Federal Budget

Nick's current affairs & general discussion about anything that's not sport.
Voice your opinion on stories of interest to all at Nick's.

Moderator: bbmods

watt price tully
Posts: 20842
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Post by watt price tully »

Mugwump wrote:Last week .I sat in a bar in Oxford and watched a fellow organize a line of white powder on the table and then snort it, in full public view. This is how much fear of the law there is surrounding drug use, and this is why we have so many innocent lives smashed by this modern curse.

The only way - the only way - to reduce the harm from drugs is to enforce the law against their trafficking, sale, possession, and use. We have had sixty years of progressive legitimization and glamorization of drug use in the media, and increasing tolerance of drugs by law enforcement. The wages of this have been ruined lives, children reared in horrifying and almost insurmountable circumstances, and a vast and destructive criminal industry. Drugs were not common until the 1960s. Why then are they so common today ? Did people suddenly acquire a new susceptibility ? Or rather, were they made to seem normal and cool by music, the media and by lax laws and enforcement ?

Like everyone on here, I do not want my children criminalized for smoking a joint. But actually, that's a risk I would be prepared to take if it meant that they were unlikely to be exposed to drugs because drugs were made very rare again, as they once were. Today, all our kids are routinely exposed to hard drugs because the people who distribute and consume them feel safe in doing so. My children do not, as far as I can tell, take them, but if they do not it is because their genetics and upbringing predispose them not to. Many more vulnerable people are less likely to have those resources, and so the disadvantage and spoilage cascades down the lost generations.

we opened Pandora's little box of weed and white powder in the 1960s. It will be very difficult to close it again, but we must try before mind-altering drugs become as endemic as that other social wrecker, alcohol. Once a drug is embedded as deeply as ethanol is, there really is no turning back. i don't think drug tests for those on welfare are necessarily the answer, but as one more way of exerting pressure to avoid drug-taking and remain fit for work, it's defensible.
For an intelligent bloke you're surprisingly capable of posting some remarkable gob smacking ideas with respect to drugs. I nearly spat my pineapple ice mix drink on the laptop screen in Kao Lak: If it's not marxists it's the 60's :roll: :wink:

1. The war on drugs does not work
2. The war on drugs is part of policing
3. Drug use will subside when we decriminalize it & in some cases legalise it
3. We can save millions if not sqillions by removing the criminal element hence decriminalize & legalise but do not condone
4. (see the Portuguese model)
5. Allow legalisation of marijuana & get the government to grow, supply & tax the product (again do not condone it's use)
6. There is an incredibly serious lack of rehab & detox services - allocate & target money there
7. There is a serious lack of resources in education re drugs - allocate accordingly
8. Safe injecting rooms need to to be put in most places
9. Tax & regulate drug use, get the criminal element out of it & see our law enforcement resources tackle law enforcement and not need to deal with social / health issues.

If we go down the prosecute way then good luck building new prisons, finding new police officers etc.

Doing more of the same does not work doing more of the same but even applying more harshly make one feel good but is is as useful as a fish is to riding bicycles.

Although I'm stumped on methamphetamines ATM

The President of the Philippines might be wanting your number :wink: :P

If you're thinking Singapore then remember that tiny piece of land is just that: tiny with a small population - let alone other issues which is for a separate place

The drug testing of welfare recipients is both:

a) on a broader scale is merely victim blaming bullshit and part of populist & in some instances class warfare.(there are less jobs than there are people seeking those jobs) and

b) on a local scale I hope they nail the little drug using shits & wasters of time, energy & resources some of whom would sell their grandmothers for the next hit

This of course doesn't enter the territory of alcohol & prescription drugs, that is another although related story.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
watt price tully
Posts: 20842
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Post by watt price tully »

stui magpie wrote:
David wrote:Which ignores the fact that some of the most vulnerable long-term unemployed people are in fact drug addicts. Let's test them and cut their pension so they turn to crime to survive! Good thinking!
Or maybe get them into rehab?

If they do turn to crime maybe a stint in forced rehab (aka gaol) would help.

I reckon the measure to divert people into rehab and put their money on cashless debit cards that have limited usage would be met with applause from some of the parents of these alleged addicts.
Sounds like a wonderful idea.

Any advice on where rehab places are btw?

They're more scarce than Premierships are to St Kilda :wink:
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
watt price tully
Posts: 20842
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Post by watt price tully »

Tannin wrote:FFS!

What an appalling effort by Nick's VPT team. You've got a whole ginormous federal budget to discuss - just for example:
  • Bank tax. Who will really pay it? (Ans: you.)
  • Tax increase for people on $22,000 and up.
  • Tax cut for people on $180,000 and up.
  • No action on negative gearing
  • No action on the cost of housing. (Some window-dressing to put it up a little bit higher and grab a headline though.)
  • No criticism of it from the rabid hard-right government backbench! They hate, hate hate it - so far as they are concerned it's practically communism. But they are too scared of losing office to say a single word about it. Interesting. They know that Trumble is their only faint hope of keeping their jobs - 11 Newspolls lost in a row now, and Abbott's all-time record low is in sight - so Trumble needs to look a lot more moderate than his actual policies, so they are shutting up and bearing it. But for how much longer? Can they go another week? Probably. Another month? Doubtful. To the end of the year? Not a hope. Stand by for fireworks and long knives in backs.
  • Zero action on climate change.
  • Downright loopy revenue projections. In case you missed it, they are promising to get to surplus in four years time. Err ... this is the same promise Rudd made after the GFC. And Gillard made after Rudd. And Rudd made after Gillard. And Abbott made before the election. And Abbott made after the election. And Hockey made after the 2014 Horror Budget. And Morrison made after they sacked Hockey for incompetence. And now they are making it again. "Mummy, I'll do my homework next week. I really, really mean it Mummy. I couldn't do it today because the dog ate it. Honest. And I couldn't do it on Friday because a mini-tornado came along and sucked it up. And you know about the Arab Terrorist that jumped out and stole it from me last week. Really and truly mummy, next week for sure, Croos my heart and hope to get a blow job. Next week I will really do my homework! ..... Four years later .... Lather, rinse and repeat.
  • Let's try that one again. Downright loopy revenue projections. They are basing the increased revenue projections that they need to fix the deficit with on, of all things, much higher average wages! Yes, you heard that right: higher wages. No, that wasn't the left wing of the Greens or the Socialist Alliance, it was Scot Morrison! Yep, the government which has, quite deliberately and with malice aforethought overseeen the first sustained and major drop in real Australian weekly earnings in living memory, the very same government which applauded wage rate cuts for the poorest workers in the country, the very same government which destroyed the car industry and much of the rest of manufacturing industry (notably by its insane gas export policy) .... is now "expecting" a wages explosion to fuel a tax bonanza big enough to fix the Commonwealth deficit! Stand by. Be ready for it. You know what to expect. Fast forward 18 months: Mummy, Mummy, on the way home from school today, a great big silver flying saucer came down in the middle of Carter Street and three green aliens from Arcutarius pointed an X-ray gun at me and said they'd shoot my nadgers off if I didn't give them my homework! Honest Mum! Really and truly! OW! OW! OW! OW! Le'ggo my ear! OW!"
  • $22 billion cut to the education budget cleverly disguised as a $22 billion increase. Very neat footwork there Mr Trumble! I hadn't thought you had that in you. Nicely played. (OK, it's a lying scumbag trick, granted, but remarkably well executed.)
  • A $60 billion tax cut for big business! Yes, $60 billion!
  • More big cuts to tertiary education.
  • Lots of noise and flash about massive, nation-building infrastructure spending to look good for the camera, but the actual extra money budgeted for in the life of this government, and for the two years after that as well is ... er .... zero. There is another nicely done PR stunt. Did Trumble think that one up as well? You wouldn't reckon Morrison would have the brain for it. My money is on Arfur Seenodonors as the mastermind. It's exactly the sort of deviously clever trick he used to plot for Johnnie Howard back in the day.
  • No action to fix multinational tax rorting. Why not?
  • Zero action on energy security. (Plenty of talk and TV interviews made while wearing funny hats. Action? Zero. Well done Ar'fur.)
And what did you lot spend three bloody pages yakking about? Nothing but farnarkling minor detail in the footnotes! OK, there are important issues of liberty, fairness, and probity to be sparked from the debate, but give me a break and get with the main event you bludgers.

Farnarkle me, I can't leave you kids alone for ten minutes.

Where's Wokko when you need him? (OK, he nearly always posts rubbish, but at least it's rubbish that matters.)
Good god what wrong with you man, don't you believe in trickle down economics?

Making higher education less affordable & taxing students really assists in making Australia a clever country.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
User avatar
Mugwump
Posts: 8787
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: Between London and Melbourne

Post by Mugwump »

Two more flags before I die!
User avatar
David
Posts: 50683
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 83 times

Post by David »

"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
watt price tully
Posts: 20842
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Post by watt price tully »

Mugwump, in the state of Victoria almost every (ex) police commissioner, senior medical person, senior folk in addiction services and D & A services supports legalisation & decriminalisation. These are not marxist or libertarian folk. They know the area they work in. In Victoria the cells & other areas of remand are already full of alcohol, ice & other drug users.

I speak from experience. (not from the inside I should clarify!!)

Unless you want to fund more prisons and allocate a heap more resources to "policing" then go ahead punish, punish & punish more.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
User avatar
Mugwump
Posts: 8787
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: Between London and Melbourne

Post by Mugwump »

watt price tully wrote:Mugwump, in the state of Victoria almost every (ex) police commissioner, senior medical person, senior folk in addiction services and D & A services supports legalisation & decriminalisation. These are not marxist or libertarian folk. They know the area they work in. In Victoria the cells & other areas of remand are already full of alcohol, ice & other drug users.

I speak from experience. (not from the inside I should clarify!!)

Unless you want to fund more prisons and allocate a heap more resources to "policing" then go ahead punish, punish & punish more.
Well, of course they do - they are the very people whose lives would be made easier by legalization. I suspect that firefighters do not much like fighting fires and would find it easier to let them burn. The community and the drug-addicted young, however, bear the costs of ever-rising addiction rates and the scourge of drugs, which has grown apace across our society since we stopped punishing consumption of "soft" drugs. As for punishing more and more, well, when drug-takers realize that procuring and consuming mind-altering drugs is treated as a serious criminal offence, and the middle classes stop glamorizing and winking at it, the rate of those crimes would reduce significantly. We did it with minor speeding infractions - where was this argument then ? We can punish for traveling at 65 mph (and it bloody well works) but it's not acceptable to enforce the law against possessing and taking drugs, an action which is cutting deep wounds in our society ?? Really ?

I know you guys all mean well, just as I meant well when I used to advocate for the same things as you do now. But then I awoke one day and saw the smashed lives, fractured communities, and casual brutality and real disrespect that have accrued from the libertine experiments we all, with closed minds, assumed to be incontrovertibly true through the last two generations. Real liberty accrues to a well-educated people who are free to speak anything, and to act within the constraining laws debated and enacted by a sovereign parliament. Libertarianism is no freedom at all for those who find absolute freedom a death trap. Ask the children of our casino patrons, our heroin and ice addicts, our alcoholics. All of these things have been increasingly deregulated at various levels over the last sixty years, with entirely predictable effects.
Last edited by Mugwump on Thu May 18, 2017 7:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Two more flags before I die!
User avatar
Mugwump
Posts: 8787
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: Between London and Melbourne

Post by Mugwump »

Last edited by Mugwump on Thu May 18, 2017 7:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Two more flags before I die!
User avatar
Pies4shaw
Posts: 34886
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:14 pm
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 182 times

Post by Pies4shaw »

watt price tully wrote:Mugwump, in the state of Victoria almost every (ex) police commissioner, senior medical person, senior folk in addiction services and D & A services supports legalisation & decriminalisation. These are not marxist or libertarian folk. They know the area they work in. In Victoria the cells & other areas of remand are already full of alcohol, ice & other drug users.

I speak from experience. (not from the inside I should clarify!!)

Unless you want to fund more prisons and allocate a heap more resources to "policing" then go ahead punish, punish & punish more.
Cant this all be resolved by sterilising them?
User avatar
Skids
Posts: 9941
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:46 am
Location: ANZAC day 2019 with Dad.
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 44 times

Post by Skids »

Isn't it ironic that the government is now trying to slug the banks?

Why they ever sold OUR assets continues to baffle me. Thanks Paul!

The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank was a financial disaster for the Australian public, although investors in the float did very well indeed. The capital structure established prior to the sale of the first tranche of shares in 1991 involved the issue of 835 million shares. Although the par value for the shares was set at $2, the relevant consideration for valuation is the issue price which was set at $5.40. This implies a valuation of $4.5 billion for the Bank as a whole, (or about $5 billion valued in 1995-96 dollars0. The procedure for the sale of the second tranche of shares in 1993 ensured that the government received an amount close to the market price of the shares at the date of sale, which turned out to be around $9.50, implying a valuation for the Bank as a whole of $7.9 billion, or about $8.5 billion in 1995-96 dollars. The final share offer for the Bank was announced in June 1996. The sale price was around $10 per share, also implying a valuation of $8.5 billion in 1995-96 dollars. The total proceeds from the three stages of the sale amounted to about $7.8 billion in 1995-96 dollars.

Average real annual profits over the period 1988-93 (which covers a complete business cycle) were around $560 million. Computing the present value of this stream of profits at a discount rate of 5 per cent yields a value of $11.2 billion for the Bank as a whole. Therefore, even if profits had not increased after 1993, the public would have incurred a loss of around $3.5 billion from the privatisation. In fact, primarily because of the removal of restrictions on the monopoly power of the banks, profits have soared. Profits for the three years from 1998 to 2000 totalled $5.4 billion, or more than half the total sale proceeds received by the Australian public.

Financial deregulation has been similarly disastrous. Since the advent of financial deregulation, banks have raised fees and charges, cut services and exploited their collective monopoly power whenever possible.

http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquig ... ion01.html
Don't count the days, make the days count.
watt price tully
Posts: 20842
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Post by watt price tully »

Pies4shaw wrote:
watt price tully wrote:Mugwump, in the state of Victoria almost every (ex) police commissioner, senior medical person, senior folk in addiction services and D & A services supports legalisation & decriminalisation. These are not marxist or libertarian folk. They know the area they work in. In Victoria the cells & other areas of remand are already full of alcohol, ice & other drug users.

I speak from experience. (not from the inside I should clarify!!)

Unless you want to fund more prisons and allocate a heap more resources to "policing" then go ahead punish, punish & punish more.
Cant this all be resolved by sterilising them?
I'm sure the with clientele you work with I'd be thinking eugenics would be a good idea too.

Then again some of clientele I work with that idea has crossed my mind more than once.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
User avatar
Pies4shaw
Posts: 34886
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:14 pm
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 182 times

Post by Pies4shaw »

watt price tully wrote:
Pies4shaw wrote:
watt price tully wrote:Mugwump, in the state of Victoria almost every (ex) police commissioner, senior medical person, senior folk in addiction services and D & A services supports legalisation & decriminalisation. These are not marxist or libertarian folk. They know the area they work in. In Victoria the cells & other areas of remand are already full of alcohol, ice & other drug users.

I speak from experience. (not from the inside I should clarify!!)

Unless you want to fund more prisons and allocate a heap more resources to "policing" then go ahead punish, punish & punish more.
Cant this all be resolved by sterilising them?
I'm sure the with clientele you work with I'd be thinking eugenics would be a good idea too.

Then again some of clientele I work with that idea has crossed my mind more than once.
I'll tell my pro-bono asylum seekers you said that.
watt price tully
Posts: 20842
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm

Post by watt price tully »

Mugwump wrote:
watt price tully wrote:Mugwump, in the state of Victoria almost every (ex) police commissioner, senior medical person, senior folk in addiction services and D & A services supports legalisation & decriminalisation. These are not marxist or libertarian folk. They know the area they work in. In Victoria the cells & other areas of remand are already full of alcohol, ice & other drug users.

I speak from experience. (not from the inside I should clarify!!)

Unless you want to fund more prisons and allocate a heap more resources to "policing" then go ahead punish, punish & punish more.
Well, of course they do - they are the very people whose lives would be made easier by legalization. I suspect that firefighters do not much like fighting fires and would find it easier to let them burn.

Do you really think it's as glib as that. I'm really amazed with that reaction.

It is no cost to ex commissioners of police. They no longer need to serve political masters.

Do you really think that those who work in the field (I'm not talking stupid people here) really believe that to advocate for legalisation & decriminalisation do this "because it makes their lives easier"- that really is devoid of merit & to suggest that their experience is somehow separated from young people or the community (below)is a nonsense that you know (next you'll be draping the Australian flag


The policy here is for harm prevention, harm reduction, harm minimization. Abstinence is a great idea but like unwanted pregnancies it's gunna happen. Do you offer education, prophylaxis or ban it like the olden days?

The community and the drug-addicted young, however, bear the costs of ever-rising addiction rates and the scourge of drugs, which has grown apace across our society since we stopped punishing consumption of "soft" drugs. As for punishing more and more, well, when drug-takers realize that procuring and consuming mind-altering drugs is treated as a serious criminal offence, and the middle classes stop glamorizing and winking at it, the rate of those crimes would reduce significantly. We did it with minor speeding infractions - where was this argument then ? We can punish for traveling at 65 mph (and it bloody well works) but it's not acceptable to enforce the law against possessing and taking drugs, an action which is cutting deep wounds in our society ?? Really ?

I know you guys all mean well, just as I meant well when I used to advocate for the same things as you do now. But then I awoke one day and saw the smashed lives, fractured communities, and casual brutality and real disrespect that have accrued from the libertine experiments we all, with closed minds, assumed to be incontrovertibly true through the last two generations. Real liberty accrues to a well-educated people who are free to speak anything, and to act within the constraining laws debated and enacted by a sovereign parliament. Libertarianism is no freedom at all for those who find absolute freedom a death trap. Ask the children of our casino patrons, our heroin and ice addicts, our alcoholics. All of these things have been increasingly deregulated at various levels over the last sixty years, with entirely predictable effects.
So for a start you need to get some perspective on matters. I wish you'd say the same about alcohol (although I do note you snuck alcoholics in just at the end there) as I work daily (well not now) with the victims of alcohol & drug abuse, the fractured families that you speak of, the smashed lives that you speak of, the domestic violence & murder and mayhem associated with alcohol, the illness etc. The cost etc. Alcohol is legal. Alcohol is glamourised- is this the soft libertarian approach you bang on about? No that's just your prejudice coming out again: mind you 60's on one shoulder & marxists on the other will make you well balanced. BTW, if you think "alcoholics" is the issue with alcohol then you want to rethink things just a smidgeon.

Alcohol & drug use is a complex topic & knee jerk reactions will not assist in explaining or dealing with the issue.

It needs a multi pronged approach & I for one am all for prongs. I don't reject the argume
nt that penalisation through fines for drug use but you've ignored one of the many elephant(s) in the room:

Who is paying for this?
Who is paying for more police?
Who is paying for more prisons?
Who is paying for more judges & more lawyers?

Finally, harm reduction etc has not been tried before we have a half arsed system currently.

Punishing drug use was all the go many years ago when I was young & did it work? Hell no. I think you assume it hasn't been tried before & that assumption/premise informs your viewpoint. That premise is incorrect and you know what they say....

:wink:

Please don't assume you have my experience I don't assume I have yours. (words to the effect of I was once well intentioned etc but I saw the light hallelujah ).
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
User avatar
Mugwump
Posts: 8787
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: Between London and Melbourne

Post by Mugwump »

^ WPT of course I made no assumption or claim to having your experience. I acknowledged your good intentions and tried to explain why I changed my mind. I also tried to indicate that the kindly consensus can and does have consequences far from its benign intentions.

I have never believed that those on the front line of an issue have an automatic right to set policy. We must strive to understand and learn from their experience, but soldiers in a war are not necessarily the best people to set foreign policy. If one looks at the way teacher unions, largely left-wing, have shaped a crumbling education system for the last sixty years, I think it's clear that shutting up and supping from their spoon is no substitute for democratic argument. Groupthink is especially strong among those who share intense experiences.

Your point about alcohol is one I understand well. As I have said, once a drug becomes so entrenched in a civilization, with such a critical mass, it is practically impossible to eradicate it, as the Us proved from 1917-1930. I would, however, impose greater restrictions on alcohol than we have today, for the reasons you indicate. The argument that "alcohol, a terrible scourge, is legal so we should make other drugs legal too" is worth examining. For about five seconds.
Two more flags before I die!
User avatar
Mugwump
Posts: 8787
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: Between London and Melbourne

Post by Mugwump »

Skids wrote:Isn't it ironic that the government is now trying to slug the banks?

Why they ever sold OUR assets continues to baffle me. Thanks Paul!

The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank was a financial disaster for the Australian public, although investors in the float did very well indeed. The capital structure established prior to the sale of the first tranche of shares in 1991 involved the issue of 835 million shares. Although the par value for the shares was set at $2, the relevant consideration for valuation is the issue price which was set at $5.40. This implies a valuation of $4.5 billion for the Bank as a whole, (or about $5 billion valued in 1995-96 dollars0. The procedure for the sale of the second tranche of shares in 1993 ensured that the government received an amount close to the market price of the shares at the date of sale, which turned out to be around $9.50, implying a valuation for the Bank as a whole of $7.9 billion, or about $8.5 billion in 1995-96 dollars. The final share offer for the Bank was announced in June 1996. The sale price was around $10 per share, also implying a valuation of $8.5 billion in 1995-96 dollars. The total proceeds from the three stages of the sale amounted to about $7.8 billion in 1995-96 dollars.

Average real annual profits over the period 1988-93 (which covers a complete business cycle) were around $560 million. Computing the present value of this stream of profits at a discount rate of 5 per cent yields a value of $11.2 billion for the Bank as a whole. Therefore, even if profits had not increased after 1993, the public would have incurred a loss of around $3.5 billion from the privatisation. In fact, primarily because of the removal of restrictions on the monopoly power of the banks, profits have soared. Profits for the three years from 1998 to 2000 totalled $5.4 billion, or more than half the total sale proceeds received by the Australian public.

Financial deregulation has been similarly disastrous. Since the advent of financial deregulation, banks have raised fees and charges, cut services and exploited their collective monopoly power whenever possible.

http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquig ... ion01.html
Good analysis, Skids, and I broadly agree with the conclusions, though a few quibbles with the argument :

1. I do not know how much of the expanding profitability of the CBA relates to increasing efficiency and cost control in private ownership. All banks tend to bloat, but government enterprises tend to do so especially. So if it had stayed in government hands it may not have been as profitable.
2. Bank profitability in Australia since 2003 relates partly to a housing bubble driven by excess credit creation (see Prof Steve Keen on this) and profitability is probably illusory. When the chickens hit the fan, private shareholders will presumably bear a large chunk of the cost, rather than the taxpayer.
3. Ultimately, the price paid for the CBA when it was sold was set in the market, so it s hard to argue that it was "worth" more than it was sold for.

Nonetheless, I continue to be mystified by the reverence shown to Paul Keating. He presided over the sale of national assets, led us into an appalling recession, and contributed greatly to the toxic atmosphere of public life, with his lowbrow rhetoric.

On banking, yes, a new public digital bank with simple vanilla mortgage offerings and savings products, including ultra-low fee super investments, would be a good thing for a visionary government to set up. Reasonable levels of senior management remuneration and a ban on incentives and the "selling" culture would exert real pressure for the banks to clean up their stale and exploitative oligopoly.
Two more flags before I die!
Post Reply