staringclown

How long will Malcolm remain

183 posts in this topic

It's the old classic.

If you don't want to upset the least amount of people, don't do anything.

Unfortunately if you don't do anything for long enough, you eventually upset the most amount of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the old classic.

If you don't want to upset the least amount of people, don't do anything.

Unfortunately if you don't do anything for long enough, you eventually upset the most amount of people.

Apart from the double negative you are right. Economically, sometimes the best thing to do is... well not much. But people won't vote for a party that says 'at the moment we don't want to change much'. Just as they won't vote for a higher taxing govt if things are good, or a higher spending govt if things are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always a good laugh.

 

Turdball has turned out to stand for nothing. As wrong as TA was, at least he proposed something. 

 

Au contraire! He stands for everything Abbott (AKA the IPA) does. 

 

Pre-Abbott predictions:

 

 

Some of the major items include:

  • More than $5 billion in foreign aid in the form of development assistance; this has never been instrumental in helping poor countries achieve economic relief and has a negative effect by focusing their administrative resources on obtaining assistance rather than transforming their economies into free-market productive entities.
  • $9 billion in Commonwealth duplication in housing, environmental and community amenities: these are state functions and the Commonwealth should leave them to that level of government.
  • Privatise the ABC and SBS, saving $1.2 billion; other media outlets raise their own revenues and so should the national broadcasters.
  • $2 billion in agriculture forestry and fishing; much of this deals with environmental barriers and industry-specific research activities, none of which have ever produced benefits significant enough to warrant their continuing funding.
  • $1.6 billion in general research grants; while much of the basic research of the CSIRO serves genuine collective needs, increasingly research in CSIRO, the Met Office and especially in the Australian Research Council has become politically oriented around climate change and social agitation.

Many functions should be cut entirely - the Climate Change Department being an obvious candidate.

In addition, most of Sustainability and Water, parts of Education, Health and Ageing, and Transport departments simply duplicate state functions and in some cases erect additional barriers to investment activity.

 

The ABC hasn't been privatised yet but Mark Scott suggested a merger with SBS as he left.

 

The ABC now publishes IPA views regularly. Tim Wilson the former Human Rights Commissioner and IPA hack is headed for Canberra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A July 2 election it is then. Will Malcolm remain? Most likely yes. It will be very interesting to see how the senate vote plays out with the elimination of the minors from the cross bench. Correct me if I'm wrong but up to 3 million senate votes coud be disregarded under the new rules. Anyone that doesn't preference above the line such that their vote is allocated to _someone_ that isn't eliminated for not getting a quota gets disregarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After hearing him on 7.30 tonight he's trying to be too clever by half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After hearing him on 7.30 tonight he's trying to be too clever by half.

 

I struggled to believe that ScoMo didn't know until the very end what Turnbull was going to do.

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if Abbott remains front and centre during the campaign – through leaks, public appearances and defences of his legacy like he's attempted already – then Turnbull will lose seats and blow a chance to control the Senate.

With Turnbull's electoral invincibility shot, Abbott would be well placed to undermine him then challenge to regain the top job later this year or early in 2017.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/turnbull-v-abbott-only-one-will-survive-this-election-20160321-gnnvvv.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That in-house fighting would be like Peacock-Howard in the 1990s or Dudd-Dillard in recent years - lead to failure at the election.

 

969408-leahy-editorial-cartoon-julia-gil

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I struggled to believe that ScoMo didn't know until the very end what Turnbull was going to do.

He did look like he didn't know - and was pissed off. Poor form for Turnbull not to have given him a heads up. I suspect there is a lot of tension between Morrison and Turnbull, as there normally is between a PM and his treasurer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I struggled to believe that ScoMo didn't know until the very end what Turnbull was going to do.

PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull has conceded that Treasurer Scott Morrison was not in the “very small circle” that was made aware of plans to bring the Budget forward on Monday morning.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/television/prime-minister-explains-why-scott-morrison-is-not-in-the-inner-circle/news-story/70d525717c4c4115582e06c241f3a9ac

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I struggled to believe that ScoMo didn't know until the very end what Turnbull was going to do.

PRIME Minister Malcolm Turnbull has conceded that Treasurer Scott Morrison was not in the “very small circle” that was made aware of plans to bring the Budget forward on Monday morning.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/television/prime-minister-explains-why-scott-morrison-is-not-in-the-inner-circle/news-story/70d525717c4c4115582e06c241f3a9ac

 

 

How many in the 'very small circle' - 1?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many in the 'very small circle' - 1?!

Does the pet budgie count?

 

I imagine the gang leaders (factions- call them what you will) need to be notified and then they have to (or don't) notify the soldiers. Not sure if Turnbull and Morrison are from the same gang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up until now, I feel like I have been giving this government the benefit of the doubt. Throughout the GST debacle, the business tax cuts for big businesses that don't actually pay the rate now anyway and the scare campaigns against NG and more importantly CG cuts. 

 

The last straw has come today with a proposal for states to get a share of income tax. It smacks of a government in panic mode. We don't have a tax reform policy, quick, oh here's one, lets go with that...

 

The whole palaver around health and education spending at a federal level was that bureaucracy was being duplicated. The IPA view that the federal health department didn't administer a single hospital nor did the education department administer a single school was at least arguable on the grounds of efficiency. 

 

Make no mistake, the policy will incur in the longer term, a rise in income tax. The benefit for the feds being they hope the punters will blame the states.

 

I have a couple of issues.

 

Mal claims as a justification for no change to NG and CG rules that "raising taxes discourages activity" and cites tobacco taxes. What will allowing states to raise income tax do?

 

Smaller states will not be able to compete with larger states and differential tax rates will apply. The wealthy will be able shift earnings between states through legal means and new tax avoidance structures will ensue.

 
This is yet another attempt to outsource government and avoid any meaningful reform. 
 
There is abundant low hanging fruit ripe for the picking in terms of tax reform but this latest non-policy simply confirms that vested interests have this government by the balls. It's a f*cking disgrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Up until now, I feel like I have been giving this government the benefit of the doubt. Throughout the GST debacle, the business tax cuts for big businesses that don't actually pay the rate now anyway and the scare campaigns against NG and more importantly CG cuts. 

 

The last straw has come today with a proposal for states to get a share of income tax. It smacks of a government in panic mode. We don't have a tax reform policy, quick, oh here's one, lets go with that...

 

The whole palaver around health and education spending at a federal level was that bureaucracy was being duplicated. The IPA view that the federal health department didn't administer a single hospital nor did the education department administer a single school was at least arguable on the grounds of efficiency. 

 

Make no mistake, the policy will incur in the longer term, a rise in income tax. The benefit for the feds being they hope the punters will blame the states.

 

I have a couple of issues.

 

Mal claims as a justification for no change to NG and CG rules that "raising taxes discourages activity" and cites tobacco taxes. What will allowing states to raise income tax do?

 

Smaller states will not be able to compete with larger states and differential tax rates will apply. The wealthy will be able shift earnings between states through legal means and new tax avoidance structures will ensue.

 
This is yet another attempt to outsource government and avoid any meaningful reform. 
 
There is abundant low hanging fruit ripe for the picking in terms of tax reform but this latest non-policy simply confirms that vested interests have this government by the balls. It's a f*cking disgrace.

 

 

It would be like the US with different income taxes amongst the states. I wonder how much it encourages inter-state migration of businesses and individuals where substantial discrepancies exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be like the US with different income taxes amongst the states. I wonder how much it encourages inter-state migration of businesses and individuals where substantial discrepancies exist.

 

If a business could save even a modest 2% tax they would be crazy not to. It may even result in better health/education services in the larger states that offer the lower taxes simply due to economies of scale. The services in non-competitive states like Tassie would be the equivalent of the deep south in the states. The end of any pretence of an egalitarian country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a business could save even a modest 2% tax they would be crazy not to. It may even result in better health/education services in the larger states that offer the lower taxes simply due to economies of scale. The services in non-competitive states like Tassie would be the equivalent of the deep south in the states. The end of any pretence of an egalitarian country. 

 

It would also be reflective of how efficiently states spend money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that the source of the funding makes the massive difference to the efficient running of services. If that were the case I would expect that the federal public service would be an efficient and well run.  :lol:

 

I don't think voters forgive poor health and education services based on the blame shifting between the state/feds. The money ultimately comes from taxpayers regardless of who collects it and I hold state governments accountable for institutions they administer. There is incentive for states to provide efficiencies without decentralising income tax collection and creating more churn.

 

In any case, Turnbull has flagged grants to less well off states with means taxpayers will still be providing subsidies to these states in the same way as the current system provides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that the source of the funding makes the massive difference to the efficient running of services. If that were the case I would expect that the federal public service would be an efficient and well run.  :lol:

 

I don't think voters forgive poor health and education services based on the blame shifting between the state/feds. The money ultimately comes from taxpayers regardless of who collects it and I hold state governments accountable for institutions they administer. There is incentive for states to provide efficiencies without decentralising income tax collection and creating more churn.

 

In any case, Turnbull has flagged grants to less well off states with means taxpayers will still be providing subsidies to these states in the same way as the current system provides. 

 

The serious efficiencies can only come by removing an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy called State governments. But pigs will fly before that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can't imagine what they were he was thinking. Even if it was the best idea ever, ground work (and some well thought out detail) is required prior to such a large change. The withdrawal of yet another policy makes him look sillier than ever. Christ knows what he'll come up with next... 

 

The serious efficiencies can only come by removing an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy called State governments. But pigs will fly before that happens.

 

 

Agreed. Unfortunately, they would be required to vote themselves out of existence. Unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A key supporter of former prime minister Tony Abbott says he is prepared to challenge Malcolm Turnbull for the prime ministership.

Conservative MP Kevin Andrews, who was dumped by Mr Turnbull from the Defence portfolio in last September's leadership change, made the comments about potentially challenging the Prime Minister in an interview with his local paper, the Manningham Leader.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kevin-andrews-prepared-to-challenge-malcolm-turnbull-for-leadership-20160404-gnxlrf.html#ixzz44pBRPMcE 

Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

 

 

 

I reckon if the libs try hard they squeeze in two more leaders before an election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon if the libs try hard they squeeze in two more leaders before an election. 

 

Looks like Andrews is doing the mad monk's bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Andrews is doing the mad monk's bid.

I thought that, he'd be busy sussing out the numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrews is Abbott without the popularity...

 

The first poll has emerged that has TPP back in Labor's favour. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he could lose a DD. I wonder if that will influence his plans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now