Tag: Crispin Hull

Paul Keating famously said in 1996, “When you change your Government, you change the country.” John Howard’s Coalition Government sure did that. The question now is whether Labor’s Anthony Albanese can change it again…

“Yes, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s commitment to the Voice to Parliament has been welcomed. And is certainly an improvement on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s cruel of peremptory dismissal of the Uluru Statement….”

It should not be a question of ramping up government spending to meet the aspirations that voters expressed on 21 May. It should only be a question of its reallocation.

In today’s opinion piece, Crispin Hull looks at the fallout of the Federal election results for the Liberal party.

In today’s OPINION PIECE, Crispin Hull explains how, in a Liberal-held seat where there is a reasonably strong progressive Independent, diehard Labor supporters should put the Independent first and the Labor candidate second to get an overall better result for Labor….the breakdown of how this works in theory is fascinating ⟼

“…whatever the result on 21 May some fairly courageous policy changes must be made. A major shift in the tax burden away from labour and towards capital and consumption is a start…”

“Australians should now be questioning the stripping away of virtually all Covid controls. Intelligent economic management suggests we should be retaining as many cheap and easy controls as possible in order to prevent the need for costly lock-downs”

“You see, we do not have a two-horse (two-leader) race, or even a two-party race. For the first time we have a three-way race, and the third horse is a dark horse indeed. It is a collection of minor parties and independents who could easily change the face of Australian politics.”

“When voting below the line, a voter can rearrange the order within the Coalition column and can put all the Liberal candidates above the National candidates. This is even if a voter has put Labor, the Greens, a minor party or independent as their first choice.”

“… the campaign has not officially started, but all the indications are that for one reason or another neither side appears interested in laying out any clear set of measures to deal with the major problems.

We have to ask what those reasons are.
They are based in fear. And the well of negativity in Australia’s electoral history suggests the fears are well-founded.
Changes that would be for the overall good are doomed if any sub-set of voters would be worse off. Changes that would affect powerful interests will attract powerful, well-funded resistance…”