Albanese is the conservative who mugged the Liberals. Let's hope he seizes the moment
Everyone has a Medicare card and Albanese was wise to embed in the public consciousness that Medicare is a Labor Party creation, implemented by Bob Hawke's government in 1984 against the fierce opposition of the Coalition. Because Medicare, for all its shortcomings, is an entrenched and popular feature of everyday Australian life, the Labor Party of today has been able to leverage Hawke's long-ago policy success to its great advantage.
There's upside for the ALP in portraying itself as a defender of institutions, as it can make the party look less risky, and Albanese leant into this heavily during the election campaign. At his recent post-election address at the National Press Club, he outlined the reasons Labor had won a second term. Electors, he said, had voted for Australian values and for doing things 'our way' – that is, not like Donald Trump and Trump-wannabe Peter Dutton. He also cited Labor's 'commitment to fair wages and conditions, universal Medicare and universal superannuation' that 'set us apart from the world'.
In some respects, it's a conservative formulation for a centre-left party: preserving what's already in place. And that signals some potential downside for the government. Universal super was the joint brainchild of Paul Keating and the ACTU's Bill Kelty as part of the union movement's Accord agreement, which also gave rise to Medicare. The historically transformational nature of universal super has been brought into sharp focus this week, with the attainment of the compulsory 12 per cent super contribution and the wider discussion about super balances in the millions of dollars.
Inevitably, talk of that achievement invites comparisons between the current Labor government and the all-conquering five-term government led first by Hawke and then Keating.
Hawke and Keating wasted no time in office. The Albanese government is 38 months old. Inside the same timeframe, the Hawke government had held two summits – on the economy and on tax – and introduced Medicare, a new incomes policy, an assets test on pensions, floated the dollar, changed the banking system, begun the march on super and produced a comprehensive new package of tax measures.
Loading
Somewhere within the Labor Party, people will eventually start to ask what a Labor leader 40 years from now will be fighting to preserve from the Albanese years. The course that the prime minister is pursuing – backed strongly by Labor's national secretary Paul Erickson, who has definitely earned his status as the nation's campaigning guru du jour – is the one that secured the government's second victory. In short, the government's first priority will be about delivering methodically on its promises, namely reducing HECS debts, building 1.2 million homes, continuing the push towards renewables, increasing the number of Medicare urgent clinics, and continuing to keep inflation down.
That makes sense, especially since the national political scene is now a bunch of players who have, to an extent, been mugged by reality. Everyone is a smartie after the event, but no one expected a Labor landslide. The government wasn't geared up for it. The Liberals had even less of a clue. None of the polls predicted it. YouGov got closest; its central projection was 84 lower house seats for Labor – a mild increase on its majority but still 10 short of the actual, stratospheric result.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
24 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Does Sir Joh remind you of someone else?
Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar.
The Advertiser
26 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Beyond carbon: big four banks urged to capture more gas
Australia's big four banks are being urged to take greater action against climate change after a study found none were specifically identifying emissions of a major greenhouse gas. The banks' failure to single out methane emissions could undermine their environmental efforts, the study warned, in addition to their failure to phase out support for methane-intensive coal-mining projects. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis issued the warning and six recommendations on Thursday after analysing climate reports from the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Westpac and NAB. The report comes after Australian research group The Superpower Institute launched an open platform to report methane emissions and after the big big banks were found to have cut lending to fossil fuel companies by more than 20 per cent in two years. The institute's report analysed annual climate reports and climate transition plans from the four banks and found only ANZ covered methane emissions in its environmental reporting, and none recorded methane emissions separately. The lack of methane reporting went against Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials guidelines, report author and lead coal analyst Anne Knight said, and could diminish the banks' environmental targets. "Australia's major banks have taken significant strides in addressing their climate-related financial risks and setting decarbonisation targets," she said. "However, the credibility and effectiveness of these efforts are undermined by various critical shortcomings, most notably the inconsistent, often inadequate treatment of methane emissions." While all four banks had set targets to phase out financing for thermal coal mining projects by 2030, they did not set similar targets for metallurgical coal mining that used more methane on average. NAB and Westpac had banned support for new metallurgical mining projects this year, but Ms Knight said they had an opportunity to make a bigger climate impact by addressing methane use. "Reducing methane emissions now could have more immediate results at slowing down global warming," she said. "Banks could be doing more to help achieve this." The institute issued six recommendations to banks in the report including explicitly reporting methane emissions, requiring independent verification of methane emissions from clients, and phasing out finance offered to both thermal and metallurgical coal projects. The report follows research from The Superpower Institute that warned Australia's methane emissions from fossil fuel production could be twice as high as current estimates. It also comes after a Macquarie analysis of the major banks' environmental, social and governance plans in December found they had cut lending to fossil fuel businesses by more than 20 per cent in two years. Australia's big four banks are being urged to take greater action against climate change after a study found none were specifically identifying emissions of a major greenhouse gas. The banks' failure to single out methane emissions could undermine their environmental efforts, the study warned, in addition to their failure to phase out support for methane-intensive coal-mining projects. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis issued the warning and six recommendations on Thursday after analysing climate reports from the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Westpac and NAB. The report comes after Australian research group The Superpower Institute launched an open platform to report methane emissions and after the big big banks were found to have cut lending to fossil fuel companies by more than 20 per cent in two years. The institute's report analysed annual climate reports and climate transition plans from the four banks and found only ANZ covered methane emissions in its environmental reporting, and none recorded methane emissions separately. The lack of methane reporting went against Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials guidelines, report author and lead coal analyst Anne Knight said, and could diminish the banks' environmental targets. "Australia's major banks have taken significant strides in addressing their climate-related financial risks and setting decarbonisation targets," she said. "However, the credibility and effectiveness of these efforts are undermined by various critical shortcomings, most notably the inconsistent, often inadequate treatment of methane emissions." While all four banks had set targets to phase out financing for thermal coal mining projects by 2030, they did not set similar targets for metallurgical coal mining that used more methane on average. NAB and Westpac had banned support for new metallurgical mining projects this year, but Ms Knight said they had an opportunity to make a bigger climate impact by addressing methane use. "Reducing methane emissions now could have more immediate results at slowing down global warming," she said. "Banks could be doing more to help achieve this." The institute issued six recommendations to banks in the report including explicitly reporting methane emissions, requiring independent verification of methane emissions from clients, and phasing out finance offered to both thermal and metallurgical coal projects. The report follows research from The Superpower Institute that warned Australia's methane emissions from fossil fuel production could be twice as high as current estimates. It also comes after a Macquarie analysis of the major banks' environmental, social and governance plans in December found they had cut lending to fossil fuel businesses by more than 20 per cent in two years. Australia's big four banks are being urged to take greater action against climate change after a study found none were specifically identifying emissions of a major greenhouse gas. The banks' failure to single out methane emissions could undermine their environmental efforts, the study warned, in addition to their failure to phase out support for methane-intensive coal-mining projects. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis issued the warning and six recommendations on Thursday after analysing climate reports from the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Westpac and NAB. The report comes after Australian research group The Superpower Institute launched an open platform to report methane emissions and after the big big banks were found to have cut lending to fossil fuel companies by more than 20 per cent in two years. The institute's report analysed annual climate reports and climate transition plans from the four banks and found only ANZ covered methane emissions in its environmental reporting, and none recorded methane emissions separately. The lack of methane reporting went against Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials guidelines, report author and lead coal analyst Anne Knight said, and could diminish the banks' environmental targets. "Australia's major banks have taken significant strides in addressing their climate-related financial risks and setting decarbonisation targets," she said. "However, the credibility and effectiveness of these efforts are undermined by various critical shortcomings, most notably the inconsistent, often inadequate treatment of methane emissions." While all four banks had set targets to phase out financing for thermal coal mining projects by 2030, they did not set similar targets for metallurgical coal mining that used more methane on average. NAB and Westpac had banned support for new metallurgical mining projects this year, but Ms Knight said they had an opportunity to make a bigger climate impact by addressing methane use. "Reducing methane emissions now could have more immediate results at slowing down global warming," she said. "Banks could be doing more to help achieve this." The institute issued six recommendations to banks in the report including explicitly reporting methane emissions, requiring independent verification of methane emissions from clients, and phasing out finance offered to both thermal and metallurgical coal projects. The report follows research from The Superpower Institute that warned Australia's methane emissions from fossil fuel production could be twice as high as current estimates. It also comes after a Macquarie analysis of the major banks' environmental, social and governance plans in December found they had cut lending to fossil fuel businesses by more than 20 per cent in two years. Australia's big four banks are being urged to take greater action against climate change after a study found none were specifically identifying emissions of a major greenhouse gas. The banks' failure to single out methane emissions could undermine their environmental efforts, the study warned, in addition to their failure to phase out support for methane-intensive coal-mining projects. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis issued the warning and six recommendations on Thursday after analysing climate reports from the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Westpac and NAB. The report comes after Australian research group The Superpower Institute launched an open platform to report methane emissions and after the big big banks were found to have cut lending to fossil fuel companies by more than 20 per cent in two years. The institute's report analysed annual climate reports and climate transition plans from the four banks and found only ANZ covered methane emissions in its environmental reporting, and none recorded methane emissions separately. The lack of methane reporting went against Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials guidelines, report author and lead coal analyst Anne Knight said, and could diminish the banks' environmental targets. "Australia's major banks have taken significant strides in addressing their climate-related financial risks and setting decarbonisation targets," she said. "However, the credibility and effectiveness of these efforts are undermined by various critical shortcomings, most notably the inconsistent, often inadequate treatment of methane emissions." While all four banks had set targets to phase out financing for thermal coal mining projects by 2030, they did not set similar targets for metallurgical coal mining that used more methane on average. NAB and Westpac had banned support for new metallurgical mining projects this year, but Ms Knight said they had an opportunity to make a bigger climate impact by addressing methane use. "Reducing methane emissions now could have more immediate results at slowing down global warming," she said. "Banks could be doing more to help achieve this." The institute issued six recommendations to banks in the report including explicitly reporting methane emissions, requiring independent verification of methane emissions from clients, and phasing out finance offered to both thermal and metallurgical coal projects. The report follows research from The Superpower Institute that warned Australia's methane emissions from fossil fuel production could be twice as high as current estimates. It also comes after a Macquarie analysis of the major banks' environmental, social and governance plans in December found they had cut lending to fossil fuel businesses by more than 20 per cent in two years.
The Advertiser
27 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Trump's tax-cut bill heads to a final vote in US House
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default.
