It is.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.
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 emission reduction is adopted.
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.You can argue that both ways. If they can't keep relatively small promises how they can be expected to keep big ones?
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??
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??
So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?
?
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.So now you have got that off your chest, for the 1,000 time, what next?
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.Maybe that should have been considered before making the promise....
Exactly. That Lambie et al can make such a farce out of the Senate is unbelievable.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?
He was not saying that at all. Why would you seek to twist what others have said?So basically you're saying the senate should rubber stamp all Govt legislation?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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?
Can you be a bit more precise, what generally do you think has been untrue, I'm not asking for specifics.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..
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"?.
Firstly the result of the last election, is a result of Australians sense of humour, a dry response to an unsavoury choice.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..
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.
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.
sydboy007 said: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.
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.
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?
What's your answer then on polling day ?The lesser of two evils mantra doesn't excuse the fact that wrong is wrong no matter the degree of wrongness.
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?