The Abbott Government

basilio said:

I wonder if this last month has basically spelt the effective end of Tony Abbotts leadership?

The poll figures are now a chasm and suggest that many voters have decided TA is just not a good PM.
The leaks from Cabinet regarding Julie Bishop going to Lima to represent Australia at the Climate Change talks and then Tony tagging Andrew Robb as a chaperone are damming. Why ?

Click to expand...

I don't see why either Bishop or Robb should be going to Lima.

The responsible Minister is Greg Hunt. Doesn't Abbott trust him either ?

sydboy007 said:

The sad fact is that Abbott showed this is a successful tool while in opposition. Where was Abbotts nation interest when he fought against Labors attempts to reign in the tax expenditures on car FBT and super pensions over $100K? Why weren't you calling for Abbott to be more bipartisan when Labor was in Govt?

To be honest i think an opposition is better to be bolder so that when they do get into Govt they have a reasonable case to be made that the public knew what they stood for before the election. Abbott spent 3 years telling everyone he was going to cut the deficit, cut taxes, and increase spending.

Unfortunately the media never challenged him enough on those claims, and too many of the public just believed him. He never chose to really work with Labor on solving the budget, even though he should have known it was in his best interests to help stem the bleeding revenues from tax expenditures, support some well targeted tax increases and well targeted spending cuts.

Now he's Phoney Tony barely able to admit he's broken promises, providing too much air time on his weaselling as to what he did and didn't promise.

Maybe it's time for the MSM to ask the leaders of the parties what promises they will fall on their own sword over should be be elected and not achieve. At least that might give voters a better idea of just what truly is a core promises these days.

Now we have a Govt that says it was going ot be transparent, yet wont release information about travel expenses that Labor regularly provided. That's only going to lead to people wondering what secrets they're trying to hide. Is there some more Don Randall type trips to be shown??

The Government is now spending tax payer funds to try and argue the case for the university funding changes, yet they wont acknowledge that the cost of uni degrees is going to at least double. Why are they wasting money on an advertising campaign? If the Govt has been so bad at communication their strategy, why are tax payers now forced to stump up more money to try and paper over the ineptitude? Saying Labor did it doesn't wash. Abbott promised to cut Govt advertising spending when he was in opposition.

Is it too much to ask that the Govt live up to what it said for so many years in opposition?

Click to expand...

I must admit, I expected more from Abbott.

He should have called a DD as early as possible, instead of doing what he said he wouldn't, work with minority groups.

By dealing with Palmer, he has left himself in an indefensible position, that will end with him being replaced.IMO

basilio said:

I wonder if this last month has basically spelt the effective end of Tony Abbotts leadership?

The poll figures are now a chasm and suggest that many voters have decided TA is just not a good PM.
The leaks from Cabinet regarding Julie Bishop going to Lima to represent Australia at the Climate Change talks and then Tony tagging Andrew Robb as a chaperone are damming. Why ?

1) Tony just looks so politically dumb trying to bury CC as an issue when the very act of doing so becomes a serious problem for the government

2) Julie Bishop recognised this political reality and brought the issue to Cabinet which also recognized the political validity of at least being seen to do something.

3) Tony has now tried to control Juli by tagging Andrew Robb onto her for the trip - and getting absolutely no thanks from either party.

4) Finally this whole mess has been leaked to expose Tony Abbotts exceptionally poor judgment. When that sort of leaking is done I suggest numbers are being counted

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...limate-change-conference-20141208-122ug0.html
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...rime-ministerial-bottoms-20141208-122p91.html

Click to expand...

Julie Bishop's office seems to be leaking like a sieve lately. Looks like she's trying to position herself to the left of Abbott.

banco said:

Julie Bishop's office seems to be leaking like a sieve lately. Looks like she's trying to position herself to the left of Abbott.

Click to expand...

Still difficult to see her from the centre though.

Bold policy reform or stagnate is the only choice left for the Coalition.

As far as I can tell the right wing still hold power in the party room so Abbott wont be going any where soon.

This could change of course if Abbott sways to the centre but even then the Coalition are extremely unlikely to remove a serving PM.

Few governments have broken the compact between themselves and the punters such as this one I think its likely to be a 1 term government particularly if Labor come up with a serious plan to address the deficit

IFocus said:

As far as I can tell the right wing still hold power in the party room so Abbott wont be going any where soon.

This could change of course if Abbott sways to the centre but even then the Coalition are extremely unlikely to remove a serving PM.

Few governments have broken the compact between themselves and the punters such as this one I think its likely to be a 1 term government particularly if Labor come up with a serious plan to address the deficit

Click to expand...

With the propensity of the Abbott tribe to blame everything on someone else and a grand aversion to taking responsibility for poor decisions, I don't think there is many blockers to dethroning Tony.

They could merely say he was a warrior in the mould of Churchill and now that order has been restored in parliament after the chaotic years of the satanic Labor govt. a moderate governance is required.

Tony could get a job with the Institute of Public Affairs or chair of the new $7 (strike that) $5/person Medical Research Institute being set up for politicians to retire to as other traditional safehouse public institutions are sold off. I believe there is 20 places being created in a soon to be created dept of a state owned corp to safety net the expected losers in the next QLD election.... that might be a good place for an assistant to lay low for a while.

Tisme said:

With the propensity of the Abbott tribe to blame everything on someone else and a grand aversion to taking responsibility for poor decisions, I don't think there is many blockers to dethroning Tony.

Click to expand...

THE era of Kevin, interrupted by the Julia interlude, has been a roller-coaster ride. Having promised Howard-lite and fiscal conservatism, the excuse of the global financial crisis unleashed a period of rapid growth in government spending, successive budget deficits and mounting public debt under Kevin Rudd's guidance.

Now, with Rudd's return, Labor has launched a charm offensive that seeks to whitewash the past: it is as if aliens from Mars, fortunately departed, had been in charge. But the damage of that era cannot be wiped out so easily.

And that damage is steep indeed: in the 935 days between becoming prime minister on December 3, 2007, and Julia Gillard's coup of June 24, 2010, Rudd left Australians with at least $153 billion in unfunded fiscal burdens while wasting $100bn of the community's resources.

The time has come to count those costs, and to assess their implications for the man who would be king.

By far the most visible component of the costs was the shift from a budget cash surplus, averaging 0.9 per cent of gross domestic product during the Howard years to a cash deficit that exceeded 4 per cent of GDP in 2010. Associated with a succession of economic stimulus measures, that deterioration proved difficult to reverse, with the commonwealth's balance sheet shifting from $44.8bn in net assets when Rudd took office to $161.6bn in net debt this year.

Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ste-and-spending/story-fn59niix-1226690463570

SPEND SPEND SPEND !!! Nope it is not Labors fault now is it? Poor Tony must be on the shrooms

SirRumpole said:

I don't see why either Bishop or Robb should be going to Lima.

The responsible Minister is Greg Hunt. Doesn't Abbott trust him either ?

Click to expand...

It predicated on the lobbying against Great Barrier Reef heritage listing/protection. The proposed gas fields and minerals exploitation would be jeopardised.

trainspotter said:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ste-and-spending/story-fn59niix-1226690463570

SPEND SPEND SPEND !!! Nope it is not Labors fault now is it? Poor Tony must be on the shrooms

Click to expand...

I thought this was The Abbott Govt thread?

If Medicare is becoming unsustainable, then why not slightly increase the Medicare levy, instead on mucking around with "co payments". ?

Also there is not much mention of long term preventative medicine like reducing the childhood (and adult) obesity rates which are the causes of most of our illnesses.

That's what happens when you have a government focussed entirely on finances, without much interest in the underlying causes of the growth of our reliance on the health system.

SirRumpole said:

That's what happens when you have a government focussed entirely on finances, without much interest in the underlying causes of the growth of our reliance on the health system.

Click to expand...

Fix one first and the second will follow

SirRumpole said:

If Medicare is becoming unsustainable, then why not slightly increase the Medicare levy, instead on mucking around with "co payments". ?

Also there is not much mention of long term preventative medicine like reducing the childhood (and adult) obesity rates which are the causes of most of our illnesses.

That's what happens when you have a government focussed entirely on finances, without much interest in the underlying causes of the growth of our reliance on the health system.

Click to expand...

Yeah I think the aversion to hurt feelings is counter to our national health issues. Obesity is so common now it's becoming a justifiable habit to those afflicted (amongst peers). I know medicos who say they are reluctant to carry out surgery on fat people and we see articles about pregnant women being refused delivery services in some parts of the world.

As you know Rumpole, Sir Knight, I travel extensively and I am starting to see little difference between the big eating American physique and the Australian. Even my own siblings who were trim and healthy succumbed to carbs, refined sugar and indolence (big word for the junior minds) resulting in barrel like body shapes by the time they were 40 ish.

SirRumpole said:

If Medicare is becoming unsustainable, then why not slightly increase the Medicare levy, instead on mucking around with "co payments". ?

Click to expand...

The intention was to stop the system being abused, and hence reduce costs, by people who make a doctors visit for every minor complaint because it is free to do so. The co-payment was a disincentive for that. Increasing the Medicare levy doesn't provide such a deterrent.

Didn't we commit to a few extra billion on extra JSF a few months back?

Looks like somebody will have some answering to do:


"The F-35 program continues to work through a litany of problems, but this one is almost laughable. According to the USAF, the troubled fighter cannot use gas from standard green colored USAF fuel trucks if it has been sitting in the sun. Considering that these jets will most likely find themselves operating in the desert or in somewhere in the scorching Pacific, this is a big problem."

And it's not built in South Australia!



http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668

bellenuit said:

The intention was to stop the system being abused, and hence reduce costs, by people who make a doctors visit for every minor complaint because it is free to do so. The co-payment was a disincentive for that. Increasing the Medicare levy doesn't provide such a deterrent.

Click to expand...

Is there any modelling to show this will actually occur?

has any modelling been done on the cost involved should someone not see the doctor and then go from preventative or early treatment to ending up in hospital or requiring longer and more expensive treatment?

If price signals are the key point of the policy, then why is Abbott so against congestion charging for road use? The state of the cities 2012 report found:

only one third of AM peak motorised trips in Melbourne are for work. Moreover, 17% are for recreation and shopping purposes. The pattern for Sydney is similar.

Click to expand...

It only takes a reduction of around 5% in the number of vehicles to increase average vehicle speeds by 10-30%. It won’t be at the speed limit necessarily, but it will be fast enough to satisfy the expectations of most drivers…

Click to expand...

Considering Abbott is supporting the $1M / meter tunnel in Melbourne you'd think using some form of peak time congestion charge would be the smarter way forward. Might help reduce the need for expensive infrastructure upgrades.

Tisme said:

I thought this was The Abbott Govt thread?

Click to expand...

And yet the ASF right just keep wanting to turn it all around, blame someone else, anyone else.

Tisme said:

Didn't we commit to a few extra billion on extra JSF a few months back?

Looks like somebody will have some answering to do:


"The F-35 program continues to work through a litany of problems, but this one is almost laughable. According to the USAF, the troubled fighter cannot use gas from standard green colored USAF fuel trucks if it has been sitting in the sun. Considering that these jets will most likely find themselves operating in the desert or in somewhere in the scorching Pacific, this is a big problem."

And it's not built in South Australia!



http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668

Click to expand...

You wouldn't trust them to build a paper aeroplane would you ?

Well it wasn't Abbott or the Libs that did this?



Firstly, there’s clearly quite a difference between how much the Howard Government relied on short-term debt (Treasury Notes), compared with the subsequent Labor Government. The period when the largest block of Howard-era short term debt auctions occurred was through the year 2002 – coinciding with the 2002-03 global recession, which Australia largely avoided.

Secondly, for four (4) full years between October 2003 and the Rudd election win in November 2007, the Howard Government raised no short-term debt. Not one cent.

Neither did Kevin07. For 16 months. Until the GFC.

You remember. “Swift and decisive”. Rushed and bungled. $900 cheques to dead people. Electrifying foil insulation. Blazing pink batts. Rorted “green” schemes. Overpriced school halls. Literally billions more, to investigate and repair these Rudd-made disasters.

http://barnabyisright.com/resources...ing-spree-look-a-model-of-financial-prudence/

trainspotter said:

View attachment 60666

Well it wasn't Abbott or the Libs that did this?

View attachment 60667

Firstly, there’s clearly quite a difference between how much the Howard Government relied on short-term debt (Treasury Notes), compared with the subsequent Labor Government. The period when the largest block of Howard-era short term debt auctions occurred was through the year 2002 – coinciding with the 2002-03 global recession, which Australia largely avoided.

Secondly, for four (4) full years between October 2003 and the Rudd election win in November 2007, the Howard Government raised no short-term debt. Not one cent.

Neither did Kevin07. For 16 months. Until the GFC.

You remember. “Swift and decisive”. Rushed and bungled. $900 cheques to dead people. Electrifying foil insulation. Blazing pink batts. Rorted “green” schemes. Overpriced school halls. Literally billions more, to investigate and repair these Rudd-made disasters.

Click to expand...

So basically you're comparing the Howard period where the private sector spend a couple of years with negative savings rates and pretty much was never really above 3-4%, where the GST pie was growing at something like 8% a year, where corporate tax revenue was surging because the mining companies hadn't started their massive CAPEX spend.

I'd also highlight the fact that mortgage rates wee over 9% in the final term of the Howard Govt. They kept providing handouts to the public while the RBA was raising interest rates. Very smart to run loose fiscal policy while inflation is way outside the RBA target, and while the RBA is tightening monetary policy. How was that economically sensible to increase the private debt burden of households?

Now compare Howards charmed time in office with Labor after the GFC where corporate tax plunged, govt revenue fell from Howard's 26% levels to 20-21% at one point, where the mining CAPEX spent was seeing depreciation kill off tax revenue, where the savings rate went back to around it's pre Howard norm of 10%.

So when Hockey releases the MYEFO in a week or so and shows the deficit is ballooning I hope you'll be blaming him and the rest of the Abbott Govt for the increase in debt. I also hope you wonder why the Govt is saying they don't need to take any action to reduce the rate of increase in the deficit. It's certainly not on a good trajectory and we've yet to cope with the closing of the car manufacturer and resource construction job loses.

Your logic says the economic environment is not particularly relevant to how the Govt is performing. Your logic says it was somehow possible to get through the GFC with no budget deficit - a feat no country in the world achieved, though Christopher Pyne seems to believe it was possible for the Liberals, yet with revenues higher than the post GFC period the current Govt is seeing debt increase. Why is that so? It's certainly not due to the start of the resource CAPEX cliff kicking in, nor the fall in the participation rate, or the near halving of the terms of trade rise when compared to pre boom levels. It must be all down to a Government unable to live within it's means and match spending with revenue. Pure and simple really.

If population growth keeps slowing and stops artificially boosting GDP, the Abbott Govt may preside over the first recession in a generation. I wonder what that will do their reputation as economic managers.

trainspotter said:

View attachment 60666

Well it wasn't Abbott or the Libs that did this?

View attachment 60667

Firstly, there’s clearly quite a difference between how much the Howard Government relied on short-term debt (Treasury Notes), compared with the subsequent Labor Government. The period when the largest block of Howard-era short term debt auctions occurred was through the year 2002 – coinciding with the 2002-03 global recession, which Australia largely avoided.

Secondly, for four (4) full years between October 2003 and the Rudd election win in November 2007, the Howard Government raised no short-term debt. Not one cent.

Neither did Kevin07. For 16 months. Until the GFC.

You remember. “Swift and decisive”. Rushed and bungled. $900 cheques to dead people. Electrifying foil insulation. Blazing pink batts. Rorted “green” schemes. Overpriced school halls. Literally billions more, to investigate and repair these Rudd-made disasters.

http://barnabyisright.com/resources...ing-spree-look-a-model-of-financial-prudence/

Click to expand...

I think you should google yield curve.