• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Federal ALP Opposition 2013-?

Status
Not open for further replies.

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Ahem. In 1076 days, the Whitlam Government:-
42. sewered most of Sydney Melbourne.
Sympathies to the Whitlam family, and my respect for his service to Australia as a PM and formerly in the RAAF during WWII.
Are you saying wilful that prior to Gough's election triumph in 1972, that most of Sydney and Melbourne were unsewered? That sounds like an urban myth to me.
 

wilful

Larry Dwyer (12)
seems odd doesn't it formerflanker, but under the national sewerage program, subsequently cancelled by Fraser/Howard, the federal government spent $330 million in a few short years, massively reducing the backlog of unsewered properties in the new growth areas of the major towns.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
Parts (or the entire suburb) of Avalon (Sydney) were unsewered in the 1980s, and many parts of western Sydney.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
So, crappy execution, I think not. Lets not forget that in this time he had an incredibly hostile public service (conservative old farts didn't want upstart lefties changing things) and a hostile Senate.



When you think of what he faced in the upper hose, you just have to piss yourself laughing at today's governments cries about not respecting so called mandates.

Don't forget he won two elections in those three years also.

In hindsight he did things too quickly but also remember the historical context that it was the first Labor government in 27 years.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
When you think of what he faced in the upper hose, you just have to piss yourself laughing at today's governments cries about not respecting so called mandates.

Don't forget he won two elections in those three years also.

In hindsight he did things too quickly but also remember the historical context that it was the first Labor government in 27 years.

He certainly captured the mood of the nation like no-one else from either major party could have.
But then it all went sour. As Sheridan writes in The Australian, "After three years in office, he lost the 1975 election by the greatest electoral landslide in Australian political history.
He had another go as opposition leader in 1977 and was rejected by a similar margin."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...on-gough-whitlam/story-fnpxuhqd-1227097838305
 

The Red Baron

Chilla Wilson (44)
Parts (or the entire suburb) of Avalon (Sydney) were unsewered in the 1980s, and many parts of western Sydney.

Yep, I remember the street my grandmother lived on had the dunnies down the back of the block, and the shit truck would roll by routinely to empty them out. This was in Lithgow in the 80s. By that stage, my granfather had gotten sick of it, and fitted out a toilet in the house, and hooked it up to a septic tank.

Even in the very early nineties, having an indoor toilet hooked up to a septic tank was a luxury in that area!
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
seems odd doesn't it formerflanker, but under the national sewerage program, subsequently cancelled by Fraser/Howard, the federal government spent $330 million in a few short years, massively reducing the backlog of unsewered properties in the new growth areas of the major towns.

I don't remember sewerage being in the Constitution as a federal power: therefore it should have been a states responsibility. No wonder Federal spending rose like crazy during the Whitlam era.
The Whitlam legacy: Big government

Posted on 1:23 pm, October 21, 2014 by Sinclair Davidson
Federal government expenditure has never recoved from the Whitlam era:
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Ahem. In 1076 days, the Whitlam Government:-
1. ended Conscription
2. withdrew Australian troops from Vietnam
Yes, but:
Similarly, it has been endlessly repeated this week that Whitlam brought the troops home from Vietnam. This is complete nonsense. The bulk of Australian combat troops left Vietnam in 1971. By the end of 1972, when Whitlam was elected, there was a tiny handful of army training advisers and a small group providing security for the Australian embassy. The army advisers had been scheduled to come out anyway
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ough-whitlam-god/story-e6frg76f-1227099027975
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
I don't remember sewerage being in the Constitution as a federal power: therefore it should have been a states responsibility. No wonder Federal spending rose like crazy during the Whitlam era.
The Whitlam legacy: Big government

Posted on 1:23 pm, October 21, 2014 by Sinclair Davidson
Federal government expenditure has never recoved from the Whitlam era:


Wow.....no sewerage in the 90's?!?! Shit....that sounds like a story I would hear my grandfather say

"Back in my day before we had new flash toilets INSIDE the house...."

Still getting used to this state v federal arrangement thingy you guys have here. Can someone tell me what the benefit of having the separate state governments is?
 

wilful

Larry Dwyer (12)
So if Whitlam was "such a disaster" economically, how come he left Australia with no net debt, which Howard and Fraser then fucked up completely? And if Medicare was so unaffordable, how come Fraser Howard and Abbott haven't dared touch it since? Have a read of this:
Within hours of the news that Gough Whitlam had died, age 98, the mantra of 'hopeless economic management' started to flow.
According to those who clearly loathe Whitlam and anything vaguely socially progressive, Fairfax and The Australian had stories where the Tea Party faithful in Australia wrote or were quoted saying, Whitlam was the worst Prime Minister Australia had seen, he was economically damaging, that he set up the culture of entitlement especially for health and university education, that he created the mentality of the dole bludger and so on.
I am sure you get the drift.
The criticisms were, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with managing the macroeconomy or the budget. They were focussed on the perception that he allocated too much government money to healthcare, education and the aged. That may or may not be the case, but no one has said why it matters or indeed, by how much the spending was excessive and exactly why it remains a problem.
No one has articulated and demonstrated why the clear and dramatic lift in government spending some four decades ago is so damaging today. Nor have they shown how those criticisms have manifest themselves into things Australia has not experienced such as prolonged sluggish economic growth, falling living standards, problems on the budget, chronic unemployment or whatever.
No substance, only high brow fact-free opinion and zealotry.
The scathing criticisms of Whitlam and his legacy need to be put in some context.
Since his sacking, some 39 years ago, the Coalition parties have been in power for about 20 years, so one would have thought that if the Whitlam legacy was so bad, so damaging, so horribly yukky, that Fraser's seven years, Howard's 11 and a half years and Abbott's 13 months in office would have, in at least one of their budgets, scaled back, reversed and once and for all ended, the Whitlam economic legacy.
On that score, it is interesting to note that in 1975-76, government spending to GDP was 24.3 per cent. The Fraser government saw this rise to 25.8 per cent of GDP by 1982-83. (Not those bloody facts again!)
With Mr Hockey's budget less than six months ago, government spending to GDP, even allowing for the cuts that were announced, was estimated to be 25.3 per cent of GDP in 2014-15 and at or above 24.7 per cent of GDP in every year of the forward estimates. So Abbott and Hockey's small government budget had spending a bit lower that Fraser, but still above the 'big spending' Whitlam budgets.
That's the first point to note.
Could it be the electorate like the government to have some role in health, education, aged and disability care?
My guess is 'yes'. Look at the public's reaction to the Abbott government's proposed Medicare co-payment, university fee hikes and cuts to unemployment benefit eligibility.
It is also interesting to note that in the early 1970s, government spending in the US rose sharply, by around 3 per cent of GDP in about half a decade. Surely Gough did not influence Nixon and Ford to spend, spend, spend? Maybe the social changes of the 1960s and 1970s in the western world saw the electorate demand, and get, a greater role from government.
And a few final fiscal facts:
Whitlam government left zero net government debt to Fraser – in June 1976, net debt was minus 0.4 per cent of GDP (that is, the government had financial assets). When The Fraser government lost in 1983, it had boosted net government debt to 7.5 per cent of GDP.
When Whitlam left office, the tax to GDP ratio was around 20 per cent. The Howard government got this up to an all time record tax take exceeding 24 per cent of GDP (in today's dollars, 4 per cent of GDP is a stonking $65 billion per year).
Even Mr Hockey's 'low tax' budget has the tax take at 23.2 per cent of GDP by 2017-18, some 3 per cent of GDP above anything Whitlam achieved.
Small government, big government?
It is funny how facts can smash perceptions.
Footnote: All the data on spending and tax are from Mr Hockey's budget papers.

Any and all suggestions that Whitlam was no good economically are demonstrably false.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
He certainly captured the mood of the nation like no-one else from either major party could have.
But then it all went sour. As Sheridan writes in The Australian, "After three years in office, he lost the 1975 election by the greatest electoral landslide in Australian political history.
He had another go as opposition leader in 1977 and was rejected by a similar margin."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...on-gough-whitlam/story-fnpxuhqd-1227097838305


And your point is? As for Greg Sheridan, I couldn't give a toss what he thinks or what he writes. He is your typical smart arse that seeks perfection with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

For the record, I have never been a huge Gough Whitlam fan. I do however acknowledge the opportunities he has created for people in my age group. He didn't just capture the mood of the nation, he changed it. So many of his reforms and programs live on despite being in altered forms. Tertiary education may not be free but to this day, everybody is afforded the opportunity soley on academic merit. In a day and age where we can't dig up our stuff quick enough to export to China, remember it was Gough who had the courage to seek relations with China while the conservatives who all harping on about reds under the bed. Tariff reduction is most notably Hawke/Keating legacy but Gough got that ball rolling. Gough's vision of a social safety net paved the way for Hawke and Keating to make the major economic reforms they did.

Gough did so much more than "capture the mood of the nation" and the test of history has proven that to be fact.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Wow...no sewerage in the 90's?!?! Shit..that sounds like a story I would hear my grandfather say

"Back in my day before we had new flash toilets INSIDE the house.."

Still getting used to this state v federal arrangement thingy you guys have here. Can someone tell me what the benefit of having the separate state governments is?


It was to create the continent as one nation. In many aspects, the constitution is a document for days gone by. In many cases it has been left to the High Court to progress the nation with the times.
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
So if Whitlam was "such a disaster" economically, how come he left Australia with no net debt, which Howard and Fraser then fucked up completely? And if Medicare was so unaffordable, how come Fraser Howard and Abbott haven't dared touch it since? Have a read of this:


Any and all suggestions that Whitlam was no good economically are demonstrably false.


Great post mate but can I please ask you reference your source.

Cheers.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Wow...no sewerage in the 90's?!?! Shit..that sounds like a story I would hear my grandfather say

"Back in my day before we had new flash toilets INSIDE the house.."

Still getting used to this state v federal arrangement thingy you guys have here. Can someone tell me what the benefit of having the separate state governments is?

Australia is a Federation of states ( really separate countries each with a governor or Queens representative, that came together in 1900 for their Commonwealth.So we have a Governor's General in Canberra to look after the Federal systems constitution.

The states stay together out of self interest and because of the changing fiscal balance overtime. Thought in the 1930's WA voted to breakaway from Australia. It lead tio fiscal equalization.

We could after some period abolish as the French did states and have bigger local government but here it is happening slowly as the states slowly loose powers to the Commonwealth.
 

wilful

Larry Dwyer (12)
Have a look at this graph from Treasury:
section_4-1.gif


Can you see that massive spike in the early to mid 70s? Nor can I.

And here's data from Treasury on debt: http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/myefo/html/13_appendix_d.htm

An underlying positive cash balance in 75. John Howard ran ONE positive budget in his time as Treasurer, in 81-82.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top