Yes, it’s early days in the tax cut debate that’s going to run all the way to the next election. So early we don’t even have a package yet. But the early stages will be crucial to shaping perceptions: remember Julia Gillard’s carbon price — once she let Tony Abbott falsely define it as a tax at the outset, that immensely damaging perception could never be shifted.
One opposition figure correctly noted yesterday that Labor had been very sneaky in how it has gone about changing the package — by selectively briefing out the broad nature of the changes, with very few hard numbers beyond what the government wants people to know about — that the majority of income earners will get a bigger tax cut. So while much of the focus of the last 36 hours has been on the broken promise — that was inevitable — the message that most workers will be better off has been delivered by the media — even by critics of the change.
From that point of view, it’s mission accomplished so far for the government. They haven’t yet had to deal with detailed questions, because they haven’t provided any detail. That comes later today. “Sneaky” is absolutely right, but that’s politics.
Where the government would be especially happy is that the media has already not just bought what it’s been selling on the package, but gone further and started hammering the opposition about whether it would reverse the bigger tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners in order to restore bigger tax cuts for high-income earners.
That’s going to be a key asset for the government going forward because the opposition has few good options. It will be politically unacceptable to commit to simply restoring the original stage three package, shifting tens of billions in tax cuts to people earning over $150,000 a year. It will either have to accept the new package and commit to keeping it, or do that and promise high-income earners it will give them a bonus tax cut if they get elected.
Most of those people already vote Liberal, so the benefit of a tax cut only for the “rich” will be trivial.
The official holding line from the opposition is that they’ll wait and see what’s in the actual package. That’s the most sensible thing at this point. It’s the position that shadow treasurer Angus Taylor, released from witness protection, stated in a couple of interviews yesterday. But, in a demonstration of how not sticking rigidly to a bland line can be damaging, deputy leader Sussan Ley told Sky News when asked if the Coalition would roll back the changes “this is our position. This is absolutely our position”. For good measure, when asked again if the Coalition would restore the original package, Ley replied “we’ve made it very clear that this is our policy. The policy is the legislated position that stands today.”
That allowed Labor to immediately claim the opposition had committed to rolling back bigger tax cuts in favour of rewarding the rich. Ley had to scramble this morning to say there was no rollback in the offing.
That’s the kind of brutal politics the Coalition and News Corp have always played with Labor — anything other than the fiercest denial can be portrayed as de facto endorsement — and now Labor is returning the favour with delight to its opponents.
The Coalition naturally, rightly, wants to keep the focus on the broken promise. It’s their best angle. In fact, they could do worse than adopting Phil Coorey’s wholly correct line that Labor’s idea of integrity comes with a means test. But Labor has already got the media asking about whether the Coalition will take from the low and middle-income earners and give to the high-income earners.
Perhaps the Coalition has been caught flat-footed. It has constantly sought to question whether Labor was really committed to stage three, knowing that it would be highly risky for Labor to break its promise. But did it wargame its own response? Did it think through what kind of questions it would face? Did it think through how it would have launched the about-face if it were in government, and how that could be countered? It seems not.
Peter Dutton, who’s been keeping a low profile since he charged Woolworths with treason for not selling made-in-China flag bikinis, should know that just because he’s been handed a gift, it won’t do the work for him.
Yesterday I was convinced Labor had gratuitously given the opposition an easy free kick at an open goal. Today, Sussan Ley has worked her magic, and booted the ball towards the corner flag while tripping up several of her team mates. Sussan Ley — is she a Labor undercover operative, wrecking the Liberals from inside?
Her colleague, Bridget McKenzie, did a sterling job of stitching up her own party on The Project last night by dodging giving an answer.
She’s way too thick for that kind of role.
I think you’ll find she’s only in politics for the real estate perks.
Is it just me, or does Su-Su-Susssssssssssan give the impression she escaped from the posh ward at the lunatic asylum?
The woman is entirely ‘suss’
It’s not just you…..
To me she always looks like she’s just woken up on someone else’s couch after a hard night.
I think you’ll find that’s more Michaela . . .
Why do you care?
Isn’t she out there doing what the Coalition does best; spruiking for the wealthy and kicking down everyone else, and losing even more of their supporters in the process?
Surely that’s a good thing, Mr Rat?
Ley’s talent for making the Coalition ridiculous is fine by me, so long as she never makes it to be PM (she would surely be Australia’s Liz Truss). When it comes to what the Coalition does ‘best’, as you put it, she is a liability to her party. Compare her with Jane Hume, who follows the same line, but manages to speak in grammatically acceptable sentences and sound rational, no matter how much one disagrees with her ideology and obsessions.
Not entirely sure that being able to lie profusely with good diction, grammar and syntax is a worthy skill.
Not a worthy skill, no. Saleable, most definitely.
I agree with Fairmind.
Really! I hadn’t noticed.
Hang on, haven’t we been told that they are chasing outer suburbs of workers’ votes, like Aussie battlers, all a bit confused if you ask me.
Which means that Albo might be more cunning than he looks. This could be a subtle wedge to catch the Coalition out as the defenders of the top 1%.
I can assure you, he’s undeniably much more cunning than he looks.
Both Bridget McKenzie and Susssan Ley are nominated as best on field for Labor. Well Done Angus is a close runner up.
Has there been a sighting of the Opposition Leader? Or is he otherwise engaged picketing a Woolies’ store?
I can’t watch Susssan Ley without thinking of the time she charged the taxpayers for flying in her private plane to the Gold Coast to inspect her investment properties. Not the most convincing advocate for the battlers.
And the timing – announced the day before Ozsnooze Day – was perfect!
Can’t wait to see “chuckles” get in on the act.
She’s not smart enough for that. When the choice is between a conspiracy or a stuff-up, go for the stuff-up every time.
Not a good start for the Wokefinder General and his faithful Deputy, numerology expert SuSSan Ley in reconciling their new found allegiance to the low and middle class workers by starting a campaign against them receiving a tax cut in favor of the already wealthy. Surely a distraction is required. So stand by for a furious opposition ‘culture war’ attack against anyone who is a member of the National Trust, listens to Classic FM and is caught being nice to black people.
The Wokefinder General – brilliant! I’ve been calling him the Witchfinder General, but felt it wasn’t quite on-target – you’ve nailed it, thank you, and now to do my best to make it 2024’s ‘word of the year’.
Let’s face it – anyone who goes to the trouble of changing the spelling of her name just to fit a numerology ideology has got to be highly suspect as a political leader.
Highly suspect as possessing a functioning intellect.
Maybe she ‘s trying to remain anonymous. With such a paucity of any of the things that define us as humans, I’d try to keep my name obscure, too, if I were her.
We are seeing the Opposition’s pool of talent giving it their best shot: Angus Taylor, Sussan Ley, Bridget McKenzie, all incapable of forming a cogent sentence on whether they will reverse Albanese’s tax cuts.
Incidentally, the words ‘politician’ & ‘promise’ should never be contained in the same sentence.
I wonder if they’ll disinter the Lying Rodent for a lethal blow.
Geez, I hope they do wheel Little Johnny out.
Questions around core & non core promises, yes please.
So when the Coalition has completely tied themselves in knots, call an election on the Income Tax Reforms.
Lordy lordy Holey Dooly! I’d forgotten the Neoconservative LNP’s holy trope of Flexible Truth sitting on the Alter of Dis-integrity in a side apse of their Church of “Benevolent” Totalitarianism. Sitting very near the Holy Book of Instruction on Convenient Not-Racism For the Masses.
Could almost be an oxymoron
Dutton has come out with a vicious spray and suggested that Albo needs to call an election so that we can all vote on S3 tax cuts.
Don’t forget Michael “Shady” Sukkar on 774 Melbourne this morning. What an absolute joke he was. So desperate for relevance.
The vast majority of taxpayers they will be better off under the tax changes. What Dutton is saying is that if you were promised a pay rise and then found out it was actually going to be more than promised, you should jump up and down and complain about a broken promise.
Going to be interesting seeing Dutton go to the next election promising to roll back tax cuts for the majority of workers in favour of the already wealthy. Even more interesting is how the MSM could spin that as a positive.
Well, the way I see it, the promise wasn’t exactly broken. The S3 tax breaks will still happen, they’ve just been adjusted/tweaked (whatever word you wish) because a great deal has changed since they were legislated. Perhaps that’s the difficulty the LNP have. It seems like they would prefer us all to be back in the 50s where women had to stay home (no problems with women in politics then) and look after the kids. None of this “woke” stuff or environmentalism and the like.
Even Conservatives need to evolve sometimes, otherwise they go the way of the dinosaur. It seems there’s still quite a few of those in the LNP.
Why does BK continually seem to snipe at Labor.
Throughout this article calling the Tax Changes “Sneaky”.
What was “sneaky” about it. He called a Caucus meeting to discuss the changes, got approval from the caucus, and then announced them and saying that all of the detail would be provided the next day, which they have done.
Again I ask, what is “sneaky” about all of this.
The changes to the Stage 3 Tax Cuts package certainly seem to favor a much larger proportion of the working population, and will assist those most affected by the increased Cost of Living pressures.
It’d be their repeated chorus of implementing S3 in full, and that their position hadn’t changed, only to sneakily change tack with no notice. That is what is “sneaky” about it.