Showing posts with label rudd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rudd. Show all posts

Sunday, June 7, 2009

The 'b' word

This has to be the most absurd pinnacle of spin. Sadly it's indicative of the trouble we're in and the priorities of the Government:

From the Australian:

May 20, 2009

Article from: The Australian

Mr Rudd hates admitting the outcome of his budget plan

IN avoiding answering an obvious question, Kevin Rudd did not play a straight bat on ABC TV's Lateline on Monday night as much as build a brick wall across his crease. Six times interviewer Tony Jones asked the Prime Minister what public debt would reach in the context of the present crisis and five times Mr Rudd responded with a storm of spin. He wandered and waffled all around the issue, explaining debt is often expressed as a percentage of GDP, telling us tax revenues are down and infrastructure outlays up, adding that the debt would be no different under the Liberals. But when Jones finally wore Mr Rudd down all he would admit was that the projected debt would reach what he called "300". Everybody watching knew he meant $300 billion, but Mr Rudd could not bring himself to say it, lest we were all distracted by the debt and forgot everything he had just explained. It was an extraordinary exercise in obfuscation by Mr Rudd in his preferred persona as the nation's headmaster, intent on telling us what he has decided we need to know. Wayne Swan had tried the same tactic the morning after last week's budget when, at the end of a long interview on ABC radio, he was asked why he had not mentioned the deficit number in his speech. The Treasurer suddenly had nothing much to say beyond replying "57". Not "$57 billion", just "57".

This is stage one of the spin cycle the Government is using on the economy - sound authoritative and when anybody asks difficult questions take cover behind swags of statistics, while doing everything imaginable to avoiding stating the size of the deficit as anything other than an innocuous number. And if that does not work, ministers go to stage two, which involves invoking ostensibly independent experts. This approach was also on show the morning after the budget, when Mr Rudd was quizzed over optimistic assumptions in the forward estimates about the speed with which the nation's finances will return to surplus. Treasury thinks the economy will roar ahead in 2011, growing by 4.5per cent for two years and then 4per cent for the following four years. Instead of answering the question, Mr Rudd turned it into an attack on Malcolm Turnbull, who he said was criticising the credibility of Treasury officials. It was too cute by half - while the Reserve Bank is charged with setting interest rates independent of government, Treasury gives ministers advice. And when officials' ideas are integrated into policy the politicians own them. In questioning the Treasury figures, the Opposition Leader was not attacking the men and women who read the economic entrails, but the political use to which their work is put. The problem for politicians in frank and fearless advice is that it is exactly that - best estimates that carry no guarantee. When Treasury secretary Ken Henry defended the growth projections in the budget yesterday, he was standing up for the Government more than his own officials.

The possibility that he could be wrong on the economy obviously upsets Mr Rudd in a way that goes beyond the obvious importance of keeping the budget in surplus, employment high and inflation low. The Lateline lecture was almost embarrassing in the way it displayed Mr Rudd's desire to demonstrate he is across the issue and that there are no alternatives to his approach. But while Mr Rudd is determined to demonstrate he knows what is going on, few others are as confident. The Reserve Bank board's minutes from its May meeting, released yesterday, made a case for masterful inactivity because of inclusive evidence on the direction of the Australian, and world, economy. Yesterday, RBA boss Glenn Stevens went one very small step further, suggesting the world economy could start to grow towards the end of this year, but only slowly. The case for caution is obvious with the International Monetary Fund unconvinced that our economy will improve as fast as Treasury forecasts. According to IMF staff estimates, the Australian economy will struggle to reach its long-term growth figure of 3 per cent by 2014, making the budget forward estimates less optimistic than outlandish. But before Mr Rudd ticks the IMF off for attacking Treasury's independence, the international agency uses Australian numbers. The truth is that nobody, including Mr Rudd, knows what will happen to the world economy. For all of Mr Rudd's command of the detail, his Lateline performance combined soothsaying and spin.

China grows the economy, Labor grows the debt

This week's welcome news that Australia is not officially in recession has highlighted the Government's duplicitous relationship with the mining industry.

Labor willed it to end - they saw it as something that just fortuitously 'happened' and they were the ones, we were assured, that would lock in Australia's prosperity 'beyond the mining boom'.

But when it seemed like ending as the GFC stymied international demand, talk of locking in prosperity was predictably absent.

These results are off the back of China demand, not the Government's stimulus payments:

As China kept buying Australian iron ore in the March quarter, so-called "net exports" added a huge 2.2 percentage points to GDP. That's the biggest net export boost in half a century and some claim it's a statistical quirk.

But it means that, amid the biggest global downturn since the 1930s Depression, Australia has staved off a headline recession because of demand from the rest of the world. And it comes as a huge surprise.


Monday, March 9, 2009

Waking up to St Kevin and the rancid stench.

In the Sydney Morning Herald today Paul Sheean really drives home the folly of Rudd's all things to everyone stand for nothing but winning elections philosophy. He gives a preview to the 2010 election:

  • Fiscal folly and gross economic mismanagement: 'Rudd is on course to become the next Gough Whitlam, but Whitlam without the wit.'
  • A handy quote that will be played over and over during the campaign alongside some awful unemployment statistics: '"Any person's job loss through no fault of their own is a lost job too many when it comes to me. I'm the Prime Minister of the country, the buck stops with me." Not unlike the ALP's 'working familes have never been better off' quote from Howard.
  • The Rancid Stench of Hypocrisy: In opposition, Rudd opposed the GST, which in retrospect has been a tremendous stabilising influence in the economy, thanks to John Howard. During the last election, Rudd campaigned as an "economic conservative". Upon winning office, and inheriting a $90 billion financial buffer from outgoing treasurer Peter Costello, he accused the previous government of creating a dangerous inflation threat. It was a fabrication.
Hear hear.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Balancing the budget 'over the economic cycle'

Rudd has taken to using this new, cynical and meaningless term as an alternative to sound economic management. It is straight from the New Labour textbook in the UK. Have a look how well it has worked over there.

As Chancellor Gordon Brown was spending big and running budget deficits during the boom times. But fear not, he was determined to balance the budget over the economic cycle - as this BBC article from 2004 points out.

But the great thing about meaningless spin replacing sound economics is that you can just change the length of the economic cycle - as Brown does the following year. In January 2008, before the global credit crisis, Brown looked very much like he had failed to meet his target and debt continued to rise sharply.

When the cycle did end, this is what happened.

The term really does go to the heart of what's wrong with the Rudd Government. Too clever by half, they use terms like 'balance the budget over the economic cycle' and 'temporary deficit' to give the impression of making hard decisions but actually just running a traditional tax and spend administration.

Finally, here is the Government's Finance Minister trying to add some weight to the meaningless and misleading term on Lateline in November last year:


LEIGH SALES: Kevin Rudd was asked in Peru today if he would be prepared to take the budget into deficit in response to the financial crisis and he said, "The clear philosophical position this Government has had since Opposition and since becoming Government is this: that we believe in maintaining a Government and budget surplus over the economic cycle. "What does he mean by economic cycle, what cycle?"

LINDSAY TANNER: Well, a cycle is affected by a variety of things and one of them, of course, which everybody is worried about is international forces. And so our position's pretty straightforward. We've got a projected surplus. It's a bit thinner than it was a few months ago because it's had a very large hole knocked in it by these international factors. But we've still got positive growth projected and we've still got ongoing modest budget surpluses projected.

LEIGH SALES: But the use of the word "cycle" implies some sort of a timeframe? Does he mean over the financial year? Does he mean the electoral cycle? What exactly is he talking about when he says "over the cycle"?

LINDSAY TANNER: It doesn't imply a specific cycle because economic cycles over time vary in the period of time which they relate to. So, all it is is a statement that there are wider economic forces out there that no government can control that can move the fiscal settings around very quickly. We've just seen that happen. We've seen budget surpluses that were projected around the $20 billion mark suddenly knocked down to single figures as a result of particular international forces that are part of an economic cycle. We don't know whether those forces are going to intensify or whether we've seen the worst of them. That's a factor that's clearly has the potential to have an impact on our fiscal settings. But based on our current projections, the best available advice we've got, we believe the budget will stay in surplus and we're committed to keeping it in surplus. But nobody can be certain about where those wider international factors are going to take the Australian economy. If they intensify, if they get a lot worse, then things will change.


Right...

Sunday, January 25, 2009

new words but no leadership from the PM and the bagman made good

As many of us are worried about our jobs (like really worried, not theoretically worried as they were under WorkChoices), what do we get from the Government? Lots of noise, and some inspired and meaningless new words:

  • temporary deficit
  • ahead of the curve
  • decisive action
  • balanced over the cycle
This is what you get when a Labor Party hack from Queensland somehow becomes Treasurer. Let us not forget:

JOURNALIST:

(Inaudible) Swan, the Labor Party should look at this (inaudible) brown paper bag affair?

TREASURER:

Well you see, I am no expert on ALP rules and it wasn’t until Greg Rudd was forced to leave the Labor Party that I realised that any Labor member - any member, not a member of Parliament - apparently any Labor member who donates to another political party must be expelled. Let me say, I have no objection to Greg Rudd donating to the Liberal Party, I think it is a good thing and I don’t think he should be expelled, I think he should be entitled to donate to whoever he wants to donate, and certainly as a member of the Liberal Party I am never going to regard that as a crime. But when that came up apparently it transpired that there are Labor Party rules that say if you give to another political party you must be expelled and Kevin Rudd’s brother was therefore forced out of the Labor Party. Well, I ask this question: how did Wayne Swan give money to the Australian Democrats? And why isn’t the rule being enforced against Wayne Swan?