Search results for "trust"
Jan 14, 2013
Essential Research

Leader attributes – comparisons

 

Gillard

Abbott

Difference

Intelligent

72%

64%

+8%

Hard-working

72%

70%

+2%

A capable leader

50%

43%

+7%

Arrogant

47%

61%

-14%

Out of touch with ordinary people

53%

54%

-1%

Understands the problems facing Australia

47%

47%

Visionary

29%

28%

+1%

Superficial

46%

48%

-2%

Good in a crisis

50%

39%

+11%

Narrow-minded

45%

56%

-11%

More honest than most politicians

30%

29%

+1%

Trustworthy

32%

33%

-1%

Intolerant

37%

49%

-12%

Aggressive

46%

55%

-9%

Erratic

40%

51%

-11%

Compared to Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard is seen as more likely to be considered good in a crisis (+11%), intelligent (+8%) and a capable leader (+7%).

Abbott is regarded by significantly more respondents to be arrogant (+14%), narrow minded (+11%), intolerant (+12%) and erratic (+11%).

Nov 12, 2012
Essential Research

Preferred option for reducing spending

Q. If the Government decided to reduce spending in other areas to pay for these reforms, which of the following options would you favour?

 

Total

Vote Labor

Vote Lib/Nat

Vote Greens

Reduce the Baby Bonus to $2000 or eliminate it for people earning over $75,000

53%

52%

56%

55%

Eliminate Family Tax Benefit A for families earning over $75,000

13%

15%

12%

12%

Increase taxation of family trusts

13%

16%

12%

14%

Remove the private health insurance rebate altogether

4%

4%

4%

6%

None of them

11%

7%

14%

1%

Don’t know

6%

6%

2%

11%

53% favour reducing the Baby Bonus to $2000 or eliminating it for people earning over $75,000 if the Government decided to reduce spending to pay for reforms. More than half of all voter groups support this measure. It is favoured by 57% of women and 49% of men.

43% of those aged under 35 support it compared to 62% of those aged 45+.

Only 4% favour removing the private health insurance rebate altogether.

Sep 17, 2012
Essential Research

Leader Attributes – Julia Gillard

Q. Which of the following describe your opinion of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard?

 

5 Jul 10

4 Oct 10

7 Feb 11

27 Jun 11

2 Apr 12

17 Sept 12

Change

Intelligent

87%

81%

75%

73%

61%

68%

+7%

Hard-working

89%

82%

76%

75%

65%

69%

+4%

A capable leader

72%

59%

52%

42%

38%

43%

+5%

Arrogant

37%

39%

44%

48%

53%

46%

-7%

Out of touch with ordinary people

35%

44%

50%

60%

65%

56%

-9%

Understands the problems facing Australia

68%

55%

52%

44%

41%

43%

+2%

Visionary

48%

38%

30%

26%

25%

31%

+6%

Superficial

51%

52%

54%

46%

-8%

Good in a crisis

61%

46%

46%

41%

36%

43%

+7%

Narrow-minded

28%

35%

43%

46%

53%

46%

-7%

More honest than most politicians

45%

37%

37%

29%

26%

31%

+5%

Trustworthy

49%

42%

40%

30%

25%

30%

+5%

Intolerant

37%

Aggressive

42%

Erratic

43%

Gillard’s key attributes were hard-working (69%), intelligent (68%) and out of touch with ordinary people (56%).    All positive leader attributes for Gillard moved up from the last time the question was polled in April 2012.   The biggest shifts on the positive attributes were on intelligent (+7%) and visionary (+6%).

All negative attributes shifted down from April.  The attributes that had the largest shifts downwards were out of touch with ordinary people (-10%) and superficial (-8%).

Sep 17, 2012
Essential Research

Leader Attributes – Tony Abbott

Q. Which of the following describe your opinion of the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott?

 

5 Jul 10

4 Oct 10

7 Feb 11

27 Jun 11

2 Apr 12

17 Sept 12

Change

Intelligent

70%

71%

64%

61%

56%

62%

+6%

Hard-working

76%

78%

72%

75%

68%

67%

-1%

A capable leader

47%

52%

48%

45%

41%

37%

-4%

Arrogant

59%

60%

58%

60%

61%

63%

+2%

Out of touch with ordinary people

57%

53%

54%

57%

54%

57%

+3%

Understands the problems facing Australia

50%

53%

50%

48%

49%

43%

-6%

Visionary

32%

31%

27%

27%

26%

29%

+3%

Superficial

45%

49%

49%

51%

+2%

Good in a crisis

40%

42%

41%

40%

36%

35%

-1%

Narrow-minded

56%

53%

51%

54%

54%

59%

+5%

More honest than most politicians

33%

32%

31%

32%

30%

27%

-3%

Trustworthy

33%

35%

34%

32%

32%

30%

-2%

Intolerant

53%

Aggressive

59%

Erratic

51%

Abbott’s key attributes were hard-working (67%), intelligent (62%) and arrogant (63%).

The biggest shifts in the leader attributes for Abbott were on intelligent (+6%), understandings the problems facing Australia (-6%), narrow minded (+5%) and a capable leader (-4%).

Sep 17, 2012
Essential Research

Leader Attributes – Comparisons

 

Gillard

Abbott

Difference

Intelligent

68%

62%

+6%

Hard-working

69%

67%

+2%

A capable leader

43%

37%

+6%

Arrogant

46%

63%

-17%

Out of touch with ordinary people

56%

57%

-1%

Understands the problems facing Australia

43%

43%

Visionary

31%

29%

+2%

Superficial

46%

51%

-5%

Good in a crisis

43%

35%

+8%

Narrow-minded

46%

59%

-13%

More honest than most politicians

31%

27%

+4%

Trustworthy

30%

30%

Intolerant

37%

53%

-16%

Aggressive

42%

59%

-17%

Erratic

43%

51%

-8%

Compared to Abbott, Gillard is seen as more intelligent (+6%), a more capable leader (+6%) and good in a crisis (+8%).

Abbott is regarded by significantly more respondents to be arrogant (+17%), narrow minded (+13%), intolerant (+16%) and aggressive (+17%).

Since the last time the question was polled, Gillard has narrowed the gap on ‘out of touch with ordinary people’ (moving from +11% in April compared to Abbott to -1% this week) as well as ‘understands the problem facing Australia’ (-8% in April 2012 to equal with Abbott this month).

Jul 20, 2012
Essential Research

Deflation Is English For “The Elites Have Screwed You”

Fridays are a great time to dig deep into the truth— you know, just before you make plans to pray this weekend at your favorite…watering hole. Not to let the air out of the fun-and-games on tap, but, let’s talk, indeed, about deflation. This isn’t about ego, or size, or anything other than: how the elites have totally screwed up the economy–here and in every corner of the globe.

It’s a teensy bit wonky here but don’t run and hide because this is going to be real easy— and it will give you an insight into the dangers facing workers everywhere, and why we should not stop demanding that the captains of the entire “free market” ideology (whose main man in Oz is The Empty Suit, Leader of the Coalition) be fired for gross negligence.

Let’s start with the wonky part. Across the ocean in Washington, D.C. sit the offices of the International Monetary Fund. Be clear: the IMF has done some really, really bad things over the years– as in demanding, in return for money for loans needed by really poor countries, that those countries open up their people to marauding corporations looking for cheap labor and new markets to suck dry.

But, a broken clock is right twice a day— and the IMF is ringing the alarm about a big deal: DEFLATION!

Looking at the deep crisis in Europe, the IMF is warning:

Inflation is set to decline significantly and could even become negative. Headline inflation is expected to fall well below 2 percent in 2013 and remain there through 2014. Although survey-based inflation expectations are still broadly anchored, market-based indicators are clearly pointing downward and core inflation (stripping out the most volatile components, such as energy and food prices) signals very low underlying inflation pressures (see Figure 2). Moreover, given the subdued growth outlook, there is a sizable risk that inflation could even turn negative in the medium run. Specifically, the IMF’s GPM projections indicate about a 25 percent probability of below-zero inflation by early 2014.

In English, what becoming “negative” and “below-zero inflation” means is: deflation. As in, prices going down.

Now, you might think: Whoopee!!! Prices going down. Stuff is cheaper. Hit the stores. Shop til you drop.

Well, careful what you wish for. Deflation is what happened in the 1920s in the Great Depression. People don’t have jobs. No one buys anything. So, prices go down. Think of it like a bath full of water— you pull the plug and the vortex sucks the water down, down, down…nothing stops it–unless you plug the hole.

Now, the important question to ask is: how did we get here? A simple 5-step explanation will do:

1. The “free market” zealots ran around the world for decades flogging a system of lower wages, no unions, no regulations and the glory of competition.

2. Peoples’ paychecks got smaller, in real terms. They had no money. They used credit cards. Or, cash poor, everyone took money out of their over-valued homes, primarily in the United States.

3. Bankers, mainly led by the Wall Street financial elite, committed moral, if not actual, crimes. Driven by greed and stupidity, they obliterated, in a short few years, trillions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

4. Thanks to #3, people had even less money.

5. The people were told, “you now have to pay the bill for the failure of the system”. “Austerity for all” was the cry. Don’t raise taxes on the rich. And don’t dare spend public money to create jobs. The opposite: even though people don’t have money to spend, take away their jobs, take away government jobs and suck out of the system even more spending money of real people.

Voila! Deflation is upon us. Of course, the above five-step explanation of reality is entirely NOT part of the language used by The Empty Suit, Leader of the Coalition, or his sidekicks around the world. They want to continue to lead the people down the path to disaster. And this is so dumb even a theatrical farce could not it justice.

And, trust us, if deflation starts spreading, and China continues to slow down, the decline of the resource sector will continue here and…well, you get the picture.

You won’t like it.


@jonathantasini

Jul 3, 2012
Essential Research

A Smoking Gun on Corruption of Ratings Agencies: The Bankers Friends’ Scam

One of the things we rely on, as regular citizens, is supposedly independent agencies. We don’t have time to keep up with everything because we have lives to lead. But, what happens when an agency is not independent and lets corruption seize the day? A financial collapse, for example.

Although Australia avoided the worst of the 2008 financial crisis, some of what we worry about today–the possible collapse of the Eurozone, austerity imposed on Spain, Greece and other countries who must now pay for the bankers’ incompetence and greed–comes straight out of the lack of independence on trusted organizations. So, it’s relevant for us to look across the ocean at this story from  Gretchen Morgenson, one of the few denizens of the traditional press who questioned the worthiness of the securities, in the New York Times:

For years, the ratings agencies have contended that the grades they assign debt securities are independent opinions and therefore entitled to First Amendment protections, like those afforded journalists. But newly released documents in a class-action case in Federal District Court in Manhattan cast doubt on the independence of the two largest agencies, Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s, in their work with a Wall Street firm on a debt deal that went bad as the credit crisis began[emphasis added].

And:

When Cheyne issued its various securities in 2005, Moody’s and S.& P. rated them all investment grade. Even though Cheyne’s portfolio was bulging with residential mortgage securities, some of its debt received the agencies’ highest ratings, a grade equal to that assigned to United States Treasury securities. About two years later, as mortgage losses began to balloon, both agencies downgraded Cheyne’s debt below investment grade, to what is known as junk

.

And what happened when a top rating was at risk?:

For example, when the primary analyst at S.& P. notified Morgan Stanley that some of the Cheyne securities would most likely receive a BBB rating, not the A grade that the firm had wanted, the agency received a blistering e-mail from a Morgan Stanley executive. S.& P. subsequently raised the grade to A.And when a Morgan Stanley colleague asked for information about the Cheyne deal, Rany Moubarak, an analyst at Morgan Stanley on the deal, wrote in an e-mail: “I attach the Moody’s NIR (that we ended up writing)” referring to the new issue report published by Moody’s in August 2005.[emphasis added]

The court filings also demonstrate a lack of methodology for analyzing the Cheyne debt. For example, in an e-mail before the deal was sold, S.& P.’s lead analyst wrote to a colleague: “I had difficulties explaining ‘HOW’ we got to those numbers since there is no science behind it. The documents show that the lead analyst at Moody’s noted there was “no actual data backing the current model assumptions” for segments of the Cheyne deal.[emphasis added]

This is really not a surprise. It is startling, given their role in the financial crisis, that the ratings agencies are even taken seriously anymore.

Understand this, as the bottom line: the ratings agencies are about making money. They are not independent. And that still matters today to every person across the nation because what Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s do echos across the globe. When they do the bidding of the bankers, we get hurt.


@jonathantasini

Jul 2, 2012
Essential Research

TRENDS: The carbon tax: more political porkies to come

Peter Lewis ponders whether the Government will be able to win more support once the price on carbon is in place.



The ‘lie’ at the heart of Labor’s carbon tax has assumed legendary status.

Never mind that the realities of the supposed falsehood are highly contestable – Labor’s carbon pricing scheme is arguably not a tax at all – “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” has become the iconic political lie of our times.

Its ruthlessly successful exploitation by the Abbott opposition has spawned a political craze in exposing opponents’ lies, in the hope of replicating this highly successful case study in trust-related brand damage.

But what about the Opposition’s penchant for stretching the truth on impacts of the carbon tax?

Read more on ABC

Sign up for updates

Receive the Essential Report in your inbox.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.