Krugman on Opposition for the Sake of Opposition
the G.O.P. opposes anything that might help sustain demand in a depressed economy — even aid to small businesses, which the party claims to love.
Sounds familiar to an Australian Resident. Substitute "Liberal" for "G.O.P." and "Hockey" for "Simpson" and you'll have reasonable equivalence with recent experience here
Tingle on Friday :: Larvatus Prodeo
Laura Tingle’s Friday AFR Canberra observed column is worth the $3 alone.
In this week’s column she says that unless the remaining seats fall noticeably in favour of the Coalition (I think she means 74/71) their strategy is to hand the “poisoned chalice” to Labor.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s approach this week reeks of this, she says.Armed with the support of News Ltd, which did everything in its power to get the Coalition into power this time around and which is now already campaigning for a fresh election, the Opposition thinks it would be likely to win another election held in the next six months. (Emphasis added)
Discredit and destabilise,
knowing you also have an extra problem, which is that your election costings don’t add up, leaving your economic credibility vulnerable.
She thinks there are “profound problems”, both in the costings as such and their politics.
She cites the release timing, hidden away late one afternoon. Also when you start playing with the contingency reserve it spells trouble, she says. Moreover there are unexplained political nasties hidden away, like the $1.2bn claimed saving in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Present yourself as the stable option and emerge in a new political landscape.
One problem with an early election is that the party coffers are bare.
Labor, she says, is trying to form a minority government to buy the time “to atone for its sins and rebuild confidence.”
In any event there is an opportunity to “refresh politics”.
…whatever happens, the impact of a pause in the hostilities should not be underestimated.
Mungo crucifies the Labor machine in grand fashion
the architects of the policy failures which had brought this about through their cynicism, cowardice and self-importance should be hung by their testicles and lashed savagely with bulls’ pizzles
If I were Gillard, and she doesn't stay as PM, I'd be saying: "#bitarbib out, or I am".
Moving forward mantra Gillard's biggest mistake #ausvotes
Abbott is a self-described weather vane, sure. But when he changes his mind on policy, even for purely political reasons, he's the first to tell you about it. Abbott has always treated his political career as an opportunity to share his feelings and grow. It's very odd. But it's disarming.
I think Chris Berg nails it here. Bitar, Arbib et al (or #bitarbib as I refer to them on twitter) have come across as a pack of amateurs in this election.
Everything Gillard has done feels stage-managed in order to hide the fear of "getting caught out".
Conversely, despite his massive flaws, Abbott has vome across as open and honest. Admitting your mistakes or errors of judgement and appearing to be listening are a good way of displaying that.
“…under any circumstance…” #GetUp #Ausvotes
Rather than me spelling it out … you make up your own mind … and comment :-)
I can't find the comment section on Glebe2037 post, but it does seem he is indicating that GetUp are supporting the Greens.
Looking closely, even though both flyers show all ticks for the Greens, the two examples shown aren't even subsets of each other not to mind entirely the same list of topics
I don't know the nascency, but how do we not know they aren't just aligned in having the same policy objectives?
Further, how do we know that the Greens' didn't set their objectives after GetUp decided their areas of focus for the election?
In a more logical world, I believe Labor would (should?) align more closely with the list that GetUp have published.
The fact they haven't is a poor reflection on Labor rather than on GetUp or the Greens.
Bob Brown outmanoeuvres a former rugby coach who moonlights as a radio host #ausvotes
I imagine if Kerry O'Brien or Tony Jones were so rude to this former Rugby coach in an interview he'd walk out.
This is a perfect example of why we need independent journalists and especially the ABC.
People like Bill O'Reilly and Beck can't touch this fellow. He should really stick to rugby and long lunches
Dump your Parties to find your leaders « Making Hay
Today I was at NSW Parliament House. In many ways, unlike much of Australian “History”, it actually felt historic to me. Especially the Jubilee Room which is like a big library containing all the Hansard Volumes.
Logically the majority of the building is a public space, and as we do actually pay for these people, you should visit. Regularly.
In a week of another Federal Election it also felt right to be in Australia’s original Parliament House. Seeing the Photos of previous parliamentarians and Premiers contributed. Though if we dug deep enough, the tacky recent ones made me realise many of the celebrated ex-Premiers were probably as much Matt Brown as they were Peter Andren.
The Coalition's Infrastructure Bonds by @seancarmody on the Stubborn Mule #ausvotes
...Seems like a neat trick, but I have a number of reservations about the scheme.
First, I have argued in the past that the near-hysterical concern about Government debt is overdone. For a start, Government debt in Australia is far lower than in other developed countries around the world. More importantly, the facile analogy that compares Government finance to that of a household budget does not stand up for one very important reason: unlike you or me, the Government is the monopoly issuer of Australian dollars. This changes the game and breaks the analogy utterly.
Second, the opposition’s policy would still involve raising significant amounts of debt, just not issued by the Federal Government. If that debt is all incurred instead by State Governments, should that really be a cause for celebration? After all, unlike the Commonwealth, State Governments do not control issuance of currency, so they really could go bankrupt and indeed, recent history has show that many of the State Governments are loath to increase their debt levels too significantly for fear of having their credit rating downgraded. What if the borrowers are in the private sector? Well, that would be worse still! Back in March I updated my chart showing private and government sector debt. The debt level we should all be worried about in Australia is private sector debt, which is far higher than government sector debt.
Third, infrastructure bonds have form. Back in the 90s, the then Labor government introduced an infrastructure bond scheme which also featured tax incentives. Of course, it did not take long for clever investment bankers to work out how to surgically isolate the tax benefit so that wealthy individuals could take advantage of the concession without actually taking on any investment risk. In the end, the whole scheme was shut down, although some of the transactions that were done still survive today. I would expect exactly the same this to happen with this policy. Any special tax treatment is always a red rag to the tax expert bull.
So, it may sound clever, but to me it does not seem to be sound policy.
When Clever people I respect and trust write this, I'm made even more firm in my belief that the Liberals really don't have a clue what they are doing.
While this blog is supposed to be independent, it is also objective.
If you vote for the Liberals or Nationals on Saturday based upon their supposed "better management of the economy" you need to take a hard look at your reasons.
Feel free to share them here.
And for those who would accuse me of being a Labor stooge, then I would say that while I'm not 100% convinced by the previous Governments economic credentials, the facts of the last 2 years make it clear that we have no reason to dump them for economic reasons.
They have failed miserably to make the case for themselves, but that is not an excuse to throw them out.
Choose Wisely.
Adam Bandt to Side With Labor - SMH
Josh Gordon
August 15, 2010
The Greens candidate for the electorate of Melbourne has confirmed he would side with Labor if he wins the seat and the parliament is hung. Despite expressing disappointment about Prime Minister Julia Gillard's positions on climate change and asylum seekers, Greens candidate Adam Bandt yesterday said he would work with Labor to deliver a ''stable, progressive and effective'' government.
Isn't this just removing your point of difference? The wavering will now vote Labour ahead of Green, right?
Lets hope Get Up! make this their next initiative - Update with AEC data
The Australian voting system is Anti-Democratic when it forces you to choose everyone - especially when it forces you to vote
UPDATE: This is what the AEC actually says about what constitutes "informal". Note what I have marked in Bold.
A vote below the line is informal if:
- it has no first preference mark,
- a tick or cross has been used as a first preference mark,
- there is more than one first preference mark,
- there are 10 or more candidates and 90% or more of the squares opposite the names of candidates are not numbered as required or more than three numbers would need to be changed for a correct numeric sequencing to occur.
- This means, for example that where there are twenty candidates, a ballot paper would be informal if it did not have on it either the numbers 1 to 18 (90% of 20) without repetitions or omissions, or numbers which, if up to three of them were changed, would be the numbers 1 to 18 without repetitions or omissions, or
- there are less than 10 candidates and not all of the squares next to the candidate's names, or all but one of those squares (which is left blank), form a sequence of consecutive numbers beginning with the number 1, or no more than two numbers would need to be changed for a correct numbering sequence to occur.
- This means, for example that where there are nine candidates, a ballot paper would be informal if it did not have on it either the numbers from 1 to at least 8 without repetitions or omissions, or numbers which, if up to two of them were changed, would be the numbers from 1 to at least 8 without repetitions or omissions.
