Thread: What influences your vote...?

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

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

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.

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