Politics in 2004

[killarava2day]

Most of the Howard governments economic "strengths" were a result of the hawke/keating reforms, indeed their only genuine independent policy was the GST. All they did was tinker with existing policies to appear credible, at least if the ALP had remained at the wheel we wouldn't be now facing a ballooning trade defecit, hidden by a trumped up and illusiory budget surplus.

Sure interest rates are lower (a worldwide trend, just as the high rates during the eighties were) but the are still quite high, comparative to the rest of the world. Anway, what good are low interest rates when home ownership is being pushed out of reach for millions of Australian's by an army of speculative investors, who have been falling over themselves to get their snouts in the trough ever since Howard and his cronies opened the sluice-gates by reducing capital gains tax, effectively halving the rate paid on profits from trading in shares and real estate.

Hence, the reserve has to sustain high real interest rates and the record high currency exchange, as we have experienced over the last few years, with the $AU fallingll to about $0.50, putting pressure on export trade and contributing to the ever widening trade defecit.

All the while wages are being taxed at an excessively high 49.5% and household debt is spinning out of control with Australian's borrowing $1.50 for ever dollar earned, creating the illusion of economic strength as consumers spend themselves silly with all those hard-earned loans.

Rewarding speculative spending for short-term gain, while maintaining pumitive restrictions on wages, isn't good economic policy. If it were we would all be gamblers rather than wage-earners, but we all know that gambling is too risky in the long run. It is a short sighted, slash-and-burn method of economics, which we will all be paing the price for down the track.

Oh, and just for the record. There is no evidence the ALP would be any less inclined towards undermining our economic stability for the benefit of that section of society which holds the vast majority of capital. Whether be Liberal or Labor, the all still represent the interests of the oligarchial elite and no ballot will ever change that.

One state, one party, different shades of shit. UBER ALLES AUSTRALIS!

 

[killarava2day]

2 funny things I notice around election time:

1) howard goventment spends little to no money, then blasts out with 6 billion worth of reform just before the election.

Honestly john, the people of australia aren't stupid enough to fall for your bribes. If you actually gave even 1/2 a damn about everthing you've spent money on, why weren't you spending money on it beforehand?

2) to the coalition/liberal voters.

Do you trust your lying people in power to actually keep their election promises? What did george say, fool me once, shame, shame on you, fool me twice, i can't get fooled again.

sorry john, the people of australia aren't fooled. Your time in office is over...

Hmmm...

Just a little historic perspective, history does not favour Latham at all. Let's have a little quiz... Who can tell me, how many times has Australia changed government's since 1950?

 

[Naughtiest_Maximus]

I'll take a quick stab at 4. Though i don't really know off the top of my head.
*Submits then researches*

 

[killarava2day]

Hot dawg! We have a weiner!

The federal electorate isn't what you would call reactionary, Australian's seem to like the status-quo, regardless how moribund or stagnant it might be.

 

[Naughtiest_Maximus]

^^^ Hehe thanks, though i have to admit i was just young enough to remember Whitlam being sacked so i should have had at least a fair idea.

 

[Void]

There was a fisheries industry in Canada that didnt move towards sustainable management, and now that the population of fish has collapsed the entire industry is on the dole. If you spend your career working on a non-sustainable industry that goes under you dont have much options left. Consider how much Australia has invested in non-sustainable industries related to natural product. Not just wood and fish but also tourism in regards to the great barrier reef which is under threat and other such natural havens which are popular tourist destinations. Yet theres been little actions by howard to protect such things which are vital to our economic success and global warming does play a huge part in all this.

Further, howards has sold out australian industries. About 2-5 years ago our movie industry was taking off, with the possibility of it one day going up against Hollywood. Not anymore. Same thing with organics, we were one of the few regions to have no genetic engeneered food, something which later on would been a great boon as people prefer organics. Especially as enginnered food has been linked with mutations in newborn cattle (foreign correspondant report), and other such horror stories are emerging. Again, sold us out on that one too by opening the flood gates to american bio-engineering companies without even bothering to introduce the proper labels so we know what we are eating. We can no longer go by the label of being a bio-free region, something which would have brought in big bucks later on.

There is little doubt why he has such a profitable relationship with the US, seeing as he has backed them on every single issue regardless of what it was or what outcome it would generate for australia. He has allowed our growing industries, that could one day compete against the US counterparts, to be undercut and destroyed. Look at the free trade agreement and the areas we will be undercut. And if you care to remember our farm lobby here in australia took some major hits due to the US Farm bills, something which howard didnt even bother to help them out with. Howards has a long history of copouts in regards to backing up australia's homegrown industries. How do you think all this will effect interest rates and economic growth over the next 25 years?

 

[killarava2day]

We are a client state, simple, the last govenment to oppose the US on anything substantial was Whitlam's, just look what happened to him.

 

[killarava2day]

Lies, damned lies, and those interest rates
September 28, 2004
Page Tools

* Email to a friend
* Printer format
*
*

Howard does not believe what he's telling us about interest rates. Here are the reasons, writes Tim Colebatch.

John Howard has been able to define the economic policy debate in this campaign as being about who can keep interest rates lowest. It should be about much more, and it should be much more honest.

Politicians define themselves by the stories they tell us. In 2001, Howard defined himself as the man who kept Australia free of Muslim asylum seekers. This time he is defining himself as the man standing between Australia and rising interest rates.

On his lectern at Sunday's campaign launch was a banner with just four words: "Keeping interest rates low."

"My friends," he concluded, "Australian families want security and the greatest security that we can give them is the assurance that their interest rates will be kept as low as possible. Nothing is more certain than if economic policy is allowed to slip into the hands of (Labor) . . . there will be massive upward pressure on interest rates."

Mark Latham is not really campaigning on economic policy. Labor is appealing to those aggrieved by the Howard Government on the full range of issues. It has no defining issue, no central story to tell the voters.

So interest rates have taken over as the economic issue, on the basis of a lie. On other issues such as Iraq, the PM probably believed what he was telling us: not this time. He knows far too much about interest rates to believe what he hopes we will believe.

First, he knows that interest rates are one lever of economic policy that is not controlled by the government. Under Labor or the Coalition, it is run by an independent Reserve Bank.

Second, he knows that movements in interest rates are determined primarily by the inflation outlook and the demand for money, both here and overseas. That, too, is beyond the control of government.

Third, he knows that in a global economy with free capital movements, even a spending spree of the size he himself is turning on is unlikely to have any consequences for interest rates. So how could Labor, with a far more disciplined policy, send rates haywire?

Consider the numbers. Last year's surplus was $8 billion. Next year, after Sunday's policy speech, Peter Costello tells us it is projected to be $2.7 billion.

If so, that's a $5 billion stimulus to the economy - not needed when consumer sentiment is at a 10-year high, but quite marginal when households last year went another $108 billion into debt, and the country as a whole another $36 billion.

Reserve Bank governor Ian Macfarlane declared in June that budget policy would affect interest rates only if it made the bank's growth forecast "excessive". He pointed out that it had not done so between 2000 and 2002 when the Government turned a $13 billion surplus into a $1 billion deficit. In an open economy, the link between the two arms of policy is tenuous.

Fourth, Howard knows that as treasurer he presided over interest rates higher than we saw under the Keating government.

In Howard's last year as treasurer, mortgage rates were 13.5 per cent, small business rates 14.5 per cent, overdrafts 15.8 per cent, and big business rates 17.5 per cent.

Fifth, he knows that policy mistakes can contribute to higher interest rates. And the one plausible basis for his scare campaign is that Labor would restore the Industrial Relations Commission's powers to arbitrate disputes in some circumstances, hence increasing union power. Suppose the worst. Suppose the commission - largely Howard's appointees - ignored the need for wage restraint and handed out pay rises that employers could not afford. If the Reserve thought employers would play along and push up prices, then it would raise interest rates. Or if it thought employers would react against it by shifting jobs overseas, then it might cut rates.

But to accept that, you have to assume incompetence by the commission, employers and unions. That is a big call, and no reasons have been advanced.

Sixth, the PM knows that inflationary pressures are building up now, making more interest rate rises inevitable, whoever wins.

Inflation is no problem for consumers, for whom cheap Chinese goods are replacing Australian-made products. It is a problem for Australian producers. In the year to June, the index for our spending rose only 2 per cent, but for production, prices rose 4.5 per cent.

That is no fluke. Since 2001, the price of non-tradable goods and services has increased by 4 per cent a year. This ought to be worrying the Reserve, because it makes Australia steadily less competitive. The economy has been run too hot for too long. The Reserve must turn down the heat.

Since 2001, interest rates have consistently been about half a percentage point too low. The result? A borrowing boom that has sent housing prices out of reach of the young, household debt growing at an alarming rate, and inflation re-emerging as a problem.

The low interest rates lie ignores reality. We need a balance: not the lowest possible interest rates, but low-ish rates that are compatible with broader economic goals and do not borrow from our future.

 

[doofhard]

I just voted because I will be out of the country when it on.

I have a question, does anyone bother to do all below the line or just 1 from above the line.

GO GREENS!!!

 

[ozbreaker]

I do! My only pleasure from voting these days is who i put LAST!!!

 

[lostpunk5545]

"If Australians decide to give Mr Howard a fourth term in office they'll know pretty much what they're getting," the newspaper said.

There you go we can't lose if we don't vote liberal.

If we vote liberal we know Howard is going to fuck us.

If we vote Labour Latham might fuck us.

Personally I'm not scared of change. It makes life less boring.

 

[killarava2day]

I have no faith in Latham, I just wanna see that demon spawn rat fucker Howard lose... Call it spite, if you wil;l!

 

[lostpunk5545]

^ I'm pretty much the same. I can't really stand the thought of Latham running the country but...

It is more standable than the thought of Howard running the country.

And to finish here is some propaganda from propagandhi:

"The State Lottery

Does it seem strange to you? The confetti. The balloons. The mile-wide grins and the victory dance to welcome in the heir to a state of (utter and complete) disrepair? Because it sure seems strange to me: they're acting like they won the fucking lottery! I mean, shouldn't they feel terror at the task that lies ahead: to feed and house the people that this system's left for dead. And could I have hit the nail much harder on the head? It's profits before lives. They are motivated by greed. First they taught us to depend on their nation-states to mend our tired minds, our broken bones, our bleeding limbs.
But now they've sold off all the splints and contracted out the tourniquets and if we jump through hoops then we might just survive. Is this what we deserve? To scrub the palace floors? To fight amongst ourselves? As we scramble for the crumbs they spit out, frothing at the mouth about the scapegoats that they've chosen for us. With every racist pointed finger I can hear the goose-steps getting closer. They no longer represent us so is it not our obligation to confront this tyranny? "

 

[nickthecheese]

end the lies anti-howard rally
http://www.endthelies.net/

Three years after the truth was thrown overboard at the last federal
election, now is the time to say end the lies and to start a new path
to a better country and a more peaceful world.

People will gather in every capital city and many regional centres the
week before the election. On Sunday October 3 join hundreds of
thousands of other Australians in seeking to end the lies.

To add you your name to thousands of
others calling for an end to the lies
Click here to add your voice to endthelies

endthelies rallies

Melbourne 1.30pm State Library, City

Sydney 1pm Town Hall Square, City
(train for Sydney leaves Wollongong at 10.44am)
(Inner west: meet at 11am at Summer Hill park and join the "Justice Train" to Town Hall)

Canberra Noon, Garema Place, Civic

Adelaide 1pm, Victoria Square

Darwin 5.30 pm (October 1) Raintree Park

Hobart Noon (October 2) Domain Regatta Grounds

Brisbane 1pm, Roma St Forum

Perth 1pm Perth Cultural Centre Amphitheatre, (opp. Alexander Library, James St)

Lismore 10am (October 2) Magellan St Lismore (outside ACE building)

Newcastle 2pm (October 2) Wheeler Place, City (march to Pacific Park)

Armidale 2pm Central Park (+ picnic)

Click here to view organisation endorsing endthelies

Special Brisbane rally
At Liberal Party election campaign launch in Brisbane!
Sunday 26 September, 11 am, Roma Street Forum, City

 

[silvia saint]

anybody watch Tony Abbott on Lateline last night get grilled over his meeting with Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell ? if not you can watch the segment here lateline

the topic comes up towards the end of the interview. Abbott was so pissed off. i loved it. even more proof that if Howard wins the election, shortly afterwards we'll all be watching the Abbott & Costello (pun intended) conservative christian show. i can definitely see another free to air tv channel emerging, showing nothing but This Is Your Day with Benny Hinn and the occasional "life is better with jesus" adverts 24/7. lord hallelujah.

www.news.com.au
Abbott met with Cardinal Pell
September 30, 2004

A SENIOR Catholic clergyman who has been highly critical of Labor's education policy met with Liberal frontbencher Tony Abbott only days before making his statement.

Mr Abbott tonight said he had met with Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, during the election campaign.

Cardinal Pell and three other senior clergymen this week issued a statement saying Labor's policy of redirecting $520 million in funding from Australia's richest private schools to poorer non-government schools was potentially divisive.

He said the funding proposal was regrettable and lacked clarity.

Interviewed on ABC TV's Lateline program tonight, Mr Abbott initially said he did not recall any meeting with Cardinal Pell, but moments later confirmed he had.

"Actually now that you mentioned it I did meet with Cardinal Pell," Mr Abbott said.

"So what? Why shouldn't I meet with Cardinal Pell?

"Cardinal Pell is a fine man. He made a very good statement the other day about the Labor Party's education policy."

Mr Abbott denied he discussed private schools with Cardinal Pell or influenced him to put out his statement.

"That is a bizarre suggestion," Mr Abbott said.

Mr Abbott said the meeting was personal.

"I may well have been going to confession to Cardinal Pell," he said.

"I may well have been seeking pastoral counselling from Cardinal Pell.

"What is so sinister about that?

"Cardinal Pell is one of the greatest churchmen Australia has seen.

"I am a very imperfect Catholic. Why shouldn't I go and seek counsel?"

AAP

 

[killarava2day]

Desperate Howard misses the reform train
September 30, 2004

In his frantic bid for re-election, the PM has forgotten the need for tax reform, writes Gregory Hywood.

The Howard Government could have reduced the top marginal tax rate for all Australians to 30 per cent with the money it has splurged during this election season.

This would have aligned the income and company tax rates and delivered the most comprehensive tax reform in the nation's history.

It would have delivered the definitive second stage of the economic reform ushered in by the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s - the basis of the prosperity Australia is now enjoying.

The coalition could also, with some relatively minor restructuring and simplification of the tax code, have reduced tax for middle and low-income earners.

But the Government has ignored this historic opportunity. Instead, as we read day-in and day-out in this profligate election contest, the Prime Minister is frittering away the benefits of reform.

The sums are pretty simple. The Government is spending an extra $9.5 billion this year on election sweeteners moving up to $12.8 billion in 2007-08.

According to some back-of-the-envelope calculations consistent with work Canberra-based Access Economics did last year, a 30 per cent top marginal rate would cost $10.5 billion in the first year and $13 billion by 2007-08.

Sadly, any commitment to such reform seems long gone for this Government.

Treasurer Peter Costello is almost certainly deeply frustrated at having his hands tied on sweeping tax innovation.

But he is outranked by a Prime Minister whose sole focus is on winning - and, like Tampa in 2001 - at any cost.

The obvious danger is that the spending binge looks just a tad desperate. Already, a range of respected economists are warning the spending is too high. They say it is based on the tenuous assumption of permanent high-growth rates. Moreover, too little is being invested for the future.

more

 

[Taliana]

Oh bum i forgot about the rally, i totally would of gone. doh

 

[Pleonastic]

Dunno if this has been mentioned already because I haven't been following this thread too closely (I tried to catch up on it all then but there's a ton of stuff in here!).

I urge everyone to please not be lazy and vote above the line in the senate - take your time and fill out every box below the line. Or at the very least if you are going to go above the line then find out where the preferances will go and make sure you actually agree with them.

http://www.aec.gov.au/election2004/candidates/index.htm

The above link will lead you to the group voting tickets for your state or territory. Check who will be getting your votes - don't just assume your preferances will go where you want. For example, in Victoria the Labor Party has a candidate from the Family First Party preferenced 8th. In my opinion some (actually most) of their policies are insane, and if I was to vote Labor in the senate then I'd want Family First preferanced close to last (or at the very least to have the Greens and Democrats before them).

Even if you don't want to consider all of the candidates individually, check out the group ticket and then copy it out onto your ballot paper - but make changes to the parts you don't agree to.

 

[Taliana]

My local greens member of parliament is a Sound Engineer. haha. Thats so cool.

 

[Macksta]

To say this brings tears to my eyes, but I don't think Labor has done enough to win this election.

The Coalition scare campaign on Labors economic credentials has not been effectively countered and I think there is a perception that Latham is still too inexperienced to lead the country. Polling also shows that the Liberal marginals in NSW and QLD are not swinging towards Labor and without these they won't win.

Labor might possibly get over the line with a strong shove from the Greens, but I think most new Greens support has come from disaffected Labor and Democrats supporters anyway so there will be little net gain there.

3 years time is another story, but for the moment I think Howard is going to be back in office (at least until he hands over to Costello).

If we're stuck with the Coalition for another term I at least hope that Kerry can overcome Bush in the US elections. If not I'm packing up and moving to Chad!

There's an interesting saying that drips with blinkered irony...

"The main flaw with democracy is that stupid people get to vote"

(stupid implicitly meaning all those people whos opinions disagree with yours)

Yet in an election campaign littered with lies, from a Government that has made lying a hallmark of it's last term in office, I think it is a saying that is sadly true