Victorian lefty Jeremy Sear has his own election rant, with an unpersuasive and long-winded post attacking the Coalition and advocating a vote for the Greens.
Firstly, Jeremy mocks the Coalition’s claims of waste, even though Labor has blown billions on pink batts, overpriced school halls, massive subsidies to the highly unionised car industry, overpriced set top boxes, carbon tax compensation, a larger public service, the climate change department, green schemes, foreign aid directed at getting us on the security council, and so on.
Then Jeremy claims that the Coalition’s waste argument is discredited because their costings reveal only a modest improvement in the bottom line. So there! If there really was billions of waste, the Coalition would surely have brought in greater savings, right?
There are a few reasons why Jeremy’s argument is plain silly:
1) The Coalition’s reductions in government outlays are modest because they do not want Labor to mount an effective scare campaign. Anyone following the campaign will have noticed Kevin Rudd and Labor warning of Coalition cuts.
2) The Coalition’s paid maternity leave scheme is a costly promise which makes it a lot harder for the Coalition to substantially improve the bottom line. Jeremy is a support of PML. I am not. I am voting for the Coalition (LNP) in spite of this policy.
3) Jeremy assumes that Labor if re-elected won’t introduce any new spending that again blows the bottom line, when the last six years of profligacy show that this is almost uncertainly a completely false assumption. Remember when Labor promised to restrict real expenditure growth to 2% per annum? Remember when Labor promised to have a balanced budget over the business cycle? Remember when Labor promised a surplus in 2012/13? All of these promises have been flagrantly breached. Labor needs to be judged on its track record, not its promises.
4) The Coalition will in its first term have a commission of audit, which will allow it to implement savings in its second term.
I also loved this howler:
Are you really set on voting Liberal no matter what they do?
Because your power bills are up? Only a very tiny percentage of that has anything to do with the so-called “carbon tax” – 90% of it is because the states run by Tony Abbott’s party have let the power producers increase all their other charges
As a matter of fact, the carbon tax has been responsible for a large portion of recent increases. But Jeremy seems to be suggesting that state governments should require their own ‘power producers’ to run at a loss. In which case the taxpayer picks up the tab. So according to Jeremy, you should be glad if the state subsidises your power bills in order to prevent higher prices, even though you pay more in tax as a result.
Also amusing is Jeremy’s rather mild criticism of Labor:
Look, I agree that the ALP have been a disappointing government, blowing in the wind and fighting with each other.
Presumably if Labor hadn’t engaged in any infighting or ‘blowing in the wind’ they would have been a good government, in spite of the many Labor policy failures I outlined in my last post. Talk about looking at the most superficial things rather than policy.
Like Ray, Jeremy fails to acknowledge those debacles. This confirms my view that anyone saying that Labor should be re-elected would have to. The more you list the facts, the more it becomes obvious that Labor needs to lose.
But the facts have never been on the side of Greenies. That’s why Jeremy has been so easy to dominate in argument over the years.