Here's a little something by a welded on LNP supporter - Paul Sheehan.

Lovingly titled "Has Tony Abbott Gone Mad?"

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/has-tony-abbott-gone-mad-20140511-zr9io.html

"A strong case can be made for Abbott’s political insanity, as distinct from any petulant speculation about his clinical sanity, a game which has already worn thin. A strong case can also be made for his political bravery."

"The latitude for hypocrisy contained in this simple moral message was zero. Now, nine months after the 2013 federal election campaign, the Abbott government, based on multiple clues, will introduce a tax increase on fuel, a new tax on every visit to the doctor, higher costs for university, an increase in the income tax for the 650,000 people earning in excess of $150,000 – or perhaps the threshold will be higher (the agony over this broken promise ebbed and flowed and wobbled, right to the end)."

"So there goes the no new taxes. There goes no unpleasant surprises. The other dishonesty from the Coalition was to pretend the increase in budget deficits was caused by profligate spending, not by a combination of stimulus spending and a fall in receipts from the resources boom and a hit to confidence caused by the global financial crisis in 2008-09.

Add to broken promises a big dash of political bravado: increasing the eligibility age for the pension to 70, phased in by 2035, plus increasing the cost of university, and the cost of health care, plus increasing the eligibility threshold for family benefits and disability support payments and the age pension. Plenty of potential for electoral blowback in all that."

Etc...

Looks like the usual cheer squad journos are beginning to shake their heads.

The Coalition was doubtless aware of the true economic situation before the election. Wouldn't it be wonderful if our consumer protection laws on false and misleading advertising could be applied to politicians? "Impeachment with honour." We could have provisions for a citizens' jury to look at cases where politicians believe that they really must break a promise because circumstances have changed. If the citizens' jury accepted that breaking the promise was justified, then the politicians could go ahead and do it without repercussions. The effects on honesty in politics would be magical, and our leaders might start treating us as adults.

Note that I am not just criticizing the Coalition. Labour lied too, and on some very serious matters. In this case, though, Tony Abbott et al. didn't have to lie to win. So why did they do it?

Poirot,

You forgot the final statement of Paul Sheehan's piece:

> Like all prime ministers who introduce an austerity budget he is betting that a majority of the electorate will see that hard decisions on the economy, with its ageing population, need to be made, and made now, and to act otherwise is the greater hypocrisy.<

I have no problem with this, or with most of what Paul Sheehan covered in his piece.
I think he provided a generally fair coverage of the situation, but I disagree that the Coalition has been dishonest in its assessment of the basis of the identified/projected budget blowout.

Some profligate Labor spending (per various spending 'programs' - both funded and unfunded - inherited from the former Labor government), as well as a downturn in revenues have been highlighted as the underlying causes of the blowout, but the extent of the blowout has been largely assigned to unreliable projections employed by Treasury and the PBO.

(Mind you, I have substantial reservations about the Coalition's proposed changes to Paid Parental Leave, even as most recently 'watered-down'.)

And as for shadow Bowen's assessment, what else might one reasonably expect?

And, as for whether Labor's, the Treasury's, the PBO's or the Coalition's projections prove to be the more accurate, we will have to wait and see.
But, when faced with a potential fire it is wise to act, rather than wait around to see if the roof is going to fall in.

24 hours to wonder, many generations to evaluate the 'wisdom'.

Lol!...Yes, Saltpetre, I almost included Sheehan's paragraph in my spiel (except I was over my word limit)

One has to ask, is it "brave" to lie "so fulsomely" to get oneself elected...or is it merely dishonourable and stupid?

These and other questions will be...

Btw, Hockey only sent the pollie pay cut initiative to the Remuneration Tribunal late last Friday....obviously a last minute brain storm to deflect criticism - especially after he and Cormann were filmed smoking celebratory cigars behind a hedge.

"A last-minute request to freeze the pay of federal politicians and senior bureaucrats was only sent to the Remuneration Tribunal late on Friday."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/budget-2014-politicians-pay-freeze-a-lastminute-measure-20140511-zr9kz.html#ixzz31UJ2Yegl

They make it up as they go along.

When people are too insipid to comprehend they resort to calling names. Liar is the description now used to deny that the bandwagon has to slow down.

So Pericles, oh squirmy one…. you squirmed right past the key issue in my post of 11 May 2014 8:02:51 PM.

I wrote:

>> Why do you assume that resources are diverted? Some might be while others would get drawn from stockpiles or from increased production. I don’t think you can assume that increased activity in a recovery program displaces activity elsewhere to the same extent. My feeling is that it would do to some extent, but that the increase in the recovery effort would well and truly outweigh any decrease elsewhere that has resulted from reallocated resources and labour. <<

Come on, one of your much-emphasised points is that resources are simply diverted and that therefore economic activity due to recovery efforts after disasters does not lead to an overall increase in GDP.

Well, wotta ya gotta say about that now, eh squirmy?