JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Noeleter]

If he had of called it 6 months ago or alternatively done something, anything in the last 6 months he would have a huge majority and probably a better senate.

 

[Calaber]

Less seats in the lower house, less in the upper house. Usually one calls a DD election if you think you'll come out on top. Not this time.....he juuuust won but in a weaker position.

Turnbulls political judgement has once again been shown to be sadly lacking.

His first stint as Liberal leader ended badly for him. I can't see this time being any different. What a disappointment he has turned out to be so far.

 

[Troy711]

Says a bit...

 

[c2105026]

Says a bit...

A decade without any strong leader didn't help the ALP, neither. I mean, Mark ####ing Latham! Seriously !?!

ALP may not have won 2010 outright but they were able to form govt and pass very large number of bills, still got on with the job (whether or not you agree with the direction is a separate question) Coalition since 2013 yes they stopped the boats (not sure if they were really a huge problem, but anyway...separate debate), yes they repealed the carbon tax (a backward step in my book, but again a separate debate) but....since then.....a free trade agreement with Japan.......ummmm.......nothing terribly nation building here, to the favour of the left or the right. Economy hasn't really improved. That was supposed to be their strong point. To me, that's the most disappointing thing.

Normally when you have a double dissolution election, they are very decisive and the govt has a clear mandate in both houses. But here it was 50/50, the whole thing being decided by 50,000 votes or so. A visionary leader would develop a suite of reforms that would please the left and right of the senate so they could be easily passed. Eg. reform the welfare system in exchange for cracking down on corporate tax avoidance. But on the front benches of either side there are no likely candidates for this nation-building role.

In fact, I would say that the budget is so buggered, you need to have left-flavoured and right flavoured approaches - just one approach won't close the income/expenditure gap enough.

 

[Troy711]

And who's responsible for the hole in the budget?

 

[figjam]

And who's responsible for the hole in the budget?

The average Australian voter, who voted in the scatter-brain minority parties who overdosed on self importance, imploded on self destruct mode, and resulted in the dog’s breakfast of the previous Parliament. And now we have done it again.

Can somebody please tell Bill that the counting is all but over, the ALP are not in power, and he should be telling us how he would have run the country, instead of telling us how the Liberals are not going to run the country.

South Island NZ is looking a great place to emigrate to.

 

[c2105026]

Who was responsible for the hole in the budget? We all are. To solve the budgetary concerns of the nation, it will mean many of us, indeed most of us, will have to be worse off at least in the short term. This is through higher taxes and or less expenditure on services. No one will ever vote for a candidate who will make them or parts of society they are concerned with, be worse off.

 

[Rajesh Koothrappali]

Who was responsible for the hole in the budget?

The ALP. Specifically Kevin Rudd. We were in surplus when he became PM. And he squandered the entire surplus in RECORD time, even before the full force of the GFC hit. In fact he (and his Government) racked up a RECORD debt in RECORD time.

No one will ever vote for a candidate who will make them or parts of society they are concerned with, be worse off.

If only that were true - nobody would vote for the ALP or the Greens!

 

[c2105026]

Annnnd the resident LNP staffer is back on air......

How has your evening been?

In answer to your question, looking at the data up til the GFC Revenue kept up with expenditure. 2007-2008 was a small deficit but nothing that major.

Then when GFC hit. For one to two years there was a 5 percent year on year decline as the expenditure kept growing. Whether or not this was the best thing to do depends on your preference of economics. Without stimulus it could have been worse or the same. Without the stimulus, the revenue could have dropped off more.

This is where the damage really happens.....ever since then the budget has been running at maybe a 10% deficit, and year after year the deficit piles up. Under both parties. Before we go pointing fingers, Libs have had three years to make an impact. I wouldn't expect the whole problem to be removed, but at least do something people.

They might have had a hostile senate but they aren't going away anytime soon so it might be time to change tactics in light of the environment they find themselves in. Pointing fingers without action never, ever gets results.

 

[Reaper]

A decade without any strong leader didn't help the ALP, neither. I mean, Mark ####ing Latham! Seriously !?!

ALP may not have won 2010 outright but they were able to form govt and pass very large number of bills, still got on with the job (whether or not you agree with the direction is a separate question) Coalition since 2013 yes they stopped the boats (not sure if they were really a huge problem, but anyway...separate debate), yes they repealed the carbon tax (a backward step in my book, but again a separate debate) but....since then.....a free trade agreement with Japan.......ummmm.......nothing terribly nation building here, to the favour of the left or the right. Economy hasn't really improved. That was supposed to be their strong point. To me, that's the most disappointing thing.

The opposition parties have to accept a significant amount of blame for the economy as without fail voted down every single spending saving measure put to them often for nothing more than political points scoring.

Normally when you have a double dissolution election, they are very decisive and the govt has a clear mandate in both houses. But here it was 50/50, the whole thing being decided by 50,000 votes or so. A visionary leader would develop a suite of reforms that would please the left and right of the senate so they could be easily passed. Eg. reform the welfare system in exchange for cracking down on corporate tax avoidance. But on the front benches of either side there are no likely candidates for this nation-building role.

Well the plan is for them to be decisive however in the past they have been very hit/miss with more misses than hits recently. Malcom Fraser called a DD in 1983 and lost government because of it and Bob Hawke tried again in 1987 but didn't have the numbers to get his then "Australia Card" thru in a workable format.

In answer to your question, looking at the data up til the GFC Revenue kept up with expenditure. 2007-2008 was a small deficit but nothing that major.

That was largely because tax receipts were for the previous financial year when companies were doing very well.

Then when GFC hit. For one to two years there was a 5 percent year on year decline as the expenditure kept growing. Whether or not this was the best thing to do depends on your preference of economics. Without stimulus it could have been worse or the same. Without the stimulus, the revenue could have dropped off more.

A deficit at the time was entirely the right thing to do however the implementation of spending was nothing short of negligent. As a value for money spent, our return was very poor and we could/should have achieved far more at a significantly lower spend.

This is where the damage really happens.....ever since then the budget has been running at maybe a 10% deficit, and year after year the deficit piles up. Under both parties. Before we go pointing fingers, Libs have had three years to make an impact. I wouldn't expect the whole problem to be removed, but at least do something people.

From memory it's only 1 - 3% but could stand to be corrected on that one. However either way, as above - when the opposition torpedo's every single budget cutting measure then the country is truly ####ed. What is even more damning is when they roll it out at the next election (a-la the one we just had) as their own policies.

They might have had a hostile senate but they aren't going away anytime soon so it might be time to change tactics in light of the environment they find themselves in. Pointing fingers without action never, ever gets results.

Unfortunately waving a magic wand doesn't get results either. The senate needs to get real and deliver their real function as a house of review rather than a house of 'obstruct every ####ing thing we can'.