What is too often overlooked is that almost nobody votes FOR Tweedledum OR Tweedledee. The vast majority vote to keep (or kick) the alternative Tweedle out. It's a con. Only democracy - feared by all political parties - can break the logjam. By democracy is meant what Abe Lincoln meant by it (while never practising it) - government OF the people BY the people FOR the people, which in practice would mean binding citizen-initiated referenda (BCIR) for all decisions over which there is significant public dispute. What we have in Australia is government OF the people BY the political parties and mandarins FOR those who buy them.

PS: Sorry to be hiding behind a nickname. I wrongly thought on joining I was required to nominate one. Once you have one the software won't let you change it without changing your email address. My real name is Dion Giles, but I do still admire Julian of Rome who briefly disempowered a state cult which went on to create colossal misery for centuries thereafter. Gore Vidal's "Julian" is a terrific read.

I'm sure there will be many opportunities for negative comments if Tony, "Tow the Boats" Abbott, becomes PM.

Emperor Julian,

Agree that "Julian" is a great read, however I'm not sure I'd regard Julian as a role model, he failed disastrously, he was probably too late. I also agree on your assessment of Christianity- it's worth remembering though, that the Church gave Western civilisation unity against the attacks of an even nastier state cult, Islam.

I've often wondered if the low standard of debate in this country is due to the adoption of compulsory voting since politicians have to appeal to the apathetic and ignorant, who in most other nations, don't vote.

Russell Walton

Thanks Mac. Great to touch an issue that greatly transcends the Zionist Israel flash-in-the-pan. Yes, Julian failed to stem the then-new state religion because of a colossal blunder followed by the inevitable. The blunder was attacking Persia - a blunder that others are hot to repeat today. The inevitable was that he got killed before stamping out the embers at home.

Not sure Roman Popery united the world against Islam. They're still in cautious cahoots with Islam today, and in fact have devoted enormous energy over the centuries not against Islam but against Christianity in Christianity's name. Though not myself a believer in any religion, I put a lot of store by the historical account in the early 20th century Christian polemic "The Great Controversy" by Ellen White[1], a saga of violent suppression of Christianity, wherever it reared its head, by the Church of Rome.

I've always been cautious at seeing any religion as a counter to Islam - a bit like typhoid fever to combat cancer. Zionism isn't a counter, it's poisonous soil in which Islam thrives as a noxious weed. Christianity is distinguished from Islam by its iconic figure. Christianity's is a partly mythical man of peace and goodwill. Islam's a murderous paedophile.

[1] Buckshee from Kindle at Amazon. Ms White told the past, but was no prophet of the future.

Emperor Julian,

I wasn't referring to the Christian ideology but to the institution of the Catholic Church which gave the West some of the unity it had lost after the Roman collapse.
We have to give the "Devil His Due" and allow the Church some credit for the defeat of Islam.

Since we're way off topic I'll take the chance to recommend Mike Duncan's "The History Of Rome" on iTunes.

Thanks for the Duncan lead, Mac. I'll have a look.

I am a swinging voter and there is no doubt Labor have made quite a few mistakes but ultimately their social policies have always been streets ahead of the Coalition..., but what I cannot get my head around is that the population appear to have very short memories. It was neo-liberalism which gave us the GFC and if Workchoices had have been fully bedded down at the onset of the GFC big and small business would have laid people off en-masse and we would all be facing a much larger mess than what we have endured so far.

A good article.
Don Aitkin makes some significant and telling observations, though I fear Tony Abbott has a deal of work to do to overcome the 'negativity' assessment.
How he embarks on this, to project himself as truly positive and constructive in his interest for the nation, the electorate and the national economy, will be most interesting, though do it he must, to regain due respect for the Party, for the followers of Liberal/National ideals, and for the sake of the Federal political process - which has been much in turmoil and disarray.

However, contrary to Don's assessment, some would argue that Labor has done a good job, citing our low relative deficit, low unemployment, historically low interest rates, AAA rating and stable economy, despite impacts of the GFC.
It is now insufficient to contend that the Libs could have done it better, or to point the finger at Pink Batts, School Halls, the Carbon Tax and the MRRT, for the game has moved on.
The game is now the idiocy of the move to an ETS (which will do nothing to reduce emissions, or to promote investment in emissions-reduction), the idiocy of handing sole responsibility for environmental assessment to the States, the unacceptability of Labor's raid on Fringe Benefits (and unstated agenda to move also on Negative Gearing, Superannuation concessions and Capital Gains tax), Labor's pull-back on investment in renewable energy, the mishandling of immigration and border protection, the budget deficiencies in the Better Schools, NBN and NDIS programs, and the deficiencies in the Fair Work Act and its implementation.

Positive Tony will have to address all these concerns and more, but will also have to pull back on his overly grandiose plans for maternity leave. We need a slightly 'greener' Tony, and a more climate conscious and business-oriented Tony. We need some serious economic and business development policies, and a statement of clear vision for the nation, with sufficient detail and budgetary confirmation to convince the electorate of Lib/Nat credentials.
Reliance on past performance will not do the trick.
The electorate is waiting, and time is short.

Saltpetre

"..to move also on Negative Gearing,"

Actually, negative gearing is one "negative" that should be eliminated, as its main beneficiary is the rentier class and the practice also contributes to the housing price bubble.

"Actually, negative gearing is one "negative" that should be eliminated"

Mac,

I have, respectfully, to disagree with you on this. This provision has enabled many to acquire their first home, by buying modestly and renting out (to take advantage of the relevant tax deductions for mortgage interest, rates, maintenance and repairs), whilst renting themselves, also modestly. Getting in at the right time in this way has also enabled many to watch their capital investment grow, well beyond CPI, thereby creating their own nest-egg for their future retirement. It is thus also another form of salary-sacrifice superannuation investment.

Would you deprive average Aussies of this facility to both create new housing construction and prepare effectively for their retirement?

This provision has stimulated much new housing, unit and town house construction, and without which new construction would be much lower than it has been, with even greater impact on home prices, and even more homelessness.

Superannuation attracts certain tax concessions, and housing investment by the average Joe is legitimately another form of superannuation investment. Would you remove all incentive for average families to plan and prepare for their retirement, just as the government continues to tax the paltry interest on savings?

To rely on government to provide for your retirement is a fool's errand, but we certainly need government to do a great deal more to provide low-cost housing, and to stimulate the economy generally, but killing existing incentives is no way to achieve the necessary improvements.

Let's please be more positive, and a lot less negative, for we are, after all, the captain's of our own destiny.

Saltpetre,

I agree with the examples you've provided, however, the attitude to negative gearing is essentially a matter of ideology and I'm discussing the subject from a social democratic perspective. NG certainly benefits individuals, however it's effect on house prices and the availability of housing stock is another question entirely.

You might be interested in this link, the comments are informative as well--

http://theconversation.com/its-time-to-abolish-negative-gearing-9879

Thanks, Mac,

Interesting article, but fails to mention that once an investment becomes 'positively geared' normal income tax is payable on the net positive return, as with other 'positive' investments - like on bank interest or share dividends.
Of course the real property 'hogs' could then be expected to use the positive income and gained equity to purchase more property - negatively geared of course.
Perhaps one answer would be to limit the number of properties an individual can own and still take advantage of negative gearing; or, to place a limit on the total amount one can claim in negative gearing offsets in a lifetime?
The standard proposition of course, would be for any 'negative gearing' to be held over until it can be used to offset future 'positive gearing' - as operates with capital losses incurred on the sale of equities, which can only be used to offset 'gains' on other equity sales.

Some misleading info in that article: capital improvements are NOT tax deductible, and may only offset future capital gain on the sale of the particular property.
As for wage earners: more deductions should be permitted - like travel.

I have a reluctance to rock the boat, particularly if it is achieving positive outcomes. Hence, I'm averse to anyone fiddling with superannuation, Capital Gains Tax or negative gearing. We all need a reasonable degree of certainty, so my preference is for all propositions to be fully explored before any necessary 'phasing-in' of well-proven beneficial change.

I'm not sure what you mean by: "I'm discussing the subject from a social democratic perspective."

Could you mean that low-cost government housing should be provided for all low-income earners, as well as welfare recipients of course. Would be an alternative to 'rental assistance', but how far is 'social democracy' supposed to go?
In many countries few people own their homes, and in some most housing is provided by the State - with the quality based on profession or place in the regime.
Aus is certainly the lucky country, and we would do well to try to keep it that way.

Saltpetre,

Yes, the term "social democratic perspective" was referring to the claim that negative gearing increases the supply of affordable housing stock---I'm sceptical, NG might have the opposite effect, unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be much data on the subject.

"my preference is for all propositions to be fully explored before any necessary 'phasing-in' of well-proven beneficial change."

Agreed, and also, there's the obvious need to get the voters "on board", the potential for "negativity" (scare campaigns) is enormous.
In my opinion, the real cause of the current housing bubble is our very high rate of immigration, but that's a subject for another time.