Crikey



Newspoll: 53-47 to Labor

The first Newspoll in four weeks has Labor leading 53-47, compared with 51-49 in favour of the Coalition last time. Primary votes are 38% for the Coalition (down five), 34% for Labor (steady) and 14% for the Greens (up three). Tony Abbott is down five on approval to 35% and up nine on disapproval to 56%, while Bill Shorten is up four to 35% and down one to 41%. Abbott’s lead as preferred prime minister has shrunk from 41-33 to 40-38.

This is the latest in a polling avalanche which has followed the interruption of Easter and Anzac Day, to which Essential Research is still to be added tomorrow. Three other polls published over the past two days have produced strikingly similar results on the primary vote, from which Newspoll differs in having Labor lower and the Greens higher:

• Galaxy, for the first time adding an online panel component to its live-interview phone polling to produce an enlarged sample of 1391, has the Labor lead at 52-48, with primary votes of 39% for the Coalition, 37% for Labor, 11% for the Greens and 6% for Palmer United.

• A ReachTEL poll conducted on Saturday, also from a larger-than-usual sample of 4016, has Labor’s lead at 54-46, with primary votes of 38.9% for the Coalition, 39.6% for Labor, 11.2% for the Greens and 6.0% for Palmer United.

• Morgan’s multi-mode face-to-face plus SMS poll, conducted every weekend but compiled fortnightly, has Labor leading 53.5-46.5 according to the conventional two-party preferred method that allocates preferences as per the result of the previous election, increasing to 55-45 when preferences were allocated by the respondent. The primary votes are 37.5% for the Coalition, 37% for Labor, 12% for the Greens and 5.5% for Palmer United.

UPDATE: And now Essential Research comes in entirely unchanged on last week, with Labor leading 52-48 from primary votes of 40% for the Coalition, 38% for Labor, 10% for the Greens and 5% for Palmer United. Questions on the deficit tax show the importance of wording in these situations – just as carbon tax questions got a more favourable response when the rationale for them was laid out, inquiry about “a temporary ‘deficit’ tax on high and middle income earners aimed at bringing the budget back to surplus” has support and opposition tied at 34%. However, 48% favour the proposition that “introducing a new ‘deficit’ tax would be a broken promise by the Abbott Government” versus 33% for “it is more important to reduce the deficit than stick to pre-election promises”.

Other findings have “management of the Australian economy” all but unchanged since a year ago, with a total good rating of 40% (up one) and total bad of 31% (down one), but with results by party support having changed beyond recognition; Joe Hockey favoured over Chris Bowen to manage the economy by 33% to 27%; Labor better than Liberal at “representing the interests of working families (47-20), Liberal a lot better than Labor at “representing the interests of the large corporate and financial interests” (54-13), and Liberal better at handling the economy overall (40-26); 23% very concerned about job losses, 34% somewhat concerned and 29% not at all concerned; 77% believing the gap between rich and poor to have increased over the last 10 years, with only 3% for decreased; 29% thinking their own financial situation good versus 26% for poor; “the cost of living” rated by far the economic issue of most concern (56%, with unemployment in second place on 11%).

Categories: Federal Politics 2013-

703 Responses

Comments page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
  1. victoria:

    I doubt they did either. But that direct relationship between a Liberal PM and the Murdoch media should always be questioned.

    by confessions on May 6, 2014 at 10:13 pm

  2. Its a pretty straightforward concept – gross GDP versus GDP per head.

    by Edwina StJohn on May 6, 2014 at 10:13 pm

  3. What the Government, and it’s useful idiot supporters, like ESJ, fail to comprehend, is that when you lower the minimum wage, you drastically lower peoples spending power. As a result, you put undue recessionary pressure on the Economy.

    A Stupid, stupid move.

    Not only stupid but immoral. Only scumbags of the tea party type would want to treat the poor like that in a rich country like Australia.

    by Darn on May 6, 2014 at 10:13 pm

  4. I am not convinced about cutting the minimum wage – but there is merit on both sides of the argument.

    by Edwina StJohn on May 6, 2014 at 10:14 pm

  5. Mark Kenny says Labor should be magnanimous and let the deficit levy through as good policy.

    He’s an idiot. Its crap policy. Other stuff they could do that would have greater effect out into the future and would be more fair.

    by imacca on May 6, 2014 at 10:15 pm

  6. @653

    It is a bad idea, because people will have less money to spend, thus GDP growth will be slower.

    by zoidlord on May 6, 2014 at 10:17 pm

  7. but there is merit on both sides of the argument.

    No there is not. You are an idiot apologist for economically illiterate morons.

    by imacca on May 6, 2014 at 10:17 pm

  8. Of course the long term unemployed welcome the compassion police keeping them out of work by pricing them out of the market.

    by Edwina StJohn on May 6, 2014 at 10:20 pm

  9. @657

    No, that’s just stupid.

    by zoidlord on May 6, 2014 at 10:22 pm

  10. ESJ

    Stop looking to the US failure. Start looking to the Scandinavian success

    by guytaur on May 6, 2014 at 10:22 pm

  11. Tell me ESJ, why so keen to see employers get away with paying less than a living wage? Particularly at a time when there is no real pressure on the budget that couldn’t be relived by some fair and reasonable revenue collection measures.

    by imacca on May 6, 2014 at 10:23 pm

  12. @657, absolute nonsensical argument that has long been debunked

    by Yesiree Bob on May 6, 2014 at 10:24 pm

  13. I can’t write what I said to my self when I read that Crap. I’d be banned for life

    by WarrenPeace on May 6, 2014 at 10:25 pm

  14. Guytaur – I remember when the ACTU went on a junket to Sweden in 1988. What became of all that?

    by Edwina StJohn on May 6, 2014 at 10:25 pm

  15. @660, not to mention that paying less than a living wage is one of the greatest demotivates you can apply.
    Why work if the money you earn cannot even provide enough to feed you ?

    by Yesiree Bob on May 6, 2014 at 10:27 pm

  16. Some people arent worth $16.37 per hour as employees – hence setting a minimum wage prices them out of work.

    Answer this – why would you pay someone a wage more than they are worth to you as the employer?

    by Edwina StJohn on May 6, 2014 at 10:30 pm

  17. @guardian: Workplace depression a companion of social and financial inequality | Clare Allan http://t.co/4HZMTMLrLo

    by guytaur on May 6, 2014 at 10:32 pm

  18. Edwina StJohn@665

    Some people arent worth $16.37 per hour as employees –

    What, like you ?

    Keep digging ESJ

    by Yesiree Bob on May 6, 2014 at 10:33 pm

  19. Why work if the money you earn cannot even provide enough to feed you ?

    Well, a Randist kool-aid drinker (or idiot LNP voter) would say that the motivation of being a contributing worker, rather than the ignominy of sucking on the public teat makes the calorie deficit and being ripped off by the employer worthwhile. :)

    See, i can empathize and put myself into the mind of the ESJ types!!

    doGs, but its a foul and putrid place. :(

    by imacca on May 6, 2014 at 10:33 pm

  20. Hmmm. Can’t say I’m impressed by the quality of debate here about the deficit levy.

    There are a lot of people here who have made the argument that one of the drivers of the structural deficit is the Howard/Rudd tax cuts.

    If that’s supposed to be a self-evident truth then surely reversing some of those cuts is a reasonable strategy.

    Of course it’s only going to be a small part of the solution and all those other approaches – cracking down on FBT, a carbon price, reducing tax concessions on high income superannuation etc – should all be part of the mix of a ‘rational’ response to the medium/long term budget issues.

    But the idea of an increase in high income taxation rates is not something to be rejected out of hand.

    by Jackol on May 6, 2014 at 10:34 pm

  21. “@matwhi: .@mirandadevine new idea for a controversial column: be a better person. It’ll shock everyone! Try it!”

    by guytaur on May 6, 2014 at 10:36 pm

  22. If Tiny thinks we need a deceit tax, then why is he scrapping the MRRT ?
    Tiny you are not making any sense, the only people who think you are on to a winner over that are bottom feeding mouth breathers, like ESJ

    by Yesiree Bob on May 6, 2014 at 10:38 pm

  23. @cnnbrk: White House climate report predicts more frequent droughts and other risks, calls for “urgent action.” http://t.co/no9wLIoy6M

    by guytaur on May 6, 2014 at 10:39 pm

  24. But the idea of an increase in high income taxation rates is not something to be rejected out of hand.

    No its not. But a “temporary levy” to deal with a bullsh$T “budget emergency” is not, in my opinion, the way to deal with the revenue issue that seems to be the root cause of what budget problems exist in Australia.

    by imacca on May 6, 2014 at 10:40 pm

  25. Answer this – why would you pay someone a wage more than they are worth to you as the employer?

    So who or what determines worth? And where are these working poor going to live? In favelllas in the outer suburbs? Maybe in what are now National Parks? If people were paid what they were worth, nurses and teachers would earn a lot more than cirporate lawyers and tax accountants.

    Money is power. Normal workers need a way to combat it. They need to combine. After all, a corporation is a combination. The big end of town will still be calling for reform after we’ve reintroduced child labor and probably indentured labor. Fantastic? No, after all they are common practice in the third world, used by corporations that are household names.

    Well stuff them. Solidarity forever.

    by Steve777 on May 6, 2014 at 10:42 pm

  26. A Liberal guy I used to work with used to say, whenever the subject of unempoyed or disabled came upthat society owes you nothing, I shoud have said but did’nt (he was my boss) then why should anyone owe society anything. Let anarchy rule, every Man for himself. Many Libs these days seem to think the same way

    by WarrenPeace on May 6, 2014 at 10:45 pm

  27. Well ESJ if your LNP mates are so poor at running businesses and can’t afford to pay a decent wage, I suggest they go into politics…

    by Tom on May 6, 2014 at 10:46 pm

  28. My poor old scrolling finger is busy tonight why anyone gives ESJ oxygen I don’t know. Nite all

    by mari on May 6, 2014 at 10:47 pm

  29. Goodnight

    by guytaur on May 6, 2014 at 10:53 pm

  30. It’s actually a moral issue. The people who argue for drastic cuts to the minimum wage should ask themselves this question, could they afford to live on the current minimum wage, let alone their proposed one ?
    If the answer is that they couldn’t then it really is immoral that they demand that others do.

    by Yesiree Bob on May 6, 2014 at 10:54 pm

  31. Mark kenny on the deficit levy

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/deficit-levy-tony-abbotts-broken-promise-on-tax-is-in-the-national-interest-20140506-zr5fq.html

    Gee, that’s funny.

    I seem to remember Kenny saying that it didn’t matter whether Climate Change was real or not. The only important thing for him was that Gillard broke a promise.

    It was Teh Politics, you see.

    by Bushfire Bill on May 6, 2014 at 11:10 pm

  32. The MSM are full of hypocrites

    by Yesiree Bob on May 6, 2014 at 11:11 pm

  33. With the resumption of solid economic ground after the Asian financial crisis, the economic numbers have turned and, as many have it, Indonesia is on the way over the next three or four decades to becoming one of the four to six biggest economies in the world

    Would be a good idea to have good relations with them then, hitch a ride on their growth to a mature economy that will end up much larger than ours.

    Oh wait, they are not European so Abbott thinks he can treat them like a third world country….I hardly think if Norway was where Indonesia is that Abbott would be behaving the same way. There is inherent racism in the Abbott govts approach to Indonesia.

    by Thomas. Paine. on May 6, 2014 at 11:17 pm

  34. 665

    Why should employers be allowed to pay wages that make it very hard for there employee to feed and house themself? Why should they be allowed to freeload?

    by Tom the first and best on May 6, 2014 at 11:21 pm

  35. There is inherent racism in the Abbot Government, full stop.
    How else to explain there wanting to repeal 18c of the RDA

    by Yesiree Bob on May 6, 2014 at 11:21 pm

  36. http://www.theleader.com.au/story/2263232/joe-hockeys-budget-day-party-for-private-donors/?cs=12 Joe Hockey can’t help himself can he? Off to bed now

    by mari on May 6, 2014 at 11:22 pm

  37. Wow, Paul Sheehan has been eating his Wheaties. He’c come out full-on for Packer over the stoush.

    David Gyngell has behaved like a thug and he should be charged for the crimes he has committed. He stalked. He threatened. He assaulted. Now he can pay.
    If Gyngell is not charged under section 93c of the Crimes Act then the police have a problem. We will find out soon enough if our two-law system – one for the rich and one for the rest – is rammed down our throats yet again.
    ...
    The spark was the action of the company he runs, Nine Entertainment Company, parent company of the Nine Network. All the news reports of this incident have reported that Nine had a news van parked outside the home of James Packer, the billionaire casino operator. As to why it was there is a matter of contention.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/david-gyngell-threw-his-weight-around-with-james-packer-20140506-zr5iw.html#ixzz30wQjA6QJ

    He conveniently ignores the story about why the ENG van was outside Packer’s house (the cameraman lives across the street, and they’re allowed to take the vans home when on call… it was locked, so the story goes), and goes in hammer and tongs against Gyngell.

    You’d think he was there from the way he describes the scene.

    Which of course he wasn’t.

    Nevertheless, a stirring defence, one might even say, passionate, in Packer’s favour.

    Judging by the procession of worthies spied entering and leaving Packers apartment today, Sheehan isn’t the only one.

    Personally, I couldn’t care less. They’re both thugs.

    by Bushfire Bill on May 6, 2014 at 11:23 pm

  38. There is really a disgusting cult of personality in Australia when it comes to the ilk of Packer.
    They both should be charged and Packer should be stripped of his Cashino license

    by Yesiree Bob on May 6, 2014 at 11:28 pm

  39. How does a channel 9 cameraman get to afford to live across the street from James Packer?

    by Fulvio Sammut on May 6, 2014 at 11:28 pm

  40. They get paid a lot, and the street behind Packers isn’t anywhere near as salubrious.

    by Bushfire Bill on May 6, 2014 at 11:29 pm

  41. Good to know, BB.

    by Fulvio Sammut on May 6, 2014 at 11:31 pm

  42. Edwina

    Wages works like this

    1. Cut $100 off the wages of Fred on a very low income.
    2.Austalia’s GDP falls by $100 per week
    3. Now Jessica, john Jeremy, jake, jaci, joe, james, judy, Jason and joelene each pay $10 less tax.
    4. fred and family only had $50 per week for discretionary expenses even before the pay cut, so now he looks for savings. He moves to smaller accommodation and saves $30 per week
    5.Old landlord loses tenant and has to let to someone else. Because everyone’s wages are cut Landlord cuts rent by $15 per week
    6. New landlord has a tenant but probably would in any case so no net change
    7. fred still must cut $20/week so he cuts out $5 of beer per week, buys cheaper coffee and bikkies and cuts out some fruit and chops from diet saving $10, delays buying little Fabio soccer spikes and kit this year and cancels little Franny’s ballet lessons for at least one term, saving $260 ie ($5 per week)

    So at the end of round one of cuts
    Fred is in a smaller house (Fabio and franny are sharing a room
    Fred and family have cut expenditure on “luxuries” ie soccer boots, beer, ballet
    The family diet is a little bit less good – cheaper meats and a bit less fruit
    The landlord is $15 worse off
    Woolworths is $10 worse off
    The pub/bottlo is $5 worse off
    The ballet teacher and local sports store are worse off by $5 per week

    8. The landlord being $15 worse off also cuts back a little say $5 on beer and $5 on food and $5 other wise spent at the hardware shop doing repairs
    9. The sports store is about $1.50 worse off and the ballet teacher $2.50. The Chinese manufacture of the soccer kit is about $1 worse off. The shop owners and teacher also cut luxury food items

    So at the end of round 2
    we have
    Fred and family worse off as before
    the landlord has cut back on beer and food
    The teacher and sports store owner have cut back on luxuries
    The hardware shop is $5 worse off
    Woolworths is now $19 worse off
    the pub is $10 worse off

    10. The hardware shop owner who is $5 worse off cuts back on beer and luxury food

    So we then have the Pub worse off by $12.50 and Woolworths by $21.50.

    11. Farmers, beer manufacturers and importers will absorb about 1/3 of this cost (cost of goods sold)

    Now the economic irrationalists would have us believe that cutting wages will generate MORE employment, but in fact woolworths and the pub will each respond to this significant loss of income by cutting the number of staff and or the hours worked. It is fairly safe to assume that the pub will cut out 1/2 hr of casual labor and Woolwoths one hour.

    This then starts the cycle all over again as peter at the Pub and Wendy at Woolies each lose money

    by daretotread on May 6, 2014 at 11:35 pm

  43. SO BORED

    by ShowsOn on May 7, 2014 at 12:00 am

  44. There is an argument for Labor letting the deficit tax through. And that’s Labor needs to promise to raise tax at the next election and all it would have to do now is to promise to leave the deficit levy untouched.

    by cud chewer on May 7, 2014 at 12:00 am

  45. A US writer in Reader Supported News Blog in LA,writes a very readable if rather deplorable history of the Ukraine since WW2,with the terrible history of murder and genocide commited by the groups leadf by a man called Bandera who with some accomplices murdered thens of thousands including many many Jews during WW2

    These groups had aid from abroad abd have revivied according to this article ,and have been part of the great surge to the far- neo-fascist right seen in Europe recently…e.g Le Pen in France,and the neo-Nazi New Dawn Party in Greece

    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22940-focus-part-ii-meet-the-americans-who-put-tog
    very alarming story but ESSENTIAL READING

    by deblonay on May 7, 2014 at 12:05 am

  46. Re Minimun wage
    _____________
    In the US the Tea Party has worked to remove Minimun wage regulation from the law booksin many conservative states

    In State like West Virginia and many other people actually work for tips and that’s legal;…no pay…perhaps a modest $3 an hour …then they rely on tips knowing this fact one gives out of compassion or the person serving you goes un rewarded for their labor…all the payment on the bill goes to the management %100 …that what some stupid people like ESJ and others would like to see here

    If you travel across West Vinginia as I did last year,one is struck by the poverty ridden towns clustered around the defunct mining operations ,in which people live or exist on food stamps..and tips ..like something from the 3rd world …and a world away from the affluence of Washington or New York

    by deblonay on May 7, 2014 at 12:13 am

  47. There is an argument for Labor letting the deficit tax through. And that’s Labor needs to promise to raise tax at the next election and all it would have to do now is to promise to leave the deficit levy untouched.

    No there isn’t Abbott promised to remove 2 taxes, not raise any others, bring the budget back into surplus and to improve Government services, and provide a better NBN sooner.

    that is what he should be required to do – or he should call an election

    by WeWantPaul on May 7, 2014 at 12:38 am

  48. From the census….

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6306.0/

    In May 2012 there were 509,200 full-time employees and 20,500 part-time employees receiving $2,500.00 or more per week.

    The census stats do not show the breakdowns for these persons (those on incomes above $2500 per week – their incomes are aggregated.)

    But the information in the income tables implies the number in the top decile was around 1 million in May 2012. The median income for this decile appears to have been about $2220 per week. Each 1% in income tax levied on this group would bring in about $1.2 billion pa. This would apply if wages and salaries equaled taxable income, which they do not.

    The stats from the ATO are also interesting. In 2010/11…

    https://www.ato.gov.au/…statistics/…/cor00345977_2011TAXSTATS.pdf

    Taxable Income $80,001-$180,000
    Individuals 1,613,234
    17.2% of all taxpayers
    Tax payable $46,940 bill
    35.4% of all income tax
    Average tax per taxpayer $29,096
    Mean Taxable Income per person $ 111,205

    Taxable Income $180,001 and over
    Individuals 251,397
    2.7% of all taxpayers
    Tax payable $34,773 bill
    26.2% of all income tax
    Average tax per taxpayer $138,319
    Mean Taxable Income per person $ 366,153

    So in 2010/11 19.9% of taxpayers paid 61.6% of income tax.

    If Abbott sets out to raise, say, $1 billion from the the $80-180k range, he would have to increase their tax bills by $619 each. Their average income tax rate would rise from 26.2% to 26.7%

    If Abbott sets out to raise $1 billion from very high earners, he would have to increase their tax bills by about $3980 each. Their average income tax rate would rise from 37.7% to 38.8%

    These rates compare with an average tax rate for those in the $37-80k bracket of 18.2%.

    by briefly on May 7, 2014 at 12:39 am

  49. ESJ

    Two things

    Yes its true that the setting of wages is based on a number of factors

    -Educational levels
    -Range of and number of tasks performed
    -Business ability to pay
    -Economic factors such as supply of workers available

    Our wage structure is for the most part very good and doesn’t need changing.

    This brings me to your dismissing of Indonesia on the bases that its GDP is lower than ours, GDP is only one way to measure an economy ad the political poisition of a country.

    For example the U.S doesn’t include rural communities within its GDP read which as the effect of increasing it ever so slightly.

    Indonesia has come a long way in the past two decades and is on track to become a regional power, when that happens i am sure it will remember the dismissive attitude that many once had for it.

    ANZ Bank, IAG and Ramsay Healthcare etc have coem to recongise the Indonesian story and the potential it holds.

    Sure it has issues but it has for the most part become a stable country which is heading in the the right direction economically.

    by mexicanbeemer on May 7, 2014 at 2:25 am

  50. New thread.

    by William Bowe on May 7, 2014 at 5:14 am

« | »