Read the article here.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Any chance that this little bit of information from Peter Martin will hit the airwaves before the election? I think myself that they will not be exposed for their bullsxit.
Joe2, You’ve beaten me by moments as to b-llshit aspect.
Once again exposing the Smuggles Set’s vague and tenuous acquaintance with the truth.
You think it has a nebulous appearance, Jane?
These aren’t even ‘costings’ as we traditionally understand them. They’re just a wishlist of Coalition policy proposals with numbers next to them.
For sheer effrontery and contempt for the Australian people this bit of chicanery by the Libs takes the cake.
The Libs employed a pro-Liberal firm before they came up with the leaks excuse to avoid scrutiny of their uncosted costings.
All by its lonesome this deceitful incredible exercise should, if given appropriate publicity, deny the Libs government.
But it won’t get the publicity it deserves.
Positively ethereal, paul walters @4.
Is there an association with Tony Howarth board member AWB and Wesfarmers (Coles no increase in grocery price re 1.5% Levy)would love to know anybody know Thanks.
With WHK Howarth I mean sorry.
“But it won’t get the publicity it deserves.”
No doubt about it. These pseudo costings make you wonder who actually was the author of the so called ‘treasury leak’ that allowed them the excuse of handing over to the already planned preferred “independent” accountant in the first place.
The press conference announcing the costings was also held back yesterday so that it would be hidden behind the noise associated with last nights debate at footy club.
The press response to this has been pathetic and completely irresponsible.
Tony Harris said in the Fin Review that having an accountant cost your stuff is just not credible. All an accountant does is accept your assumptions and check your adding up.
I know they had NATSEM check their modelling, but they wouldn’t question a further cut to the public service plus a “border protection dividend” on which their $6.2 billion budget surplus is built. Nor the $2.5bn saving in the contingency reserve, because they say they are better managers.