A carbon price? Tell ‘em they’re dreaming

acotrel says:

06:36am | 01/06/11

‘Unlike the “lobotomized zombies” in the Labor Party, Australians tend to question orthodoxy rather than blindly accept what they are told.  Our larrikin nature makes us more likely to question authority.’

The ‘lobotomised zombies’  will probably also question why Sophie Mirabella, the Shadow Minister for Innovation and Industry actually holds her position in the alternative government!  If this is the extent of her creativity, we can expect another luddite, do nothing government if Abbott gets up by some act of God!

Kevin says:

07:57am | 01/06/11

@Eric “Cate comes across to me as something of an airhead”.  Yeah, and if she was appearing in coalition ads, you’d think she was the greatest actress of all time.
The pro-government propaganda ads that Howard churned out were a lot more professional but then they were paid for by the taxpayers.

ZSRenn says:

08:40am | 01/06/11

Lobotomized zombies would probably say yes to

“A carbon price has some short-term negative effects on productivity growth and incomes”

Garnaut’s words not mine. He did not elaborate what on what “some” meant in the report or “short term” but with our recently mentioned fall in GDP is any further fall worth saying yes too.

iansand says:

09:12am | 01/06/11

Erick - Have you ever considered wha the function of the Yarts are in society?  Particularly as it seems that every human society, from the Neanderthals on (maybe, but certainly homo sapiens) appears to have developed some form of superficially useless symbolic activity.  If you are going to patronise Ms Blanchett I would be interested in hearing your take on the matter.

Ted says:

09:29am | 01/06/11

But ZSRenn, we can see the short term effects by looking at Europe. Manufacturing base destroyed and sent to China and India how will make more pollution to do the same task, for ever 4 jobs lost only one highly subsidised job is created, just to name a few. We also know that they have only turned to renewable for ENERGY SECURITY after being screwed over by Russia who turned the gas off and blacked out parts of Europe to prove its control. Unfortunately the lobotomised zombies can not see pass the simpleton spin.

Dave says:

09:35am | 01/06/11

I bet two weeks ago, if someone had asked you what you thought of Cate Blanchett, you would have said “she’s alright” at the very least. I suggest the wager is the price of a tonne of CO2! 

Carbon pricing will come, and it will stay, despite all the whinging.

No 1 Rosie says:

10:10am | 01/06/11

Erick

I was intrigued by your use of the word ‘airhead’ and thought that there was a chance Cate’s involvement in the ad was another deceitful way of holding us hostage to say ‘yes’ to Gillard’s carbon tax, the one she lied to us about.

The word bamboozled came to mind, bamboozled meaning ‘conceal one’s true motives from especially by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end.’

Get Up bamboozled Cate to bamboozle us to say ‘yes’ because she was saving the planet for her children and that already struggling families will be compensated.

Yes Erick ‘airhead’ if anyone is going to listen to Cate because she is a celebrity and ‘airhead’ if Cate thinks that just because Tony Abbott is saying ‘no’ to the carbon tax we need to oppose Tony Abbott and say ‘yes’ to her. It was nothing more than Get Up’s representation for Gillard Labor wanting us to just agree and not a representation of us being given a choice to think for ourselves and make up our own minds.

The ad didn’t capture any reality as to any outcome of doing something about carbon emissions. It made me feel threatened and manipulated, not only to defend myself in a democracy and for some authority I will stubbornly say ‘no’ to their forcefulness.

At first it didn’t bother me but after hearing the word ‘airhead’ I am more inclined to just say ‘no’ to prove a point that we shouldn’t listen to bamboozled airheads.

John says:

12:17pm | 01/06/11

Personally not too sure about Ms Mirabella and a lot of her views, but she is right on one thing: people do not like being morally condescended to, and it will not get them “on board” to your ideas.

The Left don’t get this, and they seemingly never will.

clayton says:

12:30pm | 01/06/11

Actors are told what to say and where to stand.
They are paid (many by an obscene amount) to repeat lines written by someone else, stand in a spot marked on the floor by someone else, made up and dressed by someone else.
Cate Blanchett is an excellent actress, but she travels widely and often either first class or on a private jet (think of that carbon footprint) and lives in a mansion. Get real.

Just Sayin' says:

12:54pm | 01/06/11

acotrel, I would question why you respond to Erick’s comment when you not adreesing his comment at all, but the comments by Sophie.

Oh, right.  It’s because you want your pretty name to be as close to the top of the page as possible.  Perhaps that’s the kind of pretension Erick is referring to. And it’s not the first time you’ve done it.

Ripa says:

04:34pm | 01/06/11

Cate an airhead? she sounds like one but seriously who cares, she’s nothing but an actor, not even a real artist. She comes across as arrogant and self indulgent, another watermelon do as i say not as i do.
If that ad was for a high school assessment it would get an F, it explains nothing addresses nothing. “because saying yes is what makes Australia great?” That was the best they could do? no wonder the aussie film industry is up shit creek lmfao

ZSRenn says:

08:44am | 01/06/11

I cant see how you can call the Garnaut report bullshit after all he did say in it.

“Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price.” R Garnaut 31/05/11

Sounds like the truth to me.

No 1 Rosie says:

10:20am | 01/06/11

ZSRenn

I call bullshit to Garnaut’s report because like Cate he wanted to bamboozle all of us into just saying ‘yes’ because Tony Abbott said the opposite. Garnaut’s report would have had more credibility if he hadn’t criticized those that opposed the Govt’s carbon tax and just concentrated on the people of Australia.

Crap Filter says:

10:46am | 01/06/11

What Garnaut really said:

“Revenue from an emissions trading scheme can be directed to three groups of recipients: Australian households; businesses; and other countries. The debate over carbon pricing and the allocation of revenues often focuses on the initial incidence of the carbon price burden and the initial allocation of revenues among these groups.

While important, the extent to which the allocation of revenues among groups and purposes changes over time is perhaps a more
important consideration and the focus of this note.

Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price. Returns to capital are determined in international markets and any reduction in them by domestic policy measures is temporary, except to the extent that the policy measures fall on rents from natural resources,
monopoly or technology.

It makes sense from equity and efficiency perspectives for households to ultimately receive the vast majority of the carbon pricing revenue. From both perspectives there is a great opportunity to improve workforce incentives among low income groups by delivering assistance to them through cuts in labour income taxes.

Moreover, and despite the unfortunate myth to the contrary, providing tax cuts for low and middle income households will not blunt the incentive to lower emissions and achieve our targets.

Instead, it will assist household to re-orientate their expenditures toward goods and services that embody low emissions and at the same time the carbon price will set in train a supply side adjustment that enables emissions reductions to be achieved at lowest cost.”
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011.html

And that is the truth.

ZSRenn says:

11:53am | 01/06/11

@ Crap filter the thing is 48 pages long. Go away read it and come back to me once you have. Then we will be on the same footing.

It also says that they will collect 11.5 billion and refund only 6 billion to households. That is a short fall of $1100/ household + increase in petrol + costs coming down from business but I have already told you that.

In all the bamboozle you have posted from page 23 the words

“Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price.”

stand out loud and clear and cannot be refuted.

The rest is all subjective.

why bother with facts when hyperbole will do says:

03:36pm | 01/06/11

“the campaign is organised by the ALP, the ACTU, GetUp and two actors”

No the campaign and ads are from Australian Conservation Foundation.

If you want a tenious link, Peter Garret was the preseident of ACF 13 years ago.

Crap Filter says:

05:36pm | 01/06/11

Huh? 48 pages? The Summary is 48 pages. I’ve read it and the passage is there on page 17. 

The Review is 244 pages and I’m still reading it. 

Naughty me, the link I have is to the page which lists both. To give the fullest reference to all the material. Gosh, fancy, not hiding any material. Gosh!

But that’s too much for ZSRenn - too much for him to follow a couple of links to try and get it right.
The passage is there, in the Summary, as I quoted. It’s meaning is plain for all to see.

ZSRenn can try and wriggle out of it, he can try and distract from the truth but he’s wasting his time.

Repeating: the link I gave goes to Summary and full Report, in pdf and browser versions.

Couldn’t follow the links, eh? Dear oh dear.  What a joke.

ZSRenn says:

03:37pm | 02/06/11

@ Crapped up filter

Did I only read the summary? Silly me! I won’t be reading the full report for two reasons. .

1. If that is the best of it then I have plenty to rip it apart with.

2. I have a life and don’t have the time to read the full thing.

But you feel free.

Obviously you don’t have a life and judging from your other comments re wind power being a base power source you need the education.

You might answer me these questions though as I have asked you three times now.

With 11.5 Billion being collected and 6 Billion being refunded to Australian Households is it worth $1100/ household/annum to save 0.073% of Global emissions?

If only 1000 companies are being taxed why the does Garnaut feel he needs to refund us at all as according to you we are not paying anything in the first place?

Crap Filter says:

05:05pm | 02/06/11

Wind Power? Now let’s see, what was it the UK people were saying…ah yes.

“Offshore wind.
Given the vast UK resource, this is a valuable option for power sector decarbonisation. Deployment in the 2020s could play a significant role in power decarbonisation; the appropriate scale will depend on cost reductions achieved in the period to 2020 and the pace of development and deployment of other technologies. We will consider offshore wind in detail in our renewable energy review, to be published in Spring 2011.”

“The path through the 2020s: challenges decarbonising the power sector
There is a very good opportunity for power sector decarbonisation through the 2020s. This comes from the profile of prospective plant closure and therefore the need for investment in at least 27 GW new capacity between 2021 and 2030 (Figure 6.7), with additional investment required where existing plant is operated at lower load factors or retires early, and to meet demand growth.”

“The scenario includes 23 GW new wind capacity and 4 GW of new non-wind renewables (on a nameplate basis), and four CCS demonstration plants by 2020, with three new nuclear plants by 2022.
• This would result in a total of around 45 GW (approximately 25 GW when wind is adjusted for its lower annual availability3) of low-carbon plant on the system in 2020 after allowing for closure of existing nuclear plant in the 2010s.”
http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/fourth-carbon-budget

23GW by offshore wind, of 27GW new capacity required. But what would they know, eh.

Questions, Questions, eh. Nup.  You’ve had your share of spoon feeding already, lazybones. Want answers, do you? Look em up yourself in Garnaut. You could start with the summary passage you want to ignore.

Or as you pretend that’s too much, you read this, instead.
http://tinyurl.com/4yv5npl

Enjoy!

ZSRenn says:

09:21pm | 02/06/11

@ Crapped up filter 27GW a base power supply

27GW?

27GW?

You have to be kidding me!

This is nowhere near base power.

Please have a look at the power requirements for an Aluminum Smelter.

You can find them on page 19 on this link.

https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP44.pdf

You will see Australian smelters need some 3045GW to keep operating.

Please get back to me with your answers to my questions any time soon as well.

Crap Filter says:

10:19pm | 02/06/11

Dum de dum de dum.  Not a *big* reader, then,  Z-blahdebalh.

Here’s a thought, sunshine. Go to the UK mob’s site. It’s their stuff. What they plan. Their link’s right there, son.

Get their contact details and tell them they don’t know what they’re on about. Sure they’ll give you a desk, then you can get right on it.

‘K?

DaveinPerth says:

05:24pm | 05/06/11

@Paul - You tell em brother. What on earth do the “ALP, the ACTU, GetUp and two actors” (along with the vast majority of scientists, economists and academics generally) know about anything? I never got a degree, and I’m just as smart as them people! Let’s go burn some books!

It’s just like doctors. Idiots, all of them. I’ve been smoking since I was 12, and my lung has never felt better. Intellectuals! Pffft…..

Gregg says:

08:08am | 01/06/11

And what would you call yourself!

Hopefully, some moderation will be in order.

Dash says:

08:20am | 01/06/11

Do you mean the ALP backed builders with their noses in the taxpayer trough under the school halls fiasco? Pigs is quite an apt description if that’s the case.

Johnny boy says:

08:36am | 01/06/11

No apparent sign of an intelligent response,typical of a traumatised union zealot,unable to converse at an intelligent they resort to insults,doubtless a sign of poor breeding and a lack of any formal education

Unionist says:

08:52am | 01/06/11

it, even has friends

NicoleG says:

10:14am | 01/06/11

Clearly manners weren’t high on the list when you were growing up Unionist. First you call Sophie a pig, then you refer to her as it? You are disgusting. And at least have the balls to use your own name. Coward.

Joan says:

10:36am | 01/06/11

Yep and it looks pigs withe snouts in the trough are Garnaut, Gaia man Flannery and Co all on the tax payer pay roll churning out recycled `Australia to save the world` garbage.
Mr Garnaut the classic toff cum con artist of “I don’t accept that my country is a pissant country” comment Garnaut abbreviated reads like a kiddie chain letter, pyramid selling or Nigerian scam .... your gonna be better off just sign up here… the usual get rich scheme scam directed at the poor . Yep unionist the scam artists at work —pigs in the trough munching through hard working tax payer funds to fund their scam on Australian people.

Former ASU Member says:

10:41am | 01/06/11

Pig in the trough? Oh you must mean the ACTU-funded (which recieves government funding) carbon tax propoganda advert. Or are you talking about the Union-member funded carbon tax rallies the ASU are doing with no consultation with members.
Oink. Oink.

Ted says:

11:03am | 01/06/11

Don’ t forget the Jet Up group that was created and funded by Labor, Same pigs in the same trough. Ever read the book “Animal Farm”??????

No 1 Rosie says:

02:55pm | 01/06/11

Yeah and what do you call yourself? Despicable scum of the earth?

BMJ says:

08:35am | 01/06/11

That’s a disgraceful comparison.

People like you are part of the problem and the reason why it’s almost impossible to have a decent yarn about this issue anymore.

acotrel says:

09:11am | 01/06/11

@BMJ It’s just another weak attempt to denigrate!  We’ve got one dill calling Julia a Nazi, another calling her a commie (on another thread).  I wish they’d make up their minds!

Jack says:

09:43am | 01/06/11

Acotrel, Nazi/Commie, two sides for the same socialist principled coin. Dictatorships that will oppress, lie and kill any opposition. Very good comparison Waffen SS, especially given the Labor adherence to the principles of Gebal’s principles, tell a Big Lie and repeat it often, it achieves credibility. If only they would spin off to oblivion sooner rather than latter.

michael j says:

09:45am | 01/06/11

@acotrel-Julia does not seem to fit any trade-mark i can think of except for a constant state of confusion,,

Waffen SS says:

10:54am | 01/06/11

@aco,Herman Goering was probably the first Major Green in the modern era,Protector of German Forrests,Hitler and Himmler were anti smoking and vegetarians,comparisons are scary,Also they disliked jews as per Marrickville council

Mikeymike says:

06:20pm | 01/06/11

I Call Godwins

TChong says:

08:06am | 01/06/11

Hi AtM
I also chuckled yesterday when 1 Vote Abbott finally backed the the cigarette plain packaging.
What are you going to do now Abbott sold you out AtM ?

Unionist says:

08:57am | 01/06/11

Bahahahahaha now that was funny TChong. Gay boy must be beside himself… or is that behind hehehe

jb says:

09:03am | 01/06/11

@Tchong, sorry dude but thats a bad thing?, I thought we wanted abbott to support getting rid of this filthy habbit! sheesh is there no pleasing you…

ZZ says:

09:22am | 01/06/11

jb - that’s not how certain punch commentors think.

They see politics as a us versus them thing - ALP vs Libs. Forget about what is best for Australia.

Sad people a lot of them.

Denny Crane says:

09:27am | 01/06/11

Abbot cant win with Chongy. Yesterday he was attacking him as Dr No and now he is attacking him for agreeing. He just cant win. I suppose he is one better than Gillard and Rudd who said NO to everything Howard did. Its only conservatives who are not allowed to disagree.

Against the Man says:

11:07am | 01/06/11

But the biggest joke is on TChong, the guy has zero cerdibility and still wants to post on the Punch. Hey is TChong actually Mr Kevin Rudd, both have thick skins and both are losers ! HaHaHaHaHaHa

ps: TChong you do realise that with Abbott backing plain packaging, Roxon will have to ensure 100% success, in other words no backing out, no expensive tax payer lawsuits with the tobacco giants and have to prove statistically in a few years that this has significant results oh and of course deal with the anger of the The International Chamber of Commerce HaHaHa thanks TChong for giving me a reason to prove your stupidity, a pure pleasure.

And does anyone believe BS artist TChong doesn’t vote Labor? He is a certified ALP hack HaHaHaHaHa

Sam says:

11:24am | 01/06/11

Pathetic TChong, Abbott and the Liberals are responsible for the current size and extent of warnings all over cigarette packages. All Liabor is ding is tinkering around the edges. Given the disaster of everything else they have touched, any intelligent person would want to be damn certain of what they are doing before agreeing to it. It would be terrible to see the gains to date being lost, like when Liabor fixed the illegal immigration problem.

Joan says:

12:53pm | 01/06/11

TChong… Just gotta laugh at Roxons so called `plain packaging`, Roxon`s ghoulish packaging is more eye catching than any original packaging. ... bound to attract the young…who just love things crass, yuk, and vulgar. The alien eye, the rotting teeth straight from a horror movie ... the new cool yuk look, bound to go viral with the young .-  how to turn an adult off -just flash a pack of Roxon ghoulish pack of cigs. Good for a laugh!

David C says:

08:53am | 01/06/11

Interestingly it is the very thing that social democrats crave that will cause their ruin. The more government gets involved in the social contract the more ordinary citizens stand aside. “Why should I help my fellow citizens, the government will do it anyway”.
Over time we will all abidcate our responisbilities to the government.
Its typical of the left, its all about hwo things should be and not how they are. Thus all the unintended consequences.

acotrel says:

08:05am | 01/06/11

She’ll probably be replaced by an independent in Indi !

Freeman says:

09:32am | 01/06/11

“No ones claiming , or putting forward such an idea”

Perhaps you missed the jist of the ad. getup wants us to “just say yes” to the tax, even though there is such little support for it. No compelling argument, no new evidence and no better explanation, Just say yes coz some actors tell us to.

Ando says:

09:33am | 01/06/11

TChong,
Because its easier to ridicule than to write an article which supports the Liberals policy because its rubbish as well. The same people Sophie is stirring up probably think her parties policy is shit. Good luck selling that if you ever get the chance Sophie.

Bolt says:

03:46pm | 01/06/11

Freeman, the Just Say Yes ads are from Australian Conservation Foundation. GetUp has no involvement in them.

Mitchell says:

08:22am | 01/06/11

I used to laugh at the nutter lefties, walking down George st, holding up peak hour traffic, complaining how horrible the world was, waving their banners and shouting repetitive slogans.
They achieved nothing other than getting a bit of exercise and using up a few police resources.
It will make my day to see nutter conservative tea party inspired idiots doing the same thing.
Maybe both groups of idiots can walk at the same time and stop wasting decent peoples time and creating traffic havoc.
Good luck with your “revolution” , that guy being abusive and laughing at you from the sidewalk is me.

TChong says:

08:22am | 01/06/11

Advocating a peoples mass movements to overturn elections- probaly
not the best for stability.
If the Punters dont want the tax, the govt will be voted out, just the same as Howard was, after Work Choices was forced on the population, without any type of mandate.
Thats democracy.

B says:

03:33pm | 01/06/11

TCHONG I fail to see the comparison between a Useless tax and Workplace reforms.  That is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.  First off Labor needs a Mandate to introduce a Carbon Tax.  Just because you “think” you were wronged by Howard (which events since then have proven that he was infact,  right) doesnt mean that Labor is justfied in what it is doing now.

in the majority says:

03:52pm | 01/06/11

In March there was a rally for the carbon tax and a rally against the carbon tax on the same day.

Number of people attending the rally for Carbon Tax - 8000
Number of people attending the rally against Carbon Tax - 400.

The majority of people support an emissions tax as long as it provides for real changes to make our industries more environmentally friendly. The backflip on the ETS was one of the major blunders that bought Rudd undone. When Libs eventually take power, they will never recind the tax.

persephone says:

06:35pm | 01/06/11

I thought there was a People Power campaign launched a couple of months ago?

At the time, it was touted as an unstoppable movement which was going to sweep the nation - I think there was even talk of thousands of angry Australians picketting Parliament House on a permanent basis until their demands were met.

A few desultory rallies, made up of people bussed in from around the country and far outnumbered by counter rallies of people who weren’t, and the whole movement seems to have died.

So much confected anger, so little real result.

It demonstrated very nicely that the ‘anger’ we get told is out there is just the normal peed off at government mouthing off that goes on all the time and has very little real substance to it.

A bit like the confected anger we saw on this site over issues like the flood levy and the reaction to the Budget; give it a week or two, a few polls which show that the reaction is out of step with the mainstream, and it mysteriously vanishes.

Gregg says:

08:05am | 01/06/11

Plenty of blue sky and sunshine L but bugger all beneath.
Do we have a choice?,
Of course, we can ask Bob Brown and Christine how much more the Tax should be.
L for love is still for free, though to much CO2 being expelled and you might just find that’ll be taxed too.

We should get Flapper Flannery and Goofy Garnaut doing a double act over in Indonesia and even without helping the cattle they could make the asylum seekers think twice about wanting to come here.

acotrel says:

08:10am | 01/06/11

Yes, you have a choice.  Do something about pollution or risk more floods and bushfires and droughts! Of course if you live in a big city that doesn’t affect you, until the farmers cut off the water supply through the pipeline to Melbourne from the north east?

Mitchell says:

08:13am | 01/06/11

In 2007 both parties took an ETS to the election, Howard proposed it and labor said “me too” .
Both parties agree on 5% reduction in emissions, one side hopes achieving that through market based carbon trading, the other side advocates “direct action” .
You are fooling yourself if you think Sophie Mirabella offers some amazing difference to Labor’s current policy.
Its now half through 2011 and they are all still bickering like children fighting over cake.

gytr says:

08:24am | 01/06/11

We get to say yes to wealth redistribution at it’s worst, most ugly base form:

“Ross Garnaut [...] has called for compensation to be provided only to those on incomes up to $80,000, while higher income earners would have their tax rates or thresholds altered to ensure they did not receive any benefits from the increase in the tax-free threshold.”

What incentive is there to better yourself?

iansand says:

09:16am | 01/06/11

I am not sure I understand the Coalition plan, but it seems to be to redistribute wealth from taxpayers to big polluters in the hope that they will do something.

Denny Crane says:

09:34am | 01/06/11

gytr - come on mate. What are you on about? Its not the labor way to encourage people to better themselves. How can a union control them when people are running off left right and centre trying to improve their lot in life. Keeping the masses suppressed allows greater control and plays into the politics of envy that is the cornerstone of labor politics.

Principles, moral and ethics mean nothing if you dont have power and it would seem not that they mean nothing even when you do have power.

I

Dave says:

09:49am | 01/06/11

Welcome to communism. You will say yes, you will not have a vote on it, you will have your pay effectively decimated to ensure the the middle class is no more, just the working poor. Unions will run rough shot over everything. Thanks for nothing Jo-LIAR and the sheep.

Ando says:

09:52am | 01/06/11

Mitchell,
Sophie sees it as more benificial and easier to bag an Actor for unpaid opinion than support her own parties plan to deal with climate change. She knows this argument is about whether climate change is a problem not which parties version of a tax is better.
Sophie has a higher obligation to be honest and consistent than a hollywood actor.

loulou says:

10:41am | 01/06/11

@L.  Your questions should be on the Front Pages of All Newspapers in the country. 

Does Gillard have the guts to say “No, you don’t have a choice”

L. says:

08:23am | 01/06/11

Or, thats why they won more seats in their own right… Depends which way you look at it I guess.

TCB 24 X 7 says:

08:31am | 01/06/11

Davo,
Must be a good opposition though to hold 1 more seat than the govt.
Tells me majority of Aussies side with Abbott.

Que says:

08:49am | 01/06/11

@Dave-o. How are the polls going mate? Everyone on your side yet?
BTW how many degrees will the earth cool if all of the government’s carbon policies are implemented? According to data from the IPCC (you know, that one) the drop will be 0.005C by 2050. Well done mate, excellent outcome. Saved the world. I look forward to your answers or will you do the normal thing and just ignore the facts and go with emotion and throw in some personal abuse while you are at it?

Come next election the Greens and Labor will be in the wilderness for a long time.

Dave-o says:

09:18am | 01/06/11

@L
Well then they should have formed government.

@Que
Abbott has a “Direct Action Plan on the Environment and Climate Change” so I guess the choice is really between a party that wants to use market measures to put downward pressure on carbon emissions and a Pink Batt scheme which involves handing out government money for corporations to try to do it.

Mitchell says:

09:19am | 01/06/11

TCB - The majority of Aussies side with Turnbull.
He would have won a majority too.

acotrel says:

09:25am | 01/06/11

@Dave-o I often wonder why LNP supporters tread so dangerously.  If I was them, I’d avoid mentioning LIARS or SCAMS !

Andrew says:

09:28am | 01/06/11

Mitchell - WRONG, the majority of Labor supporters side with Turnbull. Check the polls.

Mitchell says:

10:04am | 01/06/11

Andrew - I was referring to the various polls that show the preferred leader of the coalition is Malcolm Turnbull. These same polls show the coalition would win if an election was called today. The majority of AUSTRALIANS want Turnbull as leader.  Essential media 30/05/11 - 1900 people surveyed.
Abbott does a great job at appealing to people who were only going to vote for the LNP anyway and nothing much else.
I stand by my statement that Turnbull would have won the last election.

JT says:

10:17am | 01/06/11

‘‘Mitchell - WRONG, the majority of Labor supporters side with Turnbull. Check the polls.’‘

And they do not even make up a majority of Australians, what’s Labors primary support again? 32 or something like that, 1/3rd of the electorate?

Alicia says:

11:16am | 01/06/11

Mitchell, you will notice from this poll
http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-greg-hunt-say-julia-gillard-should-go-to-election-avoid-carbon-tax-ad-campaign/story-e6frfkvr-1226065802468
“However, 40 per cent of Liberal voters wanted Mr Abbott to stay in the job, compared to 19 per cent who wanted him ousted to make way for Mr Turnbull.”

PTom says:

03:04pm | 01/06/11

@TCB
No, it say the majority in those seats preferred a Liberal/National government while nationally the majority of voters preferred a Labor Government.

@JT
What is the make up of the Liberal in the electorate?

TCB 24 X 7 says:

06:10pm | 01/06/11

Ptom
73 seats libs 72 seats lab.
4 ind.

Crap Filter says:

07:40pm | 01/06/11

Nup.

Crook (Nationals WA) sits on the cross-benches. Doesn’t attend Nats party room meetings.

“I’m clearly an independent. I can sit on the crossbenches quite comfortably”.

Widely reported.  Keeps on saying so every time it comes up. Every bloody time.

ALP 72
Lib/Nat 72

Cross benches
Australian Greens 1
Nationals WA 1
Independent 4

Try and get it right.

TCB 24 X 7 says:

08:07pm | 02/06/11

Crap filter dont talk silliness,
Crook an independant I Like to see him cross the floor then.
His country constituants will put him in concrete shoes.

LIBS 73 seats LAB 72 IND. 4

Crap filter says:

08:56pm | 02/06/11

Crook declares HIMSELF as independent, sitting on the cross benches as WA Natiional.

Facts, seat count, affiliation,  all correct as stated.

Implied threat of violence against elected member - that’s an unlawful and reportable offence. Care to proceed?

Best check ya facts first, sunshine. Carefully.

Crap Filter says:

10:13pm | 02/06/11

Dum de dum, ad break, just time for a quick squizz, so let’s see what we see.

Hmm. Let’s start with, oh, say,  the WA Nationals own site back in 2010, eh. Why not.

What do they say? Here we go.
“Crook will be an independent voice for regional WA
Author: Tony Crook
Published on: 30-July-2010
The Nationals WA candidate for O’Connor, Tony Crook, has announced he will not be part of a Federal Coalition and will vote independently in the best interests of regional WA, if he is elected to the House of Representatives. “
http://www.nationalswa.com/News/MediaReleases/tabid/83/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/647/Crook-will-be-an-independent-voice-for-regional-WA.aspxTony
Right. Standing as an independent, then.  Fair enough. He said it.

So Crook did knock off Tuckey and there he is, in the House. What does he say next?
Why, this:
“Tony Crook - An Independent WA National
Posted on Friday, 22 October 2010
Until now, representatives from major parties have been outvoted in their Party rooms by city-based Eastern States politicians.

The people of the vast Federal electorate of O’Connor have honoured me by electing me to represent them in the next term of government and I will continue my stance as an Independent WA National with a clear policy platform to deliver a better deal for regional Western Australians.”
http://www.tonycrook.com.au/News/Blogs/tabid/75/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6/Tony-Crook—An-Independent-WA-National.aspx
Right. Sitting as an independent, then. Fair enough. He said it. Still on his own site today.

This year? Guess what. Same story.
Here he is, showing a bit of spine on the flood levy.
“WA Nationals MP Tony Crook backs Gillard flood levy plan
Ben Packham From: The Australian February 02, 2011 4:53PM
WA National Tony Crook sits as an independent in the House of Representatives. Picture: Ray Strange Source: The Australian
JULIA Gillard has won the support of West Australian Nationals MP Tony Crook for her $1.8 billion flood levy, dramatically improving her chances of getting the measure through parliament.
The move by Mr Crook, who sits as an independent, puts him at odds with other federal Nationals MPs, who back Tony Abbott’s attack on the levy as a “great big new tax”.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wa-nationals-mp-tony-crook-backs-gillard-flood-levy-plan/story-fn59niix-1225998889949
Consistent this bloke, eh. Still sitting as an independent,and acting as one.

He’s said so, he’s done so and even The Oz believes him.But wait, there’s more! 
Rolling forward to pretty much right now, on cigarette packaging, what do we see? This.  The local rag.
“Crook backs plain package plan
Usman Azad, Kalgoorlie Miner May 26, 2011
Legislation on plain packaging for cigarettes is likely to get through the House of Representatives after a number of MPs, including Nationals WA independent Tony Crook, vowed their support.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/regional/goldfields/a/-/news/9520122/crook-backs-plain-package-plan/
Blimey. So he says he’s independent. He votes independent. And The Oz and The Miner both agree, he’s independent.

What’s that, TCB? Speak up, son!
“But, but, no, but no, but yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah (mumble)”.

Yeah, right. Crook has said it, again and again, he acts as he speaks, and he gets reported, correctly, local and national. Again and again. Tony Crook sits as an independent WA National.

So, that’s a wrap, then.

ALP 72
Lib/Nat 72

Cross benches
Australian Greens 1
Nationals WA 1
Independent 4

Right. Got it. Well, we all got it at the first pass. Except TCB-whatever. Tough, sunshine. And best keep a lid on your other flights of fancy, TCB, eh. Very bloody silly.

jb says:

09:16am | 01/06/11

goodonya champ, true words from a true Australian…

ZSRenn says:

09:24am | 01/06/11

@ Get Rid of Labor although I agree with your sentiment. I cannot agree with your “she lives in the states and is preaty much a yank” stand.

Many expats live overseas travel long distances to vote, still pay AU taxes and still call Australia home.

Lucius says:

09:59am | 01/06/11

@ ZSRenn
Any Taxes Cate pays are immediately offset by her income from the Sydney Theatre Company, of which she and her partner are directors. The STC is tax-payer funded as are many of the arts and writing festivals she gives presentations at, not to mention Cate is also the spokesperson for Aldi - a company which produces cars that pollute our atmosphere, so for her to tell us about reducing carbon emissions is an absolute JOKE.

al says:

10:49pm | 06/06/11

That’s exactly what I was thinking. Folks, just read a book from prominent geologist in australia, Ian Plimer (Heaven and Earth) and you will see for yourself. There is more carbon in soil than the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere and living matter. The atmosphere contain only 0,001% of the total carbon present in the atmosphere.Science without a debate is a propaganda. I used to live in a communist country, but this is much worse. Folks, just wake up!

DaveinPerth says:

12:35am | 09/06/11

@al - Ian Plimer? Is that the same Ian Plimer that earns $400,000 pa working as a shill for mining companies?

Jim says:

10:00am | 01/06/11

“Yesterday I heard a Coalition MP say something like “The tax will be almost impossible to unwind when we are in office”. ” - that’s actually a follow-on statement to one made by a few ALP/Green MP’s last week when Abbott promised to repeal the tax. They stated that their intention is to intertwine it so deeply that it will never be fully undone.

Jooolya will achieve her goal of leaving a legacy alright…but it won’t be for a good reason.

JT says:

10:27am | 01/06/11

1. Yes it does.

2. See 1.

3. Yes it does

4. See 3

5. Direct Action Plan - It has been mentioned a few thousand times by now.

6. $3.2 billion dollars over 4 years.

7. Savings identified in their fiscal strategy.

‘‘I’m just trying to get a grip on the rationale behind the slogan.’‘

No, you are just playing the fool for fools sake. The answers to all your questions are well known. You can choose (and you obviously have) not to believe them, but it is asinine to suggest your questions have not already been answered.

iansand says:

11:01am | 01/06/11

I see.  So services to ordinary taxpayers will be reduced to fund big polluters to do nothing enforceable.  It is so simple when someone explains it.  Pity the coalition isn’t.

JT says:

11:22am | 01/06/11

‘‘I see.’‘

I rest my case. You are being a fool for fools sake or maybe you are simply a fool. Either way your questions have been answered and from those answers you have extrapolated a scenario that has no place in reality. Maybe you should seek help for your delusions. Are there any other questions that have previously been answered that you wish to ask again?

iansand says:

12:00pm | 01/06/11

Give me a hint about from where the savings will come.  Then give me a hint about how the savings will be distributed, and on what criteria.  Then tell me what incentives will actually encourage people to reduce emissions.  I don’t think those are unreasonable requests.  The Coalition policy just does not make much sense to me (unless throwing money into the air and hoping it will create a shadow to stop the sun shining on the ground is the plan).  I just don’t see how their Action Plan is:
(a) action and
(b) going to work.

One tip I will offer.  Calling people a fool or delusional is rarely an effective persuasion technique.  Another thing you should know.  I am not in favour of a carbon tax.  I think a tax is likely to be regressive and inefficient.  I much prefer a market based plan (like that nice Mr Turnbull) so don’t bother with the Labor stooge line.

JT says:

01:24pm | 01/06/11

All right there: http://www.liberal.org.au for your perusal. Tell me why iansand, you should not be thought a fool for asking questions already answered?
You have obviously chosen to not believe these answers, that is your choice but one must question your sanity when you persist in asking the same questions over and over again.

‘‘so don’t bother with the Labor stooge line.’‘

Except of course you are a Labor stooge. It is after all only the Labor stooges here that persist in asking questions already answered, extrapolate fantasy scenarios from those answers and deny they are what their actions prove them to be. Huff and puff as much as you like but if you wish to pretend you are not one, stop ticking all the boxes of what it means to be one.

‘‘Calling people a fool or delusional is rarely an effective persuasion technique.’‘

I have no intention of trying to persuade you nor do I believe it possible. You are to recap asking questions already answered, sprouting Labor spin, and creating your own imaginary scenarios to attack the Coalition.

‘‘I am not in favour of a carbon tax.’‘

In which case you should be supporting the Coalition now and at the next election as a Carbon Tax is not a part of their platform. Of course I won’t hold my breath on seeing such support from you.

iansand says:

02:49pm | 01/06/11

The binary brain of the Coalition supporter.  If you oppose what the ALP proposes the only alternative is to vote Liberal.  It is an unimaginative view of the world.

I have actually read that document.  Could you point out where it answers my questions?  There is a lot of stuff about that nasty Mr Rudd (who is he?), some stuff about what other countries are doing that appears to have been lifted from a year 5 school project written in about 2005 and then some stuff about paying polluters when they have been good boys and girls if they have reduced their emissions.  No mention about where the money will come from, or the criteria on which the payments will be made.  No mention of whether it will be a one off payment or whether there will be an ongoing subsidy. 

It is all a bit socialist for this believer in free markets.  Even that nice Mr Turnbull fell about laughing.  In fact it looks like a policy invented for the sole purpose of saying “we have a policy”.

JT says:

04:16pm | 01/06/11

‘‘The binary brain of the Coalition supporter.  If you oppose what the ALP proposes the only alternative is to vote Liberal.  It is an unimaginative view of the world.’‘

Now I understand why you ask questions that have already been answered. You can vote for whomever you like, however in Australia we have two major parties which means your choice comes down to one or the other, a vote for any of the minor parties will still result in one of the two major parties ruling and thus implementing their polices.

‘‘I have actually read that document.’‘

Judging from the kindergarden diatribe that follows this line, I doubt you read any of it. For example if you had you would see that at the bottom of the document it says: ‘‘budgetary updates to be provided by Treasury prior to the election.’’ And lo and behold there is an entire .gov website dedicated to just this: http://electioncostings.gov.au

I know right, amazing, you pretend like a fool answers are not provided to the ‘‘questions’’ you ask and then they get answered…over and over and over and over again.

I notice you gave up on the pretence of not being a Labor stooge, congrats. It is much better to just be honest with yourself and us.

iansand says:

04:56pm | 01/06/11

So you can’t answer my questions, and it seems that the answers are not contained in the policy.  Can you explain why I should support something that is not explained to me?  Remeber - I do not support a carbon tax either.

Quite frankly, an attempt to explain the policy would be far more interesting than personal abuse.  Maybe you could explain what you think that will achieve (apart from revealing your inability to give a coherent answer)?

Coop says:

05:48pm | 01/06/11

Here’s a saving Ian. NBN

Denny Crane says:

09:40am | 01/06/11

Happy 16th b’day Mark. i can only assume you are 16 as anyone a bit older would have a more balanced perspective. You know there is an ols d saying that is applicable to you.

I had a chat to my dad when I was 16 and another chat when i was 21 and I was amazed at what he had learnt in those 4 years.

I’m sure you will be the say young Mark

Dave-o says:

10:47am | 01/06/11

4 years? Clearly basic maths skills weren’t one of those things you learnt.

Sam says:

11:37am | 01/06/11

No must be 16, been tin the school system long enough to believe the Labor lies as taught in the currently unbalanced brainwashiong, sorry high quality school system. You know a system is broken when unions frequently give education lessons and no other veiw (rep) is allowed. Ever known many teachers?? you either support Labor or you keep your moth shut!

Dave-o says:

12:04pm | 01/06/11

@Sam

You were home schooled weren’t you?

Sam says:

12:26pm | 01/06/11

Dave-o, no had a union dad and a “teachers aid” mother, so got to see behind the BS and enjoyed reading history, thus I know brainwashing/group thinking when I see it.

Mark says:

01:39pm | 01/06/11

Not biased, I just try to be wider read than four word slogans.

Also, I am happy for it to be known I would have voted for the Liberal Party if Malcolm was still leader and I believe the current government is doing a pretty terrible job on basically everything.

Please don’t insult my intelligence when you are clearly unable to even work spell check.

B says:

06:39pm | 01/06/11

@Mark

Spelling is not ANY indication of intelligence.  A person can be VERY intelligent and still spell incorrectly.

Your attack for not using spell check is baseless.

JT says:

10:13am | 01/06/11

You seem to be the only nasty piece of work here Jack, and this horrible right leaning paper published your comment regardless. Does it ever bother you that you will forever be thought a fool?

Bomb78 says:

11:36am | 01/06/11

Jack: and Q&A accurately represents all Australia? Or even the electorate in which Sophie Mirabella represents? I reckon I’d get laughed out of the room at Q&A, not because I’m a nasty person, but simply because my views - those I am rightfully entitled to have - simply to not match those of either the studio or television audience. If you truly believe Q&A represents mainstream Australia then may I suggest you find a pair of work boots and get on a bus (just make sure it’s one burning 100% biodiesel to settle your conscience) from the centre of Sydney or Melbourne and out to Wondonga for a week. I don’t expect you’ll find too many people able to discuss this week’s panel. Again, not because they are nasty, but Q&A does not represent their views. When the nutters from both sides can park their fascism they will realise that neither the far left nor the far right represents the majority of Australians – perhaps you need to expand your views beyond what is on balance a very left leaning television program and interact with a wide variety of Australians and get that chip off your shoulder.

Do I believe in human induced, carbon related climate change? Yes. Do I think that Australia can unilaterally do anything about it? No. So should we make a vain gesture of self-sacrifice, limiting the ability of our children and grandchildren to have access to the high quality education and health care services that only continued economic growth can provide in a competitive global market? Your answer please Jack.

PTom says:

02:43pm | 01/06/11

@Bomb78,
Look who has a chip on their shoulder when you think only country people can be mainstream Australian.

You do realise one of those times she was laugh(and boo’d) at was when Q&A was in Wondonga, her own seat right?

Bomb78 says:

11:47am | 01/06/11

Bob J - and the 53% primary vote she got in her electorate at the last election comes from who? Like her politics or not, she is a democratically elected member of the federal parliament, as is Tony Abbott. You and all other who merely point insults either way in this debate and others either need to shut up or get out of the way.

persephone says:

06:51pm | 01/06/11

Sludger

Abbott said in Parliament a couple of days ago that the tax would be permanent.

I think I’ve answered a lot of your other questions previously, to the point where I’m getting bored with myself.

The specifics of carbon pricing are still being worked out. I believe they expect to lay it all out over the next month. so stay tuned.

PTom says:

03:13pm | 01/06/11

Do you mean like Centre for Independent Studies,  Institute of Public Affairs, Sydney Institute, Page Research Centre or Menzies Research Centre ?

Btw IPA appear on the ABC 24 on The Drum regularly.

Jim says:

09:56am | 01/06/11

“I’m one of the so called working families and I fully support a carbon tax”...

I’m a lycra-wearing superhero, ready to battle evil wherever it may show. With my silky ninja skills I can kill 13 different ways without you even knowing you’ve been hit, and my sensuous trombone playing can make supermodels swoon.

On the net I can be anyone…

Christopher says:

10:00am | 01/06/11

Well said! I thoroughly agree.

JT says:

10:11am | 01/06/11

‘‘will hurt a lot more if we don’t do something to preserve this beautiful country.’‘

How? Go on, explain in detail exactly how not having this carbon tax will hurt this beautiful country.

‘‘We have to start cutting our emissions and investing in greener fuels and do it NOW.’‘

Why? because you little totalitarians are getting your knickers in a knot?

‘‘Europe has a carbon tax and hopefully once we are onboard this will encourage the big players to do the same’‘

Sure, and I have a bridge to sell you. Australia is irrelevant on the world stage, simple as that.

‘‘Someone has to make the first move rather than everyone saying’‘

Wow, this sounds exactly like the if Jimmy jumped off a bridge would you. Just in this case, you want us to be Jimmy making that first suicidal leap.

‘‘I would be proud to take action ‘’

So do so. Cease exhaling that awful carbon pollution known as CO2 right now.

RyaN says:

10:13am | 01/06/11

@loxy: Won’t someone think of the children?
Hey loxy, how many degrees per year of global temperature will this carbon tax reduce?

PTom says:

03:46pm | 01/06/11

@JT
I can see you in few year bitching moan with Mirabella, about how the government of the day failed to take action, now we have spend a fortune and play catch up to the rest of the world.

@RyaN
Since you asked a so nicely. If we(global) stop emission now we would have lowered the forecast rise in global temperature by about 2 degrees by 2050 that is about 0.051 degree a year. The longer we don’t cut emission the higher the average.
So what happen to a human if our core temperature is increased by 2 degrees?

RyaN says:

05:10pm | 01/06/11

@PTom: what direct evidence do you have that the temperature will in fact increase by 2 degrees in that time if there is no action?
Direct evidence of Australians influencing this, not some fudged computer models.

LeonT says:

04:00pm | 01/06/11

Worst.
Haiku.
Ever.

SD says:

11:14am | 01/06/11

Communists/Unions don’t believe in giving you the right to voice your opinion. If you try the bully boys will pay you a visit.

Bobster says:

12:29pm | 01/06/11

The communistic approach here is being suggested by the Liberal Party of all people, but don’t let that get in the way of your uninformed contrarian bile.

B says:

06:51pm | 01/06/11

@Bobster

That is a bald-faced lie!!!  I fail to see how you think the coalitions plan of Direct Action is more communist/socialist than the Gillard governments Wealth Distributing Carbon Tax.  A Tax on Wealth/income, NOT POLLUTION(Thats if you classify CO2 as pollution).  THAT is fundamentally communist.

v says:

12:40pm | 01/06/11

Hmmm, cut out Labors wasteful projects, over $40 Billion and climbing, spend only $11 Billion AND not destroy our manufacturing industries (for higher polluters to pick up). Blindingly obvious choice, whether you want to believe climate change scientist Alen Jones OR Ross Garnaut (how has been wrong on countless weather predictions).

Kika says:

12:31pm | 01/06/11

Are you a scientist?

iansand says:

01:15pm | 01/06/11

D Donalson - A couple of questions:

1 What do you think that the average temperature of the Earth would be without CO2 in the atmosphere? (Hint - Life as we know it would not be sustainable)

2 How much do you thingk the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased in the past 150 years?  (Hint:  Start at 30%)

Dave says:

11:08am | 01/06/11

I remember back in the 80’s when many of these same scientist said it was global cooling, the science was conclusive and anyone that disagreed was a heretic. Got to keep the gravy train rolling you know.

Crap filter says:

11:31am | 01/06/11

No you dont remember, Dave.

Just a furphy from 1975, and already well and truly slotted on The Punch.

Try and keep up, mate.

the filter specialist says:

12:10pm | 01/06/11

I think the “filter” needs well and truly to be replaced. It seems a bit clogged up, probably from all the pollution from Mr. Rudd’s jet flights around the world in 80 days. Cough. Cough.

Dave says:

12:14pm | 01/06/11

Crap Filter, yes you are full of crap just like the liars you support. I expect in thirty years time people like you will deny the claim scientist pushed global warming, sorry, climate change. You are so full of it!!!

Dave says:

12:18pm | 01/06/11

Forgot to add Crap Filter, it is no wonder people like you and Labor prey on the young, they have not had the benifit of time to recognise how full of crap you are.

Anubis says:

01:17pm | 01/06/11

@Crap Filter - The Global Cooling scam was more than a furphy. At the time I was working in the administration of Government Science Grants through the Australian Research Council. Many millions of dollars were thrown at this scam, scientists were changing the scope of their applications to ensure they coincided with the Global Cooling theories, virtually guaranteeing ongoing grants monies.

You cut n paste excerpts from a single less than reliable article and state that it was “well and truly slotted” when you have no actual experience in the field. You Crap Filter, are just like your alter-ego Persephone - a fool.

Crap filter says:

05:09pm | 01/06/11

So without a skerrick of hard evidence from you, we’re supposed to roll over for what? The 40 yr old recall of a Right wing ranter who once worked as a junior clerk on research grants. Pardon me if I chortle.

Back then AGW problem was just getting wider known. Surely any researcher worth their salt would have been right on it, to look further into any thing that looked different, for chrissakes.

I can’t spot the other posts now. They’re here, though. And I don’t think it was Persephone whjo made ‘em.

SO it must be all a sock-puppet conspiracy, eh, sunshine? Sure,  sure. Sure it is. And Anubis the jackal is the only genyoowhine poster. Sure, pal, sure.

JT says:

11:27am | 01/06/11

‘‘You are all so worried about how your hip pocket is going to be impacted but that isn’t the point. ‘’

That is exactly the point and to suggest otherwise is idiocy. My hip pocket is what pays the bills. Added burdens (taxes) to that diminish how much I have in my hip pocket to pay these cost of living expenses. 

As for the rest of your diatribe, I was not aware our mental health institutes now provide internet access for their patients.

JT says:

11:27am | 01/06/11

‘‘You are all so worried about how your hip pocket is going to be impacted but that isn’t the point. ‘’

That is exactly the point and to suggest otherwise is idiocy. My hip pocket is what pays the bills. Added burdens (taxes) to that diminish how much I have in my hip pocket to pay these cost of living expenses. 

As for the rest of your diatribe, I was not aware our mental health institutes now provide internet access for their patients.

ZSRenn says:

12:17pm | 01/06/11

@ Racquel so what you are saying is you say yes to a bill of $1100 / household, Industry moving offshore, lost jobs and a failed AU economy for the saving of 0.073% of global emissions is that correct.

Will a carbon tax halt population growth? says:

12:17pm | 01/06/11

Racquel your passion is admirable but I don’t think a carbon tax will fix the problems you have highlighted. Most of the problems you talk about are as a result of poverty not CO2 production. Population control is the panacea for all enviromental issues.

How can poor countries raise their standards without access to cheap(fossil) fuel?

The planets human population is expected to rise by 50% to 9 billion in a few short decades. How will we feed them without cheap fuel?

There are poor individuals and poor countries. It is the disparity in wealth that drives the aspirations of people that actually make the whole show work. Imagine if we aere all wealthy and did not have to work. Not much would get done and then noone would be wealthy.
Life is brutal for some. If you feel guilty about your birth circumstances(AKA white guilt) we have aid agencies that you can work for or donate to. I certainly wouldn’t stop buying clothes made in poor countries because that would be counterproductive.

fox says:

12:21pm | 01/06/11

“I say YES YES YES YES to fixing this problem. I am not rich by the standards of Australians but I am certainly rich in comparison to a massive percentage of the world that lives on less than $1 yet experiences the brunt of the problems that we have caused. You can say no because they are 1000’s of miles away from here. You can pretend they don’t exist, don’t matter, it is all rubbish.”

Why do they experience the brunt of the problems we have ‘caused’? We have sent countless billions to those countries, all for what? So they can breed more and continue to live in squalor without trying to improve themselves.

Kika says:

12:32pm | 01/06/11

Good point Racquel. The whole saga just highlights how greedy everybody is. The minute a bigger power bill comes in people will be re-thinking how much power they can save. People only change when they are forced to change.

stevem says:

01:14pm | 01/06/11

No, I am not concerned about my hip pocket. Labor can’t keep its filthy hands out of my back pocket, but, for the moment, it will be able to take it.
I am VERY concerned about Australia’s international competitiveness. We have, over the last 30-40 years, lost a very significant portion of or manufacturing base to places like China, and this shows no signs of slowing. When Australian icons like Bonds and Blundstone move their manufacturing to China it shows we are in trouble. The dollar is too high and Australian companies need the government assistance, not policies that will harm them by adding artificial costs.
Japan, the US, Canada and others just announced they won’t be lifting a finger. China came up with a feel good statement that they would slow their increased use of fossil fuels, but with their economy growing by maybe 5% per year their emissions are free to grow 4.99% per year and still meet their target.
Australia cannot afford to damage already struggling companies with a tax like this. I’ll be fine as I don’t work in an exposed industry, but I’m not sure about you.

Anubis says:

01:29pm | 01/06/11

@ Racquel Espie - You forgot the slogan Raccquel “For god’s sake think of the children”

Your diatribe is just so full of crap it is hard to know where to begin. However, you have overlooked one key aspect of this whole thing - Gillard’s Carbon Tax has nothing to do with “fixing” percieved Climate problems that are based on flawed and faulty science. As Prof Gumnut said on TV last night 55% raised will go to compensating low income households, 15% to compensate trade affected industries (now keep up - we are up to 90%). The other 10% is required to satisfy the commitment made to tithe 10% to the IPCC/UN/World Bank for distribution to third world countries and tin-pot dictators, Gumnut wants another 15% for Carbon Farming, Joolya said a couple of days ago that the Carbon Tax “pot-o-money” could go towards building roads, railways and other infrastructure, Gumnut has also recommended three levels of administration to manage the tax (probably cost about 15% of the money raised). Lets see, how much does this leave to “fix the problem” - if you include Joolya’s infrastructure wishes then you are looking at a negative 50% - not bad - that would amount to about a negative $5.5 Billion.

So what this plan will do is take money from industry, give it to low income earners, make everyone else pay more everything, drive manufacturing off-shore, losing jobs - but hey, those that lose their jobs will then be eligible for compensation. High income??? earners over $80k a year will pay full costs with no compensation (these tend to be the people who pay your wages by the way) and still no R&D money.

So Joolya’s plan will lower everyones standard of living, drive away industry and make absolutely no contribution to addressing the supposed problem of Carbon Dioxide emissions. 

But for God’s sake “won’t anyone think of the children”

ZSRenn says:

11:58am | 01/06/11

@ hypocrisy Please show me a link to one person the coalition has used this tactic for in the past.

it is not their style and they would not waste the money.

Joe Cocker says:

12:36pm | 01/06/11

ZSRenn
“Unchain my heart”. Joe Cocker. Directly-funded Liberal party propaganda for the GST.
As like all peddlers of self-congratulatory omissions of reality and fact… your abject lack of anything worthwhile to say only seems to increase the frequency in which you say it.

Kika says:

12:51pm | 01/06/11

But people like Alan Jones, Ray Hadley and Andrew Bolt are just independant observers? The Coalition never used time to speak with them to get their endorsement on things? And these commentators never doubted or questioned a single policy? They certainly have a position in the community to espouse their one sided views on things and can certainly sway public opinion.

The Badger says:

02:02pm | 01/06/11

Kika
The people you mentioned are the medium that Dr. NO uses to channel his true beliefs through to the lunatic fringe.
For the rest of us he’s reserved NO.

Ed says:

12:45pm | 01/06/11

Yes, don’t pick on the Labor created, organised and paid front(Get Up). There, there, don’t let the nasty people that recognise you for what you are upset you.

RyaN says:

02:34pm | 01/06/11

@Annoyed!: I agree, leave those GetUp liars who have been caught repeatedly lying and taking fat back handers from the unions. $1.2 million was it, to run a smear campaign against Abbott.. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/13/3065531.htm
Leave them alone! No scrutiny on what can only be described as a Labor propaganda machine.

Fred says:

12:47pm | 01/06/11

Ever thought of getting a job with the Greens or Labor as a spin doctor????

nihonin says:

03:23pm | 01/06/11

nossy say NO to wealth distribution instead

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/no-pian-no-gain-compensation-ruins-carbon-tax/comments-e6frg9if-1226066755699

Steve says:

02:56pm | 01/06/11

The pretext to a carbon tax working is that humans do care about their affluence. If people didn’t care about their affluence then a price on carbon would not work. Nothing would change.

Humans striving for improvement and betterment is hardwired deep in our DNA. We wouldn’t have our comfortable lives today if it wasn’t for that. It is fruitless to lament our hardwiring. It needs to be accepted and taken into account with decision making. Don’t waste your time wishing for impossible change to the human condition.

Steve says:

01:42pm | 01/06/11

I seem to recall reading that the ozone layer thins and forms holes by itself regardless of human intervention.

The scenario of doing nothing is frequently better than doing the wrong thing. What if it turns out that climate change has nothing or very little to do with CO2 and we would have been better off applying our scientests to adaption to it rather than prevention, What if the human contribution is overpopulation and deforrestation. If we go off blindly tackling CO2 and it was the wrong solution then we will be worse off than doing nothing.

The scientific debate must continue.

Anubis says:

04:09pm | 01/06/11

@Kika - interesting view on things Kika, but a couple of flaws. The Ozone Layer - yes the initial problem was reversed by banning CFC’s - done without the need for a new tax, and managed world wide - genuine recognised problem. The drawback, according to an article I read recently, is that the hole in the ozone over the Arctic is showing the same sort of problems as the Antarctic hole was prior to intervention. Scientists are at a loss to why - but see Steve’s response to you.

Storm in Brisbane in winter. I lived in the Brisbane area from 1974 through to 2000 (with a few years in other places). Storms in Brisbane at the start of, or during, winter are nothing out of the ordinary.

The Carbon Tax will do nothing to address the perceived Global Warming associated with the perceived Climate Change. Following compensation (55% to families, 35% to business) the 10% tithe to the IPCC/UN/World Bank for redistribution, Garnaut’s 15% for Carbon Farming, Joolya’s expressed desire to allocate some of the “pot-o-money” to infrastructure projects, the cost of a three level administration to run the scheme the total revenue from the Carbon Tax that can be applied to R&D and other “Climate Change” mitigation comes to about MINUS $5.5 billion dollars. Thats right - Joolya’s new tax will not add to efforts to address the (perceived) problem it will actually drag an extra $5.5 billion dollars out of Government revenue.

As for eating meat - I, like many millions of people are omnivores who enjoy eating meat and actually receive physical benefits from the habit. I have no wish or desire to become a scrawny, pasty-faced vegetarian or vegan.

please put on a one piece says:

01:45pm | 01/06/11

Yes but unlike ordinary australians, it’s all an ACT. As you’ve just pointed out.

They get paid to be fake and false and to pretend to be somebody else. It’s how they make their living - by living a lie.

The Redman says:

06:41pm | 01/06/11

They didn’t get paid for the ad, you cretin.

Wealth redistribution says:

02:42pm | 01/06/11

Communism seems to be all the rage now. Lets just be robin hood, take from the rich and give to the poor. Somehow giving money to the poor doesnt seem to make them richer…Destroying the wealthy helps no one - because one day who are you going to take money from then?

BL says:

01:42pm | 01/06/11

With the Labor party Australia’s value is…

Oh that’s right. We are in a shitload of debt thanks to Labor and their out of control spending and waste of tax payer’s money, so there is no value anymore.

Welcome to Australia under Labor.

bikinis on top says:

02:56pm | 01/06/11

please accept my apologies for Liberal Party trolls on this Punch website.
They are priceless zeroes.
ignore Liberals and they will go away.

Steve says:

02:47pm | 01/06/11

It is not about making sense Geoffrey. It is about doing what the Greens have demanded in order to form and retain a minority Govt

iansand says:

03:56pm | 01/06/11

But are they a tax, Ray?

Ray says:

05:00pm | 01/06/11

@iansand, I’ll try and assist you, tax or no tax.

Pokie licences are tradeable licences. They were awarded to people, gratus to trade. They traded at a windfall profit with no effort or output.

A tax comes in many forms. The pokie licences were not paid for. They were a windfall to trade. Neither is the proposed carbon tax to be paid for. Sure, may be a nominal amount. Yet can be traded for a real return ie purchased by one company from another . Another windfall profit with no effort or output. Ie they’ve produced NOTHING to gain a profit.

Meanwhile the people will pay for it by passed on prices. So the Government gains its revenue via people paying more (tax). Companies pass it on and receive no bottom line penalty A tax via the back door.

If you don’t understand I’m afraid I can lead you to water but can’t make you drink.

If you want to get hung up on ‘tax’ as a definition, please yourself. But you sound like a female. They get hung up on the edges or the semantics and can’t see trees because of the leaves.

It would be encouraging if you let me know whether I have cracked the veneer for you. I see more potential in you to understand than I do in Julia Gillard. She even gets the Unions as a front in funding the ads so it doesn’t come home to roost on her shoulders as tax payer funded. Some would say brilliant, others would say continued underhand modus operandi.

iansand says:

05:36pm | 01/06/11

Doesn’t sound like a tax to me.  I have yet to come across a tax that is tradeable. 

I have this vision of seedy blokes in back alleys saying “Pssst.  Wanna buy a used tax liability?”  I think it would be a short term proposition.

Of course, if Ray thinks that a permit is a better description, would you prefer a non-tradeable tax?

Ray says:

06:26pm | 01/06/11

@ Iansand, Jes*us Iansand you need help.

This wouldn’t need back alley hush, hush. It’s already been done.

Also Your last sentence needs re-twigging.

Why call it a ‘permit’ You are bogged down on semantics with a non flexible mind.

This carbon TAX doesn’t PERMIT anything, and most of the revenue for the Government (ie a TAX) is not quarantined for use on carbon reduction.

No, it’s to be used for pork barrelling votes by income tax reduction for the masses. 

Ian- it IS tradeable, so is pokie licences, and as for electricity credits for big office block using (or owning) companies, similar to the solar panel scheme. You make me weary.

iansand says:

09:06pm | 01/06/11

Do you want to try again in English?

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:59pm | 01/06/11

@Ray- an Emissions Trading Scheme is different from a Carbon Tax. The ETS is a permit scheme, a carbon tax is a taxation liability. Two different things. Now you can argue that Gillard is really introducing an ETS by stealth which is a different matter. As far as I know it is a tax.

Ray says:

11:17am | 02/06/11

Oh well Iansand, I have to share oxygen with you. So even if you can’t understand English I am still very generous in my outlook to share with people that have unsustainable arguments for their share of the air.

Next there is going to be a tax on breathing and on conjugal affirmations with a meter attached to your bed. These are sustainable because women’s share of oxygen will not be predicated on contribution, and women will lose their sexual power with a threshold on concensual sex, which may be traded as well. Stuff it didn’t realise that. Trading like that will give women more power. But Julia said it will save the environment.

But then again Julia’s got nothing to trade on a supply and demand basis.

Attendent fines will be for offenders to spend a night with Julia, repeat offenders 5 nights. Then the men will have broken the threshold. Repeat the punishment. That’ll deter them.

iansand says:

11:46am | 02/06/11

Now you are just getting silly

Ray says:

01:38pm | 02/06/11

@ Iansand, Well stuff me Iansand have I finally got to a level you comprehend?.

If its English you cannot understand then I presume that you do not understand my reference to major office blocks trading electricity credits, back to the grid for unused electricity,  Its been going on for 15 years that I know. It’s like a futures market that exists for wheat, wool and beef. There is only one grid to which power providers gain access. There’s not two grids running parallel down the highway is there?.

Even my supporter quoted below agrees with the breathing and conjugal rights analogy and attendent penalties referred to in my 11.15am blog. He knows I’m onto something.

Ray’s Supporter says:11:22am | 02/06/11

Hey Ray thats a great idea. Julia can also be subject to fringe benefits TAX, or what some halfwits call a levee, permit or licence

Actually Iansand you remind me of one of Kerry Packers quotes

Kerry said; “there are 3 types of people in this world; Those that watch things happen, those that MAKE things happen, and those that say what the *uck happened.

I think you have succinctly determined yourself as a ‘blue ribbon’ contender for the final group Kerry refers to..

The Redman says:

06:36pm | 01/06/11

This is the typical type of rubbish one comes to expect from conservatives. SARS, in fact, was a very serious health issue. That is did not become an epidemic is because of the work health professionals across the world did at the time. I know, because one of them is a friend of mine, and was a bit put out when I questioned SARS at the time. Anthony takes the spurious position that because a SARS outbreak didn’t occur, therefore SARS does not exist. Although I’m sure the hundreds across the planet who died from the disease might disagree. Anthony might know everything, but I prefer to look at the facts.

Similarly with Y2K. Nothing happened and everyone, including me, thought the whole thing was a con. But then again, what would I know? Companies around the planet spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this, and who knows? Maybe there was a threat, and maybe all those monies was well spent.

Anthony, your comments on climate and action which must be taken is absurd. What you think this serious argument is in fact the farce. You are a dullard, clearly ignorant on the issue, and merely listening to the morons who would have you think that ancient man went to bed one night in balmy temperate conditions and woke up the next morning to arctic conditions and 1000 metre high glaciers out the front of the cave.

You are a brave person driving this line of thought, as are all the brave commentators - Bolt’s drivel today for example -. So very brave. If you lot win and the world does nothing, and the science is absolutely correct and in a century the change in society will endanger mankind itself, you’re not going to be around to explain yourselves, are you. You are not going to be held to account for your stupidity.

Why don’t you simply admit it has got nothing to do with climate change, merely a pathalogical, disturbing and dangerous hatred of socialists, socialism and the ALP. What is most disturbing is what conservatives are prepared to put at risk to discredit their political enemies - the future of the world itself - to gain political credence.

The embarrassing thing is that Australia is virtually the last industrialised nation still debating the science. Other countries may argue on how to address it, but all recognise the danger. Not Australia, oh no. We’re much smarter than the rest of the world, we are. Noone’s smarter ‘an us. I am an 8th generation white Australia, and I beginning to find this type of argument pathetic.

And if Australian’s support this, then it becomes in my mind a pathetic society. It’s time for a major push in support for action on climate change. The empty vessels are making a hell of a noise.

AnthonyG says:

08:29pm | 01/06/11

Redman didn’t the 20 year drought just break, are we not experiencing good rain fall , have you noticed the ocean rising at all in the last 20 years. look at the real world mate get your head out of the sand. Your mate is a legend saving the world from ‘sars’ wow . there are still people dying of the flu to shit happens. You would think with the hysteria that their must be people dying in the streets. Get a grip and don’t be so gullible you people would cut your nose of to spite your faces. I bet you thought the world was going to end the other day to. Look at facts not dribble from selfinterest groups that are going to make a fortune from peoples stupidity. Now let me go turn my heater up full

NicoleG says:

08:29pm | 01/06/11

WTF? You are a clown Redman. I loath clowns.

You’re full of shite. You are yet another blinded halfwit! If you feel so strongly that we need this tax, you are more than welcome to pay it for us. You can also pay all of our bills. You do understand that EVERYTHING is going to go up don’t you?

I shall forward my bank account details to you.

Thank you in advance.

The Redman says:

06:56pm | 02/06/11

Oh very witty Nicole!! Clearly you are a intelligent, thoughtful and erudite young lady. We are all very proud how such a little girl can use a computer. Our we out of our nappies yet, and do we still wet the bed? Don’t worry, that will pass when you become a big girl. Mummy and daddy might need to get you a dictionary to understand most of this, and they might get you a text on grammar and it’s uses while they’re at it. You certainly need one, sweety!!. WTFYLMOASMB (don’t know what that means, but in this age of such wonderful use of the great language of English, I’m sure it means something - hopefully not “you a really great girl”)

Sony B Goode says:

11:13pm | 01/06/11

This is what it must have felt like prior to the russian revolution or WW2, the world or country just seems to go insane.

nihonin says:

05:41pm | 01/06/11

Agree nossy, bit low, but hey we all pretty much say it everyday, but we do hold politicians to a higher standard, I don’t think TA had any thing to do with it though, but hey mwahahahaha (that’s my new laugh)

nossy says:

06:26pm | 01/06/11

@nihonin - a great laugh you have there fella - should be more of it ! I remember Paul Keating way back in the 90’s was quick with an insult - have a look at some of these !
http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/special/keating.html

JT says:

05:57pm | 01/06/11

Ray, I wouldn’t bother. I think iansand has proven beyond a doubt he is either a fool or a troll or more likely both. The best I have gotten from him so far is to drop the bs act of not being a Labor stooge.

The Redman says:

06:48pm | 01/06/11

Well I really don’t give a stuff about whether it is a tax, or a price, or that I might have to pay for some of it. I have no problems whatsoever paying extra to protect the environment. Even if I reject man induced climate change, which I don’t, it would not bother me in the least if I paid extra for cleaner rivers, cleaner air, cleaner seas. Of course, you selfish bastards on the right are only out for number one and couldn’t give a bugger about anyone else but yourselves and you personal wealth.

Of course, there is very bad government spending that I object to. You know, things like millionaires getting private insurance rebates, child care subsidies, family tax benefits, baby bonuses. You know the type of thing - government monies spent on rich, selfish bastards who have no interest in the welfare of their society.

So call it a tax, I don’t care. I’m prepared to pay it. There are bigger things involved here than your pathalogical hatred of socialism and you quite underserved ego.

Crap filter says:

07:41pm | 01/06/11

What the Redman said.

Ray says:

07:59pm | 01/06/11

Dear Mr Redman you left out maternity leave. And being a selfish bastard I would benefit greatly from the TAX threshold going to $25,ooo as a self funded retiree.

But the underlying issue here is the Carbon Tax is NOT quarantined to look after the environment. I as a selfish bastard care about the environment. I also care about anyone not taking me for a ride. The Government that is. Not you. I know that’s not your style

Ray says:

08:03pm | 01/06/11

Crap filter.

Question: Do you ear a nose ring. You nkow like a prixe bull being led around at the show.

AnthonyG says:

08:36pm | 01/06/11

The red man how does a tax on everything help the environment. the only thing that will change is the most vulnerable in the country will be even worse off

iansand says:

09:10pm | 01/06/11

JT - The problem you face is that I know I am not a “Labor stooge”.  I haven’t voted Labor since some turkey was threatening to conscript me in 1972.  Given that knowledge, the only conclusion to which I can come is that you are completely FITH.  It doesn’t help your argument.

JT says:

10:12am | 02/06/11

‘‘I haven’t voted Labor since some turkey was threatening to conscript me in 1972.  Given that knowledge, the only conclusion to which I can come is that you are completely FITH.’‘

You seem awfully confused iansand since if you had an issue with conscription you would have voted Labor as it was Whitlam who ended conscription in 72 - it was one of his campaign promises in fact. But you keep up the Labor stooge denials if you wish, it gives me a chuckle.

Ray's Supporter says:

11:22am | 02/06/11

Hey Ray thats a great idea. Julia can also be subject to fringe benefits TAX, or what some halfwits call a levee, permit or licence.

iansand says:

11:53am | 02/06/11

JT - Do you want to have another go, but this time try to make sense.

The Redman says:

06:42pm | 02/06/11

This is what burns me up, AnthonyG. You people are simply not listening. You are only repeating the absurd, entirely unfounded claims made by Abbott. It is not a tax on everything, and I’ll use that term, just to placate you. If you bothered to actually listen to the policy, the top 1000 polluters will be asked to pay a price for carbon their industries dispurse into the atmosphere. Some of the money from those payments will actually be returned to those companies to protect them and their workers as the economy evolves into sustainable energy resources. More of that money will be dispursed to those who require assistance IF prices rise.

Climate change is real. Anyone who thinks man does not affect his enviornment is seriously deluded. When there’s an oil slick inundating the coast, everyone screams. They scream because they see it. But the idiots can’t see what carbon is doing to the climate, so therefore it can’t be real. It’s absurd, childish and dangerous. The opinions of climate change deniers can simply not be allowed to prevail. They will not and cannot be held responsible for their views, but it will be future generations that bear the consequences.

Cate p says:

08:28pm | 01/06/11

Gillard can’t negotiate, she just gives in and agrees to something that she reckons sounds ok without examining the issues properly.  Hence the botched policies - border protection, MRRT and now carbon tax.

Ray says:

05:57pm | 02/06/11

@crapfilter, - Filters get blocked. Can lead to being full of shit.

I have been playing nice.

Nice that you noticed.

Crap Filter says:

09:00pm | 02/06/11

Uh huh.

Nice: the guy who called Cate Blachett a whore. And got deleted.

Sure, sunshine.