The Abbott Government

[sptrawler]

In principle I'm pro markets and business, but the downsides of the Liberals outweigh that for me at the moment such that, of the parties, Labor seems the best of a bad bunch.

By "pro business" I mean that I acknowledge that business as such is legitimate, it's the underpinning of the economy and ultimately of our society. We should certainly have sensible regulation in areas such as pay and conditions, environment, safety, consumer protection etc. But it shouldn't be to the point of punishing business for the sake of it (essentially an ideological view) or making it impossible to carry on a reasonable business activity.

Maybe you're judging them on Tassie politics, same as I'm basing my beliefs on W.A experience.

Federally I feel, it has become a joke, the last Senate election proved to me, that a seat in Parliament has become a job of last resort. I personally know one that put up his hand, and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could kick him, but as long as he gets a jumper he's laughing.
IMO Labors term in office, highlighted to the scammers how easy it all is.
As a result, the last thing politicians seem to be concerned with, is Australia. The critical issue appears to be ticking the boxes for lifetime perks.IMO
The result will be financial impediments will be put in place, to make it harder to enter politics, thereby going down the U.S model.IMO

How people can bag Pauline Hansen and laud Jackie Lambie, defiese belief.IMO

It is and should be so. But I think it's fair to say that there's a degree of bias on both major sides of politics here. One side likes them, one hates them. Neither could be considered impartial..

No neither could be impartial towards unions, but one side is beholden to them.

Seems fair to me. Although a "personal freedom" government would see no reason to regulate that in the first place assuming we're talking about two consenting adults..

What Government would you be talking about? The acceptance of 'gay marriage' isn't a constitutional issue, it's a religious and moral issue, it has nothing to do with legislation, just moral acceptance.
I personally am not religious at all, and don't really care either way.
But having said that, a lot of our moral, social and legal structures, are based on long held religious guidelines.
These were probably enacted a zillion years ago, to bring about order in a chaotic primal world, decadence was the downfall of many civilisations.
Who knows if they are required now? everything gets superseded.

It was a very foreseeable problem too, just basic maths really. Anyone who looked at the statistics would have known about an aging population and the rest is pretty straightforward from that point. Liberal (Howard) could have moderated the boom and stashed more away for the future. Labor could have avoided blowing what the previous government did set aside. Abbott could have sold the message a lot better had he taken a calmer, less arrogant approach to it all.

The sad thing is, the longer we leave it, the harder it will be to fix eventually. At some point, we're going to have a true horror budget that everybody from the rich through to the unemployed and everyone in between will hate.

Agree completely Rudd/Labor over reacted to the GFC, probably from the euphoria of attaining office with a World leading fiscal situation.
Abbott has fallen into the same trap, thinking kicking the $hit out of welfare recipients, is what everyone wanted.
Now we have everyone wedged by loonies, it is going to end up a whole lot worse, for those who can't change their fiscal situation.
Sad really.

 

[Macquack]

There needs to be better collection of data on welfare recipients in general, especially those on disability support. This is a very wide area that seems to cover every complaint from amputations to anxiety. Some easy to prove, others not.

There could be widespread rorting of disability payments.

There is widespread rorting of the disability pension from what I see. The main problem is that once people are on the disability pension they never work again. This is a generalisation, but is drug and alcohol addiction (which qualifies) really a "disability"?

 

[SirRumpole]

There is widespread rorting of the disability pension from what I see. The main problem is that once people are on the disability pension they never work again. This is a generalisation, but is drug and alcohol addiction (which qualifies) really a "disability"?

Drug and alcohol addiction qualifies for the DSP ?

I'm staggered. What about gambling addiction ?

This is outrageous. I hope Morrison does something about that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/fa...-to-stay-at-home/story-e6freuy9-1226055955717

 

[sptrawler]

There is widespread rorting of the disability pension from what I see. The main problem is that once people are on the disability pension they never work again. This is a generalisation, but is drug and alcohol addiction (which qualifies) really a "disability"?

I was on a cruise a couple of years ago, I met a guy in the gym that looked like Arnie, he was bench pressing heaps.
When we got talking, found out he was on a disability pension 'bad back'.

I'm not saying it should be stopped, but it definetely is being rorted.

 

[sptrawler]

Drug and alcohol addiction qualifies for the DSP ?

I'm staggered. What about gambling addiction ?

This is outrageous. I hope Morrison does something about that.

McQuack is right.

 

[Julia]

Would the word "shallow" sum him up ?

I don't think we're in a position to make this judgment. People who know Tony Abbott well, including Labor-inclined journalists from the press gallery, comment that on a personal basis Mr Abbott is friendly, warm and intellectually engaged.

I'm no way a Conservative, but I agree with Mr Johns statement. Of course the champions of the poor and oppressed will cry that it's everyone's right to have children, but not on my money thanks.

Will the Coalition bring back "Income management" ? Is this a good idea ? Some people with spend welfare on drink, drugs, pokies and cigarettes but I wonder what proportion of welfare recipients this group composes.

There needs to be better collection of data on welfare recipients in general, especially those on disability support. This is a very wide area that seems to cover every complaint from amputations to anxiety. Some easy to prove, others not.

There could be widespread rorting of disability payments.

As has been discussed on a separate thread, many people, particularly those over 40 have been placed on the DSP to make the unemployment figures look better.
The criteria for eligibility seems to change according to the political whim of the day. People with mild sadness are conveniently tagged as severely depressed, minor back pain is categorised as disabling yada yada.

In principle I'm pro markets and business, but the downsides of the Liberals outweigh that for me at the moment such that, of the parties, Labor seems the best of a bad bunch.

Really? Not withstanding that we are now paying massive amounts in interest alone to cope with the debt they incurred, plus their blue sky ideas re additional education and disability funding that they didn't explain how they would fund? That business was in despair over the policies or lack of them?

The Abbott government leaves much to be desired, but at least they recognise the projected disastrous forward financial trajectory. They just need to find a more equitable way to address this.

Seems fair to me. Although a "personal freedom" government would see no reason to regulate that in the first place assuming we're talking about two consenting adults.

Someone earlier suggested this whole gay marriage thing should be the subject of a referendum. I agree with that, rather than have the loudest voices prompt the decision.

The sad thing is, the longer we leave it, the harder it will be to fix eventually. At some point, we're going to have a true horror budget that everybody from the rich through to the unemployed and everyone in between will hate.

Agree absolutely. So, given you favour a return to Labor, how do you think they'd go on fixing this problem?

Drug and alcohol addiction qualifies for the DSP ?

I'm staggered. What about gambling addiction ?

This is outrageous. I hope Morrison does something about that.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/fa...-to-stay-at-home/story-e6freuy9-1226055955717

Yep, all kinds of addiction, plus social anxiety, and at least a dozen other psychological maladies.
No consideration of the role of personal responsibility, self discipline. All that stuff is old fashioned in this great new age of entitlement.
Let the people on the basic wage, trying to pay off a mortgage, make a future for their family, just cough up for those who can't be bothered making an effort.

NB The above does not include a judgment on people with a genuine mental or physical illness whom we should be supporting a lot more than we do now.

 

[Calliope]

I was on a cruise a couple of years ago, I met a guy in the gym that looked like Arnie, he was bench pressing heaps.
When we got talking, found out he was on a disability pension 'bad back'.

I'm not saying it should be stopped, but it definetely is being rorted.

"Mediteranean Back" used to be the favoured disability for a pension. But I think it has now been overtaken by PTSD...Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. All you need is the right doctor and you are set up for life. If you are a returned serviceman, the RSL, which is now run by Vietnam veterans, will set you up with the right doctor.

These things are so entrenched they are now part of our culture. Scott Morrison has an impossible task...the fifth labour of Hercules...cleaning all the **** out of the Augean Stables.

 

[sptrawler]

"Mediteranean Back" used to be the favoured disability for a pension. But I think it has now been overtaken by PTSD...Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. All you need is the right doctor and you are set up for life. If you are a returned serviceman, the RSL, which is now run by Vietnam veterans, will set you up with the right doctor.

These things are so entrenched they are now part of our culture. Scott Morrison has an impossible task...the fifth labour of Hercules...cleaning all the **** out of the Augean Stables.

You're spot on, the ex navy guys that I worked with network and are mostly pulling tpi's. Yet none saw action, from what I've heard. It is unbelievable.

 

[Smurf1976]

So, given you favour a return to Labor, how do you think they'd go on fixing this problem?

I don't think that either Labor or the Coalition with present party members will actually fix the nation's finances until effectively forced to do. Labor didn't manage to do it and the Coalition is clearly now failing as well.

That being so, my logic is to vote based on other considerations given that there's no apparent option to vote for economic responsibility.

 

[sptrawler]

I don't think that either Labor or the Coalition with present party members will actually fix the nation's finances until effectively forced to do. Labor didn't manage to do it and the Coalition is clearly now failing as well.

That being so, my logic is to vote based on other considerations given that there's no apparent option to vote for economic responsibility.

Just guessing, but would that be because Labor, will keep Tassie generation in Government control?

Then I could understand your stance.

 

[Smurf1976]

Just guessing, but would that be because Labor, will keep Tassie generation in Government control?

Then I could understand your stance.

No, it's not from a state perspective but a national one. As I see it, Labor won't likely fix the mess and nor will the Coalition. Only yesterday I hear that the Coalition is now paving the way politically for an ongoing series of deficits. Using the budget as a "cushion" for the economy - that's politician speak for running a deficit for the foreseeable future.

So if we're going broke either way, and I can't see either Labor or the Coalition actually fixing things financially until forced, then there's no point voting based on that issue. That being so, Labor reflects my views somewhat better in terms of social policies etc.

Overall, my thinking is that the finances at the federal level will have more to do with timing and circumstance than who's in power over the next few years. Just like what happened in the 1980's with the states. Most got into a degree of trouble, quite drastically in Vic, Tas and SA, and both Labor and Liberal governments were involved in that debacle. It was the overall circumstances and thinking of the era, not who was in power at the time, that determined the outcome given that political opponents took essentially the same route with the same consequences.

Unless there's significant change within the parties, then I can't see either the Coalition or Labor fixing the nation's finances until either forced by external factors, or alternatively if it happens by virtue of some new boom industry emerging. If the AUD drops to 40 cents US or some other shock happens, well then that's probably going to bring about some action no matter who's in power at the time. I can't see them doing it without at least a modest shove in the right direction from the markets, RBA or credit rating agencies. In the meantime, not much changes and the debt gets bigger.

As for state issues and specifically that of privatising power generation, well at the state level I'm pretty sure that both parties would like to sell the lot and grab a few $billion that they'd then proceed to blow over the next few years. Heck, Hydro Tas has handed the state government a few $ hundred million over the past two years and yes, the politicians (first Labor/Green then Liberal) have blown it with nothing of note to show for it. None of them are any good financially. But in reality, I can't see either of them actually going down that track unless forced given the political consequences last time it was tried. If anything, we're more likely to see some sort of call for an electricity-led economic recovery of sorts

I do expect the Liberals to sell off retailing to the public however, but that's already a separate entity anyway (has been since 1998) and Labor did actually try unsuccessfully to sell it in 2013 so no real difference there.

 

[sydboy007]

Gay marriage is moral issue that Australia should have a referendum on, IMO, and then be put to bed.
I don't feel it is any Governments right, to legislate a change in our moral compass, without asking if the majority want it.

Could you clarify how gay marriage could fundamentally change the moral compass of the country.

By saying this you are saying that gay marriage is immoral, or at best amoral.

Isn't it more appropriate to consider gay marriage as a rights issue. Is it fair to deny one section of society a "right" when there is no valid reason to do so? Validity would be something you can show to be true, that can be examined by others and seen to be correct / true.

Claiming gay marriage is a moral issue also seems to imply that homosexuality is somehow not moral. I'd be interested in how you define morality.

 

[Tink]

Off topic, syd, but polygamy, homosexuality, transvestism, and incest have always been in society just not legal until now.

 

[noco]

I don't think that either Labor or the Coalition with present party members will actually fix the nation's finances until effectively forced to do. Labor didn't manage to do it and the Coalition is clearly now failing as well.

That being so, my logic is to vote based on other considerations given that there's no apparent option to vote for economic responsibility.

I am hoping common sense will prevail with voters and that they do consider which party is economically responsible, given the happenings in the past 16 months.

If the coalition can stabilize the current situation without going backwards, then at least they have gained something but it must be a bi-partisan effort and I cannot see that happening given the antics of the Labor Party.

 

[sptrawler]

Could you clarify how gay marriage could fundamentally change the moral compass of the country.

By saying this you are saying that gay marriage is immoral, or at best amoral.

Isn't it more appropriate to consider gay marriage as a rights issue. Is it fair to deny one section of society a "right" when there is no valid reason to do so? Validity would be something you can show to be true, that can be examined by others and seen to be correct / true.

Claiming gay marriage is a moral issue also seems to imply that homosexuality is somehow not moral. I'd be interested in how you define morality.

I guess it boils down to how you view it. To me, it is all about trying to give credibility, to an unnatural activity. Just my opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

I guess it boils down to how you view it. To me, it is all about trying to give credibility, to an unnatural activity. Just my opinion.

Un-natural it may be, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others (including children), it's really none of anyone else's business.

 

[sptrawler]

Un-natural it may be, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others (including children), it's really none of anyone else's business.

Absolutely, also getting way off thread.

 

[Julia]

So if we're going broke either way, and I can't see either Labor or the Coalition actually fixing things financially until forced, then there's no point voting based on that issue. That being so, Labor reflects my views somewhat better in terms of social policies etc.

So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, notwithstanding the political mess they've made of it? Acknowledging that their attempts have been stymied by Labor and the Senate?
It is at least in contrast to Labor's ever-expanding spending and multiple announcements of surpluses that were a complete certainty, according to Mr Swan, yet never came anywhere close to actually happening.

The Coalition at least recognises the problem whilst Labor and Palmer scoff at the need to rein in spending.
They assure us that Australia is in a better position than much of the rest of the world. Well, that won't be the case for long if spending continues to exceed income at the present rate.

 

[Tisme]

So you don't even give the Coalition any credit for trying to get the Budget back on track, notwithstanding the political mess they've made of it? Acknowledging that their attempts have been stymied by Labor and the Senate?
It is at least in contrast to Labor's ever-expanding spending and multiple announcements of surpluses that were a complete certainty, according to Mr Swan, yet never came anywhere close to actually happening.

The Coalition at least recognises the problem whilst Labor and Palmer scoff at the need to rein in spending.
They assure us that Australia is in a better position than much of the rest of the world. Well, that won't be the case for long if spending continues to exceed income at the present rate.

I think it's a matter of credibility; Abbott particularly used dishonest thuggish behaviour during his reign in opposition and that causes a conflict with many in his ability to be truthful and factual. One promise he carried to the election was delivery of responsible govt, which is a constitutional requirement anyway, but continually we still see the LNP shifting blame to the Lab/Green camps, which to me smacks of back biting and ineptitude.... hardly leadership stuff.

As far as factual figures and the truth of the financial books, there is big inconsistences between federal depts so doubt is reasonable imo.

Facebook this morning LOL:

 

[SirRumpole]

Absolutely, also getting way off thread.

The context of gay marriage in this thread is that the Coalition are supposedly a party of libertarians and personal freedom promoters, yet they suppress such values when practised by a certain section of the community who because of the Coalition's Conservative social values they disapprove of the minority's lifestyles.

So, could the Coalition really be said to be libertarians while they stifle the ability of a certain group to practise a lifestyle without infringing on the rights of others. Therefore are they really conformists who seek to throttle opposing views and opinions because of some inbred fear of people thinking outside the restrictive Conservative box ?