mhaze,

Your “dog that caught the car” line only works if Labor entered government with no plan, but the evidence says otherwise.

They've built on a first term with major policy achievements: cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, climate legislation, childcare reform, and industrial relations changes. You don’t have to like their agenda, but calling it policy-free is just lazy framing.

You then say you’re not against consultation, just that it should happen before elections. But governments aren’t static. Complex problems require ongoing engagement with business, unions, experts, and affected sectors. That’s how responsible policymaking works. Pretending a party can (or should) lock in every detail before a three-year term even begins isn’t just unrealistic - it’s performative.

Now there’s Trump - your model of a leader who “says what he’ll do and then does it.” Yet:

- He promised to protect Social Security - then floated cuts.
- He vowed to crush China with tariffs - then quietly walked many back when they hurt U.S. farmers.
- He claimed he’d end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours” - then admitted it’d mean Ukraine surrendering land.

That’s not follow-through. That’s bluff and backpedal.

Worse, much of Trump’s “doing” has come at the cost of democratic norms and legal boundaries - from trying to overturn an election, to threatening judges, to openly encouraging constitutional violations. That’s not leadership. That’s authoritarian cosplay.

So when you long for someone who’ll “make Australia great again” by taking on “privileged elites,” what does that actually mean? Because if the model is a leader who overpromises, flip-flops, and trashes institutions when he doesn’t get his way, then no, we don’t need our own version of that.

We need grown-ups. Not grievance merchants in red hats.

ttbn,

It’s always hard to tell whether your posts are meant as commentary or just a running list of everything currently upsetting you.

In the space of a few comments, we’ve had Welcome to Country, Hamas, electricity prices, China, manufacturing decline, defence shortfalls, and of course, the classic fallback - those dreadful “low-information voters” who keep refusing to vote correctly.

Look, you’re entitled to your outrage medley. But the rest of us are trying to discuss Parliament, policy, and the direction of the country. You’re just narrating the apocalypse.

You call Future Made in Australia a lie, then cite Judith Sloan saying it has “Trumpian tones.” Which is strange, since Trump’s second term is all industrial policy, tariffs, and economic nationalism. So… are you for that or against it? Or is it just bad when Labor does it?

And your position on Israel is less a policy view than a loyalty test. No one here is defending Hamas, but you treat any acknowledgement of the humanitarian cost as treason. That’s the political version of slamming a beer can against your forehead and calling it strategy.

But let’s be honest: this isn’t really about policy. If it were, you’d offer one. Instead, we get cultural panic dressed up as political commentary. A lot of fire, not much light.

You shout “lies, lies, lies” like it’s a spell to make complexity disappear. But if all you’re offering is volume and venom, don’t be surprised when voters - the ones you keep insulting - tune you out.

Some of us are still trying to have a grown-up conversation. You’re welcome to join it.

Sorry JD, I thought I was able to assume some prior knowledge here. The Albanese Summit is about improving the nations productivity growth which is current appalling and not showing any sign of improving.

While all the hoopla that accompanies government moves on this or that might warm the cockles of the committed hearts, the future of the nation and its well-being is far more fundamental and relies on economic policy decisions made now. And improving the nations economic performance trumps all other issues in the long term.

During the election it was clear that neither side had or has any real plans to boost economic output and maintain current standards of living. The summit is a desperate attempt to dig up some new ideas. But those ideas will inevitably be unpopular in some sector or other and therefore neither side wanted to discuss them pre-election.

We'll see if the summit comes up with anything startling and if, less, likely, the government is prepared to implement mildly unpopular policies. I'd doubt it. These days, its all about winning the next election and the nation's welfare in a decade or three is effectively immaterial.

It’s no problem at all, mhaze.

//Sorry JD, I thought I was able to assume some prior knowledge here.//

You didn’t mention productivity - let alone frame the summit as a targeted response to it - so there was no way I could have known. And we both know how much you hate it when someone draws inferences from your comments, even when it makes no difference to what you actually said.

What you did say was that Labor had no real plan and was scrambling post-election like a dog that caught a car. It’s understandable you’d want to reframe that now.

And yes, improving productivity is vital - no disagreement there - but pretending that this summit reflects a lack of planning rather than a continuation of consultation-driven governance is disingenuous. It’s entirely possible (and necessary) to campaign on policy and keep working with stakeholders in a dynamic economy. That’s not flailing. That’s governing.

Also worth noting: you’ve conveniently avoided the core of my last reply: your praise for Trump’s “say and do” style, which I challenged with specific examples of flip-flops and norm-breaking. Ignoring that now suggests the “do” wasn’t as consistent as you claimed.

Lastly, this idea that “neither side” is serious about long-term reform is your usual strategic cynicism: flatten everything so no one has to be held accountable, especially the side you actually support. But the public’s not buying that anymore, and frankly, neither am I.

Happy to keep discussing policy, but if you're going to set the frame, you'll need to hold it up a little better.

"You didn’t mention productivity "

Yeah, I made the obviously mistaken assumption that the summit was about economic reform and boosting productivity growth.

"What you did say was that Labor had no real plan and was scrambling post-election like a dog that caught a car. It’s understandable you’d want to reframe that now."

No reframing. Just dumbing it down for those who obviously were ill-informed about the summit.

"especially the side you actually support. "

And which side do imagine that to be?

As to Trump, I'm not really interested in discussing it with someone who is obviously just regurgitating leftist talking points. eg "He vowed to crush China with tariffs - then quietly walked many back when they hurt U.S. farmers." Well he never made such a promise and the tariff battle is on-going so declaring his defeat is, shall we say, premature. Especially since China has already conceded so much.

mhaze,

You didn’t make a mistaken assumption, you made a vague comment and are now retrofitting it to sound more precise than it was.

There was no mention of productivity, reform, or any specific policy focus in your original post. You painted the summit as a post-election scramble by a government with no real plan. That was the message.

So yes, I responded to exactly what you said; not this more flattering version you’re now offering.

And let’s not pretend this is some act of benevolent simplification. “Dumbing it down” isn’t how one clarifies a point, it’s how one tries to save face without owning a misfire. You weren’t misunderstood; you were simply imprecise.

There’s a difference.

As for “which side do you imagine that to be?” - come on. Your comment history isn’t exactly subtle. You reliably oppose Labor, dismiss their actions as cynical, and run interference for the Coalition even when criticising them. If you're trying to present as neutral, the camouflage is pretty thin.

And then there’s Trump…

You praised his “say and do” style - I challenged that with specific examples. You now say you’re not interested in discussing it because I’m “regurgitating leftist talking points.” That’s not a rebuttal; that’s a cop-out.

And why the double-standard when it comes to rightist talking points?

Trump absolutely did promise to crush China with tariffs - repeatedly and publicly. He also delayed or reversed key tariffs when they hurt U.S. producers. And the so-called “concessions” you mention? Vague at best, and certainly not the decisive win you're implying.

You don’t have to defend Trump, but if you're going to cite him as a model of consistency, you can’t just duck out when the record doesn’t hold up.

Happy to continue, but let’s not pretend I'm the one missing things here.