Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[777]

The Opposition leader releases his policies at the time of his/her campaign launch.This applies to both the Libs and the ALP.There is no convention that says the Opposition Leader should release policies 7 months before an election.

I agree that oppositions don't usually release policies until election time.

I am, however, interested in the substance of the question: How is Tony Abbott going to do all the things he says he is going to do?

How will a Coalition government: Create a surplus and cut personal income taxes and repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax and pay for a very expensive direct action program and introduce an expensive paid maternity leave program and cut company taxes and reinstate the 30% health insurance rebate and keep all the spending promises they've made in local communities, etc?

If they can pull all this off they probably should be the government. But, in reality, they probably can't. The longer they leave it without giving some clue as to how they will do all this then the more we should be skepitcal.

Government is the art of making difficult decisions and complex trade offs, this opposition -- much more so than most -- simply pretends it will never have to.

 

[Skyring]

What he does have though, unlike any previous opposition, is the ability to get his legislation passed through the HoR as long as he can convince the independents of its merits.

We've had minority governments before. I refer you to the 2nd Parliament, where three party leaders each had a go at being PM.

But yes, Tony Abbott could, with the support of the Greens and Independents, get his legislation through Parliament. But only a mug would believe that such a course would achieve anything. How do you force the executive to administer policy they don't want to? Any such legislation would be white-anted out of existence, delayed and misapplied and screwed around with. I guess you could go to the Judiciary and ask them to heavy down the Executive because they won't play with the Legislature. That's not the way government works.

 

[dragonman]

Gillard proposed any number of things in her time. None of them have worked.

This isn't something like a force of nature, out of our controi. Howard had a good policy, he took it to the people at an election and he was backed by the voters. It worked for years and years.

Gillard, well, she's struggling. She didn't take it to the people for endorsement, she tried this and that, she blames everyone but herself.

I know when I was in uniform, back in the day, I took responsibility for my actions. If my diggers screwed up, it was my fault for inadequate supervision, and I wore the penalty. I might then turn around and extract my own vengeance, but I didn't try to run away from the job I was being paid to do.

Pardon me if I apply the same standards to the person occupying the top leadership position in the nation. With leadership comes responsibility.

Actually John Howard lied - remember Tampa - the illegals "throwing their kids into the sea". Amazing what people will say to win an election eh? Funny enough I don't remember him taking responsibility for lying.

 

[vetrade]

What you wrote is clear. You accused her political opponents of using her situation against her. You have now repeated accusation that the ALP said something against her. The fact is the ALP did no such thing. A fact supported by the words of fisher herself. That's why you post is a load of rubbish.

That you then go on with a tirade against what you view as a political statement because I compared and contrasted the treatment of Thomson suggests mock outrage. It also shows you totally missed the point.

So am I to assume you deny the existance of the quotes I supplied medhead, (even the one from the left-leaning Age) which confirm that Labor did try to use her situation against her? That was not my accusation - the quotes are evidence which substantiate the comments I made. Fisher clarified that she did not believe that Labor interfered in the court process - that was the work of senior police. That is separate and distinct to the fact that Labor did earlier use her case to try and deflect heat away from the Thompson case, which the quotes show.

You should quit while you are behind (although it is unlikely you will). You persist in suggesting Fisher was only suffering from a panic attack and deny she had depression. In the face of widely reported transcripts from the court case which show her depression (of which panic attacks were one of the symptoms) was real, diagnosed, and under treatment prior to the shoplifting it is jaw-droppingly churlish for you to blatantly say otherwise simply because it suits you. You must be the ultimate fact-free "denier".

As if you couldn't make yourself look even more irrational you then accused me of making things up (things which were demonstrably 100% factually correct) using information (which is 95% incorrect) which you, yourself, dreamed up. Pot/kettle/black !

I enjoy rigorous debate and respect, and have learned from, the obviously well informed comments I have read from both sides but your's are not among them.

 

[amaroo]

repeal the mining tax

hahahaha......another successful initiative by the greatest treasurer the world has ever seen

 

[Pushka]

hahahaha......another successful initiative by the greatest treasurer the world has ever seen

And in true business sense, the Mining Tax received what was it, 28 million, but how much does the department that now administers the Mining tax, cost to administer it?

 

[Skyring]

Actually John Howard lied - remember Tampa - the illegals "throwing their kids into the sea". Amazing what people will say to win an election eh? Funny enough I don't remember him taking responsibility for lying.

The Tampa was a different event. August 2001. You are thinking of the children overboard affair in October 2001.

A lie is a deliberate untruth, and Howard was told that the children were being thrown overboard. He wasn't there to see what was going on, and the photographs showed kids in the water. The previous boat had seen children deliberately thrown into the water, so it was credible at the time.

When the facts became available, Howard acknowledged them.

The person who was guilty of concealing the truth was Peter Reith, IMHO. He could have cleared the matter up quickly - he was Defence Minister - and he chose to delay asking the pertinent questions as long as possible. Instead we had junior sailors responding to media reports and that's how the truth eventually emerged.

 

[777]

hahahaha......another successful initiative by the greatest treasurer the world has ever seen

The mining tax has been a pretty woeful effort all round. No complaints there. But it's an act of incredible chutzpah to switch gears mid debate from "This tax is going to kill the mining industry" to "ha ha, it's set so low it doesn't raise any money." Anyone who argued the first position was clearly way off base.

As for Mr Swan, this is not a good time to be a treasurer anywhere in the world, simply tell me which other international treasurer you would be happy to swap with right now?

 

[Moody]

I beg to differ. There are any number of admirable people here. I am inspired by some of the regular posters, who are models of decency, however defined.

I put forward the proposition that if you are telling us that a scheme that involves hundreds of deaths each year is better than one where nobody dies, then you need to rearrange your priorities. I am surprised that you find this proposition offensive.

Perhaps we can clarify your position. Is a scheme that involves hundreds of deaths each year better than one where nobody dies? YES/NO

My position is the demonising of refugees and use of them as a political football is THE BEHAVIOUR OF SCUM. Can you please vote YES/NO to that proposition?

 

[SQ421]

Who won't do a thing because they still think Gillard will honour her promise.

Independents have, on occasion, voted against the Government.

 

[SQ421]

Back to my question. You don't run a business, do you!

Does being self-employed count?

So, back to the question.

29% tax against 30% tax, good or bad?

Slugging businesses with a "levy" to dole out parental leave at full pay, good or bad?

Especially coming from a party that believes in market based soluitions, isn't the paid parental leave a particularly socialist alternative? Why not let the employers decide how much of a PPL they want to offer their employees? Let the market decide. Isn't that how emissions reduction is going to work?

 

[SQ421]

How will a Coalition government: Create a surplus and cut personal income taxes and repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax and pay for a very expensive direct action program and introduce an expensive paid maternity leave program and cut company taxes and reinstate the 30% health insurance rebate and keep all the spending promises they've made in local communities, etc?

A question I've asked often, and am yet to get any answers to.

 

[Hvr]

The Tampa was a different event. August 2001. You are thinking of the children overboard affair in October 2001.

A lie is a deliberate untruth, and Howard was told that the children were being thrown overboard. He wasn't there to see what was going on, and the photographs showed kids in the water. The previous boat had seen children deliberately thrown into the water, so it was credible at the time.

When the facts became available, Howard acknowledged them.

The person who was guilty of concealing the truth was Peter Reith, IMHO. He could have cleared the matter up quickly - he was Defence Minister - and he chose to delay asking the pertinent questions as long as possible. Instead we had junior sailors responding to media reports and that's how the truth eventually emerged.

Therefore using your logic Howard lied in the children overboard affair either by omission or by proxy. Howard was the leader and had a responsibility to ensure he was properly informed before making an announcement. He was happy to allow Reith to hide information from him and plead ignorance. By refusing to ask questions and find out the truth the Reith and Howard were happy to perpetuate a lie and away public opinion to win an election.

It should be noted that several senior public servants and military personnel did try to inform the government of the day of the truth and they suffered greatly for their professionalism.

However, in the Gillard government anything her ministers do is her responsibility. This is how it should be, the leader is responsible. The Howard government should have been held to the same standard. So should the current Liberal opposition.

 

[drron]

I agree that oppositions don't usually release policies until election time.

I am, however, interested in the substance of the question: How is Tony Abbott going to do all the things he says he is going to do?

How will a Coalition government: Create a surplus and cut personal income taxes and repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax and pay for a very expensive direct action program and introduce an expensive paid maternity leave program and cut company taxes and reinstate the 30% health insurance rebate and keep all the spending promises they've made in local communities, etc?

If they can pull all this off they probably should be the government. But, in reality, they probably can't. The longer they leave it without giving some clue as to how they will do all this then the more we should be skepitcal.

Government is the art of making difficult decisions and complex trade offs, this opposition -- much more so than most -- simply pretends it will never have to.

I would wager his job will be easier than that of Gillard/Swan who have to find many more billions for NDIS,Gonski and unfunded mining tax related spending that has already been spent.And that is not to mention the Carbon tax compensation package from 2015 when the carbon price is linked to the EU scheme.Wayne Swan still swears by a figure of $A23 a ton when the EU price now is 4.51E at close of trade friday with the Germans issuing new carbon credits at 4.32E
Germany sells 5 mln EU carbon permits for 4.32 euros each - News - Point Carbon

It is even worse in NZ were the pundits were predicting a price of $NZ25 a tonne but it is now $NZ0.14 a tonne.That is less than 1% of the prediction-
Carbon credit price - business | Stuff.co.nz

So Wayne really does need to tell us where the money is coming from after all he is the actual treasurer at the moment.

 

[Skyring]

Therefore using your logic Howard lied in the children overboard affair either by omission or by proxy. Howard was the leader and had a responsibility to ensure he was properly informed before making an announcement. He was happy to allow Reith to hide information from him and plead ignorance. By refusing to ask questions and find out the truth the Reith and Howard were happy to perpetuate a lie and away public opinion to win an election.

As I said, a lie is a deliberate untruth. Howard presented the facts as he had been informed. It wasn't until later that the truth emerged and Howard accepted that he had been misinformed.

Remember, Howard wasn't there. He didn't know the facts. The only way he could be informed was through a chain of other people. The initial report was wrong but credible and Howard announced it as truth because that's what he had been told.

Look at any breaking story - initial reports will contradict each other on details. Are the media outlets deliberately lying to us? Of course not - they are simply relaying reports from people at the scene, who will naturally have different experiences.

If you maintain that Howard told a lie - a deliberate and knowing untruth - then you are setting your standard ridiculously low, and using the exact same standards Gillard deserves that Juliar tag many times over.

Unless, of course, one uses different standards for different political parties, and that's common.

 

[Moody]

Now to calm down a bit I will espouse my views on the Craig Thomson "affair". Firstly the concept of being innocent until proven guilty is not something that can be applied selectively, regardless of who is the accused. That said, there are higher standards that our politicians should aspire to so the custom of standing aside or stepping down or even being dis-endorsed is appropriate in some circumstances.

So what has Craig Thomson been alleged to have done? Fiddle his expenses and rack up $45K worth of personal expenditure on the union credit card, including the use of prostitutes which is probably the most damning. He could probably defend much of the spending as being appropriate for his role (and who hasn't stretched their expenses on occasion?), but visiting brothels is a little bit rich.

If he is found guilty of any of it I doubt whether the sentence will disqualify him from office but his career in politics will be finished. If he somehow gets the whole case chucked out it will be a personal victory, but his career in politics will be finished anyway. Basically he is a dead man walking.


Now I am all for our politicians meeting high standards of behaviour, including events that happened before coming to office, but worry that if there was a consistent appplication of this principle then there may be a lot of empty seats in parliament. In the case of NSW State Politics it seems the tumbleweeds would out-number the members.

 

[777]

So Wayne really does need to tell us where the money is coming from after all he is the actual treasurer at the moment.

I agree there is an onus on both sides to spell out where the money is coming from. But given the government is at least willing to entertain raising revenue Swan's job is much easier.

 

[Hvr]

One wonders if Tony Abbott is really a fit and proper person to even be in parliament given his support of a priest who was involved in unacceptable behavior with a child? It could even be asked if Abbot considered doing such things whilst he was a trainee priest.

The priest admitted in court that he had slept, wearing boxer shorts and a singlet, on mattresses on a floor in his presbytery with the boy and his younger brother some time between June and September 1991.

While the conviction was eventually quashed surely it shows grossly poor judgement to even consider that the admitted behaviour was appropriate.

Why is this relevant to this thread?

Well Tony Abbott is a person who plays on his religion and how it makes him a better person than those who don't believe in mythical beings. Hopefully the Royal Commission into child abuse isn't starved for funds or otherwise sabotaged by Abbott if he becomes PM.

 

[drron]

I agree there is an onus on both sides to spell out where the money is coming from. But given the government is at least willing to entertain raising revenue Swan's job is much easier.

But he still hasn't told us.A week or two ago he did say he was going to raise it by taxing Millionaire's superfunds-but seeing the maximum contribution to a superfund that gets a tax rebate is $25000 no matter how much you earn this wasn't going to cut the mustard.And of course subsequently the government has backed down.

Interesting he used the cuts in super rebates as a cut in expenditure when quite obviously it is a rise in taxation.Just more Wayne speak.

 

[Pushka]

To even raise the thought that Abbott will defund the Royal Commission into Child Abuse is stooping very low. That is one enquiry that had bipartisan support.

Gillard uses Slipper and now Thomas to ensure her survival. Ethical?
All sides have shown very poor judgement in many areas. I'd just prefer to have a business focused govt than one who has shown itself to devour its own kind and as a government made some poor decisions.