Beazley's comments on Labor's economic legacy (1 Viewer)

[Riewe]

In recent days, or weeks, i've heard Kim Beazley run around and tell anyone who'll listen that the Howard Government has absolutely squandered the financial legacy that the previous Hawke-Keating Governments set up. He says that these governments created the environment where the economy boomed during recent years. And as such, the Howard Government doesn't have that much economic credibility.

But as i see it, the legacy handed over was not all that good. Huge national debt, which Howard Gov. has pretty much abolished, very low unemployment, but it probably was decreasing during the labor years, but now it is still going down. Interest rates are now about a third of what they were. And if i remember correctly, international monitoring organisations praised Australia's economy for it growth and said that it will continue to grow; contrary to Beazley's claim that because Howard has squandered their legacy, the economy will go down. But i don't hear Howard talking about a 'recession we have to have' during his time.

There are so many things wrong with his stance on this issue, that if he wants me to consider voting for him at the next election, he better sing a different tune.

 

[nick1048]

Beazley is a weak labour party leader, he's lost twice and is coming back for a third loss, his policies are not sound, he offers no REAL change to the Aussie public and is going up against a consistant PM. In terms of the Howard Governement, national debt is still unsustainably high as the CAD widens. Interest rates are on the rise however the Howard government has done its best to keep them low in subseuqent financial quarters. I dont see the change in governments as wise for the australian public atm. There are so many flaws with the Howard g'ment but comparatively they are more structured than labours current campaign... Stick with the devil you know? What other choice do we have...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Beazley is hardly a weak leader!

 

[malkin86]

What's my Beazley doing now?

Do you have a newspaper article on these allegations of Beazley's? The interest rates are still rising.. It's inevitable really, but I remember there being a very strong implication by the Libs that if Labor was voted in, interest rates would definately rise.

 

[absolution*]

Beazley is hardly a weak leader!

Exactly. He is big and fat and kinda cuddly looking. Now there are some credentials for ya!

 

[Comrade nathan]

very low unemployment

Unemployement is acutally higher then most think. Many people are unemployed or work once or twice a week, but they don't get counted as unemployed. People who live with or married to a employed person is an exampled of someone who isn't listed as unemployed.

 

[malkin86]

Exactly. He is big and fat and kinda cuddly looking. Now there are some credentials for ya!

Don't forget he's attracted to me, according to LazyBoy.

 

[ZabZu]

Howard has been very lucky regarding the economy since some of the factors in the strong Australian economy have resulted in changes in economic conditions overseas. These include globalisation, moves to free trade, high interest rates overseas(leading to increased foreign investment in Aust), etc. Im a bit rusty on my knowledge of economics but you cant vote someone just because they are successful in running the economy. If labor got into power i bet they would take note of and learn from many of Howard's economic policies and they could therefore maintain the strong Australian economy. You cant compare the Keating government to the Howard government because the conditions have changed immensely.

And as comrade nathan has said, the employment figures as well as inflation figures disregard a number of vital components and therefore favour the government.

 

[Jonathan A]

Unemployement is acutally higher then most think. Many people are unemployed or work once or twice a week, but they don't get counted as unemployed.

Because they are employed! Its better them working part time and opening up oppurtunities rather than solely relying on Centrelink.

 

[katietheskatie]

any kind of decent economy with labor in power is a complete fucking joke. they have no idea.

 

[Generator]

any kind of decent economy with labor in power is a complete fucking joke. they have no idea.

A number of people may agree, but for those who don't... Why?

 

[katietheskatie]

because honestly, they just don't. the labor government entices all these people to vote for them with 'oh, we'll give you medicare gold, we'll lower taxes blah blah blah, we rip on the government at every opportunity' - and the only way to pay for that is either through putting interest rates through the roof, or borrowing money from other countries.

it might be good for an average worker, they might get a few extra dollars a week, but it absolutely kills small businesses. the last time labor was in government, interest rates were seriously around 15%, and not many small businesses can handle that. so they close down, which forces up the unemployment rate and everything else that stems from that.

or they could also choose to go down the other labor route of borrowing money to keep their promises. when john howard became leader, we had billions of dollars of foreign debt accumulated from other countries, which was being taxed at hundreds of thousands every effing day. so when he had to cut back spending and introduce the gst to pay back those loans, it was the liberals who copped shit for it.

.. yeah. that's why. and if you guys don't agree, that's cool, its just how i see it.

 

[Generator]

The economic legacy of the Labor party is quite strong in that it enabled the current levels of 'prosperity' to be achieved through much needed reforms that opened up the Australian economy. However, it seems as though we are now at the crucial point of divergence... Should we travel down the Coalition's path or Labor's (poorly articulated) path? In the past we were able to rely on the Democrats to pass the sensible reforms and review and modify those of a questionable nature, yet from the first of July that failsafe will no longer exist...

Note: It's 'prosperity' rather than prosperity because contemporary Australia seems to be wedded to the idea of economic progress rather than progress in its entirety.

Edit: Haha I just realised that I have merely repeated what has been said before (not necessarily on this forum).

 

[Generator]

"the Democrats to pass the sensible reforms and review and modify those of a questionable nature", yes lets allow a left-wing party to decide the fate between a left wing and a right wing party

Generator, the current government is also introducing wide ranging economic & industrial reforms which will strengthen our economy.
The truth is if a Labor government is going to re-introduce unions and give workers back their power allowing them to go back to the point where they can "take it easy" at least to some extent we will lose whatever small edge we have.

The Democrats are not a left-wing party... Though the Democrats as a whole may have shifted to the left in recent years, their economic policies (which inludes industrial relations and the like) are still at the centre if not economically liberal.

As I said, this is where the parties diverge. Reforms that appear to chip away at the already weakened idea of emplyees' rights may strengthen economic productivity in the current economic climate, yet are we to just dismiss the idea of a quality working life for all (one that is both safe and relatively secure) and then suffer the consequences of a downturn? Why is it that we appear to be more than willing to be pro-business yet cringe at the thought of promoting the idea of being pro-employee as well (be it from within a union or not)?

Develop a means of increasing productivity without threatening the rights of the employees and I will support it. I'm not opposed to truly progressive reform.


Edit: I hope that some of that made sense.
Edit 2: I just realised that I may be taking the 'quality working life' point too far. Oh well, that's life.

 

[katietheskatie]

Katietheskatie: While i am a Liberal supporter, much of what you said was innacurate or wrong.

how so? feel free to correct me, seriously. i'm just going by my observations and what i've been told. i'd like to know if i'm wrong.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Because they are employed! Its better them working part time and opening up oppurtunities rather than solely relying on Centrelink.

Thats part of the point. They may be employed for one day a week, so if we have large numbers of people like this they don't get added in as unemployed. Then it gives a nice number and middle class people and private school students get a nice fuzzy feeling that eveything is swell, while some poor sucker is working 1 day a week.

There is other conditions for not being put on unemployed, ask center link the conditions for being labeled unemployed.

The current system used for unemployment is the same as it's always been

Im not sure but it still subjective on umemployed.

It sounds stupid, but if they had a percentage of people who do not live in reasonable standards of living, or live with unreasonable debt then it would be more high then unemployed percentage.

 

[Xayma]

how so? feel free to correct me, seriously. i'm just going by my observations and what i've been told. i'd like to know if i'm wrong.

Well the GST wasn't introduced to pay back foreign debt. It was part of tax reform which needed to happen (tax reform itself, not neccesairly the GST) and is paid back to the states (although there is criticism that it isn't paid back in the amount they contribute, Queensland for example gets more while Victoria and NSW less).

 

[loquasagacious]

how so? feel free to correct me, seriously. i'm just going by my observations and what i've been told. i'd like to know if i'm wrong.

How does raising interest rates pay for electoral promises? Raising interest rates does not make the government money.....

Oh and as far as the economic legacy goes, Hawke (I think) was the first PM to lower tarrifs, he began the process that has bought us to FTAs today.

Hawke/Keating floated the Australian Dollar, they introduced tough workplace reforms (which incidently the union movement has largely NOT forgiven them for).

Interest rates were highest under Fraser (or whoever was the liberal before Hawke) and they steadily fell over time and hae continued to fall in pretty much a straight line up until a couple of months ago.

Following your reasoning there was no business thirty years ago everyone just pretty much sat around.

Inflation has meant that as interest rates have gone down people have borrowed more and driven prices up. So the net effect has been that the spending power of the average person under 15% intertest is pretty comesurate to that of the average person under interest rates of 3%.

Finally anyone who is stupid enough to believe that interest rates automatically change to 15% when labor wins and fuck all when the liberals win is a stupid idiot and can vote liberal (or not vote at all preferably) or go to hell. Actually id prefer hell or not voting.

In fact I support voluntary voting as I think people stupid enough to believe that sort of crap will not infact remember to vote, which can on ly be a good thing.

Endeth rant.

 

[Korn]

He is trying to cover up Labours atrocius record with the economy, and hoping ppl have forgot the shape Keating left it in

 

[katietheskatie]

Finally anyone who is stupid enough to believe that interest rates automatically change to 15% when labor wins and fuck all when the liberals win is a stupid idiot and can vote liberal (or not vote at all preferably) or go to hell. Actually id prefer hell or not voting.

i wasn't saying that they automatically changed to fuck all. but still, thanks for posting, i'm more than willing to look at both sides of it. growing up with two extremely liberal parents can give you a slightly skewed perspective.