From The Australian:
According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian on the weekend, primary vote support for the Coalition rose from 39 to 41 per cent in the past two weeks and Labor’s fell from 39 to 35 per cent.
Support for the Greens and others was virtually unchanged on 11 per cent and 13 per cent respectively.
Based on preference flows at the election last September, the two-party preferred vote is now 51 to 49 per cent in favour of Labor. Two weeks ago Labor led 54 to 46 per cent.
…Satisfaction with Mr Shorten last weekend was 33 per cent, just one point above his lowest rating of 32 per cent, in the first Newspoll survey in October just after he became leader.
Our Tony was relatively unchanged at 38% approval.
Houses and Holes
He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)
- Garnaut shreds Morrison’s Paris climate sham - December 10, 2019
- Hastie outlines his China pushback plan - December 10, 2019
- Will a digital yuan change the world? - December 10, 2019
YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
ASIC moves mortgage lending beyond HEM
The Australian Securities and Investments
Garnaut shreds Morrison's Paris climate sham
Via Domain comes Economist Ross
Hastie outlines his China pushback plan
Andrew Hastie at Domain defines his pushback plan
Essential: Morrison popularity slides
Via The Guardian: Scott Morrison ends an
This Labor opposition is just woeful. They still have their issues from the Gillard/Rudd era – they’re can kicking. Unions are ultimately the problem and the writing’s on the wall for them. If Ferguson has come out and sided with the Libs, there is something seriously wrong.
Whilst I agree with your larger point about Labor being woeful, the fact that Ferguson is siding with the Coalition is pretty easy to explain – he’s being paid well to do so.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-28/ferguson-slams-wa-branch-of-mua/5290988
“He now chairs the advisory board of the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association.”
You’re right, but we know Ferguson’s right. He probably doesn’t feel too dirty about it because he understands economics and the economics show the unions are economically illiterate or just completely short sighted.
On a larger point on economic illiteracy, I’ve often come back to the thought that the left are not as good at economics as the right. I haven’t seen studies but I’d bet on it. A study in the Econ Journal Watch (from memory) showed that most academic economists sit on the left. Should be surprising yet somehow, not.
I’d say they’re equally idiotic in this country.
On a larger point on economic illiteracy, I’ve often come back to the thought that the left are not as good at economics as the right.
Define “good at economics”.
The “right” have been running the economics of the western world for the last 30-40 years, and look at the disaster that has wrought. Certainly compared to the preceding post-WW2 “leftist” period of Keynesianism, strong workers rights, high levels of unionism, etc.
You can’t seriously attribute post WWII prosperity to leftist policies.
We whinge so much about politicians, do we really want them having more control over our economy? The market decentralises power, and disciplines.
There’s an argument that the last thirty years has been a failure in that there has been a freeing up of markets accompanied with some pretty major intrusions from government in key policy areas. Free markets work when distortions are not there. When you introduce distortions into a ‘deregulated’ market, and it fails – like in housing – you can’t attribute that to the failure of the market. The only issue with this story is that inevitably the market is a product of government decisions, and so therefore will always feature distortions. But do we want an economy with politicians choosing things (hello rent seeking) or governments having their power eroded due to deregulation. I’d go the latter.
This is robust political economy. Ping: Rumples
Governments can badly distort markets, and they should be held to account for their poor policies, but there is no reason to think markets can’t get things horribly wrong all by themselves. In fact there are centuries of evidence that human irrationality can lead to all sorts of crazy and dangerous booms and busts, all without the government’s help.
None are perfect Rob but which is better?
You can’t seriously attribute post WWII prosperity to leftist policies.
Because…?
At _worst_ they clearly didn’t do any harm while delivering vastly better outcomes for the majority. You would struggle to find a period in human history that delivered a greater increase of prosperity to the larger percentage of people than the decades after WW2 up until the mid ’70s.
Wherever “right” neoliberal policymaking has infected liberal democracies, the results for the majority have been consistent: decreasing workers rights, decreasing job security, stagnating wages, stagnating (and increasing debt-fuelled) quality-of-life improvements, decreasing labour share of GDP, accelerating upwards redistribution of wealth, hollowing out of public services, increases in private debt, increasing aversion to public debt, increasing wealth gaps, decreasing class mobility and increasing inequality.
Further, after all that, what do the “right” have to say ? “Sorry guys, you’re just not serious enough about what we want. Do it even more and things will get better, we promise !”
To whit:
There’s an argument that the last thirty years has been a failure in that there has been a freeing up of markets accompanied with some pretty major intrusions from government in key policy areas.
Free markets work when distortions are not there.
There is no such thing as a free market.
But do we want an economy with politicians choosing things (hello rent seeking) or governments having their power eroded due to deregulation. I’d go the latter.
Neither sound particularly attractive to me. However, this is a false dichotomy fallacy.
Regulation isn’t there to pick winners – that’s just a rhetorical straw man. Regulation is there to protect the weak from the strong.
We are far, far further down the path of unregulated free markets than we used to be, and the results have been devastating (and predictable) for the majority.
Smithy, the rise of Keynesian policies amidst growing prosperity does not mean that such policies were the cause. It was a growth boom due to the economic fundamentals.
When you’re finished being a victim and looking at the downside of ‘free markets’ perhaps you could look at the incredible innovation and progress that has followed from people having the right to prosper and develop (amid the shackles of a growing state, which to a fair extent is needed but there’s definitely mission creep there). Look back 100 years ago – the economy was quite liberal and prosperity was booming. Are you suggesting we protect industries and try to battle economic fundamentals with a cheque book from govt? This is not only ignorant of economic fundamentals but also assumes a level of knowledge and benevolence from govt that just does not exist.
I agree no market is free, but should we have a market where bureaucrats do planning or entrepreneurs and investors?
But because no market is free, I simply urge people not to criticise markets when a govt screws them up. I simply bring attention to the notion of govt failure. Housing and finance are cases in point.
I agree regulation should be there only to protect, but in reality this is simply not true.
House prices up, Australians will support you. House prices down, you get voted out.