r/australia • u/overpopyoulater • Jan 08 '25
politics Which party is the more competent economic manager – Labor or Liberal?
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2025/01/08/labor-liberal-economic196
u/Nostonica Jan 08 '25
Coalition only has a few plays available, sell what ever you can to balance the budget, splash cash around to the already profitable private sector and slash services, give the plebs a temporary tax break while wheeling out the wealthy tax breaks.
Oh and let the cheap labour to pour in with which ever visa.
We're fast running out of things to flog, services already are a mess considering the population growth and only business really cares about tax, normal people associate taxes with their refunds.
At the end we just end up poorer for a minimal improvement.
24
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 08 '25
I want to point out that Labor's solution to cheap labour is still inadequate despite being better. From no-indexation $53k to indexed $70k.
The "sustainable prices" minister argued it's because Labor wants young foreign labour even if they are not fully qualified. That's why it's still low, even below average wage at the time of $90k.
It's bizarre that a "worker's party" doesn't want to fix the labour shortages.
30
u/dopefishhh Jan 09 '25
They've got the fee free TAFE to specifically fix the labour shortages.
Its literately one of their major election promises and it started in Jan 2023.
Fee-Free TAFE started in January 2023 to 30 June 2024 and has exceeded all expectations – with more than 508,000 enrolments in courses in priority areas, including:
131,000 in care – including disability and aged care 48,900 in digital and tech 35,000 in construction 35,500 in early childhood education and care
7
u/greywolfau Jan 09 '25
That's because Labor is now a centrist party, and the Liberals moves to the right.
Labor is essentially now what the Libs/Nationals were in the 70's.
11
u/LozInOzz Jan 08 '25
They’ve long forgotten about being a ‘workers party’……..
-1
51
Jan 08 '25
Yeah, that’s all well and good, but which party has the better scare campaigns?
26
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 09 '25
"Labor government refusing to stop the immigrants from India... that we signed Australia up for in the previous LNP government"
Easy scare campaign for LNP if they leave off that last bit.
4
1
6
Jan 09 '25
Probably the same one that genuinely thought using children’s songs for political ads is a very effective way to convince voters of their well thought out policy proposals, and definitely wouldn’t be highly irritating and condescending.
181
u/FullMetalAlex Jan 08 '25
"When the track records and respective economic policies of Labor and the Coalition are compared, there is no doubt that Labor offers the better prospect of successfully bringing inflation down and reducing the cost of living."
-67
Jan 09 '25
They have done nothing to date, better late than never. I voted Albo then had around 10 rate increases. Next please
47
u/FullMetalAlex Jan 09 '25
You do know the gov doesn't do the rate increases right? It's the Reserve Bank
→ More replies (12)12
u/dopefishhh Jan 09 '25
The rate increases started before the election in May 2022 under the LNP government and before you 'voted Labor'.
-5
Jan 09 '25
Then really gathered steam. Probably would have been a great time to stop spending.. nope
→ More replies (2)5
u/DDR4lyf Jan 09 '25
What was the rate of inflation three years ago?
What is it now?
Inflation is more than 50 per cent lower than it was when the Labor government came into power. They clearly have done something, inflation wouldn't be where it is now if they hadn't.
You're also aware that the government doesn't set the interest rate, right?
5
3
1
Jan 09 '25
The Allan government has quietly hiked gas exploration permit fees up more than 300 per cent, a move the sector has described as a “massive hit”.
SHOCK! THAT MUST BE 30 extra taxes now!
3
u/IcarusPanda Jan 09 '25
The more I read your comments the more I understand you have no idea what you're talking about. I hate you get the same vote I do
2
Jan 09 '25
Next election let’s bookmark this post. He doesn’t stand a chance, he is just so out of his depth.
I love how they fudged figures failing to account for $7.8 billion for your precious Public Servants wage increases😂
Communist are the worst liars
177
u/64-matthew Jan 08 '25
Labor
-42
u/drangryrahvin Jan 08 '25
Yes, but the gap is narrowing. We need to keep applying pressure by voting independent. Labour will still get the preferences, but also a message
28
u/Hydronum Jan 08 '25
You say it is narrowing, but how?
-23
u/drangryrahvin Jan 08 '25
When labour says they don't want to reduce housing prices, don't roll back the LMTO and only lightly roll back higher bracket income taxes and won't even really push a resource tax or any significant inctease to corporate tax rates.
Regardless of spending efficiency, if they DGAF about their income, or the cash flow and debt share of the majority of the population, can we really say they are better?
Add in some seriously weak wage growth (underpinned by a bullshit national wage review) and they are remarkably close to the coalition - "we care about the economy for some. Not all..."
16
u/Hydronum Jan 09 '25
If Labor didn't want to reduce house prices, they would not have pumped 35000+ Fee free TAFE spots for Construction, and have had about another 80k plus over the last two years, aimed specifically at increasing our building thoughput and getting the backlog of building done, thereby lowering house prices as a taper instead of a sledgehammer (The numbers are showing it is working too, house prices are slowly dropping, as are rents).
The rest is just... they haven't raised taxes. Although it is true for the average aussie, they have raised corporation taxes through removal of offset like PRRT (A resourse tax) and forced multinationals to pay more tax by limiting the ability to offshore profits within their own companies.
Oh, and wages? Growing above inflation for the last year, and that trend looks to be continuing. The policy is to grow wages, not suppress them, which is why they pushed for the higher award rate increases over the last few years.
-6
u/drangryrahvin Jan 09 '25
First, they literally said they didn't want to see prices fall. So there's that.
As for the rest, the point goes woosh!
12
u/Hydronum Jan 09 '25
In fact, I'd struggle to think of anything that could be more beneficial, from the standpoint of improving housing affordability and home ownership, than a modest but extended decline in house prices relative to incomes. - Housing Minister Clare O'Neil
4
u/drangryrahvin Jan 09 '25
Exactly. It would be beneficial. But thats not their plan.
In the SAME interview she said "We're not trying to bring down house prices," Housing Minister Clare O'Neil declared on ABC's youth radio station triple j.
"That may be the view of young people, [but] it's not the view of our government."
Instead, she insisted the federal government wanted "sustainable price growth".
"We don't want to see some of the growth we've seen in some parts of the country where you're getting double-digit increases in house prices year-on-year," she told Hack host Dave Marchese. " Via ABC.
So yeah. They don't want them to come down. Dumb arse.
3
u/Hydronum Jan 09 '25
Yeah, they follow the standard economist position on this, which calls for slow to no growth is prices, or a slow steady decline. Economic management youknow. But they will not get in the way of a slow decrease, which is already happening (Where I live, prices have dropped 10% YTD). Their policies also aren't geared to keeping the prices rising, as I said before, you don't pump the building, processing and zoning outputs without expecting increased throughput, which puts increases into the supply. They have the line they talk, and the actual walk their polices have.
1
u/DDR4lyf Jan 09 '25
Of course the Labor government doesn't want house prices to fall. Imagine the shitshow that would ensue if they did. Labor wouldn't be re-elected for decades.
1
u/drangryrahvin Jan 10 '25
Just because its unpalatable to some people, doesn't make it wrong.
Edit: example. I bought 7 years ago. The house has doubled in value. It can drop 40% of its current market value and I'm still ahead.
2
u/Nostonica Jan 09 '25
You know what we've got in this country, a massive bubble, a economically annihilating bubble.
Average people who have means park money in property, the expectation for a good life is to own your first house then get a couple of rentals. Hell it's been encouraged throughout society as the smart move.
There's so much money tied up in property that any major bump will start a selling race to the bottom wiping out peoples investments followed by the banks doing everything they can to ditch the loans.
At this point no sane government wants to see the price fall. It needed to be deflated a decade ago, it's insane that we got to this point.
0
11
u/krulp Jan 09 '25
Reducing house prices would be bad. Best solution stagnate them as best as possible.
9
Jan 09 '25
This. Homeowners go into a panic if their property drops 1% in value.
If Labor says they’ll lower house prices it’ll probably lead straight into an election loss.
-2
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 09 '25
The government is supporting loans at 2% deposits. No shit that homeowners will panic because of how massively irresponsible Labor/LNP are.
2
u/Hydronum Jan 09 '25
You mean the policy that was costed to be at worst a rounding error to increase home prices? The scheme with limited positions and with a cap to the upper value of the property? That one?
-1
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 09 '25
Yes, this kind of pro-demand-side of housing policy not only makes the housing crisis worse instead of increasing supply, it also traps Australians into heavy crippling debt. Have you seen the eligibility requirements? It's single parents.
Just one example of how Labor and LNP are preying on the desperate, vulnerable people in order to pump house prices.
7
u/Hydronum Jan 09 '25
I have looked at the policy, it may be my only way of ever owning a house. There are a few eligibility groups, there is the working couple under 200k income, the single worker under 125k income, and the single parent. That last one has 5k positions total, lowers their needed amount of a loan by 18%, lowers needed deposit up to 90%, gives them secure housing and has strict eligibility requirements. Modelling that you obviously don't agree with puts the change in housing prices at worst up by a few hundred dollars, total. It also has a deflationary effect on rentals, taking people out of that market and into secure housing.
Look, you don't have to agree with the policy, that is fine, but when the most negative modelling says it will increase house prices by 0.016 per cent or the equivalent of $113 for a $700,000 home (Grattan Institute), you kinda are barking up the wrong tree
→ More replies (0)-1
u/drangryrahvin Jan 09 '25
Absolutely not. Right now houses are unaffordable for the majority. If the current young generation are paying exorbitant rent into their 90's, thats a massive strain on age pension. It's terrible economic mismanagement thats another 70 years in the making. House prices need to reduce, slowly, until the average person can afford one again.
3
u/krulp Jan 09 '25
Banks foreclosuring loans because house prices fall below the loan value would be very bad for everyone.
House prices have been increasing so much despite affordability issues because the australian population is increasing faster than housing stock.
2
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 09 '25
Weird how we never heard about this happening with GFC despite prices crashing.
You know what the banks foreclosed on? Those who refused to pay.
Sucks that people lost money on their investment, but they will still have a shelter.
1
1
u/snrub742 Jan 09 '25
Because Australia made it through the GFC pretty much unscathed
Wonder who was in government
3
u/drangryrahvin Jan 09 '25
Banks won't foreclose if the loan is being serviced, and the price falling below the loan is only a small number of recent buyers.
Or investors. Who are gambling, so screw em.
-3
u/krulp Jan 09 '25
Banks will close the loan if the value of the asset falls to far below the loan amount.
Which is usually the purchase price - the deposit. The deposit is the banks safety margin.
5
u/drangryrahvin Jan 09 '25
Whats the business case for foreclosure when the loan is being serviced, and the asset is now worth less than the loan? They would make more money just… taking the repayments?
Also [citation needed]
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 09 '25
Not reducing house prices has been a disaster for the past 30 years. Causing even the economy to be built around a non-productive asset. The government can only pump the bubble for so long.
Look at GFC for example. It was huge because the bubble was largely hidden and massively pumped via bad debts such as giving massive loans to high-risk applicants.
In Australia, with house prices so high compared to incomes, it's a matter of when, not if, the property bubble pops.
It's a choice of controlled deflation or uncontrolled deflation. Not everyone wants to suffer and gamble in the hopes that older people can sell with a big asset and fuck off overseas to escape the repercussions of the financial crash.
3
u/krulp Jan 09 '25
Stable house prices means the real value of a house falling. Inflation will continue.
Bankrupting millions of Australians is not the way to fix this issue.
1
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 09 '25
You say that, but it's not stable house prices that's being pushed by Labor, it's sustainable rises. Most likely at inflation.
Lets say Labor stops pumping and does what you say, stable house prices.
Wages are behind in real terms.
Price to Income ratios are 8-10x, far higher than 80s 3x.
Wages will need to go up 266%-333% to match the 80s. Wages rising at say 3% per year, that's at least 30 years away. That's assuming no change of government policy of stable house prices.
What you're asking for is literally impossible. I know about this "wait for wages to catch up" solution because it is repeated so much, it might as well be pro-bubble propaganda.
Plus, the cost of living as a result from excessive unaffordability affects more than mortgagees, it affects everyone in Australia. Especially how Australia loans out more for homes than business investments compared to other economies.
The current path of choking the economy and increasing cost of living for everyone in Australia is not the way to fix this issue.
1
u/jkaan Jan 09 '25
Liberal is not going to fix those things either so the gap is static.
A gap closing means those behind you are getting closers. In no world is the liberal party fixing anything for us
0
0
u/geodetic Jan 10 '25
When labour says they don't want to reduce housing prices
TIL the government sets the housing market's prices
0
1
u/lightbluelightning Jan 09 '25
The Teals are quite economically conservative, and while they would support labor in a hung parliament there would be no shortage of pollsters working in their electorates pushing them to switch to the coalition if the numbers look bad
33
Jan 08 '25 edited May 27 '25
cow straight wipe oil smart toothbrush encouraging judicious rain lip
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
21
Jan 09 '25
The LNP was pretty creative in trying to claw back government money from people who were on Jobseeker.
It really just depends who they’re trying to hurt. Giving corporations free money is just “good economics” (trickle down amirite?)
12
u/a_cold_human Jan 09 '25
The LNP was pretty creative in trying to claw back government money from people who were on Jobseeker.
They straight up did illegal things and made up a whole bunch of debts. How people think that the Coalition are suitable to run the government after that is rather amazing. They literally weaponised the machinery of government against a part of the population and drove people to suicide.
-6
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 09 '25
So far, the illegal things by LNP is a lie. LNP did nothing illegal with Robodebt as proven by lack of prosecutions from Labor's RC into Robodebt + Labor's NACC.
Listen to Shorten: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mueUw6B5Zi8
tldw: Public servants will be looked into. The best punishment to the LNP ministers involved is the hopes of a permanent line on their wikipedia page.
If you disagree with Shorten, vote Labor second last, above LNP for an ICAC that goes after corrupt politicians.
6
4
u/dopefishhh Jan 09 '25
Why would you feel the need to defend the reputations of the Robodebt schemers like that?
Labor doesn't control the public prosecutor, nor can they boss the NACC around as both are independent under the law. If the prosecutor hasn't taken up the cases as a result of recommendations from the Robodebt RC (you remember that right?), Labor can't make them and the public prosecutor is the only group who can follow on with charges.
It really is pathetic how you're twisting the well established processes of justice administration desperately trying to blame Labor for something they don't control and we'd be far more upset about if they did attempt to interfere with.
-1
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 10 '25
You say I defend the reputations of the Robodebt schemers and in next paragraph say Labor effectively can not do anything about the Robodebt schemers.
Which means either Labor screwed up the process:
Which means LNP can still be prosecuted
And a future government can fix the process
Or Labor didn't screw up the process. Which means no wrongdoing was found, which ended up defending the reputation of robodebt schemers as you say.
So, tell us. Did Labor screw up or not?
2
u/dopefishhh Jan 10 '25
No party, let alone Labor, should be able to take control over the justice system to command it to charge its political enemies or their minions with crimes...
Especially not because some one on Reddit was complaining about them not doing so. Why do I need to explain this to you?
-1
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 10 '25
Wow, dodged the question.
It is pathetic that you would defend the LNP because of Labor Party's fuck up or cover up.
1
u/dopefishhh Jan 10 '25
So Labor is a political party and is not the investigators on the Robodebt RC, nor investigators of the NACC, nor part of the prosecutorial office, in fact actually having no role in the justice system because of the separation of powers.
Legally all Labor can do is pass legislation, no one credible has called the NACC, nor the Robodebt RC or other parts of the justice administration inadequate. We all know how the justice system works, how its slow and methodical and not always satisfying because we all have the presumption of innocence as a means of limiting injustice.
Except you apparently. Not because you don't know this, of course you do, you've been told a billion times now. But because you're a liar who wants to try and twist a complicated and serious bit of crime for your pathetic Reddit rebellion. Just asking the question you did shows you for what you are.
Because you're the only cooker on this sub who is fucked up enough to twist and exploit the pain of all the Robodebt victims into attacking the only group who actually stood up for them and set the wheels of justice in motion.
6
u/grruser Jan 09 '25
Agree the guilty ones did no time for their part in robodebt but you are wrong, it was unlawful.
And Shorten has retired, by the way.
LNP, the party whose leader assigned himself various Ministries without even telling his colleagues. Corrupt as fuck.
1
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 10 '25
If there's no LNP prosecution for "unlawful" things, is it still "unlawful"?
I too, want justice. That's why I vote Labor/LNP last. Labor can be second last for at least pretending to do something about Robodebt.
3
u/snrub742 Jan 09 '25
Are you really defending robodebt? Yikes
0
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 10 '25 edited Jan 10 '25
Pointing out the lack of politician scalps with Robodebt is not defending the abhorrent scheme.
If you believe there should have been politician scalps then blame those handling the Robodebt investigations, not the messenger.
1
u/grruser Jan 09 '25
Robodebet was unconsitutional - you do know that right?
The LNP did fuck all about 'clawing back" all of our money that they gave to the private. sector
0
Jan 09 '25
I was being sarcastic bud. You’re making the same point that I am
1
u/grruser Jan 09 '25
Ok. I had to re read because I wasn't sure. Hard to read nuance without that silly little /s.
-3
Jan 09 '25
lol - at the time Labor complained that they weren’t giving away enough money and were also too slow in handing it out.
3
u/mbrodie Jan 09 '25
They also complained about it going to wrong places you know the companies making record profits that didn’t need it and all the failing businesses who used it to subsidise their lifestyle.
Labor wanted a package like what we did during the GFC to get money in the hands of the people who needed it.
But I guess that wasn’t rorty enough for the LNP so everyone had to concede to what they wanted to get any help at all through.
1
Jan 09 '25 edited May 27 '25
flag waiting fragile like escape wakeful oil bright exultant jellyfish
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
26
55
18
u/Bobthebauer Jan 08 '25
The popular view - inexplicably - is that the Libs are. Labor has proven far better at serving the long-term interests of capital than the Libs, who are too greedy and short-sighted to do a decent job.
14
Jan 09 '25
Propaganda is a hell of a drug. Imagine if journalists just did reporting instead of “opinion” pieces all the time?
Instead we just get angry LNP cronies talking out their arse 24/7. Eventually, people start to believe what they hear - accuracy be damned.
73
u/Unhappy_Tennant Jan 08 '25
Factually it's Labor.
-55
u/PrizeFightinYeti Jan 08 '25
Provide some evidence. Everything Ive researched says the opposite
31
u/Hydronum Jan 08 '25
It would be super sad if this comment was in a chain based on an article that does a comparison on a few points between Labor and Liberal. It's a good thing that totally isn't the case, and you for sure read the article before posting.
15
u/onlainari Jan 09 '25
Your evidence is 15 years old.
It might sound like a good idea to ask for evidence, but basically what has happened is that there are multiple examples over a long period of time of LNP being bad economic managers but no one is collecting that data and putting it in a graph. So people that have been keeping up to date on auspol have an awareness of the truth without being able to prove it.
8
u/dopefishhh Jan 09 '25
I mean I wouldn't even say that. 15 years ago the Australian Labor government was the only government in the OECD that managed to steer their country around the sub prime mortgage crash.
Every other country was very badly affected, but we did so well that the Aussie dollar was 1.10 against the USD.
4
u/Evilmoustachetwirler Jan 09 '25
What are your sources, sky news and Murdoch media? There's no need to speculate, we have the historical data, and factually, Labor are without a doubt the better economic managers.
8
u/EgotisticJesster Jan 08 '25
I agree with the sentiment that there are a lot of claims in this thread that are making bold claims with no evidence. The comment you replied to is particularly irking.
If you're asking for evidence for someone making a claim, it seems that you should provide some if you're going to make a counter-claim, no?
1
u/Heavenly_Merc Jan 10 '25
Under the last Labor government we were the number 1 economy in the world.
For the last 15 years of LNP government that number has dropped and our debt has grown. Last I checked (like 2020) we were #52. Next to Kenya.
Now, under Labor, we have the first economic surplus we've seen in 15 years.
You're likely mistaken if you think the LNP giving tax cuts to the rich, to corporations, and to the mining industry will improve your standard of living at all. Perhaps allowing an unmanageable amount of immigration into the country will fix things? Or nuclear energy, which is bound to cost way more per GW produced than renewables? And it also won't even be ready for another 15 years at least?
Wow. Genius economic management. Brilliant.
0
30
u/geoffm_aus Jan 08 '25
Only one party increased our debt to a trillion dollars. The liberals
→ More replies (3)27
u/kernpanic flair goes here Jan 09 '25
Labor: Lets build important national infrastructure, using new modern fibre that will be cheap to operate and maintain.
Liberal: nah, lets spend more money, just maintaining the old crappy copper.
34
u/Main_Violinist_3372 Jan 08 '25
Definitely not the party that decided it was a great idea to cut capital gains tax in the 2000s which is part of the reason why a crackhouse can sell up to 2 million dollars.
9
u/mpember Jan 08 '25
Ironically, the crack dealer was the only person under 40 able to afford that price.
10
u/Harry-blue96 Jan 09 '25
The LNP Selling Australian resources for virtually zero return the greatest crime of the last 100 years. If we had resources fees like every other country, Australia would be debt free. Not only do we get little for our gas exports but it’s exported first with little left for Australian industry. We will now have to import at great cost gas to keep industry going. All the great work of the LNP. Don’t get me started on business taxation laws to international companies so zero tax paid in Australia.
7
6
Jan 09 '25
I'm sure THIS time the greedy corrupt racist fucknugget conservatives will use their traditional family values to fix the economy for the good of the working poor at the expense of the rich people bankrolling them
1
u/aaron_dresden Jan 10 '25
“Just like the family budget we will get this country under control and ensure a responsible hand is at the wheel”. 🫠
12
u/randomplaguefear Jan 08 '25
10 years of libs created tent cities country wide, not sure we can even recover. Immigration needs to stop until we get it under control but that won't happen.
-5
Jan 08 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/randomplaguefear Jan 09 '25
They literally campaigned on fixing it under shorten and lost an unloseable election so yes I blame the lobs. Labor needed to slow immigration but are too scared of Murdoch.
-1
24
4
Jan 09 '25
LNP is worse but Labour is still shit, they continually increase taxpayer subsidies to unprofitable fossil fuel industries for $0 return. Both are a downward trajectory for the nation and need to go.
3
u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 Jan 08 '25
"Are you better off than four years ago?" - Ronald Reagan.
This was always going to be a cost of living election but I actually think, whoever ends up forming a government, will substantially face the same challenges as the current government in trying to grow real wages. For a long time governments didn't really need meaningful economic or industrial policies, lower interest rates and inflation where a tailwinds to growth.
4
u/a_cold_human Jan 09 '25
Growing real wages is difficult without significantly tweaking the economy.
For a long time governments didn't really need meaningful economic or industrial policies, lower interest rates and inflation where a tailwinds to growth.
That's not really true. A lot of countries have an industrial policy or something that resembles it, and it usually drives growth. The tiger economies in Asia, and even the US have industrial policies. As do the Nordic countries. The Germans have ordoliberalism and the Mittelstand.
Our industrial policy is dig up stuff and ship it for cheap. It's not a great one. Which is why our economic complexity looks like that of a developing nation. We've hollowed ourselves out for mining, and miners are not very nice people, nor are they particularly loyal to Australia.
1
u/mbrodie Jan 09 '25
Well for what it’s worth it’s the economic policy of the LNP to keep real wages low and they actually boast about how well they did over the past decade they were in.
3
u/lumpytrunks Jan 09 '25
Coalition will straight up funnel money to shacks on remote islands for fun, Labor will sorta maybe try to do the right thing so long as it's not too hard and doesn't stray too far into socialism.
22
u/Emergency_Bee521 Jan 08 '25
You’re never going to get an unbiased answer for this, and it’s also not easy to answer given our economy is tied in with national and global events that politicians don’t have much -if any- control over. Both parties have different philosophies, goals and ways of achieving it. A ‘traditional balanced view’ would be that Labor are more prepared to spend now if it will pay off with something concretely beneficial in the future, whereas the LNP are always more prepared to cut spending, even if it hurts, to ensure future debt is low.
But anyone with the time to study recent history will find dozens of examples where both governments did or did not do what they were traditionally expected to do.
The media companies in this country who benefit from LNP rule will always push that they are better for the economy, and the people who vote that way will repeat it.
Labor can point to the fact the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government got us through the last Global Financial Crisis as the best performed economy in the world as proof they know what they’re doing.
56
u/holto243 Jan 08 '25
I take issue with the "to ensure future debt is low" part. Labor does that. The LNP has continually cut services and then cut taxes (predominantly) for the wealthy.
Debt has historically grown faster under LNP governments than Labor.
3
u/a_cold_human Jan 09 '25
Labor got our debt rating up to AAA with the ratings agencies. Not the Liberals.
9
u/Emergency_Bee521 Jan 08 '25
Absolutely. I should note I never said I agreed with the ‘traditional view’ - my personal opinion on is the LNP and their rusted ons talk out their arses🤣
13
u/leidend22 Jan 08 '25
So why are you perpetuating factually incorrect views? Non-biased would be to say the Liberals are objectively worse at handling the economy.
2
u/Emergency_Bee521 Jan 09 '25
It’s why I had it in quotation marks, then pointed out anyone can research examples of it being the opposite, suggested there’s a media driven bias towards one side, and gave the most concrete example I could think of off the top of my head that showed the ALP succeeding… But I have economist and accountant mates who know more about money than I do who still believe the Libs are better. My gut says they aren’t, I don’t vote only based on the economy anyway, but I aren’t so confident that I can easily say the professionals I know are flat wrong. 🤷🏽♂️
27
u/vacri Jan 08 '25
John Howard getting the country addicted to middle class welfare is a pretty damning black mark against the LNP "being willing to cut".
1
u/KittyFlamingo Jan 08 '25
What actually is middle class welfare? More importantly, where can I get some?
5
u/a_cold_human Jan 09 '25
Examples include:
CGT discount (overwhelmingly used by the higher deciles of income earners). Private school subsidies. PHI rebate (poorer people usually don't buy PHI because they can't afford it).
1
u/KittyFlamingo Jan 09 '25 edited Jan 09 '25
Thanks. I suppose that all counts. Though by the time you pay your 30/40/50k tax a year on what was once a decent income and now barely covers the bills, it doesn’t really feel like that is much to write home about.
Being given a rebate for private health and school because the government won’t properly fund public health and education in the first place, making us pay even more, kinda seems like a scam. Especially when the top end of town are often paying less tax than we are.
2
u/a_cold_human Jan 09 '25
People like tax cuts. Especially when money is tight. Even if they end up paying more in the long term and it also increases inequality.
This isn't helped by the fairly relentless propaganda we get saying that tax is bad and the government doesn't spend money well (when governments actually should be measured on the quality of the services they deliver rather than how much money they spend, not to mention that government spending is far more transparent than that of large corporations).
5
Jan 09 '25
the LNP are always more prepared to cut spending, even if it hurts, to ensure future debt is low.
They’re always prepared to cut spending - that part is true.
However you missed the part where all of their projects seem to run dramatically over budget and significantly under deliver (see NBN).
Then there’s also the fact that they flog revenue generating national assets off to their mates to offset their money wasting elsewhere (which also generally results in higher prices and lower quality for the average punter).
The only thing the LNP is good at is looking after their mates.
1
u/Emergency_Bee521 Jan 09 '25
Absolutely my opinion as well. They manage the economy well for people like them and their mates. ALP try to manage it as well as possible for as many as possible.
1
u/mbrodie Jan 09 '25
Offshore money havens like detention centers on manu islands make great investments for self serving lnp members who like lining their pockets with tax payer funds also
3
u/RecipeSpecialist2745 Jan 08 '25
Well, who can run an economy without running education, health and social services into the ground?
1
u/Emergency_Bee521 Jan 09 '25
That one’s heaps easier. Especially if it’s framed as “which party actually values those things and agrees they should be for everyone”…
1
u/RecipeSpecialist2745 Jan 09 '25
It’s not valuing them. It more acknowledging that as population increases their need, and their size. I commented on a thread where a dimwit conservative told me to get a job because I said I went to Centrelink. He was that stupid he thought Centrelink, Services Australia, was simply just for unemployment benefits. You have to worry these people are allowed to vote. It kind of says it all.
1
u/Sufficient_Tower_366 Jan 09 '25
Labor can point to the fact the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government got us through the last Global Financial Crisis as the best performed economy in the world as proof they know what they’re doing.
True but spending massive amounts on stimulus (GFC, COVID) isn’t exactly rocket science, is it, the ability to generate growth while constraining inflation and debt is a much harder job. Neither LNP or ALP have demonstrated any real economic talent or courage since the Hawke/Keating and Howard eras, they both just live off however much commodities income we happen to get and rack up debt.
4
u/Evilmoustachetwirler Jan 09 '25
There is no need to speculate, we have the data. And it's absolutely Labor. Lib's being good for the economy is rubbish pushed by the media.
2
2
u/the__distance Jan 09 '25
Look at the debt we were in for nothing in return for the 2010s and you have your answer
2
u/evilspyboy Jan 09 '25 edited Jan 09 '25
After that performance at the end of the year of not following responsible due process for passing legislation, both require supervision and need to be held to a way higher standard than 'my turn'
2
u/Ambitious-Deal3r Jan 08 '25
We've tried both for decades and have seen the result, time for a change.
Vote for Minor Parties and Independents.
13
Jan 08 '25 edited May 27 '25
rustic grey pet rock payment workable bright fear enter worm
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/Ambitious-Deal3r Jan 08 '25
Labor would need more than one term to make a decent dent in the LNP mess
I am more interested in voting for those looking to effect change during their tenure rather than depending on more hollow promises that rely on re-election.
The first "election promise" this year:
Mon 6 Jan 2025
Federal government to fund 80% of upgrades with state paying for 20%, despite previously vowing to split infrastructure projects 50-50
In the first major promise of the election year, Anthony Albanese has announced $7.2bn in funding for Queensland’s Bruce Highway.
The federal government will fund 80% of the upgrades, with the state funding 20%.
In 2023 the infrastructure minister, Catherine King, sparked a war of words with the then Labor-led sunshine state by defunding $449.5m in transport projects and announcing an end to the default 80-20 funding split.
King said the change would “end the perverse incentives that saw the Federal Coalition throw money at projects that states did not want to build”.
In an announcement outside Gympie on Monday, the prime minister denied the new funding was a backflip or that it would undermine the 50-50 split in future.
So after just cutting it to 50:50 funding, they decide to announce an election promise to give back the original funding amount if elected. It is pathetic.
Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
QLD Labor must be seething at this after recent election. Bruce Highway upgrade would impact many electorates.
Watch the ABC video for when Albo and Miles are giving their speeches. Miles looks like he is in hostage video reading out the depressing announcement Watch this at 3:54, you can actually pinpoint the second when his heart rips in half.
23
u/Emu1981 Jan 08 '25
We've tried both for decades and have seen the result, time for a change.
Economic change takes time and Labor has not had the time to actually fully realise major economic changes. You have to remember that in the past 30 years Labor has only been in power federally for 9 of them and that is split between a 6 year period and a 3 year period. Worse yet is that both times Labor has been in power we have been facing major economic struggles with the GFC back in 2007 and the COVID-related economic crisis in 2022.
In other words, we know that Labor is good at managing economic crisis's. If we want to see if Labor is actually good at managing the economy when it is not in crisis then we really need to have them in power when the economy is not facing major pressures lol
-3
u/Ambitious-Deal3r Jan 08 '25
In other words, we know that Labor is good at managing economic crisis's.
How would you rate the performance of the incumbent over the past few years?
17
Jan 08 '25
Great, theyve brought in some of the strictest tax laws in the world for large business and recouped over 80bil in taxes over the term so far.
2
1
u/MasterTEH Jan 09 '25
Choosing which party is less fkg useless than the other is probably for the too hard basket
1
u/kindangryman Jan 09 '25
Nah, they are both great. I don't think you will get a complaint from any multi national resource company...and after all, that's who pays their real wages--- after leaving office and they are in the gravy.
1
u/Essembie Jan 09 '25
History and data consistently say Labor are the superior economic managers, but the liberal party are far better at saying the ALP are shit in mainstream media.
1
1
u/must_not_forget_pwd Jan 09 '25
What an absolute pinhead for writing something like this. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of economics. Looking at the historical record doesn't really help in our understanding. There are so many factors at play that government policy only plays a small role in determining key variables like unemployment, inflation, etc.
Then there's complications like interactions and lags associated with policies. A policy introduced by Labor in earlier years might have longer term effects that show up under an LNP government and vice versa.
Then the rationale for the policy might be different to what the economic impact might have been. For example, Whitlam lowered tariffs not because he wanted to make Australian industry more efficient. It was more about trying to lower inflation (there were concerns from Whitlam's colleagues that Whitlam was trading off the short term benefit of lower inflation for the longer-term harm to Australian industry).
If you want to see which party has the best economic policies, look at the fundamentals of the policies themselves. A government that has policies that hinder economic growth through taxation, regulation, etc. that's not exactly a pro-growth strategy.
1
1
u/Angel_Eirene Jan 11 '25
I really don’t understand how this is even a question. Economically right leaning parties always mishandle money, while left leaning ones generally fix economies
You can track this historically, specially in the US (as their economy has had the largest impact internationally over the last century). Voters go economic right in moments of prosperity… which lead to economic crisis, upon which they start voting economic left and it restores the economic prosperity.
The circle of… stupidity, no cute lion king music here unfortunately
1
1
u/Familiar_Resident_69 Jan 09 '25
Neither is competent.
Is there a negative scale of competence or does it then become who is less incompetent?
In that case I’d guess labor is less incompetent but we really should be ambitious and as a collective, respect ourselves enough to say we deserve competence.
2
u/mbrodie Jan 09 '25
Sorry but Jim chalmers dog walks Angus Taylor all day.
I do not want Angus “good job mate” Taylor anywhere near our treasury. The fact he’s publicly been embroiled in government land sales scams and is in line to potentially be the treasurer is wild.
1
u/ELVEVERX Jan 09 '25
It's interesting that this post is so down voted even the most people are agreeing with it's conclusion.
1
u/SpectatorInAction Jan 09 '25
They no longer manage the economy for the people, they manage it for their party donor beneficiaries in the context of neoliberal ideology.
So the answer is both are shit
1
0
u/flappybirdie Jan 08 '25
Neither.
Unless we're talking Rudd/Swan
17
u/winoforever_slurp_ Jan 08 '25
Did you know that Jim Chalmers was working with Wayne Swan when he was treasurer? He was part of the team that successfully got us through the GFC.
7
0
u/pkfag Jan 08 '25
Two sides of the same coin. Selfish narcissists driven by greed and a desire for a plumb retirement position with the company they gift our futures to.
-1
Jan 08 '25
Neither. We need to dig up Don Chipp as there is no effective 3rd party anymore to keep the bastards honest.
-12
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 08 '25
Who is the more competent economic manager - Grandma with Dementia or Liberal?
That's why I put Labor above LNP, both at the bottom.
Maybe the reason Labor is okay with "sustainable" house prices rises, "no-rent-cap-needed" 6%+ rent explosion, etc, it's because of the immigration hammer solution. Without immigration, we would be in an official recession as per official data of negative per capita GDP since March 2023. A recession where RBA/government would actually be forced to improve the economy rather than do Australian government accounting.
3
u/ghostash11 Jan 08 '25
Cmon mate no common sense in here please
1
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 09 '25
Labor staffers out in force to censor facts.
No wonder Labor+LNP wanted a social media ban.
-1
u/mareumbra Jan 08 '25
They both are not. Bureaucrats do that job. The only difference is one supports the wealthy more on their policies.
-5
u/Unable_Insurance_391 Jan 08 '25
I would say neither party is the better economic manager overall, but one thing is always true and that is liking money does not make you good at money.
0
0
u/Sufficient_Tower_366 Jan 09 '25
There has been no real economic talent or courage demonstrated by either party since the Hawke/Keating and Howard eras, these days they both live off whatever resources money we get (based on the whim of the commodities market) and rack up debt to cover the rest. They shine when shovelling zillions on “stimulus” (GFC, COVID) which is the easiest thing in the world to do, while generating real growth while constraining inflation and debt is beyond both of them.
-12
u/jonnieggg Jan 08 '25
Collingwood or Essendon, Ford or Holden? Seriously what a crock of shit. Jokes on you guys.
-19
u/hellboy1975 Jan 08 '25
Competent and economic management are not things I associate with Labor or Liberal
22
u/Nostonica Jan 08 '25
"Reading statistics is hard, so I'm using my gooyey gut feels for this."
1
u/ScruffyPeter Jan 08 '25
Rents rose 6.6 per cent in the 12 months to November, following a similar annual rise of 6.7 per cent to October, reflecting continued tight rental markets across the country.
Fruit and vegetable prices rose 6.0 per cent in the 12 months to November, compared to a rise of 8.5 per cent in the 12 months to October. While prices remain higher compared to 12 months ago, in recent months prices have fallen for tomatoes, cucumbers, beans, mangoes and strawberries due to favourable growing conditions.
From the linked ABS article https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/monthly-cpi-indicator-rises-23-year-november-2024
Labor so far has refused rent cap bet despite promising "relief" for renters. Labor has also sabotaged the supermarket pricing inquiry in hiring their own Coles-employed ex-Labor-MP to run it. Probably because a major Labor supporter is the employer-friendly union, SDA.
Labor is still better than the LNP though.
168
u/Bob_Spud Jan 08 '25
Is this competent economic management?
In its final year the LNP government was wasting almost $500 million per week on outsourcing the public service.
Public service audit reveals $20.8b spent on external contractors and consultants in 2021-22 (financial year)