Accidents don`t "happen".
They are caused.
Always.
However the causes are not always all that obvious.

"They wanted to scare the government, not sack it..."

The author is giving far more credibility to the average voter than they deserve. No, what they wanted to do was get their vote done as quickly as possible and return home from being inconvenienced. Opinions were made from a Chanel 9 news report or from radio commentary on the trek to work.

Newman's numberless repetition of "Strong Team, Strong Plan, Stronger Queensland" shows with what derision he held the QLD people in by thinking that an abecedarian slogan would influence them. Well, it would have, were it not so frustratingly annoying. Labor weren't much better; they all talk down the camera like their receiving audience are toddlers

Newman and Abbott had the same plan from day one, it just goes to show that the public has had enough of politicians that tell lies and go back on promises.

Another great failing of govt; is to blame the other for their own inability, or changing minds after the election. Just like Abbott it’s all Labor’s fault, it doesn’t hold water. Where do you find someone else that says AU debt is out of control besides LNP worshipers or Abbott.

When we have a change of govt; The swinging voters vote is only there for a lend. So performance and fairness is right at the top of the changing minds.

Environment considerations were sidestepped in the name of business, The scene was set for a massacre.

QLD war drums were beating for quite some time, NSW will be next. Good on the people of QLD for saying loudly this is not a fair way to run a govt;

Graham Young: “Bikie related drug crime was squashed and crime statistics improved dramatically”.

According to a recent ABC “fact check”, the crime rate has been tracking down for many years and has not accelerated under the LNP or its policies.

The rest of Graham’s analysis seems fair enough from a conservative standpoint and allowing for his clear political bias.

It seems to me that both parties have to address the fundamental problem, which is not to pay down debt with cuts, but to raise taxes and fund decent living standards for everyone.

As both parties know, this means a higher consumption tax, though from Labor’s pov not necessarily broad-based.

Consumption tax is one way of squeezing tax out of the wealthy, but it’s not enough. The wealthiest 20% command 62% of Australia’s economic pie; the poorest 20% command 1%, with the rest somewhere in between.

Taxes don’t need to rise much in the middle, but clearly the top bracket has to be raised, indeed more tiers imposed above that.

The real reason one term governments are being tossed is because both continue with ‘third way’ policies, which far from being a political compromise has historically favoured neoliberal economic agendas: privatisation, and when push comes to shove, old-style laissez faire and cuts to welfare.

There is no invisible hand that will ever bring things into balance; rather, free markets determine that the rich get richer and social equilibrium is impossible.

And while the middle/upper-middle classes get enough/just enough to buy into capitalist ideology, they swing like the proverbial pendulum politically as they see their fortunes wax and wane.

The really sad case is the swathes of the working class, duped by an ideology that—if they used their heads for once they would see—despises them even as it keeps them in trance.

We get shock election results like this when a) the middle classes want to send a message and b) when the working class and cashed-up bogans momentarily wake up!

Labor has to go back to its roots and tax the disproportionate wealth at the big end of town.

It is much more than an accident, it's a train-wreck. Good heavens, we now have the possibility of Pauline Hanson gaining a seat. Add to that the unions already getting their claws into the spoils (Courier Mail today). Great work Queensland

Oh God save us. How could anyone be so stupid to ignore the past and elect a labor government.
Ipswich beware, here comes another flood from a tidal-wave of incompetence!

Sounds like arrogant, born to rule, sour grapes to me.

It was no "accident" and to phrase it as such shows the rightwings contempt for voters and for democracy.
The same as rabbott calling it "absentmindedness" when people vote Labor.
They cant conceive of the idea that they are wrong and the voters dont like what they are doing.
It is all a big mistake and people didnt really mean to vote them out.

It is just a childish, petulant tantrum the like of which we see every time the born to rule mob cant have the reigns of power.

It was of course no accident. The ordinary every-person is quite rightly upset when they urged to "tighten their belts" and/or "make sacrifices", especially when there are no obvious signs that the fat cats are in any sense willing to tighten their belts too.

Nobody on either side of the culture wars divide has the remotest clue as to what needs to be done to solve the obvious crisis within which all of humankind is now trapped.
Furthermore the human world is now essentially ungovernable.

An essay titled Something New Must Emerge - Final Address To Humankind sums up the situation. It was written/finished on the morning of the day that that the author dropped the body.
The essay, plus much more is available via this reference - scroll down for the particular essay:
http://www.daisyorganicessentials.com/dhp23/category/not-two-is-peace

"Then there is the management mayhem, solutions in search of a problem, broken promises and the unpopular leader acting like a lightning rod for discontent, together with an unscrupulous opposition allowed to reinvent reality on the run."

eh for a minute there Graham I thought you were talking about the last federal election.

Nothing will be learnt from this election, all the lessons were already available, there was nothing new in the mistakes that Newman has made. They will be repeated again.

I agree with Mikk and Daffy Duck. This article was a classic illustration of seeing what you want to see and ignoring the evidence. Quite apart from which it is astonishing arrogance and rebuttal of democracy to suggest that every time somebody votes for someone other than your own party they are deluded, or mistaken, or take your pick from any of Abbott's comments post election.

Despite their firm belief to the contrary the LNP or any of its state or federal clones do not have a right to rule. The more quickly they disabuse themselves of that notion the quicker they will formulate policies that reflect their promises, do not treat the electorate like a bunch of mugs, and accept that in a democracy what the voters decide is by definition correct at that time. Abbott's speech yesterday clearly shows that he has not absorbed any of the lessons. The Northern Territory overnight showed that a quick execution of an electoral liability need not be fatal.

"They wanted to scare the government, not sack it..."

I am astonished that such a statement could be made as a fact. Without asking the voters what their intention was it is mere speculation.

"The fingerprint of a protest vote is that the smallest swings occur in the most marginal seats because voters in marginal seats know they can change the government, and are more careful."

But this does not seem to have happened in Queensland. The seats that the LNP retained only 2 had less than a 10% margin from the previous election (one at 9% and 1 and 9.6%). Every marginal LNP seat was swept away. This looks very much like the whole electorate wanting to change the government, not scare them.

Graham,

I think you are grossly underestimating the intelligence of specifically the Queensland, and generally Australian, voter. It is also presumptuous to believe the Liberal Party knows what is best for Australians, and is a key reason why they are in the predicament they now find themselves in.

The Queensland State election result was extraordinary. The swing against the former Newman Government of in excess of 10% demonstrates political parties cannot rely on the traditional loyal allegiance base of voters as in past years.

No longer can political parties take a constituent's vote for granted from one election to the next. They must continually listen, engage and understand their constituents' needs, maintain their trust, and clearly communicate the purpose and benefits of policy positions at an individual, family and society level.

The Federal Coalition Government also risks the same fate of political annihilation at the next election, if they continually fail to heed the needs of the voting public.

The Queensland State election result is no accident, and reveals that if you do not respect the voter, you will not last long in Government. This is one of the beauties of our democracy at work.

Agronomist I did ask the voters. Unlike the majority of commenters that I see in social media I actually poll voters and ask them what they are doing. And they tell me. I am very careful of facts.

The only group that thinks it is born to rule in this country is the ALP. May have been otherwise once, but somewhere around the Hawke/Keating period they achieved their aim of becoming the "natural party of government".

This is mainly achieved by dominance of the media, who come out of universities well-schooled in ideology, but not in facts. That's why so few left-wing fantasies, such as catastrophic climate warming, are questioned, and why a minor conservative hiccup becomes a major cause celebre.

Where was the love media when Crikey was calling Julie Bishop the "mattress for Nattrass" when her partner was Peter Nattrass? They came out in force for Julia when the grandmother of second wave feminism Germaine Greer dared to point out the obvious - she had a large backside. But they wouldn't even lift a finger nail to help a sister on the other side of the ideological street.

Having seen this hypocrisy in a number of areas, including civil liberties I've come to despise the left. So we have Tony Fitzgerald worrying away because someone touched the CJC, and completely ignoring a Labor campaign based on repeated lies, like that Newman had cut frontline services.

I still have some friends on the left, but they are not typical of the narcissistic postmodern fantasism that characterises the modern left.

Yes Graham, there is an old saying in buiness that goes Position, Position, Position, and the saying for big business, the main driver of our economy is Confidence, Confidence, Confidence. I fear thus has just been struck a blow.

We have the likes of Clive Palmer and even Allan Jones dancing in the streets, but their issues were personal and with what labor took to the campaign, if I were reliant on holding my job to service my mortage and educate my kids, I would be very worried at present because labor has no money and with our credit rating being so low, thanks again to previous labor, I doubt we will see out of control borrowings.

The first thing they will want to do no doubt is to reinstate many if the public servants let go by Newman.

Major infrastructure projects like the much needed Toowoomba Bipass are no doubt in the firing line.

Never before have I seen so much gained for such little effort as was displayed by labor during their campaign. They offered literally nothing.

While few elections are actually won, this one was lost in a huge way.

We can only hope their leader has done her homework because anyone who doesn't even know the GST amount is not representative of a person in touch with reality.

GrahamY,

it's comments like that which rob you of kudos and credibility, an idiotic denunciation of 'the left' (including the scientific community presiding over climate change--all left-wing fanatics presumably), as if there was no nuance in there or anything worth a moment's thought. You should head for Canberra!

It just occurred to me that I don't recall any mention of the Carmody appointment during the election campaign--another blatant example of the LNP's contempt for consensus, propriety or protocol, unless it's handing out a crony gong.

Graham,

".... But they wouldn't even lift a finger nail to help a sister on the other side of the ideological street."

Beside the main point really, but I'd just like to point out that in the wake of Murdoch calling for Abbott to boot Credlin - delivered via "electronic graffiti" on twitter - I noted many "lefties" immediately ditch any political bias and jump straight in to defend Credlin on a gender basis.

There were far more lefties defending her than would ordinarily be the case along purely political lines. Probably because it was seen as beyond the pale for Murdoch to call for the female to be ditched, while her male counterpart in the leadership duo is preserved.

be fascinating if the emily's listers would support Bishop. Its always a degree of hate when it comes to emily's listers not of rationale. That's why the majority of the media are so obessed with abbott (phobia). Unlike our resident feminist a lot of the media don't even try and hide it especially those sucking so hard on the public purse. Always about self interest and never about the good of society or the country.

A very good article from the author followed by a very stupid comment from the author:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17060#301059

Rusted on, you betcha.

Graham: "...but somewhere around the Hawke/Keating period they achieved their aim of becoming the "natural party of government".

Hawke and Keating presided over third way politics. They were not Labor. Real Labor is indeed "the natural party of government" because its is a social agenda devoted ultimately to equality (though it needs to work on its green credentials).
The conservative alternative is an unsustainable, inequitable, neoliberal rubric; a faith-based, anti-social, economic algorithm that maintains the status quo via sprawling and unsustainable growth, or social detritus.
True Labor is at least progressive.
Whereas the LNP algorithm is both elitist and expansionary.

What everyone seems to be missing is that this was not some great swing against the coalition, but simply a return to the normality of the last 25 years. Ever since we finally got rid of old Joh, Labor has held government in Queensland for most of the time, this despite some of the worst government ever in Oz, in the Beattie years.

We have a tendency to hold onto a government way past it's use by date. We did it with Joh, & even gave him a national party solo government, when we should have been showing him the door.

We actually elected Bligh, way after the then current Labor lot were a total failure. People were used to voting Labor & continued to do so.

It was an incredible effort for Newman to gain the huge swing he did from outside government. Perhaps it was this novel approach that made the electorate think & swing.

This election, the voters simply returned to their quarter century voting pattern, & labor is possibly back. It is certainly no swing, just a return to normal.

It was unbelievable that Newman could hold his seat. It is in the heart of public servant Labor country. I am amazed he even thought he had a chance of retaining a half century safe Labor seat in a normal election.

I did hope people would see the improvement in management of the state, & keep the LNP if not Newman, but it appears self interest trumps all else. As I said elsewhere, get in for your chop, because things are about to get very damn bad very soon now. If this is repeated nationally, I expect we will fail to pay pensions in my lifetime.

Hasbeen I would like to see the break down in votes from business people, because business people, although critical of Campbells style, knew there was a tough job to be done. Chances are the tough jobs will never be done now.

People voted the LNP out simply because nobody wants to do the hard yards, yards that resulted from years of waste, mismanagement and reckless borrowings from labor.

Well, they have got their wish.

I was surprised about the things the LNP wasn't running in their election advertising. Lots of talk of strong choices but little about what's been achieved.

Labor was claiming there was a waiting list to get on the waiting list for surgery, my impression is the deadly waiting lists of the Labor period are pretty much gone.

Talk of cutting front line services but a lack of service from government departments does not seem to have been an issue over the last couple of years.

There are other areas where Labor just could not get it together and the LNP seem to have either eliminated the issues or at least got them down to manageable proportions.

I was surprised that the LNP wasn't focussing more of their campaign on what's been achieved.

R0bert

I sort of agree with Graham.

I think almost everyone thought the an LNP win was almost a foregone conclusion, and therefore safe to vote labor, or anyone else as a protest?

Newman Campbell seems like every other conservative thinker?
If you can't tax the poor, or sell assets that generations sacrificed to acquire. After that the Ideas dept seems empty?

And worse, none seem to understand that the concentration of too much of our finite wealth in too few hands was a precursor of the Great depression and the later GFC?

This is very much a problem caused by thinking within a fixed circle of very limited ideas.

Moreover, he was like so many before him full of non core promises, easily rescinded, by having a post election inquiry, that claimed we couldn't afford them.

Even as multinationals squeeze billions out of our economy, without paying anything like a fair tax.

So, I would bring back the resource rent tax, and just apply a 5 or 10% impost on the resource, whether it returned a profit or not.

And enable that to be written off against 30%company tax obligations.

Meaning, no mining company ripping billions out of the local economy, ought to pay less than say, 10%; and given you allow them to average their profits and losses over seven years, doable and fair?

Finally. we are one of a few economies that don't/refuse to use thirty year self terminating bonds to raise finance for big infrastructure projects; and we should given our super funds are now larger than the economy, and ought to be harnessed!

You do it off budget, and pick projects like the long overdue range crossing that has no choice but to return a nice profit; meaning the income earned by the various projects pay for that project; not the government nor the taxpayer!

And something like a range crossing, even when fully owned, could keep paying into a fund, to ensure other projects can be also started and ahead of time.

However, not doable if/once privatized!
Rhrosty.

Oh come on all you ranting righties!
The people of Queensland are not stupid, and obviously the majority of the voters didn't want the Liberals in Government.
It was no 'accident'.

This is only the beginning too.
Tony is way too out of control for voters to trust anything he says or does, and he makes even Rudd seem almost 'normal'. He would love to 'knight himself if he could!

I would love to see Malcolm Turnbull in the hotseat, and would predict that if he was there before the next election, the Libs would win for sure.
With poor ol' bumbling Tony, they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell....

Suse,

There's "no way" Abbott is going to take the Libs to the election.

In fact, I think as this evening unfolds we'll find that it is "on".

Suseonline and Poirot I agree.
And after the Rudd/Gillard show it's our turn to gloat!

Just another of the things the LNP is going to have to revise is climate change policy, an issue on which they have no credibility under Abbott. Switching to Turnbull is the only way to change their politically disastrous policies.
Not just Abbott but Hockey and others also have to go. Bloody hypocrites; it's only those who have something to lose, his partners in crime, who have been feebly supporting Abbott.

Bring it on! It's grand entertainment : ))

It does not matter which party comes to power as the result will be the same.

Back in the 1970's we went off the gold standard and Henry Kissinger came up with the idea of the US $ being backed by oil. Hence the dominance of the US petro dollar. This was the inception of fiat currency created by private banks without shackles. The result has been inflation that requires the debt money creation system to create exponentially more money in the present,to pay for the debt of the past.

This system is now reaching its climax of total collapse. It is like using one credit card to pay off the last one.

Squeers, Suse, that is exactly where you are wrong. Turnbull is a dirty word to many Liberal supporters.

I think & hope the Liberals realise this, but the conservative voters are smart enough to realise the global warming scam is a UN/lefty/academic scam to destroy western peasant wealth.

We saw Turnbull as a full traitor when he backed Rudd in his attempt to get a full global trading scheme up & running. It is a pity he did not have the decency to resign, but he is that type of course.

Nothing on earth would get a very large proportion of conservative voters to vote for a party he lead. Bishop could have the same trouble if she started sprouting her global warming leanings. Any Liberal leader, who can not see through the scam, & communicate that fact, would lose an enormous level of support.

I really do wish you would claim him & take him in. With Labor's lack of talent, we would be a real asset, & the conservatives would be well rid of the fool.

Hasbeen, you are wrong.
Abbott's refusal to believe the global warming/climate change science was not even a vague reason why he and the Liberals were elected , it was merely because of the mess the Labour Party were in at the time.

There is absolutely no doubt that climates change, nor that this past year was the hottest on record. Only a fool would refuse to believe the statistics.

Abbotts refusal to believe in climate change is only one of his many 'problems', but it is by no means his worst one at the moment.....

My take on the matter, Graham Young, is that there must be a lot of Greeks moving to Queensland.

The usual pattern of Lib/Lab governments, is that Labor gets in and spends and spends, borrows and spends, borrows and spends, and all to buy the votes of the welfare dependent and the public service. The Libs get in and repair the damage through austerity measures, and the pattern repeats itself add infinitum.

But if Greece is anything to go by, that model may now be in danger. People don't like austerity measures by responsible governments, so any party promising prosperity by decree can still win office. The party promising prosperity by decree can hardly spend the money it hasn't got, and it can't borrow it, so it is only a matter of time before the electorate realise that they did a really dumb thing.

I think that Queenslanders will soon figure out how stupid they were, but I am not to sure about the Greeks. The behaviour of the Greeks towards the international banking community that is keeping them soluble reminds me of the old "Blazing Saddles" movie lynch scene, where the black guy sticks a gun to his head and declares "Get back, or the niigger gets it!"

Probably many Qld voters realised that their state was on the way to becoming another LNP banana republic, they haven't forgotten the appalling Bjelke-Petersen regime.

.....it was merely because of the mess the Labour Party were in at the time.

Well said Suze, so what's changed?

If we're talking QLD, labor themselves have been caught off guard, and if we're talking federal, what does labor have to offer.

While I agree Abbott is a goose, at least the libs have Morrison, Bishop and Turnbul, who do labor have as alternative leaders because Shortens rise to fame is not due to his performance, it's due to Abbotts self destruction.

Now while on the subject of lies, which has been the focus for some time now, how does labor form government, or libs for that matter without the support of the minors and independent/s. They either break a promise, or we go back to the polls, which wouldn't be a bad idea because the result would be very different I suspect, esspecially given labors apparent un preparedness to govern.

The stench surrounding Abbott is overpowering and Turnbull the most likely character to be reinstated as PM. A position he should never have been challenged for. A good middle of the road man, but that quality goes against Liberal values.

The worst of taking over a PM position is if you don’t turn things around ,because of what you have left behind, you could ruin your career as well.

Abbott has already lost the next election, so something will happen. People will not forget the extent of lies and promises that failed to eventuate. Abbott’s only fame according to him is backing out the carbon tax which cost 6 billion $ In revenue.

Abbott the champion of two failed first term governments and another pending. Is on the nose. So who could be happy with that, certainly not his fellow workers who are clambering for Abbott’s head, either quietly or forcibly. The Abbott clock is one minute to midnight.

GrahamY, I am impressed that you asked voters whether they were voting against the government because they wanted to change the government, or doing so because they wanted to scare the government.

But it does not seem to accord with the other data around http://www.whatthepeoplewant.net/polls-blog/april-2005/queensland-election-2015the-quants.html A suggestion that 52% of people polled felt that the government did not deserve to be re-elected. And indeed your claim that there was a smaller swing in marginal seats than in safe seats also doesn't seen to be borne out by the data http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/results/electorates/ There is an old political adage that goes "oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" that would seem to be apt in this case. Possibly tipped over the edge by Tony Abbott's 'captain's pick' of Sir Prince Philip.

What does surprise me is the rest of your post. I made no comment on any of those issues and indeed many other posters had not either, but somehow a questioning of a premise of your argument led to this knee-jerk rant against the left.

That is just so wrong Mac. Where do you live, Tasmania or the moon? Where ever it is it can't be Queensland.

In the day, I could not wait to get rid of old Bjelke-Petersen. I reckoned he was way past his use by date, & by any reasonable understanding he was.

However, every single premier & government to follow him has been worse by a couple of orders of magnitude. God how I wish we had cloned the old bugger, so we could reintroduce his parochial pro Queensland ways, & get out of this mess we are now living in.

Beattie/Bligh were probably the worst in living memory, but I think we are now about to find out, just how bad government can be.

Well you would have to think labor will reinstate some of the fat trimmed from the public service. They will no doubt look at ways of getting more taxes, especially from the top end and it has been suggested they will tighten land clearing laws again.

All this suggests more borrowings and higher unemployment on the horizon. What other options do they have?

I think we might see a fresh election in the not too distant future, even if labor do break their promise and do deals with the minors.

While some of us are divided on what's best, labor or liberal, I think one thing we can all agree on is that we can il afford another term like the last couple labor break us.

Who will want to buy a second rate NBN, stupid ideas from stupid people, buying back Telstra, after Howard sold it . There is something about that, does not make sense.

Abbott should have never been made PM. All it has done is stack another 80 billion on debt in 16 months.

If you don’t have trust in your PM nothing is going to work. Probably the worst 16 months in Australia’s history. Turnbull is making a run, so at least that sounds more positive.

Some thing that hasn't been mentioned so far, and which Graham probably intentionally omitted, is that Queensland's unemployment rate in December 2014 was 6.9%, the second highest in Australia, and the highest since 2004 (a period which included the GFC).

This is one of Newman's achievements which should be remembered by all.

Godo, governments can't simply increase public service numbers just to make the figures look good. While I agree that Neman went in to hard, too quick, the fact is despite the cutting of some 14000 PS jobs, most councils are still broke, so where would they, or we as a state for that matter be had the cuts not occurred. Most councils have gone to contractors due to inefficiencies in the public service. It's pointless creating jobs if the work doesn't still get done.

The budget problems both state and federal are about revenue, not overspending!

How can we be overspending when welfare and services are already rock-bottom for a wealthy first-world country?

Demand is increasing certainly, and will continue to increase, but this is due to growing and aging populations. The problem is not going away and cutting spending/paying down debt can thus only mean cutting living standards for those who don't live the middle/upper-middle-class dream.
A large percentage of the population will always be debarred from attaining "prosperity", not because they're slackers as the neo-liberals like to assert, but because the system precludes anything even approaching the dream of prosperity for all. Most of the economic pie is wolfed down by the wealthy and there simply isn't enough left to go around.
Abbott is quite right to repeat that our national debt amounts to stealing from the future. But the thieves are the ones living high on the hog!
The same ones who want cuts and austerity!
None of which is going to affect them!
They have their private schools and hospitals and their brilliant superannuation schemes and all the other perks, while they minimise (euphemism for evade) their already low tax bills--complaining all the while!
So who's stealing from the future?
Apparently it's the poor, those wholly or partly dependent on medicare and welfare. Their 1% of the pie has to be cut back!
So we have co-payments, cuts in welfare and premiums and interest rates placed on higher education, along with any other sneaky added costs the libs can hit us with.
But no tax hikes. They brag about no new taxes, while spewing their nonsense about disincentives and 'fairness'--the bloody gall!

Surely we have to accept that with a growing and aging population, costs are going to go up if any dignity is to be maintained.
It's not about cuts. It's about sharing the wealth!

'They have their private schools and hospitals and their brilliant superannuation schemes and all the other perks, while they minimise (euphemism for evade) their already low tax bills--complaining all the while!
So who's stealing from the future?'

u r of course referring to Public servants, teachers, nurses, abc presenters (on obsecence salaries), unionist (on obscence salaries wile still needing to steal) and others on the public purse Squeers. Those sending kids to a private school are contributing to costs in taxes and fees unlike those sucking on the public system wholly.

runner,
I am talking about the top tier first. Those you mention needn't pay much more personal tax. The wealth is not shared remotely evenly and neither should the tax burden be. Why the hell should millionaires and billionaires pay the same rate as the rest?
The GST rate should be increased, though the base remain the same, but progressive taxation should be introduced. This is the only way, not cuts, that we can remain a first world country (completely unsustainable but that's another subject).

'I am talking about the top tier first'

what you are appear to be talking about Squeers is the politics of envy. You know that under every Government in the world the top 'tier' never have and never will pay their fair share tax. In saying that Australia is far more equitable then the vast majority of nations. Usually people on good incomes from Government just want to protect their slice of the pie when opposing any form of economic necessities. That is why we are going to end up like Greece with massive youth unemployment while civil servants continue to live very comfortably via the tax payer. Interesting enough the huge increase in teachers salaries over the ten years have not produced any better results ( in fact the opposite). Oh well I suppose because the very rich avoid tax means I can join the other economic vandals and allow future generations to pay.

"Hospital queues were slashed and patients given a guarantee of treatment within time either in a public hospital, or paid by the state in a private one. "

Sorry my family actually work in a hospital and have to confirm appointments for those on waiting lists. Its a full time job and they are handed pages and pages of appointments and there are thousands upon thousands of people on those waiting lists. They have not been minimised, just a bit of nice media for LNP.

" Public housing waiting lists were cut by a third. "

Public housing waiting lists have been minimised because the LNP cut who can be eligible to apply for housing , leaving thousands of people unable to apply for necessary housing and living in destitue conditions or trying to bunk with family/friends.

This is why they were thrown out; a very cocky and arrogant government who doesn't lead a society of people but believes they are leading an economy instead.

Poirot,

' I noted many "lefties" immediately ditch any political bias and jump straight in to defend Credlin on a gender basis. '

I would say more of an attack on the Emperor Murdoch. Any excuse. A true test would be if, say Tony abbot proposed for and fought for a paid parental leave scheme as generous as Sweden's.

The PPL scheme would have been lauded by the left if it came from a Labor government. Money given to women (and men... and non cis-gender people averse to micro-aggression who don't live in a vacuum) earning 150k (a very small minority of women) would not have soured the deal. It would have made us more like Sweden, that leftie nirvana. But because it came from Mr Rabbit, they had to look the gift horse in the mouth, and fight against policy in tune with their stated belief system. ie Everything is better in Sweden.

It's all so tiresome this left/right rubbish. I used to be more 'left' but I can empathize with GY's opinion of them. Maybe I changed but I think the left are getting more and more shrill. They are just as nasty in their character assassinations of their enemies but somehow still pretend to be more enlightened and 'progressive'.

The right, to me, make no allusions to the high ground, its all tough inner parent stuff, take no prisoners sh1t on the poor and needy and do it with a smile, but the left appeal to this altruistic wholesome tree hugging ideal all the while spitting venom and hating on.

Squeers, you would find a lot more high income earners would happily pay more tax if one, the tax wasn't wasted so much, two, they got rewarded for their efforts, because as it stands the more you earn, the less you get at the end and, a little appreciation from the hand out brigade wouldn't go astray either because while 7 out of 10 rely on the 3 at the top for their support, very few appreciate it.

The very least welfare recipients could do, and that's about 80% of us, is be appreciative that we have people and corporations willing to take risks in this country because one, we are out pricing ourselves, and two, if you do do well the tall poppy brigade is quickly on your case.

As a former high income earner myself, I used to be inspired by wealthy hard workers, not jealous of them as so many today are.

So if you are one of the 80 odd % who get a subsidy when you use a service, just remember somebody else ( not the government) picked up the tab.

Yeah, Houellie, I have to partially disagree with you there.

Leftie women are notorious for ditching their leanings and defending women - merely because they're women - especially if, in an obvious partnership, the woman is singled out while the man is left unassailed.

For my part, I think Credlin is up to her armpits in the shambles that has unfolded. I think she should be booted as well as Abbott - and I said so in response to all the women (and men) defending Credlin on twitter. Their favourite line is that the buck stops with Abbott, though technically true, we all know who was calling the shots big time in the PMO.

(I'm sure they were targeting Murdoch as well though)

BTW, Niki Savva has dumped major league on Abbott in today's Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/time-running-out-for-damaged-pm/story-fnahw9xv-1227208245189?login=1

(seems to be paywalled now - but was available this morning)

It's good to see your name pop up, Houellebecq, but rather than your signature wit, you seem so world-weary and bored with it all--like Eugene Onegin--complacency masquerading as wisdom, I'm afraid. Though I know you're not talking about me : )

rehctub,
you have it all wrong I'm afraid. Why should those on welfare be grateful for crumbs, which are meanly and resentfully spilled in any case?

It is those in a position to condescend who should be grateful for their place at the high table, and generous towards those less well off. We do not live in a meritocracy; and even to the extent that we do, there are twice as many candidates for plumb positions than there are vacancies in the workplace.
Nor am I calling for extravagant welfare, only for a minimum standard to be maintained.
I am sure we're all grateful to live in a prosperous country with a welfare safety net (inches from the ground), but we also have our dignity; everything is relative; it's not particularly generous and we need not humble ourselves before our 'betters'.

Anyway your opening premise simply isn't true for many high income earners; they are persuaded rather that those on welfare are there by design, constitute a drag on the economy, and need to be punished. That's neoliberalism in a nutshell.

However, I must off to work.

The whole Credlin thing reminds me of that English show The Thick of It. I wonder if she swears as much and if everyone is as scared of her as they are of Malcolm Tucker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaMb-5w-V0Y

Maybe she will become the scapegoat in it all. Will Abbott sacrifice his beloved guard dog so the back benchers don't revolt? She's on borrowed time whether he goes or stays.

It would be a very hard gig trying to keep that guy's foot away from his mouth.

' they are persuaded rather that those on welfare are there by design, constitute a drag on the economy, and need to be punished. '

See that's the honesty I like from the right. There is no pretense.

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2014/05/14/poor-people-scrapped/

Squeers' lazy prejudicial caricature of the rich is just as nasty as the right's caricature of the poor. But at least your general righty doesn't pretend to be above the mire.

Oh why cant we all just get along.

I do really really enjoy class warfare though. I don't know why people always criticize class envy. I reckon it's great! Why shouldn't those without envy the rich, who have their school buddy nepotism ans smug stuck up attitude. Bring up a policy to take away funds from private schools with 20 million in the bank and you're supposedly full of hatred and envy. Too bloody right! Bring the public school up to match they say? What a farce.

Australia was bred on the Roy Masters' dichotomy of Fibro houses vs the silver spoon lot. It's un-Australian to not participate in sledging other classes.

Name something else where the more you put in, the less you receive.

Imagine a situation where the more one paid in taxes during their working lives, the higher the pension they receive. Now there's something worth paying your taxes for.

Public housing. Why should some lay about single mother, with five kids to four fathers get public housing in the first place. It's a wrought as many of them are in defacto relationships, some with their partners (of the day) also claiming welfare.

If we are going to target the to end, we must also clean up welfare and get the scammers out of the system. Quarantining their payments would be a good start.

Of they want to smoke, gamble or drink, get a job. If there are no jobs, learn!

Earning or learning, what a great policy.

'BTW, Niki Savva has dumped major league on Abbott in today's Australian.'

just making sure her appearances on abc are safe.

Houellie,

"It would be a very hard gig trying to keep that guy's foot away from his mouth."

Who'd take on a job like that?

"I do really really enjoy class warfare though. I don't know why people always criticize class envy. I reckon it's great!"

I have to admit that one of the favourite books in my shabby home library is one titled "Class" by Jilly Cooper, which is a take on the British class system, written with a contemporary focus (in the 80's I think). I haven't read anything else of hers, but that was quite hilarious - written from an uppity upper middle-class perspective.

I do like your input - tends to relieve me of some of my pretensions....for about five minutes.

runner,

"'BTW, Niki Savva has dumped major league on Abbott in today's Australian.'

just making sure her appearances on abc are safe."

More likely, Uncle Rupert has given her the green light.

By the way, Houellie, Peta appears to have become invisible.

She was a no show at the great big new improved Cabinet meeting.

And Margie has been hauled out ad nauseam in recent days.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-new-order-visible-margie-invisible-peta-20150204-1364ru.html

Luke Simpkins has formally launched a spill motion.

Houellebecq:
“Squeers' lazy prejudicial caricature of the rich is just as nasty as the right's caricature of the poor. But at least your general righty doesn't pretend to be above the mire.”

I have to waste a few minutes to refute what amounts here to trolling (not a word I’ve used before I don’t think, but which is apposite given your emotive language, patent untruths and want of counter-argument. It’s just the kind of conceited musing Eugine Onegin indulges in.
Neoliberalism really is as simple an ideology as I’ve painted.
I haven’t offered any caricatures of the rich, much less ‘nasty’, and my arguments, unlike your ‘lazy’ trolling, are well-grounded.
Unlike you I’m not here just for fun, for stirring the possum and venting empty opinions, however witty.
I’m trying to talk sense. Not only are the disparities in the western world obscene, they’re socially unsustainable.
The central point Thomas Piketty makes in his recent “Capital”, is that to the extent there is an ‘invisible hand’, it favours old money; in a low-growth world, and without regulation and tax reform, wealth and poverty will be increasingly polarised between tiny minorities and the rest.
Even if this ‘is’ rationalised by some posters here as acceptable, ‘twas ever thus, Piketty’s contention is that for the vast majority, and internationally, it will breed resentment and strife. Such that western civilisation is directly threatened by the rich and poor divide as it becomes more and more stark.
“Oh why cant we all just get along”?
That’s ok for you to ponder (I picture you in a moderately well-paid sinecure that allows you to post leisurely on OLO till the commute home at 5.00?).
The reality is though that money, or the lack of it, is the difference between want and plenty, between status and a sense of worthlessness.
It’s nothing to do with “envy”, another loaded term—“thou shalt not covet” is a commandment against forbidden desire, not an endorsement of nobility and debasement.
For Labor to have any credibility in the future, it must redress the balance and put ‘democratic’ back into capitalism.

Squeers,

"Unlike you I’m not here just for fun, for stirring the possum and venting empty opinions, however witty...."

yep, that about sums it up...but he wears it as a badge of honour.

How dare you criticise the extreme right-wing stance of govt! - apparently that's "nasty".

Hi Poirot,

yes, Eugene is most amusing, and Squeers is rather a sour-puss I'm afraid : )

The problem for me is that we are so conditioned to how things are, and to believe in the rhetoric blindly. Most of us just accept everything, like the need for austerity--predicated on our profligate indulgence in universal healthcare, education, housing and a welfare safety net--without analysing the argument or the data.
We're perfectly ready to condemn stereotypes like the "lay about single mother, with five kids to four fathers..."--
(a stereotype which allows no concession for circumstances, and catches all single mums in the same net. Thanks to this misogynistic stereotype, or variations on the theme, to be a single mum on welfare is to be despised. We are social animals and to 'be' despised is in some degree to assimilate the perception.)

--yet we're not to quibble about opposite excesses; family money, corporate salaries and bonuses, superannuation fatteners, high interest, cheap credit, and all the other perks for the wealthy. How crushing that wealthy mums are to miss out now on Abbott's maternity leave scheme!
And how dare we ask the wealthy to pay more tax! Heresy!
Yet we're one of the lowest taxed countries in the western world, and another tax tier for the wealthy wouldn't affect their lifestyles an iota!
It's not about envy, it's about common decency, dignity and sustainability.
It's not our aging population that's unsustainable (economically), but the way the pie is distributed.
And just on that; let's stop celebrating the wealthy, as though its members create their wealth in a vacuum. Wealth/surplus is an utterly social phenomenon; the entrepreneur is just opportunistic.

Squeers, of you think I tag all single mothers as lay abouts good for you, knock yourself out. Because I know not all are like that, however, given we have a seveer shortage of public housing, just one such example is taking a house away from a genuine needy single mum.

I would also invite you to take a visit to the local pub, or RSL during the day and see what the make up of patrons is bussily squeezing their pensions into the slot machines, often between vists outside for a smoke. Now if you think that's a rare case, then you need to get out more often.

Quaranteening welfare is one part of the solution, to take this tax payer GIFT and ensure as best as possible it's spent wisely. Because after all, it's a gift, nit an entitlement and one of those very small minorities paid it for them.

Of cause that's not enough for you, you want them to be taxed even more. Unbelievable!

rehctub,

you know as well as I do that single mums are a favourite target of those who love to beat up on welfare collectors; not just neoliberals, but in my experience (male) taxpayers in general.
This points for mine to a deep flaw in all of us, whereby we adopt a popularly jaundiced perspective in knee-jerk fashion once we attain some particular demographic level. It's not merely that we protect our own ideological ground, as if 'it' was above reproach, but that part of that defensive posture lies in kicking those who are now 'demonstrably' inferior, indeed now seen as unwanted dependants and burdens. It's all part of the pecking-order mentality that our system nurtures in all of us, which makes as much sense as it does for a bunch of identical chickens, whose individual merits and superiorities, at our remove, we are unable to appreciate.
Our system has made us no better than a hierarchy of chickens.

When I also said that your caricature, "allows no concession for circumstances", I was alluding to the circumstances which created your particularly despised chicken, which/who perhaps has never summoned the strength or self-belief to rise above her demeaned place (and who knows what life experience!) in the order.

But of course this kind of girlie-talk is easily seen through by my betters, and I am immediately labelled a 'do-gooder'; this woman/chicken should pull herself up by the bootstraps, and be as successful (cruel and ruthless) as her birds of a feather.

Come of it squeers,

'for many high income earners; they are persuaded rather that those on welfare are there by design, constitute a drag on the economy, and need to be punished.'

It's an emotive projection of simple meanness onto people who dare to question the best use of their taxation, which may include macro economic changes they sincerely believe will trickle down to help the less fortunate. It goes well beyond challenging an ideology 'Neoliberalism really is as simple an ideology as I’ve painted.'(debatable in itself), but rather assigns motive to its proponents based on their wealth/class.

How is that any more generous a projection than opining many single mothers are work shy layabouts sponging off the system?

Both statements are mere cliched caricatures used to dismiss people from a different class, or with a different ideological bent.

I enjoy both, as I tend to like that kind of extravagant exaggeration and out-sized characterization whoever it is directed at.

But in real life, of the rich people I know, I have never come to the impression they believe poor people 'need to be punished'. It wouldn't stop me winding them up with such a statement of course. But at least I acknowledge it.

It grates that the well educated and intelligent squeers be so blind to his own prejudices. You even go far as to paint me as some comfortable middle class clock watcher as if that bucket you put me into will somehow disguise the paucity of your argument.

Just for squeers, as he seems a bit down...

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/19/column-change-life-empathy-oliver-burkeman

Houellebecq,
granted, "...and need to be punished" was emotive; indeed it doesn't help my argument, especially in a hostile court like this, as is subject to just such a charge as you make.
I was reacting to rehctub's assertion that
"you would find a lot more high income earners would happily pay more tax if one, the tax wasn't wasted so much..."

In my experience this simply isn't the case. Rather as I've subsequently argued, taxpayers tend to moan and fixate on just the kind of stereotype rehctub nominated, and in a fashion which bears a remarkable resemblance to the dumb logic of a pecking order.

My own father is a good example. He used to be an average wage earner and deplored dole bludgers etc. Around 50 years of age he went on an invalid pension and then saw things in a way that redounded to the credit of his current situation.
We flatter ourselves that our positions are based on reason, but this is too often not the case.
We are utterly preoccupied with status, an unconscious refrain which informs and predisposes all our 'thinking'.
Our infatuation with self is a life's work spent fleshing out an abstraction, ostensibly with a range of political/social/intellectual/spiritual opinions. But a little honest reflection informs us that a conflict of interest invests nearly all these attitudes.
This is the 'beginning' of self-awareness, when one realises, to paraphrase Montaigne, one is nothing but a fool.

Which brings me to:

"It grates that the well educated and intelligent squeers be so blind to his own prejudices...".

I have no wish to blow my own trumpet. I can only say that I'm devoted to critical thinking and subject everything that occurs to me to as much rigour as I'm capable of exerting.

My sketch of you was admittedly cheeky and loose--but very little data.
Your opinions seem kind of adulterated middle-class, conflicted with some radical thinking (uni days?) who's effects are wearing off?
Your generally 9-5 OLO appearances suggest the sinecure...

', taxpayers tend to moan and fixate on just the kind of stereotype rehctub nominated'

My point that you have obscured with so many many words and references to people I am unaware of (as they don't appear in pop culture) is that you have used class in two different arguments to imply anyone who is rich is likely to have a less than empathetic view of the poor, using it as a justification to pay less tax.
You fixate on the likes of one butcher, and extrapolate to indulge your prejudice of that class - Just as butcher does when he goes to the pub at lunch and watches people he assumes are on welfare spend their money.

My point is that you are two peas in a pod.

I am not the only one of the middle class boganity with differing justifications...

My biggest gripe in terms of wasted tax is paying for the bureaucracy to administer the tax and welfare, churn, and the duplication of private and public / federal and state systems. I don't think I'm alone. My second gripe is propping up business (picking winners)

I have no beef with single mothers, the poor, the mentally an chronically ill and disabled. Regardless, reducing their expose-able income hurts the economy, and cutting in these areas is a false economy in terms of future health costs and productivity. One doesn't even have to have empathy to understand it's a bad idea.

' I'm devoted to critical thinking and subject everything that occurs to me to as much rigour as I'm capable of exerting.'

But it's never occurred to you that you are projecting your relationship with your father onto your arguments with butcher?

'We flatter ourselves that our positions are based on reason, but this is too often not the case. '

Indeed.

'I have no wish to blow my own trumpet.'

It comes off that way when you name-drop people you have 'read'. So as to make our conversations easier on me, you can take it as read from now on that you are indeed better educated, and most references you drop in of great minds will impress me much less than any allegories from pop culture you can come up with.

'We are utterly preoccupied with status'
Perhaps none so much as we as your good self.

I must say "Houellebecq" (a pop-culture reference?), you're rather more shrill than witty today; so rather than offend you further I'll keep the obvious inferences to myself.

I'm in a bit of a quandary replying at all, actually; I mean, should one respond to argument ad hominem?
I suppose at the least I could wonder what all these words and names are I keep dropping in my efforts to impress?
Where I come from one gets into trouble for not giving due credit.
I might also point out that my father and I have never agreed on anything, so no it never occurred to me I was projecting my relationship with my father etc etc. Congratulations though on such a deep train of thought! It never occurred tome...

But no, I'm grateful and chastened and shall reflect deeply on your criticism.

As for actual argument, I hope it's implicit in my posts above that I'm not saying everyone is benighted (oops, sorry, "ignorant") within their respective discursive logic (Malcolm Fraser managed to break out).
I am saying that we're all prone to the formulaic thinking that goes with whatever demographic territory we find ourselves in, just as we're all prone to writing in cliche's when we're not actually thinking.
Do we ever think unaided? That is, without the ideological resources our thoughts are comprised of and which so eagerly assemble themselves.
Follow the White Rabbit!
I don't have the time to deconstruct them, but I'm sure if you "really" think your "gripes" through, you'll find them wanting. You might even be embarrassed, as the sainted Montaigne was by his cocky cogitations (oh dear there I go again!).

Houellebecq:
"you have used class in two different arguments to imply anyone who is rich is likely to have a less than empathetic view of the poor, using it as a justification to pay less tax".

Have you heard this breaking news (though hardly new)?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31248913

I'm not saying "anyone who is rich", but it does appear to be pretty damn close!

Tax minimisation/evasion is ubiquitous (sorry, more words, that means "everywhere"). I do it! It's not something any of us morally evaluate, we just pay as little as we can, right up to the filthy rich--though I can't get out of it the way they can.
Many of us do morally evaluate those dependent on comparatively modest free services, or living in squalor on welfare, however. Not a tad hypocritical?
Did you hear Alan Jones on Q&A last night talking about the superannuation perks and what they amount to in terms of lost tax revenue?
To argue against this reality is to manufacture your own bullsh!t.

This is a bit exhausting squeers. I pity anyone else reading along. Are you drunk?

I reply as a courtesy, but I am keeping eye contact and moving away slowly.

'rather than offend you further I'll keep the obvious inferences to myself.'

I am not offended, and I have no idea what the obvious inferences are.

'should one respond to argument ad hominem?'

Not aware I have made such an argument. I made a simple point that your statement revealed a prejudice comparable to the prejudice you objected to in butcher. You're the one who started on a character analysis, I responded in kind. I was neither offended nor intended to offend.

' what all these words and names are I keep dropping in my efforts to impress?'

I said it came across that way to me, and self-deprecatingly mused you should stick to pop culture if you wanted me to be able to follow, let alone impress me. I have no idea of Eugine Onegin, White Rabbits, Thomas Piketty, Montaigne et al. I have little interest in enlightening myself.

'But no, I'm grateful and chastened and shall reflect deeply on your criticism.'

Yeah, I'm sure you will. I've only battled on to this long in morbid curiosity and also in trying to decipher if you had conceded the one simple point. I'm not there yet but I'm happy to cut my losses.

' I'm sure if you "really" think your "gripes" through, you'll find them wanting. '

Pertaining to the waste of tax through bureaucracy? I'm no economist, granted, but I don't see it as revolutionary to reject the notion of the government taking money in tax to give it back to me in welfare. Or to bemoan the duplication I mentioned at state/federal and private/public.

'You might even be embarrassed'
I am, for both of us in this 'conversation', this passing of minds in the night.

I cant watch QandA anymore as I cringe too much.

'To argue against this reality is to manufacture your own bullsh!t.'

I don't and haven't. See you around.

Thanks Houellebecq. I realise 'tis all a bit of a lark for you. It is for me too really, as I don't believe in the system, left or right. I just play devil's advocate and try to make people (and myself) think.

Just one thing before I say adieu. When you say,

"Pertaining to the waste of tax through bureaucracy? I'm no economist, granted, but I don't see it as revolutionary to reject the notion of the government taking money in tax to give it back to me in welfare. Or to bemoan the duplication I mentioned at state/federal and private/public".

You are aware that small government is the beloved of neoliberalism? I'm doubtful this is because they hate waste and inefficiency. It's more that they hate regulation of any kind, capitalism being for them the only rubric we need. Ethics, ecology, Human rights etc. are quaint but redundant.
Neoliberals don't live in the real world; it's more like legoland and their economics is more like a computer simulation than "human praxis" and "social production". It's a kind of virtual world called ceteris paribus (well that's a good name for it) where nothing is allowed to interfere with economic dynamics, which even stand in for physics.

There are none so blind...

But thanks for the chat : )

Squeers, sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but seriously, how can you draw from my comment 'lazy layabout single mum with 5 kids to 4 fathers' that I despise all single mums.

It's like unemployed, there are unemployed, unemployable and their are bludgers. Same goes for single mothers.

Now I accept that mistakes happen and some single mums can have kids to separate fathers, but not four times without some serious questions being asked.

One way of addressing the social tags is to quarantine all welfare, including pensions (with the exception of old age or vet affairs) unemployment benefits, single parent benefits, even child support payments that simply take away the freedom many have today whereby these funds can be too easily wasted.

While on the subject of taxing the top end, people often get miss led about big end taxes, because unlike employees, who pay their taxes before they claim their deductions, businesses claim their deductions, then pay tax.

He's a scenario.
PAYG income $72,000 tax approx $18,000. Deductions, living away from home etc, say $5000, net tax is now 18%.
Of cause the media are renowned for not allowing the truth to get in the way of a good story.

rehctub,
All I've said is single mums tend to get tarred with the same brush, hence it's a cliche.
I'd have to question your sense of discrimination though when you say,
"I accept that mistakes happen and some single mums can have kids to separate fathers, but not four times without some serious questions being asked".

What if it's not a mistake? What's wrong with different fathers if she's a good parent? We live in a world now where gays and all sorts of other couples/singles can have kids, so I think you're imposing old fashioned moralities.
But then I guess you're also saying four bastards while on welfare looks like bludging off the system, or making a career out of having babies, albeit a poor one. So granted, for sure there are issues that are or should be a worry if the farm's a going concern.

TBC

I was also suggesting above though that rather than seeing this purely as a rort, we should look into the formative lives of such people; at why and how they end up in such predicaments and how they can be empowered (to use the jargon) to take charge of their lives.
Trouble is, the PC jargon assumes empowerment is potential for everyone.
I say it's not; that our growth paradigm (economic growth requires growth in demand which creates an unsustainable surplus. Marx called this 'surplus labour', which kept wages and conditions low, but in the welfare era this surplus, the unemployed, becomes an economic burden) necessarily 'creates' the very 'rump' the neoliberals want to punish. I.e. neoliberals either believe or want to foster the illusion that full employment is possible, ergo that the unemployed are recalcitrant.
The mass of those unemployed is in constant flux as it's members move in and out of the workforce--which can't possibly sustain the population to any qualitative extent (full-time). The rump is thus composed of temporarily unemployed, itinerants, and a more or less permanent welfare underclass.
Of course unemployment is much higher than official figures suggest, with the underemployed, those pensioned off for dubious reasons, and a growing body of students, 'retooling' for the workforce, as well as the long-term career-unemployed.
But not only are there not enough jobs, not by a long shot, keeping these cohorts in rude health adds up! They generate growth in the services sector, but rather than these making real profits, they're a drain on capital investment to the extent that governments can scoop the required taxes off the top.
Hence the need for cuts! Pure economic rationalism!
The whole system is broken. But the Darwinist-neoliberals still believe and want to go back to the fundamentals.

But I'm pissing in the wind.

Squeers, I agree with much of what you say, especially with regards to not enough jobs,

So this begs the question about responsible parenting. If a couple are forced to make more choices about extending their family, due to financial retrained, that's a wise choice, but the trouble is that because we have had such an easily rourted welfare system, combined with a large amount who view welfare as an entitlement, often the people having the large families are not the ones who can offer the best education, which in turn provides an opportunity for a better prospect in later life. This is also the reason behind Tony Abbotts PPL scheem, it's just that he couldn't come out and say that for PC reasons.

What he should have offered from day one was a child care rebate for return to work mothers. It would still be a better option today.

And yes, unfortunately all single mothers do get badged as welfare drains and that's sad. But take that lady in Cains, a terrible situation but there were five fathers to eight kids and there were three more kids. You're kidding! Without our overly generous welfare system that simply would not have happened.

And yes, we are in trouble, serious trouble!