Idle speculation: budget edition

None of this actually has anything to do with the budget, but you know how it is …

• The ALP’s national executive, which was empowered by the recent national conference to select candidates for 25 New South Wales seats, announced the candidates for 10 seats on Saturday. In the western Sydney seat of Blaxland, sitting member Michael Hatton has been dumped in favour of another member of the Right, Transurban executive and former Bob Carr staffer Jason Claire. Hatton has held the seat since replacing Paul Keating at a by-election held in the wake of the 1996 election defeat. Others who had designs on Blaxland included constitutional expert George Williams, Bankstown mayor Tania Mihailuk and Electrical Trades Union chief Bernie Riordan. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Mihailuk had been “likely” to win, possibly explaining Hatton’s decision to lodge disciplinary charges against her for “failing to properly manage her branch affairs”.

• The national executive has also chosen Penrith mayor David Bradbury (said by Brad Norington of The Australian to have “historical links” to the Transport Workers Union) to make his third successive run against Jackie Kelly in Lindsay. Joe Hildebrand of the Daily Telegraph reports that Bradbury’s win has greatly displeased the National Union of Workers, which had thrown its weight behind 23-year-old school teacher May Hayek. Others to get the nod in Coalition-held seats included human rights lawyer George Newhouse, who will run against Malcolm Turnbull in Wentworth (where the redistribution has cut Turnbull’s margin from 5.6 per cent to 2.6 per cent); former ministerial staffer Greg Holland, who will make his second run against Danna Vale in the long-lost seat of Hughes (which fell in 1996, and now has a post-redistribution margin of 8.8 per cent); Belinda Neal, former Senator and wife of state Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca, who will attempt to unseat Jim Lloyd in Robertson (margin now 6.9 per cent); and ambulance officer Tim Arneman, who suffered a 68-vote defeat in Port Stephens at the state election, and now faces Bob Baldwin in Paterson (6.8 per cent).

• Two incumbents have emerged from the national executive process unscathed: Julia Irwin in Fowler and Jennie George in Throsby. A highly fancied bid by former national party president Warren Mundine to unseat Irwin fell foul of the party’s affirmative action targets, after a number of defeats by female candidates in other seats. The irony of an indigenous candidate being squeezed out on affirmative action grounds was widely noted. The Australian Jewish News reports that both Rudd’s office and Melbourne Ports MP Michael Danby told the paper to keep quiet about the challenge to Irwin, a vocal critic of Israel, the former saying that “the best way to ensure her survival is for you guys to cover it”. According to Kerry-Anne Walsh of the Sun-Herald, Jennie George’s endorsement followed a “faction deal made between the Left and Right” that would “raise eyebrows”.

• Mark Davis of the Sydney Morning Herald reports that affirmative action supporters in the New South Wales ALP’s Left have revolted against the factional leadership’s decision to deliver the number two Senate position to Doug Cameron, former national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. Seven women have nominated against Cameron for the factional ballot, including management consultant and 2003 state election candidate Imogen Wareing. The first and third positions on the ticket are reserved for the Right; it is anticipated that Ursula Stephens will be demoted from her number one position in 2001 to number three, making way for state party secretary Mark Arbib.

• A factional row has erupted in the New South Wales Liberal Party after its nomination review panel rejected country vice-president Scott McDonald’s Senate preselection nomination. The move safeguarded Left faction member Marise Payne’s third position on the Coalition ticket, behind Helen Coonan and the Nationals’ John Williams (who replaces the retiring Sandy Macdonald). Background to the dispute was provided by Imre Salusinszky of The Australian:

As part of its general reassertion of authority following the years in exile that began under former premier Nick Greiner, the Right has had its eye on the spot occupied by Marise Payne, who hails from the Left faction. Desperate to avoid predictably bad headlines in the Fairfax newspapers and on the ABC about right-wing “extremists” controlling the party, Howard told Heffernan to work the numbers for Payne. Heffernan went at the task the only way he knows: like a bull at a gate. At a fiery meeting last month, he tried to curtail the preselection process entirely and moved that the state executive simply re-endorse the sitting team. When this failed, Heffernan took the fight to the party’s nominations review committee, of which he is one of three members. The committee threw out the nomination of the Right’s challenger to Payne, state vice-president Scott McDonald. Designed to vet candidates on the grounds of character or ethics, or because their candidacy could damage the party, the committee operates as a “black box” and does not give reasons for its decisions. But it is understood the issue was a conflict of interest, McDonald having already spoken against Heffernan’s motion on the executive. The move has upset the NSW Right like nothing else done in the name of its Dear Leader. Meanwhile, the Left, for once, finds itself supporting Howard and Heffernan.

• Controversial Right faction powerbroker Alex Hawke has thrown his hat in the ring to contest Liberal preselection for Mitchell, where incumbent Alan Cadman proposes to run again despite a universal perception he is past his use-by date. Also in the running are Australian Hotels Association deputy chief executive officer David Elliot and state party vice-president Nick Campbell, described by Irfan Yusuf at Crikey as “the NSW Right’s main number-cruncher”.

• Western Australian Liberal Senator Ian Campbell, who lost his cabinet position in March on the flimsy basis that he had been at a meeting with Brian Burke, has announced he will quit politics in the coming weeks. The party moved quickly to fill the vacancy with Mathias Cormann, who last week defeated incumbent Ross Lightfoot to take the number three position on the ticket for this year’s election. Since the position filled by Cormann does not expire until 2011, the number three position is again up for grabs. According to Robert Taylor of The West Australian, “party insiders said it made sense to shift Mr Cormann into the Senate immediately and search for a strong number three given that Mr Cormann’s dominant presence in the last preselection discouraged many people from nominating”. Names of potential aspirants have yet to surface in the media; however, Campbell last month dismissed speculation that he might be about to resign as “wishful thinking” from those hoping to fill a vacancy, naming Cormann and Nick Bruining, a financial journalist who ran unsuccessfully for the state upper house in 2001.

• The ABC reports a field of nine candidates will seek preselection for the Liberals’ Tasmanian Senate ticket, which will be held “next month in Launceston”. They include two incumbents, John Watson and Richard Colbeck (who were number two and number three in 2001), along with “former state MHA David Fry, former Liberal staffer David Bushby, former political staffer Giulia Jones and Don Morris, the chief of staff to Senate Preisdent Paul Calvert”. The number one candidate from 2001, Senate President Paul Calvert, is retiring.

• In the seat of Newcastle, Labor member Sharon Grierson will face a challenge from David March, president of the party’s Merewether West branch, at a preselection vote to be held on May 26.

• In South Australia, Labor has announced candidates for the Liberal-held seats of Barker (Karen Lock), Grey (Karin Bolton) and Mayo (Mary Brewerton).

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

393 comments on “Idle speculation: budget edition”

Comments Page 6 of 8
1 … 5 6 7 8

  1. Dovif, the “evidence” you point to (and have seen numerous studies pointing both ways on this issue) is not “clear” (which is why I have contended that “there is no clear evidence”). Australia has one of the highest minimum wages in the world and yet we’ve low (and getting lower) unemployment for some years now. You are always very keen to refer us lefties to “economic textbooks”, but any serious economist knows that in a modern economy, the minimum wage is but part a small part of a complex system – there are many factors at work in making any given economy boom or bust.

    However the fact that you (and many on the Right) only see wages as a production cost betrays the blinkered thinking on this issue amongst the Right. These are people’s wages, after all, not the price of inanimate objects.

  2. Thankyou both Ben and Pseph, I see what you are getting at now and tend to agree but a general fall in Labor’s vote closer to the election doesn’t necessarily mean a corresponding fall in Labor’s vote in Bennelong, particuarly if people are “not happy Jan” with JH himself, as seems to be the case at the moment.
    The next four weeks are crucial for all parties. If Labor’s primary vote holds with little variation then my theory that people are po’d with the government , rather than enamoured with the opposition, will be proven to be correct. In which case the government are in heaps, people will have given up listening to them.

  3. dovif – “If Mitsurbushi says that they can make a car in Malaysia and ship it to Australia, and it would be cheaper than making a car in Australia, that is sufficient prove that price floors hurts workers.” Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that for the good of everyone (ie more jobs) many of us need to live on low wages, even lower than the minimum wage? Gee, that should have voters flocking to the party that is suggessting that. Oh wait, they aren’t are they?

  4. With Rudd as PM we will see a more caring society evolve – along the lines of the care, courtesy and concern shown to Kelly Hoare by the Labor Party recently.

  5. I see where Paul Kelly of “The Australian” has the answer to Labor’s poll “problems”. All they have to do is ditch their unpopular IR policy and make it more like the very popular Liberal policy. I wonder what planet this man is on?

  6. Gary- are you referriing to Paul Kelly’s opinion piece in Saturday’s Australian? I did not agree with some of his conclusions either about the Australian Labor Party’s poll “problems”. But then you and I are just political observers engaging in idle speculation (thanks to William), not professional political commentators. I think we are on the same planet as Mr Kelly but maybe we are walking in different hemispheres.

  7. Dovif – the whole minimum wage stuff and economic writing was debated on another thread and possibly another blog (probably one many here turn their noses down at) and the ‘evidence’ actually presented there was at best shaky.

    That evidence as presented (as opposed to the no evidence in the claim there is a mountain of evidence there but I don’t have any at all to hand why don’t you go find it ) definitely only applied to unskilled workers, and drew only a weak and qualified conclusion in the US economy context, and in that past post there was no answer to the suggestion the economy and country would be better of investing in the unskilled workers; rather than making their life ‘better’ by driving their wages down (and removing saftey nets to ensure they don’t bludge).

  8. I find the Bennelong question more interesting. Aren’t the demographics there more likely to be ‘engaged’ and less likely to be met with election bribes?

    I don’t understand the whole labor vote will evapourate theory. Unless it is based on the Coalition winning every election since the last one they lost.

  9. David Charles – “But then you and I are just political observers engaging in idle speculation (thanks to William), not professional political commentators.”
    True, David, but Blind Freddy can see that Howard’s IR laws are unpopular. The Galaxy poll reinforces that and it also reinforces that Labor’s isn’t. This is not the only poll, by the way, that has indicated this. I’ll let you into a secret David, “professional political commentators” don’t always get it right, in fact many times they are plain wrong. The only difference between us and them is that they get paid for it. I’m sure we could all dig up examples of how out of touch they actually are.
    It’s interesting that Matt Price, a journalistic colleague of Kelly’s doesn’t share his view.
    I wouldn’t put too much on the fact that they are “professional political commentators”.

  10. Perhaps you missed the irony of my reference to “professional political commentators”. It was directed to the very point you make in your responsive post, that is, the professionals do get it wrong quite often…a bit like the sports commentatators who give us their football (or “footy” as you Victorians say) tips.

  12. The Australian is and all Murdoch papers are trying very hard to even up the polls before the election… I don’t read or buy any of them.. but when you look at their front pages you realise just how right wing, conservative and for Howard.. its like the ABC’s insiders program on Sundays’ and Lateline… Which continues to get Liberal members on its program..
    Paul Kelly actually believing in anything is amazing… As i said once before the media hates Labors’ plans in industrial relations because most of the media have employed their workers on awas’ ( australian workplace agreements).
    Just to backtrack on Saturday i made a comment about Whitlam and someone hit back stating something about how appalling he was as an economic manager… yes the economy was in a terrible mess but where in the world was their a country doing well… as a result of a oil price shock…
    and this believe that Labor are poor economic managers.. well hello hello… this country is only surviving on borrowed money at present and when the overseas banks stop lending which eventually they will as they will want to be repaid… Howard and the conservatives will have put us in a very big depression…

  14. Greetings fro, Brussels, mes petits. I bade auf wiedersehen to Germany yesterday. No more concentration camps thank goodness.

    I agree that 52% for McKew isn’t particularly good, but since I never expected her to win the seat I don’t think it signifies much. The purpose of the McKew candidacy, like the Cornes and Handshin candidacies (and the two business types running in McPherson and Moncrieff) is to divert Liberal resources and to create a bandwaggon effect.

    On the Senate, I expect Chapman to lose his seat, and there is a good chance Boswell will too. Faulkner would then be the longest-serving Senator. In the House, if Cadman is disendorsed, and Howard and Ruddock resign following an election defeat, Charles Wilson Tuckey would then be the Father of the House.

  15. Mark , a few points on your entry above

    – you criticise Insiders and Lateline for having Liberal MPs on the program – the public broadcaster has a duty and a responsibility to try and portray both sides of the story – and the ABC bends over backwards to try and maintain fairness – bias of course is in the eye of the beholder. If you only want to read and hear what you want to hear, why bother ??
    – we do have a large debt but it is not Latin American style government debt. Australian governments have very low debt levels and both sides of politics have driven debt levels down. The last government to have a major debt problem was Cain / Kirner and one of their problems was that they were almost unable to service that debt.
    – Australia’s debt is almost all in the private sector or household debt and hence is very diffuse. Some are overextended and that is why some householders are facing problems now. The main danger is a sudden upward thrust in interest rates combined with a rapid decline ( a la 1989 – 90).
    – The private equity boom is the actual danger as these players are massively leveraged and hence will be susceptible to changes in market conditions. Again this is similar to the 1980s when Bondy, Skasey, and their ilk were awash with debt they couldn’t service.
    – What do you suggest, return to micro managed monetary policy and stop – start economics. Hey lets all go back to the seventies!!

  17. Thatcher again, its been really amusing watching the ABC ova the past couple of years watching them cosying up to Howard and his ideoligical cronies! I cant even bring myself to listening to radio national because everytime i tune in a bloody tory is on, and what shits me rite up the wall is Howard was on not so long ago talking about my namesake Maggie as a great modern political figure. As a former Maggie voter (Never liked Kinnock) i can proudly say she would never stoop so low as to acknowledge that liar!

  18. Thatcher: John Howard is the Prime Minister. Wouldn’t the ABC be remiss not to interview him and other government ministers whose opinions become actions that affect us all ?

    Kinnock’s rockstar speech during the election campaign against John Major is a classic example of an opposition stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.. ala John Hewson’s rallies during the 1993 election.

  19. Chris Curtis, which headline do you think “The Australian” will run with tomorrow? (You’ve got in one by the way with this posting).
    If Newspoll slips from its 57-43 Labor lead to 55-45, The Australian will headline it as “Budget fatal blow to Rudd”; if it slips to 56-44, “Liberals on a winner”; if it remains 57-43, “Liberals stop Rudd momentum”; if it increases to 58-42, “Rudd advance slowed”; if it increases to 59-41, “Rudd fails to reach earlier highs”; if it increases to 60-40, “Rudd consistently fails to get above winning margin”; if it increases to 61-39, “Greens vote drops”.

  20. Point taken Speaker. I was in Sheffield in April 1992 with my daughter when Kinnock delivered that speech. I still to this day remember listening to all the Labour supporters before he spoke talking about how victory was near. Afterward i asked a woman how the speech went and she said 97, not 92, thats when we will win. Very funny. Hewson as well, that willesee interview=classic. If however Howard wins, im going back to Lewisham! Come on Rudd-FOR ALL OF US

  21. In the latest Galaxy opinion poll the Greens are still at 9% which is good considering Ruddamania . A great platform to grow our vote. FF Dems Hanson and independents are at 3 % total . Imagine a party with less than 2 % holding the balance of power in the senate? (FF)

  22. I hope u greenies give us your preferences and dont stuff us aroud like your doing down here in Victoria! Can i get confirmation from u on that Bill.

  25. Ever since the Greens won upper house legislation they keep voting with the Libs and even rejected a bill that would have outlawed nuclear power from Victoria! Now its emerging they did dirty preference deals with the Libs last November! Very confusing considering our reforms gave them representation

  27. Thatcher:

    I was in Sheffield in April 1992 with my daughter when Kinnock delivered that speech.

    I thought you said you voted for Margaret Thatcher ?

    Also you know this is a site for polling/strategy discussion ? There are no swing voters here to influence.

    Labor and Liberal co-exist in loving harmony discussing matters objectively. Sharing the beauty of democratic elections at work.

    With the occassional punch-up.

    But we like every party to be welcome here. It stops groupthink from settling in.

  28. Point taken speaker. Maggie yes. John NO NO NO NO. He was pathetic as were the tories at that stage, but thanku for the correction. For the record in my time here ive always voted Labor, so ill tone it down a tad!

  29. No problem Thatcher. I just don’t want this place to become a partisan shouting match like ozpolitics.

    Margaret Thatcher is certainly an interesting woman. She pretty much invented privatisation. Most governments in the western world have been influenced by her economics.

    From an earlier topic, if anyone is interested in how to lose an election when leading in the polls, here is the example from England 1992:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Rally

  30. Hopefully we shall c none of that from Rudd and Gillard come October! Its interesting reading all of the articles about the upcoming battle between Rudd and Howard cause thay reckon the campaign is well and truly underway. If so its going 2 b a pretty boring campaign-where has all the passion gone?

  32. I would have thought Maxine McKew on 52-48 would be good news for Labor – Howard being PM seems to me to be the sort of thing that would restrain the swing in his own electorate – if Labor is getting 6% in Bennelong, I’d guess they’d be getting 7%+ in other NSW electorates.

  33. The Greens voted down the nuke referendum because it said that the minister had complete freedom over when a referendum would be called and what the question would be, and what its effect would be. They proposed changes to put it in the hands of Parliament, but Labor rejected these changes.

  34. Gary,

    I’ll stick my neck out and go with “Rudd advance slowed”, with a comment piece headed “IR albatross around Rudd’s neck”, an analysis headed, “Budget effect to be slow gain to Liberals” and an editorial headed “Howard throws down gauntlet on education to Rudd”. The editorial will attack teacher unions and point out how parents want standards and school autonomy and how the astute John Howard recognises this, while the ALP is unable to because it is in the pocket of the teacher unions, stuck in the past, etc.

    Generic oracle,

    I think you have inferred from my past re Family First something I did not say and do not believe. The facts are that Family First is very much the party of the new mega-churches. This does not mean that I believe it is an extremist party. I have already explained on another thread that it would be ridiculous to see Family First as anything like the religious right of America, which is basically a misuse of Christianity to oppress the poor and support the wealthy.

    Steve Fielding’s voting record is mixed. He opposed the Liberals’ IR laws but supported them on voluntary student unionism. If Family First takes is name seriously, it cannot afford to do at the next election what it did at the last and preference coalition candidates ahead of Labor almost exclusively. It ought to preference Labor candidates with values that it shares.

  35. Mr Q.. I’m not so sure about your premise. In 2004 Howard polled worse than any other electorate in Sydney ie. 3.4% against. With the juicy prospect of knocking off a PM, I speculate a Melbourne cup field of Howard haters contesting and all preferencing against him.

    With a high profile Labor candidate in McKew, and an energised “Not Happy John” campaign running, I would not be surprised to see a repeat performance, with Howard polling much worse than the National swing.

    This opens up the clear prospect of Costello’s preferred result… A Coalition win nationally, with a loss in Bennelong.

  36. Ben Raue – that is exactly what many of us a bit uneasy about the prospects of a Green balance of power. they vote down an otherwise perfectly acceptble bill on the basis of a procedural arrangement. Sure the bill wasn’t perfect, but it was something. Instead the Greens voted for nothing. This is a similar mindset to that which destroyed the referendum on the Republic – a majority wanted a Republic, but enough didn’t like the model on offer, so it got voted down. And what do we have eight years on? We are still a monarchy and there is no follow up referendum in sight. Not that the No vote was the Greens’ fault, but there was a definite overlap of voters who think in that blinkered way as often demonstraed by Green politician.

    Don’t take from this that I am anti-Green – I have voted for them on several occasions – but rather until the Greens learn about compromise, they are better suited to being a ginger group for particular issues, rather than part of the machinery of law making.

  37. Chris.. Your last sentence is the stated position of the Family First Party. I want to see it adhear to that principle in this election. There are indeed a number of social conservatives in the right of the ALP, that would warrant FFP preference. Conversely there are a number of social progressives in the Liberals that wouldn’t.

    I think in 2004, they were scared off by the prospect of a Latham government controlled by the Greens, and furthermore the ALP made little effort to engage with FFP.

    At least Howard had the political sense to lie about Family Impact Assessments.

  38. Thatcher the bill would not have outlawed nuclear power from Victoria. That is already the case. What it would have done was hold a referendum over nuclear power in Victoria. Since nuclear power is currently illegal in Vic all this would have done is raise the possibility of nuclear power being legalised. Of course if that is what the people vote for then they are entitled to it, but the bill would have allowed the minister to write the question however he/she wanted – thus enabling them to write a very leading question “eg if nuclear power can be proved safe by a panel would you support it…” and then they set up a panel full of nuclear supporters.

    The Greens proposed letting parliament write the question, but the ALP voted that down. Other than this virtually all the bills the Greens have voted with the Liberals on have either been procedural, or about transparency in government.

    At the state election labor alleged the Greens preferenced the Liberals. This was a lie. It has not become any less of a lie in the subsequent months.

  41. Ray

    An astute observation and thanks for making it. Latham was Left faction and Gillard still is. Against a climate of rising greens, hopefully no offence to the fine, apparently green, supporters in this forum, they were on the rise. I am quite sure it was this “a bit too left for us” bias that led to this. Note though that ONP preferences where a candidate stood were apparently low on the ticket, often right above the Greens. This should further highlight the Centrist credentials of this new and, I think, fascinating party.

    Now, I do agree that Labor has potentially a very strong chance to secure preferences with Rudd, who, if he is more “right” than the Lib left, cuts right through the middle of FFP policy and deserves some attention here. I doubt if they would get a broad brush preference though, on the basis of economic credibility and perhaps dependent on the small business stance. FFP does a strong appeal to small, family based businesses, which is the sole reason for unfair dismissal being untouched, when most benefits were re-instated in Fielding’s private member’s bill on IR.

    You are also correct about the Family Impact Statements, which Fielding has also being scathing of Howard in its renegging of this apparently “core promise”… maybe it wasn’t “Core core” it was just “core”.. LOL 🙂

    Anyway, I wouldn’t rule out FFP kicking the Libs in the bottom over this issue + Workchoices, which FFP loathes. If Labor got broad spectrum preferences, FFP would get them over the line.. it apparently worked for Arch Bevis in Brisbane with Charles Newington. Most marginal Labor seat in the country and won by Arch with 4.3%. Ironically, it was also Labor that got Steve Fielding up.

    Charles

    Actually, I can see more votes against the government than for it since he has been elected, as I say, I think the reneg on the Family Impact Statements has angered Fielding and I wouldn’t rule out more brazen retaliation against Howard come preferences. They will also be looking to shore up “centrist” credentials by considering more Labor support…

  42. Um, Latham was from the NSW Right, which split during the Latham / Beazley leadership ballot. Sure, he was only elected thanks to Gillard getting a lot of the left to line up. But that doesn’t mean Latham was from a Left faction.

  44. On those newspoll figures … there’ll either be a new member or a by-election early next year even in Higgins at this rate. Who is standing against Costello again?

    It will be interesting to see where any tipping point might be where Coalition members start to question their party leadership. They could still conceivably claw it back, but this is one very bad result for them regardless of arguments that the budget might persuade voters over time. There will be a lot of very worried incumbent MP’s now.

    I reckon the bookies’ odds might shift towards Labor a bit more this week.

  45. LMAO Dennis Shanahan will be eating humble pie tomorrow.
    News Ltd especially hammers Rudd for a week, and lavishes praise on Howard/Smirky, and this is the result LOL
    How could the press gallery have got it so wrong?
    A few more polls like this, and Liberal members in seats with supposedly comfortable margins will be getting worried.

  46. Gary,

    I should have been confident enough to go with “Rudd fails to reach earlier highs”. At 59-41, one of the comment articles might lead with “The PM has a real fight on his hands…but.” In any case, the shrill pro-AWA campaign will continue until election day, and have zero effect.

  47. I think Shanahan’s line will be that this result is exactly the same as the last poll because it is the margin of error.

  48. Just a few points blacksburnspeph-
    a) if you ever watched Lateline these days you would notice how biased it has become.. full of government ministers each night.. and yes okay they are in government but i can’t remember this occurring three years ago…
    and the Insiders it has a right wing lunatic on every week and two middle of the road commentators– where is the left wing lunatic to even things up!
    And the abc board full of right wing lunatics… time this was independent don’t you think…
    And yep you only read what you want to read, maybe i should read some of the right wing crap.. i would if it had some integrity.. watch media watch and the chaser and you would see how the media operates… and see how media people spin things to suit their agendas’ .. i only read the Age at least it has lefties, and conservatives writing its’ articles… The Australian it is full of right wing journalists with an agenda…
    b/
    i know nothing about economics… not your kind of economic rationalist graphical nonsense… i never said anything about public debt mate… private debt now runs this country.. and this is the problem… governments are passing the debt onto us.. and currently our foreign debt is 50% of GDP and rising and what is helping us keep money in our pockets a commodity boom and when this runs out.. the money dries up mate powl!!! so do the jobs, and a multiplier effect begins.. and yep with us all in debt how do you think we will pay back such debts, monopoly money… also what if China and other countries don’t what to buy our commodities or the prices for them fall who will service our debts mate.. Get away from your micro economic crap and supply economics bullshit mate and have a look at the overall picture..
    Yep i am lost in the 1970’s that is when our current account deficit was in surplus and our foreign debt was non existent… and actually governments spent money on infrastructure and owned assets .. and university education was offendable to all.. Today our assets are foreign owned we have banks, airlines, telecommunications with fewer workers and making us all pay to keep our hard earned dollars in savings accounts and go offshore to employ workers at cheap rates for corporate greed and shareholder dividends.. At least we got something for our taxes back then now we get nothing… but a little tax cut every election year..

    maybe you have a look at trade imbalance and our current account deficit which

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 6 of 8
1 … 5 6 7 8