All this is irrelevant.  It doesn’t explain how John Howard went from ‘never ever!’ to implementing the GST.

The two-election possible scenario is an argument that can’t be lost. It isn’t unconstitutional and is an option available to the Government, much the same as going to an early election is (was). The LNP didn’t go to an early election because it knew it would lose but can now claim the moral high-ground by saying it wanted to go the full term.  If the LNP is still facing suicide by calling an election in May, it is an option that will be very much on the table. One reason it may not be taken up is, given the LNP’s minority status, it could trigger a successful no-confidence motion against the Government, but, once again, what will it have to lose. If it chooses not use the option, the LNP can deny it ever considered it, much the same as with the early election scenario.

Anyway for most of us it will happen if and when it happens. However for those on the periphery of politics it needs to be kept in mind. For example, if you’re a political journalist planning holidays, you wouldn’t consider November until after the election is called.

Explanation is simple.
First election, dismissed the whole proposal to distance themselves from the bad history.
First term, reviewed options both including and avoiding the GST knowing there was alot of bad blood on the GST, repackaged their proposal based on past learnings by both ALP and LNP PR disasters.
Went to the 2nd election with GST on table as part of policy. A vote for the LNP is a vote for GST, don't want, vote ALP.
Simple!

There are alot of things the govt can do that is legal, but they won't and don't because it would be a disaster electrol wise.  

I don't think too many people will buy the "we went full term, look how good we are" story. They went full term because they didn't have a choice.

Agree, we will see what happens when it happens.


I'll put this on the table now

Early budget
Election called shortly after for late May
LNP loose by 15 - 20 seats.

Not looking for an explanation. It's just an example of how a 180-degree turn is no problem for a politician. What they say today ..........

.......................................................................

I'll put this on the table now

Early budget
Election called shortly after for late May
LNP loose by 15 - 20 seats.

Then, and only then, will you be sure there won’t be a November election.

Not looking for an explanation. It's just an example of how a 180-degree turn is no problem for a politician. What they say today ..........

No, not an example at all.

So where is the REAL problem?

A politician who takes a policy to the voters and then implements what they say. Or the voters who have some hang-up because it conflicts with a previous policy of the past even though they had full say in its approval or not?

Based on your conclusion it is impossible for political leaders to ever review or change there minds even when they give the ultimate decision to the people. This potentially boxes them in on decision making and implementing the best policy when circumstances change. This is utterly impractical for both private and govt sector and in the case of the GST completely pointless having been rubber stamped by the ALP a few years later.

I don't mind anyone changing his mind. However, let's take Howard's "never, ever a GST". It is a very definite statement. There's no room for misinterpretation.  He went to an election, and enough people believed it.
Change his mind?  OK, but take the change of mind to the next election and let the voters pass judgement on something that important.
Politicians have a reputation of being two-faced and they have largely earned it.

As I stated before, you supported and I state again one more time for you. The "relevant comparison" between Aust and Can economies is that they are relatively similar, ie agricultural, mining, tourism etc but ARE disconnected enough as we don't trade with each other and hence the economies are disconnected but still influenced by the same industries. ie a mining boom in Oz will also see a mining boom in Can, same with grain etc. So as you stated before, Canada is a "Relevant Comparison" to see how it could have been. I don't know why we need keep harping on about this when you stated yourself its Relevant.

Two major ways in which the Canadian economy is completely different from ours:

- 30% of Canadian exports are motor vehicles, trucks, consumer goods etc, our GDP is almost entirely minerals and energy, tourism and food exports.
- Canada's largest trading partners are NAFTA, ours is China.

I still don't believe that you can point to Canadian economic cycles and say that ours will mirror that: It won't.

Any person that believes anything a poltician says these days need's their head read. I would not believe the Prime Minister announcing I had won the $30M lottery before an election, as they will promise anything and then if re-elected to power then immediatly go into amnesia mode.
It happens every election and from every party as well, the more that wake up to this ruse the better it will be.


This goes right back to the early days with would politicians promising whole towns that elect me and I will get a railway to the town or at least get one to pass through the town on the way to somewhere else. So it is not a new thing at all. But like I said amnesia after an election is really bad with some pollies even denying they promised any thing at all in some instances.

Remember the main thing though "Ask not what your politician can do for Australia, but what Australia can do for the politician".

Agreed DJ. If any politician told me that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, I'd want a second opinion.

Agreed DJ. If any politician told me that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, I'd want a second opinion.

And you would be correct to do so.

The heading of the sun at sunrise tomorrow (Adelaide) will be 111°, which is very close to east-south-east.

The Royal Commission into banking is released tomorrow after a weekend of the government sitting on it. It's going to be a challenge to try and give the appearance of caring, I guess they have to psych themselves up for the performance...

Valvegear, your memory is extremely inaccurate, John Howard did change his mind, and did take the changed policy of the GST to an election.

The example of a changed taxation policy not led at an election comes from Juliar and the ALP ‘no carbon tax under a government I lead’...

Howard won an election in 1996, he was on record as wanting to introduce a GST in 1997, my friend who worked policy for the leader of the government in the senate tells me the GST policy was announced early August 1998 with an election called at the end of August for October 1998.

The government was returned, at the election, and the legislative framework was drafted up and passed into law on 28/6/1999 - I was in Parliament House at the time of both houses passing the vote. The GST was then in place from July 1, 2000.

So outraged by the GST and John Howard’s ‘180 degree turn’ that at the following election on November 30 2001, an election I helped the Adelaide campaign (with the great Steele Hall) Howard was returned with what I think is still the largest ever swing to an incumbent government.

My friend tells me that the last time Howard would have said ‘no GST’ was certainly pre 1996, likely 1995.

I don't mind anyone changing his mind. However, let's take Howard's "never, ever a GST". It is a very definite statement. There's no room for misinterpretation.  He went to an election, and enough people believed it.
Change his mind?  OK, but take the change of mind to the next election and let the voters pass judgement on something that important.
Politicians have a reputation of being two-faced and they have largely earned it.

Valvegear, your narrow minded attitude on this if applied to real world politics would make it impossible for govt to function because at no time could they ever review policy and change there minds on anything which if applied to business would send any business broke.

The reality is the LNP put the policy to the PEOPLE, the PEOPLE said YES, the PEOPLE then backed up the YES vote two more times. How much more democratic can you make the whole process????

Now on the flip side,
- and while I'm a bit young for this on exact details, I believe Paul Keating announced there would be no CGT, but later introduced. Did he do this in the same electrol period, I'm not sure?

- Juliar's  CO2 tax back flip within weeks of an election of her saying it won't happen and basically she pi$$ed her political career up against the wall doing this in desperate attempt to remain in power. Note this spelling of her name came about after the CO2 tax. Julia would have been better off to call a 2nd election rather than backflip on the public like she did.

Now the additional difference between Julia's CO2 tax screwup and JH's GST success is that LNP basically previously lost an election due to them being hopelessly inept at structuring and selling the GST and hence learnt alot in the process. However more critically, since the 1998 election, the ALP has never had a policy to remove or significantly change the GST after it was implemented, including during their 7 years of govt, ie means the LNP got it mostly right the first time.

On the CO2 tax, the LNP rightly or wrongly (not taking sides) went to the next election with policy to remove and they did, they lacked the followup, but that's another story.

Agreed DJ. If any politician told me that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, I'd want a second opinion.

And you would be correct to do so.

The heading of the sun at sunrise tomorrow (Adelaide) will be 111°, which is very close to east-south-east.

Which just demonstrates how hard it is to be a politician because a simple single generic statement such as that by Valvegear is easily twisted by the majority at being wrong from their perspective.

No, not an example at all.

So where is the REAL problem?

A politician who takes a policy to the voters and then implements what they say. Or the voters who have some hang-up because it conflicts with a previous policy of the past even though they had full say in its approval or not?

Based on your conclusion it is impossible for political leaders to ever review or change there minds even when they give the ultimate decision to the people. This potentially boxes them in on decision making and implementing the best policy when circumstances change. This is utterly impractical for both private and govt sector and in the case of the GST completely pointless having been rubber stamped by the ALP a few years later.

Nothing to do with the GST. John Hewson’s inability to blow out the candles on his birthday cake is well known. Your original post stated the two-election scenario wouldn’t happen because the PM ruled it out. The Howard GST quote is frequently used to show that politicians will say whatever suits them at the time yet act totally differently when it comes to the crunch. Most people’s timeline for ‘never ever!’ would be infinity; John Howard’s was less than 3 years. Core and non-core promises.

Pauline Hanson (on company tax cuts):
https://www.facebook.com/abcnews.au/videos/pauline-hanson-denied-tax-cut-flip-flop/10155857242363983/

The Royal Commission into banking is released tomorrow after a weekend of the government sitting on it. It's going to be a challenge to try and give the appearance of caring, I guess they have to psych themselves up for the performance...

Yep.

As noted in sections of the media this evening, the gov't can hardly claim the RC as a success due to their blanket resistance to it to begin with. Speaks volumes IMHO.

No, not an example at all.

So where is the REAL problem?

A politician who takes a policy to the voters and then implements what they say. Or the voters who have some hang-up because it conflicts with a previous policy of the past even though they had full say in its approval or not?

Based on your conclusion it is impossible for political leaders to ever review or change there minds even when they give the ultimate decision to the people. This potentially boxes them in on decision making and implementing the best policy when circumstances change. This is utterly impractical for both private and govt sector and in the case of the GST completely pointless having been rubber stamped by the ALP a few years later.

Nothing to do with the GST. John Hewson’s inability to blow out the candles on his birthday cake is well known. Your original post stated the two-election scenario wouldn’t happen because the PM ruled it out. The Howard GST quote is frequently used to show that politicians will say whatever suits them at the time yet act totally differently when it comes to the crunch. Most people’s timeline for ‘never ever!’ would be infinity; John Howard’s was less than 3 years. Core and non-core promises.

Pauline Hanson (on company tax cuts):
https://www.facebook.com/abcnews.au/videos/pauline-hanson-denied-tax-cut-flip-flop/10155857242363983/

Exactly what I said, they didn't know how to package and sell it! Re-branding the GST to 10% was also part of the new strategy.

The so called quote by John Howard is frequently used by those, 99% of time left leaning wanting to hate John Howard and ignore basic commonsense in the whole argument.

The so called core and non-core promises, I agree with.

.........................................................

So outraged by the GST and John Howard’s ‘180 degree turn’ that at the following election on November 30 2001, an election I helped the Adelaide campaign (with the great Steele Hall) Howard was returned with what I think is still the largest ever swing to an incumbent government.

...............................................................................

From Kim Beazley’s Wikipedia page:

........ In the October 1998 election, Labor polled a majority of the two-party vote and received the largest swing to a first-term opposition since 1934. However, due to the uneven nature of the swing, as well as the Coalition's large majority going into the election, Labor came up eight seats short of making Beazley Prime Minister. Beazley did, however, manage to slash Howard's majority by more than half, from 19 seats to five. ................................

...........Beazley's momentum was also stalled by the September 11 attacks. When the November 2001 election was announced, Howard had taken a commanding lead in the polls and seemed set for a huge victory. But Beazley's dogged campaigning regained some of this ground and Labor suffered only a net loss of two seats to the Coalition.....................................

.........................................................

So outraged by the GST and John Howard’s ‘180 degree turn’ that at the following election on November 30 2001, an election I helped the Adelaide campaign (with the great Steele Hall) Howard was returned with what I think is still the largest ever swing to an incumbent government.

...............................................................................

From Kim Beazley’s Wikipedia page:

........ In the October 1998 election, Labor polled a majority of the two-party vote and received the largest swing to a first-term opposition since 1934. However, due to the uneven nature of the swing, as well as the Coalition's large majority going into the election, Labor came up eight seats short of making Beazley Prime Minister. Beazley did, however, manage to slash Howard's majority by more than half, from 19 seats to five. ................................

...........Beazley's momentum was also stalled by the September 11 attacks. When the November 2001 election was announced, Howard had taken a commanding lead in the polls and seemed set for a huge victory. But Beazley's dogged campaigning regained some of this ground and Labor suffered only a net loss of two seats to the Coalition.....................................

Yes, the GST wasn't popular thanks to the ALP smear campaign and what new tax is ever popular!

1998, ALP publicly talks down the crimes against the working class called the GST.

2000, Howard implements the GST, ALP quietly send him a thankyou letter for doing their dirty work.

2001 election, LNP picked 2 seats and overall popular vote

2004 election, LNP picked up another 5 seats and overall popular vote.

2007 election LNP dumped with Howard past his use by-date and other issues mounting up.

2007 - 2013, ALP continuously supported the GST and made no attempts to dismantle it.



A politician used the ultimate democratic process and allowed YOU to vote, YOU voted it in and YOU kept that same politician in for another two elections increasing their lead each time and YOU continuously supported that change ever since. It was YOUR choice, YOU voted for it. If you didn't want it why did YOU vote for it?

YOU = Australian voting public.

So are we finally done or do any of YOU still complain about the use of the democratic process to decide on a major piece of taxation policy?

The Howard-lovers can protest all they like, but "never, ever" means exactly what it says. He lied.

Valvegear, again, Howard changed his mind over three years - which ever way you wrinkle it, that’s about 50 times longer than it took Gillard to change her mind about a carbon tax that wouldn’t be initiated ‘under a government I lead’...

Explain away how this is such an improvement over a change of policy that was taken to the polls... You cannot do that can you?

Julia, didn't "really" lead the government.
Oakshott and Windor did.

Or perhaps her statement was a non-core promise?

Valvegear, again, Howard changed his mind over three years - which ever way you wrinkle it, that’s about 50 times longer than it took Gillard to change her mind about a carbon tax that wouldn’t be initiated ‘under a government I lead’...

I'm not singling Howard out just as a bashing exercise - I'm using him as an example. Gillard is another horrible example which I am perfectly happy to add to the mix.
Any pollie who says "Never" is so stupid that he/she should at the very least have advisers teaching how to speak; it's obvious they can't think for themselves. It really is very simple to say, "there are no immediate plans."

Regardless of what happened with the GST, John Howard’s quote is now synonymous with the duplicity of politicians and that’s the context it was used in. It’s up there with the unempathetic  ‘Life wasn’t meant to be easy’, ‘The recession Australia had to have’ and ‘Lifters and Leaners’. The John Howard cheer-leading exercise has been pretty much a waste of time and probably off topic.

Yep.

As noted in sections of the media this evening, the gov't can hardly claim the RC as a success due to their blanket resistance to it to begin with. Speaks volumes IMHO.

There's some pretty bad stuff in it apparently, not sure if they are going to recommend criminal charges but there's certainly lots of evidence of systematic over-charging. Anna Bligh of the Australian Banking Association has already come out and given a big "mea culpa" ahead of its release and said how the problems no longer exist etc. but I'm not sure if that'll be enough to assuage the public outrage.

I recall Johnny Howard saying in 2017 that any suggestion of a Royal Commission into banks was "rank socialism". It'll be interesting to see what he says in the wake of the report's release tonight... probably nothing!

I recall Johnny Howard saying in 2017 that any suggestion of a Royal Commission into banks was "rank socialism". It'll be interesting to see what he says in the wake of the report's release tonight... probably nothing!

Morrison, Treasurer at the time, described the call for a Royal Commission as "nothing but a populist whinge by Bill Shorten." His comments now will be fraught with interest.