The Gillard Government

[Julia]

That poll might result might be more a case of anyone but Gillard.

What I find interesting in that poll is the loss of Green votes . Given it was Rudd who dropped the ETS, the movement of Greens voters to Labor if Rudd is running the show just demonstrates the illogic of Greens voters.

It would be good to see Tony Abbott challenged by a runner that is more than the walking dead.

Aren't you forgetting how Tony Abbott very successfully shredded Kevin Rudd?
Why is the in absentia Mr Rudd suddenly being credited with god-like characteristics?

 

[Logique]

A snap election would be politically suicidal. Voters just don't like Govts going to the polls early, let alone this one.

Not sure a leadership change will happen either. Who in their right mind would want the job now? And Rudd isn't very popular.

 

[Logique]

A realistic comment from Mungo McCallum on a Rudd return: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2942600.html

In part, but McCallum still sings from the same hymn sheet, open the doors and let all the boats in.

It's just moralizing, and as a policy setting, immature and naive, in practice a demonstrable failure. Who is he to call anyone sanctimonious!

 

[Julia]

A snap election would be politically suicidal. Voters just don't like Govts going to the polls early, let alone this one.

Usually that's true, but - given the huge dissatisfaction with the government and Ms Gillard in particular with her broken promise about the carbon tax - I think the electorate would welcome an early election.

Not sure a leadership change will happen either. Who in their right mind would want the job now? And Rudd isn't very popular.

Agree.

In part, but McCallum still sings from the same hymn sheet, open the doors and let all the boats in.

It's just moralizing, and as a policy setting, immature and naive, in practice a demonstrable failure. Who is he to call anyone sanctimonious!

When I suggested it was realistic, I was referring to his pointing out the futility of returning K. Rudd as leader.

 

[sails]

Big decisions for the faceless men:

 

[joea]

Perhaps the last Nielsen Poll is a bit tempting to bring Rudd back as leader.

View attachment 44683

http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml

That maybe what the pol indicates, but I would bet my house on the fact that is not how the people will vote.
joea

 

[countryboy]

85 pages of opinions and comments since march 2010. Some great quotes and predictions most of which have not come to fruition but great reading entertainment.

so I'll join the fun:
1-the boats will keep coming- labour or liberal
2-this government will go full term barring a car accident/ heart attack
3 -Carbon tax will pass
4 -Pokies limit may not make it- but wont result in change of gov- it will be years before independents get this shot at power again. Wilkie is bluffing
5 Tony Abbott will use the word "bad" another 1 million times beteen now and the election !

 

[drsmith]

Quiet this week, except for one happy little vegemite.

What are the rest of the little vegemites in that jar up to, I wonder.

 

[noco]

Quiet this week, except for one happy little vegemite.

What are the rest of the little vegemites in that jar up to, I wonder.

How intricate is politics? There must be so much going on in Canberra that we never hear about.

It must be absolute torture for Julia Gillard not knowing what is comung next!!!!!!


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ce-julia-gillard/story-e6frgd0x-1226154421786

 

[Logique]

Telling it like it is. My bolds.

http://www.batemansbaypost.com.au/n...eral/letters-to-the-editor-28911/2307289.aspx
Letters to the Editor
28 Sep, 2011

Who’s running the country?
The fallout from the current proposals by the Federal Government and Tasmanian Independent MP Andrew Wilkie for mandatory pre-commitment technology for poker machines - a “licence to punt” - goes far deeper than its impact on the Australian club and hotel industries.

Not only is it un-Australian to require Australians to have a licence to punt, it’s also un-Australian that one person, who won a seat in Federal Parliament in Australia’s smallest state with a virtual handful of votes, is now dictating the run of play in this country’s politics.

For the record, Andrew Wilkie’s 13,788 primary votes - less than most medium to large clubs have members - placed him third and represented just 21.26 per cent of the voting population in his own electorate of Denison, and a mere 0.0978 per cent of the enrolled voting population of this country.

That he can now virtually hold the government and the entire country to ransom over whether the population can play legal entertainment with their own legally hard-earned money is an assault on our democratic rights and a way of life for which so many fought.

One only has to ask what next will Mr Wilkie demand - perhaps a licence to buy a beer or have a smoke.

Voters in this country should be outraged that our fundamental freedom of choice is being eroded by one man and they should be voicing their opinion to their local member of parliament to ensure such madness doesn’t happen again.

It’s also time that the Prime Minister called Mr Wilkie to order and reminded him who is supposed to be running the country.

Graeme Carroll, Chief executive officer, RSL Service Clubs

 

[sails]

The real problem is having a minority government trying to stay in power. I think it would be good if there was a recall option for minority governments who see their need to stay in power more important than doing the right thing for the country.

This whole thing is clearly not good for Australia and the whole country is being held to ransom by minority people.

No-one voted for pokie reform (it wasn't presented as a policy) at the last election and neither did the majority vote for cabon tax and yet we seem to be unable to do anything about this unworkable situation.

 

[Julia]

I wonder if the irony in this situation has even vaguely occurred to the government?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/asylum-seekers-4000-a-day-for-smokes/story-e6freon6-1226157717931

While millions are being spent on discouraging Australians from smoking, apparently our tax dollars are happily being spent on supplying cigarettes to asylum seekers in detention.
Your tax dollars at work, folks. Ain't it grand.

 

[noco]

I wonder if the irony in this situation has even vaguely occurred to the government?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/asylum-seekers-4000-a-day-for-smokes/story-e6freon6-1226157717931

While millions are being spent on discouraging Australians from smoking, apparently our tax dollars are happily being spent on supplying cigarettes to asylum seekers in detention.
Your tax dollars at work, folks. Ain't it grand.

Julia, just think of the cigarette taxes the government is receiving. More revenue in the coffers. lol.

 

[sails]

I wonder if the irony in this situation has even vaguely occurred to the government?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/asylum-seekers-4000-a-day-for-smokes/story-e6freon6-1226157717931

While millions are being spent on discouraging Australians from smoking, apparently our tax dollars are happily being spent on supplying cigarettes to asylum seekers in detention.
Your tax dollars at work, folks. Ain't it grand.

I would think the government is totally aware and knows full well that high taxes on smokes are unlikely to stop addicted people from smoking. They will go without other necessities and so it makes for good revenue, imo.

And yet they give out this addictive stuff to new arrivals? It raises the question if this government want people addicted to smokes due to the high revenue. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

 

[noco]

I would think the government is totally aware and knows full well that high taxes on smokes are unlikely to stop addicted people from smoking. They will go without other necessities and so it makes for good revenue, imo.

And yet they give out this addictive stuff to new arrivals? It raises the question if this government want people addicted to smokes due to the high revenue. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

The ones who say they are under 18 years of age may have s*#t in their own nest and miss out on the freebies.

 

[DB008]

I wonder if the irony in this situation has even vaguely occurred to the government?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/asylum-seekers-4000-a-day-for-smokes/story-e6freon6-1226157717931

While millions are being spent on discouraging Australians from smoking, apparently our tax dollars are happily being spent on supplying cigarettes to asylum seekers in detention.
Your tax dollars at work, folks. Ain't it grand.

That is outrageous.
WTF is the Government thinking? Can you imagine the health costs down the road and lawsuits from other detainees claiming health benefits from 2nd hand smoke, which we will end up paying one way or another. How 'soft' is the government. It should stop this rubbish ASAP. It's not like you'll kill anybody from taking away their ciggies.

 

[IFocus]

Extraordinarily beat-up about smokes.

Just like our jails detainees earn points which they can exchange for everyday items.

Smokes happen to be every day items that are available.

Yet read the crap and you would think the immigration dept is forcing smokes down their throats.

BTW the libertarian conservative legends of the Liberal Party (that's your mob)believe smoking is OK as its peoples own choice.

As Nick Minchin pointed out its good for our health system as smokers die younger and are a lesser burden over all on the costs of our health system.

Now there an insight to a humans thinking.

Some thing to look forward to once Abbott takes over.

 

[Julia]

detainees earn points which they can exchange for everyday items.

They are detainees.
Why should they 'earn points' for anything?
They have arrived in this country via irregular means to be polite about it and are being provided with accommodation, meals, exercise facilities, medical and dental care, to a standard which they are probably unlikely to have enjoyed before arriving here.

Many disadvantaged Australians do not have access to these facilities.

So why should the taxpayer be funding their smoking?

Surely it would be more appropriate for the tax dollars being supplied to keep these people in cigarettes to go to our own homeless and mentally ill people, or for that matter, to raise the unemployment benefit from the totally unacceptable level of $240 p.w.

Smokes happen to be every day items that are available.

So what? Why does that mean our tax dollars should be purchasing anything at all, particularly something considered so odious for the Australian population, for a group of people who are not even proven refugees?

Yet read the crap and you would think the immigration dept is forcing smokes down their throats.

Nothing to do with forcing anything down anyone's throats. Rather the stupidity and total unfairness of supplying to asylum seekers held in detention anything at all that the government does not make available to our own citizens.
(And that is ignoring the health considerations which is where the irony comes in.)

the libertarian conservative legends of the Liberal Party (that's your mob)believe smoking is OK as its peoples own choice.

Perhaps you can provide a link to where this is clearly stated Liberal policy?
As far as I'm aware, it was a single throw away line by Nick Minchin who is either retired or about to retire and in no way represented party policy.

And btw, IF, surely it should be possible to discuss any policy without necessarily categorising posters' views into 'your mob' or whatever the alternative is.

Some thing to look forward to once Abbott takes over.

Your supposition in the above statement is that a Liberal government would encourage people to smoke. How about just not being so absolutely silly.

 

[sails]

And now that funding for welfare may become unsustainable, it makes freely handing out money for smokes even more despicable. There is also the possibility of average marginal tax being raised a further 10%:

THE Australian government will soon have to deal with a welfare payments crisis that will eclipse the problems of refugee boats and tax reform, a financial policy expert has warned.

Greg Smith, a member of the Henry Tax Review, said on the second day of the federal government's tax forum that the welfare payments system would become unsustainable.

"I'm sorry to inject a sad note into the discussion, but my prediction for the next 10-15 years is that the issue will not be stop the taxes or stop the boats, it will be stop the welfare system,'' he said in Canberra today.

Full article from News.com: Welfare payments crisis looms - tax expert

Obviously, stopping the boats would help take a fair bit of pressure from the over burdened welfare system especially for economic arrivals who presumably come for the life time of free handouts.

IFocus, how can you possibly keep blinding defending this brand of labor? If the coalition were behaving so badly, I could not post in their defence...

 

[drsmith]

That so-called tax forum is in itself, not worthy of comment.

The basic principal of tax reform is very simple. Simplify by broadening the base of the more efficient taxes and use the extra revenue to eliminate inefficient taxes and secondly, reduce the rates of the remaining taxes.

Suggestions such as raising the rate of GST or marginal rates on income is counter to this basic principal, as is new taxes such as the carbon tax.

As bad as this government has been, the last years of the Howard Government were a little naughty in the way in which it dished out middle class welfare and Tony Abbott's maternity leave scheme is just a continuation of this.

Labor is worse though as it seems to think that the solution to everything is to increase taxes, no matter how dishonest or inefficient.