What influences your vote...?

[Studley 2436]

Fair point Mick. Either way if there was more land available people would be able to live a bit differently and have eaves on their houses. State Governments bear part of the responsibility for this.

Never called you a stick in the mud Astrid.

I am a Fitter and Machinist

recession we had to have saw me sacked to avoid redundancy payment. My Union was nowhere to be found when I needed them.

Became a pot washer as engineering was in such a hole it was the only job I could get. Ended up with a chef's ticket as well.

My Father is a carpenter who still believes that Gough Whitlam is God. Being broke and on the dole while the Union was enjoying it's offices and priveledges made me take a serious look at life and led me to discard my idealistic daydreams. At the end of the day the only interest is self interest. The ALP has been very successful at selling an idea that they are interested in looking after people, which I find very very cynical. Really they are about looking after big business and big unions. By doing that they get looked after themselves. The little guy does not enter their consideration.

All said whoever we vote for we will only get a politician and there is not one of them you can count on that much. That is the result of democracy and the various checks and balances in the system in addition to the many demands made on elected officials. For me the glory of Howards Prime Ministership has been Peter Costello's running of the treasury. Howard had too many handouts too much tax too few times he stepped up to the plate and stood up for individual rights. However this is the fact of politics, Howard realises that getting re-elected means he can't rush out in front of the electorate. Shame that he didn't get out a bit more often to my mind but who can say for sure?

Liberal to my mind is really just a moderate just to the right of centre. It is about individual rights and liberties. The labor arguement for equality of outcome in my mind leads to a bloated government and much less opportunity for ordinary people. I would argue strongly for equality of opportunity that everyone has the chance to make something of themselves. Philosophically I am against welfare but because brains talent and luck are spread around entirely unequally there is obviously a need for some kind of safety net. The safety net needs some care in it's construction so that it doesn't become a poverty trap. That is the line the government must walk and difficult to stay on it.

I don't like middle class welfare such as childcare benefits. I think it would be much better to tax people less and give less benefits. I believe the individual is far more capable of managing their affairs to their own betterment than any government. Actually stuff that grinds me are thing like the regulation of childcare that stifles competition in the sector. Pharmacy regulation likewise is about benefitting Pharmacists and serves no benefit other than making our health care more expensive.

I think I walk the middle. I seem extreme because I don't go for emotional stuff. Call me dry but not heartless.

Studley

[Studley 2436]

Andy when I talk "Liberal" for the most part I am speaking of a Liberal philosophy. This differs from the Coalition and it's policies. The Nationals to me seem to be socialist which is far from where I stand. The water crisis has much to do with National vote buying in NSW with the allocation of water rights. I would much rather have a single water market and leave government only to decide how much water can be taken from the entire system in each year. Doubt it would happen due to various vested interests however the market will always do it better than government.

Major events in my life, well major traumas that cost me personally were Goughs recession (Australia has taken 30 years to return to where we were when Gough came in) Keating's recession. If you want the arguement of best manager this was the one time in Australia's history we led the world into recession. Every other time Australia followed the world in due to loss of demand for our primary products. Hawke Keating did follow a liberal policy in some ways with the floating of the dollar etc. Basically it is conforming to the Liberal Philosophy that got Australia back into such a strong position. This differs from the Liberal Coalition which has it's moments.

The only difference is that Coalition Governments for all their stumbles manage to avoid messing up completely. Labor governments due to their capture by various causes manage to muck up everytime. Sometimes to monsterous extremes such as Gough.

I suppose I am passionately against emotional clap trap. It has cost me hugely.

Studley

[Metal Head]

Well I'm voting Liberal because they can guarantee (via the RBA) a 7% interest rate early in the New Year. This I suppose would interest most members here who are either semi or fully retired. It is better (and safer) than most of the yields on the ASX atm.

MH

[Clinton1]

Studley,
Not having a go mate, but your comments in post 118 have been bugging me for a while now, and I've had no net access to post a reply.

Its been bugging me as your comments on the economic management credentials (or lack thereof) seem to perhaps need a little bit of "macro focus".

It should be noted that the Phillips curve was disregarded by just about all economists, and that it ultimately led to the fall of quite a few governments when low unemployment was chased without regard to inflationary effects.
'Cause of my lack of net time, I have not been able to get the references and check a few facts, but I think that the time you are referring to saw "Stagflation' run unchecked due to the lack of mechanisms in the economicist's toolbox to allow manage economies.

I think there was a change of government in the USA, Australia, the UK and a few European countries... without checking.
It took (forget his name) a spectacular economist in the USA Reserve Bank to correct their run-away inflation... and that needed a clear message to the public that the Reserve Bank had become independant in order to allow the necessary space 'free of govt interference' to run the needed correction.

Because such hard measures were needed, it caused a few of the governments to be changed... most of the Stagflation (or stagnant economies and high inflation) changed goverments were in power for a short time only.
i.e. Stagflation helped governments to be changed, the economic correction process led to a lot of those new governments to loose power in a short time.
Didn't it go Liberal Holt, McMahon, Gorton (total 49-71), Labour Whitlam (72-75), Liberal Fraser for 2 terms only, Labour Hawke for 13 years?
In the US, the Republican administrations of Nixon (69-74) Ford (74-77), Democratic Carter (77 - 81), Republican Reagan (81-89).

This occurred in all Western and developed economy's, notably the Northern European, USA, Canada, England and Australia (& I think quite a few of the Commonwealth countries) .... to name a few without looking any further.

Important lessons learned, after a long hard experience in recession by many countries, resulted in such things as independant Central Banks, less micromanagement of the economy by governments, floating currencies, issuing bonds at instutionally determined yields and so forth.

The governments caught by stagflation didn't have all that radically different economic policies to the preceeding governments that rode out the boom years after WWII... boom years which were a result of war governments determined to keep economies growing to head off the economic influences which lead to WWII in the first place.

The reason it bugs me is that I think laying the blame on governments for something that needed the science of economics as a whole to learn a new approach, is taking things out of context.

The developed and Western nations at the time followed what was thought of as 'best practice', however 'best practice' was later shown to be in need of a serious overhaul.

If we look at the terms of the Aus and USA governments... and their economic policies... the same ecomomic 'rules' were practiced by the previous governments as by the ones caught out by the Stagflation event... pointing to a circumstance which needed the science to change and accomodate the reality... not really economic mismanagement, just economic misunderstanding by all concerned.

As I said, not having a go at you... just that I think that a little widening of perspective is needed.

Finally - after talking out my a$$e for too long.. and I hope someone pulls me up on any of this as I'd like to see a different opinion:
It is interesting to see the current PM talking about low/no unemployment, as if it is actually possible and would not affect inflation.
I'd like to hear how he intends to achieve that.

[Sebastiaan56]

Hi Clinton,

I think your point is well made. Each of these governments were simply following the best economic advice available to them, the "conventional wisdom". The implication is of course that the economists did it. The political parties are another matter.

Both front benches are filled with appara-chicks (tee hee), whether from the union movement or from party offices. They are beholden to the organisations/people that pay for the media that gets them in. It is a testament to the power of advertising that the blame has stuck to past leaders. Curiously Fraser led one of the most "Liberal" governments ever, human rights moved forward a long way, under Hawke we set up "Detention Centers". Interest rates were higher under Labour Governments but because of the relationships with the Unions economic reform was commenced. Australia would have been strike bound if Fraser had tried it.

Our pollies are managers. They need to take advice because their expertise is inherently limited, we all take advice, its the best thing about this forum. Completely severing the RBA from the process is a long term wise strategy as the party political process is fundamentally flawed. Its called the "Agency Problem".

Yesterday's absurdity, Grandparents leave of 1 week per year, C'mon not even Whitlam in his heyday would have proposed that! And how do you make it work?!? Similarly, full employment, this can lead to only one outcome - rampant inflation as demand outstrips supply. Sounds like Menzies, without the post war environment to support him. I didnt catch young Kev's rantings, Im sure that it was just as absurd.

2 and 1/2 weeks to go, they will then go on a XMAS break and for the first time this year we will not be assailed by their attempts at bribery and manipulation, cant wait... Whoever wins will get the politically poisoned pill of increasing interest rates. Meanwhile species disappear, forests get chipped, oil runs out, etc, etc

Hi Studley,

Im agree about the need to manage water much better, the market is probably the best mechanism we currently have. Then there will be a black market (I got it from this little old lady's water tank in Huon Valley...) increased enforcement and water terror. I agree the base price must however be set as markets tend to devalue commodities. Problem will come if we get good rain for a couple of years,

Sebastiaan