The current economic prosperity of most Australians is a debt-fuelled sham. The author does not seem to understand that Work Choices has led to reductions in real wages and conditions for many of the lesser paid workers at the same time as mortgage payments take a larger than ever bite from incomes while food and fuel prices are rising much faster than "core inflation".

Also, why no mention of the role played by the Green vote in getting Labor into office (and Howard out of his seat)?!

If Work Choices can be repealed quickly then we may have a little more protection for lesser paid employees when the global economic tsunami hits that Costello was warning of (and which the Liberals will, of course, ultimately blame Labor for) - see last Friday's article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6681

P.S. My prediction is that, when the Liberals eventually win power again, they will do all they can to destroy the ABC. For this I regret Maxine McCue's decision to run against Howard - although the Rodent got what he deserved.

Whilst the article mentions the freshness and political acumen of Kevin Rudd, it neglects the most obvious reason for Rudd's success.

Queensland. Look at size of the swings in that state.

It is one thing to recognise that the electorate is more volatile than it has been in decades. It is another to recognise exactly where it is most volatile. The ALP caucus most certainly engaged in an act with a modicum of tactical genius when they picked Rudd as the leader - and the swag of seats is ample proof of that choice.

A good summary ruined only by the use of “bored of” instead of “bored by”.

If voters have changed the government because they were bored and wanted change just for the sake of change – there was absolutely no logical reason for a change – then Australia is in big trouble.

The author referred to the naïve Australian voters’ assumption that the strong economy will continue under the new Government. The poor fools are probably wondering why their mortgages hadn’t disappeared by this morning, and why the interest rates are still the same. Even Kevin Rudd simple cannot help people who have over-committed themselves, and Rudd has not made any silly promises about interest rates as did Howard. Losers who think that other taxpayers should spoon feed them might be about to find out that Rudd really is the “economic conservative” that he claimed to be during the election campaign. The so-called battlers will be no better off with Labor, simply because their financial problems are of their own making. They will, of course, turn on Rudd and blame him for all their problems just as they have always blamed Howard.

With regard to Work Choices, don’t let’s forget that there will be a hostile Senate until July and, in the meantime, employers will be looking hard at their options: getting rid of those they don’t want while they still have the chance, moving back to casual employees etc; unemployment could well be back to double figures in 6 months.

And, if the unions don’t ruin the new Government’s attempts run the country as they are now entitled to, the Greens will.

Already, Comrade Brown is squealing about Labor’s lack of appreciation for the help he and his extremists gave them in gaining seats. Brown is also demanding – on the very first working day of the new Government – that Rudd give the Japanese curry on whaling, to the extent of stopping Japanese ships from loading woodchips in Tasmania.

I don’t doubt Rudd’s sincerity. I doubt that he will be allowed to put it into practice.

Folks I think the single most important strategy that won the election for Labor, was Rudds ability to paint the Liberals as being old and out of touch with the electorate under Howard.

I know because I collected information from electorate booths around the state that night as a paid AEC employee "for the night" which we then fed directly into the AEC grid.

Forty-five minutes after the booths closed we were recieving information from electoral officers all over the country saying that punters kept saying they wanted a change. Our raw data across the eastern states seemed to indicate that this was the case and by 7.20 pm est the game was well and truely over for Howard long before WA and Queensland even started to come on line

Rudd thinks he can run the government the way he ran a government department. He has told the electorate he can do this. It cannot be done.

With the Liberal's holding the Senate, reckon smart-arseness destroyed them.

Virtually wrecking the Arbitration Court and shaping it their way with Work Choices certainly reeked of political suicide, because it had all shapes of students like my old self joining the young ones against them.

Certainly it was a win for democracy, and though it is unlikely to change the Stormtrooper mentality of George Dubya and Co, reckon it might pep up the minds of the Democrats, who seem to have developed a phase of fuzzy unsureness just of late?

Cheers - BB, WA.

A notable absentee from the list of "reasons why" is the Howard mendacity factor.

It is unusual for a country to put up, for so long, with a leader so obviously willing to embrace the lie as a means of communication.

By the end of his term, "Honest John" had told so many, that it was no longer possible to accept anything he said at face value. When you reach the point where your statements on any topic - retirement, workchoices, immigration, foreign policy or whatever - are automatically discounted, you have lost a large part of your audience.

This explains why it didn't matter what the Liberal spruikers tabled during the campaign, whether economic good news or Rudd's ear-wax habits, nothing made the slightest difference.

Personally, I think that the manner of his departure, losing seat and election, is a fitting tribute to Howard's contribution to values-based politics.

The saddest thing of all is that even if you were to sit down with him and spelled it all out, he still wouldn't understand why it is a problem.

Whether Rudd and his party understands, will determine whether our faith in our democratic processes will recover, or continue to disappoint.

Dear fellow readers and writers

We can embrace the election result for what it signiifes - a majority of people voting for positive change. In so doing, we can also acknowledge that it was not simply a Labor victory or a Coalition loss; in a number of key marginal seats it was the Green vote that made the difference - the sizeable Green vote is a significant feature of this election that has been downplayed in this article. We can see this for what it 'says' - that people are expressing their heartfelt hopes and beliefs.

This election result heralds a new kind of Australian thinking, I believe. It says, perhaps, that a majority of us no longer see Australia as isolated, but as a responsible member of a global community with a major role to play in creating a peaceful, collaborative, mindful world in which we make collective decisions that are in the best interests not only of this nation, but of the global community of nations and of our shared planetary habitat as well.

I heard a new kind of graciousness, expansiveness and generosity in Howard's concession speech and Rudd's victory speech that set the scene for this new way of thinking. Howard was respectful and accepting, and looked to Australia's positive future under a new regime. Rudd was focussed on the hard work ahead, the carefully considered positive changes that could be made, and his pledge to be a Prime Minister for ALL Australians. This is positive talk and marks a maturing ethos in Australian politics. I believe people voted for this kind of positivity. We can be proud of politicians like this.

We can all choose to 'hear' and to make every effort to understand the underlying feelings and beliefs behind the ideas that people express everywhere in our lives. It is in the listening and working things out together that we build strong nations.

My warmest wishes to all of my fellow Australians who read this.

Costello and Howard bragged about what a great economy they had delivered but it wasn't shared equally. They came to power on the backs of the battlers in 2004 and then left them high and dry with climbing interest rates leaving thousands with negative equity in properties they were encouraged to "aspire" to or worse in the hands of a mortgagee sale. The country is awash with a mountain of personal debt equating to 160% of household incomes while the Commonwealth continually boasted of zero debt and the economy struggled for lack of appropriate investment in infrastructure, education and health.

The electorate were then treated as complete idiots as the Liberals went about attempting buying votes and promising to do all the things they, as a government, should have been doing throughout their term. The Mersey hospital in Tasmania is a perfect example with hundreds of millions of dollars committed to save a hospital all the health experts agreed should be closed and the Liberals still lost the seat.

Leon Bertram described the factor of climate change as "hysteria". I would prefer to assert that the Liberals totally miscalculated the genuine concern throughout the broader community, not just the young, and the sense that despite vague mutterings the Liberals still did not believe in the urgency required to tackle the problem.

The mixed message of "Going for Growth" at current rates of 3.5%, or more if they could manage, meant that the economy would increase by a factor of 6X or more by 2050 and unless major restructuring away from a carbon based economy took immediate effect this growth rate would be totally unsustainable and counterproductive.

Finally as another post indicates the impact of the Greens preference vote helped many Labor candidates over the line. A factor that I suspect Rudd will have no problem in now ignoring and claiming the victory entirely as his own.

As they say, many small reasons can make one big reason. I don't
see a Lib loss as such a bad thing right now. Howard was getting
past it, the Govt was getting stale. Rudd is a bright kid, his
problem will be all those wanting to cash in on favours. One
man does not make a Govt.

We owe alot to Costello, IMHO far more then to Howard. He's
left the economy in just about too healthy a state. Peoples
expectations have gone through the roof. He's paid off the debt,
left the coffers full, with virtually full employment.

Its a shame that Howard never gave him a chance. He's dominated
parliamentary debate a bit like Keating used to. He's a bright
guy, but not enough of a crawler for politics. He clearly does
not need politics as much as Australia needs a good treasurer.

So I wish him well and he'll no doubt thrive in private enterprise,
with a huge salary. He's done his bit for Australia. Thanks Pete.

As to Workchoices, sure it went against the Govt. OTOH it was
the correct policy, if the rest of Australia is ever going to
join the global economy and not just depend on mining and farming.

Business will rethink who they hire and if Labour gets it wrong
as in the past, we'll be back to job creation schemes etc. But
for a while, they will be able to ride on the present booming
economy, thanks to Costello.

"Why the Ruddslide ?" was a very fair comment I felt, even for a Liberal supporter! However, I shall be very interested to see whether Kevin keeps true to his polemic and when things go wrong from time to time, as inevitably they will, to see how the press will treat him. He has had a very smooth ride so far without really committing himself to very much. It is also hard to criticise a man, or a party when it hasn't been in power and has had no policies to enable. I despise name calling of politicians and it only reflects the sort of intellect of the person so doing. Fortunately we live in a democracy and we have just seen it at work. I wish the New Prime Minister the very best and hope that he will continue to govern this great country in a selfless way. If he does, I will be the first to congratulate him.

I think Latham did it!

Latham wrong footed Howard in 2004 and panicked him into running a strongly negative campaign which left Howard with the low interest rate baggage this time round. Howard was always a bit of a panicker, look at the dog of a Fairness Test!

Add to that the Senate majority and belief that they had a 2 term majority and arrogance set in. Downer gave some of the best born to rule / we will win impressions over the past year. Others like Vaile followed suit.

Workchoices was symbolic of how Howard moved to the right of the people and let Rudd position himself (economic conservative) in the centre right where Howard used to be. We want the old Howard the people said, Kevin said That's me!

Howard's worst decision was not to pull the pin in March 2006 and leave it to Costello. He would always have been a hero now he will have the mixed reception of a Fraser rather than the reverential Saint John of Bennelong glow he was looking for. The Libs should be dirty on him for his selfish turn, Costello as leader may have been able to sell "Go for Growth", he may still have lost but the message would have been clearer and the loss less damaging. It took them until the last week to get a message sorted out and a simple 9 point plan. Whoever was responsible for their campaign should be looking for a new line of work, politics is not for them!

The author says the unions tv ads were to blame. Don't be so dismissive, the ACTU campaign was well planned, well organised, well funded, well lead, and well.. successful. I recall after 2004 that the Fin Review bagged unions as politically irrelevant, Your Rights at Work proves that unions are back , baby!

"getting rid of those they don’t want while they still have the chance, moving back to casual employees etc; unemployment could well be back to double figures in 6 months."

This is happening as we speak.

The risk of hanging on to see what happens is too great for many businesses, and as others have observed, the result will be the ALP's fault as unemployment rises.

WorkChoices didn't effect the majority of people (yet, perhaps) but now a whole lot of potential employees are no longer worth the risk and will not be employed and many others will be 'moved on.'

I think, the Ruddslide will also be dependent on the Ruddster being a social conservative as well as an economic conservative. That may well be the difference between one term and more than one term.

If people want left wing politics, they vote Green, if they want right wing pollies, then Liberal and myriad minor parties, but, the ALP has now taken on the centre. If it can stay there, then it may go well, regardless of how poorly they perform - see NSW!

I am just waiting to see how long it takes the union movement to realise that they have propelled a rabid right-winger into the Lodge, and what they will do once this realisation slowly dawns upon them. Have we finally got rid of the lying rodent only to replace him with the lying cane toad?

Thank God! I was seriously looking at immigrating if Howard had held on one more time. However the Australian people have finally come to see the Howard Govt for what it really was - divisive, mean and lacking any real vision for the new century. The past decade of enormous wealth has been wasted with no real investment in national infrastructure, a funds starved health system and shrinking investment in education. I would love to see Rudd say the promised tax cuts will be vastly cut back and instead invested in health and education. I truely believe 90% of Australia would support him on this. People are coming to understand more dollars simply flows into higher house prices and inflation. As a life long Labour voter I expect Rudd to take the mandate that has been handed him and create a country we are all proud to live in with social cohesion, opportunity, envrionmental concern and inclusion to be its driving principles.

I agree with Perecles about a very significant factor for the Ruddslide - the mendacity factor.

I voted the Libs out because of the ongoing lies, distortions, devisivness and negative fear they spoke and projected. To me they were a disgrace to our good national character. Whenever H or his ministers spoke on something, same old lies disortion and spin. I didn't want change for the sake of change, I wanted change because I wanted an end to the bad character of the political leadership.

Mendacity is the most commonly listed factor in the blog commentaries I have read on why the election result.

I think the fact that, over the last 2-3 years especially, the ugly right wing morality of Andrews,Ruddock,Abbott,Heffernan,Robb,Downer and other dead-white-males and the way they lied and spun Rau,Solon,Hicks,Haneef, the AWB,the WMD,kids behind razor-wire, the Pacific "solution",the NT invasion ...finally all these things caught up with them. The Lindsay leaflet was just the icing on the cake. The NSW right wingers have captured the whole show and the likes of Baird,Georgiou,Payne are sidelined and howled down in every forum. Even your very average punter can sense that this mob is on the nose and an embarassment to be associated with.

Why the Ruddslide?

The answer can be found in the political convergence over 20 years and that the coalition lost its moral compass; sins of the past were visited upon the coalition on Saturday.

Strategically Rudd left alone those issues that run to deep emotion - - but there was recognition the ALP commanded the higher moral ground.

Rudd confronted Howard on his own territory and did not need to win so much as highlight the similarities and capitalise on the fact Howard had become increasingly unpopular with the electorate.

The relative powerlessness of a small economy - in all its indicators - has the electorate believing the government is in many ways some what powerless - upward trending inflationand interest rates are good pointers to this. So people were happy to leave what can be done to the opposition.

The coalition would have us believe they were responsible for the resources boom and the prfits that flowed - they would also have us believe Workchoices was the cause of grwoing employment - like the promise the GST would eliminate the black economy - we all knew was nonsense

But the litany of questionably moral positions adopted by the conservatives took its toll - it started with Tampa, the hubris displayed once they controlled the Senate, refugess sewing lips together, citizens in their hundreds being incarcerated or deported by a lazy and inept DIMIA, the means spiritedness of Ruddock, Vanstone and Andrews, lies re WMD, the fact of the invasion against the peoples wishes, sedition laws, Haneef, the abject vilification of Muslims by Nelson, Costello, Abbott and Howard, the intrinsic and forseeable exploitative nature of workchoices,the brutal exploitation of overseas workers brought in on special visas and turned in to slaves -- all left enduring scars on the complexion of the coalition to the point they looked a pretty ugly alternative going forward.

Add it all together and the coalition failed to see the avalanche of discontent - that is why we saw a Ruddlside

I was thinking of collecting my super and skipping to New Zealand if Howard got re-elected because

1. no acknowledgement of global warming
2. WorkChoices
3. lying about children overboard
4. lying about Dr Haneef
5. Cornelia Rau & Vivian Solon - inability to look after one's own
6. lying about "little children are sacred" and sending in the army to repossess aboriginal property
7. supporting George Bush in Iraq
8. sedition laws
9. ministers of the crown vilifying particular racial groups
10. collecting GST moneys and not redistributing to the states to build infrastructure see http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/surpluses-need-to-be-spent-on-infrastructure-that-in-turn-provideservices/2007/11/23/1195753308773.html
11. collecting GST moneys and redistributing in form of pork barrelling
12. destroying job prospects of Australian graduates in service industries
13. failure to acknowledge peak oil
14. infatuation with privatising utilities
15. infatuation with outsopurcing all public service department work to consultants and the for-profit sector. How is that efficient? Expensive - yes!

Unfortunately although the economy looks like its travelling well there are storm clouds on the horizon
1. US sub prime mortgage meltdown
2. peak oil
3. global famine
4. global warming
5. Australia is about to be a food importer when wheat crop fails due to low rainfall

refer http://business.theage.com.au/poisoned-chalice-for-economic-neophytes/20071125-1cpz.html

So I would expect Rudd's policies to address these key problem areas

It was a good night for democracy on Saturday night, the Howard Government had become quite tired. With their huge spending spree they pointed out that they had let things go for too long. The credibility of politicians took a noise dive over the last 11 years; we never knew whether promises were real or otherwise.
Some of Mr. Howard's policies were hard core conservative without any acknowledgement of the pain they would cause. Work Choices was one such policy, and administration of Immigration was another; some plain mean decision making went ahead. At times Minister's opened their mouths to reveal unpleasant characteristics; examples being Mr. Ruddock, Mr Andrews, and Mr. Abbott.

Whether Mr. Rudd does well or not; it was definitely time for change. What has become quite apparent is that Mr. Rudd has impressive intellectual abilities, his spending promises were more conservative than Mr. Howard's, a good start.

Should Mr. Abbott become leader of the Liberal Party, then I think they will be in Opposition for quite some time. The Liberal Party has strongly discouraged persons with strong community/people values with their tendancy to become extreme conservatives; lets hope it can become the 'broad church" it once was. They should do alright if they re-subscribe to the values of Mr. Menzies.

Yabby wrote: "We owe a lot to Costello, IMHO far more then to Howard. He's left the economy in just about too healthy a state."

This is the same Big Lie which has been peddled day and night for years now the corporate newsmedia including Murdoch's Limited News. Anyone who wants to learn the truth about about Costello's (mis)management of our economy must read Ian McAuley's excellent "How the bean-counters took over the campaign" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6682 :

"In light of the economic performance of the Howard Government, it is strange that anyone would give it a passing grade. While Australia has had a period of high growth, low inflation and falling unemployment during the Coalition's term, this good fortune can hardly be attributed to sound economic management. As the CPD paper Reclaiming Our Common Wealth argues, Australia's continued prosperity is not assured.

"We are living off our assets and mortgaging our future. A resources boom and the delayed benefits of the economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating years have given Australia an easy ride over the last ten years. ... even the 'drover's dog' would have had difficulty in messing it up."

...

"An indicator our Government does not want to mention is our current account deficit. It is extraordinary that even at the peak of the commodity boom, we have to import more than we export. We cannot count on the rest of the world continuing to lend us money to finance our habit of consuming more than we are producing."

...

"... for the mainstream media and government spin doctors, economic management has been confused with what economists call fiscal management - in other words, the balance-sheet of public revenues and expenditures. So long as expenditure does not exceed revenue, our Prime Minister and Opposition Leader can both boast of being 'fiscal conservatives' and 'responsible' economic managers."

----

The other Big Lie of course has been refuted in my own article "The myth of the Howard Government's defence competence" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6665.

If the truth had been more widely known the landslide would have been far greater.

Having read all the comments and the article shows a great deal of debating in Australian politics nowadays, which is healthy and shows we are becoming more educated.A few pollies like Sir Jim Killen and Fred Daly used to show us that friends can vote differently and without rancour put their opinions.I hope that was evident in many of the groups handing out H.T.V. cards as it was in mine.Winners are grinners, but the opposition has a job to do and we see that some are opting out and may even have decided so to do, before the poll if it went the way it did.I don't blame them, families are more important and younger, fresher, more educated,who speak languages of our region, and good Aussie English like Keating who makes me laugh with his descriptions, are what we need and the voters know it, even the young ones over 70!

Daggett, your opinion or others opinions really don’t matter when we look at the
figures, which speak for themselves, when it comes to judging Costello.
Fact is that Australians are better off then ever before and the economy
is in sound shape. That’s the reality. Opportuntity and employment
are there for those who want it. Costello is the one treasurer who has not
left us with a pile of debts, unlike all those before him.

Small business, business, have been booming and investing, that creates
jobs. If they stop, the wheels fall off your economy. Job creation schemes
aren’t going to fix it either.

The Australian left remind me so much of the French left, when it comes
to this one. The French left demonstrate in the streets and insist on
cushy lurks and perks of the past. They insist on crazy conditions when
it comes to hiring young people. Result is that French companies tend
not to hire young people, so they go to Britain for a job, where the economy
is booming, due to not being bogged down in regulations. Sarkozy was
elected for exactly this reason, the French public now fully understand
the situation. So what does the left do? They call mores strikes to bring
the country to a halt. Talk about shooting yourself in the proverbial foot!

Rudd understands all this, but I doubt if the rest of much of the labour
movement do. That’s why I’d be surprised if they don’t drag him down
in the end.

The current account is all Australian’s problem, especially those who
have over borrowed. Govts can create good economic conditions,
its not their role to pick winners. The whole idea of work choices
was to have a flexible labour force, which we’ll need if we want to
compete globally. Go back to bells, whistles and union thuggery
and why in the world would any entrepreneur think of investing
in Australia? The moment you can’t fire people, you are going
to try really hard to avoid hiring them in the first place.

Tinman

I hope you are right when you write 'Having read all the comments and the article shows a great deal of debating in Australian politics nowadays'. Australians have made their choice and we on the conservative side have to accept it.

What still concerns me however is the lack of thought people approach the polling booths with. If people have thought through their philosophies then it it good they vote according to their beliefs and what they see as best for the country. I spoke to a number of people (Christians and otherwise) who really had no idea of who to vote for and why. One guy about to graduate from uni with honours told me he actually voted for the opposite party to who he wanted to because he did not know the different between the senate and the house of reps. It makes me wonder how many people just make up their mind on the day.

It was an act of stupidity by the electorate to replace an efficient government with an inexperienced one in challenging times. But the people have spoken and all that be done now is "hope".

For mine, one of The Rodent's most despicable acts of all time actually occurred quite some time ago. I will never forget how he sent his homophobic attack dog after a High Court judge on the basis of an outrageous lie.

On the 24/11/07,the voters gave their verdict,and it was clear that Democracy plus Dictatorship did not work

*Thinking Positively* said:

>>a majority of us no longer see Australia as isolated, but as a responsible member of a global community with a major role to play in creating a peaceful, collaborative, mindful world in which we make collective decisions that are in the best interests not only of this nation, but of the global community of nations and of our shared planetary habitat as well.<<

Do you realize exactly how naive and ignorant that statement is?
Now..you probably think I'm just biting you... but no, I'm speaking rather harshly, because your view totally ignores the HUGE number of people in the world who have a totally different and absolutely incompatable view of how things should be. In fact there are approx 1.2BILLION of them.

Your comments might be valid for a post modern faithless, empty generation of 'make-it-up-as-you-go' folks, but to make such a statement as you did, is either lofty arrogance which says "1.2billion people simply don't count" or.. it is an informed but misguided misunderstanding of that segment of global population.

I'm genuinely curious about how you feel your comments would sit with those people? Care to elaborate?
(Please quote appropriately and contextually from their source material in your reply to demonstrate your knowledge of the subject)
Of course, I'm speaking about the Muslims of the world

Howard lost for numerous reasons, most of which have been articulated above. None of this is news to the electorate, which would have despatched the Lying Rodent 3 years ago if Latham hadn't blown it.

Boazy exemplifies the mean-spirited and xenophobic constituency that Howard and his gang appealed to in retaking the redneck vote from Hanson - but fortunately the electorate seems to be maturing and the dog whistles no longer get the traction they once did.

runner: "One guy about to graduate from uni with honours told me he actually voted for the opposite party to who he wanted to because he did not know the different between the senate and the house of reps"

That would be one of your Christian fundies, wouldn't it? Enjoy the next 3 years (at least) in the wilderness, loser.

Well said CJ Morgan,

I think that the previous idea that there are 1.2 billion people out there, each one with "incompatible views" of the world and a threat to everybody else is somewhat of an overstatement and very typical of the mindset that the previous management revelled in.

Last weekend a lot of Asian and Indian voters in Bennelong clearly voiced their opinions about such matters.

Yabby wrote, "... the figures, which speak for themselves, when it comes to judging Costello."

What figures? The current account deficit in the middle of a resources boom? Record foreign debt?

As I have argued at length in my article "Living standards and our material prosperity" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6326 and at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326&page=0 even the figures which make Costello look good are questionable. As examples:

* A person need only work one hour per week to be classified as "employed".

* Inflation figures do not take into account many new costs that have to be incurred as a consequence of the increase in life's complexity. They fail to take account of many things which used to be very cheap or free. Another factor is the way that steep rises in the prices of life's necessities -- utilities, food, gasoline, education, health and child care have been masked by falls in overseas travel, new cars, communications, electronic toys and household appliances.

* GDP figures count as positives all sorts of economic activities which don't add to our prosperity and omit much that does add to prosperity, but which does not involve monetary transactions.

* etc, etc.

I have gone over this again and again and again on other threads.

All these factors should at least cast some doubt on the figures which you claim "speak for themselves", yet you insist on restating the same old assertions in regard to Costello and the economy as if none of this had been written.

In any case, to the extent that the prosperity is real, even a fool should understand by now that it is built on a very shaky edifice. The world economy may be approaching meltdown thanks to the extreme free-market economic experiment in the US and we may soon face a number environmental and resource shortage problems as pointed out in a number of other posts which you have also ignored.

If Costello had done his job properly he would have prepared this country to confront these problems, but he has not because he seems only capable of thinking in one dimension.

Before I start analysing....does anyone know if the election process by Australian electoral commission was above reproach...meaning was any independent observers monitoring the process...and how did they monitor and what was their report...as reasoning common people we must ask this question...the whole voting/parliament 'turns' on this very thing...and we must be sure its protected and valid...

The fact that each voting paper has no individual signature or thumb print of the voter with long lasting ink as in some countries means that there is no way to determine if the vote being counted is the 'original' vote...yep...i mean if those ballet boxes were replaced nobody would know from looking at the voting slips...

why is this important...well, we have a particular vulnerability in our constitutional system...ours and England is the crown...crown hold the tender to all goverment bodies, and courts and pays the judges...so politicians is our only 'influence' in the administration of ourselfs...

and crown is in effect a corporation...therefore its purpose for existence is to make money...now if all crowns activities were above board and transparent i dont think this concern will arise...but it isnt...when was the last time you read in the media or anywhere else about the crown and its activites...so with each of these facts must go the question 'why like that'...and the picture does raise concerns...

For example if the crown wanted to...it could create a 'off-record open channel' for resources eg uranium so by passes all monitoring and taxing...well they control the whole government departments that are involved here...so money made is all theirs etc

If we dont look we will never see...I think we should ensure crucial areas to our constitution is monitored and kept above all reproach...a place to start is that by next election each voting slip mandates a personalizing mark like signature or thumb print...and if its 'refused' then we all have a problem dont we...

Sam

I think the best that could be said of Costello's economic management is "competent, if unimaginative and somewhat lacking in long-term thinking". I suspect Swann will take some time to deserve any assessment of competency, but will hopefully display a little more imagination and long term planning.

It's also very easy to overstate how much influence Costello (or any treasurer) personally has had over the economy. Having formalised the Reserve Bank's independence in his first year as treasurer, his main job has been limited to keeping inflationary spending in check, partly through the GST, but primarily by maintaining a budget surplus. Even here, he had the resources and experience of the entire treasury department to rely on, most of which will presumably remain under Swan.

So if Swan proves to be inept at the job, it's unlikely that Australia's economy will suffer hugely. When a recession does strike (and it's bound to eventually), it will almost certainly be due to factors largely out of the government's control (though it must be said that I personally believe governments could do a lot more to protect us against the consequences of, say, oil shortages, foreign debt eventually biting us back, or the housing bubble collapsing. But the Coalition are probably even less likely to take on the necessary measures, especially how politically unpopular they would be in the short term).

Well said Daggett! Ross Gittins has also queried the lack of spending on infrastructure and failure to distribute GST revenues to the states and mining windfalls into national infrastructure, Alan Kohler is concerned about the sub prime mortgage crisis in the USA, the explosive Shanghai stock exchange and the collapse of building societies in the UK.

Sam said is querying the integrity of the electoral process. Rumours in Crikey last week intimated that individual members of the Exclusive Brethren were seen voting multiple times in north west Sydney.

Most Australians don't want American style health care or privatised utilities or Workchoices and some of us are frightened that the politicians will whistle the pack onto us next after the muslims. We are concerned about global warming and the attendant loss of rainfall in the south eastern australian foodbowl and the threat of peak oil. I don't see the point of chopping down 600 year old trees to make wood chip when we can make paper from hemp.

CJ writes

'Enjoy the next 3 years (at least) in the wilderness, loser.'
You have an amazing definition of 'loser'. If my happiness in life was dependent upon an election win I would be as sour as most of the ABC commentators were over the last 4 elections. It was kind of nice to see red Kerry able to be happy for the first time in a long while

Everyone should Read SMH journalist Alan Ramsey's articles.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/howards-cronies-should-join-him-in-the-wilderness/2007/11/25/1195975868447.html

HOWARD'S CRONIES SHOULD JOIN HIM IN THE WILDERNESS

"We have our country back. John Howard's Australia died with his government on Saturday night. ..."

"... this last election ... kill(ed) Howard off politically, along with the nastiest, meanest, most miserable, self-absorbed Commonwealth government to blight Australia in living memory ..."

"All that remains to sweep him out of sight is to get rid of the more obscene remnants of his governance in the months ahead."

...

"Now, while Costello sits on the backbench for three years ... what should happen is those other political misfits like Alexander Downer, Philip Ruddock and Tony Abbott should think about another life outside politics. None are part of the Liberals' future.

"For God's sake, go and make our Christmas complete."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/recycled-rejected-and-right-off-the-rails/2007/11/23/1195753306675.html

RECYCLED, REJECTED AND RIGHT OFF THE RAILS (written before the election)

"The (300 recycling bins in the basement corridor of the ministerial wing of Parliament) seemed a more apt commentary than all the desperate, last-minute Coalition windbaggery going on around the nation on what is about to descend on the Prime Minister after 33 years in public life and almost 12 years remaking Australia in his own miserable, disfigured image. They arrived two days ago and whoever they're for, 48 hours before a single vote is cast today, you felt somebody, somewhere, finally got it right."

...

"A clear majority remain heartily sick of the Prime Minister and his Coalition claque of tired mediocrities. The 'it's time' factor has been driving political sentiment all year, just as the dominant policy issue in the cities has been the Government's hated Work Choices legislation."

cacofonix,
I enjoy Ramsey every Saturday. He's prepared to say what many aren't.

Here's a nice summary too - less bitter and more eloquent.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2101088.htm

Rudd won because he struck a chord with policies relevant to rural Queensland and was rewarded with the biggest swings to the ALP. The Greens preferences across Australia sealed his victory.

Rudd can build up on the 'honeymoon' goodwill in regional Australia if he seriously tackles climate change, health and education policy by streamlining government to eliminate wasteful federal - state duplication and red tape.

In this way, expensive but necessary investment in infrastructure can be off-set by productivity gains in the way government does business in Australia. Call it economic conservatism if you must - bold leadership is more apt.

Skillful strategic policy making can ensure his team is returned in 2010 with an increased majority.

The opposition has a vital role to play. A re-invigorated opposition with a progressive innovative mindset under a leader like Turnbull can help build credibility of the coalition. This may manifest in Turnbull lending bi-partisan support to the tough but necessary reforms ahead and establishing the Liberal Party Leader as a master of cohesion politics as opposed to the nasty wedges associated with Howard's regime.

Lots of interesting posts and opinions. I think there was such a Ruddslide because under Howard the Liberal party became increasingly less like a Liberal party and is now very right on the spectrum of politics. I think it will take them a long time to shake off the seriously right wing faction and followers.

Australians, though probably generally more conservative, are not right wing, but at the centre of politics.

Labor moved into the centre. Especially under the leadership of Rudd who does not owe anything to any one faction withing the Labor party.

Howard's liberal party deserved to lose if only because of the increasing breathtaking arrogance of his ministers. Ministerial responsibility did not exist. Why no ministers were held to account for such extremely serious issues as the AWB corruption scandal or the immigration fiasco's is beyond belief.

The influence of the last government on the economy is overly hyped up. Economies in the socialist European countries are also booming. The Dutch retirees for instance hardly know how to spend all the money they get, real estate wealth has not been as high as the 1700's, the Dutch Golden Century. So sorry, Costello and Howard were lucky that the economies of India and China are booming and they need our raw minerals.

Why the Ruddslide? In a word, Workchoices.

Leon disingenuously suggests that Workchoices was an "issue that could have gone away if the unions hadn’t mounted a sustained television advertising campaign that reminded people of the laws.", conveniently ignoring the 100 million plus of our money the Feds squandered on their own "sustained television campaign". Workchoices was a dog, and the watering down via the "fairness test" simply underlined peaople's fears.

Runner says "Australians have made their choice and we on the conservative side have to accept it". Sadly runner, those on the progressive side also have to "accept it". Did anyone see Rudd's acceptance speech? It was the most dismal load of cliches I've heard for a long time. Almost made me pine for Howard.

I can only hope Rudd's policy-making is better than his speech-making.

Rudd and his minions have failed to understand this fact also and it will see their undoing in the next three years. Today it was evidenced with his 'ordering' of 'his' MPs to visit 2 schools in their electorates and come ready to discuss his proposed ' Education Revolution'. That excludes the views of EVERY parent who lives in a Liberal, National or independant electorate and you can bet your bottom dollar even though he's requested they visit an independant school, they'll all visit public and private schools where they encounter most empathy. ie those with Labor leaning P & C's, Headmasters and staff.

Me and my mates will forgive that error as an oversight but if this type of one dimensional thinking and behaviour continues we'll see him off... more quickly than Howard ... providing there's an alternative listening to us.

Sadly many of my mates under Rudd expect interest rates, petrol prices, and the cost of living to go down. They also expect houses to become cheaper and full time employment to remain. Kevin's raised this expectation among them. I hope Rudd's ruse doesn't get them too bloody angry... cos angry workers just don't work out.

Rudd's vote is soft and that's is why. It is fine for his supporters and the media to think it was they who ensured his election. Even though I think Rudd himself might just realise why he's won I don't think he has adaptability or intellectual ability to manage the decision making of me and my mates.

Just to give a perspective: I don't think the Liberals or Howard ever really understood the so-called 'Howard battlers'. I think Howard was just lucky he didn't bash or alienate our mates earlier.

I was a member of the Liberal Party ... once ... but suffered from rumourmongers who claimed I was more Labor than liberal. That's where the Liberals are today. I've always continued to support some liberal Members but never conservatives and I've always believed Costello was a liberal.

Main Articles General

Preview Comment
Most of you simply have it wrong.

Howard lost. Rudd didn't win. His tenure will be brief.

The Liberal Party in this election forgot and ignored their natural constitutency. The Worker. They are people who employ people. They are the truely liberal independant buggars who work more than 35 hours a week, who don't expect paid holidays, penalty rates, sick days, RDO's, maternity leave, parental leave, free childcare, who don't rely on carers, who are carers without recognition, who glumly collect and pass on GST, but most of all they have empathy with the poor bastards they employ. They don't see themselves as 'priviliged'. They have greater empathy with their employees than with 'their local' investment banker, 'local' economist, tax accountant, solicitor, developer mate, Doctor, any Policeman, teacher, real estate agent, car dealer (Import or 2nd hand) news reporter or media commentator(like fat Laurie) (import or secondhand)or unemployed former diplomats.

That empathy they own and are proud of, ensures they won't allow their real mates to be hurt. Either by unscrupulus employers or deliberate and cruel ruses fostered by politicians.

That's who sacked John Howard. ie The vast majority of the 2 million small business owners who saw the people that they have greatest empathy with being left open to abuse through work choices.

Every comment I have seen since ignores or fails to comprehend this simple Australianism.

The Unions are claiming it was their campaign that won for Rudd...it was much simplier than that and very little to do with them.

Keith, you say that Mr. Howard lost the election and Mr. Rudd did not win. It was very clear that Mr. Rudd was very strategic, and out-manouvred the Coalition on several ocassions.
The Coalition lost contact with the electorate. Mr. Rudd by having his team visit schools to ascertain their IT needs indicates a refreshing approach of working with the community.

Mr. Rudd has been impressive so far in relation to getting on top of issues, Kyoto being an example.

Keith: "Today it was evidenced with his 'ordering' of 'his' MPs to visit 2 schools in their electorates and come ready to discuss his proposed ' Education Revolution'. That excludes the views of EVERY parent who lives in a Liberal, National or independant electorate..."

Er, Keith - and how exactly could Rudd prevail on non-Labor MPs to do anything?

The rest of your post makes more sense, but only as an expression of sour grapes.

Daggett, the way we measure unemployment, inflation etc, is AFAIK by internationally agreed standards. So all the points you raise are basically
irrelevant. Everyone leads different lives, some are more affected by this
or that then others. Some spend more on this, less on that. So they are
an overall, internationally agreed guide. By any measures, the figures
under 12 years of Costello look great and our economy is booming.

It seems to me that some people don’t want a Government, they want a
personal nanny :) The nanny state is a failure, I hope that we never
become one.

The current account is not the Governments problem, it’s the problem of
those who borrowed the money. Governments can introduce policies
to boost exports, which this Government did, through workchoices.
Some people rejected it, fine ok, so let the dollar crash eventually.
As an exporter I would be thrilled! Whatever I produce, I compete
globally. Some of you want your little deals to protect you. Ok, that
comes at a cost in terms of lost exports.

No I’m not concerned about resources running out. When they become
scarce, the price will go up and people will learn to value them
a bit more. If oil goes to 200$, so be it, we’ll learn to use it more wisely
then we do now.

Wiz, I’m glad that you call Costello “competent, if unimaginative”.
It’s a compliment! That’s exactly what we want from a treasurer.
We don’t want imaginative things like the Kehmlani affair,
The Burke Labour Govt, The Kirner Labour Govt, Jim Cairns
etc, peeing taxpayers money up against walls. We had enough
bad imagination and saw where that got us: huge Govt debts
which we had to cough up for.

Fact is right now Australians are richer then ever before, earn more
then ever before, the economy is booming and Costello left behind
a treasury full of money. How many other treasurers can you name
who achieved that?

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22828388-462,00.html

Business, being better able to crunch the numbers, values him far more
highly then some electors do

Well the electorate of Leichhardt produced one of the biggest swings in the country and the local Liberal candidate was up against the labour grub that looks like he came straight from the cover of the Mad Magazine. Not only did her own party reject her as well but the majority of the Leichhardt electorate rejected her and her personal adviser and supporter, Stenchy a well known parasite on the community.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6617&page=0#98948
The Liberal Party candidate was involved in some very smelly conduct with Mr Stench in order to get preselected and a good majority of the members of the local Liberal Party will not be voting for her and many have resigned in protest. It would appear that her time in Ruddocks office had more to do with why she was to be the person who shall be preselected at what ever cost.
If she gets elected she will end up a smelly as Stenchy as he had worn out his welcome long ago and was lucky to survive the Petition commenced in the High Court that had his election in the last Federal election put to the test in the private hearing conducted by one of the not so honourable justices, who was actually appointed a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, in his own private court sitting in persona designata jurisdiction.
The decisions and orders made in this sham Tribunal by the referee, who cloaked his work in the neutral colours of a judicial action in the Federal Court of Australia with the IMPLIED CONSENT of the Petitioner, did not have to be obeyed and have no legal force or effect and the show trial was conducted at the expense of Stenchy, who could not even defend himself as he had no defence, as no costs have been paid, as directed by Mr John Alfred DOWSETT, by the Petitioner who is now standing as an independent just to rub salt into the $15,000.00 wound.

Yabby wrote, "... the way we measure unemployment, inflation etc, is AFAIK by internationally agreed standards. ..."

As I showed before the indicators typically cited, in order to portray Costello as an economic genius towards whom we should all feel infinitely grateful, are questionable. Simply citing some non-specific international authority is no answer to the specific points made here and elsewhere.

Yabby wrote, "The current account is not the Government's problem, ..."

Perhaps some of us think it should be. Whatever, the current account is surely factor we should take into account when forming a judgement about Peter Costello's record.

Another factor of course is the ratio of foreign debt to annual GDP. According to a graph in a newsletter I received from economist Steve Keen (http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/) recently, it has climbed from roughly 82% in 1996 to 160% today.

Yabby wrote, "I'm not concerned about resources running out. When they become scarce, the price will go up and people will learn to value them a bit more. If oil goes to 200$(sic), so be it, we'll learn to use it more wisely then we do now."

Well, I would have thought that it would be far more prudent to begin using the resources wisely now in order to avoid having them run out if we possibly can.

Yabby, wrote "Fact is right now Australians are richer then ever before, earn more then ever before, the economy is booming and Costello left behind
a treasury full of money. ..."

You have already made that assertion. Simply restating an assertion, without properly acknowledging my response, is not the same as arguing a case.

"... How many other treasurers can you name who achieved that?"

As I showed earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6685#100096 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6682), a drover's dog could have 'achieved' that given the circumstances Costello found himself. If Costello had any brains and any concern for the future he would have invested some of that money, for example, in fixing up the Murray Darling basin or attending to a large number of other gravely serious environmental threats.

Yabby, economists and business leaders are generally very complimentary about Keating's reign as treasurer too, and he was anything but unimaginative. Indeed, without many of the reforms that he had the foresight and courage to implement, Australia's economy would be a poor shadow of what it is today.
While I agree governments can be overzealous and occasionally not particularly cautious about how to manage taxpayer funds, given the unique challenges we are to face in the 21st century, there is definitely room for a Treasurer to think more creatively about methods in which surplus funds can be redirected. For example, offshore investment funds to ensure the proceeds of our resources boom are not squaundered and we don't fall pray to "Dutch disease".
Yes, this raises the risk of mistakes, but timidity is no substitute for competency.

Lots of good posts. Another reason for the Ruddslide is generally well hidden from view. Paul Kelly of The Australian summed it up like this:

"On election night he (Rudd) was explicit about burying the old ideological divides, naming those divides of public/private, unions/business, economics/environment and federal/state. Rudd has no interest, now that Howard has gone, in winning the old battles with Howard (unlike most of the progressive side). He seeks, instead, to build upon the logic of his campaign to entrench Labor as the party of the future in the minds of the Australian people."

Deep down, a lot of moderate Australians are long sick to death of all the artificial ideological extremes that are trotted out by both sides of politics. Rudd has put this issue on the agenda and seems to be willing to take the big stick to it. The good thing about him is that he is intellectually smart and fierce enough to warrant him getting his chance to do something about it.

Where the Liberals, and in particular Howard, lost the this election was the back of an excellent Labor campaign of portraying John Howard as yesterday's man.
As politically cunning as Howard is, he was never able to portray himself as the man for the future whereas Rudd could. At every opportunity, Rudd pounced on the "future" whilst Howard backpedaled - watching Howard's interview with Kerry O'Brien on the eve of the election showed just how ruffled Howard was and how inept his promises were to the future of Australia (more like steady as she goes)

Regardless, the Liberal party must take note that they were in power during a strong Australian economy but voted out with a swing greater than they came in with in 96 - no matter how much gloating one can be about economic management, lowest unemployment etc, the facts are they suffered a result that had nothing to do with economics.

IMO, the Australian electorate (even though some say it's stupid) is actually one of the more in tuned political societies in the world, the Aussie attitude came out over the weekend (if l could so crude), they said "You can stick a finger in my bum once...try the thumb and you'll know what for".

Yabby, I'm also interested in this "nanny state" criticism you make.
In point of fact it was a (small-l) liberal "non-conservative" politician who stood up and said "Ask not what your country can do for you". Personally Howard and his style of government never gave me much motivation or reason to want to "do something for my country" - and at many times I felt quite ashamed of it.
But it seems many do very much expect the government to define our morality (e.g. forbidding gay marriage), our cultural makeup (citizenship tests, excessive border protection, restrictions on civil liberties supposedly to protect us from terrorism), and the destinies of the underprivileged, by failing to provide them with the support they need.

I would be more than happy to see a government committed to providing only what was necessary to allow a cohesive society and a well-supported economy. It's probably fair to say we have slightly different ideas about what classifies as "necessary" to achieve that, and while I have no interest in a "nanny state", I also believe a modern successful society and economy is best sustained by allowing the government to properly fund and maintain services that benefit us all, including welfare, health, education and infrastructure. The only first-world government that appears not to believe this is the U.S., and I believe it is paying, and will continue to pay the price for this. The ones that embrace this philosophy the most fully on the other hand generally appear to be ones doing the best, at least if you accept that measurements like the Human Development Index have anything going for them.

Wiz, you are correct, some people do want a nanny state and Govts to do everything for them. Perhaps they should learn to help themselves a bit more.

I certainly don’t believe that Australia’s smartest people are in politics and that they have all the correct answers. So I prefer a Govt which helps people to help themselves. Sure, there is a role in terms of health, education, infrastructure etc.
There is also a role in facilitating things for business. That is quite different to
what say Daggett is suggesting, which sounds to me, more like a Govt that controls
everything and dictates just about everything. I trust my own judgement and that
of some very smart people whom I know, far more then the judgement of any
politician.

Yup, Keating made some very smart changes, long overdue and I have always
stated exactly that. But change just for the sake of change, is rather pointless.
Both Keating and Costello have a great understanding of market economics,
something which many lack.

The most difficult thing being treasurer, is that every self interest group and
anyone who thinks that the Govt owes them a favour, will overrun the treasury
with suggestions as to how they should spend taxpayers money. You beaut
hairbrain schemes will come flowing in at a rapid rate. Most treasurers give
in, usually for the sake of buying a few votes, or because it seemed like a good
idea at the time. The result is commonly empty coffers and more Govt debt.

We’ll see how Wayne Swann handles it, when the pressure groups move in
and try to squeeze out the last taxpayer dollar.

As to the resources boom, I remind you that it has only just begun. Most of
those projects are still on the drawing boards and have yet to see money
flow into Govt coffers. Its been only the last couple of years that there has
been an increase, due to higher prices for resources.

tbc

Rudd won because:
1) people had had enough of Liberal Party apologists on radio via the radio disc jocks & the selected Liberal Party audiences of drongos

2) since 1996 the Australian people have not been given much hope with a Govt that sides with foreign corporations, big business, banks and anyone who can deliver party political or personal( to your pollie) 'donations. ( it all starts with real estate agents and local govt councillors and is slightly more glorified in the other two tiers of State & Federal. We all know it too.

People forget the meetings with Rupert that all the major parties leaders have with him.
Last night's 730 Report on the ABC, Rudd shows that he is a Treasury man by saying they having great ideas worth listening to and implementing !! Gimme a break !!
What ! More neo liberal economic policies to sell the nation out EVEN MORE !!
For a better set of political polices vist the DLP and NCC websites.
http://www.dlp.org.au/

Daggett, nobody claimed that Costello was an economic genius, simply that he
was a very good treasurer. We have had plenty of bad ones, it’s a refreshing
change to have a good one.

You might think that the current account is the Govts problem, we agree to disagree.

The Govt cannot stop people from borrowing recklessly. It cannot stop people from
playing the pokies and wasting their money. The Govt is not a nanny, its there to create an environment, where those with ability and aptitude can thrive. The best option is for people to learn to help themselves, rather then blame the Govt for all
their problems. Some of course always will. Anything can be rationalised away,
by blaming everyone but ourselves for our failures.

You might well peddle your bicycle to save resources. I can assure you that
2 billion Chinese and Indians have no such plans and will use them up for you.

The answer lies in innovation and eventually some sense in terms of the total
human population, which no Govt seems to want to address.

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9811702-54.html?tag=nefd.lede

You might well panic about peak oil, but I think that these sorts of individuals
are going to make a difference, not Govt officials. As the saying goes, life
is what happens whilst we are making other plans, there is a lot of truth in that.

There are plenty of highly qualified people who have commented on Costello’s
creditials and overwhelmingly, they see things as I do. You might not, but
given your politics, your views about Cuba, you belief in a Govt controlled economy,
why should anyone take notice of what you think?

Innovative individuals is what we need, not bureaucrats with an agenda, telling
us how to live. I’ve yet to see them get it right anywhere.

That’s the beauty of market economics. Creative individuals are free to make
decisions, people are free to vote every day, with their wallets. You clearly think
that Govt knows better. On that we will agree to disagree.

Yabby,

How about sticking to the point? How are my views about Cuba relevant to the discussion?

---

Yabby wrote, "Daggett is suggesting, ... a Govt that controls everything and dictates just about everything."

Where did I 'suggest' that?

---

Yabby wrote, "... nobody claimed that Costello was an economic genius, ..."

No, not is so many words. Here's what you did write:

"We owe a lot to Costello, IMHO far more then to Howard. He's left the economy in just about too healthy a state. ... He's paid off the debt, left the coffers full, with virtually full employment.

"... He's dominated parliamentary debate a bit like Keating used to. He's a bright guy, but not enough of a crawler for politics. He clearly does not need politics as much as Australia needs a good treasurer.

"So I wish him well and he'll no doubt thrive in private enterprise, with a huge salary. He's done his bit for Australia. Thanks Pete."

I take it you aren't referring to the same idiot who doesn't know the difference between 60% and 70%? (See http://candobetter.org/node/227).

How such an apparent simpleton as Costello, seemingly devoid of intellectual depth "dominated parliamentary debate" is a mystery to me.

---

You may be interested to know that I have found the time to responds to your post to the forum in response to the article "They're not really that poor" by that other free-market extremist, Peter Saunders. The post is at: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6576#100198

Yabby, actually the government most certainly could stop people borrowing recklessly, if it wanted to. Now, personally I would prefer to see a tax/fee system that at least strongly discouraged it, but legislation to control irresponsible lenders is probably also worth considering. This isn't an issue of the government being a "nanny state" - it's a matter of observing a problem, and finding a solution. Especially if the alternative is to allow a small minority of the population to continue irresponsible borrowing of overseas funds, almost certainly resulting in a situation that leaves us *all* worse off.

As far as "bureaucrats with an agenda...yet...to get it right anywhere": that's an absurd claim. Bureaucrats, directly and indirectly, have been responsible for the backbone of our economy for well over a century, making decisions on infrastructure, education and health facilities, regulating economic activity etc. Here's a good list of things government bureaucrats in the U.S. have got right, and no doubt a similar list could be compiled for Australia:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Governmentsuccesses.htm

And I can assure you that 2 billion Indians and Chinese will not be driving oil-powered cars, ever. Not even the wildest estimates of the maximum rate that oil could ever possibly be extracted would allow it, even given the most fuel efficient vehicles imaginable.
China's government is already making strong moves to encourage its citizens on to alternative forms of transport, including back to bicycles (many electrified). I fully expect that dealing with peak oil will come from a mixture of market forces and government initiatives to facilitiate the transition. Unfortunately I'm far from convinced that any government has really begun to take the issue seriously, and if anything are adding to the problem by continuing to pump more money and effort into roads than mass transit options. As a result, there will be large sections of the population that will suffer directly, leading to economic consequences that we'll all feel. I just hope they can be kept to a minimum.

CJ

Yep, your response is exactly what I expected from one dimensional labor thinkers.

Wiz, you are comparing the efficiency of the Govt sector with what? WA produces
over 40% of Australia’s exports, with roughly 10% of the population. I’ve spent
most of my working life observing a globally focussed, internationally competitive
export sector, how they act and think. I compare that to the State and Federal
Govt departments that I deal with. To put it mildly, its like day and night!

In between we have a locally focussed manufacturing sector, who are little better,
unless they have good old competition to keep them awake. It seems to be a fact
of human nature, that people commonly prefer complacency, self interest and feathering their
own little nests, unless they have good reasons to do otherwise.

Sure Govt has done many things, but how efficiently? With the monopoly of taxation
income, who keeps them accountable? If its virtually impossible to fire somebody,
why should they to put in too much effort? Some do, but many don’t and that
is the problem.

As to China, India and oil consumption, take a look at Beijing 10 years ago and today. They were all on bicycles, today they have traffic jams. Those two billion
might not all have cars yet, but they aspire to have them and in Beijing alone,
another 1000 cars a day are added. Next, due to the high price of oil, we have
a mass of wealth transfer going on, from the West, to the Middle East and other
oil producing countries. Brazil has just found a large deposit. So you think that
South Americans, Arabs, Venezuelans, Nigerians, etc, won’t be burning more
oil, as their wealth increases? Think again. You can save all you like, they will
burn it faster then you can save it.

So how are you going to ban people from borrowing more then they can afford?
Are you going to ban Harvey Norman from offering “free credit”? Are you going
to ban people borrowing over a certain limit on their credit cards? How far
are you going to intrude on peoples lives with your rules?

tbc

I never said anything about the efficiency of the government sector.
But the fact remains is that private enterprise would never have flourished without the infrastructure and social services provided by governments.

Nor did I say that developing nations won't be burning more oil - just that at some point in the near future, there will be significant limits on how much higher consumption rates can go.

Nor did I imply that I had any hope of "saving" oil by restricting my own personal use - there are plenty of far better reasons for doing that.

And nor did I suggest that the govenrment should ban people from borrowing more than they can afford. I suggested the introduction of taxes or higher fees to *discourage it*, and the possibility of better regulation of *lenders*. I don't see that this will intrude on people's lives to any significant degree.

Did you actually read my post Yabby?

Daggett, your views about Cuba clearly tells me something about your political persuasion. Time after time, you have suggested that Govts do this about that or
something else. Clearly you are not a fan of market economics, where consumers
make their own decisions, by voting with their wallets.

Regards Costello, credit where credit is due. I’ve paid compliments to both
Keating and Rudd, as my politics is issue driven, not party driven.

Costello is one of those rare treasurers, who did not leave the country with a great
big economic black hole. He served for nearly 12 years, why should I not say
thank you ? If Rudd does a great job, I will say the same.

As to Costello’s debating skills, the man has talent and a sense of humour, which
seem a mystery to you, but not to most others. That’s your problem, not our problem :)

Wiz, yes I read your post, I just approach the subjects from a different perspective.

What Govts achieved, they did at the expense of hardworking taxpayers. I’ve been
in enough industrial situations, to see little people working really hard for their money
and being taxed handsomely. I don’t blame them when they are pissed off, seeing
Govts waste, what they worked so hard for.

Private enterprise flourished long before Govt was even invented. People have
been trading goods and services, for as long as we can remember.

Why would taxes on say credit card debts, achieve so much? Those over borrowing
are already taxed with huge interest rates by the lenders, but they still don’t learn.

Perhaps a grim reaper style information campaign, would make people stop and think.
It worked pretty well in increasing awareness of HIV.

I was told by one borrower, that her Mastercard was great, as it let her pay off her
Visacard. It seems that spending less, had not even occurred to her.

Yabby, to suggest that governments have achieved what they have "at the expense of hardworking taxpayers" carries the implication that we would be better off if we did not have a government willing and able to provide the framework for a modern, prosperous, democratic nation. Given that the only countries in the world where governments do not take on this role are desperately poor, backward nations, then I for one believe that having a strong, capable government is worth every cent of my taxes, especially given how low Australian taxes are relative to most other OECD countries. Perhaps you would prefer anarchy.

And I'd suggest you also have a rather different definition of "flourish" than I do. Modern capitalism really only began to truly flourish during the industrial revolution, at a time where governments (or ruling monarchs) began to see the benefit in significant projects such as roads, railroads, sewers, schools, funding exploratory/trading missions around the globe, etc. etc.

As far as taxes/fees on credit cards etc - currently there is a miniscule $2/month goverment fee on store cards with interest free terms. If this were, say, $10/month, I have no doubt it would seriously discourage many people from the otherwise seductive nature of such offers. But I also accept that as individuals, we very easily succumb to believing we can handle more debt that we truly can, especially when times are good. It concerns me just how easy it is to collect credit card after credit card, to the point that it is possible to end up with a total credit limit that is more than value of a typical mortgage (this happened to us at one point). I certainly agree that an informational campaign is long overdue (but again, would rely on government acting as a type of "nanny"), but given that the consequences of overborrowing can spill over to many other people - not least of which being family members - then there is a good case to be made for tougher legislative restrictions on lending institutions.

“carries the implication that we would be better off if we did not have a government etc”

Nic, I did not state that, you drew that conclusion, big difference!

I certainly don’t believe that our Govts are worth every cent of our taxes, for I have
yet to see them spend our hard earned resources so wisely. In fact, as many Govt
services have no competition, it needs constant pressure and calls for accountability,
to see that our money is not sloshed around too wastefully.

Then we have the issue of over governance, which is a huge issue in Europe and is becoming more so here. Eg Woodside, for their Pluto project to go ahead, needed
over 450 different Govt approvals! An abalone aquaculture project that I know a little about, needed 27 different Govt approvals. Govt paper shuffling is massive
and increasing. It costs all of us, especially those involved in exports, where the
playing field is quite unlike the local one.

Why should there be any Govt tax on credit cards? Yet more officials to administrate it! We need more productive people and less paper shuffling.

Modern capitalism is flourishing now, because more and more ordinary people
can afford to be providers of capital. Something like 42% of the Australian population directly own shares. Virtually all Australians own shares through their
super fund. Anyone can save their pennies rather then waste them and invest in
banks, insurance companies, or any other industry. Grey nomads are the wealthiest
by generation, but then its their life’s work and savings that are involved. The
youngest are the poorest, but that is to be expected, as they have only just left
the family nest, with their lives in front of them. The one politician who understood
the value of all that, was in fact Mark Latham.

We can see from lotto winners, what happens when you give people money. Some blow the lot and are back on welfare, others double it. People need to learn to help
themselves, the nanny state cannot protect them forever

Ok, let me rephrase it - to suggest that governments have achieved what they have "at the expense of hardworking taxpayers" implies there is a cheaper way of achieving the same thing. I've yet to see evidence that this is the case. The US spends twice the percentage of GDP on privately-provided health services than other OECD nations that have government-provided health care. Indeed, there are a very limited number of examples where you can show categorically that private enterprises have been able to supply the services governments traditionally have at a substantially smaller cost.

You say modern capitalism is flourishing in Australia partly because of superannuation - but superannuation is a classic example of the government acting as a "nanny state": effectively forcing us to save and invest our money instead of spending it on consumables.

Why would raising the current $2/month fee on store credit cards with interest-free terms to $10/month cause any more paper shuffling? I fully expect it will create a lot less, as far few people will be seduced into such offers. At any rate, often paper-shuffling is the price we have to pay for maintaining a stable, functioning economy (and democracy - a system itself that is notoriously inefficient). As a software developer I fully understand the trade-off between efficiency and stability/usability /efficacy. It's one thing to keep waste and red tape to a minimum, but unrealistic to believe it can ever be got rid of completely.