The Albanese government

[Dona Ferentes]

Aedes albopictus

- beaer of the mosquito-borne chikungunya virus

 

[PZ.]

Aedes albopictus

- beaer of the mosquito-borne chikungunya virus

Just one little prick. Although my GF says he has a nice smile

 

[Dona Ferentes]

Just one little prick. Although my GF says he has a nice smile

albopictus ... but why did we pick albo?

 

[PZ.]

The alternative was a dud potato.

 

[wayneL]

L

albopictus ... but why did we pick albo?

Lowest common denominator?

 

[farmerge]

L

Lowest common denominator?

Botto of the barrel is now reached.
Not even scratching in the slime at the bottom is there anyone worthy to be called a contender.

 

[sptrawler]

albopictus ... but why did we pick albo?

Because he looks harmless and everyone expected him to understand middle Australia's problem, time is running out IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

why did we pick albo?

Being serious here, I think the problem is political leadership and control over society has been somewhat captured.

By that I mean if we take everyone who works, we can basically put them into a few categories:

1. Hard sciences and their application. For example engineering or medical.

2. Physical doers. Anyone who works with their hands or otherwise does things in line with established practices eg trades, drivers, accountants and many others.

3. Nurturing. Eg Nurses, teachers, counsellors, childcare, etc.

4. Soft sciences. Economics, law, political science, etc.

My contention is those in category 4 have become dominant in politics to such an extent anyone not from that group considers it a waste of time even trying, reasoning that even if they do manage to get elected they won't get much further than that.

There's also a strong geographic bias in who gets the top job. Keating, Howard, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and Albanese all from electorates in metropolitan Sydney and with the exception of Keating, all from the geographically eastern part of the city.

So since Keating became PM on 20 December 1991, we've had a PM from Sydney 82.8% of the time, the exceptions being Rudd (Brisbane) and Gillard (Melbourne).

Now looking at the educational background of all PM's in the past half century:

Whitlam = Law

Fraser = Philosophy, Politics, Economics.

Hawke = Arts, Law.

Keating = High school. His pre-politics career being primarily in unions, commencing whilst working as a pay clerk for the Sydney County Council electricity. He also managed a rock band at one point.

Howard = Law

Rudd = Arts (Asian Studies)

Abbott = Economics, Law, Philosophy, Politics.

Turnbull = Arts, Law.

Morrison = Economic geography

Albanese = Economics

Now I think you've already guessed where I'm going here. I've nothing against Sydney and I've nothing against economists or lawyers. I do contend however politics has effectively been captured. If you want to have any chance of becoming Prime Minister of Australia then the message is pretty clear - studying arts, law or economics is the first step and at the earliest opportunity move to Sydney, preferably the eastern suburbs.

Now that might not be so bad if it wasn't the case that the political advisors and consultants have essentially the same narrow background, thus creating an educational monoculture in the halls of power that almost completely lacks anyone from the hard sciences, practical doing or nurturing professions.

What's needed isn't to put some other group in charge outright but rather it's diversity. Those with skills in the hard sciences, practical doing and nurturing need to be able to get a word in. They need to be driving policy formulation in their areas of knowledge rather than being compelled to operate in a way someone who knows nothing about the subject thinks it ought be done.

Because the present approach is just too lopsided. It's tilted society far too much in one direction.

 

[sptrawler]

Being serious here, I think the problem is political leadership and control over society has been somewhat captured.

By that I mean if we take everyone who works, we can basically put them into a few categories:

1. Hard sciences and their application. For example engineering or medical.

2. Physical doers. Anyone who works with their hands or otherwise does things in line with established practices eg trades, drivers, accountants and many others.

3. Nurturing. Eg Nurses, teachers, counsellors, childcare, etc.

4. Soft sciences. Economics, law, political science, etc.

My contention is those in category 4 have become dominant in politics to such an extent anyone not from that group considers it a waste of time even trying, reasoning that even if they do manage to get elected they won't get much further than that.

There's also a strong geographic bias in who gets the top job. Keating, Howard, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and Albanese all from electorates in metropolitan Sydney and with the exception of Keating, all from the geographically eastern part of the city.

So since Keating became PM on 20 December 1991, we've had a PM from Sydney 82.8% of the time, the exceptions being Rudd (Brisbane) and Gillard (Melbourne).

Now looking at the educational background of all PM's in the past half century:

Whitlam = Law

Fraser = Philosophy, Politics, Economics.

Hawke = Arts, Law.

Keating = High school. His pre-politics career being primarily in unions, commencing whilst working as a pay clerk for the Sydney County Council electricity. He also managed a rock band at one point.

Howard = Law

Rudd = Arts (Asian Studies)

Abbott = Economics, Law, Philosophy, Politics.

Turnbull = Arts, Law.

Morrison = Economic geography

Albanese = Economics

Now I think you've already guessed where I'm going here. I've nothing against Sydney and I've nothing against economists or lawyers. I do contend however politics has effectively been captured. If you want to have any chance of becoming Prime Minister of Australia then the message is pretty clear - studying arts, law or economics is the first step and at the earliest opportunity move to Sydney, preferably the eastern suburbs.

Now that might not be so bad if it wasn't the case that the political advisors and consultants have essentially the same narrow background, thus creating an educational monoculture in the halls of power that almost completely lacks anyone from the hard sciences, practical doing or nurturing professions.

What's needed isn't to put some other group in charge outright but rather it's diversity. Those with skills in the hard sciences, practical doing and nurturing need to be able to get a word in. They need to be driving policy formulation in their areas of knowledge rather than being compelled to operate in a way someone who knows nothing about the subject thinks it ought be done.

Because the present approach is just too lopsided. It's tilted society far too much in one direction.

The problem with your prognosis smurf, politics is now about optics, not outcomes.
Therefore those with the best camera presentation are chosen as representatives, maybe the STEM subject courses should add theatrical content.
Promise the world pre election and then spend the term apportioning the blame on others for your failures, while keeping a straight face. Bingo
The problem with technical and scientific people, they actually tend to wear their failures on their sleeves, where those in politics never admit they are wrong it isn't in their DNA.
When was the last time you heard a politician say I was wrong and I will fix it? IMO they seem to work on the idea, that it will be someone else's problem when it manifests, so I won't wear it.

 

[orr]

4. Soft sciences. Economics, law, political science, etc.

My contention is those in category 4 have become dominant in politics to such an extent anyone not from that group considers it a waste of time even trying, reasoning that even if they do manage to get elected they won't get much further than that.

It's my humble contention that lobby groups have become dominant in politics.
Cross party agreement on Gambling advertising reform... nothing happens.
Super profit tax on mining companies... $7 million minerals council ad campaign .... nada
Gonski ... stymied by the Private school lobby
Please tell which of the 22 energy policies of the last Coalition gov were implemented?
I could go on.
And most certainly lets not talk about 'Lawyer's for Israel'

 

[sptrawler]

Certainly is interesting times, Paul Keatings quote from the 1980's is pertinent.
Keating in the 1980's had a lot more levers he could pull, than the Government today has.

Amid Trump's tariffs, Chalmers must repeat what Keating did in the 80s

Treasurer Jim Chalmers must find a way to repeat what Paul Keating did in the 1980s and 90s, and lift productivity. Good luck with that.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:
Here's the nub of what Keating told Laws:

"It's the price of our commodities — they are as bad in real terms since the Depression … it means an internal adjustment. And if we don't make it this time, we never will make it. If this government cannot get the adjustment, get manufacturing going again and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy, then Australia is basically done for. We will end up being a third-rate economy … a banana republic."

 

[wayneL]

 

[SirRumpole]

View attachment 206109

Nice picture.

Is it hanging on your wall?

 

[Smurf1976]

Certainly is interesting times, Paul Keatings quote from the 1980's is pertinent.
Keating in the 1980's had a lot more levers he could pull, than the Government today has.

Amid Trump's tariffs, Chalmers must repeat what Keating did in the 80s

Treasurer Jim Chalmers must find a way to repeat what Paul Keating did in the 1980s and 90s, and lift productivity. Good luck with that.

www.abc.net.au

From the article:
Here's the nub of what Keating told Laws:

I'll add to Keating's original comment by saying that ~40 years later it's not simply a question of the price of commodities but also the volume.

Agriculture is constrained by suitable land.

Iron ore has the problem that Australia already dominates the market, making it problematic to increase volume beyond the underlying increase in demand. We can't meaningfully increase market share at this point.

LNG has the problem that present known reserves won't sustain present rates of production even in the medium term.

Education as an export is dodgy accounting at best as has been noted by people far better qualified on economic matters than myself.

That leaves coal, the less significant (in Australian export terms) metals, manufacturing and non-education services.

 

[SirRumpole]

The problem with technical and scientific people, they actually tend to wear their failures on their sleeves, where those in politics never admit they are wrong it isn't in their DNA.
When was the last time you heard a politician say I was wrong and I will fix it? IMO they seem to

Thats actually the real problem imo, more than the quality of the politicians, is the opaqueness of the decision making process.

Look at the trouble taken to prosecute Richard Boyle for exposing T ax Office secrets, and the tortuous process required to get info under Freedom of Information. Anyone who gives advice to the government is scared stiff of repeating that advice in public for fear of their jobs.

It all leads to a system where politicians have control over all the input into government decision making and the voices of experts are ignored. Just ask Alan Finkle and Ken Henry among others.

 

[sptrawler]

I'll add to Keating's original comment by saying that ~40 years later it's not simply a question of the price of commodities but also the volume.

Agriculture is constrained by suitable land.

Iron ore has the problem that Australia already dominates the market, making it problematic to increase volume beyond the underlying increase in demand. We can't meaningfully increase market share at this point.

LNG has the problem that present known reserves won't sustain present rates of production even in the medium term.

Education as an export is dodgy accounting at best as has been noted by people far better qualified on economic matters than myself.

That leaves coal, the less significant (in Australian export terms) metals, manufacturing and non-education services.

That's really what this tax summit is about, we have to work out how to get more tax, when we have less productivity, larger population and declining export income.
The next few years will be very interesting.

As Scott Bessent says about the U.S.
In his view the problem stems from decades of US policy that prioritized cheap imports and thus allowed China, Southeast Asian nations and even European countries such as Germany to game the global trading system. “In the old days they’d sell us a Sony Trinitron, and we’d sell them a GM,” he says. “As we deindustrialized and financialized, we’d sell them private equity, we’d sell them Google stock, or we’d sell them Treasuries. All of that has distributional effects. You end up with the coasts very rich and everybody in the middle less rich.”

The West in general all took a similar path and it has come home to roost, rather than finance Australia sold commodities and that is now declining.

 

[wayneL]

Nice picture.

Is it hanging on your wall?

Dart board

 

[wayneL]

This one is on my wall Horace.

 

[sptrawler]

Wow this will be interesting if adopted, home owners taxed on the rent they are saving, now that would catch all but the poorest and those who have the house in family trusts etc.
Sounds like a plan, if anyone can get it through Labor can, but will politicians be exempt, as usual? Lol

'Imputed rent' and what it could mean for a fairer Australia

As industry leaders and the federal government prepare for next week's economic summit, two economists have started a national conversation by arguing that, to make Australia's tax system fairer, we should consider taxing home owner-occupancy. Here's what that means.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

Wow this will be interesting if adopted, home owners taxed on the rent they are saving, now that would catch all but the poorest and those who have the house in family trusts etc.
Sounds like a plan, if anyone can get it through Labor can, but will politicians be exempt, as usual? Lol

'Imputed rent' and what it could mean for a fairer Australia

As industry leaders and the federal government prepare for next week's economic summit, two economists have started a national conversation by arguing that, to make Australia's tax system fairer, we should consider taxing home owner-occupancy. Here's what that means.

www.abc.net.au

If people are concerned about a widening gap between renters and home owners then all they need to do is make it easier for people to own their own homes, ie get investors out of the market . We all know what that means of course, removing negative gearing and CGT deductions on investors. If the government is too gutless to do that, they are not going to tax home owners on rent they never receive.