If Abbott gets the RBA just to create our inflation money, this will save us $30 billion pa + interest in taxes. If we don't address the issue of monetary sovereignty, we will become even more enslaved via debt.

"Many of the media organisations concentrated on policies and facts this election"
Particularly the murdoch press eh Graham?
with the bar set exceptionally high for ludicrous posturings in this election, that has pretensions to first place.

Selfies undid the ALP, whether they were Rudd's photos or the party's two-term obsession with itself. This cost them government and some good future parliamentarians, Greg Combet chief amongst them.
Some interesting times coming up for Abbott. What will he do with Malcolm? How will he accept having his over-generous and unrealistic maternity leave scheme amended? How will he re-package the carbon tax and the mining tax? What to do about industrial relations?
I'm glad he got in. I wish him well.

It is clear that Labor lost the election rather than the Liberals having won it.

To claim Tony is a deep thinker brings a whole new dimension to the meaning of the words 'Deep Thinker'. Is a deep thinker a suppository of all knowledge? Is he the kind of person who talks about 'Baddies fighting Baddies'? Is he the kind of person who thinks up and promotes ideas like buying up all the second-hand Indonesian fishing boats?

Troubled times are ahead but the press won't report them or they will gild them, anything to keep the Party of Big Business at the helm!

Poor fella', my country.

GY
Your Liberal roots are showing "Labor has been traducing Abbott for decades using phrases like the "mad monk". The politics of smear is ingrained in Labor psychology,..."

Have you forgotten "Juliar", "Bob's Bitch" and much worse, and RW shock-jocks line Jones and Hadley. Have you ever visited any of the far right extremist blogs like Pickering. I don't think there is much worse expecially from Labor.

The politics of smear is not limited to one side of politics, to suggest it is so is another indication of the weird 'team sport' politics has become in this country. The idea that 'our side' must win and the other side must be mocked rather than citizens actually looking at government as their representative and what plans they have for the country.

I am not altogether unhappy with Abbott's win although at the final hour did preference ALP above Libs down low on the both tickets but before the nutter parties.

Why I did not preference Libs:
1. PPL - too generous and a form of vote buying, middle class welfare. Ironically by contrast aged care workers are not to get their long deserved and needed pay rises.

2. Indonesian boat smugglers buy back scheme - I think there is no need to explain the fact Australian taxpayers will be funding a booming boat industry to the North.

3. Paying long term unemployed a bonus for being unemployed for over a year. Enough said.

However, Labor did not deserve to win. It was a better of two evils choice.

In terms of the 13 Coalition victories since the war there has only been one occasion when they have won with less than the primary vote than Abbott managed to scrape from the electorate. To be calling it “one of the greatest victories in Australian politics” is a touch hollow but heck, to the victors go the bragging rights.

And one does get the image of Graham rolling around amongst hundreds of mantras that he keeps gleefully tossing into the air.

Yet the article is rather high on rhetoric that doesn't match the facts. For instance Wayne Swann was, inconveniently for some, indeed voted as the best treasurer by Euromoney.

“World Bank president Robert Zoellick, who said it was a "significant and deserved honour".
"This is the second time in the history of the awards that Euromoney's finance minister of the year has gone to an Australian treasurer, a demonstration that Australia has benefited from the continuity of effective, influential treasurers," Mr Zoellick said.”

To say that “The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government was one of the worst that Australia has seen. It was economically and managerially incompetent, dishonest, philosophically lightweight, and out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of the bulk of the populace.” just does not stand up.

However I do share Graham's hopes for an Abbott government, my personal dislike of the man aside. In fact if his hand were to be ever offered to me I could not in good conscience take it after the 'Dying of shame' references he directed at Julia Gillard, 'undergraduate' sniping at its most base level.

But perhaps his government will “stay humble, disciplined and hooked-in to the public” and be able to nurture a country “full of citizens who are creative and take responsibility for themselves and care for others”.

One can only hope.

I cannot agree that the party that implemented the NDIS is "philosophically lightweight". All I remember are those Howard years when the plight of the disabled was not on the agenda, let alone a priority. Let us hope that those once deaf ears are now listening and that the promises around DisabilityCare will be fulfilled by this new government.

Hi Cameron,

Not sure where you get your figures from, but looking at election results going back to 1996 the coalition has won 5 times, and Abbott's first preference result at the moment is the second highest, and only .02% short of the 2004 result,which is the highest. Further counting could change that.

It is unequivocally a very good result.

As for Swan winning that award, he won it because of his predecessors and despite himself. Unless you can tell me what policy change it was that he made that improved the efficiency of the Australian economy he can't lay claim to it.

Pelican, you can only point to a few fringe players on the right who have abused Labor, whereas the abuse of the Liberals by Labor has been from the mainstream - from the PM down, and including a slew of media commentators who are also high-ranking ALP operatives, like Bob Ellis, or Catherine Deveny.

It was a clear Labor strategy and it blew up in their face.

the reality is that Abbott won the last election. Two independants decided to put their hatred and self interest in front of their electorates. Pity we were not able to see the smirks wiped off their face in Saturday night. I suppose it was bad enough seeing Rudd still claming some sort of victory after Labours worst result for decades. The Government was illegimate and incompetent and Rudd just added to that with more flips than the pancake parlour.Hopefully we now have a Government of some substance where instead of aboriginal politics something is actually done, instead of wasteful spending some restraint will be shown, instead of 'gay'marriage we will stick to normal marriage, instead of backflips we will have real policy and scrap the idiotic carbon tax. Finally hopefully we have some grown ups instead of the incestous Labour party who still just don't get it.

Thanks Graham, your views are interesting; who could you have voted for? Guess we'll never know. As a person who wanted neither Abbott nor Rudd as our 'dear leader', I'm now emerging from the past depressing weeks and feeling more like "2016 or double dissolution, bring it on"!
I'm most interested in your comment "He [Abbott] has a moral base that doesn't appear to have changed in at least 30 years". Morality remained the big, unspoken issue throughout the campaigns of the ALP and the LNP Coalition.This must change!
Having been Minister for Health in the Howard Government, prior to our having Ministers for Mental Health, our Prime Minister-elect has, one assumes, intimate knowledge of our most vulnerable and neglected persons, the some 650,000 severely mentally ill, suffering schizophrenia, bipolar and severe affective disorders. Their life expectancy is now 55 years. The MHCA stated,(2009), fewer than 40% receive ANY specialised care necessary for survival. A 30 year lower life expectancy than I/you expect results from greater numbers of natural deaths (from antipsychotic medication causing cardiac congestion) and suicide rates are increasing every year...now more than double road deaths.
These people...and trachoma/blindness among remote indigenous communities...demand your ethics, morals, Christian beliefs come first in moral legislation. Don't enable professional women who bear a child to be able to' maintain their lifestyle' with the $75,000 you intend to give them; they will survive well without it. Increase taxes proportionately so that we all pay enough to improve all serious health/hospital shortcomings. We demand ethical leadership.

OLO is going to be very quiet for a while, as the right wingers and the religious extremists; now have no reason for their whinging.

As I have said in all the various surveys you have done Graham, I have no preference for either Labor or Liberal. Labor getting less favour from me because of their manifest stuff ups and knee jerk reactionism. The glaring example was insulation. Those who who know about the safety aspects of insulation were either not consulted or not listened to. The building industry and any person with a scany knowledge of physics would know that foil was wrong. What they did as political party generally was just appalling.

Nuff said about Labor. Now, the spectre is different. I am of the opinion we have the re-incarnation of Thatcherism in Australia waiting in the wings, ready to blossom

That is actually the worst piece of rot I have read in years Graham. Are you angling for a job as advisor to the party without a plan?

And can you please explain why the media are so obsessed with precisely one in every 210,000 of the world's population asking Australia for refugee protection?

This great article says a lot in a balanced manner. However, I think many Australians do not realise how close the nation came under the Labor/Green to destroying democracy as we know it. Labor/Greens were seriously intent on destroying free speech and the press etc. We are still overseen by dangerous people in government funded organisations or committees that espouse over the top political correctness. We also have left wing academics driving over zealous regulations on everything from A to Z - the notion of individual responsibility for managing our lives is just about dead in the water. Big religion (funded by the taxpayer) is still a major road block to a fairer secular society where one's religious beliefs are a very private matter.

Dear GrahamY,

From the AEC website I have the Liberal and National Party primary votes at 45% for this election.

I went to Wikipedia (possibly a mistake) for the historical House of Reps figures for the L+NP PV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia#Primary_votes.2C_two-party-preferred_votes.2C_and_seat_results_since_1937

These returned the following.

2004 – 46.7%, 2001 – 43%, 1998 – 39.5%, 1996 – 47.3%, 1980 – 46.3%,1977 – 48.1%, 1975 – 53.1%, 1969 – 43.3%, 1966 – 50%, 1963 – 46.0%, 1958 – 46.6%, 1955 – 47.6%, 1951 – 50.3%, 1949 – 50.3%

So indeed I was out. 2001, 1998 and 1969 were all less going by these figures at least. And there have been 15 not 13 Coalition victories including the latest. Happy to stand corrected if I am in further error. Still that leaves the current percentage at 11th out of 15 election victories for the LNP.

In that it was only after two terms in opposition I am happy wear a “very good result” but not “one of the greatest victories in Australian politics”.

Pliny, that is just tosh. There was no plan to destroy free speech but for the record we don't actually have free speech in Australia and we now know we have zero privacy thanks to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

Dear Graham,

This article is a brilliant idea. We need more socially minded people who are prepared to offer their services for the good of the community.

By providing this “chill out room” on OLO, the angry socialists have the opportunity to vent their spleens in a controlled environment. Hopefully this will enable them to move from anger at the beginning of the trauma cycle through the various phases of acceptance, reconciliation and so on, then back into normal society as functional members of the community.

It also occurs to me that this might also be a great source of renewable energy? If you can just find a device that could collect the unrestrained anguish, emotion, vilification, hypocrisy,dysfuncionality, gnashing of teeth, wailing and hatred coursing through this thread, we might be able to power a small town for months?

I note there are already concerned citizens trying to help them with the soothing balm of reality however, it just seems to make things worse for them.

If things don’t settle down after a week or so I recommend a couple of Aspirins for you and some men in white coats as backup for them.

You said first preference votes, not total Coalition first preferences. If you look at Liberal first preferences you will see they are as I said. First preferences are arguably not a good measure as they depend to some extent on what minor parties are around.

On the same basis I don't think that the Labor result was really all that bad as the Greens take up a lot of what used to be their territory, so their first preference vote is depressed as a result.

If you don't like using total number of seats won, which is what I did in the article, then I think you're probably best off using the two-party preferred result. In which case this election the coalition got 53.15%. In 1975 they got 55.7%, and in 1996 53.63%. So it is pretty close to Howard's best.

You can also compare it to Rudd who only got 52.7% in 2007 and Whitlam who got 52.7% as well.

I don't understand why people just won't give credit where it is due. Abbott got a very good result in historical terms.

The actual primary vote this year is

About 13% for others.
8.5% Greens
6% donkey
34% AlP.

You do the maths.

GY
I don't think either side of politics is innocent when it comes to mean spirited behaviour, although thankfully the worst of it is usually at the fringes as you say.

While I was not a supporter of the misogyny speech (albeit understood the anger) remember it was Tony Abbott who made a nasty reference to JG's father reflecting Alan Jones' 'shame' comment. It was a mean response and was beneath any politician given the former PM's sad personal circumstances.

We could probably go all day providing each other with examples to suit our side of politics but that is pointless. I was merely pointing out that this is not one-sided.

However, I do hope Mr Abbott keeps to his promise of governing for all and his claim to be worthy of the public trust. It already does not look hopeful when Scott Morrison is arguing for the right to keep boat arrival and turn-back statistics private away from public scrutiny. A bad first start but perhaps it is a glitch and will be reviewed. Not a good start to 'trust' politics though if they go ahead with secrecy around refugees.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/number-of-arrivals-may-be-a-secret-20130903-2t3cz.html

Interesting article. Intriguing range of opinions.

On the economy, however, some things are quantifiable.

As suggested here at OLO recently in several pieces, Australia’s economy was in precarious shape at the time of the change of government in 2007.

From 6th position in the world rankings in 1996 – behind the United Arab Emirates, Norway, Singapore, the USA and Japan – Australia had slipped back to 10th by the next change of administration in 2007.

It was then well behind Iceland, Singapore, China, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Taiwan and Hong Kong. (As were Japan and the USA which had also gone backwards.)

There seems no argument that Australia is now number one – on variables including income, growth rate, wealth, employment, government debt, inflation, taxation, economic freedom and credit ratings.

Discussion continues, however, as to what caused this rocketing to the top between 2008 and 2010. Was it trade with China, booming iron ore prices, or the best-designed Keynesian stimulus packages in the world in response to the GFC?

The latter is the firm opinion of economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman - whose Nobel Prizes are in exactly this area.

So far, it seems, no-one has succeeded in challenging their view.

But whatever the cause, the assertion in the article that “the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government was one of the worst that Australia has seen ... economically and managerially incompetent” does seem a touch overblown.

Can anyone suggest any economy at any time anywhere with better outcomes on those key variables than Australia on September 7, 2013?

Cheers,

AA

There seems no argument that Australia is now number one – on variables including income, growth rate, wealth, employment, government debt, inflation, taxation, economic freedom and credit ratings.
Alan Austin,
Really ? Well I'll be damned ! Does that then mean Australia is also first in being the brockest Nation with the most money owing ?
I don't know what circles you economists move around in but in my circle (worker) things aren't as rosy. I hear of many selling off their homes due to lack of money. Most now choose to rent rather than own due to the impossible taxes etc.

So let's get this right Alan. The economy was a basket case in 2007 because of John Howard, yet by 2013 it is the leading economy in the world because of Labor. But all Labor has done is spend $300 B more than we earned and has touched nothing else?

Exactly how is this supposed to work? And how do we keep warm when you have burnt all the furniture? Does the economy go back to being precarious? And whose fault then?

And if spending more than you earn is such a good idea, why were the USA, Japan, the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. hit so heavily by the GFC, and little old Australia, who had run a decade of surpluses wasn't?

It takes more than knowing the names of a few Nobel Prize winners to convince me. You can show me your Paul Krugman, but I'll raise you a Milton Friedman - ultimately appeals to authority lead nowhere.

Graham.
unemployment lowest in world. inflation comparable with rest of world. Interest rates at record lows. Govt debt at less than 10% GDP. Govt spending less than Howard govt as % of GDP.
Oh and there was this thing called the GFC. Remember that? Cause you do you were sniping from the sidelines all through it about debt. Then again 10 - 15% unemployment would have been acceptable to you i gather. Funny how those on the right can be so cavalier with other people's lives. Ah but look at the balance sheet. that's all that matters.
Every reputable economist in the country agrees that the handling of the GFC was exemplary.
But what would they know? they're not Milton Friedman.

Graham,

I'm not an economist, so I'm trying to understand.

How much furniture (government assets) did Mr Howard sell to achieve his surpluses?

I've heard the figure $72 billion dollars worth....

If the situation is so dire, why didn't Oz experience debilitating recession?

Why are interest rates and unemployment figures at reasonable levels?

Why is that seen as so bad?

Greetings again,

@Individual, re: “Does that mean Australia is also first in being the brockest Nation with the most money owing?”

Australia is among the least brockest, Indi.

Australia’s net borrowings are only 11.6% of GDP.

Of the 35 advanced economies on the IMF database, only five small, rich nations now have lower net debt to GDP — Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Sweden.

@Graham, re: “The economy was a basket case in 2007 because of John Howard …”

No. Still in the world’s top ten economies. But only just, and falling. Precarious is a better descriptor.

Re: “yet by 2013 it is the leading economy in the world because of Labor.”

Correct.

Re: “But all Labor has done is spend $300 B more than we earned and has touched nothing else?”

Not at all, Graham. The spending built urgently-needed infrastructure, provided jobs, and guaranteed sustained GDP growth – alone in the developed world.

Other accomplishments include lower taxes, lower interest rates, higher productivity, increased value of the Aussie dollar, less business red tape and better balance of trade.

Re: “And how do we keep warm when you have burnt all the furniture?”

There's no risk to Australia’s furniture.

Re: “And if spending more than you earn is such a good idea, why were the USA, Japan, the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. hit so heavily by the GFC, and little old Australia, who had run a decade of surpluses wasn't?”

Debt and surplus were completely irrelevant to how nations fared through the GFC. Made no difference whatsoever.

The IMF’s database shows nine countries were in net surplus in 2007 — apart from some oil-rich dictatorships and poor African states. These were Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Kazakhstan, Norway and Sweden.

If low debt was a cushion, we would expect all these nations to have survived particularly well through the GFC. They didn’t. All except Australia fared disastrously.

Re: “ultimately appeals to authority lead nowhere.”

Correct.

The authorities are a postscript to the hard data, simply to affirm that there's theoretical underpinning to the solid evidence.

Cheers,

Alan

Alan Austin and Marilyn
Thankyou for your educated rationality, a breathe of fresh air. As for the rest I won't waste my time by debating such a load of bollocks.
Den 71

DEN71, just a little friendly advice.

It is much more hygienic to use a toilet, or even the back of a tree trunk.

Peeing in each others pockets is totally unproductive.

Hi Poirot. Howard didn't sell any furniture to achieve his surpluses. He did sell government assets to pay down debt, but you'll also find he left us the Future Fund where he put the proceeds of some of these asset sales - it's current worth is $89B.

The issue isn't that the situation is dire at the moment, it's just heading in that direction. The sludge was building up in the system faster than ever before. Net government debt from $0 to $300B in just 6 years, and no sign that was going to change because deficits of tens of billions are locked in. The wages system changed to be more restrictive than before Bob Hawke. Productive sectors of the economy mugged with taxes to prop up unproductive sectors.

It's a lot harder to heal an economy than wound it. The longer Labor was in power the harder the healing was going to get.

Alan, your reductionist approach to economics doesn't help with analysis. For example your concentration on government debt ignores all the other things that worked for Australia - a floating currency that rapidly adjusted, more or less maintaining export prices in real terms; a flexible employment market which allowed people to move to part time while their employers were adjusting to the new reality, rather than being stood down; a lack of government interference in the economy, meaning that business adjusted quickly to the new conditions and found new markets.

But your argument doesn't hold up even on its own terms. There are a lot of countries with a better government debt position than Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt. I haven't looked at all of those, but let's just take Chile, one that you cite. In the last three years it has grown around 20% and appears to have money in the bank, rather than debt. So, on the basis you have chosen to argue, net debt does count.

Oh, and I wouldn't describe school halls and roof insulation as "urgently needed infrastructure".

Hi Graham,

Thanks for getting back.

Re: “Howard didn't sell any furniture to achieve his surpluses.”

There’s a compelling case that high income-earning assets like airports, if retained, would have enabled medium-term rather than short-term debt retirement – but far greater long term income and wealth.

Re: “The issue isn't that the situation is dire at the moment, it's just heading in that direction.”

Not at all. Forward projections have always been positive. Even current Treasury forecasts – supposedly “blown out” recently – show Australia’s net debt at 12.66% of GDP now, projected to fall to 5.61% by 2018.

Japan, by comparison, has net debt expanding each year until 2018 to 154.8% [IMF]. The USA's debt will expand next year to 89.67%, then reduce marginally to 86.57% by 2018.

Re: “The sludge was building up in the system faster than ever before. Net government debt from $0 to $300B in just 6 years …”

Yes. Like taking out a house mortgage. Sudden rise in debt. Huge long-term gains.

Re: “your concentration on government debt ignores all the other things that worked for Australia …”

Precisely. But it’s not my concentration on debt. This has been the obsession of the Coalition and the media since the late Keating years when it was discovered this was stick with which to beat Labor.

Questions: How did debt at the end of the Keating period compare with the debt at the end of the Fraser years?

Why wasn’t debt an issue in 1983 – when interest rates were more than double?

Re: “There are a lot of countries with a better government debt position than Australia …”

Depends what you mean by better, Graham. What is optimum in these low interest rate times for a country with triple A credit ratings, low borrowings and high income?

Which other economies do you consider successful? What are their borrowings?

Australia could double its current net debt and still have less than a third of that of Belgium, the UK, the USA, France, Iceland, Israel and Japan.

Would then achieve much greater long-term benefits. No?

Cheers,

Alan