ELECTIONS - Labor or Liberal

[2020hindsight]

There's a post by "FactFinder" (03 Nov 2007 5:59:21am) replying to "Dorothy" , .... (re the economic slurring by the current PM - who has his own record to defend if he wants to get nasty about it )...

By "Dorothy" : (02 Nov 2007 9:20:32pm)
So Mr.Hockey is quoted as saying..." our fear campain is based on fact."
Is it not an intelligent person that fears the facts.
Fact.Labour governments are hopless 'money' managers. Their mentality on all things fiscal is deficient.Isn't it reasonable to fear this? That's common sense!!
Only a Labor Socialist appologist(eg.Helen Razer) would suggest otherwise.

By "FactFinder" (03 Nov 2007 5:59:21am):
Dorothy you confuse facts with Liberal Party propaganda. In fact, Hawke & Keating deserve the major credit for important economic reforms that have facilitated the 17 years of economic good times. Measures such as floating the Australian Dollar in 1983, reductions in trade tariffs, taxation reforms including the fringe-benefits tax & capital gains tax, changing from centralized wage-fixing to enterprise bargaining, the privatization of Qantas and Commonwealth Bank, and deregulating the banking system.

Fact: under Treasurer Howard, the 90-day cash rate peaked at 22% on 8 April 1982, while home loan mortgage rates were 13.5%, and inflation peaked at 12.5% in September 1982. Check out the facts & figures on the RBA website: Tables FO1 & GO1
http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/index.html#table_f
It helps in looking at these to recall that Howard was Treasurer: December 1977 to March 1983 , & Keating: March 1983 to June 1991.

The fact is that Keating inherited from Howard an economy in poor shape and turned it around very dramatically. In the words of Treasurer Peter Costello "The Howard treasurership was not a success in terms of interest rates and inflation... he had not been a great reformer."

Costello has built on many of the Keating reforms but has not succeeded in introducing many of his own. Most regard his making the Reserve Bank of Australia independent as his only significant reform.

 

[2020hindsight]

Another good post on the "FUD factor" - spot on IMO - including the contribution of (many of) the mainstream media.

By "Goff " 02 Nov 2007 7:19:10pm)

The FUD factor has been around for years and is getting worse all the time. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is supposed to make you run to the shelter of Daddy's arms. Remember last election?? What sort of leaders do we have that attempt to turn outgoing, positive, optimistic and strong people like Australians into quivering wrecks so they can retain power? A rhetorical question of course because we see them before us now every day and no wonder we are all turning off from them - we don't believe them and they should be ashamed. And you can include the media in this disgraceful game too

As for the "fear of inexperience" - as constantly expressed by the PM, my own reaction to that is
a) we need two strong parties up there, one in power and one in opposition
b) if one party is getting behind in the experience stakes, then get em some experience quick !! - in the interests of Australia's long term prosperity ,
and also..
c) when Howard took over the reins (third time?), there was damn all experience in the Coalition as well. :2wocents

 

[2020hindsight]

Finally a couple of beaut comments about unions ... (I agree with these).

by "Robyn" : 02 Nov 2007 6:44:05pm
What do people think the National Farmers Federation, the Law Society, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Medical Assoc, etc etc are if they are not the equivalent of Trade Unions?

by "krypto" : 03 Nov 2007 2:31:08am
Indeed Robyn, a valid and pertinent point, the Wiki article on trade unions places their origins as medieval guilds, similar in many ways to freemasonry or other "benefit" societies, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander methinks.

by "davo" : 02 Nov 2007 5:32:13pm

The fear message isn't just about membership of a union - that's relatively innoccuous. They wouldn't run the advert if that's all it said.

First of all it's the plain lie regarding the ALP Shadow Cabinet members being "union bosses" (see Adam Carr's factsheet).

Worse still - the completely unsustainable comment "ANTI BUSINESS". On what evidence is that based? As a small business owner the ALP Cabinet may be far more PRO (SMALL) BUSINESS than the present government who show no consideration of small business problems at all. In fact under JWH we do more unpaid work for the government than ever. Thanks for nothing JWH!

By "FactFinder" :03 Nov 2007 12:48:24am
The Labor Opposition has a Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors.The Shadow Minister is Craig Emerson.

Qualifications & Occupation before entering Federal Parliament:

BEc(Hons), MEc (Syd), PhD (ANU).
Economic analyst, United Nations 1978-80.
Economic Adviser to the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Finance 1984-86.
Assistant Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 1986.
Economic and Environmental Adviser to the Prime Minister, the Hon R.J.L. Hawke, MP 1986-90.
Director-General, Department of Environment (Qld) 1990-95.
Chief Executive Officer, South East Queensland Transit Authority 1995-96.
Director, Eco Managers 1996-98. (See http://www.aph.gov.au)

 

[Julia]

Further to my earlier wondering if Labor will retain current Super rules, here is their reply to my email:

Thank you for your email.

Labor will retain the Government's super reforms including tax free super.

Regards

ALP Campaign Information Services

 

[2020hindsight]

Julia, since Keating introduced (7% initial? - something like that - up since then of course) compulsory employer contributions to super - I'd have been surprised if you received a different answer to the one you just posted - but thanks for the confirmation

 

[Julia]

Julia, since Keating introduced (7% initial? - something like that - up since then of course) compulsory employer contributions to super - I'd have been surprised if you received a different answer to the one you just posted - but thanks for the confirmation

You are most welcome, 2020.
My concern was not to do with the contributions but rather with the modification introduced by the present government allowing tax free withdrawals from Super after reaching age pension age.

Given the huge amount of money that has flowed into Super since these changes were introduced about a year ago, there would have been a lot of pretty cross voters if Labor had withdrawn the tax free aspect.

Now, I wonder if that is a core promise???

 

[2020hindsight]

I think I agree with Lucy Saunders in this article on the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2081502.htm

Our ********'s better than your ********
Last week was a lot of fun for both parties, really. Actual policy announcements and other matters of substance were forgotten in the sparkle and drama of high-profile candidates from both parties making absolute twits of themselves. I wrote about the general lust for a drop of blood in the water last week - now there's enough floating around to appease even the hungriest of the media sharks.

Tony Abbott, somewhat unsurprisingly, was the first to fall off the tightrope. Admirably he did it not once but three times in quick succession. First he had to apologise for savaging a bloke dying of a work-related illness - good to see the man in charge of health has such a low opinion of the sick. Then, whoops, it turns out that this Mersey Hospital upgrade the libs have suddenly set their heart on can't go ahead. Embarrassing. Then, with the same level of charm and grace that has always characterised Tony, he decided to rock up late for a policy debate and - heavens above - swear at the Labor shadow health minister, Nicola Roxon. And I'm sure that Roxon, somebody who's spent a lot of time in the ALP, was just shocked by his language, too.

Of course, Labor has never been a party to be outflanked on the total clown front. Our amiable giant of a Shadow Environment minister decided to confide in that most trustworthy of colleagues, a right-wing shock jock media announcer, Labor's secret plan to change all our policies immediately if we get elected - seriously, immediately, in fact at the party on election day. Surprisingly enough, Peter Garrett's Secret Plan appeared on everything from the ABC to Kyogle local radio within about twelve seconds.

Both of these events were epic, epic trainwrecks, the kind of thing that haunt the nightmares of party people. I'm sure it took about three seconds after Garrett spoke for the Liberal ad featuring a sinister voiceover and a dodgy photo of the jolly green giant to get thrown together - 'Peter Garrett secretly wants to criminalize all coal', 'ten percent of Labor's front bench are ex-rock and roll officials', 'a vote for Labor could be a vote for anything, but mostly terrorism', all that kind of thing. Fair enough, too. This was an absolute gift for the Liberals, they'd be mad not to flog it as far as it'll go, and maybe a little bit further.

Inexperienced candidate, by the way, doesn't mean that he's unqualified for government. Nobody's going to deny that Peter Garrett is a credible environmental spokesman who understands and is passionate about the issues. The problem is that while he's got bucketloads of experience in his actual portfolio area, he's not particularly practiced in the inanity of an election campaign. This is what happens when people not born and raised in the party machine get promoted - better product, worse packaging. Tony Abbott is the opposite. A seasoned and high profile Liberal party hack, his errors lay not in some ill-considered gag, but in a genuinely vicious streak. While he didn't reveal the Liberal Secret Plan - they're very good at waiting until safely after the election for that - he did show himself to be a total thug, uninterested in policy debate, making rash promises to get an issue to go away and generally more interested in brawling than serious governing.

I mean - what about non-core vs core promises ?? - as if the Libs are saints, sheesh.

again I find myself agreeing with "krypto"

"krypto":- as far as Peter Garrett's comments to Steve Price, Garrett's only appology should be for giving that ridiculous man the time of day, I wouldn't trust Price with my dog's "leavings" much less journalistic integrity and the truth, the ONLY third party witness Richard Wilkins has already said Garrett's remark was a "throw away line" taken "out of context" by an unscrupulous charlatain who distorts the truth professionally.
I mean the man lists his profession as "shock jock" for pitty's sake.
There is no such excuse for Abbott's outragous behaviour but we are supposed to forgive and forget because he "had a bad day" oh please, this is a federal cabinet minister not a guest on high 5.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...h-drink-driving/2007/04/15/1176575679704.html
Steve Price charged with drink driving (from april )
Sydney radio personality Steve Price admits he made "a dumb mistake" and was "plain stupid" after he was charged with drink driving over the weekend.

Price, 52, was arrested in Neutral Bay, on the city's lower north shore, on Saturday night after being caught riding a Vespa scooter with his wife Wendy as passenger after an evening drinking.

"I wasn't thinking, I was just plain stupid and silly," a remorseful Price told the Nine Network's Today show.

 

[2020hindsight]

there's an interesting scenario there as well...
If Greens + Labor join forces to beat coation, who would be Environment minister? - Brown or Garrett ?

(unlike Horricks, I don't have a problem with that scenario btw - almost as good as Greens having balance of power in the senate )

"Horrocks " : 05 Nov 2007 2:34:56pm

now that would be an interesting scenario, ALP only win 13 seat, Greens win 4 but coalition don't actually loose enough to loose government, in fact it's a hung parliament, what would happen in that case, would the Coalition stay on the Government benches or would the ALP/Green coalition be given a chance to ruin the country. Who would be Environment minister in such a coalition, Garrett or Brown, it seems to be a scenario nobody has raised.

Then there are Windsor & Katter to consider, who would they support (and of course Peter Andren's seat will be up for grabs)

 

[arminius]

if the economy is the most important consideration in these turbulent times that lay ahead, who will be treasurer of the country when pete takes over as pm?

whoever it is, i dont think they'd have too much 'experience'. in fact, i think they'd be a rank novice.

 

[2020hindsight]

if the economy is the most important consideration in these turbulent times that lay ahead, who will be treasurer of the country when pete takes over as pm?

whoever it is, i dont think they'd have too much 'experience'. in fact, i think they'd be a rank novice.

arminius, they've been dodging that one nicely - while at the same time asking Labour to commit to it's front bench prior to the election.

As if LIBS won't have a MAJOR reshuffle !! - How many will even be there !!and the PM and other ministers in marginal seats and all !


I wonder sometimes if they realise how lacking in cred they are.

 

[wildkactus]

just think,
If the libs get back in and JH goes, we could be run by Abbot and Costello.

 

[explod]

just think,
If the libs get back in and JH goes, we could be run by Abbot and Costello.

Yeh.... wonder if they will update into colour, could be quite a show. Might make Pel the Governor General. A hoot from the spire and a line with Rome.

 

[numbercruncher]

Costello running this country just scares the crapper out of me (not too mention abbott as his side kick as mentioned)

Did you see Costello at the worm debate just sitting there with that continual crazy/weird/freaky smile on his face, something just aint normal with that lad.

 

[Aussiejeff]

With the 6th interest rate rise by the RBA just confirmed this morning under John Howard's & Peter Costello's watch since the last election (and the prospect of another one shortly thereafter), the Libs are going to have to start a soft shoe shuffle to get out of jail on the interest rate argument before the election.

Whatever anyone from the Lib Party might try to say to "soften" the impact of this latest rise (via foot in mouth or otherwise), it is NOT going to be a GOOD thing for a lot of strugglers out there in house mortgage land....

The problem for Labor is that if they win, they will probably inherit a climbing interest rate scenario which they might not be able to control either!


Cheers,

AJ

 

[Rafa]

good point AJ... in economic times such as this... this could well be a poison chalice

this article in the SMH is a good reminder of what a treasurer really does since the hawke keating reforms and the subsequent independence of the RBA

The treasurer is mainly pretence
by Ross Gittins

Surprisingly, a central question in the third last week of the election campaign is: what's the role of the federal treasurer? If you think it's to manage the national economy, that's what you're meant to think. But although the politicians on both sides want you to believe it, it hasn't been true for a long time.

Consider the view of a prominent business economist, Rory Robertson, of Macquarie Bank. He says the job of any modern treasurer, Liberal or Labor, is not so much to manage the economy as to pretend to manage the economy.

"With few macro-economic policy levers to pull in Canberra these days, any modern treasurer's job often resembles Head of Government Marketing - Economic. That is, it's at least as much about absorbing incoming economic news here and abroad and providing upbeat economic commentary for public consumption, as it is about making macro-economic policy," he says.

"On a typical day, the job is to explain that everything is going very well, and 'that's because of us'. And, if everything is not going well, 'it's not our fault'."

If, as expected, the Reserve Bank raises the official interest rate today, we'll see Peter Costello doing a weird dance in which on the one hand he declines to accept responsibility for the rate rise while, on the other, claims to be far better qualified than Labor to guide the economy at a time when inflation and interest rates are rising.

The very fact that rates are being increased less than three weeks before an election is incontrovertible proof that the economy is no longer managed by the government of the day. Rather, it - like virtually all developed economies - is managed by the central bank, acting independently of the elected government.

The ascendancy of the central bankers means that, these days, the main instrument used to guide the economy is the manipulation of interest rates.

When the economy is growing too slowly and unemployment is high and rising, the Reserve cuts interest rates so as to encourage borrowing and spending. When the economy is growing too quickly and inflation pressures are building, it raises interest rates so as to discourage borrowing and spending.

The strange thing is that, for 35 months in every 36, everyone knows it's the Reserve that decides whether interest rates will rise, fall or stay the same. Yet for the other month or so - the period of an election campaign - we fall for the line that it's politicians who call the tune.
Why this inconsistency? Partly because election campaigns are targeted at reluctant voters, who tend to pay little attention to political and economic news. And partly because it's only the politicians, not the bureaucrats, we can hold responsible via the ballot box.

We saw John Howard seeking to exploit this ambiguity in the 2004 election campaign. He claimed all the credit for low interest rates, promised to keep them at record lows and warned that Labor couldn't be trusted to control them.

He was dishonest to claim much of the credit, reckless to make promises about something he didn't control and misleading to claim that our choice of elected government would make a great difference to interest rates.

And now his interest rate chickens have come home to roost. Rates will have risen six times since he promised to keep them low but now he and Costello are claiming that's due to factors beyond their control (how can you blame us for the drought and rising world oil prices?) while persisting with their claim that they will always keep interest rates lower than Labor can.

Conveniently, of course, this claim can't be disproved because it can never be tested. Because the Libs won in 2004, we can never know how much the course of interest rates would have differed under a Labor government. And if Labor wins this election, further rises in rates - which is quite likely - won't prove they wouldn't have happened had the Libs retained office.

I can tell you, however, that as a survey during the 2004 campaign revealed, most business economists believed the choice of government would make no difference. I'm sure a survey this time would produce the same result.

Why are the people who make their living tracking and predicting movements in interest rates so unconcerned about which side wins the election? Because they know that elected governments have little influence over interest rates and the management of the macro economy.

It's clear from the way Howard and Costello have had to change their tune during the course of this campaign that, far from being able to influence interest rates, they didn't even see this rise coming. As long ago as August, the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, warned that if the consumer price index figures due on October 24 revealed a continued build-up of inflation pressure, he would have little choice but to raise rates, even if an election campaign were in progress at the time.

So Howard could have called the election well before yesterday's meeting of the Reserve Bank board, but he didn't bother. That may go down as one of the great miscalculations of modern politics.

Rather, he chose a campaign slogan, Go for Growth, that's now proved embarrassingly inappropriate and has had to be ditched. He wanted to claim the credit for the economy's rapid growth and promise that under the Libs it could continue indefinitely, leading us back to full employment.

Whoops. It's the rapid growth that's making the Reserve so nervous about inflation and will have prompted it to raise interest rates twice in the past three months. Its objective is clear: to slow the rate of growth and thereby ease inflation pressure.

A fortnight ago Howard and Costello were claiming the inflation rate was at its lowest in almost nine years. Now they say there's a lot of inflation in the system so only they can be trusted to manage this "more challenging and difficult economic outlook".

Will the punters fall for this two elections in a row? I doubt it. But Labor has just as much interest as the Libs in maintaining the delusion that politicians run the economy. Don't believe either side.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...pretence/2007/11/06/1194329223119.html?page=2

 

[Blank1979]

They both present an interesting mix this time around I think.

It seems to me that people like catch phrases, and that the public aren't really that upset with liberal's policies clearly - because of Rudd's blanket copying and yet popularity - just that maybe Howard's had his turn...

There's a couple of interesting articles about this on Business Spectator:
The Fatal Blow
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The_fatal_blow_8N7MU?OpenDocument

and

Robert Gottliebsen's article about the liklihood of Kevin Rudd copying, or at least not significantly changing Howards IR Reforms:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...et_IR_victory_8MPFR?OpenDocument?OpenDocument


I'm partial to both sides of the coin in this election - I can see what Rudd's saying but think that Howard is a better economic manager.

I guess it's going to hinge, at least for me, on whom is going to better manage a more difficult economic climate with Amercia melting down next year.

 

[numbercruncher]

Its actually quite amusing to listen too, last few days Costello was saying no interest rise needed, and today he is touting the rise as a sign of great economic management ....

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello says today's interest rate rise is proof of good economic management, and a reason for Australians to keep the Coalition in power.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/07/2084177.htm

 

[drama_queen]

 

[Nyden]

good point AJ... in economic times such as this... this could well be a poison chalice

this article in the SMH is a good reminder of what a treasurer really does since the hawke keating reforms and the subsequent independence of the RBA



http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...pretence/2007/11/06/1194329223119.html?page=2

That raises the point; who are the markets hoping will win? Or isn't it clear-cut? I guess I haven't had the time to go over both sides policies!

I just seem to fear a Labor government; afraid they'll mess with the CGT system in a negative way, or something... I just have this perception of Labor as being anti-upper class, & overly pro-blue collar

 

[imitrust]

Liberal.

Though I kind of want Labor to get in so they ruin it for 4 years and let the Libs in for another decade.