Friday, July 16, 2010

PM Gillard - a low spending PM?

Share |
There are certain words that politicians love to use in order to convey legitimacy and prudence, particularly in hard times. They have a 'political lexicon' I'm sure which they reach for in times like these. Under the sub-section ''recession" you will see words like 'discipline', 'restraint', 'caution', 'long term', etc. Business executives have the same types of lexicons as well, and just like 3yo's they memorise these words on those long flights when no one else in around. They repeat them like some Indian guru 'mantra'.
Gillard has vowed to be 'restrained' in her next 3 years. She is going to use all the 'discipline' she can muster. The problem of course is that after such a bloated 'spend up' as the last 2 years, I would think that it is almost impossible to do anything but show 'restraint'. This is what I mean by lame duck politicking. You will not get any ideas from these politicians. Utterly hopeless. You need to believe that Labor are running with her only to get the women's liberals chase some false hope like Obama. Obama too presents as the 'reasonable advocate', but the problem is these people have no depth.
She is committed to climate change. This is sure idiocy when the pseudoscience postulating 'global warming' is demonstrably flawed, and the alternative model of 'sunspot activity' correlating with fluctuations in the climate are much more plausible, but also in need of some work. If there were an anthropogenic cause I would be saying 'ok, we should stop coal mining and burning', but what does Labor want to just wants to tax it. The point being - if we are going to die from global warming, does it matter if the government has a fiscal surplus? If we are going to avoid calamity, do we want perception-driven politicians driving the disbursement of funds? The answer is NO!
If the science of global warming is plausible but unproven, perhaps the best or most prudent and conservative approach would be a 'provision' for contingent liabilities on the balance sheet of these companies. This would mean that people who think this science is nonsense can invest in either abatement measures, or even stocks which have made provisions. Does this not seem like the most sensible approach to 'global warming' IF it is a legitimate fear. But instead all we see with governments are plans to tax, tax and tax. This strikes me as materialistic self-preservation. Maybe they know something their mindless devotees do not - that there is no greenhouse threat, but they are happy to take their devotees for any support 'fear' can muster.

At this point she is only rhetoric, but she offers some hope. She at least talks about raising productivity, and it will be interesting to see what she means by 'raising education standards'. I disagree that 'education' is the key to higher participation. That is a more complex issue. Lower taxes would help, arbitrary adoption of taxes certainly does not. Will she learn from Rudd's mistake.
She is committed to the mining tax...though I have yet to see the final bill. I would suggest it will be a complete backdown, or have the miners sold out. Neither prospect would surprise me. Either way, we want wealth in private hands, not the government, which is not what she is about. She criticises Liberals for getting it wrong on the 'financial crisis', but the reality is both parties in government and opposition ignored the unfolding of the crisis, just as many voters did.

I agree with her that education and health are in dire need of reform....but is she the one to deliver. We can only wait. She argues that 'neither the private or public sector are any better', yet the reason for that is because the public sector sets a low standard, and yet people still abandon it for the private sector. I personally think private education is pretty poor, but people have expectations for it, and can vote with their feet. Whereas we are forced to pay taxes for public education like slaves. Which is why I call a 'slave a slave' and a 'slave-driver a perpetrator'.
The only short term acceptable way to combine public and private education to my mind is through private use of public infrastructure. If she does that - its a great start, and she will have made progress. That would be almost worth voting for...pity there is no competition in a two party duopoly, otherwise we might have expected a Liberal Party to raise the stakes. The question is - will her union bosses support her? I suspect not. The implication is that Gillard can promise anything, but she will only play into the hands of the union, which will have her dumped after the election. If she can get a huge gain in the election she could actually hold power against the unions (i.e. ACTU). The question then is - does she really believe it? Well...this is the sad part. I really think she has no belief in a public-private partnership....but its hard to know without more information.
She might just have my 'rhetorical' vote (since I don't really vote) for this election. What are the Liberals offering? Abbot? :)
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?