Hey Alan B.
"Never again can we or should we allow the tail to effectively wag the dog or hold an elected, but hostage government to ransom! With disastrous results for (no government I lead) Labor?"

Well maybe we should just get rid of the Liberal and Labor parties altogether because I don't EVER plan on voting for either of them.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Why would I trust any group of people that lies to me, doesn't keep election promises, is not accountable when they mess up, rips off taxpayers and fines me when I choose not to vote for them?
If the two parties want to be unappealing and weak on real policies and do these things above dragging the nation into disrepute then they have themselves to blame.

If the dog wants to run in front of a car then the tail was right to wag it.

I can't figure out if you are blaming the Senate or govt; If there was no senate, the house would vote and get the same result.

If there was no Senate, Abbott's budget would have passed.

Now the electors have not been lied to about the budget as it was announced before the election, and the LNP won gov't on its back. The Senate should back off because the people have spoken.

The Senate is a house of review ensuring state interests are considered and amendments made, not whether the people have made an electoral error.

There is no need for any budget deflicts. People should make it their businenss to lean about how money gets created. They would discover:

Its becoming more widely known all the time that banks create money out of thin air and that Govt can do the same thing using the exact same method if they wanted to.

Are you aware that it was your servant govt who gave the banks the right to control the creation of money but at the same time your servants did not reserve for you and I, through their legislative power, the right to do the same thing on our behalf. If they had, it's likely that you and I would be paying little or no tax at all today.

Why do I say the govt gave the banks the right to create money to the exclusion of govt? Well, because the commonwealth government is the supreme power in the country is it not?

The banks can't give themselves that power can they? or can they?

Before someone goes on about govt cant be given control of money otherwise will have runaway inflation bla bla bla.

Govt prints about 5-10% of the money in circulation. The banks, through their ability to create money out thin air creates 90-95% of all the money in circulation.

In 1936 or thereabouts there was a Royal Commission into banking in Australia. The head of the enquiry stated “There is no reason by the Commonwealth Bank cannot create and lend money to the Australian Govt on such terms as it see fit. This includes the non repayment of interest and or principle.”

In short, there are no reason at all why the commonwealth govt cannot create all the money it needs for itself using the exact same means as the banks use, to provide all that is needed in the economy to provide health care for all, education for all, full employment, a reasonable standard of living of all pensioners, the unemployed, the sick etc, etc

"It is not in Labor's interests to allow the budget deficit, which it created, first by spending more than it had and second by refusing Coalition savings, to get further out of hand"

Mr Johns, it's my understanding that the recent Abbott / Turnbull LNP government at least doubled the budget deficit it inherited from the ALP. Is this correct? And if it is, why do you not think it worth mentioning? Do you not think it relevant to this discussion?