Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

Imagine my surprise, that you aren't buying the simplest explaination and instead choose to remain fixated on your theories.

You don't have to be flip. How about engaging with the points I raise?

Obviously the Rudd and Gillard era had massive problems, so I'm not going to buy any opinion that says they were doing just fine.

This is not something I see as Labor-only. The last term or so of the Howard era was really just a matter of waiting for a competent Labor leader to step up. Howard was in trouble, spending wildly and the endless target of leadership speculation from Costello. If it had been Beazley in 2004 rather than Latham, we might be now seeing a Beazley-led Labor government entering its ninth year, and I think we'd be a more prosperous and united nation for it.

Keating's last term was also one of strife, with "Captain Wacky" running the show. His 1996 campaign was run by a ragtag team in sharp contrast to Howard's focussed and disciplined crew. Pamela Williams' book The Victory is interesting reading here.

Which is why I'm predicting Rudd will lose big at the election. He's not a team player, he's alienated most of those who could give him the benefit of their skill and experience and he is likely to burn out his whole team, much as he did with the PM's office in 2009-10. Nobody likes working with Rudd when he's under pressure.

Abbott and his own cheery crew are quite capable of generating some horrific own goals, but I think they are more of a team than anything Rudd can try to hold together. The Libs'd have to screw up big time to lose this one.

My own opinion, and if you have other ideas, why not discuss them amicably instead of launching a bunch of cheap shots?

 

[SQ421]

You don't have to be flip. How about engaging with the points I raise?

What's there to engage when you seek to ignore the simplest explanation and stick to your theories.

Obviously the Rudd and Gillard era had massive problems, so I'm not going to buy any opinion that says they were doing just fine.

No one is saying they were doing just fine. As much as many do believe that they were nowhere near as bad as the media makes it out to be.

Which is why I'm predicting Rudd will lose big at the election. He's not a team player, he's alienated most of those who could give him the benefit of their skill and experience and he is likely to burn out his whole team, much as he did with the PM's office in 2009-10. Nobody likes working with Rudd when he's under pressure.

Again, more speculation, and while this has some basis in fact, it is entirely possible that KRudd has changed in that regard.

Abbott and his own cheery crew are quite capable of generating some horrific own goals, but I think they are more of a team than anything Rudd can try to hold together. The Libs'd have to screw up big time to lose this one.

Wait till Turnbull gets a sniff. He's already set the speculation rolling last week with "I'm more popular than my leader" interview.

A Labor victory is entirely within the realm of possiblilty. Mainly because Tony Abbott, for three years, mistook the people's dislike of Gillard (for failures real or percieved) as their liking for (and approval of) negative Tony.

My own opinion, and if you have other ideas, why not discuss them amicably instead of launching a bunch of cheap shots?

I think you'll find I haven't launched any cheap shots. Just calling it as I see it.

 

[Skyring]

What's there to engage...

Another cheap shot. Look, I've spent the past twenty years getting fairly deeply into this political stuff. I may be deluding myself that my opinion is worth more than belly button lint, but it's my honest opinion, and if you blow me off rather than addressing the points I raise, I'm not going to take you seriously.

Politics is something with its own history and structures and rules. Just like any other area of study. Such as researching airfares or accumulating frequent flyer points or churning credit cards. One gets a feel for those who know what they are talking about and those who are just cheering on their favorite team.

You can do better. Cheers!

 

[SQ421]

Another cheap shot.

Quite to the contrary.

Look, I've spent the past twenty years getting fairly deeply into this political stuff. I may be deluding myself that my opinion is worth more than belly button lint, but it's my honest opinion, and if you blow me off rather than addressing the points I raise, I'm not going to take you seriously.

I did address the points you raised by stating that there might be a simpler and more obvious explanation. That may not agree with your analyses, and so be it. I haven't blown you off, nor am I not taking you seriously. Unless ofcourse, stating that there could well be a simpler explanation than what you propose is those two things.

One gets a feel for those who know what they are talking about and those who are just cheering on their favorite team.

That, sir, is correct.

 

[SQ421]

Another slogan from Tony Abbott today, who now wants to be remembered as "the infrastructure Prime Minister"

Does someone want to take a stab at explaining how Tony will reduce revenue ("axe the tax"), increase expenditure (direct action, paid parental leave, spending money on infrastructure, if latest is to be believed) and yet deliver a surplus?

Setting aside, for a moment, the fact that any side that *promises* a surplus in these economic times needs to get their head checked, along with anyone who blindly believes that "surpuls == good, debt == bad".

 

[cove]

Operation Bugger Up has started with trying to figure out how to get the current budget anywhere within a 20 to 40 billion deficit.
The first fairly inept shot is the announcement on FBT and cars. That whole industry will probably drop a lot of employees and make the net budget position worse. We are talking about manufacturing, importing, retailing and financing both new and used motor vehicles.
Ready,shoot,aim is back!

 

[drsmithy]

Another slogan from Tony Abbott today, who now wants to be remembered as "the infrastructure Prime Minister"

That's pretty funny coming from the guy heading up the party ideologically opposed to publicly-funded services and infrastructure.

If Tony wants to be known for building infrastructure, he should have joined a party that actually wants to. Like, say, the Greens.

Does someone want to take a stab at explaining how Tony will reduce revenue ("axe the tax"), increase expenditure (direct action, paid parental leave, spending money on infrastructure, if latest is to be believed) and yet deliver a surplus?

It'll be the usual conservative magic pudding of "cutting the fat".

 

[drsmithy]

Operation Bugger Up has started with trying to figure out how to get the current budget anywhere within a 20 to 40 billion deficit.
The first fairly inept shot is the announcement on FBT and cars. That whole industry will probably drop a lot of employees and make the net budget position worse. We are talking about manufacturing, importing, retailing and financing both new and used motor vehicles.

Right. Because we want people whose jobs exist thanks to tax rorts to remain in those jobs. That's really productive.
Parable of the broken window.

 

[cove]

The most interesting thing will be seeing who gets hit up to square up the finances of Australia.
I think most taxpayers are hoping it won't be them but they will probably be wrong.

 

[drron]

From The Australian

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

And YouTube

Julia Gillard did not lie about Carbon Tax (There is No Carbon Tax in Australia) - YouTube

And iirc there's another youtube video, the link to which I have saved somewhere as I remember emailing it to my local MP. I'll try and dig that one up as well.

Neither of your links contained your original statement-"There will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead, but I remain committed to putting a price on Carbon"

In the You tube link she just says she will tackle climate change and lead community consultation re a carbon price.
In the Australian link she says she would consult re a market based carbon price scheme(which was not what she introduced) but that it would only be introduced after the 2013 election.
You seem to have proved my point.
Sorry for the delay replying but my internet connection at the moment is courtesy of the NBN so have only had 3 hours of connection time in the last 36.

 

[SQ421]

You seem to have proved my point.

I'll try to find the link (or the video) that has those words.

 

[drsmithy]

The most interesting thing will be seeing who gets hit up to square up the finances of Australia.
I think most taxpayers are hoping it won't be them but they will probably be wrong.

Of course it will, but the few billion of Government debt that some people are getting so hot and bothered by isn't even a rounding error compared to the hundreds of billions we're going to be up for after the near-inevitable bank bailout that's somewhere in our future.

The mindless right-wing focus on Government debt completely ignores the real problem.

 

[Pukka]

Right. Because we want people whose jobs exist thanks to tax rorts to remain in those jobs. That's really productive.
Parable of the broken window.

I knew that was coming and you can't really argue with your point. The trouble is it will have repercussions and is unlikely to generate the amount he suggests due to knock on effects. As usual he's taken the easy route of clamping down on those that are already paying substantial amounts of tax.

What he should be doing is clamping down on the cash economy and all the cash in hand merchants that pay no tax but also claim benefits they're not entitled to thereby increasing the tax burden on everyone else.

Probably not a good idea though because that would be biting the hand that feeds so let's just take the easy predictable route as usual.

 

[drsmithy]

Probably not a good idea though because that would be biting the hand that feeds so let's just take the easy predictable route as usual.

Right. Because if there's a well-known Labor-voting demographic it's the kind of small business owner likely to be doing cash-in-hand work.

 

[Hvr]

I never understood the logic of giving tax concessions to purchasers of foreign cars. Or even locally made cars given they rake in corporate welfare to the tune of billions of dollars a year anyway.

Still it is interesting to hear the whinging.

 

[straitman]

Again, more speculation, and while this has some basis in fact, it is entirely possible that KRudd has changed in that regard.

Is your comment not just speculation in itself.

As a Canberra resident I'm sure you have a good feel for how the public service views KRudd.

The endless hours of producing reports that are not read has already started again, but I'm sure you already know that. :shock:

 

[SQ421]

Is your comment not just speculation in itself.

It's reserving judgement than rushing to it.

As a Canberra resident I'm sure you have a good feel for how the public service views KRudd.

The endless hours of producing reports that are not read has already started again, but I'm sure you already know that. :shock:

Even within PM&C, the most directly "affected" department, there are differing views about KRudd and his working style, some thrive under pressure, others prefer the lack thereof, and as such no, I couldn't say how the public service as a whole views KRudd. Nor do I have the luxury of going on public airwaves to moan about how hard a task master my boss is.

As for producing reports that no one reads, that's hardly the domain of the public service.

 

[SQ421]

Here's some interesting quotes on Carbon Pricing / Emissions Trading / (call it what you will)

"....proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost… On the other hand, artificially created markets could be especially open to manipulation… For this reason, many now think that a carbon charge scheme directed at the least environmentally efficient producers would be simpler and fairer than an emissions trading scheme."

"...on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that’s I think why it makes sense to have an ETS."

"....big reductions in emissions are impossible without a big increase in people’s cost of living or a significant change in their lifestyles."

"If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise."

We believe climate change is real, yes, we believe humans make a contribution towards climate change.

 

[amaroo]

I never understood the logic of giving tax concessions to purchasers of foreign cars. Or even locally made cars given they rake in corporate welfare to the tune of billions of dollars a year anyway.

Still it is interesting to hear the whinging.

Dumping tax assistance to the likes of Holden should be the next move - talk about propping up a dead industry.

 

[Hvr]

Dumping tax assistance to the likes of Holden should be the next move - talk about propping up a dead industry.

Totally agree. I think there should be a review of all government payments to private corporations and determine if we're getting value for money. I.e. are they innovating or providing an essential service. But to prop up dying industries because they can wield high level political pressure is an absolute waste.