When asked if they would support Barnaby Joyce’s move to the crossbench, Crikey readers told us how they really felt: that the crossbench might not be quite far enough. While some would welcome the (potential) shift away from the limelight, others think that it would do little to diminish Joyce’s appetite for attention. Elsewhere, readers weighed up Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s belated attempt to address the productivity crisis.
On Barnaby Joyce on the crossbench
Judith O’Byrne writes: Should Barnaby move to the crossbench? No, he should move to a park bench.
Marilyn Peters writes: I would be prepared to put a dollar or two in so he could afford to move to New Zealand, seeing $211,000 is hard to live on! How he was voted in again with an increased percentage is beyond my comprehension.
Lee Tinson writes: On the whole, I think he should move to the crossbench. That achieves a couple of positives. 1. He can’t hold a position of ministerial responsibility. 2. He can’t become Nationals leader again, although I confess I don’t see a Nat who is any better. Just think: if they weren’t in a coalition with the Libs, then a government such as we’ve had since 2013 would never have come to exist.
Milton Armitage writes: He gets reelected because of the changing demographic of the electorate (the educated and skilled semi-professionals who used to live here and were employed in the state and federal public service are very diminished in numbers). The New England electors don’t think about politics and who to vote for until they’re in the polling booth, and he’s a known quantity (it don’t take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep) and non-Labor. Voting for the National Party is part of many NE electors’ identity and in their DNA. Even if he became as mad as King George he’d still get voted in. When you set the bar low everyone achieves greatness…
On Frydenberg and the productivity crisis
Ian Hunt writes: Bernard, every now and then you really hit the nail squarely on the head, as you have now when you rightly say that, despite so many goods and service being committed to the market because the government thinks that always gives the best result, the fact is that business is good at ripping off workers and customers.
The productivity commission might have some answers, but I prefer Frydenberg’s capital deepening to the PC’s “better targeting” of spending in education and health, unless that means don’t waste so much money on private schools in education and spend more on prevention than increasingly expensive “cures” in health.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.
Frydenburnt has`nt a clue as to what is causing the impending coalition induced recession, its quite simple, when you take money from the spenders and give to the non spenders (filthy rich ) the economy shrinks, demand is the only driver of any economy and discretional income of the working class provides that spending, any government that introduces policies that reduce the discretionary portion of workers incomes causes an economic slowdown that can then only be reversed by government stimulus, if this stupid government was to increase newstart that would immediatly start to reverse the slowdown as that money is spent into the economy followed by a slowing of migration and the import of cheap 457 visa workers that compete with australians for the few jobs that really exist remembering that this lying government uses statistics that forget to mention you are classed as employed even if you only work one hour in a fortnight, typical dirty tricks from these corrupt and economically illiterate right wing conservatives that only only exist to punish the poor and reward their bludging rich donor/mates