Jerry_Atrick

This was my route Wednesday and Thursday (with the obligatory overnight stop at Tocumwal): It was a very pleasant drive. Back in July, it was straight up and back.. There were potholes on the Hume and the Golbourn Valley Highway.. Not a lot, but enough, and certainly big enough to cause some real problems (I did hit one.. it thankfully did no discernible damage, but it gave me a bloody decent jolt.. And I wasn't going fast - maybe 70km/h. This time there were no potholes for most of the same route to Tocumwal. In fact, when you turn onto the Newell Highway that road is in bloody good condition, and makes the NSW roads look decidedly unmaintained. The route form Tocumwal via Echuca and Bendigo was a bit differnt, but to be honest, not much worse for most of it than I recall when I lived here over 30 years ago. Quite bumpy in places and dips galore. There were clearly areas where if they weren't attnded tom potholes would form in the not too distant future. There was a town - I can't recall which - maybe Rochester or Huntly - where there were a disproportionate number of potholes and I do recall two potholes on the Murray Valley which happened to be the width of my wheelbase as I did hit them before getting to Echuca - but they weren't deep and not terribly bumpy. Of course if cars/tricks keep hitting them it won't be long before they are bumpy. You could see lots of repaired potholes - some looked very temporary. I am not sure why they attacked only the holes though - some areas of road were visibly damaged around the holes and they should have repaired the whole section. But, I guess there is a need to get the holes plugged ASAP. I came off the Calder/Tulla freeway at Bell Street to Bulleen Road then back on myself a bit to Burke Road and then onto Moorabbin airport via the South Eastern and Warragul road. I absolutely agree with this: The amount of what look like B-Doubles compared to when I last lived in Melbourne rolling through suburban roads (I don't recall any when I last lived here) is amazing. I understand the economics to the companies operating transport businesses and that use them, but it was a bit of a brain fart on many levels to increase the weight on all but very specific routes (I am sure they are not allowed down streets, but some roads didn't seem designed for them).

According to Google, at the moment, from public records, the government is currently committed to around $2bn in spend under AUKUS. Of course, this is from what information is available publicly. But, these contracts will have escape clauses just like that of the French - especially since the US and the UK are under no obligation to deliver anything.. So, yes, it is likely we will lose some as we did with cancelling the French contract.. some $3.5bn in the end.. But even if we are on the hooks for say $10bn, it is still < 3% of the total budget of the program, so I would be happy t cut that cheque to be rid of it. And yes, I still pay tax in Australia.. The last guy setting it up excuses the cost of abandoning it; it doesn't excuse the continual accrual of a white elephant of a project to Australia committing that much money to it. Remember c. $5bn is allocated to uplift US shipbuilding capacity

It will solve the fuel price crisis

I guess it depends on ow you look at things. If you are Chump, his family or his sponsors (e.g. tech bros), you have done very well indeed and there is a lot to thin he has done well.

Sitting at the Tocumwal Hotel/Motel enjoying a VB, and it absolutely bucketed down , inclusive of hail! I know it's not the best beer in the world... but this VB has no bons in it today.

The above answers are definitely some of the reason. Also, the UK debt is 96% if GDP and Australia's is around 33%. A small interest rate bump will compound UK's fiscal woes, while a small bump won't have the same marginal impact on Australia's. However, the BoE meet tomorrow and are expected to raise the rate anyway. Note, the UK and Aus inflation rate are about the same, so you can argue the UK have been kicking the can down the road. On the other hand, I am not sure in the current state of the economy, putting up interest rates is necessarily correct, either as energy inflation is probably putting the brakes on spending in other areas.

Are you sure about that.. or are you confusing the them with the Republicans? What are the lot of good thing he has done, exactly.. And what about the lot of ship stuff he has done this time around. I'd be interested in how you square the ledger.

It has been very quiet on the forums lately. Are we holding our collective breaths for the results?

I shot the sherrif

Just another grasp at straws to try and discredit renewables

I agree on industrial relations to an extent; The Fair Work Act is a minefield and extends well beyond what would normally be the employer/employee relationship. The CGT reform was needed; and I get a lot of people are going to be affected as a result. But the distortion in the property market was palpable, and now asset classes are all treated equally. Of course, real estate is not a liquid asset, and he probably could have used transitional arrangements. But that would probably have had worse political ramifications. Looking at his performance against the G20 for the period he has been in office and it's a mixed bag; Better on growth; kept peak inflation less than his peers, but inflation is stubborn (probably a facet of an importing heavy nation). Unemployment is significantly lower than his peers: Pre COVID, the LNP did slightly better: But, there were some structural challenges Albo has that they didn't: The LNP governed through ultra-low interest rates the whole time. This is very good for economic growth. And so did most of the rest of the world, which means the money globally was flowing more freely. By the time Albo got in, the interest rates were already rising globally, and the brakes were on. The LNP enjoyed a global environment of low inflation. When Albo took office, the cost of living crisis had already started. The above graph goes until 2019 (so ex COVID). For the whole time the LNP was in, there was a resources boom that contibuted very nicely to the Aussie economy. It is picking up now, but Albo's government didn't quite have that luxury.. and that was a product of mainly Chinese demand and not the Aussie government. There was no geopolitical issues of note during the LNP period, and of course, none off the fuel shocks we are having now. I want to be clear.. I think there is a lot of room for a lot of improvement. But to call him our worst PM since Whitlam is a bit of a stretch.

Should answer your question.. My comparison with SFM is tp show he ain't worse (nor better) than the next one. Am I accepting it? In so much as there isn't anyone too much better to lead at the moment, IMHO. It's not great for me to admit it, but, as you say because of a lack of quality political leaders, is a sad state of affairs and cutting one's nose off to spite their face seems counterproductive given the benefit the change has already had. In terms of picking and choosing promises - I am not sure what you're referring to; all I did was regurgitate stats and I did qualify by saying by itself is not a good comparator. It is meant to be illustrative to Brenden mostly that not only Albo lies. I have to admit, I don't quite understand this comment.. Who was referring to the last government. Didn't Albo take action to stabilise (and return to normal levels) the housing market.. for now and in the future? What have I missed. Yep, he did like - well I believe he did.. And yes, he is paying for it politically at the moment. He timed it so (for him) the correction was swift and more people could afford homes and by the time the next election came around they would be thanking him in the ballot box resulting in a notching up of the price so those affected by the price correction could see the upside. I have to admit, he is not the master of political timing and trying it when there were geopolitical tensions that were likely to spill over and result in a global fuel price shock was not the smartest thing to do, politically. Is that the best you can do. Let me stoop to your level.. if you think the others are better, then your head is firmly wedged in a place where your torso has to form a semi-circle to get your head to. Quite, tightly wedged, too.. And part of my job is to research economies and economic performance. So, here is a graph for you.. It's the 10 year Aussie Federal Government Bond Futures Index: What it is saying is that basically, that 10 year bonds issued by the Federal government are likely to increase in price, meaning a lower yield (interest rate). This is the Standard & Poors index, which is an industry benchmark: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/fixed-income/sp-asx-australian-10-year-treasury-bond-futures-index/#overview In other words, a lot of highly qualified people who are much better than your and I put together at assessing current and likely future economic performance are putting bets on Australia as they think the current government and the RBA are doing a pretty good job managing the finances and economy. These are futures contracts rather than the bonds themselves and they represent an agreement to deliver a certain number of 10 year Aussie bonds for the stated price at the maturity of the futures contract. These are exchange traded and there is a very liquid market in 10 year Aussie bond futures. The markets are effectively saying, at the moment, we think the cost of borrowing for Australia will come down. That will be predicated by good economic management; otherwise, the riskier the loan, the more interest you will pay. The fixed income market (bonds) is the canary in the coal mine of economic performance- it responds much earlier to economic activity than the stock markets. And the futures market is the early warning system of that canary. At the moment, Australia is looking very good, indeed. Sorry to rain on your parade. Ironically, you may want to bet against the Aussie dollar because as the price rises, the yield drops and investors will look for better returns.. However, the RBA always intervenes to ensure Australia remains competitive in the investor market. What would happen to the curve if any of the others got in? The reality is I don't know. But, as the election gets closer, we should take a look at the curve against who is the favourites and see what it has to show us. Just remember that.. the people who are risking large sums of their money (for many, their livelihoods) are banking on the Australian government and RBA doing a good job managing the economy. Futures are a zero sum game; you bet the wrong way, and you lose it all; they're not like equities where unless the company goes broke, you can extract some value from each share you hold. And, it's not the only thing we could use to measure performance, but it is a good first cut.

All nice fleeting statements, but can you back it up with hard evidence?

This is where you should do a little more research before cherry picking. Every PM or political party has broken some promises. I touched on CGT already.. The reality is, as Albo said, something had to be done... It was getting worse and worse for the average Australian and that is not a good place to be. But, as I said, every political party/PM breaks promises.. some will definitely be intentional and some will be responding to conditions. For the record, I think the CGT promise as a lie and they had every intention of overhauling it. And, yes, while I agree with the outcome, he should have been more upfront about it.. Or maybe less upfront and vague about it. But, for the record, I looked up the number of broken promises between Albo and SFM. I have not validated these, but as a guide: [Edit] This is the result of an ABC/RMIT Fact Check.. In all honestly, there is not too much to draw from these as there is a big number in progress for the current government - some may fail for valid reasons and some may fail for political reasons. But my point is there is 20% of the SFM promises failed. All leaders/political parties lie or break promises. And quite materially by the looks (not calibrating size/importance of the promise). You can prattle on targetting the side you don't like and think the sun shines out of the posterior of the side you do like.. That is your prerogative. But don't be surprised if others take a different point of view and come back at you. I wouldn't worry too much about it.. If it isn't already a defence to defamation, a half witted lawyer could probably successfully persuade the court that a statement claiming fact is so devoid of truth that no average person could believe it to be true. (That is not legal advice by the way... )

I actually did touch CGT, and implied in it was the negative gearing (as it is part of a tax package that was disproportionately creating demand in an asset class against all other asset classes considered for investment). I suggest you read my post. I am prepared to stand behind what I say and provide references accordingly when required (which I am sure other forumites sometimes loathe the extents I will go to). It equalises treatment of one investment asset class.. and guess what. although the fundamentals would still include investment residential property in a portfolio for stability and growth, people (investors) are going knee jerk. And also, unlike other investment classes, residential property is for people to live in and build some security, The way it was being treated through preferential tax treatment was to artifically inflate the price denying millions of Aussies who aren't as cash rich as others a chance of financial security. A lot of young (and increasingly older) can't rely on the bank of mum and dad. To me, it is a positive step forward and it is not socialist. In fact the regime was in effect wealth socialism - artificially funnelling asset (or redistributing) to the more wealthy and already secure in society using tax incentives to inflate demand. You;re against socialism, but in a perverted way, it is redistributing the wealth - which is what socialism is about. It took a lot of balls to do the right thing as the backlash was always going to be huge. That to me, is the definition of leadership and one of the reasons why Albo has earned my respect as a leader. I still think he can do a lot better, but compared to the competition and many of his predecessors of both colours, he is not doing bad.