Slogans stifled debate - and we let them

Posted February 13, 2014 07:49:59

Photo: Tony Abbott unveils his policy blueprint to the public before the 2013 election. (News Online Brisbane)

If we had pushed for solid policy ideas and not slogans before the federal election, we might be better prepared to address the issues that confront us, writes Jonathan Green.

An election, at least in theory, gives our informed consent to the work of an incoming administration.

Good word, administration. Is that what we hope for from our elected representatives, that they keep an eye on things? Run the firm on behalf of the stockholders?

“The people of Australia thank you for your presentation and are pleased to offer you the opportunity to form a government based on the program you have outlined.”

That kind of thing. Mind you, that’s a scenario that assumes:

a: The voting public has some kind of determining influence over the electoral agenda; and

b: That it gives much of a damn in the first place.

Both somewhat contestable.

Which takes us to the condescending mass of cliché and twaddle that was our most recent experience of the democratic miracle: A federal election in which both parties stood nervously in each other’s policy shadow, told us as little as they could about the concrete and problematic realities that confront us, never mind what either might do about them, then posed for a poll that hung all but exclusively on one simple proposition: we are not them.

The issue of informed consent then is probably moot.

The election was all about dumping a government seen as divided and dysfunctional. This is probably because in large part the previous government was divided and dysfunctional, an unfortunately overwhelming distraction given the gravity of the national circumstance. But that was the electoral narrative: getting rid of Labor.

And now, with a new government in power the position of the country seems to grow more awkwardly complex by the day as we confront realities untamed by politics. In an election, reality can be sculpted, in government it must be confronted.

It is entirely possible, for example, to gain power on the basis of the slightest of policy prescriptions. For Tony Abbott this amounted to a recurring and simple series of pledges:

“We’ll build a stronger economy so everyone can get ahead. We’ll scrap the carbon tax so your family will be $550 a year better off. We’ll get the budget back under control by ending Labor’s waste. We’ll stop the boats. And we’ll build the roads of the 21st century because I hope to be an infrastructure prime minister who puts bulldozers on the ground and cranes into our skies.”

As the weeks and months have moved on it has become increasingly clear that the terms of this electoral contest, terms largely determined by the government’s calculated minimalism, did us no favours.

We went to the polls after an exchange of slogans rather than ideas … and the worst kind of slogans. Slogans that increasingly seem not to have been a shorthand for a more elaborate and considered system of policy and belief, but, well, slogans, entire of themselves.

As we are beginning to see, as 2014 unfolds with its faltering in manufacturing and numerous other signs of an economy in “transition”, there was quite a bit of solid policy ground the 2013 election might have dealt with.

Could our decision-making process on who might best administer our commonwealth have been aided by a robustly expressed series of thoughts on how we set about the restructure of an economy tripping out of a mining boom, stumbling towards the end of manufacturing and looking for a sustaining future direction?

That sort of process would not have changed the outcome. The ALP was roadkill regardless of the detail of the campaign. But a more vigorous, a more testing debate might have been of benefit to the incoming government. You could argue, too, it was the debate we probably deserved, and that as a consequence we might now have a series of policy proposals that might extend beyond this encapsulation of the government’s current thinking on industry policy offered by the prime minister to AM’s Chris Uhlmann: "If you ask me, Chris, can I say what individual Toyota workers will be doing in four years' time, I can't give you that answer, but Chris, none of us know the answers to those questions. What we've got to do is remember that we are creative people in a capable country who have always faced the future with confidence and have always made the most of it."

Our 2013 discussions on the economy could also have been partnered by a more than rhetorical musing over the state of federal fiscal affairs; unless repeated exhortations to “stop the waste” will be sufficient to resolve the sort of structural imbalances that, if left unattended, seem certain to leave the federal budget in a state of spiralling decline.

As the Grattan Institute put it last year: “Australian government budgets are under pressure. In the next 10 years, they are at significant risk of posting deficits of around 4 per cent of GDP. That means finding savings and tax increases of $60 billion a year.”

Cutting the waste may not cut it.

Resolving the troubled balance between declining commonwealth revenues and multiple running sores of galloping expenditure will be the work of one or two parliamentary terms and will involve comprehensive reimagining of what it might be to be an Australian economy in the 21^st century.

Anybody sign up for that in September 2013? No. Not really.

And we all have to take some responsibility for that, for governments that can coast on their campaign rhetoric when in power no matter what aggravated circumstances they confront.

If we had demanded better, if our media had pushed harder for more considered responses and insisted that the electoral argument go beyond cliché and slogan, then we might by now have a national conversation of the sort of maturity that seems, increasingly, demanded by the circumstances we confront.

Because that’s the tricky thing about circumstances: they seem resolutely impervious to slogans.

Jonathan Green hosts Sunday Extra on Radio National and is the former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.

Topics: government-and-politics, federal-election, business-economics-and-finance, tax

Comments (673)

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

Kangaroo Edward:

13 Feb 2014 7:57:43am

Slogans are the fodder of advertising.
Australia effectively fell for a snake oil merchant trading in magic carpets.
This country has been groomed since 2007 to re elect a Coalition government, the real shame is Abbott has nothing of substance to offer past the throwaway line.

Alert moderator
- Skeptic:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:21:31am
  
  Yes! But it isn't ' a sham'e' that Abbott has nothing to offer, it's a crime.
  
  Alert moderator
  - simon:
    
    13 Feb 2014 8:45:41am
    
    If all Abbott does is undo the damage the ALP Greens alliance has perpetrated on Australia, I.e. Stop the boats, reign in the budget, Remove the carbon tax.. et al. If that is all he does, then I will call him an outstanding success.
    
    Alert moderator
    - ephemeral:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:20:39am
      
      Please tell me you understand that stopping the boats does nothing. In terms of economic factors it just doesn't even rate. It is that sort of blind acceptance of the slogans (they tooook our joooobs) that allows them to work. Please tell me what miraculous changes are going to occur as a result of spending more money to keep them out than it would have to integrate. but it seems fiscal policy is not your strong point, you understand as well that this government are just going to tax you then give the money to companies to enact emission control. Same cost to all us tax payers. It is just in one case it is using a pricing mechanism (the carbon tax, jeez I hate that word being applied to environmental pricing) which the libs (as conservatives should have liked as a user pays system) versus a subsidy system (direct action anyone, what a silly idea, giving money to companies we should be pricing out of the market by including environmental costs... clean up your mess darn it). They sure managed to suck in a lot of people. Bet you still believe they were throwing babies overboard and the are WMD in Iraq.
      
      Alert moderator
    - simon:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:00:06am
      
      I don?t know how you made the spurious logic jump from Stoping illegal entry by boats into our territory with any (imagined) fear I may have over job security. Frankly your well-worn straw man arguments speaks more to your susceptibility to repeat mindless pamphleteering.
      
      If you are interested: Firstly, my opposition to illegal entry is more based on saving people?s lives, and maintaining an orderly and fair refugee intake process. Secondly, the Carbon tax will make ZERO difference to the earths global warming (static for 16 years). Lastly, good luck with your blood pressure over the next 6-9-12 years, its sounds as if you will need to keep a close eye on it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Chris L:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:55:44am
      
      Simon, if your opposition to boat people is simply that they're risking their lives I suggest it can be done better than by using our military to turn them around and tell them to try their luck going back the way they came.
      
      What would actually save these people's lives would be Malcolm Fraser's solution of regional centres assessing claims and arranging safe transportation.
      
      Is there any reason the Coalition, in their sincere and heartfelt desire to protect the lives of these desperate people, have turned away from a truly safe and proven system that their own party originally installed?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Rusty:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:35:10pm
      
      Chris,
      
      So when the asylum seekers are assessed as not being genuine you would forcefully send them back to their countries of origin? I totally agree.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Marilyn:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:17:30pm
      
      No, Fraser was not a saint but we are talking then about one group of people from one war we started. NOw we have refugees from 60 nations and we use code like ""regional processing"" to keep them out of Australia yet Australia is the only nation in the region who has ratified the refugee convention.
      
      Alert moderator
    - APM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:36:39pm
      
      'Australia is the only nation in the region who has ratified the refugee convention.'
      
      Then maybe you should redirect your abuse towards those countries instead of the one with the highest per capita humanitarian program. Maybe you should rail against the cultures and religions that are inherently racist and tribal. In any case, you have a religious zeal for the asylum industry, its symbols, and its holy tablets of Convention commandments that are near meaningless for most people firmly grounded in reality, reasoned scepticism, a sense of proportion, and justified considerations of self-interest.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Jj:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:17:38pm
      
      And which country is it you're identifying as having the highest per capita humanitarian program? It's certainly not our fine land, all girt by sea.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Jans:
      
      14 Feb 2014 12:22:12am
      
      Australia is not the most generous country, per capita, in taking refugees.
      
      From the Refugee Council of Australia - dated 2013
      Australia is not the world?s most generous country in its response to refugees but is just inside the top 25, according to an analysis of the latest global statistics by the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA).
      Responding to political claims and media reports this week that Australia takes more refugees per capita than any other nation in the world, RCOA chief executive officer Paul Power said his organisation?s analysis of the 2012 statistics from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) showed Australia was 22nd on a per capita basis in 2012 and 24th over the past decade
      
      Alert moderator
    - APM:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:39:44am
      
      According to the Refugee Council of Australia, Australia ranked second in 2012 for the resettlement of refugees per capita (0.267 refugees per 1,000 population) beaten only by Canada (0.283 per 1,000). In absolute terms the top three resettlement countries were America (66,300), Canada (9,600) and Australia (5,900).
      
      Alert moderator
    - Reagan Country:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:20:14pm
      
      Chris L. The idea of a regional assessment centre and safe transportation makes good sense, but I suppose something is needed to deter those who might still try to arrive via unauthorized boats. Except for those on the extreme fringe most endorse Australia's humanitarian program, meaning at least 13,000 refugees / asylum seekers will be welcomed here each year (for what it's worth, I'd like a much higher number). Given the regional centre ensures a certain number is coming, the question isn't how many but who and how. The regional centre probably achieves the who and how but if people smugglers still sell their product then a plan is needed to ensure those from the regional centre get priority. Why the Liberal Party isn't championing the regional centre is beyond me. Hopefully I have misunderstood.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Chris L:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:03:59pm
      
      You're right, there probably would still be people trying the boat trip, but they would also have less reason to do so.
      
      Alert moderator
    - NoGoodNamesLeft:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:14:03pm
      
      Chris I completely agree with you.
      
      How about we contract Chubb Security or maybe a supplier of nightclub bouncers to turn them around?
      
      Hmmmm not heavily unionized enough. Maybe we could get some of those guys in balaclavas that stand in front of the non-union construction sites? They look like they can handle themselves and are surely non-partisan labour.
      
      The fact is that the military specialise in maritime interception and search and rescue They are the best trained and equipped to deal with this issue.
      
      The best option at the moment would be for the Senate to not block Temporary Protection Visas which would allow people into Australia while their claim to asylum is processed.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Chris L:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:48:42pm
      
      Guys in balaclavas? It was good enough for Howard and his union busting agenda.
      
      However I was talking about not having to turn people back at gun point at all.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mark James:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:23:58am
      
      "My opposition to illegal entry is more based on saving people's lives"?
      
      Well sorry to break it to you, simon, but stopping the boats doesn't actually save people's lives. People seeking asylum will simply seek it elsewhere. They will drown in other people's seas and on the pages of other countries' newspapers.
      
      If saving people's lives is really your primary concern, you have two choices. You must either:
      
      1. Stop people seeking asylum in the first place and ensure that, if they don't seek asylum they are not going to be killed.
      
      2. Provide a safe means of transport to a safe destination for those who are seeking asylum.
      
      Now, you may respond with a number of valid political or economic or logistical arguments as to why 1 and 2 are virtually impossible to achieve. But if your genuine concern is to save people's lives, you cannot avoid those two fundamentals.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Waterloo Sunset:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:54:03pm
      
      So how do you stop them seeking asylum - kill them? And how on earth can peoplr from differnt countires enforce safe tranpsort, over other soverign nations.
      
      One can only do one's bit.
      
      Abbott and Morrison are saving lives, no matter how you twist and turn it.
      
      As Turnbull said on a programme the other night, "some people don't like it".
      
      Mark, that's probably the worst comment that you have ever made. You can and must do better
      
      Alert moderator
    - Waterloo Sunset:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:12:15pm
      
      Excuse errors. It was tapped on a NOKIA
      
      Alert moderator
    - belle2belle:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:47:16pm
      
      Waterloo,
      
      I think you're quoting of Turnbull is quite cute, and rather telling. As a far more sensible (and popular even amongst LNP faithful) leader we could understand that the 'some' he was referring to was Indonesians, and their government.
      
      Last time we checked the Indonesian govt themselves are not sneaky illegal people smugglers. However, our current Australian government apparently are. Not the smartest of ways to treat your neighbour of 300million people. 10 times our population who's govt and not acting ilegally.
      
      Why Tony made a huge issue of something so complex, but not really the most important issue for Australia is on people like you I guess if conflict eventuates.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mark James:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:36:22pm
      
      "How do you stop them seeking asylum"?
      
      Well stopping the boats doesn't stop people seeking asylum, WS, and that's my point. It doesn't save lives. It simply pushes the problem elsewhere . . . into somebody else's sea, onto somebody else's front pages.
      
      People have died, and risked their lives attempting to get to Australia. To my mind it?s utterly absurd to suggest that a local deterrence is going to prevent them dying and risking their lives attempting to get somewhere else.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:08:08pm
      
      I understand many of the asylum seekers in Indonesia are back tracking to Malayasia. Have any of them drowned ?
      
      We have given the Malayasian government several patrol boats to see that they don't drown.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Waterloo Sunset:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:17:13pm
      
      There are places to go without a boat voyage: India, Iran, Tuirkmenstan, Uzbekistan Kyrgystan, China and Pakistan for a start.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mark James:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:25:08pm
      
      WS, if India, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan Kyrgystan, China and Pakistan were really viable destinations for those seeking asylum, why do you think so many still risk death in the Mediterranean and Timor Seas?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Waterloo Sunset .2014:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:08:08am
      
      Why aren't they viable? Please explain?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mark James:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:40:38am
      
      WS, all the asylum seeker boats that have sunk in the Mediterranean or the Timor Sea are explanations.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:44:04am
      
      Simple, Mark James.
      
      It is because they are not seeking asylum. They are seeking economic betterment. They do not want to be safe in Uzbekistan or Iran. They want to be economically better off in Australia.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Michael Morey:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:14:02pm
      
      England, the Isle of Wight or Capri are others that come to mind.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tiresias:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:51:53pm
      
      Oh yes, saving the lives of a few while they attack a handful of people smugglers. Such bleeding hearts on the one hand, but demonising boat people on the other when they make accusations against the Navy, saying they cannot be trusted. So we are spending millions in order to save these "untrustworthy" people from drowning?
      
      Meanwhile, hundreds of people languish in poor conditions on remote islands with no hope of reaching Oz or of being re-united with family.
      
      Is this really the best we can do? We already have a bad reputation internationally: the "Fossil Award" at the last Climate Change meeting; Abbott' speech at Davos either totally ignored or roundly criticised; Oz recognised now as a country no longer "open for business".
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:13:06pm
      
      The Abbott government has increased unemployment, instituted state secrecy, attacked the free media, demolished the local vehicle manufacturing industry, reduced the number of days parliament sits and apparently failed to pass any new legislation.
      
      On top of breaking almost every electoral promise and claiming a mandate for things they never mentioned before the election, they seem to stagger from mistake to mistake without a single good day.
      
      Soon comes the concessions and payback to Rupert Murdoch. Bring on the royal commissions to investigate that, with full powers to compel answers. I will relish that.
      
      Alert moderator
    - taxedoff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:53:41pm
      
      saving lives is one thing but scoring political mileage is another and if abbott and co were truly concerned then why the demonising of the affair for the past 3 years? the thought of crocodile tears springs to mind when the govt speak about saving lives. they have played a anti refugee agenda for so long not an anti drowning at sea. just more cheap slogans for the bogans.
      
      Alert moderator
    - christophus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:52:49pm
      
      Well said Mark,
      
      I really wish this broad brush union bashing would settle down a bit. Claiming all unions are badie thugs is about as useful as claiming all Australians are badie thugs because we have a prison system with Australians in them. Stop and think about what you are saying. Most people who work for unions are decent hard working people. They work for a body of others, and the best interests of them. Good work experience to becoming a politician in my opinion. You know, working for the betterment of others that voted for you and you are paid to represent.
      
      A bit like the Nationals (agrarian socialists).
      
      Never has there been such a misfit of alliances than the Australian LNP. Liberals by definition in this country have no experience of working for the betterment of others. Quite the opposite in fact, they work for the betterment of themselves. And only themselves. How any of them graduate to a political position, looking after and being responsible for others, defies logic. Hence the reason they need to be true masters of smoke and mirrors.
      Perhaps if we didn't have the Libs to focus on half the time, politics, and policies would settle down and become more sensible and sustainable for the Australian people. And we'd come up with better ideas.
      
      Alert moderator
    - seg:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:28:31am
      
      Interesting, I can see exactly how ephemeral performed such a twist of logic...its the same jump Abbot and Co made to manipulate you. Its why 'stop the boats' works so well, it appeals to people xenophobia and fear. If you can't understand that...well.....
      
      Alert moderator
    - Rob:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:16:00pm
      
      Ah, the old "you're a racist" if you don't agree with me argument.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dicky:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:53:28am
      
      simon : there's that brainless lie again : "static for 16 years". It is not static, it has temporarily slowed down. Please look up static in the dictionary.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:55:38pm
      
      No, Dicky.
      
      It has not slowed down.
      
      It has not become static.
      
      It has reversed. There is a cooling.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Skeptic:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:29:10pm
      
      No there isn't any cooling. The temperatures are increasing. If they are not, why was last year the hottest on record? Stay tuned, we may well break that again this year.
      
      Alert moderator
    - bill:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:34:42pm
      
      no John, that is simply not true.
      
      you are using the tired old trick of basing everything from 1998, a high year of exceptionally unnatural heat and drought.
      
      why did you pick a number like 16 and not 15? or 20?
      
      because temperatures are going up. and using a statistical outlier to base everything from just shows the deviousness of the typical denier.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:11:25pm
      
      No I am not, bill. The trick of manipulating the figures around the unusual year of 1998 comes from the warming alarmists.
      
      The UK Met Office was confounded by its own science and was forced to report:
      
      ? ? the trendline between January 2002 and August 2012 in Hadcrut4 is negative, being minus 0.04 deg C per decade. Between January 2003 and August 2012 Hadcrut4 shows it as minus 0.05 deg C per decade?.
      
      That is a distinct cooling, reported in the UK Met's own Annual Report, and it put the UK Met Office in serious trouble, confounded by its own data. First, the trend overall from 1978 onwards was, first a decreasing rate of temperature rise, and then an actual cooling. So it had to fudge the figures to maintain its stance. How did it do this? First, by cherry-picking the best year as a starting point. 1998 was an El Nino year, and therefore unusually warm. So it wanted that year in the figures. But 1999 and 2000 were, by contrast, cooler years, so it wanted them out. Therefore it used a ?decade by decade? process, working backwards. Taking the El Nino year of 1998 into in one period meant that the decades could not run in the normally accepted way from 1970, 1980, 1990 and so on, but had to start from a discordant date. Thee whole argument had to start with 1998. Therefore the previous period had to end at 1988, and the one before that at 1978. The trouble was that this process revealed a diminishing rate of temperature increase across the twenty years from 1978 to 1998, even though the hot year of 1998 was used as the base year. It faced even more trouble with the next decade, because that decade showed a cooling. To overcome this problem, the decade was extended and the Met Office released figures for twelve years instead of ten, up to the end of 2010. This allowed it to cherry-pick 2010 -an extremely warm year ? into its data which meant it was able to say there had been a statistically observable warming trend after 1998, albeit a very small one.
      
      Do you see the frauds? First, cherry-pick the best date to start with. Then extrapolate backwards. Then, when that proves your total undoing, fake the dataset so that a decade becomes twelve years long so as to enable you to cherry-pick the next supportive bit of data and exclude the refuting data.
      
      I didn't pick the number 16. That period was disclosed by the UK Met's own research that shows that that was the extent of the cooling period.
      
      The use of the word "outlier" shows how dishonest these arguments are. It seems that anything the alarmists don't like is an "outlier" but an extreme that they do like is somehow magically turned into a positive bit of evidence.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:17:22pm
      
      No John, wrong again. The only decrease in rate of warming is for the past decade or so, not for the previous ones. I already explained to you a million times why. One of the most obvious reasons for the slow down in warming is the prolonged period of minimum solar radiation experienced. But now energy irradiated from the sun is picking up again, hence the increase in temperatures. 2013 was already pretty hot, 2014 will be hotter. The year we pass the annual average recorded in 1998, we will all expect a formal apology from you.... would you be honest enough?.... I doubt it!
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:51:56pm
      
      No, Alpo, wrong again.
      
      You have never explained, or even offered a half-decent excuse, for the fact that both the HadCrut analyses showed the cooling. All you have ever done is go back to this worn-out and disreputable claim that "on the records" we are experiencing a warming.
      
      You have never tried to show a warming compared to what, or why the records show the cooling or why even the most strident of AGW alarmists like Phil Jones concede the cooling.
      
      Saying the same lie over and over again, and getter louder and more strident every time doesn't convince anyone.
      
      A while ago I asked you to do the maths on the progress of the current cyclical movement from a cool age to a warm age. Have you had the decency to do that yet?
      
      Alert moderator
    - P38:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:15:31pm
      
      Tell me John how many peer reviewed papers debunking AGW have you written?
      Sound of crickets, anyone?.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:46:41am
      
      I don't write the papers.
      
      I merely report what the scientists have written.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Simon:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:13:57pm
      
      Thats the funniest thing I've seen posted!
      
      So all the records being broken over the past decade are a result of getting cooler?
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:37:32pm
      
      Simon, the "records" you rely on are less than 200 years old. The globe has been warming for about that long since the end of the last little ice age.
      
      The alarmists have no concrete evidence over a decent period to back their claims.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:24:17pm
      
      "It has reversed. There is a cooling."... More deluded clowning, John-style. Read this: Starting from 1997, with data until 2012 for the global average temperature anomaly as provided by HadCRUT4, we have that coefficient of correlation since 1997 is POSITIVE. Since 1998, POSITIVE. Since 1999, POSITIVE. Since 2000, POSITIVE. It starts to become negative for the intervals starting in 2001 and until 2007. What happens in the interval starting in 2008 until present: POSITIVE trend again! 2013 also had one of the highest temperatures in the past decade, and for this year, just check the thermometer at home for a glimpse of what to expect in 2014... But please, feel free to go to the beach in fur coat, if you do so, send us a photo, please.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:00:41pm
      
      I don't bother to read un-sourced, un-referenced hysterical rants, Alpo.
      
      I will instead quote to you, ONCE AGAIN in the hope that the truth might sink in, the actual, measured, scientific, peer-reviewed, precise facts from the UK Met Office:
      
      "From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat ... the trendline between January 2002 and August 2012 in Hadcrut4 is negative, being minus 0.04 deg C per decade. Between January 2003 and August 2012 Hadcrut4 shows it as minus 0.05 deg C per decade".
      
      That is the scientific fact, Alpo ? and that is global cooling.
      
      Alert moderator
    - PW:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:58:16am
      
      Simon
      
      So according to you there is nothing we can do about climate change, so we should just continue full steam ahead the way we are going? Is that your plan?
      
      Even if the carbon tax/ETS didn't work at all, which is a highly dubious proposition, if the people have been willing to accept some small degree of pain is a sign of progress.
      
      Of course if the opposite is the case, as it appears to be, no Government will ever try it on again for fear of getting booted out and our fate as a species is pretty much sealed.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tim:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:48:10pm
      
      Simon - so you would be happy to support a big increase in the humanitarian migration programme? Because if you want to save and improve the lives of the people smugglers' target market, a big increase in places for refugees is the way to go. Anything else is just window-dressing a racist, xenophobic campaign of hate with a sop-story of 'compassion'.
      
      You are aware that part of the 'stop the boats' policy was to slash the previous government's humanitarian programme from 20,000 per year back to 13,000 per year?
      
      The fact that you use the term 'illegal entry' to describe refugees seeking asylum is proof to me of your motivations.
      
      I'm not going to bother with your nonsense about 'no warming for 16 years', that myth has been debunked again and again and again and again and again and....
      
      Alert moderator
    - Geoff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:02:21pm
      
      "If you are interested: Firstly, my opposition to illegal entry is more based on saving people?s lives"
      
      So does this mean you would have no problem if the asylum seekers start using the 'unsinkable' lifeboats we've been providing to come to Australia?
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:45:18pm
      
      Global average surface temperature - which is only part of global warming anyway, the oceans have much larger heat capacity - have not been stable for the past 16 years. In fact, they've been warmer than expected: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
      
      Alert moderator
    - taxedoff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:53:22pm
      
      so its a case of the libs care the really care for the those people who attempt to seek refuge in australia ,,,,,by demonising them in all ways possible. that fabulous christian statement by abbott in july 2012 , the refugees attempt to get in aust by the back door is unchristian.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Skeptic:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:26:10pm
      
      You don't have to imagine that your job is insecure because of hordes of foreign refugees. The insecurity of your job is guaranteed by those nasty foreign-owned multinational corporations who have the temerity to ask for a (relatively small) loan to tide them over while they upgrade their factories.
      And you are also wrong about the warming climate, by the way. But since you hide your prejudice against people who are desperate to be safe from persecution or death at the hands of religious fanatics behind a facade of concern for their welfare at sea, why am I surprised?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Red:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:12:26pm
      
      My question is this.
      
      If the "boat people" were white christians fleeing humanitarian disasters in England, the US or NZ would Tony Abbott be trying to turn them back or sending bosts to pick them up and bring them here?
      
      Now be honest... cause if you can't even be honest with yourself then why bother saying anything about the subject at all.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Waterloo Sunset:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:03:08pm
      
      It's simple: There is a migration and asylum seeker policy.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tiresias:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:39:08pm
      
      Ah yes, the old no warming mantra. Problem is, we have had some dozen of the hottest years on record. Last year was Oz's hottest on record.
      
      Recently an explanation has been given which involves the effects of winds in the Pacific and the absorption of heat in the ocean.
      
      The question was asked once about why water boils at 100 degrees and does not increase its temperature even with the application of more heat. It was asked in regard to slowing of world temperatures in the last 16 years. We were given a lecture on how the extra heat applied to boiling water is taken up by steam - totally ignoring the comparison with the warming of the Earth. It was as if we were expected to think that extra heating of the Earth after 1998 was being taken up in steam!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Simon:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:10:16pm
      
      Great to hear that climate is stable and not impacting our farmers or our ability to feed and water our growing population!
      
      Shame we keep breaking the weather records especially as its a neutral "el nino" - not looking forward to the next 10 year dry cycle..
      
      Alert moderator
    - Rhonda:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:44:23pm
      
      Simon, you don't think it rather ironic, that today Tony Abbott stood before the Parliament to pay tribute to Cpl Cameron Baird, whom he praised as an Australian hero who showed extreme bravery in Afghanistan, against 'the enemy', while he continues to turn away, vilify as 'illegals', the innocent victims of that same 'enemy', the asylum seekers escaping to find safe haven in Australia?
      
      Alert moderator
    - aGuy:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:17:31am
      
      ephemel, it was Rudd who managed to blow out the immigration budget by over a Billion Dollars by allowing the criminal business to occur in our closest country.
      
      We where not getting the most needy (there are many flaws in the UN refugee convention). We where getting those whom had the capacity to escape, thousands and thousands of dollars and the means to communicate with and pay criminal networks.
      
      Alert moderator
    - lazarus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:44:02pm
      
      Abbott is blowing $10 bil over the next 4 years on Operating Shonky Orders and you complain about $1 bil. Right wingers certain make stupid look like brain surgery.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:12:40pm
      
      I think you have your numbers reversed.
      
      So far Rudd/Gillard policy has cost us over $12 BILLION and will continue to cost several billions a year for a decade or more.
      
      Rudd left the PNG solution unfunded - that was $1.2 BILLION Abbott and co had to find.
      
      I am sure if there are no boats to deal with then the cost of OSB will be minimal over the next 4 years, just normal navy patrolling which they do anyway.
      
      Alert moderator
    - P38:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:18:42pm
      
      Seeing you have not justified your 8 billion figure from yesterday Andie why should we accept your 12 billion figure today?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:04:03pm
      
      Jeez aGuy, you're onto it!
      Rudd blowing "over a billion" because he didn't stomp into another country and let a criminal business occur there. You must think Prime Ministers can do what ever they fancy.
      Do you really imagine that even Pugnacious Tony could or would do this? Let alone Rudd (who at least had some Diplomatic experience).
      I think you must have let the airy talk of "war" we're hearing so much of lately get you all hot and bothered!
      
      Alert moderator
    - SeanK:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:07:38pm
      
      You mean slogans like "you're racist", "people arent illegal" and the always amusing "wheres your compassion".
      
      I could go on, but we all know the ABC wont print comments pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy of leftist racists...
      
      Alert moderator
    - Wil:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:01:14pm
      
      And yet they print your ignorant generalisation...
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:59:30pm
      
      I love it when someone has nothing to add to a debate , then proclaims the injustice of bias in the ABC , by stating 'this wont be published' ..... I think it has more to do with YOU than the ABC.
      PS When has it been OK to not care? Our new overlords want more religion in schools yet wont practice acceptance , compassion or love of thy brother when they want it preached. Figure that out and you'll join me in the agnostics only area...
      
      Alert moderator
    - David Kay:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:11:44pm
      
      Abbott's cheerleaders should stop hiding behind the lie that they want to save lives. They don't care less whether refugees live or die - they just don't want them to die on our shores which spoils their well-earned Christmas break. If they did care they would demonstrate some concern about what happens to them after we have turned them away.They certainly wouldn't be supporting a policy of sending Sri Lankan asylum seekers back to their torturers. The only goal of Abbott's policy is to drive away legitimate refugees so they don't get their dirty hands on any of our stuff.
      
      If there's one thing racists hate, it's being called racist.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Brownus Average:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:19:14pm
      
      Being at a differing degree amongst a range of racist, is a normal natural condition.
      
      Very generous David, not bothered by a potential 40 million or so over a period of softness, kicking the front door down of the nation we live in.
      
      Perhaps you should try running past, our indigenous peoples your ideas... you may be very surprised...?
      
      I suspect they may suggest to you, "please no more, its bad enough that we have to, put up with you"....!
      
      The E.T.S is a risky tie up. Theoretical distant future help that is very unlikely in isolation and without national strength to achieve any will of improvement.
      
      Alert moderator
    - lazarus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:38:04pm
      
      Stopping the boats does have economic consequences, about $10 bil over the forward estimates that could have been spent much more wisely elsewhere. Trouble is the crusty right wingers think it is money well spent.
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:41:19pm
      
      Compared to how many billions, if the boats kept coming?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:15:44pm
      
      The economic consequence of the forward estimates to pay for the failure of Rudd/Gillard and to process the 30,000 they left unprocessed. Probably it will be more then $10 billion over the forward estimates as it has cost us $12 Billion so far for their failures.
      
      Alert moderator
    - whomovedmycheese:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:34:13pm
      
      Each boat arrivals is costing $70000 per year on last years figures.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Speedy Gonzales (hph):
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:25:46pm
      
      whomovedmycheese:
      "Each boat arrival[] is costing $70,000 per year on last years figures."
      
      And who is receiving all that money? Did you ever try to find out?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Marilyn:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:54:55pm
      
      The money goes to the prison companies.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:05:56pm
      
      Stopping the boats will save the taxpayers BILLIONS a year. The ALP has left a problem of IMAs that will take a decade to clear even the backlog and BILLIONs of dollars a year .
      
      The RUDD PNG solution had no money assigned to it by the Rudd government leaving a instant debt of $1.2 BILLION Abbott and co had to find.
      
      If the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments had not started the boats we would have over $12 BILLION more in the bank not to mention the billions in the coming budgets.
      
      Like all ALP policies they left nothing but debt!
      
      Alert moderator
    - JohnnoH:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:32:32pm
      
      Stopping the boats? The boats stopped in August and also there is traditionally a trickle of boats during the monsoon anyway. Abbott has done nothing but flap his gums.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:38:25pm
      
      Please provide the figures to support your fantasy particularly during the monsoon season for the previous 2 years.
      
      Look them up as they blow you silly statement out of the water.
      
      Alert moderator
    - NoGoodNamesLeft:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:56:02pm
      
      Stopping the boats has never been about economic factors it is about Safety of Lives at Sea (SOLAS) and when will Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Christine Milne take responsibility of all the people who drowned at sea for the profit of people smugglers? It isn't about hating "brown" people or preventing people seeking asylum or loss of jobs. Who is it that blocked Temporary Protection Visas which would have allowed people to SAFELY enter Australia while waiting for their application for asylum to be processed? Offshore processing is for people who enable profiteers of people smuggling. A lot of asylum seekers enter Australia by plane and you there is no uproar about that because that is not illegal or immoral. People smuggling is both!
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:43:57am
      
      simon, you have neatly described the Abbott aspirations - Stop the boats, reign in the budget, Remove the carbon tax.
      
      None of those are critical or important and Abbott will not even achieve them all, or if he does, the cost to society and the economy simply won't be worth any gain.
      
      We are paying $1500 a day per refugee to hold them offshore and who knows what to have the navy standing off Indonesia towing boats back. This is pathetic, the worst kind of waste and ineffectiveness seen in other screwed up countries.
      
      Abbott's idea of reign in the budget is to eliminate all research and enquiries which does not directly serve the interests of his contributors in business and he is spending heaps on "Dorothy Dix" type enquiries of which the outcomes are oh so predictable and pay back his contributors and those who massively distorted reality to get him into power. There is ample material for future royal commissions unfolding each day.
      
      The carbon tax was transitioning to a much lower price anyway but most of us were fully compensated. Only the polluters would benefit from abolition of the tax but they are Abbott's mainstay. The idea that average households would have $550 a year more cash is laughable. Who believes that? It's also criminally dishonest.
      
      Abbott reeks of the boy who has the ready excuse, the plausible defence and distraction, the expectation that forgiveness will always be for the asking. It's a lifelong characteristic, born of personality and upbringing, but it was always recognizable to many of us and it's now pervasively seeping into the consciousness of even his rabid defenders.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Helvi:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:52:05am
      
      Abbott promised that he will make Northern Australia blossom, it was going to be the food bowl of Australia. It would make sense to let some of asylum seekers work there for few years to get this promised land happening...
      
      Alert moderator
    - SeanK:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:11:04pm
      
      Spoken like a true southerner!
      
      Can I ask if you have ever visited the land you are hoping to turn over to refugees? I doubt it, you just go for the media line all the way from your inner-city refuge.
      
      Anyway, Im not sure how the Aboriginal people who live and own these lands would feel about another influx of foreign invaders. Maybe they just arent"compassionate" enough...
      
      Alert moderator
    - David Kay:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:12:46pm
      
      I know what you mean. Damn city slickers, with all their fancy book learnin'.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Rhonda:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:55:52pm
      
      SeanK, I wonder how those Aboriginal people, for whom you seem concerned, feel about Tony Abbott's broken promise - 'to spend his first week as PM with the Yolngu People'? Not only broke his promise, but LIED in Parliament yesterday, to try to get himself off the hook! Attempts by Warren Snowdon to expose the lie, couldn't get past the Speaker, now so blinded by her party allegiance, she's forgotten all those rules she so fervently spouted in the term of the last government!
      
      I also wonder how Warren Mundine is going to turn around the 30% school attendance rate in Aboriginal communities to the 100% he claimed yesterday. Not only 100%, but by the end of the year to boot! Wonder what excuse HE'LL come up with, when this impossible target is not met? Or maybe they'll engage the military to achieve this goal?
      
      Alert moderator
    - christophus:
      
      14 Feb 2014 12:07:48am
      
      Hi Rhonda,
      
      I have noticed this too. Bronwyn Bishop's knowledge of the house rules are still very good, don't worry about that. Her application of them however is thinly veiled. She even has little pages marked to make sure the pre planned stage act by her colleagues rolls along smoothly. Doesn't matter, no unintelligent people watch Question Time, won't be caught out. The masses only get the sound bites and picture grabs she carefully manages for you know who and co and turning off the microphone at will. She is cannier than ever and loving it with a smile.
      
      If I was in opposition to her little lovelies I'd be pulling my hair out and quit. The chair is supposed to be unbiased to all in the chamber. No matter your political persuasion. And indeed to the Australian people... which is why its called Question Time.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Bopysie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:13:09pm
      
      Why cant my people (aboriginal) work there instead of foreigners? It doesn't seem fair that you give jobs to foreigners.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DaveS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:02:23pm
      
      Fair point Helvi. At the moment we have a fair few refugees locked up in the NT that could be put to work in cooperation with the likes of the CSIRO , to test seeding , planting or rejuvenation projects.
      That's a pretty good idea and I say that as Ive spent years in the Sth , Nth and East of this great country but never went West as a young man should. lol.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:17:13pm
      
      Direct Action at work!
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:31:30am
      
      RayS, I couldn't find any reference to your claim that it costs $1,500 per day to keep illegal entrants in offshore processing centres.
      
      But I did find these statistics from DIAC:
      
      The cost of supporting more than 40,000 asylum seekers expected to be in Australia next financial year is set to average more than $70,000 each person.
      Taxpayers have spent $1.5 billion maintaining the Australian detention network
      Supporting almost 13,000 asylum seekers in the community whose asylum claims haven't been processed has cost $265 million for just 10 months.
      $131 million has ben spent to support asylum seekers on Bridging Visas who are prevented from working and who are paid equivalent welfare payments each fortnight.
      Renting homes and furnishing them has cost $18 million this financial year.
      Cost breakdowns given to a parliamentary budget Estimates committee also show charities are accepting hundreds of millions of additional dollars to care for asylum seekers. The Red Cross has been paid $603 million for 26 months' work helping asylum seekers in the Australian community, while the Salvation Army has received $480 million.
      
      If your figure of $1,500 is correct, it would seem to be a bargain.
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:32:27pm
      
      That $1500 per day is the outlay to keep a refugee on Nauru. The other costs we are lumbered with to serve the distraction and the racism are no doubt manifold.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tiresias:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:41:14am
      
      Abbott says repealing the Carbon Tax will save each of us $550 pa. What he does not tell us is that the LNP Direct Action plan will cost us $1300 pa. It just won't appear on our electricity bills.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:19:41pm
      
      Please provide the source and facts of you figure for Diirect Action cost.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tiresias:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:40:31pm
      
      Richard Dennis & Matt Grudnoff for the Australia Institute, 2011, quoted in: A Review of the Viability of the Coalition's "Direct Action Plan" by Tim Lubcke, 2013, newanthopocene.wordpress.com
      
      and referred to passim
      
      Alert moderator
    - SVJ:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:02:53pm
      
      "The carbon tax was transitioning to a much lower price anyway but most of us were fully compensated"
      
      RayS, this line alone sums up why your posts are complete twaddle. And if you're pissed I'm attacking without logic or facts you'll be confirming it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:20:37pm
      
      Shows you are on the government teat somehow if you were compensated.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Charles:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:31:23pm
      
      Sorry SVJ, I thought the line you quoted was yours, not RayS's. My apologies and transfer my comment to RayS
      
      Alert moderator
    - Pam the Female Plumber:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:13:58pm
      
      Ray, don't forget: It is easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission. What a way to conduct one's life!
      
      Alert moderator
    - APM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:45:47am
      
      yes Simon, the first duty of conservative governments is to rectify the bad governance, debt, nanny state regulation, and the Left's long march through public institutions. 'Stop the boats' was not just a catchy three word slogan; it pointed to a critical ideological and practical difference between conservative and Left forces. The Left invented the problem out of thin air and in response to public criticism about the open border threw up any number of imaginary roadblocks to actually doing much to stop it. Labor had an utter lack of resolve and ideological impotence and confusion on the issue. They made a relatively simple idea complicated. To practical people, to stop the boats you have to actually decide that you really want to stop the boats, and be bold and flexible and innovative. 'Stop the boats' was important because it encapsulated in simple terms that; outcomes come first; Australia has sovereignty over its affairs- rather than UN/HR nonsense or Indonesia; that the LNP recognises that most Australians will never accept an open border and resent being played as fools and bullied by both the Left and asylum seekers. 'Stop the boats' means; straight to the point, resolve, effective, no excuses, practical, democratic, and Australian interests first. Labor governments offer the opposite of all this.
      
      Alert moderator
    - GraemeF:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:16:33pm
      
      'Stopping the boats' is costing an absolute fortune just to kick those who are already down.
      
      Alert moderator
    - APM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:39:31pm
      
      No stopping the boats will save us an 'absolute fortune'. It is known that most asylum seekers will spend the rest of their lives on welfare. Family reunion will exacerbate this. There are many other financial and social costs of importing a large underclass of non-Western, non-English speaking, uneducated, ultra-religious third worlders, who have a habit of integrating poorly, and resorting to violence very easily.
      
      Alert moderator
    - GraemeF:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:59:26pm
      
      APM. Total cost of Sovereign Borders this year will be approximately $2.7 billion. Just to stop a trickle of desperate people, some fleeing from countries we helped destabilise with the War On Terror, including Iraq that cost us a fortune to invade due to a thin tissue of lies.
      
      There are excellent stories of people who have sought asylum in Australia and gone on to build valuable businesses.
      
      You can hide behind your dodgy, bigoted claims as much as you like if it makes you feel better about being cruel but don't try to claim there is any economic reason behind it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - APM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:31:28pm
      
      Graeme, soon the punters will get the message that the borders are closed and they will stop coming. Then we can wind down Sovereign Borders to deal with the odd straggler, and save most of these costs. If you genuinely care about the costs, you should be ropable that the Labor government needlessly dismantled a system that worked for no good reason, and then refused to correct its error. When the Labor's boats stop no-one will drown, and we will not have the simmering tensions with Indonesia. If you feel obliged to take personal responsibility for the excesses and dubious claims of other cultures in far away lands, I suggest you have an array of choices that do not threaten Australia's interests or compel others to make sacrifices on your behalf beyond our generous aid budget.
      
      Alert moderator
    - GraemeF:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:45:18pm
      
      APM. The boats stopped as soon as the Malaysian Solution was announced. If the Coalition actually wanted to stop the boats instead of using them for crass and nasty political purposes they would have supported the legislation in parliament to allow the Malaysian Solution.
      
      They blocked it because they wanted the boats to keep coming so they could ramp up fear and loathing of asylum seekers for pure political thuggery.
      
      Don't spread the lies that they cared one iota as to whether asylum seekers drowned. They don't give a rats. Three asylum seekers died in the forests in Indonesia after they were dumped in on an isolated area of an island in one of orange boats Australia bought. They don't care. They only want the nasty and the gullible to pay attention to the 'evil' asylum seekers to hide that the Coalition are screwing the average Australian. It is a smokescreen using human misery.
      
      Alert moderator
    - APM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:36:39pm
      
      The Malaysian solution was dreadful because it was a five for one deal and it was only to send over 800 on the boats. That would have been filled in a few weeks, then business as usual for the boats plus we would have been stuck with 4000 more problems. Only Labor could conjure a 'solution' that would would give us MORE refugees. I admit the coalition gave bogus reasons for rejecting Malaysia but strategically they lost out because they should have agreed to watch it fail.
      
      Opponents of open borders don't have to care about people drowning whilst breaking into our country. We do however know that the 'compassionate' are make an irrational case of saving people by killing them, meaning that that we do address your concerns with tough measures. This should really suit both sides.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Not The Cane Toad:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:25:29pm
      
      "If all Abbott does etc etc etc....
      
      Yep, that about sums it up!
      
      No vision, no plans for the future?
      
      Abbotts slogans appeal to the zombie and redneck voter, who, if they hear them enough, believe they must be true.
      
      It says a lot about the mentality of people who would vote for Abbott solely because he may have stopped the boats.
      
      Alert moderator
    - taxedoff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:09:43pm
      
      therein lies the problem did people who voted for abbott just vote for stopping the boats( bottom feeders who liked the demonising of the refugees) and are happy with the scant facts that the propaganda machine of the libs spew forth and dont care for the failing efforts that now see 6% unemployment and devalued $ and tens of thousands in certain manufacturing areas facing the dole. one thing to spew slogans from opposition its another to actually run a country correctly.
      
      Alert moderator
    - APM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:46:13pm
      
      You can't just call write off the majority as 'bottom feeders who liked the demonising of refugees'. A recent poll showed that even most Australians with degrees support harsh measures. It's over. Respect democracy.
      
      Alert moderator
    - curly:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:04:01pm
      
      its really funny calling the people that voted libs in rednecks have a look at those subs around Australia that are home to lots of unemployed people i.e. public housing etc many cant help it many don't ever want to work mostly safe alp seats many have come from those places and by study and endeavor have risen to great heights but those subs are the core alp voters base most people would have voted for the drovers dog than alp and will till alp looks like they have learnt the errors of their way I think the alp won 7 seats without the greens help
      
      Alert moderator
    - christophus:
      
      14 Feb 2014 1:08:38am
      
      Lol..
      
      Watch a bit of 'Question Time' Tony says the same thing three times in the same sentence. Or three sentences? I'm not sure? Should have been a hypnotist. Oh wait, no money in that. Which is why by his own admission on 'Kitchen Cabinet' in 2013 with Annabel Crabb he left the church. Its true, check it out for yourself.
      
      Confused and brow beaten enough yet? Because I am...
      
      And its only been 5 months so far.... The mental health bill is going to sky rocket for us all in coming years.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Rattus rattus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:07:39pm
      
      Whoops Simon! You forgot to mention the mining tax. Peta will be angry...
      
      Alert moderator
    - taxedoff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:50:13pm
      
      slogans for bogans should be the libs manifesto. the slogans sum up any party for being shallow in policy. the current slogan party has stopped the boats ( in its mind) and stopped the blokes making cars and all the other associated industries. thats the new slogan ..stop the blokes....
      
      Alert moderator
    - Silent Sam:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:20:07pm
      
      What Damage losing 300,000 jobs in 5 months ,wrecking everything he touches,lying his way into office and it goes on and on.
      If this Govt imposes the austerity budget they are putting together I really hope you join the unemployed Simon,you deserve it
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:24:14pm
      
      If you believe even one of your statements you dwell in Conrovia.
      
      The trusted source for the luvvies the IMF says we have to cut spending and get the budget deficits under control.
      
      Are the IMF now wrong ??
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tonia Bott:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:21:02pm
      
      Losing 3 jobs a minute in Australia is not a good track record. Refusing to observe our own laws is not a good track record. Carrying out retrospective legalisation of illegal acts is not a good track record. You may admire them victimising the people you have dehumanised with your bigotry. You will be singing a different tune when it is your job, your family, your kid's education on the line. Wake up and smell the rot before it is too late.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:40:33pm
      
      Catch up. The rot was thrown out in September and there is a much sweeter smell around now.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Earle Qaeda:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:01:46pm
      
      ??undo the damage the ALP Greens alliance has perpetrated on Australia,?
      - So getting us through the GFC unscathed was a disaster?
      - Government as a participant in an economy somehow deters vibrancy?
      - Develop an actually useful digital network that would help this nation move strongly into the 21st century is somehow a negative thing?
      Some things could have been done less clumsily of course. Much could have been down without the outright negativism & obstructionism of the LNP in opposition, however I think your point requires some clarification.
      
      "Stop the boats??
      - The LNP approach to immigration control, apart from the human cost, is far more expensive than an ethical in country model.
      - Such rhetoric shuts out all consideration of the global events taking place that in the end will overcome Abbot?s ?under the carpet? & ?not my problem? solutions.
      - I understand your concern is for the safety & welfare of the travelers. That?s fine. I see little consideration for safety & welfare in tow-backs, lifeboats, mis-use of our Navy, abandonment of vulnerable people to private prisons in third world countries.
      
      ??reign in the budget,?
      - This is such a debatable point. Labour?s concussive leadership style certainly didn?t induce confidence but budget blow-outs & BS began long before their last term.
      - Unlike the current crop of idiot children holding the reins, Labour understood the importance of government participation & partnership in developing & coaxing the economy. Could they have done better? Certainly, but at least they believed in ?doing" something.
      
      ?Remove the carbon tax??
      - I?m half on & off the bus on this on myself having always preferred direct environmental regs & controls. However, there is validity to the economic model & I?ll go with this particular flavor of the month.
      - I would consider CT removal if your lot will concede all subsidies to extractive industries & fossil fueled energy providers. That would level the playing field a bit for the renewable sector.
      - Sadly, our current leader can?t hide his disdain, nonchalance & skepticism when it comes to any issue involving the environment. Consequently we?ll go blind staring at the LNP horizon before we see any credible environmental activity.
      
      Alert moderator
    - donkeyvoter:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:53:26pm
      
      I guess I am as crazy to let it cross my mind that Ruddie's (cruel) PNG solution might have anything whatsoever to do with a reduction in boat arrivals as I am to even consider that the Labor-implemented stimulus plan had anything to do with Australia avoiding recession three or four years ago.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Rhonda:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:58:41pm
      
      Simon, speaking of the Carbon 'Tax'.
      
      How many times did we see Tony Abbott on our tv screens, standing alongside Campbell Newman, campaigning in the Qld election, decrying this 'Big, Bad, Tax', which was going to destroy businesses and cause pain to families?
      
      In return, Newman did the same for Abbott at the federal elections 18 months later - every time Tony visited Qld, the old Carbon 'Tax' bogey was raised and they spoke of the financial 'hardship' it was causing to families.
      
      From the outset, following the introduction of Carbon Pricing, my electricity account remained the same, or was actually slightly lower, after it was introduced - obviously as a result of more prudent electricity usage.
      
      However, just recently the meter reader couldn't gain access to my home, so my current account (from my government-owned energy provider) is an 'estimated' one. It was based on the same period 12 months ago, with similar usage. However, there has been an increase of $175!
      
      This is NOT as a result of Carbon Pricing, but as a direct result of the Newman government's increasing their own prices! This is an example of the deceit by which the LNP (either state or federal) run our governments.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Jj:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:16:18pm
      
      Goodness me, you aren't still harping on that tired old nonsense, are you? You need to get out more.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Alfie:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:08:26am
    
    The boats have stopped - just as Abbott promised.
    
    Alert moderator
    - the yank:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:30:34am
      
      That's it? The boats have stopped, or have they? You don't know what is happening in the name of Australia because you are not being told.
      
      And this is the only thing that is important to you? You don't mind 150,000 jobs being tossed overboard? You don't mind Hockey lying to you about what Toyota executives said about the reasons they are really shutting down car production?
      
      You don't mind being told there was a budget emergency that didn't require any action?
      
      You don't mind being told that debt was a bad thing only to see it balloon under Hockey?
      
      The only thing you care about are a few boats?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Redfish:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:45:48am
      
      Abbott did not sack 150,000 workers saying it over and over is not going to make it true Yank. There were a combination of factors that led to the imminent closure of the car industry goverments of both persuasions have to share the blame as well as industry, unions and the world economy stop spreading lies. How do you know what Toyota excutives said were you there? The budget that was taken over is in trouble. The boats have stopped, we will have to wait and see once the monsoon ends if there has been any sort of longer term effect.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mark James:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:36:39am
      
      Redfish, it's pretty obvious from it's actions that the Coalition is attempting to provide strong disincentives for companies with unionised workforces.
      
      The aim is political: to destroy the Labor party by destroying the union base which provides most of its funding.
      
      The Coalition made it clear prior to the election that it wasn't going to support the car industry in any way. It actually goaded Holden to leave, which in turn guaranteed Toyota's departure. And, it's removal of a paltry 5% tarif on imports made it doubly sure car manufacturing in Australia would end.
      
      The narrative now moves on to Qantas, which the government will refuse to support in any way unless Qantas take steps to de-unionise its workforce.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Skeptic:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:33:51pm
      
      If unionised industries are in his sights, why isn't he going at the mining sector? Why hasn't he cut its subsidies?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:30:46pm
      
      The union base is going to be destroyed from within in the Royal Commission. Ex- unionists are lining up to have their say about every one from Gillard and Shorten down.
      
      Isn't it great the the Victorian police have obtained all those documents in WA about the 'slush' affair.
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:53:11am
      
      Redfish, the "imminent closure of the car industry" was certainly caused by Abbott and Hockey. It was a deliberate provocation that must assuredly be connected to Abbott's intention to sign the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) so-called free trade agreement which will hurt most Australians while helping the US.
      
      All the better says Abbott, if unionists are the ones that directly suffer.
      
      Soon enough, we will be driving Chinese cars with inadequate materials and minimal resale value. The importers will take higher margins so they won't even be cheap cars.
      
      That's what happens when a government stands for vested interests and rent seeking carpetbaggers.
      
      Alert moderator
    - SVJ:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:13:07pm
      
      RayS,
      
      Hey genius we already are driving Chinese vehicles and between you and me local product had a significant makeup of Chinese components, but shhhhh the truth might be a little too scary for some people.
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:35:35pm
      
      Chinese vehicles are only just appearing and many of them have been recalled due to containing asbestos and having other flaws.
      
      Between you and me genius, only very few electronic and audio components are used in Australian manufactured cars.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:54:53am
      
      RayS, if you are driving a Vokswagen, a Buick, or a GM vehicle, the chances are that it was built in China.
      
      The two largest Vokswagen factories are in China, and supply a very large part of VW's international market.
      
      The same applies to GM vehicles. And the Great Wall has been around for a while and is pretty reasonable.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:34:59pm
      
      And how exactly did Abbott and Hockey influence the bosses in GM headquarters in the USA to make their decision to close their Australian plant?
      
      Gee what power they have. In only 5 months the are seen as so powereful they can influence the decisions of some of the largest multinational companies in the world.
      
      Alert moderator
    - PW:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:02:04pm
      
      You order all new BMW Commonwealth cars to replace the existing Holdens the minute you are elected, it kind of shows your hand somewhat, no?
      
      Alert moderator
    - the yank:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:02:11pm
      
      It wasn't first said by me but a representative in the automotive industry part making division. Tell him he is lying.
      
      I know that the Toyota executives said they didn't tell Hockey bit was the union's fault. Are they liars or is Hockey?
      
      Unemployment up 6% the more then in a decade. Which party was in power ten years ago? Which party saw the country through the worst GFC since the depression with less then 6% unemployed?
      
      How do you know the boats have stopped? The only thing that has stopped is the democratic process where a government is held to account through transparency.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alex:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:31:53pm
      
      Sorry Yank but you are misinformed.
      
      If you place the unemployment figures under a powerful microscope you will notice that whilst yes overall unemployment was stable at around 6%, there was a huge drop over the 7 year period of full time positions and a rise of parttime, casual positions.
      
      What people don't understand is that those figures cannot be relied upon as they count someone working 3 hours a week within them. Show me someone who can live on 3 hours a week!
      
      What we saw under Labor was a lack of investment in capital sectors, that is the big companies & organizations growing their established bases in Australia, this is the key element in growing jobs.... Throwing money at a fledgling industry that runs at a loss is no way of securing those jobs for the future, its the equivalent of a dying patient surviving on life support, eventually someone has to flick the switch..... A painful truth, but a truth nonetheless.....
      
      Alert moderator
    - LeftRightOut:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:03:20pm
      
      Toyota issued a statement refuting Hockeys claims and cited other reasons for their decision - including high dollar & low tarrifs. But of course Toyota is lying. Hockey who has displayed increadible dislike for unions for years wouldn't lie and doesn't have a hidden agenda.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DWM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:04:00pm
      
      "saying it over and over is not going to make it true ".
      it may not be true but if you say it for long enough and often enough people will start believing it. Just ask Tony Abbott and Murdoch press that is exactly what they did.
      They could not get the words "worst government ever" out whenever an opportunity presented itself. Even at a writers festival in Perth last year one liberal member on a panel discussion broadcast on Radio National uttered those words.
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:55:42pm
      
      That's because it was the worst government ever!
      
      Alert moderator
    - GraemeF:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:53:58pm
      
      burke, the rest of the planet thinks that Labor did an excellent job to get Australia through the GFC to number one economy in the OECD.
      
      The IMF rated the previous Coalition government as the most profligate in Australia's history.
      
      Your claim can not be backed up with any factual information. It is a lie.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:57:40am
      
      False again, GraemeF.
      
      The economists of the world think Australia did the right thing to get through the GFC, but did too much of it for too long and thus wasted billions. Which is partly the reason for our huge debt problem.
      
      The IMF did not describe the Coalition Government as profligate. That is an absolute lie.
      
      Alert moderator
    - ray:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:02:40pm
      
      Only in the minds of Liberal sycophant`s, who selectively regurgitate the negativity espoused by the current Government.
      
      Alert moderator
    - rusty cairns:
      
      14 Feb 2014 8:00:11am
      
      Yea burke I can't remember any Australian government in the past that has had to defend it's actions in the International Court of Justice, can you ?
      
      Alert moderator
    - lazarus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:52:49pm
      
      Certainly looks like it, Holden, Toyota, SPC gone with generous handouts to multinationals like Cadburys. Gotta love the spin and lies.
      
      The boats haven't stopped, people have been transferred to orange lifeboats and sent back to Indonesia. Don't people smugglers supply boats to undocumented people and send them to foreign countries against the express wishes of those countries? Seems we can change the name of the RAN to RAPS (Royal Australian People Smugglers)
      
      Alert moderator
    - JRM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:59:28pm
      
      Toyota, Ford and CCA are not mulitnationals ? Only Cadbury ?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:38:15pm
      
      For the last 5 years the Navy was the Rudd/Gillard Taxi Service.
      
      SPCA are staying without a cent from the feds. Good decision of Abbott government to call their bluff.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Cassandra:
      
      14 Feb 2014 12:21:06am
      
      But approx 25 mill from the Napthine Govt.....!
      
      Ya gotta hand it to Tony - when it comes to ducking and weaving and hand-balling, he's damn good.....
      
      Alert moderator
    - JohnS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:40:09pm
      
      It is pretty easy to know what the Toyota executives said. They released a press statement
      
      Alert moderator
    - Peter59:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:20:09pm
      
      Redfish, no government sacks private industry employees that is true. What is also true is Governments and even oppositions are in a position to know and plan for industry trends.
      
      This automotive crisis was foreseen but no plan for transition was put up for consideration and what is worse all we are hearing is it will be OK we have a review going on and we will prioritise this, this goes to the heart of Jonathan Greens article.
      
      Everybody wants to attack the previous government for the carbon tax and MRRT. It is my view these policies would have worked and in fact the carbon tax would have driven innovation and industry development in the area of sustainability. Nothing innovates like necessity and the drive of industry to reduce costs (in this case a tax). The current policy of paying industry is like welfare and which is foreign to a conservative government I would have thought, go figure it must be a point of difference issue like excessive PPL.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ceelly:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:46:15am
      
      Tony did not STOP the boats Tony HID the boats!
      
      Alert moderator
    - LeftRightOut:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:01:55pm
      
      Do you think he'll play hide and seek with all his policies?
      
      Be the most interesting government if we get to play the game. Oh wait, the ones seeking (ABC) might be kicked out of the game as it too goes into hiding under their budget cut policies.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:39:42pm
      
      Could you please tell us where he is HIDING all these 'boats' ?
      
      Every time I ask no one can tell me!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ben the lawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:11:06am
      
      'The boats have stopped, or have they?'
      
      They haven't been getting to Australia. That's a pretty successful policy in my books.
      
      'You don't mind 150,000 jobs being tossed overboard?'
      
      Where are the 150,000 workers who have lost their jobs? Just name the companies and the number of workers please, should be easy enough.
      
      'You don't mind being told that debt was a bad thing only to see it balloon under Hockey?'
      
      So now you care about debt?
      
      Alert moderator
    - LeftRightOut:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:56:18am
      
      Ben
      
      If the policy is to tow back to Indonesia and Indonesia refutes Australia's right to do so (in accordance with international maritime law) how is it a success? The fact that they have turned boats around means the boats are still coming. Some have made it to our territorial waters. Questions are being raised by the UN in regards to the policy & the treatment of asylum seekers which indicates the policy may breach international law and our international obligations under the refugee convention.
      
      So policy failure.
      
      The Liberals promised more jobs yet the first thing they do is announce reductions in public service numbers - i.e. job cuts not creation. The closure of manufacturing is another issue. One reason cited are the proposed free trade agreements which the current government seem keen to implement. While business confidence rose during the election period in anticipation it has significantly declined since which will flow in to job losses not creation.
      
      So policy failure.
      
      The Liberals promised to cut debt and spent the first few months in power figuring a way to permit themselves to increase the debt limit because they knew they would need it.
      
      So probably policy failure.
      
      BTW understanding the need for occassional manageable debt to maintain a strong economy and not caring about debt are 2 different things. Something you obviously find hard to comprehend.
      
      Alert moderator
    - SVJ:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:17:42pm
      
      "BTW understanding the need for occassional (sic) manageable debt to maintain a strong economy and not caring about debt are 2 different things. Something you obviously find hard to comprehend."
      
      Actually you don't comprehend and you don't even have a clue why, do you?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ben the lawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:35:23pm
      
      'If the policy is to tow back to Indonesia'
      
      Whether or not the boats are towed back or merely turned back makes no difference. The fact that you are splitting hairs is merely demonstrative that your side has lost the debate. Also, the number of boat arrivals got up to 3000 a month under Labor. If 0 arrivals in five weeks is a failure, I'm not really sure what would impress you.
      
      'One reason cited are the proposed free trade agreements which the current government seem keen to implement.'
      
      You must have missed the memo that Labor also supports this.
      
      'because they knew they would need it'
      
      Yes, unsurprising that Labor spending was more than what was budgeted for. I'm glad we can at least agree on that.
      
      Alert moderator
    - LeftRightOut:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:06:24pm
      
      Nobody denied Labor over spent on the budget. However they did assist the country to retain a strong economy with a AAA rating during the GFC. What was unemployment during the 6 years? The stimulus package helped. Not saying it was the best implementation but without it unemployment would have been significantly higher.
      
      Where they failed and where the Liberals will also fail is ensuring revenue grows in proportion to spending that is required. They would rather cut services than raise taxes. This creates a downward spiral.
      
      Alert moderator
    - christophus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:55:35pm
      
      Ben,
      
      If the Coaltion take us to yet another war then I reckon anyone who didn't vote for them shouldn't have to go, or pay for it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - the yank:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:06:28pm
      
      Unemployment up to 6% the highest in ten years.
      
      It was a spokesman for the automotive industries parts section that came up with the estimate of 150,000. We are not just talking about people working at Holden or Toyota you know, or do you understand the impact on all the companies that service the car industry? And all the people that benefit from those smaller companies?
      
      So now you don't care about debt? You banged on about it over and over and now because your mates can't keep track of their credit card its OK? Hypocrite.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ben the lawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:41:20pm
      
      'It was a spokesman for the automotive industries parts section that came up with the estimate of 150,000.'
      
      Rather than parroting lines, why don't you demonstrate that you know what you are talking about? Merely recite the business names and the number of employees to get you up to 150,000. You said it with such confidence, I assumed you already knew.
      
      'So now you don't care about debt?'
      
      I do indeed care about debt. I just don't expect a government to pay off $400 billion in the first 6 months of office. Do you? I remember it took Howard 10 years to pay off Keating's $90 billion - I'm unclear on how long it will take this government to pay off quadruple that.
      
      'now because your mates can't keep track of their credit card'
      
      I don't even know any politicians, let alone can call them mates. Also, there is no credit card in any real sense. In any event, you seemed to be happy to let Labor wrack up as much as they wanted. Are you not willing to give the Coalition the same freedom? There is a word for someone who changes their mind depending on who argues for it...
      
      Alert moderator
    - christophus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:01:56pm
      
      Keating was unlucky recessions happened bot only in Australia at that time.
      
      And as Tony said the GFC was a lie and didn't really exist. The LNP could sell their faithful a dead cat
      
      Alert moderator
    - Realist:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:49:03pm
      
      "Unemployment up to 6% the highest in ten years."
      
      We have been saying for six long years that Labor would have its consequences but you just wouldn't listen.
      
      No government can turn an unemployment trend in a couple of months and Labor forecast unemployment would go even higher than this in their final economic statement.
      
      Trying to blame Abbott just demonstrates once more your weak grip on reality.
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:02:33pm
      
      Go back 6 months, to the Rudd regime. Unemployment, at that time, was forecast to rise to more than 6%. This was Abbott's fault?
      
      Alert moderator
    - JRM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:02:53pm
      
      Yank
      
      Unemployment was creeping up under Gillard.
      
      Our 350bn spent - didn't create sustainable employment.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Uriah Heep the lawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:21:04pm
      
      Ben, 150,000 lost jobs over the forward estimates, at least.
      
      Unemployment is rising and Hockey is blaming it on the previous government on the news right now. No news there I guess.
      
      Alert moderator
    - JRM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:01:33pm
      
      The unemployment rate has been creeping up for past 12 months.
      
      So 350bn spent in 2009 - has not led to sustainable employment that lasted even 2 to 3 years.
      
      Alert moderator
    - SVJ:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:07:03pm
      
      I thought the left could see past the controlled dissemination of information by the Gov't and media and knew the 'real' facts. That bloody tall pedestal I thought you were on is looking really small.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:28:09pm
      
      The ALPs own figures they took to the election as a measure of their economical credibility showed that unemployment would rise to 6.25% early in 2014 under the ALP polices they were pushing.
      
      How many jobs were lost under ALP?
      
      The majority of the jobs lost in 2013 were under the ALP?
      
      Over 100,000 manufacturing jobs were lost or moved overseas during those long years of ALP government.
      
      Alert moderator
    - dostoevsky:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:40:10am
      
      No, your just not allowed to hear about the boats anymore...
      
      Alert moderator
    - Oaktree:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:40:16am
      
      The boats may have stopped, but at what expense? ... Oh, no comment on on water issues. Australia has junked its reputation and is playing dangerous games with Indonesia.
      
      Unemployment and Newstart payments about to go through the roof in southern States.
      
      An inflated deficit through some fancy accounting, and now Costello about to repeat what happened in Qld. More Coalition accounting.
      
      I think the ALP has shot itself in the foot again by going against the wishes of the electorate and placing it firmly as a Union-backed party by failing to appoint Albanese as Opposition Leader.
      
      What a gift for Abbott! Now we taxpayers will foot the bill for another unnecessary Royal Commission, while he and Rupert hone the ongoing headlines.
      
      Alert moderator
    - An old Territorian :
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:40:55am
      
      Abbott has't stopped the boats, the monsoon season has slowed them down for a short while, mark my words the boats will be on there way again soon.
      As for the rest of Abbotts promisses well, the man is an out right liar,fruad and runs a government with no morals.
      
      Alert moderator
    - phil:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:08:54am
      
      so what happened to the monsoon for the last 5 years ? Did it fail to appear ? They get the monsoon every year, and boats kept on appearing
      
      That's how far back you need to go to get to the same number of boat arrivals that we have now
      
      Alert moderator
    - rusty cairns:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:31:02pm
      
      GDay Phil,
      Yes the monsoon rarely appeared.
      We in the north were wondering what happened to the monsoons for the last 5 years, because it barely arrived. One of those years we were heading for the lowest rainfall on record in the top end until a cyclone formed over land (yes over land, TC Carlos) south of Darwin and gave over 400 mils of rain in 24 hours. Go back in the records and find out how many swimmers have died because of the rough sea conditions experienced on Darwin beaches, 2 this year unfortunately, the strongest and longest monsoon we have had for years.
      It's wrong to claim the boats have stopped if people whom were on them are arriving unwelcomed in Indonesia on boats supplied by Australia.
      
      Alert moderator
    - simon:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:17:38am
      
      There were boats on the way. We turned them back.
      
      Alert moderator
    - SeanK:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:15:22pm
      
      Ha! The monsoon winds make it far easier and cheaper to travel from Indonesia to Australia right now than in the dry season when the winds are against them. The Maccassan traders from Indoensia came here with the monsoon winds in the wet and used the dry season south easterlies to get them back home to Indonesia, so sorry but your argument carries no weight.
      
      As if boat skippers from Indonesia would stay off the water in wet weather...
      
      Alert moderator
    - bill:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:39:53pm
      
      right SeanK, its just been a lull during monsoon season every single year prior.
      
      but you know better than facts that disagree with you I guess, the mark of a true regressive.
      
      Alert moderator
    - rusty cairns:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:21:22pm
      
      GDay SeanK,
      you make a good point, however the invention of the seam and combustion engine and their use in sea vessels has negated the need to use favourably wind direction for sea voyages.
      Now we wait for favourable sea conditions not favourable wind direction before we set sail.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Realist:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:51:21pm
      
      Longest pause in more than five years and you claim "the monsoon season has slowed them down for a short while"?
      
      So what happened to all the other monsoon seasons then? No Monsoon seasons under Labor?
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:06:49pm
      
      An old Territorian should know that the monsoon season does not stop the boats. Tony Abbott stops the boats.
      
      Alert moderator
    - rusty cairns:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:20:59pm
      
      GDay burke,
      the news I'm hearing is that boats that were for sale in Singapore that had no people on them are now arriving in Indonesia.
      It seems Tony hasn't stopped the boats traveling between Australia and Indonesia, he's added to the numbers of them.
      I heard over and over again "we will turn back he boats if it's safe to do so" I never once heard "we will use taxpayer money to supply safer boats."
      Our government is certain that it's not breaking any laws whilst turning/towing back the boats, but the same government was certain that no Australian government owned and controlled vessels would breach Indonesian boarders. Yet they have on at least 5 occasions.
      Obviously we can't trust what our government is "certain of" can we? Nor can the people of Indonesia, whom were promised their sovereignty would be respected. It mustn't have been a core promise made to them eh?
      I await the day an Indonesian navy vessel tows an Australian owned life boat full of asylum seekers to the edge of Australian Territorian waters, with the message "have the people back you tried to smuggle into Indonesia illegally".
      
      Alert moderator
    - andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:53:32pm
      
      Well why did they not slow down to zero over the last 2 monsoon seasons ??
      
      No during the last 2 monssson seasons hundreds of people arrived on boats right through the monsoon season.
      
      Check it out and find out the truth.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mr Zeitgeist:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:47:22am
      
      No Alfie, they haven't stopped.
      When the monsoon abates, the boats will be back.
      Best study a bit of meteorology, you know, it's part of 'climate'?
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:07:00am
      
      Best to do a bit of studying yourself, Mr Zeitgeist.
      
      During the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd administrations there were, believe it or not, six monsoon seasons. And the boats kept coming through those six monsoon seasons.
      
      The thing that has changed is not the climate - it's the political will to act.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dr Who:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:15:06pm
      
      This may come as a surprise to you John, but monsoons do not last all year. That's why the monsoon season is referred to as a season. And yes, the number of asylum seekers seeking entry by boat does decrease (albeit not to zero) during the monsoon seasons, because such sea voyages are more dangerous during monsoons. Abbott's policies need to be tested for a minimum of 12 months before their success or otherwise can be commented on (probably longer, subject to international push factors), and that's without touching on the ethics - or legality - of these actions.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:37:02pm
      
      As usual, Doc, a totally irrelevant response attempting to deflect the argument.
      
      I did not claim that the monsoon lasted a full year. That's just another one of your dishonesties.
      
      The illegal boat arrivals during the monsoon seasons in each of the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd administrations continued. But the illegal boats did not come during this last monsoon season.
      
      All that has changed is not the monsoon - just the political will.
      
      Alert moderator
    - lazarus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:02:24pm
      
      Afraid you are wrong again, this is first season since 2009 that no arrivals have occurred. The boats have still come, just they have been turned around or provided with a boat by the Royal Australian People Smugglers (formerly RAN) and sent back to Indonesia.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:07:19pm
      
      Silly bit of hair-splitting.
      
      If they go back, then by obvious logic they do not come.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ricky:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:44:58am
      
      Why didn't the boats stop last monsoon season or the one before that? Can you answer that question? I'm guessing not.
      
      Alert moderator
    - spud:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:19:16am
      
      Haven't you heard of climate change Mr Z? There was no monsoon last year, or the year before, or before that back to 2008, which was why all of those boats came across at this time. This year the people smugglers correctly predicted there would be climate change; it would revert back to a normal monsoon as it was before 2008 when they didn't come across either. So we had climate change back to what it was before it changed; retro change.
      
      And why did the climate change? Obvious. It was Abbott's fault.
      
      BTW, I have some real estate to sell you. Prime real estate, just south of Melbourne and within an hour's drive after they build the infrastructure. Interested?
      
      Alert moderator
    - SeanK:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:49:42pm
      
      What absolute rot!!
      
      Northern Australia receives between 3 and 4 monsoon bursts per wet season, and I am not aware of ANY year, let alone between now and 2008, where we didnt have monsoons.
      
      My goodness the ignorance that passes for opinion on this website is extraordinary!!
      
      Alert moderator
    - rusty cairns:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:31:55pm
      
      Yes SeanK, but near record and record rainfalls would mean that this monsoon season has be a very strong and long one.
      One would have to be ignorant not to recognise this fact.
      
      Alert moderator
    - spud:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:18:37pm
      
      Tongue firmly in cheek Sean, firmly in cheek. But Mr Z believes it, word for word; particularly the bit about it being Abbott's fault. I stole his line, and it left him speechless!
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:51:33am
      
      For now, maybe, the boats are being towed back. They have not stopped. The true facts are hidden by the secret military strategy. Abbott talks of "war" - the war on refugees. That should work as well as the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror", which is only to make other things worse.
      
      Always beware the simple solution to complex problems.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Hannah:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:08:59am
      
      You can't say the boats have stopped, Alfie, if they still set out and our navy has to put people into tax funded one-use only lifeboats, and tow them back. Even if you don't disagree with the methods used, no matter how abhorrent, there are legal issues involved which will have to be faced at some stage. Australia is in very choppy water on this one, and it's us in the leaky boat.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:27:33am
      
      But look to the slightly longer point of view, RayS.
      
      If the boats are towed back the Captain and the crew of those boats will simply walk away back to their homes with their pockets full of cash, leaving the illegal travellers stranded on an Indonesian beach. That recently happened to a boat towed back, and was extensively reported on the ABC and in the press.
      
      If you were contemplating paying a people smuggler US$8-10,000 for a trip but were aware that you would end up back in Indonesia, wouldn't you have second thoughts?
      
      And if you then become aware of another boat, or two boats, or ten boats being towed back, would you ever try to illegally enter Australia by that means?
      
      The tow-backs will stop the customers and the lack of customers will stop the boats.
      
      Alert moderator
    - LeftRightOut:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:10:41pm
      
      John
      
      Desperation is a powerful motivator. Reported boat loads of deaths didn't stop them, so the possible risk of loosing money seems pretty small in comparison.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:01:44pm
      
      Basic misconception, LRO.
      
      These people are not desperate. They are not fleeing for their lives. They are not seeking asylum.
      
      They are economic betterment seekers. And as such, if they become aware that they cannot buy their way into an economically desirable destination they will, as economically astute travellers, use their funds in some other way.
      
      Alert moderator
    - LeftRightOut:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:58:06pm
      
      Really John
      
      Talk about basic misconception. You seriously believe that all of these people are purely economic refugees and don't fear persecution and or death?
      
      Have you read the news about what happened in the final months of the conflict with the Tamils and the ongoing human rights abuses?
      
      Have you read the reports coming out of Syria?
      
      Repeating the economic refugee slogan ad nauseum doesn't make it true.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:47:13pm
      
      Not a very sensible comment, LRO.
      
      The Tamils in Sri Lanka are not coming because of the war. That ended some time ago, and both the Sri Lankan and Australian authorities have reported that the arrivals were, and admitted to being, economic betterment seekers.
      
      As to the Syrian problem, anyone leaving Syria as a refugee has the option of entering at least four ethnically, socially and religiously similar countries as Syria. To bypass all of those and head through several other countries, aiming solely and only for Australia, is economic destination shopping.
      
      Yes, I do believe that all of those people are seeking economic betterment not safe haven. If asylum and safe haven were their intention they would not have received it and then abandoned it several times whilst en route to Australia via Indonesia.
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:26:33pm
      
      If these people aren't asylum seekers, why do the vast majority of them (>90%) end up getting provided refugee status?
      
      If they're just 'seeking economic benefit' why would they come to Australia via leaky boats, risking death, when they could just take a plane? You haven't addressed that part of LRO's point. If they're fleeing economic privation so deep that the risk of drowning at sea is a better option, I think dismissing them as merely seeking economic benefit is a tad shortsighted. That isn't so much a matter of wanting a large TV as wanting food.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:15:32pm
      
      You keep making this same silly and unjustified claim. Those who are accepted into Australia are not found to be genuine. They have simply, by lying and deception, outwitted the authorities for long enough for them to get in on the "we can't prove your dishonesty" basis, not the "you have proved your claim" basis.
      
      They don 't come to Australia via leaky boats. They fly in safety and comfort (and in the case of those coming from Bahrein, in business class) with full documentation and then catch a boat only for long enough for the RAN to rescue them from "sinking". This inevitably takes place in Indonesian waters, sometimes less that 10km from the Indonesian coast, and the distress call is always made to Australian authorities, never to the Indonesian Barsanas. They come to Australia in the safety and comfort of an RAN vessel. Do you think all that is coincidence? They know and have planned to be on the boat for a very short time.
      
      If you don't think that this is economic migration, then take a bit of time to read about the Hazara money laundering, forgery and illegal trafficking setup that was uncovered in the Dandenong area, just east of Melbourne.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Cassandra:
      
      14 Feb 2014 12:46:37am
      
      Hi John,
      
      Golly - how I wish I were as well-informed as you on the reasons all these people are seeking asylum.
      
      Fancy, they're just cruising the world in those leaky boats, checking out attractive job opps!
      
      Apart from those armed to the teeth, reconnoitring beachheads from which they'll 'storm our borders' and pillage and rape everything between Darwin and Kangaroo island.
      
      There've really been no wars, unrest, horrors beyond belief to drive people from what's left of their villaqes. That's just lefty, commo/pinko, bleeding-heart propaganda.
      
      Everybody knows.
      
      But John, when you have a moment between blogs, take a squizz at 'No Fire Zone', a doco on Tamils fleeing a war that's supposed to be finished...
      
      It might provide you with some useful information.
      
      I sincerely hope so.
      
      Cass
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      14 Feb 2014 8:00:30am
      
      You could be as well informed as me if you read as much as me.
      
      Try it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:13:28pm
      
      John, I don't give a rat's arse if the boats don't stop coming and I cannot fathom why we are spending billions to mount a demonization program against people who we have signed an international agreement to try to help.
      
      Abbott is bringing in far more immigrants than the small number of desperate people who brave the deadly seas to get here. We even extend backpacker work visas to nearly a quarter of a million backpackers a year.
      
      Get over it John. It's a stupid waste with many undesirable side effects including that the world sees us as the new arch-bastards led by uber-bastards.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:41:42pm
      
      We have not signed an international agreement to assist illegal economic migrants. That is what these boat people are.
      
      We are not mounting a demonisation (please note the spelling) programme (please note the spelling) against these people.
      
      People like back-packers arrive legally, with full identification and passports, are given fully valid visas and other authorisations and the work that they do is lawful and approved.
      
      The world sees us as a soft touch and many people, especially those in Europe, consider us to be exceedingly stupid to continue to fall for this illegal trade.
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:52:18pm
      
      On the contrary John, we are signatories to the Refugee Convention.
      
      Asylum seekers are not illegal, though their unauthorized entry into the country of asylum is illegal, but only until they indicate they are here to seek asylum.
      
      Historically, over 90% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine.
      
      Obviously backpackers work legally or they wouldn't be allowed to continue. Nonetheless, there are far more of them than refugees and we can obviously accommodate them. In fact backpackers are valued in rural areas and in the hotel and restaurant industries.
      
      Far better and cheaper to pay refugees Newstart allowance of $480 a fortnight and let them live in the community than pay $1500 a day each to hold them offshore and billions chasing them around the ocean, handing out gunboats to corrupt governments and the like.
      
      Thanks for speaking for the people of Europe. Actually, Europe takes far far more refugees than we do. Anyone who braves the deadly ocean is a better man or woman than most racists who think a mere accident of birth entitles them to deny others a place of safety and a new life.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      14 Feb 2014 8:04:21am
      
      Totally wrong again, RayS.
      
      There is nothing - I repeat NOTHING - in the Convention that makes asylum the prerogative of a signatory. Any nation that does not refoul offers safe haven and asylum. That is specifically written into the Convention, which states that an asylum seeker has received asylum in the first country he enters after leaving his birth country providing that the country does not have a policy of refoulement.
      
      If a person receives asylum in the first country, then he is not seeking asylum if he voluntarily moves on. That is what is being done by these illegal boat arrivals.
      
      They are not seeking asylum because they already have it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Peter the Lawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:02:56pm
      
      What you give a rat's arse about isn't really important.
      
      What is important is what the electorate thinks. They want the boats stopped. They voted for the Coalition in vast numbers when the Coalition made the promise to stop the boats one of its main strategic visions.
      
      When Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard put into place policies that led boat people to their deaths the ALP supporters here on the Drum didn't complain. When those two incompetents then tried to get tough with boat people and proposed unworkable solutions that were far harsher than anything the current government is doing, but didn't work, we still heard no complaints from you and your ilk.
      
      The only conclusion that can be drawn by any fair-minded person is that you have an irrational dislike of Tony Abbott and/or the Coalition.
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:54:06pm
      
      Specifically Peter, polling shows most Australians want the boats stopped but think more should be done to help genuine refugees. Can you use a search engine?
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:12:16pm
      
      The world sees us as coming to our senses after a period of complete lunacy.
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:18:36pm
      
      Let me get this straight.
      
      A significant risk of drowning at sea isn't a disincentive to asylum seekers (they come anyway, after all), but the possibility that you might be out of pocket is a disincentive?
      
      Abbott does have one thing right: the only way to stop boats coming is to flat out refuse to take any asylum seekers from boats as refugees. Making life harder for them when they get here sure as hell won't stop them coming, because they're already risking death to do it and escaping harsher conditions than we're likely to subject them to.
      
      Of course, then you have the problem that we're utterly violating both the spirit and the letter of one of the oldest UN conventions to date, utterly destroying any reputation we have for being a good country in the region, pissing off one of our closest neighbours, and most importantly not taking in genuine refugees - remember that the vast majority of asylum seekers who've arrived by boat are accepted as refugees in the end!
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:12:30pm
      
      James, you parrot the age-old falsity.
      
      These people are so astute at lying, obfuscating, deceiving, obstructing and manipulating the system that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find out the true facts about their names, nationalities and backgrounds.
      
      They therefore obtain entry on the basis that the authorities cannot conclusively prove that they are dishonest.
      
      They are not found to be genuine.
      
      Alert moderator
    - mickeyfipps:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:47:40pm
      
      John, best description of the Liberal Party I've read.. cheers
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:13:48pm
      
      The Catholic Church defies the UN too - so what?
      
      Alert moderator
    - rusty cairns:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:58:17pm
      
      Gday John
      you are assuming that those that take payment from those seeking asylum don't organise another boat at no extra cost and try again.
      Those seeking asylum be they worthy or not don't disappear if they are sent back to Indonesia.
      I think Morrison now realises how difficult it would be for Indonesia and Malaysia to stop illegal entry from Malaysia to Indonesia, the Strait of Malacca is less then 50 km wide in places and thousands of vessels are in that strait everyday.
      Odd isn't it, that our government will hold a royal commission into construction industry corruption on the basis that there are allegations made, yet will not investigate allegations of human right abuses. It seems money is more important that the treatment of fellow humans, for our government.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:23:38pm
      
      I don't have any information as to any follow-up action by the Captains and crews of boats that are turned back, Rusty.
      
      All I have to go on is the recent event where a boat was towed back, was beached on an Indonesian island and according to the passengers who were stranded, the Captain and crew "simply walked away into the jungle and disappeared".
      
      No, it's not odd or unusual for some form of enquiry, be it a Royal Commission or something else, to be set up to investigate those series of revelations of corruption and abuse that have been shown to be a constant part of the construction industry.
      
      The allegations of ill-treatment of illegal entrants are very nebulous and, as shown by the furore over the "burnt hands" scandal, are usually false and unsubstantiated. You can't have an enquiry into a rumour.
      
      Alert moderator
    - seg:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:36:31am
      
      Alas the catch-cry of a right-wing mind-set is:
      Always embrace the simple solution to complex problems.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Peter the Lawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:55:36pm
      
      No, the left wing catch cry is simple solutions to non-problems
      
      Alert moderator
    - LeftRightOut:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:08:42pm
      
      The war on terror was won by the terrorists the day the war was declared. If you don't think it's true just visit any airport and compare the inconvenience pre & post war. Alternativley have a look at our legislation about what survellaince the government can do on its citizens pre & post, or what powers to detain people certain agencies now have.
      We went from being terrorised by 'extremists' to being terrorised by our own extreme governments.
      
      Alert moderator
    - APM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:24:33pm
      
      'Always beware the simple solution to complex problems.'
      
      We also need to be aware of people who use complexity to stonewall. In the case of boat people, Labor's complexity (or inaction) was really about how to reconcile electoral damage from an open border, and Labor's ideological commitments that predispose many to practice compassion at any cost. This led to an inept and inconsistent approach that satisfied no one. For most Australians though, we do not suffer from 'complexity' (or ideological madness) that makes this task impossible for the Left. We command our government to 'stop the boats', and the 'simple' part of this is not so much operational, but the determination to actually just do it rather than invent phoney difficulties.
      
      Alert moderator
    - prison:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:00:08pm
      
      well what you call simplicity, I call head in the sand stupidity and cruelty.
      
      As for idealogical madness - why do people even support a party who's only objective is to make the lives of the majority of the population even harder to the benefit of a few rich mates?
      
      This may surprise Liberal voters, but we are ALL on the bottom rung of the pyramid together as part of the general population. Even Tony Abbot barely makes it above this level. WE should be supporting each other rather than those higher up who directly benefit from the state of distraction and ongoing conflict we are trapped in from this 2 party system. Think about it!!! stopping the boats is a distraction reliant on the underlying bigotry through ignorance in a part of our population.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Peter the Lawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:08:31pm
      
      APM
      
      You are spot on. It is funny how left wing people avoid complexity when it suits them. For example when it comes to subsidising industry all they can see are the 'jobs.' They can't understand the complexities of economics or commerce and the thousand factors that should prevent the government making knee-jerk grants.
      
      And their boat people stance is also simplisitc. All boat people are refugees to them. The fact that the 'refugees' have thrown away their pasports and their stories can't be checked doesn't matter to a lefty. The fact that if we let in all boat people we would end up supporting them and the families they would then bring here for years via social security payments that would far out weigh the cost of keeping them out.
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:20:50pm
      
      Also all left wing people are exactly the same and think precisely in lockstep along a narrow stereotype. And economics is really simple you just make everything private and minimise taxes and everything takes off. And people coming into the country cost lots of money via welfare, obviously more than keeping warships constantly patrolling our coasts, just because - that's common sense, I don't need to do any numbers to demonstrate it.
      
      Weren't you arguing that conservatism /isn't/ simplistic? Hmm.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ricky:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:33:01pm
      
      This is hilarious you people are tying yourselves in knots here. "The boats have stopped because of the monsoon season" and then "the boats haven't stopped because there being tuned back". Give it up.
      
      Alert moderator
    - rusty cairns:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:41:17am
      
      Gday Ricky,
      , If the boats have stopped why are there boats being turned/towed back ?
      Yea it's hilarious that some people believe if dogs keep turning up in their yard and they keep chasing them away they claim they have stopped the dogs from turning up in their yard.
      The funny thing is, if they have stopped coming why do they need to be chased away?
      
      Alert moderator
    - SVJ:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:21:28pm
      
      Or the simple posts trying to understand complex problems.......
      
      Alert moderator
    - ingenuous:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:56:53am
      
      So the irrelevant distraction has your complete support? What was this article about? Oh, yes, the economy.
      
      What is Abbott doing about the economy? What about the long term future (e.g. his lack of understanding of climate science)? What about encouraging, rather than scaring off, industry?
      
      Slogans are worthless.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Bean Counter:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:16:00pm
      
      Ingenuous says "Slogans are worthless". Not just another Three Word Slogan? Ha ha.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ricky:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:00:01am
      
      Spot on Alfie. Stop the boats was "just a slogan" according to the ALP and their supporters. As Turnbull said on Q&A some people are very unhappy with the fact it looks like Abbott's slogan is actually working. 56 days, no boat arrivals as promised.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Chris L:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:59:34am
      
      "56 days, no boat arrivals as promised."
      
      If there's been no arrivals, who is it being sent back in Australian life boats?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:19:25am
      
      So Alfie, if that is true, how much more contented and better off do you feel. Or do you feel,"What the hell, my life has not changed".
      
      How long will it take before you realise that there is a bit more to running this country than claiming you have fixed up the mess John Howard started and stopped the boats.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alfie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:13:48am
      
      "..how much more contented and better off do you feel."
      
      Since you ask, I feel pretty good about a government who does what is says.
      
      It is refreshing after 6 years of countless Labor failures.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Trent Toogood:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:34:03pm
      
      ...a government who does what it says...
      
      It may be refreshing for you, but for the majority of Australians, as the polls show us, it's just another day another lie.
      
      The people are slowly waking up.
      
      It seems Tone and his crew aren't.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Peter the Lawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:12:23pm
      
      I agree ALfie.
      
      I feel much better off, because all around me I can see business confidence growing. Sydney is now awash with big building projects. Comapnies are going into action again after hibernating whilst Labor made things hard for so long.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Anubis:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:27:01am
      
      So Alfie,if as you maintain Abbott and not the monsoon season has stopped the boats,it would be a logical progression that when the monsoon season is over that any boats arriving would be down to Tow Back Tony.
      
      Then again I doubt if there was any resumption of arrivals that the Australian people would be any the wiser given the embargo of such highly classified information.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Marty:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:39:05am
      
      Take a look at the weather radar or weather maps of the top end and up north of us , lots of tropical low pressure systems , a couple of cyclones , not condusive for small overloaded fishing boats to venture across open water . Wait until the weather settles down and watch the boats continue
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ricky:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:00:45pm
      
      Can you explain what boats has Abbott been towing/turning back then if there are no boats trying to get here because of the weather?
      
      Alert moderator
    - GrumpyOldMan:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:48:27am
      
      "The boats have stopped - just as Abbott promised." And the monsoon season is in full swing!
      
      And the problem of dealing with asylum seekers (sometimes known as people) is back where is DOESN'T belong - in Indonesia! If Abbott had had any sense at all, he would have supported the recommendations of the Houston committee and the setup of more regional processing centres in transit countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, and then the people assessed as being legitimate refugees could have been flown into Australia on non-leaky aeroplanes.
      
      What is it about conservatives that makes it impossible for them to understand this? I know, they are stu...!
      
      Alert moderator
    - GrumpyOldMan:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:12:09am
      
      Alfie, what do you think will happen if a new Indonesian government gets sick of having to cope with so many people who are trying to get to Australia? Maybe they could round them all up and put them on Indonesian Navy vessels and deposit them on Christmas Island or in Darwin?
      
      And who could blame them if they did this because asylum seekers is NOT THEIR PROBLEM! What will your Dear Leader do then?
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:17:30pm
      
      Send them back, obviously.
      
      Alert moderator
    - andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:59:03pm
      
      People smuggling is ILLEGAL in Indonesia.
      
      These people are being placed on boats by people smugglers who are breaking Indonesian law.
      
      The Indonesians can use the returnees to find the people smugglers and charge them. A win -win situation.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Kagey One:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:20:01am
      
      Yes, we can say unequivocally, without fear of direct contradiction, that we don't know of any boats arriving in Australia in recent weeks. Well... we don't think any arrived, 'cos we haven't been told they did, and those being turned back are not arriving, they're leaving. Leaving in beautiful orange lifeboats with just enough fuel to get them to Indonesian beaches.
      Not sure how the lifeboats are being returned, 'cos no-one has told us that. At $70 odd thousand dollars each they must have taken that into account. Mustn't they?
      
      Alert moderator
    - DSteel:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:35:14pm
      
      There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
      
      Alert moderator
    - andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:00:41pm
      
      Every OSB puts out a report of the weeks activity - boat arrivals, transfers to Manus , Nauru etc.
      
      What more do you want to know?
      
      Alert moderator
    - GraemeF:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:18:38pm
      
      Make sure you swallow your slogans slowly like a good and proper acolyte or you will choke.
      
      Alert moderator
    - JOP:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:22:26pm
      
      Yes Alfie, the boats have stopped (well we don't actually know what the boats are doing of course). But we do know that the jobs have stopped in a number of places. In fact, the only thigs that will be still coming are higher interest rates, unemployment and inflation. But the boats have stopped...I'm sure that will comfort you.
      
      Alert moderator
    - lazarus:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:47:27pm
      
      If the boats have stopped how come refugees are turning up in orange lifeboats on the Indonesian coast? Seems the Navy has turned into people smugglers, supplying boats and sending people to Indonesia without proper documents against the wishes of that Government.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Geoff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:04:28pm
      
      Gee... I wonder if monsoon season has any bearing on the boats stopping?
      
      Having said that.. they haven't stopped, they've simply just been towing them back, or not telling us about them. I reckon once monsoon season is over they'll start up again.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Skeptic:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:32:12pm
      
      No, the **news** about the boats has stopped. Well, in fact it hasn't. The Jataka Post and the internet make sure of that....
      
      Alert moderator
    - Esteban:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:09:31pm
      
      Abbott is happy for people to talk about boats.
      
      ALP supporters advocating for a return to the Rudd 2007 policy on boats greatly improves the chances of Abbott being re elected.
      
      Tell me you are just Liberal stooges pretending to be ALP supporters to keep the issue alive for the benefit of the coalition. You could not be that naive could you?
      
      The ALP needs to convince the electorate that the Rudd 2007 boat policy is "dead and cremated".
      
      Alert moderator
  - Sotopanna:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:22:24am
    
    "Abbott has nothing to offer"
    
    With the news of $130 billion of potential asset sales they are offering to diminish our ownership in Sovereign Australia.
    Before they sell it would be appropriate to give us an idea as to from where we might value add and accumulate assets to develop our own projects. After they dumb down our economy and simply react to impatiently react to bank loans and bonds how are we to get ourselves out of this? No vision, no where to go?
    Thatcher would be observing from on high her theories being actualised? Look at UK, is that a good example?
    
    Alert moderator
    - Helvi:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:05:13pm
      
      Sotopanna, today's news, the unemployment figures up to 6%, they were that high during GFC...that what Abbott is giving us, instead of the promised Boom, they will be more and more gloom.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:45:50pm
      
      The problem is that the economy is still ruled by the last ALP government .
      
      If Negative BShorten would only let the Bills pass the Senate things would improve.
      
      It is all the fault of the ALP as the ALP went to the election saying it would rise to 6.25% under ALP policies.
      
      Alert moderator
  - The nose:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:45:54pm
    
    What has Tony Abbott got to offer? 6 percent unemployment, the highest in a decade! That's what he got to offer and those who were taken in by his three words slogans, must be extremely embarrassed for being so gullible.
    
    Alert moderator
    - JRM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:04:22pm
      
      Give Abbott 350bn to spend. He will get it back down to 5.5% overnight.
      
      Any of us could.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:49:29pm
      
      The ALP went to the election telling us it would rise to 6.25% early in 2014 under ALP policies.
      
      What were they going to do about that?
      
      Could you or anyone please supply a link to any ALP Jobs Plan they took to the election to counter the ALPs projected 6.25% jobless rate?
      
      Alert moderator
- Cobber:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:40:05am
  
  You didn't vote for (fall for); 'There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead' did you?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Blzbob:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:15:10am
    
    Carbon tax, Carbon levee, Carbon cost, Carbon quotas, Carbon restrictions.
    I don't care so long as something is done, and this current Abbortt government chooses to do nothing.
    
    Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:13:22am
      
      In fact, Abbott is deliberately attacking the renewable energy target because the big corporations which purchased coal fired generators are experiencing record low wholesale electricity prices and suffering low profits. This is because our electricity consumption is falling, a surely good thing for consumers and the environment.
      
      Not in this case does Abbott claim the market knows best, or that's just the way it is.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:41:49pm
      
      A $9 billion tax take and emissions decrease by a HUGE 0.03%.
      
      What a great return for our carbon tax.
      
      Alert moderator
    - RayS:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:01:28pm
      
      You are making that up Andie (or is it Charles this time?).
      
      The Australian economics editor published this in January 2013:
      
      "CARBON emissions from the electricity sector have dived in the first six months under the carbon tax, with much greater use of renewable energy and cutbacks in consumption.
      
      While the government believes the 8.6 per cent fall in carbon emissions shows its policies are working, it also means it will collect less from the tax than the $4 billion it anticipated this year.
      
      The drop in revenue comes after the minerals resource rent tax, forecast to raise $2bn this year, failed to raise any revenue from the big three miners in the first six months of the year.
      
      Total emissions from the electricity sector in the December half were 7.5 million tonnes lower than in the same half of 2011".
      
      Alert moderator
    - Blzbob:
      
      14 Feb 2014 1:28:06am
      
      And 9 Billion into government revenue to use as needed.
      Funny how Abbortt wants to scrap the tax and yet complains that there is not enough money to fund the budget.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Stuffed Olive:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:59:26am
    
    I did vote for a price on carbon and we got just that. Do you realise you voted for giving the polluters your 'hard earned' money to possibly reduce a bit of pollution. Your fixation on this and stopping the boats shows how narrow your view is of what makes a country tick.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Alfie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:16:04am
      
      Nobody voted for a Carbon Tax. It was never a Labor pre-election commitment (Gillard lied).
      
      Alert moderator
    - jennbrad:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:35:48pm
      
      Once again, Julia Gillard did NOT lie - she said she would not introduce a carbon tax, but that she was committed to introducing a price on carbon. Which she did - it's not a "tax" and I'd love to hear how it adversely affected you.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:42:52pm
      
      Gillard said that any thing she did she would take to the 2013 election before introducing.
      
      She LIED
      
      Alert moderator
    - Judy Bee:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:52:33pm
      
      Alfie, from this distance, no one cares. They all lie, it is part of politicians' DNA. No need to continue to be deluded.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Wil:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:08:36pm
      
      You actually have to listen to the whole sentence spoken by Gillard and not just the part of it that News Limited and the Coalition banged on about endlessly. Anyone can edit a sentence to suit their own political means.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:45:04pm
      
      I did and I remember the statement that Gillard said she would seek consensus from the community via her public meetings and she would take any decision to the 2013 election before she introduced it.
      
      Check it out . That is the TRUTH. Gillard LIED
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tim:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:08:49pm
      
      I seem to remember an election where climate change was recognised by all as a great moral challenge of our times, and some sort of pollution pricing scheme an absolute necessity for the economy... and this by both parties (although for Howard it was through gritted teeth and all 10 fingers crossed behind his back)... Unfortunately the Liberals are even worse at keeping election promises than the Labor party so here we are, 6.5 years later, with the promised and long-fought for market based pollution pricing scheme about to be blown away by a Liberal government that claims to be pro-market but plans to replace said scheme with a socialist program of 'paying polluters lots of money to pollute slightly more efficiently'. Good job. Let me know how that works out. I'm off to live on that spare planet that everyone thinks we have.
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:30:27pm
      
      The Australian, August 20th, 2010, "Julia Gillard's carbon price promise":
      "In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.
      
      "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax.""
      
      The carbon price was not going to be triggered until after the 2013 election, after a citizen's assembly.
      
      Then we elected a hung parliament, and Labour had to negotiate with the Greens and Independents to form government. Presumably the Greens wanted the government to pull carbon pricing forwards and skip the citizen's assembly. Maybe that small policy change - calling it a 'lie' is a bit rich - was something that the ~12% who voted for the Greens in the House of Reps could be considered to have earned, representation-wise.
      
      I saw that interview. I heard Julia Gillard promise not to institute a carbon tax, and then make clear that she wasn't ruling out a price on carbon. Anyone who voted for Labour thinking that they were voting against any kind of carbon price has it on their heads - it was their mistake, not deception from Labour.
      
      The Liberals and the mainstream media have lied about this issue, again and again and again. Julia Gillard did not lie about the carbon price.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:19:17pm
      
      More dishonesty, James, this time by omission.
      
      Julia Gillard's comment, when quoted in full, was:
      
      ?There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead. I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism. I rule out a carbon tax. The carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election".
      
      There was no fall-back comment about a hung Parliament or about a deal with the Greens or any other issue. The simple promises were:
      
      There will be no carbon tax.
      The carbon price will not be implemented before the 2013 election.
      
      Two promises.
      Two lies.
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:46:29pm
      
      I think anyone reading your comment and mine above is very clear who is being dishonest. The full quote doesn't add anything to what I've stated above. If you look closely I mentioned that it was going to kick in after 2013.
      
      There was no carbon tax. That part of the promise was absolutely upheld. We have an emissions trading scheme. The comment about not ruling out the possibility of a CPRS clearly implies that an emissions trading scheme was the kind of thing they were considering, so it's not like this was a surprise. You can't pretend that it was some kind of semantic game like Skeptic below. In context, Gillard was clearly ruling out a specific carbon pricing mechanism in favour of another specific carbon pricing mechanism, and saying that that other carbon pricing mechanism would start past 2013.
      
      I don't know about you, but pulling a policy forward by three years doesn't strike me as a huge betrayal or lie, especially given the circumstances in which it was pulled forwards (that is, Labour didn't outright win the election). It certainly wasn't a lie in the sense malice aforethought - there's no reason to believe that at the time she made that comment Labor intended to implement an ETS directly after the election.
      
      Gillard didn't lie. The Liberal party did. The media parroted the line without question or critical analysis.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:50:43pm
      
      Pulling it forward by three years was an enormous fraud on the Australian people.
      
      She claimed that she would put it to an election and give us the chance to vote on it.
      
      She defrauded us.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Skeptic:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:38:05pm
      
      She DID promise a "price" on carbon pollution, though. Guess what is the easiest way to implement that? Through a financial disincentive, i.e., a TAX!! Clever, eh?
      
      Alert moderator
    - ThatFlemingGent:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:26:12pm
      
      "Nobody voted for a Carbon Tax."
      
      We got a carbon price (fixed initially through necessary negotiation) which was entirely in line with policy offered (It was actually TA that wanted a Carbon Tax in 2009!)
      
      We then got years of lies and propaganda from grubs like you Alfie, trying to defend neoconservative frauds who have no policy or vision just the desire to destroy everything they disagree with.
      
      Thieves and vandals, the lot of them.
      
      Alert moderator
    - TBH:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:52:37am
      
      Olive, you voted for something, other people voted for something else. That's democracy: and here it happens every 3 or so years.
      We all knew we were voting for a policy that was succinctly expressed in a slogan or sound-bite. Mr. Green is just trying to run the old "we are clever we have clever policies vs Abbott is dumb he only has slogans" argument.
      What his op piece actually reinforces is that this Govt. - whether you like it or not - was elected on a platform of stopping the boats and doing away with the carbon tax (and I should point out that they have their own ineffective proposal to deal with carbon).
      Can't you just accept that Bilious Shorten will have to come up with better (well, more popular) policies next time around ?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sawyer:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:27:06pm
      
      Actually TBH, Green was not saying anything of the sort. You don't seem to be able help yourself conflate 'ABC commentator' with 'ALP apologist' no matter what they have- in fact- written.
      And, no, I DON'T accept that the ALP has to outdo the LNP with "better" (or more popular!) rhetoric next time or else bad luck.
      The entire point of the piece was to say we (or you anyway) should not accept the crap these people come up with just because the other side doesn't float your boat.
      Evidently you thought those slogans amounted to something meaningful and well thought out, but I'm pretty sure many others heard, like I did, witless platitudes and motherhood statements like "we'll get the budget back under control by ending Labor's waste".
      Come in spinner!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Cobber:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:06:59pm
      
      OK, now that you have admitted lies are OK, we can move on accordingly.
      
      Alert moderator
    - gnome:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:51:39pm
      
      Well I voted for "no carbon tax under a government I lead".
      
      Because of that betrayal I may never vote Labor again in my life. I certainly won't, as long as Shorten persists in supporting it.
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:21:51pm
      
      Oh please. Anyone who actually watched that interview couldn't possibly have come away believing that Labour planned to do nothing about CO2. Why don't you quote the full sentence? Does "I remain committed to putting a price on carbon" damage your claim that you were 'betrayed' too much?
      
      Labour /did/ intend to introduce their newfangled ETS after the 2013 election and after a Citizen's Assembly. It's true that it got pulled forwards, and had the fixed-price period extended. Because, y'know, the Greens got 12% of the vote and that 12% are entitled to representation too. If you want to call that a 'betrayal', then I think you're wildly overstating the case, and could find far, far worse 'betrayals' with the current government - Gonski, for example, or the promise not to cut ABC funding followed by instituting an efficiency audit of the ABC (does anyone really think it's /not/ going to recommend funding cuts?).
      
      Alert moderator
    - shell:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:45:44pm
      
      having read many of your posts I very much doubt you ever voted Labor.
      
      but I note with bemusement you are so against a carbon tax you now want to pay billions to companies to pollute directly under Abbotts proposal.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Realist:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:53:20pm
      
      So you are partly responsible for killing off our car manufacturing industry? After all, the 'carbon tax' has increased the costs of manufacturing in this country.
      
      You should be saying sorry to those poor workers. Don't you care about their jobs?
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:16:32pm
      
      Nice distraction from the topic at hand, which is that Julia Gillard did not lie and Labor did not betray anyone's trust when they implemented the ETS.
      
      But sure, if you want to go "Look! Squirrel!" instead: yes, the carbon price was one of the factors that hurt manufacturing, like the car industry, in Australia. Probably not the biggest factor, but certainly one of them. And yeah, that means some people lost their jobs, and that's awful, and I wish it wasn't so.
      
      Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that continued CO2 emissions will be worse for everyone - including the people who just lost their jobs - than an uptick in unemployment. I'm sure people lost their jobs when CFCs were phased out, too. Ideally the government would be able to ease the transition by providing ready access to retraining and a social safety net to tide the workers over while they find another job.
      
      'the left' isn't a hive-mind. I usually preference the Greens first, for heaven's sake, not Labor. I don't necessarily agree with every bit of rhetoric deployed by every other left-leaning person in Australia, certainly not whatever is coming from Labor.
      
      Just because I'm not in favour of laissez-faire capitalism doesn't mean I'm in favour of subsidies to businesses.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:19:23pm
      
      After all - after all what? The previous 5 years of massive increases in electricity prices (under State governments) would have been far more worrying than the price on carbon's effect. Scraping the bottom of the barrel I'd say. Pathetic.
      
      Alert moderator
  - ingenuous:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:14:33am
    
    You know full well she intended to implement a market based carbon reduction scheme when elected and was talking about a simple "direct action" style tax in that quote. The scheme actually implemented is a market based carbon trading scheme with a fixed initial period (which will run out soon).
    
    I know that's a lot to read and understand but it's important. That's because the "carbon tax" you hate is actually the best legislation that came out of the previous government. I said that Australia would own up to the damage it causes to the global climate and that we would do something. Now the new government is pressing for Australia to be seen as a bunch of free-loaders who will not take ownership of our own waste.
    
    Gillard's carbon price is something we should fight to keep, not something we should hate because of mindless sloganeering.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Whitey:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:55:40am
      
      Ingenuous, firstly, later in the interview, she made it clear that there would be another election before the implementation of an emission trading scheme, and secondly does it matter? She is gone the scheme she introduced soon will be, they never sold the message of how the introduction of a carbon tax in Australia would stop global emissions. For many people, myself included, the carbon tax was a quixotic scheme, poorly thought out, hastily implemented, and with no chance of achieving it's stated aims.
      It was a lesson in how not to implement serious legislation. Deny you will do it, bring it in, claim you had a mandate, and ignore any justifiable criticism.
      
      Alert moderator
    - ingenuous:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:55:21pm
      
      Whitey, first up, sorry about the typo: "I said" should have been "It said". Otherwise that sentence makes no sense.
      
      Anyway, ignoring the pre-election intentions, minority government forced Gillard to modify some plans. The carbon trading scheme was made a priority (to ensure Greens support). This is what politics is about. You shuffle your plans to make things work. She brought it forward a bit. I say that's a win, but clearly others found political leverage in this.
      
      There is a good chance it will be removed by an Abbott-friendly senate, but also a chance it will not. It would require Palmer's bunch to vote against their vested interests to retain it, but it's not absolutely inevitable (unlike the physics of climate change itself, for example).
      
      It was never an ideal scheme. Even discussing the basics of such a scheme makes people here go all frothy at the mouth, but basically the carbon trading scheme we have now is much better than having none at all, and also a good deal better than Abbott's proposed replacement (i.e. giving polluters free money and hoping for the best).
      
      If Australia had kept on with pricing carbon, then we would have been part of a general global swing towards pricing carbon responsibly. Now that the intention is to go the opposite direction, we are disrupting the world response to climate change. We "punch above our weight" as commentators are keen to say. People look at us and think "Hey, I can skive off from my responsibilities too!"
      
      The scheme itself had a modest positive effect here and was a good first step. We need to follow it up with much bigger steps. Sadly with Abbott in charge we will undo all the good we did in this area and leap blindly backwards.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Realist:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:54:32pm
      
      "She intended...."
      
      That would have to be the defining description of Gillard's government.
      
      Alert moderator
  - The Prophet:
    
    13 Feb 2014 11:38:01am
    
    The carbon tax is one of if not the worst thought out tax in Australian history. Yes, it's that bad.
    
    It's a money churn that makes very little (early on losses) revenue, eventually without indexation the tax creeps up. It's a value added tax on both consumer and producer, that mostly oddly only relates to Australian products. A self imposed tariff for all intents and purposes.
    
    It's the tax that proves beyond doubt the illogical economic thinking of the idiots that presently claim to be our left leaning parties. Government expenditure and revenue is a mathematical problem. There's limits to both. I can't remember the last the ALP used this rational argument for any of their proposals, can any one? People don't need to be conned into a tax by emotional and moral arguments, they just need to be reasoned with. Who should pay tax, how much should they pay, where should revenue be spent? How long is a piece of string, that's a political argument. A economic argument is a completely different beast.
    
    Through a rational and mathematical lens, whom pushed for a carbon tax needs to seriously get off the bong.
    
    Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:37:05pm
      
      Funny thing that economists seem to think that carbon pricing mechanisms are the most efficient way to reduce carbon usage. Let me explain it to you slowly, because you apparently don't get it.
      
      The carbon 'tax' was not supposed to make money. The idea is very simple: If product A costs $10 to make, and the energy used to make it caused a tonne of CO2 emissions, and product B costs $12 to make, but doesn't require CO2 to make, then a price that adds $3/tonne of CO2 makes product A cost $13 to produce while product B costs $12, so product B becomes relatively cheaper. That encourages people to purchase items with less embodied CO2 emissions in them, because they're cheaper. It encourages businesses to reduce their CO2 emissions, because that reduces their costs.
      
      Alert moderator
    - The Prophet:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:58:38pm
      
      Actually it was expected to make money. It also would eventually make money because the compensation was never indexed to the carbon price. The give away for any tax con. It didn't make any money (it lost) early on because the ALP lost their nerve. The idiots running place realised that people just aint as dumb as they thought. When in doubt come out with the bribe money churn.
      
      Alert moderator
    - ingenuous:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:37:41pm
      
      Prophet, you are ignoring the entire point of the carbon trading scheme. It was not a profit making venture. It's not like manufacturing spoons or making TV shows. The intention was to divert consumers from carbon polluting industries to non-polluting industries. In this it was partially successful.
      
      It was also intended to signal that Australia would join the world in combating climate change. Again, it was somewhat successful.
      
      It is not and never was a con. That version of reality is just a fabrication designed to further the political careers of a few individuals.
      
      It was never the be all and end all. We should enlarge and strengthen this scheme, not discard it.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Tiresias:
    
    13 Feb 2014 11:54:32am
    
    So, Cobber, you knew before the election 2010 that there would be a Carbon Tax after the election? I put it to you that not even Gillard knew there would be a Carbon "Tax" turning into an ETS after the election. Her intention, as she said at the time, was to put a price on carbon, something beyond a CT. As it turned out she was wrong. The talk of "lie" is just kindergarten talk.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Skeptic:
    
    13 Feb 2014 2:36:15pm
    
    I didn't vote for a GST either, back in the day....
    
    Alert moderator
- Nick:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:44:08am
  
  No Edward, Australians just corrected the mistakes it made in 2007 and 2010.
  After 6 years of Labor it was obvious that anybody but them could do a better job at running this country...and please don't give me the "saved us from the GFC" BS that is always the fall back line when there is nothing else to say.Those fools racked up enough debt to save us from 3 GFC's and all we have to show for it is some school halls.
  The real shame is that we still have the rusted ons wishing Labor was still in power.
  
  Alert moderator
  - JohnC:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:26:16am
    
    @Nick:
    How inspirational this new government is proving to be. Claiming a mandate for implementation of three word slogans sets a new benchmark in Australian politics. How grateful we all should be for the economic vision of people like Nick who is able to calculate that Labor racked up enough debt to save us from 3 GFC's. The righteous right is in top gear defending Tony's inane rambling approach to future policy direction. Feel free to switch off the lights and close the door behind you when the full impact of the governments financial modelling becomes apparent.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Bill Bored:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:31:20am
    
    Problem for you Nick is that your side agreed that they would have done the same. Next.
    
    Alert moderator
  - the yank:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:32:15am
    
    Yea who wants the best performing economy in the OECD or the highest median wealth in the world?
    
    It is much better to throw 150000 people onto the unemployment line and then have the gall to tell them they are better off.
    
    Alert moderator
    - aGuy:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:22:36am
      
      By not funding unproductive jobs, more employment will be created in the long term. Australia does not need a private sector where half of its staff wages come from the government purse, especially when that purse is dry.
      
      Good riddance to Toyota and Holden. They have been a drain for far too long and cost Australia far too much.
      
      Each dollar spent on one area means it is not spent on another. Hopefully we will not be spending money on things Australia wants instead of propping up international companies to produce outdated cars without any innovation.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Kagey One:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:12:08pm
      
      From the look of things, Australia will only be spending on industrial projects that pollute, de-forest, de-faunate large parts of the nation.
      No attempt to preserve the environment that we need for a decent quality of life and a decent reputation among buyers of agricultural produce (now that there's no manufacturing allowed).
      
      Alert moderator
    - Trent Toogood:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:38:20pm
      
      ...more employment will be created in the long term....
      
      How do you know this?
      
      Because Tone said so?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Skeptic:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:43:23pm
      
      Get rid of things that are a drain on the economy? What a great suggestion. How about all those retired politicians that still draw a stipend? Not to mention all their free air travel, meals and accommodation. Seriously, what do most of them contribute to the wider economy, other than bleeding tax payers white??
      
      Alert moderator
    - jennbrad:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:29:07pm
      
      Maybe we could introduce euthanasia for all those past employment age. That would save a motza.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tiresias:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:16:55pm
      
      "...more employment will be created..."
      
      30% of the retrenched Mitsubishi workers did not re-enter the workforce. What is the cost in terms of unemployment benefits?
      
      So Abbott has a plan for those who lose their jobs? No he hasn't. He is going to be small govnt and let market forces do all the heavy lifting. How hopeful are you that all will be well?
      
      We are becoming a banana republic digging up the ground and selling it to diminishing markets, some of it to be burnt - fouling up the air (it's OK in China, but we would not put up with it here - and neither will the Chinese for very long); selling pineapples and sugar overseas (orange juice is dead on the ground and perhaps tinned fruit is a lost cause); cattle dying in western Qld; fish almost gone from the ocean (sharks reduced to feeding on humans)...
      
      With the money some of us will be able to buy European cars at reduced prices (no need now for tarifs)...while the bulk of us with no entitlements will scratch in the dirt...
      
      Alert moderator
    - Realist:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:56:38pm
      
      Mitsubishi, Ford, Holden and now Toyota. Yep, Labor and unemployment do seem to have a close relationship don't they.
      
      Six long years and they failed to keep even one car manufacturer!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Skeptic:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:39:27pm
      
      Well, if by "being better off" you mean plenty of time to stay home and watch telly.... ;)
      
      Alert moderator
    - JRM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:06:15pm
      
      Yank.
      
      But COL is huge we are told.
      
      That is "why wages are so high" defence remember.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:50:03pm
      
      Please explain this number from Conrovia that is being regurgitated all over the place.
      
      Give us a break down ?
      
      Or are you talking about the over 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost or moved overseas under the ALP?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Tiresias:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:50:34pm
      
      Industry has moved the manufacturing overseas because it is a method of increasing profits, making use of cheap labour. It is called "globalisation". Its justification is that it provides work for emerging economies. Meanwhile, here in Oz we need high incomes to maintain our standard of living and to pay for goods made cheaply overseas but sold here at top dollar.
      
      Perhaps we should ask for ways to stop this state of affairs.
      
      Alert moderator
- GRF:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:47:16am
  
  They said they would 'stop the boats' and they did. No meaningless cliche there.
  
  They said they would end Labor waste and they are in the process of doing so. Jury still out on that one, but it is looking promising.
  
  Meaningless slogans are the domain of the Left where seeming is more important than doing. Where it is more important to be politically correct than look after the nations finances or borders. With the conservative, they mean what they say. And their actions are consistent with their 'slogans'.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Blzbob:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:24:47am
    
    Stop the waste?
    How much is our royal commission into unions going to cost us? ..... and everyone knows royal commissions are never a waste. ... they keep high court judges employed and living in a standard they are accustomed to.
    
    The trouble with royal commissions is that they to readily offer immunity from prosecution, a bit like catholic confession.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Whitey:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:00:52pm
      
      Biz bob, I guess the answer is how much does union corruption cost our economy? And in regards to stopping the boats, the unauthorized refugee intake cost billions, so stopping them does make economic sense. The people will make a judgement as to how well the Abbot government has performed at the next election, however if the Griffith by-election is anything to go by, people are relatively happy so far.
      
      Alert moderator
    - muscels:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:34:58pm
      
      Just so it's not seen as a political stunt how about we have another Royal Commission into insider trading tax avoidence schemes dodgy family trusts and why companies like Apple who made half a billion profit here last year but paid only 27 million in tax. If it's wrong to subsidise the car industry why do we subsidise the mining industry to the tune of billions each year?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Blzbob:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:15:31pm
      
      And the companies so eager to pay the bribes to get in on the ground level ahead of their competitors.
      The honest ones just get left behind in the race to riches.
      
      All corruption and criminal behaviour should be treated as a crime against a decent society.
      Just because someone has had the aspiration and the drive to succeed in gaining a position of authority, doesn't mean they deserve to hold the position of power they do.
      There is nothing worse than the greedy infiltrating the ranks of the good purely for their own gain.
      Much like the recent article about the fake charities ripping of people with good hearts, pretending the money is going towards helping people in need.
      
      All corruption should be treated equally, although each case should be assessed as an individual case.
      I doesn't matter if you are a member of the union hierarchy, a member of a church or a member of the liberal party or the member of a bikie gang, all crime is crime and all corruption is corruption, each rotten apple needs to be assessed separately to the whole barrel. We should though as a society keep an eye on every barrel ready to weed out the rotten apples as soon as they are found.
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:16:43pm
      
      How do we subsidise the mining industry? Do not say fuel rebates, they are not a subsidy. You are incorrect here.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Peter:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:10:29pm
      
      I'd prefer it if you'd stop with the mindless incorrect inanities about Catholic confession. It does not offer and never has offered immunity from prosecution. But I suspect you'd rather keep your bigotry intact.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:05:54pm
      
      The Cole Royal Commission lead to the establishment of the ABCC and a saving of $6 billion a year in the building industry. ALP abolished the ABCC because they protect their union masters .
      
      BShorten and his clowns should let the ABCC to be restored .
      
      Alert moderator
    - P38:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:32:03pm
      
      Pleas supply the source of your 6 billion figure
      
      Alert moderator
  - Terry2:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:31:04am
    
    GRF
    
    Whilst I think that we would all like to see an end to this people smuggling racket I really don't know that we are there yet.
    I am conscious of the comment made by General Campbell at a recent media up date with Morrison. He was asked whether he thought operation Sovereign Borders had succeeded and he said that we would have to wait until the end of March and the end of the North West monsoon season when traditionally there has been a surge in boat arrivals as the seas become less turbulent.
    
    So,let's wait and see and hopefully be kept informed.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Kagey One:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:15:02pm
      
      INFORMED! Operational matters cannot be revealed to Australians who pay for them and suffer the consequences of them!
      Secrecy is the in-thing now. Solutions are magical. What we don't know can't hurt us. So just shut your eyes and click your heals and say three times "there's no place like home".
      
      Alert moderator
  - the yank:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:33:43am
    
    Yep like blowing the country's debt level to $500 billion. Like throwing tens of thousands onto the unemployment lines. That's what you voted for?
    
    Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:10:11am
      
      Hockey did not "blow the country's debt level to $500 billion".
      
      All he did was acknowledge the truth that Swan had done that. And telling the truth was not something that we came to expect from the former Treasurer. Remember the "surplus achieved, on time and as promised" leaflet he handed out?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Trent Toogood:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:51:00pm
      
      And telling the truth is Hockey's forte?
      
      Give us a break!
      
      We will accomplish a budget surplus in our first year/first term/ first decade/ whenever/ never, ring any bells?
      
      Hockey has been at it again, lying about comments made by Toyota.
      
      Hockey says his comments were correct and Toyota say they weren't.
      
      Someone is lying and I dont think it is Toyota.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:21:10pm
      
      You are wrong, Trent.
      
      Nobody is lying about the Toyota issue. Both of those statements are correct.
      
      Alert moderator
    - andie:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:04:14pm
      
      Over 400 times we were told by Swan and Gillard we would have a surplus .
      
      What did we get - a $30 Billion deficit!
      
      Now that is lying over and over and over..........
      
      Alert moderator
    - Skeptic:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:46:41pm
      
      Plausible, but probably not accurate. The debt level is likely to be much higher, by the time Hokey is done. My evidence for this? How many wage packets will be still around in a couple of years time? There will likely be NO manufacturing or other value-adding sector by then. Just massive unemployment. The mining sector is slowing down, too, by the way.
      
      Alert moderator
    - shell:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:49:27pm
      
      do you regressives ever mention the GFC and the collapse in revenues worldwide? or the fact Australia handled it better than anyone with a debt amongst the worlds lowest? how do you reconcile that with Labor being poor, especially when the Coalition admitted at the time it would do that same thing.
      
      or is that forbidden when you guys all parrot from the same talk sheet.
      
      Alert moderator
    - aGuy:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:25:05am
      
      No mention the first $450 Billion was from ALP programs with contracts already signed?
      
      I am not concerned about the 10% that will likely be caused by the Liberals. I am concerned about that 90% which is even greater when you consider the ALP had a surplus and raided the reserve bank to make it look better.
      
      By the way, why didnt you mention the growing percentage of people in unemployment when the ALP was in power? Not a problem then?
      
      Alert moderator
    - The Prophet:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:49:39am
      
      The Liberal government attempted to rise the debt limit to $500 million. A prudent insurance policy as nobody can predict with complete certainty future economic circumstances.
      
      The debt limit was a recent addition to Australian legislation imposed by the previous ALP government. The same government and the only government that went on to break it a number of times. The limit came about for political reasons not economical reasons. It was a dumb idea then, and it's a dumb idea now. That's why the present government with the help of the Greens (possibly the only sensible decision they've ever made) scraped it.
      
      The figure of $500 million debt has never been reached. I think under this present government it never will be.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Bean Counter:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:30:59pm
    
    GRF. Bear in mind that you are dealing with Luvvies. When a Luvvy chants "Three Word Slogan" over and over...It's a what?
    
    Yeah, an ALP slogan with Three Words. Somehow, however that is NOT a three word slogan? Or something like that.
    
    Can you get anything dumber than a Luvvy?
    
    Alert moderator
    - Kangaroo Edward:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:07:16pm
      
      Now that you mention it are those magic beans you're counting?
      
      Alert moderator
  - jennbrad:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:39:18pm
    
    I'd love you to clarify all this "Labor waste" you see being fixed. I see a whole raft of unaffordable and unnecessary expenditures that hardly inspire me (like the PPPL and Royal Commissions).
    
    Alert moderator
  - Dr bobtonnor the lawyer:
    
    13 Feb 2014 1:47:36pm
    
    GRF, have a look at how wasteful our government is in comparison,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP you may want to live in a country less 'wasteful', so why not try Libya or Iran? send us all a postcard, and let us all know how wonderful the Libyan health system is wont you.
    
    Alert moderator
- Rhonda:
  
  13 Feb 2014 6:20:03pm
  
  The author here says "If we had demanded better, if our media had pushed harder for more considered responses and insisted that the electoral argument go beyond cliche and slogan, then we might by now have a national conversation of the sort of maturity that seems, increasingly, demanded by the circumstances we confront."
  
  Well Jonathon, there were many among us who DID demand better. Trying to get that message through the media bias, the Murdoch influence, the leadership obsession and the burgeoning hate sites, was akin to pushing the 'proverbial' uphill with a stick! Even the ABC joined the fray - Chris Uhlmann's nightly reports (on 7.30) exposing only Labor failings, unbalanced by any critique of the Coalition, is but one example.
  
  In spite of the disunity in Labor ranks the Rudd/Gillard government introduced some long overdue positive initiatives, now in the process of being dismantled by this current Coalition government, whose interests lie elsewhere.
  
  Tony Abbott campaigned on slogans, he's still using slogans - even when he's overseas. He's been leader of his party for four years, with the aim of gaining government and they are still talking about their 'plans'.
  
  Tony Abbott claimed to create 1 million jobs, but instead has so far seen the loss of 50,000 in the space of 5 months! Any action has been directed at multiple inquiries, set up with indecent haste and an obscene price tag, to dismantle Labor initiatives, in an attempt to airbrush them from memory - but at the same time, REFUSING to hold an inquiry into the recent asylum seekers' claims against our Navy, which would be common sense.
  
  I'm not accepting any blame for this inadequate government with which we've now been lumbered!
  
  Alert moderator
- Todd:
  
  13 Feb 2014 6:35:58pm
  
  Of course the discourse coming up to an election will be a little low brow. The problem that Mr Green alludes to but doesn't mention (because it benefits the ALP) is COMPULSORY VOTING.
  
  If there are any Uni professors here, I would like to know how you would plan your lecture if everyone over the age of 18 was going to be present. Take maths. You certainly could not start with Calculus if you want everyone to keep listening. In the above article Green mentions assumption b. That (the electorate) gives much of a damn in the first place. How do you expect voters to give a damn when the majority are frog marched to booths under the threat of a period of enslavement (that is, a fine for people who have to work for money). Obviously the extent of that enslavement varies with one's hourly rate whereby the higher your incom e, the shorter the period of enslavement.
  
  Anyway, the point I make is that if voters were only made up of those that choose to do so, of course the level of discourse would improve. The fact is, advertising is designed with it's market in mind. The Parties know they are talking to a lot of people who do not analyse policy, therefore short, quick and memeorable slogans are the order of the day. Going back to my lecture example. If you let those disinterested people leave the lecture theatre, then surely those that remain would have a deeper knowledge base and therefore course content would become correspondingly deeper.
  
  Bottom line is if you want (as does Green and the ALP) to keep voting COMPULSORY, then you will have increasing levels of playing to the less sophisticated and, more importantly, the entirely disinterested. This is perfectly natural as any advertiser will tell you they design their ads for their target market. Compulsory voting in a democracy will always lead to "slogans" and the Parties employing simple messages. Don't all the ALP fans remember their demi-god Gough's election platform? "It's time." Can someone please analyse the deep and rigorous policy considerations manifest in these two words?
  
  Alert moderator
CJB22:

13 Feb 2014 8:03:54am

I have no problems agreeing with your point of view. The big problem I have is that there is absolutely nothing that suggests things will be any different in any election in the foreseeable future. They are all as bad as one another. Self interest is an extremely powerful force.

Alert moderator
- Icantbelieveitsnotbutter:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:33:51am
  
  The self-interest of the electorate is equally in force at any election. Sadly, most peoples choices are based on simplistic slogans and perceived self-interest, rather than a genuinely educated analysis of what is in the best interests of our nation as a whole. For that we suffer because it produces less than remarkable performances across the whole political spectrum. Most of us have it too good to particularly care, so as the old clich? goes, we get the Government we deserve. So sit back and enjoy folks.
  
  Alert moderator
  - And Justice for All:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:27:59am
    
    Slogans work because most people aren't all that interested in politics. The Drum and the people who post here are a minority, and I suspect a very small minority. Most people are just too busy surviving in their everyday lives to worry about the details of boat people, native title, poverty, the environment etc. I know some very intelligent, well educated people with very good, high paying jobs. As a conversation starter a year ago I might have asked them "what do you think about Julia Gillard and the AWU affair?" and what I get in return is a blank stare. Ask them about the cricket or the football or 'Underbelly' and they won't stop talking. So to get cut through to this majority, political parties have to use slogans. Sad but true.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Tom1:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:33:15am
      
      AJFA. You simply asked the wrong question. You should have asked what they thought about politicians, that do "Pollie pedals" receive accommodation, albeit modest, and still claim travelling allowance. Or boast about visiting aboriginal communities and doing the same. Or visiting Queensland from WA to visit your private investment. No need to quote more, except for attending weddings. I am sure you would have gotten a reaction.
      
      Compare Abbott's lurks with those of building or cannery workers, and you would wonder that he has the gall to criticise anyone.
      
      Really your comment is a sad reflection on your friends.
      
      Alert moderator
    - And Justice for All:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:21:19am
      
      Tom1, I just chose the Julia Gillard / AWU example. I can assure you I've asked many questions similar to those you listed and always got the same blank reaction. Sadly I fear most Australians just aren't politically engaged so slogans become a regrettable necessity. Forums like the Drum are read enthusiastically by a small number of people but just look at the posts and see the recurring names ... 'Stuffed Olive', 'Ben the Lawyer', 'Reagan Country', 'PK', 'Bizbob' etc. If there's 500 posts probably 70% are from no more than 20 people. I wish there was a way for The Drum to reach out to a broader audience.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Kagey One:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:20:12pm
      
      Slogans are indeed necessary to get to a sub-section of the electorate.
      Slogans that misrepresent the party's intent are not only unnecessary, they are deceptive, destructive, and dishonest.
      Welcome to government-2014 style: brought to you by The Australian LIBERAL Party (even the name is a deliberate deception!)
      
      Alert moderator
    - Real Labor:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:45:14pm
      
      Kagey One, as conservative as the current Liberal Party might be, I'd argue it's closer to 'liberalism' than the current ALP is to the labour movement of Curtin, Chifley and even Whitlam. The current ALP seems to be hostage to economic rationalists rather than traditional socialist labour values. There's very little between the two majors in terms of economics and more recently refugee policy and welfare. At least the Liberal Party advocates free markets, which is consistent with liberalism, whereas with the ALP, I'm not sure what it stands for these days.
      
      Alert moderator
    - And Justice for All:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:02:37pm
      
      Good point Kagey One. To be honest, the 'Liberal Party' should be called the 'Conservative Party', the ALP should be called the 'Liberal Party' or perhaps 'Social Democrats', and the Greens should rebrand themselves as the 'Socialist Party' because they're no longer just an environmental party. I think these names are a more accurate description of reality than the current brands.
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:50:40pm
      
      I suspect the actual socialist party would be a tad annoyed by some bloody capitalists having the gall to call themselves the socialist party.
      
      Where do the Greens advocate public control over the means of production in an otherwise capitalist system? 'socialist' isn't just a buzzword to describe varying levels of government intervention in the economy.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:22:11pm
      
      A poster accused me of the same this week. Kjedge or something like that. That person had 12 comments on the same article while I had one (1). You just remember my unique moniker and unlike others on the right I only use the same one, not multiples which have been confessed to by some.
      
      Alert moderator
    - And Justice for All:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:13:04pm
      
      Stuffed Olive, I like it that you're politically aware and a regular poster on The Drum. I'm lamenting that there's too few people like you. I worry that there's too many people who don't know what the parties stand for and just vote the same way every time without being even aware of policies let alone thinking about those policies.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      14 Feb 2014 8:37:34am
      
      Okay, I see where you are coming from but I think there are more than your estimate. Not necessarily a lot overall if one knew how many people used multiple pseuds. There are other independent blogs which attract good numbers.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mr.Finch:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:54:10pm
      
      Tom1,
      To me the comment made by AJFA was a realistic non-partisan observation on many in all of our social circles.
      While I understand your frustration with what appears to be a double standard when it comes to entitlements, I believe no matter which question was asked, the conversational outcome would be approximately the same.
      Some of my friends aren't interested in politics. I wish they were.
      I try not to judge them on their likes or dislikes but rather appreciate the things they offer me in our interactions.
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:22:11pm
      
      Abbott does visit aboriginal communities. Did Rudd or Gillard?
      
      Alert moderator
- Sydney Bob:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:50:29am
  
  Consider how information is presented at election time. Advertisements on T.V. and in the newspapers, on-line messages, editorials in newspapers, comments on the radio.
  
  Now I say that most of those sources, such as the Murdoch press, shock jocks are pro-Liberal. I claim their is only one major media outlets that is not only independent and questioning of Government policy (I rate Fairfax media as secondary as it is mainly Sydney and Melbourne) and that is the ABC.
  
  On-line media is growing, but I might question if it will be as influential as old media (at least for the several years).
  
  Hence the nonsense we hear form the Murdoch press and the shock jocks about how bias the ABC is. The aim is to damage the ABC so there is no media questioning of Liberal Governments.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Gr8Ape:
    
    13 Feb 2014 11:55:49am
    
    More players in the political game could go some way to dilute the influence of the media. More players in the political game would loosen the shackles of the past.
    
    More questions asked, fewer topics to be avoided and more transparency.
    
    Alert moderator
  - jennbrad:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:44:51pm
    
    While I think you're largely right, I think another issue is that the populace has become so used to brief slogans from the advertising industry - which knows they work (mostly) - that it is assumed (and possibly rights, unfortunately) that nobody can concentrate for longer than your average ad, or deal with more issues/ideas/debate than that.
    
    And that's the problem with the ABC - they like to encourage debate, even though some of it is rather superficial. But if people listen, check and think, then politicians of all persuasions would have to offer more thought out policies at elections. Personally I've always preferred a bit more meat and I avoid all ads if I can.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Tiresias:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:38:29pm
      
      Let us think about the use of three word slogans. It is clear that one of the things that happen is that we get no details of what the implementation of that slogan actually means.
      
      Stop the Boats, Repeal Carbon Tax, Create More Jobs, Build More Roads...
      
      So we get a military action which upsets Indonesia and could well be illegal, a Direct Action plan which will cost us more and will not work (but will not appear on electricity bills), more jobs while industry declines (?) and an infrastructure plan which is mere piecemeal and will no doubt be a cheap porkbarrelling exercise.
      
      A future based on thought bubbles dreamed up while riding a bike, inspired by the IPA and the Tea Party and condoned by Rupert, is not a happy prospect.
      
      Abbott has trouble putting more than 3 words together. So we get the idea that Abbott, in his" first week as PM", would visit Indigenous places - but he meant to say it would be during a week later in the year.
      
      At the time of the Canberra "Riot", he told Indigenous people at the Tent Embassy how well things were for them now and they should "move on from that". So the chinese whispers spread it around that the Embassy should close, "move on".
      
      Abbott's gaffes and problems actually explaining what he will do are a worry: no details or just ambiguous jumbles.
      
      Alert moderator
Merlin 23:

13 Feb 2014 8:13:03am

You are forgetting the human factor here. Politicians don't attend 'hard interviews' anymore and the media don't ask very hard questions otherwise said pollies won't turn up.

Invariably politicians never answer the question anyway thanks to the plethora of slimy advisors who insist on staying on message.

If Mr Abbott showed a bit intestinal fortitude would simply rebut questions with "The LNP was elected on the basis of our policy. I am executing those policies"

Alert moderator
- Genghis Marx:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:15:02am
  
  Media interviewers need to add a couple of sentences to their vocabulary.
  "That did not answer the question" Prime Minister/Minister"
  "That's not an acceptable answer. Minister/Prime Minister"
  
  and include a summary to camera after the interview.
  
  "The Minister was asked the following questions and did not answer these"
  "The answers to these questions were incomplete or misleading." (the Fact Checking Unit will be very helpful at this point.
  
  Interviewers need to nail these slippery characters to the wall!
  
  (I agree that Carlton was too accusatory to Hawke in THAT interview and put too much of his own opinions forward)
  Gillard's appearances answering audience questions on Quanda were good, honest and with little or no obfuscation. They deserved better treatment.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Kedjy:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:31:13am
    
    Of course Gillard's answers to Q&A questions came easy, gosh it was her cheer squad in attendance and with a leftist host and majority on EVERY panel, what the heck else did you think would happen ? She would not go on the Bolt Report or front up to any of her multitude of opponents or detractors, just sledge them from a safe distance.
    Heard her recent speech in Dubai recently, nothing about misogyny or womens rights or womens education Julia ? Nothing at all ? Goes to character.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:22:43am
      
      I'm sick to death of this constant and incorrect criticism of the Q & A panel and the audience make up. It is always completely balanced left right and centre. Tony Jones will only seem left to a far far right winger. I'm a lefty and Tony never appears to favour anyone at all but if anything does let the right prattle on too much. The audience has as many Abbott lovers as possible. Trouble is that so far your Abbott hasn't had the guts to front up for questioning.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Simon:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:30:24pm
      
      Stuffed i stopped watching Q&A because Tony Jones is so biased to the left that it got sickening.Why always 3 of the left to two of the right on Q&A, always?
      
      Alert moderator
    - NikMak:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:42:21pm
      
      It wasn't that way this last Monday. 3 "right" and 2 "left" at my count.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:23:06pm
      
      True.
      
      And wasn't Tony Jones subdued? Could it be that someone has had a word in his ear about his slanted approaches and his discriminatory tactics?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:26:34pm
      
      So I guess you think that a political adviser to a Liberal MP would not also be of the right. You are wrong wrong wrong. You can't prove otherwise - go to the website and read the guests names and who they are. I suppose you reckon the occasional comedian who appears is a raging leftie. That's gotta be it, there are no right wing comedians!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Kedjy:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:55:53pm
      
      Incorrect criticism you say ? Know them by their protests, I say ! That you can say such a thing goes to your tunnel vision on this topic and seemingly all matters political. Have you ever watched a show that does not support your position ? Try it, you will probably get lots of ammo for here on the Drum, since you are so convinced your position is right and unassailable. So, Abbott is not a media tart, so what ? I want him to run the government not blabber on in endless media performances, I think we have had enough of that in the last 6 years.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Mike 1:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:38:23pm
      
      Kedjy, Who in their right mind would go on the Bolt report ?
      But I bet you listen to him.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Kedjy:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:50:49pm
      
      MMM.. someone with nothing to hide ?....someone who has the courage of their actions and convictions ?...someone who is prepared to listen to an opposing argument... need I go on ? Yes, I read Bolt and sometimes listen to his show ( I draw the line at Jones and now Pickering has been deleted), one needs to hear both sides of the argument and debate...otherwise we will all end up in our respective cheer squads and guess where that leads most societies ? My 2 best friends are one rusted on Green and one ALP, both long term supporters and barrackers. We have some great debates and they almost always go to me because I can see their view but also that of their opposition ( ALP and Greens are NOT good bedfellows !)I have splinters in my bum from sitting on the fence and looking at both sides of it. Try it ! BTW, I let them read some of what gets posted here and even though they are pretty ferocious advocates of their party's position, they are simply flabbergasted at what some posters put out on the Drum. Last weekend, I nearly convinced them that there is indeed a 16 yr pause in global warming, not quite there yet...
      
      Alert moderator
    - James Picone:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:53:56pm
      
      How many times does it need to be said? There isn't a pause in global warming. If you draw the trendline from 1975 to 1998, and then draw a 'prediction' trendline extending from the end of the first trendline to the present day at the same slope, you'll find that most of the last few years are above the prediction trendline. That is, the prediction is /too cool/. Which is bloody amazing given all the cooling forcings over the last decade and considering that 1998 was a gigantic el Nino year.
      
      What are you going to say next time we get a big el Nino?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Helvi:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:06:50pm
      
      Mike, what's the Bolt report?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Genghis Marx:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:55:25pm
      
      Ignored everything I said kedgy, in order to make another inaccurate attack on the ABC and a former politician.
      
      You should be aware (everybody else is) that the percentages of the political affiliations (self-selected) of the audiences at Quanda are published on-screen before any questions are put to the panel and that the proportions are always very close to the latest 2-party preferred polling.
      
      But that's a fact and facts don't matter to the loyal LNP footsoldier clonebots. Not when there's a woman to be attacked.
      
      Alert moderator
  - Tom1:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:42:52am
    
    GM. You are quite right. However do not expect such action from the commentators on Sky News. They have all been told on which side their bread is buttered. The only possible exception is David Speers, and he rebuts mildly.
    
    The ABC is facing an inquisition because it does not tow the government line. The term "Taxpayers dollars" has been twisted to actually mean "Money to be spent in LNP propaganda"
    
    Even when known LNP supporters stacked the ABC Board the coalition stilled complained about ABC bias.
    
    Let us assume they are right. Why is that? The only reason I can see is that the LNP has a long way to go to seem credible.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Merlin 23:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:01:55pm
      
      "The ABC is facing an inquisition because it does not tow the government line."
      
      No - the ABC took the equivalent "Children Overboard" photo and reported it as fact without one shred of due diligence. When right wing reporters such as Bolt have done the same, they had to face legal ramifications.
      
      Its now time for the ABC to do the same
      
      Alert moderator
    - crow:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:53:18pm
      
      really? more regressive spin. the ABC reported allegations made by the asylum seekers.
      as did several other media agencies.
      
      it wasnt allowed to speak to the military to get their side of it because of the Abbott Govts obsession with secrecy.
      
      find me one ABC transcript that states the allegations as fact.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Kedjy:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:57:51pm
      
      The ABC Board does not make daily editorial decisions. We know who does that and their political allegiances by their actions and inactions.
      
      Alert moderator
- whogoesthere:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:16:38am
  
  I remember during the 2010 election (I think) they moved the leaders debate so it didn't clash with Masterchef. Completely pathetic really. It's a bit of chicken and egg. Do we have no interest in listening to politicians because they talk simplistic rubbish ?. Or do they talk simplistic rubbish because we won't listen to (or vote for) the hard complicated truth ?.
  
  Alert moderator
- ephemeral:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:22:34am
  
  Problem with that is you need a policy to say you were elected on that platform. Things like "stop the boats" are not policies.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Alfie:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:38:00am
    
    "Things like "stop the boats" are not policies."
    
    Actually, the slogan is the overall intent (end goal) of a raft of complex policies.
    
    Slogans make it simpler for your average thick-head Labor supporter to understand.
    
    Alert moderator
    - NewSpeaker:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:49:00pm
      
      Exactly Alfie. Slogans make it easier for people to agree with the proper policies by making it easier for thick-headed people to understand.
      
      War is PEACE. Freedom is SLAVERY. Ignorance is STRENGTH.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Cobber:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:44:24pm
      
      Sounds like the preamble to the Labor/Greens accord.
      
      Alert moderator
    - NewSpeaker:
      
      14 Feb 2014 8:02:22am
      
      There are three possible scenarios here. The first is that you support the ALP/ Greens and by inference support the meaning of the nonsense slogan above. If this is accurate then I have some bad news for you. This slogan is used in a famous literary work on how politicians control the greater populace. Any political party who attempts to use slogans as a way of obfuscating their policies should not be trusted.
      
      The second possible scenario is that you don?t support the Labor/Greens and by inference agree that the use of a slogan (like above) is not a good thing. If this is the case then you agree with the article that politicians who use slogans are lowering the political discourse and Australia as a society should demand better from out politicians and media.
      
      The third possible scenario is that you were just taking a jab at the ALP/Greens. If this is the case then you are lowering the political discourse when commenting on an article about how lowering the political discourse is bad for Australia. I would then have to infer that you do not support using a higher form of political discourse in Australian politics and prefer snide jabs or slogans repeated ad nauseam.
      
      I?ll qualify this next sentence as a moral judgement on my part. If scenario three is the case then you are a bad person.
      
      Alert moderator
    - crow:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:54:08pm
      
      if that were true then the ALP would be the one using them instead of punchy Abbott now wouldnt they
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dandelion:
      
      14 Feb 2014 12:19:24am
      
      Well done Alfie, you've managed to put three sentences together, I believe that's a new record (even if you did borrow one). Now all we need is burke to string a couple together and we might have something approaching a conversation.
      
      Alert moderator
- AgentSmith:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:53:21am
  
  One problem with the current government is that the moment they are asked a hard question they start screaming 'bias'. How is it biased to ask hard questions? That is exactly what the media should be doing. The ranting about bias is just part of a smokescreen to avoid having to answer questions.
  
  Alert moderator
  - burke:
    
    13 Feb 2014 5:46:41pm
    
    As opposed to the Rudd/Gillard governments who simply lied about it. Which do you prefer?
    
    Alert moderator
- marg1:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:12:06am
  
  That's so true Merlin 23, the press are just as much to blame for this sorry state of affairs as they allow politicians to continually get away without being accountable or answering any questions. I get so frustrated when I watch an interview these days. Oh how I wish for Kerry O'Brien to come back to the 7.30 report - now there was an interviewer who demanded and got respect from the pollies - he'd make Tony Abbott accountable. Instead Tony talks about mandates, operational matters and the people will judge me on that - pathetic. No vision, no answers to our problems and no future for us while he and others are allowed to get away with it. Also, the press gave Abbott no scrutiny in the lead up to last years election but plenty on Labor (it goes without saying that Murdoch was the biggest cheer leader) so it's no wonder we are stuck with such a secretive, visionless bunch. Pity help us is all I can say
  
  Alert moderator
  - burke:
    
    13 Feb 2014 5:47:27pm
    
    "Shoot the messenger" Always works!
    
    Alert moderator
Alpo:

13 Feb 2014 8:16:09am

"What we've got to do is remember that we are creative people in a capable country who have always faced the future with confidence and have always made the most of it.".... So, Abbott is good at throwing the wreaking ball over the Australian economy and society (I could do that too, it's easy!), but he has no idea what to do next?... You know, destroy our industries and then pray, hope, trust the "creative people", that they will come up with something....
Oh dear me, what a disaster!....

It is true that Labor is to blame for losing their cool more than once in their 6 years of government, with regard to politics and proper communication with the People. But they had a constructive program for the country, they implemented many policies whereby the Government helps the private sector help themselves, rather than disappear into nothingness. That's what governments must do: be active part of the overall productive effort.
Abbott and his Government are just lost, clueless and religiously inspired to hope for some god-sent marvel that can rescue them and us from the impending self-caused catastrophe.... Watch the unemployment rate go up... and the Coalition Government's political fortunes go down!

Alert moderator
- Fred:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:00:06am
  
  I am forced to agree. It seems patently obvious that Mr Abbott is out of his depth. His inability to think on his feet coupled with another inability, lateral thinking, has left this country floundering on the shores of indecision.
  
  Alert moderator
  - livo:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:40:17am
    
    As opposed to those disastrous and often fake little thought bubbles so commonly "decided upon" by the previous collection of wannabe PM failures, directly as a result of thinking on their feet, and mainly about where they wanted to keep their feet.
    
    I know which style of decision making I prefer Fred. Considered and careful deliberation Vs knee-jerk self preservation. Did either Kevin 747, Julia Mk 1, the real Julia or iPhone Kevin made a good, well thought out decision between them?
    
    As for Bill, you can almost see the trepidation written on his face when he is asked anything about anything. He is so heavily conflicted by his obvious moral dilemma that he is as good as hog tied.
    
    Alert moderator
    - JOP:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:30:21pm
      
      You seem to suggest that because the last lot were hopeless it's ok for Tony to be hopeless. Trouble is, he 'promised' so much and has delivered so little of meaningful value. And still doesn't have an economic plan (paying lackies to give you the answer doesn't cut it).
      
      Alert moderator
    - frargo:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:02:29pm
      
      You prefer someone who would do anything but sell his arse to get the PM role.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dandelion:
      
      14 Feb 2014 12:25:32am
      
      I seem to recall that one of the biggest criticisms of Rudd's first term, was he spent too much time waiting on reviews and white papers.
      IMHO Rudd was a poser, Gillard was the do'er (ETS, MRRT, NDIS, Gonski) and Abbott is a liar and finger pointer.
      
      Alert moderator
- Blzbob:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:31:15am
  
  Thing will get a whole lot worse before they get any better.
  Of course it wont get worse for everyone.
  Abbortt will sacrifice the least well off for the benefit of the most well off, because they are his mates.
  
  Alert moderator
  - burke:
    
    13 Feb 2014 5:52:34pm
    
    If he "sacrifices the least well off" then they won't vote for him next time. He knows that. So he won't.
    
    Alert moderator
- Sotopanna:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:34:34am
  
  Abbott seems to be a fatalist, a gambler?
  As suggested "prayer" is his first and last resort?
  
  Alert moderator
- Merlin 23:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:36:30am
  
  "Abbott is good at throwing the wreaking ball over the Australian economy and society (I could do that too, it's easy!)"
  
  Well actually it's not that easy because you are having to make cuts and be the bearer of bad news.
  
  On the other hand what is easy - is to spend money, throw cash at unsustainable businesses and look popular without worrying about the bottom line.
  
  The left is acting like a three year old child who has gorged themselves in a lolly shop and has just been told they can't have anymore. The fact is you shouldn't have had them in the first place.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Alpo:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:47:21am
    
    Merlin, the left see the wreaking ball coming and we are telling you.... you ignore the warning at your exclusive peril. The unemployment rate and the costs of living will be the most important variables to watch in order to see the effects of the ball. Close your eyes if you wish, I am convinced that most Australians won't....
    
    Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:23:43pm
      
      Update for Merlin:.... Unemployment up to 6%.... It's time for Tony and his gang to go, before this gets really, really nasty.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Cobber:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:12:49pm
      
      You do know that in the last economic statement of the former Labor government, Wayne Swan predicted unemployment would reach 6.25 per cent in the first half of this year. So, by your own standards this is a positive result!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:40:22pm
      
      False! That was a prediction that was prepared (independently from Government) by Treasury and Finance during the caretaker period, not by Swan. And according to Joe Hockey Treasury can't be trusted, remember?.... If you can't even get such a basic piece of information right, what can we say about whatever else you have in store for us?.... Unemployment is increasing, but you are welcome to meet the unemployed People of Australia and tell them that it's okay, Hockey and Abbott have got all under control: by getting rid of local industries, more and better job opportunities will be open for all to enjoy.... You will here the reply of the People at the next election.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Jeff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:05:24pm
      
      Of course, Wayne never listened to Treasury because they would never had advised him to say anything as insane, irresponsible and downright dishonest as 'we will have a surplus this year'.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alphamikefoxtrot:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:10:06pm
      
      Of course, those of us in the real world know that unemployment is a 'lag indicator', usually reflecting the situation around 6 months before. And of course, you wouldn't want to mention that jobs ads have actually gone up 9% in the past three months would you?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Simon:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:37:18pm
      
      Alpo you where also convinced Gillard would win the last Election,your judgment is sadly lacking have a go at fishing maybe.
      
      Alert moderator
  - crow:
    
    13 Feb 2014 2:56:17pm
    
    like Cadbury you mean? had money for them just before an election didnt they.
    
    hmm wasnt that a marginal Liberal seat?
    
    you and I both know that 'cuts' is simply code for taking money from the least fortunate in our society, whilst leaving alone the big end of town the Coalition has always supported.
    
    Alert moderator
- Redfish:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:51:16am
  
  and your answer was what to take us even further into debt by propping up unsustainable industry?
  Labor is to blame for a hell of lot more than just losing its cool.
  This goverment will do more to help induistry back onto its feet in a sustainable way in 3 years than Labor ever did in 6.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Alpo:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:44:23am
    
    Redfish,
    The debt was incurred to first and above all save our "a...s" from the effects of the Neoliberal GFC, and then to start doing the infrastructure building that Howard totally neglected for 11 years. There is no economic progress without proper infrastructure. One solution (that the Libs love) is to privatise everything (ports, roads, bridges, airports, hospitals, etc.)... Then what? The private sector wants to see profits, no it's not just "profits", it's very good profits, otherwise they just drop everything and move on. Privatisation is a disaster when it's the main objective of a government, it only makes sense in a mixed economy to give more choice to those who can afford it.
    
    Whatever is used by the bulk of the People eventually is built and financed with the substantial contribution of Government (through tax revenues). Then, such public investment, will be recouped through the wealth (and therefore taxes) generated by that infrastructure.... It's not rocket science, and the mixed economies are the most successful ones around the world....
    
    Bid Neoliberalism farewell, it's a failed doctrine, and the last thing this country needs is a "doctrine", let alone a failed one. Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have (at the most) three years to implement their experiment, it will take us just a handful of hours to tell them what we think!
    
    Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 11:44:39am
      
      That defence is about as much use as covering your head with a used tissue in a thunderstorm.
      
      The debt was not incurred to save us from the GFC. We were saved from the GFC, in very large part, by the efforts of those people you love to malign - the coal and iron ore exporters.
      
      The debt was incurred because neither Swan nor Gillard, (and Rudd before them) had the slightest idea what to do about the economy except throw unlimited amounts of money around and then bleat piteously that the revenue did not meet the expenditure.
      
      You'd better open your eyes a lot wider if you cannot see that Australia is a mixed economy.
      
      And the privatisation of assets is not a Liberal exclusive. Keating was the champion at off-loading profitable concerns, and usually at fire sale prices. Look up the disaster that the sale of QANTAS became; look up how badly he undersold The Commonwealth Bank; look up the TELSTRA shambles, where he was preparing to sell it for $2 per share until Howard and Costello rescued us and sold it for over $7 per share.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      13 Feb 2014 1:25:18pm
      
      "The debt was not incurred to save us from the GFC. We were saved from the GFC, in very large part, by the efforts of those people you love to malign - the coal and iron ore exporters."... That's only part of the story, people making money and keeping their money in their piggy bank, or investing in areas that only account for a microscopic percentage of employment don't save a Country from anything, John. Learn that once and for all. What crucially saved us, was the redistribution of the tax money and its use in investment in public infrastructure promptly put in place by the Rudd Government. Not to speak of the guarantee on bank deposits, that prevented runaway panic.
      
      Apart from the prompt response to the GFC, the debt was also incurred because for 11 years your do-nothing Howard Coalition Government expected the private sector to do everything, as per Neoliberal theoretical script, but the private sector did very little. Only Government is capable of producing the level of investment in infrastructure (by smart use of taxes) that can then be the scaffold for the building of prosperity. If you haven't learned that already, you will learn it in 2016, John.
      
      "Australia is a mixed economy."... You are just copying my words, John. I have repeated that ad nauseam. It is a mixed economy indeed and it must remain a mixed economy. So, if anyone in this Government is planning a wave of privatisation of public assets, expect to meet with resistance!
      
      Exactly, tell Hockey to be careful about his plans for further privatisation of public assets: Medibank Private, the rest of Qantas, etc. We, the taxpayers, don't pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Government in taxes just for them to wash their hands and sell everything to the piranhas of the private sector. The Government's duty is not to "unchain our hearts", it's to make sure that this country develops and progresses, but in social fairness and in a sustainable manner.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:35:55pm
      
      Oh dear.
      
      The mining companies paid billions in taxes. They kept the export earnings flowing when all else was sinking - and they employed Australian workers and contractors while they were doing it. Take Andrew Forrest's FMG as an example. For the financial year to 2012 the Federal Government collected income tax payments of US$695 million and in addition a royalty payment of US$427 million was made to the Western Australian State Government. (Note: The currency is described in US dollars as this financial statement is part of FMG's international reporting protocol).
      
      Smart use of taxes? Like the pink batts expenditure? Like the BER shambles? Like the carbon tax? Like the $900 cheques that were sent to overseas residents and dead people?
      
      Yes, despite your best efforts to the contrary, Australia does enjoy a mixed economy - and thank goodness it did throughout the last six years.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Ravensclaw:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:37:27pm
      
      I always enjoy reading Alpo's revisionisms and paid activism.
      
      The GFC was caused by the socially "benevolent" policy from a Democrat US President by the name of Bill Clinton.
      
      If Rudd was Australia's great saviour from the GFC, equal in intellect only to the great Generalissimo Kim Jong Il, why did his party knife him?
      
      Australia's Financial sector was one of handful of financial sectors of the western world to survive the GFC without government intervention. Sweden and the US's neighbour Canada were the other most notable exceptions.
      
      Yet of that small group of nations, the Rudd government was the only one that still pursued a mad spend-a-thon with levels of government waste unprecedented at any other time in Australia's history.
      
      One of Howard's key economic reforms (and there were many of those from Howard), was to reform the financial regulations in Australia from the ground up. Howard did more to save Australia from the GFC out of government than what Rudd did in government. No collapse of the financial sector, meant no imminent collapse of the economy.
      
      I ask again, if Rudd was such a saviour, equal only to Karl Marx relaxing in an icy spa in Antenora, why did his party knife him?
      
      I am also amused by Alpo's sage remarks on agw. For all these reasons for the pause in warming i.e. windy oceans, lack of sun activity, weak el-ninos etc, why didn't the gospel evidence i.e. climate models foresee this? We were told so many times that climate models are never wrong and were irrefutable proof of agw.
      
      In 6 years of Labor, we got zero economic reform, but major anti economic reforms. These include the carbon tax, abolishing workchoices and the building industry regulator.
      
      In just a few months of the Abbott Govt, we got free trade with South Korea, a strengthening of the reserve bank in the pipeline, and an end to the carbon tax in the pipeline.
      
      We also got an effective strategy against people smugglers. This was something that in 6 years labor didn't even get close to achieving.
      
      Thank god the adults are back in charge.
      
      Cheers
      
      Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:42:14pm
      
      John, that?s just laughable. The mining sector employs only 2% of the workforce (a microscopic percentage of employment) and what they contribute in taxes (their real contribution) is just about 10% of total Commonwealth Government tax revenues. They can do more, and I hope that the next Labor Government truly flexes their muscles. Both the pink batts and BER were very successful programs that helped our country stay afloat in spite of your neoliberal GFC ravaging most other countries around the world. But of course, I understand that by reading The Australian you are catapulted into an imaginary fifth dimension where happy Neoliberals cheer each other up in a dreamworld all of their own.
      I always said that Australia is a mixed economy and I am glad that you have finally understood it and abandoned that obsession with privatisation. Well done John!
      
      Alert moderator
    - Dandelion:
      
      14 Feb 2014 12:35:33am
      
      Pink batts and BER were very effective stimulus programs. Mistakes with $900 cheques could have been avoided with more time and money spent on admin, which isn't free.
      "Like the carbon tax" doesn't make any sense in answering the question you posed. Just saying.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Jeff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:46:18pm
      
      'social fairness and in a sustainable manner'. Like a free coal mine to every union boss?
      
      Alert moderator
  - Optimist:
    
    13 Feb 2014 11:19:12am
    
    'This goverment will do more to help induistry back onto its feet in a sustainable way in 3 years than Labor ever did in 6.'
    
    Redfish, is that statement based on a solid policy platform put forward by the Government or on your blind faith in conservative Politicians?
    I haven't heard or read anything from the Government that outlines a policy basis for your comment. All we get from either side are slogans and rhetoric - which is the point of Mr Green's article.
    I don't care what side you support, as long as people are happy to write that sort of comment to supoort 'their team' we will continue to be treated as fools by all Politicians.
    We need debate on real policies to address real issues.
    
    Alert moderator
- Fred:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:37:18am
  
  I am forced to agree. It seems patently obvious that Mr Abbott is out of his depth. His inability to think on his feet coupled with another inability, lateral thinking, has left this country floundering on the shores of indecision.
  
  Alert moderator
- burke:
  
  13 Feb 2014 5:49:12pm
  
  Did you intend to write "wreaking ball"? It has nice feel about it. I like it.
  
  Alert moderator
Forrest Gardener:

13 Feb 2014 8:16:51am

Quote: An election, at least in theory, gives our informed consent to the work of an incoming administration.

The term "administration" is commonly used in the USA where executive power is concentrated in the president.

The term has little application in Australia where, despite increasingly presidential style election campaigns, executive authority is vested in ministers of the crown.

Alert moderator
- Gordon:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:31:35am
  
  who thus form an administration. I don't see the problem.
  
  Alert moderator
- GJA:
  
  13 Feb 2014 2:25:33pm
  
  I suspect that any frontbencher who goes off-message will hear about it from the [executive] Prime Minister. Not that I've heard any of them actually doing so or backpeddling in response to being reigned in, for two reasons: because no matter how extreme the statements of Pyne et al., they pale in comparison to the extremism of the PM, and because Hockey's doing all the actual work and doesn't care what anyone says who isn't him. Such a set of egotistical bullies I can't recall seeing in public office outside the US GOP.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Forrest Gardener:
    
    13 Feb 2014 6:56:38pm
    
    Pavlov would be proud GJA, but what does your reply have to do with the use of the word "administration"?
    
    Relevance factor zero.
    
    Alert moderator
Mrfunbro:

13 Feb 2014 8:17:28am

All political parties should have to provide costed policies 10 days before polling day. Anything that is not submitted without a cost analysis is an aspiration and cannot be defined as a policy. The 3 word slogan worked a treat on the sleeping citizens of Apathetica. I wonder how they feel now they're waking up to the nightmare?

Alert moderator
- sleepykarly:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:58:33am
  
  Mrfunbro, what you are asking for is already the case. Unfortunately, in 2010 as well as 2013 the coalition simply refused to submit their policies for costing. What can you do about that? Label them 'aspirational?
  
  Well, that's what was done, and the punters out there still waved them through! Until we get a more intelligent electorate this will continue to be done by whichever side is in opposition at the time..
  
  Perhaps that is why the Coalition wants to water down Gonski; so only the socio-economically advantaged have the tools to see through this ploy and vote Conservative anyway, while the unwashed masses can be kept iggerant?
  
  Alert moderator
  - Kedjy:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:33:13am
    
    You should mention that the ALP did similarly in order to ensure we think you are not biased.
    
    Alert moderator
- marg1:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:15:59am
  
  I agree with that Mrfunbro - it is simply not good enough to say they will be forthcoming - did Libs ever deliver them last election? I don't think so. That's not right - the people have a right to see them well before an election so that they can evaluate them and decide on that basis. Otherwise it is just the blind leading the blind.
  
  Alert moderator
- gnome:
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:10:12pm
  
  So how do Gonski, NBN and NDIS fit in. They have only been partly costed, and haven't been funded, yet they have been introduced into legislation.
  
  Perhaps three word slogans are OK, compared to one word slogans that become unaffordable policies.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Jilleene:
    
    13 Feb 2014 4:42:18pm
    
    So right gnome.
    
    And where did we get the slogan thing from.
    We had Kevin07. Very successful.
    Then Rudd tried Cut Cut Cut on Abbott.
    
    It seems slogans are shockers to use. But only when you lose elections.
    
    Alert moderator
- crow:
  
  13 Feb 2014 2:58:55pm
  
  and thats almost just before the media blackout
  
  which means you can continue to promise the world and the media doesnt have time to point out the discrepencies or funding holes before you win the election against an apathetic electorate.
  
  and yes Im talking both sides, its just that Abbott took it to a whole new level at the last election
  
  Alert moderator
virgil:

13 Feb 2014 8:18:06am

During the election I kept going back to the LNP website to find the flesh on the policy bones that was the little blue pamphlet. It was alarming to realise as the election got closer that that was all there was - Tony's pamphlet.

But pulling back a bit, I don't think any government would have been prepared for the "transition" that's about to come as a result of peak oil, peak water, peak debt, peak minerals etc - let alone such a lazy, intellectually crippled, ideologically driven, "business as usual" one as the current govt.

Alert moderator
Ralph:

13 Feb 2014 8:18:36am

According to the Grattin institute we are looking finding $60 billion a year in tax increases and spending savings.

Make that $80billion plus after the car makers leave.

Easily solved, reintroduce tariffs on imports, properly tax mineral and petroleum exports, stop offshoring call centres and data operations and set up things like manufacturing white goods, shipping and build an automotive industry.

And the big thing, stop prattling on about the non existent level playing field, if country has a 150% tariff on something we export to them then we have the same tariff on their exports to us. If a country will not allow us to purchase land and businesses on their soil, then we disallow the same here.

Alert moderator
- marg1:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:17:47am
  
  Sounds like just plain common sense to me Ralph - unfortunately I don't think these dills in power have any of that.
  
  Alert moderator
Just plain truth:

13 Feb 2014 8:19:26am

Thanks for calling spade a spade.

The voters were truly behaving like drunk on vague promises in September 2013.

Foreign owned media did not help the process. Sadly, we are still disrespecting our local media.

Alert moderator
- oldfart:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:53:09am
  
  what local media? If you speak of Auntie, all I remember is tat they gave labor as much grief as the rest of the media and did not put hard questions to the LNP. So we were let down by all except perhaps by the fifth estate. where all this was openly predicted and discussed, while there was not word in mainstream media
  
  Alert moderator
Benice:

13 Feb 2014 8:21:26am

The last election was more than just an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. Trouble is the more simplistic the slogan, the more you can try and justify on the basis of mandate.

As an opposition, all the LNP did was throw slogans about - eg. calling carbon pricing a 'great big new tax' when it wasn't a tax at all.

Now we're expected to sit back and watch them slash and burn in the name of 'stop the waste' instead having a sensible conversation about the real problem with the budget bottom line - declining revenue, especially from the big end of town.

We're going to see a whole lot more sloganeering from this government as they try to sell workers the idea that it's them and not their bosses who should be making sacrifices, as they try to destroy the idea of collective bargaining, preferring that workers are picked off one by one, as they divide and conquer.

But when the cuts start to bite for most people is when they'll sit up and start taking notice and then, just like with Work Choices, no amount of smooth talking will save Abbott and co.

Alert moderator
- Snake:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:50:26am
  
  In order to subvert their accountability, Abbott's next big ideological push will be against compulsory voting. Wait for it.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Lawrence of Bavaria :
    
    13 Feb 2014 11:04:08am
    
    Abolishing compulsory voting wouldn't be such a bad thing, snake.
    The main targets of three word slogans, the politically uninformed, not interested or indifferent would simply not turn up. Less customers for snake oil, more in-depth explaining of policies by the candidates required.
    There wouldn't be safe seats anymore. Independent grass roots campaigns could mobilise enough voters to swing an out of touch sitting member and a stay-at-home electorate into oblivion. Cathy McGowan vs Sophie Mirabella in Indi is the best example.
    Barrack Obama swept to power because he turned hundreds of thousands disillusioned non-voters into Team Obama. Many bothered to vote for the first time in their lives because they
    w a n t e d to vote for Obama. "Yes we can" was a three-word slogan, too - but many were inspired to fill that empty slogan with their own, personal aspirations. It was a message of hope compared to "Stop the boats", "Axe the tax"...etc.
    How different would an election campaign be run, nationally and locally, if the pollies wouldn't be so sure that every voter
    would rock up on election day anyway. With compulsory voting there's no need for a vision, for fresh thinking, for doing something for the common good - a little bit of pork-barreling and promises of keeping up the status quo normally does the trick.
    How many people at the last election didn't want to vote for either of the clowns on offer ? To deliberately not vote if you could is a powerful thing. It frightens the parties, because they are left with hundreds of thousands of votes that they have wanted and needed but didn't get. There is no endless pondering of what might have been. Look at other countries. If the electorate stays away in droves leaders are culled quicker than you can say Kevin Rudd.
    I'd like to see compulsory voting abolished, because for all the perks and pensions the pollies get from us they should work their behinds off to earn our votes.
    
    Alert moderator
- Rusty:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:25:21am
  
  Benice,
  
  You guys lost the last election, get over it.
  
  Gillard herself as well called the carbon price" a "Carbon Tax" - it meets all the standard criteria for being a tax. Especially the bit where it is government mandated.
  
  The old lefty euphemism approach to redefining reality just won't cut it anymore.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Mark James:
    
    13 Feb 2014 11:51:25am
    
    Rusty, perhaps if the Coalition and Murdoch press had managed to get over losing the 2010 election, and hadn't acted like spoilt children on a three-year long uber-tantrum, then perhaps not so many chickens would be coming home to roost now.
    
    Every action has a reaction, no?
    
    If you poison the well, the water becomes tainted, no?
    
    Alert moderator
  - Benice:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:08:59pm
    
    Rusty, firstly, who are MY guys? I don't know why assumptions are always made that anyone against Abbott is for ALL the policies of the Labor Party and has an allegiance to them.
    
    I take it you're a 'rusted' on Liberal supporter then? Or not?Perhaps the old "approach" to defining everyone as left and right is what doesn't cut it.
    
    I know who won and I know that part of the reason for the victory was the way in which certain issues were sloganised by the LNP rather than being discussed in an adult way. There was a refusal to recognise the worldwide-acknowledged healthy state of the Australian economy, in favour of "stop the waste" and after the election, "Australia is open for business" and plenty of other examples.
    
    The Liberal slogans have a lot in common with playground taunts in both their simplicity and ignorance. They also have another thing in common - they're used by bullies and this is a party that bullied their way into government and now want to use the same taunting (of refugees, the poor, workers, unions), so they can hit us over the head with their big-business-friendly policies while we're down.
    
    But we will not be down, despite the name-calling. We will be fighting back.
    
    Btw, Gillard did not call it a tax and has, since, said one of her biggest mistakes was letting Abbott get away with calling it that - not mention letting him get away with forgetting that it's exactly the same policy he supported until he saw he could twist it into a slogan that would win him votes - and for that, see the author's argument above.
    
    The reality is, in the sector of the economy - power generation - in which it was applied, carbon pricing worked in reducing emissions, so should be extended to other sectors of the economy. The thing that disappointed me about it was that there should have been built in compensation for small businesses as there was for householders and that it should have been more wide ranging with fewer exemptions of big polluters.
    
    Alert moderator
    - P38:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:36:36pm
      
      Not a rusted on L/NP voter. A rusted on one nation supporter with no place to go
      
      Alert moderator
- the egg:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:36:25am
  
  Agreed. Only when the cuts come think, fast and nasty will people realise that they have been done like a dinner by this LNP mob.
  I really have no idea what there motives are for being in givernment. Maybe a little hatred of the working class for not being people of substance ??
  That little pamphlet said nothing at all of substance and I would have been embarrassed to have had to hold one up. I think James ???? said it all in his interview horriblis when he could only mumble about "the boats"
  
  Anyway we've got three more years to go but at least at the end of it we'll know what they really stand for if anything ??
  
  Alert moderator
wandererfromoz:

13 Feb 2014 8:22:38am

This article is just as bad as the problem it describes - half truths but I suppose only marginally better than the outright lies, deceits, disassembling, evasions, distortions based on ignorance politicians who using that expression 'cannot run a pie stand at a football match'.

Therefore do no use the royal 'we' when describing the problem. If I as a citizen use the kind of words above to describe the unmentionables despised and held in contempt by almost all then why do they not feel that sting when they are interviewed by journos who are only marginally 'better' than 'pollies' in the public eye? Occasionally that has happened but it is all too rare.

The media is to blame - decades ago when for example the whole issue of "cutting tariffs" became a slogan chanted by the ignorant masses, many many persons could foresee the end results we are all viewing now. For heaven's sake blind freddy should have seen it. Expecting an aussie to compete with chinese peasant labour churning out chinese junk goods which now flood the market was never going and could not happen unless a well thought out battle plan was put in place re automation, binding labour agreements, super skilled workforce and the like. But where was the media and its fourth world status journo's? Silent and as ignorant as the silly bird brain uneducated ignorant pollies pushing this idea through and through. It was a bandwagon full of people drunk with the power of populism scorning the voices of dissent and concern.

Well here is another one - our economy is built on sand. When finally the so called mining boom ends what are we going to do with the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people flooding into this country who will 'have no productive wealth creating work' - I can at least be thankful I will not be around to ponder that one or be concerned about it. R.I.P.

Alert moderator
- marg1:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:21:52am
  
  So well put wanderer, sadly I agree with all you have said.
  
  Alert moderator
Dispassionate:

13 Feb 2014 8:23:20am

"...the condescending mass of clich? and twaddle...

Beautifully phrased, Jonathan, and distressingly accurate.

We allowed ourselves to be deluded and misled by the campaign rhetoric and the media propaganda deluge.

We are seeing the first signs of the suffering and disruption to come.

Alert moderator
- JOP:
  
  13 Feb 2014 12:39:10pm
  
  'We' didn't. The swingers looking for a fast pocket full of cash did. The same group that is most likely to be joining the growing line off to work for the dole in coming years. Hard lessons learned the hard way.
  
  Alert moderator
John:

13 Feb 2014 8:24:44am

You ask:

"Resolving the troubled balance between declining commonwealth revenues and multiple running sores of galloping expenditure will be the work of one or two parliamentary terms and will involve comprehensive reimagining of what it might be to be an Australian economy in the 21st century.
Anybody sign up for that in September 2013? No. Not really".

How quickly you forget, Mr Green.

Joe Hockey was saying that for months and months, and for his trouble (and what you now call his foresight) he was well and truly lambasted by people like you.

Alert moderator
- Benice:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:52:58am
  
  No Hockey's problem was (and is) that he only wanted to talk about expenditure, not revenue. The LNP stood alongside businessin the way of solutions to this, eg. mining super profits tax. In fact that campaign was another example of sloganeering without substance. Mining companies weren't going to go anywhere. They like our civil stability, our infrastructure and would have stayed.
  
  Hockey and the LNP were and will continue to struggle till they deal with revenue. And they should do it soon, while there's still some to be had.
  
  Alert moderator
  - John:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:19:16am
    
    Not a very helpful comment.
    
    Revenue is only relevant to expenditure. All you have to do is look back to Charles Dickens:
    
    "Income twenty shillings, expenses nineteen shilling and sixpence - result happiness. Income twenty shillings, expenses twenty shillings and sixpence - result misery".
    
    The previous Gillard/Swan administration lived in the delusional belief that it could throw buckets full of cash at every problem in sight and then complain that the revenue fell short.
    
    Life's not like that.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Benice:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:27:29pm
      
      No, government's not like that, John.
      
      The LNP constantly use this reductive argument of household/personal income and expenditure is the same as that of government and it's just not the same thing.
      
      This is because, unlike an individual, the government has powers to legislate to increase its revenue, not just to resolve budgetary problems, as is the case here, but also to solve problems of inequity. So, rather than having to cut welfare, defence, industry support, education, etc, they can raise revenue.
      
      The householder, too, has the choice to increase their income, but doesn't have the power to go to the owner of the factory that pays him the minimum wage which he can barely survive on and ask for some of his boss's wealth to be redistributed so he can buy his child school shoes. (And if Abbott and co. have their way, they will make it even harder for this worker to seek a pay rise).
      
      You see the difference now? The comparison is erroneous and simplistic and the only difference between it and an LNP slogan is that it has a few more words in it and a quote from Charles Dickens.
      
      However, you shouldn't throw these quotes at a lit major. The quote is from David Copperfield, spoken by the character Micawber, who exposed his boss, Uriah Heep, as a cheat and a forger and was, in fact, someone who showed generosity even when in debt. He also said, "Never do tomorrow what you can do today. Procrastination is the thief of time."
      
      And sometimes to do something today, you might need to borrow to do so, which is something that governments AND individuals do. They go into credit according to what their income will afford them.
      
      The difference being that if you're an individual and can't pay it back, you end up in a debtor's prison like Micawber.
      
      Whereas, if you're a government of a country where overseas and local corporations are making super profits without paying their way, you CAN increase your income, as I said, without damaging the economy and without having to make drastic cuts.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 3:57:12pm
      
      You misunderstand, Benice,
      
      The Government did not use that little homily from Mr Micawber - I did. And it did not make any point about the difference between a Government having the power to create money and an individual who does not.
      
      But it does illustrate the basic, unchanging, rock-solid principle - if your expenditure is greater than your income, misery is the result.
      
      And there is absolutely no defence in pathetically bleating that the revenue estimated did not eventuate when you knew from day one that the estimate used was unattainable. And there is even less merit in simply racking up escalating debt upon debt as Mr Swan did.
      
      By the way - you're not the only one who studied English Literature, you know. I obtained my MA from Sydney University in English Literature.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Benice:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:25:13pm
      
      Congrats on the MA. I'm sure you learnt that if you're going to quote a text, it should be relevant to the point you're arguing - in this case that governments need to balance their budget or "result misery". Unfortunately, as I said, the quote in context only refers to individual or household budgets and does not have the same relevance BECAUSE of the reasons I've pointed out - that governments have more control over their revenue stream.
      
      It is simply NOT true to say that the same misery caused by not balancing a personal budget is visited on a government in similar circumstances, and you have in no way proven this by calling it a "basic, unchanging, rock-solid principle." Just because you say something is something doesn't make it so. Rather like Abbott calling carbon pricing a tax. It never was.
      
      I'm glad you have qualifications because you'll also be able to more carefully read my post and see that I at no stage said the Dickens quote was from the government. What I said was YOU were throwing these quotes, not the government.
      
      I DID say that the government have, on many occasions, drawn the same analogy between household budgets and government budgets - the same argument that you were using the quote to illustrate, but which it does not illustrate at all - and for this I was critical of both your argument and the government's collectively.
      
      Also, you say the quote from Dickens "did not make any point about the difference between a Government having the power to create money and an individual who does not". What? Exactly! That was MY whole point, not yours - that your quote DOESN'T illustrate the true nature of government budgets but merely personal household budgets. So, you can't turn around and make the same argument like it's your own. That's like me saying, "The sky is blue" and you shouting back, "NO! The sky is blue!" Doesn't make sense.
      
      As for "pathetically bleating" about revenue not matching estimates, I agree. But that isn't what I said. What I said originally was that the LNP and big business stood in the way of a revenue stream from the mining super profits tax and destroyed it before it saw the light of day. Labor bear responsibility for this too, caving in to this pressure when it should have stood its ground.
      
      So, no, they can't "pathetically bleat" about it, as you say, even though the original opposition to it did come from the Liberals and self-interested mining companies, domestic and foreign.
      
      But I, personally, CAN raise it as an issue because that revenue would have sent us well on our way to the balanced budget so clearly desired by so many here.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 9:47:45pm
      
      All fog and bluster, Benice,
      
      I used the Dickens quote simply to point out that eventually the over-spending has to stop and the accounting has to start. That is as true of my monthly bills as it is for the canteen at my local school as it is for the Federal Government. No matter what the organisation, the income, sooner or later, has to meet the expense. It is a shame that you are unable to see the relevance of the quote.
      
      As to your point about Governments creating income, I refer you to the words of Konrad Adenauer, the former Chancellor of the then West Germany. He pointed out that that policy by his Government had led to the stage that a "poor hausfrau has to fill a wheelbarrow with marks to buy a loaf of bread". The same thing happened in France, where the franc overnight became a centime, with the currency re-valued so that one franc became a 100th part of a newfranc. That's what happens when Governments create paper money without income.
      
      What is more, simply racking up larger and larger debts means that larger and larger interest payments have to be met, usually to overseas lenders, and therefore smaller and smaller amounts of income are left to meet internal needs.
      
      Your complaints about the lack of a mining tax simply show how blind to the truth you are. Swan and Gillard blithely assumed that everything they wanted would fall into their laps like apples from a tree - and they went ahead and spent the funds before even checking to see what the true picture of the revenue was. The mining tax revenue should not have been spent before it was locked in. They knew that and they ignored it in cavalier fashion. That is governing by hope not by management.
      
      Alert moderator
    - DWM:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:30:03pm
      
      no, John. that is John Howard that threw bucket loads of money around. the big problem is that due to his tax cuts and middle class welfare his bucket loads are still being thrown around hence the structural budget deficit we have. Rudd/Gillard governments may have spent to see the nation through the GFC but it's Howard's buckets that have continued the outflow revenue. These are the first items that should be cut by Hockey. maybe then we can start to see an improvement in the budget bottom line.
      
      Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:23:59pm
      
      Howard had the money to throw around. He did not have to borrow it.
      
      Alert moderator
- Miowarra:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:55:46am
  
  Wayne Swan and Sen. Penny Wong had been saying exactly the same thing for six, nine, twelve months beforehand and were not only lambasted but subjected to personal abuse and concentrated attacks on their integrity for their troubles.
  
  I have little sympathy for the crocodile tears you weep over Hockey's richly-deserved treatment.
  
  Alert moderator
  - phil:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:14:32am
    
    swan keep on saying he will produce a surplus, and as his budget position got worse and worse, his reputation as the worlds best treasurer looked a bit weak.
    
    While Swan is still a MP, I expect the current labor leadership isn't planning to have him talk in front of the media anytime soon
    
    Alert moderator
    - Benice:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:31:20pm
      
      The circus that is the finance media meant that while making very sensible decisions about stimulating the economy, the Labor Party and Swan still pretended surpluses could be met.
      
      There was also the small factor that they'd planned to tax super-profits of mining companies but this was knocked on the head by a misinformation campaign.
      
      However, their biggest mistake was buying into the whole 'surplus at any cost' attitude that obsesses financial commentators. We need to a) question whether it's always appropriate to pursue that so vigorously (as it was by the IMF today in relation to Australia's currency) and b) look at income rather than expenditure as a resolution to the problem.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Gordon:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:10:42pm
      
      In fact they imagined bottomless revenue and spent it before it arrived.
      
      They weren't the first to do this by a long way, and won't be the last. But don't let's dress it up shall we?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Jeff:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:49:42pm
      
      Err, they actually did introduce their mining tax. How was a 'misinformation campaign' responsible for it making no revenue?
      
      Alert moderator
    - Benice:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:39:33pm
      
      Jeff, they introduced a watered down version of the original plan. The original plan was a tax that would actually have raised some revenue, as opposed to what we ended up with, which was a shadow of what was needed.
      
      The misinformation campaign, run by mining companies, supported by shock-jocks and self-interested media tycoons and, of course, the Liberal party included expensive TV ads fearmongering about all the mining companies running a mile if they had to pay more tax.
      
      That's why they got a tax where they didn't have to pay any tax. That, and the fact that Labor cracked under the pressure and didn't have the guts to follow it through.
      
      Then the Liberal Party have had the hide, ever since, to criticise the tax for not raising any revenue. Now that's irony.
      
      Alert moderator
  - John:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:30:56am
    
    All that comment means is that you are claiming that Swan and Wong agreed with Hockey.
    
    And we all know how futile that argument is.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Miowarra:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:43:39pm
      
      No, John - look at the timescale. Swan and Wong warned us and started to take action.
      Hockey has just been repeating what they had already said, but he's a year late and doing nothing.
      
      The difference is in the treatment that each has received. Hockey, who has done nothing worthwhile, gets roses the others were attacked from all media as well as by the then Opposition.
      
      Not balanced, not reasonable and damaging to the country.
      
      Alert moderator
    - John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 4:02:53pm
      
      No, Miowarra, look at the time scale.
      
      While Hockey was making those comments, especially his speech in London to the effect that the entitlement culture was over, Swan and Wong - especially Wong - were running around saying that Hockey had no financial acumen, that he was planning to cut welfare and that as a result old age pensioners would starve, child support payments were to be axed and Newstart allowances were to be cut.
      
      Swan and Wong took no action about the ever-increasing debt except to spend more and more and less effectively.
      
      Alert moderator
gbe:

13 Feb 2014 8:25:21am

Jonathan Tony Abbott uses three word slogans because marketing people tell him that is what works to say it does work has never been really tested..
At the last election Labor was simply unelectable and and given their poor paramilitary form to date nothing has changed Shorten looks what he is a grubby union hack.

Only Kevin Rudd?s frenzied campaigning to implore his faithful not to desert labor saved ten seats.
Abbott will be there at the next election with his 3 word slogans but Rudd is thankfully gone.

Alert moderator
- Miowarra:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:02:55am
  
  The ALP is not and never has been a paramilitary organisation.
  
  The most recent political paramilitary (that I know of) was the New Guard which was anti-Labor, extremely conservative and marginally fascist with its devotion to military government.
  
  They were known as the "White Shirts" (in line with the Italian & British Fascist 'Blackshirts", the German SA "Brownshirts", the USA Deutsche-Amerika Bund or "Silver Shirts" and the Spanish Falangista "Blue Shirts".)
  
  To this day extremist conservatives can still be seen wearing their signature white shirts.
  
  Or did you just fail to supervise your spellchecker when you misspelled "parliamentary"?
  
  Alert moderator
  - gbe:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:55:47am
    
    Miowarra: It was a spell checker error I forgot to alter. Nothing sinister a mistake the word should have been. PARLIAMENTARY.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Gordon:
      
      13 Feb 2014 6:03:26pm
      
      But it gave Miowarra a great opportunity to trot all that out!
      Perhaps sea shepherd might a more recent example hey Mio?
      
      Alert moderator
  - Jeff:
    
    13 Feb 2014 4:51:39pm
    
    Or the signature southern cross of the militant unions as they destroy another building site or business.
    
    Alert moderator
Living in a cloud castle:

13 Feb 2014 8:26:00am

We have created a political reality in which neither side can really come out and tell the truth. The LNP can't really admit that climate change is real and that a price on carbon is the conservative, efficient way to go, because they have adopted a different line in rhetoric and are stuck with it. Labor cannot admit that some better external controls on union finances may be a good idea, and that unions would do their job better without such a rock solid link to the political party.

Any reasonable outside observer can see that we need a higher tax take, that government waste is always an issue but is no worse or better than 10 years ago, that we need to get donations out of political life completely ( or at least limit to $100), that we need a price on carbon because the rest of the world has one, and that encouraging the coal industry is plain dumb.

But no one in Labor or the LNP can say all of this.

Alert moderator
- Genghis Marx:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:06:50am
  
  "...That we need to get donations out of political life completely..."
  
  I'm not convinced of that.
  I have no family and my estate will be substantial. I want to leave all or at least the bulk of it to the political party of my choice.
  
  After I'm dead, I do not plan to continue lobbying for my causes, so there's little opportunity for political corruption because of my donative.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Matt:
    
    13 Feb 2014 9:59:26am
    
    Genghis, You'll leave your estate to a political party? Its your choice obviously but what a waste of your precious legacy. No political party deserves it.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Rusty:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:34:31am
    
    Genghis,
    
    Forget people or political parties etc - it will just be wasted/stolen - give it to the RSPCA, dog/native animal shelters or some other such group that cares for lost and injured animals of all types.
    
    Alert moderator
    - Woodcutter:
      
      13 Feb 2014 12:43:36pm
      
      @ Rusty,
      
      Nice to know you care so much for disadvantaged animals. PITY THOUGH your sympathy doesn't extend to children in permanent detention who have committed no crime.
      
      Alert moderator
- VoR:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:32:43am
  
  Yes to we have created a political reality in which neither side can really come out and tell the truth.
  
  But WHY? Surely a lot of it is the 24 hr media and the zealots who bay for blood based on its sketchy speculations, and who are in turn then reported on by the 24 hour media in a sometimes self-fulfilling feedback loop, such as in the case of the Rudd return coup. Any information a politician provides is food for the zealots to invent negative stories around, stories never apologised for in retrospect or only after causing harm.
  
  Interaction with the media is no longer about providing information to voters, it's about damage control.
  
  Alert moderator
  - din:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:16:41am
    
    I agree
    
    but we can see it happening now. comments by the government get taken out of context, and made it sound like something completely different.
    
    Alert moderator
Ben the lawyer:

13 Feb 2014 8:30:33am

The only thing I take issue with in this article is the idea that this is a recent phenomenon, or is somehow worse now. All parties, in every election I can remember, have done this.

I don't remember an actual policy debate in an election year, ever (possibly Hewson's Fightback, but we all know how that was received).

Alert moderator
- tsj:
  
  13 Feb 2014 8:59:45am
  
  Yes this is nothing new. However, the sheer velocity and volume of information available to us now through multiple media channels, is something increasingly new.
  
  Bullying used to be physical and restricted to real time and real locations. Now it is perpetrated via media channels so that it can occur virtually 24/7 across the globe.
  
  So too with politics. It was a game changer in the last election and will no doubt be into the future of Australian politics. Why else do you think that Mr. Abbott (a true master of political manipulation) has so carefully cultivated the new 'culture of secrecy' in his new government?
  
  Alert moderator
- VoR:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:37:08am
  
  I think its worse. The media adores superficial and antagonistic reportage - it's so easy and cheap to produce.
  
  Alert moderator
JennyB:

13 Feb 2014 8:31:53am

Now you have that epiphany Jonathon! I remember thinking that your posts were thoughtful, but never got to the heart of the matter, and always seemed to touch on an issue but not push it to the inevitable conclusion of what are you going to actually do. I have never been so frustrated by an election campaign and the reporters. Now it seems the answer is obvious. Sell everything that is not tied down to rake in the billions, and create what? Destroy any green shoots like the renewable energy industry, our food manufacturing, and rape the environment. Well done!!

Alert moderator
awake:

13 Feb 2014 8:31:57am

All too true, dumbed down politics and reporting all round.

The truth is they don't know what to do, that is why there are no firm policies to move Australia forward to the 21st century.

We truly got what we deserved and we will continue to pay for it or worse our children and grandchildren will.

Alert moderator
Snake:

13 Feb 2014 8:32:00am

If the age of entitlement was truly over, as the treasurer has suggested, then he would take a sharpened axe to middle class welfare. He would end the subsidies paid to rich people so that they can no longer: a) get cheaper medical insurance b) send their elite kids to private schools c) get paid to have children.

But he won't. Because the age of entitlement is only over if you are a worker or a unionist or a business that supports equity in the workplace.

So, the divide between the rich and poor will grow exponentially under these three-word sloganeers.

Their only vision is ideological. It has no substance.

Alert moderator
Richie:

13 Feb 2014 8:35:20am

to 'let' them get away with slogans insinuates no active involvement. ABC along with all major media outlets enabled party slogans, encouraged them, and created their value. And now you are blaming the government for not being as forthcoming as you expected? The government hasn't been forthcoming about anything pre election so what makes you think they will be forthcoming post election? Australia asked for a bigoted, closed shop, heartless dictatorship and now that's what we have. Thanks to YOU!

Alert moderator
- pony:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:09:00am
  
  I agree. A lot of us were pleading for policy detail but didn't get any. The reporting during the election campaign was terrible.
  
  Alert moderator
- Helvi:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:16:30am
  
  Richie, I have to say that I often thought that ABC was too soft with Abbott during the election period, someone from the news room called him our next PM well before the election, I threw my softest slipper at him :) I even wrote about it on one of the Drum stories
  
  Alert moderator
penguin:

13 Feb 2014 8:44:48am

Governments lose elections. Oppositions must be disciplined and present small tagets and seem viable. That is enough, combined with media laziness in not questioning policy or outright barracking for one side.
A better question is how do we want to be governed? How do Australians want their govt to work? How do we change a clearly outdated and irrelevant Constitution designed for the 1890s?
4 year terms? A Bill of Rights? Better and more transparent FOI legislation? Transparent party funding? Amending Parliamentary proceedings? Initiating people policy? Electronic voting? etc
Will it happen? Not under this system which rewards the 2 major parties locked inj a downward 2 step!

Alert moderator
theperthranger:

13 Feb 2014 8:46:15am

The worst part about all this is that we allowed Abbott to bombard us with useless slogans before the election and have continued to accept the same slogans from him now he is in Government.

I guess we will have another vote in 2.5 years time, but what about the country in the meantime?. A Govt with no policies and hiding from scrutiny.

Alert moderator
- Joan:
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:46:53pm
  
  Only dummies fall for three word slogans- media the biggest idiots who can`t comprehend any idea beyond `Twitter` short bursts. Abbott said a lot and no suprises for anyone who listened beyond three letter words. Lefties like to believe Labor lies that Abbott just three word slogans. Abbott going about doing what he said he would. Even Q&A the political view for dummies is supplemented with twitter idiots view of politics.
  
  Alert moderator
harvey:

13 Feb 2014 8:48:04am

In Australia we have voters who don't care who runs the country as long as their social life is busy.They take no interest in how their country is run. But they do like to have their uneducated say.

Slogans make it easy for them, they don't have to think, and then when whatever party wins and starts do things they they kept secret during the election, the "I know nothings" treat themselves to a bit of outrage.

They whinge about being lied to, when anyone who took the time could see that the slogans are always a smokescreen for the dumb and disinterested.

Alert moderator
Pete the Eagle:

13 Feb 2014 8:50:30am

whats worse than all the exaggerated promises we got from Abbott was the blatant lies that spewed out of his mouth.
The 93 billion dollar cost of Labors quality broadband, was a number just pulled out of the air because it sounded good is a perfect example.
Of course Abbott had a great tutor in muddying the water, his hero John Howard was a world champion.

Alert moderator
- Alfie:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:07:24am
  
  Unlike your beloved Labor Party who just plain lied to gain power, wildly exaggerated budgets and proved totally incapable of delivering on any single policy commitment.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Trollalert:
    
    13 Feb 2014 10:49:47am
    
    As opposed to your beloved coalition who lied to gain power, wildly exaggerated our fiscal and economic situation and are proving totally incapable of delivering on any single slogan.
    
    As usual, conservatives are fixated on the past, but seem unable to learn from it and ignore the current reality.
    
    Alert moderator
  - Reinhard:
    
    13 Feb 2014 2:21:18pm
    
    "Unlike your beloved Labor Party who just plain lied to gain power, wildly exaggerated budgets"
    So what are these lies Alfie? The $314b that Howard wasted on tax cuts, middle class welfare and marginal seat pork barrelling was no lie.
    The resultant overheating economy and 10 interest rate hikes in a row from 4.3% in 2002 to 7.25% when Labor took office were no lie either...
    
    Alert moderator
- Joan:
  
  13 Feb 2014 3:21:38pm
  
  Gillard Labor and Shorten Labor the corrupt Unionist puppets killed the manufacturing jobs in Australia. Today Australia reaping the rewards of 6 years Hard Labor job killing policy. The final knife in Toyota coffin was Union leader intransigence to let workers negotiate with Toyota. NBN a big national Labor flop slower than snail pace roll out , the satellite promise undelivered as well. Multibillions of dollars of costly waste - not one policy implemented, effectively in timely manner. buckets of money wasted on building rorts, pink batts, deaths. Abbott looks like a welcome change to Rudd/Gillard Labor debacle. Howes the guy who can match Abbott nowhere in cooee the only Labor guy who is talking any 21st Century economic sense. Shorten sounds like he is still locked in Tassie mine shalft time warp.
  
  Alert moderator
Terry:

13 Feb 2014 8:51:06am

I am not quite sure what Mr Green wants from our major political parties. (For some reason he seems to avoid any criticism of the Greens who excel in the "simple slogan" and "avoid detail" approach to electioneering. Perhaps he feels they are not worth discussing).

Does he want a list of promises as to how various issues would be handled if elected? Or something less binding: a rough roadmap? What issues should be included? Should the list vary for different electorates?

If that is the case, there is no need to elect people: we could just vote for a platform and allow the public service to implement it.

We have a system, however, of representational democracy, where the voters elect those of their number whom they trust to govern on their behalf. The representatives are trusted by the electorate to apply their intelligence, experience etc to the issues that might arise during their period of service.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that this system is the only workable method of democracy available for large modern democracies (at least at the moment). In order to make a sensible decision, an idea of how the candidates might act on certain issues is always helpful. But not as an end in itself - more as an indicator of the candidate's world view and attitude.

To expect candidates to provide a list of specific actions they will perform is useful, but not critical. (I realise that it is generally parties that determine the policies, but the same principal applies.)

I would prefer that each candidate provide a summary of their experience, their beliefs, their drivers. From that I can decide how they might react to the changing circumstances and unexpected crises that characterise governing a nation.

It is the person that is important, not the specific policy. Vote for the right people and the parties will change. I accept that this is a simplistic view and that the monolithic nature of "the party" is a block to power of individuals. But if we elect enough people with the courage of their convictions, on either side of politics, then the power of the parties will slowly crumble.

That is why I prefer to know about the candidates: in the hope that I will have a representative who will stand up and speak on behalf of his/her electors. Not necessarily for the direct benefit of those electors, but what is right and just.

I know - a pipe dream. But if enough of us insist that we know something about the candidate other than the party to which they have hitched their wagon, we might get representatives who have courage rather than obedience as a primary trait.

Alert moderator
- Gordon:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:47:06am
  
  Well, I'm with you anyway. I would rather they be allowed to get on with it and stand or fall by their success or failure. I thought the same for the prev govt too.
  
  Demanding "policy detail" is usually just politics anyway - to find "gotcha" clauses to use later on.
  
  I don't believe Churchill or Lincoln got elected on 1000 page manifestos.
  
  Alert moderator
Mark:

13 Feb 2014 8:52:36am

The Coalition released several hundred pages of policy documents before the election. Labor also released hundreds of pages of policy.

If you didn't look beyond what was written in the title of these documents, that's your own fault.

Alert moderator
- virgil:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:13:44am
  
  When exactly were the LNP's policies released do you know Mark? Must have been very close to election day.
  
  Alert moderator
  - CameronD:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:32:39pm
    
    https://www.liberal.org.au/our-policies
    Here they are pages and pages and pages of them.
    And here's Labor's one page motherhood statements http://www.alp.org.au/what_we_re_for
    
    Now tell me which has more substance as polices
    
    Alert moderator
    - virgil:
      
      13 Feb 2014 2:28:12pm
      
      Yes I know Cameron, but not a lot of good if released quietly only days before the election. Does anyone know exactly WHEN they were released?
      
      Alert moderator
  - Cobber:
    
    13 Feb 2014 4:56:08pm
    
    I work in the public affairs area of a Government Department. We were downloading the policies of both the Coalition and Labor many months before the election. The Liberal's and National's were very detailed and quite easy to find.
    
    Alert moderator
Nonrev:

13 Feb 2014 8:54:47am

Both parties are not only standing in each other's shadow, they are singing from the same policy handbook.
Tony Abbott's pledges revealed the political timidity of his party, and his pledges to effectively go steady and do very little or nothing. So we go, ho hum, back to sleep until the next election.

On the other hand, Labor behaved like a large quarreling family, wanting to do things, but failing to agree on what should be done. Consequently, everybody said, it's all too hard, we don't want to listen to you anymore, leave us alone.

Regardless of how the media or the pundits try to ramp up debate, the majority of the electorate, unless forced by circumstances, is happy to live day to day . Politicians of whatever ilk, are quite happy to milk the status quo, as like most people, they are only interested in themselves and the lives they lead.

Until circumstances require that a real leader emerge in the political landscape, who can capture our imaginations and heighten our expectations, the electorate is doomed to mediocre slogans, weasel words, incomprehensible jargon and lip service to the community.

Alert moderator
Terry2:

13 Feb 2014 8:55:29am

Jonathan

It seems that we are being softened up for a massive sale of remaining publicly owned assets and to get us onside we will be told that it is a national budget emergency; get ready for the spin.

Interestingly, those overseas health management companies who would love to grab Medibank Private will want an undertaking that the existing government subsidy - 30% of premium revenue with no cap - will continue into the future but, in an era when entitlement and corporate subsidies are dirty words, how can the government realistically continue this massive corporate subsidy ?

Alert moderator
itsabouttime :

13 Feb 2014 8:58:13am

Well Jonathan I don't really understand your criticism. You make good points but you ignore reality. It's not the just the 5 or 10% of the intelligentsia or the political class who elect governments it's the whole of society.

While they may not be as well educated or as well informed as you they possess street smarts and intuition and common sense and probably more experience in more culturally and work place diverse environments than you do.

Alert moderator
- GJA:
  
  13 Feb 2014 2:34:55pm
  
  "Common sense" isn't usually, and "street smarts" might keep you out of a knife fight but isn't much use in parliament. I think you give more credit to the people you attempt to laud by denigrating the author than they deserve. They are as prone to shooting themselves in the foot as they are to shooting off their mouths.
  
  Alert moderator
RobP:

13 Feb 2014 8:59:30am

Spot on Jonathon. After a fluff filled election campaign we got a fluff filled government. In fact, for its efforts Australia got the government it deserved
We will pay the price for generations to come..

Alert moderator
- Cobber:
  
  13 Feb 2014 4:56:49pm
  
  You are speaking about the 2007 election aren't you.
  
  Alert moderator
peter of mitcham:

13 Feb 2014 8:59:35am

Thanks, Jonathon. I think it was Marcuse who said that society has the capacity to neither accept nor reject criticism, it just absorbs it. Conflict structuralists believe we are witnessing the death throes of capitalism and phenomena such as the syllogistic policy debates and sloganeering will just get more intense and elections can be done away with completely. Thanks, Jonathon, I was having a reasonable week up until now.

Alert moderator
MACK1:

13 Feb 2014 9:02:03am

"...robustly expressed series of thoughts on how we set about the restructure of an economy tripping out of a mining boom, stumbling towards the end of manufacturing and looking for a sustaining future direction..."

Jonathon really you just sound like an old troglodyte - centrally-planned government restructuring of economies was tried in the 20th century by several Eastern bloc countries and it didn't work mate. Read the history. The PM clearly spelt out the right approach - the government is there to set the environment for job-creating private enterprise. Can we have some accurate reporting and analysis please?

Alert moderator
- gerard oosterman:
  
  13 Feb 2014 9:33:45am
  
  MACK 1:
  
  Are you sure? The absorption of East Germany into the German economy did not go too bad did it?
  What about the ( failure) success of the US in creating what Abbott seems so keen to copy, a society of 'winners only'?
  
  If you are one of the 1% in the winning race, chances are the 99% will live in trailer parks without health care while spending their lives watching baseball or gridiron, sip coke listlessly and get obese.
  
  Alert moderator
- GJA:
  
  13 Feb 2014 2:38:27pm
  
  So your solution is . . . . nothing? Just let the mining companies run on until they run out? Let manufacturing disappear without provisioning for how to address the effects on unemployment and the economy? The market will sort it out, mate, right? Thank goodness for the invisible hand, or thank God, I should say, since miracles from on high are the best that's on offer so far.
  
  Alert moderator
gerard oosterman:

13 Feb 2014 9:03:03am

Yes, we've been had. Snake oil merchants, the lot of them.
1. Cut the debt: is short hand for 'doubling it'
2. Stop the tax: cut revenue income from major miners. The rich get richer, the poor poorer.
3. Stop the boats: stop refugees needing help. Secret crimes being committed. The world aghast.
4. Improve relations with our neighbours: Insult them by oafish colonial attitude and manners.
5. Improve employment: tens of thousands on the scrapheap.
6. Leaders instead of leaners: selfish society that encourages the 'winner' takes all. Creating endless queues at soup kitchens.

Australia has gone back to a fifties Menzies era. Soon we will have to stand up again at the cinema and genuflect & curtsy the queen or king.

Alert moderator
- Honest Johnnie:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:48:25am
  
  A couple of years ago it was stated that one of the reasons for a carbon tax is to act as a stimulus/incentive towards structural change in our industry and economy. It was to help push us into a new paradigm where new (clean energy) industries would spring up to replace the old-school manufacturers that would fall by the way-side as they failed to adapt. I thought this rare show of vision made a lot of sense at the time. Now, a couple of years later we are witnessing, as predicted, the beginning of the end of old-school manufacturing in Australia. Unfortunately for us we now have a government elected on slogans, presiding over the structural change by removing the very means by which we as a country can remain viable when we emerge. As a result, we will end up with an old-school industry that has left or closed down, and in its place ........nothing.
  
  Alert moderator
- Sea Monster :
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:09:00pm
  
  All Abbott has is insubstantial one line slogans.
  
  Australia is going back to the 50s.
  
  We will have to curtsey to the queen.
  
  Our education system is poor.
  
  The soup kitchen lines are growing longer.
  
  Alert moderator
Helvi:

13 Feb 2014 9:07:17am

Excellent article, I despaired, Abbott was not good health minister, he was a overly negative and aggressive opposition leader, he spoke in slogans....yet he was chosen. Now we are copping it as they dismantle all Labor's good initiatives....

I'm starting to think that we have to start educating our population better so it will be capable of making wiser decisions at election time.

Many of my Liberal friends did not think much of Abbott, but didn't want to change sides, some voted Greens...

The Man Of Slogans, Abbott, has now added a new word, 'journey' to his collection.

Alert moderator
- thistle :
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:30:17pm
  
  "I'm starting to think ...."
  Helvi, you're "starting to think.."? Starting?
  No, you've written this over and over and over. Along with "leaving the country if Abbott is elected PM". Seems you're still with us.
  
  Plenty of smart, fed-up people voted for the conservatives. Don't need your 'educating'.
  If you voted Labor/Greens, then you lost.
  Accept it.
  
  Alert moderator
  - VoR:
    
    13 Feb 2014 6:57:20pm
    
    Before you can vote you have to be a citizen.
    
    Alert moderator
    - desiderius:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:42:23pm
      
      VoR;
      What a strange comment. We have to vote punishable by a fine if we don't.
      No freedom of speech there.
      
      Alert moderator
    - VoR:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:21:59pm
      
      Only Australian citizens have the right and the obligation to vote in Australian elections.
      It isn't clear to me how voting stops you speaking.
      
      Alert moderator
    - desiderius:
      
      13 Feb 2014 10:51:55pm
      
      VoR:
      We haven't got the right not to vote. Some see that as an infringement of free speech. We do not have that choice. (not to vote)
      Please don't come now on just wasting the vote and putting a scribble on it before sliding it in the ballot box.
      
      Alert moderator
    - VoR:
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:44:42am
      
      Some think it's an infringement of honesty for people to talk about "we" and "our population" when sniping about the Australian population, when you aren't an Australian.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sea Monster :
      
      14 Feb 2014 7:55:05am
      
      We do have the right to vote. Our obligation is to attend a polling place. No one knows what you do once your there.
      
      Alert moderator
    - Sea Monster :
      
      14 Feb 2014 8:11:59am
      
      I wonder how a hypothetical commitment to free speech squares with hypothetical vigorous correspondence with various blog editors to try and have thoughts one dislikes or finds inconvenient removed...
      
      It seems to me that a commitment to free speech so fundamental that it insists a rigid formal freedom (not having to collect a ballot paper) trumps practical free speech (you don't have fill in the ballot) doesn't square with a half decade campaign to hypothetically cow The Drum mods into submission.
      
      In fact I'd hypothetically go as far as to call it rank hypocrisy.
      
      Alert moderator
Marg:

13 Feb 2014 9:08:58am

The press is to blame for not forcing him to deliver a policy platform. Instead he was allowed to get away with inanities and motherhood statements. He has continued with these.

In power he has made it clear that he believes the market will solve everything. So he's removing every environmental and workplace impediment possible, and is leaving the rest to corporate Australia.

All this leaves him free for his true love, picking fights - with the ABC, the unions, our neighbours, the list goes on.

Alert moderator
- Joan:
  
  13 Feb 2014 3:35:41pm
  
  Can`t get over so many Labor voters crying they didn't know what Abbott stood for. I don't understand the gripe. I bet you didn't vote for Abbott . Don't think people who voted LNP feel aghast. In fact Griffith LNP Glasson got 1.3% swing to LNP . Hardly a sign of electorate concern about Abbott rule. Maybe you just closed your ears when it came to things LNP.
  
  Alert moderator
IPJ:

13 Feb 2014 9:11:02am

So who is at more fault the people who don't demand a higher standard from their government or the media who refuse to look beyond the slogans and ask the questions that need to be answered? The politicians may have no policies but it was the media's focus on trivial items and willingness to print slogans without substance that allowed them to get away with it.

Alert moderator
- Steve_C:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:07:43am
  
  Well IPJ, in lieu of Jonathan providing a response to your query - I will proffer this observation... Namely, that the media is NOT some entity that is aloof or separate from "the People", because it's employees are drawn from "the People".
  
  Having worked for a media organisation, I can vouch for the fact that there aren't specialised breeding facilities, where journalists are cloned or conceived in test tubes from carefully selected gametes.
  
  I actually find queries about the media that demonstrate the questioner believes there is some mystical line that is drawn between those who work within/manage/manipulate the media and "ordinary people" - in much the same way that some people seem to think the "Police" or the "Armed Forces" or any other profession/group of humans for that matter beyond their own, is some form of "THEM" rather than "US", to be far more enlightening when it comes to determining who might be to blame (if there's blame to be apportioned) for falling prey to simplistic sloganeering or failing to demand higher standards of their so-called leaders.
  
  The media just reflects the society it exists within. Why is it so easy for those who fall prey to simplistic sloganeering to supposedly comprehend "market forces", whilst they fail to realise (or maybe more precisely they just don't want to accept) that at the most fundamental level the media, the law, the armed forces, government of all levels, health care etc, etc, etc is made up of people who they've probably gone through school with; rubbed shoulders with at some point or even shared a joke and conversation with.
  
  See the real issue is - accepting that the media is made up of Aussies just like me and you, means if you have a beef with the media, you have to accept that you're just as much to blame; just as if the pollies haven't been held to account for their abysmal standards, we've got to hold oursleves to account for our own abysmal standards given our pollies come from the same suburbs, the same schools, the same streets the same country as the folks having the whinge.
  
  So if you think the media has manipulated the Aussie public, that's nothing more than an admission that there's plenty of your fellow Aussies who not only failed to object to manipulating their fellow citizens; they probably even got their 'rocks off' from doing so, just like many a guy does when he thinks he's got some chick suckered, or some chick does when she reckons she's got a bloke wrapped around her finger...
  
  See!! It's just the lower forms of human behaviour coming to the fore.
  
  Australia has just become a country of baser human capabilities rather than the higher levels of human capability. Rather than seeking co-operation to achieve more than what we are capable of as individuals, we - along with pretty well all of the rest of the World; have taken
  
  Alert moderator
  - peter of mitcham:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:20:42pm
    
    Thanks Steve, it is evident that you worked for the media. I think IPJ meant the owners of the media as corrupters of the social information process. You went off about the journos, I believe.
    
    Alert moderator
Amazed:

13 Feb 2014 9:12:11am

Politicians (of both main persuasions) will not change their spots because what they do works - ie it gets one or other elected on a form of rota.

It is the ideologues and rusted on supporters (of both parties) who are really to blame. Those who create the swings are too few to make a real difference.

Yes it is all of you on sites like this who whine, abuse and criticise but will never use your votes to make a change - is it too hard for you to do something that will make a positive difference - stop voting on the basis of ideology alone.

Alert moderator
- Steve_C:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:19:15am
  
  Shouldn't that be "Idle-ology" Amazed?
  
  Though I do recognise that in many a living Aussies' case it is "Idol-ogy"; given the ordinary person they've chosen to put on a pedestal engenders the sorts facial expressions of fawning adoration mixed with near orgasmic sensations that used to be associated with the sort of religious experiences that'd get one canonised!!
  
  Sure - Australia may not have as many regular church goers as it used to; nor for that matter as many declared followers of an organised religion... but when you've got politicians setting themselves up (or not actually objecting to being set up) as the next best alternative for those with a "hole" to fill in their lives that revolves around "belief" - it seems to me that 'ideo' ought to more actually reflect the real situation by being spelt in a more appropriate fashion.
  
  Perhaps "Idiot - ogy"?
  
  Alert moderator
Kitty:

13 Feb 2014 9:13:47am

The slogan government we have belongs entirely to MSM. It's performance so far shows incompetence and a determination to implant ideology throughout the economy and society. Could you imagine the headlines and journalists rantings if this was occurring a year ago? We know the bias and manipulation of Murdoch's machine disguised as news, which is unacceptable, but others joined the feeding frenzy and Australians were betrayed.
Abbott said trust me he wasn't a liar like that witch Gillard, he was a man of honour and religion not like that foul woman born of the devil and journalists praised his rhetoric. Now it seems the shear bulk of lies is acceptable and passes without accountability and journalists are now praising acting ability rather than service and responsibility.
We have a government of secrets serving self interest with taxpayers money and betraying the very basics of democracy. We have journalists too scared/unable?? to do their job and you have to wonder where is Australia heading? Will the damage be as great as that done by Dubya Bush, will our promise and potential be handed to the few, will money, power and corruption be the legacy? Will we allow Australia to be the land of fear, hate and anger or do we make a stand and demand accountability?

Alert moderator
- Pete the Eagle:
  
  13 Feb 2014 12:01:12pm
  
  Now Now Kitty. How could Abbott possibly be a liar. After all he rocks up at church every Sunday along with Christopher Pyne.
  I wonder if they lie in the confessional.
  
  Alert moderator
  - GJA:
    
    13 Feb 2014 2:41:09pm
    
    They don't have to lie in the confessional because they receive absolution for the lies they confess. That's how it works. So long as they are repentent, they are washed clean in the blood of the lamb again and again. If only they were like Lady Macbeth, we could see them for what they are.
    
    Alert moderator
Ozcchucky:

13 Feb 2014 9:15:21am

Thank you Jonathon,
The Labor vs LNP tug of war is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I think this is one reason why there is increasing reliance on slogans to motivate the electors into stuffing bits of marked paper into ballot boxes. The electors are becoming tired and worried.

Tired ? Same old, same old "bosses vs unions", bashing each other with fry pans.

Worried ? The electors are worried that both sides effectively operate on the following principles;
*. If it moves, shoot it.
*. If it doesn't, chop it down,
*. What's left ? Dig it up.

Consequently, a third force has entered politics. It is fuelled by increasing disquiet that we are trashing our home. Permanently.

In modern times, I can recall only two Australian political leaders who understood how to manage the new tripolity; Rupert Hamer and Steve Bracks.

Recently, however, the old Lobor LNP warhorses are desperately trying to push the conservation movement and it's political voice off the battleground, only because they are not aligned in the "bosses vs unions" brawl. That said, neither side is rejecting second preference votes via the Greens.

We cannot bring back Rupert, but we can bring back Steve..............l

Alert moderator
Nickit2011:

13 Feb 2014 9:21:41am

I find it interesting that this is (at the least) the second article you have written that points the finger at 'the media' - the very same media that you are a part of! The very same person that repeated the 'twaddle'. Where was your critical questioning when it was relevant and necessary for the voters to make informed decisions? Where was your journalistic integrity, pushing for the truth when all sides of politics were sloganeering? It is quite unbelievable to me that now, after the fact, you are prepared to point the finger at 'the media' as if it is a completely separate entity to your profession. You are a part of this debacle - a word that has now been intrinsically linked to the words 'pink batts' - thanks to the unbiased and reasonable reporting during the Labor government (lol)....some people may argue that this is one of the best examples of blinkered opinion writing, and other, harsher critics may even describe it as the height of hypocrisy. On another note, I think that if the unintended consequence of the current government's focus on the ABC is that you return to factual reporting and a clear separation between reporting and opinion, that has to be a good thing.

Alert moderator
pete:

13 Feb 2014 9:23:11am

Does Tony "Pinochet" Abbot know what he is doing? The only thing missing is his green trailer with the word "Jim's Government" written on the side

Alert moderator
meredith:

13 Feb 2014 9:27:21am

When you look back at the past six years, there was an absolute determination by the Coalition (with Abbott in control) and the Murdoch press to get rid of the Rudd/Gillard Government. There was no concern for the national interest or how they were affecting outcomes that would have benefited Australia. Even the GFC crisis was ignored to a certain extent by the Coalition and their friends in the press corp. They had their goal in sight and at every opportunity they sought to pull down and destroy what they said was a "bad" Government. Some of us ignored what was written on a daily basis by a biased press and read factual accounts of the true picture of our economy, as well as just how the hung Parliament was functioning day to day (it actually was functioning very well with much legislation being passed). So now we have come to the present, and PM Abbott has got his way and so have the Murdoch press - but at what cost. So many of us are shallow fools only interested in infotainment as opposed to deep thought. I really despair of just where this country is headed.

Alert moderator
Gordon:

13 Feb 2014 9:29:10am

Offering thoughtful policy detail died when (A) Barry Jones was crucified for "Noodle Nation" and (B) John Hewson's policies were shot down by Keating who then pinched many of them. Our pollies learned that the mob don't want ideas they want blood sport, and they learned it well.

Alert moderator
DaveS:

13 Feb 2014 9:29:45am

An easy read Jonathon , cheers.
Can I amend your "...parliamentary terms and will involve comprehensive reimagining of what it might be to be an Australian economy in the 21st century."
to
"..parliamentary terms and will involve comprehensive reimagining of what it might be to be an AUSTRALIAN in the 21st century." as egalitarianism seems to be this Govts biggest imagined enemy. Any Union or worker IS the problem rather than part of the solution.
The newest slogan appears to be the nonsensical 'Govt doesn't create jobs' when surely not all that is profitable is of social value as all jobs of social value aren't profitable. Firemen , Police , Doctors , Nurses etc.
Then weve had to put up with our vainglorious treasurer espousing his views about the 'age of entitlement being over and individual responsibility beginning'. Tell that to the Defence force members that have had allowances taken away , tell it to the disabled , shout it at the workers of SPC .... then stop our politicians from claiming bike rides , wedding attendances etc and we may even listen for a minute.
The Australia that you and I grew up with is under attack by an ideology that is no part of our national psyche yet is being forced upon us by a select few in the hope of advancing their own prospects at the expense of ours.

Alert moderator
fizzer:

13 Feb 2014 9:34:41am

Err, uhm, err, my team will, uhm, err, come up with some, uhm, carefully crafted, ahh, slogans to get us out of the, uhm, ahh, mess that Labour, ahh, the Greens, uhm, err, the union thugs and the inner suburban drug-crazed hippies left us in.

Alert moderator
- rabbie:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:01:55am
  
  fizzer, immediately identifiable as Tony Abbott. Well done.
  
  I now turn the volume off on my television whenever he speaks because I can't stand the sound interference to my set.
  
  Alert moderator
  - Cobber:
    
    13 Feb 2014 4:59:38pm
    
    Well, just think of the power you will save over the next 15 years.
    
    Alert moderator
- peter of mitcham:
  
  13 Feb 2014 3:59:46pm
  
  Well done, fizzer. I seem to remember PM Gillard's voice being a problem for Tony and his merry men. BTW, you forgot the startling click of the tongue, CLACK, between union and thugs.
  
  Alert moderator
bide and fecht:

13 Feb 2014 9:38:06am

Wholeheartedly agree. The commercial media are hell bent on frightening the sh*t out of stupid people. Its immaterial whether its an election, or today. I turned the TV off on election night and its rarely been on since except for iview. Until we demand better behaviour from our policitians, and insist on reading or watching intelligent debate produced by our media then we'll suffer the consequences.

Alert moderator
Guru73:

13 Feb 2014 9:41:47am

Unfortunately many voters are too young to remember how the Howard government spent money on tax cuts instead of infrastructure. Labor may have inherited a surplus but also a lot of work to do to right the wrongs they also inherited. Has nobody noticed how the school hall spending helped local communities by providing jobs & income to local areas? Small projects - not the big Snowy Mountains Scheme of Menzies. We were paying 16% on our mortgage when John Howard was treasurer! Fiscal management came at a price for the "ordinary battler".

Alert moderator
- din:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:21:39am
  
  16% of 100,000 is a lot less than 6% of 1,000,000
  
  Alert moderator
  - Tator:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:38:03pm
    
    You also have to realise that in the 80's and 90's, households had a lot less discretionary income due to most families being one income families and the tax rates were a lot more oppressive with people on average incomes paying 40 cents in the dollar tax as their top rate. Compare that with around 80% of taxpayers paying 33 cents in the dollar as their top rate now and most families having two incomes plus increased family tax benefits compared to the 80's and 90's.
    
    Alert moderator
  - JOP:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:41:47pm
    
    And, of course, the average income was just a tad lower back then so it all balances out. Million dollar house, are you one of those 'working poor' western suburbs people on only $150k pa?
    
    Alert moderator
  - John:
    
    13 Feb 2014 12:46:27pm
    
    din, that is a totally misleading post.
    
    First, $100,000 was not the median price of a house under Paul Keating's 19% interest regime. And secondly, $1,000,000 is not the median price of a house under today's mortgage rate of between 5% and 5.5%.
    
    Home loan interest rates were 19% when Paul Keating was Federal Treasurer in 1991. In February 1991 the median price for a modest three bedroom house in my outer Sydney suburb was $165,000. So your claim of $100,00 is simply wrong. The interest on that loan of $165,000 at 19% would have been $31,350 per year.
    
    The median weekly income across Australia in 1991 was about $570 per week. Therefore in 1991 your total wage would have been about $30,000, so you would have been paying more on your home loan than your wage. That was why borrowers like my wife and I had two jobs each. The bank split our mortgage into two parts - a first mortgage of the amount the bank calculated that our income would support and then a second mortgage, at much higher interest, on the amount "over-borrowed". And to even get to that offer we had to beg the bank to accept that we would defer having children until after the second mortgage had been repaid. If you couldn't get past your Bank Manager like that you had to resort to underhand tricks like borrowing from parents and friends to increase your deposit but hiding those loans from your application.
    
    In February 2014 that same house would cost about $720,000. The interest on that loan would be about 5-5.5%, or about $36,000 per year. The median weekly income in 2013 was about $1,300. As this makes an annual salary about $67,500 you would be paying about 54-55% of your income.
    
    Please don't try to tell me that things are tougher today than they were twenty years ago.
    
    Alert moderator
Oaktree:

13 Feb 2014 9:45:21am

Rubbish in, rubbish out.

If people fell for the simplistic slogans, they will get a simplistic government.

Bit of an indictment on the educational system. We used to do "Critical Thinking" as part of our English studies at school. What happened to that?

Alert moderator
David:

13 Feb 2014 9:54:21am

' It was the debate we probably deserved' no it was the debate we did not get, what we got was a opposition leader called Abbott who with Hockey were allowed to prance around the country, promoted by an adoring Murdoch press and radio ' shock jocks' who allowed allowed them freedom to demonise asylum seekers, constantly talk down and spread fear about our economy. This same media constantly found ways to belittle the then Government. Not many media organisations bothered to look into the ' slogans' or find the truth behind them. Now we have this fool Abbott in Government, who along with most of his team have little idea on how to Govern. They have spent the last three months blaming Labor or the Greens for their stupid mistakes or brainless ideas, or hiding behind Operational on Water Matters. Now they switch the attack to solely blame the Unions for everything. They have been caught out lying both about SPC and Toyota, but no, we only thought we heard those lies. I am sick to my stomach watching Hockey yell and bluster and try to use standover tactics to take the attention away from his own stupidity. The last government imploded on itself, but this one just continues to lie, they cannot for the life of them be up front about anything. The Medibank sale, a perfect example, has it been sold? A good slogan would be . ' get rid of this tool and fool Abbott '

Alert moderator
Steve:

13 Feb 2014 9:57:59am

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" as Colonal Jessup would way.

Neither party was forthcoming about what needed to be done by the next government because Australian voters do not want to hear the truth.

Voters punish the politicians who lay out the stark reality: Australia is living beyond its means, changes will need to be made, many people will get less from the government and have to pay more.

The media punishes straight-forward talking by politicans by giving a megaphone to every weeping or angry voice because conflict and dispute sells/rates better, and our politicians usually want to kick the can of difficult choices down the road so some other muggins has to get their hands dirty when the funding crisis hits.

We don't get the politicians we deserve.

We get the politicians we demand act that way.

Alert moderator
- ArtfulDodger:
  
  13 Feb 2014 11:10:17am
  
  'Neither party was forthcoming about what needed to be done by the next Government because Australian voters do not want to know the truth"
  Aint that the truth-however it is difficult to know the truth if you do not question-enquire -research-join all of the dots and you believe the slogans.
  Maybe that is because as the world we live in is far too complex for us to comprehend-which suits the fraudsters.
  
  Alert moderator
Helen:

13 Feb 2014 9:58:52am

Jonathon, I find the "we" a bit galling. Speak for yourself. Have a look at political blogs like Andrew Elder's "Politically Homeless" and the group blog "Larvatus Prodeo" which recently wound up, as well as John Quiggin's blog, Club Troppo and others.
The press gallery and news media have failed us. Why do they not ask the hard questions? Why don't they steer the conversation towards policy matters and expose the poverty of some of the LNP "arguments"? Why did they spend the entire leadup to the last election obsessing about Teh Leadership, to the exclusion of these things?
If by "we" you mean "the voting public", I'm sorry, but as the people who supposedly keep the voting public informed, you lot really dropped the ball. All of you.
One more blog suggestion - "the failed estate" by Mr Denmore. Required reading for all journos and opinionistas.

Alert moderator
Mitor the Bold:

13 Feb 2014 10:01:20am

Stop Tony Abbott! That's the only slogan that made any sense. We didn't pay heed so enjoy the ride.

Alert moderator
- Helvi:
  
  13 Feb 2014 12:44:41pm
  
  Mitor, that's was a mighty clever slogan you came up with...I'm laughing out loud...
  
  Alert moderator
  - Cobber:
    
    13 Feb 2014 5:02:59pm
    
    Yep, and with that the extent of intellectual thought Labor gave to the last parliament and election, no wonder you lost big and got the ultimate empty-suit Shorten as your new leader.
    
    Alert moderator
john:

13 Feb 2014 10:04:14am

'Stop the boats' - is happening
'stop the waste' - is in train
'get rid of the carbon tax' - will happen

Sure they are slogans but if you removed the green/red blinkers Mr Green you'd see things are happening. Secondly these LNP slogans (underpinned by working policies) are far better than the divisive, gutter tactics and ALP slogans that we were continuously told was 'in the national interest' but amounted to nothing. Another ALP/Green/Oakeshotte/Windsor straw man tale to hide economic incompetence was that 'government revenue has declined'.

After 6 years of slogans and nothing (the education revolution = a building...please) we now have a government whose slogans actually materialize into actions with few hidden surprises.

Alert moderator
- JOP:
  
  13 Feb 2014 12:48:45pm
  
  'Underpinned by working policies'? Surely you jest. I do like how you've added to the Abbott slogans with your own explanatory two word slogans (OK, one is three I'll give you that). As for the 'few hidden surprises', I direct you back to your first slogan. The whole thing is hidden! I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
  BTW, seen any new jobs recently, they seem to have gone missing...
  
  Alert moderator
- DWM:
  
  13 Feb 2014 12:53:57pm
  
  'Stop the boats' - is not happening they are only turning them around.
  'stop the waste' - the waste is being increased
  'get rid of the carbon tax' - will not happen with current senate and will only add to the budget deficit.
  
  think you need to remove your blinkers and see this government for what it really is, an incompetent, spiteful and vindictive rabble left over from the profligate spending Howard era. they are fiddling while Rome burns and know not what to do apart from cut the soul out of Australia.
  
  Alert moderator
- GJA:
  
  13 Feb 2014 2:47:24pm
  
  What exactly are these working policies? Stop the Boats seems to have quite a few, including the use of and lack of communciation between the Navy and Customs, the alleged abuse of refugees, handing out lifeboats, etc. Stop the Waste, by which I presume you mean something in relation to the deficit, is waiting on the Commission of Audit report at the end of January, oh, no, sorry, middle of February, er . . . . Well, that's working fine! Repeal of the carbon tax may come about - in July - or not, including the possibility of a double-dissolution.
  
  So nice to be self-satisfied and smug.
  
  Alert moderator
- peter of mitcham:
  
  13 Feb 2014 4:03:24pm
  
  John I think Abbott has only replaced leaky boats with water tight ones. So the LNP are now people smugglers. We got rid of Julia's cash for clunkers and replaced it with loot for lifeboats.
  
  Alert moderator
Artful Dodger:

13 Feb 2014 10:08:24am

Thanks Jonathan for another insightful article-which will attract the usual comments from the rusted ons.

Thought I would quote a few words from some of the sages of history:
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms" Aristotle.
History shows that most despots used 'slogans" on their road to power.

'I never desired to please the rabble. What pleased them I did not understand; and what I knew was far removed from their understanding" Epicurus.

'Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for the hopes of the instructed are better than the wealth of the ignorant' Epictetus
Not much of that "instruction" in our schools, politics or MSM.

'He who is unable to live in a society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god" Aristotle.
Going by some of the comments from the deluded ;free marketers" I would say they act like beasts who think they are God.

"Democracy is when the indigent and not men of property, are the rulers" Aristotle- the rulers are the Corporate/Financial capitalist crooks-with a little help from union boses.

'Bankers are more dangerous to our sovereignt and freedom than standing armies and asylum seekers"
President Adams-with a little help from me.

Alert moderator
Realist1:

13 Feb 2014 10:08:33am

Gee Jonathan, you completely ignore why and how an opposition party could actually win such a landlside, if as you say, they have no policies. Lets see 24 hour news cycle made up of emotive drama with little to no substance. Media outlets trying to get a scoop effectively creating the news and participating in the downfall of Labor leaders. The media has dumbed down the whole debate to the point a complete article is written on blue ties!!! Its time the pathetic and lazy journo's had a good hard look in your own back yard first!!! Bias on all sides has become the focal point. A clear lack of abiltiy to ask a real follow up question, 10 sec grabs for TV and you dare accuse Politicains, of all persuasions of slogans. Media created slogans many years ago and stopped real journalism many years ago. Time for the return or real journos!!!

Alert moderator
- scottbellson:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:52:26am
  
  I'm with you, Realist1. The standards of reporting during the last election and for long time in the lead-up to it have just been abysmal. Of the whole parliamentary press gallery, there's two at most, who still do their actual job rather than just pass along the press releases they're fed.
  Hearing Journalists bemoan the state of the debate after being such an integral part of it is just infuriating.
  
  Alert moderator
Hannah:

13 Feb 2014 10:12:23am

Many of us tried to open a debate on policy, urged the media to do their job, and pointed out what was being offered were nothing more than slogans without detail. Few listened, and now, we're stuck with what could well turn out to be one of the darkest periods in the Commonwealth's history.

If nothing else, we must insist on transparency - as promised by Abbott - so we know not only what is going on, but why.

Mature adults don't fear scrutiny. Nor do true democratic governments.

Alert moderator
Harquebus:

13 Feb 2014 10:13:10am

Politicians continue to lie to us. It's all very well to blame the public but, it is journalists that let them get away with it. It's "we" and "us" when there's blame looking for a culprit. The culprit is never MSM eh?
Things have been deteriorating for quite some time Jonathan. Where were ya?

Alert moderator
andrew:

13 Feb 2014 10:15:01am

You want the truth presented before the election? You (the electorate) cant handle the truth. If either side had said we are living beyond our means here are the cuts / increased taxes to come they would be instantly unelectable. The electorate wants to play pain free in cotton wool - like a spoilt child without responsibility - hold on to past bribes

Alert moderator
Tom1:

13 Feb 2014 10:15:01am

This article is long overdue. The MSM was obviously obsessed with the task of getting rid of Labor, on more than News Corp.

Did you ever see a question "How". How will you go about doing all of these things.

Pledges and promises should come after well thought out policies, but they did not. Motherhood statements worked for the then opposition, but now they are faced with reality.

At least Labor had a vision in health and education, and took positive action to counter the GFC. The LNP has shown us that had the GFC happened on their watch, they would be still thinking about it. No doubt they would have formed a committee.

The opposition mode is still with them Have you noticed that every time one of the "Anointed ones" appears before a camera he quotes the figure of $600 bn in debt if left unchecked, in a decade. Why not say $1200bn in two decades, that sounds worse.

Now to save them having to do anything they are proposing to sell off all remaining Commonwealth and state assets. Not exactly a sign of the adults being in charge using their brains to bring about fiscal responsibility. It is a bit like the lazy farmer selling the plough to put food on the table to save the trouble of putting in a crop.

Alert moderator
- Seano:
  
  13 Feb 2014 11:52:41am
  
  "At least Labor had a vision in health and education, and took positive action to counter the GFC. "
  
  Yes health, what a vision. Stubborn refusal by the 'health industry' to prescribe my most vital medicine between 2007 and 2009, even after 18 days in ICU against my will, until I could escape overseas* to get it. I'm now surviving day-to-day on the remaining few 5mg prednisolone tablets I was able to stockpile between 2010 and Easter 2013. If I'm lucky I'll keep breathing until April Fool's Day. Visions of health to you too.
  
  Education! That's the way to affluent modern life. I enrolled in 2nd semester 2007, paid the money, went to the lectures for two weeks, until Centrelink vetoed my course because the job-network woman from New Zealand who suggested it had quit and nobody else believed what I told them she told me.
  
  Try, try again in 1st semester 2009, and once again, Centrelink refused to approve the Austudy until after the HECS deadline, so there goes another degree.
  
  Talk about education. You ought to try it yourself and see how much you can learn about bureaucracies in less than a single semester. Do you really think that I could have been the only one out of 23 million people who got fooled by the Big Government twice in a row?
  
  GFC. Positive action at vote-buying by Ms Gillard with her personally signed letter to go with the $1,000 in preparation for the 2010 election. We must give her credit for her 'vision'.
  
  * this escape was after 34 months of denial by Centrelink, during which they lost the original documentation I provided in early 2007. Again, the woman I provided the medical reports had left the job. It was 'archived' and nobody could be bothered to find it, so they concocted some fantastic story to put me on the pension and get me out of their office.
  
  Do you think I get warm fuzzy feelings when someone mentions how wonderful the visions of the ALP government between 2010 and 2013? Do you blame me?
  
  Alert moderator
  - GJA:
    
    13 Feb 2014 2:50:16pm
    
    You had problems with bureaucracies and blame the government in power at the time. Heaven help the LNP if anything goes wrong over the next three years!
    
    Alert moderator
    - Seano:
      
      13 Feb 2014 8:45:01pm
      
      "You had problems with bureaucracies and blame the government in power at the time."
      
      I see your reading comprehension is on the improve, GJA. Thank you for offering to assist with this dilemma.
      
      Given that I can no longer physically do the hard manual labour that I have been employed for 90% of my working life in over 200 different jobs, (because I used to 'look' very fit in the job-network office) ...
      
      ...and every time I have tried to further my education since 2007, Centrelink have thwarted my attempts, so I cannot get an office job ...
      
      ... and I can't go overseas since 2013 to buy the cortico-steroids that permit me to breathe, and what few pills I have left are due to run out by the end of March, and no doctor I have been to see (apart from one who I respect greatly for his curing my 18 year old lower back injury in 2001 <we almost came to blows in his office after 8 months of his refusal in July 2009 before he signed the prescription>) since 2007 will write the prescription, so I am resigned to a (short) life of perpetual welfare and running out the one medication that has prolonged my life since July 21st 2009 ...
      
      ... how would you suggest that I should survive ?
      
      "Heaven help the LNP if anything goes wrong over the next three years!"
      
      Things couldn't get much more wrong than they went for the past six years.
      
      Alert moderator
Alison Cann:

13 Feb 2014 10:15:41am

Jonathan,
The Gillard Government were hogtied, cut to bits and knackered by the aggressiveness of the Abbott Opposition when Gillard's government held only one vote in their favour. The Gillard Government went through what the Victorian government is now going through with Geoff Shaw.
Julia Gillard gave her speech on misogyny because she was thwarted on policy in parliament and fought Abbott with slogans and speeches rather than policy. It lead to the deterioration of the economy. And we started to go into debt.
Tony Abbott as the then leader of the Opposition wanted to win the political war. On his side was Kevin Rudd who also wanted to be PM. And Kevin won back his place as PM but he also could not sustain the good fight against the aggressive street fighter and brawling of Abbott. And now Tony Abbott is prime minister he can't change his tactics. He is still the aggressive Opposition leader in the PM's clothes.
Why does not Tony Abbott act as a prime minister and put down forward policy and lead the Australian nation out of the shocking mess he caused in Opposition?
Where is the Government's Economic Policy? Where is the economic policy for the women of Australia?
How is the Government's Parental Leave Scheme going so we can all have a baby?

Alert moderator
- meredith:
  
  13 Feb 2014 12:07:56pm
  
  I agree with your comment Alison. The thing is Abbott was never as good as he made himself out to be. I believe he has an agenda of taking Australia down a very narrow path with no vision for the future of this country. At least Rudd and Gillard had a vision - NBN for instance which the experts say was all about Australia competing in the global economy. Emissions trading - another policy for a long term view of just how Australia is going to operate in the new paradigm with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, neither Rudd or Gillard could put this in language that the ordinary man in the street could fathom. They were too busy listening to slogans from Tony Abbott, shock jocks and the like.
  
  Alert moderator
- john:
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:04:27pm
  
  Delusional stuff Alison Cann. What an extraordinary (mis)understanding of the political process.
  
  If you cared to look carefully at the 2007-13 period you'd have noticed that the ALP was in government. That they failed to act on much was hardly the fault of the opposition leader. To suggest Abbott was responsible for the fiscal disaster of the period is astonishing - the treasury was controlled by Wayne Swan and the nervous ALP cabal who spent like drunken sailors. Perhaps you should be looking closer to home (your beloved ALP and that idiot Swan in particular) for the reasons for the mess that Abbott is currently fixing.
  You ask, 'Why doesn't Tony Abbott act as a prime minister ....and solve the mess he created as opposition leader?'; what an astonishing question. The reality is, you wouldn't given Abbott credit if he repaid the ALP/Green Debt in his first term - there would always be something mundane to complain about.
  
  Alert moderator
  - GrumpyOldMan:
    
    13 Feb 2014 3:10:37pm
    
    John says ... "If you cared to look carefully at the 2007-13 period you'd have noticed that the ALP was in government."
    
    And if you ... cared to look carefully at the 2007-13 period you'd have noticed that the GFC created by your greedy, free market mates/criminals trashed the economies of the majority of advanced economies with the notable exception of Australia because Rudd/Swan cleverly, and selectively, stimulated the local economy by going into moderate debt.
    
    You, and your Dear Leader, and other members of the 'Born to Rule Fan Club', could never accept that such a successful economic policy was implemented by Labor, so you mounted a concerted, vigorous and ultimately successful campaign of lies and misinformation to bring the Labor government down and claim the Australian economy was in a mess which needed to be 'rescued' by the 'adults' in the LNP. This was the most reprehensible and unpatriotic behaviour we have seen by any Opposition, yet you continue to defend that policy-free zone that is the LNP.
    
    Tony Abbott never accepted Gillard as the legitimate PM of Australia, yet he expects the 'progressives' in Australia to accept and trust anything and everything he says. Dream on John!
    
    Abbott is such a negative, divisive and ignorant force in this country he will cannot help but create social, economic and environmental chaos.
    
    Alert moderator
    - The Other John:
      
      13 Feb 2014 5:29:38pm
      
      So the GFC was Abbott's fault as well, Grumpy?
      
      I am surprised you haven't demanded his whereabouts on the grassy knoll back in 1963? Perhaps it was Abbott who killed Laura Palmer in Twin Peaks? What about Abbott stealing the cookie from the cookie jar?
      
      Alert moderator
    - GrumpyOldMan:
      
      13 Feb 2014 7:12:25pm
      
      TOJ says ... "So the GFC was Abbott's fault as well, Grumpy?"
      
      Did I really say that? Or is that conclusion just a product of another defective conservative brain?
      
      Alert moderator
  - Cobber:
    
    13 Feb 2014 5:04:49pm
    
    Yes John, it's the ultimate delusion that the left will never, ever come to grips with.
    
    Alert moderator
GrumpyOldMan:

13 Feb 2014 10:16:40am

Good article Jonathan.

The reliance of the conservatives on slogans and avoidance of facing up to 'inconvenient truths', and the fact that we let them get away with it is one of the weaknesses of a democratic system that can be dominated by the 24-hour news cycle, and the desperation of failing media empires to spin news out of nothing. Maybe it is worth drawing the comparison between the failing car manufacturing industry and the failing 'news creation' industry.

You are probably right to suggest the previous government was 'road kill', but at least they had many visionary policies which got sidelined by a GFC, and got little media coverage and meaningful public debate while the media circus continued unabated.

But unfortunately we now have to live with a government that is committed to implementing infantile slogans which have never been subjected to the kind of policy development and debate they demanded. As a result Abbott and his merry band of policy light-weights are wandering down the freeway dodging on-coming B-triples, with the inevitable result that they will become 'road kill' at the next election.

Alert moderator
- RosieA:
  
  13 Feb 2014 4:27:36pm
  
  I wish I could agree with you, Grumps, about the government becoming road kill at the next election. I am no longer so sure. I think I am beginning to see what is happening and that is, that the educated, thinking, caring and concerned Australian is being wedged between business, which is only concerned with business, and the uneducated, disinterested Australian. The latter only cares about his own life, believes that all he has and benefits from, is the result of his own hard work and has no understanding of the complexity of the world and how it functions.
  
  The Government is changing our culture and way of life, and destroying our environment, to suit international corporations and the business world and who are obviously supportive of the Government. They use slogans and actions that will appeal to the uninformed (no tax, stop the boats, etc) so as to add this large group to their support base. Those in between, the informed, educated, caring Australians who respect other humans, other beings and our environment are not important. We do not form a support base for this Government and never will and so the Government doesn't care one iota about what this group thinks or says. We are being dismissed as "bleeding heart" progressives, as academics, as scientists involved in conspiracies of world government and in other such terms as will appeal to the ignorant and misinformed.
  
  It is time to be deeply troubled by what is happening and not rely on the next election to turn things around.......it may be too late.
  
  Alert moderator
DAMO:

13 Feb 2014 10:24:37am

Great article
Neither of the Liberal parties are worth a pinch of salt although Shortens Liberals are marginally better.
The problem we have now is the rise of the Dumb Aussie as the vote winner.
We all know one , they love shows like The Block , Dancing with the stars and My Kitchen rules.
They are more interested in the sports news than keeping up with current events.
They have the mentality that says " I know politicians suck but what can we do ? "
They have almost no social conscience and believe " I got where i am by hard work , so anyone else is just a bludger " , but lacking the intelligence to THINK that everyone's circumstances and upbringings differ
Jeff Kennett appealed to the same fools here in Victoria and maintained power for a long time just on their vote alone.
This is a great country but now the majority are just greedy self interested morons just like our idol America

Alert moderator
- IanM:
  
  13 Feb 2014 11:12:05am
  
  Well done Damo, the contempt you have for your fellow "Block , Dancing with the stars and My Kitchen rules" watching Australians explains the Green's share of the popular vote better than anything I've seen here for ages.
  
  Alert moderator
Seano:

13 Feb 2014 10:28:27am

" if our media had pushed harder for more considered responses and insisted that the electoral argument go beyond clich? and slogan,"

This will be a good test to see if a comment can render clich? for cliche or if it will render as 'clich?' like they usually do when I summon my Canadian multilingual style kbd driver.

Media invented the 'boat buyback' slogan, for one thing. It comes down to the IQ and attention span of the average journo.

If not slogans and clich?s, reporters respond more enthusiastically to creatively devised thought bubbles and emotional appeals. This requires either a raised voice or some sort of 'death stare' for the cameras, very brief mention of anything factual, and then focus on some related but not resultant travesty which tugs on the heart strings of the 'average' MKR watcher to whom fiction is not as strange as truth. It doesn't need to make sense to sink into their minds.

Alert moderator
GrumpyOldMan:

13 Feb 2014 10:35:28am

I would also like to make a point about sloganism and labour costs in Australia.

Anyone watching commercial TV is constantly bombarded with ads and slogans promoting products and life style that are simply unaffordable for, and largely irrelevant to, the vast majority of working families. Yet, if working Australians get 'sucked into' the consumer-oriented world that gets shovelled out of our TVs every day and night, they will go to their unions (or bosses) and demand higher wages to pay for these often useless products.

Isn't it about time we had some discussion on the link between the continual need of commercial TV for advertising revenue and the rising cost of production in Australia as workers get sucked into the 'consumer society' they promote? Does this link exists, and do we need to think about regulating the dying commercial TV industry to avoid making manufacturing industries in Australia less competitive?

Alert moderator
- Nickit2011:
  
  13 Feb 2014 5:07:20pm
  
  My partner calls this phenomenon 'consumer nirvana' - the continual striving, not for the purpose of enlightenment, but for the sense of power that 'belonging' seems to give some people, and they have been led to believe that the only way to achieve 'success' is to consume, not just necessities, but lots of things that distract us from the lack of meaning in our lives ;-)
  
  Alert moderator
Huonian:

13 Feb 2014 10:38:49am

Politicians will keep giving us slogans for as long as the media reward them by publishing those slogans.

Politicians will avoid policy detail for as long as the media are preoccupied with trying to get a gotcha moment. The lesson from Hewson's defeat in 1993 was that it is political suicide to publish detailed policies. Because the media can be relied upon to give a lot of publicity to the scaremongering of the other side. Without checking whether that scaremongering has any basis whatsoever.

Check any newspaper or news bulletin - how much is real news and how much is just media release? No wonder the parties and the activists resort to so much spin. It works!

Alert moderator
p.a.travers:

13 Feb 2014 10:40:40am

Got any relatives back in Dear old England!? Mobile and landline out!? Could be,that Abbott has the same problem as anyone else.If you know there are implications from some places,locations and events,like the Australian based agencies,businesses or whatever,even though one may have a very serious problem,where it cannot be even begin to be resolved is how it is unraveling elsewhere.I don't know what impact the terrible wether in Britain is doing to what are considered presently as legitimate business relations in Australia,social relationships,and family and friends.Seeing Abbott is a bit of a Britophile one would expect the distraction would be large.

Alert moderator
Weary:

13 Feb 2014 10:49:53am

Jonathan has said what I have noted for some years; the political class has failed Australia. All have sought refuge in slogans and other cliches that disguise rent-seeking or worse.
I live here but this is not my country anymore - I have neither respect nor recognition of the Government. I will not be a party to this social contract.
Australians should be ashamed but they are too busy worrying about their "negative gearing" or some other rort. MDG's anyone? Global poverty? Global warming? Nah! we are too stupid, too greedy and too selfish. Well, I have counted myself out and try to avoid any mention of Australia when overseas or any dealings whatsover with the "authorities". As for the nationalists/patriots who will attack me for not sharing their views; I do not give a fig!

Alert moderator
Mark O:

13 Feb 2014 10:51:33am

I actually blame twitter and the 24 hr news cycle.

Who the hell has the chance to coherently outline a position when the journos have a deadline every ten minutes = Journos hungry for "news" every 10 minutes. Our pollies are so scared of saying the wrong thing, they end up saying nothing at all.

Get rid of all the bloody media advisers and lets hear the actual opinions of the elected officials.

Get rid of door stops. Journos - work harder and get a story, not a grab. Get an appointment and sit down for considered discussions. Evaluate facts. Present facts. Stop dumbing it all down to 12 yo level.

Alert moderator
- Mark O:
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:35:14pm
  
  addendum: Journos should also stop asking asinine questions designed to create grab or headline. They usually start with "Can you guarantee.......". No one can guarantee anything in this complex world.
  
  Alert moderator
Mike:

13 Feb 2014 10:53:29am

While the policy offerings published on the LNP website weren't enough to convince me they were right to lead the country, the ALP was still too busy looking for more knives with which to stab each other in the back instead of putting real pressure on the then opposition LNP for a lack of real policy.

In an age when the average voter has an attention span of 2 seconds for politics, it's the failure of the incumbents or opposition to put in to "easy English" the best about themselves and the worst about the rest.

Unfortunately it appears that we have a crop of politicians who are incapable of doing the above instead opting for simple slogans with nothing to back them up should someone in the media actually have the grit to push them for any detail.

Instead we work ourselves up into an ideological outrage which politicians then feed from while adding more fuel to the fire in order to win government or, in other words, they're playing us for suckers and we allow it to happen.

If you're looking for someone to blame, go stand in front of a mirror.

Alert moderator
Rob:

13 Feb 2014 10:59:04am

'In an election reality can be sculpted- in Government it must be confronted"

Fact is Jonthan the reality was even sculpted by an Opposition and a compliant MSM during the term of the divided and dsyfunctional Labor Government- that Government put chisel to stone a couple of times but was easily distracted by the fringe in and out of itself.
The reality is that neither the Government-the opposition nor the public has a damn clue as to what IS the reality.

How many 'Forge"type bad debts do the Banks have on their books-how vulnerable are they, Superannuation, housing and the system generally to another global recession or a local donwturn? Does anyone know that the risk factor is?

With Holden- SPC-Toyota and now Forge realities there is even a more insidious one going on.
A friend owns an accounting and tax firm. Recently he sacked some 70% of his staff (no union to even try to protect them)- he is outsourcing all of his work to the Phillipines and India- the marvels of the internet. But he is still charging his Australian clients the same level of fees as before- money for jam- he pays little or no tax.
How do we deal with that reality- well lets sell Medicare-Qantas and everyting else we still own- lets allow mainland Chinese to buy all our farms and housing. Then what??
Anyone care to make a few suggestions-what about you neocons- do you have any viable ideas?

Alert moderator
Ken:

13 Feb 2014 11:01:02am

"We", "Us" ? Jonathan, "we" the public are dependent upon our journalists and mass media to inform in an unbiased and forthcoming way and "our" journalists let us down big time.

When Tony Abbott is so unforthcoming on climate for example, with the issue ducked and dodged with contradictory statements that hint at a lack of actual acceptance of the science whilst saying he accepts the science, the ABC's journalists did not seek to clarify or insist persistently that Mr Abbott be frank and forthcoming on this critical issue. On the contrary we were allowed to draw our own conclusions; those who care about the climate issue concluding Abbott has no genuine intention of addressing it in any meaningful or effective way, whilst those who think climate is not an issue and oppose action to address it concluding that Abbott has no genuine intention of addressing it in any meaningful way. And journalists were wholly incapable of drawing out of Mr Abbott that he has no genuine intention of addressing it in any meaningful way?

"You" the journalists let us down and continue to do so.

Alert moderator
- Realist1:
  
  13 Feb 2014 12:22:03pm
  
  Actually, the oppsing view is equally valid. The journos have never actually questioned "climate science" in any meaniful way. The media and climate sceince is the best example of journos simply reprinting media releases. When was the last time Sea Sheperad were actually challenegd by any journo!! It works both ways
  
  Alert moderator
rocketman:

13 Feb 2014 11:01:46am

"if our media had pushed harder for more considered responses" - never a truer statement made Jonathon. I presume you only want a more considered response from the Conservatives? After all, you did let Labor get away with whatever it wanted for two terms and didn't raise a yelp.

Alert moderator
Mike (the other one):

13 Feb 2014 11:02:35am

Stifle debate? The way people flit around from TV to computers, to radio, to phones and email and twitter and facebook you can't hold their attention for more than a couple of minutes, if you're lucky.

A one-liner (if it's any good) is about the only way you can get people's attention - and then it won't last long. Rome burned while Nero fiddled - this time it will burn because the people fiddled.

Alert moderator
sirfer:

13 Feb 2014 11:06:03am

Is there anything more painful than watching someone 'stay on message'? It's not just politicians, but commentators as well. They've been given a chance to inform people, and instead no matter what the discussion they bring it back to repeating 'the message'.

The consequences of sloganeering are plain to see with the changing economy. The GFC was a warning everything had to change. From productivity, housing affordability to infrastructure, the community needed to discuss and determine the future. Instead we spent the time (driven by slogans) at each others partisan throats.

Nothing the politicians, MSM and voters were so worked up over has come to pass. But everything they ignored is starting to bite. It's time to stop the sloganeering and discuss the facts. And no more repeating 'the message'.

Alert moderator
aGuy:

13 Feb 2014 11:14:46am

Yet another lefty blaming the language that is being used in the political debate.
At least this article is not nearly as hypocritical as the Per Capita one by avoiding a lot of emotive language in an attempt to argue about deliberately chosen emotive language.

Is the ABC finding it so hard to criticize the current government that it is resorting to any left winged article that complains about language whilst ignoring the fact that Labor, the Greens and everyone else does the same? Interesting that I can not recall such articles when the ALP was in power and the picture at the top is of the Liberals,

If the media is really against simplistic slogans, then it has a responsibility to give praise to detailed plans and compare it to incomplete and lacking plans on the other side. I dont expect to see that happening any time soon because most of the media is against one side or the other of politics.

Alert moderator
Turing:

13 Feb 2014 11:19:36am

Governing with slogans is nothing new. The old Stop the Asian Invasion, is now Stop the Boats ? both are about creating an enemy, and being seen to have the solution for that enemy. Now the boat issue is becoming toxic, we have Royal Commission into Union Corruption. A public enemy is created, the car worker, the SPC worker, and few anecdotes thrown in create a distraction, then wham, they go after the ALP as of course, that new enemy, and the music plays on. The ALP had created class warfare, focusing on what we do not have, the LNP appeals to our fear of losing what we have. Two sides of the same coin really.

It is a shame a lot of opportunity is waisted, fixated on the distraction of a slogan. There is no hardcore policy, just policy on the run as Christopher Pyne is doing, trying to change the curriculum with a bible thumping adviser. Surely a national change to education, involving over a million people, would have a robust consultation, not just slogan to justify it.

The current fixation on the slogan is policy genocide. A lot more time and money is spent on the slogan, rather than consult the electorate creating good policy outcomes.

The very latest, is Privatise the ABC. Usually used when the word, left, is used. Not much thought about the implications of having Murdoch running that also. Or the fact Murdoch has not always been a raving fan of the LNP. Of course he does change support from left to right, depending what government will help his company fill his pockets. When that happens, the slogan will change, but the damage will be done.

Alert moderator
Dissenter:

13 Feb 2014 11:23:19am

There are a number of fallacies in this article Johnathon masquerading as facts.
a) the Deficit is not too great as a proportion of GDP. THat is a fallacy.
b) Labor were not roadkill at the time of the Last election.
Skewed news EVEN on the ABC and SKEWED VIEWS on ABC shows such as Capital Hill and News 24 and other sites exaggerated, distorted and falsified Labors achievements, and Labors policies.
I viewed journalists OPENLY RIDICULING labors chances nudge nudge wink wink and calling the campaign dysfunctional and talking down RUDD.
This was not presenting balance. IT was partisan journalism in the service of LNP.
I am aware of why the 24 hour news channel was set up entirely for the purpose of trivialising LABOR and endorsing LNP.
Well isn't it kind of ironic that now the ABC is under attack for LEFT leaning views HA HA HA.
When the ABC has openly been partisan to the right for the last few years with the 7.30 report interview with Bill SHorten a climactic achievement for TRIVIALISING LABOR.
THE STUPID of Australia should have RESEARCHED and yes ....THOUGHT A THOUGHt about what the LNP might represent and that INCLUDES all the ABC Who staked their CAREERS on misrepresenting LABOR and SKEWING the NEWS and SPEW views for all to see.
As the LNP SYSTEMATICALLY destroys Australia over the next few years I hope you are all proud and I have to say I completely support the preservation of the ABC but I want to see FUNDING substantially cut so that journalists wages are reduced just like the rest of Australia is to be punished.

Alert moderator
Keith Lethbridge Snr:

13 Feb 2014 11:26:44am

G'day Jonathon.

Thanks for your article.

You seem to be calling on political parties to stop spruiking slogans & to start managing the country in a sensible manner.

Yes, that would be nice. However, it could be that governments are well ahead of Percy Public in realising that the changes required to get Australia on a sustainable track are massive, & would be massively unpopular in the short & medium term. That's one of the challenges for democracy.

For example: Worrying about Climate Change might be popular. Doing something about it might not. Protecting the habitats of non-human species might be popular. Keeping our own species within manageable numbers might not. Building cars in Australia might be popular. Paying the required price for them might not.

Under our democratic system, it may not be possible for us to make the transition from a "growth / debt" economy to one based on stability of population & renewable resource management. Too many people will be outraged (as they already are in Greece, Egypt, Thailand & many other countries.)

My recommendation is that we don't take democracy for granted. Work with it, cherish it, protect it & don't expect it to achieve miracles over night.

Regards,

Cobber

Alert moderator
Justo:

13 Feb 2014 11:35:53am

Look, if you start every statment in regard to this Govt with 'we don't care....' they and their policies make alot of sense.
One comment in regard to climate change and sustainable industry. We current have a 75% chance of a weak El Nino forming this year. I would assume that this means a more serve impact of drought - especially in western NSW and QLD. Considering we already have a pretty serve drought going on out there, doesn't this make the whole industry unsustainable? All predictions/forecasts point to a worsening of this situation Therefore it should be cut lose as poorly managed surely - at least given the logic of recent decisions anyway. So lets save Barneby's 7 billion and spend it on innovation and education - if we're in 'Transition' that is what smart people would do

Alert moderator
Gr8Ape:

13 Feb 2014 11:40:53am

We need more players on the field. Both the Labor and Liberal parties are carrying too much historical baggage and both see themselvstudieses as being fundamental elements (rather than players) of government.

I think our best hope is that the parties either fracture into a number of smaller groups or that a vastly increased number of independents enter the parliament.

Take for instance the current situation in Tasmania... minority government where apparently, according to some, the Greens have control of the government. Think about this for a moment. A party that controls somewhere around 5% of the seats in the lower house is so powerful that it can dictate policy. But, but, but... don't the Labor and Liberal parties, when combined, control the balance, control 95%? Then how and why do the Greens (apparently) control the government?

The answer is simple of course. If the Labor and Liberal parties formed a constructive relationship, one that would balance the concerns of the electorate, one that would provide certainty, one that could prove very beneficial to the state and it's people, then there would be no need for the two parties to exist.

Like I previously stated, both the Labor and Liberal parties are carrying too much baggage. They have become bigger and more important then the parliament itself. It's not about governing on behalf of the electorate, is about governing on behalf of the party.

Alert moderator
Whitey:

13 Feb 2014 11:44:45am

The media is at least partly to blame here. How often have we seen media interviewers attack a politician about serious policy, and pull it apart to find a "gotya" moment. We do expect our media to keep us informed, but what happens is smart politicians keep a low profile on serious debate issues, because the cost is too high. Remember John Hewson bringing in an enormously detailed policy on tax reform, and losing the unlosable election as a result. Yes, our adversarial system of politics, and Paul Keatings fear campaign didn't help, but the media did it's bit to ensure that no future politician would be so naive as to introduce real, complex policy reform as an election issue. Keep it simple, stay on message, stick to sound bites. If we don't like it we have to really read policy ourselves, instead of leaving it to commentators to do it for us, and us watch the talking heads dismember it.

Alert moderator
Barnesy:

13 Feb 2014 11:57:49am

In question time when Abbott is asked about 50 000 job losses in car manufacturing sector he ALWAYS goes back to:
1) Carbon tax
2) Carbon tax.
3) Carbon tax.
4) Excessive union negotiated pay rates.

It's literally impossible to get a straight answer out of this bloke on anything. 2 1/2 years to go........sigh.

Alert moderator
Kashi:

13 Feb 2014 12:00:50pm

Slogan: We will stop the boats
Reality: Boats stopped or turned around and no arrivals for 7 weeks now.
Conclusion? Tentative success.
Slogan: We will find the savings
Reality: Commission of audit due to be finished in March and I have every confidence that savings will be found.
Conclusion? Time will tell but the fact that things are in full swing gives me confidence that they will go through with their plans.

Only two that I can think of off the bat, but considering they have only been in for a few months, not a bad start so far.

Alert moderator
- Alpo:
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:33:22pm
  
  Kashi, the boats haven't stopped, they keep coming, but they are turned back to Indonesia, with the end result that we have seriously damaged our relationship with that country.
  They don't need any commission of audit to see where the savings will be found, they already know. Their major criterion for the saving is very simple: where to get the most money with the least political cost.... Let's see how they manage to get out of that conundrum...
  In the meantime unemployment is increasing (to 6%), costs of living are increasing, public services are deteriorating and the polls are going South for this Government... blessed be your poor innocent soul for calling that "not a bad start so far"...
  
  Alert moderator
MJLC:

13 Feb 2014 12:12:44pm

It's interesting to note that the first line in the first comment was; "Slogans are the fodder of advertising". It gets progressively more bizarre the further down the page you go.

The "we" in Mr Green's argument would seem to be a lot more addicted to, and comfortable with, slogans than he is prepared to acknowledge.

In the spirit of that revelation, the best I can come up with is "You get what you pay for".

Alert moderator
GraemeF:

13 Feb 2014 12:15:12pm

The Coalition got a free run from the media. Their smears and lies regarding the state of the economy were reported as the truth. Now in the spirit of Disaster Capitalism they are using those same smears and lies to dish up more failed neo-liberal economics that has only succeeded in creating a wider divide between the rich and the poor. In the heartland of neo-liberal economics, the US, they have levels of poverty not seen since the 1960s. The right wingers call that progress.

The current Coalition government is beholden to narrow corporate interests and have no desire to enhance society. Those that suffer will be distracted by attacks on the latest enemy du jour. The standard divide and conquer tactics.

If you pay attention to details and facts or take advice from experts in the field then you are called names like 'elite' or 'luvvie' or 'lefty' or other childish nonsense names. Being an ignorant bully is a badge of honour in a world where 10 second sound bites reign supreme over complicated and considered statements.

Alert moderator
Mike of Ulster:

13 Feb 2014 12:18:05pm

Not sure I agree that we "let" slogans stifle debate.

The slogans fed out are the result of a lot of expensive work, sub-contracted to the PR trade. That trade has for 50 years, worked hard to find ways that alter what people think, without them being aware of it - despite them being aware.

Evidence: we Aussies, despite knowing better, buy burgers and cola not healthy food. And corproations spend on PR, because they know it's effective in altering thinking and behaviour.

About time politicians showed some restraint on this. Time was, when government advertising was to inform. Now, it seems to be mostly, manufacturing consent.

Alert moderator
Alpo:

13 Feb 2014 12:21:24pm

Slogans?... Let's look at the REALITY: Unemployment at 6% right know.... and going up. Industrial activity.... going down.... Bye bye Tony, the sooner you go, the better!

Alert moderator
- What the:
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:57:37pm
  
  Todays employment figure have nothing to do with the current 5-6 month old government. Holden, ford and Toyota staff are still employed.
  
  Alert moderator
Screw Loose:

13 Feb 2014 12:22:12pm

What happens if Indonesia decides to tow the boats back to Australia?

Alert moderator
- Mike (the other one):
  
  13 Feb 2014 2:39:48pm
  
  Simple - tow them back again and keep doing it. If they can't learn the word NO they might learn what the word limbo means.
  
  Not real fussed about Tony's approach with a lot of things so far but nearly full marks on this issue to date.
  
  Alert moderator
GraemeF:

13 Feb 2014 12:27:22pm

Blind hatred of asylum seekers doesn't do anything for the Australian economy except waste a lot of money.

Haters gotta hate. Economy going down the gurgler and it's a quick 'look over there, someone to hate' for distraction.

Idiots swallow shallow slogans. Have you noticed that slogans and bogans rhyme? As Mark Twain said "history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme". We are heading back to the days of the Robber Barons and there are willing foot soldiers on the right paving the way. Just give them someone to hate and they will rally around the flag, waving bibles and chanting slogans.

Alert moderator
- Mike (the other one):
  
  13 Feb 2014 3:13:44pm
  
  No worse than rallying round an ayatollah, Mecca and a flag with a crescent moon on it. Let's deal with our own infections (including overpopulation) before we start leaving ourselves open to more, while the others consider doing the same (or not, it's up to them). Isolation is one good way to control infection - hate has nothing to do with it, it's just common sense.
  
  Alert moderator
Jason:

13 Feb 2014 12:31:03pm

Jonathan, I also wish there was more policy information and debate before an election (and all the time) too.
But unfortunately the last time a party did this the Australian people and media killed it.
When the Liberal's Dr John Hewson went to the 1993 election with the uber-comprehensive Fightback! policy package it was painfully nitpicking-ally dissected by the media and Labor until they died by a thousand cuts.
Instead of seeing through the attacks, and rewarding a party (and individual) with the courage to be open and honest, Australians took the low road.
As a result no major party Federally or in any State has or will ever be open about their policies ahead of an election ever again because they know the same will always happen. Media focusing endlessly on the smallest tiniest least important chink in the policy armour instead of looking at the bigger picture.
So, by and large, Australians have the politics they deserve.
Pathetic, I know, but thank the voters of 1993, and the media of all eras.

I don't agree with the Liberal's present jihad against the ABC, but I can understand the memories of 1993 are still painful, and distrust of the media's inability to focus on the bigger picture remains high - and sometimes warranted.

Alert moderator
- What the:
  
  13 Feb 2014 1:51:18pm
  
  Good Post
  
  Alert moderator
jammer470:

13 Feb 2014 12:33:07pm

I certainly agree that the media has let us down in it's role of questioning and informing for the people - maybe a closer look at the Canberra press gallery "club" that only lets who it want's asking the questions.

Alert moderator
Lehan Ramsay:

13 Feb 2014 12:39:44pm

Of course we can make cars. Can't we? Not if they're going to make it that much cheaper to import them of course. There'll be no money for a bit of subsidy. It's hardly fair that an Australian car manufacturer couldn't get a bit of subsidy to get going. Everybody else did.

Alert moderator
True Blue Ozzie:

13 Feb 2014 12:41:54pm

Again I ask as I did before the election, how many trees did the LNP have to chop down, to print there pamphlet of " Nothingness "!

I read it cover to cover trying to find ONE policy, no instead I got a whole lot of words that said nothing about Policy!!!!!!!

What's more scary is thousands of Australians voted for these clown's with no policy.

Alert moderator
RosieA:

13 Feb 2014 12:42:12pm

Thanks for the article Jonathan but I think you are missing the critical point. I have come to the conclusion that this government, far from being policy free and blowing in the wind, has a very definite plan. It is a plan developed and strategized probably for years with the help of bodies such as the IPA and other right-wing groups. It involves Murdoch who backs up the strategy with his on-side press. It involves the groups such as David Hetherington described yesterday, who ready the electorate for the government's assault on services, science, welfare or whatever, when it comes. The problem is, though, the thinking and strategizing and plan is all about putting in place "a way of life" that suits international corporations and big business and entrenches the coalition in power........it has nothing to do with ordinary Australians' well-being, now or in the future.

Everything in the way of their vision for the future is being removed and attacked.......advisory committees, science, the environment, broadband (can't have rapid communications which are available to all and not under right-wing control), the public service, welfare, and so on. The ABC is attacked because it provides a forum for discussion and content which might undermine what the government is doing. Concern for people's electricity bills and stopping the boats are designed to be popular and get "the masses" on side. Slogans are what the average, not highly educated person understands and wants......the message in simple terms. Economic crises and whatever are an essential means for justifying whatever the government wants to do.

The situation is truly frightening. Don't for a moment think there isn't some policy being put into operation........it's just that it's not the sort of policy you tell everyone about. When Abbott is concerned about strategy to the point of the colour of the tie he wears (as you yourself pointed out), do you imagine that not providing policy is not actually part of their policy and plan in itself? Do you really believe that a Government that has moved so swiftly to change our way of life before we know it and have time to object, has no plan? That it is bumbling around wondering what to do next on an ad hoc basis? I don't think so.

We are being rolled over by the right-wing machine, losing our way of life and our democracy, and giving control to international corporations. We need to wake up. We need to realize that the government has a definite policy about which we have not been told but which we can determine by linking their actions rather than seeing individual and isolated events. We need to realize this Government will never tell us its policy.....its objective is to impose their ideology and "vision" on the Australian people. The time to act is now.

Alert moderator
Kevin Cobley:

13 Feb 2014 12:43:26pm

It's the Seinfeld Government, a government about nothing.
Weird gigantic welfare handouts of up to $75,000 per person having a baby, when they are unaffordable in the long term. Abbott is the master of weird handouts, remember the Dental scheme forecast to cost $98 million dollars per year evolved into a billion dollar per scheme, coincidently Mr Abbott's father was in the dental prosthetics business.
This isn't a "conservative government" it's Peronist Government, the last election was between Eva and Juan Peron arguing who is prettier.

Alert moderator
GraemeF:

13 Feb 2014 12:53:00pm

The cost of 'stopping the boats' this year will be $2.7 billion dollars. The economic geniuses of the right applaud this waste of money but refuse to protect Australian jobs for $25 million.

They prefer to hate than help.

Alert moderator
gumleafdi:

13 Feb 2014 12:53:27pm

Of course propaganda slogans stifled, paralysed debate and of course policies should have been furnished by all parties. Why were these factors unchangeable? Because the Abbott Opposition did not have any policies other than slogans that would appeal to the masses, and was too nervous to come clean about its ideology which is now starting to emerge.

Let's see how they go - they are very good at negating and destroying, but very poor at creating, nurturing and growing.

Alert moderator
Baldrick:

13 Feb 2014 12:59:23pm

Wasn't the prime minister in response to Chris Uhlmann just saying (long windedly) "No worries, she'll be right mate" - and isn't this the traditional Aussie response to anything that happens? What did you expect people?

Alert moderator
Jack of All Tradies:

13 Feb 2014 1:11:12pm

Slogans like - "a price on pollution", "a clean energy future" and "building the education revolution"

Worked well!

Alert moderator
Marilyn:

13 Feb 2014 1:14:23pm

Finally the media are starting to get that ABbott had no plan other than to bore the pants off all of us with drivel.

The road kill are innocent human beings fleeing war who are now being hunted by two war criminals on the high seas and treated worse than we would ever treat a mass murderer.

And all because the lazy, moronic media would not stop whining.

Alert moderator
- Cobber:
  
  13 Feb 2014 5:09:54pm
  
  Maybe being 'road kill' is better than drowning at sea, but you never seem to mind that do you?
  
  Alert moderator
jwilson9:

13 Feb 2014 1:18:10pm

Can the media call out Abbott's increasing tendency to talk in picture story book or early reader scaffolding. Each day you get examples:
Monday this: "We're for the honest worker, the honest unionist". Tuesday it was "it's not going to happen next week, it's not going to happen next month, it's not going to happen next year... (I think there was even one more phrase of the same ilk but my brain is in meltdown)" It's John and Betty stuff. I'd like to hope that if enough of you made fun of it, we might a more adult conversation. The repetition allows Abbott to fill up time and to seen to be saying something - when in fact there is no substance. As you correctly point out Jonathan.

Alert moderator
Freddie:

13 Feb 2014 1:19:47pm

Its Public School kids, Jonathan, that 'strive to excel'. The private school kids, who's parents outsource the responsibility of the perceived 'little problem', think they will be coached through it. And, that lasts with them for the rest of their life.
You talk a lot of nonsense about the value of 'private schools, Jonathan. So you need to be pulled up about from time to time.
Public School kids are under no illusion as to what's going on out there. Their surrounded by it. The partially employed, the working poor, the lack of money to go around. And they make up their mind early what they can do about it.
Joe 'the Holy-Cake' Hockey, sat on his hands for 3 months blaming every body else for some perceived notion he had about the defect. Meanwhile unemployment has started to climb. And when it impacts on the partially employed. Kabooom! watch it go through 10% very soon.
And we have another two and a half years of this bunch of private school educated, fractionally enforced, twits and clowns, to endure.
Cant wait to hear their 'three word slogans' next year.
My guess is the 'great unwashed' will wash their (LNP) mouths out with them.
Sometime early next year ???
For there will be a lot of people out on the streets, with no work.

Alert moderator
Bro1:

13 Feb 2014 1:24:57pm

Perhaps if the media had held the Rudd mk1 government to account for the delivery of program's rather than blaming the opposition for raising issues we would have had a better Gillard government. I agree that by the last election, the only certainty was the defeat of the alp. They had, by their dysfunction, ruled themselves out of the reckoning for the next term. ( it is not beyond them to reform and come back very quickly ... However, they need to be thinking about the wider community rather than special interests before that will occur).

I also agree the result of that run into the election, where the lnp were certain to prevail, has meant we have a missed opportunity to debate policy direction properly. Unfortunately, both abbott and Newman, have taken the weak option of spending a first term doing the policy work .... Just so they can take the changes (like privatisations) to the next election. They should be pushing ahead now. That would be leadership.

Alert moderator
aussieinjapan:

13 Feb 2014 1:27:02pm

Which comes first- the news or the advertising? I should say which has priority in how a program or newspaper is composed.

I would say the advertising and we all have become tied to it. Hence the success of mindless advertisements which gloss over the truth and try to make us all "happy".

I would say that we need an article on analysing how to read a slogan and all the connotations it has.

Alert moderator
aussieinjapan:

13 Feb 2014 1:28:31pm

Tony Abbot would do well as a carpet seller in Ali Baba. Then again a lot of politicians would.

Alert moderator
Universal Soldier 11:

13 Feb 2014 1:33:05pm

Which party?

Alert moderator
Sebastian Lionheart:

13 Feb 2014 1:34:53pm

The prognosis is catastrophic if our projected current government policies are not cut back.
The only prescription the Abbott government understands for our current economic woes is more of the same, "Leave it to the market. It will correct the problems."
Laissez-faire capitalism is acceptable only if one assumes that the economic playing field is level and that everyone has an equal chance at commercial prosperity. But, historically, prosperity has never been within equal reach to everyone. The history of economics is the story of groups prospering at the expense of others, whether in the name of the trust, syndicate, cartel, or corporation.
The big will just get bigger in a laissez-faire system. An example is, the consolidation of media, banking, and automobile corporations.
To use media again as an analogy, today freedom of the press belongs only to those who own the presses. But if this is the case, how are unique points of view expressed to the public? There are plenty of dedicated and well-intentioned journalists still working in Australia, but hardly any can afford to purchase and run a major news outlet. Consequently, news and information is left in the hands of the large corporations, where a pecking order demands acceptance of the boss's demands.
If Australia is to have a truly free-enterprise marketplace, legislators must find a way to balance the laws and regulations necessary to prevent monopolies and to curtail freewheeling capitalist systems so that anyone with the intelligence and ambition can succeed. They must find a way to break apart the giant multinational corporations so that true free enterprise can once again assert itself.

Alert moderator
Seano:

13 Feb 2014 1:37:17pm

"We went to the polls after an exchange of slogans rather than ideas - and the worst kind of slogans. "

I walked to the polls after receiving a letter from the AEC on the 6th informing me that they had decided to put me back on the electoral roll after a quarter-century of idiotic excuses without my consent.

It is not legal to add an Australian citizen to the electoral roll without their consent. I am not the Elephant Man.

What karma that they even screwed up 1,375 senate votes. Serves the bastards right. I won't be attending the repeat performance. They can't screw me and then expect me to help them when they screw themselves.

Alert moderator
Amethyst:

13 Feb 2014 1:39:05pm

Australia has the govrnment it deserves. The majority didn't mind that the slogans were shallow, they were all just frothing at the mouth to punish Labor for its years of 'mis-management'. Indeed, the 'drover's dog' did win the last election for the Coalition. Suck it up Coalition voters and enjoy the ride.

Alert moderator
Hmmm:

13 Feb 2014 1:39:51pm

Since John Hewson realised his GST policy before the election, no political will ever release a detailed policy document early.

Alert moderator
Frevensake:

13 Feb 2014 1:40:21pm

Oh when will you journos be satisfied with politics and political parties. A front bench of Mandela, Gandhi, Malala, Mother Therese, Martin Luther King & Bob Seeger, would not see you happy. Why not go out in the field and overseas, & uncover the gruesomeness that is happening while we speak (or write). The world is full of injustice & terror, yet you waste your talents on the Canberra merry-go-round. Cut & paste heard-it-all-before journalism is not worthy.

Alert moderator
Hudson Godfrey:

13 Feb 2014 1:47:02pm

The slogans and shallowness of the coalitions campaign were honestly as nothing to the leadership ructions within the Labor party, and yet neither has the measure of the extraordinary two faced disappointment this government's so quickly become.

Alert moderator
Oaktree:

13 Feb 2014 1:50:27pm

Well we seem to have aired all the slogans (yet again).

So might I just say what a pity it is that the Federal Government is not equal to the Victorian Liberal Government. It has just brokered a deal with SPC, saving the local economy and enabling it to build its products and exports. The Govt is apparently becoming a shareholder rather than just handing out funding.

Well done Premier Napthine! Congratulations Sharman Stone. I hope the Federal Government's failures do not reflect adversely on your future elections.

One thing that is clear is that in a safe Federal seat, the welfare of the electorate is not entitled to any consideration.

Alert moderator
whomovedmycheese:

13 Feb 2014 1:51:00pm

It doesnt add up to produce cars here. We have expensive labour, electricity, low productivity, high regulation, expensive commercial property, expensive inputs and a small domestic market. The dollar being high means it is a bad place to manufacture.

I know many will make this a labor lib thing but the reality was holden probably decided last year or before and didnt announce it but I dont blame the ALP for it.

The cars being made here do not match not only what asian customers want but also not really capturing our market as most cars bought here are still imported.

The bucket loads of money that we where paying the 'australian' manufacturers was nothing to the amount the Government is placing on vehicle imports to try and make it competitive to produce here. One third to over half of the car sales price is govt tariff.

Now that we have stopped producing the government will recieve more tariffs as all cars will be imported. Ideally the tarriffs should be taken away and car prices fall dramatically but in reality governments will just hold onto that money thankyou very much.

Alert moderator
whomovedmycheese:

13 Feb 2014 1:53:01pm

Remember John Hewson and all his detail he didnt do so good. Since then all the party machines know (kiss) keep it simple stupid.

Alert moderator
old67:

13 Feb 2014 1:53:22pm

What we have now in Australia is just CHAOS from this LNP government and anyone who thinks not are stupid.

Alert moderator
What the:

13 Feb 2014 1:54:21pm

While LNP was guilty of the 3 word slogan. The labour party was also guilty of the uniformed war cry.

At the time of the election how many defenders of Gonski new if their state got funding from the Gonski model.

At the time time election how many defenders of the National insurance disability scheme new what states were covered, what disabilities were covered and how it works and how it would be funded.

None that I could find

How many times did labour announced a policy and none of the stakeholders (usually the states ) new anything about it. When the MRT was announced even the Minster for minerals and resources was uniformed. The idea was to get the warcry out.

As stated above when it comes to elections the worst thing that happened (from a battle of ideas perspective) was the defeat of Hewson by Keating. Since then oppositions have learnt that to win you have to be small target. 2007 and 2014 reinforces this.

I would be very surprised if Labour goes to the next election with detailed policies.

It is up to the voters to engage and demand more from their politicians and media.

Alert moderator
frargo:

13 Feb 2014 2:03:55pm

So what does the slogan We're open for business mean?

Alert moderator
Serendipious:

13 Feb 2014 2:06:14pm

Well said Jonathan. I totally agree, except that we were not all responsible. Some of us saw the slogans (and their spruikers) for what they were, and are. The saddest thing is that so many did not and worse yet, some still can not. Unbelievable. This lack of discernment (or interest), along with the current government's unabashed arrogance, bodes ill for the country. Now, what to do about it? Well, keep exposing the situation please Jonathon. Second I would like to know what the political parties see as their core values. As a voter this is far more important to me than a list of things they say they might do if elected. Third and least likely to happen, I would like to see 'spin' called for what it is namely ignorance at best and lies at worst, and politicians sworn to tell the plain truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, backed by a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy :)

Alert moderator
John Forbes:

13 Feb 2014 2:17:02pm

The Liberals & Job Creation - HOLDEN GONE,TOYOTA GONE ETC - Unemployment rising ????

No manufacturing base - Relying on NON RENEWABLE resources & a POOR education base!!

Another Australian Debacle - but one that we may all pay for for GENERATIONS to come!!!

BRILLIANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alert moderator
Lehan Ramsay:

13 Feb 2014 2:29:54pm

Cars! Cars! Cute ones, funny ones.

Of course we'll have to lower the speeding limit, otherwise they'll fall apart at the top speeds.

Alert moderator
Jimmy:

13 Feb 2014 2:42:57pm

Politicians don't supply more nuanced responses to the media because the media wont broadcast them. The media wont broadcast them because the overwhelming majority of Australians aren't interested.
I suspect it's also the case that there are no 'good' solutions to many of the problems facing Australia, particularly as far as the structural deficit goes...look at the bleating from Australians when asked to pay $6 for a doctor's visit? We're simply not interested in making the tough choices, nor even hearing about them. What value is there in a politician being honest when the electorate will only punish them for it? Politicians aren't stupid (well...), they've learned their lessons well...Aussies want lies and welfare...nothing more.

Alert moderator
Hubert:

13 Feb 2014 2:44:24pm

Another good article Jonathan, thank you.

It's all about the media.

Labor had some great policies (not all), but failed miserably in communicating them to the public. You could argue that the MSM are to blame, but I think that's being a bit kind to Labor. There are other factors of course, such as the lack of political courage (backing down when corporations made a fuss), and the leadership changes.

The Coalition on the other hand have been adept at managing their communications, even though their policies have so far looked pretty damn awful, at least from the perspective of the average Australian. They used the MSM to very effectively focus the public on particular matters, and to hide others.

The rise of media on the internet will hopefully redress any imbalance in the MSM over time.

Alert moderator
Fred the Big Cat:

13 Feb 2014 2:52:34pm

Just watched a talk on TED by David Putnam in which he asks about the media - does it have a moral imperative to create informed citizens, or is it free to pursue profit by any means, just like any other business?

It goes to the heart of the issues that Jonathan raises in his article. That is, commercial media, the ABC, and SBS can either play a role in creating informed citizens that able to debate the merit of ideas based on facts or they can contribute to the dumbing down of political debate and lack of respect for the political process in Australia.

While the last two elections were the worst for quality political reporting and debate that I have seen in my 38 years of voting eligibility, the rot started to set in many years ago.

But things won't change until Australians of all ideologies demand that it does. But going by the quality of comments on this and most other public media forums, I don't hold out much hope for change.

Australia, you're sinking in it

Alert moderator
GJA:

13 Feb 2014 3:15:06pm

Yes, Lucky Country mentality - and personalities in our politicians - persist. The LNP and their supporters decry any attempt to "pick winners" and the ALP, at least in the last six years, struggle to get things right, preferring incremental changes in order to bypass an opposition they could have steamrollered. The MMR tax could have worked, if it had been implemented as it was meant to, and if Rudd hadn't backed off we wouldn't have gotten Gillard's carbon [tax] price. A faster, more compassionate response might have been implemented when the boat arrivals started to increase (although nothing was going to stop the xenophobes from screaming and flapping their hands in the air and foaming at the mouth: Aiee! brown people in boats!).

But we never talk about it. The media report the government of the day has a policy and then go to the opposition for comments. There are few commentators available to provide analysis or perspective and they tend to be extremists in the Murdoch press and too localised otherwise. The Age and SMH notwithstanding, there's no national media service to counterbalance Rupert's hysteria, the ABC not meeting the correlative requirements.

So it's all BBQ blather and bloviating over beers and little of actual "informed" consent. They system precludes much participation, skewed as it is to rewarding the political class as a separate class from everyone else.

We need to demand more from our media so that they will demand more from our politicians, who may demand more from us, or not, but at least they might then be honest about it.

Alert moderator
Tonia Bott:

13 Feb 2014 3:19:02pm

So why are you excluding the Greens from the debate in Tasmania? They are (or rather were until turncoat Lala kicked them out) a part of our government and they are the only party putting forward solid policies that will benefit our State. They are entitled to as much air time as the LIBLAB coalition and they are being excluded. Why is that?

Alert moderator
JB:

13 Feb 2014 3:24:45pm

Some of us were BEGGING the media to analyse the policies because it was pretty bloody obvious what would happen if Abbott got in. This is all the media's fault, IMO. It is your responsibility to present the facts to us and help voters make an informed decision, not be led by the nose by Murdoch.

Alert moderator
Anne T:

13 Feb 2014 3:37:27pm

Who is this article addressed to Jonathan? Who are the 'we' in "If we had pushed for solid policy ideas and not slogans before the federal election, we might be better prepared to address the issues that confront us?"

I do not count myself in that 'we' and I certainly do not count myself in your statement "But that was the electoral narrative: getting rid of Labor."

No, that was the narrative constructed by the Coalition and their media toadies.

Please reflect a little more on why we are in the mess that we are in. It is not simply a 'dsyfunctional' Labor or the electorate accepting slogans.

Generally your articles are insightful but quite frankly this one is slight in its analysis.

Alert moderator
TJ:

13 Feb 2014 3:51:55pm

When politicians get to define their own limited KPI's in slogan form, it's pretty easy for them to tick them off and call themselves a success. History however, teaches us the reality is usually quite different.

Alert moderator
Alan K:

13 Feb 2014 3:54:56pm

With the boat people how would anyone know, this Govt. keeps it all quiet, but when they were in opposition they squealed like stuck pigs if there was the slightest suggestion of a boat on the horizon. They have a lot of double standards, and handling the truth carelessly is among them. Like when they said SPC workers were getting 9 weeks annual leave and that the unions drove Toyota out of Australia, which was totally denied by Toyota. Unless anyone can totally remove themselves from party politics, you will never get an unbiased and logical opinion and that will not happen. What is happening with all the refugees now is little different to what has happened for hundreds of years, people get persecuted in their homeland in one way or another so they do anything they can to get away from it and make a fresh start in a safer place. Australia was made up from a lot of people who came here to make a fresh start and build a new and safe life, over the years since the first settlement, we have had many people from varying backgrounds come here, eg.: Germans, Italians, Greek's, English, Irish, Vietnamese and many others. What would have happened if they all had been turned back before they could have landed here?

Alert moderator
CorowaKid:

13 Feb 2014 3:58:22pm

With the Chinese now having 3 warships sailing around Indonesia and northern Australia let's hope the "turn back the boats" slogan doesn't lead to an "accident" of major proportions.

Alert moderator
bedlam bay:

13 Feb 2014 4:00:31pm

Abbott sounds more and more like Sarah Palin.

Alert moderator
- Mark James:
  
  13 Feb 2014 5:47:56pm
  
  Come to think of it, has anybody seen Abbott and Palin in the same room?
  
  Alert moderator
John Lucas:

13 Feb 2014 4:02:19pm

The Abbot government is shaping up as 90% politics and 10% policy. It should be the other way around.

Alert moderator
Politically Incorrect:

13 Feb 2014 4:25:49pm

There never will be any real policy or policy debate as long as the major parties are around. They got to where they are because of cheap slogans and mud throwing.

If you are on the left, vote Green
If you are on the right, vote Palmer
If you are a farmer, vote Katter
If you are a liberatarian, vote Liberal Democrats
If you are a social conservative, vote Family First
If you sit in the middle, the Democrats still exist.

Not a single one of those parties resort to slogans and were genuintly interested in policy debate during the last election: from every end of the spectrum.

There really is a party for everyone where the "one size fits all" structure of the Labor/Liberal coalition should really be seen as redundant.

Alert moderator
Wendie:

13 Feb 2014 4:28:13pm

The main stream media including the ABC completely failed in their duty to inform the public about Tony Abbott from 2010 to September last year. If journalists did their job - investigate issues and report the facts - Tony Abbott and his destructive deceitful, lying ideologically driven government would not be creating the social and environmental destruction that, after only 5 months, we are now witnessing.

Anyone heard of Ashbygate? Corruption of the highest order! A damaging conspiracy involving News Ltd and members of the now government - Tony Abbott, Mal Brough, Christopher Pyne and others, in a failed attempt to destroy the democratically elected minority government, by destroying Peter Slipper and the speakers position.

It took independent media to investigate and inform members of the public who were outraged at what those above were getting away with. With the help of public donations the Ashbygate Trust was set up and a private investigator was employed to investigate.

Labor did make mistakes, but if this matter was investigated and reported widely the public would have been aware that Tony Abbott and many of his government ministers were far from qualified and deserving to be running the country.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/ashbygate/

Alert moderator
- Polysemantic Pete:
  
  13 Feb 2014 6:38:10pm
  
  I agree that the ABC didn't do the best of jobs, but it must have been more difficult for them than for some other news agencies and media outlets. You know, the ones who were on many occasions making it patently obvious they wanted to do nothing more than allow the Coalition a free ride. How many times have you seen Tony Abbott prepared to be interviewed and questioned by the ABC, compared with how many times he seems willing to appear in other media arenas.
  
  Be interesting to see if and when he appears on Q&A for example.
  
  Alert moderator
Polysemantic Pete:

13 Feb 2014 4:31:24pm

Jonathan, as someone who makes a living out of journalism, why are you asking these questions now? Anyone who was interested at the time could have looked at the glossy brochure the Coalition put out and realised it raised more questions than it answered because it was big on hyperbole, rhetoric and motherhood statements and very noticeably lacking detail. So why were so many of you journos not asking the hard questions of the issues behind the slogans that so many wanted answered before polling day?

I also find your dismissal of public interest in political affairs rather odd

"b: That it gives much of a damn in the first place."

So are you making the assumption we (the public) don't give a damn, and is that so you can excuse practitioners of your trade for shoddy work? Journos don't need to to a good job because we don't care, believe or understand what you write?

Want us to take an interest and read what you write? Then how about suggesting the person who now has your old job does a bit of housework here on The Drum. I'm getting sick of how many comments that have zero relevance to the topic of a particular view are allowed through. These hard left or hard right and often puerile comments tend to come from the same tired old names on a daily basis and bring absolutely nothing of worth or substance to the debate of the particular topic at hand.

I used to enjoy The Drum and the comments, but I've got tired of watching this place decay and can't be bothered engaging with this site much at all any more.

Alert moderator
MulberryWriter:

13 Feb 2014 4:57:49pm

I wonder why it has taken media people like the author of this piece such a long time to figure this out. If the media in general had paid more attention to the abominable rhetoric that won Abbot government and held him to account instead of hammering away at the flaws in the ALP and, perhaps, giving a decent account of their achievements, then this piece need never have been written.

Alert moderator
Joe Blow:

13 Feb 2014 5:06:17pm

Well, this is a fine time to come to such a conclusion! Why not BEFORE the election? And what about cementing this realisation in before the next one?

Alert moderator
GrumpiSkeptic:

13 Feb 2014 5:08:03pm

Slogans are good. They are easy to swallow up, yes, swallow. Not so sure about the digestion bit though. I think we are suffering from indigestion now !

Slogans such as "No Carbon Tax", "No xzy" are wet dreams of any spin doctors. They are ready-made. Three words, yes, three, are all there is. Then of course, "JOBS". What self respecting political party would not beef up their electability with "More jobs"? "We are a party of JOBS".

Then there is the catch phrase "Productivity". "We will increase productivity with...", wait for it, "improved infrastructures, better educated work force." Then there was a promise of a million jobs in the near future too.

The Abbott government has come good on its promise of "No more boat arrivals". I guess it is easy when you have the full force of the Navy, tow-line out on the ready, to tow boats back to where they came from. Transferring refugees on lifeboats is a stroke of genius too. Scott Morrison has delivered. By the way, "Boat buy-back" is not quite 100% yet, but we did but secondhand lifeboats. Surely that is nearly 70% fulfilled?

Unfortunately, when it comes to issues which cannot be solved by military means, it is a totally different matter altogether. I mean, you can't really close the border to stop Ford, GMH and Toyota to pull up the stumps and leave. Similarly, you can't simply stop spending to eliminate the budget Black-hole so fondly repeated time after time by Joe Hockey.

"Stop car makers to leave". "Stop spending". "Give budget Black-holes the flick" are perhaps some of the timely slogans, but no one in their right mind will believe they will be useful. But we can always try....

Alert moderator
John:

13 Feb 2014 5:15:35pm

I trust, in terms of the 'we' Jonathon Green, you are referring to the utter failure of the 4th Estate to do any serious policy questioning or analysis prior to the election? We, the people, were crying out for it an you, the media, preferred to engage in asinine speculation about leadership, ask lightweight questions with no follow up or professional journalistic scepticism and any discussion, such as it was, consisted, largely of journalists of various stripes sitting around interviewing each other - an almost unbelievable conceit and a grave disservice..

So when talking about 'we' please hold the mirror up to your profession, or 'craft' as I believe you have it.

Alert moderator
- Wilmot:
  
  13 Feb 2014 10:15:14pm
  
  Well said John, I was thinking exactly the same thing.
  
  Alert moderator
kettles_away:

13 Feb 2014 5:28:19pm

Back to the article above:
... the government's current thinking on industry policy offered by the prime minister to AM's Chris Uhlmann: "If you ask me, Chris, can I say what individual Toyota workers will be doing in four years' time, I can't give you that answer, but Chris, none of us know the answers to those questions. What we've got to do is remember that we are creative people in a capable country who have always faced the future with confidence and have always made the most of it."

That is long-winded answer is obfuscation 101 for a seasoned politician and as such, is utter bunkum. However, I wouldn't blame the politician for offering it as he'd be happy that he slipped in praise for creative aussies. I'd blame the so called journalist (in this case Uhlmann) for accepting this bunch of platitudes without pushing and probing further for a real response. Politicians will offer nothing unless they have to. Savvy media people know this and also know they have to work hard to extract anything useful. I can only assume Chris isn't savvy.

Alert moderator
- JB:
  
  13 Feb 2014 7:01:59pm
  
  No, he just lets Abbott get away with murder. Just like every other so-called reporter out there. Then again, Abbott only appears on "safe" programs, so there's no chance of him encountering a reporter that is actually worth anything.
  
  Alert moderator
Chris:

13 Feb 2014 5:43:44pm

It's been this way for years, even before your hated blue ties showed up. Witness 'Moving Forward', 'A New Way' and my personal favourite, 'We Are Us'.

Alert moderator
observer:

13 Feb 2014 7:00:33pm

Welcome to the FUD (FEAR UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT ) government. That's how they won the election and that's how they will govern the country - not a good outcome - a big chunk of society are about to get the rough end of the stick.

Alert moderator
MadPoppa:

13 Feb 2014 8:00:21pm

I have only one question. What is the government's policy to address this issue? Forget about the blame game - you are in government, Tony! What are going to do in detailed policy terms? Personally, I do not think you have a clue. Your best mate, in parrot on the shoulder terms, Joe, appears to be the proverbial "deer in the headlights"!

Alert moderator
anote:

13 Feb 2014 9:43:19pm

I get it but from my perspective the current government is far worse by way of inconsistency, hypocrisy and blatant dishonesty. Based on the behaviour of the Coalition in opposition no one should be surprised.

We might come to find some consistency in Abbott using the cop out that 'sometimes these things happen'.

Alert moderator
lynne:

13 Feb 2014 10:04:18pm

The trouble is people are very gullible. And, they believe what they want to believe. It amazes me though how supposedly intelligent people cannot see through these "slogans" and think for themselves. It infuriates me when they reply to a question one might ask by actually quoting some ridiculous dribble that Abbott or Hockey have uttered time and time again, without any real substance to it. I am dismayed and disgusted at the utter ignorance of the Australians who voted for this lame government on the basis of the utter rubbish and lies and exaggerations they dished out. These people are usually the first to complain when things start going wrong which is always the case, and as I have noticed recently. No wonder religions and cults of all sorts flourish in the world in general with all their myths and half-truths and lies....taking advantage of the uneducated and gullible. Politicians are the same as the religious leaders who like to dominate and confuse the naive in order to gain power and dominate the masses. Very sad, but very true.

Alert moderator
M.S:

14 Feb 2014 5:36:41am

Disagree with the sentiment of this article, and the bias of Jonathan Green towards the Libs.

The Australian people voted not for slogans but else-where, better or worse, into a senate that can deliver on their will of punishing the two parties. It was the mandate of the people that will see a checkered passage of anything the government wants to do that compromises them, because a political minefield is less then what they deserve (Should've given the two party candidates, staff and party hacks three days in the stocks having domestically grown vegetables thrown at them by the public as a sort of travelling show, but for everything after 2010 even thats pretty tame). Seeing people who had already prepared their senate vote on polling day strengthens this belief.

Alert moderator