Comments on Michelle Grattan "It’s certain – Australians off to the polls on July 2 for double dissolution", 18/04/2016
It now will be a test of Turnbull’s wisdom, judgement and courage, possibly in the two opposite ways, that is, to call or not to call a double dissolution election.
Yes, he has threatened to have a double dissolution election and now has got the trigger. But that does not mean a double dissolution is in his and the government’s favour of winning the election if it goes for such one.I
f he really cares about winning the election, wisdom in conjunction with the most recent polls may suggest that the best action to take may not be a double dissolution election and that requires courage to reverse his earlier threat for having one.
Will he do it or not, that will be the question now until he announces one way or the other.
in that respect, it may not be that certain at all, but we will see what happens from now on.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
2016-04-18
Early election will be a loser for the government
Comments on Peter Hartcher "Fairfax-Ipsos Poll: Malcolm Turnbull a cautious PM, and voters are punishing him for it", 18/04/2016
I suspect that the best action for the Mr Turnbull the PM from now on would be defer the early election push, so to give the himself and the government a bit more time to reverse the decline in its popularity and to return to a more certain winning position late this year.
I would certainly advise the PM to go down this road and to have some thing done to impress the public and the voters. The following would contribute to that:
1. Have the budget well prepared and done to be an excellent budget for the election year, not only in terms of election sweetening, but also containing some election winning measures or policies.
2. Do something to win the public over for the next six months, including things like a tax reform package or at least one or some important and memorable item
3. Have a meaningful and achievable reform item to the federation
4. Make some inroad into the development of Northern Australia
5. Identify weaknesses of the opposition and nail down on them, to make the opposition on the run
If the above can be done successfully, the election will be unlosable and will be in the bag. It will be a revival of the PM's satisfactory rating once he would have shown real actions.
On the other hand, it would be extremely uncertain to win the election on early July and the most likely outcome is a hung parliament that would be damaging not only to the current government but also the nation.
So there is so much at stake and I hope the PM will be wise enough to have the election late this year as opposed to an election in July.
Having said that, I am politically neutral to the two main political parties.
I suspect that the best action for the Mr Turnbull the PM from now on would be defer the early election push, so to give the himself and the government a bit more time to reverse the decline in its popularity and to return to a more certain winning position late this year.
I would certainly advise the PM to go down this road and to have some thing done to impress the public and the voters. The following would contribute to that:
1. Have the budget well prepared and done to be an excellent budget for the election year, not only in terms of election sweetening, but also containing some election winning measures or policies.
2. Do something to win the public over for the next six months, including things like a tax reform package or at least one or some important and memorable item
3. Have a meaningful and achievable reform item to the federation
4. Make some inroad into the development of Northern Australia
5. Identify weaknesses of the opposition and nail down on them, to make the opposition on the run
If the above can be done successfully, the election will be unlosable and will be in the bag. It will be a revival of the PM's satisfactory rating once he would have shown real actions.
On the other hand, it would be extremely uncertain to win the election on early July and the most likely outcome is a hung parliament that would be damaging not only to the current government but also the nation.
So there is so much at stake and I hope the PM will be wise enough to have the election late this year as opposed to an election in July.
Having said that, I am politically neutral to the two main political parties.
2015-08-02
Equivalence between ETS and a carbon tax
Comments on David Hodgkinson, and Rebecca Johnston "Politics aside, a simple carbon tax makes more sense than a convoluted emissions trading scheme", 2/08/2015
While the two do have significant differences, they also share some commonality, or equivalence. For example, the ETS implies a equivalent price or tax to the carbon tax when the target of emissions is set as the exactly same that a carbon tax would achieve. Of course, there are other conditions that would need to meet. For example, the ETS must be a national and include all emissions sources where the carbon tax would apply to and the ETS market needs to be efficient and there is only one national price.
While the Abbott politics has hit hard on carbon taxes imposed by ALP government, there is no point to deny the equivalence of an well functioned ETS and a carbon tax.
To do it is just too cowardly in the wake of the very effective attack on the ALP government's carbon tax. Those who attempt to battle the Abbott anti carbon tax mantra should do better than that.
While the two do have significant differences, they also share some commonality, or equivalence. For example, the ETS implies a equivalent price or tax to the carbon tax when the target of emissions is set as the exactly same that a carbon tax would achieve. Of course, there are other conditions that would need to meet. For example, the ETS must be a national and include all emissions sources where the carbon tax would apply to and the ETS market needs to be efficient and there is only one national price.
While the Abbott politics has hit hard on carbon taxes imposed by ALP government, there is no point to deny the equivalence of an well functioned ETS and a carbon tax.
To do it is just too cowardly in the wake of the very effective attack on the ALP government's carbon tax. Those who attempt to battle the Abbott anti carbon tax mantra should do better than that.
2015-07-21
Politicians are simply too lazy and irresponsible on taxes and spending
Comments on Kirsten Lawson "ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr supports calls for a higher Medicare levy", 21/07/2015
Why the politicians always talk about to raise more revenue to meet an increasing costs of health and have no mention of having the health costs under control? Further, why don't they examine whether the existing spending on health is used in the most proper and appropriate ways? Are they really well used? Isn't there any way to improve the effectiveness and efficient aspects of health spending to use less and do more?
It seems that many politicians are very lazy and irresponsible to the electorate, given that they only look at spending more and the easy way out by raising taxes.
Furthermore, rather than courageous or intelligent, Mr Baird should be see as coward and silly, given the fact that the states and territories should stand up against the commonwealth for the latter's arbitrary change to funding to the former.
Politicians should not given lazy, easy and tricky ways to raise taxes. It is time for them to be much more accountable, prudent and responsible for spending each and every dollar of taxpayers' monney.
Why the politicians always talk about to raise more revenue to meet an increasing costs of health and have no mention of having the health costs under control? Further, why don't they examine whether the existing spending on health is used in the most proper and appropriate ways? Are they really well used? Isn't there any way to improve the effectiveness and efficient aspects of health spending to use less and do more?
It seems that many politicians are very lazy and irresponsible to the electorate, given that they only look at spending more and the easy way out by raising taxes.
Furthermore, rather than courageous or intelligent, Mr Baird should be see as coward and silly, given the fact that the states and territories should stand up against the commonwealth for the latter's arbitrary change to funding to the former.
Politicians should not given lazy, easy and tricky ways to raise taxes. It is time for them to be much more accountable, prudent and responsible for spending each and every dollar of taxpayers' monney.
2015-07-17
Business leaders need to engage with politician more effectively than lecturing them
Comments on Michelle Grattan "Grattan on Friday: Our system is being consumed by the politics of demolition", 17/07/2015
It does not help much or have much an effect for a business leader to lecture the nation's political leaders in the following way (I quote from the article):
"On Thursday BCA president Catherine Livingstone called the politicians out, when she declared that “yesterday marked a low point for political leadership in Australia”.
“Within hours of the treasurer outlining a compelling case for the need for fundamental tax reform and rebalancing of the tax mix, both major parties began ruling out key elements of sensible tax reform, including changes to the GST,” she said.
“Our political representatives are elected and paid by the community to implement policies that will best serve the country. Their leadership responsibility is to ensure that there is a constructive, well-informed debate, leading to implementable outcomes; it is not to undermine the debate in the cause of party political positioning.
“Leadership requires being open and honest with the community about the challenges we are facing. It requires the energy and conviction to take on difficult and complex reform imperatives.”
Political leaders are elected so they are accountable for the electorate, not as business leaders they are not necessarily democratically chosen. Business leaders don't have those political capitals gained from the electorate as political leaders have. As a result, business leaders need to find better ways to engage political leaders in an effective manner. Otherwise, it is futile on than part.
No matter whatever the weaknesses the current political system, the mechanism of the political leaders operate in the constant media scrutiny, there is ultimate accountability for the politicians, that is they have to face the electorate in an election.
It does not help much or have much an effect for a business leader to lecture the nation's political leaders in the following way (I quote from the article):
"On Thursday BCA president Catherine Livingstone called the politicians out, when she declared that “yesterday marked a low point for political leadership in Australia”.
“Within hours of the treasurer outlining a compelling case for the need for fundamental tax reform and rebalancing of the tax mix, both major parties began ruling out key elements of sensible tax reform, including changes to the GST,” she said.
“Our political representatives are elected and paid by the community to implement policies that will best serve the country. Their leadership responsibility is to ensure that there is a constructive, well-informed debate, leading to implementable outcomes; it is not to undermine the debate in the cause of party political positioning.
“Leadership requires being open and honest with the community about the challenges we are facing. It requires the energy and conviction to take on difficult and complex reform imperatives.”
Political leaders are elected so they are accountable for the electorate, not as business leaders they are not necessarily democratically chosen. Business leaders don't have those political capitals gained from the electorate as political leaders have. As a result, business leaders need to find better ways to engage political leaders in an effective manner. Otherwise, it is futile on than part.
No matter whatever the weaknesses the current political system, the mechanism of the political leaders operate in the constant media scrutiny, there is ultimate accountability for the politicians, that is they have to face the electorate in an election.
2015-06-21
Major power politics: continuity and reform
Comments on Huiyun Feng "Finding common ground in major-power politics", 5/06/2015
World or international affairs, similar to domestic affairs, require both continuity and reforms. Both old and newly emerging powers must realize this fundamental point and act with it in mind to maintain what is good in the current system and to reform the part in the system to make it work better, from efficiency, equity and/or effectiveness point of view. Both worlds should seek common ground in this spirit.
World or international affairs, similar to domestic affairs, require both continuity and reforms. Both old and newly emerging powers must realize this fundamental point and act with it in mind to maintain what is good in the current system and to reform the part in the system to make it work better, from efficiency, equity and/or effectiveness point of view. Both worlds should seek common ground in this spirit.
2013-02-16
Rudd the unpredictable in the coming election
Comments on Michelle Gratten “Rudd's
adrenaline charge will pressure Gillard”, 16/02/2013,
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Kevin-Rudd-Julia-Gillard-Labor-MRRT-PM-pd20130215-4X6T6?OpenDocument&emcontent_spectators&src=rot
Clearly the Rudd factor is the most
explosive and unpredictable in the coming election, not just for the
ALP, but arguably also for the coalition, because if the ALP switches
to Rudd, then the coalition may also switch to another person as
opposed to continue with Abbott as the leader. The difference in
voter appeal between Rudd and Abbott would make it too hard for the
coalition to bear and for the fear of losing another unloseable
election.
I think what Rudd and indeed his
supporters should do is to devise a strategy of approaching the ALP
heavy weights and assure them that the goal is to win the next
election and to win as many seats for them as possible and there will
be no retribution but complete reconciliation and the reliance on
merits and talents.
Clearly, Shorten is a key figure among
heavy weights. However, some more neutral heavy weights could also
play a pivot role, given that the prospect of winning the next
election is getting more and more impossible day by day and the
interests of the whole party should be paramount in any
consideration.
Gillard has been given enough
opportunities and time to demonstrate her Prime Ministerial
leadership skills, but her performance over the past couple of years
has been mush less than satisfactory and boarded on the more
disappointing to say the least.
Swan is another uncertain factor in the
sense that should he realise that Gillard's fortune may certainly
improve should he stand down as early as possible and leave at the
next election. But Swan is unlikely to do that.
Should the Rudd supporters try to hand
out more olive branches to the neutral and those within the Gillard
strong supporters, the situation may change very quickly. It needs
some real change from Rudd and the sooner he realise that the better
his political fortune will become.
Rudd is smart enough to learn what is
needed and required and take the necessary steps.
Past lessons are rich enough.
2011-04-08
Truth about ETS and carbon tax
Comments on Henry Ergas “Treasury should know better about an ETS”, 8/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/treasury-should-know-better-about-an-ets/story-e6frgd0x-1226035611467
Good point, Ergas.
Maybe another way to put it more clearly would be that either the government, not Treasury can't honestly and truthfully tell how much the costs of energy would be for consumers under an ETS to achieve the 5% reduction in emissions.
Further and arguably, ETS won't be able to tell exactly whether a target of reduction in percentage terms is achievable or not, given the fact that surely certain sectors or activities will be excluded or not included in the ETS as the original one indicated. That ETS can only tell the parts that are included and that is only a partial as opposed to a full account emissions in the target reduction.
So, it is good politics to hide the costs and not to tell the public about hit pocket costs (leave that to the market, that is their argument of course).
But that is not transparent and honest politics with the public, nor will that provide any certainty to business in terms of investment decision, because the future price of carbon is unknown even though on any day the ETS market may give you a current price.
Any argument of business certainty was, is and will be fanciful thinking and self delusion.
It is good politics too clever by half.
Good point, Ergas.
Maybe another way to put it more clearly would be that either the government, not Treasury can't honestly and truthfully tell how much the costs of energy would be for consumers under an ETS to achieve the 5% reduction in emissions.
Further and arguably, ETS won't be able to tell exactly whether a target of reduction in percentage terms is achievable or not, given the fact that surely certain sectors or activities will be excluded or not included in the ETS as the original one indicated. That ETS can only tell the parts that are included and that is only a partial as opposed to a full account emissions in the target reduction.
So, it is good politics to hide the costs and not to tell the public about hit pocket costs (leave that to the market, that is their argument of course).
But that is not transparent and honest politics with the public, nor will that provide any certainty to business in terms of investment decision, because the future price of carbon is unknown even though on any day the ETS market may give you a current price.
Any argument of business certainty was, is and will be fanciful thinking and self delusion.
It is good politics too clever by half.
2011-04-01
Gillard needs to deliver
Comments on Matthew Franklin “We are the party of the people: Julia Gillard”, 1/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/we-are-the-party-of-the-people-julia-gillard/story-fn59niix-1226031640696
Gillard is making some interesting speeches, with lot of rhetoric.
In terms of national leadership, Gillard is so far shown to be the least principled among the living prime ministers, though she deserves some benefit of doubt due to short time she has become prime minister.
She is no Hawke, no Keating and certainly no Howard. They are of different orders.
Rather than attacking Abbott, she should focus on reforms and delivery of good policies and good governance, including tax reforms to simplify the tax system and to make it more efficient to enhance incentives and productivity and possibly a carbon tax as a price signal and an efficient way to deal with reducing emissions and compensate consumers adequately and fairly.
The job of oppositions is to hold the government to account. The job of government is to govern and deliver.
She should resolve the difficult issue of asylum seekers arriving in boats. Good immigration policies together with water and environment issues are also important.
Returning the budget to balance or surplus should and can be achieved by withdrawing from certain emergence stimulus fiscal programs in anticipation and in the wake of the GFC without excessive cuts to public services provided to the public. This is because there has been no or little FC in Australia.
Gillard is making some interesting speeches, with lot of rhetoric.
In terms of national leadership, Gillard is so far shown to be the least principled among the living prime ministers, though she deserves some benefit of doubt due to short time she has become prime minister.
She is no Hawke, no Keating and certainly no Howard. They are of different orders.
Rather than attacking Abbott, she should focus on reforms and delivery of good policies and good governance, including tax reforms to simplify the tax system and to make it more efficient to enhance incentives and productivity and possibly a carbon tax as a price signal and an efficient way to deal with reducing emissions and compensate consumers adequately and fairly.
The job of oppositions is to hold the government to account. The job of government is to govern and deliver.
She should resolve the difficult issue of asylum seekers arriving in boats. Good immigration policies together with water and environment issues are also important.
Returning the budget to balance or surplus should and can be achieved by withdrawing from certain emergence stimulus fiscal programs in anticipation and in the wake of the GFC without excessive cuts to public services provided to the public. This is because there has been no or little FC in Australia.
2011-03-28
Gillard is in hotter water now
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Stinging loss sends federal message”, 28/03/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/stinging-loss-sends-federal-message/story-fn59niix-1226029032745
It now looks that Gillard's rush announcement of a carbon tax at a time when the NSW state election campaign was going on was a big mistake, for two important reasons:
First, it mudded the water of the issue between state and federal policies for not only the election, but also for the ongoing debate on the carbon tax and making it unnecessarily harder for the Gillard government to win the debate and get its policy through the parliament.
Second, it has created further division among Labor, many in NSW will continue to recent Gillard and the federal Labor government for doing it to undermine the NSW Labor election campaigning and to attribute the losses as larger than otherwise.
It is hard to understand why Gillard did it. That seems to further prove that Gillard's lacking leadership skills.
It now looks that Gillard's rush announcement of a carbon tax at a time when the NSW state election campaign was going on was a big mistake, for two important reasons:
First, it mudded the water of the issue between state and federal policies for not only the election, but also for the ongoing debate on the carbon tax and making it unnecessarily harder for the Gillard government to win the debate and get its policy through the parliament.
Second, it has created further division among Labor, many in NSW will continue to recent Gillard and the federal Labor government for doing it to undermine the NSW Labor election campaigning and to attribute the losses as larger than otherwise.
It is hard to understand why Gillard did it. That seems to further prove that Gillard's lacking leadership skills.
2010-09-27
Hawker's interesting logic - clearly one sided
Comments on Bruce Hawker “Libs outsmarted by clever scheme to pair the chair”, 27/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/libs-outsmarted-by-clever-scheme-to-pair-the-chair/story-e6frg6zo-1225929699265
While what you said might have some truth, they probably can also be applied to Labor and Ms Gillard.
For example, What moral conviction does Gillard have? E.g, carbon tax or no carbon tax? What about the dropping of education in her announcement of her ministry, considering she was the education minister for quite some time.
Further your view of the pairing is problematic. If it is not, why did the solicitor general have to use the wording of informal as opposed to formal agreement?
Why should the parliament be engaged in such dodgy work? To just suit the political needs of a political party at the expense of parliamentary integrity and constitution?
That is hardly worth it!
So, politics is politics. Neither side is tall in the high moral ground.
There is so much hypocrisy around!
While what you said might have some truth, they probably can also be applied to Labor and Ms Gillard.
For example, What moral conviction does Gillard have? E.g, carbon tax or no carbon tax? What about the dropping of education in her announcement of her ministry, considering she was the education minister for quite some time.
Further your view of the pairing is problematic. If it is not, why did the solicitor general have to use the wording of informal as opposed to formal agreement?
Why should the parliament be engaged in such dodgy work? To just suit the political needs of a political party at the expense of parliamentary integrity and constitution?
That is hardly worth it!
So, politics is politics. Neither side is tall in the high moral ground.
There is so much hypocrisy around!
2010-09-22
The opposition should change tactics to be effective and credible
Comments on Tony Abbott “ALP should forget light on hill and follow Hawke”, 22/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/alp-should-forget-light-on-hill-and-follow-hawke/story-e6frg6zo-1225927537315
Abbott has performed very well since becoming the opposition leader, brought down a prime minster and almost another PM in the recent election, partly due to his stance against the ETS and branding that as a big carbon tax.
However, now the situation has changed in Australia. An election was over and the Gillard government is returned with the support of the Greens and three independents.
While it is possible that the government may not last for the full term, but that is only possibility and not certainty.
The government and the Greens may be able to get a carbon tax through the parliament.
The opposition should prepare for the possibility of a full term Gillard government, while working to aim to become government if an opportunity appears.
In this circumstance, it would be in the interest of the opposition to be constructive on a number of policy areas where it has had very different policies from the last government, such as climate change and the mining tax.
For climate change, it should look at ways to hold the government to account by forcing it to minimise costs, such as a revenue-neutral (by returning the revenue to people) and trade-neutral carbon tax.
For the mining tax, it should try to hold the government to account by forcing it to consider and move to profit based tax with a slight increase in the level of tax, that is, close to revenue-neutral. That means the tax rate should adjust when mineral prices fall to avoid the case in the future the taxation may be too low as compared to the current royalties in the States.
The profit tax should replace the State current royalties with appropriate compensations for their revenue losses.
Abbott has performed very well since becoming the opposition leader, brought down a prime minster and almost another PM in the recent election, partly due to his stance against the ETS and branding that as a big carbon tax.
However, now the situation has changed in Australia. An election was over and the Gillard government is returned with the support of the Greens and three independents.
While it is possible that the government may not last for the full term, but that is only possibility and not certainty.
The government and the Greens may be able to get a carbon tax through the parliament.
The opposition should prepare for the possibility of a full term Gillard government, while working to aim to become government if an opportunity appears.
In this circumstance, it would be in the interest of the opposition to be constructive on a number of policy areas where it has had very different policies from the last government, such as climate change and the mining tax.
For climate change, it should look at ways to hold the government to account by forcing it to minimise costs, such as a revenue-neutral (by returning the revenue to people) and trade-neutral carbon tax.
For the mining tax, it should try to hold the government to account by forcing it to consider and move to profit based tax with a slight increase in the level of tax, that is, close to revenue-neutral. That means the tax rate should adjust when mineral prices fall to avoid the case in the future the taxation may be too low as compared to the current royalties in the States.
The profit tax should replace the State current royalties with appropriate compensations for their revenue losses.
2010-09-21
A serious constitutional matter!
Comments on Sid Maher “Rob Oakeshott passes up Speaker's chair”, 21/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/rob-oakeshott-passes-up-speakers-chair/story-fn59niix-1225927032831
Although the parliamentary reform agreement needs to rely on goodwill but there appeared to be some "shifting" of support on the issue, it must be constitutional.
If that agreement or part of that is unconstitutional, then any part unconstitutional should not be implemented.
Parliament should hold the constitution to the highest degree and should never hold any contempt of the constitution.
That is a simple matter and pollies should be good at that.
Otherwise, how do they expect the public to react on the laws they make?
Yes, it is disappointing to Rob Oakeshott because he tried very hard but cannot be the speaker. But he has been a victim of opportunistic behaviours of some other politicians including those on both sides of the politics (and possibly Mr Oakeshott himself included), to be frank.
That is life. On that disappointment account, the Liberals may not be any less disappointed than him by the outcome of the election, but Gillard is the real winner.
Mr Oakeshott has to get over it.
Although the parliamentary reform agreement needs to rely on goodwill but there appeared to be some "shifting" of support on the issue, it must be constitutional.
If that agreement or part of that is unconstitutional, then any part unconstitutional should not be implemented.
Parliament should hold the constitution to the highest degree and should never hold any contempt of the constitution.
That is a simple matter and pollies should be good at that.
Otherwise, how do they expect the public to react on the laws they make?
Yes, it is disappointing to Rob Oakeshott because he tried very hard but cannot be the speaker. But he has been a victim of opportunistic behaviours of some other politicians including those on both sides of the politics (and possibly Mr Oakeshott himself included), to be frank.
That is life. On that disappointment account, the Liberals may not be any less disappointed than him by the outcome of the election, but Gillard is the real winner.
Mr Oakeshott has to get over it.
2010-09-06
Labor lost the election unequivocally
Comments on Kenneth Wiltshire “On all counts, Coalition deserves independents”, 5/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/on-all-counts-coalition-deserves-independents/story-e6frgd0x-1225914501944
On top of those, it could be argued that Gillard has lost the election because she has lost the advantage afforded to incumbency.
Generally the electorate would give the benefit of doubt to the incumbency, so it would win if the electorate is really close.
Further, Gillard is the first female prime minister in Australia and should have had natural affection and sympathy from most Australians.
But Gillard has not got that mandate from either of the above!
That is why she has lost the election!
On top of those, it could be argued that Gillard has lost the election because she has lost the advantage afforded to incumbency.
Generally the electorate would give the benefit of doubt to the incumbency, so it would win if the electorate is really close.
Further, Gillard is the first female prime minister in Australia and should have had natural affection and sympathy from most Australians.
But Gillard has not got that mandate from either of the above!
That is why she has lost the election!
2010-09-03
The hung is good for the Greens but bad for the nation
Comments on Robert Carling “Tax policy devised by party that is green with envy”, 3/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tax-policy-devised-by-party-that-is-green-with-envy/story-e6frg6zo-1225913534872
While the GFC may have caused people to reflect on the far right approach or market fundamentalism, the far left like the Greens in Australia are by no means the solution to the problems/issues that contributed to the GFC.
Unfortunately for Australia, we've just got a hung parliament and the Greens are in a very strong position to explore the situation to its advantage to move Australia to the Left's agenda.
The gutless current government has been so keen to embrace the support of the Greens for alliance to form the next government.
That is bad for the nation, and for the ALP itself in the media to long run.
It is likely that the ALP will see more of its supporters to move to the Greens at the next election.
While the GFC may have caused people to reflect on the far right approach or market fundamentalism, the far left like the Greens in Australia are by no means the solution to the problems/issues that contributed to the GFC.
Unfortunately for Australia, we've just got a hung parliament and the Greens are in a very strong position to explore the situation to its advantage to move Australia to the Left's agenda.
The gutless current government has been so keen to embrace the support of the Greens for alliance to form the next government.
That is bad for the nation, and for the ALP itself in the media to long run.
It is likely that the ALP will see more of its supporters to move to the Greens at the next election.
2010-09-02
Pact - likely a strategic political blunder
Comments on Paul Kelly “Pact puts Labor brand and Gillard leadership on line”, 2/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pact-puts-labor-brand-and-gillard-leadership-on-line/story-e6frg6zo-1225913036640
Picture ourtersy of The Australian online
While this has occurred in the wake of the situation of a hung parliament, in considering Gillard's citizens' assembly idea on climate change policy and the decision to go to the poll so soon after her having Prime Ministership, there are serious questions about her judgement and leadership quality.
This is unlikely to be a good look of her. It lacks a common sense and may be a strategic blunder at the highest order.
She may be a skilful political opportunist, but her strategic ability may not necessarily match her political desire to be and hold on to PM.
Those serious matters remain to be seen. But she has shown a glimpse of those in less than two months.
Picture ourtersy of The Australian online
While this has occurred in the wake of the situation of a hung parliament, in considering Gillard's citizens' assembly idea on climate change policy and the decision to go to the poll so soon after her having Prime Ministership, there are serious questions about her judgement and leadership quality.
This is unlikely to be a good look of her. It lacks a common sense and may be a strategic blunder at the highest order.
She may be a skilful political opportunist, but her strategic ability may not necessarily match her political desire to be and hold on to PM.
Those serious matters remain to be seen. But she has shown a glimpse of those in less than two months.
2010-08-26
Costings should be really independent
Comments on Lenore Taylor “Abbott's refusal on costings does not stack up” 26/08/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-refusal-on-costings-does-not-stack-up-20100825-13s7z.html?posted=sucessful
The very argument that the two sides need to have their election policies costed by Treasury is problematic.
Treasury was the subject of dispute between the two sides due to leaks and also the usual mistrust between an opposition and the government machinery departments. The opposition then went to its chosen third party for costing instead.
Now when the government is yet to be decided, whoever asks for costing done by Treasury shows a natural bias and inadequacy in politics and fairness.
For journalists to do that is even worse.
Why not asking an independent organisation to do the costings, as opposed to either party preferred one?
The very argument that the two sides need to have their election policies costed by Treasury is problematic.
Treasury was the subject of dispute between the two sides due to leaks and also the usual mistrust between an opposition and the government machinery departments. The opposition then went to its chosen third party for costing instead.
Now when the government is yet to be decided, whoever asks for costing done by Treasury shows a natural bias and inadequacy in politics and fairness.
For journalists to do that is even worse.
Why not asking an independent organisation to do the costings, as opposed to either party preferred one?
2010-07-01
Not bad politics from the opposition
Comments on Joe Kelly "Coalition 'will rescind mining tax' if Tony Abbott defeats Julia Gillard", 1/07/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/coalition-will-rescind-mining-tax-if-tony-abbott-defeats-julia-gillard/comments-e6frgczf-1225886559093
It is normal politics, given that the government is likely to make significant changes to the mining tax it proposed.
By saying it will rescind the tax, the opposition will add further pressures on to the government to back down.
The opposition could change its stance once the tax has changed significantly as expected. They can say it is not the RSPT, the big tax on mining as it once had been announced.
Of course, the more the changes to the original RSPT proposal, the more the government back down and the better it would be for the opposition.
Not too bad political tactics from the opposition.
It may also have an effect forcing the government to improve the tax more significantly to make it better.
It is normal politics, given that the government is likely to make significant changes to the mining tax it proposed.
By saying it will rescind the tax, the opposition will add further pressures on to the government to back down.
The opposition could change its stance once the tax has changed significantly as expected. They can say it is not the RSPT, the big tax on mining as it once had been announced.
Of course, the more the changes to the original RSPT proposal, the more the government back down and the better it would be for the opposition.
Not too bad political tactics from the opposition.
It may also have an effect forcing the government to improve the tax more significantly to make it better.
2010-06-29
McMullan is out of touch
Comment on Glenn Milne “Brutal truth of ex-PM's demise”, 29/06/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/brutal-truth-of-ex-pms-demise/story-e6frg6zo-1225885407911
Understandably, McMullan has been in Canberra for too long to be in tune with what was happening elsewhere that matters. He is clearly out of touch.
For all Rudd's mistakes, the decision not to include McMullan in his ministry turned out to be the right one, even though ironically McMullan, of course wrongly, was arguing for staying with him.
People staying in Canberra for too long may, unfortunately, be exposed to the risk to be out of touch with the public. McMullan is a clear example.
However, don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Canberra. In fact I am a Canberran and have been living in there for a long time.
But we have to face the fact and be objective, no matter how uncomfortable it is.
Understandably, McMullan has been in Canberra for too long to be in tune with what was happening elsewhere that matters. He is clearly out of touch.
For all Rudd's mistakes, the decision not to include McMullan in his ministry turned out to be the right one, even though ironically McMullan, of course wrongly, was arguing for staying with him.
People staying in Canberra for too long may, unfortunately, be exposed to the risk to be out of touch with the public. McMullan is a clear example.
However, don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Canberra. In fact I am a Canberran and have been living in there for a long time.
But we have to face the fact and be objective, no matter how uncomfortable it is.
2010-05-22
Limited choices for the public and relativity in politics
Comments on Christian Kerr “That stubborn Gillard question begins with the word 'when' “, 22/05/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/that-stubborn-gillard-question-begins-with-the-word-when/story-e6frgd0x-1225869529076
It is all relatively.
Gillard is not without her own fault, like the problems with the BER, and she is one of the four or so of Rudd government's core.
But it is Rudd's failures, if you like, that make Gillard a much better choice.
Besides, there are no obvious better person in the opposition that also makes the choice easier for the public.
The public's choices are fairly limited, indeed.
It is all relatively.
Gillard is not without her own fault, like the problems with the BER, and she is one of the four or so of Rudd government's core.
But it is Rudd's failures, if you like, that make Gillard a much better choice.
Besides, there are no obvious better person in the opposition that also makes the choice easier for the public.
The public's choices are fairly limited, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
