Blinkered partisanship is the main reason why I created this board - to try to keep it off the other boards as much as possible. Even so, can still be rather tedious.

Blinkered partisanship usually takes the form of attributing the cause of all problems to the party that happened to be in power at the time. People do not look past this to what was actually done to cause the problem, beyond what is necessary to give their argument at least some credibility by linking to the government of the day in any manner possible. It also tends to assume that things happen in a historical and geographical vacuum, despite the fact that the majority of the causes can often be traced overseas or back to previous times.

This is especially common with economic issues, in part because most people do not understand the real causes. Also, most economic decisions from government have opposite short and long term impacts. A government can do a lot of damage to the long term prosperity of a country with actions that make things appear good in the short term. Most reforms for the long term good of the country come at some short term cost to the economy. The costs of economic decisions also tend to be far more visible than the benefits. For example cutting off an industry that is dependent on subsidies or protectionism will be directly linked with the job losses from that industry, but won't be linked to the improved performance of the rest of the economy.

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 8:22pm:

Blinkered partisanship is the main reason why I created this board - to try to keep it off the other boards as much as possible. Even so, can still be rather tedious. Blinkered partisanship usually takes the form of attributing the cause of all problems to the party that happened to be in power at the time. People do not look past this to what was actually done to cause the problem, beyond what is necessary to give their argument at least some credibility by linking to the government of the day in any manner possible. It also tends to assume that things happen in a historical and geographical vacuum, despite the fact that the majority of the causes can often be traced overseas or back to previous times. This is especially common with economic issues, in part because most people do not understand the real causes. Also, most economic decisions from government have opposite short and long term impacts. A government can do a lot of damage to the long term prosperity of a country with actions that make things appear good in the short term. Most reforms for the long term good of the country come at some short term cost to the economy. The costs of economic decisions also tend to be far more visible than the benefits. For example cutting off an industry that is dependent on subsidies or protectionism will be directly linked with the job losses from that industry, but won't be linked to the improved performance of the rest of the economy.

Political policy will cause the local effects.  But equally important is positive or negative perceptions resulting in confidence or lack thereof.

Global concerns are less of an issue than many think.  Blaming prosperity on an alleged 'mining boom' or economic downturn on 'sub prime mortgage failure' is ignoring reality.

The truth is neither have any reason to impact Australia much, if at all.

If you want to see how the government of the day can impact on perception you need go no further than today's news.


Quote:

Tax cuts safe as Labor seeks budget cuts Tax cuts will escape the axe as the federal government searches for ways to cut spending as a hedge against inflation. The Rudd government will run a strict eye over all commonwealth spending - particularly promises made by the previous Howard government - as it looks to save billions of dollars ahead of the May 13 budget. Fifteen billion dollars worth of coalition promises, due to be introduced over the next four years, will be placed under scrutiny. But Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner promised the Labor government would not renege on its $31 billion in promised tax cuts. The opposition claims Labor is trying to rewrite history by painting the Howard government as bad economic managers in order to blame them when interest rates go up again. Two of Australia's biggest banks last week raised interest rates independently of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), which will examine the case for another hike on February 5. Economists believe there is a distinct possibility the RBA will lift official rates from their current 6.75 per cent as inflation remains a problem for at least the next 18 months. The RBA will pay close attention to December quarter inflation figures due on January 23. Mr Tanner said inflation was heading beyond the central bank's target band of two to three per cent. "Inflation is getting beyond the three per cent level that is the outer limit of the Reserve Bank zone," he told Sky News. And despite an interest rate hike in November, retail figures show no signs of consumption slowing. Data from the Australian Retailers Association (ARA) showed spending for Christmas 2007 up 7.4 per cent at $36.5 billion. Mr Tanner said it was crucial to keep inflation under control and nothing would escape the attention of the economic razor gang as it looked for ways to trim the budget to reduce inflationary pressures. "We will be scrutinising all of the pre-election spending commitments which were made at the last minute by the Howard government," he told Sky News. "It's critical that we get some serious discipline back into government spending, that we strengthen the budget surplus and that we put more downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. "We will be dealing with all spending commitments, all programs on their merits ... but we are in a tough environment." Despite the commitment to tackle inflation, $31 billion in promised tax cuts for low and middle income earners will remain sacrosanct. "We believe that the tax cuts were of a responsible magnitude," Mr Tanner said. Link

What's your take on this?  Let's see how you can read the economic impact of a current government action.

I left out the most obvious bit - always blaming one party for our problems and crediting the other with our success.

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2008 at 9:43pm:

I left out the most obvious bit - always blaming one party for our problems and crediting the other with our success.

And how does that relate to the news item exactly?

But if that news item proved too tough to comment on freediver try this one in today's news.




Quote:

Rudd cuts budget for China FTA talks ALMOST $10 million will be cut from Australia's negotiating budget for its free trade agreement with China, despite warnings the move could risk billions in future economic benefits. The decision by the Rudd Government overturns a $12.7million budget decision last May to boost resources across nine government agencies to advance the talks with China, which has become Australia's largest trading partner. Former World Trade Organisation deputy director-general Andrew Stoler, now executive director of the University of Adelaide's Institute for International Trade, said the move could be counter-productive. "If you ask me, taking money away from such an important project as negotiating an FTA with China may be a mistake, because of the potential pay-off of a successful program," hesaid. In 2005, a feasibility study into a Sino-Australian FTA estimated its value to the Australian economy at up to $24 billion. Since then, however, the pace of negotiations has been slow. The new Labor Government's reversal of the funding boost comes as it reprioritises multilateral agreements such as the Doha WTO talks over bilateral pacts. Opposition trade spokesman Ian Macfarlane said bilateral deals also delivered significant benefits. "It's therefore essential that the negotiating process for the Australia-China FTA is resourced adequately to secure an outcome that is beneficial to Australia," he said. "Any undercutting has the potential to derail the process and prove to be penny wise and pound foolish." Link

How do you read the economic impact of this current government act?

Deepy - interesting topic.

I'ld be inclined to maintain a presence and pressure on china for free tade.
It may not have any effect, but having no presence ther e wioll surely have no effect.
The money spent $10M  is a relatively small amount.

Possibly yher decision of a small minded micromanaging PM ??

The money spent $10M  is a relatively small amount.

That's how much is being cut, not the total being spent.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2008 at 10:48am:

The money spent $10M  is a relatively small amount. That's how much is being cut, not the total being spent.

And your take on this free?  How do you perceive this news item?

Each day there are examples of news items which shape people's perceptions of a government.  

Freediver, though you started the thread about blinkered partisanship, you seem unwilling to participate in any discussion about it.  Try this one though - this may be more suitable as this directly contradicts the noises Little Kevvy made about sorting out the health crisis.  His plan is to abandon everyone.  Perhaps his 'health revolution' is to hope the problem will simply go away as everyone who is frail will just expire.



Quote:

Razor gang eyes Tassie projects FUNDING for major Tasmanian health and road projects may be in jeopardy as the Rudd Government begins a tough $2 billion savings drive. Federal Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has asked senior government bureaucrats to target last-minute funding pledges by the Howard government made between May 2006 and the calling of the federal election. At stake could be the immediate $30 million funding of the Kingston bypass south of Hobart and more than $35 million of hospital funding pledged in the marginal electorates of Bass and Braddon. Both big-ticket Tasmanian promises were made in early October when former prime minister John Howard visited Tasmania one week before the election was called. More than 225 spending promises totalling $15 billion over four years were made by the Howard government between the May Budget and the election campaign start on October 17 last year, many of them in marginal electorates. It is understood the Rudd Government wants to shave $2 billion of spending immediately and perceives many of the last-minute promises as political pork-barrelling. Major Tasmanian initiatives announced by the prime minister in that period include the $45 million takeover of the Mersey hospital near Devonport, the $30 million Kingston bypass, $1 million funding for both the beleaguered Ouse and Rosebery hospitals and another $33 million for other health services in marginal Bass and Braddon. Link

Here's another news item today which you may find easier to analyse freediver.  What's your 'unblinkered unpartisan' take on this one then?





Quote:

FoI revamp under Rudd's wing NEW freedom-of-information laws promised by the Federal Government will be drafted and administered by Kevin Rudd's department. Laws covering access to government and public service information have been shifted from the Attorney-General's Department to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and will be overseen by the Special Minister of State, John Faulkner. Senator Faulkner will review existing freedom-of-information laws before the changes, which promise to make it easier for journalists and the public to obtain information such as policy documents, costings and communication between the Government and the public service. One of the main planned changes is the creation of the post of an information commissioner who would be responsible for appeals. At present, complaints must be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an expensive and cumbersome process. The new administrative home for freedom-of-information laws comes shortly after some of Australia's big institutions were told their media releases would be vetted by the Federal Government to ensure they reflected Labor's "key messages". The directive was issued by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research last month to about a dozen statutory agencies including the CSIRO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and the Australian Research Council. Link

I must say your reluctance to discuss your own topics is leading me to think you are just flaming in your own forum.

Oh I'm sorry. I thought you were just demonstrating by example for us.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2008 at 9:57pm:

Oh I'm sorry. I thought you were just demonstrating by example for us.

You started the thread old chap.   I have passed almost no comment on the news items I have asked you to comment on.

Let's be having you.

Here's another for you freediver now you realise you are commenting on them not just spectating after flaming in your own forum.

How do you read this episode in the 'health revolution'?


Quote:

Desperate hospital pleads for govt funding The board of a community hospital on Victoria's Phillip Island has written to the Prime Minister and Premier in a last-ditch effort to stay open. The not-for-profit Warley Hospital is due to shut at the end of this month because it cannot afford to pay its staff. In its letters, the hospital's board says it is inconceivable that neither the state nor federal governments are willing to help. It says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised to end the blame game on health funding, but refuses to bail out the hospital. Federal Liberal Member for Flinders Greg Hunt says lives are being put needlessly at risk. "This is a community hospital which serves the community, has served the community, is a not-for-profit hospital," he said. "They are offering to turn that hospital over, to have public beds, to indeed even let the state run it." Mr Hunt says Mr Rudd should honour a Coalition promise to provide $2.5 million to the hospital. "Right now, this moment, this time is when Mr Rudd must step in, or otherwise not only will a hospital close, but everything he's said about ending the blame game, will simply be shown to be a fraud," he said. Link

Well Shallowthought,

The first one makes sense to me. These tax cuts, unlike Howard’s free-for-all, actually have a purpose in that they are a part of the push to modernize education. Money to all secondary-school kids to buy a laptop has to come from somewhere and a tax cut is how Labor’s chosen to do it.

The way I read the second one is that Labor has his priorities right. FTA’s are another example where the short term impact is great and the long term impact is crap. In the short term, they give a small boost in investor confidence, maybe a small decrease in inflation and they might put downward pressure on interest rates. In the long term they hurt productivity, open up competitive industries to monopolization, and more often than not benefit one country more than the other. For example, Singapore, with which we currently have a FTA with. We export food and other agricultural products and some banking services primarily. However they export oil, electronics, services across a variety of areas, and it’s also a tourist destination for Australians. Their products are more valuable than ours so we lose out on the free trade deal. Free Trade Agreements which encompass multiple countries are far better, and that is what Labor is focusing on with Doha trade talks. Several countries in an agreement negate any advantage one country might have over another and there is far more prospect for growth and stability at the same time.

As for the cuts to the Tasmanian programs, well since they were non-core promises, they would NEVER have eventuated under Howard and that money would have gone straight to the pork-fund for the next election. So they’ve done well to get this far. Anyway roads and hospitals are state responsibilities and since Labor has promised to end the ‘Blame Game’ they couldn’t very well keep the promises, since they encroach on Tasmanian jurisdiction.

The articles on FoI laws show that Rudd has prioritized making it easier for the media to be able to access government files. And despite what I might like to think, those government departments should not have been as rebellious as they were under Howard. Labor trying to impose its control on them isn’t surprising.

Lastly, the Phillip Island Hospital. This is a small private hospital that has obviously been in trouble for some time. If the member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, was genuine this would have been fixed a long ago. Hunt is instead shamelessly using this run-down hospital as an excuse to attempt to embarrass a barely two month old government. Shame on you Greg Hunt.

All in all, there’s an analysis for you Shallowthought.

FTA’s are another example where the short term impact is great and the long term impact is crap.

You got that backwards progs.

Progs wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 10:00am:

Well Shallowthought,   <snip>

I posted the news items old chap, not Shallowthought.  And could you engage a forward gear please?  You appear to be in reverse and have responded all backwards like.

For example tax cuts can't provide more money for the Liebor Trough - they are cuts, not increases.

Get back to me would you.

deepthought wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 3:09pm:

Progs wrote on Jan 11th, 2008 at 10:00am: Well Shallowthought,   <snip> I posted the news items old chap, not Shallowthought.  And could you engage a forward gear please?  You appear to be in reverse and have responded all backwards like. For example tax cuts can't provide more money for the Liebor Trough - they are cuts, not increases. Get back to me would you.

Oh, I know. I've just decided to call you Shallowthought since Deepthought is a decidedly innapropriate name for you, judging by the thoughtlessness of most of your posts.

As for the tax situation... *sigh*... I suppose I'm probably expecting too much when I think you'll understand my point. I'll try and put it simply.

Tax = money taken by government to spend on education, health etc.

Tax Cut = money that is not taken by government for health or education and is instead left to the tax-payers, so that they can spend it on whatever they like. In this case, Labor is talking about requiring people to spend the money that would have otherwise gone to tax on their kids education ie a laptop.

Progs wrote on Jan 20^th, 2008 at 4:51pm:

Oh, I know. I've just decided to call you Shallowthought since Deepthought is a decidedly innapropriate name for you, judging by the thoughtlessness of most of your posts. As for the tax situation... *sigh*... I suppose I'm probably expecting too much when I think you'll understand my point. I'll try and put it simply. Tax = money taken by government to spend on education, health etc. Tax Cut = money that is not taken by government for health or education and is instead left to the tax-payers, so that they can spend it on whatever they like. In this case, Labor is talking about requiring people to spend the money that would have otherwise gone to tax on their kids education ie a laptop.

Huh?  I'm afraid I must be shallowthought then because I have no idea what you're talking about.  The tax cuts have nothing to do with requiring people to do anything at all - let alone buy a laptop.

Maybe you can help me with some deepthought as you think I am pretty thoughtless.   Please give me your opinion on the tax cuts and whether you think the Liebor Government should be cutting the amount of money they receive, given the difficulty Liebor is having with handling the economy.