Julia Gillard - liar

[a_unique_person]

How the hell can Swan and Gillard be unable to predict the bottom line result? We are over half way through their fiscal year now. In May it was a $1.5b surplus. In October it was reduced to $1.1b. Now they don't know. Seriously?!?!?!

If Labor wish to retain any semblance of what is left of their shattered credibility they would want to get the numbers, and in a hurry. Some are now predicting up to, and over a $20b deficit.

How could they not know? Inept? Lazy? Poor things might be depressed. Or are they lying again for political advantage?

Income is falling due to the world economy being still screwed. Outgoings are within what they projected. It's not hard to understand. Labor cannot control the world economy, no government can, but they can manage our economy as best they can. If the mining tax hadn't been castrated like it was to try to stop the abusive attacks from those making super profits, the deficit would have been more in line with what they wanted. Economists around Australia, though, are breathing a big sigh of relief today, pulling any more money out of the economy would cause a recession. The 'deficit fetish' is mostly of importance only to the uniformed, such as the Liberal Party. I hope they have a more mature attitude to economics next time they gain office, the current incarnation is determined to send Australia into a depression.

 

[lionking]

The Tories are in trouble, no doubt.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Income is .... a very big snip of ifs and buts... a depression.

"but, but, but..."
But me no buts, on a no ifs no buts surplus.

 

[a_unique_person]

"but, but, but..."
But me no buts, on a no ifs no buts surplus.

Income is down, because of global economic circumstances. Labor has no control over the global economy. They could have cut more spending, but business is already complaining at the cuts they already made. What they have done is what business wants. "Deficit Fetish" is not a part of a mature management of the economy. Appropriate surplus management is for the good times. The good times, globally, are still a long way away.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Income is down,... snip....

But, but, but.

As previously outlined, please do not conflate the economics with the politics here.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Joe Hockey looks like he will be right: Wayne Swan will never deliver a budget surplus.

 

[lionking]

Joe Hockey looks like he will be right: Wayne Swan will never deliver a budget surplus.

Gee, you want to be careful to stay on topic.

 

[bit_pattern]

Down, down... The Liberals are down

 

[a_unique_person]

But, but, but.

As previously outlined, please do not conflate the economics with the politics here.

you asked a question and i answered it. They can't predict income.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

They can't predict income.

Then why did they pretend that they could?

You are helping me make my case. Thanks. You are confirming she/they lied. If they cannot predict income, what possible right do they have to predict a surplus, or a deficit, or anything for that matter?

Do you seriously think that they have no idea? If that's truly the case, they deserve to be kicked out and ASAP.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then why did they pretend that they could?

You are helping me make my case. Thanks. You are confirming she/they lied. If they cannot predict income, what possible right do they have to predict a surplus, or a deficit, or anything for that matter?

Do you seriously think that they have no idea? If that's truly the case, they deserve to be kicked out and ASAP.

They believed they could, with the current economic projections and the mining tax. It doesn't really matter. I notice the opposition is suddenly hedging their bets about a surplus too. Either way, it's an infantile obsession, of little consequence, apart from teaching politicians to make as few promises as they can, as vaguely as the can, which preferably can't actually be proven. For example, "Interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal Party Government". The fact is, they honestly thought they could bring it in, next time they will word it differently so that stupid word games don't catch them out. They have far better things to spend their time on, like the ongoing global financial crises, and policy.

 

[Hungry81]

Ok people are saying deficit is good and are happy with labour because they say it is the right decision. Fair enough.

However wasn't it wrong of them to promise a surplus in the first place? Shouldn't the party line have been we will try for a surplus unless that is impractical? How does labour failing to meet their target inspire confidence in their competence when they were apparently promising and working towards a surplus only to fail.

It doesn't matter if you are happy about a deficit or not. Labour achieved it through incompetence and continued lying about it when everybody else knew it was unfeasible. Does this mob really deserve another chance?

 

[Krikkiter]

Ok people are saying deficit is good and are happy with labour because they say it is the right decision. Fair enough.

However wasn't it wrong of them to promise a surplus in the first place? Shouldn't the party line have been we will try for a surplus unless that is impractical? How does labour failing to meet their target inspire confidence in their competence when they were apparently promising and working towards a surplus only to fail.

It doesn't matter if you are happy about a deficit or not. Labour achieved it through incompetence and continued lying about it when everybody else knew it was unfeasible. Does this mob really deserve another chance?

I was with you up until the last paragraph. Produce evidence of "Labour incompetence" regarding a surplus and "continually lying" about it.

Yes, it was wrong of them to predict a surplus. They should have said "We'll see." But as we all know, voter perception is "surplus good, deficit bad."

This is politics, not sport. C'mon.

 

[lionking]

Ok people are saying deficit is good and are happy with labour because they say it is the right decision. Fair enough.

However wasn't it wrong of them to promise a surplus in the first place? Shouldn't the party line have been we will try for a surplus unless that is impractical? How does labour failing to meet their target inspire confidence in their competence when they were apparently promising and working towards a surplus only to fail.

It doesn't matter if you are happy about a deficit or not. Labour achieved it through incompetence and continued lying about it when everybody else knew it was unfeasible. Does this mob really deserve another chance?

What's "Labour"?

At least spell the party name correctly.

 

[a_unique_person]

Ok people are saying deficit is good and are happy with labour because they say it is the right decision. Fair enough.

However wasn't it wrong of them to promise a surplus in the first place? Shouldn't the party line have been we will try for a surplus unless that is impractical? How does labour failing to meet their target inspire confidence in their competence when they were apparently promising and working towards a surplus only to fail.

It doesn't matter if you are happy about a deficit or not. Labour achieved it through incompetence and continued lying about it when everybody else knew it was unfeasible. Does this mob really deserve another chance?

They promised it because they thought it was achievable. Treasury forecasts told them that the mining super tax and the ability of the Australian economy to avoid recession, just about the only big economy to do so, made it almost a certainty. Their spending is under control, they have been cutting back on the support of government for the economy, no one foresaw the collapse in comodity prices we are getting. As I said already, they would have been better getting the spin doctors to come up with a promise that can't be disproven, such as "Interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal Party Government". A large part of the problem is the juvenile way politics is judge in this country. It's more like a football game than managing one of the major economies in the world. The simplistic slogans like "Turn back the boats" are what capture the public's imagination.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

They promised it because they thought it was achievable.

Incorrect.
They promised it because it was politically expedient at the time. i.e. a lie.
You yourself outlined they couldn't predict income, that being the case, how could they predict a surplus?

This points very clearly to the incompetence that Hungry81 alludes to above.


I would point out again AUP, you are falling into the trap of conflating the economics with the politics. They are separate issues. Why would Gillard promise the moon unless she knew how to get there and then secure it?

How could they not know? Inept? Lazy? Or did they lie again for political advantage?

 

[a_unique_person]

Incorrect.
They promised it because it was politically expedient at the time. i.e. a lie.

No, I am correct.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No, I am correct.

LOL.
How?

By your own logic you are incorrect: You said they couldn't predict income. By virtue of same they can't predict a surplus.

That means they are either liars, incompetent or lazy. I see no other options.

I'm going with liars - I don't think they are lazy or incompetent (well, not completely anyway).

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ultimately, any way the Gillard, her apologists, Swan etc wish to cut this it is a major embarrassment for her (and Labor) politically. It is yet another broken promise ('no ifs, no buts' this time) by a PM whose honesty, integrity and credibility is already highly questionable in the eyes of the more discerning electorate.

She lied, she lied, she lied.

Has anyone else noticed how silent she is on this? She has yet again put someone else in the firing line for her own shortcomings. Weak, cowardly leadership.

 

[a_unique_person]

It's embarrassing, but that's how pathetic the state of politics is these days, it's a game like watching sport on TV, not managing a nation. Next time they promise something, it will be a non promise, like Abbott's funding for the highways in Queensland, or "The Liberal Party will always have lower interest rates than Labor". Hardly any sort of an improvement, in fact, it just lowers the level of the political debate to "Stop the Boats" moronity.