I know you're not. It's within the realms of possibility that the Queen might ask this, but highly unlikely, imo. There's no benefit for Prince Philip in being knighted in Australia and it runs contrary to basically all the Queen's behaviour throughout her reign.

I'm sceptical that Prince Philip would have seen it as much of a personal favour. Prince Philip's not the type to care much about being knighted, himself. He'd be more interested in making casual racist remarks and commenting on how attractive women walking down the street are. And if he did care about pretensions, knighthoods are fairly insignificant.

David Cameron, I suspect, is the type who would like a title. And he probably wouldn't be satisfied with a knighthood. He'd want an earldom. So even if Prince Philip did care about titles, he probably wouldn't care about a knighthood given that he, Prince Philip, already has a dukedom.

The decision to reinstate knighthoods rested entirely with Tony Abbott (arguably his cabinet might have a say). The Queen has no say whatsoever, both by law (she has no Royal Prerogative in Australia) and by custom.

You say this source is from within the Liberal Party.

I can possibly account for it. The more conservative elements of the party, in an attempt to make Tony Abbott look less foolish, might have wanted to put the story out that it wasn't entirely up to Tony Abbott.

But the fact of the matter is Tony Abbott loves the idea of knighthoods. I'm not necessarily criticising him. It doesn't bother me. But Abbott loves the idea of knighthoods and has done since long before he made that call.

Oh come on ricey , he didnt say projected target of 10 years, he damn promised he fix the so called defict in 1 year.

:roll:

No he didn't! Read the words.

The way it was put to me, and again I am not sure about the veracity, is that it was a kind and measured request. No demands were being made.

Something like it would mean a lot to Philip if he was recognized by Australia or something to that effect. Again, I am not sure if it was the title or because it would come from Australia. It could be the latter.

Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 11:28:22 PM

This election is a choice between one guy who is a complete failure and one who is even worse, but we won't know which is which until after the election.

No he didn't!

There is no way in the world anyone would say such a stupid thing.

The media fudged it, bug time as is always the case when they go all feral.

What a crock of shit, he broke a heap of promises lol. Honest Tony :lol:

Honest fuckwit :lol:

-PB

No he didn't! He couldn't get his budget through.

He got crucified by the feral media.

The feral media? You mean the media who wanted him in and wanted the budget he gave us. But his budget was so fundamentally ao far right it put off everyone who wanted a tough budget.

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

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

Just don't vote.

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

Nailed it on page 1

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

He didn't even get 3 years.

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

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

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

They all do it.

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

Not the point people are debating here lol.

-PB

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

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

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

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

Yes, that is true.

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

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.

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

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