Does Turnbull have a (viable) political strategy (at all)?
April 27th, 2009 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Howardia, Politics, Polls | 90 Comments
There’s an interesting debate (so far one sided) between Possum and Andrew Norton on the question of Malcolm Turnbull’s and the opposition’s prospects. Possum, after making a statistically derived argument about what factors drive voting, suggests that Malcolm Turnbull’s only strategy is “constant negative harping”.
Norton disagrees, and something like his position has been put to me recently from another quarter, so I suspect he’s accurately portraying what the opposition think they’re up to:
Simply agreeing with what the government is doing will get the Opposition minimal current credit with the electorate in the short term at the price of a clear long-term message about the Liberal alternative. There is a difference between what Liberal state oppositions have done, which is just ‘constant negative harping’ without a real theme or sense of an alternative, and a strategy which goes against the current mood to establish a message that could resonate at a later time.
There are at least two problems with this.
First, I’m not at all clear that any political alternative is being argued – some musing about ‘Liberal values’ is pretty content free, and doesn’t cut through in any case. Kevin Rudd has framed what the Liberal party stands for at the moment. So pervasive is the ‘back to Howard’ narrative. The Libs have played into this with their obsession with ‘defending the legacy’. It’s backward looking, not carving out some positive territory for a future when Labor goes off the boil. There’s really no getting around the fact that there’s just no political contest whatever at the moment – the Libs may as well be on Rudd’s payroll, as someone remarked here recently.
Secondly, you have to pick your battles in politics. You don’t spray negativity everywhere, in the hope that one of the “risks embedded in current policy” will come to pass. (And while I agree that – naturally – there are such risks, I think Norton’s characterisation of their nature is just more Liberal ideology, frankly.) First impressions last in politics, and Turnbull will find it very very hard to shift perceptions from here on in. Worse, the positives in the public mind about him when he came to the leadership have probably been buried. While Possum’s right that there’s probably not all that much that Turnbull can do from here on in, the Libs do have to get rid of him – which is something of a paradox, but it follows from the other argument that Rudd is completely dominant, and there’s really no evidence that any ground is shifting.
Poor bugger Malcolm, he really oughta keep his head down and lay low for a while. Governments eventually shoot themselves in the foot especially Australian Governments. All he really need do is wait. I don’t mind Mally that much but for someone supposedly bright he comes across as a bit gormless sometimes. Pity he signed up with the wrong side. I wouldn’t want to have a beer or coffee with either Rudd or Turnbull and I certainly wouldn’t follow them into battle, buy a car from them, or trust them with my savings. Not because I think they’re dishonest, more that they’re too smart by half and too much a complete product of a rather disreputable age.
Thought I’d missed something. (Distracted a lot of the afternoon through losing a book review in the innards of my computer after I updated Office) so I was prompted to ask what’s the Viscount done now? But it seems to be the same answer – either nothing, or more of the same. The fact that one doesn’t think about him for a few days, and then when one does the reaction is something like ?????? suggests the Viscount may very well turned into a bit of a cypher. The Beatles’ Nowhere Man personified.
I agree with the whole ‘negative carping’ thing if you looked at Andrew Robb on insiders last Sunday I don’t remember him outlining an alternative policy on anything apart from the second stimulus package, when he was pressed for an alternative policy he just rambled on…
As for defending the legacy, I think the Coalition learned during their years in Government that it was a major advantage to paint Labor as economically irresponsible. So I think the ‘defending the legacy’ is actually necessary to stop Labor from re-writing history.
I think where the strategy falls down is that Labor will jeer at the Howard Government record and proclaim their own policy, then the Libs will dispute the history and criticize Labor’s policy. I think the Libs need to change tack by:
1. Defending their history
2. Compliment Labor on the worthwhile bits of policy just announced
3. Say how it’s building on the Liberal legacy (avoid mentioning Howard)
4. Add an improvement to the current policy and (possibly frame it as standing up for a particular group left out of the current policy)
5. Then criticize any wasteful spending and say how it should be spent on schools and hospitals etc
“Simply agreeing with what the government is doing will get the Opposition minimal current credit with the electorate ”
If they are the game of chasing credit then they have a losing strategy.
You can gain nothing until you are seen as credible and that should have always been the first goal. And they will never attain credibility until they accept that their government was rejected because people didn’t want what they were about any more.
It is quite conceivable that the Liberal Party would now be in a much better position if they had simply shut up for the past 12 months.
Turnbull might not need much more of a strategy than to have Labour destroy 20 years of the nation’s wealth in a single term. Quite an achievement. I thought I’d only ever see one Whitlam.
I think the issues that Andrew cites, that he thinks could turn against the government, are fairly unlikely to be the great problems that many on the right believe they will be:
* massive deficits that will cripple the Rudd government for the rest of its term and damage the economy
I think this is a small possibility at the next election. The forthcoming budget will give us a good indication of how much Rudd is either a careful Keynesian or an unthinking spender, my bets would be on the former. Even if he is reckless i think the proof would only be confirmed in 2013 rather than 2010.
* an ETS that will exacerbate an already dire employment situation
This ETS passing this Senate, i don’t think so. Will Rudd try to push through a second between the defeat of the legislation sometime this year and an election less than 18 months away? Seems a bit too risky for Rudd to me, as does a DD on the ETS. Even if he did go to a DD as a referendum on the ETS, i don’t think the electorate would be listening to the opposition enough for, what would be hypothetical arguments, to stick.
* a national broadband system that will be an over-priced white elephant
Again, it would be too early for this to be a major issue in 2010.
* a workplace relations system that will drive up unemployment and increase union misbehaviour
Any increase in unemployment from workplace relations changes would be pretty easily covered up for the government by the GFC. Unions misbehaving, maybee, but i think this is probably a bigger bogey man for the Liberal party than anyone else.
* an ‘education revolution’ that will consume billions of dollars for little return
A couple of things here. I’m pretty sure the govt has delayed alot of the university reforms due to the GFC. As well i don’t think there was much policy flesh on the rhetorical bones for the electorate to identify a failure to deliver within one term.
Overall, it doesn’t take blind freddie to understand that the GFC will be issue number one for some time now. If the stimulus packages can be clearly shown to be not working, delivery problems in school infrastructure as an example, then there might be a chance for the coalition. In reality Turnbull’s problem is his own impatience. He’s hit the front in the Melbourne Cup going past the post for the first time (assuming a win is only possible after two terms.) Perhaps he can hold on but no Australian PM in recent times has got there leading from the start. Fraser, Hawke, Howard and Rudd all took the leadership, i believe, within about a year and a half of becoming PM and somehow i don’t think Turnbull has the patience to last as long as it took Howard to be rejected and make a comeback.
Then again, i think it would be such a hard decision for a politician to decide when to take the leadership of their party. Many don’t reach the holy grail and you’ve got to have luck well and truly on your side. Just think of how many on the Labor side would be wondering how Kevin scooted past them on the way to the top.
Lucky you, with Howard’s last years being based around spending that was greater than Whitlam, according to treasury, you’ve got to see three.
Oh noes, not the dreaded “Howard mismanaged the economy” theme again? Well, don’t let me dissuade you from perhaps the stupidest meme I’ve heard from the left this century.
Mark, I agree with you about the ideology driving Andrew’s risks. Industrial relations legislation costing jobs? That’s a position based on economic belief, not evidence about Julia Gillard’s reforms.
At least on one topic, though, the “cash splash”, I do think Malcolm is cutting through, if only with conservative voters. Conservatives seem strangely opposed to the stimulus, for reasons I can’t quite fathom. After all, economically speaking, a tax bonus is essentially just a lump-sum tax cut. I would have thought conservatives and libertarians would be in favour of the government handing back tax revenue to allow citizens to spend it as they choose … it seems for many conservatives I talk to that they have real concerns about “people just being given money”.
I think the Liberals are groping towards a kind of argument based on fiscal discipline. History (though not economics) is on their side in this regards, as the Howard Government spanned eleven mostly boom years for tax revenue with only a shallow downturn in 2001. And they can rightly point to the debt repayment achievemtns of the Costello years, even if this was at the cost to sensible investment in a range of services and infrastructure. Of course, as you’ve argued elsewhere, opposing a cash payment is hardly smart politics.
The real problem for Turnbull and the Libs is their state of denial about being in Opposition. Many in the party still don’t appear to have accepted that they have lost government. They are not doing the policy analysis or asking the hard questions as to why they lost government. Blaming it all on “longevity” is part of the problem: it was a far more general and policy-driven rejection than that. Hoping for the Australian public to suddenly realise Kevin Rudd is a nasty megalomaniac who picks on flight attendants is no more a strategy than the left’s often silly demonisation of John Howard was.
It’s always hard not to appear carping and negative in opposition. If you don’t have any policies of your own, it’s even harder.
“They are not doing the policy analysis or asking the hard questions as to why they lost government.”
Christ. This is an idea that pops up a lot on this blog, particularly in the comments. Repeat after me: the Coalition lost the last election because they introduced WorkChoices. The Coalition know this. The ALP knows this. The vast majority of voters know this. Why does this blog seem to attract the relatively few who think their laundry list of soft-left anti-Howard complaints counted for much? If I were being unkind, I’d say conceit.
(But I would agree that an analysis that relies wholly on ‘longevity’ is deeply flawed. It was a factor, but a very minor one.)
BBB
BBB – You wouldn’t THINK the Coalition knew it, the way they’ve dithered about it over the last year.
It’s a strange thing about elections – you can see it with ‘PM satisfaction’ ratings. One day the Opp leader is below the incumbent on ‘PM s’; then they get elected, and the next poll shows them well ahead.
There seems to be a mental shift which accompanies a change of government, and suddenly attitudes towards issues changes as well.
So, yes, please, Coalition people, keep believing it was all about WorkChoices and the rest of the Howard legacy is solid gold.
I would suggest, however, that the Howard government was never liked. It was good at winning elections, but between elections it was rarely saw the ‘streets ahead’ polling the ALP is experiencing now. People were desperate for an excuse to vote it out (look at how well Latham polled in the beginning) but kept deciding the ALP was unelectable.
You could compare it with Keating. People didn’t like him or his government but reelected him because they didn’t like Hewson. When they did turf him out, it wasn’t because of the issues surrounding just his last term, but because of issues which had run for years – ‘the recession we had to have’ was over, with its resulting high unemployment etc, political correctness, and so on.
Even then, Howard had to pretend that he was Keating plus the free set of steak knives (a la Rudd 2007, so strange that Howard misread what was happening there).
Craig Mc @ 7
“Oh noes, not the dreaded “Howard mismanaged the economy” theme again? Well, don’t let me dissuade you from perhaps the stupidest meme I’ve heard from the left this century.
You might think it stupid, but it is getting some traction out there, and if those on the right don’t try to defend their position, then more fools they.
Multi-billion questions being asked:
Why did Howard institutionalise middle class billions per year welfare?
Why did Howard ignore infrastructure needs?
Why did Howard frame his budgets as if the good times would roll on forever, and institutionalise tax cuts that were only sustainable if the good times rolled on forever.
All the questions above are multi-billion and of on-going concern. Those on the left are openly canvassing them. If those on the right don’t come up with some answers soon, they might find that their much vaunted claims of superiority in matters economic and financial will provoke only scorn.
That is not to say that JWH did not do many good things – but reputations on matters financial need jealous guarding.
Craig Mc, the right has some pretty stupid memes of its own.
You yourself have amply demonstrated the stupidly complacent meme that “voters will come crawling back to the Coalition begging them to repair the economy after Labor has reduced it to Dresden-like ruination.”
Therefore, Coalition supporters should just wait until the Natural Order of The Universe is restored, yes? “We are the default party of government — the dependable if stolid and unexciting spouse to which voters always return, begging forgiveness, after philandering with that flashy, flighty bit of crumpet from the rough end of town.”
Keep sobbing into your pillow, darlin’
In reality it shouldnt be that hard to be an opposition. Support anything the Govt does that is good and makes sense, and selectively oppose the bad things. The problem the Libs have at the moment is that they havent realised that not everything Kevin Rudd does is wrong or bad. They have got into a situation of critisizing everything so that no one takes any notice of what they’re trying to say.
The problem they have with opposing everything is quite simple, because as Jamo says, it means people pay no attention whatsoever to anything they say.
And on the policy stuff, it’s the Libs who have the simplistic attitudes, not the public. Take the ‘cash splash’. Ben’s quite right to identify the reason why they probably should support it. I think the opposition (emotionally) is driven by (a) anger that Rudd is doing something Labor criticised the Libs for in opposition but on a much bigger scale; and (b) some sort of perception that it’s morally wrong to give money to people – even though, as Ben says, it’s actually a tax rebate.
But from what I’ve heard people saying, (a) people resent being told they’ll ‘waste’ it – it’s actually an attack on the electorate (*epic fail*) and (b) everyone apart from Liberals can understand that if you pay $900 off a credit card (what Malcolm calls ‘saving’), you have more to spend later on. And most people aside apparently from Liberals know that spreading the spending out over time is better than all of it being spent at once in terms of providing a continuing stimulus.
Turnbull’s also fallen into self-contradiction. What’s his alternative? ‘Bring the tax cuts forward’. He should know there’s only two months left in the financial year!
Craig Mc, I do think Howard should have used the windfalls from the mining boom much more effectively than buying votes. However, in my first post i didn’t mention anything about mismanagement. All i did was point to the growth in government spending during Howard’s end, an amount that was greater than under Whitlam. Your response indicates that you equate government spending with mismanagement of the economy, not an entirely unreasonable proposition, but it is you who first accused Howard of mismanaging the economy.
Oh, and on the ‘risks’, as a number of commenters have implied, the argument about unemployment and IR is wildly incoherent.
Most of WorkChoices is still in place. Unemployment is rising. The point of WorkChoices was to allow more ‘flexibility’ – ie making it easier to sack people.
Making it harder to sack people (though not *much* harder) is not going to be an electoral negative for the government when unemployment is rising.
I think it’s also reasonable to suggest that large sections of the Liberal and National Parties are hoping for some deus ex machina in the global climate system to get them out from under the climate change issue. Hoping for a deus ex machina is, of course, not a strategy.
Absolutely agree with those who say Howard’s defeat was not only down to Workchoices. Resentment of Howard was building for years – the electorate just didn’t think the Labor Opposition ( now the Government – repeat for you Howard-worshippers – now the Government) was quite up to the job before Rudd became leader. It didn’t mean they didn’t want Ratty out asap.Hate to tell you this but Ratty was hated by everyone except the American Imbecile and an assortment of RWDBs.
And,as has also been shown in comments above, Howard’s record for economic management was in fact woeful.
So there!
Ben @ 8:
I don’t consider myself remotely conservative and I think the “cash splash” could have been spent more wisely. I’ve heard all the arguments about “timely, temporary and targeted” but IMHO the stimulus has been poorly targeted, going largely to middle-class families via the FTB system, who most likely paid down debt or splurged on imported product at the mall. Neither does much for Australia’s economy. We’d have been better off handing the cash to the unemployed and pensioners who would have spent most of the money in Australia on food and other necessities. I wish the govt had spent a lot more on stimulating the cleantech sector: fat rebates for replacing electric hot water, energy-efficient appliances, fuel efficient cars etc. That would have got people out to the shops, but with a lasting environmental benefit as well. Instead, the money that could have been spent on solar hot water has been spent on a new flat panel telly.
Conservatives and libertarians are not concerned about money being handed back, its the fact that that the money was borrowed.
I’m not totally unsympathetic to your argument, carbonsink, but I’d make a few points:
(a) given the concern you’ve raised with the direction of the ‘cash splash’, I’d also point out that rebates for carbon hot water privilege home owners and probably those with a degree of awareness of the issues – who are more likely to be middle class. Energy efficiency as a (laudable) goal isn’t best served by subsidies to individuals;
(b) The point about big screen tvs is pure assertion;
(c) There’s a multiplier effect regardless of whether money is spent on purchases imported or made domestically (smaller in the former instance, but the stimulation to retail and distribution industries works to maintain employment levels in industries which are largely low wage/skilled).
I’d also reiterate the points I made at #14.
I’d add that the distinction between spending the money on ‘necessities’ and something else is a very hard one to maintain. A couple of friends of mine are planning to get dental treatment – which isn’t urgent, but is a good thing. I also don’t really know that anyone is in a particular position to judge what’s ‘necessary’ and that it matters whether people make a choice whether to spend it on ‘unnecessary’ items – it seems to me that there’s an enormous amount of (again, somewhat class inflected) moral evaluation going on behind this apparently straightforward distinction.
“Hate to tell you this but Ratty was hated by everyone except the American Imbecile and an assortment of RWDBs.”
Paul, by all means take exception to the idea that the ALP won the last election only be reason of WorkChoices, but don’t talk obvious rubbish. Your comment is projection of the most transparent and embarrassing kind.
“(b) everyone apart from Liberals can understand that if you pay $900 off a credit card (what Malcolm calls ’saving’), you have more to spend later on.”
Mark, it’s not just Malcolm. It’s also other economically literate people. For example, huge swathes of the economics / accounting fraternity. Clearly modern usage allows the simple definition ‘income minus consumption’. As for the argument that paying off now = more to spend later on: it’s obviously correct, but not really the issue. The public policy goal of the fiscal stimulus to promote consumption now so that producer firms don’t sack their workers, delay investment, etc. Paying off debt and not consuming doesn’t really do much stimulatin’, does it?
BTW, have you realised that your point about how paying off debt means having money later on and your gripe about Malcolm calling it ‘saving’ contradict each other?
BBB
Conservatives are in favour of returning surplus revenue to tax-payers, not borrowing to do it.
No, not exactly, BBB, because Turnbull is making the assumption that the money won’t be spent later on. I’m also not sure at all about the claim that retail, for instance, is best supported by a huge rush of cash coming in and then nothing. I’d suggest you go back and look at the commentary on the retail figures from the ABS – the trend is higher than it would have been otherwise post the initial December stimulus. I really think a lot of silliness (‘it’s not all being spent right now’!) crept into evaluation of the actual purpose and effectiveness of the stimulus because of the lines the Libs and the media were running with.
Ahem…
That’s why the “cash splash” should have gone to the truly needy: unemployed, pensioners, carers etc.
No its best served by putting a high enough price on carbon emissions such that it changes behaviour, but clearly governments are not prepared to do this (especially during a recession) so we have to use carrots not sticks.
Perhaps, but it gets the point across!
Sure, so why not maximise the multiplier and get some lasting environmental benefit as well?
Just, by the by, I’d observe that we’re all talking about Rudd government policy and *not* the Liberals’ allegedly positive political strategy! I think that really does confirm the argument made in the post – the dominance of the government in agenda setting seems almost total.
carbonsink, I’d certainly have been happier if more had gone to those most in need. But I don’t think that ‘carrots and sticks’ is the best way to approach energy efficiency even in the absence of an effective ETS.
I’m a renter – I can’t figure out how people in my position – living in an apartment building – could easily take advantage of any cash incentive to go solar if it were directed at individuals.
Mark, seriously, you’re really stretching now. The Liberals are to blame for basic Keynesian thinking on demand management? Christ, a lot of the debate amongst Keynesians (on this very site!) is about who is most likely to spend now rather than save (low-income earners, pensioners, etc.). Exactly the issue Malcolm is highlighting.
I agree on the effect of the policy though. Anyone who says the fiscal stimulus has ‘all’ been saved hasn’t looked at the data.
BBB
Only those who refuse to see the obvious would miss the obvious:
1. The Liberals have avoided the word ‘policy’ as though it was the plague. Maybe because it’s linked with the words ‘hard work’. Why even their charming immigration spokesperson addmitted they had no policy on refugees and didn’t need one because they weren’t the gvernment.
2. They still believe that they are the natural party of government. You see from Malcolm down. Petulant, arrogant, aggressive, snide are just a few of the words that come to mind. In comparison government ministers come across as moderate, reasonable and measured. It’s quite a feat to make your opponents look good everytime you open your mouth, but they’ve managed it.
3. Because of 2 and 3, all they’re left with is negativity, which merely reinforces lack if 1, and the arrogance of 2.
Er, make that 1 and 2. Never was much good at maths.
In your case the landlord would get the benefit of (say) a subsidised gas hot water system, and you would get the benefit of lower energy bills. You would also get the benefit from rebates on energy-efficient appliances such fridges, washing machines, gas heaters etc.
Hoping for a deus ex machina is not a strategy.
It only becomes a strategy once you’ve got a pope?
Frankly, right now I think the best hope the Liberals have is actually to deify Howard and hope for a theocracy. They seem to have more factions than the average church, that’s for sure. Doesn’t matter what Turnbull says someone in the party pipes up to contradict him, making even Barnaby Joyce seem quite rational by comparison. Or at least in possession of a strategy (you have no idea how much it hurts me to admit that).
@32 – Yes, but that’s a different matter from persuading the landlord, because there would still be some cost to them and no benefit accruing, and it would be done more efficiently if the whole building converted but getting anything done via a body corporate is just about impossible if you’re not an owner (and even then…)
I also don’t think you’ve addressed the issue of where the money would end up going – it might well be a thing worth doing in and of itself (though I don’t think via rebates), but it’s not targeted to the same economic policy objectives.
Paul Burns @ 18. Your argument is wrong because of the strategy Rudd adopted to win the 2007 election. He me-too’d on just about every policy including economic management (I’m a fiscal conservative) and opposed the few unpopular policies(i.e Workplace Relations, Kyoto and the Stolen Apology ). In the end there was only about 5 points of difference between the Coalition and Labor. So that defeats your argument of ‘Everyone hated Howards guts and couldnt wait to get rid of him’.
“So that defeats your argument of ‘Everyone hated Howards guts and couldnt wait to get rid of him’.”
Er… WTF? If they went in with basically the same policies, surely the only reasonable explanation for Howard getting the boot is that we were sick to fucking death of the man himself.
“So that defeats your argument of ‘Everyone hated Howards guts and couldnt wait to get rid of him’.”
Why?
Jamo @ 35,
There was an underlying resentment of Howard that bubbled along under several elections but didn’t quite muster enough votes to get him kicked out until Rudd came along. Of course, the most obvious was Workchoices – but on top of that, and this is just off the top of my head – refusal to apologise to Aborigines – for years on end; concerns that the Intervention was a nasty land grab; the breaching policy for people on the dole; demonising the disabled and single mothers; being a covert racist; getting us into the Iraq war; licking the American Imbecile’s arse; not doing enough in Afghanistan; the Australian US-Free Trade Agreement; telling lies almost every time he opened his mouth;demonisation of refugees; putting children – repeat, children in long term detention;cynically trying to whip up a panic about terrorism for electoral advantage; being a cultural philistine; bastardizing Australian history; gutting the ABC and stacking its board with RWDBs;cunning sabotage of the Republican referendum – and I’m not a republican, but I think he should have been fair. The list goes on, and I’m sure other Lp-ers can think of heaps more. The thing is, in 2007 ALL this stuff landed on the little runt’s head to the point that he lost his own seat – only the second time that’s happened since Federation.
You have to admit, he and his cronies were pretty bloody bad.
Mark @ 34:
The landlord benefits by getting a more marketable product — an apartment with cheap, efficient gas hot water.
Regardless of whether subsidies work, the landlord/tenant relationship (and who benefits from what) is always going to be difficult, even with an effective price on carbon. Perhaps the govt needs to resort to regulation, but like carbon taxes, I doubt they have the will.
I’m making the (pretty reasonable) assumption that more money would stay in Australia than if was spent on imported consumer electronics, cars, clothing etc. Why? Because we still make some of the larger domestic appliances in Australia (hot water, fridges, washers, heaters…) whereas we don’t make any hi-tech gadgets. Also, many of these items require skilled installers (hot water, flued heaters, insulation, dishwashers).
Carbonsink, the big majority of landlords are never going to spend a cent on a propery unless they have to. They would need to get huge direct subsidies from government to make it worthwhile
The landlord benefits by getting a more marketable product — an apartment with cheap, efficient gas hot water.
When we were looking to rent there was absolutely no difference between good and bad properties on that basis. Even the free eco-assessment is rarely listed with the property details (I’ve never seen one). The only difference I know of is that properties that require active energy management are difficult or impossible to rent. Even stuff like covering one solar collector on the hot water system in summer requires the property manager to at least check it, more usually do it. Forget off-grid systems or anything that can be stuffed up (like a composting toilet. What tenants do to septic tanks is bad enough).
So for an investor it’s an expense with no return.
Paul Burns @ 38. If all that was true then why did Kevin Rudd adopt just about all of Howards policies. And if all that was true then the Australian people wouldnt have cared whether the Labor leader was Kim Beazley, Simon Crean or bugs bunny, they would have voted Labor in. The fact that he won 4 elections against 3 different leaders is testament to the fact that he must of done something right and wasnt the slippery, useless bastard that you’re suggesting. And by the way, just a little tip. People might take you a bit more seriously if you cut the abuse and tried to have an intelligent debate.
Paul @ 38
“There was an underlying resentment of Howard that bubbled along under several elections but didn’t quite muster enough votes to get him kicked out until Rudd came along.”
Similarly there was an underlying resentment of Keating that…until Howard came along.
As parties are in longer and longer, they lose the hunger to get in and change things for the better, and become arrogant and complacent. As this arrogance and complacency increases, the electorate looks more and more to the opposition. Thus, the Keating haters increased in numbers till Howard could take over. Similarly, the Howard haters increased till Rudd’s time came.
Another point that most commentators miss completely is that for anybody who has a large credit card debt and pays off the debt with the ‘cash splash’ has obtained two very real benefits. These are a replacement of a debt at the credit card rate with a debt to be paid at the bond rate – LOL! Who would not jump at that? In addition, since some people do not get the ‘cash splash’ (that’s me – grrrr!), those people who do get it, actually do not have to pay back as much since payback is spread over the wider tax base. Therefore the hand wringing by those talking about our children having to repay the debt is arrant nonsense. Most people’s children will be paying back a smaller debt (courtesy of those who did not get a cash splash) at an interest rate of less than a third of present payment. Do a rough calc based on a 20% credit card rate. You will come up with a saving per year of about $170 per $1000 of cash splash every year forever almost.
The only thing I wonder about is that anyone would do anything other than pay off their credit card debt with the money.
Jamo – see #36.
I agree with you Jamo. Howard was a useless slippery bastard.
btw its a waste of time shovelling personal abuse on me: I never, repeat never, respond. – did I hit a nerve, btw? it does all look pretty awful when it’s laid out like that.
FDB – see @#42.
@9
Actually BBB I think you’d have to throw in “credible opposition with MOR leader” as a factor. It certainly helped raise the gearing of the WorkChoices debacle.
I’m also not sure at all about the claim that retail, for instance, is best supported by a huge rush of cash coming in and then nothing.
.
Yeah neither am I. So why are we getting these cheques again?
‘Yeah neither am I. So why are we getting these cheques again?’
Don’t know about again. This is my first.
And if you feel that strongly about it, you could always give it back. Or donate it to your favourite charity. You know, actions speak louder than words etc. etc.
Speaking of charities, didn’t Howard say he’d work for one when he left politics? Anyone know if he is?
Mehitabel, it’s this one.
Oh, jesus wept…. Howard a champion of democracy.
Paul Burns @ #45. No sorry mate it takes more than a few factual inaccuracies to work me up. I’m disappointed that you abandoned the debate though.
Don’t know about again. This is my first.
.
I meant as in ‘tell me again’.
.
And if you feel that strongly about it, you could always give it back. Or donate it to your favourite charity.
.
Actually I did :) .
.
I don’t really feel strongly about it. It just seems, um, dopey. When the Budget comes in and it gruel for lunch time remember where the cash went. :)
Ahhh, what a deserving charity, and so aptly named. If there’s one word that springs to mind when I think of dear Mr Howard, it’s democracy.
And look at the wonderful company that he keeps. A veritable gallery of democracy’s finest proponents.
It’s a bit like naming the Liberal Party the Liberal Party. Oh wait a minute…
Jamo 2 53,
No worries, mate. Not concentrating brilliantly today. My computer crashed temporarily last night and wiped out all mu newly written book reviews so I have to do them all again. Sort of stressed out a bit.
Aren’t we meant to be talking about Turnbull???
I agree with the analysis that crying wolf every time just makes people zone out when he comes on the telly. Ideology aside, opposing the situmulus and the CPRS make sense because they are both big and complex and could backfire badly in time for the next election (or at least the one after that). Opposing the boat people makes sense because we’re all closet racists, except for those who are out and proud. Opposing the alcopops tax – that was just dumb.
Agree Josh – I dont think any of that will get them anywhere (and what better Keynesian stimulus than having to green up the economy some). But the alcopops tax position deserves special mention as one of the silliest pieces of indefensible opposition idiocy Ive ever seen in 25 years of watching.
Are they deep cover agents working for Rudd? And do they really want to be seen on the same platform as Senator No-votes Happy Clappy Flanders? Do they even realise every doctor and independent health body has backed the govt position? LOL!
“It’s a bit like naming the Liberal Party the Liberal Party. Oh wait a minute…”
The Centre for Independent Studies comes to mind as the home of small minded rigidity for people who seem mostly to have attended Public Schools that were closed to the great unwashed. Confuzon!
Oh.
Sorry I asked.
moz @ 41:
Sure, but if you had the choice between two identical properties, one with the gas on, and solar/gas hot water, and another with electric storage hot water and electric-only heating, which would you rather rent?
Granted, most people aren’t really thinking about gas and electricity bills when they sign a lease, but that’s because energy is way too cheap.
carbonsink: so you’re saying that there’s a market failure? Should the govt try to fix that?
Every time I’ve looked at the rental market there has been no price premium for a green home. I’ve kept an eye on it because I think it’s important. But right now I benefit from that lack of margin, in that I’m renting a house that has low utility bills and not paying a cent extra for that. I’d cheerfully pay extra for a proper passive solar designed house with solar hot water and double glazing, but it’s hard enough to find one of those to buy let alone renting one from anyone other than a greenie wanting a short term tenant while they’re away from home.
Worse, we put in rainwater tanks but don’t get the rebate because the landlord does not want to get involved – it would require effort from them and there’s no return. So we’ll be taking those with us when we go. Like all the other stuff… bubble wrap on selected windows, door seals, compact fluoro bulbs plus a couple of LED ones and we’ll unblock the chimneys as well. Otherwise we’ll have to pay someone out of our bond to do it, because those things decrease the rental value of the property.
Carbonsink: to make it explicit: I deliberately looked for and found an energy efficient house to rent. I’m not paying extra for that highly desirable feature.
As well, finding this house meant looking at lots of houses and trying to work out which ones qualified because the critical information is not provided by the landlord. It means trespassing a lot, in order to visit houses at different times of the day and in varying weather and that’s just a pain in the arse.
Josh@57 opposing that part of the stimulus package where a cash payment is involved is also madness. The opposition point to it as “wasted” money. Apart from a very few liberal luvvers, who in their right mind would consider that money they received and dealt with, somehow squandered? It is actually quite an insulting suggestion to a large number of potential voters.
Craig Mc: why would you pinpoint the top of the business cycle – the time, generally speaking, we have surpluses – to stimulate the economy? Conservatives can’t be that economically illiterate, can they?
And there’s two things I wish Liberals would try to understand. First, only a small part of the deficit has come about as a result of the stimulus package. Most of the deficit has come about without the government lifting a finger, without any change to government policy at all – it’s simply what happens when revenue collapses. Here it’s worth remembering Howard went to the last election with spending promises that were considerably larger than Labor’s. And second, the overwhelming proportion of the second stimulus is being spent on public works, not the “cash splash”.
As Keynes said during the depression, the only possible way to balance the budget is to increase national income (preferably with spending on public works).
Balancing the budget at this time would mean savage budget cuts or huge tax increases. It would cause massive hardship and plunge us into a depression. It’s simply not politically realistic – for any side of politics.
Why do Turnbull and Hockey carry on all the time about Labor’s DEBT? Costello – good economic manager ????- dined out on it for 11 years (reducing Labor’s $96 Million Debt when all he did was sell Telstra and a few other bits of the family silver). Everybody got tired of that line and eventually tossed him and Howard out. What’s so wrong about a bit of debt? Everybody has a mortgage which is a very long term debt and most people borrow money to buy their new cars, furniture etc so why is a country having some debt any different. We’ve heard the debt tune for so long that Turnbull and Hockey would be well advised to give it a rest.
moz @ 62:
carbonsink: so you’re saying that there’s a market failure? Should the govt try to fix that?
Sure is. Can you show me a govt (anywhere!) with the courage to do something about it?
Carbonsink, the problem with this market failure is that it’s not clear what exactly the govt can do – rent regulation is an unpopular mechanism and the current rules on advertising and minimum property standards are pretty poorly enforced. Just adding to that “must include estimated utility bills” is not going to be useful but will add more bureacrazy to an already silly process[1]. Anything non-coercive would need to be more attractive than the current schemes which don’t appear to work. So basically the size of the bribe needs to be increased…
[1] we’re in Moreland, where the 50+ students in a house problem has happened repeatedly. Talk about a failure of the regulatory system.
Must we have all the articles in blogs and the papers advising Turnbull of what he should do? I don’t want the Liberals back in government for decades, so there will be no helpful advice coming from THIS quarter.
Rx, the problem is not that Turnbull doesn’t know what to do. His problem is that everyone else also knows what he should do and many of them are not shy about saying so. Now, if only they all had the same thing in mind…
Rx, it’s perfectly safe. You can tell from the Lib posters here that they don’t recognise good advice when they see it.
Not all “spending on public works” creates an “increase in national income”. Not knowing the difference has made Japan the slow-motion train-wreck it is today. I can hope that Rudd and Swan know the difference better than Japan or Ginja, but based on their performance so far it’s a feint hope.
If they blow billions on “spending on public works” instead of truly investing in infrastructure, then we will probably have saddled the country with interest payments, tax increases, and stagnation that it will take a generation to get rid of.
Glen Stevens has already indicated concern at government debt. Unless there’s a visible payoff for that spending watch interest rates jack up. And that’s if we keep our AAA – I dread to consider the effect of slipping to AA1.
Finally, if you want a practical demonstration of one reason as to why Labour might lose the next election, try calling 132850. See if you can get through during business hours.
Here’s the eternal lament of opposition parties. Then once in power, they are endlessly serenaded with the same sentiments.
While in no way dissing the sheer technical brilliance of Bill Yeats’ great poem, I just want to point out this kinda “it’s all over now” sentiment has been around like forever. And it always ends sounding resoundly booming yet totally hollow in mouths of pollies.
That link did not hold.
http://www.online-literature.com/yeats/780/
Nabakov, I still savour the cover story in “The Bulletin” after the 1975 election: “Is Labor Finished?”
Well, Labor’s going OK, but “The Bulletin”,… umm
CraigMc
getting through to Centrelink has never been easy, so don’t pretend it’s any measure of this government.
I once got so frustrated I rang Jocelyn Newman’s office (she was the Min in charge then).
That said, all Ministers should have a staffer ring the outside number of their Department on a regular basis, so they understand what the plebs are dealing with.
That’s not so much a criticism of Centrelink, more a comment on the increased demand for its services.
I e-mail my local member the moment I have a problem with a Government department. It worked so well when I went into the old CES and SS they used to say “There’s no need to ring your local member about this.” Helps if your member is Independent or in Opposition though. If they’re in Government (and from the way Rudd ignores my -emails I’d say this goes for the present Government too) they’re bloody useless.
Back in the bad old days of the early BAS, I fired off a restrained rant against it to my local member. In ten minutes I had a positive response agreeing with everything I said and assuring me he’d be taking it to cabinet. The problems were solved in short order. He got my vote thereafter.
PB’s advice is good – call your local MP if you’re getting stuffed around by government.
“That’s not so much a criticism of Centrelink, more a comment on the increased demand for its services.”
And makes it all the more strange that the opposition focus is on bagging the government for emergency, stimulatory, measures to maintain existing employment.
Oh, one word of warning though. If you are having a problem with Centrelink RING your local member BEFORE you lodge an appeal, as soon as the shit has hit the fan. Once you’ve lodged an appeal your local MP can’t do anything until the apeal process is over. And always, always apeal from your local office, to regional office, to Social Security Appeals Tribunal (I’m assuming Howard didn’t abolish it) to Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Unless you are being blatantly dishonest (and you’ll know that before you lodge an appeal, unless you’re very thick) its almost always the result of some bureaucratic bullshit that will get overturned on appeal. So you will win.
btw, is it just me, or does anybody else find this seriously weird:
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/301216/centrelink_issues_500k_unbreakable_code_free
(I’m putting it here as part of this Centrelink/political rep. discussion.)
Paul, I don’t know if it was initially Centrelink’s intention to release the protocol open-source – but it should certainly be encouraged.
See OV-chip 2.0, and Open Source, Open Standards and Re-Use: UK Government Policy for similarities and benefits (or, ‘how to avoid myki debacles of the future’).
OT, but that second link is a must read for anyone interested in open-source models.
Craig Mc, you might want to take a look at the front cover of the AFR today. According to documents FOI’d from Treasury, it looks as though Howard and Costello spent more than $300 billion in new spending and tax cuts between 2004-05 and the 2007 election, “the loosest fiscal policy since the Whitlam years.”
Paul Cleary argues that if the Liberals really were the party of fiscal discipline, they’d have squirrelled away far more of the tax receipts from the boom years, perhaps in a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund.
This is why Access Economics is saying that the budget is in structural deficit – the commodity boom didn’t last (shock!) and therefore the new spending in portfolios like defence, the tax cuts and family tax benefits committed to in those years are probably unsustainable.
Why doesn’t all spending on public works create an increase in national income, exactly? It’s certainly a novel concept, but I doubt a serious economist would agree with it.
One of the smart things about Rudd’s spending on school buildings and council public works is that it the money will be spent around the country fairly evenly. Building a big bridge in Qld probably won’t stimulate the economy all that much in Tasmania.
Ah the Japan meme – Japan spent big, and see it didn’t work. Do they think these things up in right-wing think-tanks? I suppose they have to find something to do with their time nowadays. Like the one about Fannie and Freddie causing the GFC , it’s bunk.
Japan was a “trainwreck” because of the huge real estate bubble and the financial mess that resulted. Have you stopped to consider that things might have been much worse had the Japanese not spent on public works?
Japan should teach us that it is vital to fix the banks quickly, and that governments should not pull back spending too early.
My big fear is that governments will be influenced right-wingers banging on about public debt and pull back spending too early.
Another right-wing obsession is interest on public debt – as if there would be no cost to falling into a depression!
Paul, one of the things I find seriously weird about the Centrelink crypto thing is the claim they use two different cryptographic algorithms (at least I think that’s what it said). It sounds a bit like it would fall into Bruce Schneier’s definition of cryptographic snake-oil.
David, that’s an overwhelming reason for the Government to use open-source software and protocols right there. You think it sounds like cryptographic snake-oil being sold to the taxpayer? Feel free to look under the hood.
BTW, I found a video presentation here (‘Briefing on PLAID’). I have to say I don’t see that it falls into any of Schneier’s categories.
Wow, I never knew about any of that.! [that1 in italics.]
Paul, out of interest, why did you find it seriously weird?
Because I think its very odd they’re going to reveal the secrets of this you-beaut security system to hackers so the hackers can’t hack it (assuming I’ve read it correctly.)