Political Cartoons Thread (International & National)

[Pessimistic]

I wonder what Menzies would be thinking

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I wonder what Menzies would be thinking

I think he'd be thinking of mounting a challenge. The Liberal right have gone crazy and the Liberal left have no balls. By promising to get Prince Harry to hang out at least once every 18 months with Abbott's daughters he would get the right-wing to fall in line.

A brief potential controversy over his continuing to sit next to a polluting open fire in his Youtube addresses would be solved by him using one of those fake fireplaces powered by "good Australian natural gas". He would emphasise getting back in touch with normal people, and may even bring manufacturing back via the tariffs that were in place back then - sure it looks a bit socialist, "but most of the overseas' manufacturers are Chinese - they're Communist!"

 

[GoldenSky]

It was his response to the situation of Jon Faine's children.

Exactly.

Regardless of the context, it was a foolish thing to say.

Foolish, yes in some way. Was it his policy for the nation? Obviously not.

 

[GoldenSky]

No, he was asked about how young people can get into the market and his response was to ask Jon Faine whether his children were struggling. Much like Duncan Storrar, the Liberals decided to play the man rather than have to talk about the issue.

When Faine explained they were struggling, Turnbull said Faine should "shell out" for them. He gave no other answer to the problem of young people struggling to get into the market.

I don't get this. How does 'no other answer' mean the Liberals have a specific policy?

What do you want his answer to be? The Federal Government should buy a property for young people? Maybe he decided to play the man because the man should have directed his question to the relevant state Government - after all, they're in control of duties, land release etc.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Less talk - more cartoons DAMMIT!

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Less talk - more cartoons DAMMIT!

I love Popes use of a Muppet to depict Hunt and to double down with Miss Piggy as the government policy, brilliance.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I don't get this. How does 'no other answer' mean the Liberals have a specific policy?

What do you want his answer to be? The Federal Government should buy a property for young people? Maybe he decided to play the man because the man should have directed his question to the relevant state Government - after all, they're in control of duties, land release etc.

Almost everyone agrees it's an issue. He was asked for a solution, and he gave his answer. Without any other declared policy, it is fair to assume that they aren't going to do anything about it, and consequently our best guess at what the Liberals think is a solution is Turnbull's answer.

"Inter-generational equity" isn't exactly a common phrase. What makes you think they haven't focus-grouped the idea that it's fine for housing to only be affordable to multi-generation Australian families? It fits with the anti-refugee rhetoric of Christensen & Dutton, which Turnbull defended on each occasion.

 

[sherb]

 

[Mofra]

What do you want his answer to be? The Federal Government should buy a property for young people? Maybe he decided to play the man because the man should have directed his question to the relevant state Government - after all, they're in control of duties, land release etc.

The Federal Government are shouting that negative gearing is supporting house prices and the property market would collapse without it.
Negative gearing is a federal issue.

 

[sherb]

I wonder what Menzies would be thinking

He'd be rotating in his grave at 45 rpm minimum.

 

[sherb]

Kudelka

 

[Pie eyed]

I wonder what Menzies would be thinking

Self Interested w***ers!

But in a more polite inner voice.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

​

 

[GoldenSky]

The Federal Government are shouting that negative gearing is supporting house prices and the property market would collapse without it.
Negative gearing is a federal issue.

Cool.

However, we were actually discussing the statement put to Malcolm Turnbull as follows - "No, he was asked about how young people can get into the market".

My statement in this thread was that, if anything, house prices are more prone to factors under the control of state governments.

However, you seem to be implying that this statement put necessarily means Turnbull should have then laid down a new policy to restrict negative gearing.

Therefore, do you mind elaborating on what you are trying to say? Are you saying that, because the Liberals have stated that removing negative gearing would lead to a reduction in house prices, that naturally they should favour a reduction in everyone's house price (based on their reasoning of course), such that young people can get into the market?

Why would this be an appropriate response from a Prime Minister who has pitched this election campaign to not touch negative gearing?

 

[CM86]

Cool.

However, we were actually discussing the statement put to Malcolm Turnbull as follows - "No, he was asked about how young people can get into the market".

My statement in this thread was that, if anything, house prices are more prone to factors under the control of state governments.

However, you seem to be implying that this statement put necessarily means Turnbull should have then laid down a new policy to restrict negative gearing.

Therefore, do you mind elaborating on what you are trying to say? Are you saying that, because the Liberals have stated that removing negative gearing would lead to a reduction in house prices, that naturally they should favour a reduction in everyone's house price (based on their reasoning of course), such that young people can get into the market?

Why would this be an appropriate response from a Prime Minister who has pitched this election campaign to not touch negative gearing?

You seem to want a lot more from a poster on bigfooty, than you do from our PM...

 

[Mofra]

However, we were actually discussing the statement put to Malcolm Turnbull as follows - "No, he was asked about how young people can get into the market".

My statement in this thread was that, if anything, house prices are more prone to factors under the control of state governments.

However, you seem to be implying that this statement put necessarily means Turnbull should have then laid down a new policy to restrict negative gearing.

Therefore, do you mind elaborating on what you are trying to say? Are you saying that, because the Liberals have stated that removing negative gearing would lead to a reduction in house prices, that naturally they should favour a reduction in everyone's house price (based on their reasoning of course), such that young people can get into the market?

Why would this be an appropriate response from a Prime Minister who has pitched this election campaign to not touch negative gearing?

Obviously the only way young people will be able to get into the market is with lower prices for the proportion of properties that are more likely to be targeted by people on lower incomes / those without existing equity.

Negative gearing according to everyone except the Libs puts a small floor under property prices (nowhere near the extent that the Libs claim, ignoring Treasury which seems to be the way most federal governments now operate, picking and choosing which reports to believe and discard).

I am not implying that Turnbull should remove NG, just challenging that your assertion that state governments have the responsibility on ensuring the requisite balance is struck between facilitating people being able to actually enter the market and people not being subject to a full blown property crash to allow their entry. FIRB rules for example are ridiculously lax (write a letter, stump up for the deposit and you're in) and yup you guessed it - they're a Federal responsibility.

State governments do control stamp duty - and almost all offer concessions for FHBs and reductions for off the plan purchases that encourage construction activity.
The issues relating to land banking (as often claimed to be a major pricing issue) have some factors that need to be taken into consideration - one, it's often large developers who are doing so, not state governments. Two, the debate centres overwhelmingly on fringe areas surrounding capital cities where the costs of providing requisite infrastructure in low density areas is extremely high on a per capita basis so obviously state governments need to consider the budget implications of unfettered land releases. Third, state governments already make attempts to decentralize population movements to regional centres with only limited success. Fourth, there is a strong correlation between house prices and the availability of credit: it's the predominant factor. We do not have state-based lending laws in Australia, APRA is a Federal agency, and the regulations regarding deposit-taking are overwhelmingly federal (non-conforming lenders were decimated post-GFC).

So no, I don't think merely saying it's predominantly a state issue is particularly helpful nor accurate in the debate relating to house prices in Australia.

 

[sherb]

David

 

[sherb]

Moir

 

[Gough]

 

[FredLeDeux]

 

[sherb]

Pope.

Lol at Hunt......

 

[FredLeDeux]

 

[sherb]

Moir. Brilliant.

 

[sherb]

Moir. Again.

 

[Pessimistic]

very cheeky