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.