Since everyone else is, I thought I might add in my $950 two cents’ worth into the great stimulus package debate. I’m also in the camp of thinking Malcolm’s nuts, and while some have been decrying those who discuss the stimulus package in terms of its politics rather than its policy robustness, I’m a tad surprised Turnbull and his crew haven’t copped more flak for a deeply cynical move to try to capitalise on the country’s misfortune – is it the price we need to pay for Turnbull’s desire to be “relevant” – as articulated today? It’s becoming clearer from what’s been reported in the press about the party room meeting that the main factors in the Coalition’s thinking are purely political.
There’s a desire to avoid the mess that happened last year when they split in the Senate, and according to Laura Tingle, they’re searching for a “legacy issue” they can campaign on. Apparently, they realise they can’t say anything good about the Howard government on IR or Climate Change, so “economic management” it is. Possibly Tip’s reappearance is supposed to make us all nostalgic. Or something. But make no mistake – while “tax cuts” might be a rallying cry that will unite all the fractured parts of the Coalition and perhaps their fractured constituencies (and see Possum’s recent interesting post on this) – it’s got very little to do with the public good.
Elsewhere: Evidence from Ken Henry to the Senate Committee suggests a stimulus package of the size Turnbull half-heartedly advocates is a recipe for recession.
Bad move to announce they would block it before actually building a case.
Rudd had Turnbull trapped in a situation where support was the only safe way out. Announce the package with a very tasty free gift of $950 enough to make a difference to most people one way or another. Buying a favourite toy or paying of some debt. It is in the news and splashed all over the morning papers and discussed at all the work places in the morning.
The only thing he could have done is criticised elements of it, warned of debt and deficit and so on just in case that becomes a serious issue election time. But support it as the immediate needs of the country is more important than trying to fix a ‘badly thought out package’ or some such nonsense. Or even sweeten the package.
That they decided to come out and simply make themselves the unapologetic spoilers makes you wonder if they live in an alternative universe or are advised by aliens. They truly are totally out of touch at where the country and Australians are.
Every politically interested person immediately perceived the great danger of this and the likely hit the LNP would take. Yet they couldn’t.
If they are playing a long term game strategy it will fail. In the short term they have given themselves a big hit that strikes at credibility of the party and leader. So even if there are later issues the party that has lost a lot of credibility wont be able to make much out of it. aka the Liberals in the last NSW election.
Ermm… how should they go about building a case first, when Rudd was demanding full support 3 hours after giving the bill to the Coalition?
Turnbull lost the election long ago…
They are both wrong. Throwing cash out of a helicopter like Rudd is doing is inflationary, does not fix recessions and leaves our children with a big debt for little gain. Encouraging investment in infrastructure that will improve the productivity of our economy would have been easy, popular and politically unassailable.
Turnbull is nuts. Tax cuts are not the solution to a recession. Tax credits maybe – targeted to achieve improvements in productivity.
A pox on both houses.
Disgusted;
emphasis mine
Adrian the so-called ‘infrastructure spending’ covers things like fixing the rising damp in the old school library, putting gates at a level crossing, building a covered walkway at a school and subsidising the purchase of new laptops.
Admittedly the word is imprecise but many people still use it in a different sense, i.e. ‘The term infrastructure has been used since 1927 to refer collectively to the roads, bridges, rail lines, and similar public works that are required for an industrial economy, or a portion of it, to function.’ Others would extend that to include schools and hospitals, but only major new construction and not routine repairs and minor additions.
Rudd and some others now seem to want it to mean ‘all tangible assets’ or something. I think if the term is broadened so much it loses much of its utility.
That the Libs went in so strong tells me that they have either
1. Lost touch completely with the Australian people
or more likely
2. Are dead certain they can force some sort of Whitlam like dismissal of the Rudd governemtn and an retake the throne.
In the Great Depression they used to pay people to dig holes, then fill them in, or to paint rocks white. Surely fixing school buildings and insulating houses is a bit more productive. (Though why on earth they didn;t do something to repair hospital buildings I don’t know.
is inflationary…
Excellent!
Because hospitals got a big lump of cash last year – and I imagine will probably get more if we need another stimulus package.
Oh no, inflationary pressure!
Like that’s an issue now…
Disgusted, yes throwing cash around like Rudd is doing is inflationary and for good reason to if you read this article.
The words “Double Dissolution” come to mind.
When Fran has to dredge up the last Friedmanite relic in the whole world to state that the whole crisis thing is the “Gummints fault”, you know that the conservatives are in a serious hole.
The bill will pass the senate, despite the faffing about by the likes of that closet Friedmanite Bob Brown.
Huggy
I’m waiting for the ALP to now say that the Carbon Tax will be expansionary.
Ooh yes, if this actually got blocked in the Senate you can bet the double dissolution would be called immediately. And the coalition would suffer a once-in-a generation defeat.
They are counting on the Greens and the others voting with the government. That’s a safe enough conclusion with Fielding and Xenophon because they know they too would disappear in a double dissolution election. But if Bob Brown wanted to be truly Machiavellian …
Huggy @ 13
I hope you are wrong about Bob Brown being a closet Friedmanite.
Do you have any links at your fingertips you can point me to?
Why does the doctor who pronounced Jimi Hendrix dead get the wrong end of the economic stick?
Derrida Derida (15) – That phrase “double dissolution” has been floating around in my head since Turnbull threw down his grubby gauntlet and once Fielding started to flex his puny pectorals. Why is this the first time I’ve seen it in print? Or is it the unspoken threat that ensures Brown’s cooperation and the others caving in?
If this crisis does degenerate into a full scale collapse of world economies with all the subsequent social unrest it will entail I would be a lot happier if this government had more control over the Senate. I wouldn’t trust Barnaby Joyce and Turnbull to play a constructive role in a bi-partisan Cabinet of National Security. Surely a double dissolution now would give Rudd the result he needs to run the show? Is that partly why this package has the cash giveaway component?
Look what happened in WA when an arrogant Labor leader with an “unassailable” lead in the polls went for an early election.
I doubt Kevvie has the guts to go for a disolution.
Razor, are you seriously comparing Rudd et al with Carps & Co?
Derrida Derida @ 15.
Malcolm will have a lamb or two lined up to cross the floor in the event that BB emerges from the Friedmanite closet and votes against the plan along with the Senator from FF. There is absolutely no-way the libs will want to be seen to block this – unless of course they are really suicidal. If it goes ahead and is modestly successful, they can just carp on the sidelines if it fails they can say “I told you so”. If they manage to stop it and the economy really goes totally tits up they will be blamed forever. The most probable outcome will that it will be modestly very successful and they will be bashed with their opposition and made to look really dumb forever*. They have to be really dumb to oppose it in the first place – so what’s new.
*Forever = 1 election cycle.
Huggy
I’m not about to do a compare and contrast but both the NT and WA ALP governments went early and got pasted. Whatever you think about the differences in the situations, the fact is the electorate gets cranky if you go too early without a very good reason. No one thought Barnett would win until a few weeks into the campaign. Kevvie wouldn’t risk it and would be silly to do so.
Carpenter didn’t have a good reason.
In any case, there isn’t currently a double dissolution trigger, so the bill would have to be rejected twice in another three months.
The problem with the NT and WA going early was that there was no credible reason to go early.
So, I can just imagine the NT electorate’s mood when being told to forgo a weekend of barra fishing in a couple of weeks time…for no good reason. And it showed.
The present situation is far different – there is a genuine crisis, and if the only way that crisis can be resolved is by going to an election, I think that the electorate will be punishing that side of politics that caused the early election call.
So Malcolm’s task would be to convince the electorate that his opposition to the packidge was a) correct, and b) so obviously correct that he just had no choice but to stand his ground on principle. a) might be something he can carry off, but b) is a lot trickier imo.
From the Government’s point of view, if it wants to go down the double dissolution route, it also needs to have a few other bills to slip through that might be otherwise hard to get through the Sennit in the subsequent joint sitting. (eg a couple of things that FF and No Pokes won’t like).
The Poll Bludger on the chances of an early election:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/02/06/newspoll-minus-three-days-2/
We live in interesting times.
I agree – completely different circumstances, but I just don’t see them doing it. Then again I trusted wht Babcock & Brown were telling the market.
Ouch Razor, that must have hurt!
You wouldn’t believe how much it hurts.
Even funnier than chances of an early election, the Australian pushing Costello to replace Bishop:
PLEASE MAKE THIS HAPPEN
The hilarity that would result of a Turnbull/Costello collision would be even better than Tony Abbott as leader if mirth was the object.
28
Isn’t it sad when the humer value is used to measure the merit of a change in the Liberal party leadership.
The choice is obvious; Abbott for leader and Costello as shadow treasurer.
Jeez, Costello MUST be stalking Malcolm.
“The choice is obvious; Abbott for leader and Costello as shadow treasurer.”
Yer, with a backup team of The Three Stooges…Pyne, Minchin and Hockey.
How could you lose?
A DD election is *at least* four months away. There has to be a gap of three months between rejections by the Senate, then it’s at least 33 days until polling day.
A half-senate election can’t be held until two years after the Senate takes office. That’s 1 July 2010, plus 33 days, so August 2010 is the earliest date for that.
Rudd could go to the GG and ask for fresh elections for the House of Representatives alone, which isn’t going to help with the passage of the bill and means there’ll be a seperate half-senate election sometime in 2011.
Although, and this is just occurring to me as I write and it’s probably theoretical rather than practical, the four territory senators’ terms are tied to the House of Reps, so the ACT and NY will elect senators at a HoR only election. If the ALP can get 67% in one of the Territories, that’ll change the senate makeup. But that’s really not likely.
d
From the link at #28:
‘Overwhelmingly, Coalition MPs … have a renewed self-respect for themselves …’
As opposed to a renewed self-respect for someone else, presumably.
I see Murdoch’s going to sack lots of staff – any chance Shanahan will be amongst them? You’d have to say the whole News Ltd bunch that made such prats of themselves in 2007 backing Howard and Costello are pretty much damaged goods.
Darryl, in the unlikely event the stimulus bills are nixed by the Senate I think we would be looking at a late 09 election. Or the Fair Work Australia bills, but that would make it a bit later.
To my mind, it’s the fact that Turnbull came out all guns blazing against the package that signals how out of touch he (and his staff, party etc) are. Yes, he was forced to respond quickly, but to be so forceful shows that he really expected to find some support, somewhere, for a rejection of the package. He could have made a pointed argument against various elements, but instead he went on the political front foot, attempting to paint Rudd as irresponsible and the whole shebang a bad idea. Very, very bad move. Have they stopped polling or something? It wouldn’t take much of a clue to figure out people want to see action (and $900).
Mike Seketee has his say on Malvolio Puffball’s tactics.
I would be more inclined to take him seriously, if instead of foot-stamping and the petulant instant rejection, he’d not unreasonably asked for time to look at the package argued for amendments to improve it. As it is, he just confirms my opinion of him as an arrogant wanker, who seems to be unable to grasp how serious the meltdown is.
Someone should explain to the Malvolio and the Libtards that a tax cut is neither use nor ornament if you don’t have a job or think you’ll be unemployed in the near future!