This on the back of a Labor government that stripped us of our only advantage, cheap energy.
By enacting a carbon tax, that basicaly ensured our coal was sold to overseas competitors, giving them cheap energy.
Lets just sit back and see what happens, neither you or I will change what happens.
You are in a flat spin after 8 weeks of Liberal, I'm glad to see a change after 6 years of Labor.
There is obviously going to be a hard time comming, as Australia re invents itself.lol
The young guns can come up with these new technology jobs that Labor were talking about.
There is no equivalent in Australia of the Tea Party that has wreaked havoc upon the Republicans in the United States. Not yet anyway, writes Barrie Cassidy.
A consequence of several bruising and often toxic political years has been the greater polarisation of opinion and a tendency for elements of the media to back one side against another.
Never before have so many analysts transparently taken positions, publicly attacking those they disagree with.
None of this is good for democracy.
If that's true, it puts the timing of Kevin Rudd's retirement from politics again into focus.Given the fact that the Abbott Government has had to wear the shame of the SBY spying and has had to diplomatically smooth out relations with Indonesians, the true fact has now been revealed that in 2009, the then Labor Party cabinet ministers approved the SBY tappings and not only that, but it was also endorsed by Kevin Rudd.
They should hold their heads in shame for allowing Abbott to take the blame and yet Abbott was man enough not to discredit the the previous government but once again, left to clean up the $*** left on the floor by Labor.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...irst-ladys-phone/story-e6frg76f-1226782835747
Not wanting to rub salt in, but Syd, awhile back you held Codan up as a shining light for Australian cutting edge technology.
http://au.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=CDA.AX
I must say I have a Codan HF set.
What I'm getting at, is Labor threw money around on stupid non productive ideas.
Now $300bn later we have nothing to show for it.
You may see it differently, I'm sure you will, however how many dirty brown coal power station were closed.
Also how many new technology jobs were created?
Agree sptrawler,
The Abbott government is dealing with much of the scorched earth left by Labor and the Greens, carbon tax brooha, Indon spying, Ford and Holden leaving, and the unfunded promises insisted on now by Shorten.
The government is not getting a fair spin from the media.
The polls will improve in 6 months to a year.
gg
Given the fact that the Abbott Government has had to wear the shame of the SBY spying and has had to diplomatically smooth out relations with Indonesians, the true fact has now been revealed that in 2009, the then Labor Party cabinet ministers approved the SBY tappings and not only that, but it was also endorsed by Kevin Rudd.
They should hold their heads in shame for allowing Abbott to take the blame and yet Abbott was man enough not to discredit the the previous government but once again, left to clean up the $*** left on the floor by Labor.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...irst-ladys-phone/story-e6frg76f-1226782835747
GG
What scorched earth? Unemployment with a 5 in front of it. The USA and Europe can only dream of that.
GDP growth just below trend, once again the USA and Europe, Japan all can only dream of that.
I certainly believe things could have been much better with the right policy settings by labor, but to say it's been a scorched earth is Abbottesque pensioner power bills doubling hyperbole. Paid parental leave to me is not a policy to help to maintain our current standard of living. Actually I can't think of a LN+P policy designed to help maintain our current standard of living. Can you?
As for not getting a fair spin from the media, even Newscorp papers are being critical of how Abbott handled the expense rorts. Surely even you found Abotts defense of Randal embarrassing. His own version of core and non core promises, or the promises Abbott made rather than what people believed he made. So far he's not living up to the kind of leader he said he would be.
The carbon tax has had minimal impact on the economy. If you can provide me evidence to the contrary I'll happily read it. You are against a market based system to price carbon, yet support Abbott's Direct Action policy, a policy that so far no member of the Government has been able to explain how it will work.
Much of what you allude to was achieved because of the Howard/Costello Government and it's good governance leading to a surplus.
When the ALP came in they saw not the world as it is, but as they and the Greens would prefer to see it.
Howard's surplus saved Australia, not the irresponsible spending and promises from Rudd, Gillard and then Rudd again, which persisted until the day before the election.
The ALP promised up to 13 years out from now, without due governance on any of their schemes, the Carbon tax and the NBN being prime examples.
The only reason the Carbon tax has had no imact was because it was a boofhead tax in the first place. A tax is supposed to collect revenue and encourage good husbandry and growth in other areas. It achieved none of these.
gg
This above criticism of the latter yeas of Howard / Costello Govt is not without foundation has been discussed many time in the past, but one has to wonder what Labor would have done if they were in office during above period of revenue largess. If the past 6-years was any guide, it would have been a legacy of ideological waste and mismanagement unconstrained by headline budget deficits. Then the GFC would have hit.* The Howard / Costello Govt were spending like drunken sailors in their last term of office. They had sent the budget into structural deficit. This was the team who thought baby bonuses was a good way to spend tax payer funds.
+10! Labor has a "Have money, will spend, ... don't have enough money, will borrow!" mentality.If the past 6-years was any guide, it would have been a legacy of ideological waste and mismanagement unconstrained by headline budget deficits. Then the GFC would have hit.
* .....
I won't go in to an item by item argument with you sydboy.
gg
This above criticism of the latter yeas of Howard / Costello Govt is not without foundation has been discussed many time in the past, but one has to wonder what Labor would have done if they were in office during above period of revenue largess. If the past 6-years was any guide, it would have been a legacy of ideological waste and mismanagement unconstrained by headline budget deficits. Then the GFC would have hit.
Peter Costello was right when he said Labor would waste it.
+10! Labor has a "Have money, will spend, ... don't have enough money, will borrow!" mentality.
Which EU country would we be comparing ourselves with now ... Greece, Spain ...?
This above criticism of the latter yeas of Howard / Costello Govt is not without foundation has been discussed many time in the past, but one has to wonder what Labor would have done if they were in office during above period of revenue largess. If the past 6-years was any guide, it would have been a legacy of ideological waste and mismanagement unconstrained by headline budget deficits. Then the GFC would have hit.
Peter Costello was right when he said Labor would waste it.
UM, didn't Howard and Costello waste quite a bit of the resource boom?
So you believe baby bonuses weren't "a legacy of ideological waste", that the lowest rate of capital investment of an Australian Federal Govt wasn't "a legacy of ideological waste" that has caused major inefficiencies in the economy due to the lack of infrastructure.
I think it's quite possible Labor may have directed much more of the resource boom into lasting infrastructure.
* The Howard / Costello Govt were spending like drunken sailors in their last term of office. They had sent the budget into structural deficit. This was the team who thought baby bonuses was a good way to spend tax payer funds.
* Are you saying the carbon tax didn't collect revenue? Are you saying the carbon tax hasn't helped to encourage energy efficiency (husbandry)? We've had a 6.3% decline in electricity generation carbon emission.
* I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the fugitive emissions from mining and gas production jumped 11.4 per cent and agricultural emissions were up 2.7 per cent and net deforestation emissions up by 1.5 per cent. Sectors provided lots of free permits or excluded from the carbon tax.
* The LN+P had a rock solid FTTN plan that Abbot was proud of. This was back in September mind you. Look at their policy now.
* So you believe the fiscal stimulus provided by the Rudd Govt had no positive effect on the Australian economy? Do you remember the mining sector was shedding jobs at a scary rate. Small businesses were really feeling the down turn. You believe that the Govt should have provided no support via increased spending during the GFC?
Here's some stats you might like to reflect on:
* Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows in the two years from June 2007 - encompassing the boom and subsequent bust - more than 638,000 Australian businesses shut up shop.
* Unemployment increased from 4.1 percent in February 2008 to 5.8 percent in August 2009
* Aggregate monthly hours worked declined from 1551 million in August 2008 to 1518 million in August 2009
* The household savings rate increased from 1.2 percent in the March quarter of 2008 to 8.5 percent in the December quarter. That's a massive reduction in economic activity.
Just for interest sake, how many LN+P deficits will you excuse before you believe they should take ownership of them?
From what I've been reading the last 6 months, we don't have spending problem (though there's probably plenty of efficiency gains to be had between Fed and State responsibilities) we have a revenue problem caused by giving the temporary ToT income boom to Govt revenue as permanent tax cuts and increased transfer payments.
Rudd should have never promised to honour the Costello tax cuts before the 2007 election. The deficits would have been much smaller.
That was the electorate's fault.So why were they voted out?
Maybe the 'baby bonus' was introduced to reverse our negative birth rate.
Labor overcame that problem with opening the borders, to mass immigration through Indonesia.
I bet the cost for Labors solution, far outweighs the cost of the baby bonus, both financialy and socialy.
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?