Good economic management: a ridiculous Liberal myth
(I sometimes worry that when I call something a "ridiculous liberal myth" that they don't recognise the phrase. Then I realise that's it's actually quite obscure and I shouldn't expect them to know it.)
I think that for me the most infuriating thing about recent elections is the preposterous notion that the Coalition government's economic management should be considered superior to, well, anything. In an opinion piece that thankfully only briefly hints at self-pity, Paul Keating highlights how untrue it is, while pointing out the many ways in which Howard has served this country so poorly:
To compound Howard's transgressions, he has run dead on the continuing obligation of structural economic change, just as he did when he was treasurer in the 1970s. He and Costello have simply made hay while the sun has shone from the great structural reforms introduced by the Hawke and Keating governments. Those changes — open financial and product markets, and the new decentralised wages system of 1993 — were married up with $1 trillion in superannuation savings, to completely underwrite the country's prosperity and renew its economic base.
Howard's sole example of reform is his GST — the one he told us in 1996 he would not give us.
I was deeply disappointed by Labor's dismal effort in 2004. I'm cautiously optimistic about tomorrow night.
But I do wish fewer people were saying "it's time" and more "Howard is fucking terrible".
Related topics: Quote of the day Politics
All timestamps are Melbourne time.