Tony Abbott for PM

[Mofra]

That David Hicks video was pre recorded days ago. He was invited by the ABC and told what to say to set up John Howard in an attempt to embarrass the former Prime Minister.
90% of the audience on QandA were socialist left Greenies hand selected by the ABC and that idiot Tony Jones.
The ABC no doubt would have had many complaints including mine.

Regardless of any bias, David Hicks was denied natural justice and has a right to question his treatment.

The claims of "90% bias" are staggering though. It seems the right faction of the Liberals always tend to attack the source whenever any controversial issue is discussed.

Julia, not only was it so pointed when watching the whole show, it has been confirmed by Andrew Bolt.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...iermail/comments/column_the_shoes_of_a_clown/

In terms of bias, Bolt makes Bob Brown look like a Friedmanesque free-market economist (not that a bit of free-market logic wouldn't help the greens )

 

[Logique]

Some more lies
Weapons of mass destruction
No GST
Children overboard
I think your lot invented the non core promise:

Todster, the Coalition went to the people on the GST, at an election. And kept their word afterwards, which is the point being made by Bolt. The other two issues could make threads on their own.

We could go back to the 'Recession We Had to Have' and 17% interest rates if you want.

What I am simply asking is, where is the ALP parallel for (Libs) Judith Troeth and Petro Georgiou, party dissidents on refugee policy?

 

[Mofra]

Todster, the Coalition went to the people on the GST, at an election. And kept their word afterwards, which is the point being made by Bolt. The other two issues could make threads on their own.

1 promise for which they had a mandate and they kept (which has, arguably, been a successful policy IMO). There are many others they have not kept.
Just as Labour are trying to push ahead with an NBN for which they have a mandate, and there are issues in which they will not keep their promise (the dubious climate pow-wow being one).

I don't think you can use this as an argument to say Libs or Labour are better than each other, even if the Lib spin was clumsier than the Labour spin.

We could go back to the 'Recession We Had to Have' and 17% interest rates if you want.

Which is better than Howard's record as treasurer. The early 90s recession led to reforms that have been beneficial.

What I am simply asking is, where is the ALP parallel for (Libs) Judith Troeth and Petro Georgiou, party dissidents on refugee policy?

Sadly lacking, although we don't know what discussions are held behind closed doors.

 

[Julia]

Just as Labour are trying to push ahead with an NBN for which they have a mandate, and there are issues in which they will not keep their promise (the dubious climate pow-wow being one).

Do Labor have 'a mandate' for the NBN, given they didn't receive a clear majority of votes at the last election? Given that one of the vital votes, i.e. from Tony Windsor, is from someone who admits he doesn't even use the internet, but hell that's OK, because he took qualified advice - turns out it was from a Telstra phone tech who'd been made redundant!

I don't think you can use this as an argument to say Libs or Labour are better than each other, even if the Lib spin was clumsier than the Labour spin.

Agree. All politicians make promises they don't keep. Pointless to compare the sides.

Which is better than Howard's record as treasurer. The early 90s recession led to reforms that have been beneficial.

I wasn't here then but seem to remember recession as being global at that stage.

 

[IFocus]

What I am simply asking is, where is the ALP parallel for (Libs) Judith Troeth and Petro Georgiou, party dissidents on refugee policy?

Agree, admire both the above

 

[Julia]

Agree, admire both the above

I'm briefly indulging in the fantasy that we could take the best and most conscientious politicians from all sides, and let them form a new Party, an entity which would be run on the basis of what's actually best for Australia, which would make decisions on a genuinely ethical basis, and which would disdain the current populist and short term political behaviour, something 90% of the electorate sees through anyway.

Yes, I know it will never happen, but just for a moment consider how much better we'd feel about everything.

 

[Julia]

Joe Hockey was justifiably taken apart by Mike Smith, CEO of ANZ, today, for his populist nonsense about needing to hold the banks to account.

Mr Smith made an interesting point amongst his talk which surprised me, i.e. that there are more depositors than users of variable loans amongst banking customers. So, amongst all the impassioned rhetoric about the horror of higher interest rates, the fact that many of us are actually benefiting from these, is being ignored.

Mr Hockey seems determined - in what is probably a rather pathetic attempt to hoist himself into the spotlight - to make a total fool of himself.
He should, imo, think a little more about this. He's not just shooting himself in the foot, but further diminishing the fortunes of the Liberal Party.

Anyone else think he should be relegated to a minor portfolio, while Malcolm Turnbull - who actually understands finance - takes his place as Shadow Treasurer?

 

[Logique]

....I don't think you can use this as an argument to say Libs or Labour are better than each other, even if the Lib spin was clumsier than the Labour spin....

I actually agree with this Mofra, it's what I was trying to get at, in a roundabout sort of way.

And lest I be thought completely partisan, I do have reservations about Joe Hockey's recent utterings on the banks. I think his heart was in the right place, in trying to protect borrowers, but the delivery was very unfocussed, and it gave the banks a free kick.

 

[Mofra]

And lest I be thought completely partisan, I do have reservations about Joe Hockey's recent utterings on the banks. I think his heart was in the right place, in trying to protect borrowers, but the delivery was very unfocussed, and it gave the banks a free kick.

Bank bashing is lazy politics IMO, and we all know Swan has indulged in the past as well (albeit not in as clumsy a fashion).
Part of the reason we weathered the GFC storm so well is due to our healthy banking system, and I'd hope any treasurer or opposition treasurer understands that any deliberate ploy to weaken our banking system would hurt, rather then help, Australia's long term interests.

 

[drsmith]

Anyone else think he should be relegated to a minor portfolio, while Malcolm Turnbull - who actually understands finance - takes his place as Shadow Treasurer?

That would be a considerable improvement although I was dissapointed with Malcolm on the CPRS.

As for a minor portfolio, Joe's level would be organising a $2 Melbourne Cup sweep for his work group or similar.

 

[Julia]

I
I think his heart was in the right place, in trying to protect borrowers, but the delivery was very unfocussed, and it gave the banks a free kick.

Well, Logique, if you think this was about Joe Hockey's heart bleeding for borrowers, you're more naive than I'd thought. It was a purely political gesture, designed to result in just such a nice thought as you've had.

Come to that, if there are actually - as Mike Smith said - more depositors than borrowers with variable loans, then even politically it wasn't a smart remark! I know that I, as a depositor, am irritated by these constant remarks from both sides about how banks are ripping off their customers.

Bank bashing is lazy politics IMO, and we all know Swan has indulged in the past as well (albeit not in as clumsy a fashion).
Part of the reason we weathered the GFC storm so well is due to our healthy banking system, and I'd hope any treasurer or opposition treasurer understands that any deliberate ploy to weaken our banking system would hurt, rather then help, Australia's long term interests.

Absolutely agree.

As for a minor portfolio, Joe's level would be organising a $2 Melbourne Cup sweep for his work group or similar.

How very unkind of you. Sadly, I agree. As long as he remains in the Treasury p/f he diminishes the Coalition's chances.

 

[drsmith]

As long as he remains in the Treasury p/f he diminishes the Coalition's chances.

I doubt he will be in that role come the next election whether it's in 12 months or 3 years.

 

[sails]

I'm not impressed with Hockey as treasurer. The opposition needs a strong treasurer to show there is an alternative to Swan's ditherings. Maybe Turnbull would be a better choice as long as he doesn't get carried away with carbon taxes and the like again.

 

[noco]

I'm not impressed with Hockey as treasurer. The opposition needs a strong treasurer to show there is an alternative to Swan's ditherings. Maybe Turnbull would be a better choice as long as he doesn't get carried away with carbon taxes and the like again.

The Greens just love Joe.

 

[nioka]

I know that I, as a depositor, am irritated by these constant remarks from both sides about how banks are ripping off their customers.

The banks are "ripping off" both depositors and borrowers. When only the deposits of the big four were guaranteed it meant that smaller lending and borrowing institutions were pushed out of the market. I could always get better deposit rates from other institutions with low risk prior to this happening. Not so now. I had some deposited funds with one of these institutions that had such a run on withdrawls they had to restrict withdrawing for a period. That means that they lost the confidence of depositors and now have trouble getting funds. This monopoly by the big 4 allows them to make excessive profits at the expense of both depositors and borrowers.

 

[Julia]

The banks are "ripping off" both depositors and borrowers. When only the deposits of the big four were guaranteed it meant that smaller lending and borrowing institutions were pushed out of the market. I could always get better deposit rates from other institutions with low risk prior to this happening. Not so now. I had some deposited funds with one of these institutions that had such a run on withdrawls they had to restrict withdrawing for a period. That means that they lost the confidence of depositors and now have trouble getting funds. This monopoly by the big 4 allows them to make excessive profits at the expense of both depositors and borrowers.

I'm a bit puzzled by this, nioka. The guarantee applies to all banks, building societies, credit unions etc, not just the big four banks.
Do you have deposits with a non-retail organisation?

 

[Knobby22]

The banks are "ripping off" both depositors and borrowers. When only the deposits of the big four were guaranteed it meant that smaller lending and borrowing institutions were pushed out of the market. I could always get better deposit rates from other institutions with low risk prior to this happening. Not so now. I had some deposited funds with one of these institutions that had such a run on withdrawls they had to restrict withdrawing for a period. That means that they lost the confidence of depositors and now have trouble getting funds. This monopoly by the big 4 allows them to make excessive profits at the expense of both depositors and borrowers.

Not correct Nioka.
The guaranteee extended to all banks (including Macquarie), Building Societys and Credit Unions. The problem was that the big 4 were able to borrow the money at better rates than the smaller institutions.

 

[nioka]

I'm a bit puzzled by this, nioka. The guarantee applies to all banks, building societies, credit unions etc, not just the big four banks.
Do you have deposits with a non-retail organisation?

I'll stand corrected but did it only apply to the big 4 in the first instance but was extended later but too late for some of the smaller institutions. ?

 

[Knobby22]

This article shows why the smaller institutions were disadvantaged.

"Regional lenders Bank of Queensland and Bendigo Bank welcomed the removal of the guarantee. Smaller banks generally snubbed the program as they were required to pay a substantially higher fee for access to the AAA credit rating."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/banks-rush-as-guarantee-expires-20100207-nkvb.html

 

[Julia]

I'll stand corrected but did it only apply to the big 4 in the first instance but was extended later but too late for some of the smaller institutions. ?

No. It was applied from the beginning to all banks, credit unions, building societies, any retail institution which received depositors' funds.

This article shows why the smaller institutions were disadvantaged.

"Regional lenders Bank of Queensland and Bendigo Bank welcomed the removal of the guarantee. Smaller banks generally snubbed the program as they were required to pay a substantially higher fee for access to the AAA credit rating."

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/banks-rush-as-guarantee-expires-20100207-nkvb.html

Knobby, you are misinterpreting that article in the context of Nioka's original post.
Yes, the government did remove the wholesale funding guarantee.
That was where the government stood behind the banks and other institutions' wholesale borrowings on the international money market.
It had nothing to do with the retail depositors' guarantee.
This is still in place, until, I think mid next year, maybe even to October 2011.

Yes, the smaller institutions did have to pay a higher % to the government for this guarantee, rightly so imo, as they don't have the fundamental basis that the big four do.
It was actually a good thing for retail depositors, as the smaller institutions offered higher retail deposit rates in an attempt to source their funds locally rather than pay the higher rate to government for the guarantee, as well as higher international funding on the financial markets.

There is considerable pressure on the government to continue the retail deposit guarantee after the current expiry date, or provide some substitute reassurance to retail depositors that their funds are safe.