Satirical election guide

[doboman]

And I don't really see how you can argue that the Coalition aren't for "wasteful spending" when they want to spend billions of dollars sending asylum seekers to Nauru and housing them there, when you could feed them house them and have them living off welfare for the rest of their lives in Australia for less than that.

If you really believe that, I pity you.

[ninwa]

The Greens and Family First are well written - brave of you to bag the Greens when the latest fad is to think they're the new gods or something. Your English expression is excellent. But I agree with schmalex re: Labor and the Coalition. It doesn't appear that you've done much research into their policies beyond what you see on TV, and this statement:

Indeed this is a satire piece, so painting a caricature of each party was the intended effect. I agree to some extent that both of the major parties are similar once in power - but one solves problems by spending and increasing debt, whilst the other tries to minimize on wasteful spending.

proves it.

Then again I see that it's meant to be funny, and I lol'd, so objective achieved.

[Mao]

Why do people still think Labor doesn't overspend?

Who can honestly say that Labor was going to waste money on the home insulation scheme? Who can honestly say that the NBN, initially intended for the private sector, ended up costing the tax-payers $4bn, and another scheduled $40bn? Who can honestly say that Labor's budgeted the School Halls program and every dollar wasted was worth it? Did anyone do the math at the time and said "Even though Labor is planning to put our budget into deficit and incur a huge debt, I'm still going to vote for them"?

No, because no one knew Labor is going to spend that much. The known amounts budgeted by Liberal is not of concern, the risk is in what Labor might decide to spend if they get in again.

[ninwa]

Why do people think the Coalition will minimize wasteful spending when they don't actually seem to know wtf they're doing? (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbott-caught-short-by-800m-20100809-11u62.html)

And refuses to submit their policies under the Charter of Budget Honesty? (explicitly stated by Tony Abbott here: http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/News/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7596/Joint-Press-Conference-Melbourne.aspx)

[TrueLight]

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/08/17/misinformation-from-the-abc/

actually this is better
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/08/15/berg-on-the-charter-of-budget-honesty/
 

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/08/14/costings-charter-of-budget-honesty/


and this is labors position in 2007...sigh hypocrisy..
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/22093/20071124-0102/www.alp.org.au/media/1007/msfintre180.html

[Mao]

Why do people think the Coalition will minimize wasteful spending when they don't actually seem to know wtf they're doing? (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbott-caught-short-by-800m-20100809-11u62.html)

And refuses to submit their policies under the Charter of Budget Honesty? (explicitly stated by Tony Abbott here: http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/News/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7596/Joint-Press-Conference-Melbourne.aspx)

Excuse me for my ignorance, but something does't add up here. Has the Coalition gave its plans to the Treasury? The second article claims not, which means the first article is all speculations.

[ninwa]

Excuse me for my ignorance, but something does't add up here. Has the Coalition gave its plans to the Treasury? The second article claims not, which means the first article is all speculations.

Quote from the first article:

The shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, promised all Coalition policies would be lodged with the Treasury for independent costing analysis by Friday

I'm not sure what you mean?

[Mao]

Which Friday does that refer to? before the time of that article or after?

OH, I might add, our beloved Labor government abolished full fee places for universities, adding hundreds of millions of expenses paid by tax-payers to make up the loss in revenues by the universities (I think for Monash it was around $330M). I don't think anyone saw that coming either. Waste of money? yeah.

[ninwa]

Which Friday does that refer to? before the time of that article or after?

I'm not sure. It hasn't been done yet though. They've actually gone to an accounting firm instead. Why not the Treasury, considering the Charter of Budget Honesty was their own government's (Howard) initiative?

OH, I might add, our beloved Labor government abolished full fee places for universities, adding hundreds of millions of expenses paid by tax-payers to make up the loss in revenues by the universities (I think for Monash it was around $330M). I don't think anyone saw that coming either. Waste of money? yeah.

Have you read about the "savings" (aka cut and cancel everything) the Coalition plan to make?
e.g. according to the latest table, they'll be cutting $1.16 billion from the PBS i.e. the prescription medicine the government subsidises you for.

I agree that both parties are pretty crap and the idea of having either in power depresses me. I just don't understand how on earth people think the Coalition will do any better.

[crayolé]

I agree that both parties are pretty crap and the idea of having either in power depresses me. I just don't understand how on earth people think the Coalition will do any better.

True, the way I think about it is;
Better to vote Labor in and let them stuff up what they've already started than let the libs stuff up with their own PLUS whatever labor leaves behind

[Mao]

Which Friday does that refer to? before the time of that article or after?

I'm not sure. It hasn't been done yet though. They've actually gone to an accounting firm instead. Why not the Treasury, considering the Charter of Budget Honesty was their own government's (Howard) initiative?

Because, if you read TrueLight's links, the fact that Labor is in power means Liberal cannot trust the Treasury. It suited Mr Howard then because he was in power.

Which brings back to my original point, the Treasury's analysis is all speculations, not the actual costing. And Mr Abbott's decision to not submit it to the Treasury is well supported by TrueLight's links.


On your point about the PBS cutting, your link went nowhere. That aside, I can see merit in arguing that some people who are well off enough don't need the level of PBS cover as others, and some types of medicine (or brands of medicine) don't need the level of PBS cover as others. If they are planning to bring on a reform that makes PBS scenario based, so if I can afford my medication, I'll still pay for it, that will be an excellent reform.

In this way, the government can use the saved taxes to pay the debt/fund other things, and let the financially-able residents foot the bill, as opposed to raising the taxes and force everyone to pay.

[ninwa]

Because, if you read TrueLight's links, the fact that Labor is in power means Liberal cannot trust the Treasury. It suited Mr Howard then because he was in power.

I dunno, they trusted Godwin Grech fine. Only when it suits them, I suppose.

On your point about the PBS cutting, your link went nowhere. That aside, I can see merit in arguing that some people who are well off enough don't need the level of PBS cover as others, and some types of medicine (or brands of medicine) don't need the level of PBS cover as others. If they are planning to bring on a reform that makes PBS scenario based, so if I can afford my medication, I'll still pay for it, that will be an excellent reform.

In this way, the government can use the saved taxes to pay the debt/fund other things, and let the financially-able residents foot the bill, as opposed to raising the taxes and force everyone to pay.

My bad. Here it is: http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Economy/New%20Saving%20Table.ashx

PBS reform as you describe may indeed be a good thing. The problem is they haven't actually elaborated on where this $1.16 billion cut comes from - just that they're going to make that cut somewhere. That's why I don't trust them. Have a look at their website - how many actual policy announcements do you see? I'd say 99% are bashing Labor. Which, while understandable, doesn't really show much leadership quality.

[wildareal]

I don't really find it clever, it just sounds like you're regurgitating everything the Liberal party have been saying throughout the election campaign, and then exaggerating it. Also, it's written "Labor" when you're referring to the party. Nice job criticising a party you can't even spell. (I'm not a fan of Labor btw, but I at least do my research.)

Schmalex, you should work for VCAA.

[schmalex]

Lol, why?

[wildareal]

The criticism! LOL a tad harsh!