Menu lock

Federal Politics 2013-

Mar 24, 2016

BludgerTrack: 51.3-48.7 to Coalition

The nation has gone on election alert, but there's not much to report from the latest weekly poll aggregate reading, other than a continuation in the headlong plunge in Malcolm Turnbull's net approval rating.

The BludgerTrack poll aggregate records essentially no movement at all on national voting intention for the second week in a row, although the Coalition has at least avoided recording its eighth fall in a row. Reasonable results for the government from Newspoll and ReachTEL balanced a particularly bad one from Roy Morgan, which stands out like a sore thumb on the sidebar charts due to the correction made for the pollster’s otherwise pro-Coalition form since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister. The Greens are down a bit, which it might be tempting to impute to Senate electoral reform, but it would pay to wait another week or two to see if the movement sticks. Only the ReachTEL poll was conducted after Turnbull’s election strategy announcement on Monday, but it produced no obvious evidence that anything had changed. However, there is a bit going on this beneath the surface this week at state level, with the Coalition gaining two seats since last week on the seat projection, but losing one each in Victoria and Queensland. On the leadership ratings, Newspoll has caused Malcolm Turnbull’s net approval rating to dip ever so gently into negative territory, while Bill Shorten’s continues to slog laboriously upwards, having slowly gained about 10% since the start of the year.

I would normally append this post with a bunch of preselection news and such, but I’ll be changing by MO now the pace has quickened with the inauguration of the phony election campaign. From now on, the news snippets will get their own post at the end of the week – and there will be a very great deal to report so far as preselection goes, with certain tardy state party branches now hurriedly getting their acts together ahead of an assumed July 2 election date. Also, what was formerly “seat of the week” is now “seat du jour”, starting with the entry below for Shortland, since I aim to make these a daily feature from now on. Eventually they will all be rolled together into the regular Poll Bludger’s seat-by-seat election guide.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

Clearly lateline not 7.30 is the program to watch.


HuffPostAU: Asylum seekers on Nauru have protested for a fourth day, to mark 1000 days in detention


Last two sentences on that article Mr Duffy posted (Dr Duffy?)

[What’s the big lesson to learn, in a century when machines can learn?
I offer it’s that jobs are for machines, and life is for people.]


astroduff: Must read post on the rise of AI & resulting societal disruption as millions of jobs disappear in the coming decades


djspratt: Click your glasses: $100 m. a year fossil fuel subsidy for #coal power to Victorian aluminium smelter ends #climate


Good morning


I am on the same page as you with the ABC. It is worth keeping it does not have continual bias against the ALP and Greens.

It does however inevitably fall prey to bullying by the Federal Government communications minister.

The truth is that Nick Ross has done a great service to Australians as his whistle blowing no matter the outcome for him personally has enabled people within the ABC to push back against the attempted emasculation.

However with its following the rest of the MSM and its editorial direction it does have a right wing bias. This is so it does not appear completely out of touch to most Australians.

If the ABC alone took a true balanced approach it would appear to be completely out of touch on politics. Why? Facts are left leaning and the total long term right wing bias of commercial media with its inbuilt bias to big business owners. That is without even getting to the propaganda sheets that are the Murdoch press.

However putting all that aside just for the entertainment it provides if nothing else the ABC is worthwhile.

I am a huge critic of the ABC bias I have seen but I too don’t see why we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.


cud chewer@711


When the ABC head of current affairs apologises to Nick Ross and the ABC start having some informed commentary on the MTM train wreck, then I’ll believe it was all my imagination..

What a dumb post.
Of course it happened and of course you won’t see that apology.
I have never said the ABC always gets everything right, of course it doesn’t. Never has, never will.

But overall, it does a pretty reasonable job. e.g. Lateline tonight.

En Quiry

Dear Crikey – any chance of threads?

En Quiry

DisplayName @ 417 – Maybe just choosy.

John Reidy

from last night, re the NSW Libs
The only thing that is going to defuse this is IF the Libs say who the donors were AND IF they were not prohibited donors.
A lot of these donations were for the 2011 state election (I loved the way Turnbull phrased it as ‘an election in NSW in 2011’, as if there were so many of them that he wasn’t sure which election).

As one of the purposes of the foundation is to obscure the donors and this is 5 years ago, what if the information on the donors is simply not available, so even, at the request of Baird and Turnbull the NSW Libs cannot comply.

stephen clements

Question @ 653

That Lateline interview of Turnbull by Tony Jones was utterly embarrassing for Mal. He was contradicted numerous times by the well-prepared Jones. I almost felt sorry for him. Almost.

The Labor Party could do worse than replay that interview during the election campaign (too long, but you may get my point); when cornered with facts he tried to resort to the trusty old Mal charm – smiles and affability, and of course, the waffle.

God, the waffle.


Good morning Dawn Patrollers.

Stand by for Eric Abetz to come out and accuse the ABC of bias after this Tony Jones interview with Turnbull.
All is not well within the broad church suggests Mark Kenny.
Lenore Taylor says schools and hospitals deserve a straight message from Morrison and Turnbull. She also refers to the talk of the town in Canberra – the simmering tensions between said two.
Peter Martin looks at interstate migration rates.
Arfur lashes out as the finger gets pointed at him Again!
And Labor calls for Arfur to stand aside.
Ben Eltham looks at Arfur and the return of the Coalition’s probity problems.
“View from the Street” sums up the sad. sad week for Arthur Sinodinos.
This detailed poll is devastating for the government.
The Rockefeller Family Fund has divested itself of fossil fuel assets.


EGT – yup, fair enough. I think that’s correct having gone back and looked at what the ALP are proposing.

From 1 July 2017 losses from new investments in shares and existing properties can still be used to offset investment income tax liabilities. These losses can also continue to be carried forward to offset the final capital gain on the investment.

So clearly share investments are classed the same as “existing properties”.

E. G. Theodore

I believe that the ALP changes limit NG to investment in new real property only, so NG will not be available for loss making leveraged investment in shares (for example).

So silmaj could validly say:


This has nothing to do with business investment which seemed to be his primary concern


EGT – I appreciate the lesson, however I was specifically talking about the proposed ALP changes – as I understood it the changes are specifically targetted at the property market (given that they create a distinction between “new builds” and “old builds” they kind of have to) and shouldn’t affect NG in other asset classes.

And I was simply trying to clarify what we were discussing as silmaj was saying stuff like:

Labors negative gearing investment changes will be instant. And don’t anyone lie. THEY ARE ON ALL INVESTMENT.

Which I believe is conflating the two proposals – the NG changes wouldn’t affect “ALL INVESTMENT”, but the CGT changes clearly would.

E. G. Theodore


NG is relevant to “gentleman investors”, i.e. people whose income is earned from something else (for example, employment as a gynecologist) and then “invest” for the purpose of making capital gains.

NG is not relevant to businesses running a going concerns.

NG could apply to a gentleman investor who has borrowed money to purchase share and then the dividends are less than the interest payments on the load used to buy the share.

This would be quite risky however as shares are not subject to the same preferential arrangements that force up the price of real property (it is of course regrettable that real property is preferenced ahead of shares since shares are typically in productive assets)

Consequently in practice the vast majority of assets for which NG is relevant are real property.

Note that the largest interest in NG is not that of the people using NG themselves but rather that of the land bankers. The land bankers are (typically) businesses and can’t use NG directly (and in addition banked land is of course not rented); instead NG (and the CGT discount) work in the land bankers’ interests to force up the value of their banked land.

Furthermore, this indirect NG/CGT effect provides an incentive for the land bankers to withhold land from use. As Winston Churchill said long ago: they profit in proportion to the disservice they render by the withholding of the land.

Fulvio Sammut

TPOF @ 806.
The media piranhas can smell the blood in the water and are emboldened.

Jones clearly no longer fears Turnbull’s late night demands to his CEO for his sacking for daring to express the bleeding obvious, and he and the other opportunistic piranhas will continue to tear little bits of flesh off until only a skeleton remains.


My impression was that the ALP proposed NG changes would only affect property investment. The ALP proposed CGT changes would affect all investment.