Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
It's not hard to figure out why, at the moment, Shorten is more popular than Abbott. Sixty percent of Australian households pay no net income tax. At the merest suggestion in the budget that some of these might have to start pulling their weight, many of them stampeded like lemmings into Shorten's camp.

They are attracted to Shorten's philosophy that their "rights" have priority over such low priorities as balancing the budget.

All the experts are saying this unpopularity could have been avoided if Abbott and Hockey had done a better job in selling the cut-backs, and the broken promises, as well as keeping some promises they should have broken.

Not so...we have reached the status quo where the leaners outnumber the lifters.
 
Calliope said:
All the experts are saying this unpopularity could have been avoided if Abbott and Hockey had done a better job in selling the cut-backs, and the broken promises, as well as keeping some promises they should have broken.

.
Click to expand...

Haven't you been listening to question time ?

Abbott keeps saying there are NO cuts to health, NO cuts to education, NO cuts to pensions and NO cuts to family benefits.

It seems Abbott can't even sell the budget to his own supporters

:rolleyes:
 
I suppose your household is one of the 60% that pays no net income tax. That would account for you being a Shorten lover and an Abbott hater. :rolleyes:
 
SirRumpole said:
Haven't you been listening to question time ?

Abbott keeps saying there are NO cuts to health, NO cuts to education, NO cuts to pensions and NO cuts to family benefits.

It seems Abbott can't even sell the budget to his own supporters

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am not sure of the details, because quite frankly I get shafted whichever government comes in.

but were there any cuts to net spending?

Or just cuts to proposed ( eg poison pilling ) unsustainable increases in spending?

MW
 
explod said:
By the news stirring of Jones and Bolt over the last couple of days it looks like the tip on 28th may be on the mark.

This thread looks like coming to an end sooner than we may think.
Click to expand...
Labor will also win the next election 55%/45% 2PP like they did the last one. ;)
 
medicowallet said:
I am not sure of the details, because quite frankly I get shafted whichever government comes in.

but were there any cuts to net spending?

Or just cuts to proposed ( eg poison pilling ) unsustainable increases in spending?

MW
Click to expand...
AFAIK, the latter. But that doesn't matter. Labor, Clive Palmer, the Greens and Fairfax are entirely happy to disregard that and talk about cuts, creating panic in the electorate, particularly amongst anxious aged pensioners who now believe their present entitlement is going to be reduced.

If we could adopt a Pollyanna approach, we'd believe that one day politicians might actually act together for the good of the Australian people as a whole. Meantime, it's just a naive wish.
 
The new minister Mathias Cormann that took over from dodgy Sinodinos has done a good job modifying the financial advice laws imo.
He has got rid of my main concern being the reintroduction of dodgy fees and trailing commission for signing on dupes to schemes. If they don't exist then the financial advisors will be more likely to act in their clients interests.

He did state this is only the first step and they are looking into passing new regulations regarding financial planners. The previous laws were too unwieldy and costly. There are still ways around this, like a company like Storm putting adds on the TV and hiring people who have done the 9 day financial advisor course as receptionists to sell the stuff over the phone on a wage. I can't see how you can easily get around this.

It is in the financial advisor's interest that people can trust them. I nearly got conned by them in my early 30s but luckily I did enough research to obtain the knowledge to walk away. Plenty don't.

On a sideline, interesting that Abbott was called a sexist by his own upper house MP (who is retiring, bit late now to show some guts).
 
Knobby22 said:
On a sideline, interesting that Abbott was called a sexist by his own upper house MP (who is retiring, bit late now to show some guts).
Click to expand...

I'd say gutless. She has always been a nasty piece of work, much more suited to your side of politics than the Liberals. If she'd had any guts she would have deserted to her true home with the greens years ago.

RETIRING Liberal senator Sue Boyce has described Prime Minister Tony Abbott as "a sexist" and says the coalition has been "dog whistling" with its asylum seeker policies.

SPEAKING on her departure from federal parliament at the end of the month, Senator Boyce has told Fairfax Media she thinks Julia Gillard's famous misogyny speech was "powerful" and within context, "brilliant"
Click to expand...


Senator Boyce was proudest of her party's support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme but was concerned the Coalition was swinging too far to the right, particularly on issues such as asylum seekers, action against climate change and same-sex marriage.

''I think the whole asylum seeker issue is fraught with dog whistling,'' she said, adding she did not appreciate the language used by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison. ''I mean, for example, I do not use the term 'illegal maritime arrivals'.''
Click to expand...

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...ls-out-sexist-tony-abbott-20140622-3alqg.html
 
Knobby22 said:
The new minister Mathias Cormann that took over from dodgy Sinodinos has done a good job modifying the financial advice laws imo.
He has got rid of my main concern being the reintroduction of dodgy fees and trailing commission for signing on dupes to schemes. If they don't exist then the financial advisors will be more likely to act in their clients interests.

He did state this is only the first step and they are looking into passing new regulations regarding financial planners. The previous laws were too unwieldy and costly. There are still ways around this, like a company like Storm putting adds on the TV and hiring people who have done the 9 day financial advisor course as receptionists to sell the stuff over the phone on a wage. I can't see how you can easily get around this.

It is in the financial advisor's interest that people can trust them. I nearly got conned by them in my early 30s but luckily I did enough research to obtain the knowledge to walk away. Plenty don't.

On a sideline, interesting that Abbott was called a sexist by his own upper house MP (who is retiring, bit late now to show some guts).
Click to expand...

The issue is you may not be able to provide any form of commission, but the banks and likes of AMP are still able to offer staff bonuses for selling product, oops I mean providing general advise.

You can bet the FIRE sector lawyers are already working out the legal loop holes to keep staff properly motivated.
 
Calliope said:
I'd say gutless. She has always been a nasty piece of work, much more suited to your side of politics than the Liberals. If she'd had any guts she would have deserted to her true home with the greens years ago.
Click to expand...
Knobby, perhaps consider that some people have their own agenda. You might have noticed Senator MacDonald last week vociferously protesting the Coalition's PPL on the basis that it was unfair to place such a tax on business. Then his next criticism was of the Levy on people earning over $180K, this time because it did not include a tax on business!

Senator MacDonald was demoted when the government took office, admitted he was very upset about it, and is now apparently just being in search of revenge.

In view of the small number of females in the government, Senator Boyce may have considered she was due a cabinet position, despite her years of Left leaning commentary. It's possible that she also is motivated by some emotion other than veracity in what she says.

Another Liberal who retired, I think, at the last election was Judi Moylan. She also protested against many of her party's policies.
For god's sake, if you prefer the policies of the other side, have the courage to join Labor or The Greens instead of white anting your own party.

An aside on this, last night a quasi religious program on ABC's Local Radio network has as presenter a John Cleary. Mr Cleary always invites a guest to agree with him and together they attack the government's policies.
Suitably encouraged, callers ring in and agree with everything they say, adding their own dose of venom.
Mr Cleary alleged that he had provided a balanced panel of commentators because he included ex Liberal Judi Moylan. She, as always, railed against the immorality and hideousness of the government's asylum seeker policy.

I can't imagine how the call got through, but a woman phoned to say she would never listen to the program again because it was so utterly biased against the government, that there was never any balance by someone expressing a conservative view, etc etc. So funny. Actually shook Cleary and guests up!
 
The Libs are moving further to the right though, which is upsetting some of the less conservative elements.
 
I can't imagine how the call got through, but a woman phoned to say she would never listen to the program again because it was so utterly biased against the government, that there was never any balance by someone expressing a conservative view, etc etc. So funny. Actually shook Cleary and guests up!
Click to expand...

Wasn't you was it ?

:D
 
Knobby22 said:
The Libs are moving further to the right though, which is upsetting some of the less conservative elements.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you favour the left wing policies of extravagent spending and having no inclination to balance the budget, I guess you would consider they are moving to the right. But if you agree with Senator Boyce that they are moving to the right on "issues such as asylum seekers, action against climate change and same-sex marriage." I think you are mistaken.

These are issues they took to the election, and the "less conservative elements" as you call them, embraced them.
 
Labor and the minors want to be careful on what they oppose in the senate.

Labor is now rejecting budget savings worth about $25bn over four years, almost every spending cut or tax increase that needs to be legislated other than the deficit levy on earnings over $180,000, which passed the parliament last week.

The government estimated last night that Labor now opposed $39.3bn in overall savings measures, including those in the budget on top of others that have been before the parliament since late last year.

The social security measures, including changes to pension indexation and tougher rules for unemployment benefits, are set for defeat if put to the current Senate or to the upper house when new parties take their seats on July 7.

While the Liberal Democratic Party may support the Coalition on the welfare cuts, the reforms are expected to be opposed by Labor, the Greens, the Palmer United Party, the Democratic Labour Party and others.

The government has a chance of gaining some support from PUP, however, when its leader Clive Palmer meets Mr Abbott tomorrow morning.

Mr Palmer, who is expected to unveil his party’s position on key issues today, secured a renewed agreement from the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party yesterday when its senator-elect, Ricky Muir, reaffirmed his unity with the PUP.
.
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-job-33bn-harder/story-fn59nsif-1226965710107

This government could well get the carbon and mining tax repeals through and then go to the polls in the face of an otherwise overly obstructionist senate.

Under such circumstances, Labor's economic platform would be interesting to say the least.

First though, we need to see what PUP does in practice.
 
i think labor should wave throught he entire budget. Why protect the Liberals from their extremism.

say they would expect the same courtesy when next in Govt.

let the public see the good and bad of the direction the Government wants to go.

It would just be good if the Government, and all the parties, could actually have some consistency in their policies.

The Government says they wont withdraw the tax breaks to compensate for the carbon tax after it's repealed, so isn't that a continuation of the age of entitlement.

The greens want a carbon tax, but wont support the reintroduction of fuel excise indexation :confused:

Labor opposing some of the sensible parts of the last budget.

Talk the talk, then walk the walk
 
If Labor and the small parties continue to obstruct the government's legislation in the Senate, the government are going to find it very difficult to do much about controlling the projected increasing expenditure.

Given the lack of any other evidence of cohesive policy from Labor, we might assume that this is their objective, i.e. being able to say as the next election rolls around "well, you've had three years to do something, and we're still in the same position ."

It's certainly hard to conclude that Labor has any more concern now for debt than they did when in office.
 
SirRumpole said:
Maybe they just want the government to find fairer ways of doing it.
Click to expand...

They have got a hide to say anything as they brought on these massive problems to Australia.


Gillard before the election "no carbon tax"
Gillard after the election - carbon tax introduced.

Shorten (Labor) before the election - get rid of the carbon tax
Shorten after the election - we are not going to let you get rid of the carbon tax

They still don't know whether they are coming or going.

Liars and hypocrites extraordinaire!
 
dutchie said:
They have got a hide to say anything as they brought on these massive problems to Australia.


Gillard before the election "no carbon tax"
Gillard after the election - carbon tax introduced.

Shorten (Labor) before the election - get rid of the carbon tax
Shorten after the election - we are not going to let you get rid of the carbon tax

They still don't know whether they are coming or going.

Liars and hypocrites extraordinaire!
Click to expand...

As opposed to "NO cuts in pensions, NO cuts to Health , NO cuts to Education, NO cuts to the ABC " ?

Ha Ha Ha.
 
SirRumpole said:
As opposed to "NO cuts in pensions, NO cuts to Health , NO cuts to Education, NO cuts to the ABC " ?

Ha Ha Ha.
Click to expand...


Rumpy, how many times do I have to tell you?

Those $900 cheques Ruddie gave every one including many overseas was only a loan.......now you must pay it back....it is a pity he did not tell us it was only a loan.

Now if the Green/Labor socialist left wingers would help scrap the carbon dioxide tax, the pensioners and the hard working families will be $550 better off.

But instead, the carbon dioxide tax goes up again on the 1 st July and we will all be worse off by more thanks to Mr. NO.
 
Top