Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
drsmith said:
Was one of those 3 his flawed mining tax that Julia Gillard turned into her mining tax for which Wayne Swan spent the revenue it never raised ?
Click to expand...

No it wasn't exactly, Rudd backed down on the original Gillard's version was a hybrid.

It was a terrible thing, caused Gina to get onto the back of a truck and cry poor.
 
SirRumpole said:
we don't seem to quite be able to take in the growing realisation that we actually are being governed by idiots and fools, or that this actually has real-world consequences.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was always the case, but as I've grown older I've increasingly lost confidence in politicians and other supposed "leaders" in general.

When I was, say, 20 years old I always assumed that anyone in a position of power and influence must know what they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't be in such a position in the first place. The odd mistake certainly, but as a whole I thought the system to be reasonably sound. Slowly but surely, that illusion has been shattered.

At best, it's just a big cycle where the current crop of people in charge recycle the ideas of a generation or two earlier. At worst, they're outright clueless or corrupt.

No doubt there are exceptions, but most seem to fit into this category. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
I don't know if it was always the case, but as I've grown older I've increasingly lost confidence in politicians and other supposed "leaders" in general.

When I was, say, 20 years old I always assumed that anyone in a position of power and influence must know what they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't be in such a position in the first place. The odd mistake certainly, but as a whole I thought the system to be reasonably sound. Slowly but surely, that illusion has been shattered.

At best, it's just a big cycle where the current crop of people in charge recycle the ideas of a generation or two earlier. At worst, they're outright clueless or corrupt.

No doubt there are exceptions, but most seem to fit into this category. :2twocents
Click to expand...

I think you are right.

I once held out some hopes that the professionals in the Public Service would form some sort of barrier around clueless policy making, and maybe this does go on behind the scenes, but this government increasingly seems to be made up of loose cannons who don't take advice and whose main aim seems to be screwing their political opponents.
 
Lenore takes a timely look at comparing Fraser against Abbott


Malcolm Fraser's steady hand is in stark contrast to Tony Abbott's chaotic manoeuvres
Lenore Taylor

John Howard praised Fraser’s ability to restore order to the nation’s affairs, a standard that would see protege Abbott judged very harshly


Successors, on both sides of politics, often criticised Malcolm Fraser for not doing enough to modernise the Australian economy. Judging him solely by this yardstick, they argued the “wasted” Fraser years were something every leader had to strive to avoid. But John Howard, Fraser’s treasurer, who criticised his timidity on economic change, did concede that Fraser had “restored a sense of order” after the Whitlam years.

Which begs the question as to what Howard must make of his protege Tony Abbott, who appears on track to achieve little for the economy, and create a maximum sense of chaos in the process.

This week, for example, Abbott has apparently decided that if he smiles winningly and displays a sunny disposition the electorate won’t notice that much of his first-term agenda is lying in a smoking ruin somewhere outside the Senate chamber.
Click to expand...


http://www.theguardian.com/australi...k-contrast-to-tony-abbotts-chaotic-manoeuvres
 
IFocus said:
No it wasn't exactly, Rudd backed down on the original Gillard's version was a hybrid.

It was a terrible thing, caused Gina to get onto the back of a truck and cry poor.
Click to expand...
You really should refrain from scratching around in the poo in the bottom of your cage. That'll only give you squelchy feet.

Kevin Rudd didn't back down. He fell forward over the mining tax at the hand of Julia Gillard and it was the nation that was left to cry poor with her "negotiated" mining tax raising little revenue and Labor still spending the anticipated proceeds.
 
SirRumpole said:
II once held out some hopes that the professionals in the Public Service would form some sort of barrier around clueless policy making
Click to expand...

There are two types of senior people in the PS. Those who insist on doing what is right, based on proper research and analysis, and those intent on climbing the ladder.

The latter will simply put forward whatever case suits the governments ideology. They'll go to the Right when the Liberals are in power, and will go as far as themselves joining a union if Labor is in power. They are the classic "yes men" and offer no barrier or even an effective filter around policy making. There are many such people in the PS and they tend to remain there a long time, becoming known as "survivors".

The former stick to their guns but many find themselves a victim of the political process by doing so. If the government strongly disagrees, they simply replace said person with a yes man. Hence you often see new people in senior positions in the the PS shortly after a change of government, particularly when the new government plans a policy agenda substantially different to their predecessors involving a particular department.

Having worked in the (state) PS I came to a certain realisation after a while. Most perceive that public servants, at any level, work for the public since that is who is ultimately paying their wages via taxation and who is supposedly receiving the benefits of their work. In reality, public servants work for the government and are employed to serve the government, not the public. There is a major difference there and this applies to at least some extent even at the lowest levels of PS employment. :2twocents
 
The issue of an apolitical public service versus one that simply reflects the views and wishes of the current government is critical to good governance in Australia.

We are immeasurably better as country when developing a range of thoughtful policy options in different portfolios, working out effective administration and oversight of departments and having an honest public service is part of our system. It is just taking teh long view.

Privatization is about profit first, second and third. A quality public service is about quality public service. :2twocents A politicized public service which is only allowed to offer ideas that the current government agrees with is just nuts.
 
No coincidence either that Malcolm Frasers resignation from the Liberal party was timed with Abbott taking over the party leadership.

'Fraser resigned from the Liberal Party shortly after Tony Abbott came to the leadership. He told me about it early this year, in confidence, as his co-author. Naturally I wanted to break the story, but he held me to the confidence. The deal was that when the news broke, I would be at liberty to write as I chose. But not until then.'
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/26...s-resignation-abbott-appealed-to-him-to-stay/

They'd been filth since the 'Tampa' in his view.

And now this Government stands as a parody of a satire of a farce.
 
budget cuts.png

Current government logic. :banghead:
 
Smurf1976 said:
There are two types of senior people in the PS. Those who insist on doing what is right, based on proper research and analysis, and those intent on climbing the ladder.

The latter will simply put forward whatever case suits the governments ideology. They'll go to the Right when the Liberals are in power, and will go as far as themselves joining a union if Labor is in power. They are the classic "yes men" and offer no barrier or even an effective filter around policy making. There are many such people in the PS and they tend to remain there a long time, becoming known as "survivors".

The former stick to their guns but many find themselves a victim of the political process by doing so. If the government strongly disagrees, they simply replace said person with a yes man. Hence you often see new people in senior positions in the the PS shortly after a change of government, particularly when the new government plans a policy agenda substantially different to their predecessors involving a particular department.

Having worked in the (state) PS I came to a certain realisation after a while. Most perceive that public servants, at any level, work for the public since that is who is ultimately paying their wages via taxation and who is supposedly receiving the benefits of their work. In reality, public servants work for the government and are employed to serve the government, not the public. There is a major difference there and this applies to at least some extent even at the lowest levels of PS employment. :2twocents
Click to expand...

It is a bit like the situation in W.A.

The Government spends $300m to refurbish 4 x 60 MW coal fired 50 year old units, without reheaters.

While shutting down 2 x 200MW + 2 x 120MW units with reheaters that can fire three fuels?

Go figure, does my head in.:rolleyes:
 
banco said:
Because despite all the bull**** rhetoric they know there are deficits as far as the eye can see and they need to shore up Australia's credit rating.
Click to expand...
Broadening the base of the existing major taxes in the way to fix that as well as many other aspects of tax/transfer.

A bank deposit tax is just wrong on so many fronts including the critical area of tax reform.
 
Instead of just floating ideas they should provide the arguments for and against.
It's good that Hockey is coming up with things but they need to be fleshed out a bit more.
 
Top