When telling the truth comes back to bite you
JOHN Howards biggest problem right now isnt that hes a liar. Its that he told the truth.
And how Labor is now hammering the Prime Minister for it.
Night after night I see ads starring a new Whingeing Wendy, whining how Howard once said working families have never had it so good.
Really, Mr Howard? she snarls with a voice like a bandsaw, just like the original Whingeing Wendy, designed by ad man John Singleton, who nagged Howard to defeat in his 1987 campaign against Bob Hawke.
How can you say that when my childcare and grocery prices are higher than ever?
On she goes, yammering about her various bills, like someone astonished to find herself living in an age where you actually had to pay for stuff.
Well be seeing more of Whingeing Wendy and her bills, Im sure, after todays announcement by the Reserve Bank board of another interest rate risethe sixth since the last election.
In fact, Wendy has been whingeing about them already: And those interest rate rises, theyve stretched us to the limit . . . Never better off? Youve lost touch, Mr Howard.
Er, Wendy? Excuse me, dear, but its actually you whos lost touch.
By almost any measure you care to take, Australians in general are indeed better off than ever. In fact, the most astonishing thing about this election is that Howard is about to be junked despite an economic record he could bronze and hang in his study with pride. Take it from me, Howard cant believe it himself.
Check the stats. More people have jobs than ever before. Pensions are high. Wages have gone up and up. The place is booming. Your family home is now worth plenty. Tax cuts for the average wage earner have more than covered the rises in mortgage rates, which are still lower than what we had when Howard was first elected.
As for Whingeing Wendys groceries, an analysis by CommSecs chief economist shows that more than two-thirds of a basket of 50 items typically bought from supermarkets have got more affordable over the past six years. Indeed, after-tax wages have risen twice as much as overall prices.
Weve got it not just made, but buttered on crumpet.
All of this is perfectly obvious to visitors. Simon Heffer, columnist for Britains Daily Telegraph, dropped in last month to report on Australia and rhapsodised: (F)or an Englishman or anyone else coming here now, the place is humbling. We really do see a people who have never had it so good. Indeed, it is hard to name a nation in history that has ever had it so good as the Australians are having it now.
Or ask Australians returning from overseas, even from Scandinavian countries that our socialists long hailed as Nirvana.
An acquaintance who has spent the past eight years living in Norway yesterday emailed to say hed had enough, and was coming home to heaven.
He listed the things that had left him cold among the fjords: $12 beers, 25 per cent GST, $12 pack of cigs, $50 pizzas, worlds worst taxes on cars and petrol, worlds close-to-highest electricity prices.
Whingeing Wendy would pop a valve.
Yet telling the truth about our good fortune has been a huge blunder by Howard, who has scrabbled since to assure voters they really are poor, sad, picked-on little battlers, who need lots of loving and as much free money as would choke Dick Pratt.
The charitable reading of this phenomenon is that voters dont want their leaders to seem complacent, as if theyve given us as much as theyre ever going to give and will now put up their feet on the Kirribilli ottoman. With Howard already seeming like hes worn out his welcome, and worn through his agenda, his boast couldnt have sounded worse.
But the less charitableand perhaps more accurateexplanation for our Whingeing Wendys is that many Australians like to praise themselves for their successes, but blame others, especially the Gummint, for their failings. In other words, theyre whingers inclined to give politicians nothing more generous than the two fingers, and themselves nothing more harsh than a free pass.
A classic example of the species is Monash University ethicist Leslie Cannold, who this week wrote a column in The Age savaging the Howard Government for making her want to take her son out of a bad (Victorian-run) state school and into a private one she couldnt afford.
The rot comes from the way we fund our schools, she raged. And it is making me so angry . . . that I can hardly breathe . . . (My son) can see how frustrated I am at my inability to give him the wonderful educational opportunities we both see dispensed like lollies all round us; how sad and guilty I feel that despite the fact that we are doing the best we can, our best isnt good enough . . .
And so on, like Whingeing Wendys twin sister.
As it happens, the Howard Government has actually spent more than ever to make it possible for
more parentsmany poorer than Cannoldto send their children to private schools.
And as it also happens, Cannold might well be able to afford to send her son to a private school, too, if she made the same sort of sacrifices Ive seen other parents make.
This is, after all, the same woman who only recently wrote a whole column confessing she spent money on botox injections, and would consider cosmetic surgery as well.
But dont let nasty John Howard suggest Cannold might actually be doing pretty well to so indulge herself. That would just prove he was out of touch, wouldnt it?
Thats sure what Labor leader Kevin Rudd argues, as he bids for the whingers vote: Mr Howard says working families have never been better off . . . (but) my experience across the country is that working families have a radically different take.
Clever politics, but since its wrong to say working families have never had it so good, I have a question for Rudd: What year exactly did they have it better?
No, I cant remember, either.
JOHN Howards biggest problem right now isnt that hes a liar. Its that he told the truth.
And how Labor is now hammering the Prime Minister for it.
Night after night I see ads starring a new Whingeing Wendy, whining how Howard once said working families have never had it so good.
Really, Mr Howard? she snarls with a voice like a bandsaw, just like the original Whingeing Wendy, designed by ad man John Singleton, who nagged Howard to defeat in his 1987 campaign against Bob Hawke.
How can you say that when my childcare and grocery prices are higher than ever?
On she goes, yammering about her various bills, like someone astonished to find herself living in an age where you actually had to pay for stuff.
Well be seeing more of Whingeing Wendy and her bills, Im sure, after todays announcement by the Reserve Bank board of another interest rate risethe sixth since the last election.
In fact, Wendy has been whingeing about them already: And those interest rate rises, theyve stretched us to the limit . . . Never better off? Youve lost touch, Mr Howard.
Er, Wendy? Excuse me, dear, but its actually you whos lost touch.
By almost any measure you care to take, Australians in general are indeed better off than ever. In fact, the most astonishing thing about this election is that Howard is about to be junked despite an economic record he could bronze and hang in his study with pride. Take it from me, Howard cant believe it himself.
Check the stats. More people have jobs than ever before. Pensions are high. Wages have gone up and up. The place is booming. Your family home is now worth plenty. Tax cuts for the average wage earner have more than covered the rises in mortgage rates, which are still lower than what we had when Howard was first elected.
As for Whingeing Wendys groceries, an analysis by CommSecs chief economist shows that more than two-thirds of a basket of 50 items typically bought from supermarkets have got more affordable over the past six years. Indeed, after-tax wages have risen twice as much as overall prices.
Weve got it not just made, but buttered on crumpet.
All of this is perfectly obvious to visitors. Simon Heffer, columnist for Britains Daily Telegraph, dropped in last month to report on Australia and rhapsodised: (F)or an Englishman or anyone else coming here now, the place is humbling. We really do see a people who have never had it so good. Indeed, it is hard to name a nation in history that has ever had it so good as the Australians are having it now.
Or ask Australians returning from overseas, even from Scandinavian countries that our socialists long hailed as Nirvana.
An acquaintance who has spent the past eight years living in Norway yesterday emailed to say hed had enough, and was coming home to heaven.
He listed the things that had left him cold among the fjords: $12 beers, 25 per cent GST, $12 pack of cigs, $50 pizzas, worlds worst taxes on cars and petrol, worlds close-to-highest electricity prices.
Whingeing Wendy would pop a valve.
Yet telling the truth about our good fortune has been a huge blunder by Howard, who has scrabbled since to assure voters they really are poor, sad, picked-on little battlers, who need lots of loving and as much free money as would choke Dick Pratt.
The charitable reading of this phenomenon is that voters dont want their leaders to seem complacent, as if theyve given us as much as theyre ever going to give and will now put up their feet on the Kirribilli ottoman. With Howard already seeming like hes worn out his welcome, and worn through his agenda, his boast couldnt have sounded worse.
But the less charitableand perhaps more accurateexplanation for our Whingeing Wendys is that many Australians like to praise themselves for their successes, but blame others, especially the Gummint, for their failings. In other words, theyre whingers inclined to give politicians nothing more generous than the two fingers, and themselves nothing more harsh than a free pass.
A classic example of the species is Monash University ethicist Leslie Cannold, who this week wrote a column in The Age savaging the Howard Government for making her want to take her son out of a bad (Victorian-run) state school and into a private one she couldnt afford.
The rot comes from the way we fund our schools, she raged. And it is making me so angry . . . that I can hardly breathe . . . (My son) can see how frustrated I am at my inability to give him the wonderful educational opportunities we both see dispensed like lollies all round us; how sad and guilty I feel that despite the fact that we are doing the best we can, our best isnt good enough . . .
And so on, like Whingeing Wendys twin sister.
As it happens, the Howard Government has actually spent more than ever to make it possible for
more parentsmany poorer than Cannoldto send their children to private schools.
And as it also happens, Cannold might well be able to afford to send her son to a private school, too, if she made the same sort of sacrifices Ive seen other parents make.
This is, after all, the same woman who only recently wrote a whole column confessing she spent money on botox injections, and would consider cosmetic surgery as well.
But dont let nasty John Howard suggest Cannold might actually be doing pretty well to so indulge herself. That would just prove he was out of touch, wouldnt it?
Thats sure what Labor leader Kevin Rudd argues, as he bids for the whingers vote: Mr Howard says working families have never been better off . . . (but) my experience across the country is that working families have a radically different take.
Clever politics, but since its wrong to say working families have never had it so good, I have a question for Rudd: What year exactly did they have it better?
No, I cant remember, either.
Glenn Milne reports:
IN A dramatic switch in campaign strategy, Labor will use the last two weeks of the election to personally target Prime Minister John Howard.
The change in tactics follows definitive internal research showing voters are already factoring Mr Howard out of the election because of his announcement that hell retire during the next term if he wins.
Attacking Howard personally? So when Rudd talked a month ago of the mother of all fear and smear campaigns, he was promising, not whingeing.
But I wonder if this change of tactics by Labor isnt so much to highlight the weakness of the Liberals elect-one-leader-get-another-one-free arrangement, as to try to tear down the one big road block standing in Labors way - the still substantial public confidence in Howards leadership. If Labor were as far ahead as the polls suggest, would it really need to go so negative?
Maybe the Liberals arent as far behind as Ive long thought.
IN A dramatic switch in campaign strategy, Labor will use the last two weeks of the election to personally target Prime Minister John Howard.
The change in tactics follows definitive internal research showing voters are already factoring Mr Howard out of the election because of his announcement that hell retire during the next term if he wins.
Attacking Howard personally? So when Rudd talked a month ago of the mother of all fear and smear campaigns, he was promising, not whingeing.
But I wonder if this change of tactics by Labor isnt so much to highlight the weakness of the Liberals elect-one-leader-get-another-one-free arrangement, as to try to tear down the one big road block standing in Labors way - the still substantial public confidence in Howards leadership. If Labor were as far ahead as the polls suggest, would it really need to go so negative?
Maybe the Liberals arent as far behind as Ive long thought.
Damn Howard has us all down to our last two houses
The Age devotes a big slab of its front page to a picture story of a typical battling family, now in crisis thanks to the interest rates that John Howard has inflicted on them with his economic bungling:
Rebecca Veitch will give birth any time now to her second child. The 37-year-old ambulance paramedic, who is married to a police rescue officer, is relaxed about going into labour - but managing yesterdays rate rise may test the couples crisis management skills.
What a beast, that Howard! And what a crisis!
We probably pay 30 per cent of our income towards our mortgage payments, she says.
Ouch! And its a battle paying that, right? Thanks to that bastard Howard and his rate rises?
(H)er husband, Ian, contracted non-Hodgkins lymphoma cancer. Mrs Veitch says that when the two were well and both working they didnt notice the previous rate rises Now were down to one income and higher mortgages. Their situation will be further complicated. Theyll be left with an income of about $70,000 for the next year when Mrs Veitch goes on unpaid leave.
Oh. Well, I guess we cant really blame Howard for cancer. Or you taking leave. Still, those interest rates will now ruin you, right? Bloody Howard!
The Veitches have a four-bedroom house in Wantirna South. They also have a two-bedroom house in the same suburb that, like a million other Australians, they negatively gear.
Er, you have two homes? But your dreams are now shattered by Howard, at least?
If things really get grim we may have to sell the small house to cover our debts.
You may have to sell one of your two homes? And clean up in this soaring market?
Er, moving right along now. And is there anyone else out there thats been so hammered by John Howard that they are down to their last house or two?
(Thanks to reader Ken.)
The Age devotes a big slab of its front page to a picture story of a typical battling family, now in crisis thanks to the interest rates that John Howard has inflicted on them with his economic bungling:
Rebecca Veitch will give birth any time now to her second child. The 37-year-old ambulance paramedic, who is married to a police rescue officer, is relaxed about going into labour - but managing yesterdays rate rise may test the couples crisis management skills.
What a beast, that Howard! And what a crisis!
We probably pay 30 per cent of our income towards our mortgage payments, she says.
Ouch! And its a battle paying that, right? Thanks to that bastard Howard and his rate rises?
(H)er husband, Ian, contracted non-Hodgkins lymphoma cancer. Mrs Veitch says that when the two were well and both working they didnt notice the previous rate rises Now were down to one income and higher mortgages. Their situation will be further complicated. Theyll be left with an income of about $70,000 for the next year when Mrs Veitch goes on unpaid leave.
Oh. Well, I guess we cant really blame Howard for cancer. Or you taking leave. Still, those interest rates will now ruin you, right? Bloody Howard!
The Veitches have a four-bedroom house in Wantirna South. They also have a two-bedroom house in the same suburb that, like a million other Australians, they negatively gear.
Er, you have two homes? But your dreams are now shattered by Howard, at least?
If things really get grim we may have to sell the small house to cover our debts.
You may have to sell one of your two homes? And clean up in this soaring market?
Er, moving right along now. And is there anyone else out there thats been so hammered by John Howard that they are down to their last house or two?
(Thanks to reader Ken.)
From the one Sydney Morning Herald story:
Asked yesterday for a tip, Mr Rudd told an interviewer he was not a betting man.
But in a later interview he seemed much better prepared, even declining the use of a form guide offered by a helpful reporter.
He singled out Maybe Better, nominating its good recent form and declaring: I am a mad punter from way back.
Asked yesterday for a tip, Mr Rudd told an interviewer he was not a betting man.
But in a later interview he seemed much better prepared, even declining the use of a form guide offered by a helpful reporter.
He singled out Maybe Better, nominating its good recent form and declaring: I am a mad punter from way back.
The latest ALP ads are annoying the crap out of me. You think a political party might be aware of the fact that people can't vote for the Prime Minister. It's impossible. Are they really that thick?
speaking to our local candidates, apparently the view out there is that people tend to vote for a party (or who they want as PM) rather than a person... Or atleast thats what they are telling me- 80% is the party/PM, 20% is the local candidate.. but then I live in a marginal electorate so maybe they are just trying to sway us...
I'd be intrigued to know what the real percentages are. I have a few friends who actually sit down and have meetings with every candidate for their local seats. They go in with a list of questions on the issues most important to them.
If you thought Julia Gillard's over-compensating drivel of an accent was bad, get a load of Rudd's vision of the future.
Life certainly is tough for her, double-door stainless steel fridge and all. It has as much irony as The Age's recent article where the family were coming under such strain from a quarter of a percent interest rate rise they might have to sell off one of their homes just to make ends meet. If that's the Aussie Battler, they're doing pretty well.
Life certainly is tough for her, double-door stainless steel fridge and all. It has as much irony as The Age's recent article where the family were coming under such strain from a quarter of a percent interest rate rise they might have to sell off one of their homes just to make ends meet. If that's the Aussie Battler, they're doing pretty well.
Economist Alex Robson cuts through the ludicrous spin that Kevin Rudds campaign speech proved he was more economically responsible:
Rudd argued that because he was only going to announce about $2 billion in new spending and tax breaks (as opposed to the Coalitions $9.6 billion), this would somehow reduce inflationary pressures and put downward pressure on interest rates.
But it is all spin. ..
Let us put yesterdays numbers in context. The federal government will spend more than $1 trillion over the next four years, no matter which party wins this election
Labor wants us to believe that an extra $7 billion or so in tax rebates and spending will significantly add to inflationary pressures and interest rates. This is ridiculous.
Many of Labors commitments seem to be uncosted and do not appear in the headline $2 billion figure.
And many of Labors commitments have been frontloaded, with billions of dollars in spending announcements already made before the election campaign even began.
Rudd argued that because he was only going to announce about $2 billion in new spending and tax breaks (as opposed to the Coalitions $9.6 billion), this would somehow reduce inflationary pressures and put downward pressure on interest rates.
But it is all spin. ..
Let us put yesterdays numbers in context. The federal government will spend more than $1 trillion over the next four years, no matter which party wins this election
Labor wants us to believe that an extra $7 billion or so in tax rebates and spending will significantly add to inflationary pressures and interest rates. This is ridiculous.
Many of Labors commitments seem to be uncosted and do not appear in the headline $2 billion figure.
And many of Labors commitments have been frontloaded, with billions of dollars in spending announcements already made before the election campaign even began.
Leave A Comment
Create a Fashionising.com account to leave a comment or login.
SHARE URLS