[pugsville]

The Coalition has repeated said from the start of the campaign that their costings would be revealed well before the actual Election. Well they are not going to be released till thursdsay, IE after the Media blackout. Why release them at all?

So is it
(a) They always planned this, they just have no respect for the truth or the electorate? (complete lack of morals)
(b) they have decided there is less risk holding them back (they may less some credibility) but they are worried that the costings are so shoddy that they will lose more votes? or that Labour's negative adds based on this will be too effective, this release will cost them more votes than note releasing them, (the fear option)
(c) the costings are such a shoddy joke that they will only survive if released in a media black period and latter they will be swamped by the actual result.

After all the crap they through about LYING.

I do not mark on a curve.

Please no but the other guy posts.

[AVT]

Rudd pulled a similar stunt in his election with Howard, it is most likely because there are some very real cuts to come and the coalition want to allow as little time as possible for Labor to churn out the negative ads.

[Swagman]

Kevin07 didn't forecast his $300 Billion in future tax increases and 6 budget deficits in 2007 either....

[pugsville]

Hmm so we get a couple in "The Other Guy Did it" responses. This is not the argument, is irrelevant obsfication, (which is what Abbot and Hockey have constantly done , This is about the Credibility and Honesty of the Coalition, and Abbot and Hockey in particular.

Hockey went out and repeated said they would not do what labour had done. He made quite a song and dance about it. Abbot also promised repeatedly that the costings would be made available well before the actual election. They have both made a great deal about honesty and lying.

Hockey and Abbott have made repeated promises which they broke without even blinking shortly after they made them, having carrying on a great length and honesty and how they would not release their costings at the last minute like labour did. They have deliberately hidden the details of their economic management from the Australian people. They have gone on a such great length about how the Coalition is always better economic managers, and that is the key to their claims, but they have deliberately hidden the details of their proposed management after going on at great length saying they would not hude them but release them in plenty of time before the election.

How can Hockey and Abbot be trusted when they so deliberately lie to the Australian People.

[AVT]

Kevin07 didn't forecast his $300 Billion in future tax increases and 6 budget deficits in 2007 either....

It is a fair point, budget forecasts at the moment are not worth the paper they are written on by all sides as the world economic outlook is volatile.

[AVT]

Hmm so we get a couple in "The Other Guy Did it" responses. This is not the argument, is irrelevant obsfication, (which is what Abbot and Hockey have constantly done , This is about the Credibility and Honesty of the Coalition, and Abbot and Hockey in particular.

Hockey went out and repeated said they would not do what labour had done. He made quite a song and dance about it. Abbot also promised repeatedly that the costings would be made available well before the actual election. They have both made a great deal about honesty and lying.

Hockey and Abbott have made repeated promises which they broke without even blinking shortly after they made them, having carrying on a great length and honesty and how they would not release their costings at the last minute like labour did. They have deliberately hidden the details of their economic management from the Australian people. They have gone on a such great length about how the Coalition is always better economic managers, and that is the key to their claims, but they have deliberately hidden the details of their proposed management after going on at great length saying they would not hude them but release them in plenty of time before the election.

How can Hockey and Abbot be trusted when they so deliberately lie to the Australian People.

Come on pugs, EVERY politician lies, it is just whether your PR is good enough to squirm your way out of it. Most Australians do not trust any politicians, and with good reason as they constantly underdeliver.

[pugsville]

But hysteria and constant sniping by people on this board, and the Coalition abbot Julia Gillard and her "lying". The Constant defence by Hockey that the coalition would not do what Kevin did in 2007. The sustained nature of these attacks at length of them. Plenty on this board whaled into Julia Gillard, and when the Coalition goes out in a much more planned, sustained, campaign of systematic lying, they what just write a pass , Politics as usual. How the people of this forum of the Liberal Party have any standards at all?

Why should these people not stand as lying hypocritical scumbags?

Maybe it's all sort of par for the course.

But it seems to systematic lying, repeated promises to deliver something completely in their power, something a few weeks away at the most, is one of the most blatant, pieces of lying hypocrisy in Australia Politics. A new low.

[AVT]

But hysteria and constant sniping by people on this board, and the Coalition abbot Julia Gillard and her "lying". The Constant defence by Hockey that the coalition would not do what Kevin did in 2007. The sustained nature of these attacks at length of them. Plenty on this board whaled into Julia Gillard, and when the Coalition goes out in a much more planned, sustained, campaign of systematic lying, they what just write a pass , Politics as usual. How the people of this forum of the Liberal Party have any standards at all?

Why should these people not stand as lying hypocritical scumbags?

Maybe it's all sort of par for the course.

But it seems to systematic lying, repeated promises to deliver something completely in their power, something a few weeks away at the most, is one of the most blatant, pieces of lying hypocrisy in Australia Politics. A new low.

By that rationale everyone on this board who supports a particular party is a liar as all the parties lie to get votes (Greens included)..... Gillard made promises, didn't deliver, Coalition supporters will obviously jump on that. Just as I expect the shoe will be on the other foot when Abbott doesn't deliver all his promises. Trying to claim the moral high ground is a pointless exercise.

[pugsville]

Abbot has not delivery on his promise to deliver his costings well before the election. SO he failed deliver on his promises.

And ? The response is "the other guy", "shrug of the shoulders, all politicians lie".

Double standards. Hypocrisy.

[AVT]

Abbot has not delivery on his promise to deliver his costings well before the election. SO he failed deliver on his promises.

And ? The response is "the other guy", "shrug of the shoulders, all politicians lie".

Double standards. Hypocrisy.

No I take a more pragmatic approach and weigh up the magnitude of the lie. Gillard made several promises and then went and broke them clearly, in this instance the coalition said they would release their costings ahead of the polls, which they will do. It all comes down to a play on words whether they broke their costing promise as releasing costings 'well' ahead of the voting date is open to conjecture on what is considered a suitable period of time.

I don't get outraged when pollies break their promises, but I reserve the right to punish them if I feel a particular lie is affecting the nation most adversely.

[pugsville]

Pfft they clearly lied repeatedly and often with their mock outrage that they even be questioned. They have deliberately escaped real analysis of their costings. They have chosen to do so, with contempt of the Australian population.

Either you have standards or you dont.

[AVT]

Pfft they clearly lied repeatedly and often with their mock outrage that they even be questioned. They have deliberately escaped real analysis of their costings. They have chosen to do so, with contempt of the Australian population.

Either you have standards or you dont.

They will still be analysed, but it is a moot point, it is all part of the game and the other side have played it this way as well. It really just comes down to who do I trust to be more fiscally conservative (which is the thing I most identify) and the coalition will always beat Labor. I think the last 6 years of budget forecasts have shown the costings will probably be inaccurate anyway.

Please get off your soapbox and stop being so naive, my standards are what I think is best for the country, there is no point getting morally outraged every time a politician lies, I would give myself a coronary.

[pugsville]

so the lying to you and hiding the costing of their policies has no impact on your trust of them?

The Coalition is some how intrinsically just blessed with superior economic management skills?

How is that a reasonable way to judge things you just support 'your' team regardless of policy.

[Swagman]

so the lying to you and hiding the costing of their policies has no impact on your trust of them?

The Coalition is some how intrinsically just blessed with superior economic management skills?

How is that a reasonable way to judge things you just support 'your' team regardless of policy.

Look at the historical data Puggo. (with both eyes and not with the right one closed as you are accusing us of doing )

Very basic money management.........micro or macro is not to unsustainably spend more than you earn.

Rudd spruiks that "Australia has pretty low government debt by global standards". Yes but that was the achievement of the Howard Coalition Govt not Kevin Rudd.

Not releasing costings till the 11th hour is about politics. In politics you don't give a sucker an even break. Yes, the costings aren't being released so that Labor's hand picked biased money men can pull them apart for political traction.

[pugsville]

Hockey freely admitted recently there are times when it was sensible for government to run a deficit rather than a surplus , and he if in government would run a deficit during the GFC. Your graph is simplistic. You would need to compare performance or Labour and liberal budgets against a weighted index of broadly similar economies.

[Swagman]

You would need to compare performance or Labour and liberal budgets against a weighted index of broadly similar economies.

I'd like to see that too.

Such as during the 1997-98 Asian currenecy / financial crisis which saw plunging commodity prices and the uncertainty following Sept 11 terrorist attacks and don't forget 10 years of drought which arguably had more economic effect on Australia than the GFC. During this time budgets were balanced and Keating's $96 Billion residual debt was fully repaid?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Such as during the 1997-98 Asian currenecy / financial crisis which saw plunging commodity prices and the uncertainty following Sept 11 terrorist attacks and don't forget 10 years of drought which arguably had more economic effect on Australia than the GFC. During this time budgets were balanced

not according to your graph.

The borrowing rate during Howard's term was no different to the borrowing rate under Rudd. The difference of course was the GDP. If anything, Howard was more economically irresponsible because he had all that wealth available (from the mining boom), and squandered most of it on pointless middle-class welfare like the baby bonus. Also, Howard "raised" government revenues by short sighted sell offs - the most reckless instance being when he sold off most of our gold reserves when they were at record low prices.

No one except the most fanatically one-eyed liberal party hacks seriously believes that Rudd shouldn't have spent the way he did to keep us out of recession.

[colliric]

not according to your graph.

The borrowing rate during Howard's term was no different to the borrowing rate under Rudd. The difference of course was the GDP. If anything, Howard was more economically irresponsible because he had all that wealth available (from the mining boom), and squandered most of it on pointless middle-class welfare like the baby bonus. Also, Howard "raised" government revenues by short sighted sell offs - the most reckless instance being when he sold off most of our gold reserves when they were at record low prices.

No one except the most fanatically one-eyed liberal party hacks seriously believes that Rudd shouldn't have spent the way he did to keep us out of recession.

The Baby Bonus was NOT welfare, it was designed to entice women into having more kids inorder to reverse or "smoothen" certain population trends involving Australia's aging population. Therefore it was also NOT pointless.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The Baby Bonus was NOT welfare, it was designed to entice women into having more kids inorder to reverse or "smoothen" certain population trends involving Australia's aging population. Therefore it was also NOT pointless.

it was ineffective and completely pointless:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 1117119032

Moreover it was irresponsibly delivered: by paying as a lump sum with no strings attached - people didn't use it as they were supposed to - ie invest it in paying for child expenses - they simply went out and brought a plasma TV.

[colliric]

it was ineffective and completely pointless:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 1117119032

Moreover it was irresponsibly delivered: by paying as a lump sum with no strings attached - people didn't use it as they were supposed to - ie invest it in paying for child expenses - they simply went out and brought a plasma TV.

Meh, Labor did that too remember. The so called "Stimulus Package".

Most of that "Stimulus" went to either nice new TVs or straight to the Pokies/TAB.