Looks like this author too thinks economic success is an underclass of homeless, those on the poverty line and those who can't afford housing. Wages too have stopped in their tracks after a little burst of trading away entitlements earnt over a century. Wages breakout? No, the opposite in fact.

Howard is not a good economic manager. All he has really done is move the National debt to personal level through over taxing us. That's it. Income exceeds spending. Great, no services, no infrastructure, no water. Just a sneering rodent thrashing angrily as he exits by losing his seat. And it'll really hurt losing it to a woman. He will hate that big time.

Prasser has very clearly stated a significant problem faced by the Howard government. Through the Swan/Rudd hammering at the economic naivete of the general public that any idiot can run the country, the idiots may very well get the chance they want to prove that successfully running a national economy is much more difficult than handing the whole cookie jar to the labor unions. Then we, the general population, will once again be the victims of an ALP led national economic downturn - another one we have to have

With almost 40% of people saying they are worse off than when Howard was first elected surely this shows us something?

Maybe the traditional measures of a good economy don't apply to a vast number of people in our society.

Sixteen years! Howard and co have only had 11 years to do the corporate raiding by neglecting infrastructure, shifting costs, and selling of profitable bussiness.

Gee whiz. If you recall when JH was managing the economy as treasurer under Frazer, inflation was running at 11-12%. Interest on 90 day bank bonds was 22%. How is that good management?

I wonder what dastardly deals will be uncovered when the dust settles after the election. Already we have seen the bs on our foriegn aid. Some of it was used to retire Iraq wheat debt. Throwing sand on the flames of the AWB scandal

Japan's financial crisis began with a banking collapse after a phenomenal property bubble - does that sound like something that could happen here?

Howard has ridden the back of a couple of decades of almost uninterrupted international economic growth. The downturns we have weathered have been based on debt-driven consumer spending, not the remarkable strength of e.g. our exports (other than digging stuff out of the ground and selling it to China).

Wages have not broken out because the new IR laws make people fearful of losing their jobs if they ask for a raise and because massive imports of semi-skilled labour keep the lid on the wage inflation pot.

Yoo-hoo, hello there - has anyone noticed that petrol prices are rising again and that mortgagees are now spending more of their income servicing their loans than any time in Australian history? Could that be a problem?

Howard has been unpopular for a long time but Australian's have been waiting for someone like Rudd rather than the previous bozos Labor had to offer. How else could you get such a massive but stable popularity swing? Australians also realise that worrying about their job security is one thing (though the IR laws have increased that) but worrying about whether their children have a long-term future (climate change) is far more important! Australian's don't trust Howard - they only tolerate him. Now that they believe he will not be there at the end of the next term they are looking for a new leader they can trust. Who else but Rudd?

P.S. The Liberal's disingenuous reasoning behind the IR laws is that, with an ageing workforce, younger workers will always be in a strong bargaining position with respect to wages and conditions. But what happens an economic downturn occurs (as it undoubtedly will soon when the massively overbought Chinese stockmarket bubble pops)? Australians also are in a situation where they need to frequently change jobs (relative to previous decades) so the guarantee of no worse conditions when going over to an AWA means bugger all.

I won't bother to comment on the comments of the usual suspects re John Howard's economic performance, nor the crap about no-hopers who will still be no-hopers who can't handle money when/if the ALP gets in.

But, while I would not vote Labor to save my life, and while I know that the economy would hit the skids very soon after an ALP election win, I am, in a way, looking forward to a Rudd government so that I can have a jolly good laugh when the poor old workers, battlers and socialists really start to suffer and have their deluded ideas about the 'working man's party' shot to ribbons by the wealthy Mr. Rudd.

An alternative thesis to that of 'Dr' Prassers.

With epochal changes to the global(ised) Capitalist system on their way, Rudd and his wealthy 'mates' and 'comrades' who control the L-A-B-O-R Party have been given the nod by Murdoch and the like to take over the reins from the HoWARd-Costello regime, in order to 'manage' (ie control) the resultant open dissent and social upheaval likely to occur. History records that whenever the need has arisen to 'discipline' the labourforce and the Working Class in general,
the L-A-B-O-R Party has been allowed to govern ... at the discretion of the local and inter-national members of the oligopoly who RULE our society ... sorry, ECONOMY!

In a liberal democracy we will change governments from time to time - get over it.

At some point the things that the public perceive as needing to be done will only be do-able by the other side.

I think on IR Howard significantly misread the public's willingness to accept his arguments for reform (and seriously underestimated the union movement). Unrestrained by the Senate the public saw Howard as likely to upset their economic apple cart.

Howard who for so long has been on the right side of the electorate is now finding himself on their Right side and struggling to find space in a middleground being resolutely defended by Kevin Rudd..

If Howard's myopic cheer squad keep claiming long enough and loud enough that -

a) he should be given credit for economic prosperity substantially resulting from a minerals boom driven by China and India,

and

b) that it is reasonable to compare present day unemployment figures with those of the past, despite the two being calculated in quite different ways,

perhaps it will become the truth....

Isn't neoliberalism wonderful!

Despite the overwhelming evidence that it creates ever greater disparity and thus social division, is undeniably unsustainable, leads in no small part to greater militarism by the west to maintain dominion over the 3rd world and will quite probably be the root cause of either US economic collapse and/or nuclear war between the US/UK axis and the Shanghai countries over the unserviceable debt mountain it has created, "serious" pundits still sing its praises as economic wisdom.

And worse, they do so using a false argument that the "left" will do things differently if they gain power. The rhetoric will change, not much else will. We'll still be hitched with the sinking USS Enterprise and its accompanying flotilla of IMF, World Bank, OECD and US Fed Reserve all bailing funny money dollars out to the elites as common wealth floats off over the horizon.

The ALP and the Liberals are two heads of the same snake. The bankers and the media are in control and they ain't letting it go. A trained monkey could have run the OZ economy through the resources boom. A competent government would have used the boom to make provision for the bust cycle that will surely come, and looked after the population rather than just their corporate mates.

Those yelling about the evils of socialism don't seem to have a problem with socialism for the rich strangely.

There really are a lot of silly posters out there. The fact is both Labor, under Hawke and Keating, and the Coalition, under Howard and Costello, deserve credit for the transformation of the economy in the past two decades. However, the lion's share of the credit for the prosperity of recent years goes to emergence of China and India in the global economy and the astute judgement of the RBA.

To argue that a Rudd Labor government would revert to some form of 1970s socialism is just fanciful. In a globalised open economy, no government can afford to stray too far from the "Washington consensus" of commitment to free markets and liberalised trade, independent monetary policy and fiscal responsibility.

The fact is there is simply no difference between Howard and Rudd on macro-economic policy. The differences are around issues of fairness, government accountability, due process, transparency and openness and Howard's failure to invest the once-in-a-generation windfall generated by the commodities boom in improving the productivity of the economy.

After voting for 40 years somethings do remain constant. Labour rhetoric never changes just the people spruking it. We are in an extraordinary situation. We have young drivers that have had drivers licenses for 5 years and have rarely driven in wet conditons and we have young voters who only know one government. The arrival of the inevitable wet weather to young drivers is akin to the arrival of a possible labour government lead by a equally unfamiliar leader. The young voters will find out how disasterous these 'unfamiliar' conditions can be.

With no track record to attack it gives Rudd a decisive advantage, however, he is trying to provide some ammunition for the critics and may wobble a lot more before the election arrives. He can only carry the party for so long. There is very little behind him to provide any substance to the 'messiah' and any labour run government

westernred, enjoyed your synopsis. Cheers.

Personally I think Australians have been lucky to have the experience of Howard in government these last years. The whole world is going through an economic redress and a shift in appreciation and use of some natural resources that where once the mainstay of their economies. Thankfully we have had good overall leadership and they have provided an atmosphere that business can expand in, and become stable enough to manage the down turn resulting from lessening the reliance on natural resources. In a year or two when everything settles down again, and who ever elected whatever party that is running the show, will gladly take the credit for making it all possible I'm sure.

Does Australia have a Conservative party? I thought they were all different degrees of left.

Change does. :-)

How hard is it to pay off Government debt by selling off public assets?

The Commonwealth Bank (Keating, I know) for example is now worth ten times what it was initially sold for. What a great deal for the taxpayer who previously owned it.

How much of our GDP now directly leaves the country as share dividends to foreign owners. The last I heard was about 5% and is probably greater than the interest payments we were making on that original debt.

How hard is it to cut costs by cutting back on essential services to those who need them the most and then encouraging private philanthropists to carry the burden?

Yet on the other hand, how many people are now in receipt of the myriad of allowances handed out on behalf of the taxpayer to cover things they could previously afford. Talk about a Welfare State!

How much of the surplus is made up of accrued and predicted student HECS debt? More than most people realise.

We have never had so much personal debt and perpetuating the myth that we are living in boom times only encourages us to borrow more. The country is living off its credit card and despite the claim that we have low interest rates, how do they actually compare with those of our trading partners?

For those lucky enough to own them, our houses have never been worth so much, yet been so unaffordable by the next generation for decades.
Now we are experiencing a once-in-a-generation resources windfall and what have we done with it?

Ideally we would be replacing or building new infrastructure for the next generations and to to help ourselves when the boom ends, but no, we have frittered it away on schemes to keep the government in office.

What about the other social statistics on homelessness, crime, bankruptcies, suicide and underemployment that contradict living in a booming economy. Somebody is missing out.

I prefer to think that people have not become complacent about who can run the economy better but are more aware about what is important in their lives.

Hear hear "wobbles". To your excellent list, I would add the doubling in net foreign debt over the past decade and the fact that we are running a massive current account deficit at a time when our terms of trade are the best they have been in five decades.

But you hit the nail on the head with the big picture theme - people realise that "prosperity", as defined by Howard, is a narrow concept. We are enjoying a once-in-a-generation rise in our national wealth because of an externally generated event. Yet we are wasting the opportunity to invest that dividend in our future by boosting our skills base and improving our infrastructure.

Instead, we increasingly transfer risk to households, while allowing fatcat merchant bankers to seize public infrastructure assets, load them up with debt and then rip the public off. And these people have the gall to accuse their opponents of socialism! Welfare for the rich.

In the meantime, we have a government willing to trash every concept of good governance, lie, cheat, drag us into an illegal war, outsource our foreign policy, curb hard-won civil rights and appeal to ignorance and fear at every opportunity for naked political gain.

I am not a Labor supporter by any means. I am a centrist small 'l' liberal who believes in free markets with a strong social safety net. But the case for ridding this nation of this miserable, mendacious government is so strong - and Rudd offering an acceptable alternative - that we actually have a moral imperative to change.

If they want to form a political party and put themselves up for election, I'm voting for wobbles and Mr Denmore.

BC2,
Thanks but no thanks.

I'm reminded that the word "politics" may come from two other words.

"Poly" meaning "many", plus "Ticks" meaning "blood-sucking parasites".

I didn't always feel this way - it just seems to be getting worse.

be careful, justaguy, you may find yourself on the soapbox next to me haranguing the crowd on the need for real democracy.

you, wobbles, have highlighted another feature of 'professional' politics- the character of those who "do it for money." shouldn't blame them, though. most of us would also lie, cheat, and steal, if it paid as well and we were in charge of police, courts, and army.

If Howard looses the next election it will be because many voters think that his policies are unfair, and in particular that WorkChoices is unfair, even evil.

Howard will not lose because he has been too successful at economic management, far from it.

Howard’s policies are designed to increase the share of GDP going to profits and to increase executive salaries by reducing the share of GDP going to workers wages, especially wages going to young workers, part-time and casual workers (frequently women) and workers who are paid very low hourly rates.

ABS statistics on profit and wages shares of GDP show just how successful Howard has been in achieving his objective.

Wages share of GDP is at record lows, whilst the profit share is at record highs.

Many voters know that it is not fair that those who are struggling to survive have had their share of the pie reduced to all time lows in an era when profits and executive salaries are at all time highs.

WorkChoices is one of the major tools Howard is using to achieve his aim of creating a ‘working poor’, modelled on the US system. Tax cuts are another major tool he is using to achieve this aim, just look at how low the tax cuts were for low paid workers! These tools, are not attractive to those who struggle to make ends meet and it is not attractive to those Australians who believe in a fair go and a fair distribution of the pie.

Many voters know that when Howard, Costello, Hockey and Rideout say that workers need to be “more flexible”, that they mean in “new-speak” that “young workers, part-timers, casuals (frequently women), and those on very low hourly rates need to accept a smaller share of the pie”. That’s evil in times of record profits and executive salaries.

What is "good" economic management?
Please explain?.

1. N.S.W. has been missing out, it is said, of $500 million P.A.
of GST tax revenues.
Is this true? and if so, how much has NSW lost so far?
Who is responsible for this, if it is true?
For what reasons?

2. Is it true that this NSW GST money is going to WA and Qld?
If so, How is this "good" economic management? Pumping up those states economies when they are already overheated and need reining in.
Wouldn't it make more sense to TAKE GST revenue from WA and Qld and give it to languishing states to promote economic growth? (N,S.W, Vic, Tas. S.A.)
As it is, interest rates are being pushed up by WA and Qld. to the detriment of all the S. Eastern States.

3. How is it "good" economic management to have 38c a litre excise tax on fuel and 10% GST tax on that? A tax on a tax!
In a coutry like Australia, with capital cities so far apart, is not this a VERY inflationary tax?
Isn't it also unfair to those who have to travel long distances in the county/outback?
Why can't the excise go and the GST stay?
A Truck going from Sydney to Brisbane now pays about $1,400+ in fuel. This cost must be added to everything we buy. It is an inflationary tax. It also forces up interest rates without a really logical reason.

4 How is it that in a so-called "lowest unemployment for decades" environment; we have some suburbs of Cities, youth and racial groups with unemployment from 8-20% (I could be wrong here the statistics are very hard (deliberately?) to read.

5 Why is it that no one talks about UNDER employment? Especially with our young and old.

What is "Good Economic Management"? (continued)
6.Why is the Future Fund to be managed offshore by a foreign bank?
A bank that lost millions of the Enron's superannuation fund
Are our tax dollars going to be invested supporting foreign companies?
How about some home grown investment?
How about a little venture capital?
That would be nice
51 Billion to ensure Pollies and Public service pensions?
(Against the possibility of a"bad" Labor economic management? ).
Public servants already have one super fund.
How many and how much more is needed?
Thats 51 billion that could have made many "future funds" for health education, science, infrastructure,research and a broader welfare-pension base.

7 Why is it that education and science has been starved of funds in the last 10 years?
Despite the latest election budget "largess" investment in science and education has gone down. Our technical Colleges are a disgrace. Our Universities are a joke; only attracting Asian students who can not get into a decent OS University.
Future funds for education, I applaud, but a few buildings is not going to do a lot.
We need to attract and keep the best PEOPLE; the best teachers; the cutting edge minds; not the prettiest buildings.

(In any future, Future Fund could only half the interest/earnings for a year be used? The rest going back to the principal?
As Einstein said "Compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe."
In 100 years time we may not even need tax dollars if we had Future Funds thus structured for health, eduction, science R&D and welfare.

8. Talking of the future - Where is the vision for it?
(apart for pollies and public service pensions)

Yes all is well,if you are from the elite ruling class,but not so good,if you are from or the working class

The saviour once again to Australia has been minerals with sheep and minerals saving Australia earlier. To suggest that Australia is more competitive because the Govt. has less debt, (despite the country having effectively doubled its overseas debt under Mr Howard to 1 trillion dollars) and that dubious statistics on reform are the only reason China is buying our minerals is absurd and that people believe this writer is a worry.