Tony Abbott for PM

[qldfrog]

labour party is not AWU??
are you sure?
From the time JG took over, I thought they were exactly the same based on the actual actions and targeted benefits

 

[wayneL]

labour party is not AWU??
are you sure?
From the time JG took over, I thought they were exactly the same based on the actual actions and targeted benefits

LOL

I did have that thought as I was posting, but folks will get my point nevertheless.

 

[Ves]

So you choose to assign a minor constituent's name to the whole?

I don't remember saying that. Where are you going with this?

 

[wayneL]

I don't remember saying that. Where are you going with this?

This is in reference to S/boys earlier post. There is a propensity to label the federal coalition with the acronym LNP, which stand for Liberal National Party. Your post seemed to support this notion.

LNP is a peculiarly Qld party (AFAIK), the result of the amalgamation of the Qld Liberal Party and the Qld National Party. In other states... and federally, the Liberal Party and the National party exist as separate entities, though in coalition.

LNP may be a member of the coalition, but it is not the coalition.

Ergo, any references to the federal coalition with the acronym LNP is not accurate and a misrepresentation as per my previous comments.

It may be a pedantic point, but details matter IMO.

 

[Ves]

This is in reference to S/boys earlier post. There is a propensity to label the federal coalition with the acronym LNP, which stand for Liberal National Party. Your post seemed to support this notion.

LNP is a peculiarly Qld party (AFAIK), the result of the amalgamation of the Qld Liberal Party and the Qld National Party. In other states... and federally, the Liberal Party and the National party exist as separate entities, though in coalition.

LNP may be a member of the coalition, but it is not the coalition.

Ergo, any references to the federal coalition with the acronym LNP is not accurate and a misrepresentation as per my previous comments.

It may be a pedantic point, but details matter IMO.

ok, got it. What would be the correct acronym? Or do you have to type Liberals or Coalition?

 

[wayneL]

ok, got it. What would be the correct acronym? Or do you have to type Liberals or Coalition?

Whatever you think is fair.

 

[sydboy007]

$10b deficit are you sure that's it, because last year was a surplus come hell or high water.
I am saying they are shoddy because they have restricted business sentiment/ growth and then wonder why the money isn't rolling in. They have a long list of policy that has affected different segments of the economy just enough(and more than enough) to set the ball rolling in a negative direction . They then fail at policy, or jump from policy to policy on a weekly basis. destroying any confidence in their ability to deliver stability for business decisions longer then a week. Their message is confused and often hypocritical and it seems the factions are each vying for a piece of conflicting policy.
Libs want to grow revenue and no doubt make cuts. Yeah it's yet to be seen if they manage it, but I'd rather libs then labor which is hamstrung by the union factions
Flavour of the week for Labor sounds like Gay Marriage for a bit of vote grabbing. Yep well done.

As yet I've not really seen any policy that backs up your claims on the Libs & Nats growing revenue or cutting spending. Point me to it if you have some details.

Pretty much every cut that Labor made in the last budget was howled down in the media, and some of it rejected by the Libs and Nats - seems shortening them to LNP riles up say ASFers.

I will also add that until a few weeks ago the Libs and Nats were adamant that they would be producing surpluses right through their first term in office. I often wonder if the right on this forum believe Chris Pyne when he said the Libs n Nats would have produced surpluses right through the GFC.

I fully agree Labor are their own worst enemies at present. The dissension within the party is not good for the country.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what policy does Tony stand for? Why do people think he'll be a good PM? Any policy he's got direct input into seems a real dud eg paid parental leave scheme causing a tax increase for the top 3200 companies (Woolworths will have a bigger bill under this than they got from the wrecking ball carbon tax) or the direct action policy on carbon reduction which I would argue is going to cause a huge increase in the public service as they look at tens of thousands of companies to form baseline carbon emissions then calculate any reductions they've made.

The current Govt has went and spent money from revenue sources that didn't generate the revenue budgeted, and have caused a blowout in the deficit, but Howard went on a spending drive using a brief period of historically high corporate tax revenue and set up middle class welfare and programs based on this revenue being a long term structural increase, and while leaving a headline budget surplus, had cause a huge spike in the structural deficit of the budget. Tony wants to be Howard lite, so I do question his ability to control spending, especially when one looks at the final term of the previous Liberal National Govt.

 

[moXJO]

As yet I've not really seen any policy that backs up your claims on the Libs & Nats growing revenue or cutting spending. Point me to it if you have some details.

Pretty much every cut that Labor made in the last budget was howled down in the media, and some of it rejected by the Libs and Nats - seems shortening them to LNP riles up say ASFers.

I will also add that until a few weeks ago the Libs and Nats were adamant that they would be producing surpluses right through their first term in office. I often wonder if the right on this forum believe Chris Pyne when he said the Libs n Nats would have produced surpluses right through the GFC.

I fully agree Labor are their own worst enemies at present. The dissension within the party is not good for the country.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what policy does Tony stand for? Why do people think he'll be a good PM? Any policy he's got direct input into seems a real dud eg paid parental leave scheme causing a tax increase for the top 3200 companies (Woolworths will have a bigger bill under this than they got from the wrecking ball carbon tax) or the direct action policy on carbon reduction which I would argue is going to cause a huge increase in the public service as they look at tens of thousands of companies to form baseline carbon emissions then calculate any reductions they've made.

The current Govt has went and spent money from revenue sources that didn't generate the revenue budgeted, and have caused a blowout in the deficit, but Howard went on a spending drive using a brief period of historically high corporate tax revenue and set up middle class welfare and programs based on this revenue being a long term structural increase, and while leaving a headline budget surplus, had cause a huge spike in the structural deficit of the budget. Tony wants to be Howard lite, so I do question his ability to control spending, especially when one looks at the final term of the previous Liberal National Govt.

Who's to say liberal wouldn't have produced a surplus all the way through the gfc. We sailed through the Asian financial crisis.
Liberals position and plan for small business is what I believe will help bring growth and revenue back. But it's all just pie in the sky till we see more policy. But considering labors 6-7 ministers that have passed through the small business portfolio, they are just a joke and we can expect more of the same.

There is an outline of possible lib positions here, but its full of the usually political BS these plans generally are full of it so take that into account.

 

[Calliope]

I fully agree Labor are their own worst enemies at present. The dissension within the party is not good for the country.

Labor is Australia's worst enemy. Any distension can only be good for Australia.

Pickering is right;

The suffocating weight of the NDIS (now named Disability Care Australia) the NBN, Gonski, Carers Recognition, Dental Scheme and array of other “initiatives” Gillard has left for Abbott to deal with puts his Parental Leave firmly in the trash can for now.

 

[Knobby22]

And yet Pickering is wrong.

From the Business Spectator today.

There is a perception that the budget issue (and I deliberately call it an issue, not a problem) is a function of high government spending and that urgent cuts are needed to return to surplus as quickly as possible. This view is not supported by the facts.

The cut in real government spending in 2012-13 remains the largest on record. Government spending is down around 4 per cent which means that the government spending to GDP ratio will drop to 23.75 per cent which compares with the average level of around 24.8 per cent in the last 25 years.


Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au.../budget-deficit-just-stone-shoe#ixzz2RujV4lel

The problem is government dithering and inability to create a tax that gives them money.
I for one want to see Tony Abbott's government start to solve the infrastructure problems and structural problems in our economy to make us more efficient. I think they realise this. I just hope the infrastructure and other changes are done by getting rid of some of the tax lurks rather than upping the GST to 15% which will only hurt us ordinary joes.

 

[Calliope]

And yet Pickering is wrong.

From the Business Spectator today.

And written by Stephen Koukoulas, a former economics advisor to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Say no more.

 

[Knobby22]

It's important to not let the facts get in the way of prejudice.

 

[FlyingFox]

The problem is government dithering and inability to create a tax that gives them money.
I for one want to see Tony Abbott's government start to solve the infrastructure problems and structural problems in our economy to make us more efficient. I think they realise this. I just hope the infrastructure and other changes are done by getting rid of some of the tax lurks rather than upping the GST to 15% which will only hurt us ordinary joes.

+1. The problem is the past few governments have had it too easy for too long. No one has had to make any difficult decisions. In fact too many bad decisions to buy votes have been made instead.

It would be interesting to see how the next government handles things....looking around, I don't hold much hope.

 

[Knobby22]

....looking around, I don't hold much hope.

I am optimistic, Flying Fox - maybe not on Tony Abbott but with the other future ministers.

 

[FlyingFox]

I am optimistic, Flying Fox - maybe not on Tony Abbott but with the other future ministers.

It is not because I don't think they are competent, although that is questionable in all camps but more so because of the general situation.

If someone takes the bold steps to cut spending (and/or increase taxes) like the current government is trying to do, then they will be chastised for it because it will have obvious monetary impact on many. Pretty soon they will be out of government.

If they don't cut spending or increase taxes, we will start down the path of Greece and other EU countries.

As much as the current government has been incompetent at implementing their policies, and I emphasise the implementation part as I don't think their policies have been too bad. The current conundrum, namely the budget hole, that we find ourselves in is as much a manifestation of times as it is of the incompetencies of the current government.

While we are and have been the "lucky country", it is foolish of anyone to think that it would be like this forever. Moreover it is extremely foolish of governments to purport this.

Should someone in the government have seen this coming a year ago or sooner? Definitely if they got over their infighting.

Should Swannie not have been beating his chest shouting "his" economic credentials? Definitely!

Will this government leave a big mess for the next one? Probably no bigger than the last one (Howard and Costello) did.

However none of this addresses the real issue, which is who if anyone will make the difficult decisions and will the public realise the gravity of why these need to be made?

 

[drsmith]

The problem is government dithering and inability to create a tax that gives them money.

That's part of a broader problem Labor has with fiscal management. They also waste too much of what they do get or to put it more specifically, see it too much as a means for their own political ends.

The hope with the Coalition is that while being far from perfect themselves in this regard, they'll be better than the current government.

Regardless of the current tax to GDP ratio, this government needs to spend more wisely what they get before raising taxes.

 

[Calliope]

It's important to not let the facts get in the way of prejudice.

It's also important not to let prejudice get in the way of factual reporting. If Stephen Koukoulas was a former economics adviser to Gillard he must have done a lousy job.

 

[Knobby22]

All good points.
I am hoping that the new government, since they will have such a big lead will do the right thing by Australia.
There are powerful rent seeker interests at work to try to not achieve this however. We shall see how strong the government is pretty quickly in my opinion.

I agree with you Flying Fox re: that implementation was the main part of the problem. Some of their decisions have been quite good. But they do have a tendency to try to do things more for political gain than proper vision. If Hawke had of been the leader we would have had a far more inclusive, effective and successful government.

Having a large section of the media against you doesn't help but always appearing rattled and running cynical rather pathetic campaigns doesn't help either.

 

[Knobby22]

It's also important not to let prejudice get in the way of factual reporting. If Stephen Koukoulas was a former economics adviser to Gillard he must have done a lousy job.

Or maybe he quit because they weren't listening.
Facts are facts. The hole is not caused by government spending but low tax intake. Sure they shouldn't have got themselves into this position but there you go.

 

[Calliope]

Will this government leave a big mess for the next one? Probably no bigger than the last one (Howard and Costello) did.

That is an interesting comment. Perhaps you would like to expand on the detail of the "mess" that the Rudd/Gillard government inherited from Howard and Costello. Perhaps you could explain how much the deficit was. Was it in the order of 10 to 20 billion?


That's an interesting take Knobby. I didn't realise you were so rusted on. Could you provide the figures.

The hole is not caused by government spending but low tax intake.