Well done Joe Hockey
- Thread starter dan c
- Start date
To be reasonable Ausprop, she and the backroom boys knifed Kevin, then immediately went to an election.....so we as a nation have already had an election with her leading the Labor Party, and she scored equal with the Lib / Nat coalition at 72 seats a piece, then outbid / out negotiated Tony Abbott to form Govt with the indies and Green.
The nation collectively obviously thought she, as leader of the Labor Party, was OK at that time....certainly not bad enough to give her and the Labs the big heave-ho.
Subsequent to that, it's been a disaster all round with the 3 tangible (non-opinionated) results of losing State Govts in Vic, then NSW and now Qld.
She's now in the minority at the COAG table.
Swings and roundabouts for sure, but the swing against Labor is on, and staying on. I cannot feasibly see changing jockeys with a Bill Shorten riding the Labor Party nag will save it from the glue factory. It's only a 4 yr old, but it's definitely for the knackers yard already.
The nation collectively obviously thought she, as leader of the Labor Party, was OK at that time....certainly not bad enough to give her and the Labs the big heave-ho.
Subsequent to that, it's been a disaster all round with the 3 tangible (non-opinionated) results of losing State Govts in Vic, then NSW and now Qld.
She's now in the minority at the COAG table.
Swings and roundabouts for sure, but the swing against Labor is on, and staying on. I cannot feasibly see changing jockeys with a Bill Shorten riding the Labor Party nag will save it from the glue factory. It's only a 4 yr old, but it's definitely for the knackers yard already.
The nation also thought she wasn't going to introduce a carbon tax.
We do it pretty regularly on here ... but nice to see the pollies voicing it. Hopefully softening up the middle class welfare recipents.
Wonder if Hockey is angling to side himself with Turnbull in anticipation of a leadership challenge.
Last edited:
No he's not Lizzie....
Despite the left wishing Turnbull was going to lead the Libs, it ain't gonna happen. The decision makers much prefer Abbott, and where he is taking the Party, rather than where Turnbull was intending to lead them.
Turnbull got booted out for his views. The people that booted him out haven't changed their view, nor has Turnbull.....so nothing doing there.
He was asked on Q&A (by quite a few actually) that if he couldn't be Leader, why doesn't he start his own political party. He scoffed at the suggestion, and knew it was a ridiculous suggestion, asking the chap who asked why didn't he. Of course, all too hard.
There's a distinct difference between dreamers and doers.
Despite the left wishing Turnbull was going to lead the Libs, it ain't gonna happen. The decision makers much prefer Abbott, and where he is taking the Party, rather than where Turnbull was intending to lead them.
Turnbull got booted out for his views. The people that booted him out haven't changed their view, nor has Turnbull.....so nothing doing there.
He was asked on Q&A (by quite a few actually) that if he couldn't be Leader, why doesn't he start his own political party. He scoffed at the suggestion, and knew it was a ridiculous suggestion, asking the chap who asked why didn't he. Of course, all too hard.
There's a distinct difference between dreamers and doers.
Well I never. Such confidence. Such innocence. Quaint!
But you might remember Lizzie that Abbott only triumphed over Turnbull in the partyroom by one itsy bitsy vote. Oh! And that they're all just politicians.
.....you might also remember that the internal Liberal party vote where Abbott won by 1 itsy bitsy vote was prior to the 2010 election where they held something like 59 seats out of 150, up against Labor's 88....and were heading for another thrashing.
Tony didn't challenge for the Leadership because of some whim. He was urged to run by the majority of folk who didn't like Turnbull agreeing, or agreeing with only minor modifications with the bulk of the dreadful policies both Labor and the Greens were putting up.
The ETS and Carbon Tax was the last straw. He had to go...and go he did.
Tony did a far better job than Malcolm ever could during the election and managed to wrest 16 seats off Labor, a momentous effort, and was rewarded with an unchallengable mandate to lead the party. No-one even remotely thought the Libs would come close...maybe 5 or 6 seats at best.....but 16 and back to level pegging. Outstanding.
Doing well in an election gives one a certain authority in the party room. Turnbull doesn't have the runs on the board. Abbott does. His campaigning was disciplined and consistent, people liked what they saw. You didn't obviously, but then that's OK.
Despite your fervent wish belbo that Turnbull gets back in as Leader and leads the Liberal / National coalition off down some left wing garden path to meet the Green fairies at the bottom of the garden, it ain't gonna happen.
Confidence re: the subject - yes - 100%.
Tony didn't challenge for the Leadership because of some whim. He was urged to run by the majority of folk who didn't like Turnbull agreeing, or agreeing with only minor modifications with the bulk of the dreadful policies both Labor and the Greens were putting up.
The ETS and Carbon Tax was the last straw. He had to go...and go he did.
Tony did a far better job than Malcolm ever could during the election and managed to wrest 16 seats off Labor, a momentous effort, and was rewarded with an unchallengable mandate to lead the party. No-one even remotely thought the Libs would come close...maybe 5 or 6 seats at best.....but 16 and back to level pegging. Outstanding.
Doing well in an election gives one a certain authority in the party room. Turnbull doesn't have the runs on the board. Abbott does. His campaigning was disciplined and consistent, people liked what they saw. You didn't obviously, but then that's OK.
Despite your fervent wish belbo that Turnbull gets back in as Leader and leads the Liberal / National coalition off down some left wing garden path to meet the Green fairies at the bottom of the garden, it ain't gonna happen.
Confidence re: the subject - yes - 100%.
A fast and simple solution for some of the freeloaders who won't work is to give them handouts in the form of vouchers only. Don't give 'em cash; it's been proven that those without it will only end up without it again if you give them a large chunk in one go.
And, based on a sensible average for each service based on the amount of people in the household.
For example; food.
A dollar amount is given for households with 1, 2, 3, or 4 kids with 2 parents etc. Can only be used at listed supermarkets (fast food outlets don't get access to voucher redemption).
Add into that grog and ciggies - no outlets get access to the voucher redemption.
A sensible amount is metered out for clothing, fuel, health an education vouchers are issued also.
Basically; just the necessary items to live.
After that, you spend what you can from earnings if you want to work.
No incentive to sit around with one hand out all your life this way.
I know it would get complicated with the "bad back" brigade etc, but endless medical appointments and qualifying reports from doctors would sort those out eventually.... a few more covert photographers working for the Gubbmint might be good; to snare the poor souls lugging a full wheelbarrow around their backyard when they should be lying in bed..
I don't think I could stand faking injuries to get freebies for very long if I had to go and wait in a public hospital/clinic for hours on end every week just to rort the system.
It amazes me how people can happily do the CES dance every week, just to avoid a real job, thinking they are clever. What an existence.
And, based on a sensible average for each service based on the amount of people in the household.
For example; food.
A dollar amount is given for households with 1, 2, 3, or 4 kids with 2 parents etc. Can only be used at listed supermarkets (fast food outlets don't get access to voucher redemption).
Add into that grog and ciggies - no outlets get access to the voucher redemption.
A sensible amount is metered out for clothing, fuel, health an education vouchers are issued also.
Basically; just the necessary items to live.
After that, you spend what you can from earnings if you want to work.
No incentive to sit around with one hand out all your life this way.
Sounds like a nanny state.
I agree with you, something needs to be done to stop the milking of the system epidemic.
For example; food.
A dollar amount is given for households with 1, 2, 3, or 4 kids with 2 parents etc. Can only be used at listed supermarkets (fast food outlets don't get access to voucher redemption).
Add into that grog and ciggies - no outlets get access to the voucher redemption.
A sensible amount is metered out for clothing, fuel, health an education vouchers are issued also.
Basically; just the necessary items to live.
After that, you spend what you can from earnings if you want to work.
No incentive to sit around with one hand out all your life this way.
Sounds like a nanny state.
I agree with you, something needs to be done to stop the milking of the system epidemic.
The thin edge is wedging already on this. I don't know who started it but I know that people who don't manage their benefits well are being put onto basics cards for a portion of their money.
It can only be used for food, not junk, cigs or grog, see attached (hope it works, never attached here before)
I've got no idea if it's workable or not, but I'd love to see a few Govt owned grocery stores. If you are on vouchers, you can redeem them there, and if you're a low-income earner, you can have get a card that lets you shop there. Like a concession card, that you have to show at the check out.
The stores would sell mostly fruit, veg, milk, bread, meat, pasta, rice, etc., etc. No chocolate biscuits, etc.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous that buying 2 apples at my local supermarket costs the same as a packet of Tim-Tams (which are permanently on sale at $2). The only fruit regularly under $5 per kilo are bananas. Everything else ranges from $6-$10 per kilo. And that's just normal fruit: apples, oranges, plums, etc. Fancy fruits like paw paw, berries, pomegranites, etc. are crazy prices.
Veggies, too, are ridiculously expensive with the exception of carrots, bown onions and potatoes, which are usually under $3 per kilo. Parsnips are $9.99 per kilo. A head of broccoli $4. A bunch of fresh herbs $3-4. Any sort of green vegetable, e.g. beans, peas, leeks, broccoli, celery, brussel sprouts at least $5 per kilo, often more.
Sorry for the rant, but how can you expect people on low incomes to shop and eat healthily when healthy food options are so expensive?
Govt owned food co-ops. Nationalise Harris Farm. Or something. But the price of basic food in this country is crazy.
I’d prefer we deal with the problem of middle-class welfare first.
Unemployment is far trickier. Both major political parties consider an official unemployment rate of 5% (the unofficial rate is always much higher) to be full employment. To keep wage inflation in tow, they do not want unemployment to fall below this figure and they will do everything possible to avoid that happening. Both parties design and implement futile initiatives to give the appearance of tackling unemployment (they know how much taxpayers loath the unemployed) but in truth the unemployed serve a necessary function – they keep wages low and productivity high (higher productivity because the employed fear job loss more when jobs aren’t in abundance).
I hate, hate, hate welfare dependence and would love nothing more than policies which would generally result in the unemployed finding stable employment and being self-sufficient. But the government has no intention of doing that.
People talk about job shortages and how any unemployed person could find a job tomorrow if they wanted to. Humbug! I know several people who have completed qualifications in childcare, aged care and other industries experiencing ‘shortages’ and guess what? These people still can’t find jobs.
There will always be the confident, well-connected Centrelink recipients who can find a cash-in-hand job at the drop of a hat. A lot can’t. The worst part is, even if they could, the government would have to intervene, ramping up immigration to deal with the ‘job shortages’. Oh, and the idea of the hard-working refugee who will find a job pronto because they’re not a welfare-dependent bogan… that’s BS, too. I know for a fact that many refugees cannot find jobs even with qualifications.
To me, it’s simple. Create jobs. Force every single physically and mentally able unemployed person into minimum-wage employment. The vast majority will be much, much happier for it. Contrary to ACA/TT opinion, welfare dependency is a mostly miserable existence.
And it’s hordes, not ‘hoards’.
Outstanding post. Kudos!
He provides an option for the "right" of the Labor supporters in his economic credentials, and for the "left" of Labor in environmental and social policies.
I think he attracts the same voters who turned to Kevin07.
I agree with Dazz.. he will not be leader of the Liberals again.
The only way he would ever be PM is if he switched sides!!
Nice idea in theory, but it doesnt work in practice........ unless you are happy to have slums, riots, begging on the streets etc. There are people who are legitimately unable to work and provide for themselves.
Agreed... plenty of ways we can cut back without causing too much grief
Entitlements should have a broader perspective, not simply about welfare payments, but also business/corporate 'deals & other tax concessions.
So the recent example of this is the Federal government increasing car industry assistance by $500m to $1.5b. The Opposition at least at this stage, have not pledged to meet this increase.
Universal tax concessional status of super contributions is another area that the government is looking at in reviewing at least in this budget.
If you want to engage the public on a particular issue, then one off thought bubbles as some have described it, made overseas is a clumsy way of doing this. Seems as if the Opposition is following the Government's lead in how to not engage & debate fundamentally serious issues.
So the recent example of this is the Federal government increasing car industry assistance by $500m to $1.5b. The Opposition at least at this stage, have not pledged to meet this increase.
Universal tax concessional status of super contributions is another area that the government is looking at in reviewing at least in this budget.
If you want to engage the public on a particular issue, then one off thought bubbles as some have described it, made overseas is a clumsy way of doing this. Seems as if the Opposition is following the Government's lead in how to not engage & debate fundamentally serious issues.