Friday 29th of November 2024

scomo's scorecard: an F minus…….

Scott Morrison wants the election to be about competence, but an examination of his record suggests that he is not capable of delivering good government.

Scott Morrison has never had a policy agenda. Rather he sees his role as reacting to and resolving problems as they arise, and not setting a policy reform agenda.

Consequently, Morrison is seeking to make the forthcoming election purely a choice based on who is the more competent to manage the government of the country. As Morrison put it: “This election is a choice between a government that you know and has been delivering and a Labor opposition that you don’t.”

But how competent is the Morrison Government really? How well has it in fact been delivering?

There are in fact a stack of good reasons that lead to the conclusion that Morrison has repeatedly failed to deliver good government.

 

Trust

First, and very importantly, there is the question of trust. Good government depends upon people being able to trust that government. But we know, thanks to many of Morrison’s political colleagues, that even they do not trust Scott Morrison.

 

Secrecy 

Second, there is Morrison’s fetish about secrecy. The Hawke Government understood that it is impossible to successfully pursue a reform agenda without popular support, and this in turn is dependent on persuading people by making information available regarding the performance of the government and its programs. But the Morrison Government has suppressed all such information, and further it relies on consultants who tell it what it wants to hear whenever it moves beyond policies based on whims and prejudices.

 

Integrity

Similarly, public integrity is too often absent. Instead, we have had a series of grants to different communities with no due process. The same is true for most of the infrastructure projects, which do not have any business case when they are announced. And there is still no public integrity commission to help act as a deterrent to improper ministerial approval of grants and contracts, despite it being promised as long ago as the last election.

 

Climate Change

Turning to what the Government has actually achieved, for many people the most important problem for governments to tackle is climate change. Morrison is priding himself on announcing a commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but that is just it. It is an announcement and not a policy.

There is no policy that shows how Australia will reach net zero emissions. Sure, Morrison has a slogan – technology not taxes – but what is lacking are policies that will drive and facilitate the take-up of the necessary technologies.

Market forces will ensure over time the take-up of the necessary new technologies as the cost of renewable energy falls but putting a price on carbon would be the best and most efficient way to achieve the necessary acceleration in the reduction of carbon emissions.

Not only is the Morrison Government reluctant to introduce a carbon tax, it also is not actively facilitating the take-up of renewable energy, electric cars and other ways of reducing carbon emissions. Instead, the Government is still supporting the development of new sources of fossil fuels and intervening to prolong the life of existing sources.

In short, the Morrison Government is not managing the translation to a carbon free economy at all well.

Of course, what Morrison is really hoping is that the public will judge him and his Government to be competent based on Australia’s relatively good record in limiting the Covid pandemic, the strength of the economy, and national security.

 

The Covid Response

But starting with the Covid response, it is arguable that it was not so much the Morrison Government that limited our caseload and death rates compared to other countries, but other factors.

First, Australia is an island and a long way from the principal centres of the Covid viruses. This gave us a degree of natural protection, greater than in say Europe.

Second, most of the credit for limiting the spread of the virus should really go to the State governments. It was the State governments that ran the lockdowns and quarantine arrangements, and mandated masks that restricted the spread of Covid, despite quarantine traditionally being a federal responsibility as laid out in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, too often the Morrison Government sought to undermine the restrictions imposed by different State governments. Furthermore, the Morrison Government made a mess of its responsibilities for restricting the spread of the Covid virus. The vaccines were initially slow to arrive, as were the RAT tests later on. While the spread of the virus in aged care was a disaster for which the Morrison Government is primarily responsible.

 

Economic Management

Equally, there are questions about the Government’s vaunted claims about their role in the management of the economy. The key program in response to the economic threat posed by the pandemic was JobKeeper, but this program was first proposed by Labor before the Government was persuaded to adopt it. And even then JobKeeper was badly designed and managed, with at least $20 billion being paid out to businesses who turned out to have such strong revenue growth that they didn’t need JobKeeper and should not have been eligible.

Furthermore, a key reason why Australia’s economic performance has been better than many other developed economies reflects the fact that we were better able to contain the disease for the reasons explained earlier. As all economists have recognised, a healthy society is vital to a healthy economy. But the Morrison Government was constantly trying to remove the health restrictions as they thought these were limiting the economy.

Looking ahead, a key question is how well has the Morrison Government set up the economy for the future? The Government has ceased ranting against debt and deficits, but many of the Government’s supporters are still worried about the mountain of public debt that has accumulated under this Government.

In its argument that the nation’s finances are sustainable, the Government focuses almost exclusively on the debt situation, but largely ignores the budget deficits that are projected to continue long after the return to full employment.

The Government is certainly correct in its conclusion that the “Australian Government’s debt burden remains manageable and Australia continues to have lower debt as a share of its economy than many other advanced economies”. But the Government’s Budget deliberately ignores the budget deficits that it forecasts will continue even after aggregate private demand exceeds the full potential output of the economy.

The Budget forecasts show aggregate private demand clearly exceeding economic capacity. One consequence is that Australia will increase its reliance on imports to meet that domestic demand with the current account balance forecast to switch from a surplus equivalent to 3¾ per cent of GDP in 2021-22 to a deficit of 6 per cent in 2023-24.

This forecast deterioration in the balance of payments is bound to put downwards pressure on the exchange rate, and this along with the inflationary pressures from the excess demand risks an unacceptable increase in inflation.

Already there are signs that inflation is picking up, and given this outlook, the Australian government should certainly not be adding to total demand by spending more than it recovers through taxation revenue. But that is exactly what it is proposing, with Budget deficits forecast forevermore, and as high 3.4 per cent of GDP in the forthcoming financial year.

The responsibility for containing inflationary pressures will fall entirely on monetary policy, with fiscal policy undermining the Reserve Bank’s efforts. One result will be that interest rates rise even more than would be necessary if fiscal policy was working in tandem to support monetary policy.

Frankly, it is therefore doubtful that the Government’s fiscal policy settings are sustainable, which throws into question their vaunted capability as economic managers.

 

National Security

Finally, there is the performance of the Morrison Government in managing national security.

As the four articles by Admiral Prune recently posted in Pearls & Irritations (6-9 April) make clear Australia’s military capability is inadequate relative to the threats we face. Australia has wasted an enormous amount of money buying the wrong ships and planes, and we now face a major capability gap. Far from ensuring national security, the defence of Australia looks very problematic over the next 20 years or so.

Given Australia’s inadequate “hard power”, we will need to rely more than ever on “soft power” to minimise the external threats to our security. But funding of the diplomatic corps has been cut over successive budgets, and the latest budget is no different.

Now our diplomatic shortcomings have enabled China to negotiate a security agreement with the Solomon Islands, despite our belated protests. Although this failure also reflects a failure of intelligence, if Morrison is to be believed that we had no knowledge of this possible agreement before 24 March which, however, I am inclined to doubt.

But the biggest problem is that the Morrison Government seems to have no foreign policy. Instead, it waits to find out what America thinks and then falls into line, thus weakening further our influence elsewhere.

 

Conclusion

In sum, once the record of the Morrison Government as managers is examined in any detail it is difficult to think why Morrison would expect to be judged to be a competent manager of government business.

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/scott-morrisons-competence/

 

FREE JULINA ASSANGE NOW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

scomo lies….

I’ve met them; you’ve met them. You can find them in the corporate world, in academia, in the public service, in publishing, the media, the church … and, of course, in politics. The bullies who get away with it because of their capacity to turn on the charm when required. The barefaced liars who mask their mendacity with a disarming grin.

They can even win election campaigns. The avuncular charm. The warmth. How could you doubt such a lovely bloke? We thought we no longer trusted him, but he had such a nice, open manner. So confident. So plausible.

It’s hard to resist the well-practised charm of the bully (and most charmers are bullies, after all). It’s hard to call out the lies when the liar seems so sincere – and so ready to don a hi-vis jacket and go on the tools as if he’s really just an honest, down-to-earth tradie at heart.

In amongst all the bluster, all the kissing of hapless babies, all the visionless cant, three recurring claims in this election campaign reveal just how reckless and dishonest federal politicking has become.

First, the falling unemployment rate. That figure Anthony Albanese was pilloried for being unable to recall. That vacuous, meaningless piece of statistical nonsense.

It would be better for all of us if everyone forgot the unemployment rate because it’s mere hot air. You count as “employed” if you’ve had at least one hour of paid work in the previous week. One hour.

The real issue, of course, is underemployment: the number of people who have less work than they want or need – and that’s a significantly higher figure. Combine unemployment and underemployment and we’re looking at something over ten percent of the workforce.

And even that combined figure fails to reflect the issue of growing importance in our evolving labour market: job insecurity.

So spare us the “fake truth” about unemployment. Let’s hear, instead, about policies to address underemployment and improve job security.

Second, those infamous tax cuts. When will this ever end? If we’re really determined to keep promising tax cuts, let’s at least also promise to confine them to the lowest-paid workers. How about, finally and forever, burying the “trickle-down” fiction that everyone benefits from tax policies that increase the wealth of the already-wealthy?

Back to basics for a moment. As a nation, we have adopted a tax-and-transfer system not only as a means of financing public infrastructure and services – roads, transport, public schools, health care, public libraries, public housing, law enforcement, etc – but also as a way of ensuring that some of the wealth at the top of the economic heap is transferred to needy people at the bottom. The poor. The disadvantaged. The chronically ill. The marginalised. The homeless. The underemployed. The dispossessed. The cognitively impaired. The frail elderly.

Every time a politician talks about cutting taxes, the implicit message is this: We don’t care deeply enough about disadvantage and inequality in our society to address it seriously. We are going to “reward effort” at the expense of addressing the needs of those who are incapable of helping themselves.

When, oh when, is someone going to be courageous enough to say that, yes, we need to reform the tax system, but not by looking for ways to reduce personal income tax. Instead, we should be looking for ways to significantly increase the tax rate – especially for our highest income earners – so that we can afford to address the needs of those in dire straits.

We often admire Scandinavian countries like Finland and Denmark for their brilliant public education systems, public transport, health-care, public housing (there’s no such thing as homelessness in Finland – and hardly any private schools, either). Australians would blanch at the income-tax rates paid by citizens in such countries, but, one day, we’ll realise that if we were to edge, even slightly, in that direction, we could make a massive impact on the currently disgraceful levels of inequality and disadvantage here.

We might also then realise, as Scandinavians already do, that in a system where people pay high taxes to fund the services that contribute to a truly civilised society, there’s a stronger sense of interdependency and mutual responsibility in the culture.

Third, job creation. You’ll have been delighted to learn recently that, if re-elected, the Coalition has promised to create more than a million new jobs. Wow. Really?

Well, no, not really. They are not, apparently, going to massively increase the public service or expand government instrumentalities, which is the only way a government can “create” new jobs. Presumably, what they actually mean is that they will outline some policy proposals (which we might hope would include the rapid and total switch to clean energy) designed to encourage employers to increase their workforce.

Lies? You could certainly argue that talking about unemployment without mentioning underemployment, promising tax cuts without admitting their social consequences, and promising to “create” new jobs are all so misleading that they involve fudging the truth, at least.

And to foist such dodgy propositions on the electorate via endlessly repeated slogans, slick advertising and a relentless charm offensive surely amounts to bullying.

The question, of course, is whether the voters are sufficiently fearful or anxious to succumb. Labor seems to lack the courage to save them from being bullied, but a bunch of feisty Independents just might do the trick.

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/how-liars-and-bullies-can-win-elections/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

Morrison lies. But beware that some Independents are working for Morrison's re-election. Note that Palmer's UAP is the biggest lying political party in Australia and is also designed to re-elect Morrison despite his message claiming distrust of the Liberals, the Greens and Labor. Palmer is the moron who made a dirty deal with Turdy Abbott to destroy our main chance to do something about global warming.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>