Julia's Reign

[cyclopath]

No worries mate, we'll sort out the terminology over a beer.

Now - to the budget. My first reaction is WOW! Brave, visionary, Keating-era budget. I'll listen to the sensible analysis but at first glance it looks like Swanny's got vision even if Julia doesn't.

Saving looking until tomorrow. Can't face it tonight.
I'm sure I'll be a fair bit poorer ( don't cry for me Scarfy, I'll survive! ) - if they spend it wisely, that's OK.

 

[Sully]

I'm with Cyclo. I'll look tomorrow.

 

[Gnostic]

Hmmm, a few different taxonomies in play there, cyclo. My "stupid" and your "low socio-economic" and "less educated."

I genuinely prefer the term "stupid" as getting at what I mean. For example, I know some low-education, low-SES people of whom I could say "he's not stupid." And plenty of high-education, high-SES people I think of as completely hairbrained.

But I do define intelligence according to criteria that suit me: the ability to think clearly, weigh up facts and opinion, crunch some data, work through the logic, and above all else, the ability to see the world from broader and plural perspectives. I also put too high a value on written expression. When someone's rant is grammatically correct, I automatically give it a lot more credibility.

With all due respect, the problem with your approach is that the answer is the perennial "education." This is what Marx reckoned: the proletariat needs consciousness raising, and I've never agreed with it. For me, that is condescending. If people were more educated, they wouldn't make short-term, selfish, contradictory decisions? I dunno, they might. I'd prefer to give credit to people for their narrow-minded viewpoints and play them with the full face of the bat.

Howard and Hawwke both appealed to values such as mateship, Australian-ness, the family, and so on to win over lower-middle Australia's trust. Howard, much less admirably, also used fear, resentment and xenophobia to wedge himself into the low-SES demographic. How would you describe those Western Sydney people who were won over by Howard's culture wars? Less educated? Low-SES? I think they would be much better defined by lack of wisdom, sensitivity and empathy.

I find the original statement offensive given my background/heritage. Two degrees and another half done I no longer fall into the category but I remember the disdain I got from those who came from good school when I started my first degree. I also remember how naive those same people were. They preached about social injustice without any first hand experience or even speaking with those effected and deemed any who opposed their views as being stupid, or aflicted by an 'ism' of some definition. Funny how these self opinionated so widely experienced individuals (sarcasm doesnt convey easily on the web) mostly studied law or Arts and joined youth branches of the major parties. They have now graduated to rule and still have no conception about the lives of those they will enact laws over.
Hawke was liked because people could genuinely relate to him given his family issues and his passion for Oz. Howard was elected because of Labour excesses and politics same as now but mainly because he wasnt Keating.

I think those in the minority camp you dont describe in your closing paragraph like to categorise themselves as wise and empathetic, I just find such attitudes arrogant and condescending dismissing the life experience of a large portion of the community and hence they are seen as out of touch, are dismissed and in the end viewed with contempt. Such a path ends with the irrelevance of the judiciary and politics to the majority of the community.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Some reviews of the budget. http://theconversation.edu.au/federal-budget-2012-expert-reaction-6914

 

[rugbyskier]

Saving looking until tomorrow. Can't face it tonight.
I'm sure I'll be a fair bit poorer ( don't cry for me Scarfy, I'll survive! ) - if they spend it wisely, that's OK.

And there lies the problem.

 

[barbarian]

Now - to the budget. My first reaction is WOW! Brave, visionary, Keating-era budget. I'll listen to the sensible analysis but at first glance it looks like Swanny's got vision even if Julia doesn't.

From doing a bit of reading this morning I struggle to see how this budget is either brave or visionary.

Sure it's OK, but there is nothing radically out of the ordinary about it. Standard hand-outs to 'struggling families', with the standard financial boot stuck into the rich. At least it's good to see Labor going back to their ideological roots.
.

 

[fatprop]

So they collect a load of extra Mining tax and return it as bribes.

Couldn't they just lower the tax rates a few dollars a week? ................... Oh yeah, that wouldn't get the targeted voters a cheque with Gillard's face on it.

 

[fatprop]

No worries mate, we'll sort out the terminology over a beer.

Now - to the budget. My first reaction is WOW! Brave, visionary, Keating-era budget. I'll listen to the sensible analysis but at first glance it looks like Swanny's got vision even if Julia doesn't.

If the vision is to increase taxation and increase middle class welfare.

The approach, started by Howard, appears to be work out how much they can collect and then work out what to spend it on, with a few targeted bribes to improve voting.

 

[mark_s]

So they collect a load of extra Mining tax and return it as bribes.

Couldn't they just lower the tax rates a few dollars a week? ................... Oh yeah, that wouldn't get the targeted voters a cheque with Gillard's face on it.

Yeah but Labour has to secure its core voters, win back some who have drifted to the greens and win some of "the aspirational middle class". I would call it a clever budget in that light.

As a side point, I see they managed to hit smokers up again (And no I'm not a smoker but am almost starting to feel sorry for them).

Scarfman, am interested in knowing how I would identify a sensible budget analysis.

 

[mark_s]

I'm sure I'll be a fair bit poorer ( don't cry for me Scarfy, I'll survive! )

Everyone benefits from the end of the flood levy from 1 july this year.

 

[Scarfman]

So they collect a load of extra Mining tax and return it as bribes.

Well, all government budgets redistribute money. If they didn't collect tax and spend it, they wouldn't be governing.

Couldn't they just lower the tax rates a few dollars a week? ................... Oh yeah, that wouldn't get the targeted voters a cheque with Gillard's face on it.

They did expand the zero tax bracket significantly: one of the biggest shifts in ages, I would have thought.

 

[Scarfman]

I find the original statement offensive given my background/heritage. Two degrees and another half done I no longer fall into the category but I remember the disdain I got from those who came from good school when I started my first degree. I also remember how naive those same people were. They preached about social injustice without any first hand experience or even speaking with those effected and deemed any who opposed their views as being stupid, or aflicted by an 'ism' of some definition. Funny how these self opinionated so widely experienced individuals (sarcasm doesnt convey easily on the web) mostly studied law or Arts and joined youth branches of the major parties. They have now graduated to rule and still have no conception about the lives of those they will enact laws over.
Hawke was liked because people could genuinely relate to him given his family issues and his passion for Oz. Howard was elected because of Labour excesses and politics same as now but mainly because he wasnt Keating.

I think those in the minority camp you dont describe in your closing paragraph like to categorise themselves as wise and empathetic, I just find such attitudes arrogant and condescending dismissing the life experience of a large portion of the community and hence they are seen as out of touch, are dismissed and in the end viewed with contempt. Such a path ends with the irrelevance of the judiciary and politics to the majority of the community.

A few different points in there. I don't know you personally Gnostic, but if you have a sticker on your car that says "Australia: love it or leave it" then in my book you are pretty "stupid". I use the term stupid because it works better for me than "low SES" (which is completely inaccurate) or "undereducated", which I find the most patronising of all. Of course, there's a close connection between what I call "stupid" and what cyclopath calls "undereducated." However, I baulk at the assumption among many educated lefties that if the lower classes got some education they'd soon see that their opinions are poorly formed and driven by emotional appeals to nation or fear. I give the undereducated more credit than that for being able to analyse themselves and their priorities, and to form an opinion. And if that opinion is xenophobic, irrational, and selfish, then I'm going to call it that.

As far as disdain from those from good schools - that has nothing to do with me. I come from a working class background and was among the poorest at my selective state school. I would never condescend to someone who is either working class or poor (or a woman, or a migrant, or disabled, etc).

Your ivory tower argument doesn't hold water. I live in the community, take my kids to soccer, help out at the local school AND I read a lot of books. I fail to see how someone who watches X-Factor instead of reading Foucault is in a better position to understand humanity. As far as the irrelevance of politics goes - both major parties regularly wet their pants to win the middle Australia vote. My set of political opinions are far enough from centre that no-one gives a shit what I think. Australia is a powerfully anti-intellectual country, which some of your comments reflect.

I'll sum up my position in a way that might draw all of this together. I don't want to dismiss the opinions and life histories of ordinary Australians. But I do have grave concerns for a populist democracy in which important, difficult, nation-building decisions are essentially being made by people who have no expertise or even a willingness to be thoughtful or to grapple with complexity.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So they collect a load of extra Mining tax and return it as bribes.

Couldn't they just lower the tax rates a few dollars a week? ................... Oh yeah, that wouldn't get the targeted voters a cheque with Gillard's face on it.

Before you get too carried away: how much do they actually expect to raise from the mining tax?
Here it is: $5.6b - how many billion was it announced at $11b?

"Iron ore and coal companies aren’t expecting to pay any MRRT, so the $3.5 billion budgeted from that in 2012-13 looks dodgy, and the rest of the increase depends on economic growth of 3.25 per cent and on the companies that are due to pay the carbon tax continuing to spew out greenhouse gases at the same rate, rather than doing something about it to avoid tax."​

Carbon tax $4b.
Company tax take up 9%, income tax takeup 8%: sweet as - that's only triple the rate of inflation at the moment. They've been doing such a wonderful job it is only appropriate that they have more money to play with.

Business spectator:​

"This is, at its core, a big taxing, big spending budget, including a big increase in welfare. It is the budget of an unpopular government approaching an election, not one that’s tightening the belt."​

​

So they even lie about how tough the budget's going to be.​

​

Spending increases by $200m:​

In total, welfare payments, including the school kids bonus and the extra family welfare, go up by $4.8 billion.​

​

​

oh yeah - this is Tahs tough​

 

[fatprop]

Howard was elected because of Labour excesses and politics same as now but mainly because he wasnt Keating.

Same reason Abbott will get the gong

 

[Bowside]

Is the 1 percent reduction in the company rate just being postponed for a year or is it totally off the cards?

 

[Scotty]

The art of being PM in this country is being able to sell policies to stupid people. Hawke and Howard had it, and no-one else in my lifetime.

Problem is that Gillard/Rudd can't sell to smart or dumb people. If you are smart you want to hear the independant assessment or study behind the policy. We have often heard policies announced before the assessment has taken place, or in some cases policies that go against the independent advice (eg super increase with Henry review recommending against it).

Smart people want money to be spent fairly. They don't want to see a policy grow from $4.7B to $36B overnight (NBN) with no significant benefits. Smart is about getting value for our taxpayer dollars, not going on a tax and spend spree.

 

[Scotty]

Hmmm, a few different taxonomies in play there, cyclo. My "stupid" and your "low socio-economic" and "less educated."

I genuinely prefer the term "stupid" as getting at what I mean. For example, I know some low-education, low-SES people of whom I could say "he's not stupid." And plenty of high-education, high-SES people I think of as completely hairbrained.

But I do define intelligence according to criteria that suit me: the ability to think clearly, weigh up facts and opinion, crunch some data, work through the logic, and above all else, the ability to see the world from broader and plural perspectives. I also put too high a value on written expression. When someone's rant is grammatically correct, I automatically give it a lot more credibility.

With all due respect, the problem with your approach is that the answer is the perennial "education." This is what Marx reckoned: the proletariat needs consciousness raising, and I've never agreed with it. For me, that is condescending. If people were more educated, they wouldn't make short-term, selfish, contradictory decisions? I dunno, they might. I'd prefer to give credit to people for their narrow-minded viewpoints and play them with the full face of the bat.

Howard and Hawwke both appealed to values such as mateship, Australian-ness, the family, and so on to win over lower-middle Australia's trust. Howard, much less admirably, also used fear, resentment and xenophobia to wedge himself into the low-SES demographic. How would you describe those Western Sydney people who were won over by Howard's culture wars? Less educated? Low-SES? I think they would be much better defined by lack of wisdom, sensitivity and empathy.

To be completely honest, sometimes I feel that both you and Cutter define intelligence as people who agree with you.

If you are intelligent, and they don't agree with you, then how can they be intelligent too?

 

[cyclopath]

A few different points in there. I don't know you personally Gnostic, but if you have a sticker on your car that says "Australia: love it or leave it" then in my book you are pretty "stupid". I use the term stupid because it works better for me than "low SES" (which is completely inaccurate) or "undereducated", which I find the most patronising of all. Of course, there's a close connection between what I call "stupid" and what cyclopath calls "undereducated." .

I don't think I used the term "undereducated" at all. I used the term "less educated" as a quantitative term, i.e. having completed fewer levels of education, as in may have left at yr 10, or did no tertiary education etc...
I was not using it as a judgement beyond that. I don't feel my intent was patronising at all. I can't see how applying a quantitative measure is more patronising than a judgmental word like stupid.
I think SES is relevant, as the target group for a lot of this stuff is defined by that, why else would many things be means tested? And basing a lot of what I said on the areas in which I practise reflects that those areas, by any governmental measure, would be classified as lower SES areas. Of course it is a generalisation, it is impossible to look at groups without that occurring.

 

[Bowside]

Problem is that Gillard/Rudd can't sell to smart or dumb people. If you are smart you want to hear the independant assessment or study behind the policy. We have often heard policies announced before the assessment has taken place, or in some cases policies that go against the independent advice (eg super increase with Henry review recommending against it).

Nail on the head. I think this part of your post sums up pretty much sums up a lot of what labor has done wrong.

The policy is not well explained at all, and they make no attempt to explain it well either. In some cases it is smart policy which they have dumbed down under pressure as a way of patching up the poor job they did of originally explaining it - and in the process of doing so turned it into medioca policy. In other cases they were presented with good policy ideas and then dumped them because they didnt have the gaul to go through with it.

Smart people want money to be spent fairly. They don't want to see a policy grow from $4.7B to $36B overnight (NBN) with no significant benefits. Smart is about getting value for our taxpayer dollars, not going on a tax and spend spree

I think that the increase spending in health, education and infrustrucre was needed and was inevitable - the way they have gone about it has raised a few eyebrows (mine included) but at the end of the day, moving forward I think it will give australia somewhat of a competitave advantage.

Costello is touted by many to be a great economic manager because he bought the budget back to surplus. But surplus is useless if you are neglecticly necissary spending.

 

[Scarfman]

A quick point for cyclo: you are arguing for my point, I think. You say that low SES are frequently not stupid. That's MY point. That's why I use a personal characteristic rather than a economic measure. My problem - and this may or may not apply to you - is with middle class people of the left, who believe that with more education, the scales would fall from working-class conservatives' eyes. My belief is that people ought to be held accountable for their politics, and not have it wished away in "education". Marx believed that the working class needed to attain "class-consiousness." In last week's paper, Mark Latham wrote that that Western Sydney people need to be educated to want something other than consumer goods. I am deeply uncomfortable with this view, and it seems to me - quite genuinely - as being extremely condescending.

I don't want to spam this thread, so I'll make one last effort to explain myself.

Let's take an issue like "stop the boats" or the campaign against gay marriage. These are classic wedge politics tactics, designed to exploit working-class conservative fears, and to produce a government which favours the rich. In America, issues such as abortion and gun rights are used as weapons of wedge politics in the same way that xenophobia and homophobia are used in Australia. These campaigns are driven by shock-jocks and corporate tabloids, generally owned by the same small group of rich white men, who probably despise the people they are making their fortunes from.

How do you describe someone who is inspired by the politics of fear and resentment? If you find "stupid" offensive then I challenge you to describe this group more affectionately or empathetically.

Finally - Scotty, I disagree that I define stupid as people those who disagree with me. If you and I ran Australia together, I would be perfectly happy to shake hands and hand over control of policy-making to experts and to leave politics out of it. As recently as the Hawke era, the intellectual class (academics, judiciary, civil servants from sandstone universities) would write a White Paper policy, which was generally adopted by the government, and sold to the Australian people. The Australian people then got to have their say every 3 years about whether the country was being generally well governed. Today, however, a combination of the communications revolution and global (media) corporatism mean that there is no longer any ground for independent, informed debate. The feedback loop from the people to the government is instantaneous. The public space has been "democratised" in the same way that entertainment has been democratised by reality tv and talent contests.

In summary, in my lifetime we have shifted from a liberal democracy to a populist democracy. Do I think "stupid" people should get a vote? Of course! Every citizen is an essential part of the system of checks and balances on executive power. But, should their ordinary fears and prejudices, fueled by corporate media, form policy on a daily basis? Absolutely not.