Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[elbarto]

I hope the new Government starts working on getting everyone united to start solving Australia's issues.
There has been enough stupid to last a lifetime and the starting point will be just a little bit of a slippery pole.

Governments these days are only interested in self preservation. The needs of the nation are merely pawns in that game.

 

[medhead]

1. Yes an election is undeniably a contest, why would you give up an advantage if you don't have to, Rudd or Gillard wouldn't it... The last opposition who really came clean was a Lib one and we all know how that ended...

2. After Gillard almost anyone in the past would look good, they'd probably re-elect Howard given half a chance after all this wonderful 'change' the people thought they desired and needed... The difference is is that the pollies continue to get paid if they make the savvy decisions and not the dumb ones, its slightly more of an incentive to learn the lessons of the past than just a fickle popularity contest that the public take part in via polls...

3. Hawke/Keating were in power for 13 years and the Libs came in to pay off Fraser's debt??? Ok... ...... Well even if this was somehow true at least someone paid it off once and for all!!!

1. It wasn't a criticism of the coalition. Just a statement of fact, that's why I asked why would they? I save my criticism for those, media/public, who are fixated on a has been government instead of asking Abbott to tell us the coalition story.

2. I can only disagree, if the pollies are given the power they will assume the electorate has forgotten/forgiven the previous example.

3. I can't find the direct reference but here is a quote from: The truth behind our 'dangerous' public debt levels I have no idea of the leanings of that website, it is just a random google result. I have seen similar numbers mentioned elsewhere and I'll assume that base numbers are a matter of fact on the record. (happy to be corrected)

Economist Stephen Koukoulas has noted almost $40 of the $96 billion in debt inherited by the Coalition in 1996 was a leftover from the Fraser government in the early 1980s, when John Howard was treasurer. The recession during this period necessitated an expansion of government debt, though it was hypocritical for the Howard government to criticise Labor for its expansion of public debt when the Coalition acted no differently during an economic downturn.

What is scary about this is the idea that the solid economic managers, the coalition, are going to send use into stagnation and recession. BTW for Mal's edification Australia's inflation is low at the moment.

Fair's fair - the internet is full of people doing the same to Abbott. Two sides of the one bloody-minded coin. And we may find people being bloody minded everywhere.

There is a massive difference Abbott has to answer questions, he is going to lead the next government. We need to know what he represents. Hardly bloody minded, very reasonable. Besides it is Abbott that has lead the Juliar campaign. It is abbott that has demanded 100% truth, it is fair that he is held to his own standards.

 

[cove]

Yes the recovery that we need to engineer in Australia will require more to fend for themselves and less hands in the cash drawer.
Cutting red tape on businesses would be a really good start. Wayne Swan's idea of monthly tax payments could make every business owner become a book keeper instead of an innovator.
The current Government seems to hate business people and business failures provide evidence that conditions are pretty tough and getting tougher.

 

[medhead]

Yes the recovery that we need to engineer in Australia will require more to fend for themselves and less hands in the cash drawer.
Cutting red tape on businesses would be a really good start. Wayne Swan's idea of monthly tax payments could make every business owner become a book keeper instead of an innovator.
The current Government seems to hate business people and business failures provide evidence that conditions are pretty tough and getting tougher.

Yet look at the outrage when the government cuts off payments for things like private health insurance or the single parents payments. Blind freddy can see payments need to be cut but when that happens even the slightest bit, there are screams of class warfare and all sorts of similar rubbish. The government gets bagged for not having an excessive parental leave policy, as well. It is just bizarre that the coalition is attacking the government when they make the smallest cut to spending and pretend they won't do the same. I would have thought the idea would be to at least accept a sound economic cut.

I don't know about red tape for business, but the red tax for individuals is out of control. There is massive scope to pare that back to the bone, but neither side seems to have the stomach to do what is needed. Anyway, once the coalition gets in and totally kills all government spending, despite their promises, then we'll see the business going to the wall.

 

[Skyring]

Anyway, once the coalition gets in and totally kills all government spending, despite their promises...

Ah, I think your crystal ball may have a bit of hyper bowl there. You might want to adjust the settings.

 

[drron]

Medhead by putting these two sentences together-

He is about to be handed control of both houses in Canberra. You only have to look at work choices to see what unfetted control might mean for someone driven by ideology. As mentioned it wouldn't take long to get a dictatorship given ultimate control with no balances.

you certainly do seem to suggest that TA wants to introduce Work choices.Certainly that is the continuing cry from the left.So I felt it quite reasonable to assume that's what you are saying or at least implying.
When you read your posts that someone comments on you do mostly then say that I did not say that.You just seem to have a totally different use of the language to a lot of us.

And as for the Fraser/Howard deficit left to Keating you have swallowed the historical revision put out by one of JG's staffers which was swallowed hook,line and sinker by supposedly intelligent journalists like Emma Alberici.The trick was to quote the Fraser deficit in 1996 dollars saying it was $54 billion when it was actually $14 billion.The 1982-3 budget was in deficit ~4.5 Billion.But then the world economy was stagnating and Australia was experiencing one of it's longest and most severe droughts.But I will agree Howard did not produce great results as Treasurer.

And these arguments that Swan has just been unlucky with the GFC.Well Costello had to deal with the Asian financial crisis and 9/11.As well Swan has had better terms of trade than Costello.The problem is in real terms since Costello brought down his last budget Swan has had a 12% increase in income in real terms but has increased spending by 25% in real terms.


On top of that Costello put in $70 billion to the Future Fund to offset the Government's pension liabilities.Swan hasn't continued that and at least $30 billion has been added to the Government's pension liabilities.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

BTW for There is a massive difference Abbott has to answer questions, he is going to lead the next government. We need to know what he represents. Hardly bloody minded, very reasonable. Besides it is Abbott that has lead the Juliar campaign. It is abbott that has demanded 100% truth, it is fair that he is held to his own standards.

Yes, only Abbott has questions to answer. Not our current Prime Minister or the political party currently in power...
I can't recall a government that mounted a "hold the opposition to account" campaign. That might be interesting. Oh wait, that's happening now as the sound of the death knell echoes throughout the chamber...

 

[drsmithy]

Yet look at the outrage when the government cuts off payments for things like private health insurance or the single parents payments.

That's two _very_ different types of transfer. Complaints about cuts to the latter are likely quite valid. The former, not so much.

 

[medhead]

Medhead by putting these two sentences together-


you certainly do seem to suggest that TA wants to introduce Work choices.

Get a grip. What it means is that in the past someone (Howard) completely different to abbott introduced workchoices based on their ideology when given both houses. As such Abbott could introduce his own ideologically driven policies when given control of both houses. It is called a metaphor not a simile. I'm sorry that you just can't accept that I was not saying Abbott would reintroduce workchoices, but I can assure you your interpretation is wrong. Perhaps metaphors are different for doctors. Or perhaps you're just verballing me. Either way that's not what I'm saying, your interpretation is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Maybe your failure of interpretation is to falsely assume that "someone" refers to one person when it actually refers to 2 people, Howard (workchoices) and Abbott (his own ideology).

As for the rest of that cough, I stopped reading when you tried to claim that inflation didn't exist for the Hawke/Keating governments.

Yes, only Abbott has questions to answer. Not our current Prime Minister or the political party currently in power...
I can't recall a government that mounted a "hold the opposition to account" campaign. That might be interesting. Oh wait, that's happening now as the sound of the death knell echoes throughout the chamber...

Oh do try reading. This government is irrelevant. How many times do I have to say it. This is not about holding the opposition to account, the questions need to be answer so we know what our next government is going to be. I really have no idea why such a simple concept is so hard to understand. But keep obsessing about the irrelevance that is the current government. *yawn*

That's two _very_ different types of transfer. Complaints about cuts to the latter are likely quite valid. The former, not so much.

I wasn't trying to deny the validity of the previous single parent pensions. Just making the point that it is one, small, saving they have introduced. That's not to say there aren't better, bigger and more important savings that should have been made first.

 

[JohnK]

Why are the Liberal party afraid of scrutiny? Might we find that Tony Abbott is a fundamentalist religious zealot with no real policies?

Simple question.

Is a fundmentalist religious zealot with no real policies any different to an atheist with no real policies?

 

[medhead]

Simple question.

Is a fundmentalist religious zealot with no real policies any different to an atheist with no real policies?

THe atheist has policies, she just can't sell them. The zealot also has policies, he just hasn't been required to state them. (for the benefit of the coalition attack dogs, and so drron can't get confused about my language by his assumptions, that is not a criticism of abbott)

 

[tgh]

goodness this is just a load of dog poo (sorry mods .. but it's just an allegorical reference.. )
The coalition has an extensive , detailed portfolio of policies that is/will be their election platform.
medheads argument seems to be based on a perception that they are lying through their teeth.
Lets stop the cough and actually discuss the published policies.

 

[JohnK]

Lets stop the cough and actually discuss the published policies.

Surely you do not want to give her another term?

 

[tgh]

the term of her natural life comes to mind.. have you read msn the last few days ?

 

[JohnK]

the term of her natural life comes to mind.. have you read msn the last few days ?

I may have misunderstood your post.

I try to stay away from political discussions and try to get updates from this thread.

 

[Hvr]

I may have misunderstood your post.

I try to stay away from political discussions and try to get updates from this thread.

Methinks you should try for an independent and unbiased place to get updates.

 

[medhead]

goodness this is just a load of dog poo (sorry mods .. but it's just an allegorical reference.. )
The coalition has an extensive , detailed portfolio of policies that is/will be their election platform.
medheads argument seems to be based on a perception that they are lying through their teeth.
Lets stop the cough and actually discuss the published policies.

WTF! Another putting words in my mouth. I've clearly said a number of times that I think they are saying nothing. a few coalition defenders have agreed with my assessment. So exactly how can I believe they are lying through their teeth, if I think they're saying nothing? Then there is my point about them talking about their policies. Something they are not doing because they are not required to talk about them, because there is a circus of distracting irrelevance. BTW nothing it that says they are lying through their teeth. Your assumptions about what I'm saying seems to do nothing but add to the dog poo.

Link these alleged policies.

BTW I did try to discuss the coalition policies about 3000 posts ago. Apparently, I was nothing but a biased communist for daring to point out the steaming pile of excrement that are many of those policies. Direct action anyone? paid parental leave (class warfare for daring to mention the obvious flaws there). The coalition supporters clearly aren't interesting in discussing coalition policy.

 

[drron]

Well Medhead we are square.You obviously don't understand what I write and I don't understand what you write.

 

[drsmithy]

Simple question.

Is a fundmentalist religious zealot with no real policies any different to an atheist with no real policies?

Yes.

An atheist is much less likely to force their irrational beliefs on others.

 

[Pushka]

Well Medhead we are square.You obviously don't understand what I write and I don't understand what you write.

What took you so long to figure that out?