Paul Keating is absolutely right. All this piffle from $weetie about formula one cars and experienced drivers is dross. I’ve pointed out before that the Howard government has no macro-economic policy worth the name. Monetary policy is contracted out to the Reserve Bank. Fiscal policy is all about the Howardian electoral rabbit trick – buying off one or more sectional interest groups with a pile of dosh budget after budget, depending on what the polls are telling him. Where are the structural reforms? Where is the micro-economic innovation? What exactly does Costello do every day? If he could give a single concrete example of one of his race winning moves, we’d all be the wiser.
But there won’t be a lot of joy in PJK’s Lateline interview tonight for the Ruddster and his mechanics. Where is the passion? Where is the courage?
Keating certainly hasn’t lost the ability to sell a compelling narrative. It’s hard to think of a single Labor figure who can match him. When the weights really go on, is Keating right, as he seemed to be suggesting, that the intonation of focus grouped phrases like “ensuring prosperity beyond the mining boom”, “Mr Howard is a clever politician” and “a bridge too far” won’t be enough to carry Labor to victory? It’s worth pondering.
Excellent stuff from PJK. His IR solution is a badly needed improvement upon the current workchoices legislation.
His ego certainly shone through though. It just wouldn’t be him without the core belief that he is the smartest operator this country has ever had the good fortune to have leading it!
True, true, steve, but compared to the bland suits on both sides, he’s got something to crow about IMHO.
Stunning performance from Keating. Went right to the heart of the entire “superior economic management” mantra and ripped it to shreds.
Er.. Grace, he DID get a free hit. Tony Jones dorothy dixed him the whole way.
Yerp. And showing exactly the same arrogance that got us into this shit-fight in the first place.
Frankly, I reckon we’re lucky that the rodent and co haven’t made more ’structural changes’. But he’s dead on about the hollow sound bites being churned out by Labor. Where the bloody hell is the passion?
That was quick. Good to see a few LPers waiting to pounce.
It was a compelling interview alright, especially about interest rates and Cossie’s economic superiority mantra.
No favours to the current line-up, though he’s right about the need to inject a bit of passion (John Hewson notwithstanding) into the campaign. Rudd’s done a good job of wrong-footing the government and agenda setting until now. They now need to carry it through and firm up what I think most would agree is currently a fairly soft level of support.
You’d have to give the Libs some credit for the GST, which was a long-standing aim of both sides of politics. But it was a long time ago and they did bring it in by telling the nation they were not going to.
Mark, Paulie makes the current mob look like second-raters, although special guest appearances are a lot less taxing than a full time gig in the spotlight. Keating half retracted his lash at Gillard later in the interview, but left no doubt that he thought The Ruddster was poorly served by a close advisor like Epstein, who did bugger all for Kimbo Prolix when he was wallowing in the polls.
So, to amplify P.K., if Rudd is so ruthless(cf. Goss years), what’s he doing with a recycled loser like Epstein hanging around like Banquo’s ghost, constantly in his ear and psyche? Keating reckons that Epstein hasn’t got the stones to go for the jugular when it’s there for the “taking”. That’s a serious weakness in a league where poor strategy loses.
pjk tonight was like a nice cold palate cleansing Little Creatures after a night on the the cheap red and cheddar cheese.
He’s mostly right. Floating the au$ acts like a good set of stabilisers or shockers when towing a caravan up and down hills and around the GOR. No credit to costello. Tariffs largely gone. And a central bank modelled on the Bundesbank, independent and keeping the eye on inflation rather than dicking around pleasing Cabinet have taken the
funhard work out of being Treasurer.I can only agree with pjk – the big question is – WTF has Costello been doing these last 11 years?
And he’s right on IR. Make it simple not this convoluted crap we are getting from both sides.
An arrogant bastard that rubbed the electorate the wrong way.
And the political genius? behind our current economic position.
I miss him so …
That certainly sounds about right. It really feels lately like Labor has taken their foot off the accelerator giving the government some room to breathe. If politics is sport then this is the point in the game where they should be finishing the other team off.
St. Paul, please come back mate.
Published by Mark on 7 June 2007 at 11:09 pm
There is some truth in marks carp. Howard’s has been much better at rewarding friends and punishing enemies than the ball-busting business of economic policy reform. Targetted spending (geezers and breeders, toffs), selective tax cuts to fortunate industries (super, private health).
HOward’s economic policy has been riding on the back of a global economic boom, started in the early nineties, for for which he cannot take credit:
- the PRC’s & INDIA’s embrace of competitive market capitalism which is driving demand for our mineral resources;
- PJK’s liberalising and globalising micro-eco reforms improving the flexibility and productivity of the AUS economy;
- Ronny & Gorby ending the USA V USSR Cold War, reducing the dead weight of global arms expenditure;
- militaristic Anglo-American nerds creating the digital industry, huge in itself and facilitating other industries.
This series of free lunches (largely a product of succesful right-wing reforms during the 80s & 90s!) were in train well before Howard got his bum on Treasury seats. Oh lucky man!
mark says
Where are the structural reforms? Where is the micro-economic innovation? What exactly does Costello do every day? If he could give a single concrete example of one of his race winning moves, we’d all be the wiser.
mark is wrong to not give any credit to Howard/Costello. THey have done some good thing:
- set up the GST to rationalise indirect tax system was modest structural reform.
- delegate monetary policy to the RBA (good leadership…) awhilst keeping downward pressure on interest rates;
- run a largely contractionary fiscal policy to pay down govt debt.
THe wisest thing that Howard/costello have done is to not stuff things up with Brave New World social constructivist “structural reforms”. The only timesthey have tried this has been in IR (Wharf Wars, Work Choices) and both times they have been rebuffed.
When it aint that broke, dont fix it!
Mark and all:
Paul Keating had better be careful criticizing our glorious prosperous Two-Party-One-Faction regime like that …. he might get himself arrested under the anti-terrrorist laws that have come in since he was PM. Doesn’t he realize that strategic vision, interrelared reforms and valid criticism are all felonies these days?
Awesome stuff. And a much needed invigorating tonic too. Is it too late for a draft?
Er…Steve at the Pub, Keating is not a serving politician, he’s retired, so he is not exactly in the position of needing either Dorothy Dixers or attack flak to tease out any carefully guarded position, and Jones is smart enough to know that Keating can barrel along without help or interference, and provide all the news that’s fit to print. As he did.
As for Keating’s “ego”, yes he did talk a lot about his own achievements. It gave the appropriate context to the questions he was answering, but more importantly for me, he was defending his record, or his legacy if you like, against all the lies and misrepresentations of the past 11 years, because no-one else will, including the ALP. He is a past prime minister, and like all the others, he has a right to tell it like he sees it. And I want to hear more.
He should have Alan Jones’ recently vacated spot. The ratings would soar.
There’s no advantage in “passion” at the moment, plenty of time for that after the election.
MH says – You’d have to give the Libs some credit for the GST, which was a long-standing aim of both sides of politics. But it was a long time ago and they did bring it in by telling the nation they were not going to.
They did go to an election on it – I call that telling the nation.
I can’t explain exactly why but my instinct says Keating can’t help Labor and might do them quite a lot of damage, much as I like and admire the man. No matter how sensible his comments, he comes across as a man trying to get payback for the disaster of 1996 and risks reminding people of why they hated Labor so much back in the day.
Howard’s mob is doing a good job at the moment of persuading people that they’re a tired patronising bunch of has-beens who richly deserve to be kicked out. Let’s not introduce any distractions.
With respect to Keating’s more aggressive comments, I think it’s a lot easier to be courageous from Opposition. Keating was never in the position that Rudd is in now – during his senior years where he did try and push a more progressive agenda, he was somewhat sheltered by Federal Labor’s incumbency. He never had to win an election as leader from opposition.
It exhibits something we already knew about his character that he feels so comfortable dispensing independent and somewhat antagonistic advice on how to do just that.
And trust our old friend ‘The Australian’ to spin the Keating interview by stating that he “Accused Labor of wanting to take Australia’s workplace laws back further than when he was prime ministerâ€?
I don’t remember him saying that. He said that the changes should be simpler.
And also:
Asked why Labor should continue its link with the union movement, Mr Keating said: “Well I don’t think they should.�
That was in the context that Union have (according to him) become ineffective and should lift their game.
I think Guy makes a good point. It is an important distinction to make that Keating only ever fought elections from a position of incumbency. I also agree with Ken that he would be better off keeping his head down at this point. 1996 was an electoral disaster no matter which angle you look at it from and although he may be popular in some circles, I think there is still more than enough ill feeling hanging around him a decade later to make these forays into the media uncomfortable for Labor.
I admire the guy. There can be litle doubt that he’s the fella whose reforms set the country-up for the long period of prosperity that followed. Howard and Co have merely been the beneficiaries of this, not it’s architects.
As for his comments about IR, he was far more critical of Workchoices than of Labour’s current policies.
There was one comment in particular. What was it? Something like “Business will rue the day it heard of Workchoices”.
With Howard’s recent conversion to a “fairness-test” in individual agreements and the industrial Inspectorate that this will require to police it adding a new level of bureaucratic intervention and complexity to IR management, I reckon they already do.
Yet everyone, including the MSM, seems to have latched onto Keating’s few comments directed at Gillard and beat them-up into some sort of frontal assault on the Maginot Line.
…and then telling the nation they were going to and standing for election with it as a central policy. They must be the only government to take a GST/VAT to voters at a general election and win. Everyone’s allowed to change their mind – Keating did it himself – remember?
What governments are not so entitled to do is to ambush electorates with stealth policies once elected. You could almost slot WorkChoices in that category. While unfair dismissal changes had been on the radar long before the last election, it’s the wage & condition-cutting problems which have gotten Howard into trouble.
All parties do it. They only show the apple they want the electorate to buy, but what goes in the bag post-transaction is another matter. For instance, the ALP’s doing it with Anti-WorkChoices and Greenhouse. FWIW I think the voters are getting smarter at sniffing out stealth policies but that doesn’t mean politicians won’t keep making them.
Quoth TISM:
The future is a road too long
To ever really harass us.
We’ll drive past Paul hitch hiking on
The freeway to Damascus.
Look at the woggy suit he’s got on;
He probably drinks light;
It’s not that we knew he was wrong,
But that he knew he was right.
Paul’s the man to call the charge
That gets us all retreating.
There’s sixteen million Australians,
And only one Paul Keating.
Me? I’d put the GST into the major macro-economic policy basket too. You could add “palavas” like docks labor reform, but perhaps their biggest contribution is a feeling (yes, the “vibe”!) of good management – an intangible that gets investors wallets out – from home-buyers to multi-nationals. You can’t argue with surpluses.
That’s a quality Keating squandered even while Hawke was still in charge. Five post-recession years hadn’t improved that perception for those with capital, by which point Keating was desperately mangling budgetary policy to appease every pressure group in the universe.
I’ll grant Keating credit – he was bringing the country off a lower base and laid some great foundations (you forgot compulsory superannuation for one). Further, I’ll give Hawke personal credit for bringing a desperately needed new IR climate to the nation.
But you have to give the coalition credit for avoiding recessions after the Asian currency crash and especially 9/11. God knows you’d be blaming them if they hadn’t.
When it comes to Keating v Costello, never mind the colour – feel the quality.
Mark,
The Howard/Costello team deserves some criticism for a lack of structural reform. Telecommunications policy, for example, is a train-wreck. But to give this post a little more context, could you set out your sort of ‘top five’ structural reforms / micro-economic innovations that you’d like to see?
I reckon that when some politician does apparently nothing it is all too easy to put it down to a lack of vision. Sometimes the vision is not f*cking it all up through unecessary government intervention.
Cheers
BBB
I’ve been hearing that the Labor leadership group go a shade of beige every time Our Paul opens his mouth, and I think we now know why. I missed the interview, but when every line’s a pearler, the media can take a few choice cuts and remind voters why they hated Labor in the 90s.
Personally, I love Keating and everything he says – but I didn’t vote him out in ‘95.
“It’s all palava”
Which perhaps should be rendered “palaver”. Wouldn’t want to think he was talking about pavlova or the former Shah of Iran.
Keating had bad words for everybody (except himself).
He implied he is the only person in the country who has any ability.
Yep, the old dog is performing the same tricks.
I lost my business, the family home in the “recession we had to have”, and had to work an additional 5 years to get free of the creditors. I wasn’t very happy with Mr Keating back then, but would vote for him today if i had the option.
Mark
Only a few weeks ago, you were shouting from the rafters how profound and critical focus groups were for Labor’s brilliant ’sussing’ of Howard. I have already disabused you of your silly ideas about macroeconomic policy. Why regurgitate them? Please tell me you are not turning into the Adele Horin of cyberspace!
As I always say, Keating was an excellent Treasurer. Why? Because he lacked any formal education he was tabula rasa for the Treasury boffins. They loved him. Keating was always Treasury’s bitch.
Tragically, he had no talent as a Prime Minister.
Thanks for that, Bismarck.
Richard Farmer in Crikey:
Btw, anyone who missed the interview, follow the link in the post and you can watch it.
Ken Lovell wrote:
“I can’t explain exactly why but my instinct says Keating can’t help Labor and might do them quite a lot of damage, much as I like and admire the man.”
I think it depends on how you interpret and make use of Paul Keating’s advice.
I believe it is very appropriate that Mr. Keating put a cat amongst the pigeons now rather than closer to election time, by which time it is reasonable to suggest Labor will be struggling to defend a 53-47 two party vote to capture government.
Already, this week’s Galaxy Poll really is “as low as Labor can afford to go” in the Polls, given we already know the outcome of Labor’s 1998 election results (the popular vote doesn’t necessarily win elections).
It is getting to the stage that Labor’s election fortune “honeymoon” is part of an election cycle that ultimately favours the re-election of John Howard. Certainly, this has been my concern ever since December and I was one of the first people to express this concern.
Now you see this election cycle reflected in the wording of Andrew Bolt’s column today, calling Kevin Rudd an “A-grade spinner with C-grade policies”. Rudd is being “positioned” as a “risk” just like Latham was, against the familiar backdrop of the Howard-Costello “economic management” narrative.
Actually Mr. Bolt, I’d suggest the best we get from ALL our major party politicians right now is B-grade spin, treating the voters like idiots and B-grade policies, always skewed in varying degrees to the short-term.
This is why Paul Keating is very relevant when he says that certain Labor advisers “won’t get out of bed in the morning unless they’ve had a focus group report to tell them which side of bed to get out.”
Writes Jack Trout about focus groups:
“The average person hasn’t really “thought” about toothpaste for a total of ten minutes in his or her lifetime. Researchers may promise to reveal attitudes, but attitudes aren’t a reliable predictor of behaviour”. [1]
This is why you can expect the conservatives to place much trust in “the behaviour patterns” of the Howard-era election cycle, regardless of current research into attitudes, and make their decisions accordingly.
All Mr. Keating has done is be “a Honeymoon sceptic” as late in the cycle as it is useful to be a sceptic.
I have a note on my wall that is a discipline borrowed from Project Management:
“A minute spent now can save much frustration and hours of implementation later.”
In my opinion, I believe it is very appropriate that Mr. Keating put a cat amongst the pigeons now rather than closer to election time. Mr. Keating’s recent interventions into the debate are well-timed and relevant.
…From Justin
[1] Trout, Jack. The New Positioning. 1996 McGraw-Hill. Pages 141-142.
Meanwhile, Morgan Poll has ALP up 2% on primary to 51, and up 0.5% 58-42 TPP.
Record low of 28.5% think Howard will win.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4174/
Lefty E, which throws into doubt the Galaxy Poll result which was taken over the same weekend.
“Which perhaps should be rendered “palaverâ€?…”
Rather off-topic, sorry, but worth it I hope because good rhymes are *always* worth it…
Best use of the word “palaver” for my money in recent lyric poetry (which also includes good rock lyrics, IMHO):
And oh! what a bargain!
We’re two easy targets
For the old men at the off-tracks
Who paid in palaver
And crumpled old dollars
Which we squirrelled away
In our rat-trap hotel by the freeway.
And we slept in, Sundays…
–The Decemberists, “On the Bus Mall”
Keating’s not the first to make the point about lack of passion – unable to get a handle on Gillard, I trotted off to a Fabian do to have a gander. Here was an audience ready, willing to carry her on its collective shoulders from the room in triumph & she gave warm teapot performance of epic Forsterian proportions. All before Rudd, but the stage-managed steady man needs more than Peter Hartcher invoking the crossing of the Delaware to be able to cross the floor of the house in the next 12 months.
Keating once said he was in the bomb throwing business, and while some exploded at his feet, most hit their targets.
I doubt the bomb thrown at Gillard was the most ferociously hurled, but as FXH said, he does have a real point about the mirroring of the madly complex WorkChoices with Labor’s madly complex policy. If they had gone with something nice and simple like his, the “bad for business – over-regulation” argument would have been disabled, and all the little bombs the policy detail has set off would have been defused.
As to the GST and micro-economic reform, I’m kinda inclined to go with Keating on the actual significance of the GST – which is that it’s worth doing, but not that important. I don’t know that it would be helpful for me to list my suggested five micro-economic innovations, but I do think the ball has been dropped on the capacity constraints the economy is currently facing, and it shouldn’t have been beyond the ability of policy wonks to anticipate those constraints and figure out creative ways to ensure that we could have grown quicker without inflationary pressures.
Kapunda, no it doesn’t!
http://andrewleigh.com/?p=1486
PJK makes our current crop of pollies look like pygmies.
Who else matches him for pure political rhetoric, directness and self-assured arrognace.
Does it help the ALP? Hell no
Will union leaders be happy? No
But wasnt it great?
You either love him or hate him.
Pavalar or Placido Domingo!
His name will be spoken in hushed whispers under the Sydney Town Hall for years to come. Bob Ellis last night might be inspired to revisited Jerusalem on more time. His grave will always have flowers and rude graffiti.
Howard? The australian conservatives have no story teller, they have no writers of songs of joy and lament.
In my view it does DK. Thanks for the link though. If I have a bout of insomnia I will be sure to give it a read.
“I’m kinda inclined to go with Keating on the actual significance of the GST – which is that it’s worth doing, but not that important.”
Well, yes, but in the run up to its introduction, the GST was denounced as an end to civilisation as we know it. Indeed, the GST generated so much passion that it destroyed the Australian Democrats, and Meg Lees’ career, and very nearly won Kim Beazley an election. It will be recalled that huge, heated arguments were had over whether the proper compensation to aged pensioners was $10.45 per week or $10.46 per week. Etc.
And on the other side, the GST was hailed as the miracle that would transform the economy from sluggard to dynamo.
Then we all woke up on July 1 2000 and nothing had changed. It was still the same country.
Now, the GST is properly recognised as: meh.
I wonder if the same will be true of Workchoices in a few year’s time.
“Wouldn’t want to think he was talking about pavlova…”
Shouldn’t that be rendered ‘pavlover’?
The Galaxy dispatched down a black hole.
Nice one, Lefy E.
You’re definitely Master of the Universe material.
Jack Strocchi, Fish Whisperer.
“There is some truth in Mark’s carp.�
Yes, curiously, EC, the Gubba Gazette hasnt run the Morgan story.
Don’t get too cocky EC. Mon 21/5, Lab 1.75, Coal 2.05; today, Lab 1.78, Coal 2.00. Rabbitohs 2.30 with 1.5 start, Cowboys 1.85. So there you have it, Rabbitohs have as much chance of beating NQ as Mr Howard has of beating the Ruddster. Roughly speaking (as I do).
much as i loved him, keating can go jump
he lost in ‘96, after whinging about fag ends and fighting with the secretariat and getting depressed and generally being self indulgent. he threw the election.
he let howard steal labor’s stellar economy. then he funked by not staying on to fight howard on the floor of the house as leader of opposition. he could have made howard’s life an absolute misery.
but no. and now more of the same.
Precisely, Spiros. I was personally in the line of fire on that issue when I was handing out how-to-vote cards for the Democrats in 2001. You wouldn’t believe the bitterness of the ALP and Green people who denounced the ADs for having permitted the shocking assault on the poor that was the GST (in their minds).
Now here we are 6 years later and the ALP — and sensible centre-left people like Mark — hardly have a problem with the GST and aren’t about to repeal it in a hurry.
There’s a pattern here: when the right put a major policy up, the left sometimes engages in shrieking histrionics, only to tacitly admit, some time later, that it really ain’t so bad after all. The anti-VSU campaign is the other classic example. As Spiros correctly notes, WorkChoices may well follow this same path.
Mark
A GST was always Keating’s holy grail. His heaven was “Option C” which Hawke vetoed as politically unsaleab;e. Keating was merely following from when Howard was Treasurer. Malcolm Fraser vetoed Howard, a lot more than Hawke did Keating, including Howard’s longed-for GST.
By 1984, after the Fraser Razor Gangs, Australia had recovered a little more after the Whitlam disaster (which Australia has only finally shaken in the past two years), so Keating was allowed to implement a lot of what Howard dreamed of. Also, Keating was able, to some extent, to coast on the coat-tails of political risk and radical monetarism implemented by Thatcher.
Keating has never recovered from his most highly sought after policy aim – a GST – was implemented by Howard, and Howard won an election with GST as a promised reform!
Mark
I am still at a total loss at how you can trivialise the creation of an independent central bank!
Maybe some of you ‘Older Timers’ can remember. My father told me today that when Keating floated the dollar, deregulated the banks, and started selling off assets, he was savaged by the Left fiercely.
Where are they today?
I haven’t trivialised it, I’ve merely pointed out, as FXH also noted, that it significantly reduces the degree to which this government (or any future government) can claim credit for economic conditions.
It was also hardly something that was of the same order of magnitude as many of Keating’s reforms in terms of policy courage – the overseas precedents were already there and there was no opposition to it – as you correctly point out, much of what Keating did was vehemently opposed in many quarters.
As to this myth that Howard was a reforming Treasurer held in check by Fraser, it’s self-serving palaver. Howard, aside from his obsession with indirect taxation, was still firmly in the the groove of the then Treasury orthoxy represented by Stone (who was deeply suspicious of floating the dollar). In any case, if Howard had been the policy warrior he claims to have been, he could have always resigned to force Fraser’s hand. But of course that would have entailed taking a gamble and giving up office, which are hardly in character.
My father told me today that when Keating floated the dollar, deregulated the banks, and started selling off assets, he was savaged by the Left fiercely.
Where are they today?”
Some went to the Greens, some went to One Nation, some stayed with the ALP and took to liquor or anti-depressants, some left the ALP and have found no other home.
Wow, that sure was an interesting interview. I think though, to an extent I’m with Ken, I’m a fan of Keating but he handed over the reigns of government to Howard in ‘96 and he has never had to win an election from opposition. I’m not convinced that Rudd’s team needs “guts” but rather what it really needs is brains. Keating’s IR advice was gold, but did he offer it up to Rudd in private?
I suspect the hiring of Epstein was done so that Rudd has a spoiler that he has to fight to get anything through. The mismanaging of the IR debate a few weeks back demonstrated that they needed more control on the message.
I would really like to know if Keating’s advice is being sought after privately. I suspect not, but I think Rudd could do well by bringing Keating into the fold as his policy advice is excellent.
Russell
LOL! I don’t think my father waited for the floating dollar to turn to the bottle!
Mark
I am no shill for Howard, and my father confirms what you say that Howard was no hero, but he was certainly a maverick, willing to go way more out on a limb than any of his contemparies and even more than the current pansies wasting valuable media space!
Fair go Paulus. You could also say ‘when the left put a major policy up, the right sometimes engages in shrieking histrionics, only to tacitly admit, some time later, that it really ain’t so bad after all.’
Gong Guru said
He was a leader – not a pleasant one but a leader nonetheless. All we have had for the last decade is Menzies-era deputy managers.
The question I have is who in the ALP has determined that PJK should be “rolled out” for a monthly commentary on his record vs Howard’s…? Surely Keating is still in contact with senior members – be they political or administrative – of the ALP; and surely he must have sought and/or been given approval for his interjections? Assuming this is true (and I concede it mightn’t be), then surely it’s been determined via private polling (or some other process – tea leaf-reading maybe?) that there is something to be gained from his appearances.
I cannot believe that he is simply acting off his own bat, so to speak… If he were doing so, I’m sure we would’ve seen “private” comments from within the ALP that he was damaging the parliamentary party’s election efforts; and also, he would not continue to pop up. Egotistical, he might have been/ might be, but I can’t believe he would allow his ego to reign over the overwhelming need for Labor to fight and beat Howard. (Er, I mean the Howard-led Coalition…)
Youie: It is my belief that you have underestimated the size of Keating’s ego.
SATP: perhaps; but wouldn’t there be at least one other ego within the party, in NSW at least, who’d be willing to tell Keating to STFU lest violence or other lesser sanctions result…? (Not that I’m suggesting there are any ALP members whose respect for the party outweighs their respect for the law. Ahem.)
Youie, Keating is not beholden to the ALP. Nor would he be without support inside the party.
Yeah, sure; that’s what I was suggesting, Steve – I suspect there are people within in the ALP who have either tacitly or directly approved Keating’s reemergence. But on the matter of whether he’s beholden to the party, I would’ve thought that he values his place in history as much as any other leader (hence his recent appearances to defend Hawke’s and his records) and would be very reluctant to sally that by deliberately causing trouble for those currently in parliament.
Suspicions. thoughts, assumptions, suggestions of mine. Nothing else concrete at this stage…
I would say that Keating is getting in early, lest he be the tragic victim of history a la Malcolm Fraser 1983-2003. A tragedy only slightly relieved by deluded left wing luvvies completely washing Fraser’s excerable record.
I’m pleased to see someone acknowledge how little the Coalition have done in economic terms. Some have suggested plaudits for the government avoiding a recession during the Asia collapse, but if you can’t point to a policy decision that actually had the slightest effect on Australia’s exposure to Asia, then you have to assume our avoiding it was dumb luck. Very few commentators today understand why we avoided it. Certainly the government had done very little to claim any credit.
As someone who has never liked JH, the only economic activities they have achieved that have assisted Oz are the GST, a necessary but hardly revolutionary reform, (poorly handled at the time), and keeping in check the budget position in the early years (but not the last 5 where they p***ed a small fortune up against the wall for political purposes. Some of their superannuation reforms will have to be undone in future years as our tax base dries up.
Further, the halving of CGT is a dreadful economic distortion, the elephant in the room that neither party will acknowledge. The complete stuffing up of telecommunications policy (mainly selling off Telstra without splitting retail from wholesale) will be a brake on Oz economy for a long time to come. The lack of investment in infrasturcture and education (trade and university) is a legacy which we will feel for the next 15 years.
Dismantling negative gearing, a blight on the economy, would have been a worthy reform, but you won’t get that from the party of business.
And that is just looking at the economic policy side of things, where they claim to have excelled. It is pathetic that the electorate views the Coalition as the party with the good economic record.