Anthony Albanese - How long? -3-

[Goroyals22]

What would you like him to do in regards to interest rates?

Hey,,, this is the bloke who got his knickers in a twist with one rise in rates from the last government… this guy came to power on making things cheaper and lowering rates… it’s his problem to sort


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The other problem is that entre left parties like the ALP don't want to admit there are winners and losers in politics and for somebody to win, somebody else has to lose or at least feel like they've lost. Conservatives have no issue understanding this and they act accordingly. You just don't win votes with righteousness.

Could you please explain further what you mean by this? What does admitting there are winners and losers in politics look like, and what righteousness are the so-called "centre-left" displaying?

 

[Bloods86]

Hey,,, this is the bloke who got his knickers in a twist with one rise in rates from the last government… this guy came to power on making things cheaper and lowering rates… it’s his problem to sort


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Yes, sadly Labor followed the Coalition's example in taking credit / apportioning blame where it's disingenuous to do so.

But you said he'd given up, like there's something else left for him to do to reduce interest rates.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Could you please explain further what you mean by this? What does admitting there are winners and losers in politics look like, and what righteousness are the so-called "centre-left" displaying?

Take the example of negative gearing reforms proposed by Shorten in the 2019 election. If home ownership is to be viewed as a right, it can't be an investment and if domestic property is an investment, ownership cannot be seen as a right. You can't simultaneously improve the ratio of median house price against wages while allowing house prices to rise faster than inflation, fuelled by favourable tax arrangements. Everybody knew that the negative gearing changes would hurt investors when it was proposed, so it was futile for Shorten to spend months on the campaign trail arguing the effects were in fact mild. Big tent politics fails when you more or less expect every demographic will want to vote for you - it never works that way.

The time wasted trying to win over people who were never going to vote for him, was lost on not trying to win over people that might have. Braddon & Bass in Tasmania, Capricornia, Herbert, Longman and Flynn in Queensland.

The righteousness is expecting that the public will judge their policies on their intent, and not on their effectiveness. The ALP, expects that the working poor, the unionised and the outer suburban areas will continue to vote for them on the basis that the ALP is more aligned to these people than the LNP, despite not actually legislating in their favour. There is similar criticism in the US toward the Democrats and the UK toward Labour.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Spot on.

However, Dutton has addressed this in an interview very recently. He has specifically said he wishes to reconnect with original values and steer away from big corporations and get back to small business and allow the every day Aussie to have aspiration. His $30K Instant Asset Write Off and $20K Entertainment deductibility pledges made last week do show their may be some substance behind those words.

Hooray, tax rorts for more people!

 

[Todman]

Where can Labor turn for ideas on how to win the Australian election? How about Mexico?

The ALP could follow the Mexican example where an incumbent won an election in a cost-of-living crisis by combining radical policies with symbolic measures

www.theguardian.com

Food for thought (although I’m not sure why Australia - 13th largest economy in the world - shouldn’t be comparing itself to Latin American economies like 10th largest Brazil, and 15th largest Mexico).

Go bold Albo.

Latinos have a history of being on the left whereas Aussies have been right of centre. ( ALP 14600 days in office, Nationalists/UAP/Lib 27000 days in office.)

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Take the example of negative gearing reforms proposed by Shorten in the 2019 election. If home ownership is to be viewed as a right, it can't be an investment and if domestic property is an investment, ownership cannot be seen as a right.

I agree, but did Labor ever claim home ownership is a right? I can't recall them doing so. This is not a defence of Labor, I think housing should be a right, I just think Labor don't agree with me and haven't since at least the Whitlam era.

You can't simultaneously improve the ratio of median house price against wages while allowing house prices to rise faster than inflation, fuelled by favourable tax arrangements. Everybody knew that the negative gearing changes would hurt investors when it was proposed, so it was futile for Shorten to spend months on the campaign trail arguing the effects were in fact mild. Big tent politics fails when you more or less expect every demographic will want to vote for you - it never works that way.

Except they very specifically inserted a grandfather clause to allow existing negative gearing arrangements to continue. So basically it was the worst of all worlds, it didn't actually hurt existing property investors (which, as you imply, is necessary for house prices to fall), but the terrible effort at explaining it made them all think they would be hurt. Ineffective and a political hindrance too!

I'll agree that Labor often try to please everybody but end up pleasing nobody. But it's not like openly telling current property investors you're going to hurt them wins a massive amount of votes either, or the Greens would be doing much better in the polls than 12%.

The time wasted trying to win over people who were never going to vote for him, was lost on not trying to win over people that might have. Braddon & Bass in Tasmania, Capricornia, Herbert, Longman and Flynn in Queensland.

What makes you think those electorates weren't lost based on, in part, the negative gearing changes? (Though I reckon the franking credit reforms were by far the bigger vote loser).

The righteousness is expecting that the public will judge their policies on their intent, and not on their effectiveness. The ALP, expects that the working poor, the unionised and the outer suburban areas will continue to vote for them on the basis that the ALP is more aligned to these people than the LNP, despite not actually legislating in their favour. There is similar criticism in the US toward the Democrats and the UK toward Labour.

I agree with this part. They're trying to coast off of reputation over substance. It's a pity those people alienated by the lack of change seem to think the Coalition are a better vehicle for the change they want than, well, absolutely anyone else on the ballot paper.

 

[nut]

How is the average punter expected to understand what, if any, good legislation Labor introduced if supposedly politically aware posters in this thread either don't know or won't acknowledge policy changes? kranky al had a good list of new legislation that took effect Jan 1 and people are still posting that they haven't introduced anything. Any comments on the new legislation at all?

And they’ve introduced all that whilst trying to fight the inflation they inherited and smashed it.
They’ve kept unemployment low.
They’ve produce 2 budget surplus’s.

The LNP have nothing to to attack them on … NOTHING!!

So the LNP go the cultural wars and the immigrants are bad play book…

 

[Saint]

And they’ve introduced all that whilst trying to fight the inflation they inherited and smashed it.
They’ve kept unemployment low.
They’ve produce 2 budget surplus’s.

The LNP have nothing to to attack them on … NOTHING!!

So the LNP go the cultural wars and the immigrants are bad play book…

This is precisely what cos the Dems.

Bragging about macro-economic success while 80% of Australians are worse off, economically, is a bad move. If the ALP truly think things are going well for people then they're going to lose, bigly.

This should be their discussion points.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

And they’ve introduced all that whilst trying to fight the inflation they inherited and smashed it.
They’ve kept unemployment low.
They’ve produce 2 budget surplus’s.

They've failed to address the housing crisis, except by making a big song and dance about the HAFF which is far too small to actually stabilise prices. More people fall into homelessness each week and Albanese has nothing to offer those people or save them from their fate with.

"Smashing inflation" still involves prices rising, just more slowly, so of course people are not going to be impressed with that. Price controls were the way to go as a short-term measure but Labor never even brought up the idea because they keep believing the free market will solve everything for them.

People see the strain on their local infrastructure, see the immigration numbers and they put two and two together. Even if the numbers were only high due to pent up demand while the borders were shut, it was nothing short of a PR disaster for Albanese. And this wasn't helped by his incredibly stupid policy of leaving tradies off his priority immigration list, before belatedly adding some of them back a year later if they're not highly-paid (which to me is the opposite of how that should work).

And I haven't even got into the poor timing of the referendum or Albanese's failure to do the legwork for making the case for Yes. Much like inflation, he seemed to expect some other entity would do the job for him.

Albanese has a long list of failures. It's really not surprising that he's suffering in the polls.

The LNP have nothing to to attack them on … NOTHING!!

So the LNP go the cultural wars and the immigrants are bad play book…

I agree the LNP aren't going to make anything better, but the media have convinced most people that the LNP are the only alternative. And Albanese had ever opportunity to introduce reforms to break the power of the media and didn't take it. The Greens and David Pocock would have voted for such reforms, possibly even Lambie.

 

[nut]

They've failed to address the housing crisis,

What methods could have they used to “solve” the housing crisis in 2 years?
The LNP caused the crisis by relaxing lending laws and allowing banks to lend to people who would not normally be afforded the loans they issued!!! Forcing house prices to almost double during a pandemic!!!
Remember Australia preferred to have Scomo as PM instead of winding back negative gearing.

 

[Saint]

What methods could have they used to “solve” the housing crisis in 2 years?
The LNP caused the crisis by relaxing lending laws and allowing banks to lend to people who would not normally be afforded the loans they issued!!! Forcing house prices to almost double during a pandemic!!!
Remember Australia preferred to have Scomo as PM instead of winding back negative gearing.

Neither of the major parties want to "solve" the housing crisis by making housing affordable. It means prices coming down and neither group wants that for personal and for electoral reasons.

But Cost of Living overall is what they should be addressing. And they're steadfastly refusing to do anything of substance. Tinkering around the edges and celebrating that inflation has fallen to normal levels and then pretending like the massive wave of inflation which made everyone with a mortgage or without existing wealth much worse off never happened.

They can talk about what they've done, but if they pretend that everyone's hunky-dory now, they're going to lose.

My only question is: Which advisor is telling them to pretend the Cost-of-living crisis isn't happening, or is over? Those people should be fired into the moon. Why are they doing this? The Libs will win if the ALP keep on this tack that everything is going great thanks to their management.

Because things are going worse for people (the majority) now than they were when the ALP was elected. That's a fact. Trump won most under $50k earning voters in the US election for precisely this reason.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

How could they improve cost of living?

Genuine question.

Because I agree, something needs to be done.

 

[faible]

There's not much he's going to be remembered for

• Silica ban - IMO the best thing to come out of this government but banning the 2000's version of asbestos isn't controversial
• Right to disconnect - not a bad idea but a very mild reform
• PBS cost savings - as above
• Energy rebates and cost caps - not much more than putting a band aid over a structural issue

Status quo is very much the same as it was when he arrived.

The Closing Loopholes Bill is quite a big deal that really hasn't received the publicity it should.

It includes the Right to Disconnect, but also includes stuff squarely aimed at Qantas with their same work / different pay and conditions using labour hire. It's actually a big thing to get through. They should talk more about it.

 

[nut]

How could they improve cost of living?

Genuine question.

Exactly … not one person wants to give an alternative policy for cost of living.

How do you address the cost of living whilst bringing down inflation?

Should they give everyone one below 80k a year 5k?

 

[faible]

How could they improve cost of living?

Genuine question.

Because I agree, something needs to be done.

It's a global phenomenon off the back of Covid, so to an extent the answer is that it's probably not entirely within their control.

Relying on the RBA and interest rates (that largely smash younger home owners) isn't the solution though, since it's largely shifting money from those who have debt (younger, and low to middle income earners) and handing it to (mostly older, higher income) Australians who don't have debt.

Our economic system isn't really set up for the current climate we exist in, and the appetite for either major party to do anything about it is pretty low. They fiddle around the edges whilst still keeping all the stuff that causes the issues intact.

IMO a temporary GST increase could have been investigated (maybe it was), as that largely hits discretionary spending, not food costs.

Government don't like doing that though, because the RBA is independent and they get to blame <someone else> for interest rates.

In this case, I suspect the Government will be very keen for the RBA to cut rates in February just in time for an election.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

What methods could have they used to “solve” the housing crisis in 2 years?

A rent freeze, a moratorium on evictions, following the Victorian example of extra taxes on investment properties to spark a mass selloff, all of these would buy time for a big public housing building program to solve the crisis in the long term.

The LNP caused the crisis by relaxing lending laws and allowing banks to lend to people who would not normally be afforded the loans they issued!!!

Where's the proof of this please?

Remember Australia preferred to have Scomo as PM instead of winding back negative gearing.

It's also the responsibility of an aspiring PM proposing a change to make the cause for that change. Failing to sell policies well is a fatal flaw in a progressive politician.

 

[faible]

A rent freeze, a moratorium on evictions, following the Victorian example of extra taxes on investment properties to spark a mass selloff, all of these would buy time for a big public housing building program to solve the crisis in the long term.


Where's the proof of this please?


It's also the responsibility of an aspiring PM proposing a change to make the cause for that change. Failing to sell policies well is a fatal flaw in a progressive politician.

I also think Shorten being unlikeable was a large part of it, not so much the policy itself. The ALP platform for that election was actually (relatively for a major party) progressive and detailed, just lead by a guy who wasn't overly inspiring.

 

[Saint]

Exactly … not one person wants to give an alternative policy for cost of living.

How do you address the cost of living whilst bringing down inflation?

Should they give everyone one below 80k a year 5k?

It's very simple and I've posted it here many times, but you keep ignoring the response and ask the same question weeks later. When interest rates are high, those with wealth benefit and those without are the victims.

The Government should balance this out. There are thousands of options available to them.

One would be to tax gas exports to even a fraction of the amount other gas exporting countries do, and then cut taxes on everyone earning under $100k.

Or increase corporate tax rate (corporate profits drove the inflation up) and increase the tax free threshold (benefits everyone, but relatively higher for low-income earners).

This Govt sat by and watched the minority rich get richer while the majority poor got poorer.

 

[Home Alone]

It's a global phenomenon off the back of Covid, so to an extent the answer is that it's probably not entirely within their control.

I would say it was present before covid. Covid was a definite accelerant though

 

[faible]

It's very simple and I've posted it here many times, but you keep ignoring the response and ask the same question weeks later. When interest rates are high, those with wealth benefit and those without are the victims.

The Government should balance this out. There are thousands of options available to them.

One would be to tax gas exports to even a fraction of the amount other gas exporting countries do, and then cut taxes on everyone earning under $100k.

Or increase corporate tax rate (corporate profits drove the inflation up) and increase the tax free threshold (benefits everyone, but relatively higher for low-income earners).

This Govt sat by and watched the minority rich get richer while the majority poor got poorer.

Covid was a very good illustration of how trickle down economics is BS.

They made it easier for people earning low incomes (or who were out of work) to access money, and increased the welfare payment to an actual liveable minimum wage.

Consumer spending went up, because these people actually spend money on things like school books or food, and don't stash them in bank accounts or just buy more shares.

Giving more money to the already wealthy and big corporates, in the hope that for every $1 they get a few cents might get thrown out the bottom as crumbs instead of giving that money to the people who'll spend it, makes no sense.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Neither of the major parties want to "solve" the housing crisis by making housing affordable. It means prices coming down and neither group wants that for personal and for electoral reasons.

But Cost of Living overall is what they should be addressing. And they're steadfastly refusing to do anything of substance. Tinkering around the edges and celebrating that inflation has fallen to normal levels and then pretending like the massive wave of inflation which made everyone with a mortgage or without existing wealth much worse off never happened.

I agree, and those two things are inextricably linked. If you look through recent ABS releases on CPI, the cost of housing is always among the top contributors to inflation. While prices might be tailing off in Sydney (at too unaffordable a level) and in Melbourne, they're still going gangbusters in SEQ and Perth, and this is ensuring inflation remains high enough to keep interest rates where they are.

They can talk about what they've done, but if they pretend that everyone's hunky-dory now, they're going to lose.

My only question is: Which advisor is telling them to pretend the Cost-of-living crisis isn't happening, or is over? Those people should be fired into the moon. Why are they doing this? The Libs will win if the ALP keep on this tack that everything is going great thanks to their management.

Definitely, Peter Costello helped blow the 2007 election by taking this attitude. There's a lost art in politics of admitting mistakes and telling the people what you'll do better from here. It may not be considered wise by many now because it's not what Trump would do, but I think Australians are different to Americans in how they view it. After all, Peter Beattie did this a few times and actually rose in popularity.

Exactly … not one person wants to give an alternative policy for cost of living.

Yes they do. I've commented a few times in this thread that price controls on basic supermarket goods would have been a good short-term measure to control the cost of living.

How do you address the cost of living whilst bringing down inflation?

You hike taxes on the very wealthy and the corporations. I'd have looked for a way to claw back money handed out to corporations during the lockdowns.

I also think Shorten being unlikeable was a large part of it, not so much the policy itself. The ALP platform for that election was actually (relatively for a major party) progressive and detailed, just lead by a guy who wasn't overly inspiring.

I agree, I've said many times that I think Shorten has no charisma whatsoever. The problem is I feel like Albanese has developed Shorten syndrome. Nowadays he's nothing like the cheerful, energetic figure he cast during the Rudd/Gillard governments.

 

[Saint]

I agree, and those two things are inextricably linked. If you look through recent ABS releases on CPI, the cost of housing is always among the top contributors to inflation. While prices might be tailing off in Sydney (at too unaffordable a level) and in Melbourne, they're still going gangbusters in SEQ and Perth, and this is ensuring inflation remains high enough to keep interest rates where they are.


Definitely, Peter Costello helped blow the 2007 election by taking this attitude. There's a lost art in politics of admitting mistakes and telling the people what you'll do better from here. It may not be considered wise by many now because it's not what Trump would do, but I think Australians are different to Americans in how they view it. After all, Peter Beattie did this a few times and actually rose in popularity.


Yes they do. I've commented a few times in this thread that price controls on basic supermarket goods would have been a good short-term measure to control the cost of living.


You hike taxes on the very wealthy and the corporations. I'd have looked for a way to claw back money handed out to corporations during the lockdowns.


I agree, I've said many times that I think Shorten has no charisma whatsoever. The problem is I feel like Albanese has developed Shorten syndrome. Nowadays he's nothing like the cheerful, energetic figure he cast during the Rudd/Gillard governments.

I agree, Albanese has not risen to the leadership required of a PM. He's forever on the back foot and looks like he's upset that he gets asked questions. People might have called Dan Andrews condescending, but you have to be if you get asked stupid questions.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I agree, Albanese has not risen to the leadership required of a PM. He's forever on the back foot and looks like he's upset that he gets asked questions. People might have called Dan Andrews condescending, but you have to be if you get asked stupid questions.

Definitely, it's important to push back against the media and their gotcha questions. Andrews was good at this. I thought Bandt gave an excellent response to the sort of question that tripped up Albanese on the campaign trail, "Google it, mate". Though Bandt has been less good in the media since then.

 

[faible]

I agree, Albanese has not risen to the leadership required of a PM. He's forever on the back foot and looks like he's upset that he gets asked questions. People might have called Dan Andrews condescending, but you have to be if you get asked stupid questions.

Whether one likes him or not, Andrews was very good at politicking, very few pollies have gone head to head with Murdoch media and won, but he did it pretty convincingly.