Hypothesis one, from Peter Brent at Mumble: “Canada’s one-term government going for re-election (after only 18 months), amidst world economic turmoil, should provide some clue as to how Rudd & co might fare at the next election.”
Hypothesis two, from Adam in Canberra at this place: “It’s curious that the financial crisis seems to be working in favour of the incumbents in NZ (on the basis of one Morgan poll) and (I think so far) Australia, but against the incumbents in the US and Canada. That would suggest that conservatives are being blamed, not incumbents.”
Let’s do a very quick whiz round to see how things seem to be travelling in various comparable democracies.
United States: Barack Obama opens up 11-point lead over John McCain. “BARACK Obama has opened up an 11-point lead over John McCain in the latest Gallup Poll – his biggest margin of the campaign.”
Germany: Merkel party slumps in poll as financial crisis hits Germany. “The CDU and her sister party, the Christian Social Democrats (CSU), fell four points to 33 percent which is the lowest level since early 2007, according to a survey released jointly by the Hamburg-based Stern news magazine and the commercial RTL broadcasting network.”
New Zealand: New Zealand Election Tightens. “In early October 2008 the New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows National Party support at 40.5% (down 7%), a tight lead over the Labour Party 37.5% (up 1%). If the Election were this weekend there would be a hung Parliament in New Zealand with either major party capable of forming a governing coalition.”
United Kingdom: Labour halves Tory lead in opinion poll: “The opposition was ahead of the ruling party by a record 20-points last week. Today, a YouGov poll, commissioned by The Sun, showed the Labour party stood at 31 points – a 10 point gain on the previous gap.”
Canada: Harper keeps sinking in polls. “With Stephen Harper and his Conservatives losing popularity throughout most of the country, the poll-takers yesterday offered the party a gloomy diagnosis: They see few signs of improvement before voting day on Tuesday.”
Though admittedly …
Italy: Berlusconi honeymoon with the Italians. “They call it ‘honeymoon’. This is no romantic movie, though, it’s the nickname that Italian newspapers gave to a new political phenomenon: Berlusconi’s personal degree of favor among the Italians, his popularity has now reached 60%.”.
Italy always was different, I guess. I’m calling it a win for hypothesis two.
233 Comments
“Canada’s one-term government going for re-election (after only 18 months), amidst world economic turmoil, should provide some clue as to how Rudd & co might fare at the next election.”
Harper was elected and form a minority government. Our election wasn’t so close.
My opinion, is that in uncertain times, people back the party that is percieved to have a greater “social concience”.
Its easy to subscribe to free market policies when the economy is booming. much harder when fear sets in.
The happy junior capitalists are becoming closet socialists.
I suppose you could also look to Japan as another example of a faltering conservative government.
Judging by the polling you have provided William I would say Adam in Canberra is on to something.
If Gordon Brown can rise from the dead then anything is possible.
Jorg Haider dead. Good riddance.
Who?
Austrian fascist leader. When his party went into a coalition government with the conservatives the EU placed sanctions against Austria. The fascists gained a significant swing and quite a few seats in the recent election.
Including Japan hypothesis 1 gets 4-3 and hypothesis 2 gets 6-1.
Dunno who’s right and left in Ukraine but they’re going to an early election there too. Looks like NATO membership’s out the window.
President Viktor Yushchenko dissolves parliament after acrimonious collapse of coalition with bloc led by Yulia Tymoshenko
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/09/ukraine
On the other hand the “left-wing” government in Peru has collapsed. However the Peruvian and Ukrainian examples are more nation specific than related to the financial crisis.
I also wonder how easy it is to dissociate the last polls from NZ and Canada from the financial crisis, and the regular narrowing that goes on as the election draws closer.
More random polls:
In the NZ election, the National lead over Labor in the TV3 poll has halved from 13% (49-36) to 6% (45-39).
It’s becoming increasingly unlikely that the Nationals will be able to form a majority government in NZ…
Good. They don’ deserve it.
Mumble is now channeling the OO. What about the polls Mumble. Isnt that what youre interested in?? Um, essential 58/42, morgan 57/5/42/5, Newspoll 55/45 etc etc
Very scary indeed…I dont remember Brent ever being this bad
John Key was Merrill Lynch’s global head of foreign exchange. Probably something you would not want on your resume heading into an election.
GO KEYNESIAN
Things go to shit, they all come back to mama Keynes
And of course we all know that Keynes simply repackaged Marx. But for it to get taken seriously it had to come from a liberal.
Adam in Canberra
Posted Saturday, October 11, 2008 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
Jorg Haider dead. Good riddance.
Adam you are very unwise to believe this i must admit!
Haider split the far right vote how would you like it now that the FPO will almost certainly get all of the BZO (10%) vote and go into the high 20s!!!! That is not good the only good thing was the far right split its vote, now the FPO will become as dominant as the OVP not good news.
How typical it’s the conservatives to blame…it always has to be. What a JOKE!
It should also be pointed out that 18 months is the longest that a minority government has secured in Canada ever.
Glen, this is how politics works, its not fair, it is a JOKE. But it is what it is. At the moment small govt. market rules, ideas are as popular as ebola.
Not fair, get used to it.
Glen, Haider was a loathsome N*zi t*rd and I don’t care what the political consequences of his demise are, I am just pro-demise-of-N*zi-t*rds.
On the serious matter, IF the Tories lose in Canada, AND Labour is re-elected in NZ, AND British Labour comes back in the polls, AND Obama has a monster win, AND Rudd gets a poll bounce, you will have to conclude that in the English-speaking world (ie, the direct sphere of US cultural-political influence), conservatives as a generic category are being blamed by the voters for the current world economic disaster. These things haven’t yet, but there are signs that they are going to.
“haven’t happened yet”
Ill eat my hat if the Tories lose in Canada. I’d also eat my hat if we lost in New Zealand!
Glen –> interesting.
Adam in Canberra –> for some reason I have always pictured you are a good friend of the Haider type.
I don’t like Haider any more than you do Adam but his death is a boost to the FPO and that is dangerous another election result like the last one and far rightist will be a dominant force in Austrian politics. If i were Austrian id be voting OVP, i dont like the FPO or BZO.
Glen,
While the Tories will still prob win in both Canada and NZ, it won’t be with the majority governments that were predicted for both parties in recent months. Almost certainly, both will need the help of centrist parties to win government.
As for the UK tories, they’re now in a tricky situation. If their lead narrows further, they almost certainly won’t be able to form a majority government, as most of their core vote is located in Tory strongholds throughout the South-East. The small blessing for them is that it looks certain that Gordon Brown won’t be deposed by the Labour party as their leader while this polling improvement continues…
With Jorg Haider and Pim Fortuyn dying prematurely, Jean-Marie le Pen must be looking over his shoulder.
Glen
Have you listened to John Key?
This is creaming Key, “I don’t know how many shares I have” ? Makes Santo look like a saint.
Have the Lib Dems said who they’d support if they had the balance of power? Unless they lose a lot of seats, that could quite possibly happen.
First, the Lib Dems have been saying that this situation could happen since 1983 – it hasn’t. The last minority government in the UK lasted from Feb 1974 to Oct 1974, when it collapsed.
However, if the Lib Dems do end up with the balance of power, they haven’t yet indicated who they will support (a smart move, as they draw votes from both the Tories and Labour). There was some speculation in the 1980s and early 1990s of a Lib-Lab alliance – however, the rise of Blair brought an end to any such speculation.
Le Pen has just turned 80 so his demise would hardly be remarkable.
I actually think it’s unfair to compare Fortuyn to Haider and Le Pen. He was a left-winger on everything except his hostility to Muslim immigration, and even that he presented in a “left” way.
Adam
As you say Fortuyn is often compared with Haider and le Pen, although he always disavowed their politics. There were a few similarities. He certainly was a fascinating politician. I don’t think he could be really compared with any other successful politician in the world to my admittedly limited knowledge.
I agree with Adam on this one and I think the voters have swung against the neo-cons. One of the principal causes of the crisis has been unregulated aspects of financial markets. If voters are punishing those who are ideologically anti-regulation then they have gotten it right. But it doesn’t have to be a purely anti-conservative thing. There is a lot of room between Keynes and the pure free-market anti-regulation neo-con rightists. I’d love to hear how a more moderate conservative such as Sarkozy was going in France. He is right wing but has defended France’s strict finance laws and I bet that will win him a lot of votes. So anyone espousing neo-con policies is deservidly in trouble but I don’t see why that should necessarily extend to all of the parties of the right.
Also agree with Adam on Haider – a much smarter and nastier Austrian version of Pauline Hansen.
The French gaullists have always been etatistes and have rejected le Thatcherisme and other doctrines of les Anglo-Saxons. In good times this makes them look rigid and old-fashioned, creates high unemployment and breeds corruption, but at times like this it looks very sensible. Since no-one in French politics has ever sought to emulate the US Republicans, no-one will suffer from this turn, unless the French economy really tanks. The same is true in Italy. Those who will suffer are those who can be directly linked to US-style deregulationism – the British and Canadian Tories, the Australian Liberals and the NZ Nationals. Possibly also the German CDU.
So Adam do you have any poll news from France? If Sarkozy is travelling OK then I think the evidence fits your thesis pretty well.
It should be pointed out that Sarkozy is the one of the most economically conservative Presidents France has had.
I also don’t think it’s apt to automatically link every poll narrowing/bounce/change to the financial crisis.
Wel I just found a French poll (reliability unknown; 955 sample) and Sarkozy’s popularity has improved! He has gone from as low as 39% earlier in the year to 55% recently in a BVA / L’Express poll. That is a 12% improvement in 2 months. Score 7-1 Adam
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/sarkozys_approval_improves_in_france/
Looks like its the season for moderation. Perhaps a lesson for Turnbull here?
Oz
Of course I don’t suggest the economics is the only factor. But because its a world wide problem then if influential it could cause a shift in polls. The effect varies with local factors, but on overall trend, Adam’s thesis looks pretty right. Overall I think it realy signals a shift to the centre rather than the left, because most “left/progresive” parties are a long way from socialism these days.
Sarkozy now his personal life in order, he can play the European statesman because Brown and Merkel are both struggling, he has a feeble and demoralised opposition – plus he is in fact a very talented politician. So I’m not surprised he has bounced back.
If Adam is right (and I think he is), the shift to the left would be all the more remarkable as this article from 25 Sept 08 says that across Europe the recent trend has been AWAY from the left to the right.
William
Can Pollbludger take out a patent on the Carr Hypothesis
Surge in support for far right ahead of poll reflects centre-left crisis across EU
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/eu
Oz, it is in fact a swing to Kevinism. Kevinism was invented in Australia and will now be exported to the rest of the Anglosphere.
The centre issue is interesting. It’s like “Ok so enormous amounts of state intervention didn’t seem to work and the complete opposite didn’t seem to work so what’s left?”
I can see a few political parties around the world become increasingly marginalised, if not wiped out completely. This is due to the fact that the old left parties have now moved across to the centre and dominated it while the right parties moved further right. Now they’re in an untenable position with nowhere to go.
Adam, could you describe “Kevinism”? Do you mean “radical centrists” or tempered economic conservatism combined with progressive views on social issues?
Diogenes, it’s especially weird considering all the analysts were up until very recently predicting that voters would leave middle parties for extremists on the right and the left.
Kevin’s social views are not all that progressive, but he seems to be letting other ministers pursue their issues. McClelland has just put through bills on same-sex partnerships that would have been impossible in Hawke’s day. Paid maternity leave is another example. (What about paid leave for uncles, hey?) But the core of Kevinism is obviously extreme fiscal discipline, enforced by that pillar of the Socialist Right, Lindsay Tanner. In that sense the crisis is playing to Rudd’s strengths. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
“Cometh the hour, cometh the man”
I thought it was Rainmaker’s moment in history? Now you tell me it’s Rudd’s?
I’m confused… is there room on the head of history’s pin for more than one Messiah?
Sorry, Kevinism is a monotheistic religion. There is no Kevin but Kevin, and Kevin is his Prophet.
Rudd is not radically centrist in the traditional sense.
Rather, he is economically conservative (but not radically so) and is also socially conservative (but allows his minions to prop up the socially progressive agenda). Rudd’s ideology, therefore, is that he has none – it’s all about pragmatism and sorting out whatever problems the country faces at that time. I think it’s reasonable enough – although it can lead to the perception that you’re not doing anything when the country isn’t facing a crisis…
Yes I think that’s a fair summary. But since we *are* facing a crisis (two in fact – climate change hasn’t gone away), the perception is that he is (a) in charge and (b) not panicking, which is what the public wants right now. And those perceptions are correct – he is a control freak and he has nerves of steel. He is also (you will note) being very sparing with his rhetoric. This makes Turnbull look like a pompous windbag by contrast. (This perception is also correct.)
Swing Lowe
actually I think kev is a christian democrat type
Julia runs the social agenda
kevin runs the economic agenda
None of his policies seem to be influenced by any religious pretext? And he never uses it in his rhetoric.
Oz-i did not say he was a fundy,simply that he espouses a religous view of the world.
As regards his rhetoric I strongly disagree,as he uses certain phrases to shape his narratives,influenced heavily by his upbringing.
SL @ 11,
Agreed and out of all of those countries because NZ’s election is so close in proximity time wise but AFTER the US election, I think you will find if the election would otherwise be close there that Kiwis will be elated at the outcome of Obama winning in the US and that will get them out to the polls to return Helen Clark.
Lets take up a collection to make sure Glen has two hats
I notice that the UK isn’t due for elections till some point in 2009. I don’t think early elections have been called (?). What is the NLT date for those elections if anyone knows? Cheers
Here is a link to a story that illustrates exactly why Bush and co deserve some blame on this. Ideology meant they initialy refused to consider what will now be the final form of the bailout. THis wasted a lot of time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/business/12imf.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Ideology over evidence-based reality in the Bush administration? Absurd! Except maybe weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, failed administration of Iraq, global warming denial, persecution of its own federal prosecutors, reduced regulation of financial markets, Guantanamo Bay prisoners, torture of prisoners…
Oh, I know it really doesn’t matter, but I wonder how supposedly respectable journalists can write sentences like this:
… and simultaneously still prattle on about “The Prme Tourist” and “Kevin 747″ (of course, if anything, it should be “Kevin 737″, but I quibble).
Secondly, is this the new media meme?
in the two years before the election.
So Rudd has just finished a very difficult period in the first year after an election, what with “test” after “test” – the Senate “test”, the pensions “test”, the by-election “test”, the Budget “test” and so on – where plans could either work or not work (or somewhere in-between). No sooner has he finished this punishing year of “tests” than he is entering the “very difficult period in the two years before the election”! So, I guess it’s more tests that La Stupenda can write about. Seems just being in office is a plethora of “tests” and “dangerous periods”.
Well, we knew that didn’t we?
And why in the hell does Barrie Cassidy even attempt to ask the Treasurer of Australia to say that our economy is going to tank no matter what he, or we do? So much time wasted on gotchas by these turkies. Maybe one day a pollie will come on TV drunk, or otherwise under the influence and blab out far more than he should have said, but until then can we have some questions that elicit actual, y’know, information?
Yes Bushfire Bill… politicians are well known to answer questions in an informative way aren’t they? Swan definitely wouldn’t ignore the question and rattle off some inane talking points would he?
juliem… your comments about Labour in NZ being buoyed by an Obama victory are bizarre, but at least amusing.
Itep, I take your point partially, but to ask a stupid question like Cassidy’s surely has to be the ultimate in futility? I mean, why bother? Does he think Swan is going to say, “Yes, Barrie, glad you asked. We’re f%*#ed”?
BB
Yes I commented on Rudd’s schedule and the nonsense of the coalitions tourist line previously. Rudd was just doing his job. Who do they think he is, Downer or Howard? The travel schedule would be different if it was constant trips to England around the time of Wimbeldon and the first test at Lords, which one recent encumbent seemed to make a habit of.
Your other comments are why I don’t bother with the Insiders, although I did here a bit on the radio of Annabel Crab (SMH) on the show, whihc was actually reasonable. Its all about balance. If they don’t stack the show with three commentators who know they don’t like Labor, then it wouldn’t be a problem.
Regarding reporting of the financial crisis, I can’t help thinking a lot of the panic is self-referential emotion from some of the reporters. Many finance news reporters (eg all those crosses to ComSec) work in the industry so have an obvious personal stake.
Likewise TV presenters aren’t lowly paid these days, so they probably have a bit of money invested themselves. When they ask “what happens to the ASX if…” in a shrill voice, they really mean “Wayne I had $300K in Babcock and Brown, will you guarantee MY MONEY!!??” And of course, there are the right wing sycophants…
Socrates @61:
Yes, definitely that, but there’s also the herd mentality at play.
Having talked up stocks and shares for a long time, back a few years, with all the “boom economy” blather, and pooh-poohed Rudd for saying we need to plan for the end of the boom (”What ‘end’? He’s just talking the economy down!”), they’re shouldering each other out of the way now to cast a pall of bleakness over everything and everyone.
Every single day last week we got, “This is the greatest meltdown of the All Ordinaries since…(insert appropriate date here)”. On Thursday ABC TV news came up with the astounding observation that “Ironically, it’s exactly one year since the previous lowest ever whateveritwas…”. Yes, yes, and on Friday, 24 hours later, it was (not ironically at all) exactly one year and one day since the previous worst performance of whateveritwas. They’re almost jostling each other out of the way to get in front of a camera and tell us “We’re f%*#ed”. No-one wants to be left behind this time, and there’s always the chance Rudd or Swan might fail yet another “test”, or utter a gaffe.
So they ask stupid and unanswerable questions (unanswerable by a minister with real responsilibity, that is, unlike the Rainmaker Turnbull, who has an answer for everything, even if mutually contradictory ones) and hope for a slip-up. War, sex, and economic misery sell.
We see thousands tearing up their betting slips (the ASX is a casino, isn’t it?) and selling off for whatever they can get. The smarties are waiting for what I heard Stephen Mayne the other call call, “the moment of despair” or the capitulation of small and/or small-minded investors. Then they move in, bargain hunting. Turnbull is one of them, at least on the political stock exchange. Anything for a buck. He was Packer’s friend as a lawyer, and then, as a lawyer, ratted on him in a dingy carpark telling the same TV audience that once cheered Packer on as a potential Prime Minister, “He started it.” They cheered just as loudly the second time around.
Rainmaker used to be a banker, a merchant banker, so the spin is that he is supremely qualified to handle this crisis (that’s if he had any power or authority, which he doesn’t), a man “for this moment in history”. Fox, meet Chickens. All Turnbull has really done is get out while the going was good and, now that he has, he’s ratting on yet another set of mates, his erstwhile colleagues at the Big End Of Town.
The man has a history of backing whatever seems to be the going thing at the time, and bagging his previous pals. The (laughingly called) “panel” on Insiders/i> this morning calmly discussed his rainmaking activites and shenanigans as if it was perfectly OK for him to brainstorm out loud, producing thought bubbles (for all we know benefiting from leaks inside Treasury), prospering politically off the very serious issues that the real government has to deal with in the real world. What planet are these jerks living on? They can, on the one hand, succinctly discuss the obvious problem with declaring a virtually unlimited guarantee on depositors’ funds (there might be a crisis of confidence in our banks as a result), they can note that Howard refused to countenance this himself, and then can gleefully discuss how Swan might be embarrassed if this is one of his ideas for today’s Cabinet meeting, and how this would make Rainmaker look good by second-guessing the government. They gave little discussion time to the fact that if you back every horse in the race, as Turnbull does, one of the pieces of paper in your hand will likely be the winning ticket.
So we have a perfect confluence of journalism, seeking to rehabilitate its shoddy reputation in the “prediction” stakes by predicting – wow! – that things might get worse economically for the country, and worse politically for the government in this most dangerous period of the two years leading up to the next election. This, all the while giving, nay encouraging Rainmaker to continue scamming the populace (and filling their columns) with fearless predictions that it’ll be either a drought or a flood in the coming future or (as La Stupenda would put it) … “something in between”.
I don’t know what Barrie Cassidy has on that whiteboard of his, but, “You look and sound effing stupid with your inane questions,” should be both header and footer on every page. For that matter, stick it on the teleprompter as well. Then we might get some ration, relevant discussion, instead of the blather that Cassidy seems to think substitutes for political analysis, circa 2008.
cc. The Rest Of The Commentariat.
Cue The Rainmkaker…
From The Age just now:
Expect, whatever the changes are,
Ball’s in your court, Malcolm.
I get the impression that Talcum hasn’t got a clue and just listens to suggestions coming out of UK Europe & USA and then repeats them pretending that they were his ideas.
For example, govt should buy up shares in stock market and the $100 000 bank savings guarantee.
He says so much shit that he’s bound to hit on one half decent idea that the rest of the world has already done and Rudd was likely to do anyway.
But this way he gets to say “Oh yeah I think I blurted out that idea at a press conference once, I win!”.
Wikipedia says 3 June 2010.
However, in the post-WW2 era it’s been more common for the government to go after about four years (1955, 1959, 1970, 1974, 1983, 1987, 2001, 2005): waiting the full five is usually taken to indicate a government in trouble (1964, 1992, 1997).
juliem @ 51 -
Lets take up a collection to make sure Glen has two hats
And a very large packet of laxatives!
He’s still digesting the one he had to eat back in November, is still working his way through the one he began after the Democrat Party convention and, if memory serves, there’s another one on the menu for November 5th (our time).
Hmmm… Better make that a case of laxatives and a six pack of paraffin oil
Thanks for the update on Italy, William. As someone of Italian heritage it’s always something of an embarrassment to read about the farcical state of Italian politics, but it seems Berlusconi is finally making headway.
The only place Berlusconi ought to be making headway towards is jail.
Yeah, a few months in government. Some headway.
No 69
The ratio of criminals is higher in the Italian parliament than it is in general Italian society.
Heres a nice mini documentry on how Senator McCain got bribed & then wiped his hands -
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IDofbll86dY&eurl=http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
No 69
I’d also add that whilst I’m not generally pleased about Berlusconi, the reality is that he’s provided some political stability.
The ratio of criminals in the Italian PM’s office is 1 to 1. It’s sad that Italians have such an extraordinarily high level of tolerance for corruption and that Italy has been the worst governed country in western Europe ever since unification. I tend to agree with the view of many northern Italians that the Risorgimento was a bad idea and that Neapolitans and Sicilians are not really Europeans at all.
Italy would’ve been just as stable if Veltroni had won, but not run by a gangster.
GP: But has he made the trains run on time?
I only caught two trains in Italy, and they both ran on time. Thats more than I can say for either British Rail or Deutsche Bahn.
Wow complete opposite for me.
Two long distance trains in Britain – on time.
London Tube – on time.
Every single German train or tram – on time.
About 4 Italian trains including a sleep – none on time.
DAMN YOU BERLUSCONI.
No 74
Yes, it is sad. Italy is very badly governed. But it’s a case of whose least incompetent and Berlusconi proved that he wasn’t as incompetent as Prodi. Farcical, I know.
Italy really needs a dose of liberalisation of the economy. It needs to put a halt to its overly generous pensions – heck, I know people in Italy who can access government pensions in their late 40s! And we’re not talking piddling sums of $550 a fortnight! Unions need to be reigned in – they have too much economy-strangling power. Whole of government reforms: trimming of fat cat bureaucracy, balancing the budget, more transparency.
Part of the reasons behind the lethargic pace of reform, leaving aside the influence of corruption, is also to do with the egregious parliamentary system where ridiculous coalitions have to be conjured in order to get reforms passed. But that’s another story.
No 79
who’s not whose.
No 76
When you’re dealing with elementary issues like burying mounds of garbage, the on-time running of trains is somewhat secondary!
Only in Italy. That’s all there is to be said.
Of course! Economic liberalisation has solved all the worlds problems.
No 82
Economic insularity hasn’t either. Italy’s very much a case of big government failure.
Well Rudd has guaranteed ALL bank deposits for 3 years. Stupid and unneccesary in my view, but hey its a G20 kind of thing.
How much of the credit will Turnbull claim for this?
I look forward to seeing his smug grin on the news tonight. I might hurl a cushion at the tv.
And in a search for relevance we get this from Bob.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/12/2388675.htm?section=justin
So Bob is reacting to something Malcolm said and is then giving advice Kevin. Bob how about telling Malcolm he is wrong?
What! has rainman influenced the rest of the World as well as Australia?
WoW what a man.
Rudd, I’ll see your $100,000, Malcolm, and raise you to whatever number you like. How do you like them apples, eh? See what you can do when you’re really the government.
HSO
That’s hitting below the belt.
Muskiemp, it certainly makes those fools on Insiders this morning look like a bunch of irrelevant hacks.
Adam of Canberra says -
“I tend to agree with the view of many northern Italians that the Risorgimento was a bad idea and that Neapolitans and Sicilians are not really Europeans at all.”
Adam. Let me just say their is just as much corruption in Milan as there is in Sicily & if the southern Italians are not Europeans then what are thay?
How corrupt is Roman politics? – ask Ceasar!!!
Malcolm [img]http://www.webssmilies.de/big/81.gif[/img]
ABC TV reporting of Rudd’s bank guarantee. “If a bank goes under, the taxpayer will be left with the bill.”
Jesus wept.
Though I dislike the idea of “privatising profits and socialising losses” I can still understand that short of nationalising a bank, the other alternative is to sit there and watch the banks go under and take all our savings with them.
Re 58,
Lets wait and see if Obama and Helen Clark both get home. Obama is going to but Clark is the weak link in that hypothesis though.
Ruawake ru there?
“Turnbull want the Govt. to guarantee bank deposits up to $100,000 instead of the proposed $20,000. What dumb politics.
How can this be seen as anything but pandering to rich folks? Or is he struggling to be relevant?
Costello explained “moral hazard” in prudential regulation on Q&A I assume Turnbull missed it.
Banks to Punters “Hey guys – here it is, earn over the odds interest rates on our special up to $100,000 term deposit” don’t worry its Govt gauranteed. If you get sucked in we either make a squillion or the Govt bails us out. No risk all profit.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Re 67,
ROTFL ………. and I must say that this is the only time Alexander’s picture has done that to me
……
Surely you cracked up when he was wearing stockings/doing karaoke/some of the other wacky stuff he’s done.
Ah, Alexander. The people in Cyprus are so lucky to have a character such as you.
chrisl
chrisl, you may have missed it, however, the government has announced it will guarantee all domestic deposits, all money borrowed overseas by Oz banks. The kicker being the banks have to pay the insurance premiums!
I’m not sure about that, ruawake, about it being stupid and unnecessary. As Swan has been in meetings with the IMF and presumably others in preparation for the G20 meeting, this may well be something that could interrupt the global freeze on banks being unwilling to lend to each other, if there’s collective agreement. Morover, if they can manouvre a collective response to what is a global economic crisis, they just might be able to something similar with climate change.
Ugh! Guaranteeing bank deposits! The rise of big government is a massive travesty.
That aside, the taxpayer is unlikely to be exposed a great deal given that our prudential regulation already surpasses the standards of many other countries.
Yes Harry ,I was aware of it.
That was yesterday’s quote from ruawake.
He was explaining how dumb Turnbull was to suggest $100,000 guarantee.
Today it is unlimited.
All wisdom doesn’t reside in one side of politics.
“That aside, the taxpayer is unlikely to be exposed a great deal given that our prudential regulation already surpasses the standards of many other countries.”
So the Government is going to make money from this policy, good job Rudd.
In the Australian context it is stupid and unnecessary, if Ireland and Iceland had not done similar things a week or so ago it would not be on the agenda.
But because some countries have done it, all the rest have to. Or all the money goes to Ireland or Iceland.
This world action has ensured that people invest their hard earned in bank deposits, earning a Govt guaranteed % rate (my nest egg is still at 8.5%).
This will drive squillions of dollars into the banks. Depriving other forms of investment of funds.
You could argue that the banks can now lend people money to make investments – but this is exactly what got us in the mess in the first place.
No 104
Because the guarantee is extends to 3 years, I would imagine the government would refund the premiums at the conclusion of the guarantee period. But since leftist governments enjoy windfall profits on the back of the taxpayer, we’ll have to wait and see.
GP, if Turnbull and Bishop would stop their demagogic scaremongering, perhaps Rudd wouldn’t feel obliged to make populist gestures to stop the run on the banks which Turnbull is trying to foment.
No 106
should be no “is” in the first sentence.
chrisl
My opinion has been entirely consistant, it is a bad idea.
???? Banks have always done this since time immemorial.
An investment can take many forms, from starting a new business to buying shares. Borrowing in and of itself is not a big deal. The issue is whether the borrower has the capacity to service the debt. The latter is what got the USA into its current mess – banks were nonchalant about issuing loans to people who had no capacity to repay them; then they sold the risk to other institutions. The House of Cards collapsed once loans were recalled.
ruawake, the point is, I think, as far as I understand it, that we can’t think just in the Australian context. Part of what Rudd had to say was that Oz banks are not getting money, even though sound, because other countries had guaranteed their banks, as you noted. There are no doubt others who understand what’s happening better than I do, however, it seems there’s problems of both solvency and liquidity to do be dealt with globally. If the deposits and borrowing need to be guaranteed by the government to ensure liquidity, then so be it.
LOL Name me one insurance company that refunds insurance premiums after the policy has expired. Bah, all those leftist insurance companies, or are they communists?
No 107
Adam, this has nothing to do with the Liberals. Rudd claims he is acting according to a globally-coordinated effort. You’re effectively calling him a liar.
No 112
The Government should not be profiteering.
GP
The only reason to borrow for investment is if your return is greater than the cost of borrowing.
If the returns for stuffing your money in the bank are better than anything else (as they most certainly are now) why borrow money to put it back in the bank you borrowed it from in the first place?
Why? Government’s make money from an assortment of different ventures… investments, selling assets…
No 115
So what are you arguing ruawake? That the deposit guarantee will stifle investment in other, more risky ventures?
Which means interest rates have to fall, to make alternative investments attractive. I’m guessing high 3s low 4s very soon. Any lower you get the financial scams like CDOs. so I hope thats as low as they go.
Is the majority of the electorate going to punish Rudd for “record low” interest rates? I doubt it.
Yes GP
Venture Capital has vapourised.
GP, if the government ends up making money out of the banks over 3 years, I will be suitably impressed.
GP 113 – Rudd is quite correctly ignoring Turnbull. I am under no such inhibitions. Turnbull is trying to provoke a run on the banks. He doesn’t care if there is a catastrophic depression so long as he benefits from it.
No 119
Hmmm. Look, I’m not particularly fond of it myself. Pragmatically, the risk to taxpayers is minimal (given our regulatory standards) and to be honest, what else can be done to sure-up confidence in a morose bear market?
No 120
The Government already takes 30% of their profits.
No 121
Rubbish Adam. Turnbull called for a $100k guarantee; Rudd has gone all out and guaranteed everything but the kitchen sink.
GP wrote:
like the Ansett “surcharge” I suppose?
Yep; people with such super egoes hate, above all things, being ignored.
Generic Person @ 123. If that’s the case and they can still post the profits they do, then even more will I be impressed if the government makes a buck out of this action. It’s actually kind of nifty, really. And really, GP, in general, it is possible to operate both domestically and internationally in political and economic senses. I would have thought that is exactly what is required in these days of globalisation. Ignore Turnbull domestically and you deprive him of oxygen, though there are many others who, IMO, give him far too much. You may think this the obvious response from some one of my ilk, but really, I would rather the Libs. did the necessary ‘have a good long hard think about why they lost’ and provide decent opposition, because currently, at the national level, they’re a joke.
Turnbull on climate change:
Methinks that ain’t what is causing “considerable uncertainty” right at the minute.
Interesting – the opposition is now giving recommendations to the Govenrment – much as does a hired consultant.
I guess Rudd can now thank Turnbull for his recommendations but say the he prefers to take advice based on evidence, not ego.
Get people with real money to invest in real businesses that make real profits.
Brace yourself:
“Courageous Rudd overcomes history and populism”
by none other than Janet A.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/%20courageous_rudd_overcomes_history_and_populism
I don’t know about everyone else, but it seems to me that no bank has changed their variable savings deposit rates in line with the 1% cut last week – yet. It seems this is one area of improved competition. If they put their rate down too much, the depositors move to another institution, and the banks lose some cheap funding.
They don’t necessarily need to lend new money, but they need some money coming in to cover the costs of borrowing globally for five years to offset the old loans they had made.
I guess Rudd had a tough call. For some Australian savers, who the banking system needs to keep afloat, the offer of limited deposit insurance made people think about moving money above that amount out of the bank because they were not worried about the stability of the banks until the government wanted to guarantee it. I guess guaranteeing it in full prevents that.
This measure has nothing to do with “Australian savers” it has everything to do with cash investments in term deposits. The interest rates on these have fallen since the RBA cut interest rates.
My parents have close to $1 million in term deposits, while they build a new house, the bank manager increased the interest rate by 0.24% last friday. Cash is king. I expect the big 4 will get close to $100 billion in new deposits by the end of this year.
a good many of the liberals can’t stand the rainmaker and from her article i’d rather think Janet A. is one of them, she seems more keen on slapping rainmaker down rather than praising Rudd, the praise is grudging and forcasts a return to bank bashing after the crisis, Rudd will have to heavy them if they dont pass on all of the cuts after the meltdown is over, we dont need a crystal ball to see that.
No 129
No-one is going to invest in venture capital unless they can be confident that their own capital is safe.
Ruawake, I think you just agreed with me (unless I haven’t understood you).
From where I sit, Australian savers are the people who make cash investments in term deposits.
Just as an example, the CBA has a cash saver online account, the rate is the same today as it was last month… I think they are scared that people will take their money out.
But $100bn in new deposits? I guess if everyone completely evacuated the sharemarket, and people decided they didn’t want to own good businesses anymore, that might happen, but I doubt it.
I think the point here is the message it sends – as Wayne Swan said on ‘Insiders’ this morning (before the amount was announced), it basically didn’t matter what the amount was, because they don’t expect the banks to fall over.
So the message is: you can have confidence in the banks. Your money is safe, there’s no need to panic. We don’t need to put a cap on this, because we’re never going to have to pay out, because we know the banks are stable.
If you put a cap on it, the unwritten assumption is that there IS a chance the banks will fall over and you can therefore only afford to guarantee so much.
GP 124: It’s not often I get to quote Janet Albrechtson against anyone, so let me savour the moment:
“Indeed, it is possible the government’s decisions today have rescued the Coalition from the cliff’s edge. The biggest risk for the bank-bashing Malcolm Turnbull was that if a bank struck real trouble, the Government could have and should have pointed the finger at Turnbull and his deputy, Julie Bishop. They have deserved every ounce of criticism for their reckless decision to keep up with the populist ploy of bashing banks when a more responsible position was needed. Isn’t the Coalition meant to be the party of economic responsibility?”
Yep Adam – I’m pretty sure your doing so is one of the signs of the end of days.
GP
To bring the discussion back to the start, the only place that capital is really safe now, due to the bank guarantee, is in cash deposits in banks.
That is why I oppose the measure, nothing is gained without taking a risk. The recent failure of risk models does not mean we should set up one risk free investment at the expense of all others.
Just saw that Rudd was on 60 minutes (I missed it – watching the cricket on fox). Did anyone see it?
magpiepete
There was $30 billion extra in cash deposits in Australian banks last month, why is $100 billion so absurd?
no because he’d be boring Grog.
This is a co-ordinated act by World Governments to shore up World cash liquidity. It is as simple as that. If Australia didn’t join this action Australian Banks would not be able to borrow cash from OS financial institutions.
Glen
Katich 30 runs from 132 balls is boring.
No 139
I understand what you’re saying, but the only way you’ll get a resurgence of confidence (and therefore, investment) is to stem the panic. The government has done this by reassuring investors that their capital is safe.
The reality is that our banks are not about to collapse. Costello introduced prudential regulation in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian financial crisis and as such we now have financially secure banks that are very well insulated from the US rabble. All Rudd is doing is suring-up confidence so that people will be willing to take risks again.
Of course, I won’t deny that a lot of money will be lumped into banks. But that’s not exactly a bad thing when a lot of people are living beyond their means and our national savings were dwindling (notwithstanding superannuation).
I know things are a bit grim but did Rudd really need to wear a black suit for the 60 minutes interview? It looks like he’s been to a funeral for the Australian economy.
144 ruawake – no need to worry about Katich now… and also forget about Michael Clarke now…
Diogenes, so what was the topic on 60 Minutes? Alcopos?
Grog, you didnt miss anything re the 60 minutes interview, the questions were pathetic, “how many jobs will be lost Prime Minister, 30,000, 40,000? as if anyone could answer that, i dont know who the reporter was but he spent the whole five minutes trying to wedge Rudd into saying something stupid with his loaded questions, he kept interrupting anyway, looked like he was trying to build up a reputation, he’d have to do better than that with Rudd, loaded questions are fine when they have any meaning but this was just crap.
No 148
60 Minutes is crap anyway. It’s basically become today-tonight with its frivolous stories. Lately it has become much too fond of telegraphing the woes of severely disabled and retarded children. The sooner this rabble is axed, the better.
No doubt that will be Julie Bishop’s first question in QT tomorrow.
“Get people with real money to invest in real businesses that make real profits.”
Which is, ironically, a strong argument for introducing an ETS considering the whole point is too stimulate investment and create jobs in new areas.
HAH, Janet’s seen the writing the wall.
Now watch as the mass of conservative journalists in Australia shift to Rudd and the Liberals die a cold, lonely death.
One can dream.
GP, if you want to “stem the panic”, send your Leader an email telling him to stop trying to provoke a run on the banks.
GP, a few years ago a senior cop and myself spent the whole hour on 60 mins, it was a highly professional show then, they were careful to be factual and while the reporting was warts and all they were respectful, i think those standards have long gone down the gurgler, we’ve never been frightened of the truth, it’s the sensationalised dont ruin a good story with the truth mentality that scares me sick, aka Today Tonight or ACA. when you protest and say it’s all lies, all you get is “of course you’d say that”, unfortunately most reporting nowadays is exactly like that, i believe maybe 5% of what i read.we’re going to get an Adelaide version of ACA next week, Chris Kenny is one of the main reporters, hmmm wonder which way the political bias will go, it certainly doesnt tempt me to change my viewing habits.
No 153
Adam, the nature of opposition is pointless populism until people are in election mode. Fact of life. The ALP was just as guilty when it was in opposition.
No, I don’t agree with everything Turnbull has said. But he has been advocating for government intervention into the banks, which is exactly what Rudd has done. He’s not provoking any “run” on the banks.
No 150
She need not ask the question. The Government’s own budget predicts a loss of over 100,000 jobs this year.
No 154
Thank goodness for the Internet. The freest communication medium on earth.
156 GP – she still will ask the question – she has asked it or versions of it most days since she became shadow treasurer.
Swan and Rudd will promptly slap it to the boundary.
rolling out of the infrastructure progects will replace some of those jobs, climate change industries will also be providing new jobs as they go along, i dont think the jobless will get out of hand.
J.B. had better go carefully she’s already been caught out putting her foot in it misquoting the P.M. a couple of days ago, that on top of her other boo boos is making her seem very shakey, another put down or two in QT will only stress how inept she is..
methinks that horse has bolted.
No 160
Yes, her performances have been terrible. First thing she should do is sack her advisers. They couldn’t even make sure she knew the official interest rate!
I hardly think someone aspiring to the position of Shadow Treasurer should need advisers to tell her the official cash rate. Coming to the job that ignorant of an elementary economic figure there wouldn’t seem much hope for her. She should go back to IR; she at least has a passion for that portfolio.
Well I must agree with GP 145. Our banks are not in danger of collapse and we do not face the risks US banks do. The danger is that our banks wind up with no money to lend, which leads to recession due to a slow down in economic activity. (No business lending = no new investment = stagnation). But that does not mean a complete collapse here. The fear mongering element in Turnbull’s comments was highly inappropriate though, as pessimism in itself reduces economic activity, which will cost jobs. His reputation will suffer for that. He is not coming across very impressively at present.
No 163
What I meant is that any good adviser would ensure that their principal is fully drilled on key economic facts. Journalists like to play these games all the time.
What I mean is that, if she had any potential as a Treasurer she would have known that basic fact without needing to be “advised” by staff on it. It’s a bit like, um, a meteorologist coming to the job and needing advisers to tell that rain is wet stuff that falls out of the sky.
Julie Bishop might know her political career is stuffed, she’s just signed up with the West Coast Eagles. lol on the board of directors that is.
No 166
Cuppa, Swan had trouble defining the NAIRU, Howard made a mistake on the official interest rate, Rudd forgot the tax thresholds. And so on.
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Generic Person, “hypocrisy” is a hollow charge to make against others when in 165 you have reverted to Liberal Party type by blaming both her advisers and journalists for her not knowing this key economic fact. She herself escapes your blame for this.
That’s the way the Liberal Party always seems to do it: take the credit for everything good, sheet home blame to others for anything bad.
We see it with the economy. When the economy was booming it was (according to the Liberals and their tedious interminable spin) all down to their wondrous economic “management”. Nary an acknowledgement from them that the prosperity was brought to Australia courtesy of 1) Hawke-Keating’s earlier major economic reforms; 2) the global boom during which the Liberals happened to govern; 3) a domestic mining boom.
When things started to go pear-shaped with the economy, for example interest rates rising again and again (after the Liberals had earlier promised to own the issue by saying they could and would “keep them at record lows”), they avoided responsibility themselves, and blamed the States instead!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/04/1996820.htm
PS: Now you’re invoking Swan’s name for not knowing the definition of “NAIRU” in his early days as Treasurer. Compare apples with apples will ya, “NAIRU” is a relatively obscure term googled by Andrew Robb: as you put it, “playing games” to catch him up. It’s certainly a much arcane factoid than something like the official cash rate.
… much more arcane factoid …
98 Oz,
that was before my time, while aware of events, I wasn’t resident in Australia until December 2004. Anything he did before then, I wouldn’t have known about it unless I happened to catch it online and that is often a hit or miss proposition ….
Cuppa, NAIRU is not that obscure and particularly shouldn’t be for the country’s Treasurer/
I would argue Swan did know what it was but didn’t want to answer the question, which couldn’t be answered in a way that wouldn’t result in him being attacked.
At last some sensible (non-ideological) solutions to the financial crisis – guarantees on bank deposits and also (importantly) foreign bank loans. This should allow credit to start flowing again. Some of the economists earlier expressing concern are now happy:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/10/12/now-were-getting-somewhere/
Probably a good day to buy shares in Commonwealth Bank, Westpac or any of the takeover targets (Bendigo, BOQ?). They are too low on current profitability with teh guarantee.
At the same time, the three year sunset clause on the guarantee is sensible to protect taxpayers. The real cost of the guarantee should be zero.
There is finally a (sensible again) European deal on sorting out bank debt and credit. It sees governments taking an equity stake, not just a bailout, so that taxpayers get the chance to recover teh money when things improve. This is precisely the Swedish solution to the problem that everyone should have agreed to a month ago, putting aside stupid ideology. Sarkozy deserves credit for leadership here, a right wing man taking a pragmatic centrist solution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/13europe.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Upon reflection, some world leaders have come out of this much better than others in this crisis. Here is my view:
Gordon Brown – credit
Sarkozy – honours
Merkel – conceded pass (dragged her feet)
rest of Europe – fail (squabbled like children)
George Bush – pass on second attempt (failed first time due to ideology)
Paulson – fail (bailout attempt was neither equitable nor effective)
Rudd & Swan – credit (acted calmly)
Turnbull – pass on sup (early alarmist statements nearly enough to fail him)
Henry & Stevens – honours (our banks never got in this mess in the first place)
Moodies and S&P – gross failure (should be suspended from course!)
Geez, I take a day off and find that the Lib-supporting desperates are still going on about NAIRU, and Swan’s alleged lack of knowledge of it.
Stephen O’Dogherty on ABC radio this morning was prattling about “one term governments” (as a comment on Rudd’s speech to the nation last night, of all things!). Nevertheless, he condescended to admit that this time Labor might score some points on The Economy, for not sending us to the wall over the past few weeks, although they were somewhat tardy in not following Rainmaker Turnbull’s instructions on how to respond to the meltdown over the past few weeks. Anyway, it was a shame that Peter Costello (remember him?), “the best Prime Minister we never had” (he used the actual words) wasn’t there to show both Rudd and Turnbull how to manage the levers and which switches to flick, and when.
To which John Brown’s response was, “Awwww…. gimme a break, Stephen!”
About the right response, I would have thought.
cuppa @ 169
In all fairness mate, I don’t think the Lib’s are Robinson Crusoe there
The Piping Shrike doesn’t seem to get it. Sometimes I think his analysis is too convoluted for its own good.
I’m not considering the surge in bank stocks this morning as evidence to the contrary of PS’s theory that in protecting banks with a 100% guarantee Rudd might be doing them harm, confidence-wize. Sometimes even parrots speak the truth.
The larger issue here, to my mind is that which PS gives short shrift: unless we did something, overseas investors might be asking “What’s wrong with Aussie banks?”. In going for the 100% guarantee, Rudd is signalling that, in the Australian government’s opinion, Aussie banks are so strong that a 100% guarantee is a formality, a sure bet. Let’s see some of the bigger players top that. This is no off-the-cuff guarantee, unless you believe that the past week has been spent more with spin doctors than it has – on the record – with banks, economics gurus and senior public service advisors behind closed doors (as well as the odd phone call to other world leaders).
Still, we need an alternative opinion, if only to consider and then dismiss it.
On the subject of “other world leaders”, something just came to me: wasn’t it only three weeks ago that the likes of Bolt, Akerman and all the rest of them were saying Rudd, the “Prime Tourist” should have been at home, here in OZ to attend QT and service the bizarre and changing whimsies of the likes of Fielding?
“Hasn’t Rudd ever heard of the electric telephone, or email?” they shrieked.
Well, now that he’s on the phone to world leaders, this is still too much for Bolt. On Insiders on Sunday he was dismissing in those paticularly plonking tones he reserves for Ruddslaughts even phoning world leaders. Apparently even picking up the phone is evidence he is a “celebrity junkie”.
What exactly do these guys want Rudd to do? Travelling to the epicentre is a stunt, doing what they suggest and using the phone is an exercise in self-aggrandizement. What do they want him to use, carrier pigeons? Tom-toms? Smoke signals? Or would they be too uppity as media as well?
Hi Spam Box #176
Perhaps. Though there’s got to be some reason Rudd was able to first identify, then exploit, the raw nerve in the community regarding the previous government’s “playing the blame game”. After so long in office, and with copious application, they’d honed the skill finely.
Just heard Abbott on The World Today say (and I paraphrase, except for the last two words):
Definitely on another planet.
BB
Maybe Abbott has got financial skills?
Politically, all of this “Malcolm said this and the government did it” stuff (whilst demonstrably dumb on any level) is stupid.
Surely the voters then say,”Well, if Malcolm’s advising the government and they’re listening to him, there’s no real benefit in voting for the Liberals.”
If Malcolm’s advice wasn’t being followed, yes; if Malcolm refused to give advice, on the basis of not being in government, but did the ‘wink wink I could actually handle this’, maybe.
The cheek of the buggers. The Libs are demanding a bi-partisan seat on any economic forum the government convenes, under the “They’re doing what we instruct them to do anyway, so we may as well make it official” banner.
Elsewhere, Milne is still flogging the “oncer” wagon:
There’s no substitute for blather built on delusion hinged off wishful thinking at Lib HQ nowadays.
It wasn’t Malcom (the non-economist) Turnbull’s “advice” that they followed! Lots of good economists commented on the need to extend the guarantee above $20000 in the light of Friday’s market meltdown. Here is a link to a discussion of the issue started at Quiggan’s blog well before Turnbull opened his mouth:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/10/10/a-bad-move/
There were five separate threads discussing this issue within three days!!! Turnbull can’t claim the credit for other people’s ideas. Meanwhile he was talking the economy down and the panic up, as the Australian Bankers Association said.
One poster pointed out that Treasury had been working on the guarantee for months, making sure funding and legislation etc were OK. As a result fo a lot of skilled people working all weekend it was able to be extnded quickly after Friday’s market fall. The credit for Australia’s effective (and world leading) moves on both interest rates and credit guarantees belongs to Glen Stevens, Dr Ken Henry and a while section of people at the Australian Treasury.
Seems to me that Rudd’s “$20,000″ guarantee figure was predicated on trying not to scare the horses, i.e. start a run on Australian banks or a panic (particularly among the oldies who have been egged on by the Turnbulls and the shock-jocks of their small worlds). Once the rest of the world’s governments got on the “guarantee” bandwagon, we could up the ante on our own to conform… or maybe even lead. In a world where governments are giving limited guarantees on savings accounts, the government which gives an unlimited guarantee stands out from the pack.
Meanwhile over a Bolt’s blog (no link), they’re still rabbiting on about the temerity of Rudd actually talking to other world leaders on the phone (which is exactly what they said he should have been doing instead of being in New York), and telling us about it. Like their criticisms of Rudd being “Prime Tourist” and his “taxpayer funded junkets”, the idea of talking direct with the great and powerful overwhelms their tiny minds. The only reason they could think of doing either would be to scam the public purse (a “free trip”… everyone’s fantasy… until you have to do it), or hob-nob with the Rich And Famous (probably the richest and most famous they’ve ever hob-nobbed with has been to shake hands with their local member two elections ago). Even more amazingly, the consensus of opinion appears to be that the Boltas believe this is part of Rudd’s master-plan… to get elected Secretary General Of the UN!
WTF? They hang onto these crazy theories like starving dogs with very big bones. They’re more revealing of their own closeted limitations than Rudd’s, methinks.
Well, Rudd’s followed Malcolm Turnbull’s advice.
To the extent that today’s more positive economic news is due to local actions rather than what is being, finally, done internationally, the more significant of the Government’s actions was guaranteeing our bank’s wholesale borrowings, not retail deposits.
Lets face it, where where those spooked by Turnbull’s nudge, nudge, wink, wink, insinuations that deposits were at risk going to put their cash? Overseas banks teetering on the abyss? Into shares? Under beds?
However, guaranteeing inter bank borrowings makes it easier for the banks to access the money needed to keep the economy functioning. I may have missed it, but I don’t recall Turnbull calling for this. Though no doubt he’ll find an obscure reference sometime in the dim dark past if pressed.
Not that I would go there to look, but the way BB describes it, everyone’s a critic over at the RWDBs’ blogs, and the more strongly partisan the contributors the more vehement their criticism for whatever are the government’s decisions in these uncharted waters. You just know that if it was their mob in office right now the naysaying would be minimal indeed. It’s real easy to sit in the spectator stands throwing small-minded conservative insults at those in the arena engaged in the history-making turmoil. Empty vessels, lots of noise, etc. At a time when the country surely needs positivity we’ve got unhelpful wingnuts working against public good simply out of partisan motivation.
At this mornings press conference with Vietnam PM, Kev accepted an invite for him and Therese to visit there next year as the Viet PM’s guests so I guess The Bolt dolts will all switch back to their “Prime tourist” line again now.
Noticed the Vietnam PM said how diplomatic relations with Australia were getting better every day. Also clemancy has been granted to 2 Vietnamese Australians convicted as drug trafficing on death row as a result of better relations since Kev came to power.
Fielding has sniffed the political wind.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24488182-5001028,00.html
Gary @ 188,
Can you or anyone else do the maths for me? Is Fielding’s vote in and of itself enough? I just turned off QT in favor of the cricket
but several of the QT questions brought up the fact that the Libs are still blocking things in the Senate. Thanks 
As predicted.
Unfortunately Fielding’s vote is still not enough Juliem but it is a good start and a good stick to belt the opposition with as Tanner just did, particularly given Fielding’s stated reasons for now passing these measures.
thanks Gary, now they need to work on nick z. I guess ….. if I recall; labor + greens + 2 * I is enough?
Cheers
“KEVIN Rudd’s claim of pursuing a bipartisan approach over the global financial crisis has been undermined by his failure to offer a promised briefing to Malcolm Turnbull on his $1.2 trillion bank guarantee.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24488270-2702,00.html
Can anyone remember Rudd offering a bi-partisan approach on the GFC? I think it was Turnbull who offered it and was rebuked by “Pass the Budget” type responses.
Giving someone a briefing, or not, is very different to Malcolm sitting at the cabinet table as he seems to want.
Try and fit Lithuania’s general election results into either hypothesis 1 or 2 …
http://news.theage.com.au/world/tough-coalition-talks-loom-after-lithuania-vote-20081013-4zoh.html
(and just who does the “National Resurrection Party” claim to represent? Zombies?)
cheers,
Rudd did say he would give Turnbull some kind of briefing or document on something.
Good job on The Australian for spinning that into “bending a promise on a bipartisan approach”.
MediaWatch should be a 24 hour channel, not a 15 minute weekly program.
Never underestimate the voting power of the recently departed – some whisper in dark corners that it’s been holding up National Party membership for donkeys years.
“Never underestimate the voting power of the recently departed”
Indeed.
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/17671375/detail.html
So Rudd says its time to spend the surplus. Any guesses on how he will do this?
Lump sum payment for pensioners, especially self funded retirees?
Tax cuts?
How else do you get money into the economy fast and ensure it is spent?
Holistic approach is the way to go.
Quick injection of money into the economy – tax cuts and increase the pension.
Back that up with medium-long term measures – infrastructure investment.
BAM, problem solved.
Rua went:
The most effective way is a direct cash tax rebate running in conjunction with some insta-stimulus to the construction industry. The former get’s people shopping, the consequences of the latter run through the whole economy for the next 12-18 months and drag the effect out.
Can’t do the latter without nasty consequences though, because Howard played that card already with the GST then refused to wind it down when it was no longer needed.
Who says people will spend tax cuts? Won’t they tend to bank any extra money coming in. I would.
Some will, some won’t – as always happens.
Maybe a “new home” buyer grant. Instead of the first home buyer one. An incentive to build new homes?
The temptation to give all pensioners a $1500 cash bonus must be high, this trumps the Liberals single aged pensioner crap and negates it as an issue. A $6 billion injection for the retail sector.
The problem with giving it to the pensioners, ruawake, is, as Howard found out, that they’ll then expect it every year, even if it’s made very, very clear that its a one off. Anyway, while it might produce a one off economic stimulus, it probably needs something more sustained.
Plus, given how run down the country’s basic infrastructure is, it might be better going into bringing us into the 21st Century so we’re competitive when the world economy improves.
PS: According to my neighbour the best way of injecting a large wad of cash into the economy is to give it to his ex wife. He guarantees it’ll all be gone in a flash and that she won’t squirrel away even a cent of it.
Mayo
You forget the retirement income inquiry, next budget the one off payments are gone forever. This is the opportunity to make this the last “one off” payment.
It will take two or more years for infrastructure spending to kick in, too slow. Tax cuts are a bit the same – spread over a year.
I smell a pension lump sum brewing.
hehe! The Neighbour’s Wife Economic Recovery Plan- not quite up their with the New Deal as cliche
I reckon Rua is on the olfactory money.
Generally the cash bonus will be the most efficient way to get the money flowing. For infrastructure projects, planning usually takes at least two years, but some that are already on the books and were previously knocked back for funding, eg Sydney fast rail line to Parramatta (McQuarrie proposal) could probably be gotten moving quickly.
The pensioner cash bonus, especially for self funded retirees (who may end up on the pension) solves a political problem and gets money into the retail sector fast.
It seems too tempting to resist.
was talking to elder bro in sweden re the Iceland thingy
basically a lack of natural resouces and an aged popoulation,coupled with some very unwise investments has bought the country to the brink of ruin.(incidentally AG was talking about newfoundland and it’s descent into basketcasery this morning on abc radio)
Luckily Iceland has not ended as bad as newfoundland owing in a large part to the efforts of its neighbours to provide financial help
Certainly the pensioner cash bonus makes sense. They WILL spend it because many will need to. I’m not so sure this will happen with an overall tax cut though.
Labor down a point in Essential Research to 57-43.
Yep – one term govt all the way…
On what Rudd will do with the surplus I liked his answer to Hockey in QT:
I’m chucking a Turnbull and taking credit of the Governments expected response.
#199:
“Holistic approach is the way to go.
Quick injection of money into the economy – tax cuts and increase the pension.
Back that up with medium-long term measures – infrastructure investment.
BAM, problem solved.”
I said it before the Government said they’d do it, therefore they did it because of me.
Essential Research report here. Lots of questions on the financial crisis.
You got my vote Oz
Stinking words of 2008:
Wall st / Securitisation / Derivatives / Credit Default Swaps / Leverage / Debts / The Market / Subprime / Toxic assets / Investment Banks and Bankers / Hedge Funds / Capitalist system / Free enterprise / De-regulation / Experts / Short Selling / Margin Lending / Meltdown / Crash / Recession / Depression / Confidence / Negative returns / George W Bush / Iceland / Billion / Trillion.
Smelling like roses in 2008:
Governments / Regulation Control / Guarantee / Bailout / Socialism / Nationalised / Liquidity / Desperately seeking The Bottom / Surplus / China / Australia / Warren Buffet / Main St / Hillary Clinton.
Seem like Kevinism is going down rather well.
Blogger Ad Astra, at new blog The Political Sword has started a series on how we perceive our political journalists.
He has started off with Andrew Bolt, visiting his blog and trawling through the toxic rightwing spewings of hate (so you don’t have to). He picked up, among others, this steaming deposit:
http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2008/10/13/Andrew-Bolt-e28093-Pied-Piper-to-his-bloggers.aspx#continue
People used to frown on Howard-haters for their malevolence … but surely they’ve got nothing on some of the (Howard-loving) Rudd-haters for sheer lunatic ferocity. I think it has to be a healthy thing that their party of preference is no longer in control of public affairs.
This is interesting. From Essential research:
Th strongest support for intervention by government into private financial institutions comes form :iberal supporters?
Yet, these are the same that think there’s no hope (under Rudd, that is).
Partisanship is still strong, as is free-market hypocrisy.
That’s funny. I thought Rudd had no influence at all on foreign leaders?
I thought that Kevin 747 has done nothing for the past 11 months. Not bad work wrecking the World economy.
Bill, that’s because Liberal voters are far more likely to have substantial amounts in the banks, or to own bank shares. Of course people with no direct stake in propping up the banks are likely to oppose having their taxes used to do so.
Bushfire Bill
That’s funny. I thought Rudd had no influence at all on foreign leaders?
No, but apparently he scares the living daylights out of bankers and share traders. Seems they’ve been throwing themselves out of their penthouse windows from the moment Rudd was elected. Who knew they were so faint of heart!
We did a bad, bad thing when we voted for him, BB. Though I blame you for leading me astray!
Interesting question in the Essential report.
“Who do you think is responsible for the global financial crisis?” Most people answered “Greedy financial institutions”. Is there any other kind?
Surely, there is to be a bounty of polls for us soon. I wonder what goes through the mind of someone who thinks of another person as a “germ”. No I don’t, I wonder at the processes, truly ghastly, in every sense of the word.
Newspoll thread.
Who would have thought that Gordon Brown is turning out to be the hero of this financial meltdown. It looks like his “solution” is the basic template that has been adopted by many other countries:
1. Guarantee the inter banks lending
2. Taking equity in the banks
3. Guarantee of the punter deposits
This will probably will save his political skin.
At least for now, The Finnigans.
#228, Brown has just snatched victory from the jaw of defeat. He is smelling roses. Germany’s Angela Merkel is smelling like the cow dung. She is hopeless.
http://news.theage.com.au/business/british-bank-action-wins-laureate-praise-20081014-500r.html
She’s also the leading appeaser of the neostalinist thug Putin. Heraus mit ihr! Ist hier die Zukunft von Deutschland: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24447019804
With markets around the world starting to settle down and recover some of their losses, it looks liek Brown and Krugman were right! Now Paulson and Bush are moving towards the Swedish -style bank equity plan instead of their bailout. Who’d have thought that a Princeton economics professor knew more about markets than the Bush government? Amazing.
Steven Harper has been re-elected, winning a minority in Canada.
I guess the lowest ever return for the Canadian (l)Liberals, and the increase in vote for Canada’s Conservatives over the previous election, would be perhaps working against the blame conservatives everywhere mantra.
It is also good to see that it is only Economic Vandalism when the Senate tries to block tax increases, yet it is good economic policy to throw away billions of dollars in short term one-off payments, just as the economy (and particularly corporate tax revenues) hit the wall. I doubt we will see a budget surplus by year end.