Listening to Malcom Turnbul banging on about his plan for us to be innovators, saying something like "there has never been a better time to be an Australian".

He truly is becoming so so boring. A genuine Mr Waffle.

In fact, the evidence is in the polls because Bill Shorten is still the same dill he was yet he is making ground.

Oh dear! Where do we go from here.

Is it really possible, but I get the impression that he is even worse than the first time.

All we can do is whack the liberals, particularly any who supported Turnbull. We must get rid of them, even if it means Shorten

"Listening to Malcolm Turnbull banging on about his plan for us to be innovators, saying something like "there has never been a better time to be an Australian".

He truly is becoming so so boring. A genuine Mr Waffle."

Lol!...I love it when I get to agree with you guys.

It's extraordinary that the guy who plugs his agile and innovative #ideasboom...actually appears to host none of his own.

Regardless of any waffle Turnbull may indulge in, it is still infinitely less boring than anything Bill Shorten could rustle up.

We will just have to wait for an inevitably early election and see what transpires. I still believe the Coalition will win, albeit by a narrow margin, which is fine by me as a Nationals supporter.

Hi Suse,

I think you and I can discuss Turnbull without too much rancour.

Can you tell me a policy that Mr Turnbull has?

Or his Treasurer?

His Immigration Minister spoke out about fiscal policy the other day - and told us "the stock market would crash" if Labor got in...to the mirth of economists Australia wide.

They all appear to about as innovative as a lichen.

We know what their policies are. We know they will lie and lie and lie before the next election. Then once they get back in they will unveil their true agenda of spite and viciousness. Just like they always do.

Poirot, I think all politicians are very similar, in every party.
I doubt we will see much actual policies from either party until the Election date is announced. Turnbull is still far preferable as a PM to me than Abbott was. At least he can speak at public events without causing embarrassment.

I agree that Morrison's comments were absurd, but I was not surprised, as my dislike for him is only slightly less than his previous good mate Abbott. I find his manner aggressive and pompous.

I will be looking for policies that will definitely assist people in the rural areas, especially with communication technology, health and infrastructure. I am hoping the Nationals continue to push for these policies within the Coalition.

Having stabbed Abbott in the back and announced how much better he is than Abbott, Turnbull has only Abbott's policies to take to the next election; he has come up with nothing but blah, himself. The man is a self-serving dud and enabler of that horrible little squirt, Pyne, who is looking more effeminate and ridiculous by the day.

Hi Suse,

Albeit, Turnbull's rhetoric is easier on the ear than Abbott's was.

But Turnbull actually says nothing.

We're approaching an election - and still Turnbull says nothing.

He uses so many words to say his nothing.

The things he does stand for are exactly the same things that the shambolic Abbott govt stood for.

But Turnbull doesn't have to spell them out - he just allows the IPA agenda to roll along - sacking CSIRO scientists one day, cutting DV leave for workers the next (as an example)

Other than that, he's full of meaningless rhetoric and hot air.

One reason so many businesses are suffering is the increase in workers rights, DV leave being one such right.

Why should employers be held accountable because of a poor choice one makes when choosing a partner. Its just ridiculous.

Turnbul bangs on and on about innovation, but, as I have said before, you cant expect businesses to innovate when they have restrictions in place that don't allow flexibility in the workplace for employers to up skill, which will be a major requirement of many so called innovators.

The other area of concern is the constant threat of labor returning to office, because lets face it, Sorten is not getting any smarter, Turnbul is simply slipping yet if labor were to replace Shorten with a real goer, the sh-t would hit the fan in the coalition party room, although the saving grace for the libs is lack of talent in the labior ranks.

As long as the threat of a return to a union puppet party like labour exists, confidence from big players to invest billions will remain low.

Words are cheap when the author is financially well off and doesn't have the day to day issues to deal with as the majority of Australians do.

Too many pollies are focused on re election today to tackle the trough issues.

I see what you mean Poirot and I agree he has been a disappointment so far.
I think we will just have to wait and see about the policies though, like we do before every election. We can judge them then more fully.

I've always loyally supported the LNP, since I attained the minimum age to vote. But no more regrettably. I cannot in clear conscience, possibly support a man like Malcolm TURNBULL, who epitomises treachery and betrayal. Moreover, there are many others who are solidly ensconced in either the Liberal or the National Parties, who are bereft of any ethicality or propriety, which leaves me with no option, but to withdraw my support for them, in any future election?

Could I ever see myself vote Labour? Perhaps if Mr Wm. SHORTIN wasn't their current leader. And their past handling of most economic matters wasn't so abysmal? However, ethically they're no worse than the LNP with Mr TURNBULL at their helm?

And the GREENS, I could quite easily align myself with the Greens, but I would worry greatly, if the likes of Ms. HANSEN-YOUNG continued to wreck havoc on the Australian political landscape?

I agree my options are indeed limited, but the LNP will not receive the benefit of my one measly, insignificant vote, of that you can be assured!

rehctub,

"As long as the threat of a return to a union puppet party like labour exists, confidence from big players to invest billions will remain low."

It's got nothing to do with the threat of any incoming Labor govt - and everything to do with the LNP govt elected in September 2013.

Private sector business investment is down 24% since the election.

It rose 66% under the previous (Gillard) govt.

Explain that?

one word Poirot, MINING.

No doubt you were one of those who continually banged on about what little effect mining had on employment in this country.

I locked horns often with posters who continually claimed that mining employed less than 9% of the workforce, yet they either ignorantly, or arrogantly ignored the jobs that mining created indirectly, and many of those jobs are now gone due to the mining retraction.

Jobs from high end executives, to those who cleaned the houses miners lived in, thousands gone.

People also bang on about the increased debt incurred under the Abbott/Turnbul government, yet either ignorantly, or arrogantly ignore the fact that much of that spending is due to pre committed UNAFORDABLE spending left behind by the incompetent Rudd/Gillard/Rudd/Green/Independent alliance.
These incompetent fools were hopelessly floundering from one stuff up to the next, all of which occurred during the greatest mining boom in modern day times, all wasted and some. In fact, try to imagine where we would be had these fools been in power, having inherited mass debt, and hugely decreased revenues. Broke!

Part of me would like to see labor return so they can finish the job they started and completely ruin this country. At least then we can start afresh and take an axe to the ridiculous hand out brigade as those who refuse to work, often due to some lame arse excuse can spend their time in soup kitchen lines, rather than avoiding the likes of cenerlink at any cost.

Welfare is killing us. A single mum I know, with a 3 YO and one at 4 months told me she is getting paid $750 per week NET. Some working full time jobs don't get that.

So perhaps we need to find the bottom before we can truly rebuild.

rehctub,

"These incompetent fools were hopelessly floundering from one stuff up to the next, all of which occurred during the greatest mining boom in modern day times, all wasted and some..."

If you wish to lecture others about politicians spraying the mining boom revenue up against the wall, you could be honest and start with the maestro, Peter Costello.

It was he as Treasurer who presided over the apex of the mining boom at a time when China was regularly spinning growth of 10%. He poured it all down the drain with vote-pulling middle-class welfare, selling govt assets, selling gold reserves - leaving us with the structural problem we're tussling with now...and all he could leave in the coffers was $20 billion....AND he had no global financial collapse to deal with.

I know you're really upset with Labor for the stimulus. You would have much preferred Australia to go thrashing down in a GFC-induced recession like most of the OECD did (sorry 'bout that)...we avoided a recession, but were left with some debt - which is a real shame for folks like you who love to whinge and moan about money.

Just think of the giant whinge you could have had if Labor had led us into a recession!

...and further, rehctub,

I do love the way you conservative commentators conveniently ignore the GFC when referencing Labor's debt.

But when it's put to you that the LNP have wrought further woe on the economy...all of sudden you're shrieking about the resource downturn.

Oh really, you mean outside influences affect the Oz economy - Golly!

Just as a recap, I'll reprise that info I gave you on the other thread:

From the time of the last election:

Net debt was: $175 billion
Net debt now: $274 billion

Gross debt was: $273 billion
Gross debt now: $409 billion

Net debt to GDP was: 10%
Net debt to GDP now: 16.9%

Wages growth was: 2.6%
Wages growth now: 2.3%

Govt spending was: 24.1% of GDP
Govt spending now: 25.9% of GDP

Unemployment was: 5.6%
Unemployment now: 6.0%

Poirot, it really is a waste of time talking to you because you only read what you want to.

I have stated many times over that the idea of the stimulus was not a problem, just the way it was incompetently delivered. In fact, here we are some 8 years post the GFC and we still don't have a government with enough balls to stop welfare waste. Why< because they all get to vote. Many contribute nothing, yet get to decide how best to contribute other peoples hard earned money.

The day someone grows enough balls to stop paying welfare via cash will be a major leap forward, waiting, waiting, waiting.

A typical example was Tony Abbott. He got in, threw out the ridiculous mining and carbon taxes, and stopped the boats. The trouble is he also spoke of welfare crackdown, as well as indenturing that remote communities with 6 residents was a life style choice, one that should not be paid for by the tax payer, or school leavers being made wait to receive the dole.

Down went his popularity and the rest is history.

His replacement is Rudd wearing different colours, only he is hiding behind his own money, not his wifes.

Welcome to the race to the bottom.

We can go on forever about who did what, or the mess Keating left Costello, but the fact is we have created a world where there are simply too few doing the heaving lifting and too many members of the entitlement brigade whereby no matter who is in nothing will change until we either see real tax reform (a new transaction tax is one such tax that should be modelled) or we find rock bottom and start again.

Im sure welfare recipients would prefer a restricted debit card than a cue at the soup kitchen which is where we are headed, especially if Bill gets his way an pushes rents through the roof.

rehctub,

"I have stated many times over that the idea of the stimulus was not a problem, just the way it was incompetently delivered..."

Oh I see you have a foot in both camps. You quite like that the stimulus stopped us going into a recession, kept us nicely scooting along while mostly other industrial countries were introducing austerity and going into recession, but you don't like that the lower orders were given the opportunity to spend to keep our business afloat.

Here's an idea - why don't you have a peek at what the UK has been doing. They've been slashing and burning all kinds of welfare, ramping it up in recent years - here's their debt to GDP:

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

"Public Debt in the United Kingdom is principally the debt of the central government.
In 2005 the UK National Debt was less that £0.5 trillion. But then came the worldwide financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent recession. The National Debt increased rapidly and went over £1 trillion in 2011. At the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year, the National Debt is expected to go over £1.5 trillion.
In terms of Gross Domestic Product the UK National Debt in 2005 was about 38 percent of GDP.

But in the last ten years, in the wake of the Crash of 2008 and subsequent recession, the National Debt has doubled to over 80 percent GDP, but shows signs of leveling out as a percent of GDP"

There's your fantastic idea demonstrated right before your eyes - a Conservative govt gutting UK welfare and going further into debt.

As a comparison, Australian debt to GDP in 2013 was 10%.

Now after 2 1/2 years LNP govt, who have slashed funding here, there and everywhere - it's nearly 17%

Oh and..." it really is a waste of time talking to you because you only read what you want to."

Lol! - there's the pot calling the kettle black.

As an economist, you make a great butcher...

Poirot, imagine where we might be had the billions in stimulus been spent on infrastructure, or on the other hand, it would have been wasted anyway just like the rest of their spending.

As for where w are today, it is really easy to be critical when you compare on the one hand, a government handed an economy in great shape, and on the other they being handed back a basket case.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY can save this place without serious big stick reform.

Also, as usual you have not read what I have said, just assumed I wish to see an axe taken to welfare. Quite the alternative as I don't want to see welfare slashed, just better managed and this can be literally done overnight be removing the cash.

Once the cash is removed, the waste will stop and many dependents will gain self respect and this will lead to more positive thinking.

Of cause the loosers wont be happy, but they're going to be loosers no matter what we do.

Welfare waste is my problem, along with the disrespectful way many recipients treat tax payers, drinking, smoking and gambling away their tax payer funded gift

rehctub,

"Poirot, imagine where we might be had the billions in stimulus been spent on infrastructure, or on the other hand, it would have been wasted anyway just like the rest of their spending."

Yes, just imagine!....critics of the stimulus yodel to the heavens about minor infrastructure such as "school halls" (a school close to me received 6 new classrooms, a canteen and a library)...let's face it, nothing would have pleased the critics infrastructure-wise or anything else.

"As for where w are today, it is really easy to be critical when you compare on the one hand, a government handed an economy in great shape, and on the other they being handed back a basket case."

Here you go again..."a basket case".

10% debt to GDP is not a basket case. You are going with the deceitful LNP "budget emergency" spiel designed to get people to vote for Abbott's 2013 leadership.

If 10% debt to GDP (the result of stimulus to successfully avoid a recession) is a basket case - then what is the LNP's 17% debt to GDP - delivered after slashing and burning hundreds of programs?

Why aren't you shrieking about a debt and deficit disaster this far into an LNP govt?

It's 7 percentage points worse than it was when they came to power.

rehctub, I agree we'd be in a better position if the stimulus had been spent on infrastructure. I think that's something that Kevin Rudd also agrees.

However, there's a very good reason why it wasn't: there were no shovel ready projects available. Infrastructure Australia was set up to try to prevent that problem from reoccurring.

Our economy is not a basket case; it just needs stimulating.

Taking the cash out of welfare would have the exact opposite effect as what you predict. Administration costs would mushroom. Recipients would be much worse off as they would be forced to spend their money where the government says, not where they can get the best value for it. That's also likely to disadvantage smaller retailers. And far from gaining self respect, it will destroy the self respect of many of the recipients.

We should setting fiscal and monetary policy to create jobs, not punishing the vulnerable because jobs for them don't exist.

Aiden, that's just not true.

The only restrictions would be gambling, grog and cigs, and perhaps a few more, and certainly a very strict limit on cash withdrawals.

The technology already exists so I cant see where the cost blowout would come from.

We must remember, welfare is a safety net provided to mainly support families, and every single dollar wasted is a dollar that a child or often a parent misses out on.

People have adapted to living on the likes of the dole, especially those who also work for cash on the side.

Time to move on because if people cant help themselves the big brother has to step in.

Poirot, the basket case I was referring to was the wonderful economy the libs left in comparison to the one they inherited just six years latter. Besides, how much of that 7% was pre committed by labor?

You seem pretty good at research, so here is your opportunity to prove me wrong.

rehctub,

"Poirot, the basket case I was referring to was the wonderful economy the libs left in comparison to the one they inherited just six years latter. Besides, how much of that 7% was pre committed by labor?"

We've been through this many times before.

On the one hand you say you support the stimulus in theory..you know, the stimulus that saved us from the recession most other industrial countries experienced.

They're the countries with debt to GDP anywhere from 40% to 80+%.

We avoided recession and ended up with debt to GDP 0f 10%.

So you appear happy to trundle along ignoring the fact of the global financial collapse. You're extemely happy though to yodel about the resources downturn as an excuse for the LNP driving our debt up by a further 7% - and now attempting to blame Labor for a portion of it even though they're are not now in govt.

Any comments about Costello presiding over the greatest export boom in Australia's history - giving most of it away in tax breaks and middle-class welfare (thereby leaving us with a huge structural problem). selling govt assets by the dozen and gold reserves...and only leaving us with $20 billion in the coffers?

Poirot, check my posting history, you will see my views on the stimulus. The first round incurred far too much waste, then, knowing this, they changed nothing.

School halls was a prime example. Nothing wrong with the idea, just no one there the monitor the builders, many of whom made millions unjustifiably. Same goes for the insulation, the experts gave their warnings, Rudd ignored them and lives were lost and, had Rudd been a CEO, he would be behind bars now.

As I have said before, the best laid plans are useless if you don't have the knowhow to implement them.

As for libs debt increase, are you trying to say that this is all due to poor management?

As for middle class welfare, what, do you expect these people to work hard, pay their taxes to help support the bludgers, and get nothing. You're kidding!

You know supporting those who either cant support themselves, or choose not to wouldn't be such a bad thing if they would just appreciate it. But no, they just sit there and complain about just about everything, the true blue under achiever tall poppy, the reason so many so called middle class cheat their taxes. The old 'why pay more tax, its not as if its appreciated' syndrome. Ive paid taxes all my life and raised my family with any support most of the time only to be told 'gee you're lucky'. What a joke.

Its about time people who contribute get rewarded and those who don't
loose the ability to waste their tax payer provided gift.

rehctub,

"As for middle class welfare, what, do you expect these people to work hard, pay their taxes to help support the bludgers, and get nothing. You're kidding!"

The one and only reason that Costello introduced middle-class welfare is because, at the time, Australia was rolling in it. We were at the apex of the biggest boom we'd ever seen in this country. So the brilliant Mr Costello and Mr Howard decided to use our good fortune to buy some votes...it's really as simple as that.

So instead of using "the good fiscal times" to store away, he spent it...leaving a mere $20 billion to show for the mega-billions we were making. Simultaneously he created a huge structural problem that was set to impact us the minute the resource boom ran out.

Whoops!

And that's leaving out all the govt asset sales that filled the coffers as well.

One the one hand you whinge about the debt left in the wake of the GFC. On the other you say you support it, but have a problem with the way it was directed and managed. The main thrust of any stimulus is to keep the economy growing. Our stimulus was introduced quickly and powerfully, It's the speed and oomph of the delivery, according to economists, that made all the difference in helping us avoid a recession....which would also explain why parts of it were not delivered as well as they could have been.

We learn.

Hopefully if we ever need to introduce another similar type stimulus, we can apply the lessons we have learned.

well we agree on one thing Poirot, lets just hope we do learn from the lessons and not make such poor choices with tax payers money, I mean, why on earth would a new born need a 56" plasma!

Loosers are usually loosers for a reason, and although the baby bonus was a libs brain fart, it was still able to be wasted time and time again. Same goes for the so called school kids bonus, and you talk about vote buying.

Blind fereddie knows if you want to stimulate any part of the economy, you need to make sure the stimulus hits its mark, and doesn't get flushed down the toilet. But that's common sense, which doesn't seem to be taken into the equation unfortunately.

Just one major problem with your argument Poirot, your one eyed lefty ideology.

The peak of the mining boom was, as you so easily ignore, during Rudd & Gillard's disastrous management. Even with that, they managed to not only run up huge debts, but lock in spending on ridiculous "causes', while undoing many of the Howard changes that had helped produced our wealth.

I don't expect any honest argument from you, but I do get tired of your twisting of fact.

further to hasbeens post Poirot, Rudd also removed the border protection laws that saw very few illegals get through, in fact, I memory serves me correctly, there were THREE when Rudd took over. On top of this there were the billions spent/wasted on stopping the boasts, something Rudd/Gillard/rudd couldn't achieve in six years, yet Abbott achieved in about six months. But it sure must have cost billions, and still does cost billions looking after those who Rudd invited in. Of cause you have conveniently failed to recognise that, which doesn't surprise me at all.

So before you crow about the added debt, do the math and remove the money spent on illegals (minus THREE) the billions spent managing Rudds problem and the billions in pre commitments left behind.

Then compare the revenues from the six years of labor to that of the past three and see where you end up.

Until then your argument has no credibility.

you are right Rechtub

we will be paying for Gillard/Rudds treachery for a long time. Thanks again Mr Abbott for doing what the regressives said was impossible. No wonder they hated you so much.

Hasbeen,

".... but lock in spending on ridiculous "causes', while undoing many of the Howard changes that had helped produced our wealth."

Which Howard changes helped to produce out wealth?

The mining boom began in 2005 with an extraordinary rise in commodity prices driven by China (and India)...was interrupted by the GFC and continued after that.

Let's examine what the brilliant Mr Costello did, shall we?

Here's a start...

"Rather than stockpile the windfall, Costello and Howard introduced permanent tax cuts in response to a temporary increase in revenue. Costello cut by half the tax payable on income from capital gains. He trebled the threshold for the top tax bracket. He made income from superannuation entirely tax-free, even for those who earnt millions per year. He also handed out tens of billions of dollars worth of benefits to middle- and high-income earners, while arguing that the government couldn’t afford to increase unemployment benefits, disability benefits or the age pension.

The windfall revenue was so great that, despite his largesse, the budget was still in surplus.

With repetition, and with vocal support from a cheer squad of “business leaders”, he convinced people that simply delivering a surplus proved that he was doing a great job.

The idea that a budget surplus is proof of good policy has no basis in economics."

"According to the pinko lefties at the IMF, Peter Costello hosed the mining boom up against a wall. Indeed, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia, Costello’s tax cuts and middle-class welfare pumped so much money back into the booming economy of the late 2000s that he forced it to increase interest rates to “take the heat” out of the economy..."

"Costello must have known his tax cuts and middle-class spending splurge was economically irresponsible. Treasury told him. The RBA told him. And the IMF told him. He wasn’t doing economic policy; he was doing politics.."

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/july/1435672800/richard-denniss/clowns-and-treasurers

Explain to me,Hasbeen, how any Howard/Costello "changes" helped "produce" our wealth. They certainly helped to give us the structural headache we've got now...does that count?

rehctub,

Until you can give mea dollar figure for the Abbott/Turnbull regimes floating an amarda of naval vessels around up north to chase away asylum seekers, then you are talking out of your hat.

That's beside the $1.2 billion per annum the LNP govt is spending to indefinitely detain and cease processing asylum seekers at our offshore detention gulags.

How about the $55 million Morrison paid to Cambodia to take 4 refugees? Good stuff, eh!

runner,

Another run-by sentence or two of dribble I see.

poirot, you conveniently forget, or arrogantly choose to ignore the fact that ANY MONEY SPENT on illegals is only occurring due to Rudd and labor's incompetence. Prior to the flamboyant arrival of Kevin 07, THERE WERE THREE!

As for the mining boom starting in 2005,as you have stated, it ended in 2015, so this means Costello had two years, labor had the remaining eight if my math is correct.

Furthermore, when Costelo was in there were more jobs than workers and confidence was booming, boy, didn't Kevin 07 and his incompetent follower make short work of that.

You will never see me criticize middle class welfare because I have long held the belief that those who pay the bills, should also reap the rewards while those who contribute little should be grateful for what they get while those who choose to contribute nothing by choice should receive minimal support. I see welfare abuse everywhere I go and it could be controlled so easily but no one has the balls because they all vote.

As for not taxing super, what, do you want those who supported the masses throughout their working lives, giving up so much along the way, to continue supporting them in retirement. A true under achievers position if ever I had heard one.

Remember, everyone has an equal opportunity to fail, some choose not to. Its just that those who choose to fail expect the successful ones to support them.

BTW, I see the media are starting to accuse him of waffling as well.

All talk, no action. He's just another Rudd.

rehctub,

"As for the mining boom starting in 2005,as you have stated, it ended in 2015, so this means Costello had two years, labor had the remaining eight if my math is correct."

Lol!....pointless rehashing the machinations between 2005 and 2015...we've been there a million times.

World economists (like those employed by the IMF) tell us that Costello mismanaged his part in a boom.

World economists tell us that Rudd supremely managed a global financial crisis.

Australia's handling of the GFC is the envy of the industrial world.

Ebenezer Butcher tells us they're all wrong!

Wrong - I tells ya!

Like I said, as an economist you make a great butcher....

'
runner,

Another run-by sentence or two of dribble I see.

yeah but still making more sense than your pages of waffle Poirot. Sure you are not related to Mr Turnbull.

runner,

You certainly chose your handle well on this forum : )

Poirot, so what you are suggesting is that the world economists suggest that the insulation debacle, the school halls blow out, the sending of millions of stimulus dollars to dead people were all strokes of genius.

You must also remember that these economists you place so much faith in also voted that Swan fool as the smartest man in the world. Yep, they were spot on!

They also didn't see the GFC coming and that's because they work off data (old news).

I also note you have dodged the part about every cent spent by the libs on illegals could have been avoided if not for Kevin 07 riding in on his pony.

Rudd was a dud. He was a very good talker just like Malcom, only thing is at that time he had been left with an economy in great shape.

rehctub,

Gawd! - you're a whinger.

You lucked out and got born in a first world country...all the opportunities at your fingertips.

And it seems to me you've spent your entire life resenting and begrudging your fellow man.

Not for a moment do you consider that the very mechanism of allowing the working class and the lower orders spending power is what has driven post-war affluence in Western countries. Consumerism is what drives capitalism, you know.

What a sad act you are.

Poirot, I don't begrudge anyone with the true Aussie attitude of 'have a go mate' but what I do begrudge is those who contribute little or nothing, bitching and complaining every step of the way, simply because their tax payer funded gift cant stretch far enough to provide for the likes of rent, food, grog, cigs and gambling. Although sadly, its often in reverse order.

We live in a world today where far too many have this entitlement mentality yet when someone threatens their world, like Abbott, all hell breaks loose.

The other thing that bugs me is how people like you bang on about middle class welfare, yet conveniently forget that these are often the ones who earn too much to gain assistance, yet too little to provide for themselves, their well cared for children as well as their retirement. And if they do try to get ahead, super, negative gearing, you lot whinge about that as well.

We now find ourselves in a position where we have a PM who's another dud, and an op leader who is a complete dill. Oh what a choice!

The race to the bottom continues.