2022 Federal Election Watch - Part 2 the count

Remove this Banner Ad

Carn The Berries

Club Legend
Sep 16, 2008
1,092
999
Perth
AFL Club
Melbourne
Not sure you read my post clearly! It has been one month, they are going through the rubbery figures left by LNP, budget is due in October.

How about you wait and then tell me about the last 9 years?
There was enough money available to promise further subsidised childcare, fee-free TAFE and all of their other election policies without the need to wait for the budget. Cost of living pressures are apparently so severe that a wage increase at or above CPI was absolutely necessary immediately to stop workers going backwards, but welfare recipients have to wait it out until the ALP can figure out if there is enough money? It's blatant hypocrisy that many people seem willing to ignore for, reasons.

The Government have no issue supporting a change where employers have to stump up the additional cash immediately but won't commit to the same thing themselves. That doesn't need more than a month to commit to (if you're actually serious about it).

Personally, I think the wage rise was over the top and that the government could have said they support workers getting a significant increase without making reference to the actual rate (or whether it needed to keep pace with/exceed inflation). But Albanese wanted to look like the knight in shining armour for low paid workers. That's all well and good, but you then look like a hypocrite when you won't go in to bat just as hard for people who don't even have a job.
 

Vindicater

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 16, 2013
10,258
12,944
AFL Club
Essendon
I'm just trying to get my head around the hypocrisy. Based on the ALP's actions people who are in stable work deserve more support than those out of work to deal with rising inflation.

Where is the outcry about this?

They are the party of the working class, not the unemployed.

And yes that's *ed.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Maggie5

Moderator
Apr 3, 2010
46,956
54,254
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
There was enough money available to promise further subsidised childcare, fee-free TAFE and all of their other election policies without the need to wait for the budget. Cost of living pressures are apparently so severe that a wage increase at or above CPI was absolutely necessary immediately to stop workers going backwards, but welfare recipients have to wait it out until the ALP can figure out if there is enough money? It's blatant hypocrisy that many people seem willing to ignore for, reasons.

The Government have no issue supporting a change where employers have to stump up the additional cash immediately but won't commit to the same thing themselves. That doesn't need more than a month to commit to (if you're actually serious about it).

Personally, I think the wage rise was over the top and that the government could have said they support workers getting a significant increase without making reference to the actual rate (or whether it needed to keep pace with/exceed inflation). But Albanese wanted to look like the knight in shining armour for low paid workers. That's all well and good, but you then look like a hypocrite when you won't go in to bat just as hard for people who don't even have a job.
Not sure how old you are but I never take all the promises made during elections as gospel especially coming in after a spendthrift government that didn't achieve anything but a lot of public money waste and left a big mess. Surely you have experienced a situation where some promises have been delayed.

Not sure what you expect after only a month in office.

You must be on a good wicket if you think the wage increase was over the top. Wages have been supressed for years under Morrison, I have never begrudged low wage earners an increase. Then on the other hand you post about the unemployed?
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
112,412
94,390
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
Albanese wanted to look like the knight in shining armour for low paid workers. That's all well and good, but you then look like a hypocrite when you won't go in to bat just as hard for people who don't even have a job.
It's the "Labor" party. Not the "Unimploied" party.
 

Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 1, 2006
6,180
9,790
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
There was enough money available to promise further subsidised childcare, fee-free TAFE and all of their other election policies without the need to wait for the budget. Cost of living pressures are apparently so severe that a wage increase at or above CPI was absolutely necessary immediately to stop workers going backwards, but welfare recipients have to wait it out until the ALP can figure out if there is enough money? It's blatant hypocrisy that many people seem willing to ignore for, reasons.

The Government have no issue supporting a change where employers have to stump up the additional cash immediately but won't commit to the same thing themselves. That doesn't need more than a month to commit to (if you're actually serious about it).

Personally, I think the wage rise was over the top and that the government could have said they support workers getting a significant increase without making reference to the actual rate (or whether it needed to keep pace with/exceed inflation). But Albanese wanted to look like the knight in shining armour for low paid workers. That's all well and good, but you then look like a hypocrite when you won't go in to bat just as hard for people who don't even have a job.
You've also got to work out who receives it and in what way.

it might be a temporary payment now to allow for short-term inflation (i.e. power bills etc), but not a permanent lift.

Morrison added a bunch of other payments to "welfare" so that will all have to be untangled too, so not too much money goes to the millionaires who also manage to claim a pension thanks to fancy tax arrangements.

If they turned up and just gave every welfare recipient an extra 5% in welfare it wouldn't show them actually doing their job of working out who needs what and how best to give it to them.

Blanket largesse is LNP-style money management for the upper class (i.e. JobKeeper for Gerry Harvey)
 

Johnny Bananas

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
10,603
14,316
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
There was enough money available to promise further subsidised childcare, fee-free TAFE and all of their other election policies without the need to wait for the budget. Cost of living pressures are apparently so severe that a wage increase at or above CPI was absolutely necessary immediately to stop workers going backwards, but welfare recipients have to wait it out until the ALP can figure out if there is enough money? It's blatant hypocrisy that many people seem willing to ignore for, reasons.

The Government have no issue supporting a change where employers have to stump up the additional cash immediately but won't commit to the same thing themselves. That doesn't need more than a month to commit to (if you're actually serious about it).

Personally, I think the wage rise was over the top and that the government could have said they support workers getting a significant increase without making reference to the actual rate (or whether it needed to keep pace with/exceed inflation). But Albanese wanted to look like the knight in shining armour for low paid workers. That's all well and good, but you then look like a hypocrite when you won't go in to bat just as hard for people who don't even have a job.
You were doing so well until the last paragraph. The government should be going in to bat for those on minimum wage and those out of work. High inflation hurts everyone, but especially everyone at the bottom, and I count both groups in that broad category. There doesn't have to be a trade-off, they can advocate for a higher minimum wage and pass increases to welfare, but they choose to screw over the unemployed in much the same way as the Libs have done.
 

QuietB

Hall of Famer
May 13, 2008
32,170
49,824
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You were doing so well until the last paragraph. The government should be going in to bat for those on minimum wage and those out of work. High inflation hurts everyone, but especially everyone at the bottom, and I count both groups in that broad category. There doesn't have to be a trade-off, they can advocate for a higher minimum wage and pass increases to welfare, but they choose to screw over the unemployed in much the same way as the Libs have done.
I hate trickle down economics.

If this pandemic has taught us anything it is that giving money to the wealthy is a waste of time - they just buy more assets.

If you want to stimulate an economy it is much more effective to put the money in at the bottom of the wealth pile. If the wealthy want it, they can work to go get it.
 

Carn The Berries

Club Legend
Sep 16, 2008
1,092
999
Perth
AFL Club
Melbourne
You were doing so well until the last paragraph. The government should be going in to bat for those on minimum wage and those out of work. High inflation hurts everyone, but especially everyone at the bottom, and I count both groups in that broad category. There doesn't have to be a trade-off, they can advocate for a higher minimum wage and pass increases to welfare, but they choose to screw over the unemployed in much the same way as the Libs have done.
My comment about the wage increase is partly due to the fact that it now sets a precedent. If we get to 6% or 7% by the end of next year does that mean that the ALP will put in a submission that the minimum wage increases by those amounts? Its like they think that inflation will suddenly go away and we won't be having a similar conversation this time next year. You can go into bat for them without chaining yourself to the view that wages MUST exceed inflation (though this isn't technically what the ALP have done, it is as good as). Especially when you turn around to welfare recipients and say "nah, you guys will be ok".

The hand wringing and justifications for this hypocrisy is truly stunning.
 

Carn The Berries

Club Legend
Sep 16, 2008
1,092
999
Perth
AFL Club
Melbourne
I hate trickle down economics.

If this pandemic has taught us anything it is that giving money to the wealthy is a waste of time - they just buy more assets.

If you want to stimulate an economy it is much more effective to put the money in at the bottom of the wealth pile. If the wealthy want it, they can work to go get it.
Hmmmm... If only there were a proposal in place that gives higher wage earners a tax cut... You could abandon it and allocate the funds to those you deem more worthy of the increase in net income.

That's the exact opposite of what the ALP are doing, which is fine, but own it, don't try and pretend you're there for all the little guys when you have a simple solution in front of you that you're choosing to ignore. It wouldn't have an issue getting through the senate I don't think, the Greens would definitely be for it.
 

QuietB

Hall of Famer
May 13, 2008
32,170
49,824
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Hmmmm... If only there were a proposal in place that gives higher wage earners a tax cut... You could abandon it and allocate the funds to those you deem more worthy of the increase in net income.

That's the exact opposite of what the ALP are doing, which is fine, but own it, don't try and pretend you're there for all the little guys when you have a simple solution in front of you that you're choosing to ignore. It wouldn't have an issue getting through the senate I don't think, the Greens would definitely be for it.
The ALP did not legislate the coming tax cuts and you know full well it would be political suicide to overturn them. The Murdoch press would have a field day and the easily led would screw things up for everyone all over again.

"but own it" is Morrison levels of disingenuous.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sun Ra

Club Legend
Sep 26, 2021
2,819
6,417
Saturn
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Baghdad Boomers
The ALP did not legislate the coming tax cuts and you know full well it would be political suicide to overturn them. The Murdoch press would have a field day and the easily led would screw things up for everyone all over again.

"but own it" is Morrison levels of disingenuous.
They'd need the head of the Treasury and the Reserve Bank to come out and publicly endorse it, ask for it.
 

Johnny Bananas

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
10,603
14,316
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
My comment about the wage increase is partly due to the fact that it now sets a precedent. If we get to 6% or 7% by the end of next year does that mean that the ALP will put in a submission that the minimum wage increases by those amounts?
If it does, I hope they do. Preventing people from falling into poverty should be priority #1.


Its like they think that inflation will suddenly go away and we won't be having a similar conversation this time next year. You can go into bat for them without chaining yourself to the view that wages MUST exceed inflation (though this isn't technically what the ALP have done, it is as good as).
How is it "as good as"?

You know there have been many years where inflation exceeded wage growth, don't you?

Especially when you turn around to welfare recipients and say "nah, you guys will be ok".

The hand wringing and justifications for this hypocrisy is truly stunning.
I'm not justifying anything. You're presenting a false choice that the government can only look after one of these groups at a time when they can and should be looking after both.
 

Johnny Bananas

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
10,603
14,316
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
The ALP did not legislate the coming tax cuts
Yes they did, they voted for it in both houses. They didn't introduce the legislation but they gave it their wholehearted support.

and you know full well it would be political suicide to overturn them.
Making the tax cuts part of their election platform was silly, then.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
23,498
18,654
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
So if the ALP just do a little bit better than the LNP in terms of changes to the level of welfare support that is ok because the last 9 years were considered worse?

I'm just questioning the apparent conflict between the government actively supporting a rise in the minimum wage in line with inflation but not committing to do the same to welfare recipients. Bloody easy to tell someone else to spend money, how about committing the funds you're in control of to do the same.

There hasn't been a single quote or press release that I've seen where the government has been so forthright in ensuring that welfare recipients "don't go backwards". I don't understand why people don't think that's somewhat hypocritical?
BY the standards of government, ok is a lot better than worse. By all means continue to advocate for perfect/ good but do not expect to get it in a hurry or you will be eternally disappointed. And if you do nothing while seeking perfect things definitely get worse
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
23,498
18,654
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Not sure how old you are but I never take all the promises made during elections as gospel especially coming in after a spendthrift government that didn't achieve anything but a lot of public money waste and left a big mess. Surely you have experienced a situation where some promises have been delayed.

Not sure what you expect after only a month in office.

You must be on a good wicket if you think the wage increase was over the top. Wages have been supressed for years under Morrison, I have never begrudged low wage earners an increase. Then on the other hand you post about the unemployed?
well, he could also be living purely on income support and then fearing inflation affecting basic cost of living, seeing those more fortunate to get a job getting the 5.1% but not seeing the same protection. So I don't read it as necessarily being on a good wicket.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
23,498
18,654
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I'm not justifying anything. You're presenting a false choice that the government can only look after one of these groups at a time when they can and should be looking after both.
I read his post as concern that the government is not looking after welfare recipients. Not presenting a false choice.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
23,498
18,654
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The ALP did not legislate the coming tax cuts and you know full well it would be political suicide to overturn them. The Murdoch press would have a field day and the easily led would screw things up for everyone all over again.

"but own it" is Morrison levels of disingenuous.
I think they could scrap the stage 3, there will be many celebrating it and I think if the Murdoch press go hard on it they will be abused and ridiculed by those who would not have got the stage 3 cuts.
 

QuietB

Hall of Famer
May 13, 2008
32,170
49,824
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Yes they did, they voted for it in both houses. They didn't introduce the legislation but they gave it their wholehearted support.


Making the tax cuts part of their election platform was silly, then.
Again, the tax cuts were LNP legislation and Labor blocking tax cuts in the lead up to an election with the rabid media climate in Australia is electoral suicide.

The only time Morrison did anything was if it fitted both of these criteria;
  1. It had to benefit the wealthy
  2. It had to wedge Labor
Tax cuts for the wealthy were a Morrison wet dream.
 

Carn The Berries

Club Legend
Sep 16, 2008
1,092
999
Perth
AFL Club
Melbourne
If it does, I hope they do. Preventing people from falling into poverty should be priority #1.



How is it "as good as"?

You know there have been many years where inflation exceeded wage growth, don't you?


I'm not justifying anything. You're presenting a false choice that the government can only look after one of these groups at a time when they can and should be looking after both.
I'm actually pointing out the hypocrisy that they are only looking after one group. They're saying one thing to one section of people on low incomes and another to a different cohort. Sounds a bit familiar to me.
 

SBD Gonzalez

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 5, 2012
20,480
32,796
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Kidding, right?
So if the ALP just do a little bit better than the LNP in terms of changes to the level of welfare support that is ok because the last 9 years were considered worse?
No, it’s considered a slight improvement.

But you’re right, we should be aiming so much higher than the risible bar of the last nine years. I’m on board.
 

Remove this Banner Ad