Haven't they ever watched "The West Wing"?

Surely these two political leaders would be students of The West Wing. 

Surely they would have watched the presidential debate episode "Game On"

Surely they'd remember the moral of the story when Jeb Bartlett's wife Abbey cuts his tie in half moments before he goes on stage. To fire him up.

Surely they understand that passion matters in a debate!!

The misogyny poll bump

And weren't they there during PM Gillard's misogyny speech?

Of course they were there. It was fiery, passionate. You might even have said it was slightly out of control.

It generated a nearly 10 point bump for Labor in the polls as well.

Passion, fire, they work. Australians aren't stupid. We want to see the "real" Kevin Rudd and the "real" Tony Abbott.

Perversely, the hyper-controlled Abbott might just be the real thing; but this robotic Rudd?? No.

If you want us to pay attention, start believing in it - with passion. Last night was terrible :(

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Abbott's company tax cut is disingenous

First, let me make this clear, I am in favour of the lowest appropriate taxes for individuals and businesses. BUT, Tony Abbott's decision to cut company taxes in Australia by 1.5% is simply bad policy and worse, it wrongly appropriates the Henry Tax Review to justify it.

Why Abbott's use of the Henry Tax Review is wrong

The first of the key directions read:

Maintain the company income tax rate towards the lower end of the small to medium OECD economy average, with a reduction to 25 per cent over the medium term. This aims particularly to increase the level of business investment in Australia across all sectors, including foreign direct investment; promote more entrepreneurial activity; and reduce incentives for profit-shifting offshore.


So this would seem to support Tony Abbott...but wait, there's more.

Ken Henry also recommends sweeping changes to the tax system, including a land tax (and resources tax) and many other sweeping changes. So, Abbott's plan is to remove the resources tax, not add a land tax and cut the company tax rate.  That just doesn't stack up.

Abbott-nomics, Reaganomics and the Laffer curve

While he explicitly named the Henry review to support this cut, I'm more concerned about the implied throwback to the 1980s and Ronald Reagan's economic policies described by the great catchphrase "a rising tide lifts all boats". It didn't.

One of the big theories that Reagan used to support his policy was the Laffer curve.  This theory suggested that in some circumstances that a cut in tax rates would result in increased government revenues. Legend has it that one of his economics advisors, Arthur Laffer sketched this curve on a restaurant napkin.

Laffer Curve: suggests that revenue increases if high tax rates are cut

However, Laffer also pointed out that spending discipline is required in the short term, to increase government tax revenue in the long term.
The Laffer curve has been discredited for a long time. There are many papers that have been written to debunk the Reagan and Bush supply-side policies...yet Abbott thinks he can roll out the same discredited theories.

Spending cuts will be required

So, even if we put aside all of our misgivings about the Laffer curve, supply-side economics and Abbott's plan, there is one thing that can't be denied.

Spending cuts will be required. Even Arthur Laffer said so.

Tony Abbott. Be accurate. Treat us like adults. If you are going to cut revenue through company tax cuts, tell us what other revenue you will raise, or what spending you will cut. Reagan or Bush would.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

It's an election so it's time to blog...about polls

Let's start with polls. Properly constructed polls don't lie. Yes, there are increasing challenges in polling now that people don't answer landlines but pollsters work their way around that.

However, there are differences between each of the polling techniques so that gives different results. At the moment, most of the major polls have the Coalition in front on both a primary vote and two party preferred basis.

Newspoll: L-NP 52%; Labor 48%
Essential: L-NP 51%; Labor 49%
Roy Morgan: L-NP 50.5%; Labor 49.5%
Galaxy: L-NP 50%; Labor 50%

The bounce has stopped

What's more important is that the Coalition has been in front for almost all of the past two years. PM Gillard got a fillip after the misogyny speech. PM Rudd got his recent bounce.

But there is no sustained trend. The Coalition has remained in front. One bounce does not an election win make.



How could Labor win from these polls?

There's only one way I can see for Labor to win. It comes from the Morgan Poll.

Morgan is the only firm to ask voters for their preferences. The other firms calculate it from the 2010 patterns. Morgan claims that the preferences from minor party votes will flow stronger to Labor than in 2010, and their poll has been showing a better result for Labor than the other polls as a result.

If they are right, Labor will hold seats that the other pollsters expect them to lose. If, if and if ... probably not.

From where I stand, the prospect of Tony Abbott as leader of Australia is not a pretty thought - but at least there appears no chance now of the Coalition controlling the Senate.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Politics the bloodsport - off and racing - it's Gillard, from Abbott and here comes Turnbull

Call me naive, but one thing I didn't expect out of today's leadership ballot was the all-guns-blazing-go-to-your-corners-and-come-out-when-the-bell-rings aftermath that we have seen.

Gillard finest 15 minutes

Perhaps not enough people were watching, but Prime Minister Gillard's press conference and particularly her handling of the media questions was truly Presidential.  She was strong, bold and as she said "impatient".  This was not a Prime Minister who was apologising for her position.  This was not a Prime Minister in any doubt of who was in charge.  She has an agenda, and is going to see that agenda through.

Dare I say it, but that's one from the John Howard playbook.

The Q&A plants

While Tony Abbott was just the same-old negative Tony Abbott, Coalition voters in the Q&A audience really turned up the heat tonight.  Of course we expect each side to have a clear position, but this wasn't Q&A - it was a battleground. 

Yes, the outnumbered Labor voters tried to give as good as they got, but the normally balanced audience was as parochial as Janet Albrechtsen.

Could they sense the need to up the ante? How long before we hear from Clive Palmer again?

Turnbull - the Coalition's nuclear option

The Prime Minister will get on with her agenda.  Australia will have carbon pricing, and a mineral resources tax, and health and ageing reform and a disability insurance scheme, and as many more reforms as she can muster.

History shows that when a Prime Minister does get on with the job of getting things done, they attract the respect of the nation.  Take the Howard/Costello GST - a ballsy move if ever there was one - but it gained respect.  As Gillard passes these Bills, her rating and the ALP rating will rise.

So, the jungle drums will be beating.  Turnbull is sitting at the rear of the field like Phar Lap, ready to pounce.  For all the love Abbott has of polls, all he needs is for the pendulum to swing the wrong way, and his Parliamentary supporters holding marginal seats might exercise the nuclear option and switch their allegiances.

To quote Leslie Cannold's tweet:  Coalition could send Labor into the wilderness for a decade with @TurnbullMalcolm. Abbott will be Labor 2010 all over again #qanda

The real heavyweight battle in ready to begin

We've had the 2009 Libs battle, the 2010 Labor stoush, a Federal election and the grapple for the independents, the carbon tax brawl of 2011 and now the great de-Rudding of 2012.  But, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

None of those haymakers have landed a killer blow.  Gillard is solid on her feet.  Abbott believes he has the crowd behind him, but maybe he hasn't got the goods to knock her out.


Only a fool can confidently predict the next 18 months, but if Gillard gets strong, it could be Turnbull from the clouds in the shadow of the post.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

It affects me - that's why I must support the private health insurance means test

I want Australia to be more productive, more creative, more fair and economically successful.  Some of these goals require change - change that impacts on real people.

So, when the Gillard government proposed the private health insurance means test, I had to ask myself, does this fit the criteria? Will it make us more productive, or economically successful.  The answer is probably yes.  We need to afford a health system, we need a public dental care system, and for individuals earning over $83,000 or families over $166,000 it seems fair to reduce the rebate they are receiving for purchasing health insurance in return for a $2.4 billion saving over just 3 years.

And it affects me - so I can't very well argue for some changes that don't impact me directly if I won't support changes that do affect me.

Productivity changes affect real people - that's why we need them

If productivity changes didn't impact on anyone, then they are probably not doing anything.  At the moment, Australia is in a once in a century mining boom.  Yes, it's impacting on many industries.  Yes, a lot of people can't see that this is doing them any good.  But, the impacts are real, and they have the potential to transform Australia for the better.

If we want to preserve old manufacturing industries, who is going to pay for it? All of us.

If we want to protect old fashioned retailers, who is going to be affected? All of us.

If we want to continue to drive our economy with polluting, carbon-intensive fuels, who is going to be affected? All of us.

So, we need to embrace the changes that are needed and take advantage of the one in a century opportunity that we are being handed.

I might have to pay and we all might have to change

At the moment, my job isn't impacted by the changes to the economy.  It wasn't always that way - I've been made redundant when the Marketing industry went through change.  So, if you are a manufacturing worker at the Toyota plant, or a retail worker whose shifts are being cut, it would be natural to be concerned. 

For most workers, there are other opportunities.  95% of people who want a job currently are employed.  For the retail worker, you have sales skills - there are currently over 2,000 sales jobs being offered in Melbourne alone.  For the manufacturing worker, there are over 1,500 jobs in Manufacturing, Transport & Logistics in Melbourne.  Change can seem scary, but it's what we have to do as society changes.

For me, I have to pay more for my private health insurance.  I can't ask you to adapt if I won't.  We all have to share the journey.

Tony Abbott's position makes no sense

Given that I will have to pay more for my private health cover, I don't understand why Tony Abbott wants to give me a hand out. Here is his statement on radio...

"Private health insurance is in our DNA. It is our raison d'etre, that is why we exist as a political movement, to give more support and encourage for people who want to get ahead. So, look, private health insurance is an article of faith for us. We will restore the rebate in government as soon as we can.''

So, is he saying that if you are wealthy, we will give you more money to make you more wealthy? Huh?? Honestly, that makes no sense.

Or is he saying he wants to do away with Medicare, and just have private health insurance? That would make even less sense, and be even less equitable.

I'm really trying to understand his perspective, but frankly, I can't see it at all.  Then again, I can't see why Prime Minister Gillard insists on bailing out foreign car companies either ... but that's a discussion for another day.

Times are changing, and we all have to step up to the plate.

Let me know what you think

Mark S