The Abbott Government

[drsmith]

But it's the context dude.........

It is.

All governments break commitments after coming to office (and I can only reiterate that this is a shortcoming of our political process) but only Labor was silly enough to think it could sneak an economy wide carbon tax under the electorate.

Cuts to the ABC over which there is currently a lot of squawking is small beer in comparison.

 

[basilio]

There are structural changes that are needed to the economy. We do have a tax system that has been rorted to death by the rich and the international business community. We have to address issues of climate change, the end of the mining boom and the effects of an aging population on social security.

These are very real issues that should demand a bipartisan approach to developing long term, fair and balanced policies.

Instead we got a budget that attacked the poorest sectors of the community with absolutely no acknowledgment that pain needs to be shared or that longer term structures need to be addressed. We have a government that was so rabidly obstructionist in opposition it has no mandate or capacity to reach across the political divide and invite constructive policy development.

And finally we have a government so completely dishonest in its approach to climate change that it wilfully tries to destroy the RET scheme, the climate commission , the Clean Energy Bank and any other scheme that was using the market place to tackle climate change in favour of a non policy of direct action.

 

[banco]

It is.

All governments break commitments after coming to office (and I can only reiterate that this is a shortcoming of our political process) but only Labor was silly enough to think it could sneak an economy wide carbon tax under the electorate.

Cuts to the ABC over which there is currently a lot of squawking is small beer in comparison.

You can argue that both ways. If they can't keep relatively small promises how they can be expected to keep big ones?

I expect the only silver lining for Abbott is that he's managed to make Turnbull look like a shifty con artist by trotting him out to say white is black and black is white.

I do think it also goes to the competence of Abbott as a politician. Was he really going to lose any seats by equivocating prior to the election on whether there were going to be cuts to SBS and ABC?

 

[sptrawler]

There are structural changes that are needed to the economy. We do have a tax system that has been rorted to death by the rich and the international business community. We have to address issues of climate change, the end of the mining boom and the effects of an aging population on social security.

These are very real issues that should demand a bipartisan approach to developing long term, fair and balanced policies.

Instead we got a budget that attacked the poorest sectors of the community with absolutely no acknowledgment that pain needs to be shared or that longer term structures need to be addressed. We have a government that was so rabidly obstructionist in opposition it has no mandate or capacity to reach across the political divide and invite constructive policy development.

And finally we have a government so completely dishonest in its approach to climate change that it wilfully tries to destroy the RET scheme, the climate commission , the Clean Energy Bank and any other scheme that was using the market place to tackle climate change in favour of a non policy of direct action.

If people don't like it they will vote them out next election.
Meanwhile let them get on with it.
We now have a senator voting everything down, because she thinks some people didn't get an appropriate payrise.

If all the senators get a pet sector of the workforce, that they are going to represent, where does it end?

Maybe you could get the car enthusiast senator, to block all legislation unless your view on carbon emmission reduction is adopted.

 

[sydboy007]

If people don't like it they will vote them out next election.
Meanwhile let them get on with it.
We now have a senator voting everything down, because she thinks some people didn't get an appropriate payrise.

If all the senators get a pet sector of the workforce, that they are going to represent, where does it end?

Maybe you could get the car enthusiast senator, to block all legislation unless your view on carbon emission reduction is adopted.

So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?

I think the voters generally like the senate as a way to ensure stuff like 6 month waiting for welfare support for under 30s or poorly atrgeted GP co payments or FOFA legislation benefiting the big banks gets debated and generally thrown out because it's not good policy.

I don't seem to recall you having the same attitude to the Gillard Govt. Seems most calling for the senate to stop being so obstructionist were rather too happy about it doing exactly the same when Labor were in Govt.

I would like the senators opposing revenue savings to provide alternatives. That might be a way forward, but then again I don't recall any coalition senators offering much in the way of constructive suggestions when in opposition.

Abbott unleashed the US style of blocking everything to create a sense of crisis. I wonder if he wishes he'd been a bit more of a Team Australia player over his opposition years??

 

[drsmith]

You can argue that both ways. If they can't keep relatively small promises how they can be expected to keep big ones?

The breaking of a smaller promise is generally not as politically damaging as breaking a bigger one although there is also a dependency on how well a given government politically manages it. That's not an argument, it's a simple reality.

 

[noco]

So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?

I think the voters generally like the senate as a way to ensure stuff like 6 month waiting for welfare support for under 30s or poorly atrgeted GP co payments or FOFA legislation benefiting the big banks gets debated and generally thrown out because it's not good policy.

I don't seem to recall you having the same attitude to the Gillard Govt. Seems most calling for the senate to stop being so obstructionist were rather too happy about it doing exactly the same when Labor were in Govt.

I would like the senators opposing revenue savings to provide alternatives. That might be a way forward, but then again I don't recall any coalition senators offering much in the way of constructive suggestions when in opposition.

Abbott unleashed the US style of blocking everything to create a sense of crisis. I wonder if he wishes he'd been a bit more of a Team Australia player over his opposition years??

Hang on Syd, Gillard and Rudd had a favorable senate to allow the Green/Labor left wing socialist to pass legislation with any obstruction.
Abbott tried to block many of the Green/labor hare brain schemes with good reason.....he was trying to save the nation money.


Fuel watch
Grocery watch
Roof insulation
The Carbon tax that Gillard said would never happen.
The mining tax that cost more to administer than what was gained
Etc Etc
The Green/Labor left wing socialist are blocking savings the Abbott Government want to implement to counter the waste made by Labor 2007/2013.
Bill Shorten is not showing leadership by his aggressive tactics without indicating where he would make savings...He is just a smart alec.

 

[sptrawler]

So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?

I think the voters generally like the senate as a way to ensure stuff like 6 month waiting for welfare support for under 30s or poorly atrgeted GP co payments or FOFA legislation benefiting the big banks gets debated and generally thrown out because it's not good policy.

I don't seem to recall you having the same attitude to the Gillard Govt. Seems most calling for the senate to stop being so obstructionist were rather too happy about it doing exactly the same when Labor were in Govt.

I would like the senators opposing revenue savings to provide alternatives. That might be a way forward, but then again I don't recall any coalition senators offering much in the way of constructive suggestions when in opposition.

Abbott unleashed the US style of blocking everything to create a sense of crisis. I wonder if he wishes he'd been a bit more of a Team Australia player over his opposition years??

I was definately against the mining and carbon tax, I also thought the splash of cash was ill timed and poorly enacted.
I was also vocal against the insulation debacle, mainly due again to the fact it was poorly implemented.IMO
I wasn't overly fond of Labors idea of a 'big Australia' either.

One way or another it will be self resolving, I think, the next election will be black or white. There won't be many independents survive.IMO

 

[noco]

So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?

?

Isn't that what the Green/Labor senators did under Rudd/Gillard......we did not see them going against their masters in the lower house and if did, they would have been expelled by the Labor Party machine.

 

[Julia]

So now you have got that off your chest, for the 1,000 time, what next?

Grit your teeth, sptrawler: Syd can go on repeating it many more times yet. You might reach the point where you decline to read the repetitive posts. That largely solves it.

Maybe that should have been considered before making the promise....

I think we are all agreed about this, overhang. Mr Abbott made several completely unnecessary promises. He already had victory in the bag, so why he felt compelled to make promises he must have known would be difficult to keep is a mystery.
However, continuing to repeat this is less than productive at this stage. Sooner or later, the electorate has to accept reality and understand that ongoing whining about broken promises is pointless, and rather, encourage Labor to work with the government to solve the budgetary problem they left behind.

If people don't like it they will vote them out next election.
Meanwhile let them get on with it.
We now have a senator voting everything down, because she thinks some people didn't get an appropriate payrise.

If all the senators get a pet sector of the workforce, that they are going to represent, where does it end?

Exactly. That Lambie et al can make such a farce out of the Senate is unbelievable.
Do we have any Constitutional experts? Is there a point where a rogue senator, clearly off on her own personal obsession and without regard for objective discourse and policy consideration, is just not permitted to go on disrupting progress of government?

So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?

He was not saying that at all. Why would you seek to twist what others have said?
(The question is rhetorical: we all know you would find a way to criticise the government even if they managed to fulfil all your wishes, such is your inherent dislike of them.)

 

[sydboy007]

I was definately against the mining and carbon tax, I also thought the splash of cash was ill timed and poorly enacted.
I was also vocal against the insulation debacle, mainly due again to the fact it was poorly implemented.IMO
I wasn't overly fond of Labors idea of a 'big Australia' either.

One way or another it will be self resolving, I think, the next election will be black or white. There won't be many independents survive.IMO

The mining tax in the original version, with some tweaking, might have stopped us from being in the rather toasted situation we find ourselves in with the extended period of AUD over valuation, over investment in resources, budget funding under pressure, tradeables sector decimated.

The insulation debacle and and splash of cash are likely the reason we didn't sink into recession like pretty much the rest of the world. It's easy with 20 20 vision and knowing China went on the largest debt binge in history, but at the time I remember the fear and the downward trajectory that NSW was in. The number of small business cancelling internet and voice services from my employer had me feeling we weren't far off following the US and Eruope into recession.

Howard said "Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in Government." Were you against his big Australia idea too?

 

[sydboy007]

Grit your teeth, sptrawler: Syd can go on repeating it many more times yet. You might reach the point where you decline to read the repetitive posts. That largely solves it.

How about some even handedness. People on this forum repeat ad nauseum a lot of untrue things about Labor, yet that seems to be acceptable.

I think we are all agreed about this, overhang. Mr Abbott made several completely unnecessary promises. He already had victory in the bag, so why he felt compelled to make promises he must have known would be difficult to keep is a mystery.
However, continuing to repeat this is less than productive at this stage. Sooner or later, the electorate has to accept reality and understand that ongoing whining about broken promises is pointless, and rather, encourage Labor to work with the government to solve the budgetary problem they left behind.

When did anyone on this forum / media say during the Labor Govt "Sooner or later, the electorate has to accept reality and understand that ongoing whining about broken promises is pointless, and rather, encourage the Coalition to work with the government to solve the budgetary problem they left behind"?

Exactly. That Lambie et al can make such a farce out of the Senate is unbelievable.
Do we have any Constitutional experts? Is there a point where a rogue senator, clearly off on her own personal obsession and without regard for objective discourse and policy consideration, is just not permitted to go on disrupting progress of government?

The original constitution was set up to give a check and balance via the senate. It might be messy, but it serves the function well and the Australian public has generally been happy to not give absolute power to either political party. If work choices is the kind of result absolute political power gives us then I'll take the current discord.

He was not saying that at all. Why would you seek to twist what others have said?
(The question is rhetorical: we all know you would find a way to criticise the government even if they managed to fulfil all your wishes, such is your inherent dislike of them.)

How does the senate let the Govt get on with it without being a rubber stamp? Do they have the right to criticise and debate the legislation being proposed? Usually that at least polishes off the rough edges of policy.

I wished Labor or the Greens had had the courage to support the rise in fuel excise, though I don't support the automatic indexation for more than the term of a Govt. Government should make the case at the budget for the revenue they're raising.

I do wish the non Govt senators would provide some alternatives to the poor Govt policy, but at the end of the day the Govt has to deal with the political situation it finds itself in. I feel Labor is missing out on a golden opportunity to propose some good policy and show that it is worthy of votes at the next election. That's when democracy works well.

That Labor has achieved negative growth in Govt expenditure 5 times, the coalition not once in 40 years is something not acknowledged. Howard was the most profligate spending PM and yet Rudd and Gillard are always held up as big spenders.

 

[sptrawler]

The mining tax in the original version, with some tweaking, might have stopped us from being in the rather toasted situation we find ourselves in with the extended period of AUD over valuation, over investment in resources, budget funding under pressure, tradeables sector decimated.?

The mining tax like most things Labor did was done on the back of a napkin. If they had spent the same time developing that, as they did bring in all and sundry for the 2020 think tank, I may have forgiven them.

The insulation debacle and and splash of cash are likely the reason we didn't sink into recession like pretty much the rest of the world. It's easy with 20 20 vision and knowing China went on the largest debt binge in history, but at the time I remember the fear and the downward trajectory that NSW was in. The number of small business cancelling internet and voice services from my employer had me feeling we weren't far off following the US and Eruope into recession.?

We didn't sink into recession because we didn't have the exposure to the CDO's and associated toxic debt.
We were actually on an upward investment cycle ,trying to keep up with China's demand for raw materials.
The insulation debacle, did nothing other than give money away to landlords and scammers, they should have installed it in welfare housing. Not given it away to people who could afford it anyway.
We weren't on the trajectory that the rest of the world was on, it was an over reaction, blind freddy could see it.
Rudd saw it as a Father Christmas moment, to improve his popularity.
Well, in the next breath we were screaming for workers and 457's, jeez.
Don't rewrite history, it was dumb, it was costly and it was non productive.

Howard said "Australia needs a high level of immigration. I’m a high immigration man. I practiced that in Government." Were you against his big Australia idea too?

I don't agree Australia can support 50million people, with the same quality of life.
I know it may sound selfish, but I do enjoy our lifestyle and I don't see many asylum seekers heading for Indonesia.
If our economy grows in a way that it can support more people, well let more in, but I am dead against racing down to the lowest common denominator.

I know you don't believe it, but I would vote Labor if I thought they would improve Australia as a whole.
As you have said on numerous occassions, new and broader based taxes should be considered.
Labor just looked at where they could gouge, that's not the way to do it.IMO
It's childish, it's immature and it's counter productive.IMO

 

[sptrawler]

How about some even handedness. People on this forum repeat ad nauseum a lot of untrue things about Labor, yet that seems to be acceptable..

Can you be a bit more precise, what generally do you think has been untrue, I'm not asking for specifics.
But genarally what slur is missdirected

When did anyone on this forum / media say during the Labor Govt "Sooner or later, the electorate has to accept reality and understand that ongoing whining about broken promises is pointless, and rather, encourage the Coalition to work with the government to solve the budgetary problem they left behind"?.

Well the obvious answer to that is, there wasn't a budgetary problem left behind.
You can talk it up as much as you like, but the fact is, they inherited a surplus.
The mining boom was rising for a further 5 years, we had a massive shortfall of skilled labour.
Gillard gave the o.k for Gina to bring in thousands of construction workers, for Roy Hill, on 457's.

The original constitution was set up to give a check and balance via the senate. It might be messy, but it serves the function well and the Australian public has generally been happy to not give absolute power to either political party. If work choices is the kind of result absolute political power gives us then I'll take the current discord..

Firstly the result of the last election, is a result of Australians sense of humour, a dry response to an unsavoury choice.
You're probably too young to remember the work choices reality, you are probably remembering the hysteria surrounding it.
In reality, it is probably in force now and has been since Labor were in office.
The basis for Labors scare campaign was, unions couldn't be involved in workplace deals.
Well most workplaces in W.A are on individual contracts anyway.
Can you tell me if you are on an individual agreed contract, or a union agreed wage?
It's just hype, to wow and stun, the gullible.

How does the senate let the Govt get on with it without being a rubber stamp? Do they have the right to criticise and debate the legislation being proposed? Usually that at least polishes off the rough edges of policy..

So when does criticise, extend to block legislation because you don't agree with a payrise. I'm confused.

I wished Labor or the Greens had had the courage to support the rise in fuel excise, though I don't support the automatic indexation for more than the term of a Govt. Government should make the case at the budget for the revenue they're raising..

Not only did they have the courage to support it, THEY INTRODUCED IT.

I do wish the non Govt senators would provide some alternatives to the poor Govt policy, but at the end of the day the Govt has to deal with the political situation it finds itself in. I feel Labor is missing out on a golden opportunity to propose some good policy and show that it is worthy of votes at the next election. That's when democracy works well..

They can't propose good policy, because they haven't got a clue.
They were in power for six years, in the last year all they could talk about was more spending.
The only tax changes they talked about was resources, which have tanked and would now be crippled, because no one would have lent them any money.ffs
Or the carbon tax, which was going to go up and be applied to diesel fuel for transport companies, this year.
Jeez for a smart young bloke, you really suprise me.

That Labor has achieved negative growth in Govt expenditure 5 times, the coalition not once in 40 years is something not acknowledged. Howard was the most profligate spending PM and yet Rudd and Gillard are always held up as big spenders.

Howard inherited a deficit from Keating, the main reason Keating was thrown out was because workers were screwed over.
Having said that, in retrospect it had to be done, because wages were high and unemployment were high.

Getting back to Howard, he ran a tight economy, one of my sons was enjoying life surfing, when Howard changed welfare, my son got fed up with jumping through hoops and got a job. Needless to say he hates Howard.lol

Howard/Costello reduced the deficit and then ran a surplus, rather than just keep running an ever increasing surplus, they reduced personal income tax rates.

The mining boom hadn't really got a head of steam by 2006, so Howard/ Costello started the future fund to mitigate the ballooning cost of commonwealth supperannuation obligations.

These costs are compounding beyond belief, to start the future fund has saved the taxpayer zillions.

So what is the Rudd, Gillard, Rudd legacy?

How about answering that, Syd, with some substance.
That will take some time.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't agree Australia can support 50million people, with the same quality of life.
I know it may sound selfish, but I do enjoy our lifestyle and I don't see many asylum seekers heading for Indonesia.
If our economy grows in a way that it can support more people, well let more in, but I am dead against racing down to the lowest common denominator.

Economic growth can be achieved by giving the people who are here a better lifestyle instead of bringing more in.

Many jobs that were previously done manually are now being done by technology, so we are on an inverse relationship between increased population and increased productivity. More people just means a reduced share per person of our GDP.

I do wish the non Govt senators would provide some alternatives to the poor Govt policy, but at the end of the day the Govt has to deal with the political situation it finds itself in. I feel Labor is missing out on a golden opportunity to propose some good policy and show that it is worthy of votes at the next election. That's when democracy works well.

They usually leave that until the election campaign to avoid scrutiny and policy piracy.

Sad though it is, it's the way all parties operate these days.

 

[sptrawler]

Economic growth can be achieved by giving the people who are here a better lifestyle instead of bringing more in.

Many jobs that were previously done manually are now being done by technology, so we are on an inverse relationship between increased population and increased productivity. More people just means a reduced share per person of our GDP.
.

It is good to see you agree with me, instead of with the Labor manifesto.

Common sense breaking through. yeh
We may get you to vote Liberal yet.

 

[SirRumpole]

It is good to see you agree with me, instead of with the Labor manifesto.

Common sense breaking through. yeh
We may get you to vote Liberal yet.

I will vote Liberal if I believe it's in the national interest.

I don't believe it's in the NI to pack in ever more people that we will find it hard to give jobs to.

That idea was a key failing of both the Howard and Rudd governments who both promoted high immigration.

Unfortunately, the issue is a political hot potato which no party wants to touch.

 

[Tisme]

I love the way many of you skirt the notion of deception, lying, criminality, etc. by our politicians, in favour of comparing the other team's lack of integrity to one's own. The lesser of two evils mantra doesn't excuse the fact that wrong is wrong no matter the degree of wrongness.

And accepting lying as a lay down misere for parliament is lowering the bar rather than elevating the character and honesty of it. Defending the Abbott cronies when they lie like Malcolm did so overtly the other night, damage control or no damage control, is tantamount to complicit approval of deception on the broader community....do you really want to hitch your pony to bare faced liars and trust them to feed and water it?

 

[SirRumpole]

I love the way many of you skirt the notion of deception, lying, criminality, etc. by our politicians, in favour of comparing the other team's lack of integrity to one's own. The lesser of two evils mantra doesn't excuse the fact that wrong is wrong no matter the degree of wrongness.

And accepting lying as a lay down misere for parliament is lowering the bar rather than elevating the character and honesty of it. Defending the Abbott cronies when they lie like Malcolm did so overtly the other night, damage control or no damage control, is tantamount to complicit approval of deception on the broader community....do you really want to hitch your pony to bare faced liars and trust them to feed and water it?

That was a pretty pathetic attempt by Turnbull to explain away "no cuts". About as pathetic as Brandis trying to say there is no reversal of the burden of proof in anti terrorism legislation.

Not only do they lie, they don't lie very well.

 

[drsmith]

The lesser of two evils mantra doesn't excuse the fact that wrong is wrong no matter the degree of wrongness.

What's your answer then on polling day ?

At the booth you have two choices. Vote for a party (or individual) whom you feel is best (or put another way, least worst) or vote informal.