Australia is about to get its first woman PM

[SlowwHand]

I'm sure she most definitely is for fairness. After being held down and her eyelashes plucked out, and knowing how unfair it was to her, naturally she would have empathy.

[ricketyclik]

I reckon there might be a PhD in that idea Sloww. Dr SlowwHand, lecturer in Australian politics

[duke o' york]

Well on the basis of rc's explanation of her political bent, I'm a big fan.

(Her policies may not reflect this, but I reserve the right to change my allegiance given time. After all, I thought that John Major could be trusted...)

[C0ckney]

john major get's a bad rap. he was a pretty good prime minister considering the circumstances...

[Zevico]

1. Kevin Rudd gave a beautiful eulogy this morning and is planning to lead the parish in prayers later this afternoon.
2. Julia Gillard is great at being 'large and in charge.' Unfortunately the problems with the Labour Party go far deeper than a mere change in leadership. Labour has made critical mistakes, including:
- Stimulus spending in the midst of interest rate rises, which is frankly idiotic [it would be interesting to see how much of this spending is going into sectors with large unions to pick up the dough by the way];
- Poor choices of stimulus spending, such as school building funding (of all things) instead of infrastructure; also, poorly managed school building funding (many public school projects have been grossly overpriced and mismanaged whereas the stimulus money given to private schools to build similar buildings, was done at far lesser cost);
- The insulation scheme as a part of the stimulus package: throw a bunch of money at an roof insulator contractors and hope they don't electrocute themselves or defraud the public in the process turned out to be a bad idea. Billions are being spent re-checking the work originally done on the public dollar to make sure homeowners' lives are not at risk.
- The mining tax which was a mistake both (i) as policy and (ii) because it was brought out as a set piece "Labour and the workers against the big bad mining companies" which doesn't hold with the public nowadays.
3. The change is insignificant. Like the Democrats and Republicans, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are each liberal democratic, free market parties; unlike the Americans their leaders are far more beholden to the party which can replace them at any time. Their differences lie in the fact that Labour has a power base in,and hence are somewhat beholden to, the union movement, which affects what policies they propose to some extent. Also their MP selection process is not democratic (the Liberal one is). It is far more true to say that voters voted for the Labour Party rather than electing Kevin Rudd as prime minister, in the last election.

[ricketyclik]

1. Kevin Rudd gave a beautiful eulogy this morning and is planning to lead the parish in prayers later this afternoon.
2. Julia Gillard is great at being 'large and in charge.' Unfortunately the problems with the Labour Party go far deeper than a mere change in leadership. Labour has made critical mistakes, including:
- Stimulus spending in the midst of interest rate rises, which is frankly idiotic

The fact that interest rates have returned to neutral is indicative that the spending has been and is working. Would you prefer low interest rates and double digit unemployment?

- Poor choices of stimulus spending, such as school building funding (of all things) instead of infrastructure; also, poorly managed school building funding (many public school projects have been grossly overpriced and mismanaged whereas the stimulus money given to private schools to build similar buildings, was done at far lesser cost);

It served it's primary purpose, which was to pump prime the economy. Other governments wouldn't hesitate to "waste" money if it had meant that unemployment would have remained at 5%.

- The insulation scheme as a part of the stimulus package: throw a bunch of money at an roof insulator contractors and hope they don't electrocute themselves or defraud the public in the process turned out to be a bad idea. Billions are being spent re-checking the work originally done on the public dollar to make sure homeowners' lives are not at risk.

Total beat up. The death rate for insulation installers and house fires due to faulty insulation installation was the same before the stimulus.

- The mining tax which was a mistake both (i) as policy and (ii) because it was brought out as a set piece "Labour and the workers against the big bad mining companies" which doesn't hold with the public nowadays.

All it will do is return the public take to the same level as in 2000, enabling the public to benefit proportionally as much as the corps in the boom. True, the public at large seems to be too thick to see beyond the glossy mining industry ads.

3. The change is insignificant. Like the Democrats and Republicans, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are each liberal democratic, free market parties; unlike the Americans their leaders are far more beholden to the party which can replace them at any time. Their differences lie in the fact that Labour has a power base in,and hence are somewhat beholden to, the union movement, which affects what policies they propose to some extent. Also their MP selection process is not democratic (the Liberal one is). It is far more true to say that voters voted for the Labour Party rather than electing Kevin Rudd as prime minister, in the last election.

True, but Gillard will sell the policies better, and will have a far more consultative/consensus style (ala Hawke) as opposed to insular and autocratic, as Rudd was.

[Zevico]

The fact that interest rates have returned to neutral is indicative that the spending has been and is working. Would you prefer low interest rates and double digit unemployment

1. Interest rates rise to discourage investment and "slow down" the economy.
2. Stimulus is intended to "speed up" the economy by providing people with money. This money in turn is spent on the various sectors e.g. retail etc, and hence invested in the economy at the expense of the tax payer.
3. If interest rates are presently going up then Reserve Bank has formed the view that it is necessary to discourage investment. If stimulus is being spent it is because the Labour Party is of the view that is necessary to encourage investment. The two policies are at odds with one another.
4. It make sense to 'stimulate' the economy only when it is in recession. Not otherwise. We are not in recession, as the Reserve Bank's policy and statistical data indicates.
5. If recession returns it may be wise to return to stimulus spending. It is unwise to do so at the moment. The question you pose is based on the premise that it is necessary to spend stimulus over a number of years; that stimulus cannot be "stopped." Alternatively it is based on the premise that the Liberal Party had no stimulus plan. In fact it did; and, as it has repeatedly indicated, it would also cease stimulus spending now because the economy is not in recession. If we stop stimulus spending now, double digit unemployment will not return.

Total beat up. The death rate for insulation installers and house fires due to faulty insulation installation was the same before the stimulus.

My point is that it was a poor investment to begin with, stimulus or no.

Whether or not Gillard will have a consultative style remains to be seen, though she has certainly pledged her reputation on it. So it seems more likely.

As to the mining tax: mining companies pay company tax already. The states charge an additional sum--that is justifiable given that resources can fairly be said to belong to the public, and the additional sum can be seen as a "sale" of those resources to the mining companies albeit without a contract as such.
The change to a profit-based mining tax may be justified if (i) the increase in the tax is lowered and/or (ii) it kicks in at a higher profit rate. The issue is not whether we are recovering more or less from the mining industry: it is whether investment in the industry is more or less attractive as a result of the tax and to what extent. Too much tax and investment will go overseas instead. We need to be competitive.

I'm not very impressed with Tony Abbott's "I feel like chucking in a maternal leave scheme"approach to leadership either, by the way. I'd rather someone else who opposes the introduction of the ETS in the absence of an international agreement or is willing to swallow their pride and take the Liberal party line on the matter. Turnbull's failure to do so really indicates he hasn't yet learnt how to be a politician and know when he's beat. If Turnbull were somewhat less Turnbullish I'd have liked him based on his otherwise sensible positions. No idea what Joe Hockey would be like either, haven't read/heard/seen enough about him.

[ricketyclik]

1. Interest rates rise to discourage investment and "slow down" the economy.
2. Stimulus is intended to "speed up" the economy by providing people with money. This money in turn is spent on the various sectors e.g. retail etc, and hence invested in the economy at the expense of the tax payer.
3. If interest rates are presently going up then Reserve Bank has formed the view that it is necessary to discourage investment. If stimulus is being spent it is because the Labour Party is of the view that is necessary to encourage investment. The two policies are at odds with one another.
4. It make sense to 'stimulate' the economy only when it is in recession. Not otherwise. We are not in recession, as the Reserve Bank's policy and statistical data indicates.
5. If recession returns it may be wise to return to stimulus spending. It is unwise to do so at the moment. The question you pose is based on the premise that it is necessary to spend stimulus over a number of years; that stimulus cannot be "stopped." Alternatively it is based on the premise that the Liberal Party had no stimulus plan. In fact it did; and, as it has repeatedly indicated, it would also cease stimulus spending now because the economy is not in recession. If we stop stimulus spending now, double digit unemployment will not return.

This all ignores that interest rates are now at neutral, ie, at a level one would expect given steady sailing, not at at high levels, ie putting the brakes on. There is also no indication that interest rates are "rising". They have risen, from historically low rates, to neutral levels, and now seem to be paused.

My point is that it was a poor investment to begin with, stimulus or no.

This is debatable, but the point remains that it's primary purpose was to get money circulating in the economy, which it achieved.

Whether or not Gillard will have a consultative style remains to be seen, though she has certainly pledged her reputation on it. So it seems more likely.

She also has a long and strong track record of such an approach.

[ricketyclik]

Two things I forgot to mention:

The last quarter's growth in GDP was almost all down to areas with strong stimulus expenditure, and

Low interest rates will only stimulate if there is money available to lend. There is still an international credit squeeze on.

[Zevico]

Also, I have no problem with spending on things that are cost-effective--even somewhat less than cost-effective in the midst of a recession--whether it be roads or public transport, or what have you. School hall give aways at far in excess of market prices is utter stupidity.

[Zevico]

Interest rates are at neutral now, but they did go up when stimulus was being applied. Repeatedly.

[ricketyclik]

Interest rates are at neutral now, but they did go up when stimulus was being applied. Repeatedly.

From low (= economy in potentially in trouble) to neutral (= economy seems OK).

[ricketyclik]

There's a rumour going around that this could mean the end of the clean internet feed.

[trev]

From a viewpoint of public policy, I would prefer low interest rates was used to stimulate the economy, not deficit spending. Therefore less government stimulus from spending and more stimulus from low interest rates would have been a better outcome. The rising interest rates has choked private sector growth, returning it to zero, that is certainly not desirable as we are now reliant on gov't expenditure for growth alone.
Julia Gillard as PM will result in a PM who is more consultative, more politically savvy and a better communicator. However I have seen nothing in her statements so far to indicate government policy will improve and considering she was part of a group of four who oversaw all gov't decisions, there is little reason to believe policy will change significantly, particularly as Rudd seemed to be a follower of advisors in regard to policy making rather than a leader with his own agenda, so Ruud was probably following Julia's policies to a fair extent anyway.

[Tattila the Hun]

Finland got it's second female PM just a few days ago, as well. Having a female president and majority of ministers female, some people, including the prez, are calling it a great step forward in gender equality. They don't seem to get equality, at least the numbers kind. I do say, I don't really give a damn about the gender of a minister, or religion, lack there of, race or sexual orientation. As long as they do their job, and aren't Finnish-swedes.