Campaign countdown: Julia on the cusp of another coup

Tim says:

07:53am | 02/07/10

@ Dobbo

So the government should pass everything as law, THEN have a debate? Real clever.

It makes sense to get the kinks worked out of prospective legislation as early as possible. It saves a lot of trouble in the long run.

You may notice that Conroy’s idiotic filter plan hasn’t gone through parilament yet either and thus (by your logic) doesn’t even exist yet. Do you think that it’s ridiculous that the public have been up in arms over it?

This is how democracy works, and thank god it does. Without Labor’s ideas being scrutinised by the Opposition, the media and the public, who knows what stupid ideas would get through.

jack says:

11:02am | 02/07/10

jack says to Dobo
Well its all done and dusted so all you people are talking with false tongues,  I will be hearing from you three years from now thats when you liberals can try again and I bet it wont be with Abbott, I still have plenty of boxes of tissues if you require them
                                                        JACK

Steve says:

03:24pm | 04/07/10

@ Tim Your right in relation to the joint houses process no one party should ever have total control of both houses that only leads to disaster in the end.. for the country. Heaven forbid look what happened with the last government Howard set up a guillotine factory at the far end of parliament house when they had control of both houses. The country was the looser again from his incompetence, our nation’s total debt soared from a mere $700 billion in 1997 up to $3.2 trillion by the close of their term. An increase of 387%. Interestingly Labor’s stimulus package comes in at about 1% of that total. Deregulation brought growth all right. But I hear a lot of folk did ok in that time too? nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if you know what I mean old chap!!!!

Gregg says:

03:16pm | 02/07/10

Spot on Mags as you do have to ask just how well is a country likely to be run when budgetting at the national level is developed with an unknown quantum as a key element.

Poor old Kev with his communicative faults at least knew that if there was all this spending done and still occurring the only way to project a return to a balanced budget was going to be through a tax grab and no new spending.
In that scenario, if consultation wasn’t on the table why would negotiation and then as to no new spending - Oh yeah!
Now we have a treasurer/deputy PM spruiking in Toronto how good we are and how the RSPT negotiations would have no bottom line impact and yet back in Canberra he’s saying impact is yet to be fully assessed.
National Budgetting on the run, what fun!

Certainly little substance anywhere.

T.Chong says:

07:39am | 02/07/10

Richard, in yur world of no taxes, who pays for police , hospitals ,and defence forces ?

Richard says:

08:21am | 02/07/10

There is a way to organise things efficiently you know~ its called the free market
The only problem with that is that people usually end up making profits (shock horror {quick lets tax them}).
Seriously though, in my opinion the government’s only mandate is: to ensure the rule of law within our borders, and to protect us from foreign aggression from outside our borders. Obviously to fulfil these duties the government needs to levy taxation on its citizens. But then we have to consider, what type of taxes are the best?
As a general rule, taxation something tends to discourage whatever becomes its object eg. The recent smoking tax has led to a drop in smoking rates, the alcopop tax led to a reduction in pre-mixed alcohol consumption. This is obviously true because it is proved by its inverse~ negative gearing taxation offsets encourages housing investments, which we can clearly see have been booming since Keating’s government.

So if we want to discourage mining companies from making much profits, by all means we should introduce the RSPT, but is it really in the national interest to have our most successful companies being less profitable?

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:28am | 02/07/10

Richard :  Right on the money Richard , the R.S.P.T. was Labor’s last desperate bid to refill the nation’s plundered coffers. Between the Roofing Insulation tragedy and the continuing BER school buildings rip-off , program bungles and the $900 cheques for the living and dead to buy popularity , this country has been sent virtually bankrupt.
The backflip in the detail of the R.S.P.T. plan will leave Gillard short in the bottom line required on the 2010-2011 budget , and this shortfall will result in cuts to expenditure in other vital areas .
To label the mining deal a ” coup ” for Gillard is rather premature , as the details of the deal are clearly differrent to what the govt. wanted.
This latest backflip by the Union installed Labor leader is likely to haunt Gillard all the way to the election.

Seano says:

10:12am | 02/07/10

The same free market that brought us the GFC and the disaster in the golf of Mexico Richard?

Mavis says:

11:19am | 02/07/10

Seano, overzealous government caused the GFC. You are obviously too ignorant to have heard of the Democrats Community Re-investment Act or too. Perhaps you have been on another planet in the last six months but corrupt government and excessive welfare pork barrelling brought Greek economy to its knees.

Still you blabber your stupid socialist mantras. .... sheesh.

And to T.Chong, the word you fail to understand is “balance”. Richard never said “no taxes” so don’t put words in his mouth.

PaulB says:

11:28am | 02/07/10

“Richard, in yur world of no taxes, who pays for police , hospitals ,and defence forces ?”

What a stupid thing to say.  These are the things we should be paying taxes for.  Its all the other stuff that gets added in by Governments buying votes and promoting personal irresponsibility that squeezes the tax available for the things we actually need.

Mhoram says:

11:53am | 02/07/10

Sorry Mavis, you’re talking out of the wrong end with those comments.
The private (mainly financial) sector caused the GFC - no argument from anyone there; inept governments enforcing lax, corrupted regulations allowed it too get too far. Greedy consumers fed the beast, but they are also the ones who continue to suffer the most.

Do you genuinely not realise just how little impact the GFC has had in Australia - do you ever wonder why? Is it because our financial institutions are so angelic and ethical that they pulled back and refused to make money out of other’s misery?? Yes, that must be it. That’s why our financial industry is the envy of the developed world, isn’t it?

I am by no stretch (at any level) a Labor voter, but I’m highly frustrated that all these arguments (by the people) seem to go along party lines, rather than analysing the policy.

To the point of the article, yes it is a coup. It is, however, a coup based on an artificially created issue, so the merits of this outcome need to be measured against that as well. This tax regime in this sector does need an overhaul, and I think this is a step in the right direction. What it is not is a vindication of how Labor are now suddenly “successful”, and La Gillard a miracle worker who is the best thing since sliced Gough.

Ben G says:

01:36pm | 02/07/10

Why the people on this thread think there are two options (Free-market utopia, or Socialist utopia) I’ll never know.
Yes, free-market capitalism is very efficient, but only an idiot thinks it doesn’t open the door to a whole new world of corruption and abuse.
Yes, socialism brings a supposed safety net but it’s also a proven failure in efficiency and again opens the door to a whole new world of corruption and abuse.
Now, if you want to distill complex issues down to one side versus the other, make your way straight over to a sporting bulletin board where at least the idiotic dumbing down of complicated matters at least doesn’t endanger the necessary conversations on national policy.
If Julia Gillard and a bunch of ex-union officials can figure out that business is necessary, hopefully even Kevin Rudd’s nephew will figure out it lately. Likewise, when even Tony Abbott brings out a $1.5B mental health policy, I’m sorry militant Libertarians, you’ve lost the conversation: Government is going to be more than a solitary guy in a suit who oversees a trillion dollar economy.
Grow up and get on with the debate. Concede that you’ve lost these points and move on.

The Redman says:

01:44pm | 02/07/10

Ben, you make some good and interesting points regarding free market and socialism. One thing though is that the Liberals nor their supporters will ever accept that they have lost the points on this one. They can’t even accept the fact they lost the last election yet!! (That’s meant to be lighthearted, by the way).

John A Neve says:

02:03pm | 02/07/10

Ben G,
I am not sure we have ever had “free-market capitalism”, if we have, it was many years ago. What we currently have is Public Supported Capitalism, the people via the government give business, tax concessions, we bail them out if they fail, we actually pay them to work!!!
For goodness sake what sort of free enterprise is that?

As to a “Socialist Utopia”, sadly in all recorded systems it has been defeated by greedy, power hungry people.

Until the people take back their rights and responsibilities, little will change. I am of the opinion few people know what democracy really is.
They like being told what to do and say, if things go wrong they can blame some one else.
I love this Brave New World.

Gregg says:

03:19pm | 02/07/10

Spot on Mavis!
No more needed to be said.

Gregg says:

03:46pm | 02/07/10

Mhoram, don’t be so much a moron.
Have you heard of Freddy Mac and Fanny May everyone get finance for housing no matter how poor they are as promoted by the Democrats.
And then you’ve had all the finance bound up in housing that people walked away from, the toxic assets that have been bundled up and sold on to be resold with events like the Icelandic government brought to bankruptcy because they invested.
And yes, that’s where it was all snowballing along with the financial sectors about the globe but for any mess I agree it is often difficult for root causes to be established, especially when you have partying and greed built on incompetent generosity.
Sort of rings a bell for here does it not!
Re:
” Do you genuinely not realise just how little impact the GFC has had in Australia - do you ever wonder why? Is it because our financial institutions are so angelic and ethical that they pulled back and refused to make money out of other’s misery?? Yes, that must be it. That’s why our financial industry is the envy of the developed world, isn’t it? “

I am left wondering at your answering your own question with another.
But have you not heard of the Domino effect?
Used to be phrased sometimes a few decades back ” If the US sneezes, we’ll catch a cold ” but fortunately for us they sent the flu in Europe’s direction tho there were still losses here - Queensland treasurer a year or so back for instance threw out a line ” we’ve had 400M invested ” and surprisingly the media has never followed up and then there has been the Storm Investment House crash.
With China in the mix these days, the Dominoes have a different/longer route that goes something like US/Europe consume, China makes, and we are one of the providers.
China in the middle have been stimulating their home market of late to make up for a lot less product demand and so how long to you reckon that’ll last for?
And then what? , less demand for resources for one!
Work on it!
” the envy of the developed world, isn’t it? “
Come on now for what % of the globe’s market do you really reckon we represent?
But when Freddy and Fanny do come a knocking, have a think about how healthy we are with average housing cost/annual wages ratios compared to the US.
There’s already plenty of two/three income McMansions on the market and numbers might just grow with a cresendo of an almighty crashing around our ears.

But a coup you call it!
Only in the sense it is dressed up as such.
But perhaps there was a grand plan to lay a coup for Kevin!

Mhoram says:

04:55pm | 02/07/10

Greg, that was a nice, long response. Pity it didn’t address what I actually argued, in fact, it seemed to agree with most of it (except the “moron” part, that wasn’t nice ).

Freddy Mac and Fanny May are private companies that were chasing market share and profit. They did this without proper due diligence and without informing the market or their customers of the risks involved - risks which they were well aware of for a long time. They were then caught unawares by the low-income mortgagees simply walking away from their unaffordable liabilities - they just did not foresee this. To compound this, the artificial property bubble created in the USA by these loans meant the assets were worth only a fraction of the loans against them. Yes, the Democrats (here go the arguments along bl**dy party lines again!) pushed it as well, as it made them look good (“see, we’re letting poor people own their own homes, aren’t we so nice”). I made it pretty clear governments were implicit in the increased impact of the GFC.

Everyone (people, companies, countries) had been investing more and more in these economies because they were both greedy and they weren’t told of the risks, or they weren’t smart enough to do the research. Plus, their own economies were just not performing as well, and did not provide the returns required to fund their social agendas. ‘Mea Culpa’ you say; ‘hard to disagree with you’, I respond.

On to the Domino Effect. Nice little catch-all that doesn’t really work for you, but nice try. This effect is in constant flux, it never goes away. Smartly managed economies cater for it and understand it, although some extremes just cannot be absorbed. The private sector-led grab for profits just exceeded any possible way of coping with the fallout.

Your arguments following this seem to align to mine, so I’m a little confused. The collapsing investments firms are, once again, private companies that got greedy and over-reached. In all these cases, especially in the USA, GOVERNMENTS stepped in and underwrote PRIVATE financial institutions!! They did this because they felt they had no choice, due to how critical these companies were to their economic stability. The only reason Australian banks did not also collapse is due to the regulations around how they operate in this country. Badly run Investment firms with no such regulations are falling quickly. I’m happy to put up with “over-zealous government” if that’s what it saves us from. What you are correct about is the almighty greed and disregard Australian consumers have displayed in their chase of material excess, McMansions and multiple invetsment properties funded by the taxpayer through bad negative gearing policies and the like. We are so over-geared as individuals that we are in danger of collapse at any moment. The strong economy (yes, underpinned by the Chinese hunger for our resources) is the only thing keeping our heads above water. Yes, there are rumblings around the Chinese economy slowing down, but the thirst for our resources will take a few years to dwindle yet. What we should be doing is making sure we don’t continue to be so dependent on this sector for our financial well-being as a country. There have been predictions for the last 20 years that the Australian property market would catastrophically collapse, it’s never happened. It was meant to fall by 40% a few years back, it didn’t. It softened for a while, but it didn’t last long. Now they’re saying it again. I think it will soften again, but not crash, mainly due to the fact that it just isn’t as artificially priced as analysts think. Add to that the demand for housing that is just going to continue to rise for many years to come, and our local economy has plenty of potential to stay strong.

Nevertheless, we are currently able to keep our greedy heads above water mainly due to our the much-envied (and yes, it really is) way our financial sector is managed. And once again, if you actually read what I wrote, I called it a coup in a very limited sense, and I quote: “It is, however, a coup based on an artificially created issue, so the merits of this outcome need to be measured against that as well.”.

As for using it to get rid of poor old Kev, I think it was just a nice by-product for the new (old) guard. Kev’s downfall came because he tried to run a socialist party as an autocracy. The previous power brokers, who were used to the respect and luxurious life afforded to them by their position in the ALP, just could not let that continue, so they manufactured a reason to topple him. They would quite happily hamstring their own party ot further their own personal agenda. Nothing’s changed there, on any side of politics.

hot tub political machine says:

05:47pm | 02/07/10

Pity how the Freemarket didn’t seem to get the idea of human nature though isn’t it? No officer we don’t need regulation - we are a good efficent well meaning private company - there is no oil pumping into the sea…..

Seano says:

06:55pm | 02/07/10

Fair enough lets not talk about the oil spill because that’s the just completely indefensible.

As for the GFC, you know I don’t remember exactly defending the democrats or accusing the republicans. But you go ahead making up my arguments and then shooting them down, should give you someone to talk too.

I support a free market but one with appropriate, common sense checks and balances, without such we get disasters like the oil spill and the GFC.

Graham says:

10:56pm | 02/07/10

T, I don’t think Richard has any problem with taxation to provide those services governments are historically responsible for and best positioned to administer. The trouble with a government that is wasteful and a political system that rewards parties by promising the easy road - it moves us closer to ending up a Greek economy - after each iteration. More and more taxation is required. In the end, what incentive is there for people to work harder, risk capital etc for the same return a nine to fiver gets (nothing wrong with the working man, I am one of them!). The diminishing returns from overtime - the more you work, the more tax you pay - what is the incentive?? So, you finally figure out that the one day extra work too much had you gaining $20 in real wage for your family. Why work harder?? Government should be lean, middle class welfare needs to be reduced and working hard should be rewarded.

Reg says:

10:14am | 08/07/10

Mavis seems to have failed to observe that the GFC was international. She’s thinking in her own little back yard again like all companies do. Government is a moderator on behalf of the people who own the resources you are granted the right to exploit. If you don’t like it, piss off and we’ll find someone else who does. No different to changing governments.

Seano says:

07:27am | 02/07/10

Bitter much? Here’s some words for you to look up in your dictionary Sherlock: Negotiation and Reelected.

Sherlock says:

08:05am | 02/07/10

Well come on Seano. What happened to that RSPT you were championing only last week?

We’re a little confused here. Have you now decided that the RSPT was a bad policy. That would mean that you agree Tony Abbot was right. Or is the new mining tax bad policy.

What about all those things announced in the budget that will now be reneged on. Were they good policies? If so weren’t they worth fighting for? Or have you decided that they were bad policies now?

What about the government advertising that last week you said was fair?. If it was as fair and right as you stated only a week ago than why was one of the first things Gillard did was stop it? Does that mean it wasn’t right?

What about Swan? After this complete U-turn how can the electorate take anything he ever says again seriously. After stuffing this mining tax up so bad you’d expect a Treasurer to resign. However in this New Labor government he gets promoted. Go figure!

It’s the same with the ETS? Is it now a good policy or a bad one? What about the other policies that will change form only a week ago? Are they now bad policies if so why didn’t you tell us this last week?

It seems to me the left can change their whole belief system overnight the minute the current one becomes politically inconvenient. Doesn’t strike me as the basis for good government.

Say what you want about the coalition government but they always stuck to their beliefs in a fight. Even when it became crystal clear that there was a big chance that Workchoices could cost them government they didn’t abandon it and run away. That’s the government I want.

Or perhaps you think that re-election is all a government should be concerned with.

Rob r Charteris says:

08:35am | 02/07/10

Seano says:07:27am; Negotiation and Reelected you got that right!!!!! lololololol. Now what all the bitter and twisted snivelling liberals come out of the woodwork. Julia has delivered a big punch on the nose of the liberal party, and I thought Abbott was the ex boxer

notsurprised says:

09:03am | 02/07/10

Sean and Rob, the best thing about the possibility of an ALP re-election would be watching the faces of Joolia and Wayne as they try to pull a rabbit out of a hat. They’re going to need to get the money from somewhere and Swanny isn’t smart enough to do it.

Sherlock says:

09:39am | 02/07/10

Rob r Charteris says: Julia has delivered a big punch on the nose of the liberal party

Oh that’s so funny. So let’s make sure I have this right.

Backtracking on your own policy, destroying your eight week old budget and confirming that every single thing that Tony Abbott said about the RSPT as completely correct is “delivering a a big punch on the nose of the liberal party”

That’s comedy gold. Tell me Rob

What do you think about the Labor government spending 38 million dollars of taxpayers money promoting a policy that they threw out the window two weeks later? Are you truly happy with that. If so would you mind explaining to the rest of us why.

What about the Henry report. They only adopted the four recommendations they thought would be popular and now they all look to be reneged on. So we now have a report that was supposed to be the basis for reform of Australia’s taxation system that not going to have a single recommendation implemented. So I ask you how much money was wasted on that and what you think of the Labor governments lack of ticker. Howard went to an election on the back of an unpopular tax reform. perhaps you can share with us which type of government you prefer. One that will go to an election backing it’s beliefs no matter how unpopular or one that drops policy and runs the second they become politically inconvenient.

Oh and while we’re talking about money being wasted on reports. What about the Garnaut report. The chances of the Labor government addressing the greatest moral challenge of our time and introducing the recommendations in this report appear to be approximately nil. I certainly doesn’t appear that Julia Gillard is going to introduce anything in the foreseeable future despite repeating on a number of occasions less than 12 months ago that “delay is denial”.

I remember an advertising campaign around this as well. Wasn’t it $60 million this time for yet another Labor policy chucked out the window the second it became politically inconvenient. So Rob, how much altogether did this government waste on it’s temporary climate change policy that they dumped and how do you feel about them wasting so much of our money?

Or was the casual u-turn on climate just another “big punch on the nose of the liberal party”?

How nice it must be for the left to change their political beliefs like they change their underwear. Some of us have the courage of our convictions.

Seano says:

10:17am | 02/07/10

Spin it how you want Sherls. The Australian tax payer get more value for our resources, the miners are happy, the government are happy and the heat has gone out of the issue. The only loser is Abbott who can no use this in his scare campaign in his election bid.

Good government is about sensible compromise that benefits everyone. Not hard headed idealogy. Abbott is gone.

Roja says:

10:50am | 02/07/10

So Sherlock, you champion business yet when the government uses standard business bargaining practices - first offer is over the top, then it comes back to a happy middle ground compromise - you call that a backflip. 

Do you really expect the general public to share that opinion come polling day?  I hardly think so.  That you went off on every other tangent other than the RSPT says it all mate, you are genuinely worried.

Rob r Charteris says:

11:04am | 02/07/10

Poor old Sherlock he’s hurting real bad, someone get him a cupa tea and a chair. A change in leadership does that for some. See I didn’t need 7 or 8 prargraphs plus a few lines to get my point across

TimB says:

11:21am | 02/07/10

@ Seano-

That’s funny. Just over a week ago, we had you guys bleating that the mining tax in its original form was great, Kevin was right, and the miners were just being greedy.  Rudds’ refusal to back down was lauded by the party faithful.

THAT is “hard-headed idealogy. And you all supported it. Now all of a sudden you are congratulating Julia on her masterful comprimise deal. What rubbish.

The compromise was FORCED on the Government by pressure from the miners and the Liberals. Julia didn’t compromise because she wanted to get the best outcome for “everyone”, she did it because the issue was damaging Labor at the polls. 

If Labor were really willing to compromise in good faith on this, they would have done so from the beginning. Doing so now is just damage control. For you to claim otherwise is disingenous, and you know it.

Labor deserves no credit for this.

(PS I have noticed a few other Tim’s around in the last couple of days so I’ll add my initial from now on so you don’t mistake attribute others comments to me or vice versa.)

Sherlock says:

12:33pm | 02/07/10

Rob r Charteris says: See I didn’t need 7 or 8 prargraphs plus a few lines to get my point across

You have a point? Really? You mean apart from the one where you’ll support everything Labor does like a blind sheep? Even if it’s a complete ewe-turn over what it was a week ago? Are the all the left so politically weak or is it just you and Seano?

If you do have a point perhaps you might like to share it with us as both you and Seano simply ignored every point I brought up and only answered with pithy comments.

The RSPT backflip, no climate change policy, the mess they’ve made about the asylum seekers, the insulation and BER debacles, the do-nothing health policy crumbling before your eyes, it just gets worse and worse for Labor fans.

It’s no wonder they duck any serious political discussion.

Roja says:

01:10pm | 02/07/10

My word Sherlock, you really are nervous aren’t you. 

I’m just trying to get your point clear about ‘back flips’ as compared to ‘negotiated outcome’.  When Howard watered down work choices after it was implemented (something they planned to do from the beginning), was that a backflip as well?  If not, please explain the difference.  He implemented a cast iron law, then changed it when it was grossly unpopular.  How is this different?

I will wait in keen anticipation for the explanation.

Sherlock says:

02:27pm | 02/07/10

Of course Workchoices was amended. Legislation and policies are amended all the time. However even after the amendments the basic tenets of Workchoices remained.

I gather your not economically literate enough to understand the new tax. This isn’t the RSPT it’s a completely new tax once again drawn up on the back of an envelope to get the ALP out of trouble. Just like the NBN and the Health Plan.

The RSPT is dead and buried. The Minerals Resource Rent Tax (yes it has a new name to distinguish it from the tax they just threw out the window) is levied on a completely different basis on different minerals and now payable by less companies but across a wider range of minerals.

Now you might try to say it’s simply an amendment but you’re only fooling yourself. The RSPT has been completely thrown out of the window and the new MRRT introduced to save face. It’s a backdown and if you have a look across the various websites it’s rightly been judged as one.

How much in advertising did it cost the miners to stare down the government. $7 million apparently. How little it costs today to make the Australian Government backpeddle. 

The RSPT was supposed to bring in $12 billlion now Swan is saying that this new one is only going to bring in $1.5Bil less. If you think the Miners caved in for so little than you’re extremely naive. Of course the true figure won’t be known until after the election .

Louisa says:

11:41am | 02/07/10

By the way, where is Pers?  Perhaps was in need of a “rest”

John says:

12:03pm | 02/07/10

Pers was obviosly a Rudd staffer

Arnold says:

12:17pm | 02/07/10

Pers was obviously Julia Gillard.

Peter says:

07:48am | 02/07/10

Nup, win for the miners! loss for Gillard and her weak Government!

Super D says:

07:53am | 02/07/10

I don’t really see how Abbott loses.  He didn’t support the RSPT and what will be unveiled today will not even barely resemble the RSPT as it was proposed.  The big loser here is Wayne Swan.  His credibility can be measured as a percentage of the $12 billion that will now actually be raised by the tax over the next 3 years.  I will be surprised if 3 billion is raised.  Swan has to go.  We cannot have an incompetent fool in charge of the nations finances.

Joan says:

08:09am | 02/07/10

Lose ? What race did Abbott lose?  A phoney PM Gillard is no win for Australia - a people`s PM Rudd ousted by a phoney Gillard is a big loss for Australia.

NickGC says:

08:15am | 02/07/10

Yes, it’s delusional Friday!

MarK says:

08:24am | 02/07/10

*Sniff*

Yep that be the stench of desperation when they trumpet a backflip a win.

Newsflash Abbott stopped the RSPT. It is dead. There is no RSPT.

He won. Please try to keep up with current events.

Marie says:

10:00am | 02/07/10

And up went the “White Flag”.  Labor = Fail

Seano says:

10:11am | 02/07/10

I like the way the liberal ranters see a negotiated compromse that both sides are happy with as a backflip. They talk about desperation, but you can’t get much more desperate than that.

The Redman says:

11:48am | 02/07/10

Of course, Seano. The reason being you’d be very hard pressed to find any negotiated compromise during the Howard Government years.

Roja says:

02:14pm | 02/07/10

Yes labor lost, now the Australian people will only get $10.5 billion of the $12 billion they expected. 

“you’d be very hard pressed to find any negotiated compromise during the Howard Government years. “

Workchoices.  Implemented, then later compromised on.  Or apparently if you speak fluent liberal ranter - “backflipped”.  So that too msu be absolutely shoddy policy, I mean why didn’t Howard get it right the first time? 

How about the GST.  They didn’t get it applied across the board, a raft of democrats exemptions were included for fresh fruit and text books when Howard apparently “backflipped”. 

It’s like they poured water down the liberal party ant hole - they are running everywhere today.

The Redman says:

02:50pm | 02/07/10

Howard might have consulted about WorkChoices, but only with employers. He made no effort to consult with the respresentatives of the workers. There was absolutely no intent to reach a compromise with workers, and he paid the price. The ALP, on the other hand, has reached a compromise with their natural political enemies. That is the difference.

Seano says:

02:53pm | 02/07/10

However they spin it, it’s a huge win for Labor the Australian tax payer would have got nothing if it had been up to Abbott.

notsurprised says:

08:38am | 02/07/10

Too right. I wonder if we will ever find out just how far KR got with the negotiations before he was knifed. It would prove that his removal was not about his stance on the RSPT, as Gillard has stated, but about something else.

Rob r Charteris says:

08:41am | 02/07/10

Gee Joan, I’m sure you can make better dribble than that, you really are a giggle, have a cup of tea dear it will make you feel a little better, clears the head too

Nicole says:

08:58am | 02/07/10

Joan, I think it is. It was reported that Rudd, Swan and Ferguson had amended the tax, Gillard also knew of this, and that Rudd was supposed to put it to the mining companies last Thursday or Friday. Gillards version is really no different to Rudd’s, but the ruthless ranga can now take all the credit. This woman and her side kicks are treturous, and I just hope that karma comes and bites them all on the arse.

MarK says:

08:59am | 02/07/10

Hi Rob,

Anytime you want to actually in a point of fact or even a totally biased opinion it would be super dooper.

I know it hard to get past your anger, envy and hatred of all things to the right of Stalin but please for the sake of a discussion try to include something about the topic at hand in your posts.

To do so start actually reading the articles as posted. You seem to skip that part most of the time.

Rob r Charteris says:

09:07am | 02/07/10

MarK says:08:59am; Your welcome to your little opinion, chuff chuff

Nicole says:

09:12am | 02/07/10

Absolutely agree MarK. Rob do you actually ever have anything constructive to add, or do you just prefer to pick shit out of everyone else’s opinion?

The Redman says:

03:03pm | 02/07/10

The mining company have said that they were close to an agreement with Rudd. The current leadership say they knew nothing about it. This, I believe, was Rudd’s achilles heal. As much as I thought of Rudd, it is clear he ran the Government as his personal possession. That is fatal for any leader in a democracy.

dale says:

08:59am | 02/07/10

How is this a backflip? There is still an increased tax on mining, wasnt that the whole point? is the tax still not in the same style?

Bitten says:

10:01am | 02/07/10

Um, dale, I don’t know what you expect from people in charge of government policy, but I would kind of like them to have a firm plan in place and stick to it. The Government has just withdrawn a previously announced policy and replaced it with a new one. Along similar lines, yes. But the fact is, they said one thing a couple of weeks ago and now they’re saying a different thing. And I hate to point out the obvious, but this is public policy dude: the devil IS in the detail. If the details are different, the policy IS different.

These amateurs still haven’t learned to shut mouth, engage brain, think lots and lots, come up with policy, then open mouth and articulate policy. They’re terrified of silence - worried that if they don’t crap on about something and constantly ‘engage the public mind’ that they’ll lose their jobs. When in fact, we’d all probably respect them more if they just once did exactly what they said they would do. With this lot, they say one thing having not thought anything through, then witness the public response, then crap themselves, then scurry back to drawing room, scratch heads for a bit, then march triumphantly back to the podium to say “We’re know we said we were going to A, but now we really going to do B!!”

Which means that the average citizen can’t trust a single thing they say, because all their behaviour to date indicates that things could change at any moment and whatever they say regarding policy has the lifespan of a dairy-product.

The Redman says:

01:40pm | 02/07/10

Bitten wrote “but I would kind of like them to have a firm plan in place and stick to it”

Irrespective of whether the Government takes the people along with the idea? Are you suggesting that a Government in Australia should say “this is the idea, we’re doing it I we don’t care what you think”? Why is it a failure of governance for a Government to modify its position on an issue to achieve an outcome which is equitable and has perhaps a better policy that the one originally conceived? Surely this is the sign of a good democratic government.

You’re suggesting that the electorate should have a say in government once and once only, every three years, and between time, we should blindly follow the Government’s every policy, whether it induces disaster or not. It’s an interesting political theory, but as to whether such a policy would be successful for the Government concerned? Well, I would rather think that WorkChoices shows what happens when a Government refuses to accept that they have introduced a policy that the people will simply not support.

The Redman says:

02:21pm | 02/07/10

And this is where conservatives let themselves down. On the one hand, they say the ALP is merely an instrument of the unions who refuse to listen to any other opinion or point of view, on the other, when the ALP does modify their policies after taking advice from different sources, it’s called a backflip.

Bitten says:

02:24pm | 02/07/10

The Redman, I may not have adequately communicated my perspective.  The Government should of course consider the people’s preferences in making policy, however public consultation should without question be undertake PRIOR to announcing policy. The Government’s behaviour in policy-making throughout the current term has been consistently reactive, not pro-active. They issue policy, THEN hear the public’s perspective, then bluster about changing their minds because they’re scared of losing an election.

Now policy-making is not a static undertaking at all. However I think it is fair to say that the current Government has unfortunately earned a reputation as being wishy-washy or borderline incompetent due to numerous poorly thought-out policy implementations: too many knee-jerk reactions instead of carefully crafted long-term policy. 

As an aside, I am not a party-aligned citizen, I don’t think politicians of any stripe do a really good job, largely because they’re all so anxious trying to keep their jobs, they forget to do their jobs. Election-induced myopia is the curse of modern democratic government.

Your thoughts? (on the main bit, not my tangential last paragraph!)

The Redman says:

02:55pm | 02/07/10

Why should consultation take place before? If any Government were to announce a policy and say it has been developed through consultation, then doesn’t the electorate have the right to demand “what consultation? With whom did you consultate? When did this consulation take place? What was the give and take?”

Surely, it is better for a Government to say “this is what we think the policy should be. There it is. What do you think?”. Surely that is better than your model.This way, the entire community can not only contribute, but follow the debate, know the parties who are discussing the issue, know, to a point at least, how and where these negotiations are going and how a compromise was reached.

I say again. It is not a failure of governance to modify a publically announced policy to create concensus.

Bitten says:

04:19pm | 02/07/10

@The Redman:  You wrote

Surely, it is better for a Government to say “this is what we think the policy should be. There it is. What do you think?”.

I don’t think this is what the Government has done at any stage. It hasn’t said “Well, this is what we THINK the policy should be.” It has simply announced policy as a fait accompli (witness the bully-boy stance of the Government when miners first objected to the tax) and when the public registers widespread displeasure, only THEN does the Government adopt a different, more deferential stance of “er, um, well, see now, maybe we could have done that differently, well, um sure, ok then.”

It may be semantic, but I find the approach to be symptomatic of a public administration that lacks conviction and is quite hypocritical (can be easily compromised for votes) and that worries me. It’s the idealist in me, but I would like a Government that thought policy through before dominating the airwaves.

I would hold forth in greater detail, but I am off for the weekend! Have great weekends Punchers!

MarK says:

09:03am | 02/07/10

Yes.

I do recall words along those lines.

Hmm I winder who the lapdog of the miners is now.

One week in all credibility gone.

” Swan decries miners’ tax ‘rip-off’
June 17, 2010

Treasurer Wayne Swan has delivered a passionate defence of the government’s proposed resource super profits tax, saying he will not let windfall profits walk “out the door.

The government was asking mining companies to pay their fair share of super profits to the Australia people.

“We on this side of the house will not sit here and watch those windfall profits walk straight out the door,” Mr Swan told parliament today.
Advertisement: Story continues below

“We are not going to let that rip-off continue.”

http://www.smh.com.au/business/swan-decries-miners-tax-ripoff-20100617-yj24.html

Oops Wayne. By the way how is Ken these days? You know the treasurer. His elegant tax appears to have been a stinker lol.

The Pragmatist says:

01:32pm | 02/07/10

True Mike, but they are no where near as scared of losing as they were 10 days ago. Looking a lot less rattled and a lot more in control.

Daryl says:

09:05am | 02/07/10

I agree Michael. This Labor government has no idea how to run the place. All it does is throw our money at the margins, promise the earth and then backflip on policy. As for their changes to super, in many peoples case this represents a 3% reduction in income since remuneration is more often than not, inclusive of super. To say it’s “getting business to contribute to people’s supperannuation” is a lie. A bit like the promise not to touch the private health rebate was a lie. And the promise of 200+ childcare facilities was a lie. And the promise of “more affordable housing” was a lie. And the promise of Grocery Choice was a lie. The ETS was also expected to result in massive increases to Power prices (electricity companies made this clear) and the potential voter backlash spooked Labor into dropping “the greatest moral challenge of our time”. But of course all of that was exclusively Kevies fault. Everything is just dandy now that we have a character from Kath and Kim running the country!

The Redman says:

01:09pm | 02/07/10

Please Daryl. I understand and accept your ideological opposition to the ALP, although of course I disagree completely, but 5.4% unemployment, 2.8 inflation and 4.5% interest rates when all three are sky rocketing through the roof in most other industrialised nation surely disavows your claim that the ALP has no idea.

The Redman says:

12:38pm | 02/07/10

Council rates, water rates and electricity rates have nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal Government, irrespective of whether it’s Labor or Coalition. If you believe that it is, then I can dig out all the rises of these three services which occurred between 1996 and 2007 and lay them fairly and squarely at the feet of the Howard Government. That’d be fair, wouldn’t it? Surely, you don’t claim that prices for these services didn’t rise in those years at all, are you?

Seano says:

10:19am | 02/07/10

Huge win for Labor today, huge loss for right wing ranters.

Mhoram says:

12:41pm | 02/07/10

Seano ...and thus a huge win for left wing ranters??? (by your definition, Liberal are all right wing, Labor are therefore all left wing, yes?)

So which are you Seano, the pot or the kettle? This roundabout’s making me dizzy…

Seano says:

06:03pm | 02/07/10

“by your definition, Liberal are all right wing, Labor are therefore all left wing, yes?”

That’s not my definition champ that’s the generally accept convention that Labor are on the left side of politics and the Liberals are on the right. Most people have a range of a views which sit a different points on the spectrum. For example my views on economic policy would be largely centre left, I’m a big believer in the free market and capitalism with appropriate checks and balances. Socially my views are more liberal (not to be confused with the Liberal party’s economic liberal ideals).

Mhoram - Both sides have loonies, IMO either the right have more of them or they are more vocal. But only someone terminally stupid would see things entirely in terms of black or white. A right wing ranter is usually someone who thinks screaming “communist” is relevant and both wins and ends the debate.

Today’s announcement was a huge loss for the right wing ranters who cannot see that a negotiated solution resulting in Australian tax payers get better value on their resources is a good result. They scream backflip, at which point they lose.

“So which are you Seano, the pot or the kettle? This roundabout’s making me dizzy… “

You were making sense for a while.

Seano says:

08:19am | 03/07/10

@Mhoram

“by your definition, Liberal are all right wing, Labor are therefore all left wing,”

That’s not my defintion, it’s a generally accepted convention for describing the political specture. Most sensible people have views that sit at different points on that spectrum. As a general rule I sit centre left economically and further left socially.

Right wing ranters are far right, there is no spectrum for them. You can spot them easily, they rarely let reality intrude on their narrow world view, they usually speak with a hive mind, nothing the left do is ever good and nothing right do is ever wrong. They think that screaming “communist” is relevant and both wins and ends the debate. Whilst both sides of the spectrum have these sorts of loons, IMO the ones on the right are either more vocal or more common.

Mhoram says:

09:23pm | 03/07/10

Seano, fair enough,but your comments do tend to portray you as a fairly one-eyed labor man. Glad to hear you can see more than one side.

I don’‘t think there are necessarily more loonies on the right than the left, they’re just by definition more frightening because they want to control people’s thoughts and actions, whereas loony lefties want to stop others controlling anything. This is why conservatives tend to be in power for longer and more often, but don’t change too much, whereas the major shifts in policy, whether it be social or financial, always seem to come when th left are in power.

I’m glad to hear you’re not black & white, and I agree that it’s a moronic view. However, this mining tax result is most certainly not a huge blow for the right-wing ranters. Whether it’s a good step or not (I think it probably is), it was an artificially created situation that is being attempted to be turned into a victorious triumph, which it is not. Bad management from the start by this government made this into a crisis, so where is the triumph? The attention-seeking shock jocks in the press will make hay out of this as well, don’t you worry.

Eric says:

08:57am | 04/07/10

Pfft. Left wing loonies also want to control everyone’s thoughts and actions. You just see more “ranters” on the right because your own tendencies are leftist.

Seano says:

03:05pm | 04/07/10

I think it is a huge blow because the Liberals were clearly hoping to make it a major focus for the election. With Labor having staved off the disaster of the GFC and times generally good for most they really are going to be struggling for anything on the constructive side of the dialogue. And we’ve already seen the attack anti-Gillard ads air which demonstrate this point.

For the record when not happy with Labor I would vote small L Liberal. I have been stuck into the government over a number of issues most particularly internet censorship. I despite the corrupt incompetence that is NSW state Labor and will be happy to see them gone at the next election. My only fear there is that we only be replacing them with another bunch of no hopers.

I think what’s best for the country is a strong Labor AND a strong Liberal party (unlike many conservatives, I take your point about control) and I strongly support the free market and capitalism but with appropriate and common sense checks and balances.

I though that Howard was a ville devisive little man who mostly wasted a golden opportunity in this country’s history and I think that Abbott embodies all of Howard’s worst qualities and none of the good ones. Bring back Turnbull or bring on Hockey.

Krista says:

10:53am | 02/07/10

Many don’t even read the headlines!! I have talked to a few of late who did not even know who the PM is past or present!! Its astounding. Yes your right Abbott has big problems now, if he stalls this tax, hes going to look like dirt, depriving Australians of benefits..

Davida says:

01:43pm | 02/07/10

Rosie,
In regards to your third paragraph….......you KNOW you shouldn’t mix them with alcohol.

Rosie says:

02:10pm | 02/07/10

Sorry Davida, don’t drink alcohol and if I did don’t you think it is a bit early for it?

I couldn’t help myself because that is what I think of Ms Gillard & Swann the goose. As far as I am cocerned Gillard & Swann are so predictable and don’t fool me one little bit!

Enjoy the rest of your day!

The Redman says:

02:24pm | 02/07/10

Not from what I’ve heard today. Abbott says a Coalition Government will abolish the tax completely. In any case, if he were to put it to the people, it could not be in the form of a referendum, which is only used on issues relating to the Constitution. It would have to be a plebiscite, the result of which has no legal or Constitution obligation for the Government to honour. This might be political suicide, of course, but that’s what would happen if the tax is taken to the people as a single issue outside of an election.

Rosie says:

03:22pm | 02/07/10

Thank you Redman for the explanation! I heard “referendum” and not knowing what you know thought how I did.

What Abbott meant is that the next election will be a referendum on the tax.

Learnt something though and thanks again!

The Redman says:

03:34pm | 02/07/10

Not at all.

iansand says:

03:54pm | 02/07/10

If you do a backflip you end up facing in the same direction. I think the Liberal Attack Bloggers really mean a somersault with twist..

Just Sayin' says:

06:50pm | 02/07/10

Yeh, that’s right iansand, the term ‘backflip’ in a policy context was totally invented by liberal commenters on the punch.

MH says:

06:58pm | 03/07/10

Spot on.  I’m not sure that turning up with a shiny new mop and bucket to clean up your own spew qualifies for praise.  What we’ve ended up with here is a watered down version of a fatally flawed tax concept.  Watch over coming months as further problems of ‘detail’ emerge and the junior and mid-tier miners start clamouring for special treatment.  And if the MRRT ever actually comes in, wait and see just how much extra revenue it raises.  You really think the big 3 were going to fold for just a $1.5b concession?  Hardly.  Unlike the buffoons at Treasury, they are actually capable of realistically modelling the amount of tax they will pay.  I’d be willing to be a lot of money on the bottom line revenue gain being far less than the proud $9.5b headline.  It’s ok though, by that time the Libs will actually be sufficiently electable to return to power and shore up the budget by increasing the GST.