A head of steam seems to be building up for the idea that the government should follow the British example and reverse a planned tax cut.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The argument is that Labor inherited the third tranche of the Liberal government's tax cuts. Before the election, it promised not to reverse the cuts, which come into force in 2024, but now, so the argument runs, it should break that promise. One of the rationales is that the Conservatives in Britain have just reversed a tax cut, so why can't Labor do the same?
Firstly, breaking a promise is a serious business. Voters - rightly - remember the broken promise, particularly if it's Labor which, in effect, raises taxes when it said it wouldn't. Governments of the left always have to persuade voters that they won't spend big by taxing big. To break a promise on tax would be to hand its opponents a gift at the next election.
Which is not to say it shouldn't be done - I have no views on that. But it is to say that the arguments for doing it have to be very, very strong.
But, more to the point, the situation in Australia is completely different from the situation in Britain.
The reversed tax cut in Britain was enforced on a new, ideologically zealous Prime Minister and her treasurer by a hurricane of reaction, not least from the markets, which pushed the pound into freefall against the dollar. The British treasurer had not deemed it necessary to explain how it would pay for a big increase in government spending for the tax cuts and subsidies to keep electricity bills down over the upcoming British winter.
Big spending without an explanation of where the money would come from beyond borrowing was greeted by the markets with shouts of "sell, sell, sell" (or whatever the equivalent is in clicks).
On top of the crash of the pound, the cost of government borrowing jumped so that super funds were in danger of going bust. I'll repeat that: super funds were in danger of going bust. This was the brink of a full-blown economic crisis.
On top of the disastrous economics, came disastrous politics.
After his budget, the treasurer went and had champagne with his venture capitalist pals ("venture capitalists", you might think, is a euphemism for speculators). These people were then revealed to have made fortunes on, yes, the fall in the value of the pound.
By the way, the paper getting these scoops, which are devastating for the Conservative government, was Mr Murdoch's The Times and Sunday Times - would Mr Murdoch's Australian be as tenacious in hounding a Liberal government? Was it as tenacious in hounding a Liberal government?
But, back to the main point, there is a good argument that the rule of thumb ought to be: if the current British government is doing something, do the opposite.
I do not say this in a partisan way. One-nation Tories (albeit a threatened species) might well agree. Prime Minister Liz Truss has imbibed the full neo-liberal potion. At the same time as she and her treasurer were cutting taxes for the rich, they were planning massive cuts in public spending; cuts that would hurt the poorest.
On top of that, claims that the sunny uplands would be reached once Britain left the European Union have collapsed in the face of reality: companies that exported to the continent have seen orders dry up; the fragile peace in Northern Ireland seems more fragile; workers' protections are under threat.
The British government has been likened to a cult - even a death cult. No amount of outside evidence can dissuade them from a destructive course. Indeed, the more that formerly respected outsiders (like the IMF and the Financial Times) warn that the economy is heading for a cliff, the more the ultras assert that they are on the right track.
As the chief economics commentator at the FT put it: "These people are mad, bad and dangerous. They have to go."
So, I suggest, do not take the decisions of the British government as a guide to Australian policy.
HAVE YOUR SAY: How do you weigh Labor's dilemma between keeping its promise or breaking it? And I'm curious about how politicians of left and right come to believe things despite all the evidence. Do email: echidna@theechidna.com.au
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- In the trial of the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins, the alleged victim described waking up on a couch in Parliament House to find an "adversarial" colleague raping her, saying he treated her as if she was "coming late to the party".
- Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare is to visit Australia as tensions continue to boil over accusations of Chinese influence in his Pacific nation. Mr Sogavare will land in Canberra today before meeting with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his deputy Richard Marles.
- A deluge of rain is on its way to eastern Australia. The downpours may not ease until Monday. Parts of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria face the possibility of more flooding. The Bureau of Meteorology has issued severe weather warnings for parts of NSW, Queensland, Victoria, the ACT and Tasmania. Northern Australia is also likely to face a drenching this wet season, after the Bureau of Meteorology predicted above-average rainfall between October and December.
THEY SAID IT:
"All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter." - Edmund Burke.
YOU SAID IT:
Annie is sharp on whether people who make lots of money are smart: "How are you defining 'smart'? Surely you're not arguing that high intellectual capacity is a vital factor in making money? If we are to judge by results, cunning, wiliness, determination and single-minded ambition are more likely to be the defining traits."
And Trevor is wise: "In my 35 years of expatriate working life, I frequently had to contend with the 'Smartest Guy in the Room'. He (they were always male) had all his fellow employees at that local company cowed, and a lot of his decisions were excellent.
"But I was sent there because a lot of his decisions were not, and in fact were often incredibly stupid. Two jobs for me resulted: fix the stuff-ups; and un-cow his fellow employees. The latter job was generally the hardest."
Bob says: "Two of the dumbest guys I've ever met each had a PhD. The smartest guy had a Harvard MBA. They didn't stay long."
Helen successfully offers flattery: "I read your witty email most days. However, not much on the Voice to Parliament except a critique on the advert. I think most people can't see anything wrong about having this Voice to Parliament, mainly because it is simply an advisory group, no different to the public servants."
I am reminded never, ever - ever - to mention the Oxford comma (that comma in a list between the last-but-one item and the word "and"): Matt chides me: "Oh, very nice. By adding an Oxford comma that isn't an Oxford comma (a real Oxford comma is only for a series of three or more terms), you've managed to antagonise the Oxford-commandistas (of which I am one) as well as the Oxford-comma-denialists... impressive work!"
My own view is that sometimes you need it and sometimes you don't.