Sorry mate, while the article may be technically accurate, it's hard to miss the obvious labor bias?

Bill Shorten has a real fight on his hands and is not helped by a primary vote down in the doldrums at around 36%. Nor by the return, courtesy of the Queensland Labor government, to widely despised compulsory preferencing.

On the plus side there are a few rusted on Abbott supporters, who so hate Malcolm Turnbull that they will vote Labor (to push up the Labor primary vote) as the only effective strategy available to deny Malcolm the keys to the lodge?

At the end of the day the only way to make all those benefits and government largesse affordable is to grow the economy!

And neither party seems to have a clue how to do just that? [genuine tax (simplification) and energy reform.] Albeit seem to excel in divisiveness and endless blame shifting?

And not helped by state parliaments and pollies, obsessed with basic survival as a first and sometimes only priority?

That said, a week is a long time in politics and 55 days interminable for timid leaders, (cherries on top of compost heaps) or opening the mouth to change socks, to in effect, rip defeat from the jaws of victory!

And plenty of time for a plethori of unhelpful leaks or personalities to undermine any campaign?
Alan B.

The budget was fiscally responsible in the way it will produce jobs for those who are currently unemployed. Would you rather have these people continue to live below the poverty line under a Labor government who don't know how to be fiscally responsible.

Just the two wings of the same bird of prey trying make out there is difference between them.

They are both owned and controlled by the same people. Whoever is elected will still implement the agenda of the new world order types.

Example; no Australian political party voiced any reservations about the Trans Pacific Partnership that was signed recently.

The TPP makes the world’s biggest corporations immune from prosecution because they can argue in their own private courts that anyone who takes them to court is interfering with their business and is therefore restraining trade.

The private courts have the power to sue of fine national governments as punishment for restraining or interfering with trade.

Former United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts said every member of the US congress who voted for the legislation had a $136 million donation paid into their re-election campaign fund.

James Corbett said:

ISPs will come under the control of the TPP because the TPP will be the complainant and if the ISP does not take down anything they want taken off the internet then the ISP will be taken to the tribunal for restraint of trade.

Food safety imports can only be objected on the basis of objective food safety science, which is likely to mean establishment and science approved of or recognized by the TPP such as the TGA.

Any claimants would have to prove their claims on the basis of whatever the TGA say is objective scientific evidence.

They gain the complete freedom to pollute, invade or in other ways take down the rest of society.

A likely outcome is the privatization of govt services. By privatizing govt services the corporate sector is able to insulate or cut off the government from the people it is supposed to represent. This has the potential to starve the people from govt services and the govt from the people they are supposed to serve.

Both labour and liberal, our servants, said nothing about these issues to us, their masters.

'The budget throws billions at the contractors charged with running the concentration camps that the government incorrectly calls the "Pacific Solution".'

and having open borders cost nothing John. Is it ignorance or dishonesty John?

Shorten was on the air this morning claiming, I believe, that those earning under eighty thousand are not getting much in the way of tax breaks?

Well I should hope not, given most of our tax is paid by folks earning over eighty thousand?

The cost of giving "small" business tax relief as a reduced rate is apparently going to cost the nation some 50 billion over ten years?

All while roadblocks in the path of progress, state governments cost the taxpayer around 700 billion+ during the same period?

Think, which do we need the most? An easily substituted middle tier of ultra-costly and wasteful government or a turbocharged innovation supported national economy?

Simply put, we may not be able to have both and still get back to surplus all while growing a modern vibrant innovative economy and keep the middle tier of absolutely non essential government as well?

Naturally self interest will rise up and howl for their survival!?

And predictably make all manner of facetious fallacious fatuous claims to support their warm and comfortable (gravy train) money wasting existence?

And let's not forget, in too many cases, the taxpayer is never ever off the hook until these folk (as taxpayer supported pensioners) totter off the mortal coil!

We the people need a bill of irrevocable rights, one of which ought to be a citizen's initiated referendum. Perhaps the only way open to us to get these folk off the state funded nanny teat?

I therefore urge all posters to exhort any they can influence in he widest possible circle, to grill their candidates on their position regarding a still missing bill of rights. We're apparently the only democracy yet to have one!?

Putting the incumbent last on the ballot paper and a consequent series of one term governments, is arguably the very best way to actually protest, and indeed, focus the minds of the contesting candidates?
Alan B.

Unfortunately, it is not only the politicians that will try and sell us a dud bill of goods. There are plenty of commenters on sites such as this that also live in a fact free bubble. It is a fact that the proportion of GDP taken in tax is greater under the Abbott/Turnbull governments than it was under Labor, including the big splash to avoid the worst effects of the 2008 financial meltdown.
It is also a fact that the middle class do very well out of government handouts, as successive Costello budgets ensured they were kept sweet enough to vote for Howard.
At the last election we heard endlessly about the "debt and deficit crisis". The debt is now actually greater under the Coalition, but the 'crisis' has disappeared. The new mantra is a plan for jobs and growth that has about the same amount of credibility as the debt and deficit crisis did.
Our refugee policy is worse than a disgrace. It is also illegal. What sweet irony that the execrable Peter Dutton could well be committing a string of offences by maintaining the Manus and Nauru gulags and be facing prison time. Not that Labor are any better.
And as one commenter above pointed out, there was no suggestion of a shortage of cash to pay for the F35 and a bunch of submarines, a huge expense to no good effect and much potential bad effect.
There only bad thing about the article is that the author made the implicit assumption that things would be better under Labor. A lot of us will take some persuading on that point.

The real class war if there is any, is that being trotted out by the manifestly mendacious greens?

Is there no end to the (forked tongue) political posturing of these folk, whose only goal seems to be to maximize the number of seats they can win even if that means deserting so called (left wing) core principles to preference the coalition in marginal labor seats?

Simply put, very few traditional blue collar workers would ever vote or join traditional job destroying green?

But some of the trendy inner city latte sipping, apartment dwelling, white collar workers just might?

I believe one of the takeaway messages of this election must be? How much better the coalition did, when the last time the coalition beat Labor in Victoria; a Victorian party leader with both character, courage of conviction and back bone, stated much to the chagrin of the greens, that the liberals were not for swapping preferences with the highly manipulative greens.

It occurs to me that the true democrats in the coalition could just put a stop to these patently massaged, manipulated outcomes, [that in truth defy the real expressed will of the voters,] by simply refusing to do preference deals with the greens.

Who promise an unattainable world in the safe and secure knowledge they'll never be asked to deliver, given they'll not win power in their own right or in coalition any time soon!?
Alan B.

I would question the statement that: "The Prime Minister thinks."

Sure, he thinks deeply about further increasing his monetary fortune and further big-noting himself.

He has shown clearly in a matter of a few months that he has little ability to deal with major issues or to lead.

He dithers around like a menopausal Aunt rewarding the elite, greedy pretentious group that infest the Big End of Town!

Malcolm is not what he claims to be.

I take issue with the author over the oft-repeated verb "earn".

Wealth acquired as payment for PERSONALLY creating goods and services is earned.

Wealth acquired through investment is earned, but not by the person who acquires it. The wealth invested has been created in almost all cases by others and not the investor.

Some return of wealth to the "lifters" whose labour has actually earned it could be effected by a rebate (up to 100%) on taxes paid for wealth acquired by the taxpayer as remuneration for personally creating it ("personal exertion").

Taxpayers whose wealth is acquired by gaming the market ("leaners") should carry the entire burden of taxation to fund the cost of maintaining the nation and building its assets including its productive enterprises and its social services.

Wealth-creating activity includes not only employees' work but all activity which personally creates goods and services. Investment creates nothing - merely allocates with a view to acquisition without earning.

As for budget surpluses, surpluses generated by flogging off the nation's assets are merely fake surpluses. This would include the "surpluses" claimed by the Howard/Costello government through plunder of public assets by privatisation and by sheer piracy such as selling off the nation's gold bullion reserves for some $5 billion or so.