They’ve always been there.
The issue that most had was the timing and high prioritising of it. “Its nice and all Albo but while you’re sitting there in your yes T Shirt I’ve just gotten a notice to vacate because I have to choose between rent and food”
In addition to how horrificly poor Albo sold it of course.
nationalise all mining
As in USA, I think we are going through an ant-woke era. There are the marginalised in society ( undereducated , low skilled, low wage) enduring a cost of living crisis. They are being cynically exploited by politicians and the media, the Uber rich in bed with them , to blame it on foreigners and newer migrants, too much taxpayers money spent on LBQTI etc, conspiracy theories and book banning trending. Climate Change is no longer a priority.
Yep racists always have an excuse.
Not going to bite on that assumption I’m racist but isn’t that the absolute kind of thinking that also lead to the voices defeat.
Come election time the opposition are absolutely going to use the Voice as one of Albos failures. It was a catastrophic failure for Albo and his goverment
As an interesting thought experiment re philosophies of government, consider this hypothetical.
After three terms of unstable Labor party rule, marred with multiple leadership spills, rampant corruption and incompetence, and (i still can’t believe having to type this) multiple rape and abuse scandals, an election comes along and the coalition win in a canter.
Labor are decimated in their historic strongholds, they lose multiple mps who’d been touted as future leaders or ministers. The coalition holds a majority in their own right in the lower house , and have a rightwing minor party plus one right-wing independent holding the balance of power in the senate who are slavering to pass right-wing legislation and reshape the country dramatically.
Does anyone seriously expect that in this scenario, our hypothetical coalition government would behave timidly? Would keep the existing climate, defence, welfare etc policies of their predecessor, tinker around the edges of tax and education, and have their only real decisive move be chucking all the partisan time servers out of the AAT? Would this coalition govt be quivering in fear and desperately trying to appease the Guardian opinion writers?
Hell no, they’d have turned the country upside down, trumpeting their massive mandate and the complete repudiation of their opponents at every turn.
All governments lose eventually. All you can do is try to create a lasting legacy while you’re there, something that changes the country so much and do fundamentally, that after you, even the people who hate you don’t dare roll it back. Albanese wants to be PM more than he wants to leave a legacy. So in the end, he’ll have neither.
Feel free to find concerned.
Imagine how much better off the country would be if the Whitlam govt had been able to do that. We would have a sovereign wealth fund better than Norway’s. Instead they were overthrown [probably by CIA and the Poms - who fought bitterly to the High Court to keep the information away from the Australian public]. And since then we have essentially given everything away to billionaires and foreign interests.
I agree tax reform is the biggest opportunity but it’s seen as a hard sell and any oppo would run a scare campaign so it’s highly risky politically and I think that’s why they don’t go there.
I think the biggest criticism regarding migration levels is for whatever reason the intake isn’t coming down fast enough. The will and policy might be there but it’s not working fast enough to reduce demand on housing and help balance pricing and rents. It’s difficult to assess a Dutton plan as he is in opposition and can’t implement a plan which by comparison is for more aggressive cuts to migration. That’s why the judgement of Dutton ultimately will be his ability to sell 3-4 big ideas effectively with a superior policy platform. And hope that rates aren’t falling at election time, although it might not matter as we’ve seen in the US where the incumbent was booted despite rates cuts.
By more divided now I mean the impact of Oct 7th and how the subsequent protests and anti Jew sentiment has been mishandled (imo).
….And his minister for Indigenous affairs, Burney.
My criticism of the migration debate is that it doesn’t address the extent to which it is causing problems in the economy ( for instance any contribution to the housing crisis, if so what cuts are needed and in which sectors).
There’s an assumption , absent the citing of any evidence, that it’s the cause of the housing crisis , adverse to cost of living.
From what I’ve read, Treasury is working on a target for total migration, but there hasn’t been any communication to non-economists like me why and how the figure was set, let alone what it might cure over a period of time.
Our current birth rate and longer life expectancy would seem to require a level of migration to sustain our society.
I just hope we don’t snap back too hard on migration
It was pretty manageable pre covid and felt about right
I don’t think there’s a dramatic increase if at all if you smooth the numbers over the Covid years, it’s just that we had a huge surge in post border opening migration
It would be a classic Australian government move to completely overreact to that explainable surge with a bunch of dumb overreach
What did Burney do wrong ?
And you blame Albo for that as well ?
"*The GGS achieved an operating cash surplus this year, but it incurred another accrual operating loss, bringing accumulated losses over the last 5 years to $48 billion. It also reported a fiscal cash deficit as it has for the last 8 years. *
*Ongoing operating losses and fiscal cash deficits are indicators of structural issues with underlying revenue and expenditure policy settings that create risks to financial sustainability. *
The government has announced further planned savings of $4.9 billion over the next 4 years to manage costs. Achieving these savings and maintaining current service levels will be a challenge given the current financial pressures and several emerging financial risks.
The GGS’s gross debt rose again this year at a pace faster than revenue and economic growth. The government’s present strategy is to manage debt levels relative to the state’s economy. In this regard, the government has committed to start reducing net debt to GSP in 2027–28.
Sound financial management underpins fiscal sustainability. A clear and well defined longer term financial plan is an important part of this. Developing this longer-term plan will provide a clear framework against which government decision-making can be anchored. "
To my reading, they’re concerned at 8 years of losses and forecasts of more to come, plus a vulnerability to changing economic landscapes. I’m not an accountant though.
It’s not a concern.
Ok. I’ll take your word for it. What is it?
