Roast Australian Politics Stuffing Up Australia - Treasurer Joe Hockey Pg26

[TradeDraft]

Agree

 

[JB1975]

I am not a fan of Abbott's politics at all, but IMHO he was the wrong leader for the times. He's the kind of leader a country votes in when times are really tough economically or when a country is going to war.

Strongly disagree with this. Even John Howard, Abbott's greatest cheerleader, always expressed serious concerns about Abbott's inability or unwillingness to grasp simple economic concepts. Economics had always been out of Abbott's comfort zone, and he could never graduate above the level of shaking his fist at Labor's 'great big tax'. He's almost an economic illiterate, far from being able to actually communicate and sell complex economic reform.

And for what it's worth, these are tough economic times. So much of our wealth has been tied to the mining sector, and the possible/likely slide of the Chinese economy leaves us more exposed than most. Abbott barely comprehended the challenge, far from being able to address it.

A wartime leader? Not sure what you're after in a wartime leader, but the best model we've got is John Curtin from WWII. He has found a form of sainthood over the past few decades, but this shouldn't take away from the fact that he was still a decisive and unifying leader at a time of profound peril. Menzies had been PM when the war began, but was shunted from the stage because he wasn't up to the task, and I hardly think that Abbott would have succeeded where Menzies couldn't. Decisiveness and unity aren't watchwords for Abbott.

Abbott is not a leader for a nation. He was the leader of an opposition party who then slithered into the Lodge.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Strongly disagree with this. Even John Howard, Abbott's greatest cheerleader, always expressed serious concerns about Abbott's inability or unwillingness to grasp simple economic concepts.

Howard ... Now there's a fine example of the "wrong leader for the times". He presided over a period of strong economic prosperity and he wasted the opportunity to invest in public infrastructure.

Instead we pi**ed all that money up against the wall of the GFC ... And our country is no better for it.

Economics had always been out of Abbott's comfort zone, and he could never graduate above the level of shaking his fist at Labor's 'great big tax'. He's almost an economic illiterate, far from being able to actually communicate and sell complex economic reform.

A leader doesn't need strong economic credentials to be appropriate when economic times are tough. Take Kennett as an example - he's a marketing man, and yes he did have Stockdale to manage the purse strings - but what Kennett brought were the values, and strength of character to make the tough decisions.

And for what it's worth, these are tough economic times. So much of our wealth has been tied to the mining sector, and the possible/likely slide of the Chinese economy leaves us more exposed than most. Abbott barely comprehended the challenge, far from being able to address it.

Everything is relative I suppose.

Things certainly aren't as good as they once were ...

... By "tough economic times" I was referring to Greece, Spain, Italy, Venezuela, Ireland circa 2010, U.S. Circa 2008 - 2012 ... we are a long way from that.

No disrespect intended towards gays - but when gay marriage is the biggest item on the political agenda (rather than drought, famine, floods, mass unemployment, youth unemployment, hyper-inflation, crime, war, etc, etc) then it's a sign that the economy isn't really doing that badly. Of course that can all change.

A wartime leader? Not sure what you're after in a wartime leader,

Decisive, strength of conviction.

I know many wouldn't describe Abbott as having those traits - but look at the doggedness he went after the "Carbon Tax". Shame he didn't apply his strengths to good rather than evil

... but the best model we've got is John Curtin from WWII.

Reagan (Cold War).

Churchill did alright second time around.

Thatcher handled the Falklands conflict OK, even if it was to her own political advantage.

He has found a form of sainthood over the past few decades, but this shouldn't take away from the fact that he was still a decisive and unifying leader at a time of profound peril. Menzies had been PM when the war began, but was shunted from the stage because he wasn't up to the task, and I hardly think that Abbott would have succeeded where Menzies couldn't. Decisiveness and unity aren't watchwords for Abbott.

I think he was decisive on issues that are core to his value system.

He was just a fish out of water for the times.

He was the leader of an opposition party who then slithered into the Lodge.

Agree with that

 

[JB1975]

Howard ... Now there's a fine example of the "wrong leader for the times". He presided over a period of strong economic prosperity and he wasted the opportunity to invest in public infrastructure.

Instead we pi**ed all that money up against the wall of the GFC ... And our country is no better for it.



A leader doesn't need strong economic credentials to be appropriate when economic times are tough. Take Kennett as an example - he's a marketing man, and yes he did have Stockdale to manage the purse strings - but what Kennett brought were the values, and strength of character to make the tough decisions.



Everything is relative I suppose.

Things certainly aren't as good as they once were ...

... By "tough economic times" I was referring to Greece, Spain, Italy, Venezuela, Ireland circa 2010, U.S. Circa 2008 - 2012 ... we are a long way from that.

No disrespect intended towards gays - but when gay marriage is the biggest item on the political agenda (rather than drought, famine, floods, mass unemployment, youth unemployment, hyper-inflation, crime, war, etc, etc) then it's a sign that the economy isn't really doing that badly. Of course that can all change.



Decisive, strength of conviction.

I know many wouldn't describe Abbott as having those traits - but look at the doggedness he went after the "Carbon Tax". Shame he didn't apply his strengths to good rather than evil



Reagan (Cold War).

Churchill did alright second time around.

Thatcher handled the Falklands conflict OK, even if it was to her own political advantage.



I think he was decisive on issues that are core to his value system.

He was just a fish out of water for the times.



Agree with that

Sorry 76, we might have to agree to disagree.

You lambast Howard for squandering the wealth of the mining boom, which is fair enough, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Howard was vastly superior is his management of the economy that Abbott. He also took the GST (a reform he'd long advocated) to an election, as well as implementing most of his desired industrial relations policies. He understood the importance of economic policy, it occupied a lot of his thinking, and he was able to take these issues to the electorate in an effective way.

And even Kennett was more economically literate than Abbott could ever hope to be. He was an ideologue, a Premier who was mostly interested in economic issues for whatever political value they could give him, but he both understood and articulated his sweeping reforms.

I just don't see how Abbott, in good times or bad times or in between, could be considered the right man for the job.

I don't think that Abbott was ever that decisive a leader, and his many flips while PM (e.g. last year's budget) suggest as much. Yeah, he went after the Carbon Tax, and he doggedly pursued boatloads of asylum seekers, but it's funny how his decisiveness and doggedness were only evident for things which brought him immediate political advantage.

Reagan was not a wartime leader. To the extent that the Cold War could be considered a war, the demise of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with his outmoded brand of Cold War politics. Gorbachev and the inherent failings of the command economy in a globalising world ended the Cold War, not Reagan.

Despite the Falklands, Thatcher was hardly a wartime leader. But she was certainly an able leader, and she possessed a steel and intellect which Abbott could only dream of.

Churchill was a maestro. He had many failings (hubris being one), but he was most definitely a great wartime leader.

Which brings us back to Tony... I'm not sure on what planet anyone could think that Tony might have been an able wartime leader. His judgment in the heat of political battle has been horrendous, so why do you think his judgment would improve in a war? He has specialised in a juvenile type of divisive politics ever since he began his political career, so what makes you think that he'd be a symbol of unity during such a time of crisis?

 

[76woodenspooners]

I've re-ordered your post to suit my own political ambitions ...

Which brings us back to Tony... I'm not sure on what planet anyone could think that Tony might have been an able wartime leader. His judgment in the heat of political battle has been horrendous, so why do you think his judgment would improve in a war? He has specialised in a juvenile type of divisive politics ever since he began his political career, so what makes you think that he'd be a symbol of unity during such a time of crisis?

I guess it's a moot point which can never be resolved.

I just don't see how Abbott, in good times or bad times or in between, could be considered the right man for the job.

IMHO Abbott instituted some excellent reforms - and they were reforms that were well away from the media spotlight.

One of them was shutting down the CRC's (an insane waste of money IMO, and I say that as somebody who works in R&D) and another was slashing the crazy red tape associated with domestic companies getting medical device approvals.

You lambast Howard for squandering the wealth of the mining boom, which is fair enough, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Howard was vastly superior is his management of the economy that Abbott. He also took the GST (a reform he'd long advocated) to an election, as well as implementing most of his desired industrial relations policies.

How much of that probably would have happened anyway under a Keating government?

Perhaps I was a bit harsh saying Howard was the wrong leader for his time. Perhaps I should have said that we kept him around for one term too long.

He understood the importance of economic policy, it occupied a lot of his thinking, and he was able to take these issues to the electorate in an effective way.

He had no choice given he originally went up against Keating who lived and breathed economics.

And even Kennett was more economically literate than Abbott could ever hope to be. He was an ideologue, a Premier who was mostly interested in economic issues for whatever political value they could give him, but he both understood and articulated his sweeping reforms.

Not sure that Kennett went after economic issues for their political value - he did an awful lot of things that were unpopular at the time (eventhough they were economically sound). But he certainly could make the tough decisions more than any politician I think I've seen since.

I don't think that Abbott was ever that decisive a leader, and his many flips while PM (e.g. last year's budget) suggest as much. Yeah, he went after the Carbon Tax, and he doggedly pursued boatloads of asylum seekers, but it's funny how his decisiveness and doggedness were only evident for things which brought him immediate political advantage.

That's modern politics sadly

Reagan was not a wartime leader. To the extent that the Cold War could be considered a war, the demise of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with his outmoded brand of Cold War politics. Gorbachev and the inherent failings of the command economy in a globalising world ended the Cold War, not Reagan.

Isn't that a bit like saying that the demise of Nazi Germany had more to do with Hitler's delusions of grandeur and the decision to go into Russia, rather than anything Churchill or Rooselvelt did?

I think Reagan did contribute to the end of the Cold War in a way that a politician like Jimmy Carter wouldn't have been able to do (yes, Perestroika came in Reagan's second term, was just using Carter as an example).

Despite the Falklands, Thatcher was hardly a wartime leader. But she was certainly an able leader, and she possessed a steel and intellect which Abbott could only dream of.

Agree

Churchill was a maestro. He had many failings (hubris being one), but he was most definitely a great wartime leader.

During the Second World War, agree.

He was the bumbling buffoon who was responsible for the Galipoli shambles during the first world war. We can be thankful that he was somebody who learnt from their mistakes (leave the military planning to folks who know what they're doing)

Sorry 76, we might have to agree to disagree.

I think we agree on most things.

As I said, I think Abbott did do some good things that didn't receive any publicity for them. But I'm much happier now he's gone.

 

[JB1975]

Isn't that a bit like saying that the demise of Nazi Germany had more to do with Hitler's delusions of grandeur and the decision to go into Russia, rather than anything Churchill or Rooselvelt did?

I think Reagan did contribute to the end of the Cold War in a way that a politician like Jimmy Carter wouldn't have been able to do (yes, Perestroika came in Reagan's second term, was just using Carter as an example).

Hi again 76. I won't get to combat all of your views today, because other things are pressing but also because I'm trying to take advantage of the sun before it disappears again.

I'm curious about what you think Reagan did to win the Cold War. He increased American military spending to a level which the Soviets couldn't match, that is true, and he helped to 'bleed' the Soviets in Afghanistan, but these things weren't responsible for the end of the Cold War. He gave a few half-decent speeches, like his 'tear down this wall' jibe at the Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly ended the Cold War. Gorbachev's reforms (glasnost and perestroika) did more to undermine the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe than anything Reagan did, and the local liberal movements within the Eastern Europe (e.g. Solidarity in Poland) were also instrumental.

Beyond those factors, the integration of the global economy (and the info tech world which facilitated it) made the Soviet economy moribund, which was exacerbated by the drop in oil prices in the 1980s...which just happens to be troubling Putin's Russia at the moment as well. No Reagan to be found here. Sure, if you ask a Republican who brought the end of the Cold War, they'll trumpet Reagan. If you ask anyone who isn't interested in the legacy of a Republican president, they'll point to Eastern Europe, Gorbachev, and the systemic failure of the command economy.

I'm not sure why you're drawing a parallel between the end of World War 2 and the end of the Cold War. They are wildly different events, to say the least, but FWIW there are many different factors which brought the demise of Hitler's Germany, including the hubris of Hitler himself. If Roosevelt hadn't entered the war, then Germany would likely have won. If Germany didn't launch a campaign in the East, then it might have held its gains in the West. If Japan hadn't started the Pacific War, then Roosevelt wouldn't have been able to muster US public opinion in favour of intervention in Europe etc. In any case, the downfall of Nazism was completely different from the implosion of Communism.

 

[JB1975]

Hi again 76. I won't get to combat all of your views today, because other things are pressing but also because I'm trying to take advantage of the sun before it disappears again.

I'm curious about what you think Reagan did to win the Cold War. He increased American military spending to a level which the Soviets couldn't match, that is true, and he helped to 'bleed' the Soviets in Afghanistan, but these things weren't responsible for the end of the Cold War. He gave a few half-decent speeches, like his 'tear down this wall' jibe at the Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly ended the Cold War. Gorbachev's reforms (glasnost and perestroika) did more to undermine the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe than anything Reagan did, and the local liberal movements within the Eastern Europe (e.g. Solidarity in Poland) were also instrumental.

Beyond those factors, the integration of the global economy (and the info tech world which facilitated it) made the Soviet economy moribund, which was exacerbated by the drop in oil prices in the 1980s...which just happens to be troubling Putin's Russia at the moment as well. No Reagan to be found here. Sure, if you ask a Republican who brought the end of the Cold War, they'll trumpet Reagan. If you ask anyone who isn't interested in the legacy of a Republican president, they'll point to Eastern Europe, Gorbachev, and the systemic failure of the command economy.

I'm not sure why you're drawing a parallel between the end of World War 2 and the end of the Cold War. They are wildly different events, to say the least, but FWIW there are many different factors which brought the demise of Hitler's Germany, including the hubris of Hitler himself. If Roosevelt hadn't entered the war, then Germany would likely have won. If Germany didn't launch a campaign in the East, then it might have held its gains in the West. If Japan hadn't started the Pacific War, then Roosevelt wouldn't have been able to muster US public opinion in favour of intervention in Europe etc. In any case, the downfall of Nazism was completely different from the implosion of Communism.

I realise that my comments are stuffing up the 'Australian politics is stuffing up Australia' thread. Apologies for the derailment. Sincere apologies and I blame you, 76.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Hi again 76. I won't get to combat all of your views today, because other things are pressing but also because I'm trying to take advantage of the sun before it disappears again.

I'm curious about what you think Reagan did to win the Cold War. He increased American military spending to a level which the Soviets couldn't match, that is true, and he helped to 'bleed' the Soviets in Afghanistan, but these things weren't responsible for the end of the Cold War. He gave a few half-decent speeches, like his 'tear down this wall' jibe at the Brandenburg Gate, but this hardly ended the Cold War. Gorbachev's reforms (glasnost and perestroika) did more to undermine the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe than anything Reagan did, and the local liberal movements within the Eastern Europe (e.g. Solidarity in Poland) were also instrumental.

Beyond those factors, the integration of the global economy (and the info tech world which facilitated it) made the Soviet economy moribund, which was exacerbated by the drop in oil prices in the 1980s...which just happens to be troubling Putin's Russia at the moment as well. No Reagan to be found here. Sure, if you ask a Republican who brought the end of the Cold War, they'll trumpet Reagan. If you ask anyone who isn't interested in the legacy of a Republican president, they'll point to Eastern Europe, Gorbachev, and the systemic failure of the command economy.

Reagan's Star Wars (and other) military programs threatened to break the stalemate of Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine that global security was based on at the time. It was a ballsy move that could have backfired.

I am not a student of this stuff at all - these are just my opinions based on my own recollection of events at the time (as a teenager) and I do believe that these changed the world ... and precipitated the end of the Cold War.

I remember growing up in the seventies and learning about MAD, and about how US military installations in Australia made us a target, and how kids my age in American and Russian schools would do drills in preparation for a nuclear attack - although I never had to do such drills myself. There was talk about WW3, and speculation about what might trigger it.

Reagan's Star Wars program signalled an end to all of that ... even if it never made it to fruition.

I'm not sure why you're drawing a parallel between the end of World War 2 and the end of the Cold War.

It was intended as an analogy, not a parallel.

They are wildly different events, to say the least, but FWIW there are many different factors which brought the demise of Hitler's Germany, including the hubris of Hitler himself. If Roosevelt hadn't entered the war, then Germany would likely have won. If Germany didn't launch a campaign in the East, then it might have held its gains in the West. If Japan hadn't started the Pacific War, then Roosevelt wouldn't have been able to muster US public opinion in favour of intervention in Europe etc. In any case, the downfall of Nazism was completely different from the implosion of Communism.

Agree

 

[DaicosianMarvels]

I was a Tony man but he wasn't overly popular with the public and for the better of the party the leader had to change.

I think we will win the next elections and keep the filthy ALP out.

 

[JB1975]

Reagan's Star Wars (and other) military programs threatened to break the stalemate of Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine that global security was based on at the time. It was a ballsy move that could have backfired.

I am not a student of this stuff at all - these are just my opinions based on my own recollection of events at the time (as a teenager) and I do believe that these changed the world ... and precipitated the end of the Cold War.

I remember growing up in the seventies and learning about MAD, and about how US military installations in Australia made us a target, and how kids my age in American and Russian schools would do drills in preparation for a nuclear attack - although I never had to do such drills myself. There was talk about WW3, and speculation about what might trigger it.

Reagan's Star Wars program signalled an end to all of that ... even if it never made it to fruition.

Mutually Assured Destruction wasn't a 'stalemate', it was a doctrine which emerged from the simple fact that neither superpower could attack the other without suffering massive retaliation. As perverse as it seems, MAD provided a basic global stability to international politics, a stability which was only undermined by the demise of the Soviet Union itself.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA the 'Star Wars' program) played no part in the demise of the Soviet Union. It remains one of the most far-fetched and extravagant wastes of public monies in the history of US defence spending, based on a technology which didn't exist in the 1980s and still doesn't exist 30 years later. It only helped to increase US government debt (at a time when Reagan's economic reforms were tearing the heart out of many US communities), and it lined the pockets of a number of corporations attached to the military-industrial complex. This is hardly conspiratorial stuff; it's all on the public record as a shameless testament to Reagan's stupidity and the Pentagon's (or 'Rentagon's) greed. In short, it didn't work.

Some people used to try and argue that just the threat of a magical laser defence system freaked out the Soviets so much that they increased their military expenditure and went broke. It was always a warped argument, and the opening of the Soviet archives post-1991 has shown clearly enough that Soviet military spending didn't increase at all throughout the 1980s. It all comes back to the nature of the Soviet economy itself, which was hopelessly defunct, and the reforms of Gorbachev which took on a life of their own. What it came down to is the fact that the Soviets chose to end the Soviet Union, a path that the Chinese have steadfastly refused to go down by implementing market reforms in their own authoritarian way.

 

[JB1975]

I was a Tony man but he wasn't overly popular with the public and for the better of the party the leader had to change.

I think we will win the next elections and keep the filthy ALP out.

Your insight into the situation is about as sophisticated as Tone's, which might explain your affinity I suppose. But don't get me wrong, I'll also miss him for the laughs.

Me, I couldn't care less about whether a change of leader is good for this party or bad for that one. I'm kind of after a government which is better for the country. That should be the bigger consideration here, don't you think?

 

[BringouttheGimp]

i vote 1 COLIN CARPENTER as our next PM

 

[TradeDraft]

I was a Tony man but he wasn't overly popular with the public and for the better of the party the leader had to change.

I think we will win the next elections and keep the filthy ALP out.

Why you hate Labor?

So the Poor keep get Shitted on

 

[TradeDraft]

In a statement referencing comments by Attorney-General George Brandis that Australia is the “worst nation for piracy on the planet”, Rightscorp confirmed that the patent is the first registered to the company in Australia.

God I hate Brandis. He is so Corrupt that it's not Funny

https://torrentfreak.com/rightscorp-granted-australian-patent-to-chase-pirates-151008/

 

[Schraderbrau]

Strongly disagree with this. Even John Howard, Abbott's greatest cheerleader, always expressed serious concerns about Abbott's inability or unwillingness to grasp simple economic concepts. Economics had always been out of Abbott's comfort zone, and he could never graduate above the level of shaking his fist at Labor's 'great big tax'. He's almost an economic illiterate, far from being able to actually communicate and sell complex economic reform.

Kind of ironic given how much s**t he and his supporters shoveled on Gough for not knowing anything about economics.

Also Abbott is exactly the leader you don't want to have in times of war or crisis. Just like the economy, the argument that the LNP are better on national security is a myth. The biggest economic achievements this country has made in the last have century have both been under labor governments - the Hawke/Keating reforms and the Rudd government keeping us out of the GFC. As for national security, I'd prefer it if our PM's would stop getting into ill-advised and illegal wars.

 

[Schraderbrau]

I think Reagan did contribute to the end of the Cold War in a way that a politician like Jimmy Carter wouldn't have been able to do (yes, Perestroika came in Reagan's second term, was just using Carter as an example).

The biggest contributor to the end of the Cold War was gorbachev and it's not close imo.It's funny how people are remembered when they are on the losing side of history.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Your insight into the situation is about as sophisticated as Tone's, which might explain your affinity I suppose. But don't get me wrong, I'll also miss him for the laughs.

Me, I couldn't care less about whether a change of leader is good for this party or bad for that one. I'm kind of after a government which is better for the country. That should be the bigger consideration here, don't you think?

I think a change of leader is really important for the nation though. Whilst in opposition both sides of politics have basically conducted a scorched earth strategy. For example they oppose everything (except things they are really vulnerable on (i.e. ALP and asylum seeker policy), target one or two of the government's policies that are vulnerable with slogans and fear (i.e. 100k degrees, or the great big tax on everything) and don't release their own policies until really late in the campaign so they can't be effectively scrutinized.

I'm a Turnbull fan, he's probably a narcissist but it's good to actually have someone who won't treat being PM as an ends in itself. At worst he acts as a circuit breaker to the malaise that the political system has fallen into over the last 3 terms by forcing Shorten to come out of his hole and actually win rather than getting in by default.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Politics?

I wonder if people who "barrack" for one side or the other ever realise that all their arguments always tend to throw to their side's view point. They can sound like sheep following their flock.
For them its just barracking for their political team.

All the good and all the bad doesnt reside in one side or the other. Good people on both sides of the divide, equally bad people on both sides.
Just saying

 

[TradeDraft]

Great to see Turnball is looking after the Rich and Screwing the Poor. By Jacking up the GST to 15%

He is no better/Different then Abbott

 

[Bard]

Great to see Turnball is looking after the Rich and Screwing the Poor. By Jacking up the GST to 15%

He is no better/Different then Abbott

He's certainly different, but he's no better (in terms of policies) I agree. He DOES have a better public image though which is really all they care about these days.

Increasing the GST is not the worst thing to do, but for it to be the primary focus in trying to generate more money for the government is more than a bit disappointing. Particularly because it's money the government seems intent on using to dry up our civil liberties.

Hopefully one day the government will understand the fundamental point of money is not for it to be accumulated into a huge lump but to be traded to improve the livability people. In fact a lot of people would be better off if they understood this. Not spending money you have is basically the greatest sin there is because you're adversely affecting everyone else on the planet.

 

[BlackWhiteBlood]

Great to see Turnball is looking after the Rich and Screwing the Poor. By Jacking up the GST to 15%

He is no better/Different then Abbott

This will also see a drop in income tax, especially for those in lower brackets. So the poorer should save money overall. I do not agree however with fresh fruit and veg being subject to the tax.

It should be noted that the entire tax system is under review, something that should occur every 10 years or so anyway. So an increase in the amount or items being taxed is a sure thing

Increasing the GST is not the worst thing to do, but for it to be the primary focus in trying to generate more money for the government is more than a bit disappointing.

Hopefully one day the government will understand the fundamental point of money is not for it to be accumulated into a huge lump but to be traded to improve the livability people

this is what the govt. is trying to do. Healthcare which is largely free in this country is getting more and more expensive especially with the aging population, add to his this the old age pension and all the other various handouts the govt. give and it gets expensive.

 

[Bard]

This will also see a drop in income tax, especially for those in lower brackets. So the poorer should save money overall. I do not agree however with fresh fruit and veg being subject to the tax.

It should be noted that the entire tax system is under review, something that should occur every 10 years or so anyway. So an increase in the amount or items being taxed is a sure thing


this is what the govt. is trying to do. Healthcare which is largely free in this country is getting more and more expensive especially with the aging population, add to his this the old age pension and all the other various handouts the govt. give and it gets expensive.

For sure it'll go some of the way, and I'm not against taxes, I just feel increasing the GST should be 2nd or 3rd down the list not the first thing they turn to.

 

[BlackWhiteBlood]

For sure it'll go some of the way, and I'm not against taxes, I just feel increasing the GST should be 2nd or 3rd down the list not the first thing they turn to.

fully agree. unfortunately most changes only save small amounts of money. Personally I would prefer to see a decrease in govt. handouts. Don't get me wrong I have no issue with helping those who can't help themselves. But if you are physically able to work you should. If you have a form of mental illness there are still plenty of jobs out there that you can do. Even if you only work 10hrs a week and then get govt, top up.

My main angst is aimed at those aged under 50 who chose not to or are to lazy to work and would rather the tax payer pay for them to sit at home play video games, drink and smoke. Cut of there payments and I'm sure it would save millions of dollars.

 

[Old Spice]

For sure it'll go some of the way, and I'm not against taxes, I just feel increasing the GST should be 2nd or 3rd down the list not the first thing they turn to.

Absolutely. The GST is a flat, and therefore regressive, tax on consumption where the poorest pays the same tax on weeties as some squillionaire. That so many multinationals pay NO tax, and our PM squirrels his money away in the Cayman Islands so he shirks his tax responsibilities is a disgrace.

 

[Old Spice]

Reagan (Cold War).

Churchill did alright second time around.

Thatcher handled the Falklands conflict OK, even if it was to her own political advantage.

I'm no Tory (which will be no surprise to many here) but Churchill is owed an enormous debt of historical gratitude for his fortitude against the Nazis when the rest of Europe collapsed into a hopeless morass. It helped to be over the English Channel but that didn't stop Chamberlain from being a hopeless historical figure, unfit for the task. Mind you, Churchill had been practicing at sabre rattling for a while with a few disastrous campaigns during WWI, so he should have been prepared after a few decades. Bracketing that, he was certainly a leader. His style of oration was right on the money.

Thatcher, on the other hand, is not worth a pinch of s**t for using the Fawklands 'War' to pump up her political tyres. The idea that Argentina was any sort of threat to Britain is one of the most ludicrously cynical political tricks to be pulled off in the modern political age.

Reagan. He wasn't a wartime leader so much as a warmonger. Itching for a conflagration with the Soviet Union. Some scholars suggest the ratcheting up - especially with the dangerous Star Wars Program which threatened to kill of nuclear detente and blow everyone to kingdom come - of military spending killed off the USSR. But at that point, Gorbachev was already moving to a mixed economy as had China. I think it was high risk, low reward. Russia post Communism was briefly an ally in the Gulf War of 1990 under the drunkard Yeltsin, but has now returned to the status of vilified nation. I think Reagan was a poor leader in regard to military issues and everything else for that matter.

If you want a decent conservative American leader during the Cold War I'd be looking at Eisenhower.