Election ads for unelectable governments
- Thread starter Arwon
- Start date
...because pointing out a possible act of book cooking by the outgoing government lacks political merit of its own? Right. It doesn't. Whether or not its true or not is something else entirely. The media certainly seems to believe it has merit or the ABC wouldn't have given it any credence.
The old ABC, maybe. The new one often lacks any critical insight beyond "he said she said" whatsoever, is terrified of "unbalance" and frequently re-publishes News Limited talking points verbatim.
For example, uncritically reporting changes in budget forecasts for 2014-15, between December's update and now, as a "black hole" is just ridiculous. We're talking about the difference between a slight surplus and a slight defecit, the sort of things which get swamped by slight changes in economic outlook routinely. All the Libs did was add up forecast deficits between now and then. 4.5 billion is like 2% of NSW revenue between now and 2014-15, and very slight shifts in outlook can easily produce that discrepancy. These forecasts will change a half dozen more times before 2014-15.
Also:
Did you miss the bit where the flagship paper of the most powerful media empire in this country directly editorialised that they want to "destroy" the Greens?
For example, uncritically reporting changes in budget forecasts for 2014-15, between December's update and now, as a "black hole" is just ridiculous. We're talking about the difference between a slight surplus and a slight defecit, the sort of things which get swamped by slight changes in economic outlook routinely. All the Libs did was add up forecast deficits between now and then. 4.5 billion is like 2% of NSW revenue between now and 2014-15, and very slight shifts in outlook can easily produce that discrepancy. These forecasts will change a half dozen more times before 2014-15.
Also:
Did you miss the bit where the flagship paper of the most powerful media empire in this country directly editorialised that they want to "destroy" the Greens?
Arwon said:
I'm not sure when the old ABC began the new one ended? Or is that the wrong way around...
Arwon said:
... Yes, yes. Quite. Even so, it is significant. That's a substantial difference and might be materially important, actually it turns out it very possibly was.
ABC said:
That's a touch more important and it might well have been the case that a review by S&P or Moody's might have caused the government trouble. If they conciously decided to fiddle the books then it is eminately newsworthy.
Arwon said:
Because Murdoch's dead hand has reached into the ABC? I'm assuming that the government wouldn't ask the ratings agencies beforehand as to whether or not a larger than projected deficit might or might not have prompted a review. You don't generally disclose an intention to cook the books to the ratings agencies...
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Of course the Libs are doing this just for political gain.
Of course. Then again, I expect Dr Kaye does exactly the same thing with every public word he utters. I would be surprised to find a politican who doesn't play politics. I guess a case could be made for Kevin Rudd? Or maybe he just played bad politics...
classical_hero
In whom I trust
A politician being political. That is the oddest thing ever.
The issue isn't politicians playing politics, but where that leads. "Oh no, the finances are worse than we thought, looks like we'll have to put the station access fee back on Mascot and Green Square," or something similar would appear to be on the horizon.
Also, I voted for them; I'm allowed to be cynical.
Also, I voted for them; I'm allowed to be cynical.
Camikaze said:
I don't think so. The finding is unwelcome... but I don't think it's enough to derail the government's abilities to deliver on it's election promises. You could theoretically claw it back with an increase in the efficiency dividend and some minor cuts. But from an economists point of view this kind of fiddling is what governments engage in normally and shouldn't in my opinion ever do.
Disclaimer: This is assuming that they were reasonable in the first place.
Camikaze said:
In fairness you were not the only person who voted against the grain. Although I'm still loling over the future of the Labor Party. Perhaps I was being overly optimistic a page back where I made a comparision to the CLP's comeback.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
That Keating letter is a great read. 
So to update, the Greens won Balmain from Verity Firth, but it's still too close to call between the Greens and Pauline Hanson. What I find rather disturbing is that Pauline Hanson received more #1 personal votes than any other candidate in the Legislative Council. Over 10000. I spare a thought for Mayo Materazzo, Ross Geary, Ed Farnsworth and Margaretha van Gennip, who apparently could not even be bothered to vote for themselves, receiving 0 personal votes.
Also, the election did one good thing; Labor took the platform fee off Mascot and Green Square in Keneally's electorate, cutting 10 minutes off my morning commute.
Hanson's out.
She was ahead of the Greens and Nationals for the last two Legislative Council seats (100 000 people voted for her), but when they pushed the button, preferences put the Greens into the 20th seat and the Nationals into 21st. Added bonus: an actual rural Green, a guy from Orange, got in.
End result was 11 coalition, 5 Labor, 3 Greens, 1 Shooters Party, 1 Christian Democrats. The CDP guy is the mayor of my former home town. God I hate that place.
Over all, that puts the 42 member Legislative Council at 19 Coalition, Labor 14, Greens 5, Shooters 2 and Fred Nile 2.
For what it's worth that means should O'Farrell decide, perhaps in a fit of madness, to do something progressive, he has a majority with Greens support alone.
But for the next four years we have a right wing controlled upper house, and instead of the Shooters and Christian Democrats bills getting killed in committee, they'll get "conscience votes" from the Coalition. A bad time to get accidentally pregnant in NSW.
Also, on Greens note, in our "failed" campaign we got our first Lower House seat, defeating a sitting member (and minister) for the first time, as well as a 5th Upper House seat and an increased state-wide vote.
She was ahead of the Greens and Nationals for the last two Legislative Council seats (100 000 people voted for her), but when they pushed the button, preferences put the Greens into the 20th seat and the Nationals into 21st. Added bonus: an actual rural Green, a guy from Orange, got in.
End result was 11 coalition, 5 Labor, 3 Greens, 1 Shooters Party, 1 Christian Democrats. The CDP guy is the mayor of my former home town. God I hate that place.
Over all, that puts the 42 member Legislative Council at 19 Coalition, Labor 14, Greens 5, Shooters 2 and Fred Nile 2.
For what it's worth that means should O'Farrell decide, perhaps in a fit of madness, to do something progressive, he has a majority with Greens support alone.
But for the next four years we have a right wing controlled upper house, and instead of the Shooters and Christian Democrats bills getting killed in committee, they'll get "conscience votes" from the Coalition. A bad time to get accidentally pregnant in NSW.
Also, on Greens note, in our "failed" campaign we got our first Lower House seat, defeating a sitting member (and minister) for the first time, as well as a 5th Upper House seat and an increased state-wide vote.
