text:
A fib too far: the death rattle of political trust
This Budget reveals a government that prioritises, then rations, its truthfulness, and does it with a brazen sense of self confidence, writes Jonathan Green.
"Is it liberating for a politician to decide election promises don't matter?"
7:30's Sarah Ferguson stopped Joe Hockey in his tracks with that one, a question that went beyond the superficial cut and thrust of the political exchange to something rather closer to its inner psychology.
A key question though, for if this Budget marks anything it is another decisive step in the distancing of the political class from the interests of the public it nominally serves, another step toward politics' slow conversion into pure performance.
Truth is the glue that binds both sides in the political transaction: you promise, I vote, you deliver.
Take away honesty and the rite of representation becomes hollow, just an act rewarded by public office.
This was a Budget that would define at least this first term of the Abbott Government, would fully render the character of an administration only sketched through the 2013 campaign, a sketch that dwelt reassuringly on the points of policy similarity with the Rudd/Gillard governments, but crosshatched a great gulf of distinction around credibility, trust and truth.
The Budget completes the picture, revealing a government that prioritises, then rations, its truthfulness, and does it with a brazen sense of self confidence: a certainty that a government has a higher calling than the strict fulfilment of its word. That's its own success and survival, of course.
We're way past Kansas now.
We have entered a cycle of flexible truth and populist response that began on election eve in 2010 when Julia Gillard pledged that "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead", a cycle completed on election eve 2013 when Abbott, propelled by the same desperation for victory no matter how constraining the promise, pledged that there would be "no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS".
We can now expect the Shorten Opposition to learn the lesson so emphatically demonstrated by the Abbott opposition and focus more on the lies than the policy realities, the same hedging of bets that had Abbott denounce Gillard for deceit while swearing minimal points of difference in program.
And that reflects a greater reality, at least around the treatment of the economy, that any Australian government is only fiddling around the edges, its fortunes hostage to the greater forces beyond its control that will ultimately shape our future.
They're fundamentally powerless, yet they swear to be in control. Fundamentally liars, yet swearing to uphold the truth. Which all starts to feel a little tenuous and uncertain, this grim politics with its random acts of sincerity, all of it predicated on nobility and truth, when through repeated example we're fully aware that truly, deeply, there isn't much of either.
And then, to keep our silence and acquiescence, we're played for our vested self interest, happy to accept a solution to a largely fabricated "budget emergency" as long as it hurts them and not us, as long as it deals harshly with those people on the lower margins who by definition lack influence and sway.
Phase one, make truth a relative concept dependent on political context. Phase two, bargain with our darker instincts for selfishness and individual security in the certain hope that self interest will trump our desire for honesty.
The heavy hitters of the commentariat will dress the whole thing up in reassuring language that says more about their mutual dependence in the process than it does about reality.
Take this from Paul Kelly in The Australian:
"Hockey's political strategy is obvious. This Budget aims to deliver a surplus in four years and offer room next term for income tax cuts to be promised at the 2016 election. At that point Abbott and Hockey will tell the public the budget has been repaired and the nation can be rewarded with belated tax relief."
Everything is forgiven in between, every sleight of hand forgiven in the name of strategy. Nothing to see here, move along.
The assumption: that by the next campaign all ledgers will be wiped clean and the goldfish minds of the voting public will readily accept a new round of promises delivered with the same sense of grim solemnity as the last.
But neither major political player has trust on its side now. How can Tony Abbott go to the next election and promise tax cuts and be believed?
How can Labor make a convincing argument that it should be trusted to do better?
Might we finally have come a fib too far? Have we finally been pushed toward the great uncoupling: that moment when politicians will at last admit with a great sigh of liberation, that truth does not constrain them?
That same moment in which we might all begin to wonder at their necessity.
Jonathan Green hosts Sunday Extra on Radio National and is the former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.
Topics: government-and-politics, business-economics-and-finance, budget
First posted
Comments (566)
Comments for this story are closed.
the yank:
15 May 2014 7:38:54am
"Is it liberating for a politician to decide election promises don't matter?" great question and obviously by the way Hockey was puffing on his cigar just before the budget details were released lying wasn't a bother.
Listen the only way to stop either side from continuing to go down this path is to force another election. An election where we get to vote on the real measures Abbott has in mind.
We the people really have to either stand up now or continue to have this sort of nonsense pulled on us every three years.
Ben the lawyer:
15 May 2014 7:57:44am
I don't remember you calling for an election when Gillard broke promises, yank. Indeed the left thought it was ridiculous when the right did so. What's brought about your change of mind? It wouldn't be shameless partisan barracking would it?
James Picone:
15 May 2014 8:20:31am
Moving a policy forward by a few years and skipping a particular consultative process as part of bargaining to form a minority government is rather different than breaking essentially every promise you had made prior to the election in a substantive and significant way.
Also, the 'partisan barracking' sword cuts both ways. If the right were calling for an election because Gillard was readily misquoted and misinterpreted, why aren't they calling for an election now after the Liberals have cut everything they said they wouldn't cut, in many places to the utter bone?
The gall of comparing a revenue-neutral carbon price to literally /halving/ newstart for people under 30, for example, is incredible. I have friends who'll be pushed to the wall by that particular change. I couldn't care less for reinstating indexation of petrol excise or an income tax hike on the top bracket - frankly I think that's good policy - but how can the Liberal ministry sleep at night after doing their level best to make higher education (especially postdoc) only available to children of the wealthy, after crippling the ability for youth to support themselves while unemployed, after making it still harder for people with disabilities to stay afloat, all after promising to do none of those things.
I really, really hope my friend can navigate the seven hells of Centrelink beauracracy to get onto the disability support pension for his serious medical issues, because he can't possibly work for the dole, because halved newstart isn't enough to survive on, and because he can't move back home.
If this budget passes it'll be interesting to see what happens to homelessness, poverty, and suicide statistics.
Ben the lawyer:
15 May 2014 8:41:52am
'is rather different than breaking essentially every promise'
Ah, so some broken promises are better than others. Got it. Seem legit.
15 May 2014 9:07:16am
Come on Ben! Gillard broke one promise. Abbott broke a bucket full. And Gillard's broken promise was a conditional "I won't do X but I'll do something very close to that". Abbott broke promises that he was emphasising as promises that are made of different stuff to the weak promises that Gillard made. Abbott's whole schtick was that his promises really worked.
Abbott has lied to us about everything. Gillard, at worst, lied about a small operational detail.
Abbott is a destroyer of trust. He represents the worst of the political dross we have to put up with these days.
I'm not sure if politics in Australia can be rescued but the first thing we should do is get rid of Abbott.
(And just in case you think I'm overly partisan, I don't think Shorten has much honesty in him, based on all the backstabbing he got up to, so we'll ditch him too in the Great Australian Political Reboot.)
Ben the lawyer:
15 May 2014 9:45:58am
'Abbott has lied to us about everything. Gillard, at worst, lied about a small operational detail.'
That seems like partisan justification to me. But that's to be expected I guess.
15 May 2014 11:05:29am
A criticism that applies to supporters of both sides.
15 May 2014 11:24:19am
"That seems like partisan justification to me. But that's to be expected I guess."
Not entirely partisan, there are some substantial differences between Gillards promise and Abbott's
Gillard went on to say that she would most definitely be implementing a price on CO2 emissions, so her promise was qualified, and was predicated on the reasonable assumption that if she won the election she would have a majority in the parliament with which to implement such promises.
Of course we all know now that a deal was done with the Greens, and the outcome is the broken promise.
Abbott on the other hand was quite clear that his promises were not qualified, and he is not in the position where he needs to make difficult compromises due to not having the numbers in parliament
The nose:
15 May 2014 2:00:51pm
BTL, The Question is did Gillard intentionally tell a lie? Is saying there would not be a "carbon tax", but there will be a ETS under a Goverment I lead and the then having to back down on this so called tax to reach an agreement with the greens and the independents to form a minority Goverment, in my book does not constitute a lie.
Now did Abbott tell a lie? He claimed everyday in opposition that the country was going broke and there was a budget emergency, but he still promised to lower taxes, no cuts to education, no cuts to th ABC or SBS, no changes to pensions etc.
He has broken almost all of his promises, even though he has majority Goverment! Is he a liar? With out a doubt, he would be one of the most prolific liars that's ever entered parlament!
15 May 2014 9:48:15pm
Quite right.
For a statement to be considered a lie, there is one rather important condition that must be satisfied: the teller must make the statement in the knowledge that it is not true. If this condition is not met, the statement is not a lie, regardless of whether it turns out to be true or false.
And this is the fundamental difference between Ms Gillard promise to introduce a carbon pricing scheme (which she kept), and Mr Abbott's many promises before the 2013 election. Mr Abbott knew that he could not "fix the budget" AND keep his promises not to raise taxes, not to introduce new taxes, to implement Gonski, to leave pensions alone and so on. He had no intention of keeping any of these promises, so he was lying.
I'm not really that surprised. Just ask his "mates", like Peter Slipper and David Oldfield, how far you should trust Tony Abbott.
15 May 2014 2:59:26pm
May sound "partisan" to you. To any reasonable person it is an accurate and obvious statement of the facts.
15 May 2014 3:00:41pm
And Gillard's so-called promise was never what is often said - she always said she would put a price on carbon, then was stymied by being a minority government - but that's all part of Abbott's lies - he knew perfectly well what she said.
Look, no government get to fully implement everything it mentions during an election campaign. Sensible voters do try to differentiate between those written policies, which have usually been thought out and the thought bubbles that emerge during a campaign.
Most of what Abbott is now backtracking on was put out there as liberal policy. And it's not as if they didn't know the details of forward budget projections - that information was always out there.
So in my view, most of the Lib's actions since the election have been a con. And dismissive and disrespectful of the Australian people, who are obviously considered too stupid.
15 May 2014 7:17:27pm
Dear James Picone your point is pretty pertinent, it similar to what the QLD Govt is doing on its wasteful Stong Choices website. Up here the Government is inferring that Labor is reponsible for and $80B deficit, while the this fantastic treasurer (Nicholls) we have delivered an $8B deficit this financial year plus putting electricity prices up, over the last 2 years, by 38% with another 13% price hike in the offing this coming budget. This fantastic treasurer also admitted on national television last week that if he doesn't get what he wanted on the Stong Choices survey, he'll go ahead with implementing privatisation, service cuts and tax hikes regardless.
15 May 2014 10:03:10pm
I hear the same claims tonight from question time that now is the time of 50 billion dollar deficits.
The waffle that comes from his mouth.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 9:22:21am
Well, yes. Breaking promises can be more or less ethically bankrupt. This seems obvious.
If I promise to give you two dollars, but instead give you one dollar, I have broken a promise, but I haven't broken it as badly as if I give you nothing. If I make two promises, and break both of them, I am less ethical than if I break one promise.
Gillard promised that Labour would implement an ETS after the 2013 election if the community was for it. They implemented an ETS prior to the 2013 election, and without direct community consultation, in coalition with the Greens. Which is less of a broken promise than if they hadn't implemented an ETS at all, or implemented a carbon tax, and less of a broken promise than it would have been had they been governing in their own right (they had to represent the Greens more than they would have in that case).
The Liberals promised no cuts to a wide range of policy areas, and then their first budget delivers huge cuts to those policy areas, and they're governing in their own right. That is pretty clearly a more significant breach of promise.
15 May 2014 11:55:41am
If I break a dozen promises but save you money I'm extremely unethical.
All political parties do it, we get to judge and deliver a consequence every three years.
It says more about the public than the politicians.
peter of mitcham:
15 May 2014 12:24:11pm
"If I break a dozen promises but save you money I'm extremely unethical."
If one of those was not to send me in to a war zone with zero chances of survival, you are acnot just unethical, you're comlicit in my demise. What's that you say? Well yes i agree, if I was deceased I would not be spending money ... yes, that's true
15 May 2014 3:31:11pm
In what way will cutting Education save us money?
In what way will cutting Health save us money?
In what way will cutting employment save us money?
Cutting carbon did and will continue to save us money, do you not see there is a difference?
15 May 2014 7:18:53pm
Dear SVJ that would be bordering on corruption. But wait both Abbott and Hockey are from the NSW branch of the Liberal Party aren't they?
15 May 2014 9:31:00am
Surly you understand the gravity of intent.
Going back on your word the secure the support of an ally is very different to having intended to do the opposite to what you originally promised in the first place as Abbort has done.
The reason I know this was planed all along is the fact that only one of his budget measures is temporary. That's the one that puts a 1% tax on those who are more well off for only the next three years.
All his slashing to the least well off is permanent.
At least until we put Labor back in power.
Ben the lawyer:
15 May 2014 9:49:39am
'Going back on your word the secure the support of an ally is very different to having intended to do the opposite to what you originally promised in the first place as Abbort has done.'
Mildly convenient that your side is more justified (as judged by you, of course). I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
15 May 2014 11:43:02am
Please explain to us the enormous difference in practical every day terms to the average citizen between a "price on carbon" and a "carbon tax".
Everyone knows that Labor intended to take action on climate change, as did the Liberals until Abbott made them take a 180 turn.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 12:13:00pm
An ETS-driven carbon price floats with the market, a direct carbon tax is government instituted. An ETS theoretically allows a government to set a direct cap on carbon emissions by limiting the number of permits sold to the market, whereas a carbon tax doesn't provide a direct cap. On the other hand, it's much easier to make a carbon tax revenue neutral by adjusting income tax rates, theoretically preventing it from being as regressive a tax as it otherwise would be.
Some of those differences are practically relevant to everyday citizens - particularly the potential for a revenue-neutral carbon tax to involve adjustment of income tax rates.
15 May 2014 7:23:42pm
And Dear James the ETS effects only 350 companies, where a GP tax effects everyone, especially those who can't afford it and then there is the "visit to the chemist tax" after you've seen the GP, so you can purchase your medications.
Peter of Melbourne:
15 May 2014 1:06:48pm
FredN: There will be NO CARBON TAX under a Government I lead. A lie is lie no matter how sheeple spin is spun around it.
15 May 2014 3:33:39pm
Not when the tax is rebated to those affected and imposed on those polluting, perhaps it should have been described more accurately as a fine for polluting.
15 May 2014 7:18:27pm
?There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead but let me be perfectly clear, I will introduce a price on carbon and move on to an emissions trading scheme".
You and your ilk should stop lying by omission (by leaving out the last half of Gillard's most infamous (undeservedly) sentence).
In any case, two wrongs (or one wrong and three wrongs (at least and counting)) do not make a right.
15 May 2014 7:25:27pm
There will be not cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to pensions. A lie is a lie no matter how sheeple spin is spun or weasle words are dribbled out.
15 May 2014 9:32:08pm
"There will be NO CARBON TAX under a Government I lead. A lie is lie no matter how sheeple spin is spun around it."
and the fundies here hammered her on these forums every day for it, and the ALP was wiped out.
pit that none of you have the same consistency when your hero Abbott has broken every promise he made.
not one of you partisan ranters has yet said 'yep he lied' and hammer him with every post like you did to Gillard. why is that? are lies better when done in bulk and by your 'team'?
15 May 2014 3:57:44pm
Gillard's broken promise was that she made a commitment that the carbon pricing mechanism would not come into effect until after the next election. She said she would legislate it, but not before a consensus was reached in the community and that it would not come into effect until after the next election. Spinning it as a name change ignores the fact that the timing was important, the people were led to believe they would have another election to make a decision. Swan defended claims that it would be introduced in this term by saying those claims were hysterical.
15 May 2014 2:54:30pm
Politicians will only tell the lies that they are convinced the media lets them get away with.
15 May 2014 4:20:20pm
But Abbortt has a mandate .....(or so he says).
No one has forced him to go back on his word. He has done it because he never intended to deliver all those promises in the first place.
15 May 2014 7:27:58pm
Your right Bixbod, Abbott's mandate was that he was trustworthy, nothing else, because he didn't promise anything else. The rest was all slogans and the electorate fell for it.
Lucy (original):
15 May 2014 7:43:13pm
I promise you, Ben, that you have a clouded mind and you cannot think logically.
There is very little justification for any of the opinions you keep on putting forward, beyond your wish to convince God-knows-who that Abbott and Hockey are Messiahs.
It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The t'ings dat yo' li'ble
To read in Joe's Bible,
It ain't necessarily so.
Tony Abbott speaks truth, but oh my !
Tony Abbott speaks truthl, but oh my !
He said no surprises
But just count his lies -es!
Tony Abbott speaks truthl, but oh my !
It ain't necessarily so.
Look into the Crystal Ball - 56% ALP, and rising,
44% Coalition and falling,
would seem to indicate that not everyone thinks the same way that you do, Ben the Apologist.
15 May 2014 10:38:31am
"At least until we put Labor back in power."
Yes you will get your chance in 2.5 years time.Lets see how that goes.
Infact from what I see all the promises that the government have supposed to have broken don't start untill after the next election.So you get to have a say.
Sir Rumpole III:
15 May 2014 4:58:14pm
"Yes you will get your chance in 2.5 years time.Lets see how that goes."
It might be sooner than you think, depending on Sir Clive's attitude at the time.
15 May 2014 11:37:23pm
I never expected that Clive might turn out to be the champion of the people.
I expected him to cosy up with Abbortt and the greedy side of town.
!% tax on people earning six times the minimum wage for three years!
LOL what a joke. An twenty five year old would lose twice that much in the six months of unemployment while waiting for some help.
It isn't a reintroduction of workchoices, but it's close.
No one under thirty will be game to stand up for their right in any workplace anymore.
Peter NQ:
15 May 2014 11:59:24am
Since when did the coalition promise to fund gonski after the first four years. you are convieniently overlooking that they didn't, furthermore, they have applied the funding as announced during those four years. As well the states do not have to implement national cirriculums as part of this goverment so therefore do not have to spend all the money at once.
Its pretty extravagant to suggest this is a broken promise.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 12:56:41pm
When they said they're on a 'unity ticket' with Rudd over Gonski. That's an explicit statement that their policies are identical. I believe there was a separate interview where that statement was made in even stronger terms.
15 May 2014 3:35:08pm
The promise was the Education reforms are identical to those of Labor, there will be no cuts to education>
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 5:18:38pm
Peter voted.
He obviously never heard a SINGLE word during the campaign, but yet he still voted.
The Peters of this world are a big reason we have such pathetic politicians.
Chris L:
15 May 2014 9:35:14am
Ben, I noticed you had to quote only a portion of James' sentence in order to argue against it. Much like how any clip you see of that "no carbon tax" promise has to be cut off mid-sentence to avoid hearing the part about promising a carbon price.
Abbott had to misrepresent Gillard in order to get the outrage he wanted. Are we, in any way, misrepresenting Abbott in regards to the many promises he has broken?
Ben the lawyer:
15 May 2014 9:48:31am
'Much like how any clip you see of that "no carbon tax" promise has to be cut off mid-sentence to avoid hearing the part about promising a carbon price'
You know she never said that bit, right? It appears magically in Kerry-Ann Walsh's book, but no video evidence has ever come forward. By all means, link to it.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 10:01:27am
At work, can't Youtube, but I can visit the Australian, where this article appears: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983
It was always very clear what Labour intended to do after the election.
15 May 2014 10:43:11am
"It was always very clear what Labour intended to do after the election."
And it is clear what the government is going to do as most of what was in the budget does not take place till after the next election even the co-payment does not come in till 07/15.So you will get a vote on it.
Mark of melb:
15 May 2014 1:30:40pm
When is the next election? When is the Health Tax come in again?
15 May 2014 3:19:01pm
Abbott's destruction of carbon pricing policies in Australia is appalling.
What most people do not focus on is the fact the oceans are the planet's major carbon soak.
They are turning acidic with unknown consequences if the large scale extinction of marine life takes place.
All food chains are linked - Australia will be left behind as China develops and markets green technologies (yes China!) - and it is my view that China will only trade in the not-too-distant future with low carbon economies forcing them to buy the IP and technologies that the country is rapidly developing.
Another major lost opportunity - and in this case size does not matter - it is leadership.
15 May 2014 2:37:31pm
Gillard did not so much lie but accommodate the greens who became a part of the Government. Gillard made her claim when she believed she would be governing as a Labour party.
Just as the liberals have to accommodate the National Party promises, labour had to accommodate the greens.
Accommodating the greens was about negotiating a power sharing situation brought about by the voting population. To have not changed position would have been to disregard the Greens voters.
Tony Abbott has disregarded not just his own voters but all Australians.
15 May 2014 5:32:32pm
Mumble mumble... core promise... mumble...
It's like you think we've never been here before...
"Because he dunnit" is not an argument for a position, it's an excuse for a poor performance.
16 May 2014 6:03:59am
The only thing that could save you from a charge of dishonesty is a plea of mental insufficiency.
As you and everyone else knows, Gillard in a campaign to win government for the Labor Party promised that there would be no carbon tax because part of her campaign was an Emissions Trading Scheme.
She lost that election.
She then formed a minority government with a policy to have a fixed price on carbon dioxide emissions leading to an ETS.
Those who call that dishonest are themselves being dishonest.
Revealed for all to see, that was just a practice run at dishonesty.
15 May 2014 9:47:03am
'breaking essentially every promise' Ah! The great distortion.
Actually I find it hard to find too many broken at all.
A 1% efficiency applied to the ABC is only what every other department is subject to, hardly a 'cut' in anyone's language.
An adjustment to a tax rate is hardly a 'new' tax. It is an adjustment that takes place in almost every budget since income taxes were introduced.
And so on it goes. On the other hand "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" has a very emphatic and specific ring to it.
Announcing that the surplus had been delivered and then never being able to locate it was also a doozy.
Most mature adults can very much tell the difference between the two categories and will vote accordingly. Thankfully we now have maturity back into government and stability back into our economic management.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 10:09:18am
Cuts don't count if they're 'efficiency levies', tax rate increases aren't breaking a promise not to increase taxes, but promising not to implement a carbon /tax/ and then implementing an /emissions trading scheme/ is breaking a promise. Oh, the equivocation!
I was very aware of what Labour's policy on carbon pricing was prior to that infamous election, because it was widely available. Anyone who voted for them expecting no ETS wasn't paying attention.
What about the massive cuts to education and health, the changes to the pension, and only partially implementing Gonski? What's your slippery justification for that particular set of blatant breaches of promise? The hypocrisy, again, is incredible. People like you and Ben don't give a damn about good policy, basic honesty, or whether a budget hurts people that can't afford it. All you care about is whether the budget benefits you. Either that, or you're a paid shill.
And yes, Labour promised surpluses and then didn't deliver them - while in power, I think, not prior to the election. That, I'll grant you as a broken promise. Is it of similar magnitude as promising no cuts to health and education and then slicing billions from those fields?
15 May 2014 11:16:09am
Please identify those cuts during this term of government. What Abbott said in the election campaign was obviously specific to this term of government.
Gonski and the other initiatives that are programmed after the next election will be voted on by voters. If commitments made in an election campaign lock in a government for the rest of time then every government and every PM in history would be guilty of 'breaking promises'.
If what you have said at any point in life locks you in for the rest of time then you are just as bad because I guarantee you haven't kept every promise in that fashion either. So maybe it is time for you to judge others on the basis you judge yourself. That would be refreshing!
James Picone:
15 May 2014 12:09:15pm
Another comment, another bit of spin. So now writing policy to cut $10 billion off of federal health spending in the next four years isn't breaking a promise not to do that because there'll be an election between now and then. Never mind that the government coming in will have to pass legislation to fix that. And never mind that some of the cuts are coming through rather soon - like the medicare benefits schedule. ("Oh but" you cry "Reducing the amount it was set to increase isn't a cut!". Yes it is.)
You've backed away from the cuts to the ABC now, I see, and the tax increase they promised not to institute (which is, I will be fair, sensible policy).
Watching the conservative hive-mind evolve its reactions to all this is a strange combination of infuriating and amusing. "It's a /levy/ not a tax!" "Cuts don't count if we call them something else!" "Well it's the spirit, the vibe, Mabo, you know!" "Now we're having a sensible policy discussion instead of yelling about promises" "Where were you when Gillard did something I didn't like?" and so on. I'm honestly not sure whether the synchrony of the various far-right commenters on the ABC indicates an organised campaign or whether you're all just copying each other.
15 May 2014 11:25:28am
To cut through all the crap, one side is trying its guts out to get the house back in order while the other spent like a drunken sailor, please tell me that the ABC can contribute to the mess we are in???
This tit for tat out of these so over paid alleged journalist is getting beyond reason.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 12:20:39pm
If the Liberals were really trying their guts out they'd slaughter some sacred conservative geese, like a number of the subsidies provided to mining companies in the forms of rebates on petrol excise, or raising taxes (either personal or company), or defense spending.
Instead, they're seeking comparatively smaller gains by hitting up people that aren't likely to vote for them anyway and don't have enough money to be a significant voice in the political sphere, and it gets them some political advantage in certain segments of the community to boot. Honestly some of these cuts are so embarassingly ideological it almost defies belief - getting rid of anything even remotely associated with climate change, drastically reducing funding for the vast majority of research (except weirdly medical research), the cut to ABC and SBS funding, defunding the Australia Network, etc. Scant millions. We could buy three less JSFs for comparable savings with substantially less pain.
Government spending as a fraction of GDP went down during Labour's run, with the exception of the year Rudd introduced a stimulus package. With the exception of the stimulus package, Labour spent less as a fraction GDP than Howard did for his entire run. You can't pin the current minor debt on Labour being wasteful - it's entirely down to revenue dropping because of the GFC.
15 May 2014 6:07:22pm
Pop, you think we are in a mess yet the IMF, OCED and even Clive disagree with you. The ratings agencies give us a thumbs up too! Your claim is completely without substance and beyond reason as you so aptly put it! Time to cut through all the crap indeed!
15 May 2014 9:16:45pm
Yes they did keep promising a surplus that didn't eventuate. However that was not wilful lying, but a product of Treasury's repeated over estimation of revenue. Treasury subsequently admitted that its modelling was the problem and that there had apparently been a structural change in the economy and they would need to adjust their models. Wayne Swan relied on the treasury advice and was badly misled. That was not his fault. The problem was not profligate spending, but an unexpected collapse in revenue.
15 May 2014 12:24:46pm
Realist, when does a lie become a lie if a 1% cut is not a lie, 2, 3 , 4? No cuts to education, health, NDIS, ABC & SBS sounded pretty emphatic when I heard it.
15 May 2014 1:36:42pm
Ever the purist aren't you Lazarus. But you fiercely claimed "no carbon tax under a government I lead" was NOT a lie. Strange.
The ABC hasn't been 'cut', the efficiency dividend isn't even a gravel rash. 25% would be a cut and many are disappointed it wasn't 100%. A national broadcaster is hardly an essential service.
Our language is rich and full of meaning. An adjustment to an existing tax, no matter how much you distort, is NOT a new tax. The black and white interpretation being applied to every word is for one reason only - payback.
Labor screamed that Abbott would "Cut! Cut! Cut!". But he hasn't. Both Costello and Keating cut more from spending in their first budgets. Rudd promised to cut more but never got round to it.
The fact is the criticism being levelled by you and your mates would have been levelled no matter what. To you it is all a sick game of vindictive blame. Meanwhile, Julia Gillard has acknowledged that Labor under Rudd was chaotic. So chaotic she chose to knife him.
We now know the consequences of that chaos but thankfully we have someone with the guts to weather the storm deal with them.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 2:03:10pm
The Liberals didn't just claim no taxes, they also claimed no tax increases. You can't equivocate your way around that.
Still ignoring the substantial health and education cuts I see, and the pension changes.
I don't think they promised not to do it, but the Newstart counts are very much in the cut-to-the-bone category. They're going to kill people.
The difference between an emissions trading scheme and a carbon tax has been explained to you many, many times. You're just being deliberately ignorant or a paid shill now. Stop it.
Sir Trent Toogood:
15 May 2014 3:31:26pm
So now it's 'efficiency dividends' and 'adjustments'!
Give us a break!
rusty cairns:
16 May 2014 7:06:35am
GDay Realist
You didn't hear Abbott say " we will be an open and transparent government" and "a government of no surprises"
If he didn't make these statements into a lie, why are State and Territory leaders having an emergency meeting ?
If the Abbott government was open and transparent and things they intend to implement were not surprises, there would be no need for an emergency meeting.
Can you inform how many times the State and Territory government leaders have called for an emergency meetings ?
How many times were there emergency meetings because of Ms Gillard's government decisions ?
How many times because of Mr Rudd's government decisions ?
You can understand that decisions made by this government have caused an emergency, can't you ?
What evidence is required to prove the worst government ever ?
You should be calling for a DD because the most hypocritical Federal government in living memory should be removed before our Fair Australia is left in ruin.
Like Howard they have no vision for the future. Howards own treasury statements said that revenue from his last term was over $300 billion. How much is the FTTP NBN expected to cost ?
How much is NDIS expected to cost ? How much is Gonski expected to cost? Why weren't these things thought off and funded with that $300 billion ?
Please wake up to the fact that you have been deceived by the Liberal/ National coalition again, whom always try to make our society a fight between ourselves.
15 May 2014 2:23:31pm
I think some of the things in the budget are there as bargaining tools.
The Greens and Labor have to appose no matter what is in the budgett.
I think the LNP have put in some things that they know will never get through the senate (Or at least I hope wont get through).
This way they have some things to barging with, and don't get to badly hammered for increase in top tax rate and fuel excise etc.
What actually makes it through the senate will probably be sensible in the end.
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 5:25:09pm
"I think some of the things in the budget are there as bargaining tools."
Here you may have hit on something.
Once the Senate changes the new Palmer / Abbott government will be horse trading among themselves like mad.
I too suspect a few of the budget measures were put in to feed Palmer something to oppose and make noise about, hogging the spotlight while the real nasty stuff will go un-reported through the MSN.
16 May 2014 12:00:47am
Abbott is a political animal (not to be confused with Aristotle's - version of it - zoon politikon - which means animal who can actually think).
He will claim everything is everyone else's fault, when the truth is it was in fact him that did not think any of it through properly in the first place.
Who knows what is planned to fail, and what is planned to get through under this govt, and what is just stage games along the way..
15 May 2014 8:21:17am
And vice versa Ben.
Abbott promised that he was better.
Besides which, on a more utilitarian basis, Tony may need to do that in any event on account of the Senate.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 10:07:21am
So just like Jonathan Green, you can "fearlessly hold politicians to account", but only the conservative ones.
Green lost all credibility when he parroted Swan's rubbish about "delivering 4 successive budget surpluses", when in actual fact the results were so far from forecast as to be laughable.
When, oh when will the ABC find a journalist who does not behave like a quasi opposition the entire time a coalition government is in power?
Monty B:
15 May 2014 11:14:24am
It`s more than just another politician`s lie. Abbott expressly stated he would not win office and then use the bad state of the books as an excuse to break promises. This week Jon Faine (774) replayed his pre-election interview where he stated this emphatically, and added the public were sick of politicians using this excuse, and that he was different.
His apologists will swallow the `crises` rhetoric -that the economy is really really bad (it was a really big dog that ate my homework) or that he just ought not have promised so much, so emphatically leading up to a sure win.
But present himself as more than just another power seeking lying pollie he did. Poor conservatives, the saviour has no clothes.
Mitor the Bold:
15 May 2014 8:26:41am
Gillard broke a promise because she had to negotiate a minority government. She wouldn't have introduced carbon pricing otherwise. Abbott didn't break a promise: he lied. He knew what he wanted to do but he told us otherwise. He didn't have to negotiate with anyone to gain government; he didn't have to put aside commitments to govern - he simply told us anything he thought he had to tell us to get us to vote for him.
Gillard broke a promise - but Abbott knowingly, premeditatedly told us he would act in a way he had absolutely no intention of acting in. He lied, and now he hopes things turn out ok enough that we don't hold him to account on it. With cut services and the recession we didn't have (but are likely to have soon) I don't rate his chances. But then, I've always underestimated the stupidity of self-interested voters with a finger twiddling around in front of their eyes. Ooh, I feel ditzy!
Ben the lawyer:
15 May 2014 9:05:05am
'Gillard broke a promise because she had to negotiate a minority government.'
Too right. The Greens were totally going to support Abbott had she not agreed to bring in the carbon tax.
In all seriousness, I didn't realise some political lies were better than others. Do carry on.
15 May 2014 10:00:14am
@Ben the lawyer:
Some political lies were better than others? There are lies, damn lies and lie reminders. The big difference with the Abbott governments truth distortion should be obvious. Every time a voter goes to a GP and forks out a co-payment he/she will be reminded who to thank for the impost, every time someone under thirty gets a 6 month knockback from Centrelink he/she will be reminded who to thank, every time a student pays a HEX debt they will be reminded. The list goes on. Julia's carbon tax rapidly faded into obscurity and there were no cyclical reminders apart from the relentless attacks of the then opposition. Big difference?
15 May 2014 12:37:50pm
Gillard lied to fix a political problem. Cynical to the core.
Abbott is fixing a budgetary problem ... as he said he would. The no new taxes stuff etc... are lame 'gotcha moments' from some seriously lame hypocrites.
Looking forward to the next 10 years of LNP budgets!
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 5:28:07pm
Here in lies proof positive of your warped world view, Ben.
Hell would have frozen over, waterfalls would run uphill, and Tony wouldn't claim expenses on triathlon trips in a world where the Greens would join an Abbott led government.
15 May 2014 9:21:42am
Gillard also promised (several times) to deliver a surplus.
The lies just kept on coming.
15 May 2014 9:48:25am
they were not lies, those statements were based on assumptions by treasury that revenue would be higher than it actually turned out to be, get your facts straight.
some random commie...:
15 May 2014 9:57:21am
Ben, Alfie;
Pleas defend;
"Screw hospitals, let's take 40 or 50 billion dollars out of Hospitals and buy 40 billion worth of fighter jets to keep our stooge mates in the US happy..."
Proud to be Right wing? Tito, Franco, Pinochet etc.
15 May 2014 10:25:41am
The money promised to the states for health and education was UNFUNDED. The money did not exist. No provision was made to pay it or to earmark funds to pay for it.
You cannot lose something you never had and were unlikely to get.
15 May 2014 2:28:25pm
"You cannot lose something you never had...."
Tell that to the pensioners Bev.
They did have it and now they've lost it despite the Bott promising before the elections that pensions would stay the same..
Or maybe you missed this little item in sloppy Joe's speech?
[[ The Seniors Supplement will be abolished from July 1 this year]],
15 May 2014 2:37:44pm
Firstly, there is no new $40 billion being spent on the F35's, the only new spending is the whole of life procurement cost of around $12.7 billion. The other $12 billion operating cost is opex which is the continuation of the funds being paid for operating the Hornets and is a whole of life total as well spread out over 30 years. Neither cost is a lump sum to any one budget but spread out over several budgets and has been funded in the forward estimates for years including the RGR ALP years.
15 May 2014 10:56:20am
Was Gillard (and Swan) lying - or just wrong?
Remember how Labor was relying on figures given to them which turned out to be wrong.
Remember, too, that when Abbott made his statement about no new tax etc, he said he did not know what the true economic situation was. Does that mean he did not know if there was an "economic emergency" but just made it up? Was he lying again?
bide and fecht:
15 May 2014 4:40:09pm
So promising the same thing over and over become different lies? If I follow your rationale, then TA is still some hundreds of lies ahead.....but please, draw comfort from that, I'll be a little harder to convince than the blind old party line belief system.
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 11:04:48pm
Did Abbott lie to the electorate, Alfie ?
I keep asking you this very simple question, like your beloved leader you keep refusing to answer. I know it must cause you distress to admit it but for the sake of credibility, please answer.
Have a great day.
John Coochey :
15 May 2014 8:38:28am
"There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead!" Except when I want support from the Greens which I would have got anyway.
Desert Woman:
15 May 2014 9:04:58am
How many times? She promised an ETS which at that time was not defined as a tax. Every ETS has an introductory fixed period. What was changed during the negotiations with the Greens was the fixed time period from 1 year to 3. This became known as 'the tax'. The opposition deliberately played semantic games to accuse her of a 'lie'.
John Coochey :
15 May 2014 10:42:14am
Well given that she now refers to it as a tax herself I do not think you have a case!
Craig of Bathurst:
15 May 2014 12:38:55pm
Desert Women is obviously not referring to Gillard's interview when she uttered her infamous lie about no carbon tax under her government.
She did not go on to say she would introduce and alternative. Search YouTube for:
"Julia Gillard did not lie about Carbon Tax"
15 May 2014 10:54:12pm
You should get your facts Craig straight Craig of Bathurst. It amazes me that no matter how many times links are provided that show what Julia Gillard realy said, the rabid Lib supporters ignore thet facts Once or twice one could put it down to being ignorant of the facts, but after a while one can only assume you are telling deliberate porkies. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983
"In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step."
"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."
15 May 2014 8:33:38pm
You're absolutely right Desert Woman but I'm afraid one thing Aussies were once renowned for - their ability to detect bullshit at a thousand paces - has all but atrophied and it seems we now expect our politicians to lie as a matter of course.
15 May 2014 9:10:26am
That's all you got Coochey? One bent promise? That vs the continual up-front lying that Abbott did?
Gillard has nothing on Abbott. She compromised to form a government. Abbott just takes us as fools and lies when his mouth is open.
15 May 2014 9:23:29am
You missed out the last three-quarters of her sentence (sigh).
?There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead but let me be perfectly clear, I will introduce a price on carbon and move on to an emissions trading scheme.?
In any case, two wrongs do not make a right!
John Coochey :
15 May 2014 10:43:06am
So you do in fact admits she made a "wrong"?
15 May 2014 1:42:57pm
If you'll admit that Abbott Hockey have done so, and concede that two wrongs don't make a right.
Freedom of Speech:
15 May 2014 8:44:02am
The only thing going for Liberals at the moment is Shorten ... I somehow don't think he has the ticker in confronting Abbott. However by the next election we will have a new messiah - Turnbull, or Bowen, or Albo - with new promises
Craig of Bathurst:
15 May 2014 12:40:27pm
You wish, FoS. Abbott will still be PM and Howes will be Opposition Leader.
Sir Trent Toogood:
15 May 2014 4:51:28pm
'Abbott will still be PM'
Not the way his approval rating is going, he wont.
Voters have woken up to your leader.
He's on the slippery slope to oblivion.
15 May 2014 9:05:59am
Your mates told heaps of lies against one that is meant to save this planet earth and not kick the poor in in the guts like your LNP mates have just done.
Clive to the rescue in the Senate to save our souls.
15 May 2014 9:53:02am
While listening to religion and ethics report on RN last night (i have to get some friends, really) the budget was described by a senior church leader as amoral, the architect? TA, is he therefore amoral? These days i think so.
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 5:36:11pm
Clive? Seriously??
The guy is running his own con on Australia atm. He'llspin the populist crap, and only oppose a few things so he has something to bargin with.
The Palmer / Abbott government will make the Labor / Greens look like the greatest government ever.
He is there for one reason only, Himself.
It's the real problem we have with the distrust politician like Abbott and Hockey have earnt. Jokers like Palmer get voted in.
15 May 2014 9:08:33am
Gillard didn't break the carbon pricing promise at all. I hope my detailed post on this issue is published here. Stop that lie Ben and accept Abbott's responsibility. The yank is perfectly right, the People deserve the opportunity to vote for the REAL policies of the Coalition, not the LIES they told before the election. Double Dissolution now, and back to the polling booths! Decency and Democracy are far more important than Murdoch's and Rinehart's income, or Tony Abbott's and Joe Hockey's political careers!
15 May 2014 9:16:44am
Why bother trying to argue the point on this one Ben. You're on a hiding to nothing. Abbott attacked Gillard relentlessly for 3 years about one broken promise. He campaigned on truth and trust. He then broke multiple promises. It is clean cut. No spin about a budget emergency can deflect that deceit. It would be fair and reasonable to hold another election now. I hope the Senate block supply. That would be fair and just.
Form Guide:
15 May 2014 8:20:58pm
Clive and his PUP are on the line with this budget.
Coal mines v's public good.
15 May 2014 10:43:18pm
He doesn't operate any coal mines........yet. He is also a rent taker from iron mines that someone else (Chinese), do the heavy lifting (God I hate that phrase) on.
15 May 2014 9:37:14am
Abbott is THE author of this particular narrative; not Howard, not Rudd, not Gillard; Abbott, and Abbott alone.
His entire candidacy was premised on the single motif; ?trust?.
To see him NOW, along with his entire front bench and the (confused) army of Liberal supporters on this blog and many others, try and walk away from the very thing that defined him; to try and skulk or seek shelter in the warm comforting bosom of fallacy is an explicit mark of their moral and political cowardice.
I doubt very much that it will be forgotten.
15 May 2014 10:57:30am
Budgets are normally prepared by a treasurer. His name is Hockey.
15 May 2014 1:28:57pm
Hockey? I think you mean Shepherd.
Mark of melb:
15 May 2014 2:01:02pm
And it's the Cabinet who give approval which include Abbott.
15 May 2014 2:31:46pm
"Promises" are made by leaders of the Party.
His name is Abbott.
The Jones Crusher:
15 May 2014 10:03:16am
"I don't remember you calling for an election when Gillard broke promises, yank."
Forget the Yank. Tony Abbott was screaming for an election on the back of Gillard's introduction of a Great Big New Tax! Now that the shoe is on the other foot all you are just trying to dodge the blatant double standard on full display!
Tony Abbott stated "There should be no new tax collection without an election". Having made that unambiguous statement what has he done? Why don't you try and dress that up as being a "true" statement, Ben?
Abbott has just moved from one double standard to another by standing in front of the cameras and stating "We kept our faith with the Australian People".
The Skeleton Inside:
15 May 2014 10:50:36am
The government's main defense of their budget goes along the lines of 'black is white' 'cuts equal increase' and 'tax equals no tax'.
I wonder whether the electorate will buy it?
Grover Jones:
15 May 2014 1:11:57pm
Alas, the "electorate" doesn't have a choice but to accept it. The next election is still years away.
Abbott lied. Gillard lied. Politicians on all sides lied. They're all as bad as each other.
Right, Left, Black, White. They're all the same.
15 May 2014 11:07:17am
And vice versa Ben. At the end of the day the electorate spoke and we need to accept that until the next election.
Interesting how Hockey defended lying by saying it was a bit rich of Labor to accuse the Liberals of lying.
The reality is that they both lie. The big difference is that Abbott went to the election saying that people were sick of Labor lies and the Liberals would end the deceit. This was the biggest lie of all.
As far as a government of no surprises - I'm not surprised. Well, the only thing that surprised me was that the additional 'debt levy' only went to the top income earners. Everything else is as I expected. For the average working family Labor = bad, Liberal = worse.
Next election lets see some change. Maybe a vote for someone else might bring these guys back in line.
15 May 2014 2:31:05pm
I don't remember the former Labor Govt going on and on and on relentlessly about truth and liars, etc, while in Opposition, the way the current Coalition govt did when in Opposition. It's the brazenness of the lies after having previously made such a thing about 'truth' that gets me; completely erodes trust in the process.
15 May 2014 2:38:39pm
Yeah Ben, it probably is shameless partisan barracking. And why not Ben? after all prior to the 2013 election that is all that the LNP and it's myriad supporters in the Murdoch media did, all day, every day. Have you had a look at the blogs over at The Oz in the last couple of days Ben? Talk about shameless partisan barracking! It's getting very nasty over there. I am a subscriber to The Oz & although I am a confirmed swinging voter from way back and I try to write reasoned posts I have not been able to get published there today because I dared to write something that disagreed with the editorial line that supports the LNP no matter what. It's quite pathetic actually, thin skin is a rampant medical condition for this government. Perhaps I ought to offer them seven dollars so they can see their doctor for a cure.
Pastor Farian:
15 May 2014 5:14:03pm
BTL Tony Abbott said about the Gillard government - "A very clear message is going out from the Australian people to this government: there can be no tax collection without an election. If this government had any honesty, any decency, that is what we would have: an election now."
"I have often said, and members of this House will no doubt hear me say it again, there should be no new tax collection without an election,"
I guess it's pretty clear that Abbott and his A-dolts have no honesty or decency. Truly disgusting.
the yank:
15 May 2014 5:42:51pm
What is it with you Ben? Are you saying its alright for my side of politics to lie but not yours?
If you bothered to really read what I wrote you might pick up the words that I was angry with both sides. What pushed me over the top was just the pure bald face lying of Abbott that in my mind any rational person would be really peeved.
I then read where Gillard knew that what she was saying about the carbon tax wasn't the truth so at that point I, unfairly to Labor actually because hers was only one lie whereas Abbott made it his campaign pledge not to lie, said enough was enough. So I damned both sides.
I now understand that I have no real party to support so will probably look for an independent at the next election.
You must be a real wiz as a lawyer if ones person crime is ok while another's is the problem. Does it depend on how much of a fee they fork out?
15 May 2014 7:21:50pm
Ben, the reverse is also true. The right shamelessly distorted the Carbon price into a "tax" to discredit Gillard, then demanded a new election because of the dishonesty. The Abbotts government dishonesty is much clearer and on a much grander scale
Where are the right's calls for a new election? What's brought about the change of mind? It wouldn't be shameless partisan barracking to seek to change the subject, would it?
15 May 2014 11:52:28pm
What Gillard did was minor in comparison with core and non core promises and theccurrent government
15 May 2014 8:16:32am
I'm curious why you didn't grandstand when Rudd and Gillard broke their election promises? Some of them were even brazenly broken within a few weeks of winning an election. To you I would guess principle means nothing, and tactical political advantage everything; even in your defense of the most incompetent government in Australia's history.
I am also curious at the ABC as to why the sudden interest in broken promises. It is not like this is the first "broken promise" narrative that lead to Australians changing governments.
The ABC, along with Fairfax and News Ltd helped give Rudd the longest political honeymoon in Australia's history, despite Rudd either breaking or failing on properly delivering promises left, right and centre.
The ABC did not hold Gillard to account for the carbon tax lie despite community outrage, East Timor Solution which was fake, or the multitude of lies around the fake budget surplus. And these are only the best known lies. Why was that? Especially compared to the eagerness now?
Graham H:
15 May 2014 8:53:51am
Actually Ravensclaw - I thought the ABC did a fair job of holding Gillard to account.
You are correct on the Rudd honeymoon. Not sure why it was allowed. I think because Rudd had promised so much - he was given time. But it then became very apparent he would not deliver.
But the ABC was so negative on Abbott - I thought it helped his campaign. They simply couldn't stop talking about him. The Laborites got so tangled trying to throw mud at Abbott it became a yawn and people stopped listening. The one off misogyny rant by Gillard was fine at the time. But then she tried to make it continuous. Peoples sympathy then went with Abbott.
And of Late - its still all about Abbott. Shorten has had probably 2 articles on him in past month. Abbott maybe 50. If this keeps up - and Abbots budget fiscally works over next 2 years. Gees.....................
It may will be 2 term Tony.
15 May 2014 9:23:02am
"I thought the ABC did a fair job of holding Gillard to account."
When was that, I must have missed it.
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 9:44:28am
I thought that Julia Gillard was consigned to history Alfie. I also thought that, now that the adults are in charge, we would hold them to account and rage against the lies and deceit that abounds within their ranks. (as you so fondly did during the JG years)
Sadly, it seems not, no amount of WD40 can loosen the rust of a devout Lib. supporter.
15 May 2014 10:30:32am
"I thought the ABC did a fair job of holding Gillard to account".
Right! Not one world about her involvement in in union slush funds. Only now does it get a mention when every other (including Fairfax) media source had long and detailed coverage.
Grover Jones:
15 May 2014 1:14:10pm
Now there you are wrong. THere has been extensive coverage of the Uniion "slush" fund on the radio and ABC tellie. THere might not be much online, but it's certainly been covered.
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 5:50:09pm
Oh deary me. You vote as well I assume?
Another reason we get such pathetic politicans. Please pay attention.
The issue was covered extensively by the ABC when Abbott raised it again. The problem you folk have is there is no substance to it, and never has been.
The ABC not only run the allegations, as the Murdoch press only did, they run the back story as well and gave BOTH sides. Little matters about how the allegation didn't hold up under investigation, or how the Murdoch press kept raising the issue throughout her career, or how the Murdoch press were forced to write numerous retractions after getting proved false.
Although I suspect your idea of "coverage" is when they only take the Murdoch character assination approach?
Pot - kettle - black comes to mind when you consider what is going on at ICAC atm.
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 11:10:22pm
Exactly as I remember it, Sir Bob and I only source my news from ABC or SBS.
15 May 2014 7:33:46pm
Dear Bev, who said she was involved with a union slush fund? But we know that Hockey is definitely involved in own pointy end of town slush fund.
15 May 2014 10:44:58pm
Rubbish it was on an entire 4 corners program I seem to recall.
Sydney Bob:
15 May 2014 8:32:09am
Don't forget the lies Abbott told in opposition; that Whyalla would be wiped of the face of the Earth.
15 May 2014 9:03:42am
Indeed. I guess the main thing that this current faux-outrage will tell us is whether Gillard's unpopularity stemmed from her lies, or whether it stemmed from her being an abrasive and fundamentally unlikable person.
I suspect the latter.
15 May 2014 2:47:14pm
" or whether it stemmed from her being an abrasive and fundamentally unlikable person."
Ah bless, I would wager it stemmed from the Murdoch rags and the shock jocks gunning for her.
As they say....throw enough mud and some of it will stick.
15 May 2014 11:19:26am
What I remember is that the carbon tax would not cost one job. Paul Howes backed that up with his promise to quit if "one job was lost".
Then the car factories started closing and 'not one job lost' wasn't mentioned again.
"No carbon tax under a government I lead" was specific. She said it, she acknowledged it, she broke it, accept it.
15 May 2014 2:54:06pm
"Then the car factories started closing and 'not one job lost' wasn't mentioned again."
Ah bless....
Car factories decided to close BEFORE the carbon tax was announced.
We lost Nissan and Mitsibishu long before the carbon tax came into effect but don't let the truth get in the way of a good spin.
Didn't you hear the Bott telling all and sundry that the high wages were to blame for holden and Ford closing down?
15 May 2014 3:18:02pm
The car companies THEMSELVES said that the Carbon Tax wasn't to blame for the closures - are you saying you know more about a business than the people who are running it?
15 May 2014 4:57:31pm
"are you saying you know more about a business than the people who are running it?"
Of course s/he does, that's why it adopted the handle "Realist"
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 6:31:47pm
What rubbish
You ignore the fact the car companies never once blamed the Carbon Levy for closures. We all NOW a levy is NOT a tax - just ask Honest Tone
We had the insane situation of power companies (and many others) raising prices and claiming it as a result of the carbon levy more than a year before it's introduction.
The LNP government in NSW even encouraged companies like Energy Australia to add it on bills BEFORE the introduction, which forced additional legislation to stop the profiteering.
15 May 2014 11:26:57am
Have you been to Whyalla lately? It is struggling big time with many industrial and manufacturing contracts broken/not gone ahead with. Tony Abbott was only repeating the words used by one of the big union heads when he was complaining about what the carbon tax would do to a place like Whyalla.
15 May 2014 10:11:22pm
This time it will be Adelaide and Melbourne which really hit the crunch.
15 May 2014 9:26:00am
I think a lot of people who wouldn't normally do so are ready to protest not only this particular budget, but the lies & deceit we are fed by all politicians. Who's in charge of organising protest rallies these days?
15 May 2014 9:52:14am
I think that the media has an equal responsibility for allowing politicians to get away with not just lying but, also the plundering of our wealth. They will not be satisfied until all is destroyed or consumed.
struck dumb:
15 May 2014 10:02:34am
Can anyone force another election? If the other parties keep their word and oppose much of the Budget, the country is about to become ungovernable, a situation far more serious than in 1975. Abbott is showing no inclination to go for a double dissolution, though one cannot take anything he says as anywhere near the truth, but past performance suggests there is no way he wants to be forced into a double dissolution. Which leaves the question: has Shorten the intestinal fortitude to go to the GG and ask for the government to be replaced.
I would suspect that Abbott is banking on the fact that Shorten will not go down that road, which gives him carte blanche to play merry hell with this country and the states until he really does have to call an election. Can we afford another 2.5 years of such appalling mismanagement?
Listening to Cormann this morning on local radio, its obvious that none of them have much idea of the reality of life in suburbia or the country, and are totally lacking in any sort of compassion. One caller phoned in from a tiny little town in the mid-north of SA asking about how the youth there would survive. The answer, in the end, was for them to move, though how they do that when they do not have a job and do not qualify for benefits was something he did not touch on. When asked if women would get pregnant to support themselves, he could not answer that either, but mumbled on about financial modelling instead. Nor could he say where the jobs were.
Do we really want these out of touch numb-skulls in power for a moment longer than is necessary?
15 May 2014 12:44:08pm
You really must be struck dumb fro the previous six years of ineptitude!
For anyone to seriously refer to mismanagement by this govt. , who are yet to get anything done, after the gross and criminal negligence of the predecessors is completely laughable.
But then again, most left wing nuts are capable of the most ludicrous....
Graham H:
15 May 2014 11:13:31am
Look out Yank.
Now the ALP is going to support the Debt levy.
So they support a broken promise ?
OK with you ?
15 May 2014 2:14:01pm
Graham, your proposition seems to be the opposition are bad if they support a broken promise and they are worse if they oppose it because they are holding the budget to ransom.
Which do you want them to do?
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 6:35:04pm
They certainly won't support a GST hike.
Abbott and his state counterparts are ramping up a fake "war" so they can hike the GST and point the finger of blame at each other.
How many times did Abbott say through the campaign they "had no plans" to increase the GST.
Well, at least this is one thing we can't accuse them of lying about. The plan was to force the states into insisting on one.
15 May 2014 11:14:54pm
I am happy for the ALP to support the levy if it is made permanent like the other imposts on the the poor and the pensioners. When Abbott and Hockey said that the burdenwould be shared at all levels, I thought it was their biggest lie of all.
So much revenue to be had from removing the tax lurks of the rich, so little enthusiasm to do it. The 75 millionaires paying no tax is just the tip of the iceberg. Trusts, negative gearing..... no interest in fixing those problems.
Go after the unemployed instead. Over 700,00 unemployed in May, only 130,000 job vacancies. Please tell us, you right wing ranters, where the other 570,000 unemployed are going to find a job after they have been "incentivated" by Kevin Andrews?
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 11:19:51pm
But not in its original form, then again nothing we get from this mob of back-flipping, lying, mob of Tony's phoney's ever remotely resembles their original spin.
What a disgrace that so many out there in the La-la land of Liarbarel just can't admit the facts.
Thankfully there are a few decent folk from that side of politics who do, hopefully that few will turn into a tide and then a flood which will sweep them from office.
My god, I may have to vote Labor next time round just to spite these LNP clowns.
15 May 2014 12:01:11pm
"We the people really have to either stand up....."
15 May 2014 2:16:42pm
We will know what Abbot has in mind,but not what Shorten has in mind.
We will simply replacing one bunch of liers with another
15 May 2014 8:17:06pm
While we're talking about lies in politics, here's a beauty that seems to have flown under the radar. Just how, I don't know. Prior to the election, Mr Abbott said, among other things, that there would be no cuts to health and education, yet we now hear that funding to States for health and education are to be decimated. Why isn't anyone naming this as a LIE, in comparion with which, Gillard's carbon "tax" gaff pales into insignificance.?
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 9:18:21pm
Another way to stop it is to insist there be some fairness in modern day journolism so normal people can make informed choices.
Evidence in point. Less than a hour after Shortens reply the lead story on the News Ltd web site is about two nobodies that are in an open relationship.
Seems the LNP Propaganda Unit will still be well funded.
15 May 2014 7:41:26am
Spot on Mr Green. As you say, Sarah Ferguson skewered Joe Hockey in the most imperious manner and he had to flounder in a most unconvincing way to reply to her.
It's about time that the media took a much stronger line when questioning, and commenting on, politicians standards of honesty.
Unfortunately I predicted to my wife that we would end up in this sad situation following Abbott's crazy, extravagant promises during the campaign. He had no reasonable chance to deliver on them.
15 May 2014 8:07:00am
Fergeson thinks it's all about promises too.
Try fixing the budget and getting at last an adult discussion about tax reform.
Mitor the Bold:
15 May 2014 8:30:10am
"Ferguson thinks it's all about promises too.'
It's Abbott who thought it was all about promises, right up until one day after the last election. Ferguson just reminded him of his obsession.
I think I think:
15 May 2014 8:44:40am
But they haven't fixed the budget, custard. If you shuffle cards there are still fifty two in the deck. Its a sleight of hand trick that has obviously fooled you.
15 May 2014 8:59:11am
@custard, but how can we have an adult conversation about tax reform or anything, for that matter, if we can't trust the people who are going to make the decisions for us? If they repeatedly lie, as they have, simply to gain power, how can we possibly expect them to do anything for our collective good? They obviously only care about themselves and the small cohort of people who they owe their allegiance to. It truly is a repugnant situation.
amphetimine annie:
15 May 2014 9:27:27am
Totally agree. The ALP's last 2 years should be subject to a rigorous inquiry to see the extent of their lying to The Australian people.
Why didn't they tell the truth, about our finances?
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 9:53:00am
A lovely little deflection Annie.
Nothing the LNP likes better than a nice little inquiry as long as they can define the terms of reference. Been watching the ICAC lately, now there's an inquiry you can't control.
How about we have one into "Children Overboard" or the Iraq war, maybe a decent one into the AWB scandal or politicians rorts.
Let's open every can of worms that we can think of and see what crawls out, maybe then we can make informed decisions about who to trust, who to vote for and how to adequately punish the corrupt, cheating lying parasites who infest out political system.
15 May 2014 9:58:00am
Good on you Annie. Lets have another Royal Commission.
15 May 2014 2:20:07pm
So Tony's lies can be excused because Labor lied? I thought that Tony said there would be no broken promises, no new taxes without an election, no cuts to health, education, NDIS, ABC, SBS.
I thought that you mob reckoned that you were better than Labor because you wouldn't tell lies? Now you are saying it's ok to be liars because Labor were liars too.
Are you moral superiors who don't lie or just grubby liars like Labor?
Tim P:
15 May 2014 3:20:36pm
Annie, poke your head over the top of your complacent, conservative foxhole and have another look at the article.
The author is clearly stating that NO politicians can possibly claim the trust of the Australian people, given their pathological lying. I agree.
Stop trying to wedge the issue for a moment and focus for a bit. What are the Australian people going to do now that the political class, in toto, have proved faithless, duplicitous and deceitful? This is not about Gillard's lies, or Abbott's lies, but the lies of all politicians. It doesn't matter whether you like their policies. It doesn't matter whether you vote for them.
It matters that white men speak with forked tongue and we all need to start behaving as if we really, really, didn't trust a word they say until they start to prove the worth of their utterances.
15 May 2014 8:48:03pm
Annie, I think the more interesting question is how can the same Treasury and Finance officials who analyse the data and draft Ministers' speeches, make such starkly different assessments about the state of the budget/economy just 12 months apart, once for Treasurer Swan and once for Treasurer Hockey. And if it's because circumstances changed in those 12 months, then all forward projections aren't worth the computer keyboards they're typed on
15 May 2014 1:33:21pm
An adult conversation? Don't think the Liberal Premiers of their respective states saw anything particularly grown up about the way things have been handled.
Then of course there's "we need to have a conversation with the Australian people" Dutton about a GP co-payment. Yes, very grown-up stuff.
And let's not forget how grown-up the narratives were when this mob was back in opposition. Adults use sentences with more than 3 words.
15 May 2014 6:20:53pm
lazarus, as you are probably aware, neocon ideology places high value on the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics.
15 May 2014 9:00:01am
"Try fixing the budget and getting at last an adult discussion about tax reform."
Well how about first attacking negative gearing, superannuation tax concessions, leakage of corporate tax, strengthening carbon pollution pricing and the super-profit taxes in mining and banking, and getting rid of the states and all the functional duplication that entails.
Then we can have an 'adult discussion' about cost cutting and the sustainability of the budget and government debt. But what does Abbott offer? More roads built by people with university degrees that fewer will be able to afford to use because of ever increasing fuel prices and lower disposable income!
How does that work?
The Other John:
15 May 2014 10:16:46am
How about ALL Australians being expected to contribute through hard work and taxation, Grumpy.
Almost 50% do not pay any net tax at all. How is that fair on the other 50% who pay 100% of our taxes?
You really need to get out of the mindset that others owe you a living. It seem that to you, a 29 year old who has never worked a day in their life represents someone who "others must pay for". I see a 29 year old who has never had a job and ask "why? Why has that person made such poor life decisions and what can we do to avoid others making the same poor choices in their lives?"
15 May 2014 11:02:56am
What 29yo? This is a good example of the hypothetical monsters we need to conjure to convince ourselves that unemployment is a choice and must be punished. We have all known people looking for work unsuccessfully. How much fun were they having on $225 a week?
15 May 2014 11:29:16am
The Other John:
15 May 2014 12:41:26pm
No, instilling in members of society that they ALL have a responsibility for their own welfare, that is what is needed.
15 May 2014 12:05:53pm
"You really need to get out of the mindset that others owe you a living. It seem that to you, a 29 year old who has never worked a day in their life represents someone who "others must pay for". I see a 29 year old who has never had a job and ask "why? Why has that person made such poor life decisions and what can we do to avoid others making the same poor choices in their lives?"
I see a 29 year old who has never had a job and ask, why are there people who seek to blame the young (BTW i am 53, 5 kids, 5 Grandkids and never unemployed), are you so selfish that you can't see (or care) that there are some people that need a hand, if you want people in the future to not make poor choices, then cuts to education is not the way to go, particularly when a "promise" was made to keep up what was agreed
15 May 2014 3:22:50pm
Considering the average age for first time Mums in Australia is 29 and their parents would either be retired or getting very close to being retired.... what is going to happen to young families when the primary income earner loses their job and is unable to get unemployment? Are we going to see cases of people splitting up so that the mother can get single parents benefit so that there is at least SOME money is coming in?
Grover Jones:
15 May 2014 1:16:50pm
I don't know any 29 year olds that have never worked. THey simply don't exist.
15 May 2014 2:30:12pm
The Other John, who sounds very much like the other John, says ... "How about ALL Australians being expected to contribute through hard work and taxation, Grumpy."... or ... "have a responsibility for their own welfare".
Does that include all people with disabilities and chronic medical conditions, single parents, or older people whose skills and experience are ignored by lazy employers who are only interested in 'poaching' skilled employees from other organisations rather than hiring and training loyal and experienced staff who are over 50? Perhaps you think ALL these people should be issued with a shovel and forced to build roads from Woop Woop to Somewhere that few will be able to afford to use?
No, Other John, there are a large number of middle and upper income people in Australia whose see it as their job to push money, paper and other assets around, and to minimise the amount of tax they pay. These 'parasites' then want welfare so they can send their kids to private schools, go to private hospitals and buy more and more properties using negative gearing. These 'parasites' are the people who should be expected to contribute more because many of them have never done a scrap of productive work in their lives, and never payed their fair share of tax.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 8:26:47pm
So the people whose work and investment actually PAYS the tax that goes to keeping 50% of the population in services, welfare and support are the "parasites".
Nice one, Grumpy. Straight from the book of Envy.
Ah, Socialism: The all you can eat buffet of all care and no responsibility
15 May 2014 11:35:38pm
TOJ says ... "So the people whose work and investment actually PAYS the tax that goes to keeping 50% of the population in services, welfare and support are the "parasites"."
Well if you think being an accountant, a lawyer, a middle manager, an administrator, a CEO, or a share trader actually produces goods and services then I suggest you have a wander through any average business enterprise and see who is actually doing the work that produces the corporate revenue. All these 'non-productive workers' are effectively 'parasites' (or more politely, 'overhead') in that they live off the productive work of other lower paid people.
If you were to give these non-productive people a machine to operate, an information system to design and build, a product to design, instal or maintain, or a medical procedure to perform, they would probably not have a clue. Yet 'your lot' seem to think these pen pushers, paper shufflers and professional meeting and business lunch attendees should be paid bigger salaries than the people whose actual work generates the corporate revenue and profits.
Just think about that, and try to see it from the perspective of the lower paid workers who are being put under greater pressure by this heartless budget. Are they likely to be impressed that their much more affluent bosses are only required to cut back on 'discretionary spending' while they are required to cut back on 'essential spending'?
And I repeat, what about all the people with disabilities, chronic medical conditions, single parents, the unpaid carers of the sick, disabled or elderly, the mothers of babies and young children, the unpaid volunteers in the community, or older people whose skills and work experience are being ignored. Do they all deserve to be driven into poverty because the 'parasites' who do no productive work don't have a social conscience?
15 May 2014 9:04:17am
Destroying Medibank and punishing the unemployed is not tax reform.
Abolishing the use of trusts for tax purposes, instituting a financial transactions tax, raising capital gains tax to the same rate as income tax, keeping company tax at the same level as personal income tax, drastically increasing taxes on alcohol, removing super exemptions for the wealthy.
Those are tax reforms. Structural changes that impact those most able to pay.
They would take real courage, more than that required than to slug single mothers and the unemployed.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 10:18:11am
Why are the unemployed, "unemployed"?
I'd suggest it will now be in their interests to be NOT unemployed, don't you? And that will benefit all of society, especially those who really need assistance rather than those who make poor life decisions.
15 May 2014 11:06:01am
I would suggest that most are unemployed because there are no jobs for them. Can you point me to 750,000 job vacancies somewhere?
Before you ask, I agree it would also be better economically for the sick to be well. Perhaps punishing them for being sick will achieve a general increase in health.
I sometimes wonder about my fellow Australians. Yes, there are some who abuse unemployment benefits. There always will be. I don't consider that gives me an excuse to absolve myself for responsibility for all unemployed.
I do not see that I should make moral judgments on those in need. The idea of the "worthy poor" is an excuse for selfishness.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 1:01:06pm
Terry, there are also a whole lot of young school leavers in our cities who view leaving school and going on youth allowance or the dole as a "career' choice. Making this available as an option is not helping these kids to make better life choices and it is life choices more than any other factor that results in people not being able to look after themselves in a society like Australia where there is ample opportunity for everyone.
15 May 2014 2:38:50pm
I am sure there are those whose backgrounds do not allow them to see employment as a career option. There may be some who actively refuse to work for a living, but I suspect they are far fewer.
I am questioning both the morality of punishing all the unemployed for the actions (or lack of actions) of a few, and the effectiveness of this punishment in fixing any such problem.
Would you not think that this tiny minority might find it a little easier to simply rob the houses of all those off working? Or entering the black labour market? Or selling drugs? Or their bodies?
And of course you tell all those who do not wish to be unemployed that they are worthless and must be punished, even though you know there are no jobs for them.
It just seem immoral to me, and makes me sick to the heart to think that our country thinks persecuting those unable to defend themselves is a good thing.
If you have a concern about rorting the system, I suggest hiring another 3,000 tax investigators to pick up tax cheats. I am certain there are more of them than "dole bludgers" and that they cost the Budget far more.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 8:32:15pm
Aside from disability or mental health issues, why is anyone in this country unemployed? I just do not understand how anyone cannot find something, somewhere, to do? What is stopping them from doing it? Please this is a legitimate question. What is stopping someone in Byron Bay from moving to an area of the country that is screaming out for young able bodied workers? If it is because they don't want to miss the surf, then I expect you would consider that a legitimate reason to remain unemployed.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 1:04:38pm
It was always in their interests not to be unemployed. Living on Newstart is not at all easy. I have a friend who's been on Newstart for a while, she's around my age - mid twenties. She doesn't have any teeth any more, because she couldn't afford to visit the dentist until it was too late. Sure is living it up on that barely-pays-the-rent payment!
15 May 2014 9:24:33am
Yes an adult conversation about tax reform by quietly stripping 80bil from the states hoping then the premiers will come begging to Canberra to raise the GST to cover these losses - so the Federal LNP can tell Australians it was the states' fault. That's a very adult way to look at underlying revenue side/tax issues which the LNP has hardly touched in this budget.
15 May 2014 10:35:05am
The $80 billion was an UNFUNDED promise the money never existed.
15 May 2014 11:33:36am
so why promise a unity ticket on education then Bev?
why not just say we will not deliver the ALP's promises because we dont think we can afford to?
how do you explain Pynes promise of a unity ticket on education and Abbott's promise not to cut education funding?
they knew all the figures
15 May 2014 3:26:28pm
Ahhh so unfunded promises are OK to break? I will promise the bank I'll pay back the loan but, OH, it was unfunded, sorry, gonna have to break that one, perfectly fair and above-board. So adult!
15 May 2014 3:24:41pm
Please say Federal Parliament rather than Canberra. The people of Canberra are NOT the ones making these decisions it's the politicians that the rest of the country sent there that are.
15 May 2014 6:27:48pm
MT, don't worry about Pyne and Dutton, logic dictates they will both have nothing to do soon, after the states resume all responsibility for education and health and the Tertiary sector will be free to charge what they see fit. No need for any doubling up or meddling in policy by the Cwlth.
15 May 2014 11:25:44am
Doesn't seem very adult to me to make emphatic promises before an election and then pretend you didn't make them! The whole point is that the government should have been up front about its intentions.
Sir Robert of Lindsay:
15 May 2014 6:20:52pm
Yes, a sensible conversation on tax would be nice. Maybe even an "adult" one
However, Adults DON'T use blackmail in conversation, as Abbott is trying on the states in a bid to sheet the blame onto them for an upcoming GST hike.
The intelligent adults I know both discuss and decide matters after weighing up facts and / or available data. They certainly don't hide the truth, or lie about it, or go around inventing crisis, or run around doing Chicken Little impersonations.
Juvenile internet blogg insults about being "adult" won't cut the mustard while you keep acting like spoilt brats.
15 May 2014 8:58:07am
Honesty is dead, it doesn't make money.
The financial business sector in Australia is awash with fraud. You just need to see how the Commonwealth Bank has been caught cheating its customers and how they rewarded the staff who did this, not sacked them (Four Corners). Then you have Storn Financial and a dozen other frauds up and down the country.
The victims were all ordinary people who lost their life savings and their health as well. Nothing much has been done.
But now this government is doing something. Sinodinos sponsored legislation which would remove the provision for financial advisors to act in the best interest of the ordinary customer. They are cutting funds to ASIC.
In light of all the pollie fake bank accounts and money laundering being exposed at the NSW ICAC, this all makes perfect sense.
We need a Federal ICAC to find out where all our money is going.
Not just the money from mining and Google, but the money which is disappearing into fees in the super industry. Business sees us as the gift that keeps on giving.
15 May 2014 10:14:36am
Yes, Sarah Ferguson has been amazing this week. First, not by pinning but skewering Joe Hockey on truth and lies and then by visibly ruffling Christopher Pyne's famously unflutterable feathers. On both occasions she demonstrated that she's able to take it up to these politicians on our behalf. Three cheers for our independent ABC!
The Skeleton Inside:
15 May 2014 12:01:11pm
I agree, Sallytow. Sarah Ferguson is a bit of a legend in my book.
She's as tough on the other side as well (although I imagine there are those who won't see that).
Long may she reign.
Sir Trent Toogood:
15 May 2014 5:53:07pm
...Sarah Ferguson has been amazing this week.'
Absolutely agree.
Little wonder Abbott has not taken up the ABC's 'open invitation' to appear on the 7.30 Report.
Perhaps he is hoping his cuts to the ABC will result in the program being axed.
15 May 2014 7:51:17am
"Truth is the glue that binds both sides in the political transaction: you promise, I vote, you deliver."
You read too much into this "contract".
I voted conservative for outcomes (eg a better economy, welfare cuts, reduction in public sector, better infrastructure etc). How they get there is not an issue that I dwell on.
It is results and outcomes that ultimately matter.
15 May 2014 8:15:32am
Yes we vote on the brand that we trust to lead us in a general direction based on evidence of the past. Unless you are a big loser in the lying games, it would be foolish to change your vote on lower order broken promises. There are more important things I look for in a political party; Are they realistic, competent, economically responsible, looking at the long term...
15 May 2014 9:25:20am
You trust them even though they are liars? How can that possibly work?
None of the other qualities you list (realistic, competent, economically responsible, looking at the long term) can matter if you never know if they will do what they said they would do.
And as a special note, given this budget removes money for education, basic science (including climate science) and removes money for renewable energy schemes, and so forth, the current bunch are most certainly *not* "looking at the long term". So, will you be voting for the other lot next time? If not, how can you justify that?
15 May 2014 10:32:43am
Perhaps you know that being the party of the wealthy and the nearly wealthy, they won't do anything to disadvantage you.
""Good economic management"" is a dog whistle to those whose accumulation of wealth continues apace. They are not the people living hand to mouth.
I notice super for the wealthy was left untouched in this budget. And while the poor get to pay and pay in perpetuity by having pensions cut and the age pension age raised to 70, the rich on $180,000 pa and more get 3 years of pain then they are home free.
The real question is, do those who have accumulated or inherited wealth have any obligation at all to contribute to those less fortunate ?
15 May 2014 10:51:35am
When the Left runs out of ideas or its ideologies clash leading to unintended consequences, it responds by thrown massive amounts of money at things like education to magic away what it calls 'disadvantage'. Funding related to climate seems to be at great cost for little benefit, and hurts or excludes the little people the most. This government are in a holding pattern until the world agrees to take action together, and the world actually warms substantially. The sort of people who obsess over education and climate change would never vote LNP anyway, so they should have just been honest - tactical error, but they have to withstand lies too such as wanting to destroy Medicare and restricting university to the rich - are those lies ok? This is just a Liberal government doing typical Liberal things and we should not be surprised, and I am glad.
15 May 2014 11:19:46am
Abbott said on radio in Melbourne prior election (on ABC) that if after the election they did things differently that what they had promised they would be just as bad as the previous Government. He is right !.
15 May 2014 4:08:37pm
In so far they have already broken many more promises, then they are very much more "worse than the previous Government"
15 May 2014 11:44:19am
"Funding related to climate seems to be at great cost for little benefit, and hurts or excludes the little people the most"
spoken like a true venture capitalist
if there is no payoff within 3 years then it cannot be a worthwhile project
with that attitude we would never have had the transistor, the computer, the internet, the touch screen, the biotech industry, or even the fighter jets we are paying 12 billion for (developed over many years with taxpayer money)
James Picone:
15 May 2014 12:26:35pm
Introducing medicare copayment fees, substantially increasing the interest on FEE-HELP loans, uncapping student contributions to degrees and adding a student contribution to higher-degree-through-research programs consists of trying to destroy medicare and trying to make education for the rich only.
15 May 2014 2:53:31pm
You and 'ingenuous' below have both said that the government is trying to make education for the rich only. Baloney! No added burdens to the cost of degrees (including buy Labor) has ever made a dent in the ever rising number of university students. I do think though that we are cheapening university by making it available to pretty much anyone. Its got to be dragging down standards, and plenty are probably doing it for the wrong reasons and would be better off in TAFE or working. It has turned into a sausage factory. The Left have this dopey ideological goal of raising university participation at any cost to anyone without much thought about what is actually best for individuals and the national interest, or the opportunity cost. More is more. In many cases it results in more degrees for the same work and less financial gain than previously - what is the point? Away from the pointy professional end, we should make university MORE elite, not less.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 3:36:33pm
Do you honestly claim that uncapping student contributions, drastically increasing FEE-HELP interest rates and decreasing the repayment threshold, and adding more fees for postgrad-by-research won't make tertiary education less affordable? They kind of all imply people paying more money for their degree, both up-front and over time with FEE-HELP, and sooner in the case FEE-HELP. Having to pay more for your degree implies that people who were only on the financial borderline of affording a degree will no longer be able to afford one - i.e., they have been priced out of tertiary education.
The point of making tertiary education available to all on the basis merit (through the TER and FEE-HELP systems) is that intelligence and ability to excel in a given field isn't correlated to your parents wealth, and that ideally we should provide an equal opportunity to all children, regardless of their parents. Making uni more affordable isn't about making it less 'elite'. It's about making the positions available to more of society, without necessarily increasing the number of positions.
15 May 2014 4:24:49pm
There is little to 'afford' until long after they have their degrees and only if they earn enough to have to pay it back. You don't have to choose one of the few courses that will charge an arm and a leg at a sandstone university either. We admit people to teaching degrees with ATAR's as low as 40. That is not a demonstration of 'intelligence and ability'.
15 May 2014 11:04:14pm
APM, you finally admit your real reasons for supporting expensive university fees: to keep out the riff-raff!
When you say "we are cheapening university by making it available to pretty much anyone", you think that by making it more expensive that you make university degrees worth more. For rich people only, of course. It's just like a club tie. A marker of power and wealth.
My view is that everyone who could pass a degree, because of talent, should be allowed to. Otherwise our society is wasting their value. We could have that brain tuned and working well. But instead, because that brain (and that person) comes from a poor background, it is trapped and wasted.
That's the difference between current government policy (education is for rich people, i.e. the "worthy") and a social policy of equal access for all, regardless of birth circumstances. LNP policy wastes people. We can to do much better than that.
15 May 2014 2:06:31pm
APM, whatever can you mean by saying "The sort of people who obsess over education and climate change would never vote LNP anyway"? Education is one of the pillars of society. If the LNP thinks education is unimportant or that it should be limited to the rich (as you imply) then they should say so and they will be rewarded with permanent opposition status (if that).
And yes, the LNP wants to entrench rich privileges. It's obvious from the budget. And destroying universal medical care and restricting University education to the rich are part of that plan.
This is a "keep the wealthy rich" budget, nothing more. It is hateful to the common person. I can't see how Abbott and Hockey think they can get away with this.
15 May 2014 3:26:23pm
" but they have to withstand lies too such as wanting to destroy Medicare and restricting university to the rich - are those lies ok?"
Are they lies?
The 7 dollar tax every time you go and see your G.P. is the thin edge of the wedge. And why do people with private health cover lose only 5 bucks?
as for UNI....wait until they decide what to charge and then come back and tell us it won't affect people with limited resources .
15 May 2014 6:26:07pm
I earlier replied to a guy who has a nephew from a disadvantaged household paying $2100 in TAFE fees for a cert 3. Why does the Left not care about this and make them pay upfront, but complain about the 'limited resources' of relatively privileged university students?
15 May 2014 8:22:20am
You and Abbot & Co sound like the19th century political class of the bunyip aristocracy - people are expendable, it's results and outcomes that matter.
Codswallop - this is the 21st century and it's people that matter.
Henry the Moose:
15 May 2014 8:22:42am
So, the political end justifies the means. Or, as Stalin put it, "You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs".
There is something sinister, disturbing, and deeply undemocratic about modern reflexive right-wing supporters (and their cousins on the extreme left). It is fast becoming obvious that a deep appreciation of liberal democratic philosophy has deserted large parts of our community.
Frankly, anyone who is concerned only with ends and not with means either has a poor grasp of ethics, or is an idiot. Or both. How many tinpot dictators and massacres, how much injustice and hardship has been foisted upon the world by people who thought in precisely these terms?
The Other John:
15 May 2014 1:06:09pm
No. There is just a backlash from people who work hard paying most of the taxes in society, who are heartily sick and tired of being branded greedy and uncaring. Particularly when they are the ones called on again to bail out the 50% of society who cannot be bothered contributing their share to collective revenue. As the 50% turns into 60%, we will soon be in a position in this country where higher earners will head overseas to lower taxing jurisdictions. And who can blame them.
15 May 2014 2:37:25pm
You've missed the point. He's talking about extremism, of left and right. The idea that because you're ideolgy is the correct one, you have the right to impose it onto others for 'their own good'.
So, some people said the carbon tax lie was OK, because climate change is so bad we had to have a carbon tax so the lie doesn't matter.
Now others are saying the budget emergency was so bad that we had to have these policies so the fact they lied doen't matter.
Both arguments are wrong, this is not anything to do with left/right. If you believe in democracy, then a most fundamental, basic requirement of it is 'the politicians tell the truth'. Pollies have always been a bit loose with the truth, and spin things their own way, but it is getting to new levels now.
15 May 2014 2:57:03pm
That's because they appear to be greedy and uncaring. BTW I pay a lot of tax John.
15 May 2014 8:23:47am
So Alfie, why bother with corruption in NSW?
It's only important to deliver a good budget after all, according to you.
15 May 2014 9:04:27am
@Alfie and APM, thank you for your honesty. At last we understand "the right": it doesn't matter if you lie to get into power, provided that you do what I want you to do once you get in. To hell with democracy.
15 May 2014 10:55:42pm
Bill as I posted further up the chain, lying in politics is straight out of the US style neocon text book. Its very much Ok if it helps you to achieve your goals.
15 May 2014 9:06:42am
'How they get there is not an issue that I dwell on.'
Good for you. I expect you'd always vote conservative so it doesn't matter what any of them say. But the way democracy is meant to work is that everyone says what they'll do, then we decide who to vote for. If that is out the window then what have we got, we vote for the 'vibe'. Doesn't sound good to me.
Let's say both sides told the truth, broadly the Libs said they would do exactly what they have done, and Labor had said they would not make all those cuts and tax hikes, and take us further into debt. Let's say Labor won, and we did end up with an eve bigger 'debt crisis'.
So what ?. That's democracy. You seem to believe it's OK for your side to lie to achieve what you see as the better outcome. Telling lies to win votes is fundamentally anti-democratic. The end does not justify the means. Gillard was punished for lying, Abbott should be too.
Politicians need to treat us like grown-ups so we can make informed decsions, all of them. That's what we should be telling them.
15 May 2014 5:31:28pm
whogoes there,
'Let's say both sides told the truth, broadly the Libs said they would do exactly what they have done, and Labor had said they would not make all those cuts and tax hikes, and take us further into debt. Let's say Labor won, and we did end up with an eve bigger 'debt crisis'.'
But Labor didn't say that. They said they would not make all these cuts AND they would balance the budget and return to surplus. So, they were lying as well because that couldn't be done and they knew it. If Labor had been re-elected they too would have had three choices - increase debt, increase taxes or cut services. Something has to give.
Politics aside, sadly honest John Hewson is not a role model aspiring prime ministers adopt. Since then nobody has been game to tell the truth because they will never be elected.
15 May 2014 9:20:44am
How can you link your vote to likely "results and outcomes" if you accept that *nothing* a candidate promises will bind that candidate in the future?
You have described insanity. You can vote for insanity if you choose, but I would prefer the constitution changed so that if a politician were found to be lying they would be *instantly* banned for life from office.
If politicians were legally prevented from lying, we would stand a chance of voting for the correct "results and outcomes".
15 May 2014 9:44:18am
"It is results and outcomes that ultimately matter."
I agree with you on this one, Alfie. Results - and goals - should be the promises we watch most closely.
My problem with the current government is that I can't draw a logical line between their current actions and these stated goals.
A better economy - but without a focus on innovation.
Better infrastructure - but with a cut-rate second-hand telecommunications network.
Welfare cuts - but without root-and-branch reform of our phone-and-paper health system, which could deliver both improved service and lower cost.
They require us to make the leap of trust that whatever they propose will lead to the outcomes they hint at. But I'm not convinced that their methods are sound. Because sometimes they are motivated by short-term political gain.
So I want to see hard-and-fast statements from both sides about their real long-term vision for the country, and some nuts-and-bolts about how their press conference announcements this week are moving us to that goal.
Three word slogans won't do it.
IMHO, of course.
James in Brisbane:
15 May 2014 10:04:48am
Alfie, I doubt very much you vote for those outcomes, you vote for self-interest and you perceive those outcomes will benefit you personally. However, would you vote for those outcomes if you were shown that each one of them would harm you and favour other parts of society? I sincerely doubt it.
15 May 2014 12:11:08pm
"you vote for self-interest"
Totally untrue. If you read my comment, perhaps a better economy and infrastructure may be of indirect benefit to me, other matters such as reducing welfare and the public sector have absolutely nothing to do with my "self-interest".
I simply believe in the greater good of economic prosperity.
It those on the left who are squawk the most about their personal 'entitlements'.
The Skeleton Inside:
15 May 2014 10:55:27am
The ends justify the means.
An argument for just about anything.
Monty B:
15 May 2014 11:47:13am
`It is results and outcomes that ultimately matter.`
And the more you swallow the `crisis` rhetoric the better the results look. Good that we can still afford billion dollar superannuation concessions for the wealthy.
15 May 2014 7:52:01am
The pollies get away with "lying" because if you believe what you are saying is true, then it is not a lie. This can be seen as a psycopathic tendancy, a prerequisite for political life.
Desert Woman:
15 May 2014 8:13:02am
It's the way the political system is designed Ivan. Everybody must fight to get up in the rat race, fight to maintain their place, fight to look better than the next bloke. All the talk about collegiality, the team etc, is just that, talk. It is a system in which individual interest in foremost and competition is inherent. It would be a very rare person who retains their ideals in such a system. We could decide to redesign it into a system based on genuine cooperative team working for the good of the nation rather than self interest, but I doubt we will.
15 May 2014 6:20:02pm
"It's the way the political system is designed Ivan."
Yes, the system we live in is designed to tear us apart and ultimately it will because it was allowed to continue unchecked. It is my opinion it has gone too far and cannot be changed without a world war. And a war like that will most probably send us back to the stone age.
...On second thoughts, I am not sure if the world will be inhabitable after the 3rd world war, so even the stone age scenario looks bleak.
Anyway, your words rhyme with Kropotkin's:
"In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense ? not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay."
? Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), Conclusion.
Aren't humans supposed to be on a higher level than the animals?
Desert Woman:
15 May 2014 9:57:37pm
Aeon, thank you for thinking about my comment. We are not above the animals as we are all parts of the Earth system and belong to that system. We are different to animals, however, as we have awareness of awareness while animals, as far as we know, only have awareness. That is relevant here as we have choices that animals do not have.
Political systems are designed by people and can be changed by people. We have designed a system which obviously doesn't work to towards the interests of the whole. I haven't studied Kropotkin in any detail but as I understand your quote, he is urging cooperation for the good of the whole. It should be clear to everybody now that we need a political system that practices cooperation for the good of the whole rather than competition in the interests of a few. That 'new' system is called Participative Democracy and I am here drawing on the work of Fred Emery who spelt out how it could work in our modern society, in the middle 1970s. You can look it up. It draws on ancient knowledge about how can people can organize governance systems fit for human beings.
15 May 2014 8:23:42am
Absolutely. Their paradigm is 'it's all about me, at any cost to you'.
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 11:44:42am
I agree Ivan, I think lies, deceit and treating the populace as idiots is part of the job description. I can think of no one in modern politics who is so skilled at it than our present mob, led, of course by our beloved leader.
That we don't hold them to account is to our eternal shame.
15 May 2014 3:16:39pm
We dont hold them to account because they do not work for us. They work for the people who control the worldwide flow of money, they pull the strings. Both sides of politics work for them and they do it very well and get paid hansomley.
15 May 2014 7:53:41am
As the 'big surprise' in the budget was the $20B medical research '?nitiative'... when Hockey is in one of his 'truthful' moments, how about he's pressed on his exclusive Forum funding... any of those contributors in the 'medical research' business...?
15 May 2014 9:06:41am
Don't fall for that trick. Not a cent will be paid out for years, if ever.
It is a "trust me" policy.
The $7 charge on the sick is real.
Personally I would have preferred such a fund to be set up using a $7 charge for contacting one's stockbroker.
Joe Legerdemain:
15 May 2014 9:21:57am
Denis, It would be interesting to see a list of the lobby groups that is for sure
15 May 2014 7:54:24am
Jonathan, there is a great war film called A Bridge Too Far.
The Abbott Government is now a lame duck government - they went too too far. The Greens, PUP and Labour just have to stick together and vote against the entire budget. The drop in support for the Abbott Government will be precipitous and if there is an election the Greens, PUP and Labour will gain substantially. Even if Abbott were re-elected he will be the loser and they will be the winner. Particularly the Greens will be the winners but so will Labour if they can clean up quickly messes they have in their own party.
My question is:- "Can the opposition block money bills to force a double dissolution or is there an escape clause for the government?"
15 May 2014 8:30:45am
Fraser did it in the 70s; Howard was a flunky of Fraser; and Abbot claims to be Howard's love child.
Presumably, as the fair minded, equitable fellow he is, Abbot won't mind if the opposition uses his lot's tactics. Or, given that he lives to win at any cost, would Abbot assert that the rule for everyone else is 'don't do as I do, do as I say'?
Sea Monster :
15 May 2014 9:27:46am
Based on a book. Fantastic read. Much better than the film.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 10:23:11am
Cornelius Ryan. Agree. A superb book.
Grover Jones:
15 May 2014 1:23:10pm
Yes, the Senate can block supply. This can lead to a crisis and is one of the reasons that the GG has reserve powers. See the 1975 Constitutional Crisis when Malcolm Fraser blocked Supply afainst the Whitlam government.
15 May 2014 4:17:22pm
I thought at the time it was wrong and still do today.
Blocking supply is similar to a strike to get a benefit by blackmail, to do it to overthrow an elected Government is an act of treason, remember the GG is a representative of a foreign Government even the Queen cannot overthrow the elected British Government.
15 May 2014 7:51:20pm
"This can lead to a crisis and is one of the reasons that the GG has reserve powers. "
That's why the Bott installed Cosgrove as G.G.
Can't see him going against his benefactor can you?
15 May 2014 7:58:51am
"We have entered a cycle of flexible truth and populist response that began on election eve in 2010 when Julia Gillard pledged that "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead". Yet another misrepresentation of what Julia Gillard actually said - just half of the sentence. If the ABC cannot get it right, and keep repeating the Abbott lies, what hope do we have?
15 May 2014 8:27:38am
Not only is it only a half-report on Julia Gillard, but that section of the article seems to have entirely forgotten John Howard's 'non-core promises'
15 May 2014 9:10:42am
Drop it - it is starting to sound as silly as "a levy is not a tax".
It was quite clear what Ms Gillard promised and when it was widely reported she made no effort to claim she had been misrepresented.
Even if her words left her an escape hatch, that doesn't alter her intention: to tell the electorate that she was not going to introduce a carbon tax. Which I believe was among the first pieces of leg'n introduced by the Gillard gov't.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 9:27:44am
What is so hard to comprehend about the difference between an ETS and a carbon tax? Gillard specifically said she'd implement an ETS prior to the election. After the election she implemented one. It had a fixed-price period - that's normal and expected. It wasn't a goddamn carbon tax.
If you're going to talk about Gillard breaking a promise, harp on the fact that the ETS was going to come in after 2013. But carrying on calling it a carbon tax makes you either loose with the truth or deliberately ignorant.
Honestly I'm not sure why Labor never bothered to call out the media and the Liberals on that one. But there's a lot about modern Labor that confuses me.
15 May 2014 9:12:06pm
Did you read my post?
When Ms Gillard was reported (as she was) to have said "No Carbon Tax", she had plenty of opportunity to let us know she had been misrepresented.
She didn't make any such move, because that was the impression she wanted to make. Trying to weasel out does not make her look better: her embarrassment when she went back on her word was enough.
Why do you think the Greens insisted on the Carbon Tax if it was already ALP policy?
15 May 2014 9:13:26am
Can you please give us the whole quote.
Jonathan in particular wants to know when it was said as well.
15 May 2014 8:04:29am
Green still can't see that the political death rattle is coming from lips of the Labor party every time they think the debate is about promises and not fixing up the budget and reforming the tax system.
Because the effect of the budget is that the states have finally been put in a position where they have to have this discussion, something Labor was unable to do because it didn't think there was a problem and was too busy trying to spin their way out of six years of ineptitude.
Everyone still continues to under estimate Tony Abbott.
15 May 2014 8:18:18am
and yet...and yet....
at every opportunity, on every blog, on every thread, you screamed for the removal of Gillard for her "lies" and "broken promises".
And for Abbott and Hockey you stand mute.
Hypocrisy writ large.
If it was simply a case for "a discussion with the states", why then didn't Abbott have that discussion?
Why did his Govt. of "no surprises" drop the single biggest surprise the States have ever seen?
The call of the confused and the bitter and the betrayed are those of the Liberal states custard.
15 May 2014 8:34:17am
It must be frustrating for you that it took an adult government to force this important debate that must be had.
Meanwhile Green, Fergeson, the ALP and the rest of the false narrative of the left think it's all about promises.
It's the economy stupid!
15 May 2014 9:38:58am
It?s not frustrating for me custard; I?m not a Liberal state premier.
Ask them. They?ll be happy to talk ? as a matter of fact, they can barely contain their bitterness.
?Green, Fergeson(sic), the ALP and the rest of the false narrative of the left? didn?t make it about ?promises?; Abbott did.
Tell me that?s not an accurate summation of his pre election campaign.
If it?s about ?the economy? ? tell me why:
1. Spending has been increased?
2. 20bill has been dropped into a Medical fund/Future fund?
3. Why freeze their pay for only one year?
4. Why didn?t Hockey project a surplus date?
5. Why is he spending one cent on Direct Action when he doesn?t believe it?
6. Why the PPL?
7. Why 250mill for chaplaincy programs?
There are more custard, but that?s enough for you now.
This budget is not ?about the economy?, stupid.
It?s a spend & tax one.
15 May 2014 10:19:33am
I'm happy to have a debate about the economy. That's not what's happening. And it's insulting to our intellect to say it's now an "adult government" considering they aren't being straight with us about anything.
Bring on a debate! But lying about the state of the economy, lying about your objectives, lying about how you'll do it, and then dropping a steaming pile on us on budget night is not a debate!
I could get past all the lying (just as you seem to easily swallow them whole) if I thought there was fairness and reason underlying their actions. But it's just as likely that simple self interest is the only motivator: "Move as much of the pie to my rich mates as I can and I'll get my cut later".
This lot is characterised by their lies. Their actions do not contradict that analysis in any way.
15 May 2014 7:54:25pm
"It's the economy stupid!"
Ah bless.
It used to be "misleading the people"
But that won't work anymore because the "adults" are in charge and they are allowed to tell porkies and mislead the people.
15 May 2014 9:51:01pm
good luck getting custard to admit to screaming at Gillard over 'lies' yet being strangely mute over Abbott.
s/he is not here for a discussion, but will simply dump some comments in here in complete disdain for anyone who doesnt share the same opinion, and then disappear until another topic that interests them is posted.
you make the understandable mistake that a conservative really wants to discuss anything or will change their mind when their hypocrisy is pointed out.
15 May 2014 8:33:35am
Actually Custard, everyone can see Abbott for what he is - a bully. He is trying to bully the states into requesting a change to GST so he doesn't have to do it himself and be seen to be lying. He is also threatening a DD election as a way to try to bully minor party Senators to back the budget because he knows they are key to getting it passed in the Senate. I hope they call his bluff because I doubt he has the nuts to go ahead with a DD particularly when he never had a honeymoon after the election and his party's popularity is sinking already.
15 May 2014 8:39:20am
I certainly don't under estimate Abbott and his band in their political smarminess, their political duplicity which is truly gob-smacking, their 19th century style blinkered view of issues in the 21st century, and their overwhelming commitment to increase the extent of economic and social inequality in Australian society, and internationally.
I don't under-estimate their sense of righteousness, or their meanness, and I lament the utter incompetence we have had from them in just eight months.
Particularly, I don't under estimate the paucity of ideas and policies they fall back on to contribute to the common good in Australia, nor their elevated sense of political entitlement.
After almost 50 years as a voter, this is the worst government we have had.
Joe Legerdemain:
15 May 2014 9:29:12am
Well put Michael and I agree entirely. If Abbott doesn't hold a DD then I can wait till next election. I still haven't forgiven Fraser therefore I have a long memory.
15 May 2014 8:04:45am
Brilliant, Jonathan! <insert applause here!> Would that more commentators were as erudite.
@a_boy: "skewered" exactly. Bring on more of the same.
"It's about time that the media took a much stronger line when questioning..."
Bring on the modern-day Andrew Olles and Richard Carltons!! ;-)
15 May 2014 8:57:13am
Yes, I second that: "A brilliant article, Jonathan". Thank you.
A society without honesty and truth cannot function and will ultimately self-destruct. One can only hope that the extent to which our politicians have now crossed the line of the tolerable is sufficient to raise the electorate from apathy and for us to find ways of renewing our democracy. What we currently have in our political system is mostly rotten.........we now need to go through and keep that which is still sound and "compost" the rest so the rotten is transformed to something new and productive for our society.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 10:36:21am
We have just had 6 years of Wayne "the world's best treasurer" Swan coughing up forecast budget surplus after budget surplus, only to then miss said surplus by a few lazy hundred billions, and you apparently had no problem with that state of dishonesty? Wow, I really am starting to understand how lefties tick:
Support unsustainable growth in public spending, then get other people to pay for it out of their earnings so that socialists can keep their "entitlements".
"Socialism: the all you can eat buffet of all care and no responsibility."
15 May 2014 2:54:26pm
Thank you for your comments TOJ; a few in reply. Firstly, I suggest you read Greg Jericho's The Drum article: "Cruel to Be Kind". This nicely points out that ultimately what happens to our economy is beyond the control of the treasurer, which is what one would expect in an interconnected world. I think the dishonesty is not that Wayne Swan mis-forecast a budget surplus, but that whether or not there is a budget surplus is entirely within the hands of the government. This is the lie and it's a lie propagated by both sides of politics.
This brings me to my next point.......I have talked about the rot in our politics but have not said that it is either on the "left" or "right". Why does telling the truth and analysing a situation, make one left wing? Is this really a quality to which those on the "right" do not wish to lay claim?
Maybe I am beginning to understand how the "extreme right" ticks:
support unsustainable exploitation of our environment and ensure all benefits accrue to the wealthy and then get the less well-off to pay though removing of all types of wealth distribution mechanisms, all the time telling lies about what is necessary and what is happening.
"Capitalism"......"the grab it all for yourself before others can get any" buffet, or more preferably, the buffet where a large part of society are not even allowed in. It is a buffet where the section of society that is not allowed entry, is thrown a few crumbs and expected to prepare the buffet and clean up the mess.
As a note, I am not "for" or "against" capitalism or socialism. I am against comments which do not look at or discuss merits and problems of issues but rather attempt to dismiss anything which is against one's own views.
15 May 2014 3:24:12pm
I applaud your newly discovered sense of righteousness Rosie. A pity it came so late, we could have used your voice in the Rudd/Gillard years.
15 May 2014 6:49:05pm
There is nothing newly discovered in my sense of honesty and integrity, it has been with me all my life. I applied it during the Rudd/Gillard years too, particularly in relation to Rudd.
The point in my original post is the rottenness of much of politics and it is general, not partisan. Are you saying that voting for those in government these days is about determining who is the "least untruthful"? Like Jonathan Green, I don't wish for a government of any persuasion that feels liberated from the need to tell the truth or to act with integrity and responsibility.
15 May 2014 8:06:59am
In the closing days of the Howard Government there was a poll in which people were asked whether they preferred lower taxes or better services. When the overwhelming majority said better services Abbott dismissed the people as being temporarily deluded, saying that when push came to shove they would really want lower taxes instead.
It is the continuing pursuit of this minimalist approach that has brought us to the current mess of no money for schools or hospitals. None of the big cuts or these miserable little cuts around the edges would be necessary if the last two personal tax rate cuts were cancelled.
We have to be rid of him before he wrecks the country.
Ben the lawyer:
15 May 2014 8:23:14am
'When the overwhelming majority said better services'
Yes, but they always want someone else to pay for it. It's like climate change - ask a question like "do you think we should do something about it" and you'll always get a majority. Then follow up with "it will cost you X dollars" and all those people who once cared are now not so concerned.
It has ever been thus.
15 May 2014 9:09:57am
No, BtL, that response only comes from the hard Right "dry" small-government extremists, the rest of us are capable (yes, even us pensioners) of accepting that somebody else's need may be greater than stuffing more banknotes into our wallets.
The longer I observe the local and international political scene (at least in the Anglophone sphere) the more I come to the belief that "Conservatives" are sociopaths and probably psychopaths. The Europeans (France & Germany in particular, both stable multi-party parliaments) seem to manage quite well with the need to bargain and compromise.
It seems that fanatics cannot.
Sea Monster :
15 May 2014 9:55:42am
I agree. Stuff we thought was common sense and settled isn't. Universal health and education? They have opponents who are relentless and implacable. The commission of audit says it all. That's their road map.
Of course its worse in the US. Some of the stuff they're getting up there (against the desires of the moderate majority) is truly amazing. Stifling public health measures. Making abortion illegal by stealth. Disenfranchising voters. Stifling (or trying to remove) minimum wage standards. Its truly breathtaking.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 10:39:02am
Why do people insist that they are "entitled" to a lifetime of state funded benefits, health, retirement support, unemployment benefits, free education etc. etc. etc.
How about fostering a society of individuals who take it upon themselves to learn, earn and contribute back to society, rather than always lining up for more on the back of other people's earnings?
15 May 2014 11:09:41am
Thanks Rupert - have you ever been to the US? They have been trying it there. Let me know what you think.
15 May 2014 11:15:17am
" ... contribute back to society.."
There are those who for many reasons are forced to rely on others for assistance.
You apparently are not one of them. So you are able to " ... contribute back to society.." by helping those in need.
I was lucky enough to be able, through hard work and some inherent abilities, to be in the top 1% of income earners. Yet I realise that had my cards been dealt slightly differently, I and my family may have been reliant on others.
Had I not been intelligent and healthy enough to earn a good living, had I been in accident or suffered some illness that impacted my capacity to work, instead of being a contributor I would have been a recipient.
Neither would reflect on me in any way. Only if I could contribute and refused to do so would it be a sign of moral weakness.
Sea Monster :
15 May 2014 11:17:04am
Sure thing John. I've learned, I'm earning and now I put back into society by funding universal health care and education. Also quiet happy to help those who are between jobs.
15 May 2014 11:36:38am
"Why do people insist that they are "entitled" to a lifetime of state funded benefits"
Forget about "entititled" for the moment - what about universal health care and education being a desirable thing? I mean, IF we could afford it, IF it could be offered without the country going bankrupt - would that not a good and desirable thing for a country like ours to strive for?
If we recognise that it would be a wonderful thing to be able to provide universal health & education for ALL our citizens, then all that remains is the discussion about how wealthy we need to be before we can do it - what things we are prepared to give up in order to pay for it. That's a discussion I'm keen to have.
As long as the discussion is framed in terms of undeserving leaches seeking to benefit from the work of others, we will continue to ignore the fact that we are talking about something that is actually A GOOD THING if we could do it.
15 May 2014 4:22:21pm
I agree John why not get the Mining companies to pay some tax's perhaps Gina and Forests could contribute something also.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 8:39:24pm
Very good point, Gary.
Likewise, if we could at least receive a modicum of taxation revenue from the 5 largest global companies which currently, and inexplicably, turn no taxable profit in Australia, none of this conversation would be necessary. But again, we are here vilifying those who already pay a very reasonable contribution from their earnings to our collective revenue, whilst pandering to a large and growing sector of society who feel that the world owes them everything.
15 May 2014 9:27:23am
Ben you've missed the point yet again. The story was about Abbott's response to what people said in the survey, not about the people themselves.
I note a pattern of yours to look for the worst side of human nature even when it is not under discussion. You need to strive for a more sunny disposition.
Ben the lawyer:
15 May 2014 9:51:42am
'I note a pattern of yours to look for the worst side of human nature even when it is not under discussion.'
False - for example, I trust the Australian people to regulate acceptable speech. The left obviously doesn't trust the Australian public as much as I do, as they seek to restrict speech.
15 May 2014 10:32:13am
Correction: the overwhelming majority of Australian people seek to restrict speech in certain harmful circumstances. Not so much a 'left' thing, you know.
15 May 2014 11:18:38am
Most don't want to see people prevented from asking question about those who, though not disadvantaged, claim benefits intended for those who are.
Particularly when the "race" card is played to stop such queries.
Only in harmful circumstances should speech be restricted.
For example, calling for those not of a certain religion to be physically attacked.
15 May 2014 6:54:52pm
ben the lawyer, You trust the Australian people? At least that is what you wrote. Obviously you won't mind if we call a snap election then and let the people decide. We have now seen the platform Hockey and Abbott are standing on. They can now seek a mandate for that. And for their proposed changes to 18c. Indeed, lets have an election and let the people decide. I also trust them.
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 11:41:29pm
I guess there must be something in it for the Lawyers then, Ben.
I agree that decency, manners, tolerance etc., shouldn't need to be regulated, sadly they do.
James in Brisbane:
15 May 2014 10:10:21am
We need him to wreck the country first. People want appreciate what they had until it's all taken away from them. Australians have lived the good life for so long they've become indulgent and complacent, and have taken public services for granted. A few years of brutal, cruel Darwinism will give them a better understanding that there's no low tax/high services utopia.
15 May 2014 3:40:40pm
Unfortunately I agree with you, James. It seems only some suffering will remind people of why generations struggled to put unions and social support systems in place. I wish it wasn't so.
16 May 2014 6:30:25am
Sadly James and Ann I agree that this is so. People have just forgotten or never experienced the downside. I hear people commenting that the ABC should be abolished and yet Rupert Murdoch is in control of so much of the media already - they clearly have no idea of what they are wishing for. Similarly, as you say, work conditions have been so good in this country for so long that people have forgotten that the union movement fought for much of what they take for granted. A dose of harsh medicine may wake them up.
15 May 2014 8:07:10am
I do believe that this government has told so many lies it has come to believe it self to be past judgement by the people, it is such an arrogant government that it asks us to believe him, he actually begs for the people to believe him, unfortunately for abbott he set a bench mark when he harped on the broken promise of Gillard and the carbon tax, of how much it would cost ordinary Australians every year , I think it $500 dollars per person a year. Well it is chicken feed compared to what the fuel excise will cost us ,as its not just at the bowser, but in the supermarkets also as you do need trucks to bring the produce north, so it will flow on into everything , it will affect the price of the power bill we get, the food we eat and lo and behold they wont be able to blame Labor for that any more. They said before the election, no new tax's, health, education and pensions were safe, what a blatant lie that was and it will nail this government to the wall. Students at uni's copping a slug also, The slush fund they devised for medical research, that's good, but it is the pensioners and the families who will pay for this, not the government. As for the green army, who is going to pay them to plant trees, who will water them so they don't die, and where will the water come from in a country that is constantly in drought, where cattle die of thirst and starvation because there is no water. It will cost more then the carbon tax, tree's will die if not tended, so what good will it do. Oh that's right you live in an ideal world of botanical gardens, Farmers struggling with drought to produce food will now be hit with the extra cost of fuel, This is a budget designed for the rich, by the rich, and I have yet to see the government do any thing about the overpriced pensions they receive, frozen wages for a year, tough luck for hockey and abbott, the rest of us will suffer for years to come. In fact the only good I see in this budget is that the rich will benefit , the poor will suffer, and the LNP voters will think its fantastic.
15 May 2014 8:10:27am
Adversarial politics at its worst. The majority of Australians gain nothing from the lack of quality and genuine concern when supposedly governing for the majority. What we have is a snapshot of a mean spirited, class conscious, dark ages approach to public and social policy. If left in government I am sure the LNP will make the numbers look "right" (from a certain point of view) and in the meantime the fair go for all and equity we think marks us as a nation looks like falling off the edge of a very FLAT view of the world. This budget has little or no impact on me and I daresay I number of people like me. But given the supposed desperate (emergency) times we are living in I ask the question why not? Most fair minded people know the answer.
gerard oosterman:
15 May 2014 8:11:34am
Yes, Sarah Ferguson really showed how we were snookered by the Abbott lot. We are not in economic dire straits. In fact our economy has been the envy of the world. Our debt to GDP is one of the lowest in the OECD.
Is it really our low self esteem that made us swallow that lie, lack of worldly savvy? Surely we must know that under Labor we managed to sail through one of the worst world economic downturns of recent times.
What about the climate change? Not a word.
We don't deserve this government of lying fools. Bring on an election.
15 May 2014 8:45:55am
Our debt to GDP is growing quickly, at one of the fastest rates in the OECD. It's only low because it started at +$70B. The previous budget settings had debt rising by 15% in one year. We currently spend $40B on the aged pension. The payments we are making annually on interest on borrowing would have allowed us to increase aged pensions by more than 25% and still be in the same financial situation. That's the scale of the opportunity costs of the debt we have now.
The tragedy is that the bulk of this borrowing was for consumption. No improvements to productivity or the productive capacity of the country were made, so there are few lasting benefits.
Joe Legerdemain:
15 May 2014 9:34:48am
Yet your hero Harry, John Howard blew 340 billion buying votes then lost the election. Had he been as prudent as he made out it is possible that Australia would have little to no debt. And by the way, why didn't Howard invest in some form of major infrastructure? Ego, Harry, ego.
15 May 2014 11:07:10am
Howard left no debt. He left money in the bank.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 1:40:16pm
He left substantially less money in the bank than he would have had he not, for example, instituted the Baby Bonus or private healthcare rebate.
That money could have been better spent on infrastructure, or education, or healthcare, or telecommunications.
Also keep in mind that the money Howard's government earned selling off every publicly-owned entity they could get was more than the surplus they left. That is, if it wasn't for all the privatisation, Howard wouldn't have had a surplus. Selling off assets to meet the bills isn't a sustainable strategy.
15 May 2014 2:24:09pm
The private health rebate was part of a package of measures to ease the pressures on the public system by encouraging people to join health funds. The percentage of people in private health funds had fallen substantially prior to this policy change.
When it was introduced there were two aspects of the policy, the first was an increase in taxes if you don't have private insurance, and to lessen the blow, there was a rebate on the fees.
This the incentive was either pay more taxes, or use those taxes to help pay for private insurance.
As usual the Labor/Greens advocates only see one side of that equation in their bleating. They removed the rebate when they were desperate to shore up the massive deficits they were running. The net effect is that the numbers of people in private insurance will fall, driving up the public costs. But that's OK because that's a cost for the future to pay and they are never about the future.
The baby bonus was to help provide for upfront the costs of children. It is a major benefit for the poor. Why do Labor/Greens supports think that the poor shouldn't have children?
Labor's parental leave provides a larger incentive, perhaps you missed that?
James Picone:
15 May 2014 2:51:39pm
i.e. the private healthcare rebate was a subsidy to an industry that couldn't compete with a cheap public option, and also doubled as welfare to people that didn't need it. Just investing that money into the public healthcare system would have been just as efficient.
You're still ignoring that the deficits under the recent Labour government were caused by a collapse in revenue.
If the baby bonus was purely to 'help provide for the upfront costs of children', why wasn't it means-tested when it was introduced? Why not do something more meaningful to help the poor pay for children, or anything else, like raising the minimum wage, or better funding education or healthcare?
Why is it that Howard's middle-class welfare is totally fine with the conservative lot, but when Labour wants to means-test some of it it's class warfare, and when someone wants to slightly increase Newstart or the DSP they're breaking the budget?
And what does Labor's parental leave scheme have anything to do with it? I didn't even know they had one. Just because I think the Liberals are rotten to the core doesn't mean I think Labor are great. Personally I think they're populist, ideologically-empty vessels drifting on the winds of public opinion.
Stuffed Olive:
15 May 2014 5:08:00pm
Thanks for the cockeyed history lesson harry. Labor did not succeed in removing the rebate, but it did manage to trim the cost. The reason was as you said Howard had a plan but it never changed the pressure on the public hospital one iota and private insured people still use public facilities because their private insurance is crap in many cases. The extra tax was in fact blackmail to make people join up. It's hateful (Labor should have got rid of it too). The Costello baby bonus was to boost the population, nothing to do with costs of rearing a child.
15 May 2014 7:41:33pm
Labor introduced a means test in 2012, removing the rebate for many Australians and reducing it for many more. As a result, as of Nov 2013, one million Australians reduced their level of private health insurance, putting more pressure on the public system.
Your last sentence is nonsensical. It encouraged people to have children because it provided money after the child was born, easing the costs at the early stages.
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
15 May 2014 9:42:43pm
Howard was correct to institute the baby bonus. An absolute basic principle of any society or civilisation is that it replaces itself and grows. Australia does not do this any longer. Since the introduction of the pill and abortion on demand the birth rate has remained below the 2.1 children needed to maintain population equilibrium. As we know, migration has made up the deficit with rapidly increasing threats to social cohesion.
15 May 2014 4:25:55pm
He sold the House now we are paying rent.
Selling hard earned infrastructure to overseas interests for less than their value and losing the income streams have cost us a fortune , far more than the small deficit we had before Howard.
15 May 2014 7:46:48pm
The main asset Howard sold was Telstra, all of the proceeds went into the Future Fund.
Labor sold Qantas and half of the CBA.
The CBA proceeds were used to bail out Victoria, which had nearly bankrupted itself due to another piece of Labor state government incompetence.
Please stop making things up.
15 May 2014 9:56:31am
The rate of growth is relatively meaningless because economies with a low starting point in whatever you are measuring will invariably have a higher "rate of growth" in that variable when compared to the rate of growth of that variable in an economy with a high starting point.
15 May 2014 10:59:27am
It that's too complex for you, perhaps you can base the size of the problem by seeing that this budget is seen to be harsh, yet it still doesn't achieve a surplus. And in 4 years they expect to break even. And then after that we can start to pay back some of the debt. And in more than a decade we'll still be paying back the debt. And that is in a context of a government willing to cop the political fallout for reining in spending and increasing taxes. What are the odds of that happening for more than a decade?
Labor is opposing almost all the changes, The Greens would go further and spend more.
Labor managed to achieve 4 of the largest deficits in our history, is that enough context for you?
15 May 2014 11:43:17am
Harry, FYI there are lot of us who get what you are saying and agree wholeheartedly with what the budget is trying to achieve. It is so frustrating to hear all the whinging going on when like you say, the budget still won't be in surplus for another four years, and we won't even begin paying down our debt for another four years.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 12:32:31pm
A budget can be simultaneously harsh while not actually saving anything.
The vast majority of the cuts don't actually save much money, because they're ideologically-driven. Halving Newstart for people under 30 saves a few billion over the next four years, tops, for example. Meanwhile, there's significant increases in defence funding.
Also keep in mind that the economic projections they're using for forward estimates are rather pessimistic, to say the least. Hockey's trying to make the forward estimates look awful so the 'budget crisis' seems real and they can politically justify hitting every sector of society they dislike.
Love that after being clearly demonstrated to be using a meaningless figure (When we went from being in surplus to being in debt, our debt increased by /infinity %/!) you just completely forgot that argument was ever made, threw in an ad hominem and changed the topic. How very classy.
15 May 2014 12:53:49pm
Care to point out the ad hominem, I can't see it.
The percentage growth rate against GDP is one of the highest. That statistic is absolute. We are adding a greater percentage of debt compared to GDP than almost every country in the OECD. I am not using a relative measure.
Rudd/Gillard had reduced defense spending significantly over that period. Defense hardware has a use by date, and most of our aircraft are very close to it. These purchases have been in the pipeline for many years and monies set aside.
15 May 2014 9:48:46pm
JP says, 'The vast majority of the cuts don't actually save much money, because they're ideologically-driven.'
Ideological fallacy du jour! The effectiveness or otherwise of a budgetary measure is not dependent on the underlying ideology. Context is more important in determining the effectiveness of economic measures.
15 May 2014 11:44:15am
Huh? So having a 28% debt ratio to GDP in 6 years is a meaningless statistic?
James Picone:
15 May 2014 1:09:10pm
That wasn't the stat Harry quoted. He said "debt rising by 15% in one year", although now that I look at that number he might have been talking about the absolute increase in debt in terms of % of GDP, rather than the percentage increase in absolute debt.
28% debt/GDP is absolutely a meaningful statistic. What it means is we've got sod-all public debt.
gerard oosterman:
15 May 2014 10:14:31am
And yet...we still have top notch *** credit ratings.
Andrew :
15 May 2014 11:32:48am
Avoiding a recession and a generation of pain was a benefit harry.
15 May 2014 12:57:14pm
Not always. Recessions tend to clean out inefficient industries. Moderating the effects is a fine, but the spending spree has gone on for 6 years. Economic cycles are such that when the next downturn happens we will be in a much poorer situation that we found ourself in the last one. More significantly, the Labor/Green alliance seem to be disinclined to address this in any meaningful way, which would mean that come the next recession we would be in a totally hopeless starting point.
15 May 2014 3:39:12pm
Well then harry I look forward to the recession in the housing industry, cleaning out "inefficient" investors and speculators, smashing the leeches who just happen to be people's mothers, fathers and grandparents.
Desert Woman:
15 May 2014 8:55:09am
Unfortunately Gerard, our people are now becoming increasingly polarized so that facts and reality are fading into the distance. So many of us have also become so convinced that money and 'the economy' is the be all and end all that all the other dimensions of our lives also disappear over the horizon. Did we hear about the future of the Arts, anything to do with the quality of our lives, our sense of community?
Climate change was particularly noticeable by its absence although it was there in negative form; the demolition of the remaining apparatus for renewable energy, the cuts to CSIRO etc. They have made it perfectly clear that they do not want us to make it into the clean energy future. Yet even in monetary terms, it is obvious that our destabilizing climate will wreak havoc with 'the economy' and I just wish somebody would make the case clearly and simply that you can't have a healthy economy without a healthy environment.
16 May 2014 7:53:26am
Well said DW. It seems many in our society have been so blinded by our success in exploiting our environment that they have come to believe that not only are we are no longer dependent on it but that we are able to control it to suit our own ends. They believe that we can build some sort of human centric utopia that is totally separate from the natural laws of the planet on which we live. It is a delusion and we know what happens when we delude ourselves. The only answer is actually co-operation (as you often point to in your posts) and care for the other where the other is human and non-human alike.......there is no other way. We are all one.
Sea Monster :
15 May 2014 10:10:27am
You couldn't resist the pop-psychology and dig at the Australian character could you?
A word of advice. If you value universal health care and education (which as we know from the commission of audit are in mortal danger) the greatest contribution you can make is to stay out the debate. Leave it to others who can make an argument without drawing an anti-Australian bigotry into it.
With friends like you universal health care doesn't need enemies.
15 May 2014 3:35:30pm
Going by the bulk of oosterman's online comments, it's less a question of drawing anti-Australian bigotry into the argument of the day, than it is of using the argument of the day to attempt to justify the bigotry.
Sea Monster :
15 May 2014 4:23:41pm
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and taking his support of universal care at face value. I hope will notice I have tried to avoid motivation speculation, conspiracy theories and psychology via blog over the years.
However if I did succumb to weakness. Why is he so set on enraging everyone he is trying to convince? Vote for universal healthcare you crass, ignoramuses! LNP sock puppet perhaps?
15 May 2014 8:16:31am
Sadly, in my increasingly cynical view, politics is a just a game. Apart from individual self interest, the priority is scoring points for the Party, and winning. It's all about the cut and thrust, the verbal parrying, trading insults, one-upmanship and taking the opponent down.
It is a battle of ideology and personality. Benefit or otherwise to the nation seems almost incidental.
Am I disillusioned with politics and politicians? Yes, I am.
15 May 2014 8:33:59am
Satyajit Das on Q & A was ignored and almost mocked by others when he remarked words to the effect that at the last election he could not bring himself to vote for anyone - he was generally ignored on Q&A even though in my opinion his opinions are more worthy to be listened to than any treasurer I have listened to. No you my friend have just joined the ranks of millions of disillusioned and despairing when it comes to our current political system and the major parties. Absent, informal, vote for anyone else ranked in the million or so at the last election and will just continue to grow.
15 May 2014 9:56:56am
Satyajit Das made a lot of sense, I lapped up his every word, but as you say he was ignored, I also like what he writes here on the Drum, a rare specimen indeed,intelligent, wise and humorous too...
Graham H:
15 May 2014 8:55:10am
If pollies are going to lie - and be useless when in office - why are we not more in favour of smaller government. ?
15 May 2014 3:42:33pm
Graham H, why stop at a small government? Anarchy should really be what you are going for. All government is just getting in the way, stopping people living their lives as they wish. There is no good government, only bad government! After all, if it was good, you wouldn't want less of it! It all makes sense! I look forward to seeing you in the next informal commune policy discussion/fray.
15 May 2014 10:55:04am
My local ABC radio had a good segment this morning about ethics in modern politics and the presenter spoke with a Professor in Ethics at some length.
What stuck with me was his comments about the next tipping point on trust we are approaching in our democratic system: the point where we no longer trust the system because all sides in politics have sullied the mechanism.
Particularly he spoke about the electorate voting with informed consent. Lying when seeking election and doing something else after, is not facilitating 'informed consent' The fact all sides are percieved to be doing it makes the electorate declare the system is failing. The alternatives to bestowing power through democracy is the seizing of power by un democratic means, usually civil/ military violence. ie physical not just peaceful protest.
It made sense, as its common to hear things like they are all lying hounds, none better than each other, un democratic, un trustworthy....
his solution was for the parties ALL of them to pull back from their fight to the death over power, and start mending the contract of faith with the only people who can give them the power they want... us, the electorate.
I think it also requires US to be sensible and stop encouraging the dog fight.. and for the media to stop rewarding gotchas and start doing some analysis.
If we get it wrong, the alternative is easy to see in other countries....
15 May 2014 3:44:48pm
This is true leafygreens, and it's terribly tragic that so many Australians seem to think because we are fair-skinned, rich and speak English that we would never resort to violent protests, war in the streets, petrol bombs thrown into dissenters shops and homes, and a state of police brutality. It is a delusion made of fine-spun toffee and the heat of these current ideological wars may melt it.
15 May 2014 8:20:32am
How refreshing a government takes control of the economy through a responsible budget. Accept the fact that real structural change must happen. BUT why is our ABC the voice of the left - where is your balance in reporting. Sarah Ferguson was quite rude -
gerard oosterman:
15 May 2014 8:52:24am
"takes control of the economy through a responsible budget".
The economy was never out of control. We are the envy of the world with one of the lowest debts to GDP in the OECD.
That is the Abbott lie that we have so foolishly accepted. It's all so much nonsense. Where does this childish unquestioning acceptance come from? Are we really so ignorant?
Joe Legerdemain:
15 May 2014 9:38:56am
Well said Gerard. I for one am sick of this threat of a "budget emergency" when there isn't one. Abbott is damaging our nation for his own benefit. He is a typical bully and at this stage is set for defeat at the next election.
Sea Monster :
15 May 2014 10:12:33am
Abbott isn't the only liar though is he? There's plenty who will proclaim on one blog we're the envy of the world and then warn we're in imminent danger of collapse on another.
15 May 2014 11:15:11am
Sea Monster,
This article is not about you, gerard, or any other commenter. It is about how trustworthy Abbott is or isn't. Many here seem to forget it is not about Julia Gillard either.
Sea Monster:
15 May 2014 12:26:57pm
I think you've read another article, Anya. It is not about Abbott's trustworthiness. It is about the trustworthiness of politicians generally.
It specifically mentions that Gillard is a liar.
In this context it is entirely appropriate for me to call out political liars. If there's one thing lower than a liar its a hypocritical liar. In my estimation a base liar has no right to attack another base liar. And just when you think they couldn't go lower the liars try and frame the debate so that we're only permitted to discuss one set of lies.
Stuffed Olive:
15 May 2014 10:34:37am
Exactly Gerard. The fact which most of the comments and media ignore is that Abbott/Hockey have increased the deficit and the debt. But, the truth is that the deficit was already DECREASING in line with Labor policies. The Libs have bumped it back up.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 10:43:33am
How and when do you propose we pay back the $600bn in debt then, Gerard?
Or are you quite content to leave that in your will for future generations to contend with? Ah, socialism. All the warm fuzzies with no need to pay for any of it.
Stuffed Olive:
15 May 2014 11:15:55am
Dear TOJ - perhaps you might first explain the how and why Abbott & Hockey have drastically added to the debt and deficit and how anything in this budget will decrease the debt. Labor had a plan and it was in place and in fact, contrary to everything you and the Libs say, it was on track. The revenue shortfall can be addressed by a few changes which the Libs refuse (and refused to countenance for some years) to accept or do (mining tax, scrap insane PPL, tax avoidance etc etc).
15 May 2014 11:17:34am
The other John,
There is no budget emergency.
The Other John:
15 May 2014 1:21:25pm
$16.5 bn per year in interest. We HAVE a problem, you call it whatever you want, but we have a problem.
15 May 2014 7:00:17pm
If there is a problem then why did Abbott & co spend an extra $16.5b in the first 3 months?
15 May 2014 12:17:09pm
You are are the one is childishly unquestioning how we managed to get our debt to GDP so high so quickly (less than 6 years); whether what that money was spent on was worthwhile (no it wasn't, just consumption) and whether we want to follow those countries down the high debt road that we contemptiously compare ourselves to.
Stuffed Olive:
15 May 2014 2:41:39pm
The GFC still didn't occur in the minds of Liberals apparently. Stimulus was spent on buildings and the cash was to gain an immediate counter to the GFC. It worked a treat. Everything was under control under Labor. Now we have more deficit and debt which none of the Liberals can explain. Answers are just slogans. Time they all started acting like the adults they contemptuously claim to be.
15 May 2014 9:01:27am
Yes. I also found Sarah Ferguson quite rude and patronising in her manner, especially when she was interviewing Christopher Pyne. It did, I believe, catch Joe off guard with the severity of her attack though, and to Joe's credit he fended well.
15 May 2014 10:03:16am
With great power comes great accountability. I had no problems with any questions posed by Sarah.
15 May 2014 10:14:49am
Sarah Ferguson did a grand job, always respectful towards this elected officious official Christopher Pyne, who normally gets away with murder with his rampant strident sloganeering. He was reduced to filiblustering and repeating his slogans
Forensically and insistently, she began in just 10 minutes, to bring to account.
Keep it up Sarah ..... you scare the hell out of this bunch !
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 12:36:39pm
paulri, Sarah Ferguson has the unenviable task of trying to get a straight answer to fairly simple questions out of our pollies. That they chose to dodge, weave and obfuscate in an attempt to burn up their limited time in interviews is down to them, not the interviewer. She is equally hard on everyone who behaves in this way.
Sir Trent Toogood:
15 May 2014 6:07:10pm
Yes, how dare Sarah Ferguson ask difficult questions and expect answers to them!
Good on her for pursuing the evasive Hockey and Pyne.
They have been getting away with it for too long.
Her getting the smug look off Pynes face was priceless.
Stuffed Olive:
15 May 2014 9:36:56am
Ferguson was doing her job well - better than the previous 7.30 presenters who treated the then opposition leader and shadow ministers like royalty. Pyne was there to answer questions, not spout and repeat old slogans.
15 May 2014 10:01:53am
You are missing the point of this article, ie. the fact that none of the cuts and increased taxes were outlined prior to the election. In fact Abbott clearly stated that they would not happen. I am all for structural change BUT I and hopefully most other Australians want to know what changes a government is going to implement before I vote for them. It is after all only 7 or 8 months since the election and how many promises have been broken? I'm losing count.
15 May 2014 4:30:57pm
Regular reviews of the ABC's so called bias has always revealed they are slightly biased to the right in the past.
Given the current management are all Howard appointees I doubt that has changed.
It would seem the Right's allegations of bias are the result of the ABC culture of reporting news based on Facts rather than opinion.
15 May 2014 8:27:03am
It is completely unreasonable to compare the situation of Julia Gillard and her "one lie ( which wasn't a lie if you listen her full statement in it's context) and the situation I the current situation.
Julia Gillard had to work with a minority government, Tony Abbott doesn't.
Julia Gillard changed her position on one issue, Tony Abbott has shifted on too many to name.
Julia Gillard did not present herself as having a "unity ticket" with the Coalition and then reneg immediately after the election.
Tony Abbott deliberately lied about his policies as he knew no one would vote for his actual platform which was to drag us into a US style tea party dystopia which leaves 95% of the population worse off in both the short and the long term
15 May 2014 9:34:25am
gillards one lie, were you asleep 'read my lips we will have a surplus, etc etc etc. the thing that will save the libs is the alternative is really frightening when people think about the last 6 years under labor anything or anyone would be better sad but true am I happy with the budget no do I think that it was misdirected in many areas yes bad mistake to hit the bottom rung of society i,e pensions, waiting 6 months for dole, bad mistake some aussies thru low iQ or bad luck cant get other employment as soon as they want to and if you are in your 20s wife partner young children rent car payments and actual food and no money what would you do anything to feed and keep your kids bad mistake I am honest and now retired but if I had to steal or rob to feed my kids I would why not increase the medibank levy by fraction if you are employed you pay a little extra if unemployed or on pension no extra to see doctors or medicines be full of praise for those that can get ahead make money pay more tax employ others but still look after those that cant
15 May 2014 5:42:14pm
Curly, not complaining but the surplus was estimated by the powers that be and the treasurer, Swan acted on those figures, it was not a deliberate lie, it was misguided by the very people that Costello set up to give the government some thing to work on, projections for the future. Abbott on the other hand has lied deliberately and constantly.
Anastasios Manolakis:
15 May 2014 8:29:49am
Now that Australia has Abbott do they really want him
An individual who lied and lied to be elected and now inflicts economic vandalism on the country. Abbott attacked the introduction of the carbon tax because it will hurt families has now inflicted so much more financial pain and suffering on the lower and middle income families, the sick and schools (education Australians children).
Abbott will attempt to rescind the carbon tax and the mining tax to reward the few by making the unemployed, poor and sick pay for the loss of revenue from these taxes, but it goes much further than replacing the lost revenue from these to taxes he is hurting the most vulnerable in Australia's society to fund a medical fund and to reduce taxes for the rich and big business.
Abbott is no Robin Hood: Abbott steals from the poor, sick and children to reward the rich.
15 May 2014 8:30:07am
Strangely Jonathan defended Gillard's lies when it's only purpose was to keep her in office, but he's on his high horse about promises now that changes need to be made to benefit the country.
Face facts, the easy way is to borrow and spend like Labor, the money isn't there to do it any other way. Don't you think that every politician prefers to be popular? They had a choice, be popular and continue down the road of spending money we don't have, leaving a worse standard of living for the next generation, or make hard and unpopular decisions. Thankfully they did the right thing, not the personally optimal thing like Ms Gillard.
Joe Legerdemain:
15 May 2014 9:43:20am
Time you joined the real world Harry. Julia negotiated an outcome to form government exactly the same opportunity as Abbott had but he failed. Lets say the Indies went with Abbott Harry, what set of lies would you have come up with to support Abbott?
15 May 2014 11:04:35am
Abbott's negotiations with the independents broke down because he wasn't willing to break promises. Sure he would commit to spend more if that took them over the line, such as the tasmanian hospital etc. But reversing a commitment made as strongly as Gillard had made was never going to be possible.
Your question is nonsensical. Gillard had a simple task, the Greens were never going to support Abbott, she didn't need to break her promise to the Australian people. She showed that she had no integrity.
Why do you need to use a strawman argument about my hypothetical lies when the discussion is about Mr Abbott and Ms Gillard.
Brian V:
15 May 2014 5:11:55pm
Abbott LIED on at least 10 issues ?tis simple and usual for Libs ?and then there is the stinking mess of NSW Libs?suporters of our PM and Treasurer..more to come?
15 May 2014 8:35:15am
I can't help but wonder where we go from here when weighing up our choices in the next election. Do the politicians expect voters to listen and believe whatever promises they will trot out?
Will we be gullible enough to accept their vote-winning inducements?
I think there will be a marked reluctance to vote for any of them.
15 May 2014 9:42:42am
About time too.
15 May 2014 10:34:35am
"I think there will be a marked reluctance to vote for any of them."
A result which will definitely favour the NLP. Think about it.
15 May 2014 4:20:56pm
Look through the words. Also weigh up the results and what you see as the likely results. Decide whether you want to vote for your own personal best interest or that of the country. That won't automatically lead to one result or another, your own values will weigh into it. While you are waiting for an election take the time to reassess your values. Good luck!
Sir Trent Toogood:
15 May 2014 6:11:55pm
Abbott wont be able to use the words 'trust' or 'promise' in any of his three word slogans before the next election.
Should be interesting.
15 May 2014 8:35:33am
Jonathan you have commented on politicians and political fortunes for decades and now you would have us believe Abbott and Hockey are more inclined to break what you call a promise than Hawke and Keating in the eighties I clearly remember 21% interest rates the recession we had to have and I am not surprised to find children still living in poverty even though Bob Hawke promised they would not.
It is hard to believe on what was delivered yesterday that Abbott and his stoic steady approach to government will not easily win a second term perhaps thats the real issue for those who support the left of Australian politics.
15 May 2014 10:05:29am
21% interest rates? Did you just pick a number out of the air?
15 May 2014 10:29:36am
Not that far off. I believe 18.5 was the highest, and I do remember 17%
15 May 2014 9:59:58pm
and 17% of the almost nothing that house prices were back then mean you were far better off repaying a mortgage back then as a percentage of average income than we are now.
15 May 2014 10:32:18am
Well said mortan.
I too remember well the "recession we had to have". What the country and the economy needs is firm and decisive leadership that is prepared to take the hard decisions. Of course some of these decisions aren't going to go down well with some, but as they have said from the start the "age of entitlement is over" As Thatcher rightly said; "Socialism is a great ideal until the other person's money runs out"
I think I think:
15 May 2014 11:33:02pm
Who is this other person you and Thatcher speak of. Revenue is our money, by virtue of the government and the produce of our land. Whether you are an accountant or miner, you have made your money in cooperation with everybody in society, and it is about time you and your selfish lot are reminded of it.
15 May 2014 1:04:45pm
"you would have us believe Abbott and Hockey are more inclined to break what you call a promise than Hawke and Keating in the eighties "
- I re-read the article and can't find where Jonothan said such a thing. Are you just resorting to pointing out a hypocrisy that doesn't exist because you don't like any criticism of your political team
Bob Hawke was in my view a cynical, deceitful populist - but that doesn't alter the point of the article one little bit, which is that after this latest example of knowing and deliberate deceit by a politician:
"Have we finally been pushed toward the great uncoupling: that moment when politicians will at last admit with a great sigh of liberation, that truth does not constrain them?"
That's the point of the article and given that the lying can't be denied with any real credibility, perhaps the most honest thing a Liberal supporter can say at the moment is "yes he lied and deceived but I don't care because he's doing the right thing"
15 May 2014 8:37:42am
The problem we have now is that so many of our politicians have done nothing else but politics with their lives, with the result that they are combatant political gang members first and foremost, and representatives of their constituents last. These are life ignorant, narrow narcissists who are trained at being as self interested and cunning as shithouse rats and we are being asked to respect and reward them as part of the democratic process.
The dancing in the office at the prospect of hitting the weak, the cigar smoking while telling us we are hard up, all just a joke in a political game. It is truth and honesty that we desire from people in political life, and when we find it we will continue to support it, but its current rarity says much about the weakening of our democratic processes.
15 May 2014 4:40:53pm
The irony is that Labor complained bitterly about the structural deficit Howard supposedly left them, including heavily loaded middle class welfare, now they are just as bitter when action is taken to reduce the burden they were too weak to address. Don't get taken in toni, there is theatre and there is real life. We are watching some theatre at the moment.
Anyone that wants respect avoids politics. They would know any gratitude extended for their efforts would be of the 'what have you done for me lately' variety. It is funny that voters claim they want truth and honesty when so few are capable of it themselves.
15 May 2014 8:38:04am
Just try and imagine if the Coalition had actually told everyone in the election campaign that they were going to raise taxes and cut spending everywhere they could.
If the Coalition had campaigned on that we would still have a Labor Govt and Rudd as PM!
So pleased they told some predictable fibs!
When are we going to start to see the attacks on Shorten about what are his policies and what would he do to get the budget in order, like the attacks Abbott was constantly under in Opposition? If Shorten wants to be the alternative PM and Govt he should start telling us what he intends to do about it.
So far all he's done is disagree with any cost cutting.
So I'm assuming under a Shorten Govt they would just continue spending and borrowing.
15 May 2014 9:41:10am
Perpetual growth is their only ambition. A pity, our environment can't support it.
15 May 2014 8:38:52am
Julia Gillard broke her promise and lost her job over it, and her party lost power.
That was only ONE promise broken brought about by a hung Parliament, compared to the multitude of broken promises by a Coalition with a comfortable majority in the Reps.
For those broken promises the Coalition deserves to have its budget thrown out, and if they have the guts to call a double dissolution, they deserve to be thrown out of government.
We have to draw the line about being treated like fools somewhere.
15 May 2014 9:49:35am
Quite. Gillard contended with unanticipated circumstances. The Coalition did not care about reasons and hammered the point relentlessly. Abbott has brazenly and hypocritically lied profusely.
On the basis that he has made idle threats about a double dissolution and motions of no confidence while in opposition Abbot is unlikely to initiate it. However, he plays brinksmanship. His latest fear tactic is to claim Labor would just be wiped out. He does have a nerve.
Abbott has apparently asked his backbench to hold their nerve. Why? To support him holding his nerve? Has he also betrayed them? Do backbenchers speak up enough?
15 May 2014 8:42:14am
I'd be happy to see the Senate tell Abbott and Hockey to go away and come back with a budget that better reflects their rhetoric before the election. If Abbott wants to play wedge politics with the states, return the favour. If that leads to a double dissolution, so be it. The coalition lied their way into office any way you look at it and we've got nothing more to lose should the population be stupid enough to swallow more of their deceit and re-elect them. Perhaps truth would get an airing for once. How novel.
15 May 2014 8:44:18am
Truth too far.
It's not the budget, it is just further evidence that politicians work out of self interest.
The truth too far is being played out at ICAC at the moment.
What more proof do the Australian public want. When there is money involved they drop their political allegiance to conspire and collude.
The unions are tainted with their ilk. They take people's money, they manipulate markets and make money.
And if they think that I will vote for either major party, that's a truth too far.
I'm still reeling that Therese Rein made hundreds of millions of dollars from the unemployed/disabled and got away with it. She is a business woman. She has a business model. Disabled people are a market?
I am watching the scum on the surface of politics.
Believing that they care about my family? No, that's a truth too far.
Believing that they care about my job? No, that's a truth too far.
Believing that they care about my health? No, that's a truth too far.
Believing that they care about my education? No, that's a truth too far.
Believing that they care about my country? No, that's a truth too far.
Believing that they care about my future? No, that's a truth too far.
Believing that they care about my rights? No, that's a truth too far.
Believing that they care about me? No that's a truth too far.
Believing that there is a viable alternative to the major parties. For now that's also a truth too far.
The Liberals will not get my vote, Labor won't get my vote, The Greens wont get my vote. .....Now that IS the truth!
15 May 2014 10:00:41am
So PUP it is then Greg.
Sea Monster :
15 May 2014 10:26:21am
It strikes me that PUP will do very well out of this. I reckon people will desert the LNP and find a home there.
15 May 2014 6:19:29pm
I'm certainly thinking about it.
I also wonder whether Dr Chris Davis will choose PUP or independent in Stafford in Queensland next year.
The Skeleton Inside:
15 May 2014 2:03:58pm
Twill be interesting to see how PUP go when they start wielding thier senate power. And how long their popularity lasts.
I believe they did as well as they did because they filled a gap. But will the pudding still be as good after the eating?
Interesting times...
15 May 2014 3:52:08pm
Hardly. There are so many small parties people can vote for, not to mention completely independent politicians. Is your mind really incapable of actually voting for the person you believe the most in rather than some safe, mothering "system" you trust will serve your best interests even though it swears up and down that it's eyes are big only the better to see you with.
15 May 2014 8:49:34am
Hi Jonathan... small correction...
This "cycle of flexible truth" did Not start with Julia Gillard's stated intent to bring in the ETS without an intermediate fixed price on carbon which was Greens preference. Gillard's statement was before both Labor and LNP found they had to negotiate with the Independents and Greens... hello... hung parliament...Abbott wld have sold his arse...
This cycle of LNP lies was well underway with brazen liar John Howard. Remember never ever GST, children overboard, Iraq war...?? http://miriam-e.dreamwidth.org/82726.html
I think it's disingenuous to compare Gillard's statement re ETS (which is never quoted in full by the media) with Abbott's and Hockey's audacious blatant and scandalous lies before the 2013 election.
Grant of Alex:
15 May 2014 8:52:03am
I recall an earlier piece by Mr Green lamenting the way our political leaders treat us as fools. They tell us what they think we want to hear rather than deal with us truthfully and then they go back on their words when confronted by the difficult and complex business of governing. This seems to be the new discourse and as Ross Gitins in the SMH suggests if any of us are surprised we should pay our $7 and go visit the doctor to be treated for amnesia. But I still hanker after political leaders who are serious and straight with us. It seems to me that the only way we can take back the discourse and return it to something approaching a field of honesty is for the voting public to be very severe on those who play the game. For how long will we accept being treated as fools?
15 May 2014 8:59:02am
That cracking sound is Hell freezing over.
I actually agree with Mr Green.
Well, not quite. I think the current Government has shown itself to be worse than the Gillard gov't in terms of its lack of truthfulness.
Ms Gillard at least had the excuse that the Greens had her over a barrel. (Or she foolishly thought they did).
Mr Abbot has no such excuse for breaking his word.
He cannot claim some unknown budget issue: he trumpeted Labor's mismanagement for years.
Even if we accept some economic crisis (which has escaped the scrutiny of most commentators), there was no need to break a promise nor to attack the poor and disadvantaged.
The abolition of negative gearing would have increased revenue without increasing tax. So would the abolition of tax benefits from using trusts. Neither would have any impact on the poor.
If more revenue raising was needed than could be raised without breaking a promise, then a financial transaction tax is the most obvious growth tax, easy to administer and again, not going to further disadvantage those in society less able to pay.
Abolition of super deductions for the rich could be flagged for after the next election, as could raising capital gains tax to a level closer to that paid by those who work for their income.
Alcohol is one of the greatest affliction on this society but its lobbyists have earned their keep.
The Labor Party is not innocent. Its refusal to listen to reason has lead to the current situation. It holds itself out as the party for the disadvantaged, yet its concentration on what could best be described as frivolous policies caused its base to believe that it was more concerned with inner-city elites than those who work for a living.
A sad day, not only for those who rely on the Gov't for help, but also for those of us who hoped the Mr Abbot's moral convictions would overcome his ideological chains.
15 May 2014 9:00:05am
Most people treat election promises with a grain of salt. However, both mainstream parties have show quite amazing arrogance in completely disregarding any and/or all of their commitments and rationalizing away criticism.
I don't see how they think they can continue with business as usual. The levels of cynicism and disengagement should reach record levels at the nest election . Hopefully this may mean the rise of independents and the beginning of a new political model in Australia.
There is an air of unreality at the moment which is difficult to imagine continuing unchecked.
15 May 2014 9:00:09am
Kohler and now Green.
We have entered a cycle of flexible truth and populist response that began on election eve in 2010 when Julia Gillard pledged that "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead",
Common Anthony, what did she say directly after that and why have you not bothered to include it. As a minimum, if you wish to edit her to suit your storyline then an ellipsis would have been in order to warn us there is more to come.
You cant complain about micro parity misrepresentation when you do it yourself in your writing.
15 May 2014 6:06:23pm
That was the headline on many an article sdraw. I remember looking a long way into one of the reports before seeing the qualification. It won her the election. She was delighted to have her comment truncated in the press. There were no protestations from Ms Gillard 'oo, but you forgot about the bit about a carbon price', she was very happy to remain silent on any correction and reap the electoral rewards. People playing up that qualification after it was previously downplayed are indulging in revisionism in my view. If you want to complain about misrepresentation you must be prepared to be more forthcoming about the full circumstances in your own comment I suggest.
15 May 2014 9:01:03am
"there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead".... BUT "If I am elected then I will work to deliver a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme" (Triple J, August 2010) and The Australian: "JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term."... NO LIE WHATSOEVER...
However, Tony Abbott said to the ABC's Sabra Lane before the election: "Well Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb are going to be releasing those figures later on today and I'm not going to pre-empt the detail, but I can assure your listeners that there will be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions.."... and to SBS News: "no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS."
and also: "There is no difference between Kevin Rudd and myself when it comes to school funding"... and the list of LIES goes on and on, there are currently entire websites dedicated to collect them. Google search "Tony Abbott lies" for instance... and "enjoy"!
Double Dissolution now, it's time to restore decency to the Political process in this country. Australia must return to her natural condition as a Democracy and stop being an oligarchic MurdoRinehartocracy!
P.S. More money to the ABC to hire more Sarah Fergusons!!
15 May 2014 9:49:12am
For the recalcitrant ones who still don't get it, the expression : "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" refers to a Labor Government in full control of the Lower House, not to the reality that unfolded after the 2010 election of a hung Parliament, that required further negotiations. The negotiations produced the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the carbon pricing that Gillard had promised.
15 May 2014 4:20:28pm
And the changes to the Coalition's policies stem from the reality of the fiscal situation that unfolded after September 7 last year when the true state of the economy and budget disaster were known. Remember Wayne promising 129 times that the budget would be back in surplus this year? Almost as big a lie as 'There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead'.
15 May 2014 9:49:41am
Alpo: Funny how we take a different view of the sane thing I thought Joe Hockey was brilliant and controlled the interview on 7 30 l to suite himself.
In my eyes he came across as a man well on top of his brief despite the presenter trying to be negative and it was clear he has positioned the government for an easy second term win.
There will be no double disillusion of parliament no one will block supply it would be political suicide if Abbott cant pass his tax repeals he will just blame Labor and the Greens.
15 May 2014 10:38:33am
"it would be political suicide if Abbott cant pass his tax repeals he will just blame Labor and the Greens"... gbe, I am sure that Labor, Greens and PUP will be more than happy to test your prediction. I will be happy too. Don't forget that Labor, Greens and PUP have been voted in to represent their constituency, not to rubber stamp anything, let alone lies, and on top of that, lies that involve unfair policies that will be detrimental to a very big proportion of our population and to the economy as a whole!
I am afraid that this Budget has cornered the Abbott Government into a lose/lose situation. Which is good, because it will give all of us the opportunity to finally close the Pandora's Box that was opened when Malcolm Turnbull lost the leadership of the Coalition to Tony Abbott.
15 May 2014 6:47:20pm
I am surprised a number of earlier comments by me were censored when I tried to discuss double dissolutions Alpo. I'll confine myself to saying I would look forward to a double dissolution. Labor is insisting on sticking to policies that have failed in the electorate, it retains the stale faces of Shorten, Albanese, Plibersek, Conroy and Wong and now we have the spin that the economy is excellent, nothing needs to be done. Only the spruikers believe that. We have pure obstructionism from the Greens as expected and from Palmer who has nothing to offer but appreciates a nice quite place to enjoy his afternoon nap. A double dissolution where a government trying to make improvements is up against an opposition that has refused to come to grips with its failures is likely to go only one way in my view. The Augean stables that are the Senate need a jolly good clean out.
And if I am wrong and the public wants Labor back I am prepared to accept it. Let them clean up their own mess for a change rather than leave the hosts to it when the party is over. If you want Labor's brand completely trashed vote them back in as soon as you are able. That is the lose/lose proposition. Good luck to you.
15 May 2014 9:26:29pm
I welcome your contribution OUB, and I hope that Tony Abbott does take the advice to ask the People's opinion on his real policies. This will require a double dissolution as you pointed out and a fresh election. It is absolutely essential that whatever it is that we believe in, or that we think it's broken and in need of repair, or that it's fundamentally fine but requires some adjustments goes through a clear and informed Democratic process. I repeated ad nauseam before the election that the alternative to the Labor Government was not the "no-Government Party" but the current version of the Liberal Party and that we needed to know exactly what they had to offer. Of course, I was not the only one asking for that. Now, very sadly, those who espoused such a view should feel vindicated.
15 May 2014 6:22:20pm
gbe....."There will be no double disillusion ......" that's very funny. I disagree I am already massively disillusioned.
15 May 2014 9:01:20am
Journalists are also starting to feel the pain so, now all of a sudden, politicians lying to us is a big deal. A bit late Jonathan, the damage has already been done. Where were ya? Our environment is in terminal decline and the growth deadheads now want to finish it off completely.
Want to earn my respect? Challenge the ideology of infinite growth otherwise, you are just part of the problem and not part of the solution.
This article will do nothing to help the younger generation who, through no fault of their own, will have to pay the tab for the excesses of our generation and the inadequacies and cowardice of you and your journalistic colleagues. Well done!
15 May 2014 9:06:07am
Whenever the next election is (and let's face it, it could be a lot sooner) the inconvenient truth will be that the adults will be having a meaningful debate about tax reform and fixing things up and the other mob will be talking about relaxing our borders and clinging to stupid taxes that either do nothing or don't raise any money.
Are the Labor party that dumb they can't see this unfolding?
15 May 2014 9:41:18am
custard, by 'adults' do you mean the ones who lied their way into power and have broken repeated promises about health, education, taxes, pensions, family support... ?
Do you means the ones who support the big profit mining companies and the polluters at the expense of the ordinary people?
Do you mean the ones who have been responsible for killing our car industry and destroying Australian jobs?
Do you mean the ones who are destroying the social fabric of Australia?
Chris L:
15 May 2014 11:05:10am
Maybe he means the adults that keep pointing their fingers at other people saying "He made me do it!".
15 May 2014 10:38:30am
Ok, then, bring it on (early election) and let's see what happens.
15 May 2014 3:58:09pm
You're so cute custard with your repeated temper tantrums that the "adults are in charge". I could almost think you believe your own lies, maybe all the politicians do as well. They say that's the first step to being a good liar.
Tory Boy:
15 May 2014 9:06:24am
This article reveals a broadcaster that prioritises, then rations, its truthfulness, and does it with a brazen sense of self confidence to promote its own regressive agenda.
15 May 2014 12:33:46pm
A biased assertion. Perhaps you'd like to expand your remarks. I'd call them "thoughts" but that doesn't apply.
15 May 2014 9:06:59am
We all know that Abbott has uttered a string of lies to the Australian people.
No cuts to education. A lie. No cuts to health. A lie. No change to pensions. A lie. No cuts to the ABC or SBS. A lie. No new taxes. A lie. The litany of lies goes on.
My question is has he ever been truthful in any of the promises or commitments he has made?
15 May 2014 9:35:19am
As long as one has faith, anything goes.
15 May 2014 11:23:39am
Yes, he has told the obvious truth on at least one occasion, and then proceeded to give us multiple demonstrations of the fact. A few years ago, when he got caught out lying (it could have even been when he had his own words quoted back to him, wherein he proposed a simple tax as the best way of reducing carbon, when to do so was his own party's policy), he said that he could not be relied on to keep his tongue under control in the heat of the moment.
He further recommended not to rely absolutely on anything he said, unless it was written down as a speech script, were it could be checked first.
Well, I think we can now see that he is absolutely right - he is a liar when his lips are moving, but as he said THAT without a script, the next thing he said - that he could be relied upon to tell the truth if it was first written down, is probably also a lie....
15 May 2014 6:25:10pm
Has he ever been truthful? He said he would stop the boats. The boats have essentially stopped!
15 May 2014 10:04:16pm
well, reporting of the boats has stopped.
the boats have still turned up, in fact Abbott cancelled a trip to Indonesia because a boat turned up which would embarrass our northern neighbour.
15 May 2014 9:07:46am
Lies don't bother Tony Abbott. From his early childhood he became so steeped in the teachings of his church that he still believes your go to the confessional and get forgiveness.
That perhaps explains his trip to Saint Christopher in Manuka before Hockey revealed the full extent of his lies latter that day?
15 May 2014 9:12:03am
I am looking for a political leader who tells it straight. Who is honest, balanced, fair and open. Who never knowingly tells a lie. Who tells the truth even when the truth is inconvenient or embarrassing. Who hates half truths and evasions.
Or is the only way for me to find such a politician for me to become a politician myself?
15 May 2014 9:13:11am
Paul Kelly has given away the strategy : it's all about staying in office :-
"Hockey's political strategy is obvious. This Budget aims to deliver a surplus in four years and offer room next term for income tax cuts to be promised at the 2016 election. At that point Abbott and Hockey will tell the public the budget has been repaired and the nation can be rewarded with belated tax relief."
Big Al:
15 May 2014 9:13:53am
All Australians need to demonstrate that truth does matter. We all felt so badly let down by the Rudd/Gillard Government that we through them out - that was the level of our feeling. We need the opportunity to do the same with the Abbott Government. If we accept the notion of 'degrees of truth' then we have set our country on a dangerous path. Truth is an absolute, not a sliding scale.
15 May 2014 9:31:31am
Truth is knowledge, knowledge is power and power corrupts. Those in the know, know.
coa- huh:
15 May 2014 9:15:11am
yes we,re well & truly on the way... is the stars & stripes copyrighted? that may be the big question if the flag change debate comes up & going on the current trend they in turn may want our flag seeing as they are introducing legislation like Obama-care & rising minimum wage etc. & their efforts to rid racism & bigotry seems the Abbott gov. does the opposite & targets our legislation they introduce. All gov. break promises but watching Abbott & Hockey get questioned about pre-election promises they've broken is as painful as Scott Morrison talking bout op sov.borders... its not like if your happy & u know it thump a coalition MP! cause no ones happy! I bet the old lady who Hockey spoke of that said "be strong" to him isn't going to bingo for a while..
15 May 2014 9:17:22am
"A fib too far......"? We are unable call it for what it truly is - untruthful and deceitful behaviour. An ICAC investigation of this behaviour in any other sphere would have it labelled as fraud corrupting due process. When we set such low standards for our politicians how can we be surprised when they consistently plumb the depths of public office?
15 May 2014 9:18:23am
Just a thought. When local councils go feral and are found to be dysfunctional, dishonest or corrupt they are replaced by administrators.
Would we really be worse of if the country was run buy Public Service? it is anyway with the transient politician bozos just getting in the way every 3 years. Maybe a very small elected management group who actually have to have achieved something in their lives and represent core sectors of the population. Could it possibly be any worse?
Alternatively the Swiss model which turns things on its head and puts power and taxes at local/regional level and only gives the feds power over truly national issues like national law, defence, foreign affairs.
Don't know really, anything but repeatedly bashing or heads against this wall.
15 May 2014 12:30:47pm
the people who wrote the constitution initially wanted our Federal government to have minimal powers as it was written by the leaders of the now States which were individual colonies. What has happened over the past 70 odd years is that the Federal government has taken over more and more from the states and has developed a vertical fiscal imbalance where it collects the vast majority of revenue and the states who provide most of the services have to come begging for funding to provide them.
Thus begins the argument between left and right wings. The Far left believes the government should do everything and provide everything for the people from the cradle to the grave whilst the far right believes that the government should only do the bare minimum like defence, law and order, trade and protect property rights and people should be capable of fending for themselves. Many of us who blog here would prefer a balanced approach, but the argument between us is where is the proper tipping point. My view is that there is too much government, especially here in SA where the ALP has held power for 25 of the last 30 years and in for another four even though most of the people in the state wanted them out at both of the last two elections. Plus I have seen the end result of left wing policies in suburbs like Davoren Park, Mansfield Park and Hackham West where endemic welfare dependency prevails and multi generational households have been welfare dependant because that is all they know.
15 May 2014 2:41:19pm
I remind you that welfare dependency, whenever it occurs and to whatever scale it really occurs, does not start by chance or by some intrinsic laziness of those concerned. Welfare dependency starts from unemployment which traps some people into a dead end of poverty. When there is no government intervention to activate the economy and provide efficient public services, then poverty in those people risks to be transmitted trans-generationally: poor parents can't afford an education, proper food, proper recreational activities, etc. to their children, hence those children will also become disadvantaged and poor, and so on.
Let's better target and improve Government social programs by all means, but mindless and Neoliberal ideologically-driven cuts can only deteriorate them and thus condemn vast sectors of the population to long-term poverty.... That's unacceptable!
15 May 2014 3:27:24pm
You obviously haven't met the same people I have Alpo, or just reading from textbooks. The people I have met just don't want to work as they are quite happy sitting at home watching tv receiving benefits. Most of these people I met were in the early to mid 90's after a long term ALP governments in both Federal and SA when there were plenty of job support and welfare support training. There were families getting more in benefits that I was working full time on shift work in one of the most dangerous jobs in society. Where is the incentive to work when you can get a better than average income sitting at home. There was plenty of work in the area at the time as friends of mine who lived out that way were never out of work.
15 May 2014 5:14:14pm
"There were families getting more in benefits that I was working full time on shift work in one of the most dangerous jobs in society"
That reminds me a bit of the old saga that pensioners don't need an increase because they spend all their pension on the pokies and plasma tv. anyway.
Sadly fables are more believable when told by people who have only a nodding acquaintance with the truth.
15 May 2014 6:45:42pm
"You obviously haven't met the same people I have Alpo"... I am confident that I haven't, Tator, as I am also confident that you haven't met the same people I have. My knowledge of Australians doesn't come from books. I have been in this country since 1988 and lived both in metropolitan and rural areas. What it comes from books is my knowledge of Eskimos and !Kung people.... I grant that.
15 May 2014 10:59:14pm
I have lived in Australia all of my life, Alpo. I have worked all over Adelaide and the state as a police officer. I get to see more in one week than most people see in their entire life. I have worked in the housing trust slums of Davoren Park and the Parks areas. Unlike the vast majority of people, a police officer isn't tied down to a single workplace but moves around seeing more of their community than most people do. And after 25 years of doing this, I have seen more than most police officers as well and the worst of it is burnt into the memory as the general population just don't see the horrors we do. So whatever you think you have seen is bad is nothing compared to what is normal in some areas i have worked.
Where's Tony:
15 May 2014 11:53:35pm
You just described Maggie's Britain Alpo, generations of kids unable to find work after Dad got thrown out of work and the factories/mines and associated businesses were closed during her war on the worker. The effects continue to this day.
amphetimine annie:
15 May 2014 9:24:23am
There should be a Royal Commission, into why The ALP wasn't up front with the electorate about the debt, when they were campaigning last year.
They promised a surplus (earlier); clearly a confidence trick: blatant fraud in fact. Lies.
15 May 2014 9:29:56am
It is sad to see people justifying the lies of Tony Abbott by pointing to the lies of the former governmnet. The issue for the Coalition is that Tony Abbott campaigned almost solely on the issue of truth and honesty. He is not being held to different standards to the previous government, he is only being held to is own clearly and repeated standards and statements. He has badly undermined his own position to the point that every statement he now makes will be tainted with the question as to its veracity and legitimacy. With his honour ans integrity so badly dented, it is hard to ever see him recovering from this position and his name will likely forever be linked to untruths.
15 May 2014 9:31:36am
J Green should take a leaf out of L Curtis's book when it comes to discussing honesty in politicians. He doesn't acknowledge any efforts from any individuals that is honest and informative and only perpetuates the problem. Its lopsided and has an air of general misery without hope, it is also reporters responsibility to raise the bar, I know its dark days but come on Jonathon help, your a good writer. You just stirred the hornets nest here, same agro not much constructive, why?
Andrew Keating MD:
15 May 2014 9:38:11am
The ABC has become more left wing than The ALP.
The last 20 articles have been political propaganda.
15 May 2014 10:16:20am
I sincerely hope the ABC is more left wing then the centre right ALP.
I want my ABC fair, balanced, and in the centre.
15 May 2014 2:15:18pm
You think gay marriage is centre Right? and open borders? and big government? and making free speech a hate crime? and trying to gag the media? You define the Left as the centre and hope the ABC is Left wing because you think this is 'fair' and 'balanced'. It makes no sense and is an intolerant authoritarian mindset.
15 May 2014 2:50:31pm
Do I do all that?
I thought I looked at a political science x-y graph and noted the ALP is centre right and the LNP right.
It always a problem this research thing. It never stacks up against the conservative mind because you just intrinsically know pretty much everything without reference to anything.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 3:01:19pm
Gay marriage is a majority opinion amongst the populace, and the ALP have gone back and forth on it. Even some liberals are for it, in a party famous for social conservatism. Yeah, that's roughly centrist in today's political landscape. Also not a huge deal for either party.
ALP isn't for 'open borders' in any sense. They're just not quite as enthusiastic about torturing innocents. Rather than locking up a bunch of them in unsanitary conditions and failing to prevent the occasional beating, Labor is more into shipping them off to less-developed countries with poor human-rights records.
If you want 'open borders' you want the LDP.
Trying to argue that 18C of the RDA makes 'free speech a hate crime' mostly shows that you don't know what you're talking about. It just extends defamation to ethnicity, so that if I loudly and publicly claim that ethnic grouping X are all lazy and violent and it harms members of ethnic grouping X, they have standing to sue. This is essentially the same as if I claim that John Doe is lazy and violent loudly and publicly and it harms John Doe. If Bolt didn't want to run afoul of that law, maybe he shouldn't have wilfully and maliciously published defamatory comments he either knew or should have known were false.
Trying to get the media to enforce their own code of conduct is a far cry from 'gagging the media'.
Interestingly, actual research has been done on the authoritarian personality type, collated into a book by one Bob Altermeyer. The book is called "The Authoritarians". You should read it. Turns out authoritarian personalities are almost exclusively right-wing!
15 May 2014 9:58:13am
Interesting how the ABC published several articles defending Gillard and attacking Abbott. She's tough, she's attacked because she's a woman, she didn't tell a lie, she's treated differently because she's the first female PM, Abbott's a bully, Abbotts a mysogynist, Abbotts sexist on and on and on the articles were pumped out on air and on our TV's by the ABC day in day out.
Now, not a word about Shorten all they pump out is more attacks on Abbott. The attacks by the ABC publications on Abbott have gone on for years, in Oppostion and now as PM.
amphetimine annie:
15 May 2014 10:16:09am
Where are the articles about the insulation inquiry and Bruce Wilson?
The ABC, keeps bleating about scrutiny. Where is it?
It won't be possible to write about Shorten, he will bluster and grimace. I don't suppose that he will repeat his line about The ALP being unelectable because of the union infestation.
"I'd like to see that!"
15 May 2014 9:45:05am
This article is spot on & we all should remember that whatever this LNP govt. say from now on we can consider it's just another lie. In fact it has got so bad that we just cannot believe a word they say.
I was completely stunned last night listening to Christopher Pyne on the 7:30 Report just completely dump the education & hospital funding onto the states without any sensible way for them to finance it. This is just complete insanity & I really wonder whether the federal govt. has a clue what it's doing. We seem to go from pillar to post with completely deranged random solutions to problems that they themselves are creating.
We were told "the adults are now in charge", well that was also another lie as they are ramming a wrecking ball through everything & if that's adult, then I would rather have the children. At least they might understand the people of Australia that they are there to help & support, rather than skewing everything towards the big end of town.
Now we see ASIC's funding is being cut & the possibility of privatising it likely. While perhaps ASIC has not been really effective in the past, privatising would be the equivalent of the fox being put in charge of the hen house. Then there was the winding back of the financial industry advisor legislation, still unresolved, but another indication of big business favouritism.
The real reason this govt. wants to get rid of red & green tape is so the big end of town can ride rough shod over the people. Why is it that regulation is no longer required when the reason it is there is to control the unethical practices of business. So are businesses now more ethical than they were before?. Definitely not they are much worse & getting worse all the time.
15 May 2014 7:37:22pm
People talk too much about the consequences of "bad advice" from the financial services industry. You follow "advice" at your own risk.
The actual pervasive criminal stealing and embezzlement by members of the financial services industry is a much greater problem.
15 May 2014 9:59:41am
On further reflection I have decided that I have completely misread the central meaning of our electoral process. Essentially we periodically elect a specific political grouping so they can preferentially and positively discriminate in favour their support base and at the same time penalise and discriminate against anyone outside that support base. Of course, members of the electorate often get it wrong mistakenly assuming they are seen by a particular political grouping as worthy members of its support base.
It is not really about lies and malicious discrimination just misunderstandings on the part of members of the electorate.
15 May 2014 10:04:01am
I'm a Labor man but I watch all political programs, even ones which favour the right as I think it's important not to look at things through rose-coloured glasses. There are elements of this budget which have promise, but there are some truly heartless things that make me sick to be Australian right now. Then of course there's the blatant lying by a person who was a desperate to be PM opposition leader. Remember what he was willing to sell to be PM in 2010? Anyway just to show I'm not all whinge and moan, here are 4 things I would look into as ways to help the budget (even though I think the budget emergency is a crock, but let's be hypothetical.)
1. A super profits bank tax - works same way as Rudd's initial Mining Super Profits Tax he proposed in 2010 but it's on banks. Before it was implemented though I would pass legislation that capped how much and how many fees banks could charge, that way there can be no debate about it being passed onto customers. Oh I'd also bring back the initial Mining Tax as it was meant to be implemented.
2. Instead of government funded maternity leave, I'd give business incentives, such as generous tax cuts when they implement of fair and adequate maternity leave programs and look after their female workers. On the same note I'd offer similar for businesses who hire people over 50 but there's something similar to that in the current budget announcement anyway.
3. Increase the GST on items deemed deemed unhealthy. There are organisations in health which give foods and meals star ratings out of 5....0 means healthy....5 means evil. Anything 3 or above would receive the extra tax, with 5 receiving the biggest increase. Cigarettes would be taxed to the point where it was considered something only rich people could afford. You watch less people go in for treatment if they're eating better and not smoking. I'd also use some of the money raised from this to subsidise fruit and vegetables and things like fresh fish.....just to name a few. Two minute noodles would no longer become something students buy because it's all they can afford, suddenly the fruit section at Coles would be the area for the cheapies.
4. Taxing churches - this would be a tough one to sell but as it stands they avoid paying very much tax at all but many have funds coming in. This one is a work in progress at the moment and just really a loud thought.
Of course once the bduget was fixed (and again I use this term loosely) my ambition would be to bring in a government funded childcare program - similar to the way public schools are funded. We cann all live in hope can't we?
15 May 2014 12:40:14pm
Your third point would be difficult to administer, but I don't have any issues with the other three points, although point two might need some fine-tuning.
15 May 2014 2:53:16pm
I like your thinking, lets discuss what actually should be done in the national interest, rather than get bogged down in who said what over the last 6 years, when the world is changing every day. What can be a good economy at election time can turn bad by the time of the budget, so holding people to old promises can actually be bad for the country.
1) Banks I disagree. all companies should be taxed on profits at the same rate.
Mining. There needs to be a big shake up of mining tax and royalty system. The original mining tax was fatally floored for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the states could gouge it. I do agree we need a well thought out national agreement covering royalties and taxes for mining.
2) Agree, dump the PPL. But we do have a huge disparity in Australia here. Public Servants have an uncapped PPl system that gives three months at full pay. I know people who went from art time to full time, while pregnant, so they would get more pay during there maternity leave. This disparity needs addressing.
3) Increasing the GST only improves funding to the states This should be done, and as there is no GST on fresh food, housing, most education, and most medical, the impact on the poor isn't as bad as most think. The increased funding to states will allow the Federal Gov to cut some funding from there piece of the pie. I regularly spend between $60 and $100 at coles, and there is often less than $1, often even zero in the total
3) Tax churches. Agree.
Len Heggarty:
15 May 2014 10:12:54am
This Government carries on with the chip on its shoulder that it had in Opposition in that people lower than them need to be punished.
There is self confidence in the NSW Liberal premier in that the Budget has kicked Mike Baird in the guts.
Maybe Jonathan you need to take the rose-coloured glasses off to see outrage in the states premiers.
15 May 2014 10:20:48am
What has happened with the budget is that Abbott has completely lost his "mandate" to get rid of the carbon tax.
By excusing every broken promise because he is serving the 'greater' promise of restoring the budget to surplus, then he has lost the ability to say that he was elected to cut the carbon tax (which is a net contributor to government revenue).
Mandate to keep promises up in smoke.
Lets hope the new senate can stand up to him on this one.
15 May 2014 10:24:56am
Hang on now. Anyone with an IQ high enough to sustain daily living realized that the labour governments throwing away and promising away money it didn't have or would need to borrow would need fixing.
Sadly the political charade is like kabuki theater and the average punter is economically illiterate, or even like your well educated green voter just in complete and utter economi denial.
Good governmental outcomes demand that the parties out of Goverment need to lie. That's not the issue, the issue is the hysterical articles that appear in the media after these promises are inevitably broken.
Let's grow up and move on plse.
15 May 2014 5:04:30pm
Makes you wonder what the point of involving the plebs at all is really. Perhaps Plato had it right.
"That's not the issue, the issue is the hysterical articles that appear in the media after these promises are inevitably broken."
Why is that an issue? You don't have to read them. What's theatre anyway without a little drama?
15 May 2014 10:25:31am
Why do we have discussions about degrees of lying when lies are the root cause of all evil and misery. Australian governments and subsequent rantings & ravings in forums, magazines and totally biased media generally are hypocritical beyond belief. Governments continue on their not so merry ways and the citizenry are screwed and totally ignored. Saaaaad!!!!
15 May 2014 10:25:46am
I'm getting a little tired of reading about how the Australia economy is not in such bad shape compared with the rest of the world or OECD.
Reminds me a bit of the Woolly Mammoth sitting around with the other dinosaurs saying, I'm not worried about the cold thats coming - I've got a coat.
The economy needs fixing, not only structure but in attitude. This budget is just the first step.
To all the whiners and wailers - be brave, you've had it good, now step up and do what's necessary.
15 May 2014 10:42:14am
I dont mind standing up and doing what is necessary. I dont like being lied to and not all of us are going to be standing up and doing what is necessary,,,corporate Australia seems to have dodged a bullet on this one as has self managed super funds.
15 May 2014 10:30:42am
Covering up lies and incompetence in government is very costly. The electoral cycle is redolent with examples on all sides of politics.
New World:
15 May 2014 10:45:19am
You can see that the Liberals took advantage of their position for personal tax payer funded trips, and when they got caught they said al is well because the money was repaid. If it was only that good for thieves.
Shows integrity lacking. The Liberals cannot talk of having to do deals as a minority government as the way it worked out for Julia Gillard. The Liberals were just dishonest.
amphetimine annie:
15 May 2014 10:46:37am
BUDGET: "Provided $9 million to the National Climate Change Adaptation Facility to continue coordinating research into adaptation to the impacts of climate change"
At last, some sensibility. And adherence to promise.
15 May 2014 7:04:23pm
""Provided $9 million to the National Climate Change Adaptation Facility to continue coordinating research into adaptation to the impacts of climate change"
ah bless...
Abbott is on record saying that climate change /global warming is crap.
Now he is spending $9 million dollars on crap?
Mark James:
15 May 2014 10:48:18am
Jonathan, as Tony Abbott said back in August 2011:
"It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. Nothing could be more calculated to bring our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards."
Those who voted for the Coalition could be forgiven for believing (amongst other things) that they were voting for "no new taxes", "no cuts to education", "no cuts to health", "no cuts to the ABC or SBS", no "shutting any Medicare locals", and a "unity ticket on Gonski".
By Abbott's own measure, the Coalition have bought not only democracy into disrepute, but their own credibility.
15 May 2014 10:48:46am
"A Fib Too Far"? Really? Let's add to that;
"Lies were Inevitable"
"Slashing Foreign Aid Reflects Poorly on Australia"
"Abbot's Message to Mothers: Get to Work"
"Laughable Budget Spin"
"Budget Pessimism"
"Slash and Twiddle"
"Deficit of Credibility"
These recent sub-editorial headlines don't always indicate a left-leaning article, but of late they too often do. Enough of the bias and the one sidedness. How about The Drum rustles up some more neutral commenators and gives them neutral headlines and how about The Drum finds some more moderate, conservative views. We the bloggers are more than capable of spinning our own bias onto anything without it being spun for us.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 12:42:01pm
Feel free to submit your own opinion piece if you want. The Drum did publish an IPA article about the budget a while ago - it was complaining about the budget combining customs and immigration. Don't think Peter Reith or Joanne Novak have written anything about it yet, and they'd probably be the usual suspects for forgiving the coalition all ills.
A neutral point of view doesn't entail giving equal time to all sides of an issue. If the ABC publishes an opinion piece that says the Earth is round, it doesn't need to give equal time to flat-earthers. The Liberals have blatantly broken a number of their major election promises and simultaneously proposed a budget that's very, very harsh on some of their preferred targets, and they're justifiably being savaged over it.
15 May 2014 5:18:00pm
Next to Peter Reith, Chris Berg seems quite neutral. Perhaps I should have used the word centrist. There are any number of economic, social or political arguments that someone might make in favour of this budget and we can agree or disagree with them. My point is bifold: the overwhelming majority of the articles are anti the government (and it aint just the budget week). I don't want to let a Bold or Henderson genie out of the bottle but there must be some sober, conservative writers who can articulate a position based on something other than partisanship? Secondly, the sub editors spin the few neutral- nay, centrist, writers into a headline of little relevance. As I said, we the Drummers can add our own bias just as well if not better.
15 May 2014 5:34:10pm
Enough of the bias and the one sidedness.
Thats exactly how I feel when I walk past the newstand and see all the Murdoch papers spouting their lies ,one sidedness and bias.
15 May 2014 10:49:12am
Lehan Ramsay:
15 May 2014 10:51:28am
We know, because Mister Windsor told us, that Mister Abbott was willing to promise him a hospital if he joined the Coalition when they were in Opposition. And these are desperate times in politics it seems. So who got promised the World Class Medical Research? That sounds like a gift to me. Whose favour is the raising fees for university students? That sounds like a gift. Whose favour is the no-dole-for-under-thirties? That's clearly helpful for someone. Who's getting a benefit from charging seven dollars to see a doctor? Who's getting a lift to their business by a huge roads program and are scholarships really for poor kids I thought they were hugely important things to have on one's resume and went largely to those who didn't have to support themselves through working part-time. Who gets a benefit from raising the GST, I would have thought the States would, you know GST is a great lurk for business, who put the prices up just before and then have to increase them again just as the tax starts because of all the companies making the ingredients increasing their prices so it's damned expensive. Especially as increments are so hard to figure. Who benefits from chaplains and out-of-work people? I suppose it's the churches. And why do we have a fuel tax when the poor airlines found it so hard even with their fuel surcharges to cope with the carbon tax that they probably didn't even pay. That, I suppose, leaves the huge, huge resource companies, they must be thinking about making their own medical units these days it is just so far from hospitals, and of course the Googles who bring us the Vilma Wards just when we need a bit of medical assistance.
15 May 2014 11:38:28am
Brilliant post, Lehan... I invite the readers to ingest and digest this juicy food for thought.
Judy Bee:
15 May 2014 12:55:27pm
Hello Lehan,
Brilliant is too small a word to describe your thoughts. They match mine, so we must both have our idea of integrity intact.
Hope everyone reads your post without the blinkers.
Nick Sharp:
15 May 2014 11:01:48am
Do I detect some new synonyms? "Core promises and non-core promises" has now morphed to "Solemn promises ..." and what? "Jokes that only a mug takes as serious"?
I applaud Annabelle Crabb's recent repeat of this:
The Prime Minister, speaking on August 22, 2011, said:
"Nothing could be more calculated to bring our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election, and do the other afterwards."
Lawn Beetle:
15 May 2014 11:04:07am
Your last line expresses my sentiment Jonathan - "That same moment in which we might all begin to wonder at their necessity." After this budget, based on numbers only with little regard for people shows the lack of progressive and compassionate leadership. A half decent algorithm could have done the same job - without the BS.
15 May 2014 11:09:01am
"Might we finally have come a fib too far? Have we finally been pushed toward the great uncoupling: that moment when politicians will at last admit with a great sigh of liberation, that truth does not constrain them?"
"That same moment in which we might all begin to wonder at their necessity".
Jonathan, do you even vaguely realise the question you are asking there. You are not simply talking about lies to get into government. You are not simply talking about the disregard of the truth. You are talking about the destruction of trust. And that is something we should all fear.
Trust is central to all relationships, whether personal, with businesses, with religion and of course with government. Trust is never perfect and as we have seen frayed around the edges. But when you treat it with total disregard, if not contempt, than everything starts to break down.
I sometimes wonder if many of us go around with blinkers on our eyes because we are afraid of what we might see. Democracy is not something set in stone. All we have to do is look around the world to see it fragility.
Understanding democracies fragility why do not only our political leaders but we our selves treat it with contempt. When we treat trust as a play thing to get into government we are treating that trust and democracy with contempt. And when we do that we treat not only each other with contempt we treat our selves with contempt.
Our forbears fought hard for the right to vote, to have their say in who governs them and what they do. Yet here so many of us treat this right with complete disregard, we treat trust as a play thing.
When we say trust has no necessity, no place anymore, than we are saying we have given up on everything. If we do than I would suggest our forebears would look on its descendents with contempt for the waste of the legacy.
That is the strange thing we not only have a government that seems to treat trust as a play thing to be disregarded whenever it suits them. We also have a government that dislikes the idea of government itself and what it stands for. We have a government that is contemptible of the very idea of government. Is it no wonder that trust has little place within that government.
15 May 2014 11:10:43am
The time has come not to trust or believe any politician - if we ever did?
My view to step out this sinister practise of lies and deceit would be to automatically vote out any government that tries it on.
If they break an election promise or pass on a pack of lies, no matter how good a job they do or are doing, vote them out at the next election.
I guarantee it will take only one or two cycles for these clowns to get their houses in order.
15 May 2014 11:10:57am
Here's my 8 cents worth...
While governments of either persuasion have a bad habit of painting a rosier than reality picture of their governing, it was apparent for some considerable period prior to the election that the Australian economy was deteriorating.
This article points to the fact that LNP rhetoric went "We have.....(insert preferred bad economic situation)" while promising "We will..... (insert preferred pre-election promise).
A little exercising of the grey cells would have shown the electorate that the mathematics of it all simply did not add up.
This 'Lefty' agrees that the budget needs fixing, but the pre-election promises the LNP made could never have addressed this country's budget problems.
Now, I'm off to the Abbott-oir to euthanise myself - anyone need some second-hand organs?
15 May 2014 11:11:59am
Good article Jonathan.
The question you pose is a good one. I think that we'll have a firmer idea of where we're heading (politically) over the next two or three years.
I believe the onus rests largely with Labor, and to a lesser extent the minor parties/independents.
It is clear how the Coalition will play out their first term, starting with "drastic" measures, which they hope will be largely forgotten by the next election, in the lead-up to which they'll try and "buy" enough votes to win a second term.
So, Labor will need to walk a fine line between communicating to the public the Coalition's harsh (and perhaps inequitable) policies, and presenting a coherant, plausible and affordable alternative set of policies.
15 May 2014 11:12:57am
Yep Jonathan, Abbott is being clobbered as the reality of pain sinks in, helped by a shrill Shorten (and the rest of his mobe) reminding us of "broken promise, broken promise..."
But what' are the alternatives? To continue on the path to a debt of $1trillion? Continue adding to the mess that Labor left? Continue with the denials that there is anything wrong with the economy? etc.. etc.. Hardly a viable set of alternatives which if adopted would place Australia firmly on the Grecian path to economic destruction...
Once the electorate refocuses its attention to the fact that 6 consecutive record deficits caused the problem through Labor's spendathon that delivered not one item that one could point at which was fully funded, Abbott will be off the hook - that despite the pain to be had on the road to recovery. At which point each bit of pain will be blamed on Labor's 6 year tenure of economic vandalism. Maybe then we'll be on the true road to recovery.
I for one will suffer the pain in rebuilding the Nation but with every bit of pain I'll be blaming Labor's 6 years of economic vandalism and NOT the Coalition.
15 May 2014 7:11:30pm
As usual Cherna you missed the point.
Abbott hounded Gillard for nearly 3 years for her "lie" re the carbon tax.
Now people are holding him to account for his lies before the election and your lot is bleating that it is so unfair.
Pigeons do come home to roost and they will sh*t on your roof.
Live with it.
15 May 2014 7:20:17pm
Gee Cherna- I wrote a detailed two post retort to your rant but it seems the monitor is protecting you.
As a clue as to what was in it consider this:
1994- Australian Household debt was 48% of disposable income.
2007 it was 158%-thanks John Howard
'The fundamental cause of financial crisis that began in 2007 was lending by the financial sector that primarily funded speculation rather than investment. The private debt bubble (refer above) this caused was unprecedented in history.
Sovereign -Government debts is a symptom NOT the cause of the underlying crisis.
Keep the Carbon Tax
MRRT to what Henry suggested,
Family trusts,
Negative gearing
Super tax benefits
and there is more!!
15 May 2014 11:24:12am
Thr truth is voters demand they be lied to during an election campaign because we never want to hear the real, brutal truth that we can't have everything and that the governmnet is not a deity who can deliver us roads paved with gold. While we got that the budget was in dire need of change based on the realities of life, we didn't want to be the ones who had to pay. Someone else should pay, 'big business' should pay. Until voters grow up we will continue to be lied to by politicians during election campaigns. It is us driving them. This is why so many other gutles governments around the workd resist doing what needs doing - so they keep adding to the problem and lump the problems onto the next government and the next generation of taxpayers. We, the voters, need to accept responsibility and grow up.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 12:44:39pm
Surely that justification could apply to the conservative mantra over the last few years that Gillard lied about the carbon price?
15 May 2014 11:30:22am
A lie is a lie, and to lie about a lie is worse. I for one will not forget
15 May 2014 11:34:44am
Are there any members of our media principled and sensible enough to put an end to the insufferable claims from the Libs that this is an "adult" government?
Last I looked, the Labor opposition, those who voted for them, all the State Premiers, the public who might disagree with Liberal Party policies, and those on the receiving end of harsh government policies are all ADULTS! With the exception of younger students NONE OF THEM are children.
Yet we have the insufferable and repeated line from Lib ministers that they are. The effect of this rude dishonesty is to openly insult those who disagree with government policy on any reasoned basis and stigmatize them as "children" lacking the judgement and mental capacity to form or express their own views. The Lib leadership might just as well declare their opponents to be mentally ill, alcoholics or in need of state-enforced psychiatric care.
The whole exercise is an insult even to those who just have to listen to it. It forestalls any reasoned public debate on policy differences.
At the last election we weren't voting for a father figure to keep us in the dark and patronizingly decide things for us. Can any of our media put an end to this insufferably offensive and politically destructive practice.
15 May 2014 11:35:56am
Goodness me there's some emotion about.
I don't remember all this kind of emotion when Julia Gillard lied.
What's up people, you all thought that was perfectly OK, so what's wrong now .. is it because the liar is from the other side?
So really, you're not about principle, but all about which side you're on?
I'm not happy with either liar, but at least I'm consistent and can quite rightly claim to be honest, unlike those who defend Gillard and are now outraged with Abbott.
15 May 2014 5:11:05pm
Fair point. But you forget the purported moral outrage one Mr Abbott expressed at Gillard's duplicity for years on end.
It's more the overt hypocrisy that galls many I suspect. He even called his budget "honest".
15 May 2014 7:14:39pm
"I don't remember all this kind of emotion when Julia Gillard lied"
Were asleep from 2010 till the last election were you?
Abbott kept bleating that we have to have another election because Gillard had misled the people.
Guess what?
15 May 2014 11:49:32am
Melodramtic and emotive language meaning absolutely nothing, are your tools.
Finaly we have a government that doesn't sherk its reponsibilites and all you can do is rubbish them.
Joe Hockey should be praised for his efforts which clearly demonstrate integrity and genuine concern for Australia.
But I'll let you get back to your left wing spruiking or should I say whinging.
15 May 2014 12:34:53pm
their responsibilities do not include driving the poorest onto the street. their responsibilities are to do it in a fair and equitable manner for all Australians. Joe Hockey will be condemned, as he should, for not starting to wind back some of the gifts that the Howard government gave to the upper income brackets.
the lower income earners certainly did not receive the same benefits as the upper income earners.
A lot of those benefits were given when we had record receipts from the mining boom and there was no guarantee this income would continue but those benefits were embedded in the budget to give us a structural deficit.
it is time these items were reversed for the betterment of all Australians.
15 May 2014 11:57:52am
The point is Gillard lied and Abbott pursued her relentlessly over this but now we have holier-than-thou Abbott totally eclipsing Gillard with a litany of lies and broken election promises.
Abbott is indeed a hypocrite and liar of the lowest order.
The Skeleton Inside:
15 May 2014 12:07:11pm
Joe and Tony are certainly gambling that we will have forgotten all their broken promises by time the next election comes around. But will we have?
Tony was a very effective campaigner on the issue of trust and lies during the last government, and during the election campaign. He allowed no wriggle room for the necessity of negotiation with minor parties, or for the finer nuances of Julia's no carbon tax statement. In general, it seems the electorate bought the package.
Do they now know they were dudded totally? Or will they buy the lines being peddled: all promises have been kept, or that the major promise of fixing the economy/Labor's mess has been kept?
Only time will tell.
Nice piece Jonathan.
15 May 2014 12:10:49pm
One question I would like reporter to ask politicians, every time they fail to directly answer a question, is:
Why are you avoiding the answer? Are you uncomfortable with the question?
A good example of this failure to answer a question directly was given by Mathias Cormann in the Project yesterday.
When asked about about the under 30 , having of their benefits halved, he answered why school leavers should not get the dole straight away.
Unsurprisingly, he never got challenged and was thanked for this answer.
Surfer Dave:
15 May 2014 12:12:35pm
The point is really that we have a seriously broken system of Government.
Our constitution is useless, it affords no protection from the venal political class.
The Swiss model must be considered as a way forward. Under the Swiss constitution, there is no way that political leaders can claim "mandate" from an election years ago to force unpopular and unwise decision on the populace. In the Swiss constitution all levels of government are required to put changes to any taxation, to put any proposed major expenditures or significant cuts to existing expenditures to popular referendum. The Swiss hold four referenda per year, voting at each on on local council, canton (like our states) and federal issues. By doing this as a normal course of events the costs are minimised and the role of the politicians are changed to that of thinkers and advocates. Their job is to look at the world and the issues facing us and to then make their best recommendations as to why a certain decision should be made and to them put it to the population to actually make the decision. They regularly make difficult and long term decisions that are for the betterment of their entire society, there is no way for ideological driven decisions of a small group to be forced on the population such as we are suffering now.
Sadly, the system is so corrupted and rusted-on that I see no positive future for our society as these political clowns force their selfish unsustainable ideology on to those lest able to withstand the assaults of the self-interested.
Sandra S:
15 May 2014 12:21:49pm
Strangely that some people are obsessed about what politicians say. I am far more concerned in what they do. When I go to the election in 2016, I will judge the government according to their achievements or failures - not what they say.
Talk is cheap - it is the deeds that matter.
15 May 2014 1:13:07pm
Sandra S. If you can not believe what you are told. How can one make an informed decision. to judge them after the fact is putting them on trust, and who in there right mind would put a politician of the modern era on trust? Just look at ICAC in NSW.
Sandra S:
15 May 2014 2:48:03pm
@Trotts, at the last election I did not vote for the party promising more; i.e. my vote is never given to those promising more. I looked at the government's record and decided that the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government did not deserve to get re-elected. In 2016. I'll do the same. Examine what the current government has done and decide whether they deserve to get re-elected. Isn't tis far better way to elect our future governments, rather than forcing the politicians to lie and overpromise to get my vote. Yes, we force our politicians to lie because we elect the ones who promise more even if we know that they cannot deliver what they promise.
I suggest, look at their performance and forget cheap talk and we will have far less lies and better performing governments.
15 May 2014 5:06:39pm
Sorry, we do not force politicians to lie. They do it all on their own!!!
15 May 2014 8:46:34pm
Politicians are like real estate agents.
Time and time again I see people using the agent who claims they can get the highest price.
And time and time again the sale price ends up reflecting the price the honest agent quoted.
But the honest agent often doesn't get the job, because he doesn't lie about the value of the home.
For me, the promises can only be used to give a general direction that the party would like take things.
Many promises cannot actually be delivered in full due to physical restraints, say in the case of the NBN, or economic factors, such as there was no way the budget was ever going to look like turning around without cuts, or tax rises, or both.
15 May 2014 7:22:48pm
"Yes, we force our politicians to lie ...."
That's a new one.
Better tell Abbott to use that excuse, all the others he has used so far don't bear scrutiny.
As for the rest of your post....
All depends what you want from a government doesn't it?
A government which governs for all or a government which acts for the benefit of a few.
It would be interesting to know how you managed to 'judge' Howard's performance re the Iraq war.
Keeping people in the dark is never a good idea, the truth comes out eventually.
15 May 2014 12:22:56pm
The Abbott government has acted in accordance with its ideology. There are no surprises to Abbott's core constituents, who would no doubt perceive a budget that didn't cut government services as a deceit. The handful of swinging voters that determine elections are fools if they believe they have been lied to.
The question I am left wondering is: will an Abbott style opposition strategy work for Labor? It is much clearer what the Coalition stands for, and so they are more likely to get away with lies at election time as long as they act in broad accordance with their ideology in government. Labor is a different beast with a near post-ideology ideology - which makes it much harder for them to sell their ideas to the Australian public.
15 May 2014 12:43:26pm
In a democracy everyone is represented. If a single party cannot get a majority then the parties need to start bargaining in order to form government. The bargaining means that not all of the policies of all of the parties get to be implemented.
Australia has a bizarre system that encourages under-representation of minorities and the result is that one of the two major parties often has a majority and therefore doesn't need to bargain. Australians are so used to this that the first paragraph of my comment is simply not understood by most. The concept is too alien.
Julia Gillard needed to bargain to form a government. All she should have needed to say, is that. You can argue about whether the bargain was good or bad, but it is not a matter of lying.
The Abbot government made a big deal out of it, labeling it as a lie, and as such should be doing much better. They have an outright majority and therefore didn't need to bargain their policies. Their performance in terms of delivering as promised is far far worse. When they chose not to submit to treasury, as they should have according to their own budget honesty measures, it was a red flag.
But where could the voters go? Labour's infighting was a red flag as well.
So it comes back to the political system that encourages what is essentially a two-party system. When the time arrives in which they are both unacceptable, you've got nowhere to go. And don't they know it.
Another election is painful, but I am afraid it's the only way to send the message. To all parties. All of them submit a budget and outline their policy priorities. Then the people can make an informed decision. Well, I guess I can dream about it anyway.
15 May 2014 7:40:47pm
Anyone complaining about the increase in petrol tax, should have voted for the motoring enthusiats party. Serves the voters right.
Politically Incorrect:
15 May 2014 1:00:10pm
The GP co-payments have zero chance of getting through the Senate and that means either this one with the Greens or the one where the Greens share the balance of power with Palmer.
If the welfare cuts or cuts to health and education need any legislation, you can rule that out. Health and Education will never happen anyway because the States are refusing to cave in: can you imagine Liberal State governments endorsing Labor in the next election?
Abbott will have to get in bed with the Greens if he wants even a shot at passing is PPL scheme or petrol hike (making him a hypocrite on Greens bashing if he does) as Palmer and Labor have both ruled out any co-operation there. And if they lose alot of money by not getting legislation through will they be able to afford to scrap the ETS (remember by the time Palmer's Senators sit, the Carbon Tax will be dead already replaced (finally!) by a proper Emmissons Trading Scheme that Gillard DID promise).
Conservatives wanted a double dissolution election for years... now they finally get their wish. They didn't get their wish before because there was no deadlock between the houses, now there is a very real deadlock.
15 May 2014 1:09:24pm
"If we do win the election and we immediately say, oh, we got it all wrong, we've now got to do all these different things, we will instantly be just as bad as the current government has been and I just refuse to be like that."
15 May 2014 1:12:38pm
I'm sick of politians's breaking their promises to the population. We just spent 6 years with Labour breaking their promises and the liberals accusing them of lying to us and now it's the Liberal party breaking their promises and the Labour party accusing them of lying to us. When will it end. I don't really care whether the buget is tough or not. I just want to be told the truth. Really it's getting to the point where we should just get rid of Canberra and let the individual states manage their own tax affairs. At least that way I know I'm contributing to my own state concerning how I live rather than someone in Canberra making decisions about issues they know nothing about.
15 May 2014 1:16:58pm
Funny that, Jonathan.
I watched the Ferguson/Hockey interview as well, and if anyone was stopped in their tracks (as you call it) it was Ferguson. She actually conceded that, with these LNP tax changes, the ultimate amount of tax for collection by this LNP government, will be LESS than that under a re-elected Labor government.
So who's telling the porkies??
This article is just another piece of misinformation (fully funded by the taxpayer, I add) sponsored by our balanced and impartial ABC employees.
15 May 2014 1:36:58pm
I'm not commenting upon the interview I do not care one iota if we are going to be tax more or less compared to the labour party if they got back into power.
Abbot and Hockey made certain statements prior to the last election. That's a fact it's on record. 9 month's later they do the opposite.
Both parties are involved in doing the same thing.
Parties and persons acting for those parties should be held responsible for their comments and actions. And we shouldn't have to wait 3 years to do it. A politian found making false statements should be removed from ever being able to hold a position in government again and it should be immediate.
15 May 2014 4:28:39pm
Worth remembering that we had Labor and the screaming commentariat howling for the Coalition policies in the lead up to the last election at a time when Swan (and Rudd/Gillard) was still promising a budget surplus this year!
15 May 2014 2:19:59pm
No what she "conceded" was that if the coalition repeal the carbon and mining taxes, there will be less tax revenue.
15 May 2014 4:41:42pm
That's what I intended conveying as well, Reinhard.
With the sum of the LNP tax changes now announced (whether passed through the senate, or not), the total LNP tax take would be LESS than Labor's pre-election position. Less tax overall. The rest is just semantics.
Sir Peter Leeks:
15 May 2014 5:28:31pm
And we live in differeny moral worlds clete. I am pleased for you that you consider broken promises just semantics. I consider them lies. And I consider telling lies to win an election to be fraud, fraud against the rule of law, frauid against the Australian people.
And I consider people who support such liars to be even bigger liars than the liars they support.
You bring out the Abbott handbook excuse, but to me that is no excuse. It is just a deliberate bullying insult on those who have called Abbott's morals into question.
15 May 2014 5:58:50pm
Clete your argument is all semantics, the fact is this govt is spending more ($15b more so far) and now intends to earn less revenue.
Sir Peter Leeks:
15 May 2014 5:22:33pm
Clearly we see and analyse things differently, clete. I saw Sarah show up Pyne as a tantrum throwing kindergarten bully wanting to take his ball home when she kept insisting on a sensible answer to her many times asked question.
15 May 2014 1:21:48pm
Well, did we really expect anything less from Tony Abbott?
He trashed the last parliament in respect to process & protocols, tells lies to the public about what he would do if he gained power, gets into power and breaks numerous promises, instigates Royal Commissions purely for political reasons and as part of that unleashes the spectre of the release and abuse of Cabinet privilege.
Enjoy Australia!!!
Peter Lewis:
15 May 2014 1:33:54pm
A Prediction or a Dream - little of this budget will survive the next two months. The back bench will revolt and Hockey and Abbott will be rolled before the end of this year. Breaking the pre-election promises will end the Abbott Prime Ministership and consign the number crunchers without a social conscience to the fringe of polotics in Australia.
15 May 2014 1:36:47pm
Tony Abbott is a master of saying what people want to hear, which is often contradictory (and he gets away with it!). E.g. during the election campaign when in WA he sided with the WA premier over the GST carve-up but when in Tasmania he aligned himself with its current status because he knew that it was a real concern with Tasmanians. His relentless condemnation of Ms Gillard for doing exactly what he said he wouldn't do and his manufactured "budget emergency" are problems of his own making. The "real" Tony Abbott will be fascinating to watch as this budget unravels. His credibility is blown out of the water and even die-hard Liberals are dismayed by his hubris, which is fully on display for all to see. It wouldn't surprise me to see even more extreme behavior.
15 May 2014 7:26:14pm
"Tony Abbott is a master of saying what people want to hear"
that's why people in the know refer to him as a weather vane.
15 May 2014 2:01:16pm
Joe Hockey has a "good reason" to appear confident in public since he represents the advice and views of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank.
Remember Joe Hockey spending time in New York with the big bosses only two months before delivering his final touches to the budget?
Telling the truth seems irrelevant to a man who represents the POWER which is opposed to 50 per cent of Australian people.
The whole point of Joe Hockey's language is that it polarises society so deeply that in the near future people we will not be able to talk to each other.
Australia has always been a deeply polarised society, but a stage in polarisation can yet be reached that meaningful human communication becomes impossible.
Because, when the political beliefs among the people are so wide apart, then these values cannot be bridged with the use of human logic.
The lived experience of the people become so alienated that no common understanding can be found.
When that happens, people lose respect for each other, and this may lead to a total breakdown of relationship in the workplace.
How would then Joe Hockey evaluate in dollar terms the total breakdown of relationships among the deeply politicised populace remains to be seen.
Ursus Augustus:
15 May 2014 2:02:02pm
" happy to accept a solution to a largely fabricated "budget emergency" " where "largely fabricated" is a link to a source for the assertion. A link to...workinglife.org.au. which admits "Working Life is supported and published by the Australian Council of Trade Unions" which is of course a training facility for the ALP.
Wow, Jonathon, that's your contribution is it?
What a joke.
The problem here is not fibbing pollies, it is flim flamming churnalists taking the public discourse out of the public bar and under some bridge with plastic bag of cheap plonk.
James Picone:
15 May 2014 3:05:41pm
Completely ignoring the central thrust of the article because a single source is linked to a group you disagree with? Can't say I'm surprised. You've always made a habit of believing the facts convenient to you, bear.
So, roll 'em up: What's your pathetic, mealy-mouthed rationalisation for the Liberals blatantly breaking nearly every pre-election promise they made? Will it be that the budget is in a terrible position, as if they didn't have the figures prior to the election? Will you claim that they haven't broken any promises, because raising taxes and cutting health and education don't break a promise to raise taxes and cut health and education? Will you claim it doesn't matter because the adults are in charge? Will you deflect and go all "Gillard lied!"? Enquiring minds want to know.
Sir Peter Leeks:
15 May 2014 5:17:53pm
Nice to know what you think Ursus Augustus. I think those who try to divert discussions on politicians lying are even bigger liars than the lying politicians.
There is only one reason anyone would adopt such an approach and that is to have lying by politicians deemed to be a right and honourable thing.
If that is your view get the politicians to change the Trade Practices Act and the fraud related provisions of the Criminal Code. But do not expect support from many other electors.
15 May 2014 2:07:27pm
Let me be 'crystal clear'.
The continued mendacity of our politicians, lack of transparency and unaccountability is totally unacceptable.
Australians must take a collective stand and demand the truth. Its lazy to just say 'oh thats what our politicians do.'
Personally I believe misleading the public & misuse of taxpayers money should be a crime - swiftly dealt with. The politician concerned should be sacked, lose all entitlements, be heavily fined or imprisoned depending on the level of deceit and theft. This will change their 'I'm alright Jack attitude.'
Millions of Australians despair for our democracy - Abbotts mob are the worst of the bunch. Its a national disgrace.
15 May 2014 2:20:51pm
It may not seem relevant to Australia, but it is, because the underlying problem is the same.
Before the 2012 US presidential election, Mitt Romney was famously caught out by smart-phone footage in which he pointed out that 41% of the US population were in part dependent on welfare. In 1970 US voters derived just 8% of their income from their federal government, on average. Today the figure has risen to 20%.
It is easy to blame the politicians for lying, and they are wrong to do so. But when politicians tell the truth, they become unelectable. The electorate wants to believe that the fantasy will continue forever, that they can perpetually receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
Listening to talk-back radio after the Budget is scary. Caller after caller rings in with their personal tales of impending hardship, all believing that they and they alone are deserving of exceptional treatment. There is no recognition of the underlying economic reality or identification with the common good.
This is the cult of individualism and personal autonomy on a reductio ad absurdum basis. Our democracy has descended to the final phase predicted by the Greco-Roman philosopher Polybius in his theory of Anacyclosis, that of Ochlocracy, or mob rule.
Australian cities are now flooded with third world migrants of low skill, drawn like moths to the flame by tales of paradise in the South Pacific. Quite how these citizens will handle the shattering of their dreams of wealth without toil remains to be seen.
amphetimine annie:
15 May 2014 2:40:01pm
A brave and accurate post.
15 May 2014 6:21:37pm
The reason the US is in such dire straits is because of the loss of the revenue base through the huge tax cuts to the wealthy during the Reagan years and then again throughout the time of George Bush. This is the truth that they do not want known, not that so many are dependent. Having a huge working poor and homeless without the development of the social capital of the people through education and good health does not make a nation flourish. We are heading the same way because of Howard's similar incapacity to ensure that revenue would continue to be maintained at adequate levels, by putting in tax cuts and entitlements to the wealthy that were not just one off bonuses but because of the perpetuity of them continued to erode our revenue. He failed to gain any benefit from the mining boom. Even in Alaska under the infamous politician there, Sarah Palin, there was an understanding that any of the resources taken from that state belonged to the people, and they receive an annual payment in line with that understanding.
15 May 2014 6:48:56pm
bluedog...re you last para, the fuse has been lit and I suggest that areas like Claymore, St Albans, Logan, Elizabeth etc will in due course explode. I would not like to be a police officer in the coming years.
15 May 2014 7:48:17pm
So, the 26% of GDP that the government collects, ultimately gets recycled back into the economy by government spending. That includes welfare. wages of nurses, soldiers and firemen, handouts to bankers, and the payrolls of military equipment suppliers, and any other goods or services procured by the government. Where else would the money go ?
The claim that 8% of the "average persons" income, comes from the government, is neither accurate nor alarming. In times of budget balance ( more or less ), it would actually be more like 26%
15 May 2014 2:35:30pm
I see mountains of commentary about what constitutes a broken promise.
Very fey words about what is actually good for the country.
Every elected government has broken some promises. Sometimes because circumstances change, sometime because, one in power, find what was promised cannot actually be delivered (Eg,previous government signed a watertight contract, as per the M4 in Sydney), and sometimes they never intended to keep the promise.
So my question is, when should a promise be broken.
For example, Rudd promised tax cuts at the 2007 election. When the GFC hit, the right thing for the country was to cancel those cuts, and I wish he had.
We seem to be so bogged down in the He said She said battle, that no one is actually looking at what is in the long term national interest of the country.
For my money, I hope Abbot breaks a few more promises around not increasing taxes before his term is out, as times have changed since 2006, and so the tax structure must change with it.
You could make some good increases and income tax would still be way below what it was, even in relative terms, to where they were 15 years ago
I want to stop hearing about promises, and hear what is in the countries long term interest.
15 May 2014 6:44:30pm
agree....but lets hear about it in the run up to the election when you know damn well what you need to do in the next 6-12 months.
15 May 2014 6:56:41pm
part of my point is that from election to budget, things can change a lot.
The GFC for example. Could not have been predicted.
Even from election to 1 week late can change.
One promise made in a NSW election was made, and when Labor one, and got in, they discovered that they could not over ride some contracts.
Even if nothing much happens, most out going governments leave a few hidden surprises for the incoming government.
I don't like promises at elections campaigns, but a vision and big picture so I know what the goal is.
15 May 2014 2:39:52pm
The government fully funds Gonski for four years (but no further) and the headline is "cuts to education", the ABC loses its contract for the Australia network and the headline is "cuts to the ABC"; from 2017 pensions will rise in line with inflation instead of in line with wages and the headline is "cuts to pensions", the government increases health spending but tries to reverse recent cost shifting from the states and the headline is 'cuts to health', the government goes to the election promising a levy on big business to pay for parental leave for small business but a levy on the very rich is a broken promise.
After all this spin it will be interesting to read a considered analysis of the budget.
15 May 2014 3:02:28pm
If Abbott is free to lie then how can voters make informed decisions.
If voters cannot make informed decisions then why vote, we can then close down the AEC and save much more money. That is where this dishonesty is leading.
If Abbott is allowed to get away with this what next?
15 May 2014 6:42:16pm
Econ....I dont vote for the major parties and previously I would have argued that they all lie. However, this is on such a large scale and so hard on the heels of opposite undertakings, it is breathtaking and cannot be ignored.
You have succinctly expressed the real issue.
15 May 2014 7:49:24pm
Lucky you The Government has just rigged the electoral rules, to make your vote pointless.
fed up senior:
15 May 2014 3:05:31pm
Now e have the basis of liberal philosophy exposed for all to see
2. Make those who are already disadvantaged pay for the lies
3. Pork barrel your mates who make corrupt donations to get you living the life of opulence at the taxpayers expense.
anf If all else fails award a few knighthoods
Weep for you children Australia
Joe Blow:
16 May 2014 12:26:17am
They'd be children left to pay off Labor's debt because you continued to feed at the trough rather than pay your way, right?
15 May 2014 3:14:20pm
To sum it all up, it's really quite simple:
If you lie when you are in office, you should get the boot. If you lie to get into office, you should get the boot. Just like in every other job, anywhere. Left, right, opposition, elected - who cares? Lying is fundamental breach of trust and we should not tolerate it, even if it serves our own personal beliefs.
Can we all at least agree on that much?
15 May 2014 3:36:38pm
Finally someone with the correct attitude.
Everybody keeps getting worked up about this party that party.
They are all equally to blame for the present situaion. I expect that when I am told that someone will do something they keep to their word. To do otherwise does not deserve any repsect and should not be tolerated.
The unfortunate thing is that I cannot see any otehr alternative in our politicaly parties at present. Liberals, Labor, Greens etc they only have there own hidden agenda and refuse to actually come clean.
15 May 2014 6:38:23pm
encourage and vote for an intelligent independent , we did and it has been a breath of fresh air and honesty. May bring a less stable political system to what we have been used to, but this type of stability has no value.
Mark of melb:
15 May 2014 3:15:59pm
New word for lie is 'keeping faith'.
Real Mcoy:
15 May 2014 4:14:46pm
The fact that Abbott and Co. misled the Aust Public prior to election, and now is just trying to spin it, as if they didn't really. Has done so much harm to Politicians as a whole that The public just despairs. I think next election will be the day the Greens and PUP really get their day in the sun, and the Majors ( both sides will have no one to blame but themselves)
15 May 2014 4:21:48pm
You can't get past the fact that they have given their Billionaire Mates a big helping hand and slammed the people who built this country to the unlimited feed trough for the swine Politicians and Multi Nationals that are milking it to death, that it is today. It is criminal negligence that we don't have trillions of dollars in the Government's coffers from the Mineral and Gas resources that are virtually being stolen from the Australian people.
Lehan Ramsay:
15 May 2014 4:34:40pm
Of course reducing Arts funding, we could see that coming a mile off. Mister Brandis was just afraid he might find an apostrophe.
15 May 2014 5:06:00pm
Are we still funding professional sports?
15 May 2014 11:57:33pm
In WA we are building a single use $1billion AFL stadium. I think that qualifies.
Joe Blow:
16 May 2014 12:31:04am
In most professions, if you are not actually talented enough to make a living you find another profession - why should artists be any different?
15 May 2014 4:35:17pm
The term for this is "gaslighting". Defined as a form of intimidation or psychological abuse where false information is presented to people, making them doubt their own memory, perception and quite often, their sanity. The classic example of gaslighting is to switch something around on someone that you know they're sure to notice, but then deny knowing anything about it, and to explain that they "must be imagining things" when they challenge these changes.
Hockey Abbott - gaslighters par excellence.
bide and fecht:
15 May 2014 4:35:24pm
I thoroughly enjoyed the Sarah Ferguson - Joe Hockey interview...she was polite, and firm and didn't stop for a second to applaud his tired old party responses. And never again will I......
15 May 2014 6:14:42pm
Yes, Sarah Ferguson is a talented interviewer, reminds me a lot of a school principal, but she hones in fearlessly. It is great to know that the ABC still has such a resource. I couldn't imagine Abbott fronting her, he just doesn't have the brains or ability to articulate anything much in any depth.
15 May 2014 4:44:04pm
Look, this budget is about getting the states to push for a GST increase and a broadening of the base. A "secret" agenda item of the libs for years!
This lot do not have the nuts to do it themselves so they are playing this sneaky dirty game.
15 May 2014 7:51:25pm
The States should set their own GST rate. If the socialists in south australia want 12% and the capitalists in wa want 9%, why not ?
That system works fine in the USA.
15 May 2014 5:06:59pm
Yes, reluctantly, I admit I was wrong about the COALition. Everything I said about them was wrong.
Joe Hockey and his side-kick Mathias Cormann, and King Abbott do care a hell of a lot about Australians. What am I talking about? You may argue. Cuts to pensions, cuts to public services, to the ABC and SBS, education, and more crucially, to the young unemployed. These are heartless stuff.
No, No, No. Joe Hockey loudly broadcasted to the nation. The age of entitlements is well and truly finished. Well done, Joe. An adult government is now in charge. In his words, "You vote us in, we do cuts."
Sorry, folks. I got it all wrong. He said "You vote us in, we will have nothing whatsoever to do with any cuts."
Guss what, we took it hook, line and sinker. We got reeled in slowly, played like a helpless sardine at the end of a master fisherman. Serve us right !
Heartless bastards and bitches, I heard you screamed. Hang on a minute, that is not true. What about that $20 Billions for the "Medical Research Future Funds"?
Heartless, no. As Joe repeatedly told us that demonic cancers had better watch out as the COALition is coming after them. If anyone ever dare to question the wisdom in such a large sums of pesos in medical research, then quit doing it. Joe asked "Don't you want to find cures for cancers ?" That would just about shut anybody up except perhaps the most pesty skeptics and cynics.
Yes, $7 plus all other extras will go towards such a grand scheme. Please allow me some slack...I still can't work out why so much emphasis on medical research. Perhaps Joe and Mathias wanted to smoke as many cigars as they bloody well want, and not have to worry about getting cancer ?
15 May 2014 5:18:37pm
Bravo Sarah Ferguson for showing some guts and putting those two incompetents in their places, I especially loved watching her make Pyne squirm over the issue of state funding. His pathetic attempt to wind up the interview by saying "I think we've run out of time" needs to get the media coverage it deserves..
The night before last we witnessed Hockey's blatant lies like "we are delivering in full on our promises" and referring to the new taxes as "tax adjustments".
This govt continues to insult our intelligence every time they open their mouths..
15 May 2014 6:19:29pm
Yes, I did like it when he repeated his mantra of "...being an adult in charge" when he was asked about the $80 Billions the states will now need to find. In Pyne's words, stop whinging, and try to behave like an adult.
I bet the states premiums, bar Barnett in WA, and possibly Giles in NT, will take offence to such a childish remark.
Pastor Farian:
15 May 2014 5:24:31pm
Gillard also had the courage to front Q&A and explain to the Australian people why she made the decision that she did. Abbott on the other hand will no doubt hide away like the cowardly joke that he is. He said he would lead a transparent government, not an invisible one.
Joe Blow:
16 May 2014 12:34:01am
Wow - Gillard had courage to face her own cheer squad? The left wouldn't know courage if it struck them in the face - I never met a Labor-voter in 15 years in the Defence Force. I wonder why - too busy being courageous in the Public Service, I expect.
15 May 2014 5:30:57pm
When are we going to have a cost placed on lying during an election.
I suggest that a denial of supply would be a good place to start.
15 May 2014 6:03:13pm
I saw Tony Abbott on SBS the night before the election and although I don't like him, I believed him - after all, how could a man who has invested so much in calling the other side Liars be a liar himself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...and all that! But obviously that is not a creed he espouses. And perhaps he does think that voters will forgive him or at least his party but there is one way of punishing him while not necessarily punishing his whole party or rewarding the other mob and that is for some compelling right of centre local to take him on in his own electorate! Someone who won't spook the voters but who can talk about trust and honesty and be believed. Losing his seat would send home the message loud and clear!
15 May 2014 6:09:29pm
This budget is so wide ranging in its attack on the ordinary people of the community that they are dreaming if they think all will be forgotten by the enxt election. Even without the burdens placed on the poorer and families, just the demolition of anything to address climate change is enough to strike fear into the hearts of those who do believe in the effects of climate change, in the expertise of scientists and in the potential that once lay at the feet of Australian scientists, engineers and innovative entrepreneurs in the development of the renewables industry. The budget and the ideology underpinning it is so far to the right that we will not get over it, and we will continue to know what they stand for, and never ever to be trusted again.
15 May 2014 6:18:57pm
Let us examine the difference between a lie and a broken promise.
A broken promise is where you say one thing and later do something else.
A lie is a deliberate deception.
Julia Gillard broke a solemn promise and paid a heavy price for it, bu tit was not a lie. A hung parliament required negotiations with minor parties in order to achieve government. Tony Windsor said that Tony Abbott said "he would do anything to get into Government." We now know that is true.
Tony Abbott deliberately misled the people of Australia. He lied. he did not break a promise in the way that Gillard did, he lied to the people of Australia in order to get elected knowing he could not keep his promises, knowing he was lieing in earnest.
Julia Gillard broke her solemn word out of political necessity. There is no political necessity in anything this government is doing. Where is the political necessity in a twenty billion dollar medical research facility slush fund? Where is the necessity in that?
Taking eighty billion dollars out of funding for schools and hospitals, that might be necessary if there were not alternatives, like reinstating the tax regime from 2004, making the rich pay back the tax bonus they received under Howard. these aren't acts of political necessity, they are acts of political bastardry.
Joe Blow:
16 May 2014 12:35:00am
What necessity? As if the Greens were ever going to back the adults.
Dermot Lynch:
15 May 2014 6:25:43pm
This is the most deceitful government I can remember. The real measure here is intent. Julia said she wouldn't price carbon and then she priced it. No matter how you look at that, it was a broken promise. The difference was intent. She intended to abide by that promise and only broke it because she had to make a deal to get the numbers.
This current government made a lot of promises about not touching medicare and educational funding, pensioners etc. even stating that the voters would get the same deal as they would under labor. The difference here is that they never intended to abide by those promises. They didn't have to do a deal. They won with an enormous numerical advantage and that gave them a free run to follow up on what they had promised they would do. Their budget breaks promise after promise, claiming that they needed to break them for the economical good of the country. They already knew the state of the nation before they made those promises. They had no intention of keeping them and only said them in order to get elected. This government's budget is not about economics; it's about ideology.
It is clear that their intent was to break those promises all along. That is the great difference between them and the previous government and that intent is what makes them the most deceitful of all time.
Even now they continue that deceit by their after budget statements trying to defend these broken promises as not being core; not being written in ink; not being new taxes, increased taxes. They are not only deceitful but they are treating the voters like idiots. They've won the election; they've rammed home their ideological changes; they've even danced and puffed on celebratory cigars at putting so much over the Australian public but they still don't have the balls to admit it. They have made everyone else carry the load but they themselves have been not only deceitful but also shifty in not carrying the load themselves by shifting it to the states to do the rest. Shame Abbott Shame. Shame Hockey Shame. May the force of the senate be upon you.
Voters may wonder why Abbott would threaten to go back to the polls if the senate doesn't let him have his way, given that after delivering such a horrid budget it would seem that he would lose another election but he is of the belief that there are those in the senate or coming into the senate who may not be confident that they would be re-elected. If the voters really want to rattle Abbott they need to get a social media campaign. Not a campaign that would show how badly Abbott would lose but one that would give confidence in those senators to be able to call Abbott's bluff.
Bad things happen when good people do nothing and Abbott is relying on exactly that. We the people need to give the senate the confidence to stand up to Abbott and dare him to call another election. We need to give them the confidence to block t
15 May 2014 6:28:57pm
Hearing all this rubbish about who told the biggest lie when , I am reminded of a joke that French speaking people believe is built into the word parliament. This word is constructed of two French verbs, Parler and Mentir ......in English, to speak and to lie.
15 May 2014 6:30:24pm
If medical research was such a pressing an urgent need, despite the critical state of the budget, why didn't the coalition talk to us about it before announcing it on Tuesday night?
Funny, I have not heard one person, not a solitary one, who prior to the budget was calling for a twenty billion dollar medical research super fund paid for by destroying four decades of universal public health.
Why keep it such a big secret? if it is that important you should be shouting it from the rafters, you could have gone to an election on that promise alone. Why didn't you?
Unfortunately Bill Shorten will not do the necessary thing. Tonight he will tell us about his vision for Australia. Bill, we don't need fairy floss visions, we need you to block supply and force this mob to seek a mandate for its broken promises. If it can get elected on this platform good on em. This budget represents their real election platform, so lets go to the people and let the people decide.
And to Bob the Builder (sorry, I mean Ben the Lawyer) Noel the Accountant, Economist, Lawyer and Philosopher says, we should go to the polls because we can, because Abbott doesn't have the numbers and Shorten if he has any backbone will know this.
15 May 2014 6:48:53pm
What these liars have done should automatically trigger a Double Dissolution. This is hijacking an election through stealth.
15 May 2014 7:11:39pm
can someone ask Tony Abbott if he is prepared to take this budget to the Australian people in an election?
15 May 2014 7:17:48pm
Lying is never a problem for politicians as they are never really held to account by the press. What I cannot stomach is the brazen dancing on the misfortunes of the poor. Wasn't Hockey once a vaguely decent Liberal? Phoney has always been a twerp, but Hockey has become a kind of ghastly tea party ghoul.
15 May 2014 7:24:49pm
"Truth is the glue that binds both sides in the political transaction: you promise, I vote, you deliver".
That is of course untrue Jonathan. Unless you are claiming your vote is entirely dependent on the promises made during an election campaign. Mine never have been. Closer to the truth is "You promise, I express general disbelief allowing for stretching of the truth, use of tricky language, your likelihood to claim you didn't know the full extent of the problems because of government dishonesty, your past record in office, whether I can listen to your principle spokesfolk without a protein spill, what I understand to be the general thrust of your policies, how much worse your opponents would be in all those categories" and then I vote Liberal. Most people will go through the same process but are just as likely to come to a different result. Jonathan Green will go through the same process and vote Labor I have no doubt.
We are not stupid naive people we voters. We do not gullibly accept what is served up to us as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We never have. Perhaps you think politics is worse now than it ever was. That would be an emotional response. Politicians are much more closely scrutinised today than ever they were, they don't get the latitude extended to politicians of decades past. Otherwise we would have a multiplicity of Bjelke-Petersens continuing unchecked across the nation.
By all means try to hold politicians to their word. (Thank goodness for spellcheck pointing out there is only one O in politician). I can't help feeling we are complicit in rewarding dishonesty. The most transparent of claims are accepted by the partisans. And repeated with fervour. I am sure I participate. For the most part though I dismiss most of it as semantic, something I can engage in if I want but it quickly gets boring. Let people make of the comments and claims what they will. For me it is more fun pointing out other people's delusions while studiously ignoring my own. I hope I have been helpful to you in this regard Jonathan. But it appears an acceptance of reality and human failings does not pass the test of moderation today so you may miss out.
15 May 2014 7:32:05pm
It doesn't really matter any more. If the basis prohbition against outright theft is unenforceable in Australia by any means, then already the integrity of the rule of law is already at a lower level than Somalia. Bring it on.
15 May 2014 8:18:25pm
Great Budget Reply by Bill Shorten, the Lion is finally Roaring!... Labor will oppose $13 billion worth of cuts in the Budget from Hell. $13 billion that Abbott will have to negotiate with the PUP and the other minor parties or start the accounting from scratch.... or call for a Double Dissolution!!
.... We are ready!
Joe Blow:
16 May 2014 12:38:34am
Great reply Bill. For a minute their I thought you were actually going to present an alternative. But then I remembered that you are probably waiting for Gillard to say something so you could agree with whatever it was she said.
Shorten said nothing other than "We don't support anything they propose to do to fix our mess." How long did it take him to think up that enlightening and inspirational retort?
15 May 2014 9:42:34pm
This government has shown that they will tell any lie to get elected power so they can advance their class warfare policies.
15 May 2014 9:46:29pm
A good read Mr Green.
Perhaps now that the lies are a given, we could be spared the horror that is the pre- election spruking. And just vote for our own political persuasion. I mean it doesn't matter what they have to say as it's all crap, it only matters what party they represent :)
Surely that's no sillier than the exercise we currently go through.
Leon Nayr:
15 May 2014 10:04:02pm
I was never a fan of US President Ronald Reagan but one thing he said I agreed with. Politics, the third oldest profession.
15 May 2014 10:06:09pm
That's some very insightful analysis Jonathan, albeit quite depressing to read the system's cynicism laid bare so accurately. I can almost feel your weariness in the words you are writing. You talk about people working out one day they don't need these elected fraudsters but I wonder what the transition to the alternative will be. Any suggestions.
15 May 2014 10:10:32pm
After getting over the initial shock of all this - not that I should be shocked after Pyne did an about face on The Gonski reforms within days of the election - I am trying to see the positives of the LNP revealing its cruel, classist, ultra-conservative heart so early in the piece.
I hope this will galvanise the Labor party and others to evaluate what they truly stand for (and against), what their vision for Australia is based on and hopefully reinvigorate a meaningful public debate on what defines Australia - to me it's an egalitarian, socially mobile, progressive and industrious country that is the envy of many around the world...but also a country that needs to stop taking its good fortune for granted.
Joe Blow:
16 May 2014 12:43:28am
So funny that Labor voters have finally discovered what a lie is. They obviously missed the 300 times Gillard and Swan promised a surplus - or said that it had already been delivered.
I expect many Labor voters don't actually know what a surplus is - it's when you actually spend less than you make. Probably a foreign concept to most of you that walk around with your hands out wanting someone else to pay your way. Embarrassing the lot of you.
Doug Pollard:
16 May 2014 5:45:43am
My father taught me, in all of life, not just politics, to pay rather less attention to what people say and more to what they do, a dictum that has served me well. Even the most sincere individuals usually have a better opinion of themselves than reality would indicate. In a profession like politics, where truthfulness generally goes, at the very least, unrewarded, it behoves us to ignore the superficial content of promises and speeches and look for the deeper meaning. This of course requires an educated electorate. One capable of understanding, for example, that a university degree is about equipping people with this kind of critical intelligence, and not a vocational qualification. This government, with its clear animus against the arts and humanities, understands this, and prefers the vocational model, which turns a degree from an instrument of personal liberation into a lifelong ball and chain to keep people cowed and enslaved to their masters. Their attack on education and the young is not about the country's financial position, it's about creating a docile generation who will allow themselves to be led off a cliff should the ruling elite so decree. Quite how we reverse this process, which has been in train for most of my life, is another matter altogether.
16 May 2014 5:49:31am
You know what says it all about this budget? The CSIRO lose up to five hundred jobs, but, wait for it..... The school chaplaincy scheme, gets quarter of a billion shoved at it. Hard core Micks (I was bought up a cattle Tick) and Happy clappers, run the show, what an embarrassment.
Dr. Ghostly:
16 May 2014 6:31:55am
This Pinocchio government has a delivered a budget for which country?
There's a word for people who solemnly promise to do one thing, repeatedly, but then end up doing precisely the opposite, repeatedly.
Bring on a Double Dissolution because now their actions speak clearly and bring down the wall of weasel words, harem-scarems and straight out calculated lies that are always tagged with an un-Australian, cowardly slur - ?it?s what we inherited from Labor.? Eight months or so into power and they are STILL electioneering and they are doing it at the expense of their responsibilities.
16 May 2014 6:52:45am
I have very little respect for Ms Gillard, but to equate her change from bringing in an ETS to having a fixed price on carbon dioxide emissions for two years leading to the floating price of the ETS with the blatant lies of Abbott and Hockey is ridiculous - if not dishonest.
Where was Rudd dishonest? He was so wedded to keeping faith with what he had promised that he brought in tax cuts that he had promised which by the time he brought them in had become bad policy. Very bad policy.
Accuse him of making the mistake of going along with Howard's mistaken policy, if you like. He's guilty of that. But to equate his (or Gillard's) with the dishonesty of Hockey and Abbott is patently ridiculous.
I vote against the reactionary parties which are the political mouthpieces of wealth and power because I support equality in human affairs. Those who support inequality must necessarily lie because they would never get elected if they told the truth (except for the votes of sycophants and masochists and they might be more prevalent than I know).
However there is no need for Labor politicians to lie, and I think they probably well understand that if they do lie I and many others among their supporters will not vote at all.
Labor from their inception till now by its very nature occupies the social moral high ground of Australian politics and that is why Labor supporters turn so savagely on those who betray their trust or their egalitarian principles.
I don't need more money or material wealth than I now have available, and my reason for supporting Labor is so that everyone else may be in as good a position as me.
Labor politicians had better not dishonestly betray me because there is no self interest other than the joy of hoped for equality which binds me to them.
Comments for this story are closed.