The Turnbull Government

[SirRumpole]

More Party trouble for Turnbull

Liberal revolt brews against Malcolm Turnbull over republican speech

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-...evolt-over-republican-movement-speech/8113578

 

[qldfrog]

They should find a man who kicks in obstacles and leads for the whole of us regardless of how stupid people are for voting Labor, Liberal or Greens. Someone the opposition individuals would be proud to be singled out for a verbal hiding as a badge of worthwhile .... a fricken Paul fricken Keating ... someone we can all love to hate and hate to love, but feel inspired to journey down the road with him for reward. Costello et al enjoyed being lectured by Paul, it made them household names.

With the NZ results for all to see, it is not rocket science, just do as they do, 33% max tax rate, wipe out half of tax law as a result as you make max tax rate the company rate broaden GST,
Make sure everyone pay taxes, give pensions to everyone et voila
but labour will cry what poor and paying taxes, middle class will cry: why do I have to pay tax on my super, and the super riches will have no more access to the family trust and super rort..
No chance; this country does not need new politicians, it needs voting majority with some backbone/spine and stopping entitlement as a way of life be it welfare or grant/tax discount for corporate
; but when voting is mandatory no chance, ever!!!
Killed by democrassy pun intended.

 

[SirRumpole]

With the NZ results for all to see, it is not rocket science, just do as they do, 33% max tax rate, wipe out half of tax law as a result as you make max tax rate the company rate broaden GST,
Make sure everyone pay taxes, give pensions to everyone et voila
but labour will cry what poor and paying taxes, middle class will cry: why do I have to pay tax on my super, and the super riches will have no more access to the family trust and super rort..
No chance; this country does not need new politicians, it needs voting majority with some backbone/spine and stopping entitlement as a way of life be it welfare or grant/tax discount for corporate
; but when voting is mandatory no chance, ever!!!
Killed by democrassy pun intended.

Key is lucky he doesn't have a Senate to deal with otherwise he wouldn't have got anywhere.

 

[qldfrog]

Key is lucky he doesn't have a Senate to deal with otherwise he wouldn't have got anywhere.

so kill by democracy this time???

 

[SirRumpole]

The recession we're already in ?


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-13/the-recession-we-are-already-in/8113052

 

[SirRumpole]

so kill by democracy this time???

We want things both ways don't we ? The protection of the Senate and leadership in the Reps. Maybe there is a way of having both, like limiting the number of times the Senate can reject legislation.'

 

[Tisme]

You know things aren't going well when the Liberal Party start talking about freedom of expression, democracy and conscious votes in the party room. If ever there was a membership who are tied to the yardarm for dogma vacillation, it's the Libs.

 

[noco]

The recession we're already in ?


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-13/the-recession-we-are-already-in/8113052

Maybe it is the recession we had to have and no money in the kitty to get us out of trouble.....AHLA Paul Keating.

 

[McLovin]

We want things both ways don't we ? The protection of the Senate and leadership in the Reps. Maybe there is a way of having both, like limiting the number of times the Senate can reject legislation.'

There is less than zero chance of changing the Senate. The smaller states love their overrepresentation in that house and the leverage it gives them. Couple that with the history of referenda success and it's not even worth discussing.

Why did we ever create such a powerful upper house?

 

[noco]

There is less than zero chance of changing the Senate. The smaller states love their overrepresentation in that house and the leverage it gives them. Couple that with the history of referenda success and it's not even worth discussing.

Why did we ever create such a powerful upper house?

It was supposed to keep the ba$tard$ in the lower house honest but now it is being used as a political tool to discredit rather than consider sensible legislation to fix the economic mess we find ourselves in......So long as one side makes the other side look like bad economic managers that is the game and to hell with the national interest.

It is all about power.

 

[McLovin]

It was supposed to keep the ba$tard$ in the lower house honest but now it is being used as a political tool to discredit rather than consider sensible legislation to fix the economic mess we find ourselves in......So long as one side makes the other side look like bad economic managers that is the game and to hell with the national interest.

It is all about power.

Yeah it was supposed to be above party politics and about state rights, but that lasted about one election. I haven't really ever read up on it, but it seems like they wanted something like the House of Lords, but elected and representative of the states like the US Senate.

I reckon a sensible first step would be to remove the nexus between the house and the senate. We have a senate that is 3/4 the size of the US senate with 1/15th the population.

 

[SirRumpole]

I reckon a sensible first step would be to remove the nexus between the house and the senate. We have a senate that is 3/4 the size of the US senate with 1/15th the population.

But as you say, there is zero chance of changing the Senate, so it's not even worth discussing.

 

[McLovin]

But as you say, there is zero chance of changing the Senate, so it's not even worth discussing.

True that. Could you imagine the Senate voting for it, before it even got to a national vote.

Maybe Victoria and New South Wales should just say they want to secede. That'll get some change in the Senate.

I thought giving taxing powers back to the states wasn't a bad idea.

 

[SirRumpole]

I thought giving taxing powers back to the states wasn't a bad idea.

Australia has about half the population of California , yet we apparently need 6 state governments, 2 territory governments plus a multiplicity of councils to service us.

Rather than giving powers back to the States, we should be getting rid of the States, or at least encouraging them to merge to reduce the cost of government.

Does SA really need it's own government ? Populatation 1.7 million. Sydney's is 4 million + . The ACT 350,000 . Tasmania 500,000. A few councils to administer Federal legislation and we would get uniform laws across the country at greatly reduced cost.

 

[McLovin]

Rather than giving powers back to the States, we should be getting rid of the States, or at least encouraging them to merge to reduce the cost of government.

I disagree. If we went down that road we'd end up with Sydney, Melbourne and maybe SE Queensland and everywhere else. We'd end up like the UK; a hugely disproportionate share of government and private sector investment is spent on London and the south east and the rest of the country is dependent on welfare payments and minimum wage jobs. Compare that to federal Germany and how the riches there are spread out (Stuttgart, Munich, Hanover, Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg...).

So I do think there is a place for state governments. It's not about passing legislation, it's about how investment is directed.

That's not to say the system doesn't need a bit of tinkering, which is why I'm all for states being able to broaden their tax base. I bet if South Australia had had to pay for it, Royal Adelaide Hospital wouldn't be the third most expensive building ever built.

 

[SirRumpole]

I disagree. If we went down that road we'd end up with Sydney, Melbourne and maybe SE Queensland and everywhere else. We'd end up like the UK; a hugely disproportionate share of government and private sector investment is spent on London and the south east and the rest of the country is dependent on welfare payments and minimum wage jobs. Compare that to federal Germany and how the riches there are spread out (Stuttgart, Munich, Hanover, Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg...).

So I do think there is a place for state governments. It's not about passing legislation, it's about how investment is directed.

That's not to say the system doesn't need a bit of tinkering, which is why I'm all for states being able to broaden their tax base. I bet if South Australia had had to pay for it, Royal Adelaide Hospital wouldn't be the third most expensive building ever built.

We've already got Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and everywhere else.

Living in regional NSW, there has been a lack of infrastructure here for decades. The money always goes where the population and votes are regardless of the system of government.

 

[sptrawler]

We've already got Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and everywhere else.

Living in regional NSW, there has been a lack of infrastructure here for decades. The money always goes where the population and votes are regardless of the system of government.

The same happened in W.A until royalties for regions. But now there are no royalties, I guess it will fall over.

http://www.drd.wa.gov.au/rfr/whatisrfr/Pages/default.aspx

Brendan Grylls from the National Party brought it in, he copped a lot of flack at the time, but it has proven great for regional W.A

He now is fundamental in calling for a mining tax per ton of ore removed, which to the common man, makes a lot of sense.
The mining companies aren't happy, wow shock horror, they can sell the resource to China at cost, therefore making no money.
But they can't pay a tax per ton that's weird, it just means the bottom line they can sell it for moves up a notch.
When the extraction costs are the lowest in the World, it is a stupid argument, our governments are stupid.
Development at all cost is great, until you have nothing to develop, then the mining companies say goodbye.

 

[SirRumpole]

The same happened in W.A until royalties for regions. But now there are no royalties, I guess it will fall over.

http://www.drd.wa.gov.au/rfr/whatisrfr/Pages/default.aspx

Brendan Grylls from the National Party brought it in, he copped a lot of flack at the time, but it has proven great for regional W.A

He now is fundamental in calling for a mining tax per ton of ore removed, which to the common man, makes a lot of sense.
The mining companies aren't happy, wow shock horror, they can sell the resource to China at cost, therefore making no money.
But they can't pay a tax per ton that's weird, it just means the bottom line they can sell it for moves up a notch.
When the extraction costs are the lowest in the World, it is a stupid argument, our governments are stupid.
Development at all cost is great, until you have nothing to develop, then the mining companies say goodbye.

I agree. Howard blew the last mining boom on middle class welfare. Swan tried to bring in a mining tax. The LNP opposed it. More waste of a valuable resource. When will they ever learn ?

 

[Tisme]

I agree. Howard blew the last mining boom on middle class welfare. Swan tried to bring in a mining tax. The LNP opposed it. More waste of a valuable resource. When will they ever learn ?

Did they!!! I thought that was Bill Shorten's fault.

What other things did the LNP oppose and denigrate during their time in opposition....surely nothing more than that?

Thank goodness we now have the LNP in power. Things will get back on track real quick and we will see fiscal maturity and strong leadership for sure.

 

[SirRumpole]

Did they!!! I thought that was Bill Shorten's fault.

What other things did the LNP oppose and denigrate during their time in opposition....surely nothing more than that?

Thank goodness we now have the LNP in power. Things will get back on track real quick and we will see fiscal maturity and strong leadership for sure.

You're right , Swan's mining tax was wrong because it was Labor's idea.

According to the LNP :-

Labor mining tax bad

Liberal extra payments to see the doctor good.