Election a choice between terrible twins - Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull
THE danger with Malcolm Turnbull’s July 2 election is it’s shaping up to be a fizzer. A non-event.
It should be huge, but both main parties seem keen to make it an election about nothing.
Sure, Labor promises to tax you an extra $100 billion over 10 years, mostly to pay for yet more spending.
That alone should set us up for a huge election battle to save Australia from suffocating under Big Government.
But so far Turnbull’s government is offering some of the same poison.
It’s also set to promise more taxes — on cigarettes and on super contributions for people earning more than $180,000.
THE danger with Malcolm Turnbull’s July 2 election is it’s shaping up to be a fizzer. A non-event.
It should be huge, but both main parties seem keen to make it an election about nothing.
Sure, Labor promises to tax you an extra $100 billion over 10 years, mostly to pay for yet more spending.
That alone should set us up for a huge election battle to save Australia from suffocating under Big Government.
But so far Turnbull’s government is offering some of the same poison.
It’s also set to promise more taxes — on cigarettes and on super contributions for people earning more than $180,000.
Sorry Stawks 
I see what you mean re the double-up and the link.
re the link failing, this is why I always post what I consider to be the "guts" of the article. So it can be discussed without having to click on the link.
Here's the entire article, then, including the doubler that's already up: 
"THE danger with Malcolm Turnbull’s July 2 election is it’s shaping up to be a fizzer. A non-event.
It should be huge, but both main parties seem keen to make it an election about nothing.
Sure, Labor promises to tax you an extra $100 billion over 10 years, mostly to pay for yet more spending.
That alone should set us up for a huge election battle to save Australia from suffocating under Big Government.
But so far Turnbull’s government is offering some of the same poison.
It’s also set to promise more taxes — on cigarettes and on super contributions for people earning more than $180,000.
Then there’s the silent thief — the bracket creep as inflation pushes more people into higher tax brackets, although the government hints it will at least give back some of this in the Budget.
Most of this extra cash will also go on fresh spending. Turnbull has already unveiled $10 billion of promises since taking office seven months ago.
So the contest so far seems to be between a bad Tweedledum and a slightly less bad Tweedledee.
Of course, the result won’t be imminent ruin for Australia, whoever wins. Optimists chirrup that our economy is still growing at 3 per cent and unemployment falling slowly.
We can easily pay the $1 billion-a-month interest on the federal debt that will next year reach $500 billion. Good news!
But rot always takes time, and this rot is real.
Yes, we’re doing better than most Western economies, but why compare ourselves to cripples?
And look closer at that “good” news.
Our growth? It’s less than we need to stop government debt soaring.
It’s also a con — a trick of the population increase, especially our huge intake of migrants, that makes the economy bigger.
But divide the nation’s wealth between every Australian, adjust for inflation, and you’ll find we’ve actually been getting poorer, if anything.
That falling unemployment is another trick. It fell last month because more people are doing part-time work — as little as a few hours a week. Full-time jobs are falling.
And if things are fine, why does our debt keep growing?
Paying the interest on it could soon get harder if the warnings of rating agencies come true and we lose our AAA credit rating, plus the lower interest rate that goes with it.
That’s why the heads of the Reserve Bank and Treasury insist the government must restrain spending and cut debt.
But persuading Australians to make those sacrifices will take time, especially when half of us depend on Big Government for our wage, pension or big handout.
That scares off even the Liberals talking about cutting total spending. They say only they will “restrain” it — not let it grow as fast as would Labor. Not a great choice. But at least there still is one.
True, Turnbull has not impressed as prime minister, but elections rarely let us vote for perfection. Remember how we picked Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard?
Labor leader Bill Shorten is not at all a dud of that class. His real problem is that he leads a party that’s lost its head to the green Left, sacrificing reason to emotionalism.
Result: Labor promises — so far — to be worse than the Liberals.
Under Labor, the federal debt would almost certainly be bigger (although Shorten is yet to announce promised spending cuts and maybe even a tax cut). Under Labor, we would also get a carbon tax that would again cost money and jobs without lowering the temperature.
Government would get even bigger, workplaces would remain chained, unions unleashed, and taxes would rise.
Some of Labor’s tax hits are risky. Scrapping negative gearing for “used” houses could well depress the price of your home.
This contrast would be sharper if the Liberals hadn’t replaced Abbott with Turnbull.
No one can be sure that Turnbull, if elected in July, will take an axe to spending or resist warming alarmists.
In fact, Saturday’s Financial Review reported “Turnbull confidants” were, instead, privately assuring critics he’d become less conservative than he had to be now, before the election, with “internal party critics” restraining him.
No wonder some conservatives believe real reform will be impossible unless Turnbull loses and the Liberals are led by someone with a better compass and ticker.
But in this contest between grim and grimmer, Turnbull wins. Rather, Shorten loses — as do we all."
