While peals of distress issue from the electorate over the Federal budget, I'm moved to ask the 53.49 per cent of people who voted for the Coalition - "what did you expect?"
Of course, rusted-on conservatives knew what they were getting with Abbott and are no doubt shifting an extra $50K into their trust or super fund to cover the uptick in junior's uni fees. They saw this coming, it's just what they ordered.
The dopey media may well be playing into Abbotts hands. What if, down the track, Abbott falls on his sword?
The media have made it all about Tony and trying to get him, rather than focus on the real issues. The real debate about the economy and the budgetry requirements hasn't happened.
It is about attacking Tony eg, Tony doesn't front a rabid uni mob, Tony winked, Joe smokes a cigar. That's the garbage wasted day after day on the front pages, bloody woefull reporting.
No one has asked Bill what Labor would pass or want included.
No media has discussed the severity of the deficit and debt situation and what options and outcomes could be expected. No real experts, just giggling morning t.v hosts giving their opinion, which is about as usefull as asking my Jack Russell for his opinion.
Abbott doesn't look as though he is enjoying the P.M's job, he never has, so it will be interesting to see what happens. At the opportune moment he may take the bullet for the party.
Just a thought.
I think the issue is how poorly they've handled trying to get the budget on a sustainable footing.
It seems if the money comes in then out again it's been targeted to a degree, but if the Government just chooses to provide support via tax expenditures that so far these have been ignored, and to say the budget white paper will deal with them seems a bit unfair to the under 30s and everyone else who's been whacked by the budget. Targeting those already on below poverty income thresholds just doesn't pass the pub test.
Surely they could have designed the budget to share the pain in a truly fair way?
Wouldn't it be better to determine the level of services we need, then maybe the higher levels that we want, and work out what the cost is to efficiently provide them. At present there's no debate on just how big or small a Govt we need. There is no magic size of Govt because there's successful ones all over the world that account for very different shares of GDP. Possibly a large land mass and small population Australia requires are larger than average Government sector since a lot of infrastructure is just no economical for the private sector.
Wouldn't it be better to determine the level of services we need, then maybe the higher levels that we want, and work out what the cost is to efficiently provide them. At present there's no debate on just how big or small a Govt we need.
And how many governments there should be.
Australia's population is just over half that of California, and yet we apparently need six State and two territory governments all with their own Parliaments and bureaucracies.
If we downsized to a Federal government and regional authorities that delivered the services paid for by the Federal government , we could have those services delivered more efficiently without a blame game.
My, my, aren't the little piggies squealing?
+1 At last, something I can agree with you on.
Yes, agree. The amount of duplication is ridiculous and the stupid bickering that goes on about who is responsible for what so childish and silly.And how many governments there should be.
Australia's population is just over half that of California, and yet we apparently need six State and two territory governments all with their own Parliaments and bureaucracies.
If we downsized to a Federal government and regional authorities that delivered the services paid for by the Federal government , we could have those services delivered more efficiently without a blame game.
So you consider health spending to be welfare ?
Interesting.
An excellent article by Ross Gittins.
Make sure you watch the video
smh.com.au/comment/whats-inside-joe-hockeys-head-20140520-zri5f.html
Like I said Ross appears to reinforce what has been said on here numerous times, especially by posters like Sydboy, nothing new there.IMO
Of course the other question springs to mind, why didn't Labor do something about negative gearing, capital gains and super, in the last six years?
Maybe nothing new, but it's interesting to see an acknowledged expert reinforce what some of us armchair pundits have been saying.
Because, like most politicians they have their snouts as deep in the trough of these tax avoidance schemes as anyone else.
You must be happy now that I have criticised Labor, but I regard all politicians as not being above helping themselves before helping the country.
Maybe nothing new, but it's interesting to see an acknowledged expert
... I regard all politicians as not being above helping themselves before helping the country.
It would appear, from your posts, the elected government can't implement any unpopular policies and it seems Fairfax agrees with you.
I agree, in hindsight, they should have got the tax review finished. Rather than handing down a lop sided budget.
It's the same with anything. You need to know both the physical availability and cost of inputs in order to make sensible decisions about output. That goes for everything from a hotel to a building contractor to a power station. You need to know your inputs, both availability and cost, in order to make sensible decisions about output.
Eg you can't sensibly manage the bookings of a hotel if you don't know how many rooms you've got in the first place but that is essentially what this government has done with the budget. Make decisions about output without knowing what inputs are available - that's a recipe for disaster if the inputs turn out to be significantly different to that assumed.
It was either panic, inexperience or arrogance
I expect that most people in the workforce for long enough will have seen this sort of thing in the course of their employment.
New manager comes in with the idea (either their own or imposed by the owner or senior management) of "fixing the place". From that point there are really two options. Either the new manager carefully observes, questions, gets everyone on side and runs ideas past them, try things out on a small scale at first and so on. Or they adopt the "I know best" attitude, don't listen to anyone, and ram through whatever they think will work regardless of the consequences.
If you get one of the latter then it's inevitable that they make a serious mistake sooner or later for the simple reason that they are choosing to ignore most or all of the information available to them from sources who usually know more about it than they do. Sooner or later something turns out differently to their unfounded assumptions and then the disaster unfolds.
Obviously that doesn't happen in every business. But work for a large corporation or government and sooner or later you'll almost certainly end up with one of the latter type of "manager" and once their strategy becomes apparent, the resultant train wreck is inevitable with the only question being what goes wrong first in a big enough way to bring some sense to the situation?
Arrogance precedes a downfall.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?