Election 2010

[Blue]

If the independents stick to their guns, then the mining tax legislation simply won't get out of the lower house. Gillard's hands will be tied and it will completely destroy their budget. They will somehow try and paint the opposition as the ones that are being destabilising, but in reality it will of course be the independents they have sided with. It goes to my view that the 'stability' arguement from the independents is actually bullshit, and that in fact if they backed the coalition there is more likelihood of stability (due to their sharing of the same views).

If the independents roll on the mining tax, then there will most likely be a big backlash in their electorates and they may well lose their seats.

Barnaby Joyce implied on lateline last night that the opposition wouldn't have to do anything obstructionist or destabilising, as the diametrically opposed views of the country independents and the greens would do that for them. He would make a great deputy leader if he could only stop himself from being too controversial.

He can't seem to keep his mouth shut though which will always be his undoing.

 

[Scotty]

Abbott has managed to curb some of his more flamboyant quotes. Maybe Joyce has a chance?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

10. The idea is premised on the basis of "Oh fuck, we've wasted all that cash. Where can we get some more? Mines. Fuck'em. They have loads of cash."

+1 to that

 

[Ruggo]

Abbott has managed to curb some of his more flamboyant quotes. Maybe Joyce has a chance?

The Liberal Party should dissolve their coalition and go alone. The National Party is going nowhere and is useless. All they do is cling on to the libs to survive.

 

[Scotty]

The Libs wouldn't have a chance without the Nats. They would be fighting a battle against what is now (and has more or less always been) a Labor/Green Coalition that has the additional backing of the powerful unions.

Libs will only be able to go it alone in the future if they first get back into power, and secondly start dissolve the ridiculous dominance and power of the union movement.

 

[Scotty]

It seems the rainbow coalition is falling apart already.

Independents want the mining tax included in a review of Henry, Swan says it isn't going to happen.

 

[Scotty]

Coalition is questioning the viability of rolling out the NBN to the bush first. The Labor party has promised things to these two independents that aren't achievable, and aren't good economic policy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-cost-billions/story-fn59niix-1225916138585

Tamworth dairy farmer Karrie Whitten said she couldn't make sense of the $43bn spend, saying that there were other more pressing priorities, including improving the patchy mobile phone coverage, fixing the potholes in the roads and getting better access to doctors and hospitals.

But she was most puzzled by the fact that her family home, like most of the households in the area, already had access to high-speed wireless internet, for $40 a month.

"I just don't understand why the government would be spending such a massive amount when there are so many other things the money could be used for," Ms Whitten said yesterday.

"There are things more important in running the country than broadband -- like hospitals."

Mr Somerville, who specialises in connecting high-speed internet to companies and households in the region, said that based on information currently available, the National Broadband Network was little more than a "PR stunt".

"None of the politicians seem to understand the technology enough to be making an informed decision on it," Mr Somerville said.

"Tony Windsor has made the biggest decision of his life based on the scheme, but he isn't across it enough. "None of them seem to be."

Mr Somerville said one of the major concerns over the NBN that was yet to be addressed was who would pay the bill for "drop lines", the connections between the fibre-optic grid and individual households, which would likely be substantial in built-up areas, and likely prohibitively expensive for those outside towns.

"A key point is the drop down lines from the infrastructure to the houses -- who is going to pay for it and at what cost?"

 

[Moses]

It seems the rainbow coalition is falling apart already.

Independents want the mining tax included in a review of Henry, Swan says it isn't going to happen.

Ho can a comprehensive review of the tax system exclude the two biggest taxes?

Where did the figure of 30% come from?

 

[Scotty]

Ho can a comprehensive review of the tax system exclude the two biggest taxes?

Where did the figure of 30% come from?

It was stupidity in the first place not to include the GST. But neither side seem to have the balls to talk about GST changes.

GST, Income and company tax are our most efficient taxes. GST in particular. It is ridiculous not to include them. Don Argus agrees:

Don Argus last night said in a speech at the Melbourne Park Hyatt Hotel the Henry review had been touted as the most comprehensive review of the tax system in 50 years but didn't even examine the GST.

"I find it interesting that one can attribute such status to a review without including GST and without wide industry and community consultation," he said.

"We have just had another federal election and, for me, the only feature of real note to observe was the inability of our politicians to outline how we sustain productivity growth which is the foundation for strong growth in Australia's living standards.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...de-on-mining-tax/story-fn59niix-1225916141507

 

[Moses]

Rolling out nbn to the bush first is a disgrace. An infrastructure project shouldn't be politicaally managed, but this one has been from the start.

I was calling it "fibre to the marginal seat" from the beginning, but never expected they would be this blatant about it.

Conroy claims it won't cost any more to start with the most heavily subsidised section of the project, which will derive the least benefit and take longer to deliver to more people.

 

[Scotty]

I don't believe a word that Conroy says.

 

[Scotty]

This is a development I was speaking to a few friends about yesterday. Looks possible, but imagine the implications:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...lice-of-power-20100908-151cf.html?autostart=1

THE Greens and the independents have offered Tony Abbott the opportunity to help govern from opposition, saying they would pass any policies with which they agreed, including paid parental leave, whether Labor liked it or not.

As the political establishment comes to grips with the concept of minority government, the Greens leader Bob Brown said the Parliament belonged to everybody, not just the government.

''Please think about it,'' he said.

He was backed by the independent Tony Windsor, who suggested the Coalition tone down its venomous attacks on the government and independents.

''There's good stuff that can come from anywhere and that's why the Liberals are silly to be running this sort of stuff,'' he told the Herald.

''They can do things with us and the executive won't have the power to shut them down. The opposition can be part of the government, too.''

The Greens are particularly keen to have a look at the paid parental leave scheme of the opposition. But imagine the issues that could occur if the non-governing party gets important legislation through the parliament:

1. Who will end up taking credit for any positive changes, or denying responsibility if they don't work out (well both sides)?
2. If bills that aren't endorsed by the Labor party are passed through the senate, will the government actually implement them or just drag their heels?
3. Any bills that are passed that haven't been included in Labors plans may seriously affect the budget bottom line and will make it very difficult to govern.

 

[Scotty]

Article on the many follies of the NBN plans:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...less-pork-barrel/story-e6frg6zo-1225916741033

I know it is from the Australian, but please note who has written it.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Thanks for that Scotty. The stupid just continues with this NBN. Doing it in rural areas first only compounds it. Still, in a couple of years, we'll all be able to point to it and say, "what a disaster". My prediction is that it will never deliver technically, nor will it stay on budget without a radical reduction or change in its scope. I also predict that the government spin doctors will find some way to sell it as a success in spite of that.

 

[TheRiddler]

Wouldnt it be good in years to come if the infrastructure in our rural centres was of such a standard that large companies and multi-nationals could consider relocating their head offices? Why couldnt a bank have a head office in Orange? Or a Woolies/Coles having their HQ in Parkes? It would provide a great injection to those areas and take a small bit of the pressure off the state capitals. For that matter, why not move the parliaments to the regions as well, as is the case in USA?

Decent comms in those areas is only a part of the infrastructure requirements, but its a start.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

There is a reason that companies put their HQ in highly populated areas or economic hot zones: it's where their customers are. A case in point is the company I used to work for, an oilfield services company headquartered in New York. Great for the executives and access to the investment banks, but the overwhelming majority of our customers were in Houston. So we moved corporate HQ down there so we could be close to the BP's, Shell's, Exxon's etc. The other reason is that the availability of quality staff is great in highly populated areas, as are the chances of gaining access to the great idea factories of universities and R&D organisations. That's why Silicon Valley works so well. The same company I spoke of earlier had an R&D facility up the road in Austin, because the University of Texas was there, plus a shit load of great R&D firms. IBM came to the same conclusion. We also had a facility on the campus of MIT, another tech hotbed.

Unless there was a change in the population demographics in Australia, I would expect the large corporations to gravitate towards the big cities and why not, over 80% of our people are in them.

 

[Scotty]

Wouldnt it be good in years to come if the infrastructure in our rural centres was of such a standard that large companies and multi-nationals could consider relocating their head offices? Why couldnt a bank have a head office in Orange? Or a Woolies/Coles having their HQ in Parkes? It would provide a great injection to those areas and take a small bit of the pressure off the state capitals. For that matter, why not move the parliaments to the regions as well, as is the case in USA?

Decent comms in those areas is only a part of the infrastructure requirements, but its a start.

Wouldn't it be great if we had a super fast internet, that about 1% of the population in the bush really cares about, and likely only 5% will take up, and yet they can't even get a mobile phone signal (heck I can't even get a signal in some areas of Brisbane).

As the guy in the computer shop in one of the articles above said 'who is going to pay for the connection from the road to my house'? It is likely that the cost of connecting the remainder of the way from the footpath to some of the houses (which are often a long way from the road) will be prohibitive even if people want access to it. This NBN really does have the potential to be the biggest white elephant in the history of government investment (at least in regional areas).

 

[TheRiddler]

There is a reason that companies put their HQ in highly populated areas or economic hot zones: it's where their customers are. A case in point is the company I used to work for, an oilfield services company headquartered in New York. Great for the executives and access to the investment banks, but the overwhelming majority of our customers were in Houston. So we moved corporate HQ down there so we could be close to the BP's, Shell's, Exxon's etc. The other reason is that the availability of quality staff is great in highly populated areas, as are the chances of gaining access to the great idea factories of universities and R&D organisations. That's why Silicon Valley works so well. The same company I spoke of earlier had an R&D facility up the road in Austin, because the University of Texas was there, plus a shit load of great R&D firms. IBM came to the same conclusion. We also had a facility on the campus of MIT, another tech hotbed.

Unless there was a change in the population demographics in Australia, I would expect the large corporations to gravitate towards the big cities and why not, over 80% of our people are in them.

No reason you cant put processing admin centres in the sticks. My first job in the UK was with a large bank that moved its admin HQ to my 'country town'. Incentives from various government agencies helped grease the wheels but they came to the conclusion that my town was just as capable of providing employment services as a major city and at a lower cost, added to the lower cost of real estate, services etc. Now I appreciate that the distances in the UK make this sort of thing easier to setup but still see no real reason why it couldnt happen here.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Processing centres, absolutely. That makes total sense, because it is often a lot cheaper to farm off that stuff out of the major cities. In fact, it is actually done in many places in the world (including Australia). It also means that offshoring the work is an option too.

What you were referring to was headquarter locations and that's what I was responding to.

 

[Moses]

No bank is going to go bush because there is fibre to the farm.
Processing centres? If you're going to the expense of moving it then send it to Bangalore and save some serious cash.
Are there any training programs for farmers on how to use computers?