Disingenuousness resurfaces

The barrenness of the Coalition commentary on economic issues has again been on display since the RBA lifted interest rates by 25 basis points to 3.25% yesterday.  Joe Hockey was first cab off the rank with his bold assertion that the rise was the result of the Government’s reckless stimulus spending and that this was just the first instalment of many rises that will place a heavy strain on families with a house mortgage and on small businesses with loans.  He asserted “...it is clear the Government's continued spending is pushing up rates”. [more]

On the 7.30 Report last night, asked by Kerry O'Brien about the interest rate rise, Malcolm Turnbull echoed Hockey’s words "...well certainly it bears out the criticism we made at the beginning of the year that the Government's fiscal stimulus, its borrowing and spending, was too big and poorly targeted and that it would inevitably result in interest rates being higher than they otherwise would be...I don't think there's any doubt that the criticisms...have been borne out by the rise in rates today. Because there's the Reserve Bank saying it's got to withdraw the monetary stimulus, it's got to start tightening monetary policy, and of course the problem is that the Government is still expanding fiscal policy. So what the Government's doing is working against the Reserve Bank.”

So the Coalition argument is that the stimulus package has overheated the economy and forced the RBA to cool it with a rate rise.  This same stimulus package is the one the Coalition insisted would not create one job, or be of any value.  Even when the economy began to recover, which was widely attributed, among other things, to the stimulus, Hockey, Turnbull and Coalition members steadfastly refused to acknowledge its benefit.  Recovery was due to the Howard legacy, the great state of the banks and their regulation, the interest rate cuts, the recovery in China’s economy, anything but the stimulus.  But today Helen Coonan, in an unusual fit of candour, said the stimulus had done its job and now needed to be withdrawn. 

So what is the Coalition’s position?  Did the stimulus do any good at all?  Did it just overheat the economy without doing any good?  Did it just rack up deficit and debt while doing nothing for the economy and jobs?  Did it do just enough to force the RBA into raising rates?  Or did it actually save Australia from recession?  And was the rate rise a consequence of Australia's economy recovering as Wayne Swan insists?  The Coalition certainly contends it was not either of the latter.  As is usual it is confused about its position; it has not managed to harmonize its song.

It’s hard to see how monetary policy and fiscal policy are now working against each other as Turnbull insists.  Although the stimulus of monetary policy has been wound back a little with the interest rate cut, it is still at an emergency level, and the fiscal stimulus is still in place, as are the wind-back plans.  The two are still working in harmony.

If there was any need to argue the value of the stimulus, perhaps what Glenn Stevens said at the Senate enquiry is germane.  He credited the Government's stimulus effort for keeping the country out of recession, but made it clear he was uncomfortable with the current low level of interest rates, and in fact suggested that interest rates that were too low were not good for the country.  Asked was the billions of stimulus dollars an overreaction by a nervous Prime Minister, Stevens’ answer was no, adding “I haven't really had a serious problem with what's occurred on the fiscal front thus far.”

Kerry O’Brien confronted Turnbull with Stevens’ comments. “He's comfortable with the Government's stimulus spending, he's comfortable with Mr Rudd's timetable to repay Government debt and he has said quite clearly that interest rates are at unnatural lows in order to deal with the Australian response to the global crisis and were always going to go back up.  Is there anything in his statement today where he says, ‘We are putting rates up because the Government has spent and will continue to spend too much’?”

Turnbull responded with his well-worn mantra: “They panicked about the global financial crisis.  They said they thought they were on the edge of an abyss. They spent far too much money in a very poorly targeted way, instead of being more judicious. As a result, the economy - they've spent more than they needed to, the economy is much stronger than they expected and the Reserve Bank is having to crank up interest rates while the Government is still spending money hand over fist.”

So despite Stevens’ testimony, Turnbull still insists that the stimulus is putting upward pressure on interest rates.  Facts and expert opinion are irrelevant.  The only one Turnbull quoted to support his argument was the opinion of Warwick McKibbin who has never been a supporter of the stimulus. 

Turnbull is isolated in his opinion with few able to even partly support his assertions.  It is doing nothing for his economic credibility.  The latest Newspoll points to the confidence those polled have in the Government’s actions and in Rudd and Turnbull.  Asked ‘Do you think the amount of money spent on the federal government’s economic stimulus package has been too much, too little, or about right’, 52% said about right, 4% too little and 37% too much – only a little over one third thought the Government had overdone the stimulus, and even 26% of Coalition supporters felt the stimulus was about right.  48% said the stimulus had made them better off, 27% saw no difference, and only 17% felt worse off.  On the question of national debt, 53% expressed concern and 43% no concern, a majority for the former, but hardly a ringing endorsement for the debt and deficit mantra.  Most worrisome for Turnbull though were the answers to the question, ‘Which of Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull do you think is more capable of managing Australia’s economy.’  58% said Rudd, 25% Turnbull.   Even 25% of Coalition supporters rated Rudd as more capable.

So the people support the Government’s actions on the GFC and more than twice the people polled regard Rudd more capable of managing the economy than Turnbull.  And this is despite the debt and deficit mantra and the negative talk about the stimulus that the Opposition has been peddling for months.  Clearly the public is unimpressed.

In the face of this expression of public opinion and the opinion of most financial experts, why do Turnbull and his finance ministers still stick with the disingenuous mantra that the Rudd Government has badly mismanaged the GFC and the stimulus is forcing up interest rates?  Surely this strategy will further diminish the economic credibility of Turnbull and Hockey and indeed the Coalition as a whole.  It has spectacularly surrendered economic credibility to the Government and persistence with its current strategy can only diminish it further.

Talking about the interest rate rise, Wayne Swan said "Australians are smart enough to know interest rates can't stay at emergency levels forever."  One could add: 'Australians are clearly smart enough to know that the Government is managing the economy well'.

The tangled mess over the ETS that has now entrapped the Coalition and the leadership uncertainty that has resulted is enough to manage right now.  Surely it would be prudent for it to try to reduce the economic credibility deficit it suffers and take the sting out of the economic debate by acknowledging ever so gently the value of the stimulus and the reasonableness of raising interest rates from the current emergency levels, and desist from its unconvincing mantras that clearly are having no influence on any other than its rusted-on supporters.

Disingenuousness always backfires eventually. ‘Debt and deficit’ and ‘the stimulus was useless and is pushing up interest rates’, so lacking credibility with the majority of people, have already backfired.  The new outbreak of disingenuousness will only make matters worse.  Only a fool bent on self-destruction would continue down that track.

What do you think?

 

Rate This Post

Current rating: NaN / 5 | Rated 0 times

bilko

8/10/2009Denial is the order of the day and has been since 24 Nov 2007, people will welcome us back with open arms, with the mad Monk in the hot seat and only god knows who will be deputy dawg. I keep seeing comments that the media is pro labor from blogs responding to ltd news entries. Which seems to confirm the other reality most of the Libs are floundering in. One concern is that the libs negative stimulus responses may gain traction so the govn must keep pushing the IMF etc positive comments more aggressively. and please Kevin do NOT offer Le smirk anything.

Ad astra reply

8/10/2009Bilko For the ultimate in denial, did you hear Tony Abbott's analysis of the Coalition's current problems: "It was not Brendan Nelson, it's not Malcolm Turnbull, it's not us, it's the cycle." So there you have it!

Bilko

8/10/2009AA- yes I have just read it my flabber is gasted and I was about to comment here any thoughts re Costello's future

Ad astra reply

8/10/2009Bilko I'll think about Costello. After the Coalition press conference this morning where Hockey seemed to hitch his star to Turnbull, watch Abbott as a Turnbull successor. He's been playing his cards very astutely. He's older and therefore has less time to achieve his leadership ambitions, so might go now.

mick smetafor

8/10/2009amazing isn't it,here we are speculating about leadership once again and there is not even a vacancy.they certainly don't want a nerd as leader because allthough malcolm has a mega brain,so we are told,and is not a nerd,the chaps at the oo would write snide things.he or she would also need to be knowable unlike the enigmatic incumbent and also be decisive not a dithering spin merchant and be a plain speaker,someone who would't know a programatic specifity if it bit him on the backside.i guess that only leaves sam newman and he is not even in the pariament.what to do... sigh.

ozymandias

8/10/2009Denial is the opposition's only remaining strategy. Doesn't matter what the IMF or the World Bank say about Australia's economy, doesn't matter that world markets leap joyfully at the news that our interest rates are on the rise, doesn't matter that unemployment has fallen, meaning the govt's "debt and deficit" will not approach the $300m mark... The only thing that seems to matter to the opposition is that they remain in the news cycle, commenting negatively on everything, trying to resurrect discredited fears about Labor "mismanagement". The Coalition is Undead, full of zombies.

mick smetafor

8/10/2009correction to above.i meant incumbent pm.

Lyn 1

8/10/2009Hi Ad, Hockey, Turnbull and Coonan (all with fake grins) at their Press conference this morning, made complete and utter fools of themselves. All three were waving around a blue book, not one journalist asked about their blue book policy, which I believe only says the same as they have been going on about most of the year. Hockey heaping artificial praise on Turnbull and Turnbull nodding, it reminded me of somebody clapping for themselves. Turnbull with his higher than a mountain IQ (so we are told) must surely see, what they are saying has not been working.

Lyn 1

8/10/2009Hi Ad You really need to read this link: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2009/10/08/the-adventures-of-buster-turnbull/

Ad astra reply

8/10/2009Folks, sorry for the delay in responding – have been in transit. mick smetafor Isn’t it is ludicrous that there is all this leadership talk, but nobody is putting their hand. It does show that Turnbull’s leadership is so suspect and tenuous that his party is talking about it ahead of finding an alternative. I wonder what would now be happening if Turnbull had won the first contest with Nelson. Would Nelson be now advanced as the alternative to Turnbull? ozymandias What I find astonishing and irritating is that no matter what the facts are, no matter what expert opinion supports the Government’s actions over the GFC, the Coalition just monotonously chant their tired mantras hoping, indeed expecting that the people will eventually believe them. I guess it’s all they’ve got, but if they took a look at the polls they would see the public are not much listening and if any are they’re not believing. Lyn 1 That press conference reminded me of that famous one before the 2007 election where John Howard and Peter Costello sat on a couch on commercial TV having a ‘love in’ saying how their partnership was like a marriage, how close they were, and what a team they were. Everyone saw it as a feeble attempt to paper over divisions. It was laughable and just about everyone laughed. Today was a repeat. The policy announcement was just a silly excuse to hold a press conference to say how close and loyal they all were. Pathetic. Thanks for the link. Good analogy - lovely video – brings back long distant memories. The see-saw scene was particularly apt, and the ending one Buster Malcolm should contemplate.

Michael Cusack

8/10/2009The Libs remind me of that scene where all the macho men are gathered on the bank of a raging torrent watching some women and children getting washed away whilst the men loudly proclaim their intentions to do their duty, go "one, two, three, go!! and look to see if anybody jumped in. Nobody moves. The level of trust within the party could only be measured in negatives, but the bluster is very loud.

Ad astra reply

9/10/2009Michael The 'let's see what the others are doing first' approach to their internal problems serve only to worsen them and allows Turnbull to continue as leader despite his unsuitability. Alarmingly it also characterizes the Coalition’s approach to the ETS. Although it’s a superficially plausible position, it abrogates the responsibility the highest per capita polluting nation in the world has to lead, to set an example. Although in absolute terms Australia contributes 1.4% of the total global pollution, an argument used for doing nothing or delaying action, if we sit back, how can we expect others to take the lead? We have led the world in economic recovery, we made an impressive contribution to the G20 meeting, why on earth can we not take a leading role in global climate change negotiations? The reason the Coalition opposes the CPRS is to more lavishly protect its buddies in the coal and related industries, and the farmers, from where much of its sponsorship and votes came in the past. Too bad about the planet!
How many umbrellas are there if I start with two and take 2 away?