I found last nights budget delivered by Labor's Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, with its modest forecast of a $4.2 billion surplus, and some reasonable expenditure outlays, to be an acceptably good budget, certainly not excellent, but it should be pleasing to most sections of Australian society. What do others think?

Paul it is an election budget that will drive higher inflation and interest rates as there is too much free money without productivity.

Jose,

There is no election in the offing, so its not an election budget. Independent analysis puts the inflationary effect at minus 0.75%. As for so called "free money", that will come with the 'Noalitions' already legislated tax cuts for the rich. Other than government payments they receive, those of your mentality want the less fortunate in society penalised for being undeserving.

tend to agree with Josephus, but unfortunately there are too many people that find that they have to live off social security and are therefore unable to contribute to society. The fortunate people in society are the ones that live in a family where self discipline is imposed at an early age and the importance of education is instilled. A prime example is of course is Albanese who grew up in a single parent household whose mother recognised the importance of these things. We seem to have lost the value of living without excess of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling etc which all create disruptive behaviour and a bad environment to grow up in. But we don’t appear to draw attention to these things as we did in the past and it is now more politically correct to avoid doing so. How many of the population are single parents who don’t have the capacity because often the father (if known) doesn’t even make a contribution to the upbringing of his child. The lucky offspring is the one who gets a good education and some of the modern advantages that are now on offer which perhaps were not available years ago. The problem is in many cases (not all in the case of disability) of having the intelligence and general education taught at home that behaviour in a pluralistic society is important and respected. There is also a liability to regard the government as a cash cow with all the entitlements that sometimes get abused. There are always exceptions to what I have mentioned here which I am not in a position to deny and readily acknowledge. It’s hard to express an opinion in only a few words and apologise for my generalisation.

This is a typical Labor budget, Labor plans to spend big and promises a budget surplus just as Whine Swan did many times before.

Instead, we ended up with $trillion of Labor debt and buckets of money wasted on the school hall debacle etc.

Labor have already lost it ! At our expense I should add.

Shadowminister: There is nothing quite so blind as a rusted on party hack is there? The ALP's School hall debacle pales into insignificance compared to .... well let's just start with Sports rorts, cart park rorts, paying millions to companies that didn't need it during COVID, or the $30m more for land at the new Sydney airport. I could go on of course, but enough already.

Then there is the human cost of the LNP coalition decisions. The more than 2,000 who committed suicide over Robodebt. The LNP are more morally corrupt and have more blood on their hands than Dracula let loose in a blood bank.

We can expect food prices to rise as trucking costs rise with levies on diesel. It is an inflationary budget, the sort of handouts that you would give before an election.

All in all, a reasonable budget. I'm somewhat impressed with Chalmers. He seems to know what is the right thing for the economy and for the country and is doing a reasonable job in holding back the crazies and economic illiterates that make up the bulk of the ALP caucus.

Given that entire left were chanting for an increase in JobKeeper/JobSeeker/JobPretendToBeLookinger it was going to be impossible for him to do nothing. The increases he has introduced are not outrageous in the scheme of things.

The budget revenue side benefited from what is probably going to be a set of one-time only events which will push it back into deficit in the future. Its good that he resisted the Rudd/Whitlam errors of using one time windfalls to create permanent expenses. So offering half the country a one-off reduction in power costs is a smart move. Theoretically that can be withdrawn next year if a downturn hits the revenue side. OTOH, the payment is designed to hide from half the electorate the actual costs of the net-zero folly, and it'll be difficult for Albanese to allow the full costs of those policies become apparent for all to see.

In the end, Australia is at the mercy of international events. The insanity of the lockdown spending-spree means that the government has little wiggle room if/when those international events turn sour. All they can do is try to hold on tight and hope for the best without making too many silly errors.

Given that this budget didn't make too many silly errors, its a reasonable outcome.

mhaze,

Now for the kiss of death from yours truly. I CAN'T FAULT YOUR COMMENTS, I'm in general agreement with you, a political budget, but a reasonable and responsible budget, good in my view, but not excellent. There is very little to whinge about in it from both the conservatives or progressives perspective. As demonstrated by the fact you and I are in agreement.

Its in no way an election budget, that will come next time. I would say Labor's thinking at this time is an election in early 2025, March or early April, Easter is in late April 2025 it must be held no later than 17th May 2025. Morrison held out, only because he knew he looked like losing.

Aries,

The cost of the so-called rorts by the coalition is dwarfed by the $16bn school halls cock up not to mention the housing fires scheme, the $ms of pork barrelling by Labor to Tony Whinger etc. What can you say of Dan Andrews's corruption?

The only thing you can take to the bank is that Labor will not meet any of its promises.

Paul wrote:" I CAN'T FAULT YOUR COMMENTS".

If you put that at the beginning of ALL your posts, we'd get along much better....and you'd be more accurate....</grin>

The next budget might be the election budget, but if it is that means the next election will occur in 2024, not 2025. There's not much point in giving away all sorts of goodies in May'24 and hoping people will remember (and be grateful for) that in March'25. So my guess is an election mid year '24. Alternatively a normal budget in May'24 and a 'generous' mini-budget early in '25.

Of course, there's many a slip between cup and lip. Things would change if the referendum fails. And the international economy could easily unravel all these plans.

That's true mhaze, YOU'RE RIGHT AGAIN, I was going to suggest an early election late 2024, winter is definitely out, and no later than early December. However early elections can generate a degree of voter backlash towards the government, "why we haven' this bloody early election, I'm voting for the Doddle Dot Party, they don't want election at all!". If the polls are good then why care at all, then if the polls are bad, do a Morrison and stall for time, and hope for an improvement. If you were Albo, you'd be pretty confident of winning a second term, no matter when you call the election.

Hi mhaze,

I don't think Albo's political career is riding on the Voice referendum, defeat in October 23 would not carry over to late 24 or early 25. There would be minimal political damage for Labor. As I read it there will be a strong "Yes" vote in NSW and Vic, a "No" in Qld, maybe Tas, if "No" in one other state then its lost, even though NSW and Vic will give it an overall majority "Yes". I think Dutton has more skin in the game, a resounding "Yes" would destroy him politically, as the Liberals are divided on this, both state and federally, whilst Labor is solid all round.

Agreed. I wasn't suggesting that the outcome of the referendum would influence the outcome of the next election, although it would do wonders for Dutton's status.

I was just suggesting that a lost referendum would alter whatever timeline Albanese etc have in mind as regards the next election.

Only governments that are truly bad (eg Whitlam) suffer defeat at their next outing. Generally speaking a government will be given at least 2 and usually 3 terms before the "its time" factor comes into play. Even Whitlam won his 'mid-term' election.

So, unless things go terribly wrong in the next year or so, the ALP are a shoe in. Equally, the Libs have done precisely nothing to indicate that they deserve another go just yet.

Again I find I am AGREEING with you mhaze, is this some kind of sickness, is there a cure, ha, ha just joking. The old saying "Governments lose elections, Oppositions don't win them" holds mostly true. Voters know Albanese and Labor, they don't know Dutton and the Coalition. Put to voters; Who is the Prime Minister? Albanese. Who is the Opposition leader? Silence. In politics that's a good start. Who are you going to vote for next time? {Other than the rusted on's and minatory voters} Labor. Why? I think they are doing a good job. (No other reason). When I said Governments lose elections..." that is true, but at some stage the Opposition (leader) has to generate some little traction with the voters to guarantee a victory, that usually comes during the campaign proper. At the moment Albo has it all, Dutton has nothing. BTW If the referendum goes down, the people are not going to put it down to Dutton, as the guy who saved us, well not likely. But if it gets up the knives within, will be out for poor old Pete. One thing the Liberals hate is a loser, Labor tend to be a bit more forgiving in that regard, maybe its because they have in the past mostly been losers, so its expected.

Peter Dutton stands on a Liberal principle of equality for all - do not divide by race. Albanese wants to leave a political legacy and divest sovereignty to an unelected aboriginal elite and remove the sovereignty of the crown. He is two faced, pretending to swear allegiance to the crown but intending to adopt "The Closing of The Gap", which transfers sovereignty to the tribes.

Jose'

Is that a new Liberal Party principle, that "equality for all" you refer to? For years in government the 'Noalition' marginalised and ostracised Aboriginal people, viewing them as inferior, and not worth a cracker. I suppose the leopard can always change his spots, or can he.

Paul your ignorance is showing learn historical facts as it was Tony Abott who did the most for aboriginal recoginition.

Jose'

"Tony Abott (sic) who did the most for aboriginal recoginition (sic)" He did? And what was that, and what did Menzies and co do? Oh yes, they allowed the referendum in 67', then did precisely nothing, kept Aboriginal people in appealing conditions, sleeping under rusted iron on river banks. or in substandard housing in the bush, spending almost noting on aboriginal health, housing, employment, education etc, not until Whitlam arrived in 72' did things start to change. Fraser, Howard, the recent 'Noalition' governments did little to improve the lot of Aboriginal people.

Paul,

Other than the virtue signalling apology, Labor has done stuff for the indigenous population and is directly responsible for the chaos in Alice.

"Support for ‘The Voice’ has dropped across Australia in all six States over the last four months and after Liberal Party Leader Peter Dutton announced the party would formally advocate for a ‘No’ vote in the forthcoming referendum due later this year.

The survey was conducted before the Coalition’s shadow ministry reshuffle this week which led to the promotion of two Aboriginal women, Senator Jacinta Nampijina Price and Senator Kerrynne Liddle, into the shadow ministry including Senator Price as Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians.

Now a plurality of 46% of Australians (down 7% points since December 2022) would vote ‘Yes’ to establish an ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament’, compared to 39% (up 9% points) who would vote ‘No’ and a further 15% (down 2% points) are undecided.

If the ‘Undecided’ respondents are removed the split in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote is 54% cf. 46%. However, past experience shows that ‘Undecided’ voters are far more likely to end up as a ‘No’ rather than a ‘Yes’ vote. This trend has been observed even over the last few months as ALP and Greens supporters who were ‘Undecided’ have been far more likely to move to the ‘No’ vote rather than becoming a ‘Yes’ vote."

Albozo's constitutional racism vote is looking like failing.

"Fraser, Howard, the recent 'Noalition' governments did little to improve the lot of Aboriginal people."

As usual Paul images the way things might have been and then convinces himself that is indeed the way they were.

Facts (Paul might need to look that word up) are as follows:

*Funding for natives did increase dramatically during the Whitlam years.
* But as the economy crashed due to ALP mismanagement, funding started to fall.
* The increase in funding restarted under Fraser.
* the increase continued under Hawke at roughly the same rate as the increase under Fraser.
* Funding dipped under Keating as ALP mismanagement cratered the economy.
* Funding continued to increase under Howard at the same rates as applied to Fraser and Hawke.
* Funding collapsed under Rudd as the economy crashed (not his fault).
*Funding increased under St Julia and continued to increase under Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison.

According to figures supplied by Warren Mundine (should I point out he's aboriginal?) Productivity Commission figures show that, across all levels of government, Australian governments spending 2.08 times more on those claiming to be aboriginal than on other citizens.

Not quite the picture Paul imagines

mhaze,

I'm not disputing "funding" but funding alone does not necessarily equate to improvement in the lot of Aboriginal people. After all it was starting from a very low base, sorry non existent base under Menzies, Hold, Gorton and McMahon, these guys all at some time supported the racists White Australia policy so did Fraser. You're talking funding, I'm talking improvement.

Warren Mundine (should I point out he's aboriginal?) should I point out he's a member of the Liberal Party.

SM,

The Voice may not get up, referendums are notorious at failing, and without bipartisan support its exceedingly difficult. I would say all 3 people who voted for the Liberal Party at the last election, are likely to vote 'No' to this.

" Menzies, Hold (sic), Gorton and McMahon, these guys all at some time supported the racists White Australia policy so did Fraser."

As did Calwell ("two Wongs don't make a white"), Curtin and Chifley. What's you point?

"You're talking funding, I'm talking improvement."

How are you measuring improvement and what evidence do you have that it only improved under ALP leadership?

mhaze,

I was responding to Jose' "Liberal principle of equality for all" asking when did it come about. It wasn't evident under Menzies, Holt, Gorton and McMahon, later Fraser, Howard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison also exhibited discriminatory traits against asylum seekers, Aboriginals, workers and some minorities. that made their Liberal governments definitely discriminatory without equality for all, where's that principle, and Dutton was part of those later discriminatory liberal government, has he been visited by the Holy Sprite, and amended his discriminatory ways? Me thinks not. There is no mention of a Labor principle of equality for all, that makes Calwell, Curtin and Chifley irrelevant to this argument.

As the main function of the budget seems to be on welfare handouts and virtue signalling perhaps it should be called the Bludget.

"Jim Chalmers has failed to convince Australians that Labor’s first full budget since the election will reduce inflation, with only 13 per cent of voters believing the government’s claim and only a third saying the budget overall will be good for the economy."

SM,

Where did you conduct YOUR poll, at the Last Liberal Party meeting.

BTW, anything to say about the sacking of the accused Liberal Nazi associate Moira Deeming in Victoria. You're known by the company you keep, how true.

Yes Paul, I understand. Menzies, Holt etc being at one time supporters of the White Australia policy is completely relevant and proves their racism. Calwell, Chifley etc being at one time supporters of the White Australia policy is completely IRrelevant and proves how righteous the ALP is. Struth....

"How are you measuring improvement and what evidence do you have that it only improved under ALP leadership?"

Silence came the stern reply. I'll take that as proof that you have no evidence and simply asserted as fact something you just wish was true.

Deeming attended a function where Nazis also appeared. This of course proves that Deeming is a Nazi sympathiser.

Albanese attended a wedding of homophobe Sandilands ('monkeypox was a big gay disease"), the best man was a convicted drug smuggler and one of the big name attendees was underworld kingpin Ibrahim ("the nation's most notorious underworld figure"). This of course proves that Albanese is a homophobic supporter of drug smuggling beholden to underworld crime syndicates.

Actually Albanese's crimes are greater because he knew those people were going to be there, whereas Deeming didn't. Stand-by for an avalanche of hypocrisy.

mhaze,

YOU misconstrue, you Paul1405 say Deeming is a Nazi sympathiser, No I did not say that, I said "Nazi associate" Why did YOU substitute the word "sympathiser" for the word "associate". As bad as misquoting.

As for equality, the claim by Jose' was; "Peter Dutton stands on a Liberal principle of equality for all". I gave my opinion that all Liberal governments, Menzies was the first, Morrison's was the last had not demonstrated "equality for all". I said all those Liberal governments had been just the opposite, rather discriminatory. As for the Labor Party there was no claim made that; "Anthony Albanese stands on a Labor principle of equality for all". Now if that was said, i may well offer an opinion, until then Labor is irrelevant to the argument.

Paul, while Moyra Deeming is suing for defamation, I will post your claim so she can include you in the action as she is on my Facebook. You might have to make a legal claim for that statement.

" Deeming is a Nazi sympathiser, No I did not say that, I said "Nazi associate" "

As distinction without a difference.

So if Deeming is a Nazi associate, is Albanese a crime syndicate associate?

"As for equality, the claim by Jose' was"

But then you introduced the attitudes to the White Australia policy for which you were blissfully unaware of the Labor attitude to that policy.

Re aboriginal improvement under Labor...."Silence came the stern reply. I'll take that as proof that you have no evidence and simply asserted as fact something you just wish was true."

mhaze

sympathiser; agree with a sentiment, opinion, or ideology.

associate; a partner or companion.

An associate does not necessarily AGREE, If I have a beer with you down at the pub, your shout of course, my company is worth it, I am associating with you, but not necessarily AGREEING with you.

The Labor Party is as relevant as the Greens, One Nation, the Big Clive Party, Shooters and Hooters Party etc to this argument.

Of course as a one eyed, rusted on, Liberal Party supporter you attempt to deflect from the real issue, which is Jose' claiming "Peter Dutton stands on a Liberal principle of equality for all". When I showed no such principle has existed in Liberal governments in the past.

No deflection mhaze, just agree or disagree with Jose' and his assertion, which I believe is a non existent principle. I would have agreed if Jose' has said; "Peter Dutton stands on a Liberal principle of racism against Aboriginals".

Oh good, we now agree that Deeming doesn't agree with the Nazis.

Now what about Albanese, does he agree with drug smuggling?

I'm not a Liberal supporter (rusted or otherwise). You can't seem to understand that failing to swoon over Labor isn't the same as agreeing with the Libs. I'm a rusted on liberal supporter but not a Liberal supporter. It seems to be a concept that eludes you.

I don't agree with Josephus' assertion. That wasn't my point. I was simply pointing out that your knee-jerk assertions about the White Australia policy were historically incomplete ie that for the first 60 or so years of the 20th century BOTH sides favoured the White Australia policy despite what your reflexive beliefs in ALP mythology might have told you.

Wrong again mhaze,

Either your comprehension is bad, or you are deliberately obtuse, you say "we (you and I) now agree that Deeming doesn't agree with the Nazis" I said; "associate does not necessarily AGREE" that indicates Deeming could agree, I don't know if she does or she doesn't, its a fact she associates with Nazi's.

"Now what about Albanese, does he agree with drug smuggling?" I'm not aware that Albanese agrees with drug smuggling or not, but that's not to say he doesn't. Has he ever made a statement on that subject, I can't recall one. And how does that impact on the so called Liberal Party principle of "equality for all", me thinks you are trying to divert the discussion away from an obvious incorrect assumption by Jose'.

"first 60 or so years of the 20th century BOTH sides favoured the White Australia policy" so they did. Since Jose' only referenced the Liberal Party as having a principle of equality for all, then if its not true, it doesn't make it true by deflecting to the Labor Party.

over to you.

Paul,

More bullsh1te from you again. You are trying to claim that being in the same place as someone means that you associate with them which is rubbish. Using your definition SHY is an associate of Pauline Hanson, Trump and Obama, your entire party and Jonathan Doig and that moral vacuum Thorpe.

What characters were you associated with in prison?

Well Paul's dug himself a hole but as is his want he's still digging. He wants to maintain the 'Deeming associates with Nazis' meme and it doesn't matter how inane it gets, he's hanging in there.

Albanese associates with drug smugglers? Well yeah says Paul to maintain his Deeming inanity.

T'other I was watching parliament and saw Sarah Hanson-Young sitting quite close to Pauline Hanson. Well, according to Paul's rules, that means SH-Y associates with One Nation rednecks. (Its worse than that really because SH-Y obviously took her surname in homage to Pauline).

And then I saw another picture of Trade Minister Don Farrell in Peking yukking it up with known members of the CCP. Farrell obviously associates with commies - draw your own conclusions.

And so forth...

Moyra Deeming is not the only woman being bullied. University of Melbourne feminist lecturer Holly Lawford-Smith has faced attacks on her reputation and boycotts by trans rights activists.
Lawford-Smith has faced backlash since 2021 when she created a website where women could anonymously discuss their experiences of men who identified as women being able to access women-only spaces and services.

About 170 academics at the university signed an open letter accusing her of promoting negative stereotypes about trans people.

However, an internal investigation cleared Lawford-Smith of any breaches of the university's policy or teaching practices.

The academic has experienced renewed harassment since attending the controversial Let Women Speak rally in March, which was crashed by a neo-Nazi group.'

Is Professor Lawford-Smith according to Paul a neo-Nazi associate and homophobe?

mhaze,

As you say Sarah Hanson-Young and Pauline Hanson have an association through parliament. that's not to say they agree with each other, and they most likely don't sympathise with each others political views. If I go to a restaurant for a meal then I am associating with other patrons, we are there as strangers, but we have an association as we are all there together.

As for your question about Albanese, it has no connection to this, and is simply a red herring, with you trying to deflect away from Deeming.

Its not "a red herring", its just mocking your silly and inane attempts to 'associate' Deeming with Nazis. If being in the vicinity of someone else means you're 'associated' then the options for mockery are endless.

Oh BTW Penny Wong went to China late last year to meet with leaders of the CCP. OMG Penny Wong is 'associated' with commies - draw your own consclusions.

Paul is squirming to uphold his original position - claiming it means not associating - which means he should not have associated the two in the first place. He did it to give association of the two a damaging meaning. He has been caught OUT!

mhaze,

No it was not an accidental chance encounter between Deeming and the Nazi's. She was there, the Nazi's were there.

Penny Wong was associated with members of the CCP. She would say in a professional capacity, as an Australian government minister.

In 1938 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party, travelled to Germany where he associated with members of the Nazi Party for two weeks, no doubt, if alive today, 'Pig Iron' Bob would say it was all in a professional capacity. Menzies was disappointed he didn't get an audience with the Fuhrer, must not have been important enough.

Paul needs to stand before a Justice and give his claims of association where Deeming associates with Neo-Nazis, and they are her associates.

Jose'

Who is this "Justice" you speak of? One like you. As for you claim; "Peter Dutton stands on a Liberal principle of equality for all" I easily showed that all previous Liberal governments believed in anything but "equality for all". So when did Dutton develop this principle of his, equality for all. Maybe his opposition to the voice is based on nothing more than good old Liberal Party racism from the past.

Pauliar,

Equality for all has been a tenet of the liberal party for years, it is the old racism of Labor and the gangreens that are now trying to insert constitutional racism into Australia.

Some insight into the real issues with the Labor bludget.

"Labor piggybacked into government on young people’s votes. Now it is in power, Anthony Albanese is using cash handouts, like raising Youth Allowance, to distract us from the fact he’s failing to address any of the underlying causes of economic and social distress experienced by young people.

Polling shows there are three critical issues facing young people: climate change, mental health and housing. Instead of offering solutions, all this budget guarantees is higher inflation, higher unemployment, higher taxes and a more acute housing crisis.

Like it or not, the environment is the greatest political concern for young Australians. But we should not replace a “climate crisis” with an economic crisis. Albanese promised 97 times that power prices would go down by $275, but from July they will skyrocket by 33 per cent for 1.6 million households. Labor is being deceptive with young voters about the real implications of its net-zero plan. Distributing renewable energy across the country will require the nation to fork out $100 billion on 28,000km of new transmission lines."

SM,

I actually agree with much of your above post. I'm not an ardent Labor Party supporter. I said from the start this is an " acceptably good budget, certainly not excellent". You're right Labor got into office on the under 40 vote,and they need to address that constituency if they are not to lose out to the Greens and/or independents at the next election. The 'Noalition' appeals to the conservative branch of the 'Octogenarian Club', which as we know is a dead loss. The concern of young people is the environment, on the economic front Labor has three major problems to tackle first, housing, housing and housing, then inflation and the cost of living, secure employment and then all the other things like education and health etc as well. I agree with the idea of a future fund for housing, but I also agree with the Greens, Labor's solution to the housing crises, goes nowhere near far enough. The sop to the Americans on military spending is not what young folk prioritise, nor do they want us to take a belligerent attitude towards China. There is every chance there will be a Coalition government after the next election but it wont involve either the Liberal Party or the Cow Cocky Party.

Paul,

Once again you serve up a steaming plate of bollocks. If the Coalition vote was only for those over 80 Labor and the gangreens would not have been in opposition for 20 of the last 27 years.

That Labor has failed miserably on every promise it made does not help. I suppose Labor has the parasitic greens pushing it to cock up after cock up.

Youth votes on ideology, and Age votes on experience. Labor promises rainbow and promises and delivers bugger all except more debt.