Considering the errors in labors budget figures, are they in a position to question the libs savings figures?

why are..both sides LYING?
we cant trust the public servants..
currying favor..in case..*its their jobs going.

look lets solve everything
EVERYONE present their 'hand'
on monday..or all their numbers are DEEMED fraud
live and die by what you INGOOD TIME..do declare

[just like insurance works payoffs
pro-rata/according to the real value against your assessed values

DECLARE NOW..YOUR BUDGET NEEDS*..for your 3 year term

under calling..of your budget needs
will just be like under insuring

less to spend
this destructive insanity must end

talk policy
when are pollies going to have to bear the real cost?

YES rehctub, Labor certainly IS in a position to question the Libs’ figures!

Crikey, where would we be if both parties didn’t scrutinise each others fiscal/figures/funding forecasts and promises... and they were all just taken for granted as being accurate?!

Ludwig, how could labor possibly find errors in anyone's figures, when they are out by about 100 billion themselves.

As I say, they have no right to question the libs figures. Others may, but not this labor government.

But if Labor was both way out with its own figures AND non-questioning of the opposition’s figures, they’d be TWICE as hopeless!!

No matter how far they are off the planet themselves, they should still be strongly questioning, scrutinising and criticising their opponents and demanding that they show as much evidence as possible for their costings. Well…. in the first instance, that they actually reveal their costings!!

I rarely agree with Christine Milne, but when she said this evening that there should be a requirement for costings to be released at the same time as the relevant policies are announced, I had to agree wholeheartedly.

Ludwig, while I also agree with that, what would the purpose of been, to have labor release their costings a year or so back, only to be now found to be about $100billion out.

Are you suggesting thatched labor released their costings that the libs would have found that $100 billion, and prevented it from being wasted.

My preference is for an independent forensic accounting firm to audit all parties costings, as that would take away the he said, she said crap that we all have to deal with.

yes the lack of questioning

HOW COME ..the alternate pm
isnt being deluged..with the same INTERNATIONAL..questions..as the current pm..

cause thats his weakness

yet..in 8 days
HE WILL BE PM..*!*

and look..like a fool..**!**

cause the media never TESTED him..!
nor asked him..what he is going to do?

fool me once,,shame on you
fool me twice..shame on..*me

Yes rehctub an independent professionally assessed costing analysis would be a good idea, although of course we should be able to have faith in the treasury or other relevant section of the public service to do reliable costings.

The most important thing is that it should be mandatory for costings to be released as a fundamental part of any new policy, straight up, at the same time as the first announcement or at the very least a very short time later.

I think that we really have gone off on a wildly erratic path with our government and opposition spruiking all manner of policies without giving us full costings, or even a vague estimate a lot of the time!

That really does reek of terrible management skills, and a dodgy strategy of trying to avoid scrutiny and full accountability.

That' a silly statement, rehctub.

Everyone should question the Opposition's figures.

The Economist's view is this:

".....but Mr Rudd gets our vote, largely because of Labor’s decent record. With deficits approaching, his numbers look more likely to add up than Mr Abbott’s...."

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584343-kevin-rudd-just-about-deserves-second-turn-lucky-no-more?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/lucky_no_more

(I realise you're not particularly interested in what "real" economists think, instead being content to ride along on Murdoch's stagecoach, but there it is in black and white)

i suspect the true believers in gw cherry pick their econimist just like they do their pseudo scientist. no wonder they can never get it right. Wong is shameless despite being consistently wrong. thankfully the australian public has seen through the dishonesty of Labour. Their rusty supporters are just to blind. No doubt they think Obeid and MacDonald were good economist. The incoming Government are treating Labour/Greens with the contempt they deserve. Hopefully they will perform as well as Howard/Costello although they certainly have a gigantic mess to clean up.

runner,

You suspect wrong.

This from The Economist:

"Of the country’s two main parties, the Liberal Party, now in opposition in a Liberal-National coalition, is the natural home of The Economist’s vote: a centre-right party with a tradition of being pro-business and against big government...."

Going well so far...but:

"..... But the coalition’s leader, Tony Abbott, does not seem an instinctive fan of markets, and one of the few key policies he has let on to possessing is a hugely expensive federal scheme for parental leave......"

Oh dear!

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584343-kevin-rudd-just-about-deserves-second-turn-lucky-no-more?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/lucky_no_more

You're merely another Murdoch munchkin - and probably would have difficulty recognising the difference between economic analysis and partisan fish-wrapper propaganda.

No surprises there.

'You're merely another Murdoch munchkin - and probably would have difficulty recognising the difference between economic analysis and partisan fish-wrapper propaganda. '

and yes you are so intelligent Poirot, the discerner of all things. No doubt you supported Swan's six promises of surplus as well as Flannery's predictions of no rain over Sydney. What a track record.

Don't get yer heckles up with me, runner.

I'm just reporting the opinion of the respected "The Economist".

When they say things like:

"Of the country’s two main parties, the Liberal Party, now in opposition in a Liberal-National coalition, is the natural home of The Economist’s vote: a centre-right party with a tradition of being pro-business and against big government...."

And then they follow it with a big fat "but".....then you know they see through Abbott's blarney.

Of course, one wouldn't expect you to recognise or accept their opinion.

You're not big on accepting others' expertise.

'You're not big on accepting others' expertise. '

To right Poirot. I prefer those with a track record rather than atrology. There is only One who knows and holds the future and it certainly aren't the economist who two weeks before the GFC could not even predict it. I might not be good at accepting 'experise ' ju7st like you ain't good at accepting truth.

runner,

You can't blame me for highlighting economists who doubt Abbott's numbers (what we've seen of them) when those same economists would usually gravitate towards a Liberal government.

Well at least Labor stump up and give us some numbers, unlike their new supercharged welfare recipient Papua New Guinea.

But when it comes to addition, sadly for us Labor always get it Wong.

I received news today that they have closed the bunker door at Labors last stronghold....Sussex Street.

By all accounts they have stopped taking calls from Kevin, they told him he’s on his own and to fortify Qeensland, hence his naval brainwave the next day.
Talk at the neighbouring Latte Bar is that Bunker Survivors are only opening the door for deliveries from Tetsuyas, Liquor mart, and the Craig Thomson Escort Service.

Die Labor Government die……that is of course the German “die.”

Poirot>> You can't blame me for highlighting economists who doubt Abbott's numbers (what we've seen of them) when those same economists would usually gravitate towards a Liberal government.<<

P, when Howard took over he had a $95 Billion debt....and he sold off most of our gold reserve and at bottom dollar to help pay it back.

What does Abbott have left to sell off?
Because sell off he will.

We need to abolish Labor's Peter Principle within the Public Service. It's the only possible way of regaining some sanity. We can no longer afford to keep so many lefties for nothing in return except for voting Labor. The Gravy's out & the train's come to a stand-still.

So Poirot, do you happen to recall what the economist said of Swans predicted (at any cost) surplus?

Or, do you know if they predicted the almost ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR STUFF UP from Penny Wong?

As Runner quite rightly says, why didn't they predict the GFC, or more importantly the massive loss of confidence our business community suffered when labor took an axe to IR, because I most certainly did, and I'm no economist.

Finally, how anyone can say labor have done a good job defies logic. Furthermore, here we have Kevin Rudd, sprukimg about how gooder job labor have done, yet, at the same time he says we need a new way.

Why, if we are in such great shape, do we all of a sudden need a new way.

More importunely, how long has he felt we needed a new way, but didn't share his concerns with his labor colegues.

Could it have just been a case of, it's not my job!

Well, rehctub, it's seems an awful lot of people are saying that Labor have done a good job as far as their post GFC performance goes.

But I'm sure they're all wrong....

Stupid economists.

Just imagine if The Economist had backed Abbott and Co. The Coalition would have been forced to decline the accolade, since economists don't know "nuffin" about economies.

But that's me for this thread...(it gets a bit wearing being lectured by the likes of you (and runner) who peppers his posts with spelling and punctuation errors and who can't be bothered to edit for the benefit of those who bother to read his opinion - hard to take you seriously)

Stupid economists.
Poirot,
Congratulations, for once you're right.

Well, Poirot, it's seems an awful lot of people are saying that Labor have done a terrible job as far as their post GFC performance goes.

But I'm sure they're all wrong....

Stupid economists.

"THE Labor government is now sinking before our eyes. Largely reduced to a negative attack on Tony Abbott's costings, Kevin Rudd has made the ritualistic blunder of leaders under pressure: he has over-reached and been humiliated."

While Labor has the right to question the coalition's costings, no one takes Labor seriously anymore. Rudd, Bowen and Wong are now the laughing stock of the media.

The coalition will flog off, public health, public schools, medibank, centrelink, public transport, road construction, and infastructure. You reckon costs are high enough now, your about to be dumfounded. Good luck.

579,

You sound like Rudd with his attempted $10bn fraud on the Australian public.

579,
I think the Coalition will work on a more efficient public service & efficiency in general before resorting to such drastic measures such as selling off like you suggest. Anyway, how would you, as a staunch Labor supporter know what the Coalition will & will not do ? You're only guessing & scare-mongering. If Labor is leaving sufficient money (which I doubt) then the won't be any need to sell off. So, tell us how much Labor has left in the coffers ?
Labor is giving us an ear-bashing about black holes in the Coalition's costings. I don't hear them telling us about the black holes THEY created ? If they think there's not enough funding then that's an admission by them that they've blown all the money.

individual,

"Anyway, how would you, as a staunch Labor supporter know what the Coalition will & will not do ?"

Well, ho, ho...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-07/alberici-economic-comparisons/4672166

"In a recent study of 55 leading economies around the world, The International Monetary Fund identified four periods in Australian history when governments were engaged in "fiscal profligacy": they were in 1940, 1960 and between 2003 and 2007."

"Back to that $96 billion "Labor debt" inherited by the Howard government in 1996 - which actually comprised $40 billion of Fraser government debt that carried through the Hawke-Keating years taking the true level of Labor debt in 1996 to $56 billion. Bringing down that debt wasn't all about constrained spending and higher taxes, in fact neither of those things were characteristics of the Howard-Costello years. Government asset sales between 1996 and 2007 worth $72 billion wiped the net debt out entirely with $16 billion to spare. With Joe Hockey as Coalition treasurer after September 14, Medibank Private could be the next to go for what was estimated during the 2010 election campaign would reap $4.5 billion."

Let's read that again...

"....Government asset sales between 1996 and 2007 worth $72 billion wiped the net debt out entirely with $16 billion to spare...."

Get set for cuts and asset sell offs.

Should be entertaining!

"In a recent study of 55 leading economies around the world,
Poirot,

Emma Alberici hosts ABC's Lateline program.
Well, HO, HO to you too. Being in the pockets of the academic-heavy ABC really does give her unquestioned credibility eh ?

Why don't these economic experts never disclose how much taxpayers money is squandered on them & the rest of the Peter Principle Hierarchy ?
How much do we spend on our ex PM's, our ex Judges etc. i.e. people who are of even less use to us in retirement than when they were on full pay. Those would be figures far more realistic & interesting.

individual,

The IMF carried out the study, not Alberici.

Mr Howard sold all those assets to gain his surplus - fact.

P,

That was a political statement if I ever saw one. From 2003 to 2007 saw the 4 biggest budget surpluses in Australian history, the lowest unemployment and the highest growth.

Nice try but no cigar.

Poirot,
What and the IMF is not an academic/bureaucrat outfit that gets paid by Governments ? Are you perhaps trying to tell us the IMF is a revenue raising self-funding organisation?

individual,

The IMF is representative of Western corporate interests.

It's main claim to fame is acting as a doorman for Western corporations, getting their foot in the door and in cahoots with governments.

Lots of cutting and privatisation where the IMF gets influence on arrangements...just the sort of organisation that you right-wingers embrace with gusto.

It did a study and found the Howard government was one of the most "fiscally profligate" in Australia's history

Just to keep us all up to date with Saviour Abbott's latest round of kiddie-talk.

Global media are now reporting his "baddies versus baddies" commentary.

Can't wait to see him strutting the world stage with his Grade 5-style rhetoric.

Should put Oz on map : )

http://www.france24.com/en/20130901-syria-conflict-baddies-vs-baddies-abbott

Poirot,
And what about that herd of pink elephants you saw ?

SM "While Labor has the right to question the coalition's costings, no one takes Labor seriously anymore. Rudd, Bowen and Wong are now the laughing stock of the media."

The "media", concentrated mainly as it is on meeting Rupert's needs, is hardly a fair arbiter if it does not equally pick up on Abbott's verballing of the The Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO simply said it was inappropriate to imply that the PBO has costed LNP policy, to wit, Abbott says this is an implicit statement that LNP costings are accurate, clearly attempting to hoodwink the electorate.

No one can possibly take the LNP seriously on its costings because it will not reveal them to timely, official scrutiny, and, because it is prepared to verbal the PBO to create an illusion that it has somehow done so.

Spare us your parsimony with the truth, SM.

Abbott is the "last minute costing-kid"...

(don't know if that would rate him as a "goodie or a baddie")

Lucyface,

If you are going to post something, please, try to get vaguely near the truth.

The Treasury officials said that Treasury had not costed the coalition's costings, only Labor's version of them, and that what Rudd, Bowen, and Wong presented was false and inappropriate.

The PBO has costed the real LNP policies and given them the tick of approval.

You were right Labor is not only the laughing stock of the media, they are the laughing stock of the whole world.

P,

So Labor releasing its costings in 2007 12 hours before the polls opened makes them?

Excuse Shadow Minister and his "Lucyface".

He seems to think he's roolly clever with his schoolboy names on this forum.

One can understand why he's such a fan of "baddie versus baddie" Abbott.

(They sit together in class:)

.....The coalition will flog off, public health, public schools, medibank, centrelink, public transport, road construction, and infastructure. You reckon costs are high enough now, your about to be dumfounded. Good luck.

And if they do 579, it will only be in an effort to repay labors incompetence driven debt.

Poorly, I know it's hard sometimes, but the truth can really hurt.

I feel for you, given the roller coaster ride of false hope you have been on, but, nobody forced you to board Kevs buss.

You must be filthy now that he didn't listen to us when we said he should have called a snap election.

rehctub,

You should stop parroting rubbish and read something that might educate you.

Here's a bit by a Nobel prize recipient (yeah, I know it isn't dippy Tony's mantra, but, hey, you might learn something)

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-you-dont-know-how-good-youve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.html

And just for good measure, check out your Tone and his lack of...well, just about everything one would expect from a prospective Prime Minister:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6NpVF5n3ug&feature=youtu.be

He's an intellectual midget who doesn't appear to possess any real conservative vision.

I'd give him kudos if he deserved it, but, frankly, he's an embarrassment.

P,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T-CaI0RiSSs

This is what most Australians see in Abbott. Not the confected BS that left whingers tell each other.

You keep telling each other that TA is stupid, nasty and incompetent, so you believe it. The reality is that as a Rhodes scholar, there is no one in labor that matches him intellectually. The way that over the past 4 years he has shredded labor by exposing all their flaws, deposed 2 PMs and is now preferred PM by a country mile over the Dudd that was the most popular PM a few years ago.

Dudd now has the labor party nearly back to where Juliar left it. His gross incompetence and fraud over the last 2 months have woken Australia to why they hated him 3 years ago, and why any government would be better than the bunch of clowns in power today.

Poirot,
I clicked on one of those links & what did I get ? An old turncoat/fool waffling on to some wide-eyed, open-mouthed students about what Labor should have done & how bad Abbott is.
I'm looking forward to all Abbott deniers eating humble pie because the crap they got dished out by Labor didn't appear to affect their taste buds.
Anyone hell-bent on finding fault can do so & collect gaffs on anyone. What hardly anyone does however is leave their blind bias at home & observe what's really going on & which is a bunch of morons believing they're intelligent, running down a potentially good PM whilst defending the worst, most uselss & incompetent PM this country has ever had. Logic & intelligence is simply not in their resumè & never will be. The worst part is that we're forced to keep them.

Poirot, the main difference between the libs and labor, is teamwork.

You see while Tony Abbott may not be the best foriegn diplomat, his team will have such a person.

On the other side, if the labor party were a footy team, Kevin Rudd would drive the team bus, mark the field, score all the points and most likely, advise the ref where he went wrong.

The fact of the matter is that K Rudd has proven to many, myself included, that's he's a dudd.

After spending the best part of four years undermining and deliberately destabilizing his leader/party, he swept to power, ignited the faithful, then collapsed in a sceaming heap. All in the space of a couple of months. He also claimed a few OLO scalps along the way, as there are some here who are quite obviously embarressed, and rightly so.

Now as for this word Poorly, from my previous post, all I can say is so much for spell check, as this was written as Poirot.

Rudd, as are most in this Government, are articulate academics but that doesn't translate into competence & pragmatism. It is this that is to the detriment of Australia not Abbott's image. If you want Ken or Barbie to lead us then we might as well give up now. Image vs competence is not a contest at all, it's plain stupid.

rehctub,

"Now as for this word Poorly, from my previous post, all I can say is so much for spell check, as this was written as Poirot."

Please don't think I'm out to pick you up on every error (I make heaps inadvertently myself:)....I was bitchin' because you didn't seem to care.

As for "spellcheck" - what I meant was when you type and see a red line, perhaps you should check it. That's what I do - manually. "Automatic spellcheck" can be a bit of a trial.

.........

Thanks for the other comments boys, no doubt will get back to you later.

(I still can't fathom the Rhodes Scholar aspect - this fella appears to be an intellectual lightweight - have been waiting for signs of real substance - still waiting)

P,

Is it finally starting to dawn on you? The reason you and other left whingers can't fathom TA is because you are victims of your own propaganda.

From the moment TA became opposition leader, Labor treated him as a joke, and expected an easy ride in. The constant slagging of his personality etc drove his personal ratings down, but he kept hammering at Labor's competence until after only 8 months Dudd's satisfaction and labor's primary vote were crashing, and the Dudd was sacked. The same happened to Juliar.

TA has slowly been letting his foot off the attack pedal, and letting the public see his family side, his extensive community and indigenous involvement, and with that the invective from the left has been seen by the majority as shrill and baseless.

If you cannot see the substance it is because you don't want to. Ask yourself the simple question. "if this man is lacking substance, what does this say of Dudd and Juliar who have been so effortlessly thrashed?"

Shadow minister,

TA has very little substance - the same as Georgie Bush had very little substance.

They are stage-managed into office by partisan media and right-wing think-tanks, who know exactly what appeals to shallow-minded voters.

I'm not stupid enough to suppose that Labor is all sweetness and light...but I resent having a garden variety pollie represented as a potential leader of substance.

He's not.

And this is further given credence by his dodgy tactic of keeping his costings up his magician's sleeve until the last possible minute and after the electronic blackout is in place.

Tony ain't no man of substance. He's malleable and suited to being a prop to the right-wing agenda (just like Bushie)...even if he finds it near impossible to talk articulately - and without the obligatory gaffe - without a script (just like Bushie)

You're right, the polls are in his favour...

More evidence that his audience is either dyed in the wool Lib or not very perceptive in general.

P,

It appears that the vein of denial runs deep and rich in you. I doubt you could even define what you mean by substance. You don't like Abbott ergo he has no substance.

What has Juliar and Dudd got that Abbott hasn't. Not honesty or forward thinking. Perhaps it is their ability to waffle, to make eloquent, but meaningless speeches?

Pray tell, I would love to see how narrow your mind has got.

hilarous that only a few months ago Poirot and Lexi were sure that Turnbull would be leading the Liberals. Now comes all the little conspiracy theories. Oh how could the 'dumb ' public be so foolish as to choose Abbott over the policy on the run Rudd or the wasteful spending dishonest Gillard. Yes its all Newscorps fault nothing to do with pathetic performance by the Government. Dream on!

runner,

Link please to where, few months ago, I was "convinced that Turnbull would lead the Liberals".

(You won't be able to find one because I never said that)

Besides, Rupert wouldn't have wanted Turnbull, because he supported an ETS.....whereas Tony is dimwitted enough to be led by the nose and parrot Uncle Rupert's line.

SM,

Substance may be defined in many ways.

One thing I'm sure of, its that Tony doesn't possess it.

Never mind, I'm sure he'll prove entertaining.

Btw, you may be interested in this article on Rudd's relationship with Murdoch over the years.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/02/rupert-murdoch-australia?CMP=twt_gu

: )

Poirot,
You're wasting precious time arguing petty points. We are more interested in getting the ball of sense rolling again.

Immigration Minister Tony Burke has revealed the population of asylum seekers on Christmas Island is falling for the first time under Labor, in a sign he says shows the Government's policies are working.
Just read this on Google News.
Is that bloke for real ? There are 30 knot winds out there for the past few weeks. No-one, not even a people smuggler will attempt to put to sea in those conditions.
Policies working, Geez !

Rudd now admits that Labour are responsible for over 4000 drownings in changing policy in order to suck up to the UN. Wow how they even use the dead in trying to be relected. And they want to question other figures. How low can they go.

P,

Using your criteria, I can comfortably say that no Labor politician in 5 decades has ever had "substance".

If you disagree, then tell me why specifically.

Sub·stance
in substance with regard to the salient points

[via Old French from Latin substantia,
from subst&#257;re, from sub- + st&#257;re to stand]

[Middle English, from Old French,
from Latin substantia, from substns, substant-,
present participle of substre,..to be present : sub-, sub- + stre, to stand;

see st- in Indo-European roots.]

Synonyms: substance, burden, core, gist, pith, purport
These nouns..denote the essential import..or significance of something spoken or written:

substanceless adj
n.
1.
a. That which has mass and occupies space; matter.
b. A material of a particular kind or constitution.
2.
a. Essential nature; essence.
b. Gist; heart.
3. That which is solid and practical in character, quality, or importance: a plan without substance.
4. Density; body: Air has little substance.
5. Material possessions; goods; wealth: a person of substance.

the substance of his complaint;
the core of an article;..the gist of her argument;..the pith of an essay;..the purport of a document.

substance [&#712;s&#652;bst&#601;ns]
n
1. the tangible matter of which a thing consists
2. a specific type of matter, esp a homogeneous material with a definite composition

3. the essence, meaning, etc., of a written or spoken thought
4. solid or meaningful quality

5. (Physics / General Physics)
material density a vacuum has no substance

6. material possessions or wealth a man of substance

7. (Philosophy) Philosophy

a. the supposed immaterial substratum
that can receive modifications and in which attributes and accidents inhere

b. a thing considered as a continuing whole
that survives the changeability of its properties

8. (Christian Churches, other)
Christian Science that which is eternal

9. a euphemistic term..for any illegal drug>>..[dope?]

ok

have narrowed options..down to three

<<..7. (Philosophy) Philosophy

a. the supposed..*immaterial substratum
that can receive modifications...lol..and in which attributes and accidents inhere..>>..

inhere;..egzisting essentially or permanently
;..to wit..in.,.his DNA*..lol]

or..<<..b.

a thing considered as a continuing whole
that survives..the changeability of its properties>>

or

<<9. a euphemistic term..for any illegal drug>>..[dope?]>>

no..tony aint no..dope
yet it still..might be..a euphonious euphemism.?