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

You were spot-on when you said

”clearly an orchestrated beat up by RWDBs to embarrass the Rudd Government”.

. 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.

Giving general grants to all carers might not be the best way of distributing the funds to those who really need it.

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.

[link]

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.

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

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.”
[link]

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.

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.

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.

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.,

“Professional exam-passers know that marks get deducted if responses stray off topic”.

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.

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.,

“Professional exam-passers know that marks get deducted if responses stray off topic”.

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.