Monday, September 12, 2005
I have moved!
If you're looking for me here, I have moved to a new site, nahum.com.au
I hope to maintain and post at the new site more often. The site is experimental, is a business card and blog. Like most other web users, I'm slowly picking up the whole html script and auto scripts techniques. I'm sure that most 12 year olds would be able to instruct me comprehensively on setting up websites but in absence of an available 12 year old, I'm just plodding my way through it by trial and error.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
My letter to Andrew Bolt
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
To: bolta@heraldsun.com.au
From: "Nahum Ayliffe"
Reply-To:
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:54:29 +0800
Well done Andrew,
I'm never one to hold back, and I hate Muslims just like you do.
All they want to do is bomb the hell out of us, and ruin our way
of life.
The ABC and SBS should be taken off air because they represent
different views to yours. David Marr, Liz Jackson, Stuart
Littlemore, Stephen Mayne, far from being fellow journalists or
colleagues, are all ignorant idiots. Serve them right for having a
go at you for you to hang them out to dry in your shockjock column.
My advice is, don't listen to them. If they are your only critics,
you only give them credit by responding to their ill-informed
ramblings. Develop a thick skin and let their hastily cobbled case
against you fall on deaf ears.
Only erudite and educated Australians watch the SBS or the ABC,
and they don't like you anyway. However, as Howard's popularity
shows, they don't have the numbers. It's the picture-paper reading
struggle-streeters to whom you most appeal.
Leave the pinkos and the poofters to watch the Aunty and keep on
doing what you do best. It gives me and many other Australians a
good reason to hate Muslims. And who needs a reason nowadays...
Regards,
Nahum Ayliffe
Hampton
Shut up about Tax Reform!
Tax reform is incredibly complex, and that is the way that it should be.
If you don't understand the way the tax system works, or you don't care, then you obviously don't pay enough tax.
Tax reform is an important issue for those people who already have a large tax burden, or those who already engage in means of tax avoidance, which is why people like Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are carrying this little chicken and squawking so loudly about it.
I see no imperative to change the system of taxation for those earning above $125k per annum because the argument is somewhat impotent. If you are earning above 125K per year, you start a company, and you pay tax on earnings at the company tax rate of 30 percent. Nobody actually pays the top rate. Sorry, that should read: Nobody who is smart enough to actually earn the money (rather than being given it for looking pretty and showing up at Channel ten to film something useless and soul depriving) will pay the top rate.
The reason the Libs are focusing on this particular issue is that Bush cut income tax heaps of times when he assumed power. And if Bush did it, then we should too.
The problem for the 'small government' philosophers in the Liberal party is that they have too much money to give away every budget. And if they don't give it away then they lose traction because after all, What are they actually doing with all those billion dollar surpluses anyway? (Besides letting Sophie (I hate Muslim's because they are all f__king terrorists) Popapillous take more mind altering substances onboard. Maybe she actually believes the crap she sprouts, or maybe it's the only way to survive in a crusty old conservative party of dry Libs)
Tax reform, as discussed by the likes of Turnbull is a ridiculously immoral policy, and serves only as a means to elevate his leadership potential. Instead of looking at ways of giving more money to millionaires, the government should look at ways to use the money to develop Australia's future, and possibly to give countries in the 2/3's world a future. How about actually honouring commitments under the UN's Millenium Development Goals to halve world poverty by 2015, instead of singing the praises of the agreement and doing f__kawl about it when you get home?
Blair may be a twat, but at least he has made some attempt to achieve something greater than political milestones with his Prime Ministership.
If you don't understand the way the tax system works, or you don't care, then you obviously don't pay enough tax.
Tax reform is an important issue for those people who already have a large tax burden, or those who already engage in means of tax avoidance, which is why people like Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are carrying this little chicken and squawking so loudly about it.
I see no imperative to change the system of taxation for those earning above $125k per annum because the argument is somewhat impotent. If you are earning above 125K per year, you start a company, and you pay tax on earnings at the company tax rate of 30 percent. Nobody actually pays the top rate. Sorry, that should read: Nobody who is smart enough to actually earn the money (rather than being given it for looking pretty and showing up at Channel ten to film something useless and soul depriving) will pay the top rate.
The reason the Libs are focusing on this particular issue is that Bush cut income tax heaps of times when he assumed power. And if Bush did it, then we should too.
The problem for the 'small government' philosophers in the Liberal party is that they have too much money to give away every budget. And if they don't give it away then they lose traction because after all, What are they actually doing with all those billion dollar surpluses anyway? (Besides letting Sophie (I hate Muslim's because they are all f__king terrorists) Popapillous take more mind altering substances onboard. Maybe she actually believes the crap she sprouts, or maybe it's the only way to survive in a crusty old conservative party of dry Libs)
Tax reform, as discussed by the likes of Turnbull is a ridiculously immoral policy, and serves only as a means to elevate his leadership potential. Instead of looking at ways of giving more money to millionaires, the government should look at ways to use the money to develop Australia's future, and possibly to give countries in the 2/3's world a future. How about actually honouring commitments under the UN's Millenium Development Goals to halve world poverty by 2015, instead of singing the praises of the agreement and doing f__kawl about it when you get home?
Blair may be a twat, but at least he has made some attempt to achieve something greater than political milestones with his Prime Ministership.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
An Ode to John Howard
Well, Little Johnnie has done it again... Australians have become accustomed to Howard's continual deception and have now given him and his deception a ringing endorsement. Howard will now use this result as a mandate to continue lying openly and with increased regularity and veracity.
And Australians don't deserve any better. Australians saw fit to give Howard a swing towards him on a scare campaign about interest rates, terrorism and the inexperience of the alternative Prime Minister. The crowing Liberals have yet again won an election by scaring Australians into voting for them, but this time, they have bought as many as they have scared. Australians have shown that we respond to advertising like the trained mice that we are. Given the right stimulus, each mouse runs the wheel generating the current of electricity which causes the little diode to flicker.
But what's worse is that Howard now has an increased majority in both houses, and will use this 'absolute power' to pass whatever he wants. The Australian Democrats, an effective backstop for 25 years, now with four or five Senators will not be able to do anything to legislation. The Greens, given a further 2 or 3 seats will also have a muted presence. Family First may sell out to help Howard pursue a regressive social agenda. It is a black day when unknown party like Family First can hold the only glimmer of hope for Howard's battlers. What will it take for people like Steve Fielding, (local councillor from South Eastern Victoria) or Andrea Mason (South Australian Evangelical) to sell their souls to the devil, to John Howard.
Of the majority of Australians who voted for Howard, no Australian deserves job security. No Australian may presume to have a right to education and health care. Howard is a user pays man, so rich merchant bankers like Malcolm Turnbull will always be able to buy whatever they need, including election results.
The losers will be middle Australia, Menzies' forgotten people. Those whose middle management positions have been eliminated under Howard, and who fight every day to find reasons not to commit suicide. Aborigines will again bear the brunt of a government and a society which cares little for their welfare. The bush will also suffer, as Telstra will be sold at the National's expense. The likes of Nick Minchin may well have to wait for John Anderson's retirement, but Telstra is as good as sold, and untimed subsidised local calls are a thing of the past. The bush battlers who love Howard deserve no better. This election was fought on a 'me-first' agenda. Howard has proven that Australians are selfish and small minded people.
2000 Tasmanian timber workers will win. The environment will lose. Which means our children will have increased health problems and tourism, particularly in Tasmania, will continue to suffer attacks to it's pristine Old Growth Forests and Rainforests. Blow the trees out of the ground timber workers! It's only our children and grandchildren who will pay the price. We must only worry about now and about increasing the rate at which we destroy Tasmania. We are indebted to the conservative fools in North Western Tasmania who chose to focus opportunistically on Howard's apple poised precariously on their cowering child's head.
Australians will continue to be perceived by the world as a people without sovereignty, indebted to the United States for our existence. And terrorism. I have fears that terrorism will not decrease.
It is a black day when Australians show their true colours.
And Australians don't deserve any better. Australians saw fit to give Howard a swing towards him on a scare campaign about interest rates, terrorism and the inexperience of the alternative Prime Minister. The crowing Liberals have yet again won an election by scaring Australians into voting for them, but this time, they have bought as many as they have scared. Australians have shown that we respond to advertising like the trained mice that we are. Given the right stimulus, each mouse runs the wheel generating the current of electricity which causes the little diode to flicker.
But what's worse is that Howard now has an increased majority in both houses, and will use this 'absolute power' to pass whatever he wants. The Australian Democrats, an effective backstop for 25 years, now with four or five Senators will not be able to do anything to legislation. The Greens, given a further 2 or 3 seats will also have a muted presence. Family First may sell out to help Howard pursue a regressive social agenda. It is a black day when unknown party like Family First can hold the only glimmer of hope for Howard's battlers. What will it take for people like Steve Fielding, (local councillor from South Eastern Victoria) or Andrea Mason (South Australian Evangelical) to sell their souls to the devil, to John Howard.
Of the majority of Australians who voted for Howard, no Australian deserves job security. No Australian may presume to have a right to education and health care. Howard is a user pays man, so rich merchant bankers like Malcolm Turnbull will always be able to buy whatever they need, including election results.
The losers will be middle Australia, Menzies' forgotten people. Those whose middle management positions have been eliminated under Howard, and who fight every day to find reasons not to commit suicide. Aborigines will again bear the brunt of a government and a society which cares little for their welfare. The bush will also suffer, as Telstra will be sold at the National's expense. The likes of Nick Minchin may well have to wait for John Anderson's retirement, but Telstra is as good as sold, and untimed subsidised local calls are a thing of the past. The bush battlers who love Howard deserve no better. This election was fought on a 'me-first' agenda. Howard has proven that Australians are selfish and small minded people.
2000 Tasmanian timber workers will win. The environment will lose. Which means our children will have increased health problems and tourism, particularly in Tasmania, will continue to suffer attacks to it's pristine Old Growth Forests and Rainforests. Blow the trees out of the ground timber workers! It's only our children and grandchildren who will pay the price. We must only worry about now and about increasing the rate at which we destroy Tasmania. We are indebted to the conservative fools in North Western Tasmania who chose to focus opportunistically on Howard's apple poised precariously on their cowering child's head.
Australians will continue to be perceived by the world as a people without sovereignty, indebted to the United States for our existence. And terrorism. I have fears that terrorism will not decrease.
It is a black day when Australians show their true colours.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
An Ode to The Australian Democrats
There is a lot of negative stuff floating around about the Democrats, particularly in the media. So I decided to write about them as well, but to exclude the forecasts of electoral death that many others have foretold. There are too many variables in the Senate to be able to predict with any accuracy events which may occur three years into the future.
The Democrats and Greens tend to attract up to 15 percent of votes across the country between them. The Democrats tend to do better with disaffected Liberal voters and the Greens tend to do better with disaffected ALP voters. When both major parties are doing well, (as is the case now) then both revert to their core (social justice) vote.
At the margins, there are core voters and in the middle, there are some swinging voters. Of these, some of the voters who voted for Stott Despoja after seing one of her numerous appearances on Good News Week are now voting for the Greens after seeing Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle take a protest to President Bush in his recent visit. I would argue that for the most part, many of the swinging social justice vote comes from those with a mild interest in politics, who are motivated by rhetoric and perception rather than reality.
I'll continue to paint with a fairly broad brush. Journalists and the Australian public have something in common. They are not a bad bunch, but they tend to be easily entertained by new or seemingly shiny things. However, after time, the shine wears off, particularly when these things turn out to be as complicated as
the performance/policies/principles of a political party. Negative stories tend not to help very much either, (GST, Lees, Leadership, Bartlett) but I doubt the voters will be any more forgiving of the Greens when some of their policies don't wash.
The Democrats have been new, shiny and often even sexy over the years. They have had their share of high profile female leaders for whom Australians had great respect and affection. And on the whole, the Democrats have served the Australian people well. It seems that the Greens are the new and shiny political party
despite the fact that we know very little of how they would perform if given the balance of power. Their defining moments are moments of protest by Brown on environmental issues, and against the war alongside the Democrats. I can see Australians getting sick of continual protest without consistent political action.
The Democrats have had the balance of power for 22 years, and I would argue that no other party has maintained their principles and integrity over that time as have the Democrats. Harradine commands respect for similar reasons. Both Liberal and Labor have let Autralians down, yet the Democrats have held firm to protect Australian workers, women, the aged, refugees, homosexuals, those with disabilities, the environment and young people. The Democrats have forged the way for women in politics.
Yet whilst some Australians feel reluctant to vote for Latham based on his lack of experience or doubts as to whether he can satisfactorily fulfil their expectations, scores of voters will vote for a party in the Greens which has as much experience as
Pauline Hanson in Australian Politics. They are an unknown and yet as many as 6 will be given the privelage of sitting in the Senate for the next six years. Does this demonstrate the lack of understanding of the power in the Senate by the Australian
electorate?
The next few years may well bring the Senate back into the public understanding of politics as when the Fraser government blocked supply in 1975.
The Greens will undoubtedly face a real challenge in the near future. If they are too idealistic, they may alienate mainstream/fashionable voters by being too radical and obstructionalist. Alternatively, they may alienate many of their supporters by being too pragmatic. They may even have leadership problems due to their past problems with the West Australian Greens, and the fact that they have no process by which their leader is determined.
If Labor wins government, (which I think is unlikely due to Howard's fear campaign) then they will spill the Senate in 2007 to break down Liberal control. If the Greens have experienced ructions during the next three years, it may favour the Democrats.
If the Coalition wins, then the next government will be Labor and the Senate will be spilled in 2010. A double dissolution at either election stands to reshape the Senate according to the popularity of the parties which remain at the time.
So in the face of all the possibilities in the Senate, I'm uncertain that the Democrats can be assured of the death some describe. It is unlikely that the Democrats will win many seats in this election but it's far too early to begin making broad predictions about the future of social justice politics in Australia. There are just too many variables.
The Democrats and Greens tend to attract up to 15 percent of votes across the country between them. The Democrats tend to do better with disaffected Liberal voters and the Greens tend to do better with disaffected ALP voters. When both major parties are doing well, (as is the case now) then both revert to their core (social justice) vote.
At the margins, there are core voters and in the middle, there are some swinging voters. Of these, some of the voters who voted for Stott Despoja after seing one of her numerous appearances on Good News Week are now voting for the Greens after seeing Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle take a protest to President Bush in his recent visit. I would argue that for the most part, many of the swinging social justice vote comes from those with a mild interest in politics, who are motivated by rhetoric and perception rather than reality.
I'll continue to paint with a fairly broad brush. Journalists and the Australian public have something in common. They are not a bad bunch, but they tend to be easily entertained by new or seemingly shiny things. However, after time, the shine wears off, particularly when these things turn out to be as complicated as
the performance/policies/principles of a political party. Negative stories tend not to help very much either, (GST, Lees, Leadership, Bartlett) but I doubt the voters will be any more forgiving of the Greens when some of their policies don't wash.
The Democrats have been new, shiny and often even sexy over the years. They have had their share of high profile female leaders for whom Australians had great respect and affection. And on the whole, the Democrats have served the Australian people well. It seems that the Greens are the new and shiny political party
despite the fact that we know very little of how they would perform if given the balance of power. Their defining moments are moments of protest by Brown on environmental issues, and against the war alongside the Democrats. I can see Australians getting sick of continual protest without consistent political action.
The Democrats have had the balance of power for 22 years, and I would argue that no other party has maintained their principles and integrity over that time as have the Democrats. Harradine commands respect for similar reasons. Both Liberal and Labor have let Autralians down, yet the Democrats have held firm to protect Australian workers, women, the aged, refugees, homosexuals, those with disabilities, the environment and young people. The Democrats have forged the way for women in politics.
Yet whilst some Australians feel reluctant to vote for Latham based on his lack of experience or doubts as to whether he can satisfactorily fulfil their expectations, scores of voters will vote for a party in the Greens which has as much experience as
Pauline Hanson in Australian Politics. They are an unknown and yet as many as 6 will be given the privelage of sitting in the Senate for the next six years. Does this demonstrate the lack of understanding of the power in the Senate by the Australian
electorate?
The next few years may well bring the Senate back into the public understanding of politics as when the Fraser government blocked supply in 1975.
The Greens will undoubtedly face a real challenge in the near future. If they are too idealistic, they may alienate mainstream/fashionable voters by being too radical and obstructionalist. Alternatively, they may alienate many of their supporters by being too pragmatic. They may even have leadership problems due to their past problems with the West Australian Greens, and the fact that they have no process by which their leader is determined.
If Labor wins government, (which I think is unlikely due to Howard's fear campaign) then they will spill the Senate in 2007 to break down Liberal control. If the Greens have experienced ructions during the next three years, it may favour the Democrats.
If the Coalition wins, then the next government will be Labor and the Senate will be spilled in 2010. A double dissolution at either election stands to reshape the Senate according to the popularity of the parties which remain at the time.
So in the face of all the possibilities in the Senate, I'm uncertain that the Democrats can be assured of the death some describe. It is unlikely that the Democrats will win many seats in this election but it's far too early to begin making broad predictions about the future of social justice politics in Australia. There are just too many variables.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
The top five 'Top Fives'
Gallileo discovered the solar system. Einstein gave us the theory of relativity. Thomas Edison discovered the light bulb. Theologian Anselm of Bec contributed to the growth of the intellectual tradition by instigating the scholastic period and the birth of the university. John Cusack’s character from High Fidelity brought it’s own obscure contribution to humankind and the modern era: the great gift of ‘the High Five.’
So after tossing around several weighty topics of conversation in a local Melbourne Mafia restaurant, discussions about relationships led to the film, ‘High Fidelity,’ and the lasting impact that the film has left on popular culture. Or perhaps not. Having exhausted the limits of hyperbole, I will now endeavour to compile an exhaustive yet obscure Top Five ‘Top Five lists:’
Top Five Popular Songs:
1. Marvin Gaye – What’s Going On?
2. Aretha Franklin - Respect
3. U2 – I still haven’t found what I’m looking for
4. Sonic Youth – Kool thing
5. Midnight Oil – Bed’s are Burning
Top Five Popular Songs that didn’t make the Top Five:
1. The Beatles – Hey Jude
2. Bob Dylan – Lay Lady Lay
3. The Doors – Break on Through
4. Portishead – Mysterons
5. Simon and Garfunkel – Sounds of Silence
Top Five Movies
1. Life is Beautiful
2. The Usual Suspects
3. Amelie
4. Dead Poet’s Society
5. The Matrix (the original Matrix)
Top Five Comic Actors/Comedians
1. Peter Sellers
2. John Cleese
3. Rowan Atkinson
4. Robin Williams
5. Jack Black (Don’t ask me why)
Well that just about wraps up my top five ‘Top Five Lists.’ It is my desire that this list be not seen as empirical, but a ‘living document,’ a benchmark by which new examples in each category are considered. And in the spirit of Cusack from the great movie timepiece High Fidelity, it is my hope that my lists will be fruitful and multiply, and that yet more ‘top fives’ would make their way across the world, and beyond.
So after tossing around several weighty topics of conversation in a local Melbourne Mafia restaurant, discussions about relationships led to the film, ‘High Fidelity,’ and the lasting impact that the film has left on popular culture. Or perhaps not. Having exhausted the limits of hyperbole, I will now endeavour to compile an exhaustive yet obscure Top Five ‘Top Five lists:’
Top Five Popular Songs:
1. Marvin Gaye – What’s Going On?
2. Aretha Franklin - Respect
3. U2 – I still haven’t found what I’m looking for
4. Sonic Youth – Kool thing
5. Midnight Oil – Bed’s are Burning
Top Five Popular Songs that didn’t make the Top Five:
1. The Beatles – Hey Jude
2. Bob Dylan – Lay Lady Lay
3. The Doors – Break on Through
4. Portishead – Mysterons
5. Simon and Garfunkel – Sounds of Silence
Top Five Movies
1. Life is Beautiful
2. The Usual Suspects
3. Amelie
4. Dead Poet’s Society
5. The Matrix (the original Matrix)
Top Five Comic Actors/Comedians
1. Peter Sellers
2. John Cleese
3. Rowan Atkinson
4. Robin Williams
5. Jack Black (Don’t ask me why)
Well that just about wraps up my top five ‘Top Five Lists.’ It is my desire that this list be not seen as empirical, but a ‘living document,’ a benchmark by which new examples in each category are considered. And in the spirit of Cusack from the great movie timepiece High Fidelity, it is my hope that my lists will be fruitful and multiply, and that yet more ‘top fives’ would make their way across the world, and beyond.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
It's the stupid economy...
In the same day that Mr Howard stepped up his attack on what he believes is a lack of economic management skills in the Opposition, Access economics released a report showing that the latest Coalition budget surplus may stretch the imagination somewhat.
The Howard government has made its mark on the economy, inheriting a budget deficit from Keating, and then putting up the sail of fiscal responsibility. This sail was duly blown along by the gale force winds of a booming world economy and abnormally high growth in China and the tiger economies of South East Asia, where we have a substantial trade relationships. The Howard government has continued to take credit for the economic results, and in part, they are entitled to do so.
On the other hand, with an increasingly global economy, economic prosperity has less to do with domestic policy and more to do with the overwhelming force of global economic climate. And essentially, this is the way that the free-market, Howard government likes it.
And because Australians are essentially naive or apathetic when it comes to economic matters, Howard promotes the free market economy (free from government intervention) but then takes credit for consequences over which he knows he has little control. When the market dips, the converse is true as governments then begin to explain the merits of an unpredictable business cycle. Don't blame us, we can only work on domestic levers, it's that damn economy thing...
So when you hear Howard saying things like, "We have brought record low interest rates," or "unemployment is at its lowest in years," bear in mind that the market has helped more than Howard's pulling on levers. In any case, both of the above consequences are directly related to the Reserve Bank's monetary policy, which is independent of the government. The Howard government should not be taking the credit for monetary policy or interest rates.
Claims that unemployment has fallen are untrue unless the movements in underemployment are noted. Underemployment has increased several hundred times over. In other words, more people have jobs, but lots more people aren't working full time, and are thus working below capacity. Often this leads to problems when workers fall into a gap between a welfare payment and a low paying job, and earn no more than welfare when working part time, thus remaining on the poverty line.
So whilst Prime Minister John Howard is saying things like, "in my view Mark Latham doesn't have the financial management record or skills to properly run the Australian economy." then we should be weighing that up with statements from Access economics like the following ones: "drastic action might be needed after the election to keep the budget in surplus... (as) estimates of taxes from company profits ha(ve) been overstated," or "The Howard Government's $52 billion spending spree in the May budget had left Treasury cupboards distressingly bare and would create pressure to push up interest rates."
Sometimes if you find the middle ground between commentators and the government, then move a little toward the commentators, you'll find truth lurking.
The Howard government has made its mark on the economy, inheriting a budget deficit from Keating, and then putting up the sail of fiscal responsibility. This sail was duly blown along by the gale force winds of a booming world economy and abnormally high growth in China and the tiger economies of South East Asia, where we have a substantial trade relationships. The Howard government has continued to take credit for the economic results, and in part, they are entitled to do so.
On the other hand, with an increasingly global economy, economic prosperity has less to do with domestic policy and more to do with the overwhelming force of global economic climate. And essentially, this is the way that the free-market, Howard government likes it.
And because Australians are essentially naive or apathetic when it comes to economic matters, Howard promotes the free market economy (free from government intervention) but then takes credit for consequences over which he knows he has little control. When the market dips, the converse is true as governments then begin to explain the merits of an unpredictable business cycle. Don't blame us, we can only work on domestic levers, it's that damn economy thing...
So when you hear Howard saying things like, "We have brought record low interest rates," or "unemployment is at its lowest in years," bear in mind that the market has helped more than Howard's pulling on levers. In any case, both of the above consequences are directly related to the Reserve Bank's monetary policy, which is independent of the government. The Howard government should not be taking the credit for monetary policy or interest rates.
Claims that unemployment has fallen are untrue unless the movements in underemployment are noted. Underemployment has increased several hundred times over. In other words, more people have jobs, but lots more people aren't working full time, and are thus working below capacity. Often this leads to problems when workers fall into a gap between a welfare payment and a low paying job, and earn no more than welfare when working part time, thus remaining on the poverty line.
So whilst Prime Minister John Howard is saying things like, "in my view Mark Latham doesn't have the financial management record or skills to properly run the Australian economy." then we should be weighing that up with statements from Access economics like the following ones: "drastic action might be needed after the election to keep the budget in surplus... (as) estimates of taxes from company profits ha(ve) been overstated," or "The Howard Government's $52 billion spending spree in the May budget had left Treasury cupboards distressingly bare and would create pressure to push up interest rates."
Sometimes if you find the middle ground between commentators and the government, then move a little toward the commentators, you'll find truth lurking.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Polls, Pollies and Poll Dates
John Howard may be about to call an election tomorrow, and then again, he may not. In any case, do we really care? Regardless, today is the last day for any tips to be received in election tipping competitions, and I have to put pen to paper to make a prediction.
At the very least, Howard must call the election before his fellow American goes to the poll, which is November. He must also avoid calling an election too close to GWB's election date, 2 November 2001, to avoid being caught up in the Prez's bad Iraq PR. Others on various blog sites are saying that Howard will wait for any surprises that GWB might have up his sleeve, like a little bin laden with gifts to hand out.
So Howard must call the election in early October, or August. Calling the election tomorrow will ensure that the August 7 date may capitalize on the waning Latham polling, and avoid being confused by any Grand Final fever. Crikey.com.au is also pointing towards August 7 because the RBA may be pushing rates upwards if demand for houses continues to increase. Personally, I think demand has plateaued in the housing market, and the likelihood of an RBA rates movement is unlikely in the next six months, as the risk of a unwanted slowdown being triggered are reasonable. Monetary policy is a blunt instrument at the best of times.
August 7 is the second Bledisloe Cup night, so some are banking on the Old Man's Sydneycentrism to save us from an early poll. I don't think this is enough. I think he has made his mind up. Speculation of an election is at fever pitch, and even thought the Old Man knows the electorate doesn't like early or fickle elections, this one doesn't fit into either category.
Will an early election catch Lathamites out? I don't think so. The ALP has printed its HTV cards, and they will be ready when John W. makes his move. If they are serious about winning government, they have to be ready for anything. The ALP have a bagful of policies, including the much talked about tax policy, and as soon as Johnny pulls the trigger, Latham will be launching a counterattack with his ministers letting go of the ballast of policies. Latham will be hoping for a bounce out of the policy ballast, and Howard knows this. Against an August poll is the likelihood of this policy-release polling boost.
On the case for the October poll, Latham is losing the publicity wars, and he's copping a bit of flack at long last. The Libs have been serving up the mud thick and fast ever since he gave Crean the hip and shoulder, and finally the media are starting to get hold of some grubby facts. It's a shame that personal muck makes such a big splash when blatant public dishonesty barely rates a raised eyebrow. Spying on a polly making a chip butty sandwich is so much more enlightening and meaningful than investigating any public dereliction by a lazy defence minister. Finding the dirty facts from a polly's personal life - now that's some journalism with integrity! (but it's what we have come to expect from the lightweights at Channel Nine.)
I think that Howard is enjoying watching his ministers roast Latham on Fat Kids, Centenary House, and the Iraq withdrawal, so combined with his conservatism, Howard may hold on to get a few more hits in on Latham before hurting him on the scoreboard in October.
However, the policy-passing frenzy, combined with the mass of political advertising and Moneybags Costello's family budget, combined with some Howard opportunism on the advent of Latham muck will lead to an early poll.
Here's my tip: The Old Man will squeeze back into Kirribilli House in a tight one in August. To add insult to injury, he could lease The Lodge to Latham at Centenary House rates. At least then it will be used.
At the very least, Howard must call the election before his fellow American goes to the poll, which is November. He must also avoid calling an election too close to GWB's election date, 2 November 2001, to avoid being caught up in the Prez's bad Iraq PR. Others on various blog sites are saying that Howard will wait for any surprises that GWB might have up his sleeve, like a little bin laden with gifts to hand out.
So Howard must call the election in early October, or August. Calling the election tomorrow will ensure that the August 7 date may capitalize on the waning Latham polling, and avoid being confused by any Grand Final fever. Crikey.com.au is also pointing towards August 7 because the RBA may be pushing rates upwards if demand for houses continues to increase. Personally, I think demand has plateaued in the housing market, and the likelihood of an RBA rates movement is unlikely in the next six months, as the risk of a unwanted slowdown being triggered are reasonable. Monetary policy is a blunt instrument at the best of times.
August 7 is the second Bledisloe Cup night, so some are banking on the Old Man's Sydneycentrism to save us from an early poll. I don't think this is enough. I think he has made his mind up. Speculation of an election is at fever pitch, and even thought the Old Man knows the electorate doesn't like early or fickle elections, this one doesn't fit into either category.
Will an early election catch Lathamites out? I don't think so. The ALP has printed its HTV cards, and they will be ready when John W. makes his move. If they are serious about winning government, they have to be ready for anything. The ALP have a bagful of policies, including the much talked about tax policy, and as soon as Johnny pulls the trigger, Latham will be launching a counterattack with his ministers letting go of the ballast of policies. Latham will be hoping for a bounce out of the policy ballast, and Howard knows this. Against an August poll is the likelihood of this policy-release polling boost.
On the case for the October poll, Latham is losing the publicity wars, and he's copping a bit of flack at long last. The Libs have been serving up the mud thick and fast ever since he gave Crean the hip and shoulder, and finally the media are starting to get hold of some grubby facts. It's a shame that personal muck makes such a big splash when blatant public dishonesty barely rates a raised eyebrow. Spying on a polly making a chip butty sandwich is so much more enlightening and meaningful than investigating any public dereliction by a lazy defence minister. Finding the dirty facts from a polly's personal life - now that's some journalism with integrity! (but it's what we have come to expect from the lightweights at Channel Nine.)
I think that Howard is enjoying watching his ministers roast Latham on Fat Kids, Centenary House, and the Iraq withdrawal, so combined with his conservatism, Howard may hold on to get a few more hits in on Latham before hurting him on the scoreboard in October.
However, the policy-passing frenzy, combined with the mass of political advertising and Moneybags Costello's family budget, combined with some Howard opportunism on the advent of Latham muck will lead to an early poll.
Here's my tip: The Old Man will squeeze back into Kirribilli House in a tight one in August. To add insult to injury, he could lease The Lodge to Latham at Centenary House rates. At least then it will be used.
