bonmot,

I well remember when the Howard government first introduced the "new" definition of gainful employment. Just as I remember when they ramped up "middle-class" welfare - and when they moved in and took possession of Hanson's "battlers" (with an inducement of mild xenophobia).

On these issues, Labor has merely continued the modern tradition of pork-barrelling and smoke-and-mirror's politics.

It's an art, you know.

Have to agree with you there:

"It's an art, you know"

Although more like 'performance art' ... juggling, dance, comedy, theatre and dare I say ... spin doctoring ;)

Example? Abbott's 'performance' in trying to get out of the chamber like some kind of doofus.

Have to agree with Yabbs.

There was a time when I wouldn't have, but the GFC was instructive in this area.

During the GFC, many many companies reduced the hours of workers, and kept them on. It saved a LOT of jobs.

Then when things picked up, they could just increase the hours back again.

Sure it caused pain for those workers, but would you rather those employees be sacked, and have the housing market totally crash, and have a recession, or do you want flexibility in the labour market for a softer adjustment, with the bonus of employers retaining the skill and knowledge to aid in staying afloat and getting back on their feet.

It's a simple case of better granularity in worker units. It helps employers and workers.

'The most blatant culprits being bureaucrats sanctioned by incompetent Government.'

I find the private consultants more problematic. The government could retain more employees and pay them less, keep the knowledge rather than paying all these pricey consultants who are supposedly 'independent'. Laugh and a half that is. If you were in government would you go back to a consultant that didn't recommend what you wanted recommended?

'THE Rudd Government spent $454 million on consultants in 2008-09, an annual increase of 5.6 per cent during a time of supposed public sector austerity, as a new administration increasingly turned to outside experts for policy advice, market research and data.'

So the trade off is...

Increase the public service spend, attempt to retain knowledge and pay more in pensions and have lazier workers (Let's be honest)

Increase consultants under the guise of 'independent' advise, and pay through the nose for private consultancy firms who charge like a wounded bull to tell you what you want to hear.

We're screwed over either way I suppose. Oh for a frank and fearless public service...

Abbott's 'performance' ?

What so he's supposed to just accept those shennanigans. Takes two to tango man, or are you biassed or naive enough to think Thompson just crossed based on policy?

Houellie,

Shenanigans are the name of the game in parliamentary behaviour. Rarely, however, do they become quite as animated and comical as they did during yesterday's farce.

Let none of us be so biased or naive as to believe that most of those presently sitting in parliament, and supposedly representing the best interests of their electorates, aren't caught up in various power plays - better known as "shenanigans".

>> Takes two to tango man, or are you biassed or naive enough to think Thompson just crossed based on policy? <<

Um, er, duh ... Houellie - not as 'bi-assed' (hehehe) as you perceive, nor naive (as in 'artless' Poirot :) In fact (drum roll) ... I agree with you.

Tell ya-what - let's all meet up at the local, you (and others) might find some of us (at least) congenial enough to share a squaff, or two.

.

Mon amie, you have nailed it (I have come to expect nothing less - but maybe I am biased).

The distortions in the way the figures are defined, collected and calculated have basically made statements about levels of employment or unemployment at the least unhelpful and, more usually, dishonest.

A more useful national measure would be to decide what monthly income constitutes the poverty line (and politicical salaries should be a tied percentage multiplication of this).

This way the figures would show what percentage of the population for the last month, months or year were living below the poverty line regardless of whether their work was none, minimal, casual, full-time, paid or unpaid.

It would also allow direct comparison with government welfare figures.

Any and all political claims for improvement would require that fewer people were living below the poverty line and that fewer were receiving welfare payments.