Prudent education funding gone-ski

I am sure I am not the only observer to be somewhat flummoxed by the new-direction 'Turn-bill' budget. My first reaction was rather stronger, but 'flummoxed' will do for now. I guess it will take some time to see where it leads, but for me it represents total capitulation on many long standing liberal values. While I appreciate the senate problem that has been used as justification for the illiberal measures, it does not explain the narratives used to justify these. Even if you wish to raise a levy on some banks, why the bank bashing? Liberals were once very proud of our world class banking system, so what has suddenly changed? Similarly the narrative surrounding the revised education policy is a total reversal of  what the LNP has been saying for some time.

Let's just look at education spending, now endearingly termed Gonski 2.0. While there is a potential political advantage in removing, or partially removing, a point of difference between ALP and LNP, it trashes the valid long standing LNP argument that increased education spending does not improve educational outcomes.

Across the world educational spending does not correlate with educational outcomes. (see Figure 1 below and the earlier post Education Spending scores an "F" giving some background.)

Figure 1: Educational Outcome vs Spending

At the same time despite significant increases in Education spending over the past decade Australia's education outcomes have deteriorated (see Inconvenient truths on Education spending ).

Given these inconvenient facts, how can any government justify increasing spending? Indeed, even if Australia had zero debt, and had money to burn, it would be a reckless politician who simply threw more money at a problem that has undoubtedly become worse despite more money.

What are the consequences?

By advocating the new Gonski 2.0 policy Turnbull and Scomo have; -

• conceded that ALP has been right all along to argue for Gonski and more spending
• trashed their own argument that more spending is not the way to improve outcomes
• contributed to increased spending when the country is running continuous deficits
• damaged LNP arguments for fiscal responsibility
• damaged their own credentials as responsible economic managers

At the same time the proposed 'adjustments' have already been labelled unfair and have ignited a war with the Catholic education sector.

This is a lose, lose, lose strategy.

What could they have done? 

Here are a few ideas for a start; - 

• Stick with the argument, and make the case that increased spending is NOT necessary for improved outcomes
• Focus on teacher education standards, that have been falling as rapidly as outcomes. Cause and effect?
• Focus on curricula that seem to dumb down the technical subjects to make them more inclusive. Perhaps a focus on the three R's would raise standards
• Look at encouraging some competitiveness between schools by allowing Principals to hire /fire and allocated salaries
• Ensure that payments to the states are contingent on each state's willingness to undertake the above reforms

The core principle underlying "Gonski" is that each child deserves the same level of contribution by State and Federal governments. This is hard to argue. Yet contrary to Labour, and now the Libs', interpretations this does not require additional spending, it just requires that current spending be adjusted to achieve that outcome. Of course it cannot be done at once, as any school suddenly losing spending would cry blue murder. It could however be a achieved by a series of incremental adjustments over some years. Over time the annual increases received by some schools would be lower than those of others. It would allow schools to gradually adjust to the 'fairer' distribution of public funding. No sudden changes, just incremental adjustments, and no cuts in absolute terms.

But even this incremental re-distribution is somewhat nuanced for today's "in" or "out" mentality, so for political reasons I would have avoided it, for now at least.

I guess this is one opportunity foregone for this year.  Given Turnbull and his team's unexpected abandonment of heretofore core LNP values, it seems sensible policy has been deferred for some time.

So we can all go and cry into our beers.

Well done Malcolm!

Given the many times I have criticized our PM in my posts, I must take the opportunity to praise him when it is appropriate to do so. So a hearty "Well done Malcolm!" for taking up the fight to change 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Yes, I know, it also happens to be expedient for him. It displays his liberal credentials but is not likely to pass. I guess that is true but it would be uncharitable to look for the negatives in a decision that has not been easy.

He knew any change to 18C would draw both personal and political criticism from not only those in the opposition parties, but from many vocal ethnic minority groups, the media and even members of his on party. That sounds like lose-lose proposition. Indeed his predecessor lost credibility by his unwillingness to pursue the issue.

Maybe, indeed more likely than not,  given the current numbers in the senate and even the house of representatives, the critical changes to remove the words "insult, humiliate or offend" will not be passed by parliament.

But for such fundamental questions of principle it does not matter. On the contrary, it provides an opportunity to contrast the differences between the parties, and the cross benchers. Where should a society draw the line between Freedom of speech and the potential for abuse of such a freedom against minorities? Do we want an open society where the laws encourage open debate of all issues and allow social interactions to counter any extreme elements? Or do we want to impose artificial constraints on such freedoms and try to control the very words that citizens can utter ?
It comes down to the fundamental issue of how our society should operate. That is certainly worthy of a debate and much more important than how the economic pie is divided. By taking this stand Malcolm has shown he has the guts to stand up and fight even if he is likely to lose. I for one appreciate his willingness to fight for the type of society I would like. Well done Malcolm!

Malcolm must get back to basics

Some time before the last election I posted some gratuitous advice to Malcolm Turnbull (Malcolm must cut through). Advice on how he could cut through and score against his vulnerable yet emboldened opposition. Alas, it did not happen.

Looking back we can see that his tenure has been a steady decline in personal and party popularity, increasing back bench unrest and LNP supporters heading for the door. Many heretofore ardent advocates of the Turnbull 'brand' are wavering, while others have written him off. It is a dismal picture.

With a full two years to the next election I believe it is premature to write off the LNP, even with Malcolm Turnbull as its leader.

Without doubt however some things must change. In its current form it is drifting towards annihilation. Labor's return to office with its current policies would be a disaster for Australia, with increasing debt, lower living standards and further social disruption.

So what can Turnbull and his supporters do about it? How could they address this decline?

Back to basics

It should not be necessary, but given recent ambiguity/wavering on some policy issues, I believe all MPs would do well to familiarize themselves with the LNP's core principles as stated on their website.

"We Believe:
In the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative

In government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.

In those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association. 

In a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained. 

In equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice. 

That, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment. 

In preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations. 

That our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations. 

In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise"

From Liberal Party website 

These are fine principles and should be ingrained in the soul of each LNP MP. They can be help to guide them out of many a political quagmire.

Of course the most effective messaging is when there is a contrast. So the principles should be stated and compared to those of the opposition.For example; -

• The LNP stand for equality of opportunity for all. The ALP are forever raising taxes and re-distributing the hard earned income of even battlers to their government funded causes.
• The LNP believe in equality of opportunity but accept that individual effort should be rewarded. The ALP is always "taxing the 'rich' and thereby removing the incentive that is required to generate wealth in the economy as a whole.
• The LNP believes in free enterprise, that it is the private sector un-shackled from government interference that creates wealth. The ALP is always looking to government enterprises and government involvement. 

In the end there are two core messages that need to be ingrained in the electorate; - 

1. The LNP is the party of freedom for the individual to realise their potential 

2. The LNP are better economic managers because they believe in small government and look to private sector to generate wealth.

Most importantly there needs to be consistency; All policies must be aligned with these core messages, so the parliamentary party, LNP supporters and the electorate as a whole understand what the LNP stands for.

Unfortunately this has not been the case in recent times, with the LNP's tendency to squib harder issues. Look at 18 C for a blatant example.

If all policies were clearly and unambigously consistent with the LNP's principles, the flow of supporters away from the party would be stemmed and who knows, many may return to the fold.

Lifetime ban-ter

What's so wrong about a lifetime Visa ban for asylum seekers who had tried to enter Australia by boat? The proposed ban would prevent anyone who has come to Australia by boat from re-entering anytime in the future, even if they have citizenship from another country.

Sounds pretty harsh! After all it could be 40 years from now, when that person may have won a Nobel prize, and wishes to enter for a holiday. I guess these are some of the arguments.

But let's considers some facts; -

• The government has a right to do this. The Australian government has a right to determine who enters the country, and certainly can and does prevent persons of 'doubtful' character from entering. So this declaration is not really novel.

• The person has had fair warning. The Australian Government has already stated that no person who enters Australia by boat will be settled in Australia (courtesy of the Rudd ALP gov in 2013). So again this is not really novel.

• It encourages re-settlement. While NZ has offered to accept some asylum seekers, the Australian government has not allowed this option as the open border between Aus and NZ would enable asylum seekers to circumvent Australia's stated policies. This would inevitably feedback to re-start the boats.

• It hastens closure of the offshore processing centres at Manus/Nauru. While the proposed change will not suddenly empty the detention centres it will encourage asylum seekers to leave voluntarily. By firmly locking the door to settlement in Australia some will inevitably opt to return to their home countries, while others may receive the chance to be-settled in countries such as NZ.

While it may not serve the political purposes of the ALP /Greens and refugee advocates, the legislation can help asylum seekers and there is little downside.

Asylum seekers would far prefer to have an option for re-settlement in a country like NZ, Canada or US than hold-out on Naure/Manus for an indefinite period.  So by arguing against this measure asylum seeker advocates are arguing against the interests of those they claim to support!

Malcolm misfires...again!

The week started so well, with all guns aimed at Union thuggery, preparing the ground work for the ABCC legislation Yet it ended so dismally with both barrels emptied into the government.

This has left many in the liberal side of politics shaking their heads and asking "how could this happen"?

Without getting into the details, after all in the fullness of time they are irrelevant. We tend to sift out the minutiae and are left with impressions. The overarching impression is of a government in disarray. No matter who contributed to the problems, the responsibility is borne by the PM who is supposed to lead his party through the great morass of potential problems. Rather the Turnbull government seems to lurch from one political fiasco to another. Week after week Malcolm has been exposed as a weak, vacillating and politically naive operator and the government he leads as lacking focus and discipline.

Woeful.

Malcolm's mixed messaging

What is he up to? After several weeks seeming to take at least some control and demonstrating some core Liberal values Malcolm is falling back to old habits.

His overseas trip showcased Malcolm the statesman. Mixing it with the leaders of the world he cut a fine figure. Astute, confident and willing to address issues directly and with conviction. He affirmed Australia's position on border control, despite the wide criticism it had received from many, and he "sold" the policies well. He was the very model of the Liberal leader of old, his mentor of sorts, "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come".

So too his attack on Green/Labour renewables policies following the unprecedented total blackout in South Australia. He was unwavering and caustic in his critique of the strategy that claims aims for renewables at any cost. Yes, he had a good reason to do so. After an unprecendented total blackout of an entire state, that despite the attempted deflection by the guilty , was inexcusable caused at least in part by SA Labour government policies.

Given his personal stance on climate change, one would have thought it went against the grain for Malcolm, Nevertheless he seemed to enter the fray with gusto and with piercing logic. Of course that doesn't mean the Left simple conceded defeat on the contrary they went on at great volume obfuscating , denying, and generally excusing the inexcusable. Still it was there for all to see, we may all believe in responsible climate change action, many will also believe in renewables, but definitely not at all costs. We must have electricity!

So after this most welcome change in fortune why is he wavering on SSM?  On SSM Malcolm seems to be trying to have it both ways. He avers the stated policy of the government is to have a plebiscite.
He repeatedly re-iterates the facts; -

• a plebiscite on SSM was taken to the election
• the government has a mandate for the plebiscite
• a majority of voters supported the plebiscite on SSM
• Ireland had a successful referendum that saw people come together

Yet, and it is still causing him enormous political problems. He has not and seems unwilling to state clearly and convincingly that as far is his government is concerned it is the plebiscite or nothing.

He has been given plenty of opportunities to do so. No interview goes by without the press asking him if he will rule out alternatives. He has refused to do so. His apparent wavering has caused the opposition to seize the political opportunity to create mischief. They have refused to support the plebsicite and enlisted their leftist army to attack the government for not letting parliamentarians have an unfettered conscience vote. Yes this is politicking plain and simple. Yet Shorten seems to be on a winner, at least for now.

At this stage it is the government that is being blamed for this 'postponement' of SSM. In the long term that may be a different matter, but for now the game for both the opposition and the press is to make Malcolm blink.

So far Malcolm has stood firm, but is making his own party nervous. They see the wavering indecisive vacillating Malcolm. The politically naive Malcolm, the Malcolm who failed to handle the politics of Tax reform or the budget, or the election campaign with any convincing aptitude.

Leaders are decisive, they command respect by willingness to state their position with conviction.
Malcolm started his reign with great expectations, support from the press and an opposition in disarray.

Yet after 12 months, after a much to narrow electoral victory, his party standing is poor even with its own supporters, the opposition is in the ascendant , and the loyal press though still willing to cut him slack question his political nous.

Although it should have been done a lot earlier, he could simply remove one of the questions of his leadership by simply declaring "on SSM it is the plebiscite or nothing".

Super stuff-up!

If there was a single policy that contributed most to the loss of faith in Turnbull and Morrison in this election campaign it has been their ill conceived Superannuation policy. This policy alone turned many from loyal LNP supporters into at the very least skeptics but some into outright enemies.

Given the many and oft repeated claims by a broad spectrum of LNP ministers, including, most pointedly, our current treasurer that "we won't touch super", " the government is not after your money", it is no wonder that many have turned their backs on the party. It has left a deep scar that will heal but not for a while.

Change or stay the course?

Before the election Turnbull and Morrison could have retreated from some of the most controversial parts of the policy, those relating to the lifetime after tax contribution cap of $550,000 and the blatantly retrospective commencement "from 2007". Yes, this would have been a loss of face and it would have lost some credibility, but by any measure sticking to the controversial policy they have lost much more.

After the election however that option is not so easy.

They are left with only unsavory alternatives.

If the Super policy legislation is presented to the parliament in the form in which they were advocated at the election, it will remain as an ongoing scar against Turnbull and Morrison that will haunt them for whatever period they have in office.

If on the other hand they modify it, they will not only have angered their base for no reason, worse still they will repeat the policy flip-flops that contributed to the downfall of both Abbott and Gillard governments. You cannot change the policy you have taken to an election without serious adverse consequences.

Reluctantly I have to accept they have no choice but to present the legislation as proposed at the election, and hope the Senate saves them.

The Senate may well save them

Although this is by no means likely, it is possible that the Senate will reject or insist on modifications to the policy that was taken to the election.

Many in the crossbench owe at least part of their support to their stated position against the government's Super and so will naturally reject the most controversial propositions. So in this case at least Turnbull will get help from the cross bench.

It then really depends on the ALP.  

The ALP was very vocal about the 'Retrospectivity" in the proposed rules but then 'banked' all the savings. This inconsistent approach may have been expedient during an election campaign but now needs to be reconciled. If they dig their heels in and insist on modifications, it will give Turnbull an out. He will be able to modify the policies to smooth over the most controversial parts relating to the lifetime limit on after-tax contributions. It would be hard for the ALP to argue against the removal of the retrospectivity thorn from the policy when they had argued against in during the campaign, but of course this is the ALP and they have done similar policy flip flops in the past.

However the very fact that it gives Turnbull an out may sway the ALP to simply support the legislation as proposed to entrench the resentment by the LNP supporters against Turnbull and Morrison. 

My guess is the ALP won't do this. They won't be able to resist grandstanding and will choose to reject the legislation. I guess we'll see.

In any case if the legislation is rejected, it will give Turnbull the justification to make necessary changes to remove the controversial aspects of the policy and find a middle road to calm LNP supporters. Let's hope he takes that road. He seems doggedly deaf to advice and I fear he may not.

May outshines Turnbull

May claims the centre..

Theresa May has taken the reins of the UK with a quiet confidence reminiscent of her very successful only female predecessor. By vowing to fight the "the burning injustice" of the disadvantaged she claims the centre path and vows to rule for all the people. Glib as these sentiments may be, they show an astute politician setting an agenda for the country and her party.

In the same vein she has appointed Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary, a surprise appointment but most appropriate given Boris' role in the Brexit decision. He will have the task of facing the very people who may be hostile to the move. More importantly given the divisions within the conservative party caused by the Brexit decision she is showing she wants a united party and will include all who are capable in the ministry.

Contrast with Turnbull

Contrast this to our own PM. After deposing Abbott, without a second thought for inclusivity or healing the natural divisions that such a coup would cause,Turnbull surrounded himself with his 'yes' men. The very people who had helped orchestrate his ascendance became the primary beneficiaries. Many ardent Abbott supporters were jettisoned.

Over the past 8 months he has had a free rein to win the hearts and minds of both the electorate and his colleagues. Alas the election results demonstrate that he has been unsuccessful. By almost losing the un-loseable election he has opened up a rift with the right wing of his party and yet seems doggedly unwilling to redress this problem. Where May accepted the need to ensure all extremes of her party are represented in her cabinet, Turnbull seems blind to the division he has caused and reluctant to address it.

It can be achieved in a number of ways,  either by opening up more cabinet positions for its members or by being more willing to fight for their causes.  Yet there is no sign that Turnbull is taking any action. One is reminded of the Abbott 'tin ear'.

While it is true that today these problems are but 'rumbles', a Cory Bernardi announcement of a new right wing movement, or individual MPs complaining about the Super policy. The rift goes deeper than that. Once parliament is back in action it will be exploited by political shenanigans by any of the opposition parties and the media, and has the potential to fester and grow. With the government's future hanging on just two disaffected right wing MPs this is potentially terminal.

Turnbull neglects this at his peril.

Que sera

The election result just announced, the senate not yet settled, Shorten still doing victory laps, yet the carnival moves on. The hectic activity of weeks gone by; the constant intrusion of political ads, news-grabs of pollies in factories and shopping malls, visibility vests, handshakes, rats being cuddled, incessant analysis by the chatterati, robo-calls, election posters, are gradually fading into memory. We are back to the daily grind. The electorate, judged by this single voter, is 'excited-out'. There has been too much electioneering, over too long a period and we all have our breaking points.

Yet curiosity compels questions. The post election review and recriminations have commenced and will no doubt play out over the next few months.

• Was the double D worthwhile? 
• Should the campaign have been shorter? 
• What should have been done differently?
• How to respond to a scare campaign?

The Medi-scare campaign is lionized by the ALP and deplored by the LNP. Behind the scenes it is the the backroom boys, the campaign puppeteers, who will be evaluated in view of their results. But at front-of-house, the leaders must accept responsibility; Shorten the victor by smiles, and Turnbull tainted by under-performance.

Yet these questions are for the short term. More important are those of the future;

• Will this just-over-the-line result lead to a more careful attentive, therefore better government? 
• Will it survive the knife-edge of fortune to last its full term? 
• Will Turnbull have learned any lesson from his disastrous campaign? 
• Will the media take a more sober assessment of information provided by vested interests? 
• Will the media in the future question outright lies from their favoured politician ? 
• Will the promises/mandate by a government that barely gets across the line be respected by an already pugnacious senate? 
• Will the disposition of the cross benchers allow real budget repair? 
• Will Australia lose its AAA under a Liberal party trying to achieve the opposite? 
• Will the ALP vote in favor of economic policies it took to the people, if they are now presented by an LNP government?

Alas que sera, sera. What will be will be. Keep watching.

Time to take the initiative

Fervor to fiasco

Consider the widely acclaimed Tax reform agenda touted by the newly elected PM just a few months ago. Announced with great enthusiasm and a clear set of guidelines;

 "A reform package must at the very least, raise the revenue we need, share the burden fairly across the community and do so in a way that incentivises employment, investment and innovation." Rebuilding Foundations of Reform 5 Nov 2015

Much has happened in the ensuing months that has tarnished this simply stated and noble goal. Serial qualifications of what will be 'in' or 'out' have muddied the waters. An eloquent Mr T has waffled his way around the subject, with everything 'on the table' except of course GST, and no negative gearing, well perhaps a little bit, but only where it is really justified.

His opponents are well nigh saying 'I told you so', and while his adherents and the media are maintaining the faith, for now, they are eyeing for exits. His numbers, the pedestal on which he justified his ascension, are wavering.

So too Scot Morrison. He joined the Tax reform crusade with great gusto, but his early propositions were beaten down, no doubt by Mr T, leaving ScoMo looking stupid. Saying one thing one day only to withdraw it the next. No wonder he has taken to saying little. Recall the much heralded presentation to the Canberra Press Club. A roomful of economists and political journos well primed with earlier hints of major pronouncements waiting in anticipation to receive... naught. That went over like a lead balloon. No doubt Scomo is not happy having his reputation as an effective 'doer' being trashed even before delivering his first budget.

This political ineptitude has left the electorate nervous about what the budget will bring. With its self- generated constraints and a looming double D can the government pull something out of the hat and regain the popularity it was bestowed for having disposed of Abbott?

Take the initiative now...

The government has shown remarkably poor judgement in the execution of the Tax Reform Debate. The vacuum left by vacillating between what is 'in' or 'out' has enabled the opposition to take the high ground by announcing their own policies and contrasting their decisive position against that of the government. It has shown in the polls. So it is time that the government takes the initiative and sets the narrative for the upcoming budget. 

Detailed policy measures can be left to the budget itself, however the narrative sets the scene, gives the media something to discuss and incidentally highlights ALP's role in creating the massive government debt and the reckless spending that led to our ongoing structural deficit. It also builds on why the LNP was elected in the first place, to be good economic managers.

A suggested Budget Narrative is presented below (this is reprinted from an earlier post Hypothetical Budget FY17 )

Budget FY17 Narrative

Size of government
All money raised by government is revenue foregone by individuals and corporations. Therefore it is incumbent on the government to remain as small as possible but have sufficient revenue to effectively and efficiently deliver the services the electorate mandates.

Historically, average Australian government revenues have been below 25% of GDP. While in recent years this has blown out due to both additional spending and lower tax revenues, your LNP government will return the revenue to and then ensure it remains below this historical average.

Equity

It is incumbent on governments to ensure any spending is equitable across all sections of the electorate. Within any budget there will be individual measures which advantage some sections and disadvantage others, but taken as a whole the measures in any budget will fall equitably across all sections of the community.

Equity also applies to generational equity. It is immoral for the current generation to continue to spend more than it earns and leaving the debt to future generations. Therefore the government will always strive to reduce government debt and to bring the budget into balance.

Current Economic environment 

While we firmly believe in the above two principles, we find ourselves in a difficult situation.

• The large increases in expenditure initiated under the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments and the subsequent collapse of the mining boom have caused a wide and widening gap between Government income and expenditure creating a ongoing structural deficit.
• The current gap between Expenditure and Income is such that we are failing our own limits on the size of government. Last year government revenue rose to just under 26% of GDP and due to the on going deficit we are failing on generational equity as well.
• However our structural deficit cannot be redressed in a single cycle, as the consequences of introducing measures to redress it could be counter-productive putting further pressures on the economy and reducing government revenues.

Our strategy 

Given these constraints we see it prudent to take gradual but significant steps to redress our issues, with an emphasis on growing the economy while maintaining but not growing government.

This implies; -

• Addressing inequities in welfare and superannuation systems whereby lower income earners subsidize higher income earners.
• Limiting personal tax relief to the real savings achieved by the above measures.
• Ensuring full compliance with government policies, applies to corporate and personal tax collections, welfare payments etc.
• Increasing the productivity within government departments.
• Increasing productivity within business by eliminating red-tape and high-cost industrial relations practices.

Start now...

There is no time to lose. Start now.

Tax Reform Farce

I am bemused at where we have arrived in the Tax Reform debate. Launched just a few months ago by a freshly minted PM with some fanfare it had widespread support from the business community, economists and a then fawning media. See these welcoming headlines; -

AFR 1 Oct,2015 - "Turnbull's summit greenlights super tax reform"-

SMH 15 Sep 2015 - "Malcolm Turnbull touted as a more likely tax reformer than Tony Abbott"

The Australian 1Oct 2015 - "Tax reform the key to Malcolm Turnbull’s vision" 

Today, that idyllic dream seems so far away. The headlines again tell the story.

SMH Feb 8,2015 - "Malcolm Turnbull lands on a snake on tax reform"

SMH Feb 5,2015 - "Peter Hartcher: Tax reform proves to be a test of Malcolm Turnbull’s courage"

The Australian Feb 11,2015 - "From tax reform to reshuffle, Turnbull needs to get cracking"

AFR Feb 11,2016 - "Malcolm Turnbull's dark and stormy night of tax reform reality"

How did we get here?

It started with; we are moving forward, casting light, gaining insights, having the conversation with the people.

Then proceeded to; we are not ruling anything in or out, everything is on the table, we are open to all discussions.

As criticism rolled in, it turned to; we won't touch the life savings of the workers, we don't want to increase the overall tax take. And most recently, we can't see any justification in an increase in the GST.

Is this not a trifle confusing?

Lack of leadership exposed

Our leaders have led us a merry chase.

It reminds me awfully of Rudd's 2020 Summit, that mindless ideafest calling for the 1000 "best and brightest minds" in Australia to "map out a strategy for Australia's long-term future". With such high expectations , it was primed for failure. It has disappeared into that not insignificant pit of grandiose ideas concocted by our Kevin 07.
Turnbull too had set the bar high for his Tax Reform agenda and now it too faces a similar fate.

With a hostile senate, negotiating the tricky path to reform was never going to be easy. But let's face it Turnbull had a lot going for him. A partisan media euphoric at the ousting of  Tony Abbott rolled out the red carpet and focused on the opposition. The collapse of the mining boom highlighted the need for real reform, especially since it had been sadly lacking for many years. So the professional classes, the media and the electorate were ready and waiting for their new leader, with such excellent business credentials, to lead them to the Tax Reform promised land.

Alas, in but three short months we have had our confidence shaken and our once great expectations are nothing but a wind in the willows.

Leadership, true leadership requires ideas, an understanding of the available options, conviction a firm belief in the correct path and guts, the courage to make unpopular decisions and see them through. Unfortunately all three seem to be sadly lacking in our PM.

What next?

It is not yet too late to resurrect this mess. Who knows the Tax Reform team, Turnbull, Morrison and Cormann, may stop sitting on the sidelines, decide on a course of action and start convincing the electorate of its merits. I live in hope.

If not, the consequences of Tax Reform failure are not inconsiderable. We would face an extended period without real reform, a growing national debt and further deterioration of living standards.

While the reform agenda can still be resurrected the Turnbull prime ministership has taken a direct hit. The whole sorry saga has exposed Turnbull's frightening lack of political skill. This does not bode well for our future.

More media musings

It is but a short time since the poll driven removal of Tony Abbott as our PM. Much has happened; a new cabinet has been sworn in, the new ministers have gracefully fronted the media and had warm loving interviews with a compliant media.  New polls have proclaimed the success of the change with a bounce of some 5% in two party preferred for the LNP and a corresponding drop for the ALP. Malcolm Turnbull is now the preferred  PM by some 20 points. All signs of a successful coup.

Not quite. Whereas winners are grinners, the losers are unhappy. So far discontent has been largely under the covers and the media, in honeymoon garb, is reluctant to fan any flames. Even the breathless few comments by Tony Abbott clarifying some comments about Morrison did not lead to much. The entrails of this coup have not been scrutinised, yet. But it will come. And once the media-pack needs some fodder, the discontented will be sought out for their views.

Besotted media coverage

For the present, the media has welcomed the ascendancy of Malcolm Turnbull to the PM role with open arms, forgetting the many reasons they found fault in his last incarnation as LNP leader.  The interviews have been sycophantic. Listen, for example to the unusually slow talking Michael Brissenden in his almost apologetic interview on AM , or view Leigh Sales's kindly, soft interview on ABC 730 report allowing Malcolm to talk without her trademark interruptions.

This is nauseating deference. I have always advised against aggressive, interview tactics (see Interviewing:boxing or surgery?)  but for heaven's sake this looks more like a love fest.

Indeed the media is very pleased. Virtually every commentator has been at it. Praising the new ministry, the Turnbull style, and turning their critical eye, at last, onto the ALP. It is as if Turnbull is their man. No doubt some of this is the euphoria of success; the media's success in getting rid of Tony Abbott, their success in securing the leader they wanted.

Media as influencer

Of course much of this is not new. It happened when Rudd was elected, it happened when Gillard was elected, and indeed when Rudd was elected again.

Abbot however had never received the soft treatment of the others. From the moment he surprisingly defeated Turnbull for the LNP the leadership, the media has been up in arms.

Even after defeating the hopeless Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governernments, Abbott received but a short honeymoon.

Without doubt, like all before him, he made some grievous political mistakes. The commentators often note he had no 'political' capital, but more accurately he had no 'media' capital.

In the end all leaders must accept their fate, no matter how the end is wrought. But we should be very concerned if our media hijack the show. If they become players in the political drama. If their influence causes the very changes they want to 'report'.