And still, more people are (rightly) scared of an Abbott led government

Oh sorry, that was my bad, I got really drunk last night and forgot that I actually hate discussing politics, generally because people tend to tell you that they aren't prepared to take your viewpoint seriously when it doesn't match theirs. I don't think I explicitly said I support Labor, I just think people are quick to hang shit on them lately, that's all I wanted to say. Anyway, don't worry, I don't care, carry on..

Labor does a huge number on Joe Hockey

by: Laurie Oakes From: The Daily Telegraph February 11, 2012

SHADOW Treasurer Joe Hockey has been whacked around the head this week for denying he ever admitted a Coalition government would have to slash existing programs by $70 billion to meet its own spending commitments.

This figure, of course, is the basis of claims by Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan of "a $70 billion Budget black hole" if Tony Abbott's team wins the next election. It has been repeated so often it is widely regarded as fact.

How the figure got into the public domain and became an albatross around Hockey's neck is an interesting story -- one that shows vividly what a devious game politics can be.

In August last year, as the Coalition's expenditure review committee looked for potential savings, there was a leak.

A news report claimed that documents from the so-called "razor gang" revealed a warning by Hockey that $70 billion needed to be found.

In fact, well-placed sources say, the documents did not contain an overall savings target at all. Hockey provided it to shadow ministers when he spoke to them in person.

And -- here's the devious bit -- he gave each of his colleagues a different figure.

The reason? So that if there was a leak he would know where it came from.

The $70 billion leak immediately pinged the leaker. But it also left Hockey with the problem that now plagues him.

"I've never said $70 billion," Hockey told a radio interviewer on Wednesday. But he did say it -- to one member of the shadow cabinet. And that was enough. On the day of the leak, the shadow treasurer was seen as fudging when he spoke of the need to find "50, 60 or 70 billion". A month later he said: "The number is not $70 billion". But the figure stuck.

And what was seen as his attempt to walk away from it helped the government to go on the attack over economic management when parliament resumed on Tuesday.

It was economic management, hammered by Labor in the final week of the campaign, that helped the government cling on to power in the 2010 election.

But it has since had difficulty winning the public debate, despite its success in cushioning Australia from the global financial crisis and a record that earns wide praise overseas.

Take taxation. Abbott gets traction when he proclaims that "the Labor Party believes in higher taxes" while the Coalition stands for low taxes.

The truth is that taxation as a proportion of the economy is lower now than it was under John Howard's government. The tax-to-GDP ratio, 23.7 per cent when Labor came to office, is now 21.2 per cent.

According to figures that came across my desk yesterday, had the ratio remained at the 2007-08 level that Labor inherited, tax receipts would have been $21.4 billion higher in 2012-13 than projected.

Returning the budget to surplus would not be an issue.

The government would not only be looking at a surplus of $22.9 billion next financial year, but would have been back in the black by more than $3 billion in 2010-11.

The opposition's approach to the economic debate is one of all care and no responsibility, and it has been pretty effective.

The impact of the GFC is airbrushed out. The government is accused of failing on unemployment, even though Australia's jobless rate has increased by only 0.7 per cent since Labor came to power, compared with 3.1 per cent in Britain and 3.6 per cent in the US in the same period.

Even when the Reserve Bank keeps interest rates on hold because it expects relatively healthy growth to continue, Coalition spokesmen portray the decision as cause for gloom and doom.

But, to some extent at least, the tables were turned this week as the Prime Minister and the Treasurer went all-out to make economic management the central issue.

Abbott, with typical bravado -- "Come on, make my day" -- had claimed this is what he wanted, but in parliament he seemed remarkably keen to divert attention to other matters.

Gillard and Swan were able to seriously undermine Coalition credibility on the economy by exploiting the apparent backsliding over the $70 billion and a surprising reluctance by Abbott and other frontbenchers to pledge a budget surplus in the first term of a Liberal-National Party government.

"Well, it just depends," said shadow finance minister Andrew Robb when asked about the surplus. You don't get much weaker than that.

The Coalition seemed to be saying that a quick return to surplus -- like a national disability insurance scheme and Medicare-funded dentistry -- was an aspiration rather than an undertaking.

It was a gift for Gillard. She suddenly made delivery of a budget surplus a firm pledge rather than a mere intention. "We will do it."

And Hockey's denials over the $70 billion figure were used to bolster the narrative of a Coalition confused over the economy and retreating from fiscal discipline.

A bum rap, perhaps. Hockey has told colleagues that no matter how big the savings task, he is up for it and has no doubt it can be achieved. But a Coalition that has made such an art form of outrageous statements on the economy is in no position to complain.

Laurie Oakes is political editor for the Nine Network. His column appears every Saturday in The Daily Telegraph

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/labor-does-a-huge-number-on-joe-hockey/story-e6frezz0-1226268310985

If Rudd was dumped because of party opposition to the ETS, then what changed within Labor that now sees them support a price carbon? Oh that's right, the threat of losing power.

Gillards only motive seems to be to remain in power for as long as possible.

sending us all a cheque for $900 doesn't count.