When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called?

Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election

He is sneaky

Maqqa wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky

What to reengage the electorate and tony on policy?  Why won't Tony debate?  Why does their need to be an election for us to hear from him?  Why is he so scared?

If Mr Rudd would like a debate, Christine Milne is available.

Unlike Mr Abbott, Christine has the ticker and able to string a sentence together.

---

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:14pm: When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky What to reengage the electorate and tony on policy?  Why won't Tony debate?  Why does their need to be an election for us to hear from him?  Why is he so scared?

no other opposition leader has ever had an election debate without an electio so why should Abbott? If you want abbotts policies and abbotts debate then come up with an actual election date with writs and the dissolving of parliament and all that nice constitutional stuff!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:27pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:14pm: When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky What to reengage the electorate and tony on policy?  Why won't Tony debate?  Why does their need to be an election for us to hear from him?  Why is he so scared? no other opposition leader has ever had an election debate without an electio so why should Abbott? If you want abbotts policies and abbotts debate then come up with an actual election date with writs and the dissolving of parliament and all that nice constitutional stuff!

So what?  Nothing like starting a new tradition.

What on earth is a policy debate with the opposition prior to an election being called going to achieve FFS.

Just shows Rudd is bereft of any idea of what a competent government is meant to do - ie. govern. He thinks its a game, goes out making a daft headline, his outcomes are clearly only measured in how much spin he can conjure up.

He's never run a competent government so I guess he just doesn't have an effing clue of what to do. Talk about promoted well above his capabilities.

I can imagine as a PS in Qld he always had outstanding references from his superiors....they would have been keen as mustard just pleased to see the back of him, and being the PS, he couldn't get sacked so he got moved sideways and promoted and now we have the weasel chinned mealy mouthed fat twat.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:27pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:14pm: When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky What to reengage the electorate and tony on policy?  Why won't Tony debate?  Why does their need to be an election for us to hear from him?  Why is he so scared? no other opposition leader has ever had an election debate without an electio so why should Abbott? If you want abbotts policies and abbotts debate then come up with an actual election date with writs and the dissolving of parliament and all that nice constitutional stuff!

So you think if the libs win they should just do what labor's been doing? Why vote liberal then?

Maqqa wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky

Never seen an opposition leader who would not bend over backwards for a chance to debate the government.

Typically it is the government who laugh at attempts from the opposition to force a debate.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:14pm: When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky Never seen an opposition leader who would not bend over backwards for a chance to debate the government. Typically it is the government who laugh at attempts from the opposition to force a debate.

Tony would bend over backwards too.  For different reasons though.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/files/2010/10/pyne.jpg

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:14pm: When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky Never seen an opposition leader who would not bend over backwards for a chance to debate the government. Typically it is the government who laugh at attempts from the opposition to force a debate.

Exactly, it's always the opposition wanting to put out their policy and show it as superior to the governments. When you have no policy that is hard to achieve. No wonder phony Tony is so scared of debate.

skippy. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 9:42pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 9:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:14pm: When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky Never seen an opposition leader who would not bend over backwards for a chance to debate the government. Typically it is the government who laugh at attempts from the opposition to force a debate. Exactly, it's always the opposition wanting to put out their policy and show it as superior to the governments. When you have no policy that is hard to achieve. No wonder phony Tony is so scared of debate.

The look on his face in the last few days is priceless.

He's realised that he might not actually ever become PM, and it's killing him.

Watch out for Malcolm, Tony.   ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Typically it is the government who laugh at attempts from the opposition to force a debate.

Tony would bend over backwards too.  For different reasons though.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/files/2010/10/pyne.jpg[/quote]

Agreed,  it has been an odd period where the govt has let themselves be defined by the opposition.  Indeed, you would think they would know by now that running a campaign on tearing down Abbott just makes the bloke into a governing like figure and catapults the bloke into national prominence and grants him extraordinary powers.

But here they are again, instead of speaking up their own record it is once more the emphasis on Tony.

Slow learners?  Has McTernan gone yet?   

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:42pm:

no other opposition leader has ever had an election debate without an electio so why should Abbott?

Abbott could EASILY say ... "as many as you can handle, as soon as you give an election date"

( ... but he'd prefer NONE at ALL as, policy aside, Abbott knows Rudd would eat him alive at debating)

Datalife wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 9:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 9:38pm: Typically it is the government who laugh at attempts from the opposition to force a debate. Tony would bend over backwards too.  For different reasons though. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/files/2010/10/pyne.jpg

Agreed,  it has been an odd period where the govt has let themselves be defined by the opposition.  Indeed, you would think they would know by now that running a campaign on tearing down Abbott just makes the bloke into a governing like figure and catapults the bloke into national prominence and grants him extraordinary powers.

But here they are again, instead of speaking up their own record it is once more the emphasis on Tony.

Slow learners?  Has McTernan gone yet?   
[/quote]

Hahahahaha!

The libs tactics are exposed now because they are no longer working. All their supporters are floundering just as much because they havent been told what the slogans are for this week. Its hilarious. Trying to twist it around so its the government picking on poor tony isnt going to work either because ppl KNOW abbotts campaign of hate for the last 3 years.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:42pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:27pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 4th, 2013 at 7:14pm: When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky What to reengage the electorate and tony on policy?  Why won't Tony debate?  Why does their need to be an election for us to hear from him?  Why is he so scared? no other opposition leader has ever had an election debate without an electio so why should Abbott? If you want abbotts policies and abbotts debate then come up with an actual election date with writs and the dissolving of parliament and all that nice constitutional stuff! So what?  Nothing like starting a new tradition.

that tradition died in 1993.  I said at the time that that election would end the practice of oppositions or govts putting forward detailed policies well ahead of the election.  justified or not, the result of that election told all parties that you will be punished for be open, transparent and innovative on policy.

the voting public only has itself to blame.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

( ... but he'd prefer NONE at ALL as, policy aside, Abbott knows Rudd would eat him alive at debating)

It would be embarrassing to watch.

I still want to see it though   ;)

Maqqa wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

When was the last time Labor agreed to a leader's debate before an election is called? Rudd knows the current polls are an aberration and he's well behind. This is why he's asked for a debate before an election He is sneaky

How is it "sneaky" or a bad thing unless you and abbott know he cant win a debate against rudd?

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens?

I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury.

Abbott has a new 3-word slogan......

"Name the Date."

And, like all his other slogans, has absolutely no substance.

No budgies in the smugglers, Tony??

;)

Debates before an election date, between the two leaders of our great Political party's?

That reminds me of the title of a movie -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnkefjCES-4

Verge wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury.

why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless.

In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100%

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100%

For three reasons;

This is the same treasury that they will be required to work with should they take office, so why shouldnt they do the costings for them?

Second is consistency.  The same people should be costing all parties policies.  It stops people from using all different variables to give an answer they want.

Transparency.

Treasury act on behalf of the tax payer and I have serious concerns about people getting auditing firms, espically after the debarcle last time.

I see you also missed where I am critical of the greens also not getting theirs costed by treasury.

If treasury are as bad as you claim, will the LNP seek to remove them when they take office?

Verge wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% For three reasons; This is the same treasury that they will be required to work with should they take office, so why shouldnt they do the costings for them? Second is consistency.  The same people should be costing all parties policies.  It stops people from using all different variables to give an answer they want. Transparency. Treasury act on behalf of the tax payer and I have serious concerns about people getting auditing firms, espically after the debarcle last time. I see you also missed where I am critical of the greens also not getting theirs costed by treasury. If treasury are as bad as you claim, will the LNP seek to remove them when they take office?

consistency is only of value it the error range is relatively minor. But since Treasury are so bad that frankly a taxi driver's estimate could be no worse, the value is simply not there. Who could forget Treasurys predictions on tax revenues which were wrong by such a margin as to be laughable.  Or the carbon price which they still were saying only months ago would be $29 and is now $6 and dropping.

Im all for costings of policies but Treasury are so bad they are of no value. 

And the Greens DID have their policies costed but Swan refused to release them.  any idea why???

So who do you get to cost the respective policies?  Consistency is no substitute for accuracy.

Verge wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% For three reasons; This is the same treasury that they will be required to work with should they take office, so why shouldnt they do the costings for them? Second is consistency.  The same people should be costing all parties policies.  It stops people from using all different variables to give an answer they want. Transparency. Treasury act on behalf of the tax payer and I have serious concerns about people getting auditing firms, espically after the debarcle last time. I see you also missed where I am critical of the greens also not getting theirs costed by treasury. If treasury are as bad as you claim, will the LNP seek to remove them when they take office?

Ask paul Keating his opinion of treasury. The recession that everyone knew we were already in was denied by Treasury and Keating was sucked in.  When he had no choice to admit we were in a recession, most people in the country already knew it and didnt need three month old figures to realise it.  AS a result, Keating banished Treasury from giving him any advice.  Ironically, his economic performance improved markeldly afterwards.

Costello didnt banish Treasury but he was bright enough to spot when they were dead wrong, naive and stupid and ignore them.  Swan of course believed everything they said and look at how well his budgets went!

and the final bit of evidence comes from this forum. Take a look at John Smiths signature block where he actually is silly enough to deny that Keating left a $96B debt and instead says it is $56B.  But this is not his own imagination. That bit of fictional writing comes direct from ... yes, you guessed it... a former senior Treasury official.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% For three reasons; This is the same treasury that they will be required to work with should they take office, so why shouldnt they do the costings for them? Second is consistency.  The same people should be costing all parties policies.  It stops people from using all different variables to give an answer they want. Transparency. Treasury act on behalf of the tax payer and I have serious concerns about people getting auditing firms, espically after the debarcle last time. I see you also missed where I am critical of the greens also not getting theirs costed by treasury. If treasury are as bad as you claim, will the LNP seek to remove them when they take office? Ask paul Keating his opinion of treasury. The recession that everyone knew we were already in was denied by Treasury and Keating was sucked in.  When he had no choice to admit we were in a recession, most people in the country already knew it and didnt need three month old figures to realise it.  AS a result, Keating banished Treasury from giving him any advice.  Ironically, his economic performance improved markeldly afterwards. Costello didnt banish Treasury but he was bright enough to spot when they were dead wrong, naive and stupid and ignore them.  Swan of course believed everything they said and look at how well his budgets went! and the final bit of evidence comes from this forum. Take a look at John Smiths signature block where he actually is silly enough to deny that Keating left a $96B debt and instead says it is $56B.  But this is not his own imagination. That bit of fictional writing comes direct from ... yes, you guessed it... a former senior Treasury official.

Which was why Costello sold a bundle of Gold reserves, at a dirt cheap price?

perceptions_now wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:40pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% For three reasons; This is the same treasury that they will be required to work with should they take office, so why shouldnt they do the costings for them? Second is consistency.  The same people should be costing all parties policies.  It stops people from using all different variables to give an answer they want. Transparency. Treasury act on behalf of the tax payer and I have serious concerns about people getting auditing firms, espically after the debarcle last time. I see you also missed where I am critical of the greens also not getting theirs costed by treasury. If treasury are as bad as you claim, will the LNP seek to remove them when they take office? Ask paul Keating his opinion of treasury. The recession that everyone knew we were already in was denied by Treasury and Keating was sucked in.  When he had no choice to admit we were in a recession, most people in the country already knew it and didnt need three month old figures to realise it.  AS a result, Keating banished Treasury from giving him any advice.  Ironically, his economic performance improved markeldly afterwards. Costello didnt banish Treasury but he was bright enough to spot when they were dead wrong, naive and stupid and ignore them.  Swan of course believed everything they said and look at how well his budgets went! and the final bit of evidence comes from this forum. Take a look at John Smiths signature block where he actually is silly enough to deny that Keating left a $96B debt and instead says it is $56B.  But this is not his own imagination. That bit of fictional writing comes direct from ... yes, you guessed it... a former senior Treasury official. Which was why Costello sold a bundle of Gold reserves, at a dirt cheap price?

on treasury advice mind you.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:07pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100%

they can't do worse than some of the independent ones the libs have been using ... $70B black hole last election, NSW discovers an extra $1B under the sofa ....

at least if treasury costings for everyone, and they get it wrong, they will be skewed the same way

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

and the final bit of evidence comes from this forum. Take a look at John Smiths signature block where he actually is silly enough to deny that Keating left a $96B debt and instead says it is $56B.  But this is not his own imagination. That bit of fictional writing comes direct from ... yes, you guessed it... a former senior Treasury official.

oh you are an idiot sometimes. ...  if a former employee of yours publishes something that is wrong, are we allowed to blame your company? The only fictional writing is what comes out of your mouth.

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% they can't do worse than some of the independent ones the libs have been using ... $70B black hole last election, NSW discovers an extra $1B under the sofa .... at least if treasury costings for everyone, and they get it wrong, they will be skewed the same way

'complete failure' doesnt have direction  It is just a screwup making their predictions worthless.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% they can't do worse than some of the independent ones the libs have been using ... $70B black hole last election, NSW discovers an extra $1B under the sofa .... at least if treasury costings for everyone, and they get it wrong, they will be skewed the same way 'complete failure' doesnt have direction  It is just a screwup making their predictions worthless.

and how is an independent screw up better?

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:42pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% they can't do worse than some of the independent ones the libs have been using ... $70B black hole last election, NSW discovers an extra $1B under the sofa .... at least if treasury costings for everyone, and they get it wrong, they will be skewed the same way 'complete failure' doesnt have direction  It is just a screwup making their predictions worthless. and how is an independent screw up better?

i didnt say it was.  I was simply saying that a Treasury analysis is worthless. 

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:42pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% they can't do worse than some of the independent ones the libs have been using ... $70B black hole last election, NSW discovers an extra $1B under the sofa .... at least if treasury costings for everyone, and they get it wrong, they will be skewed the same way 'complete failure' doesnt have direction  It is just a screwup making their predictions worthless. and how is an independent screw up better? i didnt say it was.  I was simply saying that a Treasury analysis is worthless.

well I for one would like costings on all policies ... someone's got to do it, it may as well be treasury ...

If you are happy to follow blindly, got for it.

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:49pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:44pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:42pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 5:34pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 4:07pm: Verge wrote on Jul 5th, 2013 at 2:17pm: The big question is will they have their policies costed by Treasury, both the LNP and the Greens? I dont think either party should be allowed to release a policy that hasnt been costed by treasury. why??  Given treasury's spectacular failings in the costing and prediction department, a tick of approval by Treasury probably means it is wrong. I'm serious.  I'm all for having policies costed but the reality in government is that no costing is ever accurate even when it is competently proposed and analysed. Remember the laptops policy which was 100% out??  and there are plenty more like that. It just renders most costings pointless.  With error margins consistently in the range of 100% saying that an abbott policy costs 25% more than a Rudd policy is meaningless. In POlls the Margin of error is 3%.  IN policy costings, it is 100% they can't do worse than some of the independent ones the libs have been using ... $70B black hole last election, NSW discovers an extra $1B under the sofa .... at least if treasury costings for everyone, and they get it wrong, they will be skewed the same way 'complete failure' doesnt have direction  It is just a screwup making their predictions worthless. and how is an independent screw up better? i didnt say it was.  I was simply saying that a Treasury analysis is worthless.  well I for one would like costings on all policies ... someone's got to do it, it may as well be treasury ... If you are happy to follow blindly, got for it.

no wonder you are a labor supporter.  That is the typical labor policy of doing things.  AS long as your policy doesn't kill anyone or start a war you think it is great policy.  The mere idea of doing a GOOD job doesnt enter the equation.

might as well get Bob the Tax Driver to do the analysis.  He will be wrong and probably very wrong. But at least no one is expecting any better.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

. no wonder you are a labor supporter.  That is the typical labor policy of doing things.  AS long as your policy doesn't kill anyone or start a war you think it is great policy.  The mere idea of doing a GOOD job doesnt enter the equation. might as well get Bob the Tax Driver to do the analysis.  He will be wrong and probably very wrong. But at least no one is expecting any better.

AS long as your policy doesn't kill anyone or start a war you think it is great policy

Iraq ???

longweekend58

I hear that a lot, the ALP have all these wonderful ideas they just can't implement them or they can't explain them to the public.

What the John Rusted on Smith is saying is that he thinks brand ALP is wonderful no matter what.

There are many wonderful ideas out there that just won't work or are impossible to implement, the ALP before and after the 2007 election proved that beyond doubt with motor mouth Rudd.

Just a moot point many of these ad ideas had Gillards grubby DNA all over them.

Rudd has no ideas he is just a party parrot.

RightSadFred wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

longweekend58 I hear that a lot, the ALP have all these wonderful ideas they just can't implement them or they can't explain them to the public. What the John Rusted on Smith is saying is that he thinks brand ALP is wonderful no matter what. There are many wonderful ideas out there that just won't work or are impossible to implement, the ALP before and after the 2007 election proved that beyond doubt with motor mouth Rudd. Just a moot point many of these ad ideas had Gillards grubby DNA all over them. Rudd has no ideas he is just a party parrot.

I doubt that anyone has said that Labor are wonderful, just a lot better than the alternative.

RightSadFred wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

longweekend58 I hear that a lot, the ALP have all these wonderful ideas they just can't implement them or they can't explain them to the public. What the John Rusted on Smith is saying is that he thinks brand ALP is wonderful no matter what. There are many wonderful ideas out there that just won't work or are impossible to implement, the ALP before and after the 2007 election proved that beyond doubt with motor mouth Rudd. Just a moot point many of these ad ideas had Gillards grubby DNA all over them. Rudd has no ideas he is just a party parrot.

You are so full of crap  .... I have never said labor is wonderful. We are talking about treasury, not labor. Is it too difficult for you to follow?

The problem with the liberals are that there are NO idea's out there, either wonderful or otherwise. As for talking about them, everyone needs to wait for Abbott to stop running before he can talk. How do we talk ideas when Abbott refuses to outline what his are exactly? or are you that simple that 3 word slogans do it for you?

As for parrots, you had your crackers this mornings?

Dnarever wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:42am:

RightSadFred wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:29am: longweekend58 I hear that a lot, the ALP have all these wonderful ideas they just can't implement them or they can't explain them to the public. What the John Rusted on Smith is saying is that he thinks brand ALP is wonderful no matter what. There are many wonderful ideas out there that just won't work or are impossible to implement, the ALP before and after the 2007 election proved that beyond doubt with motor mouth Rudd. Just a moot point many of these ad ideas had Gillards grubby DNA all over them. Rudd has no ideas he is just a party parrot. I doubt that anyone has said that Labor are wonderful, just a lot better than the alternative.

not many saying that either.

John Smith wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:53am:

RightSadFred wrote on Jul 6th, 2013 at 7:29am: longweekend58 I hear that a lot, the ALP have all these wonderful ideas they just can't implement them or they can't explain them to the public. What the John Rusted on Smith is saying is that he thinks brand ALP is wonderful no matter what. There are many wonderful ideas out there that just won't work or are impossible to implement, the ALP before and after the 2007 election proved that beyond doubt with motor mouth Rudd. Just a moot point many of these ad ideas had Gillards grubby DNA all over them. Rudd has no ideas he is just a party parrot. You are so full of crap  .... I have never said labor is wonderful. We are talking about treasury, not labor. Is it too difficult for you to follow? The problem with the liberals are that there are NO idea's out there, either wonderful or otherwise. As for talking about them, everyone needs to wait for Abbott to stop running before he can talk. How do we talk ideas when Abbott refuses to outline what his are exactly? or are you that simple that 3 word slogans do it for you? As for parrots, you had your crackers this mornings?

you say labor are great all the time by virtue of supporting what they do and attacking every one else.

He fawns all over them. The sychophantry of the rusted ons for the worst govt and party in history is sickening. They should be shot for treason.