Campaign countdown: when it’s on like Donkey Kong

persephone says:

08:17am | 16/06/10

Yes, but it was apparently beyond a Liberal government to do so.

Funny how they squibbed all those things that they call ‘easy and popular’ now.

AdamC says:

09:25am | 16/06/10

Pers, I think Howard opposed a mat. leave scheme - I know Minchin did. Adam D is right, it’s rather hollow to claim big wins for making easy decisions where fawning media approval is guaranteed.

Rudd’ problem has been that he finds it hard to make the genuinely tough decisions. And when he bucked that trend - with the controversial RSPT - he chose a complete loser.

All this hype about Dudd getting booted in August or whenever he sprouts the you know whats to call one is misplaced. Kevin10 is likely to scrape it in, just in time for the red(head) widow to kill his political career. It will be good riddance all round.

And it will be an interesting campaign. You couldn’t find more stylistically divergent potential PMs.

Barbara says:

09:59am | 16/06/10

Please absorb the quote below, because the maternity leave legislation facilitates what could only be described as a potential abuse of taxpayer funded largesse.

The paid parental leave money can be regarded as a BONUS by women who choose NOT to return to work - whether they planned never to return, or find motherhood incompatible with work, or for any reason whatsoever. 

“Under the Government’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme, eligible employees in receipt of Parental Leave pay may resign at any time without losing access to the payment.  Employees will not be obligated to repay any of their payments if they resign.  If a parent had been receiving the Government’s Parental Leave pay through their employer prior to their resignation, they will RECEIVE ANY REMAINING INSTALMENTS OF PARENTAL LEAVE PAY FROM THE FAMILY ASSISTANCE OFFICE”.  (My caps.)  (Diversity, Flexibility & Strategy Branch Workplace Relations Policy Group.)

This can amount to a discriminatory and generous taxpayer funded gift to any woman who qualifies for it by working for two years prior to accepting paid parental leave.  She may subsequently resign for any chosen reason, and without explanation, regard the instalments as a baby bonus,  possibly having never intended to return to work from the outset.

The leave payments were sold as financial support to women and their families during work absence and to require employers to hold their positions open until they return. 

This legislation discriminates against a wide range of women who for various health or other personal dynamics do not qualify for parental payments.  The only qualification for this money is that recipients work for two years prior to accepting it.

Think about it.

Henry says:

11:31am | 16/06/10

Agree.  Showed us all what a nasty little grub this man is and his fake apology just rubbed it in.  He is under pressure and the cracks are showing as he comes to terms with being a one-term dud and going down in infamy.

Fed Up says:

12:13pm | 16/06/10

That is true. I thought that the media would respond accordingly, but it has decided to give Krudd a pass. You know I am tired of pollies with a Macho attitude in this country. Nobody would think that Obama or David Cameron would say something sexist as that and yet in Australia the PM thinks he is okay to say that. And nobody says anything about it. Nobody criticises the smart arsery of this PM.
What a disgrace. Reporters are professionals asking a question. You just don’t treat professionals like that. This is a bully of a little man Kev is…..a full time disgrace. Period.

Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

03:33pm | 16/06/10

What a sexist pig! ! ! & to think you all thought he was better than Gentleman John

Evan Findlay says:

06:12pm | 16/06/10

Yes a very expensive one. Ask big business what they think of it.

Glen says:

12:13pm | 16/06/10

Gee, I wonder which side of the political fence you sit on .

Keith says:

12:59pm | 16/06/10

Hahahahahaha!

persephone says:

01:17pm | 16/06/10

Yossarian

I’ll give you some part truths, but will also remind you that, no matter how good a position or otherwise the Libs left the economy in (one they inherited from Labor, btw, and only fiddled with around the edges), it’s not beyond the skill of man to stuff things up.

So the government deserves some credit for steering us through the GFC and for the subsequent growth in the economy, just as Howard and Costello deserve some for not mucking around too much with PJK’s economic levers.

There was nothing stopping Rudd borrowing more money than he did, and if he had, obviously the deficit and debt position might not be as good as it is.

There was also nothing stopping him from spending the stimulus unwisely, in ways that failed to create or sustain jobs. So again, there must be credit for this.

There was nothing stopping him ignoring the advice of Treasury (as others had before him, and as happened in other countries) and not stimulating the economy adequately, which would also have increased the deficit and the unemployment rate.

As for pensions: again, a no brainer, so why didn’t Howard do it? Particularly as this was his core constituency.

Infrastructure counts as infrastructure. Cost, value for money, are other issues, and there’s plenty of argument on both sides - but the railways, ports, school buildings, roads, bridges etc will still be there in fifty years time and beyond, providing positive benefits for their community.

With health reform - actually, Abbott’s proposal is to add more bureaucracy. Labor’s is to decentralise it, base it within local hospital networks,not in state departments.

And the Liberal focus on how hospitals are to be administrated totally ignores the fact that this is a very minor part of the reforms.

The administration model is important to provide local delivery and planning of services, but the reform package goes far beyond that.

Obviously you guys (isn’t the ‘we’ll be running on in’ a bit of a give away?) are still wedded to Workchoices. I encourage you to run for the election with this as your policy - it will make a nice change, you haven’t had the courage to do so before.

This isn’t the worst government in Australia’s history. Saying so just demonstrates how little of Australian history you know (it does go back beyond Whitlam, you know).

It’s simply the government that got rid of Howard, and got you guys out of power.

A negative campaign will simply keep you out longer.

Oh, and fancy running an election campaign on the previous government’s record (you’re the one saying how great that was) and attacking everything the present government’s doing!

That’s why you guys ARE the worst Opposition in (recent) Australian history but unfortunately there’s little hope that that will change.

Tails says:

02:41pm | 16/06/10

“There was also nothing stopping him from spending the stimulus unwisely…”

Clearly.

Arnold says:

03:17pm | 16/06/10

Persephone, are you really saying that the economy was in great shape when Keating was booted out?  And that the Howard government did little except fiddle around the edges.  Why do you always feel the need to lie?  Or do you really think introduction of the GST was simply just fiddling around the edges?  If that kind of reform is just fiddling around the edges, what would you really call Rudd’s policy to “end the blame game” in public health? 

And only a labor supporter would condone waste of the magnitude that has been heaped upon the Australian population since Rudd has taken office.  I cannot believe how ardent you are in your support of what is clearly an underperforming government.  It would be admirable if I didn’t believe you were actually a robot.

And obviously the opposition cannot be the worst in history.  After all, only once before has a government been booted out after only one term, and the signs currently indicate that it may happen for the second time.  If you really believe that the opposition is the worst in history, what does that say about the government?

Oh, and it’s actually the government supporters running campaigns against the previous government.  And Labor is actually in power.  Or are the Liberals commissioning those ads declaring the return of workchoices?

Evan Findlay says:

06:33pm | 16/06/10

Arnold,

Just for your information as you seem unable to research simple data. When Keating left office, growth was at 5%,inflation under 2% and he had overseen 21 quarters of positive growth, not to mention all of the economic reform he and Hawke implemented. Howard received a better economy from Keating than Keating received from Howard. The data speaks for itself, undeniably.

And other than the GST, name other economic reforms Howard or his policy bum treasurer implemented?

And if you want to talk about waste, let’s talk baby bonuses, first home owners grants, 30% rebate for private health, cash splashes. During the last seven years in office they oversaw some 340 billion dollars in tax revenue. 60 billion to the future fund and 20 billion saved. That leaves 260 billion dollars wasted. A resource boom of a lifetime and all we have to show for it is people having babies for cash, glad they all got their plasma’s, an over-inflated housing market and people on a million dollars getting subsidized health insurance. Hardly a legacy; Unsustainable, middleclass welfare.

Why do Liberal party hacks always rewrite history? All you need to do is read a book, but I forget, most of you were probably educated during the Howard years and books are foreign to you.

persephone says:

07:54pm | 16/06/10

Arnold

no, although it was clearly in recovery.

I’m talking about the fundamental structure of the economy - the floating dollar, the removal of tariffs, the opening up of the banking market - some of them reforms Howard advocated as Treasurer but wasn’t able to bring in.

I’m happy to give Howard the GST, but the discussion was about riding out the GFC, and I can’t see how the GST (or health reforms) are relevant to that.

Er - and yes, my last paragraph was supposed to be sarcastic. Yossarian is saying that all Labor has is attacking the past government - I’m pointing out that all he’s doing is trying to run on its record.

Not very consistent to accuse the other party of being fixated on the past when other is as well.

The present relative positions of the two parties is nothing to do with the wonderful job the Opposition is doing - quite the opposite, as any analysis of the polls show.

And - again, as any reasonable analysis of the polls also shows - they’re going to remain in Opposition.

Andrew says:

12:30pm | 16/06/10

Bleeding heart liberal lefties are so good with sweeping generalisations. Pfft.

Why do the eager need to be checked? How about “encourage everyone and reward those who work hard”. Is that not something to aspire to?

Why is it, the left is always trying to reward people who don’t deserve it? Why are the wealthy or aspirational to be hated?

How can you possibly say the people who oppose climate change are the same ones who oppose the mining tax grab (don’t call it super profits because if earning more than 6% is your idea of a super profit that reveals a great deal about you)? Where is your proof for that?

I am not opposed to a price for carbon, I believe curbing our consumption of fossil fuels is a good thing, although I suspect it will have little if any effect on the climate. What I, and any thinking Australian should be, opposed to is Australia putting a price on carbon before anyone else (particular the US) does. That will simply make us uncompetitive.

What would an ETS without global action have done? Harmed our economy for the sole purpose of making Kevin look good on the world stage.

You are just another latte leftie who thinks they know whats good for all of us. Gimme a break and get a haircut and a real job while you’re at it.

And for the record this government is an epic failure. What is so interesting (and fun to watch) is that when you get elcted as a generational change candidate (like Rudd and Obama) and then you fail to deliver (people realise you’re just another politician) then you lose your popularity, you lose your backing and you never recover. That has happened to Rudd. He’s gone, once there is a breakdown in trust, you never get it back.

luke09 says:

01:49pm | 16/06/10

nosthow, one thing you’re forgetting, nobody can be worse than Rudd. Voting for Abbott is still an improvement.

Christian Real says:

02:55pm | 16/06/10

Luke09
So you don’t mind voting for Abbott who admitted to lying on National television 7.30 report
Old saying Luke09, people are known for the company they keep or support, guess that make you a liar as well.

Robert Smissen , rural SA says:

03:35pm | 16/06/10

luke09 er Whitlam?

luke09 says:

04:28pm | 16/06/10

christian, ridiculous comment, name one person who has never told a lie, everyone has, politician or not. Only a liar would think otherwise.

Rudd called himself an economic conservative, billions wasted and rorted by poor policies and Australia has it largest debt in decades in less than three years.  You know that old saying, ‘Actions speak louder than words’. I guess Rudd’s actions might mean he lied.

If you dig deep enough you will find flaws in anyone. You can vote for Rudd and I can vote for Abbott, this is called democracy, a basic right for all Australians.

nosthow says:

05:11pm | 16/06/10

@luke09- and there we disagree Luke - Abbott was only voted leader because no-one wanted Turnbull and no-one wanted the job of Oppn Leader. Last man standing sydnrome ! He may in time come good Luke but suspect Turnbull is on the rebound just waiting to cut him down !

AJ from WA says:

08:16pm | 16/06/10

As far as some of the previous comments go - how do you tell if a Politican is lying? Their lips are moving. On the other main topic my Wife and I raised our kids without any Government assistance - and now some of the women out their want me to pay for raising theirs? Get real - do it like everyone else always has you lazy moneygrabbers.

Andrew says:

03:25pm | 16/06/10

Oh really?!? Please explain to me why the stimulus worked in Australia but no other country.

Labor people love the idea of stimulus because its just another way they get to waste money. The reason, and I’ve told you this before so hopefully it will get through at some stage, we got through the Western Financial Crisis relatively unscathed is because, listen up please it is simple:
1. Our level of debt was…..ZERO (thank you Liberal party); and
2. Once they had used up their inventories, China bought more resources.

I don’t think you are so docile as to believe writing cheques to lower paid workers and wasting money on bungled schemes or massively inflating the price of a shade cloth over a school yard saved the Australian economy from recession. If it did then why didn’t the exact same thing happen in the US or UK?

My only alternative then is to believe you already know this but are trying to peddle a party line that Rudd and Swan are economic magicians when frankly nothing could be further than the truth. In fact had they not pissed so much money up the wall in the form of economic stimulus they wouldn’t need to shore up the budget with their ridiculous and toxic resources class warfare tax.

I truly believe that Rudd and Swan are worst treasurer/PM combo in the history of this Country. Absolute amateurs.

As for the sweeping generalisations, I’m glad someone picked up on the irony and yes, I did think it up all by myself. Cheers.

Talking of mixed metaphors and tautologies how do you get “shipwrecked on the global financial crisis”? BTW the white whale/perquod simile is gold. Pure comedy gold.

Rudd Government now there’s an oxymoron.

N says:

04:11pm | 16/06/10

PC, it’s very rich to be saying that without the stimulus our economy would be “shipwrecked on the global financial crisis like most of the industrialised world.”

Fortunately for Mr Rudd, the dust on this matter is far from settled, but rest assured will be debated for many years to come. I, like most people willing to question the validity of the stimulus package, wonder how spending money on primarily Taiwanese made goods helped the Australian economy directly.  The fact that Australia, unlike the majority of industrialised nations, had a surplus budget certainly helped buffer from the effects of failing financial markets which hedged a lot of this debt.

Australia’s key export is raw material, which China was quite happy to continue buying throughout the GFC. Simple fact of the matter is, without China buying our iron ore through the GFC, we would be in similar position to the US & UK.

Andrew says:

09:00pm | 16/06/10

Bob Hawke would win hands down!