Poirot,

After Kevin Rudd's Big Australia gaffe, when Julia Gillard took over as Prime Minister, she announced that she "didn't believe in hurtling down the track to a Big Australia". Once elected, she initially did cut back a bit from Rudd's excesses, down from 2.2% (doubling time 31.5 years) in 2008 to 1.4% (doubling time 49.5 years) in 2011, but the numbers then crept up again to 1.8% (doubling time 38.5 years) in 2012. It is now 1.7%. It is amusing to calculate time to standing room only at these rates (578 years at 2.2%). I am not condoning the lies the Liberals told to get elected, but this is every bit as bad. It ought to be possible to charge politicians with false and misleading advertising, just like people who sell consumer goods. The onus should be on the politicians to prove that circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify breaking an election promise.

Divergence,

".... It ought to be possible to charge politicians with false and misleading advertising, just like people who sell consumer goods. The onus should be on the politicians to prove that circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify breaking an election promise."

I agree....especially when, as in the case of the Abbott Govt, almost the entire platform turned out to be bogus.

Unfortunately the Trade Practices Act doesn't apply to pollies.

Yes I know, here he goes again, but don't turn the page and listen.
You might learn something.

I have recently realised that the failure of the Labour government and
the pending failure of the Lib/Nat government is because they are both
running different economic policies and here is the crunch;

Neither policies work and further more they cannot work.
We are now at a very low growth figure which is being used up by high
energy costs. Indeed taking the five times increase in oil costs since
2001 means that we are now in a recession and have been since 2007.

To make matters worse we are adding to our burden 200,000 plus extra
people each year. To equip these people in Australia would require an
increase in growth. However we do not have that growth, so we have to
take something away from the existing population.

Fact, growth is needed to pay interest on loans.
Fact, growth is needed to pay back loans.
Our debt is real and with no growth we cannot repay it without big
cuts in government expenditure.

This the fundamental problem we face.
Unfortunately the parties believe we can generate growth.
They are wrong, and until they wake up to that, get rid of your own
debt, spread your assets around and hang on tight !
If you are on a pension, start thinking about what sort of work you
might want to take up.

I agree completely, Bazz. Why do you think that our glorious leaders are doing this? It is hard to believe that they are really so stupid. Are they just going to "keep on dancing until the music stops" because they don't know what else to do, or do they have plans that don't include us. The sad thing is that Australia might be able to survive a global collapse with reasonably competent management, which doesn't include adding 200,000 people every year, among other things. Here is part of an interesting comment by "Paul" on Our Finite World (Gail Tverberg's blog, aka Gail the Actuary)

"B) What will the elites do — and why?

When things unravel the elites will most certainly not stand by and allow complete chaos to overwhelm them — they will definitely be trying to influence the outcome —- they will most definitely want to cull the population drastically. That MUST happen because 7.2 billion people CANNOT be fed post oil. Here’s the plan:

1. Declare martial law ensuring that anyone who resorts to violence to obtain food is quickly smashed down (the NSA already knows who the potential trouble-makers are):
– you have seen the militarization of US police forces:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904
– Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 rounds of ammo “some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers” http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
2. Make no effort to feed anyone other than military forces and other key people (and themselves of course)
3. All petroleum reserves to be used only to enforce martial law – and maintain key infrastructure (e.g. keep nuclear plants and fuel ponds from melting down)
4. Wait until most people are dead.
5. Pick up the pieces"

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/07/07/debt-eight-reasons-this-time-is-different/

That is a bit too paranoid even for me.

Good afternoon to you all...

At the outset I believe, like most things, politics are all about 'perception'. Similar to the equitableness of the law, as an example. Whether it's the Labor Party or the LNP, we all perceive what we wish to perceive and primarily believe.

The reason the current government took the austere economic measures they did, was ostensibly because of the urgency of curbing the burgeoning debt levels. Therefore any divergence to what was initially promised, prior to the last election, is utterly justified !

Or a diametrically opposing view; these alleged measures rolled out by the LNP, were and are absolutely fallacious and clear evidence the government wilfully lied and deceived the electorate before the last election ?

Wouldn't you agree therefore, depending on the colour of your politics, both arguments appear, prima facie, quite valid. Relying absolutely on the individual's perception or consciousness of the efficacy and virtue of whichever Party they support.

My original point or argument if you like, is essentially this - There are no politicians in Canberra today, who are sufficiently 'statesman' like to do what is incontrovertible 'right' for either our country or it's people ! Their individual ethos consists of '...me first, and if there's anything left over, then give it to the country...?

Divergence first;
Regarding commentatory on US blogs;
Not much notice can be taken of them. You might notice a high percentage
of nut cases amongst those commentating.
I suspect that commentator is one of those.
He writes as though the US will be out of oil.
The US government believes they have plenty of oil.
They even believe they will become the world's biggest exporter of gas & oil.
Even Obama thinks they can supply Europe with gas if Putin cuts off supply to Europe.
He is wrong, they do not have enough by the time the liquid export
trains are built.
Like our government they believe in the fairies at the bottom of the garden will grant their wishes.
The US is producing a bit over 60% of its own fuel, so they would
have rationing but no problem with food etc.