UK. Bolt, the Martyr To Democracy, got pinged as a racist liar.
On a more positive side, some opinionistas are starting to write encouraging articles talking about how the government is (in their jaundiced, reluctant eyes) starting to behave like one. Some members of the pack, like Laura Tingle, are starting to drift away and seem to be considering the actual facts, rather than just repeating pub talk and groupthink.
So there is hope. We’ll only know for sure when the Opposition starts sitting its own tests, with the invigilators keeping an eye on them turn just as nasty and vicious on their new victims as they have so far been on the government.
by Bushfire Bill on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:33 am
You don’t even need the headline anymore, just the mere sight of the name is enough to bring the bin into play. To save you the time, here’s the gist of every article she writes: I HATE GILLARD.
Even after the Coalition’s audit embarrassment yesterday – an open goal if ever I saw one for a columnist – she still can’t bring herself to write about anything else.
by Son of foro on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:34 am
Speaking of media tarts.
by confessions on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
Parties change policy between elections all the time. The focus should always be on doing what parties believe is in the national interest, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and the ability for the public to voice their objections at the next election.
It was always the way it was going to happen.
by ltep on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:38 am
Looks like another day in front of the computer for me – watching the conference live.
I was hoping to be there but family events got in the way.
http://www.alp.org.au/conferencelive/
by MsAdventure on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:39 am
MTBW: My expectations for anything meaningful coming out of this conference are very minimal, because the people backing Gillard would prefer the status quo remained, albeit with a few token concessions under the fig leaf of “Labor Party reform”.
by Thornleigh Labor Man on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:41 am
ltep, this is a social issue that’s been in place for over 100 years (over 200 years really). It’s not the sort of thing that should change suddenly between elections (at the conference maybe, but not in parliament). It’s only been a prominent issue for a couple of years. Why the urgency?
by triton on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:43 am
mytbw – he started off at 5 am with a rant against BOF re the CSG issue then spoke with BOF, berated him for awhile but then ended up speaking nicely to him – Jones is such a drama queen and it is such an act.
Too many ads, a good speil about Artie Beetson (my fav. RL player) and then a slight mention of the Labor conference but more to say that JG is no good, nobody in the country wants her as PM nor the Govt. and they should go. That was it but I really switched off listening to every word once he got to JG is no good.
My problem with Alan Jones is that he lives a life that many of his listeners have no understanding of and he is a big sham as far as I’m concerned.
by BH on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:44 am
Thank you misadventure, putting on the big computer
by my say on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:45 am
Which means that there is no more need to delay the end the discrimination against same-sex couples.
The ‘prominence’ of the issue is neither here nor there. If something is clearly unjust there is no need to delay the ending of the injustice.
by ltep on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:48 am
JG is up
http://www.alp.org.au/conferencelive/
by sprocket_ on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:49 am
triton
So you are saying Labor shouldn’t sell uranium to India and shouldn’t have brought in the Malaysian Solution as those policies weren’t taken to the election and involve long-term issues?
by Diogenes on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:54 am
Dio – you are too young to remember the fight by Don Dunstan to get past a homophobic South Australia. The first step will be taken tomorrow.
How shortsighted it is to think that this issue will die – it won’t be allowed to die and it will come about. We are ahead of most countries on this right now by even thinking of a conscience vote.
So stop all the claptrap about how it will die just because some may not get this through immediately. I’ve got many, many friends who are gay and some absolutely wonderful gay neighbours and business people in our village. I’ve been heartened by most of them saying wtte ‘it’s started, it won’t be long even if it’s not right now’.
Don Dunstan didn’t get changes through immediately. He kept at it. Ask GD to explain how he did it. I’m sorry I just can’t spend much time posting today but GD may be able to later.
by BH on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:54 am
Bring in the nbn this is so. Dam slow got the pm
Still circles going around. No. Sound
by my say on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:55 am
Diogenes @ 3270
Great formula for paralysis of Government isn’t it!
by bemused on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:56 am
Yes he is one of the few News Ltd journos I have any time for, which is why I read his articles
by mari on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:57 am
There’s more that Labor wish to talk about but the media see this as a divisive issue and therefore the only issue worth reporting.
by Tom Hawkins on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:57 am
BH
I’m saying “die” in terms of this parliaments life.
And there is a very good chance the Libs will win the next election so it could be a long way off.
by Diogenes on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:57 am
Bring in the nbn this is so. Dam slow got the pm
Still circles going around. No. Sound….what should I click on to the word view
by my say on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:58 am
my say
The conference is being televised on ABC24
by victoria on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:59 am
At last
by my say on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:59 am
BH:
Well said.
Australia will have marriage equality. It may not be next year, but it isn’t far off happening in my view.
by confessions on Dec 2, 2011 at 9:59 am
BH @ 3271
Wise words there!
As Max Weber said: “Politics is the slow boring of hard boards.”
You have to rise above temporary setbacks and disappointments and keep at it like Don Dunstan did, boring away at those hard boards until you break through and succeed.
It takes a level of maturity that some (Greens?) lack and respond with dummy spits.
by bemused on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:00 am
Tom
The uranium vote and party reform issue are also very interesting.
by Diogenes on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:00 am
I’m looking forward to the day when gay marriage will die. Then we will just call it marriage.
by Musrum on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:01 am
Than you Victoria but I hope the dam abc keep their comments to themselves
by my say on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:01 am
That’s been said for some time now. When is the right time? It always seems that the right time is just around the corner.
Meanwhile people are dying without the chance to choose to marry the person they love.
by ltep on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:05 am
Thanks, Vic I will do all the button holes on cushions. Sewing machine next to computer,,
Gosh we can all be on line MEMBERS HOW about that,,
Computers. Do change the world,, for the good if we take up the good things like this would be
Yrs I agree with julia. The bond we share here is felt through the screen
Go julia. She is wonderful
by my say on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:05 am
Museum
Spot o n,
Yes that’s how it should. Be,
by my say on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:06 am
Itep
Don u know liberals are still in. The 40s
We talk change all the time only progressive people in think.ing and actions now that,
We think out side the square
by my say on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:11 am
ltep
That reasoning doesn’t make sense. Why wasn’t that thought of 200 years ago?
Again, if it’s so obviously an injustice it wouldn’t have taken 200 years to recognize it.
Dio
Not at all. That’s why I pointed out that it’s a social issue. It’s independent of current events. Governments have to respond to events in policy areas that are affected by them. Same-sex marriage isn’t in that category.
by triton on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:12 am
Absolutely Musrum
And thanks for cccp.
by MsAdventure on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:12 am
triton, if you really think the issue has just ‘popped’ up in the past couple of years you are deluding yourself. The issue has been around for decades at least.
by ltep on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:16 am
Musrum
I agree with you and I read looking back at some of the posts last night that you live in Banks as I do. What suburb? I am in Padstow Heights.
by MTBW on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:17 am
TLM
Conferences can on occasions deliver a surprise let’s hope this equal rights issue is one of them.
by MTBW on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:22 am
womble
The way for Labor to ‘destroy’ the Greens is to co-opt their policies, claim credit and convince voters there is no need for the Greens to exist as Labor will institute progressive policies without the pressure of Greens advocacy.
The Greens Party are now seen as a threat and Labor knows it has to do something to counter the Greens increasing grassroots membership and parliamentary representation.
The fact is that Labor and the Coalition consistently vote together to block progressive reforms.
Even more reason to ensure that there is a viable third party to counter the existing political duopoly and to continue supporting and voting for the Greens.
Though for me, anthropologist Margaret Mead’s words resonate:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Inded it’s the only thing that ever has.”
by Pegasus on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:22 am
ltep:
It was only last year people were throwing their hands in the air proclaiming carbon pricing to be even further away than it was in 2007.
by confessions on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:25 am
Pegasus, and the Greens and Labor sometimes vote together to gag debate in the Parliament. Shameful.
by ltep on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:25 am
Horsey @ 3294
Add to the list.
Too much hubris…
by bemused on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:26 am
Pegasus
Agree with your post above and particularly loved the quote:
With diligence and passion they certainly can.
by MTBW on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:26 am
Crikey media wrap on conference. Contains links.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/12/02/let-the-alp-conference-begin/
by Leroy on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:27 am