Is this the worst post war government?

[Bunk Moreland]

Not even the worst government this decade. How old are you?

This mob is giving them a good run.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

No, sadly he isn't.

Abbott wasn't this bad BTW, because most of his gaffs and opportunism were initially consigned to unimportant things. Plus it all didn't start to unravel until further into his tenure.

From off the bat Morrison has been pure shite.

Morrison is a *in goose, but he’s only there by default... I have some sympathy for those few Liberals MPs who watched the right wing take Turnbull down... and then what could they do? It was Morrison or Dutton. They had no choice.

 

[kranky al]

Fraser had some great policies.
Ask any Vietnamese what they think of that particular Malcolm.
He saved 10 of thousands of lives and enriched our society in the process.
Abbott the campaigner and his party of ideologues should look to Fraser rather than their own tiny minds for inspiration.

You could certainly add Howard as he is directly responsible for the foreign invasions which caused a good proportion of the refugee crisis which started the current boat problem.
Howard could in fact be guilty of Lying to the Parliament. Love to see him charged for his many blatant lies to the Parliament regarding many issues in his PM'ship.

I love it when rwnj’s wharrrgarble on about the extreme left policies - you just list a bunch of things fraser did - they go yeah those things and you lol and go that was the liberals - thats how far right we have drifted.

 

[Heisenberg_]

I love it when rwnj’s wharrrgarble on about the extreme left policies - you just list a bunch of things fraser did - they go yeah those things and you lol and go that was the liberals - thats how far right we have drifted.

Just ask them why he quit the liberal party later in life when the crazy’s were starting to take over and completely change the traditional Liberal party values

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Turnbull was a big disappointment but he didn't plumb Abbott's depths of insanity.

I wish there were posters here who remembered McMahon/Gorton so we could compare them all properly.

I'm old enough to remember, (heck, I remember Harold Holt disappearing) but I was too young to have anything to compare it with, so my assessment is based solely on what I've read of McMahon's failings. Hard to find anyone with a good word to say about him.

 

[The Speaker]

I'm old enough to remember, (heck, I remember Harold Holt disappearing) but I was too young to have anything to compare it with, so my assessment is based solely on what I've read of McMahon's failings. Hard to find anyone with a good word to say about him.

The fact that McEwen vetoed McMahon, forcing the Liberals to get Gorton from out of the Senate, speaks to that.

 

[Mofra]

I would say that of the post-war governments, Abbott's was down there with McMahon/Gorton (the latter is more fondly remembered than he deserves to be).

People still consider McMahon the worst, interestingly there's a book begin released shortly about McMahon (the author was interviewed at length on RN).

Gorton is probably remembered fondly because of the 'Gorton Flu' which made him seem more regular especially at a time when heavy drinking was seen as a virtue.

 

[Ok Boomer]

Are the adults in charge still?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Fraser had some great policies.
Ask any Vietnamese what they think of that particular Malcolm.
He saved 10 of thousands of lives and enriched our society in the process.
Abbott the campaigner and his party of ideologues should look to Fraser rather than their own tiny minds for inspiration.

You could certainly add Howard as he is directly responsible for the foreign invasions which caused a good proportion of the refugee crisis which started the current boat problem.
Howard could in fact be guilty of Lying to the Parliament. Love to see him charged for his many blatant lies to the Parliament regarding many issues in his PM'ship.

Under Howard the boat arrivals were in the main, prior to 9/11, so pre Afghanistan and Iraq.

We don't have a current boat problem that I've seen. The last time we did was due to Labor under KRudd.

 

[DaRick]

I don't usually quote from the Guardian, but according to their metrics the Abbott/Turnbull governments were the least productive since Gorton's, with Turnbull being even less productive than Abbott:

Acts passed per day grouped by prime ministerial terms
Using total time in office
Acts per day
Julia Gillard - 0.515
Robert Hawke - 0.494
Malcolm Fraser - 0.481
Gough Whitlam - 0.472
Paul Keating - 0.469
John Howard - 0.452
William McMahon - 0.434
Kevin Rudd - 0.398
Tony Abbott - 0.390
Malcolm Turnbull - 0.350
John Gorton - 0.335

As for how productive Scott Morrison will be:

So, what about the Morrison government, with 2019 reportedly the shortest pre-April parliamentary sitting schedule this century?
It really depends on what happens following the next federal budget. There are currently 123 government bills before the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as whatever else is added following the budget in April. If a decent amount of these are passed, then the Morrison government’s rate could end up slightly above Turnbull’s rate. Otherwise, if only the bare minimum of budget-related bills are passed the rate will be lower, continuing the downward trend of the past three governments.

Looking at the above, it seems that for all of his odious personal qualities, McMahon was surprisingly productive for his time, given that smaller populations and less complex societies (demographically/culturally/technologically) necessitate fewer laws. Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison have no such excuse.

I am actually somewhat surprised that Turnbull turned out to be markedly less productive than Abbott. It's not as if Turnbull proposed any quixotic budgets on par with the 2014 one.

 

[The Speaker]

I don't usually quote from the Guardian, but according to their metrics the Abbott/Turnbull governments were the least productive since Gorton's, with Turnbull being even less productive than Abbott:

Acts passed per day grouped by prime ministerial terms
Using total time in office
Acts per day
Julia Gillard - 0.515
Robert Hawke - 0.494
Malcolm Fraser - 0.481
Gough Whitlam - 0.472
Paul Keating - 0.469
John Howard - 0.452
William McMahon - 0.434
Kevin Rudd - 0.398
Tony Abbott - 0.390
Malcolm Turnbull - 0.350
John Gorton - 0.335

As for how productive Scott Morrison will be:



Looking at the above, it seems that for all of his odious personal qualities, McMahon was surprisingly productive for his time, given that smaller populations and less complex societies (demographically/culturally/technologically) necessitate fewer laws. Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison have no such excuse.

I am actually somewhat surprised that Turnbull turned out to be markedly less productive than Abbott. It's not as if Turnbull proposed any quixotic budgets on par with the 2014 one.

I've never liked these kinds of measures - governments don't exist so that legislation can be passed. Legislation is a by-product of governing. If, in theory, all legislation was good and there were no political problems anywhere, should we rate a government lower because there's no legislation that needs to be made, even though they are governing excellently?

 

[Maggie5]

I don't usually quote from the Guardian, but according to their metrics the Abbott/Turnbull governments were the least productive since Gorton's, with Turnbull being even less productive than Abbott:

Acts passed per day grouped by prime ministerial terms
Using total time in office
Acts per day
Julia Gillard - 0.515
Robert Hawke - 0.494
Malcolm Fraser - 0.481
Gough Whitlam - 0.472
Paul Keating - 0.469
John Howard - 0.452
William McMahon - 0.434
Kevin Rudd - 0.398
Tony Abbott - 0.390
Malcolm Turnbull - 0.350
John Gorton - 0.335

As for how productive Scott Morrison will be:



Looking at the above, it seems that for all of his odious personal qualities, McMahon was surprisingly productive for his time, given that smaller populations and less complex societies (demographically/culturally/technologically) necessitate fewer laws. Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison have no such excuse.

I am actually somewhat surprised that Turnbull turned out to be markedly less productive than Abbott. It's not as if Turnbull proposed any quixotic budgets on par with the 2014 one.

My favourite one under Abbott was the big deal over removing 'red tape'.
https://theconversation.com/abbott-claims-700m-in-red-tape-savings-for-business-24562

 

[DaRick]

I've never liked these kinds of measures - governments don't exist so that legislation can be passed. Legislation is a by-product of governing.

This is true. It is also true that passing lots of legislation is meaningless if none of the legislation is any good.

However, I would say that larger, more demographically/culturally/technologically complex societies require more legislation to try and account for such complexities. Hence there is a greater need for legislation in today's society than there was back in Gorton or McMahon's day.

If, in theory, all legislation was good and there were no political problems anywhere, should we rate a government lower because there's no legislation that needs to be made, even though they are governing excellently?

No, but in practice there are always political/social/technological problems to be addressed, so there will always be a need for legislation. That need will IMO increase as the society increases in size and complexity.

With that in mind, I would say that an inability to pass legislation in today's age constitutes evidence of political paralysis.

 

[The Speaker]

This is true. It is also true that passing lots of legislation is meaningless if none of the legislation is any good.

However, I would say that larger, more demographically/culturally/technologically complex societies require more legislation to try and account for such complexities. Hence there is a greater need for legislation in today's society than there was back in Gorton or McMahon's day.

That seems self-perpetuating to me. The more legislation you create, the more you will appear to need.

No, but in practice there are always political/social/technological problems to be addressed, so there will always be a need for legislation. That need will IMO increase as the society increases in size and complexity.

With that in mind, I would say that an inability to pass legislation in today's age constitutes evidence of political paralysis.

This I agree with, but I don't think the blame necessarily lies with the governments as much as it does with the wider party system within the weakened federal system.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Coalition pledge to crack down on tax avoidance achieves almost nothing in three years

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...idance-achieves-almost-nothing-in-three-years

 

[DaRick]

That seems self-perpetuating to me. The more legislation you create, the more you will appear to need.

True, but this is also because past legislation needs to be remedied from time to time. As the amount of legislation increases over time, you will need to create more legislation to amend previous obsolete legislation. The increasingly fast-paced nature of society also necessitates more frequent amendments to past legislation.

This I agree with, but I don't think the blame necessarily lies with the governments as much as it does with the wider party system within the weakened federal system.

I think that the main issue over the past decade is that both the ALP and LNP (with the exception of Gillard) have been too driven by playing politics and manipulating the media in a bid to improve their poll ratings rather than getting down to the business of actually governing, hence the general lack of productivity even compared to Howard's time.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I've never liked these kinds of measures - governments don't exist so that legislation can be passed. Legislation is a by-product of governing. If, in theory, all legislation was good and there were no political problems anywhere, should we rate a government lower because there's no legislation that needs to be made, even though they are governing excellently?

But there will always be legislation being proposed, surely?

 

[Vader]

Looking at the above, it seems that for all of his odious personal qualities, McMahon was surprisingly productive for his time, given that smaller populations and less complex societies (demographically/culturally/technologically) necessitate fewer laws. Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison have no such excuse.

I am actually somewhat surprised that Turnbull turned out to be markedly less productive than Abbott. It's not as if Turnbull proposed any quixotic budgets on par with the 2014 one.

Abbott struggled to get his RWNJ agenda through the Senate, which thankfully had enough sane Senators to ensure that the ideologically driven rubbish was blocked at every turn. However, he had no problems getting stuff through the lower house - so he was still able to get stuff done on the rare occasion that he did come up with something resembling sensible legislation.

Turnbull struggled with both the HoR and the Senate. The RWNJs within his own party killed off anything which was vaguely sensible, and wasn't "wedge" politics or ideologically driven. The Senate killed off anything the RWNJs proposed, on the grounds that their ideologically driven rubbish is invariably bad for the country.

Abbott's numbers, and his ability to get stuff through the HoR, was the difference.

This is a marked contrast with the Gillard Govt which, like Bozo the Clown's current Govt, had a minority in both the upper & lower houses. Gillard excelled at negotiating with the independents and minor parties, as a result of which she was able to pass more legislation (per day) than any other Australian Govt. Gillard proved that being a minority is not an excuse for the inability to get things done.

 

[Vader]

Legislation is not a perfect metric for measuring the performance of a Govt, and the Guardian article's author admits that the choice of this metric is a case of "quantity over quality". Some legislation will be good, some will be bad. Some legislation is just a case of using a sledgehammer to attack a problem which doesn't even exist (i.e. much of the recent Domestic Security legislation). It is, however, a metric which can be measured, when so many other measures cannot.

The Guardian's article also includes a couple of interesting graphs. The number of Acts passed per day has trended upwards from the early days of Federation, when governments averaged around 0.05 Acts per day, to a high point under Hawke (0.494 per day). This reflects the increasing complexity of society, technology, etc.

Since then it's trended downward. The Keating & Howard governments were only marginally less productive than Hawke, but Abbott & Turnbull were both more than 20% below Hawke's output. KRudd's performance was poor, but Gillard's was exceptional - her Govt was (statistically) the most productive Australian Govt in history.

 

[DaRick]

Abbott struggled to get his RWNJ agenda through the Senate, which thankfully had enough sane Senators to ensure that the ideologically driven rubbish was blocked at every turn. However, he had no problems getting stuff through the lower house - so he was still able to get stuff done on the rare occasion that he did come up with something resembling sensible legislation.

Turnbull struggled with both the HoR and the Senate. The RWNJs within his own party killed off anything which was vaguely sensible, and wasn't "wedge" politics or ideologically driven. The Senate killed off anything the RWNJs proposed, on the grounds that their ideologically driven rubbish is invariably bad for the country.

Abbott's numbers, and his ability to get stuff through the HoR, was the difference.

This is a marked contrast with the Gillard Govt which, like Bozo the Clown's current Govt, had a minority in both the upper & lower houses. Gillard excelled at negotiating with the independents and minor parties, as a result of which she was able to pass more legislation (per day) than any other Australian Govt. Gillard proved that being a minority is not an excuse for the inability to get things done.

On Turnbull, an LNP campaign manager noted that during the 2016 election campaign he was more interested in playing with his phone than actually going about the business of campaigning.

Turnbull always struck me as the sort of person who was more interested in acquiring the prestige and power that comes with being PM than actually governing.

As for Abbott, like Gorton I suspect that he was hampered by an over-reliance on his chief of staff. He likely felt the need to run things by her before passing legislation, which of course would have delayed its introduction.

 

[Vader]

On Turnbull, an LNP campaign manager noted that during the 2016 election campaign he was more interested in playing with his phone than actually going about the business of campaigning.

Turnbull always struck me as the sort of person who was more interested in acquiring the prestige and power that comes with being PM than actually governing.

As for Abbott, like Gorton I suspect that he was hampered by an over-reliance on his chief of staff. He likely felt the need to run things by her before passing legislation, which of course would have delayed its introduction.

I think you're making excuses for Abbott. Abbott & Credlin had a symbiotic relationship, so I doubt there were any "delays" incurred by having to run things by her first.

Abbott's advantage over Turnbull was that he had an absolute majority in the HoR, whereas at best Turnbull only had a majority of 1 during his 2nd term. That meant that Turnbull had one arm tied behind his back, by the RWNJ element of his own party. In contrast, Abbott had the freedom to truly be himself - for all that this entailed.

 

[DaRick]

I think you're making excuses for Abbott. Abbott & Credlin had a symbiotic relationship, so I doubt there were any "delays" incurred by having to run things by her first.

Maybe I should have expressed my point differently.

It would have been better to argue that relying too much on one or two people to implement policy (as Rudd, Abbott and Gorton did) leads to inefficient government.

BTW, not trying to make excuses for Abbott. For mine, he's the worst PM in my lifetime (so since around 1990).

Abbott's advantage over Turnbull was that he had an absolute majority in the HoR, whereas at best Turnbull only had a majority of 1 during his 2nd term. That meant that Turnbull had one arm tied behind his back, by the RWNJ element of his own party. In contrast, Abbott had the freedom to truly be himself - for all that this entailed.

A reasonable point, but I also think that Turnbull was a bit of a ditherer (witness how he delayed holding the election when he would have been better off to hold it almost as soon as he deposed Abbott). Dithering doesn't lend itself to decisive government.

 

[Pessimistic]

On the days she wasn’t using him as a ventriloquist dummy

 

[Footyfan61]

Here’s a few paraphrased quotes from our tough guy PM

Morrison last year after the Royal Commission into child molestation - “I’m going to personally go after people who mock Christianity”

Morrison as PM - “transgender children are flooding our public schools”

Morrison as PM - “I’m not sure whether we should act on children being kicked out of schools because of who they are”

Morrison as PM - “I’m not going to act on this”

Morrison as PM - “Merry Christmas to the sick children stuck on Nauru”

Ever thought about removing that tin foil hat and changing channels dude?

 

[Footyfan61]

This mob is giving them a good run.

No one will ever be worse government than the KRudd, Gillard & greens governments

How do you take a 90billion dollar surplus to a severe hundred billion dollar debt in a matter of years after being handed the biggest boom in history & have the circus antics of Rudd, Gillard and greens!

Then to only pat your self on the back and claim to have done a good job!