Comments on: Big government conservatism

By: Andrew E

Andrew E — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:07:02 +0000

Step 1: Coalition economic credibility is weakened after a few interest rate rises and an inability to afford the big-ticket porkbarrelling that has won the past three elections for the Coalition.

Step 2: More thoughtful speeches by Rudd, Swan, Tanner, Emerson et al. which create the appearance of a united and consistent front on economic policy while keeping their options open, with a few key repeated and vague phrases becoming cliches without undergoing serious analysis. This is not a recipe for Rudd to go all Friedmaite, it just means he has to appear solid and consistent while his opponents lose it.

Step 3: Late 2007 polling shows Labor would be more consistent on economic policy than the Coalition.

Step 4: The election.

The Hayek stoush will continue well into the future. It is fair to say that Rudd fired the first shot with his Monthly articles and has entrenched that principle in the politico-economic debate going forward.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:56:29 +0000

I always thought that the Razors of this world we offended by big taxing and big spending Government. But that only applies when Labor is in office obviously. Funny thing that!

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:48:43 +0000

Interesting analysis, Andrew E, but I still don’t see how attacking Howard for betraying “market fundamentalist” principles enables Labor to run on economic orthodoxy itself, since “market fundamentalism” is meant to be bad.

And just a correction – the Hayek stoush continued well after Rudd became oppo leader. There were op/eds by him and Howard in the Oz in the weeks before Xmas.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:43:33 +0000

For years the big spending has been based on the big taxing by the Howard Government. There is a political spiel that the GST is a states tax and a reluctance by the Feds to count it in their figures even though it was bought in by the Federal Government in their parliament and is run under their legislation.

They never earnt the tag as the Highest taxing Government in the History of Australia by actually doing anything towards justifying the Small Government rhetoric which Liberal Party gums flap incessantly.

By: Andrew E

Andrew E — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:52:36 +0000

As an economic dry I’d much rather Howard’s big taxing, big spending conservatism than a Labour Government, any day.

What if the Labor government was economically dry?

What do you understand by the term “economic dry”?

By: Andrew E

Andrew E — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:31:30 +0000

As I've said, Labor are playing a clever game in bringing down a long-serving leader, emphasising both the theory and the practice of Howard's long-serving government and trying to force wedges between the two. The Liberal period in opposition 1983-96 was dominated by exchanges like Andrew Norton's appearing every week in the Oz and elsewhere, and to send them back there it is necessary to break down the image of solidity around Howard. You see intellectual contradiction, I see a pincer movement.

By: Razor

Razor — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:31:09 +0000

As an economic dry I’d much rather Howard’s big taxing, big spending conservatism than a Labour Government, any day. We could have had Mark Latham – that would have been fun!!.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:50:57 +0000

Thanks, Steve, fixed now.

By: Steve Edney

Steve Edney — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:46:24 +0000

Mark, the Weekend Australian link doesn’t work.