ACNielsen has followed yesterday’s Victorian state poll with the one we’ve all been waiting for: the first New South Wales poll to follow the series of disasters that befell Morris Iemma’s 12-year-old Labor government last week. Unfortunately, the poll was conducted “from February 15 to 19 – significantly, before the worst of the Wollongong corruption scandal”. Labor is still in front, leading 51-49 compared with 52.3-47.7 at the March 2007 election, but this reduces to 50-50 following “analysis of the figures based on the allocation of preferences at the last election, under the optional preferential system”. Iemma’s approval rating has slumped to 34 per cent from 52 per cent at the time of the election, which was presumably the last time ACNielsen conducted a state poll.
In other poll news, things aren’t looking good for Helen Clark. Note the recent parallels between Australian and New Zealand poll trends in this chart covering the year up to last September.
155 Comments
Good news for John Watkins?
It might indeed be a fortunate thing for Iemma that he does not face the voters this year. It is not all bad news for Iemma tough, if Swan can grab inflation by the throat and quickly get it back into the Reserve Bank’s preferred 2 to 3% range, chances are that the Federal and state economies could all be shaking off their sluggishness as interest rates fall on the other side of inflation being bought under control.
It has occurred to me that for this to happen quickly Swan probably needs to be a bit more flexible with his options and perhaps pay this year’s tax cuts which were promised in the heat of an election campaign as Superannuation and give future tax cuts out as cash only when the budget is being framed with inflation lying within the Reserve Bank’s preferred target range.
Why follow Costello’s formula for disaster when he is now Treasurer and can frame the budget in an economic responsible way that can benefit the nation as a whole and the states individually.
It’s about time that an underappreciated liberal former federal frontbencher with name recognition parachuted into a safe state electorate to lead the Libs out of the wilderness in three years.
Question is – who?
Tony Abbott would be the logical choice, except that he’s just as much of a religious whackjob as the current lot.
Malcolm Turnbull would be perfect but would never do it. He has his eye on Kevin Rudd’s job.
Danna Vale would be a worthwhile choice – people at least know her name from all that notoriety, unlike Fatty O’Barrell or anyone else in the state liberal party just now.
Downer and Costello aren’t from NSW and wouldn’t survive a parochial media.
Most of the other former “personalities” from the federal liberals (eg Joe Hockey) are just as unknown as the state MPs are, so they’d be no use.
Peter,
Agree with the concept.
Actually (apart from Turnbull, whose ego could not be contained by a State role), I reckon Hockey’s the right person for the job.
Will the ALP Right cope with a member of the left as leader? I can’t see it happening. “Control the party at all cost” is their motto.
BSF,
An interesting dilemma. Probably depends on how much they want to win. Watkins seems like a pretty useless minister but he’s a good talking head who always seems to have a vaguely plausible explanation for why the latest transport fiasco was just bad luck, not anyone’s fault.
Here’s another spin: if (heaven forbid) something happened to Kevin Rudd right now, it would be hard for the Federal party not to pick Gillard. The “punters” would not take kindly to someone else (presumably a man from the Right) leap-frogging her (in their view, anyway) for the top job.
I think the times may be changing.
I find it funny how people always seem to want a different state government to the federal one. I know that there are major issues in NSW which have nothing to do with federal politics but it always seems that when there is a Labor federal government the states swing to the Liberals and vice versa. The only exception is QLD which historically has very long serving governments.
Steve @ 2
I do agree with you that the tax cuts are not the best idea given the current economic climate however we do live in a democracy and people voted for Labor based on them giving the tax cuts. To take them back would be undemocratic even if it is good for the majority.
steve,
The last time (before this one) Labor won a Federal election it took away promised tax cuts (”L-A-W law”) and turned them into Super.
If they did it again this time … the Liberals’ attack lines would pretty much write themselves …
Dyno @ 6
If something happened to KR I would expect all positions would be made vacant and the caucus would elect a new PM and team from scratch.
SC @ 9,
No doubt that’s the internal procedure.
But I’m sure there’d be a fair bit of public resistance (and a widespread perception of sexism) if there was a non-Gillard choice. She’s got (easily) the second-highest profile now.
8 Dyno, yes but it would be even more devastating for Labor if the inflation mess of Costello is not sorted out quickly – by say budget time this year and interest rates do not drop to below where they were under the previous government over the next eigteen months or so. That would be a catastrophy that Labor could not tolerate and the Libs would have a field day.
Let the Libs get on their high horse and cringe about someone cleaning up their economic mess and watch them cower at the next election, as Labor flogs them with the line that interest rates are always lower under Labor.
Maybe steve – don’t know – it’s a difficult dilemma.
As a non-NSW person, the whole situation seems amazing. Are the Liberals really that bad that they cannot do better than Iemma? Is the Liberal’s situation still suffering from their successful efforts to get rid of Brogden?
They have no option. Get the Liberal inflation strangled now and allow interest rates to fall again or dilly dally and be a one term government, Dyno. There is no dilemma at all. The choice is clear and billions of dollars put into national savings is far better than messing around with inflation the way the Costello do nothing approach applied to tax cuts and resulting inflation.
What exactly would it take to make redirecting the tax cuts into Super acceptable to the public?
What was the reaction of the media the last time Labor put tax cuts into Super? This time around many members of the media seem to favour them. Could it be spun to make Rudd/Swan look like tough, responsible economic managers cleaning up after the Liberal’s mess?
15 Molloby, the promise of being rewarded with lower interest rates and cash tax cuts whenever inflation is within the Reserve Bank 2 to 3% range would be a big carrot.
What is amazing is that people would still want to vote for Iemma even after months and years of back to back scandals and revelations of corruption.
15 Molloby, just think about how the public would accept the cash now at the cost of higher interest rates in the future a la Costello. As a proven recipe for electoral disaster I wouldn’t recommend this horse and cart tactic to anyone.
Now is probably the best time for a new, genuinely centre-left political party/movement to be established in NSW. Both the ALP and the Coalition seem to be hopelessly corrupt or bereft of ideas due to the way their party machines have become overrun by either religious or outright thuggery.
18 steve, the question is how it is spun:
Promise breaking socialists who take money out of your pocket.
Sober responsible economic managers breaking with the policies of the former government.
The question is how Labor can get their message into the heads of the News Ltd. reading general public. It is a more sophisticated argument in favour of redirecting the tax cuts than it is keeping them so it has to be more difficult to sell it.
It’s hard to believe this poll. The Iemma govt is truly appalling. I know a lot of usual Labor voters who are going to vote against them next time (myself included).
The only caveat is that the Libs have to keep their head and keep O’Farrell in charge. If the right destabilise him to put (who?) in, they’ll lose again.
I feel that Iemma won’t see out the term and Watkins will take over. Watkins at least gives the illusion of competence.
MD,
Yes, if O’Farrell stays, I don’t think the Libs will lose the next one. He is a decent (if pedestrian) sort of guy.
I suspect his low recognition (which will improve as the election comes more into focus) is the only reason they are as low as 49%.
11
steve – i hate to break it to you but since the last interest rate rises they are higher than when the Tories were last in office, hence your argument falls at the first hurdle LOL!
Just goes to show you that given enough failings the people will choose the alternative.
Yes, as a rusted-on Labor voter from Sydney I have to say that the Iemma govt is utterly dreadful. What saved Iemma at the last state election was: (a) his administration was presented (disingenuously) as a “new ” government, as opposed to the previous administration of Bob Carr; and (b) the Lib-Nat opposition under Debnam was a dog’s breakfast (no thanks to Debnam himself).
ALP strategists aren’t dummies; if the Iemma govt continues on its current course, Iemma will be pushed. The backbench is nervous, and (as somebody said) Watkins is a good talking head. But if the ALP is smart, they’ll choose a fresh face – someone who is untainted by any close association with the Premier (the way Iemma himself got the job in the first place!)
In regards to Mr O’Farrell’s lack of recognition.
Given the incompetance of the ALP in NSW, maybe the lack of recognitiion for O’Farrel will be a good thing. I think most people will be voting against the ALP, rather than for the Libs… they just need for him to keep his nose clean….
Kakuru
Is Verity Firth too green? (In both senses.)
Inner Westie – maybe she is, on both scores.
It’s a shame Carmel Tebbutt (also wife of Anthony Albanese) chose to retire to the backbench. Family commitments, I believe.
Just what is the parliamentry strenght of Labors factions in NSW? I know the right is bigger. But just How much? I know the right has two main sub factions also. I’m just curious how the numbers stack up. I’m not from NSW so my knowledge of NSW politic is limmited.
Completely left-field idea:
I think some consideration should be given to staggering the length of a government’s term, depending how long they’ve been in office. A brand new government could get a fixed (say) 4-5 year term to implement their new agenda, and also to allow the opposition to consolidate after their loss. A second term government would get fixed 3-4 year term, and perhaps 2-3 years for each term after that.
It’s uncanny how the wheels just seem to fall off the most competent of governments after about 10 years. It happened with Howard, and before him Keating. Having short terms for long-serving government would be a sort of mercy rule for the public- in this case the NSW people could boot out Iemma in 2009 rather than be stuck with him for another three years.
Is there any pollbludger who actually likes political factions?
If there is one bit about politics that i hate really hate it is factions.
Yes, I love the Liberal factions Glen they are a continual source of entertainment.
Glen @ 30
I think you can make a case for factions making intra-party debate more efficient….
Steve i was not talking about one side or another, i was talking in general.
24 So was I, but the Liberal ones are more interesting because they are informal groupings rather than formal groupings of politicians. this means they are fluid and constantly changing. Just waiting for the Turnbull faction to grow as Nelson’s shrinks.
Either way steve factions ruin much of the integrity of political office seeing what people have to do to get to where they are.
Turnbull will be ahead once the new Senate takes over but he wont want it unless he thinks he can win it (the election). Thus more likely if they dont keep Brendan they’ll pick a third party (but not abbott).
17 Generic Person – I dunno, hell they voted for Askin election after election all those years back. You must remember that is where your true convict ancestry began. What more can you expect?
Yo ho ho – I agree. Factions are a way of containing and defining blocs of party membership based on ideology. It does make debates a lot more streamlined. It may also help to take some of the ad hominem attacks out of certain debates (sometimes, anyway). Arranging the Libs into factions would probably help the party overall.
Nah, Glen. Turnbull will take the leadership at the earliest possibility. He (or rather his ego) is convinced he can WIN.
You could argue exactly the same about parties themselves but the truth is that once you have three people in a group, factions will form.
30 Glen, given human nature factions will always exist whether formally or in formally. I don’t like them but we have to live with them.
I’m not certain that factions make party debate more efficient – but they do tend to ossify into power groupings rather than ideological/policy-based groups. Also, the ‘heavyweights’ of factions seem to have more influence than the one-vote-per-MP principle would suggest.
That said, personal influence and the ability to persuade are necessary skills for politicians, both within their parties and outside. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be leaders and followers. But to have votes determined on issues like the NSW power sell-out (oops, that should be sell-off
) by powerbrokers rather than the MPs themselves… not on.
same goes for the Libs. That said I’m in the odd position of considering a preference vote for B O’F’s team in 2011 despite being somewhat frightened at the positions held by many of the Lib MPs in NSW. All I can categorically say is that the ALP sure as hell won’t be getting a number on my little ballot slip.
The joys of optional preferential.
Ah – on the poll, good to see the Greens at 11%. Would like to see Gs to very well come next election.
On a not entirely unrelated note, is there any precedent/convention that says that an early election can be called? Petition? Referendum? How do we get rid of this bunch ASAP?
The Libs have unofficial/undeclared factions. Steve is right – once you have three or more people, factions are inevitable.
41 Josh WK – Did you vote Labor last election?
Factions make politics even more dirty than it has to be. One has to admire those who took no bar of it like the former Premier Geoff Gallop but IMHO factions are everything that is wrong in politics.
Look at what you get with factions = Wayne Swan as Treasurer when the ALP have more qualified candidates in Gillard and Tanner but as they are from the Left and Swan is from the Right you’re left with Swan?
Factionalism is just as bad if not worse in the Libs and it also makes it very hard to recruit the best and brightest into politics so we’re left with a bunch of cut throat politicians who’ve done everything to get to where they are.
Josh OPV is a very good system and i wish we had it in Victoria you lucky bastards up North have got a far better system for voting in State politics.
But Glen (45) you’re the first to criticise Gillard and Tanner for being of the Left. You were busy warning us of the dangers of gillard before the election. Now she would make a good treasuer?
It’s not factionalism that stops people joining the Liberals Glen, its their policy. How could I join the Liberals under any pretext when I don’t view the world the way they choose to do?
Of course, factionalism will cause people to leave the party even though they believe in the basic beliefs and policies of a party and may well continue to support the party in other ways.
GP – I guess people (like me) don’t want to vote for the Iemma government but our dislike of the (incompetent and socially unacceptable) liberals is stronger. I suspect Brogden may have been able to win last time as he was moderate enough to be palatable.
You would think that with every state held by labour that someone in the liberal party would have worked out someone socially moderate but fiscally conservative would be a shoe-in. That seems too hard for them.
Federal labor eventually worked it out so I guess anything is possible.
Gary who knows? But the most qualified should get the job, not based on their faction.
48 Don’t be naieve Glen, sometimes pragmatic politics involves putting a sacrifical lamb like Mr 9% in to bear the worst of the storm. A bit like sending in a night watchman before stumps in the hope that the real performers can survive till conditions are better.
Just by the way, I’m not yet convinced Swan won’t turn out to be a very good treasurer.
Steve thats different we got pumped, Labor won they’d stay longer in power if they have a competent Treasurer.
Gary Swan will sound like a better Treasurer if he stops saying….
I dont apologise….
Our 5 point plan to fight inflation….
Reckless spending of this government, i mean the previous government….
Unless he can talk about the economy without referring to these he’s a goose IMHO!
Matt , so you and a lot of ALP supporters are going to vote against the ALP. Very smart move indeed. Please outline how you think the current opposition would do better
On this topic I must agree with GP and Glen – the result is amazing as Iemma does not deserve relection. I do not think he is evil but equally he is not likley to change anything in a very unsatisfactory situation. The economic performance of NSW under both Iemma and later stages of Carr is simply not good enough. Nor does there seem to be any real plan to solve the problems.
I agree with the suggestion that someone like Hockey ought to consider going back to State level, where he would make an effective leader. NSW deserves better than a government being elected by default. Of course, Hockey would face a tough task unless the Federal branch helped him put a muzzle on the religeous nutbars.
Socrates
You don’t think the potential for election would aid party disicpline (as happened with the union movement last year)?
52 Glen – Come off it Glen you would dislike ANY Labor treasurer. Like myself you’re not exactly a neutral voice are you.
54 Socrates – Hockety would have no chance in NSW. The scare campaign on Workchoices they could wage against him would be something to behold.
54 Socrates always exercise caution before agreeing with the Glen and GP faction.
“Australia and New South Wales continue to enjoy stable triple-A sovereign credit ratings from both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s. A top sovereign credit rating signifies an extremely strong capacity for governments to meet their financial commitments and withstand changing economic circumstances.
According to Standard & Poor’s assessment of New South Wales in September 2007, its AAA credit rating is underpinned by a diversified economy, a strong balance sheet and the government’s demonstrated fiscal discipline.”
http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/aboutnsw/climate/a8_longtermcredit_intl.htm
It seems to me from afar that Iemma and Costa are staking their whole careers on the Electricity Privitisation. This is causing an enormous ructions within the Party and the local Unions. No doubt this will continue up to the next State Conference and beyond. However, it will be sorted and things will eventually settle down.
The next election is not for three years and Labor has plenty of time to re group, put in a few shiny new faces and re launch themselves to and take on the Libs.
Concede there is every chance that the slide is on. However, Labor know how to win State elections in NSW.
Found this interesting take on the situation.
http://thepipingshrike.blogspot.com/
If any branch of the ALP knows how to hone in on an opponents weak points it’s the NSW Labor machine and they are ruthless. They also don’t mind burning anyone on their own side to win an election.
Steve
Just because I was pleased to get rid of Howard and have the myth of his economic competence exposed, doesn’t mean I have to pretend to believe the NSW economy is in good shape. It is not. All triple AAA means is that you have paid Moody’s or S&P to confirm that you can repay your debts. Some recently collapsed reinsurer’s had been similarly passed, so I think the value of this ratign is greatly exaggerated. See some excellent discusion on economist John Quiggan’s blog on this topic.
Even if Moody’s are correct, it is irrelevant to the other questions such as jobs growth, per capita incomes and the quality of infrastructure and services. On these measures NSW compares very poorly to other states in recent years. Since the end of the housing boom in 2003-04 the Sydney economy has gone nowhere. growth of GSP, per capita income and employment has been well below national averages.
The “balanced” budget is a mirage. They achieve it by skimping on required infratructure and maintenance spending. Now they are selling off one of their most valuable assetts (power) to balance the books. So yes, the books are balanced in the short term. But in the long term the outlook is poor.
In my field (transport infrastructure) the NSW and Sydney rail systems are embarassing. Their poor state has resulted from long term under investment, which is reaching the point where there are huge capital liabilities. NSW RTA very efficiently built toll roads in the 90s which saved billions of government funds. But where did the money go? Certainly not into public transportt or hospitals. Given what land now sells for in Sydney, I cannot fathom how the required infrastructure cannot be funded by developer levies. Yet it doesn’t happen. To me the NSW state government deserves a fail mark on infrastructure, spending control, and long term planning.
Why wont anyone answer my question
Incidentally, if Iemma is still around by the end of 2010, he could be a drag on Rudd’s prospects for a second term. The advantage that Rudd had in last year’s election was that NSW voters had recently gone to the polls before the federal election so they had an opportunity to vent their anger/frustration at the state government. Next time around, it is likely that the federal election will be held before the NSW State Election and so therefore voters will not have had a chance to vent their anger at the Iemma government and may therefore register a protest vote in the federal elecgtion. This may especially be true if the NSW Opposition is still predominantly controlled by ineffective ultra-right wing clowns. It is possible that NSW voters, fearing the prospect of a Liberal government but nevertheless wanting to send a message to Iemma, will take their anger out on federal Labor and cost them much needed seats
Scenario sounds far-fetched? In the 1987 federal election, during the era of the Unsworth government, there were big swings against Labor in NSW with even seats such as Paul Keating’s very safe seat of Blaxland registering a vote of under 60%. In 1990, when Greiner was in office, the Labor vote recovered in NSW and this may have been a partial factor in keeping the Hawke government in power. Considering that Iemma is a serious competitor for being the kind of lackluster, ineffectual leader that Unsworth was, the potential exists for a similar trend to emerge in 2010.
Rudd may further be disadvantaged by the fact that the federal election -if held as expected in late 2010 -will coincide with the approximate timing of Victorian State Election and the potential exists for state and federal elections issues to become overlapped. This may cost the federal ALP further seats in Victoria under a similar scenario to that which may occur in NSW -that voters may not want to elect the Victorian Liberal Party to office but may want to use the 2010 federal election to register a protest vote against the Brumby government.
Scotty its a good question and I have no idea of the balance of the factional numbes. I presume the Labor Right faction’s dominance is significant, as after a quick minute on Google I found references in SMH articles to their having about 1/3 of the cabinet positions. But what the actual numbers are I have no idea.
Andrew,
The question might be how could they do worse?
The public transport is so bad it’s embarrassing, they constantly announce new projects that never seem to commenced let alone finished;
Hospitals are atrocious with a focus on health bureaucrats rather than frontline staff;
Planning under Lord Frank Sartor is just give the developers what they want, after all they bankroll the party;
There is quite possibly corruption, esp in regard to anything Joe Tripodi is involved in;
Cityrail is a disgrace, the Govt refuses to take on the unions who protect inefficient and corrupt staff (see recent ICAC inquiry);
Actually see ICAC inquiry into Cityrail, see the inquiry into Ferries; see the inquiry into Royal North Shore Hospital; see the debacle that is the new Bathurst Hospital; not to mention the latest revelations of ALP dealings in Wollongong.
In short they are a tired, lazy, incompetent and quite possibly corrupt government who have been in power for far too long and a new broom is sorely needed, even if it is a Liberal broom.
There’s been something wrong in NSW politics right from the start. And it infects both sides of politics (anyone here remember Robert Askin?).
I reckon it started with Macarthur and the Rum Corps and never left the place. It hangs around like a miasma, slowly infecting successive State Governments. Indeed, people in this State have come to expect their Governments to be ineffectual, incompetent and corrupt.
In my view, the whole place needs dis-infecting from the top, down.
It might have been easier if Bligh had just hanged Macarthur and his co-conspirators (the Neddy Smiths of their time) all those year ago. But the twit didn’t and the example was set. It’s an example that has repeated itself in NSW State politics, right from Blight’s time to the present.
And the lesson is this: In NSW, crooks prosper.
As for Iemma’s standing in the polls, the fact that Labor continues to lead doesn’t surprise me at all. As I say, people in the State of Corruption will put-up with just about anything: Lies, incompetence, stupidity and downright payola are all, it seems, quite OK.
The only thing they won’t tolerate are wowsers.
Unfortunately for the Libs.
62 PD1981 – I don’t recall Hawke losing the ‘87 election. The fact is people can distinguish between the state governments and the Australian government when voting.
The NSW ALP govt will be in danger of being assumed as corrupt and time won’t heal that, only a complete change in faces.
And, are they wanting to privatise the electricity sector on economic grounds or to give windfall opportunities to some mates? How many need to cross the floor to stop this going ahead?
No 67
Kina, the corruption that so badly permates the NSW Government did not just materialise in the last few weeks, it has been evident for a number of years, even before the 2007 election.
Evan is right when he says that the people of NSW are completely indifferent to it all. They’re happy to rant and rave about how bad the situation is, but won’t vote for change and keep electing the same dumb pack of drongos in every time.
“In short they are a tired, lazy, incompetent and quite possibly corrupt government who have been in power for far too long and a new broom is sorely needed, even if it is a Liberal broom.”
Agree, they should have been gone last time, but Debnam was Iemma’s Latham, unfortunately it looks like O’Farrell and his brand of liberalism does not seem to appeal to the voters.
The main problem for New South Wales Labor is political donations, hence donations from people who want a return on their investment. Seems to me their needs to be reforms in this area.
Labor should abandon the privatisation issue, it is something that the community i doubt wants so why go ahead with it.
Politically the party their is a mess, nonetheless i feel the Liberals are in the same situation.
Currently what i see in this country is a need for political people who have some vision and courage to put in place policies which the top end of town cannot make a buck.
In New South Wales transport and health are in crisis, like Victoria minus health here, In Victoria the government has spent 5 billiion on roads and only 200 million on public transport since 1999.
New South Wales Labor does have three years to get it right but i feel what they really need is a change in the culture and this i feel will not occur.
Right, I’m gonna have a rant here. Apologies in advance.
The NSW Govt is absolutely tear-your-hair-out stuff. Poor old Morris is a very decent chap (I’ve met him several times and he’s a sweetheart) but he’s not in charge and he doesn’t have it in him to be in charge. Michael bloody Costa and his bully-boy mates are the ones running the show, but it’s not as if there haven’t been precedents for that.
The majority thought – evidenced by election results – that Bob Carr was a good premier of NSW for a decade. Even if you didn’t like him personally you respected him. It was only when he left that we all realised that he didn’t actually do anything much – all he did was manage the economy and kept the state chugging along quite well. But that is what most people demand of state politicians. Don’t raise levies, keep unemployment and crime in check, just let me get on with it without bothering me. The fact that we actually have to pay for services we seem to take for granted, like schools and hospitals and transport, does not compute with the average voter. It’s only when things fall apart that they start to complain loudly but even then they are not willing to pay to fix the problem.
It is we the voters of NSW who are at fault – we have continued to accept the myth that as long as our AAA rating is maintained then we are doing well. And we are economically – it is absolute crap that we are doing poorly. It’s just that if a government wants to build infrastructure of any kind it has to borrow, and we won’t vote for a government that goes into debt. We do it ourselves every day with our credit cards, but god forfend a pollie who tries it.
A couple of posters have asked the question about how bad the opposition must be for us to keep re-electing Iemma’s crowd. They are that bad. Labor suffered a couple of scandals – one a real biggie – just before the March 2007 election and it was already on the nose. To any objective observer the Govt should have been given the arse. Instead, the Libs in their wisdom decided to go with Peter Debnam as leader. Imagine Barnaby Joyce without a brain but with a copy of the Right-wing Scumbag manifesto in his hot little hand, proudly decked out in budgie smugglers. He was a twit. The only person with any talent in the NSW Liberal Party is Fatty O’Barrell but he’s constantly dragged down by the bunch of morons sitting on his side of the house.
On the Labor side, John Watkins is pleasant but he’s like former minister Andrew Refshauge – too smart and too small l liberal for his own good. And he is simply incapable of articulating a transport plan, probably because the Govt and the public service don’t have one. He should have done what Bob Debus did and get out. Verity Firth is incredibly smart but she’s about 12 years old and hasn’t the profile. The rest of them are not worth talking about.
The SMH published a letter the other day that said it all (from a Mr KR of Woollhara, of all places): “The opposition has done an exemplary job of directing the searchlight at the failures of the Iemma Government. The problem is, how do you elect a newspaper to office?”
Thank whatshisname I live in an electorate that votes independent. Rant over. Many profound apologies.
This debt myth Mark Twain is perpetuated by the media who are owned by big business and business community, because these people have their fingers on assets to help their greedy selfs get greedier.. I bet the media want this privatisation especially the murdoch press.
Borrowing by governments is the cheapest form of debt, because governments through taxes have the ability to pay it back. But we keep hearing public debt is bad which is abosolute rubbish. What is bad is private debt, and massive amounts of it because if the economy collapses then who picks up the pieces- governments of course.. look at Northern Rock in England, it collapsed and guess and after some searching for a private buyer of which could not be found the government took it over.
These politicians need to ask why or how this country built its railways and power poles and dams etc and certainly wasn’t done by private owners…
Excuse the language, Marky, but bollocks to that. Blaming the media is easy (then again I’m a journalist so I’m obviously in thrall to Rupert Murdoch and big business – not). Reasoned argument about the reality of debt v credit ratings, the burden-sharing between the public and private sectors in infrastructure development and investment, all of the debate we continually have on economic management, is constantly played out in the media, but in the end it means bugger all. We whinge about debt and yet always look for the best bargain. It’s human nature.
71 Marktwain – good rant. I don’t usually read long contributions but that was a good one.
Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
But look at the amount of business shows we have on tv now, and business sections in the papers. The media i feel have a role to provide serious research and serious reporting but what we get instead is celebrity news and trivia.
I bet the media state that the protest today was a flop and that very few people attended.
Moreover look at the amount of right wing commentators in our opinion pages compared to left wing commentators, i think you will find that their are significantly more and most write articles detesting economic liberalism or government ownership.
The public reads this and then form their opinions accordingly.
One last thing look how the media portrays the unions these days, as people who do little for their workers or as people who like to strike or as organisations whose memberships are in decline.
I also believe our universities are to blame for teaching economic rationalism. Which predominately forms the syllabus of most economic courses today.
1. Since Federal intervention in 1970, the factions have had proportional representation 2/3 right, 1/3 left.
2. The right is split into (the names may be out of date): the dominant Terrigals (named after their meeting place -Eddie Obeid’s weekender) who seem to have a somewhat Mediteranean basis and the Troglodytes who seem to have an Irish Catholic influence and are now very much out of favour. The Left are divided into hard and soft subfactions
3. The Premier is of the right so unless their are major convultions Watkins, Tebbutt and Firth have no chance
4. The major convulsion may occur over electricity privatisation – Carr tried it but stepped back when he saw the anger. Iemma will have to do a lot of high stepping to get out of this if he is beaten or now changes his mind – someone with more information may know the chances of him and, presumably, the Terrigals being rolled
5. Evan Whitton ( I think in “Can of Worms” 1986 but I lent my copy to someone and never got it back) put forward the theory that due to the demographics of Sydney and New South Wales, Labor should always be in power in NSW. However such dominance means that Labor is subject to infiltration by criminal elements, the corruption this causes eventually results in Labor losing government. I think this is a very accurate analysis and can be traced back to the fall of the first Labor government in 1916.
6. I think it is remarkable that Carr was able to keep things very much under control for 10 years. Iemma is obviously a different premier.
7. This has reached crisis point 3 years away from an election – it will be a challenge for Labor to reform itself in the available time. I don’t think Iemma is up to it but if he and the terrigals are rolled there is a chance.
Thanks Gary. I promise not to do it again.
Marky, I simply can’t agree with your arguments so perhaps I’ll leave it at that. I’m not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. Don’t we sound like opinion page commentators now?
I will say that while you blame the media, big business and the universities, I still blame John Howard.
Opinion page commentators, Gerard Henderson and Andrew Bolt? Take your pick..
Mark Twain: my argument is that people need outlets to form their opinions and i feel that the media, and universities have been the catalyst of making people have views on economic rationalism- hence support it.
I agree we are both stubborn old columnists with big egos’ who believe we are totally right and no one else is.
Cheers Mark.
Marktwain, noticed that ABC learning share price slumped 40 odd percent today. I reckon that some of the board of that company and their associated company AEU (typical Liberal Party pun for the trust that holds the property for ABC child centres) must be very nervous now.
If this thing gets any worse another unraveling of Howard’s heritage could be happening in front of our nose. For board members think former member from Northern Rivers and former Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane. I’ve always been very skeptical of allowing one highly geared company to round up most of the childcare centers in Australia.
Well, where do I start? Let me first come clean and confess that I am a direct descendent of the paymaster of the NSW Rum Corps. I was also born and bred in Wollongong, and went to school with one of the leading figures in the council corruption scandal (however, I didn’t know him well and he wasn’t a friend of mine, honestly Your Honour). I also spent quite a few years as a journalist covering NSW politics.
Having said all that, I have lived in Victoria for the past 14 years, and consider myself at arm’s length from the happenings in that state, though most of my family still lives there.
Andnow I’d like to comment on the latest opinion poll, which, I believe, is what Poll Bludger is about.
Firstly, I think the drop in popularity of the Iemma Government may not be entirely attributable to its own actions. I think the most important factor would be housing. NSW (and I include most of the coastal strip, as well as Sydney) is more vulnerable than the rest of Australia to interest rate rises. The cost of buying homes is unsustainable. The cost of renting is astronomical. No wonder people are pissed off. They took it out on Howard and they’ll take it out on Iemma. Where the NSW Government is at fault is in encouraging the housing boom and collecting vast amounts of stamp duty, without adequately investing the returns in services (including welfare housing). The downturn has already started in the outer suburbs, and I’d imagine that the Australian equivalent of sub-prime mortgages would have been utilised most heavily in western and south-western Sydney.
Secondly, the Iemma Government has become scandal-ridden, as do most government after they’ve been in power for a decade. By that time, all government boards are full of Labor appointees, largesse is distributed, and there are no dissenting voices on any decision-making bodies. This is bad for democracy. Irrespective of how I might vote personally, I think all governments need to be turned over every ten years. Governments which don’t deliver, of course, should be turned out when the electors see fit.
Thirdly, it seems the NSW Opposition has a leader with some credibility. For those who say he’s a nobody, whom voters don’t know, I respond: Who was Steve Bracks? Who was Kevin Rudd? The voters will change governments if they’re fed up with a government, and simply think the Opposition replacement is
a nice guy and reasonably competent. They WON’T change governments if they distinctly don’t like the Opposition Leader – eg Mark Latham, Peter Debnam.
Fourthly (and only one Poll Bludger poster has mentioned it on this thread) comes the issue of power privatisation. Apart from the threat the government unity that it poses, it’s an undeniable fact that the general public does not like something they own being sold off, particularly if they didnt give their permission. While some privatisations may have merit, few governments have ever successfully sought permission in advance to sell off something major. The quandary is worse for the NSW Government, which, as I’ve read, specifically promised NOT to sell off electricity assets before the last election.
However, while I believe the privatisation issue is affecting opinion polls now,I don’t think it will be a big issue at the next election. There are two reasons for this – it will have been and gone by then, and also the Liberals will have supported it.In fact, I suspect there’ll be electoral advantage for Labor in NSW to suggest that the Liberals would privatise everything that could be sold, including the public transport system and many hospitals. The Kennett Government would be the role model.
Well. I’ll leave it at that, Sorry to have gone on for so long, but I felt this thread had developed into political wanking about factions etc, and had strayed too far
from analysing the latets Iemma opinion poll.
I thought Iemma was selling off the marketing arm of electricity, not the stations, so strictly speaking he can slyly say he isn’t selling any physical assets.
Arbie Jay…..you’re partly correct.But selling off the marketing arm is still privatisation. Those of us in Victoria who have to deal with constantly changing names of electricity and gas wholesalers know the consequences of those.
And while leasing isn’t privatisation per se, it certainly will look like it when private companies are running the power stations.
Personally, I don’t have any ideological bent for or against privatisation. But the public is generally against it. and there’s an additional argument that in these times of great concern about greenhouse emissions and climate change, that we should think very carefully before handing over power stations (leading greenhouse emitters) to the private sector to run, and relinquishing public control of their output.
80 [The cost of buying homes is unsustainable. The cost of renting is astronomical. No wonder people are pissed off. They took it out on Howard and they’ll take it out on Iemma.]
Antonio, they will take it out on more than these if housing affordability doesn’t improve and interest rates keep going up too. Even Rudd and Swan might not be immune if inflation is not dealt with quickly and interest rates reduced. I don’t know much about the NSW government or the corruption there but the economic fundamentals have to be relatively right for governments to survive.
Thanks Antonio
It does look like Iemma playing with words then when he says he is not selling off assets.
And think you may be right re selling off assets, after what happened with Telstra, no improvement in services, no control now over telecommunications, no benefit from the sale interms of return to the people and quite a few burnt by T2. People would query , what is the benefit, what do I get out of it. You blokes may get fat commissions and line up cushy jobs but what do I get.
Yes Steve I agree.
I am amazed that none of the previous commenters even mentioned house and rent costs, and many carried on with in-depth analysis of the NSW Labor factions.
Getting the economics right is as important as the politics.
I really don’t see how the housing situation can be eased quicly, by either state or federal governments. It’s a mixture of neglect of skills of training over a number of years, an increase in immigration to compensate for that lack of skills training, higher interest rates following a period of sustained low interest rates, and little or no new home building. Glad I’m not running a government.
Exactly Arbie Jay. It’s certainly a challenge for spin and marketing to convince the general public that there’s some benefit for them in power privatisation. And once it’s sold, it’s almost impossible for the government to buy it back again some time in the future, unless it collapses economically and the government needs to bail it out
(eg parts of the Victorian rail system, and a couple of Victorian priviatised hospitals – see also “Northern Rock”).
The government may argue that power sales will deliver billions to the State Budget that can be spent on services like health and education. But it’s just a windfall, like selling your house so you’ve got money for rent.
The only way to really deliver money for government services is to provide sustained state economic growth. Without the mining boom (apart from some coal), it will be difficult for NSW.
Privatisation, as it applies to any public utility, such as electricity, as was Work Choices, though a different thing, a death sentence for any Government.
Perhaps Iemma is stupid, or arrogant or perhaps he doesn’t care. Whatever happens, he has sounded the death knell of his Government, irrespective of a hopeless, at present, Opposition. Who need move only a little to present themselves as a possible alternative.
It happened in South Australia. It will happen in NSW.
The anger over the electricity privatisation, here, led to Olsen’s defeat. Rann scraped in originally, by luck, on the electricity betrayal, but as certain goings on indicate in SA, he may well be up against it next time.
It is all very well of him to pretend he is Labor, but his activities and leanings indicate otherwise. When the Government treats itself as a one man party, Rann, a personal fiefdom, it is all over. Iemma, same.
Arrogant enough to think anyone would forget. It took three years, but we did not forget.
Privatisation is lauded because of its “efficiency’
Incentive based private enterprise managers run these ‘business’ better in terms of utilising assets , increasing productivity & minimising costs.
This is generally true but these are all ‘monetry’ values.
Unfortunately the Public AND Pollies do not understand financial engineering otherwise they’d realise the better ‘monetry’ values under Privatisation are massively outweighed by the funding costs of acquisition alone (which over 30 years are paid by the tax payer.)
These funding costs are the difference between the AAA Government interest rate and the cash rate % obtainable by the highest credit rated Public Company
In addition , the tax payer pays the Private Company’s Profit margin in their rates over 30 years.
How Liberal & labor Pollies have fallen for this voodoo economics is surprising…except they can claim they are debt free
(Government debt is deemed a dirty word when economically it is not)
Australia is desperate need of respectable opposition parties, the Liberals in most States, when they get sick of bleeding themselves to death, need a respectable face in the leaders job and, to come back closer to the center. But it seems these guys are so disorganised they cant even ‘fake’ it. A credible and performing Opposition would certainly make the NSW govt more accountable and careful the liberties it takes.
perhaps Kina , that non respectable opposition in NSW you refer to may win government because Yemma is mucking up incl. privitising electricity ?
Ron, my mind clouds with red anger, whatever the arguments for privatisation.
I cease to think, cannot consider the logical arguments. I just go into, what?
If I am representative, I am one of those dumb voters. Highly emotional. Possibly highly illogical.
Down the track and looking back, government owned worked in the past, what is so different about government owned in the future?
what is different ‘Crikey’ is modern Pollies understand the ‘capitalist’ system is better than ’socialism’ and that ‘government debt’ IS an election loser.
So no modern Labor leader will touch ‘government debt’
In this respect the ‘right’ won this ‘culture war’ by stealth.
As mentioned , costs of acquisition are more costly to tax payers over time than government debt if used for Government utilities & NOT for ‘consumption’
Its a challenge Rudd will have to face (more so in a 2nd term than a first)
Yep – the ALP may lose if the current issues don’t blow over by the next election and they cant sort themselves out soon.
Essential infrastructure is meant to provide best and cheapest possible service to the people and net zero cost. Power, water, roads and communications etc.
As they go into the hands of corporations the imperative changes entirely – they have a duty to the shareholders to provide the least service for the highest price possible for the least amount of outlay. AND if they put these cash cows into a position they are partly owned by foreign corporations directly/indirectly then our fees disappear overseas as well.
yep Kina , I stayed away from less ’services’ for simplicity , but your point is another negative to privatisation.
Rather like the Future Fund, Kina?
Ron, this triple AAA stuff is a bit of a nonsense, anyway, is it not?
I wrote on this in the past. Having a chat with an Olsen adviser, she said words to the effect ‘if you knew what he is doing for the State.’
My response was, ‘if only we knew.’
Crikey , there are differing calculations but generally a AAA rated Government can borrow 1.5% better than a Public company.
As these ‘ financial deals’ go over about 30 years , multiply 1.5% compound over 30 years & its massive …all payable by the tax payer as an ADDITIONAL
COST for the supposed ‘monetry’ advantages of Privitisation efficiency
Its a ‘con’ on the tax payer so Pollies do not have to defend going into government debt
One of the Economic writers for the ‘Age’ down in Melbourne has always argued the same case as me
his name is Kenneth Davidson
Then, Ron, acknowledging your 97, I remain suspicious of the triple A nonsense.
And to return to Kina’s ‘Yep – the ALP may lose if the current issues don’t blow over by the next election and they cant sort themselves out soon’ not to mention concerns for the general future expressed by many,
What if the ALP radically reframed the future? Even in an old format. Government bonds, for one.
the AAA only means the highest credit rating you can get.
the higher the credit rating , the LOWER interest rate you pay
only governments have the AAA , so they pay lower than ANY^ private enterprise company.
even BHP would pay over 1% higher interest thabn any State Government
ALL companys with lower credit rating than BHP (99% of them) pay higher interest rates again
these private Equity consortiums that but Public assets have generally worse credit ratings again and so pay even higher interest rates
and this last category paying huge interst rates on borrowed money dsupposedly can run Public utilities cheaper than Governments (with AAA , ie the lowest interest rates on borrowed money (debt) !
Well, slight head spin, Ron. Is this the sort of stuff from which people such as Iemma derive their rationale? In fact, I have no reason to think that either Iemma, Rann or Olsen are smarter than I. Which does not necessarily mean that I am all that smart. Will look at Kenneth Davidson.
Antonio #80, I’m sure you are correct in a wider sense and you make a very good point about rental housing (Christ, don’t I know it). In a narrower sense, however, to those who live here, privatisation of the lecky supply is just a final nail in the coffin of the Iemma Govt. If they would actually come out and say that the estimated $15b they expect from the sale would go directly towards solving the problem of transport in the greater Sydney region (trains, roads and buses in that order); hospitals and healthcare in the outer suburbs, the regional cities and the far west; and at least air conditioning our public schools, then a lot more people might support it. Then again, they tried this tactic with the proposed sale of the Snowy Hydro scheme and that fell flat on its face.
I have no ideological opposition to privatisation of this particular public asset – although I’d draw the line at others, as did many over the Snowy sale – but if there is one area that the Iemma Govt is significantly worse at than the Carr Govt, it is selling a story properly.
The reason that Labor is doing so poorly in the polls is not due to a single issue, and certainly not due to recent issues such as privatisation of electricity or corruption allegations (the latter just raises a great big yawn – I think Cartman’s rendition of the term ‘like, whatever’ is most fitting). It’s not even due to perceptions of incompetence. It is partly due to boredom, but it is mainly due to the fact that the government of our state is not actually doing anything constructive at all, despite our manifest problems. As a life-long Labor voter, it is terribly disappointing for me and I cannot see a way out of it. If a rusted-on Labor voter like me is despairing, what hope does the swinging voter have?
Ron @ 100,
You are not quite right there – a number of companies have AAA ratings. Berkshire Hathaway being the most famous example.
I don’t think any of these AAA-rated companies are going to buy part of the NSW electricity system, though. Agree with your point about the typical private company paying more to borrow than a government – therefore a company needs to find a lot of savings in running the power business, to make up for the greater cost of debt.
Seems to me that the threat of privatisation is probably a good way of keeping public sector unions/employees honest. The threat is a good thing, but we just don’t want too many actual privatisations to happen.
Reasons for the NSW government’s unpopularity are simple to find:
- transport is shocking (and getting worse – my area’s train service has got measurably worse in the 10 years I’ve lived here)
- hospitals are shocking
- state taxes are high
etc.
By contrast, corruption is treated by most NSW citizens as a joke. (I don’t condone this, but I think it’s an accurate statement of people’s outlook).
Dyno
therefore a company needs to find a lot of savings in running the power business, to make up for the greater cost of debt.
and that is where the ‘culture wars’ over capitalism vs socialism was lost because socialism was a flawed economic concept but in correctly throwing it out , Labor ALSO threw out keeping keeping public utilities in government ownership (which had NOTHING to do with the concept of socialism at all)
or are you coming from a different angle Dyno ?
Not, Dyno. I think the triple A thing is a furphy.
Luckily, stats reveal that young people are deserting Sydney. Population depletion may yet work.
By the way, the question you asked me on a previous thread, that you had never mentioned the term ‘ on the ropes’ re Kev, you are quite correct. I do apologise for taking up Bushfire Bill’s terminology, failing to check the reference.
well Crikey , leave aside economics
Private owners will always run a Public utility for their ‘owners’ benefit and that may & usually does conflict with the publics interwts of ’service’.
because the Private owners principal focus is Profit (irrespective of so called efficiency benefits) whereas a Government runs them as a social justice service
as the principal purpose rather than for profit
‘young people are deserting Sydney’ Where are they going? thats not happening in Melb, where all trying to get as close as possible to stay away from the barbarous lands of the outer suburbs.
Thought you’d come and say hi to the tumbleweeds, eh Nath?
Ron @ 105/106,
I’m sort of with you, I think.
I agree that the govt getting debt off its balance sheet by just outsourcing the stuff that’s “too hard” is unlikely to give the people the best outcomes. Why not leverage the biggest balance sheet in town (the government’s) where really big investment is needed?
The only problem is how to keep the public sector workers accountable if they know they have an unassailable monopoly. That’s why I’m not necessarily anti the threat of privatisation, but I acknowledge that in practice a lot of privatisations have been disasters, and the higher cost of borrowing is a needless additional cost.
Overall I’d like to see privatisations be few and far between from now on.
107 CW,
Cheers, thanks for the acknowledgment.
thats scary William.
nath, apparently they are leaving for the closest and furthest available inland sites.
For those who cannot meet the unaffordable coast.
Many K’s away from even the outerest of suburbs.
Melbourne is different, of course it is still ‘little’ in Sydney terms. That is, it has transport, is as yet negotiable. I love, love Melbourne. Always have. Family comes from there.
It is like a bigger Adelaide. Exciting, diverse. Great to come back here, always, though. As long as the water keeps up.
you know its a major indicator of a psycopath to never forget even the most trivial slight.
i thought melb was safer than Syd, Bris, Adel and Perth in terms of water. it would be good to get a comparative view.
OoooH. Willliam. Not to be thought State istic.
I spent a lovely year in my early twenties in beautiful Perth and reasonably closer environs, and have since returned several times to WA. To explore the bits I missed, such as the Margaret River.
Love it, Love it. You are still fortunate.
Get stuffed, Nath.
thats a bit heated
Sorry to follow that comment with that one, CW.
Dyno , we are on the same page.
Gonernment ownership of a Public Utility is cheaper for the tax payer than the acquisition costs of Private ownership irrespective of alleged efficiency savings
You then raised a query re Public Ownership:
“The only problem is how to keep the public sector workers accountable if they know they have an unassailable monopoly.
and this is a valid point. Guess there are many options to explore in this area.
My sense is Labor should have explored your point issue RATHER than concede to the ‘right’ and throw the whole concept of Public ownership out just because “politically Government debt’ is a dirty word the Libs have successfully sold to the voter ??
NSW Gov has to go. A stint in opposition would probally be in the best interests of the Labor party as well.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23283415-2,00.html
A PROPERTY developer who donated more than $160,000 to the NSW ALP has been given a $200 million windfall in a land rezoning deal – despite the Government’s own expert panel warning Planning Minister Frank Sartor against the move.
No probs, William.
And may I point out, to nath, that Perth and WA are the vanguard of public transport.
Melbourne will choke, Adelaide is dismally regressive, but small enough to manage.
WA gets it.
I wouldn’t get too dewy-eyed about Perth public transport, CW, although the new rail line is nice.
If you live inside the Melb tram network life is bliss.
Am I banned William?
Evidently not.
hell i dont want any bad vibes. Ill go.
I am a little dew-eyed. I listened the other day, on Radio Nat to a poet/prose person’s account of the Swan River. I spent my year at Circe Circle, and well recalled her description of the way it was. My travelling brother visits Perth often, and discusses transport. Believe me, it is better.
well if you are going to cause trouble then go as this is a non smart arse blog
I’m not so sure about that, Ron. Anyway, I think Nath just has a bit of a tact deficiency.
the rail network Crikey , is it better than SA ?
thanks William, I did grow up in Collingwood.
back when that meant something.
so did John Wren and I share his interest in gambling , which is what the Libs are doing with Brendon Nelson
If you are referring to Perth/WA, Ron at 131, I am aware that the rail has been extended to far flung areas, William will know.
Unlike any paltry unmade move here, to extend the network to say, beyond Noarlunga.
And I understand that travel within and perhaps beyond the Perth city circuit is free, in an effort to encourage the use of public transport.
my great aunt used to clean Wren’s linen.
thx Crikey , Wayne Swan is correctly talking about Infrastucture spending needed as the economy is at full capcity causing inflationary pressures , so you well see some needed long term funding in transport in all States particularly rail ?
hope he passed on some winning tips to her as he was successful gambler notwithstanding his guaranteed money spinner ‘tote
They’ve changed the way the Free TRansit zone operates according to this page.
http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/TicketsandFares/FreeTransperthServices/tabid/263/Default.aspx
Whot? Ron? I don’t think it is called the Wayne Swan River. But if needs be.
I am going to bed, funeral duties call, till then, goodnight and thanks for all the fish.
An earlier post referred to ‘Private Equity’ firms, notice how things have gone very quiet on that front? Hopefully that will be one of the few benefits to flow from the melt-down in financial markets, we may see the end of those parasites.
Basil,
They’re all so geared against the value of shares and so on, I suspect at the moment they’re licking their wounds.
CW135
While rail extensions here in Adelaide would be nice, I have to say that I agree with the current governments strategy – they must fix the current network, which is in terrible condition, before any extensions. Then they must order more rolling stock, probably electrify, and improve service frequency from Gawler to Noarlunga before I would consider extensions. In an ideal world they would drop trains to Belair, Grange and Tonsley and replace them with more frequent buses. This would free up slots in the timebtale to run more frequent trains to Gawler, Noarlunga and Outer Harbour. The latter might ultimately be better served by an extended tram line with frequent services.
The current rail network is slow, not that frequent, and suffers from temporary speed restrictions due to track condition. There is no point extending it till those problems are fixed, as the extra longer distance trains would make it worse.
The recent train extension in Perth was south to Mandurah. It is one of the largest rail projects done by any State government in Australia in the past decade or so, with fast frequent services. However there are still major problems elsewhere in Perth due to the high cost of housing forcing people a long way out to places where PT services are almost non-existant.
That exchange between you and nath was quite funny William.
Standard and Poors latest ratings give the Brisbane City Council a nice old slap across the face telling them that it is only the performance of the State and Federal Governments that allows them to keep its rating where it is. Tunnels are so good for a city budget apparently.
I’m generally an opponent of privatisation, but think it should be viewed on a case-by-case basis.
However, there are a couple of side issues, which I think are worth noting (drawn from the Victorian context, and impressionistically-based).
The negative dimension of public ownership in public transport and electricity generation and supply in Victoria was that the sectors were often seen as hostage to union power, when that was a meaningful concept. It meant that at its worst costs of provision were hostage to unions and the particular impact on Labor Governments.
There was a flip side advantage in that Victorian Railways and the State Electricity Commission were major employers of apprentices, and therefore a significant source of skilled tradesmen, with significantly transferable skills. Privatised operators are unwilling to subsidise the whole work-force needs for tradespeople.
On balance, I think that electricity privatisation in Victoria has been successful, public transport clearly less so. It’s arguable that’s the nature of public transport which inevitably requires public subsidy irrespective of ownership. Right now, Melbourne transport is in strife, due to lack of investment over decades, and the stresses of growth, which are also having a massive impact on the road network.
When I was recently in Adelaide, I was amazed at how primitive their rail system is.
The trains looked antique and were diesel for goodness sakes and many of the sleepers, or ties as they are sometimes referred to, looked as though they had been purchased second hand from NSW, some time prior to WW2.
I can’t believe that a piece of timber could have so many holes in it and still be able to hold up a rail in the ballast.
Haven’t they heard about cement sleepers?
hey, nath,
What’s a “tumbleweed” ?
Isn’t a ‘tumbleweed’ an ABC Learning director?
This post seems to have become a bit of a bash-Iemma forum, and I think some of the criticism is a little simplistic.
There is no doubt that the Iemma Government is perceived by many as scandal prone, and vulnerable in areas like public transport, health and links to developers.
I would agree that there has been underinvestment in public transport going back many, many years. I would agree that NSW, on a strictly economic view, could have afforded to take on more debt during the 1990s to fund return-generating infrastructure. Does this make me want to vote Liberal? No way. Does anyone seriously think a Liberal Government would have been out there making the argument for budget deficits and responsible debt? Of course not. They, and both the SMH and the Telegraph, argued relentlessly at the time that Carr should have been running bigger surpluses and further trimming the role of Government. They’ve changed their tune now, but does anyone really trust them, particularly when the hard right now has the numbers in their party room? Not me.
It is also true that many of the problems that developed in Sydney’s public transport system were not of the Labor Government’s making. The late-running train scandal a couple of years ago was at least in part the result of measures taken, after public inquiries, to slow down the train system and make is safer after the tragedies of the 1990s. The problems that occur when an issue in Sutherland ends up clogging lines at Richmond is a result of bad planning when the lines were laid decades ago – instead of separate lines that confine problems, they are all interlinked, causing problems to cascade.
On health, public spending per head has increased sharply under this Labor Government. Prior to the election last year, health was regarded by many journalists as a Labor strength, and this was reflected in the opinion polls when people were asked whether they thought a good job was being done. If that is not the case now, I think it has more to do with the Telegraph’s attempts to poach advertiser-and-revenue-friendly upscale SMH readers on the North Shore than anything else. The same goes for the Cross City Tunnel campaign and upscale readers in the Eastern Suburbs. What next for the Tele, the Spit Bridge? Some crisis on the Northern Beaches?
On corruption, well, all I can say is that ICAC, a totally independent body, keeps exonerating Tripodi and the others who go before it. And I think our judicial system, and semi-judicial bodies like ICAC, usually do a good job getting to the truth. A better job then the Telegraph, that’s for sure.
150 I agree
Developer donations to the NSW Government totalled $13,180,793 between 1998-2007, while developers gave the Liberal Party $8.2 million over the same period.
So where’s all the shock horror over the Libs $8mil?
Harbajan Singh is apparently a tumbleweed
If only there was some kind of third party that could use the balance of power to keep those bastard honest
bastards*
The public transport system in Perth is very good if you want to go to the city, but if you want to go cross town (Gosnells to Malaga, Scarborough to Fremantle, Waneroo to Bayswater) its a pain in the arse.