Jump to content

What's going on with Labor?


Marty_d
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm at a bit of a loss to explain Labor's stance on a few things lately.

 

Yes, they suffered a loss at the last election which gave them pause and caused a bit of soul searching.  (The loss was not actually that big, it was more that the expectations were high that they'd be a shoo-in.)

 

But ever since Albo took on the leadership there's been a lot of position changes on various things.  They've backed the government on a few decisions that I really didn't think they would, the latest being the laughable "big stick" energy legislation.

 

Then there's the internal scuffles over their emissions targets, with some MP's wanting to again fall in line with the LNP and their ineffective Paris commitment of 26-28%.

 

What's going on here?

 

Labor actually had a really good set of policies going in to the last election.  Especially compared to the LNP, who had none except "we're not Bill Shorten".  Their emissions targets were in line with the best scientific advice, which the LNP's certainly aren't.  Their structural tax changes actually made sense and wouldn't have caused financial pain to anyone who couldn't afford it, despite the scare campaign by the LNP.  (So self-funded retirees could only afford one overseas holiday a year instead of 2... tell that to a Newstart recipient, or even a working family with a mortgage,  and see what their opinion is!)

 

As I see it, there was nothing wrong with their policies except that they hadn't brought a larger percentage of the electorate along with them.  But they lost, and now their confidence is gone, and there's worrying signs that they think they have to be more like the LNP to win votes.

 

We need an effective opposition that actually stands for things, and we need them to convince the electorate that sound policy built on expert scientific and economic advice is worth doing, even if it causes a little short-term pain.  What we don't need is a race to the right in a panicked attempt to regain popularity.  They're not going to gain LNP voters by being like the LNP, they're just going to lose progressive voters.

 

What do you think?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labor had the old crowd, Shorten and Albo.

 

LNP had a new chum who was not well known to the electorate.

 

Looking at Labors history, neither Shorten nor Albo impressed me, in fact Shorten was just a jumped up union hack who was made to look foolish by the mine manager at the disaster. That is where

 

Shorten first appeared and he looked stupid, cared less for the miners than the mine manager.

 

Albo has a long record of ineffectiveness.

 

Those factors made labor look less than appealing.

 

Scomo came along with a massive scare campaign and denigrated labor at every chance. They really won the election, not by having any policies, let alone good policies, but by saying over and over that labor was no good. Problem is that the electorate fell for it.

 

Personally I didn't want Labor or the LNP to win and the Greens would have been useless. We need politicians who will look after Australia, not their party.

 

Since the election Scomo has continued in the same vein and even though LNP have been in for 3 terms, they still get away with blaming anything going wrong on Labor and saying ow good they are.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That idiot Palmer didn't help either, spending his $70 mill on anti-Labor tripe to win votes, which, because he didn't get one seat, went straight to the LNP.

 

I know what you're saying about Shorten but the leader shouldn't matter.  Before Turnbull took the reins he looked like the great hope for Australia - pro-business but socially progressive with concern for the environment.  Given that Abbott was in charge at the time he looked especially good.

 

However he was effectively stymied by the ultra-conservatives and couldn't get one thing right.  His backbone disappeared and he ended up being a joke.  His one reasonably good policy, the NEG, went down with him because of the same country-wrecking conservatives like Christensen, Abbott, Abetz, Dutton and Andrews to name a few.

 

Labor on the other hand had a comprehensive set of good policies and a cohesive team.  There was no infighting, backbiting, hardly any factional scuffles.  To be honest they looked the best they had since Julia was in charge.

 

I think it was a huge missed opportunity for Australia, especially given that 80+% of people rate climate change as one of their major concerns, but didn't do anything about it at the ballot box.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia is at a disadvantage because many believe that a nation's economy is equivalent to household finance. Government's budgets don't need to balance or produce a surplus to be effective. Government spending needs to be 'anti-cyclical'. They need to spend in the slack times and to restrict activity when times are good. This injects money, enabling a stimulus to activity when down and also dampens excessive activity when thing are going gangbusters.  Morrison's zeal for surpluses will lead to the opposite result that we need as the economy trends down.

 

Until the enthusiasm for surplus or balanced budgets is corrected we will be at the mercy of poor decisions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have politicised the  "Balanced Budget" (while doubling the deficit) to the extent that all their eggs are now in that one basket and they have ruled themselves out of being able to increase spending and wages of the "lower classes". Keeping workers wages low has been a deliberate policy and that in itself  tends to cause a recession (as any austerity does). . Poor people SPEND every cent they get.  The cash is straight back into the economy. Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the government is feeling the same pinch as the pensioners. Their longtime push to get interest rates down at all costs is coming back to bite them. They are so far behind in the money they have to pay government pensions that it looks as if they will be raiding the Future Fund.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it looks as if they will be raiding the Future Fund.

 

They don't have to raid anything! They are able to spend money (as they do on, for example, submarines, F-35's or  $1/2bn for the barrier reef boondoggle) simply by raising the deficit( as they have been doing) since they got in over 6 yrs ago. If spending on pensions, or any other social program, such as the Newstart allowance or single mothers, they will reap much more from taxation (remember the GST - 10% on most consumption). Again... the federal spending is NOT like a household budget.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My MP got an email from me telling him that Labor was being handed the chance to go into the next election championing freedoms for journalists and be the goodies fighting the evil LNP.

 

Unfortunately, the only voice I have heard on this issue is Barnaby Joyce, who has redeemed himself in my eyes by his stance.

 

What is going on?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Barnaby is all over the shop.  One moment he's spouting utter tripe with his nose in the abortion legislation debate in NSW,  the next he's making good sense with his stance on freedom of the press and support for standing up against the US extradition of Assange.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the governments problem is not with pensions and newstart type things. It is the pensions for Judges, civil servants and the like. Not the old age pension. The OAP was more or less done away with years ago when they decided we had to be self funded. Prior to that pensions were allowed for in general revenue, but when pensions became separate there was no lowering of the tax take.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the old age pension "done away with"? I know that under the 2-party dictatorship that we misname 'democracy' in Oz, the qualifying age has been increased but it is still there for any citizen to access. We can see that people are able to artificially manipulate their state of financial affairs to "bend the rules" so that some wealthy grafters get more than their fair share.

 

I am more dismayed at the fact that people who have little chance, regardless of their willingness, to land a paying job are shafted by the poverty trap known as 'Newstart Allowance".

 

We who have been fortunate enough to have had permanent employment with super can fund our own retirement. People who have lots of money can invest in shares and double dip by claiming the fraudulent tax credit imputation scam bought in by the (alledged) war criminal, John Howard.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pension is now,

 

Age something o r other.

 

At $300 a week,  it is a poverty pension.

 

spacesailor

 

Spacey, that's about what the dole is. Single age pension rate (full pension) is about $460 pw. Your house and 5 acres are exempt from the assets test, and they allow other asset value of almost $300,000 to qualify for a full pension. Over that asset level, you lose something like $3 per fortnight for every $1,000 over the maximum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to topic, (Why is one party doing so badly?)

 

Maybe part of the reason is that Labor isn't using modern soshul media as effectively as LNP?

 

Has anybody listened to Chris Pyne's ads on Triple M radio? He's giving friendly advice directing listeners to their Australia website. Surprisingly the same station had ad segments warning about the erosion of journalist's rights (by the same government , but without actually naming it). I wonder if their website presents a sensible explanation for their heavy handed control of MSM?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't see pensioners eating out at top restaurants or even ANY  restaurant . Its more like pensioners night at the RSL/Bowling clubs with baby sized meals of chicken nuggetts well subsidised by the famous addiction  for gambling which is rampant in Australia. Medical costs eat into pensioners money as well as rent ,rates, repairs and transport costs.(even with the discount which is good in NSW but a bit of an insult, most other places. . They have their electricity disconnected frequently if they get into arrears. About 3 months after the breadwinner loses their job the house has to go on the market for the average "well into debt" suburban dweller as well. Why are some houses so BIG? WE have the biggest in the world now.. How do you furnish and heat/cool such large areas?  Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big houses and big cars. 

 

Here's your standard contemporary house for the southwest of Sydney (Oran Park)

 

[ATTACH]50381._xfImport[/ATTACH] and the car they have [ATTACH]50382._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

and here's what we grew up in

 

spacer.png and traveled in spacer.png

 

1/4 acre blocks were approximately 220' x 50' (67 x 15, or  1000 sq metres)

 

Modern blocks in these new suburbs are as small as 375 sq metres (0.0922 acres)

 

Here's what our houses looked like in plans:

 

spacer.png

 

Now you have to have this

 

spacer.png[ATTACH]50384._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

image.thumb.png.4e7cd217a8e37725858cae48216fd6e0.png

image.jpeg.03db25317ae51f766c0aa4899c8ab63e.jpeg

image.thumb.png.7acf70cd909705b45596a083cae0e601.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking back, OME, when I was young (last century - early 60's) there were about one car per 8 households in Villawood. Our new brick housing commission family home was two bedroom (family of four - it was normal for kids to share back then), with outdoor dunny. The toilet was moved indoors later, when sewer pipes were dug into the ground along our street.

 

We were above the average for Sydney western suburbs - we had a car! It was a long way out of town back then, and affordable because of that. Dirt roads, etc.

 

However, having said that, I know that income was just barely enough to keep ahead of the bills. And Interest rates were 3% back then.

 

But the household debt ratio was much less than now. Foreclosure sales were almost unheard of.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, before him, it was in Billy McMahon's time as top dog in the Liberal party.

 

BUT

 

I do thank Gough for cancelling compulsory conscription. I had been called up when he got in. And I know I would not have coped with the Viet Nam experience. I was too immature to be exposed to the horror of war and the endemic drug use over there. I can't speak for others who went, but it wouldn't have 'made a man' of me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...