As most of you would be aware by now, Malcolm Turnbull has won the Liberal leadership after defeating Brendan Nelson 45 votes to 41. Nelson won the post-election vote 45 votes to 42: not sure where the missing vote went (UPDATE: Kevin Andrews was overseas and didn’t vote hat-tip to Dovif in comments).
The latest weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead back at 58-42 after a fortnight at 59-41. Also included are questions on approval of Kevin Rudd, the future of the Coalition and federalism.
Peter Brent asks what became of the government’s green paper on disclosure, funding and expenditure issues, which was due in July.
The Australian Electoral Commission has published comments on objections to the redistribution of Western Australian electorates.
793 comments on “Turnbull 45, Nelson 41”
What about impersonating “Parliament House”?
Adam what percentage of lawyers will we end up with in Shadow Cabinet? So far we have two chosen for 100% and I can’t see it dropping much from that.
This is not looking good. I just hope it’s not just the start of a “Financial Meltdown”!
[Billions lost as shares plunge]
The GDP for the year ending 30/12/07 was a record
The CDP per capita for the year ending 30/12/07 was also highest ever
The unemployment rate was lowest around 30/12/07
Yeah you must have too many links, you cannot find them 😉
Ah… so thats why the hung Nelson 😉
the = they
My girlfriend works at a bookshop smack in the middle of Higgins – they’ve sold around 12 copies of The Smirk’s magnum opus in 3 days. Nothing special really – the publisher was expecting them to sell their entire first shipment of 75 by today…not gonna happen 🙂
Getting back to the Stroganoff Affair
All this is actually worse then the original stupidity!
[Yeah you must have too many links, you cannot find them ;-)]
I don’t mean to have a go at you at all, but, the figures you provided have nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement about labour productivity.
Where is the link to the ABS Labour Productivity figures for the past 12 years?
I do have them somewhere, they do make your original statement false and they do support my original statement.
I will find the link which you cannot and I will be requesting an apology.
Spam Inbox @ 750,
Nice one. Splat!
Quite to the contrary, the gross GDP is a measure of output of a country, ie the amount of good a country produces, this have everything to do with productivity of a country.
Unemployment rate also have everything to do with production efficiency, ie the more people who are able to work, have jobs, the more productive the whole country are
The issue you were referring to is the fact average productivity felt in the first year of workchoice, this theory had already been proven wrong many times. Yes average productivity felt the first year and increased in subsequent year, this is because more “unskilled” people found work and they needed to be trained and they are less efficient to begin with, however gross GDP still grew which is a sign the country in the right direction.
Work Choice helped people who are unemployed find work, it motivates them to get off the dole and gives them the skills to find better work in the future. I would have through that would be the type of policies supported by the left.
Yes there are some bad employers out there who abuses the system, but they were abusing the system before workchoice and they will continue to abuse the system after it.
The definition of theft is “the ILLEGAL taking of someone else’s property”. There is nothing illegal about a duly authorised government relieving us of some of our property to build and maintain the society in which we live.
The “tax is theft” argument in my experience is usually mounted by very well off individuals who already have far more than they need, but still resent having to share some of it.
743 – Thanks scorpio. Actually I had already set the wheels in motion re the avatar before the discussion last night.
Adam, I didn’t know the PM’s name was Gary Bruce.
The Australian Economy is not heading to recession! (please bookmark that comment)
The situation in America is looking very poor indeed and I would like to take this opportunity to thank both side of politics for the reforms they have put in place over the past 25 years for its the building up of banking regulation and the reforming of the Industrial relations system that will enable us to over come this crisis.
Now if only we could have the same level of reform in the other areas of Government but something tells me the pollies lack the spine to take on the Welfare lobby.
The situation regarding catering at Parlianment House is overblown by a media that loves to kick pollies when all that has occured is a run of the mill disagreement between a business and customer.
Penionsers are good at whinging just as are most lobbist are good at whinging and our lazy media looking for an easy story lap it up.
dovif @ 755,
[The issue you were referring to is the fact average productivity felt in the first year of workchoice]
Sorry dovif, but you never read my post at all. I never inferred any such thing and never made any comment on the other areas you canvass.
[Also, productivity was actually decling under Howard’s IR Policies, especially after the introduction of workchoices.]
I was inferring that productivity had declined right through Howards’ term in office and was not helped in any by the introduction of workchoices.
The issues you mentioned may have had some contributing factor to the drop after the introduction of workchoices but the fact remains that your statement that workchoices and Gillard’s workchoices lite will increase productivity is wrong in that “NO such increase in productivity occurred resulting from the introduction of workchoices and it had been decling for some years under Howard’s IR policies!
I am sorry to say that what you have been putting forward bears a striking resemblance to trolling. I will find the past 12 years Labour productivity figures which I based my original post on but someone else may be able to link to them before me.
Darn, it’s legalised theft.
Scorpio, the productivity figures are skewed by the fact that 2 million extra jobs were created under Howard.
Of course Keating’s productivity figures will seem inflated given that the twilight of his prime ministership was characterised by our economic recovery after the worst recession since the second world war.
766 – of course the logical conclusion to that argument is that we shouldn’t have taxation at all. Who wants to sanction legalised theft in any way, shape or form? Is that your contention GP? Get rid of taxation altogether?
Nope, just income taxation.
So taxation then is not legalised theft?
Or is it ok to sanction some forms of legalised theft?
Nice try GP (766) but that’s a contradiction in terms.
You would have made a very good script writer for “Yes Minister”
Did anyone see the AFR today? There was a nice piece reported about a conversation between Costello and visiting OECD analysts. When asked (with concern) about the inflationary effects of the previous governments spending in the 2007 budget, Costello is reported to have said not to worry because “the budget figures were always wrong anyway”! ROTFL
GP, if you regard tax as legalised theft, then I presume you and your family never make any use of the social security, health, education or transport systems? I take it your companies/investments don’t use them either? After all, you don’t want to be accused of receiving stolen property, or profiting from crime do you? 🙂
All tax is legalised theft. Theft being the resumption of property without the freely-given consent of the owner.
However, my view is that society cannot function without some form of taxation. I just believe tax revenue can be more efficiently and more fairly raised via consumption taxes.
No, it is not a contradiction in terms.
775 – Nice try again GP but what you are saying is that it is ok to sanction some forms of legalised theft. Is that your argument?
Effectively, yes. By the way, I’m not opposed to taxes and nor do I suggest all taxation should be abolished.
I am simply stating that as a matter of fact, tax is theft.
“Theft being the resumption of property without the freely-given consent of the owner.”
By the way, I don’t believe for one moment people like paying tax but I do believe the vast majority consent to it because they want the services it provides.
Wrong Gary. There can be no consent if such consent cannot be withdrawn. If you fail to pay taxes you are likely to be prosecuted and/or imprisoned.
Theft is taking someone’s property contrary to law. Taxation is a legally sanctioned levy on the community to pay for mutually beneficial services. If GP doesn’t understand the difference he is an even bigger fool than he appears.
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people complain about the degree of tax they pay but those same people say they are prepared to pay their fair share of tax. They see the need for it in other words, just like you do GP.
“There can be no consent if such consent cannot be withdrawn.” What? Who made that a rule?
GP was obviously asleep during politics 101 when they explained the theory of the social contract.
Adam, I will repeat: tax is legalised theft.
Those views sound fine until you do the maths. The trouble is that even with churn, most societies would need to have a GST of about 30% or so to do away with income tax. It also assumes that the user can pay, always having the money needed to pay for a service at teh time they need it. That is rarely the case, hence societies are always assisting some groups, at the expense of the more productive.
There would also be a real difficulty with accomodating the many transfer payments burried in our current system. Many of those transfers, despite right wing rhetoric, go to their supporters, not the unemployed. Farmers and most rural businesses are a prime example. We probably spend more on farm support, rural infrastructure support, and rural services, as the entire farm sector contributes to our economy (less than 3% of GDP).
Even in principle, tax is not theft. It recognises the social obligation we all have to support the nation we belong to, and the institutions that feed, heal, protect, and educate us and the systems that sustain the businesses which employ us. As philosphers from Hobbs onward recognised, tax and governments are necessary and the alternative is really far worse.
You are wrong GP – you can withdraw your consent, it’s just that it comes with consequences.
LOL, a theory does not change the reality. I suppose you were equally slumberous in Law 101 when they explained that the law is incongruent with morality.
If the consent is not freely-given (i.e. without fear of retribution or adverse sanction), how can it be characterised as proper consent?
I’ve always found it somewhat amusing that people like Menzies were technically traitors – they owed their primary allegiance to a foreign country – the UK – rather than Australia
Of course the reason Menzies gets so much flak is that its easier for modern nationalistic Australians to caricature Menzies as an anachronistic buffoon then to accept the painful reality that many Australians had the belief that they were British
Socrates, I do not presume to abolish transfers or welfare (although, welfare would be restricted to the disabled and indigent). By eliminating vertical fiscal imbalance and allowing states greater autonomy to derive their revenue, the majority of government services and transfers would be adequately provided via consumption taxes.
Also, regardless of your theorising about the “social obligation”, the reality is that if there did not exist a legal sanction for taxation, it would be classified as theft.
Yes the expression “legal theft IS a contradiction in terms.
If the definition of theft is”the ILLEGAL taking of someone else’s property, then “legal theft” translates into “the legal, illegal, taking of someone else’s property.
Sort of like Sir Humprhey Applebee’s reference to “an unstable kind of stability”.in discussing the security of St George’s Island with the Minister.
For a mostly clear thinking and fair minded person like yourself I am surprised that you would resort to such word games.
Comments are closed.