Coalition eases us into tough love policies

Updated February 17, 2014 07:58:55

Photo: Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are paving the way for some tough new budget decisions. (Paul Miller: AAP)

Abbott and Hockey appear to have mastered the alchemy of public opinion transformation, but will face their biggest test when they release their first budget, writes Paula Matthewson.

Given the option, most politicians would prefer to do what the community wants instead of what it needs. But governments that configure their policies to meet only the voter popularity test inevitably will be faced with a humongous bill and the twin terrors of debt and deficit.

The solution to this conundrum is surprisingly straightforward: Simply convince the public to support an otherwise unpopular but necessary government action. While not quite an act of sorcery, this ability to transform public opinion can help a politician or government lead a relatively charmed life. And it is often seen as the measure of a truly effective government.

Kevin Rudd once had the knack, being able to turn public opinion 180 degrees in his favour. His most audacious prestidigitation was as opposition leader in 2007 when he told Australians made comfortable by years of middle-class welfare under John Howard that "this reckless spending must stop". Capturing the public's imagination as well as that of the media and political commentators, Rudd made fiscal responsibility the new black and thereby relegated Howard to the Whitlam and other Profligates' Hall of Shame.

It's a matter of record that Rudd's eventual successor as prime minister, Julia Gillard, did less well in convincing Australians to bear a little carbon price pain for some climate action gain. Gillard did, however, prove to be a more adept apprentice as time went on, transforming both the potentially unpopular increase to the Medicare levy for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the scrapping of the surplus into actions widely welcomed by the media, commentariat and broader community as sensible and appropriate.

And now Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are proving to be keen acolytes, converting what could have become public opprobrium into widespread support for scrapping assistance to the car manufacturing industry.

Abbott and Hockey did this by slowly but persistently chipping away at the locally-based but foreign-owned operations' credibility, questioning their intentions, and undermining their grass-roots support by implying they were nothing more than spivs and carpet-baggers.

The Productivity Commission inquiry into the domestic car manufacturing industry, the results of which were never in doubt, was meant to be the final piece of damning evidence against car industry subsidies. But events moved more quickly than the government expected after Hockey clumsily called Holden's bluff in December.

Despite Hockey's over-reach, public opinion has moved from supporting the local manufacturers to the government. Back in January 2012 an Essential poll found 68 per cent of Australians supported the current levels of assistance to the car manufacturers and 58 per cent supported giving them even more. Public approval of subsidies was still high at 58 per cent in October last year, but by December only 45 per cent approved of subsidies to Holden (and even less of increased subsidies to keep Toyota in Australia). The latest poll by Essential finds support has now dropped to 36 per cent*.

This change of sentiment suggests Australians can see the broader merit of some tough decisions being made by the government, which is admittedly easy to do if it's not your own pay cheque on the line. The next test of whether Abbott and Hockey have mastered the alchemy of public opinion transformation will come when the federal budget is handed down in May.

By all accounts, the first Abbott/Hockey budget is going to be a harsh one – for households, businesses and marginal seat holders.

Having talked tough on fiscal responsibility since being elected (although not consistently walking that talk), the government's gestures and incantations – from MYEFO and the Commission of Audit to keynote speeches and feature articles - are all crafted to shape voter expectations into acceptance, if not support, for a budget that shares the pain around. The age of entitlement, according to Hockey, has become the age of responsibility. In short, he's trying to recreate the Rudd magic of 2007.

Expectations management for the budget is just the beginning. The many reviews and inquiries, accompanied by thought-bubble debates in the media suggest the government is also trying to frame the debate, shape views and normalise unpopular reform plans for a range of contentious matters including welfare payments, privatisation of government assets, the unions, and the ABC.

The government may see these also as a simple matter of convincing the Australian public to want what the country needs. But the latter point – what the country needs – might well become hotly contested ground.

* The Essential poll questions on subsidies for the local car manufacturing industry vary, but nevertheless indicate a downward trend over time.

This is the first of a weekly column by Paula Matthewson. View her full profile here.

Topics: manufacturing, business-economics-and-finance, budget, government-and-politics, abbott-tony, hockey-joe

First posted February 17, 2014 07:30:31

Comments (158)

Add your comment

DTripp:

17 Feb 2014 8:05:17am

I just read your other Opinion piece by Verlander saying that the mining tax, which would have provided assistance to industries hit by the high dollar, was scotched by the mining industry. I remember the miners had the support of these very same "fiscally responsible" (??) Liberals such as Hockey.
So isnt it a bit hypocritical of him to talk about us needing the pain when the miners didn't have to?

Reply Alert moderator
- jusme:
  
  17 Feb 2014 10:27:56am
  
  Exactly DTripp.
  
  The coalition will never win me over while they attack low income earners while never once mentioning executive pays which are outrageously high. Where's the new tax bracket that will "share the pain" and help the budget?
  
  Plus replacing all the tax concessions around super and luxury cars that only the richest can afford to take advantage of, while removing the lower end ones that would've helped people stay off a pension later in life. They're just reinforcing the structural defecit with crony policy.
  
  They simply don't mention these things and are given help to conceal the full picture by certain entrenched media outlets. Thank god for the internet so we can get all sides from sites like IA, new matilda, the guardian etc
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Peter the Lawyer:
    
    17 Feb 2014 5:02:10pm
    
    Maybe the Coalition don't want to win you over. Maybe they are happy with the mainstream support they have without the need to win over those who are folk marxists interested in the politics of envy.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- aGuy:
  
  17 Feb 2014 10:45:58am
  
  Yet the mining tax revenue was spent before it was received and later determined not to have met expectations resulting in a loss.
  
  Only the ALP could create a tax that results in a loss on the balance sheet for the government.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - taxedorff:
    
    17 Feb 2014 12:08:16pm
    
    lets be technical and truthful, the tax labor proposed would have generated high returns however the libs and the mining sector put up such a negative campaign the original tax was never passed. lets also consider the tax laws that the libs have passed over the years which have also generated nothing in returns against what the uber rich should be paying , many wealthy and big business groups find the loopholes in tax and ensure they don't pay their way. yes the mining tax that came into legislation wasn't able to generate the revenue , we do need to ask what the original tax would have returned .
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Peter the Lawyer:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:03:21pm
      
      But Labor had the Greens in the Senate and the Indies in the HoR. They could have forced the tax through in its original form. However, they piked out, because evn they knew the tax was a crock.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Julie Dooley:
    
    17 Feb 2014 12:13:52pm
    
    "Only the ALP could create a tax that results in a loss on the balance sheet for the government."
    
    And only the lying Coalition could turn a non-performing tax into something that is allegedly threatening every job in the country. We hear the jingoism daily from Abetz and others: "Get rid of the mining tax because it is killing jobs".
    
    Only a fool, and there are many of them in the Coalition, would believe that a tax that collects no revenue could have a negative effect on jobs in the car industry.
    
    Australia got a government of spin at a time when it needed a government of substance.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Mkay:
      
      17 Feb 2014 4:13:39pm
      
      What the tax raises is irrelevant. The issue is risk.
      
      The introduction of the tax increases the mining companies' perceptions of risk, which leads to higher discount rates being applied to investments which leads to delays in investments proceeding (and hence less jobs).
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Bill Bored:
    
    17 Feb 2014 12:24:46pm
    
    aGuy,
    
    "Only the ALP could create a tax that results in a loss on the balance sheet for the government."
    
    A very simplistic view from someone that claims to be so widely read. Just for starters what about the generous write downs.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - aGuy:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:47:54pm
      
      ALP where in government, approved the tax and approved its expenditure. If the ALP was not confident in being able to manage the budget when in government, it should have resigned.
      And write offs are not taxes. One takes money, the other lets the individual keep it. I hope the ALP had a greater understanding of revenue raising than that when trying to work out how much money they could spend.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - burke:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:58:24pm
      
      "Generous write downs". That was where J Gillard opened her wallet and said "help yourself" - so they did!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - firthy:
    
    17 Feb 2014 1:27:32pm
    
    But that is only half the story (some of the replies to you post only note the other side BTW). The original version would have raised significant cash but it was extremely complicated, few understood it and it incorrectly assumed that the market would value/appreciate a tax that paid miners when they lost money (the whole point of private enterprise is to make money, not to have your losses refunded to you). The ALP didn't run a good show explaining the tax either - rather they met the opposition from miner's with a class warfare type campaign. When this campaign failed the ALP got cold feet and reworked the entire tax - and as we know the reworked version is a dog.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Kangaroo Edward:

17 Feb 2014 8:11:59am

Abbott, more increasingly is coming across as a twit, any kind of tough love in his mind dwells in the realm of fantasy.
Hockey has always been bluff and bluster, a puffed up mouth piece of very little actual substance.
Put them together and what they produce is will be a budget as confused as they are.

Reply Alert moderator
- big joe :
  
  17 Feb 2014 9:38:12am
  
  KE, "Abbott is increasingly coming across as a twit" Really? The latest polls show that labor is back to the position they were at on September 7th last year and Shorty is about as popular as a pork chop in a synagog. Here in Queensland we have the ALP publicly bagging Newman on his anti bike laws while secretly applauding them. If anyone is increasingly coming across like twits it must be the entire labor apparatus.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Adelaide Rose:
    
    17 Feb 2014 10:59:12am
    
    The last poll I saw, last week, showed that the ALP would win any election held now although they had dropped down by around 1/2 a percentage point.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - big joe :
      
      17 Feb 2014 11:13:42am
      
      AR, that was last week, take a look at the polls released today.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Todd:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:53:14pm
      
      That's right, Joe. I am pleasantly surprised that the electorate is finally realising that economic performance today is due to policy from several years prior. That is why we got through the GFC better than most. Not because of those elected on the eve of the GFC. Rather, the people that put us in the strong position through the preceding years of good policy.
      
      Likewise, the current dearth in manufacturing is more about the anti-business policies of the previous 6 years. Carbon tax, mining tax, more IR turmoil with the balance now too far in favour of Unions (not to be confused with workers). We can see how, in the struggle to kill the big, bad businessmen and woman in the economy, that there will be collateral damage in the way of economic activity and therefore jobs. Remember Swanny and Gillard with their politics of envy speeches? It was not so much the rhetoric that mattered, it was the fact that the rhetoric was turned into policies aimed at "hurting" the likes of Murdoch (media laws) and Rinehart (mining, carbon taxes).
      
      The Carbon Tax provides an example. I have explained before that, in the absence of competition, the CT can only work through less activity (emissions) rather than "smarter" activity with less emissions. But because Labor wanted "the big polluters to pay," many Australian businesses and households became that little bit worse off, especially those trading with businesses that do NOT have the CT applied to their production.
      
      Things will take a while to improve and I am proud that our electorate can see that while things aren't going very good now, we have had the chemo and the surgery and are in remission. We will still be suffering side effects for a while yet, but the Labor cancer is gone (for now) and we can begin to heal.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - mypointis:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:16:14pm
      
      Sorry Todd but if the Howard government had spent the spin to implement a Mining Tax and not hand out middle class welfare then there would have been no need for the economic stimulus package the Rudd government handed out. Also if the Howard Government had spent money on Infrastructure rather than middle class welfare then we wouldn't need big spending now to fix what was neglected. Face it Liberal/National governments do not and have not ever had the welfare of our Country at heart they have always and always will only want to look after their mates in big business. I matters little to them what happens to the middle to lower class workers of this country after all we can always offshore it!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Lawrence of Bavaria :
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:02:00pm
      
      Ahhh, the polls. What would we do without them.
      We only hold elections every few years to find out whether the polls were right.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - mark:
    
    17 Feb 2014 11:16:03am
    
    Sorry big joe. Abbott is perceived as a twit, and Newman is perceived as a dead man walking who plans to do as much damage as possible during his own political death spiral.
    The perceptions are very close to reality. Abbott's not a complete twit, but he isn't far off. His bounce in the polls is what the financial sector refers to as a dead cat bounce.
    Interesting that you mentioned the polls on Shorten but not the polls that indicate Newman will lose 30 seats including his own.
    Hockey's day of reckoning is fast approaching, and the big bag of wind knows that the slightest pin prick will bring everything crashing down
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Alfie:
      
      17 Feb 2014 11:58:06am
      
      "Newman is perceived as a dead man walking"
      
      Not according to the Qld polls. Labor is not within a bulls roar of getting back into office for at least another two terms in Qld. Beattie and Bligh poisoned the well for Labor.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Pegaso:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:30:22pm
      
      Didnt a relatively unknown woman win the seat of Griffith for Labor against a very high profile LNP candidate a couple of weeks ago?I wouldnt get too comfortable about the LNP in Queensland.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - FalKirk:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:56:37pm
      
      Pegaso
      
      There was swing against Labor in the that result - the second time in the last two polls in that electorate.
      
      Just in case you didn't notice.
      
      Griffith is now a marginal Labor seat.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - mypointis:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:18:07pm
      
      It's still not a win for the LNP, they can't claim a swing is a win unless it results in their candidate actually winning the seat.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - ephemeral:
      
      17 Feb 2014 4:16:50pm
      
      As a resident of the area I can tell you that a little known person, with very little advertising beat a local pillar of the community who had engaged in a wide ranging (expensive and almost intrusive) campaign.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - PilbaraPete:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:26:54pm
      
      An unknown Female Union Lawyer (Go Figure) won Griffith because that seat is full of rusted on Lefties whom would vote for Hannibal Lectur if he was endorsed by the Labor Party. That's the problem people treat politics in Australia like football. They never swing they'll always back their team no matter what. Also Lefties, there has been an election. The National electorate has dismissed a chaotic, wasteful and ineffective Govt. The new government is getting on with governing with issues they went to the electorate with. So keep looking at the polls but there needs to be some head kicking now to return this country to fiscal responsibility and that's never popular.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Peter:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:23:21pm
      
      So, being from the Pilbara, you know all about the good voters of Griffith (except, presumably, those who voted for your "team". Try not to be silly.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - mypointis:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:20:04pm
      
      The trouble with yours and the LNP argument is they didn't win look at how many of the minority parties got large increases in vote numbers, if they truly did win they wouldn't have had to rely on preferences.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Trent Toogood:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:09:25pm
      
      Aahh yes, nothing like a bitter and twisted, sore loser of the born to rule fraternity.
      
      Get your excuses ready for the Redcliffe bi election.
      
      Should be very entertaining.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - pete:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:48:02pm
      
      Spot on Alfie,the union campaign against Newman is quite laughable.Confidence up,business up,corruption down,and the attacks from the labor MP is it 8 or 10 of them who cares anyway. May be they will get an idea of what the Australian people think on the 15th of March in the SA election ,thrashing is a good term.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Trent Toogood:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:13:50pm
      
      Yes. Labor will probably lose the SA election.
      
      They have been in government for a long time and the wheels turn.
      
      However the Victorian election looks like a winner for Labor.
      
      Win some lose some, I think.
      
      Just a reality check.
      
      Newman is on the nose.
      
      The Redcliffe bi election should prove that to you.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Trent Toogood:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:02:59pm
      
      "Support for Newmans LNP at a low ebb"
      
      That was the headline after the latest QLD poll.
      
      Cando is quickly becoming a cant.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - DaveS:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:20:15pm
      
      I don't think Mr Abbotts a twit. To me he's closer to being our very own George W Bush. Check these quotes and guess if its GWB or TA..
      1/ Bad bosses , like bad fathers and husbands , should be tolerated as they do more good than harm.
      2/ Ive abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.
      3/ The problem with the practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mothers convenience.
      4/ If you want to put a price on carbon , why not just do it with a simple tax.
      5/ Workers who lose their jobs should feel liberated.
      If you scored 1-2 , you are a member of the HR Nicholls society. 3-4 means you pay attention and have qualified for that teaching gig you wanted UER or not. 5 means you are the next leader of the Greens party. ;)
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - aelious:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:28:39pm
      
      What we need to have is Abbott's personal life under the media spot light.
      Let us all know just how moral this self proclaimed holy Christian he actually is.
      Why is he not living in the $150,000 /year rental house in Canberra that was rented for him at our expense???
      What is he hiding???
      Any one got any ideas???
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Kedjy:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:00:56pm
      
      Just can't help yourself in looking very silly here. Are you happy for the same spotlight to shine on Shorten ? LOVE to see that ! You attack his moral character but with well.....nothing ? You must not be aware that twas King Kev or perhaps Julia that arranged for the expensive refurb. Abbott is not a materialist and abhors wasting taxpayer money...get it ? While you are at it, show me one senior ALP leader that:
      - works for a charity
      - volunteers for RFS
      - volunteers for SLSC
      - gets out into the wider constituency and makes money for charity at the same stroke
      Put up or stay silent. I am not an LNP supporter before you rant on, I vote Independent almost always now the Democrats have gone to wherever they went.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:22:33pm
      
      Abbott got paid for all his 'charity' work Kedjy. Will he still have time for that paid work while he is PM and not in Opposition. Time will tell. No volunteers I know (including myself) go on about our good deeds just for political gain. You really ought to be ashamed of that post. You are an LNP supporter, that's why you write this rubbish.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Trev:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:22:38pm
      
      Envy is a dreadful curse, Stuffed. Abbott has never sought to publicise his good works, hint; he has been working in aboriginal communities for years before it became known and for anyone who has done that they know it is no picnic.
      
      You are really the one who should be ashamed for your post, but I gather you are female due to the vitriol in your comments, so let me tell you again. Bitterness has a root that goes deep and causes illness, so let go of it.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - andie:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:55:19pm
      
      Abbott still attends his CFS company where he is a captain of a team when ever he can and has done many times since the beginning of the fire season.
      
      He has also been doing life saving duties.
      
      Please show us any publicity unless it was the media ambushing him.
      
      Abbott was involved in these long before he became a politician.
      
      Give it a rest. You sound more and more bitter and twisted with every post like this.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Give us a break:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:25:13pm
      
      Yep, no doubt he is thinking about all the travel allowances he can claim.
      
      After all, all these hobbies should be payed for by the taxpayer.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Reinhard:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:36:26pm
      
      Here;s the thing Kedgy, Labor leaders are usually too busy doing their job to have hobbies like driving a fire truck down to Nowra and back with a camera crew in tow. It seems like coalition minions and media minders do Abbott's job for him and all he has to do is front up to the next media gig looking halfway presentable.
      I could also list all the important documents that Abbott has NOT read, like Justices Rares' judgement of the Ashby matter , or Marius Kloppers BHP statement etc but it would go over the 500 word limit..
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - big joe:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:47:28pm
      
      No Kedjy, that's not going to happen, basically they are going to try and play the man the same way they did last time, they don't have anything else.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Adelaide Rose:
      
      17 Feb 2014 4:23:30pm
      
      As long as he's getting the taxpayer to fund his extra-curricular activities it is not volunteering, it is self indulgent prancing about.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Aja:
      
      17 Feb 2014 4:27:29pm
      
      I think I would prefer a Prime Minister who has 100% of his energy focused on running the country.
      
      All previous Prime Ministers got "out into the wider constituency" so Abbott is not on his own there.
      
      What about Tony Windsor who was "out and about in his constituency" every weekend that I knew of, even working in the back of his car between venues!!!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Trent Toogood:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:18:17pm
      
      errr, wasnt there something about claiming travel allowances for bike rides and weddings?
      
      Seems that Tone not wasting taxpayers money doesn't count when the money is going straight in to his pocket!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Give us a break:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:21:27pm
      
      How many volunteers have TV cameras following them around, filming them pretending to do community work.
      
      Who can forget the pretend clean up Australia photo op?
      
      Even Abbott looked sheepish doing that one!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Trev:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:16:38pm
      
      Ooooooer, the last gasp of a rusted on leftie. Quick, see if you can dig up some dirt so we can throw it to conceal our utter incompetence. It's called hypocrisy, aelious, but then I don't have to tell a laborite about hypocrisy, do I?
      
      The only people hiding things from scrutiny are the union goons who have had a cream run under labor.
      
      Methinks it is time to pay the piper, you little beauty!!!!!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Stuffed Olive:
    
    17 Feb 2014 11:32:02am
    
    Isn't that the popularity poll between Party leaders. Not the same as voting intentions. Wishful thinking joe.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - And Justice for All:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:48:01pm
      
      Sorry Stuffed Olive but it pains me to advise that today's Nielsen Poll has the LNP ahead 2PP 52-48 based on preference allocation from the last election.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Farside:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:46:59pm
      
      Nice one Stuffed O, perhaps you should have reminded your side of politics of that little knowledge gem prior to them knifing two sitting PM's in the back during the disaster of the last 6 yrs...Im sure little Bill would have appreciated the advice mumphs in advance.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:23:57pm
      
      Cut out this knifing crap - your lot has knifed plenty of your own.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Give us a break:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:27:37pm
      
      The other day's Newspoll had Labor 52-48
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Stuffed Olive:
    
    17 Feb 2014 11:36:20am
    
    Ah, just noticed the Essential poll. The one from Reachtel was totally different. Don't know which poll to believe. Seems 5% of the population give a different answer every week or so.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Machiavelli's Cat:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:01:12pm
      
      Today's Fairfax-Nielsen has both leadership and voting intentions.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Stuffed Olive:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:46:46pm
      
      I've never been keen on the Neilson polling. Every different polling mob get differing results. There was the Reachtel one done in between the last two Neilson ones and there's a different story again. If they polled every week like they did in 2012 and 2013 I wonder what the trend would really be. The Murdoch mob aren't paying for the polling like they used to - wonder why.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - The nose:
    
    17 Feb 2014 1:16:48pm
    
    The latest opinion poll shows the idiot vote although small is still large enough to swing an election.
    The Abbott led rhetoric appears to have strong appeal with this politically illiterate mob. Stop the boats... etc.
    The polite conciliatory approach being adopted by Shortland in opposition will not ressinnate with this mob.
    Shortland has to ramp up and invent some rhetoric of his own, I groaned when he said we are open to business.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Trent Toogood:
    
    17 Feb 2014 4:58:16pm
    
    But I thought the polls didnt mean anything.
    
    It was too early you said.
    
    Even the Newspoll had Labor well in front.
    
    But that one didnt mean anything.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Elizabeth A:
  
  17 Feb 2014 10:59:10am
  
  Kangaroo Edwards
  Abbott and Hockey have the unenviable task of producing a budget that tightens up all unnecessary spending. I'd trust the government to make the right decisions and after the previous Labor muddlers we are now in safe hands.
  I think you'll find the budget logical and sensible just like the Government.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Chris:
  
  17 Feb 2014 11:23:20am
  
  KE - really??? I think things are going very well for him.
  He has turned the boats debate around - and while the Indonesians are not thrilled he has not been hurt at all, my guess is a lot of people are secretly delighted to see the Govt. stand up to the Indonesians a bit. I remember raging about his 'stupid' turn the boats back policy 'it was not possible' - and yet he has done it and those orange boats washing up in Indonesia are almost funny.
  He has saved a lot of money by putting out a strong message about ending corporate welfare - sure Cadbury was a misstep, but the message is still unmistakable. I for one am surprised and delighted to see the corporates being held to account.
  As a result of going tough on business he has opened the door politically to being tough on individuals... meaning he can deliver a shocker of a budget and therefore deliver on his balanced budget in a few years commitment.
  He has got the Union movement on the back foot and now has a Royal Commission that is going to give him years and years of material - Unions are going to be a national joke before this is finished.
  Even though he promised not do re-visit workchoices - he has somehow managed to make industrial relations centre stage without being seen to have broken his promise.
  And he is working to free up money from the states and elsewhere through the privatisation program to deliver on infrastructure.
  Therefore, unlike the last government, he does actually look like he will be able to stand up in 3 years and claim to have delivered on what he said he would do.
  ... so, look, he might be disagreeable on some of what he goes on about, and some of what he is doing / said he would do is not that great.... but he is certainly not a twit.
  The two big issues he has not got across are that health / food website with the lobbyist (which is not a biggie as the lobbyist can just resign) and the Cadbury / will need to do something with Qantas issue which cuts across his corporate welfare message.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - MT_Syd:
    
    17 Feb 2014 11:54:01am
    
    dont fall for the propaganda about being tough on corporate welfare
    
    the government is doling out about 10 billion this year to support other sectors, a billion to mining, a billion to banks, a billion to agriculture, and a raft of other grants and subsidies
    
    and it still is happy to indulge in handouts to farmers, or to marginal seats
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Kangaroo Edward:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:33:00pm
      
      Don't forget the 900 million to News LTD.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - ande:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:07:56pm
      
      Please detail this supposed direct government monies to News Ltd.
      
      Put up or shut up.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Peter the Lawyer:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:26:06pm
      
      Keep telling the lies, and maybe one day you will believe them.
      
      BTW, look up the meaning of subsidy and welfare and you will see that tax exemptions, rebates and deductions are not subsidies.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Uriah Heep the lawyer:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:17:35pm
      
      "look up the meaning of subsidy"
      
      The tax exemptions, rebates and deductions are subsidies in the hands of those who receive them. Without the subsidies the receiver would have to raise more capital or reduce the extent of its operations.
      
      The dictionary definition of subsidy: a grant or contribution of money.
      
      Spin your way out of that one Peter.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- David:
  
  17 Feb 2014 12:19:37pm
  
  Kangaroo Edward Abbott is not only coming across as a ' twit' but a dangerous twit. The fool can't even open his mouth without telling some form of a lie, and then has the hide to deny it. Hockey has learnt quickly to follow suit. The conversation with Toyota people must have happened in a dream. The farmers had better watch out, Abbott will tell them one thing, then next week tell them they only thought he said it. The polls suddenly show Abbott is gaining in popularity, after the SPC lie and the Toyota lie? No one ever asks me to comment in polls, they must only ask those voters in safe electorates, I wonder if they ever ask those in Shepparton or Geelong? A horror budget in store for us, because Hockey has run out of fingers and toes.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Ted:

17 Feb 2014 8:18:51am

It has been obvious for months that we are being softened up to accept some pain in the budget aimed primarily at those who need some assistance the most. This is so that we will ignore the money being dished out to those who don't need it - fuel subsidies to the miners instead of resources tax; superannuation concessions allowing massive tax avoidance; private schools; PPL; tax evasion by multi-national companies; middle class welfare; carbon tax cuts (worth about double pa what the sale of Medibank Private will yield once only).

What about leaving those suffering hard times alone and starting with the tax evasion? Or start with everything on the above list. Then there would be no need for any other cuts and no softening up required. Perhaps what we need is a firey speech from the Labor Party about these matters before they are set in stone.

Reply Alert moderator
- Desert Woman:
  
  17 Feb 2014 8:45:52am
  
  Rather than consider one factor at time, what do you think would happen if a room of politicians was asked collectively to list all the factors that would describe the most desirable Australia? I'll bet you would get a very different picture from the direction in which we are currently travelling.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- P Grant:
  
  17 Feb 2014 8:55:21am
  
  For some years now we've had growing disparity of wealth here; problematic when so many are unemployed, under-employed, or the working poor from casualisation in some industries.
  It's a big ship to turn around, and I think it will take more than the Labor party to do it.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Chris Curtis:
  
  17 Feb 2014 9:55:31am
  
  Ted,
  
  I?ll issue you with my standard challenge to those attacking ?middle class welfare?: produce a scheme that avoids both payments to middle-income earners and the disincentive of high effective marginal tax rates. Hundreds of articles have appeared having a go at ?middle class welfare? but no one has ever bothered doing the work necessary.
  
  Family tax benefits are a frequent target, but they are not ?middle class welfare?. They simply implement the principle of horizontal tax equity, which states that people of similar means should pay similar amounts in tax. A single person on $70,000 and a couple on the same amount with two children have very different capacities to pay tax. The tax system used to recognise this by deductibility for children and spouses, and those deductions were available to everyone; i.e., they were not means-tested at all, but no one thought of them as ?middle class welfare?. The tax system now recognises this principle via Family Tax Benefits, the differences being that they are means-tested and you don?t have to earn any money on the first place to get FTB whereas you did before in order to get a deduction.
  
  If we accept a payment of, say, $5,000 for a child for a poor person, then we have the issue of the level to phase that payment down. Do we start to reduce it at $20,000, at $30,000, at $40,000? Do we reduce it at 10 cents in the dollar (taking $100,000 of extra income to eliminate it for a family with two children), at 20 cents in the dollar (taking $50,000 of extra income to eliminate it), at 50 cents in the dollar (taking $20,000 of extra income to eliminate it)? In the first case, we have ?middle class welfare?. In the last case we have a very high EMTR.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - PW:
    
    17 Feb 2014 11:31:54am
    
    "They simply implement the principle of horizontal tax equity, which states that people of similar means should pay similar amounts in tax."
    
    It's not working. If it were working a childless couple making $75,000 each would be paying the same tax as a couple where one made $120,000 and the other $30,000.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Peter the Lawyer:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:29:39pm
      
      No, that's the whole point, the childless couple should be paying more, because they can afford more.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Reagan Country:
    
    17 Feb 2014 11:46:27am
    
    I think it was Kim Beazley who proposed the concept of a negative income tax, which would have been revolutionary, eliminate nearly all welfare, simple to manage, most likely as equitable as anything we've discussed while providing real incentives. I'm not sure why it never came under true consideration, maybe the numbers didn't add up? Sadly it's too easy to be negative in Australia so real revolutionary but inspiring policies are too often shouted down before genuine analysis is done and argued.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Peter the Lawyer:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:30:13pm
      
      Actually the negative income tax is a Libertarian policy
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Reagan Country:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:51:23pm
      
      Maybe so Peter the Lawyer. But I seem to recall Kim Beazley talking about one, maybe I'm wrong. But if we're both right, and a Labor leader is supporting a libertarian policy then chances are it's good policy, just like Hawke and Keating's financial market deregulation.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Chris Curtis:
    
    17 Feb 2014 1:40:23pm
    
    PW,
    
    We could move to a system of family taxation rather than individual taxation, but there would have to be a long conversation and a lot of detailed mathematical modelling done first.
    
    Reagan Country,
    
    I?m not sure of Kim Beazley proposed a negative income tax scheme or not, but we do need fundamental change to our tax/welfare/superannuation system. I proposed to the tax review linking the tax-free threshold and family tax benefits to movements in the minimum wage and the allocation of two-tax-free thresholds to the single-income family. Labor took the two tax-free thresholds idea to the 2004 federal election, but it lost. Sadly the national conversation is fixated on workforce participation, not the enjoyment of life.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Oaktree:
  
  17 Feb 2014 9:59:34am
  
  With the cuts to the Tax Department, I wonder how many big companies will be properly scrutinised? I seem to remember that a number of international companies were found to be rorting Australia following a US investigation, but of course we will not have the resources to follow up - will we...
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - ande:
    
    17 Feb 2014 2:14:19pm
    
    Any current cuts in the TAx Department are a result of Rudd/Gillard policies - remember the efficiency dividends?
    
    Result of ALP policy - estimated 12,000 job losses with unfunded severance packages.
    
    Sounds familiar - ALP UNFUNDED policy where have we seen that recently.
    
    Oh that is right - PNG solution $1.2 Billion and last week NDIS trial sites $400,000 Million.
    
    I guess if you are ALP you just put it on the credit card of us the taxpayers.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Peter:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:27:49pm
      
      Ande, nice rant but why not answer the question? If big companies look like not being prperly scrutinised, why not engage people to do it - after all, if they're any good they should be able to pay for themselves many times over. Unless you WANT the biggies to go unscrutinised?
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Peter the Lawyer:
    
    17 Feb 2014 2:32:54pm
    
    Actually we do have the resources. When the ATO makes cuts it cuts in areas that collect less tax. The ATO has a highly efficient group of workers that does nothing but talk to big companies everyday. There is very little room for big taxpayers to avoid tax anymore.
    
    The cuts in ATO presoneel will probably advantage low level taxpayers, who will get by with a lot less scrutiny.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - taxedorff:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:54:48pm
      
      that's right the nice big companies pay everything to the tax department in fact the big companies are so abiding the tax department should reduce itself even further to just a skeleton crew who chase the tiny tax avoiding low paid ..... get real big business is highly supported by lawyers who chase every loophole like a rat up a drain pipe. big business also cry foul at the hints of tax reform which may see them actually paying tax correctly....
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Aja:
      
      17 Feb 2014 4:33:58pm
      
      Unless they have taken their money offshore and avoid tax by doing so. Any good accountant can tell you how that is done.
      
      Seeing that most wealthy people are on an extension to the taxation office anyways, they usually are paying this years tax in 3-4 years time anyway. Get real!
      
      Cuts in ATO personnel will probably advantage low level taxpayers? They will have to wait longer for any tax return they are getting because of staff shortages while wealthy clients have no worries like that!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
mik:

17 Feb 2014 8:38:18am

More and more this budget has the hallmarks of a year 7 student rushing their class assignment the night before its due.

Reply Alert moderator
- Alfie:
  
  17 Feb 2014 12:00:49pm
  
  It will be better than any of Swans year 3 efforts. His erroneous guesswork was laughable.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Julie Dooley:
    
    17 Feb 2014 12:29:06pm
    
    Typical right-wing guff from you Alfie.
    
    Swan didn't act alone in his budget deliberations. He acted on the advice of Treasury.
    
    Hockey has taken a different approach. Set up a right-wing team of business leaders and a few Liberal ex-politicians and call it the Commission of Audit. Let the Commission of Audit frame the budget. If it turns out to be a bad budget Hockey can hide behind the Commission of Audit and blame it for any damage done.
    
    Didn't 50+% of the electorate put these idiots into power so they could make their own decisions? Who elected the Commission of Audit?
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Paul Pott:
    
    17 Feb 2014 4:31:53pm
    
    Alfie
    This primary school playground name calling will have to stop when you get to high school. The big boys there expect students top behave as young adults. You are going to have to learn how an adult behaves.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Alpo:

17 Feb 2014 8:57:17am

"twin terrors of debt and deficit."... Nonsense! The debt is not a problem if you have assets and productive capacity to repay it. The deficit is not a problem, if you have incurred it in order to increase your productive capacity. Liberal politicians don't understand how the business world that they say they want to help really works. A government that is really open for business must know how to invest, but this government of incompetents only understand their role in the economy as organisers of a big "garage sale".

Murdoch and the shock jocks could manipulate public opinion to favour Abbott against the Labor Government, simply by exaggerating any strife the People were going through (see repayment of mortgage, increasing costs of living). Abbott can't use the reverse tactic: paint reality more rosy than it is. It's easy to convince somebody that things can be better, but telling them that they should be happy with what they have got, when they are unhappy, and worried, and stressed, and angry... it's a lost cause. The People must ask themselves one question and one question only: Am I in a better position now than I was under Labor?... If the answer is NO!, then vote this mob out..... Pretty simple really.

Ah, by the way, where is that "widespread support" for scrapping assistance to industry?.... Check the polls on voting intentions, they tell a very different story! Talking "tough" and producing lower standards of living, will send this mob of incompetents right on the path to oblivion... never mind, they will be in the good company of John Howard there.

Reply Alert moderator
- stu:
  
  17 Feb 2014 10:01:53am
  
  Possibly not " Am I in a better position now than I was under Labor?... but more like is Australia in a better position now than it was under Labor?... when we get to vote them in or out. If it's a total stuff up like last time well......
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Alpo:
    
    17 Feb 2014 10:18:25am
    
    Hi stu, I agree that people should also have a broader perspective at the time of voting, and think about the country at large.... I wish they had done so at the last Federal election! But many were just focused on their immediate concerns, duly exploited by the Coalition propaganda. The Liberal ideology is fixated with the "individual", so they now can't complain if somebody like me suggests that each individual should consider his/her personal situation, and then judge.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - big joe :
      
      17 Feb 2014 11:23:30am
      
      Hi Alpo, I do so enjoy your ramblings, you present yourself as being amenable "I agree that people should also have a broader perspective at the time of voting" very reasonable of you but then you put the boot in "I wish they had done so at the last federal election" Face it mate, you are a rusted on leftie and will never, ever agree with anything that goes against your philosophy. Trying to present your self as something you are not is very dishonest of you and is very transparent. Did it ever occur to you that people considered their personal situation, made an informed judgement and voted accordingly at the last federal election? Probably not as it did not achieve the result you wanted.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:00:39pm
      
      "you are a rusted on leftie"... big joe, if you ask any of the regulars here, they will tell you that I "outed" myself as a Social Democrat very many moons ago. Unlike most right-wingers who never mention their political philosophy and pretend just to be your "average Joe and Jenny". The Libertarians were the only ones fighting their battles in the open, but I don't see them around here anymore.
      How each person voted I cannot tell, I haven't asked each one of them. But I know the level of very well cashed up propaganda that went on in this country since soon after the Rudd Government was elected in 2007. If you were asleep and saw nothing, don't blame me.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Trev:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:38:15pm
      
      Alpo, you can "out" yourself as many times as you like, it makes no difference to us who have the delightful humour of reading your posts, YOU ARE A RUSTED ON LEFTIE ( just as much as I am a RUSTED ON RIGHTIE. There old chap, it may now sink in and give you some self identification.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      17 Feb 2014 4:37:48pm
      
      "it makes no difference to us"... Then why are you so unsettled, Trev? Calm down, and don't distract yourself with irrelevant issues. I think that you guys are developing some sort of Alpomania Terribilis.... very dangerous stuff!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Kevin Wunterm:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:15:00pm
      
      I can't say I agree with you big joe. Alpo's domination of these fora with sheer volume of "ramblings" truly makes one wonder how he manages to earn a living. Or perhaps this is his living? One thing is for certain though...his political leanings are far more influenced by his own circumstances than any concern for the country. The left are doomed to be forever hypocrites.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Alpo:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:42:42pm
      
      " how he manages to earn a living"... I am semi-retired Kevin, and I am currently writing books (my fourth one is about to be published by Springer). Coming here is part of my breaks and it is also my little contribution to public discourse.... What about you?.... As for the fate of this country, Kevin, it's in the hands of ALL of us. So, never ever fall asleep, or others will determine your future for you!
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - citizen:
      
      17 Feb 2014 4:59:30pm
      
      I must admit I am confused about the argument going on.
      
      Can we ever change anyone?s beliefs and views? We all make decisions based on what we perceive from the interactions we undertake or are subjected to. Your perception may not coincide with mine and I can and will live with that.
      
      As a humanist and a believer in social justice and equity, it does not stop me interacting and discussing ideas with my extended family of three very pro liberal and my father who is a staunch anti-unionist.
      
      And yes, people made a decision maybe not as detailed or logical as one might hope, but clearly based on their belief system and maybe not so much on their circumstances or the expected benefits they may receive.
      
      There must be a certain percentage that do not agree with the government and would like to express their views. Are you suggesting they should forget their ideals and beliefs and just accept your view of reality?
      
      Sorry.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
Skeptic:

17 Feb 2014 8:58:49am

They will have trouble convincing anyone about what we want as opposed to what we need because they appear to be completely clueless about this themselves.

Reply Alert moderator
Fair Go:

17 Feb 2014 9:05:06am

It helps to have the Murdoch Press on side. If jobs continue to slide the softening up process won't work.

Reply Alert moderator
- Kedjy:
  
  17 Feb 2014 1:07:08pm
  
  But is balance being achieved by the ALP having Fairfax and the ABC as it's Cheer Squad ? Go and check the unemployment numbers are right on track as set up by the ALP, their numbers and spot on.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Jay Somasundaram:

17 Feb 2014 9:06:48am

With Rudd, you knew that even if he had friends, he would not pander to them or make decisions to please them. With Abbott and co, I do not have that confidence.

In any case, tough love isn't enough. We need genuine strategies for national competitive advantage pursued competently. Using our spies to get commercial secrets isn't enough.

Reply Alert moderator
- Steve_C:
  
  17 Feb 2014 12:12:50pm
  
  How's about a "tough love strategy"?
  
  A strategy like: The amount earned per hour by an Australian is not determined by "market forces", but by how "important" they are.
  
  For instance, if one Aussie can justify their being 2,000 times more important than another Aussie, then they deserve their recompense per hour.
  
  That would clearly identify to all Australians, the perception that certain of our fellows have of the rest of us and themselves.
  
  Then we could make up our minds as to whether we're happy with them thinking they're that much more important, or whether we take issue with them thinking like that.
  
  With the "market driven" hourly rewards system so many Aussies mindlessly go along with at present, it's easy to mask the reality that certain of our fellow Australians think themselves stratospherically more important to life, the Universe and everything, than a very large proportion of their fellows.
  
  Sadly, such a "tough love policy" as I've outlined, would be poo-pooed by those with too much too lose, as well as them who brown nose for crumbs... and besides, the Aussies of today are gutless dweebs who have lost the gumption required to save their own butts even as their butts are going down the gurgler.
  
  They'd much rather have someone else "do it for them"...
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Peter the Lawyer:
    
    17 Feb 2014 2:39:01pm
    
    You are very right that too many Australians want their lives run for them. Hence 'social democrats' like Alpo seem to think that the answer to any question is 'increase government spending." They seem to think that somehow governments can increase the feeling of community by interfering in society when the opposite is mostly always true.
    
    But if Australains were to get up and help themselves, then it would have to be market forces that set the remuneration levels.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Seano:

17 Feb 2014 9:07:44am

"the government's gestures and incantations ? from MYEFO and the Commission of Audit to keynote speeches and feature articles - are all crafted to shape voter expectations into acceptance, if not support, for a budget that shares the pain around."

Paula's incantations are all crafted to read the minds of complete strangers and maybe get a job in the phone room at Essential.

"This is the first of a weekly column by Paula Matthewson."

Is this weekly column in addition to her normal weekly column? Is there someone who can do the proof-reading yet?

Reply Alert moderator
kas:

17 Feb 2014 9:18:59am

You have to laugh. Abbott bending over backwards to say farming is a different kettle of fish to SPC, Holden, or Toyota. Having seen a lot of Australia I have come to the conclusion that a lot of farmers are farming on unsustainable country. Central Aust is a desert , WA is mostly desert and mining, SA is nearly always in dry, QLD, NSW and VIC had major flooding two years ago, and now, once again they are in "drought". If we are not propping them up with flood assistance then it is drought assistance, if not drought assistance then it is hail, or fire. Many farmers don't believe in climate change. Tony Abbott should tell them if your property is unsustainable then you will just have to learn another trade, just like the SPC, Holden and Toyota workers have been told, after all "some jobs go, some other new jobs come along". Instead of pouring money into assistance why don't they put money into infrastructure to bring water to these areas, stop allowing farming on unsustainable land, stop over stocking property. If you want to be a farmer, go where it is viable to do so, stop asking for handouts year in year out, if it is not sustainable it is not sustainable

Reply Alert moderator
- Nova4avr:
  
  17 Feb 2014 10:07:41am
  
  Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about. If we lose the farming sector as we have with virtually every other sector , through total & complete incompetence from all Govts., then we will only have the off shore owned greedy mining companies left & that would be disastrous for us all.
  Without the rural sector we would have to import most of our food & all the rural towns & citied would become ghost towns. Then how are we going to support those people without any other sector supplying any employment.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - kas:
    
    17 Feb 2014 10:37:29am
    
    Have you ever seen some of this so called "farming country" in Australia? A rabbit would have to take a cut lunch to survive on it. Have you ever sold cattle at $1.90 kg 20 years ago and u are still selling cattle at a $1.90kg now when the price of meat has gone up over 50%. What about Woollies and Coles paying the farmers fair dinkum prices for their meat, milk and fruit and vegetables. It appears Tony Abbott was quite prepared to sacrifice the fruit industry by not supporting SPC. We are already bringing in cheap imported farm produce, how about the Government attack overseas dumping. Do you by all Australian products or overseas cheap imports. What about the manufacturing sector, are you happy to see that go and we become reliant on overseas imports. Are you happy to see Tony prop up the mining companies at the expense of everyone else. Are you happy to see FTA's being signed left right and centre with absolutely no idea what we are giving away have you asked to see any of these FTA agreements
    
    Tony keeps saying if it is not viable then don't expect his Government to hand out any cash. If it applies to one then it should apply to everyone.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
  - Adelaide Rose:
    
    17 Feb 2014 10:39:57am
    
    I think you'll find that kas was just applying Abbott logic evenly around the sectors. Why should farmers be given assistance while manufacturers are not? What makes them so much more important than people working in factories, or retail or trades? The government should be looking at ways of supporting all sectors not just some. Losing manufacturing is a massive blow, a blow encouraged by the Abbott government. Losing farming will be a similar blow. If we are using the argument that we can import cars cheaper, and that the manufacturers that aren't profitable should shut up shop, why don't we say that farmers who aren't profitable should sell up and move elsewhere. In the same way that we can import cheaper cars, we can also import cheaper food.
    My personal opinion is that the government should be supporting Australian farmers, manufacturers and other businesses. Sometimes it will mean subsidies or one-off payments, at other times it will be support by building in safeguards e.g. rules against the dumping of cheap imports on the Australian market. The way things are going under this government, Australia may as well shut up shop now, they are crucifying business and industry for purely ideological purposes.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Julie Dooley:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:35:25pm
      
      "What makes [farmers] so much more important than people working in factories, or retail or trades?"
      
      They vote Liberal or National. That makes them extremely important.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - jennbrad:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:15:05pm
      
      I think what makes them important is that their produce is our food, and a sustainable Australian food supply is to my mind important.
      
      Kas is right though, that certain farmed areas of Australia are unsuitable and we are also offering up viable farming land for other purposes (e.g. gas) when they should be the areas we farm. You don't need science fiction to envisage a situation where certainty of Australian food supplies is important fr our future.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Adelaide Rose:
      
      17 Feb 2014 4:33:05pm
      
      Sustainable Australian business is important in ALL sectors, not just farming. Abbott is cherry picking industries to support while he deliberately pulls the rug out from under others His is an ideologically driven government, nothing more, nothing less
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Dicky:
      
      17 Feb 2014 3:43:57pm
      
      Heavens Adelaide Rose, what are you doing citing such extreme views on this forum? Coming out with logical arguments, even? How could you!
      
      Seriously though, truth and logic are such rare commodities in Australia these days that it is heartening to see them on a forum such as this. Thank you.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - Mark James:
    
    17 Feb 2014 10:41:10am
    
    Nova4avr, the problem is Abbott and Hockey are framing policy on neo-liberal principles.
    
    Which is fair enough, but, on the one hand they're arguing that SPC and Holden should not be supported because, given the vagaries of the global economy, they're not able to survive in Australia.
    
    And on the other hand they're arguing that farmers and Cadburys should be supported because, given the vagaries of the global economy, they're not able to survive in Australia.
    
    To the non-aligned, that sounds like hypocrisy governing on behalf of vested interests.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - And Justice for All:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:05:36pm
      
      Mark J, totally agree on Cadbury, an embarrassing mistake if ever there was one. Farmers, though, are different. I can live without my car, my TV, even my canned fruit, but I can't live without food. Unless Australia wants to be at the mercy of other countries with regards to our food supply, we need to have a strong farm sector. But the key word is strong ... we shouldn't prop up inefficient farmers any more than ineffient businesses but we should support efficient farmers.
      
      But how?
      
      Is there such a thing as a 'National Farmers Insurance Scheme' or similar where farmers are obliged to pay a portion of their income in the good years to fund insurance that will help them get through the inevitable bad years, caused by drought or flood? I'm no expert on this so I'll leave whether this is practical to wiser people.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - Mark James:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:49:09pm
      
      Thanks AJFA, but I'd say forcing farmers to insure themselves against drought would put them at an even greater competitive disadvantage by forcing their costs up further.
      
      In the end, I guess it's a matter of whether you think the government should insure anyone or any thing against the vagaries of anything.
      
      We've put ourselves at the mercy of the US for defence, for instance, and I wonder whether it wouldn't be wise for our government to insure us against future wars in Asia by retaining the ability and production capacity to make our own vehicles, for instance.
      
      Either way, if the government insists on picking some winners, but not others, people are bound to ask why the favouritism.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
  - lazarus:
    
    17 Feb 2014 2:00:03pm
    
    No-one is arguing we don't need a farming sector, just if you aren't making a profit sell up and get out and let someone else try to run the farm profitably. If it is so easy for workers at Holden or Toyota then it should be just as easy for a farmer. Tony's magical higher paid job will appear as soon as he leaves the farm.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- Bob:
  
  17 Feb 2014 10:16:54am
  
  kas, according the ABC's own Media Watch, Australia has one of the lowest levels of subsidies to the agricultural sector of all countries. Our farmers are among the most efficient in the world, but have to ply their trade in arguably the toughest climate of all continents. So don't be too harsh on them when they get their measly 3% in subsidies - yes, that's all they get, far less than any other sector in the economy.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - fred:
    
    17 Feb 2014 10:40:20am
    
    Bob,i think what Kas is saying ,why are we supporting or should i say propping up farmers on country that with in itself is not viable to farm at the best of times ,marginal ,semi desert .Land that should be spelled or brought by government and only leased to other viable farmers, if after a environmental study to asses if it is even viable to lease. Stop men committing suicide because the land can not provide ,even in good years ,stop prolonging their suffering by dollars which they will never pay back, because of the above.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Steve_C:
      
      17 Feb 2014 12:30:08pm
      
      "why are we supporting or should i say propping up farmers on country that with in itself is not viable to farm at the best of times"...
      
      I've often wondered that myself - especially given the rather meat headed desire to force a country that had evolved it's own forms of plant and animal life has been 'forced' to produce foreign forms of plant and animal life, merely because somebody who cam from a country that had those plants and animals as the basis for it's 'farming' did so!!
      
      It's the agricultural equivalent of pushing poo uphill! Our so-called "agriculture" is based on alien plants and animals!
      
      Talk about constantly stepping on diamonds while convincing yourself there's only useless dirt!!
      
      Our farmers are just endemic of the lack of faith this country has - especially amongst the less indigenous Australians that is; in everything this Continent has had to offer without needing anything from elsewhere!
      
      And along the way, they've just made things even harder for themselves by trying to import European based farming/agricultural practices on a land that's now showing the physical price for their attempts to do so.
      
      I for one, feel empathy for their plight - but I sure as Hell don't want to pay them to keep on trying to flog a well dead horse!
      
      Now if they got monetary incentive to alter their agricultural/livestock practices/type to something that leverages 'native' and sustainable forms, it'd be a different matter as far as I'm concerned.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
    - GraemeF:
      
      17 Feb 2014 1:31:45pm
      
      A lot of farmers do care for the land but others, as an economist friend of mine says, just mine the soil. Once all the goodies are gone and the topsoil blows away then the land is stuffed.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
- jusme:
  
  17 Feb 2014 10:42:53am
  
  Yes. Haven't they read Dorothy Mackellars poem? I know they have because they used it to say earlier than ever fires last October are a common thing. But being the deceitfuls that they are they ignore their own statements as needs be.
  
  Having said that I believe we should support our farmers AS WELL as perhaps move a few if they're in areas with consistent drought and floods, both of which 99% of scientiests say will be increasing.
  
  Don't hide behind excuses that "this is different", admit that some socialistic or communistic behaviour is necessary for a country to survive and stop being totalitarian with the "privatisation is best" mantra.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Kedjy:
    
    17 Feb 2014 1:10:11pm
    
    So what communistic or socialistic behaviour is good for us ? Please elaborate and explain why failed social systems should be deployed here ? BTW you forgot Marxism.
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - lazarus:
      
      17 Feb 2014 5:24:20pm
      
      Australia and Europe all run a socialist system, it why you have public hospitals, public education and a welfare system.
      
      If you want to see a failed capitalist system look at the good ole USA, the odd man out.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
Mark James:

17 Feb 2014 10:00:06am

It looks essentially like policy by character assassination.

Negativity worked in Opposition, so why wouldn't it work in Governement when you've got a major media organisation working in tandem, honing in on your chosen targets with rumour, innuendo, strawman and association?

So, SPC are tarnished because they're owned by Coca-Cola, because they made a profit, and because their workers are on "extraordinary" awards (don't worry about the facts, just let rumour and exaggeration do its work).

Asylum seekers are "illegals" so are disqualified from Australia's obligation under the Refugee Convention (shouldn't we unsign the convention before trashing it?).

Shorten is associated with unions, who are associated with bikies, who are associated with gangs and crime (you put the pieces together).

And we can only imagine how they would have attacked the farmers had it not been for the fact that the Liberals are politically dependent on the Nationals and their constituency.

Divide and rule. The arch-demonisers are back.

Reply Alert moderator
das:

17 Feb 2014 10:05:32am

It's not very hard to judge public opinion when you are spending 4.3 million dollars of public money on social media for direct party policy framing .We will see how tough he is when he tells farmers to leave their farms because they are not viable on land that is semi desert and still getting prices for cattle at $1.90 per kg that they were getting thirty five years ago and inflation in that same period is eighty percent plus.I was getting that price for my cattle in those years.Stop propping the poor buggers up until the next drought every two years ,turn the land into national parks and lease it to others in good times after an environmental study to see if its viable to do so.

Reply Alert moderator
Hudson Godfrey:

17 Feb 2014 10:21:52am

So do yourself a favour Tony and save your "tough love" for somebody that actually voted for it. The rest of us are adults and know broken promises and lies when we see them.

Having the ABC of all organisations run this doublespeak insults our intelligence! What Abbott should be doing instead is basically his job! You know little things like making sure Australian workers have jobs..... FAIL!

Reply Alert moderator
- ande:
  
  17 Feb 2014 2:27:15pm
  
  100,000+ manufacturing jobs lost or moved overseas under ALP.
  
  FAIL, FAIL, FAIL
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- Peter the Lawyer:
  
  17 Feb 2014 2:46:24pm
  
  It is not a politician's work to make sure Australians have jobs, it is the work of all of us.
  
  You of course just want to put your hand out and be given everything. How childish is that.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - Hudson Godfrey:
    
    17 Feb 2014 4:17:54pm
    
    Childish would be right, because it is child's play to have to explain to people that government's role is to serve the will of the electorate and the greater good.
    
    Breaking promises does not seem in line with the will of the electorate. That's problem number one here.
    
    Problem number two, job losses to the tune of an entire automotive industry are not what anyone could call in the interests of the greater good. They just aren't!
    
    Reply Alert moderator
- burke:
  
  17 Feb 2014 5:35:19pm
  
  "Making sure Australian workers have jobs" - what a handout mentality. Do your own work, don't expect the government to do it for you. What government ever did that?
  
  Reply Alert moderator
MJLC:

17 Feb 2014 10:44:56am

"Abbott and Hockey appear to have mastered the alchemy of public opinion transformation"

I'm confused - if we're talking about the notion that too much money is being spent on someone else's "welfare" and not enough on yours, then I'm failing to see any evidence that this is an Australian "transformation".

The expression "I'm alright Jack" actually pre-dates Mr Abbott by a considerable stretch of time.

Reply Alert moderator
ij:

17 Feb 2014 10:52:03am

And yet these same politicians will not join us in that tough love.

They will keep their cushy over-paid jobs. They will continue to access their extremely generous perks, although wedding season is coming to an end, so that may slow down.

I wonder if the AFP will get more money for their support.

Reply Alert moderator
- Mark James:
  
  17 Feb 2014 11:36:55am
  
  It's worth mentioning we're paying Abbott and Hockey close to $1 million a year alone (without all the entitlements) to allocate tough love*
  
  (*not applicable to farmers, Qantas, chocolate tourism, women of calibre or anything pertaining to marginal seats).
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - ande:
    
    17 Feb 2014 2:29:08pm
    
    And how much are we paying Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Gillard and Rudd including all their perks???
    
    Reply Alert moderator
    - Mark James:
      
      17 Feb 2014 2:53:49pm
      
      ande, I understand John Howard is the most expensive (to taxpayers) ex-PM Australia ever had.
      
      Still, perhaps if Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Gillard and Rudd had ever waged class warfare against Australians who earned just a fraction of their own salaries, you'd have a point.
      
      But they didn't, and you haven't.
      
      Reply Alert moderator
GraemeF:

17 Feb 2014 11:00:32am

It is debatable whether not supporting manufacturing in Australia will help the federal bottom line but it will definitely increase the Australian gross national debt.

Reply Alert moderator
mark:

17 Feb 2014 11:20:40am

Transparent spin from a columnist who was John Howard's spin doctor.
I would suggest that the ABC make the profile of all their clearly partisan columnists visible on the same page as their article.
Placing it a click away hides the fact that Paula's comments are heavily biased towards this clearly inept government.
Abbott gets plenty of support in the partisan press, why give him a free kick like this on an independent ABC page.

Reply Alert moderator
- Kedjy:
  
  17 Feb 2014 1:12:00pm
  
  Please feel free to challenge similarly biased ( in your opinion) bloggers here mark. Did you see Insiders yesterday by any chance ? Poor Barrie was becoming apoplectic and he had the majority !!
  
  Reply Alert moderator
- fred:
  
  17 Feb 2014 1:41:19pm
  
  Mark ,because he can .He has complained that the ABC being left wing , while fully knowing that Howard changed it to the right ,does it all the time.Just watch ABC TV 24 , now that he is in ,if that left wing ,well what can i say.Just watch which section of the ABC gets the most funding in the so called budget.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
crinkly:

17 Feb 2014 12:44:47pm

So these people have set us all an example by paying back all the money they rorted from us for attending weddings, buying bookshelves etc. ?

Yeah, I thought not. Tough love for us plebs, being taught to us by overpaid, arrogant and oblivious incompetents. A very different story to a period not too long ago when they were snivelling around the country looking for votes at any cost whilst telling us nothing about any positives they had to offer. And yet still people voted for them, happy to extract vengeance against the previous government by walking into the unknown or sticking their heads down the toilet.

These people are running their agenda in spite of the actual humans who comprise this country, and even in spite of those who voted for them. And even then, the 'results' of their efforts have achieved nothing but trouble and dissent.

If this mob was running anything else, they'd be removed for incompetence and their destructive tendencies. I find it hard to concieve that even those who voted this lot into power still think we are in a good place now.

Reply Alert moderator
- ande:
  
  17 Feb 2014 2:32:50pm
  
  Yep how much an hour did the RAAF aircraft cost to fly Gillard to Byron Bay for that wedding???
  
  Who paid for the accommodation??
  
  We know also that Swan flew to Melbourne for AFL final then home to Brissie overnight then back to Sydney for NRL final> How much did that cost???
  
  Reply Alert moderator
RosieA:

17 Feb 2014 12:44:52pm

What an appalling article. Journalists and commentators shouldn't be writing opinion pieces as to how well a government is able to "win" over the electorate and how successful or otherwise they are being. They should be holding the government and opposition of the day responsible for their respective policies.

The fact that Abbott and his ministers may be able to convince the electorate that black is white, that climate change is a load of rubbish and other lies, does not mean that we have good government with good policies. That Gillard was unable to convince the electorate of the benefits of a price on carbon was largely because of the then Oppositions focus on its implementation being a "lie" and that it was a "tax" on Australians, which was itself a lie. The media promoted Abbott's simple slogans but did little to help explain the complexities of the issue. You are implying that Abbott's policy is the better one, because he managed to persuade the electorate. What a dangerous development.

Until our journalists and commentators life their game and start analysing policies, their consistency and their implications for Australians and our overall well-being, not just the success or otherwise of government strategy and spin , we will continue to slide down a hill which ends in a pit of dispair.

Reply Alert moderator
feedtherich:

17 Feb 2014 1:11:19pm

.. enjoy your middle class comforts while you have them and prepare for the worst .. the rampant greed of the wheel heeled side of town who pay no tax, whinge about paying the minimum wage for skilled workers and are totally blind to the reality that the economy is going to crumble due to their obsession will take this country down and if Tony thinks the solution is to force people to work for the dole for his precious not for profit sector (slavery) he had better be prepared for what comes next ..

Reply Alert moderator
- Peter the Lawyer:
  
  17 Feb 2014 2:51:13pm
  
  I think you will find that it is the rich who pay the vast majority of the tax, whilst whinging lefties pay bugger all, mainlky because they are too stupid to earn any money.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Bemused:

17 Feb 2014 1:11:45pm

I read an article in another media outlet that talked about the PM being at his best when complaining eg about the carbon and mining taxes. The article notes that he was now more comfortable as he has unions to complain about. As the article suggests the real difficult is in selling your own actions. Because of the GFC Mr Rudd was never put to the test of his statement about ending reckless spending. The carbon tax on the other hand was seen as hurting people and so harder to sell.

Buried in the article is a comment about people finding it easier to see merit in hard decisions when it does not hurt them. This, as the article suggests, is the true test of ability to change opinion.

i suspect the worry goes deeper to encompass concern about hard decisions if there is a view that they might hurt them. For example if the unemployment rate continues to rise, then worry increases and any decision that risks unemployment becomes harder to sell.

Reply Alert moderator
- Esteban:
  
  17 Feb 2014 4:13:48pm
  
  Mr Rudd has put an end to most reckless spending.
  
  He left the budget in deficit so we can no longer afford reckless spending.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Reinhard:

17 Feb 2014 1:37:03pm

Abbott & co's idea of "tough love" only seems to extend as far as those who failed to support them. If they were at all serious about fiscal responsibility then they would tax the mining industry accordingly. They should also axe PPL which will cost the taxpayer up to $1.5b p.a. and has all the rorting potential of Howard's "teenage single mother's pension" aka the baby bonus.
Any billionaire / millionaire business owner can legally employ their wife as a "consultant" in a shelf company, pay them oh say $150K and hey presto, $75K of taxpayer funded maternity leave on top of potential paternity leave.

Reply Alert moderator
- Peter the Lawyer:
  
  17 Feb 2014 2:56:46pm
  
  Lots of ignorance here Reinhard. Firstly, why should miner pay tax at higher rates than anyone else? There are other industries that earn more than 6% profit (the ALP's idea of a super profit). Why not tax them too?
  
  Why would a millionaire business bother to pay his wife $150K to get $75K out of the government? Such an amount is small change to rich people, Reinhard. I deal with such people everyday, they aren't interested in such petty stuff.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
Car Happy:

17 Feb 2014 1:42:42pm

With the demise of locally-made cars by 2017, does this mean that the restrictions on importing used cars will be abolished and that we can start to reap the benefits that New Zealand has?

Reply Alert moderator
Farside:

17 Feb 2014 1:54:45pm

Good story Paula, nice to see a balance point of view on the Drum for a change.

As for the whiners on the board ...5 months on and the Labor Luvvies and are still full of vitriol and hate...get over it...your in opposition and will be for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps a change in leader would help? Ooops...cant do that either...need your Union buddies to crack the whip before that can happen and Bill's their boy.....bugger about that Royal Commission huh?

Reply Alert moderator
NWM:

17 Feb 2014 1:58:07pm

I'm sorry but with Murdoch on their side the Libs can get away with anything and manipulate the public with glee, and this is a tragedy for Australia. Were Murdoch antagonistic towards them they would a) not have been elected and b) being absolutely slandered the way the last government was. This is the travesty of what Murdoch is doing - and to add insult to injury to those many Australians who do not like his abuse of freedom of speech, he has been not paying taxes and getting millions in payment from the public purse. Unfortunately many people who are dismayed about what's happening can't do anything about it and those who benefit from Murdoch's support are not going to be inclined to either.
The best we can hope for is that Australians demand a fair go - a fair go for those who struggle, and that the big end of town stops the complete abuse of our system in their tax evasion and other abuses such as obscene exec salaries. If the Libs believe in patriotism as per Abbott, then perhaps they need to examine what's going on across the board and stop trying to brainwash Australians into accepting their biaised agenda.

Reply Alert moderator
- Peter the Lawyer:
  
  17 Feb 2014 3:00:49pm
  
  I would like to know whether you think that the TV stations, which are far the most influential media in this country, are also pro-government.
  
  After all Rupert Murdoch doesn't control any TV networks.
  
  It also seems that the ABC and Fairfax (the latter to its comercial detriment) are barracking hard for the ALP/Greens.
  
  So even if the News Ltd papers are pro-government, why is that decisive?
  
  Maybe the fact is that the government is better than the opposition.
  
  After all less than a third of Australians gave Labour their primary vote in the last election.
  
  Reply Alert moderator
  - MCC:
    
    17 Feb 2014 5:51:14pm
    
    My dear old long since dead uncle once asked the question:-
    
    Q: " What is the dumbest animal in Australia?"
    
    A: "The Australian Voter"
    
    You cannot compare parties, left or right, etc because economic conditions & external world events differ from decade to decade. You have to manage under the circumstances at the time. Taking the social aspects out of the situation (which I am only doing so you can relate to it, & measure it in raw dollar value terms). If you have slow & low economic growth, a shrinking public sector, rising unemployment across all sectors, & an economic legacy of a persistently high Aust dollar, then you had better hope that capital revenue from Government asset sales can prop up infrastructure spending to try & kick the economy along!
    
    In the mean time there are going to be a hell of alot of bodies burnt along the way, & I'm thinking yours won't be one of them!
    
    Reply Alert moderator
Peter the Lawyer:

17 Feb 2014 2:12:38pm

Nobody believed Rudd's cry about the reckless spending. Mainly because there wasn't any. What people did pay attention to in 2007 was Rudd's promise to be like Howard fiscally. Rudd said he was a fiscal conservative, because that was popular. it is also the correct thing for a government to be.

Of course once Rudd got into power the fiscal rectitude went out the window.

Th Government first changed the way GDP is calculated so that itrt could pretend that it was spending less of the GDP than Howard had. This is of course a total lie. The ALP governments taxed and spent like there was no tomorrow.

Reply Alert moderator
- Reinhard likes facts:
  
  17 Feb 2014 5:26:07pm
  
  So spending $314b or 94% of the mining boom windfall wasn't reckless?
  And kindly explain why we the IMF report showed two years of the Howard were the most profligate in our history and why we two needed 10 interest rate hikes in a row from 2005-2007.
  .
  
  Reply Alert moderator
MCC:

17 Feb 2014 2:38:06pm

There appears to be alot of comments centred around 'popularity & polling' but I think there are two far more pressing & interesting questions which are coming out of the Government's request of the public to accept the end of the 'age of entitlement':-
1) What is now the expected role of government, & is it to be severely reduced & weakened, purely by lesser monetary inflows? (idealogically thats the direction it will take). &
2) Living in a global sales community means that many sectors within many industries cannot compete unless technological innovation forces down cost of sales. How do we replace jobs at the same speed they are lost?

The danger in adopting the 'tough love' path is that it can increase civil unrest because the raw edges of the society are exposed. I'm willing to bet that the politicians that are making decisions for the nation:-
- are not disabled in any way shape or form
- do not encounter direct discrimination
- are not part of what could be referred to as a minority group
- are financially secure & know how to 'play the game' that is expected in a capitalist western democracy.

Underemployment is running into double digit figures. If a society does not protect its underprivilaged then the marginalised & dislocated grow in number. Crime will grow off the back that & we move towards 'gated communities' - I'm not likin where this is heading!

Reply Alert moderator
Jerry:

17 Feb 2014 3:36:19pm

Paula,
Plenty of tough, no love. Abbott had a value system that marks out the goodies and the baddies and he sees policy as war. His value system is not based on fact or logic but is a quasi religious system of belief and opinions that are nit to be bothered by fact. He and Hockey will feed the needs of the global financiers to multiply their profits. Their views are based on the 1800's. If you don't control capital that you are a servant.

Watch the continued starving of the farmer's right to a return on their land, agriculture will follow manufacturing into oblivion.

Lots of tough, lots of discipline for others, but no love for Australia or its citizens.

Reply Alert moderator
Francie:

17 Feb 2014 4:18:13pm

What the country needs is a Government which will lead, not a Government which is intent on bringing in a surplus and nothing else.

Abbott and Hockey are cutting everything they possibly can so they can announce to us at the next budget how much the deficit has actually come in lower! This will be a furphy of the biggest order especially as they allowed the debt ceiling to be raised and therefore can hide any bad news because it is below the debt ceiling.

This Government is not seeing what the country needs but what Abbott and Hockey need to try to save themselves. Couple the two of them with Morrison and Bishop and you have the Awful Foursome (not the awesome foursome) who will undeniably bring Australia to its knees.

I have news for them though, a surplus is not the be all to end all especially as revenue will be lower (less tax from car manufacturers and their workers) and a much larger unemployment payout via Centerlink to name just two. Add to that lower export figures (caused by the drought) and higher import figures and you have a recipe for disaster.

Sure Abbott and Hockey have an agenda to bring in a surplus but they will fail and what good is a surplus if you have thousands more out of work?? No good at all!

Reply Alert moderator
John in Brisbane:

17 Feb 2014 5:23:33pm

Paula,

It's good to hear the perspective of people such as yourself. I'll read your articles with interest. I'm keen to the point of almost yearning to hear sensible, logical commentary and argument from those of a conservative bent. It just doesn't happen though. I put it down to what I call the Murdoch Effect - conservatives gravitate towards the friendly press outlets where they don't have to try as hard and so their reasoning abilities, like a muscle, waste away. If you're willing and able to use your brain, you'll be respected here even if people disagree with you. If that sounds patronising, so be it.

Rudd probably gained votes from that statement but the tide was running his way. For Latham to have gotten so close in 2004, it was clearly already turning. Rudd unfortunately then engaged in the bidding war election, giving tax cuts and handouts just as badly as the other mob, thus negating much of the value of what he'd said. The context possibly lets him off the hook. Where he impressed me was how he turned Howard and others on the death penalty issue. The Bali 9 were in the news and Howard had said many times over the years that, "My only objection to the death penalty is that an innocent person might be killed." In saying that, he repeatedly and clearly was saying that he didn't object to the overall exercise. When the news broke in 2006 (I think) about the death sentences for the drug smugglers who'd been caught cold, Rudd was opposition leader and spoke very well on the matter. Howard then came out with a statement I've never forgotten, "I've always been against the death penalty". His tone matched that of Rudd. Technically he was being correct but in reality, he was grossly misrepresenting his actual opinion. Rudd had managed that issue in a way that Howard himself must have begrudgingly respected.

Regarding local car manufacturing, it's a bit like Rudd and the reckless spending: the tide of opinion had already turned. We knew by the mid 2000s when the "1"s started getting tacked on to servo price boards that fuel was only heading one way. You couldn't give away large 2nd hand petrol 4WDs for a while there. Then the Toyota Corolla and Mazda 3 started winning the monthly sales race, which was shocking. I was reading all the motoring press and the local manufacturers were all talking about smaller cars and radically more efficient engines like turbo diesels. The Holden designers who brought us the Monaro did detailed work on a new Torana. Then nothing happened. We all are going to miss them, but sentimentality only goes so far when head offices overseas can't make sensible decisions in the face of significant changes in buying behaviour. Abbott and Costello are riding the wave of that scenario, they're not leading the debate.

Reply Alert moderator
aussiewarrior :

17 Feb 2014 5:59:06pm

Goodbye Tony and Joe you are both together not as good a fraudster as John Howard.

Reply Alert moderator
old67:

17 Feb 2014 6:03:22pm

It will be listening to a broken record when he reads it out will give that a big miss.

Reply Alert moderator