Election 2004 - the main focus

[Peter 14.7]

Hi All

By now, most will have heard that October 9th is the day we all cast our votes.

So far, the focus is as I expected.

Liberals is basing their strategy on the economy and defense.
Labour on vision, social equity and values.

The trick for each party is to get their agenda to be first in our minds and media discussions. And so far…..

Liberal are winning. John Howard is very cunning. He has taken a front foot position by raising "trust" (a supposed weakness) and turning it around to focus "trust" on economic management. For example taken from today’s Australian:

Who do you trust to keep the economy strong and protect family living standards? Who do you trust to keep interest rates low? Who do you trust to lead the fight on Australia's behalf against international terrorism?

"We can be trusted more to deliver a strong economy and to keep living standards safe and to keep interest rates low. Labor in the past has always presided over high interest rates, big spending, big budget deficits."

Libs have stated interest rates will be higher under Labour, thereby baiting Labour to fight on his turf. Latham has no creditability here to call upon and simply must say "that is not so and we have changed". To do so he must show policy to demonstrate the change.

The Prime Minister called on his rival to release Labor's tax plan claiming voters had a right to know how it would be funded.

"I mean we're six weeks from the election and we don't know what this man stands for," Mr. Howard said. "He wants to be prime minister. We know that. Fair enough. But we have no idea what he stands for."

The Libs will then tear it apart unless it is very, sound and very, very easy for the average voter to understand. Complex assistance programs and tax charges bred fear.

I expect an ambush in wait for the real Labour election weakness, Simon Crean as treasurer.

Labour says this

…. the Opposition Leader began his election pitch with a call for a new generation of political leadership, promising to rebuild public services in health and education.

Risky as it assumes the generational issue matters which I believe does not. Age is irrelevant; it is good policy and the courage to act that matters.

Also there are more, older voters than ever before and Latham could play this age card to his disadvantage. His recent illness also stuffs up any edge he had on health.
More strong is

"This election is about two things overall – building a ladder of opportunity and restoring trust in our national government," Mr Latham told reporters in Sydney.

The “Ladder” comments seems to have hit a goal in many minds however many has already climbed this “ladder” under Liberals. Explosion in IP investments, super, jobs, cheap imports, etc..

Again Trust is what hits home. Whether the electorate considers punishing a Gov over lies in “children overboard” and ignoring advice on security “Iraq War” is more important than “interest rates and the economy” remains to be seen.

Lastly I read in the Sunday paper an excellent article (glenn Milne) on the election which contains these fascinating fatcs.

Who decides the outcome?

22 seats below a 4 percent margin, mostly located away from major cities or burbs in regional and coastal areas.

6 Qld & NSW, 5 in Vic, 3 in SA, 1 each WA and NT

Last election only 3500 voters in these marginal seats had to change their minds and Labour would have won. With an overall population in Aus of 20M that stat. makes you think. A percentage of only 0.0175%.

Regards Peter 147

 

[Peter 14.7]

Liberals 1 Labour Nil

Election Update
Liberals 1 Labour Nil

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/30/1093717912062.html

Tax or levy: Latham lost on difference
August 30, 2004 - 4:12PM

Opposition Leader Mark Latham today stumbled while trying to explain why Labor's plans to extend the superannuation guarantee levy was not a tax.

Mr Latham denied Labor would increase national payroll tax, but said it would extend the superannuation guarantee levy by 0.1 per cent to cover workers' entitlements for companies that went broke.

He said he was not splitting hairs between a tax or a levy, but could not give a definitive answer about the difference.

"The government's been trying to misrepresent our policy," he told reporters. "We've had a consistent policy since March 2002 about a 0.1 per cent addition to the existing superannuation guarantee levy."

But he said this was not a payroll tax.

When asked what the difference was between a levy or a tax, Mr Latham said it had been well established in economic practice.

"There are levies and there are taxes and I think economists have got clearly defined definitions about the two and I think that's all established in economic theory and practice," Mr Latham said.

When further pushed he responded: "Well, you need to go to your economic textbooks and look at those points."

The entire article is above but gist is that Labour promises no more taxes but considering an incresed super levy!

This is what worries me when considering Labour:

At best......Latham's response reminds me of old Qd Premier Joh famed response to a question he didn't understand or wish to answer, he would say "D, D, Don't your worry about that" Ignore and move on.

At medium... Latham has got himself tangled up on a simple economics question. "Trust me with the economy"he says.

At worst....this is the dreaded social economic policy at work.

Whilst I feel sorry for the workers who lose entitlements when dodgy companies go over, that is nature of business. Why should good businesses with over 20 staff have to subsidise bad/dodgy/unlucky business that go under?

Why does the Labour policy not propose to fix the cause of the problem "dodgy operators" rather than treat the effect "workers benefits". the 80s were full of feel good social engineering that wasted $ and stiffled our ability to compete with the world. Try again , Latham.

Trying to stay impartial, Peter 147

 

[Glebe]

Whilst I feel sorry for the workers who lose entitlements when dodgy companies go over, that is nature of business. Why should good businesses with over 20 staff have to subsidise bad/dodgy/unlucky business that go under?

Peter,

We're all subsiding or being subsidised one way or another, at various stages of life and employment. I may not drive a car, but I pay for the roads. I may not have children, but I pay for schools. I may not be sick, but I pay for medicare. I may not have elderly parents, but I pay for pensions.

So obviously I could complain, but I appreciate the the need for safety nets as a way to keep our social fabric cohesive. So with regards to employees losing their entitlements, I don't think it's good enough to say it's the nature of business when it's not the fault of the employee.

 

[qaz]

Peter, I take it you will be voting Liberal come october 9?

 

[perky29]

I read this with interest....
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/02/1093939029415.html

Also heard on 2GB news at 1pm - Labour will not let the official cash rate go to double figures (i.e 10%).....at the moment it is 5.25%.
Hardly earth shattering - I would suggest that most people would be hurting if the official rate went up even half that far (lets say 8%).....
This is Labour's way of saying they will keep interest rates low?

 

[Peter 14.7]

Peter,

We're all subsiding or being subsidised one way or another, at various stages of life and employment. I may not drive a car, but I pay for the roads. I may not have children, but I pay for schools. I may not be sick, but I pay for medicare. I may not have elderly parents, but I pay for pensions.

So obviously I could complain, but I appreciate the the need for safety nets as a way to keep our social fabric cohesive. So with regards to employees losing their entitlements, I don't think it's good enough to say it's the nature of business when it's not the fault of the employee.

Hi Glebe

Firstly thank you for posting. After two self posts I pretty much had decided no-one cared about this thread so I stopped adding.

In reply,

1. Yes we do self fund something we do not use. But on the matter of roads rego goes to road maintenance and the weight of your car decides the amount, so there is some equity. On aged pensions we are now encouraged to put away for our future in super (I acknowledge the system needs work) but if you choose to put away more via salary sacrifice then me than you get to enjoy the benefits. Again a level of equity.

2. Having said that I acknowledge the average worker caught in these mess are less able to defend themselves. So on the matter of bailing out employers, I would happily pay the money to build a campaign/system to catch the crook employers. Make the punishment suit the crime. Lets see how many employers deliberately swindle their employees when, if found guilty, the get five years in the slammer as some bikers pet!

My biff is why cannot Labour have a policy that is proactive instead of reactive?

3. My other point is Labour is insulting our intelligence by calling a tax a levy. This also aimed at the average Joe as they are ones often unable to understand the difference is nil.

I cannot stand hypocrites. Have the courage to say “this is wrong” “employers should be caught and employees protected” so “we propose an increase in payroll tax to pay for it, what do you think Australia?”

4. Lastly I am a small business man and frankly staggered at the rules / fees / levys / taxes / charges I need to understand let alone pay to just stay open. If it was a lot simpler I could afford to employ more. Not cheaper but simpler. I don’t endorse anything else that makes running a business more complex. Also having a cut off of 20 employees discourages growth and isn’t that what our Country needs?

I will reply to the others posts individually.

Regards, Peter 147

 

[Peter 14.7]

Peter, I take it you will be voting Liberal come october 9?

Hi qazwsxbe

Thank you also for posting.

In reply, I actually, honestly have not decided yet. I was seeking to encourage debate so I can make my mind up.

FYI I have voted in the past Libs in the House of Reps but Democrat in the Senate. I liked Meg Lee. She was honest enough to accept we needed a GST and then negotiated fairness with no GST on food and such.

Unfortunately the Democrats seemed to not like actually having to make hard decisions and fell apart. As for Bartlett (present leader) well any man , who gets drunk, and forcefully grabs and abuses a woman, anywhere (let alone parliament) and fails to take responsibility and resign as leader is gutless. Sorry to be frank but no man have that right ever.

Hard to believe but….I actually liked Latham before he was leader.

He spoke his mind, not his minders. He showed courage to stand up to the radical unions and propose what was everyone’s interests and not in their self interests. But since taking over he seems to be overly cautious. I now worry that if in charge, he will not have the strength to act on his convictions.

So I await tax policy and economic policy with earnest. I haven’t seen the mothers tax break deal he is proposing but on principle, it has merit.

Suprised, Peter 147

 

[house proud]

Well Latham on Sunrise this am told Kochie NO INTEREST RATES RISE AND NO INCREASE IN CG TAX!
Come on guys you Just have to vote for Latham now, and tonight news he has told us all he will be in trouble with his mum if he puts interest rates up!!
We just have to believe this one
House Proud

 

[Peter 14.7]

What Latham says is making some sense.

Here is the entire comment by Latham on rates, NG, etc.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/02/1093939029415.html

It is worth reading. If you believe the talk which obviously will be proven with the policies then some of what he says is very,very good such as:

It gets personal," he said. "You know that I come from a public housing background and my lasting memory of growing up at 25 Harrison Street, Ashcroft, were the words ringing around that house from my mother that we needed to get out of public housing and get into private home ownership.

This is good advice to anyone. and for all us IP investors

Earlier today Mr Latham ruled out increasing the GST, changing capital gains tax or playing with negative gearing.

And addressing the issues of high income tax he comments were

He declined to comment on suggestions he would lift the threshold for the top marginal tax rate to $85,000

Asked about suggestions of lifting the top rate tax threshold, he replied: "You'll see the detail of our proposals in our tax plan".

"From my perspective, especially in the big cites which are expensive and where people have mortgages and kids, then if they are on $80-85,000 a year, I certainly don't regard them as super rich," he said

And there will be policy.

Mr Latham said what he would do to the tax system would be revealed in Labor's long awaited tax policy to be released some time during the first half of the campaign

So if Labour does be brave and put forward fair, honest, fully funded and sensible economic policy, they may yet have my vote.

Regards Peter 147

 

[Glebe]

Peter,

I recognise you're a small businesman, and hats off to you for that, but is there more to your vote than the taxation/business/economics side of things? What about social issues whether they be reconciliation with a stolen generation, kyoto protocols, republic, children in detention centres, children overboard, water management, asian engagement...


Not trying to push you in a corner, just exploring your thoughts.

 

[Lplate]

Peter,

I recognise you're a small businesman, and hats off to you for that, but is there more to your vote than the taxation/business/economics side of things? What about social issues whether they be reconciliation with a stolen generation, kyoto protocols, republic, children in detention centres, children overboard, water management, asian engagement...


Not trying to push you in a corner, just exploring your thoughts.

Glebe
I think the ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's criticisms of the Howard Government are spot on, Howard has moved far to the radical right of conservative politics and Labor has followed him.

Also, Australia's image in our region will take many years to recover from Howard's forays with Bush. That affects our trade as well. Downer's gaffs don't help.

A major deficiency of Howard's is that a small executive of the PM, Costello and a couple of other ministers micro-manage and any alternative views are denounced. This must be frustrating for members on his side of the house and it's no wonder the cracks are beginning to show.

Lplate

 

[Peter 14.7]

Glebe
I think the ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's criticisms of the Howard Government are spot on, Howard has moved far to the radical right of conservative politics and Labor has followed him.

Also, Australia's image in our region will take many years to recover from Howard's forays with Bush. That affects our trade as well. Downer's gaffs don't help.

A major deficiency of Howard's is that a small executive of the PM, Costello and a couple of other ministers micro-manage and any alternative views are denounced. This must be frustrating for members on his side of the house and it's no wonder the cracks are beginning to show.

Lplate

Dear Glebe

I agree and like L Plate, I also believe it is wrong that Costello in particular has been pushed to the side.

The Age had a great article about an opportunity lost in not handing over the Costello in the last term. It is worth a read.


The present Gov has gone to far right and labour followed. Probably a flow on from the Pauline Hanson factor. IT is in my opinion the greatest wekaness of the Coalition and may yet be their ruin.

FYI I do care about the other points you mention my opinion/knowledge are:

Reconciliation with a stolen generation - .

I do not support a token "apology". Whilst we see thousands march over the bridge I wonder how many of them would have aboriginal friends, employees, etc..I wonder many would support the closure of the block with new homes provided next door to them in every suburb to assist with integration?

I believe in practical help to integrate aboriginals into our the wealth of our country whilst still retaining aboriginal identity.

Integration is the challenge. I spent 2 years in Bourke and know first hand the challenges facing anyone Aboriginal who wants to break out of the cycle of pverty, alcohol and stigma. If they try they are called "coconuts". black on the outside, white on the inside. Even Adam Goodes (AFL footballer for the Sydney swans) has been reported he was called this by family when he stayed at school and built a career. Sadly his mother was stolen generation, but he has got on and now he act as role model for children. You can acknowledge a wrong but cannot live in the past.

kyoto protocols, water managsment - Absolutley should be ratified. Investment should be made along the lines of the Snowy Mountains Scheme. The greatest risk to human kind ever and our Country in particular. A vote issue.

republic, - . I do not need my country to a republic to feel proud. As I see it as lot of money has been wasted on something that makes no fundamental difference to the average people wellbeing and health. Hijacked by self interest group on both sides. In theory why not... but the issues of how to chose a president and their power show sit isnot straighforward. A non issue.

on children in detention centres, - question is should we have detention centres. Pro and Cons. If we don't have some form on control is would be open season on our borders and very unfair to those who do wait for immigration acceptance. But is would seem the level of contorl is too harsh.

Personally I am in favour of more immigration but with rules that require immigrants to locate into areas of needs such as the bush and not over load cities. A vote issue.

children overboard - if Howard is proven to be have lied he should resign. It appears he had mislead but whether he lied is yet to be known. Nevertheless it is while ago and need to be viewed in the overall contest of immgration - on its own a non issue to me.

Regards, Peter 147

 

[qaz]

Im personally of the beleif that governments can do more to help the average person on the street long term by improving the economy rather than redistribution of government resources. As for economic management, I agree that the government should do more to support it as opposed to big business. After all, small business is where the job growth is.

 

[Peter 14.7]

Labour Tax Policy

Hi All

Having gone on about policy I feel obliged to post this report. Again the bits that matter (as I see it) are in bold for those who wish to skim.

Peter 147

Labor ready to jump with tax promisesBy Louise Dodson, Chief Political Correspondent
September 6, 2004

Labor is set to promise tax benefits for high and low-income earners and an overhaul of the family benefits scheme this week - before the latest figures on the budget surplus are released.

Labor's policy is expected to offer modest tax relief, about $10 a week, for the 30 per cent of taxpayers - those earning less than $52,000 - who missed out on the Government's $14.7 billion, four-year package of tax cuts in the May budget.

The Coalition also plans to offer some tax relief to those earning less than $52,000, depending on the size of the increase in the budget surplus expected to be revealed in Friday's pre-election economic and fiscal outlook.

Labor leader Mark Latham is considering releasing his long-awaited policy as early as Wednesday, even though he will not have the latest updated budget figures.

The tax relief is described as a bit more than the $4 a week "sandwich and milkshake" tax cuts given to all taxpayers by the Government in last year's budget.

Labor will match the Government's budget surplus of $2.5 billion forecast in the May budget, but will use any extra funds to finance health, education or environment policies rather than tax cuts.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, said yesterday the Coalition did not have "any capacity for across-the-board taxation relief", but would not rule out further targeted tax measures.

Coalition sources said additional funds made available by an increase in the budget surplus would be used for tax cuts. Mr Latham indicated Labor's policy would be released before Friday's figures if final checks showed it was properly costed.

It is expected to be funded by redirecting the Coalition's spending priorities and budget savings.

Under a Labor government, some high-income earners with stay-at-home partners may miss out on tax benefits as part of its policy to encourage women back to work after having children.

This may be combined with generous benefits for families of those women returning to work. High-income earners may benefit in other ways.

Under Labor's policy, the top rate of tax may apply to incomes of $85,000 and more, rather than $80,000, from July 1 next year. This change is estimated to cost about $200 million a year.

Mr Latham will make a final decision over the next day or so on whether to include the tax cuts for people earning more than $80,000.

As well the incentives for women with children to return to work, Labor's tax policy aims to encourage welfare recipients to get jobs.

Mr Latham will promote the tax policy as economic reform, arguing it improves productivity by increasing the number of people with jobs.

 

[wrappack]

Have always voted libs.

Regarding interest rates, budget deficits.

Howard and Costello have been telling absolutely everyone in oz for years and decades that they are the true financial geniuses (okay, the plural is actually genii, but I digress), and that they are solely responsible due to their economic brilliance.

But, scratch the surface, and the reality is much different.

Rates are set independantly by the reserve bank, not the govt. But, libs will take all of the credit. After all, they know that the main economic thing that households (ie voters) care about are interest rates. No one cares about levels of debt, nor that the average house in sydney these days is about 10 times annual salary. Thirty years ago, the average house was about 1-1.5 times annual salary. Thus, things are only better if you were in on the housing boom early, as opposed to starting out now.

Also, worldwide interest rates have been dropping during howards term. Does anyone think that Alan Greenspan, who basically sets US and thus the worlds interest rates, gives a **** about what is happening in Oz? No, he is interested firstly, in the US economy, and secondly, a worldwide view. But, has little Johnny and Peter ever let this fact slip. No, because the lowest rates of all time are always due to their brilliant partnership, and wonderful economic management. Crap, they were just lucky to be in office at the exact same time as the major economic world powers decided to drop rates for their own benefit.

Unemployment figures have been fudged, so that many people are under employed, or on benefits that do not reflect on the "official" unemployment rate. Thus, overnight, the figure dropped (done many years ago, can't remember when. If you work one day a week, but desperately looking for full time work, you are not classed as unemployed!

As for the budget deficit, if you read Ross Gittens in the SMH (and not that toilet paper telegraph, etc), and understand the basic economic cycle, you would understand that fiscal policy (ie deliberately running a surplus or deficit), SHOULD be used differently at different times of the economic cycle. When the cycle is booming, a surplus should be the target, to pay down debt , 'reload the fiscal cannon', and generally try to slow the economy down, so that we dont get asset bubbles, like housing doubling in 3.5 years. When the economy is stagnant, or in recession, and jobs are hard to come by, the government should be deliberately running a deficit, to give people cash (benefits/jobs) to spend in the economy. This money spent then goes to the shopkeeper, the gardener, and things start to recover. This is exactly what labour was doing. Yes, it tightened rates too much, but its budget deficit, during a recession, should be applauded, recognised, and repeated, when the next slowing of the economy happens.

When rates were dropped by the US, (not by Jonny/Pete), and the economy came out of recession (in part due to large labour budged deficits pumping money into the community), the economy was set to boom.

Thus, the three major economic miracles they claim-
Low interest rates-Lucky timing with the US rates
Low unemployment-fudged figures
Budjet surplus-due to cutting services (particularly health, education, govt departments),
Booming economy-due to low rates, and labours previous deficits to get the economy out of recession.

But, as Goebbles was quoted as saying, "if you repeat the lie often enough, people will believe it as truth" (paraphrasing here). Howard and co have pushed the economic management line so often that we believe it, as the polls repeatedly show.

About a year ago, I was sure that howard and bush would be thrown out.
Then, I thought it would be a close contest.
Now, I think howard will win (agree with the crean ambush about to happen-he is far to unsexy in all ways to be a leader in our media driven society. Bush will also win (thanks to his texan friends orchastrating the swift boat veterans for 'truth'. And the redhead Pauline will win a senate seat in banana bender land.

I have been very impressed by Latham. He presents himself extremely well for someone so young with the media. Fully agree with his stupidity with regards to the tax/levy. Now, where do I remember that from before? Have we all forgotten about a little balding man, promising no new taxes, and then having a medicare levy? And then, increasing it (but this was not a new tax, remember, it was a levy) to fund the totally unrelated cause of the gun buyback scheme. Howard remembers the roasting he got from the media and the public, saw the slight contradiction from latham (previous policy to protect workers rights, new promise of no new taxes), and lobbed the hand grenade into enemy territory.

Latham caught the grenade, and will bear its full brunt.

Might have to stop my rambling now. As I previously said, I have always voted liberal, but have a great problem with our elected leaders deliberately lying to us (kids overboard, wilkie, etc), and taking credit (economy) for things that they had minimal influence on.

 

[Sunfish]

Wrapper, It's interesting that you didn't mention the "low taxing vrs tax 'n' spend" line the Libs push.

Howard is now telling the states they are multi-billionaires as a result of the GST and to stop asking him for more. In just four years GST has returned far more than we were told it would and John is proud of it! We are still waiting for payroll tax and stamp duties to be cut. Wasn't that the trade off?

Thommo

 

[wrappack]

Thommo, yep, the trade of was the cutting of certain taxes. But, funnily enough, when ever a tax is going to be cut, it is always incrementally, and in the future. The new tax doesnt sound as bad, and then we forget all about the insignificant tax in the future that was meant to be abolished.

Wrapper, It's interesting that you didn't mention the "low taxing vrs tax 'n' spend" line the Libs push.

Not sure I understand that statement of yours, but I thought my reply was already long enough! (I tend to have unusually long replies, but try not to bore anyone too much)

 

[Peter 14.7]

Election too close to call: new poll

Hi All

As taken AFR today. Pretty much sums it up ATM.

As for me I have lost track of all the promises. What it does indicate is both the Gov and Opposition must see the economy going well enough in the future to make all these promises.

Peter 147

Election too close to call: new poll
Sep 27 06:31
AAP

The coalition and Labor are neck and neck two weeks out from the federal election, a new poll shows.

The Morgan poll found two-party support for the ALP was down 3 percentage points to 50 per cent while coalition support had risen to 50 per cent.

Primary support for the Liberals and Nationals was strong, up 1.5 points to 44 per cent, while primary support for the ALP fell 1 point to 40 per cent.

The poll, taken from 1000 interviews, found if a federal election had been held in late-September the outcome would have been too close to call.

Among the minor parties, support for the Greens was 9 per cent, up 1.5 points.

Other parties and independent candidates scored 5 per cent, down 1 point, while the Australian Democrats moved down 1 per cent to 1 point.

One Nation was unchanged on 1 per cent.

On the question of who the electorate thinks will win the election, the coalition leads the ALP by 29 points.

Fifty-nine per cent believe the government will win while 30 per cent think the ALP will win.

A further 11 per cent were undecided.

 

[Aceyducey]

Are we having an election?

IMHO it's still a choice of the least bad rather than the best....

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[XBenX]

I saw a nice photochop on that very topic.

The new Alien v Predator movie posts is headed by "Whoever wins we lose"

The photochop changed the movie name to Howard v Latham.