Election 2013: Day 8 (or, Too many suppositories, not enough wisdom)

Hey remember that amazing leader's debate where that PM just destroyed the opposition leader? It was amazing. The opposition leader was useless. For example he said of the PM, “Now, he's going to throw a big word at you – ‘unfunded mandate’” but then the Prime Minister responded with “"Well, first of all, let's clear up a couple of things. 'Unfunded mandate' is two words, not one big word.”

Zing!

And then later after the opposition leader said a great line about tax cuts, the Prime Minister responded saying,

“There it is. That's the ten word answer my staff's been looking for for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They're the tip of the sword. Here’s my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I'll drop out of the race right now.”

It was such a slaughter that CJ the Prime Minister’s press secretary invoked the Ali-Forman fight, and my God if the PM’s speechwriter Rob Lowe wasn’t pumped about how good they all were. It was incredible. The debate win was so huge that the election was over from that moment. 

Oh wait. No that was The West Wing.

I don’t know what people expect when they watch a debate, but here in Australia our candidates certainly don’t score big wins. Mostly this is because the debates aren’t scripted by Aaron Sorkin in such a way that one of the candidates happens to have struggled to achieve the chew gum and fart at the same time level of intelligence.

No one is going to score a knockout blow because both of the candidates have spent over a decade in parliament. American presidential candidates can rather avoid any great Socratic debate in their career – especially if they’re a state governor – and so you might find one of them can get caught out a bit in a debate.

But regardless of what you think of either Abbott or Rudd, both have spent a bit of time debating in parliament and answering questions from journalists. They are not stupid, and they’re not going to have a caught-in-the-headlights moment.

And going for the big knockout also means taking a bit of a risk – usually because it will involve mocking your opponent. There is no need to even take such a risk in Australian politics, where you don’t need to worry about the get out the vote aspect.  Certainly taking a risk last night was pointless, when due to it being screened on GEM and ONE it rated much less than in 2010.

Yes it had around 2.3m viewers national wide (including regional areas), but at the same time, 3.4 million were watching Australia's Got Talent and The X Factor. So it was never going to be a pivotal moment.

The reporting of the debate was, let’s be honest, for the most part, pointless.

The general consensus over in News.corp was that Abbott won because Rudd failed to deliver a “knockout blow”.

For eg:

KEVIN Rudd won the head-to-head debate tonight but he needed to leave Tony Abbott's election bid lying bloodied on the floor. And he didn't.

Or

PM unable to land a knockout

KEVIN Rudd needed a convincing victory over Tony Abbott in the first national debate to revive his flailing campaign. Rudd failed to achieve that victory

Elsewhere we had:

Kevin Rudd has kept alive his election hopes with a hard-fought debate against Tony Abbott in which neither leader landed a knockout blow but Mr Rudd was the chosen winner by undecided voters.

I swear you could have written those before the debate.

The boxing analogy seemed to have been taken to heart by Tony Abbott who gave Rudd a handshake like he thought it was a contest of strength. Given how often Abbott likes to talk about being “man enough” he probably does think being PM should be about who can do the most push ups.

At least that was the worst it got.

Oh wait, no we had to worry about whether or not Kevin Rudd cheated by using notes.

Even while the debate was going the Liberal shills took to Twitter to profess that Rudd was cheating because he was using notes and the rules of the debate said no notes..

It apparently went to his character.

Geez. Just when you think commentary can’t get any more up it’s own arse. At best I’ve read people describing it as a silly rule, but that it’s the rules and therefore… snore.

Please. Who gives a damn?

Most people couldn’t be bothered tuning in to watch the debate and now we’re supposed to think they care about the rules of that debate?

Here’s how people this morning at work were discussing Rudd’s ‘cheating’ in the debate.

SWINGING VOTER 1: Hey did you see the footy on the weekend?

SWINGING VOTER 2: Yeah, it’s was great.

OK, maybe I’m being cynical. Let’s try that again:

SWINGING VOTER 1: Hey did you watch the debate?

SWINGING VOTER 2: Nope, you?

SWINGING VOTER 1: Nah. But geez, did you see the footy on the weekend?

OK, OK. Still too cynical? Try this:

SWINGING VOTER 1: Hey did you watch the debate?

SWINGING VOTER 2: Nope, you?

SWINGING VOTER 1: Nah. Apparently Rudd cheated.

SWINGING VOTER 2: How?

SWINGING VOTER 1: He used notes.

SWINGING VOTER 2: Oh.

SWINGING VOTER 1: Yeah. Hey did you see the footy on the weekend?

No doubt in future we shall read academic articles, “Historians generally agree that Rudd using notes in the debate was the moment the election result was determined”.

Look, let’s not be too cynical, at least the debate gave us definitive proof that Kevin Rudd has spoken to both Simon Benson and Peter Hartcher about things other than the undermining of Julia Gillard.

On the use of the panel, for mine, I didn’t think we needed it. It flowed quite well when it was just David Speers asking the questions. Some suggested he butted in a bit too much, but I thought he had a good handle on it, and the debate mostly became stagnate once the panel came in. The US Presidential debates last year just had one moderator and now panel. It;s a tough gig, but I think Speers is up to it.

But if you want the debate summarised, for me here was the key moment:

CURTIS: Firstly to Tony Abbott and then to Kevin Rudd about aged care. About 6 million voters in this election are aged 50 and over, 2 million aged 70 or over, that's lot of people who are thinking about care for themselves or their parents. The Government made a change in policy legislated earlier this year with almost no publicity. Mr Abbott, you don't have a detailed aged care policy in your Real Solutions booklet, I think your aged care statement ran to about a paragraph. What would a Coalition Government do? Mr Rudd, can you explain what the central changes are and whether there would be any more?

After a lot of blather, here is Mr Abbott’s conclusion:

ABBOTT: We have no plans to make significant changes to the system that the Government's put in place.

And after a lot of blather here was Mr Rudd’s conclusion to the same question:

PM: I'm of the view, and I note carefully what the Productivity Commission has said, I believe because this is a growing challenge for the nation, this must be kept under continue review. It's only fair to seniors who have served our country so well, that they are guaranteed proper are into the future.

And that ladies and gentleman is why more people cared about The X Factor than the debate.

***

Today Kevin Rudd was talking about skills – a “Step into Skills” policy. It isn’t a big policy, but it is crucial if we want to improve our productivity (I wrote something along these line in my Guardian post today). He pledged

a $35 million initiative (over three years), that will provide around 8,900 training places.  Funding for this project is already included in the budget.

What is it all?

The Step into Skills program aims to empower and educate its participants, and will provide:

• 8,900 training places to the most disadvantaged young people between 16-24 with  $35 million investment over three years.
• Training in core employability skills such as language, literacy and numeracy.
• Simulated work experience opportunities to ensure that young people are equipped with the practical skills they need to secure employment, such as communication and time management skills.

I’m generally in favour of skills programs. This one doesn’t have a big “wow” cost factor, but these thing do matter to people. And it sure beats his incredibly lame policy announced in Tasmania on the weekend to fund the redevelopment of the Hobart Showgrounds. For a state with ongoing unemployment problems, I hope that isn’t all he’s got for the state. The least thing it need is piecemeal stuff.

…

Today for Abbott it was about infrastructure. His big ticket item is the East West Link in Melbourne. The ALP is not funding the East West link. They are instead funding the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel. The reason they are doing this is Infrastructure Australia has a list of infrastructure projects listed in its annual report to COAG.

It put the projects into the categories:

THRESHOLD means:

Initiatives in this category have strong strategic and economic merit. It is highly likely that the project will deliver economic benefits exceeding costs incurred.

REAL POTENTIAL means:

Initiatives in this category clearly address a nationally significant issue or problem and relevant options are being considered.

Here’s the latest list for Victoria:

The Metro is a “threshold” project, the East-West Link has “real potential”.

Last week when talking about this (today’s announcement was not new), Abbott was absolutely slaughtered by some journalists on their game:

QUESTION:

Have you seen the business case for the East West Link?

TONY ABBOTT:

Infrastructure Australia, as I understand it, has recently published one and it’s $1.40 worth of benefit for every $1 of spending.

QUESTION:

But you haven’t seen the business case?

TONY ABBOTT:

But I’ve been briefed on it…

That’d be a “no”

… and I want to make it absolutely crystal clear, absolutely crystal clear, that we committed to funding the East West Link, or to assisting the East West Link to the tune of $1.5 billion after discussions with senior people in Infrastructure Australia who made it absolutely crystal clear to me that the number one road infrastructure project in Victoria should be the East West Link.

Which I guess means we shouldn’t care about the one infrastructure project just the number road infrastructure…

QUESTION:

Mr Abbott, just on that point, I don't think Infrastructure Australia has published a business case. The state government’s put out a short form business case which just didn’t have much information. It just said the cost ratio was 1.4. Are you aware that there is actually a business that Infrastructure Australia has put out that we don’t know about?

TONY ABBOTT:

The fact is there is a business case. It’s an absolutely crystal clear business case for getting on with this.

QUESTION:

You haven't seen it?

Lovely work nailing him. There isn’t a report. If there was it would be published, and to think that Infrastructure Australia are privately briefing Tony Abbott is absurd. Time for Tony to dodge:

TONY ABBOTT:

Look, there is a business case, there is a business case. I mean, Kevin Rudd maybe hadn't seen all of the links between the tobacco company that funded his travel to Europe when he was a backbencher. I mean, there are lots of things that I haven't seen but I know, and I know that there is a business case for the East West Link. It says there is $1.40 worth of benefit for every $1 of spending. That's why the East West Link will go ahead under the Coalition, it won't go ahead under Mr Rudd.

And that is what happens when you keep asking a question to a bloke who is making stuff up.

So today he makes the big announcement again – he even has Dennis Napthine next to him. Go hard press gallery. Nothing has changed, the project is still a lower order priority for Infrastructure Australia than the Metro. Last time when pushed on this he ended up saying he knew things he hadn’t seen. This is a an easy one for you guys.

He even said in his press conference:

Today, I announce that an incoming Coalition government will publish, will make an annual infrastructure statement to the Parliament. Every year in the Parliament there will be an infrastructure statement. It will be an implementation statement. It will be designed to ensure that we don’t just talk about infrastructure, we actually get it built.

Now that just begs to be asked how is he going to decide which projects to invest in. It begs to be asked why is he investing in a project that is below other projects on Infrastructure Australia's list.

And so here we have the only question he was asked in his press conference on the East West Link:

QUESTION:

When do you expect to start digging this tunnel? Warren Truss has said its going to take years of planning before big projects like this can actually be started?

Now look, there wee some decent questions asked. For example:

QUESTION:

You keep saying that the economy will be stronger under a future Coalition Government. Specifically on what basis do you make this statement? Do you have modelling to back it up and can we expect in your economic costings an estimate of growth, unemployment, those sorts of data?

This was of course dodged and went to talk about company tax cuts.

But given we also had:

QUESTION:

Mr Abbott, the Coalition’s primary figures in the latest Newspoll have gone up while Labor’s have gone down. What are your thoughts on that? Do you think you are doing better?

and

QUESTION:

Mr Abbott, do you think you won the debate last night?

and

QUESTION:

Mr Abbott, do you think Kevin Rudd’s use of notes was cheating?

and

QUESTION:

When will there be a second debate and can you promise it won’t be as boring as the last one?

I think we can say he was let off the hook on his big policy announcement today.

But look as Abbott said earlier in the day, “No one, however smart, however well-educated, however experienced, is the suppository of all wisdom”.

As someone who has written many typos, I’ll just say, ain’t that the truth. 

Election 2013: Day 5 (or how to put spin on a front page)

This week there has been a lot of focus on the bias exhibited by the front pages of The Daily Telegraph, the Herald Sun and The Courier Mail. It’s clear to anyone for whom reading comprehension isn’t a skill they have yet to acquire that there isn’t much care about balanced reporting. That’s fine, balance is often bullshit in media. It leads to journalists going on Twitter and tweeting that they’re being attack by people on the left and the right. They like doing this because it means other journalists can tweet to them saying it obviously means they’re doing a good job.

Accuracy is better than balance.

So yeah the news.corp tabloids are exhibiting bias, and thus during this campaign it make then worthless in terms of trust. That doesn’t mean they lie, it just means you should get a second opinion on anything written in them – you know things like the shape of the economy, the state of the climate, the health system, whether the sky is blue...

But let’s not let The Oz off the hook.

It can be as bad as its tabloid cousins; it just has a faux veneer of respectability.

Take today’s front page:

Now when you start accusing the Prime Minister of being “wrong” on QLD jobs, you bloody well better be right.

And you damn well better not just cherry pick some data that tells the story you want to tell because to do so really would leave you wide open to charges that you are either incompetent and thus not deserving of the loudness of voice you have, or you are not practising journalism, but spin.

So let’s look at what the journalists, Adam Creighton (he of the “democracy is probably not sustainable”, and the Government's anti-tobacco plan is reminiscent of the Nazis) and David Crowe have to say:

“KEVIN Rudd has been thrown on the defensive on economic management after a surprise fall in full-time jobs offset by strong growth in Queensland that challenges his warnings about the damage from the state Liberal National Party government's "austerity" cuts.

Now when I read this I was a little bit surprised, because when I was looking at QLD’s employment data that came out yesterday (as I do each month, nerd that I am) I saw the employment in QLD fell by 0.0023%.

So I kept reading, and after some paragraphs about the national numbers, they finally got back to QLD (you know, the aspect that warranted the headline):

In a challenge to one of Labor's key election strategies in Queensland, the latest figures showed the state gained 18,500 jobs and saw its unemployment rate fall from 6.3 per cent to 5.9 per cent.

Labor has attacked Queensland Premier Campbell Newman and his LNP government by claiming his cuts to 14,000 public service positions last year would damage the state economy.

And then it because clear. The Australian was quoting the seasonally adjusted figures and not the trend data. Why would they do this, and why is it so stupid? Well first, according to the seasonally adjusted rate, QLD’s unemployment fell from 6.3% to 5.9%. If you use the trend rate, QLD’s unemployment actually rose from 6.0% to 6.1%.

Gee I can’t think why they chose the seasonally adjusted rate.

So clearly the “best” figure has been picked. But why is this stupid?

Well using the seasonally adjusted rate at the state level is incredibly “noisy”. It jumps around a lot. How much? Well look at the past 12 months:

If you believe that the most accurate way to report QLD’s unemployment rate is to say it fell from 6.3% to 5.9%, then you also have to think that the most accurate way to describe the June figures is to say in rose from 5.8% in May to 6.3% in June.

Up 0.5% then down 0.4%? Does that really make sense to you? Of course not. Economies don’t work that way.

And do you think the article at any point either quoted the trend rate or acknowledged that the figure they were using was the seasonally adjusted rate?

Well that would be a no.

Don’t you love journalism that gives you the full picture?

I used to like using seasonally adjusted figures as well as trend for state employment, because they were always good for a laugh, but after a while I stopped bothering.

In May I wrote after seeing that the seasonally adjusted figures had Tasmania as the state with the fastest growing employment in the month:

Yes, Tasmania the big winner, which tells you all you need to know about the worth of seasonally adjusted monthly growth data on a state by state basis. This will be the last time I bother with it. It is next to useless.

Even yesterday when I had a quick look at them I tweeted:

The state seasonally adjusted unemployment numbers are always such fun

In seasonally adjured terms, Tasmania's unemployment rate went from 9.0% to 8.2%!! O_o (the trend rate went from 8.2% to 8.4%)

Yes, in seasonally adjusted terms, Tasmania’s unemployment rate fell from 9.0% to 8.2%. Do you believe that? If so, I’ve got a national newspaper I’d like to sell you. 

But you don’t need to trust me. Trust the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They have a very handy page (and seriously EVERY journalist should read it) that is titled:

Interpreting Time Series: Are you being misled by the Seasons, 2012:

WHICH SERIES SHOULD I USE?

On seasonally adjusted data it says this:

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED ESTIMATES
Seasonally adjusted estimates are produced by removing seasonal patterns from the original estimates. They are good for performance measures and comparisons - was that advertising campaign effective, how much tourist traffic did we lose because of the Tsunami, is unemployment doing better in QLD than in TAS. Again, they’re very history focused. Different months are comparable but month-to-month movements are usually dominated by irregular effects. [my highlighting]

and this under “KEY POINT”

HOW ABOUT COMPARING SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA FROM ONE PERIOD TO THE NEXT?
Seasonal patterns have been removed from the seasonally adjusted data, however the residual noise and irregular influences are still present. If the residual noise is high it may distort a comparison of seasonally adjusted estimates. Similarly, an unusual event or irregular influence may affect a comparison. For example, consider a series which has an underlying increasing trend. An unusual event such as a strike may lead to a "once-off" low value for one period. [my highlighting]

But we don’t need the ABS to tell us that. Again if we look at the above graph, you KNOW that seasonally adjusted data is bouncing around like a cocaine addict. You don’t need to even have studied statistics. It is obvious.

And to further reinforce it, let’s look at employment growth, and compare seasonally adjusted to trend:

As you can see: in November 2012 a big jump, then a big fall in December, then a big jump, then a fall etc etc. (the reason why you can’t see a blue column in July 2013 is because it is effectively zero precent).

And why do we know the tend figure is the one to focus one? Why because it was the one the Queensland Treasurer himself in June said was the one to look at:

Trend unemployment remains steady

Treasurer Tim Nicholls says today’s ABS Labour Force data shows the trend unemployment rate remains steady in Queensland at 5.7 per cent.

“This comes after seven consecutive months of trend employment growth,” Mr Nicholls said.

“While the more volatile seasonally adjusted rate increased only marginally by 0.1 per cent to 5.8 per cent, the more reliable trend figure shows employment in Queensland is stable and continues to trend in the right direction.

And the journalists knew this was the case because they even got a quote from an economist:

"It appears the state has absorbed the public sector job cuts for now and the unemployment rate is stabilising around 6 per cent,"

The only thing showing any stability – was the trend rate – their entire story is not about stability it is about a “job’s jump”!

So let’s use the the trend rate to compare growth of employment across the nation in July:

Hmmm. So much for that “strong growth in Queensland that challenges [Rudd’s] warnings about the damage from the state Liberal National Party government's "austerity" cuts”.

But look, even monthly growth at the state level in trend terms can be misleading so let’s look at annual growth growth in trend terms across the nation:

Yeah QLD. The place to be. Unless you’re in NSW, Victoria or WA. (Incidentally the continued decline in WA’s employment growth is THE story of yesterday’s data).

Now lets take a long look at QLD employment growth compared to the National growth rate to get an even better perspective of where they’re at:

And remember Campbell Newman came into office in March 2012. Oh what the hell, let’s go in for a close up:

So yes, the growth is getting better, but heck. You think it could have gotten any worse?

So is Rudd wrong? 

Nope. The only way you could say jobs “jumped” in QLD in July is if you use data in the way that the people who actually compile the data tell you not to use it.

As I say, trust nothing you read (including my blog, I am not perfect, and certainly not unbiased), get a second opinion. Verify. But realise that one news organisation has bet all their bickies on a Tony Abbott win. That doesn’t mean we should assume everything they write is a lie – they don’t “lie” and I would never suggest they do. But as we have seen today, they can cherry pick data as good as any politicians can. I suggest you treat their statements with the same level of scepticism. 

And seek out the full picture.

Election 2013: Day 4 (or I said, Hey, hey, hey, St. Peter)

The morning started slow. Bugger all on the front pages that even made it to breakfast radio, let alone past then.

And then the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann reported that former QLD Premier Peter Beattie would be running in the seat of Forde.

The move clearly reflected that the polling hasn’t been great for the ALP this week (I’m thinking more internal stuff than a Newspoll). Sure you might be able to spin that Kevin Rudd and Bruce Hawker (is anyone else involved in any decision making?) had this up their sleeve and were waiting to announce it at an opportune time. But I think not. They might have been thinking about it, but I’d suggest this move shows that they weren’t cutting through to voters.

Much as I was writing last night, people aren’t listening.

And if they’re not listening in QLD then that’s the ball game.

So welcome back Peter, all is forgiven.

From now till election day Beattie will be good for a quick clip on the news every other day. His job, other than to win the seat, is to make Campbell Newman one of the candidates in the election. The message that a vote for Abbott is a vote for cuts like Newman has done will be his mantra.

And it’ll be said not as candidate against Premier, but as 9 year Premier against a new Premier – a Premier who has seen the unemployment rate in his state go from 5.5% to 6.1% in the 16 months he’s been in power.

Now sure, Beattie and Rudd? Not mates.

And yes, is a former Premier really “A New Way”?

But don’t underestimate Beattie’s ability to campaign. As much as he loves the limelight and was no doubt suffering the slings and arrows of relevancy deprivation, the bloke won 3 elections easily, and they didn’t all come off the back of months of smiles and sunshine for the ALP.

He talks in a way that people (especially Queenslanders) understand. And if anything he’ll at least get the ALP folk in QLD feeling like they’ve got a winner on board.

But of course he like anyone who has been Premier for 9 years, also brings a fair bit of baggage. But you only had to watching him being interview on 7:30 tonight to see a professional politician (and I mean that as a positive) in action. This bloke ain’t going to struggle with any 6 point plan questions.

A ReachTEL poll out tonight shows that the margin in the seat has increased from the 2010 election of 1.2%, but that was polled before the 6pm news, before tomorrow’s Courier Mail. So it’s a nice quick snapshot of the current situation, but not really a measure of the Beattie impact – more an indication of the toughness of the task – and why they brought Beattie in.

The thing for me though, is if the ALP isn’t doing as well as hoped in QLD where it was supposed to get the best lift from Kevin Rudd, how is it doing in the rest of the country? As I was saying yesterday – the ALP has not got off to a good start. They are fortunate there is (in election campaign terms) still along way to go.

***

Not surprisingly today for the ALP wasn’t about policy.

Not only was the Beattie announcement all the news they wanted, today the unemployment figures came out, and it would have been silly to try and put out some whizz-bang economic policy if the data had then been bad.

In the end the figures were not as bad as people thought they might be, but certainly not as good as anyone would hope.

The national unemployment figure stayed steady at 5.7% in both seasonally adjusted and trend terms:

This effectively meant the big news headline was not going to be the unemployment rate – a lucky moment for the ALP.

And while that 10 year graph shows that we’re not quite back to where we were in July 2003, the close up of the past 18 months reveals where things are headed (and why the Economic Statement on Friday had us headed for 6.25%)

The Liberal Party’s taking points have been focussing on the total number of unemployed – and noting that it is the highest number of unemployed for 14 years.

Now that is true, and it certainly is not a good thing, but it perhaps is a figure that works nicely in their favour. But when I look at unemployment as opposed to employment, I prefer to use the “Unemployment to Population Ratio, because that takes into account population growth. The ABS produced such a ratio for those looking for full-time work, but with a bit of mucking about we can also work out the ratio for all unemployed:

This shows that much like the actual unemployment rate, we’re on the way back to where we were 10 years ago.

Again, not good by any stretch, but perhaps a slightly more honest picture of the situation than just looking at the total number of unemployed.

The big factor that the Liberal Party focussed on was the decline in the Participation Rate. It was down to 65.1% in seasonally adjusted terms 9though flat at 65.2% in trend terms)

This led to rather ludicrous assumption on what the unemployment rate would be if we had the same participation rate as in 2007, or last year, or last month.

Never mind that the record participation rate was actually reached in November 2010, so if we’re going to now use that as the yardstick, then it’s time to suggest the ALP are the champions.

The declining participation rate ignores the ageing population, which is something affecting all western nations currently being hit with baby boomers shifting from working 9 to 5 to working on getting their golf handicap under 18.

The best measure if you really want to look at the employment situation, which includes jobs and also the level of participation, is the employment to population ratio.

And while you can look at the ratio for the entire adult population, a better one in some way is to look at the ratio for those from 15-64 years old (ie cutting out those above retirement age). An even better one would be 25-54 yo as that is the “peak working age” but the data for that age doesn’t come out till next week, so let’s work with what we have:

It’s not good certainly. It’s downhill, though slowly so. But nearly 4 precent more of 15-64 year olds are now employed than were 15 years ago. Comparing total unemployed now with then, needs to consider than a lot more women now are in the labour force (which includes both unemployed and employed) than they were then, and thus it is not surprising during a downturn that the total unemployment numbers would be higher.

Back in 1998 only 55% of women ages 15-64 were employed; now 66.4% are. So comparing the number of unemployed between now and 14 years ago ain’t quite apples with apples.

***

Tony Abbott was in Tasmania, and on the day on which the unemployment figures were released that was a smart place to be. And here’s why:

Tasmania’s employment levels have been shrinking since the start of 2011.

It is dire.

His policy announcement, was for a pilot program for 2,000 jobs which would be subsidised to the extent of $250 a week for 6 months (to be paid at the end of the 6 months). The person hired must have been on Newstart for at least 6 months. They won;t have any trouble finding such eligible people. 

There’s nothing wrong with the policy – it provides and incentive. 2,000 might not sound like much, but had there been 2,000 fewer Tasmanian’s unemployed and 2,000 more employed, then the state’s unemployment rate this month instead of being 8.4% would have been 7.6%. So it’s a pretty good aim.

But whether it is sustainable is another thing.

Tony Abbott had earlier in the day mentioned Tasmania as a “Special Economic Zone”. Now such things normally imply different tax concessions. He didn’t go that far today, but hinted more would be coming. Of course different tax treatment for different states hits a bit of a constitutional barrier, but it can be gotten around buy perhaps providing subsidies to firms in Tasmania that would offset tax.

One problem with it is if you start saying Tasmania deserves such treatment, then why not Adelaide, or Western Sydney (both of which have a bigger population than all of Tasmania), or maybe Geelong, or Newcastle or… or…

But we shall have to wait and see what he serves up.

Kevin Rudd hasn’t been in Tasmania yet, and with a couple seats in play, I expect he’ll be down there soon. And he would want to be going with more than just a “chin-up folks” in his armoury.

***

Tomorrow I am in Sydney for most of the day attending the “Storyology” Conference run by the Walkley Foundation. I’ll only be back late, so probably won’t have a post. (or if I do, because I am some obsessive compulsive type, it’ll be on the short side)

Election 2013: Day 3 (or, I’d love to have a beer with Albo)

And so we reached the first real day of stupidity in the campaign.

The news.corp sites ran with a big scoop of Anthony Albanese having a beer with Craig Thomson in a pub in Sydney on Tuesday night. The photo which looks like it was shot with someone’s iphone on full zoom, has that nice fuzzy look that makes you think something dodgy is happening.

The story attempted to suggest something nefarious may have been going on perhaps the two were umm you know something something… or you know they might have perhaps ummm….  OK, look, when you get down to it they couldn't quite put their finger on anything that was actually wrong.

The “best” anyone could come up with was the old “it’s a bad look”.

Devastating.

At least it wasn’t a story about how Kevin Rudd brushes his fringe away.

There was policy announced today but probably the highlight of the day was a young kid photo-bombing Kevin Rudd at a school. The shot taken by Fairfax's Andrew Meares is one of those light moments that is nothing to take too seriously, but is still good. The SMH did go on just a bit too much about it, but heck it’s a smile and smiles are good.

The advocacy group GetUp! tweeted the photo initially without attribution which was quickly deleted and replaced with one acknowledging Meares. The Daily Telegraph then took the photo, put it on its on website, and suggested it came from GetUp! and the source was “supplied”.

After complaints by Fairfax, it was removed.

Flogging a competitor’s photo and claiming you got it from someone’s Twitter account?

Now that’s a bad look.

***

I know it’s early days, but something has struck me about this campaign. It is very dull. I don’t mean dull in that everyone is saying their talking points and no one has made any slip ups. Jaymes Diaz and David Bradbury’s respective interviews are wonderful moments of excruciation. And as we’ve seen, we have had some fun images.

But there really doesn’t seem to be any reason to this election.

What is it about other than not voting for Abbott or not voting for Rudd?

Without worrying about who has won each day, I think both leaders have been tired, and out of step. Abbott has been stilted and dull. And that is being kind. It’s almost like he has taken Rudd’s advice to take a Mogadon and have a lie down.

But Rudd as well has not been good. He has often sounded like he hasn’t quite got his lines set. He at times seems to struggle to find his words. Almost like he’s out of practice – which of course he is.

I think the ALP is in big trouble at this point.

“A New Way” is a dumb slogan that makes no logical sense, and Rudd this week has seemed a bit old.

I also think they’re in trouble because I don’t think people give a sh*t. My gut feeling is that (as I said on Day 1) people are pretty much tuned out, and caring more about the footy and real life. I’m a political junkie and I can hardly be bothered to watch any of it all.

Three years ago, and in 2007 as well, everyday seemed crucial, every interview a must watch, every debate a turning point. This week has really felt a bit “going through the motions”.

It is early days – in 2010 the Libs had a very slow first week.

But the ALP should be very worried if they’re finding that the electorate isn’t caring about the election because it is coming from behind.

So stop right now and think what the ALP campaign is about. I don't mean after-school care or keeping the carbon price or the NBN. I mean what is the soul of the campaign? If you are someone who doesn’t care about politics why are you voting for Kevin Rudd?

“A New way”? But they’ve been there for 6 years, so where’s the new?

A new way? But one of the first things they did was announce funding for the car industry. 

Couldn’t they be stronger, or smarter, or heck even just more vibrant?

Kevin Rudd was just on the ABC 7:30 and he kept trying to talk about “Seven pillars”. Now look I am a numbers nerd but even I was thinking, “Geez, seven pillars? Can’t you just talk to us in human language?”

At his point Abbott doesn’t really need to care about much – it’s the ALP that has to overcomes the “Meh, you’ve had your turn, let’s give the other lot a go.”

Back in 1993 that looked to be what would happen, but the GST happened and the ALP (and Keating) found a reason to convince people not to give the other mob a go.

And thus today we had the ALP getting pretty excited about this from the AFR:

Joe Hockey was quoted as saying that GST “was part of the equation”.

This isn’t really a shock – he has already been on the record as saying if you have a review of the tax system (as the Libs want to do – apparently the Henry Tax Review is old hat now) then you need to consider the GST.

So OK, fair enough the ALP want to try and make some hay out of it, but the GST can only be increased if all the states agree.

Now the only thing the ALP have going for them is the states probably will agree because they all know the federal government will get the political blame. So yes it is possible.

But my view is that Tony Abbott, were he to want to raise the GST, would take it to the next election. And I think had he gone up against Julia Gillard this election, such a tactic was writ in stone.

Exactly like John Howard in 1996 and 1998, the strategy was to win big in the first election and have enough of a margin so that at the following election you can throw in a few uglies . So had Abbott slaughtered the ALP under Gillard (which was likely), then I believe the next election would have seen the GST, and harsh IR all on the table, and few other things – the ABC maybe? And sure they would lose a few seats, but if they had a 100-50 seat margin – which was on the cards – then they’d be almost unable to lose.

Just wait for the next QLD election to watch what Campbell Newman will put forward. He has such a huge margin that he knows the next election is almost a walkover, so what better time to push through everything you know isn’t really popular, but where you will get over the line because the ALP is in ruins.

***

Anyway. To policy.

The Libs announced that they would be cutting company tax by 1.5%… from July 2015.

That’s a ways off, so were I a company director I wouldn't go locking it in just yet.

The main reason the LNP is cutting the tax is because they’re increasing the company tax for big business by 1.5% to pay for their Paid Parental Leave Scheme.

At present though we don’t actually know what their PPL will end up looking like. My belief is there is no way a 1.5% levy on big business will cover the cost of their original scheme and so it will have to be altered. They’ll probably not include state public servants, or some other such.

The reason is (as I have written in The Guardian) that when Abbott first announced that a 1.5% increase in company tax would pay for it all the amount of company tax expect to be raised was a heck of a lot more than it is now.

Back in the 2010-11 budget, corporate tax revenue for this current financial year was forecast to be over $75bn; in this year’s budget it was forecast to be only $71.6bn. The writedowns from the 2011-12 budget are even more severe. Back then, $81.5bn in company tax revenue was expected to be raised in 2014-15; in the May budget, the Treasury was expecting just $72.8bn. In last Friday’s Economic Statement they are hoping to get $70.15bn!

Clearly 1.5% of company tax revenue ain’t what it used to be…

Now the Libs are saying the cut will improve growth, and sure it probably will. But the benefits are easy to exaggerate. The Government's Business Tax Working Group noted in its draft final report that:

A cut in the company tax rate of two to three percentage points would be needed to drive a significant investment response.

It also looked at how the tax cut was funded:

Treasury modelling commissioned by the Working Group indicates that a reduction in the statutory company tax rate from 30 to 29 per cent would increase gross domestic product (GDP) and household consumption in the long run.

Importantly, the modelling assumes that the cut in the company tax rate is offset by a reduction in lump sum transfers to households to keep the government budget balanced. This is a standard technical assumption. The benefit of potential policy reform packages would, of course, depend upon how the rate reduction is funded.

Also bear in mind, for most companies this is not a cut – they will pay 1.5% extra for the PPL and then receive a 1.5% cut. This tax cut won’t even affect most small businesses because, as former AIG CEO Heather Ridout told ABC radio:

"Most small businesses pay tax through the personal income tax structure, so the gains for corporate tax reductions are much more for bigger companies, and for particularly foreign-owned ones."

Now yes Australia's company tax rate is high compared to many of the OECD nations:

But it’s not so simple as that, as Professor Rick Krever, director of the Taxation Law and Policy Research Institute at Monash University told the ABC’s Stephen Long:

… in many European companies, companies pay much higher social security taxes than they do income taxes. So if you just comparing income tax rates, you're not comparing anything, you're not comparing the true costs of companies of operating in different countries.

Also there is the issue that cutting the company tax rate provides greater incentive for high income earners to operate as an independent contractor and pay company tax rather than income tax.

So we have a policy that doesn't really cut the tax rate for the companies who will most drive any GDP growth you would expect to get from a cut in the company tax rate. We have a cut in the company tax rate at the time when expectations of company tax revenue have been declining.

It’s worth remembering that back in 2006-07 company tax revenue was equal to 5.3% of GDP; last year it was 4.3% of GDP.

Just imagine how much easier it would be to run your budget if you had an extra 1% of GDP in your accounts!

So to recap:

A cut that is not really a cut just a split into two taxes: 28.5% +1.5% (gee that sounds efficient).

Thus extra growth unlikely to be anywhere near what would it might be were it a real cut in company tax.

And it is a cut in revenue at a time when revenue is declining.

Interesting way to go about fixing a “budget emergency”.

***

One final thing about today. When the Libs announced this policy they provided the documents to the press gallery after the actual press conference started. Andrew Tillett from The West Australian tweeted that they were passed out 5 minutes after it started.

One journalist (I’m not sure but it might have been Andrew) noted this when he asked Abbott a question about it. Now I realise campaigns don’t want their policies leaked, but this policy HAD been leaked – it was in all the papers. If they are not prepared to give the documents 15-20 minutes before the announcement so journalists can actually ask some question that relate to the policy then they should be called out as dodging accountability.

I have in the past (rather infamously) had a go at the press gallery following the leaders around, but it is not all their fault – the parties are doing more than ever before to avoid scrutiny. But it needs to be called out – and the journalists should have no compunction about doing so. It is not about journalists making themselves the story, it is about leaders dodging tough questions – and I think that is a newsworthy story.

***

Tomorrow the latest employment figures come out. A big day in the campaign.

***

UPDATE. A few mates on Twitter remind me that at this point in an election voters usually aren’t listening. And that is true. Also Abbott had a shocker of a first week in 2010 and he came home with a wet sail. I don’t think it is over. But as I say, the ALP needs to improve. The one reason I think they might is they haven’t announced really anything yet, whereas the Libs have already gone in big with a $5b policy.

Still. 4 and half weeks to go…. Don’t put down your glasses just yet.

Election 2013: Day 2 (or, you could cut the interest rate with a knife)

Unfortunately tonight’s post will just be a short one, because I spent the day firstly finishing up my Drum post for tomorrow, and then the afternoon doing a live-blog for The Guardian on the interest rate decision.

So I’m pretty much brain fried.

The big news was the drop in interest rates, from 2.75% to 2.5%.

The politics is interesting because when you are a party that for nigh on 10 years has been banging away about how “interest rates will always be lower under a…” and you suddenly find that interest rates are now much lower than they were under your government, well you need to come up with a new line.

And so now it is “the economy will always be stronger under a Liberal Government”. This of course is patent bullshit for anyone old enough to remember life under the Fraser-Howard Government when both unemployment and inflation achieved the dubious achievement of being over 10% at the same time. We’ll also ignore that in March 2012 for the first time in over 40 years, GDP growth was over 3.5%, unemployment was under 5.5% and inflation was under 2.5%

Look if people want to indulge in pathetic “blah blah will always be blah blah under a blah Government” go ahead. But cripes, that doesn’t mean we have to swallow it.

So the interest rate cut dominated the day. It was the first time since the RBA has been independent that interest rates have been cut during an election campaign, and one of the great things about the cut is no one was suggesting it was a political cut.

But there was a lot of politics related to it.

Joe Hockey put forward his thesis that the RBA is only cutting rates because the economy is n bad shape. And look that’s fair enough – the RBA does cut rates when it needs to give the economy a shove. The key thing is to keep interest rate low when the economy is going strong. So in effect – looking at the average of rates “over the cycle”

 Hockey on AM this morning answered this way in response to the question of low rates under this government:

JOE HOCKEY: Well on average the interest rates have been lower under the Coalition, if you look at the Coalition electoral cycle, it was, the average standard variable mortgage rate was 7.26 per cent. Under Labor it's been 7.29 per cent. Small business, unsecured overdraft rate under us was 8.89 per cent, under Labor it's been 10.08 per cent.

Now c’mon, really Joe. You’re arguing that 7.26% to 7.29% is a wining argument? You do know that 0.03% is about a $5.80 difference per month in interest rate payments for a $300,00 loan?

That’s your big proof of better economic management?

Ok. I guess then you won’t mind if we take into account the fact that given all the banks are passing on the full rate cut, and that if we include this month, the average of mortgages under the ALP term of government will be 7.27%.

Will you still claim the $1.94 a month saving as proof the Libs know better how to run the economy?

How about if we include September (because any rate cut in September will occur before the election, so the ALP gets credit for that as well) and we suddenly find that the average under the ALP government since December 2007 is now 7.26%.

Hey look, take heart, a draw is still not a loss! (except of course if you’re playing the Ashes… cursed rain)

Maybe it’s time we put aside puerile “lowest interest rate” crud and focus on why interest rates might be low or high.

Hockey is right about the difference in rates for small business. But that has nothing to do with the ALP – unless Hockey thinks the ALP is to blame for the GFC (which, for all I know he does – it would make an improvement on most of his fellow LNP members who seem to have forgotten there was a GFC at all).

After the GFC, banks fled to safety. Risky loans were suddenly seen as too risky, and importantly risk carried with it a premium that it hadn’t had for any of the 2002-2007 years.

Small business loans are risky – at least riskier than a mortgage – and thus their rates have stayed relatively higher than have mortgage rates.

I’ve been noting this for a while with this graph:

Now Joe Hockey also in the press conference after the announcement sought to pooh pooh the cash rate by pointing out that the ALP’s low interest rate guff didn’t count because the spread (or gap) of the cash rate to the mortgage rate and business loan rates had grown since November 2007.

This is quite true, as indeed I have also noted many times before on this blog with this graph:

So it looks like case closed for Joe.

The problem is this is more a case of a little bit of knowledge being dangerous.

People might not borrow at the cash rate, but significantly the cash rate isn’t the only way banks borrow (or “raise) money.

If we look at the way bank raise funds we see that it changed rather drastically around the start of 2008 (exactly the same time that "spread in the above graph started going up).

And it wasn’t because of a Labor Government, it was because the raising of funds with the cheap “short term debt” from overseas suddenly started to get expensive.

Prior to the end of 2007 banks used to get about 30% of their funds  on the cheap from overseas (funds they used to then loan out to you and to businesses at a profit).

Now they get less than 20% of their funds this way.

Prior to 2008, domestic deposits (ie you and I and grandma putting our money either in a savings account or better still a “term deposit’”) had been declining in importance for banks. It was still the most important but it accounted for below 40% of all funds.

After the GFC, suddenly term deposits became like gold for banks – because they are safe – and when all the banks are after the same thing – you and I and grandma’s money – that means they need to pay more to get it (ie offer higher interest rates for deposits).

And thus not only did the importance of domestic deposits go up, so did the cost to the banks of such deposits.

So let’s look at the spread of the cash rate to term deposits:

Do you notice anything about the spread between 2003 and 2008?

Yep it was negative. The banks were giving you LESS interest for your deposits than they were paying with the cash rate! And this was for 40% of their funding! Talk about sweet deal!

See what happened when the GFC hit? Yep – boom. By 2010 the interest rate you could get for your term deposit was nearly 2.5 percentage points more than the cash rate.

Do you think that might have been a reason why banks suddenly weren’t able to pass on all the cuts in the cash rates?

And just to ram it home, let’s have a look at the cost of that overseas “short-term debt”. The best way is to look at the spread of the 3 month overnight index swaps to the 3 month bank bills. (That is basically nerdy, Banker-speak for the amount it cost banks to lend to each other over short period of time – the bigger the spread, the more it costs):

Again, notice how cheap and stable it all was from 2002 to 2007? Think the Howard Government had much to do with the rate banks were lending and borrowing from banks in American and Europe? Nope.

Now look at the situation while Labor have been in power. Calm is not the word. But GFC nuttiness is.

There is nothing the Govt can really do about this, but it explains why again the gap between the cash rate and your mortgage has increased. Banks went from being able to get around 30% of their funds at a nice cheap, stable rate, to suddenly it being a very scary and costly way to raise money.

And even though the rate is now back down, the RBA has a nice graph that shows how because of the average length of time such debt is held, it takes a while for the decrease in spread to flow through to the average cost of the banks’ funding.

Now I’ll leave you with one final graph.

It is a graph that looks at the spread between the average term deposit rate and the average mortgage rate.

In effect this is the difference between what the banks charge you to get money from them, and what they pay you to take your money.

If banks were screwing us, or if the ALP was useless at holding the banks to account and the Liberal Party could do much better, then you would think that the gap between the two would be quite s bit larger now than it was under Howard.

So what is the picture?

Well under the Howard Government – during period of amazing ease on the international banking market, where everyone thought cheap credit could last for ever – the average spread was 3.04. During the Rudd-Gillard Government, when the hangover of that lazy period of cheap credit sent shockwaves through the banking sector that were like 9.7 on the banking Richter scale, the average spread is 3.14.

At the moment though the spread is 2.9.

So I’ll give Hockey 0.1% point on average to brag about.

Slow hand clap.

But maybe, just maybe, it is time to stop comparing apples with apples. And maybe, just maybe it is time for those who would be our government to stop trying to tell us the lie that the GFC was just something that happened in the Northern Hemisphere and had no impact on Australia.

Anyhoo.

That’s my interest rate rant over.

***

While live-blogging today for three hours today, I very nearly went into head-explosion territory. It made me all the more respectful of the great work currently being done by those who live-blog daily politics.

Back in 2010 when I decided to do a daily post on the election I did so because nowhere was there a good close analysis of the days events (in my opinion). I thought a lot got missed in the “daily summaries”.

Well now, for all your political needs, the live blogs are a great place to go.

The first to really start the live-blogging of politics here in Oz, was Katharine Murphy with her “The Pulse blog” for Fairfax. She is now with The Guardian, and biased as I am because I work for it, she is still absolutely brilliant at it (except when I give her a bit of advice and it turns out to be wrong advice, as happened today – the moral being, shut up Greg, you’re in the way).

Her blog can be found each day here.

The Pulse is now being done by Stephanie Peatling, and it is also excellent. It also features great camera work by Alex Ellinghausen and Andrew Meares.

So if you’re wondering what is happening in the election at any particular point in the day, head there (and leave comments as well!).

***

So yeah. That’s a short post… ummm goodnight.

Election 2013: Day 1 (or, I’d rather be watching the cricket)

A few things about the election announcement yesterday: While Kevin Rudd, Christina Milne and Tony Abbott were delivering their speeches I was watching with desperate intent. My focus was locked on and noticing every twist, every mistake, every moment of boldness.

Of course I was not watching the speeches, I was watching the Crows play Port. And if I am honest my focus remains on that game because FOR CRYING OUTLOUD THE BALL BOUNCED AT RIGHT ANGLES!

At the same time Collingwood were playing Essendon at the MCG before a crowd of 69,821 (I’m sure there was an NRL game as well but I won’t lie and pretend I have any clue about that). Last night the Ashes cricket test also grabbed a fair bit of my attention.

The thing is this election campaign is happening at the pointy end of the footy season, so let’s not pretend everyone is putting down the beanies and caring about what our political masters or wannabe masters are up to. Many in Melbourne are more interested in if Essendon will be docked points before September than if the ALP lost a few points in a poll.

I say this because yeah, the front page of the Daily Telegraph is pretty clear about its bias:

But let’s not go pretending that it is going to change the outcome of the election, and start finding conspiracies under every rock. A newspaper editor telling its readers what to think might sound powerful, but meh, most will see it, and turn to the back and see what’s the sport.

And really rain on the 5th day of the Ashes test? Does God hate us as well as the makers of the DRS system?

That doesn’t mean the front page deserves to go straight through to the keeper. It says a fair bit about the thought process of its editor. It seems he is not a bloke who cares about policy, costings, evidence …

Declaring your editorial position on Day 1 is of course the now standard nutbag News Corp tabloid way, a-la The Sun in the UK.  But it tells you the editor doesn't care if the Liberal Party’s policies add up. He doesn’t for example care that the soil magic involved with the Liberal’s Direct Action is quickly becoming as credible as Paul Sheehan’s Magic Water.

Now costings and all that might be a tad dull, but most humans with above Grade 4 intellect would think the editor of a major metro newspaper might care about whether or not an elected government can add up. Especially when the party in question last time round did such a bang up job costing its policies that the accounting firm involved was fined for breaching professional standards. Moreover the failure of the Lib’s costings to make any sense was one of the key reasons that Windsor and Oakeshott took into account when they made their decision in 2010.

So you know, these things matter.

But no more it seems.

The major point though is that by declaring it’s hand in this way, the Daily Tele needs the Libs to win. If Rudd gets home then the Tele’s influence will be shown to count for bugger all.

And that is not a good look for a paper that both sees itself and sells itself as setting agendas and speaking the same voice as its readers.

Also if Abbott gets in there will the implicit “you owe us” aspect. Though this won’t be needed really. The last thing Abbott would ever do is cross News.Corp. As an ex-leader writer for The Oz, he’s one of them. It’s not so much a conspiracy it’s just that Abbott won’t even need to be pushed around, he’ll already be going in the way they want him to go.  

So forget objectivity, the Tele’s idea of holding Abbott to account this campaign will be to ask if he wants the back rub before or after the foot rub.

My view, for what it is worth, is it would have been much more effective to run with the page on election day. At least then it would be something that voters would remember when they actually cast their vote, and it would at least allow the Tele to pretend it is objective. They’ll most likely do something as over the top on the 7th as well, but pfft, they’ve already shot their bolt.

Ahh well.

***

And so to today. Well it was all a bit pushy shovy on the debate question.

Last night the Liberal’s Brian Loughnane offered his ALP counter part George Wright three “debates”: one at the press club on Sunday, then a “people’s forum” at Rooty Hill RSL where Rudd would go first followed by Abbott; then another people’s forum in Brisbane where both would be on the stage together.

First off, to those of you living in non-Brisbane-Sydney… Yeah, you can got to sleep now, you’re not required.

Now that’s only half true. The ALP can’t afford to lose any seats anywhere, but everyone knows QLD and Sydney is where the big booty is at. The debate offer is a crock. A people’s forum is patent bullshit unless both are on the stage at the same time, otherwise the person going last always wins (Hell, Julia Gillard won the Brisbane forum last time – YES, IN BRISBANE! That’s how biased it is in the favour of the person going second).  

George Wright should respond and say thank you, but given you have had the privilege of choosing the location, we’ll choose whether or not to go first or second, and we’ll go second thanks.

Debates do matter but mostly the big one held at the press club that is covered by all TV stations matters. If – like last time – the people’s forums are just on Sky, then they don’t mater at all.

My prediction is as usual it’ll be sorted, there will be debates and most people won’t even care that there was the usual Week-One silliness.

And silliness there is on the issue when you look at what Tony Abbott said this morning on AM:

SABRA LANE: You just heard the Prime Minister there, he said that you back in July said that you'd debate him every day for this campaign. Why not have four debates on every Sunday and one tonight?
TONY ABBOTT: Well, there will be debates, and in a sense I'm debating him now because I'm following him on your program Sabra.

Abbott has now essentially morphed into a cartoon with the special power of being able to use words without any connection to their actual meaning.

***

OK to policy.

No actually, first a gripe.

The ALP’s website last election was a fantastic resource. It had transcripts of Gillard’s doorstops up quickly, had the policy documents loaded almost instantly. I lived on the site. The current ALP site is basically “DONATE MONEY NOW.COM”.

Today they announced $450m for before and after school care. Now technically this occurred prior to the parliament officially ending so it is a Government decision not an ALP promise, but where is the announcement on the ALP’s website? Are they too bashful to promote their policies? [see update below]

They do have Rudd’s speech from yesterday but not the Q&A. [again see update]

The Liberal Party’s website is a bit better, it has up the transcript of Tony Abbott’s Sunrise interview, but not his latter doorstop at the meat packing works in Ipswich – which is a pity because that is where he was actually asked some decent questions.

It was also where he rather stuffed up saying how much of a carbon tax bill the company would face. As Lenore Taylor notes:

“…the opposition leader claimed was “under direct threat” from carbon tax costs of $5m, but which would actually face a bill of one-tenth that amount next year if Labor is re-elected.
…
if Labor is re-elected, in the first six months of next year the company’s liability would be half of an annual bill of about $840,000, or about $420,000. And if Labor then floats the carbon price – as it has promised – in the second half of the year, its bill would fall further. At a carbon price of about $6 the annual bill would be $210,000. That takes the total 2014 liability to about $525,000 – or about a tenth of Abbott’s estimate.

Abbott indicated that he was calculating both direct and indirect carbon costs, and extensions to the tax planned for the future.”

Actually, while watching the press conference it was clear he was calculating it all in his head and getting a bit lost.

There was also this nice follow up:

“JBS Australia spokesman John Berry told Guardian Australia he would have preferred to invest the $4.8m in something that would grow the business. He was unsure whether the Coalition’s Direct Action plan would involve any incentives for the company to cut its emissions – which mainly come from methane produced by its waste water treatment.”

Look we know direct action is a climate change policy designed to appeal to people who think climate change is a hoax. But there’s a fair bit of money being spent, maybe it’s time Abbott and Greg Hunt put out all the costings and all the documents. Is that too much to ask?

So the Liberal site is bit better but it seems both parties have decided that providing the public with all the information is a silly thing to do. That is a real shame.

[UPDATE – a mate has alerted me that all Rudd press conference transcripts are being put up on Kevin Rudd’s website, kevinrudd.org.au. Have noted as well that Tony Abbott’s transcripts are at his own website here. So good all round. It seems the strategy this time is for both party’s to use the party website for the fundraising and volunteer stuff.

Also I recommend reading the Abbott transcript from his visit to JBS Australia – the journalists were nicely on their game.]

Rather oddly however, the Liberal Party site seems to have neglected to put up this clip of its candidate for the marginal seat of Greenway, Jaymes Diaz:

Gereenway is the ALP’s third most marginal seat. You would have thought he Liberal Party would have prepped the candidate – or at least found someone who had read more than the Libs “Our Plan” talking points (and more than just memorised that there were 6 points in the asylum seeker policy).

In his defence the Libs’ asylum seeker policy is a being made up as they go at the moment, so that was probably one to steer clear of – just stick with ‘stop the boats’, no need to bring numbers in to it.

When Nicole Cornes stuffed up in much the same way while campaigning in the seat of Hindmarsh in 2007 the media went pretty hard. It will be interesting to see how Diaz does..

***

The ALP announced a $200m injection for the local car industry to do…err… look, details, details.

Geez. What the hell? It’s bad enough they’re giving money to an industry that has famously been great at taking said money then cutting employees, but if $200m was all it took to save the car industry it wouldn’t need to be saved so it smacks a fair bit of pointless, token effort. But if you are going to announce it, how about being able to tell people what it is gong to be spent on!

Not doing so certainly is “a new way” to do things, but perhaps not in the manner the ALP wants.

Amateurish.

The ALP, as noted earlier, also announce $450m to help expand before and after school care. The details are pretty sketchy – is the labour for this available? But overall it’s a good spend. I was pretty astonished when we first thought about after-school care at our daughter’s public school to find that it was not an automatic thing. We were lucky to get our daughter in for 2 days, and even luckier that those two days suited my wife and my working times.

So making more places available and for longer hours is good from a worker participation aspect at least.

The Liberal Party’s big policy of the day was that Tony Abbott has written to the head of PM & C, saying that he wants on day one of an Abbott government to start ending the carbon tax.

The Secretary of PM&C is under no obligation to read the letter, nor even do anything to “prepare” for an Abbott Government other than what it does every election for every opposition – ie gets a list of their announced policies and assist Treasury with the costings. Abbott holds no power to instruct the public service or the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to do anything.

It’s all a stunt and a pretty dull one at that. He wrote a letter. Well golly.

Abbott also announced that he would not be party to a minority government should the election result come to that. Clearly this is not about dealing with the reality of a post 7 September work, but trying to tap into the view that the minority government has been a shambles and a vote for the LNP will end that.

In reality if the parliament is hung and say Bob Katter holds the balance of power, do you really think Abbott will tell him to piss off? Of course not, and if he did, the Libs would quickly find someone who could work with Katter.

So again, it’s a stunt – a stunt that he likely won’t have to worry about because the odds of a hung parliament are slim even if the margin is close.

Look, it’s election time, if you weren't interested in political stunts you’d be watching the cricket instead.

But then, you probably already are, I know I am – England are 1 for 13!

***

Tomorrow the RBA announces their decision on interest rate, I’ll be live blogging it at The Guardian from around 1:30pm.

Election 2013: Day Zero: (or “Ze plane! Ze plane!)

And this is how the 2013 election began:

Sky News, perhaps taking its lead from a tweet that went round from Urban Melbourne, showed a screenshot of the flight tracker of the PM’s flight (EVY5) as it went from Brisbane, took a bit of a flyover Sydney and then turned towards Canberra. I’m going to assume it was done ironically. In which case, brilliant.

Eventually the PM did arrive in Canberra, drove out to Yarralumla, got the OK from the Governor General, and lo, off we go to 7 September.

And of course it had to be 7 September because it said so in the newspapers (if you ignore that some also said it was going to be 31st August.)

Kevin Rudd began his press conference announcing that “The time has come for the Australian people to decide our nation's future” and that it was all about being positive (positive was a big theme). He noted that “Ours is a truly great county and no one should ever talk this country down”, and that we need to avoid, “A tight little ball of negativity”

He then wheeled out the line now common among both the ALP and Liberal Party: the “who does the Australian people trust” line. He followed this up with some negativity about negativity saying that “wall to wall negativity doesn’t create a single job”, and that “three word slogans don’t save complex problems, they never have and they never will”.

It’s all nice and on message and a sight better than “Moving forward”.

He then addressed the issue of debt. That he needs to do this is the hangover of 5 years of the ALP being absolutely useless at explaining deficits and surplus, and also 5 years of thinking the Costello narrative of the economy is the frame through which they have to tell their story. It might be too late to change that story now, but at least Rudd is making a better fist of it this time round.

He also said that he would be deeply honoured to serve us, and there was talk of a new way.

“A new way” is an interesting slogan for a government, but it undoubtedly flows on from the view that Rudd is different to Gillard (and Swan). Still it’s a tough line to sell, especially when the other side is essentially arguing for the same thing.

He finished with some pretty targeted words about what Campbell Newnan did after the last Queensland election. Expect to hear more of this. If the ALP is going to win, it needs to win big in QLD, and the best way to do that is to get voters to think Tony Abbott is just the federal version of Campbell Newman. And hope that works.

***

Looking back three years, one thing that strikes me is that Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party have pretty much the same strategy of last time. Here’s what Tony Abbott said on the day the 2010 election was called:

There is a better way. We’ll stand up for real action.

A Coalition government will respect the taxpayers’ dollar. We know that households and businesses have had to tighten their belts. We’ll make government tighten its belt too.

A government which is borrowing $100 million every single day is taking away $100 million that would otherwise be available to small business and that’s hurting every family’s budget.

We will respect people’s judgment too. The government trusts parents enough to help them buy school uniforms but not enough to let them decide the classrooms or halls or canteens that their schools need. We’ll give local communities a real say over the schools and hospitals that they so rely.

Had he said that this afternoon would anyone have really noticed?

This time round though the big difference was that he was all about being “fair dinkum”. After some mention (of course) of the faceless men, he said that the choice was clear – “A choice between the positive plan of the coalition and more of the same under he Australian Labor Party and Mr Rudd [no way is he going to call him Prime Minister  from now on]”.

It seems “positive” is doing well in both party’s focus groups.

He then turned to his theme:

Now Mr Rudd talked about ‘who do you trust’, well it’s really about ‘who is more fair dinkum’. Who can you rely on to build abetter future? ... Who do you think is more fair dinkum, the people who actually stopped the boats in the past, or the person who started them up again in 2008. The people who delivered the surpluses, or the man who started the spendathon which has got us into the fiscal position we’re now in..”

I would go on, but no one who is not sure which way they’ll vote will have seen any more. The network news showed only small grabs of both, and fair enough, neither deserved any more.

Abbott ended with his nice line that “I know we are a great country, there is almost nothing wrong with this country that can’t be solved with a change of government”.

For the most part it sounded like the same speech he would have given were Julia Gillard still Prime Minister, and as with most of what the Liberal Party has been saying of late, it would have been much more effective were that still the case.

But while the speech was much the same as last time, the other similarity with 2010 is the backflip yesterday on the Schools Funding. Tony Abbott on Friday he announced that he was guaranteeing the same funding for the next four years as is the ALP:

“Under the Coalition, you'll get the funding but you won't get the strings attached so what I want to say today is that as far as school funding is concerned, Kevin Rudd and I are on a unity ticket.”

It was a bizarre statement, because he and Chris Pyne had for so long been branding the policy as a “Conski” and actually providing less funding. What is all the more bizarre is that since announcing he is on a unity ticket with Rudd on education, he has continued to criticise the policy!

It’s not surprising that the Liberals have attempted to jump on the government's school funding bus. There wasn’t really much else Abbott could do, given he and his education spokesperson have spent the past three years getting all giggly about points of order in Question Time and not giving one stuff about actually developing a policy other than “the current system isn’t broken”. I guess in all the time they were calling for an election they lost track of time.

But it was much the same as three years ago when Abbott also declared himself a unity ticket, this time on IR policy, stating that, “An incoming Coalition government will not seek to change the Fair Work Act for the three years of the next term of parliament”. Again it was an odd decision given he had spent the pervious couple of years criticising the Fair Work Act.

Nothing like bold policy I guess.

Kevin Rudd of course has done his own version of “me too”, only rather more subtly. Rudd hasn’t ever suggested he is at one with Abbott on asylum seekers – in fact he has gone to lengths to suggest his policy is markedly different, but he has adopted the same tone of rhetoric. His policy is about stopping the boats without having to say stop the boats. On carbon pricing, Rudd has moved to end the carbon tax (or fixed price if you want to get technical, but I guess we’re about 4 years past that), but again he hasn’t suggested that his and the Liberal Party’s policy is the same – just that one of the impacts of it will be – ie no more carbon tax.

***

All this can leave one suspecting that there will be no policy debate in this election – that it will be just about funding black holes and “the economy”. But a cursory look under the hood of any statements shows much more is going on than a case of both sides being on the same ticket.

Abbott on education is at pains to suggest his and the ALP’s funding of education is exactly the same, whereas in reality it is not at all. The big issue with the school’s funding package is not in the next 4 years, but the two years after that (and after that…). Abbott’s suggestion that he is on a unity ticket with the ALP on school’s funding and only committing to the next 4 years is like a teenage promising his mum he won’t drink beer at the party he’s going to and instead getting plastered on Bundy.

If you want to talk certainty for education funding as Abbott now seems to be all concerned about, 4 years is not much.

Not surprisingly today Victoria signed on to the Government's plan. This was always likely, and even more so once Abbott announced he was on the unity ticket. No doubt he had been given the word from the Victorian Libs, and clearly going to the election opposing education funding both NSW and Victoria have signed up for would’ve been stupid. It would’ve essentially meant Abbott was saying he would be able to convince those states to accept less funding should he win the election.

Not gonna happen.

On other policy areas differences do remain. No one has any idea what the Liberal Party’s health policy other than local boards which is what they were about last time, and which they haven’t explained just how that will be better than “Local Health Networks”. The Libs are also pretty fudgy on what they’ll do with Medicare Locals.  Mostly this is because the opposition health spokesperson is the only person on the Opposition front bench who could make Pyne look like a policy heavyweight. I wouldn’t be surprised in Dutton is mostly out of the national media sight this campaign. He is a dreadful advocate for his side, and also he’ll be fairly busy defending his own seat, which now that Rudd is back is very much in play. So their Health policy is currently a bit of a “what we said last time” and a “wait we’ve got something really cool up our sleeve”, so at some stage they’ll come up with something. The best policy though would be to replace Dutton.

Differences remain on the NBN, but that race has largely been run and lost by the LNP. I can’t see it being a big ticket other than if there are some switches to flick in certain places over the next 5 weeks to signal the NBN going live. The current Communications Minister, Albanese will be more concerned about transport and other infrastructure, while Malcolm Turnbull will be more interested in getting ready to be Opposition leader, or trying to work out just how will he cope having to work with Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.

On asylum seeker policy there are differences. But the interesting aspect is that given the moves by Rudd to go all the way with PNG, the ALP seems pretty happy to talk about the topic. Indeed given yesterday Rudd signed another deal with Nauru, they’re not just happy, they’re eager to talk about it.  You only need to look at the way the Liberal Party has suddenly felt the need to update its policy from suggesting all that was required was to go back to the way Howard did it to suddenly needing a 3 Star General involved somehow, to see that this has caught the Libs on the hop. I suspect they were expecting Rudd to keep to his “not lurch to the right” call of 2010. They still haven’t recalibrated.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the election becomes almost like 6 state elections. A campaign that focuses on issues like the East-West Link in Melbourne, Sydney’s West-Connex, the Pacific Highway in NSW, the Bruce Highway in QLD, rail projects in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. Lots of very targeted policies and programs for targeted areas, but not much of the big nation-wide stuff.

On that score all that will be really is talk about the economy – debt, deficit, surplus, employment, interest rates.

With this there’s a couple things to keep in mind. Firstly on Tuesday the RBA will very likely (about 90% likely) lower interest rates. There will also be an RBA meeting in the last week of the campaign. Now the reason they will lower rates is because the economy is slowing, but still, low interest rates is never a hard tale for a government to tell.

On Thursday however he next unemployment rate data come out. The government will be praying it is steady. But even if it is badish, the news gets out of the way in the first week, the next unemployment figures will come out the week after the election.

The other big one is on the Wednesday of the last week of the campaign when the June Quarter national accounts will be released. The GDP figures for June could be pretty poor – not so poor that it will be backwards, but it could prove a nasty final hurdle for the ALP to jump.

***

So they start pretty much 50:50, maybe the LNP up 51:49. It can go either way, and more than any election in times past national polling won’t matter anywhere near as much as state polling.

As usual watch to see where the leader campaigns.

The hardest thing for me in seeing an ALP win, is trying to find enough seats. Starting down the two from Windsor and Oakeshott, and probably Craig Thomson’s seat, means it’s a big ask. Either way I think it’s a big ask to see either side getting more than 80 seats. Importantly I don’t see the LNP getting control of the Senate – though that is tougher to predict, and they might not need if Xenophon has balance of power. It will be interesting though to see how hard Abbott goes on his “call a double dissolution” vow should the Greens and ALP block the changes to he carbon price.

***

Last time I pretty religiously did an election diary. I’ve got a few things on this time which might make it tricky – not the least is that I’m also writing three articles a week which always seem to take longer to write than I think they will. So I’ll see how I go doing it this time.

I’ll mostly keep away from the “who won the day” because really, who cares.

Anyhoo, enjoy the next 5 weeks.