On Friday, An Onymous Lefty penned a post on his blog:
Finally, a decent, progressive government, committed to ensuring that wealthier Australians don’t have to pay as much tax to support carers living in poverty. I mean, really – Tax cuts; or government helping people in dire need put food on the table? A freaking easy choice, say Kevin and Wayne. Screw those poor people!
You can imagine the rest.
On Saturday on the open thread here, there was a vigorous discussion of the abolition of one off bonuses to pensioners and carers – which had never been budgeted for, but were paid directly on an ad hoc basis by the Howard government from surpluses.
After having intervened from overseas on the weekend, Kevin Rudd yesterday sought to lay the issue to rest, telling a post-Cabinet press conference that carers and pensioners would not be worse off as a result of the budget and that the government intended to provide recipients of benefits with greater financial certainty. Today, the opposition are jumping up and down demanding certainty – appearing to want a pledge signed in Rudd’s blood or something – while trying to spread uncertainty as widely as possible for their own political purposes.
This has been something of a communications disaster for the Rudd government. One way of looking at it is to ask the question of whether it’s partly a product of over-centralisation of message control in Rudd’s office. Ministers intoned a standard line of refusing to comment on budget deliberations, while the PM was in New Guinea building bridges. This had the effect of fueling the story, because this line wasn’t sufficiently flexible to reassure anyone. By the time Rudd intervened the story had huge legs and was (unwarrantedly but understandably) causing great distress in the community.
One might have expected a better and more measured response from some bloggers – who after all often claim to be beyond the hype and hysteria of the hypermedia cycle of the MSM. Rudd is not philosophically likely to go after carers and pensioners, and nor were the leaks to papers which aren’t exactly friendly to the government benign. In the rush to judge, and condemn, no one appears to have consulted Labor policy which pledges an upward adjustment to the rate of pensions, nor stopped to consider that all the signs pointed to rolling such ad hoc bonuses into a higher regular payment. Perhaps the near simultaneous release of a Treasury paper which critiqued the increase in welfare spending under the Howard government didn’t help, but again it doesn’t take too much political insight to realise that the government’s modus operandi will be to rein in spending through means testing middle class welfare, not taking aim at the poor and vulnerable. In fact anyone who’d been reading what Lindsay Tanner has had to say carefully over the last few months would know that.
This raises the question of why both journos and some bloggers were so prone to an insta-response whose parameters were defined by Labor’s political opponents. One of the culprits here is surely the speed of the media cycle which discourages reflection and reasoning and privileges hyperbole and pre-judgement on the basis of partisanship and ideology.
For the hamfisted response, though, the government has only itself to blame. Tony Blair’s experience should be an object lesson in how overcentralising spin and “message control” can result in a negative story spinning out of control. If Ministers hadn’t been robotic reciters of lines, then surely their political sense would have suggested a way to kill the story stone dead before it got wings.
And surely too one of the government’s spinmeisters and media gurus should have realised that the days of the budget being a set piece for announcements are long gone in favour of a rolling cycle of policy announcements, and re-announcements. After all, that’s how these ad hoc payments came to be off budget in the first place.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Elsewhere: More at This Will Hurt Me….
Jeremy’s blogging motto should be ‘If you can’t say a thing sarcastically, then it’s not worth saying at all.’
Mark says;
oh, yes, the anti-Rudd bias of Australian media. For example, this is The Age’s Catherine Deveny reporting on the election outcome;
- and that was an election that got her all “buzzy and post-coital.
She goes on to ask “Who are we going to hate now?” that Howard is gone.
And here’s Tracee Hutchison reflecting on the same post-coital afterglow;
Oh. My. God.
Speaking personally, Rudd has performed a lot better than I ever expected.
After 11 years of expecting pollies to break promises, lie, cheat etc and of seeing Labor govts at the state level underperform (from a leftist point of view – they’re still better than the alternative) I think most bloggers have been subconsciously waiting for Rudd to let them down.
So there was an element of ‘at last! the thing that I feared has come to pass!’ in bloggers’ reactions.
The msm will have to be careful of how they handle issues like this, however – too much ‘crying wolf’ and the public will disbelieve it when Rudd actually does stuff up and the msm tries to bring it to our attention.
I really should have endorsements like that on the sidebar.
Mark – if the claim turns out to be wrong, and the government has no such plans and does no such thing, then I’ll be the first to say “thank God” and withdraw any remarks based on the story. In the meantime, I’m happy to do my part in highlighting to them how politically inconvenient to them such “budget responsibility” might be.
It’s also not in the slightest bit unreasonable to criticise them for their first major spending priority in office; giving (or, if you’re a neocon who sees that tax money as MINE ALL MINE, “returning”) $30 billion to wealthier Australians. And Rudd does keep talking about his “razor gang” and how there’s going to be some “unpopular” decisions coming. I’d be inclined to bet money that the people with whom those decisions are “unpopular” will not be the middle-class white Australians who used to vote Liberal that the ALP wants to keep.
How much do you want to bet, Jeremy?
And are you still of the view that Rudd won’t be increasing the overall payments? He’s made it very clear that he will. Or are you, like, Dr Nelson, waiting for a pledge signed in blood?
Eliot Ramsey at 2, you don’t appear to understand that there’s a distinction between op/eds and bias in reporting. The big problem with the reporting of events – as opposed to political commentary – is that it’s governed by a pack mentality and isn’t informed by anything much other than the spin of the day from whoever plants the story. As with this – there’s more than enough evidence around to suggest that cutting pensions in real terms would be something Rudd wouldn’t do.
mckenzie at 3, old habits die hard. I think Rudd with his determination to deliver on election promises (even with things like the tax cuts which I oppose except for low and lower middle brackets) is really trying to restore trust and confidence in government.
Has he? Excellent. Where? If that’s what he does, great, and I’ll be the first to applaud it.
I still want to know what “unpopular” things he has planned. He’s certainly trying to prepare us for ‘em. If it’s not carers, how DOES he plan on paying for those tax cuts?
I bow to your greater knowledge of the political process but it still seems unlikely that a story so toxic to labor, if manifestly untrue (not in terms of the detail but in terms of the perception of an overall cut to carers income), would be allowed to run unchecked for two days. If a week is a long time in politics then 2 days is not a particularly short media cycle and you would think pollies would be pre-adapted to the pace. It seemed exceptionally strange to me; everyone sees a “no comment” response as cause for doubt. Perhaps the delay really was due to exceptionally poor advice and over-centralization rather than a rapid re-think, but that demonstrates implausibly execrable judgement on the part of the advisers. Then perhaps I expect too much from the process.
Do you read posts, Jeremy?
I’ve already pointed out that Rudd has said explicitly that pensioners and carers won’t be worse off as a result of this budget, and that obviously implies (and he made it pretty clear) that one off bonuses will be rolled into regular payments. Labor policy at the last election was to increase the rate of pensions.
As to where the money will come from for cuts, again as I said, if you follow what Lindsay Tanner has been saying for months, it’s pretty clear that means testing middle class welfare is mooted.
If you want a personalised assurance from Rudd, or advance copies of the budget two months before it’s finalised, I suggest you take that up with Wayne Swan.
Or if you want to respond according to your own pre-formed view whenever there’s a leak in the papers, you can keep doing that, without bothering to inform yourself of what the Finance Minister has actually been saying. Again, might help if you read the post.
Su at 6, I think specifically what’s wrong with the process is that people aren’t meant to say anything that hasn’t been pre-agreed without approval from the PM’s office. This is a case study in how dumb that sort of “message control” can be. It wouldn’t have played out in the same manner had Rudd been in Australia, but it’s still fatally flawed.
Cuts have already been made the the National Capital Authority (33% staff loss) and to the budgets of the National Art Gallery and Museum in Canberra. Although it’s a big issue around here, I’m guessing that it hasn’t had any coverage beyond the Canberra area.
I’ve read about it in the Fin Review, Mindy. If people really want to know what’s going on with this sort of stuff (and IR as well), it’s worth the $2.70 a day as a lot goes in there which isn’t covered elsewhere.
These cuts, and others, are a result of the “efficiency dividend” for all Commonwealth authorities and departments which has been in place for some time. They’re separate to structural cuts to spending programs which will be announced in the budget.
[...] Anyway, I don’t want to crap on any more, but I thought that Mark Bahnisch eloquently summarised the whole kerfuffle on Larvatus Prodeo this morning. [...]
Jesus, Mark, could you BE more patronising?
You made that claim in your post without a link; in any case, the fact that Rudd has now come out and made a vague claim, now, that these people will not be “worse off”, now, several days after the original story, now, doesn’t make my originally posting about it unreasonable.
I hope you’re right about how Rudd’s going to tackle the funding-the-unnecessary-tax-cuts problem, but leaving this sort of thing hanging in the wind for a few days doesn’t make me too optimistic.
Good post Mark. Many people were very quick to jump on these rumours and stories of misinformation as fact and proceeded to carry on like pork chops. Rudd has confirmed that these people will be not worse off in the Budget. If it doesn’t happen, then the Government will have some explaining to do.
It would seem that Rudd is planning to make the financial support to these needy people permanent as opposed to the one-off payments brought in by Howard as a bribe before the 2004 Election. I think that’s the right thing to do. Hopefully, where these people deserve or need extra financial support than they’re already getting, they receive it.
I suspect that there are plenty of left bloggers out there that have been wary of Rudd for quite some time.
The fact is that Kevin Rudd is no left hero, quite the contrary. A lot of the exuberance at the elections result was because Howard was defeated, rather because Rudd was an inspired left choice. It was because ‘it felt good when my head stopped hitting the wall’ principe.
So immediately when there is an issue which is seen as a ‘betrayal of traditional left labour principles’ whatever they are. Rudd gets jumped upon.
I expect this to increase substantially as times goes on.
Mindy, from the cuts being made by the ‘Razor Gang’, it would seem that Labor is not a friend of the arts. Another cut that has already been made is a $100,000 grant to Chamber Music Australia, an important and internationally renowned chamber music event in Melbourne. I’d like an explanation from Mr Tanner about that – I mean how would that grant have fuelled inflation?
I’m sorry, Jeremy, that you found me patronising. I could always try for over the top sarcasm if you prefer that genre of writing.
If you’d like a link, here’s one:
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2008/interview_0128.cfm
I don’t see that as a “vague claim”. I think you’re just reinforcing the point I made in the post – you’re inclined to look at all this with your mind already made up.
Haven’t followed this up because I’m supposed to be working, but the talk around Adelaide Writers’ Week was that there have been cuts to the National Library as well, including to the acquisitions budget. More cultural history down the oubliette.
[Mark, has the preview function gone in the big reshuffle or is my browser just not working properly?]
But then, what better time to run a kite flying exercise than when the PM is out of the country? I’ll stop now but to anyone in the ALP intending to write a memoir in the distant future; I want to know what Really Happened; all 20 versions!
Peter Martin in the Canberra Times makes the point that the Coalition’s spending on the Carers and Senior bonus was merely a last minute exercise to lower an embarrassingly high surplus. He then goes on to say -
Peter Martin’s spot on, as he usually is.
Dr Cat, an answer to the question in parentheses can be found here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/03/11/what-price-fiscal-conservatism/#comment-446099
Jeremy says:
Here’s why. Just before the election, Nielsen’s pollster John Stirton compiled data using opinion polls from the last four campaigns, broken down by age groups, and compared it with opinion polls taken in October and November.
Sub-urbia…
…versus Maximum Security Twilight Homes.
And do you remember this?
Well, let’s see what those “sweeteners” will be come the budget.
su at 20, I can’t see it as having been a kite flying exercise, for at least two reasons:
(1) While it’s completely wrong to see budget cuts in toto as unpopular, people are likely to accept cuts to middle class welfare they know in their heart of hearts is really unjustified, not taking a bludgeon to pensioners and carers. Taking a bludgeon to the unemployed on the other hand… Whatever you may think of Kevin08, he’s still a very clever politician.
(2) Contrary to what some people think, ALP governments don’t delight in kicking the underprivileged!
It’s another one of Rudd’s achilles heels at play here – the control fetish over the media, and the dysfunctions of “message discipline”.
A lot of political stories are really quite simple much as we sometimes like to think a lot is going on behind the scenes. This is one of them.
Alex, if we are talking about “an insta-response whose parameters were planned by Labor’s political opponents”, then is the Canberra Times’s Peter Martin another example?
So, will the Rudd Government be recompensing carers “properly” at an “extra $1600 a carer a year”?
Let’s see?
Eliot Ramsey, I realise you’re just trying to find whatever chinks you can in Rudd’s armour from your right wing position, but your comment makes no sense:
(1) If there’s one thing Rudd has demonstrated, it’s that he will deliver election commitments at all costs. Hence the tax cuts. If you want to know what “sweeteners” there’ll be, just do some more research. Anything they promised on the public record in the campaign will be delivered. As I said before, Rudd is making a serious effort to restore trust in government – even if most of the political class would praise breaking the tax cut promise to the skies. You’d underestimate Rudd’s determination at your peril.
(2) Governments don’t go around trying to punish older demographics for not supporting them, they try to turn that around! Your comment appears to imply that Labor wants the voting patterns from last election to be set in stone forever. Of course, they don’t. They want to maximise their vote to its utmost to the degree consistent with their approach to government. As do all governing parties.
Huh? That’s not what Martin is arguing. Nor is he “one of Labor’s political opponents”.
No idea what you’re on about, old son.
Yes I accept your last point. I am perhaps reading too much into the detail.
But in regards to: 1) They have signaled cuts in welfare though, so how they will do that without at least nudging the underprivileged with their toe?
And in regards to 2) The point is that if it were a KFE they had not yet made up their mind whether the move constituted a kick or something milder; they needed to find out. From a bean counter’s perspective a non-recurrent supplement is just that;so perhaps we can withdraw it and even though it is an overall deficit to them, people will not mind since they already knew it was not forever and therefore have sensibly not formed any expectation of its continuing. This is a very logical position to take and it is the position that many people commenting on blogs etc took before Kevin stepped in late Saturday.
Su -
(1) as I said wrt 1 in the post and in several comments, means-testing middle class welfare.
(2) I don’t think they needed to fly a kite to get an adverse reaction. It could have been predicted. They’re not amateur hour politicians!
Mark says:
Exactly, Mark. If the Coalition that “should be condemned” for not recompensing carers properly to the tune of “an extra $1600 a carer a year”, do you honestly think Martin will condemn Rudd for likewise not recompensing carers with “an extra $1600 a carer a year”?
Then, and I didn’t make you say this, you said;
Well, that hasn’t been demonstrated anywhere yet, apart from a few cost-free stunts like the “Sorry Day” victory celebrations.
Brendan Nelson moves to censure the Government for “failing to guarantee the payment to carers and pensioners”.
Great work, Brendan. Maybe a failed, baseless censure motion will make us (the electorate) take you seriously…
The premise here is non-existent. Howard didn’t “guarentee” the payment – because it was a series of one offs not provided for either in the budget or forward estimates.
Its been a shameful media beat up right from the start.
Journo asks a question, gets a standard polly straight-bat non-answer and suddenly carers are being burnt at the stake, tearful stories of hardship abound, reader polls eliciting negative results [the ABC had one which ran the whole gamut from the ALP are 'really, really nasty bastards' to the 'ALP are mildly nasty bastards'] and we can take it as graven in stone fact that the ALP is/was/maybe not going to screw carers when in actual fact there never was any such statement.
Gotta do something about the media in this alleged democracy.
Way to completely twist quotes into illegibility, Eliot.
Well said, hannah’s dad!
Mark says;
What, Rudd’s “when it comes to the bonuses system, carers and pensioners will not be any worse off under the Budget”?
No less vague than Howard’s and Costello’s “wage earners won’t be any worse off under WorkChoices” or “interest rates won’t be any worse under the Coalition”.
I mean, really. Rudd’s a politician, Mark, no matter how “buzzy and post-coital” the media try to make him out.
The line I’d run (maybe they have already?) is: “Mr Nelson is asking us to deny a baseless rumour that we’re going to penalise vulnerable Australians. We’re not, and never said we would, but until recently he was supporting workplace laws that penalised vulnerable Australians as a matter of policy.”
But seriously: people flying kites are the journos – they know there are cuts coming, they know they’ve got to come from somewhere, and from here until the budget they’re going to be asking the governments to deny that they’ll be making cuts that hurt carers, pensioners, working families, diggers, retired cricketers and so on down the list. Every time they get a response that’s anything short of “No, Never. No frikkin way.”, hey presto: there’s a story.
It’s not the ideal way to conduct a debate on reigning in national spending, but it’s to be expected. It shows the structural encouragement in the media cycle for spinning every damn thing: judicious leaks would fill the vacuum that has so far been given over to speculation.
PS – Could the opposition possibly have taken any longer in trying to make hay out of this? They seem a bit flat-footed, no? More concerned with mergers, I guess.
Andos says;
Hang on. Some Rudd stooge at the Canberra Times admonishes the former Government for not adequately recompensing carers with “an extra $1600 a carer a year” in order to excuse Rudd for failing to commit to not cutting the carers’ allowance altogether? Ha ha. Now there’s a “twist”.
Listen, for all any of us know, Rudd may indeed come good with something. But it’s plain as day he’s not giving anything at this stage except evasive, Howard-like “nobody will be worse off” generalities.
Since Rudd has just INCREASED payments to most pensioners except aged pensioners who already had with his $125 pr. qr utility allowance, something Howard REFUSED to do for the disabled, single parent and other non-aged pensioners,I’m having a bit of a common-sense credibility problem with the idea he’s going to cut allowances for carers and aged pensioners. I’m on teh far left, I don’t admire Rudd for heaps of reasons, but I just don’t see him doing what the media/Lib beat-up alleges. Sorry. (Sorry meant sarcastically.) And the increase in the telrphone allowance to $33 if you’re on the net doesn’t really indicate he’s going to be tough on the poor and underprivileged either. I did note the Government was a bit more sure of itself in Parlt. today, and completely in control of Question Time.
The big quesation I have is why some-one in the Govt. was so stupid as to let this run. Why didn’t Gillard knock on the head before Rudd got back from handing out largesse in PNG?
The alleged leak from the Government as reported by Matthew Franklin and Simon Kearney in The Australian.
“LABOR will scrap annual bonuses of $1600 paid to carers as its budget razor gang carves deep into welfare programs to cut spending and curb inflation.”
Straight out of the Opposition office. No doubt.
If it was ‘kite flying’, ‘might scrap’ would be used rather than ‘will scrap’. And please a leak from Labor about ‘carving deep into welfare programs’.
I must admit, I was surprised that so many so-called Labor supporters bought this crap.
Well despite knowing this was all a beat up I joined in over at Blogocracy for several reasons.
1. This might have been the ALP feeling the waters. I was quite fine to judge and punish them just in case they really were that stupid.
2. To prove that left wingers are quite happy to criticise their heros.
3. To prove that we will hold Rudd to greater accountability.
4. To stop the ALP from getting lazy. Hint : look at state NSW. We can’t be taken for granted at that sort of level in the Federal sphere.
Besides, it was fun to see the right wing death beasts suddenly become keyboard warriors for compassion instead of talking about how the free market shouldn’t be constrained by welfare.
And yet, it was the extraordinary unresponsiveness that lent credence to the story in the first place! I doubt anyone would have blogged it but for the surpising silence. I didn’t take any notice until three separate ministers had stonewalled it. Not amateur hour enough to even flirt with the notion of cuts but just amateur hour enough to allow themselves to be crucified for two days over cuts they had never intended to make? It is all contradictory. If Kevin is really refusing ministers the very basic degree of autonomy that would allow them to deny a completely fabricated story when he is momentarily indisposed, then he is not a Very Clever Politician yet.
Instant gratification! No not carers and pensioners bonuses but nearly as good. My barbedwire connection has LP pages in a twink! Is this the future? Can I forget fibre to the node? Wacko!!
Nelson and Abbott were being very tricky and disingenuous in the censure debate demanding a LUMP SUM Payment.
There was a lot of political naivety on display by just about everyone involved over this.
The ALP thought they could play the old three card trick where they drop a hint that some group might end up worse off, the media gives it a passing mention but quickly moves on. Meanwhile the group mentioned pricks their ears and pays attention. When the budget is finally delivered and doesn’t take anything from this group, but actually gives them slightly more – they remember that nice man Mr Rudd a whole lot more than they would have if their ears weren’t originally pricked by comments (off the record of course) that suggested that they might be worse off.
The ALP were a bit naive thinking that a desperate opposition and a few members of the media desperately seeking to make the first hit on a new government wouldn’t kick up a song and dance over something which is so obviously a pile of nonsense.
The bloggers and reporters were naive by ignoring what is actually going on in the Dept of Finance with the razor gang and actually believing that it was possible that the ALP would kick the shit out of carers to save an amount of money worth less than a departmental computer system upgrade. I mean – come on. The ALP slashing carers payments?
Pull the other one, it nationalises the banks and sends unionists around to turn off the lights.
I’ll probably get thumped for saying this, but some of the bloggers need to take a deep breath and think about things before they fire off. The reporters have an excuse – their job is to deliver eyeballs to advertisers, as sad as it is that’s the business model and why stories like this get an easy run in the MSM without people up the food chain telling them to put it back in their pants.
But we bloggers don’t really have that excuse.Being keen to be outraged is one thing, but setting aside all political reality to do it and getting sucked into a spin cycle is another thing entirely.
Just watched some bits from QT on the news. Nelson and Abbott looked like a pair of hysterical shelias! Kev gets up and says “To the party of newly found compassion opposite,,,” to laughter from govt benches.Kev’s unflappable, cool, calm and dignifed and ain’t that getting up the Libs noses!
He isn’t quite in the same league sarcasm wise as Gough and PK but he ain’t far behind.
IMHO Kev is just toying with them, giving them enough rope,,, them Bang! budget time EGG all over faces!
SO I’d say chill folks, Libs may get a tempory bounce in the next poll or 2 but when the truth outs they’ll need more than a merger or a new party name to save their mangy hides,
@ 43. That is an explanation which I can believe wholeheartedly.
Well that would be typical if you don’t automatically accept my assertion, wouldn’t it Mark.
Possum says: “The ALP thought they could play the old three card trick …”
I say: what he says. There will be cuts in the budget, but they won’t be to carers. When they take away child bonuses (boni?), remove the requirement to take mandatory health insurance and the like, and increase pensions by $10 per week, but take away the one-off ‘bonus’, people will say “Oh well, it could have been worse! At least he didn’t slug those nice carers!”
I thought it was rather transparent. This is a pre-budget snow job by the government.
Heh!
And Barnaby (for PM?) was on SBS last night promoting merger Qld style – ie a Nats takeover.
Possum’s hypothesis is still too complex by half for me. Governments stuff up. And su, Rudd is not a very clever politician yet til he gets over his Goss era habit of trying to run all communications from the PM’s office. It’s worth noting here something Crikey has been (rightly) running with for some time – there are very few experienced journos among the government presser ranks. Just a whole heap of 28 somethings. We’ve already seen numerous examples of own goals from Rudd’s staffers. They’re not Machiavellian, they’re just little boys.
And the Opposition Orifice STILL isn’t happy even when Keven all but announces increases to allowances for Carers.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23357461-601,00.html
hannah’s dad is spot on with the media disgrace angle.
From Frank’s link:
Forced. Whatever. It’s probably what was going to be done anyway. Can’t any of these well paid journos find someone to tell them off the record what the actual story was? Nah, we’ve now got a standard narrative arc – meejah beats up story, meejah proclaims “backdown”.
“I’m sorry, Jeremy, that you found me patronising. I could always try for over the top sarcasm if you prefer that genre of writing.”
Cheers. That’d be great.
Actually, Howard refused to state that no one would be worse off under WorkChoices. And he’d be spinning in his political grave to see you make a mess of his carefully chosen weasel words on interest rates.
But this is as dumb a proposition as most that come from the RWDB debating point generator bot.
WorkChoices impacted on a large number of Australians in different circumstances differently. It’s very hard to establish statistically whether interest rates are higher under either party because the party in office is one of only many causal factors, and impossible to prove that “interest rates will always be higher under Labor” (Howard’s actual claim).
With carers’ allowances and pensions, it’s dead easy. If, after the budget, they have less all up, then Rudd has lied. He’s not dumb. He won’t fall into some schoolboy trap dumbassed Tories think they’ve caught him in.
Sure, Rudd is a politician. Who’s saying otherwise? But it’s obvious to anyone with a smidgeon of insight that one thing he sets great store on is keeping his word. In massive contrast with Ratty. It’s proving a political plus for him. Only the stupid think that lying and weasel words are the only path to political fortune. And in the end, they weren’t for Ratty either.
I think this piffle from Eliot Ramsey is just the latest instance of “Rudd is just like Howard” with a twist. If this is the best the depleted ranks of keyboard warriors can come up with…
“And the Opposition Orifice STILL isn’t happy even when Keven all but announces increases to allowances for Carers.”
And the media is complicit in this beat up when you get SMH headlines such as “Rudd won’t guarantee carers’ bonus”. When you read it Rudd actually said in parliament “I give an absolute guarantee that those carers will not be a dollar worse off,”.
[And the media is complicit in this beat up when you get SMH headlines such as “Rudd won’t guarantee carers’ bonus”. When you read it Rudd actually said in parliament “I give an absolute guarantee that those carers will not be a dollar worse off,”.]
And the Ch 9 4.30 news did pretty much the same thing and concentrated on Nelson yelling like a Banshee “Demanding A Lump Sum Payment”
Yep, and all this goes back to the fallacy that getting rid of the bonus constitutes a “cut”. It doesn’t if it’s rolled into a regular payment – which increases according to an index rather than being static like the bonuses – ergo people are better off over time having higher payments than one offs.
The media coverage sucks.
The opposition, with obvious help from Newscorp and people who should know better, have managed to maintain inequity. Rudd has been forced to continue carer grants to all, regardless of means.
Some of us have seen it all before and it aint pretty but it will happen and no amount of [understandable] angst will stop it. Thing is what can be done about it? Presenting the true facts is not and never will be the intention of the msm. How to expose them??
[The opposition, with obvious help from Newscorp and people who should know better, have managed to maintain inequity. Rudd has been forced to continue carer grants to all, regardless of means.]
Exactly.
THey would prefer people to survive on the Carers Allowance of $108 per fortnight recive an extra $600 bonus each year.
Plus the MSM keep feeding the $1600 line that it applies for ALL carers – only carers who qualify for both the Carers Payment AND Allowance get the full amount.
58
Rudd hasn’t been forced to do anything, the opposition are jumping up and down in frustration because they can’t make him crack. Rudd is way too smart for them, sticking to his guns repeating his original statement that no’one will be worse off.
The “grants” will no doubt go but the (maybe $30 a week) pension incease and the $700 worth of utilities and other allowances will more than make up for that
And the ABC South East radio were all outraged and huffy and condeming this for two days.Then they interviewed Mike Kelly (member for Eden Monaro), who actually pointed to the facts of the matter, that this disgraceful excuse for an opposition had decided that the way to gain political kudos was to frighten the shit out of the vulnerable.
This whole tawdry saga of misinformation, propagated by innuendo and rumour and used by the idiots in opposition to peddle lies and misinformation makes me sick. If they think that this sort of behaviour, including brendas histrionics in the house today will win them votes they are sadly mistaken. And why indeed should Rudd disclose budget information at this early stage?
[From the ABC Comments on the unsucessful Censure Motion.
[Helen:
11 Mar 2008 5:05:30pm
You are obviously not a carer Drew!! The lump sum payment gives we carers the opportunity to do something special with or for those that we are caring for...a special gift, a weekend away. If it is just rolled into the overall allowance, it will just go in to medical expenses and general cost of supporting the person we are caring for!!
Good on you Opposition for taking a stand on our behalf!]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/11/2186663.htm
Jeremy here is the only one that smells something bad going on,maybe its his cat,but I dont think so.Over the last few weeks a redefinition of Party,powers and placement of party in spectrum has taken place with the ALP. And today they can pick their own Ministry.This stuff is a blinding attempt to gain full control so no veering off the friends of business line.If some jerk says we have to cut into welfare no matter how unpopular its going to be,Uncle Rudds your undertaker!?What I think is bothering Mark is the noise generated by the Liberals,it is evident the pensioners and carers,are not persuaded by promises whenever they are made,but respond only when there seems an overabundance of economists determining wether pensioners and carers have to think about economising,and on what!?I can also honestly say,even if Mark disagrees,I cannot accept that Labor in the modern sense,as I have seen it,given two hoots to the unemployed,and I can find abundant evidence I have witnessed in my life.Whitlam,Hawke Keating,have or did have a masculinity problem,and today Rudd has it with Unions.Hawke couldnt handle as a Union organisation President an unemployed union..basking in the glow that these people would and wanted to end up in other unions.Whitlam gave us Regional Economic Development schemes,all dandy and fine accept went to water,no improvement in skills or job prospects,and at he time I was working on a apple orchard ,earning much less for the hours,and hammering my stomach and gut away on export apples,if my memory serves me.Keating decided it was just collateral damage if very low income people had to find numerous ways to identify themselves to open a bank account,all the assistance labor has rendered the unemployed over the years,is to state,we the politicians are doing this for you!?The unemployed generally have to listen more than Catholic Priests to everyone gainfully employed.And Mark if you wont include State Labor Governments as part of the Clowndom seeing they are often the Administrators of Federal Policy,even if you find my writing without much evidence of pain endured,you will be wrong when the State Clowns are analysed as providers of joy to the unemployed.
Carers actually save the Govt money and make a lot of happy well cared for folks. It is a thankless job, but the thought of a loved one going into care because of memory problems or something else does not bear thing of. All pensioners are not thought of by Govt or really appreciated. It would be better if everyone got something in June. Families are on the breadline for instance and pensioners find it hard to make ends meet. It would be better to have payments every 3 months, or start cutting down on cost of living.
More rubbish from the Opposition Orifice.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/samanthamaiden/index.php/theaustralian/comments/carers_shape_as_governments_first_bungle
Kim Mar 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Kim, this lies at the heart of this ‘issue’. But what to do?
If, Frank Calabrese, your point at 63 is that these irresponsible carers are misusing the Carer Supplement then you are way off the mark. In fact having support (including financial support) in order for families to take a short holiday is recognized as an essential part of maintaining the wellbeing of carers and those they care for. Respite services offer just that kind of assistance and they are funded from the public purse. They are also massively oversubscribed as are all services for the disabled and their carers.
I’m glad Nelson’s motion didn’t get up. I’m sick to death of people using circumstances they know absolutely nothing about to score points.
Mark and All:
What is at issue here is – the perception of sneakiness and dithering.
[1].The one-off carers’ bonus from last year The media beat-up cried out to be turned into a political opportunity with two bold forthright unmistakable statements – “ Yes, of course we will scrap it. Why not? We are a responsible government; we don’t go in for one-off pork-barrelling stunts like the Howard government did … BUT …. We owe a duty to our wonderful carers; we will look after them even better than did the Howard government”. I know Rudd said something like this but without boldness and directness and he certainly failed to turn the issue around to his advantage. This could have been done without inviting further relentless probes by the Opposition into the Budget – as this fumbled reaction to the beat-up news story has now done.
[2]. Scrapping the dental program. A far more serious problem for the Rudd government. It showed that whoever was involved with reviewing that program was ignorant of what hundreds of thousands of carers and health workers do every day – and why they do it. Worse yet, they showed the whole world that they didn’t have a clue about the implications of chopping that program. For all I know, they might have sought the professional opinion of a Professor of Dentistry …. but did they run it past anyone working day-in-day-out in a residential care facility? Duh …..
It is a serious matter because it will now give rise to scepticism about future reviews of any programs. A benchmark for decision-making has been set …. it’s on the ground!
[3]. There was no rush to judgement. Nor any need for pledges signed in blood. It was just hard experience, that’s all.
Regardless of whatever was in election speeches and policy statements, every incoming government [Labor or Coalition, it make no difference at all] has hit the most vulnerable with funding cuts, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes with the noblest of stated intentions …. but the result for those affected is always the same. It’s what all of us have been taught to expect ….
If Rudd wanted to show his government wasn’t the same as previous governments, why didn’t he hammer home the very simple message “We are different. We are better” right from the outset? He didn’t. Now he is paying the price for that neglect.
As soon as I read in Teh Oz of rumours of carer’s bonus being cut, I knew exactly what was going on: a bit of accounting to remove a non-recurrent bribe and roll it into the usual welfare allowance.
I also knew how Dennis Shannahan would spin it: as a “honeymoon is over” story for Rudd. I wasn’t quite prepared for the hyperbolic “Rudd’s Reputation In Tatters!!11″ headline, but I thought at least any half-smart journo would mention that the disappearance of the bonus could likely be offset by some other measure in the budget. But I guess our Dennis ain’t even half-smart.
Conversely, I was watching “Sunrise” on Sunday morning, the bobble-heads were tut-tutting that nice Mr Rudd’s faux pas, when the political correspondent (Mark Riley?) calmly noted that Wayne Swann criticised the idea of an off-budget “bonus” payment when it was introduced, and how Swann mentioned that the general welfare system was a better mechanism. The journo then opined that this was the most likely occurrence come the budget, and that there was no need for panic.
At least it convinced the bobble-heads, and hopefully anyone else watching, that the whole thing is a shameless beatup. I wondered why Dennis Shannahan and the other sad excuses for journalists at Teh Oz and Teh ABfnC could not do the same.
But then again, as soon as this story appeared someone from the Gummint should have had the nous to smack it down.
Mark – Maybe its too many years of being under a Howard government but do you think we should read anything into the statements about carers and pensioners when he’s been specifically asked about carers and seniors?
oops -sorry about the quoting above. Now if only I could edit my comments
I went and added a backslash where you forgot it, Chris.
Several observations here.
Firstly, why the fuck is this thread getting so long and heated about a very muddy media interpretation of an incoming Government’s rejigging of a former Government’s election promise.
Secondly, I came here for the waters.
Thirdly, I’m beginning to think I was misinformed.
Now that LP has had a rebore and oil change, can we revisit some of the classics – like the I Condemn threads, top ten -insert culture object here – lists, shitfaced haiku challenges and hot chicks with weapons threads?
I’m not objecting to the serious threads here but let’s temper the mix again with some more lateral if not thoughtfully frivolous stuff as well. After all, all work and no play makes Jack strocchied.
I think maybe it is, Chris!
Will pass on your suggestion to the management, Nabs.
I posted this in Saturday Salon and put it here as well at risk of being lambasted cos I am damn sick of being ignored by Gov and the general population…
What you all don’t seem to realise is that the invisible people in this discussion are people with disabilities who live on the Disability Support Pension. I do and none of we 700,000 DSP recipients have had a bonus at all over the four years. Not $500 let alone $1600!! This is despite many of us having to live on the DSP (same as the aged pension and below the poverty line)for our WHOLE lives while we try to cope with the extra costs of disability (sliced cheese cos we can’t cut block cheese, taxi fares as transport is still mainly inaccessible, etc many things too numerous to list) as well as live our lives without timely or adequate Government provided (sort of) care support and equipment such as wheelchairs, lifters etc. Many of us live alone without one of these ‘carers’ to support us. Many of us live independent but difficult lives in an inhospitable world with much exclusion and discrimination. We are real people and we pay taxes but we are continually ignored. Why is that? Our disabilities are not contagious so why the ignorance out there?
I hope these bribes in the form of bonuses make way for decent income support for people with disabilities, carers and aged! It all makes my blood boil as most of you live in you own comfy worlds. Look around. Who do you think the carers are caring for? Not puppy dogs but caring for people with disabilities whether from birth, accident, illness or the frailties of aging. Where do People with Disabilities go after you smile at them in the street or throw a coin in a tin on Badge Day?
“Will pass on your suggestion to the management, Nabs.”
Damnit man! Enough with these fobbed off excuses to some grey bureaucrat amongst all the other mushrooms in a crumbling International Style office block
I want decisive action. And I want it now.
I wanna to see some serious policy shifts rolled out at LP.
And the comment preview function restored too would be nice as well.
Am I off topic? So who does not scoot obliquely high and low, stick up libidinous prongs and contain multitudes?
I hope if nothing else this was a lesson in media management for the new government. I kept waiting for someone to say clearly something like “pensioners and carers deserve much more than the one-off ad-hoc small payment that the last government made them in a vote-buying panic. Laobor’s policy is to ensure an increase in overall income support for carers and pensioners, and we will do this by embedding it in the budget, rather than continuing with a random system of surprise “bonuses” – in fact if you look at our election promises, it’s clear that this government will ensure that carers and pensioners are better off…’
or something…
when something like this did come out, it was far too late – Gillard or someone of equal media calibre should have stomped on this early and hard.
While the media beat-up on this may be completely incorrect, I do believe that one of the reasons it got such traction is that it’s quite clear that Tanner et al are makign sneaky cuts all over the place; and far more worryingly, the blind determination to deliver $31 billion of tax cuts & other election promises has resulted in an obsessive hunt across the public service to cut perfectly decent and legitimate programs. In my own department, the determination to deliver a $100 million program of grants to volunteer coastal groups that is a) duplicatory b) completely misses the real needs in terms of coastal environmental / climate change investment (hello? local government planning schemes and capacity anyone?) and c) flies in the face of solid evidence that community groups don’t have the capacity to soak up that level of grant availability is looking like it’s going to result in other really good programs being stripped of cash.
While it’s nice to see a government determined to be honest, we all know that the $31 billion was promised as a desperate ‘me too’ so to avoid being gazumped at the start of the election campaign. There are many ways to revisit it & save face without gutting everything from heritage & arts funding to the environment to dental services support – and what really shits me is some of the things they are axing are money savers over time, like dental services, and none of them are as inflationary as handing your average credit-card maxed Australian another $40 a week….
Myriad [7:35am]:
Exactly’
Glee [12:50am]:
Absolutely spot-on!
Though some lurkers here won’t forgive you for bringing a touch of reality into this discussion.
The underlying problem is that decisions come mainly from professional exam-passers who are manifestly ignorant of the basic realities of day-to-day life and who wish to remain so. They haven’t got a clue about the impacts of their foolish, weird and counter-productive decisions. Not even a shmick …. and they don’t want to be discomforted by finding out.
Yes, there are many decision makers who were in the world of work before they graduated – perhaps even working in nursing homes or residential care facilities – but once they get into their highly-paid jobs they throw all that experience of life out the window and become just as silly and as dangerous as the rest. Whether this is because of peer pressure, a lack of assertiveness, group-think, bullying by overgrown spoilt brats …. I do not know – maybe sociologists with plenty of field experience can tell us why this strange and destructive transformation takes place.
It is no wonder that the British satire series “Yes Minister” is so popular in Australia – it is just so relevant to our own experience of government’s crazy decision making.
Mark, earlier in the thread (on Mar 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am) you said;
A devastating retort. Well, I’ve referred to a couple of utterly absurd “post coital” op-ed pieces from The Age exalting the Rudd election as if it had been some kind of national orgasm, rather than a political outcome.
Why wouldn’t op-ed pieces be governed by the same spin-fed “pack mentality” that supposedly drives the news department?
At least the Age “orgasmic” articles are specific examples we can point to, as opposed to anecdotal generalisations about some alleged underlying process supposedly governing the entire news reporting fraternity (or sorority).
So, Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun? Part of the “pack” or just a harmless op-ed writer who just didn’t get the same coital tingle as his Age colleagues?
Well, okay, let’s look at something specific. The Canberra Times’s Peter Martin’s odd bit about how the tight-arsed Coalition short-changed carers by not giving them “an extra $1600 a carer a year” bonus – yet how a Labor government shouldn’t be criticised for kite-flying about dumping the carers’ bonus altogether.
Pack mentality? Or what? I mean, really? Are there specific examples?
myriad, can not follow your point about dental care.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dental-scheme-will-ease-the-pain-rudd/2008/03/02/1204402252347.html?s_cid=rss_news
Steve the point being this minimal pledge for teenagers (its nothing substantial anyway – one clean a year costs around $150.00 these days, a filling certainly over that) is the only change that has been offered in place of a dental scheme of $4250 over two years for people with chronic health issues (cancer sufferers, aids sufferers, chronic heart disease sufferers, diabetes, etc etc and on and on). This scheme has been discontinued without much fuss and nothing has been offered in its place. This scheme put in by the former Govt at the end of last year was visionary, and that is regardles of who put it up or why it was offered. It understood that dental infection resulted in expensive hospital stays and sought to avoid that by offering substantial care to those sufferers of long term illness.
Mark, I reckon this will be an emerging theme in the new ALP government. Tanner is really showing his firm presence in cabinet by following through on a number of his statements over the last 12 years that the Liberal government were far from economically rational – with ad hoc non-means tested payments and middle class welfare galore. Tanner wants to cut back the fat as well as the size and reach of the government. This is smart politics where the dominant narrative is to put downward pressure on inflation and whip Club Fed into shape after years of poor management by the Libs. A tough budget after a new government is elected. Shades of 1996 budget anyone???
On the other hand, Rudd wants to maintain his image as a christian social democrat by not seeming to be a heartless Hayek-style economic rationalist – harking back to his Monthly essay. I notice that a lot of the leaks about the tough measures forecasted in the budget were leaked while Rudd was out of the country. In the short term Rudd can use this detente with the more economically rational members of cabinet to triangulate both Left and Right. “While his cabinet may want him to be more harsh on carers, Kevin Rudd will be compassionate etc. But let’s not forget the binge dinking/gambling KRISIS(!) engulfing our community!”
I would expect a lot more of this power playing between Rudd and the more economically rational members of the cabinet in the months and years ahead. I just wonder how long Tanner will butt his head up against the wall before he moves to the back bench and writes another book. I wonder how Swan is handling Tanner? After his fall out with Rudd a few years back, he might be backing Tanner for now.
THIS THREAD IS SCROLLING VERY VERT SLOWLY!!!!!
Now that I’ve got that off my chest, what I can’t understand is why the Government didn’t act immediately to nip this story in the bud. Why did they have to wait for Kev to get back from PNG? Why let this damaging garbage run for 5 daysd w/out stopping it by giving an unambiguous guarantee. I really do like to think the ALP will not treat disabled pensioners, single mothers etc with the same heartlessness as Howard did. (Yes, I know this thread isd about seniors and carers, for those of you too thick to realise I’m expanding the argument. Cf. Saturday Salon.)But I cannot forget it was Clyde Cameron who coined the pewrjorative term “dole-bludgers” in the Whitlam years. Thinkj of the harm that idea has done to the unemployed over the decades.(And, before objecting I’m OT, read my previous parentheses.)
Contra Jeremy,
“neocon who sees that tax money as MINE ALL MINE”
Most neocons I know are quite happy to tax the masses so long as the funds are used for the military and promoting their version of the ideal society.
Graham Bell, how does this comment of yours add ANYTHING to the discussion at hand?
“The underlying problem is that decisions come mainly from professional exam-passers who are manifestly ignorant of the basic realities of day-to-day life and who wish to remain so. They haven’t got a clue about the impacts of their foolish, weird and counter-productive decisions. Not even a shmick …. and they don’t want to be discomforted by finding out.”
I don’t want to warp your fragile mind but there are some people who read this blog that work as well as engage in higher education! People who make sweeping generalisations about others also tend to be discomforted when they find out that their stereotypes are just projections of their own feelings of dislocation from decision making processes!
Seriously though, the original blog post was about the media spin on the mooted cuts to carer payments. Noone here is questioning the life experience of carers. Graham, maybe you should rather post on RWDB blogs which actually do propose cutting back payments to carers!
“is the only change that has been offered in place of a dental scheme of $4250 over two years for people with chronic health issues (cancer sufferers, aids sufferers, chronic heart disease sufferers, diabetes, etc etc and on and on). This scheme has been discontinued without much fuss and nothing has been offered in its place.”
A scheme which – as Casey points out – did indeed offer the prospect of enabling lots of people with HIV in Sydney to actually have a prospect of timely access to decent, dental care rather than endure year long waiting lists in the woefully under-resourced public system. Many had signed up with practices willing to undertake this work before Roxon pulled the plug and replaced it with the usual working families/” one teenage clean a year” (if you’re lucky)mantra. The presser from her office cheerily announced that “the states” – with no further detail – would be picking up the chronic disease/dentistry slack once the the axe falls on the chronic illness scheme in June. Which was of course the non-solution offered by the previous government right up until they announced the scheme which has now been axed.
This is another case where I think the government might have been better advised to let the scheme run through its first two year cycle while developing new, sustainable policy responses in the area.
“Seriously though, the original blog post was about the media spin on the mooted cuts to carer payments.”
So true Antonio and nobody wants to talk about where this scare campaign originated. All have been left looking at the kite while the blokes who are actually holding it are planning their next crack at another Howard policy maintenance scheme.
Does anybody have a link to original Australian story that set the ball rolling?
“Seriously though, the original blog post was about the media spin on the mooted cuts to carer payments.”
Whatever the intent of the initial post, this thread has provided eloquent testimony as to the fact that media spin flourishes in an effective response vacuum. All Rudd needed to do, at the outset, was to commit to final bonus payments in 2008 and at the same time, forecast a transition to a more sustainable ongoing payment system thereafter. We’d have been talking about something entirely different for the last week.
Geoff Honor post #89. I’d agree with every word of that.
oops mispelling – sorry Geoff Honnor.
Sham-I-am then
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/dennisshanahan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/cuts_leave_rudds_reputation_in_tatters
Sham-I-am now
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/dennisshanahan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/razor_gang_misses_targets/
Funny that his initial story also mentioned Dental Health and that is what Rudd was attacked over in Question time today.
The carer bonus would be better paid in installments, that way they wouldn’t have to wait a whole year for the bonus. Also, if the person they are caring for dies,say in the May, how will the lump sum bonus be paid. Is the bonus included in the assets test? How about looking after all pensioners, and all families, ie, kids going to school, etc. Sometimes families live on the breadline. Rudd would be better looking at all payments and putting in a bonus for all….
New government policy via The Australian may have originated here.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23335093-601,00.html
March the seventh seems to be the day that this great media organisation started a story up to help Brendan Nelsons’ low poll standing. The opposition seemed to know about this set play, in advance, given how quickly the came out of the blocks as the New Party of Compassion.
Joe 2,
I believe this is the original story.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23333045-601,00.html
Thanks Frank and don’t you just love this bit…..
Opposition frontbencher Tony Abbott accused Labor of using carers as “human shields in the fight against inflation. You’ve got this big surplus; you’ve got to do something with it. Let’s not victimise carers”, he said.
No shame, these people, and while Dolly is eating lunch with Shanangans, who might Tony have been eating out with?
And Today Tonight has yet ANOTHER Story on “Carers, Pensioners and the disabled declare war on Kevin Rudd.”
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH !!!!!!!
This is the link to the original Today Tonight Story.
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/video
Scroll down to:
[Govt to cancel carers’ bonus payment
When Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister, he inherited a $20 billion Budget surplus but is now planning to scrap a $1,600 bonus for carers.]
Tonight’s was 10000 worse and was no doubt made BEFORE the Assurance, which was only mentioned AFTER the story was shown
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to pay all pensioners a bit, like, $2000 extra per year, but have it paid quarterly, into a separate account. This will save the anxiety of waiting until June for the bonus. They can all do something will it then, like a trip here and there, and buy something useful. The extra would be gobbled up by private health insurance and that area needs to be looked at closely for everyone.
Peter Martin sums up the Opposition Orifice and the beat up perfectly.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2008/03/tuesday-column-hypocrisy-over-carers.html
Well Rudd certainly stuffed that up.
The meeja and the Opposition behaved disgracefully, dishonestly and disingenuously, but Rudd allowed the situation to spin out of control for so long that he’s been “forced” to continue an off-budget non-recurrent bribe rather than sensibly subsume such payments into on-budget welfare payments (which surely was the plan all along).
So what has this achieved, this lack of message control in allowing the story to run out of control, this lack of decent smackdown of the Shannahans and the Opposition?
The narrative now is that Labor was always gunna scrap the bonus and turf the disabled out into the cold mean streets, and the meeja and the Opposition have saved the day. Labor come out looking like heartless bastards for proposing the cuts, and weak for grudgingly “backflipping”. The meeja will have a field day sniffing out more Howard bribes that could be cut, daring the Gummint to guarantee the bribes stay in place, against a backdrop of sob stories from “Outraged! Outraged!” punters. The Opposition now don the mantle of “battler’s friend” and get to strut around Parliament tearily condemning the latest act of Labor bastardry and shaking clenched fists heavenward that they’ll never allow the sainted to go hungry again, by God!
Bravo, Mr Rudd. Bravo.
Jethro [10.18pm]:
Sad …. but true.
Joe2 [12.45pm]:
No. No. If there had not been many years of appallingly bad “health” policies and practices upon which to launch such media beat-up, it would never have flown at all.
Antonio [10.33am]:
Let me see now. If you agree with something – it’s relevant. If you disagree – it’s irrelevant. And if it makes you feel uncomfortable – you ignore it. Right?
If you had no experience at all of the faults in the health system, of course you would find what I said difficult to understand. If you had such experience, the meaning would be crystal clear.
You have said nothing about the issue I raised in this topic on why people with life experience, prior to becoming policy-makers, allow stupid and harmful “health” policies to happen. Do you have something useful to contribute on that?
Geoff Honnor [1:59pm]:
Exactly!
Opposition silenced. Story crashes-and-burns. Carers relived. Wiser money-handlers vindicated. Rudd government smells like roses. Further forays by Opposition into Budget deferred. End of story. >-)
As Graham said the other day re my post:
Graham BellNo Gravatar
Mar 12th, 2008 at 8:26 am
“Though some lurkers here won’t forgive you for bringing a touch of reality into this discussion.
The underlying problem is that decisions come mainly from professional exam-passers who are manifestly ignorant of the basic realities of day-to-day life and who wish to remain so. They haven’t got a clue about the impacts of their foolish, weird and counter-productive decisions. Not even a shmick …. and they don’t want to be discomforted by finding out.”
Were you talking about the other commentators on this blog cos no one besides you have made a comment? To confronting for em methinks.
Graham Bell, I work in the health industry in a management capacity. I’m aware of some the failings and successes of the Australian health system. That’s a discussion for a different blog though, which time permitting I’m sure heaps of people will be willing to have. This entry though was about the media twisting a story. Do you see what I am getting at when I say that your comment was really tangential to the purpose of this entry?
Professional exam-passers know that marks get deducted if responses stray off topic.
Antonio [5.20pm yesterday]:
Firstly –
Neither the beat-up story of carers’ bonus nor the real story of bureaucratic incompetence in dental services would have got an airing at all if so many of the public had not themselves had personal experience of the increasingly costly, wasteful and inefficient health system. Never mind balance, editors and Opposition politicians knew why they were on winners with both stories.
Secondly-
My own view of bad health policies definitely does not come from the tranquil offices of policy-makers, remote from the impacts of their decisions.
My view comes from “the coal-face”, from direct experience – both professional and personal – of the bad effects of bad health policies. It comes from seeing too many untimely deaths, too many disorders exacerbated, too much irrational waste, too many lives ruined and too much completely unnecessary suffering A “health” system is not supposed to do that; it is supposed to keep people well or at least make them as well as possible.
Taxpayers are paying for responsible decision-making …. so when are we going to get it?
b.t.w.,
Ah yes – but on the other hand, innovators and pioneers know that progress and discoveries come from straying off the straight-and-narrow.
Glee [3.52pm];
No. Definitely wasn’t talking about commenters here [glad they participated even if I disagree with them]. No, I was having a crack at those likely to be lurking without commenting; those who bully their subordinates into accepting stupid policies but are too timid to comment openly in places like this.
Antonio [5.20pm yesterday]:
Firstly –
Neither the beat-up story of carers’ bonus nor the real story of bureaucratic incompetence in dental services would have got an airing at all if so many of the public had not themselves had personal experience of the increasingly costly, wasteful and inefficient health system. Never mind balance, editors and Opposition politicians knew why they were on winners with both stories.
Secondly-
My own view of bad health policies definitely does not come from the tranquil offices of policy-makers, remote from the impacts of their decisions.
My view comes from “the coal-face”, from direct experience – both professional and personal – of the bad effects of bad health policies. It comes from seeing too many untimely deaths, too many disorders exacerbated, too much irrational waste, too many lives ruined and too much completely unnecessary suffering A “health” system is not supposed to do that; it is supposed to keep people well or at least make them as well as possible.
Taxpayers are paying for responsible decision-making …. so when are we going to get it?
b.t.w.,
Ah yes – but on the other hand, innovators and pioneers know that progress and discoveries come from straying off the straight-and-narrow.
Glee [3.52pm];
No. Definitely wasn’t talking about commenters here [glad they participated even if I disagree with them]. No, I was having a crack at those likely to be lurking without commenting; those who bully their subordinates into accepting stupid policies but are too timid to comment openly in places like this.
The big thing that worries me about this whole carers/seniors/dentistry phenomenon is that it is clearly an orchestrated beat up by RWDBs to embarrass the Rudd Government. Another one has apparently started this morning c/o ch.7 and apparently the Australian (don’t ask for a link as I haven’t and won’t read that rag)about the baby bonus. I have a dreadful feeling of deja-vu about how the Murdoch press set out to destroy the Whitlam Government on a story that history has revealed was a non-event ie the loans affair. (For those RWDBs out there who don’t believe me read Kelly’s The Dismissal.)The big quesation we in the blogosphere should be asking is what can we do to stop it happening again. Assuming we do have influence.
Don’t panic; it is an article about means testing the bonus, cutting middle class welfare.
“Don’t panic; it is an article about means testing the bonus, cutting middle class welfare.”
It would be nice to think that the baby bonus and the first home buyers bonus were means tested. Su or someone else might be able to clear up for me whether the carers bonus is means tested. Anyway, Paul i do not get the feeling that this new story is about to be blown up to the same extent. Business and “The Australian” will get very shitty if they touch the first home grant, though.
And i believe the real issue is the manipulation of policy by media for their own ends. Antonio is quite correct to remind you of that, Graham. Not saying that issues are not important but a sidetrack.
Yesterday I was stopped on Footscray station by a weary, beaten-down looking woman who shoved a petition at me. Save the Carers Bonus!!!1!1! I spent 5 minutes trying to explain what has already been explained by quite a few people in this thread.
The opposition REALLY sucks for using weary, half-informed people like that – presumably she’d had to jump through a few hoops to makethe time to do that, e.g. getting alternative care for her child, relative or whoever – and she’d been spooked into using her precious time fighting a chimera. Abbott and Nelson I hope you’re proud of yourselves.
“Abbott and Nelson I hope you’re proud of yourselves.”
Sadly, they are, Helen and if you note the latest submission from Turnbull on a leaked report from treasury to AFPC he said…..
“Kevin Rudd doesn’t have the compassion, he doesn’t have the courage, he doesn’t have the integrity to make any recommendation to the fair pay commission.”
http://news.smh.com.au/leaked-document-shows-no-pay-rise-figure/20080314-1zdu.html
This is an extraordinary attempt at re-invention by The Liberal Party, with the help of Newscorp, into the ‘Party of Compassion’. I suppose they would have to try something, with their stocks so low, but boy isn’t it so slippery. Given how little care they ever showed for anybody apart from stockholders and small numbers of voters in appropriate pocket boroughs.
Yes, the Liberal party, champions of the disadvantaged. Jee-zus. Surely the public can’t be that stupid?
“Su or someone else might be able to clear up for me whether the carers bonus is means tested”
Yes and No!
The carers allowance is NOT means tested but the carers payment IS.
Those receiveing the Carers Payment received a $1,000 bonus. Those receiving the Carers Allowance received a $600 bonus. (If you got both you got the full $1,600).
The original announcement of the bonuses is here
Details of what Centrelink payments that are/aren’t subject to income and assets tests here
No the Carer supplement itself is not means tested, nor is Carer Allowance however Carer payment is, since it is specifically for carers who are unable to participate in “substantial payed employment” due to the demands of caring. So by extension, anyone who is receiving a supplement of $1000 or $1600 has been subject to a means test.
Not that anyone is interested in the arcane workings of my logic circuits but I believe there is an even simpler explanation for labor’s apparent tardiness when faced with the leak. They knew they were screwed whatever their response. If they denied it they committed themselves to a bonus payment and even if they hinted at a tradeoff with increased CA or CP they risked a shitstorm because, offered the choice of a lump sum or a $30 or < fortnightly increase, most people will prefer the lump sum. It is more useful for buying big ticket items like mobility aids, specialist software etc. Labor’s only hope of retaining the choice of axing the supplement was to keep mum in the forlorn hope that the story wouldn’t gain momentum. No need to posit three card tricks or excessive control freakiness or even a firm decision on axing the supplement; they only need to have wanted to retain the choice.
Oops- crossed with Pollytickedoff!
Su,
I think you’re probably right. Your explanation of the R%udd Government’s behaviour is the simplest one yet, and barring proven conspiracies, the simplest explanation of an event is usually the right one. In the words of the inimitable Grahame Richardson, “When you have to chose between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, always chose the stuff-up.” And basically, in terms of political management, this whole saga is a stuff up. OTOH, when it comes to The Australian and the Libs I’d opt for a conspiracy.
Everyone,
And of course the party of Compassion, Brendan and co, are proud of themselves. I mean, how different is their current behaviour to their usual behaviour of terrorizing the poor and disadvantaged? Not much, I’d reckon.
And Shamaham is STILL banging the drum about it.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/dennisshanahan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/how_a_pensioner_put_canberra_on_the_run
Helen@110,
Did you find out who the lady was collecting signatures for ? I wouldn’t be surprised if she was from the Carers Alliance, who ran Senate Cadidates at the last election.
I’d also be interested at who they preferenced as well.
Frank Calabrese [3.06pm]:
Carers Alliance would be foolish to ignore a golden opportunity when it burst forth – as this one did. Good luck to them if they are taking advantage of the current and very temporary absence of the usual public apathy towards carers.
Thanks for clearing that up Pollytickedoff and Su. To state the obvious, it is possible that the government may have been considering cutting the general $600 grant to carers who do not need the money. It seems like a small amount but would add up to a lot if you were under budget pressure to cut back on spending.
Giving general grants to all carers might not be the best way of distributing the funds to those who really need it.
Paul Burns [8:30am yesterday]:
You were spot-on when you said
. The really worrying thing about this is that the Australian news media now resembles the news media in a post-Stalin Communist country back in the 20th Century – there are a lot more flashy ads and juicy stories and, of course, the controlling hands are not right in the public’s face – but these days there is definitely more spin than news.
The Australian news media goes beserk whenever there is a witch-hunt on – e.g., in the case of that medical practitioner being extradited or in the case of someone on [here insert name of targetted politician]’s elective surgury waiting list who has died – but, apart from some scholarly articles in high-register English for the informed and the deserving, it has failed to highlight the systemic failures in the health system. For them, publicizing whinges about increases in private health fund contributions is fine …. but you won’t find too many real criticisms about, for instance, how the private health funds are set up and run, that’s a no-go area.
What can we do in Blogosphere? Just keep on doing what we are doing – providing an alternative to the monopoly propaganda machine. We can’t make direct contact with those excluded by the Digital Divide but, hopefully, they might get to hear what’s being said on the Net by word-of-mouth.
Su [1:44pm yesterday]:
One of the reasons Peter Beattie was so popular [despite his many faults] was that in a situation like this he would have come straight out and said they had stuffed-up – but this what they were going to do about it. Simple. Concise. Clear. Unambiguous. …. he would have got his message through to everyone with an IQ above 10 as well as taking the wind right out of the Opposition’s sails.
Mark says “Rudd is not philosophically likely to go after carers and pensioners”.
My own critique of the Government isn’t based on what they’re philosophically likely to do (defining the work they intend to do), but rather it is a critique of what they’ve pragmatically chosen to do already (their predefined actions).
The Government has committed itself to cuts in taxation for its entire term in office. That amounts to at least three annual budgets of predefined action on spending priorities, with no allowance for economic reflection and redefinition.
The mere fact that it has to “first resort” to reviewing so-called “one off bonuses” (the ones that in practice were payed ad hoc for four years, not once off) confirms that Labor are so locked in to election spending promises, they have to target ad hoc spending first.
This issue is only an interesting communication or media study in the sense that the Government were not sensitive enough to the fact that these ad hoc payments are depended upon by people who live their lives in quite an ad hoc way.
I’m not simply putting up theory here. Experiences are what make me passionate about this issue.
In a few weeks time, my partner could be exposed to further diabetes-related test results that further challenge and frustrate plans we have for the future. A few years ago, I witnessed my brother’s visually artistic potential get spoilt by schizophrenia ,while also having been observing the side-effects of managing this condition, which includes the impact on my 60+ year old caring parents.
Of all the bonus payments the Government need to either cut or consolidate, it is extremely insulting they contemplate dealing with this one first.
The fact that the Howard Government considered carers as an afterthought for budget surplus spending is bad enough without the Rudd Government then forming the equation of “last on the priority list, also first to go”.
After it had been assumed about me by one LP poster last Saturday that “You have not read a thing about the Carers and Pensioner bonuses and the beat up,have you” (this is after I’d already listened to 3AW’s Derryn Hinch covering the issue the previous day), an economically literate caller to Triple M’s Spoonman program expressed his frustration about the priorities both sides of Politics now give to widespread tax cuts, which allows discretionary spenders more freedom to put pressure on inflation, which eventually punishes those with the least discretionary income.
No doubt some readers might be amused by me grasping with economic generalisations, but all the detail in the world that defends the Government’s spending priorities doesn’t change the fact that Kevin Rudd has scored his first major Public Relations problem – and I dare suggest he deserved it and needs to learn from it.
I’m not convinced by Mark’s claim that “surely the speed of the media cycle which discourages reflection and reasoning and privileges hyperbole and pre-judgement on the basis of partisanship and ideology.”
That’s a very intelligent Al Gore thing to say and in other contexts, I might agree with Mark. However, my opinion isn’t quite that mediated and it certainly isn’t partisan.
Given the rhetorical criticism The Australian newspaper often gets on this web site, it’s ironic that the editor of The Australian today reminds his readers that the practice of journalism is meant to be detached from being a political player.
I’d add much blogging to that detachment requirement. I’m not afraid that my opinion risks working against the Labor Party even if I did vote for them last time.
The Australian’s editor makes the valuable point that:
“Many stories, by their nature, will inevitably favour one side of politics or the other. But balance and detachment are the keys.”
…From Justin
Bear Cave [2.32pm]:
Which come right back to what I said earlier about policy-makers, bereft of life experience, making improper and stupid life-and-death decisions about some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Now, aren’t there more tax dollars to be saved in chasing up some really blatant high-end rorts? Defence procurement? Telecommunications? Industry “assistance”? etc, etc, etc.
Graham,
There might be tax dollars to be saved in the areas you mention.Trouble is, they’re powerful people with influence. But welfare recipients outside of the middle class – who gives a sh*t, which is why Governments can beat up on them.