The media is outraged over Labor’s broken promise but this is to be expected. After all, didn’t they consistently say that they hadn’t any plans to change the Stage 3 tax cuts both before and after the election every time they were asked...
Well, semantically speaking, that’s not an untrue statement. Their plans were only decided a few days ago and until then there were no plans as such, just a vague idea that the tax cuts were wrong for a whole lot of reasons. (Ok, this is not really an argument that anyone should try, but I have seen more ridiculous wordplays from politicians over the years…)
And, as I pointed out the other day, everyone asking the question knew that the tax cuts were something that had to be changed. If not why were they asking the same question over and over and over again.
To use the AFL as an example, nobody is likely to ask the Collingwood hierarchy if premiership coach, Craig McRae is safe, even if he loses the first five games. However, I suspect that the question will be asked about Adam Simpson after Eagles lose their first game because his team finished bottom of the ladder last year and the only question is when he’ll go, not if.
The way something is framed is always quite interesting. For those of you who remember, Tony Abbott’s promise of a “rolled gold” maternity leave scheme, you’ll also remember that it was decided that the decision not to proceed with it was considered prudent economic management because it was just too generous, and I don’t remember any outrage from the media about how a promise is a promise and you should keep your promises no matter what. Neither did anyone in the media point out that “rolled gold” is a thin layer of gold which is far from pure… which begs a comparison to the politician who used the phrase.
Yes, there does seem to be more outrage over this than when …
Ok, I was going to make a list of broken promises from the Liberal Party, but then someone would surely make a list of ones from the Labor Party and we’d be getting into that whole one side’s broken promises are worse than the others. Suffice to say that sometimes there are good reasons for breaking a promise; other times the promise was cynical and without intention. For example, not repaying a loan because you lose your job is different from borrowing money and skipping the country.
But on the subject of framing is interesting to look at the way the media is presenting the changes in terms of those missing out. For example, someone on $150k portrayed in one table of how the changes would affect you, as getting about two hundred dollars less, when in fact they’ll get a tax cut of $3,729 while someone on $50k will get $929. This by my calculations is a cut four times larger in dollar terms. So, while the changes are an improvement, it’s still the higher income earners who are getting the most significant benefits in monetary terms.
Those on $150,000 plus are still getting a large tax cut compared to this year, but it’s being written up as though they’re actually paying more and not getting a cut at all. When you look at any of the tables in the papers, they will tell you that someone on $175,000 will be a couple of thousand worse off when they’ll actually get a cut far in excess of the latest increase to Newstart.
Still, I must say that the decision to interview a woman whose income of $220,000 matched her husband’s, giving them almost enough to afford to shop for groceries wasn’t the masterstroke that “The Daily Telegraph” thought it was. Yes, Nicola Picherit called the changes “a kick in the teeth” but the fact that she has the sort of income that would enable her to visit a dentist means that people would have as much sympathy as they should for a poor family on struggle street because they’re only getting a tax cut of $9000…
Politics of envy, I know…
So how does it play out from here?
The most likely scenario is that The Greens will demand something, the government will say no, then they’ll agree to something else and say that they were going to do that all along and both parties will claim it as a victory.
However, Dutton has called for an election. This is far from a thought out call, and not just for political reasons. A Senate election couldn’t be called without a double dissolution, which would mean that the two houses would be out of sync and we’d have to have either another election for the Senate next year without necessarily having one for the House of Reps.
As for the possible double dissolution, well, that needs a trigger. A piece of legislation needs to be rejected by the Senate, then rejected again after a period of not less than three months. Yes, if the Senate reject the tax cuts and reject them again in May, then the government would have the right to call a double dissolution.
However – much and all as the Coalition would like to tell you that it’s about broken promises and their desire to legislate Australia Day as January 26th (a whole lot of stuff to unpack there) – we’d be going to vote about the tax cuts themselves with Dutton arguing that it’s a matter of principle and, while they are the party of lower taxes, they’re just blocking a cut to most working Australians, they’re only doing it because these lower income people got one just a few years ago and it’s the aspirational people like Nicola Picherit who really deserve one…
Mm, might as well join Pauline Hanson who said that the “lower classes” already get enough…
Of course, Dutton also suggested that they may wave through the tax cuts, which would mean that there was no trigger.
Dutton’s strategy seems to be that if he throws enough ideas out there, sooner or later, one will resonate. The difficulty is that he doesn’t seem to think about who they’ll resonate with
The Framing Of A Broken Promise
16
40
28.01.2024
The media is outraged over Labor’s broken promise but this is to be expected. After all, didn’t they consistently say that they hadn’t any plans to change the Stage 3 tax cuts both before and after the election every time they were asked...
Well, semantically speaking, that’s not an untrue statement. Their plans were only decided a few days ago and until then there were no plans as such, just a vague idea that the tax cuts were wrong for a whole lot of reasons. (Ok, this is not really an argument that anyone should try, but I have seen more ridiculous wordplays from politicians over the years…)
And, as I pointed out the other day, everyone asking the question knew that the tax cuts were something that had to be changed. If not why were they asking the same question over and over and over again.
To use the AFL as an example, nobody is likely to ask the Collingwood hierarchy if premiership coach, Craig McRae is safe, even if he loses the first five games. However, I suspect that the question will be asked about Adam Simpson after Eagles lose their first game because his team finished bottom of the ladder last year and the only question is when he’ll go, not if.
The way something is framed is always quite interesting. For those of you who remember, Tony Abbott’s promise of a “rolled gold” maternity leave scheme, you’ll also remember that it was decided that the decision not to proceed with it was considered prudent........
© The AIM Network
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Rami G Khouri
