Election 2010

[Scotty]

Also tipping that Oakeshott has been offered the role of Speaker (or at least to be nominated in that role).

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think the parliamentary reforms that the Ind's fought for and won are generally good things for our democracy, so good on them for that.

As far as stability in government, I don't think that's what we'll get, but there you go. We'll most likely be back at the polls well within the three years and a clearer result will emerge. I just hope that nothing too reckless is attempted in the mean time, though I suspect that Gillard will be walking on egg-shells in the short term at least, so as not to give anyone an excuse to raise a no confidence motion.

The LP's reaction is going to be interesting. They basically have free reign to cause as much mayhem as they want, though they'll also want to be careful not to be seen as deliberately de-stabilising the government.

 

[TheRiddler]

Has Julia promised to give the Henry tax review another look and to reassess the mining tax? I must have missed that when I was in Greece?

Was announced during the Oakshott/Windsor press conference. Tax review is to be fully released to the public and undergo cross-party scrutiny before the end of 2011 - allegedly!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

That would be a good outcome. I find it astonishing that we haven't seen the full report in the public domain. Let's get all the recommendations out in the open and have a proper debate.

 

[Bowside]

I actually think this could be a good thing for labor. As a party they need to be held accountable, it means they provide us with better policy's. Hopefully now they will clean up there act in the state parlement as well.

And by held accountable I dont mean stupid exagerated sensationalistic claims by the torys and the right wing media everytime Labor introduces policy.

Also bring on the tax review!

 

[DPK]

Does anyone have any objections to the mining tax? I'm completely pro-mining tax. We've gotta get as much out of this as we can, because when the resources dry up the big companies will just up and leave.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I have huge objections to it. They are as follows:

1, Mineral resources belong to the states and thus should be their right to tax or not. The Federal government should stay out of it.
2, The mining companies already pay company taxes, like everyone else does. Why should they be singled out for extra taxation?
3, Once the federal government goes after the resources industries, what's to stop them from gouging other industries they don't like? Watch out anyone who works for a bank, you'll be next.
4, Taxes should be equitable and as broad based as possible, this tax is neither.
5, Even though the feds say they would refund state based royalties, what's to stop them from changing their minds?
6, This whole process was done without any kind of consultation beforehand. Not acceptable in my opinion. If you're going to do it, do it like the Hawke/Keating government did with the petroleum companies in the 1980's.
7, The rate and threshold of the tax coming in runs the very real risk of making our regime internationally uncompetitive. The rates are higher than many other countries who have a similar royalties setup.
8, This whole tax seems to be based on an emotional premise, rather than any kind of sound economic analysis. By that I mean, this whole business of "fair" share and the furphy of foreign ownership of mining companies. Taxation, in my humble opinion, is not to be used as the baseball bat of social engineering to penalise things that the government of the day either doesn't approve or is envious of.
9, The original construction of the 40% underwriting of non-performing projects is a form of corporate welfare, something I am vehemently against.

That's just the start of it. This and the Internet filter meant that the ALP were dead last on my ballot paper.

 

[Scotty]

Was announced during the Oakshott/Windsor press conference. Tax review is to be fully released to the public and undergo cross-party scrutiny before the end of 2011 - allegedly!

I'd love that to happen, but until Gillard actually announces it herself, I'm saying is a less than 10% chance. If she annouces it I give it a 50% chance.

What really should happen is for Henry to be asked to do it again, but this time include the GST. It was ridiculous and gutless not to include it in the first place, as it is our most efficient tax.

 

[Scotty]

Does anyone have any objections to the mining tax? I'm completely pro-mining tax. We've gotta get as much out of this as we can, because when the resources dry up the big companies will just up and leave.

Increasing the tax on the people that kept us out of a recession? Nah, no problem with that.

 

[Scotty]

As to these independents, I wonder if they see the irony in saying ‘we went for Labor as it would be more stable’ (even though it appears they believed the coalition to be more deserving) and then on the other hand saying that ‘this is not a mandate for government’ (basically implying they could cross the floor on a no confidence motion if they felt so inclined).

ie It is stable as long as they want it to be.

 

[Scotty]

Since a lot don't like me posting links to the Australian because of their possible bias, here is one from SMH:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-key-players-20100907-14zn5.html?autostart=1

JULIA GILLARD won the contest to lead the next government because of her weakness, as well as her strengths.

The two independents who crowned Gillard yesterday wanted the leader who is more likely to run Parliament to its full three-year term.

One of the new kingmakers, Tony Windsor, said that Tony Abbott was more likely to run to a new election as soon as possible. Asked why he thought so, Windsor replied: "Because I think they would be more likely to win."

Labor, however, is "more likely to be here for a longer period of time''.

The longevity of the new government, he added, was "key" to his decision. In other words, Windsor has chosen deliberately to side with the party that he thinks is more afraid of facing the Australian people at another election.

Asked at his press conference specifically if he were favouring the party that was less likely to win the support of the voters at an election, he replied: "That's my call."

This again points to the independents decision being self serving, rather than in the national or their local interests.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I was listening to the ABC on the way to work this morning and it was interesting to note Windsor's comments about the mining tax. He said that his support for the Gillard government was conditional on there being a review of the tax. Wayne Swan said that it was off the table. Hmmmm. The government are going to have to tread carefully here, as both Oakeshott and Windsor both said that they'll not hesitate to go with a no confidence motion if things start to fall apart.

 

[Scotty]

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.

 

[Aussie D]

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.

I think they already have by backing Labour over the coalition. Windsor doesn't seem to worry as he will retire at the next election (was apparently giving it serious contemplation this time around) which may be why Oakeshott is "asking" for advice from his 4 and 6 year old about taking up a ministry position (better parliamentary pension).

 

[Scotty]

Oakeshott's smartest move would be to ask to be nominated as speaker. Then he still be seen as an independent.

 

[cyclopath]

Oakeshott's smartest move would be to ask to be nominated as speaker. Then he still be seen as an independent.

And the bonus would be less long-winded speeches like at the press conference yesterday...FFS could he repeat himself any more times without saying anything?? Talk about milking the moment in the sun.
Tony Windsor - short, sharp answers.
Oakeshott - endless blathering.

 

[TheRiddler]

Oakeshott - endless blathering.

No truth to the rumour that his speech writer is a certain R Deans?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I've decided that I'm going to embrace the chaos that will most like ensue with our new parliament. The ALP will either make this work reasonably well or it will be a complete catastrophe. Either way, there are going to be some people on all sides whose true colours are going to be revealed and they will be held to account. Those people will have their credibility shot to bits forever. I predict the member for Lyne will be one of them.

 

[Blue]

I have huge objections to it. They are as follows:

1, Mineral resources belong to the states and thus should be their right to tax or not. The Federal government should stay out of it.
2, The mining companies already pay company taxes, like everyone else does. Why should they be singled out for extra taxation?
3, Once the federal government goes after the resources industries, what's to stop them from gouging other industries they don't like? Watch out anyone who works for a bank, you'll be next.
4, Taxes should be equitable and as broad based as possible, this tax is neither.
5, Even though the feds say they would refund state based royalties, what's to stop them from changing their minds?
6, This whole process was done without any kind of consultation beforehand. Not acceptable in my opinion. If you're going to do it, do it like the Hawke/Keating government did with the petroleum companies in the 1980's.
7, The rate and threshold of the tax coming in runs the very real risk of making our regime internationally uncompetitive. The rates are higher than many other countries who have a similar royalties setup.
8, This whole tax seems to be based on an emotional premise, rather than any kind of sound economic analysis. By that I mean, this whole business of "fair" share and the furphy of foreign ownership of mining companies. Taxation, in my humble opinion, is not to be used as the baseball bat of social engineering to penalise things that the government of the day either doesn't approve or is envious of.
9, The original construction of the 40% underwriting of non-performing projects is a form of corporate welfare, something I am vehemently against.

That's just the start of it. This and the Internet filter meant that the ALP were dead last on my ballot paper.

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."

 

[Blue]

And the bonus would be less long-winded speeches like at the press conference yesterday...FFS could he repeat himself any more times without saying anything?? Talk about milking the moment in the sun.
Tony Windsor - short, sharp answers.
Oakeshott - endless blathering.

I went from being quite impressed with the guy to considering him to be a self serving prick in two weeks flat.