Unless there’s a sudden turnaround in the polls, Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister of Australia. This will be the third time in my life that a Federal Labor government has been defeated, the other two occasions being 1975 and 1996. On both those occasions, despite substantial and enduring accomplishments, the government had made a mess of macroeconomic management, and the electorate, unsurprisingly, wanted to punish them. And, despite my strong disagreements with them (and with the way Fraser came to office), the incoming Prime Ministers had serious views on how best Australia’s future could be managed. Fraser has only improved since leaving office, making valuable contributions on the national and global stage. My evaluation of Howard, following his defeat, starts with the observation that he was ‘the most substantial figure produced by the Liberal party since the party itself was created by Menzies’.
Nothing of the sort can be said this time. The case put forward by the LNP is based entirely on lies and myths. These include the claims that
* Labor has mismanaged the economy and piled up unnecessary debt and deficits
* Australian families are ‘doing it tough’ because of a soaring cost of living
* The carbon tax/price is a ‘wrecking ball’, destroying economic activity
* The arrival of refugees represents a ‘national emergency’
None of these claims stands up to even momentary scrutiny.
Then there’s Abbott himself. After 20 years in politics, I can’t point to any substantial accomplishments on his part, or even any coherent political philosophy. For example, I’m not as critical of his parental leave scheme as some, but it’s totally inconsistent with his general political line, a fact that his supporters in business have been keen to point out. On climate change, he’s held every position possible and is now promising, in effect, to do nothing. His refusal to reveal policy costings until the second-last day of the campaign debases an already appalling process. He treated budget surplus as a holy grail until it became inconvenient, and has now become carefully vague on the topic.
Obviously, the fact that such a party and such a leader can be on the verge of victory implies that the Labor side has done something dreadfully wrong. It’s the oldest cliche in politics for the losing side to claim that the problem is not the policies but inability to get the message across. In this case, however, I think it’s true. Gillard lost the voters early on with stunts like the consultative assembly, and never managed to get them to listen to her for any length of time. Rudd was doing well in communicating his vision from his return to the leadership until he called the election. He then wasted three weeks on small-bore stuff apparently aimed at Katter party preferences. He seems finally to have rediscovered his voice, with the launch speech and his Q&A appearance, but I fear it’s too late.
Still, in the unlikely event that any undecided voters are reading this, I urge you to take a serious look at the alternative government, and place the LNP last on your ballot in both houses of Parliament.
John Quiggin 
Why? Why? Why?
Lib candidates were no-shows at local forums today in Dunkley, McEwen and Port Adelaide. This looks like a tactic to shut down debate by hiding from local scrutiny. Disgraceful.
The ALP have also gotten in on the ‘battler’ rhetoric, ‘feeling the pain’ of the average voter whose standard of living, and wages have increased in the last 6 years whilst taxes have decreased. It seems that nobody, except maybe the Greens, has the balls to stand up and say that perhaps higher taxes could do the country well if spent on worthwhile meaningful programs. The only message I have gotten is that we need to grow the pie, collect less taxes, and yet somehow implement programs that are basic necessities. Will this ever change?
It appears to be a universal truth through the Western world that the leftmost political party is appalling at marketing and branding and ultimately getting their message out. The right-leaning parties have very simple positions repeated over and over in different ways: “government spending bad”, “taxes are too high”, “free-spending fiscally irresponsible lefties”, and so on. Heck, when I got the Coalition Five Point Plan in the mail I guessed the first three before I opened the letter (missed immigration policy and the national infrastructure scheme for those playing at home)! Compare that to vague values statements from their counterparts! It is no contest, and very disappointing.
It will be unfortunate if Abbott does believe his own exaggerations with respect to the macroeconomy. Severe fiscal cutbacks coupled with the declining terms of trade that we do face will really do damage to the economy.
Labor has told less convincing exaggerations than the Coalition. We will end up with a very mediocre government whose outlook imperils Australia’s future.
I had hopes that during his time in the wilderness Rudd would have learnt from his mistakes, developed a grand election winning strategy and future vision to be shared and discussed with his close supporters – and then been off like a rocket after his palace coup succeeded.
Instead what we seem to have got is the same old clayton’s L’Etat C’est Moi of 2010 – “the Australian people elected ‘ME'” (I thought we had a Westminster System?) and actions to the effect “I am going to cement MY position not by demonstrating my true depth but by changing the rules so I cant be voted out so easily or until I want to go”.
So while Murdoch is certainly helping Labor’s demise I cant help but feel they are also going to lose because Rudd thinks he is another Whitlam, Hawke or Keating at their peaks when in reality he is a middle level SES manager who isn’t stupid but is no Hero or man for all seasons – put another way he’s the Arthur Calwell of our age.
I’ll still be voting Green/Wiki/Labor etc. (love our preferential system) next Saturday because Abbot is just too hideous to contemplate for the reasons JQ summarizes. But even if they get in, Labor will be hampered by their ongoing lack of ‘the Vision thing’ which I fear they will take a long time to rediscover if ever now.
Last? Hell no, I always give that spot to the CEC.
But without being an echo chamber, can anyone please point to a solid reason to vote for Abbott and his mob? There are a few conservatives who post here, that I’m sure can provide a rationale for supporting the LNP that doesn’t revolve around a tribal hatred of Labor, can’t they? I’m pretty middle-of-the-road, economically conservative, would consider voting for a rational conservative party, but I really don’t understand what the Libs have to offer that is so appealing to the electorate.
I realize I am repeating myself, but here I go again
TA brought in this ridiculous idea of Paid Parental leave scheme it seems Libs are going exactly the same way as Labor with wasting tax payers money (welfare should only be for those in need). Not that Im against support for families, its just the stupidly high amount that its going to be; absolutely crazy
please get TA to reverse it whereby he will regain some credibility
Also is this true about $2.5K to give someone who gets a job and stays in it for a year then gets more again when in it for 2 years. Thats just as stupid; they need that support before they get a job to assist in finding one (not when they are receiving good income anyway) ??
liberal policy is to pay Paid Parental Leave the amount is up to $150K per year. Beleaguered small business and tax payers in general should not be saddled with such onerous burdens. If a person (male or female as not being sexist here) is to receive up to $3K per week, then its basically not just middle class welfare its millionaire and billionaire class welfare for example, someone like Gail Kelly (CEO Westpac) could receive it (should be less than $300 per week !) frankly I think that would be a shocking state of affairs and grossly unsupportable by any degree of consideration. I cannot in all honesty vote Liberal when things like this are going to happen
@wilful
I don’t think they are voting for Tony Abbott in particular. If Abbott wins it will mostly be because the swinging voters think it’s time for a change and because Labor have been so effective at losing.
It’s going to be an interesting government, especially if it claims a right-wing mandate and starts catering to it’s loony base too much. Then again if it doesn’t cater to it’s loony base then we can expect a period of infighting to develop once the initial business of settling in is over. Abbott is a pragmatist but he isn’t particularly popular even in his own party so I don’t think he will be a three term leader like Howard.
Loads of people dont care or trust politics much, think greed is good , and ,think Labor cant balance books. As long as things arent stuffing up much they wont look into it any more than that. But Abbott will find his ‘back to Howard’ idea hard given its not raining gold bars anymore . Then ,if real hardship comes our way ,and tea party/neo-lib/conservative policy doesnt fix it ,there is 2 generations of generally apathetic voters that may start caring and turn on to a different message .By then another generation of mainly conservative oldies will be gone. Get ready to play the waiting game -you outlasted Howard you can do it again !
There is an idea out there that Abbott wont make many economic changes but his main agenda will be cultural change .
Surprised personally that there’s not a backlash from the self-funded retirees out there getting slugged $1.5B to (partially) fund a gold plated ppl scheme. I’m p*ssed on that for a start.
The biggest disaster of an Abbott government will be their trashing of the NBN. Fibre to the premises could have ushered in a new golden age for Aus. A tremendous cash cow that would boost gov coffers. The health benefits for an aging population alone would pay for it easily.
Rudd has had a west wing moment.
Running down a winner makes the loser look even worse.
The key to comebacks is knowing why you lost the last election.
The political mistakes are too numerous to mention. Most of the policy mistakes we won’t agree on. But one lesson the ALP really should learn from this election is that they will vote for you if they believe you are a fiscal conservative but they won’t if they don’t.
@TerjeP
The operative word here is “believe”. The term fiscal conservative is devoid of any meaning in relation to good economic management, mostly it means cutting services to the needy, delaying investment in the future so the savings can be channelled into upper-middle class welfare.
Tony Abbott put a price on the ‘wrecking ball’ effect of the carbon tax at the Liberal Party launch and in his debate with Kevin Rudd at Rooty Hill. He said every household will be $550 a year better off if the Coalition scraps the carbon tax. The ABC Fact Checker called him on it and said the impact would be $134 a year (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/abbott-using-outdated-figure-on-carbon-tax-cost/4912726)
Even the exaggerated figure undermines the ‘wrecking ball’ claim.
$550 a year = $1.51 a day per household or 58 cents a day per person (average household = 2.6 people, ABS).
On the fact-checked ABC figures the cost per household is 36 cents a day and the cost per person 14 cents a day.
Or. put it another way, 27.5% per cent of a digital subscription to The Australian. ($487.60 a year)
Its depressing. Its also depressing that Cameron won in the UK despite abysmal economic performance.
Good performance gets punished poor performance gets rewarded. I believe that’s called a moral hazard
Needless to say, I really hope that Labor opposition give Abbott the kind of treatment he gave them and that, in particular, they don’t roll over and let him repeal the CPRS.
On the upside, Tony will be making his daughters special ministers of state.
@Michael
Terje is not able to understand how is that operationaly posibble, especially this part
.
So he still believes in the need for some notion of fiscal responsibility that people are tied by and that same applies to orporations or states which is not true.
Terje, this is possible due to the nature of retirement scheme within social contract.
The social contract by all society to provide survival to all members of the society and maybe a decent living no matter in what condition they find themselves in.
Terje, what really matters is real value which is goods and services, money is only a way to distribute real value to all that needs it. Distribution of money is accounting method to distribute goods and services.
By paying taxes, productive members are forefeiting part of their earned real value for those that need it in order to survive. If those taxes are imedietly distributed as in national retierment scheme there is no leakage and productive capacity is kept on the level by redistributing demand for its services.
If those taxes are “saved” for later as in private retirement schemes, it delays demand for such services creating less of demand on productive capacities and economy underperforms.
Just as credit is pulling demand from future ability, saving for retirenment is equal to putting demand in the future from present. But the question is: will there be capacities developed enough to provide for demand that future retirees will need if capacities of today are underutilised.
By managing such delayed retirement scheme as in private retirement, managers are taking away part of what workers of the present gave away to present needs of old and invalid.
“Investment in future” as Michael writes is keeping up productive capacities at the level it is needed for future retires so that new generations (that will come and which will be producing what retired of their time i.e. us, will need,) are left with productive capacities we have build.
We will enjoy that much of retirement as much we are able to organize and establish new technologies and productive capacities that will our kids operate and provide for us.
Social contract is something like whole country as a familly structure. We build something that will give to kids to feed us when we can not or do not need to work anymore. That is “investment in our future”, no savings in money which nobody knows the value of in the future and it is not important.
Simple truth that you conservatives/libertarians do not consider and constantly corode Social Contract binds.
It seems that such description of retirement social contract should be part of every State Constitution so that people do not forget what is the reality. Maybe even among first sentences in a Constitution.
@Michael
In practice and for the sake or this discussion I think it means balancing the budget more often than not. And only introducing new taxes to pay for the removal of old taxes.
But what do you think the ALP should learn if they lose on Saturday?
@TerjeP
Great question. And something all of us on the left of politics need to think about. Of course, the voters don’t always get it right.
There seem to be three key processes going on in the world economy. Tony Abbott does not understand any of them so it is hard to see how he will manage the economy appropriately. The key processes are;
(1) The world economy is coming up against the hard limits to growth.
(2) Consumption and production continue to shift proportionally from the developed world to the developing world.
(3) Pro-cyclical economic policy (so-called “austerity”) is failing wherever it is tried.
If you combine the implications of 1 and 2 above you could conclude that developed world economic decline must accelerate to permit continued developing world growth. Another possibility is that developing world growth will stall too. Points 1 and 2 also indicate that Keynesian or MMT type stimulus (which I routinely advocate) could be difficult or impossible to effect if real resource shortages limit attempts to stimulate aggregate demand.
We are entering new territory. Just as generals are prone “to fight the last war” economists, pundits and self-appointed blog “experts” (like me) are prone to prescribe fixes related to the general conditions pertaining to the last crisis not for the general conditions (impending resource scarcity) pertaining to this crisis.
Even if you know what’s happening in broad terms it’s hard to know what to do or what can feasibly be done. Power (political, security and military power) will play as a large a role in what happens as will mere economics.
Mostly because they don’t always have good options.
@TerjeP
There is no such thing as a balanced budget. A “balanced” budget currently (meaning one that looked balanced when you framed it) would be a contractionary budget. As the economy contracted over the subsequent 12 months, tax receipts would go down, welfare spending would go up (more people on unemployment benefit) and at the end of the year your precious balanced budget would no longer be balanced but in deficit. These automatic effects (sans legislated changes to taxes and expenditure) are called the “automatic stabilisers”.
Thank heavens the automatic stabilisers exist. To some extent they save us from ourselves in this era of anti-deficit fetishism.
As always, simplistic ideological prescriptions (like the neo-conservative balanced budget fetish) fail the test of dealing with the real world which is complex, messy and fully interconnected with flow-on effects and feedbacks (everything affects everything else).
@TerjeP
If the ALP loses the election, it should learn:
1. Not to get trapped inside a bubble where some established set of opinions and attitudes are endlessly recycled and it’s extremely difficult for new information or analyses to be absorbed and, as a sub-branch of that, not to overweight your parliamentary representation and leadership with people from just a very limited set of backgrounds
2. Not to get too impressed by the past successes and/or present strategies of the other side and, as a sub-branch of that, not to get suckered into choosing to fight on ground that favours the other side
3. Not to appoint somebody as Treasurer who, if he made a speech saying that one plus one equals two, would sound as if he wasn’t fully convinced of it himself
@Catching Up
Some time ago I wrote on this blog that the exaggerated slagging off of Julia Gillard and the government on this blog and other supposedly left wing sites, was unfair, sexist and likely to contribute to the rise of Tony Abbott.
Before people start saying ‘but we had to get Rudd back/ save the furniture’ etc, I would like to suggest again that what all those voices did was contribute to a false impression of incompetence (building on a deep rooted sexism in the Australian population that suspects women aren’t really competent anyway) that underlies all the points made by ProfQ above.
If only there could have been balance : yes it’s a generally competent government, but they have made some mistakes and taken some morally wrong positions. But no, it had to be incompetent, deceitful, nightmare etc etc.
Why, why, why indeed.
Also as I’ve pointed out on the war and pacifism thread, there don’t seem to be many women commenting on this blog. As others have said, you can’t always tell from user names, but that’s what it looks like. Maybe it’s worth looking into? I know I’ve been a reluctant to comment here since then, after being told I was a concern troll and general idiot (not by PQ I have to say).
@Val
If I had to guess (although it would be no more than a guess), I would guess that the majority of commenters on this blog are male.
If that is so, I don’t know why it’s so, and am unable to suggest what might be done about it.
@TerjeP
They should learn that pandering to hot-button issues and playing to the media make you look like a bunch of spineless creeps. The LNP already has a lock on the kind of morons that this kind of politics appeals to. I certainly don’t applaud everything the Rudd/Gillard government have done but they were responsible for the only sizeable investment in state school education in living memory with the wonderful school halls that have transformed some desperately under-resourced state schools – an achievement that was opposed and denigrated by the Murdoch press. Putting any price on carbon is also noteworthy. I don’t look forward to anything positive from an Abbott government.
There’s been a brain drain in oz-federal politics since 2005 on both sides – that’s the saddest thing in my opinion.
@Val
When you take the pre-determined position that even any valid and well-supported criticism of a female (in a political or leadership role) is still and always sexism and sexism only then you lose all credibilty and alienate people very fast. Feel free to take that position but you will never get any traction.
The Julia Gillard episode was a big mistake for Labor. Julia Gillard (like many or even most of her male colleagues and opponents in this country ) suffered from these serious political defects;
(1) Disloyalty.
(2) Opportunism.
(3) No understanding of Political Economy.
Apparently, you think it is OK for a deputy leader of the Labor Party to conspire with Mining Magnates and various corrupt, male, right wing union officials to dump a popular Prime Minister, cave in on taxing plutocratic interests properly and betray the working class. Perhaps you think that is OK. I don’t.
None of this is to indicate I think Rudd if OK. I don’t. He is a huge disappointment and it would take an essay to enumerate everything. At the same time, the parliamentary Labor Party failed badly. They had a popular PM, Rudd, who had lots of back-room faults (including being a nasty bully) and they failed to pull him into line; to stand up to him, pull him into line, get him on track and keep him and the ship steady. It was a collective failure. Backing a class traitor, disloyal opportunist and shallow political and economic thinker like Gillard was a stupid act and it destroyed this Labor cycle. That is what has handed Abbott such an apparent dream run to power this time round.
-This is pretty much the death of a progressive left, at least for a long, long time.
-Shorten has gotten rid of Rudd and Gillard, and now has just his union mates standing with him.
-Greens are a shambles under Milne.
-vote 1 – SOL (senator on line), put representative democracy last on your ballot
Its interesting that the Liberal failure to produce costings/cuts seems irrelivent to the electorate .The Aust people know Abbott has a chainsaw under the desk . The narritive was established long ago -Labors(let alone the Greens) caring attitude is economically unrealistic and tough love is the only way. Labor havent managed to shift this perception.
Is it fair to say Howard only made one big economic reform in 11 years -the GST ? and that once Abbott undoes the carbon and mining taxes he wont have any either .He wont try workchoices and has agreed to gonski and ndis .Then things will be pretty much as conservatives like them anyway .He will just try to balance the budget with cuts. Howards big success was in changing our culture and Abbott will persue the culture wars as a way of setting up future Conservative electoral success .
I know it seems pointless to raise His name again but i agree with share holder activist Stephen Maine that if Rupe was campaigning against the Coalition Labor would win.
@Ikonoclast
You are the absolute perfect triple AAA example of what I’m talking about. In your unbalanced criticism of Julia Gillard you are effectively bagging and undermining the whole labor government, but you can’t see it because of your irrational desire to see Gillard a certain way. I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again – I know her, I’ve worked with her, she is not like that. I know she is human and I certainly think she has made some serious mistakes, but she is not the evil creature of your imagination. FFS get it through your head!
If other people on this site can’t see the problem here, then I give up.
@Val
Val – I think what you say did happen in the wider community -without doubt (history will sum up her time thus) ,but I would hesitate to say that there was much of that on this blog . Also I feel her being unmarried ,childfree and athiest didnt help (maybe just as much for each one). Does it provide some consolitation that, as you say ,it is hard to tell if people here are male or female from their username and comments ? For example at first I thought Iko was probably female (until one day he provided a detailed physical description !). For the record- I have a doodle, and I did 5 or 6 womens studies subjects at uni (does that excuse my doodle a bit?).
I can see what you mean Val
Abbott has spoken about a “trust deficit” and their campaign “real solutions” pamphlet says that they will restore a “strong, stable and accountable government”.
The LNP has said nothing, in their pamphlet or anywhere else, on what policy measures they will introduce to improve trust and accountability in government. Given the Howard government record on transparency and accountability you shouldn’t be surprised if more secrecy returns and accountability goes backward. This is going to be a “no excuses, no surprises” government after all.
@Val
It’s you Val that can’t see the problem. You know, have worked with and like JG. Clearly, your judgement is biased by personal feelings. Of course she is human. Every human is human. It’s axiomatic. And if you are speaking metaphorically rather than literally then you mean she is humane, concerned, sympathetic, empathetic and so on on. This will indeed be true to a greater or lesser extent of all people in the broadly normal personality range. Only psyhcopaths and the like are totally cold. However, her understanding of political economy is poor or at least her applied understanding of it is poor.
It was also clear from a watching a particular ABC documentary on JG (I forget the title) which allowed JQ to reveal herself over time by her own utterences that she was a complete opportunist politically who would utter whatever at the time she thought would garner her advancement in politics. It was clear the she stood for nothing concrete or lasting in terms of her ideological or political economy positioning. Now, I have emphasised in my posts that many (actually most) male politicians today are exactly the same as this, unfortunately. I am not particualrly singling JG out on this score. It seems to be the spirit of our times and it is related to issues like late stage capitalism, the dominance of corporatism over democratism, the emergence of managerialism and the general submerging of all other values under the values of capital and the money nexus.
However, to cut to the chase. It is clear that you regard me as a AAA sexist simply because I have the independence of mind and grasp of political economy analysis to not share your glowing assessment of JG as a great and good politician. You seem to skate over other class issues (working class, plutocratic class etc.) to pursue an exclusivist agenda that sex is the only class distinction that matters. Your position is untenable nonsense.
@sunshine
Look I don’t have anything against men as individuals – it’s misogyny and sexism that I hate.
I don’t think this is true, however it is true that Milne has less public appeal outside the Greens’ base than Brown did. The rise in economic insecurity since 2008 (real or perceived), and the breakdown of political consensus on climate change policy since 2010, have also reduced public interest in environmental matters, which are the Greens’ core issues.
Tim, yeah, I guess it is meant as – Milne not as popular and connected in a representative democracy context than Brown. I actually prefer Milne to Brown, and am a long time greens voter.
@Ikonoclast
The invisible woman you are arguing with thinks –
Julia Gillard is a “great and good politician”
“sex is the only class distinction that matters”
I hope you find her sometime, because she isn’t me. Bye
@Sean
thanks Sean
@Val
Val you have my full support in your questioning .We must remain ever vigilant .If it were up to me they would have stuck with Julia even if the electoral result may have been worse that way.
@J-D
I have a comment in moderation – because I swore in it – which said
If John Quiggin as administrator did something about the misogyny on this site it might help [without the swearing].
Good thing it was moderated really because although I think it’s right, it might sound as if I’m angry with you, which I’m not.
@sunshine
Yeah it’s a hard call I think. The problem was that by the time the change back to Rudd was made, the Gillard government had been so undermined that they might have had no chance.
The trouble is that supposedly left wing people (eg sites like this) instead of seeing what was happening – that the LNP/Murdoch forces were using sexism to undermine JG and the government as a whole – and resisting it, bought into it, thereby helping to guarantee its success as a strategy.
Sad, sad. Anyway I’d better go now. thanks
@J-D
JD – If that is so it might be simply a reflection of the economics profession in general. This is a site with a fairly serious economic bent.
@Val
Misogyny is a question everyone should continually address ,but I think if it is here or in the Left in general then it is to a much lesser degree than just about anywhere else .One of the stylistic differences between Left and Right is Left likes to remain open to question -to embrace doubt – to remain ever vigilent .Its a great strength ,it enables change, progress and helps prevent perpetuating injustice ,but its also a practical debating problem when confronting a Right without that inclination.
I think people here know what was happening to Julia and I dont think they bought into it. I think generally that the worst that could be said would be that they just thought that in the short time before the election there was nothing that could be done about it . Maybe that is buying into it in order to save the Senate .
I’d like to call a halt to this side discussion now. Either Gillard or Rudd would be much preferable to Abbott. I hoped switching back to Rudd would work, but it hasn’t.
Val, I share your concerns about the male-dominated nature of the discussion (though this site is not unusual in that respect). Once the election is over, that’s an item on the agenda we will have to consider in rebuilding. Remind me if you don’t see a post sometime soonish.
To be clear, I’m not closing comments, just closing off Rudd v Gillard and misogyny as topics for this thread.
Re the distraction of Gillard and her sexism, she said it best herself. It wasn’t everything, but it wasn’t nothing. I didn’t hate Gillard and don’t hate Rudd, they’re both flawed characters with a list of achievements and failures. But I massively prefer Rudd as PM simply because the electorate had completely tuned out to what she was saying. Her position had become completely untenable. Yes Rudd has “saved the furniture” and we won’t have a conservative Senate (I hope), and that can almost entirely be pinned to the return of Rudd. So hooray for that.
As to the issue of misogyny on this site, well there’s a LOT in the eye of the beholder, just like with race debates. As a white male with a university degree, I know that I’m speaking from a position of privilege and can’t necessarily see what others can, but if this blog is considered a hostile man-space, then I wonder what your experience is on the web generally.
Sorry Prof, I didn’t see the note before I posted.