There are days where I think Malcolm Turnbull might be smart, lucky and rich, but maybe - just maybe - he's not very good at this politics thing. It's a weird thing to say about a guy who is immensely popular and managed to become Prime Minister of this country but... there are moments where it looks a lot less certain, a lot less solid. For instance, he now has a coterie of backbenchers who are holding his policy platform to ransom.
It comes as Mr Turnbull and his Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, continue to discuss the unorthodox move of bringing forward appropriation bills in Parliament to before the May budget in order to keep a double-dissolution election option open without risk of the government running out of money to pay public servants.
Fairfax Media reported earlier that informal discussions had been held about bringing forward budget day, but the latest thinking is believed to favour the early introduction of the appropriations - also called supply bills - which would clear the way for a snap poll to be called either before the budget or immediately after.
Proponents say there is no legal problem with appropriating funds prior to the budget but admit the move would be tantamount to admitting an early election call was imminent.
The $15 billion figure is a similar amount of money that would have been available to spend after a GST rise to 15 per cent, which would raise about $35 billion, and the payment of compensation to low-income earners.
The group of Liberal economic dries are, in particular, determined to kill any change by the Coalition - such as a dollar limit on the amount that can be deducted - to negative gearing because in the words of one MP, "why would we attack Mum and Dad investors?"Which is all very weird. We appear to have a Prime Minister with very little authority over his own party in spite of his high personal polls.
The quick answer to the rhetorical question why the Liberal Party might attack the Mum and Dad investor might be because they're way in over their heads and need to back out before the shit hits the fan. In fact, not doing so is a kind of moral hazard situation that the conservatives and economic dry types hate so much. Making matters worse, negative gearing as it stands is kind of the wrong economic incentive that encourages the very same moral hazard that conservatives hate so much.
Put more bluntly, the very same Mum and Dad investors are now the most indebted people on the face of this earth. Yes, Australia has the highest per capita private sector debt and the majority of it is locked up in mortgages. The whole point of winding back negative gearing is to take the wrong incentives out of the system, so the same Mum and Dad investors can make a more rational decision, based on a more rational economic policy.
I'm pretty sure this is not lost on Malcolm Turnbull. It's just that he seems incapable of explaining this to his own side and making them shut the hell up. You'd think a conservative PM could explain traditional conservative economic policy to his own side. Of course, it might be that these backbenchers aren't conservatives at all but simply just "greedy cunts" as Paul Keating would have characterised them. Turnbull is letting these people hold his office to ransom too much. He should be playing hard ball with his side if he wants to get anything serious done. A leader is only good as his willingness to whack his own side to make the deal stick. Even I know that - why doesn't the prime Minister?
I Hate It When Things Close
Some years ago at the height of the GFC, Starbucks closed a slew of their stores in Australia. They had picked the wrong moment to expand with their stores when all of a sudden, carrying debt became a dirty word. I was walking through Martin Place on the day they announced the mass closures, and I could see they were having a staff meeting about it in their store. It just looked terrible, witnessing all these people losing their jobs in a very public place. I didn't particularly like their offerings, but it was just terrible to see them in that situation.
Dick Smith's debts total about $400 million including $140 million to its banks, National Australia Bank and HSBC.
Dick Smith staff will now have to liquidate the remaining stock, which is understood to have a book value of about $200 million.
It's the second fire sale in three months for the chain, which launched a desperate pre-Christmas clearance in a bid to prop up sagging sales.
One Dick Smith worker said the sale was likely to kick off as early as Friday.
The store manager said it was an anxious time for staff even though they knew the end was nigh.
"There was a false sense of community for a while with everyone trying to look on the bright side and then there was the news about a potential buyer from China," he said.
"But we have an update this morning, saying no more customer orders and we thought uh oh!"
"Then when we got told about a national conference call . . . and we knew that this was probably going to be bad news, not good."It has to be said, Dick Smith stores were terrible. They didn't offer up a big range of stuff, they didn't offer up a good range of stuff, they weren't price competitive and they never really had up to date stuff. It was kind of the electrical doodad shop you went to when you couldn't get to any other electrical doodad shop. You couldn't decipher what the selling proposition was, when compared to its competitors, let alone if it even had a unique selling proposition at all. You just couldn't understand how it was supposed to operate, let alone compete with JB HiFi. As it turns out, neither could they.
A long time ago, this kind of something-nothing shop sort of blundered on in the market place. Grace Brothers which turned into Myers, was for years operating like this where you could get second tier goods for second tier prices guaranteed to leave you somewhat dissatisfied. Not surprisingly, Myers has been on the ropes for the last decade because it simply has no edge whatsoever in the modern retail marketplace (and never really had anyway). In many ways it's not surprising at all that Dick Smith stores hit the wall.
Nonetheless I really do feel for the employees in the stores. It's terrible watching a long time going concern close down. Working through the process is even worse. Some of these private equity people that brought about the debt-laden IPO need to be investigated.
The Meaning Of Bernie In The US Presidential Elections
It's 56 years since John F. Kennedy was elected President. There have been equal years with Republicans and Democrats in the White House since 1960: Nixon with 6; Ford with 2; Reagan with 8, George Bush Snr. with 4; and Dubya with 8 making 28. Kennedy with 3; Johnson with 5; Carter with 4; Clinton with 8 and Obama with 8 including this year also makes 28. It's surprising because it feels like there have been more years under Republicans and crazy ones at that: Nixon, Reagan and Dubya make you want to reach for the American Psychiatric Association's DSM. It was also a long time between Kennedy who was a Northern Democrat and Obama who is from Chicago.
The years since Kennedy's assassination have been quite depressing from a progressive point of view, up until Barack Obama. If we cast our minds back to the 2008 election, Obama's campaign essentially ambushed and derailed Hillary Clinton's campaign, largely on building from the grassroots, and this in turn delivered the first Northern democrat President since JFK. Which goes to show it hasn't been easy for a Northern Democrat to get up. Just think of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis and their terrible campaigns in 1984 and 1988 respectively. And while Bill Clinton's two terms gave some respite, he was decidedly a Southern Democrat who wooed back the Southern vote. Thus the rise of Obama in 2008 signals a new direction for American politics. All of a sudden, the Northern Democrats are a big force, thanks to a progressive grassroots.
It's enough to make one sort of wonder if Hillary Clinton's problem is that next to Bernie Sanders, she's not Northern Democrat enough. She may even not be Southern Democrat enough. Bernie Sanders is of course, espousing a lot more progressive politics. There was at one time great expectation for Elizabeth Warren running, because she too is more progressive than the Clinton camp. There are strong indications that the younger demographic is radically slanted towards the progressive end of the spectrum.
The more historic view I take on the Sanders campaign is that it is the first time since Robert F. Kennedy was gunned down in 1968 that a Democrat is running with a very progressive platform. It's the first time in 48 years we're seeing the kind of galvanising force assembling a strong youth vote turn out, in favour of the Progressive cause. Sanders' platform - much more than Obama's platform - inherits the legacy of the1960s activism and builds upon it until it finally reaches the middle of American politics. It's the moment the protest songs and the hippies and the activists and the New Left finally arrive, decades late - but better late than never.
It's funny because back in 1992, Bill Clinton fooled us all into thinking *he* was that guy. The fact that he wasn't is demonstrated by his presidency, by the things he was not able to achieve in office. It's actually the kind of baggage that really weighs down Hillary Clinton's campaign. 2016 is 24 years beyond 1992. There's a whole generation of kids who grew into adults, not believing in the Clinton name, and they'll be out there not voting for her. Should Sanders get up over Clinton, there are going to be a lot of 'Regressive Left' types who are going to be upset. But then they were upset when Obama got up over Hillary in 2008 and that didn't exactly change anything for them. The Clinton supporters are essentially Baby Boomers who are still fooled by the Clinton name.
As for Bernie Sanders, in a certain way, the most impressive thing about him is how long he's been fighting for equality. He has been 'on message' since before Generation X was even born. The photos that have emerged from his activism in the early 1960s are heartening. They give us great strength and let us understand that it is possible to fight the power for a lifetime and make it count. If the defining characteristic of leadership is to inspire people into being their best, then certainly Bernie Sanders has that quality in spades.
That's him right there during some sit in in 1962. It could have been you, it could have been me in another time and place; but as it turned out, it was him all along. If people really think the 1960s activism meant something more than just what people did to kill boredom, they really ought to look into Bernie Sanders.
No comments:
Post a Comment