ACNielsen has followed yesterday’s Victorian state poll with the one we’ve all been waiting for: the first New South Wales poll to follow the series of disasters that befell Morris Iemma’s 12-year-old Labor government last week. Unfortunately, the poll was conducted “from February 15 to 19 – significantly, before the worst of the Wollongong corruption scandal”. Labor is still in front, leading 51-49 compared with 52.3-47.7 at the March 2007 election, but this reduces to 50-50 following “analysis of the figures based on the allocation of preferences at the last election, under the optional preferential system”. Iemma’s approval rating has slumped to 34 per cent from 52 per cent at the time of the election, which was presumably the last time ACNielsen conducted a state poll.
In other poll news, things aren’t looking good for Helen Clark. Note the recent parallels between Australian and New Zealand poll trends in this chart covering the year up to last September.
Just by the way, I’m not yet convinced Swan won’t turn out to be a very good treasurer.
Steve thats different we got pumped, Labor won they’d stay longer in power if they have a competent Treasurer.
Gary Swan will sound like a better Treasurer if he stops saying….
I dont apologise….
Our 5 point plan to fight inflation….
Reckless spending of this government, i mean the previous government….
Unless he can talk about the economy without referring to these he’s a goose IMHO!
Matt , so you and a lot of ALP supporters are going to vote against the ALP. Very smart move indeed. Please outline how you think the current opposition would do better
On this topic I must agree with GP and Glen – the result is amazing as Iemma does not deserve relection. I do not think he is evil but equally he is not likley to change anything in a very unsatisfactory situation. The economic performance of NSW under both Iemma and later stages of Carr is simply not good enough. Nor does there seem to be any real plan to solve the problems.
I agree with the suggestion that someone like Hockey ought to consider going back to State level, where he would make an effective leader. NSW deserves better than a government being elected by default. Of course, Hockey would face a tough task unless the Federal branch helped him put a muzzle on the religeous nutbars.
Socrates
[Of course, Hockey would face a tough task unless the Federal branch helped him put a muzzle on the religeous nutbars.]
You don’t think the potential for election would aid party disicpline (as happened with the union movement last year)?
52 Glen – Come off it Glen you would dislike ANY Labor treasurer. Like myself you’re not exactly a neutral voice are you.
54 Socrates – Hockety would have no chance in NSW. The scare campaign on Workchoices they could wage against him would be something to behold.
54 Socrates always exercise caution before agreeing with the Glen and GP faction.
“Australia and New South Wales continue to enjoy stable triple-A sovereign credit ratings from both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s. A top sovereign credit rating signifies an extremely strong capacity for governments to meet their financial commitments and withstand changing economic circumstances.
According to Standard & Poor’s assessment of New South Wales in September 2007, its AAA credit rating is underpinned by a diversified economy, a strong balance sheet and the government’s demonstrated fiscal discipline.”
http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/aboutnsw/climate/a8_longtermcredit_intl.htm
It seems to me from afar that Iemma and Costa are staking their whole careers on the Electricity Privitisation. This is causing an enormous ructions within the Party and the local Unions. No doubt this will continue up to the next State Conference and beyond. However, it will be sorted and things will eventually settle down.
The next election is not for three years and Labor has plenty of time to re group, put in a few shiny new faces and re launch themselves to and take on the Libs.
Concede there is every chance that the slide is on. However, Labor know how to win State elections in NSW.
Found this interesting take on the situation.
http://thepipingshrike.blogspot.com/
If any branch of the ALP knows how to hone in on an opponents weak points it’s the NSW Labor machine and they are ruthless. They also don’t mind burning anyone on their own side to win an election.
Steve
Just because I was pleased to get rid of Howard and have the myth of his economic competence exposed, doesn’t mean I have to pretend to believe the NSW economy is in good shape. It is not. All triple AAA means is that you have paid Moody’s or S&P to confirm that you can repay your debts. Some recently collapsed reinsurer’s had been similarly passed, so I think the value of this ratign is greatly exaggerated. See some excellent discusion on economist John Quiggan’s blog on this topic.
Even if Moody’s are correct, it is irrelevant to the other questions such as jobs growth, per capita incomes and the quality of infrastructure and services. On these measures NSW compares very poorly to other states in recent years. Since the end of the housing boom in 2003-04 the Sydney economy has gone nowhere. growth of GSP, per capita income and employment has been well below national averages.
The “balanced” budget is a mirage. They achieve it by skimping on required infratructure and maintenance spending. Now they are selling off one of their most valuable assetts (power) to balance the books. So yes, the books are balanced in the short term. But in the long term the outlook is poor.
In my field (transport infrastructure) the NSW and Sydney rail systems are embarassing. Their poor state has resulted from long term under investment, which is reaching the point where there are huge capital liabilities. NSW RTA very efficiently built toll roads in the 90s which saved billions of government funds. But where did the money go? Certainly not into public transportt or hospitals. Given what land now sells for in Sydney, I cannot fathom how the required infrastructure cannot be funded by developer levies. Yet it doesn’t happen. To me the NSW state government deserves a fail mark on infrastructure, spending control, and long term planning.
Why wont anyone answer my question 🙁
Incidentally, if Iemma is still around by the end of 2010, he could be a drag on Rudd’s prospects for a second term. The advantage that Rudd had in last year’s election was that NSW voters had recently gone to the polls before the federal election so they had an opportunity to vent their anger/frustration at the state government. Next time around, it is likely that the federal election will be held before the NSW State Election and so therefore voters will not have had a chance to vent their anger at the Iemma government and may therefore register a protest vote in the federal elecgtion. This may especially be true if the NSW Opposition is still predominantly controlled by ineffective ultra-right wing clowns. It is possible that NSW voters, fearing the prospect of a Liberal government but nevertheless wanting to send a message to Iemma, will take their anger out on federal Labor and cost them much needed seats
Scenario sounds far-fetched? In the 1987 federal election, during the era of the Unsworth government, there were big swings against Labor in NSW with even seats such as Paul Keating’s very safe seat of Blaxland registering a vote of under 60%. In 1990, when Greiner was in office, the Labor vote recovered in NSW and this may have been a partial factor in keeping the Hawke government in power. Considering that Iemma is a serious competitor for being the kind of lackluster, ineffectual leader that Unsworth was, the potential exists for a similar trend to emerge in 2010.
Rudd may further be disadvantaged by the fact that the federal election -if held as expected in late 2010 -will coincide with the approximate timing of Victorian State Election and the potential exists for state and federal elections issues to become overlapped. This may cost the federal ALP further seats in Victoria under a similar scenario to that which may occur in NSW -that voters may not want to elect the Victorian Liberal Party to office but may want to use the 2010 federal election to register a protest vote against the Brumby government.
Scotty its a good question and I have no idea of the balance of the factional numbes. I presume the Labor Right faction’s dominance is significant, as after a quick minute on Google I found references in SMH articles to their having about 1/3 of the cabinet positions. But what the actual numbers are I have no idea.
Andrew,
The question might be how could they do worse?
The public transport is so bad it’s embarrassing, they constantly announce new projects that never seem to commenced let alone finished;
Hospitals are atrocious with a focus on health bureaucrats rather than frontline staff;
Planning under Lord Frank Sartor is just give the developers what they want, after all they bankroll the party;
There is quite possibly corruption, esp in regard to anything Joe Tripodi is involved in;
Cityrail is a disgrace, the Govt refuses to take on the unions who protect inefficient and corrupt staff (see recent ICAC inquiry);
Actually see ICAC inquiry into Cityrail, see the inquiry into Ferries; see the inquiry into Royal North Shore Hospital; see the debacle that is the new Bathurst Hospital; not to mention the latest revelations of ALP dealings in Wollongong.
In short they are a tired, lazy, incompetent and quite possibly corrupt government who have been in power for far too long and a new broom is sorely needed, even if it is a Liberal broom.
There’s been something wrong in NSW politics right from the start. And it infects both sides of politics (anyone here remember Robert Askin?).
I reckon it started with Macarthur and the Rum Corps and never left the place. It hangs around like a miasma, slowly infecting successive State Governments. Indeed, people in this State have come to expect their Governments to be ineffectual, incompetent and corrupt.
In my view, the whole place needs dis-infecting from the top, down.
It might have been easier if Bligh had just hanged Macarthur and his co-conspirators (the Neddy Smiths of their time) all those year ago. But the twit didn’t and the example was set. It’s an example that has repeated itself in NSW State politics, right from Blight’s time to the present.
And the lesson is this: In NSW, crooks prosper.
As for Iemma’s standing in the polls, the fact that Labor continues to lead doesn’t surprise me at all. As I say, people in the State of Corruption will put-up with just about anything: Lies, incompetence, stupidity and downright payola are all, it seems, quite OK.
The only thing they won’t tolerate are wowsers.
Unfortunately for the Libs.
62 PD1981 – I don’t recall Hawke losing the ’87 election. The fact is people can distinguish between the state governments and the Australian government when voting.
The NSW ALP govt will be in danger of being assumed as corrupt and time won’t heal that, only a complete change in faces.
And, are they wanting to privatise the electricity sector on economic grounds or to give windfall opportunities to some mates? How many need to cross the floor to stop this going ahead?
No 67
Kina, the corruption that so badly permates the NSW Government did not just materialise in the last few weeks, it has been evident for a number of years, even before the 2007 election.
Evan is right when he says that the people of NSW are completely indifferent to it all. They’re happy to rant and rave about how bad the situation is, but won’t vote for change and keep electing the same dumb pack of drongos in every time.
“In short they are a tired, lazy, incompetent and quite possibly corrupt government who have been in power for far too long and a new broom is sorely needed, even if it is a Liberal broom.”
Agree, they should have been gone last time, but Debnam was Iemma’s Latham, unfortunately it looks like O’Farrell and his brand of liberalism does not seem to appeal to the voters.
The main problem for New South Wales Labor is political donations, hence donations from people who want a return on their investment. Seems to me their needs to be reforms in this area.
Labor should abandon the privatisation issue, it is something that the community i doubt wants so why go ahead with it.
Politically the party their is a mess, nonetheless i feel the Liberals are in the same situation.
Currently what i see in this country is a need for political people who have some vision and courage to put in place policies which the top end of town cannot make a buck.
In New South Wales transport and health are in crisis, like Victoria minus health here, In Victoria the government has spent 5 billiion on roads and only 200 million on public transport since 1999.
New South Wales Labor does have three years to get it right but i feel what they really need is a change in the culture and this i feel will not occur.
Right, I’m gonna have a rant here. Apologies in advance.
The NSW Govt is absolutely tear-your-hair-out stuff. Poor old Morris is a very decent chap (I’ve met him several times and he’s a sweetheart) but he’s not in charge and he doesn’t have it in him to be in charge. Michael bloody Costa and his bully-boy mates are the ones running the show, but it’s not as if there haven’t been precedents for that.
The majority thought – evidenced by election results – that Bob Carr was a good premier of NSW for a decade. Even if you didn’t like him personally you respected him. It was only when he left that we all realised that he didn’t actually do anything much – all he did was manage the economy and kept the state chugging along quite well. But that is what most people demand of state politicians. Don’t raise levies, keep unemployment and crime in check, just let me get on with it without bothering me. The fact that we actually have to pay for services we seem to take for granted, like schools and hospitals and transport, does not compute with the average voter. It’s only when things fall apart that they start to complain loudly but even then they are not willing to pay to fix the problem.
It is we the voters of NSW who are at fault – we have continued to accept the myth that as long as our AAA rating is maintained then we are doing well. And we are economically – it is absolute crap that we are doing poorly. It’s just that if a government wants to build infrastructure of any kind it has to borrow, and we won’t vote for a government that goes into debt. We do it ourselves every day with our credit cards, but god forfend a pollie who tries it.
A couple of posters have asked the question about how bad the opposition must be for us to keep re-electing Iemma’s crowd. They are that bad. Labor suffered a couple of scandals – one a real biggie – just before the March 2007 election and it was already on the nose. To any objective observer the Govt should have been given the arse. Instead, the Libs in their wisdom decided to go with Peter Debnam as leader. Imagine Barnaby Joyce without a brain but with a copy of the Right-wing Scumbag manifesto in his hot little hand, proudly decked out in budgie smugglers. He was a twit. The only person with any talent in the NSW Liberal Party is Fatty O’Barrell but he’s constantly dragged down by the bunch of morons sitting on his side of the house.
On the Labor side, John Watkins is pleasant but he’s like former minister Andrew Refshauge – too smart and too small l liberal for his own good. And he is simply incapable of articulating a transport plan, probably because the Govt and the public service don’t have one. He should have done what Bob Debus did and get out. Verity Firth is incredibly smart but she’s about 12 years old and hasn’t the profile. The rest of them are not worth talking about.
The SMH published a letter the other day that said it all (from a Mr KR of Woollhara, of all places): “The opposition has done an exemplary job of directing the searchlight at the failures of the Iemma Government. The problem is, how do you elect a newspaper to office?”
Thank whatshisname I live in an electorate that votes independent. Rant over. Many profound apologies.
This debt myth Mark Twain is perpetuated by the media who are owned by big business and business community, because these people have their fingers on assets to help their greedy selfs get greedier.. I bet the media want this privatisation especially the murdoch press.
Borrowing by governments is the cheapest form of debt, because governments through taxes have the ability to pay it back. But we keep hearing public debt is bad which is abosolute rubbish. What is bad is private debt, and massive amounts of it because if the economy collapses then who picks up the pieces- governments of course.. look at Northern Rock in England, it collapsed and guess and after some searching for a private buyer of which could not be found the government took it over.
These politicians need to ask why or how this country built its railways and power poles and dams etc and certainly wasn’t done by private owners…
Excuse the language, Marky, but bollocks to that. Blaming the media is easy (then again I’m a journalist so I’m obviously in thrall to Rupert Murdoch and big business – not). Reasoned argument about the reality of debt v credit ratings, the burden-sharing between the public and private sectors in infrastructure development and investment, all of the debate we continually have on economic management, is constantly played out in the media, but in the end it means bugger all. We whinge about debt and yet always look for the best bargain. It’s human nature.
71 Marktwain – good rant. I don’t usually read long contributions but that was a good one.
Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
But look at the amount of business shows we have on tv now, and business sections in the papers. The media i feel have a role to provide serious research and serious reporting but what we get instead is celebrity news and trivia.
I bet the media state that the protest today was a flop and that very few people attended.
Moreover look at the amount of right wing commentators in our opinion pages compared to left wing commentators, i think you will find that their are significantly more and most write articles detesting economic liberalism or government ownership.
The public reads this and then form their opinions accordingly.
One last thing look how the media portrays the unions these days, as people who do little for their workers or as people who like to strike or as organisations whose memberships are in decline.
I also believe our universities are to blame for teaching economic rationalism. Which predominately forms the syllabus of most economic courses today.
1. Since Federal intervention in 1970, the factions have had proportional representation 2/3 right, 1/3 left.
2. The right is split into (the names may be out of date): the dominant Terrigals (named after their meeting place -Eddie Obeid’s weekender) who seem to have a somewhat Mediteranean basis and the Troglodytes who seem to have an Irish Catholic influence and are now very much out of favour. The Left are divided into hard and soft subfactions
3. The Premier is of the right so unless their are major convultions Watkins, Tebbutt and Firth have no chance
4. The major convulsion may occur over electricity privatisation – Carr tried it but stepped back when he saw the anger. Iemma will have to do a lot of high stepping to get out of this if he is beaten or now changes his mind – someone with more information may know the chances of him and, presumably, the Terrigals being rolled
5. Evan Whitton ( I think in “Can of Worms” 1986 but I lent my copy to someone and never got it back) put forward the theory that due to the demographics of Sydney and New South Wales, Labor should always be in power in NSW. However such dominance means that Labor is subject to infiltration by criminal elements, the corruption this causes eventually results in Labor losing government. I think this is a very accurate analysis and can be traced back to the fall of the first Labor government in 1916.
6. I think it is remarkable that Carr was able to keep things very much under control for 10 years. Iemma is obviously a different premier.
7. This has reached crisis point 3 years away from an election – it will be a challenge for Labor to reform itself in the available time. I don’t think Iemma is up to it but if he and the terrigals are rolled there is a chance.
Thanks Gary. I promise not to do it again.
Marky, I simply can’t agree with your arguments so perhaps I’ll leave it at that. I’m not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. Don’t we sound like opinion page commentators now?
I will say that while you blame the media, big business and the universities, I still blame John Howard.
Opinion page commentators, Gerard Henderson and Andrew Bolt? Take your pick..
Mark Twain: my argument is that people need outlets to form their opinions and i feel that the media, and universities have been the catalyst of making people have views on economic rationalism- hence support it.
I agree we are both stubborn old columnists with big egos’ who believe we are totally right and no one else is.
Cheers Mark.
Marktwain, noticed that ABC learning share price slumped 40 odd percent today. I reckon that some of the board of that company and their associated company AEU (typical Liberal Party pun for the trust that holds the property for ABC child centres) must be very nervous now.
If this thing gets any worse another unraveling of Howard’s heritage could be happening in front of our nose. For board members think former member from Northern Rivers and former Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane. I’ve always been very skeptical of allowing one highly geared company to round up most of the childcare centers in Australia.
Well, where do I start? Let me first come clean and confess that I am a direct descendent of the paymaster of the NSW Rum Corps. I was also born and bred in Wollongong, and went to school with one of the leading figures in the council corruption scandal (however, I didn’t know him well and he wasn’t a friend of mine, honestly Your Honour). I also spent quite a few years as a journalist covering NSW politics.
Having said all that, I have lived in Victoria for the past 14 years, and consider myself at arm’s length from the happenings in that state, though most of my family still lives there.
Andnow I’d like to comment on the latest opinion poll, which, I believe, is what Poll Bludger is about.
Firstly, I think the drop in popularity of the Iemma Government may not be entirely attributable to its own actions. I think the most important factor would be housing. NSW (and I include most of the coastal strip, as well as Sydney) is more vulnerable than the rest of Australia to interest rate rises. The cost of buying homes is unsustainable. The cost of renting is astronomical. No wonder people are pissed off. They took it out on Howard and they’ll take it out on Iemma. Where the NSW Government is at fault is in encouraging the housing boom and collecting vast amounts of stamp duty, without adequately investing the returns in services (including welfare housing). The downturn has already started in the outer suburbs, and I’d imagine that the Australian equivalent of sub-prime mortgages would have been utilised most heavily in western and south-western Sydney.
Secondly, the Iemma Government has become scandal-ridden, as do most government after they’ve been in power for a decade. By that time, all government boards are full of Labor appointees, largesse is distributed, and there are no dissenting voices on any decision-making bodies. This is bad for democracy. Irrespective of how I might vote personally, I think all governments need to be turned over every ten years. Governments which don’t deliver, of course, should be turned out when the electors see fit.
Thirdly, it seems the NSW Opposition has a leader with some credibility. For those who say he’s a nobody, whom voters don’t know, I respond: Who was Steve Bracks? Who was Kevin Rudd? The voters will change governments if they’re fed up with a government, and simply think the Opposition replacement is
a nice guy and reasonably competent. They WON’T change governments if they distinctly don’t like the Opposition Leader – eg Mark Latham, Peter Debnam.
Fourthly (and only one Poll Bludger poster has mentioned it on this thread) comes the issue of power privatisation. Apart from the threat the government unity that it poses, it’s an undeniable fact that the general public does not like something they own being sold off, particularly if they didnt give their permission. While some privatisations may have merit, few governments have ever successfully sought permission in advance to sell off something major. The quandary is worse for the NSW Government, which, as I’ve read, specifically promised NOT to sell off electricity assets before the last election.
However, while I believe the privatisation issue is affecting opinion polls now,I don’t think it will be a big issue at the next election. There are two reasons for this – it will have been and gone by then, and also the Liberals will have supported it.In fact, I suspect there’ll be electoral advantage for Labor in NSW to suggest that the Liberals would privatise everything that could be sold, including the public transport system and many hospitals. The Kennett Government would be the role model.
Well. I’ll leave it at that, Sorry to have gone on for so long, but I felt this thread had developed into political wanking about factions etc, and had strayed too far
from analysing the latets Iemma opinion poll.
I thought Iemma was selling off the marketing arm of electricity, not the stations, so strictly speaking he can slyly say he isn’t selling any physical assets.
Arbie Jay…..you’re partly correct.But selling off the marketing arm is still privatisation. Those of us in Victoria who have to deal with constantly changing names of electricity and gas wholesalers know the consequences of those.
And while leasing isn’t privatisation per se, it certainly will look like it when private companies are running the power stations.
Personally, I don’t have any ideological bent for or against privatisation. But the public is generally against it. and there’s an additional argument that in these times of great concern about greenhouse emissions and climate change, that we should think very carefully before handing over power stations (leading greenhouse emitters) to the private sector to run, and relinquishing public control of their output.
80 [The cost of buying homes is unsustainable. The cost of renting is astronomical. No wonder people are pissed off. They took it out on Howard and they’ll take it out on Iemma.]
Antonio, they will take it out on more than these if housing affordability doesn’t improve and interest rates keep going up too. Even Rudd and Swan might not be immune if inflation is not dealt with quickly and interest rates reduced. I don’t know much about the NSW government or the corruption there but the economic fundamentals have to be relatively right for governments to survive.
Thanks Antonio
It does look like Iemma playing with words then when he says he is not selling off assets.
And think you may be right re selling off assets, after what happened with Telstra, no improvement in services, no control now over telecommunications, no benefit from the sale interms of return to the people and quite a few burnt by T2. People would query , what is the benefit, what do I get out of it. You blokes may get fat commissions and line up cushy jobs but what do I get.
Yes Steve I agree.
I am amazed that none of the previous commenters even mentioned house and rent costs, and many carried on with in-depth analysis of the NSW Labor factions.
Getting the economics right is as important as the politics.
I really don’t see how the housing situation can be eased quicly, by either state or federal governments. It’s a mixture of neglect of skills of training over a number of years, an increase in immigration to compensate for that lack of skills training, higher interest rates following a period of sustained low interest rates, and little or no new home building. Glad I’m not running a government.
Exactly Arbie Jay. It’s certainly a challenge for spin and marketing to convince the general public that there’s some benefit for them in power privatisation. And once it’s sold, it’s almost impossible for the government to buy it back again some time in the future, unless it collapses economically and the government needs to bail it out
(eg parts of the Victorian rail system, and a couple of Victorian priviatised hospitals – see also “Northern Rock”).
The government may argue that power sales will deliver billions to the State Budget that can be spent on services like health and education. But it’s just a windfall, like selling your house so you’ve got money for rent.
The only way to really deliver money for government services is to provide sustained state economic growth. Without the mining boom (apart from some coal), it will be difficult for NSW.
Privatisation, as it applies to any public utility, such as electricity, as was Work Choices, though a different thing, a death sentence for any Government.
Perhaps Iemma is stupid, or arrogant or perhaps he doesn’t care. Whatever happens, he has sounded the death knell of his Government, irrespective of a hopeless, at present, Opposition. Who need move only a little to present themselves as a possible alternative.
It happened in South Australia. It will happen in NSW.
The anger over the electricity privatisation, here, led to Olsen’s defeat. Rann scraped in originally, by luck, on the electricity betrayal, but as certain goings on indicate in SA, he may well be up against it next time.
It is all very well of him to pretend he is Labor, but his activities and leanings indicate otherwise. When the Government treats itself as a one man party, Rann, a personal fiefdom, it is all over. Iemma, same.
Arrogant enough to think anyone would forget. It took three years, but we did not forget.
Privatisation is lauded because of its “efficiency’
Incentive based private enterprise managers run these ‘business’ better in terms of utilising assets , increasing productivity & minimising costs.
This is generally true but these are all ‘monetry’ values.
Unfortunately the Public AND Pollies do not understand financial engineering otherwise they’d realise the better ‘monetry’ values under Privatisation are massively outweighed by the funding costs of acquisition alone (which over 30 years are paid by the tax payer.)
These funding costs are the difference between the AAA Government interest rate and the cash rate % obtainable by the highest credit rated Public Company
In addition , the tax payer pays the Private Company’s Profit margin in their rates over 30 years.
How Liberal & labor Pollies have fallen for this voodoo economics is surprising…except they can claim they are debt free
(Government debt is deemed a dirty word when economically it is not)
Australia is desperate need of respectable opposition parties, the Liberals in most States, when they get sick of bleeding themselves to death, need a respectable face in the leaders job and, to come back closer to the center. But it seems these guys are so disorganised they cant even ‘fake’ it. A credible and performing Opposition would certainly make the NSW govt more accountable and careful the liberties it takes.
perhaps Kina , that non respectable opposition in NSW you refer to may win government because Yemma is mucking up incl. privitising electricity ?
Ron, my mind clouds with red anger, whatever the arguments for privatisation.
I cease to think, cannot consider the logical arguments. I just go into, what?
If I am representative, I am one of those dumb voters. Highly emotional. Possibly highly illogical.
Down the track and looking back, government owned worked in the past, what is so different about government owned in the future?
what is different ‘Crikey’ is modern Pollies understand the ‘capitalist’ system is better than ‘socialism’ and that ‘government debt’ IS an election loser.
So no modern Labor leader will touch ‘government debt’
In this respect the ‘right’ won this ‘culture war’ by stealth.
As mentioned , costs of acquisition are more costly to tax payers over time than government debt if used for Government utilities & NOT for ‘consumption’
Its a challenge Rudd will have to face (more so in a 2nd term than a first)
Yep – the ALP may lose if the current issues don’t blow over by the next election and they cant sort themselves out soon.
Essential infrastructure is meant to provide best and cheapest possible service to the people and net zero cost. Power, water, roads and communications etc.
As they go into the hands of corporations the imperative changes entirely – they have a duty to the shareholders to provide the least service for the highest price possible for the least amount of outlay. AND if they put these cash cows into a position they are partly owned by foreign corporations directly/indirectly then our fees disappear overseas as well.
yep Kina , I stayed away from less ‘services’ for simplicity , but your point is another negative to privatisation.
Rather like the Future Fund, Kina?
Ron, this triple AAA stuff is a bit of a nonsense, anyway, is it not?
I wrote on this in the past. Having a chat with an Olsen adviser, she said words to the effect ‘if you knew what he is doing for the State.’
My response was, ‘if only we knew.’
Crikey , there are differing calculations but generally a AAA rated Government can borrow 1.5% better than a Public company.
As these ‘ financial deals’ go over about 30 years , multiply 1.5% compound over 30 years & its massive …all payable by the tax payer as an ADDITIONAL
COST for the supposed ‘monetry’ advantages of Privitisation efficiency
Its a ‘con’ on the tax payer so Pollies do not have to defend going into government debt
One of the Economic writers for the ‘Age’ down in Melbourne has always argued the same case as me
his name is Kenneth Davidson
Then, Ron, acknowledging your 97, I remain suspicious of the triple A nonsense.
And to return to Kina’s ‘Yep – the ALP may lose if the current issues don’t blow over by the next election and they cant sort themselves out soon’ not to mention concerns for the general future expressed by many,
What if the ALP radically reframed the future? Even in an old format. Government bonds, for one.
the AAA only means the highest credit rating you can get.
the higher the credit rating , the LOWER interest rate you pay
only governments have the AAA , so they pay lower than ANY^ private enterprise company.
even BHP would pay over 1% higher interest thabn any State Government
ALL companys with lower credit rating than BHP (99% of them) pay higher interest rates again
these private Equity consortiums that but Public assets have generally worse credit ratings again and so pay even higher interest rates
and this last category paying huge interst rates on borrowed money dsupposedly can run Public utilities cheaper than Governments (with AAA , ie the lowest interest rates on borrowed money (debt) !