Dear Paul,

Did you see the PM and the SA Premier on the news
recently announcing the package in Whyalla to save
the steel works, and jobs? The looks on the faces
of the workers said it all.

A proud moment for all.

http://pm.gov.au/media/albanese-malinauskas-labor-governments-saving-whyalla-steelworks-local-jobs-2-4billion-package

Hi Mhaze and Paul

I think perhaps you both exaggerate the differences between the two parties. When crises hit, governments of both flavours tend to follow the advice of Treasury and leave the RBA to do its job. When the GFC happened, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry advised the government to “go hard, go early and go households”. They followed his advice. The execution wasn’t perfect – they probably stepped on the accelerator for a bit too long, and some programs were poorly designed (pink batts and schools). But it was the right advice, and helped Australia to be one of the few developed economies that avoided recession. Similarly, when Covid hit, we saw an unprecedented lift in government spending on programs such as Job Keeper. Again, execution wasn’t perfect, and some programs could have been better targeted; but again Australia fared far better economically than most developed economies.

So it’s worth reflecting why, on some measures at least, Australia’s economic performance during the recent crisis was one of the worst of developed countries. I think it mainly reflects our poor productivity record in recent years (under both Labor and Liberal Governments), which is also the reason real wages and living standards were stagnating.

Paul, I’d agree that one of the success stories of the past three years is bringing down inflation without a significant rise in unemployment. There are many reasons why this might be so, but it’s a promising sign. I hope and expect the boffins in Treasury and the RBA are recalibrating their models to allow that unemployment can be lower than they previously thought without sparking an inflationary spiral. Some respected economists – e.g. Ross Garnaut - were making this argument before the recent crisis:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-25/ross-garnaut-economists-unemployment-rba-government-critique/13186724

For electors, though, the pain of unemployment that we avoided is probably less important than the pain of falling living standards that we didn’t. I suspect the Opposition’s question, “are you better off now than three years ago?”, is going to cut through at this election.

Rhian wrote: "I think perhaps you both exaggerate the differences between the two parties."

I made no comment about the policies of the Libs in regards to the economic situation. I was merely talking down the gilding of the lily by ALP supporters like Paul.

FYI, I have often in the past pointed out that the Libs offer nothing new or better than the ALP in regards to economic matters. Indeed, while philosophically a right of centre voter I haven't voted for them for some time in the hope that a period in the wildness will see them return to true liberal values. These days their main approach seems to be that they'd do whatever the others do only slower or faster depending on what seems more politically acceptable.

Radical changes need to be made but neither party is up to breaking the news to the electorate. So instead its a policy of slow decline while trying to blame the government while in opposition or trying to deny the decline while in government.

Catastrophic errors were made during the covid lockdown policies and the nation will be paying for that for decades. I said so at the time. This was primarily the fault of the governments (both state and federal) of the day. But the various oppositions bear some responsibility having fully supported the economic profligacy of the day.

We go into an election which could have been an inflexion point but will be more of the same with a government prepared to throw taxpayer funds at whatever looks to be an electoral problem and an opposition trying very hard to pretend that they'd do something different while not ennuciating anything the slightest bit different.

Hi Rhian,

I agree the Big Two are basically centre moderate political parties, when it comes to policy direction its more a matter of emphases than any great political differences. Labor is somewhat more socially progressive than many Liberals, but small "l" Liberals can be very progressive as well.

One worrying aspect of Dutton, is his attempt to play the Mini-Me Trumpster. On seeing Trumps success in US, he's trying to act somewhat like Trump, except he's only a Mini-Me version.

Hi Trumpster,

Will you be be joining Fat Clive's TRUMPET PARTY? or is that the CRUMPET PARTY. Whatever.

"Will you be be joining Fat Clive's TRUMPET PARTY?"

Well I don't know. I'd have to see what their policies are. I know you support the ALP irrespective of policy but that's not me. But so far they've announced they "would rally for policies like a reduction in immigration, banning trans athletes, and rescinding Kevin Rudd’s posting as Australia’s ambassador to the US."

All that seems pretty good to me. But I'll need to see their other economic policies if they issue one. I could see myself voting for those things so far announced - at lest as a first preference in the Senate.

But as to joining... I'd doubt it. I've only ever joined one party (the ALP) and was singularly unimpressed with the way it all worked. They say you should never see how a sausage is made...that doubly so for how political parties work.

Meanwhile in Victoria... 2 jobs become 9
http://x.com/nogulagsagain/status/1894207488222007445