Yesterday’s Herald Sun carried the lurid headline – “John Howard’s Revenge”. Unfortunately, the former PM comes off as a ‘funny uncle’ masquerading as a hardened culture warrior. That’s what happens when you’re over the hill and you believe your own hype.
Two of Howard’s claims — the the Rudd government has engaged in “symbolism” and high-spending, are entirely true. The problem for Howard, however, is that there is nothing wrong with symbolism per se. Moreover, if Howard had been in power during the GFC, the recession in Australia would almost certainly have been worse. Workchoices would have exacerbated current problems of unemployment and underemployment. Even the current Federal opposition does not deny that it would have spent money of a stimulus package, but rather, merely quibbles about the amount.
Howard is particularly critical of the stimulus package: “Mr Rudd will say he had the global financial crisis to handle. Well, courtesy of us, he was well endowed with money in the bank.”
Actually, it was courtesy of Howard and Costello that Australia was left with a structural deficit in the budget, in effect making budget surpluses dependent upon record (and unsustainable) revenues from mineral exports. That’s the real Howardian ‘legacy’ – casualisation of Australia’s labour force, and ‘fiscal prudence’ predicated on a unique, temporary and entirely contingent set of economic circumstances.
So there you have it. Howard is predictable and completely ineffectual in any debate without a team of News Ltd trollumnists behind him. And the Herald Sun can’t even do Sunday sensationalism like it used to. Until the Sunday Hun can let us know which strip joints Howard attends, the man should be wheeled back out to pasture.
#1 by Toaf on 9 November 2009 - 7:49 am
Quote
Come off it. Whenever Howard pops up in the media he has something original, though-provoking and unexpected to say. I for one didn’t expect him to rubbish the current government while claiming that his government was grouse. I think Stayern democracy needs more of this kind of constructive comment from clever old coots like John.
#2 by Toaf on 9 November 2009 - 7:51 am
Quote
That’d be, “Strayern”.
#3 by Don't ignore the facts! on 15 November 2009 - 4:03 pm
Quote
“Workchoices would have exacerbated current problems of unemployment and underemployment.”
Am I missing something? Workchoices only was replaced on July 1 2009 – green shoots were appearing by then! A flexible labour market helped workplaces deal with the downturn (e.g. become part-time, not lose a full-time job). If you tried to do this under Labors laws, well, you cant do it! Unemployment would be higher of Labor’s system was in place – something to bear in mind for next recession….
#4 by David F on 15 November 2009 - 6:25 pm
Quote
I can’t agree there, DITF.
You’re right that it took some time for Workchoices to be fully replaced, however, large sections of it were put on ice by the ALP, most notably, the provisions around AWAs.
‘Flexibility’ of labour markets has, so far, been a very poor predictor of how well a nation gets through this recession. Unchecked ‘flexibility’ during a downturn only increases the likelihood that firms will shed jobs needlessly, thus reducing aggregate demand and worsening the entire economy.
Countries with flexible labour laws (such as the US, the UK, and Spain) have performed demonstrably worse than countries with tougher labour laws (such as France, or Germany).
What I’m getting at is that, during a recession, you want businesses tightening their belts, and not just workers. It’s essential that businesses keep every job that they can, otherwise the economy can unravel very quickly.