Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Recommended Posts

Seriously Andrew I had alot more respect for your arguments than this tossing personal insults around, go for a run, swim or ride or whatever you need to do.

 

As for defamation, all personal experiences in having to deal with unions. I guess in my line of work I've had to deal with the worse of them, just like you get to deal with the worse of employers. However nothing I have said comes close to defamation and I haven't even told half of the tales I could. PM me if you have actual examples of defamation and I'll gladly apologise on here and ask for the comments to be removed.

OK, sound advice - I'm off for a cycle around parra park. Before I go however let me nail one more point. Mate - I do not accuse you of specific examples of defamation. What I accuse you of is using your own experiences, whatever they are, to defame a whole movement. You then conflate that with the Holden debate, vis: "the unions caused this mess". Which is just patent bullshit. As Holden said - their comparative production costs (in relation to their manufacturing operations in the 3rd world, especially Thailand) have increased 65% on account of the exchange rate alone. That is the ELE (extinction level event) which you 'conveniently' missed when preaching on your high hobby horse - "Dam charterists! What. Well I'm off for a stiff brandy at White's before the scum storm the gates. Pip. Pip" ... Edited by Andrew #1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Andrew #1

    1468

  • Formerly known as BOTP II

    1135

  • goughy

    1081

  • IronJimbo

    943

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I typed something long but couldn’t be fucked. Yeah, I just think your head is so far up the “left bad” , “right good” black hole that you are incapable of any sort of meaningful discourse.   

Does it matter what the Gillard government thought? I'm not going to tell you how to debate your topics IJ, but you seem to be fixated on the politics rather than the problem. Sometimes things ha

Ironic that he waited till he was no longer a  politician to start being dignified and respectful. must be using that speech as a job interview 

Posted Images

Serious question for Andrew and borne out of genuine curiosity, not trying to rub it in his face.

 

What effect will the loss of Holden (and we should probably assume all of the remaining car manufacturers in coming years) have on union membership in Australia and in turn the ALP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be pretty obvious that I am a Keating-o-phile. As a consequence I have very little faith in the notion of some broad based manufacturing 'future' for this country. IMO there is nothing to be gained for the economy as a whole - thus the 10 million of us NOT employed in manufacturing - in running some low wage economy in the mistaken belief that we can somehow 'compete' with OS operations. Pure fantasy land, IMO. Therefore, as a matter of principal, I do not agree with continued inter generation government subsidies of any particular industry or enterprise and the car industry is no different. For me the issue is whether Australia can form part of a global supply chain. At best I think that is doubtful and with the exchange rate now consistently over 90 cents (and likely to be so until the 2020s) there is NO chance of that happening. Therefore we are talking 'exit strategies'.

 

Now - this is only my personal opinion, and it is a very reluctant one at that, but I think the government should have subsidised Holden to produce the next generation commodore (and hence until about 2023). mainly because the economy is flat and is likely to be 'below trend growth' for the rest of this decade, also because of the component sector and the human dimension. Those Holden guys in Adelaide - if they are over 40 - are very unlikely to ever work again, IMO. It think it is worth the extra ~$1.5 billion over 10 years to leverage about 10 times that amount in investment from GM over the same period. Not ideologically 'pure' I confess, but ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions (plural)

 

My examples are the outside costs contributing to it. I was involved in a contractor to building the V6 plant at Fishermans Bend as previously discussed and gave the example of how the unions negotiated into that site agreement 'firsts' (for Melbourne at least) for things like 36 hour weeks with PLDs, penalty rates on site allowances, higher base rates etc. The extra cost of the building of that plant also had flow on effects to the operating costs of the business.

 

I work in Comp & Ben and have to get involved from that front in negotiations. (Also have been in management in agriculture and had to deal with unions there). As I said before the current company I work for used to be a very large manufacturing presence in Australia. Average take home pay for the workers then was in excess of $100K. The kicker is this company is a supplier to the automative industry as well, so the inflated wages we had to pay got passed along to Holden, Ford and Toyota (and Mitsubishi in the old days). We had to say goodbye to those jobs which numbered in the thousands when the unions would not back down on their demands for some 5% increase year on year with no productivity improvements as the head office had not enough reason to keep the factories local when production costs in other parts of Asia was far more effective.

 

Now I will say the figures you provided are lower than what my searches are showing, but not to the point where I would concede that they are necessarily overpaid in my professional opinion as i don't have inside knowledge to show otherwise. It also doesn't take into affect other benefits, eg are holden workers still able to purchase their vehicles are highly discounted rates which they then can onsell and make money tax free on? (Serious question as i have known workers in the past who were able to do this). All of these ultimately cost the company money as well.

 

Now to the kicker, this is actually quite a good distraction from the work I'm having to do at the moment. After our last EBA negotiation on 5 plants we have where the union was not prepared to back down on their wages increases as they couldn't stomach going back to the members to tell them at for the $500 plus in membership fees they pay they couldn't get a wage increase. Even after explaining that the division was not making money and had been running at a loss for the last few years. None of us are enjoying having to prepare the redundancy packages for 60% of the workers which we have to announce next week, all in regional towns where chances of further employment will be minimal.

 

So while the union (singular) at Holden may have been playing ball and coming to the party, there were plenty of other places and unions that weren't playing to it and in the end the whole industry loses out. We can blame the dollar all we want, however keep in mind most of the raw materials in one form or another can be sourced locally, combined with the tariffs to protect the industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But he has a mandate? Won't that be a ringing endorsement of said mandate. Anyhow if Shorten just sits tight for three years he is the next PM.

 

Michael Pascoe summed it up nicely this morning when he described the Libs especially Hockey as still acting like an opposition

Tiny wants to stop all the mandating, and the womandating too. Mandate shmandate, it means nothing. You get through what you can get through. It is not an oppositions position to blankly agree with everything, unless they find it agreeable. And I disagree with you, in that it may not be two term Tony, but I think it will be two term lib.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Cottontail, without that alleged 'padding' do you think that the fundamental position would be different? Seriously? Don't you think something else might be going on. Perhaps the proverbial 500 pound gorilla siting in the corner smashing his toys?

 

I just don't see how you can avoid the fundamentals. If we insist on paying 'fair' wages (even as streamlined as you suggest is possible) and the exchange rate remains as is I can't see anything changing in terms of structural outcomes ... I suppose it's just easier blaming the unions than facing up to the realities ...

Edited by Andrew #1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cottoneyes the EBA wage at holden is $48K. The average take home is $60K. The union, on behalf of the workers were prepared to be very flexible in reducing the take home even further. But accoring to your world view the unions to blame for "the mess"?

Your myopic anti union cataract "cottoneyed' views do not even mention the 500 pound gorilla in the room - the sustained high exchange rate of the Aussie dollar. That is what is killing car manufacturing in Australia stone dead. That and the decision by all of the four car manufacturers a decade ago to stick with manufacturing large sedans, when the punters were already demonstrating - loud and clear - that they wanted SUVs if they needed a large vehicle and small to medium hatchbacks if they didn't.

I am not saying labour costs are not a factor, a very large factor, in any operation. Of course they are. There is however, no future in a low wage economy. God help us if we go down that path.

Bloody massive wages, how dare those toe rags have the hide to earn 60 k. How come when places need to cut we penny pinch people on close to minimum wage but never get rid of the half wits with the tight connections who make dumb arse decisions that stuff the place up. Dumping two toss bag c level typed like deveraux would save 1% of the total wage bill. There is some efficiency for you.

 

The guys who run the line know how to make it more productive, let them put all their ideas in play and get rid of 50% of the managers and you would be well on your way to turning it around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps BB. And Cottontail is yet to draw the link between the decision each of then then four car manufacturers made a decade ago to keep producing bogan mobiles that no one wanted to buy and the evils of unionism (not to mention the Howard governments decision to continue to subsidise that production as 'structural assistance' even to Ford, whose 2003 model Falcon was essentially the same car as their 1993 model - not mentioning it's 1960s drive train). However even those 'excellent' decisions pale in comparison to the exchange rate issue ...

Edited by Andrew #1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets ask the zillion$ question.

With no car industry in Australia will the price on cars drop to world parity?

No tariffs to protect Aussie jobs.

No grants?

No overpaid workers?

What effect would that have on prices of say, a base model Mazda3 (Australia's top selling car)

or going up a bit the Mazda6?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets ask the zillion$ question.With no car industry in Australia will the price on cars drop to world parity?No tariffs to protect Aussie jobs.No grants?No overpaid workers?What effect would that have on prices of say, a base model Mazda3 (Australia's top selling car)or going up a bit the Mazda6?

Very good questions Smiffy. I wouldn't hold out much hope of price relief of parity pricing, if the IT rip off is anything to go by ...

 

What I'd actually like to see is the restrictions on imports of recently second hand cars made in Japan lifted. There are literally hundreds of thousands of perfectly good 18 month old cars on the scrap heap in japan that could be brought for under $8k if they were able to be landed here...

Edited by Andrew #1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-12/coalition-nbn-plan-to-cost-billions-more-than-promised/5152246

 

So, confession time. The LNP phoneyband won't cost less than 40 billion and won't delver even 25mbs. 'Artful' blame shifting back onto Labor. Lol.

 

It's obvious. Recalibrate the existing FTTN plan and crack on please! Argh

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a glorious start for the LNP government hasn't it ...

 

That said I still assume that at some point in the next 3 years they will break free of being a complete embarrassment and reach the lofty heights of general incompetence. That should be enough for the MSM to gull a compliant public into giving them another go. And another one after that. White trash of Asia status here we come!

Edited by Andrew #1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cottoneyes the EBA wage at holden is $48K. The average take home is $60K. The union, on behalf of the workers were prepared to be very flexible in reducing the take home even further. But accoring to your world view the unions to blame for "the mess"?

 

Your myopic anti union cataract "cottoneyed' views do not even mention the 500 pound gorilla in the room - the sustained high exchange rate of the Aussie dollar. That is what is killing car manufacturing in Australia stone dead. That and the decision by all of the four car manufacturers a decade ago to stick with manufacturing large sedans, when the punters were already demonstrating - loud and clear - that they wanted SUVs if they needed a large vehicle and small to medium hatchbacks if they didn't.

 

I am not saying labour costs are not a factor, a very large factor, in any operation. Of course they are. There is however, no future in a low wage economy. God help us if we go down that path.

Which wage?

 

Aren't there multiple classifications? Base level non trade employees were getting 900 per week under 2008 eba.

 

Base trade employee 1000. Upper classification 1400.

 

Separation payments 4 weeks notice plus 3.5.weeks per year of service.

 

Super - 2* member contributions plus interest.

 

Paid all unused sick leave capped at 30 days and annual leave with leave loading.

 

Plus a range of other benefits.

 

Gm presumably done the math and its cheaper for them to pay out the workforce, then continue to operate.

 

Undoubtedly heart breaking for workers and families.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone followng this mcternan email stuff. Reply all to office "c--ts you will be c--ted".

 

This is reported on abc site.

 

Next to the article its got a list of "related stories". One is headed "gillard says sexist attacks filled her with rage".

 

For a moment i thought she.may be referring to the email from her chief comms guy.

 

Alas no. Ironic. Yes.

Edited by Formerly known as BOTP II
Link to post
Share on other sites
Labor loves a worker. The abstract version that is

An actual worker can be called a c--t.

People understood the hypocrisy of labor. See election result.[/quote

I Call my workers "c"s and I get arrested for not providing a safe workplace.

It's absolute a crime.

 

These people are in a different world...or were.

hypocrical scum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just don't see how you can avoid the fundamentals. If we insist on paying 'fair' wages (even as streamlined as you suggest is possible) and the exchange rate remains as is I can't see anything changing in terms of structural outcomes ... I suppose it's just easier blaming the unions than facing up to the realities ...

 

Ok, I'll come around to your thinking, unions good, dollar adjustments bad, so can we agree then that this is all Keatings fault for floating the dollar? All agree, good lets move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point does "it was the last governments fault" become an unacceptable excuse for breaking promises and spending way more than expected?

 

Mr Turnbull seems to have finally arrived in the real world and realised his NBN proposal is a pile of crap that nearly costs as much as the original plan anyway. Fancy that, every technical expert with any credibility and understanding was right after all, no wonder the board all quit.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought all the stuff was costed, so they should have known what the other govt was spending and that was taken into account with what they were planning to do. So if their changed plan doesn't work I'd assume they couldn't blame the original govt if their own plan doesn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point does "it was the last governments fault" become an unacceptable excuse for breaking promises and spending way more than expected?

 

Mr Turnbull seems to have finally arrived in the real world and realised his NBN proposal is a pile of crap that nearly costs as much as the original plan anyway. Fancy that, every technical expert with any credibility and understanding was right after all, no wonder the board all quit.

where are all the transitions ICT and comms experts now, spent motnhs banging on about pits, pipes, FTTP blah blah attacking the NBN now reality hits for the libs as it has done for them in everything they have touched since coming to office.

 

Now all they have to do is drive the country into recession and they will be estactic as they will blame Labour

Edited by BarryBevan
Link to post
Share on other sites

where are all the transitions ICT and comms experts now, spent motnhs banging on about pits, pipes, FTTP blah blah attacking the NBN now reality hits for the libs as it has done for them in everything they have touched since coming to office.

 

Now all they have to do is drive the country into recession and they will be estactic as they will blame Labour

50 billion deficit coming up.

 

In the year "how i love you swanee" guaranteed a surplus.

 

But i blame tony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

where are all the transitions ICT and comms experts now, spent motnhs banging on about pits, pipes, FTTP blah blah attacking the NBN now reality hits for the libs as it has done for them in everything they have touched since coming to office.

 

Now all they have to do is drive the country into recession and they will be estactic as they will blame Labour

Barry. Did you see the figure for fttp ?

 

No problem with a 29 b blowout.

 

People talk about reality.

 

Libs have released a costing showing they were out. Facing up to reality.

 

Whats labor's excuse? Dog ate my homework ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry. Did you see the figure for fttp ?

 

No problem with a 29 b blowout.

 

People talk about reality.

 

Libs have released a costing showing they were out. Facing up to reality.

 

Whats labor's excuse? Dog ate my homework ?

Who is in government, time for Libs to start acting like one instead of blaming Labour. The NBN black hole is the Libs owned and created problem and they hired a proven failure in Ziggy so what would you expect more stuff ups of course.

 

Just need to get Kloppers in do some consultancy on mining and they could be a real chance of needing every cent of that debt ceiling

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is in government, time for Libs to start acting like one instead of blaming Labour. The NBN black hole is the Libs owned and created problem and they hired a proven failure in Ziggy so what would you expect more stuff ups of course.

 

Just need to get Kloppers in do some consultancy on mining and they could be a real chance of needing every cent of that debt ceiling

How did they create it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they created it BOTP. Before the strategic review we could still believe that we could have FTTP for $37bn like the ALP had been claiming forever. Now afterwards we are going to be getting only FTTN for $41bn. Even as a staunch Liberal supporter I have to admit that we should stick with the original plan to save money. And whatever we do, no more reviews or proper analysis of the books as they seem to cost a fortune!

 

As for the debt ceiling Barry, you do realise that it was only introduced by the ALP in 2008 in response to growing public concern at the rate they were spending our money. It didn't stop or even slow their spending mind you, I guess with a credit card limit you don't really need to budget until you actually hit it. And the removal of the limit is entirely the fault of the ALP. Had they been sensible and passed the legislation originally proposed by the coalition we would still have a limit, albeit higher than before because the existing one could not cope with the forward commitments already made by the ALP. Instead they refused on principle (nice for them to show some integrity for once I suppose) which resulted in the Greens(??!) teaming up to get the limit removed entirely. Of course the Greens want it removed for an entirely different reason. If you wanted a debt ceiling you should have just approved its lifting instead of being obstructionist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key differences in construction are clear: Labor’s NBN plan will see the government run fibre-optic cable along damn-near every street in the country to give fibre to each home. That’s called fibre to the premise or FTTP. The ones it can’t reach will be serviced by a wireless service or satellites.


The Coalition, however, wants to run a fibre to the node scheme, which would see fibre-optic cables run along the street and terminate at a big box. The old copper network will be used to deliver service on what’s known as the “last-mile” to the house.


These two plans will also differ in terms of speed and cost, which is the main decision you’ll need to make about which is more important in the lead up to the election.


Labor’s plan is far more expensive than the Coalition’s. Labor’s bill comes in at $37.4 billion, while the Coalition’s will reportedly cost $20.4 billion. Labor’s plan will also take longer, with a delivery date of 2021 compared to the Coalition’s delivery date of 2019. The kicker comes when you look at actual internet speeds: the Coalition promises a speed of 25Mbps download, while the government promises 100Mbps down as well as faster upload speeds.



So Labour costing more expensive and Libs out by %100 for less capability. Was this an outright lie to get elected or just incompetence from Malcolm Turnbull, a man sacked by his own party, now fit to set the direction for this key capability

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key differences in construction are clear: Labors NBN plan will see the government run fibre-optic cable along damn-near every street in the country to give fibre to each home. Thats called fibre to the premise or FTTP. The ones it cant reach will be serviced by a wireless service or satellites.

The Coalition, however, wants to run a fibre to the node scheme, which would see fibre-optic cables run along the street and terminate at a big box. The old copper network will be used to deliver service on whats known as the last-mile to the house.

These two plans will also differ in terms of speed and cost, which is the main decision youll need to make about which is more important in the lead up to the election.

Labors plan is far more expensive than the Coalitions. Labors bill comes in at $37.4 billion, while the Coalitions will reportedly cost $20.4 billion. Labors plan will also take longer, with a delivery date of 2021 compared to the Coalitions delivery date of 2019. The kicker comes when you look at actual internet speeds: the Coalition promises a speed of 25Mbps download, while the government promises 100Mbps down as well as faster upload speeds.

So Labour costing more expensive and Libs out by %100 for less capability. Was this an outright lie to get elected or just incompetence from Malcolm Turnbull, a man sacked by his own party, now fit to set the direction for this key capability

 

Labors plan now costed at 60b. With 13 b less projected revenue. So only 29-30b diff.

 

The.return on labors plan is such that it would need to be brought on budget.

 

But keep believing it would have cost 37b barry. Anyone heard from steven conroy ? Probably has the underpants stuffed in his ears now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Labors plan now costed at 60b. With 13 b less projected revenue. So only 29-30b diff.

 

The.return on labors plan is such that it would need to be brought on budget.

 

But keep believing it would have cost 37b barry. Anyone heard from steven conroy ? Probably has the underpants stuffed in his ears now.

Time for me to put the powder away, popcorn for the next two and a bit years.

Edited by BarryBevan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the last pefo. The good old days (but so 2013l). Leigh should have gone back 12 months. Things were looking even better. A surplus and all. Labor was really "delivering"* back then.

 

 

* meaning issuing lots of press releases. Current talking point is 100 days is really a very very long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, $8bn of the $20bn blow out is because the Libs decided to inject the money into the Reserve so that they had appropriate funds to take action as they saw necessary. They didn't have to do it. Was it a good idea? Very, most prudent economists suggest. But at the end of the day it's a decision wholly by the current government for which they are accountable. They could have left the Reserve skint, or worse robbed them of more if the cupboard weren't bare, but they chose to take an action which is of no discernible political gain (in fact the contrary it's proving to their disadvantage) because they thought it was the right thing to do.

 

It seems the big difference between the PEFO and the MYEFO is that for the first time in six years we are getting realistic/conservative revenue and growth estimates instead of pie in the sky projections which can never be reached. Maybe this is because early in the first term a government can do this and get away with take advantage of pinning the whole thing on the previous government? Maybe they are truly more interested in actually being responsible rather than just looking responsible (which the last mob couldn't even manage in the end)?

 

Either way the fact of the matter is now that the MYEFO is out any major changes come budget time, whether positive or negative, are a result of the current government barring major international economic issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most prudent economists thought it prudent to give back 8.9 billion to the reserve bank Stikman? Who? Curious, given that Wayne Swan wrote to the reserve bank not more than 8 months ago and sakes whether the bank wanted it's reserves topped up by treasury and the answer was 'no treasurer' ...

 

The big difference between PEFO and MYEFO is that PEFO is written solely by the econocrats in treasury and finance (and without input by the pollies) whereas MYEFO is written at the policy direction of the government of the day.

 

An article to help you understand what's actually going on:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/joe-hockey-shifting-the-goalposts-with-creative-accounting-20131217-2zjcb.html

 

I'll summarise - the blow out in this year's budget is largely a political creation of Joe Hockey. The blow out in the national accounts over the medium term is largely a consequence of the softening of the economy reflecting international trends (funnily enough Stikman - you ask how long Labor kept on blaming the GFC for the budget - the answer is that the aftermath of the GFC, aka the global Great Recession, is still with us and is in fact Hockey's greatest problem in the medium term. Ironically by blaming Labor for everything he has denied himself an honest narrative to explain the basis for the tough decisions that lie ahead. ****tard).

 

Now in the long term there is a chronic structural deficit in the National Accounts - created by Howard's houso mentality budgeting for wealthy people and the 'unsustainable' income tax cuts that he promised in 2007 and Labor matched (and delivered). I say 'unsustainable' because there has been a consequent failure, and a marked resistance by the LNP in opposition, to FAIRLY broaden the tax base. The MRRT (better still it's predecessor) is one good idea. Forget how much it didn't raise in its first year, over the fully economic cycle it is a nice earner, just like the PRRT that it is based upon. A price on carbon is another excellent broadening measure for the tax base. Unlike your wet dream - the GST - these are not weighted against poor folk.

 

The other way to broaden the tax bad is to run a ruler over the $180 billion in tax concessions the Australian Government forgoes each year. There really is some rubbish in there. Another area of marked resistance to reform by the LNP whilst in opposition. No better example is the car leasing tax fraud. $1.8 billion right there. Not under this lot though. IMO is there about 40 billion in low hanging fruit ready to be plucked from this part of the tax tree. No doubt there will be wide spread squawking in the community - that houso mentality cuts deep - but that area is the obvious area to look at. Not cutting education (cancelling the trade training centres, WTF?), or infrastructure or health (for all the LNP's hang wringing about health cost blow outs this has been largely self created - ironically all Howard's free trade agreement with the US has done seems to be to destroy our intellectual property rights AND add 8 billion onto the pharmacetical benefits scheme, as US big pharma rapes the Aussie taxpayer, argh!! I digress).

 

The last thing we can and should be doing is fast tracking super contributions to 15% stat!! Bring back the over 50s concession on voluntary super contributions (notwithstanding what I said above). The more self funded retirees we can have the better our national accounts will be. Pity Howard cancelled Keating's 15% plan in 1996. That initiative alone would have largely addressed many of the structural problems in the budget as the baby boomers retire over the next decade (and refuse to die for anothe 30 years!!)..

Edited by Andrew #1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The liberals, led by Abbott, are truly the worst Govt this country has ever seen. Its sad they have betrayed so many Australians so quickly.

 

How out of touch are they, Hockey was on TV this morning saying if they don't make cuts, Australians won't be able to go the doctors - its bulk billed Joe........ Unless of course you got fat pockets and a silver spoon in your gob and choose your own doctor

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet he made no mention of clawing back some of the 180 billion in tax concessions did he.

 

Or why it's better to give back to the wealthy over cuts that disproportionately affect low and middle income earners.

 

Or why it is better to spoon out billions to big pharma over funding our hospitals.

 

Or why, given our aging population, it was a good idea to defer the increase to 15% super.

 

Did he explain the rationale behind continuing the car leasing tax fraud? Guessing not ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course about 50 pages ago I predicted that Hockey would go soft on cuts once Labor's "cuts, cuts, cuts" campaign began to bit in the 3rd week of the campaign only to raise the spectre in MYEFO, the audit and next years budget. Surprise surprise. Of course any deep cuts NOW (as opposed to 3 or 4 years time, if and when the economy returns to trend growth) will make matters much worse - spear tackling us into recession, given the increased weakness in growth ... Just saying ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hockey was on abc radio trying to explain the 5.5 billion houso paid parental leave scheme as a productivity measure. Curious, given that he just gutted trade training centres.

 

Perhaps (in 10,000 words please) you can explain that Stikman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"honest narrative".

 

Makes me.laugh.

 

Weren't we getting a.surplus? Nbn on track ?

 

Guess what? Opposition claimed it could do better than govt. Labor hoisted on their own petard of media fluff.

 

But yes. No excuses for libs now. And please can ppl. I don't mind paying for my private health etc. But politics will probably junk policy as it usually does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to give you a laugh BOTP. But outside your glass bubble the world economy is still stuffed and after the Chinese stimulus petters out, even our mining sector isn't looking as rosy as once was. These things have a direct impact on the projected government receipts - you know - the ones Howard pinned everything on when he spent big on houso handouts to rich folk and promised to cut 30 billion from income tax. Being honest about that - I.e. Changed world conditions has lead to a contraction in real terms of receipts (down to 22% of GDP now) would give Hockey an honest base to engage with the Australian public about the pain to come. Abbott and Hockey have been strutting about the place saying that want to be a reforming government in the Hawke-Keating mould. A good start would be for Hockey to a take a lead out of Keating's book and talk up to the electorate about economic matters, not treat them like mugs like he is currently doing. Of course he doesn't have the wit or wisdom for that ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Smiffy, I see your little princess has got herself appointed to the Submarine Corporation. Much submariner action in Indi? Experience learnt from hanging around Oxygenarian Monarchists at Melbourne University?

 

The 'merit' (you tories are so big on 'merit') is? Please explain (500 words or less should suffice)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • roxii changed the title to The Politics Thread

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...