Last weekend, I wrote about why I thought the lead the Coalition has on economic management in the polls doesn’t necessarily reflect an actual advantage. This weekend, I’m stunned at their chutzpah.
In a new ad, the Libs blame Labor states’ borrowing for putting upward pressure on interest rates – playing the blame game in advance of a likely rise in rates from the Reserve Bank this week. Believe it or not, it’s the fault of teh Labor states.
Peter Martin nails their claims:
Have you got the governmentâ??s message?
If the Reserve Bank pushes up interest rates this week, itâ??s Laborâ??s fault.
Itâ??s as audacious as it is wrong.
For one thing, as the ACTâ??s Chief Minister says, John Howard and his crew were very happy to claim responsibility when interest rates were trending down, why wonâ??t they also accept responsibility when they are trending up?
For another the argument mounted by the Prime Minister in this morningâ??s radio address would get him failed if he used it to answer a question in an economics exam at any time in the last 20 years.
It was once true. The Prime Minister says â??when a government, be it state or federal, goes into debt it must borrow the money to finance that debt, thus competing with private businesses for available funds. This puts upward pressure on interest rates.â??
For the last two decades, as a result of reforms championed by John Howard among many others, Australia has had open capital markets. Governments, as well as individuals, have been able to freely borrow from abroad. There is no longer a limited stock of â??available fundsâ??.
If one party (say, a state government) borrows more, it no longer means that another party (say, a private company or a home buyer) needs to borrow less or bid up the price in higher interest rates.
The government are now throwing everything at Labor bar the kitchen sink (though if you need a new one, I imagine there’s a rebate or a community federally funded plumber around the corner). At best, I’d think, this line from the government might succeed in muddying the waters about the responsibility for interest rate rises. At worst, it might suffer from some of the spillover from their backfiring government funded advertising – which has surely increased cynicism about any message they’re sending.
Elsewhere: Chris Sheil at Troppo.
Update: Alex White at Stoush.net looks at the fiscal fallacies of Textoronomics.
So there really is no lie that the LNP aren’t prepared to say in a bid for another term.
If people believe this twaddle then they truly deserve the government they get….but surely Labour can counter this? After all, the reserve usually gives it’s reasons for interest rate movements as do all the economic commentators from ComSec etc that regularly appear on commercial news bulletins
Mark,
Sorry to contradict – but I am seeing this as I work. I cannot give names (as they are clients) but the borrowing demands of some states are crowding out the borrowings of other states.
The free flow of funds from overseas is helping, but there are always costs involved in gaining access to foreign funds – not least the buy/sell spread in the swaps market. One of my clients is seeing rates increase by around 25bp.
The reason it is only 25bp is that is the level that overseas funds start to become economic at.
I am not saying this is the reason for the macro increases for everyone – I do not know one way or another – but I am seeing this actually happening at the state government level.
25bp may not seem like much, but my clients have several billion dollars of debt – as would be true for most larger state government instrumentalities. For each billion dollars in debt 25bp is a fair chunk of cash on a 10 year fixed rate.
So, the states were keeping it low all this time?
Another desperate stunt, by desperate losers.
You know, this lot were always going to makes real arses of themselves before they got the boot – And woooo baby, Im enjoying the show!
Tonight, on Survivor Canberra, J-Ho takes on…. HOONS!
Andrew, I’m neither an economist nor expert in finance. I’m presuming that Peter Martin, as an economist, could back up his contentions. Perhaps if you disagree with him, you could leave a comment at his blog or email for a discussion?
Andrew, are you able to put all of that in layman’s terms please? I don’t understand a word of it, not even sure I have the gist of it.
I think this is a great opportunity for Rudd. Has Howard just wedged himself?
Howard has passed the responsibility for economic management to the States and not in the federal sphere and so on. So how is Howard going to run the line that Rudd will be bad for rates or that he has given low rates?
I notice Rudd said Howard/Costello economic credentials are a myth – but that the whole globe is enjoying prosperity.
I’m in the same boat as satp.
There’s a comment from James Farrell on the Troppo thread with more support for Peter Martin’s view:
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/08/05/john-howards-interest-rate-lies/#comment-160828
The head of The Reserve Bank warned Howard earlier this year that interest rates had no choice but to go up if the Federal Government didn’t stop spending like a drunken sailor and do something to keep inflation at manageable levels.
Instead we have seen another budget full of pork barrelling and election bribes, $10 000 000 committed to a back of an envelope water plan that is struggling to survive and funding Tasmanian Hospitals purely for political purposes.
The Head of Treasury also warned Howard that inflation had to be contained despite Howard’s political desires in an election year. It was Howard’s poor economic policy that he was worried about.
The former Reserve Bank Governor was not convinced of Howard or Costello’s low interest rate credentials either.
The reaction of the money markets to the Federal budget last year said it all really.
Here’s their own research telling them that they are gone because their economics are dodgy.
VOTERS have lost their optimism, view Prime Minister John Howard’s age as a problem, and consider his Government arrogant, the Liberal Party’s own pollsters have warned.
And Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd is the most important reason voters are abandoning the Coalition.
A secret report compiled by pollster Mark Textor warns the Government has to stop Labor setting the national agenda by stressing its own economic strengths and painting Labor as a risk.
The detailed confidential report, Federal State of Play – Oz Track 33, compiled on June 21, says Mr Howard is a risk factor for the Government, which is perceived as dishonest.
“John Howard is seen as increasingly rattled and not responding well under pressure,” it says. Mr Textor also reported “significant disillusionment with Liberals on the issue of broken promises and dishonesty”.
Mr Textor and former Liberal federal director Lynton Crosby own Crosby/Textor, a consultancy that provides key polling and strategic advice to the Liberal Party.
Their recommendations have emerged recently as prime elements in the Government’s bid to wind back Labor’s substantial lead in the opinion polls. Mr Textor warned there was a broad expectation Labor would win the election and the Government had to counter by rebuilding expectations.
In a section encouraging the Government to take on the states, the report said it had “bought” policy dominance on water, health and roads failings.
It now needed to “emphasise that the Commonwealth is bailing out ineffective and inefficient states”.
The report confirms that age is an issue in this election between Mr Howard, 68, and Mr Rudd, about to turn 50.
Mr Rudd was seen as genuine and accessible, in contrast to Mr Howard.
The research also tracks important groups – including so-called aspirational voters who helped elect Mr Howard in 1996 – who have shifted to Labor.
Nationally, the defections have been led by what the report calls “new Labor”, voters aged 18 to 24 whose numbers rapidly increased when Mr Rudd took over from Kim Beazley late last year.
Part-time workers, voters aged 35 to 49 and “lower white-upper blue” collar workers – most in the middle-income bracket – also were moving to Labor.
The Crosby/Textor analysis detected a small swing away from the Coalition in Queensland as well as a medium swing to Labor in NSW and Victoria.
There was a relatively large swing to Labor in South Australia, and there was a large swing to Mr Rudd in Western Australia, although the Coalition was still in front there.
It also reported a large swing away from the Coalition in Tasmania and the Northern Territory – two constituencies recently to receive big Government funding projects.
Crosby/Textor reported that the May Federal Budget, which announced $31.5 billion in tax cuts over four years, was a political dud for the Government.
The report said the Budget demonstrated sound economic management and displayed a “better team” in the contest between Treasurer Peter Costello and shadow treasurer Wayne Swan. But it also helped Labor by highlighting issues on which Mr Rudd had the stronger hold.
“Instead, it (the Budget) had the effect of increasing the salience of education, environmental and infrastructure issues,” it said. “Labor is seen as more capable in these areas.”
At least it better than locking someone up. The states are in the game, they can defend themselves. As the Victorian and Queensland premiers are both vary capable ( much more so than Howard ever was) I am sure the response will be interesting.
You got that one right Charles, the response is amazing.
ODDS on a Labor win at the upcoming federal election were shortened after a Melbourne punter bet $100,000 on a future Rudd government.
Bookmakers Sportingbet Australia further trimmed Labor’s election odds from $1.70 to $1.60 following the six-figure bet with the agency during this weekend’s Darwin races.
Sportingbet Australia chief executive Michael Sullivan said it had almost been impossible to lay John Howard’s coalition, which had become “friendless” with big and small punters.
“We’ve barely taken a dollar on the coalition in the past few weeks,” Mr Sullivan said.
“It’s been all one-way traffic and we don’t even have a date (for the election) yet.”
Labor’s price has been crushed in from an opening quote of $2.30, with the coalition now out to that price.
Mr Sullivan said election betting had burst through the $1 million barrier at the weekend with the battle between Mr Howard, seeking to extend his 11 years in office, and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, expected to hot up closer to the poll.
I think 25bp is short for (25 basis points), 0.25% rate rise.
I think the attack on states, could also push the debate onto service delivery, which is an area that is not one of the government’s greatest strengths. I know NSW is in surplus, I would have thought considering the revenue dissymetry between state and federal governments and their respective legislative duties that debt financing would be the only way to address some infrascture needs, its whether it is carried out responsbily that is important (cue state governments 15-20 years ago)
I think this an indication that Howard is really in trouble. Economics was always going to be one of his key themes for the election. But an interest rates rise under his watch greatly erodes his credibility.
So Howard’s PR advised response is to shift blame to the Labor states.
But the big negative for Howard is the he is seen to be patently dishonest when he takes credit for keeping interest rates low, then says he isn’t responsible when they rise.
This is another one of the “rabbits” Howard said he didn’t have for this election, to go along with:
* Education intervention on education – claiming that the States are not teaching “proper Australian values and history”
* Murray River water power grab from the States
* Aboriginal intervention in the NT – send in police and army and blame Labor States for child sexual abuse
* Haneef detention and media leaks (SIM card terrorism)
* Tasmanian hospital intervention against the Tasmanian Labor state
The “beat up on and blame Labor States” appears to be a key theme.
Brilliant early comment over at Blogocracy – if the state governments are all so hopeless but keep getting re-elected anyway, what does that say about the depth of talent within the Liberal Party?
It adds up to an unanswerable argument for a Howard/Costello benign dictatorship for life … there’s just nobody to replace them on either side without the country going to hell.
Let’s see what the RBA Governor puts in his statement this week when he puts up interest rates.
I reckon the states won’t get a mention, or even an inference.
This is just Crosby/Textor spin — not to be confused with reality.
We paid for this seat, it’s a disgrace that we should have to stand for it too!
Excellent, Another stillborn wedge. That one lasted 10 minutes!
Too old/ promise breaker / attack on states = cynical scripted Textor ploy.
Call the election, losers – put yourself out of your misery.
Its a strongly defensive ad which may work. We will have to see how effective the Labor party’s response is. If Labor merely start blathering “Its not true, its not true” they will get nowhere. They need an effective replacement message. If I were Rudd I would run a line about infrastructure. “The State governments have been building infrastructure while the Federal government has been doing nothing and taking credit for low interest rates”.
My guess is that this is inspired by the Haneef case. The government got frustrated at being made to look like an idiot by Beattie while not being able to take the usual anti-terrorism free swing at the leader of the opposition. The government has decided they have to take on the Labor States as well as Rudd, not just Rudd alone. Reminds me of the Axis powers in WWII. Their arrogance made it impossible for them to get more allies and kept them accumulating more and more enemies.
Its an interesting point in this election cycle. The government has decided/been forced to fight a battle on its own economic credibility quite early on. But if you fight, you can lose. Labor should be drooling at the chance to have a fight over government economic credentials during an interest rate rise. If Labor does well they can win the election right here. We’ll know in two weeks.
Macquaries Bank economist dismisses latest Rodent crap:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/06/1997347.htm?section=justin
The infrastructure point is valid.
Every man and his dog – not least the Howard government men and dogs – have been pissing on the state governments from a great height about their run down roads, bridges and trains and how they need to fix ‘em. Well, these things cost, and it’s just stupid to think that it can all be paid for out of recurrent revenue. Which means the states are borrowing to make some investments. Just as businesses do every day. Just as people do every day.
This is a problem?
$70 billion over 5 years is, what, 1% of GDP?
Big deal.
Looks like this campaign is going to go the way of Barbara Bennett’s IR ads. Looks a bit silly to advertise the zero and look like you’re doing nothing while the states sre providing the services.
Ha ha. Howard is really gone now. His only real chance was to go back to the electorate with a decent capital expenditure platform (a ‘back to basics’ approach) that pushed all the usual buttons (health, education) as well as the supply-side (energy, transport infrastructure, etc.) The justification for the supply-side stuff would have been: borrow cash here or more expensively from overseas and then spend it on supply-enhancing, productivity-improving, inflation-killing infrastructure. He could have mixed this with modest personal tax cuts, as well as modest company and capital gains cuts (just to shore up the ‘we give cash back when we can’ line). Now what does he do? He’s placed in the minds of the electorate the idea that borrowing even if to build deflating infrastructure, is a bad thing. And for what? To offload the responsibility for higher interest rates to the states, which is politically impossible. So to achieve a practical impossibility he’s painted himself into a fiscal corner. Unless I am massively misreading this, he’s proper fuxked.
Cheers
BBB
Oh Dear
Seems the war on the Northern Territory is going no better than the war on the states.
Agree, BBB.
Whats amazing to me is the way he’s been able to Lathamise himself lately.
With these incoherent messages on health (I save random hospital!), now interest rates (I only in charge when good!), hamfisted Haneef (leaving when deported? I suspicious!): punters have got to be now wondering: OMG! What if these crazies actually won power?
Im voting again for that nice PM Rudd.
Look at the punters odds plummetting….
The interest rate hike is all Haneef’s fault.
Howard has never admitted his shortcomings, ever. His poor performance as Treasurer was blamed on Fraser’s interference. And ever since, it has always been someone else’s fault.
I don’t understand Andrew’s post either. If the states’ borrowings in the international market is causing an interest rate hike then the international market must have shrunk somewhat of late. Or the Australian states are a lot bigger then they are letting on. LOL
satp,
Sorry – I was writing a report at the time and I sometimes forget we do not all sit around treasuries and banks all day.
The point I was making was a limited one – limited to state government borrowing. I am not trying to make a macro-economic point. All I can say is this – the borrowing demands of some state governments are crowding out borrowing by other states, pushing up the cost of borrowing for all the states. As noted up the thread, 25bps is 0.25% – a small number except when you are borrowing in the multi-billion range and/or over long periods.
My clients are dealing in this range and they are now trying to get debt issues away but finding that their margins to the inter-bank lending rates (known as BBSW or BBSY) which used to be around 40 to 20 bps are now closer to zero.
I emphasise that I am not saying it is pushing interest rates generally up as I do not know one way or another, but I can say I am seeing this crowding out effect when state governments are borrowing.
Andrew, how do you know that what you observe, a 25 bp increase in states’ borrowing costs, is caused by the amount they are borrowing, and not some other factors?
Spiros,
Through talking with the people who are actually doing the borrowing and do it day in day out.
As someone who works in the financial industry, I have to say that to blame the current blow-out in swap spreads on the states would take real imagination.
Swap spreads (essentially the margin that users pay for swapping their floating rate obligations for fixed) are widening because of the global unrest in the credit markets arising from the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US. (I’m sure even lay readers are aware of this).
In any case, the biggest borrowers in Australia are not the states, but the trading banks who profit by borrowing at low rates in global capital markets and lending to local householders and businesses at fat margins.
Foreign creditors are happy to lend us money, because our interest rates are substantially above those on offer n the major economies. In fact, we have the second highest rates in the OECD (behind only NZ).
Peter Martin and the market economists are right. The fact is that Howard lied when he took credit for low lending rates. And he’s lying now about the states being to blame for rates rising.
Interest rates are going up globally, just as they came down globally a few years ago under the influence of China’s exported deflation. Where Howard is to blame is in adding fuel to the fire by pumping $50 billion of tax cuts into an economy already running at full capacity.
As to the Labor states, Macquarie Bank did some excellent analysis a few weeks back on how the states have been forced to actually pare back their real spending in recent years as Howard has claimed a greater share of the tax pie for his own pork barrelling.
So for him now to try and shift the blame to the states for his own propensity for fiscal irresponsibility (a fact that even Peter Costello has observed) is the most gob-smacking piece of sophistry I have seen.
Even by Howard’s own legendary standards of mendacity, this is the mother of all porkies and testament to his utter electoral desperation.
How do they know? All they see is the going rate. They don’t know what the contribution is of every factor that causes it to be this or that. How do they know that increases in their borrowing costs haven’t been caused by nervousness over US sub prime mortgages, which has hit all debt markets recently?
Capital is the ultimate fungible commodity.
Of course, demand for capital anywhere influences the cost of capital everywhere.
All state govt financial instruments are AAA rated.
The liquidation of capital and the flight to quality in the wake of the US Housing Meltdown are far more important determinants of interest rates than anything that Australian state governments are doing.
Or is Howard asserting that the US Mortgage Meltdown is the fault of Iemma, Beattie, Brumby, et al?
Oops, my comment comment crossed with Mr D’s.
The problem at hand is the arrogant position taken by federal government with regard taxation and spending. Simply put the federal government is not distributing the money collected from the people (us) to be spent on the infrastructure that the states are being forced to borrow for. So the federal government creates an excessive budget surplus that then creates a disbursement problem. Howards beligerently determined assault on state sovereignty means that he cannot allow the states to perform as they should and withnolding funding has been his vehicle for this hostile takeover. It is a kind of soft version of the Fraser blocking of supply in the seventies. No doubt the intention was to make it easier for the sate Coalitions to attack the state ALP governments. This tactic, however, has failed miserably leaving the federal government holding funds that would otherwise have flowed to the successful Coalition state governments making them seem superior. This tactic can be seen being played out in private school and private health funding.
So now, the combined effect of federal pork barrel spending and spending from state government borrowings is puting pressure on inflation and subsequently interest rates. This country desperately needs a period of harmonious state and federal co-operation.
(1) Even Ross Gittins is now following the line taken by The Economist some time ago that Howard’s reputation for economic management relies on (a) Keating’s reforms (b) China’s demand and (c) fiscal stingyness. If Howard’s spending had created infrastructure rather than encourage consumer borrowing for McMansions and their contents, the economy would be much better off.
(2) If state borrowing (dubious: Victoria, at least, has been in annual fiscal surplus for some time) increases competition for capital and thus pushes up consumer interest rates, then Howard should be laying more blame on Bush’s economic priorities (especially the cost of militarism). The US 12-month current account deficit (controlled to a certain extent by Clinton) of US$800 billion pushes up rates much more than Australia’s demand for credit (with a US$40 billion 12-month current account deficit).
Beattie fights back:
Premier and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Peter Beattie
06/08/2007
HOWARD GOVERNMENT’S DESPERATE CLAIMS EXPOSED BY THE ECONOMIC FACTS: BEATTIE
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said the increasingly desperate attempts by the Howard Government to blame others for their own woes were exposed today by Queensland’s economic report card.
“No doubt growing concern that home buyers are facing their fifth consecutive interest rate rise since the Prime Minister pledged to keep rates low is driving some of the silly claims being made today,” Mr Beattie said.
“On any test you care to mention the Queensland Government has demonstrated its commitment to successful and careful economic management.
“The Prime Minster doesn’t have to take my word for it, he should listen to the Governor of the Reserve Bank who said earlier this year: ‘It would be generally agreed by most people that infrastructure for investments of various kinds needs to be done.Balance sheets of governments in this country, by and large, are in very good shape. They will not have any trouble borrowing money from the lenders of the world for a reasonable project . How inflationary is that? I do not think it will feed directly into the consumer price index per se’.”
The Premier said if the Howard Government was being honest in its criticism the Prime Minister should tell Queenslanders which of the current infrastructure projects currently underway he believes should be stopped.
“Our borrowings are about just one thing – delivering the vital infrastructure which will ensure Queensland continues to be the boom state,” Mr Beattie said.
“Most of our borrowings will be undertaken in future years and have no effect on today’s underlying inflation,”
“It is rank hypocrisy for the Federal Government, which has seriously under invested in infrastructure, to attack the Queensland Government for planning and building the roads, rail facilities, hospitals and schools our community needs.
“Queensland has had seven successive years of cash surpluses and as we are good economic managers we have kept borrowing low even though we are delivering the biggest infrastructure program in our State’s history.
“Our State’s Triple A credit rating has been supported by careful economic management. Queensland has maintained its Triple A rating with Standard and Poor’s since 1992.
“That economic management last financial year delivered 95,200 new jobs in Queensland, more than a third of the nation’s total. In the year to June our economy grew at 5.5%, more than twice the national rate of 2.5%.
“The people of Australia have a right to expect better than old-fashioned finger pointing. The Howard Government should get on with governing and leave the politics until the election campaign.”
BilB, I think you have some of these issues a little confused.
First, the surplus is not necessarily excessive, particularly when you consider (1) overall corporate profitability, but especially in banking and resources; and (2) it’s not being frittered away by the crazies in the National Party or just kept as cash balances with the RBA – we’re getting a decent future liability offset fund (FF) and a university facility capex fund (HEEF). This is not capital that is lost to public policy.
Second, the states have perfectly adequate tax/finance regimes which are more than capable of paying for all the required infrastructure. The lack of infrastructure spending reflects the states’ own political decisions re: debt, not Howard’s. It’s a bit rich for you to blame the Commonwealth for the states’ running lazy balance sheets. They are far less helpless than you would have us believe. The real issue is properly delineating federal/state responsibility. The states are as guilty of buck-passing as anyone else, including Howard.
Finally, your underlying assumption, which is that Howard is happy to take the political fallout from underfunding schools, hospitals, etc. so that Coalition oppositions have a better chance against ALP state governments, is naive to say the least.
Cheers
BBB
For anybody troubled by what is a non sequitur this is as good as it gets.
Marl
This is a welcome acknowledgement from you. But tell me, given this reality, on what authority do you feel qualified to claim
Anybody who claims that deregulating the finance sector leads to an unlimited stock of finance, clearly should be banned from cyberspace. Perhaps you and Mr. Martin might like to inform us why interest rates are not constantly zero?
John, unlike you, I don’t pretend to be an expert on everything under the sun, and it’s wise to take views into account from those who have professional expertise – Peter Martin is an economist. See the debate between James Farrell and Chris Sheil on the Troppo thread for Farrell’s defence of Martin’s argument. Farrell is also an economist.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/08/05/john-howards-interest-rate-lies/#comment-160987
The Nats cry over the outcomes of their own policies.
BBB,
Government is a non profit organisation, comparisons to the private sector are totally meaningless. The private sector is geared to buying Chinese made items for 10 cents and selling them for $15.00. This is not a persuit available to government. Governments collect monies to do public works. Any surplus is a failure of process. The HEEF that you refer to is a slight of hand con job to shelve money that should be delivered in full to universities not meagerly metered out by interest accruals. As any business person will tell you money sitting in banks is growth suspended. Businesses accrue money in bank accounts when they have run out of ideas or opportunities.
Secondly, state budgets have far more demands and far fewer collection options. They are much closer to the public in a multitude of ways. If you were to create a factor for this it would be something like “demand calls/revenue options” and be almost the inverse for the federal to the states.
Finally, Howard does not take the flack for underfunding of hospitals and schools, the states do because it is assumed to be their responsibility. Howard has played a fantastic trick to denegrate the states, but it is the public that suffers, and Howard does not care at all about that. For him it is an ego thing.
Kind regards
BB
John, if that was a non-sequitur it’s for you to point out why. Seems to follow quite logically on the face of it.
BilB, I find it a little strange that you tell me that comparisons between government and the private sector are meaningless, and then a bit later you criticise the HEEF because “businesses accrue money in bank accounts when they have run out of ideas or opportunities.”
Still, I take some of your point re: the HEEF. It is a political tool with a political objective. As far as political tools go though, a perpetual fund to upgrade university facilities isn’t too bad a result. It is at least a partial guarantee of ongoing capex in our higher education sector. That partial guarantee is better than nothing – I think your critical faculties have been impaired by your (apparent) blind hatred of all things Coalition. And it’s not sleight of hand at all. Everyone understands precisely what the HEEF does.
Good night Australia
BBB
I think FDB that ole Mini-J was being a bit playfully pomo there, describing a non-sequitur by making one.
That or he cut-and-pasted the wrong piece of comment.
An experienced cutter and paster like Greenslade wouldn’t make a mistake like that.
ABC reports “little or no improvement” for Team Rodent in tomorrow’s Newspoll.
No surprises there.
Don’t waste your breath BilB they are all tarred with the same brush. Y’know sneaky dishonest mean etc. Takes a long time to catch up but it appears that those who have been conned as opposed to those who are wanting to con are catching on big time!
Got it in one, zorronsky. You some kind of super-genius or something?
Cheers
BBB
Great lines from Iemma, as reported in one comment on Poll Bludger’s site.
http://www.pollbludger.com/524#comment-23572
Incidentally, I’ll repost “Has Howard become Latho?” rant …………. here!:
Is it just me, or does Howard look a bit more more like Latham every day?: a bit erratic, pulling policies out of hat with no lead time, expecting people to buy them on spec.
Howard’s flailing wildly and trying to KO every round. A bit Lathamesque – all tactics, no strategy. Meanwhile, Rudd’s soberly laying body punches and appears to have a 12-round plan.
People will reflect on whether randomised funding of select hospitals in lib marginals is really a good way to run a health system – and decide that it isnt. And they’ll be right about that too.
Why on earth Howard picked a fight over health with ALP Premiers (who the public demonstrably trust more on this issue) is beyond me: another sign of his dimming political nous.
Now he wants all credit / no responsibility taken on interest rates. It’ll just smell like another Workchoices style betrayal in mortgage land.
Question Lefty E: when do you think WorkChoices will go? That option isn’t off the table. I’d give it about 8 weeks.
Cheers
BBB
No surprises here: more bad news for Team Rodent.
Newspoll 56-44.
Pref PM
Rudd 44% (up 1)
Howard 39% (down 1)
Interesting BBB.
It’d be the last throw of the dice, no?
Their timing is so good this year isn’t it? Wonder what it will be after an interest rate rise and threat of more to come. Looks like the tough on Haneef brain explosion was about as effective as the no bounce budget.
When are the Federal Police going to release the report into Printgate, if the investigation goes much longer there are going to be some very nervous Libs in Queensland.
I think this poll is a real milestone in one sense: we can now conclusively state that the punters arent interested in anything the Rodent has to say. They just dont see him as a credible figure anymore.
In fact, Id say this is now so bleedingly obvious, that we’ll see fresh moves inside the Liberal Party to have him ousted.
Hopefully, these will fail as no-one will be keen to step up at this point.
We ALL want you to stay Rodent.
Its certainly in the best interests of the party (that Im going to have round here at Keating Towers on election night).
Update Alex White at Stoush.net looks at the fiscal fallacies of Textoronomics.
I’m wondering how the Govt Gazette will spin these figures. Will Shamaham repeat his historical report last Newspoll and play it straight, or will he find some way to talk it up for Team Rodent ?
There’s a new post up wondering just that, Frank:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/08/06/the-punditariat-never-predictable/
Might be best to direct further comment on the polls over there.
BBB
If you think Workchoices is going anywhere, I have a bridge to sell you.
Labor will rebrand it, call it “Fairchoices” and that will be it.
Good one John. There are some brilliant slogans shaping up. Kevin07, “its the empathy stupid”, and “FairChoices”. It all makes a picture that will sell for a long time. Fair choices is what it should become. As a small business non employer that is the approach that I need to employ. In NZ when I did employ a number of people I employed on a 36 hour 4 day week total flexi time (because we worked around the clock). Over time only began when a person’s hours went over the 36 hours. The union was happy with this and my staff appreciated the flexibility. It enabled one young guy finish his tech diploma because he had one day class that no other employer would allow him to attend, with us that wasn’t a problem. FairChoices, great idea.