JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[c2105026]

I don't think the opposition is adverse to budget saving measures, just the ones that were put forth. But indeed even if every single measure from the 2014 budget were passed the deficit would reduce but would still be there. Whilst the opposition could have passed Coalitions budget savings measures in senate, conversely the Coalition could have introduced reforms that were more ideologically neutral, and more likely to be passed.

Basically the budget seems to be based around a pre GFC growth level. Quite often after a downturn, things go gangbusters and the budget sorts itself out. We haven't seen this since the GFC. As an example, the ASX 200 has only grown 10% since early 2010. Maybe the economy as we see it now is the new normal.

You could cut back on expenditure to reflect perpetually sluggish economy but do it too much is electoral suicide. It's easy to give the voter what they want but if/when it has to be called in, there is a voter revolt. If we as a populace want the budget to be fixed, we need to accept such measures that will permit that, be they focused on rich on poor. Just as those on the left must accept eg Medicare copayment, those on the right must accept eg restrictions on negative gearing. One ideological angle alone won't sustainably fix the budget.

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

I don't think the opposition is adverse to budget saving measures, just the ones that were put forth.

Oh please! You're not that naive. Blocking for the sake of blocking as opposed to for valid, or even semi-valid, reasons is typical of any opposition. Yes, I said ANY. It's a tactic commonly used to make the govt. of the day look bad and ultimately win an election. The sheeple believe the opposition and the govt. can't, for whatever reason, communicate with the sheeple effectively.

 

[c2105026]

Maybe the opposition opposed the budget saving measures put forth because they thought they weren't worthy? Very explicitly against party platform? They have every right to do that. To do otherwise would be a disservice to voters and supporters who put them there in the first place.

 

[mpower]

Oh please! You're not that naive. Blocking for the sake of blocking as opposed to for valid, or even semi-valid, reasons is typical of any opposition. Yes, I said ANY. It's a tactic commonly used to make the govt. of the day look bad and ultimately win an election. The sheeple believe the opposition and the govt. can't, for whatever reason, communicate with the sheeple effectively.

I think you may have forgotten why opposition parties exist.

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

I think you may have forgotten why opposition parties exist.

I know why they exist. Unfortunately the opposition parties themselves often, almost always, forget why they're there. Blocking for the sake of blocking, to disrupt the government and make it harder to actually govern is not productive.

How about provide the alternative policies, you know, what you're SUPPOSED to do when you're in opposition.

"Opposition" isn't meant to mean fight against the government in politics. It is meant to mean provide an opposing view, position, policy, etc. Why can't any opposition work with a government to come to a compromise for introducing policy?

And know this - I am not discussing this from a particular party point of view. This is apolitical.

 

[mpower]

I know why they exist. Unfortunately the opposition parties themselves often, almost always, forget why they're there. Blocking for the sake of blocking, to disrupt the government and make it harder to actually govern is not productive.

How about provide the alternative policies, you know, what you're SUPPOSED to do when you're in opposition.

"Opposition" isn't meant to mean fight against the government in politics. It is meant to mean provide an opposing view, position, policy, etc. Why can't any opposition work with a government to come to a compromise for introducing policy?

And know this - I am not discussing this from a particular party point of view. This is apolitical.

everyone agrees when it comes to two things, payrises and terrorists.

apart from that it'll generally be party line, as it is written, as it will be done.

good policy often does get passed, happens all the time. So does bad policy.

 

[Calaber]

I know why they exist. Unfortunately the opposition parties themselves often, almost always, forget why they're there. Blocking for the sake of blocking, to disrupt the government and make it harder to actually govern is not productive.

How about provide the alternative policies, you know, what you're SUPPOSED to do when you're in opposition.

"Opposition" isn't meant to mean fight against the government in politics. It is meant to mean provide an opposing view, position, policy, etc. Why can't any opposition work with a government to come to a compromise for introducing policy?

And know this - I am not discussing this from a particular party point of view. This is apolitical.

Let's be fair here. Under Abbott, who became known as "Dr. No" by Labor, obstructing or resisting proposed legislation was very common. Both parties have been excessively guilty of forgetting just what they are in Parliament for over recent years. It's not just for their egos or for party principles - it's allegedly for the national interest. Neither side can take the high moral ground on this one.

Australia has now reached the stage where the electorate is utterly pissed off with the in-fighting, bitching, name-calling and infantile behaviour that passes for parliamentary process these days. Both sides received a shot across their bows from the electorate. They NEED to find some common ground, put their egos to bed and start working for the national good. There will always be basic party opposition to the other side's policies but compromise is definitely needed on some essential matters such as the budget and national debt. Labor has shot itself in the foot to some extent by admitting that they would use some of the Government's proposed budget savings for themselves if they had won the election, so they can hardly turn around now and continue to block them. But the amounts involved are small - much more agreement, much better and fairer policies need to be forthcoming. Some of the Government's measures were truly punitive and unfair, such as backdating Superannuation taxation to 2007. They should abandon that idea and look elsewhere for savings.

Personally, though I strongly believe in solid national defence, the submarine contract seems like lunacy to me. 50 billion for twelve subs. We have six at present and the Navy is pressed to have more than 2 in service at any one time because of personnel shortages. Where the hell do they think they can find the crews for twelve vessels (even allowing for the next fifteen years growth in naval personnel numbers)? To be crying poor mouth about the budget, then signing off a proposal to spend 50 billion on submarines, seriously undermines your financial credibility. Perhaps that one needs to be re-thought, too. Large chunks of money have to come from somewhere and drip-feeds of a billion here, two billion there won't cut it.

Basic party policy differences need to be considered. Labor will always focus, and do well with voters, on health and education. The Coalition fares badly here, despite any increases in funding they may announce. It was savaged over them in this election because talks about cuts in either area resonates strongly within the electorate. Those two issues ARE basic to a strong and robust future economy. They are two issues where the gulf between the two sides should be much, much narrower.

Shorten has indicated a calmer, more collaborative term in Parliament over the next three years. Turnbull needs to concur and the two sides need to both pick up their act, otherwise minor parties will continue to predominate and thwart whichever party is in power from achieving much at all.

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

Great post Calaber.

Shorten has indicated a calmer, more collaborative term in Parliament over the next three years. Turnbull needs to concur and the two sides need to both pick up their act, otherwise minor parties will continue to predominate and thwart whichever party is in power from achieving much at all.

But you must have missed Shorten's speech on election night. He basically said he was going to do everything in his power to disrupt the coalition's ability to govern.

 

[Gaiter]

Personally, though I strongly believe in solid national defence, the submarine contract seems like lunacy to me. 50 billion for twelve subs. We have six at present and the Navy is pressed to have more than 2 in service at any one time because of personnel shortages. Where the hell do they think they can find the crews for twelve vessels (even allowing for the next fifteen years growth in naval personnel numbers)? To be crying poor mouth about the budget, then signing off a proposal to spend 50 billion on submarines, seriously undermines your financial credibility. Perhaps that one needs to be re-thought, too. Large chunks of money have to come from somewhere and drip-feeds of a billion here, two billion there won't cut it.

Any source on the Navy struggling to keep two subs in service? Cause you're right. That's bad financial management to order 12 more and take our capabilities from 2/6 in service to 2/18 in service. Sigh.

Edit: However them being manufactured in Adelaide creates Jobs and Growth so I guess there is that? And apparently the current submarines are due for retirement in 10 years.

 

[Calaber]

Raj

I think at that time he thought there was a real chance of a hung parliament or even a Labor win. Boo hoo Bill.

The results for both parties are sobering. I reckon he now realises that tough talk about continuing to disrupt the government won't wash with voters anymore and national interest has been subjugated to party politics and bickering far too long.

Both parties will now be under much more critical scrutiny from voters who care IMO.