May 21, 2019

Coalition Election Win Good for Naval Group Submarine Build in South Australia

The win for Australia's Morrison Coalition Government over Shorten's Labor Party on May 18, 2019 means continuity for Australia's future Attack class submarine project with Naval Group remaining main contractor.

The Coalition retained all of its electoral districts/seats in the key submarine building state of South Australia meaning most of the build will stay in South Australia.

A Liberal Party candidate within the Coalition even won an additional seat (Boothby) in Adelaide, South Australia. This makes it even more important to the Coalition of having most of the submarine build continue in South Australia.

Before the Election there was a general expectation that a Shorten Labor Government would win. Such a win might have caused a broad review of Naval Group winning the major contractor position in the submarine build. The so-called "leaking", in mid May 2019, of compensation payment details if the deal with Naval Group broke down can in retrospect be seen as a quietly authorised warning to Labor not to break the deal with Naval Group.

REASONS WHY THE COALITION WON

After suffering 5 Prime Ministers in 9 years Australians were not ready for a new won. Retaining the incumbent, Scott Morrison, while not perfect, satisfies the need for continuity. In the election campaign Morrison preached JOBS, LOWER TAXES and ECONOMIC STABILITY rather than Labor's call for HIGHER TAXES and idealistic measures to reduce CLIMATE CHANGE.

Labor carried a false assumption that most Australians rate CLIMATE CHANGE as a near main or main concern. That assumption seems to be a minority, usually leftwing view, of those wealthy enough not to worry about their jobs. The Election results point to more Australians feeling that manmade climate change, if it exists, being a very longterm (100+ year) change with the small Australian economy responsible for only 1.28% of world greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Australian media are making a big thing of the "unexpected" defeat of Shorten's Labor Party. But Shorten was ONLY AHEAD of the Liberal/National Party (L/NP) Coalition by 1 to 2% in the pre-Election SURVEYS.

Some call Morrison a "Conservative". But he is a CENTRIST appealing to a broad group of voters. He could easily be a Democrat on the American scale.

Labor was particularly hurt in the northeastern state of QUEENSLAND when Labor and Greens from the southeastern states of Victoria and New South Wales wanted to cancel, for Climate Change and rare species reasons, the future, massive, Adani-Carmichael coal project. Queenslanders resented these southerners and rated more highly the Coalition's push for Adani's future jobs and its positive impact on Queensland's economy .

Also Labor did poorly in WESTERN AUSTRALIA where mining, oil and gas are job creaters even if this impacts Labor's concern for the environment.

Finally SHORTEN lacks charisma and hence is UNPOPULAR with the electorate compared to Morrison.

Bill Shorten concedes defeat on May 18, 2019 Election night and, at the same time, he resigned from the leadership of the Labor Party (Photo courtesy The Canberra Times).
---

Pete 

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The best is Abbott and the worst is Rudd. Gillard lacks leadership, but is most reliable.

Anonymous said...

Not normally willing to comment directly on politics - but I think the Labour Party erred in a few areas.

One was chasing the idea that the only ones affected by the franked dividend was the ‘top end of town’. Anyone who is retired with shares will receive dividends & if on the aged pension, probably won’t pay much if any tax. They forgot that many people received free shares a number of years ago when a number of mutual companies demutualised. Two that immediately come to mind are NRMA Insurance & CML. Anyone holding insurance policies with these were given free shares. These eventually ended up as IAG & CBA shares. An aged pensioner that gets a $1,000 dividend cheque for the year from CBA is also entitled to $300 franking credit.

One of the downsides to the climate debate, is that renewables generate less jobs in the longer term. While they generate jobs when being built (as does non renewables), they have relatively few ongoing jobs. A coal fired power station for example needs one or more active coal mines to keep them going 24x7. If you take away jobs, you need to replace them with new alternative jobs at the same time, not empty promises. Saving the world for the grandkids does not mean much if your kids are starving & you are living on the street.

The green bus loads from the south did not go down well in regional Queensland. Bringing in out of towners usually backfires unless it’s something that the locals also support. Especially if it means loss of jobs locally without any hope of creating alternative jobs. Also if you go too far into the climate change rhetoric without proper planning, you risk the SA problem, but way larger. You cannot turn off any more coal fired power stations without reliable alternatives. Snowy stage 2 is one such alternative, but it will take years to build. It’s also going to cost a lot of money. No matter how much money you do throw at it, it will still take years to build. Boring holes through mountains is never a 5 minute job.

To me, Labour promised far too many changes to quickly. Much like Whitlam, they had a large agenda that they appeared to want to do all at once (as if they thought they were likely to only get one term, so go flat out). The problem with massive change all at once is it is hard to workout what is & is not working as intended. Is X not working as intended because it was a bad idea, or badly implemented or is being unintentionally affected by Y or Z or Y & Z? The more drastic & wider the changes, the more people you will affect. It’s hard to win a election if you put more than 50% of the population offside.

bharatdefencekavach.com said...

To address the issue of growth slowdown, it is necessary to go to its root cause. There are two sides to the story: supply and demand. In the supply side, to put it simply, India's credit system is clogged. The capital of Indian banks is locked up in Rs 14 lakh crore of stressed assets and, despite all efforts to the contrary, the resolution mechanism is still slow. The public sector banks (PSBs), which account for two-thirds of the banking system, are facing serious capital shortages, which has made them risk-averse and, thus, wary of lending. As credit availability dries up, the fuel that drives investment vanishes, slowing the latter. Gross fixed capital formation, or investment in plant and machinery, has dipped to 31 per cent from 34.3 per cent of the GDP in 2014.
Indian defence news