High speed rail; the new Eastern Suburbs Railway line

The Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s announcement of the projected building of a high speed rail network up the East coast including regional centres will come as welcome relief to many traditionalists.  It is believed that it will probably replace the Eastern Suburbs Railway Line in Australian mythology.

For those not familiar with the ESRL, it was a line that was initially proposed in the late 1800s, planned in 1926, started, stopped, and promised at every election thereafter.  As such it became a part of our folklore until 1979 when it was completed by the Wran government, creating many idioms on the way.  Unemployment, for example was referred to as “working on the Eastern Suburbs line.”

Recognising the hole left in the Australian psyche by the lack of a never-never election promise, the Hawke government showed interest in the idea of high-speed rail as a politically viable though uneconomic alternative in the early 80s.  Most governments seeking re-election since then have backed the idea, which raises the possibility that in another thirty years or so, it could become an iconic promise.

At this point it will have to be either acted on or dropped, owing in this day and age to the risk of it becoming a heritage listed promise which would prevent any further action on it.
In the meantime though it will offer generous employment prospects for planners, researchers, study groups, lawyers, and think tanks, keeping them on the gravy train for the foreseeable future.

The lack of any implied commitment to HSR by the Turnbull government, raised concerns among some commentators that the government would rely on the newer, tried and tested pledge to adopt fiscal restraint, balance the budget and pay off the deficit. Economic restraint in the Liberal Party is showing signs of remaining a pipe dream for 50 – 100 years, with an accelerating rate of postponement already apparent. 

You must however respect the PMs desire to stick with tradition and offer the vision of sleepers and rails heading off into the sunset.

We need to be grateful that Hawkie came up with high speed rail rather than our own death star, an idea which is just so 80s.  Death stars, while offering the sort of kudos derived from commitments to spend a billion trillion gazillion dollars, tend to be more impractical than high speed rail. Sooner or later, everyone wants one and they lose their effectiveness when other nations realise that you wouldn't be stupid enough to blow yourself up in order to get your own way. 

This would probably happen sometime after the current crop of politicians leave office.

(UPDATE) The government has denied that this is how the idea got started:

Bob Day; “enemy of the state”

Image: Bob Day, Weatherill’s nominee for first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Since the demise of Leonid Brezhnev and later the Soviet Union, the term, ‘enemy of the state’ has largely gone out of fashion.  While there are occasional references to it from regimes like North Korea, and Zimbabwe, its use in the west is virtually zero.

South Australian premier Jake Weatherill has resurrected it though with his reference to SA Senator, Bob Day as an enemy of the state over his opposition to interstate tax transfer payments: 

… Mr Weatherill describes the­ ­fellow South Australian as an “enemy’’ of the state and a “lost cause’’.

“Senator Day wants to cut more deeply than even Tony Abbott wants to cut,’’ the Premier told a Senate select committee on health yesterday. 

“Senator Day wants to sell out South Australia to the Western Australians and hand over $1 billion of our GST payments. Senator Day is an enemy of South Australia. I don’t need to meet with him.’’ 

Senator Day hit back, saying the Weatherill government just wanted to “spend, spend, spend’’. 

“The Premier shouldn’t come to Canberra just to listen to those who will tell him what he wants to hear, but to those with initiatives to help South Australia,’’ he said. …

Weatherill is being dishonest here in his claim that Bob supports ‘handing over $1 billion of South Australia’s GST payments’ to Western Australia.  The reality is that for every dollar contributed by SA in GST, it receives $1.29 back, the majority of the additional sum coming from Western Australia.

WA on the other hand, receives only $0.38c per dollar back from its dollar, soon to be reduced substantially.

The money Weatherill is talking about is not South Australia’s; it is the proceeds of an interstate welfare arrangement based on the idea of from each according to his ability to each according to his need.  This may be the origin of Weatherill’s ‘enemy of the state’ nonsense.  Perhaps Jake will use some of that Western Australian and New South Wales money to establish a reeducation facility for Bob.

Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned “capitalist (or imperialist) running dog?

Oh great; we give $21.6 million to Disney, or:

Captain Jack meets the broken window theory

Most of us today are familiar with Bastiat’s broken window theory, where those observing the replacement of a broken pane of glass tend to look on the bright side by thinking of how good it is for the glazier to get the trade.  Bastiat points out though that this ignores the fact that the window owner is left with no gain for his expense, and the cobbler, tailor, or perhaps bookseller who might have benefitted from the trade instead, miss out. 

Keynesian economists though, love broken windows and never cease telling us at the advent of any disaster, just how good all of the resultant repair work will be for the economy.  The Kiwis were said to be the luckiest people in the world after the Christchurch earthquakes: 

Our Treasurer Joe Hockey though, sees no reason to hang around waiting for something bad to happen in order to strip the economy of funds to repair damage.  Joe is ahead of the game to the point where he supports event and project lobby groups in spending on what aint broke.  Krugman is so yesterday.

Instead of spending money on devastation, he wants to piss it away on something fun, like making movies with similar results:

MOVIE giant Disney is being offered a near $22 million treasure chest to bring Johnny Depp’s billion dollar Pirates of the Caribbean franchise to the Gold Coast. 

The Bulletin understands high-level discussions have taken place between US film bosses, Screen Queensland and the Federal Government to bring the lucrative franchise to Warner Bros’ Village Roadshow studios at Oxenford. 

The sweetener being dangled in front of producers of the film, tentatively titled Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, is a one-off payment of $21.6 million. 

The money, originally offered by the Gillard Government to Disney for director David Fincher’s stalled 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea reboot, is at the centre of talks, with hopes the funds can be transferred to the Pirates production, which is expected to begin shooting early next year.  The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance has also met with Disney.

A film industry insider told the Bulletin discussions had progressed well and that the project was desperately needed for the city’s stalling film industry.  “We really need this movie for the Gold Coast and we are hoping things come together,” the source said. … 

… Gold Coast Tourism boss Martin Winter said securing the filming of a major blockbuster would pay dividends for the city. “The most immediate opportunity would be with the set itself becoming an attraction for people to visit, similar to the ship construction on The Spit for the Chronicles of Narnia film,” he said. 

“However, the long-term benefit to the local economy would clearly be the boost to employment numbers and if we reinforce the industry then it can only be a great thing for the Gold Coast.” …

Effectively, there is little difference between the two ideas; the first being that the diversion of funds to disaster reparations is an economic boon, and the second being that a similar diversion towards an unnecessary project does the same.

Both have visible results to show for the expenditure.  In both cases the lost opportunities of non-government activities in the private sector with the money used for those purposes cannot be assessed.

Industry and regional lobbyists can point to the relatively small amount per capita to be used for this project and the benefits that will accrue to little battlers like Disney and Warner Bros’ Village Roadshow, along with extra wealth for the glitter strip.  The things that might have happened instead elsewhere are invisible, because they didn’t occur.

A better solution

The real injustice of this proposal is that money is taken from taxpayers across the country and funneled into the Gold Coast, only benefitting that area.  If making the movie there really needs to happen here, a scheme that will encourage this yet benefit the wider population would be fairer.

A little imagination, (or in this case whimsy) offers a far more equitable solution to the problem of getting it made here while still spreading the benefit to the wider community.

An approach could be made to Disney offering to use $21.6 million for the following benefits to Australian viewers to encourage them to watch it if it is made here:

• First; Every ticket sold will be rewarded by the government with a free large bucket of popcorn, soft drink, and packet of Jaffa’s, (Do they still roll those down the aisle?) to have while watching the show, and:
• Second; Every rental or download will come with a government gift certificate for a family sized McHappy meal, (or the equivalent from Hungry Jacks, KFC, Subway, etc) along with fries, large coke, and whatever.

While this could cop some criticism from the AMA and associated health Nazis, all of the proposed benefits to the Coast would still come to fruition, and fast food joints across the nation would benefit, creating additional regional employment and generating untold wealth everywhere.

Truly, this represents a win win scenario.

Australian senate; the adults in the room form their own group

Image: Senator-elect David Leyonhjelm, of the Democratic Liberal Party

The 2013 federal election threw up a couple of excellent results for libertarians.

The first was the election of the Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm in New South Wales.  David is a fully committed libertarian of long standing, unswervingly dedicated to the principles of fiscal responsibility, social liberty, and capable of arguing against the trend, logically, passionately, and convincingly.

The second surprisingly was the election of Bob Day of Family First, who despite being a social conservative is just as erudite as David on fiscal matters.  While Bob is unlikely to support the full libertarian agenda, his election brought joy to most of us in that another fiscally sane member would be joining David in July.

Some worried about how a libertarian and a Socon would get along, the problem has been solved.  They have agreed to work together on fiscal matters, while doing their own thing on social policy.  For some reason, the press see this as a ‘roadblock’: 

… David Leyonhjelm, the NSW senator-elect representing the Liberal Democrats, has revealed he would vote in alliance with South Australia's Bob Day of Family First when the new Senate sits from July 1. 

They have agreed to vote together on all economic issues, but will decide their own positions on social issues. As a self-described libertarian, Mr Leyonhjelm supports same-sex marriage, for example, whereas Family First is opposed to it. 

The two-member bloc is half the size of the Palmer United Party-Ricky Muir alliance, but is likely to provide some headaches for the government as it seeks backing for its legislative agenda, particularly if that involves any new taxes. 

Mr Day believes the minimum wage should be lowered to get more people into work and taxes should be lowered across the board.  Among the policy agendas of Mr Leyonhjelm is the full privatisation of all school and hospital services, a lower minimum wage and lower tobacco taxes. 

He said: ''Unlike the PUP senators, who are only united by Clive [Palmer]'s funding, Bob and I share the same values. That makes us a mini voting bloc.   Mr Leyonhjelm said he would defer to Mr Day on any industrial relations issue and Mr Day would take his advice on agriculture. 

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is leading negotiations with the new crossbenchers. He met with Mr Day on Wednesday and Mr Leyonhjelm in Sydney on Friday.

Mr Leyonhjelm said Mr Abbott laid out his legislative agenda for July, which focused on the abolition of the carbon and mining taxes, restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and changes to the Fair Work Act. 

Speaking after the meeting, Mr Leyonhjelm said: ''I quite like the guy; he speaks his mind, a bit like me.'' 

On Tuesday, Mr Day and Mr Leyonhjelm delivered speeches to the Centre for Independent Studies. Mr Leyonhjelm said: ''We will push for doing less on nanny state stuff. An end to plain packaging, lower tobacco taxes and fewer smoking rules affecting private property. 

''Stop funding public health advocates who want to control what we eat. Stop funding the environmental organisations that oppose everything about modern society. 

''I also intend to press buttons on health and education. There is no justification for the government being a service provider in these … Service providers, whether they are for profit, charitable or community, will do the job better than public servants.'' 

Mr Leyonhjelm said when it came to smaller government, ''I do not draw the line anywhere''.  ''I have every intention of using my vote to try and make a difference,'' he said. ''I will use argument, reason, pleading and, occasionally, blackmail.'' 

In his speech, Mr Day questioned why, when Newstart allowance was $250 a week and the minimum wage was $650, people could not choose to work for less than the minimum wage but more than the dole. 

''We praise people who work for zero money - volunteers who work up to 40 hours a week in op shops and nursing homes - but we don't allow them to work for more than zero until you reach $650. It's absurd,'' he said.

It’s just as simple as that.  Leyonhjelm and Day are probably the only two adults and economic rationalists in the senate.  Neither is hamstrung by the need to follow the crazed party line of Abbott, Shorten, the Greens, or the personal opinion of Palmer and have sensible ideas to pull the nation out of the shit.

Neither are in any way obstructionist, and both will be quite cooperative as long as Abbott and his henchmen are prepared to talk sense.

Palmer advocates emulating Barack Obama

Cartoon: by R May 

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

It’s always amusing to hear politicians lauding the Australian economy over its AAA credit rating.

While its nice to think it hasn’t dropped below that, it needs to be remembered that this rating is awarded by the same agencies that gave AAA ratings to mortgage backed securities in the US and look how that worked out.  These agencies cannot even be held responsible for their screw-ups, owing to a court decision that their advice is only expression of an opinion and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

Nonetheless, Clive Palmer seems to swallow the Kool-Aid in an interview with Chris Uhlmann on AM: 

… CLIVE PALMER: …third best and we've already got a Triple A credit rating and there's only 13 countries in the world that have got a Triple A credit rating. I think all the other countries of the world would be envious of that position. 

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: Would you like Australia's debt to GDP ratio to rise to 70 per cent?

 

CLIVE PALMER: I think we have to, you know, if you look historically it goes up and down and moves within a particular band. And certainly it's never been higher than 20 per cent and that's well below any other country. 

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, without repair of the budget it will rise and continue to rise, so at what point do you think it should be fixed, how many deficits should Australia run in a row?

 

CLIVE PALMER: Well, first of all the United States has only had 12 surpluses in 50 years. They're the preeminent power on the planet. 

CHRIS UHLMANN: And France has run deficits since 1974 and all those nations are actually in huge financial strife at the moment, so should Australia try and keep this position or improve it?

 

CLIVE PALMER: No, they say that but I don't think that's true. You know, if we look at our unemployment rate in Australia of course we're around 5 per cent and the OECD average is 8 per cent. 

If we look at the amount of public spending that we spend on public expenditure, we're about half of what's spent in other countries. So already we're on a very tight budget. And I think really what you've got to look at is stimulating the economy, creating more growth. 

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: And how would you do that?

 

CLIVE PALMER: Well, certainly I'd do that personally if I was prime minister by moving the reporting date for provisional tax from the start of the year and stopping companies having to pay their tax before they've made the profit, to the end of the year. Now the forward estimates said that would raise $70 billion be released into the economy. 

CHRIS UHLMANN: In one year. It's a once-off. 

 

CLIVE PALMER: Yeah, and every time it circulates you get 10 per cent GST. So if it circulates say four times a year, you get $28 billion hit to the budget. Now that's similar to what…

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: It is a one trick pony. If what you said was true, it is a one trick pony. You can only move the date once. 

CLIVE PALMER: That's right and you need once to restructure the economy and to stimulate things. Look what president Obama's done in the United States. He's no fool. He's injected $85 billion a month into the US economy, created enormous growth and made America much more competitive. 

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: And the United States will never pay off its debt in its lifetime, in his lifetime. 

 

CLIVE PALMER: But it'll be the preeminent economic power in the world and… 

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: That won't be by 2020 when China will pass it. 

 

CLIVE PALMER: Well, I don't know, you know. The situation, China is not in the OECD so we can only look about comparative countries and we don't have a transparent system in China to compare us with. … 

… CHRIS UHLMANN: It certainly is but as you know without money you can't do the things that you want to do and if you are spending money now that you don't have then you are going to have to pay for it sometime and you're going to have to pay for it with interest and that will be paid for by a future generation. Is that fair?

 

CLIVE PALMER: That's just propaganda. 

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, no, that's absolutely true. The smiles on the faces of those children are going to be working for a lot longer and the aged population is getting larger. 
 

CLIVE PALMER: We've got to ask you, we've got to ask you, our gross domestic product is about $1.5 trillion a year. Our debt at the moment is probably around about $300 billion so that's…

 

CHRIS UHLMANN: Rising to $600 billion if nothing is done. 

CLIVE PALMER: Let me finish. That's about two months of our activity. Is your personal debts less than two months of your activity? That's what we are as a nation. You know, we've got debts which are less than one year of our total activity. I mean that's not difficult.  

CHRIS UHLMANN: Big difference between the size of the economy and the Government's finances though, as you would know. 



CLIVE PALMER: Well, not really. The Government can manipulate the economy in any way it wants to. …

Clive has no understanding of economics but knows the art of using romantic imagery such as putting smiles on children’s faces being more important than keeping the nation solvent.  The grim reality is, that if we don’t stop pissing our prosperity up against the wall we will be up shit creek without a paddle and those children’s futures will be bleak in twenty years time when our debt is totally unsustainable.

His assertions on the US economy are dubious at best.  More than 20% of the population there is on food stamps, employment growth is mainly in part time low paid jobs and government ones, and any fall in the unemployment rate is mainly due to drops in the workforce participation rate.

Anyone who believes that the way to prosperity is more debt will believe in the tooth fairy or the magic pudding.

No double-dissolution; so who’s backed down?

Prime minister, Tony Abbott has backed away from his threat of a double dissolution and now says that the next election will be in 2016.  He claims to be confident that his budget will pass, claiming that the minor parties will understand the need for tough measures.

Either he thinks that the threats he made are certain to work, or he has already put a deal in place.  On the other hand, he may be bluffing:  

... He was confident the minor parties and Senate independents would “understand” the harsh measures in his government’s first budget and accept his mandate to govern. 

“Whenever the next election comes, the people will judge us on what we’ve done and before the election we said we’d stop the boats, we’d scrap the carbon tax, we’d build the roads of the twenty-first century, we’d get the budget back under control,” he said in an appearance on ABC’s Insiders program. … 

… Mr Abbott last week warned that some of the incoming Senate crossbenchers — including Palmer United Party, Family First, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party — would be unlikely to keep their seats if there was a new election. 

His comments were widely interpreted as a threat of a double dissolution election to the crossbenchers who might be contemplating voting against some of the budget’s major measures. … 

… “I’m confident that the minor parties and the independents in the Senate will understand that we could not go on living the way we were, we could not go one mortgaging the future. 

“Now if they don’t like what we’re putting up, what are they going to put up as an alternative. …

If it is a matter of pulling the required votes from the minor parties, then some of the incoming senators must have backed down from their stated opposition to key points in the budget.  The DLP senator and Xenophon have been reasonably quiet, so it’s possible that they will vote with the government, but they need another four.

Liberal Democrat, David Leyonhjelm, and FF’s Bob Day are both fiscal conservatives who oppose tax increases as a matter of principle, so it’s unlikely that they have been swayed. Leyonhjelm would be lynched by his party if he were to change his mind on this, so he is out of the equation.

This pretty much leaves the three PUP senators and their bought or rented Motoring Enthusiasts Party guy, Ricky Muir to make up the four.  Given the statements of Clive Palmer, it is difficult to see how this could happen, but Clive has plenty of media operatives around him who would be able to spin the term, “save his skin,” into something meaning the same, but sounding noble and even self-sacrificing.

There is another possibility though.

Since the 1975 ‘dismissal’ oppositions have regarded as almost sacred the idea that the government has a right to have its budget passed.  They kick and scream up till the point of the vote, then back down in the name of convention.  Shorten has been foaming at the mouth since budget night, but the line he has adopted will leave him exposed to the rotten fish smell of the fiscal profligacy of the previous government owing to his assertion that the budget position is strong.

It’s a reasonable bet that the budget will pass with Labor backing.

Palmer for talk, Liberal Democrats for action

Some years ago, I was talking to the senior mine geologist about the drilling program when a winder driver asked about a problem she had and wanted to know whether she should talk to the general manager or the underground one.  

The geologist replied, “If you want something done see the underground manager, if you just want to talk about it, the general manager is just the man for it.”

This pretty much equates to the difference between the Liberal Democrats and Palmer.

Palmer is blowing off a bit of froth today about his chances of becoming prime minister if Tony Abbott calls a double dissolution: 

… Mr Palmer has predicted a bold, new direction for Australian politics where his party has a majority in the lower house and he is prime minister. 

The mining magnate has dared Prime Minister Tony Abbott to call a double dissolution election if he cannot pass the budget and says the Palmer United Party will run in every lower house seat and can claim victory.  

“Our members think there should be an election straight away,” Mr Palmer told Fairfax Media.  “They are ready and standing by.” … 

… Asked to explain precisely how he could become prime minister, Mr Palmer predicted that his party could take votes from the Coalition and added: “I think we can get the votes we need to make Australia better.'' 

“I think there will be a new change in the dynamic of Australian politics. In the lower house we will be going out to win it.''  Mr Palmer predicted the PUP could also claim 24 to 30 seats in the Senate. …

If voters want to be sold a pup, then Clive is just their man; he even has the right party name for it.  PUP is a policy free zone; the policy section of their website lists four or five one sentence generic positions that mean as close to nothing as Palmer can get them.

If you want to know more, he refers you to a ‘policy document’ which is actually a long series of press releases, some of them contradictory, and giving no detail of any proposed actions.

PUP mirrors Clive Palmer.  Clive is mainly famous for picking and losing fights, and travelling around the nation bitching about everything going on.  This is fine as far as politics go, but sooner or later, you have to come out with meaningful solutions.

The Liberal Democrats on the other hand feature a full section of detailed policies on pretty much every aspect of matters covered by politics.  Nothing is hidden; there are no surprises if the party is elected.  It is all out in the open.

Nobody knows what Palmer would do if PUP got up.  We all know what he complains about, but there are no solutions offered; his appeal is restricted to low information voters who want to make a protest, assuming that it will all be OK.

Palmer has spent the past week howling to the moon about the budget, saying he will block it, complaining about every aspect of it, but has not had the courage of his convictions (if any) to come up with an alternative. 

The Liberal Democrats on the other hand released a full and detailed budget a day prior to Abbott.  In fact, we were the only party to do so.  It may not appeal to everyone but everyone detests the LNP one.

We all have to step into the big unknown at some stage, but voting for Palmer is a step too far.

OK Liberals West Australia, what will you do about it?

 “If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.” – Thomas Paine

Liberals WA has a posting (below) up on their Facebook page today complaining of the way in which GST revenue from that state is distributed across the nation.  The reality is that of all revenue raised by this tax in the state, 38c (soon to go down to11c) in the dollar goes back there.  The rest goes to other states. 

Being Liberals, they tend to have a short attention span and have not gone on to check just how badly WA is treated by the tax system as a whole.  The same principle applies across the entire system; it is not just GST, but income, company and every other tax that rips them off.  The figure of $3.6 billion is only a small part of it; the total figure is around $20 billion from all taxes.

This issue was first raised by Liberal Democrat senator elect, David Leyonhjelm in the lead up to the West Australian senate election #2.

This welfare system involves two states – Western Australia and New South Wales – transferring funds to the other states and territories. WA transfers $20 billion a year, equivalent to more than $8,000 a year from each West Australian, while NSW transfers more than $2 billion a year, over $300 per person. 

Out of this system Tasmania and the Northern Territory draw nearly $4 billion a year each. That means each Tasmanian, rich or poor, gets nearly $8,000 per year from the people of WA and NSW while Northern Territorians get more than $16,000. 

The state-to-state welfare system is complicated and to unravel it is no easy task. Some think it simply involves the GST, but that only plays a small part. Of the $8,000 a year that each West Australian transfers to the east, only $600 is a result of paying GST to Canberra.

During the senate rerun, Clive Palmer threw huge resources at the issue and made significant inroads as a result.  We all remember those Youtube videos of Canberra snatching bread from hungry babes.  Clive, of course didn’t actually present a policy on the issue and tell the people what he was going to do about it; there was no need.  The implication that he disapproved of it was enough.

In view of this, it’s no wonder the WA Liberals have now found sufficient voice to bitch about it.

The problem they have with this, is that their version of ‘the world’s greatest treasurer’, Joe Hockey ridiculed Palmer for raising the issue and challenged him to say just what he would do about it, given his senators from Tasmania and Queensland.

So dudes, what are you going to do about it given your federal party believe that you have a duty to support the green obsessions of the Apple Isle?

The truth is that out of all the critics of the system, only the Liberal Democrats have a policy against tax transfers: 

The LDP will seek to: 

•                 Limit the federal government to defence, immigration, basic public services (eg passport services, regulation of hazardous materials, air and sea transport regulation), and assistance to the least well off. 

•                Stop all transfers from the federal government to other levels of government, including grants from the pool of GST revenues.

Abbott threatens election; goose calls for Christmas in July

Cartoon: By Bill Leak 

"Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for and politicians find out what people will fall for."– Alfred E Neuman

The Abbott budget appears to be in trouble with a reasonable likelihood that it could be blocked in the senate.  The last time this happened was in 1975, resulting in the dismissal of the Whitlam government.

The contentious nature of the move, and the resultant furor has resulted in a reluctance to repeat the exercise.  Some on the left claim an injustice owing to the oppositions aim to force an election, however the government of the day was mired in scandal, corruption and incompetence.  The one that replaced it was not much better.

In an effort to intimidate the senators from minor parties, Abbott has now threatened to go to another election, which would have to be a double dissolution.

… Laying out a political strategy towards the next election, the Prime Minister said he would not accept attempts to “completely frustrate” the government. 

Parliament will start to debate key budget bills within days as the Coalition prepares to force votes as quickly as possible, so that changes such as the new deficit tax can take effect on July 1. 

Plans for a $7 fee on visits to the doctor appear set for defeat in the upper house, undermining a wider plan to make $10.5 billion in healthcare savings over the next four years and channel the money into a medical research fund. 

Labor frontbenchers met last night to consider supporting the 2 per cent extra tax on incomes of more than $180,000 when Bill Shorten delivers his budget reply speech to federal parliament ­tonight. … 

… While open to “horse-trading” on details, Mr Abbott indicated he would insist on the passage of the overall legislation. 

“We’re happy to talk respectfully to the independents and the minor parties in the Senate, and obviously a certain amount of horse-trading is something that you just accept is part of the business,” he said early yesterday. 

“What we won’t accept, though, is an attempt to completely frustrate the business of government. I don’t believe that they will try to completely frustrate the business of government because, if there was an election again, hardly any of them would win their seats.” …

Abbott has blown most of the political capital he was handed in the election when voters saw the back of the Labor Greens government with a sense of relief.  After two terms of wild spending and mounting deficits, voters understood the need for fiscal restraint.

The problem they have now though, is that during the election campaign, in an effort to make himself a small target, Abbott comprehensively ruled out most of the things he has now proposed in the budget.  This makes a clear case that voters were deceived.

The threat to minor parties is real.  A committee of major party MPs has analyzed the voting in the 2013 election and unsurprisingly come up with a list of recommendations for a new system for senate elections designed to prevent minor parties being elected.

On the other hand, in a double dissolution the number of votes required to elect a senator is halved owing to the need to elect twelve per state, rather than the normal six.  The 25-27% of disillusioned voters is likely to stay constant and they will still be voting for someone other than the Liberal/Labor/Green triumvirate. 

This should be good for the Liberal Democrats who only have to hold their vote in NSW for David Leyonhjelm to be reelected outright with a nice base for a second senator.  If the 2013 vote holds for us, we could pick up a senator in most states.

With the possibility of a number of the single issue parties falling out, the LDP policies virtually make it inevitable that their memberships will come over to us.  These include, the Sex Party, Shooters, Wiki, Fishing & lifestyle, HEMP, and some of the saner members of PUP.

Our message to Tony; bring it on dickhead.