Joe Hockey, asset or liability?

[Stumpy Pete]

AKA "I can't address the pertinent points you've brought up therefore I will start a new thread where I can continue to ignore them so I don't have to admit I am wrong."

Oh, and in that thread where you suggest the Fed govt went from promising a surplus to there being a predicted deficit in the space of a few months... That was not a sudden change if you follow the economy at all. Economic analysts and political commentators had been talking for at least the better part of ayear about how unrealistic a surplus promise was due to the slower than expected recovery in the global financial situation. But I'm sure you're aware of that and just spreading misinformation because you don't want to backtrack on your long posts above.

Exactly what misinformation am I spreading? Tell me where I have been wrong?

The Government produced an economic outlook that predicted a budget surplus on October 22 2012 and then abandoned that on 20 December 2012 it walked away from that commitment and predicted a deficit for 2012-13. Those are the facts.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I've told you repeatedly and a bit rudely where you are wrong.

As to that particular reference to misinformation, the clue to what I was talking about is in all the worlds surrounding it.

You suggested there was a sudden change over just a few months. There wasn't. The surplus was small. Minor changes turn that into a deficit, but it is not a sudden change to the broader economy on which Labor or the Coalition base their commitments. Over the course of 7 months the numbers did get worse, but everyone knew it as the govt stopped promising a surplus, leaked hints of a deficit in the 10s of billions and then announced the expected deficit in the mid-May budget, 7 months after MYEFO. It was not a sudden change. It was not unexpected.

The Coalition have a very good idea of the sorts of numbers they are dealing with and can release policy based on it. Hey, they could even release all their policies on the basis of running a $10 billion surplus, so if there are further revenue downgrades they could blame Labor (after talking down the economy relentlessly for 6 years) and still have spent almost 3 months crowing about how they'll deliver a surplus.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Coalition's $15b carbon price claim 'mostly false'

The Coalition's claim that moving swiftly to a floating carbon price would cost the budget up to $15 billion has been rated "mostly false" by the fact-checking service PolitiFact, which partners with Fairfax Media.

The total hit from moving to the floating price immediately would be about $8 billion, the total cost from moving in July next year would be about $4 billion.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...ostly-false-20130714-2py81.html#ixzz2Z5KOM77N

$15 billion to $4 billion... I guess that's how the Liberals ended up with a $70 billion black hole in their last election budget.

 

[Visions]

$15 billion to $4 billion... I guess that's how the Liberals ended up with a $70 billion black hole in their last election budget.

You need to give them a break. They are just following the lead of Labor with their $170 billion dollar black hole recorded in their last 5 budgets.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You need to give them a break. They are just following the lead of Labor with their $170 billion dollar black hole recorded in their last 5 budgets.

'Black hole' is the term used when the gap in revenue is due to dodgy accounting. The ALP knew perfectly well their stimulus program and the drop in revenue caused by the GFC was going to create deficits. Hockey and the Liberals said their policies were 'fully costed' when they actually weren't - $70 billion was the apparent 'miscalculation', and when they can get an estimate on one policy wrong by $11 billion as you can see above then a $70 billion black hole is easy to create. I've also seen some people claim the current Liberal policies are also 'fully costed', but I believe the 1.5% increase in company tax won't even cover half the cost of the paid parental scheme they are proposing.

 

[Caesar]

This just encapsulates the stupidity of the whole discussion. The Opposition is not able to access government departments for consultations, nor able to have their policies costed under the Charter of Budget Honesty, until writs are issued.

This means that the Opposition is either left with the option of (a) releasing provisional policies that are either uncosted or costed externally, or (b) holding off on releasing policies until the election campaign.

When they opt for (a), the Government and its supporters crucify them for releasing stuff that has holes in it. When they opt for (b), they get crucified for releasing nothing at all. Naturally they opt for (b) as the lesser of two evils, and a lack of policy to discuss means the standards of political debate disappear inevitably down the toilet.

It's not a partisan issue, it's been happening for well over a decade. The only people who suffer are the voters who are trying to make an informed choice.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The $70 billion difference was on policies released after writs were issued. The ability to come up with good policy is not dependent on the latest figures as Australia does not change violently from budget to budget and we had figures not long ago.

Let's all be honest and acknowledge that the true explanation is our politicians don't have a lot of new ideas that they think will win them votes. For example, Libs might want a flat tax and Laborites might want a massive investment in public transport, but the cost of the latter and the pain the former would cause to the majority of voters means they would be dead on arrival - even if your world view decrees them to be good policy. The trick is to come up with policy that is both good and which you can sell to a lot of people.

The stimulus program allowed Labor to do the pink batts policy (which was good policy, even if the practical implementation caused obvious problems due to its speed and over-reliance on the private sector to behave), and I would suggest the NDIS, NBN and Gonski are good policies which should be paid for by the removal of middle class welfare on top of the additional Medicare levy (the NBN theoretically paying for itself due to the outsourcing to NBNCo). These ideas could well have been mostly generated by the public service rather than the politicians, but they are by no means policies that couldn't have been thought up by an opposition using the numbers available on the public record. This is what political parties are meant to do - think up and implement policy.

 

[Caesar]

The ability to come up with good policy is not dependent on the latest figures as Australia does not change violently from budget to budget and we had figures not long ago.

We've made it important, by our obsession with fiscal management. The first question everyone asks when you release a policy is how much it's going to cost. If you don't know, you look irresponsible. If you give estimates, the government gets Treasury to come up with different, more authoritative figures and you look incompetent.

Let's all be honest and acknowledge that the true explanation is our politicians don't have a lot of new ideas that they think will win them votes. For example, Libs might want a flat tax and Laborites might want a massive investment in public transport, but the cost of the latter and the pain the former would cause to the majority of voters means they would be dead on arrival - even if your world view decrees them to be good policy. The trick is to come up with policy that is both good and which you can sell to a lot of people.

No, the true explanation is John Hewson and Fightback!.

A 650 page policy manifesto, incredibly detailed, well-researched, well thought-out, compiled by experts, and released 12 months in advance of an election. Regardless of whether you agreed with it or not, it was a masterpiece of policy making for an Opposition. It was a true, fearless presentation of an alternative government with a vision and a blueprint for reform.

The result? Keating tore it apart. He misrepresented it, kicked sand on it, took bits out of context, attacked some elements, stole others for his own policy platform, fearmongered, and generally used it to completely crucify the Opposition in a manner that was completely unrelated to its actual merits. Hewson went from having an unbeatable lead in the polls to becoming the first Opposition Leader in decades to lose ground at an election.

Ever since then, no Opposition has dared to go to an election with such detailed, broad-based policy. Abbott was one of Hewson's staffers in '93. He learned the lesson better than most.

 

[medusala]

The $70 billion difference was on policies released after writs were issued. The ability to come up with good policy is not dependent on the latest figures as Australia does not change violently from budget to budget and we had figures not long ago.

Tell that to Wayne and his "unprecedented drop in revenue" line.

 

[JRoo]

Tell that to Wayne and his "unprecedented drop in revenue" line.

Or Abbott's policy of Picking Winners in regards to climate change!

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Medusala, a change can be unprecedented without being unexpected. Hence everyone saying for months that Swan should drop his surplus promise.

Caesar I understand the political theory that says Fightback is a reason to not release policy early, but Hewson lost the election due to losing the communications battle, not because they released the policy too early. Australia was reeling from recession - an extra tax was not what people without a lot of income stability wanted to pay and Hewson could not tell people effectively what changes it would have on their level of wealth. Less than a decade later with the economy growing year-on-year after the Hawke/Keating reforms, the people were richer and less worried so the GST just managed to get up.

 

[Caesar]

See, the fact that you equate Fightback! with the GST is testament to how successful Keating's attacks on it were. It was a wide-ranging policy platform with many aspects that needed to be considered holistically. Keating distilled it into "15% on this, 15% on that" and won an election on the basis of it.

The reality is that Hewson "lost the communications battle" because he tried to communicate too much. Stick to small targets, branding and sloganeering, release policy late and stay on-message, and you win elections. Howard learned it. Rudd learned it. Abbott learned it.

 

[JRoo]

See, the fact that you equate Fightback! with the GST is testament to how successful Keating's attacks on it were. It was a wide-ranging policy platform with many aspects that needed to be considered holistically. Keating distilled it into "15% on this, 15% on that" and won an election on the basis of it.

The reality is that Hewson "lost the communications battle" because he tried to communicate too much. Stick to small targets, branding and sloganeering, release policy late and stay on-message, and you win elections. Howard learned it. Rudd learned it. Abbott learned it.

Tell us about Fightback will you comrade?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Yes, but losing the communications battle doesn't mean releasing policy within 4mths of an election is wrong. I think Abbott (if he has a bunch of good policies ready to go - which I seriously doubt) will lose this election because he hasn't released policy. Rudd won the election by saying early that he'd put a price on carbon. Howard said later on that he would put a price on carbon but the electorate already felt it was time for a change. Despite what people say about Rudd on here, he didn't go to that election with few policies. The criticism at the time was of 'me-tooism' - that he was agreeing with too many of Howard's policies. But the key differences - climate change and limiting the 'reckless spending' as characterised by the regional pork-barrelling and generous middle class welfare was what won it for Rudd IMO.

 

[Caesar]

Yeah, but even Rudd's point of differences weren't proper policy. He didn't actually come out with anything detailed. He sold it as an ideological difference.

Rudd played small target just as well as Abbott, just in a different way. In a sense, "I'll put a price on carbon" was sloganeering just as much as "I'll stop the boats". It sidestepped the awkward questions of detail that are so prone to tripping up Oppositions.

 

[JRoo]

Yeah, but even Rudd's point of differences weren't proper policy. He didn't actually come out with anything detailed. He sold it as an ideological difference.

Rudd played small target just as well as Abbott, just in a different way. In a sense, "I'll put a price on carbon" was sloganeering just as much as "I'll stop the boats". It sidestepped the awkward questions of detail that are so prone to tripping up Oppositions.

There is a significant difference between a pollution system based upon the market picking the best solutions to reduce pollution and public servants picking winners with taxpayers money.

 

[Caesar]

Don't disagree. Just saying that Opposition Leader Rudd shied away from policy detail as much as anyone. Pricing carbon was important to his campaign as an idea - as part of his branding - not as a policy.

To have released a detailed carbon pricing model would have got his campaign bogged down in specifics, which was the last thing he needed.

 

[JRoo]

Don't disagree. Just saying that Opposition Leader Rudd shied away from policy detail as much as anyone. Pricing carbon was important to his campaign as an idea - as part of his branding - not as a policy.

To have released a detailed carbon pricing model would have got his campaign bogged down in specifics, which was the last thing he needed.

The ALP policy has always even under Rudd been to move to a market based system of pollution reduction in regards to climate change. The LNP policy has been to deny pollution was an issue and to then pick a policy which is based upon public servants picking winners when it was finally comprehend that the average Joe wanted action on climate change!

 

[Caesar]

That's not really got anything to do with the point I'm making.

 

[Slax]

That's not really got anything to do with the point I'm making.

What I want to know though is will Hockey be any better at balancing the books than Swan? Quite simply I don't think so.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Just saw Hockey on the news smiling when talking about job losses.
What the hell is wrong with him?

Definite liability!

 

[bunsen burner]

Where's the poll option for "arse clown"?

 

[Northalives]

Joey is shiting himself about what's going to happen when the Ashby stuff hit's the fan.

He is an economic illiterate and has as much talent as the other "Liberal"/Nationals on their front bench: great intellects like Mirrabela, both the Bishop thingies, the "history-is-crap" Pyne, the salivating Morrison or the National's answer to Abbott, Joyce.

One could go on and on about the dearth of talent on the Tory side and as per way of clinching the argument as to the lack of ability and adroitness amongst the conservatives, they got rid of Turnbull, the only one amongst them that had any pretensions of truly being "Liberal" in the true sense of the word and replaced him with a person that is even more embarrassing than George W. Bush with a side kick, Joe Hockey, who reckons that the Charter of Budget Honesty is a sham and he is not going to take any notice.

Asset or liability?

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

I think Caesar is 100% correct in this thread.

The mistake political staffers, to a lesser extent political journalists and earnest well meaning people who think they care about politics make is believing that 'good policies' win elections.

There are a number of realities why that is not the case.

- the public do not have the time or the interest to focus on politics. Unless the substance of a policy can be demolished in a soundbite, it will do its job in the sense that it raises awareness of the party/person behind it by a fraction.

- the bigger and bolder the idea, the more likely it will go spectacularly wrong. There are some excellent public servants out there, but there are also enough mediocre/unmotivated people involved to ensure that whatever detailed and impressive policy is put out there, whether or not it produces results will depend on a million different factors beyond the control of the person who put it together. 'Research' which it informs policies, even supposedly quality reseach, is a massive mixed bag.

-there really is not that much 'low hanging fruit' left in the world of the public affairs. Things which are obvious have already been done. Things which aren't are usually a combination of risky, dangerous, impossible or too controversial.

-the opposition is always at a massive disadvantage when it comes to producing policies which stand up to even the 20 second soundbite test because they have less warm bodies and less expertise than the government of the day, and less press officers to sell it.

With all that in mind, it is actually very sensible that people vote not for policies so much as trust and perception of the capacity of the party to make good decisions. ie what values do they think the person/party is, and how professional do they think that person or party will be in governing.

John Howard and Bob Hawke repeatedly won elections not because they had good policies, but because over time, they built up a persona of generally being safe, reliable, trustworthy people who wouldn't rock the boat. In most cases, their big 'policies' were not at all electoral winners or particularly well researched, they were just stuff they felt strongly about doing, and some of them turned out well in retrospect.

 

[Docker Clint]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...at-from-treasury/story-fnihsr9v-1226687498334

Readers may remember that two days before the federal poll, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey produced a one-page letter from WHK Horwath which he claimed certified in law that the Coalition's numbers had been audited as accurate.

"If the fifth-biggest accounting firm in Australia signs off on our numbers, it is a brave person to start saying there are accounting tricks,'' Hockey said at the time.

"I tell you it is audited. This is an audited statement.''

Actually it wasn't. Rather it was the product of a carefully worded agreement that stipulated the assessment was not of an audit nature - a rather significant omission which led to the subsequent professional conduct proceedings launched by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

As the election dust settled and Treasury did analyse the Opposition numbers, it turned out there was an $11 billion crater littered with double counting and dodgy assumptions.

There's that 11 billion dollar black hole that the coalition cheer squad seem to not be able to notice, being mentioned again. The black hole that swung the independents minds into siding with the ALP.