The only way to make an informal vote valuable is to organise a mass informal vote protest in your electorate ... I am pretty sure though it is illegal to encourage informal votes. I think overall the informal vote is still too small ... you'd have to do it at a local electorate level. Though political parties would probably see it as an education issue rather than a protest (unless again made public).

So your better course of action (probably too late now I'd say) is run as an independent or set up your own political party (and use as your platform that you are a "protest" vote).

Like 95%+ on here, totally misrepresented my position. Maybe you need to better understand the word 'nuanced' and its antonym 'dichotomous'
PS: thanks for the insults, too. Oops.

Except, smart-arse, I'm not right-wing or left-wing. Some of us aren't blinkered into thinking all policy needs to be extremist.

Thank you for proving my point though...

the crux of things in Australia is a false dichotomy of either neoliberalism gone mad (as espoused by the Thatcherite elements of this forum) or communism (as espoused by MurdochRags).

You've just shown the problem rather magnificently. People like you are the problem. The nuances of this discussion are ignored because people think in extremes on account of the fact that the likes of you constantly hijack the debate.

I'll leave you to regurgitate the tweets at the bottom of the screen from Q&A in peace. Much easier just to say all those who disagree with you are stupid rather than explaining, with evidence, why their opinions are wrong. But you don't deign to bother with more intellectually rigorous concepts. You just like to hurl insults and imply that those with reduced IQs are less capable of empathy.

Yuk.

Your 'Liberal' (*snigger*) Party more than doubled the country's debt after trumpeting that, once in power, it would achieve a surplus in its first term in office & every year after that. So the issue skyrocketed in the opposite direction to their, supposed, key competency
So even the slogan on that big badge their wear they couldn't even live up to.
Frauds, borne out by the evidence.

Typical baseless, ignorant statement that I could hear from any right winger living inside their uninformed echo chamber
"The Greens are commies", ""they'll destroy the economy", pretty much sums up.


You forgot to add "all politicians are crooks"


You tell this to yourself to make you feel better about your, gutless, donkey vote


It was quite a whinging diatribe that I've heard from so many people so many times before

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 25/5/2016 04:35:40 AM

Yes.

One of my best friends has a Joe Hill tattoo on his arm.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Party_(Sweden)

Regarding the United States...

America's just fine. If you're loaded. Otherwise it ranges from okay to shithouse (and shithouse for a huge proportion of the population).

Nordic countries do not have the might of the US. They do not have the biggest corporations in the world. They do not have the cultural domination of the States. But at least they make some kind of effort to help those who really need help. If you're not born into privilege in Scandinavia, your life is not fucked. In the States... well, everything is against you if you don't get off to the right start in life which is, of course, arbitrarily determined.

Masses of people in America protested against Obamacare. How selfish can they get? It's impossible to reform gun-law because of attachment to an antiquated right to bear arms which was only necessary in 1791 (when the Second Amendment was drafted) because back then there was no competent standing police force and individual rights were best protected by arming the civilian population. They apply that logic today. As a result, they have shooting sprees en masse. How is that fair?

This video has one of the best political speeches I have ever heard. It's by Glenda Jackson. It's not about the United States. It's about Britain under Thatcher. But the system employed by Thatcher was Britain's foray into American neoliberalism.

[youtube]W0G2r7G96RY[/youtube]

Edited by quickflick: 25/5/2016 03:25:01 AM

Of course no utopia exists. My post didn't depict one.

Firstly, I agree totally that communism discourages innovation. But I'm not endorsing communism. Do you think that Sweden is practically communist?

The Liberal Party ain't what it used to be. When Malcolm Fraser, one of the greatest Australian PMs ever, was around it was a different beast to the one we see today. Maybe then it encouraged innovation. We know it did, at least to a point. Fraser had the AIS built. But these days, I don't know that it's too crash hot. I think Labor are as bad or worse, though.

But I don't think you've got it right that American-style neoliberalism encourages innovation either. If I've misrepresented your views in any way I do apologise and I will correct that. And even neoliberalism does (to an extent) encourage innovation, its effects are felt so unevenly.

It's all about striking a balance somewhere in between. Has Sweden struck that balance? I'm not claiming it has done (just that it has done a far better job than the US).

I don't necessarily agree with the more lunatic elements of the Australian (economic) left who want everything taxed to the hilt. I think that in some areas investment capital is already far too discouraged in Australia.

Some sectors can cope with being taxed more, some cannot (or may even need to be taxed less) and others need to be really tightly regulated at all times regardless (banks, for instance).

I think economics/taxation is a nuanced balance of traditional and Keynesian policies to encourage investment in the right areas but to take in enough revenue to maintain the welfare state which the state is obliged to do.

I should point out that I'm not a proper economics student and I defer to the knowledge of others.

I realise that some aspects of my post seemed inconsistent (although, arguably, with really bright policy-making, it's not as inconsistent as one might think). Most of the things I've referred to have little to do with the communism vs capitalism debate. Only really the criticism of lack of funding for single-parent families and education in Australia. I don't think it reeks of communism for a government in a liberal democracy to prioritise these things.

But the problem in Australian society is that there's this constant division in Australian society. There is greed and there is envy. The wealthy in this country are smug. Those worse off are bitter and envious. We end up getting a false dichotomy of those promoting neoliberalism gone mad versus those promoting Communism. That misses the point. You've got to look somewhere in between.

Australians, for a long time, have a cultural history of tall poppy syndrome. This tendency, which exacerbates the politics of division, means that we are just about stagnant in terms of innovation.

Sweden is an interesting one. I recall a Swedish chick I know expressing similar sentiment to you. She thinks Sweden is not brash enough in some ways. She loves her country's commitment to social welfare (or so I gather). But she thinks that it needs work in terms of the US style sense of invention. Probably, she is right. It could be better and aspects of Sweden would be better if it were more individualistic.

However, it must be remembered that Sweden is incredibly innovative in IT and start-ups. Spotify and Skype are the obvious examples. Look at Australia. We do jack shit in terms of innovation and we're far more, culturally, individualistic than Sweden.

I'm not saying Australia should necessarily aspire to be just like Nordic countries. I'm not even necessarily advocating their style of socialism in Australia because it may not be feasible or compatible.

But by God Australia needs to lift its game. If I were in a policy-making chair, I'd look to the examples of Scandinavia and Singapore. People more versed in these things than me will be able to think of other relevant examples.

Scandinavia and Singapore aren't on the same end of the spectrum of taxation. But, regardless of that, they're doing some things right. Australia should look to what works and try to incorporate successful individual aspects into our education system, taxation system, etc.

But all this is, of course, made difficult by the politics of division/envy and tall poppy syndrome that is prevalent in Australia.

Edited by quickflick: 25/5/2016 03:23:31 AM

Edited by quickflick: 25/5/2016 03:47:53 AM

The utopia doesnt exist.

Actually, what you are looking for is closer to America than Sweden.

You need to vote for the one that makes people money. Because, innovation to cure all the worlds problems is driven by profit. A communist or socialist system (aka left) does not encourage innovation, it encourages mediocrity.

You may look at it the other way and say it is the cause not the solution, but we are where we are.

Vote Liberal until somebody invents a machine to make it rain on command in Australia.

=d>

Edited by salmonfc: 25/5/2016 01:25:32 AM

And, let's face it, people who would lose money with the taxation policies pursued by other parties. I'm not saying that this principled in the slightest. Just the way it is.

Rightly or wrongly, people who stand to lose money if a non Liberal government is going to be voted in are less likely to vote for it.

I have no great love for the Liberal Party. But I'm always unlikely to vote for the Labor [sic] Party. The rampant hypocrisy of the Gillard Government should have disillusioned the entire country. Reducing the single-parent payment from parents of 16 year olds to 8 year olds was a disgrace of the highest order. Gillard wanted to reduce already diminished funding to universities. Go figure.

She was a deplorable person. The idea that she was opposed to same-sex marriages, for somebody supposedly progressive, is beyond the pale. She was willing to sacrifice all her principles for the sake of keeping power and leaving some kind of a political legacy. She was hellbent on bringing through the Gonskii reforms. Well, at the cost of making things even tougher for universities in this country? No thanks. Universities in this country are already lacking so much funding. Research needs serious help.

Is Shorten's lot any better? Probably not. I hear next to nothing meaningful from them.

Is Turnbull any better? No. Another who has probably sacrificed his principles for the sake of holding power.

I'm sorry but power and legacy isn't something that should be sought. It should be earned by morally upright, informed and innovative policy.

Are the Greens any better? At least they oppose the racist and illegal "border" policy this country pursues (with bipartsian support, demonstrating how far we have fallen). But they know jack shit about economics. The economy would crash with them in any position of relative power.

This country is disgraceful. It's not a fair go country. Nobody gives a shit about those less fortunate than themselves.

It's also divided by the politics of envy. Greed and envy. It's everywhere. The rich are greedy. Too many who are battling are just envious and embittered. This is no way to be. There's a cultural element of tall poppy syndrome in Australia which I find toxic.

We have continually falling educational standards.

We have no innovation. IT? Start-up companies? I reckon we're so far behind other parts of the world. We're overly reliant on things like our resources.

No creativity. Rather than encouraging innovation, any time anybody thinks of anything out of the box, it gets shut down by those who lack imagination or suffer from more tall poppy syndrome.

I'm seriously fed up with Australia.

There is no party to vote for.

Rant over.

25% broken promises, 10% stalled
Liberal Party = Compulsive Liars
Their voters = wilful ignorants
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-08/promise-tracker-how-does-the-coalitions-record-stack-up/7379572

Denial, denial, denial
Standard modus operandi for your wilfully ignorant right wing voter.

Despite identifying as a fairly right-wing individual, no.

However, with respect to the Lower House at least, I'm torn as to whether I should vote for the lesser evil or punish the Liberal Party in the hope they'll lose, bone Turnbull, he'll slink away to never be heard from again (wishful thinking), and return to at least a centre-right position.

Of course, I'm enrolled in the safest seat that has ever been, so my lower house vote probably doesn't matter. Will definitely be preferencing the LDP first in the upper house.

Yes, that is true.

everyone has to grow up eventually. The age of entitlement is over my friend.

That is his nickname. He is known as Honest Tony. It is what the press gave him because no one else tells it the way it is without the political spin quite like Tony.

Some say, that was his biggest issue. In other words, he was unpopular because he didn't master the true art of being a real politician. Others say he was naive politically. Everyone agrees he was very loyal, a trait lost on all other politicians.

Edited by Aikhme: 16/5/2016 06:44:35 PM

He's not even PM, so you can't really blame him when he couldn't get a Budget through.

Swinging as in he might vote LNP, or he might not vote?

You shitting me? You've been solely parroting LNP rubbish on here for months.

Not the point people are debating here lol.

-PB

I don't get that impression at all. There's a suggestion in this thread that Tony Abbott is an honest politician. That's far from the truth ;)

Edited by mcjules: 16/5/2016 09:49:21 AM

Why do you give the impression that the Coalition are the only ones that break promises.?

They all do it.

He changed his tune a number of times but:
1. The surplus in 1 year was said by Hockey in parliament so is the most sound bited and therefore had the most penetration
2. They're not even close to meeting that promise
3. They tried to reign in spending by cutting to things they promised they wouldn't (like Medicare, education & the ABC) which is why their election campaign was far from honest.

It's not about whether an individual person thinks the budget measures were the right ones or not. He couldn't pass those measures through the senate because they didn't have a mandate to do the things they wanted. Ultimately this dishonesty cost Abbott his job and he didn't get his "3 years"

Edited by mcjules: 16/5/2016 07:38:25 AM

He didn't even get 3 years.

And in addition, the Senate was hostile and wouldn't pass his budget.

He promised a surplus in 3 years and to repay the debt in 10 years.

Nailed it on page 1

Lol, the ABC factcheck unit, aka Julia Gillard giving ten million so that Virginia Trioli's unemployable husband could stalk Abbott.

Just don't vote.

Has the Government doubled the budget deficit?

Updated 10 Jun 2014, 4:53pm


Is Chris Bowen right to say the Government has doubled the deficit?


Treasurer Joe Hockey is the "Masterchef of cooking the books" according to his Opposition counterpart Chris Bowen, who has repeatedly accused the Coalition of using "voodoo economics" to create a sense of crisis to justify dramatic spending cuts in the May 13 budget.

"Now what's happening here is that Joe Hockey has doubled the deficit, adding $68 billion to the deficit by changes to Government spending and changes to Government assumptions, and now he's asking the Australian people to pay for it", Mr Bowen told journalists in his electorate on April 27.

ABC Fact Check examines whether this statement is correct.

•The claim: Chris Bowen says Joe Hockey has doubled the deficit by changes to Government spending and changes to Government assumptions.
•The verdict: Since the election, the official forecast deficit has doubled. The economic assumptions are different from those used before the election, and spending decisions have been made that were not in the previous forecasts. Mr Bowen's claim checks out.

Two sets of forecasts

Mr Bowen's office told Fact Check the statement was based on differences between two budget forecasts, one prepared before the Coalition came to power and one prepared afterwards.

The first, the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO), was released in August by Treasury. It was based on a "no policy change" scenario, using assumptions and fiscal rules underpinning medium-term projections adopted by the former Labor government.

The second, the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) was released in December by the Government. It was based on assumptions adopted by the Coalition, following advice from Treasury.

During a Senate Estimates hearing in February, Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson was asked whether forecasts and projections in the MYEFO were ultimately the decision of Treasury or Government. He replied: "It is always a decision of Government. PEFO is the only document that the Treasury and the Department of Finance have their names on. In fact, it is not even Treasury and the Department of Finance; it is the two secretaries. All other documents are documents of the Government."

Both forecasts contain figures for the standard budget projection period, known as the forward estimates period, which is four years.

Has the deficit doubled?

The August PEFO said the underlying cash balance in 2013-14 would be a deficit of $30.1 billion. The following year's balance would be a $24 billion deficit, and in 2015-16 a $4.7 billion deficit, before returning to a surplus of $4.2 billion in 2016-17.

These forecasts total a deficit of $54.6 billion over the four-year forward estimates.

The December MYEFO estimated the underlying cash balance for 2013-14 would be a deficit of $47 billion. The projections for the following three years were deficits of $33.9 billion, $24.1 billion and $17.7 billion.

These total $123 billion over the four years of the forward estimates.

The difference between the two projections is $68 billion. The combined projected deficit in the coalition's MYEFO is more than double the corresponding number in the PEFO. Mr Bowen is correct on this figure.


Have there been changes to Government spending?

The MYEFO released by the Government states that since the 2013 PEFO, policy decisions, which includes spending and revenue decisions, has had a $13.7 billion negative impact on the underlying cash balance over the forward estimates.

In relation to spending, the MYEFO said: "Essential steps have been taken to address unresolved issues inherited from the former Government, which have contributed to the deterioration in the budget position since the 2013 PEFO."

This includes:
•spending measures associated with repealing the carbon tax ($2.8 billion over four years);
•land transport infrastructure programs ($5.6 billion over four years);
•implementation of border protection policies ($2.1 billion over four years of which government says $1.2 billion is directly attributable to insufficient funding provided previously for the PNG and Nauru facilities);
•a boost to funding for the Students First package ($1.2 billion over four years); and
•an $8.8 billion grant paid to the Reserve Bank of Australia.

MYEFO states deterioration of about $2.9 billion was attributed to removing what is described by Mr Hockey as "uncertainty" in relation to about 100 announced, but unlegislated, tax and superannuation measures. Mr Hockey maintains that the budget "blow-out" Labor keeps pointing to is a direct result of the Government needing to fix inherited problems and paying for policies initiated but not legislated for, under the previous government, rather than it being all new spending. He also says the Government has brought forward new spending that Labor "buried" beyond the four years of the forward estimates. Labor disagrees.

The most significant single payment across the four years is a grant of $8.8 billion given to the RBA this financial year.

While that payment was clearly made by the Coalition, there is debate about whether the cost itself was new, or whether it was money that should have been paid to the Reserve Bank while Labor was in government.

Mr Hockey told the ABC Insiders program on April 13 that: "The $9 billion should have gone under Labor... when they took out dividends from the Reserve Bank..."

The Opposition maintains it was never asked for a lump sum payment of that size and released formal advice from Treasury to then treasurer Wayne Swan in April 2013, which warned that a cash grant could trigger market speculation about the RBA's stability and stated that there was no legal basis to make a capital injection. The Opposition has also said the Government's decision to provide $8.8 billion to the RBA was not in response to a specific request from the bank.
While the payment should be considered as new spending, it is worth noting that while the RBA did not make a formal request for a cash grant, Governor Glenn Stevens told the Standing Committee on Economics in February 2013 that the RBA would have preferred that Mr Swan had not depleted the bank's capital by withdrawing $500 million in dividends ahead of schedule to pay down the government deficit.

Other spending measures - such as on land transport infrastructure, and compensation measures associated with repealing the carbon tax - are examples of spending that would not have been required under Labor policies.

It is clear that changes to Government spending have contributed to the doubling of the deficit.

Have the economic assumptions changed?

The MYEFO said that over the forward estimates a $54.3 billion deterioration in the projected combined deficit since the PEFO was caused by "parameter and other variations" changes.

These included:
•changes to the parameters for determining tax receipts, which will result in the government receiving $37.8 billion less over the forward estimates than forecast in the PEFO;
•a change to the terms of trade methodology, reducing economic growth forecasts, causing a $2 billion hit to the bottom line over the forward estimates;
•a change in the projected unemployment rate, leading to higher benefits payments totalling $3.7 billion extra

Mr Bowen accurately quotes the MYEFO in stating that the economic assumptions have changed, with a resulting negative effect on the budget deficit.

The biggest single change between the PEFO and the MYEFO is the projection that lower government revenue from tax will add $37.8 billion of the $68 billion increase to the deficit over the forward estimates, which is approximately 55 per cent. Thanks to a gloomier outlook for economic growth, the MYEFO contains downward revisions to forecasts of wage growth and corporate profitability.

"A softening in the economic outlook has resulted in significantly lower nominal GDP, which has largely driven the reduction in tax receipts by more than $37 billion over the forward estimates," the MYEFO said.

The changed outlook is reflected in these reductions in forecast growth in gross domestic product for the forward estimates in the PEFO and the MYEFO:

The main difference between the PEFO and the MYEFO was a more pessimistic view about the impact on the economy of the end of the mining investment boom. The MYEFO said the fall in resources investment was expected to be sharper than previously forecast, while recovery in the non-resources sector was expected to be more gradual.

Are they 'Government' assumptions and projections?

Since the MYEFO was released in December, Labor ministers have repeatedly stated that the economic assumptions were "deliberately" adopted by the Coalition Government and Mr Hockey in order to manufacture a budget crisis. In his April 27 press conference, Mr Bowen said the projections were based on the Government's assumptions: "Not even the Treasury or Department of Finance's assumptions; [Mr Hockey's] own personal forecasts as the Treasurer of Australia," he said.

It is difficult to ascertain whether Mr Bowen has specific knowledge about what information passed between Treasury and Mr Hockey, and how much influence each had on the downgraded forecasts for economic growth. This change underlies the doubling of the deficit.

Mr Hockey has repeatedly rejected Labor's allegations by telling Parliament that the Government relies on economic projections modelled by Treasury. Mr Hockey said in Parliament on March 18: "The fact of the matter is that we want to have the most accurate forecast possible; that is what Treasury recommended, and that is what we accept," he said.

He suggested Labor was to blame for the need for changed assumptions. "The methodology that they [Treasury] have used in MYEFO actually confirms the fact that Labor left the legacy of increasing deficits to $123 billion..."

He also suggested Labor' growth forecasts had been too optimistic, saying Labor had "no sense of shame that they left a slower economy".

As set out above, Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson says forecasts and projections in the MYEFO are ultimately decided by the Government.

The verdict

Mr Bowen accurately quoted changes totalling $68 billion in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

The MYEFO forecasts a budget deficit twice as large as it was in the PEFO. The economic assumptions in MYEFO are different from those used in the PEFO, and there is spending in the MYEFO that was not in the previous forecasts.

It remains to be seen how the two sets of forecasts stand the test of time, but as of today, Mr Bowen's claim checks out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392

Honest Tony pfft

No the media that didn't want him in and wanted to see him gone.